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.
