Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
I recently read the latest Eclean Magazine.
There is an article about the PWNA Bmps. In the article there is a reference to statements attributed to a regulator from Nevada.
The statement reads:
"Anything that physically, chemically, or biologically changes the water is considered a pollutant." then adds "elevating the temperature means you are creating a pollutant".
Really?
How do radical filter salesmen get a regulator to make a statement like that? What kind of things could they possibly tell a regulator that we, as cleaners, are doing to our water to turn it into a pollutant?
I did a little research throughout the Federal Epa database to find where and in what context this regulator could have said this statement and it wasn't very hard to find. It states in "Definitions":
THERMAL TREATMENT (in the RCRA program) means the treatment of hazardous waste in a device which uses elevated temperature as the primary means to change the chemical, physical, or biological character or composition of the hazardous waste. Examples of thermal treatment processes are incineration, molton salt, pyrolysis, calcination, wet air oxidation and microwave discharge. (See also "incinerator" and "open burning")
What kinds of videos, pictures, evidence or just plain false information could the PWNA give a regulator in reference to the simple HOT WATER CLEANING that we do to make him equate this definition, which is speaking of the TREATMENT of hazardous waste, with us?????
This reference is in regard to treatment plants and treatment of hazardous waste, not a powerwasher cleaning soda pop spills off the sidewalk of a Jack in the Box or gum out in front of a grocery store!
In the article, after the reference to the RCRA treatment definition Robert Hinderliter, the Environmental Co-Chair of the PWNA goes on to add his own two cents as if he speaks for the EPA himself and states:
"High Pressure Power Washing with hot water or chemicals dislodges more contaminants than a rain event and cannot be treated the same."
This is the crux of the PWNA bmps. Unless they include "hot water" in the same category as "chemicals" they can't possibly force a BMP that essentially requires everything we clean to be collected. It's not good enough for them to require reclaim of chemically cleaned areas. If they are going to promote the sales of reclaim equipment, they must force it in every situation, including the situations where we use hot water. That is the only way to ensure that every commercial powerwasher worth his salt in America is forced to buy the equipment the PWNA is selling through Robert Hinderliter and Jim Gamble.
Please don't fall for the smoke and mirror effect that Robert is now recently starting to add to his statements because of the backlash he is receiving. Recently he has recanted his earlier stance the "nothing" can go down the drain, but is now reporting, (as I told him over two years ago) that "some" wash water, properly screened, may go down the storm drain as permitted by law. Don't fall for it. It is a concession that really means nothing if he can get your hot water considered hazardous as he and he PWNA have been attempting to do.
A while back I spent a couple of days researching EPA documents. There is nothing anywhere in the EPA documentation or regulations that state anything about hot water being an emulsifier to create pollutants or anything that resembles that. This is a concept that has been created and is being promoted by Robert Hinderliter and the PWNA. It is reminiscent of the "nothing down the dr@in but rain" phrase that I searched a couple of years ago and found the oldest reference on the entire internet came from Robert Hinderliter and Delco back in the early 90's.
This is an assault on your family gentlemen. It is a direct grab in your pocketbook with the government holding the gun while the PWNA searches your pockets.
Do you support such misinformation? Do you want laws to be made based on false propaganda that Robert puts out that is effective enough to make a regulator equate our industry with the waste water treatment industry?
If not, please let the PWNA know that we don't want such "snake oil salesmen" representing us to the government. If they won't listen, remove your financial support of this agenda.
At the UAMCC we are dedicated to presenting our industry as the ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANERS we are. We are trying to educate contractors on the law and educate lawmakers on contractors. We are working on a campaign to change the way we are perceived by regulators by presenting them honest pictures of normal cleaning situations rather than the PWNA's incessant barrage of pictures of land owners who are violating the law and dumping pollutants down the storm drain.
We need multiple volunteers from each state to battle his misinformation and save the small to medium sized pressure washing business from extinction though regulation meant to make everyone have to buy a $100,000 Jim Gamble filter rig just to operate legally. If you think that isn't coming in the future if we do nothing you are in for a big surprise.
There is an article about the PWNA Bmps. In the article there is a reference to statements attributed to a regulator from Nevada.
The statement reads:
"Anything that physically, chemically, or biologically changes the water is considered a pollutant." then adds "elevating the temperature means you are creating a pollutant".
Really?
How do radical filter salesmen get a regulator to make a statement like that? What kind of things could they possibly tell a regulator that we, as cleaners, are doing to our water to turn it into a pollutant?
I did a little research throughout the Federal Epa database to find where and in what context this regulator could have said this statement and it wasn't very hard to find. It states in "Definitions":
THERMAL TREATMENT (in the RCRA program) means the treatment of hazardous waste in a device which uses elevated temperature as the primary means to change the chemical, physical, or biological character or composition of the hazardous waste. Examples of thermal treatment processes are incineration, molton salt, pyrolysis, calcination, wet air oxidation and microwave discharge. (See also "incinerator" and "open burning")
What kinds of videos, pictures, evidence or just plain false information could the PWNA give a regulator in reference to the simple HOT WATER CLEANING that we do to make him equate this definition, which is speaking of the TREATMENT of hazardous waste, with us?????
This reference is in regard to treatment plants and treatment of hazardous waste, not a powerwasher cleaning soda pop spills off the sidewalk of a Jack in the Box or gum out in front of a grocery store!
In the article, after the reference to the RCRA treatment definition Robert Hinderliter, the Environmental Co-Chair of the PWNA goes on to add his own two cents as if he speaks for the EPA himself and states:
"High Pressure Power Washing with hot water or chemicals dislodges more contaminants than a rain event and cannot be treated the same."
This is the crux of the PWNA bmps. Unless they include "hot water" in the same category as "chemicals" they can't possibly force a BMP that essentially requires everything we clean to be collected. It's not good enough for them to require reclaim of chemically cleaned areas. If they are going to promote the sales of reclaim equipment, they must force it in every situation, including the situations where we use hot water. That is the only way to ensure that every commercial powerwasher worth his salt in America is forced to buy the equipment the PWNA is selling through Robert Hinderliter and Jim Gamble.
Please don't fall for the smoke and mirror effect that Robert is now recently starting to add to his statements because of the backlash he is receiving. Recently he has recanted his earlier stance the "nothing" can go down the drain, but is now reporting, (as I told him over two years ago) that "some" wash water, properly screened, may go down the storm drain as permitted by law. Don't fall for it. It is a concession that really means nothing if he can get your hot water considered hazardous as he and he PWNA have been attempting to do.
A while back I spent a couple of days researching EPA documents. There is nothing anywhere in the EPA documentation or regulations that state anything about hot water being an emulsifier to create pollutants or anything that resembles that. This is a concept that has been created and is being promoted by Robert Hinderliter and the PWNA. It is reminiscent of the "nothing down the dr@in but rain" phrase that I searched a couple of years ago and found the oldest reference on the entire internet came from Robert Hinderliter and Delco back in the early 90's.
This is an assault on your family gentlemen. It is a direct grab in your pocketbook with the government holding the gun while the PWNA searches your pockets.
Do you support such misinformation? Do you want laws to be made based on false propaganda that Robert puts out that is effective enough to make a regulator equate our industry with the waste water treatment industry?
If not, please let the PWNA know that we don't want such "snake oil salesmen" representing us to the government. If they won't listen, remove your financial support of this agenda.
At the UAMCC we are dedicated to presenting our industry as the ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANERS we are. We are trying to educate contractors on the law and educate lawmakers on contractors. We are working on a campaign to change the way we are perceived by regulators by presenting them honest pictures of normal cleaning situations rather than the PWNA's incessant barrage of pictures of land owners who are violating the law and dumping pollutants down the storm drain.
We need multiple volunteers from each state to battle his misinformation and save the small to medium sized pressure washing business from extinction though regulation meant to make everyone have to buy a $100,000 Jim Gamble filter rig just to operate legally. If you think that isn't coming in the future if we do nothing you are in for a big surprise.