EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution

[810f250]

I tried again today, got voicemail and left a message.

Nigel, have you ever read the original Clean Water Act from 1972? The whole think is about 200 pages long. In those two hundred pages you will be hard pressed to find anything that even remotely looks like the propaganda we are hearing today.

The goal of the clean water act was to clean up the nations streams, lakes, etc that had been polluted by industries pumping waste directly into the waterways. MILLIONS of gallons of waste.

The act allowed for SOME discharge into the waterways and it was monitored by way of PERMITS that not only allowed the industries to put some of the runoff into the waterways, but also gave the government the right to come in and audit.

Cities and states obtained permits to cover everything that wasn't specifically covered. For example, Monsanto has to have a permit, but Delco or Rahsco doesn't because of their size (according to Robert), so Robert is covered by the NPDES permit of the City of Ft Worth or the state (I am not familiar with their permit).

Just like any other industry, the city is allowed xx amount of discharge into the waterways by permit. In other words the permit ALLOWS them xx discharge. As long as they are falling within the parameters set by the federal EPA the EPA has NO JURISDICTION to fine them, OR YOU.

That is why our local SWA is so eager to get all their testing done early in the fiscal year so they can say they have met the minimal requirements and they don't have to worry about the EPA anymore till the next fiscal year!

The CWA did it's job. The waters are clean. Now the EPA is struggling to justify it's continued existence. If Romney had been elected it may have been toast by now. If Ron Paul had been elected it would most assuredly be gone. But with Obama, I'm sure we are in for at least another four years of this.

But even so, they are out of money. They aren't the slightest bit interested in the environment at this point, they are interested in bringing in fines. Are they interested in Rahsco? Are they interested in Ron? (and his two trucks lol) Are they interested in Scott and his few million per year contracts?

No. They are interested in Dow Chemical, Exxon and Dupont. It costs them more to prosecute guys like us than they can possibly recoup. So this entire campaign is in vain.

Many times there have been claims (mostly by Jim and Robert) that this contractor or that contractor has been fined for this or that, but despite my numerous requests no one has ever posted on of the fines for us to take a look at. It must be some kind of secret like Jim's $xx.xx garage jobs.

So I ask again, someone please post up an actual, ticket, judgement, or a fine where any power washer doing the normal type of cleaning that we do has ever been ticketed or fined.

And I ask you Nigel, please read the CWA in its entirety as I have. It won't take you long to realize what is really going on with it. I know the CWA has had changes over the years, and I've probably read most if not all of them. But the fact still remains that we ARE NOT and HAVE NOT EVER been their focus. That is why is is so important for us to paint ourselves as the environmental cleaners that we are and show that we have a net positive effect on the environment, even though there may have to be some tradeoffs along the way for us to get the job done (like the street sweeper exemption for example).

Tony, I never read the entire original Clean Water Act doc, have read and discussed portions of it, and have read summaries of its intention.

I understand what you are saying about NPEDS permits.

You stated the CWA did its job,........... but Maryland and the some of the Chesapeake Bay states have only used that as a stepping stone, we have so much taking place on the east coast that make the CWA requirements only a building block.

Some of the documents include (I have read portions and summaries of some of them)

Maryland's Stormwater Management Act of 2007 ,

BAY Restoration Fund

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Better know as the pollution Diet, 29 Dec 2010)

The Chesapeake Bay being signed by executive order as a National Treasure in 2009

The regulators and AHJ are zealous and or pressured in meeting their mandated targets.

I recognize that "we" are not their primary focus but as you mentioned in one of your earlier post, it only takes an uncompromising, ambitious AHJ official to get the pot stirred with me in it.

I am just trying to toe their line.

One local pressure wash contractor admitted to me that he was issued a fine by the local AHJ while cleaning a fueling station, and I dont think anyone would freely admit to this occurrence.

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

i am in the same position as Nigel, I have several copies of citations on the condition that I will not share them. I do not think that anyone would post their citation on the internet.

 

[810f250]

Nigel, I just got off the phone with Travis who returned my call instead of John.

Here are the highlights:

1) The units are specifically designed for rain runoff. Even the lowest model they have is more than capable of handling 1000 gallons per hour of runoff with no problem. (that's two 8gpm units running full blast)
2) They are designed for varying amounts of maintenance and it is up to the property owner to perform the maintenance.
3) If John told you the system could not be used for that it was only because that is not what the system was originally designed for, but, he admitted, that is exactly what it does (filter runoff).

It is like asking if you can clean a dog with a pressure washer. Sure, the pressure washer could handle it no problem, but that's not what it's designed for, so, as a pressure washer, I wouldn't recommend it.

Contact me if you would like to hear everything he said.

The bottom line is, the systems are DESIGNED to handle exactly what you are cleaning.
They are fully capable of handling the amounts you generate.

This is a gift.
It's not something we should refuse to take advantage of.

I wish you spoke with John B, then no one could say I made up anything.


I am not trying to be a hard head, but there are three issues:

1)As you clearly mentioned in point one, installation is designed for rain run off, John B told me it was not designed for pressure cleaning of the property and discharging the wash water directly to it.

2)The unit is open to the storm drain system, which could potentially be a violation of the CWA, it is not closed or contained. It cant be it leds to storm

3)The local AHJ, for the county indicated they did not want it to be used for the mobile cleaning of the facility, the local AHJ would be the ranking authority that made that property install the device in the first place.

Do you understand my position?

I feel if I was to get in hot water, the first line of questioning would be ,

"where you aware of the design function of such installation?".........., next question

"were you informed that it should not be used for your operation?"

 

[Ron Musgraves]

I wish you spoke with John B, then no one could say I made up anything.


I am not trying to be a hard head, but there are three issues:

1)As you clearly mentioned in point one, installation is designed for rain run off, John B told me it was not designed for pressure cleaning of the property and discharging the wash water directly to it.

2)The unit is open to the storm drain system, which could potentially be a violation of the CWA, it is not closed or contained. It cant be it leds to storm

3)The local AHJ, for the county indicated they did not want it to be used for the mobile cleaning of the facility, the local AHJ would be the ranking authority that made that property install the device in the first place.

Do you understand my position?

I feel if I was to get in hot water, the first line of questioning would be ,

"where you aware of the design function of such installation?".........., next question

"were you informed that it should not be used for your operation?"

Telling authority's we are creating waste you will never get the right solution.

Will work through this as the industry actually forms a plan in place written together. You should assist Nigel


Text me anytime for question 480-522-5227

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

[h=1]Clean Water Act CWA[/h]

Major Environmental Acts http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (1969)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The National Environmental Policy Act was one of the first laws ever written that establishes the broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA’s basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment.

• NEPA requirements are invoked when airports, buildings, military complexes, highways, parkland purchases, and other federal activities are proposed. Environmental Assessments (EA’s) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s), which are assessments of the likelihood of impacts from alternative courses of action, are required from all Federal agencies and are the most visible NEPA requirements.

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/nepa.htm

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 set the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States and gave the CWA it current form. And established a national goal that all waters of the U.S should be fishable and swimmable. This is the act that first caused Municipalities to do an Environmental Assessment of themselves. Most Regulators refer to the CWA as being passed in 1972.

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (1974)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.

• The Act authorized EPA to establish safe standards of purity and required all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which assume this power from EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance-related).

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/sdwa.htm

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (1976)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• RCRA (pronounced “rick-rah”) gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “cradle-to-grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous wastes.

• The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites (see CERCLA.)

• HSWA (pronounced “hiss-wa”) – The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.

• Employee protection from being fired or discriminated against for either filing a proceeding or testifying about issues related to RCRA enforcement.

• Allows Citizens to commence a civil action on his or her own behalf against any person, including any government entity, who is alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which is effective pursuant to RCRA

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/rcra.htm

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (1976)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give EPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. EPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human-health hazard. EPA can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk.

• Also, EPA has mechanisms in place to track the thousands of new chemicals that industry develops each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics. EPA then can control these chemicals as necessary to protect human health and the environment. TSCA supplements other Federal statutes, including the CLEAN AIR ACT and the Toxic Release Inventory under EPCRA.

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/tsca.htm

CLEAN WATER ACT (1977)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.

• The law gave EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis (technology-based) and continued the requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit (NPDES) is obtained under the Act.

• The 1977 amendments focused on toxic pollutants. In 1987, the CWA was reauthorized and again focused on toxic substances, authorized citizen suit provisions, and funded sewage treatment plants (POTW’s) under the Construction Grants Program.

• The CWA provisions for the delegation by EPA of many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the law to state governments. In states with the authority to implement CWA programs, EPA still retains oversight responsibilities. Website: http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (1980)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• CERCLA (pronounced SIR-cla) provides a Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup.

• EPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, EPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed.

• EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state environmental protection or waste management agencies. In Region 5, CERCLA is administered by the Superfund Division.

URL:http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/cercla.htm

POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT (1990)

<tbody>
</tbody>

• The Pollution Prevention Act focused industry, government, and public attention on reducing the amount of pollution through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use.

Opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because of existing regulations, and the industrial resources required for compliance, focus on treatment and disposal. Source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management or pollution control.

• Pollution prevention also includes other practices that increase efficiency in the use of energy, water, or other natural resources, and protect our resource base through conservation. Practices include recycling, source reduction, and sustainable agriculture.

• URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/ppa.htm

 

[Tony Shelton]

I wish you spoke with John B, then no one could say I made up anything.


I am not trying to be a hard head, but there are three issues:

1)As you clearly mentioned in point one, installation is designed for rain run off, John B told me it was not designed for pressure cleaning of the property and discharging the wash water directly to it.

2)The unit is open to the storm drain system, which could potentially be a violation of the CWA, it is not closed or contained. It cant be it leds to storm

3)The local AHJ, for the county indicated they did not want it to be used for the mobile cleaning of the facility, the local AHJ would be the ranking authority that made that property install the device in the first place.

Do you understand my position?

I feel if I was to get in hot water, the first line of questioning would be ,

"where you aware of the design function of such installation?".........., next question

"were you informed that it should not be used for your operation?"

Nigel, I never thought you were making things up. I hope no one else thinks so either. My conversation with Travis indicated that the response you got from John was the typical scripted response.

On point #1 - I get it, they are just trying to cover their butts just like I would if someone called me and stated they were going to clean inside an office building with chemicals and asks if it's ok. Of course I'm going to tell them no because I don't want anyone blaming me if anything goes wrong.

On point #2 - I believe, according to my conversation, that you are completely wrong on this point.
The units are NOT "open" to the storm drains unless they are overwhelmed and bypassed. According to Travis you cannot overwhelm ANY of their systems into bypass @ 16gpm unless the system is clogged.
They are fully designed to deal with and filter the exact contaminants you are washing off, AND they are ALLOWED to run into the storm drain after filtration. That is the entire purpose of this system!

Further, IF, the system is ever overwhelmed due to any clogging that is not your problem, nor is it THEIR problem, but it is the problem of the property owner who failed to maintain it properly. Period.

On point #3 - Ask them to put that in writing, and ask them why a $2000 portable vacuum system that pumps more pollution into the air and produces a sludge that has to be transported on the highways is preferable to a perfectly adequate system that someone spent tens of thousands to install and maintain. I'd love to see that answer in writing.

Can you not see the absurdity of them taking that position? It's my job, Robert's job, Scott Stone's job AND YOUR job to show them that we know how to protect the environment using common sense. When we play along with ignorant, nonsensical solutions it just makes us look just as uneducated as they are.

I understand you don't want to get in trouble. But relying on an answer here and there from people who have a vested interest in making things more difficult for you just to cover their own butts is not the best way to deal with this. We see this from what happened in Houston. Those people needed to be educated and we educated them. If we had left it up to them to make policy on their own whims many contractors would be out of business altogether.

i am in the same position as Nigel, I have several copies of citations on the condition that I will not share them. I do not think that anyone would post their citation on the internet.

Robert, can you share them redacted like the government sends out FOIA requests?

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

Sorry, the EPA has moved some of this information above, but at least the will point you in the right direction if you care to read everything.

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

I would not feel right without asking first.

 

[Tony Shelton]

• The law gave EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis (technology-based) and continued the requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit (NPDES) is obtained under the Act.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. Your city HAS a "permit". That means they have "permi"ssion to discharge "some" pollutants.

That is why "nothing down the dr@in but rain" is nothing more than false propaganda.

Your city is allowed to have certain amounts of pollution under the permit. YOU fall under that permit. If your city is meeting it's goals then all is well.

That is why, as you said, you are not required to have a permit because of the size of your operation.

Apparently that is why you can do this:

Why is it ok for your facility, a fixed location, that emits runoff frequently, to runoff directly into the street, but a guy who generates 300 gallons every other month in front of a Walm@rt has to pick up and treat his water to be "compliant"?

Do you know how hard it is to find a power washer cleaning on Bing or Google Satellite maps? It's darn near impossible because of the infrequent cleaning and the short time spans and small amounts of water they use. Yet it was easy to find water outside the barriers of your reclamation system from different angles and different satellite shots at different times. And it is clear from the stains (this is how we determine if coils are being cleaned regularly on rooftops) that this is a regular occurrence.

I get it Robert, I understand and believe that with the ground (God's filter) you are probably not polluting a thing in these pictures. I just wish you would understand it and quit trying to make all of us think we are polluting with our 300 gallon soda pop and dirt washes using hot water.

 

[810f250]

Telling authority's we are creating waste you will never get the right solution.

Will work through this as the industry actually forms a plan in place written together. You should assist Nigel


Text me anytime for question 480-522-5227

I dont tell them that I am creating waste, they seem to classify water runoff negatively other than if it is occurring during a rain event or form sprinkler/irrigation/hydrant/water main break without sediment wash carry off.

Thats why I have ask how do you accomplish "leave on property", when I have the issue of , AHJ's wanting to hold me to,

"It is unlawful for any person to introduce soil or sediment into waters of the State or to place soil or sediment in a condition or location where it is likely to be washed into waters of the State."

I agree that sediment quantity is small with frequent or infrequent store front , sidewalks, and drivethru cleaning, etc especially when dry clean up BMP's are utilized.

Help Ron.

I asked a series of questions prior,

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???

I dont want to seem like a impermeable individual,

here is a proposal

If we can be exempt for certain types of cleanings with "practical" solutions maybe no detergents.

1)like oil socks at storm inlet (3 tiers) ,
2)settling of 3 to 5 minutes,
3) Final stage a Metal zorb filter for heavy metals possibility.

What are your thoughts??, now how do we propose this to the AHJ's?

 

[Clean County PW]

Ouch!! Something doesn't seem right here....

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

This is what I've been trying to say all along. Your city HAS a "permit". That means they have "permi"ssion to discharge "some" pollutants.

That is why "nothing down the dr@in but rain" is nothing more than false propaganda.

Your city is allowed to have certain amounts of pollution under the permit. YOU fall under that permit. If your city is meeting it's goals then all is well.

That is why, as you said, you are not required to have a permit because of the size of your operation.

Apparently that is why you can do this:

Why is it ok for your facility, a fixed location, that emits runoff frequently, to runoff directly into the street, but a guy who generates 300 gallons every other month in front of a Walm@rt has to pick up and treat his water to be "compliant"?

Do you know how hard it is to find a power washer cleaning on Bing or Google Satellite maps? It's darn near impossible because of the infrequent cleaning and the short time spans and small amounts of water they use. Yet it was easy to find water outside the barriers of your reclamation system from different angles and different satellite shots at different times. And it is clear from the stains (this is how we determine if coils are being cleaned regularly on rooftops) that this is a regular occurrence.

I get it Robert, I understand and believe that with the ground (God's filter) you are probably not polluting a thing in these pictures. I just wish you would understand it and quit trying to make all of us think we are polluting with our 300 gallon soda pop and dirt washes using hot water.

Tony:

That is tap water and evaporator condensation you are looking at and Michael has sump pumps to capture waste water on property that discharge into a sand trap. Sorry you are miss representing photos. Good try though but wrong.

I might want to have seconds thoughts when attaching Michael, he does over $10,000,000 per year with about 100 employees and will not threaten you with a law suit, you will just be served. One of his best boy hood friends is a legation attorney, he is Michael's Legal Council. I have seen him in action, he does not play nice.

Just a word to the wise.

I you do not believe me ask Doug Latimer his experience getting served at a Trade Show.

This is not advice, but if I were you I would take that down before Michael gets mad.

 

[Tony Shelton]

Tony:

That is tap water and evaporator condensation you are looking at and Michael has sump pumps to capture waste water on property that discharge into a sand trap. Sorry you are miss representing photos. Good try though but wrong.

I might want to have seconds thoughts when attaching Michael, he does over $10,000,000 per year with about 100 employees and will not threaten you with a law suit, you will just be served. One of his best boy hood friends is a legation attorney, he is Michael's Legal Council. I have seen him in action, he does not play nice.

Just a word to the wise.

I you do not believe me ask Doug Latimer his experience getting served at a Trade Show.

This is not advice, but if I were you I would take that down before Michael gets mad.

I don't know why you or Michael would threaten me with a lawsuit, maybe he should sue google for taking the pictures.

Where is John T when you need him to complain about people threatening lawsuits all the time. Lol.

I am no more afraid of a lawsuit from Michael than Ron was when Michael threatened to sue him if he didn't take references to Michael's business interests off PWI.

Apparently the 5 active members on Michael's forum aren't buying so now, in spite of Michael's threats to Ron you are over here trying to reach a real body of buyers with your new filter.

Tap water? Really. It's all tap water till it is used to clean something.

See how quick this can get nasty.

For the record I posted those pics because you are probably in full compliance because it is going into landscaping. Why attack and threaten me instead of addressing the issue regarding the fact that most of us are in compliance?




Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ron Musgraves]

I Agree your attorneys would have a Slander suit, Tony is mis-informed that no one has the forensic on this site. I'm sure you not going to allow anyone onsite to test unless theres a court Order.

Why is this local authorities would not be allowed? Because TEXAs water code lie in the states hands.

Robert Tony might not agree but accusations are incorrect without Facts.

I'm not seeing anyplace here he accused you of Polluting ?

 

[Clean County PW]

Hey Tony this is an interesting thread and your right I hate lawsuit talk. Debating a topic is one thing but using a fellow contractors private property pictures to make your point is a bit much. Keep the debate going because there's alot of good points in here is fair... But not at the expense of bringing in pictures of people's private property.. It takes away from the discussion here because you now how people get...

I'm being rational like I always am. In your case think of the American history you love delving into-- "The right to protect property". Your hitting a nerve if you know what I mean-- your call-- suggestion though would be to take down those pictures.

 

[Clean County PW]

Duplicate post from I-pad

 

[Tony Shelton]

I don't know how I could have made it more clear that I don't believe there is any violation in those pictures.

It is Robert who is going around all over the nation claiming that the very depictions in those google map pictures are violations.

Maybe Michael should sue Robert.


I hope I have made the point that it is time to quit trying to make the contractors believe that "nothing is ever allowed down the dr@in but rain", and anything that doesn't go into the POTW is illegal, or somehow immoral and "hurting the children's playgrounds".

It's time to quit telling the authorities that the poor guys out there busting their butts all night cleaning sidewalks or working their tails off all day cleaning houses and roofs are polluters that need to be controlled by some new rules that Robert pulled out of his own imagination, ( and consequently has a filter he will sell you to make you legal)

Frankly Robert, you you had the opportunity to join with the vast majority of contractors who would have been behind you had you listened to their concerns when you put out the BMP's that you said you weren't going to "shop". There were a few very good suggestions that you completely ignored. Then you slapped all of us in the face when you began presenting the poorly received BMP's as soon as you got the PWNA stamp of approval, destroying the credibility of the PWNA in the process.

But now it looks like you don't have the trust of the majority of contractors anymore.

I thought maybe you were willing to work with us, but now it's evident that you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your pre-determined conclusions and would rather threaten anyone who points out the obvious hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

I'm no longer interested in this futile quest to "pretend" to try to work together with you.

I hope Nigel will stick around and we can learn from each other. He seems to just want to do the right thing just like most of us.

Tell Michael my address is:

Tony Shelton
Sonitx
845 S Kenny Way
Las Vegas, NV 89107

But let him know in advance he will lose just like he did with Doug Latimer.

I'm sorry this didn't work out for the industry, but there's no working past a personal agenda.

 

[Tony Shelton]

Hey Tony this is an interesting thread and your right I hate lawsuit talk. Debating a topic is one thing but using a fellow contractors private property pictures to make your point is a bit much. Keep the debate going because there's alot of good points in here is fair... But not at the expense of bringing in pictures of people's private property.. It takes away from the discussion here because you now how people get...

I'm being rational like I always am. In your case think of the American history you love delving into-- "The right to protect property". Your hitting a nerve if you know what I mean-- your call-- suggestion though would be to take down those pictures.

John, here is my driveway.

We clean filters inside that garage almost on a daily basis. While I don't believe our filters contain any "pollutants" that could harm the MS4 we take the responsibility to filter the runoff. As you can see, there are no indications that dirty water is going to our street. Our street goes to a storm drain.

And by the way, Robert's pictures are commercial property, this is my personal home. I'm not afraid of anyone seeing it, just don't try to come on the property uninvited. lol,

 

[Robert Hinderliter]

John, here is my driveway.

We clean filters inside that garage almost on a daily basis. While I don't believe our filters contain any "pollutants" that could harm the MS4 we take the responsibility to filter the runoff. As you can see, there are no indications that dirty water is going to our street. Our street goes to a storm drain.

And by the way, Robert's pictures are commercial property, this is my personal home. I'm not afraid of anyone seeing it, just don't try to come on the property uninvited. lol,

Sorry Tony, those are not Robert's Pictures, they are Michael Hinderliter's Pictures. I do not own or manage either of those businesses you pictured.

 

[Clean County PW]

Tony you see what's going on here? Your making this a pissing match. This is a lively debate about AHJ's,POTW's,EPA and things of that nature.. At least that's what it was and still can be. Your bringing in a mans sons property into this. I knew you were going to bring up the peeping over the prop. thing by your last sentence there or maybe because...well whatever.
In the back of my head your probably thinking how in your past someone may have shown videos of your son's business locations or something along those lines but that's not in here.

I can't debate every little thing with you.. But do the right thing at the very least & take out those pics because that person is not even in here having this discussion/debate. It's the decent thing to do.

Will never get this thread on track if it's going to be a no holds barred-who cares-pissing match--

Let's get back to the topic what this thread was about-- and keep others who aren't here at least, there property pics out.