slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
December 2009 Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

December 2009 Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 106 Views
  • Uploaded on

Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective. December 2009 Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar Presented by: Ray A. Morales US NAVY (NSWCCD).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' December 2009 Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar ' - tillie


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective

December 2009

Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar

Presented by: Ray A. Morales US NAVY (NSWCCD)

standardization for oil water separator ows and oil content monitor ocm systems
Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

In-Service Engineering Agent Responsibilities

Provide technical support to the fleet for the in-service Oil Pollution Abatement (OPA) system including OWS, OCM, and transfer system.

Test and Evaluation

Equipment Modifications

Technical Assistance

System Certification and Training

Provide support for the acquisition programs

Design and Specification reviews

applicable standards regulations for navy ows and ocm systems

Applicable Standards & Regulations for Navy OWS and OCM systems

Navy Ships are considered public vessels

Department of Defense (DOD 4715.6-R1)

Office of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST 5090.1C)

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Naval Vessel Rules (NVR)

USCG (Title 46 CFR Part 162.050 - Pollution Prevention Equipment)

International Maritime Organization (IMO) ( MEPC.107(49) )

ASTM Standard

ASTM F2283 “Standard Specification for Shipboard Oil Pollution Abatement System”

Provides general design requirements

Refers to MEPC.107(49) for OWS and OCM requirements.

Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

December 2009

3

challenges for ows and ocm systems

Challenges for OWS and OCM systems

Performance issues

Reliability

Maintenance costs

Obsolescence issues

Capital costs of unique systems

Lack of Standards to ensure performance, reliability, and maintainability

Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

December 2009

4

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Case Study –

Testing of Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) MEPC. 107(49) Certified Oil Content Monitors (OCMs)

Objective

To conduct laboratory testing of selected IMO MEPC 107(49) certified COTS OCMs to evaluate their performance under various operating conditions and in the presence of contaminants to determine if these units would be suitable for shipboard use in Navy vessels based on direct comparison with the in-service OCM unit.

December 2009

5

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms1

WATER FEED TANK

THERMO SCANNER

PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE

DATA ACQUISITION

WATER

HEATER

PRESSURE GAUGE / TRANSDUCER

WATER PUMP

FLOW METER

P

SAMPLE VALVE

CONTAMINANT TANK

DISPERSER

CONTAMINANT INJECTION SYRINGE PUMP

OIL INJECTION SYRINGE PUMP

DRAIN FUNNEL

P

RECIRCULATION PUMP

PRESSURE GAUGE

AIR PUMP

WATER PURIFICATION

5 Micron Filter

TAP WATER FEED

0.5 Micron Filter

Sediment Pre-filter

Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Set-up

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms3
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Testing Performed

Pre-test Checks:

General checks to determine installation/ interface requirements and to ensure that OCM and testing equipment are operational

Calibration Test:

To verify OCM calibration at 0 PPM, 15 PPM and maximum oil concentration that the OCM can measure

Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test:

To determine deviations of the OCM calibration due to variations in oil droplet size distribution

Flow/Pressure Range Test

To determine deviations of the OCM calibration within the design Flow rate and Pressure Ratings and to determine if the OCM is fail-safe beyond the design flow/pressure range.

Temperature Range Test

To determine deviations of the OCM calibration within the design temperature Range.

Different Oil Types Test

To determine deviations of the OCM calibration in the presence of different types of oils (i.e., the oil mix# components separately; DFM, 9250, 2190, JP-5 and Synthetic oil)

Response Time Test

To determine time required by the OCM to alarm once high oil content is present.

Contaminant / Interferences Tests (color, air, solids, emulsions, salinity) – Decision Making Test

To incrementally change each given parameter to determine at which point: (1) The OCM measurements are affected and (2) The OCM decisions are affected (i.e., allows overboard discharge or recycle to the oily waste holding tank)

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms4
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Conclusions drawn from this testing

The COTS OCMs tested failed to detect free oil, failed to accurately measure oil under the conditions expected in the effluent of a failing OWS treatment system and required highly mechanically dispersed oil for accurate measurements.

The COTS units tested produced critical failures (would allow overboard discharge of > 15PPM oil-in water), with and without interferences/contaminants, when tested under the conditions expected from a failing OWS treatment system .

COTS units tested did not accurately measured different types of oils (affected calibration)

Then COTS units tested required significant routine maintenance to keep operating properly. The sampling cell of the COTS units were cleaned between tests to ensure a zero baseline and prevent drift in the readings.

Response time results were not consistent with requirement (e.g., < 5 secs)

COTS units tested did not provide for “Fail-safe” design:

Continued operation even with no flow allowing “by-passing” the OCM while the data recorded shows acceptable effluent. This could allow continued operation of OWS even with unacceptable overboard discharge while zero (0) oil PPM is recorded.

Design does ensure diverter valve default position to recycle during all possible failures modes

COTS units tested were designed and calibrated to meet MEPC.107(49)

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms5

Test Results/ FindingsOil Droplet Size Distribution Test (Disperser’s settings)Oil Droplets Micrographs: 15 PPM oil injection at 8,000 RPM Disperser’s Speed (Standard Conditions)

Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

28µm

6µm

46µm

4µm

6µm

3µm

28µm

25µm

5µm

28µm

6µm

32µm

13µm

6µm

35µm

29µm

14µm

3µm

2µm

8µm

14µm

5µm

13µm

32µm

9µm

5µm

12µm

3µm

6µm

11

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms7

Different Types of Oils Test

25

20

15

Oil Concentration, PPMv

10

5

0

bilge mix

diesel fuel

2190 lube oil

9250 lube oil

JP5

synthetic

marine

Different Types of Oils

ET-35N

OCM 1 @ 8k RPM

OCM 1 @ 12K RPM

OCM 2 @ 8k RPM

OCM 2 @ 20k RPM

OCM 3 @ 8k RPM

OCM 3 @ 22K RPM

Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ Findings

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms8

43

31

14

11

Target Response Time, 5 secs

Required by MEPC.107(49)

Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ FindingsResponse time

  • NOTE : For this test oil was injected at 40 PPM oil at the corresponding optimum disperser’s speed for each OCM:
    • The calculated time for the oil to travel from the injection point to the OCM was subtracted from the time measurements
    • The blue columns represent the first time that the OCM detected any oil
    • The total height of the columns represents the total time for the OCM to alarm

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms9
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ Findings Contaminant/Interference/Salinity Test – Summary

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms10
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ FindingsContaminant/Interference/Salinity Test – Summary

The Navy in-service OCM was not affected by the presence of interferences/ contaminants at low concentrations. It produces unnecessary recycle at high concentrations of these interferences/contaminants and “fails safe.”

The COTS unit tested produced critical failures with and without interferences/contaminants when tested under the conditions expected from a failing treatment system.

The COTS unit tested was not significantly affected by the presence of interferences/contaminants when the sample was conditioned at very high disperser’s speed.

December 2009

potential areas of standardization for ows and ocm systems

Potential Areas of Standardization for OWS and OCM Systems

OWS and OCM

Revise ASTM F-2283

Different Type of Oil test

Reliability and maintainability

OCM

Free oil and droplet size distribution tests

Fail-safe design

Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

December 2009

17

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms11
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Approach

Test Set-up is shown in next figure

Baseline - Navy OCM calibration standard conditions:

Oil type:

Mixture by vol 50% diesel fuel, 25% 2190 lube oil, 25% 9250 lube oil (used for years as standard in all Navy testing)

Sample conditioning:

In-line disperser set at 8,000 rpm to produce approximately 20% oil droplets above 20 um diameter (expected in the effluent of a failing parallel plates OWS)

Performance results from the in-service OCM unit

OCMs tested within a range of various operating conditions, oil types and contaminants/ interferences

Oil concentration was determined by mass balance of oil injected into the water stream

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms12
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ Findings Calibration Test

Notes: (1) Standard disperser’s speed (8k RPM).

(2) maximum disperser’s speed

(3) OEM of COTS units indicated that their units were calibrated to meet the MEPC. 107(49) and that

recalibration will invalidate this certification

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms13
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Test Results/ FindingsOil Droplet Size Distribution Test:

Acceptable Region

Critical Failure - >15 PPM Overboard Discharge

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms14
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Conclusions Summary

The COTS OCMs tested failed to detect free oil, failed to accurately measure oil under the conditions expected in the effluent of a failing parallel plate OWS, and required highly mechanically dispersed oil for accurate measurements

These OCMs were not designed to condition the sample

The accuracy of these units will depend on the sample conditioning of the secondary treatment effluent

These units may produce unacceptable overboard discharge if the failure of the treatment systems produces large oil droplets (e.g., cracked membrane, etc.)

The measurements of the OCMs tested were not significantly affected by variations in pressure or temperatures

The measurements of all the units tested, including the In-service OCM, are dependent on the type of oil present.

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms15
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Conclusions Summary(Cont.)

The response times of all the MEPC. 107(49) Certified OCMs tested exceeded the maximum of 5 seconds required for this certification (e.g., 11 to 43 seconds)

The ET-35N was not affected by the presence of interferences/ contaminants at low concentrations. It produces unnecessary recycle at high concentrations of these interferences/contaminants and “fails safe.”

The COTS unit tested produces critical failures with and without interferences/contaminants when tested under the conditions expected from a failing parallel plate OWS

The COTS units tested were not significantly affected by the presence of interferences/contaminants when the sample was conditioned at very high disperser speeds.

OEM of COTS units indicated that their units were calibrated to meet the MEPC.107(49) and that recalibration will invalidate this certification.

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms16
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Conclusions Summary (Cont.)

The sampling cell of the COTS units were cleaned between tests to ensure a zero baseline. These units may require self-cleaning capabilities for proper operation.

COTS units continued operation even with no flow allowing “by-passing” the OCM while the data recorded shows acceptable effluent.

COTS units do not provide signal output to energize the diverter valve when the OCM is operational and readings below 15 ppm as required for a “fail-safe” installation.

December 2009

testing of mepc 107 49 certified cots ocms17
Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs

Recommendations Summary

Performance and reliability shipboard demonstration should be conducted prior to considering these units for shipboard installation.

Integration requirements should be developed to ensure that the “fail- safe” intent is met if these units are considered by the Navy for shipboard use:

Diverter valve “Fail-safe” requirements

Diverter valve position to overboard only when received signal from OCM.

Default position of the diverter valve shall be to the OWHT when

Normal de-energized position

No signal input from the OCM

Actuator failure

Electrical power supply failure

OCM signal output “Fail-safe” requirements:

OCM shall have consecutives acceptable readings for at least 1 minute prior to send signal to the diverter valve to:

Verify that the effluent is acceptable prior to being sent overboard.

To avoid constant cycling of the diverter valve that can result in unacceptable overboard discharge and valve failure.

OCM signal shall be immediately interrupted if any reading is unacceptable

The units tested use some variation of light scattering technology. Other available technologies such as UV fluorescence should be evaluated.

December 2009

ad