Two companies have agreed to pay environmental fines to settle violations of state rules intended to curb storm water runoff, a major pollution source in the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways.
O'Malley's Used Auto Parts in Suffolk and Contractors Paving Co. in Norfolk essentially did the same things wrong, according to state regulators: When showed deficiencies years ago, they did not correct them, despite state warnings.
O'Malley's, a salvage yard on Portsmouth Boulevard, agreed to pay $12,000 for some housekeeping and paperwork infractions first documented by state inspectors in 2003, according to case records released last week.
During a follow-up inspection last November, the records show, inspectors noticed some of the same conditions, five years later.
"Specifically, equipment used for automobile dismantling was actively leaking fluids; stained soil was observed in several locations; and containers of apparent automotive fluids were not covered in such a way as to prevent spillage or overflows," according to a proposed settlement order announced last week by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Storm water that washes off O'Malley's property when it rains - which can contain those same fluids and oils that might harm public waters - drains into a small tributary of the Nansemond River.
Such runoff from businesses, development sites, parking lots, roofs, city streets and storm drains is considered the No. 1 new pollution source affecting the Bay today.
State regulators have been issuing general permits in hope of controlling storm water runoff from industrial sources since 1999.
DEQ staff first contacted Contractors Paving Co. about its storm water issues in 2005, according to records.
Owners of the asphalt plant had not mapped where all drainage outfalls were releasing waters off the property, on Trant Avenue in Norfolk. And they were not monitoring discharges into the nearby Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River or reporting them as required by state rules, records show.
During a follow-up inspection in January, some of those deficiencies were again documented, according to records, and the state decided to file a formal complaint. It now is seeking a fine of $9,619.
"Typically, these kinds of facilities get one opportunity to come into compliance and when they don't, we'll often step in," said Paul Smith, a state regulator who handled both storm water cases.
Connie O'Malley, president of the salvage company, said Friday that most of the problems stem from 2004 and 2005, just after her husband and founder of the business had died. "I didn't know what end was up," she said, "so I probably didn't pay much attention to it."
O'Malley said she was surprised by the size of the fine.
"It'd be one thing if I had a bunch of oil spills, but we didn't," she said. "Much of this was paperwork."
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Environmental Compliance Starts with the Individual In-Charge
Everyone knows the speed limit by the pretty road sign. How many really drive at the posted speed. Same thing for the environment. Permits indicate how businesses and industries are supposed to behave environmentally. There is much paper work to do to ensure the permits have been complied with. Without the paper, no proof their programs are either efficient or effective to control the potentially harmful pollutants generated and released from those locations to common waters and airs. Whereas many local industries do their upmost to improve their eco-status, many remain clueless or mired in the 50's and 60's with respect to the way they insist on doing business. Permits and manuals are written with the expectation that business owners and operators will abide by them and thereby improve their business environment first in order to keep our surrounding environment protected and continually improving. They might be paper work violations, but that attitude is a sign of clear intent to ignore more important matters. Bookem Dan-o!