Anonymous comments

My fear is the committee is going to be looking for any reason to pass TG 360 without getting it right. When reviewing the comments made from members voting in favor of SPO169 in 2009 I have to ask WHY would you vote for something that you thought needed to be changed? Approximately 30 of the 41 members who voted in favor of SPO169 in 2009 left comments were requesting some kind of changes or corrections be made.



In over 25 years I have never found location that I had a -.850mV that would not also pass the 100Mv criteria. I have to ask WHAT scientific documentation did you use to come up with the -.850 mV ON or Polarize and you like to call it criteria??



I have to ask does it not look funny to have 2 different criteria we can use but BOTH with the same -.850 mV number?



I am also not in favor of the 1 MPY corrosion rate we would be required to show. I personally feel this need to be removed.



The only way I could do an interrupted survey in my tank Farms in Cushing, OK is to interrupt the local power company