Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File Number:. 55999 P.age 20 of 26 Pag~es periods of equipment downtime, This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have beeninstalIed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of eqUipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and (c) The permittee submitted notices and requests as required under General Condition B.3.c. (2) .The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects and any ,ltern,flve.q tn hypa~ln~, whe_n_ the D~_~or dete__m~_J_neg that i_,_ .,~. '.!! mcet-t.he th_we conditions listed above in General Condition B.3.b.(1). c. Notice and request for bypass. · .- (1) .Anticipated bypass. If the permittee.knows in advance of-the need-for a bypassi it shail. - submit prior .written notice, if possible at.least ten days before the date ofthebypass. ~ .(2) Unanticipated. bypass. The permitte, shall submit noticei0fan unanticipated bypass as' required in General Condition D.5. , · - 4. Upset a. Definition. "Upset'.' means an.exceptiona! incident in whic.h there is'unint.entional and temporary · noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations b. ecause of factors beyond tho .reasonable eontrgl of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the' extent mused by operation error, imgroperly desi. gned treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation. ~ · b.' 'Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an a~rmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such.technology bas~ permit effluent lirrdtatioris if the requirements of General Condition B.4.c are met. No d~termination 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. c. Conditions. necessar7 for a demonstration of upset. A permittee Who wishes to e.~blish the ' affirmative defens.e of ups. et shall demonstrate, .thOugh p.roperly signed, con?mporaneous operating logs, or othir relevant evidence th_at: (1} An u~set occurred.and that the permittee can identify the muses(s) of thc upset; (2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; (3) The permittee submitted notice of the .upset as required in General Condition D.5, hereof (24-hour notice); and (4).. The pe.rmittce complied with an7 remedial measures reqlaired under General Condition A.3 hereof. d. Burden of proof. In any enforcem.ent, proceeding the permitte¢ seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. 5. Treatment of Sinele Operational Event For purposes of this permit, A Single Operational l~vent which leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single violation. A single operational event is an exceptional incident which causes simultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the result cfa knowing ac.*. or omission),4-44