Cleanup and Cooperation Sample Clauses

Cleanup and Cooperation. 1.0‌‌ This factor reflects the extent to which a discharger voluntarily cooperates in returning to compliance and correcting environmental damage. A multiplier between 0.75 and 1.5 is used, with a higher multiplier when there is a lack of cleanup or cooperation. In this case, the Discharger responded to each spill in a manner that is reasonable and prudent, and as expected for a sewer district of its size. The Discharger appropriately followed its Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan, a component of the 2019 Sewer System Management Plan, as is expected of a discharger enrolled in the SSS WDR. Therefore, a neutral multiplier of 1.0 is assigned.

Cleanup and Cooperation. 1.0 This factor reflects the extent to which a discharger voluntarily cooperates with regulatory authorities in returning to compliance and correcting environmental damage after the violation. The cleanup and cooperation multiplier ranges from

Cleanup and Cooperation. 1.4 History of Violations: 1.0

Cleanup and Cooperation. This factor reflects the extent to which a discharger voluntarily cooperated in returning to compliance and correcting environmental damage. A multiplier between 0.75 and 1.5 is used, with a higher multiplier when there is a lack of cooperation.

Cleanup and Cooperation. Adherence to the terms of this Stipulation, including timely notification to all relevant agencies of an unplanned discharge and timely performance of all applicable cleanup, monitoring and assessment, should reflect a high degree of cooperation.

Cleanup and Cooperation. The Enforcement Policy provides for an adjustment to reflect the extent to which a discharger voluntarily cooperated in returning to compliance and correcting environmental damage. The adjustment is a multiplier between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier where there is a lack of cooperation. Violations 1 through 4: The cleanup and cooperation multiplier is 1.0 because CalAtlantic was cooperative with inspections, willing to meet to discuss site conditions and Permit requirements, and responsive in providing weekly progress reports. The amount of time needed to comply with the Permit, over a period of approximately two months, was not due to lack of cooperation or effort as much as the amount of work and level of effort needed to stop sediment-laden discharges and fix or improve erosion and sediment controls.

Cleanup and Cooperation. This assessment is based on the fact that the Discharger contracted with a certified laboratory immediately after it became aware that the laboratory it had been using was not properly certified. The Discharger has returned to compliance already. Therefore, the Prosecution Team assigned a cleanup and cooperation factor is 0.75. Even though the Discharger has been issued one TSO, two CDOs and three ACL Complaints under enforcement matters, the Discharger has no prior violations for the use of uncertified laboratories, a non-discharge violation. More importantly, NSD made reasonable attempts to document laboratory certification and was acting on the presumption that the obtained certifications were accurate. The loss of certification by the subject lab was related to a change in applicable regulations and virtually every permittee in Imperial County was similarly impacted by the loss of certification. Therefore, the Prosecution Team assigned a history of violation factor is 1.0.

Cleanup and Cooperation. This factor reflects the extent to which a discharger voluntarily cooperated in returning to compliance and correcting environmental damage. A multiplier between 0.75 and 1.5 is used, with a higher multiplier when there is a lack of cooperation. The cleanup and cooperation factor multiplier is 1.0. The Discharger was cooperative during the site inspection, however unintentionally provided erroneous information about the discharge location and storm water treatment system. Also, a neutral multiplier is appropriate because the Discharger did initiate action to address General Permit violations during December 15th site investigations, though the actions were not completed until December 17 and 18.

Cleanup and Cooperation. A score of 1.1 (above neutral) is appropriate because the Discharger took seven days to return to compliance once it became aware of the violation. The Discharger eventually installed a “barrier corral” and an additional pump in Pond 5D, and increased dredging and pumping rates to reduce solids and comply with the Permit’s effluent limits. Total Base Liability $126,000 (rounded) The initial liability is multiplied by each factor related to the Discharger’s conduct to determine the Total Base Liability as follows: $126,034 = $86,600 x 1.2 (culpability) x 1.1 (history of violations) x 1.1 (cleanup and cooperation) Ability to Pay and Continue in Business No adjustment The Enforcement Policy provides that if there is sufficient financial information to assess the violator’s ability to pay the total base liability or to assess the effect of the total base liability on the violator’s ability to continue in business, then the liability may be adjusted downward if warranted. PBF Energy Inc., the Discharger’s parent corporation, is a large energy business with multiple refineries throughout the United States and did not raise the issue of the ability to pay during negotiations. Therefore, the Prosecution Team believes that the Discharger can pay the proposed liability without undue financial hardship.