Laserfiche WebLink
City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 68 <br /> NPDES Permit CAS0083470 <br /> Response to Comments <br /> Response: This change is unnecessary, as the Regional Board has implicit authority to enforce <br /> against the Permittees for failure to follow progressive enforcement or otherwise enforce their <br /> respective ordinances. <br /> 33. Comment: (DK Comment 5(c)) SWMP Legal Authority 8 should require that enforcement policy be <br /> submitted to the Regional Board for approval since it is an integral part of the permit. <br /> Response: Provision D.8 requires each Permittee to certify that it has adequate legal and <br /> enforcement authority to implement the provisions of the Tentative Order. We believe this is the <br /> appropriate level of oversight to adequately enforce this provision. The Permittees can be required <br /> to remedy any deficiencies that are identified. <br /> 34. Comment: (DK Comment 5(d)) SWMP Program Management 9(b): The Permittees have refused to <br /> make the Annual Report available to the public. Annual Reports should be made available to the <br /> public in either hard copy or electronic copy(pdf and text versions). <br /> Response: To the extent the Annual Reports contain public information, the Annpal Reports should <br /> be made available to the public. However, the Regional Board will evaluate any request by the <br /> Permittees that documents or information provided in the Annual Report be withheld from <br /> disclosure pursuant to applicable exemptions under the California Public Records Act. <br /> 35. Comment: (DK Comment 5(e)) SWMP Program Management 9(c): SWMP Implementation. The <br /> Permittees failed to submit an acceptable SWMP with their Report of Waste Discharge in 1999. <br /> Receiving water quality violations have continued unabated. It is outrageous that they are being <br /> allowed another two years, until September 2004, to commence full implementation. The <br /> requirement should be changed to require compliance by September 2003. <br /> Response: The timelines presented in the Tentative Order account for the estimated time required <br /> for the following: (1) for the Permittees to revise their SWMP to comply with the permit; (2) for <br /> Board staff and the public to comment on the SWMP; (3) for the Permittees to respond to comments <br /> and revise the SWMP as necessary; (4) for Board staff to arrange a public hearing for the Regional <br /> Board to consider approval of the SWMP; and (5) for the Permittees to implement the approved <br /> SWMP. Given the complexity and number of these tasks, the timelines in the Tentative Order are <br /> appropriate. <br /> 36. Comment: (DK Comment 5(f)) SWMP Construction Program 10(b)(vi): DeltaKeeper is deeply <br /> troubled by the reduction in construction inspections in this latest draft. Earlier drafts required <br /> weekly inspections during wet weather(1 October to 30 April) and bi-weekly thereafter. We urge <br /> staff to restore the frequency of inspections contained in the last draft. <br /> We strongly urge the addition of the following language: For inspected sites that have not <br /> adequately implemented their SWPPP, a follow-up inspection to ensure compliance shall take place <br /> within three days. If compliance has not been attained, the Permittee will take additional actions to <br /> achieve compliance(as specified in the municipal codes). Copies of these additional actions will be <br /> sent to the Regional Board. If compliance has not been achieved, and the site is covered under a <br />