What would you do?

A MI city Apologized for Leading the community in the wrong direction in the early 2000. Thank goodness this was head off by smart contractors who knew the Laws not the propaganda and the people behind the Incorrect statements.

Keep in mind folks the PWNA BOD like most National Association are not in the loop. When was the last Enviro report written after a Conference?

Actually if all this enviro going on for the last 20 years where is any of this in Meetings or Minutes ?


You are wrong Ron.

What would you say if I told you that these conversations were CC'd to one or more of the PWNA Directors?

The BOD is complicit in this.

They were complicit in the investigation Mike Hilborn initiated on your business and played the blame game and resulted in Hilborn stepping down.

They can't do that this time.

You can't do that when this correspondence was sent to your inbox.
 
Before the next post I'd like to remind everyone of the following PWNA BOD approved communication regarding the PWNA Bmp's.

I have pulled out below the relevant sections as a reminder before I go on to reveal the extent that this promise to the members (of which I was one at the time) has been completely violated.

Here is the correspondence for reference: http://www.propowerwash.com/board/u...A-letter-from-Mike-Hilborn-E-D&highlight=bmps

And here is the abridged text: (WITH MY ADDITIONS IN RED)

This letter is written by Mike Hilborn, PWNA Executive Director. It was reviewed and commented on by the PWNA Board of Directors. This letter has been approved for distribution by the PWNA Board of Directors (BOD from this point).

This letter is intended to explain the BOD intentions behind the Environmental Best Management Practices (from this point BMPs) and why they are important for members of PWNA and the industry at large. My goal is to explain what the BMPs are and what they are not.

The BMPs that were voted on was part of the process to make the BMPs official so that we could use those BMPs as part of an Environmental Certification course currently being developed.

Let me explain what the BMPs are:

· An educational tool - to be used as part of an Environmental Certification course.

· A resource for your employees - we wanted to have a document that could be part of every members operation, if they chose. Take these BMPs and use them as they are or use them to start developing your own company BMPs based on the services you provide and the geography you serve. They are a living and open document that can be modified and applied by anyone that wants them.

Let me tell you what the BMPs are not (based on some of the points I read on the bulletin boards):· The PWNA is not going to bring, or shop, the BMPs to municipalities, city
leaders or roll them out across the country
. That was never mentioned as our plan and I don't know where that came from. Second, we don't have the money or resources for such an undertaking.

· These BMPs aren't designed to be the answer for every power washer, in every part of the country, for every possible cleaning situation or challenge. They are a guide. They are a resource to develop BMPs specific to your operation.

· They will not solve the Houston problem. These BMPs are written to comply with the CWA. What is happening in Houston is not about the CWA. As you can read toward the beginning of the BMP document "If your discharge does not reach the waters of the United States, then there are no requirements under the Clean Water Act." PLEASE NOTE THE REFERENCE IN THIS THREAD ABOVE WRITTEN TO THE AHJ THAT DISCHARGE INTO THE LANDSCAPE ON PROPERTY IS "ILLICIT DISCHARGE" AND DISCHARGE INTO DRY WELLS IS "IGNORANT"

· The BMPs are not applicable to residential services such as house washing, roof cleaning or deck cleaning unless wash water will reach a storm drain. If the water doesn't hit the storm drain, these BMPs do not apply. (UNLESS YOU FACILITATE AN "ILLICIT" DISCHARGE INTO THE LANDSCAPE)

· The BMPs are not about enriching anyone. To be on the BOD, 50% or more of your revenue must come from contract cleaning. Michael Hinderliter had to leave the Board when he bought Delux from Robert and the new bylaws were passed. Although Robert Hinderliter is the Environmental Chairman, he is not one of the Board of Directors. The BMPs are about education and guidance.

We aren't suggesting anyone buy a particular type of equipment or to buy any equipment at all. It is up to the individual contractor as to how he or she will meet the requirements of the CWA. HOW DOES THAT MESH WITH THIS QUESTION SUBMITTED TO AHJ'S - 5) How does meeting the MEP Standard affect Cosmetic Power/Pressure Washing? Are you keeping track of advances in the technology such as being demonstrated at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (edited)

· We are not submitting these BMPs to the EPA on April 15th or any other date. We are not submitting these BMPs to any government authority. They will be available on the PWNA website to anyone who wants to read them. We are asking for member comments to be returned by April 15th to keep the process moving. THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE BETWEEN AHJ'S IN NEVADA IS A VIOLATION OF THIS PACT WITH THE CONTRACTORS

· The BMPs don't suggest that we are polluters. If I'm mistaken, please email which line or lines of the draft you are referring to and the correction or corrections will be made. MAYBE NOT, BUT LETTERS TO THE AHJ'S DO SUGGEST THAT EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO LINK YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF LOCAL CONTRACTORS AS PROOF (EVEN THOUGH WHAT IS CLAIMED ABOUT THE VIDEOS IS COMPLETELY FALSE)


It is the position of the BOD that our industry support the Clean Water Act and the PWNA will support rules that are practical, reasonable and economically feasible to protect our lakes, rivers, streams and oceans. If we find municipalities that are overreaching or are unreasonable, we will do what we can to address those cities (this is where we need everyone to be a member, my only plug). OR, IF WE FIND JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE PRACTICAL, REASONABLE AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, WE WILL TRY TO DESTROY THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONTRACTORS AND THE AHJ.

Sincerely,

Mike Hilborn and the Board of Directors of the PWNA






Let all that sink in before I move on to the next section of correspondence.


Any Board member of the PWNA, please feel free to chime in here at anytime if you see anything wrong with this scenario.
 
From the Hilborn thread above a PWNA member made this comment:

Hey Guy thats exactly what I told you a week ago about what the PWNA was doing with this and how the facts were getting distorted. They were never submitting this BMP to the EPA. Who ever told you that was nuts. Thats just a way to fire guys like you up with innaccurate facts so they can play off of your passion for this industry. Thats why the facts is always what is needed and not some hearsay or someones way out there opinion of what this is all about when they don't know the facts.

Would it surprise you if that same member was CC'd on almost all the correspondence I have listed and will list in this thread?

This person accuses others of lying about the plan to submit these BMP's to the EPA and even states that to think they might do so is "nuts".

Then they are Cc'd on this communication between the EPA and the PWNA and are fully behind it.

Who is nuts now?
 
If they are going federal then so can the lawsuits. Title 28 for example is used for torts. Torts are damages (money) like putting you out of business or having to conform to unnecessary code, rules regulations.... that force you to buy expensive equipment dictated by an org.
 
If they are going federal then so can the lawsuits. Title 28 for example is used for torts. Torts are damages (money) like putting you out of business or having to conform to unnecessary code, rules regulations.... that force you to buy expensive equipment dictated by an org.

Thanks Derrel. It is already being looked into.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
So was this sent from a PWNA email or letterhead, from someone acting as a rep for them?

This is setting a scary precedent.

Worse than that. Some was even sent using both PWNA and UAMCC logos as if representing both, while knowing the UAMCC has denounced it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Just so you know I'm not bluffing, I'll go ahead and post another for you to chew on:

Let's suppose your local AHJ is not playing ball because they know the contractors in your area are not causing any pollution problems. What would a national org do then?

What if they wrote the following letter to the Federal EPA to complain that they are not being listened to by your local AHJ:


Mr. XXXXXXXXXX,

Just keeping you in the loop.

Out of all these inspectors listed below, the authorities of Las Vegas are unable or unwilling to respond to these questions. This is the third attempt from Mr XXXXX, XXXX XXX XXXXX Committee who asked for them to attend a National Event for the contractors to get answers to these and other questions that they may have about complying with MS4 runoff.

If we as contractors cannot ask questions to the local AHJ/POTW on how to comply with the CWA and discharge requirements to their system, then how can we, as contractors expect to follow them?

We are asking for help in this matter.

I have also asked XXXXXXX to meet with me in Las Vegas next week; I have decided to flow down at my own expense to visit with him as per my conversation with Senator Boxers office. Hopefully we can resolve these issues. I also would like to discuss these questions concerning mobile washers and the issues of illicit discharge into landscape areas or MS4 drains for the City of Las Vegas and Nationwide.

As I have said before, the City of Las Vegas and the surround (sp) districts gave us a very high interest and wiliness (sp) to participate until recently and only after XXXXX got involved months later and only after a contractor doing business with the city met with their office asking them not to attend the event, an event about storm water runoff and filtration units for the mobile contractor.

Here is a video of what we are talking about. We very much would like the City of Las Vegas to uphold their NPDES Permit NV0021911, as describe (sp) for the PUblic Outreach and Education Requirement for Las Vegas Valley Jurisdictions which they agreed to on Feb 9, 2010. By refusing to meet with us to address these issues, one could interpreted (sp) this as lack of cooperation as possibly being in violation of their permit which was issued by Region 9 of the EPA.

In my 25 years of working with my local and state AHJ, I have never seen so much resistance in helping the public gain a better understanding of discharge procedures.

(Video inserted here)



To translate these ramblings, this person is frustrated that local AHJ's will not attend some hypothetical event. They declined stating that attending such an event might be construed as endorsing products. So this person wrote to this letter to he regional Federal EPA office to complain that their pleas for more attention to the actions of contractors (like you) were being ignored by the local guys even going so far as to use a fake conversation with a Senator's office to try to make it sound more serious of a threat.

Is this your clear voice?

Tony,

Do you know if this ever happened?

I am in Vegas again next week. Regardless of how tired I will be....I want to hook up with you and talk about this stuff. when you text'd me last time....I was asleep in my room. Woke up around 11:00 pm....just saying
 
Tony,

Do you know if this ever happened?

I am in Vegas again next week. Regardless of how tired I will be....I want to hook up with you and talk about this stuff. when you text'd me last time....I was asleep in my room. Woke up around 11:00 pm....just saying

Carlos, I am still waiting for someone from the PWNA to comment.

It's honorable to step up and condemn such actions in a discussion.

There is no honor in waiting for proof and then trying to distance yourself afterwards.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Tony,

Do you know if this ever happened?

I am in Vegas again next week. Regardless of how tired I will be....I want to hook up with you and talk about this stuff. when you text'd me last time....I was asleep in my room. Woke up around 11:00 pm....just saying

But to answer your question, the PWNA BOD already knows if this happened or not.

So I will give them some time to respond.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I guess no one is going to step up.

Shall I continue?



So hypothetically, after asking the 30+ questions repeatedly and getting this response from the AHJ:

Mr XXXXXX,

Please refer to the following links for BMP and other information that is supported by all jurisdictions within the Las Vegas Valley. Thank you for the information you provided, which will be taken under consideration in future discussions by valley agencies.

http://www.lvstormwater.com
http://www.lvstormwater.com/pdfs/bmp_brochure.pdf


Then a PWNA Environmental Chair responds:

Mr XXXXX,

Thank you very much for the link below; I had not found that brochure below. It was quite useful on understanding your BMP's.


Then he goes on to badger them again to answer the 30+ questions

Now this is was a very interesting exchange. Especially since the PWNA Environmental Chairman himself was not only aware of these bmps, but actually POSTED THEM on PWI two months prior right here: http://www.propowerwash.com/board/u...rmful-Pollution/page19&highlight=lvstormwater

lvstormwaterpost.JPG

Even it he hadn't POSTED THEM a simple search for "Las Vegas BMPs" returns this result which brings you right to the Bmps in question that the Environmental Chair of the PWNA claims he was stumped in his effort to find:

vegasbmpsearch.JPG


Is lying about knowledge of BMP's to AHJ's acceptable practice for the PWNA? What about just lying in general?

Is anyone in the PWNA going to step up now or are you going to wait till you find out what the PWNA representative told the AHJ about the content of our reasonable BMPs before you stand up and denounce this? The longer you wait, the more proof of your complicity in the matter.
 
I will stop here for now and let all this sink in.

The PWNA sends representatives to a jurisdiction where they have no members, and I have provided a small sample of communications between them and the AHJ.

Is this what they did in Charlotte? Atlanta? Houston?

How many millions of dollars have been lost by contractors trying to keep up with regulations that were forced on them by pushing for stricter and stricter rules when the rules that were in place were perfectly acceptable to the AHJ?

I guess we will have to find out how many millions.
 
Not only that Tony, how much did the city make off of illegally fining contractors that should have never received fines if things had not changed because of people interfering to change things to their benefit?
 
The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

I know a lot of people think that being dishonest is just part of how business is done this day and age. But there is a large segment of people out there who don't operate that way.

These regulators out here are sensible and smart. They saw right through all this mess right off the bat.

Jim Gamble, Robert Hinderliter and John Tornebene all three accused me of interfering with their event. I have always openly stated that my interaction with my local guys consisted of listening at the meetings and occasionally we discussed how vendors try to change the rules to force us to use their equipment. I simply asked them to please let me know in advance if there were any changes coming down the pike.

I never mentioned any of their names, nor ever said anything about their event prior to their coming here. I've told all three of them this and I expressed to them that I do not lie. But, of course, the idea that someone can go throughout their day without lying is foreign to them.

They still accused me of interference even after the following correspondence from regulators:

1) We understand that no endorsement is being asked or expected, but the City of Las Vegas has determined that someone may interpret our participation as such so we must decline your invitation.

2) Unfortunately, Clark County Water Reclamation District also needs to decline participation in your event for the same reasons the City of Las Vegas personnel have cited.

And finally, after a few phone calls to the regulators accusing me of interfering, the AHJ makes it clear here:

Regarding your voice mail concerns about the location change, we are not aware of anyone who is either for or against you holding the event.

Yet, even after that, they still accused me of lying and interfering with their event.

Why is that? There is only one reason. They can't comprehend going about your business and doing so without lying.


AFTER the event was over, I was made aware that a state level regulator had spoken at the event. Robert sent me a text stating that the regulator claimed that all powerwashing in the state requires a permit.

His actual text simply says "NV EPA says you need a state permit". Later, after some bantering back and forth Robert sent me the following text:

"A State of NV Permit for every discharage (sp) location to the MS4".

This is in direct opposition to the BMPs in place. I couldn't believe that an official at the state level would have said that.

At that point I made my first contact with local AHJ's on Monday April 01, 2013 regarding the event. Here is the text of my email:

Hello XXXXX, This is Tony Shelton from Sonitx. I have spoken with you a few times at the meetings and once in your office regarding powerwashing. Could I get 15 minutes of your time hopefully one day this week?

Just as I feared a group of guys that make and sell vacuum equipment had an event at the Rio last week and managed to get an official from Carson City to speak at the event and they are using that as validation for their need for equipment.

They are making claims of things they claim the official said that are hard to believe. I'd like to sit down with you before I contact him and get some facts first if I could.

I am available just about anytime this week except for 11-1pm on Wednesday. I would probably need about 10-15 minutes of your time.



I would never have had to sent that correspondence if I had been allowed, as required by the law, to attend the portion of the event where my own state level official was speaking. But I, a resident of his state and under his jurisdiction, was not allowed to listen to his presentation.

The official did his best to make sure he was following the law. He sent them the following questions that they answered on the phone.

They could not have answered these questions truthfully or the official could have never legally attended the event. Here were the questions he asked them:

Question 3: Will the presentation be open to the public?
Question 4: Is there a cost for the public to attend this component of your event (NDEP, Stormwater, Industrial Activity, and the MS4)?

If they answered the questions honestly they would have had to inform the official that there WAS a cost for every portion of the event and they even claimed that Ron and I were trying to go to their event without paying! AND they would have had to report to the official that they claimed to have hired security to keep unpaid attendees (meaning Ron and me) out of the event.

I just don't believe that they understand that business can be done, disagreements can be had and life can be lived without the crutch of lies accompanying everything.
 
Tony, I just want to make sure that I understand the questions #3 and #4 near the bottom of your post.

If the state official knew the meeting was not open to the public and if the state official knew that people had to pay to listen to him speaking, he could not have done the speech?

Can you talk more about this and why? I don't know about that kind of thing and obviously you know a lot about this stuff and I know that many, many members of PWI and the UAMCC will want to know about this as it pertains to them in many different ways and probably in their state as well.

I think your answers will open up another huge can of worms that some people out there don't want us to know.

Thanks Tony.




The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

I know a lot of people think that being dishonest is just part of how business is done this day and age. But there is a large segment of people out there who don't operate that way.

These regulators out here are sensible and smart. They saw right through all this mess right off the bat.

Jim Gamble, Robert Hinderliter and John Tornebene all three accused me of interfering with their event. I have always openly stated that my interaction with my local guys consisted of listening at the meetings and occasionally we discussed how vendors try to change the rules to force us to use their equipment. I simply asked them to please let me know in advance if there were any changes coming down the pike.

I never mentioned any of their names, nor ever said anything about their event prior to their coming here. I've told all three of them this and I expressed to them that I do not lie. But, of course, the idea that someone can go throughout their day without lying is foreign to them.

They still accused me of interference even after the following correspondence from regulators:

1) We understand that no endorsement is being asked or expected, but the City of Las Vegas has determined that someone may interpret our participation as such so we must decline your invitation.

2) Unfortunately, Clark County Water Reclamation District also needs to decline participation in your event for the same reasons the City of Las Vegas personnel have cited.

And finally, after a few phone calls to the regulators accusing me of interfering, the AHJ makes it clear here:

Regarding your voice mail concerns about the location change, we are not aware of anyone who is either for or against you holding the event.

Yet, even after that, they still accused me of lying and interfering with their event.

Why is that? There is only one reason. They can't comprehend going about your business and doing so without lying.


AFTER the event was over, I was made aware that a state level regulator had spoken at the event. Robert sent me a text stating that the regulator claimed that all powerwashing in the state requires a permit.

His actual text simply says "NV EPA says you need a state permit". Later, after some bantering back and forth Robert sent me the following text:

"A State of NV Permit for every discharage (sp) location to the MS4".

This is in direct opposition to the BMPs in place. I couldn't believe that an official at the state level would have said that.

At that point I made my first contact with local AHJ's on Monday April 01, 2013 regarding the event. Here is the text of my email:

Hello XXXXX, This is Tony Shelton from Sonitx. I have spoken with you a few times at the meetings and once in your office regarding powerwashing. Could I get 15 minutes of your time hopefully one day this week?

Just as I feared a group of guys that make and sell vacuum equipment had an event at the Rio last week and managed to get an official from Carson City to speak at the event and they are using that as validation for their need for equipment.

They are making claims of things they claim the official said that are hard to believe. I'd like to sit down with you before I contact him and get some facts first if I could.

I am available just about anytime this week except for 11-1pm on Wednesday. I would probably need about 10-15 minutes of your time.



I would never have had to sent that correspondence if I had been allowed, as required by the law, to attend the portion of the event where my own state level official was speaking. But I, a resident of his state and under his jurisdiction, was not allowed to listen to his presentation.

The official did his best to make sure he was following the law. He sent them the following questions that they answered on the phone.

They could not have answered these questions truthfully or the official could have never legally attended the event. Here were the questions he asked them:

Question 3: Will the presentation be open to the public?
Question 4: Is there a cost for the public to attend this component of your event (NDEP, Stormwater, Industrial Activity, and the MS4)?

If they answered the questions honestly they would have had to inform the official that there WAS a cost for every portion of the event and they even claimed that Ron and I were trying to go to their event without paying! AND they would have had to report to the official that they claimed to have hired security to keep unpaid attendees (meaning Ron and me) out of the event.

I just don't believe that they understand that business can be done, disagreements can be had and life can be lived without the crutch of lies accompanying everything.
 
Tony, I just want to make sure that I understand the questions #3 and #4 near the bottom of your post.

If the state official knew the meeting was not open to the public and if the state official knew that people had to pay to listen to him speaking, he could not have done the speech?

Can you talk more about this and why? I don't know about that kind of thing and obviously you know a lot about this stuff and I know that many, many members of PWI and the UAMCC will want to know about this as it pertains to them in many different ways and probably in their state as well.

I think your answers will open up another huge can of worms that some people out there don't want us to know.

Thanks Tony.

I believe the official did nothing wrong. He did his due diligence and asked the questions. All he can do is assume that they would tell him the truth. Just like many others he was just unaware of the level of integrity he was dealing with

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Tony, are you saying that the state official cannot speak to an audience if people are paying to listen to him?

Are you saying that a state official cannot speak if the meeting is not open to the public?

This is what I am not clear about.

Thanks.
 
Back
Top