Document MVVdoNYGBGDRbN6150Bd3NjV

/ DIESEL COXSTUCCIIOX' A DIVISION OF CAM. A. M O tl* . INC. ii33 Avr.xvt or rut axkh.ic.is .vrtr ronK. :t. r. loose mat sai-Qaoo Document Number 20S7 A. i* f ^ * ;r t? j .y * i <r / Construction Products Divisionof the W.3. Grace & Ccrpany 51 jut kSnd Street Key IS, 1971 do write? attended your serir.ar t the Plate Hotel on Friday, ray ' lU, 1971. It was realised before the start of-tha-ainar that this was to be a sales pitch. However, it was not realised how sales oriented this would be. The following discussions, or lack thereof, were found to be distressing to the './riter. We .realise that a question and answer period was offered, but felt sene of these questions were too provocative for your carefully put together progren. Listed below are sane of our thoughts: ^ ti/L. i Zx" C * f 1. We disagree conpletely with the idea that spandrels shou2 done ia sene other caterial than spray fireproofing, rho; we realise the loss of the spandrel would seen a very snail the of 1Ionoleott Ki 1* would la truth change the ent econoaie picture of the use of sprayed-oa naterials. The id . aet spraying the spandrels has beea suggested by the engine employed by the City but has been strongly resisted by our aad others who recognize its true irpsrtaat. Icur inclusion this idea in your progrea is bound to give us continued ;r: with the City officials. /J-C.u 2. During the fils, it was noted that your cen were not vc: any fora of respirators. Ve are sure that you are aware thi State of Usw fork is taking strong legal action against rai the applicators insisting that their sen wear not only the rlously approved respirators but alrllno respirators. Ve know of no research done by your firs or other spray fi proofing fins in this natter. We are sure you era aware t the State is successful that it will be very difficult to any canpower to do the work. Ve would be particularly lnt/ in any research your flm, or any of tha other eanufactur: emcAOo acsroif TJ done to aversere this major prebles. At prosant, *;t. Sinai's laboratory continues to reeo^end the use of 4 fecial recpirator vhieh his never received i 3S\ from tho State of I'ew York nor has it rrr been pet into manufacture by anyone. It is still 4 hand node unit. 3. In your discussions on application of your satarial to painted or unpainted surfaces, you failed to mention the feet that many paints do in fact inhibit a bond between your material and the steel. It is our experience that the applicator is fully qualified to warn us when the steel is too far eorrsded for his eaterlal to bond but cannot vim us if the paint is not of the proper type. The vriter has never seen ar.y written material by your or any other firs on vhieh paints are joed ar.d vhieh are to be avoided.- ., /rt.H $ w ----------------------------- . b. Your eaterial provides us*with a special problem in cleaning. The bond is so good and the material so slippery that it is extremely difficult to eloaa up the overspray. What research ha been done on possible treatment to the floor or in special devi such as vacuums to pick Up this eaterial? As you are avert, oar of the City regulation requires the use of vaeuuct cleaners. To date, -no one has developed a vacuum cleaner that can meet their specifications. 3. Has an Underwriter Laboratory approval and a ISA ever been obtained on application of your material by hand?. Ihile it is " that it is more difficult to remove MonoXot* than the sprayed fiber, it is also true that tha sprayed fiber is considerably easier to pateh. It has been our company policy (and a City la that any of the material removed mast be replaced. Obviously, vould be silly to bring back all of the equipment and mess of cementitious product vlthin a finished or almost finished spec 6. In your program, you also avoided the issue of sealants, mt stating that they should be used if the local governing agene: required them. The City of Tev York has taken the position thi this material is required simply because there Is no data on ` lough-off of materials versus air velocities. It is quite possible and probable, that this entire program of sealants i not needed. 7* Should sealants, actually be required, proper ones should developed along vlth tbe right equipment for applying it. 8. We recognise that this program was basically orisntid to architect*; therefore, it is understandable that you place the entire responsibility for inspection upon tha gensrai centrists and owner. With tht "other littrials" inspection has *ocn plats la tht hands of tht structural engineer. 9. Last, Is tht problem of enclosure. Tour statements that all tht buildings wtrt to bt totally enclosed during tht vintsr vat nothing short of lv'iertus. They ttado so recognition of tht fae that cany of tho trtiss have to vorh at the perimeter of ths 4 building and would insist that thtxt tnelosures bt lft dc*.m s< that they cay perform their vorh. Ue art not aware of any stud, done by any of tho sanufacturers of sprayed-on eaterial on hsv to construct these enclosures. The design of the tarpulins has been left .ot a hit-or-niss proposition with no reeeemendations froa.tho people who art probably benefiting aost teonooisally. To suersrise, your cotsp&ny, and* all of the others, hava directed all of ; attentions to the improvement of your products but not at all to the arc 11 problem that it develops. ?ou cast reassber that your eaterial is aptl^r a relatival;'' fractionalised industry, no member of vhieh is financially e: Involved to do the neessiary research tad development that is just as nos as inproving your.product. Vary truly yovujs, nrssa cossraucncir AJT/igl Arthur Aisbaua