Potential for Harm. Moderate
Potential for Harm. Moderate The Enforcement Policy defines Moderate potential for harm as “The characteristics of the violation have substantially impaired the Water Boards’ ability to perform their statutory and regulatory functions, present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, and/or the circumstances of the violation indicate a substantial potential for harm. As mentioned above, the discharges from the Site discharge indirectly from the Site into Xxxxxx Simi through a storm water drain on White Sage Road and a storm water drainage pipe on the Site. The beneficial uses of Xxxxxx Simi are listed in Violation 1. During Regional Board staff inspections, Regional Board staff observed that the Discharger failed to effectively implement perimeter controls. Failure to properly implement sediment controls could lead to sediment discharge in storm water. Discharges of sediment to surface waters can cloud the receiving water, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching aquatic plants, clog fish gills, smother 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. Therefore, the Potential for Harm for this violation is characterized as Moderate.
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. 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. 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 Discharger’s failure to develop a REAP for likely precipitation events meant that during rain events, exposed portions of the construction project were not protected by BMPs. This 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 Discharger’s failure to install BMPs to protect stormwater inlets created a threatened discharge of sediment and other pollutants 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. 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) Land Disposal Program by disregarding the requirement to submit timely reports. Discharger’s compliance with reporting requirements is foundational to the Regional Water Board’s efforts to protect water quality. The Land Disposal Program’s Orders adopted by the Regional Water Board specify the expectations and requirements for water quality protection. The Discharger failed to submit six Monthly Monitoring Reports as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. R7-2008-0038 (Mountain Station WDRs). Additionally, the Discharger has submitted sixty-five 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 Mountain 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 Mountain Station Wastewater Treatment Facility (Mountain 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 scores for the three factors are added to provide a Potential for Harm score. In this case, a final score of 7 was calculated from Factors 1, 2, and 3 (3+3+1 = 7). The final score is then used in Step 2, below.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations
