Common use of Potential for Harm Clause in Contracts

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 erosion and sediment control BMPs had the potential to impact beneficial uses. During the 16 October 2012 through 3 December 2012 period prior to installation of the plastic sheeting, rainfall caused massive erosion which could have been reduced using appropriate combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to limit erosion and capture a portion of the sediment that ultimately discharged. 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 very effective. Therefore, the potential for harm to beneficial uses based on the BMPs in place 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 erosion or sediment control BMPs were installed on the slopes of the Mono East abutment. The deviation from the applicable requirement (i.e, Requirement E.3 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.

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 erosion and linear sediment control BMPs had the potential to impact beneficial uses. During the period from 16 October 2012 through 3 December 2012 period 29 January 2013, prior to installation of the plastic sheeting, rainfall caused massive erosion which could have been reduced using appropriate combination of erosion control and linear sediment control BMPs to limit erosion and capture trap a portion of the sediment that ultimately dischargedand 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 very effectivefully effective at preventing turbid discharges. Therefore, the potential for harm to beneficial uses based on the BMPs in place 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 erosion or linear sediment control BMPs or grade breaks were installed on the slopes of the Mono East abutment. The deviation from the applicable requirement (i.ei.e., Requirement E.3 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.

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. The characteristics of the violation present either a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. In this case, a lack of appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs had the potential to impact beneficial uses. During the 16 October 4 December 2012 through 3 December 2012 29 January 2013 period prior to installation of the plastic sheeting, rainfall caused massive erosion which could have been reduced using appropriate combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to limit erosion and capture a portion of the sediment that ultimately discharged. 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 very fully effective. Therefore, the potential for harm to beneficial uses based on the BMPs in place 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 erosion or sediment control BMPs were installed on the slopes of the Mono East abutment. The deviation from the applicable requirement (i.e, Requirement E.3 D.2 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.