Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
SB1598 Stakeholder Correspondence Venue

The SB 1598 concerns contained on this webpage originated from either the email address SB1598@mail.maricopa.gov or a stakeholder meeting. If you voiced or submitted a concern to Environmental Services that specifically addressed the Department’s application of SB1598, either through email or a stakeholder meeting.

• Emailed Concerns:

• Septic Service/Installation Company (Email)

• How does this bill affect a septic service/installation company with certified septic inspectors?

  • The rule applies to activities related to the issuance and / or the compliance with a permit issued by the Department.

• Inspection – Purpose (Email)

• Does this apply only to ‘regulated persons’ (paragraph A) or unregulated persons to determine if regulation is necessary? To clarify, all non-residential users of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are regulated by the municipality's local limits, therefore, all inspections are of a 'regulated person'. Does this then apply to every restaurant and commercial grease interceptor inspection for compliance with city code in which a formal inspection report is not normally generated? Please give an example of an inspection that is exempt from the above paragraphs.
  “(2) A. A MUNICIPAL INSPECTOR OR REGULATOR WHO ENTERS ANY PREMISES OF A
  REGULATED PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING AN INSPECTION SHALL:
  and
  J. THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO INSPECTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE
  OF A LICENSE OR TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS. “

  • The rule applies to regulated persons related to the issuance and / or the compliance with a permit issued by the Department. There are separate provisions in the rule that apply to cities for permits which they issued.

• Drinking Water/Treatment Plants/Subdivisions Stakeholder Meeting Concerns:

• Complaints

• Does filing a complaint with Board of Supervisors pertain to the regulation or the application of the regulation?

  • The SB1598 ability to file a complaint pertains to the application of the regulation.

• Inspection – Deficiencies

• The way the bill reads you have to give us the opportunity to correct the deficiency unless it is obvious we did something purposely or it is a health issue – I want that noted.

  • Yes, you are given the opportunity to correct the deficiency unless it is intentional or it causes an imminent health hazard.

• Inspection – LOV/Enforcement

• Letter of Violation (LOV) - Is that still informal and does the letter state you have 30 days, 10 days or some other time frame to respond?

  • Yes, the letter usually states you have 30 days to request a meeting with Department officials to discuss corrective measures. Additionally, the letter states how to contact us and by which date and what will happen if you do not contact the Department.

• Licensing Time Frames

• I did not see the request for additional information as stated in the bill. As I recall, you can place only one request, unless mutually agreed upon by the parties and I do not see that mentioned in any of your documentation.

  • LTF implementation will be addressed prior to the compliance date of 12/31/2012.

• Licensing time frames - Do we have to be make changes to our codes or policy statements or will Maricopa County change your codes to implant the licensing time frames by 12/31/2012?

  • The LTF portion of SB1598 does not go into effect until 12/31/12; therefore, no change to the code will occur at this time. LTF provisions are being reviewed and implementation will be addressed prior to the compliance date of 12/31/2012. Considerations include current LTF agreements, included in our delegation agreements, for each specific plan review activity. The Department will apply the stakeholder process to address LTF issues.

• Swimming Pool Stakeholder Meeting Concerns:

• Licensing Time Frames

• If I have a question regarding my plan review who should I contact?

  • the plan reviewer assigned to your project your plan review questions.

• Will the Department deny the application on a re-submittal if the plan reviewer missed an item? For example, he gives me a list of corrections and he misses something?

  • LTF provisions are being reviewed and implementation will be addressed with stakeholders prior to the compliance date of 12/31/2012. LTF considers both administrative and substantive reviews. Under administrative review, the application is not complete until all requested items are provided. Under the substantive review, one set of comprehensive comments by the Department are typically allowed.