Category WW1: No DRBC Review Required Sample Clauses

Category WW1: No DRBC Review Required. Under the Compact and DRBC regulations, the following wastewater discharge projects are not subject to review by the Commission, except in accordance with either Section 2.3.5 B.18 (determination by the Executive Director) or Section 2.3.5 C. (request by a Commission member agency) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP). (See Section IV. of this Agreement for categories of projects other than wastewater discharge projects that are not subject to the Commission’s review.): 1. Wastewater discharges directed to wastewater treatment plants that are subject to the review of the NJPDES Pretreatment, Significant Indirect User, and Residuals Management Program, except where a wastewater treatment plant is proposing to import 50,000 gallons of wastewater or more per day from outside the Delaware River Basin. 2. Wastewater discharges directly to surface or groundwater from domestic sewage treatment facilities when the design capacity of such facilities is less than a daily average rate of 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the basin; and all local sewage collector systems and improvements discharging into authorized trunk sewage systems. 3. Wastewater discharges directly to surface or groundwater from industrial wastewater treatment facilities when such facilities have a design capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere within the basin. 4. Wastewater discharges – whether direct or indirect – to surface or groundwater from landfills or remediation activities, when the discharge is less than 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere within the basin. 5. Discharges covered by a NJPDES General Permit for hydrostatic testing, when the discharge is less than 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the basin. 6. Discharges consisting exclusively of either construction dewatering or swimming pool discharges. (Such projects are determined to be “temporary or short term projects” in accordance with Section 2.3.5 A.19. of DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and to have no substantial effect on water resources of the basin.)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Category WW1: No DRBC Review Required. Under the Compact and DRBC regulations, the following wastewater discharge projects are not subject to review by the Commission, except in accordance with either Section 2.3.5 B.18 (determination by the Executive Director) or Section 2.3.5 C. (by the Commission in response to a federal or state agency request) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP). (See Section IV. of this Agreement for categories of projects other than wastewater discharge projects that are not subject to the Commission’s review.): 1. Wastewater discharges directly to surface or groundwater from industrial wastewater treatment facilities when such facilities have a design capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere within the basin. 2. Wastewater discharges – whether direct or indirect – to surface or groundwater from landfills or remediation activities, when the discharge is less than 10,000 gallons per day within the drainage area of SPW, or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere within the basin. 3. Discharges consisting exclusively of either construction dewatering or swimming pool discharges. (Such projects are determined to be “temporary or short term projects” in accordance with Section 2.3.5 A.19. of DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and to have no substantial effect on water resources of the basin.)

Related to Category WW1: No DRBC Review Required

  • Completion of Review for Certain Review Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Review Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Review Receivable is paid in full by the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer in accordance with the terms of the Basic Documents. On receipt of such notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of the related Review Receivable, and the Review of such Review Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the related Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for such Review Receivable and the related reason.

  • Minimum Customer Support Requirements for TIPS Sales Vendor shall provide timely and commercially reasonable support for TIPS Sales or as agreed to in the applicable Supplemental Agreement.

  • Design Review ‌ (a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing. (b) None of: (i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier; (ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or (iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.

  • Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Telepak Networks will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Telepak Networks must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non-designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Telepak Networks will be required to provide the results of the Telepak Networks test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop. 2.1.6.2 Once Telepak Networks has isolated a trouble to the BellSouth provided Loop, and had issued a trouble report to BellSouth on the Loop, BellSouth will take the actions necessary to repair the Loop if a trouble actually exists. BellSouth will repair these Loops in the same time frames that BellSouth repairs similarly situated Loops to its End Users. 2.1.6.3 If Telepak Networks reports a trouble on a non-designed or designed Loop and no trouble actually exists, BellSouth will charge Telepak Networks for any dispatching and testing (both inside and outside the CO) required by BellSouth in order to confirm the Loop’s working status. 2.1.6.4 In the event BellSouth must dispatch to the end-user’s location more than once due to incorrect or incomplete information provided by Telepak Networks (e.g., incomplete address, incorrect contact name/number, etc.), BellSouth will xxxx Xxxxxxx Networks for each additional dispatch required to repair the circuit due to the incorrect/incomplete information provided. BellSouth will assess the applicable Trouble Determination rates from BellSouth’s FCC or state tariffs.

  • Classification Review (A) Reclassification Request (a) An employee who has good reason to believe that they are improperly classified may apply, in writing by electronic mail, to their immediate out-of-scope Manager to have their classification reviewed. This may occur when there has been a substantive change in the job functions, when there has been a change in organizational structure that significantly impacts roles, or when a classification specification has been amended in a manner that alters the basis on which classification levels are differentiated. The employee making the request will indicate the reason(s) why they believe their position is inappropriately classified, including the changes that have occurred to the position, organization or classification specifications. In some circumstances, a classification review may be initiated in response to a long standing perceived inequity in how a position is classified. However, where a review has been previously conducted, employees should not request a subsequent classification review unless there has been a substantive change as described above. Submissions must include an approved job description, in the event that a current job description is not available an employee can initiate their written request so as to establish a potential effective date as per article 40.04(a). The manager shall send a copy of the employee’s request to Human Resources without delay, and shall confirm in writing to the employee and the Union that the employee’s request has been received. The manager shall advise the employee of the results of the classification review within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving the request. The notification shall be in writing and include rationale for the decision, specifically addressing the reasons for the review provided by the employee. (b) When reviewing a request for reclassification, the Employer shall follow the guidelines included in the Classification Specification User Manual. Requests are reviewed by the Employer. The evaluation of the role may include an audit of the role, including interviews with the Employee and the Employee’s Manager as needed. (c) Should the employee feel that they have not received proper consideration in regard to a classification review, they may request that the matter be referred to the Internal Appeal Process.

  • Loop Provisioning Involving Integrated Digital Loop Carriers 2.6.1 Where Freedom has requested an Unbundled Loop and BellSouth uses IDLC systems to provide the local service to the End User and BellSouth has a suitable alternate facility available, BellSouth will make such alternative facilities available to Freedom. If a suitable alternative facility is not available, then to the extent it is technically feasible, BellSouth will implement one of the following alternative arrangements for Freedom (e.g. hairpinning): 1. Roll the circuit(s) from the IDLC to any spare copper that exists to the customer premises. 2. Roll the circuit(s) from the IDLC to an existing DLC that is not integrated. 3. If capacity exists, provide "side-door" porting through the switch. 4. If capacity exists, provide "Digital Access Cross Connect System (DACS)- door" porting (if the IDLC routes through a DACS prior to integration into the switch). 2.6.2 Arrangements 3 and 4 above require the use of a designed circuit. Therefore, non- designed Loops such as the SL1 voice grade and UCL-ND may not be ordered in these cases. 2.6.3 If no alternate facility is available, and upon request from Freedom, and if agreed to by both Parties, BellSouth may utilize its Special Construction (SC) process to determine the additional costs required to provision facilities. Freedom will then have the option of paying the one-time SC rates to place the Loop.

  • Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and Leasing of Equipment The contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the administration of this contract. a. The contractor shall notify all potential subcontractors and suppliers and lessors of their EEO obligations under this contract. b. The contractor will use good faith efforts to ensure subcontractor compliance with their EEO obligations.

  • DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACTOR PRICE LIST AND CONTRACT APPENDICES Contractor shall provide Authorized Users with electronic copies of the Contract, including price lists and Appendices, upon request. Contract Updates will be handled as provided in Appendix C – Contract Modification Procedures.

  • Substance Abuse Testing The Parties agree that it is in the best interest of all concerned to promote a safe working environment. The Union has no objection to pre-employment substance abuse testing when required by the Employer and further, the Union has no objection to voluntary substance abuse testing to qualify for employment on projects when required by a project owner. The cost and scheduling of such testing shall be paid for and arranged by the Employer. The Union agrees to reimburse the Employer for any failed pre-access Alcohol and Drug test costs.

  • Completion of Review for Certain Subject Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Subject Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Subject Receivable is paid in full by or on behalf of the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer by the Sponsor or the Servicer in accordance with the Transaction Documents. On receipt of notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of such Receivables and the Asset Review of such Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for the Receivables and the related reason.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!