600281168
September 1981
DEPLOYMENT CONFIGURATIONS FOR IMPROVED OIL
CONTAINMENT WITH, SELECTED SORBENT BOOMS
by
Gary F. Smith
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New 3ersey 07737
Contract Number 68-03-2642
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 publication.
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 commercial products indicate that other commercial
products are not available or cannot perform similarly well as those mentioned.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
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 environment. The complexity of that
environment and the interplay of its components require a concentrated and integrated
attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution; 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 community 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 communiations link between the research and the
user community.
This report describes full-scale testing of three sorbent commerical oil spill
booms. Based on the results presented here, more efficient operating techniques for
booms used in water currents can be developed. The methods, results, and techniques
described are of interest to those interested in specifying, using, or testing such
equipment. Further information may be obtained through the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Research Division, Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch, Edison, New
Jersey.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
Performance tests on three catenary oil containment configurations using
sorbent booms sections alone and in conjuction with a conventional containment boom,
were conducted at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (US EPA OHMSETT). Other test
variables included wave condition, tow speed, and oil quantity encountered. Maximum
no-oil-loss containment tow speed was determined for each wave and oil quantity
tested.
The use of an all sorbent boom with a multi-layer sorbent raft at the apex
exhibited average increases in no-oil-loss tow speed of 0.13 m/s over previous results
using a single layer boorn in calm water.
Use of a sorbent raft inside the apex of a conventional containment boom
increased turbulence and caused oil loss at lower speeds than use of the conventional
boom alone. No-oil-loss tow speeds using the sorbent boom raft at the boom apex also
decreased from previous results using a single layer sorbent boom in the 0.3-m harbor
chop wave. Loss was due to increased turbulence from raft sections striking each
other from the wave action.
Recovery of sorbed fluid and regeneration of the boom sections was unsuc-
cessfully attempted using a commercially available sorbent and wringer.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Job Order No. 49, Contract No. 68-
03-2642, by Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period 12 through 16 June
1978 with work completed 22 September 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures and Tables vi
Conversion Factors vii
Abbreviations viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 2
3. Materials 4
4. Experimental Procedures 8
5. Results and Discussion 13
Appendix
OHMSETT Description 21
-------
FIGURES
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Regeneration of saturated boom sections using a
Petro-Trap wringer
3M Company Type 270 sorbent boom
Conwed Corporation heavy duty sorbent boom . .
Regeneration of oil-soaked boom sections
Typical assembly of Petro-Trap wringer rollers .
Boom configuration for Phase A testing
Boom configuration for Phase B testing,
3
5
5
6
7
9
10
Boom configuration for Phase C testing 12
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
Sorbent Boom Specifications
Results of Added Rows to Sorbent Raft ....
3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom Results
3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom Results
3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom Results
Conwed Sorbent Boom Results
Conwed Sorbent Boom Results
Conwed Sorbent Boom Results
15
16
17
18
19
20
VI
-------
LIST OF CONVERSIONS
METRIC TO ENGLISH
To convert from
Celsius
joule
joule
kilogram
metre
metre-
metre-
metre,
metre..
metre
metre/second
metre ^econd
metre ../second
metre ,/second
metre /second
newton
watt
ENGLISH TO METRIC
centistoke
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-
footZ
footAninute
foot /minute
foot-pound-force
gallon (U.S. liquid)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
inch-
inch
knot (international)
litre
pound force (Ibf avoir)
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
to
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-pound-force
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
foot
inch-
foot-
incri
gallon (U.S. liquid)
litre
foot/minute
knot
centistoke
foot /minute
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
metre /second
Celsius
joule
metre-,
metre
metre&econd
metre /second
joule -
metre,
metre /second
watt
metre-,
metre
metre/kecond
metre
newton
kilogram
Multiply by
t = (t -32)/1.8
17000 E+07
7.371 E-01
2.205 E+00
3.281 E+00
3.937 E+01
1.076 E+01
1.549 E-i-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 = (tp-32)/1.8
17000 E-07
3.048 E-01
9.290 E-02
5.080 E-03
4.719E-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
4.448 E+00
4.535 E-01
vu
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
rn
HC
m/s
crn
kg
kg/rn
rn /s
m
-metre
-harbor chop (confused sea) wave
-metre per second
-centimetre
-kilogram
-kilograms per metre
-square metres per second
-Newtons per metre
-cubic metres
SYMBOLS
V
*F
30
X
°c
-Critical No Oil Loss Tow Speed
-percent
-Job Order
-times
-degrees Celsius
-more than
Vlil
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This study is a continuation of sorbent boom testing previously carried out at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) under 3ob Order 41. The test objectives were
performance evaluation of the use of a sorbent raft at the apex of a catenary oil
containment boom and to try to recover oil from saturated sorbent boom sections by
squeezing the boom between two rollers. Rafts made of sorbent boom sections were
placed at the apex of conventional and sorbent oil containment booms.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of a sorbent raft inside the apex of a catenary, conventional oil-
containment boom failed to increase the maximum no-oil-loss tow speed of the
conventional boom. Maximum no-oil-loss tow speed decreased from 0.^3 m/s to 0.33
m/s in cairn water, and from 0.^6 m/s to 0.30 m/s in the 0.3 m HC wave for the B.F.
Goodrich PFX-18 boom used.
Increases in maximum no-oil-loss tow speeds were found using sorbent raft apex
sections. Conventional boom sides coupled with a sorbent raft apex section increased
no-oil-loss tow speed in calm water and 100% oil capacity from 0.25 m/s for a single
layer totally sorbent boom to 0.29 m/s for a four-layer sorbent raft apex section.
SimUar tests in the 0.3 m HC wave exhibited a no-oil-loss tow speed increase from 0
m/s to 0.22 m/s. Oil no longer was splashed over the sorbent raft at the apex as
occurred with the single layer sorbent boom. Loss of oil occurred mainly at the
attachment points of the sorbent raft to the conventional boom sides. Vortices formed
at these attachment points, causing oil drops to be lost under the sorbent raft.
Tests using an all sorbent boom with a five layer sorbent raft apex again caused
increases in no-oil-loss tow speeds over those of a single layer sorbent boom. Calm
water results increased from the Q-25 m/s for the single layer sorbent boom to 0.33
m/s, while an increase from 0 m/s for the single layer sorbent boom to 0.17 m/s was
found in the 0.3 m HC wave.
Tests using apex raft sections varying from one to five layers showed little
effect until three layers were used in the raft. No-oil-loss tow speed increased 0.05
m/s for each layer added to the apex raft for layers three, four, and five.
Regeneration of the used sorbent boom sections and recovery of the sorbed
fluid was attempted using a Petro-Trap wringer with a powered roller. The Petro-Trap
wringer (Figure 1) is designed to squeeze oil from sorbent pads. The rollers are
smooth, and tension is provided by springs on the top roller. Saturated boom sections
1. McCracken, W.E. Performance Testing of Selected Inland Oil Spill
Control Equipment. EPA-600/2-77-150, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, 1977. 113 pp.
2. Smith, G.F. Performance Testing of Selected Sorbent Booms.
EPA-600/7-78-219, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 35
pp.
-------
were weighed and then fed (pulled) between the rollers, and samples of the fluid
squeezed from the boom were taken. These attempts at boorn regeneration were
futile; the opening between the squeeze rollers was too small for the boom to pass
through easily, and the smooth rollers could not grip the oily boom sufficiently to feed
the boom between the rollers. Fluid-saturated boom sections contained 6 to 12 times
dry boom weight of an 85% oil content fluid. It should be noted that only the medium
viscosity, naphthenic oil was used in these tests; different oils will yield different
results.
Figure 1. Regeneration of saturated boom sections using a Petro-Trap wringer.
-------
SECTION 3
MATERIALS
The two sorbent booms tested during this program are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1. SORBENT BOOM SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacturer
Boom section
dimensions
diameter length
Sorbent type (cm) (m)
Weight
(kg/m)
Sorbed oil
capacity
(multiples of
boom weight)
3M Company
3M Center 53-4
St. Paul, MN
Conwed Corporation
332 Minnesota St.
St. Paul, MN
Polypropylene 20
Vegetable fiber 20
3.0
1.6
1.6
13-25
15-22
The 3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom (Figure 2) is an open-weave
polypropylene mesh bag filled with polypropylene fiber. The tension member consists
of a 0.95 crn diameter polypropylene rope connected by shackles and steel rings so that
the boom ends overlap.
The Conwed Corporation Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom (Figure 3) is made of a
vegetable fiber mat and a foam floatation strip sealed inside a polypropylene mesh
bag. Steel rings and snaps connect sections so that the ends overlap. A 0.95 cm
polypropylene rope is the tension member.
A straight grade naphthenic lubricating oil was used as the test fluid for this
test program. Ambient temperature during this program ranged from 20 C to 22.2 C.
Test fluid properties are shown below:
Viscosity
Specific Gravity
Surface Tension
262 centistokes @ 19.8 C
39 centistokes @ 53.3 C
0.927
33.5 dynes/cm
-------
"~"~ FTf>Cire""2T 3M Company Type 270 sorbent boorn.
Figure1 3. Conwed Corporation heavy duty sorbent boom.
5
-------
Inter facial Tension
% Water and Sediment
9.37 dynes/cm with OHMSETT tank water of
ppt salinity
0.1%
Regeneration of oil soaked boom sections was attempted by using a Petro-Trap
wringer available from Petro-Trap, Westport, MA 02790. The wringer is shown in
Figure 4 and 5.
Figure 4. Regeneration of oil-soaked boom sections.
Wringer unit was welded to a barrel top. Holes were cut in the barrel top,
allowing the liquid squeezed from the boom sections to drain into the barrel. An
overhead, 454 kg jib crane placed the saturated booms on a plywood table leading to
the wringer. A rope was tied to boom section end and threaded between the rollers.
Pulling on the rope started each boom section through the rollers. A 447 kw, 12 volt
electric motor is attached to the lower, tapered roller and was used in addition to four
people on the rope to pull each boom section through the regenerator.
-------
447 kw, 12V DC
Motor
18"
2Y*" Dia.
2 3/4" Dia.
2 1/4" Dia.
3 3/4" Dia.
Figure 5. Typical assembly of Petro-Trap wringer rollers.
-------
SECTION 4-
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
BOOM PERFORMANCE TESTS
Tests were conducted without oils first, to find the upper tow speed stability
limit for each boom. After establishing the wave conditions (if any) on the tank
surface, the boom was towed at increasing speed until the apex of the boom either
submerged enough so that water flowed over the boom. Tow speed was increased and
decreased 0.05 m/s around the limit to reconfirm its magnitude.
Tow tests with oil were similar to stability tests. An oil slick was placed on the
tank surface equivalent to twenty-five percent of the boom's maximum recommended
capacity. Oil was pumped from storage tanks on the main bridge through a meter to
an overflow weir distribution manifold. The manifold is a 15 cm pipe, ^.6 m long with
a 2.5 cm wide longitudinal slot near the top. Oil fills the pipe and flows out of the slot
onto a slash plate. A cloth flap attached to the splash plate allows the oU to flow
gently onto the water surface regardless of wave condition. The boom was then towed
at increasing speed until failure, first in calm water and then in waves. Failure was
defined to occur when oil loss was observed under, through, or over the boom sections.
If other modes of oil loss such as loss between sorbent sections at the attachment
points or at the points where the sorbent boom attached to the B.F. Goodrich boom
were observed; they were noted, but not used to determine critical tow speed.
Additional oil was then added to the slick to obtain 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the
boom's recommended capacity. Both cairn water and wave tests were conducted for
each oil and load level. Photographic documentation included 16-mm color movies and
35-mm color slides.
PHASE A
Phase A tests determined the effect of placing a raft made of sorbent boom
sections inside the apex of a conventional oil containment boom and increasing tow
speed until the oil preload began to be lost. A raft of ten sorbent boom sections (3.05
m per section) was tied inside the apex of a 63.1 m long B.F. Goodrich PFX-18 boom
deployed in a catenary configuration (Figure 6).
PHASE B
A sorbent raft replaced the conventional boom section at the catenary apex in
Phase B testing. This left four 6.09 m long conventional boom sections on each side.
Fourteen sorbent boom sections (^2.7 lineal metres) as shown in Figure 7 were used to
make the raft. Four sorbent boom rows were tied together with 10 mm polypropylene
rope. The first and third layer were made of four sorbent boom sections connected
end to end and the second and fourth rows were made of three sections. Polypropylene
-------
Oil Distribution Manifold
Main Bridge
Bridge
House
Tow Direction
Sorbent Boom Raft
10 Sections 3.05 m long
9 Sections of B.F. Boodrich
18 PFX Seaboom, 6.09 m long
Auxiliary Bridge
Figure 6. Boom configuration for Phase A testing.
9
-------
Main Bridge
I
Oil Distribution Manifold
Bridge
House
Tow Direction
Four sections of B.F. Goodrich
18 PFX Seaboom, 7.01 m long on
each side
14 Sections of
Sorbent Boom,
3.05 m long
Auxiliary Bridge
Figure 7. Boom configuration for Phase D testing.
10
-------
rope was also used to attach the first row of the sorbent raft to the conventional boom
ends. The first row of the sorbent boom raft overlapped the down current side of the
conventional boom by 0.6 meter to minimize joint leakage.
PHASE C
Phase C tests were performed using a 64 m long, single row, sorbent boom in a
catenary configuration. An eighteen section sorbent boom raft was attached to the
back of the apex as shown in Figure 8.
BOOM REGENERATION TESTS
Upon completion of the towing tests, those sections of each sorbent boom
judged to be most highly saturated were weighed and then pulled through the Petro-
Trap wringer. The fluid recovered was analyzed to determine the percent of
recoverable oil. The weight of the dry boom was subtracted from the weight of the
saturated boom to determine the weight of fluid picked up.
11
-------
Oil Distribution Manifold
36 sections of
Sorbent Boom, 3.05 m long
Auxiliary Bridge
Figure 8. Boom configuration for Phase C testing
12
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results for all tests are shown in Tables 3 through 8. Oil loss generally
occurred as oil droplets entrained in the water passing under the boom in Phase A
testing and all harbor chop tests. Calm water tests in Phases B and C exhibited oil
losses as a surface slick. Oil appeared on the downstream side not as droplets rising to
the surface, but as a surface slick passing under the boom sections.
Phase A testing, utilizing sorbent rafts in conjunction with the B.F. Goodrich
PFX-1S containment boom, showed an overall decrease in maximum no-oil-loss tow
speed in both calm water and the HC wave when compared to results for the B.F.
Goodrich boom alone. The sorbent raft generated oil drops when it struck the B.F.
Goodrich boom. These drops were then swept under the sorbent raft and the B.F.
Goodrich boom.
Phase B tests using B.F. Goodrich containment boom sides and a sorbent raft at
the ape* exhibited increased no-oil-loss tow speeds in calm water, but no change in HC
waves. Using a raft of Conwed Corporation Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom as the apex
section caused an average increase of 0.08 m/s in calm water and a 3M Company Type
270 Sorbent Boom raft showed an average increase of 0.03 m/s. Oil loss generally
occurred at the points where the sorbent raft apex section was attached to the
conventional boom sides. Sorbent boom sections of the raft were overlapped on the
aft side of the conventional boom for 3 metres, but turbulence from currents near the
end of the conventional boom caused oil droplets to be driven down into the water and
under the boom.
Tests in Phase C using sorbent boom for the sides along with a sorbent raft at
the boom apex showed increased no-oil-loss tow speeds in calm water and decreased
no-oil-loss tow speeds in the HC wave. Conwed Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom used in
Phase C effected an average increase of 0.13 m/s in calm water with the 3M Type 270
boom generating an average increase of 0.14 m/s, also in calm water. In the 0.3-m HC
wave, decreases of 0.05 m/s were found with both booms. Oil was lost by sorbent
boom sections in the raft section striking each other in the harbor chop wave. Oil
drops were squeezed out of the sorbent sections and driven down into the water by the
turbulence caused by the waves and the boom sections colliding.
Tests were performed to determine the effect of changes in the number of rows
added to the sorbent raft. Table 2 gives the results,obtained in Phase C testing, using
Conwed Sorbent Boom, cairn water, and 0.97 m of oil. No-oil-loss tow speed
increased only after more than three rows were used to form the raft. Up to five rows
were used to form the raft, and the fourth and fifth rows increased the maximum no-
oil-loss tow speed by 0.05 m/s for each row.
13
-------
TABLE 2. RESULTS OF ADDED ROWS TO SORBENT RAFT
Raft rows
1
2
3
4
5
No-oil-loss tow speed (m/s)
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.30
- poorly rigged
Regeneration of saturated boom sections was unsuccessfully attempted using
the Petro-Trap wringer. Difficulty was encountered in forcing the boom sections
between the wringer rollers. No more than one metre of any boom section could be
pulled through the wringer rollers at a time, and then only with several people
assisting the regenerator's motor to pull the boom through the rollers (Figure 1).
Samples of the fluid recovered by this operation were analyzed for oiL and water
content. Conwed Sorbent boom sections contained 18.3 kg/m or 2.03nru/rn of fluid
containing 84% oil and 3M Sorbent boom contained 11.2 kg/m or 1.2m /m of fluid
containing 85% oil. Due to the small amount of sorbent boom squeezed, these results
cannot and should not be considered to represent the oil content or total fluid volume
of the entire sorbent boom or sorbent raft.
-------
TABLE 3. 3M COMPANY TYPE 270 SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
Test
no.
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
6A
7A
8A
9A
10A
11 A
12A
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Oil quantity
3 %of
m capacity
0
0
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
1.17
1.17
1.51
1.51
1.89
1.89
0
0
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
125
125
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V Type of
m/s failure
0.89
0.89
0.48
0.41
0.43
0.41
0.36
0.43
0.30
0.30
0.33
0.30
submergence.
submergence.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
Comments
Turbulence caused by
sorbent raft sections
causes oil to form droplets
and be swept under
boom skirt.
-------
TABLE it. 3M COMPANY TYPE 270 SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
.
Test
no.
IB
2B
3B
^B
5B
6B
7B
8B
9B
10B
11B
12B
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Oil quantity
%of
m capacity
0
0
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
1.17
1.17
1.51
1.51
1.89
1.89
0
0
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
125
125
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V Type of
m/s C failure
1.02
1.02
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
submergence.
splashover .
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boorn.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
slick under boorn.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
Comments
Ends of Goodrich boom
submerged
Vortices formed at
end of Goodrich boom
throwing droplets under
raft
-------
TABLE 5. 3M COMPANY TYPE 270 SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
"~"L '"~'-~ ' """ """ -' L "' '"' """ "' " " " " '" ' - --~"r -""-- --1------11 -" --i«_--.:. «-:..- .- - 1 - ..- _"ll_. -,r _ ^-,-nL-lrujr-,, --»_--,,-_-. _n JU- --- ,«...._-.._».-- u." J_.-T.:. .T, ,1.-..-,--.- .- _...- 1. T
Test
no.
1C
1C
3C
4C
5C
6C
7C
8C
9C
IOC
11C
12C
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Oil quantity
3 %of
m capacity
0
0
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
1.17
1.17
1.51
1.51
1.89
1.89
0
0
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
125
125
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V
m/s C
over 1.02
over 1.02
0.46
0.15
0.33
0.15
0.33
0.10
0.41
0.10
0.38
0.13
Type of
failure Comments
slick under boom.
droplet shed. Waves cause raft sections
to hit each other producing
turbulence and driving
oil droplets under boom.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
slick under boom.
droplet shed.
-------
TABLE 6. CONWED SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
Test
no.
13A
14A
15A
16A
17A
ISA
19A
20 A
21A
22A
23A
24A
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Oil quantity
3 %of
m capacity
0.27
0.27
0.54
0.5**
0.81
0.81
1.08
1.08
1.35
1.35
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
25
25
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V Type of
m/s failure Comments
0.81
0.71
0.43
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.36
0.36
raft driven under Goodrich Boom.
raft driven under Goodrich Boom.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
-------
TABLE 7. CONWED SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
- - ' - -
Test
no.
13B
14B
15B
16B
17B
18B
19B
20B
21B
22B
23B
24B
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Oil quantity
3 %of
m capacity
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
1.1*
1.1*
1.51
1.51
1.89
1.89
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
125
125
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V Type of
m/s failure Comments
0.91
0.86
0.36
0.25
0.33
0.25
0.36
0.25
0.30
0.15
0.36
0.15
ends of Goodrich Boom Submerge.
ends of Goodrich Boom Submerge.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet loss
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet loss
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
-------
TABLE 8. CONWED SORBENT BOOM RESULTS
M
O
. - . -
Test
no.
13C
14C
15C
16C
17C
18C
19C
20C
21C
22C
23C
2*C
25C
26C
27C
28C
29C
Wave
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
0.3 m HC
Calm
Calm
Calm
Oil quantity
%of
m capacity
0.97
0.97
1.93
1.93
2.89
2.89
3.86
3.86
4.83
4.83
0.62
0.72
0.86
25
25
50
50
75
75
100
100
125
125
25
25
25
Maximum no
loss tow
speed - V Type of
m/s failure Comments
0.91
0.86
0.30
0.20
0.36
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.91
0.86
0.10
0.20
0.25
raft folds over. five layer raft.
raft submarines.
slick under boorn.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
droplet shed.
slick under boom
droplet shed.
boom sections totally saturated after
20C.
boom sections totally saturated after
20C.
boom sections totally saturated after
20C.
boom sections totally saturated after
20C.
raft folds over. two layer raft.
raft submarines, two layer raft.
slick under boom, failure due to
rigging - rerigged,
layer raft.
slick under boom, three layer raft.
slick under boom, four layer raft.
test
test
test
test
poor
two
-------
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT TEST FACILITY
Figure A-l. OHMSETT Test Facility.
GENERAL
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operating an Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) located in Leonardo, 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 spills.
The primary feature of the facility is pile-supported, concrete tank with a
water surface 203 meters long by 20 meters wide and with a water depth of 2.4
meters. The tank can be filled with fresh or salt water. The tank is spanned by a
bridge capable of exerting a force up to 151 kilonewtons, towing floating equipment at
speeds to 3 meters/second for at least 45 seconds. Slower speeds yield longer test
runs. The towing bridge is equipped to lay oil or hazardous materials on the surface of
21
-------
the water several meters 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 meter high and to 28.0 meters long, as well as a series of 1.2
meters 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
meter/second diatomaceous 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 has a built-in
skimming barrier 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 9842 cubic meters 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 meters 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
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
FPA-finn/?-fii- /b>%
4. TITTTfe AND STJ8TTTLE
DEPLOYMENT CONFIGURATIONS FOR IMPROVED OIL CONTAIN! 1ENT
WITH SELECTED SORBEW BOOMS
7. AUTHOR(S)
Gary F. Smith
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 117
Leonardo, NJ 07737
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION»NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 19&1
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT t<
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 BB041
11, CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2642
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERE
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: John S. Farlow (201) 321-6631
16. ABSTRACT
Performance tests on three catenary oil containment configurations using sorbent
booms sections alone and in conjuction with a conventional containment boom,
were conducted at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (U.S. EPA OHMSETT). Other test variables
included wave condition, tow speed, and oil' quantity encountered. Maximum no-
oil-loss containment tow speed was determined for each wave and oil quantity tested.
The use of an all-sorbent boom with a multi-layer sorbent raft at the apex
exhibited average increases in no-oil-loss tow speed of 0.13 m/s over previous
results using a single layer boom in calm water.
Use of a sorbent raft inside the apex of a conventional containment boom
increased turbulence and caused oil loss at lower speeds than use of the conventional
boom alone. No-oil-loss tow speeds using the sorbent boom raft at the boom apex
also decreased from previous results using a single layer sorbent boom in the
0.3-m harbor chop wave. Loss was due to increased turbulence from raft sections
striking each other from the wave action.
Recovery of sorbed fluid and regeneration of the boom sections was unsuccessfully
attempted using a commercially available sorbent and wringer.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Performance Tests
Booms (equipment)
Sorbents
Water Pollution
Oils
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Spilled Oil Cleanup
Sorbent Oil Booms
Sorbent Regeneration
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
31
i
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9*73)
------- |