2017-05-22_PERMIT FILE - C1981025A ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981025A
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 5/22/2017
• Doc Name: CDPS, NPDES Permits & Spill Prevention Plan
• Section_Exhibit Name: 4.0 Appendix 4-G
• Media Type: D
• Archive: Yes

PART II
Page 12 of 19
Permit No.: CO -048233
iii) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance
with Section 61.4(2)(g).
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(f).
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which wouldresult in any discharge, on a non -routine or infrequent basis, of
a toxic pollutant which.is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notificatim
levels":
i) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/1);
ii) One milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony; and
iii) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(f).
6. Bypass Notification-
If
otification
If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, a notice shall be submitted, at least ten days before the date ofthe
bypass, to the Division. The bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed by the Division. Violatiars
of requirements imposed by the Division will constitute a violation of this permit.
7. Upsets
a. Effect of an Upset
An upset constitutes anaffirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with permit effluent limitations if the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
b. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate through properly signed
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
i) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset;and
ii) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated and maintained; and
iii) The permittee submitted proper notice of the upset as required in Part II.A.4. of this permit (24-hour notice); and
iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measure necessary to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or
disposal in violation of this permit which has a reason able likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
In addition to the demonstration required above, a permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset for a
violation of effluent limitations based upon water quality standards shall also demonstrate through monitoring, modeling
or other methods that the relevant standards were achieved in the receiving water.
c. Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.
•
•