# Snow Foam ... How Eco Friendly?



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

So, lots of folks here seem to support the Snow Foam thing. I don't get it ... but honestly, I have never tried it. I think that is important to state, as I require it when someone challenges the "waterless" model.

So ... how Eco Friendly is Snow Foam? I share this picture, as it has several violations ... I think? Perhaps someone can clarify the codes in their country. But, from a professional detailer's perspective, I think actions and techniques like this devalue our industry.

First, at least in the US, no where .. ever ... can you do work in a public right of way or street ... no where. So that is the first code violation and indication this picture cannot be called professional detailing. One can't use a waterless or No Rinse model ... big fat fine!

Second, when one allows discharge in the public right of way, this is also a conveyance to the Storm Drain ... second major violation.

My concern is that no one challenges this, and I think this is why Cities have such a low opinion of our industry, and are in the process of over regulating it here in So California.

What think?


----------



## nsanity (May 7, 2007)

Neither of these are violations in the UK...


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

From the Registration plate of the car behind the foamed one, this is taken in the UK.

Neither of your points are violations in the UK.

DW is a UK forum (though we have several, very welcome, foreign members).

HTH


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

nsanity said:


> Neither of these are violations in the UK...





Gruffs said:


> From the Registration plate of the car behind the foamed one, this is taken in the UK.
> 
> Neither of your points are violations in the UK.
> 
> ...


not strictly true TBH...

IF this is a car being detailed commercially then run off is NOT allowed in storm drains etc according to PPG13.

However if its a person simply 'washing' their own car then as I understand it there is nothing currently to prevent it.

Pollution is still against the law here, no matter how its caused or by whom, but that doesnt typically cover run-off into storm drains AFAIK.

Here is a direct cut and paste from PPG13 published by the Environment Agency:

*4.2 Washing and valeting by hand
*If you wash, clean or valet vehicles by hand, or are responsible for a site where this service is offered, you must have good site management procedures and practices in place to avoid pollution. You should use designated wash bays as detailed in section 3, or make sure that you have other satisfactory arrangements in place.

However, it may be acceptable to clean or valet private cars by hand in areas such as car parks, without designated wash bays (roving activities), if:

• only clean water is used and no detergents or cleaning chemicals
• or your working method doesn't produce any runoff from the vehicle
• or the runoff from the vehicle is contained, collected or treated in some way and dealt with or disposed of legally
• and you can show us that the proposed activity will not adversely affect separators and SUDS, or
damage the environment at any time

Remember that in Scotland, General Binding Rules (GBRs) prohibit the discharge of trade effluent and detergents to surface water drains. In England, Northern Ireland and Wales, we (or the sewer provider) may not allow roving hand car washing (as described above) to take place because of the environmental sensitivity of the site or other factors which makes the activity likely to cause environmental harm. You are advised to contact us before you set up or start a roving washing operation to find out if your proposals are acceptable from an environmental protection point of view. If you don't you could make costly mistakes.

If we do agree (in England, Northern Ireland and Wales) to roving activities (as described above), you must also have:

• clear, well understood procedures
• good working practices
• close management control at all times

and:

• only use the minimum amount of water
• never use hoses or high pressure washers
• don't carry out roving activities where dirty water or other runoff could enter or be washed by rain into surface water drains
• make sure that buckets and containers of dirty water/effluent are emptied into clearly marked and agreed points connected to the foul sewer. This water is also a trade effluent and you need permission from the local sewer provider to dispose to a public foul sewer; see section 3.3 and 3.4 and, where you are producing no noticeable runoff from the vehicle or collecting it in some way:
• apply the minimum amount of cleaning product and ensure no spray drift
• use cleaning and valeting chemicals diluted to appropriate working strengths; never use undiluted concentrates
• don't use products that are unsuitable for hand washing, e.g. commercial traffic film remover

Please note - washing very dirty vehicles, commercial vehicles or engine compartments by hand must only be carried out in designated wash bays.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> not strictly true TBH...
> 
> IF this is a car being detailed commercially then run off is NOT allowed in storm drains etc according to PPG13.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. Thanks.

Apologies to the OP too.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Gruffs said:


> I stand corrected. Thanks.
> 
> Apologies to the OP too.


cool - its not widely known and understood, and even less well enforced from what I can see.


----------



## FitzyJ (Mar 26, 2009)

Interesting post Bigpikle, excuse me if I've misunderstood, but if the run off from washing cars is against the law, how do the local car washes get around this problem. There are a few local car washes near me and it seems all the run off goes into the drains, is this against the law?

James


----------



## dominic84 (Jan 27, 2007)

The problem is the Environment Agency don't have enough manpower to actively enforce the new legislation due to the vast number of static car wash and mobile valeting companies.

It's likely however that the static car wash sites will be the first to feel the effects of the legislation as obviously a site washing 100's of cars a day is more of problem than one guy in a van washing 1/2 cars a day.

It's a bit like running an e-commerce website, yes you can get away without putting addresses, phone numbers, proper T&C's etc but you stand a good chance of being caught out. The same with this new legislation, you can get away with it but if you cause pollution or someone makes a complaint then you stand to be in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Static carwashes like at garages etc already recycle water, have screens etc to prevent overspray and run-off and I think are governed by a different set of rules - need to clarify this though. My local Tesco carwash has no obvious run-off from it and the jetwash in the corner of the forecourt also has screens and what appears to be its own drainage system to catch everything that runs off, including channels around the wash bay etc.

Need to read up on the law around these though, so stand corrected if its not correct.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

interesting articles here and here

while it primarily talks about the 2007 drought orders, it raises some interesting points about automatic car washes campaigning for enforcement of environmental legislation and the how the Environment Agency should be targeting car washers who dont comply.

Its 2 years old and I have no idea if it went anywhere but shows its on some peoples radar already, for all sorts of reasons and some of these companies are pretty major players who may be able to influence decision makers....

A quote from the chairman of the group

_"We have had some positive discussions with the Environment Agency and Defra, who are now very aware of the problems that the industry and the environment face from illegal hand car wash outfits.

"However, this is only part of the problem," he stressed. "The car wash industry has not previously marketed itself well and is sometimes seen by the general public as having a poor image with regard to reliability, or causing scratches or damage to cars. We all need to work together to turn this opinion around. There is, without doubt, more chance that your car would be scratched in a poorly-run hand car wash which does not meet the standards of a high-tech modern car wash..."_

Looks like this has now become an association in its own right and in 2008 became the Car Wash Association with some more information here

This article makes VERY interesting reading as well - if you ever laughed when some of us have talked about pollution from hand washing at home then you should read this. With the backing of oil companies and business with lots of £££ you never know what our politicians may decide to do next ')


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

What constitutes pollution? For example BH advertise their autofoam as being eco-friendly (or words to that effect). So if that runs off in to the water table is it actually pollution?


----------



## AndyC (Oct 25, 2005)

Commercial car washes have to have an interceptor fitted AFAIK. I guess the current legislation must also apply to the hand wash places sprining up everywhere and also the supermarket car washing setups - certainly the latter are discharging chemicals straight into the drain (from what I've seen anyway).

I think there would be uproar from the great majority if these places were stopped from trading, as I can't see many spending the sort of money I suspect it would cost to bring them up to a legal standard, as this seems to be where most people have their cars washed because they don't want to do it themselves.

My take on the OP's question is that I buy Bilt Hamber foam now mainly because it seems to perform better than others but also because I am pretty sure that BH have made the product to comply with current legislation here in the UK, meaning that I can be sure that the runoff is not harmful.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

AndyC said:


> Commercial car washes have to have an interceptor fitted AFAIK. I guess the current legislation must also apply to the hand wash places sprining up everywhere and also the supermarket car washing setups - certainly the latter are discharging chemicals straight into the drain (from what I've seen anyway).
> 
> I think there would be uproar from the great majority if these places were stopped from trading, as I can't see many spending the sort of money I suspect it would cost to bring them up to a legal standard, as this seems to be where most people have their cars washed because they don't want to do it themselves.
> 
> My take on the OP's question is that I buy Bilt Hamber foam now mainly because it seems to perform better than others but also because I am pretty sure that BH have made the product to comply with current legislation here in the UK, meaning that I can be sure that the runoff is not harmful.


good points Andy

In the info on the Car Wash Assoc they make a major point of going after hand car washes that dont meet the regs, and claim some successes in getting some shut down or at least monitored.

Worryingly they also make some claims that hand washing at home should be outlawed, like in Germany! Clearly they have a HUGE commercial interest in making everyone pay to use their car washes if they want to clean a car, but its interesting to see where the lobby groups are going.

What I would like to find out though is whether, from a PRO point of view, if there is any distinction between products eg is ANY chemical deemed as pollution, or just nasty ones? No idea how they approach this and it could be very significant for professionals. Interesting to note that Scotland already has a blanket policy that NOTHING at all is allowed to enter drains under any circumstances - you can see why PB do what they do with mats and tanks etc.


----------



## AndyC (Oct 25, 2005)

Bigpikle said:


> Worryingly they also make some claims that hand washing at home should be outlawed, like in Germany! Clearly they have a HUGE commercial interest in making everyone pay to use their car washes if they want to clean a car, but its interesting to see where the lobby groups are going.


Personally I'd suggest a conversation with DW's owners - might be "an internet forum full of geeks" to some but surely we can use this place to give some leverage to making sure that this doesn't happen.

Apart from anything else, I'd have to take up golf to replace detailing and frankly I'd rather stick my willy in the food processor.


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

Ahhh, here is a point to consider.

When you talk to a City in California, they are not as focused on what your product is, or is in it, as long as it does not contain any crazy harmful elements.

But go back and look at the picture posted ... do you think the fish in the river can distinguish the biodegradable foam from all the contaminants you just knocked off the car?

So, it is not necessarily the chemical, what I argue against is the process and model as being flawed ... it is not the FOAM, necessarily, perhaps I misled ... I just do not like the foam, personally. It is that the foam carries contaminants to the ground … and into the storm drains.

If the picture had not had a car on the street, and had a wash mat to capture the run off and discharge, then I would not be arguing against the legality, just sharing my opinion on the foam.

Now, as far as the arguments about:
1) They don't enforce ... or 
2) Hey, these other guys are a bigger issue that my industry

While both those points may be true, here in the US, Tax Audits and officers are at an all time low. So, if I cheat on my taxes, 99% of the time, I will not get caught ... does that justify cheating on my taxes?

In my opinion, to be a professional, you must be compliant with codes and standards, period. And, as an industry, these standards need to be adhered to and championed.

If the code exists that discharge cannot hit the street, then doing commercial work is a mute point … although I would be very surprised if any commercial work were allowed to occur in a public right of way.

-jim


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

AndyC said:


> frankly I'd rather stick my willy in the food processor.


Not a nice thought Andy. :lol: :lol: Or picture come to think of it.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Very Interesting post Jim.
And I think if gives a totally different prospective to the whole issue.

Where in you can still use a Bio degradable product. But still cause contaminations to enter the storm drainage system.

Unfortunately as has been mentioned prior. I live in Scotland and I am governed by a totally different set of laws, which are already much stricter that in England and Wales. Contamination of any type is totally prohibited on all accounts. As far as Storm drainage is concerned.
Now this does not just cover Pros but also amateurs or any person that is washing the vehicle.
Gordon.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

AndyC said:


> Apart from anything else, I'd have to take up golf to replace detailing and frankly I'd rather stick my willy in the food processor.


Mrs AndyC did say something about wanting a new food processor :lol:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

it is a challenge for this industry for sure...

I know how loudly many 'pros' on here are complaining about the 'weekend warriors' who clean a few cars and the next weekend are turning pro and offering detailing services. One key way to differentiate yourself from these people is compliance with all the key standards, and then to campaign for tough standards and compliance.

I know in the some/all of the US that the landowner will get fined $$$ if the detailer commits an offence while doing the work - imagine that would be an incentive to drive standards and a great way to differentiate yourself from the competition, as I know proactive businesses are doing.


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

but how could a mobile pro abide by these laws IF they were to come into force? i dont see it happening tbh so they would either have to find a static unit, and do what PB do, or stop doing it? :lol:


----------



## CupraRcleanR (Sep 2, 2007)

Is this about the enviroment or about people trying to convert us and flogging us their eco-friendly, tree hugging, super slippy, wipey-wipey, swirly swirly, waterless bottle of guff!


----------



## Neil_S (Oct 26, 2005)

CupraRcleanR said:


> Is this about the enviroment or about people trying to convert us and flogging us their eco-friendly, tree hugging, super slippy, wipey-wipey, swirly swirly, waterless bottle of guff!


This is my thought too.


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

CupraRcleanR said:


> Is this about the enviroment or about people trying to convert us and flogging us their eco-friendly, *tree hugging, super slippy, wipey-wipey, swirly swirly, waterless* bottle of guff!


What a great name for a product :thumb: - get that copyrighted.....before I do :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

CupraRcleanR said:


> Is this about the enviroment or about people trying to convert us and flogging us their eco-friendly, tree hugging, super slippy, wipey-wipey, swirly swirly, waterless bottle of guff!





Neil_S said:


> This is my thought too.


PPG13 is published by the Environment Agency. Take a read as you might be surprised about what it says.

LINK

Been around a while and is aimed at stopping pollution from lots of different washing activities. Strangely they just recently updated the section on hand washing/mobile washing after consultation with various bodies. That might mean they are planning to start enforcing it at last?

It makes some strange recommendations like washing only with clean water etc etc but has nothing to do with anyone selling anything :lol:


----------



## CupraRcleanR (Sep 2, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> PPG13 is published by the Environment Agency. Take a read as you might be surprised about what it says.
> 
> LINK
> 
> ...


Thanks BP.

You, Gordon etc are looking for a more enviromently friendly way to detail and I look forward to your results. I just feel other contributors motives are not as honest as yourself and are looking to make a quick buck of the back us under the pre-tense of helping the enviroment.

Regarding the legislation, if I were a pro I would be certainly concerned as to where the industry is going and as you state we are already there but enforcement seems to be lax to say the least.

As a keen hobbyist just doing mine the wifes and the old mans car its not a huge priority but I would like to think that my actions have minimal effect on the enviroment.

Keep up the good work:thumb:


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

Mobile ... doesn't anyone use a wash mat with a reclaimation system?

Oh, yes, then their is waterless, no rinse.

Any of the Water $mart Eco Detialing models will work.

-jim


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

CupraRcleanR said:


> Thanks BP.
> 
> You, Gordon etc are looking for a more enviromently friendly way to detail and I look forward to your results. I just feel other contributors motives are not as honest as yourself and are looking to make a quick buck of the back us under the pre-tense of helping the enviroment.
> 
> ...


Thanks 

I know Relaited from here and other forums and while he is very open about being a detailing business, its a detailing business in California (Pronto Wash), so doesnt have a commercial interest that would be anything relevant over here.

:thumb:


----------



## Frothey (Apr 30, 2007)

typical government - legislate car washes, but happily dump tonnes of salt grit on the roads - not to mention the run off from car fumes that accumulates on the roads and ends up in the watertable in vast quantities when it rains. bet they aren't fitting traps to filter road run off......


----------



## Sh00ter (Jun 11, 2006)

> but happily dump tonnes of salt grit on the roads - not to mention the run off from car fumes that accumulates on the roads and ends up in the watertable in vast quantities when it rains. bet they aren't fitting traps to filter road run off......


very good point, but then again targeting people washing their cars is much easier!
the cowboy car washes (i agree, they are multiplying!) are an issue though - just set up normally on an old petrol station. which normally drains to road...

however my drive where i wash mine drains to the household waste - so i will put whatever i want down it - they charge enough for waste water.......


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

There is a far bigger picture. Whether you wish to admit to it or not.

Don't tell me you cant see the bigger picture and how this is going to develop.

Ok I live in Scotland as already mentioned. The law here already forbids the run off of any waste product. Whether is is Business or amateur. With the laws being tighten. I personally feel it is only a matter of time before there is a land mark case. Where someone is taken to Court for the unlawful dumping of chemicals within the drainage network.

Yes it is easier for the governments to make examples and blame the motorist. Rather than looking within there own issue. But with any controversial law it gets past. Quietly and lye dormant for sometime before implication. This way is saves all the heart ache and grief that this would cause.
This law will one day be enforced and say I did not know will be know defence, as the law has being active for sometime.

Eco or not. The law is already in Scotland. How long do you thing it will take to become enforced in England and Wales.?

Don't tell me that you can not see the business sense. If the government can force every motorist to go to a designated wash centre. Where they can tax the wash centre for disposing of the waste product and also make more revenue from the motorist. Who now has to take is pride and joy to me cleaned in turn paying for the privilege, for the business to pay more tax from there incomes.

Where this is unfair or not. Cant you see the logic behind this.

More venue for the government off the motorist.

This is one of the main reasons Damon and myself took up the challenge To see if there are products that can clean a car, yes with out Run off and Mar free. We are not sadists that just like to inflict damage to owner cars and in turn correct them. I personally have bought product that are not fit to clean a wheelie bin. Never mind my car. But there are also product that are being tested that with the right technique and know how are showing promising results.

But we will continue to look at other avenues. In the hope we can get members on DW a waterless or Water smart product that with a bit of care and attention. Will benefit the members that wish to try this new approach in car cleaning.

But I will say this its not for everyone. But surely safe to wash you own car than to hand it over to the local wash centre to clean it.

On one of Bigpikle links there are links with pre wrote letter to inform water authorities that you are washing you car and letting chemical down the drain. This has not been done for know reason.
http://www.carwashassociation.co.uk/takeaction.php

Gordon.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

Jim - what's your agenda in all this I wonder? You have come onto DW, presented nothing but debunking statements aimed at the UK industry, the latest of which you are trying to tell us that we shouldn't be foaming cars? You are claiming that your 'concerns' are simply to do with the environment yet how odd it is that everything you have degraded with regards to techniques and products can seemingly be resolved with your model of waterless washing, a model we have already made clear is not wanted (with the current level of proof that it inflicts damage.) How ironic these statements are coming from a resident of a country that has drive through ATM's, an average of three cars per family, and a culture of driving everywhere in what is generally uneconomical polluting vehicles. Have any of us UK residents gone onto Autopia and posted pictures of American cars stating we are concerned that they are polluting the environment? Have we posted messages on waterless washing posts stating that we are concerned that they damage cars paintwork? No, we haven't Jim, because firstly, it's entirely up to Americans and Canadians what size engine cars they have, and it's entirely up to them how they wish to wash their own, or indeed, customers cars. 

A few facts about the UK Jim, to add some clarity to the lack of parity between our two nations. 

We don't have a super size option at McDonalds. Quite simply because we can't fit it in our bodies. 

We don't have a free refill policy on fizzy drinks, because 1 pint of Coca Cola is enough for us. 

We don't think Dharma and Gregg is funny. 

We don't scream 'woop woop' at things that are only mildly exciting. 

We don't drive to places that are in walking distance. 

We can legally get drunk at age 18.

We don't get asked for ID if we look under 35.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You see Jim, although the above is well and truly tongue in cheek, it aptly illustrates we're different, and sometimes this can be in a good way, some in a bad, but you know what, that's OK. It's OK to be different. It's OK not to follow a model. It's OK to do things that other people from other places don't agree with. We don't burp after a meal to show our host we appreciated the meal, but they do in India. Does that make all people from India rude? No, it doesn't, because that's their culture, and we recognise that. 

So Jim, before your next post slating my profession and how I run my own business and look after my own customers cars, please try and think about how we're different, and how that's OK. Maybe that way we won't all get so upset?


----------



## Mirror Finish Details (Aug 21, 2008)

If it is a Ph neutral product like what I use I cannot see a problem.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

AndyC said:


> Apart from anything else, I'd have to take up golf to replace detailing and frankly I'd rather stick my willy in the food processor.


Mincing?:doublesho
Wouldn't have you down for being that way inclined Andy!


----------



## reparebrise (Jan 19, 2009)

Wonderdetail said:


> Jim - what's your agenda in all this I wonder? You have come onto DW, presented nothing but debunking statements aimed at the UK industry, the latest of which you are trying to tell us that we shouldn't be foaming cars? You are claiming that your 'concerns' are simply to do with the environment yet how odd it is that everything you have degraded with regards to techniques and products can seemingly be resolved with your model of waterless washing, a model we have already made clear is not wanted (with the current level of proof that it inflicts damage.) How ironic these statements are coming from a resident of a country that has drive through ATM's, an average of three cars per family, and a culture of driving everywhere in what is generally uneconomical polluting vehicles. Have any of us UK residents gone onto Autopia and posted pictures of American cars stating we are concerned that they are polluting the environment? Have we posted messages on waterless washing posts stating that we are concerned that they damage cars paintwork? No, we haven't Jim, because firstly, it's entirely up to Americans and Canadians what size engine cars they have, and it's entirely up to them how they wish to wash their own, or indeed, customers cars.
> 
> A few facts about the UK Jim, to add some clarity to the lack of parity between our two nations.
> 
> ...


Paul

I would please ask you to not put Canadians and Americans in the same boat, thats like saying that the French and German are the same because they share a continent. Just for the record we also don't get the humour in many of there sitcoms, can purchase alcoholic beverages at the age of 18, drive small more efficient cars(even more so in Quebec), are much more discrete in our emotional outbursts, and don't consider caring a gun a god given right. 

]In reading this thread I see no where a slight or dig at UK detailers, what I read is someone trying to understand a process with which he has no experience. I too can't understand why the attraction to Snow Foam, I get enough of the real stuff, that I fell no need to chemically reproduce it.

My observations(and questions) are that you(and others) seem to be threatened by different ways of washing, why is that? What is it about using a more time and resource efficient process that puts you off?

As far as the environment is concerned, yes many places are not doing there best, and refuse to give up on some of there lifestyle choices to make the earth a better place, but that does not mean that you and I can't do the best that is in our abilities to leave our space a better place than when we came into this world. Our parents generation did things that today we would probably do jail time if we did them, times change, and hopefully for the better


----------



## ericgtisuffolk (Apr 26, 2007)

That's correct,because we don't have huge driveways like in the US and South Africa



nsanity said:


> Neither of these are violations in the UK...


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

*Personal attacks, rudeness, flaming, baiting, insults to others, or arguments will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Please refrain from making excessive negative comments. As the saying goes "If you have nothing nice to say then don't say it".*

The line has been crossed again so please keep on the right side of the rules if you want to continue to post in this thread.

Many thanks.


----------



## Needs a clean (May 24, 2008)

Any chance of getting back on topic here guys??


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

reparebrise said:


> Paul
> 
> In reading this thread I see no where a slight or dig at UK detailers, what I read is someone trying to understand a process with which he has no experience. I too can't understand why the attraction to Snow Foam, I get enough of the real stuff, that I fell no need to chemically reproduce it.
> 
> My observations(and questions) are that you(and others) seem to be threatened by different ways of washing, why is that? What is it about using a more time and resource efficient process that puts you off?




Because it damages cars Jim, it damages the paintwork, and if I did that to any of my customers cars, it would kill my business, reputation, and my family would have no food to eat. The basic fact of the matter is as simple as that.

This whole section has gone way off kilter now, and for that reason I am bowing out of it completely, like I should have done ages ago. It's a shame really, because I am not the only pro to do so, and we could have made a valuable contribution to the whole thing.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Back OT...

One similarity that exists between here and the US, and is constantly ignored, is that we also have VERY clear regulations about run-off from the commercial cleaning of vehicles.

Now I agree that if you were to follow these regulations then it makes it harder to wash some vehicles to the high standards we demand and desire on DW, but that doesnt change the fact that these regulations exist and if businesses dont follow them then they are at risk of action by the Environment Agency. Whether they are actually enforcing these very thoroughly or not RIGHT NOW, also doesnt matter - the regulations are clear.

There was recently a government consultation document circulated (2008) that put forward a case for INCREASED restrictions in the area of cleaning cars. It doesnt take much imagination to see where this might be headed. Tougher regulations and tougher enforcement for commercial operations? Tougher restrictions and enforcement for home car washing - I have no idea?

What concerns me about this industry is that the energy seems focused on staying firmly entrenched in ways of working that have ALREADY been outlawed for mobile/roving operations. Why are we not searching out and developing new techniques, products, processes etc that are 100% compliant with current and likely future regulations? I already wonder which of the DW pro's will be the first to be targeted by the EA?


----------



## dominic84 (Jan 27, 2007)

I'd also like to add that whilst water pollution is obviously bad it's also worth realising that although water is 'everywhere' so to speak and it seems like we have loads of the stuff, in actual fact we don't. 

The vast amount of our water is in the ocean and therefore completely undrinkable, we need fresh clean water to drink from reservoirs or underground water sources which of course when flushed down the toilet, or allowed to run down the drain is likely to end up in the ocean. 

Although the water in the oceans will then evaporate and come back down as rain most of this will end up back in the ocean, given the fact that most of the world is covered by ocean and a lot of the flat land surface is increasingly coevered by roads with drains. 

It is a fact that because of this; water (i.e. drinkable water) is running out, simply because there are more of us using what limited supplies there are.

It is also a fact that in some parts of America in the not too distant future there will no longer be enough drinkable water to go around. America aren't alone in this and as our population grows we are likely to get similar problems.

This means scientists have to develop new ways of increasing the supply of drinking water, one such method involves filtering and recycling sewage, which whilst it may end up being clean does sound a little gross!

So if we want fresh drinking water to be available now and in the future then perhaps we should give all give a little more thought to how it's used.


----------



## WHIZZER (Oct 25, 2005)

Now whilst I appreciate healthy debate and difference's of opinion - It is not down to me or anybody to tell somebody how to run his business - I have been through this recently on a different matter and do not appreciate it on DW ! The offender will know he/she is !

This is not the first time and if they continue to do so then they will be taking a break


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

I don’t intend to re-hash what’s been said before on this subject; the surfactants in all of our native snow foams*should* be readily and rapidly biodegradable – they’ll do this from the very time they enter the ecosystem. Of course any commercial washing operation must collect its effluent, but please don’t kid yourselves here; if the chemicals being used are not readily biodegradable then they’ll eventually end up as sludge residue on a farmers fields or piped to sea *even* after they been treated at the treatment plant. Don’t pass the buck.

The fact that *you* flush endless amounts of surfactant down the drain to the treatment works ensures the same fate if the products you use indoors are not broken down biologically – which in EU made products they should.

Waterless wash soaked cloths and hydrocarbons they’ve removed from the car are washed, and end up down the drain via the washing machine then end up in treatment work sludge too. Have the foreign manufactures or distributors of their products complied with our REACH regs? Find out? It’s important as these regs are tight on biodegradability.

Our road work capture tonnes of hydrocarbons from dripping gearboxes, engines, exhaust etc etc - the road effluent needs urgent attention too.

Sorry for typos etc this was spouted at speed!


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

Pete, thanks for jumping in here - a little something which may be unique to us over here - our waste sludge is incinerated. I presume this is a good thing?
http://www.niwater.com/incinerator.asp

More importantly, is dispersal on fields and into the sea still current practice on the mainland, or like the link, from circa 2000 it's no longer done?
Just thought the "passing the buck" remark may have been a bit antiquated after finding the linked info on their site.

Seems the various agencies - local (and national?) - talk about "trade" run off in their literature, which gives me the impression they don't see the domestic user as any real threat.
I'm also mindful of illegal dumping of chemicals and wastes - surely these have more of a demand on the agencies' time/efforts to clean and prevent/prosecute, for good reason?


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

PJS said:


> Pete, thanks for jumping in here - a little something which may be unique to us over here - our waste sludge is incinerated. I presume this is a good thing?
> www.niwater.com/incinerator.asp
> 
> More importantly, is dispersal on fields and into the sea still current practice on the mainland, or like the link, from circa 2000 it's no longer done?
> Just thought the "passing the buck" remark may have been a bit antiquated after finding the linked info on their site.


A great step forward, goog, have a read of this http://www.eswater.co.uk/Sewagetreatment.aspx

I developed and patented a process for turning the waste from drinking water treatment into a commercially viable product via a pellet reactor process for this very company - I know their treatment processes very well indeed. Although I confess that I have not visited their site for a number of years. But the method described above is a typical one still I believe.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2009)

Are we assuming snow foams and TFRs are the same?

With the majority of the commercial TFRs being caustic, are these ALOT worse than the more "dw" based snow foams? (the snow foams used on here arnt used by the £5 wash for instance). 

I have concerns about my work putting STRONG TFR straight into the drains, no catch tank to separate the chemicals etc

From reading this thread, thats against the law.

Now is it the owner of the company at fault, of the people at the branch for not making him aware (if he isnt) of the regs?

Bit of on topic am afraid.


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

The waterless products that I like are all biodegradable.

The waterless process necessarily eliminates run off. Anyone using a waterless product would be compliant with any discharge standards and effluent capture requirements.

If someone were to use the snow foam, can someone please tell me, or show pictures of their mobile rig on how one captures the run off? 

How does one prevent effluents from entering the storm drain?

-jim


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Relaited said:


> The waterless products that I like are all biodegradable.
> 
> The waterless process necessarily eliminates run off. Anyone using a waterless product would be compliant with any discharge standards and effluent capture requirements.
> 
> ...


Jim - if you check any of the details by Polished Bliss (Clark) in the studio section, you'll see they use a mat to capture run-off very successfully. Its pumped into a waste tank and collected and disposed of properly. It is the ideal way to eliminate run-off with the traditional foaming and rinsing model, and as they are static it means its isnt a huge effort for them. The laws in Scotland are the toughest in the UK.

They are the only people I have ever seen post pictures of capturing run-off, although I have heard from a few people that use other methods but havent shown them here, or have drainage systems that dont feed into storm drains and deal with waste run-off in other ways 

This is a good example of it in action. I guess it would be a good option for people working mobile IF they have a way to capture and dispose of the effluent eg a 2nd waste tank in the van etc.


----------



## L200 Steve (Oct 25, 2005)

We are currently investigating the feasibility of installing our own water treatment plant to deal with the huge amount of waste water that one of our processes creates.

We are currently using a similar method to treat waste solvent, and although the initial investment costs were quite large, the returns through proper useage are starting to add up.

I was a bit shocked at just how much it was costing to dispose of the waste water, somewhere in the region of £0.50 per litre:doublesho (I pay £500 to have a 1000 litre IBC removed and disposed of, but the water is quite contaminated)

I'm often shocked at the amount of uneducated people who still believe that you can put untreated water down the drains, solely because you have used a bio degradable product.

When investigating the financial benefits of investing some capital into setting up a hand car wash site on Bradford late last year - One of the major drawbacks for every site in a decent location was the problem of not one of the sites having proper drainage for the type of work that was intended. We were approached by one or two settlement / storage tank type companies, who come on a regular basis and remove the run off water from the site for further treatment.

The civils required to carry out this type of work, along with the regular and huge expense of having the water removed proved to be the major downfall with regard to profitability of this investment. Bradford council seeming a little quick to come down on us to make sure that we were making the correct choices with regard to environmental issues. This has got me thinking that it won't be too long before similar crackdowns are made on those operating as mobile car washes / detailers.

I look forward to you and your supporters making headway finding a solution Damon, otherwise I should imagine that we start seeing less 'Pro Car Washers' posting up on this site as the environmental guys start closing them down.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

L200 Steve said:


> We are currently investigating the feasibility of installing our own water treatment plant to deal with the huge amount of waste water that one of our processes creates.
> 
> We are currently using a similar method to treat waste solvent, and although the initial investment costs were quite large, the returns through proper useage are starting to add up.
> 
> ...


thanks Steve

many people seem to feel safe believing there is no issue, but its experiences like yours that show the world is changing.

It would simply take the govt setting 1 target around catching people polluting drains and mobile valeting could be a thing of the past...


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Great post Steve and may I also take this time to congratulate you on a very informative post. This is the big miss conception. With Bio products. It is not the products themselves . But the effluent that they remove also. On the other side people have a right in pointing out this these Bio products are only removing what is already on the road infrastructure. Now rightly or wrongly the Governments or local councils are never going to admit liability.

But does this give people the right to empty all types of chemicals into storm drains.???

As I have tried to point out in past postings it is only a matter of time before there is a land mark case, and it is also better to be ahead of the game or competition. Than getting caught wanting on certain issues.

Glad to see your make advances in making you work future proof in this respect.
Gordon.


----------

