Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~• <br />the weather starting warming up, shortly before Kent Gorham's inspection. As soon as TCC <br />became aware of the situation, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gorham trudged through several feet of <br />snow to establish the source of the problem. They determined the culvert near the outfall was <br />the source and the culvert was plugged. The problem ceased shortly thereafter. In summary, <br />Mr. Mills said there was not an illegal exceedance and the problem lasted a few days, at most. <br />Based on the information presented at the assessment conference, it is clear that the statement <br />in the proposed penalty is incorrect, there was not an actual effluent limit violation. However, <br />the water was of very poor quality and had a sample been taken for total suspended solids, it is <br />uncertain whether there would have been an effluent violation. However, the water was of poor <br />quality. According to Mr. Gorham conditions were such that alternative limitations most likely <br />would have applied if the operator would have requested them. The SS levels were well above <br />the standard of 0.5 ml/l. The duration of the poor quality discharge was estimated at a few days <br />at most, the operator took care of the problem immediately upon discovering it. Because there <br />is no direct evidence demonstrating an effluent violation or a comparison of the sample to the <br />background conditions of the receiving stream, I will reduce the seriousness component penalty <br />by $250.00. <br />Fault <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Good Faith <br />The operator clearly took immediate action with respect to abating the poor quality discharge. <br />However, there are three steps associated with the abatement. At this point in time the NOV has <br />not been abated and I am not recommending a good faith reduction. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $100.00 <br />Seriousness $1000.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1850.00 <br />