How bad can it get and still be defensible?
On July 28, 2014, the APSP and the NPC announced a “joint” committee to write a new plaster workmanship standard, under the guise of APSP/ANSI-12. The alignment of APSP with ANSI, would in effect cause the resulting standards to become “statute” in many regions of the country. Through ANSI's affiliation with the ICC (International Code Counsel, who ironically published the International Building Code, which has been adopted across the US), this may just become law in your state.
You can see where this is going. It is a end around run on consumer rights, forcing them to settle with inferior workmanship, just because it meets the industry's own minimum acceptable level.
In other words, "how bad can it get and still be defensible?"
Their proposals for this standard include defining acceptable "deviations" and explanations as to why pool plaster cannot achieve the levels of performance delivered by other plaster trades. These deviations will be governed by "accepted trade practices" and not the BEST AVAILABLE PRACTICES. Again, locate and identify the lowest common level of performance and make that acceptable.
Fox in the Hen House
Trade associations writing their own workmanship standards is self-serving and against the general interest of the American public. Even if a standard is written with the absolute lack of personal biases and interests, the end result will still be a self-serving document.
This is what I take offense with… putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
The pool builders association will continue to refuse to hold their members responsible for delivering properly constructed and prepared shells, watertight, trimmed and prepared to precise tolerances. Due to the generous workmanship tolerances provided pool builders, plasters are relegated to dealing with the issues and variables you described. Almost every one you describe is the result of a poorly constructed shell.
There is absolutely no reason why a plaster pool finish cannot be delivered with a smooth, even finish that is color consistent from batch to batch. Many of these issues are a direct result of the human tendency to avoid conflict or extra effort:
· Plastering in adverse conditions (e.g. high winds, extreme heat/cold)
· Staffing difficulties (e.g. insufficient time allotted, inadequate staffing levels, poor training)
· Improperly prepared shells (e.g. leaking, seeping, voids, dry, hot)
· Shells with poor tolerances (e.g. wavy surfaces, penetrations trimmed at incorrect elevations, improper radii)
· Poor quality control measures (e.g. failure to measure/weigh batch contents or water)
· Failing to perform pre-site visits, preparations or inspections
· Refusal to hold builders responsible for making shell corrections
I find the lack of a quantifiable maximum water to cement ratio for a cementitious finish audacious. Pre-packaged materials should contain maximum allowances for water or approved admixes. Yet the loose NPC standards allow the crews to add water to extend its workability due to weather, short staffing or mere laziness or refusal to measure the water (they just add water from a hose until it looks good ).
Too much water is bad
It has been scientifically proven that excess water in cementitious products compromises it’s strength, causes discolorations, increases porosity, encourages shrinkage and promotes check cracking. The NPC should not be allowing carte blanche with the water to cement ratio and then attempt to justify the errant results.
To advocate the unfettered use of water by untrained personnel is irresponsible, especially when there are inexpensive and viable alternatives and techniques. Instead, the NPC should be promoting improved quality through the use of various admixes – additional water, not being one of them. Set accelerators, retarders and plasticizers should be the norm, instead of the exception. The workability and plasticity of the product would improve, as would the durability and quality. Archaic practices, such as the addition of calcium chloride and the re-tempering of finishes would no longer be required or acceptable.
These advanced methodologies and admix practices should be advocated and promoted. Calcium chloride alternatives and set timing admixes are utilized in every other plaster trade, in compliance with the requirements of the pigment manufacturers. Steel troweled plaster finishes are applied multi-stories in the air, delivered by the bucket, on scaffolding, in the hot sun and in windy conditions. Their substrates are wavy and irregular. These trades even lack the luxury of flood curing their finishes. Yet the results are often far superior to the results seen in the pool plaster industry – even without remedial work.
Cement chemistry is nothing new. It dates back centuries to the Roman’s use of volcanic ash as pozzolans and animal fats and milks as plasticizers. Yet, the swimming pool industry is always the last to embrace decades old and proven methodologies and technologies that are utilized in other related construction trades. When these practices are “discovered” by our industry, their revelations appear as a sudden rapture (recent case in point – penetrating sodium silicate curing compounds for shotcrete & concrete).
Virtually flawless pool plaster finishes are achievable. I consider myself very lucky to have plaster sub-contractors who understand the idiosyncrasies of their trade. I take pride in delivering a high tolerance and quality watertight shell upon which they can ply their trade. Pre-site inspections with my sub-contractors identify concerns that can be addressed prior to plaster day (pressure washing & surface prep, local water quality, staffing requirements, weather forecasts, access, etc.).
My favorite sub-contractor (Adams Pool Specialties) brings their own water supply, which is measured as it is metered into the batch. This is not rocket science – just an expressed concern with craftsmanship. The end results are that my clients receive a virtually flawless hand troweled plaster finish, free of the issues that plague the industry.
Through this new joint APSP/ANSI-12 standards committee, the NPC has the opportunity to establish shell tolerances and standards, which will allow their members to execute higher quality finishes. NPC members should no longer accept shells that fail to meet defensible workmanship standards and design tolerances, which affect their end product. The American public needs to be given cosmetically acceptable standards, not minimums that are barely acceptable. The need to defend the resultant questionable workmanship and cosmetic blemishes will become a thing of the past.
Let's see who takes the high road...
Contact the author, Paolo Benedetti of Aquatic Technology Pool and Spa at: firstname.lastname@example.org or 408-776-8220. Visit his website at: www.aquatictechnology.com. All Contents © Aquatic Technology Pool & Spa, 2013. All rights reserved.