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 <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 ofeach <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 />din 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 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 is~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 />Stormwater System Administrative Rule - 2 <br />