WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES DAST-27
CLEANING OIL CONTAMINATED BEACHES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe the
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollu-
tion of our Nation's waters. They provide a central source
of information on the research, development and demonstra-
tion activities of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Department of the Interior, through inhouse
research and grants and contracts with Federal, State, and
local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organ-
izations.
Water Pollution Control Research Reports will be distributed
to requesters as supplies permit. Requests should be sent to
the Planning and Resources Office, Office of Research and
Development, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. 20242.
-------
CLEANING OIL CONTAMINATED BEACHES
WITH CHEMICALS
A Study of the Effects of Cleaning Oil
Contaminated Beaches with Chemical Dispersants
by
Northeast Region Research and Development Program
Edison, New Jersey
for the
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Program Number 15080 FHS 08/69
August 1969
-------
FWPCA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration and
approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
CONTENTS
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Int roduc t ion 1
Conclusions and Recommendations 2
Experimental 3
Results and Discussion 11
Acknowledgment s 21
References 22
1L1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Grain Size Analysis, Twin Gun Beach, Surface 4
2. Grain Size Analysis, Twin Gun Beach, Ten Inches Deep 5
3. Grain Size Analysis, Twin Gun Beach, Eighteen Inches Deep. 6
4. Grain Size Analysis, Spermaceti Cove, Surface 7
5. Grain Size Analysis, Spermaceti Cove, Twelve Inches Deep.. 8
6. Penetration and Persistence of Oil in Beach Sand, With and
Without Chemical Treatment 12
7. Test Area: Twin Gun Beach 15
8. Test Area: Spermaceti Cove 15
9. Typical Test Section 15
10. Initial Penetration of Oil 15
11. Application of Chemical 16
12. Hosing of Oil Section 16
13. Hosing of Chemically-Treated Section 16
14. Chemically-Treated Section After Tidal Wash 16
15. Chemically-Treated Section After Hosing 16
16. Experiment HI 17
17. Experiment III 17
18. Twelve Feet Below Figure 17 I7
19. Experiment III 17
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
?aee
1. Apparent Composition of Chemicals Tested. 10
2. Cohesiveness of Oil-contaminated and Chemically-treated Beach
Sand 19
3. Relative Density of Oil-contaminated Beach Sand. 20
-------
ABSTRACT
Oil-dispersing chemicals were treated for cleaning persistent-
type crude oil from experimentally contaminated New Jersey
coastal beaches and were found to be generally ineffective. Al-
though they completely cleaned the surface of the oiled sand,
they removed little of the total oil. Instead they caused the
oil to penetrate more deeply into the underlying sand, thereby
compounding the pollution problem by expanding the zone of pollu-
tion, complicating any subsequent mechanical removal and, possibly,
causing the oil to persist longer.
Chemical treatment failed to induce "quicksand" or cause perceptible
erosion of beach sand. A decrease in the "cohesiveness" of the
sand was observed, but this also occurred in the presence of oil
alone and could not be attributed to the presence of chemical.
KEYWORDS: Beach, cleaning, detergent, emulsifier, erosion, oil,
pollution, quicksand, sand.
-------
INTRODUCTION
During 1961 the Warren Spring Laboratory in England conducted
studies which led to the recommendation of sol vent-emu Is if iers
as the most effective means for cleaning beaches polluted by
oil (1). This recommendation provided a basis for British
action during the Torrey Canyon incident, when massive quanti-
ties of "detergents" were applied to contaminated shores (2).
The devastating effects of these chemicals on coastal marine
life, which have been extensively documented (e.g. 3, 4), led to
widespread criticism of the British action and of the general
use of "detergents" for the control of oil pollution.
Other significant limitations of sol vent-emu Is if iers for beach
cleaning tended to be obscured by the spectacular nature of these
biological effects. For instance, the official report of the
Torrey Canyon affair (2) noted that these chemicals caused the oil
to penetrate into the sand more deeply than untreated oil, thereby
increasing the volume of contaminated sand, complicating any subse-
quent mechanical removal, and possibly causing the oil to persist
longer. These field observations were confirmed by others (3, 5)
and the basic phenomenon of increased penetration was demonstrated
in bench tests at the Plymouth Laboratory (3).
Furthermore, many of the Cornish beaches polluted by the Torrey
Canyon oil exhibited a "quick" condition which was generally
attributed to the treatment with solvent-emuIs ifiers (2, 3). How-
ever, few beaches in Cornwall escaped heavy dousing with "detergents"
and remained to demonstrate the effects of oil alone. Similar
"quicksands" were reported from oiled beaches in Brittany, on which
chemicals were not used (3).
Beach erosion due to "quicksand" caused by solvent-emu Is ifiers
became a major issue during the Ocean Eagle spill in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, even though documentation of this phenomenon was in-
complete. In this case too, there had been previous reports of
erosion of Puerto Rican beaches from oil alone (6).
Because of these controversial and poorly defined effects of
solvent-emulsifiers upon beach sands, the Northeast Region Research
and Development Program conducted a series of controlled experiments
during the fall of 1968 on the use of oil-dispersing chemicals for
cleaning sandy beaches at Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Penetration of oil into beach sand is a function of the nature
of the oil and the type and granular texture of the sand.
2. Persistent-type crude oils contaminate only the surface of sandy
beaches, penetrating to a maximum of two inches depth.
3. When overlaid by fresh sand, crude oils persist for long periods
of time as narrow, discrete bands, gradually weathering into a tarry
consistency.
4. Chemical dispersants clean only the surface of oil-contaminated
beach sands and remove relatively little of the subsurface oil.
5. Chemical dispersants cause the oil to penetrate more deeply into
beach sands.
6. Increased penetration increases the volume of contaminated sand,
complicating any subsequent cleaning procedures and, possibly, caus-
ing the oil to persist longer in offensive form.
7. Chemical dispersants could not be shown to reduce the cohesion
of oiled sand, nor to induce "quick sands".
8. Chemical dispersants or solvent-emu Is ifiers are not recommended
as effective for cleaning oil-contaminated beaches.
- 2 -
-------
EXPERIMENTAL
LOGat ion
Density
Sand cohesion:
Oil content
All experiments were conducted on the shores of
Ft. Hancock, New Jersey during October through
December 1968. Two specific locations were
selected:
1. Twin Gun Beach (Figure 7): located on the
eastern, ocean side of Sandy Hook, and exposed to
open surf. Grain size analyses of surface sand
and sand at depths of 10 inches and 18 inches are
shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
2. Spermaceti Cove (Figure 8): located on the
western, bay side of Sandy Hook, in an area of no
surf. Grain size analyses for surface sand and
sand at a depth of 12 inches are shown in Figures
4 and 5, respectively.
in situ sand density measurements were performed
according to ASTM DI556-64; maximum and minimum
density were performed according to Department of
the Army Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1906, dated
10 May 1965.
determined with a cone penetrometer according to
Department of the Army Technical Bulletin TB ENG
37, dated 10 July 1959.
sand samples were collected at given depths, and
oil content determined as follows:
1. Weigh 50 grams of sample into 250 ml Erlenmeyer
flask.
2. Slurry four times, or until extraction is com-
plete, with 50 ml of 10% acetone in chloroform,
which has been heated to just below its boiling
point.
3. Decant solvent after each extraction through
fluted number 4 filter paper into a 250 ml beaker.
4. Evaporate combined extracts on a steam bath to
approximately 25 ml and transfer quantitatively to
a tared 50 ml beaker.
- 3 -
-------
100
90
80
70
£ 60
£
| 50
E
8 40
H
UJ
E
30
20
10
0
5C
U.S. STANDARP SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
6 4 3 2 l'/J 1 >/4 Vi H 3 4 6
1 1
1
1 1 1
I
V
~»-
8
=*;
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
0 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
X
I 1
\
*
!
I
\
\
\\
\
s
1
1
^*
0 100 50 10 5 OS'
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COUIES
SAMflE NO
GRAVEL
COA«SE
E1EV O* DffTH
FINE
0.1
(AND
COAKSE
MEDIUM
CtASSIFICANON
GRADATION CURVES
NAT W
FINE
1. IL
n
fi
I
0.05 0.01
0.005 0.0
SILT OR CLAY
0
10
20
30 i-
5
kU
40 >
Of.
hU
50 £
8
60 z
UJ
U
70 «
80
90
100
01
OJECT Beach Cleaning
EA Twin Gun Beach
CUING NO SurfscB
DATE 28 Oct. 68
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, TWIN GUN BEACH, SURFACE
Figure 1
-------
100
90
80
70
0
£ 60
s
| 50
c
S 40
oc
UJ
a.
30
20
10
0
5(
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 43 2 l'/J 1 3/4 Yi tt 3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140 200
V
X
7
y
(
\
\
V
\
\
v
\
\
>
^i
X
X
N
|
10 100 50 10 5 1 0.5
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COBSLES
SAMPLE NO
GRAVEL
COARSE
ELEV OH DEPTH
FINE
0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.0
SAND
COARSE |
CLASSIFICATION
GRADATION CURVES
MEDIUM
NAT W
FINE
'. LL
PL
PI
SILT OR CLAY
IK
0
10
20
30 .-
g
UJ
40 I
to
oc
UJ
50 2
0
u
60 z
IU
U
ce
UJ
70 °
80
90
00
01
OJECT Beach Cleaning
EA Twin Gun Beach
)RiNGNoTen Inches Below Surface
28 Oct. 68
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, TWIN GUN BEACH, TEN INCHES DEEP
Figure 2
-------
100
90
80
70
£ 60
S
| 50
C
a «
UJ
E
30
20
10
0
5<
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2__lVi_J 'A Y* H 3 4 * 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70100140 200
>0
1 1
I
1
1 1 1
KH
1
^,
1 1
1
i
\
N
\
\
,
1
\
\
\
\
\
!
V
\
1
1
100 50 10 5 1 0.5
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COSHES
SAMF1E NO
GRAVEL
COAUE | FINE
EltV O« DEFTH
i
0
10
20
30 .
UJ
" I
at
UJ
50 2
o
u
60 z
UJ
U
£
70 «
80
90
100
0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001
SAND
COAME
CLASSIFICATION
GRADATION CURVES
MEDIUM FINE
NAT W
% u
Fl
pi
SILT 0« CLAY
H.OJECT Beach Cleaning
AHA Twin Gun Beach
KKINGNO Eighteen Inches
28 Oct. 68
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, TWIN GUN BEACH, EIGHTEEN INCHES DEEP
Figure 3
-------
100
90
80
70
f 60
| 50
c
8 40
H
UJ
E
30
20
10
0
5C
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 43 2 I'/i 1 3/4 '/? H 3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140 200
<
I
k,
^
V,
\
\
\
1
1
1
1
1
'
1 1
I
L
\
N
s
i
^
«
0 100 50 10 5 05
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
COAISE | FINE
ElEV OS DEPTH
0.1
SAND
COARSE |
CLASSIFICATION
GRADATION CURVES
MEDIUM
NAT W%
FINE
It
P
PI
0.05 0.01
0.005 0.0
SILT OR CLAY
0
10
20
30 >-
o
UJ
40 3
a
BE
UJ
50 £
O
U
60 z
UJ
at
70 -
80
90
00
Dl
OJECT Beach Cleaning
EA Spermaceti Cove
BORING NO O U T I 3 C 6
DATE 2 Dec. 68
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, SPERMACETI COVE, SURFACE
Figure 4
-------
100
90
80
70
| 60
£
| 50
E
ij 40
E
30
20
10
0
51
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2_M6_J % ft_H 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
^
1
\
X
\
\
\
\
N
\
1
I
\
1
'
s
s
's
^
0 100 50 10 5 1 0.5
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COMIES
SAMPLE NO
OMVCt
i 1 ,»»M
lltV OK OtPTM
FINE
1
0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.0
SAND
COARSE
MEDIUM
CLASSIFICATION
GRADATION CURVES
NAT W
FINE
/. LL
II
PI
SILT OR CUT
o « oo >g o i» ^ <-» o
g o o o o o o o
PER CENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
P.OJEO Beach Cleaning
AIIEA Spermaceti Cove
KJ..NGNO One foot deep
D.TE 2 Dec. 68
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS, SPERMACETI COVE, TWELVE INCHES DEEP
Figure 5
-------
5. Evaporate extracts to dryness, then add 5 ml of
acetone, and again evaporate to dryness.
6. Wipe off excess water from outside of beaker, then
dry 10 minutes in an oven at 103°C.
7. Cool in desiccator and weigh.
Oil content of the entire layer in the test section was
calculated from the known 32 square foot area, the visu-
ally measured depth of the layer, the oil concentration
per weight of sand (corrected for moisture content),
and the measured in-place density of the sand.
Test sections: test sections were marked off just below average
high tide level in units of 4 feet by 8 feet (Figures 8
and 9). Oil was spread evenly over the surface of the
test sections, during low tide, in amount equivalent to
a uniform 1/2 inch covering. Oil was allowed to pene-
trate into the sand for 10 minutes. Oil-dispersing
chemical was applied in the amount specified, uniformly
over the section, with a garden sprinkling can (Figure
11). Oil and chemical were allowed to interact for 10
minutes. The test section was then hosed for 5 minutes
with salt water, pumped by a gasoline-driven portable
fire pump; or the application of chemical timed to allow
tidal wash within 30 minutes.
Chemicals: chemicals used are shown in Table I. Products A and D
are of the typical solvent-emuIsifier type. B and C are
water soluble dispersants.
_ 9 _
-------
TABLE 1
APPARENT COMPOSITION OF CHEMICALS TESTED
Product Surfactant
Code Ionic Nature^- Basic Composition
Solvent3
Non ion ic
Ethylene oxide condensate
of alkyl phenol
Aromat ic , a 1 iphat ic
hydrocarbon, boiling
point range similar to
that of #2 fuel oil.
B
Nonionic
Ethylene oxide condensate
of alkyl phenol
Water, glycol
Non ionic
Polyhydric alcohol ester
of fatty acid
Water, short-chained
alcohol
An ionic
Alkyl aryl sulfonate
Aromat ic , a 1 iphat ic
hydrocarbon, boiling
point range similar to
that of #2 fuel oil.
1) According to Weatherburn test (7^.
2) By infrared spectral analysis of dried (105°C) residue; test was not
definitive, but results consistent with stated, presumed composition.
3) By distillation and infrared spectral analysis.
- 10 -
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The penetration of oil into beach sand is influenced by the nature
of the oil and the type and granular texture of the sand. In these
experiments, the lighter crude oils penetrated the sand to a maxi-
mum depth of two inches. If untreated, the oil tended to remain in
a narrow, discrete band through successive tidal washings. This
band usually moved to successively greater depth, but this was due
to the overlaying with fresh sand rather than penetration. The oil
appeared to remain with the originally contaminated sand grains.
Considerable quantities of oil disappeared during the first several
tidal cycles (Figure 6A and B). Because of the formation of an
obvious slick on the adjacent water and because of the low percentage
of low-boiling point hydrocarbons in La Rosa and Lago crudes, this
initial loss can be attributed to physical removal rather than
"weathering". If untouched for several months the remaining oil
gradually weathered to a tarry consistency.
When the oiled sand was treated with chemicals and subsequently
flushed, the surface of the beach was rapidly washed free of all
traces of contamination (Figures 13 and 14). Only Product C failed
to produce this effect. All other chemicals effectively cleansed
the surface at ratios of chemical to oil of 1 to 4. However, this
observation was deceptive. Substantial quantities of oil still
remained below the surface of the beach (Figure 15). Furthermore,
the mixture of chemical and oil penetrated two to five times more
deeply into the sand than oil alone (Figure 6).
At first glance the results from Experiment II appear to be anoma-
lous. However, they can be explained by the type of beach involved.
This experiment was performed when Twin Gun Beach was constituted of
two inches of medium sand at the surface. Below this was eight
inches of fine gravel underlaid by medium sand (see Figs. 1, 2, 3).
These layers became deeper as more sand was deposited on this active
beach. During successive tidal cycles the oil moved through the
gravel layer until it reached the underlying sand (Figure 16). The
results clearly indicate that this penetration was significantly
accelerated by chemicals (also see Figs. 17 and 19). This penetra-
tion of oil alone was not observed in the finer sands.
The field conditions complicated the quantification of the total oil
present and the amounts of oil reported in Figure 6 cannot be con-
sidered precise. Nonetheless, it is readily apparent that none of
_ 11 _
-------
PENETRATION AND PERSISTENCE OF OIL IN BEACH SAND,
WITH AND WITHOUT CHEMICAL TREATMENT
EXPERIMENT I, TWIN GUN BEACH, 28 OCTOBER 1968
Tidal cycles
026
.:n n n
-5 4.
c
.£ 6-
_c
18
10<
12<
Lo Rosa crude, no chemical
LEGEND
Heavy oil layer
Lighter oil layer
ioH
12
With product B, chemical/oil=l/2
EXPERIMENT II, TWIN GUN BEACH, 29 OCTOBER 1968
Tidal cycles
026
ioH
La Rosa crude, no chemical
-5 4-
.£ 6-
a. 8-
10
12
With product B, chemical/oil =1/5
Figure 6-A
12
-------
EXPERIMENT III JWIN GUN BEACH, 19 NOVEMBER 1968
Tidal cycles
0 2 4 26
0-
1100
2-
.E 6
c
- 8-
12-
14
0
:
LEGEND
Oil layer
Number adjacent to oil layer
indkates percent original oil
remaining
«
5 4H
5 6H
-C
cl
i
a
10-
0
2
.-
-5 4
c
.E 6
100
La Rose crude, no chemical
12
12
14
I '
E 6-
j;
+-
a. a
I
10-
12
With product A, chemical/oil=l/5
100
m H" H
'°
With product A, chemical/oil= 4/5
100
l-H
With product D, chemical/oil=4/5
100
With product B, chemical/oil=4/5
Figure 6-B
13
-------
EXPERIMENT IV, SPERMACETI COVE, 2 DECEMBER 1968
Tidal cycles
2 42
0
2
4
.E 6-
.c
a 8-
a
10
12
u
£ 8"
a
a 10
12-
14
100
57
53
Logo crude, no chemical
100
100
44
With product A, chemical/oil=1/1
438
62
LEGEND
Heavy oil layer
Lighter oil layer
Number adjacent to oil layer
indicates percent original oil
remaining.
Figure 6-C
14
-------
Fig. 7 Test Area: Twin Gun Beach,
a typical New Jersey coastal beach
on the eastern shore of Sandy Hook.
Fig. 8 Test Area: Spermaceti Cove,
a sheltered beach on the western
shore of Sandy Hook.
Fig. 9 Typical Test Section; immed- Fig. 10 Initial Penetration of Oil:
iately after application of crude oil. Spermaceti Cove.
- 15 -
-------
Fig. 11 Application of Chemical:
Twin Gun Beach.
Fig. 12 Hosing of Oil Section: Oil is
smeared around the beach surface; substan-
tial quantities are washed into surf.
Fig. 13 Hosing of Chemically-treated
Section: The surface of the sand
rapidly washes clean.
Fig. 14 Chemically-treated Section: After
Tidal Washing - no traces of oil remain on
surface.
Fig. 15 Chemically-treated Section: After Hosing
the surface is clean, but much oil remains below.
- 16 -
-------
Fig. 16
sect ion
gravel layer.
Experiment III (Figure 6): Oil
, after four tidal cycles; oil in
Fig. 17 Experiment III (Figure 6):
Product A test section, after two tidal
cycles; note irregular penetration to
bottom of gravel layer at ten inches depth,
Fig. 18 Twelve feet below Figure 17:
Note bands of oil extending towards
water line.
Fig. 19 Experiment III (Figure 6):
Product D test section, after four tidal
eye les.
- 17 -
-------
the chemicals tested were remarkably efficient in removing oil.
The utility of even the most effective dispersant, Product A,
can be questioned in view of the results from Experiment IV, in
which one-third of the original oil remained seven months after
treatment. This remaining oil was spread through a six-inch band
whereas the untreated oil formed cohesive, tarry clumps which were
less noxious and more easily handled for removal.
Thus, it may be concluded that oil-dispersing chemicals, used in
this manner, are relatively ineffective for cleaning oil-contamin-
ated beaches of the type found on the coast of New Jersey. Fur-
thermore, they tend to compound the pollution problem. It may be
assumed that they add polluting materials to the oil already
present, in the form of surface active agents and, in some cases,
solvents. They were demonstrated to increase the penetration of
the oil/chemical mixture into the sand, thus increasing the volume
of sand to be handled during mechanical or other manner of clean-up.
The most effective chemical tested appeared to inhibit the natural
weathering of oil into less offensive form.
At no time during these experiments was anything resembling "quick-
sand" observed, even when chemicals were applied in quantities equal
to the amount of oil present. Chemically treated sand was somewhat
less cohesive than uncontaminated sand, as indicated by the lesser
weight required to force the cone penetrometer to a given depth
(Table 2). However, approximately the same decrease in cohesiveness
was observed in sand contaminated with oil alone. Oil alone also
had a marked effect on the relative density of sand (but not the
gravel on Twin Gun Beach), causing it to drop from 100% to 14%
(Table 3). Thus, it is possible that heavy pollution by oil could
disrupt the stability of certain types of beaches, but this would
not likely be significantly affected by the presence of oil-dispersing
chemicals. On the basis of these results and published reports,
reported cases of "quicksand" and erosion cannot be attributed to the
use of chemicals, but appear to be caused by oil alone.
18
-------
TABLE 2
Cohesiveness of Oil-Contaminated and Chemically-treated Beach Sand
Determined with a Cone Penetrometer*. Each reported value represents the average of four measurements.
Location: Spermaceti Cove. Oil was distributed in the sand as follows: 1) Oil Section - heavy oil
layer from 0" to 3.5" depth; 2) Chemical Section - heavy oil layer from 0" to 4-.5" depth, medium oil
layer from 4.5" to 10" depth. Lago crude. Product A. Control areas were immediately adjacent to test
sections.
Weight to Penetrate
Depth of
Penetration
inches
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Control Area
pounds
8
26
53
69
87
98
108
115
119
132
Oil
pounds
4
12
23
41
52
58
65
72
83
108
Sec t ion
percent
control
50
46
43
59
60
59
60
62
70
82
Control Area
pounds
6
20
35
58
80
105
123
134
158
164
Chemically-treated
pounds
4
13
24
39
58
92
96
113
140
162
Section
percent
control
67
65
69
67
72
88
78
84
89
99
*This device measures the force (in pounds) required to cause an inverted cone of standard dimensions to
penetrate a given depth of sand. The pounds of force applied to penetrate to a given depth are a function
of the "cohesiveness" of the sand, reflecting its weight-bearing capacity.
-------
TABLE 3
Relative Density of Oil-Contaminated Beach Sand
Experiment
Test Site
Location of Measurement In Place Density
Measured Average
! g/1 g/1
Maximum Minimum Relative Change Caused
Density Density Density by Oil
percent relative
g/1 g/1 percent density
III
K>
O
IV
Twin Gun Beach
20 Nov. 68
Spermaceti Cove
2 Dec. 68
beginning at gravel layer,
2 inches below beach sur-
face
1. adjacent to oil test 1934 1987
section 2041
2. oil test section, 2167 2081
La Rosa crude 1995
at beach surface 1823
1. adjacent to oil test
section 1832 1828
2. oil test section, 1572
Lago crude 1570 1571
1827
1827
1536
1536
100
none
-86
-------
Acknowledgment s
Soil engineering apparatus was provided by a loan from N. E.
Division, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, N. Y.
Maximum/minimum density measurements were performed by Johnson
Soils Engineering Laboratory, Palisades Park, N. J. Oil analy-
ses were performed by the Chemistry Section, Laboratory Branch;
and field work was aided by personnel of the Operations Branch
of the Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, FWPCA.
The cooperation of the Commanding Officer, U. S. Army, Ft.
Hancock is gratefully acknowledged.
21
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smith, J. Wardley, 1962, Cleaning Oil from Beaches, New Scientist,
13:746.
2. The Torrey Canyon, Report to Parliament by the Secretary of State
for Home Department, H. M. Stationery Office, London, 1967.
3. Smith, J. E. (editor), 1968, The Torrey Canyon Pollution and
Marine Life, Cambridge Univ. Press, N.Y.C.
4. Conservation and the Torrey Canyon, Jour Devon Trust Nature Cons,
Supplement, July 1967.
5. Caldwell, J. M., 1967, Oil Pollution of the Shore Face Caused by
the "Torrey Canyon", Report for the Coastal Engineering Research
Center, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
6. Diaz-Piferrer, M., 1962, Effects of an Oil Spill on the Shore of
Guanica, P. R., paper presented at 4th Meeting, Caraibisch Marien
Biologisch Institut, Curacao, Neth. Ant.
7. Weatherburn, 1954, Can. Text J, 71(16):45.
_22 _
------- |