Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 <br /> Response: This information was provided in Table 4 and conclusions were provided in <br /> Section 5. <br /> Comment 13: Tightness testing of all new tanks and ancillary equipment <br /> Response: The earliest tank was installed in approximately 1995 and tightness testing <br /> data is not available. Tank tightness is recommended in the event new tanks are <br /> installed/replaced on-Site as discussed in Section 5. <br /> Comment 14: Estimated remaining service life of the tank system <br /> Response: The majority of the tanks are at the upper end of their life expectancy as <br /> described in Section 5.0. In addition, subsequent recommendations are also discussed <br /> in Section 5.0. <br /> Comment 15: Volume calculations showing secondary containment is capable of containing <br /> 100% of the capacity of the largest tank within its boundary <br /> Response: This information was provided in Table 1 and Appendix B. <br /> Comment 16: How will the tank be anchored? <br /> Response: After discussions with the Poly Processing representative (the tank <br /> manufacturer), and as evaluated by our Civil Engineer, it was concluded that significant <br /> movement of these types of tanks are unlikely given their stable construction. The tank <br /> height and width ratio make them unlikely to tip over during an earthquake or other <br /> natural disaster. Use of straps/bolts for seismic protection is not required or <br /> recommended as discussed in Section 5 of the report and Table 4. <br /> If you have any questions about this document, please contact Jeff Bennett at 714-500-5454. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> f <br /> R ecca Sundilso �' /Je ennett, P.G. <br /> S nior Scientist Principal Hydrogeologist <br /> Enclosure: Hazardous Waste Tank Assessment <br /> Consultants IPEA kT HC ON° Eg 4hCon West Orangewood Avelnc. P:714-500-5400 <br /> Suite 102 F:714-960-2462 <br /> Envwr o"matCnadenges Orange,CA 92868 www.earthcon.com <br /> BUSMESS SOLUTIONS <br />