WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
15080 EOS
3/70
Preliminary Operations Planning Manual for
THE RESTORATION OF
OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACHES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR V FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution of our Nation's waters. They provide a
central source of information on the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Department of the
Interior, through inhouse research and grants and
contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies,
research institutions, and industrial organizations.
Water Pollution Control Research Reports will be
distributed to requesters as supplies permit. Requests
should be sent to the Planning and Resources Office,
Office of Research and Development, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D. C. 20242.
-------
PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS PLANNING MANUAL FOR
THE RESTORATION OP OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACHES
by
URS RESEARCH COMPANY
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California 94402
Prepared for
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Contract No. 14-12-811
February 1970
-------
FWPCA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration and
approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
INTRODUCTION 1
PHASE I 1
PHASE II 2
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES 3
MOTORIZED GRADERS 7
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS 15
FRONT END LOADERS 23
UNLOADING RAMP AND CONVEYOR SYSTEM 28
EQUIPMENT AND OPERATOR COSTS 32
ANNEX I - PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TESTS 37
ANNEX II - DOCUMENTATION OF BEACH RESTORATION OPERATIONS:
PROPOSED DATA REQUIREMENTS 51
ill
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Motorized Grader 7
2 Moldboard Modifications 9
3 Motorized Grader Casting Second-Pass Windrow .... 10
4 Motorized Grader Operational Sequence 11
5 Three-Pass Windrow Formed by Motorgrader 11
6 Motorized Elevating Scraper 15
7 Motorized Elevating Scraper in Position to Remove
Windrow 17
8 Beach Debris Prior to Removal by Motorized Elevating
Scraper 18
9 Beach After Removal of Debris by Motorized Elevating
Scraper 18
10 Test Area Before Removal of Straw 19
11 Test Area After Straw Removal by Motorized Elevating
Scraper . 19
12 Front End Loader Mounted on Crawler Tractor 25
13 4-in-l Bucket in Clamshell Position 25
14 Unloading Ramp and Conveyor-Screening System .... 29
15 Clearance Rate Vs Haul Distance by Motorgrader and
Motorized Elevating Scraper Combination 41
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Recommended Restoration Procedures 4
2 Equipment Specifications: Motorized Graders 12
3 Equipment Manufacturer Designators 14
4 Equipment Specifications: Motorized Elevating
Scrapers 20
5 Equipment Specifications: Tractor-Drawn Elevating
Scraper 22
6 Equipment Specifications: Front End Loader - Wheeled . 26
7 Equipment Specifications: Front End Loader - Crawler , 27
8 Equipment Specifications: Belt Loaders 31
9 Nationally Averaged Rental Rates .... 33
10 Equipment Operator Wage Rates for Selected Cities ... 36
11 Beach Test Conditions 39
12 Data Summary 42
13 Data Summary 43
14 Data Summary 44
15 Data Summary 45
16 Data Summary 46
17 Data Summary 47
18 Data Summary 48
19 Data Summary 49
20 Sand Removal During Various Beach Restoration
Operations 50
21 Acres Cleared and Hauled by Various Types and
Combinations of Equipment 50
-------
INTRODUCTION
Under a contract with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
URS Research Company has conducted Phase I of a research study to evaluate
the use of selected earthmoving equipment in oil-contaminated-beach restoration
operations and to determine the cost and effectiveness of such equipment in
removing oil-contaminated sand and debris from the beach. To disseminate the
findings of Phase I, this Operations Planning Manual has been prepared for
use by FWPCA personnel involved in oil-spill cleanup operations. Full-scale
testing of the beach restoration procedures described in this manual will be
conducted during Phase II of the study, and a final report describing the
results of the entire study will be issued on July 1, 1970, to supercede
this document.
The objectives of the research study are to be accomplished in two
phases, each consisting of several tasks as follows:
PHASE I
Task I
Review existing reports on recent oil pollution incidents and other
available information to determine the magnitude of beach contamination and
previous methods utilized in beach restoration operations.
Task II
Survey commercially available equipment and obtain information on pertin-
ent performance characteristics; design candidate beach restoration procedures,
and identify possible limitations of equipment.
Task III
Conduct preliminary evaluation tests to determine operating character-
istics and performance of the equipment in removing a thin layer of sand under
-------
various beach conditions; determine the necessary modification and cost of
modifications to improve the performance of the equipment.
Task IV
Prepare a test plan for the full-scale testing of the candidate beach
restoration methods and develop performance criteria and specifications
for the various classes of equipment to be evaluated.
PHASE II
Task I
Conduct full-scale field tests to evaluate the operating plans, methods,
and equipment selected in Phase I. Evaluate effectiveness of modifications
to equipment. Performance criteria to be measured for each procedure and
equipment combination evaluated shall include:
(a) Efficiency with which each procedure/equipment collects (and/or
spills) oil-contaminated material.
(b) The ratio of oil to inert material in the mixture collected.
(c) The cost per unit of oil collected and unit of beach area cleaned.
(d) Capability of the equipment to operate under a variety of beach
conditions.
(e) Performance characteristics at various speeds, blade angles and
depths of cut.
-------
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
The surface conditions and topography of a beach contaminated with oil
and the manner in which the oil has been deposited onto the beach will dictate
the choice of equipment to be utilized and the operating procedures to be
followed.
The Phase I preliminary evaluation tests indicated that several restora-
tion procedures seem to provide considerable savings in effort and cost over
some methods previously used. These procedures are listed in Table 1.
The restoration procedures described herein are those recommended for the
restoration of relatively flat, sandy beaches contaminated under one or both
of the following situations:
a. Beach material uniformly contaminated with a layer of oil
up to the high-tide mark and/or deposits of oil dispersed randomly
over the beach surface. Oil-deposit penetration is limited to
approximately 1 in.
b. Agglomerated pellets of oil-sand mixture or oil-soaked material,
such as straw and beach debris, distributed randomly over the
surface and/or mixed into the sand.
The procedures tested utilize the following equipment, singly or in
combination:
• Motorized Graders
• Motorized Elevating Scrapers
• Front End Loaders
• Conveyor-Screening Systems
Based on the visual observations made during the Phase I preliminary
evaluation tests described in ANNEX I, and the overall production rates
calculated for each equipment type evaluated, the following conclusions
are offered:
-------
Table 1
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PROCEDURES
RESTORATION PROCEDURE
METHOD OF OPERATION
A. Combination of motorized
grader and motorized
elevating scraper
Motorized graders cut and remove surface layer of beach material and
form large windrows. Motorized scrapers pick up windrowed material
and haul to disposal area for dumping or to unloading ramp-conveyor
system for transfer to dump trucks. Screening system utilized to
separate beach debris such as straw and kelp from sand when large
amounts of debris are present.
B. Motorized elevating scraper
Motorized elevating scrapers, working singly, cut and pick up sur-
face layer of beach material and haul to disposal area for dumping
or to unloading ramp-conveyor system for transfer to dump trucks.
Screening system -utilized to separate beach debris such as straw and
kelp, from sand when large amounts of debris present.
C. Combination of motorized grader
and front end loader
Motorized graders cut and remove surface layer of beach material
and form large windrows. Front end loaders pick up windrowed
material and load material into following trucks. Trucks remove
material to disposal area or to conveyor-screening system for
separation of large amounts of debris from sand.
D. Front end loader
Front end loaders, working singly, cut and pick up surface layer
of beach material and load material into following trucks.
Trucks remove material to disposal area or to conveyor-screening
system for separation of large amounts of debris from sand.
-------
1. A motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper working in
combination provide the most rapid means of beach restoration;
and in addition, their use results in the removal of the smallest
amount of uncontaminated beach material.
(a) The optimum moldboard (blade) angle for the motorgrader, in
which minimum spillage occurred while windrowing sand, was
found to be 50 deg from the perpendicular to the direction of
travel. At smaller angles the sand builds up on the mold-
board and spills around the leading edge. At larger angles,
the operator loses the fine control of the blade and has
difficulty keeping a constant depth of cut.
(b) Straw spread on beach areas is easily windrowed by the
motorized grader and removed by the motorized elevating scraper.
Removing straw directly with a motorized elevating scraper
posed no problem.
(c) Kelp, seaweed and similar debris does not interfere with
the operation of either the motorized grader or motorized
elevating scraper.
(d) On beaches of very coarse sand, both the rubber-tired
motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper may become
immobilized while conducting beach restoration operations.
For such beaches, flotation tires or rubber-belted half tracks
on the motorized grader and tracked prime movers to assist the
motorized elevating scraper in loading or cutting operations
would be required.
(e) When a motorized elevating scraper is picking up a windrow or
making a thin cut, a certain amount of spillage occurs around
each edge of the scraper bowl. Although the spillage could
not be considered excessive for normal earthmoving operations,
it would be undesirable when conducting beach restoration
operations.
-------
2. A front end loader mounted on a crawler tractor is the most in-
efficient apparatus. In addition more spillage occurs with its
use than with any other equipment. These results can be extrap-
olated (we believe) to apply also to bulldozers.
3. A non-elevating motorized scraper will not operate efficiently
on beach areas unless a tracked prime mover is used either as
the principal source of power or as a pusher to assist in loading.
A thin cut is difficult to maintain, and excess spillage occurs
when loading.
4. Beach restoration operations on backshore areas become very
difficult due to the looseness of the sand. Procedures for
minimizing the oil-contamination of backshore areas should be
instituted at the first indication of a possible shoreline
pollution event. Under normal tide conditions, a berm or dike
at the high-tide mark can prevent oil from contaminating back-
shore areas.
5. Conveyor-screening systems can be effectively utilized to: (a)
load oil-contaminated material into trucks for transport to
disposal areas, and (b) separate oil-contaminated debris (i.e.,
straw, kelp, seaweed) from oil-contaminated sand.
6. There has been little to no effort towards the systematic col-
lection of data needed to accurately determine the cost and
effectiveness of previous beach restoration operations. (See
Annex II for Proposed Data Requirements).
In the following sections, descriptions of each type of equipment are
given, including (a) principle of operation, (b) applicability, and (c)
operational procedures. Included in each section are tables of equipment
specifications and operating costs obtained from equipment manufacturers.
The tables do not include all models and makes in each equipment category
however, the listed models constitute the majority of such equipment presently
utilized in construction activities.
-------
MOTORIZED GRADERS
Principle of Operation
Motorized graders (Fig. 1) are designed to move quantities of material
short lateral distances by the process of side casting. They are not generally
used to haul material in the direction of travel. When the blade is set at
an angle, the material that is cut and pushed ahead of it tends to be deflec-
ted to one side with a rolling and sliding action. The curve of the moldboard
(blade) is designed to promote the rolling and sliding action of the material
as it moves across the blade.
The size of the windrow created by the material as it comes off the
blade is dependent upon the depth of cut, angle of the blade and the con-
dition of the material being moved. Under certain soil conditions, a motor-
ized grader is capable of making successive passes, i.e., picking up a
windrow and simultaneously cutting and moving the cut material along with the
previous windrow. After the windrows are formed, they must be removed
from the area by some other means.
Fig. 1. Motorized Grader
-------
Applicability
Motorized graders are most efficient when operating on relatively flat
areas of cohesive soil, firm but not hard, and on relatively long narrow
areas. A uniform cut is difficult to maintain under conditions where rocks
are present in the surface layer. For the removal of oil-contaminated sand,
the motorized grader would be most efficiently used on the firmly packed
beach area lying between the high and low tidal zones.
A major problem encountered with a motorgrader is its inability to
maintain traction when operating on a beach of low-bearing-strength sand.
Flotation tires on all wheels will overcome this problem on most beaches.
A set of flotation tires and rims to fit most models and makes of motor-
graders would cost approximately $2400.
An alternative to flotation tires is the addition of rubber-belted
half-tracks, which would fit over the drive wheels on each side of the
grader. These half tracks are a standard shelf item and have been utilized
extensively on agricultural machinery. A set of rubber-belted half-tracks
can be installed for approximately $1000.
The front wheels of a motorgrader will, in some instances, depress
the beach surface to a depth greater than the depth of cut being taken,
thus leaving two tracks of oil in the cleared area. The magnitude of this
"spillage" will depend upon the bearing strength of the sand, depth of cut,
and amount of oil on the surface. Moldboard modifications to eliminate
this spillage would consist of extensions to the cutting edge positioned
as shown in Fig. 2.
-------
Fig. 2. Moldboard Modifications
Operational Procedures
Operational procedures for motorized graders conducting beach restoration
operations follow:
(1) Set moldboard (blade) at a 50-deg angle perpendicular to the
direction of travel.
angle measured (50 )
blade
direction
of travel
(2) Set depth of cut at depth of oil penetration (1/2 to 1 in.).
(3) Operate grader in second gear (3 to 4 mph).
(4) Commence grading 1st pass on oil-contaminated material furthest
inshore, casting windrow parallel to surfline. Continue grading
to end of contaminated area or approximately 200 to 300 yards in
distance.
-------
(5) Return grader to starting point by backtracking on cleaned area.
(6) Reposition grader for 2nd pass so as to pick up Ist-pass windrow
and cast 2nd-pass windrow parallel to surfline (see Fig. 3).
(7) Return grader to starting point by backtracking on cleaned area.
(8) Reposition grader for 3rd pass so as to cast a windrow from surfline
side onto 1st- and 2nd-pass windrow as shown in Fig. 4. A three-
pass windrow is the optimum for pickup by a motorized elevating
scraper (see Fig. 5). Limit height of windrow to ground clear-
ance of tractor.
Note: Optimum rate of operation for smooth firm beaches is 1/2 to 1/3
hr/acre.
Specifications of motorized graders are given in Table 2. Equipment
manufacturer designations are given in Table 3.
Fig. 3. Motorized Grader Casting Second-Pass Windrow
10
-------
PLAN VIEW
direction
of travel
windrow
Fig. 4. Motorized Grader Operational Sequence
Fig. 5. Three-Pass Windrow Formed by Motorgrader
11
-------
Table 2
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
MOTORIZED GRADERS
TYPE : Wheeled, self-propelled to operating site
Make & Model
CAT - 16
WABCO 888
WABCO 777
Gallon T 600
AW Super 500
WABCO 330 H
AW Super 200
CAT 12F
Gallon 10 4H
Gallon 118
AW Pacer 400
WABCO 440 H
CAT - 14E
AC-M-100B
AW Super 100
AW Super 300
CAT 112F
CD D-560
CD D-562
Net Engine
HP Rating
225
230
160
175
179
100
106
115
125
135
143
147
150
127
106
143
100
100
125
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
24
20
14.5
14.5
15
11
11
13
12
12.5
13.5
12
15
13
10
12.5
10.5
12.5
13
Blade
Size
14'x31"
14'x32"
12'x28"
13'x26"
13'x28"
12'x25"
12'x24"
12'x24"
12'x24"
12'x24"
13'x26"
12'x25"
13'x27"
12'x24"
12'x24"
13'x26"
12'x24"
12'x25"
12'x25"
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
_S>
D
~cL
"o
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ma int. &
Repair
.28
.28
.25
.25
.25
.2
.2
.2
.2
.22
.25
.25
.25
.2
.2
.25
.2
.2
.2
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
10.0
10.1
7.0
7.5
7.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.1
5.5
5.0
6.5
4.5
4.5
5.5
Lube
(Ib)
.4
.4
.3
.3
.3
.25
.25
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.25
.30
.25
.25
.30
Oil
(gal)
.22
.22
.16
.18
.18
.10
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.14
.15
.12
.10
.14
.10
.10
.12
(continued)
-------
Table 2 Continued
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
MOTOR IZED GRADERS
TYPE: Wheeled, self-propelled to operating site
Make & Model
CD D-640
CD D-650
Gallon 104 B
160 B
160 L
Huber D-1100
" D-1300
D-1500
D-1700
D-1900
Pettibone-402
-502
,Wabco - 440
660-B
66&
Net Engine
HP Rating
135
160
106
160
190
107
130
150
165
195
125 -
145
115
150
132
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
14
14
11.5
13.5
14.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
16
11.5
13.5
12
14
13
Blade
Size
12'x25"
12'x25"
12'x24"
12'x27"
12'x27"
12'x24"
12'x26"
12'x26"
12'x28"
12'x28"
12'x24"
12'x24"
12'x25"
12'x28"
12'x25"
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maint. &
Repair
.22
.25
.20
.25
.27
.20
.24
.25
.25
.28
.20
.25
.20
.25
.24
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
6.0
7.0
4.5
7.0
8.3
5.0
5.8
7.1
7.3
8.6
5.5
6.7
5.6
7.1
5.9
Lube
(Ib)
.30
.30
.25
.30
.35
.25
.27
.30
.32
.35
.30
.30
.30
.30
.27
Oil
(gal)
.13
.16
.10
.16
.18
.10
.13
.15
.16
.18
.12
.14
.11
.15
.13
CO
-------
Table 3
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER
NAME OF MANUFACTURER
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Allis Chalmers Mfg. Company
Eimco Corporation
International Harvester Company
Euclid Div., General Motors
Michigan: Clark Equipment Company
Hough: International Harvester Company
R.G. Le Tourneau Inc.
Pettibone Mulliken Corp.
Trojan Div. — Eaton Yale & Towne Inc.
Scoopmobile Inc.
WABCO, Construction Equipment Div.
Austin Western: Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.
Gallon Iron Works & Mfg. Company
Hancock Div., Clark Equip. Company
John Deere & Company
Soilmover Mfg. Company
Huber Machinery Division
Cleveland-Drimco-Allith Corporation
General Motors-Earthmoving Division
MRS Manufacturing Co.
DESIGNATORS
DESIGNATION
CAT
HD or AC
Eimco
TD or IH
EUC
Michigan
Hough
LET
Pettibone
Trojan
Scoopmobile
WABCO
AW
Gallon
Hancock
JD
Soilmover
Huber
CD
GM
MRS
Note: Mention of commercial products does not imply endorsement by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration or URS Research
Company.
14
-------
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
Principle of Operation
Motorized elevating scrapers (Fig. 6) are utilized to pick up and haul
material short distances, then dump and spread. They are equipped with
self-loading elevators that pick up the cut material and dump it back into
the hopper. In some materials, such as sand, they pick up material more
easily than a standard non-elevating scraper that relies on the resistive
force of the undercut material to fill the hopper.
Fig. 6. Motorized Elevating Scraper
Applicability
Motorized elevating scrapers are most effective in clearing large
areas that are relatively flat; however they can operate on sloped beaches.
The motorized elevating scraper is the most efficient type of equipment
for picking up windrows left by a motorized grader. The maximum size of
the windrow should be restricted to the height of the ground clearance of
the tractor, which ranges from 12 to 24 in. for most tractors.
On beaches exhibiting low bearing strength, the motorized elevating
scraper, in its present configuration, will become immobilized in the sand.
Two possible methods that will overcome the immobilization problem are:
15
-------
(1) Use of a non-self-propelled elevating scraper (see Table 5),
pulled by a tracked bulldozer or front end loader. The use of
a crawler tractor increases traction greatly and would permit
scraper operation on beaches of low bearing strength.
(2) Use of a pusher unit (i.e., a tracked or wheeled bulldozer) as
an additional prime mover to push the elevating scraper unit, or
use of a tandem-drive elevating scraper, such as the WABCO BT 33F,
which has both pusher and puller prime mover units as standard
equipment.
Operational Procedures
Operational procedures for motorized elevating scrapers working singly
or in combination with a motorized grader are listed below. Since a motorized
grader is capable of producing windrows continuously, several motorized
elevating scrapers can be utilized simultaneously to pick up windrows.
• Operating in combination with motorized graders
(1) Position elevating scraper so as to straddle the windrow formed
after three passes by the motorized grader (see Fig, 7). Lower
cutting edge of bowl to cut to depth of oil penetration (1/2 in.).
(2) Operate the scraper in 1st gear (low range) and pick up windrow,
keeping elevator flights moving after bowl has filled up.
(3) Proceed to unloading area (keeping elevator flights moving).
Rates of operation depend upon distance to unloading area.
• Operating singly
(1) Commence operations on oil-contaminated material farthest inshore.
Operate parallel to surfline.
16
-------
(2) Set depth of cut to depth of oil penetration (1 to 2 in.) or just
to skim surface if only oil-contaminated debris to be removed.
Figures 8 and 9 show the results of picking up beach debris and
Figs. 10 and 11 show the results of removing straw from a test area
(3) Operate scraper in 1st gear (low range).
(4) Length of pass dependent upon size of scraper bowl. Keep elevator
flights running after bowl is filled.
(5) Proceed to unloading area (keeping elevator flights moving).
Note:
Rate of operation for one elevating scraper is 3/4 to 1 hr/acre
when removing windrows and 1 hr/acre when operating singly.
Rates are based on a haul distance of 200 ft (see Fig. 17,
Annex I). Table 4 lists the specifications of the motorized
elevating scraper. Table 5 presents a similar listing for
the crawler tractor-drawn elevating scrapers.
Fig. 7 Motorized Elevating Scraper in Position to Remove Windrow.
17
-------
Fig. 8. Beach Debris Prior to Removal by Motorized Elevating Scraper
Fig. 9. Beach After Removal of Debris by Motorized Elevating Scrape:
18
-------
1
Fig. 10. Test Area Before Removal of Straw
Fig. 11. Test Area After Straw Removal by Motorized Elevating Scraper
19
-------
Table 4
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
TYPE: See below
Make & Model
SELF-PROPELLED
to Operating Site
IH - E 200
IH - E 211
CAT - 613
CM S-7
Hancock - HF 6
" 282 G
292 B
Michigan 110-12
MRS - 1 - 905
Wabco - D - 111A
TRANSPORTATION
REQUIRED
to Operating Site
JD - 860
IH - E 270
CAT J-621
IH - E 295
CAT - 633
Net Engine
HP Rating
135
157
150
148
64
115
160
178
186
160
228
260
300
420
400
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
13
14
14
16
10
13.5
16.5
19
18
18
21
25
31
44
43
Capcaity
(cu yds)
9
11
11
12
6
9
11
12
12
11
15
21
21
32
32
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
166
f 155
(.206
225
200
f202
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ma Int. &
Repair
.35
.35
.35
.35
.3
.34
.36
.37
.37
.36
.40
.45
.45
.50
.50
Maintenance Requirements
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
4.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
2
4
7
8.5
8.5
7
10.0
9.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
Lube
(Ib)
.5
.45
.45
.45
.43
.47
.50
.52
.52
.50
.55
.60
.60
.7
.7
Oil
(gal)
.15
.16
.16
.16
.05
.13
.18
.21
.21
.18
.16
.30
.30
.33
.33
(continued )
-------
Table 4 Continued
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
TYPE: See below
Make & Model
(continued)
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREE
to Operating Site
AC 260 E
GM 35E
Michigan - 110 - 14
210 - H
310 - H
MRS I- 95 S
"I - 100 S
"I - 105 S
"I - 110 S
WABCO - C 222-F
B 333-F
* " BT 333-F
*Has dual engines.
Net Engine
HP Rating
320
495
238
335
475
250
290
337
389
318
475
J475
1475
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
30
49.5
21
28
47
28.5
32
36.5
39
29
47
57
Capacity
(cu yds)
24
35
14
23
31
17.5
20.5
23
25
21
32
34
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ma int. &
Repair
.45
.55
.4
.46
.53
.41
.43
.46
.49
.45
.53
.8
Maintenance Requirements
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
13.7
16.2
10.8
14.0
16.1
11
12.6
14.0
15.1
13.7
1-3.1
32.2
Lube
w
.65
.75
.56
.65
.74
.57
.60
.65
.68
.65
.74
1.48
Oil
M)
.32
.36
.27
.33
.36
.27
.30
.33
.34
.32
.36
.72
-------
Table 5
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: TRAC TOR-DRAW N ELEVATING SCRAPER
TYPE: Wheeled, transportation required to operating site
Make & Model
Hancock 4R2
Soilmover - 50 E
Hancock 8R4
Soilmover - 90 E
Hancock 11 E
Hancock 14 E
Hancock 18 E
Soilmover - 130 E
Johnson - 40-B
Johnson - 80-C
Johnson - 110-B
Johnson - 410-B
Net Engine
HP Rating
40
40-55
70
55-75
90
120
170
70
50
70
70
100
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
2.5
3
6
5-1/2
11
12-1/2
19-1/2
4
3
5
6
7
Capcaity
(cu yds)
4
5
8
8-1/2
11
14
18
13
4
8
11
11
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
IB
5
"a.
CL
"o
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maint. &
Repair
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
Lube
(Ib)
Oil
(gal)
-------
FRONT END LOADERS
Principle of Operation
Front end loaders (Fig. 12) are designed for digging, loading, and
limited transport of material. The front loader (bucket) may be carried by
any type of tractor, crawler tractor, or four-wheel-drive or two-wheel-
drive rubber-tired tractors. Crawler tractors and four-wheel-drive tractors
are used for heavy service and two-wheel-drive models for lighter work.
Buckets are made in different sizes and weights for various types of
materials and work conditions. Bucket capacity will depend upon the size
and type of tractor on which it is mounted. Buckets for crawler tractors
range from 3/4 to 4 cu yd. Wheeled tractors have both smaller and larger
buckets.
The bucket is loaded by the forward travel of the tractor. Most load-
ing is done with the bucket flat or tilted at a slight downward angle. The
flat position is best for loading a quantity of loose material. The amount
picked up in the bucket will vary with the consistency of the material, the
slope of the area worked on, and the skill of the operator.
Applicability
From the results obtained during the preliminary evaluation tests con-
ducted in Phase I, and analysis of previous beach restoration operations,
it is recommended that front end loaders be utilized only for loading
material from windrows formed by motorized graders or from stockpiles into
trucks. Their operations on oil-contaminated beach areas should be kept to
a minimum, especially when utilizing crawler-tractor mounted front end
loaders, which have been found to grind the oil several feet into the sand.
Front end loaders equipped with slot buckets could be utilized in remov-
ing large quantities of oil-contaminated debris, such as delp, driftwood, etc.
Slot buckets would allow loose sand to fall away through the slots.
23
-------
Operational Procedures
Operational procedures for front end loaders working singly or in
combination with a motorized grader are listed below. Several front end
loaders will be required to remove windrows formed by a single motorized
grader.
(1) Utilize 4-in-l type bucket if available (see Fig. 13).
(2) Operate tractor in 1st gear while loading.
(3) To minimize spillage, while scraping, only fill bucket 1/3-1/2 full.
(4) Minimize traffic over oil-contaminated area when using tracked loader.
Note: Rate of operation for one front end loader removing windrows over
an average haul distance of 100 ft is 2-1/2 to 3 hr/acre.
Table 6 presents specifications of rubber-tired and self-propelled
front end loaders. Table 7 presents specifications of the crawler front end
loader.
24
-------
Fig. 12. Front End Loader Mounted on Crawler Tractor
Fig. 13. 4-in-l Bucket in Clamshell Position
25
-------
Table 6
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: FRONT END LOADER
TYPE: Wheeled, self-propelled to operating site
Make & Model
CAT - 944
Michigan 75-111
Pettibone 125A
Trojan 164A
EUC 72-21
CAT - 950
Michigan 85-111
Hough H-65C
EUC 72-31
CAT - 966
EUC 72-41
Pettibone PM-440
Pettibone PM-350
Trojan - 3000
Hough H-900
EUC - 202
HD-745
Michigan 125 - 111A
Hough H 1008
CAT - 980
Michigan 175 - 111
Trojan - 4000
Michigan 175 - 111A
Hough H-120C
CAT - 988
Trojan - 404
Scoopmobile 500
Michigan 275 - 111A
Net Engine
HP Rating
105
108
108
115
115
125
140
141
145
150
163
175
185
185
198
200
210
220
226
235
238
247
290
296
300
318
320
380
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
11
8.5
8.3
9
9.5
11.5
10
11.5
12
16
14.5
16
16
15
17
16
18
18
20
22
18
22
21.5
32
33
25
31.5
31.5
Capacity
(cu yds)
2
2
1-3/4
2
2
2-1/4
2-3/4
2-1/4
2-1/2
3
3
3-1/2
3-1/2
3-1/2
3
3-1/2
5
4
4
4
4-1/2
4-1/2
5
5
5-1/2
5
5
6-1/2
Rating -
chain
speed
(ft/min)
15
D
(J
^
9-
^_
o
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maint. &
Repair
.22
.22
.22
.22
.22
.25
.27
.27
.27
.30
.35
.36
.38
.41
.41
.42
.35
.35
.34
.35
.40
.40
.42
.42
.42
.45
.45
.49
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.5
7.5
8.5
8.5
9.0
9.5
9.5
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.7
14.5
14.5
17.0
Lube
(Ib)
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.4
.4
.4
.5
.6
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.8
.8
.8
.8
.9
Oil
(gal)
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.14
.14
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.18
.19
.19
.20
.21
.22
.23
.23
.24
.29
.30
.31
.33
.33
.40
-------
Table 7
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
FRONT END LOADER
TYPE: Crawler, transportation required to operating site
Make & Model
HD - 7-G
CAT - 955K
IH - 175B
EIMCO - 123C
EIMCO - 115
IH - 250B
CAT - 977K
HD - 12 -G
EIMCO - 126C
HD - 21-G
Net Engine
II r\ r> , •
HP Rating
100
115
120
150
154
160
170
185
218
254
Weight
• 1 it
including
attachments
(tons)
12
14
13.5
19
21
19.5
20.5
21
28
37
Capacity
(cu yds)
1-3/4
1-3/4
2
2-3/8
1-1/2
2-1/2
2-1/2
2-3/4
3
4
Rating -
I *
chain
speed
(ft/min)
la
D
"a.
a.
"^
"o
Labor Requirements
(man-hrs per hour
of equipment operation)
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maint. &
Repair
.22
.22
.22
.33
.33
.29
.28
.32
.35
.37
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(gal)
4.5
5.0
5.5
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.5
8.5
10.0
11.5
Lube
(Ib)
.5
.5
.6
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.7
.9
Oil
(gal)
.10
.11
.12
.15
.15
.16
.17
.18
.21
.25
-------
UNLOADING RAMP AND CONVEYOR SYSTEM
Principle of Operation
An unloading ramp and conveyor system, as shown in Fig. 14, should be
considered as a method of transferring beach material picked up by motorized
elevating scrapers directly into trucks or into stockpiles. The system can
also include a screening system to separate oil-soaked debris, such as straw,
from the oil-sand mixture.
Applicability
The use of an unloading ramp-conveyor system is dependent upon the
magnitude of the beach restoration operations. In situations similar to
that encountered during the Santa Barbara incident, where some 4,000 truck-
loads of oil-contaminated sand and debris were hauled to disposal areas, a
system of this type would have saved considerable cost and effort.
Several such systems may have to be installed if oil-contamination
occurs over a significant length of beach. The hauling time from the oper-
ating area to the unloading area, is a factor that has to be considered in
locating such a facility.
The unloading ramp and conveyor-screening system illustrated in Fig. 14
can be installed for approximately $2000. A typical ramp system would consist
of two cribs built out of railroad ties on each side of a hopper feeding
a belt conveyor. The ramps contain approximately 100 cu yd of material,
which may be found on site or brought in. A screening system can be attached
to the discharge end of the conveyor system if required.
Factors that would influence the design of the unloading ramp and con-
veyor system are:
• Conveyor capacity - estimated volume of material per hour that
will be produced by beach restoration procedures
• Conveyor length - height above ground required to load trucks
28
-------
to
to
Fig. 14. Unloading Ramp and Conveyor-Screening System
-------
• Hopper capacity - hopper should have sufficient capacity to receive
total load of largest elevator scraper utilized
• Ramp height - depends on overall height of conveyor and hopper and
depth of pit, if required
• Ramp width - maximum width of largest elevating scraper utilized
Table 8 lists the specifications of suitable belt loaders.
30
-------
TABLE 8
Equipment Specifications: Belt Loaders
Type: Wheel, transportation required to operating site
Make and Model
Barber-Greene PL-90
Hewitt-Nbbins-450
Ko-Cal 4845-R
Ko-Cal 4860-R
Ko-Cal 4845-S
Ko-Cal 4860-5
Ko-Cal 4860-S
Ko-Cal 3650
Ko-Cal 4250
Kolberg 348-50
Kolberg 448-60
Kolberg 1136-50
Kolberg 1148-50
Pioneer 4841
Net Engine
HP Rating
130
170
105
154
105
154
154
70
97
130
154
70
130
100
Weight
including
attachments
(tons)
24
28.5
19
25.5
24
29
29
11.5
13
24.5
30
9.5
15
45.5
Capacity
cu yds/hr
2000
2400
2800
2800
1800-2800
1800-2800
1800-2800
1200
1700
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
Width
of
Belt
(in.)
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
36
42
48
48
36
48
48
Labor
(man hrs/hr
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Requirements
of equipment operations)
Maintenance and
Repair
.26
.28
.22
.30
.22
.30
.30
.2
.22
.26
.30
.2
.26
.22
Fuel,
(per hour
Diesel
Fuel
(gal)
5.6
7.5
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
6.5
4.0
4.5
5.6
6.5
4.0
5.6
4.5
Oil, Lube
of equip.
Lube
(Ibs)
.3
.7
.3
.5
.3
.5
.5
.3
.5
.3
.5
.3
.3
.5
Requirements
, operation)
Oil
(gal)
.12
.17
.11
.15
.11
.15
.15
.10
.10
.12
.15
.10
.12
.10
-------
EQUIPMENT AND OPERATOR COSTS
Nationally averaged rental rates for the equipment recommended for use
in beach restoration operations are given in Table 9. These rental rates
do not include the cost of an operator and costs of fuel and lubricants.
In addition to being national averages in dollar amounts, the rental rates
reflect an averaging of age, condition and operating efficiency of the
equipment.
It is general practice to base rates upon one shift of 8 hr per day,
40 hr per week, or 176 hr per month of a 30-consecutive-day period. Many
distributors do not rent by the day or by the week, especially in the case
of large equipment. If the equipment is rented by the day, the rate for
overtime is 1/8 of the daily rate for each hour in excess of 8. If it is
rented by the week, the rate for overtime is 1/40 of the weekly rate for
each hour in excess of 40. If it is rented by the month, the overtime rate
is 1/176 of the monthly rate for each hour in excess of 176 in any one 30-
consecutive-day period.
Operator costs are tabulated in Table 10 for selected cities. These
rates include fringe benefits. Overtime costs for operators are normally
computed to be 150% to 200% of his straight-time wages.
In many instances, equipment and operators will be obtained through an
earthmoving contractor, and the rental rates will include equipment rental,
operator costs, maintenance costs, fuel, oil, and contractor's overhead and
*
profit. An example of such rental rates is listed below:
Equipment Type Hourly Rate
Motorized grader - 26,000 Ib $22.00
Motorized elevating scraper - 9 cu yd 25.00
Front end loader - 1-3/4 cu yd 20.00
Bulldozer - D-6 22.00
Dump truck - 8 cu yd 14.25
* Rates quoted by Andreini Bros. Inc., Half Moon Bay, Calif.
32
-------
Table 9
NATIONALLY AVERAGED RENTAL RATES
Net weight (Ib)
up to 10,000
10,001 to 20,500
20,501 to 22,500
22,501 to 26,000
26,001 to 28,000
22,501 to 26,000
26,001 to 28,000
28,001 to 30,000
per month per week
MOTOR GRADER
Diesel engine w/direct drive
542.00 186.00
650.00 217.00
* *
1070.00 359.00
1167.00 *
Diesel engine w/torque converter
1326.00 436.00
1383.00
1480.00 471.00
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPER
2-wheel tractor with 2-wheel scraper
per day
61.75
70.00
*
110.00
*
142.00
152.00
Rated capacity
HP range
121-144
145-190
191-288
250-300
400-500
121-144
145-190
(cu yd)
8-9 1740.00 559.00
10-12 1973.00 700.00
13-19 2478.00 833.00
20-27 3445.00 1173.00
28-32 4829.00 1511.00
4-wheel tractor with 2-wheel scraper
8-9 1732.00 584.00
10-12 1990.00 625.00
FRONT END LOADER/CRAWLER
Diesel engine-direct drive manual shift
165.00
229.00
*
394.00
444.00
157.00
193.00
Rated capacity (cu yd)
3/4
1
1-1/4
1-1/2
2
2-1/4
1
1-1/2
2-1/4
Continued
703.00 228.00
794.00 268.00
918.00 307.00
1035.00 357.00
1150.00 424.00
1513.00 533.00
Diesel engine- torque converter, manual shift
797.00 270.00
1135.00 359.00
1567.00 570.00
*
67.25
85.25
109.00
*
168.00
76.25
*
*
33
-------
Table 9 (Contd)
NATIONALLY AVERAGED RENTAL RATES
(Excluding Costs of Operator and Fuel)
Rated capacity
(cu yd)
1
1-1/4
1-1/2
1-3/4
2
2-1/2
2-3/4
1
1-1/4
1-1/2
2
2-1/2
per month per week
Diesel engine-torque converter, power shift
808.00 285.00
984.00 345.00
1202.00 383.00
1585.00 467.00
1593.00 502.00
2107.00 730.00
2325.00 800.00
FRONT END LOADERS - WHEELED
Gasoline engine-torque converter, power shift
661.00 226.00
760.00 249.00
910.00 294.00
1009.00 354.00
1039.00 362.00
per day
80.00
101.00
115.00
143.00
163.00
241.00
270.00
68.50
78.25
84.75
111.00
115.00
Diesel engine- torque converter, power shift-rigid frame
1
1-1/4
1-1/2
2
2-1/2
2-3/4
3
3-1/2
4-1/2
5
6
Diesel
2
2-1/2
2-3/4
3
3-1/2
4
4-1/2
5
6
10
Continued
735.00 245.00
836.00 283.00
985.00 321.00
1153.00 397.00
1388.00 446.00
1475.00 487.00
1602.00 572.00
1730.00 598.00
2138.00 725.00
2536.00 775.00
2933.00 991.00
engine- torque converter, power shift-articulated
1205.00 414.00
1448.00 520.00
1600.00 588.00
1827.00 622.00
1993.00 657.00
2425.00 803.00
2464.00 825.00
3222.00 1035.00
3268.00 1086.00
5667.00 *
81.75
84.75
99.75
119.00
141.00
156.00
176 . 00
184.00
224.00
*
*
steering
142.00
164.00
196.00
201.00
208.00
255.00
266.00
313.00
317.00
*
34
-------
Table 9 (Contd)
NATIONALLY AVERAGED RENTAL RATES
(Excluding Costs of Operator and Fuel)
Rated Capacity
(cu yd)
per month
per week per day
2-wheel drive gasoline engine-direct drive, manual shift
1/2
5/8
3/4
1-1/2
5/8
3/4
1-1/4
1/2
5/8
3/4
1
Gasoline
Diesel
424.00
518.00
518.00
607.00
*
170.00
170.00
184.00
engine, torque converter, power shift
504.00
572.00
719.00
engine-direct drive, manual
182.00
193.00
249.00
shift
442.00 151.00
566.00 195.00
566.00 195.00
672.00 220.00
*
55.25
55.25
58.25
58.25
65.25
88.00
42.00
55.00
55.00
57.00
BELT LOADING CONVEYORS
(Belt width 12-18 in.)
conveyor length (ft)
20-
26-
30-
36-
46-
26
30
36
46
56
213
*
291
350
468
.00
.00
.00
.00
72
*
98
123
163
.50
.75
.00
.00
24
*
38
45
57
.25
.25
.50
.50
Belt width 18-24 in.
30-
36-
46-
36
46
56
363
483
521
.00
.00
.00
125
161
163
.00
.00
.00
43
53
*
.00
.25
*Insufficient information received.
Source: Nationally Averaged Rental Rates, compiled by Associated
Equipment Distributors.
35
-------
Table 10
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR WAGE RATES FOR SELECTED CITIES
($/hr + fringe benefits. As of Feb. 1, 1970)
Classif ication
City
Atlanta
Baltimore
Birmingham
Boston
Dallas
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Tractor/F.E. Loader Motorized
Scraper
5
5
4
6
6
7
6
8
6
8
7
.50
.72
.85
.81
.15
.61
.00
.12
.81
.11
.03
5
6
4
6
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
.50
.17
.50
.81
.15
.61
.00
.36
.81
.91
.97
Motorized
Grader
5
6
4
6
6
7
6
7
7
7
6
.00
.17
.85
.81
.15
.71
.00
.01
.44
.66
.92
Truck Driver
3
3
3
4
7
7
4
6
4
6
6
.25
.48
.54
.61
.51
.51
.25
.28
.71
.81
.72
Source: Engineering News-Record, 1/29/70.
36
-------
ANNEX I
PRE LIMINARY EVALUATION TESTS
Full-scale tests on beach areas were conducted during Phase I to
determine the performance of the earthmoving equipment selected for use
in beach restoration operations. The tests were conducted at three
beach sites along the San Mateo County, California, coastline during the
month of November, 1969.
Seventeen series of tests were conducted utilizing a motorgrader,
motorized scrapers, and front end loaders, singly and in combination.
Optimal equipment configurations, including blade angles, depth of cut,
rate of operation, and necessary modifications to improve performance,
were determined for each piece of equipment evaluated. The equipment
evaluated included:
• Motorgrader - Caterpillar Model 12, rubber tired, 12-ft blade,
115 hp
• Motorized Elevating Scraper - International Harvester Model
E-200, rubber tired, 9-cu-yd capacity, 135 hp, two-wheel drive.
• Motorized Scraper - Caterpillar Model 10, rubber tired,
12-cu-yd capacity, 120 hp, four-wheel drive.
• Front End Loader - Caterpillar Model 955, crawler tractor,
4-in-l bucket, 1-3/4-cu-yd capacity, 115 hp
• Front End Loader - International Harvester Model 175B,
crawler tractor, 4-in-l bucket, 2-cu-yd capacity, 120 hp
The choice of make and model of equipment evaluated was determined only
by equipment availability at the time of testing. These items, however, are
representative of their classes, as given in Tables 2 through 7.
To improve the performance on sand, the motorgrader was equipped with
23.5X25 10-ply flotation tires on all four driving wheels in place of the
37
-------
standard 13.00X24, 10-ply tires. The motorized elevating scraper was also
equipped with two optional features designed to improve operating
performance on sand. These consisted of the following:
(a) The installation of a high-speed, low-torque motor cartridge
kit to increase the elevator speed approximately 29%.
(b) A transmission change consisting of a turbine and drive gear
modification to reduce the ground speed from a maximum speed
in first gear of 6 mph to 2.72 mph and a reduction in second
gear high range from 24 mph to 16.6 mph.
The operating characteristics of each piece of equipment in removing
the surface layer of sand was determined at the three separate beach test
sites under different beach conditions as indicated in Table 11. In
several tests, oil was utilized in tidal zone areas, and in one instance
on the backshore area. Also, as indicated in Table 11, in several tests
the test area was covered with straw or a test area was selected that was
covered with kelp and other debris.
Each piece of candidate equipment was tested individually to determine
its operating characteristics and performance in removing a thin surface
layer of sand under various beach conditions. The motorgrader was then
operated in combination with the elevating scraper and the front end loader
to determine the effectiveness of combined operations.
During both the individual tests and the combined equipment tests, the
various pieces of heavy equipment were operated at different speeds, depths
of cut, and blade angles to determine the optimum operating characteristics
for equipment performance on a sandy beach. The basic test procedure was to
operate the equipment on a 100- by 30-ft test area and to time and photograph
the operations and obtain appropriate measurements, including width of cut,
depth of cut, size of windrows and visual observations of effectiveness
(i.e. amount of spillage). Finally, several tests were run to determine cycle
time (i.e., a complete loading cycle, which includes loading, hauling, dumping,
38
-------
and return to loading position). In some of these tests, longer test areas
were used to approximate actual conditions. For example, the scraper will
normally operate in one direction and continue loading until its capacity
is reached instead of making short, 100-ft passes.
Table 11
BEACH TEST CONDITIONS
EQUIPMENT EVALUATED
TIDAL ZONE AREA
Motorized Grader
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Scraper
Front End Loader
Motorized Grader with
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Grader with
Front End Loader
Without
Oil
x
x
With
Oil
x
X
With
Straw
x
With
Kelp
x
X
BACKSHORE AREA
Without With
Oil Oil
x
X
X
The major observations concerning the testing are given in Tables 12
through 19. Included are descriptions and locations of each beach test area,
the equipment tested, the type of operation performed, detailed data on each
test, including depth of cut, width of cut, length of cut, material removed,
area cleaned, time of operation and cycle time (where applicable), and
comments on the performance of the equipment.
39
-------
A measure of effectiveness is the amount of contaminated sand removed
during a beach-restoration operation. For each operation, the volume of sand
(in cubic yards) removed per acre of beach cleaned was calculated from the
data tabulated in Tables 12 through 19. The results, given in Table 20 show
that the smallest amount of material per acre was removed with the motor-
grader and motorized elevating scraper working in combination (Restoration
Procedure A, Table 1). The motorized elevating scraper operating alone was
the next best procedure. The most inefficient operation utilized a front
end loader to scrape up and remove the material.
The range of values given are based on several tests. An important para-
meter in calculating the total volume removed is the depth of cut, and in
each test an average depth of cut was measured. In some instances, due to
the bearing surface of the test area and topography, it was difficult for
the operator to maintain a constant depth of cut.
Another measure of effectiveness is the rate (acres cleared per hour) at
which beach areas are cleared. Table 21 presents the rate of clearing in
acres per hour for the various pieces of equipment evaluated and combinations
of equipment. The calculations are based on those operations in which cycle
times were taken. The values given for each equipment item and/or combination
of items is based on equipment performing under optimum conditions (i.e., the
motorized elevating scraper loading in first gear and hauling and returning
from the dump area in second gear; the motorgrader operating in second gear for
both forward and reverse; and the front end loader operating in first gear for
scraping and the second gear for hauling and dumping).
The calculated values are based on the haul distances given in Table 21
for each operation. Increasing or decreasing these distances would increase
or decrease the rates accordingly. When a motorgrader is used in combination
with a motorized elevating scraper or front end loader, the indicated rates
may be increased with the use of additional scrapers or front end loaders.
The motorgrader is capable of producing windrows continuously and several
motorized elevating scrapers or front end loaders can be utilized to pick
up and remove the windrows.
40
-------
As indicated in Table 21, the motorgrader-motorized elevating scraper
combination is the most efficient for an equivalent length of haul. The
least efficient is the front end loader, working singly. An example of
how production decreases with increased haul distance (one-way) is shown
in Fig. 15 for the motorgrader-motorized elevating scraper combination.
0 100 200
HAUL DISTANCE - one way (feet)
400
500
Fig. 15. Clearance Rate Vs Haul Distance by Motorgrader and
Motorized Elevating Scraper Combination
41
-------
TABLE 12
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: TtlNITAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader
Gear: Second
Length of Run: 100 ft
Date: November 14, 1969
TEST NO.
C-l-1
C-l-2
C-l-3
C-2-1
C-2-2
C-2-3
TOTAL
C-3-1
C-3-2
C-3-3
TOTAL
OPERATION
Three passes over 100'
x30' test area with
different blade angle
each pass. l" and J"
depths of cut.
Three passes over 100'
X30* area. Blade angle
(60°). Large windrow.
l" depth of cut.
Three passes over 100'
X30' area. Blade angle
(50°). Large windrow,
1' depth of cut.
CUT
ANGLE WIDTH DEPTH TIME
(deg) (in.) (sec)
40 9' 5" 1 30
50 8' 7" 1 30
55 7' 2" 0.5 30
60 6' 8" 1 27
60 6'll" 1 27
60 6 '10" 1 27
16' 5" 1
50 8' 6" 1 30
50 8' 6" 1 27
50 8' 6" 1 27
20'10" 1
MAIN WINDROW AREA
HEIGHT WIDTH CLEANED
(in.) (sq yd)
8.5 2' 4" 104
8 2' 6" 95
7 I'll" 80
6.5 1' 9" 74
10 2' S" 77
15 3' 6" 76
183
6 2' 5" 94
18 3' 94
18 4' 94
232
VOLUME
REMOVED
(cu yd)
2.
2,
1.
2.
2.
2.
5.
2
2
2
6
9
.6
,1
06
,14
,1
,1
.6
.6
.6
.35
SPEED
(mph)
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.5
Smaller blade angles (40°) cause
greater spillage around leading edge
of blade. Larger blade angle (50°)
causes little or no spillage
Blade control difficult at 60° angle.
By third pass , sand buildup caused
major spillage at leading edge on
last 30' of run.
Almost no leading edge spillage.
Sand buildup but no excessive
spillage.
-------
TABLE 13
DATA SUMMARY
W
BEACH: TUNITAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Gear: First
Date: November 17, 1969
D-l-1
D-l-2
D-l-3
TOTAL
F-l-1
F-l-2
F-l-3
F-l-4
OPERATION
Three passes over 100*
X30' area. Various
cutting depths.
Four passes at various
depths of cut (1 to 4")
picked up kelp, debris
and sand
LENGTH
(ft)
100
100
90
96
1O6
180
158
160
CUT
WIDTH
8' 2"
7 '11"
8'
20' 3"
8'
8'
8'
8'
DEPTH
(in.)
4
2
2
2.5
1
4
TIME
(sec)
27
25
20
35
-
60
35
MATERIAL
IN BOWL
EST
(cu yd)
9
6
5
8
9
9
9
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
91
88
80
216
94.2
160
140
142
VOLUME
REMOVED
CALC
(cu yd)
12.2
4.9
4.4
16
6.5
4.3
15.5
_
SPEED
(mph)
2.5
2.7
3.4
2.1
-
1.8
3.1
Less spillage around scraper bowl
edge when thinner (less than 2")
cut is made. Excessive spillage
when bowl closed and filled.
Picked up debris and kelp, leaving
clean cut with minimum amount of
spillage.
-------
TABLE 14
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: TUNITAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader (Blade angle 50°),
IH 175B Front End Loader
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Length of Run: 100 ft
Date: November 17, 1969
CUT
Three passes over 100'
x30' area with motor-
grader forming one large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by elevating
scraper.
EQUIPMENT
WIDTH
9'
15'6"
27'
DEPTH
(in.)
1
1
1
TIME
(sec)
25
20
20
TWE
Mot or -
grader
Motor-
grader
Motor -
grader
MAIN WINDROW AREA VOLUME
HEIGHT WIDTH CLEANED REMOVED
(in.) (in.) (sq yd) (cu yd)
Scraper
(mph)
2.7
3.4
3.4
Windrow formed by rnotorgrader
picked up by scraper worked well.
Scraper took cut deeper than 2" and
some spillage occurred on edges of
scraper bowl.
Three passes over 100*
x30 * area with motor-
grader forming one large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by front end
loader
Motor-
grader
Motor-
grader
Motor-
grader
Front End
Loader
(2 yd)
Excessive spillage around edge of
front end loader bucket when picking
up windrow. Front end loader tracks
ripped up beach badly.
-------
TABLE 15
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: TUNITAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date: November 19, 1969
TOTAL TIME
tn
H-l-l
H-l-2
H-l-3*
L-l-1
L-l-2
L-l-3
OPERATION
Long pass to fill bowl,
200' to dump area, re-
turned for 3 passes per
trial. Different gears
tried to find best
operating speed.
Three passes over 100'
X30* test area. Test
area covered with
straw.
LENGTH
(ft)
100
250
250
100
100
100
OJT
DEPTH
(in.)
2.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
FOR
WIDTH
OPERATION
(min)
21'3"
lt
27'
8'
a'
4'6"
4:
4:
0:
0:
0:
20
50
50
25
20
20
PER PASS
GEAR AVG
(mph)
1st -
1st 34
2nd 4.6
1st 2.7
1st 3.4
1st 3.4
AREA
CLEANED
(Eq yd)
236
569
750
88,6
88.6
50
REMOVED
CALC
(cu
16
3 1
30,
3.
2.
1.
yd)
.3
3
,7
, 7
,5
4
SAND REMOVED COMMENTS
(sq yd (cu yd
/min) /min)
54.5 3.8 Difficulty in controlling
the cut
and spillage in second gear. Bet-
less spillage.
155.2 6.4
- - Little difficulty picking-
straw combination. Straw
— — to cut down spillage when
is operating and when bowl
— — raised and closed.
up sand-
appears
scraper
is
TOTAL
* No dumping in between 100-yd passes.
** 10O ft to dump
-------
TABLE 16
DATA SUMMARY
en
BEACH: TUNITAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader (Blade angle 50°),
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date: November 19, 1969
j-i-i
J-l-2
J-l-3
J-l-4
J-l-5
J-l-6
J-1-5+6
K-l-1
K-l-2
K-l-3
TOTAL
K-l-4
K-l-5
Three passes over 200'
x30' area with motor-
grader forming large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by elevating
scraper
Three passes over 100'
x30* area with motor-
grader forming large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by elevating
scraper. Area covered
with straw.
TOTAL TIME SPEED
EQUIPMENT
Motor-
grader
Elevating
Scraper
Motor -
grader
Elevating
Scraper
Motor^
grader
Elevating
Scraper
Combina-
tion
Motor -
grader
Motor-
grader
Motor-
grader
Elevating
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
CUT
LENGTH WIDTH*
(ft)
200 28'
150 4 '4"
200 28'
100 4'
200 30'4"
120 3 '6"
120
100 8'
100 8'
100 8'
27'
70 4 '8"
30
DEPTH*
(in.)
1
22
0.5
10
0.5
10
1
1
1
1
23
GEAR
2nd
1st
1st
1st
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
1st
FOB
(min)
2:43
1:55
4:00
1:30
2:32
1: 10
4; 10
0:23
0:20
0:19
0:22
0:15
PEH PASS
AVG
(mph)
4.1
1.1
2.6
2.3
6.2
2.3
3.0
3.4
3.6
2.2
1.4
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
622
72
622
44
674
46.6
674
89
89
89
300
SAND
(cu yd)
17.3
21.5
8.7
16.1
9.3
16.4
6.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
8.3
6.6
5.0
REMOVED
(sq yd (cu yd
/min) /min)
226 6.3
155 2.2
4.1
266 3.7
5.5
164 1.6
232 6.5
267 7.5
281 7.9
18
20
6.3 Motorgrader most effective oper-
ating in second gear. Poor con-
trol of blade in third gear.
Motorized elevating scraper most
effective in first gear.
Combination picked up sand-straw
easily. Straw appeared to give
sand more body. Less spillage
occurred around edges of scraper
bowl.
For scraper this is the height of windrow + width.
-------
TABLE 17
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: HALF MOON BAY HARBOR
Beach Condition: Eackshore area, loosely packed, coarse-grained sand
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader,
CAT 10 Motorized Scraper,
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date: November 24, 1969, "M" Tests
November 25, 1969, "o" Tests
TEST NO.
M-l-1
M-l-2
Three passes over 100"
x30' area with motor-
grader forming one
large windrow. Wind-
row removed by eleva-
ting scraper.
EQUIPMENT
Motor-
grader
Elevating
Scraper
TIME
.ENGTH
(ft)
100
CUT
WIDTH
(ft)
27.2
MAIN WINDROW
DEPTH
(in.)
1
WIDTH
(ft)
3
HEIGHT
(in.)
6
SINGLE
PASS
AVG
(sec)
18
CYCLE
(rain)
1: 15
SPEED
SINGLE
PASS
(mph)
3.8
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
300
VOLUME
(cu yd)
8.3
1.5
On soft sand, great degree of
spillage around grader leading
edge and scraper bowl.
Motorized elevating Motorized
scraper and motorized Scraper
scraper making one pass
for comparison of Elevating
operation. Scraper
47.2
The motorized scraper operated
for 50', picked up 4 cu yd of
sand and became immobilized.
T-he motorized elevating scraper
had no difficulty.
-------
TABLE 18
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: HALF BOON BAY HARBOR
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, firm-packed, medium-grained sand
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader,
CAT 10 Motorized Scraper,
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date; November 24, 1969, "M" Tests
November 25, 1969, "o" Tests
TEST NO.
M-2-1
M-2-1
TOTAL
OPERATION
Three passes over 100'
X30' area with motor-
grader forming one
large windrow. Wind-
row removed by eleva-
ting scraper
EQUIPMENT
Motor-
grader
Elevating
Scraper
LENGTH
(ft)
WIDTH
(ft)
DEPTH
0.5
0.5
0.5
TIME
MAIN WINDROW
WIDTH
(ft)
3.3
HEIGHT
(in.)
9
SINGLE
PASS
AVG
(sec)
19
31
CYCLE
(min)
2:15
1:11
SPEED
SINGLE
PASS
(mph)
3.6
2.2
AREA CLEANED
(sq yd)
300
(sq yd
/min)
133
VOLUME
(cu
4.
yd)
.2
REMOVED
(cu yd
/rain)
1.9
3.5
COMMENTS
Much less spillage from
motorgrader and elevating
scraper on firma sand.
300
87.4
1.2
00
0-1-3
0-1-4
Motorized elevating
scraper picking up
kelp along surf line
Motorized elevating
scraper and motorized
scraper making one
pass for comparison.
Elevating
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
Motorized
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
0.5
0.5
51
74
2.7
2.7
1.7
2.9
178 209 2.5 2.9
258 209 3.6 2.9
57 142
169 225
4.7 11.7
2.4 3.2
Motorized elevating
scraper had no difficulty
picking up kelp and sea-
weed.
The motorized scraper
operated for 60' and be-
came immobilized. Ele-
vator scraper had no
difficulty operating.
-------
TABLE 19
DATA SUMMARY
OIL CONTAMINATED BEACH CLEANUP
Oil Used; 5 gallons — aged 1 week
Equipment; CAT 12 Motorgrader,
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper,
Front End Loader — 1.75 cu yd
OIL SPREAD DATA
: AREA TOTAL TOTAL
TEST DEPTH of COVERED TIME FOR AREA
NO. OPERATION BEACH CONDITION WIDTH LENGTH PENETRATION APPROX REMOVAL CLEANED SAND REMOVED COMMENTS
(ft) (ft) (in.) (sq yd) (min) (sq yd) (Cu yd) (sq yd
/min)
A-2 Front End Loader used as Backshore area. 16 24 0.5 64 55 70 12 1,2 Difficulty in adjusting depth of
bulldozer to scrape oil- Dry, loosely- cut; more sand moved than necessary.
contaminated sand into packed, coarse- Spillage excessive around blade
pile. Then used as load- grained sand, edges
er to haul material to
disposal area.
B-l Front End Loader using Tidal zone, wet, 16 31 0.5 45 55 50 12 0.9 4-in-l bucket as scraper and loader
bucket as scraper re- loosely-packed, made deeper cut than necessary,
moving oil-contaminated coarse-grained Tracks of vehicle tore up beach con-
sand to disposal area. sand siderably, pushed surface layer of
contaminated oil deeper into beach.
N-l Motorgrader scraping Tidal zone, wet, 16 35 0.25 60 o 264 3.5 53 Overall operation of grader/scraper
oil-contaminated sand firm-packed, combination effective. Front wheels
into windrow. Elevating medium-grained of motorgrader pressed thin layer of
scraper removing windrow sand. oil-contaminated sand deeper into
to disposal area. beach. Minimum amount of clean sand
was removed compared to the front end
loader when tested under similar cir-
cumstances .
-------
Table 20
SAND REMOVAL DURING VARIOUS BEACH RESTORATION OPERATIONS
VOLUME OF SAND REMOVED
(Cu yd/acre of beach cleaned)
Loose Sand or
Backshore Area
Firm Hard-
Packed Beach
Firm Beach With
Straw Applied
@ 100 Bales/Acre
Motorgrader and
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Elevating1
Scraper
Motorgrader and
Front End Loader
130-145
300-400
70-100
200-250
300-325
180-200
Front End Loader
800-1200
Table 21
ACRES CLEARED AND HAULED BY VARIOUS TYPES
AND COMBINATIONS OF EQUIPMENT
Motorgrader and
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorgrader and
Front End Loader
CLEARANCE RATES
(hr/acre)
0.77-1.67
0.95
2.78
HAUL DISTANCE (ft)
TO DUMP (one way)
160-100
100
100
50
-------
ANNEX II
DOCUMENTATION OF BEACH RESTORATION OPERATIONS:
PROPOSED DATA REQUIREMENTS
To evaluate the manpower and equipment costs associated with beach restora-
tion operations, a review of recent oil-pollution/beach-contamination incidents
was conducted as part of Phase I. It was very quickly determined that there
has been little to no effort directed towards the systematic collection of
data needed to accurately determine the cost and effectiveness of previous
beach restoration operations. Generally, only overall costs have been re-
ported, and costs associated with onshore operations could not be separated
from the total costs.
A set of data collection sheets has been included in this annex as an
example of the forms to be used by FWPCA personnel who become involved in
future oil-spill incidents.
As in all operations of this type, photography, both still and motion picture,
proves to be invaluable during subsequent analysis of the data. Care must be
taken, however, to properly document the photographic effort, i.e., date,
time, location; etc.
A sketch or quadrangle map showing beach location and important features,
such as breakwaters, groins, roads, and other shoreline installations, would
assist in subsequent analysis of the cleanup operation.
51
-------
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
DATA SHEET INSTRUCTIONS
Separate data sheets should be prepared for each separate event, type
of beach, variation of beach characteristic, or restoration procedure.
If it is necessary to use more room for entries than that provided on
the sheet, use the reverse side of the form.
Identify each separate page by including beach name, its location,
and the data at the top.
Section A: Event description - include what spilled, from where, what caused
spill (collision, explosion, grounding, pipeline failure).
Section B: This information is pertinent for prediction of weathering effect
on contaminant.
Section C: Data in this section will be utilized to assist in the evaluation
of the cost and effectiveness of the beach restoration operation
and to correlate trafficability (mobility) factors with equipment
type. Sand samples should be taken in both the tidal and back-
beach zones for sand grain size determination. If it is necessary
to clarify data or obtain additional information, the persons
reporting or submitting the data forms will be contacted.
Section D: This section is to be used for equipment actually cleaning the beach
and does not include hauling operations. A daily estimate of area
cleaned and cost should be recorded.
Participating organizations would include the names of agencies,
(FWPCA, API); companies (oil companies, private research or con-
sulting firms); contracting firms; local and state authorities
which were directly involved in clean-up procedures. The organiza-
tions should be listed, where applicable, across the top of the
daily record squares.
If equipment is under contract, rented or leased, it should be
shown as a note under Comments, Observations.
If certain equipment is immobilized by a low-bearing beach, this
should also be noted. Record all information possible; although,
partial reporting of data may be all that is available.
Section E: Hauling operations, exclusive of beach cleanup, should be included
here. If contaminated sand and debris are hauled to several dis-
posal areas, include specific details on reverse side of form.
52
-------
Participating organizations would include the names of agencies,
(FWPCA, API); companies, (oil companies, private research or
consulting firms); contracting firms; local and state authorities
which were directly involved in sand disposal operations. The
organizations should be listed, where applicable, across the top
of the daily record squares.
Section F: If a change in type of absorbent, or dispersal methods occurs
during the seven days covered by these sheets, but all else
remains relatively unchanged, write additional information on
reverse of form.
53
-------
Page 1 of 5
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
BEACH'. Name Location Dates
A. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT:
B. OIL CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Date and time of spill:
2. Type of oil: Bunker C, diesel, other
3. Source: tanker, pipeline, platform
4. Amount spilled (est. gallons): —
5. Spill stopped or continuing : —-—
6. Initial beach contamination: date __— time —
7. Physical appearance of oil on beach: hard, tacky, liquid, globs (size), other
8. How is beach contaminated: —_ •
continuous film, mixed with debris or straw, puddled, other
9. Subsequent contamination: date __ time _
C. BEACH CHARACTERISTICS
10. Surface: rocky, sandy, other —
11. Surface condition: kelp, debris, litter, clean, other
12. Contaminated zone: tidal, backshore, both
13. Tidal zone: average slope (%)
14. Contaminated area (yds): length .width total (sq yds)
15, Oil penetration depth (in): maximum — average
16. Grain size (median): tidal zone — backbeach _
17. Accessibility to heavy equipment for restoration operations:
easy, possible, hazardous, can build road, impossible
18. Can beach surface support equipment mobility: yes no can't tell
Data reported by:
Submitted by;
-------
Page 2 of 5
BEACH CLEANUP
BEACH: Name
a.
Location Dates —
By Day: 1 234567
>N PROCEDURES
jsed:
a cleared
sand removed (in. )
d. EQUIPMENT:
Type, Make/Model, Size
scraper, motorgrader, front-end loader, bulldozer, other
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
Comments, Observations:
-------
Page3of5 BEACH CLEANUP
BEACH: Name Location rVilw
By Day: 1 2 3
e. MANPOWER FOR CLEANUP - EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
4
5
6
7
Equipment Operators Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Laborers Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Comments, Observations :
-------
Page 4 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
By Day: 123
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
a. Procedures used: ramp, conveyor-screening system, hauling, other
b. Hauling distance from pickup to disposal: (average)
c. Location of disposal site:
d. Number of unloading sites:
'**^"* »• I 1 N^^ V L. 1 1 1 X^ ^k w •
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
-------
Page 5 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
6y Day: 1
e. MANPOWER FOR DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Operators/Drivers Participating organizations :
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Laborers
Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
F. ABSORBENTS USED ON BEACH
Type: chemical, physical, other
Substance: straw, foam, other
Amount used (gal, bales, Ib): .
Dispersal methods:
Manpower utilized:
$ cost:
$ cost:
$ cost:
-------
page 1 of 5
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
BEACH: Name
A. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT:
Location
Dates
B. OIL CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Date and time of spill:
2. Type of oil:
3. Source:
4. Amount spilled (est. gallons):
5. Spill stopped or continuing :
Bunker C, diesel, other
tanker, pipeline, platform
6. Initial beach contamination: date time
7. Physical appearance of oil on beach: hard, tacky, liquid, globs (size), other
8. How is beach contaminated:
continuous film, mixed with debris or straw, puddled, other
9. Subsequent contamination: date time
C. BEACH CHARACTERISTICS
10. Surface:
11. Surface condition:
12. Contaminated zone:
13. Tidal zone:
14. Contaminated area (yds):
rocky, sandy, other
kelp, debris, litter, clean, other
tidal, backshore, both
average slope (%)
length width total (sq yds)
average —
backbeach
15. Oil penetration depth (in): maximum —
16. Grain size (median): tidal zone . —
17. Accessibility to heavy equipment for restoration operations: _ —
easy, possible, hazardous, can build road, impossible
18. Can beach surface support equipment mobility: yes no can e
Data reported by:
Submitted by;
-------
Page 2 of 5
BEACH CLEANUP
BEACH: Name
By Day:
D. RESTORATION PROCEDURES
a. Method used:
b. Total area cleared
c. Depth of sand removed (in.)
d. EQUIPMENT:
Type, Make/Model, Size
Location
2
Dates
scraper, motorgrader, front-end loader, bulldozer, other
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
Comments, Observations:
-------
Page 3 of 5
BEACH CLEANUP
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
By Day: 1
e. MANPOWER FOR CLEANUP - EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Superv isory
number used
hours worked
$ cost
'articipating c
rganizations:
Equipment Operators Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Laborers Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Comments, Observations :
-------
Page 4 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
1
Location
2
Dates
By Day:
E. OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
a. Procedures used: ramp, conveyor-screening system, hauling, other
b. Hauling distance from pickup to disposal: (average)
c. Location of disposal site:
d. Number of unloading sites:
e. HAULING VEHICLES:
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
-------
Page 5 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
By Day: 1
e. MANPOWER FOR DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Operators/Drivers Participating organizations :
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Laborers Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
F. ABSORBENTS USED ON BEACH
Type: chemical, physical, other
Substance: straw, foam, other
Amount used (gal, bales, Ib):
Dispersal methods:
Manpower utilized:
$ cost:
$ cost:
$ cost:
-------
Page 1 of 5
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
BEACH: Name Location Dates
A. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT:
B. OIL CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Date and time of spil I:
2. Type of oil: Bunker C, diesel, other
3. Source: tanker, pipeline, platform
4. Amount spilled (est. gallons):
5. Spill stopped or continuing :
6. Initial beach contamination: date time
7. Physical appearance of oil on beach: hard, tacky, liquid, globs (size), other
8. How is beach contaminated:
continuous film, mixed with debris or straw, puddled, other
9. Subsequent contamination: date time
C. BEACH CHARACTERISTICS
10. Surface: rocky, sandy, other
11. Surface condition: kelp, debris, litter, clean, other
12. Contaminated zone: tidal, backshore, both
13. Tidal zone: average slope (%)
14. Contaminated area (yds): length width total (sq yds)
15. Oil penetration depth (in): maximum average
16. Grain size (median): tidal zone — backbeach _
17. Accessibility to heavy equipment for restoration operations:
easy, possible, hazardous, can build road, impossible
18. Can beach surface support equipment mobility: yes no can't tell
Data reported by:
Jn
•
Submitted by; " """3Sy""™
-------
Page 2 of 5
BEACH CLEANUP
BEACH: Name
By Day:
D. RESTORATION PROCEDURES
a . Method used:
b. Total area cleared
c. Depth of sand removed (in. }
d. EQUIPMENT:
Type, Make/Mode I, Size
Location
2
Dates
scraper, motorgrader, front-end loader, bulldozer, other
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
number used
$ cost
Comments, Observations:
-------
Page 3 of 5
BEACH CLEANUP
By Day: 123
e. MANPOWER FOR CLEANUP - EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
4 5
6
7
Equipment Operators Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Laborers Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Comments, Observations :
-------
Page 4 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
By Day: 123
E. OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
a. Procedures used: ramp, conveyor-screening system, hauling, other
b. Hauling distance from pickup to disposal: (average)
c. Location of disposal site:
d. Number of unloading sites:
e. HAULING VEHICLES:
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
size (cu yd)
number used
number of trips
$ cost
-------
Page 5 of 5
OIL-SAND DISPOSAL
BEACH: Name
Location
2
Dates
By Day: 1
e. MANPOWER FOR DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
Operators/Drivers Participating organizations :
number used
hours worked
$ cost
La borers
Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
F. ABSORBENTS USED ON BEACH
Type: chemical, physical, other
Substance: straw, foam, other
Amount used (gal, bales, Ib):
Dispersal methods: .
Manpower utilized:
$ cost:
$ cost:
$ cost:
------- |