Common use of Culpability Clause in Contracts

Culpability. This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of BMPs to protect storm inlets such as a gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrier. Therefore, a multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have.

Culpability. 1.2 This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a A reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of BMPs to protect storm inlets implementing BMPs, including providing effect soil cover such as a plastic sheeting and gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrierbags. Therefore, a A multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, assigned as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have.

Culpability. This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 2010 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 0.5 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a A reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of retaining a QSP to conduct inspection and to ensure that BMPs to protect storm inlets such as a gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrierand the SWPPP were being implemented. Therefore, a multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would havehave by failing to hire a QSP.

Culpability. This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a A reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of BMPs to protect storm inlets such as a gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrier. Therefore, a A multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, assigned as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would havehave by implementing good housekeeping practices such as spill prevention and cleanup, and stockpile management using plastic sheeting and gravel bags.

Culpability. This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a A reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of BMPs to protect storm inlets such as a gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrier. Therefore, a A multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, assigned as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would havehave by ensuring that a QSP developed REAPs for the site for likely precipitation events.