HIGH CURRENT CONTROL OF FLOATING OIL

1975 ◽  
Vol 1975 (1) ◽  
pp. 347-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Stephen Dorrler ◽  
Ray Ayers ◽  
David C. Wooten
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Current Control ◽  
Hydrodynamic Theory ◽  
High Current ◽  
Oil Film ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
Successful Control ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup

ABSTRACT In high current oil spill cleanup operations, containment devices should be used as one element in a containment-pickup system. To achieve successful control over the oil slick, three activities have been identified based on an analysis of the present hydrodynamic theory of oil spill containment:absorb or convert the kinetic energy of the fast-flowing water streamseparate the oil film from as much of the free-flowing stream as possibledirect the oil film to a controlled area to facilitate its collection and removal. Acting under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a contract to Ultrasystems, Inc., of Newport Beach, California, to design, develop, and demonstrate a streamlined boom utilizing hydrofoil concepts. Additionally, EPA awarded a contract to the Shell Development Company to develop an unconventional boom profile utilizing a perforated incline plate as a baffle upstream of a conventional plate boom. This baffle creates a flow-sheltered region where the oil layer can thicken, thus facilitating its removal. Following developmental tests of these concepts, full-scale prototype tests will be conducted at the Environmental Protection Agency's OHMSETT facility in Leonardo, New Jersey. Following these tests, final reports will be issued which will include recommended design, fabrication, and material specifications.

UNDERGROUND OIL SPILL INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP1

1983 ◽  
Vol 1983 (1) ◽  
pp. 393-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Storage Tanks ◽  
Federal Funds ◽  
Property Owner ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Region I

ABSTRACT In April 1978, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region I office received an oil spill report which involved a sheen leaching from an industrial park into a river in Connecticut. Initial investigation revealed only two 10,000-gallon and one 11,000-gallon buried storage tanks as possible sources. All were located relatively close together about 200 feet from the river. The maintenance man reported that one of the 10,000-gallon tanks had spilled an estimated 500 gallons into the ground the previous year. EPA responded and initially worked with the property owner and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in addressing the problem. Although the leaching seemed to be relatively minor at first, it gradually increased after July 1978. The property owner was unable to finance cleanup actions after the first few months. EPA assumed cleanup responsibility, using federal funds, and eventually took over all investigation and recovery efforts in 1980. The incident has involved many phases, including locating and estimating the volume of the underground contamination, attempted source identification through sample analysis, installing recovery systems, excavating the oil storage tanks, winter operations of the recovery systems, disposal of product, and river cleanup. Analyses of test boring data in 1979 indicated the maximum volume of spilled product on the groundwater to be between 50,000 and 150,000 gallons. Since 1980, the recovery systems alone have yielded more than 90,000 gallons of oil, making this innocuous incident one of the largest inland oil spills ever in Region I. It also has been the most expensive federally-funded inland spill in the region. Recovery from the groundwater is expected to continue through 1982, albeit at a decreasing rate. The total observed volume of oil involved in the spill will probably exceed 110,000 gallons.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OIL SPILL DEBRIS DISPOSAL

1977 ◽  
Vol 1977 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-269
Author(s):  
J. S. Farlow ◽  
D. E. Ross ◽  
R. Landreth
Keyword(s):  
Rhode Island ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Sanitary Landfills ◽  
Local Officials ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup ◽  
Practical Recommendations

ABSTRACT Many oil spill cleanup efforts include the disposal of a significant quantity of unusable oily organic and inorganic debris. Because spills are emotion-charged events, debris disposal is often impeded by the somewhat exaggerated fears of local inhabitants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency retained SCS Engineers, Inc. to prepare a detailed, practical how-to-do-it manual for oil spill debris disposal and to make an accompanying film for state and local officials. The work included a literature search, interviews with both researchers and practitioners, and limited field studies in California, Utah and Rhode Island. Because aerobic conditions result in relatively rapid microbial degradation of the bulk of the hydrocarbons, the land-spreading process is recommended where debris size characteristics and access to suitable land permit. Anaerobic disposal in individual burial sites or existing sanitary landfills is acceptable, though definitely less desirable because of the greatly extended period for groundwater pollution potential and monitoring.

Application of Risk and Reliability in Designing Facility Site Containment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff Ballard ◽  
Refaul Ferdous ◽  
Anthony Payoe ◽  
Amanda Kulhawy
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Overland Flow ◽  
Model Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reliability Modeling ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Enbridge is North America’s premier energy infrastructure company delivering the energy people need and want. Enbridge’s business value is asset intensive. With over 200 onshore liquids pipelines facility assets, operational safety and environmental protection are always top priorities. The embedment of risk management practices in business decisions is an effective way to appropriately optimize asset performance while avoiding catastrophic impacts to people and the environment. This includes understanding and managing these risk events and establishing barriers to prevent the impact. Facility site containment is an independent protection layer that mitigates the consequences of a spill. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the National Fire Code of Canada provide requirements to contain overland flow of a spill from liquids pipelines facility assets. Although there are specific volumetric requirements for spill containment for facility tanks, there are no specific volumetric requirements for spill containment for pipeline facility assets such as pumps, valves, etc. Industry typically employs an index-based approach to determine the specific design volumes using catastrophic rupture volumes and facility location. This approach has several shortcomings, including design inadequacy, inconsistency, and challenges with scalability. A risk-based approach is appropriate in determining the required site containment volume based on oil spill history, facility assets, and environmental sensitivities. A probabilistic model can be created using historical facility oil spill data based on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA’s) facility incident database to estimate the likelihood of a given size of release occurring. If available, company oil spill history can also be used or integrated with the PHMSA dataset. Combining the likelihood of the size of release occurring with the estimated consequence (by accounting for the volume of a release and the environmental sensitivity at the release location), it is possible to evaluate the risk of a release. This estimation of risk can then be leveraged to support facility site containment design to manage the risk to an acceptable level. By informing facility site containment with volumetric requirements using reliability and consequence models and risk management principles, an organization can prudently balance pipeline safety and capital constraints to comply with federal regulations. This paper demonstrates this approach and describes: • The value of available data and model development • Reliability modeling and consequence assessment • Risk-informed decision-making • Future model enhancements

THE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: EVALUATING EFFECTS OF OIL DISCHARGES ON THE ENVIRONMENT

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 971-972
Author(s):  
Bobbie Lively-Diebold ◽  
Susan M. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Vulnerability Analysis ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Response Plan ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Various components make up a vulnerability analysis of the potential effects of an oil discharge or a release of a hazardous substance on the environment. Although the process used in the oil spill vulnerability analysis would be appropriate for other planning purposes, this particular analysis is an element of the OPA 90 response plan that the owner or operator of a “substantial harm” facility must prepare and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

OHMSETT TRAINS OIL SPILL RESPONDERS

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1021-1026
Author(s):  
Kathleen Nolan ◽  
William Schmidt ◽  
James Lane ◽  
David Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Test Facility ◽  
Control School ◽  
Management Service ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The OHMSETT Test Facility, operated by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, is dedicated to testing full-scale oil spill response equipment, conducting research on innovative spill response technology, and conducting training sessions with oil. The facility's most recent contribution to increasing marine environmental protection is training public and private oil spill responders in the use of new and existing response technologies in a test tank under controlled conditions. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) recently has increased the number and the frequency of their courses at OHMSETT. Increased training options and satisfied students make OHMSETT a unique training opportunity for the oil spill response community. Training at OHMSETT allows students to increase their recovery proficiency while receiving real-world training recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the USCG. OHMSETT also is researching the idea of using the Sandy Hook Bay for actual field exercises. This would be an additional option for the oil spill responders' course taught by the National Spill Control School at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN, SUBPART J PRODUCT SCHEDULE (40 CFR 300.900)

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Transfer Activities of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 685-698
Author(s):  
J. J. Convery ◽  
J. F. Kreissl ◽  
A. D. Venosa ◽  
J. H. Bender ◽  
D. J. Lussier
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Outreach Program ◽  
Small Community ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Transfer Programs

Technology transfer is an important activity within the ll.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specific technology transfer programs such as the activities of the Center for Environmental Research Information, the Innovative and Alternative Technology Program, as well as the Small Community Outreach Program are used to encourage the utilization of cost-effective municipal pollution control technology. Case studies of three technologies including a plant operations diagnostic/remediation methodology, alternative sewer technologies and ultraviolet disinfection are presented. These case studies are presented retrospectively in the context of a generalized concept of how technology flows from science to utilization which was developed in a study by Allen (1977). Additional insights from this study are presented on the information gathering characteristics of engineers and scientists which may be useful in designing technology transfer programs. The recognition of the need for a technology or a deficiency in current practice are important stimuli other than technology transfer for accelerating the utilization of new technology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document