EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution

Robert again when asking if a industrial site could discharge into this system is silly. I hope you didn't ask these question, these systems are built to handle the property rain water along with contaminates on the property.
They are in place to prevent polluting adjacent property and storm system Robert. Some are Retention and other are detention.

Some many different styles , the vary first connected to a Storm system and being filter prior to discharge in the world was built on the corner of Stapley & Southern in Mesa Arizona.

Robert please go many steps further, storm com will educate you further. But please do not ask them if your factory can discharge waste you created. Thats called Pollution, also if your thinking you could install one of these on Mikes wash bay that won't work either. Solids as federal law says Off Vehicles are hazardous. Remember you Claim you handed 80% of that to the EPA in 1995, I'm not sure if you handed it to them or wrote it. But either way you know about it.


You cannot discharge hazardous material on anyone property nor should you into the storm systems. FYI Robert



A couple of points of clarification from what I have learned:

I have been involved in tested a lot of Mobile Power Washing Waste Water. For recycling under 16 hours then discharging the waste water and replacing with fresh water, effluent never tested Hazardous by a TCLIP Test.

For waste water from normal power washing that was remediated with a screen filter and oil absorbent boom that removed the oil sheen, also never tested Hazardous.

About 1995 both Texas and California said that hauling waste water that was not hazardous did not violate state codes, however, some municipalities do regulate this transportation. In other words for the most part you do not have to have a Hazardous Waste Haulers Permit to haul your waste water that is not hazardous.

Retention Ponds: I investigate with several manufactures and designers of these at StormCon to get an overview of what they were designed to do.

Depending on the Municipality they are designed to hold a rain event from 100 years to 90 days depending upon the Municipality. The soil that is beneath the retention pond determines the design. It basically depends on how fast that the water will seep into the soil below. If they get more storm water than they are designed to hold then the water flows to the MS4. If you get a very rainy season then the seepage may reach the ground water. An example is all of the flooding the occurred last year.

Also most are designed to catch trash at the inlet, but not FOGs. A pocket survey of the Manufactures present said that very few were designed for FOGs. Therefore, there is a slight risk in discharging to the Retention Ponds. You will always need to filter for sludge and FOGs before discharging.
 

This simple Sand trap is working pretty effective to collect that coming off Surface. The Retention Tanks Built under have no Outfall, I checked with building and Zoning.

By design the pollution is controlled to Stay on this property.

The tank is galvanized in a series of four, no water will even enter water table from a 1000 year rain stand point.

Robert you can Paint this how ever you want, I'm correct and you will not win this argument. Collecting or hauling water off this property is creating a larger liability for the owner. Its also now hazardous material, using words like wash water when the DOT sticks a Sample down the tank won't work.
 
The purpose is to know the attitude and direction of the Federal EPA which enforces their policies on the states; which enforce their policies on the Municipalities; which enforce their policies on their local communities and businesses. Contract Cleaners are on the bottom of this chain.

Congress set the Attitude and Budgets. Democrats are more aggressive on enforcement than Republicans. Hand writing is already on the wall, read it!
I have been watching this since 1969, and have been 80% accurate on timing.

Sorry, didn't mean to be so sharp!

Robert, I have been under the weather and apologize for not keeping up with this thread.

Regarding this post, are you aware that many Municipalities despise the Federal EPA and try to limit their exposure with them at all? Traveling through Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the entire length of California I found the following:

1) Municipalities who despise the Feds. They try to quickly meet all requirements for the year so they can put them behind them and deal with real issues.
2) Municipalities who distrust the Feds. They have spoken of being asked to skip testing of facilities (with NPDES permits) that were not as profitable, in lieu of facilities that had posted high profits for a better chance of collecting high fines. The people who told me about this think it is corrupt.
3) Regulators with common sense who are just trying to do the right thing
4) Municipalities with "Lone Rangers" who are working their way up by going after anybody and everybody to show how tough they are.
5) Regulators with no sense at all.

Of all the ones I spoke with only three or four fell into categories 4 and 5. Most of them were decent people who took their jobs seriously, but, at the same time, realized that common sense says a little spilled pop and bubble gum in front of a mall is not Chernobyl.

I left California, and Seattle, believe it or not, feeling pretty good about how things are going.

I even met with Jim's local regulator who said he's known Jim since the 90's. I asked him about some of the preposterous things Jim has attributed to him like "one drop of caustic will destroy the POTW system" and he denied ever saying anything like that. He did, however say that Contra Costa county has not charged a contractor for runoff testing since 1996 and they haven't even had the budget to do ANY testing for a number of years. He told me they NEVER fine a contractor unless they repeatedly violate in the same manner after being instructed to change their methods. His exact words were "We're not here to make it hard on businesses". He just wants them to put measures in place that limit or eliminate any possible damage to the environment.

Many of his answers were in direct opposition to many of the things Jim has told us on the boards. It's not hard to tell that Jim doesn't know what he is talking about outside his own area (and apparently INSIDE his own area). That is why is was so surprising to me that you have been fooled into believing that he has anything positive to interject into our quest to work with the regulators.

And the very idea that you would suggest that Scott Stone could learn from him just about made me bust a gut. I know both of these men very well and Scott is a well rounded contractor with many years experience working with environmental controls in just about every power washing scenario. Jim, on the other hand, just said it took him all day to clean a tent so he never cleaned one again.

Sure, Jim apparently cleans garages well, but you've met him, you've spent time with him and frankly, the fact that you don't realize how he plays loosely with the truth and the fact that you can't recognize his lack of knowledge of powerwashing in general makes your decision making abilities suspect.

Why would you latch on to a character such as this? Can we get to the bottom of this?

Jim has argued on many occasions that the reason we need stricter enforcement and stricter rules (fees, fines, etc) is to RAISE the amounts we charge. Is this your motivation Robert? Or do you disagree with that motive?

Jim's regulator is unusual in that he represents both the storm water authority AND the POTW. Even the regulator admitted that this was a rare situation. Jim has it set up in his community so that he can easily work with the POTW. Prior to this year, your focus was on discharging into the landscaping. But now that has changed and you are pressing for discharging into the POTW. Why the change to Jim's way?

Also, Robert, I ask you again......after searching for months I have been unable to come up with any municipality that says anything about hot water being an "emulsifier". Why, in the name of all that's good in the world, did you introduce that verbiage into documents sent to the regulators when that had never been an issue by any municipality in the past. Sure, they had water temperature limitations, but never "emulsifier" connotations. Why Robert? That was simply treason to our industry, in my opinion and is almost unforgivable. It wasn't like you didn't have the chance to do something about it, I brought it up to you and asked you to remove it, but you marched on and "SHOPPED" regardless. My question to you is why?

Lastly, I understand that the EPA has a goal of no illicit discharge in the future. But, if our city has an NPDES permit and we are operating within the parameters of the permit that means our discharge is no longer illicit. IF we work with the authorities to allow us to filter our wastewater so that it is cleaner than the water running off the streets in a rainstorm PLUS with the added bonus of us dry sweeping debris that would normally end up in the storm drain, don't you think we could all make more money when our customers are freed from the fear and can hire us to clean more often?

Thank you.
 
I think that Robert H. video taped that event, go and watch it.

That was almost 2 years ago and I don't remember names of people that well, especially those that are clueless and are dumbazzes.

Yes, I really belive that those people are clueless for the hauling waste water regulations as a lot of people out there are who don't have CDL. That is why they were telling contractors to just haul away the wash water. They wanted to inspect your tank and trailer first but if you have a CDL like some of us do, it is not up to them when on public roads and highways if you are compliant according to D.O.T. regulations. Watch the video, you will see where they say that they want the contractors or have the contractors haul away the wash water. If you are serious and pursue this, give me a percentage that you think is fair, no problem with me on that one.

If the city officials had any clue, they would tell the contractors that only licensed waste haulers can legally haul hazardous waste or that contractors have to get the proper training, get the proper commercial vehicles, CDL with hazmat endorsement, etc..... but they did not as they had no clue about this whatsoever. Again, send me a percentage that is fair. As a responsible city or group of officials they should have told the contractors what I just typed so they would have covered their asses but they did not. Watch the video, I believe it was mentioned at least a couple times.

That is why so many vacuum and pump truck companies were there at the meeting so they can help out contractors so they would not get the huge fines by the State Police, D.O.T. officers and State Troopers, these guys know just about every regulation in the book like no cop I have ever seen in my life. I guess they are the top of the top to know so much. When you think about it, by the city not telling contractors about the D.O.T. regulations, it is a great selling point and decent scare tactics for the vacuum truck and pumper truck companies selling their services to the pressure washing contractors, who knows, maybe the city did not tell the pressure washing contractors on purpose to help out the vacuum truck and pumper truck companies? Scandal in a big city, no, it could not be so when big cities are just so honest.

Anyway, go and watch the videos and see for yourself how they had a hard time not answering my questions along with questions of other contractors in the room because there is so much they really did not know. This may seem hard to believe but watch it for yourself and listen closely and see how even when they got help answering, the answers changed several times.............(drum roll here).............................because they really don't know and contractors were paying fines for this nonsense.

Now, thanks to Ron Musgraves help going there numerous times and educating the city and officials, they are heading down the right road finally after years of being mis-informed by vendors and others that had their own purposes in mind and not reading the CWA for themselves and understanding it along with understanding properly built commercial facilities are built to handle commercial power washing without the wash water ending up in the MS4. Hope this helps and makes it clear.

Let me know when my check is in the mail.
Chris-I'm pretty sure I was given the Houston video at a convention, New Orleans or at a Roundtable. This past year shot by in a bleep. My office is cluttered and I can not find this Video.... Is it on YouTube anywhere? I want to see this video in it's entirety.
 
Chris-I'm pretty sure I was given the Houston video at a convention, New Orleans or at a Roundtable. This past year shot by in a bleep. My office is cluttered and I can not find this Video.... Is it on YouTube anywhere? I want to see this video in it's entirety.


I was there in person attending the event and noticed that Robert was trying to tape it.

I have no idea if it is on youtube but I think that Robert could get you a copy next time you talk to him, probably an un-edited version would be better so that it would show everything that happened and all that was said in case things were edited for content or time so to keep things short.

Let us know what you find out when you call Robert.
 
Nigel, a directory?????


Please you have been working with someone , names please. I have limited time, I can call any GOV place and get the answer i want to hear simply by finding the dumbest person. Direct me to the people your working with, the ones you refer will not allow. PLEASE






This simple Sand trap is working pretty effective to collect that coming off Surface. The Retention Tanks Built under have no Outfall, I checked with building and Zoning.

By design the pollution is controlled to Stay on this property.

The tank is galvanized in a series of four, no water will even enter water table from a 1000 year rain stand point.

Robert you can Paint this how ever you want, I'm correct and you will not win this argument. Collecting or hauling water off this property is creating a larger liability for the owner. Its also now hazardous material, using words like wash water when the DOT sticks a Sample down the tank won't work.




Ron, I do not want to waste your time, ..........honestly.

I even considered not posting the Department of Environment information, as this may NOT be the recommended FIRST department any mobile wash contractor attempting to learn from this exercise should call; ...the exercise is in part how to go about identifying who best to contact FIRST in order to obtain the necessary accurate information for wash water discharge on a particular property.


For instance: Is the department of "Building and Zoning" the best first place to start??? , as you have identified above,....... "The Retention Tanks Built under have no Outfall, I checked with building and Zoning", .......then is it necessary to still contact "Department of Environment" ???


I don't want to skew the outcome of this learning exercise.

Initially I was just going to post the Generic Phone Number of Montgomery County (240-777-0311), but I figured the "Department of Environment" was the necessary starting point, and is where i have started in the past making my inquiries , only after communicating with Maryland EPA State officials.

Do you still want the direct initial contact I had within the Montgomery County Department of Environment ?
 
Ron, I do not want to waste your time, ..........honestly.

I even considered not posting the Department of Environment information, as this may NOT be the recommended FIRST department any mobile wash contractor attempting to learn from this exercise should call; ...the exercise is in part how to go about identifying who best to contact FIRST in order to obtain the necessary accurate information for wash water discharge on a particular property.


For instance: Is the department of "Building and Zoning" the best first place to start??? , as you have identified above,....... "The Retention Tanks Built under have no Outfall, I checked with building and Zoning", .......then is it necessary to still contact "Department of Environment" ???


I don't want to skew the outcome of this learning exercise.

Initially I was just going to post the Generic Phone Number of Montgomery County (240-777-0311), but I figured the "Department of Environment" was the necessary starting point, and is where i have started in the past making my inquiries , only after communicating with Maryland EPA State officials.

Do you still want the direct initial contact I had within the Montgomery County Department of Environment ?

Nigel, I don't think Ron is looking for a learning exercise. He is looking to get to the bottom of this using your contact.



Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2
 
A couple of points of clarification from what I have learned:

I have been involved in tested a lot of Mobile Power Washing Waste Water. For recycling under 16 hours then discharging the waste water and replacing with fresh water, effluent never tested Hazardous by a TCLIP Test.

For waste water from normal power washing that was remediated with a screen filter and oil absorbent boom that removed the oil sheen, also never tested Hazardous.

About 1995 both Texas and California said that hauling waste water that was not hazardous did not violate state codes, however, some municipalities do regulate this transportation. In other words for the most part you do not have to have a Hazardous Waste Haulers Permit to haul your waste water that is not hazardous.

Retention Ponds: I investigate with several manufactures and designers of these at StormCon to get an overview of what they were designed to do.

Depending on the Municipality they are designed to hold a rain event from 100 years to 90 days depending upon the Municipality. The soil that is beneath the retention pond determines the design. It basically depends on how fast that the water will seep into the soil below. If they get more storm water than they are designed to hold then the water flows to the MS4. If you get a very rainy season then the seepage may reach the ground water. An example is all of the flooding the occurred last year.

Also most are designed to catch trash at the inlet, but not FOGs. A pocket survey of the Manufactures present said that very few were designed for FOGs. Therefore, there is a slight risk in discharging to the Retention Ponds. You will always need to filter for sludge and FOGs before discharging.

Robert, if mobile cleaning washwater tested as non-hazardous as far back as the 90's why hasn't that been shouted from the rooftops?? Why have we not used this to our advantage?

Can't you see how bizarre that looks?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
No rain water should discharge off property Robert I guess your missing the point.

Rain water does discharge off your property. Why no capture at your shop?

Just curious


Text me anytime for question 480-522-5227

Ron:

Whether or not you have to capture rain water and prepare a SWPPP depends on what the rain water may wash off the property. If you fall under certain SIC Codes then you have to prepare a plan or file for a no-exposure exemption.

PowerWash.com does not have any items that are exposed to a rain event that will contaminate the MS4 and we do not fall under an SIC Code that requires reporting.

Some Contract Cleaners that have chemicals and trucks stored outside may be at risk for a SWPPP (StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan). If there is an incident ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
 
Robert, if mobile cleaning washwater tested as non-hazardous as far back as the 90's why hasn't that been shouted from the rooftops?? Why have we not used this to our advantage?

Can't you see how bizarre that looks?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Tony:

This information has been well published, it was posted on DCS1.com for almost 20 years and is still on PWNA.org; look under the Environmental Link for the Oregon Study. A lot of different scenarios were considered.

I never encountered that is was Hazardous except on PWI, always found this strange.

To my knowledge the DOT which regulates transportation uses the TCLIP Test to determine whether or not an item is Hazardous. I do not know of anything that says that items are hazardous because it left the property by transport.

Remember this is not the standard for ground or surface water contamination.

At the July, 1995 meeting with 40 Regulators (included all levels from Federal to Local) and 100 contractors it was decided that the best place for discharge for the waste water was the Sanitary Sewer; this was posted on the EPA’s Website as a Model Ordinance.

The final decision is left up to the Local AHJ on where to discharge the waste water, the Federal EPA cannot dictate where the discharge point is. I only ran into one situation where this was not true, and the Federal EPA required the local AHJ to open up their Sanitary Sewers to Contract Cleaners. I believe this was because they could not get their FOGs and Surfactants under control.
 
Nigel, I don't think Ron is looking for a learning exercise. He is looking to get to the bottom of this using your contact.



Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2



Tony, In my opinion, this is one of the most active EPA/washwater discussions on PWI, a great deal of contractors would not openly discuss the subject, I have a feeling a great deal of contractors and website guests are tuning into this thread daily, thus my reference to it being a learning exercise.



I understand that Ron, wants to get to the bottom of this.

I initially indicated that most likely the installation in the video was for "incidentals", and advise any individual to seek the approval of the local AHJ.
To identifying its function and if permission would be granted for mobile contract cleaner wash water runoff from fuel pad pressure cleaning.

I never contacted Montgomery Department of Environment concerning that particular installation in the video , but prior communication with them advised that pressure cleaning wash water from surfaces such as those and similar (fuel stations, drive thrus, garages etc) with or without installations be directed to the sanitary sewer , which was exactly in line with what the Maryland State EPA official communicated, the only difference being the Montgomery DEP had more influence over their local POTW than the State over Montgomery's or any other with respect to this specific matter.


Tony:

This information has been well published, it was posted on DCS1.com for almost 20 years and is still on PWNA.org; look under the Environmental Link for the Oregon Study. A lot of different scenarios were considered.

I never encountered that is was Hazardous except on PWI, always found this strange.

To my knowledge the DOT which regulates transportation uses the TCLIP Test to determine whether or not an item is Hazardous. I do not know of anything that says that items are hazardous because it left the property by transport.

Remember this is not the standard for ground or surface water contamination.

At the July, 1995 meeting with 40 Regulators (included all levels from Federal to Local) and 100 contractors it was decided that the best place for discharge for the waste water was the Sanitary Sewer; this was posted on the EPA’s Website as a Model Ordinance.

The final decision is left up to the Local AHJ on where to discharge the waste water, the Federal EPA cannot dictate where the discharge point is. I only ran into one situation where this was not true, and the Federal EPA required the local AHJ to open up their Sanitary Sewers to Contract Cleaners. I believe this was because they could not get their FOGs and Surfactants under control.

In some jurisdictions the local arm of the EPA have more teeth over the POTW's, but some other POTW's just dont want mobile wash contractors utilizing sanitary sewer piping on the property, and say that the wash water has to be transported to an in plant discharge point, with test results.



Thats why I have been asking Ron these questions, and am interested in hearing his views.

what is your opinion of commercial properties that are "not built compliant" ?

What does "not built compliant" mean?

What is your opinion of a scenario where a mobile wash contractor picks up their generated wash water form one area of "compliant property", to avoid it reaching a storm drain (because of the volume of wash water produce and location of storm), and having to transfer the wash water to an area on property where it will comply with the CWA?

How do you suggest we handle instances where there are no property systems in place for the contractor to be compliant?

For example, where there is a graded in the drive thur "smack" to a
STORM WATER INLET ,I know you mentioned earlier most likely I am wrong and that it "may not be storm inlet", but just for discussion , lets say I was correct,...........................you indicated your opinions about a responsible landscape discharge option, ..................so how would you suggest I handle my scenario???
 
Ron:

Whether or not you have to capture rain water and prepare a SWPPP depends on what the rain water may wash off the property. If you fall under certain SIC Codes then you have to prepare a plan or file for a no-exposure exemption.

PowerWash.com does not have any items that are exposed to a rain event that will contaminate the MS4 and we do not fall under an SIC Code that requires reporting.

Some Contract Cleaners that have chemicals and trucks stored outside may be at risk for a SWPPP (StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan). If there is an incident ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

So powerwash.com is a manufacture registered under a different sic code.

Rashco was a manufacture facility , I see so we could just registrar sic under basket weaver and we are all good.

I'm just lost for talking about this much further with either of you.

If we as citizens are just going to bend laws at the days end then why worry about the children.

I will keep safe my way, when this hurts the next place for income to others in my industry ill give them your address to send the mortgage payment.



Text me anytime for question 480-522-5227
 
Robert, I have been under the weather and apologize for not keeping up with this thread.

Regarding this post, are you aware that many Municipalities despise the Federal EPA and try to limit their exposure with them at all? Traveling through Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the entire length of California I found the following:

1) Municipalities who despise the Feds. They try to quickly meet all requirements for the year so they can put them behind them and deal with real issues.
2) Municipalities who distrust the Feds. They have spoken of being asked to skip testing of facilities (with NPDES permits) that were not as profitable, in lieu of facilities that had posted high profits for a better chance of collecting high fines. The people who told me about this think it is corrupt.
3) Regulators with common sense who are just trying to do the right thing
4) Municipalities with "Lone Rangers" who are working their way up by going after anybody and everybody to show how tough they are.
5) Regulators with no sense at all.

Of all the ones I spoke with only three or four fell into categories 4 and 5. Most of them were decent people who took their jobs seriously, but, at the same time, realized that common sense says a little spilled pop and bubble gum in front of a mall is not Chernobyl.

I left California, and Seattle, believe it or not, feeling pretty good about how things are going.

I even met with Jim's local regulator who said he's known Jim since the 90's. I asked him about some of the preposterous things Jim has attributed to him like "one drop of caustic will destroy the POTW system" and he denied ever saying anything like that. He did, however say that Contra Costa county has not charged a contractor for runoff testing since 1996 and they haven't even had the budget to do ANY testing for a number of years. He told me they NEVER fine a contractor unless they repeatedly violate in the same manner after being instructed to change their methods. His exact words were "We're not here to make it hard on businesses". He just wants them to put measures in place that limit or eliminate any possible damage to the environment.

Many of his answers were in direct opposition to many of the things Jim has told us on the boards. It's not hard to tell that Jim doesn't know what he is talking about outside his own area (and apparently INSIDE his own area). That is why is was so surprising to me that you have been fooled into believing that he has anything positive to interject into our quest to work with the regulators.

And the very idea that you would suggest that Scott Stone could learn from him just about made me bust a gut. I know both of these men very well and Scott is a well rounded contractor with many years experience working with environmental controls in just about every power washing scenario. Jim, on the other hand, just said it took him all day to clean a tent so he never cleaned one again.

Sure, Jim apparently cleans garages well, but you've met him, you've spent time with him and frankly, the fact that you don't realize how he plays loosely with the truth and the fact that you can't recognize his lack of knowledge of powerwashing in general makes your decision making abilities suspect.

Why would you latch on to a character such as this? Can we get to the bottom of this?

Jim has argued on many occasions that the reason we need stricter enforcement and stricter rules (fees, fines, etc) is to RAISE the amounts we charge. Is this your motivation Robert? Or do you disagree with that motive?

Jim's regulator is unusual in that he represents both the storm water authority AND the POTW. Even the regulator admitted that this was a rare situation. Jim has it set up in his community so that he can easily work with the POTW. Prior to this year, your focus was on discharging into the landscaping. But now that has changed and you are pressing for discharging into the POTW. Why the change to Jim's way?

Also, Robert, I ask you again......after searching for months I have been unable to come up with any municipality that says anything about hot water being an "emulsifier". Why, in the name of all that's good in the world, did you introduce that verbiage into documents sent to the regulators when that had never been an issue by any municipality in the past. Sure, they had water temperature limitations, but never "emulsifier" connotations. Why Robert? That was simply treason to our industry, in my opinion and is almost unforgivable. It wasn't like you didn't have the chance to do something about it, I brought it up to you and asked you to remove it, but you marched on and "SHOPPED" regardless. My question to you is why?

Lastly, I understand that the EPA has a goal of no illicit discharge in the future. But, if our city has an NPDES permit and we are operating within the parameters of the permit that means our discharge is no longer illicit. IF we work with the authorities to allow us to filter our wastewater so that it is cleaner than the water running off the streets in a rainstorm PLUS with the added bonus of us dry sweeping debris that would normally end up in the storm drain, don't you think we could all make more money when our customers are freed from the fear and can hire us to clean more often?

Thank you.

Sorry Tony, I guess it is because of my technical background and I say things that I think are taken for granted. Whenever I do this bring me to task.

To find documentation on Hot Water being an emulsifier go to Google or EPA.gov and search on: "emulsifier" "Hot Water". Be sure and put the quotes where I did.

Also, remember that if you wash your dishes or clothes in hot water they are cleaned better. If you add detergent then they clean even better.

I was brought to task on this issue by the EPA, which I relented on because they were right.

Phoenix was the Hot Bed of controversy over this issue in the early 90s. A compromise was reached at 110F. Of course this was determined by an attorney!
 
So powerwash.com is a manufacture registered under a different sic code.

Rashco was a manufacture facility , I see so we could just registrar sic under basket weaver and we are all good.

I'm just lost for talking about this much further with either of you.

If we as citizens are just going to bend laws at the days end then why worry about the children.

I will keep safe my way, when this hurts the next place for income to others in my industry ill give them your address to send the mortgage payment.



Text me anytime for question 480-522-5227


Ron:

Ron we have been check and audited, our dumpster is covered and empty 55-gallon drums outside are laid on their sides. There is no Rain Event Exposure, we are 80% distributer. If nothing is exposed to rain there is not a requirement to file a SWPPP.

SWPPP are designed to stop pollution to the MS4; they are not designed to stop rain water that is not polluted except for atmosphere dust.

SWPPP are needed when there is an exposure to contaminate the Storm Water.
 
If you remodeled Robert would they require you conform to higher standards?
Ron:

Ron we have been check and audited, our dumpster is covered and empty 55-gallon drums outside are laid on their sides. There is no Rain Event Exposure, we are 80% distributer. If nothing is exposed to rain there is not a requirement to file a SWPPP.

SWPPP are designed to stop pollution to the MS4; they are not designed to stop rain water that is not polluted except for atmosphere dust.

SWPPP are needed when there is an exposure to contaminate the Storm Water.
 
Baltimore City Hall
100 North Holliday Street, Baltimore, MD
(410) 396-3100 ‎ · baltimorecity.gov
These Pollution folks are ok with regular powerwashing
Of course they want BMP practiced in highly greasy and oily areas

Pollution Division I have the Audio Filed
 
Back
Top