Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />229 <br />1 contact with the subliner and the geomembrane, and <br /> 2 that controls what potential leakage is coming out <br /> 3 the bottom of the s <br />stem <br /> y <br />. <br />' 4 If you do the analysis -- this is <br /> <br />5 - <br />demonstrated in our submissions and amendments - <br /> 6 the potential for leakage out of the bottom of that <br /> 7 composite liner system is de minimis, is not such we <br />' 8 could detect it with a leak detection system. <br /> 9 And, therefore, our argument to the <br />' 10 staff members <br />the staff <br />which was acce <br />ted b <br /> , <br />y <br />p <br />' 11 members, was that it was not a valid approach .in <br /> 12 this case. <br /> 13 I would like to touch on some of the <br /> 14 design assumptions which were questioned in tez•ms of <br /> 15 runoff and the containment capabilities of eacY: of <br /> 16 the facilities there is, in terms of spill rate <br />' 17 requirements, first, irrespective of what the PMP <br />' 18 quantities you calculate, whether it be 14 inches or <br /> 19 19 inches. And I think I can clarify the difference <br />' 20 there. <br /> 21 There are two objectives in our <br /> 22 diversion control and our containment facilitie:c. <br /> 23 One is in terms of, what are the flow rates xhich <br /> 24 result from a <br />articula <br />flo <br />d event? <br /> p <br />r <br />o <br /> 25 Second, what is the volume of-those <br />AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br />