EPA-600/2-81-
September 1981
USE OF SELECTED SORBENTS AND AN AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING
FOAM ON FLOATING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Michael K. Breslin
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
and
Michael D. Royer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08837
Contract No-. 68-03-0490
Project Officer
John S. Farlow
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08837
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use nor does the failure to mention or test other commer-
cial products indicate that other commercial products are not available or
cannot perform comparably to those mentioned.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural en-
vironment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its com-
ponents require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion; it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new
and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater
and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and com-
munity sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research and
provides a most vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
This report describes testing of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) and
sorbents used in conjunction with several spill clean-up devices to remove
floating hazardous material from water. The tests examined the effects of
the AFFF and sorbents on the performance of the clean-up devices. Some tests
were also conducted to determine whether the sorbents and AFFF suppressed the
formation of vapors above slicks of hazardous materials.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
This research test program was initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to determine the effect sorbent materials and fire fighting foam have
on containment, recovery and vapor suppression of floatable hazardous materials (HM)
spilled on water.
The test plan incorporates some of the equipment used during a 1975 U.S. EPA
hazardous materials test at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental
Test Tank (OHMSETT). The devices used in both programs were the Clean Water
Incorporated Harbour Boom and the Industrial and Municipal Engineering Swiss OELA
III Skimmer. Dioctyl phthalate (DOP), octanol, and naphtha served as the hazardous
materials. The sorbent materials were polyurethane foam cubes, Clean Water, Inc.
Sorbent C and Dow Chemical Co. Imbiber Beads. An aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF), FC-206, from 3M Company was used as the fire fighting foam.
The type of HM, sorbent, tow speed, and wave condition served as controlled
and independent variables. Critical tow speed of the boom (the speed at which oil loss
began), HM vapor concentration, and fluid recovered by the skimmer were the
dependent variables. Results of the tests were evaluated in terms of the differences
in these dependent variables when sorbents and foams were distributed on the HM slick
versus a pure HM slick.
Boom performance in all tests equalled or exceeded the 1975 tests, even those
without sorbent or AFF foam. The highest no loss tow speed, (0.75 m/s), was obtained
when polyurethane foam cubes were distributed on a naphtha slick.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Job Order No. 35 by Mason &
Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Leonardo, New Jersey under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-03-0490. This report covers a
period from 2 May 1977 to 13 May 1977 when work was completed.
1. McCracken, W.E. and S.H. Schwartz. Performance Testing of Spill
Control Devices on Floatable Hazardous Materials. EPA-600/2-77-22, U.S.' Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977. 139 pp.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Abbreviations and Symbols vii
List of Conversions viii
Acknowledgments ix
1 Introduction and Objectives 1
2 Conclusions and Recommendations 2
3 Facility and Test Apparatus Description
Test Apparatus Arrangement 5
Boom Description 5
Skimmer Description 9
Video and Photographic Documentation 9
Test Fluid Description 9
Sorbent, Gel, and Foam Description 10
Vapor Detection Equipment 11
4 Test Plan and Procedures
Test Rationale 13
Test Procedures 13
Boom Tests 13
Skimmer Tests 18
Vapor Detection Tests 18
5 Discussion of Results
Boom Tests 35
Skimmer Tests M
Vapor Detection Tests ^2
Operation Discussion ^5
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 HM shedding failure and entrainrnent under a boom 4
2 HM splashover failure over a boom 4
3 Test set-up and personnel requirements for boom tests 6
4 Test set-up and personnel requirements for skimmer tests 7
5 Diagram of Clean Water Boom details 8
6 Vapor detection equipment mounted on the video truss 11
7 Vapor detection filtered inlet positioned on the auxiliary bridge
with a pivot mount . 12
8 Sorbent C being distributed with the centrifugal blower from the
main bridge 17
9 I.M.E. Swiss OELA skimmer during testing with Imbiber Beads 17
10 Recovering polyurethane cubes with a net 25
11 The Seaward International, Inc. hydraulic squeezer 25
12 Vapor detection equipment arrangement for control tests 34
13 Clean Water boom performance in calm water using naphtha 36
14 Clean Water boom performance in calm water using DOP 37
15 Clean Water boom performance in calm water using octanol 38
16 Clean Water boom performance in harbor chop using naphtha 39
17 Clean Water boom performance in harbor chop using DOP 40
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
5
6
7
S
9
10
Primary Test Matrix
Clean Water Harbour Boom Test Results .
I M.F. Swiss OELA III Skimmer Results . . .
Vapor Detection Test Data Using Naphtha
Vapor Detection Test Data Using Naphtha
Vaoor Detection Test Data ' 'sin^ DOP . . .
Vaoor Detection Test Data U^in^ HOP ?•-<
V?oor Detection Test Data 1 "sin57 OcT.-jnoJ
V';oor Hetection Test Data U^in0 C'Ct^ro!
Filter Control Tests
and AFFF
i VFFF
and ^FFF
19
23
27
29
30
31
31
32
VI
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
AFFF ---aqueous film forming foam
C —Centigrade and calm water
cm —centimeter
OOP —dioctyl phthalate
EPA —Environmental Protection Agency
F —Fahrenheit
fluct. --fluctuation
ft —foot
gal —gallon
gpm —gallons per minute
HC —harbor chop
HM --hazardous material
HM/S --hazardous material and sorbent
I.M.E. --Industrial and Municipal Engineering
in --inch
kg --kilogram
kt —knot
1 —liter
Ib —pound
m —meter
min —minute
mm —millimeter
mph —miles per hour
N —Newton
OHMSETT —Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank
ppm —parts per million
ppt —parts per thousand
psi —pounds per square inch
PVC —polyvinyl chloride
s --second
TBD —to be determined
SYMBOLS
pH
o'HM/S
AC
-cegrc
-diffei
•ence between C,.,, and C,,,
rl.vi riA
-------
LIST OF CONVERSIONS
METRIC TO ENGLISH
To convert from
Celsius
joule
joule
kilogram
metre
metre-
metre..
metre.
metre-
metre
metre/second
metre/second
metres/second
metre./second
metre /second
newton
watt
ENGLISH TO METRIC
centistoke
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-
foot
foot/minute
foot /minute
foot-pound-force
gallon (U.S. liquid)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
inch
incrT
knot (international)
iitre
pound force (Ibf avoir)
pound-mass, (Ibm avoir)
Dound/foot
to
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-pound-force
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
foot
inch-
foot-
indi
gallon (U.S. liquid)
litre
foot/minute
knot
centjstoke
foot /minute
gallon (U.S. liquid)/rninute
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
metre /second
Celsius
joule
metre-
metre
metre/second
metre /second
joule ,
metre,,
metre /second
watt
metre-
metre"
mc-Tre/seccnd
Multiply by
t = (tp-32)/1.8
17000 E+07
7.374 E-01
2.205 E+00
3.281 E+00
3.937 E+01
1.076 E+01
1.549 E+03
2.642 E+02
1.000 E+03
1.969 E+02
1.944 E+00
1.000 E+06
2.119 E+03
1.587 E+04
2.248 E-01
1.341 E-03
1.000 E-06
t = (t -32)/1.8
17000 E-07
3.048 E-01
9.290 E-02
5.080 E-03
4.719 E-04
1.356 E+00
3.785 E-03
6.309 E-05
7.457 E+02
2.540 E-02
6.452 E-04
5.144 E-01
1.000 E-03
4.4'-*S E + 00
4.535 E-01
4.788 E+01
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of Clean \Vater, Inc. for supplying the Harbour Boom is
sincerely appreciated.
Mr. J.S. Farlow is the Project Officer of OHMSETT, which is owned by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. His valuable assistance during the early stages of
this project is gratefully acknowledged.
Dr. J.P. Lafornara, U.S.E.P.A., Project Officer for this test is gratefully
acknowledged for his guidance and direction throughout the project. Dr. Lafornara's
assistant, Mr. M.E. Lipsett, is sincerely thanked for his help in performing the vital
vapor detection portion of the project.
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., is the operating contractor for OHM-
SETT. Mr. M.G. 3ohnson, of V.ason & Hanger-Silas V.ason Co., Inc., served as test
director, and provided valuable suggestions throughout the test project. Appreciation
is expressed to Mr. R.L. Swoyer for his engineering aid, to Messrs. S.G. Keadle and
R.A. Dickson for the photo/video coverage of the tests, and to Mr. S.H. Schwartz for
his editorial help.
Funds for this project were provided by the Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills
Branch of the Edison, New 3esey office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Large quantities of hazardous materials are constantly being handled by inland
and marine transportation and support equipment. Spills during transit or at producer
and user storage facilities pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the
general public and environment.
The U.S. EPA wished to investigate the possibility of enhancing present
containment and recovery devices to compensate for adverse environmental conditions
and vapors from HM which have a specific gravity less than water and are immiscible
with water. Several concepts were considered feasible:
2
1. Increasing the cohesiveness of the spilled HM to stave off shedding and
splashover losses from a boom to a higher relative oil/water interface
velocity and/or a greater wave impact.
2. Allowing the material to be absorbed into a more buoyant material could
prevent submergence and shedding beneath a boom to a higher current
velocity.
3. Covering the sorbent and hazardous material with fire fighting foam
could decrease the vapors above the slick.
This last operation was considered essential since introducing a sorbent into the
hazardous material could increase the vapor above the slick via wicking.
The purpose of this project was to investigate the effectiveness and practicality
of the above mentioned concepts in a simulated field environment.
2. Bauer. \V.H. and 3.3. P-ulloff. domical Additives to Control Oil Spills -
A State of the Art Summary. DOT-CG-33, 755A, Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard, Office of Research and Development, Washington. D.C., 197^. 58 pp.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations were drawn from the evalua-
tion of the test data and observations of equipment performance.
The sorbent material most easily distributed and accounted for later was the
polyurethane foam cubes. The imbiber beads became very sticky after contact with
oil and clung to every surface they touched. Sorbent C distribution caused large
amounts of dust to be thrown into the air.
The application of sorbents or congealing agents to a floating HM spill is
certainly possible using a simple blower-type distributor. Such a blower is used to
distribute wood chips or straw to cover soil during landscaping operations.
The introduction of sorbents or congealing agents into the HM enables a stable
boom to contain the material to a higher current velocity or tow speed in calm water.
During the naphtha tests with foam cubes, the boom was brought up to its critical
stabilization speed, 0.7 m/s, without shedding. This was an increase of 35% over the
boom's limit of previous shedding threshold of 0.57 m/s without sorbent. The velocity
at which shedding (Figure 1) occurs would be related to the amount of sorbent or
congealing agent introduced and the thoroughness of interaction between it and the
HM.
The sorbents and Imbiber Beads did not enhance containment in the presence of
the 0.3 m harbor chop. Splashover failure (Figure 2) occurred from 0 to 0.05 m/s.
Much larger amounts of congealing agent could have been used to enhance contain-
ment, but cleanup would have been very difficult. Such use would be costly in
material and possibly damaging to the environment.
In order for the effect of the sorbents to be optimized, time for mixing and
absorbtion of HM must be allowed. The time required will vary with the wave
condition and turbulence caused by any current present. Applying the sorbent or
imbiber beads to the surface of the slick as it approaches the boom does not
sufficiently mix the materials.
The detecT~b]e vapor concentrations of ociancl ana DOP were found to be far
iess than the fluctuation in concentrations caused by uncontrolled factors (e.g., wind,
temperatures). Therefore, no conclusions were drawn fro:n the DOP and octanol vapor
concentration data.
-------
The changes in naphtha concentrations were in the same range as the
fluctuations noted in control tests. Although the exact changes in concentrations are
highly uncertain, it appears that no dramatic increase of naphtha vapor concentration
occurred when sorbent was added to the floating HM.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Tests to deter.nine the vapor concentrations over a HM slick with and without
sorbents and AFFF should be conducted in a laboratory where temperature and wind
effects can be precisely controlled.
Since the increase in the critical tow speed attained using sorbent cubes was so
significant, further investigation should be done into the use of the "pockets of refuge"
phenomenom which appears to retard oil shedding failure from booms.
Some investigation into the stabilizing effects of AFFF on oil in a boom should
be done. Some test results show a higher critical tow speed was attained using AFFF
with the sorbent than with the sorbent alone.
-------
Curron t
Oil
KL^ure 1 . HM shedding failure nncl entrn.i ninent under a boom.
Boom
Current
Oil
Figure 2. HM splashover failure over n boom.
-------
SECTION 3
TEST AND EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
TEST APPARATUS ARRANGEMENT
The Clean Water Harbour Boom was attached to the main bridge in the
containment configuration for boom tests (Figure 3). In the 1975 test project,
designed to test recovery devices for hazardous materials, the Clean Water Harbour
Boom was used in a 60.5 m length. The video truss, which was subsequently built,
spanned the main and observation bridges, limited the distance between the bridges to
the length of the video truss, to 19.7 m for these tests. In order to observe the boom
from behind the apex, a section of the boom had to be removed, reducing its length to
45.5 m. This did not noticeably alter boom performance. For skimmer tests, the
bridge was brought to mid-tank, the skimmer placed in the water and the boom pulled
to the west side of the tank to corral the HM for recovery (Figure 4).
The HM was stored in tanks on the main bridge and distributed into the boom
from the south, center of the main bridge. As the test continued, sorbent and/or fire
fighting foam was distributed onto the slick as it was passed over by the rear side of
the main bridge. A gasoline-engine powered centrifugal blower with a 3 m long, 20 cm
diameter flexible hose was used to apply the Sorbent C, Imbiber Beads and foam cubes.
A rotary lawn fertilizer (vertical spreader axis) was first used to distribute the Imbiber
Beads. A &" variable speed drill was connected to the wheel axle and brought to the
desired speed before the beads were added. The centrifugal blower performed better
in that it could distribute beads farther at a greater rate. The fire fighting foam was
applied from its container using a standard foam mixing nozzle connected to a fire
hose.
BOOM DESCRIPTION
The Clean Water, Inc. Harbour Boom (Figure 5) was essentially the same boom
used in the 1975 tests. Then, the skirt depth was 57 cm versus 61 cm today. The ends
of the boom were bolted to the tow points of the main bridge, forming a catenary
(containment) configuration under tow.
The boom proved very durable and fairly easy to steam-clean afterwards. The
external covering of the boom is a nylon reinforced PVC sheet made specifically for
oil contact. The upper tension member, which ran through the 15.24 cm diameter
floats was a 1.27 cm diameter polypropylene line. The lower member, running in a
pocket at the bottom of the skirt, was 0.63 cm hot-dipped galvanized high test chain.
All fittings were either marine brass or hot-dipped galvanized.
-------
1. Sorbent Distributor
2. Sorbent Distributor
3. Fire Fighting Foam
Distribu tor
A. Test Director
5. Vapor Detector
Operator
6. 16 mm Photographer
7. 16 mm Photographer
8. Test Engineer
9. Naval Fire Fighting
Team (Naphtha
Tests Only)
10. Video Technician
11. Bridge Operator
-------
©
MATERIAL
CONTAINMENT
1. rire Hose Operator
2. Test Engineer
3. Skii;;:i,er/Pump
C p e r a t o r
4. Skimmer/Pump
Operator
5. 16 nun Photographer
6. Laboratory Chemist
7. Naval Fire Fighter
Team (Naphtha
tests only)
Hffil
CONTROL
TOWER
AUXILIARY
BRIDGE
C:
SKIMMER
- BOOM
______ _. _____
/
Oc
I
-------
CLEAN Y/AT.I^, iiv;C.
HAR3CUA SCO;:;
EXPANDED rOA\'
FLOATATION Si r.,V
HEAVY DUTY SHEET ENCASING
" GALVANIZED CHAIN3
Figure 5. Diagram of Glenn Water boom details.
-------
SKIMMER DESCRIPTION
The Industrial and Municipal Engineering (I.M.E.) Swiss OELA III Skimmer was
selected for this test because of its use in the 1975 test and its availability.
D?sign Characteristics
1. Height - 0.39 m
2. Weight - 49.9 kg
3. Opacity - 19 1/s
A double diaphragm, Vi'arren Rupp Sandpiper pump (Model SA-3A, Type DA2-A),
was used until clogging problems occurred. A 5.1 crn inlet/outlet Barnes rotary pump
driven by a 2-3/4 HP Wisconsin gasoline engine was then employed. Except for
priming problems when the skimmer emptied, and air was pumped, it performed
satisfactorily and without clogging.
The I.M.E. skimmer was connected to the pump via a 15.2 m long, 5.1 crn
diameter flexible hose, coupled with camlock fittings. The pump discharged into the
collection barrels through a 9.0 m long, 5.1 cm diameter flexible hose.
VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Cameras provided visual documentation of test layout, equipment, and perform-
ance characteristics. A black and white TV camera in a waterproof case provided
underwater video coverage, which was recorded on 2.54 cm video tape using a
recording deck. Topside and tankside window coverage was provided by two 16 mm
rnovie cameras and a 35 mm slide camera.
TEST FLUID DESCRIPTION
Naphtha, DOP, and octanol were the hazardous materials selected for this and
the 1975 test program. These test fluids represented a wide range of three important
physical properties— viscosity, specific gravity and interfacial tension. The HM were
also selected for their low toxicity and flamrnability. An investigation of possible HM
tested was conducted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Properties of the fluids,
other .than those listed below can be found in the hazardous chemicals reference
guide. The properties listed below were determined in the OHMSETT laboratory from
samples taken during testing.
3. Sinclair, 3.R. and W.H. Bauer. Containment and Recovery of Floating
Hazardous Chemicals with CorrvnercKlh' Available Devices. In: Proceedings of the
4. NFPA Committee on Hazardous Chemicals Society. Hazardous Chemi-
cals Data 1973. National Fire Protection Association, Boston, Massachusetts, 1973.
291 pP.
-------
Naphtha DOP Octanol
Specific Gravity 0.802 0.978 0.821
Interfacial Tension (xlO~3N/m) 10.9 11.9 9.6
@23°C with OHM SETT water (Salinity = 16 ppt)
Surface Tension (xlO~3N/m) 28.9 34.8 29.7
(o23°C
Viscosity (xlO~6m2/s)
(323° C ' 6.5 67.4 11.2
@57°C 5.0 19.4 6.8
Flash Point @20°C 38 218 81
SORBENT, GEL, AND FOAM DESCRIPTION
Sorbent C
Sorbent C is a fibrous, oil absorbent material, buoyant in water even when fully
saturated with oil. Sorbent C is comparable to the material used in acoustic ceiling
tiles. It is shredded and contains a considerable amount of fine dust.
Imbiber Beads
Dow Chemical Company Imbiber Beads are small (7 mm diameter), white
spheres made of crossed-linked polymers of t-butylstyrene which absorb and retain
hydrocarbons. The beads are oleophilic and hydrophobic. A specific gravity of 0.6
allows them to float easily. They can expand to three times their normal diameter
when absorbing a good solvent. This would give an absorption capacity of 27 times the
original bead volume. Dow Chemical Company recommends using the beads in packets
rather than loose since they become soft and very sticky after hydrocarbon absorption.
Polyurethane Foam Cubes
The foam sorbent was reticulated, open cell, 80 pores/inch, quenched polyure-
thane cubes 1.9 crn per side. This type of foam cube was found to be durable and
effective in absorbing hydrocarbons in previous tests at OHMSETT.
Fire _F_ighting Fc^m
FC-206, an aqueous film forming foam produced by 3Vi Company, was employed
as the lire fighting foam. A standard mixing no/zle (obtained from a local fire
station), connected to a fire hose under 5.27 x JO kg/rn pressure and positioned in
+}
the container oi concentrated foam produced a stream which shot about 6 m. The
hose pressure was adequate enough to produce a 7.6 cm thick blanket of foam. A hose
having a greater pressure would shoot the stream farther and probably produce a
er
10
-------
VAPOR DETECTION EQUIPMENT
A Miran 1A Gas Analyzer and an Esterline Angus Mini-Servo strip chart
recorder were positioned on the video truss during testing (Figure 6). One filtered
intake was mounted on the north side, center of the main bridge, 0.3 m above the calm
water (or 0.6 m) for H.C. wave conditions). The other was positioned on the south side
of the auxiliary bridge on a pivot mount which could be swung to follow the boom apex
(Figure 7). The pivot mount was made from 1.27 cm PVC piping. Each intake had 22.5
m of 1.27 cm diameter plastic tubing between it and the analyzer. Two 1.27 cm valves
used to open the desired intake and close the other.
r -'if r"pf \^\ «
Y'l' i'f&'^\ *
W l itf i&L~*-*' -^ , -5~
r / /^||^ ^:^ j ;:^
, (i 4,^*^ ^,- is
i ••&&&&
eo truss.
-------
Figure 7. Vapor detection filtered inlet positioned on the auxiliary
bridge with a pivot mount.
-------
SECTION >4
TEST PLAN AND PROCEDURES
TEST RATIONALE
To compare the tests conducted in this program with the 1975 hazardous
materials program, a test matrix was written to duplicate the previous program with
the addition of sorbents and fire fighting foam (Table 1). However, HM logistics
required that less test fluid be used per test and some HM not be tested as much as
others. So, 0.38 m of HM was distributed per test instead of 1.325 m . If a greater
amount of fluid had been distributed, a greater amount of sorbent and foam would
have been needed. Also, cleanup operations would have been longer and more
difficult. The smaller HM slick in the boom could have resulted in a slightly higher
tow speed being required to produce shedding losses.
As the program proceeded, certain tests were eliminated from the matrix. The
harbor chop wave condition caused splashover failure at 0.05 m/s for every sorbent
without AFFF. It was decided that the light foam would not affect these results so
the tests with sorbent and AFFF in the harbor chop were deleted. The diversionary
configuration of the boom was eliminated due to the large amount of sorbent and HM a
continuous slick would require. Control tests without sorbents or foam were
conducted in the containment configuration for a basis of comparison with the 1975
tests.
TEST PROCEDURES
All performance testing was conducted at OHMSETT by operating contractor,
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., with the guidance of U.S. EPA personnel.
During all tests with naphtha, a fire fighting team was standing by with asbestos suits
and fire fighting foam equipment.
BOOM TESTS
Boom tests were begun after all personnel reported to their positions with the
appropriate safety equipment (e.g. goggles, respirators, gloves, hard hats). The motor
on the sorbent broadcaster was started and the bridge was set in motion heading south
at 0.5 kt. Distribution of the hazardous material was begun shortly thereafter at 6.3
As the north side of ihe bridge passed cvar th'_- ~; :;• i<; rah ihe c-o:"bent was poured
into the blower and distributed onto the siick (Figure S). If lire fighting foam was
used, it was applied seconds later bv snooting it OUf over the sorbent and slick. About
-------
TABLE 1. PRIMARY TEST MATRIX
I. Boom Tests
Test No. Configuration Test Fluid
A-0 Containment Naphtha
A-l
A-2
A-3 " "
A-f
A-5
A-6 " "
B-0 Containment DOP
B-l
B-2 " "
B-3 " "
B-4 " "
B-5 " "
B-6 " "
C-0 Containment Octanol
C-l
C-2 " "
D-l Diversionary Naphtha
D-2
D-3
D-4 " "
D-5 " "
D-6 " "
E-l Diversionary DOP
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5 " "
E-6
F-l Diversionary Octanol
F-2
Sorbent
None
Cubes
Sorbent C
iV-dds
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
None
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
None
Cubes
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
TBD
11
Waves
Calm
n
"
"
0.3 rn HC
II
n
Calm
"
"
"
0.3 m HC
"
n
Calm
n
n
Calm
n
n
0.3 m HC
"
"
Calm
II
II
HC
n
"
TBD
"
Note:
During all tests tow speed \vill be increased until the boom begins to
lose material.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
II. Skimmer Tests*
Test No.
A-2S
A-3S
A-5
A-6
B-2S
B-3S
B-5S
B-6S
C-1S
C-2S
Test Fluid
Naphtha
DOP
Sorbent
Waves
Octanol
Sorbent C
Beads
Sorbent C
P. c- oids
Sorbent C
Beads
Sorbent C
Beads
Beads
Sorbent C
Cairn
Calm
HC
HC
Calm
Calm
HC
HC
TBD
Calm
*These tests are to be run immediately after the corresponding boom tests.
III. AFFF Tests - with boom (conducted on last four days)
Boom Tests
Test No.. Configuration Test Fluid Sorbent Waves
Containment
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-5**
G-6**
H-l
H-2
H-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
K-l
K-2
K-3
K-6*
L-l
L-2
Containment
Containment
Diversionary
Naphtha
M
II
II
II
II
DOP
n
n
Octanol
n
M
Naphtha
n
"
n
"
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent C
Beads
O'bes
Sorbent C
Calm
"
11
HC
HC
HC
Calm
"
M
Calm
Calm
M
Calm
"
"
i t C
1!
TBD
15
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
III. AFFF Tests (Continued)
M-l Diversionary Octanol TBD TBD
M-2 " " " "
**May not be conducted because of foam mixing with the tank water.
Note: During all tests tow speed will be ivicn-'.v-.ed until the boom begins to
lose material.
IV. AFFF Tests
Skimmer Tests*
Test No. Test Fluid Sorbent Waves
G-2S Naphtha Sorbent C Calm
G-3S " Beads Calm
G-5S " Sorbent C HC
G-6S " Beads HC
H-2S OOP Sorbent C Calm
H-1S " Beads Calm
3-2S Octanol Sorbent C Calm
J-3S " Beads
3-0 " None "
*These tests are to be conducted directly following the corresponding boom tests.
TBD - To be determined
Jo
-------
Figure 8. Sorbent C being distributed with the centrifugal blower
from the main bridge.
Figure 9. I.M.E. Sv^ss OELA skirnirer dui'iji^ testing with imbiber bo-ads
-------
apex before tow speed changes were made. Generally, speed was increased until
failure (any HM loss from the boom) was observed, then decreased until failure ceased,
and then increased again to confirm the failure speed. This speed was recorded as
critical tow speed (Table 2).
When OOP was used as the hazardous material, speed was decreased to below
0.5 kt to stop failure and then the critical speed was determined. Certain tests, were
repeated with the same charge in the boom to observe trie effect of longer mixing and
absorption time.
Since there was little information available from the manufacturers of the
.vorbent materials as to how much to use, a trial method was adopted. Sorbent C and
foam cubes were distributed until about 3/4 of the slick was covered-after it reached
the boom. This required two bags or 16.36 kg of Sorbent C and 0.22 m of foam cubes.
The fire fighting foam was distributed until slick was covered. A Dow Chemical
representative suggested dosages for Imbiber Bead application. A one-to-ten ratio was
used for DOP and octanol while a one-to-twenty ratio was employed for naphtha. The
congealing effects on the three HM were comparable.
SKIMMER TESTS
Following boom tests with Sorbent C and Imbiber Beads, skimmer tests were
conducted at mid-tank (Figure 9). The HM and sorbent in the boom was directed to
the skimmer using fire hoses. The recovered material was pumped to translucent,
polyethylene collection barrels. After a sufficient settling time, (approximately 2
hours), liquid levels in the barrels were measured and the water drained from the
bottom. The remaining mixture of sorbent and fluid was mixed, sampled and analyzed
for oil, water and solid content (Table 3). No skimmer tests were performed using
foam cubes since they would have clogged the hoses and purnp.
The foam cubes were recovered by nets after the test to prevent loss and
mixture with the beads and Sorbent C (Figure 10). The cubes were squeezed and
reused in subsequent tests. The cubes were squeezed using a hydraulically driven
wringer made by Seaward International, Inc. (Figure 11). A wringer fabricated from
hard rubber or wooden rollers would also be satisfactory.
VAPOR DETECTION TESTS
Prior to boom tests, the two sampling inlets were placed in position, and the
analyzer and recorder were set as follows:
Analyzer Recorde£
Path length setting 6.0* Drum speed 4- cm/min
Slit 1 mm Potential 1 v
Wavelength 3.^2 microns
1A
High
'ir,e Cain 0.0
corresponds to a 9.75 m light path length
-------
TABLE 2. CLEAN WATER HARBOUR BOOM TEST RESULTS
_ — _..
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Air Wind Water
Temp. Speed Temp.
Test °C m/s Wind °C
Date no. (°F) (mph) Dir. (°F)
'j/'i A-0 8.9
(48)
V3 A-i 14.4
(58)
V3 A-IR 15.0
(59)
V4 A-2 12.2
(54)
V' A- 3 8.9
(48)
5/4 A-3R 8.3
(47)
j/'i A-3RR 8.9
(48)
5.36
(12)
1.79
(4)
1.34
(3)
3.57
(8)
4.9
(11)
4.9
(11)
2.2
(5)
N 15.0
(59)
NW 16.1
(61)
NNW 16.1
(61)
NW 15.0
(59)
N 15.0
(59)
N 15.0
(49)
NNE 15.0
(59)
Critical tow
Sorbent speed
Test and Wave m/s
Fluid Foam Cond. (ft/min) Mode of failure
Naphtha 0.57
(110)
Naphtha Cubes C
Naphtha Cubes C 0.77
(150)
Naphtha Sorbent 0.72
C (140)
Naphtha Beads C 0.46
(90)
Naphtha Beads C 0.51
(101)
Naphtha Beads C 0.54
(105)
(Continued)
Shedding
Apex extended
to far beyond
auxiliary bridge
lor adequate
observation
Shedding aided
by boom skirt
fiuct.
Shedding aided by
boom skirt fluct.
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
-------
TABLE 2. Continued.
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Air
Temp.
Test °C
Onte no. (°F)
5/6 A-4 22.2
(72)
5/6 A-.5 13.9
, (57)
5/4 A-G 8.9
(48)
')/:> i\-o 11.7
(53)
V5 U-i ii.l
(52)
VG ,V2 26.7
(80)
r;/y FV-3 4.4
(40)
5/3 i',-4 11.7
(53)
Wind
Speed
m/s
(mph)
3.1
(7)
1.8
(4)
1.79
(4)
0.9
(2)
(1)
4.9
(11)
5.4
(12)
0.9
(2)
Wind
Dir.
NW
NW
NNE
W
W
SSE
SE
W
Water
Temp.
°C
16.1
(61)
16.1
(61)
15
(59)
14.4
(58)
14.4
(58)
17.2
(62)
16.7
(62)
14.4
(58)
Test
Fluid
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
OOP
OOP
OOP
OOP
OOP
Sorbent
and
Foam
Cubes
Sorbent
C
Beads
Cubes
Sorbent
C
Beads
Cubes
Wave
Cond.
HC
HC
HC
C
C
C
C
HC
Critical tow
speec
m/s
(ft/ruin)
0.05
(10)
0,05
(10)
0
0.21
(40)
0.2S
(55)
0.2i
(40)
0.39
(75)
0.05
(10)
Mode of failure
Splashover
Splashover
Splashover
Shedding
Shedding of
soaked cubes
Shedding. Wind
a factor
Shedding
Splashover
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 2. Continued.
Oate
->/(<
5/9
vs
5/10
5/10
5/iO
5/10
5/11
5/10
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Air Wind Water
Temp. Speed Temp. Sorbent
Test °C m/s Wind °C Test and Wave
no. ( F) (mph) Dir. (°F) Fluid Foam Cond.
15-5 27.2
(81)
15-6 2.8
(37)
C.-O 6.1
(43)
C-OR 7.2
(45)
C-i 7.8
(46)
C-jR 7.8
(46)
C-2 8.9
(48)
G-l 11.1
(52)
G-2 11.7
(53)
6.7 SE
(15)
2.2 SSW
(5)
0.4 SSW
(1)
4.9 SSW
(11)
1.8-3.1 SSW
(4-7)
2.2 SSW
(5)
3.6 W
(8)
2.7 SSW
(6)
2.7 SSW
(6)
17.2 OOP Sorbent HC
(62)
14.41 OOP Beads HC
(58)
14.4 Octanol C
(58)
12.2 Octanol C
(54)
12.2 Octanol Cubes C
(54)
12.2 Octanol Cubes C
(54)
12.2 Octanol Beads C
(54)
13.9 Naphtha Cubes <3c C
(57) Foam
13.9 Naphtha Sorbent C
(57) C & Foam
Critical tow
speed
m/s
(ft/iTiin) Mode of failure
0.05
(10)
0.05
(10)
0.57
(110)
0.57
(110)
0.57
(110)
0.62
(120)
0.62
(120)
0.57
(110)
0.62
(110)
Splashover
Splashover
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 2. Continued.
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Air
Temp.
Test °C
Date no. (°F)
:>/ii G-3 13.3
(56)
5/11 G-3R 13.9
(57)
')l\2 i-i-1 22.2
(72)
5/12 H-2 18.3
(65)
Vi2 ."-2 13.2
(56)
Vi2 ,1-3 16.7
(62)
Wind
Speed
m/s
(mph)
3.1
(7)
2.2
(5)
2.7
(6)
2.7
(6)
0.9
(2)
1.8
Wind
Dir.
SW
SSW
SE
SE
SSW
NW
Water
Temp.
°C
13.9
(57)
13.9
(57)
16.1
(61)
15.6
(60)
(58)
15.0
(59)
Critical tow
Test
Fluid
Naphtha
Naphtha
OOP
OOP
Octanol
Octanol
Sorbent
and
Foam
Beads &
Foam
Beads &
Foam
Cubes &
Foam
Sorbent
C & Foam
Sorbent
C & Foam
Beads &
Foam
Wave
Cond.
C
C
C
C
C
C
speea
m/s
(ft/min)
0.72
(140)
0.72
(145)
0.3 L
(60)
0.39
(75)
0.57
(110)
0.62
(120)
Mode of failure
Shedding
Shedding
Shedding of
soaked cubes
Shedding
Shedding of fluid,
not sorbent
Shedding
-------
TABLE 3. I.M.E. SWISS OELA III SKIMMER RESULTS
Date Test Duration Test
no. of test fluid
sec
Cumulative**
Sample
Sorbent Water Oil and
Discrete Sample
A-2S 900
r>/4 A-3S 300
A-5S 600
180
w:
c
r
f
t
r
c
t
">/iO C-2S ISO
ViO G-2S 240
Vii G-3S 300
96 %
Comments
and foam m"
(gal)
solids water oil
m^ (gal)
solids
Naphtha Sorbent 0.76 0.44 2.0
C (202) (116)
Naphtha Beads
0.21
(56)
0.36
(94.7)
Naphtha Sorbent 0.98 0.19
C (260.8) (50.8)
6.0
HOP
(85.7) (84.5)
Octanol Sorbent 0.18 0.55 N/A
C (47.7) (146.0)
Naphtha Sor. C 0.46 0.31 9.2
& Foam (123.2) (81.5)
Naphtha Beads 0.66 0.45 11.5
& Foam (173.4) (118.7)
70.4 27.5
11.2 88.8 N/A*
64.0 30.0
Beads 0.32 0.32 18.0 82.0 N/A*
N/A N/A
90.8 N/A
88.5 N/A*
Double diaphragm pump clogged
intermittently.
Used double diaphragm pump.
Waves washed material into
skim.
Rotary pump used.
Rotary pump used.
Rotary pump used.
Beads very congealed.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
Cumulative**
Sample Discrete Sample
ilate Test Duration Test Sorbent Water Oil and 96 % % Comments
no. of test fluid and foam m solids water oil solids
sec (gal) mj (gal)
5/12 j-25 135 Octanoi Sor. C 0.17 0.43 3.6 79.1 17.3
& Foam (45.4) (114.8) Rotary pump used.
5/12 j-35 225 Octanoi Beads 0.40 0.36 7.3 92.7 N/A*
& Foam (104.7) (96.4) Rotary pump used.
5/i2 H-2S 225 OOP Sor. C 0.36 0.39 13.3 34.5 52.2
& Foam (95.2) (104.0) Sample taken from upper
layer.
10
'>/l2 JJ-OS 330 Octanoi 0.76 0.23 26.0 74.0 0
(201.0) (99.7) Control test.
*Tho lab analysis employs toluene, which dissolves the imbiber beads.
**The cumulative sample takes into account the discrete sample composition.
-------
Figure 10. Recovering polyurethane cubes with a net.
- ;5
Figure 11. Sesv.'ard Intorr.ol"'onal. Inc. hvoraulic squeezer,
-------
The valve to allow the main bridge inlet to sample was opened. The valve to
allow the auxiliary bridge inlet to sample was closed. The recorder was turned on two
minutes before testing began. After the HM slick passed completely beneath and
beyond the main bridge intake and had contacted the boom, the valve positions were
reversed to allow sampling above the HVI/sorbent/foam mixture. The valves remained
so until the boom test was terminated at the south end of the tank. The recorder was
then turned off and the analyzer left on. Data were recorded and tabulated (Tables 4
through 9). Some difficulties were experienced with the recorder. Vi'hen it was
inoperative, a visual observation of the gas analyzer meter was made and the
maximum reading was recorded.
An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of sample hose length on
gas analyzer readings. Two hoses, 15 rn and 3 m in length, were connected to a
filtered inlet and the gas analyzer with valves at both ends of each hose. The filtered
inlet was suspended in a jar containing a small quantity of naphtha (Figure 12). The
procedures were as follows:
1. All valves were opened and readings taken.
2. The valves on the long hose were closed and readings were taken for 10
minutes.
3. The valves on the long hose were closed while simultaneously the valves
on the short hose were opened. Readings were taken for 10 minutes.
ty. The valve positions were reversed and readings taken again for 10
minutes.
The results were that in each case the readings remained the same—between
M and .46 absorbance. The conclusion was than a long hose does not affect results.
Another test, for response time, was conducted by placing a filtered intake on
the long hose over the naphtha and recording the time required before an increase in
concentration registered on the recorder. The reading was stabilized and the intake
removed from the jar. The time for the recorder to return to the ambient air reading
was also noted. The results showed a 10 second lag existed between placing the intake
in the jar and an increase on the recorder. More than a minute was required to return
to ambient readings after the intake was removed.
The conclusion was that only local maxirnurns could be considered as accurate
indicators of vapor concentrations.
u * '
^-' / f <_' ' V-J
recorded, to ensure the meter returned to the C.16-0.175 Abscr be'ice ra^ge (a-nbie
air reading). Clogging of the fillers on the inlets with Sorbent C dust or Imbiber Bea
was periodically mcni-ored u?in^ a b:\ker of }-}\\ dirc-ctly bc'.eath the filler a
(ambient
ads
-------
TABLE 1. VAPOR DETECTION TEST DATA USING NAPHTHA
Absorbance Concentration (ppm)
To-:,L
no. Sorbcnt HM
A-0 None .26
A- 1 Cubes Inop
A-iR Cui>es NO DATA
A-2 Sorbent C NO DATA -
A-3 Beads .30
HM and
Sorbent
.10
.10
HM
11
N/A
N/A
HM and C = C, ,. . , c
c , ,-, HM&S
Sorbent -C. „ , / \
HM (ppm)
28 +17
28
Comments
Crosswind from east to west.
No HiVi [liter, no tests taken
over HM. Sample inlet for HM/S
was aboui; 20' from apex of boom
and collected slick. Boom was
shortened for other tests.
No new sorbent broadcast.
RECORDER MALFUNCTION
.37
15
21 +9
Rained during test. Boom
A-3R Bends
A-3RR Beads
.32
.23
18
.28
30
13
+ 12
shifted west of the HM/S sample
inlet.
Slick past filter when test began.
Imbiber oeacis already on water.
Imbiber Deads already on the
slick. No new HM distributed.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE i*. (Continued)
Absorbance Concentration (ppm)
Yes i HM and
no. Sorbent HM Sorbent HM
HM and C = C
Sorbent -C,.,. / \ Comments
HM (ppm)
A-'A Cubes DATA NOT RECORDED 0.3 m HC.
A-5 Sorbent C .119 .20 34 +1 Bridge speed very slow. 0.3 m
A-6
IK'HCIS
.18
30
+28
HC.
Each i'iiier placed 2 ft. above
calm water surface - for 0.3 m
HC. Slick vvas at apex before
test began.
-------
Tost
no.
.Sorbent
Ci-3
Cubes
Sorbent C
imbiber
iii'ioibcr-
TABLE 5. VAPOR DETECTION TEST DATA USING NAPHTHA AND AFF
Absorbance
Concentration (ppm)
HM
HM and
Sorbent
HM
HM and
Sorbent
C = C
-C
HM&S
.32
.22
.30
.22
.36
N/A - No
new Sorb
or Im Beads .26
18
6
9
15
23
11
HM (ppm)
-9
+9
+ 17
N/A
Comments
Wind blowing to south.
Protective cover put over
filter. Wind direction to east.
Slick coaccted on west.
Slick buiit up on west side
of tank, i'treak in foam occurred.
Irregular loam coverage of
slick (patches). HM/S filters
encasea in aluminum pipe
to stiffen PVC pipe.
-------
TABLE 6. VAPOR DETECTION TEST DATA USING OOP
, ...
Absorbance Concentration (pprn)
Vosl HM and
no. Sorbcnt MM Sorbent HM
H-0 None .20 .20 6
HM and
Sorbent
6
C = C
"CHM (ppm)
0
Comments
More HM distributed than
Sorbcnt C
rtcmis
.18
.23
.25
.19
.58
.27
59
12 15
50
+3
test plan caiied lor.
Filters at 2 ft. instead of 1
ft. above water.
Slick moved to west side of tank.
Had changed filter prior to run.
Filter probably contaminated.
HM/S pipe lengthened to 12
ft. Recorder failure. Observed
max. and recorder manually.
Wind blowing to north. Temp
38°F. HM/S filter adjusted
over slick.
.16
.19
Pump switch oil during part
of experiment. Boom apex
did not move directly under
filter.
a-6
ijcaas
.16
.165
Same suck from a previous
run was used, therefore slick
of plain HM dici not pass under
the HM niter-wind speed minimal
at filter.
-------
TABLE 7. VAPOR DETECTION TEST DATA USING OOP AND AFFr
Test
no. Sorbent
H-i Cubes
H-2 imbiber
Beads
Absorbance
HM and
HM Sorbent
.24 .26
.21 .23
Concentration (ppm)
HM
11
7
HM and
Sorbent
10
-CIT., / \ Comments
HM (ppm)
+ 3 Temperature 78°F.
+ 3 Wind blowing lightly to north.
TABLE 8. VAPOR DETEC
TION TEST
DATA USING OCTANOL
Tes t
no. Sorbent
C-O None
C-i Cubes
C-2 imbiber
Beads
Absorbance
HM and
HM Sorbent
.21 .24
.22 .22
.18 .20
Concentration (ppm)
HM
7
8
1
2
HM and
Sorbent
10
8
6
-Ctj., i \ Comments
HM (ppm)
+3
0 Brisk wind blowing to south
(generally). Cold day. Slick
was weii dispersed when passing
first filter.
+4 Boom si lilted to west of centeriine
of tank.
-------
monitoring the readings. The beaker was held in place for one minute or until
concentration readings had leveled off.
The equipment checks were interpreted as follows:
1. A pronounced increase in absorbance was considered as an accurate
indication that some flow through the filter was occurring.
2. If both filters showed nearly the same absorbance readings, it was
assumed that both filters were essentially free from clogging. The filter
•i^.;r the sorb'"rnt distributor w.is felt to be much iv,ore su-.ceptible to
cl:\:ging, since dust panicles were swirling n^ar it. Th-refore, it was
expected that a marked difference between the control test absorbance
readings for the two filters would indicate clogging.
3. The actual value of the absorbance readings was not of interest since
temperature could not be controlled and had a significant effect on the
volatilization of control samples and hence on the absorbance readings.
Using these criteria, it was found that clogging of filter intakes did not occur in
most tests.
-------
3 m of
PVC
tubino-
12. Vapor detection equipnient arrRngen'sent ior
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
BOOM TESTS
As shown in the charts (Figures 13, 14, and 15), the boom contained a pure HM
slick to a higher tow speed in these tests compared to the 1975 tests. This could be
attributed to bolting the boom directly to the tow points rather than tying them with
chain bridles as done in 1975. This served to increase boom stability. The increase of
boom stability was required in many of the calm water runs in this test program
because shedding did not occur until higher tow speeds were reached. The results in
harbor chop wave conditions (Figures 16 and 17) were comparable to the 1975 test
results. The smaller amounts of HM used in these tests produced a smaller slick which
did not extend as far forward from the boom floatation. This could have caused the
slick to be protected from the shedding effect of the water passing beneath the boom
until a higher tow speed was reached. The observer of boorn failure in the 1975 tests
was not the observer in the 1977 tests. It is possible that there were differences in
their subjective decisions on how much oil loss constituted boom failure.
An unexpected benefit was observed when the foarn cubes were used as the
sorbent material on naphtha. The boorn was towed up to 0.75 m/s without losses. At
that speed the boorn skirt was flexing and the boom floatation element was about to
submerge, so the test was halted. Without sorbent, naphtha shed from the boom at a
tow speed of 0.5 m/s. The reason for this increase in performance was the test fluid
not absorbed into the foam cubes laid on the surface between the cubes and was thus
protected from shedding. The cubes floated approximately 0.3 cm out of the water
and 1.6 cm in the water. This formed pockets of refuge for the test fluid from the
water current passing beneath the boom. Through the underwater windows it was seen
that the underwater portion of the cubes prevented the interfacial shearing force from
reaching the naphtha.
This type of shedding protection did not occur with Sorbent C since the
particles did not extend much below the surface. The critical tow speed for DOP
shedding also increased when the foarn cubes were applied. The cubes which soaked in
DOP shed as large droplets would have. A more buoyant cube would probably perform
better with DOP.
[ro:Ti
-------
- Test conducted using designated agent with no foam
H
-------
1 . 0 •_
Test conducted using designated agent with no foam
0.8
Test conducted using designated agent with foam
I
1975
TEST
1977 TESTS
0.4 i
0.0 I
NONE
NONE
CHIPS
SORBENT C
BEADS
SORBENT OR CONGEALING AGENT
Figure 14. Clean Water boom oerformance in calm water using DOP.
-------
u
1.0
0.8
1975
TEST
NONE
- Test conducted using1 designated agent with no foam
Test conducted using1 designated agenl with foam
1977 TESTS
NONE
CHIPS
SORBENT C
BEADS
SORBENT OR CONGEALING AGENT
Fissure 15. Clean Water boom performance in calm water usim>; octanoi.
-------
0.10
0.08
0. 06
1975
TEST
Tests conducted usinfr designated acrent vvii.li no foam
1977 TESTS
0.04 _
0.02
NONE CHIPS SORBENT C BEADS
SORBENT OR CONGEALING AGENT
Figure 16. Clean Water boom oerformance in harbor chop usinn; naphtha.
-------
0. ii)
0. 04
Tests conducted usinp; designated assent with no foam
1977 TESTS
CHIPS SORBENT C BEADS
SORBENT OR CONGEALING AGENT
Figure 17. Clean Water boom nerform;mce in harbor choo usinsr 130P
-------
Although the polyurethane foarn material was not expensive ($0.50/rn ), the
cutting of the cubes was. A larger cube would probably be more cost effective. The
sorbent material most easily distributed and accounted for afterwards was the foam
cubes.
The results obtained when employing Sorbent C showed an increase in the
boom's ability to retain H.M. Since the suspension of fibers in a liquid can reduce
turbulent drag, one of the benefits of the fine particles in the Sorbent C could have
been such an effect. This would have deferred the formation and release of oil
droplets from the slick due to turbulence at the oil/xvater interface to a higher tow
s ••>•,• ed.
The Imbiber Beads performed best on DOP and worst on naphtha. Given enough
Imbiber Beads and a sufficient residence time, the H.M slick could have been made into
a solid buoyant sheet and most probably contained by a boom at tow speeds above 2
knots. However, this would be impractical, if not impossible in field use. A 100 m
spill would require about 10 m of beads well applied and mixed.
The sorbent and beads were often distributed onto the water surface and not
onto the HM slick. This resulted in patches of dry Sorbent C or cubes and white
clumps of sticky beads. This was caused by the air from the blower displacing the
slick and then distributing the materials on the water. Lingering too long with the
blower outlet in one position would give this results. However, if the material was not
directed downward onto the slick, the wind could carry much of material off to one
side.
Some test results indicate a higher critical tow speed is attainable using AFFF
and sorbent rather than sorbent alone. Perhaps the foam causes the sorbent to become
wetter or absorb more oil and thus stave off shedding.
The boom performance deteriorated slightly over the 12 days in the water. The
boom skirt which originally began flexing at 0.65 m/s, began at 0.55 m/s by the end of
the test. The flexing would periodically change the flow pattern of the water passing
beneath the boom and thus eventually affect shedding. Periodic shedding which
followed the frequency of skirt flexure only occurred at tow speeds above 0.7 m/s.
When substantial shedding had begun at about 0.3 kt above the critical tow
speed, shedding would not stop until tow speed was reduced well below the critical
speed (about 0.2 kt below). Shedding would begin again when the tow speed was
increased to the critical tow speed. The churning and separating of the test fluid took
Jess to keep it going than to start it.
SKIMMER TESTS
v, ;-.en
testing in a '".-..-I.or chop condition ireoruse The •. O.VCB v.'::i:':ed fluid into the skimmer.
In addition, Sorbent C clogged the double diaphragm pump, so a rotary pump v. as
substituted. Th:-se equipment and drocedural rh^nvcs prevented ex'?:'^!! comparison
'':^'r: ^-:\} :'"..rse ^'-.]'.\\r:^rs \ests ;-.:~id the cv->s -.: ^'j'.:?d in 1375. The one :est v.-hich
-------
83.7% vs. 74.9%, and a lower recovery rate, 1.96 1/s vs. 5.7 1/s. This is probably due
to the Sorbent C being mixed in with the HM. It absorbed some water and was harder
to pump than HM alone. The results obtained using the I.M.E. skimmer are also very
operator-dependent which makes comparisons of tests difficult.
Using sorbents substantially reduced HM and water emulsificiation or prompted
fast separation of the two fluids. The skimmer test run with only octanol (J-Q-S)
resulied in 2696 water in the sample taken from the barrel. Water content in samples
from test runs with Sorbent C and Imbiber Beads resulted in 3.6% and 7.25%
respectively.
Cleanup effort was substantially increased c,;ue to the use of sorbents. Imbiber
Beads clung to everything they touched including skin and clothing. Sorbent C had to
be hosed off the decks and driven from the bridge tow cable trays. The foam cubes
had to be recovered with nets and stored in barrels—a very time consuming operation.
Thought should be given to the special cleanup operations required if sorbents are to
be used in the field.
VAPOR DETECTION TESTS
DOP and octanol have low vapor pressures and the recorded changes in vapor
concentration were very small. The experimental variations far outweighed the
changes in concentration noted for DOP and octanol. No conclusions will be drawn
from the experimental results for these t\vo hazardous materials.
The naphtha results consistently indicate that the vapor concentration above
the slick was higher following the addition of sorbent, however, the experimental
results do not necessarily indicate that the addition of the sorbent was the cause of
the increase.
The following observations indicated that other factors contributed to or totally
caused the observed results:
1. Test A-0 was conducted without adding sorbent, HM filter was 11 ppm
naphtha, HM/sorbent filter was 28 ppm naphtha. Ideally, these readings
should be the same.
2. When the HM was distributed, an irregular pattern usually formed with
splotches of HM interspersed in the water. In this condition, the slick
passed under the HM filter. After sorbent was spread on the slick and
the HM and sorbent had collected in the boom, an unbroken HM/Sorbent
layer was present on the water. The HM/Sorbent slick remained in this
condition beneath the second filtered inlet. The HM/Sorbent filter and
the slick also had no velocity relative to each other.
every test,
-------
5. If a filter was not clogged and a reading was observed, the absorbance
value could not be compared directly to other readings since the analysis
depended upon temperature, and the temperature could not be held
constant throughout testing.
The following observations indicated that variations in test conditions existed
which were on the order of magnitude of the concentration changes that were
1. Filter control tests (Table 10) done on 11 and 12 May yielded results
which showed differences in concentrations between the two filters from
2 to 13 ppm. The concentration differences lor the actual naphtha ;c-sts
were of'like magnitude (AO, +17 ppm; A3, +9; A5, +1; A6, +28; Gl, -9;
and G3, +17).
2. The HM/Sorbent filter reading varied considerably for the repeated run
A3, A3R, and A3RR. The vapor concentrations were 24, 30, 13 ppm,
respectively. No new sorbent or HM was distributed for these tests so
only the HM/Sorbent filter should have detected vapor. The HM filter,
however, registered from 8 to 18 ppm.
The following observations point to potential sources of error:
1. Vv'ind velocity was not constant. Wind velocity was measured about 3 rn
above the water surface and perhaps did not accurately reflect the
velocity at the surface.
2. Initially, the HM/Sorbent filter was in a fixed location, centered on the
long axis of the tank. Often the boorn shifted to one side of the tank,
leaving the HM/Sorbent filter over water instead of the material
contained by the boom.
Only one test (G-l) with fire-fighting foam resulted in a depression in vapor
concentration between the two intakes rather than an increase.
When using sorbents in the recovery of hazardous materials, the disposal,
storage, or refurbishment of the sorbent should carefully be studied. Dow Chemical
Company is currently conducting tests to determine the evaporation rate of recovered
materials from sorbents. Although the concentration of vapors above a naphtha slick
does not increase appreciably when sorbent is added, the material will rapidly
evaporate from the same sorbent while suspended in air. This could create an air
pollution or explosion hazard.
Laboratory tests should be conducted on more volatile materials than DOP and
octanol. Field tests could then be usad to corroborate the results. Field tests should
be -.-at up such that the HM 5Jick daas .not have a w-'ocity relative to the vapor
IT. The HY slick ;apor intake --as a.aa; ..'_-a on :ae north and of tha IT,?, in
vapor as it p-;i~>ad c\ cr tna 5-' !~ak. P'V .^o/lciu/foaffi/riY a~";,;.ke
remained above the mixture for a much
'eater time period. A boom partitioned laa^thwjse ". ith plain HM on one side arid the
•' ;_• a: 'cc tm/HY c'Jck on t',a ctkar =-l-~J2 <".:•'.! id - ?' • a th? a'^.cr^pa.ricv if no v-:nor
-------
TABLE 10. FILTER CONTROL TESTS
Date & Time
11 May 1977
Before test runs
0815 to 0845
11 May 1977
Following test G-l
Following test G-3
12 May 1977
Pre Test Filter
After test 3-3
After test 3-3
Hazardous Material
Naphtha
Naphtha
Octanol
OOP
Abscrb'ince ;:~/Vapor Cu, iceniration
ppm
HM Filter HM/Sorbent Filter
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
.26/11
.60/51
.40/27
.32/18
.54/44
.28/14
.54/44
.26/14
.22/8
Not done due to
HM in water below
filter. Would have
influenced reading.
.74/66
.22/8
.22/8
*Absorbance is non-dimensional.
44
-------
OPERATION DISCUSSION
The blower outlet tube, used to distribute sorbent, became partially clogged
with congealed Imbiber Beads. The foarn cubes left some test fluid on the walls of the
tube as they were blown from the fan. In subsequent tests, the Imbiber Beads
contacted this fluid and clung to the walls. This did not affect this test. However, if
another week of testing had been required, the problem would have caused a
temporary shutdown to clean the blo.ver unit.
The vapor detection equipment <: 3uld not be left outside in bad weather, even
with a covering. This rr-qui: ed rotting it up and breaking it down e\ery day and each
time rain threatened.
The distribution of Sorbent C from the blower produced a large amount of dust.
This dust collected on the vapor detector filters, causing some minor clogging. Metal
covers, open at the bottom, were fabricated and placed over the filters to protect
them. These seem to work well. Filters were also changed periodically to minimize
the degree of clogging.
-------
GENERAL
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT TEST FACILITY
Figure A-l. OHM SETT Test Facility.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operating an Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmernal Test Tank (OM.MSETT) .'ocated in Leon.irdo, New
jersey (Figure A-l). This facility provides an environmentally safe place to conduct
testing and development of devices and techniques for the control of oil and hazardous
material soills.
-------
the water several metres ahead of the device being tested, so that reproducible
thicknesses and widths of the test fluids can be achieved with minimum interference
by wind.
The principal systems of the tank include a wave generator and beach, and a
filter system. The wave generator and adsorber beach have capabilities of producing
regular waves to 0.7 metre high and to 28.0 metres long, as well as a series of 1.2
metres high reflecting, complex waves meant to simulate the water surface of a
harbor or the sea. The tank water is clarified by recirculation through a 0.13 cubic
metre/second diatornaceous earth filter system to permit full use of a sophisticated
underwater photography and video imagery system, and to remove the hydrocarbons
that enter the tank water as a result of testing. The towing bridge h~;s a built-in
skimming hairier which can move oil onto the North end of the tank for cleanup and
recycling.
When the tank must be emptied for maintenance purposes, the entire water
volume, or 98^2 cubic metres is filtered and treated until it meets all applicable State
and Federal water quality standards before being discharged. Additional specialized
treatment may be used whenever hazardous materials are used for tests. One such
device is a trailer-mounted carbon treatment unit for removing organic materials from
the water.
Testing at the facility is served from a 650 square metres building adjacent to
the tank. This building houses offices, a quality control laboratory (which is very
important since test fluids and tank water are both recycled), a small machine shop,
and an equipment preparation area.
This government-owned, contractor-operated facility is available for testing
purposes on a cost-reimbursable basis. The operating contractor, Mason & Hanger-
Silas Mason Co., Inc., provides a permanent staff of eighteen multi-disciplinary
personnel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides expertise in the area
of spill control technology, and overall project direction.
For additional information, contact: 3ohn S. Farlow, OHMSETT Project Officer,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, lERL-Ci, Edison,
New Jersey 08817, 201-321-6631.
-------
.•••> A.
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
//'/< I;.M nW Instruction* un //if /ri.TJf before completing)
1. REPORT NO
EPA-600/2-81 -
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
USE OF SELECTED SORBENTS AND AN AQUEOUS FILM FORMING
FOAM ON FLOATING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
REPORT DATE
Sentereber 1981
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Michael
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION RKPOHT NO.
K. Breslln
(1)
and Michael
D. Royer
ill
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. (1)
Leonardo, NJ 07737
.USEPA, OHMSB and MERL-Ci (2)
Woodbridge Ave., Edison, NJ 08837
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
AZB1B
l1.C6NtRACt/6RAMVNO.
68-03-0490
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANP ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVCRtO
Final, May 1977
14. SPONSORING AOENCV COOK
EPA/600/14
IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project officer: John S. Farlow (201)321-6631
16. ABSTRACT
This research test program was initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to determine the effect sorbent materials and fire fighting foam have on contain-
ment, recovery and vapor suppression of floatable hazardous materials(HM) spilled on wate
The test plan incorporates some of the equipment used during a 1975 U.S. EPA hazard-
ous materials test at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank
vOHMSETT). The devices used in both programs were the Clean Water Incorporated Harbour
Boom and the Industrial and Municipal Engineering Swiss OELA III Skimmer. Dioctyl phtha-
late(DOP), octanol, and naphtha served as the hazardous materials. The sorbent materials
were polyurethane foam cubes, Clean Water,-Inc. Sorbent C and Dow Chemical Co. Imbiber
Beads. An aqueous film forming foam(AFFF), FC-206, from 3M Company was used as the fire
fighting foam.
The type of HM, Sorbent, tow speed, and wave condition served as controlled and in-
dependent variables. Critical tow speed of the boom (the speed at which oil loss began),
HM vapor concentration, and fluid recovered by the skimmer were the dependent variables.
Results of the tests were evaluated in terms of the differences in these dependent vari-
ables when sorbents and foams were distributed on the HM slick versus a pure HM slick.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Ficld/Gfoup
21. NO. OF PAGES
58
'B. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
IB SECURITY CLASS (THil Rtporl)
UNCLASSIFIED
20 SECURITY CLASS (TMlpafl
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
48
------- |