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

                                                                           
-------