HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

49

description

This is Kemper Engineering's evaluation of the "HE Film" during the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. This device was inspired by the Exxon Valdez spill and was developed to be a rapid oil booming solution that could provide initial containment of hydrocarbons until permanent booms and skimmer ships arrive on site. It is very inexpensive and every boat and ship can carry thousands of feet of boom for less than the cost of single day's fuel. At the time of the report it was being offered by Onyx Scientific but is now offered by Oil Containment Systems, Inc. The point of contact is Brian Ablett ([email protected]). The device has been tested by the US gov't and approved by the EPA, both of which are included. Of the thousands of technologies submitted to BP and government agencies, OCSI was one of the 11 companies asked to present in Orange Beach, Alabama in June 2010. There has been considerable subsequent development to this concept by OCSI and Kemper Engineering Services.

Transcript of HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

Page 1: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 2: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 3: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

Contents

1. Introduction and Scope p. 1 2. Assumptions p. 2 3. Field Test Methods p. 3 4. Field Test Results p. 4 5. Structural Analysis and Comparison p. 6

6. Conclusions and Recommendations p. 8 7. References p. 8

UAppendices A. Material Specifications and Data B. Millsaps College Report (20 October 1993) C. US DoI OHMSETT Report (23 July 1998) D. Field test in Lafourche Parish E. Computer Model Data F. Computer Model Results

Page 4: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 1/8

1. Introduction and Scope

Kemper Engineering Services (KES) was contacted by Onyx Scientific to provide an independent review of the HE™ oil containment film (HE). This film was developed by Wolf Herkenberg of Canada and was patented in Canada by Wolf Herkenberg, #2,070,835, “Thin Flexible Sheet Sorption Material For the Removal of Oil From Oil Spills.” The device also received a European patent (0507784B1, published 19 Oct. 1992) and a US patent (5,451,325, Date of Patent 19 Sept. 1995). The material is currently offered by Onyx Scientific as “Herkenberg-Ablett HE Technology Oleophilic Film” and is currently manufactured by Berry Plastics in Monroe, La. The material specifications by Onyx and Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) are found in App. A. This device is made up of a thin film of oleophilic, or “oil liking”, film. The film is also hydrophobic, or “water rejecting.” The current material used is polyethylene, which is chemically neutral with respect fresh water and marine applications. The device has at least two layers, sealed on the sides, with holes in the film’s faces and full seals across the width of the film on regular intervals. This creates a continuous strip of “cells”, perforated on the sides. Given the nature of the film, the petroleum oil will stick to the film while shedding water. When the oil reaches a perforation, the inside of the cell provides at least two surfaces for the oil to cling to as opposed to the single outside surface, drawing the oil into the cell. While oil on the outside surfaces may be dislodged by water action, oil drawn into the device is difficult to dislodge. This was confirmed in by rigorous testing (App. B and C).

By design, this device is designed to trap oil without the use of chemicals or volume-based absorbent material. When deployed into the water, the device is intended to perform as a “boom”, or barrier, to control the spread of an oil spill. The spread may be controlled by encircling the oil for later retrieval or controlled burning, or by providing a long, continuous barrier to protect shorelines, marinas, and other potentially impacted areas. When deployed on beached oil the device acts more like a paper towel, picking up many times its weight in

Fig 1 Oleophilic action

Page 5: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 2/8

oil due to adhesion. It is noted this material is similar to plastic bags, which left unattended can pose environmental hazards similar to those of plastic trash bags. However, the hazards posed by an oil spill are far greater. The remediation plan for the deployed material should mitigate the hazards inherent in long stretches of plastic film. Due to its light weight, low volume, and ease of deployment, this device is intended for a wide range of uses:

• Massive response, such as the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents

• Shipboard and dockside storage for immediate response to routine petroleum product spills

• Harbor authority response teams • USCG, EPA, DoD, and other response agencies, to include potential aerial

deployment of “corrals” prior to the arrival of supporting surface craft. • Private property owners protecting beachfronts • Beach clean up

KES’ scope for this project is to conduct a literature review of the material, observe a field test of both the original device and a revised design, and draw conclusions regarding the observed performance with respect to the laboratory tests provided by Onyx. The field test was conducted on May 22, 2010 at Port of Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana on a beach that had significant oil spill deposits as well as oil floating in the surf. KES is also to provide an analytic comparison between the original design and the “Berry #2” design. 2. UAssumptions

• Information provided by Onyx Scientific is accurate. • Information provided by Berry Plastics is accurate. • Structural calculations can assume all plies act together when loaded uniformly

across the width of the device. • The oil used in the field test was from the Deepwater Horizon spill. This is based on

the close proximity to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, reports by the US Coast Guard that the oil from that spill has made landfall in the area in question, and the reddish coloration indicative of the dispersants reportedly used in the Deepwater

Fig 2. Oil on beach in Port Fourchon. Red color likely to be from dispersants. Tape measure provides scale.

Page 6: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 3/8

Horizon spill. • The device designated “original” is within the manufacturing tolerances of the

“Sample Set” specifications in the document “Oil Recovery Film Analysis”, found in App. B.

• The device designated “original” is representative of the film material and geometry used in the previously laboratory tests by Millsaps College (Oct. 20, 1993). This is found in App. B.

• The device designated “original” is representative of the film material and geometry used by the US Dept. of Interior’s National Oil Spill response Test Facility’s OHMSETT (Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank) in the report dated July 23, 1998. This is found in App. C

• The device designated “Berry #2” is within manufacturing tolerances of “Berry Structure #2”, which is a gusseted design. The specifications are in the document “Oil Recovery Film Analysis”, found in App. A.

• Issues regarding how the material is deployed are neglected. • Issues regarding how many rolls are deployed simultaneously are neglected.

3. Field Test Methods

The field test was performed on a beach near Port of Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The field tests were performed by Brian Ablett, who is affiliated with the product development. The field test conditions did not provide the same quantity of oil as the laboratory tests, nor was there an ability to measure the amount of oil exposed to the test sample, so maximum capacity could not be determined. The instruments were used were:

• A 16 foot metal tape measure • A kitchen digital scale, accuracy +/- 1.0 gram • “Press n Seal” cling film, used to line the scale’s bowl in order to prevent residual

materials building up during tests. • A length of ruled tape (inches), applied in order to provide scale • A roll of “original” device. It is more narrow (10 inches wide), plus has dark printing

on the orange film. • A roll of “revised” device. It is wider (12 inches wide), has no printing on the orange

film, and appears to be more opaque due to the interior gusset. There was limited time available to conduct field tests. Two tests were performed: “Sand Test” and “Surf Test.” “Sand Test” A small sample of the new film was weighed and measured. A strip of ruled tape was applied to provide scale. The sample was forced down into the wet sand and oil on the beach. The intent was to evaluate the device’s ability to pick up oil in a “beach clean up” applications. A photo of the test is shown in Fig. 3. After a few minutes of application the sample was weighed.

Fig. 3 “Sand Test”

Page 7: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 4/8

“Surf Test” A strip of the “original” and “Berry #2” were cut from their respective rolls, approximately 14 feet long each. In addition to a general “go”/”no go” performance check, this test was to compare to the two designs. The strips were dragged through the surf in depths of up to 1 feet deep. The strips were also allowed to float freely in the water for several minutes. The strips were then retrieved from the water and bagged for later measurement. The “dry weight” was determined by measuring out the same length of the “wet sample” and weighing that. While its not an exact match in terms of weight, the long length of the strip renders the slight difference in lengths between the “wet” and “dry” samples to be negligible in terms of weight. The “dry weight” and “wet weights” were then compared. 4. UField Test Results The results of the field tests are as follows. For the “Sand Test”, the sample clearly was able to sponge the oil off the wet sand, as shown in Fig. 5. When measuring the weight of the sample “wet” and “dry”, it was determined:

Ratio Oil/Film = 75:1 This is consistent with previous findings. The “Surf Test” provided a direct comparison of the two designs. Previous laboratory test established a baseline for the HE film performance. The new design has different dimensions as well as a gusset, which increases the available interior area from 240 square inches per linear foot (“original”) to 570 square inches per linear foot (“Berry #2).

Fig. 4 “Surf Test” The strip is allowed to float within the oil spill.

Fig. 5 “Sand test”

Page 8: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 5/8

The results of the “Surf Test” measurements are as follows.

Original Berry #2 Length: 172 in. Length: 164 in.

Wt (dry): 21 g Wt. (dry): 36 g Wt. (wet) 317 g Wt. (wet) 615 g

Wt gain 296 g Wt gain 579 g Wt Gain/g 14.1 g/g Wt gain/g 16.1 g/g Wt Gain/in 1.7 g/in Wt gain/in. 3.5 g/in

The term “weight gained” is used to include water plus any other material that was trapped by the HE film in addition to oil. There was no test to quantify how much of the weight gain is due to oil, but by inspection it appeared to be almost entirely oil. Fig. 6 shows the oil entrained in the “original” design shortly after it was taken out of the water. Notice very little of the oil is on the outside of the film, as compared to Fig. 5 from the “beach test.” Capturing the oil within the cell structure provides a significant performance feature when compared to other barrier material. This is more significant when considering the low storage and shipping volume per linear foot. As stated previously, as a “field test” it was not possible to replicate the laboratory conditions which were designed to assess maximum capacities. However, both test strips performed as expected by pulling the oil out of the surf and isolating it within its cells. When comparing the two samples, the “Berry #2” material outperformed the “Original” material in terms of “weight gained per gram of material” as well as “weight gained per unit length.” Based on observations and the geometries involved, it is more likely

than not that the “Berry #2” design would outperform the “Original” material by greater margins if placed in a more oil-rich environment.

Fig. 6 “Surf Test” Oil entrained inside the cell structure.

Page 9: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 6/8

While there is no data to directly compare the performance of the “oil with dispersants” to “oil without dispersant”, the use of dispersants did not appear to have a significant effect on the sample’s ability to pick up oil from wet sand. 5. Structural Analysis and Comparison The change in the structural design for the device has been previously untested. The field test allowed for a direct comparison with respect to the ability to capture oil in the shallow surf conditions. However, a key characteristic that has to be considered is its strength. If the material cannot withstand the rigors of wave action and handling the new design could be less useful than the previous design. The new design introduced more numerous and larger openings, which could potentially degrade the overall strength of the material. Since the previous design has a range of tests already documented, per Apps. B and C, comparable structural analysis will give a direct measure of the new design’s performance in relation to the established and tested original design. Therefore, these analyses are not intended to predict the mechanical response of these devices in use, but rather to computationally assess one design against the other, then extrapolate the likely response in the field based on laboratory test findings. A Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the two designs was developed. Shell, or “plane”, elements were used. The model details are in App. E. In both cases, a 16 inch length of material was used. The top of the model was fixed with respect to displacement and a two pound force was applied downwards at the bottom of the model in pure tension. The results of the FEA are as follows:

The figure above shows the original design. Peak stress is 823 psi, which is well below the publish tensile strength of 11,606 psi. (App. A) The close coupled holes create interacting

Fig. 7 “Original” design Two pounds of force applied downwards.

Page 10: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 7/8

stress fields. These computation models assume the thickness of the structure at a given point, so a section that has 2 plies would be 2*10 microns = 20 microns thick. The regions in the new design that have the gusset are four plies, or 40 microns thick.

Figure 8, shown above, is the “Berry #2” design. The peak stress is 306.9 psi, which is well below peak stress in Fig. 7 as well as the tensile limit of 11,236 psi. (App. A) It also appears the hole spacing for this design creates less potential stress interactions than the original design. The original hole spacing maintained a 2 inch standoff from the cell seal, whereas this hole spacing does not appear to take the cell seal into consideration. The field test did not provide any evidence the changes in hole spacing changed either the ability to attract oil into its cell structure or in retaining oil during retrieval/processing. When examining the overall stress, the typical stress in Fig. 8 is 100 psi, whereas in Fig. 7 is around 230 psi. This is consistent with the geometry as there is 20% more cross sectional area to distribute the same weight due to the increase in width from 10 to 12 inches. The new design also has twice the effective thickness across the grand majority of the width. Structurally, these design changes also increase the weight per roll for a given total length. However, based on the published test results, this design is still orders of magnitude less heavy and less volumetric for an equivalent length of barrier material or absorbent material. The increased amount of material is likely to require changes to the delivery system.

Fig. 8 “Berry #2” Two pounds of force applied downwards.

Page 11: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

ONX100510 HE Film Evaluation p. 8/8

U5. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the literature review and the results of the field test and computational models, the following conclusions are made:

• The HE film device appears to perform per literature. • There was no indication dispersants impacted the HE film performance. • The HE film can serve as a boom, a corral, or a beach cleanup resource. • The HE film is capable of picking up 75 times its weight in oil from wet sand. • “Berry #2” design is more effective than the “Original” design in isolating oil within

its structure. • The “Berry #2” design is stronger than the “Original” design, therefore should

perform better in terms of handling and potential for breakage. Recommendations include:

• Design a new delivery system due to greater bulk and weight per unit length than original design.

• A “Lay Flat” delivery system may be optimal for beach clean up, based on observations during the field test.

• A “rolled spiral” delivery system may be optimal for water-borne deployment when acting as barrier or corral, based on observations during the field test and available literature.

• Given the chemically neutral nature of the material, there is no associated hazard preventing a larger scale deployment to be done immediately in order to address reported shortages in oil spill control materials. However, coordination should be done with HAZMAT teams to ensure proper remediation occurs as the deployed material poses environmental hazards comparable to plastic bags.

U6. References

1. “Test of Functional Properties of ‘HE’, the High Extension Sorbent/Barrier Belt.” OHMSETT, The U.S. National Oil Spill Response Test Facility, US Dept. of the Interior. 23 July 1998.

2. International Plastics Book. Osswald, et al. Hanser Gardner Publications, Inc. 2006. 3. “Summary of Results, HE Test” Schrader, Ed. Millsaps College. 20 Oct. 1993.

Page 12: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX A

Material Data

Page 13: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

Technical Description Oleophilic Film is easy to store, simple to deploy and effective in application.

Thickness• Minimum 4 mil sheet thickness, 2 sheet ribbon

Absorption• Heavy diesel — 45.89 g/cm3

• Light crude — 33.84 g/cm3

• Heavy crude — 73.34 g/cm3

• Approximately 110 gallons, or 2.5 barrels of oil, per 2,000 foot length of fi lm.

• Approximately 264 gallons, or 6 barrels of oil, per linear mile (5,280 feet) of fi lm.

Strength• Rupture length of 2 miles or 3.2 kilometers (under its own weight) at 4 mil sheet thickness

Storage and Deployment• Easily stored rolls (diameter up to 12 inches)• Hand-dispensed single rolls for deployment by personnel• Multi-roll dispensers (2-, 4- and 6-roll designs) for high-speed mechanized deployment• Varying roll lengths (2,000 feet to 5,280 feet)• Flat before oil contact, fi lled after oil contact• Floats on water and contains thick or thin oil layer when looped

Energy & Propulsion Systems

Herkenberg-Ablett HE Technology

Oleophilic FilmP R O D U C T I N F O R M AT I O N

A Solution for Oil SpillsUnexpected environmental challenges confront business, government, and relief organizations almost daily. Marine petroleum operations are especially vulnerable to envi-ronmentally damaging malfunction. When these disasters strike, Onyx Scientifi c Inc. provides a solution to minimize adverse environmental consequences and economic impact. That solution is Oleophilic Film.

Through our relationship with Oil Containment Systems, Inc., Onyx offers immediate availability of Oleophilic Film to assist with urgent clean-up efforts in the Gulf and other sea environments. Onyx has the means to rapidly produce and deploy the fi lm where it is needed most.

Key Features Oleophilic Film:• Is a polymer that attracts and tightly bonds to oil products• Absorbs and holds more than 60 times its weight in oil products• Can be used to contain spilled oil in a defi ned area on the water’s surface, keeping it from making landfall• Offers the ability to separate the oil from the fi lm for some oil reclamation• Has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for use in marine environments

Product Performance• Ease of use — Minimal special training required for dispensing by hand, high-speed watercraft or helicopters• Durability — Floats on the surface of the sea and is not degraded by long-term exposure to brine or by ultraviolet radiation from sunlight• Visibility — Highly visible, bright orange material• Marine life safety — Not an eco-hazard to sea life, wildlife, plankton, larvae or other organisms• Recovery — Oil-soaked fi lm can be recovered easily using sweepers and skimmers• Disposal — Recovered fi lm may be heated and processed to reclaim oil with very little residue remaining, or burned on metal barges out at sea

Above: After a half-hour exposure to heavy crude oil, Oleophilic Film held 60.2 times its weight in oil.

Right: Both multi-roll and hand-held dispensers are available.

Page 14: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

Independent Laboratory Test Results and Testimonials

Millsaps College Sorbent & Environment LaboratoryMillsaps College established this independent laboratory to serve the oil remediation industry. Their Sorbent and Environmental Laboratory has played a key role in the development of standards for initial and long-term oil spill remediation. The lab performs tests related to new product development and has tested Oleophilic Film (then called HE fi lm). The following are excerpts from an October, 1993 letter from Dr. Ed L. Schrader, Director.

• Working mechanism and containment capacities are signifi cantly different from conventional porous mopping substrates and sorbent booms

• Pre-use density facilitates storage and rapid deployment — No bulk prior to oil contact

• Planar oil-migration… — Upon oil contact increase HE’s inertia and its draft, making it an immediately deployable hindrance to spreading spill — After contact with oil, HE fl oats on oil layer, while other materials sink to water level — Following oil contact, internal structure is oil only

OHMSETTThe Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmen-tal Test Tank (OHMSETT) is run by the U.S. Department of the Interior for testing and development of devices and techniques for control and clean-up of oil spills. OHMSETT testing in July 1998 included: • Protective containment capability when simulating circling and herding of oil slicks• Simulation of freely fl oating Oleophilic Film as protection of a river bank in a current and a shoreline during waves • Deployment method for beach and shoreline protection

To summarize the fi ndings, the fi lm provided: • Complete protective oil-holding capacity — Volume of oil per volume of fi lm exceeds 100 to 1 (in some conditions up to 750 to 1)• Effectiveness on heavy crude, medium viscosity crude and light diesel• Good wave-riding and good wave conformity — Results consistent in calm water and up to 2.3 foot swells (harbor chop)

The Lloyd’s Register GroupThe Lloyd’s Register Group — as one of the world leaders in assessing processes and products to internationally recognized standards for enhancing the safety of life and property at sea, on land and in the air — in April, 1993, certifi ed “High Speed and Low Tension Deployment Testing of HE for the Purpose of Speedy Deployment Along Shore or at Sea.”

To summarize the test results (Lloyd’s Registry Certifi cate TTO 300206):

• Axial horizontal deployment reaches a speed of 34 mph (55 km/hr)

• Axial horizontal deployment starts at tension low of 0.5 oz (14 g)

• Gravity deployment starts at a height of 10 feet (3 m) • Deployment creates a near-round, hollow, bulky barrier • Deployment was fl awless…no breaks or entanglements • Sudden starting/stopping was fl awless…no breaks or overruns

Contact Us To learn more about our Oleophilic Film or other Onyx products, please contact us.

U.S. Sales Of� ceOnyx Scientifi c Inc. 7942 Zionsville RoadIndianapolis, Indiana 46268Phone 317.228.0388

The information contained in this brochure is to be used only as a guide to assist with product selection. Onyx Scientifi c Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained herein. The products and specifi cations set forth in this brochure are subject to change without notice and Onyx Scientifi c Inc. disclaims any and all liability for such chang-es. The information contained herein is provided without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, and Onyx Scientifi c Inc. disclaims any and all liability for typographical, printing or production errors or changes affecting the products and/or the specifi cations contained herein. OF.05.22.10

Oleophilic Film containing spilled oil in a laboratory test.

Page 15: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

 Sample Set   Berry Structure #1   Berry Structure #2 

 PVC Cores   PVC Cores   PVC Cores 

Tube Tube Gusseted Tube

SpecificationsThickness (micron) 10.0 10.0 10.0

Face Width 10.5 10.5 15.0

Layflat Width (in.) 10.5 10.5 24.0

Length (ft) 2000 4000 2000

Seal Repeat (in) 6.125 16.0 16.0

Roll OD (in) 5.25 7.2 7.2

Roll Weight (lbs) 6.83 13.66 15.61

Rolls / Pallet 132 64 64

Film Weight/Pallet 901.5 874.2 999.1

Tensile Strength (psi) 11,606 11,681 11,237

Benefits: Lowest Cost/ft. Highest Output

Lowest Cost/lb.

Lowest Cost/ft^2

5/20/2010

Oil Recovery Film AnalysisPrepared for: Oil Containment Systems Inc.

Page 16: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

RESIN - Polyethylene M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T This document covers the raw materials from which polyethylene film is manufactured and is prepared pursuant to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). In addition, other substances not 'Hazardous' per this OSHA Standard may be listed. 1. INGREDIENTS: Copolymer of ethylene 2. PHYSICAL DATA: BOILING POINT: Not applicable VAPOR PRESSURE: Not applicable VAPOR DENSITY: Not applicable SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Nil SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.91 - 0.97 APPEARANCE: Translucent white, solid pellets or granules. ODOR: None. 3. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA: FLASH POINT: 649°F AUTO-IGNITION: 649°F METHOD USED: Not applicable FLAMMABLE LIMITS: LFL: Not applicable UFL: Not applicable EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Water fog, foam, alcohol foam, CO2

FIRE & EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Dense smoke emitted when burned without sufficient oxygen. Accumulation of fine dust particles could pose an explosion hazard.

FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: Wear positive pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus in any closed space.

4. REACTIVITY DATA: STABILITY: (CONDITIONS TO AVOID) Temperatures over 572°F (300°C) will release

combustible gases. INCOMPATIBILITY: (SPECIFIC MATERIALS TO AVOID) None. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Combustible gases when exposed to

Page 17: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

temperatures over 572°F (300°C) HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION: ACTION TO TAKE FOR SPILLS/LEAKS: Sweep up and discard.

DISPOSAL METHOD: Bury in landfill or burn in an adequate incinerator in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

6. HEALTH HAZARD DATA: EYE: Solid or dust may cause irritation or corneal injury due to mechanical action. SKIN CONTACT: Essentially nonirritating to skin. Mechanical injury only.

SKIN ABSORPTION: A single prolonged skin exposure is not likely to result in the material being absorbed through skin in harmful amounts.

INGESTION: May cause choking if swallowed. Single dose oral toxicity is believed to be very low. Considered physiologically inert.

INHALATION: Vapors are unlikely due to physical properties. Single exposure to dust is not likely to be hazardous.

SYSTEMIC & OTHER EFFECTS: No relevant information found. 7. FIRST AID: EYES: Irrigate immediately with water for at least 5 minutes. Mechanical irritation only. SKIN: Wash off in flowing water or shower.

INGESTION: No adverse effects anticipated by this route of exposure incidental to proper industrial handling.

INHALATION: No adverse effects anticipated by this route of exposure incidental to proper industrial handling.

8. HANDLING PRECAUTIONS: EXPOSURE GUIDELINE(S): None established. VENTILATION: Good general ventilation should be sufficient. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: No respiratory protection should be needed. SKIN PROTECTION: No precautions other than clean body-covering clothing should be needed. EYE PROTECTION: Use safety glasses. 9. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER: 800-424-9300.

Page 18: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX B

Millsaps College

Performance Review and Comparison to Non-woven Barriers

Page 19: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 20: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 21: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 22: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX C

US Dept. of the Interior National Oil Spill Response Test Facility

(OHMSETT)

Test of Functional Properties of “HE”

Page 23: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 24: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 25: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 26: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 27: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 28: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 29: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D

Field Test Lafourche Parish

22 May 2010

Page 30: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

TEST DATA: 22 May 2010By: Bart Kemper, P.E. (Kemper Engineering Services, LLC)For: Oil Containment Systems, Inc.Job: ONX100510

Test 1: "Sand Test"Prep: A single "cell" (12inx15in) section of the new HE material has a length of

ruled tape affixed to it to provide scale. The sample is weighed on an electronic scale. Due to ambient conditions, the scale was not set to tarrewith the lined cup, but rather as a total amount. The weights of the cup andthe tape were taken later.

Test: The sample was placed on oil that is above the receding tide line. Thesample was rubbed into the oil in a manner similar to using a paper towelon a spill. The sample was then shaken to allow loose material to fall free,then was photographed and weighed. The mass picked up ("Pick Up") bythe sample was calculated from the Initial and Wet weights of the Sample.

Results: Init Wt 0.019 kg Sample Wet: 0.317 kgCup: 0.015 kg Pickup: 0.3 kgSample Dry: 0.004 kg

Check Assumption:Density: 0.92 g/ccm

thickness 10 microns = 0.000394 incheslength 15 incheswidth 12 incheslayers 3.9 (accounts for slight offset in gusset in middle)

volume= 0.2763774 cubic in= 4.529014 cubic cm

Calc Wt = 4.16669301 grams, which is within 5% of weight data

Approximate ratio of (Wt of Picked Up Material) to (Wt of Dry Sample)

0.300 kg : 0.004 kg or 75:1

Conclusion: The device would be effective as a "beach clean up" material.

Page 31: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

Test 2: "Surf Test"Prep: A strip of each design was cut from the roll. No measurements were taken

prior to the test.

Test: The two strips were taken into the water up to 1 foot in depth. The stripswere dragged approximately 25 yards in two direction, then allowed tofloat freely for about two minutes. The strips were then removed from thewater and bagged for later measurement. The "dry weight" was obtainedby cutting a length of the given design to the same length as the test. These lengths were measured. The scale was tared to zero before each measure.

Results: Original Berry #2Length: 172 in. Length: 164 in.

Wt (dry): 21 g Wt. (dry): 36 gWt. (wet) 317 g Wt. (wet) 615 g

Wt gain 296 g Wt gain 579 gWt Gain/g 14.1 g/g Wt gain/g 16.1 g/gWt Gain/in 1.7 g/in Wt gain/in. 3.5 g/in

Conclusion: The gusseted design ("Berry #2") provides significant performance increaseover the original design.

Page 32: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 1/8

D1. Photo of test site near Port of Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 22 May 2010.

D2. Waterline shows red-colored petroleum oil.

Page 33: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 2/8

D3. A tape measure shows the blobs are up 6-7 inches across.

D4. Sample 1 for “Sand Test” being prepared. The ruled tape provides scale. Its noted that the oil adhered to the bag but not the ruled tape.

Page 34: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 3/8

D5. The sample plus cup weighs 0.019 kg, or 19 grams. The weight of the cup and liner were deducted later.

D6. Sample 1 being pushed into the oil deposited on the wet sand.

Page 35: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 4/8

D7. Sample 1 being weighed after “Beach Test”

D8. Sample 1 has a significant amount of oil adhering to outside as well as oil inside the cells.

Page 36: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 5/8

D9. “Surf Test”. The long strips of both designs are allowed to float in the tide with the oil spill. The strips stayed at the top of the water and did impede movement of the oil spill, but since it wasn’t anchored or tied off as a circle it didn’t get a direct test as a barrier or corral.

D10. Photos of both samples from “Surf Test”. Note that unlike the “Sand Test”, there is little if any oil residue on the outside of the strips. In both specimens the oil migrated into the cells.

Page 37: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 6/8

D11. A close up of the original design, back lit by the sun. Oil accumulation inside the cells is clearly shown, particularly at the seams of the cell.

D12. Original design, “wet” and “dry” samples. Approx. 172 inches in length.

Page 38: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 7/8

D13 A (dry) and B (wet). Original Design. The scale was zeroed prior to each weighing. The initial weight is 0.022 kg (22g), the wet weight is 0.317 kg (317g).

D14. Berry #2, “wet” and “dry” samples. The length is 164 in.

Page 39: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX D HE Film Field Test (Lafourche Parish 22 MAY 2010)

P. 8/8

D15. A (dry) and B (wet). Berry #2. The dry weight is 0.036 kg (36g). The wet weight is 0.615 kg (615g). While these Original and Berry #2 designs are with 10% of length of each other, the Berry #2 is considerably more bulky when compared to Fig. 13 A and B.

D16 A (Original) and B (Berry #2). The new design appears to capture more oil than the original design. This is consistent with the data recorded and calculations, particularly the “weight gained per unit length.”

Page 40: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX E

Computational Model Data

Page 41: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

1.002.00

BERRY #2

SEAL

SLITS1/4 IN

GUSSET = 4 PLY, 10 MICRON EA.INTERNAL AREA ~ 570 SQ IN/LIN FT

GAP = 2 PLY, 10 MICRON EA.

12.00

16.00

5.875

15.00

.25

1/16 INHOLES

ORIGINAL

SEAL

2 PLY, 10 MICRONS EA.INTERNAL AREA ~ 240 SQ IN/LIN FT

1. PRIMARY LAB TESTING WAS DONE ON "ORIGINAL" DESIGN.

2. NEW DESIGN USES GUSSET THAT ALMOST DOUBLESAREA AVAILABLE WITH INTENT TO TRAP MORE OIL.

3. PLYS ARE MODELED TOGETHER AS TOTAL THICKNESS.

16.001.00

6.50

10.00

1.00

NOT REPRESENT ENGINEERING WORK UNLESS SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.

A

B

C

D

KEMPER ENGINEERING SVCS LLCCAD GENERATED DRAWING,DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE

SCALE

SIZE DWG. NO.A

SHEET OF

REV.

DATEAPPROVALSDRAWN

CHECKED

RESP ENG

MFG ENG

QUAL ENG

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDDIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES ARE:FRACTIONS DECIMALS ANGLES+ .XX+ .XX + 1

.XXX+.XXX

MATERIAL

FINISH

--

--DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

12345678

DWGSTATUS

KEMPER ENGINEERING SERVICES IS PROHIBITED.

DIMENSIONS

A

B

C

D

12345678

ONX100510-11 31:4

FOR ONYX SCIENTIFIC

0

Baton Rouge, LA 225-923-2945

CBK

5/26/2010

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FOR REVIEW ONLY

ONX100510CAD FILE:

SERVICES, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF KEMPER ENGINEERING

THE INFORMATION IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE INFORMATION DOES

HE OIL CONTAINMENT FILMS

Page 42: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

A

B

C

D

KEMPER ENGINEERING SVCS LLCCAD GENERATED DRAWING,DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE

SCALE

SIZE DWG. NO.A

SHEET OF

REV.

DATEAPPROVALSDRAWN

CHECKED

RESP ENG

MFG ENG

QUAL ENG

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDDIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES ARE:FRACTIONS DECIMALS ANGLES+ .XX+ .XX + 1

.XXX+.XXX

MATERIAL

FINISH

--

--DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

12345678

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF KEMPER ENGINEERINGSERVICES, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KEMPER ENGINEERING SERVICES IS PROHIBITED.

MESH AND LOADS

A

B

C

D

12345678

ONX100510-22 31:4

FOR ONYX SCIENTIFIC

0

Baton Rouge, LA 225-923-2945

CBK

5/26/2010

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FOR REVIEW ONLY

ONX100510CAD FILE:

DWGSTATUS

THE INFORMATION IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE INFORMATION DOESNOT REPRESENT ENGINEERING WORK UNLESS SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.

HE OIL CONTAINMENT FILMS

ORIGINAL BERRY #2TOP EDGENO DISPLACEMENT

BOTTOM EDGE2 LBS FORCE DOWN

ORIGINAL: 0.15IN NOMINAL MESH, 6 NODE PLANES 32261 NODES, 15738 ELEMENTS

BERRY #2: 0.15 IN NOMINAL MESH, 6 NODE PLANES 37519 NODES, 18260 ELEMENTS

Page 43: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

WATER TRIES TOMINIMIZE CONTACT,IS REPELLED. "BEADS"ON THE SURFACE. ONCE OIL FINDS A HOLE IN THE

FILM, IT IS PULLED IN DUE TO OLEPHILIC ACTION AS THE OILTRIES TO MAXIMIZE THE CONTACTWITH THE FILM. SINCE THERE AREMORE SURFACES INSIDE, IT PULLSITSELF INTO THE CELL. ONCE INSIDEIT IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE OILTO BE REMOVED BY WAVE ACTION.

OIL ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FILM STICKS UNTILWAVE ACTION DISLODGES IT. OIL WILL DISLODGEWATER AND CLING UNTIL WAVE FORCE EXCEEDSADHESION FORCE.

A

B

C

D

KEMPER ENGINEERING SVCS LLCCAD GENERATED DRAWING,DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE

SCALE

SIZE DWG. NO.A

SHEET OF

REV.

DATEAPPROVALSDRAWN

CHECKED

RESP ENG

MFG ENG

QUAL ENG

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDDIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES ARE:FRACTIONS DECIMALS ANGLES+ .XX+ .XX + 1

.XXX+.XXX

MATERIAL

FINISH

--

--DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

12345678

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF KEMPER ENGINEERINGSERVICES, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KEMPER ENGINEERING SERVICES IS PROHIBITED.

OIL ILLUSTRATION

A

B

C

D

12345678

ONX100510-33 31:4

FOR ONYX SCIENTIFIC

0

Baton Rouge, LA 225-923-2945

CBK

5/26/2010

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FOR REVIEW ONLY

ONX100510CAD FILE:

DWGSTATUS

THE INFORMATION IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE INFORMATION DOESNOT REPRESENT ENGINEERING WORK UNLESS SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.

HE OIL CONTAINMENT FILMS

Page 44: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX F

Computational Model Results

Page 45: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX F HE Film FEA Results

P. 1/3

F1. Von Mises Stress. Both models are restrained at the top with zero displacements (nodal rotation allowed) and a 2 pound force acting downwards at the bottom of the 16 inch length. Displacements are magnified by a factor of 5 for all plots. This shows the max equivalent stress is 823 psi. The tensile strength is 11,606 psi. (App A) The holes are close enough to each other to have interacting stress fields.

F2. Original Design. Equivalent strain. Peak strain is 1.66%, with typical strain around 1.0%

Page 46: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX F HE Film FEA Results

P. 2/3

F3. Original design. Deflection. The 2 pound force stretches the material 0.1635 inches downwards.

F4. Berry #2. Von Mises Stress. Peak stress is 306.9 psi, which is 37% of the peak stress in F1 and 2,7% of the tensile strength of 11,237 psi (App A.) Overall stress is around 100 psi, which is 43% of the typical 230 psi in F1. A slight discontinuity exists at the base of this model (circled). A one pound force was applied to the left and right gusseted sides each, leaving the small 0.25 inch area unloaded. The loads distributed evenly above that point.

Page 47: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)

APPENDIX F HE Film FEA Results

P. 3/3

F5. Berry #2. Equivalent Strain. Peak strain is 0.76% with typical strain being around 0.38%, which is less than half of the strain in the original design. This supports that this design has more load bearing capacity than the original design, which had been tested by the Canadian and US governments.

F6. Berry #2. Displacement. The 16” length of material stretched 0.069 inches, which is 42.2% of the deflection in F3. This supports the Berry #2 design has greater load bearing capacity than the original.

Page 48: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)
Page 49: HE Film w Addenda (Oil Containment Device evaluation)