; 600D82341
AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SPILL CLEANUP TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive consideration of spill cleanup technology involves a wide
range of problems. Consideration must include the nature of the spilled
material, the nature of the environment and the state it must be returned
to, and the technology available in a variety of related but separate
fields. Spill response is not a unified or complete art. Effective
response in many cases requires drawing heavily from the knowledge and
technology of other fields and piecing together a solution. In most
situations the spill response requires a variety of tools, for all are
sharply limited and no one will do the whole job.
This paper primarily discusses spills onto or into water — not on land.
It considers only the technology available for cleanup and does not
address the often difficult problem of waste disposal after the cleanup.
It does not consider radiological or etiological agents, other than the
use of bacteria to mitigate problems at spills. It does not consider
waste dump sites. The paper first considers the behavior or spilled
materials — whether they float, sink, evaporate, mix into the water, or
some combination of these. Then several possible activities for cleaning
up the spill are discussed: minimizing the spilled volume, containing the
spilled material and preventing its spread, recovering or removing the
spilled material from the environment, treating the spilled material so
it is no longer a hazard, and temporarily storing recovered materials
prior to disposal.
THE BEHAVIOR OF SPILLED MATERIALS
It is convenient to classify products according to their immediate
behavior upon being spilled. Products may generally be classified for
spill response purposes as floaters, sinkers, vapors, or mixers.
Table 1 - Behavior of Spilled Materials
Product Type Examples
Floaters petroleum, vegetable oils
Sinkers some bunker fuels, ethylene
dichloride, carbon tetrachloride
Vapors volatile hydrocarbons (acetone,
freon), LNG, chlorine
Mixers many acids, water-soluble
pesticides
The neatness of this distinction is lost somewhat in practice, however,
because some products may display the characteristics of more than one of
these four types.
-------
Petroleum oils, for example, are generally regarded as floaters, but it
is important to recognize that a significant part of some oil spills may
evaporate (vaporize) before and during spill response. Up to 30% of
light crudes (the lighter components) may evaporate in 24 hours
(Frankenfeld, 1975), and products composed only of light products may
evaporate continuously at that rate. Also, some oils are on the
borderline between floaters and sinkers. They may float when
sufficiently pure or when they have sufficient gas (generally, air)
suspended in the liquid phase, but they may sink if they mix with the
solids suspended in the water column or if the salinity of the water
decreases. This change in behavior can be exploited in spill response.
Ammonia acts as both a mixer and a vapor, with a reported partitioning of
approximately 60/40% into the water/air (Harsh, 1978). Temperature may
also strongly influence which behavior a product exhibits, though
materials spilled on water usually quickly adjust to the temperature of
the water, which typically falls in the relatively narrow range of -2 to
30 C.
In principle, floaters are perhaps the easiest pollutants to remove from
the environment, and they constitute the majority of the spilled
pollutants — primarily oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons. Often, the
primary problem with these spills stems from their sheer size: it is
uncommon to have spills of hazardous materials other than oil in
quantities of 1000 to 100,000 tons.
The available technology that is specifically designed and intended for
cleaning up or treating spills of floaters is significantly better
developed than the technology for responding to spills of sinkers,
vapors, or mixers. This is true primarily because of the variety of
equipment developed for responding to oil spills. This equipment
generally can be used on spills of any floating liquids or granular,
particulate solids, subject to limitations stemming from simple
incompatibility of the equipment's materials with the hazardous
material. The effectiveness of each device or method may vary greatly
for different liquids, however, and some will be completely ineffective
on powders.
Sinkers are spilled much less often than floaters, though there are now
large quantities in the bottom sediments in some areas because of long
term deposition from accidental spills, manufacturing operations
releasing pollutants at small rates (sometimes under permit), or a
combination of the two. Sinkers include a wide variety of hazardous
materials and some oils. Some common chemicals such as carbon
tetrachloride, ethylene dichloride, and trichloroethane have specific
gravities greater than salt water and will sink.
Sinkers are easy to clean up in principle, but the presence of some
sinking chemicals in the water and on all gear that is used underwater
may present a serious hazard to divers and topside personnel assisting
them. Severe problems have occurred, and solutions are not readily
available. The U.S. Government (USCG, EPA, Navy, NOAA) is presently
conducting an extensive evaluation of diver safety at spills of hazardous
materials. Divers may also be prevented from working efficiently by
strong currents, and rough weather may hamper operations topside just as
-------
work on floaters is hampered. Although spills of sinkers are easy to
clean up in principle, little equipment is available specifically for
that purpose.
Materials tnat vaporize rapidly present the greatest clean-up problems.
In many cases, clean-up is not possible at all once the material escapes
its container. These materials are typically high hazard materials and
may require evacuation of the nearby area or downwind area for some
distance. Response measures can be safely undertaken only by experienced
personnel working in completely encapsulating suits with self-contained
breaming apparatus. Because even this protection is not completely
effective, an atmosphere charged with certain highly toxic products like
chlorine must simply De avoided entirely.
Mixers probaoly impact the greatest area or volume but may have the least
severe impact. Once partially mixed into the water, relatively modest
sources of additional water and mixing will sometimes dilute the
pollutant to safer levels. However, a corollary of this is that little
can De done except in very low energy environments. The volume of water
that the material mixes into represent an ever-increasing volume that
must be treated or cleaned. Containment possibilities are sharply
limited.
Mixers are often highly hazardous pollutants. The list may include
acids, soluole pesticides, etc. that have very low lethal concentration
or are highly carcinogenic or teratogenic.
THE PHASES OF CLEANUP
For each of these four types of products, we will try to examine several
separate phases of spill cleanup: prevention and minimization,
containment, recovery or treatment, and temporary storage.
Table 2 - Phases of Cleanup
Activity Examples
Prevention and Minimization patches & plugs, good
equipment design, safe
operating procedures,
lightering
Containment oil booms, chemical
herder
Recovery or Treatment oil skimmers, sorbents,
chemical dispersants,
neutralization
Temporary Storage barges, flexible bags,
skimmer's tanks
These examples will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of
this paper. Note that not all of these activities are possible at all
-------
spills. Whicn ones are feasible and desirable will depend on the
behavior of the product, the weather, location, etc.
Prevention and Minimization
Although prevention is not, strictly speaking, a cleanup activity, it is
worth noting in this discussion, because it is clearly the most effective
action tnat can be taken. Also, once spilling has begun, the success of
the rest of the cleanup operation will be more strongly affected by
minimizing the volume spilled than by any other single activity. The
response coordinator and crews are often faced with this as their first
tasK.
Devices for minimizing the spilled volume by plugging leaks have been
developed but have met with limited success. Magnetic patches are
availaole, ana special foam-plug generators (Mitchell, et.al.,1978; Cook
and Melvold,1980) have been developed for plugging holes in ruptured
containers or hazardous liquids, but these will have trouble coping with
the extensive damage that is often caused in maritime accidents. Even
for small leaks, inprovisation is sometimes necessary. Methods as crude
as wood plugs and plywood patches have been used.
Apparently tne most successful method so far is simply some version of
lightering: transferring material from the damaged vessel to an
unaamaged one, or from the damaged compartment to undamaged ones on the
same vessel. If divers are not needed during this work, it is no more
limited than routine transfer operations, although speed is important to
minimize the spilled volume.
Containment
Floaters:
After tne material has been spilled and is afloat, early containment is
almost always desiraole. (At offshore platforms, it may be preferable to
disperse spilled oil to lessen the fire risk.) A wide variety of oil
containment booms has been developed for containing floaters. Many use
elastomeric coatings that are compatible with other hazardous materials
besides oil; that is, they will not rapidly degrade and fall apart.
Considering only containment capability, boom designs differ primarily in
their ability to contain oil (or even survive) in rough seas. A very few
are promising in seas up to 3 m, out most seem limited to seas less than
1-m significant wave height (Corpuz and Griffiths,1978). By design, the
typical "harbor boom" is even more severely limited. To improve ease of
use and to lower cost, these booms often have low reserve buoyancy and
may begin to fail in waves as small as 0.3 m. But what may be the
strictest limitation for booms in ports and, especially, in inland
waterways is tne entrainment failure of floaters in a current. It is
well established (Hale, et.al., 1975) that the oil/water interface of oil
slicks held by a boom against a current greater than about one knot will
become unstable and the oil will break into droplets that are swept away
under the boom. The one-knot figure will vary slightly with oil type and
-------
may be significantly higher (2 knots ?) for some other hazardous
materials. But the response coordinator simply cannot expect to contain
floaters in currents greater than two knots, which are commonly
encountered in some harbors, estuaries, and rivers.
The variety of booms available is great, and choosing the best for a
particular task requires careful study (technical contingency plans),
especially if high waves or fast currents must be tolerated. For calm
conditions with currents less than one knot, the performance of different
booms should not vary significantly (Griffiths, 1981). McCracken and
Schwartz (1977) and Freestone, et.al. (1976) have presented test data on
small booms acquired using naphtha, octanol, and dioctyl phthalate.
Chemical methods of containment, such as Shell's Oil Herder and other
film-forming agents (see Garrett, 1969), are relatively untried. These
surface-tension modifiers are applied to the surrounding water to
restrict tne spread of the pollutant. In some cases they will even push
the edges back to concentrate the pollutant slightly, but they cannot
restrict its overall drift or develop pools of pollutant several
centimeters thick. Other than on the open ocean, where the shoreline is
distant, they will not provide containment in the same sense as a boom.
Sinkers:
Containment is rarely possible with sinkers, but it is also rarely
necessary. Sinkers will accumulate in depressions on the bottom and will
not spread far unless the bottom slopes steeply or unless there is a
strong current at the bottom. No special emergency response technology
is available for containing sinkers, though any sinkable barrier or
subsurface berming should be suitable for local control of sinkers on the
bottom (possibly to protect water intakes of important shellfish beds).
Mixers:
Unless the boay of water is small and can be closed off, as is possible
witn ponds and small streams, containing mixers is not feasible. Mixers
can be expected to disperse into a large volume of water quickly.
Vapors:
Two modes of containment are possible for some highly volatile liquids.
If the material floats prior to evaporating, it may be contained using
the floaters' technology. Herding it together on the surface will reduce
the vapor emission by minimizing the surface area of the slick.
Furthermore, the vapors may then be directly controlled by several
methods. Water fogging and foam blanketing are demonstrated methods
(Whiting and Shaffer, 1978; Gross, 1978) within the capability of many
fire-fighting services. These methods will lower the evaporation rate,
thus containing the vapors.
-------
Recovery
Floaters:
If containment of a floater has been successful, the prospects for
mechanical recovery of the pollutant are significantly inproved, and
recovery is preferable to treatment unless conditions make recovery
unsafe or impossible.
Few devices are available for recovery in seas greater than 1 m. Jensen
(1976) described several designs developed with U.S. Coast Guard support,
but skimmers based on these are not widely available. Apparently only
the Skimming Barrier (Milgram and Griffiths, 1977) has enough backup tank
test data and field use to defend the claim of up to 3-m seas
capability. One other device not described by Jensen, the Shell SOCK
skimmer, has also successfully recovered crude oil in tests in seas
greater than 1m. For 1-m seas and less, numerous devices using conveyor
belts, sorbent belts, adsorbing disks, weirs, vortices, etc. become
useful. The correlation among size, cost, and performance is very poor,
especially if the slick is only a few millimeters thick. High viscosity
can also be a serious problem. Good, medium-size harbor skimmers can be
expected to recover about 3 to 10 m^/h of low viscosity product in good
weather. Performance results in tests with octanol, naphtha, and OOP for
several skimmers in this class were reported by McCracken and Schwartz
(1977) and Freestone, et.al. (1976).
Floaters can also be recovered using sorbent materials. Numerous
specially treated sorbents have been developed for oil spill cleanup, and
some are applicable to other floating hazardous materials. Sorbents come
in a variety of forms including loose powders, blankets and pads, and
sorbent booms. Sorbents are also used by many skimmers in the form of
rotating sorbent belts and sorbent rope mops. Many sorbent materials
will adsorb/absorb approximately four to seven times their weight of oil
and some foam types will sorb 30 to 40 times their weight. Except for
sorbents used by skimmers, application and recovery of sorbents is
usually done manually using simple tools such as shovels and forks. This
may result in very low recovery rates and substantial safety hazard to
cleanup crews. Brugger (1980) has reviewed the effectiveness and
chemical compatibility of sorbents for use on hazardous liquids. He
noted sorbents1 good performance with oil and our present lack of
experience with sorbents on hazardous liquids other than oil and, in
light of their expected value for cleanup, recommended that we pursue
their possible use.
Sinkers:
Dredges appear to be naturally applicable to recovering sinkers.
Goodier, Thompson, and Dawson (1980) reviewed the availability of
dredges, and Hand and Ford (1978) presented an extensive evaluation of
the various types of dredge and their suitability for spill cleanup.
Besides the large dredges used for clearing shipping channels, small
dredges are available (from car rental companies!) for locations where
space or water depth is limited. These pose numerous problems in actual
use, however. The problems stem mostly from their tendency to stir up
the bottom excessively. As a result they pick up large quantities of
bottom solids
-------
with the desired pollutant and at least temporarily disperse some of the
pollutant back into the water. Thus, the clean-up operation aggravates
its own proolems of finding and pursuing the spilled material, and large
amounts of contaminated sediments may be produced besides the originally
spilled material. The U.S. Coast Guard has tried an air-lift dredge to
avoid some of these problems on a spill of pentachlorophenol (Thornton
and Williams, 1982). In addition, the contaminated materials pose safety
problems for the work crews, as noted previously. Diving appears to be
necessary to ao most jobs properly. Attempts have been made to rebag
spilled powders by hand to avoid the above difficulties.
Vacuum systems ranging in size from 55-gallon drums to mobile tank
trailers are available for cleaning sewers, sumps, and spills. Though
these are not submersible, the suction hoses can readily be controlled by
divers, and moderate hose lengths do not seriously degrade their
performance. These devices will also tend to pick up water and sediment
and mix them with the pollutant.
Vapors:
Recovery of vapors is not feasible after evaporation, so recovery must
take place while the material is still afloat or still mixed into the
water. The recovery technology for floaters may be useful, or the mixed
portion may be treated chemically and rendered less harmful.
Mixers:
Recovery of mixers is possible but very difficult. One may properly
consider it beyond the capability of present technology.
If tne pollutant (or polluted water) is not contained, it will be
impossible to recover all of the mixer. Even if containment is good,
presently available methods are likely to be only marginally effective,
and these must still be considered experimental.
Schneider (1980) nas attempted to recover mixers by applying activated
carbon directly to the contaminated water, but he concluded that little
could be removed this way because of the poor contact between contaminant
and carbon and the necessary long contact times for carbon to work. It
is also possible to remove the water, treat it using an appropriate
physical or chemical process, and return the treated water to the water
body. Ghassemi and Freestone (1980) considered reverse osmosis,
ultrafiHration, wet air oxidation, biological treatment, ozonation and
UV raaiation, and precipitation and coagulation. Huibregtse, et.al.
(1978) also considered carbon treatment, ion exchange, and simple gravity
separation. The correct process to choose will depend on the chemical
contaminant and its concentration in the water. Again, these methods are
experimental and have not proved effective or economical on a large
scale. Their effectiveness may be minimal in many cases, because the
mixer cannot be contained.
-------
Treatment
Floaters:
Several treatment methods have been studied for floaters (again, oil in
particular) and are now at least partly effective. Sinking was once
considered a possible response to spills of floaters, though this concept
has nearly been abandoned as environmentally unsound. Sand, chalk, and
otner powaered or granular materials were candidates for increasing the
specific gravity of the slick. Sinking of portions of the spilled oil
from tne wMOCO CADIZ using chalk was attempted in recent history, but
reported to be largely unsuccessful (Bocard and Renault, 1979).
Certainly the most popular and widely studied treatment method for oil
slicks has been application of chemical dispersants. Numerous companies
now offer different types of chemical dispersant, and both waterborne and
airborne spraying equipment have been developed. The effectiveness and
toxicity of chemical dispersants remain a matter of debate, though
effectiveness has clearly improved greatly and toxicity dropped greatly
since tne adverse effects at the TORREY CANYON oil spill were noted.
Laboratory data demonstrating the potential effectiveness have been
developed, but evidence from the field has been contradictory and is
therefore inconclusive. Mackay and Wells (1981) have presented a concise
review of cnemical dispersant use.
Gelling or solidification of floaters is also a possibility. Bannister
(1978), for example, has reported an amine carbamate gelling method for
oil. This process produced a soft gel from which the oil could be
squeezed after the gel was recovered. Meldrum, Fisher, and Plomer (1981)
have reported a solidification method that binds oil into a rubbery
polymer matrix. A general problem with gellation is that the gel is not
often any easier to recover than the liquid oil. Gelling of other
floaters has received little study. Michalovic, et al. (1978) have
reported a study of a gelling agent on land spills.
The technology of burning oil slicks has improved significantly since the
early I970's. This method is probably not usable on most other
pollutants because of the explosion or air pollution hazard, which
remains a potential problem even with oil. Special igniters have been
developed (Meikle, 1981) that may be dropped on a slick from the air,
maKing tnem useful in remote locations like the Arctic. If the pool of
liquid can be thickened by containment and the water surface is nearly
calm, more tnan 90% of an oil slick can be burned off.. The remaining
sludge (similar to Bunker fuel) may, however, still present a substantial
cleanup problem. In conditions other than calm, burning is not a simple
matter. Thin films of water splashed atop the floater tend to douse the
flames readily, and the water body acts as an enormous heat sink,
inhibiting volatilization. Special fireproof booms have been developed
to contain burning oil pools (see, e.g., Buist and McAllister, 1981).
A treatment method showing increasing promise is enhanced
bioaegradation. Several types of bacteria are ubiquitous (present in
waters and soil almost everywhere on Earth) and will gradually break down
hydrocarbons, using them as food. Special strains have been developed
that act faster or handle particular subsets of hazardous materials.
-------
Like plants, they need a balance of nutrients besides the pollutant, so
it may be necessary to add the three primary nutrients (nitrogen,
pnosphorus, ana potassium). Because the bacteria act slowly, it may not
be feasible to rely on biodegredation alone.
Enhanced bioaegradation is still an experimental method except in certain
controlled applications isolated from the environment. It is possible to
have highly undesirable products created rather than harmless ones,
especially if anaerobic decomposition occurs.
Vapors:
Many vapors are volatile floaters. Sinking them will reduce the vapor
hazard. Others may be mixed into the water, using chemical dispersants,
if necessary. Unfortunately, with most chemicals this results in
trading one problem for another, because some vapors are soluble and
hignly toxic in the water. Also, this may increase the duration of the
hazard, because the chemicals may persist on the bottom or in the water
far longer tnan they would persist as vapors in the air. Furthermore
evaporation rates directly from the water may continue to be quite high,
so the vapor nazard is reduced but not eliminated. In some cases it may
be safe and possible to ignite the vapors, as has been done with the
natural gas emissions from uncontrollable oil well blowouts.
True clean-up (i.e., removal) is possible only as long as the material
remains a floater. Then, a variety of treatment methods is feasible.
These are generally well-known chemical processes such as neutralization,
precipitation, flocculation, etc. mentioned elsewhere in this paper.
Mixers:
Most scnemes for treatment of mixers require removal of the contaminated
water prior to treatment in a controllable facility. Process plants that
include carbon adsorption, chemical alteration (neutralization,
reduction-oxidation reactions, etc.) have been designed and assembled to
handle specific cases, as noted in the*section of this paper on recovery
of mixers.
In-place treatment of an anhydrous ammonia spill with hydrochloric acid
has been described by Harsh (1978). A few attempts at in-place treatment
in soil nave oeen reported. In principle, such treatment is a relatively
straightforward matter using established chemical methods. However, all
face the proolem that the mixer is typically uncontained and continues to
spread widely, and concentrations are not uniform. As a result, it is
difficult to know tne right amount of treating chemical to apply and to
deliver it to the right place. Thus the potential exists, for example,
to oe left with both an acid spill and a base spill when attempting to
neutralize an acid spill. In-place treatment of mixers in water is a
current researcn topic and must be used very cautiously in the field.
Temporary Storage
Because spills of floaters are sometimes large and because as much water
may be taken up as spilled product, a response coordinator's ability to
-------
marshal! large temporary storage containers is essential to continue the
cleanup. Especially hazardous products may need special ISO containers
or similar. Skimmers usually have very little built-in storage capacity
- 10 m^ or so in commonly available devices such as JBF DIP and Marco
skimmers. Many have none.
For oil spills and many other hazardous materials, this problem is a
logistical rather than a technological one. Containers similar to the
one that is the source of the spill (another tanker or barge, ballast or
mud tanks) are suitable. Inert gassing or foam blanketing in the
temporary storage tanks is also feasible but rarely necessary.
An alternative is presented by the various "rubber bags" now available,
such as the Dunlop Dracones or Goodyear pillow tanks. These range in
capacity from approximately 2 ri)3 to 1000 m3 and are compatible with a
wide range of pollutants. Experience with them at actual spills is
limited, however, and the results have not been widely reported. The
U.S. EPA has also funded development of a special pump and bag storage
system for use at hazardous material spills (Hiltz and Roehlich, 1977),
but the system is not yet commercially available.
Ideally, the temporary storage container will function as a gravity
separator and provide for removal of the water that accumulates under the
product. Few presently available storage methods do this with a good
degree of control over the separation and water stripping. Flexible bags
in particular are not well suited to this.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
It is difficult to narrow the topic "spill cleanup technology"
sufficiently to produce an overview paper without delving into the many
intricacies of that technology and the related problems of logistics,
legalities, etc. It is particularly easy to gloss over the health and
safety aspects of cleaning up a spill of "dangerous cargoes" while trying
to ramain on the subject of the cleanup itself. Readers should recognize
that safety for response personnel is a major field of study in its own
right
I have tried to present mostly the results of recent studies, and hope
that the list of references will assist the reader in finding additional
sources of new information.
REFERENCES
W.W. Bannister: 1978, "Manufacture and Use of Modular Equipment for
Control and Recovery of Oil Spills by Gelation by Amine Carbamates",
unpublished
C. Bocard £ P. Renault: 1979, "Cleaning Products Used in Operations After
the AMOCO CADIZ Disaster", Proc. 1979 Oil Spill Conference, American
Petroleum Institute pub. no 4308.
-------
J.E. Brugger: 1980, "Selection, Effectiveness, Handling, and Regeneration
of Sorbents in the Cleanup of Hazardous Material Spills", Proc. 1980
Conference on tne Control of Hazardous Material Spills
I.A. Buist and I.R. McAllister: 1981, "Dome Petroleum's Fireproof Boom --
Development and Testing to Date", Proc. Fourth Arctic Marine Oilspill
Program Technical Seminar
R. Cook and R. Melvold: 1980, "Development of a Foam Plugging Device for
Reducing Hazardous Chemical Discharges", Proc 1980 Conference on the
Control of Hazardous Material Spills
P.R. Corpuz and R.A. Griffiths: 1978, "Field Tests of Six Offshore Oil
Containment Booms", U.S. Coast Guard report CG-D-78-78
J.W. Frankenfeld: 1975, "Weathering of Oil at Sea", U.S. Coast Guard
report CG-D-7-75
F.J. Freestone, W.E. McCracken, and J.P. Lafornara: 1976, "Performance
Testing of Several Spill Control Devices on Floatable Hazardous
Materials", Proc 1976 Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
W.D. Garrett: 1969, "Confinement and Control of Oil Pollution on Water
with Monomolecular Surface Films", Proc. 1969 Joint Conference on
Prevention and Control of Oil Spills
M. Ghassemi and F.J. Freestone: 1980, "Applicability of Commercialized
Wastewater Treatment Techniques to the Treatment of Spill-Impacted
Waters", Proc 1980 Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
J.L. Goodier, C.H. Thompson, and G.W. Dawson: 1980, "In-Place Removal of
Toxics: Available Tools", Proc 1980 Conference on the Control of
Hazardous Material Spills
R.A. Griffiths: 1981, "On the Flow Around Spill Cleanup Devices", Proc.
1981 Oil Spill Conference
S.S. Gross: 1978, "Evaluation of Foams for Mitigating Air Pollution from
Hazardous Materials Spills", Proc 1978 Conference on Control of Hazardous
Material Spills
L.A. Hale, D.J. Norton, and C.A. Rodenberger: 1975, "The Effects of
Currents and Waves on an Oil SLick Retained by a Barrier", U.S. Coast
Guard report CG-D-53-75
T.D. Hand and A.W. Ford: 1978, "The Feasibility of Dredging for Bottom
Recovery of Spills of Dense, Hazardous Chemicals", Proc. 1978 Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
K.M. Harsh: 1978, "Toxicity Modification of an Anhydrous Ammonia Spill",
Proc. 1978 Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
R.H. Hiltz and F. Roehlich: 1977, "Emergency Collection System for
Spilled Hazardous Materials", PB 267 245/9BE, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
-------
K.R. Hinoregtse, J.H. Moser, and F. Freestone: 1978, "Control of
Hazardous Spills Using Improvised Treatment Processes", Proc 1978
Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
D.S. Jensen: 1976, "U.S. Coast Guard High Seas Oil Spill Control and
Removal System", Proc. Symposium on Marine Resource Development in the
Middle Atlantic States, Soc. Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
D. Mackay and P.G. Wells: 1981, "The Use of Dispersants for Oil Spill
Treatment", Proc. Fourth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar
W.E. McCracken and S.H. Schwartz: 1977, "Performance Testing of Spill
Control Devices on Floatable Hazardous Materials", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report EPA-600/2-77-222
K.M. Meikle: 1981, "Incendiary Device for Oil Slick Ignition", Proc.
Fourth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar
I.G. Meldrum, R.G Fisher, and A.J. Plomer: 1981, "Oil Solidifying Agents
for Oil Spills", Proc. Fourth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical
Seminar
J.G.Micnalovic, C.K.Akers, R.W. King, and R.J.Pilie: 1978, "Development
of a Means for Applying Multipurpose Gelling Agent to Spilled Hazardous
Materials", Proc. 1978 Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills
J.H. Milgram and R.A. Griffiths: 1977,"Combined Skimmer-Barrier High Seas
Oil Recovery System", Proc 1977 Oil Spill Conference
R.C. Mitchell, J.J. Vrolyk, R.L. Cook, and I.Wilder: 1978, "System for
Plugging Leaks of Hazardous Materials", Proc. 1978 Conference on Control
of Hazardous Material Spills
B.C. Norman ana H.A. Dowel 1: 1978, "The Use of Foams to Control Vapor
Emissions from Hazardous Material Spills", Proc 1978 Conference on
Control of Hazardous Material Spills
R. Schneider: 1980, "Removal of Water-Soluble Hazardous Material Spills
from Waterways Dy Activated Carbon", Proc. 1980 Conference on the Control
of Hazardous Material Spills
G.J.E. Thornton ana J.E. Williams: 1982, "Response to a Major Discharge
of Pentacnlorophenol in a Waterway", Proc. 1982 Conference on Control of
Hazaraous Material Spills
L.D. Whiting and R.E Shaffer: 1978, "Feasibility Study of Hazardous Vapor
Amelioration Techniques", Proc 1978 Conference on Control of Hazardous
Material Spi 1 Is
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr-cNO.
L£ AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
August 18. 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SPILL CLEANUP TECHNOLOGY
7. AUTHORI3)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Richard A. Griffiths
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Richard A. Griffiths, 201/321-6629
To be published in the "Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Transport of Dan-
gerous Goods by Sea and Inland Waterways," September 26-Qctober 1, 1982, Vancouver,BC.
16. ABSTRACT
Canada
A review of the equipment and techniques for responding to spills of dangerous cargoes
is presented. Categorizing spilled products as floaters, sinkers, mixers, or vapors
provides a convenient viewpoint for discussing response technology, which depends
strongly on which behavior the product exhibits. Spills of radioactive and bacterio-
logical agents are not covered in this paper, though the potential use of bacteria
for mitigating oil or chemical spills is noted.
The technologies for responding to spills of floaters and sinkers are shown to be the
most well developed of the four types. Equipment and techniques in common use by the
United States and Canadian governments are discussed to illustrate this. Current
technology includes both removal of the pollutant using non-conventional equipment
such as booms, skimmers, dredges, or sorbents and in-place treatment such as
chemically-enhanced dispersion, enhanced microbiological degradation, or in-place
burning. Significant weaknesses are noted, however, in three areas: spill cleanup
in rough seas, in fast currents, and in the arctic (or cold climates). Little tech-
nology is available for response to spills of mixers or vapors, and a major concern
at these spills continues to be the safety of the response equipment operators and
divers. Experimental, infrequently-used techniques for in-place treatment and for
,actual cleanup and removal
discussed.
WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
3. 2I3TP! 3UTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS /This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS /Thii page!
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |