WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 15080EOS 10/70-1
Evaluation of Selected
Earthmoving Equipment for
THE RESTORATION OF
OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACHES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATE
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our nation's waters. They provide a
central source of information on the research develop-
ment and demonstration activities in the Federal Water
Quality Administration, in the U.S. Department of the
Interior, through inhouse research and grants and
contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies,
research institutions, and industrial organizations.
A triplicate abstract card sheet is included in the
report to facilitate information retrieval. Space is
provided on the card for the user's accession number
and for additional uniterms.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control
Research Reports should be directed to the Head,
Project Reports System, Planning and Resources Office,
Office of Research and Development, Department of
the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Room 1108, Washington, D.C. 20242.
-------
EVALUATION OF SELECTED BARTHMOVING
EQUIPMENT FOR THE RESTORATION
OF OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACHES
by
URS Research Company
San Mateo/ California
for the
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Program Number 15080 EOS 10/70
October* 1970
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50
-------
FWQA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Federal
Water Quality Administration and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Federal Water
Quality Administration nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
Research studies were conducted to evaluate the use of selected earth-
moving equipment in oil-contaminated beach-restoration operations and
to determine the cost and effectiveness of such equipment. Specific-
ally, the objectives were to:
• Determine modifications and cost required to improve the
capacity of selected equipment.
• Develop optimum operating procedures for each method.
• Determine, through field testing, the operating cost of
each method evaluated.
These objectives were accomplished in two phases. Phase I: reviewed
procedures utilized in previous beach-restoration operations, plus
surveyed and evaluated commercially available earthmoving equipment.
Phase II: full-scale tests to demonstrate the restoration procedures
developed and to determine the efficiency with which each procedure/
equipment item collects oil-contaminated material. The flexibility
and performance characteristics of the equipment were tested under a
variety of beach conditions.
The oil removal effectiveness was greater than 98% for all restoration
procedures. The highest effectiveness was achieved using the motorized
grader and motorized elevating scraper wor.king in combination. The
tracked front end loaders were least effective. On beaches possessing
low shear strength, flotation tires or steel-belted half-tracks on the
motorized grader and a non-self-propelled elevating scraper with a
tracked prime mover should be used. Conveyor-screening systems can
be effectively utilized to load oil-contaminated material into trucks
for transport to disposal areas, separate oil-sand pellets from clean
sand, and partially separate oil-contaminated debris (i.e., straw,
kelp, seaweed) from oil-contaminated sand.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 14-12-811
between The Federal Water Quality Administration and The URS Research
Company.
Key Words: oil spills, oil contamination, beach restoration,
earthmoving equipment, costs and effectiveness
-------
FOREWORD
This report summarizes research conducted by URS Research Company^for
the Federal Water Quality Administration, Department of the Interior,
under Contract No. 14-12-811 during the period, August 29, 1969,
through July 1, 1970. The work was performed under the direction of
Mr. Myron B Hawkins, President of URS Research Company, and Dr. Franklin
J. Agardy, Vice President and Director of the Environmental Systems
Division.
The research team was comprised as follows:
J. D. Sartor - Project Officer
C. R. Foget - Research Engineer
R. H. Black - Research Engineer
T. C. Goodale - Physical Chemist
C. A. Start - Associate Research Scientist
T. G. Farnsworth - Test Engineer
A. G. Knibbs - Test Engineer
11
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Findings
II Recommendations
III Introduction
IV Phase I evaluation Tests
V Phase II Demonstration Tests
VI Recommended Restoration Procedures
VII Acknowledgments
VIII References
IX Appendices
Page
1
5
7
11
43
85
121
123
125
iii
-------
FIGURES
Page
1 Schematic Diagram of Crude Oil Weathering 14
2 Weathered Crude Oil Water Content 15
3 Weathered Crude Oil Viscosity 16
4 Oil-Spill Test, Francis Beach, Showing Pattern 19
Which Resulted
5 Movable Test Bed 19
6 Quarter-Scale Mock-up System 20
7 Angle of Blade Versus Distance to Initial Deposit 22
in Windrow
8 San Mateo County Coastline Test Sites 25
9 Sand Classification for Francis and Tunitas Beach 26
Test Areas
10 Sand Classification for Test Area - Half Moon Bay 27
Harbor Beach
11 Motorized Grader 29
12 Motorized Elevator Scraper 29
13 Motorized Scraper 29
14 Caterpillar Model 955 Front End Loader Crawler Tractor 30
15 International Harvester Model 175B Front End Loader 30
Crawler Tractor
16 Motorized Grader Equipped with Flotation Tires 35
17 Test Area Before Removal of Straw 37
18 Test Area After Straw Removal by Motorized Elevator 37
Scraper
19 Acres Cleared vs. Haul Distance by Motorgrader and 40
Motorized Elevating Scraper Working Singly
20 Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach View Looking East
21 Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach View Looking West
22 Contour Map, Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach
4o
23 Sand Classification for Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach
Test Area
IV
-------
FIGURES (Contd)
Page
24 Skid-Mounted Oil Distributor Spreading Oil on Test Area 50
25 Oil-Contaminated Test Area 50
26 Close-up of Oil Film on Test Area 52
27 Oil-Sand Pellets Distributed Over Test Area 52
28 Rubber-Tired Front End Loader 54
29 Conveyor-Screening Plant 54
30 Non-Self-Propelled Elevating Scraper 55
31 Mulch Spreader Distributing Straw 55
32 Design and Position of Baffle Plates 70
33 Sand Baffle Mounted in Bowl of Motorized Elevating Scraper 71
34 Steel Half-Tracks Mounted on Motorized Grader 71
35 Straw Being Dispersed on Test Area by Straw Blower 73
36 Motorized Elevating Scraper Positioned on Unloading Ramp 74
Prior to Unloading
37 Conveyor System Discharging Oil-Contaminated Sand Into 74
Truck
38 Conveyor-Screening System Separating Oil-Straw Mixture 75
From Clean Sand
7 fi
39 Truck Load of Screened Sand
40 Truck Load of Oversize Beach Debris Separated from 76
Beach Sand
41 Cone Pentrometer 77
42 Obtaining Cone Index Value with Cone Petrometer 78
43 Motorized Grader Casting Second-Pass Windrow 89
44 Motorized Grader Operational Sequence Rq
45 Three-Pass Windrow Formed by Motorized Grader 90
-------
FIGURES (Contd)
Page
46 Motorized Elevating Scraper in Position to Remove Windrow 96
47 Motorized Elevating Scraper Removing Thin Film of Oil 96
48 Beach Debris Prior to Removal by Motorized Elevating 97
Scraper
49 Beach After Removal of Debris by Motorized Elevating 97
Scraper
50 Motorized Elevating Scraper Removing Oil-Straw Mixture 98
51 Test Area after Two Passes with Motorized Elevating Scraper 98
52 Motorized Elevating Scraper Making Third Pass on Test 99
Area Contaminated with Oil-Straw Mixture
53 Motorized Elevating Scraper Removing Oil-Sand Pellets 99
from Test Area
54 4-in-l Bucket in Clamshell Position 105
55 Unloading Ramp and Conveyor-Screening System 110
56 Railroad Tie Cribs 111
57 Unloading Ramp 111
58 Unloading Ramp - Construction Details 112
VI
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Kinematic Viscosity and Water Content Test Results 13
of Weathered Alaskan Crude Oil Samples
2 General Characteristics Alaskan Crude 17
3 Quarter-Scale Motorized Grader Blade - Data Summary 21
4 Results of Mechanical Analysis 23
5 Detailed Equipment Specifications - Caterpillar 12 31
6 Detailed Equipment Specifications - International 32
Harvester E-200
7 Detailed Equipment Specifications - Caterpillar 955 33
8 Detailed Equipment Specifications - International 34
Harvester 175B
9 Beach Test Conditions 35
10 Beach Restoration Procedures Evaluated in 38
Phase I Tests
11 Sand Removal During Various Beach Restoration 39
Operations
12 Acres Cleared and Hauled by Various Types and 39
Combinations of Equipment
13 Results of Mechanical Analysis - Half Moon Bay 46
Harbor
14 General Characteristics Bellridge Crude 49
15 Summary of Restoration Procedures Evaluated 53
16 Detailed Equipment Specifications - International 56
Harvester H-80
17 Detailed Equipment Specifications - Barber Greene 57
Model PS-70
18 Detailed Equipment Specifications - Johnson 58
Model - 80C
19 Detailed Equipment Specifications - Finn Mulcher 59
Model P
vii
-------
TABLES (Contd)
No. Page
20 Data Summary - Removal of Thin Film of Oil 60
21 Data Summary - Full Scale Demonstration Tests 61
22 Data Summary - Removal of Oil-Sand Pellets 62
23 Summary of Test Results - Removal of Thin Film of Oil 64
24 Summary of Test Results - Full Scale Demonstration 65
Tests
25 Summary of Test Results - Removal of Oil-Sand Pllets 66
26 Summary of Cleaning Rates 68
27 Cone Index Values 79
28 Minimum Cone Index Values 79
29 Example of Minimum Cone Index Value Calculation 80
30 Cost Summary 83
31 Recommended Restoration Procedures 86
32 Equipment Specifications: Motorized Graders 91
33 Equipment Manufacturer Designators 93
34 Equipment Specifications: Motorized Elevating 101
Scrapers
35 Equipment Specifications: Tractor-Drawn Elevating 103
Scraper
36 Equipment Specifications: Front End Loader 106
37 Equipment Specifications: Front End Loader 107
38 Equipment Specifications: Belt Loaders 1-1*
39 Nationally Averaged Rental Rates 117
40 Equipment Operator Wage Rates for Selected Cities 120
viii
-------
SECTION I
FINDINGS
Based on the efficiency with which each beach-restoration procedure
collects or spills oil-contaminated material and on the overall produc-
tion rates determined for
• Motorized graders
• Motorized elevating scrapers
• Front end loaders
• Conveyor-screening system;
utilized singly or in combination, the following findings are offered:
1. A motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper working in
combination provide the most rapid means of beach restoration when
oil penetration is limited to less than 1 in. For oil penetrations
greater than 1 in. the motorized elevating scraper operating singly
is more efficient. In addition, the use of motorized graders and
motorized elevating scrapers working in combination, results in the
removal of the smallest amount of uncontaminated beach material.
(a) The optimum moldboard (blade) angle for the motorized grader,
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 moldboard
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
problems.
(c) Kelp, seaweed and similar debris do not interfere with the
operation of either the motorized grader or motorized elevating
scraper.
(d) On beaches possessing low shear strength, both the rubber-tired
motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper may become
immobilized during the conduct of beach-restoration operations.
For such beaches, flotation tires or steel-belted half-tracks
on the motorized grader and a non-self-propelled elevating
scraper with a tracked prime mover should be used.
(e) The addition of the sand baffle plates to the motorized elevating
scraper bowl resulted in the removal of a significantly smaller
total amount of material in the course of removing a thin film
-------
of oil. This was due to a reduction in spillage around the
edges of the bowl, which eliminated the need for additional
cleanup passes -- passes which would be certain to gather
additional extraneous sand. However, when straw was utilized
as an oil absorbent, there was no significant difference in
the pickup efficiency of the baffle-equipped motorized elevating
scraper and the conventional unit.
2. The oil removal effectiveness was greater than 98% for all restoration
procedures. The highest effectiveness was achieved through the use
of the motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper working in
combination. The lowest effectiveness was obtained with the tracked
front end loader.
3. The interaction between the oil loadings employed during the test
program and the various equipment types evaluated was minimal,
i.e., the presence of the film of oil on the beach surface did not
effect the'ability of the equipment to pick up, cut, or transport
the contaminated beach material. It is believed that this finding
could be extrapolated to oil loadings several times greater.
4. Use of the cone pentrometer and the minimum cone index value for
calculating equipment trafficability factors should be a part of
the preparation of contingency plans for beach areas susceptible to
oil contamination. It must be noted, however, that due to seasonal
variations in beach composition, a beach may present a trafficable
surface during one period of the year and not during another.
5. A front end loader mounted on a crawler tractor is the most ineffi-
cient apparatus tested. In addition, more spillage occurs with its use
than with any other equipment. These results can be extrapolated
(we believe) to apply also to bulldozers. If front end loaders are
utilized, it should be in combination with motorized graders, thus
minimizing the volume of material removed and increasing the cleaning
rate.
6. A non-elevating motorized scraper will not operate efficiently on
beach areas unless a tracked prime mover is used 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.
7. 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 backshore areas.
8. Conveyor-screening systems can be effectively utilized to: (a) load
oil-contaminated material into trucks for transport to disposal areas
(b) separate oil-sand pellets from clean sand, and (c) partially '
-------
separate oil-contaminated debris (i.e., straw, kelp, seaweed) from
oil-contaminated sand.
9. The mixing action that occurred in the cutting and/or pickup of a
thin film of fresh oil and the underlying clean sand results in a
uniform oil-sand mixture. Under these conditions, it is not possi-
ble, by screening techniques, to separate oil-contaminated sand from
clean sand.
10. The cost of removing a thin film (0.5 gal/sq yd) of oil from a beach
tidal zone ranged from $108/acre (with a motorized elevating scraper
operating alone), to $1540/acre (with a tracked front end loader
operating alone). These costs are based on a haul distance (to un-
loading area) of 500 ft and average equipment rental rates.
11. To evaluate the manpower and equipment costs associated with beach
restoration operations, a review of recent oil-pollution/beach-
contamination incidents was conducted as part of this study. It
was quickly determined that there has been little to no effort
directed towards the recording of data needed to accurately determine
the cost and effectiveness of previous beach restoration operations.
Generally, only overall costs have been reported, and costs asso-
ciated with onshore operations could not be separated from the total
costs.
A set of data collection sheets has been included in this report (see
Appendix F) as an example of the forms to be used by personnel who
become involved in future oil-spill incidents.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the findings of this study, the following recommenda-
tions are offered:
1. The principal effort in this project was directed towards
examining an oil-contamination situation in which oil pene-
tration is limited to approximately 1 in. and towards the
development of operating procedures and equipment required
for the restoration of sandy beaches.
It i-s recommended that further research be undertaken to
develop beach-restoration procedures for situations in which:
(a) Shoreline areas are contaminated with light crude
oils, resulting in deaths of oil penetration
greater than several inches.
(b) Shoreline areas other than sandy beaches are con-
taminated, such as marshlands, mudflats, rocky
beaches, and riprap.
2. The ability of heavy construction equipment to operate on a
beach without becoming immobilized due to the low-bearing
strength of the beach is an important factor in the selection
of beach-restoration procedures.
It is recommended that further research be conducted to
evaluate the relationships between trafficability factors
as determined by "minimum cone index values" on a range
of beach types, and the mobility of various earthmoving
equipment.
3. The disposal of oil-contaminated materials (sand, straw,
debris) removed during beach-restoration operations consti-
tutes one of the major cost items in oil-spill cleanup. At
Santa Barbara, some 4,000 truckloads of material were trans-
ported to disposal sites up to 25 miles distant. In this
study, it was shown that screening techniques could be
utilized to separate straw, oil-sand pellets, and other
debris from sand; however, large quantities of oil-contami-
nated sand (not amenable to cleansing by screening techniques)
are produced by an oil-contamination event. Research spon-
sored by FWQA is currently evaluating techniques for the re-
moval of oil residues from sand.
-------
It is recommended that studies be undertaken to establish
the technical feasibility, including the identification
of those conditions which may possibly result in economic
benefit^ for the use of oil-spill residues (including oil-
contaminated sand) in activities such as:
• Road construction (binder material)
• Land fills
• Agriculture
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
An increasing hazard of contamination of the environment with oil has
accompanied the worldwide growth of the petroleum industry. Since 1954,
some 8,000 offshore wells have been drilled, with 8 resulting in oil
blowouts and 17 in gas blowouts, the recent Santa Barbara Channel blow-
out being the most serious. It has been predicted that if offshore deve-
lopment continues to expand at the present rate and the frequency of y
accidents remains the same, 3,000 to 5,000 wells will be drilled annually
by 1980, and we can expect to have a major pollution incident every year.
Additionally, supertankers of the future will carry much more oil than
that released by the rupture at Santa Barbara and by the grounding of
the Torrey Canyon.
The problem of beach contamination becomes severe in the case of large
accidental oil releases at sea, such as that of the Torrey Canyon and
Santa Barbara incidents. Complete removal or dispersal of the released oil
at sea in these incidents was not possible, and very large oil slicks
moved ashore, coating entire beaches up to the high-tide mark. Where oil
absorbents, such as straw, had been broadcast on the oil slick at sea, as
at Santa Barbara, the oil-soaked absorbent was also deposited on the beaches,
rocky shores, and riprap.
Once the oil comes ashore, serious economic and ecological consequences
may result. Oil contamination has an obvious adverse effect on recreational
uses of beaches. Since in many situations complete removal or dispersal
of oil before it reaches the coast will be impossible, effective beach-
restoration procedures are needed.
Previous restoration methods have used excessive amounts of labor. The
choice of a restoration method depends upon the economic and recreational
value of the area and surface conditions and topography of the shoreline.
Although various types of earthmoving, construction, and agricultural
equipment have been utilized in beach-restoration projects, the equip-
ment does not appear to have been utilized either effectively or effi-
ciently, and little has been done to mechanize or systematize beach
cleanup operations. Appendix A summarizes previous shoreline oil-pollu-
tion events and the shoreline restoration procedures utilized.
URS Research Company personnel have had extensive experience in the
development of procedures for the decontamination of beach and land
areas contaminated with radioactive fallout.^"" Although fallout does
not have the same physical characteristics as oil-contaminated sand
and debris, the requirements of complete removal of the fallout parti-
cles from beach areas pose a similar problem, i.e., removal of a thin
layer of surface.
-------
During these previous studies, the processes involved and means of
improving the performance of earthmoving equipment were investigated.
Many of these findings are applicable to the use of similar equipment for
utilization in the cleanup of oil-contaminated beaches. The possible
approaches to improving performance (and reducing cost) of selected equip-
ment include:
• Modifications to equipment, such as addition of baffles, blade
modifications, etc.
• Optimizing operational procedures, such as speed of operation,
blade angles, depth of cut.
• Changes in operational procedures, such as use of conveyor-
screening systems in combination with graders and scrapers.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research study were to evaluate the use of
selected earthmoving equipment in oil-contaminated beach-restoration
operations and to determine their cost and effectiveness in removing
oil-contaminated sand and debris. Specifically, the objectives included:
(1) Determination of modifications and cost required to improve
the capacity of the selected equipment.
(2) Develop optimum operating procedures for each method.
(3) Determine through field testing the operating cost of each
method evaluated.
SCOPE
The method and equipment selected to restore a beach contaminated with
oil will depend upon the manner in which the oil has been deposited onto
the beach and the type of beach contaminated. For the purpose of this
study, the principal effort was directed towards examining two representa-
tive situations involving oil contamination:
I. Beach material uniformly contaminated with a thin layer of oil
up to the high-tide mark and/or deposits of oil dispersed ran-
domly over the beach surface. Oil-deposit penetration is limited
to approximately 1 in.
II. 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.
In both of the stated conditions the restoration involves- (a) th
physical pickup of the deposited oil, oil-contaminated sand, straw or
other debris; (b) the separation (in some cases) of the oil-contami t d
debris from clean, loose sand; and (c) the removal of the oil-cont '
materials to a disposal site. animated
The surface conditions and topography of the beach contaminated with 'i
will dictate the choice of equipment to be utilized and the o • °
cedure to be followed. Surface conditions can vary frnm * o perftln8 Pro~
j .LJ.UUI a smooth, hard,
-------
sandy surface to rocky (shingled), irregular surfaces. The topography can
range from long flat beaches to those that are short, scalloped, steep and
undulating. The principal effort in this project was directed towards the
development of operating procedures and equipment required for the restor-
ation of sandy beaches. A discussion of several factors associated with
sandy beaches that are to be noted during the planning of beach-restoration
operations is given in Appendix B.
METHOD OF APPROACH
The objectives of this research study were accomplished in two phases,
each comprised of several tasks as follows:
PHASE I
Task I
Review existing reports on recent oil-pollution incidents and other
available information to determine:
(a) The magnitude of beach contamination (to estimate potential
material-handling load).
(b) Probable situations to be encountered (i.e., uniform or non-
uniform oil contamination, types and amounts of debris, etc.).
(c) Previous methods utilized in beach restoration operations.
(d) The range of characteristics of beach sands (particle size,
cohesiveness, materials, occurrence of rock, etc.) and beaches
(size, accessibility, etc.) of the U.S. that may be subject to
oil contamination.
Task II
Review equipment performance and develop preliminary beach-restoration
operations as follows:
(a) Survey commercially available equipment and obtain information
on pertinent performance characteristics.
(b) Review and evaluate previously used beach-restoration methods
and identify limitations of equipment utilized.
(c) Design candidate beach-restoration procedures and identify
possible limitations of equipment.
(d) Specify possible modifications to the equipment to increase
effectiveness.
Task III
Conduct preliminary evaluation tests to determine:
(a) Necessary modifications and cost of modifications to motor-
grader blades and motorized scraper hoppers to minimize
spillage.
-------
(b) Effectiveness of various screening techniques for oil-
contaminated beach material.
(c) Effectiveness of pretreatment methods to facilitate pickup
of contaminated beach material.
Task IV
(a) Preparation of a test plan for the full-scale testing of
the candidate beach-restoration methods.
(b) Preparation of a "Preliminary Manual for the Restoration
of Oil Contaminated Beaches."
(c) Preparation of a movie film documenting the Phase I effort,
PHASE II
Task I
Conduct full-scale field tests to evaluate the operating procedures and
equipment modifications selected in Phase I. Performance criteria mea-
sured for each procedure and equipment combination evaluated included:
(a) Efficiency with which each procedure/equipment collects 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 material
handled.
(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.
10
-------
SECTION IV
PHASE I EVALUATION TESTS
Full-scale evaluation tests at three beach sites along the San Mateo
County, California, coastline and laboratory tests utilizing scaled
mock-ups were conducted during Phase I to determine:
(a) Means of applying oil and oil-sand-straw mixture to beach
test areas.
(b) Performance information for the various classes of equipment
to be utilized in the beach-restoration operations.
(c) Evaluation of conveyor-screening techniques for the separation
of oil-straw-sand mixtures from clean sand.
(d) Necessary modifications to equipment to enhance performance
for beach-restoration operations.
On the basis of the analysis of previously "used cleanup methods, discussions
with equipment manufacturers, and a survey of commonly available earthmoving
construction and agricultural equipment, the following equipment .were se-
lected for evaluation in this study:
• Motorized graders
• Motorized elevating scrapers
• Front end loaders
• Conveyor-screening systems
A description of the experimental procedures and results obtained in the
Phase I evaluation tests are described in the following paragraphs.
OIL-CONTAMINATION SIMULANT
The Phase I evaluation tests and the Phase II demonstration tests require
that a "representative" oil-contamination simulant be prepared. The word
"representative" means that the simulant will produce essentially the
same conditions of contamination as an equal quantity of typical oils that
might wash ashore.
Crude oil spilled at sea undergoes changes with time generally attributed
to "weathering." This weathering effect is due to the combined influence
of sunlight, temperature, and interactions of the crude oil with seawater
and air through sea surface turbulence. The crude oil undergoes evapora-
tion and oxidation and perhaps some polymerization.
If oil is in the water for an extended period of time, an asphaltic residue
is left which may represent 15 percent of the original volume. Labora-
tory weathering tests performed by URS Research Company on Alaskan crude,
furnished by the Union Oil Co., resulted in a reduction of 5 gal. of crude
oil to a residue of less than 2 gal. after 26 days of weathering. The
tar lumps that arrive on many beaches are the result of such long-term
11
-------
weathering. The changes in composition of a heavy crude oil, typical of
that found off the coastal areas of California, is shown schematically in
Fig. 1. These processes, as described by Dennis, •*• resulted in six forms
of possible beach contaminants. Emulsions have also been added to the
schematic in view of their importance in the Torrey Canyon incident.
After a "spill" has occurred, the immediate response of the oil to the
environment is the release of its volatile components. The degree to
which these volatiles are given off largely determines in what form the
beach contaminant will arrive onshore.
The effect of weathering on a crude oil was explored in this study by
floating oil on the surface of salt water in shallow trays (20 ft long by
10 ft wide by 6 in. deep) for periods up to 26 days. Kinematic viscosity
and water content were measured on samples of the weathered crude which had
been extracted each day. The water content, given in Table 1, was mea-
sured by means of the Standard Method of Test for Water in Petroleum
Products and Other Bituminous Materials, ASTM Designation: D95-62. Water
content of the weathered crude increased with time (Fig. 2), as did the
accumulated amounts of crude oil that sank to the bottom of the sample
tanks. The increase of water content may be important in both the sinking
of the heavier components of crude at sea and the formation of water-in-
oil emulsions.
Two types of emulsions can be formed during the weathering process, namely,
oil-in-water or water-in-oil. The oil-in-water variety consists of drop-
lets of oil which become stabilized by chemical action at their surfaces
and then dispersed across large areas. Water-in-oil emulsions are formed
from droplets of water enclosed in sheaths of oil and stabilized by various
resinous and asphaltic materials natural in crude oil. The result is a
sticky viscous mass that has been referred to as "chocolate mousse."
From the standpoint of beach contamination, the tendency of oil to form
emulsions, especially water-in-oil emulsions, appears to be important
with respect to its properties as a beach contaminant. It has been
stated that the "chocolate mousse" contaminant was particularly trouble-
some during the pollution of English beaches.
The kinematic viscosity of the Alaskan crude oil samples was determined
by means of the Tentative Method of Test for Kinematic Viscosity ASTM
Designation: D445. As shown in Fig. 3 and given in Table 1 the vis-
cosity increases with increased weathering, indicating loss of the more
volative components of the crude.
The principal sources of oil which may seriously contaminate a beach
the U.S. coast are offshore drilling operations and accidental
ccenta spillas
from ocean shipping. A discussion of sources of shoreline oil 11 't-
is given in Appendix C. A survey of the types of crude most likely to°be
encountered in an oil spill along the U.S. coast revealed that th
highly variable in chemical and physical characteri
-------
Table 1
KINEMATIC VISCOSITY AND WATER CONTENT TEST RESULTS
OF WEATHERED ALASKAN CRUDE OIL SAMPLES
VISCOSITY
DAYS
WEATHERED
0
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
26
(centistrokes
at 100°F)
5.3
42.2
54.3
66.1
68.1
82.5
88.8
89.4
97.8
115.2
113.8
124.7
118.7
124.8
133.6
129.8
138.6
128.0
145 . 8
% WATER
*
.05
.05
.06
.07
.10
-07
.10
.16
.09
.28
.18
.20
.35
.50
1.90
1.51
1.11
it
Sample not tested
13
-------
of concern Current &wind
as shoreline ^ carry oil away •
oil poi iution source from shoreline
r
Oil reacts
with water.
"S P I L L"
HEAVY COASTAL and CALIFORNIA CRUDE OILS
naphthen i c-oroma ti c-aspho IH c
I
Floating oil
reaches colder
sea water
Oil-in-warer
or Water-in-oil
emulsion
"Chocolate mousse,
or sinks to bottom
Marine life, sand, Bacterial
& foreign matter action
stick to oil in water
I . I
Molecular weight increases
Oil congeals;
density increases
Evaporation of
lighter components
of oil
Carried out to sea
by bottom currents
I
Exposure of
several weeks
to a month
Physical
abrasion-friction
on ocean bottom
Remains
on bottom
Volatile
escape
(mixes with water &sand)
(mixes with water
in sand-tidal action)
Beach Face
EMULSION LIQUID FILM STICKY,
ON SAND SOFT OIL;
I SAND
(mixes with sand, COVE|£D
but not water) *
SOURCE: URS Research Company, and Dennis.
NONSTICKY, NONSTICKY; COQUINA
PUTTY-LIKE; CRACKS OIL
DOESN'T
CRACK
SOLID, NON-
WORKING
FORMS OF OIL CONTAMINATION ONSHORE
Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram of Crude Oil Weathering.
-------
4.0
Of
LLJ
u
tx.
NOTE: Alaskan crude
furnished by Union Oil Company
0 5
DAYS WEATHERED
Fig. 2. Weathered Crude Oil Water Content
15
-------
0)
o
c
0
NOTE: Alaskan crude furnished
by Union Oil Company
40
20
DAYS WEATHERED
Fig. 3. Weathered Crude Oil Viscosity
16
-------
not possible to use representatives of all crudes in the test program,
it was decided to select one or two crudes having relatively common
characteristics.
An Alaskan crude, somewhat similar to Gulf Coast offshore oils and to
Cook Inlet Alaskan crude, was selected as one of the "representative"
oils. Five hundrel gal. of this crude were made available by the Union
Oil Company. The important characteristics of the Alaskan crude are given
in Table 2.
Table 2
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
ALASKAN CRUDE
Source: Cook Inlet, Alaska (offshore)
Color: Dark green
Specific Gravity: 0.764
Gravity, °API: 53.7
Pour Point, °F: Below 5
Viscosity, Saybolt Universal at 100°F: 29 sec.
COMPONENTS % OF SAMPLE
Total gasoline and naphtha 69.0
Kerosene 10.3
Gas oil 11.2
Nonviscous lubricating distillate 3.6
Medium lubricating distillate 1.3
Sulfur 0.
Nitrogen .005
Residium 1.7
Distillation loss 2.895
Source: Bureau of Mines
To properly prepare an oil contaminant requires that its properties
duplicate the properties it would have upon floating ashore after a
spillage at sea. As presented in Fig. 1, there are several modes by
which spilled oil becomes a beach contaminant. In the absence of
established statistical data regarding the elapsed time between the
spill offshore and deposition on adjacent beaches, a weathering period
of 1 week was used as an approximate median time for the weathering of
the crude used in the Phase I evaluation tests. It was also assumed
that the crude would arrive in the form of a liquid film. A series of
weathering ponds were constructed, and Alaskan crude was floated as
slicks on shallow ponds of salt water, weathered for 1 week, and then
harvested and stockpiled for the test program.
17
-------
Various candidate oil-spreading methods were considered as techniques
that could be used to simulate crude oil washing ashore and contaminating
a beach. Methods considered included:
(a) Spill a container of water and oil onto the beach test area.
(b) Spray oil onto wet sand.
(c) Spray mixed water and oil onto wet sand.
(d) Float the oil on offshore breakers so that it washes onto
the beach.
Method (a) was selected for initial testing. The other three were
temporarily set aside because of various deficiencies, such as: the
process does not reasonably simulate the natural pollution process; the
operation was mechanically too complicated; or adequate control of the
crude oil during the simulated beach pollution would not be possible.
Method (a) however has some of the characteristics of oil washed ashore
by tidal action. The oil, floating on water, is deposited on the beach
during the action of one "wave."
The method was field-tested on a beach test area. A plywood tank, 4 ft
wide by 16 ft long by 1 ft high and lined with plastic, was placed at the
high-tide mark, and filled with seawater 3 to 5 in. deep. The 16-ft side
facing the ocean was hinged, when this side was dropped, the water in the
tank flowed down the slope of the beach for 30 to 45 ft, depending on the
depth of water in the tank and the degree of slope of the shore. Tests
were conducted using 5 gal. of aged crude oil floating in the tank, and
upon release, the oil was spread over a 300-sq ft area. Coverage was very
uniform, with the oil penetrating the sand from 1/4 to 1 in. This method
proved very satisfactory for simulating actual pollution events that
would result in uniform coverage of beach areas by a thin layer of oil.
Figure 4 shows the results of this oil-spreading technique. After re-
lease of the oil, straw or other oil adsorbers can be spread over the
resulting oil film or these materials can be added to the oil while it is
floating in the tank of water.
LABORATORY TESTS
The interactions between oil-contaminated material (i.e., sand, straw
debris) and equipment were determined in a series of scaled mock-up tests.
In these experiments, a movable test bed containing a 4-in. layer of oil-'
contaminated sand was drawn under a quarter-scale motorized grader blade
and a quarter-scale elevating system of a motorized elevating scraper
Figures 5 and 6 show the test setup.
The scaled mock-up tests of the motorized grader blade were conducted to
determine (1) the optimum angle of blade for removing and windrowing a
thin layer of sand, (2) the movement of the sand across the blade as it
is cut and cast into a windrow and (3) the interaction between oil-soakPd
straw and the grader blade. 1L soaked
18
-------
jr..
Fig. 4. Oil-Spill Test, Francis Beach, Showing
Pattern WhicL Resulted
•
Fig. 5. Movable Test Bed
19
-------
A. Scaled Motorized Grader Blade
B. Scaled Elevating Scraper
>, c
r Screening System
Fig. 6. Quarter-Scale Mock-up System
20
-------
The first series of tests performed utilized the scaled motorized grader
blade set at various angles between 40 and 60 deg from the perpendicular
to the direction of travel and with depth of cut varying between 1-3/4 in.
and 1/2 in. Colored sand was used to trace the movement of sand from the
leading edge of the blade to the resulting windrow. One group of tests
was conducted with the traced sand placed, prior to cutting, at the leading
edge of the blade; a second group of tests was conducted with traced sand
placed 1 ft ahead of the leading edge.
In all tests, the height and width of the windrow created, the depth of
cut and the distance down the windrow at which the traced sand first
appears, were measured. A summary of the measurements is given in Table 3.
Table 3
QUARTER-SCALE MOTORIZED GRADER BLADE - DATA SUMMARY
Test Blade Parameters Windrow
No.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Blade Angleb
(deg)
40
47
55
58
45
50
55
Depth of Cut
(in.)
1
1.75
1
1
0.50
0.50
1
Width of Cut
(in.)
30
27
25
25
27
27
24
Height
(in.)
3.50
4.50
3
3
3
3
3
Width
(in.)
11
12
11
10
8
8
10.50
Initial Deposit
(ft)
11
8
6
5.25
8.50
7
5.50
a. Tests 1-4 with traced sand at the leading edge of blade.
Tests 5-7 with traced sand 1 ft ahead of leading edge.
b. Angle measured from direction of travel.
Figure 7 presents the results of the two groups of tests. As indicated,
the best results were obtained when the blade angle was set between 50
and 55 deg. At these angles, the traced sand was placed in the windrow
within the shortest distance from the point at which the sand was ini-
tially picked up. At blade angles less than 50 deg, excessive buildup
21
-------
60"
55"
50
45"
40
o
5
angle measured (50 )
blade
direction
of travel
TRACER PLACED:
1 ft in front
of leading edge of blade
At edge of blade
5 6
DISTANCE (ft)
10
11
Fig. 7. Angle of Blade Versus Distance to Initial Deposit
in Windrow
22
-------
Table 4
RESULTS OF MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
(% of sample by weight)
CO
CO
BEACH
Francis Beach*
Francis Beach**
MEDIAN
SIZE
(|j) >2000
540 .4
455 .4
SIEVE SIZE (|j)
> 1168
2.4
2.2
> 701
18.2
12.2
>495
39.3
26.9
> 351
28.0
33.8
<351 > 147 < 147
11.7
24.5
> 74 < 74
Tunitas Beach,
South** 248
Tunitas Beach,
North** 205
Half Moon Bay
Harbor, West** 820
.07
.68
.76
.09 .50 7.24
20.94 37.21 9.41 6.24
90.91
90.82
14.5 11.66
7.6
Trace
1.36 Trace
* Backshore
** Tidal Zone
-------
of sand occurred on the blade, which resulted in spillage of the cut
material over the blade and around the leading edge of the blade. A
motorized grader blade is normally set between 30 and 45 deg when grading
to obtain a maximum width of cut for the movement of material. The re-
sults of the scaled mock-up tests indicated that greater angles are de-
sired for movement of sand.
To determine the interaction between oil-soaked straw and the motorized
grader blade, a test was conducted with oil-soaked straw placed on a test
bed of sand. The scaled grader blade was set at an angle of 53 deg and
at a depth of 1/2 in. As the windrow was formed, clean sand was mixed
with the oil-straw mixture and the resulting mixture moved across the
blade without adhering to the blade.
FULL-SCALE TESTS
Full-scale tests to evaluate the performance of selected earthmoving
equipment were conducted at three beach sites along the San Mateo County
coastline. The locations of these beach sites are shown in Fig. 8. The
selection of the test sites was made after considering the following
factors: (a) accessibility, (b) slope of beach, (c) sand grain size
gradation, and (d) typicality (of recreation type beaches).
For each site, the average slope of the beach in the intertidal zone was
determined. Sand samples were taken at various locations in both the inter
tidal zone and in the backshore area to establish the grain size gradation
and the sand classification for each test site. The grain size gradation
was determined by a standard sieve analysis, and the sand classification
followed that established by the U.S. Department of Soil Conservation soil
classification system. The results of the mechanical analysis are given
in Table 4. A plot of these results and the sand classification for each
test area are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
A detailed description of each of the three beach test areas follows:
• Francis State Park Beach, Half Moon Bay, California — can be
classified as a spit and baymouth bar type of beach and contains
a coarse to medium sand with a median grain size of 0.54 mm in
the backshore area and 0.45 mm in the tidal zone. The beach is
loosely packed, has very soft footing, and a tidal zone slope
of 6%.
• Tunitas Beach, San Mateo coastline - is an excellent example of
a pocket beach and contains a fine to very fine type of sand with
a median grain size of 0.25 mm in the backshore and 0.21 mm in
the tidal zone. The beach is hard packed with very firm footing
and has a tidal zone slope of 3%.
• Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach, Princeton, California - is located
behind the breakwater of the Half Moon Bay harbor and can be
classified as a spit and baymouth bar type of beach The sand
on the beach is poorly graded, varying from very coarse to very
fine grain size and has a median size of 0.82 mm in the tidal
24
-------
N
HALF MOON
BAY HARBOR
(Princeton)
01234
oc
mil
es
Fig. 8. San Mateo County Coastline Test Sites
-------
to
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
G RAVE
M
teryOarsd Caarse iMedmml Fine
S I
A V
GRAIN 3IZE IN MILLIMETERS - BUREAU OF SOILS CLASSIFICATION
OF KtSM It* men . U S. STTl
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
Fig. 9. Sand Classification for Francis and Tunitas Beach Test Area
-------
to
90
SO
7C
t-
uj
960
a
C
tf
3d
a
K
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
G RAVE L,
8
—
S8
•T'T
E$
T
B
r
9
^
-'
—
04
— r
GRAI
tmt- •
! 1
N •
1 1
tIZE IN
M
" * -•»•*••*••*'» "s
S A IM D
*ryQxrsJ Coarse 1 Medium 1 Fine N/eryFm*
ILLIMI
-HAf
"ttAR
ifacfe
1TEH
:n
JOI
sho
- '
V
—
T
' 5
i
^
\
i
V
s -
1
Of
lit
e
\
• UF
T
—
^
\
\
IEMJ
s
s.
1
e
v
•
>r s
M
1
V
1
o
'^
1
LS
;
CLA
88 E
LLL
ii*l Of OKNiMf IM iNextf l .MO. or wtsti MB <«CH . u s. sro
SIEVE AMALVSIS
SB
c
L
°5
If
8
r '
S I LT
1C*
m<
8
—
—
« 4
>M
8
,
^
g 5j
IS
8^
§
;
C LA V
1
?
§
8
—
—
I
!
i
§
1
GR»r«l SIZE IN MM.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
0
0
20
t-
UJ
4Om
IT
UJ
IP
so<
»-
o
K
UJ
a.
TO
JO
OO
Fig. 10. Sand Classification for Test Area. Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach
-------
zone. The beach has medium packed sand with medium to firm
footing and a tidal zone slope of 3%.
All three beaches are used for recreational purposes. The Francis State
Park Beach and the Princeton Beach are public beaches and offer ready
access for heavy equipment. Tunitas Beach, a private beach, is located
at the base of steep cliffs and an access road had to be constructed by
widening an existing foot path. This was accomplished in 1 day's time
with a bulldozer. These three beach test sites provided a range of
characteristics that are representative of many beaches along the U.S.
coastline.
Seventeen series of tests were conducted utilizing a motorized grader,
motorized scrapers, and front end loaders, singly and in combination. The
equipment evaluated included:
• Motorized Grader - (Fig. 11) Caterpillar Model 12, rubber tired,
12-ft blade, 115 hp.
• Motorized Elevating Scraper - (Fig. 12) International Harvester
Model E-200, rubber tired, 9-cu-yd capacity, 135 hp, two-wheel
drive.
• Motorized Scraper — (Fig. 13) Caterpillar Model 10, rubber tired,
12-cu-yd capacity, 120 hp, four-wheel drive.
• Front End Loader — (Fig. 14) Caterpillar Model 955, crawler
tractor, 4-in-l bucket, 1-3/4-cu-yd capacity, 115 hp.
• Front End Loader — (Fig. 15) 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.
Detailed specifications for each equipment item evaluated are given in
Tables 5 through 8. To improve the performance on sand, the motorized
grader was equipped with 23.5x25, 10-ply flotation tires on all four
driving wheels in place of the standard 13.00x24, 10-ply tires (see
Fig. 16). 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 2070-2970.
(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 each beach test site under
different beach conditions as indicated in Table 9. In several tests
oil was utilized in tidal zone areas, and in one instance on the backshore
28
-------
Fig. 11. Motorized Grader
Fig. 12. Motorized Elevating Scraper
'
:'£ .
Fig. 13. Motorized Scr«per
29
-------
Fig. 14. Caterpillar Model 955 Front End Loader Crawler Tractor
Fig. 15. International Harvester Model 175B Front End Loader
Crawler Tractor
30
-------
Blade
Overall
Dimensions
(in.)
Table 5
DETAILED. EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
CATERPILLAR 12
Motorized Grader
Length (ft)
Height (ft)
Height
Width
Length
12
2
125
84
322
Engine
Transmission
Shipping Wt,
(Ib)
Liquid
Capacity
(gal)
Tires
Type
Model
Rated hp
Ho. of cylinders
Displacement (cu in.)
Type
No. speeds forward
No. speeds reverse
Max. speed forward (mph)
Max. speed reverse (mph)
Diesel
D333
115
6
638
Direct drive
6
2
19.9
13.8
26,700
Fuel tank
Cooling system
Crank case
Flotation,10 ply
(4 driving wheels)
Front wheels
75
11
7.75
23.5x25
13.0x24
Source: Caterpillar No. 12F brochure
-------
Table 6
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER E-200
Motorized Elevating Scraper
Bowl
Elevator
Overall
Dimensions
(in.)
Engine
Transmission
Shipping Wt.
(Ib)
Liquid
Capacity
(gal)
Heaped Capacity (cu yd)
Cutting Edge - Width (in.)
Cutting Edge- Length (ft)
Rated Load (tons)
Length (ft)
Chain Speed (ft/min)
No. of Flights
Height
Width
Length
Type
Model
Rated hp
No. of cylinders
Displacement (cu in.)
Type
No. speeds forward
Max. speed first gear (mph)
Max. speed second gear (mph)
Max. speed reverse (mph)
Fuel tank
Hydraulic reservoir
9
13
4.5
11.25
216
14
109
96
390
Diesel
DT-361
135
6
361
Power shift,
constant mesh
4
2.72
16.6
8.4
26,200
47
31
Tires
23x25
Source: International Harvester E-200 brochure
32
-------
Table 7
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
CATERPILLAR 955
Front End Loader - Crawler
Bucket
Overall
Dimensions
(in.)
Engine
Transmission
Shipping Wt.
Liquid
Capacity
(gal)
Heaped Capacity (cu yd)
Struck Capacity (cu yd)
Width (in.)
Type
Height
Width
Length (bucket on ground)
Length (bucket in carry
position)
Track length on ground
Width of track shoe
Track gage
Type
Model
Related hp
No. of cylinders
Displacement (cu in.)
Type
No. speeds forward
No. speeds reverse
Max. speed forward (mph)
Max. speed reverse (mph)
Fuel tank
Cooling system
Crank case
1.75
1.5
80
4-in-l
84.75
75
189
85.25
15
60
Diesel
D-330
100
4
350
Power shift
4
4
4.8
6.2
25,380
60
10
5.75
Source: Construction Methods, November 1968
33
-------
Table 8
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER 175B
Front End Loader - Crawler
Bucket
Overall
Dimensions
(in.)
Engine
Transmission
Shipping Wt.
(Ib)
Liquid
Capacity
(gal)
Heaped Capacity (cu yd)
Struck Capacity (cu yd)
Width (in.)
Type
Height
Width
Length (bucket on ground)
Length (bucket in carry
position)
Track length on ground
Width of track shoe
Track gage
Type
Model
Rated hp
No. of cylinders
Displacement (cu in.)
Type
No. speeds forward
No. speeds reverse
Max. speed forward (mph)
Max. speed reverse (mph)
Fuel tank
Cooling system
Crank case
2
1.72
86
4-in-l
85
86
188
87
15
66
Diesel
DT-407
120
6
407
Power shift,
constant mesh
4
4
5.2
6.2
27,765
60
10
5.75
Source: Construction Methods, November 1968
34
-------
Fig. 16. Motorized Grader Equipped with Flotation Tires
area. The oil was spilled onto the surface by means of method (a)'
described previously (see page 17), Also, as indicated in Table 9, in
several tests the test area was covered with straw or a test area was
selected that was covered with kelp and other debris.
EQUIPMENT EVALUATED
Table 9
BEACH TEST CONDITIONS
TIDAL ZONE AREA
Without
Oil
Motorized Grader x
Motorized Elevating
Scraper x
Motorized Scraper x
Front End Loader x
Motorized Grader with
Motorized Elevating
Scraper x
Motorized Grader with
Front End Loader x
With
Oil
With
Straw
x x
With
Kelp
x
BACKSHORE AREA
Without
Oil
x
X
X
With
Oil
35
-------
Figures 17 and L8 show the Tunitas Beach test area covered with straw
before and after operations with the motorized elevator scraper. No
difficulty was experienced in removing the straw or when windrowing
the straw with a motorized grader. The straw serves as a binder and
assists in reducing spillage when making a thin cut.
The beach-restoration procedures evaluated for each piece of equipment
and combination of equipment in the Phase I tests are listed in Table
10. 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). 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
motorized grader was then operated in combination with the elevator
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. Finally,
several tests were run to determine cycle time (i.e., a complete loading
cycle, which includes loading, hauling, dumping, and return to loading
position). In some of these tests, longer test areas were used to ap-
proximate actual conditions (e.g., the scraper will normally operate
in one direction and continue loading until its capacity is reached
instead of making short, 100-ft passes). The major observations con-
cerning the testing are given in Appendix D.
One measure of efficiency is the amount of 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 listed in Appendix D. The results, given in Table 11, show that
the smallest amount of material per acre was removed with the motorized
grader and motorized elevating scraper working in combination (Restora-
tion Procedure A, Table 10). The motorized elevating scraper operating
alone was the next best procedure. The most inefficient arrangement
utilized a front end loader to scrape up and remove the material.
The range of values given is based on several tests. An important
parameter 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 dif- '
ficult for the operator to maintain a constant depth of cut.
Another measure of efficiency is the rate (hr/acre) at which beach areas
are cleared. Table 12 presents the rate of clearing for the various
pieces of equipment evaluated and combinations of equipment The cal-
culations are based on these operations in which cycle times were taken
36
-------
Fig. 17. Test Area Before Removal of Straw
Fig. 18. Test Area After Straw Removal by Motorized Elevator
Scraper
37
-------
Table 10
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
EVALUATED IN PHASE I TESTS
PROCEDURES
A. Surface layer of beach material
pushed into windrows by a motor-
ized grader for pickup and re-
moval by a motorized elevating
scraper.
B. Surface layer of beach material
pushed into windrows by a motor-
ized grader for pickup by front
end loaders and removal by trucks.
C. Surface layer of beach material
picked up by a front end loader
and removal by trucks.
D. Surface layer of beach material
scraped up for removal by a
motorized elevating scraper.
EQUIPMENT
Motorized Grader
Motorized Elevating Scraper
Motorized Grader
Front End Loader
Trucks
Front End Loader
Trucks
Motorized Elevating Scraper
The values given for each equipment item and/or combination of items
are 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 motorized grader
operating in second gear for both forward and reverse; and the front
end loader operating in first gear for scraping and second gear for
hauling and dumping).
The calculated values are based on the haul distances given in Table 12
for each operation. Increasing or decreasing these distances would
increase or decrease the rates accordingly. When a motorized grader
is used in combination with a motorized elevating scraper or front end
loader, the indicated rates may be increased by the use of additional
scrapers or front end loaders. The motorized grader is capable of pro-
ducing windrows continuously, and several motorized elevating scrapers
or front end loaders can be utilized to pick up and remove the windrows.
38
-------
Table 11
SAND REMOVAL DURING VARIOUS BEACH RESTORATION OPERATIONS
VOLUME OF SAND REMOVED
(Cu yd/acre of beach cleaned)
Motorized Grader and
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Grader and
Front End Loader
Front End Loader
Loose Sand or Firm Hard- Firm Beach With
Backshore Area Packed Beach Straw Applied @
100 Bales/Acre
130-145
300-400
70-100
200-250
300-325
180-200
800-1200
Table 12
ACRES CLEARED AND HAULED BY VARIOUS TYPES
AND COMBINATIONS OF EQUIPMENT
Motorized Grader and
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Motorized Grader 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
39
-------
As indicated in Table 12, the motorized grader/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 (hr/acre) decreases with increased haul
distance (one-way) is shown in Fig. 19 for the motorized grader/motorized
elevating scraper combination and the motorized elevating scraper work-
ing singly.
x
D
(U
o
U
Z
to
Q
_i
I>
X
0 20 40 60 80
ACRES CLEARED (hr/acre)
100
Fig. 19.
Acres Cleared vs. Haul Distance by Motorgrader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper Working Singly.
40
-------
As indicated in Table 9, tests were also conducted on backshore test
areas. On the Francis State Park Beach, where very loose dry sand was
encountered, the rubber-tired equipment (motorized grader and motorized
elevating scraper) could not operate efficiently and in several instances
became immobilized. Only the crawler-mounted front end loader could
perform. However, as indicated in Table 11, the use of a front end
loader is very inefficient in terms of the volume of material removed.
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 backshore areas.
However, as in the case a.t Santa Barbara, heavy winter storms can wash
oil onto these areas, including that beyond breakwaters.
CONVEYOR-SCREENING EVALUATION TESTS
Scaled mock-up tests were conducted to qualitatively evaluate a con-
veyor-screening system for its effectiveness in separating oil contam-
inated straw and sand from clean sand. The test "apparatus used included
the movable test bed and scaled motorized grader blade and scaled ele-
vating scraper system described previously (Figs. 5 and 6) and a 3/8-iri.
mesh wire conveyor, 4-in. wide, with 1-in. flights every 12 in.
The test bed, on which an oil-straw mixture had been placed, was pulled
under the test apparatus, where the scaled motorized grader blade (set
at a 53-deg angle perpendicular to the direction of travel) cast a
windrow in front of the scaled elevating scraper. The elevating scraper,
operating at a speed of 130 rpm and a chain speed of 85 ft/min, picked
up the windrow and deposited it into the conveyor-screening system.
The conveyor-screening system, operating at 87 rpm and 68 ft/min, dis-
charged the oil-straw-sand mixture into a hopper. The material, weighed
before and after each test, showed that approximately 57o of the oil-
soaked straw passed through the 3/8-in. mesh conveyor screen.
Transfer of oil from the oil-straw mixture to clean sand picked up in
the process was apparent. This is due to the mixing action during
formation of windrows. The quantity of clean sand contamined through
this process can be minimized by proper operating procedures while
removing the oil-contaminated material from beach areas.
A second series of tests was conducted in the same manner, except that
a 1/8-in. wire mesh conveyor screen was utilized. In this instance, no
straw passed through the screen. The conveyor-screening system was
also effective in separating agglomerated pellets of oil-sand from
clean sand.
41
-------
SECTION V
PHASE II DEMONSTRATION TESTS
Full-scale demonstration tests were conducted to evaluate the restora-
tion procedures and equipment modifications selected in the Phase I
evaluation tests. Performance criteria measured for each procedure/
equipment evaluated included:
(a) Efficiency with which each procedure/equipment item collected
or spilled 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 material
handled.
(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.
A description of the experimental procedures and results obtained in
the Phase II demonstration tests are described in the following para-
graphs .
BEACH TEST SITES
The Phase II demonstration tests were conducted at Half Moon Bay Harbor
and the Francis State Park Beach (see Fig. 8), both previously described
in Section IV. The Francis State Park Beach, which exhibits very poor
trafficability, was used to evaluate restoration procedures/equipment
designed to operate on a low-bearing sand. The majority of the Phase
II tests, however, were conducted on the Half Moon Bay Harbor beach.
Figures 20 and 21 are views of the Half Moon Bay Harbor beach at mid-
tide. Figure 22 is a contour map of the beach areas shown in Figs. 20
and 21. Sand samples were taken at several locations at the high-tide
level, low-tide level, and from the backshore, as indicated in Fig. 22.
The grain size gradation was determined in the manner described in
Section IV and the results are presented in Table 13 and plotted in
Fig. 23.
The sand on the beach is poorly graded, varying from very coarse to
very fine grain size, with the coarser sands lying at the low-tide line.
In general, the beach is characterized by a medium-packed sand with
medium to firm footing. The tidal zone slope averaged 3%, except for
a portion of the east beach area, where at low tide the exposed beach
had a slope of less than 17o.
43
-------
'~r
Fig. 20. Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach
View Looking East
Fig. 21. Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach
View Looking West
-------
UNLOADING RAMP
CONVEYOR SYSTEM
(6)SAND
^-^ SAMPLE- SITt
Pig. 22. Contour Map, Hall Moon Bay Harbor Beach
45
-------
Table 13
RESULTS OF MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - HALF MOON BAY HARBOR
(% of sample by weight)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
LOCATION
West-Backshore
West-High Tide
Line
West-Low Tide
Line
East-Backshore
East-High Tide
Line
East-Low Tide
Line
MEDIAN
SIZE
215
195
860
580
265
840
> 1168
.1
.04
34.05
26.04
24.1
31.1
> 701
.8
.03
23.79
17.1
5.4
29.9
SIEVE SIZE
> 495
2.8
.07
5.56
10.4
2.5
23.7
(u)
> 351
7.1
.75
3.44
9.4
3.3
4.7
> 147
72.9
82.12
24.92
28.9
47.7
4.7
< 147
16.3
16.99
8.24
7.8
17.0
5.9
-------
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
G RAVE U.
IMT5"
1 Medium! Fine IVeryFint
S I LT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS - BUREAU OF SOILS CLASSIFICATION
-?SS?S. J ? 8
8S
_ J
—
---
•-
8a
R
^
8
§
_.
4
A
S
- -
_.
3
s
N i
C
•
L _
|
h -
u
8
*L
l_*
§
I— •-!
__.__
. —
1 '"d
8
Y S 1
i. V
§
EE^;
—
—
—
—
i
s
0
10
m
i-
snS
UJ
S
X
40 03
o:
SoSr
o
o
SOj
o:
UJ
Q.
TO
90
JO
OO
i.lf
IM INCHES"
•no. or MESH itn IKCH. u s. sro~
SIEVE
A N A L V S I S
HYDROMETER
Fig. 23. Sand Classification for Half Moon Bay Harbor Beach Test Area
-------
CONTAMINATION AGENT
Bellridge crude, a heavy asphaltic crude from the San Joaquin Valley,
California, oil fields, was used in the Phase II demonstration tests
as the contamination agent. The important characteristics of Bellridge
crude are given in Table 14. The physical characteristics of Bellridge
crude, i.e., viscosity and degrees API gravity, are similar to those
of Bunker C fuel oils, which constitute a large percentage of oil trans-
ported by tankers along the U.S. coastline. The viscosity of Bellridge
crude is also in the same range as the weathered Alaskan crude (see
Table 3) that was utilized in the Phase I evaluation tests. The required
quantity of Bellridge crude was purchased from the Standard Oil Company
of California.
The contamination agent was dispersed onto the test area by means of a
200-gal skid-mounted tank, supporting a 16-ft spreader bar and pump
(see Fig. 24). The dispersing system was towed with either a motorized
grader or motorized elevating scraper. This dispersal method was
selected over that used in the Phase I evaluation tests because (a) a
larger oil loading could be applied onto the test area, and (b) the
time required to contaminate a large test area was considerably short-
ened.
Figure 25 shows a test area after crude oil dispersal. As shown, a
uniform film of oil resulted from this dispersal method. A close-up
of the resultant oil film is shown in Fig. 26. The depth of penetration
was limited to 1 in.; and in some tidal zone areas having a wet packed
surface, penetration was limited to 1/4 to 1/2 in.
Oil-sand pellets to simulate tar lumps that are occasionally found on
beaches were made by mixing weathered crude oil and sand and hand-
forming pellets about 1-1/2 to 2 in. in diameter.
The pellets were hardened by weathering for 5 to 10 days. The weathered
pellets were randomly distributed over the test area by hand. Figure
27 shows a test area on which the oil-sand pellets were distributed.
The quantity of crude oil distributed, weight of oil-sand pellets dis-
persed, and size of each test area contaminated were obtained for each
test conducted to provide the initial oil-contamination level (gallons
or pounds per square foot).
RESTORATION PROCEDURES EVALUATED
in
The beach-restoration procedures recommended for full-scale testing
the Phase II demonstration tests, based on the Phase I preliminary
evaluation tests, include the use of: (a) motorized graders; (b) motor-
ized elevating scrapers; (c) crawler tractor-drawn elevating scraper-
(d) front end loaders; and (e) conveyor-screening systems. A summarv of
the restoration procedures evaluated are listed in Table 15 A t t- 1 f
48
-------
Table 14
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
BELLRIDGE CRUDE
Source: San Joaquin Valley
Color: Brownish Black
Specific Gravity: 0.966
Gravity: °ApI 15.9 at 60°F
Pour Point: + 10°F
Viscosity, Saybolt Furol at 122°F: 87 Sec
Kinematic at 122°F: 183.5 Sec
COMPONENTS "L OF SAMPLE
Total Gasoline and Naphtha 4.6
Kerosene Distillate 7.4
Gas Oil 17.0
Residium 71.0
Source: Chevron Research Co.
49
-------
Fig. 24. Skid-Mounted Oil Distributor Spreading Oil on
Test Area
Fig. 25. Oil-Contaminated Test Area
50
-------
20 tests were conducted on test areas exhibiting the listed beach con-
ditions. The equipment items utilized included those evaluated
previously in the Phase I tests (see Section IV, page 37) and the
following additional equipment:
^ • Front End Loader - (Fig- 28)
International Harvester, Model H-80,
rubber tired, 3-cu-yd capacity, 225 hp.
• Portable Conveyor-Screening Plant (Fig. 29)
Barber Greene, Model PS-70, 24-in. belt,
270 tons/hr.
• Non-Self-Propelled Elevating Scraper (Fig. 30)
Johnson Mfg. Co., Model 80-C
rubber tired, 8-cu-yd capacity.
• Mulch Spreader (Fig. 31)
Finn Mulch Spreader, Model P,
10 tons/hr.
Detailed specifications for each of the equipment types evaluated in
the Phase II demonstration tests are listed in Tables 5 through 8 and
Tables 16 through 19. As indicated in Section IV, the choice of make
and model of equipment evaluated was determined only by equipment avail-
ability at time of testing and were representative of their classes.
TEST CONDITIONS AND DATA COLLECTED
The restoration procedures were evaluated for five beach conditions:
(1) Tidal zone - contaminated with a thin film of oil.
(2) Tidal zone - contaminated with an oil-straw mixture.
(3) Tidal zone - contaminated with randomly dispersed,
agglomerated oil-sand pellets.
(4) Backshore zone - contaminated with a thin film of oil.
(5) Backshore zone - contaminated with randomly dispersed,
agglomerated oil-sand pellets.
The following measurements and data were collected for each test series
conducted:
PRE-TEST CONDITIONS
(a) Quantity of contamination agent dispersed on test area.
(b) Total area contaminated.
(c) Average depth of penetration of oil.
51
-------
Fig. 26. Close-up of Oil Film on Test Area
v
'•'•" V-": \ : " -v:'-->is
"
. ..-.
'
...
-
i*
..
- _ As.
"*
Fig. 27. Oil-Sand Pellets Distributed Over Test Area
-------
Table 15
SUMMARY OF RESTORATION PROCEDURES EVALUATED
Test
Series
Restoration Procedure
Equipment
Modifications
Beach Condition
1 2345
Tidal Zone With Tidal 2one With Tidal Zone With Backshore With Backshore With
Thin Film of Oil Thin Film of Oil Oil-Sand Thin Film of Oil-Sand
Plus Straw Pellets Oil Pellets
Combination of motorized grader
and motorized elevating scraper
CO
B. Combination of motorized grader
and motorized elevating scraper
C. Combination of motorized grader
and towed elevating scraper
Sand baffles in
bowl of scraper
Half tracks on
motorized grader
B-lU>
c-i
C-l-l
B-2
-------
Fig. 28. Rubber-Tired Front End Loader
Fig. 29. Conveyor-Screening Plant
-------
Fig. 30. Non-Self-Propelled Elevating Scraper
Fig. 31. Mulch Spreader Distributing Straw
55
-------
Table 16
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER H-80
Bucket Heaped Capacity (cu yd) 3
Struck Capacity (cu yd) 2.5
Width (in.) 110
Type General Purpose
Overall Dimensions (in.)
Height 134
Width 106
Length (bucket on ground) 285
Length (bucket in carry position) 281
Wheel 117
Tire Size 23.5 x 25
Engine Type Diesel
Model DT-429
Rated HP 225
No. of cylinders 6
Displacement (cu in.) 429
Transmission Type Power Shift
Constant Mesh
No. speeds forward 3
No. speeds reverse 3
Max. speed forward (mph) 23.7
Max. speed reverse (mph) 28.4
Operating wt (Ib) 31,900
Liquid Capacity (gal)
Fuel Tank 80
Cooling System 9-1/2
Crank Case 5-3/4
56
-------
Table 17
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
BARBER GREENE MODEL PS-70
Portable Conveyor Screen
Belt Width (in.) 24
Conveyor Length c/c (ft)
Capacity (tons per hour) 270
Weight including screen and
trap (Ibs) 14,500
Engine type Gasoline
Model Wisconsin-V6-40
Rated HP 32
No. of cylinders 4
Screen
Type Single deck
Length (ft) 10
Width (in.) 42
Mesh size and 3/8" 64"
Capacity (Tph) 3/4" 96"
2" 170
57
-------
Table 18
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
JOHNSON MODEL - 80C
Self-Elevating Scraper
Non-Self-Propelled
Power Required (minimum)
Controls
Hydraulic Pump Capacity
Required
Capacity
Dimensions (overall):
Length (including tongue)
(not including tongue)
Width
Height (to top of bowl)
(to top of elevator)
Wheelbase
Width of Cut
Minimum Turning Radius
Axles:
Front (2)
Rear (2)
Bearings
Ground Clearance
Gauge:
Front (center to center
of tires)
Rear (center to center
of tires)
Tires (used airplane)
(new tires optional)
Elevator
Gear Box
Shipping Weight (approx.)
70 HP
Hydraulic
10-15
-------
Table 19
DETAILED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
FINN MULCHER MODEL P
(straw blower)
Capacity 10 ton/hr of straw
Engine HO hp
4-cycle, air-cooled
Trailer Mounted 2-wheel axle
Power Feed Chain driven
Discharge Spout 260 deg. rotation horizontally
75 deg. vertical movement
EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
(a) Equipment conditions - blade angle, operating speed, depth
of cut, elevator speed
(b) Size of windrows - length, width, depth
(c) Elapsed time for each pass
(d) Elapsed time for each loading cycle
(e) Volume of material in scraper bowl
(f) Elapsed time for each loading cycle
(g) Elapsed time for each unloading cycle
(h) Distance to unloading area
(i) Total cycle time
(j) Estimated amount of spillage
POST-TEST CONDITIONS
(a) Location and amount of contamination agent remaining on test
area (see Appendix E for laboratory procedure for oil recovery
from sand samples)
(b) Location and amount of debris, kelp, etc. remaining on test
area
59
-------
o:
O
Table 20
DATA SUMMARY
REMOVAL OF THIN FILM OF OIL
TEST
NO.
A-l
D-l
E-l
G-l
H-l
BEACH
CONDI
TION
1
1°°
!
-------
Table 21
DATA SUMMARY
(Full Scale Demonstration Tests)
TEST
NO.
E-l
B-2
E-2
BEACH
CONDI-
TION
1
2
2
EQUIPMENT
EVALUATED
Motorized Grader
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Convey or -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Grader
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Straw Blower
Conveyor -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper
Straw Blower
Convey or -Screen-
ing System
OIL CONTAMINATION
DISPERSED AREA COVERED
(gal) (sq ft)
152. f 3200
201.5 3040
190 2920
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
735
860
445
CUT
WIDTH DEPTH LENGTH
(ft) (in.) (ft)
22 1-1.5 300
35 1.5-2 220
20 1-1.5 200
TIME
OPERATION CYCLE
(min, sec)
2,17 27,27
25,10
5,30 42
26,30 26,30
VOLUME
REMOVED
(cu yd)
44.5
61
34
DISTANCE
TO UNLOAD-
ING AREA
(ft)
600
700
1000
COMMENTS
Area cleaned in two passes with motorized
grader. Resultant windrow easily picked up
by motorized elevating scraper.
Straw dispersed over oil after test area
contaminated. Conveyor-screening system
separates 75%-80% of straw picked up
from sand.
Very little spillage occurred. Straw on
test area eliminates pickup of oil on
tires .
-------
Table 22
DATA SUMMARY
(Removal of Oil-Sand Pellets)
TEST
NO.
E-3
F-3
F-5
0-3
G-5
BEACH
CONDI
TION
3
3
5
3
5
EQUIPMENT
EVALUATED
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper
Convey or -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Conveyor -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Convey or -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Grader
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Convey or -Screen-
ing System
Motorized Grader
Motorized Elevat-
ing Scraper with
sand baffles
Conveyor -Screen-
ing System
OIL CONTAMINATION
DISPERSED AREA COVERED
(gal) (sq ft)
190 2400
160 909
100 600
160 731
200 650
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
267
167
98
167
221
CUT
WIDTH DEPTH LENGTH
(ft) (in.) (ft)
20 1-1.5 120
20 1-1.5 75
17.6 2 50
20 1-1.5 75
20 1 100
TIME
OPERATION CYCLE
(min, sec)
23,15 23,15
2,41 2,41
7,31 7,31
2,27 7,12
4,45
1,31 4,56
3,25
VOLUME
REMOVED
(cu yd)
13.5
8
7
a
3.5
DISTANCE
TO UNLOAD-
ING AREA
(ft)
800
250
1750
750
800
COMMENTS
Slight spillage in side windrows formed by
scraper bowl. Conveyor -screening system
very efficient in separating oil-sand
pellets from clean sand.
Utilizing motorized grader eliminates
spillage noted in Test E-3.
ISS
-------
Still photographs and motion pictures will be taken before, during, and
after each test series to document each operation.
TEST RESULTS
The major observations and data collected during the Phase II testing
are given in Tables 20 through 22. Included are detailed data on each
test, including quantity of oil contamination; time of operation, area
cleaned; depth, width, and length of cut; material removed; and comments
on the performance of the equipment. The principal test variables
during the Phase II testing were beach conditions, equipment modifica-
tions, and equipment combinations. Specific equipment variables, such
as blade angle and operating speeds, were evaluated during the Phase I
testing, and the optimum settings determined therein were utilized in
the Phase II test program. The depth of cut was dependent upon the
depth of oil penetration in each test.
Measures of effectiveness for each restoration procedure in terms of
the total volume of sand removed per acre of beach cleaned, the cleaning
rate, the ratio of oil removed to the volume of sand removed, and the
residual amount of oil remaining on each test area after cleaning are
presented in Tables 23 through 25. The total area cleaned in each test
was usually greater than the area contaminated with oil. Thus, to
allow for comparisons between restoration procedures, the total cleared
area was assumed to be uniformly contaminated with oil at the initial
oil loadings given in Tables 23 through 25. The initial oil loadings
utilized would approximate 10,000 gal of oil deposited over 1 mile of
beach, 30 ft wide.
The interaction between the oil loadings and the various equipment
types evaluated was minimal, i.e., the presence of the film of oil on
the beach surface did not affect the ability of the equipment to pick
up, cut, or transport the contaminated beach material. The mixing
action that occurred in the cutting and/or pickup of a thin film of
oil and the underlying clean sand results in a uniform oil-sand mixture.
Under these conditions, it is not possible, by screening techniques,
to separate oil-contaminated sand from clean sand.
The experience of the equipment operator to properly operate earth-
moving equipment under the beach conditions encountered in the Phase II
tests was found to have an important influence on the volume of
material removed from each test area. The motorized grader operator
for Test A-l, A-l-1, G-l, and G-4, which were conducted in combination
with the motorized elevating scraper, experienced difficulty in main-
taining a constant depth of cut, and in most instances cut deeper than
required, thus forming large windrows. This resulted in removal of an
excessive amount of material, from the test area.
In contrast, the experienced motorized grader operator utilized during
Tests D-l and H-l, conducted in combination with front end loaders,
maintained a constant 1/2- to 1-in. cut, thereby forming smaller windrows
and minimizing the volume of material removed.
63
-------
Oi
Table 23
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
(Removal of Thin Film of Oil)
BEACH
TEST CONDI-
NO. TION
A-l 1
A-l-1 1
C-l 1
D-l 1
E-l 1
F-l 1
F-4 4
G-l 1
G-4 4
H-l 1
H-4 4
RESTORATION PROCEDURE
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
Towed Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Front End Loader mounted on
rubber tired tractor
Motorized Elevating Scraper
Motorized Elevating Scraper
Motorized Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Front End Loader mounted on
crawler tractor
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Front End Loader mounted on
crawler tractor
VOLUME
OF SAND
MODIFICATIONS REMOVED RATE
(cu yd/ (hr/
acre) acre)
None 483 3.85
None 580 2.70
None 228 7.14
None 235 5.55
None 596 4.00
Sand Baffles 305 1.10
Sand Baffles 443 2. 70
Sand Baffles 336 1. 64
Sand Baffles 394
4-1 Bucket 180 21.0
4-1- Bucket 236 37.0
INITIAL
OIL
LOADING
(gal/
sq yd)
0.48
0.57
0.83
0.45
0.83
0. 76
0, 62
0.58
0.77
0.94
OIL OIL
REMOVED RESIDUAL
(gal/ (gal/
cu yd) sq yd)
4.8 0.0013
4.7
17.1 0.0006
3.6 0.0002
13.1
8.2 o.OOl
8.8 0.0001
7.2 0.0009
21.8 0.002
19.3 0.0019
(a) Based on 500-ft distance to unloading area.
-------
Table 24
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
(Full Scale Demonstration Tests)
Cl
TEST
NO.
B-l
B-2
E-2
BEACH
CONDI-
TION
1
2
2
RESTORATION PROCEDURE
VOLUME
OF SAND
MODIFICATIONS REMOVED RATE
(a)
INITIAL
OIL
OIL
OIL
LOADING REMOVE D RE SIDUA L
(cu yd/ (hr/ (gal/ (gal/ (gal/sq yd)
acre) acre) sq yd) cu yd)
Combination of Motorized Grader Sand Baffles
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
Combination of Motorized Grader Sand Baffles
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
with straw added
Motorized Elevating Scraper
with straw added
None
297
343
377
2.56
2.78
2.44
0.43
0.60
0.58
7.05
8.4
7.6
0.0002
(a) Based on 500-ft distance to unloading area.
-------
Table 25
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
(Removal of Oil-Sand Pellets)
INITIAL
BEACH VOLUME OIL OIL OIL
TEST CONDI- OF SAND PELLET PELLETS PELLET
NO. TION RESTORATION PROCEDURE MODIFICATIONS REMOVED RATE LOADING REMOVED RESIDUAL
(cu yd/ (hr/ (lb/ (lb/ (lb/
acre) acre) sq yd) cu yd) sq yd) '"'
G-3 3 Combination of Motorized Grader Sand Baffles 260 2.32 2.0 36.5 0
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
G-5 5 Combination of Motorized Grader Sand Baffles 76 1.64 2.8 175 0
and Motorized Elevating Scraper
F-3 3 Motorized Elevating Scraper Sand Baffles 231 1.6 33 0.045
F-5 5 Motorized Elevating Scraper Sand Baffles 345 1.75 1.5 21.1 0.009
E-3 3 Motorized Elevating Scraper None 245 4.35 0.7 14.1 Q 0^5
(a) Based on 1500-ft distance to unloading area.
(b) A value of 0 indicates no oil-sand pellets remained on test area.
-------
The average depth of oil penetration on most of the tests was limited
to 1/2 to 1 in. However, varying oil penetration was noted to some
extent on most test areas. Its extent depended upon the nature of
the beach test area and the length of the interval between loading and
removal. Oil penetration greater than 1 in. usually occurred in small
areas (2 to 3 sq ft) where coarser sand had concentrated. Removal of
these lenses of oil necessitated, in some instances, additional cleanup
passes; however, they could have been easily removed manually.
In Test E-2, the test area was a hard-packed tidal flat, and oil re-
mained pooled on the surface, with little to no penetration. In Test
B-2, in an area in the upper tidal zone, oil remained on the test area
2 to 3 hours prior, to removal, and during this time, oil penetrated
2 to 3 in., thus requiring additional cleanup passes.
REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS
The oil removal effectiveness was determined by manually removing all
of the visible oil remaining on the test area subsequent to the com-
pletion of a restoration procedure and stripping the oil from the oil-
sand mixture as described in Appendix D. The residual amount of oil
for each test is given in Tables 23 through 25. The oil removal
effectiveness was greater than 987<> for all restoration procedures.
The highest effectiveness was achieved through the use of the motorized
grader and motorized elevating scraper working in combination. The
lowest effectiveness was obtained with the tracked front end loader.
The removal effectiveness for oil-sand pellets was also greater than
987». The residual oil-sand pellets on Tests F-3, F-5, and E-3 resulted
from spillage following raising of the filled bowl on the motorized
elevating scraper at the end of the test area.
CLEANING RATE
Table 26 presents .cleaning rates for each restoration procedure evalu-
ated on both tidal zone areas and backshore areas. The rates presented
for the motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper were obtained
from the full-scale demonstration tests, where the times of operation
were longer, thus more realistic than the operating times from the small-
scale tests. A major factor affecting the cleaning rate is the distance
the material picked up has to be hauled to an unloading area. During
the Phase II tests, distance to unloading areas varied from 50 to 2450
ft. To allow comparisons of cleaning rates, the rate data given in
Tables 20 through 22 were normalized to a 500-ft, one-way hauling dis-
tance for all tests.
As indicated in Table 26, there was no significant difference in clean-
ing rates between the motorized elevating scraper working singly or in
combination with the motorized grader. This is in contrast to the
results of Phase I, where the motorized elevating scraper was slower
when working singly. This disparity was due to the manner in which the
67
-------
motorized grader was operated. In Phase I, in which no oil was used,
the motorized grader made 1/2-in. cuts, thus forming windrows that were
easily picked up by the motorized elevating scraper. In Phase II, the
motorized grader maintained a depth of cut at depth of oil penetration,
which in most instances was 1 to 1-1/2 in., thus forming larger windrows
which increased the loading time for the motorized elevating scraper.
Table 26
(a)
SUMMARY OF CLEANING RATES
TIDAL ZONE BACKSHORE ZONE
(hr/acre) (hr/acre)
Combination of Motorized Grader
and Motorized Elevating Scraper 2.6-2.8
Motorized Elevating Scraper 2.4 2.7
Combination of Motorized Grader and
Front End Loader mounted on crawler
tractor 21 37
Combination of Motorized Grader and
Front End Loader mounted on rubber-
tired tractor 5.4
(a) For 500 ft distance to unloading area.
(b) Motorized Grader operated at rate of 0.25 to 0.50 hr/acre.
Under oil contamination conditions where oil penetration is greater
than 1-in., it is recommended that the motorized elevating scraper be
used singly. In instances where oil penetration is limited to 1/2 in.
such as on a firmly packed tidal flat, the use of a motorized grader
and motorized elevating scraper working in combination is recommended.
The cleaning rates for front end loaders working in combination with a
motorized grader were greater than those of the motorized grader-motor-
ized elevating scraper combination by a factor of 8 for a crawler
tractor mounted front end loader and a factor of 2 for the rubber-tired-
mounted front end loader.
The rubber-tired-mounted front end loader experienced no traction dif-
ficulties on the Half Moon Bay Harbor beach test site, and also performed
satisfactorily on the Francis State Park Beach, where other rubber-tired
equipment experienced trafficability problems.
68
-------
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
The analysis of the preliminary evaluation tests conducted in Phase I
indicated that certain modifications to equipment and operating pro-
cedures should improve their performance in removing a thin layer of
oil-contaminated sand from beach areas. These modifications in equip-
ment and operating procedures were evaluated during the Phase II testing
and included:
• Installation of sand baffle plates in the bowl of a motorized
elevating scraper.
• Installation of steel half-tracks on a motorized grader.
• Use of towed elevating scraper on low-bearing sand beach areas.
SAND BAFFLE PLATES
When utilizing the motorized elevating scraper for removing windrows or
making a thin cut, spillage occurs in the gap between the edge of the
elevator flights and the side of the bowl. In normal earth-moving
operations, this is considered slight and is ignored; however, in beach-
restoration operations this spillage would prove unacceptable. In
cooperation with the International Harvester Co., a sand baffle system
was designed to fit in the bowl of the motorized elevating scraper.
These baffle plates attach to each side of the bowl behind the elevator
flights. The design and position of the baffle plates relative to the
scraper bowl are shown in Fig. 32. As indicated, the plates are designed
to close the 12-1/2-in. gap between the end of the elevator flights and
the inside of the scraper bowl. The baffle system was prefabricated
and field-installed. The design can be adapted to fit elevator hoppers
of other makes and models. Figure 33 shows a sand baffle mounted in the
bowl of the motorized elevating scraper.
The cost of prefabrication and installation of these baffle plates is
approximately $300.
The effectiveness of the sand baffle plates in reducing spillage was
evaluated by performing tests with and without the baffle plates in-
stalled. Test results given in Table 23 for Tests E-l and F-l, and
Tests A-l and G-l show that under the same beach condition, the addition
of the baffle plates resulted in the removal of a significantly smaller
amount of material. This was due to a reduction in spillage around the
edges of the bowl, which eliminated the need for additional cleanup
passes—passes which would be certain to gather additional extraneous
sand. However, when straw was utilized as an oil absorbent, there was
no significant difference in the pickup efficiency of the baffle-equipped
motorized elevating scraper and the conventional unit.
STEEL HALF-TRACKS
The major problem in the use of the motorized grader was its inability
to maintain traction when operating on a beach of low-bearing sand.
69
-------
Bowl bottom
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
Edge of paddles
-------
Fig. 33. Sand Baffle Mounted in Bowl of Motorized Elevating
Scraper
Fig. 34. Steel Half-Tracks Mounted on Motorized
Grader
71
-------
Flotation tires on all wheels will overcome this problem on most beaches;
however, a motorized grader equipped with flotation tires became immobil-
ized on Francis State Park Beach. A set of steel half-tracks were mounted
on the motorized grader (see Fig. 34) and evaluated on Francis State
Park Beach. The addition of the steel half-tracks enabled the motorized
grader to maintain traction but the low-shearing strength of the sand
prevented proper formation of windrows. The sand would roll under the
blade or spill around the leading edge of the blade. Under such beach
conditions, a tracked front end loader or towed elevating scraper would
have to be utilized for the removal of oil-contaminated material.
TOWED ELEVATING SCRAPER
On certain beaches of low-bearing strength, the motorized elevating
scraper in its present configuration became immobilized. Under these
circumstances, a non-self-propelled elevating scraper, pulled by a
tracked bulldozer should be used.
A Johnson Model 80-C (Fig. 30), non-self-propelled elevating scraper
connected to a crawler tractor, was evaluated on the Francis State Park
Beach. This combination proved very effective in making thin cuts both
in the tidal zone and backshore area?. The use of tracked vehicles on
oil contaminated beaches, however, will result in a great amount of
spillage from oil sticking to the tracks.
STRAW REMOVAL
Straw has been the most widely used material for absorbing oil on both
water and beach areas. However, the subsequent removal of straw from
beach areas has involved the use of large amounts of manual labor.
During the Phase II tests, straw was used to cover the film of oil
dispersed during the full-scale demonstration Tests B-2 and E-2. Figure
35 shows the straw being distributed over a test area by means of a
straw blower.
The straw was effectively removed from beach areas by both the motorized
grader and motorized elevating scraper in combination and by the motor-
ized elevating scraper operating alone. The effectiveness of straw in
absorbing oil on beach areas will depend upon the time of initial con-
tact with the oil. If the oil has time to penetrate into the beach
surface, straw will not be beneficial. However, if straw is applied
very soon after the oil arrives or on oil lying in pools, it is most
effective in decreasing the amount of oil that would be picked up by
the tires of rubber-tired equipment. Additionally, as noted in the
Phase I tests, straw tends to act as a binder for sand and reduces
spillage around the edges of the bowl on the motorized elevating scraper
as it makes a thin cut or picks up windrows.
72
-------
Fig. 35. Straw Being Dispersed on Test Area by Straw Blower
UNLOADING RAMP AND CONVEYOR SYSTEM
The use of an unloading ramp-conveyor system for transfer of oil-con-
taminated material to trucks for disposal was evaluated in Phase II.
A ramp was constructed using surplus railroad ties for the main struc-
tural support and a track roadway over the conveyor bin. Figure 36
shows the motorized elevating scraper positioned on the ramp prior to
unloading. The structural framework and roadway are so designed that
they can be easily relocated. Only earth ramps at the new location
would have to be constructed.
The conveyor system installed was used to load oil-contaminated sand
directly into trucks (see Fig. 37) and, with a screening system attached,
(see Fig. 38) to separate oil-contaminated debris from the sand.
A single-deck vibrating screen was used. The screen size was determined
by type of material to be separated. For the separation of oil-contami-
nated straw or beach debris from the sand, a 2-in. mesh screen was used
at the upper end of the screen deck and a 3/4-in. mesh at the lower end.
This combination of screen sizes was found to efficiently separate all
beach debris (kelp, seaweed, rocks, etc.) from the sand and 70 to 80%
of the oil-straw mixture. When using the screening system to separate
oil-sand pellets from clean sand, the 3/4-in. screen was used at the
upper end of the screen deck and a 3/8-in. screen at the lower end.
This combination successfully separated all the oil-sand pellets from
clean sand.
-------
Fig. 36. Motorized Elevating Scraper Positioned
on Unloading Ramp Prior to Unloading
Fig. 37. Conveyor System Discharging Oil-
Contaminated Sand Into Truck
74
-------
The screening deck includes adjustable oversize and concentrating
chutes to direct the flow of oversize and screened material (see Fig.
38) .
Fig. 38. Conveyor-Screening System Separating
Oil-Straw Mixture From Clean Sand
Figure 39 shows a truck loaded with screened sand, and Fig. 40 shows
the oversize beach debris that was directed into a second truck.
TRAFFICABILITY ANALYSIS
The use of heavy construction equipment in beach-restoration operations
requires, quite obviously, that the equipment be able to operate on the
beach without becoming immobilized. From the point of view of conting-
ency planning for beach-restoration operations, it would be most bene-
ficial to be able to make predictions regarding equipment mobility for
a given beach. Therefore, a literature search was performed on the
state of the art of trafficability analysis for off-the-road vehicles.
The results of the literature search indicated that there are two
methods used in trafficability analysis of soils: the Vicksburg
method1 and the Bekker method.15 The Vicksburg method, which was
developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, is an empirical
method designed to fit the requirements of the Corps of Engineers.
The Bekker method was developed by the Army Material Command and is
a theoretical method mainly used for the development of new vehicles.
75
-------
Fig. 39. Truck Load of Screened Sand
Fig. 40. Truck Load of Oversize Beach
Debris Separated from Beach Sand
76
-------
The Bekker method requires the determination of seven variables by
means of fairly expensive and sophisticated testing equipment be-
fore the performance ability of a vehicle can be determined. The
Vicksburg method, on the other hand, employs a single value, called
the cone index value, determined by use of a cone pentrometer (see
Fig. 41). The Vicksburg testing method appeared to be the more
attractive of the two because of its simplicity, and it was used
for this test program to determine trafficability factors on the
beach test areas utilized.
Fig. 41. Cone Pentrometer
bearing and traction capacity is a
sistance of the soil.
A cone pentrometer is a
field instrument consist-
ing of a stainless steel
cone mounted on a shaft
in such a way that the
cone can be forced into
the soil surface by hand,
as shown in Fig. 42. A
proving ring and cali-
brated-dial assembly are
used to measure the load
applied. The penetration
resistance is termed the
"cone index" and is a
measure of the shearing
resistance of the soil.
The trafficability of a
soil is dependent on the
soil having adequate
bearing capacity to sup-
port the vehicle and, at
the same time, having
sufficient traction ca-
pacity for the vehicle
to develop the thrust
necessary to overcome
the rolling resistance.
The ability of a soil to
develop the required
function of the shearing re-
77
-------
Fig. 42. Obtaining Cone Index Value with Cone Pentrometer
During the Phase II test program, a cone pentrometer, and the procedures
described in Ref. 16, was utilized to obtain cone index readings on the
beach test areas. The cone index values obtained, for a depth of 6 in.,
are given in Table 27.
The very low cone index values obtained on Francis State Park Beach are
indicative of the poor trafficability encountered on this beach.
The Vickburg method uses a series of calculations empirically derived
from test programs performed by WES over a number of years in evaluating
trafficability of various vehicle-terrain systems. The method has been
proven to be reliable in 7870 of its predictions of "go," "no-go"
values for trafficability of various earthmoving equipment on coarse
grained soils (sand). The method can be used to calculate a minimum
cone index value for a given piece of earthmoving equipment on the
basis of certain equipment specifications (vehicle weight, tire size
etc.) and the tire pressure. This minimum cone index value represents
the cone index below which the equipment will become immobilized.
78
-------
Table 27
CONE INDEX VALUES
LOCATION ZONE INDEXNVALUE(a)
Half Moon Bay Harbor Backshore 69
Upper Tidal Zone 88
Lower Tidal Zone 56
Francis State Park Beach Backshore 17
Tidal Zone 23
(a) Average of 10 readings at each location.
Minimum cone index values were computed (Table 28) for the motorized
grader, motorized elevating scraper, and rubber-tired front end loadei
evaluated in this test program. Values were computed for the tire
pressures of 20 psi and 40 psi. An example of the calculational pro-
cedure for determining the minimum cone index value for the rubber-
tired front end loader is given in Table 29. Tire pressures of 40 ps
or greater are those recommended for use under normal earthmoving
operations. However, for operations in sand, lower tire pressures
are required to prevent immobilization. During this test program,
tire pressures were reduced to 20 psi on all equipment.
Table 28
MINIMUM CONE INDEX VALUES
TIRE PRESSURE
EQUIPMENT TYPE 20 Psi 40 Psi
Rubber-Tired Front End Loader 11 33
Motorized Elevating Scraper 33 93
Motorized Grader 48 12°
79
-------
Table 29
EXAMPLE OF MINIMUM CONE INDEX VALUE CALCULATION
Vehicle H-8Q Wheel-Mounted Front End Loader
Equation: Maximum towing force = 26.87 times strength factor plus 10.10
times contact area factor minus 1.52 times number of tires
powered minus 0.61 times tire pressure minus 43.82
Vehicle and Soil Characteristics
(a) Gross vehicle wt, Ib = 32,000
(b) Nominal tire width, in. =23.5
(c) Rim diameter, in. = 25
(d) Number of tires powered = 4
(e) Tire ply rating = 12
(f) Tire pressure, psi = 20
(g) Minimum cone index of 0- to 6-in. layer = Y
Factors
(h) Wheel diameter factor = 2.0 X (b)* + (c)
= 2.0 X 23.5 + 25 = 72
(i, 0=at«t (f)
/ \
/ 117 0 Y 12 \
= 0.607 X 20 + 1.35 (3.Q x 23.* + 72j - 4.
(j) Contact area factor = Log I -^-1 J = Log |
93 = 20.5
= 3.1934
(k) Strength factor = Log (g) = Log (Y)
Maximum towing force = 28.87 x (k) + 10.10 X (j) - 1.52 X (d)
- 0.61 X (f) - 43.82 = 0
= 28.87 X Log Y + 10.10 X 3.1934 - 1.52 X 4 - 0.61 x 20 - 43.82
OQ Q CI
Log Y = 2g'87 = 1.034; Y = 11 = minimum cone index value
* Letter in parentheses indicates value assigned to that factor number.
80
-------
Comparison of the minimum cone index values tabulated in Table 36 and
the cone index values measured on each beach test area shows that only
the rubber-tired front end loader would be able to operate on all
beach areas without becoming immobilized, whereas all the equipment
evaluated could operate on the Half Moon Bay Harbor each. This pre-
diction was substantiated during the test program.
This method of calculating equipment trafficability factors on a "go"
or "no go" basis within 78% accuracy should be utilized in the prepara-
tion of contingency plans for beach areas susceptible to oil contami-
nation. It must be noted, however, that due to seasonal variations
in beach composition, a beach may present a trafficable surface during
one period of the year and not during another.
BACKSHORE PROTECTION
As stated previously, procedures for minimizing the oil contamination
of backshore areas should be instituted at the first indication of a
possible shoreline-pollution event. The construction of a dike or
berm along the upper-tidal zone could assist in preventing incoming
tides from depositing oil onto backshore areas. During Phase II,
several tests were conducted utilizing a D-6 bulldozer to construct
berms in the upper-tidal zone. Berms, 6 to 7 ft wide and 2-1/2 to
3 ft high, could be constructed at the rate of 1,000 lin ft per hour.
Observations of the tidal action on the constructed berms indicated
that the berms could successfully protect backshore areas for at
least one tidal cycle and possibly two, assuming no large storm waves
or winds occur during the oil-contamination event. A trench on the
seaward side of the berm would also assist in trapping oil that comes
ashore on each wave for subsequent removal.
COST ANALYSIS
The cost per unit of oil collected, unit of beach material handled,
and area cleaned (for the removal of a thin film of oil from a beach
tidal zone) was calculated for each restoration procedure evaluated.
These costs, tabulated in Table 30, were calculated from the cleaning
rate data given in Table 26 and equipment rental rates and operator
costs presented in Tables 39 and 40 in Section VI. The cost of moving
the oil-contaminated sand to an unloading area is tabulated separately
from the cost of transporting the material to disposal sites at various
haul distances. The cost of a conveyor system to transfer material
into trucks is included in the removal costs for restoration procedures
utilizing motorized elevating scrapers. Those restoration procedures
utilizing front end loaders are assumed to unload material directly
into trucks. The beach-restoration procedures that provided the low-
est removal costs are those that utilize a motorized elevating scraper
singly or in combination with a motorized grader.
The removal cost per acre is the principal cost to be considered in
planning beach-restoration operations. The cost per gallon of oil
81
-------
removed is a function of the initial oil loading and the cost per
cubic yard removed is a function of the effectiveness of the equip-
ment in making a thin cut with a minimum of spillage. The transport
costs are a function of the amount of material removed to clean a
beach area. The higher transport costs associated with restoration
procedures utilizing front end loaders reflect the inefficiency of
front end loaders in removing oil-contaminated material. Heavier
initial oil loadings than the 0.5 gal/sq yd used in this test pro-
gram would have little to no effect on the cleaning cost per acre
if oil penetration is limited to 1 in. However, the removal cost
per gallon of oil would decrease in proportion to the increase in
oil loading.
The beach-restoration costs associated with the Santa Barbara,
California, and Grand Island, Louisiana, oil-spill incidents were
calculated from information reported in Refs. 25 and 34. The avail-
able data was inadequate for a complete cost analysis, but an ap-
proximation of the cost per acre of beach cleaned was made. At
Santa Barbara, it was stated^ that a work force of 50 men aided
by 4 front end loaders, 2 bulldozers and 10 dump trucks could clean
1 mile of beach per 8-hour day. By applying the equipment rental
rates listed on page 111 and the prevailing labor rates in the Santa
Barbara area, a cleaning cost of $325 per acre was calculated for
1 mile of beach 75 ft wide, and $500 per acre for 1 mile of beach
50 ft wide. The cost of trucks was not included since not enough
data were available on length of haul and number of trips per truck.
At Grand Isle, the restoration procedure involved the use of motor-
ized graders operating in conjunction with front end loaders (see
Restoration Procedure C, Table 31).
A work force of 1 motorized grader, 3 rubber-tired front end loaders,
and 20 men cleaned 15 miles of beach in 4 days. The cleanup cost
was calculated on the same basis used for the Santa Barbara incident.
This yielded a cost of $140 per acre for 1 mile of beach 20 ft wide,
and $170 per acre for 1 mile of beach 15 ft wide. As in the Santa
Barbara calculation, trucking costs were not included because of
insufficient data.
Comparison of these costs with those listed in Table 30 for the
beach-restoration procedures evaluated in this program shows that
the Grand Island costs are comparable to those calculated for the
motorized grader-front end loader combination. The advantages of
utilizing motorized elevating scrapers in beach-restoration opera-
tions is readily apparent when comparing the $108 per acre cost
versus $325 to $500 per acre cost incurred at Santa Barbara, where
a large amount of manual labor was utilized.
82
-------
Table 30
COST SUMMARY
(a)
(For Removal of Thin Film of Oil From Beach Tidal Zone)
(b)
Restoration Procedure
Combination of motorized grader and
9 cu yd motorized elevating scraper
with 24-in. belt conveyor system
9 cu yd motorized elevating scraper
with 24-in. belt conveyor system
Combination of motorized grader and
3 cu yd rubber tired front end loader
Combination of motorized grader and
2 cu yd tracked front end loader
Tracked front end loader
Removal Cost
/ $ \ ( $ \ ( $ \
\,cu yd/ Vgal/ Vacre/
0.37 0.05 118
0.32 0.045 108
0.75 0.07 176
2.50 0.19 450
1.92 0.64 1,540
( c)
Transport Cost '($/Acre) to
Disposal Area at
Indicated Distance
Miles
1
30
32
25
20
88
5
90
93
77
60
261
10
150
161
124
96
420
20
300
321
220
173
757
oo
w
(a) based on 60-min working hour
(b) based on initial oil loading of 0.5 gal/sq yd
(c) based on 15-cu-yd-capacity trucks
-------
SECTION VI
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PROCEDURES
The Phase I evaluation tests indicated that several restoration pro-
cedures provided considerable savings in effort and cost over methods
previously used. In Phase II, full-scale demonstration tests of each
restoration procedure were conducted to evaluate the operating pro-
cedures and modifications selected in Phase I, and to determine the
cost and effectiveness of each restoration procedure. As a result of
the tests conducted in this study, the restoration procedures'listed
in Table 31 are recommended for use in the restoration of oil-contami-
nated beaches.
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 pro-
cedures to be followed.
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 ran-
domly 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 ran-
domly 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
• Conveyor-Screening Systems
• Mulch Spreaders
• Front End Loaders
In the following sections, descriptions of each type of equipment are
given, including (a) principle of operation, (b) applicability, includ-
ing equipment modifications to improve effectiveness in restoration
procedures on oil-contaminated beaches, 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
85
-------
Table 31
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PROCEDURES
RESTORATION PROCEDURE
METHOD OF OPERATION
oo
01
A. Combination of motorized
grader and motorized ele-
vating scraper
B. Motorized elevating
scraper
C.* Combination of motorized
grader and front end
loader
D.* Front end loader
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.
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.
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.
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.
Utilize restoration procedures C and D only in instances where motorized elevating 'scrapers are
not available. Operations of front end loaders on oil-contaminated beach areas should be kept
to a minimum.
-------
utilized in construction activities. A section is included that gives
nationally averaged rental rates for the equipment recommended and
operator costs for several selected cities.
MOTORIZED GRADERS
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Motorized graders (Fig. 11) 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 deflected 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
condition of the material being moved. Under certain soil conditions,
a motorized 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.
APPLICABILITY
Motorized graders are most efficient when operating on relatively flat
areas of cohesive soil, firm but not hard, and on relatively long nar-
row 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. If oil penetration is greater than 1 in., a motorized grader
should be used only if motorized elevating scrapers are not available.
A major problem encountered with a motorized grader is its inability
to maintain traction when operating on a beach of low-bearing-strength
sand. Flotation tires, as shown in Fig. 16, on all wheels will over-
come this problem on most beaches. A set of flotation tires and rims
to fit most models and makes of motorgraders would cost approximately
$2,400.
An alternative to flotation tires is the addition of forged steel alloy
half-tracks, which would fit over the drive wheels and front wheels on
each side of the motorized grader as shown in Fig. 34. These half-
tracks are a standard shelf item and have been utilized extensively on
agricultural machinery. A set of half-tracks can be installed for
approximately $1,000.
87
-------
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Operational procedures for motorized graders conducting beach restora-
tion operations follow:
(1) Set moldboard (blade) at a 50-deg angle from the 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 first pass on oil-contaminated material
farthest inshore, casting windrow parallel to surfline.
Continue grading to end of contaminated area or approxi-
mately 200 to 300 yards In distance.
(5) Return grader to starting point by backtracking on cleaned
area.
(6) Reposition grader for second pass so as to pick up first-
pass windrow and cast second-pass windrow parallel to surf-
line (see Fig. 43).
(7) Return grader to starting point by backtracking on cleaned
area.
(8) Reposition grader for third pass so as. to cast a windrow
from surfline side onto first- and second-pass windrow, as
shown in Fig. 44. A three-pass windrow is the optimum for
pickup by a motorized elevating scraper (see Fig. 45).
Limit height of windrow to ground clearance 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 32. Equipment
manufacturer designations are given in Table 33.
88
-------
Fig. 43. Motorized Grader Casting Second-
Pass Windrow
PLAN VIEW
direction
of travel
Fig. 44. Motorized Grader Operational Sequence
-------
Fig. 45. Three-Pass Windrow Formed by Motorized
Grader
90
-------
Table 32
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: MOTORIZED GRADERS
TYPE : Wheeled, self-propelled fo operating site
Make & Mode I
CAT - 16
WABCO 888
WABCO 777
Gallon T 600
AW Super 500
WABCO 330 H
AW Super 200
CAT 12F
Gallon 104H
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)
-------
Table 32 Continued
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: MOTORIZED 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
" 666.
Net Engine
LJ D D t. *
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
to
to
-------
Table 33
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER DESIGNATORS
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.
DESIGNATION
CAT
HD or AC
Eimco
TD or IH
EUC
Michigan
Hough
LET
Pettibone
Trojan
Scoopmobile
WABCO
AW
Galion
Hancock
JD
Soilmover
Huber
CD
GM
MRS
Note: Mention of commercial products does not imply endorsement by the
Federal Water Quality Administration or URS Research Company.
93
-------
MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Motorized elevating scrapers (Fig. 12) 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, which
relies on the resistive force of the undercut material to fill the
hopper.
APPLICABILITY
Motorized elevating scrapers are most effective in clearing large,
relatively flat areas; however, they can operate on sloped beaches.
The motorized elevating scraper is the most efficient type of equip-
ment 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 trac-
tors .
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:
(1) Use of a non-self-propelled elevating scraper (see Table 35),
pulled by a tracked bulldozer, as shown in Fig. 30. 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.
When utilizing the motorized elevating scraper for removing windrows
or making a thin cut, major spillage occurs in the gap between the
edge of the elevator flights and the side of the bowl. Under normal
earthmoving operations, this is considered slight and is ignored;
however, in beach-restoration operations, this spillage would prove
unacceptable. In cooperation with the International Harvester Co.,
a sand baffle system has been designed to fit in the back of the
motorized elevating scraper. These baffle plates attach to each side
of the bowl behind the elevator flights. The design and position of
the baffle plates relative to the scraper bowl are shown in Fig. 32.
As indicated, the plates are designed to close the 12-1/2-in. gap
between the end of the elevator flights and the inside of the scraper
94
-------
bowl. The baffle system can be prefabricated and field-installed The
design can be adapted to fit elevator hoppers of other makes and models.
Figure 33 shows the baffle plates installed in the motorized elevating
scraper evaluated in this study.
The cost of prefabrication and installation of these baffle plates was
approximately $300.
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 to straddle the windrow formed
after two or three passes by the motorized grader (see
Fig. 46). Lower cutting edge of bowl to cut to depth of
oil penetration (1/2 in.).
(2) Operate the scraper in first gear (low range) and pick up
windrow until bowl has filled up. When bowl is full, stop
scraper and pick up bowl, keeping elevator flights moving.
(3) Stop elevator flights and proceed to unloading area.
• Operating singly
(1) Commence operations on oil-contaminated material farthest
inshore. Operate parallel to surfline. (See Fig. 47).
(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 48 and 49 show the results of picking
up beach debris, and Figs. 50, 51 and 52 show the results
of removing straw from a test area. Figure 53 shows the
elevating scraper removing oil-sand pellets from a test
area.
(3) Operate scraper in first gear (low range).
(4) Length of pass dependent upon size of scraper bowl. When
bowl is full, stop scraper and pick up bowl, keeping ele-
vator flights moving.
(5) Stop elevator flights and proceed to unloading area.
Note: Rate of operation for one elevating scraper is 45 min to
1 hr/acre when removing windrows and 1 hr/acre when oper-
ating singly. Rates are based on a haul distance of 200
ft (see Fig. 19). Table 34 lists the specifications of
the motorized elevating scraper. Table 35 presents a simi-
lar listing for the crawler tractor-drawn elevating scrapers.
95
-------
Fig. 46. Motorized Elevating Scraper
in Position to Remove Windrow
Fig. 47. Motorized Elevating Scraper Removing Thin
Film of Oil
96
-------
Fig. 48. Beach Debris Prior to Removal by Motorized
Elevating Scraper
Fig. 49.
Beach After Removal of Debris by Motorized
Elevating Scraper
97
-------
Fig. 50. Motorized Elevating Scraper Removing Oil-Straw Mixture
Fig. 51. Test Area after Two Passes with Motorized Elevating Scraper
-------
Fig. 52. Motorized Elevating Scraper Making Third Pass on
Test Area Contaminated with Oil-Straw Mixture
•T> ->>-. -•• v^p1
•.« ' ' . •-*--•
'
-------
Table 34
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
TYPE: See below
Make & Model
SELF-PROPELLED
to Operating Site
IH - E 200
IH - E 211
CAT - 613
GM 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
[155
1 206
225
200
[202
\172
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
.35
.35
.35
.35
.3
.34
.36
.37
.37
.36
.40
.45
.45
.50
.50
Maintenance Requirements
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fue
(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 34 Continued
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: MOTORIZED ELEVATING SCRAPERS
TYPE: See below
Make & Model
(continued)
TRANSPORTATION REQUIRED
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 Z22-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
\475
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maint. &
Repair
.45
.55
.4
.46
.53
.41
.43
.46
.49
.45
.53
.8
Maintenance Requirements
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fuel
(g° U
13.7
16.2
10.8
14.0
16.1
11
12.6
14.0
15.1
13.7
16.1
32.2
Lube
db)
.65
.75
.56
.65
.74
.57
.60
.65
.68
.65
.74
1.48
Oil
(gal)
.32
.36
.27
.33
.36
.27
.30
.33
.34
.32
.36
.72
o
to
-------
Table 35
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: TR AC 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)
"8
1
i
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 Fue
(gal)
Lube
(Ib)
Oil
(gal)
o
00
-------
FRONT END LOADERS
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Front end loaders are designed for digging, loading, and limited trans-
port of material. The front loader (bucket) may be carried by any type
of tractor, crawler tractor (Fig. 15), or four-wheel-drive or two-
wheel-drive rubber-tired tractors (Fig. 28). 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 loading
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
into trucks material from stockpiles or from windrows formed by motor-
ized graders. 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 re-
moving large quantities of oil-contaminated debris, such as kelp,
driftwood, etc. Slot buckets would allow loose sand to fall away
through the slots.
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Operational procedures for front end loaders working singly or in com-
bination 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. 54).
(2) Operate tractor in first gear while loading.
(3) To minimize spillage while scraping, fill bucket only
1/3-1/2 full.
104
-------
(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 36 presents specifications of rubber-tired and self-propelled
front end loaders. Table 37 presents specifications of the crawler
front end loader .
Fig. 54. 4-in-l Bucket in Clamshell Position
105
-------
Table 36
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)
_w
-Q
5
"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
Ma int. &
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 A Lube Reqmrs.
(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
db)
.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 37
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
HP Rating
100
115
120
150
154
160
170
185
218
254
Weight
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 -
chain
speed
(ft/mm)
D
"8
"a.
1
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
J
Fuel, Oil & Lube Reqmts.
(per hour
of equipment operation)
Diesel Fue
(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. 55, should be
considered as a method of transferring beach material picked up by
motorized elevating scrapers directly into trucks or onto 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
A,000 truckloads 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
operating area to the unloading area is a factor that has to be con-
sidered in locating such a facility.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
A typical ramp system, such as that shown in Fig. 55, consists of two
cribs constructed of railroad ties, placed on either side of a pit
excavated to receive the hopper of the conveyor system. The cribs are
then backfilled with material (soil, sand, gravel) and ramps constructed.
The ramps and cribs contain approximately 100 cu yd of material, which
may be found on site or brought in. Figure 56 shows the cribs in
position and Fig. 57 shows the completed ramp prior to placement of the
conveyor system.
Railroad ties are placed across the top of the crib and spiked down
with timber spikes. Railroad rails are used to bridge the opening
between the cribs and are welded to bearing plates bolted to each
crib. Figure 58 shows the construction details for a typical unloading
ramp installation.
Table 38 lists the specifications of suitable conveyors. A screening
system can be attached to the discharge end of the conveyor system, if
required.
Factors that would influence the selections of the conveyor-screening
system and design of the unloading ramp include:
• Conveyor capacity - estimated volume of material per hour
that will be produced by beach-restoration procedures.
108
-------
Conveyor length - height above ground required to load trucks,
Hopper capacity - hopper should have sufficient capacity to
receive total load of largest elevator scraper utilized.
Screening system - condition of material removed by beach-
restoration procedures, e.g., oil-sand mixture, oil-sand-
straw mixture, debris, and oil-sand pellets.
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.
Ramp opening - length of bowl opening of largest elevating
scraper utilized.
109
-------
Fig. 55. Unloading Ramp and Conveyor-Screening System
-------
Fig. 56. Railroad Tie Cribs
Fig. 57. Unloading Ramp.
Ill
-------
PUN VIEW
5-6
Fig. 58. Unloading Ramp - Construction Details
112
-------
Figure 58b
CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR UNLOADING RAMP
(l) Drift bolts, 1/2" x 6' countersunk below top of crib, one at each corner
of crib.
Timber spikes, 3/8" x 10"
Railroad ties, 6" x 8" x 8' or equivalent, with holes for drift bolts drilled
near ends.
( 4j Backfill cribs and construct earth ramps with on-site material if suitable.
Approximately 100 cu.yd. fill required for ramps and backfill.
Top layer laid in except for tie proximal to ramp, which is spiked in place.
Plywood, 4' x 8' x 1"
7) Sections of railroad tie, approx. 6" long, wedged in place.
•-^_*/
(IT) Steel bearing plates, 8 each - 2' x 3' x 1/2", spiked or lag bolted in place.
Railroad tracks, 100 Ib/ft, welded to bearing plates.
Excavate as required for conveyor system.
113
-------
Table 38
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS: BELT LOADERS
Type: Wheel, transportation required to operating site
Make and Model
Barber-Greene PL-90
Hewitt-Nobins-450
Ko-Cal
Ko-Cal
Ko-Cal
Ko-Cal
Ko-Ca.l
Ko-Cal
Ko-Cal
Kolberg
Kolberg
Kolberg
Kolberg
Pioneer
4845-R
4860-R
4845-S
4860-5
4860- S
3650
4250
348-50
448-60
1136-50
1148-50
4841
Net Engine Weight Capacity
HP Rating including cu yds/hr
attachments
(tons)
130
170
105
154
105
154
154
70
97
130
154
70
130
100
24
28.5
19
25.5
24
29
29
11.5
13
24.5
30
9.5
15
45.5
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 Requirements
Fuel,
, Oil, Lube
(man hrs/hr of equipment operations) (per hour of equip.
Equipment
Operator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maintenance and
Repair
.26
.28
.22
.30
.22
.30
.30
.2
.22
.26
.30
.2
.26
.22
Diesel
Fuel
(gal)
5
7
5
6
5
6
6
4
4
5
6
4
5
4
.6
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.6
'5
.0
.6
.5
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
-------
MULCH SPREADERS
(Straw Blowers)
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Mulch spreaders (Fig. 31) are designed specifically for the fast dis-
tribution of mulch materials to assist in the control of soil erosion.
They are equipped with a discharge spout designed to move a full 360
deg horizontally and 75 deg vertically, thus allowing the operator to
spread the mulching material without repositioning the mulcher. The
unit is trailer mounted and requires towing.
APPLICABILITY
Straw has been the most widely used material for absorbing oil, on both
water and on beach areas. The use of mulch spreaders (straw blowers)
for the rapid dispersal of straw is recommended for use on oil contami-
nated beach areas where oil has not penetrated into the beach.
On beach areas, the straw blower requires a four-wheel-drive vehicle
or a tracked vehicle for towing purposes. A platform for the handling
of straw, such as a trailer, is also required.
EQUIPMENT AND OPERATOR COSTS
Nationally averaged rental rates for the equipment recommended for use
in beach restoration operations are given in Table 39. 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 the daily rate for each hour in
excess of 8. If it is rented by the week, the rate for overtime is
1/40 the weekly rate for each hour in excess of 40. If it is rented
by the month, the overtime rate is 1/176 the monthly rate for each hour
in excess of 176 in any one 30-consecutive-day period.
Operator costs are tabulated in Table 40 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
115
-------
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 Ibs $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, California.
116
-------
Table 39
NATIONALLY AVERAGED RENTAL RATES
(Excluding Costs of Operator and Fuel)
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
*
*
117
-------
Table 39 (Contd)
NATIONALLY AVERAGED RENTAL RATES
(Excluding Costs of Operator and Fuel)
Rated
(cu
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
capacity r u^^h per Week
yd)
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
2-3/2
2-3/4
3
3-1/2
4-1/2
5
6
2
2-1/2
2-3/4
3
3-1/2
4
4-1/2
5
6
10
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
Diesel 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
*
Continued
118
-------
Table 39 (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.
119
-------
Table 40
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR WAGE RATES FOR SELECTED CITIES
($/hr + fringe benefits. As of June 1, 1970)
Classification
City
Atlanta
Baltimore
Birmingham
Boston
Dallas
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Tractor/F.
5
5
4
6
5
6
5
7
6
6
6
.35+
.22+
.70+
.94+
.80+
.41+1
.75+
.10+1
.25+
.66+1
.93+
E. Loader Motorized
Scraper
.30
.50
.20
.59
.35
.20
.25
.70
.56
.45
.70
5.
5.
4.
6.
5.
6.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
35+
67+
70+
94+
80+
41+1
75+
37+
25+
66+1
87+
.30
.50
.20
.59
.35
.20
.25
.99
.56
.45
.70
Motorized
Grader
4
5
4
6
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
.85+
.67+
.70+
.94+
.80+
.51+1
.75+
.05+
.88+
.40+1
.82+
.30
.50
.20
.59
.35
.20
.25
.96
.56
.45
.70
Truck Driver
3.50
3.25+
4.70+
5.15+
6.31+1
4.80
4.99+1
4.32 +
6.58+1
6.60+
.23
.20
.45
,20
.29
.49
.43
.72
Source: Engineering News-Record, 5/28/70
120
-------
SECTION VII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgment must be given to the outstanding cooperation
and assistance provided by: The State of California Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation for their permission to utilize
the beach test areas along the San Mateo County coast; the
San Mateo County Harbor Commission for their permission to
utilize the beach test areas within the Half Moon Bay Harbor
breakwater; the Union Oil a.nd Standard Oil Companies for
providing the necessary crude oil for the test program.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and guidance
given by personnel from the Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration, specifically, Mr. Gerald L. Burke, who served
as Project Monitor, and Mr. Harold Bernard and Mr. Ralph
L. Rhodes of the Agricultural and Marine Pollution Control
Branch.
121
-------
SECTION VIII
REFERENCES
l' Review of the Santa Barbara Channel Oil Pollution Incident. Water
Pollution Control Research Series, DAST 20, July 1969
2. Offshore Mineral Resources. Second Report of the President's Panel
on Oil Spills, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science
and Technology, 1969
3- The Torrey Canyon, Report of the Committee of Scientists on the
Scientific and Technological Aspects of the Torrey Canyon Disaster,
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, England, 1967
4. Earl, J. R., and.J. D. Sartor, Report of L_and_ Reclamation Tests,
U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, San Francisco,
California (AD-332E), March 1952
5. Earl, J. R. and J. D. Sartor, Report of Land Reclamation Tests
Conducted During Operation JANGLE, WT-400, February 1952
6. Sartor, J. D., H. B. Curtis, H. Lee, and W. L. Owen, Cost and
Effectiveness ofDecontaminationL Procedures for Land Targets,
STONEMAN I, U. S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, USNRDL-
TR-196, December 27, 1957
7. Lee, H., J. D. Sartor, and W. H. Van Horn, STONEMAN II, Testof
Reclamation procedures, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory,
USNRDL-TR-337, January 12, 1959
8. Owen, W. L., and J. D. Sartor, Radiological Recovery of Land Target
Components - Complex I and Complex II, U.S. Naval Radiological
Defense Laboratory, USNRDL-TR-570, May 25, 1962
9. Owen, W. L., and J. D. Sartor, Radiological Recovery of Land Target
Components - Complex III, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory,
USNRDL-TR-700, November 20, 1963
10. Pilpel, N., "The Natural Fate of Oil on the Sea," Endeavor, January
1969
11. Dennis, J. V., Oil Pollution Survey of the U.S. Atlantic Coast,
American Petroleum Institute, Division of Transportation, Washington,
D.C., May 1959
12. Smith, J. W., "The Torrey Canyon Disaster," British Association for
the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Leeds, England, Septem-
ber 6, 1967
123
-------
13. ASTM Standards, Part II, 1964
L4. Army Corps of Engineers, Pilot Study, Tests on Coarse Grained Soils,
Tech. Memo, No. 3-240-13, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, 1955
15. Bekker, M. G., Introduction to Terrain Vehicle Systems. University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969
16. Liston, R. A., et al., Mobility Environmental Research Study,
Mobility Testing Procedures, Report No. 3-153, U.S. Army Material
Command, February 1966
17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES Technical Manual 3-240, 17th
Supplement
18. Letter to Carl R. Foget, URS Research Company, from Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi,
dated March 25, 1970
19. Beynon, L. R., "Torrey Canyon Disaster: Part I," Oil and Gas
International, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1968, p. 52
20. Gill, C., F. Booker, and T. Soper, The Wreck of the Torrey Canyon,
Davis and Charles, New York, 1967
21. Ambrose, H. A., Oil Pollution of Seas, Coasts, and Harbors, Gulf
Research and Development Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
September 1, 1967
22. Department of Public Works, The Ocean Eagle Incident. Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, April 1968
23. Degler, S. E. (Ed.), Oil Pollution: Problems and Policies, Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1969
24. Dalton, T. F.., "Handling Major Oil Spills at Sea," Journal of
National Association of Power Engineers, February 1968, pp. 8-10
25. Gaines, T. H., Oil Pollution Control - Santa Barbara. California,
Union Oil Company of California, 1969
26. The Santa Barbara Channel Oil Pollution Incident - On Scene Com-
mander's Report, U.S. Coast Guard, January 1969
27. "More Oil Disasters Predicted Offshore," President's Panel on Oil
Pollution from the Washington Post as reported in the San Jose
News, October 1969
28. Oakley, D., "Oil Seepage Tarnished Industry's Image," Redwood City
Tribune, November 6, 1969, p. 17
124
-------
29. Witwater Tanker Casualty - Republic of Panama. Report Draft,
Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C., undated
30.
Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 68, No. 23, June 8, L970
31. Clark, R. B., "Organization Against Oil," New Scientist. Vol. 43
No. 668, September 25, 1969, pp. 658-660 ~
32. Smithsonian Institute, Center for Short-Lived Phenomena, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Event 15-70, 1970
33. Oil and Gas Journal, February 1970
34. Humble Oil News Letter, February 1970
35. San Jose Mercury, February 16, 1970
36. New York Times, February 16, 1970
37. Life, Vol. 68, No. 8, March 6, 1970
38. Smith, J. W., Recommended Methods for Dealing with Oil Pollution,
Warren Springs Laboratory, England, June 1968
39. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Combating Pollution Created by Oil Spills,
Vol. 1: Methods Report to the Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard, June 30, 1969
40. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Shore Protection
Planning and Design, TR No. 4, 3rd Edition, Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1966
41. Bascom, W., Waves and Beaches: the Dynamics of the Ocean Surface,
Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., Inc., New York, 1964
42. A Report to the President, A Report on Pollution of the Nation's
Waters by Oil and Other Hazardous Substances, by the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation, Washington, D.C.,
February 1968
43. Hilderbrand, H. H. , and G. Gunter, A Report on the Deposition of
Petroleum Tars and Asphalt on the Beaches of the Northern Gulf of
Mexico with Notes on the Beach Conditions and Associated Biota,
Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, Port Aransas,
Texas, January 10, 1953
44. Mertz, R. C., Quantity of Oil Substances on Beaches and in Near
Shore Water, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, Engineering
Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California,
Publication No. 21, State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento
California, March 1969
125
-------
45. The Petroleum Publishing Company, International Petroleum Encyclo-
pedia 1969, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1968
46. U.S. Coast Guard, Sunken Tanker Project Report, 1967
47. Water Pollution - 1969 (Part II), Hearings before the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, Washington, D.C., May 19, 1969
126
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDICES
Page
A Shoreline Oil Pollution Events
B Beach Characteristics
C Sources of Shoreline Oil Pollution 141
D Detailed Test Data of Phase I Preliminary 145
Evaluation Tests
E Design of Laboratory Apparatus for Leaching Oil 155
From Contaminated Beach Sand for Analytical Purposes
F Documentation of Beach Restoration Operations: 161
Proposed Data Requirements
TABLES
A-l Beach Oil-Pollution Occurrences 130
A-2 Quantities of Emulsifier-Solvent Mixtures Used 131
During the Torrey Canyon Emergency
C-l Oil Movements to Major U.S. Ports 144
D~1 Data Summary 146-lf
thru
D-8
FIGURES
A-l Beach Cleanup Cost Analysis 135
B-l Relationship Between Sand Size and Beach Face Slope 137
at the Mid-Tide Zone on Exposed Beaches
B-2 Longshore or Lateral Movement of Littoral Drift 138
C-l Offshore Oil Production Operations 143
D-l Block Diagram of Batch Leaching Process 156
D-2 Modification of Cement Mixer for Use as Solvent 159
Contactor
127
-------
APPENDIX A
SHORELINE OIL POLLUTION EVENTS
A review of existing reports on recent oil-pollution incidents result-
ing in beach contamination was conducted to determine:
(a) The magnitude of beach contamination.
(b) Clean-up procedures utilized to restore the contaminated
beach areas.
(c) Costs (manpower and equipment) associated with the clean-
up operations.
In addition, persons from organizations that had participated in the
cleanup of the beaches at Santa Barbara were interviewed to obtain
information pertinent to beach-restoration operations. It was very
quickly determined that there was insufficient information to accurately
determine the cost and effectiveness of previous beach-restoration
operations.
The most prominent recent oil-pollution events resulting in beach con-
tamination are those involving the groundings of the tankers, Torrey
Canyon and Ocean Eagle, and the rupture at the Santa Barbara offshore
oil well. Some of the more significant information from these and
five other beach-pollution events are summarized in Table A-l. Addi-
tional information on these incidents can be found in the references
listed in Table A-l. These three prominent crude oil spills resulted
in the pollution of important recreational beaches. They were also
given notoriety through the news media, so that great public pressure
was brought to bear demanding immediate and massive cleanup efforts.
A brief description of these three major incidents follows:
TORREY CANYON
The SS Torrey Canyon ran aground on the Seven Stones rocks, approximately
16 miles west of the southwestern tip of England. At the time of
grounding, she was carrying 119,000 tons of Kuwait crude oil. Crude
oil began leaking from the day of stranding, March 18, 1967, and con-
tinued until the ship was destroyed by bombing on March 29 and 30, 1967.
The first oil carried to English beaches on March 25, 8 days after the
grounding. Oil reached the coast of Guernsey on April 6 and first
reached the shores of Brittany on April 9 and was still coming ashore
on April 28. Other offshore islands were also polluted.
A massive effort was made to contain the oil or destroy it at the ship.
Petroleum-based detergents were used to dissipate the oil just before
it arrived at the beaches or after it was on the beaches. Table 2
shows the quantities of emulsifier-solvent mixtures used during the
129
-------
Table A-l
BEACH OIL-POLLUTION OCCURRENCES
CO
EVENT
Date
Oil type and
amount spilled
(gal)
Clean-up costs
Weathering time
Appearance
Miles of beach
contaminated
Depth of pene-
tration of
sand beach
Notes
TORRE Y CANYON
GROUNDED
S.W. ENGLAND
-18 Mar 67
Kuwait crude
ISxlO6 of the
36xl06 cargo
$7.2xl06
1 week
ffater-in-oll
emulsion
75-175
12 in. deep
(Whitesand Bay)
oily layer
10 in.
Wreck occurred
15 miles from
Lands End
OCEAN EAGLE
GROUNDED
SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
3 Mar 68
Venezuelan crude
3.5xl06 of
5.6xl06 cargo
$700,000
1-2 days
Black paraffin-
like
5-25
12 in. deep
(San Juan Bay)
oily layer
6 in.
Grounded 300 yd
north of harbor
entrance
OFFSHORE WELL
A -21 (TRACT 4O2)
BLOWOUT
SANTA BARBARA
28 Jan 69
Summerland
2.106 at
21,000/day, then
2 , 100/day
$4.62xl06
(to Jun 69)
8 days +
Greenish black,
asphaltic
50
1 in, deep
(oily layers
2 to 4 in.)
Well is 5,5
miles offshore
WITWATER
HULL FAILURE
LOS MINOS BAY,
CANAL ZONE
13 Dec 68
Bunker C
125xl03
Diesel
SOxlO3
2-3 days
Water-oil
emulsion
Extensive
(coral reefs) .
Broke up 3.5
miles east of
Panama Canal
Harbor break-
water
HAMILTON TRADER
COLLISION
WALES
30 Apr 69
Fuel Oil
200xl03
2 weeks
Semi -hardened
patches or
lumps
40^50
Collision with
other vessel
in Liverpool
Bay
ARROW
GROUNDED
NOVA SCOTIA
4 Feb 70
Bunker C
8.4xl05
3-4 days
Heavy, very
tar-like
80
Went aground
on Cerberus
Rock in
Chedabucto Bay
GRAND ISLE,
LOU I SANA
(Unknown source)
25 Jun 70
Unknown
Oily
emulsion
7-15
1 in. layer
Source of
contamination
unknown
DELIAN APOLLON
GROUNDED
ST. PETERSBURG,
FLORIDA
13 Feb 70
Bunker C
5-10xl03
$2x106
Suit filed
2-3 days
Heavy, black
sticky
~ 20
1/2-in. layer
Run aground in
Tampa Bay Ship'
ping Channel
References
3,13,19,20,21 22,23,24
1,25,26,27,28
29,30
31
32,33
33,34
33,35,36,37
-------
Table A-2
QUANTITIES OF EMULSIFER-SOLVENT MIXTURES USED
DURING THE TORREY CANYON EMERGENCY3
(Up to 6 April 1967)
MAKE PROPORTION* ATOMATIC*
EMULSIFIER CONTENT
AMOUNT ISSUED
(Thousand gallons*)
TOTAL
I
-------
Torrey Canyon emergency. The greatest quantity was used on the oil
after it came ashore.
Beach restoration methods utilized during the Torrey Canyon incident
fell into three main groups: (a) dispersing the oil by spraying with
emulsifier dissolved in solvent (detergent); (b) burning the oil,
either in situs or after collecting it in heaps; and (c) physical
removal of the oil or oil-contaminated sand.
DISPERSAL BY DETERGENT
38
On the basis of studies conducted by the Warren Springs Laboratory,
a volume of detergent equal to some 25% of the total volume of the oil
deposited was applied to the contaminated beaches by spraying. The
final step in this cleaning procedure was a liberal hosing down with
water or flushing by the incoming tide. This method was found to be
satisfactory during the early stages when the oil was coming ashore
as a relatively thin fluid. Later when oil was washed ashore as a
heavy water-in-oil emulsion (containing up to 80% water), detergents
did not work satisfactorily.
It was noted that when detergents were used to clean heavily contamin-
ated beaches, some of the emulsion sank deeply into the beach, forming
a quicksand. The movement of sand and pebbles also covered up lumps
of oily sludge which reappeared later as a result of the natural move-
ment of the sands by tidal action.
BURNING
The major portion of beach contamination consisted of weathered oil,
i.e., oil that had lost its more volatile fractions and had formed a
water-in-oil emulsion. This contaminant proved extremely difficult to
burn.
The most successful results were obtained when the .emulsion was first
broken down with detergent and the released oil then heated and burned.
Some pools of oil were ignited by means of a flame-thrower or by pouring
a solvent into the pool, mixing, and lighting. It was concluded that
burning was too expensive and inefficient.
PHYSICAL REMOVAL
Many parts of the English coast were not accessible to wheeled vehicles
and it was rarely possible to physically remove the oil. In some areas,
however, conventional sewage tanker trucks were used to suck up pools
of oil from coves and beaches. Bulldozers were used in a few instances
to push the oil-contaminated sand into the ocean or to turn over that
which had been treated with detergents.
On the north coast of Brittany, the oil was reported to have sunk into
the sand to a depth of about 4 to 6 in. Bulldozers were used to remove
132
-------
the oil-contaminated sand by pushing it into the sea. In one instance,
two four-wheel-drive motorized elevator scrapers were used to pick up
the oil-contaminated sand and haul it to a nearby area for use as fill
material. No data on rates or costs of operating this heavy equipment
were reported.
OCEAN EAGLE
The oil tanker, Ocean Eagle, ran aground in the mouth of San Juan Bay
on March 3, 1968. The ship broke in half, spilling approximately 3-1/2
million gal. of oil. Half of this oil went inside of the bay and half
went to the coastal side of Puerto Rico. The north-bay shore of San
Juan was polluted with the crude oil, as were several miles of beaches
along the "Gold Coast," an important tourist area of Puerto Rico. An
estimated 25 miles of beaches were polluted. Emulsifiers were spread
around the wreck for 4 days in order to dissipate the crude oil. After
this time, Ekoperl 33, a hydrophobic absorbent powder, was used to
absorb the petroleum floating in the water. The mixture of Ekoperl and
oil was then collected as it arrived on shore.
Booms and other barriers were found to be ineffective in keeping oil
off the beaches. Strong wave action and the relative fragility of the
boom and barriers limited their effectiveness.
The crude oil that reached the beach zone outside of San Juan Bay coated
the sand and rocky coasts with a thin layer of black, aromatic, paraffin-
like substance that had lost most of the volatile fraction. The princi-
pal restoration effort involved physical removal of the contaminated
oil-sand mixture. . A labor force of 270 men worked 10 to 12 hours a day,
manually raking and scraping the contaminated sand into piles on the
beach, where front end loaders placed the material into dump trucks for
removal to a disposal site.
In some areas, where detergents were used to disperse the oil close to
shore, a "quicksand" condition resulted, requiring the removal of sand
to a depth of several feet, and its replacement by sand from other
beaches.
In some cases, crude oil accumulated to a thickness ..of 6 in. Restora-
tion of these beaches involved the removal of the sand to a depth of
several feet and its replacement by clean sand.
SANTA BARBARA
On January 28, 1969, during and following normal well-drilling opera-
tions at Union Oil Company's Platform A in federal waters off the coast
of Santa Barbara, California, oil and gas erupted from the ocean floor.
The platform is located about 5 miles offshore.
The first contamination of beaches with oil occurred during a storm on
the 4th'and 5th of February. Approximately 30 to 50 miles of beach were
eventually polluted with oil.
133
-------
The priorities established for the cleanup of the coastline were as
follows: (1) marinas, (2) public beaches, (3) less accessible public
beaches, (4) private beaches, and (5) breakwater and rock riprap.
Beach restoration was generally accomplished by spreading straw on the
deposited oil, collecting the oily mixture, and hauling it to disposal
sites. Collection of the oily straw was primarily accomplished manually,
raking the straw into piles and loading the mixture into dump trucks
with front end loaders. Under these circumstances, according to T. H.
Gaines,25 50 men aided by 4 front end loaders, 2 bulldozers, and 10
dump trucks could clean 1 mile of beach per 8-hour day. .
Straw was spread on the beaches, in the tidal zone, both,before and
after the oil reached the shore. Straw mulchers* were found to be
very effective in rapidly dispersing straw. No effective way was found
for picking up the straw. A motorgrader was equipped with a row of
tines attached to the moldboard and was used to rake up the straw.
This proved to be ineffective and resulted in the burial of a major
portion of the oil-contaminated mixture of straw and sand.
Burning of the oil-soaked straw on the beaches generally was ineffec-
tive and was suspended in some areas because of air pollution regula-
tions.
On one beach area in which oil had been mixed into the sand to a depth
of several feet during loading operations with a crawler tractor-
mounted front end loader, bulldozers were utilized to push the oil-
contaminated sand into the surf.**
Oil that came ashore on the sand spit at the Santa Barbara Harbor
entrance was subsequently covered with fresh uncontaminated sand as
a result of the along-shore movement of beach material in this region.
It has' been reported*** that heavy waves and storms during the winter
of 1969-70 uncovered oil buried in several locations during the
February, 1969, operations.
The total work force involved in the restoration of the Santa Barbara
beaches, in oil containment and removal of oil from harbor and off-
shore waters, numbered some 1,000 men. A supervisory force of 36 men
utilizing a radio network was required to coordinate this massive
operation. Some 3,000 tons of straw were dispersed over the contamin-
ated beaches and on offshore waters. A total of 125 pieces of mechani-
cal equipment, 54 boats of all types, and 18,900 ft of booms were utilized.
* Powered straw blowers normally used for spreading straw on highway
cuts and fills to prevent soil erosion.
** Private communication, Park Superintendent, City of Santa Barbara.
*** private communication, U.S. Coast Guard, Santa Barbara, California.
134
-------
$8.80
(J
Q.
C
o
u 0
\ ( Depends upon estimate of
\ amount of oil)
\
I
I03 10"
Oil Spill Size (gal)
SOURCE: • A.D.Little, Inc.
• URS Research Company calculations
Fig. A-l. Beach Cleanup Cost Analysis
Torre y
Canyon
135
-------
BEACH RESTORATION COSTS
Detailed information on the cost and effort (manpower and equipment)
utilized in previous beach-restoration operations has not been dis-
covered and probably does not exist. Generally, only overall costs
have been reported. Thus the costs associated with onshore operations
cannot be separated from the total costs. The results of a cost
analysis by Arthur D. Little, Inc.^9 are shown graphically in Fig.
A-l. Maximum and minimum cost ($/gal.) are given for cleanup of oil
spills ranging from 10^ to 10? gal. Included are data points for the
Torrey Canyon, Ocean Eagle, and Santa Barbara incidents. For these
incidents, reported costs as well as theestimates of amount of oil
spilled were found to vary. Maximum and minimum cleanup costs for
each incident were calculated.
The Santa Barbara cleanup costs per gallon of oil are shown to be
considerably higher than those of the Torrey Canyon and Ocean Eagle
incidents. Several reasons may account for this: (1) the flow rate
of oil was underestimated, (2) the flow rate continued over a period
of several months, necessitating repetitive cleanup of beaches, and
(3) the removal of some 3,000 tons of storm debris (unrelated to the
spill) added to the overall costs.
136
-------
APPENDIX B
BEACH CHARACTERISTICS
Two factors important to the operation of heavy equipment on beaches
are the slope of the beach and particle size distribution of the sand
grains, since both affect the trafficability of equipment.
The relationship between sand grain diameter and the slope of a beach
face for an exposed beach is shown in Fig. B-l. This relationship is
valid only for a relatively static beach face. The size of the sand
grains on a beach also vary across a beach. The grain size of sand
decreases generally along the beach profile as the water depth increases
until depths are reached at which normal wave currents do not contact
bottom and are incapable of moving bed material. The coarse material
is usually found in the tidal zone seaward to the vicinity of the plunge
point of waves.
The slope of the beach would be less steep for an eroding beach and
steeper for a beach that is growing. In addition, the slope of a beach
face is influenced by protection from wave action.
Medium diameter
of sand (mm)
f.
2
-
"ti
.
ftlQ^
im,
"n
1/5 1/10 1/20
Slope of beach face
1/50 1/100
Fig. B-l. Relationship Between Sand Size and Beach Face
Slope at the Mid-Tide Zone on Exposed Beaches
41
Waves that do not strike a beach face perpendicularly will cause littoral
transport and a drift of littoral material. Figure B-2 is a plan view
illustrating the lateral movement of sand along a beach. It is this
action that results in the development of sand spits such as the one
formed in the Santa Barbara Harbor and those down the Oregon coast. The
littoral drift is also sometimes responsible for the permanent loss of
sand from beaches whose source of supply has declined.
137
-------
PLAN VIEW
Back shore
Crest of berm
r.
rt
Still water line
t
Path of sand grains Material placed in suspension by breakers
f \ is moved laterally by the longshore current
^* ^
A
Longshore current: Direction of wave-Induced
current in the surf zone
\
Path of sand grains
outside surf zone
Bed load moves up or down coast in a zigzag pattern.
Movement in all three zones illustrated is in a direction and at a rate
dependent on the longshore component of wave energy.
SOURCE: Ref. 41.
Fig. B-2. Longshore or Lateral Movement of Littoral Drift
Oil pollution upon a beach may alter the balance of the beach face. In
the Torrey Canyon incident, oil-contaminated beaches which were treated
with detergent eroded faster than those beaches not treated. Further,
it may influence the rate of littoral drift. Similarly, deposits of oil
can be covered by sand that drifts from a clean area. Or, as seen in
Santa Barbara, old oil deposits can become uncovered and cause a nuisance,
either where they had been originally deposited or by drifting to pre-
viously clean beaches. Essentially no quantitative information is avail-
able on these effects.
138
-------
BEACH USAGE AND ACCESSIBILITY
The two most important uses of beaches are recreation and commercial
fishing. Oil pollution has a different effect on each. A light
amount of oil pollution on a beach, such as that resulting from off-
shore seeps, probably has little or no effect on marine life or on
commercial fishing. The deposits from these seeps, however, represent
a continuing nuisance to recreational users of the beach. According
to Dennis, 5 oz or more of oil pollutants per 100-ft stretch of beach
is likely to seriously inconvenience bathers and beach users. On the
other hand, a sudden heavy deposit of oil will interrupt the recrea-
tional use of the beach for the duration of the polluting event plus
the interval required to clean the beach. Such a serious spill on a
major recreational area, such as Long Island or Los Angeles, could
result in millions of dollars lost through decreased use by recreation-
al visitors alone. Such a polluting event could have effects on
marine life and could upset the ecological balance.
Beaches of high recreational value are usually readily accessible to
vehicular traffic. Many of the California pocket beaches, however,
have parking lots above the cliffs and only foot trails leading to
the beaches. Generally, those beaches having high value can be
assumed to have relatively good accessibility to motorized vehicles.
If required, adequate accessibility to most beaches for the movement
of beach-restoration equipment can be provided in a very short time
by the construction of temporary roads or by the use of landing mats
to traverse very loose dry sandy areas.
139
-------
APPENDIX C
SOURCES OF SHORELINE OIL POLLUTION
The major sources of shoreline oil pollution include:
• Petroleum seepages from natural sources.
• Sudden and uncontrolled discharges from offshore oil
production or transfer facilities.
• Oil releases from ocean shipping, accidentally or
during cleaning and flushing of oil tanks at sea.
• Spillage from onshore and harbor facilities.
Of these sources, the natural seepages and those associated with
spillage from onshore harbor or at-sea cleaning of oil tanks represent
a chronic or continuing pollution problem, while the sudden and uncon-
trolled releases from offshore oil production facilities or from
accidents involving oil tankers represent acute, relatively short-
lived sources of shoreline oil pollution.
NATURAL SEEPAGES
Natural seepages of oil substances (sometimes called tarry materials)
are a common occurrence along the Gulf Coast and a portion of the
California coast. Hilderbrand and Gunter surveyed the Gulf Coast
for oily deposits on the beach and identified many offshore seepages.
The greatest concentration of oil substances on California beaches,
according to Mertz,^ appears to be in the vicinity of Coal Oil Point,
just a few miles west of Santa Barbara. Other areas are in the vicinity
of Redondo Beach. These deposits are attributed by Mertz to nearby
underwater oil seeps. Mertz notes that the quantity of oily deposits
varies considerably from day-to-day at any one location and varies from
north to south. Factors that may be of importance are the season,
tide, temperature, and wind. The nature and location of natural oil
seeps in Santa Barbara Channel are under study at the present time by
the Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California.
OFFSHORE OIL PRODUCTION FACILITIES
The drilling of offshore oil wells represents the largest threat to
adjacent coastlines. As stated previously, some 8,000 offshore wells
have been drilled since 1954, with 8 of them involved in oil blowouts
and 17 in gas blowouts. The Santa Barbara incident was the most serious.
Figure C-l shows the locations of offshore oil production sites that
are presently in operation and concession sites that have been approved
or are pending. As seen, present sites are concentrated off the
southern California coastline, off the Texas-Louisiana coastline, and
in Cook Inlet, Alaska. However, drilling sites are projected for the
141
-------
northeastern coastline. Other statistical data relative to offshore
oil wells as a source of oil pollution are summarized in a report on
O
pollution to the President.
OCEAN SHIPPING
The shipping of petroleum products and crude oil by tankers is increas-
ing rapidly, and the present trend is toward the use of very large
ships. By the end of 1975, Petroleum Economics Limited^-* estimates
that 475 tankers having 100,000 dead weight tons or more capacity each,
will constitute over half the world's tanker fleet (the Torrey Canyon,
for instance, was 118,000 DWT). Ships as large as 300,000 DWT are now
under construction.^
The tankers being designed and built have much larger capacities than
today's average operating tanker. However, the crew size of these
large tankers will be approximately the same as today's smaller tankers.
The large, low-powered super tankers have enormous momentum. They
require an estimated 10 miles to stop from full speed if engines are
shut off, and they require 3 miles to stop if engines are reversed.
Due to conditions of size, momentum, and vulnerability, the probability
of a heavy oil escape from a tanker accident is very real. World oil
movements of importance to the continental United States are summarized
in Table C-l.
World War II tankers sunk off the east coast of the United States repre-
sent a pollution source somewhat similar to natural seepages. The U.S.
Coast Guard has surveyed the area where these tankers were sunk and
examined selected tankers. Their report^ indicates that the World
War II sunken tankers are not a significant source of oil pollution
to the American coastline.
ONSHORE AND HARBOR FACILITIES
Principal sources of oil pollution from onshore and harbor facilities
include: (a) spillage of oil during loading and unloading operations;
(b) leaky barges, oil storage tanks and pipelines; (c) spillage from
various shore installations, refineries, railroads, and various indus-
trial plants. This source of oil pollution is a chronic one that has
already destroyed the usefulness of some recreational beaches near
large shipping ports and near large refineries. These sources of
pollution will probably become less important on an absolute scale as
a result of technological improvements, legislative action, and more
intensive operator training. Oil-pollution incidents in harbors
caused by shipping accidents or the breaking of submarine oil piplines
have not proved to be a serious contributor to the oil-pollution problem.
142
-------
• Oil production (or discovered)
Gas production (or discovered)
• New concessions
a New concessions pending
* Geophysical survey
* Future geophysical survey
000 Active offshore drilling rigs
o Future drilling
SOURCE: Oil & Gas Journal, May 12, 1969.
Fig. C-l. Offshore Oil Production Operations
143
-------
Table C-l
OIL MOVEMENTS TO MAJOR U.S. PORTS
TO WEST COAST U.S. FROM MILLION METRIC TONS
(Per Year)
Latin America 3
Gulf Coast 3
Near East 10
Far East 3
TO EAST COAST U.S. FROM
, .. . I 22 to New England
Latin America < „, „ , to
\ 84 to South
Gulf Coast 88
Near East 10
Africa I I to Northeast
{ 5 to South
North Africa 3 to South
Source: International Petroleum Encyclopedia,1969, p. 8
144
-------
APPENDIX D
DETAILED TEST DATA OF
PHASE I PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TESTS
The following tables summarize data taken while evaluating equipment
during the Phase I preliminary evaluation tests on the various beaches.
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 appli-
cable, and comments on the performance of the equipment.
145
-------
BEACH: TUNITAS
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
Table D-l
DATA SUMMARY
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
OPERATION
Three passes over 100r
X301 test area with
different blade angle
each pass. l" and |"
depths of cut.
Three passes over 100T
X30* area. Blade angle
(6O°). Large windrow.
l" depth of cut.
Three passes over 100'
X30' area. Blade angle
(50°). Large windrow.
1* depth of cut.
ANGLE
(deg)
40
50
55
60
60
60
50
50
50
CUT
WIDTH DEPTH TIME
(in.) (sec)
9' 5" 1 30
8' 7" 1 30
7' 2" 0.5 30
6' 8" 1 27
S'll" 1 ,27
6'10" 1 27
16' 5" 1
8" 6" 1 30
8' 6" 1 27
8' 6" !. 27
MAIN WINDROW AREA
HEIGHT WIDTH CLEANED
(in.) (sq yd)
8.5 21 4" 104
8 2' 6" 95
7 I'll" 80
6.5 1' 9" 74
10 2' 8" 77
15 3' 6" 76
183
6 2' 5" 94
18 3' 94
18 4 ' 94
VOLUME
REMOVED
(cu yd)
2.9
2.6
1. 1
2.06
2.14
2. 1
5. I
2.6
2.6
2.6
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 build up caused
major spillage at leading edge on
last 30' of run.
Almost no leading edge spillage.
Sand build up but no excessive
spillage.
TOTAL
20'10"
-------
Table D-2
DATA SUMMARY
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
TEST NO.
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 100r
X30' area. Various
cutting depths.
Four passes at various
depths of cut (1 to 4")
picked up kelp, debris
and sand
CUT
LENGTH WIDTH
(ft)
100 8' 2"
100 7'll"
90 8'
96 20' 3"
106 8'
180 8'
158 8'
160 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
COMMENTS
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 D-3
DATA SUMMARY
oo
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
.E-l-1
E-l-2
E-l-3
E-l-4
Three passes over 100*
x30' area with motor-
grader forming one large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by elevating
scraper.
15 "6"
EQOI.-ML:,
DEPTH
(in.)
1
1
1
TIME
(sec)
25
20
20
TYPE
Mot or -
grader
Motor -
grader
Motor -
grader
HEIG/HT
(in.)
7
8
9
WID1
(in.
20
31
40
13
)
MAIN WINDROW AREA VOLUME
Windrow formed by motorgrader
picked up by scraper worked well.
Scraper took cut deeper than 2' and
some spillage occurred on edges of
scraper bowl.
Scraper
8.1 3.4
G-3
G-4
Three passes over 100*
x3O' area with motor-
grader forming one larg
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by front end
loader
Motor-
grader
Mot or -
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 D-4
DATA SUMMARY
BE&CH: TUNXTAS
Beach Condition: Tidal zone, wet, hard-packed, fine-grained sand
Equipment: IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date: November 19, 1969
CD
H-l-l
*i
H-l-2
*3
H-l-3
L-l-1
L-l-2
L-l-3
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
(It)
100
250
250
100
100
100
CUT
DEPTH WIDTH
(in.)
2.5 21'3"
2 20'6"
1.5 27'
1.5 8'
1 8'
1 4'6"
TOTAL TIME
FOR
OPERATION
(min)
4:20
6:50
4:50
0:25
0:20
0:20
GEAR
1st
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
SPEED
PER PASS
AVG
(mph)
-
3.4
4.6
2.7
3.4
3.4
AREA
CLEANED
(sq yd)
236
569
750
88.6
88.6
50
VOLUME
REMOVES
CALC
(cu yd)
16.3
31.3
30.7
3.7
2.5
1.4
SAND REMOVED
(sq yd
/min)
54.5
83.3
155.2
_
-
_
(cu yd
/min)
3.8
4.6
6.4
_
-
_
Difficulty in controlling the cut
and spillage in second gear. Bet-
ter control in first gear with
less spillage.
Little difficulty picking up sand-
straw combination. Straw appears
to cut down spillage when scraper
is operating- and when bawl is
raised and closed.
TOTAL
* No dumping in between 100-yd passes,
** 100 ft to dump
-------
Table D-5
DATA SUMMARY
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
cu
o
J-l-1
J-l-2
J-l-3
J-l-4
J-l-5
J-l-6
J-l-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 100f
X30' area with motor-
grader forming large
windrow. Windrow re-
moved by elevating
scraper. Area covered
with straw.
EQUIPMENT
Motor -
grader
Elevat ing
Scraper
Mot or -
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 M"
120 3 '6"
120
100 8'
100 8'
100 8'
27'
70 4 '8"
30
DEPTH* GEAR
(in.)
1 2nd
22 1st
0.5 1st
10 1st
0.5 3rd
10 2nd
1 2nd
1 2nd
1 2nd
1
23 1st
1st
FOR
OPERATIC
(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
TOTAL TIME SPEED
PER PASS AREA
AVG CLEANED SAND REMOVED
(mph) (sq yd) (cu yd) (sq yd (cu yd
/min) /min)
4.1
3.0
3.4
3.6
2.2
1.4
622
72
622
44
674
46.6
674
2.5
2.5
2.5
8.3
6.6
5.0
226
232
267
281
COMMENTS
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 D-6
DATA SUMMARY
BEACH: HALF MOON BAY HARBOR
Beach Condition; Backshore are
Equipment: CAT 12 Motorgrader,
CAT 10 Motorized Scraper,
IH E-200 Motorized Elevating Scraper
Date: November 24, 1969, "»l" Tests
November 25, 1969, "o" Tests
loosely packed, coarse-grained sand
CJ1
OPERATION
Three passes over 100'
x30' area with motor-
grader forming: one
large windrow. Wind-
row removed by eleva-
ting scraper.
Motorized elevating
scraper and motorized
scraper making one pass
for comparison of
operation.
EQUIPMENT
TYPE
Motor-
grader
Elevating
Scraper
LENGTH
(ft)
100
100
CUT
WIDTH
(ft)
27.2
S
MAIN WINDROW
DEPTH
(in.)
1
1.5
WIDTH
(ft)
3
HEIGHT
(in.)
6
SINGLE
•PASS
AVO
(sec)
18
30
CYCLE
(min)
1:15
SPEED
SINGLE
. PASS
(mph)
3.8
2.3
AREA
CLEANEP
(sq yd)
300
VOLUME
REMOVED
(cu yd)
8.3
Motorized
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
S.5
47,2
89
4.6
8,6
On soft sand, great degree of
spillage around grader leading
edge and scraper bowl.
The motorized scraper operated
for 50', picked up 4 cu yd of
sand and became immobilized.
The motorized elevating scraper
had no difficulty.
-------
Table D-7
DATA SUMMAPV
BEACH: HALF MOON 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, V Teats
November 25, 1969, "o" Tests
CO
TEST NO.
M-2-1
M-2-1
TOTAL
0-1-4
OPERATION
Three passes over 100*
x30' area with motor-
grader forming one
large windrow. Wind-
row removed by eleva-
ting scraper
Motorized elevating
scraper picking up
kelp along surf line
Motorized elevating
scraper and motorized
scraper making one
pass for comparison.
EQUIPMENT
Motor -
grader
Elevating
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
Motorized
Scraper
Elevating
Scraper
LENGTH
(ft)
100
100
100
200
290
60
190
CUT
WIDTH
(ft)
27
8
27
8
8
8.5
8
DEPTH
(in.)
O.xS
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
0.5
MAIN WINDROW
WIDTH HEIGHT
(ft) (in.)
3.3 9
51
74
2.7
2.7
178
258
87.4 1.2
2.5 209 2.9
3.6 209 2.9
4,7 142 11.7
2.4 225 3.2
COMMENTS
Much less spillage from
motorgrader and elevating
scraper on firma sand.
Motorized elevating
scraper had no difficulty
picking up kelp and sea-
weed.
The inotoriaed scraper
operated for 60' and be-
came immobilized. Ele-
vator scraper had no
difficulty operating.
-------
Table D-8
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
TEST
NO.
G3
BEACH CONDITION
A-2 Front End Loader used as Backshore area.
bulldozer to scrape oil-
contaminated sand into
pile. Then used as load-
er to haul material to
disposal area.
Front End Loader using
bucket as scraper re-
moving oil-contaminated
sand to disposal area.
Motorgrader scraping
oil-contaminated sand
into windrow. Elevating
scraper removing windrow
to disposal area.
WIDTH
(ft)
OIL SPREAD DATA
DEPTH of
LENGTH PENETRATION
(ft) (in.)
AREA
COVERED
APPROX
(sq yd)
TOTAL
T:ME FOR
REMOVAL
(min)
TOTAL
AREA
CLEANED
Csq yd)
SAND REMOVED
(cu yd) (sq yd
/min)
12
Dry, loosely-
packed , coarse-
grained sand.
Tidal zone, wet, 16
loos ely-packed,
coarse-grained
sand
Tidal zone, wet, 16
firm-packed,
medium-grained
sand.
1.2
0.9
COMMENTS
Difficulty in adjusting depth of
cut; more sand moved than necessary.
Spillage excessive around blade
edges
4-in-l bucket as scraper and loader
made deeper cut than necessary.
Tracks of vehicle tore up beach con-
siderably, pushed surface layer of
contaminated oil deeper into beach.
Overall operation of grader/scraper
combination effective. Front wheels
of motorgrader pressed thin layer of
oil-contaminated sand deeper into
beach. Minimum amount of clean sand
was removed compared to the front end
loader when tested under similar cir-
cumstances.
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN OF LABORATORY APPARATUS FOR LEACHING OIL FROM
CONTAMINATED BEACH SAND FOR ANALYTICAL PURPOSES
An apparatus for use in the laboratory to quantitatively remove and
recover the oil contained as oil contaminant in samples of beach sand
up to about 100 Ib in weight, or about 3/4 cu ft in volume, was con-
structed. It was decided that the leaching should be done as a batch
process.
In the batchwise leaching process, the solvent and material being
leached are brought together for an appropriate time, after which the
solvent is drained off and the process repeated. In each leaching
cycle, an amount of solvent must be added to fill the void spaces of
the sample, since otherwise some parts of the interior of the sample
will not be reached by solvent, and hence not leached in that cycle.
It was determined experimentally that an amount of carbon tetrachloride,
as solvent, equal to about one-third the volume of sand is needed to
fill the void spaces of the sand being used if the sand is dry. About
0.25 cu ft of carbon tetrachloride will be required for each cycle of
the batchwise leaching process.
The essential operations in the batchwise process are given in Fig. E-l.
It is evident that very nearly the entire 0.25 cu ft of solvent carbon
tetrachloride must be evaporated and condensed again during each cycle.
It was found experimentally, using about 2 Ib of agglomerated oil-sand
mixture, that six cycles of leaching was a bare minimum to get out most
of the oil, even though the mixture of sand and solvent was stirred to
improve contact in each cycle. About 12 cycles is a more realistic
number under routine conditions.
If this number of cycles is to occur in a reasonable length of time
(30 min to 1 hr) , there must be a cycle about every 5 min. Thus, the
solvent stripper must be capable of evaporating about 0.25 cu ft of
carbon tetrachloride solvent each 5 min, or at a rate of 0.05 cu ft/
min as a minimum. To allow some design leeway, this figure has been
raised to 1/14 cu ft or 7 Ib of carbon tetrachloride per minute or
420 Ib/hr .
The heat required to bring this amount of liquid carbon tetrachloride
to its boiling point is:
420 & x 0.201 ^x (170-70) °F = 8440 *g
155
-------
The heat required to vaporize the carbon tetrachLoride is:
«„£, 83.5
Total heat input rate to vaporization would, therefore, be:
Btu
35,100 + 8440 = 43,540 —- = 12.76 kilowatts.
This figure is a maximum in that the solvent will not return to the
stripper at room temperature, but rather at some temperature between
room temperature and the solvent boiling point. The heat required to
vaporize the solvent, 35,100 Btu/hr, would represent a minimum heat
required for vaporization.
Pure Solvent Liquid
SOLVENT
CONDENSER
CONTACTOR
Pure
Solvent
Vapor
Liquid Solvent
with Oil
SOLVENT
STRIPPER
I
CONCENTRATED
OIL
Fig. E-l. Block Diagram of Batch Leaching Process
DESIGN OF SOLVENT STRIPPER AND CONDENSER
Vaporization in the stripper was driven by a temperature gradient
across the heat transfer surface of modest proportions so that tempera-
tures higher than about 210°F did not occur anywhere in- the system. In
this way, thermal decomposition of both solvent and oil was kept to a
negligible minimum. The evaporator surfaces, which consisted of coiled
156
-------
5/16 in. copper tubing, were heated with water at or near its normal
boiling point, supplied from a small boiler, designed for residential
heating, having a maximum output of 64,000 Btu/hr. The boiler operated
reSSUre °f u? PSlf ' SVhat W3ter temPeratures in a range up to
were available, if needed.
The method given in the Chemical Engineers' Handbook for calculating
transfer area in evaporators applies a heat transfer coefficient of
TiJnS^il' F K°r a11 ?Ccasi°nS- If an averaSe water temperature
, o?no
-------
the discharge opening of the drum to prevent escape of vaporized sol-
vent, with suitable connections for admission and removal of solvents,
and a device to automatically drain out the solvent at the end of each
cycle. A simple switching system controlled'the cycling of the solvent.
These additions to the mixer and its mode of operation in contacting
solvent with contaminated sand are illustrated in Fig. E-2.
In addition to the cover for the drum, a steel frame was welded to the
yoke supporting the drum. This frame supported the solvent inlet tube,
which remains stationary as the drum rotates. The frame also provides
a leverage by which the motor-brake system pivoted the drum on a hori-
zontal axis at the end of each cycle. The solvent inlet tube leaves
the steel frame at the horizontal pivot axis, being connected thence
to the solvent condenser discharge via a length of plastic tubing.
OPERATING PROCEDURE
To start an extraction, the oil-contaminated sample was placed in the
contactor and the cover secured on the drum. About 2 gal. of carbon
tetrachloride was placed in the reservoir below the contactor and about
2 gal. in the mixer drum. The water heater for the solvent stripper
was started and the hot-water pump turned on. Cold tap water was
started flowing in the condenser. When the return water from the strip-
per was hot, as indicated by its thermometer, the pump, feeding solvent
from the reservoir to the solvent stripper, was turned on and operation
of the mixer started.
The flow of oil extract from the reservoir to the stripper was con-
trolled by a valving system that included a bypass loop around the pump.
By adjustment of a valve in the bypass loop and a valve in the line
downstream from the pump, any desired fraction of the pump throughput
could be fed into the stripper, the remainder being recirculated through
the bypass loop. The extract flow rate to the stripper was adjusted
upward until the capacity of the stripper was reached. This condition
was indicated by flooding of unstripped extract at the bottom of the
stripping column, in which an undesirably large amount of solvent
entered the oil extract receiver.
Once a stable relation between flow of heat and extract into the
stripper was established, operation was largely automatic. Completion
of the extraction of oil from a sample was indicated when solvent dis-
charged from the mixer became clear.
The stripped extract from each sand sample contained oil dissolved in
approximately 1-1/2 gal. of carbon tetrachloride solvent. The stripped
extract from each sample was weighed, and an aliquot taken for analysis.
A weighed sample of the aliquot was placed in a previously weighed
watch glass. Carbon tetrachloride contained in the sample was allowed
to evaporate at room temperature until the rate of loss of weight of
the sample was negligible. This occurred within a period of about 3
158
-------
Ol
Motor
Steel Frame
Welded to Drum
Supporting Yoke
O-Ring Seal
at Axis of Rotation
of Drum
Solvent
Discharge
Pipe
Sand Strainer
Attached to
Inside of Cover
M
Reservoir
Gear Pump
To Solvent
Stripper
Fig. D-2. Modification of Cement Mixer for Use as Solvent Contactor
-------
days. The weight of oil contained in the sample was taken as the
weight of the residue remaining in the watch glass. This method of
analysis was made possible by the fact of the oil had become weathered
before and during its application to the beach sands, so that it con-
tained negligible quantities of components whose volatility was com-
parable to that of carbon tetrachloride. The weight ratio of oil to
extract found in the sample, when multiplied by the total weight of
stripped extract recovered, gave the weight of oil recovered from each
sand sample.
160
-------
APPENDIX F
DOCUMENTATION OF BEACH RESTORATION OPERATIONS:
PROPOSED DATA REQUIREMENTS
To evaluate the manpower and equipment costs associated with beach
restoration operations, a review of recent oil-pollution/beach-con-
tamination 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 deter-
mine the cost and effectiveness of previous beach restoration opera-
tions. Generally, only overall costs have been reported, 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 appendix as
an example of the forms to be used by FWQA personnel who become in-
volved 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 photo-
graphic 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.
161
-------
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, (FWQA, API); companies, (oil companies, private
research or consulting firms); contracting firms; local
and state authorities which were directly involved in
clean-up procedures. The organizations 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 disposal areas, include specific
details on reverse side of form. Participating organi-
zations would include the names of agencies, (FWQA, API);
162
-------
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 7 days covered by these sheets, but all else
remains relatively unchanged, write additional information
on reverse of form.
163
-------
Page 1 of 5
BEACH RESTORATION PROCEDURES
3EACH: Name
Location __ .
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
t1, 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 breach surface support equipment mobility: yes no can't tell
ta reported by:
Submitted by: .
165
-------
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:
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 2 3
e. MANPOWER FOR CLEANUP - EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$ cost
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:
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.
en
ao
nmULIINU V 1.1 1 IV- 1-1. J.
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 lor.ntion Dat«
By Day: 1 2
e. MANPOWER FOR DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Supervisory Participating organizations:
number used
hours worked
$cost
3
4
5
6
7
Operators/Drivers Participating organizations :
number used
M hours worked
CTl
<° $ 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:
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC
UKS R.s.»ra, Con.pi.ny, Tho K..l»,tlon of Selected E.rttoovlng i,u,p,«t
Restoration ol Oil-cOTt,.lr,t«»"»«
ABSTRACT
Research studies were conducted to evaluate the us« of soio^r A +u
-^^^^S^^^^^^^
ind cost required to improve the capacity of
* Determine modificatio
selected equipment,
• Develop optimum oper
" *«£JS: tllrC""* """ '""°£- "™ •»»™"°« ""< " "« ««.«!
These objectives were accomplished ir,
s. Pbase j. review^ Droce(iurta
demonstnite tie n>«tor»tloti prooeaunn developed and to'determlw thetlli^.n,.
Jl'"^"!!! ""d P*0"*"''7™"'1'"""'1 "™ «>ll«ct. OH-cor,««,lmtea ,M«i,l' S.
variety of beach conditions. CS e UJW'ar a
The oil removal effectiveness Was greater than 98% for all restoration procedure,
The highest effectiveness was .achieved using the motorized grader and motorized '
elevating scraper ^orkins in combination. The tracked frost end loaders were
least effective. On beaches possessing low shear strength notation tires or
steel-belted half-tracks on the motorized grader and a non-self-propelled eleva-
ting scraper with a tracked prime nsover should be used. Conveyor-screenine
system can he effectively u ilized to load oil-contaminated material into trucks
or transport to disposal areas, separate oil-sand pellets from clean saad and
partially separate oil-contaminated debris
-------
1
5
Accession Number
2
Subject field & Croup
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
URS RESEARCH CO.. 155 Bovet Road. San Mateo. California 94402
Title
THE EVALUATION OF SELECTED EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT FOR THE
RESTORATION OF OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACHES
10
Authors)
James Sartor
Carl Foget
16
21
Project Designation
Note
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
Oil spills, Oil contamination, Beach restoration, Earthmoving equipment,
Costs and effectiveness
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Abstract
Research studies were conducted to evaluate the use of selected earthmoving equipment in oil-contaminated beach-
restoration operations and to determine the cost and effectiveness of such equipment. Specifically, the objectives
were to:
• Determine modifications and costs required to improve the capacity of selected equipment
• Develop optimum operating procedures for each method
• Determine, through field testing, the operating cost of each method evaluated.
These objectives were accomplished in two phases. Phase I: reviewed procedures utilized in previous beach-restoration
operations, plus surveyed and evaluated commercially available earthmoving equipment. Phase 11: full-scale tests to
demonstrate the restoration procedures developed and to determine the efficiency with which each procedure/equipment
item collects oil-contaminated material. The flexibility and performance characteristics of the equipment were tested
under a variety of beach conditions.
The oil removal effectiveness was greater than 98Z for all restoration procedures. The highest effectiveness was
achieved using the motorized grader and motorized elevating scraper working in combination. The tracked front end
loaders were least effective. On beaches possessing low shear strength, flotation tires or steel-belted half-tracks
on the motorized grader and a non-self-propelled elevating scraper with a tracked prime mover should be used. Conveyor-
screening systems can be effectively utilized to load oil-contaminated material into trucks for transport to disposal
areas, separate oil-sand pellets from clean sand, and partially separate oil-contaminated debris (i.e., straw, kelp,
seaweed) from oil-contaminated sand.
Abstractor
Institution
WR:t02 (REV. JULY 1969J
WRSIC
SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
------- |