Environmental BMPs are available for viewing and comment

We SHOULD care about the "exceptions" to the rule - and I hate that those are girl scouts or whomever. When we sat in Charlotte, listening to them say how BAD the water was, the questions were raised about certain others that were allowed. We didn't make it sound like we were whining because they seemed to be selectively pounding on pressure washers but at the end of the day the question still remained - why US and really, only US? Everytime I post this type of scenario, it seems to make it more clear that for them, it's not about the water cleanliness, it's about the revenue stream that they can get from our industry :(
 
Because we are becoming larger, we are visible and Forbes has had us on the radar now for years.

It's really going to be ok, I'm pretty confident we will turn Houston around. I certain with education finally will prevent this from happening again and again.

I'm looking forward to a united front for us.
 
I am also seriously excited about the industry finally (maybe) coming together on something that MATTERS!
 
I am in agreement with Celeste here, not for the purpose of complaining about what "they" get to do, but we need to keep compiling lists of exemptions and (special cases) i.e. fire departments, street sweepers, lawn watering (yes, it is exempt) and others who are immune based on the greater good. Meanwhile we need to prepare answers as to how we also serve the "greater good" and why our service is an asset to the goals of the CWA rather than a detriment.

Does anyone volunteer to post a list of exemptions in their area. The list is going to be pretty close to the same everywhere though because they take the initial list from the EPA. For example, what we do (Sonitx) is exempt when we clean with nothing but water. Condensate from AC coils is exempt nationwide. Condensate is clean water that runs down the coils actually cleaning them continually. When we use water only to clean we are doing the same thing, just at a faster rate. Our runoff can go directly into the storm drain at that level of cleaning.

Can anyone find any other exemptions?
 
This is really a very important issue, one that has never gotten enough attention.

Plus the direction it has gone for us as business people is ridiculous.

We will pull all our resources together, we all won't agree and thats ok.

As long as the fundamentals pledge remains the same people will always do what they want to do.

Thats ok because if we have the main stream in the right direction the law makers will listen.

The PWNA has there own agenda with these BMP's, they say its not to present to city,countys and other muni's.

If thats the case then what is there intentions? Or is this going to be one back track after another from here?

So tired, this is over as of March 30, 2011 the coilition was formed.

Contractors will be heard and represented proffessionally and respectfully.

This group will serve one purpose, to move and advance the enviro issues of the future. To keep goverment regulations resonable at keep the public safe. To promote we are a solution to the issues that will come in the future not the problem.

Who did BP call to help clean up the mess in the gulf?

Who washed the contaminates of FEMA trailers in the south for catrina making it safe for citizens & Children to sleep safely at night knowing there was no risk.

We need to be in the public eye, we need to focus on the great things we do.

We save water rather than the way conventional washing waste valubale resources.

Its said washing roofs saves energy therefore reducing fuel burning thus reducing emission levels. This means cleaner air for our children.

I know there are many others, I help reduce disease control by washing Dumpter in my city. Keeping these clean help prevent rodants and bugs from spreading these baterias that festure in these dumbsters.

There are many

I am also seriously excited about the industry finally (maybe) coming together on something that MATTERS!
 
Hey I will help with stuff give me ONE task and I will work on it, I am busy real busy now but will fit something in. I may ask questions on how to tackle the task but I'll get it done one way or another. I also pledge $1000.00 to be used on lawyers or having a flier made up on what we do that helps the environment

WE ALSO NEED ALL THE OTHER CONTRACTORS TO STAND UP AND BE HEARD, not just the one's of us that post here. Ron has over 160 please start posting ideas and also TELLING the PWNA to join us and dont settle for the BMP they are putting together, it su*ks. I just did two garages and was compliant I wouldnt have been able to do them if the PWNA BMP was in place in my area. THAT SHOULD SPEAK LOUD & CLEAR to ALL you contractors. The PWNA is reading lets let them know what we think
 
Jeff that BMP is not for us, its for distributors involved to use. Mike has already publically stated they will not be presenting the BMP to citys.

Great tool for Delux of any other distributors to use.

I don't really have a concern for this BMP.

The PWNA has made a reclaim program that was started by Robert in 2009 in Alabama. I have the video feed from that meeting if you recall. It was at Russ Spences Roundtable at Prattville.

Robert and Delux have a great marketing program, Bravo to them for helping themselves. The industry is not being sold this is for us.

This is why we cannot worrie about what others are doing Jeff, they are paying no attention to what we want.

Last Monday I was on the call attempting to advise this was bad timing.

We have five other Trade associations that are listening to us.

Robert the enviro chair said in his eyes Houston was not that Bad. (BOD call likely was recorded) Verify it.

Talk with CEta , will meet with Roy Chappell later in May. Heading to IKeca in a few days.

The ball is Rolling and we will keep focused and stay positive.

Michelle the Advocate in houston is very receptive to working with Local guys to establish some educational seminars for Enforencement and contractors to work together to establish and interpet these BMPs correctly.

I think Houston will get fixed.

After this is done, we need to focus on our own Backyards



Hey I will help with stuff give me ONE task and I will work on it, I am busy real busy now but will fit something in. I may ask questions on how to tackle the task but I'll get it done one way or another. I also pledge $1000.00 to be used on lawyers or having a flier made up on what we do that helps the environment

WE ALSO NEED ALL THE OTHER CONTRACTORS TO STAND UP AND BE HEARD, not just the one's of us that post here. Ron has over 160 please start posting ideas and also TELLING the PWNA to join us and dont settle for the BMP they are putting together, it su*ks. I just did two garages and was compliant I wouldnt have been able to do them if the PWNA BMP was in place in my area. THAT SHOULD SPEAK LOUD & CLEAR to ALL you contractors. The PWNA is reading lets let them know what we think
 
Please tell me Robert didnt say Houston was OK on how they are handling it. Robert is a great guy and I would hate to think he would be OK with Houston

The coalition is growing and needs to grow. I don't want unreasonable BMP's for me, you, the contractors in Houston, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, North Carolina, New York or anywhere else.

There are very workable ways to keep protecting the environment and the best way is to hire a pressure washing contractor. We are helping the environment every day and we have to let everyone know that LOUD & CLEAR
 
I am in agreement with Celeste here, not for the purpose of complaining about what "they" get to do, but we need to keep compiling lists of exemptions and (special cases) i.e. fire departments, street sweepers, lawn watering (yes, it is exempt) and others who are immune based on the greater good. Meanwhile we need to prepare answers as to how we also serve the "greater good" and why our service is an asset to the goals of the CWA rather than a detriment.

Does anyone volunteer to post a list of exemptions in their area. The list is going to be pretty close to the same everywhere though because they take the initial list from the EPA. For example, what we do (Sonitx) is exempt when we clean with nothing but water. Condensate from AC coils is exempt nationwide. Condensate is clean water that runs down the coils actually cleaning them continually. When we use water only to clean we are doing the same thing, just at a faster rate. Our runoff can go directly into the storm drain at that level of cleaning.

Can anyone find any other exemptions?

City of Houston Exemptions

(a) A person commits an offense if the person threatens to introduce, intoduces, or causes to be introduced into the MS4 any discharge that is not composed entirely of storm water.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to any enforcment action for a violation fd subsection (a) that the discharge was composed entirely of one or more of the following categories of discharges.

1) A discharge authorized by, and in strict compliance with, and NPDES or TPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharge from MS4)

2) A discharge or flow resulting from fire fighting by the fire department if that discharge is not reasonably expected to be a significant source of pollutants to the MS4.

3) A discharge of flow of fire protection water if that discharge is not reasonbly expected to be a significant source of pollutants to the MS4

4)Water Line Flushing, provided that the water is not significantly chlorinated when reaching a receiving water

5)Landscape Irrigation

6)Diverted Stream Flows

7)Rising Ground Water

8) Ground Water Infiltration

9)Infiltration ( as defined in Section 35.2005(20) of Title 40 of the CFR) to separate storm sewers

10) Pumped Ground Water

11) Discharges from foundation drains

12)Discharges from potable water sources, providing the water is not significantly chlorinated when reaching a receiving water

13) Irrigation Water

14) Air Conditioning Condensation

15) Water From Crawl Space Pumps

16)Springs

17) Lawn Watering

18) Discharges from footing drains

19) Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands

20) Non Commercial car washing (until such time as TCEQ issues a general permit for such discharges)

21) Pavement wash waters provided cleaning chemicals are not used (until such time as TCEQ issues a general permit for such discharges.

22)Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; or

23) Material resulting form a spill where the discharge is necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage provided that the party responsible for the spill takes all responsible steps to minimze or prevent any adverse effects to human health or the environment.

(c) No affirmative action shall available under subsection (b) if:

1) The discharge or flow in question has been determined by the City Engineer to be a source of a pollutant or pollutants to the waters of the United States or to the MS4

2) Written notice of such determination has been provided to the discharger; and

3) The discharge has continued after the expiration of the time given in the notice to cease discharge.
 
from Robert Hinderliter

The following is a post from Robert Hinderliter. He is having some difficulty in posting and ask asked that this be posted.

Tony: Because you have l long post, I going to answer your questions inside of your post using Italics to make it easier reading.
Here are my comments. I'll post them here and if I'm wrong on some things at least there will be some discussion before I submit my fax comments:
1) The beginning sentence in line 13 pretty much eliminates any changes in this document. It's either the same as the city of Ft Worth or it isn't. If it isn't, then the proposed BMP's might lose some of their Zing power because we aren't quoting an actual city's bmp.
The BMPs will comply the EPAs Model Ordinance, but it is not exactly what Fort Worth has in place. Some items are changed are made to make it easier to understand and solve some problems that has arisen since January 2, 1996. It is now harder to change the ordinance that it was to write the ordinance in 1995 because there was no standard to start from.
2) Line 20 is a good line regarding "resulting in the lowest amounts of detergent..." What's lacking here is a study showing what our general runoff consists of in the normal course of our business. I spent some time on the phone this morning with Michael and one of the things about this Ft. Worth BMP is that it came in response to restrictions that were going to affect the fleet washing segment of the industry and testing and writing of BMP's were pointing in that direction. Plaza cleaning runoff wasn't even tested. I submit that they aren't even comparable and we need to 1) do our own testing for base numbers, then 2) have an independent lab do the testing. We are not polluting. We need to affirm that and just "saying" it without proof is not an affirmation.
The State of Oregon did a study of the effluent from Power Washing several years ago. It was the most extensive I have ever seen, and because Oregon is a small state it was not acceptable to other states. A lot of work I have done is based on these results; I did not reference them because it caused a problem with other regulators. The study filled a 3-ring binder about 3 inches thick; it covered every scenario you could think of.
3) Line 27 is good.
This Model Ordinance needs to be adopted as it because of where it is listed for reference for other municipalities.
4) Line 31 could be changed from "Cosmetic Cleaning" to "General Health and Safety Cleaning"
This is probably a good idea, but it is not what I came up with in 1995 trying to define our cleaning for the Regulators. Now it has been adopted by a lot of municipalities and trying to change it would be very hard and confusing. I came up with the term "Cosmetic Cleaning" and Fort Worth took my description and put it into Legalese.
5) Lines 62-69 - Why are we giving three options? What about evaporation? This is confusing the issue.
Good idea, I missed evaporation.
4th Choice: Evaporation is acceptable as long as the evaporation occurs on property on a surface that will not absorb the contaminates. After the surface has dried the contaminates need to be swept or vacuum up so that when it rains the contamination will not be washed of property.
6) Lines 83-90 - Also confusing. This is good for training courses, but is too much information for simple BMP consideration. That's just my opinion, I'm open for comments. Maybe I'm missing something.
This agrees with the EPA's Model Ordinance, and makes allowances for other municipalities. I'm open to suggestion for improvement in language.
7) Lines 91 and 92 are awesome. We need some more lines like that.
That is a fact, and true for almost every municipality in the US including Houston.
8) Line 177+ why are we discussing recycled wash water? That opens up another can of worms regarding transport.
That is not Recycled Wash Water. A lot of Municipalities have Grey Water at their POTWs that have been treated that is not Potable (drinking) Water.
9) Line 135-137 is out of line. Where is the proof that hot water produces more pollutants than cold? Where are the studies showing this or is this just made up? Of course hot water cleans better, but does it introduce any more POLLUTANTS than cold water does? It's this kind if stuff that get's places like Houston started on hot water restrictions. We need to avoid it like the plague.
Hot Water is an emulsifier just like a detergent. Therefore, in the CWA Hot Water and Detergents are treated the same. I had problem in Phoenix where the Regulators were treating any water out of the tap that had been elevated even one degree as Hot Water.
I will say it another way, any water that has been raised in temperature out of the faucet is hot water. Hot water is not defined in the CWA but regulated. After a lengthy negotiation with the City of Fort Worth, 110⁰F was agreed upon as being Rational, Reasonable, and Logical for both parties. I wanted it higher and they wanted it lower. To my knowledge that is the first time it was defined.
10) Line 142 - The clean water act only requires the use of technology that is economically feasible. (I'll cite it later if I have to) Disposing through and EWC or demanding methods that the market will not bear are not required under the CWA.
What you are experiencing here is a matter of interpretation. Everybody is an Environmentalist, how it affects their Economic Revenue Stream generally determines how they interpret the CWA. You say it is not reasonable, and the Municipalities say it is reasonable. Houston is a good example of this conflict.
Politics has a large part in this; this is why everyone needs PWNA. Organizations have a lot more clot than an individual does.
11) Line 173 - We need to emphasize that we are in the Health and Safety business.
Most Contract Cleaners do under the power of this, our industry is basically cleaning for Health and Safety Reasons.
12) Why is line 135 there?
This was explained in item 9 above.
13) Lines 190-197 shouldn't be in there at all - it's training material, not BMP material.

I disagree; it is BMPs for Contractors and Regulators. It explains how things work better than the average person understands.
Skip the fleet and car washing sections. I don't know jack about fleet washing and will gladly defer to someone who does.
14) Lines 280-286 sound great. Maybe if we defined "frequently cleaned" we could get a lot more frequent contract work and use the "frequently" definition to discount services cleaned "frequently" and make them pay dearly otherwise.
The word “Frequently” was used here to help define the condition of the surface as not heavily laden with oil and grease.
15) Line 294 - We only do building washing for dirt out here. Why would that require sealing off the storm drains?
You always want to Pre-Clean and Filter your Wash Water. You do not want to wash Dirt and Debris down into the Storm Drain. We can add:
3rd Choice: With no Heat or Chemicals on surfaces that are contaminated by atmospheric dust only, then the wash water can be discharged into the Storm Sewer.
This is my "first glance" impulsive look at the proposed BMP's. I'd like to hear some discussion before sending any recommendations. Or, maybe this BMP shouldn't even be considered at all. What do you guys think. I'm open for any discussion.
If you have any questions or comments you can contact me (Robert Hinderliter, PWNA Environmental Chairman) at work at 817-529-6601, or my cell is 817-366-3041. Fax: 817-625-2059. Thank you for your input.



Respectfully,

Robert M. Hinderliter
Environmental Chairman PWNA
Environmental Consultant UAMCC
Delux Cleaning Supply
2513 Warfield Street, Fort Worth, TX 76106-7554
Direct: 800-211-0286, Cell: 817-366-3041, Fax: 817-625-2059
Email: robert.hinderliter@powerwash.com , www.powerwash.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthinderliter
Mobile Power Wash Equipment, Parts, Chemicals, Training DVDs
Toll Free Technical Support for products purchased from DELUX
 
Thank you Robert for taking the time to address these points.

The BMPs will comply the EPAs Model Ordinance, but it is not exactly what Fort Worth has in place. Some items are changed are made to make it easier to understand and solve some problems that has arisen since January 2, 1996. It is now harder to change the ordinance that it was to write the ordinance in 1995 because there was no standard to start from.

So you're saying that since the BMP is accepted by some municipalities, we need to keep it very close in order to use them as references. Am I understanding that right?

The State of Oregon did a study of the effluent from Power Washing several years ago. It was the most extensive I have ever seen, and because Oregon is a small state it was not acceptable to other states. A lot of work I have done is based on these results; I did not reference them because it caused a problem with other regulators. The study filled a 3-ring binder about 3 inches thick; it covered every scenario you could think of.

Where can I access this information Robert? In looking for it I came across this page which looks pretty good. I'd like to submit it here for comments from other contractors in this thread.

http://www.fortworthgov.org/dem/info/default.aspx?id=8016


RE: "Costmetic cleaning" vs "health and safety cleaning" ....

This is probably a good idea, but it is not what I came up with in 1995 trying to define our cleaning for the Regulators. Now it has been adopted by a lot of municipalities and trying to change it would be very hard and confusing. I came up with the term "Cosmetic Cleaning" and Fort Worth took my description and put it into Legalese.

Is there something we can do about this? Could we refer to anything new as "revised" BMP's based on the city of Ft Worth? I'm just throwing out suggestions.


4th Choice: Evaporation is acceptable as long as the evaporation occurs on property on a surface that will not absorb the contaminates. After the surface has dried the contaminates need to be swept or vacuum up so that when it rains the contamination will not be washed of property.

This one is going to require a little more thought. Out here in Las Vegas we time our powerwashing to coincide with the sweeping contractor.

This agrees with the EPA's Model Ordinance, and makes allowances for other municipalities. I'm open to suggestion for improvement in language.

I don't have any wording suggestions. The wording is good, I just questioned the fact that it was in there at all giving ideas to municipalities that aren't currently charging for permits.


That is not Recycled Wash Water. A lot of Municipalities have Grey Water at their POTWs that have been treated that is not Potable (drinking) Water.

I misunderstood that one. My mistake.

Hot Water is an emulsifier just like a detergent. Therefore, in the CWA Hot Water and Detergents are treated the same. I had problem in Phoenix where the Regulators were treating any water out of the tap that had been elevated even one degree as Hot Water.
I will say it another way, any water that has been raised in temperature out of the faucet is hot water. Hot water is not defined in the CWA but regulated. After a lengthy negotiation with the City of Fort Worth, 110⁰F was agreed upon as being Rational, Reasonable, and Logical for both parties. I wanted it higher and they wanted it lower. To my knowledge that is the first time it was defined.

Why can't we err on the side of the contractor and point out that we are "emulsifying" contaminants that shouldn't be on the sidewalk anyway? Also can we put a number on the temperature of the runoff entering the point source (storm drain) instead of a number on the initial temp of the cleaning water? Maybe we could skirt this entire issue since the fact is, we are not ADDING any contaminants with hot water and are doing our due diligence to keep from having to use soaps.


What you are experiencing here is a matter of interpretation. Everybody is an Environmentalist, how it affects their Economic Revenue Stream generally determines how they interpret the CWA. You say it is not reasonable, and the Municipalities say it is reasonable. Houston is a good example of this conflict.
Politics has a large part in this; this is why everyone needs PWNA. Organizations have a lot more clot than an individual does.

Robert, I just had a stroke last fall, I've had all the "clot" I need. (Just lightening the mood) :)

I agree with you on the clout of an org. Unfortunately the org stands to profit from adopting these BMP's then suggesting to the municipalities that only 'certified' cleaners be allowed to work. What is your intention in this matter Robert? Would you and the BOD be willing to market the BMP's as a higher level of attainment or as a general requirement to work as the KEC certifications have become?


I disagree; it is BMPs for Contractors and Regulators. It explains how things work better than the average person understands.

You are probably right on that. What about simply removing this sentence?

In order to solve this problem some Contract Cleaners will choose to capture all of their wash water and haul it to a disposal site, like their own sand trap



The word “Frequently” was used here to help define the condition of the surface as not heavily laden with oil and grease.

It's probably not the best idea to define "frequently" except on local levels. My point was if we had guidelines for service i.e. 15 days minimum service on restaurants we could offer lower pricing if we can clean without soap.


You always want to Pre-Clean and Filter your Wash Water. You do not want to wash Dirt and Debris down into the Storm Drain. We can add:
3rd Choice: With no Heat or Chemicals on surfaces that are contaminated by atmospheric dust only, then the wash water can be discharged into the Storm Sewer.

This is what we do here. Our BMP's allow hot or cold Plaza runoff with capture required on grit and debris only.

More later. Thanks again Robert.
 
Robert.jpg


Seems Robert Log back in 12 minutes ago, Thanks Grant
 
I wanted to bring this up from over two years ago to refresh the memories of the old guys and show the new guys that we were trying to work with Robert and the pwna over two years ago and our pleas and concerns were completely ignored.

Robert plowed along with his BMPs just as he planned without any concern for what we had to say.

The pleas to represent us as cleaners instead of polluters was ignored.

Evaporation was ignored.

The hot water issue was ignored.

The pwna bulldozed this through over the wishes of their own members, of which I was one and then lied about what their intentions were.

I hope the guys who listen to that backroom phone talk about me being full of hate and this being "internet drama" will finally be able to see that this is all about contractors.

You.

Me.

Us.

Nothing more.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
 
Back
Top