600282088
TESTING VACUUM AND AIR CONVEYOR SYSTEMS
FOR OIL SPILL RECOVERY
by
Donald C. Gates and Kevin M. Corradino
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
Contract No. 68-03-3056
Project Officer
Richard A. Griffiths
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
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.
-------
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 the testing of truck-mounted vacuum and air conveyor
systems for recovering spilled oil. Based on results presented here, more efficient
operating techniques can be developed for use of these trucks at oil spills. The
methods, results, and techniques described are of interest to those responsible for
specifying, using or testing oil spill cleanup 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, Ohio 45268
in
-------
ABSTRACT
Two different vacuum truck designs were evaluated for oil recovery perfor-
mance at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) facility, in September 1980. These
were a Vactor Model 2045 air conveyor design made by the Meyers-Sherman Company
and a standard vacuum truck made by Coleman Environmental and Pollution Control
Equipment Co., Inc. Changes in recovery efficiency and oil recovery rate were found
while varying oil slick thickness, oil viscosity, hose length, and air pump speed for the
trucks. The air conveyor was additionally tested using different suction hose heights
above the slick.
The air conveyor tests resulted in an average oil recovery rate of 4.4 m /hr and
a 61% oil recovery efficiency. Efficient recovery of thin oil slicks appears to be an
advantage of air conveyors. Tests of the standard design vacuum truck produced an
average oil recovery rate of 2.4 m^/hr and an 18% oil recovery efficiency. Standard
vacuum trucks seem particularly suited to recovery of thick slicks. The addition of
skimmer attachments, in lieu of a simple hose intake, was evaluated during this test
program and was found to increase recovery efficiency without affecting oil recovery
rate.
This report was submitted under Job Order No. 80 in partial fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-03-3056, by Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. Inc. under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period of
September 19, 1980 through September 26, 1980. Work on this report was completed
3une 4, 1982.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
List of Conversions vii
Acknowledgment viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 5
3. Test Apparatus and Procedure 9
k. Results and Discussion 10
References 28
Appendices
A. OHMSETT Test Facility 29
B. Properties of OHMSETT Test Oils and Tank Water 31
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Air conveyor operation schematic 3
2 Vacuum truck illustration . 4
3 Air conveyor with 14.3 hose length 6
4 Handling vacuum truck suction hose 7
5 Air conveyor RE vs blower speed - all oils and slick thicknesses 8
6 Vacuum truck in operation 13
7 Air conveyor RE vs hose-to-water distance - all oils and
slick thicknesses 14
8 Hose-to-water suction cone, air conveyor 15
9 Air conveyor RE vs. slick thickness 16
10 Air conveyor ORR vs. hose-to-water distance - all oils and slick
thicknesses 17
11 Air conveyor ORR vs blower speed - all oils and slick thicknesses 18
12 Air conveyor ORR vs. slick thickness - all oils 19
13 Vacuum truck RE vs. blower speed - all oils 20
14 Vacuum truck RE vs. slick thickness - all oils 21
15 Vacuum truck ORR vs. blower speeds - all oils 22
16 Vacuum truck ORR vs. slick thickness 23
17 I.M.E. Swiss OELA III skimming head 24
18 The Oil Spider skimming head 24
19 Vacuum truck RE vs. slick thickness - all oils 25
20 Vacuum truck ORR vs. slick thickness - all oils 26
21 Air conveyor truck in operation 27
TABLES
1 Test Matrix 2
2 Best and Worst Test Results - Air Conveyor 10
3 Best and Worst Test Results - Vacuum Truck 11
4 Test Results - Air Conveyor 12
5 Test Results - Vacuum Truck 12
VI
-------
LIST OF CONVERSIONS
METRIC TO ENGLISH
To convert from
Celsius
joule
joule
kilogram
meter
meter.-
meter.-
meter-
meter _
meter
meter/second
meter/second
meter-/second
meter /second
meter /second
newton
watt
ENGLISH TO METRIC
centistoke
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot
foot
footAninute
foot /minute
foot-pound-force
gallon (U.S. liquid)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
inch_
inchz
knot (international)
liter
pound force (Ibf avoir)
pound -m ass, (Ibm avoir)
pound/foot
to
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-pound-force
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
foot
inch
foot,
incri
gallon (U.S. liquid)
liter
foot/minute
knot
centistoke
foot /minute
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
meter /second
Celsius
joule
meter_
meter
meter ^second
meter /second
joule ,
meter-
meter /second
watt
meter,
meter
meter£second
meter
newton
kilogram
pascal
Multiply by
t = (t_-32)/1.8
1.000 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 = (tp-32)/1.8
1.000 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
4.448 E+00
4.535 E-01
4.788 E+01
*!*»,.•
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Assistance and technical guidance by Axxon Industrial, Inc. and Olsen &
Hassold, Inc. are gratefully acknowledged. Funding for this project was provided by
U.S. EPA through Mr. Richard A. Griffiths, OHMSETT Project Officer. His aid and
advice were greatly appreciated. The test plan was designed and executed by
Mr. Gary F. Smith, who was the test engineer for this program. The dedication of the
OHMSETT staff in performing this test program made this report possible.
VIII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Vacuum systems are one of the most commonly used pieces of equipment at oil
spills. They are mobile, simple to operate, and generally complete skimming systems.
Two types of vacuum systems are available: air conveyors and vacuum trucks. Air
conveyors are more costly than vacuum trucks. Air conveyors use a large diameter
hose (typically greater than 15 cm) and a high flowrate of air to convey material into a
collection tank (Figure 1). Air conveyors require that the suction hose inlet remain
above the material being picked up so an adequate air flow can be maintained.
Vacuum trucks use smaller diameter hose (typically 7.6 cm) and a low volume bJower
to evacuate a truck-mounted collection tank (Figure 2). The hose inlet must be placed
in or on top of the material being recovered because the air flow in the hose is not
sufficient to air-convey material up the hose. The owners have suggested that vacuum
trucks may also be efficient in transferring recovered oil from primary recovery
devices to final storage/reclamation sites.
These two systems were tested at the U.S Environmental Protection Agency's
Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (see Appendix A)
during the period 19-26 September 1980. A Vactor Model 2045 air conveyor truck
manufactured by Meyers-Sherman Company, Streator, Illinois and operated by the
owner, Axxon Industrial Corporation, Iselin, New Jersey was evaluated. Olsen &
Hassold, Inc. of Paterson, New Jersey supplied a vacuum truck made by Coleman
Environmental & Pollution Control Equipment Co., Inc., East Patchogue, New York.
Twenty-four calm water tests and one harbor chop test were planned during a
5Xz-day period—13 air conveyor tests and 11 vacuum truck tests (Table 1). System
performance was evaluated using recovery efficiency and oil recovery rate. Recovery
efficiency, RE, is defined as the oil volume recovered divided by the oil and water
volume recovered, multiplied by 100. Oil recovery rate, ORR, is the oil volume
recovered divided by the recovery time. Changes in RE and ORR were measured with
varying slick thickness, oil viscosity, hose length, and blower speed for both air
conveyor and vacuum trucks. Air conveyors were also evaluated for various hose
heights above the oil slick.
-------
TABLE 1. TEST MATRIX
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9*
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22**
23**
24**
25
Oil
type
(L,H)
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
System
type
(A,V)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Slick
thickness
(mm)
2
12
12
12
25
25
25
25
25
25
12
25
25
25
2
12
25
25
25
12
12
12
25
25
25
Wave
condition
calm
calm
calm
cairn
calm
calm
calm
calm
0.3m HC
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
Blower
speed
(rpm)
1100
1100
1450
1800
1100
14.50
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1100
1450
1800
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1500
1500
2300
1500
1500
1500
Hose
length
(m)
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
14.3
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
32.0
6.1
61.0
61.0
61.0
9.1
9.1
Hose
diameter
(cm)
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
HC = Harbor chop wave condition
L = Light oil, low viscosity
H = Heavy oil, high viscosity
A = Air conveyor t'ruck
V = Vacuum truck
Note: * Test 9 was not performed
Test 22, 23, and 24 incorporated skimmer heads
-------
Oil and Air
E
0)
.c
u
U)
c
g
*-•
ro
0)
a
o
o
0)
o
u
i_
<
0)
i,
3
cn
il
-------
o
CO
E
3
3
u
(D
CM
OJ
3
Dl
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The air conveyors recovered spilled oil at about twice the rate of the vacuum
truck and with three times the efficiency. Use of air conveyors is especially
recommended with thin spills or with highly viscous products. The vacuum truck
appeared more suited to recovery at spills where thick slicks were present or for
transporting recovered products from temporary storage at the spill to a final disposal
site. Air conveyors are difficult to pump out unless a pit is available as they typically
unload like a dump truck. Additional testing will be required to reconfirm the results
obtained and to provide additional data to establish trends at a variety of conditions.
One must be careful before using the equipment to inspect it for holes in the
tank or hoses and for contamination caused by residue from a previous cleanup.
Difficulty can also be anticipated in deploying and handling long lengths of the large
diameter hose used on air conveyors, although a wheel-mounted hose support system is
of some help. Figure 3 shows handling of air conveyor hose; Figure 4 illustrates
handling vacuum suction hose. Addition of a pipe tap in the tank bottom is suggested
to aid in emptying an air conveyor truck.
Air Conveyor
Air conveyor results show an average recovery rate for all tests of 4.4
and an oil recovery efficiency of 61%. Adding hose sections will increase the recovery
efficiency while decreasing the oil recovery rate. No significant performance changes
were found due to viscosity changes. Low blower speeds produced the best recovery
efficiency on thin slicks and high blower speeds worked best on thick slicks (Figure 5).
Blower speed variations had little effect on ORR values. An increase in slick
thickness increased ORR without affecting RE.
Addition of an outlet in the tanks of air conveyors to allow for removal of the
free water and oil is recommended. The truck tested was'only equipped with one valve
for removing liquid above solids which had settled on the tank bottom. Addition of a
float level indicator in the tank would aid operators in determining the amount of
recovered fluid in the tank. Development and testing of skimming heads is needed to
further increase the recovery efficiency of air conveyors. These heads will also be
needed to recover oil slicks effectively in waves. This improvement was not tested
during this program due to the incompatibility of the available skimmers with air
conveyor hose.
Vacuum Truck
The average oil recovery rate for all vacuum truck tests was 2.4 m3/hr with an
18% oil RE. Recovery efficiency increased with blower speed, but no significant
-------
changes were found for various hose lengths, oil viscosities, or slick thicknesses. Oil
recovery rate was unaffected by blower speed or hose length. An increase in test oil
viscosity slightly decreased ORR, while increasing the slick thickness increased ORR.
Placing simple, weir-type skimmers at the end of the inlet hose doubled the RE
without affecting ORR. Floating skimmers appeared to respond to waves better than
a man holding the hose in the slick.
Vacuum trucks seem particularly suited for use in thick slicks and with
skimmers attached to the inlet for increased RE. Testing with additional skimmers is
recommended to determine applicability and performance. Large amounts of water
can be expected in the recovered fluid unless the slick is thick or the oil viscous.
'
-------
Figure 4. Handling of vacuum truck suction hose.
-------
1
*
1
•
1
i
1
1
1 *
HHHHHH
OOOOO O
HH- >-!->->-
§§S§S5
oooooo
HHHHHH
+ ^
1
/
*
/
•
/
•
>op
/
V
/\
\
cocococococo -1; 0 O
6 E 6 6 E E \ \
E E E 6 £ E \\
CVJ CM CM if) LO — \ .
CM CM O \i
I 1 1 1 1 1 \
<3 n <> + 0 * \\
±
X
\ \
\
\
*
< tan
\
J_
_L
_L
X
_L
O
00
CO
a
UJCO
CLUJ
coco
CO
QiLU
UJZ
00
-JH
CQH
l-
6 >0
CL •*
®6 Sco
•a
UJ
CL
CO
o:
UJ
o
CQ
0^^0^0al 36 ss 0/1 39 03
as ee 31
LO
UJ
>co
Z_J
OH
00
LO
CP
-------
SECTION 3
TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
TEST APPARATUS
Vacuum Trucks
Each truck is equipped with a skimming hose, pump, and storage tank. Standard
vacuum trucks use a low blower speed to evacuate a pressure vessel with a capacity of
1.1 to 20.8 m3 (300 to 5500 gallons) to about 7.2 kPa (29" of water) vacuum. The open
inlet hose end is placed in the oil slick and the valve opened to the evacuated pressure
tank. Atmospheric pressure pushes the oil up the hose into the tank. The system will
lose vacuum rapidly if the hose end draws air. Tank contents are emptied through the
inlet by pressurizing the tank using the blower in reverse.
Air Conveyors
Air conveyors use high volume capacity blowers to create 2.5 kPa (10" of water)
vacuum to pull air, liquid, or loose material (e.g. bricks) through a large 152 to 305 mm
(6 to 12") diameter duct hose into an enclosed dump-type truck. The blower is
protected from particulates and liquids by cyclonic separators and/or a baghouse on
the truck. Typically, particles over 200 microns diameter are removed with the
blower filter. Recovered material may be offloaded using a hinged rear door to dump
the entire contents or liquids may be pumped out using a pipe tap, typically 127 mm
(5"), in the rear door.
TEST PROCEDURES
Oil slicks of various thicknesses were pumped onto the surface of salt water in
the tank in the area between the main and auxiliary bridge skimming booms (area
approximately 35k m^). A vacuum truck or an air conveyor truck was parked on the
west deck of the tank. (See Figure 6.) The suction hose was then positioned to
recover the oil slick while contending with various hose lengths, oil viscosities, blower
speeds, and hose skimming heads. Men equipped with fire hoses were used to thicken
the slicks as necessary. Oil recovery data was obtained after pumping the recovered
fluid from the truck collection tank to the auxiliary bridge recovery tanks with an
OHMSETT-supplied 3-inch WiJden double-diaphragm air-operated pump. The volume
of recovered fluid was determined by measuring the height of fluid in each recovery
tank with a dipstick. The water was then stripped off and the residual oil volume
measured. Collected oil samples were taken with a stratified sample thief. The
samples were then analyzed in the laboratory to determine oil and water recovery
volumes for calculating recovery efficiency and oil recovery rate. Appendix B gives
properties of test oils used and OHMSETT tank water. Still 35-mm photographs and
16-mm motion pictures were used to record the events.
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
AIR CONVEYORS
Recovery efficiency for the air conveyor ranged from a low of 28% oil to a high
of 86%. Average RE was 61%. Increasing the length of the hose on the air conveyor
from 7.6 m to 14.3 m raised the RE to 72% (compare results of Tests 10 and 14 as
shown in Table 4) but lowered the ORR to 5.2 m-^/hr. A large amount of fluid
discharged from the 14.3-m long hose when the blower was shut off, indicating that
some of the fluid recovered was held on the bottom of the slightly inclined intake pipe
instead of being sucked up by the air flow. RE peaked when the intake hose was 9.5
cm above the water, as shown in Figure 7. The suction cone is illustrated in Figure 8.
This is an important observation for future design of floating heads. Tests using low
blower speeds gave best RE results for thin slicks (12 mm) while high blower speeds
gave best RE results with the thicker slicks (25 mm). RE proved to be nearly
independent of oil viscosity and slick thickness (Figure 9).
Results for oil recovery rate ranged from 0.4 to 7.8 m^/hr. Average ORR was
4.4 m^/hr. Oil recovery rate appears to be independent of hose-to-slick vertical
separation, until a distance of 9.5 cm is reached, at which point it drops (Figure 10).
Blower speed and oil viscosity showed no significant effects on ORR (Figure 10). The
ORR increased as the slick thickness increased, see Figure 11. Table 2 displays results
of 3 specific tests selected from the 14 performed. These three tests relate best and
worst performance achieved at OHMSETT.
TABLE 2. BEST AND WORST PERFORMANCE - AIR CONVEYOR
RE
ORR
m3/hr
Hose
height*
cm
Hose
length _
m
Slick
thickness
mm
Blower
speed
rpm
Best
performance
Worst RE
Worst ORR
85.4
27.7
62
7.8
6.9
0.4
9.5
5.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
25
25
2
1800
1100
1100
*Represents distance of hose end above the water surface
10
-------
VACUUM TRUCK
The vacuum truck is shown operating in Figure 6. Recovery efficiency for
vacuum trucks ranged from 5 to 40% oil with an average of 18%. Tests plotted in
Figure 13 show that RE increased slightly as blower speed increased. No significant
changes in RE were observed as a result of varying hose lengths. As the slick
thickness was increased, the RE showed a greater increase with heavy oil than with
light oil, as shown in Figure 14.
Oil recovery rate ranged from 0.5 to 3.9 m^/hr with an average of 2.4 m^/hr
and was not significantly affected by blower speed (Figure 15). Heavy oil caused a
slight decrease in ORR; but an increase in slick thickness increased ORR as seen in
Figure 16.
Two different weir skimmers were tested with the vacuum truck to determine
if they would increase recovery efficiency. These were selected because of previous
work; see references. These were the I.M.E. Swiss OELA III skimmer (see Figure 17)
and an OHMSETT design called the Oil Spider (shown in Figure 18). Using the I.M.E.
skimmer in a 25 mm slick resulted in a doubling of the RE (Figure 19) with no
significant change in ORR (Figure 20). The Oil Spider performed similarly in a 12 mm
slick of heavy oil.
Table 3 displays actual test results for the standard vacuum truck. One of the
eleven tests resulted in low performance for both RE and ORR. In contrast, the one
air conveyor test that indicated low ORR resulted in a relatively high RE (see Table
2).
TABLE 3. BEST AND WORST PERFORMANCE - VACUUM TRUCK
RE
(%)
Best
performance* 40
Worst
performance** 5
*Heavy oil
**Light oil
ORR
(m3/hr)
3.5
0.5
Hose
length
(m)
61
6.1
Slick
thickness
(mm)
25
2
Blower
speed
(rpm)
1500
1200
Skimmer
I.M.E.
None
Tables 4 and 5 list the calculated performance for both type trucks based on the
fixed variables proposed in the original test matrix.
-------
TABLE 4. TEST RESULTS - AIR CONVEYOR
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
Wave
cond.
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
0.3 m HC
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
Slick
thick.
(mm)
2
12
12
12
25
25
25
25
Oil
type
(L,H)
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
RE
(%)
62
52
66
50
28
77
86
85
ORR
(m3/hr)
0.4
2.8
2.4
3.1
6.9
4.2
4.9
7.8
Blower
speed
(rpm)
1100
1100
1450
1800
1100
1450
1800
1800
Hose
length
(m)
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
Hose
height*
(cm)
7.6
10.2
10.2
0.2
5.7
10.2
9.5
9.5
cancelled
25
12
31
25
25
H
H
H
H
H
*Represents distance of hose end
Test
no.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-- 22 1
232
' 2k2
- 25
Wave
cond.
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
TABLE
Slick
thick.
(mm)
2
12
25
25
25
12
12
12
25
25
25
5. TEST
Oil
type
(L,H)
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
72
54
49
50
59
above
5.2
3.2
4.5
6.1
5.9
1800
1800
1100
1450
1800
14.3
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
9.5
8.9
7.6
7.6
9.5
the water surface
RESULTS - VACUUM
RE
(%)
5
10
15
16
19
18
10
19
40
30
19
ORR
(m3/hr)
0.5
1.8
3.7
3.9
3.2
1.1
1.6
1.3
3.5
2.6
2.9
Blower
speed
(rpm)
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1500
1500
2300
1500
1500
1500
TRUCK
Hose
length
(m)
6.1
6.1
6.1
61.0
32.0
6.1
61.0
61.0
61.0
9.1
9.1
1 OHMSETT Spider skimmer
2 I.M.E. Swiss OELA III skimmer
12
-------
Figure 6. Vacuum truck in operation,
13
-------
£ O QD
/
n • -n
dddridd
QOQOOO
\
\
\
HLJUJHHUJ
_J X X -I -I I
.
000000
HHHHHH
_l -J _l -J -I -I
CO CO CO CO CO (O
\
\
\
\
E £
£ £
£ £ £ £
£ £ £ E
\
\
\
L/) LO CM CM CM—
CMCM — —CO
i I I 1 I I
< n o + o *
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
E
0
UJ
O
COl-
co
H
01
UJ
UJ
CO
o
X
UJ
o
z
<
CO
H
a
UJ
-<
UJ
>co
Z_l
OH
00
H.
CO
L.
31 t 001 06 08 0£ 09 0S 0> 08 0S 01
0
-------
j^-^-^^Sr-^Q^s
.^^^iKS^^jS^Sy
Figure 8. Hose-to-water suction cone, air conveyor.
15
-------
/•
/
i
1
1
^i <3 tin i n n ^
• i
I \ I
; \ \
\
\ •
1 ; «
; x «
i-« i \
HH I
00 \ \
H~ >~ " \
§< ^ *
H UJ \ i
-IX \ J
• i
11 \ \
< a » !
• *
\ i
i
i
i
i
{
i
i i i i j j i i i i
081 36 88 3Z. 89 3S 8V 8S 88 31
0
CO
CO
CO
UJ
•z.
If) M
CM O
H
X
w
0
M
_J
CO
cxiQ
J >
co y
CO °^
UJ
~y f^f
& o
WW UJ
— £ >co
v/ oo
t-> ^ ,
Hfx J
j^J ^1
CO «
*•
0)
I.
CJ
iZ
LO
<^r^
3®
16
-------
OOOOOO
H- f— I- >->->-
xm:>»
OJtOCD<«
HMMUJLUUJ
OOOOOO
MHHHHH
___
COO) (O V)
e e E e g e
e e e e e e
in CM cv w
£
U
UJ
o
z
00
a
tx.
Id
O
UJ
CO
O
UJ
o
H
Q
UJ
1 LU
1 UJ
LJZ
00
•H-
O
C£_J
oco
O 2
UJ
OH
OO
0
I.
o>
.LO
/ SH313W OrSTCD 31 Vy AH3ACJ03a HO
17
-------
: I
! I
: i i
_l_J_l_t_l_»
HHHHHH
OOOOOO
F- h- >- H >- >-
HHUJHUJUJ
J-JIC Jxi
uooooo
HHHHHH
-J_J_I_I_I_I
CO COCO CO CO CO
6 E E 6 E E
E E E 6 6 e
C\J C\J CM U> LO —
CUCMCO
I I I I 1 I
< a o + o *
-0 ++ ^
, \
• 1
\
*
\
1 »
\
V
\
»
\
6 I {i
*
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
/
t
* D <•
'
Q
00
a
-Q
UJ
a.
CO
1
o
DQ
i
"•—
"^^
CO
UJ
LJ
CLtO
tOUJ
CO
QiCO
UJLU
O §
_JO
OQH
cof
o
oto
a:cx
CONVEYO
OILS AN
01 -I
^ ^
—
9 -
U '
O
31 6
tro
18
-------
p
* m
/
*
/
/
^ ^ \ LuJ *3 ^
\ »
• \\
i \N
. \ •
1 \\
, \»
^
^ \
HH \
OO \
SI *\
H UJ \\
VT \
< n \ \x
\\
LjJ ^ ^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
<]
i i i t ( i i i i
8 L Q S * £ Z I
(9
CO
(/>
CO
UJ
o3 i
H
j—
f J
M
_
^9 CO*
3 >
co a:
CO Q
UJ
§ ^
LOH S
"f ^!3
S So
H Ql_l
-J M_l
C/J ^f ^f
®
._
CM
— *
4)
L
3
O>
ul
LO
8^
/
3i.vy
iro
19
-------
_____
HHHHH
OQQOQ
HHUJMUJ
ooooo
HHHHH
_I_J_J_I_I
COCOCO W05
E E E E E
E E E E E
OOOJCMWU)
-- OJCJ
I 1 I I I
-------
D D
MH
OQ
HUJ
_JI
I I
< n
J?vrfl
| EJ1 SJ
\
•
I
•
I
1
I
i i
• i
i
\
m
\
I
i
\
t
i
i
•
LO
(M
w
£
CO
CO
UJ
^
o
M
£*~
O
•J
CO
CO
CO
UJ
z
0
H
1*^
0
M
to
CO
UJ
Q£
v^
0
O
HCO
S^
0_J
X
••
ID a
_L
06 88
09 03
0S 03 01 0
CJO
4>
U
CD
21
-------
____
HHHHH
OOQOQ
I— h- >-!->-
OOXCJX
HHUJHOJ
_iJ:n Jx
ooooo
MHHHH
_I_I_J-J_I
CO CO CO WCO
e e e e e
e s e s E
c\j cv c\j to u>
CO CM
1 I I I I
< u <> •»• o
O OO O <>
-H-
D
CM
CO
CS
03
a
to
S
u
CL
I
o
OQ
CO
Qi
01
Q
ui B
ft- (V
« HCO
"3 §d
CO ><
3i
22
-------
*\T
%
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
i \ \
! \ »
i \ \
1 U
Fid \ \
00 * \
{->- \ \
x> i •
•y u ^
1
*
\
\
\
1
t
t
t
I
I
»
t
»
»
t -
t
t
t
I
\
I
\
\
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " J
LO
CM
CO
CO
UJ
v^
0
H
® f-
CM
%
H
CO
r: co
^L« ^^
LO^ ^
»- CO Q
UJ
z ^
s s
H c£
3Z I— CO
1- -I
5^ §O
(_^ "^
H 0_J
^CO ><
•*
iro
23
-------
LMJO^4±l-^J»p--i^:
•,.g^^SJr^T^\.^^je/ZJ^=g-r^*''"v>•-'"•«'S§S:2?'!»./i'*.±itii&:*':,"CrIV:• * '-"-•";->"
S^SSl^^pf®;®::'
^?I^4u??^>5i?? ^^'''W^&v^^i'« A 3^^^-^^r v: '• " -•-•-'-
;• fi...-.*•>a*fef£rf tf •r?l:.«g8fla-*"--;g!v£'V'^8 vTaa-: .•,*y..-V-- S AJL.\: "•-_ .-.-• ^-,
*
Figure 17. IME Swiss OELA III skimming head.
Figure 18. The Oil Spider skimming head.
-------
LU
UJCO
COO
oxuj
X CO
eo
e — x
COCO £
XX —
3 3 CO
a:ai *
ujui
O If) C/3H
LU ^
UJCOHHCO
(/>OHH
UJ
e«cx
e — _l-iH
— -UJhJCL
coo>ooo>
I
I
i
I
i
I 1 !
< D <>
1
I
O
i
i
i
i
i
_L
CNJ
to
UJ
O
X
8
H
CO
J s
CO
CO
UJ
z
^
O
H
O
H
UJ
O
co
ti-
gS t 06 83 8£ 09 03 8V 88 83 01 8
A3N3IOUJ3 AH3A003H
25
-------
n
. - j s: s uj
-JZHH2:
zo^^s
O CO CO H
UJ ^
LJCOMHCO
COOHH
X UJ
e«a
\
\
\
\
ooco
i I I
I
n
i i
+• o
\
OJ
£
ICKNESS
CO
CO
UJ
H
X
M
CO
CO
QL
QL
O
O
h-CO
Si?
Q
-------
-';.. ---\
S^^J-.^: - j^.^
-------
REFERENCES
1. McCracken, W.E. and S.H. Schwartz. Performance Testing of Spill Control
Devices on Floatable Hazardous Materials. EPA-600/277-222, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
2. McCracken, W.E. Performance Testing of Selected Inland Oil Spill Control
Equipment. EPA-600/2-77-150, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
28
-------
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT TEST FACILITY
Figure A-l. OHMSETT Test Facility
GENERAL
The U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency operates the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) located in Leonardo, New
3ersey (Figure A-l). This facility provides an environmentally safe place to cor,duct
testing and development of devices and techniques for the control of oil and hazardous
material spills.
The primary feature of the facility is a 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
29
-------
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
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 absorber 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
meter 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 468 cubic
meter/hour 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 into the north end of the tank for cleanup and
recycling.
When the tank must be emptied for maintenance purposes, the entire water
volume of 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-meter 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 21 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: Richard A. Griffiths, OHMSETT Project
Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, MERL,
Edison, New Jersey 08837, 201-321-6629.
30
-------
APPENDIX B
PROPERTIES OF OHMSETT TEST OILS AND TANK WATER
Oil
The test oil was sampled and analyzed daily. Surface tension and interfacial
tension with tank water were measured at room temperature using a Fisher Scientific
Model 21 Surface Tensiomat. The viscosity was measured using a Brookfield Model
LVT viscometer at room temperature and a Fisher/Tag Saybolt viscometer at an
elevated temperature. Viscometer results were converted to centistokes using ASTM
D2161-74 and plotted using ASTM D341 viscosity temperature charts for interpolation
at ambient conditions. A summary of the physical properties of the test oils is given
below.
TABLE B-l. TEST OIL PROPERTIES
Oil Specific Viscosity Viscosity SFT IFT % water
type gravity cSt, 23°C cSt, 73°C dynes/cm dynes/cm & sediment
Circo X heavy
Circo light
.930
.892
9*1.0
16.0
50.6
8.3
49.9
35.4
16.6
19.2
0.2
0.1
SFT=surface tension
IFT=interfacial tension
Water
The tank water was analyzed for temperature, specific gravity, salinity,
conductivity, pH, turbidity, and suspended solids. These tests were performed in
accordance with the guidelines published in ASTM Standards, Part 31, Water, and
ASTM Standards, Part 23, Petroleum Products and Lubricants (1). The temperature is
measured with a Markson Science, Inc. Model 5650 Digital Thermometer following the
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, APHA, AWWA, and
WPCF; 13th Edition, 1971. The specific gravity is determined with hydrometers as
specified by ASTM D-l298-67. Salinity and conductivity measurements are performed
on the YSI Model 33 SCT meter. The pH measurements are taken with a Fisher
Scientific Company Model 120 pH meter as described in ASTM D1293-65. Turbidity is
obtained with a Hach Chemical Company Model 2100 Turbidimeter following ASTM
D1889-71. Suspended solids are measured gravimetrically as outlined in Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, p. 266, EPA-625-16-74-003, 1974, U.S. EPA.
Typical water quality measurements are shown in Table B-2.
31
-------
TABLE B-2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF TANK WATER
ph 7.4
Specific gravity 1.014
Temperature (°C) 20.7
Salinity (ppt) 17.5
Conductivity (umhos) 26,000
Suspended solids (mg/1) 31.0
"*»»»»'
32
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inumctio^.s on the reverse before completing) ~
1. REPORT NO. 2.
ORD Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Testinq Vacuum and Air Conveyor Systems for
Oil Spill Recoverv
7. AUTHOR(S)
Donald C. Gates and Kevin M. Corradino
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc
P.O. Box 117
Leonardo, New Jersey 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 ACCESSIOf»NO.
5. REPORT DATE
June 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
C2HN1E
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-3056
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREC
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Richard A. Griffiths - (201) 321-6629
16. ASSTRACT
Two different vacuum truck designs were evaluated for oil recovery performance
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank {OHMSETT) facility in September 1980. These were a
Vactor Model 2045 air conveyor design made by the Meyers-Sherman Company and a
standard vacuum truck made by Coleman Environmental and Pollution Control Equip-
ment Co., Inc. Changes in recovery efficiency and oil recovery rate were found
while varying oil slick thickness, oil viscosity, hose length, and air pump speed for
the trucks. The air conveyor was additionally tested using different suction hose
heights above the slick.
The air conveyor tests resulted in an average oil recovery rate of 4.4 m3/hr
and a 611 oil recovery efficiency. Efficient recovery of thin oiJ slicks appears to be
an advantage of air conveyors. Tests of the standard design vacuum truck produced
an average oil recovery rate of 2.4 m3/hr and an 18% oil recovery efficiency.
Standard vacuum trucks seem particularly suited to recovery of thick slicks." The
addition of skimmer attachments in lieu of a simple hose intake, was evaluated during
this test program and was found to increase recovery efficiency without affectinq
oil recovery rate.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.fOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Fieid/G;OUD
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
= PA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThtsXeporr)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
41
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
I22. FSICE
------- |