Laserfiche WebLink
PART II <br />Page No. 20 <br />Permi[ No. CO-0045161 <br />A. NOTIFICATION REQUIItEMENTS <br />iii. Five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance <br />with Section 61.4 (2). <br />iv. The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.~44(f). <br />b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any dischar=_.e, on a non-rou[ine or infrequent basis, <br />of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permi[, if [hat discharge will e.tceed the highest of the following <br />"notifica[ion levels": <br />i. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/I); <br />ii. One milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony; and <br />iii. Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for tha[ pollutant at [he permit application.. <br />iv. The level established by the Division in azcordance with 40 CFR § 122.4'd(f). <br />6. B~vass NotiFcation <br />If the permittee knows in advance of the tied for a bypass, a notice shall be submitted, at leas[ ten days before the date of <br />the: bypass, [o the Division. The bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed by the Division. <br />Violations of requirements imposed by the Division will constitute a violation of this permi[. <br />7. U~>se~t . <br />a. Effect of an Upset. <br />An upse[ constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with permi[ effluent limitations if <br />the requirements of pazagraph (b) of [his cation are me[. No determina[ion made during administrative review of <br />claims that noncompliance was roused M upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final adminis¢ative action <br />subject to judicial review. <br />b. Conditions Necessary for a Demotssvauon of Upset <br />A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate through properly signed <br />contemporaneous operating logs, or other rclcvant evidence that: <br />i. An upset occurred and that the pcrmittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset, and <br />ii. The permitted facility was at the time being properly opera[ed and maintained; and <br />iii. The permittee submitted proper notice of the upset as required in Part II. A.4. of this permit (24-hour notice); and <br />iv. The pertnittee complied with any rcmcdial measure necessary to min;m;~e or prevent any discharge or sludge use <br />or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reason able likelihood of adversely affecting human health or <br />the environment. <br />In addition [o [he demonstration required above, a permittee who wishes [o establish the affurmative defense of upse[ <br />for a violation of effluent limitations based upon water quality standards shall also demonstrate through monitoring, <br />modeling or other methods that [he relevant standards were achieved in the receiving water. <br />c. Burden of Proof <br />In any enforcemen[ proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurreece of an upse[ has the burden of proof. <br />8. ~;charQe Poin[ <br />:ar~y dischazge [o [he wa[ers of the State from a point source other [hart specifically authorized by this permit is prohibited. <br />