Potential for Harm Sample Clauses

Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires determination of whether the characteristics of the violation resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. In this case, a lack of appropriate linear sediment control BMPs had the potential to impact beneficial uses. During the period from 16 October 2012 through 29 January 2013, prior to installation of the plastic sheeting, rainfall caused erosion which could have been reduced using appropriate linear sediment control BMPs to trap a portion of the sediment and slow the flow of runoff. The Discharger did, however, increase the size of retention basins in late November 2012 in an effort to minimize turbid runoff and sediment transport offsite. However, based on inspections conducted by Board staff, these basins were undersized and not fully effective at preventing turbid discharges. Therefore, the potential for harm to beneficial uses is determined to be Moderate, which is defined as “The characteristics of the violation present a substantial threat to beneficial uses and/or the circumstances of the violation indicate a substantial potential for harm. Most incidents would be considered to present a moderate potential for harm.” Deviation from Requirement: The Enforcement Policy requires determination of whether the violation represents either a minor, moderate, or major deviation from the applicable requirements. No linear sediment control BMPs or grade breaks were installed on the slopes of the Mono East abutment. The deviation from the applicable requirement (i.e., Requirement E.4 of the Construction General Permit) is determined to be Major, which is defined as “The requirement has been rendered ineffective (e.g., discharger disregards the requirement, and/or the requirement is rendered ineffective in its essential functions).” Using Table 3 in the Enforcement Policy, the Per Day Factor of 0.55 is assigned. This value is to be multiplied by the days of violation and the maximum per day penalty, as shown below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Potential for Harm. Violation 2: The Potential for Harm associated with the soil cover violation is minor because the potential for offsite discharges in the inactive areas, where soil cover was missing or inadequate, was generally low, which reduced the threat to beneficial uses of surface water. Construction was inactive and soil cover was either missing, inadequately installed, or not maintained over approximately 24 acres of the Site in the areas of Neighborhoods 2, 4, and 5 and Central Creek.24 The potential for harm from this violation was low due to some mitigating circumstances in neighborhoods 2, 4, and 5. The inactive portion of Neighborhood 2 was in a distal portion of the Site; some downslope controls had been installed to potentially help control sediment discharges. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 were relatively flat, stormwater ponded in surface depressions, and other controls, such as containment berms and sediment basins, were installed to help control stormwater discharges. The highest threat to surface water was the inactive area around Central Creek, where slopes were steep and the distance to surface water was short. The extent of inadequate soil cover in this area was about one acre. While inadequate or missing soil cover is a serious concern because it helps to stop erosion (the source of sediment pollution), the overall threat of harm was considered low for the observed areas.
Potential for Harm. Moderate The potential for harm for this violation constitutes a Moderate potential for harm. The Discharger’s failure to install perimeter controls could have led to discharges of sediment to the Los Angeles County Storm Drain system and the Big Tujunga Creek. The beneficial uses listed for Big Tujunga Creek in the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties are municipal and domestic supply, ground water recharge, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Discharges of sediment can cloud the receiving water (which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching aquatic plants), clog fish gills, smother aquatic habitat and spawning areas, and impede navigation. Sediment can also transport other materials such as nutrients, metals, and oil and grease which can also negatively impact aquatic life.
Potential for Harm. Moderate The Discharger’s failure to have the QSP on site meant that a qualified individual was not overseeing implementation of BMPs listed in the SWPPP and was not conducting required inspection which could have resulted in the discharge of pollutants, such as sediment, to the Los Angeles County Storm Drain system and the Big Tujunga Creek. The beneficial uses listed for Big Tujunga Creek in the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties are municipal and domestic supply, ground water recharge, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Discharges of sediment can cloud the receiving water (which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching aquatic plants), clog fish gills, smother aquatic habitat and spawning areas, and impede navigation. Sediment can also transport other materials such as nutrients, metals, and oil and grease which can also negatively impact aquatic life.
Potential for Harm. Moderate The failure to implement adequate BMPs for spill and leak prevention and response posed a substantial potential for harm. Leaking milk and propylene glycol cooling fluid were captured in a bucket in close proximity, approximately 15 feet, to an onsite storm drain inlet. Overflow or spillage entering the storm drain system and not recovered at the oil/water separators would discharge to the City of Fairfield storm drain system that eventually leads to an outfall near Xxxxxxx Canyon Creek located approximately 200 yards to the north of the Facility. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of milk and propylene glycol cooling fluid poses a significant threat to available oxygen in this creek. Deviation from Requirement: Moderate The General Permit requires spill and leak response procedures to prevent industrial materials from discharging through the stormwater conveyance system and for the prompt clean up and proper disposal of spilled or leaked materials. Using a bucket to catch a leak is an inadequate BMP and not accepted industry practice. It took almost three months to complete repairs or replace the heat exchanger and stop the source of the leak. The continued use of a bucket as spill response over the three-month period to repair a known piece of leaking equipment is considered a moderate deviation from the requirement. Adjustment for Multiple Day Violations No There is no adjustment for multiple days of violation. Initial Liability $216,000 The initial liability is calculated as follows: per-day factor (0.30), multiplied by the maximum per-day amount of liability allowed ($10,000), multiplied by the number of days of violation (72). The violation started as early as September 17, 2017, and continued until December 9, 2015, for a total of 84 days. Saturdays and certain other days were not included as days of violation because SSI reported that the Facility did not operate on these days. The resulting number of days of violation is 72. Culpability 1.2 SSI was aware of the leak and did not take immediate action to fix it. The leak was reported on or before September 17, 2017, when it was noted during a stormwater inspection, and was documented in Facility log books on November 1, 4, 8, 19, and 23, and December 1 and 3, 2015. SSI continued to try and capture leaking milk and propylene glycol in a bucket during this time. SSI neglected to stop the source of the leak over a period of months, which allegedly resulted in a prohibited discharge to Xxxxxxx...
Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires a determination of whether the characteristics of the violations resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. Staff has determined that the potential for harm is moderate, because the characteristics of the violation present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, and the circumstances of the violation indicate a substantial potential for harm. The Discharger has undermined the efforts of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board’s (Regional Water Board or Board) Land Disposal Program by disregarding the requirement to submit timely reports. The Discharger’s compliance with reporting requirements is foundational to the Board’s efforts to protect water quality. The Land Disposal Program’s Orders adopted by the Board specify the expectations and requirements for water quality protection. The Discharger has failed to submit six Monthly Monitoring Reports as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. R7-2009-0026 (Valley Station WDRs). Additionally, the Discharger has submitted eighty-nine late Monthly Monitoring Reports. By not submitting or submitting late monitoring reports, the Discharger has undermined the Regional Water Board’s ability to analyze the reports to ensure compliance with the Valley Station WDRs. The Discharger has therefore avoided potential violations related to its discharge which could potentially degrade the groundwater quality and impact beneficial uses. Additionally, the regulatory program is compromised when Regional Water Board staff resources are directed toward bringing the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Valley Station Wastewater Treatment Facility (Valley Station WWTF) into compliance rather than being available for outreach and applying technical knowledge to ensure the protection of the Region’s groundwater.
Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires a determination of whether the characteristics of the violation resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. In this case, the Discharger’s failure to submit quarterly project status reports as required by the CDO represents a “substantial threat to beneficial uses.” The substance of the missing reports include documentation of planning, funding, design, and construction activities associated with the wastewater treatment plant regionalization project and decommissioning of wastewater ponds located within the floodplain of the Yuba and Feather Rivers. The purpose of the quarterly project status reports is to keep the Regional Board apprised of the progress the Discharger is making towards discontinuing its discharge to the wastewater storage and disposal ponds, which being located within the floodplain of the Yuba and Feather Rivers are subject to inundation or washout during high river flow conditions. Delay of the pond closure activities and continuation of discharge presents a continuing and ongoing threat to beneficial uses, as evidenced by the fact that the northern ponds were in fact inundated by the Feather River on 8 February 2017 and 10 February 2017. The Discharger’s consistent failure to submit quarterly progress reports deprived the Regional Board of valuable knowledge that could have been used to prevent delay. A value of “Moderate” is therefore warranted. Deviation from Requirement The Enforcement Policy requires determination of whether the violation represents either a minor, moderate, or major deviation from the applicable requirements. For the Deviation from Requirement, a “Major” factor is appropriate in this case because the Discharger’s repeated failure to submit reports as required by the CDO shows the Discharger’s complete disregard for compliance with regulatory requirements. Using Table 3 in the Enforcement Policy, the Per Day Factor of 0.55 is assigned. This value is to be multiplied by the days of violation and the maximum per day penalty, as shown in the Initial Liability table below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Potential for Harm. The scores of the three factors are added to provide a Potential for Harm score for each violation or group of violations. In this case, a final score of 8 was calculated. The total score is then used in Step 2, below.
Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires determination of whether the characteristics of the violation resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. A lack of maintenance of storm water BMPs had some potential to impact beneficial uses. In this case, storm water BMPs were installed, but due to their poor condition, would only be partially effective in preventing turbid storm water from discharging from the site. For example, the damaged silt fencing and drop inlet filter bag BMPs could potentially trap sediment in some areas, but would be much less effective than new or properly maintained BMPs. In addition, the portion of the plastic sheeting that was dislodged by the wind would provide essentially no erosion control while the portion of the plastic sheeting that was properly secured would provide effective erosion control. Therefore, the potential for harm to beneficial uses is determined to be Minor, which is defined as “The characteristics of the violation present a minor threat to beneficial uses, and/or the circumstances of the violation indicate a minor potential threat for harm.” Deviation from Requirement: The Enforcement Policy requires determination of whether the violation represents either a minor, moderate, or major deviation from the applicable requirements. General Permit Attachment D, Provision E.6 requires the Discharger to maintain storm water BMPs to ensure that they are effective. During September and October 2014 inspections, Board staff and City staff identified several storm water BMPs that were not being properly maintained, in violation of Provision
Potential for Harm. Moderate Ineffective and missing perimeter controls present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, because they can lead to discharges of sediment from the Site into Ventura River Reach 4 through stormwater drain inlets on Oakcrest Avenue and a stormwater drainage pipe on the Site. Discharges of sediment can negatively impact aquatic habitat and life, impede navigation, and render a waterbody unsuitable for recreation. Therefore, the Potential for Harm is moderate.
Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.