united States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Researc"
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-168 Oct. 1981
Project Summary
Deployment Configurations for
Improved  Oil Containment with
Selected  Sorbent  Booms
Gary F. Smith
  Performance tests on three catenary
oil containment configurations using
sorbent boom sections alone and in
conjunction with a conventional con-
tainment boom were conducted at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Simulated Environmental Test Tank
(U.S.  EPA OHMSETT). Other test
variables included wave condition,
tow speed, and oil quantity encoun-
tered.  Maximum no-oil-loss contain-
ment tow speed was determined for
each wave and oil quantity tested.
  The use of an all sorbent boom with
a multilayer sorbent raft at the apex
resulted in average increases in the no-
oil-loss tow speed of 0.13 m/s over
previous results using a single-layer
boom in calm water. However, use of
a conventional containment boom
with a sorbent raft inside the apex
increased turbulence and caused oil
loss at lower speeds than with the use
of the conventional boom alone. Use
of the sorbent boom raft at the boom
apex also resulted in lower no-oil-loss
tow speeds than with previous tests
using a single-layer sorbent boom in
the 0.3-m harbor chop wave. Loss of
speed was due to the increased tur-
bulence that occurred when raft sec-
tions struck each other because of the
wave action.
  Recovery of sorbed fluid and regen-
eration of the boom sections was
unsuccessfully attempted with a com-
mercially available sorbent and wringer.
  This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Municipal Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH. to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).

Introduction
  This report continues the sorbent
boom testing previously carried out at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Simglated Environmental Test Tank
(OHMSETT). The test objectives were to
evaluate the use of a sorbent raft at the
apex of a catenary oil containment boom
and to try to recover oil from saturated
sorbent boom sections by squeezing
them between two rollers. Rafts made
of sorbent boom sections were placed at
the apex of conventional and sorbent oil
containment booms.
  Oil loss generally occurred as oil
droplets entrained in the water passing
under the boom in Phase A testing and
in all harbor chop (HC) tests. Calm water
tests in Phases B and C exhibited oil
losses as a surface slick.  Oil appeared
on the downstream side—not as droplets
rising to the surface, but as a  surface
slick passing under the boom sections.
  Phase A testing, which  used  sorbent
rafts in conjunction with the B.F.
Goodrich PFX-18* containment boom,
showed an overall decrease in maximum
'Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

-------
no-oil-loss tow speed in  both calm
water and the HC wave when compared
with results for the B.F. Goodrich boom
alone. The sorbent raft generated oil
drops when it struck the B.F. Goodrich
boom. These drops were then swept
under the sorbent raft and the  B.F.
Goodrich boom.
  Phase B tests, which  used  B.F.
Goodrich containment boom sides and a
sorbent raft at the  apex, exhibited
increased no-oil-loss tow speeds in
calm water and no change in HC waves.
Use of a raft of Conwed Corporation
heavy duty sorbent boom as the  apex
section caused an average  increase of
0.08 m/s in calm water, and use of 3M
Company Type 270 sorbent boom raft
resulted in an average increase of 0.03
m/s. Oil loss generally occurred at the
points where the sorbent raft apex
section was attached to the conventional
boom sides. Sorbent boom  sections of
the raft were overlapped on the aft side
of the conventional boom for 3 m, but
turbulence from currents near the end
of the  conventional boom caused oil
droplets to be driven down into the
water and under the boom.
  Tests in  Phase C, which used sorbent
booms for the sides along with a sorbent
raft at the boom apex, showed increased
no-oil-loss tow speeds in calm water
and decreased speeds in the HC wave.
The Conwed heavy duty sorbent boom
used in Phase C effected  an  average
increase of 0.13 m/s in calm water, and
the 3M Type 270 boom  generated an
average increase of  0.14 m/s in  calm
water. In the 0.3-m HC wave, decreases
of 0.05 m/s  were  found with  both
booms. Oil was lost  when  the sorbent
boom sections of the raft struck  each
other in the HC wave. Oil  drops were
squeezed  out  of the sorbent sections
and driven down into the water by the
turbulence that occurred when the
waves and the boom sections collided.
  Tests were performed to determine
the effects of changes in the number of
rows added to the sorbent raft.  Results,
which were obtained in Phase C testing
using the  Conwed sorbent  boom, calm
water, and 0.97 m3 of oil, showed that
the no-oil-loss tow speed increased only
after more than three rows were used to
form the raft. Up to five rows were used
to form the raft, and the fourth  and fifth
rows increased the maximum no-oil-
loss tow speed by 0.05  m/s  for  each
row.
   Regeneration  of saturated  sorbent
boom  sections  was unsuccessfully
attempted using the Petro-Trap wringer
with a powered roller designed to
squeeze oil from sorbent pads. The
rollers were smooth with tension pro-
vided by springs on the top roller. Dif-
ficulty was encountered  in forcing the
boom sections between the wringer
rollers. No more than 1 m of any boom
section  could be pulled through the
wringer rollers at one time, and then
only with several people helping the
regenerator motor  to pull the boom
through the rollers. Samples of the fluid
recovered by this operation were anal-
yzed for oil and water content. Conwed
sorbent  boom sections contained  18.3
kg/m (or 2.03 mVm) of fluid containing
84% oil, and the 3M sorbent boom
contained 11.2 kg/m (or 1.2 mVm) of
fluid containing 85% oil. Because of the
small amount of sorbent boom squeezed,
these results cannot and should not be
considered representative of the oil
content or total fluid volume  of the
entire sorbent boom  or sorbent raft.
Conclusions
  Use of a sorbent raft inside the apex of
a catenary, conventional oil contain-
ment boom failed to increase the maxi-
mum  no-oil-loss tow  speed.  In fact,
maximum no-oil-loss  tow speed de-
creased from 0.43 m/s to 0.33 m/s in
calm water, and from 0.46 m/s to 0.30
m/s in the 0.3-m HC wave for the B.F.
Goodrich PFX-18 boom used.
  Maximum no-oil-loss tow speeds
increased with the use of sorbent raft
apex sections. Conventional boom sides
coupled with a sorbent raft apex section
increased the no-oil-loss tow speed in
calm water and 100% oil capacity from
0.25  m/s for a single-layer totally
sorbent boom to 0.'29  m/s for a four-
layer sorbent raft apex  section. Similar
tests in the 0.3-m HC wave exhibited a
no-oil-loss tow speed increase from 0
m/s to 0.22 m/s. Oil  no longer was
splashed over the sorbent raft at the
apex, as occurred with  the single-layer
sorbent boom. Loss of oil  occurred
mainly at the attachment points of the
sorbent raft to the conventional boom
sides. Vortices formed at these attach-
ment points, causing oil drops to be lost
under the sorbent raft.
  Tests using an all sorbent boom with a
five-layer sorbent raft apex again caused
increases in no-oil-loss tow speeds
compared with those of a single-layer
sorbent boom: 0.33 m/s (as opposed to
0.25 m/s) in calm water, and 0.17 m/s
(as opposed to 0 m/s) in the 0.3-m  HC
wave.
  Tests using apex raft sections varying
from one to five layers showed little
effect until three layers were used in the
raft. The no-oil-loss tow speed increased
0.05 m/s for each  layer added to the
apex raft for layers three, four, and five.
  Attempts at boom regeneration were
futile. The opening between the squeeze
rollers was too small for the boom  to
pass through easily, and the  smooth
rollers could not grip the oily boom
sufficiently  to feed the boom  between
the rollers. Fluid-saturated boom sec-
tions contained 6 to 12 times the dry
boom weight of an 85% oil content fluid.
Only the medium viscosity, naphthenic
oil was used in these tests; different oils
would yield different results.
  The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-03-2642 by
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.,
under sponsorship of the U.S. Environ
mental Protection Agency.

-------
Gary F.  Smith is with Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Leonardo, NJ
  07737.
John S. Farlow is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete  report, entitled "Deployment Configurations for Improved Oil
  Containment with  Selected Sorbent Booms," (Order No. PB 82-101  650;
  Cost: $6.50,  subject to change) will be available only from:
        National Technical Information Service
        5285 Port Royal Road
        Springfield, VA 22161
        Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
        Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
        Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cincinnati
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Edison, NJ 08837
                                 (JS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1981 —559-017/7385

-------
United States                      Center for Environmental Research                                Fees Paid
Environmental Protection              Information                                                 Environmental
Agency                           Cincinnati OH 45268                                          Protection
                                                                                         Agency
                                                                                         EPA 335

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED                                                                Third-Class
                           ,,,-„                                                           Bulk Rate
                           MLRL006.5240
                           LOU  W  T1LLEY
                           REGION  y  EPA
                           LJBKARIAM
                           "0  S DfcAKBURN  ST
                           CHICAGO IL &0604

-------