Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations Clause Samples

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The Prosecution Team is not alleging a discharge violation; therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate this factor.

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This factor does not apply to these violations.

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This factor is not applicable because those violations are non-discharge violations.

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This step is not applicable to Violations 1 – 8 because the violations are not discharge violations.

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The “potential harm to beneficial uses” factor considers the harm to beneficial uses that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three-factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the potential for harm to beneficial uses; (2) the degree of toxicity of the discharge; and (3) whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement. A score between 0 and 5 is assigned based on a determination of whether the harm or potential for harm to beneficial uses is negligible (0) to major (5). For Violation No. 1, the potential harm to beneficial uses was determined to be minor (i.e., a score of 1). The designated beneficial uses of the Mojave River that could be impacted by the unauthorized discharge include municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, contact recreation (swimming, water skiing, wading, and fishing), non-contact recreation (picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, boating, kayaking, sightseeing, aesthetic enjoyment), warm and cold freshwater habitats, and wildlife habitat. Sludge supernatant is similar to raw sewage in that they both contain high concentrations of nutrients, organic matter, and total coliforms. Discharges can pollute surface or ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. The discharge of 230 gallons of sludge supernatant on June 18, 2010, resulted in minor harm to the beneficial uses of the Mojave River. The Enforcement Policy defines minor as: The discharge occurred in a wetlands area located within the flood plain of the Mojave River. However, the active flow path of the river during the time of year the discharge occurred did not inundate the wetlands area. Therefore, the discharge did not enter the active river flow and did not impact any area (and associated beneficial use) downstream from the point of discharge. It is likely that the discharge resulted in no impacts to contact and non-contact recreation beneficial uses. The Lahontan Water Board is not aware of any complaints or other evidence of impact to such uses resulting from the spill. However, the sludge supernatant does contain high bacterial concentrations that could potentially impact area groundwater ▇▇▇▇▇ that are used for municipal supply. In fact, the bacterial impact within the discharge area persisted...

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations a. Factor 1: Degree of Toxicity of the Discharge A score between 0 and 4 is assigned based on a determination of the risk and threat of the discharged material. A score of 2 is assigned for this violation. A score of 2 is defined as “Discharged material poses a moderate risk or threat to potential receptors (i.e., the chemical and/or physical characteristics of the discharged material have some level of toxicity or pose a moderate risk or threat to potential receptors).” A score of 2 was selected because discharges of sediment to surface waters can cloud the receiving water, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching aquatic plants, clog fish gills, and smothering aquatic habitat and spawning areas. Sediment can also transport other materials such as nutrients, metals, and oils and grease which can cause toxicity to aquatic organisms. Excess sediment in water poses a moderate level of concern to ecosystem health exposure pathways because of the likelihood that the discharged material would harm aquatic life. b. Factor 2: Actual Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses The evaluation of the actual or potential harm to beneficial uses factor considers the harm to beneficial uses in the affected receiving water body that may result from exposure to the pollutants or contaminants in the discharge, consistent with the statutory factors of the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation. The Water Boards may consider actual harm or potential harm to human health, in addition to harm to beneficial uses. The score evaluates direct or indirect actual harm or potential for harm from the violation. The Actual Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses ranges between 0 and 5 based on a determination of whether the harm or potential for harm to beneficial uses is negligible (0), minor (1), below moderate (2), moderate (3), above moderate (4), or major

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The “potential harm to beneficial uses” factor considers the harm to beneficial uses that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three‐factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the potential for harm to beneficial uses; (2) 1 The estimate of soil excavated from the streambed and placed in the streambed if taken from application for State Water Resources Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification submitted on November 14, 2012 on behalf of the Settling Respondents.

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. Category Harm Factor Reason Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses 2 For the December 17-19, and 22, 2010, SSOs, the potential harm is below moderate. Though there were impacts to uses of Corta Madera Creek, a below moderate harm is warranted because the discharges were diluted with high wet weather flows in the receiving water; and the actual recreational uses are typically less during wet weather events. And while the Enforcement Policy indicates an “above moderate” or a “major” harm due to the more than 5 days of restrictions on beneficial uses, the high number of days posted were likely extended due to residual bacteria from urban runoff sources rather than the events themselves. 1 For other capacity-related wet weather SSOs, the potential harm factor is minor for the same reasons as described above, and because they occurred in recreation areas with fewer, if any, days posted. 2 For non-capacity related dry weather SSOs, the potential harm factor is below moderate, because though smaller in volume and thus smaller areal extent than wet weather related SSOs, there is little or no dilution from flows in the receiving water to reduce potential impacts. Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristic s (Degree of Toxicity) 3 3 Discharge from the December 17-19, and 22, 2010, SSOs and other capacity-related and wet weather SSOs pose an above moderate risk or threat to potential receptors because, though diluted by I&I, the SSOs are not at all treated and would contain bacteria at levels exceeding human health standards and potentially toxic to aquatic organisms. All other non-capacity related dry weather SSOs pose an above moderate risk or threat to potential receptors because these SSOs consist of undiluted sewage. Susceptibility to Cleanup or Abatement 1 For capacity-related wet weather SSOs, less than 50% of these SSOs is amenable to cleanup or containment because the collection system, storm drains, and creeks are also flowing full at the time; 0 For all other SSOs, greater than 50% of each is susceptible to cleanup as the Discharger response time is adequate (average of about 1 hour). However, we note that the actual average SSO recovery is about 12 percent. Final Potential 6 For December 17-19, and 22, 2010, SSOs to Harm 5 For other capacity-related SSOs; Scores 5 For non-capacity related dry weather SSOs Category Factor Reason ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Per Day Assessment 0.22 For December 17-19, and 22, 2010, SSOs, the discharge of a total of abou...

Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. For this Complaint, the Central Valley Water Board Prosecution Team is not alleging any illegal discharge of waste by the Discharger. Therefore, the evaluation of this factor has been omitted from the following calculation.