United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA 600 2-80-078
May 1980
Research and Development
v>EPA
Application of
Buoyant Mass
Transfer Media to
Hazardous Material
Spills
-------
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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-078
May 1980
APPLICATION OF BUOYANT MASS TRANSFER MEDIA
TO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS
by
G. W. Dawson
J. A. McNeese
J. A. Coates
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
Contract No. 68-03-2204
Project Officer
J. P. Lafornara
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 publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names of commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
il
-------
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 increasingly 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 a search for alternative means (other than the
current ballasted-package approach) for dispersing mass transfer media in
ponded water to clean up spills of hazardous materials. As a result of this
search, a method to slurry buoyant activated carbon into static water bodies,
such as lakes and reservoirs, was developed and successfully field-tested.
In the process of development it was discovered that no reliable commercial
source of buoyant activated carbon existed. Further research efforts re-
sulted in development of a unique method of producing buoyant activated car-
bon. This report will be of interest to those responsible for cleanup of
hazardous materials spilled in static water bodies, where direct application
of mass transfer media is not effective because of dispersal problems. In-
formation concerning this subject beyond that supplied here may be obtained
by contacting the Oil & Hazardous Materials Spills Branch, lERL-Ci, U.S. EPA,
Edison, New Jersey 08817.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A prototype system was designed and developed to slurry buoyant acti-
vated carbon into a static body of water. The process was developed to
remove soluble hazardous compounds from a watercourse as the result of an
accidental spill or chronic problem.
The basic system was barge-mounted with an intake pump, a jet-slurrier,
a surge tank, and a slurry pump. The buoyant carbon was fed into the slurrier
by gravity from a floating, hopper-bottom tote bin.
In a simulated spill, up to 98% removal of Diazinon was achieved by
adsorption on activated carbon and by dispersion of the spilled material.
A unique method of making buoyant activated carbon was developed using
microballoons and a carbon coating mix to create small buoyant adsorptive
media. Estimated cost per pound of media was $3.50 on a small-batch basis.
No acceptable buoyant activated carbon is commercially produced in the
United States at this time, although the technology for production has been
developed.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 63-03-2204
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
report covers the period June 1975 to April 1977, and work was completed as
of September 1976.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ..................... iii
Abstract ..................... iv
Figures ..................... vi
Tables ..................... vii
Acknowledgments .................. viii
1. Introduction. . . . . ............. 1
2. Conclusions .......... . ....... 3
3. Recommendations
System Application
System Design
Buoyant Media
4. Carbon Availability ............... 5
Background ................ 5
Commercially Available Buoyant Carbons ....... ?
Preliminary Screening ........... 7
Laboratory Testing ............ 10
Results and Discussion ........... **
Buoyant Carbon Composites ........... **
Preliminary Studies ............ "
Carbon Bound To Microspheres Concept ...... *-*
5. The Slurry Injection System. . ........... 18
Prototype Design Rationale ........... 18
Carbon Wetting .............. 18
Carbon Transport and Introduction ....... 19
System Integration ............ 22
Prototype Description ............. 22
Floatation Barge ............. 22
Jacking Platform ............. 25
Hydraulic Testing of Prototype .......... 25
6. Field Demonstration ...... ...... ... 27
Test Plan ................. 27
Test Description ............... 29
Test Results and Discussion ........... 30
References ... ................. 36
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Sorption isotherm for phenol and Nuchar C-190. ... 6
2 Milligrams TOG remaining in solution 13
3 Jet-slurrier performance curves 20
4 Layout and dimensions of tote bin (dimensions in
inches/ ............ 21
5 Flow chart of slurry system ......... 23
6 Layout of slurry delivery barge 24
7 Layout of jacking platform 26
8 Location of facilities for Diazinon spill 28
9 Results of TOG analysis on pretreatment and
post-treatment samples 31
10 Results of phosphate analysis on pretreatment and
post-treatment samples 32
11 Booming 35
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Approximate Floatability of Various Mesh Sizes of
Nuchar C-190 (Approximate % Floating)
Rise Time for Nuchar C-190 in 1.2m (4 ft.) of water
i
Qualitative Floatability Survey of Carbon Samples .
Floatation Characteristics of Candidate Carbon:
V-AMOCO (% Floating)
Floatation Characteristics of Candidate Carbon:
VI - ICI S51 and Kerosene (% Floating)
Floatation Characteristics of Candidate Carbon:
VII - ICI S51 and No. 2 Fuel Oil
AMOCO
ICI S51 and Kerosene
ICI S51 and No. 2 Fuel Oil
Hexone Removal Efficiency of Dried Carbon Coating Mix .
Characteristics of Commercially Available Microspheres.
Floating Carbon Cost Data
Composition of Emulsifiable Diazinon Solution ....
Comparison of Aerial Application and Subsurface Slurry
5
7
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
16
17
27
Injection ............ 33
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance and advice provided by Joseph P. Lafornara, EPA Project
Officer, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to express their
appreciation to the following Battelle-Northwest personnel who assisted in
conducting the study and preparing this document: Dana Christensen, Richard
Parkhurst, Nancy Painter, and Judy Goodrich.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The use of buoyant activated carbon for the treatment of hazardous
material spills in static and flowing water bodies has been reported previ-
ously (1-6). Addition to flowing water is accomplished by direct applica-
tion to the surface of the stream. Natural turbulence in the water and
subsequent turnover serve to stimulate intimate contact between the media
and water. It is hypothesized that this contact results from two distinct
mechanisms (4):
Turbulent mixture of the media down into the water column
Continual movement of more contaminated water to the surface as a func-
tion of turnover.
These mechanisms are largely absent from ponded waters such .as lakes
and reservoirs. Therefore, direct application to the,surface of the water
will have little effect in treating spills of soluble hazardous materials.
Though the media would effectively cleanse the contaminated water near the
surface, it has no means of concentrating contaminant from deeper in the
water column. Consequently, the application of buoyant mass transfer media
to ponded waters requires some means of stimulating contact between media
and larger volumes of water if effective treatment is desired. In work
reported to date (1-3), contact has been stimulated by gathering media in
ballasted packages designed to release the media once the package rests on
the bottom of the water body. Hence, contact occurs as the buoyant media
rises in the water column.
Several difficulties have been noted with the ballasted-package
approach. These include:
The cost associated with packaging media in small ballasted units
The residual packaging materials and ballast left in the water body
after an application
The difficulty in trying to obtain even coverage of affected waters
with discrete packages.
The study reported here was designed to explore an alternate means of
dispersing buoyant mass transfer media that would avoid or minimize the
difficulties mentioned above. En route to that objective, it was
-------
determined that no reliable source of buoyant activated carbon existed.
Since activated carbon is the most universally applicable mass transfer
agent, it was decided that development of the new dispersion system would be
undertaken only if a supply of buoyant activated carbon could be assured.
Consequently, the final objectives of the project were twofold:
Identify commercially available buoyant activated carbons or a means of
producing the same from available products
Demonstrate the feasibility of applying buoyant activated carbon to
ponded water with a barge-mounted slurry-pump device.
Laboratory and field investigations in pursuit of these objectives are
detailed in the following document.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions drawn from the study of buoyant activated carbon availability
are as follows:
Currently, there are no companies that manufacture a buoyant activated
carbon although the technology to produce such media does exist.
Carbon manufacturers would produce a buoyant activated carbon if a
market was created for the product.
There is an available method of producing floating activated carbon by
bonding carbon and glass microballoons into small particles.
The removal of an organophosphorous pesticide, Diazinon, was effectively
demonstrated in field tests using buoyant mass transfer media delivered into
a water body through a slurry system. Other conclusions derived from the
field test include:
The slurry system is capable of delivering a wetted carbon slurry
under water more effectively than aerial bombardment methods.
Containerized bins can be used to ferry large volumes of buoyant carbon
to slurry systems.
The slurry system works better with slurrier and carbon feed above
water, rather than below water.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The slurry injection system tested in the subject project was found to
be effective in dispersing buoyant media through a water body. As a result
of this work, the following recommendations are offered:
System Application
The slurry delivery system should be considered the preferred technique
for application of buoyant media.
Modifications of the prototype unit should be considered for use on
dedicated barges in high incident areas. These units could perform emer-
gency response as well as routine cleanup activities.
The slurry delivery system should be considered for use in fixed
facilities downflow from high spill potential area« to provide on-line
response capabilities.
System Design
Tote bins should be shorter, with ballast in the plenum zone, to facili-
tate upright partioning when floated.
Relief valves should be mounted on all bins to prevent pressurization.
The barge should be equipped with an A-frame device to allow vertical
movement of bins onto the jet-slurrier such that operation is conducted
above water.
Buoyant Media
Future development of buoyant media systems should be directed to
identification and/or production of buoyant carbon until a source is
assured.
Preference should be given to naturally buoyant particles that can be
produced in existing facilities. While a composite media can be pro-
duced, it should not be pursued unless costs can be reduced by a factor
of two or more.
-------
SECTION 4
CARBON AVAILABILITY
BACKGROUND
During the early development work with buoyant mass transfer media, it
was found that two commercially available carbons, Nuchar C-190 and
Nuchar WA, produced by Westvaco, were naturally buoyant. Both activated
carbons were produced from lignin materials found in the wastes from
Westvaco1s pulp and paper production operations. Nuchar C-190 was selected
for subsequent field trials because it offered a greater fraction of buoyant
particles per batch. The approximate floatability of various mesh sizes is
detailed in Table 1. Further laboratory tests yielded the rise time charac-
teristics presented in Table 2 and the phenol adsorption isotherm given in
Figure 1.
TABLE 1. APPROXIMATE FLOATABILITY OF VARIOUS
MESH SIZES OF NUCHAR C-190 (Approximate
% Floating)
Hours of shaking time
Mesh size
20
20-30
30-50
50-100
100-200
200-325
1
100
95
95
95
90
80
2
100
95
95
90
90
80
4
95
95
95
90
85
75
6
95
90
90
90
80
70
24
85
85
85
85
80
70
Since completion of the initial trials, the "feed stock" of Westvaco
carbons has been changed. Waste control measures at the paper plants have
eliminated the original lignin raw materials. While Westvaco has developed
-------
w
ffl
u
8
1000
100
10
I I
10 100
Solution Phenol, mg/1
Figure 1. Sorption isotherm for phenol and Nuchar C-190,
1000
-------
a line of replacement carbons, none have been found that maintain the buoy-
ancy of C-190 and WA. Consequently, new sources of buoyant activated carbon
were required if this technology was to be utilized. Pursuant to this, an
investigation of possible replacements was initiated. Two alternatives were
evident: 1) other buoyant carbons could be identified with capabilities
comparable to C-190, or 2) means could be found by which nonfloating carbons
could be rendered buoyant without sacrificing capacity.
TABLE 2. RISE TIME FOR NUCHAR C-190
IN 1.2m (4 ft) OF WATER
Time for 95% of
carbon to surface
Mesh size (minutes)
30-50
50-100
100-200
200-300
5
10
15
15
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE BUOYANT CARBONS
Preliminary Screening
Contact with carbon manufacturers was first made with a letter of
inquiry accompanied by research reports describing the use of buoyant media
for treating hazardous material spills. This mailing was addressed to the
31 individual firms listed:
Aircon Corporation - 304 Carrousel Towers, Cincinnati, OH 45237
American Norit Company - 6301 Glidden Way, Jacksonville, FL 32208
AMF, Cuno Division - 400 Research Parkway, Meriden, CT 06450
Amoco Research Corporation, Standard Oil Company (Indiana) - 200 East
Randolph Drive, P.O. Box 5910-A, Chicago, IL 60690
Barnaby-Cheney Company - 835 North Cassady Avenue, Columbus, OH 43216
Belco Pollution Control Corporation - 570 West Mt. Pleasant Avenue,
Livingston, NJ 07039
-------
Calgon Corporation - P.O. Box 1346, Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Catalytic Products International, Incorporated - 524 Mill Valley Road,
Pallatine, IL 60067.
C-E Natco - P.O. Box 1710, Tulsa, OK 74101
Drew Chemical Corporation - 701 Jefferson Road, Parsippany, NJ 07054
EML Laboratories - 500 Executive Building, Elmsford, NJ 10523
Envirex, Incorporated - P.O. Box 6, Conshocken, PA 19428
Great Lakes Carbon - 299 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Hampden Color and Chemical Company - 126 Memorial Avenue, Springfield, MA
01101
Harshaw Chemical Company - 1945 East 97th Street, Cleveland, OH 44106
ICI America Incorporated - Wilmington, DE 19899
Infilco Degremont, Incorporated - Martinsville Road, Liberty Corner, PA
07938
lonac America Incorporated - Birmingham, NJ 08011
J. F. Henry Chemical Company - 245 Park Avenue, East Rutherford, NJ 10020
J. T. Baker Chemical Company - 222 Red School Lane, Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
Kisco Boiler and Engineering Company - P.O. Box 328, 1917 Rutger Street,
St. Louis, MO 63104
L. A. Salomon and Br. Incorporated - P.O. Box 828, Port Washington, NJ 11050
Nuclear Supply Company - 422 Washington Building, 15th and New York Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20005
Phillips Manufacturing Company - 7334 Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60626
R. W. Greff and Company, Incorporated - One Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY
10020
Shawnigan Products Corporation - 111 Charlotte Place, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
07632
Techni-Chemical, Incorporated - 205 East State Street, P.O Box 428, Cherry
Valley, IL 61016
Union Carbide Corporation - Carbon Production Division, Material Systems
Division, 270 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
8
-------
Westvaco Corporation - Chemical Division, Covington, VA 24426
Witco Chemical Company - 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Seven firms responded positively and submitted samples for testing. In
addition, Barnaby-Cheney and Union Carbide indicated that they produce pel-
letized carbon products which could potentially have buoyancy agents added
to effect floatation. It was later determined that these pellets were too
large to be of use and both producers were reluctant to modify production
facilities to meet programmatic needs. Finally, Union Carbide indicated
that they produce a carbon coating mix of powdered activated carbon and
adhesive which could be bonded to various substances.
Qualitative floatation tests were conducted on all samples received to
determine those that warranted further quantitative evaluations. Results
of this initial screening work are presented in Table 3. Additional testing
of the Witco CKD revealed that it would not wet and therefore would have
little capacity in aqueous systems. Therefore, attention was focused on the
floating samples provided by ICI, Amoco, and Union Carbide.
TABLE 3- QUALITATIVE FLOATABILITY SURVEY OF CARBON SAMPLES
Company
B arnaby -Cheney
Westvaco
ICI America
Amoco
American Norit
Union Carbide
Witco
Sample
NW9468
UU9588
NL
Nuchar S-A
S51 + Kerosene
S51 + No. 2 Fuel
Oil
Original
C-114
FQA
A
EX
F
High surface area
Low surface area
CKD
CLD
ACD
Results
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
Good Floatation
Good Floatation
Good Floatation (85%)
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
No Floatation
Good Floatation
Floats, but hard to wet
5% Floaters
10-20% Floaters
-------
Laboratory Testing
In order to provide comparative data on prospective carbons with
respect to the performance of Nuchar C-190 employed in the original studies,
a series of quantitative floatability and rise time evaluations were con-
ducted. Test methodology was identical to that reported for the Nuchar
C-190 (2). For floatability analysis, samples were divided into small lots
according to mesh size. Bach sizing was then slurried in water and shaken
for a preset time interval after which mixtures were allowed to stand for
five minutes. At that point, visual observations were made of the amount of
carbon that had risen to the surface. Results of this analysis on test
carbons are presented in Tables 4 through 6. These data can be compared
directly with those for Nuchar C-190 given in Table 1. The Union Carbide
LSA carbon is <325 mesh but offers almost 100% floatation. All carbons
tested are acceptable from a floatability standpoint, but the LSA and Amoco
are superior to the treated S-51 carbons.
TABLE 4. FLOATATION CHARACTERISTICS OF CANDIDATE
CARBON: V-AMOCO (% Floating)
Hours of shaking time
Mesh size
Whole C
50-100
100-200
200-325
<325
1
85
85
80
85
85
2
85
85
80
85
85
4
80
80
70
80
85
6
NA
80
65
80
85
24
NA
80
65
80
85
TABLE 5. FLOATATION CHARACTERISTICS OF CANDIDATE
CARBON: VI - 1CI S51 AND KEROSENE
(% Floating)
Hours of
Mesh size
Whole C
50-100
100-200
200-325
1
70
70
75
50
2
50
70
70
50
shaking time
4
50
65
65
50
6
50
65
65
50
24
50
50
50
50
10
-------
TABLE 6. FLOATATION CHARACTERISTICS OF CANDIDATE
CARBON; VII - ICI S^l AND NO. 2 FUEL OIL
Hours of shaking time
Mesh size
Whole C
100-200
200-325
<325
1
70
70
50
75
2
50
70
50
70
4
50
70
50
70
6
50
60
50
70
24
50
50
50
50
The relationship between mesh size and rise time was investigated using
a glass column measuring 1.3 m in length and 12.7 cm in diameter. Samples of
carbon in various mesh sizes were placed on the water surface and the column
inverted. The time required for the bulk (>95%) of the carbon to rise
through the water column to the surface was recorded. Results of these
experiments are presented in Tables 7 through 9 and can be compared directly
to the data on Nuchar C-190 in Table 1. Once again, the size uniformity of
Union Carbon LSA precluded the testing of various size ranges. The fine
powder was found to reach the top of the rise time column in an average of 3
to 5 minutes. The Amoco carbon displayed very favorable rise time charac-
teristics. Treated S-51 carbons rose very quickly.
TABLE 7. AMOCO
Mesh size
Whole C
50-100
100-200
200-325
<325
First large
concentration
to top
4
2
3
6
5
Carbon evenly
distributed in 50%
column
7
4
6
7
6
to top
12
7
12
13
11
90%
to top
25
18
27
30
27
Comparison of capacities was achieved through the use of standard
adsorption isotherms derived from batch contact experiments. The procedure
involved mixing various measured weights of carbon with a standard solution
of 1000 mg/1 methyl isobutyl ketone (hexone) which yielded a baseline of
1850 mg/1 TOC. Contact was maintained for a 24-hour period to assure that
equilibrium was reached. At that time, samples were filtered and analyzed
for total organic carbon content. A blank containing no carbon was employed
to allow measurement of total hexone adsorbed in each case. Results of
these runs are compared to the isotherm for Nuchar C-190 in Figure 2.
11
-------
TABLE 8. ICI S51 AND KEROSENE
50% 90%
to top to top
Mesh size
Whole C
50-100
100-200
200-325
.75
.5
.75
.75
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.7
TABLE 9. ICI S51 AND NO. 2 FUEL OIL
50%
to top
90%
to top
Mesh size
Whole C
100-200
200-325
<325
1
.83
1.2
1.5
2.5
2
2.5
2.6
Results and Discussion
From the isotherm data, it is clear that the S-51 samples have virtu-
ally no capacity. The use of kerosene and No. 2 fuel oil for buoyancy has
saturated the adsorption sites. Therefore, these carbons are of little
value for spill treatment. The Amoco and LSA samples, however, compare very
favorably with Nuchar C-190. In light of these properties, it was deter-
mined that either the Amoco or the LSA carbon would be acceptable as a
replacement for the original Nuchar C-190.
After selection of the two carbons, Amoco and Union Carbide personnel
were contacted to determine the production status of the carbons. At that
time, Amoco announced that they had switched their production techniques to
generate a heavier, more easily wetted carbon. When the latter was tested,
it was found to display none of the required buoyancy properties. While
Amoco still has the technology to produce the buoyant carbon, they have
chosen not to pursue it until a substantial market develops. The buoyant
carbon is undesirable for the market Amoco is presently addressing.
The Union Carbide LSA carbon is produced from an industrial waste
stream. The process facility that generates this waste will be on-line
within the next year. Should there be a market for the buoyant carbon at
that time, Union Carbide can perform the appropriate treatment sequence to
produce the LSA. Production can be accomplished with existing equipment.
12
-------
1000
100
u
60
I
10
A A
.. AMOCO
C-190
-* LSA
o S51 & Kerosene
4 S51 & No. 2 Fuel Oil
I I I l I lil
I I I l I n I
l l i i i 11
10 100 1000
Figure 2. Milligrams TOC remaining in solution.
-------
Since the facility is not presently operating, however, it was not possible
to obtain large samples of LSA for the field demonstration of the slurry
discharge system. Therefore, alternate sources of buoyant carbon were still
required.
BUOYANT CARBON COMPOSITES
Preliminary Studies
At this point, the strategy for making buoyant carbons was changed to
one of seeking means of combining available carbons with naturally buoyant
agents such that the composite would float, but retain the carbon's capa-
city. This approach requires the presence of a binding agent capable of
holding the aggregate particles without eliminating a significant portion of
the active surface. Early efforts centered on the use of materials that
could serve the dual role of binder and floatation agent. Major candidates
were the low density plastics such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and
polystyrene. Small granules of these plastics were mixed with a powdered
activated carbon and heated to the pour point. At that time the tacky mix-
ture was quickly cooled and buoyant particles collected through floatation.
In all cases, low density carbon-coated granules resulted. The product,
however, was unacceptable. The polyethylene and polypropylene-based samples
proved to be too hydrophobic. They resisted wetting, and therefore per-
formed poorly in adsorption tests. The polystyrene-based samples were brit-
tle and easily broke apart with agitation. In addition, the carbon fraction
of the composite was generally small.
Carbon Bound To Microspheres Concept
At this point, attention was redirected to composites utilizing a sepa-
rate binder. As noted earlier, Union Carbide produces a proprietary carbon
coating mix which contains an inert binder capable of attaching the fine
carbon particles to virtually any substrate. Samples were obtained, dried,
TABLE 10. HEXONE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF
DRIED CARBON COATING MIX
Grams Carbon/hexone %
of carbon ratio Removal
Control - -
1.25 - 61
2.5 - 92
5.0 - 98
7.5 - 98.5
14
-------
and ground into granules for testing. Results of a 24-hour shaker test with
200-ml solution columns containing 1480 mg/1 hexone are given in Table 10.
The dried coating mix showed excellent capacity for hexone removal.
Apparently, the binder does not interfere with active sites to any signifi-
cant extent. Next, batches were produced with hollow glass microspheres to
see if the adhesive would form a strong enough bond to survive abrasion in a
slurry pump. While buoyant granules were easily produced at low drying
temperatures, immersion in water weakened the binder causing the carbon to
separate and sink. Production at higher temperatures resolved this, but led
to such hard particles that the microspheres were crushed when product was
ground to the appropriate mesh sizes. These difficulties were circumvented
with the use of the following four-step process:
1. Sufficient volumes of microspheres and carbon coating mix were uni-
formly mixed.
2. This mixture was oven dried at 105 to 110°C. (This hardens the binder
but does not cure it.)
3. The product cake was crushed to the desired particle size range.
(Relatively light crushing pressure can be used on the uncured parti-
cles and hence, the integrity of the microspheres can be maintained.)
4. The particles were cured at 180°C for 1 hour. (This set the binder to
a state that was highly resistent to abrasion and water. Higher
temperatures destroy the binder.)
Production with the staged process yielded particles with a high fraction of
buoyant particles, good integrity, and excellent sorption properties.
Given the above observations, it was determined that the carbon coating
mix-microsphere composite was an acceptable substitute for buoyant carbon,
which could be available for field demonstration. Therefore, preparations
were made to produce 454 kg (1000 Ib) of composite particles. Four types of
commercially available microspheres (characterized in Table 11) were evalu-
ated for use in the composite. The lowest cost microspheres with excellent
resistance to shear stress, B 38/4000, were selected for use. Based on the
pertinent densities, 49.9 kg (110 Ib) of microspheres are required to pro-
duce 454 kg (1000 Ib) of carbon particles.
Subsequently, the 454-kg (1000-lb) batch of composite carbon particles
was produced. The carbon coating mix was diluted slightly with water to
enhance its fluidity. Microspheres were then added and blended in thor-
oughly with a small electric mixer. No large drying devices were available
to dewater the resulting slurry, so the blend was spread on plastic sheets
at a 1.27-cm (0.5-in.) thickness and dried with space heaters. The air-
dried sheets of carbon were then placed in vibrating screens (10 mesh) and
hand crushed. The particles were ground by the screen to a much finer size
than 10 mesh, however. This, in part, was a result of the use of air drying,
which left the binder weaker than desired. Optimally, a drier capable of
1.5 to 110°C should be employed. Curing was accomplished by placing the
product in trays and heating it in muffle furnaces overnight.
15
-------
TABLE 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MICROSPHERES
Sample Floatation Strength Density Cost/lb (>100 Ib order)
Eccospheres FTD 202
(Emerson & Cumings, Inc.) Excellent Excellent 0.28 g/cc $10.95
Q Gel pF
(Philadelphia Quartz) Some sinkers Fair 0.19 g/cc 1.23
after 24 hours
B 38/4000
(3M Corporation) Excellent Excellent 0.39 g/cc 3.55
Phenolic
(Union Carbide) Excellent Fair 0.20 g/cc 2.15
Strengh test consisted of 5-min contact of water slurry in a blender followed by observation
of fraction restoring floatation ability.
-------
A qualitative evaluation of the final product revealed about a 50%
floater fraction. Microscopic observation revealed that this resulted from
a large amount of detachment between the microspheres and the carbon. This
appears to have resulted from the low drying temperature and the grinding
action of the screens. The binder was not sufficiently set to withstand the
shear stresses generated during the crushing operation.
An estimated cost of buoyant media is approximately $7.64/kg ($3.47/lb)
based only on costs of raw materials. A detailed cost breakdown is shown in
Table 12. The price may be reduced if materials are purchased in bulk.
TABLE 12. FLOATING CARBON COST DATA
Raw Materials Price/Unit Total Ib Total
3M microspheres
B38/4000 $335/cwt 200 $670
Carbon coating 1400
mix 50% carbon 1.75/lb 700 2450
carbon
Total floating
carbon made 3.47/lb 900 3120
17
-------
SECTION 5
THE SLURRY INJECTION SYSTEM
PROTOTYPE DESIGN RATIONALE
The optimum approach for response to a spill provides for the rapid
deployment and maneuverability of equipment. It was envisioned that a
slurry system be constructed on a barge with all phases of media application
included to achieve this optimum. At the same time it had to be kept in
mind that of primary importance when handling the carbon, is the method of
wetting the carbon while minimizing the amount of dust produced.
Carbon Wetting
There were several design options to consider to ensure that the carbon
would be sufficiently wetted prior to introduction into the watercourse.
Among these options were:
A container of carbon that could be flooded with water, then pumped to
deliver the resultant slurry
A large bulk storage bin with pnuematic transport of carbon to a mixing
vessel
A bagged or drummed carbon fed through a hopper to a mixing vessel
A self-contained feeder-slurrier system which could both feed and
slurry the carbon in one operation.
The first option appeared to offer the simplest procedure. The concept
relies on a watertight container valved to enable filling the container
with water, while releasing air pressure resulting from the filling. Once
the container is full the carbon and water can be mixed to completely wet
the carbon. This slurry can then be pumped into the watercourse to effect
organic removal. Unfortunately, difficulties are inherent in this process.
While filling the container, the carbon wetted at the water-carbon interface
forms a bridge in the container. When more water is added, there is a large
increase in pressure, finally resulting in a blowout. The bridging problem
can be eliminated by the addition of a mixer in the container, but there are
questions of practicality in large-scale response systems.
The next option considered was that »f utilizing a large bulk carbon bin
with pnuematic transport of carbon from the bin into a water-carbon con-
tactor from which the resultant slurry is pumped into the watercourse.
18
-------
This option is very attractive for a large-scale fixed-facility cleanup
system. During spill response, however, there are too many time delays in
transportation, setup, and operating procedures for this concept to be
operational. There are also potential major problems with the system from
carbon dusting associated with pnuematic transport. For these reasons this
type of system was not considered further.
The least complex option, but that requiring the most manpower, is the
simple addition of drummed or bagged carbon into an open mixing vessel fol^
lowed by the pumping of the carbon slurry into the water. This approach
also suffers from dusting problems during carbon addition. The procedure is
virtually impossible to perform without producing clouds of suspended car-
bon. Another problem is the potential unavailability at the site of the
large amount of manpower required to transfer large quantities of carbon in
small containers.
The final option was deemed most favorable. It involves the incorpora-
tion of a feeder slurrier which, in operation, would eliminate dusting,
manpower problems, and also require the least amount of maintenance. A
Halliburton Jet-slurrier was chosen for this function. Jet-slurriers were
originally designed and developed by Halliburton to rapidly wet and mix
cement for sealing and setting oilfield casings. The Jet-slurrier is oper-
ated by forcing high pressure (7000-14,000 g/sq cm (100-200 psi) water
through a jet into a small open mixing chamber, and out of the slurrier.
The pressure differential across the opening creates a vacuum which is uti-
lized to feed and mix dry solids into the water. The negative pressure
tends to eliminate dusting problems inherent in fine dry solids mixing. The
jet in the slurrier can be adjusted to different size openings for different
influent pressures and performance (Figure 3).
Carbon Transport and Introduction
With the selecton of the jet-slurrier as the central part of the slurry
system* the design effort turned to identification of the method of intro-
ducing the carbon into the slurrier. The simplest method of feeding the
slurrier is gravity flow into the mixing bowl. A large mobile container was
sought that would meet the criteria for the system. A hopper-bottom tote
bin manufactured by Tote Systems Incorporated met all criteria. This bin
(an A-90 hopper-bottom tote bin) has a capacity of 2040 SL (72 ft3), a
built in hopper, and a watertight butyl rubber butterfly valve which can be
operated remotely (Figure 4). The bins are made of aluminum and are certi-
fied as watertight. Field trials have shown that the bins can be floated
in water while full of buoyant carbon.
I
While the bins do float in water, they were very unstable when floating
upright. This necessitated drilling holes into the airspace between the
hopper and the bin wall, and flooding with water. The tote bins then became
more stable and floated upright. Rubber stoppers were used to plug the
holes to prevent water from flowing out of the flooded space when the tote
bins shifted while floating. Even with the flooded area, the bins did not
float well. Future design work should concentrate on weighting the bottom
of the bins and/or making the bins shorter. This would make a much more
stable bin and facilitate positioning the bin over the slurrier.
19
-------
360
340
320
300-
280-
260-
240-
220-
|200-
2
2180-
3 160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40 -
20-
_ 9 ft. Discharge
Lift
#5 Jet
#3 Jet
Min. Vol. B Press
9 Ft Discharge
Lift
#2 Jet
3 Ft. Dis.
Lift
3 Ft^ Discharge Life
#X Jet
4"-45" Discharge Line
With Rotary Core
No. 412.13418
J_
I
I
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Pressure P.S.I.G.
Figure 3. Jet-slurrier performance curves.
20
-------
Fill Port
I
82 1/4
-
I / ri h4
U£42 1
83 1/8
Butterfly
Valve
1/4
Attachment
Valve Operation
1
»-6 5/8
42
48
1
Figure
4. Layout and dimensions of tote bin. (dimensions in inches)
-------
The use of floating bins was incorporated into the prototype system as
a means of transporting large amounts of the carbon without having to carry
the entire inventory on a large, cumbersome barge. In an operational sys-
tem, one can envision a train of full tote bins pulled along behind the
barge, and successively placed upon the slurrier, exhausted, and removed.
In a large spill, empty bins could be ferried to shore, filled with carbon,
and placed back into the train thus allowing continuous operation of the
slurry system.
System Integration
In order to integrate the two main components, it was necessary to
modify the Jet-slurrier and tote bins after receiving them from the manu-
facturers. A female receptacle was welded to the carbon inlet on the slur-
rier. The latter was designed to receive a 15-cm (6-in.) diameter male pipe
attached to the outlet on the tote bin. A rubber gasket was attached to the
slurrier to give a watertight seal when the tote bin was connected to the
slurrier.
Two pumps are necessary to run the system. One pump must deliver water
at pressures up to 14000 g/sq cm (200 psi) to run the slurrier and the
other pump must be capable of pumping the carbon-slurry from the surge tank
which receives the slurrier output. The two pumps selected for the proto-
type were a Marlow 6.3-cm (2 1/2-in.) fire pump for high pressure feed water
and a 7.6-cm (3-in.) Hydromatic self*-priming trash pump.
Since the Jet-slurrier, at optimum performance, can deliver only a 3-m
(9~ft) head, a surge tank between the slurrier and the slurry pump was
used. The barge was designed to have the 75JHI (200-gal) surge tank (3.m x
3 m x 3 m) below water when full. This eliminated added weight to the barge
load, and it also allowed operating the slurrier at different throat sizes.
Flexible rubber hoses rated to the working pressures of the pumps were
acquired to plumb the system. Camlock quick connect-disconnect fittings
were banded onto the hoses to speed up system deployment.
PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
A flow chart of the injection system is depicted in Figure 5. Water is
drawn into a high pressure fire pump and pumped into the Jet-slurrier at
pressures up to 14000 g/sq cm (200 psi); the pressure differential pulls
carbon into the slurrier and intimately mixes the carbon and water to form a
wetted carbon slurry; the slurry leaves the slurrier and enters a surge tank
for flow equalization; a slurry pump draws from the surge tank and pumps the
slurry into the water column.
Floatation Barge
A make-shift barge on which to mount the system was constructed as
depicted in Figure 6. The strength members were 5 x 15-cm (2 x 6-ft) fir
covered with 1.3-cm (0.5-in.) exterior plywood decking. Transportation
22
-------
Carbon
1
Tote
Bin
N>
Intake
High
Pressure
Pump
Jet-
Slurrier
Slurry
Surge
Tank
Slurry
Pump
Into
*" Water
Course
Figure 5. Flow chart of slurry system.
-------
Belt Clamp
NJ
Slurry Pump
Flex Slurrier Discharge Hose
Jet Slurrier Jacking Platform
Prom Intake
Pump
Slurry Discharge
Figure 6. Layout of slurry delivery barge.
-------
constraints required that no piece of the barge be more than 2.4 m(8ft)
wide. This necessitated a two section configuration that was inherently
weak. One section was 2.4 x 5.2 m (8 x 17 ft) with the two pumps, surge
tank, and jacking platform mounted on the section. Floatation drums, as
described below, were mounted to the platform wherever possible to keep the
section afloat. The second section was 1.2 x 5.2 m (4 x 17 ft). Sections
were bolted together with 1.3 x 17.8-cm (1/2- x 7-in.) bolts, resulting in a
weak point along the connection.
The floatation drums that were attached to the bottom of the barge were
Dayton floatation drums manufactured by Dayton Marine Products. Each drum
had a rated floatation of 136 kg (300 Ib). Sixteen drums were attached to
the barge to support a total weight of 2179 kg (4800 Ib).
Jacking Platform
The final jacking platform was made of aluminum plate and aluminum
angle bar as shown in Figure 7. The platform was raised and lowered by
automobile bumper-jacks attached to the barge. When the jacking platform is
raised, the 7.5-cm (6-in.) male tube on the bottom of the tote bin enters
the slurrier opening and is sealed with a rubber gasket. The slurrier and
platform in the raised position affect a-watertight seal, which makes it
possible to slurry under water.
HYDRAULIC TESTING OF PROTOTYPE
Tests were conducted in a 38,000-m3 (10,000,000-gal) standby sedi-
mentation basin maintained on the Hanford Atomic Energy Reservation. Field
trials were designed to verify that the slurry system and barge would oper-
ate in simulated spill conditions. During pilot runs, it was possible to
slurry water through the Jet-slurrier while the slurrier was submerged and
then into the surge tank. The slurry pump worked well although it had a
greater capacity than the fire pump. By adjusting the throttle on both
pumps it was possible to maintain a constant flow through the system.
The slurrier was then tested to determine its ability to slurry carbon
above water while the tote bin was suspended over it. A bin of carbon was
positioned over the jacking platform and the latter unit raised until the
weight pressure of the bin formed a tight seal on the receiving cone for the
slurrier. The valve was then opened to allow entry of the carbon into the
intake water stream. A wetted slurry resulted which was easily delivered
into the basin. Two design features of the jacking platform are worthy of
note. By accomodating underwater fuel with the slurrier, the platform is
not required to bear the full weight of the bin. Rather, it bears only
sufficient weight to create a seal and allows natural buoyancy to bear the
balance. Secondly, straps are necessary to hold the bin in place so that as
the carbon is exhausted, the bin's added buoyancy does not break the seal.
25
-------
to
Figure 7. Layout of jacking platform^
-------
SECTION 6
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
TEST PLAN
In order to test the effectiveness of the slurry dispersion system for
application of buoyant media under the conditions of actual hazardous mate-
rials spills, field demonstrations were conducted. Conditions were selected
to parallel a similar demonstration conducted with aerial application tech-
niques as described by Mercer et al. (2). In this way, results would be
directly comparable to those for the other application mode and objective
selections could be made between the two.
The 38,000-nr> (10-million gal) water storage basin employed previ-
ously was selected for the spill treatment demonstration. The basin was
filled with Columbia River water to a depth of 3 m (10 ft) and calibrated
ropes were placed across the western end of the 61- x 122-m (200- x 400-ft)
structure as illustrated in Figure 8.
Once again a commercial grade of the organophosphorus pesticide,
Diazinon, was selected for the spill. Diazinon is highly toxic to aquatic
life forms and hence can cause major concern when spilled (2). It is not
persistent beyond several weeks, however, so immediate, complete cleanup by
the buoyant carbon was not required in the event discharge of the basin
water was required at some future date (1). The composition of the Diazinon
emulsifiable concentrate that was employed during each test is given in
Table 13.
TABLE 13. COMPOSITION OF EMULSIFIABLE DIAZINON SOLUTION
During Buoyant
Carbon Test
1976 Test 1972 Test
Ingredient (%) (%)
0,0-Diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-4-methyl- 49 48
6-pyrimidyl phosphorothioate
Xylene 39 36
Inert ingredients 12 16
27
-------
to
oo
CALIBRATED
ROPES
400'
INITIAL SPILL ZONE
400 SQ. FT.
BUOY
200'
DEPLOYED
BOOM
WATER STORAGE BASIN
FIGURE 8. Location of facilities for Diazinon spill*
-------
TEST DESCRIPTION
The Diazinon was spilled at 1000 hours by spreading the 96 i (25 gal) of
emulsion from a rowboat in a 6.1-m by 6.1-m (20-f't by 20-ft) square as
illustrated in Figure 8. Sampling of the spill area began at 1030 hours.
Samples were taken with 3-m (10-ft) aluminum tubes connected by flexible tubing
to peristaltic pumps. One-liter glass bottles were filled with water with-
drawn from 0.3-, 1.5-, and 3-m (1-, 5-9 and 10-ft) depths. Sample lines were
thoroughly flushed between sampling points.
A total of 260 kg (574 lb) of Nuchar C-190 activated carbon was employed
in treating the spill, which is about a 7:1 ratio of earbon to Diazinon. The
carbon included 130 kg (287 lb) of 40 x 325 mesh carbon and 130 kg (287 lb)
of 325 mesh carbon.
The carbon was housed in the two aluminum bins described in the
previous section. These were kept floating in the water while the barge was
positioned over the spill zone. At 11:30 the first tote bin was drawn into
the slurry inset and strapped in position while the receiving end of the
slurrier was brought up into contact with the bin outlet. An attempt was
then made to open the valve, however. The pin set to connect the control
lever and the valve itself jammed so that the valve stem could not be rotated.
Consequently, the first bin was replaced with the second. When pumping
commenced, it was determined that the bin was pressurizing rather than being
subjected to vacuum. When the pressure was released from the top of the bin,
the pressurized water flowed in, wetting much of the carbon. Subsequent
investigations revealed that this malfunction resulted from a kink in the
slurry hose, which prevented the slurry from being discharged in the surge
tank.
It was not possible to clear the blockage without removing the barge
from the basin and redoing the fitting. Since time did not permit this, a
change was made in the hosing to permit an alternate mode of operation. The
latter consisted of using the delivery (surge tank) pump to supply basin
water to the top of the bin, thus wetting the carbon. The slurry pump hoses
were then switched so that water was pumped from the bin through the pump
and into the water column. This allowed for the evacuation of the bin that
was serving as a wetting tank.
Operation in this manner allowed for the wetting and delivery of
approximately 260 kg (574 lb) of the C-190 carbon. A black suspension was
soon apparent in the water. This quickly began to form a mat on the surface.
Even coverage of the spill area was achieved through manipulation of the
delivery hose and the barge.
At 1600, a sampling boat was launched and post-spill water sampling
was initiated using the same procedure and grid as before.
29
-------
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The samples were analyzed for both phosphate and total organic carbon
(TOC). The latter determination may be subject to some error due to the
presence of oil slicks from previous spill studies in the basin water.
Phosphate was determined by digesting an aliquot of the sample with a sul-
furic acid-nitric acid mixture prior to colorimetric measurement of the
phosphate concentration by the ascorbic acid-phosphomolybdate method.
Analysis of basin water with known concentrations of Diazinon gave 98%
recovery of the phosphate by this procedure (2). The TOC analyses were
performed with a Beckman Model 915 carbon analyzer (Figure 9).
Results of the phosphate analysis of the pretreatment and post-
treatment samples are given in Figure 10, with the locations on the sample
grid. Several increases in phosphate concentrations are noted between pre-
treatment and post-treatment samples which are believed to be largely caused
by sampling variations. The data illustrate that the emulsion was rela-
tively dense and the bulk of the spilled Diazinon formed a layer near the
bottom of the basin. Laboratory studies conducted with the 6~in. diameter
column did not indicate bulk movement of a fine emulsion to the bottom of
the column (2). The density of the Diazinon is greater than water while the
density of the xylene in the emulsifiable solution is less than water^
Large droplets of the emulsifiable solution will float when initially drop-
ped in water but will slowly sink after a few minutes. It is postulated
that the lighter xylene is either evaporated or extracted into the water
causing the density of the droplets to increase.
Observations indicated that, while the emulsion was near the surface,
the wind drifted the emulsion briefly to the north and west. However, once
the emulsion settled several inches into the water it appeared that the wind
had little effect on the position of the plume.
Review of the removal levels indicated a relative removal (post to
pretreatment basis) of 76% using phosphate analysis, and 84% using TOC
analysis. If residual levels are extropolated over the affected water vol-
ume to determine overall removal (residual to amount spilled), phosphate
data yield a residual of 1.3 kg (2.8 Ib) Diazinon (3.4%) and TOC data yield
a residual 0.8 kg (1.7 Ib) Diazinon (2.1%). Hence, the combined effect of
dispersion, hydrolysis, and treatment is removal of roughly 97% to 98% of the
Diazinon. A comparison of pertinent data for this run and for the previous
trial with aerial delivery can be found in Table 14.
It is apparent from the data that much less of the Diazinon can be
accounted for in the slurry trial than was previously accounted for during
the aerial delivery trial. No explanation for this has been developed to
date. It is possible that the Diazinon spread beyond the sampling grid in
significant amounts, but this level of mobility has not been observed previ-
ously during the field and laboratory studies. The post-treatment phosphate
data indicate that some of the emulsion plume sank to the bottom and moved
eastward. This is not duplicated by the TOC data, which raises some ques-
tions about its significance. This, however, was not apparent prior to
treatment and probably results from a current set up when pumping was
initiated.
30
-------
A
B
C
(2-3 ) *
A 1 Ft Depth
1 i Ft Depth
C iO Ft Depth
1 Dietance and Direction Froaj C
2 Pretreataent TOG Concentration, g/l
3 Poattreatient IOC Concentration, «g/l
4 Percent Reduction
iS Ft S
A(0.5-0)100
8(0.5r.5)0
C(0.5-.5)%
FIGURE 9. Results of TOG analysis on pretreatment
and post-treatment samples.
31
-------
30 Ft M
AC.240)
BC.104)
C(.188>
20 Ft W
A(.404-0)100
B(3.250-.096}99
C(1.600-.710)55
10 Ft W
A(.550-0)100
B(2.940-0)100
C(.170-.642)-100
5 Ft E
»(.040-0)100
8(1.130-0)100
C(.120-.630)-500
15 Ft E
A(.086-0)100
B(0.84-0)100
C(.122-.778)-1000
25 Ft E
A(.074-0
B(.17.0-0
C<.130-6
A
B
C
1
(2-3)4
A 1 Ft Depth
B 5 Ft Depth
C 10 Ft Depth
1 Distance and Direction from Center
2 Preoreatment PO, Concentration, mg/1
3 Posttreatment PO, Concentration, mg/X
4 Percent Reduction
FIGUEE 10. Results of phosphate analysis on pretreatment
and post-treatment samples.
32
-------
TABLE 34. COMPARISON OF AERIAL APPLICATION AND SUBSURFACE SLURRY INJECTION
Aerial Delivery
Phosphates (rag/Jl)
£ Slurry Delivery
Phosphates (mg/8,)
Aerial Delivery
TOO (mg/2,)
Slurry Delivery
Dose Level
Carbon: Diazinon
10:1
7.5:1
10:1
7.5:1
Relative Removal (%;
(Ave. Post-Treatment)
TAve. Pre treatment)
93.8
76
92.4
84
^^m^^o^^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^m^^^^^f^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Overall Removal ("£)
(Residual Diazinon)
(Amt Spilled)
95
96.6
94.5
97.9
^^^^^ i , ^^^^^^^^^^i i
Amount Accounted for
Pre treatment
(Samples/Amt Spilled) (%)
68
11
85
24
-------
Retrieval of spent media was accomplished with a skirted oil boom (Fig-
ure 11). No quantitative data were collected on this phase of the trial
since collection was documented in earlier studies with serial delivery.
Details on performance can be found in Mercer et al. (2).
Despite the operational difficulties encountered with the prototype in
the field trial, the use of a slurry dispersion system appears to be effec-
tive. Removal efficiencies approached those for the serial delivery trial.
Consequently, pursuit of the slurry delivery approach appears warranted.
Observations made during the trial should lead to a more flexible design as
noted previously.
The slurry approach appears particularly well suited for deployment in
two modes, namely: on barges in port areas with a high spill frequency, and
as permanent in-stream facilities downstream from major spill sources. The
former approach could incorporate the dispersed system with skimmer devices
and utilize carbon reuse to maximize efficiency. The latter approach could
operate somewhat along the lines of a soaker sprinkler, creating upon demand
a screen of carbon across the width of the river.
Regardless of the specific applications, the utility of all these
approaches rests on the availability of buoyant carbon. While a means for
producing buoyant carbon from available materials has been demonstrated, it
is an expensive and unique product that no firms are presently prepared to
produce. The future of buoyant media technology is tied closely to the
emergence of a reliable, commercial source.
34
-------
FIGURE 11. Booming,
-------
REFERENCES
L. Shuckrow, A. J., B. W. Mercer, and G. W. Dawson. The Application
of Sorption Processes for In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Material
Spills. In: Proceedings of the 1972 National Conference on Control
of Hazardous Material Spills, Houston, Texas, March 1972.
2. Mercer, B. W., A. J. Shuckrow, and G. W. Dawson. Treatment of
Hazardous Material Spills with Floating Mass Transfer Media. EPA/
Office of Research and Development, EPA-670/2-73-078, September 1973.
3. Mercer, B. W., A. J. Shuckrow, and G. W. Dawson. Application of Floating
Mass Transfer Media to Treatment of Hazardous Material Spills. Presented
at the 46th Annual Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, Cleve-
land, Ohio, October 4, 1973.
4. Dawson, G. W. Treatment of Hazardous Materials Spills in Flowing Streams
with Floating Mass Transfer Agents. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
1(1):65-81, 1975.
5. Dawson, G. W., B. W. Mercer, and R. G. Parkhurst. Comparative Evaluation
of In Situ Approaches to the Treatment of Flowing Streams. 1976 National
Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, New Orleans, Louisiana,
April, 1976.
6. Dawson, G. W., B. W. Mercer, A. J. Shuckrow, and R. G. Parkhurst. Treat-
ment of Hazardous Material Spills in Flowing Streams with Floating Mass
Transfer Agents. In: 1974 National Conference on Control of Hazardous
Material Spills, San Francisco, California, August 1974.
36
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-078
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
I. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Application of Buoyant Mass Transfer Media to
Hazardous Material Spills
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S) ~ ;
G. W. Dawson, J. A. McNeese, J. A. Coates
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2204
12. CPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A prototype system was designed and developed to slurry buoyant
activated carbon into a static body of water. The process was developed
to remove spilled soluble hazardous compounds from a watercourse. In
a simulated spill, up to 98% removal of Diazinon, an organophosphorus
pesticide, was achieved by adsorption on activated carbon and by dispersion
of the spilled material.
The basic system was barge-mounted with an intake pump, a jet-
slurrier, a surge tank, and a slurry pump. The buoyant carbon was
fed into the slurrier by gravity from a floating, hopper-bottom tote
bin.
Since no acceptable buoyant activated carbon is commercially
produced in the United States at this time, a method of making
buoyant activated carbon by using microballons and a carbon coating
mix was developed. Estimated cost per pound of media was $3.50 on a
small-batch basis.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Water Treatment, Activated Carbon
Treatment, Hazardous Materials,
Decontamination, Water Pollution
Hazardous Material Spill
Clean-up, Buoyant acti-
vated carbon, "In-Situ"
Hazardous Chemical Spill
Treatment
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
45
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
37
* U.S. GOVEJINMEHT PRINTING OFHCE: 1990-637-146/5665
------- |