ILLINOIS
RECEIVED
CLERK’SOFF!CF
MPR
26
2001
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
RO1-26
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking —
Land)
LEAKING
UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS (35 ILL. ADM. CODE
732)
COMMENTS OF ROBERT CARSON
Introduction
My name is Robert
Carson.
I
am a senior project manager at Goodwin
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
My
responsibilities at GEC include geotechnical
engineering and preparation of Leaking
Underground Storage Tank reports and
Corrective Action
Plans.
My professional experience consists of four years of work as a
geotechnical engineer, seven
years as a
permit writer and remediation program
supervisor
in the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency Bureau of Land, three years
as
an
environmental compliance manager
in
industry, 2-1/2 years of remediation
experience at a Department
of Energy site, and 3-1/2 years of experience with LUST
projects in
Illinois.
My education includes a
B. S. degree
in Civil Engineering,
B. S.
degree in
Earth
Science, and
M.
S.
degree in
Civil
Engineering (May 2001).
I am
licensed as a
Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois.
35111. Adm. Code
s~
732. ADgendix
C.
Backfill Volumes
I wish to comment on the Board’sproposal to revise Appendix C of the
regulation.
In the past, this appendix provided guidance on the allowable volume of
backfill that could
be removed during
early action. The
amendment proposes the
addition of tonnages associated with these backfill volumes. This
addition to the
appendix is
beneficial because the weight of contaminated soil disposed at
a landfill is
routinely determined, but the volume of removed backfill is difficult to determine.
My concern with the proposed regulation
is that these tonnages are not
representative of field conditions, and are inconsistent with the default soil bulk densities
(Pb or
Ps)
identified
in
35
III. Adm.
Code § 742.
The unit weight for removed backfill used
in developing the table in the proposed
regulation was
100 lbs/ft
3 (bulk density
=
1.60 g/cm3); the unit weight for replacement
backfill used
in the table was 103.7
lbs/ft3 (bulk density
=
1.66 g/cm3).
Presumably, the
backfill material being removed is sand.
This proposed bulk density is not
representative
of field conditions,
and is inconsistent with
the default value for sand bulk density
in
35
Ill.
Adm. Code § 742,
Appendix
C, Tables
B and
D.
In Appendix
C,
Table B, the default
~
bulk density for sand is 1.8 g/cm3.
Even with
no moisture content considered, the
unit weight of the sand would be:
Ydry
1.8 x62.4 lbs/ft3
=
112.32 lbs/ft3
where
Ydi~,
= dry unit weight of soil, lbs/ft3
When the moisture content of the sand is considered, the discrepancy increases.
A typical moisture content for sand excavated from a UST excavation is
10%.
Ywet =
Pdry x 62.4 lbs/ft3 x
(1
+
o)
=
1.8 x 62.4 x ~1+10%/i 00%)
=
123.55 lbs/ft
where
Ywet
= moist unit weight of
soil, lbs/ft3
Pdiy
=
dry bulk density of
soil, g/cm3
=
moisture content (weight basis), %
The Board should adopt an as-excavated unit weight of between
120 and 125
lbs/ft3 for backfill removal
in this
table.
Backfill (replacement)
sand will typically be drier than the backfill sand
removed
from the excavation.
A moisture content of 5% is probably representative.
This would
make the backfill (replacement) unit weight:
YfiII
Pdry
x 62.4 lbs/ft
3 x
(1
+
=
112.32 lbs/ft3 x 1.05
=
117.93 lbs/ft3
The Board should adopt a
unit weight of approximately 118 lbs/ft3 for
backfill
replacement
in this table.
My suggested corrections are shown
in the following table.
35 III. Adm.
Code § 732, Appendix
C
Suggested Corrections
Volume
of Tank
gallons
Backfill
Removal
c.y.’
Backfill
Removal
Tons2
Backfill
Removal
Tons3
Backfill
Replacement
c.y.4
Backfill
Replacement
Tons5
Backfill
Replacement
Tons6
<285
54 73 90 56 78 89
285to299
55 74
91
57 80
91
300to559
56 76 93 58
81
92
560to999
67
91
111
70 98
112
..A,OOOtoi,049
A,OSOtol,149
...±lSOtol,999
2,OOOto2,499
81
109
135
87 122
139
89 120
148
96
153
94 127 156
101 141 161
112
151
186
124
174 198
2,500 to 2,999
128 173
213
143
200 228
3,OOOto3,999
143 193
237
161
225 256
4,000 to 4,999
175
236
291 198
277 315
5,000 to 5,999
189
255 314 219 307
349
6,000 to 7,499
198
267 329 235 329 374
7,500 to 8,299
206 278 342 250 350 398
8,300 to 9,999
219 296 364 268 375
427
10,000 to 11,999
12,OOOto l~,999
252 340 418 312 437 497
286 386 475 357 500 569
>1 5,000
345 466 573 420 588 669
NOTES
1.
Backfill removal volume from proposed regulation.
2.
Backfill removaltonnage from proposedregulation.
3.
Backfill removal tonnage based on unit weight of 123 lbs/ft3.
4.
Backfill replacement volume from proposed regulation.
5.
Backfill replacement tonnage from proposed regulation.
6.
Backfill replacement tonnage basedon unit weight of 118 lbs/f
t3.
Robert A. Carson,
P.E.
Goodwin
Environmental
Consultants,
Inc.
400 Bruns Lane
Springfield,
Illinois 62702-4617
(217)
698-0222
(217) 698-0422 (fax)
rcarson@goodwin-env.com