Common use of Potential for Harm Clause in Contracts

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.