Newest Cleaner Times Issue

Kendra

Kendra

Member
I was wondering if everyone had gotten their issue of Cleaner Times yet this month, and if so if you have read and/or have been following the "Environmental Washing" section. I am looking for opinions on this series, or even just Part 5 this month. Good, bad, true, false, helpful, or too vague?
 
I think that the first thing that happens is that it puts a ton of liability on the contractor. the reason that I feel this is way is two fold. First it puts in writing that the contractor is willing to wash in a non compliant manner. It does out line that the company is the one that chose the method, but it still leaves a paper trail that lets the contractor be culpable, because he is stating that he knows what the law requires for compliance. In the environmental washing business, ignorance is bliss. You are usually given one warning before they start throwing fines around, at least in my area.
It also makes the contractor responsible for any permits that might be needed for washing. That is okay, but in some locations a permit is required for every location. That means that if you have 30 wash customers, there are 30 permits that are required.

I did not like how the article was written. I felt that it put too much liability ont he contractor, even if the customer chsoe the Non-Environmental wash.

Scott Stone
 
Scott I could kiss you!! That is precisely why I posed the question. I warned them about this series when they started it. Dear God if anyone follows his advice on any level they are all but guaranteed of getting in trouble.

Here, in CA, if you wrote up a proposal like that and then got stopped for cleaning imoproperly you just sealed your own fate. You admitted in writing that you knew better, and that you had the means to be compliant. Just because the customer decides not to have it done properly does not excuse you from the liability.

"Reasonably should have known", or "Knowing and willful behavior". Those are two of the biggest phrases you will ever hear regarding environmental prosecution. Civil or Criminal. And I think that proposal answered both don't you?

Thanks Scott for not making me stand on that soapbox alone! I figured this needed to be pointed out.
 
Hmm,You could kiss me, Huh? Could I request that my wife not be around?

I think that it is interesting that this is really similar to the proposal that fleetwash does when they are out doing their thing. What I think is really interesting is that I have only seen Fleetwash recapturing their water once in the 5 years that they have been in my market, and that was at a Penske yard, where everyone knows better. In fact about 6 years ago the guy that runs fleetwash in the south (when he was an independent contractor) west told me I was an absolute idiot for even worrying about recapturing my water, that it would never happen in Phoenix. I guess they still don't do it, so he must be right.

Scott
 
Probably what frustrated me the most about the article is his blanket assumption that by putting the liability back on the customer you have covered your rear. That is absolutely BS! And that in his discussions with the many agencies he has apparently talked to, they have agreed that no one will really be prosecuted. I beg to differ. I am even more surprised that Cleaner Times would actually publish that! Regardless of the disclaimer. I guess I am dissapointed, because I thought they were a more reputable publication than that. This is strictly his OPINION.

Oh, and sure Scott you can request.... :)
 
Kendra

Hi Kendra

I wash alot of trucks along the Central Coast of California and would like to know if you're in Southern or Northern Ca??
Thx
Chuck
 
I don’t mean to be devil advocate, LOL OK anyway, when it really boils down to facts, the property owner is liable for the clean up. now with that being said its ultimately making the owner find someone responsible. We know this doesn’t happen, we know the contractor can be liable too. But what is the real percentage of responsibility? 100% 50%

Face it a reasonable responsible person would say 100% percent both party’s. What does the law really dictate?

Scott, not trying to piss you off, I realizes you don’t need to be told this. I just thought I’d mention that fines are not really the problem. Polluting air water or what ever can be punishable by jail time. Criminal fines not civil. Just thought I’d throw that in since you mentioned the fining thing.
 
Your Not the only one Jon

I still haven't received mine yet either the mail is ridiculus anymore I think their overplaying the Sept 11 thing just about every other major national company or organization is pretty well back under way. Oh well we'll get them Eventually!

Andrew:cool:
 
Oh Kendra, you must have just noticed my picture. :D :D :D
 
Ron,

I again beg to differ. The odds of being presectued civily are for greater than criminal.If you read the citizen provision of the clean water act, you will find that ANYONE can sue you for violating any environmental laws. This is Federal, not state. And the Regional EPA offices ad local municipalities will actually fine under administrative law, rather than criminal. It is faster, less time consuming, and gets the point across. They do not have to go through the court system that way. They can issue an NOV, catch you one more time, and asses penalties and fines. They can even charge you for restitution. The liability game here, is 100% for BOTH parties. Regardless of who told who to do it. Now, the odds again will be greater that the customer will get fined heavier than the contractor. Strictly based on the gross profits. They will hit you just as hard, but because the income level is lower it doens't relly mattter. The impact is the same. And even after the contractor may have been fined, the customer, if they so decide could still sue the contractor civilly, if they can prove "Reasonably should have known" better. I have lived and breathed this for the last 4 years. I know how the game is played. At least here in Southern California. I can't speak for the rest of the country.
 
Maybe I didn’t say what I meant to say. I just wanted others to know it’s not always about the fines. its can be a criminal problem and you can go to jail.

Kendra, I never doubt your ability on this issue, this is your baby and I know you are way more familiar with this than I ‘am.

Thanks, I was trying to raise Scotties hairs not yours.
:D
 
I do have a tendancy to get a little bent out of shape over this issue. :)

But, you are absolutely right about the criminal side of things. We had one contractor here that was fined and placed on 3 years of probation. If caught violating again, he was to serve a minimum of 1 year jail time. No questions asked. And that was the first time a contractor had been prosecuted criminally here in Orange County. Usually everything is civil.
 
Kendra said:
I was wondering if everyone had gotten their issue of Cleaner Times yet this month, and if so if you have read and/or have been following the "Environmental Washing" section. I am looking for opinions on this series, or even just Part 5 this month. Good, bad, true, false, helpful, or too vague?
Click to expand...

I haven't receive mine as of yet. I will be checking for it.
I had a recent problem with my Iphone, which I use for my email.

Somehow, they had an AT&T related server problem which deleted all of my email & now I am having major email related problems...

This is really becoming an issue as I am working with several companies on PWI on a garage cleaning project and I am depending on my email capabilities right now...
 
Terry, this is a very old thread. Kendra has not been around for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top