In a message dated 7/26/00 6:30:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Is that due to the chemical content or just the debris? I.e. should
> JOS with no chemicals present the same problem as a paint stripper
> job or a ProSoCo prewash, etc. etc. job?
>
> Where is that regulation written down?
Jim,
DEP explained to us, when we dealt with the violations that we received for
the Cable Building (NW corner Houston & Broadway -- fairly large cleaning
project), and one other project in Brooklyn, that water run on the building
needs to be diverted into the buildings waste system and not into the public
storm system. It made no difference to them if chemicals were used, or just
plain water -- it was the fact that a more than normal volume of water was
being run on the face of the building. They made no distinction for the fact
that rainwater runs on a building. As to where the reg is written I know it
is with DEP and Sanitation, and not with the Building Department. I've read
it, briefly, but do not recall just what windy road we had to follow to find
it, or where it has gone in the pile since. For us it was one of those
hassles that happens one day to inform us.
It does not mean that cleaning projects, even large ones, will not be
completed without water diversion, the reality of the NYC environment is that
what you can do on one block of Manhattan you may not be able to get away
with two blocks over. Figuring these localized problems out, as a contractor,
is a key to survival. Nor does it mean that there are not still many, many
contractors out and about that have not encountered the DEP on this issue.
Which gets back to my feeling that knowing too much is not good for business.
As to raising cost 30% -- it is outlandish to believe that diversion and
control of water would increase cost by 30%. I would say an increase of 2%
(Cable Building) with a maximum to 10%. In some cases this increase is easily
absorbed without raising the contract cost to the customer. On an small job
the percentage would be higher than on a large job. This is why I point to an
increase in cost being attributed to a hot market and not to NYC
environmental regulations. Saying DEP is the cause of contractors raising
their costs 30% is bull. Truth is, anyone that has work does not want the
hassle of doing a cleaning job because it is messy, lousy, uncomfortable work
that is difficult to control -- but what contractor in their right mind would
admit to this?
On the Cable Building, a year after completing the project, we replaced 32
pcs. of glazing, at our cost, that, by that late date, we could not argue if
we had, or had not, acid etched. The damage did not appear during the
progress of the work and whereas one pc of glass was burnt, the one next to
it was not. We eventually attributed the burnt pcs. to a particular date of
common manufacture. I will say, though, that with this building we have an
excellent customer and we want them to be long-term happy. Why go out and do
a cleaning job, that leads to these sorts of open ended risks, if there is
other work available with lower exposure to risk?
As to JOS, the limited use of water by this system reduces the need to
provide control and diversion, though other factors come into play of a
different sort of complication -- for one thing, the basic equipment requires
more of an investment than for a water pressure washer -- which puts a
contractor at a disadvantage when there are smaller firms, with less skilled
and lower payed workforce, running around cleaning with water, and usually
oblivious to DEP.
Thomann-Hanry, which uses no water, is another option, then again, another
set of complications.
You will see more JOS & Thomann-Hanry projects in the near future. It does
cost more to use these systems of cleaning... but I will leave off explaining
the ins and outs of this. I feel that the result of the cleaning with these
systems can be much more efficient in satisfaction of the list of
requirements that property owners bring to their idea of "clean". Higher SF
cost, higher skill level, higher efficiency of quality control, less
environmental impact... unless you need to breath clean air, more bucks and
more bang for the bucks.
Poultice paint strippers also require less water. The problem here is that
Sanitation would probably object to the mess, lime neutralized lead or not as
the marketing myth goes, to having the crap thrown into the dumpsters and
ending in concentrations in land fills. The city is complicated enough for
this disposal phenomena to be figured out by Sanitation, but try getting
Sanitation to give a straight answer on the disposal of pigeon guano and you
can imagine what they will say about poultice paint strippers. Despite the
fact that gulls poop in the landfill Sanitation does not seem to want pigeon
guano thrown into dumpsters, or they simply do not want anyone to quote them
on their policy.
My feeling, and it has been for a long time, is that the exterior facade
maintenance industry is driven by an increased environmental awareness, and
that is where the histo presto technology will see the greatest innovation
and development in the future.
In the 80's on Carnegie Hall we played with plastic media blasting to remove
epoxy paint from granite, at the time we were properly advised to keep our
mouths shut as too many people would be disturbed by the idea of abrasive
blasting in histo presto. We then, with a bit of crushed and beaded glass on
marble thrown in, went on as quietly to play with walnut shells on cast iron
facades and bronze statuary, which quickly spread to the Central Park
Conservancy & the NYC Parks Dept. Then lead became an awareness and Dept. of
Labor issue and we stopped stripping cast iron facades. Now, primarily due to
environmental factors, low-pressure abrasives for cleaning masonry are in
vogue. This is why I listen to any gossip I can find on esoteric technologies
such as laser cleaning or dry ice blasting. Soon enough someone will figure a
way to clean a building by lookng at it and everyone will be happy.
][<en
|
