(1) 
The city may allow an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the general and specific prohibitions in WMC § 14.24.050(1) and (2)(c) through (g). Such defense requires the user to prove to the satisfaction of the director that:
(a) 
The user did not know or have reason to know that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, would cause pass through or interference;
(b) 
The discharge did not change substantially in nature or constituents from the industrial user's prior discharge when the city was regularly in compliance with its NPDES permit; and
(c) 
In the case of interference, the user was in compliance with applicable sludge use or disposal requirements.
(2) 
This defense may relieve the user from responsibility for enforcement to recover costs as provided under WMC § 14.24.400.
(Ord. 1221 § 1, 1996)
(1) 
Users shall control production or all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with applicable pretreatment standards upon reduction, loss or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost or fails.
(2) 
An industrial user who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset to an action brought for noncompliance with applicable pretreatment shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
(a) 
An upset occurred; the user can identify the cause(s) of the upset; and it was not due to improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation;
(b) 
The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman-like manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; and
(c) 
The user has verbally notified the city's wastewater treatment plant (or City Hall or fire department as described in WMC § 14.24.150) immediately, if possible, but no later than 24 hours upon becoming aware of the upset. Immediate notification does not require placing people in jeopardy of being harmed. The notification must include the following information. A written report must have been submitted within five days:
(i) 
A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance;
(ii) 
The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and
(iii) 
Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance.
(3) 
Users will only have the opportunity for a judicial determination on a claim of upset in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards. In any such enforcement proceedings, the user seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof.
(Ord. 1221 § 1, 1996)
(1) 
A user may allow a bypass to occur if it does not cause applicable pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated and if it is for essential maintenance to ensure efficient operations. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
(2) 
Requirements for bypasses subject to pretreatment standards or requirements:
(a) 
If a user knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the POTW, at least 10 days before the date of the bypass.
(b) 
An industrial user shall give verbal notification to the city of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within 24 hours of becoming aware of the bypass, and submit a written report to the director within five days of becoming aware of the bypass.
(c) 
The written report shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. The director may waive the written report if the verbal notification has been received within 24 hours.
(3) 
Exceptions. Bypass is prohibited, and the POTW may take an enforcement action against a user for a bypass, unless:
(a) 
Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
(b) 
There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(c) 
The user submitted notice as required under subsection (2) of this section.
(4) 
The POTW may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the POTW determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in subsection (3) of this section.
(Ord. 1221 § 1, 1996)