Laserfiche WebLink
Comment #5: <br /> Confirm that the proposed Phil-Tite sump covers (STP and fill sumps) are VPH <br /> compliant <br /> Response to comment #5: <br /> The proposed Phil-tite sump covers are part of the listed assembly in CARB executive <br /> order VR-101Q, Exhibit 2, figure 213; `Alternate Phil-Tite Sump Configuration'. In <br /> addition the double wall sump interstice terminates from double wall to single wall <br /> about 1-inch below the sump lid. Sump shields attach to the SW top rim of the sumps. <br /> VPH pertains to the sump, not the sump shield/ lid. See attached sump and sump <br /> cover drawings that illustrate this point. <br /> Comment #6: <br /> Please point out your safety factors on the provided buoyancy calculations; one safety <br /> factor for each tank. Also page 2 of 10 of this calculation indicates that "the dead man <br /> slab shall be 36'long x3'deep x12'wide to achieve adequate weight to resist buoyancy <br /> force'; please clarify if a slab of this thickness is being proposed, none was noted on <br /> the submitted plans <br /> Response to comment #6: <br /> Please refer to the revised structural design and calculations. The slab was removed <br /> from the design in favor of an anchorage consistent with the manufacturer's <br /> recommendations. The safety factors have been clarified and are shown on the <br /> attached revised calculations (FS = 1.63 for tank #1; and FS = 1.64 for tank #2/3). <br /> Comment #7: <br /> Drawing G.0.1 (as well as several other proposed drawings) show that canopy foo i19 <br /> will be touching or will be extremely dose to the proposed fuel piping, please revise and <br /> resubmit to reflect appropriate set back distances <br /> Response to comment #7: <br /> The component that looked like a canopy footing was actually a trash can so the fuel <br /> piping was not in close proximity to a canopy footing. However, to avoid running <br /> between the canopy footings and to provide a more efficient path, we have rerouted <br /> the fuel piping layout. Please refer to sheets GO.1, G1.0 & G6.2 where the fuel piping <br /> layout has been revised. The trash cans were removed from the fuel drawings for <br /> clarity and the canopy columns have been clearly identified. <br /> Comment #8: <br /> STP sump details(G4.0 and G4.1) do not show any proposed smart sensors or vacuum <br /> communication ports or vacuum hoses. All proposed vacuum supply and communication <br /> components to be installed must be identified on proposed drawings <br />