New Search
requirements through enforcement of existing EC provisions. It is therefore neither <br /> redundant nor unnecessary. <br /> Comment 2: Questions were raised with respect to the jurisdictional responsibility ~wrl <br /> between the City and the DEQ. <br /> Fin in :This rule does not replace the DEQ requirements for those industries that <br /> hold NPDES permits, nor does it replace any other state or federal regulations. The City <br /> has jurisdiction over its stormwater system. However, DEQ has enforcement jurisdiction <br /> for certain regulated industries, issues NPDES stormwater discharge permits, and enforces <br /> the permit requirements. The rule provides that discharges allowed under a valid NPDES <br /> permit are not subject to a penalty under this rule. If an industry is not in compliance, the <br /> City may take steps prior to or in addition to DEQ enforcement to protect the quality of <br /> its surface water and to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES stormwater permit. <br /> Furthermore, City and DEQ staff frequently coordinate efforts and information on issues <br /> regarding complaints, permit violations, site investigations, technical assistance to <br /> facilities, educational material, and spill response. It is anticipated that City and the DEQ <br /> will enter into an agreement that formally defines the roles and responsibilities of each <br /> with respect to industrial permitted facilities. <br /> Comment 3: Issues were raised concerning the funding impact, and whether <br /> additional fees would be imposed as a result of adoption of the rules. . <br /> Fin in :The rule provides the mechanism to enforce current regulations, and does <br /> not propose or provide for the imposition of new or additional fees. The staffing levels <br /> required to enforce illegal stormwater discharges were accounted for when the current <br /> stormwater user fee rate structure was' implemented in 1994. <br /> Comment 4: Suggestions were made that the rule was intended to provide the City <br /> with a source of revenue. . <br /> in ' :As noted in the Finding to Comment 3, no additional fees or significant <br /> increase in revenue is anticipated as a result of the adoption of this rule. It is neither <br /> intended nor designed as a method to pay for the program nor to generate revenue for the <br /> City. The intent of the rule isj <br /> deter repeat violations and to encourage responsible parties <br /> to take immediate action to contain spills, clean-up illegally discharged materials, and <br /> initiate steps to prevent future violations. This is evidenced by the penalty matrix which <br /> is designed to allow a reduction in an assessment for every pro-active effort a responsible <br /> party takes during an incident to correct and mitigate the impact of a violation. Where <br /> voluntary compliance and educational efforts do not prove effective, the assessment of civil <br /> penalties provides the City with an enforcement tool to ensure compliance with the EC. <br /> The City's first concern is to protect the public and the environment, and to identify the <br /> responsible party and seek voluntary compliance with the EC. When the City is required <br /> <br /> Stormwater System Administrative Rule - 2 <br /> <br />