&EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Industrial Environmental Research
             Laboratory
             Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600 7-78 219
November 1 978
            Research and Development
Performance
Testing of
Selected Sorbent
Booms

Interagency

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping  was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and  Development
      8.  "Special"  Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this  series result from the
 effort funded under  the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
 Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
 health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
 tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
 energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
 essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
 ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their  health and ecological
 effects; assessments of, and  development of, control technologies for  energy
 systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
 mental issues.
 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
 tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                             EPA-600/7-78-219
                                             November 1978
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF SELECTED SORBENT BOOMS
                     by
                Gary F. Smith
    Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
         Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
         Contract' Number 68-03^0490
               Project Officer

               John S. Farlow
  Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
          Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessari-
ly reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute 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.
                                   11

-------
                                  FOREWORD
     When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and more efficient pollution control
methods be used.  The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.

     This report describes full-scale testing of three sorbent commercial
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 Resource Extraction and Handling
Division, Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch, Edison, New Jersey.
                                    David G. Stephan
                                        Director
                      Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                       Cincinnati
                                     iii

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     Performance tests on three commercially available sorbent booms
were conducted at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) test
facility.  Test variables included wave condition, tow speed, and quantity
of oil encountered.  The maximum no-oil-loss containment tow speed was
determined for each wave and oil quantity test condition.

     The no-oil-loss tow speed in calm water was consistently near 0.25
m/s, but in a 0.3-m harbor chop wave, this figure decreased to between
0.05 and 0.1 m/s.  In the 0,3-m harbor chop wave, the failure mode was
typically droplet shedding from the contained oil slick, whereas in calm
water, the oil slick passed under the booms.  No sorbed oil appeared to
wash out of the booms when they were towed.

     When saturated boom sections were wrung out, the recovered fluid
weighed from 9.5 to 14 times boom dry weight and was 16 to 50 percent
oil.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
0490, Job Order No. 41, by Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This
report covers the period August 16 to 19, 1977, and work was completed
as of February 9, 1978.
                                      iv

-------
                                  CONTENTS
                                                  •

Foreword	iii
Abstract	   iv
Figures and Tables	   vi
List of Conversions	vii
Abbreviations  	 viii

     1.   Introduction 	    1
     2.   Conclusions and Recommendations	    2
     3.   Materials	    7
     4.   Experimental Procedures  	   12
     5.   Results and Discussion	*	   16

Appendix

     A.   OHMSETT Description  	   25

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number                                                           Page

  1.      Oil splashed onto boom by waves and absorbed	     3
  2.      Oil loss at attachment points	     4
  3.      Proposed sorbent boom deployment mode  	     5
  4.      Coastal Services Inc. Absorbent Boom 	     8
  5.      3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom	     9
  6.      Conwed Boom Corporation Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom  ...    10
  7.      Test tank and sorbent boom layout	    13
  8.      Failure of boom regenerator	    14
  9.      Oil lost from droplet shedding	    20
 10.      Oil lost under boom	    21
 11.      Boom pulled through squeeze roller regenerator ....    23
 12.      Grommet failure at boom attachment point	    24
                                   TABLES
  1.      Sorbent Boom Specifications  	     7
  2.      Coastal Services Results 	    17
  3.      3M Results	    18
  4.      Conwed Results	    19
                                  vi

-------
                             LIST OF CONVERSIONS
METRIC TO ENGLISH

To convert from

Celsius
joule
joule
kilogram
metre
metre
metre2
metre2
metre3
metre3
metre/second
metre/second
metre2/second
metre3/second
metre3/second
newton
watt

ENGLISH TO METRIC

centistoke
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot
foot2
foot/minute
foot3/minute
foot-pound-force
gallon (U.S. liquid)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/
  minute
horsepower (550 ft
  Ibf/s)
inch
inch2
knot (international)
litre
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
               to

degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-pound-force
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
foot
inch
foot2
inch2
gallon (U.S. liquid)
litre
foot/minute
knot
centistoke
foot3/minute
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
metre2/second
Celsius
joule
metre
metre2
metre/second
metre3/second
joule
metre3

metre3/second

watt
metre
metre2
metre/second
metre3
newton
kilogram
Multiply by

tc = (tF-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
tc = (tF-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
  457
  540
6.452
 ,144
 ,000
 ,448
4.535
E+02
E-02
E-04
E-01
E-03
E+00
E-01
                                     vii

-------
                          ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS

m         —metre
HC        —harbor chop (confused sea) wave
m/s       —metres per second
cm        —centimetre
kg        —kilogram
kg/m      —kilograms per metre
m s       —square metres per second
N/m       —Newtons per metre
m3        —cubic metres
SYMBOLS

Vc        —Critical No Oil Loss Tow Speed
%         —percent
JO        —Job Order
x         —times
°C        —degrees Celsius
>         —more than
                                     viii

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION
     Some of the first sorbents used to contain and pick up oil spills
were loose straw and corn cobs.  Now sorbent blankets, pillows, and
booms are made from a variety of natural and synthetic materials.  The
structural soundness and tensile strength of sorbent products have been
augmented to increase their integrity,  especially when saturated.  The
advantages of using sorbent booms include their light weight, flexi-
bility (which allows use in confined quarters), and the elimination of
skimmers (the booms pick up the oil and contain it as well).   Disadvan-
tages include the lack of a skirt on the booms, a finite sorptive capacity,
and the cost of replacing a nonreusable boom.

     The objectives of this test program were to:

     1.   Obtain performance data on the maximum no-oil-loss  tow velocity
          for a sorbent boom in the containment configuration,

     2.   Determine handling characteristics,

     3.   Determine if regeneration and reuse of boom sections is feasible.

     Three different types of commercially available sorbent  booms were
examined at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)  OHMSETT
facility on August 16-19, 1977.  A length of each boom (about 61 m) was
towed in the catenary configuration at  various  speeds in both a calm and
a 0.3-m harbor chop wave condition.  Maximum no-oil-loss tow  speed was
determined for various percentages of the manufacturer's maximum recommended
boom oil capacity.  A single, medium-grade oil  was used.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
     Maximum observed no-oil-loss tow speed for the three sorbent booms
tested was 0.30 m/s in calm water conditions and 0.25 m/s in the 0.3-m
harbor chop (HC) wave.  This figure is lower than the 0.46 m/s reported
for conventional spill containment booms (with greater draft) in calm
water by McCracken1.  Average no-oil-loss tow speed during the 11 calm
water tests with sorbent booms was 0.22 m/s, whereas the average of
11 0.3-m HC tests was 0.15 m/s.

     Failure in HC wave conditions occurred as interfacial oil droplet
shedding under the boom.  Most of the oil splashed onto the boom by the
waves was absorbed (Figure 1).  Failure in calm water occurred at higher
speeds as the oil slick passed under the boom.  Oil loss also occurred
at the attachment points between boom sections at tow speeds near 0.1
m/s (Figure 2)— well below the failure speed of the entire boom section.
Connecting boom sections by overlapping their ends was superior to
joining their ends butt to butt.  During towing, the oil slick collected
in the apex region; the booms saturated and failed there first.

     Using sorbent boom sections in a layered raft configuration (Figure
3) is expected to increase the probability that all the sorbent sections
will encounter the oil slick.  Also, any oil loss at section attachment
points of the leading raft rows would be encountered by the trailing
rows, thus decreasing the likelihood of ultimate loss.  Unfortunately,
this boom deployment configuration could not be tested during this
program because of time constraints, but it should be examined in later
studies.

     The lightness of the dry (unused) sorbent booms made handling
relatively convenient.  Two men can carry and deploy 61 m of boom
easily and rapidly.  The manufacturers recommend joining sections
together by means of integral fasteners (two cases) or by tying the
ends together with rope (one case).  Based on these tests, we recommend
overlapping the ends of adjoining sections to lessen the oil loss between
them.

     An attempt was made to regenerate the used boom sections by squeezing
 McCracken, W.E.  Performance Testing of Selected Inland Oil Spill Control
 Equipment.  EPA-600/2-77-150, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.   113 pp.                                        ^

-------
Figure 1.   Oil splashed onto boom by 0.3-m HC waves and absorbed,

-------
                                               oss Wtwren booni
Figure 2.  Oil loss at attachment points of booms joined butt to butt (tow
           speed about 0.1 m/s).

-------
TOW BOATS
                                                               SLICK CONCENTRATION BOOM
                                                                          SORBENT BOOM RAFT
 Figure 3.  Proposed sorbent boom deployment:  As a sorbent boom raft with either a
            conventional or sorbent boom in the containment mode.

-------
out the recovered fluid.  Each saturated section was pulled between two
squeeze rollers (the top roller was filled with water and weighed 250
kg).  In all cases, the boom sections were extremely hard to pull through,
suggesting the need for a power-operated roller system.  A major diffi-
culty with this simple system was that as the booms were pulled through
the rollers, the sorbent would bunch up at the end of the covering bag.
When this sorbent plug entered the rollers, the resulting pressure would
break the bag open and the sorbent would fall out.  Perhaps two con-
verging, powered conveyor belts might overcome both problems.

     The fluid recovered during regeneration weighed 8.5 to 13 times as
much as the original (dry) boom and contained 16 to 50 percent oil.
This collected oil weighed 2.1 to 4.3 times as much as the boom.  It
should be noted that only the medium viscosity, naphthenic oil was used
in  these tests; different oils will yield different results.

-------
                                  SECTION 3

                                  MATERIALS
     Three sorbent booms representing three different types of sorbent
materials were procured for testing (Table 1).

                   TABLE 1.  SORBENT BOOM SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacturer
Boom section
dimensions
Diameter Length
Sorbent type (cm) (m)
Weight
(kg/in)
Sorbed oil
capacity
(multiples
of boom weight)
Coastal Services
22 River St.
Braintree, Mass.

3M Company
3M Center 53-4
St. Paul, Minn.

Conwed Corp.
332 Minnesota St.
St. Paul, Minn.
Polyurethane   20.3
Polypropylene  20.3
Vegetable
fiber mat
20.3
          2.74
          2.43
3.05
          0.8
          1.6
1.6
               10
               13-25
15-22
     The Coastal Services Inc. Absorbent Boom (Figure 4)  consists of
small pieces of polyurethane foam inside a cheesecloth,  sausage-shaped
bag.  Two grommets at each end of the cylinder serve as  attachment
points for joining boom sections.  Boom sections were tied together butt
to butt with nylon parachute cord for testing.  The covering bag is the
only tension member.

     The 3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom (Figure 5) is  an open-weave
polypropylene mesh bag filled with polypropylene fiber.   The tension
member consists of a 0.95-cm polypropylene rope connected by shackles
and steel rings so that the boom ends overlap.

     The Conwed Corporation Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom (Figure 6)  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.

-------
00
          Figure 4.  Coastal Services Inc. absorbent boom in 0.3-m HC wave near 0.3 m/s  tow  speed

-------
-.0
                                    ,
                                         ,1  ~:j
                                                                    V

              Figure  5.   3M Company Type 270 sorbent boom in 0.3-m HC wave  near  0.3  m/s tow speed.

-------

Figure 6.   Conwed Corporation Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom in 0.3-m HC wave near 0.3 m/s tow speed.

-------
     A straight grade, naphthenic lubricating oil (Circo X Medium, Sun Oil
Company)  was used as the test fluid for this study.   Test fluid properties
are as follows:

     Viscosity	242 x l(T6m2/s @ 22.7°C
                                                38 x 10~6m2/s @ 56.7°C
     Specific gravity  	  0.928
     Surface tension 	   38.1 x 10~3N/m
     Interfacial tension 	  7.6x 10~3N/m
                             with OHMSETT tank water of  9 ppt salinity
     Water and sediment	0.1%
                                    11

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                           EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
BOOM TOW TESTS

     Boom sections were removed from their shipping containers and
placed end to end on a concrete surface.  Several new, dry sections were
individually measured and weighed.  Section ends were then fastened
together, and the resulting 61-m boom was deployed on the test tank
surface with ends connected to the towing bridge in a catenary configur-
ation (Figure 7).

     Tests were  first conducted without oils 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 or planed.  Tow speed was
increased and decreased 0.05 m/s around the limit to reconfirm its
magnitude.

     Presumably, pretesting without oil could cause the booms to become
water saturated.  Oil encountering the boom sections would have to then
displace this water, perhaps lowering the boom's capacity compared to
dry boom sections.  Ideally, in a spill situation, sorbent booms would
be deployed onto the water in advance of the oil similar to procedure
used in this test program.  If the boom sections are deployed directly
onto the oil slick, oil capacity may be higher.

     Tow tests with oil were similar to stability tests.  An oil slick
equivalent to 25 percent of the boom's maximum recommended capacity,
was placed on the tank surface.  Then the boom was towed at increasing
speed until failure, first in calm water and then in waves.  Failure was
observed to have occurred when oil loss was observed under, through, or
over the boom sections.  If other modes of oil loss were also 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 percent
of the boom's recommended capacity.  Both calm water and wave tests were
conducted for each oil load level.  Photographic documentation included
16 mm color movies and 35 mm black and white prints.

BOOM REGENERATION TESTS

     A squeeze  roller assembly was fabricated at OHMSETT to regenerate
the sorbent booms  (Figure 8), even though two of the booms were not ad-
vertised as being regenerable.  The squeeze roller assembly was made   "*

                                     12

-------
         Offices/
         Lab Shop
         Facilities
1  Test Director
2  Test Engineer
3  Oil Distribution
4  Bridge/Wave Op.
5  Chemistry Lab
6  Data Reduction
7  Filter/VDU Op.
8  Photo./Observer
                                      Storage Tanks
                                 Control Tower
                                        T
Beach
•Video Bridge
                              £— Oil .Distribution
                                  System
                                      Wave Flaps
                        FilterA
                        Pad
                                                          o
             Figure 7.   Layout of test tank and sorbent booms.
                                  13

-------
Figure 8.  Failure of OHMSETT boom regenerator.

-------
from 7.6-cm channel iron and two 34.3-cm diameter by 45.7-cm long lawn
rollers.  The top roller was filled with 0.25 m3 of water and weighed
approximately 250 kg.  Upon completion of the towing tests, those
sections of each sorbent boom judged to be the most highly saturated
were gravity drained (mostly water drained out), weighed and then pulled
through the squeeze rollers.   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.  Some of this fluid could not be wrung out of
the boom; a portion of this represents spilled oil that could be picked
up from the water surface but that could not be recovered in a reusable
state.
                                  15

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
     No-oil-loss tow speeds for all three booms varied little during
this test program as shown by Tables 2 through 4.

     The Coastal Services Inc. Absorbent Boom was stable at tow speeds
up to 1.78 m/s in calm water and 0.51 m/s in a 0.3-m HC wave.  For tests
where oil volumes of 25 to 125 percent of manufacturer-recommended boom
capacity were used, the calm water, no-oil-loss tow speeds ranged from
0.30 m/s at 25 percent capacity down to 0.15 m/s at 100 percent capacity.
In the 0.3-m HC wave, no-oil-loss tow speeds near 0.12 m/s were observed
for all oil volumes.  Wet weight of the section judged most saturated
(11.58 kg/m) less the boom's dry weight (0.83 kg/m) is the weight of
fluid sorbed by the boom (10.75 kg/m).  If the percent of oil in the
regenerated (squeezed out) fluid (weight) is also representative of all
the sorbed fluid, then the boom picked up a total of about 1.72 kg/m of
oil.

     The 3M Company Type 270 Sorbent Boom was stable at tow speeds up to
1.22 m/s in calm water and 0.76 m/s in the 0.3-m HC wave.  Calm water
tests with oil revealed the no-oil-loss tow speed maximum to be 0.25 m/s
at all oil capacities.  No-oil-loss maximum tow speed declined to 0.15
m/s in the 0.3-m HC wave at all oil capacities.  Wet weight (>18.44
kg/m) less boom dry weight (1.49 kg/m) equals >16.95 kg/m of sorbed
fluid.  The sorbed fluid times the percent of oil in the regenerated
fluid (30 percent) yields >5.08 kg/m oil picked up by the boom.

     The Conwed Corp. Heavy Duty Sorbent Boom was stable at tow speeds
up to 1.22 m/s in calin water and 0.71 m/s in the 0.3-m HC wave.  The
maximum no-oil-loss speed is about 0.22 m/s at all oil capacities in
calm water.  The 0.3-m HC wave and oil produced a maximum no-oil-loss
tow speed ranging from 0.10 m/s with an oil volume at 75 percent of
rated boom capacity to 0.25 m/s at 50 percent of rated boom capacity.
Wet weight (14.86 kg/m) less boom dry weight (1.56 kg/m) equals 13.30
kg/m of sorbed fluid.  The sorbed fluid times the percent of oil in the
regenerated fluid (50 percent) yields about 6.65 kg/m oil picked up by
the boom.

     When any boom was saturated, boom failure occured near 0 m/s tow
speed.  Typically, failure took the form of droplet shedding from the
oil slick in the 0.3-m HC wave (Figure 9) and oil passing under the
boom in calm water (Figure 10).  Visual observation revealed no apparent


                                    16

-------
TMBL3E 2.  COASTAL SERVICES USC.  ABSORBENT BOOM RESULTS
TDest
no.
1A
.2A
3A


4A
5A
6A

7A
8A
9A
10A
11A
12A
Type oof Oil quantity
\waroe nn3 ^ 
-------
TABLE 3.  3M COMPANY TYPE 270 SORBENT BOOM RESULTS

Maximum no-oil-
loss tow
Test Type of Oil quantity speed Type of
no. wave m3 % of capacity (m/s) failure
IB Calm 0 — (1.22) Boom submersion
2B 0.3-*n HC 0 — (0.76) Splashover
3B Calm 0.60 25 0.20 Loss under boom
4B 0.3-m HC 0.65 25 0.15 Loss under boom
5B Calm 1.21 50 0.25 Loss under boom
» 6B 0.3-ia HC 1.21 50 0.20 Droplet shedding
under boom


7B Calm 1.82 75 0.25 Loss under boom


8B 0.3-ra HC 1.82 75 0.15 Droplet shedding
9B Calm 2.42 100 0.25 Droplet shedding


10B 0.3-m HC 2.42 100 0 Splashover
i

Comments
Stability (no oil)
Stability (no oil)



Creases developed
in boom sections
and oil loss
occurred at creases
Loss at creases
occurred at
0.15 m/s

Loss at creases
occurred at
0.51 m/s'
Some boom sections
saturated and
almost submerged

-------
                      TABLE  4.   CONWED  CORPORATION HEAVY DUTY SORBENT BOOM RESULTS

Maximum no-oil-

Test
no.
1C
2C
3C


4C


5C
6C

Type of
wave
Calm
0.3-m HC
Calm


0.3-m HC


Calm
0.3-m HC

Oil
m3
0
0
0.53


0.53


1.06
1.06

quantity
% of capacity
—
—
25


25


50
50
loss tow
speed
(m/s)
(1.22)
(0.71)
0.20


0.25


0.25
0.20

Type of
failure
Boom submersion
Splashover
Loss under boom


Loss under boom


Loss under boom
Loss under boom

Comments
Stability (no oil)
Stability (no oil)
Loss at section
ends occurred at
0.10 m/s
Loss at section
ends occurred at
0.20 m/s

Apex of boom was
8C
0.3-m HC
1.59
75
0.10
Splashover
becoming saturated

Apex of boom
became saturated
and nearly sub-
merged

-------
Figure 9.  Oil lost from droplet shedding in the 0.3-m HC wave near 0.3 m/s tow speed,

-------
Figure 10.  Oil lost under the boom in calrr water near 0.35 m/s  tow  speed.

-------
washing of oil from the sorbent when the boom was being towed; whatever
was sorbed stayed sorbed.

     Regeneration of used boom sections was only partially successful
with the unit employed.  As each section was pulled through the squeeze
rollers, the sorbent would bunch up at one end, creating a large plug in
the sausage-shaped boom cover.  When this plug approached the squeeze
roller, the boom cover tore (Figures 8 and 11).  The sorbent spilled out,
and the boom section became useless.

     Boom handling proved to be very easy compared to most conventional
containment booms.  Sorbent boom sections tested were light and not
restrictively bulky.  End connections on the 3M and Conwed booms proved
convenient and strong enough to withstand towing at 1.78 m/s.  The
Coastal Services boom end connections were tied together with rope and
did not provide for overlap as the 3M and Conwed booms did.  During
testing, one set of Coastal Services boom end connections failed when
the grommet eyes tore out of the cloth cover (Figure 12).
                                    22

-------
U>
                  Figure 11.  Bag breakage of boom pulled  through  squeeze  roller  regenerator.

-------
Figure 12.  Groiranet failure at Coastal Services Inc. absorbent  boom  attachment point,

-------
                                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 environ-
mentally 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 a pile-supported, concrete
tank with a water surface 203 metres long by 20 metres wide and  with a
water depth of 2.4 metres.  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 metres/second

                                     25

-------
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 metres ahead of the device being tested, so
that reproducible thicknesses and widths of the test fluids can be
achieved with minimum interference by wind.

     The principal systems of the tank include a wave generator and
beach, and a filter system.  The wave generator and absorber beach have
capabilities of producing regular waves to 0.7 metre high and to 28.0
metres long, as well as a series to 1.2 metres high reflecting, complex.
waves meant to simulate the water surface of a harbor or the sea.  The
tank water is clarified by recirculation through a 0.13 cubic metre/second
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, of 9842 cubic metres is filtered and treated until it
meets all applicable State and Federal water quality standards before
being discharged.  Additional specialized treatment may be used whenever
hazardous materials are used for tests.  One such device is a trailer-
mounted  carbon treatment unit for removing organic materials from the
water.

     Testing at the facility is served from a 650 square metres building
adjacent to the tank.  This building houses offices, a quality control
laboratory  (which is very important since test fluids and tank water are
both recycled), a small machine shop, and an equipment preparation area.

     This government-owned, contractor-operated facility is available
for testing purposes on a cost-reimbursable basis.  The operating con-
tractor, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., provides a permanent
staff of fourteen multi-disciplinary personnel.  The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency provides expertise in  the area of spill control tech-
nology,  and overall project direction.

     For additional information, contact:  John S. Farlow, OHMSETT
Project  Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research and
Development, lERL-Ci, Edison, New Jersey  08817, 201-321-6631.
                                     26

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   EPA-600/7-78-219
                              2.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   Performance Testing of Selected Sorbent Booms
             5. REPORT DATE
              November 1978 issuing date
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
   Gary F. Smith
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Mason & Hanger-Silas  Mason Co., Inc.
   P.  0. Box 117
   Leonardo, New Jersey   07737
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              1NE623
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
              68-03-0^90
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Gin., OH
   Office of Research and Development
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Cincinnati, Ohio
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              Final
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
              EPA/600/12
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
   Performance tests  on three commercially  available sorbent booms  were conducted  at the
   U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency's  Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
   Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) test facility.  Test variables included wave
   condition, tow speed, and quantity of oil  encountered.  The maximum no-oil-loss
   containment two  speed was determined for each wave and oil quantity test condition.

   The no-oil-loss  tow  speed in calm water  was consistently near  0.25 m/s, but in
   a 0.3-m harbor chop  wave, this figure decreased to between 0.05  and 0.1 m/s.  In
   the 0.3-m harbor chop wave, the failure  mode was typically droplet shedding from
   the contained oil  slick,  whereas in calm water, the oil slick  passed under the
   booms.   No sorbed  oil appeared to wash out of the booms when they were towed.

   When saturated boom  sections were wrung  out, the recovered fluid weighed from
   9-5 to lU times  boom dry  weight and was  l6 to 50 percent oil.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
   Performance tests
   Booms (equipment)
   Sorbents
   Water Pollution
   Oils
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Spilled oil  cleanup
Sorbent oil  booms
Sorbent regeneration
                          c. COSATI Held/Group
                                  68D
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
   RELEASE TO  PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS {ThisReport)
   UNCLASSIFIED
                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                          	35
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

                                                 UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            27
                                                    it U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-657-060/1534 Region No. 5-11

-------