EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution

Ohio pressure wash said:
That was a 1 and 3 month tracking

this one thread has little to do with global monthly traffic.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised. A thread like this brings people looking at other areas as well. Maybe today it's all different. Ron would know this better then most would.
 
Scott S., Do you remember that call last year, maybe the year before when I talked to you about the device for dealing with huge amounts of sludge that I was thinking about building? I forgot about it but my welder friend reminded me the other day and was wondering if I still wanted him to work on it or just hold off, I told him to hold off for now.

I know you are busy and the family issues here are still bad so instead of calling you, I think you might see this here and give me your advice either by posting here or by pm.

I don't have the money for the patent (over $12,000 from what I have been told just to start, then it gets more expensive the longer it takes) and I don't think that there is that much demand for the device so it would not be a huge money maker, might just end up getting copied like so many things out there today so I would not want to spend that kind of money for the patent if there was not a good enough return to cover the patent cost and profit.

Would you just make it and use it in your business and maybe one day get the patent for protection or would you just make it and use it and forget about the patent?

I found another industry that might be a market for it but just not sure what to do right now. I will pray about it but I would like your advice.

Thanks Scott.
 
Christopher said:
Scott S., Do you remember that call last year, maybe the year before when I talked to you about the device for dealing with huge amounts of sludge that I was thinking about building? I forgot about it but my welder friend reminded me the other day and was wondering if I still wanted him to work on it or just hold off, I told him to hold off for now.

I know you are busy and the family issues here are still bad so instead of calling you, I think you might see this here and give me your advice either by posting here or by pm.

I don't have the money for the patent (over $12,000 from what I have been told just to start, then it gets more expensive the longer it takes) and I don't think that there is that much demand for the device so it would not be a huge money maker, might just end up getting copied like so many things out there today so I would not want to spend that kind of money for the patent if there was not a good enough return to cover the patent cost and profit.

Would you just make it and use it in your business and maybe one day get the patent for protection or would you just make it and use it and forget about the patent?

I found another industry that might be a market for it but just not sure what to do right now. I will pray about it but I would like your advice.

Thanks Scott.
Click to expand...
Very interesting Chris. Hopefully Scott finds this in here. If not great thread starter. Venture capitalism within this industry could be discussed in here... Good luck on your idea.
 
Clean County PW said:
oh yea. This is a hot thread. Years ago we would put anything in these Powerwashing bulletin boards to get it to rise in the ranking and the only way to do that was to bring in controversial subjects such as religion & politics. This was to help friends like Ron & Beth for example to help them with there sites to keep it going. I can name a few industry sites that failed because they had no traffic.

Today we can talk industry related stuff like this thread(hottest one I ever seen in the Industry) that can elevate traffic. So I do this now for trying to find answers as well as to keep the ratings up for old friends such as Ron even though we bicker continuously on the net.

Love to see this thread hit 30,000 views and today in my life, more importantly we find acceptable answers.
Click to expand...


John This Thread Has Just a Few more hits, its a Positive thread. Oh if you watch it hit for hit. It will have more hits this week than this one might get for another three years. FYI
http://www.propowerwash.com/board/u...21698-2011-Events-Mobile-Cleaning-Events-2011
 
"The environmental groups don't take much issue with commercial car washes, because most of those funnel runoff into municipal sewer systems for treatment."

Doesn't look that way to me......... How many of these are in the U.S.?..... Operational 24/7/365.......Is this compliant?....Are they viewed as polluters?.....Are they viewed as criminals?........Are they viewed as "Unprofessional"?

If Not...Why Not?!?!




car wash pics 014resz.jpgcar wash pics 016resz.jpgcar wash pics 015resz.jpgcar wash pics 018resz.jpg
 
Robert Hinderliter said:
Hinders my ability to train; for most of the viewers this is educational.

Users active in the past 24 hours

2925 Users have visited the forum. 174 members and 2751 guests

Members of this Forum are in the minority!
Click to expand...

They are Male Viewers 40 - 45 age and they are College educated
Demo1_zpsa370bce5.png
 
Originally Posted by Tony Shelton View Post
So with this thread going on with over 16000 views you knew there was a "major meeting of AHJ's" today and you didn't share that information with us?

I am still waiting for an answer to this question Mr. Robert
Click to expand...


Robert Hinderliter said:
When I get confidential information, it stays confidential; sorry; that is how you build trust.
Click to expand...


This aught to tell everyone exactly where the PWNA Environmental Chairman stands.


Maybe I'm different, loyal or naive but If I were representing an industry, Org or association or person...I'd make it clear to my government contacts where my allegiances were and that if they did not want my group or client to know of something then they'd best not mention it to me.
 
Ron Musgraves said:
They are Male Viewers 40 - 45 age and they are College educated
Click to expand...


Complete.com tracks traffic like Alexa....PWI up 108% for this month, up 18% last 12 months

<img src="http://www.propowerwash.com/board/upload/attachment.php?attachmentid=23258&d=1358770659" height="300" width="300">

Complete.com "Unique Visitors"
Unique Visitors counts how many unique individual people visited this site per month. Visitors are counted once, no matter how many times they visit a site in a month. Counts represent traffic from the United States only. Rank measures the popularity of this site based on how many Unique Visitors came to the site in a month. With Rank, lower is better. Competitive Rank shows where a site ranks in its competitive set measured by Unique Visitors.
 
[h=1]Significant Events[/h]
Significant Events that shaped the CWA interpretation and Industry Guidelines for Cosmetic Mobile Power Wash Operators.


  • December 2, 1969. Otto V. Jackson receives Patent Number 3,481,544 for “A Mobile Hot High Pressure Washer mounted in a Van with a Water Tank”
  • 1972. The CWA passes Congress.
  • 1988. A child’s inflatable Vinyl Swimming Pool was used to stop up a Stormdrain and a sump pump was used to discharge directly to Sanitary Sewer in Seattle, Washington. This procedure was approved by the City of Seattle and was a Trade Secret at the time.
  • October 26, 1989. William L. Klementovich files for patent number 4,981,391, “INFLATABLE PORTABLE DAM FOR CONTAINMENT OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS”.
  • July 31, 1990. Edward W. Van Romer and Brian R. Flood file for patent number 5,090,588 “PORTABLE CONTAINMENT FOR CHEMICALS”. Which is a portable containment pad for collecting wash water from washing Crop Duster Aircraft in the field.
  • January 1, 1991. William L. Klementovich is issued patent number 4,981,391, “INFLATABLE PORTABLE DAM FOR CONTAINMENT OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS”.
  • 1991. Oregon develops a statewide program for Mobile Power Wash Contract Cleaners. Which today is still the only program where the liability for the waste can either be the Contract Cleaner or his customer. Other Environmental Regulators and Trade Associations use this Program as a guide. This effort was lead by Raj Kapur, an Oregon Permit Writer.
  • November 1991. Dan and John Cassello in Connecticut start washing Coca Cola Trucks on a canvas tarp.
  • December 1991. Ron and Lorna Rives in Tennessee tested washing on a tarp and do their first job in January 1992.
  • February 25, 1992. Edward W. Van Romer and Brian R. Flood are issued patent number 5,090,588 “PORTABLE CONTAINMENT FOR CHEMICALS”. Which was a portable containment pad for collecting wash water from washing Crop Duster Aircraft in the field.
  • July 6,1992. Douglas Latimer files for his first patent to the US Patent Office. “METHOD AND APPRATUS FOR TREATING ARTICLES WITH WASH WATER OR OTHER FLUID” Patent Number 5,423,339.
  • September 4, 1992. Steven Chayer files for Patent Number 5,349,722 for the Vacu-Boom, “METHODS OF AND APPARATUS FOR CONTAINING AND EVACUATING FLIUDS”.
  • September 1992. PWNA, A non-profit trade association was established to deal with Environmental Issues. This effort was lead by Robert M. Hinderliter, of Delco Cleaning Systems of Fort Worth.
  • November 16, 1992. NPDES Permit for Phase I Cities over 250,000 population is due.
  • December 7, 1992. Doug Latimer files for his 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] patent at the Canadian Patent Office, number 2,084,700, “METHOD FOR WASHING AN ARTICLE AND COLLECTING THE USED WASH WATER, AND WASH PAD AND MOBILE APPARATUS USEFUL THEREWITH”.
  • December 12, 1992. PWNA has its initial Executive Board meeting in Fort Worth, Texas and is established as a non-profit trade association. Robert M. Hinderliter is elected as the First President of PWNA. The initial purpose of PWNA was to address Environmental Issues.
  • January 4, 1993. Oregon issues the first State Wide Permit for Environmental Power Washing by Mobile Power Wash Contract Cleaners.
  • October 1, 1993. NPDES Permit for Phase I Cities over 100,000 population is due.
  • November 4, 1993. Thomas A. Page files for his 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Patent. “CLOSED LOOP SURFACE CLEANING SYSTEM” Patent Number 5,469,597.
  • December 23, 1993. Douglas Latimer files for his 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] patent with the US Patent office. “METHOD AND APPRATUS FOR TREATING ARTICLES WITH WASH WATER OR OTHER FLUID” Patent Number 5,560,782
  • April 22, 1994. John Schmitz, Jr. files for Patent Number 5,547,312 “Apparatus for containing run-off produced after washing vehicles”. (Portable Wash Pad).
  • September 23, 1994 “Cleaning Equipment Trade Association – San Francisco Area Chapter” releases “Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff”. This effort was lead by David Wyatt of Kleen Quip, now Hotsy Bay Area.
  • September 27, 1994. Steven Chayer receives Patent Number 5,349,722 for the Vacu-Boom, “METHODS OF AND APPARATUS FOR CONTAINING AND EVACUATING FLIUDS”.
  • May 1995. Santa Clara Valley Issues “Guidelines for Prohibited Discharges to the Storm Drain” for Pressure Washing.
  • June 13, 1995. Douglas Latimer first patent is issued, “METHOD AND APPRATUS FOR TREATING ARTICLES WITH WASH WATER OR OTHER FLUID” Patent Number 5,423,339.
  • July 17, 1995. A “Mobile Power Washing Environmental Protection and Compliance Conference” was held in Fort Worth, Texas as part of a public comment period for a Fort Worth Cosmetic Cleaning ordinance. The meeting was attended by about 40 Federal EPA, State, Regional, and Municipal Environmental Regulators and 100 Contract Cleaner and Industry Representatives. The conference was sponsored by Delco Cleaning Systems of Fort Worth, and lead by Robert M. Hinderliter of Delco Cleaning Systems and Brian Camp, Jr., Senior Water Quality Specialists, Environmental Department, City of Fort Worth. Because of this conference Fort Worth rewrote their ordinance and it was passed by City Council November 28, 1995 to become law on January 2, 1996.
  • November 27, 1995. Thomas A. Page files for his 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Patent. “CLOSED LOOP SURFACE CLEANING SYSTEM” Patent Number 5,704,989. A method for removing contaminants from a surface such as pavement using a portable closed-loop system which is transported to the location to be cleaned by a vehicle.
  • November 28, 1995. Thomas A. Page is issued his 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Patent. “CLOSED LOOP SURFACE CLEANING SYSTEM” Patent Number 5,469,597. The present invention relates generally to an environmentally sensitive cleaning system, and more specifically relates to a closed loop high pressure cleaning system for cleaning surfaces without dislodging contaminates into the storm drain.
  • January 2, 1996. The Fort Worth City Cosmetic Cleaning Ordinance becomes law. This is the first Municipal Ordinance approved by City Council to meet NPDES requirements of the CWA. This effort was lead by Brian Camp, Jr., Senior Water Quality Specialists, Environmental Department, City of Fort Worth.
  • February 23, 1996. South Carolina issues an NPDES Permit covering “Vehicle Wash Water Discharges”. See at http://www.dcs1.com/del/delpg5/scnpdes1.html
  • March 1, 1996. Delco Cleaning Systems of Fort Worth mails out the “City of Fort Cosmetic Cleaning Ordinance Passed by City Council” to all Environmental Regulators of cities over 100,000 population and posted on the Internet. The ordinance is used as a guide by other municipalities. This effort was lead by Robert M. Hinderliter of Delco Cleaning Systems of Fort Worth. This ordinance is now on the EPA’s website as a guide for other municipalities.
  • April 1, 1996. Michael J. Roden files for Patent Number 5,711,051 that is basically a surface cleaner with a vacuum pickup for wash water capture. This is accomplished by creating a vacuum at the perimeter of the surface cleaner. This is done with a hood within a hood to create the vacuum chamber.
  • August 20, 1996. John Schmitz, Jr. received Patent Number 5,547,312 “Apparatus for containing run-off produced after washing vehicles”. (Portable Wash Pad).
  • August 22, 1996. BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association of the San Francisco Bay Area) endorses CETA’s – San Francisco Area Chapter “Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff”. This effort was lead by Geoff Brosseau, Executive Director, BASMAA. BASMAA is unique in that they add a Pollution Prevention Voucher to their program.
  • October 1, 1996. Douglas Latimer’s 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Patent is issued by the US Patent Office, “METHOD AND APPRATUS FOR TREATING ARTICLES WITH WASH WATER OR OTHER FLUID” Patent Number 5,560,782.
  • January 28, 1997. Royce Rasmussen & Victor McFarland receive Patent No. 5,597,001 for “Portable Equipment Wash Station employing a retractable flooring system”.
  • September 1997. Greater Kansas City Metropolitan Area issues “Recommended Pollution Prevention Practices for the Mobile Power Wash Industry”. You can these BMPa at http://www.dcs1.com/del/delpg5/KCbmp97.html
  • September 1997. Doug Latimer’s 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Patent is issued, number 5,669,982 for “A method for washing an article and collecting the used wash water as well as a wash pad and a mobile apparatus”.
  • January 6, 1998. Thomas A. Page receives his 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Patent. “CLOSED LOOP SURFACE CLEANING SYSTEM” Patent Number 5,704,989.
  • January 27, 1998. Michael J. Roden receives Patent Number 5,711,051 that is basically a surface cleaner with a vacuum pickup for wash water capture. This is accomplished by creating a vacuum at the perimeter of the surface cleaner. This is done with a hood within a hood to create the vacuum chamber.
  • April 14, 1998. Albert DeChard receives Patent Number 5,738,139 for “Waste Water Recovery System” including a ground cover.
  • February 19, 1999. Patent Infringement Law Suit is settled between Doug Latimer and Delco Cleaning Systems of Fort Worth. Delco agrees not to sell wash pads with airberms and Mr. Latimer agrees that Delco technologies do not infringe on Mr. Latimer’s patents. See a copy of the settlement for more details.
  • March 2, 1999. Doug Latimer’s 4[SUP]th[/SUP] patent is issued by the Canadian Patent Office number 2,084,700, “METHOD FOR WASHING AN ARTICLE AND COLLECTING THE USED WASH WATER, AND WASH PAD AND MOBILE APPARATUS USEFUL THEREWITH”.
  • April 21, 1999. Denis John Rowan files for Patent Number 6,216,312. This patent is the vacuum, filtering device, and discharge pump needed for the surface cleaner in patent number 5,711,051.
  • June 9, 1999. Wisconsin issues a NPDES General Permit for “Wastewater from the outside washing of vehicles, equipment, and other objects”.
  • November 9, 1999. Gary Fritz receives Patent Number 5,979,012 for “Mobile Apparatus for Dispensing and Recovering Water and Removing Waste Therefrom”.
  • August 1999. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality releases “Mobile Power Washing Waste Management Guidance”. They allow discharge to landscaping for Cosmetic Cleaning up to 1,000 gallons per month per acre for bioremediation and require a Contact Cleaners to keep a log of all discharges for 3 years.
  • December 9, 1999. Phase II for urban areas under 100,000 population (populations densities greater than 1,000 per square mile whether incorporated or unincorporated, these areas are mostly in the eastern United States) was implemented. These areas have 3 years and 90 days to turn in applications and 5 years to comply with the rule. Phase II will affect over 5,000 urban areas.
  • April 17, 2001. Denis John Rowan receives Patent Number 6,216,312. This patent is the vacuum, filtering device, and discharge pump needed for the surface cleaner in patent number 5,711,051.
  • October 2002. Sacramento County and associated cities implement a Voluntary Program for “Mobile Power Wash Contract Cleaners”.
  • March 10, 2003 NPDES permits were due from owners of all MS4s located in municipalities and urban areas (UA’s) with total populations of at least 50,000 and population densities of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. (These MS4s are automatically required to have permits under Phase II). Note: MS4s located in areas with populations of at least 10,000 and population densities of at least 1,000 persons per square mile may be required to obtain a Phase II NPDES permit at the discretion of the EPA or state permitting authority. MS4s located in these less populated areas will have 180 days to file an application from the time they are notified that they are required to obtain a Phase II permit. (Ref: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf)
  • 2005. The EPA launched a national training program(5 Workshops), “Getting in Step with Phase II: A Workshop for Stormwater Program Managers,” to educate regulators of Phase II municipalities and urban areas. This is resulting in increased enforcement for “off property discharge”.
 
  • ........
 
Last edited:
Not in it for the money?

You use the Org's to validate yourself to the regulators....then reference your for profit business.

Why not reference the Org's?



(Source: http://www.powerwash.com/articles/municpal-regulation-for-storm-water-pollution-control.html)

Photo Gallery of BMPs

The following have photographs of Best Management Practices:

Multi-Tech Environmental Mobile Power Wash System
Powerwash.com Pressure Washers
Powerwash.com Store

These photos may be used by regulating agencies provided the following is done:

Credit is given to Powerwash.com by referencing our website at www.powerwash.com and phone number of 800-433-2113 adjacent to each photo used.
Powerwash.com is notified upon publication and sent a free copy of the publication or the website address.
Click to expand...



Well, even though you are in it for the money, at least you aren't telling regulators that we are polluters and incapable of being responsible professionals.....


Conclusion

Cosmetic mobile power washing wastewater is:

A significant Contributor of Pollution to the MS4s (storm drains)
An insignificant Contributor of effluent to sanitary sewer systems [Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW)]

If regulations are not reasonable, rational, and logical then the industry will go underground and discharge wastewater to the MS4s on nights and weekends when enforcement is at its lowest.
Click to expand...


Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!

<img src="http://flipkicklisten.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lucy-and-ricky-300x199.jpg" height="199" width="300">
 
Ohio pressure wash said:
at least you aren't telling regulators that we are polluters and incapable of being responsible professionals.....
Click to expand...
that part of your post is the same thing that many away from the bulletin boards have been saying about Robert. He let's them know that we are responsible professionals and we have options that they have deemed are acceptable.
 
John you missed his point. Ohio then went on to quote Robert as coming to the conclusion that the industry are polluters. He caught Robert saying what he's been telling us he isn't saying. Some call it lying but I know you might think that's a bit strong. I think the picture Ohio put up says it all. Of course I doubt Robert can explain it. He should just admit that his real motives aren't really tied into the contractors best interest and move on.
 
Ohio pressure wash said:
Not in it for the money?

You use the Org's to validate yourself to the regulators....then reference your for profit business.

Why not reference the Org's?



(Source: http://www.powerwash.com/articles/municpal-regulation-for-storm-water-pollution-control.html)





Well, even though you are in it for the money, at least you aren't telling regulators that we are polluters and incapable of being responsible professionals.....





Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!

<img src="http://flipkicklisten.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lucy-and-ricky-300x199.jpg" height="199" width="300">
Click to expand...


Simply amazing.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Yes I wouldn't lable Robert as a liar.. That is a bit strong. Since Robert is under a microscope because he is by far the most known person in this Industry away from the bulletin boards I can understand why people are analyzing his every word.

Maybe that last quote Ohio put out was Roberts assessment of what could happen. Whatever it is I wouldn't look to nail him to the cross over it. Once again Robert has said we can take his BMP's and work them to our advantage...

What Ohio has copied above, if Robert see's this then maybe he can tell us why that's in there and what was the nature of the conversations that caused him to put that in.. I need more info.
 
Clean County PW said:
that part of your post is the same thing that many away from the bulletin boards have been saying about Robert. He let's them know that we are responsible professionals and we have options that they have deemed are acceptable.
Click to expand...


You are either extremely slow on the uptake or the most loyal lackey in the world.....


This came from his blog!
"the industry will go underground and discharge wastewater to the MS4s on nights and weekends when enforcement is at its lowest"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top