Laserfiche WebLink
specific sampling dates the TSS effluent limitation may have been <br /> exceeded. <br /> There were-' in effect-on--var-ious=of=the-'perti-nent---dates- -*.•;, <br /> alternative effluent limitations. For example, events such- as <br /> snowmelt or precipitation trigger alternative effluent <br /> limitations. <br /> 3 . By the terms of the Permit , alleged exceedances may be <br /> excused as unintentional or temporary noncompliance due to an <br /> upset incident or condition. <br /> :t 4 . There is no known evidence that any applicable <br /> effluent limitations were exceeded on the dates between the <br /> actual sampling dates. <br /> First Affirmative Defense <br /> 5 . As a first affirmative defense to the allegations <br /> contained in the Second Amended Notice of Violation , <br /> Mid-Continent states and alleges that the four dates sampled for <br /> TSS from Outfall No. 016 are neither permit required nor permit <br /> appropriate tests which are not representative, if at all, of <br /> other than the specific dates tested, that is , January 26 , 1989, <br /> February 2, 7 , and 23 , 1989. <br /> Second Affirmative Defense <br /> 6. As a second affirmative defense to the allegations <br /> contained in the Second Amended Notice of Violation , <br /> Mid-Continent states and alleges that these four samples dazes <br /> are not remresentative , in fact or in law, of any thirty day <br /> p e--i o3 alleged , that is , starting January 17 , 1989 or Lrom <br /> Jane 26, 1989 until Februa_-v 23, 1989_ <br /> Third Affirmative Def ease -_ <br /> 7 . As a third affirmative defense to the allegatios'-" , <br /> n <br /> contained in the Second Amended Notice of Violation ,- - <br /> Mid-Continent states and alle-ges that samples dates In- January. <br /> February, 1989 , by whomever taken, are not representative, in <br /> fact or in law, of any thirty day period alleged or otherwise- <br /> urged as applicable_ - <br /> Fourth Affirmative Defense <br /> - S. As a fourth affirmative defense to the allegations <br /> contained in the Second Amended Notice of Violation , <br /> Mid-Continent states and alleges that snowmelt occurred on at <br /> least the following dates beginning January 17 , 1989 and <br /> continuing through any alleged thirty or thirty-seven day <br /> MCR Amended Answer to <br /> 2nd Amended NoV - 4 - <br />