EPA-600/2-77-222
November 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF SPILL CONTROL
DEVICES ON FLOATABLE HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Off ice 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-600/2-77-222
November 1977
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF SPILL CONTROL DEVICES
ON FLOATABLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
by
William E. McCracken and Sol H. Schwartz
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
Contract No. 68-03-0490
Project Officers
Frank J. Freestone
Joseph P. Lafornara
Oil and Hazardous Material Spills Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08817
This study was conducted in cooperation with
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20305
John R. Sinclair, Project Officer
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 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
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 the selection and testing at the Oil and Haza-
dous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) of several
commercially available oil spill control devices for use in controlling
spills of hazardous materials which float. These tests were conducted to
determine the extent to which existing oil spill equipment could be employed
to contain and/or remove other spilled hazardous materials. This report
should be useful to Federal, State, and local government personnel as well
as individuals in the private sector, who are interested in the prevention
and control of pollution from oil and hazardous materials spills. Requests
for further information should be addressed to the Resource Extraction and
Handling Division, Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch, Edison, New
Jersey.
David G. Stepnan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
At the U.S. EPA's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental
Test Tank (OHMSETT) in Leonardo, New Jersey, from September 1975 through
November 1975, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and
the U.S. Coast Guard evaluated selected oil-spill control equipment for
use on spills of floatable hazardous materials (HM). The HM used during
the tests were octanol, dioctyl phthalate and naphtha. The major para-
meters indicating performance were recovery rates, recovery efficiency
and throughput efficiency. It was concluded that equipment performance
was directly relatable to the physical properties of the HM, and, in
this respect, showed no difference from previous oil-recovery tests.
The conduct of the project is described; and the results, conclusions
and recommendations are presented.
A 16-mm color sound narrative motion picture entitled "Performance
Testing of Spill Control Devices on Floatable Hazardous Materials" was
produced to document the results of this project.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-0490
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
report covers a period from September 1975 to November 1975 and work
was completed as of September 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols viii
Acknowledgment x
1. Introduction and Objective 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations 8
4. Facility Description 9
5. Test Plan 13
6. Boom Tests 22
7. Stationary Skimmer Tests 41
8. Advancing Skimmer Tests 56
9- Sorbent System Tests 74
10. Interpretation and Use of Test Results 85
References 96
Appendices
A. OHMSETT Description 97
B. Pilot Study 99
C. Test Equipment - Booms 114
D. Test Equipment - Stationary Skimmers 129
E. Test Equipment - Advancing Skimmers 132
F. Test Equipment - U.S. EPA/Seaward Sorbent System 137
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Fluids handling 12
2 Catenary boom test details 23
3 Diversionary test details 24
4 Stationary skimmer test details . 42
5 Recovery rate of the Slickbar Rigid Mantaray 50
6 Recovery efficiency of the Slickbar Rigid Mantaray 51
7 Recovery rate of the I.M.E. Swiss OELA 52
8 Recovery efficiency of the I.M.E. Swiss OELA 53
9 Recovery rate of the Oil Mop 54
10 Recovery efficiency of the Oil Mop 55
11 Advancing skimmer test details 57
12 Hazardous material recovery rate vs. tow speed DIP-1002 65
13 Hazardous material recovery efficiency vs. tow speed DIP-1002 ... 66
14 Throughput efficiency vs. tow speed DIP-1002 67
15 Hazardous material recovery rate vs. tow speed ORS-125 68
16 Recovery efficiency vs. tow speed ORS-125 69
17 Throughput efficiency vs. tow speed ORS-125 70
18 Sorbent system test details 75
19 Recovery rate of the Seaward sorbent system 82
20 Recovery efficiency of the Seaward sorbent system 83
21 Throughput efficiency of the Seaward sorbent system 84
22 River relative velocity profiles . 91
23 Test tank relative velocity profiles 91
24 Photograph of air barrier surface currents 93
25 Air barrier surface currents 94
26 Circulation pattern and velocity profiles for an air barrier ... 95
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Physical Properties of Test Fluids 14
2 Boom Test Matrix Catenary Configuration ...... 16
3 Boom Test Matrix Diversionary Configuration 17
4 Stationary Skimmer Test Matrix 18
5 DIP-1002 Advancing Skimmer Test Matrix 19
6 ORS-125 Advancing Skimmer Test Matrix . . 20
7 Sorbent System Test Matrix . 21
8 Test Results Clean Water Boom ......... 28
9 Test Results B.F. Goodrich Boom .......... 31
10 Test Results U.S. Coast Guard Prototype High Seas Boom ..... 34
11 Clean Water Boom Performance (catenary configuration) ..... 37
12 Clean Water Boom Performance (diversionary configuration) ... 38
13 B.F. Goodrich Boom Performance (catenary configuration) .... 39
14 B.F. Goodrich Boom Performance (diversionary configuration) . . 40
15 Test Results Slickbar Skimmer Marlow Pump 46
16 Test Results I.M.E. Skimmer Sandpiper Pump 48
17 Test Results Oil Mop Skimmer Oil Mop Pump 49
18 Test Results DIP-1002 61
19 Test Results ORS-125 63
20 Test Results Seaward Sorbent System 80
21 Statistical Data 87
Vll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
cm
cm2/s
cSt
m3
m /min
m3/s
CPM
ft
gal
gpm
H/L
in
IERL-C1
I.M.E.
I.R.
kg
kg/m
kt
m
m/min
m/s
m2/s
mm
mV/m/s
OHMSETT
p.p.t.
%
PACE
Ibs
Ibs/ft
SSU
sec, s
ft2
m2
V/m/s
-centimeter
•-centimeters squared/sec
-centistokes
•-cubic meters
•-cubic meters per minute
•-cubic meters per second
•-cycles per minute
-feet
•-gallons
•-gallons per minute
•-height to length steepness ratio
—inch
—Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, Ohio
—Industrial and Municipal Engineering
—infrared
—kilograms
--kilograms per meter
--knot
•-meter
•-meters per minute
—meters per second
—meters squared per second
—millimeters
—millivolts per meter per second
--Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
Tank
--parts per thousand
•-percent
--Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian
Environment
—pounds
--pounds per foot
—Saybolt Universal Seconds
--seconds
—square feet
—square meters
—volts per meter per second
SYMBOLS
U
—Catenary boom configuration
viii
-------
SYMBOLS (continued)
V —critical velocity
Jc —Diversionary configuration
' —feet
" —inches
00 —infinity
± —plus or minus next amount shown
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described in this report was conducted under the joint
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Coast Guard. Project representatives for these agencies were Dr. J.P.
Lafornara, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Mr. J.R. Sinclair,
U.S. Coast Guard. Each contributed significantly to the success of this
project, for which we are grateful.
Test equipment for this project was supplied by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and several manufacturers
of pollution control equipment. The cooperation of these Government
agencies and the manufacturers is sincerely appreciated.
Mr. F.J. Freestone is the Project Officer of OHMSETT which is owned
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. His technical guidance and
many valuable suggestions helped make this test project a success and
were greatly appreciated.
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. is the operating contractor
of OHMSETT and Mr. R.A. Ackerman, Manager provided overall project val-
uable guidance which is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
Mr. G.F. Smith, Head of the OHMSETT Chemistry Laboratory, provided
valuable assistance and was responsible for the laboratory and pilot plant
phase of this project, for which we are grateful.
The University of Rhode Island, under contract with the U.S. Coast
Guard provided computerized data collection service for the project which
is appreciated.
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND
When classified by their physical behavior in water, all hazardous
materials fall into one of four categories. First are the gases, substances
that vaporize upon release. Second are the sinkers, substances that
settle to the bottom of watercourses without dissolving. Third are solu-
bles, substances which dissolve in water. On the last category, are the
floaters, substances which remain at the surface without dissolving. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and De-
velopment together with the United States Coast Guard, Office of Research
and Development has the responsibility of developing methods to prevent and
control spillage of hazardous materials and has initiated research for ma-
terials in all four categories.
During this joint EPA USCG project, the two Agencies attempted to begin
to define the conditions under which existing oil spill control and
recovery equipment could be used to control spills of hazardous chemicals
which fall into the last category, floaters.
Spills of some floatable hazardous materials can be controlled and clean-
ed up with equipment presently used for oil spills. The use of such equip-
ment on a given HM spill depends upon many considerations, including: the
safety hazards of the spilled material the chemical compatibility of the
spilled material with the equipment; the expected performance of the equip-
ment with the spilled material; and the limitations of the equipment with
respect to existing environmental conditions. The toxicity, flammability
and other critical properties of floatable HM can be found in handbooks (1,
2, 3). This report addresses the performance of oil-spill control equip-
ment as tested with floating HM at OHMSETT. Seven of the nine devices
tested had been previously evaluated for performance in oil under different
test projects at OHMSETT (4, 5, 6).
OHMSETT is a test facility for performance testing and evaluation of
full-scale and prototype equipment. (For details, see Appendix A.) Several
reasons for conducting performance tests in a hydrodynamically controlled
environment, such as OHMSETT, are:
Tests cannot be legally conducted on the open waterways, without
specific governmental approval.
-------
Ability to establish simulated hydrodynamic-environmental condi-
tions .
Ability to establish simulated oil (or HM) spills on open water-
ways .
Ability to repeat the test conditions and results to allow
statistical treatment of the data.
The above reasons allow standardized tests, which are necessary to
quantify the performance of equipment with respect to design specifications.
Ultimately, the results obtained will allow selection of the proper equip-
ment for use in a specific spill situation.
SCOPE
The purpose of this project was to test and evaluate existing inland
and harbor oil-spill control equipment for control and clean-up of the
hazardous materials. Tests were performed on various skimmer designs of both
the advancing and stationary type, barriers of different designs in both
catenary and diversionary configurations, and a prototype mechanical sorbent
deployment and retrieval system using polyurethane foam cubes.
Since there were several different types of test equipment, five test
matrices were designed to simulate different field-use conditions (typical
inland lakes, rivers and harbors), and to correlate with test data on oils
taken earlier under the same test conditions at OHMSETT.
SELECTION OF MATERIALS
To expedite the selection of the HM to be used during testing, a pilot
study was conducted on the use of HM at OHMSETT (Appendix B). Objectives were
to:
Assure compatibility of the OHMSETT equipment with the selected
HM.
Make the final selection of the HM to be used during testing.
• Develop safety procedures and practices to be used during
testing.
The pilot study covered six chemicals whose compatibility with materials
used in fabrication of oi]-spill control equipment had already been determined,
Tests were conducted ?' ne laboratory scale (jar tests), and at the pilot
scale in an alumi*- ak with 1.13-m3 capacity, (300 gal). A pilot-scale
filtration unit. _LSO constructed.
As a result of the pilot study, the following conclusions were reached:
Octanol, dioctyl phthalate and naphtha were representative of
167 HM investigated by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for the
-------
U.S. Coast Guard.
• They were relatively inexpensive, readily available, and compati-
ble with the test tank and ancillary equipment. Safety equipment
and procedures for handling were available.
• On-site filtering units were adequate for treating water contain-
ing the HM.
The hazardous materials selected for the tests were octanol, dioctyl
phthalate, and naphtha. The test fluids represented a wide range of three
important physical properties—viscosity, specific gravity, and interfacial
tension. The HM were also selected for low toxicity and flammability. An
investigation of possible HM to be tested was conducted by Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (7).
The test design was also aimed at providing an understanding of the
performance of several types of oil-spill control devices, under a variety
of controlled conditions at OHMSETT.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL
The following conclusions were drawn from evaluation of the test data
and observations of equipment performance, during this project's tests in-
volving HM and previous tests with oil conducted under Mason & Hanger
Job Order No. 6 (5).
• Performance of the equipment is directly relatable to the
physical properties of the test fluids, which points to the
need to define the capability to control, confine, or process
the various types of oil and/or HM released during spills for
each type of device.
Performance of the equipment, when used on the HM, did not
vary substantially from performance when tested on oils of
similar physical properties under the same conditions.
The chemical properties of the HM must first be analyzed in
terms of equipment operator safety, equipment durability and
methods for its separation from water.
BOOM TESTS
The effect of HM specific gravity on boom performance was defined for
the three chemicals tested. Head wave shedding and subsequent entrainment
was the primary mode of failure: a phenomenon directly related to droplet
formation and the relative velocity between the slick and the tank water.
Boom performance (maximum tow speed before HM loss) increased with Naphtha,
pointing to a significant relationship between specific gravity and boom
maximum tow speed. Test fluids of relatively high specific gravity tended
to become entrained via droplet formation and shedding loss occurred at
the lower tow speeds in both the catenary and diversionary configurations.
Without waves, containment and diversionary success was limited when
the booms were confronted with 1-mm thickness of DOP. The primary mode
of failure was shedding, a phenomenon directly related to droplet for-
mation and subsequent entrainment. Reviewing the comparative physical
properties of test fluids, it can be noted that the difference between tank
water and test fluid specific gravity was lowest when considering DOP (0.0345)
-------
and highest with Naphtha (0.2995). Boom performance increased with Naphtha
pointing to a significant relationship between specific gravity and boom
maximum tow speed. Test fluids of relatively high specific gravity tended to
become entrained as the result of droplet formation and shedding loss
occurred at lower tow speeds in both the catenary and diversionary configur-
ation.
STATIONARY SKIMMER TESTS
Stationary skimmer performance was found not to be dependent upon the
physical properties of the test fluids nor the wave conditions tested. Three
different types of stationary skimmers were tested: floating suction head,
self-adjusting weir and oleophilic rope types.
The floating suction head skimmer performed slightly better with the
more viscous OOP (61.5 cSt) than with less viscous HM under a calm surface
condition. When waves were introduced, however, the DOP tended to become
mixed into the water column. Under this condition, the performance of
the floating suction head skimmer was optimized with Naphtha. It is in-
teresting to note that except with DOP, the nominal 0.6-m harbor chop
did not significantly affect recovery rate.
The self-adjusting weir-type skimmer exhibited recovery efficiencies
approaching 40% when tested with DOP and a calm surface condition. As with
the floating suction head skimmer, efficiency was maximized with the higher
density HM. When confronted with the wave condition, the total mixture
recovery rate increased as more water was skimmed, but recovery efficiency
dropped.
The third stationary design characteristic studied was the oleophilic
rope type skimmer. Recovery efficiency approached 100% with DOP and a calm
surface condition. Performance in waves was optimized near 80% recovery
efficiency. Hydrodynamic forces were somewhat overcome by the adsorption
force on the test fluid by the oleophilic rope.
ADVANCING SKIMMER TESTS
Similar to the stationary skimmers, the advancing skimmers were found
to have a strong relationship between their performance and the physical
properties of the HM and the design features and controls of each device.
Two types of advancing skimmers were tested: dynamic inclined (non-absorb-
ing) belt (DIP-1002) and floating weir box (ORS-125).
The DIP-1002 skimmer was tested with the following controlled settings:
Belt speed = 1.22 m/s (2.42 kt)
Tow speed - 0.25 to 1.27 m/s (0.5 to 2.5 kt)
• Notch opening = 1.9 cm (0.75 in)
-------
Slick width = 1.52 m (5 ft)
Slick thickness = 2 mm (0.08 in)
Tank surface condition = calm
The tow speed at which maximum performance occurred was dependent upon
HM density. HM recovery rate was optimized for each test fluid with respect
to increasing tow speed above 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt). The lower density Naphtha
was best recovered at the relatively high tow speed of 1.14 m/s. Optimum
recovery rate performance with DOP occurred at the lower tow speed of 0.25
m/s (0.5 kt). Except for DOP, the maximum recovery rates of all test fluids
were comparable and it is possible that this recovery rate (- 1.3 x 10"
m3/s (20.6 gal/min)) may have been reached with DOP at tow speeds lower
than 0.25 m/s. Since speeds < 0.25 m/s are unacceptable for field use
conditions, performance at these speeds was not considered of interest to
the overall test program.
Since the intent of the dynamic inclined belt is to induce a flow
velocity relative to the test fluid, a critical balance of belt speed to
tow speed must be established for each given test fluid. For those fluids
that tend to form large diameter droplets upon breakaway (DOP) and have a
longer rise time, collection increases at lower current speeds because the
droplets must rise into the oil collection well. As tow speed increases
test fluid droplets rise behind the collection well and are drawn through
the backplate opening and out behind the device. This was evidenced through
performance data as well as visual observation. In the case of the low
density Naphtha, it was possible to establish a higher flow velocity and
successful collection since the rise time is faster. In fact, hihger flow
velocities were required to move the test fluid to the collection well.
Throughput efficiency can be analyzed in much the same manner as
recovery rate. Optimum efficiencies generally fell within the range of 40-
60% with a maximum of 85% when tested with DOP. However, this 85% efficiency
occurred at the minimum tow speed of 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) which is too low
for field use consideration.
In the case of the ORS-125, a weir type advancing skimmer, the following
test conditions were established:
Tow speed = 0.25 to 1.52 m/s (0.5 to 3.0 kt)
Air supply to onboard pump = 300 x 103 N/m2 (44 psi)
Slick thickness = 4 mm (0.16 in)
Slick width = 1.52 m (5 ft)
Surface condition = calm
Performance was indicated by HM recovery rate, recovery efficiency, and
-------
throughput efficiency. A maximum throughput efficiency of 90% occurred when
testing with OOP at 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) and Lube oil at 0.63 m/s (1.25 kt).
When confronted with the low density Naphtha, the device was unable to suc-
cessfully collect material. The density dependence of the weir-type advan-
cing skimmer was readily observed both visually and quantitatively.
SORBENT SYSTEM TESTS
The throughput efficiencies for the sorbent system, with a fixed tow
speed of 1.02 m/s (2.0 kt), were quantitatively noted as being somewhat
independent of test fluid property. Also, the device when subjected to
"random" wave surface conditions, maintained a high throughput efficiency of
between 60 and 80%. As in the results of the oleophilic rope, the effects
of natural hydrodynamic forces which tended to cause high density materials
to become entrained were reduced. The absorption rate of the sorbent material
for various test fluids played an important role in effective spill removal.
The sorbent system tested utilized polyurethane open-celled foam which
absorbed material rapidly and was easily regenerated. Recovery efficiency
was maximized at 80% in the no wave condition with Naphtha, with and without
waves.
Recovery rate was optimized with octanol and was even higher with the
0.6-m harbor chop. However, the experimental determination of recovery rate
was not as accurate as for throughput and recovery efficiencies.
SUMMARY
The following relationships are based on the evaluation of data avail-
able in the appendices of this report.
Test Device Physical properties that affect performance
Boom . density, interfacial tension (I.F.T.)
Stationary Skimmer density, I.F.T., viscosity
Advancing Skimmer density, I.F.T., viscosity
Sorbent System ......... depends on compatibility with sorbent
cubes; otherwise independent
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Equipment designed for the control and removal of floatable hazardous
materials should have personnel safety and chemical compatibility as primary
considerations. Where equipment design requires operator contact with
contaminated components, Standard Operating Procedures should be followed,
using such safety procedures, protective devices and clothing as specified.
Equipment should be built with chemically inert materials for those compon-
ents in contact with the HM, and should be capable of decontamination at the
end of each test,
A program should be undertaken to develop techniques to define and
measure the flow conditions surrounding spill control equipment. The
techniques must be broad enough for use with virtually all equipment, both
in tank testing and in the field. The program goals should include a capa-
bility to measure the critical levels of flow that result in formation and
entrainment of droplets of the spilled fluid around and near any device.
These techniques could form the basis for correlation of tank testing,
field testing and field use.
A standard test should be defined to provide critical information as
to the effect of HM on existing clean-up equipment, possible clean-up
methods, and ultimate disposal of HM. The test should provide both quali-
tative answers and quantitative data on a practical, relatively inexpen-
sive basis.
-------
SECTION 4
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
OHMSETT DESCRIPTION
The OHMSETT facility is located in Leonardo, New Jersey, at the Naval
Weapons Station Earle (for details see Appendix A). The facility was
build specifically for the testing of containment and recovery equipment
for oils and HM. Waves can be generated up to 0.9 m (3 ft) high and 45.7 m
(150 ft) long, and current simulated with a towing bridge up to 3.1 m/s
(6 kt). The tank can be filled with either fresh or seawater. The sea-
water of Sandy Hook Bay has a salinity of 20 ppt and was used during these
tests.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO OHMSETT
Since the test equipment and conditions were to duplicate earlier tests
at OHMSETT, no significant modifications were necessary to accomplish this
test project. However, the HM did present a potential fire safety problem.
Naphtha was the greatest concern, because of its low flash point of 37.8°C
(100°F). Steps taken to offset this hazard included the liberal distri-
bution of portable fire extinguishers, and the installation of two indepen-
dent systems for alarm shutdown purposes. One system was based upon a vapor
concentration detector and the other based upon a heat detector. Also, during
the naphtha testing, a three-man U.S. Navy firefighting crew stood by with
full equipment.
DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTATION
The OHMSETT instrumentation system is designed to measure, record and
document all of the physical parameters necessary to quantitatively evaluate
the performance of the test devices. Fluid properties, fluid distribution
rate, fluid recovery, ambient conditions, wave characteristics and tow
speeds are measured as follows:
Fluid Properties—Samples of materials are collected prior to distribution
and after recovery. Properties and the techiques which are used to deter-
mine them include:
Specific Gravity via Laboratory hydrometers
Viscosity via Shear-type viscosimeter
& Flow-thru orifice visicosimeter
-------
Temperature via Laboratory thermometer and
Portable I.R. thermometer
Surface Tension via Tensiometer
Interfacial Tension via Tensiometer
Percent Water via Centrifuging with 50% water
saturated toluene
Fluid Distribution Rate—This was measured using positive displacement
flow meters. Upon signal from the test director, a predetermined amount of
HM was distributed through an air-operated nozzle system in line with the
flow meter.
Fluid Recovery—Measuring containers, sizes 0.06, 0.19, 0.38, 1.89 m
(15, 50, 100, 500 gal) were calibrated in gallons per inch. These containers
were constructed of translucent poluethylene, enabling technicians to
detect and measure the HM/water interface. If the thickness of either phase
was less than 2.5 cm (1 in), that phase was drawn into 1.000 mm graduated
cylinders for more accurate measurement. To ascertain that the HM phase
contained minimal dispersed water droplets, centrifuge samples of the HM
phase were routinely collected and analyzed. If the water content was more
than 2.5%, a water content correction was employed.
The time required to allow complete settling of the water phase from
the HM phase depended upon many factors, including the ambient temperatures,
type of HM used, and the amount of mixing caused by the removal mechanism
(i.e., pump, belt, etc.). A minimum settling time of 1/2 hour with continuous
checks was standard procedure.
Ambient Conditions—The following parameters were measured and recorded
prior to each test using the OHMSETT weather instrumentation: air and
water temperature, wind speed and direction, relative humidity, and baro-
metric pressure.
Wave Characteristics—The OHMSETT generated waves were routinely checked
and photographically documented to measure the height, length, and period.
Using a grid system superimposed on the east tank wall, technicians observed
wave parameters and correlated their findings to the wave generator settings
of stroke length and CPM.
Tow Speed—Data were acquired using a DC tachometer mounted on the motor
shaft of the bridge drive. The gear ratio provided for 196.8 V/m/min, which
was reduced by a voltage divider to 3.28 mV/m/min, and read by a three
segment, 1 V digital voltmeter.
Miscellaneous Measurements—During these tests, some selected measure-
ments were taken, recorded and reduced through an automated data acquisition
system developed for the U.S. Coast Guard by the University of Rhode Island.
10
-------
In addition to the recording of the above measurements, 16 mm motion
picture and 35 mm slide records were made of the testing.
TEST EQUIPMENT RIGGING AND FLUID HANDLING
Procedures for all towing tests are substantially similar. The test
device is connected by cables and/or ropes between the main towing bridge and
a light truss, both of which span the tank and travel its length. The fluid
for a test is contained in two tanks on the main towing bridge, and is pumped
through a manifold and nozzle system for distribution onto the water sur-
face. Test fluid is deployed several feet ahead of a device under test,
during tow. Slick thicknesses are calculated based upon the speed of the
tow, the slick width, and the flow rate of the pump. Slick widths are
varied according to the arrangement of the nozzles as prescribed by the
customer's recommendations. The device under test encounters the slick of
test fluid, and contains it or diverts it. At the end of the run, the
tank surface is skimmed clean on the return of the tow bridge to the starting
position. Test fluids are refurbished for reuse according to the procedure
outlined in Figure 1.
11
-------
22.02-m
(5,000-gal)
Storage Tank
11.01-ni
(2,500-gal)
Bridge Tanks
Distribute on
water for test
Recover fluids
Decant
Coalesce
Dehydrate
Skim to
equalization
pits
lights oils
and chemicals
heavy oils
and chemicals
Vacuum distill
Dehydrate
Figure 1. Fluids handling.
12
-------
SECTION 5
TEST PLAN
TEST RATIONALE
Inland waterways, estuaries and harbors represent a wide spectrum of
environmental conditions in terms of waves, currents, tides and water pro-
perties. Spill control equipment is designed to operate effectively only
within certain limits of these environmental conditions. Thus, the wave
characteristics and currents (as well as the HM) were selected to represent
the more typical situations. Also, where possible, the HM test conditions
were matched to earlier conditions when these devices were tested in oil
(4, 5, 6). This provided a direct comparison of the performance of the
equipment in HM and oil.
The HM selected were not destructive to the test equipment. Test
equipment performance was tested primarily as a function of three HM
physical properties: viscosity, specific gravity and interfacial tension.
Table 1 gives the range on these properties as represented by the test
fluids. Based on previous tests with oils (give in Table 1), the properties
that affected performance most were viscosity and specific gravity.
EQUIPMENT TESTED
Equipment was selected on the basis of four criteria: that each major
type of clean up device be represented; that each device have previously
been tested with oils at OHMSETT; that the materials of construction of
each device be compatible with the intended HM; and that each device be
readily available for testing. The equipment selected was:
Booms
1. U.S. Coast Guard - Prototype High Seas Barrier
2. Clean Water, Inc. - Harbour Oil Containment Boom
3. B.F. Goodrich Sea Products - 18 PFX Seaboom
Sorbent System
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Developmental Sorbent
System (developed under contract with Seaward International)
Advancing Skimmers
1. Ocean Systems, Inc. - ORS 125
2. JBF Scientific Corp. - DIP 1002
13
-------
TABLE 1. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF TEST FLUIDS
^~~~^---^^ Chemical
Property ^~""--^^^
Freeze Point °C (°F)
Boiling Point °C (°F)
Flash Point °C (°F)
Viscosity <§ 24°C (75°F)
x 10-6m2/s
Specific Gravity
A Sp. Gr. * (Avg.)
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg)
Surface Tension
x 10~3N/m
Interfacial Tension
x 10~3N/m
Low Pressure
Naphtha
156-198 (313-
389)
38 (100)
5.8
0.710
0.2995
2;0 (§ 20°C
22.5
25.4
Octanol
-58 (-72)
194 (382)
178 (353)
12.0
0.827
0.1825
0.2 @ 20°C
24.8
14.8
Dioctyl
Phthalate
-55 (-67)
230 (446)
218 (425)
67.5
0.975
0.0345
1.2 @ 200°C
28.2
15.2
No. 2
Fuel Oil
8.5
0.849
0.1605
25.4
9.0
Sunvis 75
Lube Oil
100.0
0.870
0.1390
28.0
25.0
*Tank Water Specific Gravity = 1.0095
-------
Stationary Skimmers
1. Industrial and Municipal Engineering (I.M.E.) - Swiss OELA III
2. Slickbar Inc. - 1-in Rigid Manta Ray
3. Oil Mop Inc. - Mark II-D
(For detailed descriptions of the equipment tested, refer to Appendices
C, D, E, and F).
TEST CONDITIONS
The test matrix for the full-scale investigation duplicated the matrix
conditions previously used for each device during previous OHMSETT testing
with No. 2 fuel oil and a lubricating stock oil (5). The matrix was designed
around variations in wave conditions, tow speeds and slick conditions, with
the variable parameters chosen to be appropriate to the device being tested.
Booms were tested with the three HM at a slick thickness of approxi-
mately 1 mm (0.04 in) and width of 9.14 m (30 ft), at each of three wave
conditions in both catenary and diversionary modes of operation (Tables 2,
3). Exceptions were: 1) the U.S. Coast Guard Boom was not designed for
diversionary use, and therefore was not tested in that mode, and 2) some
of the matrix points in the schedule were not achieved, due to time limitations.
Stationary skimmers were tested (Table 4) in slicks of 12 mm thickness
(0.5 in) with three HM, under conditions of calm and a 0.6 m (2 ft) harbor
chop. The tests were designed to yield information on recovery rate and
volumetric efficiency.
Advancing skimmers were tested (Tables 5, 6) in a recovery versus tow
speed matrix, for three HM, under calm conditions in slicks 2-4 mm thick
(0.08-0.16 in) and 1.52 m wide (5 ft). These tests were designed to yield
curves of recovery rate, volumetric efficiency (percent spill material in
recovered fluids) and throughput efficiency (volume recovered/volume
encountered) versus tow speed.
The sorbent system was tested (Table 7) at a speed of 1.02 m/s (2 kt) with
three HM, at a fixed slick condition of 4.5 m (15 ft) width and 0.5 m (0.2 in)
thickness, and under three wave conditions: calm, a 0.3 m (1 ft) harbor chop
and a 0.6 m (2 ft) harbor chop. These tests were designed to yield infor-
mation on throughput efficiency and HM recovery rate.
15
-------
TABLE 2. BOOM TEST MATRIX CATENARY CONFIGURATION
Test no. Test fluid
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
*Boom
±0.25
None -
stability
tests
DOP
DOP
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
performance was observed
m/s (0.5 kt) relative to
Tow speed*
(m/s)
V ±
V ±
V ±
c
V ±
Vc ±
Vc ±
V ±
V +
vc ±
Vc ±
vc ±
vc ±
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
25)
25)
25)
25)
25)
25)
25)
25)
25)
25.)
25)
25)
up to failure and
that failure point
Wave character
height, length, period
[m (ft), m (ft), s]
no
0.
0.
0.
no
0.
no
0.
0.
0.
no
0.
wave
6 (2)
3 (1)
6 (2)
wave
6 (2)
wave
3 (1)
6 (2)
3 (1)
wave
6 (2)
harbor chop
harbor chop
, 9.1 (30), 3.0
, 9.1 (30), 3.0
harbor chop
, 9.1 (30), 3.0
harbor chop
, 9.1 (30), 3.0
detailed observation was utilized
Wave generator
eccentric cm (in) , GPM
7.62 (3.0) , 30
3.81 (1.5), 40
11.43 (4.5), 20
11.43 (4.5), 20
3.81 (1.5), 40
11.43 (4.5), 20
3.81 (1.5), 40
11.43 (4.5). 20
at
-------
TABLE 3. BOOM TEST MATRIX DIVERSIONARY CONFIGURATION
Test no. Test fluid
S-l
S-2
S-3
1
2
f— i
-< 3
4
5
6
7
8
None -
stability
tests
DOP
DOP
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
*Boom performance was observed up
relative to that failure point.
Tow speed
m/s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
to
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
± (0.25)
c
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
c ± (0.25)
failure and
Wave character
height, length, period Wave generator
m (ft), m (ft), s eccentric cm (in), CPM
no wave
0.6 (2), 9.1 (30), 3.0 11.43 (4.5), 20
0.3 (1) harbor chop 3.81 (1.5), 40
no wave
0.6 (2), 9.1 (30), 3.0 11.43 (4.5), 20
0.6 (2), 9.1 (30), 3.0 11.43 (4.5), 20
no wave
0.3 (1) harbor chop 3.81 (1.5), 40
0.3 (1) harbor chop 3.81 (1.5), 40
no wave
0.6 (3), 9.1 (30), 3.0 11.43 (4.5), 40
detailed observation was utilized at ±0.25 m/s (0.5 kt)
-------
TABLE 4. STATIONARY SKIMMER TEST MATRIX
oo
Test no.
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-18
Test fluid
Octanol
Octanol
Naphtha
Naphtha
DOP
DOP
Wave character
height m (ft)
no wave
0,6 (2) harbor chop
no wave
0.6 (2) harbor chop
no wave
0.6 harbor chop
Wave generator
eccentric cm (in) , CPM
7.62 (3.0), 30
7.62 (3.0) , 30
7.62 (3.0), 30
Notes: 1. Pump rate set at optimum
2. A 3.0 m3 volume of HM (800 gal) was distributed within air barrier surface
3.
area of 147.6 mz (1589 ft*).
Including compressive effects of air barrier on slick size, the effective
slick surface area was approximately 100 rn3 (1076 ft2).
-------
TABLE 5. DIP-1002 ADVANCING SKIMMER TEST MATRIX
Test no. Test fluid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Note:
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
OOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
All tests in calm water.
Fluid distribution :tate Tow speed
m3/s x 10~3 (gal/min) m/s (kt)
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
.93
.32
.55
.71
.09
.93
.32
.55
.71
.09
.93
.32
.55
.71
.09
(30
(36
(24
(43
(49
(30
(36
(24
(43
(49
(30
(36
(24
(43
(49
.6)
.8)
.6)
.0)
.0)
.6)
.8)
.6)
.0)
.0)
.6)
.8)
.6)
-0)
.0)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
.64
.76
.51
.89
.02
.64
.76
.51
.89
.02
.64
.76
.51
.89
.02
(1
(1
(1
(1
(2
(1
(1
(1
(1
(2
(1
(1
(1
(1
(2
.25)
.50)
.00)
.75)
.00)
• 25)
.50)
.00)
.75)
.10)
.25)
.50)
.00)
.75)
.00)
-------
TABLE 6. ORS-125 ADVANCING SKIMMER TEST MATRIX
N3
O
Test no. Test fluid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Note:
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
OOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
All tests in calm waters.
Fluid distribution rate Tow speed
m3/s x 10~3 (gal/min) m/s (kt)
1
2
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
4
.55
.32
.09
.87
.64
.55
.32
.09
.87
.64
.55
.32
.09
.87
.64
(24
(36
(49
(61
(73
(24
(36
(49
(61
(73
(24
(36
(49
(61
(73
.6)
• 8)
.0)
.3)
.5)
.6)
.8)
.0)
.3)
.5)
.6)
.8)
.0)
.3)
.5)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
25
38
51
64
76
25
38
51
64
76
25
38
.51
,64
,76
(0.
(0.
(1.
(1.
(1.
(0.
(0.
(1.
(1.
(1.
(0.
(0.
(1.
50)
75)
00)
25)
50)
50)
75)
00)
25)
50)
50)
75)
00)
(1.25)
(1.50)
-------
TABLE 7. SORBENT SYSTEM TEST MATRIX
Test no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Test fluid
DOP
DOP
DOP
Octanol
Octanol
Octanol
Naphtha
Naphtha
Naphtha
Fluid distribution Tow speed
rate m3/s x 10~3(gpm) m/s (ft)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
(37.
(37.
(37.
(37.
(37,
(37.
(37.
(37.
(37.
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(2.0)
Wave character
height m (ft)
No
0.
0.
No
0.
0.
No
0.
0.
wave
3 (1) harbor
6 (2) harbor
wave
3 (1) harbor
6 (2) harbor
wave
3 (1) harbor
6 (2) harbor
chop
chop
chop
chop
chop
chop
-------
SECTION 6
BOOM TESTS
BOOM TOW TEST PROCEDURE
The first step was deployment and rigging of the boom, and connection
to the bridge (as shown in Figures 2 and 3) . Once the water surface condi-
tion was established (wave or no wave), the boom was towed at continuously
increasing speed until judged unstable by observation from the traveling
truss located behind the boom apex. Then the tow speed was decreased in 3
m/min (0.1 kt) increments until the boom became stable, and then speed was
increased in 3 m/min increments to reconfirm the failure speed. This speed
was entered as the "critical tow speed". The failure point was also docu-
mented via 16 mm movies and 35 mm color slides. Modes of failure were noted.
The tow tests for booms in HM were conducted in a similar manner as the
above stability tests. HM were distributed as 2 mm (0.08 in) thick, 15.24 m
(50 ft) wide spills amounting to approximately 1.32 m3 (350 gal). Here, the
critical tow speed was defined as the maximum tow speed, for catenary or
diversionary configurations, at which there was no loss of HM under the boom
(i.e., no shedding). Other modes of HM loss were documented, but not used
as the criterion for determining the critical tow speed. The only exception:
if a mode of failure, other than shedding, was prevalent at speeds signi-
ficantly lower than the speed required for shedding, then the critical tow
speed was based on that mode of failure. Photographic documentation included
16 mm movies and 35 mm slides, both in color.
For details of the catenary and diversionary test set-up, see Figures
2 and 3. To maintain a smooth diversionary profile against the relative
current, a parachute mooring device was employed as shown. The exact lengths
of booms tested are given in Appendix C and the test matrices are given in
Tables 2 and 3.
A step-by-step test procedure for booms is given below in the following
format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist, Test Sequence, Data Sheets
and Data Analysis.
Manpower Allocations
The following allocations of duties were made:
22
-------
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
1200 gal
ht
p
©
300
qpm
PUMP
®
BRIDGE
HOUSE
4
^ 1
RRin
jlgQOgol
REVERSE
*TOW
CABLE
TRUSS
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
3) Test Director
|) Fluids Dispensing Operator
*j) Valve Operator
g) Photographer
S) Data Documentation Officer
Figure 2. Catenary boom test details.
23
-------
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
I
BRIDGE
PARACHUTE
MOORING
LINES
QUIET
ZONE
REVERSE
TOW
CABLE
TRAVELING
TOW DEVICE
TRUSS
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
0 Test Director
Fluids Dispensing
Valve Operator
(4) Photographer
Data Documentation Officer
Figure 3. Diversionary test details.
24
-------
1. Test director - responsible for running the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the test
personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the traveling bridge, wave
generator and bubble barrier from the control tower located at
the North end of the tank. He also collects the data for
ambient conditions.
3. Fluids dispensing operator - usually a temporary technician who
adjusts the flow control valves for the proper flow rate and
records the flow rate.
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records failure condi-
tions and modes of failure. Communicates with test director and
photographer on tow speed changes and documentation of perfor-
mance. Performs the analysis and reduction of all data.
5. Photographer - photographically documents the test runs with 35 mm
color slides, 16 mm color motion pictures, and/or underwater video
tape.
6. Chemical analysis officer - takes samples of the test fluid before
its distribution and after its recovery for analysis of water
content, viscosity, specific gravity and interfacial tension for
the test run. In general, analysis of fluids for chemical and
physical properties is his responsibility.
7. Valve operator - ususally a temporary technician who operates the
pneumatic valve controls for recirculation and distribution of
the test fluid.
8. Fluids clean up team leader - heads the operation of cleaning the
residual test fluid from the water surface in preparation for
the next test run.
9. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads the operation of removing
water (both free and emulsified) and contaminants from the test
fluid prior to its reuse. Also, responsible for operating the
filter unit to maintain water purity and clarity.
10. Other temporary aides were positioned as required.
Pre-test Checklist
To ensure that all systems and equipment were maintained and ready
for the test, the following checklist was used prior to the first test run:
1. D.E. filter system operating
2. Chlorine generator operating
3. Air-bubble barrier system operating
25
-------
4. Bridge drive system operating
5. Wave generator system operational
6. Test device operational
7. Test instrumentation operational
8. Test fluid ready
9. Test fluid distribution system operational
10. Test support equipment operational
11. Photographic systems ready
12. Test personnel prepared and ready
13. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists
Test Sequence (with test fluid)
The following test sequence was used for the catenary and diversionary
boom tests:
1. Position the traveling bridge and test device for testing
(see Figures 2 and 3).
2. Position all test personnel for testing (see Figures 2 and 3).
3. Inform all test personnel of test conditions taken from the test
matrix.
4. Calibrate the flow rate using the recirculation mode, and continue
to recirculate while observing test fluid temperature and pressure
drop. Just prior to test run, take samples of recirculating test
fluid and record test fluid temperature.
5. Give three (3) blasts on the air horn to clear the tank decks,
alert all test personnel of test run, and start wave generator,
if required.
6. Using either intercom system of walkie-talkies, begin countdown
from five (5), with the control room operator to begin bridge
motion at zero (0) and one (1) blast on the air horn.
7. One (1) blast on the air horn initiates the following: start
bridge, start test fluid distribution, and start stopwatches.
8. Control room operator informs test director of steady state bridge
speed.
9. Data documentation officer informs test director of boom performance
and advises him of speed increases and/or decreases. Photographic
documentation occurs simultaneously.
10. Test fluid distribution ceases after 1.3 m3 (350 gal) is distri-
buted, and distribution time is recorded.
11. Define the boom "no test fluid loss" speed and modes of failure.
26
-------
12. Test director begins countdown from five (5) to stop the bridge,
the wave generator and stopwatches.
13. Lower the bridge "skimming plate" to prevent test fluid from
passing under the bridge and to skim all residual test fluid back
to the north end of the tank into the surface containment area.
14. All boom data sheets are completed and the integrated skimmer
tests begin if required.
15. Reverse the bridge and test boom to prepare for the next test run.
16. Stability tests would follow this same procedure without the test
fluid being distributed.
Data Sheets
The following data sheets were used for the boom tests:
1. Test Equipment Characteristics
2. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
3. Flow Rate/Volume Data Sheet
4. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
5. Boom Test Data Sheet
Data Analysis
The data documentation officer performs all data analysis and
reduction. All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto master
raw data sheets as shown in Tables 8, 9, and 10. The ultimate responsibility
for proper data collection, analysis and presentation belongs to the OHMSETT
Project Engineer. He writes the final report and disseminates data to the
EPA Project Officer.
TEST DATA
The following test result tables contain information on the test
fluid properties, ambient conditions and wave characteristics at the time
the boom was tested. The critical tow speed column lists the maximum speed
at which the boom can be towed before either losing HM under the skirt or
becoming unstable. The codes for the different modes of boom bailure are
as follows:
SU - submarining
SH - shedding
SP - splashover
WA - washover
PL - planing
27
-------
N3
00
TABLE 10. TEST RESULTS U.S. COAST GUARD PROTOTYPE HIGH SEAS BOOM
UJ
g
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/21
10/21
10/21
s
( —
0900
0915
ogiio
1030
1055
1125
1330
1330
1000
101*0
1110
UJ
h-
LO
LU
h-
S-l
S-2
7
7E
8
7K2
S-3
6
1*
1*H
ItR2
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
IX
1—
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
OCT
OCT
OCT
TEMPERATURE
°C
*.k
11,1,
1U.«,
-.!*.!)
llt.lt
15.6
15.6
15.6
0
>- X
f—
t/1 O
82
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
13.7
13.7
13.7
LO.
Ujro
1— i
CD
LU •—
O
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
26.3
26.3
26.3
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
ll*. 7
11*. 7
11*. 7
lU. 7
11*. 7
8.7
8.7
8.7
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.7815
.7815
.7815
.7815
.7815
.8585
.8585
.8585
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
1M
H.i,
H..1*
iif.it
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.3
15.0
16.1
Q
UJ
UJ
O
WIND
DIRECTION
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION
-/OLUME ill3
CATENARY
!*.5
>*.5
"•'
5-*
6.7
It. 5
3.6
3.6
it. 5
It. 5
It. 5
E
E
NE
1.32
NE j 1. 32
i
NE
NE
NE
HE
SW
SW
SW
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
C3 l/l
LU ---
uJ E
0_
OO 1JJ
O c£
H- o:
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0
0
0
0
.76
.51
-51
.51
.51
.51
- .51
- .51
- .63
- .63
- .63
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
1— in
nr s-
CJ3 OJ
LU OJ
3: E
0
0.6
0
0
0.6
0
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
LENGTH
rtieter ;
Q
9-1
0
0
9.1
0
HC
HC
0
0
0
O
o
Csl 'J
3.0
3-0
PERFORMANCE
CHARACTER TSTICS
jE '
O u
1— CJ
1 -~~.
< E
i— CD
1 — LU
i-y Q_
<_J OO
.51
.18
.t6
,U6
.20
.1*6
.1*6
.05
.20
(.51)
.20
.20
U- UJ
O rv
LU _l
a •— '
CD <<
5; LU
su
SP
(SU)
WA
WA
WA
WA
SU
WA
SH
(WA)
SH
SH
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
o
LO/21
LO/21
LO/21
10/21
LO/23
LO/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
S
1120
13140
1U20
11,140
0915
09.0
1012
1033
1055
LU
i
t—
CO
LU
1—
3
1
1R
2
S-l
S-2
1
2
1R
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
a.
I—
OCT
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
HOP
DOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
15.6
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
o
>- X
1—
co o
o 01
CO ^
13.7
7l4.9
714.9
7U.9
714.9
7l4.9
7l4.9
g
ujm
(— r
o
UJ • —
«=C X
u_
CfL £
26.3
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
8,7
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0 i
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.8585
-9785
.9785
.9785
.9785
.9785
.9785
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
16.1
18.9
19.14
20.6
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
o
LU
LU
Q_
CO '
O
a LTl
.20
.10
.10
.15
(.23)
.63
(.56)
.13
.08
(.05)
(.#)
o o^
a i— .
a •=£
SH
SH
SH
SP
(SH)
SU
SP
(su)
SH
SP
(SH)
SH
(SU)
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
LU
1 —
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/214
10/2)4
10/2*4
10/2)4
10/*
10/2)4
LU
s:
i—
1335
1352
1)410
1,27
08^5
0915
0935
09)45
1125
1125
ce
LU
en
s:
i—
LU
1—
ll
in,
^
3
7
7R
TO*
8
S-3
6
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
PtAP
NAP
NAP
HAP
NAP
TEMPERATURE
°C
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
o
>- X
t—
CO O
O O)
CJ I/I
CO ^
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
t— i
a
LU r—
«=c x
U-
27.6
27.6
27.6
27.6
2)4.0
2..0
2)4.0
2^.0
2)4.0
— J
*tn
i— . i
O O
«=c —
Ll_
o: x
I^E
~z. ^
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.e-,8,-'
.8580
.8580
.8580
.7965
.7965
.7965
.7965
.7965
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
16.7
17.2
17.8
17.8
20.0
20.0
o
LU
LU
O.
CO •
0
O QJ
sir
WIND
DIRECTION
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION
VOLUME rr.3
DrVHRSTONARY
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.6
2.2
3.1
3.1
3.1 ,
2.2
2.2
E
HE
NE
HE
SW
SW
m
NW
HE
NE
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
OJ
O l/l
LU -^
LU Ez
on UJ
CD
1— OL
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
-51
.51
.51
.38
.76
.76
.76
.63
.25
.25
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
:c s_
CD OJ
LU
-------
TABLE 9. TEST RESULTS B.F. GOODRICH BOOM
UJ
g
10 '9
10/9
10/9
10/9
10 '9
10/9
10 /Q
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/1.
LU
I—
101S
10.,
11^0
1,,,
114P5
1510
1520
12SO
1)455
15P5
0950
oi
UJ
cfl
£
=>
h-
CO
UJ
1—
S-l
S-P
S-,
?
14
3R
S-14
^
1
?
7
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
Q_
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
DOP
DOP
HAP
TEMPERATURE
°C
16.7
16.7
16.7
15.0
15.6
15.6
16.7
VO
O
>- X
h-
OO (J
o oj
(J tO
t— CM
> E
114.0
lU.O
1..0
I..?
79. P
79.2
6.5
o
OO
UJCO
1— 1
CD
•=C X
26.2
?6.?
26.2
25.6
29.2
P9-P
P3.P
INTERRACIAL
N/m x 10-3
7.8
7.8
7.8
8,0
15.8
15.8
30.4
U_ (—
LU .
O (U
3: e
WIND
DIRECTION
SLICK
CHAEACTERTSTTCS
o
CO
C/T !^1
•— o
CATEflARY
6.7
8.0
6.7
7. a
8.9
7.1*
6.7
.,5
P. 7
3.6
h.5
*
NE
WE
NE 1-3?
NE
NE
HE
NE
«
NE
SW
1.32
1.32
1-1?
1.3?
1.32
1.32
\
OJ
Q i/)
UJ ^~-
LU E
a.
i~n L.U
CD
II
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
.51
1,0?
.36
.25
.25
.81
.30
.15
.25
.63
WAVE PEEFORMAKCE
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
HEIGHT
meters
0
0.6
0.3
0
0.3
0
0.6
0.6
0
0.6
0
T
717 (/i
— • E
0
HC
HC
D
HC
0
9.1
0
9,1
0
0
UJ CU
1
is: -
O U
f" ill
u
— • o
1,02
0
f ,38
]{.86)
1
1 !">5
3.0
3.0
3.0
i °
j
.76
-25
,10
0
'
j
Ll_ UJ
C5 ct:
UJ _J
O i— *
0
-------
OJ
KJ
TABLE 8. (Continued)
LU
§
10 /111
10 /111
10 'ill
10 /IS
10 '15
10 /is
10'is
10 /!•=
10 /is
LU
E
1020
110S
llliO
1000
1025
1320
l?ltO
lli20
1WO
or
LU
1
H-
CO
LU
t—
7R
8
8R
S-l
ll
I.R
^
S-2
^
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
Q_
t—
NAP
NAP
HAP
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
TEMPERATURE
°C
16. -7
16.7
16.7
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
to
CD
>- X
h-
(/") U
O (U
O t/»
CO \
6.5
6.5
6.5
13.^
13-lt
13.^
13..
f
•z.
CO :z
23.2
23.2
23.2
26. s
26. s
26.5
26.5
_J
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
UJ
10/16
10/16
10/16
10 '16
10/16
10/17
10/17
10/17
5
1—
0850
llUo
1310
1320
1335
091-5
093S
100^
CXL
UJ
i
00
UJ
1—
8-3
1
2
1R
7
7F-
7R*
8
TEST aUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
Q_
1—
DOP
DOP
DOP
NAP
NAP
HAP
NAP
TEMPERATURE
°C
17.8
17.8
17.8
J 5 . 6
15.6
15.6
15.6
0
>- X
t-
00 U
SOJ
3
28. li
28..
28. ll
2*.l
*.l
*.l
2^.1
1
«£n
<_> o
£^
ce x
£e
•ZL -^
»-< Z
15.2
15.2
15.2
1-0 . 8
10.8
10.8
10.8
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.9805
.9805
.9805
,801
.8015
. 8015
.8015
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
20.0
21.1
?3.3
23.3
523.9
llt.it
lli.li
lli.ii
a
LU
UJ
C/) •
"ZL t/t
WIND
DIRECTION
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION
VOLUME m3
DIVERS IOHARY
5,1*
-.5
*.*
3.6
3.6
6.7
5.H
^.5
',':!
SW
sw
sw
sw
E
ME
NE
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
0^
uj • — .
uj E
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
1.02
.51
.25
.51
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
HEIGHT
meters
0.3
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.6
31 t/i
1— S-
UJ QJ
HC
0
9.1
0
0
0
0
9.1
O
a: J
UJ QJ
D_ i/l
3.0
3.0
PERFORMNCE
CHARACTERISTICS
SJ
1— OJ
h- UJ
l-t LU
al ci-
O (/)
0
(1.02
.15
.05
(.05)
.15
.81
.81
.81
.20
(.63)
U_ UJ
O O£
LU _J
a 1-1
O cC
s: u.
SP
(su)
SH
SP
(SH)
SH
SH
SH
SH
SP
(SH)
Co
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 8. TEST RESULTS CLEAN WATER BOOM
LU
g
LO/?8
10/P9
10/?9
io/pg
lO/?9
10/29
10/31
10/31
10/31
10/31
LU
s:
t—
1620
0900
0930
100V
1130
IPOS
0930
0955
1335
11*10
o;
LU
en
z
^
z
l—
t/i
UJ
t-
S-l
7
6
ST-1
8
7R
3
!|
1
?
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
Q_
i=
HAP
NAP
NAP
KAP
OCT
OCT
DOP
DOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.9
13.9
kD
1
O
>- X
H-
(Tl 0
O OJ
(_> i/>
i/l *-v.
ST'fe
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
13.6
13.6
80.1
80.1
§
to
^
UJCO
-i,
LU r—
^x
LL.
<* E
:^ ^
tn z
^.^
?3.5
23.5
23.5
?6.o
?6.0
39.1
?9.1
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
7.5
7.5
11*. 7
lit. 7
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.7965
.7965
7965
,7965
8715
871S
981^
9815
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
•c
18.9
15.6
17.2
17.8
18.9
19.1*
17.?
17.?
19.6
18.8
o
LU
LU
a.
3!
0
0
HC
HC
9.1
0
0
9.1
0
9.1
O
O
o: o
LU a>
Q- ui
3.0
3.0
3.0
PERFORMANCE
CHARACT .
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED m/sec.
.89
.1*6
.38
(.36)
.36
.30
.1*6
.38
.15
.13
.10
LU LU
0 0=
ID
LU 1
O •— '
O
-------
BOOM TEST RESULTS - DISCUSSION
The performance parameters measured for both diversionary and catenary
testing of booms were critical tow speeds for boom stability, HM containment
and HM diversion, and modes of failure. Critical tow speed refers to"the
speed at which either the boom fails (boom stability) or the HM slick cannot
be controlled by the boom (HM slick stability). Therefore, even though
a boom performs perfectly in 0.6 m (2 ft) waves at 1.0 m/s (2 kt) tow speeds
without the slick present, hydrodynamic mechanisms (entrainment, splashing
waves and vortices) prevent the boom from controlling a slick under these
conditions. As indicated by the results of this test project, physical
properties of the slick and hydrodynamic (water surface and currents) condi-
tions ultimately determine the maximum tow speed at which the boom controls
the slick.
Stability tests were first run with each boom system to determine opera-
tional limitations in terms of tow speeds and wave characteristics. Using
0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) as the minimum speed considered for operations, only the
Coast Guard Prototype High Seas Boom performed successfully in the 0.6 m
(2.0 ft) harbor chop (H.C.) wave at 0.36 m/s (0.7 kt), before water splash-
over became significant. Thus, the 0.6 m H.C. was considered the upper limit
wave condition tested; followed closely by the 0.3 m (1.0 ft) H.C. which also
caused boom performance to drop sharply. For all booms tested, performance
deteriorated gradually from calm water conditions, 0.6 mx 9.1 mx 3.0s
waves, 0.3 m H.C. and 0.6 m H.C. waves. In some cases, 0.6 m H.C. tests
were omitted after it became obvious that this wave was beyond the operability
range of the boom. Maximum critical tow speeds attained in the diversionary
and catenary modes under calm water and 0.6mx9.1mx3.0s wave conditions
are given in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 for the Cleanwater and B.F. Goodrich
booms. These tables also include comparative results of an earlier test
project (5).
Critical tow speeds for tests with Naphtha, octanol, and DOP slicks and
in wave conditions described above, were lower than stability speeds due to
the following modes of failure:
• Shedding—droplet formation at the HM/water interface and en-
trainment of droplets swept under the boom.
• Splashover—HM periodically being heaved by waves over the
boom freeboard.
• Washover—large amounts of HM heaved by waves over the boom
combined with loss of freeboard due to partial submergence of
boom.
Critical tow speeds depended very much on the test fluid physical
properties as shown in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14. Specific gravity appeared
to be the predominate independent variable even though a strict testing of
35
-------
each property was not accomplished. Generally, critical tow speed decreased
as specific gravity increased going from Naphtha with the lowest (~ 0.977).
DOP was not adequately controlled by any of the booms tested at tow speeds
above 0.15 m/s (0.3 kt) in the waves tested nor in calm water. Therefore,
according to these tests, spill material of high specific gravity (- 1.0)
cannot be controlled with present day conventional booms in currents ^0.15 m/s
(0.3 kt).
36
-------
TABLE 11. CLEANWATER BOOM PERFORMANCE (CATENARY CONFIGURATION)
TEST
NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
U.
5.
6.
TEST FLUID
STABILITY
(NO OIL)
LUBE OIL
STABILITY
(NO HM)
OOP
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
WAVE CONDITION
H x L x p
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9«H| m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9. lli m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9. lli nr. x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1k m x 3 3
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9. Ill m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9. Ill m x 3 s
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED (m/s)
0.60
0.25
0.51
0.25
0.51
0.17
(O.li3)
0.10
.0.15.
(0.23)
0.20
0.20
O.li5
0.20
TEST FLUID PROPERTIES
Temperature
°C
26.0
30.0
15.0
15.0
15.6
15.6
lii.ll
lli.li
Viscosity
x 10-6ra2/s
U05
31*5
7U.9
7li.9
13.7
13.7
6.5
6.5
Surface
Tension
x 10-3N/m
31.7
31*. 7
28.8
28.8
26.3
26.3
23.6
23.6
Interfacial
x 10-3N/m
15.0
15.0
8.7
8.7
111. 7
111. 7
Specific
Gravity
0.915
0.915
0.978
0.978
0.858
0.858
0.781
0.781
MODE OF FAILURE
SUBMARINING
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
SUBMARINING
SPLASHOVER
(SUBMARINING)
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
(SHEDDING?
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
WASHOVER
WASHOVER
OJ
—J
NOTE: Test numbers 1 and 2 are results taken from an earlier boom test project (JO-6) in Reference 5«
-------
TABLE 12. CLEANWATER BOOM PERFORMANCE (DIVERSIONARY CONFIGURATION)
TEST
NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
u.
5.
6.
TEST FLUID
STABILITY
(NO OIL)
LUBE OIL
STABILITY
(NO HM)
DOP
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
WAVE CONDITION
H x L x p
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 a
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 3
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9=1 m x 3 s
MO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 9
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED (m/s)
0.78
045
0.61
o.Ui
0.63
0.5?
(0.38)
0.12
0.0?
0.3?
0.12
0.55
o.l£
TEST FLUID PROPERTIES
Temperature
°C
20.0
20.0
15.0
15.0
15.6
15.6
16.1
16.1
Viscosity
x 10-6m2/s
1718
1068
7L.9
7li.9
13.3
13.3
7.1
7.1
Surface
Tension
x 10-3N/m
32. L
33.6
28.8
28.8
27.6
27.6
21). 0
2U.O
Interfacial
x 10~3N/m
15.0
15.0
8.5
8.5
13.9
13.9
Specific
Gravity
0.915
0.915
0.978
0.978
0.858
0.858
0.796
0.796
MODE OF FAILURE
SUBMARINING
SUBMARINING
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
SUBMARINING
SUBMARINING
(SPLASHOVER)
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
00
NOTE: Teat numbers 1 and 2 are results taken from an earlier boom test project JO-6 in Reference 5.
-------
TABLE 13. B.F. GOODRICH BOOM PERFORMANCE (CATENARY CONFIGURATION)
TEST
NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
u.
5.
6.
TEST FLUID
STABILITY
(NO OIL)
LUBE OIL
STABILITY
(NO HM)
DOP
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
WAVE CONDITION
H x L x p
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED (m/g)
1.27
0.73
0.1(3
o.l£
1.01
0.76
0.10
0.00
0.25
0.25
o.h5
O.liO
TEST FLUID PROPERTIES
Temperature
o
C
37.0
33.0
15.6
15.6
16.7
15.0
16.7
16.7
*4
ra •&
O I
o o
m M
£ *
381
381
79.2
79.2
lU.o
11(.2
6.5
6.5
Surface
Tension
x 10-3N/m
31.5
31.5
29.2
29.2
26.2
25.6
23.2
23.2
Interfacial
x 10-3N/ra
15.8
15.8
7.8
8.0
30. h
30. It
Specific
Gravity
0.915
0.915
0.977
0.977
0.81*7
0.81»8
0.773
0.733
MODE OF FAILURE
SPLASHOVER
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
PLANING
PLANING
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SPLASHOVER
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
VO
NOTE: Test numbers 1 and 2 are results taken from an earlier boom test project (JO-6) in Reference 5.
-------
TABLE 14. B.F. GOODRICH BOOM PERFORMANCE (DIVERSIONARY CONFIGURATION)
TEST
NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
It.
5.
6.
TEST FLUID
STABILITY
(NO OIL)
LUBE OIL
STABILITY
(NO HK)
DOP
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
WAVE CONDITION
H x L x p
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x. 3 3
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
NO WAVE
0.6 m x 9.1 m x 3 s
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED (m/s)
0.83
0.53
0.61
0.51
0.96
0.15
(0.96)
0.15
0.05
(0.05)
0.76
o.U5
(0.15)
0.81
0.63
(0.20)
TEST FLUID PROPERTIES
Temperaturs
°C
2li.O
28.0
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
15.6
15.6
* S
•H e
to VO
0 1
o o
3 H
> x
267
12li
72.3
72.3
13. U
13. h
7.3
7.3
Surface
Tension
x 10-3 N/m
29.0
28.8
28. U
28. U
26.5
26.5
2h.l
2U.1
Interfacial
x 10-3N/m
15.2
15.2
8.7
8.7
10.8
10.8
Specific
Gravity
0.915
0.915
0.980
0.980
0.856
0.856
0.801
0.801
MODE OF FAILURE
PLANING
SPLASHOVKR
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
PLANING
SPLASHOVER
(PLANING)
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
(SPLASHOVER)
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
(SPLASHOVER)
SHEDDING
SHEDDING
(SPLASHOVER)
Note: Test numbers 1 and 2 are results taken from an earlier boom test project (JO-6) in Reference 5-
-------
SECTION 7
STATIONARY SKIMMER TESTS
STATIONARY SKIMMER TEST PROCEDURES
Stationary skimmer tests were conducted at the north end of the test
n f\
tank in a 147.6 m (1589 ft ) surface containment area defined by air bar-
rier lines across the tank and along the tank walls (Figure 4). The test
matrix is given in Table 3.
For these tests, 3.02 m3 (800 gal) of HM was distributed into the
surface containment area (Figure 4) to maintain a slick thickness of about
2.0 cm (0.78 in). The skimmer test run began by starting the pump and
skimming operation. There was a connection hose from the skimmer head to
the pump, and a discharge hose from the pump to the recovery tanks. When
recovered fluid was observed at the discharge end of the latter hose, a stop-
watch was started to measure the recovery rate. Eighteen 1.89 m3 (500 gal)
polyethylene tanks were used to contain the recovered mixture. The tanks
were translucent so that periodic determinations of recovery rate could be
made. The skimmer was operated until 1.13 m3 '(200 gal) of HM was removed
from the test area, and the time and total volume of recovered fluids were
noted. The tank was then replenished with HM to bring the HM volume again
up to 3.02 m3 (800 gal) for the next test.
By measuring the total volume of the recovered HM/water mixture, and
the duration of the test run, total recovery rate was measured, for checking
against the periodic determinations. After allowing the water to settle out
of the HM gravitationally for a minimum of 1/2 h, the volume of water in the
recovered mixture was read through the translucent tanks. The percent of
recovered HM was calculated and documented as recovery efficiency. HM re-
covery rate was then calculated by simply multiplying the total recovery
rate by the HM recovery efficiency.
Skimmer tests were documented photographically with 16 mm color movies
and 35 mm color slides.
A step-by-step test procedure for stationary skimmers is given below
in the following format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist, Test
Sequence, Data Sheets, and Data Analysis.
41
-------
DISCHARGE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
AIR COMPRESSOR^
~ T
BRIDGED
I J -
AIR
BARRIER
CURRENTS
RECOVERY
BARRELS
6
SUCTION
HOSE
VrEST
SKIMMER
MOORING LINES
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
CD Test Director
© Fluids Dispensing Operator
(3) Valve Operator
(5) Recovery Technician
(5) Photographer
f) Data (JocumonTotinn Officer
Figure 4. Stationary skimmer test details,
-------
Manpower Allocations
The following allocations of duties were made:
1. Test director - responsible for running the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the test
personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the wave generator and collects
the data for ambient conditions.
3. Fluids dispensing operator - maintains the desired fluid thickness
at the beginning of each run. Assists with other duties as needed.
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records test fluid col-
lection data and keeps a notebook of performance observations. Per-
forms the analysis and reduction of all data.
5. Photographer - documents the test with 35 mm color slides and 16 mm
color motion pictures.
6. Chemical analysis officer - samples the test fluid before and after
test run. Samples are analyzed for water content, viscosity,
specific gravity and interfacial tension.
7. Test equipment operator - starts the recovery pump and operates
the equipment according to manufacturer's recommendations.
8. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads the operation of removing
water and contaminants from the test fluid prior to its reuse.
Pre-test Checklist
To ensure that all test systems and equipment are maintained and ready
for the test, the following checklist is used prior to the first test run:
1. D.E. Filter system running
2. Chlorine generator operating
3. Air-bubbler barrier operating
4. Wave generator system operational
5. Test device operational
6. Test fluid ready
7. Test support equipment operational
8. Photographic systems ready
9. Test personnel prepared and ready
10. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists
Test Sequence
The following test sequence was used for the stationary skimmer tests:
1. Establish thickened spill condition of 800 gal.
43
-------
2. Place skimmer system in operating position for the test run.
3. Establish wave conditions according to the test matrix.
4. Place and maintain the recovery hose in the polyethylene recovery
tanks.
5. Start the skimmer system with controls set for optimum recovery
conditions.
6. Start the stopwatch when recovered fluid begins discharging into
the recovery tanks.
7. Check the recovery rate intermittently and photograph the test run.
8. Terminate test run when either 1.89 m 3 (500 gal) is recovered or
30 min of test time elapses.
9. Measure the total recovered fluid, recovery time and temperature of
the test fluid.
10. Measure the collected test fluid after allowing the water to
settle for at least 1/2 h.
11. Take sample of -test fluid layer for analysis.
12. Replenish removed test fluid onto surface in containment area.
13. Prepare for the next test listed in the test matrix.
Data Sheets
The following data sheets were used for the skimmer tests:
1. Test Equipment Characteristics
2. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
3. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
4. Skimmer Test Data Sheet
Data Analysis
The data documentation officer performs all data analysis and reduction.
All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto master raw data
sheets as shown in Tables 15, 16, and 17. The ultimate responsibility for
proper data collection, analysis and presentation belongs to the OHMSETT
Project Engineer. He writes the final report and"disseminates data to the
EPA Project Officer.
TEST DATA
Tables 15, 16, and 17 contain information on the test fluid properties,
44
-------
ambient conditions, and wave characteristics at the time the skimmer was tested.
Performance data includes recovery rate (total HM/water combined), percent test
fluid (HM% in the recovered fluids) and percent water (water % in the recovered
fluids). HM recovery rate was obtained by multiplying the recovery rate by
the percent test fluid. The percent test fluid is also defined as recovery
efficiency.
STATIONARY SKIMMER TEST RESULTS - DISCUSSION
The performance parameters for stationary skimmer systems were recovery
rate, and recovery efficiency. There was no clear relationship between the
physical properties of the test fluids. In addition, specific wave conditions
as given in the test matrix table were simulated to note water surface effects
on skimmer performance. The significance of test fluid properties, and sur-
face conditions on performance were tested by utilizing the OHMSETT standard-
ized performance test plan. Each device was subjected to identically con-
trolled conditions to facilitate a fair evaluation of performance criteria.
The floating suction head skimmer performed slightly better with the
more viscous DOP (67.5 cSt) than with less viscous HM under a calm surface
condition. When waves were introduced, however, the DOP tended to become
mixed into the water column. Under this condition, the performance of the
floating suction head skimmer was optimized with Naphtha. It is interesting
to note that except with DOP, the nominal 0.6 m harbor chop did not signi-
ficantly affect recovery rate (see Figures 5 and 6).
The self-adjusting weir-type skimmer exhibited recovery efficiencies
approaching 40% when tested with DOP and a calm surface condition. As with
the floating suction head skimmer, efficiency was maximized with the higher
density HM. When confronted with the wave condition, the total mixture
recovery rate increased as more water was skimmed, but recovery efficiency
dropped (see Figures 7 and 8 for details).
The third stationary skimmer design studied was the oleophilic rope
type skimmer. Recovery efficiency approached 100% with DOP and a calm
surface condition. Performance in waves was optimized near 80% recovery
efficiency. Hydrodynamic forces were somewhat overcome by the adsorption
force on the test fluid by the oleophilic rope. See Figures 9 and 10 for
details.
In general, the stationary skimmers performed remarkedly well in the
0.6 m (2 ft) harbor chop wave condition. This was a breaking wave which
effectively entrained the test material (Naphtha, Octanol, and DOP) nearly
0.3 m (1 ft) into the water column. However, since the test was designed
for thick slick (2.0 cm) performance, more than 80% of the HM was floating
on the water surface at any given time during the tests. Perhaps this
accounts for the lack of a strong effect by either waves or type of HM on
the stationary skimmer performance.
45
-------
TABLE 15. TEST RESULTS SLICKBAR SKIMMER MARLOW PUMP
Q
10 ft
10/3
10 '3
10 '6
10 '6
10 '6
10 '7
10/7
10/7
10 '8
10/8
10/8
S
11^ ^
U55
i?i.
0053
1120
150,
10PO
1352
11435
1030
10,0
10145
UJ
s
z:
LU
1
IF
1R2
6
7
12
13
18
19
20
ai
22
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
i—
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NAP
*r
DOP
HOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
L i 1 o
LU
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
16.7
16.7
15.6
15.6'
15.6
15.6
15.6
1^.6
to o
0 E
13.3
13.3
l?.6
r>.6
6.--.
6."
79.?
79.?
79-?
79. ?
79.?
79.?
i
f— I
O
LU •—
O
< X
Ll_
VI ^
?,.3
PS.,
26..
?6.l4
?3-P
23.?
P9.P
29.?
?9.2
29.?
29.2
?9.P
o o
cd X
LU
~ z:
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
11.1
11.1
K.P
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.8;
(_»
o >
UJ
I—
Qi
*C
17.8
17.8
17.8
P9.K
29.14
33.3
S3. 9
P8.3
31-1
*.*
*•"
2..,
!
o
/—i ry
-£. VI
3 E"
3-1
3. j
3.1
1.8
?.?
2.2
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.14
O.lt
0.14
2: a:
3 a
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
S
SW
SE
SW
S
s
CHAhAC^PlSTICG
PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
LD ai
Hi 1J
^= =
0
0
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
'u ~- '
..j r-
0
0
HC
0
HC
0
HC
0
0
0
0
S IU
0- in
^ a»
uj^T"
a: E
U.3-
,.31
U.3,
,.56
,.77
,.83
3.71
,.23
,.36
6.00
6. ,7
6.,,
LU
\—
*Z
17.6
lit. 9
17.3
11.3
27.3
15.9
140.1
22.14
31.7
19.1
19.3
25.5
^
»«
82.1)
85.1
82.7
88.7
72.7
8-4.1
59.9
77.6
68.3
80.9
80.7
T-.5
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 15. (Continued)
LU
5
Q
10/8
UJ
s:
i—
10^0
ex.
LU
1
t—
to
UJ
1—
23
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
0_
>-
t—
TOP
TEMPERATURE
QC
15.6
^O
1
O
E*
l/l L)
O
l/> ^^
>-<\J
>• E
79,?
to
^
UJro
h- i
O
UJ f —
CJ
*c x
LJU.
S-^
"Z. VI
5 "e"
1.8
WIND
DIRECTION
sw
1— v/7
HI S_
CD Q)
t~ i -i-J
LiJ OJ
3; E
0
in - X
Q£.
UJ U
=5- OJ
CD t/i
c_> -^
Ljjm
ce: £
6. so
o
Z3
_l
u_
h-
VI
LU
1 —
^i
?7.^
CK:
LU
t—
<<
3
&«1
72.5
i
-------
TABLE 16. TEST RESULTS I.M.E. SKIMMER SANDPIPER PUMP
UJ
»—
UJ
h-
2
-
8
11
lit
17
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
Q_
>-
h-
OCT
OCT
NAP
HAP
DOP
HOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
17.8
17. P
16.7
16.7
15.6
15.6
vil
1
O
>- X
I—
OO U
o cu
O (/)
CO *-^
5^E
13.3
13. f
6.5
6.5
79- ?
79.?
§
CO
2:
Luro
1— 1
0
LU > —
O
o a;
Z LO
3 1=
^. ?
?,s
2.7
2.?
2.7
2.7
WIND
DIRECTION
sw
w
sw
sw
sw
sw
HEIGHT
meters g
0
O.fc
0
0.6
0
0.6
l.-AVt)
FAC"WISTir"
^C 'S>
t— u
-D U
UJ u
_J =
•:;
HC
0
HC
0
HC
a .*i
0 !-
^-* ai
c£ ^-J
tu a1
a- S
"p:^'",pr*rCE
."HAKACTEHISTICS
22
>- X
Oi
UJ U
> OJ
CD LO
LJ -~~
LU on
cc E
^.03
^.?3
3.9^
5.70
U.96
5.77
o
ZD
I
u_
(—
u^
LU
I —
*«
28.9
22.5
31.2
?5.1
39. ^
2U.O
c£
LU
t—
-------
TABLE 17. TEST RESULTS OIL MOP SKIMMER OIL MOP PUMP
£
C3
LO/3
LO/3
10/6
LO/6
10/7
10/7
5
P
lUliO
I1)!)?
i?i»5
13145
11PO
111* 5
o:
LJJ
1
•z.
t—
to
UJ
1—
3
It
9
10
15
16
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
Q_
£
OCT
OCT
NAP
NAP
DOP
DOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
17.8
17.8
16.7
16.7
15.6
15.6
"f
O
£*
C/l LJ
O QJ
(-J (/)
to -*>.
s^
13.3"
13.6
6.5
6.5
79.?
79. a
g
CO
•z.
LLin
•-i
UJ i—
<_3
«c x
u_
g-S
00 3
?"5.3
?6.'4
23-?
?3.2
?9.2
?9.2
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
7.7
7.6
11.1
11.1
15.8
15.8
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.8310
.83*40
.7730
.7730
.9770
.9770
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
23.3
25.6
32.?
3S.8
2lt.lt
25.0
Q
LJJ
LU
0_
on <
o
Q OJ
•Z. VI
3t
1.8
3.6
"4.5
5. It
1.3
2.7
UIND
DIRECTION
SW
w
w
S¥
S
S
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
HEIGHT
meters
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.6
3^ "•/!
t— ^
CD -
OL •
UJ O
>• OJ
O co
tj -~-
UJ m
o; E
0.85
l.llt
0.73
0.96
2.78
2.02
a
=>
_j
Lj_
t—
OO
UJ
t—
S^
78.9
70.0
88.6
68.3
98.3
72.6
c£
LU
f—
tf
3
&S
21.1
30.0
ll.U
31.7
1.7
27.14
-------
No Wave
Wave
1
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
nCTANOL
NAPHTHA
OOP
Figure 5. Recovery rate of the Slickbar Rigid Mantaray.
-------
No
Wave
O)
•H
O
•H
M-l
M-l
W
Q)
O
a
100.
80 —
60—
40.
20—
I
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
OCTANOL NAPHTHA
Figure 6. Recovery efficiency of the Slickbar Rigid Mantaray.
-------
Ul
IS5
I
o
0)
•U
V-i
-------
t_n
OO
o>
•rl
o
•H
100
r« so.
60 —
0)
8 40
No
Wave
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
OCTANOL NAPHTHA
Figure "8. Recovery efficiency of the I.M.E. Swiss OELA.
-------
Ul
-p-
cn
ro
B
I
o
X
v^<*
-------
o
C
tu
•H
O
•H
"4-1
O
O
No
Wave
20__
I
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
Figure 10. Recovery efficiency of the Oil Mop.
-------
SECTION 8
ADVANCING SKIMMER TESTS
ADVANCING SKIMMER TEST PROCEDURE
Preliminary deployment and rigging of these test devices was done accord-
ing to manufacturer's recommendations. Of substantial importance was es-
tablishing manpower distribution (Figure 11) and the test procedure. Para-
meters such as belt speed and on-board pump rate were established by customer
representatives and manufacturer's recommendations.
Once all systems were in operation, shakedown runs were performed to
note the stability of the device under tow and to ensure the proper se-
quence of events during actual test runs.
Performance testing began subsequently when the desired surface condi-
tion, tow speed, and oil distribution were initiated. On signal from
the test director, steady state data collection began.
The tow tests were conducted by distribution of the HM in a 2 mm
(0.08 in) thick, 1.52 m (5 ft) wide spill. The device was then towed through
the slick at various speeds from 0.0254 m/s to 1.01 m/s (0.5-2.0 kt); the
steady state test time was established at 60 s. At the end of the test run,
the total recovered fluid, recovery time and temperature of the test fluid
were measured. Total recovery rate was determined by measuring the total
volume of recovered HM/water mixture and the duration of the test run.
The volume of water in the recovered mixture was read through translucent
tanks, after allowing the water to settle out of the HM gravitationally
for a minimum of 1/2 h. Recovery efficiency was documented as the percent
of HM recovered. HM recovery rate was then calculated by simply multiplying
the total recovery rate by HM recovery efficiency. The test matrices are
given in Tables 5 and 6.
A step-by-step test procedure for advancing skimmers is given below
in the following format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist, Test
Sequence, Data Sheets and Data Analysis.
Manpower Allocations
The following allocations of duties were made:
1. Test director - responsible for tanning the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the test
56
-------
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM-}
AIR COMPRESSOR
BRIDGE
HOUSE
^RECOVERY?
BARRELS
BRIDGED
CONTAINMENT
BOOM
TEST
SKIMMER
REVERSE
TOW LINE
DISTRIBUTION
MANPOWER
Test Director
Fluids Dispensing Operator
Valve Operator
Recovery Technician
Photographer
Data Documentation Officer
Figure 11. Advancing skimmer test details.
57
-------
personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the traveling bridge, wave gene-
rator and bubbler barrier from the control tower located at the
north end of the tank. He also collects the data for ambient
conditions.
3. Fluids dispensing operator - usually a temporary technician who
adjusts the flow control valves for the proper flow rate and records
the flow rate.
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records recovery volumes
and performs the analysis and reduction of all data.
5. Photographer - photographically documents the test runs with 35
mm color slides, 16 mm color motion pictures, and/or underwater
video tape.
6. Chemical analysis officer - takes samples of the test fluid before
its distribution and after its recovery for analysis of water
content, viscosity, specific gravity, and interfacial tension for
the test run. In general, analysis of fluids for chemical and
physical properties is his responsibility.
7. Valve operator - usually a temporary technician who operates the
pneumatic valve controls for recirculation and distribution of
the test fluid.
8. Fluids clean up team leader - heads the operation of cleaning the
residual test fluid from the water surface in preparation for the
next test run.
9. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads the operation of removing
water (both free and emulsified) and contaminants from the
test fluid prior to its reuse. Also, responsible for operating
the d.e. filter unit to maintain tank water purity and clarity.
10. Other temporary aides were positioned as required.
Pre-test Checklist
To ensure that all test systems and equipment were maintained and ready
for the test, the following checklist was used prior to the first test run:
1. D.E. Filter system operating
2. Chlorine generator operating
3. Air-bubble barrier system operating
4. Bridge drive system operating
5. Wave generator system operational
6. Test device operational
7. Test instrumentation operational
58
-------
8. Test fluid ready
9. Test fluid distribution system operational
10. Test support equipment operational
11. Photographic systems ready
12. Test personnel prepared and ready
13. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists
Test Sequence (with test fluid)
The following test sequence was used for the advancing skimmer tests:
1. Position the traveling bridge and test device for testing
(see Figure 11).
2. Position all test personnel for testing (see Figure 11).
3. Inform all test personnel of test conditions taken from the
test matrix.
4. Calibrate the flow rate using the recirculation mode, and continue
to recirculate while observing test fluid temperature and pressure
drop. Just prior to test run, take samples of recirculating test
fluid and record test fluid temperature.
5. Establish required test device parameters (i.e. belt speed, air
supply to on-board pump, etc.).
6. Position recovery hose to discharge back onto tank surface.
7. Give three (3) blasts on the air horn to clear the tank decks,
alert all test personnel of test run, and start the wave gene-
rator, if required.
8. Using either intercom system or walkie-talkies, begin countdown
from five (5), with the control room operator to begin bridge
motion at zero (0) and one (1) blast on the air horn.
9- One (1) blast on the air horn initiates the following: start
bridge, start test fluid distribution, and start stopwatches.
10. Control room operator informs test director of established bridge
tow speed.
11. Test director observes position of truss near the "designated"
tank position to signify approach of steady state.
12. At designated point, all personnel are signaled to start stop-
watches for 1 min steady state run.
13. On signal from test director, recovery hose is directed to col-
lection barrels for a period of 1 min.
59
-------
14. Test fluid distribution ceases after steady state collection, and
distribution time is recorded.
15. Test director begins countdown from five (5) to stop the bridge
and wave generator.
16. Lower the bridge "skimming plate" to prevent test fluid from pas-
sing under the bridge and to skim all residual test fluid back
to the north end surface containment area.
17. Measure the total recovered test fluid, recovery time and temper-
ature of the test fluid.
18. Measure the collected test fluid after allowing the water to
settle out for at least 1/2 h.
19. Take samples of the test fluid layer for analysis.
20. Reverse the bridge to prepare for the next test run.
Data Sheets
The following data sheets were used for the advancing skimmer tests:
1. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
2. Flow Rate/Volume Data Sheet
3. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
4. Advancing Skimmer Test Data Sheet
5. Test Equipment Characteristics and Rigging Specifications
Data Analysis
The data documentation officer performs all data analysis and reduction.
All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto master raw data
sheets as shown in Tables 18 and 19. The ultimate responsibility for proper
data collection, analysis and presentation belongs to the OHMSETT Project
Engineer. He writes the final report and disseminates data to the EPA
Project Officer.
TEST DATA
Tables 18 and 19 contain information on the test fluid properties,
ambient conditions and wave characteristics at the time the skimmer
was tested. The recovery rate column on the test results table lists the
rate at which the equipment recovers the HM/water mixture under test condi-
tions. The throughput efficiency is the percentage of HM recovered to the
amount encountered by the skimmer. The recovery efficiency is the per-
centage of HM recovered in the total mix. Results must be viewed in
light of the fact that a steady state of testing was maintainable for only
60 s or less. In a real world environment, the skimmers would probably be
towed at a much greater distance than is possible at the OHMSETT facility,
60
-------
TABLE 18. TEST RESULTS DIP-1002
UJ
i
9/21)
9/2!)
9/21)
9/25
9/25
9/25
9/25
9/25
9/25
9/25
LU
h-
121)0
1305
1330
0900
0930
1030
1115
1130
1155
1305
LlJ
1
t—
CO
LU
ST-3
6A
6B
1
2
3
«
5
6
7
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
D_
t—
W.P
NAP
NAP
HOP
HOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
17.8
17.8
17.8
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
"f
O
>- X
1—
CO O
O OJ
i/1 *v^
6.8
6.8
6.8
92.0
92.0
92.0
92.0
92.0
92.0
92.0
z
GO
ujro
1— i
O
LU i —
O
< X
u_
23.5
23.5
23.5
2M
21). 9
2l).9
2l).9
21). 9
2U.9
21). 9
1
a
LU
iLl
-------
TABLE 18. (Continued)
UJ
g
9/23
9/23
9/23
9/23
9/23
9/23
9/23
9/2.
9/21*
9/21*
9/21*
9/21*
h-
1015
101*5
1120
11.0
1250
1315
li*10
0905
1000
1015
1055
1115
CXL
UJ
CO
z:
i —
CO
UJ
1—
3A
3B
It
5
ST-1
ST-2
3C
6
7
8
ST-1
ST-2
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
ex.
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
TEMPERATURE
Op
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
15.6
17.2
17.8
17.2
17.2
1
O
>- X
1 —
CO U
O tlJ
O 1/1
CO ~-^
•— OJ
> E
12.14
12.^
12. k
12. k
12.**
IP..
12.1*
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
E
CO
UJro
t — 1
O
UJ I —
O
u_
CO ^
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
7.r
7.6
7. fa
7-6
7.6
7.6
7.6
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.836
.836
.836
.836
.836
.836
.836
.771
.771
.771
.771
.771
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
15.6
is. 6
15.6
15.6
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.7
a
LU
UJ
0-
co •
CD OJ
3 E"
...
•">
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
..5
b.s
1*.5
..5
...
WIND
DIRECTION
SE
SE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
NE
NE
NE
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
o
X
^5 ^
— ' OJ
o^r-i
— E
a:
t/i 1 —
?.«
?.'•-:
2.3
1.6
2.7
3-1
2.0
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.1
3.5
LU
O
-^ =
, ,
cA
~> •"
2,
2.1
?.o
2.0
2 . '• '
2.1
2.0
2.1
2,0
2.0
2.0
HEADwAVE START
Ureters
HEADWAVE FINISH
meters
E
UJ
UJ
a_
0
i —
0.63
0.63
0.76
0.51
0.89
1 . OP
0.63
0.63
0.76
0.89
1.02
1.11,
s
1 —
VI
LU
1 —
UJ U
I — CD
L-l
U.I
• -0
r-0
60
60
60
60
60
60
nO
60
60
30
TEST EQUIPMENT
SETTINGS
Ul
s
o
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.?
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
o
!U
LtJ
§1
CQ '.!)
: 7
1>
?.2
i.2
1.1
1.7
1.9
1.6
I.,
1.?
1.1
PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
UJ '
t— O
<=r --
C£
X
en
UJ U
£ 01
o -~-
uJfO
a: E
0.61
0.71
0.81
0.71*
1.23
0.76
0.83
0.08
0.62
1.01
1.33
1.38
u_
u_
LU
a:
30.3
.35.6
314.8
1*7.6
1*5.0
2.. 8
1*0.8
..2
26.9
37.6
.3.2
39.8
RECOVERY EFF.
%
20.5
23.2
26.2
2.. 8
39-.
2.. 3
25.6
2.7
19.6
31.5
.1.5
1*2.7
-------
OJ
TABLE 19. TEST RESULTS ORS-125.
UJ
5
a
9/30
9/30
9/30
9/30
9/30
9/30
9/30
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
LU
s:
i — i
h-
10145
1125
121(5
1310
11*10
1U30
1530
1030
101(5
111(5
130O
1320
a?
UJ
m
E:
ZD
^
I—
VI
LU
t—
6
7
8
ST-1
1
2
3
P3
A
P5
P2
PI
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
CL. -
>-
t—
HAP
HAP
NAP
HAP
DOP
HOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
TEMPERATURE
°C
18.3
18.3
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
15.6
15.6
18.9
23.3
23-3
"?
O
>• X
i—
t/1
to •*•*.
S^E
6.69
6.69
6.69
6.69
?3.70
93.70
93. 7C
?3.70
53-70
93. 7C
33.70
33.70
CO
^
uim
1— i
o
1 i 1 r—
O
< X
U_
i-^
co 2:
23.5
23-5
23.5
23.5
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
27.1
27.1
27.1
27.1
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.71* 4
.11^
.77^
.77>4
.986
.986
.986
.986
.986
.986
.986
.986
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
17.8
17.8
22.2
22.2
22.2
22,2
22.2
18.9
18.9
22.2
22.2
22.2
a
UJ
LU
ix
CO
0
a aj
z i/>
3~E
1.3
2.7
1.8
1.3
1.3
3.1
3.1
0.9
2.2
1.8
3.1
U.5
WIND
DIRECTION
w
JNW
S
ME
W
ME
ME
NW
N
N
E
E
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION
RATE m3/sec xlO~3
3.7
6.1
5.2
7.2
3.2
5.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
SLICK THICKNESS
nun
14.8
3.9
it. 5
3.1
i(.l
k.k
it. 6
it.i
^.l
it.l
U.2
l(.l
HEADWAVE START
meters
l(.0
1.2
2.7
1.5
0.6
0.3
1.5
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.6
HEADWAVE FINISH
meters
it. 3
1.2
3.0
1.8
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.6
o
01
l/>
£
0
UJ
UJ
Q_
I/)
3
O
t—
0.51
1.02
0.76
1.52
0.51
0.76
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
S
t—
1—
t/1
LiJ
(—
LU a
h- -
OL .
UJ O
>• OJ
O (/>
o —
ujn
Q; e
0
0
0
0
0.30
0.22
1.09
1.41
1.45
1.10
1.41
1.27
u_
u_
LU
1—
ZD frS
Q_
Z3
ex.
~3L
\—
0
0
0
0
9.6
I(.l4
61. h
89.6
92.0
70.0
86.2
So.l*
RECOVERY EFF.
%
0
0
0
0
6.0
<(.3
21.6
27.8
28.6
22.3
27.8
25.5
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 19. (Continued)
UJ
g
10/1
10/1
10/2
10/2
10/2
10/2
10/2
"
0900
0935
915
1120
1320
1355
li*30
a:
UJ
CD
rD
h-
U1
UJ
I—
1»
5
9
10E
10R2
11
12
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
LU
a.
I—
DOP
DOP
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
TEMPERATURE
°C
15.6
15.6
16.7
16.7
15.6
15.6
15.6
1
o
t/l O
O Ol
O (fl
on ^-^
93. 7C
93. 7C
13. 3C
13. 3C
13. 6C
13.6C
13.60
CO
LUCO
t— 1
O
UJ (—
(j
•a: x
U-
29.-
29.7
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
18.2
18.2
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
.986
.986
.931
.831
.831
.831
.831
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°C
16.7
16.7
17.2
17.8
16.7
16.7
16.7
O
UJ
UJ
u
O Ol
0.9
0.9
3.1
..5
5.8
6.3
6.7
WIND
DIRECTION
W
w
SE
S-SW
sw
S-SW
s-sw
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION
RATE m3/sec xlCT3
2.5
0.9
3.8
5.9
5.8
6.2
1,7
CO
UJ
:z
^:
o
:E
i— l
to
U.lt
i*.6
1*.0
U.3-
..3
1*.0
i*.l
HEADWAVE START
meters
0
2.1*
5.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
HEADWAVE FINISH
meters
0.3
3.0
7.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
O
V)
"e
O
UJ
UJ
0.38
0.13
0.61*
0.89
0.89
1.02
0.76
UJ
s:
i—
h-
LU CJ
1— QJ
•a; i/>
U~l
C3
•=c
UJ
60
60
60
60
25
60
60
TEST EQUIPMENT
SETTINGS
tfj rn
PH O
CO
276
276
221
3.5
31*5
.11*
.11*
rFRFORHANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
*— o
QJ
s^c
JO. 37
o.-o
0.65
1.37
0.71
1.19
1.49
j
1 ,
U,
Lu
UJ
1—
a,
=>
cc
a:
i—
lit. 5
1*5.7
16.9
23.3
12.1*
19.2
-31.5
RECOVERY EFF.
%
7.2
8.0
ll*. 3
25.1
13.2
20.0
30.1
-------
Ul
o
01
2.0 r-
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
2 0.6
w
I
a 0.4
0.2
0.0
I
I
I
j I
DOP
-1- Octanol
i I
0.0 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot = 0.51 m/sec)
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 1.2. Hazardous material recovery rate vs. tow speed DIP-1002.
-------
100
90
80
70
60
a so
W
w
o
u
40
30
2Q
1C
0
Q Lube Oil
Q Naphtha
A OOP
i Octanol
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 074 0.5^ 0".6 0.7 u.e 0.9 1.0
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot =0.51 m/sec)
Figure 13. Hazardous material recovery efficiency vs. tow speed DIP-1002.
-------
u
100
90 f-
80 L
70
i
[ 60
50
g 40
o
1 30
20
10
O Lube Oil
• #2 Fuel Oil
D Naphtha
A DOP
Octanol
_L
J_
_L
_L
_L
_L
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot =0.51 m/sec)
Figure 14. Throughput efficiency vs. tow speed DIP-1002.
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
-------
00
O Lube Oil
#2 Fuel Oil
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7
0.1 0.2
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot =0.51 m/sec)
Figure 15. Hazardous material recovery rate vs. tow speed ORS-125.
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
-------
0.0 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot =0.51 m/sec)
Figure 16. Recovery efficiency vs. tow speed ORS-125.
-------
100 r-
B
§
M
U
M
Pn
Fn
M
H
C3
PH
@
in
§
Lube Oil
#2 Fuel Oil
D Naphtha
DOP
" Octanol
0.0 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
TOW SPEED m/sec (1 knot =0.51 m/sec)
Figure 17. Throughput efficiency vs. tow speed ORS-125.
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
-------
and consequently, performance under those conditions could vary from these
test results.
ADVANCING SKIMMER TEST RESULTS - DISCUSSION
Tabular data results of performance testing are available in Tables 18
and 19. Summary plots of performance parameters vs. controlled conditions
(independent variables) are located in Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17,
and will be referred to in the following discussion of both skimmers.
The DIP-1002 skimmer was tested with the following controlled settings:
Belt speed = 1.22 m/s (2.42 kt)
Tow speed = 0.25 to 1.27 m/s (0.5 to 2.5 kt)
Notch opening = 1.9 cm (0.75 in)
Slick width = 1.52 m (5 ft)
Slick thickness = 2 mm (0.08 in)
• Tank surface condition = calm
HM recovery rate was optimized for each test fluid with respect to
increasing tow speed above 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt). The lower density naphtha was
best recovered at the relatively high tow speed of 1.14 m/s (2.2 kt). Opti-
mum recovery rate with DOP occurred at the lower tow speed of 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt)
These results indicated that the tow speed for optimum performance was de-
pendent upon the density of the HM materials. Except for DOP, the maximum
recovery rates of all test fluids were comparable and it is possible that
this recovery rate (-1.3 x 10~3m3/s (20.6 gal/min)) may have been reached
with DOP at tow speeds lower than 0.25 m/s. Since speeds greater than 0.25
m/s are unacceptable for field use conditions, performance at these speeds
was not considered of interest to the overall test program.
The following list indicates the monotonic relationship between optimum
tow speed (at which maximum recovery rates occurred) and specific gravity:
Optimum Tow Speed Test Fluid Specific Gravity
1.14 m/s (2.25 kt) Naphtha 0.710
0.89 m/s (1.75 kt) Octanol 0.827
0.63 m/s (1.25 kt) #2 fuel 0.849
0.63 m/s (1.25 kt) Lube oil 0.870
0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) DOP 0.975
71
-------
Since the intent of the dynamic inclined belt is to induce a flow ve-
locity relative to the test fluid, a critical balance of belt speed to tow
speed must be established for each given test fluid. For those fluids that
tend to form large diameter droplets upon breakaway (DOP) and have a longer
rise time, collection increases at lower current speeds because the drop-
lets must rise into the oil collection well. As tow speed increases, test
fluid droplets rise behind the collection well and are drawn through the
backplate opening and out behind the device. This was evidenced through
performance data as well as visual observation. In the case of the low
density Naphtha, it was possible to establish a higher flow velocity and
successful collection since the rise time is faster. In fact, higher flow
velocities were required to move the test fluid to the collection well.
Throughput efficiency can be analyzed in much the same manner as
recovery rate. Optimum efficiencies generally fell within the range of
40-60T with a maximum of 85% when tested with DOP. However, this 85%
efficiency occurred at the minimum tow speed of 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) which
is too low for field use consideration.
In the case of the ORS-125, a weir-type advancing skimmer, the
following test conditions were established:
Tow speed = 0.25 to 1.52 m/s (0.5 to 3.0 kt)
• Air supply to onboard pump = 300 x 10 N/m (44 psi)
• Slick thickness = 4 mm (0.16 in)
Slick width = 1.52 m (5 ft)
Surface condition = calm
Performance was indicated by HM recovery rate, recovery efficiency, and
throughput efficiency. A maximum throughput efficiency of 90% occurred
when testing with DOP at 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) and Lube oil at 0.63 m (1.25 kt).
When confronted with the low density Naphtha, the device was unable to suc-
cessfully collect material. The density dependence of the weir-type advancing
skimmer was readily observed both visually and quantitatively.
The following list indicates the relationship between optimum tow speed
(at which maximum recovery rates occurred) and specific gravity:
Optimum Tow Speed Test Fluid Specific Gravity
None Naphtha 0.710
0.76 m/s (1.5 kt) Octanol 0.827
0.65 m/s (1.3 kt) #2 fuel 0.849
0.65 m/s (1.3 kt) Lube oil 0.870
0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) DOP 0.975
72
-------
The ORS-125 was unable to recover Naphtha as shown in Figure 15. Specific
gravity appeared to be the most significant variable in that the thickness
of HM between the primary and secondary weirs depends on a balance bewteen
buoyancy forces and momentum forces at a given tow speed. Naphtha, being
very buoyant did not thicken at tow speeds up to the ORS-125 maximum stable
tow speed (1.5 m/s) before submarining. Table 19 shows this as the head-
wave continued to grow outward from the device (4.3 to 1.8 m) as compared
to tests with DOP where the headwave was closer to the primary weir (1.2 to
0.0 m) with good recovery rates.
COMMENTS
Observing the red color of the discharge stream during tests conducted
with octanol, it appeared that the percentage of HM in the stream varied
during steady state data collection (see tests 11 and 12). To improve this
steady state variation, two methods were employed:
a. Sampling recovery during two 30 s periods of the recovery, and
averaging recovery parameters. Take for example test 11 where
the total steady state time was 60 seconds:
1. First 30 s sample:
Volume octanol recovered = 0.02 m3 (5.3 gal)
Recovery efficiency = 13.1%
Octanol recovery rate = 0.8 x" 10~3 m3/s (12.6 gpm)
2. Second 30 s sample:
Volume octanol recovered = 0.05 m3 (13.2 gal)
Recovery efficiency = 26.9%
Octanol recovery rate = 1.6 x 10~3 m3/s (25.4 gpm)
Average octanol recovery rate = 1.2 x 10~ m /s (19.0 gpm)
Average recovery efficiency = 20%
For the total test run, the recovery rate was 1.2 x 10~3 m3/s and
recovery efficiency was 20%.
b. An attempt was made to preload the ORS-125; however, variation in
the color of the discharge stream during steady state recovery per-
sisted.
One general operation result from these tests is the ORS-125 weir-type
skimmer probably could not be used effectively to recover HM slicks of
specific gravity less than or equal to 0.710 unless modified to overcome the
operational problem indicated here.
73
-------
SECTION 9
SORBENT SYSTEM TESTS
SORBENT SYSTEM TEST PROCEDURE
The sorbent system involved the deployment of three separate units. The
broadcaster was positioned on the bridge with a sorbent supply operator and
broadcaster operator. The harvester was positioned on a catamaran type
floatation frame, with containment booms in a V-shaped configuration that
diverted the slick towards the harvester (Figure 18). For each test, a
technician set and maintained the belt speed of the harvester, timed re-
covery of the sorbent material and sampled recovered sorbent cubes. The
regenerator was positioned off the OHMSETT tank; a regenerator operator col-
lected samples of sorbent material for the calculation of density data.
Performance testing began after all personnel and devices were posi-
tioned, and desired surface conditions, tow speed and HM distribution had
been initiated. Sorbent material was broadcast when the test fluid appeared
at the trailing end of the bridge. The sorbent material was recovered and
dropped into a hopper on the back of the harvester; the period was timed
from collection of the first cube to the last. The hopper was then removed
by a crane, and the sorbent material weighed and brought to the regenerator.
The sorbent material was then passed through the regenerator for removal
of the HM; total fluid recovered and the HM portion were then measured.
A step-by-step test procedure for the sorbent system is given below
in the following format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist, Test
Sequence, Data Sheets, and Data Analysis.
Manpower Allocations
The following allocations of duties were made:
1. Test director - responsible for running the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the test
personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the wave generator and collects
the data for ambient conditions.,
3. Fluids dispensing operator - maintains the test fluid thickness
at 2.54 cm at the beginning of each run. Assists with other
duties as needed.
74
-------
DISTRIBUTION SYSTFM
^ DRIVE
REGENERATOR
CONTAINMENT
BOOM
CONVEYOR
HOPPER
CATAMARAN
STABILIZER
LINE
REVERSE
TOW LINE
TRUSS
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
(j) Test Director
(?) Fluids Dispensing Opnrotor
(^ Valve Operator
(3) Broadcaster
C5) Sorbent Supplier
BRIDGE
t~t—'
POWER
RECOVERY
BARRELS
DECK
HYDRAULIC
LINE i
8
D
GROUND
LEVEL
(J) Harvester Technician
(7) Photographer
3) Regenerator Technician
'"§) Recovery Technician
Figure 18. Sorbent system test details.
75
-------
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records test fluid col-
lection data and keeps a notebook of performance observations. Per-
forms the analysis and reduction of all data.
5. Photographer - documents the test with 35 mm color slides and 16 mm
color motion pictures.
6. Chemical analysis officer - samples the test fluid before and after
the test run. Samples are analyzed for water content, viscosity,
specific gravity and interfacial tension.
7. Fluids clean-up team leader - heads the operation of cleaning the
residual test fluid from the water surface in preparation for the
next test run.
8. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads the operation of removing
water (both free and emulsified) and contaminants from the test
fluid prior to its reuse. Also, responsible for operating the
D.E. filter unit to maintain tank water purity and clarity.
9. Power drive operator - sets and maintains the required screw set-
ting to establish the distribution of sorbent material.
10. Sorbent supply operator - feeds the appropriate amount of sorbent
material to the screw to ensure continuous distribution.
11. Sorbent broadcaster operator - distributes sorbent material on
surface of water for length of test run.
12. Harvester operator - sets and maintains belt speed of harvester,
times recovery of sorbent material, and samples recovered sorbent.
13. Regenerator operator - operates regenerator and collects samples
of sorbent material for the calculation of density data.
Pre-test Checklist
To ensure that all test systems and equipment were maintained and ready
for the test, the following checklist was used prior to the first test run:
1. D.E. filter system operating
2. Chlorine generator operating
3. Air-bubbler barrier system operating
4. Bridge drive system operating
5. Wave generator system operational
6. Test device operational
7. Test instrumentation operational
8. Test fluid ready
9. Test fluid distribution system operational
10. Test support equipment operational
11. Photographic systems ready
12. Test personnel prepared and ready
13. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists
76
-------
Test Sequence
The following test sequence was used for the sorbent recovery system:
1. Position the traveling bridge and test device for testing (see
Figure 18).
2. Position all test personnel for testing (see Figure 18).
3. Inform all test personnel of test conditions take from the test
matrix.
4. Calibrate the flow rate using the recirculation mode, and continue
to recirculate while observing test fluid temperature and pressure
drop. Just prior to test run, take sample of recirculating test
fluid and record test fluid temperature.
5. Calibrate the screw setting by adjusting the power drive with a
strobe light to 40 rpm, and adjust belt speed on harvester.
6. Give three (3) blasts on the air horn to clear the tank decks,
alert all test personnel of test run, and start the wave generator,
if required.
7. Using either intercom system or walkie-talkies, begin countdown
from five (5), with the control room operator to begin bridge
motion at zero (0) and one (1) blast on the air horn.
8. One (1) blast on the air horn initiates the following: start
bridge, start test fluid distribution, and start stopwatches.
9. Control room operator informs test director of steady state bridge
speed.
10. Commence broadcasting of sorbent when test fluid appears at
trailing edge of bridge.
11. Recover sorbent and catch in hopper, and time period from col-
lection of first cube to last cube.
12. Test fluid distribution ceases after 1.32 m3 (350 gal) is
distributed and distribution time is recorded.
13. Cease sorbent broadcasting when end of test fluid slick is reached.
14. Test director begins countdown from five (5) to stop the bridge
and wave generator.
15. Lower the bridge "skimming plate" to prevent the test fluid from
passing under the bridge and to skim all residual test fluid back
to the north end surface containment area.
77
-------
16. Remove hopper from catamaran with crane, weigh recovered sorbent
and move hopper to generator.
17. Connect hydraulic hoses from power drive to regenerator and dis-
tribute recovered sorbent from hopper to regenerator belt.
18. Sample regenerated sorbent material and measure the total fluid
recovered and test fluid recovered.
19. Return the hopper to catamaran and prepare for next test run.
Data Sheets
The following data sheets were used for the sorbent system tests:
1. Test Equipment Characteristics and Rigging Configuration
2. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
3. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
4. Broadcaster Data Sheet
5. Harvester Data Sheet
6. Regenerator Data Sheet
7. Sorbent System Summary Data Sheet
Data Analysis
The data documentation officer performs all data analysis and reduction.
All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto master raw data
sheets as shown in Table 20. The ultimate responsibility for proper data
collection, analysis and presentation belongs to the OHMSETT Project Engineer.
He writes the final report and disseminates data to the EPA Project Officer.
TEST DATA
Table 20 contains information of the test fluid properties, ambient
conditions, and wave characteristics at the time the sorbent system
was tested. It should be noted that there was a 21 second delay between
the time the broadcaster distributed the polyurethane cubes onto the slick
and the time the cubes encountered the harvester. This 21 second delay
has been incorporated into the total test time. The recovery rate lists
the rate at which the equipment recovers the HM/water mixture under test
conditions. Throughput efficiency is the percentage of HM recovered to
the amount encountered by the sorbent system. Recovery efficiency is the
percentage of HM recovered in the total mix (% test fluid).
SORBENT SYSTEM TEST - DISCUSSION
The throughput efficiencies for the sorbent system, with a fixed tow
speed of 1.02 m/s (2.0 kt), were quantitatively noted as being somewhat
independent of test fluid property (see Figure 21). Also, the device when
subjected to "random" wave surface conditions maintained a high throughput
efficiency of between 60 and 80%. As in the results of the oleophilic
78
-------
rope, the effects of natural hydrodynamic forces which tend to cause high
density materials to become entrained were reduced. The absorption rate of
the sorbent material for various test fluids played an important role in
effective spill removal. The sorbent system tested utilized polyurethane
open-celled foam which absorbed the HM rapidly and was easily regenerated.
Recovery efficiency was maximized at 80% in the no wave condition with
Naphtha, with and without waves. Performance is graphically presented in
Figures 19, 20, and 21.
Recovery rate was optimized with octanol and was even higher with the
0.6 m harbor chop at OHMSETT. However, the experimental determination of
recovery rate was not as accurate as for throughput and recovery efficiencies,
Most of the problems encountered were equipment related. Sorbent cubes
could not be broadcasted at high enough volumetric rates without plugging up
the broadcaster and suffering non-uniform distribution. Also, the regene-
rator was difficult to use and did not always uniformly squeeze-dry the
cubes. This was due to several problems. First, there was no mechanism
for uniformly feeding in the saturated cubes; thus cubes non-uniformly dis-
tributed across and along the belt. Then belt slippage from side to side
and on the rollers caused considerable problems. Another point for consid-
eration is this: even though the cubes are squeezed enough to move the
HM from top to bottom of the cubes, a certain amount of residence time
is required for gravitational forces to break it loose and into the recovery
tank. Observations indicated more residence time was needed for the more
viscous HM (i.e. DOP, Lube oil) or the unit could be redesigned to include
air jets to assist by blowing it loose and into the recovery tank.
79
-------
00
o
TABLE 20. TEST RESULTS SEAWARD SORBENT SYSTEM.
UJ
h-
cC
a
9 '16
9 '16
9 '16
9 '16
9/16
9'17
9 '17
9 '17
9/17
9 '18
9 '18
9 '18
UJ
s:
i—
0910
l(no
11^0
llt'O
1S30
09PO
lO^S
12^0
r-
I —
t>9P
BOP
!V)P
DOP
BOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
DOP
KAP
FAP
KAP
TEMPERATURE
°C
IP. 9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
ifl.Q
18.9
18.9
1.8.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
^o
i
o
>- X
(—
IS) U
O OJ
CJ VI
OO \
S^E
78.8
78.8
78.fi
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
6.^
6.^
6.5
^
CD
l/>
^
ujro
1— i
O
UJ . —
CJ
*a: x
U-.
g-^
V> Z
•^,(-
^0.6
^0.6
^O.f
'0.6
^0.6
?0.6
30.6
30.6
'3.8
'3.8
?3.8
INTERFACIAL
N/m x 10-3
10 '
10, V
10 , 7
10.7
10. ^
10. -r
10.''
10.7
10."
18.0
18, .^
18.0
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
0860
. 9fi6o
. 9860
.9860
.9860
. 9860
. 9860
.9860
, 9860
.7^05
. '705
. •'705
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
AIR TEMPERATURE
°c
PO.O
PO.O
a?. 3
PS. 2
22.2
77,8
18.9
?2.2
P3.3
£0.0
£0.0
?2.2
Q
UJ
UJ
Q_
C3
0.1"
0.17
0.17
O.oo
0,lr-
ED
0.1?
0.1.3
<"> . 1?
o.:ii
0.13
0.13
SOR5E1'?T
DEfP • "Y
RECOVERED
kg/m3
603. ''4
r'92.'<
?'33.?
737 . 7
69P.5
81(1.6
59=5. 1
7?8.1i
663.0
s66.^
^9.3
REGENERATED
kg/m*
l.T'-'.-S
1 5.6. 6
101.14
1"1.6
1?1,7
liiS. Q
l"-.^
137.8
Il4l4.3
lc.?.8
1?3.P
TEST EQUIPMENT
SETTINGS
BROADCAST RATE
inj/sec, x 10"2
ij.
~=i. ^5
'C°
O.i4~ !?.?0
, 1
n.-.li
0.36
•-. -.ll
O.PO
0.?6|'-..07
0.141
0.29
O.bQ
0.36
0.3?
0.^
0.3^4
0.?U
0.1"'
0.?9
0.19
0.19
O.PO
o.?o
HARVESTER BELT
^ PLLU TI/ beo .
i _ j)4
1. ^'i
1 , Oil
l.:)L
l.Olj
I. .)^
I,0l4
l.OU
1 , Oh
l.OU
l.Oli
LU
1 —
<_u
0^ 3C
C> T>
>-— v-Or-
OJ
O (/•
<_> '^
UJ *"
Q: E
1-30
1.72
1.69
0.75
1.57
l.Uli
1.51*
1.1*1
I.l4l|
l.?l
1-35
en
^3
— 1
u_
1—
iyi
\—
73.1
72.6
86.3
146.3
87.2
79.9
76.5
7l4.^
85.9
77.2
87.6
THRUPUT
EFFICIENCY
65.6
73.7
62.lt
16.7
77. B
V6.5
79.1
68.0
75.lt
60.2
7P.3
(Continued)
-------
00
TABLE 20. .(Continued)
UJ
§
9/18
9/19
9/19
9 '19
£
13^0
0920
125,
1350
C£
LU
1
p—
UJ
1—
6,
14
3R
5
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
UJ
Q_
^—
NAP
OCT
OCT
OCT
TEMPERATURE
°C
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0
>- X
1—
l/> <->
O V
O V)
CO ^
6.5
12,lt
12..
12.lt
g
K-l
00
UJCO
t— 1
o
UJ r—
O
23.8
26.2
26.2
26.2
_j
-------
No
Wave
00
to
o
OJ
4-J
cfl
0)
o
o
0)
Pi
I
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
3 __
2 —
OCTANOL
NAPHTHA
Figure 19. Recovery rate of the Seaward sorbent system.
-------
No
Wave
oo
U
g
•H
U
•H
S-l
0)
O
O
100 —
80
60
I
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
20
OCTANOL
Figure 20.
NAPHTHA
Recovery efficiency of the Seaward sorbent system.
OOP
-------
00
-C-
100
o 80
QJ
-H
O
•H
4-J
3
fx,
J3
60
3
O
(-1
60—
40__
20
OOP
I
No
Wave
0.3 n
HcToor
Chop
0.6 m
Harbor
Chop
NAPHTHA OCTAMOL .#2 FUEL OIL LUGE OIL
Figure 21. Throughput efficiency of the Seaward sorbent system.
-------
SECTION 10
INTERPRETATION AND USE OF TEST RESULTS
STATISTICS
Repeatability
Full-scale testing in a controllable environment such as OHMSETT offers
tremendous advantages over field testing. Probably the most significant
advantage is that each component of testing is controllable within certain
statistically definable limitations.
For this program the following statistical parameters were calculated
based upon replicate testing:
1. Mean
2. Variance
3. Standard Deviation
4. 95% Confidence Interval
5. 90% Confidence Interval
6. Coefficient of variation - a non-dimensional measure of percent
dispersion from the mean defined by the following equation:
standard deviation
mean x 100%
Statistical Evaluation of the DIP-1002
Repeat tests were limited to three performance runs, with the DIP en-
countering octanol at a velocity of 0.63 m/s.
Test No. Octanol Recovery Rate (x IP'1* ms/s)
3a 6.1 (9.7 gpm)
3b 7.1 (11.3 gpm)
3c 8.3 (13.2 gpm)
Mean octanol recovery rate = x = 7.2 x lO"1* m3/s (11.4 gpm)
Variance = a2 = 1.213 x 10~8
Standard Deviation = a = 1.102 x 10" " m3/s
95% Confidence Interval = ± 3.4 x W~k m3/s (5.4 gpm)
90% Confidence Interval = ± 2.3 x 10^ m3/s (3.6 gpm)
Coefficient of Variation = a/x = 15.3%
85
-------
Statistical Evaluation of the ORS-125
Based upon the results of tests PI through P5 the following calculations
were performed:
Test No. POP Recovery Rate (x 10~3 m3/s)
PI 1.3 (20.6 gpm)
P2 1.4 (22.2 gpm)
P3 1.4 (22.2 gpm)
P4 1.5 (23.8 gpm)
P5 1.1 (17.5 gpm)
Mean OOP recovery rate = x = 1.34 x 10~3m3/s (21.3 gpm)
Variance = CJ2= 0.0230 x 10~6
Standard Deviation =a = 0.1517 x 10~3 m3/s
95% Confidence Interval = ± 0.20 x 10~3 m3/s (3.2 gpm)
Coefficient of Variation = a/x = 11.3%
Further statistical analysis is available in Table 21.
86
-------
00
Device
Seaward
Sorbent
System
DIP-1002
ORS-125
Slickbar
Man tar ay
Oil Mop
OELA
Number of
repeat
tests
14*
3
5
6
4*
5*
TABLE 21. STATISTICAL DATA.
Mean HM
recovery rate
m3/s x 10~3(gpm)
1.10 (15.8)
0.72 (11.4)
1.33 (21.1)
1.45 (23.0)
0.69 (11.0)
1.28 (20.3)
Variance
0.034
0.012
0.021
0.059
0.004
0.016
Standard
deviation
m3/s x ID'3
0.19
0.11
0.14
0.25
0.06
0.13
95% Confi-
dence level
m3/s x 10~3
+0.10
±0.12
±0.12
±0.19
±0.06
±0.11
Coefficient of
variation (%)
17.3
15.3
11.3
16.6
8.7
10.2
*Not repeats of a given test condition — includes all test conditions, since performance
appeared to be independent of the test condition.
-------
Precision and Accuracy
The precision of the testing was defined through a repetition of se-
lected runs, and a comparison of the resulting data. In general, the repeated
tests showed a calculated dispersion (i.e., coefficient of variation) from
the mean performance level of < 17%, depending upon the type of equipment tested
and the number of test repeats. The ORS-125 test device produced the lowest
dispersion of 11% with five test repeats. For barriers, the speed at which no
loss occurs is a somewhat subjective determination; therefore, the validity
of precision data is observer-related. Detailed analysis of the repeated test
runs are given in Table 21.
The question of the accuracy of tank testing (the correlation of tank
testing, field testing and field use) deserves consideration. These tests
were conducted under controlled conditions in a facility specifically de-
signed for such testing. All testing was full-scale, and every effort was
made to have maximum control over each test parameter. There are effects
associated with controlled-condition testing, however, that distinguish
the test environment from the field environment. Examples of these effects
are the cross-currents in the tank that are caused by the bubbler system
(designed to keep test fluids off the walls and away from the beach and wave
generator), and the difference between the uniform velocity profile of the
tank (relative to a test device) and the profile of a river (Figures 22, 23).
Further, wave profiles that are generated are subject to influence by the
shallow tank (2.44 m (8 ft deep)) and some reflections from the absorber beach.
The waves and currents generated in OHMSETT therefore are simulations of
conditions encountered in the real environment, rather than actual repro-
ductions of those conditions. Actual performance of equipment during spill
situations may therefore vary from the results reported from OHMSETT testing.
Test results are, therefore, to be considered as a guide or an estimate of
performance to be expected.
OBSERVATIONAL RESULTS
Certain insights can be drawn from the observation (both above and below
the water suface) of more than 1,000 individual tests on a wide variety of
equipment, over a variety of conditions of waves and current, and with test
fluids (both oils and HM) having wide ranges of viscosity, specific gravity
differential with water, and interfacial tension.
The performance of spill control equipment in waves and currents is
apparently limited by the complex interaction of the device with the spilled
fluid and the water. The nature of this interaction is remarkedly similar
among all of the devices observed, and is apparently a function of two zones
of interaction.
The first zone of interaction is that of the water and the device. Con-
sider any spill control device having a displacement or blockage of the
water and relative motion with the water. The flow of water around the
device is different from the pattern without the device present. This changed
pattern can be described as waves and turbulence in the vicinity of the
88
-------
device. If the device has a tendency to cause the spilled fluid to slow
or stop relative to the water, the spilled fluid itself becomes part of the
blockage of the water, and further contributes to the pattern of turbulence
in the water. If waves are superimposed upon the current conditions, the
device moves relative to the waves in motions called pitch, roll, yaw, heave,
sway and surge. These wave-induced motions contribute still more to the com-
plexity of the motion of the water around the device.
The second zone of interaction is that of the water and the spill fluid
in or entering the control zone of the device. Consider the floating device
as the frame of reference with complex water motions around it. Further
consider that each device has a particular zone or volume with the function
of spill control. The spilled fluid must reach this control zone and remain
there long enough to be acted upon—to be adsorbed onto an oleophilic sur-
face or guided to a collection zone, to name a few examples. In each case,
the water motion relative to the fluid in or near the control zone of the
device has two effects: first, to form fluid droplets which are propelled
beneath the surface; and second, to entrain those droplets in the water moving
around the device in such a manner that the droplets do not reach the control
zone of the device, but rather are swept past it.
Droplet behavior is really a description of the ability of the device
to hold the spilled fluid in the control zone long enough for beneficial
results. The manner in which the fluid is removed from the control zone,
and the subsequent handling (internal to the control device) of the fluid
and any associated water, have significant bearing on the overall performance
of the device. But the most elemental problem of spill control in currents
and waves is to cause the spill fluid to enter and stay in the control zone.
It seems desirable, then, to quantify the nature of water flow relative
to a given device and relative to the fluid contained in its control zone.
If an adequate means can be found to describe the conditions of turbulence
which lead to droplet formation and subsequent entrainment, it will be known
quantitatively what to achieve and avoid in the design of equipment. Given
a means of measuring and quantifying such turbulence, the performance of
equipment could be estimated with reasonable accuracy through hydrodynamic
testing alone, without oils. It is possible that the limiting conditions of
turbulence which form or entrain droplets can be achieved with numerous
possible combinations of currents, wave heights, and wave-steepness ratios.
If these limiting conditions can be clearly defined by testing with oil,
field tests could be conducted (under conditions which cannot be duplicated
in a testing facility) to establish those other environmental conditions that
lead to the limiting values of turbulence.
These measurments of tubluence could form a correlation factor between
field testing and tank testing, and also the common denominator for all
equipment performance testing. A device could then be described in terms of
its limiting values of turbulence, and definitions of the conditions of
currents and waves leading to those levels of turbulence for that device.
At present, no such correlation factor exists, and tank testing only approxi-
mates field conditions. Further, results reported from field testing are
89
-------
presently not really suitable for forming a description of the actual conditions,
in terms of fluid motions that lead to the particular results.
OPERABILITY RANGES
One very important application of performance test data from OHMSETT
is to relate the simulated environmental conditions and the measured per-
formance of the test equipment. Aside from wind effects, which are usually
considered of secondary importance relative to waves and currents, most
waterway environments can be simulated quite adequately. With the OHMSETT
capability to vary wave height (0 to 0.91 m (3 ft)), period (0 to 6 s) and
steepness ratio (0.5 to 0.005) in a continuous fashion with wave flap rpm
control, and to vary t ow speed or simulated current (0 to 3.05 m/s ± 0.05
(6 kt)), environmental conditions can be closely correlated with performance,
and upper limits can be closely defined where performance drops off and
becomes unacceptable.
If this definition of operability range were accomplished for all types
of spill control and clean up equipment, both the potential user and equip-
ment manufacturer would benefit greatly. The user would know precisely
what type of equipment is needed for the environmental conditions in which
the equipment is intended to be used, without personally experimenting with
elaborate and expensive equipment. The manufacturer would benefit by better
knowing how to design equipment to perform in various environments; the
specifications and guarantees on equipment, if closely correlated, would
result in satisfied customers and improved business.
TEST TANK EFFECTS ON DATA
Test tanks can only approximate the actual waterways. There is no
true current (except with flumes), and the waves are affected by the finite
depth. Though a separate report would be needed to rigorously define all
of the differences, the primary ones are that the waves are mechanically
generated, shallow-water waves, and the currents are simulated by relative
motion of the traveling bridge with respect to motionless water. Also,
there are air generated currents from an air barrier system which lies along
the bottom periphery of the tank.
Perhaps the best way to describe the difference in water current pro-
file is to illustrate it for a test tank and a typical river (Figures 2 2 and
23). For rivers with very steep banks, the surface velocity profile becomes
nearly flat, which is true for some cases. However, for most cases, when the
diversionary technique is being applied, the very reason for setting the
boom at a smaller angle with the mid-stream current is to avoid direct
encounter with currents greater than a 0.51 m/s (1 kt) that would cause
fluid loss (entrainment). Ideally, the fast mid-stream currents are used
to divert oil or HM to the much lower current zone near the shoreline. When
testing this concept in the test tank, obviously, there is no slow current
zone. The bridge moves with respect to the tank water, and this relative
velocity is absolutely the same all across the tank.
How does this affect the correlation of diversionary boom performance
in the test tank and the real world? Boom failure inadvertently occurred
at the trailing end which was angled the most against the current and should
90
-------
TOP VIEW
VERTICAL VIEW
PARABOLIC
PROFILE
Figure 22. River relative velocity profiles.
Figure 23. Test tank relative velocity profiles.
have been in the quiet zone (which does not exist in a test tank). If a
quiet zone did exist near the test tank wall (or trailing edge of the boom),
the "no HM loss" test speed would have increased and been in closer agree-
ment with actual performance in waterways with parabolic surface velocity ^
profiles and quiet zones. The result is that the diversionary no HM loss
speeds are low and conservative.
The mechanically drive waves in the test tank are categorized as
shallow-water waves since the 2.4 m water depth (8 ft) never exceeds the
wave length capabilities of the wave generator. The significance of this
91
-------
is twofold: (1) For wind driven waves on deep inland waterways, the repro-
ducibility of the wave generator will not be as close as with shallow-water
waves, and (2) The turbulent effects of waves will extend to the tank bottom
and thus be influenced by the bottom and its contour. A wave study to define
the significant wave characteristics and wave spectra is planned for the near
future. Until this is accomplished, it is difficult to intelligently argue
the differences between test tank waves and wind driven waves, the latter
already being statistically defined and categorized via wave spectra.
Apparently the turbulent effects of the waves tested were not signi-
ficantly affected by the shallow, flat bottom. At least the effect on the
critical current at which oil/HM entrainment begins was insignificant, in
that good agreement with the well established value of 0.38 m/s (0.75 kt)
for catenary booms was confirmed. However, the effect of a shallow, flat
bottom on turbulence, orbital current and internal waves should be investi-
gated and well defined.
There is an additional effect in the OHMSETT test tank that is perhaps
unique—an air bubbler barrier system. The air barrier system is designed to
protect the walls, beach and wave flaps as shown photographically in Figure
24.
Surface currents from the air bubbles (Figure 25) have been observed
6.1 m (20 ft) from the wall where they originated, and at speeds up to
0.3 m/s (0.6 kt) near the wall. Although accurate measurements have not
been made, hydrodynamic principles dictate orbital currents and vertical
velocitiy profiles generated by the rising air bubbles. The circulation
pattern and velocity profiles are schematically shown in Figure 26. Here
again, this effect should be defined with measurements and photographs to
rigorously defend the test results and their relevance to the real world.
Tests have been conducted with and without the air barrier with no measur-
able difference in results when testing with booms. This, plus the above
mentioned agreement with the critical velocity of catenary booms on calm
waters, tends to argue against the need for costly measurements of orbital
circulation patterns and velocity profiles.
In conclusion, the test tank effects on the test data have not been
quantitatively documented at OHMSETT. Qualitatively, effects can be argued
to have had negligible influence on the test data of this particular project.
However, until these effects are quantified, all OHMSETT data will not be
rigorously proven to have a direct 1:1 relationship to the waterways and
the real world.
92
-------
Figure 24. Photograph of air barrier surface currents
93
-------
**>
<-\> BEACH AREA
,
*
4-
*
,
*•*
WAVE
FLAP
t
Figure 25. Air barrier surface currents.
94
-------
VD
l-n
2.4m
ORBITAL »
CURRENTS \ ° ,
s \ O /
/ \ O '
\! A1R
/vMANIFOLD
^SURFACE CURRENT
x=0 x=lm x=2m
Figure 26. Circulation pattern and velocity profiles for an air barrier.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Arthur D. Little, Inc. CHRIS Hazardous Chemical Data, Coast Guard
Report 446-2, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.,
January 1974.
2. Baskin, A.D. Handling Guide for Potentially Hazardous Materials.
Material Management and Safety, Inc., Niles, IL, 1975.
3. Sax, N.I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 4th ed.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1975. 284 pp.
4. Chang, W., and R.A. Griffiths. Evaluation of Commercially Available
Oil Recovery Systems at EPA/OHMSETT. U.S. Coast Guard Report (In
Press), Washington, DC, 1977.
5. McCracken W.E. Performance Testing of Selected Inland Oil Spill
Control Equipment. EPA Report in printing. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1977. 112 pp.
6. Shaw, S. EPA Sorbent-Oil Recovery System. EPA report (in prepara-
tion). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1977.
7. Sinclair, J.R., and W.H. Bauer. Containment and Recovery of Float-
ing Hazardous Chemicals with Commercially Available Devices. In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Control of Hazardous Material
Spills, Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, Maryland, 1976. pp.
272-276.
96
-------
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT DESCRIPTION
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure A-l. OHMSETT.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operating an Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) located
in Leonardo, New Jersey. This facility provides an environmentally safe
place to conduct testing and development of devices and techniques for
the control of oil and hazardous materials spills.
The primary feature of the facility is a pile-supported, concrete
tank with a water surface 203.3 m (667 ft) long by 19.8 m (65 ft) wide
and with a depth of 2.44 m (8 ft). The tank can be filled with fresh or
salt water. The tank is spanned by a towing bridge with a capability of
towing loads up to 15422.4 kg (34,000 Ib) at speeds to 3.05 m/s (6 kt)
for a duration of 45 seconds. Slower speeds yield longer test runs.
The towing bridge is equipped to lay oil on the surface of the water
several feet ahead of the device being tested, such that reproducible
thicknesses and widths of oil slicks can be achieved with minimum inter-
ference by wind.
97
-------
The principle systems of the tank include a wave generator and
beach, a bubbler system and a filter system. The wave generator and
absorber beach have capabilities of producing minimum reflection waves
to 0.61 m (2 ft) high and 24.38 m (80 ft) long, as well as a series of
reflecting, complex waves meant to simulate the water surface of a
harbor or estuary. The water is clarified by recirculation through a
1.26 m3/s (2,000 gal/min) diatomaceous earth filter system to permit
underwater photography and video imagery, and to remove the hydrocarbons
that enter the tank water a a result of testing. Oil is controlled on
the surface of the water by a bubbler system which prevents oil from
reaching the tank walls, the beach or the wave generator. This system is
designed to speed clean-up between test runs. A clean tank surface is
essential to reproducible oil spill conditions. The towing bridge has a
built-in skimming board which, in conjunction with the bubbler system,
can move oil to the North end of the tank for clean-up and recycling.
When the tank must be emptied for maintenance purposes, the entire
water volume 9842 m3 (2,600,000 gal) is filtered and treated until it
meets all applicable State and Federal water quality standards before
being discharged. Additional specialized equipment will be used whenever
hazardous materials are used for tests. One such device is a trailer-
mounted carbon adsorption unit which is availabe for removal of organic
materials from the water.
Tests at the facility are supported from a 650 square meter
building adjacent to the tank. This building houses offices, a quality
control laboratory (which is very important since test oils and tank
water are both recycled), a small machine shop, and an equipment prepara-
tion area.
This government-owned, contractor-operated facility is available
for testing purposes on a cost-reimbursable basis to government agencies
at the Federal, State and local levels. The operating contractor, Mason
& Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., provides a staff of eleven multi-disci-
plinary personnel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides
expertise in the area of spill control technology, and overall project
direction.
For additional information, contact:
OHMSETT Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research & Development
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Phone: 201-321-6600
98
-------
APPENDIX B
PILOT STUDY
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the pilot study, the following conclusions were reached:
• Octanol, dioctyl phthalate and naphtha are physically repre-
sentative of the 167 HM investigated by Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute (RPI) for the U.S. Coast Guard, and would be used during
the full-scale tests.
The selected HM were relatively inexpensive, readily available
and would respond to OHMSETT on-site processing.
• The selected HM were compatible with the materials of the test
tank and ancillary equipment.
Safety equipment and procedures for handling the HM were avail-
able at OHMSETT and Naval Weapons Station Earle.
INTRODUCTION
The determination to test oil-spill control equipment on floatable
HM introduced a number of new considerations for planning of the OHMSETT
tests. RPI, under contract to the U.S. Coast Guard, had reported on the
compatibility of 167 HM with the materials used in the fabrication of
oil-spill control equipment (7). The report was evaluated for candidate
HM during the pilot study, and a further refinement made to select the
minimum number of HM which would be representative of the large majority
of those on the candidate-HM list.
OBJECTIVES
To expedite the selection of the HM to be used during testing, a pilot
study was conducted on the use of HM at OHMSETT. Objectives were to:
Make the final selection of the HM to be used during testing.
Assure compatibility of the OHMSETT equipment with the se-
lected HM.
Develop safety procedures and practices to be used during testing.
99
-------
Determine filterability.
TEST PLAN
It was determined that the pilot study would be conducted in three
phases: a laboratory (jar test), during which the HM would be tested in
combination with water to determine various physical properties; a test
tank phase, during which tank materials and chemicals would contact the
materials of construction in the OHMSETT test tank and ancillary equipment;
and finally, pilot testing of the diatomaceous earth (d.e.) and activated
carbon filters with the selected HM (see Tables B-l and B-2).
SELECTION OF HM
The initial selection criteria for the chemicals to be used during
OHMSETT testing were as follows:
1) Specific Gravity: Less dense than fresh water
2) Viscosity: Flowable at test temperatures
3) Flash Point: Greater than 80°F for fire safety reasons
4) Solubility: High degree of insolubility to reduce
problems cleaning OHMSETT water
5) Toxicity: Low, to reduce hazards to personnel
during testing
6) Odor: Inoffensive, since OHMSETT is an outdoor
tank located near a residential neighbor-
hood
7) Suitable for extended periods of exposure to testing personnel
without adverse safety or health effects.
The 167 materials classified as floating hazardous substances by
the U.S. Coast Guard were screened by RPI (7) on the basis of most of the
above criteria. Three classes of materials were identified as suitable for
testing: alkanes, aliphatic alcohols and esters. Seven materials were
subsequently identified as being representative of these materials.
At the second stage of HM selection, the criteria were further refined
to include cost, solubility, and the viscosity of the materials as supplied
in large quantitites. The 167 materials selected were a low-vapor-pressure
naphtha, octanol and dioctyl phthalate. The physical properties of the
selected HM are shown in comparison to test oils in Table 1.
Initially, all the candidate HM were laboratory tested—octanol,
decanol, dioctyl, adipate, naphtha and dioctyl phthalate; diesel oil was
used as the control.
100
-------
_.
Test no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 thru 14
15 thru 21
22 thru 28
29 thru 35
36 thru 42
HM
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
' -1- • -h^1-'-*- I.-U.AJ- .Lv_i_.ii j. wix j.j_i_i^o. ij . cj . rj-ijULix o
Filter media Inlet concentrate
Normal Saturated ix
Fine " "
Medium " "
Sorbo-Cel " "
Activated carbon " "
Combination " "
Chelating agent " "
Repeat same conditions " "
11 11 11 ii ii
11 ti 11 ii ii
II II H II II
II II 11 II II
lainri
Flow rate (m3/min)
7.6 x 10-"
ii
M
11
II
11
M
It
II
11
11
11
From the above tests, select the most promising HM, and run the
following matrix:
1
2
,_
3
4
5
TBD =
TBD
ii
11
it
it
TBD
11
ii
11
11
Saturated
1/2
• *
1/4
11
Saturated one.
11 11
Saturated cone.
11 11
3
7
3
7
3
.8
.6
rt
.8
.6
.8
x
x
X
X
X
10"
10-
10
10-
10-
4
"t
Jl
4
1+
To be determined
TABLE B-2. TEST MATRIX FOR PILOT ACTIVATED CARBON- ADSORPTION SYSTEM-
HM
D.E. filter media
No. of columns used
m /column
Octanol Filter-Gel
Octanol Filter-Gel and
Celite Sys
Octanol Filter-Gel
Naphtha Sorbo-Cel
Dioctyl
Phthalate Filter-Cel
Dioctyl
Phthalate Sorbo-Cel
22.7 x 10-3
11.4 x 10
-3
5.7 x 10
-3
22.7 x 10
-3
-3
22.7 x 10
22.7 x 10~3
101
-------
Pilot testing was conducted on candidate HM to determine the ability
of the OHMSETT d.e. filtration plant and the mobile carbon adsorption trailer
to remove any solubilized or emulsified HM from the tank water. Only octanol
appeared to pose difficulties, since with agitation it tended to emulsify
with water to a level of about 300 ppm. The biodegradability of octanol,
however, was an offsetting factor, and water clean up problems were not judged
severe.
Due to its flash point of 100°F, Naphtha was the greatest potential
safety hazard. Several steps were taken to offset this hazard, including
the strategic positioning of portable fire extinguishers, installation of a
foam fire extinguishing system, and the installation of two independent
systems for alarm and test system shutdown. One of these systems was a
vapor concentration detector and the other was a heat detector. Additionally,
during the Naphtha testing, a three-man U.S. Navy firefighting crew, from
NWS Earle, with full equipment stood by at the site.
TEST APPARATUS DESCRIPTION
Jar Test Apparatus Description
The jar tests utilized a 8.0 x 10-lt m3 blender to test for emulsion
formation. A porcelain pan half-filled with OHMSETT water was used to
determine the effect of HM on future testing with oil in OHMSETT.
Jar Test Procedure
The purpose of jar testing was to determine:
Does the HM float?
Can the HM be dyed for photographic purposes?
Does the HM evaporate or degrade at a rate which would cause
a problem?
Will oil spreading be affected after these HM are used in
OHMSETT?
Does the HM emulsify when agitated with OHMSETT water, and, if
so, will the emulsion break after a settling period?
To answer these questions, the following tests were performed with
the results given in Table B-3:
1) A small amount of OHMSETT water was placed in a jar, and some of
the HM placed in after it. The bottle was shaken sufficiently to
break the interfacial tension between the fluids. If no HM could
be seen on the bottom of the jar after a few minutes, the HM was
considered floatable.
102
-------
TABLE B-3. TEST RESULTS FOR JAR TESTS
Dioctyl
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Does it float?
Can it be dyed?
Does it evaporate or degrade
rapidly?
Does it affect oil spreading?
Does it emulsify?
Does emulsion break easily?
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
TABLE B-4. TEST RESULTS FOR 1.13 m3 TANK TESTS
Dioctyl
Octanol Naphtha Phthalate
1. Are tank materials affected? no no no
2. Is chemical content of bubbler
tank water being lowered? yes yes yes
217 ppm 55 to 3 522 to 32 in 7-d
to 0 in in 4-d
3-d
103
-------
2) Various oil soluble dyes were mixed with the candidate HM.
The mixtures were then placed into pans of OHMSETT water to
determine whether the dye would be extracted into the water.
0-red, red dye was finally chosen after consulting with the
OHMSETT photographic technicians.
3) A pan was half filled with OHMSETT water and placed outdoors
in a sunny location. The dyed test HM was placed on the water
surface in the pan to a depth of 0.006 m (0.25 in). The pan
was observed after 8 and 24 hours for any evaporation or
visual degradation.
4) The pan used to determine the evaporation and degradation
rates was cleaned by rinsing it under cold running water for
about 30 seconds. OHMSETT water was placed in the pan, and
No. 2 fuel oil and lube oil were placed on the surface of the
water using an eye dropper. The spreading rates and patterns
were compared with the rates and patterns exhibited in a non-
contaminated pan.
5) A 50:50 sample of test HM/OHMSETT water was placed in a blender,
and the blender was operated for 60 seconds. The time it took
for the resulting emulsion to separate into HM and water layers
was observed.
1.13 m3 (300 gal) Tank Test Procedure
Four tanks were painted with the same paint used on the walls of
OHMSETT (See Figure B-l).
Tank #1 - control-
Materials used in OHMSETT construction were placed in this tank, and
the tank filled with OHMSETT water. Materials were observed for degradation.
Tank #2 - HM and materials—
Materials used in OHMSETT construction were placed in this tank along
with one of the test HM and OHMSETT water. The materials and the HM were
then observed for changes or degradation.
Tank #3 - bubbler and HM—
An air bubbling system was placed on the bottom of a tank as shown
in Figure B-l and attached to an air compressor. The tank was then filled
with OHMSETT water and the bubbler turned on. A 0.001 m3 (1 qt) volume
of the test HM was placed on the surface of the tank inside the air bubbler
and allowed to stand for four hours. After this period, any residual floating
HM was removed. Grab samples of water were taken from the tank at this
time and every 24 hours afterwards. The amount of test HM contained in the
sample was analyzed by infrared spectrophotometer (See Table B-4 for results).
Tank #4 - Replacement (if required).
J.04
-------
Figure B-l. 1.13 m tank tests.
105
-------
1-GPM Pilot D.E. Filter Plant Test Procedure
See Figures B-2 and B-3.
Before Each Set of Tests—
1) Clean and fill 1.89 m3 (500 gal) tank with OHMSETT water before
each test HM change.
2) Place 0.002 m3 (2 qt) of test HM on surface of 1.89 m3 (500 gal)
tank
3) Turn on bubbler for approximately 2 h to mix HM in water
4) Turn off bubbler and allow tank to stand idle for 24 h.
Before Each Test—
1) Arrange pre- or post-treatment valves in position for either use
or bypass of the carbon columns
2) Weigh out appropriate amount of the filter aide to be used
3) Precoat the filter with this filter aide while in recirculation
mode
4) Start filter inlet pump and filter outlet pump
5) Place filter on stream
6) Adjust metering valves before and after filter to balance
flow rates
7) At start up and at 1 h increments, take a 100 ml sample at
filter inlet and filter outlet
8) If carbon columns were used, take start up and 1 h increment
samples of the inlet and outlet streams
9) Stabilize and refrigerate sample and analyze by infrared spectro-
photometer for test HM concentration (ppm)
TEST MATRIX
The matrix for the 3.8 x 10"3 m3/min (1 gpm) d.e. pilot plant tests
was designed to ensure that the proper filtration unit was used after the
hazardous materials had been introduced into OHMSETT. Within this matrix,
the intention was to duplicate the abilities of the test tank's d.e. fil-
tration plant and carbon adsorption unit, and ensure proper selection of
filtration media.
Each test was 24 h in duration.
106
-------
In-line static
kinetic mixer
TO FROM
CARBON COLUMNS
Initial HM in
Sea Water
Emulsion
1.89 m3
Figure B-2. HM pilot plant.
-------
DRAIN
o
00
Figure B-3. Carbon column system.
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
One of the principal questions to be answered before the test HM could
be used in OHMSETT was whether or not the present filtering system could
effectively remove the HM from the tank water, both for recycling purposes
and for eliminating any negative effect on future performance testing with
oil. Since the ability of the tank's filtering system to eliminate oil
had been well established, the pilot plant was first tested with No. 2 fuel
oil to ensure its effectiveness as a test device. Once this was established,
the test HM were tested. From the beginning of the testing program it be-
came obvious that the d.e. plant was not capable of completely removing the
HM from the tank; therefore the model carbon adsorption unit was added to
simulate the portable carbon unit available at OHMSETT for filtering purposes.
Table B-5 shows the relative ineffectiveness of the d.e. filtration plant
when used alone; the data in Table B-6 established the effectiveness of
the dual filtration system.
109
-------
TABLE B-5. TEST RESULTS FOR PILOT D.E. FILTER SYSTEM.
Test
no.
F-l
F-2
F-3
F-4
0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4
0-5
0-6
0-7
0-8
0-9
0-11
0-12
Test
HM
#2 Fuel
ti
it
ii
Octanol
ii
ii
ii
ii
n
M
11
II
II
II
Filter media
fine d.e.
fine d.e.
treated d.e.
treated d.e.
coarse d.e.
fine d.e.
medium d.e.
treated d.e.
fine d.e.
fine d.e.
fine d.e.
75% coarse d.e. +
25% powdered carbon
precoated on filter
25% coarse d.e. +
75% powdered carbon
precoated on filter
n
50% coarse + 50%
fine d.e. on filter
plus 2 carbon col-
umns post- treatment
Filter
inlet
(ppm)
375
65
50
40
700
deleted
330
330
315
310
305
295
95
190
Filter
outlet
(ppm)
175
60
70
40
475
330
310
315
315
270
290
Carbon inlet
(ppm)
f_
.„_
(Continued)
110
-------
TABLE B-5 (Continued)
Carbon outlet
(ppm)
____
< 5
< 5
10
Contact
time (min)
:
5.6
5.6
3.0
Flow rate
m3/s x 10~5(gpm)
9.5 (1.5)
10.3 (1.7)
9.6 (1.6)
9.5 (1.5)
12.1 (2.0)
6.3 (1.0)
11.4 (1.8)
6.9 (1-1)
6.9 (1.1)
6.9 (1.1)
9-6 (1.6)
9.5 (1.5)
6.9 (l.D
6.9 (l.D
6.3 (1.0)
Comments
Failure observed visu-
ally; dyed chemical
was present downstream
of filter.
Within accuracy of re-
sults with filter was
not removing chemical.
11 IT ii
ii M "
Test
no.
F-l
F-2
F-3
F-4
0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4
0-5
0-6
0-7
0-8
0-9
0-10
0-11
0-12
111
-------
TABLE B-6. TEST RESULTS FOR D.E. FILTER & ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
Test
no.
0-13
N-l
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
Test
HM
it
Naphtha
11
ii
ti
ii
Dioctyl
Phthalate
1!
II
II
II
II
II
Filter media
fine d.e. on filter
plus 1 carbon col-
umn post-treatment
f ine d.e.
ii ii
treated d.e.
treated d.e. on
filter plus 4 car-
bon columns post-
treatment
H
fine d.e. on filter
plus 4 carbon col-
umns post-treatment
1 1
ii
ii
treated d.e. on
filter plus 4 car-
bon columns post-
treatment
treated d.e. on
filter plus 4 car-
bon columns post-
treatment
M
Filter
inlet
(ppm)
130
40
40
35
35
15
30
35
45
9
12
26
22
Filter
outlet
(ppm)
30
35
30
30
10
10
30
40
8
9
15
11
Carbon inlet
(ppm)
60
30
10
10
30
40
8
9
15
11
(Continued)
112
-------
TABLE B~6 (Continued)
Carbon out-
let (ppm)
60
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contact
Time (min)
1.5
3
3
5.0
2,5
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.5
Flow rate
m3/s x 10" 5 (gpm)
6.3 (1.0)
10.3 (1.7)
8.8 (1.4)
9.5 (1.5)
12.6 (2.0)
12.6 (2.0)
5.0 (0.8
9.6 (1.6)
9.6 (1.6)
8.8 (1.4)
9.6 (1.6)
9.5 (1-5)
9.6 (1.6)
Comments
Suspected carbon
columns were saturated
and leakage of HM
began.
ii ii ii n
Test
no.
0-13
N-l
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
113
-------
APPENDIX C
TEST EQUIPMENT - BOOMS
The following section of this report describes the individual boom
systems tested. Individual systems are detailed in the following manner:
Manufacturer - Name of system
Design characteristics
Tow point connections
Comments
Diagrams and photographs of devices, sketches of tow point connections,
and rigging specifications are given separately following the above
details in this appendix. Catenary and diversionary rigging details are
given in Figures C-l, C-2, and Table C-l.
Technical information contained herein is reprinted courtesy of the
individual manufacturers.
CLEAN WATER, INC. - HARBOUR OIL CONTAINMENT BOOM
Design Characteristics (See Figures C-3, C-4, and C-5)
(1) Draft - 0.61 m (24 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.20 m (8 in)
(3) Floatation - expanded polyethylene cylinders, 0.15 m dia. x
0.46 m long (6 in x 18 in)
(4) Ballast - 0.635 cm galvanized chain, pocketed along bottom
of skirt
(5) Skirt material - nylon reinforced resistant PVC heavy duty
sheet encasing
(6) Tension member - 0.749 cm dia. coated aircraft cable threaded
through float cylinders. Second tension member is ballast chain
(7) Weight - 3.04 kg/m (2.04 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 4.02 kg/m (2.70 Ib/ft)
114
-------
Figure C-l. Catenary rigging details.
-------
Figure C-2. Diversionary rigging details.
-------
TABLE C-l. SUMMARY OF RIGGING SPECIFICATIONS
Boom
Clean Water
B.F. Goodrich
U.S. Coast Guard
Catenary
Lc (m)
61.0
56.7
57.9
Lw (m)
18.6
18.6
18.6
Ac (m)
.23.5
25.9
27.4
Diver s ionary
Lc (m)
30.5
29.3
Lw (m)
18.6
18.6
Lm (m)
26.2
28.7
S (m)
7.6
8.5
-------
00
CLEAN WATER, INC.
HARBOUR BOOM
EXPANDED FOAM
FLOATATION SEGMENTS
, IB IN. I . U6IN-
EFFECTIVE 24- -"l"'''''
SKIRT *»•
ON
REINFORCED
1L RESISTANT PVC
HEAW DUTY SHEET ENCASIN3
CHAIN'
Figure C-3. Clean Water Boom details.
-------
Figure C-4. Clean Water Boom.
119
-------
UPPER TENSION LINE
I BR}
FLOATATION ELEMENT
BALLAST CHAIN/
DGE TOWING SUPPORT
Figure C-5. Clean Water boom tow point connection.
-------
(9) Available in 15.2 m sections (50 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was connected top and bottom to coated
aircraft cable and ballast chain. This then was connected to
bridge tow points.
Comments
(1) Reticulation between floatation elements facilitated handling
and storage, but slackened during test runs causing loss of free-
board. The addition of slack retaining lines at these points would
reduce this effect.
(2) Required three men per section for handling and was relatively
easy to deploy and make connections.
B.F- GOODRICH - SEABOOM
Design Characteristics (See Figures C-6 , C- 7, and C-8
(1) Draft - 0.30 m (12 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.15 (6 in)
(3) Floatation - continuous chambers of closed cell foam, protected
by 0.635 cm PVC coating and secured at the boom ends with wooden
plugs
(4) Ballast - tubular, extrusion filled with lead shot and sand
(5) Skirt material - 0.635 cm thick vinyl sheet reinforced with rib-
handles of urethane
(6) Tension member - self-tensioning boom
(7) Weight - 11.01 kg/m (8.0 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 10.42 kg/m (7.0 Ib/ft)
(9) Standard length - 7.16 m (23.5 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was connected to the manufacturer-provided
"SEALOC" system. This consists of a piano hinge arrangement with
fiberglass pins.
Comments
(1) Required 10 men per section for handling, and a crane for deploy-
ment and removal.
121
-------
EEEDuD
18" SEABOOM (PFX AND SU)
The most versatile ol all Seabooms. so tough It
normally will last lar beyond-the Seaboom two
year warranty. Strong and streamlined, 1,000
leet can be towed at high speed from place to
place. Appropriate for hsrbors, bays, rivers and
limited open sea use.
Freeboard
Draft
Weight
Standard Length
Working Strength
Reserve Buoyancy
Stability
Volume/Std. Length
18PFX
6'
12-
7.5 lbs.M.
23.5'
6.000 Ibs.
7 lbs./IL
Vsry High
11.2 fu*
1BSU
6'
12'
23.5'
6.000 Ibs.
4 Ibs./lt.
ViryHIgh
11.2 It'
Figure C-6. B.F. Goodrich Boom details.
-------
Figure C-7. B.F. Goodrich Boom.
123
-------
TOW LINEX
FLOATATION
BRIDGE TOWING SUPPORT
Figure C-8. B.F. Goodrich boom tow point connection.
-------
(2) Attaching end plates and making section connections were easy.
U.S. COAST GUARD - PROTOTYPE HIGH SEAS BARRIER
Design Characteristics (See Figures C-9, C-10, and C-ll)
(1) Draft - 0.69 m (2.25 ft)
(2) Freeboard - 0.53 m (1.75 ft)
(3) Floatation - air filled cylinders 1.82 m long x 0.36 m dia.
(6 ft x 14 in), equally spaced at 1.96 m (77 in) intervals
(4) Skirt material - 2 ply elastomer coated nylon
(5) Tension member - 3.33 cm (1.32 in) dia. external tension line
(rope)
(6) Weight - 20.83 kg/m (14 Ib/ft)
(7) Excess buoyancy - 74.4 kg/m ,(50 Ib/ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A direct connection was made by means of eye bolts and clevis
connectors to the external tension line.
Comments
(1) Floatation sections tended to "jump" bottom tension line during
some test runs causing localized loss of test fluids.
(2) At slow speed (< .51 m/s), interfloat regions of freeboard
slackened, causing boom to lose proper vertical profile.
(3) Vortex currents observed at the apex of floatation cylinders
caused test HM to escape.
125
-------
N.'
FABRIC LENGTH
I • ""
= 6-43
SLACK RETAINER
LINE-
NX
MAIN TENSION LINE Ire DIA
Figure C-9. U.S. Coast Guard Prototype High Seas Barrier Details.
126
-------
Figure C-10. U.S. Coast Guard Prototype High Seas Barrier,
127
-------
FLOATATION ELEMENT WOODEN SLATS
WATER LINE
ro
oo
-o
TOW LINE
BRIDGE TOWING SUPPORT
EXTERNAL TENSION LINE
Figure C-ll. U.S. Coast Guard Prototype High Seas barrier tow point connection.
-------
APPENDIX D
TEST EQUIPMENT - STATIONARY SKIMMERS
The following section of this report describes the individual skimmer
systems tested. Individual systems are detailed in the following manner:
Manufacturer - Name of system
Design characteristics
Pump data
Diagrams and photographs are given separately following the above
details in this appendix (see Figures D-l, D-2, and D-3).
Certain materials are reprinted courtesy of the individual manufacturers.
SLICKBAR 1 IN. RIGID MANTA RAY
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.03 m opening by 1.22 m dia (1 in x 48 in)
(2) Weight - 11.3 kg (25 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - twin diaphragm, self priming
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I.D. floating suction hose, 3.05 m (10 ft)
lengths
(3) Capacity - 1.1 x 10~2 m3/s (178 gpm)
I.M.E. - SWISS OELA III
Design Characteristics
(1) Height - 0.39 m (15.2 in)
(2) Weight - 49.9 kg (110 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - twin diaphragm, air operated
129
-------
Figure D-l. Slickbar skimmer.
^*»'?T!**Jt •-."•'- «S> ; "
Figure D-2. I.M.E. skimmer.
130
-------
-'-*-..,,»
Figure D-3. Oil Mop skimmer.
131
-------
APPENDIX E
TEST EQUIPMENT - ADVANCING SKIMMERS
The following section of this report describes the individual skimmer
system tested. Individual systems are detailed in the following manner:
Manufacturer - Name of system
Design Characteristics
Pump data
Diagrams and photographs are given separately following the above
details in this appendix (see Figures E-l, E-2, and E-3).
Certain materials are reprinted courtesy of the individual manufacturers.
JBF SCIENTIFIC CORP. - DIP 1002 SKIMMER
General Description
The DIP (Dynamic Inclined Plane) is a floating, portable endless-belt
skimmer which is operated from a vessel or pier through a 25 ft (7.6 m) control
wand (see Figure E-l).
Overall Dimensions
1.8 m x 1.1 m x 0.9 m high (5.9 ft x 3.6 ft x 2.9 ft)
Weight
272.2 kg (600 Ib)
Pump Type
Positive displacement, air diaphragm pump
Pump Rate
3.2 x 10~3 m3/s at 5.5 x 105 N/m2 (50 gpm at 80 psi)
Discharge Hose
0.05 m diameter
132
-------
Skimmer Direction
Back Plate
Bottom Plate
Figure E-l. Basic principle of operation of the DIP skimmer.
133
-------
Figure E-2. DIP skimmer,
134
-------
How It Works
U)
lowing Velocity
Floatation
Flotation
Free Slick Thickness
Head Wave
Primary Weir Plate
Water Velocity
Negative Velocity Pressure
Figure E-3. Basic principle of operation of the ORS skimmer.
-------
Belt
Polyurethane or PVC
ORS-125 HARBOR OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM
General Description
The ORS-125 is a double weir-type skimming system used as a link at
the apex of a funneling boom (see Figure E-3).
Overall Dimensions
1.2mxl.2mx2.1m (skimmer); 0.6mx0.6mx0.6m (pump)
Weight
154.2 kg (343 Ibs)
Pump Type and Capacity
Double diaphragm air operated, rated for 7.9 x 10~3 m3/s (125 gpm) of
43.2 x 10-6 m2/s) (0.43 cSt) oil; or 6.3 x 10~3 m3/s (100 gpm) of 863.9 x
10-6 m2/s (8.6 cSt) oil.
Discharge Hose
0.08 m dia; 45.7 m long lightweight collapsible fuel hose supplied.
136
-------
APPENDIX F
TEST EQUIPMENT - U.S. EPA/SEAWARD SORBENT SYSTEM
The Sorbent System consists of three separate units: broadcaster,
recovery unit and regenerator. The broadcaster distributes 3/4 in poly-
urethane cubes onto the surface of a slick, so that the cubes absorb the
oil or HM (Figure F-l) . The recovery unit is a conveyor belt device which
is towed into a slick and is contained in booms that are in a V-shaped
configuration stretching out from the recovery unit. The cubes are re-
moved from the slick by the recovery unit's conveyor belt, which deposits
them in a bin behind the unit (Figure F-2) . The bin is removed to the re-
generator (Figure F-3), where the cubes are squeezed dry while passing
through rollers. The fluid-free cubes are returned to the broadcaster
and redistributed. Detailed specifications of the U.S. EPA/Seaward Sorbent
System are available in Reference 6.
Figure F-l. The broadcaster,
137
-------
Figure F-2. The recovery unit.
Figure F-3. The regenerator,
138
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-600/2-77-222
|3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSICWNO.
ND SUBTITLE
Performance Testing of Spill Control Devices on
Floatable Hazardous Materials
J5. REPORT DATE
November 1977 issuing date
|6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUT
|8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
W.E. McCracken and S.H. Schwartz
i. PERFOF
G ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger - Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
10, PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0490
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati , Ohio 45268 _
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Sep-Nov 1975
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ~ " ~~—————————————^——^^———^____^_—
At the U.S. EPA's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank
(OHMSETT) in Leonardo, New Jersey, from September 1975 through November 1975, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard evaluated
selected oil-spill control equipment for use on spills of floatable hazardous
materials (HM). The HM used during the tests were octanol, dioctyl phthalate and
naphtha. The major parameters indicating performance were recovery rates, recovery
efficiency and throughput efficiency. It was concluded that equipment performance
was directly relatable to the physical properties Df the HM, and, in this respect,
showed no difference from previous oil-recovery tests.
The conduct of the project is described; and the results, conclusions and recom-
mendations are presented.
A 16-mm color sound narrative motion picture entitled "Performance Testing of Spill
Control Devices on Floatable Hazardous Materials" was produced to document the
results of this project.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
[b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Hazardous Materials, Decontamination,
Water Pollution, Performance Tests
Floatable Hazardous
Materials Spills Clean-
up, Hazardous Material
Spill Control
68 D
S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Released to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassi fied
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified .
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
139
ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977—757-140/6611
------- |