+ 1

jpcl
PAINTSQUARE.COM JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS

A JPCL eResource

SURFACE PREPARATION & SAFETY

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 i

+
Surface Preparation & Safety

Copyright 2005 by
Technology Publishing Company
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310
Pittsburgh, PA 15203

All Rights Reserved

This eBook may not be copied or redistributed

without the written permission of the publisher.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 ii

Contents
v Introduction

1 Safety Monitoring and Remote Control Systems

3 OSHAs Proposed Rule for Silica Hits the Streets

By Alison B. Kaelin, CQA, ABKaelin, LLC

5 Shipyard Regulatory Update

By Alison B. Kaelin, CQA, ABKaelin, LLC

10 On the Time Between Blasting and Priming

11 Safety Considerations for Abrasive Blasting Operations

15 Setting Up Air Blasting Equipment

19 Surface Preparation: Adventures in Frustration

By Peter Bock, CorrLine International

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 1

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 v

Introduction
This eBook features articles from the Journal of Protective Coatings &
Linings (JPCL) about surface preparation and safety. All information about
the articles is based on the original dates of publication of these materials
in JPCL. Please visit www.paintsquare.com for more articles on these and
other topics.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


Safety Monitoring
and Remote Control Systems
for Blasting in Shipyards
B
last cleaning is a critical process to remove mill scale,
slag, and pre-existing coatings on steel surfaces and to
prepare substrates for the subsequent application of a
protective coating. Dry abrasive blast cleaning is known
to provide the best surface roughness for an ordinary
organic or inorganic coating, although it is considered a very
dangerous process.
In shipyards, dry abrasive blast cleaning is especially dan-
gerous. Modern shipbuilding practice is to construct vessels
as a series of blocks, coat these, and then join up to finish
the build. Workers must contend with a very poor environ-
ment because of a mist of paint debris, spent abrasive parti-
cles, noise, and the danger from blasting media traveling at
a high speed. Also, their work can involve moving through
narrow access holes (600 mm x 800 mm hole) in the steel
blocks. Moreover, blasters work alone for a long time. There
is virtually no visibility inside these steel blocks during blast-
ing, so developing a safety system for blast cleaning workers
is more essential than for many other types of projects.
Basing a remote workers safety and contact system on
wireless technology is more difficult to develop than such
a system for other work areas because of the possibility at
shipyards of wireless data transmission errors by reflection,
refraction, and diffusion of the radio waves in the blasting
area (cell). There are also technological limits in building
the safety system for shipyard job areas, but developments
in IT (Information Technology) and RFID (Radio-Frequency
Identification) technology have made remote control safety
systems possible.
This article summarizes work carried out by Won-Jun
Yun, Byung Hun Lee, and Dong-Min Kim of Hyundai Indus-
trial Research Institute, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd.
Korea, and Young-Shick Ro, School of Electrical Engineering,
University of Ulsan, Korea, into such a system. The summa-
ry will concentrate on the features of such a safety system,
rather than on the technical aspects.
The summary is based on a presentation given at PACE
2010, the joint conference of SSPC and PDCA, held Feb.
710, 2010, in Phoenix, AZ. The full paper is published in the
Proceedings (www.sspc.org).
1
The Safety System Features
The complete safety system is composed of three sub-sys-
tems: the monitoring system for checking the blast workers
safety, the remote control system of the blasting nozzle(s),
and the special bone conduction ear-set system for voice
communications among workers and managers. Addition-
ally, the safety system has a function to analyze the actual
result of a blast cleaning job.
In shipyards, dry
abrasive blasting
is especially dangerous.
The Safety Monitoring System
The safety monitoring system features emergency call sig-
naling, sensing vibration data, and checking location data for
blast cleaning workers in the blasting cell.
When the worker with a 2.45GHz RFID active tag is work-
ing in the blasting cell, the safety system works as follows:
information about working conditions is transmitted from
the active tag through a network to the monitoring system,
where the manager can check workers safety using comput-
er-analyzed emergency signal data with the workers loca-
tion information.
The monitoring system consists of three functions to
check workers safety and to send the emergency signal to
the manager. First, its a function for storing and analyzing
information; second, its a function for monitoring workers
location and their safety information; and third, its a func-
tion for sounding a buzzer and sending SMS (Short Mes-
sage Service) to the manager. Also, it can give an alarm by
analyzing the vibration sensor on a worker, including direct
emergency calling. Finally, it can monitor remaining battery
capacity of the active tag and temperature of the working
conditions.
The Remote Control System for Blasting Nozzles
The remote control of blasting nozzle(s) is integrated with
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

the safety monitoring system to cut compressed air when an
emergency situation occurs. Managers also can check the
blasting nozzle status and turn it off remotely using PC when
emergencies occur. The remote control system can control
the blasting nozzle valve directly after checking the condition
of blasting nozzles one by one or altogether.
The Special Bone Conduction
Ear-Set Communication
The special bone conduction ear-set system with neck mi-
crophone is necessary to communicate about blast working
conditions in the cell with a person in the managing office.
Working conditions in the blasting cell and protective
clothes for blast cleaning work are not conducive to easy
voice communication. So it is more difficult to communicate
using normal methods inside the steel block. Thus, a special
system that the worker can use while wearing a mask, ear-
plugs, and a helmet had to be developed.
For communication among workers and managers during
the blast cleaning job, the special voice communication
system using the existing infrastructure with TRS (Trunked
Radio System), which can communicate with a group, was
used. Workers wearing masks and earplugs can still listen
with the aid of the bone conduction mechanism and speak
using a neck microphone, which makes communication pos-
sible through the vibration of vocal cords.
Because blast cleaning workers must pass through small
access holes to work in the steel block, the developed sys-
tem is small and has the added conveniences of portability
and noise interception.
2
Operation Procedure of the Safety System
To confirm workers safety, there are three ways to check the
emergency signals from workers in the blasting cell: sensing
the active tag emergency call, analyzing a sensed danger
signal automatically by vibration sensor, and using voice
communication with a special bone conduction ear-set.
The monitoring system can sense various emergencies,
ring alarms, and send the information about the emergen-
cy to managers. After the manager checks the SMS or the
emergency signal on the monitoring system, he or she
can reconfirm the workers safety by having a conversa-
tion through the bone conduction ear-set. If an emergency
occurs, the blasting nozzles can be controlled remotely by a
manager. Also, actions can be taken for workers to be safely
evacuated from the life-threatening emergency, as well as
for the urgent rescue of nearby co-workers. Emergency sig-
nals can be transmitted to all managers to prevent sudden
accidents and to inform them of the rescue process.
This innovative safety system for workers blasting in ship-
yards allows managers to communicate with workers in real
time and thus also allows managers to properly distribute
the workload and make a contribution to the improvement in
productivity.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 3

others discussed in the proposal: abrasives such as mineral

slags as well as sand, paints, concrete, portland cement,
silicates, and soil.
As part of the rulemaking, OSHA performed an extensive
analysis entitled Respirable Crystalline SilicaHealth
Effects Literature Review and Preliminary Quantitative Risk
Assessment. The available evidence indicated that employ-

OSHAS Proposed Rule

ees exposed to respirable crystalline silica at concentrations
well below the current PELs (of 100 and 250 g/m3) have
an increased risk of lung cancer and silicosis. Occupational
exposures to respirable crystalline silica also may result in

for Silica Hits the Streets

the development of kidney and autoimmune diseases and in
death from other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, includ-
ing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Summary of the Proposed Rules

By Alison B. Kaelin, Among the aspects of the proposed rule that may be of inter-
CQA, ABKaelin, LLC est to the coatings industry are the following.
Requirements to comply with applicable ventilation stan-
dards (e.g., 29CFR1926.57) for abrasive blast cleaning. While

O
the ventilation standards have long been in place, they have
n August 23, 2013, the U.S. Occupational Safety and
not been fully implemented in many containment systems.
Health Administration (OSHA) unveiled its long-expect-
Requirements for laboratory analysis of respirable silica
ed proposed rule for protecting workers against respi-
samples by an ISO 17025-accredited laboratory.
rable crystalline silica. OSHA issued two versions of the
Construction industry exemption from exposure monitor-
proposed rule, one for general industry and shipyards
ing for specific operations if engineering and work practice
(1910/1915) and one specific to construction (1926).
controls and respiratory protection are implemented.
The proposed rule reduces the current permissible exposure
Options for establishing regulated areas or developing a
limit (PEL) for general industry, shipyards, and construction
written access plan (which appears to be very similar to the
to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (g/m3). The current
worker protection plan required by the Lead Standard).
PEL for general industry and shipyards is 100 g/m3, and the
Addressing training requirements via the Hazard Communi-
current PEL for construction is 250 g/m3.
cation Standard.
Once published in the Federal Register, OSHA will accept
The paragraphs in the proposed rule address similar topics
comments for 90 days, as part of a rulemaking process. A
(e.g., methods of compliance) of other comprehensive health
hearing will be held in early March 2014, and the final rule
standards.
will be issued sometime after. The proposal and related in-
The box on p. 53 gives a brief summary of the proposals
formation can be read on https://www.osha.gov/silica/index.
for General Industry and Shipyards and for Construction.
html.
The box highlights some similarities and differences be-
While no conclusions on the actual requirements should
tween the two proposals.
be drawn based on a proposed rule, the proposed provisions
do provide insight into likely approaches that will be con-
Alison B. Kaelin, CQA, has more than 25 years of public
sidered by OSHA when the final rule is issued. Employers
health, environmental, transportation, and construction man-
should consider the requirements of the proposed rule as
agement experience in the coatings industry. She is the own-
they apply to their operations, and plan how to implement
er of ABKaelin, LLC, a Pittsburgh,
the requirements when the rule is final. Background on
PA-based provider of outsourced
respirable crystalline silica, including its health effects, and a
quality assurance, auditing, training,
summary of the proposal follow.
consulting, and related services
to the protective coatings, con-
Background struction, fabrication, and nuclear
Silica is a compound composed of the elements silicon and
industries. She is a certified quality
oxygen (chemical formula SiOz). Respirable crystalline silica
auditor, a member of SSPC, and a
means airborne particles that contain quartz, cristobalite,
NACE-certified coating inspector.
and/or tridymite. The respirable portion is determined by a
She was a 2012 JPCL Top Thinker,
respirable-particle-size-selective sampling device.
a 2012 JPCL Editors Award Winner, and an SSPC Technical
The proposed rule estimates that exposures to crystalline
Achievement Award winner in 2005.
silica can occur in more than 30 major industries and opera-
tions. Silica can be present in the following materials and in
(See table on next page)

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 4

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

 5

Shipyard Regulatory Update iStockphoto/milarka

Whats Happening with Enforcement, Regulation,

By Alison B. Kaelin, CQA,
and New OSHA Guidance Documents ABKaelin, LLC

T
his article reviews OSHA enforcement on shipyard ac- Respiratory protection
tivities and recent guidance on illumination and ventila- Wiring design, protection, methods, components, and
tion related to ship repairing, shipbuilding, and ship- equipment for general use
breaking that fall under OSHAs Standards for Shipyard Guarding of deck openings and edges
Employment (29 CFR 1915). It also discusses new OSHA Welding and cutting (arc, gas, and oxygen-fuel)
information on abrasive blasting hazards and potential Cal/ Hazard communications
OSHA Lead Standard changes that are applicable to shipyard Toxic metals
and many other industrial painting sectors. Painting
Shipyards are fixed facilities with dry docks and fabrication Abrasive wheel machinery
equipment capable of building a ship, defined as watercraft Occupational noise
typically suitable or intended for uses other than personal Hand and portable powered tools and equipment
or recreational. Activities of shipyards include the construc- Confined space
tion of ships, their repair, conversion and alteration, and the Lighting
production of prefabricated ship and barge sections. Lockout/tagout

OSHA Enforcement Summary OSHA Shipyard Fact Sheets Illumination

Review of the most frequent OSHA citations for NAICS Code
336611Ship Building and Repairing from October 2012
through September 2013, and OSHAs enforcement data
for NAICS 336611 and 29 CFR 1915, indicates the following
areas of non-compliance resulting in citations. Areas are
ordered from highest to lowest, and some similar areas were
grouped by the author.
In November 2013, OSHA issued a Fact Sheet on Safe Light-
ing Practices in the Shipyard Industry. It elaborated upon
29 CFR 1915.82, Subpart F, General Working Conditions:
Lighting, and provided the minimum lighting requirements
(Table 1).
Note that the values in Table 1 differ from SSPC-Guide 12,
Guide for Illumination of Industrial Painting Projects, which

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


suggests that a higher level of lighting is required for work,
surface preparation, and inspection activities. SSPC-Guide
12 recommendations are shown in Table 2.
Use of a portable light meter can help assess the adequacy
of lighting. Be sure to use it frequently to re-verify that light-
ing levels remain constant. Make sure your light meter is
capable of taking measurements in the range of your lights
and that it meets your accuracy needs. Most light meters
have an accuracy range from 5% up to 18% and even higher.
OSHA Ventilation in Shipyard Employment Guide A Shift in Approach?
OSHA 3639-04 2013: Ventilation in Shipyard Employment
provides a review of basic principles of ventilation and
provides methods for selection, installation, and use of venti-
lation systems to reduce contaminants during shipyard oper-
ations. While it primarily focuses on confined and enclosed
spaces, it provides guidance applicable to any industry.
Unlike General Industry (1910) and Construction (1926), Mar-
6
itime (1915) does not have specific ventila-
tion requirements.
OSHA General Industry Standard Ven-
tilation standard (1910.94, Ventilation),
published in the 1970s, established the first
requirements for abrasive blast booths as
(1) exhaust-ventilated to provide continuous
air flow at all openings during blasting op-
erations, (2) capable of preventing escape
of abrasives into adjacent work areas, and
(3) able to provide prompt clearance of dust
when abrasive blasting ceases.
The Industrial Ventilation: Manual of
Recommended Practices, published by the
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, provided the basis
for the design of blast booths for the stated
purpose of operator visibility and to con-
trol escape of contaminants into adjacent
work areas. It established the minimum
air flows (60100 feet per minute), trans-
port velocities in ductwork (3,500 feet per
minute), and design criteria with inward air
flow exhausting to a remotely located dust
collection system, as shown in Figure 1.
SSPC-Guide 6, Guide for Containing
Surface Preparation Debris Generated
During Paint Removal Operations, relies on
the Industrial Ventilation Manual criteria as
Fig. 1: Typical blast booth
design
Source: Reference 10.80.3
and 10.80.4; American
Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial Hygien-
ists, Abrasive Blasting
Room, 02-91, VS-80-01
SECTION THROUGH TYPICAL ROOM
Q = 60100 cfm/ft2 of floor for downdraft with typical choice 80 cfm/ft2
Q = 100 cfm/ft2 of wall for cross draft
Lower control velocities may be used depending on toxicity of the con-
taiminant, object and blasting media, and the size of the blasting room.
Notes: 1. The above ventilation is for operator visibility and to
control escape of contaminants into adjacent work areas.
2. Operator in an abrasive blasting room is required to wear
appropriate NIOSH-certified respiratory protection.
3. For rotary tables, use 200 cfm/ft2 of total opening (taken
without curtains).
4. For blasting cabinets, see VS8002.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 7

the basis of its ventilation requirements for abrasive blast- (4) There is no need to collect the air contaminant.
ing containments. In industrial field painting, it generally If we apply the four factors to industrial painting and abra-
involves bringing duct work to the face of the containment sive blast cleaning in the construction, marine, or shipyard
system or just inside the containment wall and having air industries, where the quantity of contaminants are high and
inlets generally across from them, mimicking the design of a non-uniform and many of which are toxic, it would suggest
blast booth (Fig. 2). that LEV may be more appropriate than dilution ventilation.
This type of venti- LEV is an industrial ventilation system that captures
lation is considered and removes emitted contaminants before dilution into the
dilution ventilation ambient air of the workplace.1 While we typically associate
(general exhaust LEV with vacuum shrouds and vacuum attachments, LEV can
ventilation), which is include placement of one or more exhaust air ducts in the
a form of exposure immediate vicinity of where the exposure is occurring. LEV
control that involves is frequently used in the shipbuilding industry and is the rec-
providing enough air ommended method when workers are exposed to hazardous
in the workplace to di- chemicals, when a large amount of dust or welding fumes
Fig. 2: Efficient method of supplied lute the concentration are generated, or during cold weather when increased heat-
ventilation (forced air) with system
of airborne contam- ing costs from the use of dilution ventilation is a concern.
away from tank opening.
Source: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic inants to acceptable The Shipyard Guide suggests that using ventilation in an
Environmental & Marine Services levels.1 exhaust mode and placing the ductwork where contami-
The Shipyard nants are released in the air by the operation is an effective
Guide states that both method in capturing the generated contaminants and greatly
general dilution ventilation and local exhaust ventilation reduces exposure to workers in a space (Fig. 2).
(LEV) at the source are suitable for controlling exposures. Table 3 (excerpted from Ventilation in Shipyard Employ-
However, it states that local exhaust ventilation is typically ment), suggests that LEV may be more appropriate for abra-
preferred and more effective. sive blast cleaning.
The Shipyard Guide also states that dilution ventilation While the preference for LEV may be specific to shipyards,
involves the reduction of contaminants being generated all industries should evaluate the hazards and unique char-
in the space through the introduction of
clean outdoor air (through air inlets) and
removal of the contaminants through a
dust collector. It notes that sometimes, this
can cause a supply and exhaust imbalance
that positively or negatively pressurizes the
space or results in short circuiting (when
only a small portion of the space is venti-
lated). The Shipyard Guide depicts dilution
ventilation as inefficient, requiring a lot of
air and air movement to reduce the level of
hazardous contaminants.
The Shipyard Guide also suggests that
four factors should be considered before
using dilution ventilation for protecting
worker health.
(1) The quantity of contaminant released
should be relatively low and uniform.
(2) Workers should be located far away
from the contaminant source.
(3) The toxicity of the contaminant must be
low.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


acteristics of the work area to which their employees are
exposed and consider all methods for reducing exposures.
When working with materials covered by comprehensive
health standards (such as lead) which require the use of
engineering controls for the purpose of reducing worker
exposures to as low as feasible, LEV may be more in line
with the definition of an engineering control, which focuses
on elimination or reduction of the hazard at the source.
Duct Work
Whether you use dilution or local exhaust ventilation, an
integral part of the system is the ductwork. The Shipyard
Guide is consistent with the guidance provided in SSPCs
C3 Course, and SSPC-Guide 16, Guide to Selecting Dust
Collectors, and states that consideration should be given to
the type and length of the hose and layout of duct work to
ensure the greatest amount of air flow.
As the length of hose or ductwork increases, the amount
of air moved decreases due to frictional losses. Therefore,
the shortest length of hose or ductwork should be used.
Equally important is the amount of bends or turns in
the ductwork. A greater number of bends or turns greatly
decreases the volume of air moved. Try to keep the hose as
straight as possible. To put this in perspective, one sharp
90-degree bend in a 20-inch-diameter duct is equivalent to
adding 46 additional feet to the length of the ductwork.
When we install ductwork through manways, small open-
ings, and other limited egress areas, it may impede entry/
exit. The Shipyard confined space standard requires that if
ventilation ductwork blocks access to a confined space, then
all workers must be provided with airline respirators, and
a person must be stationed outside the space to maintain
communication and to aid in the event of an emergency. The
Guide suggests a saddle be used in these cases. A saddle is
a piece of equipment that allows entry/exit without remov-
ing the duct work.
Abrasive Blasting Hazards
OSHA released a new fact sheet in November 2013, titled,
Protecting Workers from the Hazards of Abrasive Blasting
Materials. It outlines the following abrasives and likely
health effects.
Silica sand (crystalline) can cause silicosis, lung cancer,
and breathing problems in exposed workers.
Coal slag and garnet sand may cause lung damage similar
to silica sand (based on preliminary animal testing).
Copper slag, nickel slag, and glass (crushed or beads) also
have the potential to cause lung damage.
Steel grit and shot have less potential to cause lung dam-
age.
8
Slags can contain trace amounts of toxic metals such as
arsenic, beryllium, and cadmium.
The fact sheet also suggests that when performing abra-
sive blasting to reduce worker hazards from materials, one
needs to use nearly identical controls as one would for lead
or other toxic metals, including engineering controls (e.g.
containment and ventilation), work practices (hand and body
PPE and hygiene), and respiratory protection. Some other
observations made in the fact sheet include:
recommending the use of alternative, less toxic blasting
materials such as sponge, baking soda, or dry ice;
keeping coworkers away from the blaster;
cleaning and decontaminating tarps and other equipment
at the worksite; and
scheduling blasting when the least number of workers are
at the site.
Take a look at your abrasive blast cleaning operations and
materials and consider what equipment, processes, materi-
als, or worker changes may be necessary to reduce worker
exposures to abrasive blasting material hazards.
Are We Closer to Revising the Cal/osha Lead Standard?
In April 2011, the California Department of Health/Occupa-
tional Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OLPPP) began
providing information to support revisions to the 30-year-old
Cal/OSHA Construction Lead Standard based on more recent
health-based scientific evidence. OLPPP suggests that the
following changes are necessary.
Provide medical surveillance, blood lead level (BLL)
testing, annual blood pressure measurements, and question-
naires to all employees likely to be exposed to lead.
Increase frequency of medical surveillance of BLLs and
further increases if above 10 g/dL.
Remove employee from lead exposure at or above 30 g/
dL or if two successive blood lead concentrations measured
over a four-week interval are at or above 20 g/dL.
Return employee to work when two blood lead tests taken
four weeks apart are less than 15 g/dL.
Lower Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)/Action Level (AL)
which reflect new medical/toxicological information on
chronic and low-level health effects.
Conduct regular testing of surfaces in eating areas and
change areas and clean more frequently when lead is found.
Establish a quantitative limit for lead on surfaces and specify
sample collection and analysis methods.
Provide quarterly employee training. Training should maxi-
mize the use of participatory and hands-on methods.
Post warning signs in areas where lead is present.
Define and require minimum engineering and work prac-
tice controls unless the employer can demonstrate that such
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 9

controls are not feasible. References

Do not allow certain high-risk work 1. OSHA Technical Manual.
practices.
In October 2013, the California Department of Public About the Author
Health (CDPH) made a recommendation to Cal/OSHA for a Alison B. Kaelin, CQA, has more than 25 years of public
new PEL based on the low level health effects literature and health, environmental, transportation, and construction man-
new modeling of the relationship between air lead levels and agement experience in the coatings industry.
blood lead levels. She is the owner of ABKaelin, LLC, a pro-
CDPH used an updated version of the original model used vider of OSHA training, quality assurance,
by OSHA to develop the General Industry Standard for lead auditing, consulting, and related services
and challenged the model using actual BLL and mortality to the protective coatings, construction,
data obtained over the last 20 years. The modeling and the fabrication, and nuclear industries.
conclusions support the overwhelming body of recent scien- Kaelin is a certified quality auditor and
tific evidence indicating the health impacts of very low BLL NACE-certified coating inspector. She was a 2012 JPCL Top
exposures ranging from 510 g/dL. The modeling focused Thinker, a 2012 JPCL Editors Award Winner, and an SSPC
on two issues. Technical Achievement Award winner in 2005. At SSPC 2014,
Estimate the amount of lead in workplace air inhaled by she was presented the inaugural Women in Coatings Impact
workers without respirators that would result in BLLs of 5, Award. She is a JPCL contributing editor.
10, 15, 20, and 30 g/dL over a 40-year working lifetime.
Estimate the time it would take for a workers BLL to come
down to 15 g/dL from a higher level once the worker is
removed from workplace lead exposure.
The modeling arrived at the following conclusions.
To keep almost all workers (95%) BLLs below 5 g/dL
over their working lifetime, the amount of lead in the air the
worker is exposed to must not be above 0.5g/m3 averaged
over an 8-hour workday.
The model also shows that the amount of lead in a work-
ers blood climbs very fast in the first few years of workplace
exposure and then climbs much more slowly in the remain-
ing years. Even though a workers BLL does not climb much
during the remaining years, lead levels in the bones continue
to increase. The lead in the bones is slowly released into the
blood throughout a workers lifetime.
The model also estimates the time it may take for a work-
ers BLL to come down to a BLL of 15 g/dL, after removal
from workplace exposure.
The CDPH concluded that based on available scientific
evidence adverse health effects begin to emerge at BLLs of
10 g/dL and likely lower.
Modeling suggests that in order to maintain BLLs of 10 g/
dL over a working lifetime in 95% of workers, the air concen-
tration of lead must not exceed 2.1 g/m3 as an 8-hour TWA
average or to maintain a BLL of 5 g/dL a PEL of 0.5 g/m3
as an 8-hour TWA average.
Cal/OSHA is expected to introduce a final rule by the end
of this year. Industry professionals expect medical removal
levels to be established at 1520 g/dL and a PEL of approxi-
mately 20 g/m3 as an 8-hour TWA average.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


On the Time between Blasting and Priming
How long can a blasted
surface be left before
priming under different
temperatures/relative
humidity environments?
Editors Note: Problem Solving Forum questions are posted
on the free daily electronic newsletter, PaintSquare News,
on behalf of JPCL. Responses are selected and edited to
conform to JPCL style. To subscribe to PaintSquare News,
go to www.paintsquare.com/psn/.
From Lee Edelman
CW Technical Service
Always attempt to prime the prepared surfaces before the
specified surface preparation starts degrading. Most speci-
fications will address this practice. Humidity and dew point
should be monitored throughout the process, so that when
humidity or dew points exceed what the specification al-
lows, there should not be any painting activities.
If the prepared surface has degraded, most specifications
will require reblasting to the specified degree of surface
preparation.
From Richard D. Souza
Stoncor Middle East LLC
How long a blast-cleaned surface can remain uncoated is not
the issue; rather, the highest criterion is the steel tempera-
ture: It should always be at least 3 degrees C (5 F) higher
than the calculated dew point temperature. This margin of
safety is sufficient for all type of coatings.
A common scenario is that thecontractor blasts all day
long; experiences problems with the compressor or oth-
er piece of equipment; and as a result of the equipment
problems, lets the newly blasted steel sit along time before
coating. But the standard requires thatthe surface to be
painted must meet the cleanliness criteria set by the client or
consultant. These criteria supersede every other judgment
10
and vary from job to job. In Jordan, for example, oxidation
or orange rust may not occur for several hours or days, but
in UAE, you can probably expect to see rust break through in
few hours, depending on the time of the day or night.
It is almost impossible to state the effect of time, tem-
perature, and humidity on all blast-cleaned surfaces. On any
given job, the answer must be the sole responsibility of the
inspector, who conductson-site checks ofthe conditions
such as the following:
Place of work
Air temperatureminimum and maximum
Relative humidity
Dew point
Steel temperature
Necessary ventilation
Type of weather, such as sunlight, rain, wind speed, and
direction
These on-site checks must be done at least three times per
shift. The inspectorshould have the sole right to determine
the time without deviating from the specification.
From Remko Tas
Futuro SRL
As a curiosity, flash rust did not occur for 10 days in a dry cli-
mate at an altitude of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) in Bolivia, hundreds
ofkilometers away from the influence of saltwater and con-
tamination from industry-generated air pollution. We could
still safely paint the interior of the tank in one shot, achieving
a high efficiency.
From Lubomir Jancovic
MSPLUB Inc.
You have to prime the blasted surface of steel within eight
hours. Otherwise, blasting was for nothing. If the relative
humidity is more like 60%, you have to prime thesurface
within four hours.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

iStockphoto/ZooCat
Safety Considerations
for Abrasive Blasting Operations
T
he Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) writes and enforces regulations that govern
safety and health practices in the work place, with many
pertaining to cleaning and painting operations. Most
of these regulations are very specific about how to
do a job safely. Their purpose is not to make our job more
difficult, but to make it safer. These regulations have been
developed over many years through studies on how and
why accidents happen, and following these written proce-
dures and regulations should ensure that we don t make the
same mistakes that have injured others in the past.
This article will review some of the general requirements
of regulations on abrasive blasting and explain how they can
help increase job safety.
Hazards of Abrasive Blasting
When you blast clean surfaces with abrasive driven by air,
you have to deal with several hazards to your health and
safety. Some of these hazards can be lethal, so it is import-
11
Editors Note: This Applicator Training Bulletin is
an update of an original article written by Walter
Shuler, certified safety professional and safety
consultant; Jeff Theo, Service Painting Compa-
ny; and Mike McGinness, Custom Process Sys-
tems. The article was originally published in the
June 1998 issue of Protective Coatings Europe
(PCE) and was updated for this issue by Dan
OMalley, Manager of the Environmental, Health,
and Safety Group; and Stan Liang, Director of
Health and Safety; KTA-Tator, Inc.
ant that you understand what they are and observe the
proper safety precautions. The hazards of abrasive blasting
include, but are not limited to:
dust,
noise, and
equipment.
Dust
The dust produced by abrasive blasting is a very serious
health hazard. Dust results from the breakdown of abra-
sives and the pulverizing of surface coatings, rust, millscale,
and other materials on the steel surface being blasted. The
individual dust particles vary in size from 1 micron (125,000-
inch) to 1,000 microns (125-inch) in diameter. Dust larger
than 10 microns may be visible and settles quickly. Dust
smaller than 10 microns, called respirable dust, is invisible,
remains suspended in the air for a longer period of time,
and can pass through the respiratory systems defenses and
settle in the small air sacs in the lung called alveoli.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

iStockphoto/tolgabayraktar
Dust of this size cannot be dissolved by the lung fluids.
Because the lung cannot break down or cast out the par-
ticles, it does the next best thing in its defense program,
which is to isolate the intruder by building a thick, fibrous
tissue around it. When too much of this tissue develops, the
lung is said to be fibrotic, or in a condition of fibrosis.
The routes of entry and the associated health effects de-
pend on the chemical and physical properties of the dust. If
the dust is soluble in water and respirable in size, it can enter
the alveoli, pass through the walls of the alveoli in the lungs,
and enter the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, dust
can be transported rapidly throughout the body and damage
various organ systems.
Other health hazards may be present in the dust pro-
duced by the abrasive blasting process. These hazards can
result from the removal of coatings containing toxic metals
12
such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium.
One of the most common toxic metal hazards encountered
in the removal of a coatings system is lead, a toxic metal that
can damage the bodys blood-forming, nervous, urinary, and
reproductive systems. Lead also accumulates in the body;
thus, exposure to small doses over long periods of time can
cause great harm.
Exposure to toxic metals can also directly affect the skin.
Metals such as hexavalent chromium can irritate the skin or
cause an allergic reaction. Other metals can have an irritant
effect on the respiratory tract, such as pulmonary edema
(fluid build-up in the lungs) caused by severe cadmium
dust exposure. Entry can also occur via ingestion, typically
caused by poor hygiene practices such as eating, drinking,
and smoking in the work area.
To determine the specific toxic metals likely to be present
in a coatings system, paint chip samples should be collected
from representative areas of the structure. The metals that
the samples should be analyzed for would depend on a num-
ber of considerations, such as the type of structure and the
type of coatings system being evaluated. Sometimes, toxic
metal content can be determined based on historical knowl-
edge of the coatings system being evaluated.
Toxic metals can also be present in the virgin abrasive
blast media, such as crystalline silica in silica sand abra-
sive. However, dust-containing crystalline silica also can be
produced during other abrasive blasting activities, such as
surface preparation of concrete. A study published in the
September 2006 issue of the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene indicated that elevated exposure to
crystalline silica exposure also can result when it is present
in the coatings system being removed.1
The Safety Data Sheet should be consulted to determine
what metals may be present in the abrasive blast media.
Recently, OSHA has begun requiring abrasive manufacturers
to list toxic metals in their products, even if they are present
only in trace amounts. Arsenic is commonly found in steel
grit and coal slag abrasives, while beryllium is commonly
found in coal slag abrasives.
When there is exposure to toxic dust, the primary con-
cern is to control respiratory exposure. Respiratory protec-
tion must comply with the OSHA Respiratory Protection
Standard (29 CFR 1926.103). This standard requires feasible
engineering and work practice controls to be employed be-
fore respiratory protection is used by workers. Engineering
controls include ventilated abrasive blasting containments
and considering alternatives to abrasive blasting, such as
vacuum-shrouded power tools, water jetting, and chemical
stripping. Job rotation is an example of a work practice con-
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

trol. Note that job rotation is not permitted by OSHA in all
cases (if workers are exposed to hexavalent chromium, for
instance). If such a control is used, a written schedule must
be developed and followed.
Respiratory protection may only be used after engineer-
ing and work practice controls are employed and workers
are still exposed above the OSHA Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) for a given toxic dust. Employers must select,
use, and maintain respirators in accordance with a written
program (the elements of which are specified by OSHA in
the Respiratory Protection Standard).
Blasters typically use a Type CE or helmet-type airline
respirator. Workers in the vicinity of the blasting area, such
as pot tenders and lookouts, are required to wear respiratory
protection. Workers engaged in clean-up operations should
also be equipped with respiratory protection. These workers
are usually assigned a half-mask, air-purifying respirator
with high-efficiency cartridges (labeled as N, R, or P 100).
However, workers cleaning up abrasive blasting debris when
blasting is still in progress (as is often the case when recycla-
ble grit is used) may need a higher level of protection. Such
workers may need to wear the same type of respirator as the
blasters, as their exposure levels are likely to be similar.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) conducts research on health issues in the work
place, and one of its main functions is to test and certify
industrial respiratory protection equipment. All respiratory
protection equipment used in the workplace must be ap-
proved by NIOSH.
Respiratory protection should continue to be worn after
blasting as long as dust-laden air remains. Respirable dust
in an abrasive blasting booth or containment can remain
suspended for long periods of time after blasting is finished.
This time period is largely dependent on the effectiveness of
the ventilation system, unless the work is performed out-
doors.
A health and safety professional should review all proj-
ects that require abrasive blast cleaning to determine what
precautions, if any, should be taken to eliminate the hazard
of chemical exposure. Examples of these precautions include
disposable clothing, boots, gloves, respiratory protective
devices, and hygiene practices. Hygiene facilities that can be
required by OSHA include hand wash stations and showers.
OSHA requires provision of a hand wash station when work-
ers may come into contact with toxic materials. Whether or
not showers are mandatory depends on which OSHA stan-
dard is applicable. If workers are exposed to lead, showers
are required when exposures exceed the PEL.
13
Noise
Most forms of abrasive blasting create the hazard of noise
exposure, which will vary depending on the blasting condi-
tions. Regardless of the nature, excessive amounts of noise
may require personal hearing protection for blasters and
other workers in the general area. Depending on the size of
the equipment, the material being blasted, and the location
of the blasting operation, noise levels can range from about
90 decibels to more than 110 decibels. OSHAs limit for noise
depends on the duration of exposure. For an eight-hour shift
of continuous exposure, the limit is 90 decibels. Personal
hearing protection should then be recommended if the level
and exposure time of the workers exceed the OSHA stan-
dard. Noise protection must reduce exposure to below the
OSHA limit.
Note that some abrasive blasting hoods already provide
some degree of noise protection, but the manufacturers
specifications should be checked to see if the degree of noise
reduction will be adequate. When there is any question
about the existing levels (meaning a noise survey is needed)
or the adequacy of hearing protection, a health and safety
professional should be consulted.
Equipment
The equipment used in abrasive blasting operations can
create physical hazards that require certain precautions. The
following are some examples of equipment commonly used
during the abrasive blast cleaning process and the respective
precautions that should be taken during their use.
Deadman control: This is usually a spring-loaded control
located near the nozzle end of the blast hose. When de-
pressed, it starts the flow of high-pressure air and abrasive.
When released, it stops the flow. Deadman controls can be
either pneumatic (air-operated) or electric. In either case,
the control must be kept depressed by the operator for the
system to work. This prevents a nozzle from blasting the
operator or nearby workers with abrasive if dropped. Always
verify that there is a Deadman control and that it is operable
before any work is performed.
Hoses: Hoses are subject to severe abrasion from the
high-pressure air and abrasive that moves from the pressure
vessel to the nozzle. Ruptures can cause serious injury. Metal
piping carrying abrasive also deteriorates rapidly. Hoses and
piping should be inspected on a regular basis and repaired
or replaced periodically as necessary. Hose and pipe cou-
plings also should be inspected regularly. Blast hose cou-
plings should be wired together and whip checks should be
used. Whip checks are safety cables that restrain movement
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

of the hose should the coupling connection become compro-
mised.
Pressure vessels: Pressure vessels for compressed air or
abrasive under pressure should be checked regularly be-
cause they are also subject to abrasion and deterioration be-
yond that of normal pressure vessels. Pressurized abrasive
tanks must have a removable plate for internal inspection.
All vessels must conform to American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers (ASME) boiler and pressure vessel codes.
Valves: All valves and rubber valve parts are subject to
wear and should be inspected and replaced periodically.
Fill ports: Pressure vessels for abrasive blasting should
have a funnel-shaped input that is easily accessible to the
operator so that strain caused by lifting bags of abrasive is
avoided.
Hoseline grounding: Nozzles should be grounded because
the air and abrasive can create enough friction to develop a
substantial charge of static electricity. This is most important
while working inside tanks or in other areas where there is
potential for explosion.
Personal protective equipment: In addition to respiratory
and noise protective equipment, blasters should wear ap-
parel to prevent damage to their skin from abrasive blast-
ing and ricochet. Such apparel includes safety footwear or
toe guards, coveralls, leather or rubber capes, and gloves.
Pant and sleeve cuffs should be secured with tape or other
suitable fasteners. These clothing rules are most difficult
to enforce during hot weather, but despite the discomfort,
they still must be enforced. Protective equipment should be
inspected daily and repaired or replaced as necessary. Clean
storage areas should be provided for respiratory protection
and protective apparel. It is most important that blasters
receive proper training in the use of personal protective
equipment.
14
Summary
When performing abrasive blasting, safety considerations
must be given to hazards including dust, noise, and equip-
ment. Once the hazards are determined, procedures for
personnel protection can be developed. In addition to being
provided with personal protection, workers must be properly
trained in the use, inspection, and maintenance of equip-
ment.
Procedures to control exposure to health and safety
hazards must conform to the OSHA regulations that govern
blasting operations. Additional regulations from state or
local jurisdictions may be in force. Twenty-three states have
their own version of OSHA, and their regulations are at least
as strict and, in some cases, stricter than federal OSHA regu-
lations.
This article should not be considered a comprehensive
analysis of abrasive blasting health and safety. When there
is any doubt about the nature of the hazard or how to protect
workers, assistance should be obtained from a health and
safety professional, typically someone who is a Certified
Industrial Hygienist or a Certified Safety Professional or pos-
sesses a degree from a related field of study.
References:
1. Meeker, John D., Pellegrino, Anthony, and Susi, Pam,
Comparison of Occupational Exposures Among Painters
Using Three Alternative Blasting Abrasives. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 3, Issue 9
(September 2006): pp. D8084.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Setting Up Air Abrasive
Blast Equipment
Editors Note: This Applicator Training Bulletin is an
update of a previous article written by Joe Fishback of
Custom Blast Services Inc. It was first published in the
November 1989 JPCL and has been updated for this issue
by Bill Corbett and Stan Liang of KTA-Tator, Inc.
A
n air abrasive blast equipment system is composed of
several major components, including the following.
Air Compressor
Blast Pot (Pressure Blast Tank)
Abrasive (Blast Media)
Blast Nozzle
Moisture Trap
Deadman Switch
Blast Hood
Interconnect Hoses
Lets take a look at each to see how they work together to
provide an efficient abrasive blast system.
Air Compressor
The air compressor provides high-pressure air for the blast-
ing operation. This machine takes in atmospheric air at 14.7
psi and compresses it to a pressure several times higher,
usually about 120 psi. The heat generated through compres-
sion is somewhat dissipated by an air intercooler. The air
then passes through moisture and oil separators to make it
dry and oil-free as it exits the compressor.
15
Fig. 1: Blast pot
Courtesy of Axxiom Manufacturing
Air compressors are generally identified by output capaci-
ty, such as 250 CFM, 325 CFM or 750 CFM. CFM means cubic
feet per minute, which is how the volume of pressurized air
is measured. The power to run a compressor is usually pro-
vided by an internal combustion engine (gasoline or diesel)
or by an electric motor. Selection of a power unit is generally
dictated by the area where blasting is to be done or by the
availability of utilities.
Before starting the compressor, remember to:
check the engine oil level;
check the coolant level; and
check the belts and hoses for leaks or defects.
Blast Pot
The blast pot (Fig. 1, p. 17) is a coded pressure vessel gen-
erally referred to as a pressure blast tank (PBT). Because it
is a pressure vessel, it must have a stamp on it showing that
it has been pressure tested. The PBT is further identified by
size. For example, it may be called a 6-ton PBT or a 6-sack
pot (based on silica sand), referring to the amount of abra-
sive it can hold. During operation, the blast pot is pressur-
ized and feeds abrasive into the air stream.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Fig. 2: Multi-colored deadman switches. Courtesy of SAFE
Systems, Inc.
Abrasive (Blast Media)
While not usually thought of as abrasive blast equipment,
not much happens to the surface without the abrasive.
Abrasives are generally categorized as expendable (one-time
use) or recyclable (multiple uses). The type, size, shape and
hardness of the abrasive all affect productivity as well as the
depth and shape of the surface profile or anchor pattern. The
cleanliness of the abrasive is just as important as the clean-
liness of the compressed air used to propel the abrasive. A
vial test is performed on new or recycled abrasive prior to
use. The abrasive is tested for oil according to ASTM D7393
and conductivity according to ASTM D4940. According to the
SSPC standards, abrasives cannot contain any visible oil and
cannot have a conductivity that exceeds 1,000 S.
Blast Nozzle
The blast nozzle is a small but important piece of the blasting
equipment. It is the last item to exert influence on the blast
media. Nozzles are identified by their shell composition, their
lining composition, the size of the orifice and length (for ex-
ample, aluminum shell with tungsten lining, size #7, short).
The orifice size number relates to the size in 116-inch units
(#7 = 716-inch). The size of the nozzle has a bearing on the
amount of air and abrasive used and on the amount of work
completed. The larger the size of the nozzle, the greater the
consumption of supplies. Nozzles are chosen for the work to
be performed.
Moisture Trap
The moisture trap is a device that allows the compressed
air to shed water. As the air is compressed, heat is gener-
ated. As this hot air passes through the heat exchanger to
lower the air temperature, water in suspension (humidity) is
condensed. Generally, a compressor is fitted with a moisture
trap. This first trap catches most of the water. However, as
16
the compressed air continues to cool, additional moisture
condenses in the bull hose. This remaining moisture is
trapped by the moisture separator just before it enters the
PBT. This trapping is done either with a centrifuge-style
separator or with a replaceable filter element-style separator.
Generally, it is necessary to leave an air bleed valve open in
the bottom of the moisture trap when blasting to allow the
moisture to be expelled.
Deadman Switch
The deadman switch (Fig. 2), either pneumatic or electrical,
allows the blaster to have remote control over the pressur-
ization of the blast hose. With pneumatic operation, this is
accomplished when pressure through the deadman switch
closes the air control valve and opens an escape valve. This
prevents air from entering the PBT and at the same time,
it depressurizes the PBT. Electrically operated systems use
pinch valves to stop the flow in the blast hose. With electri-
cally controlled systems, the PBT is always pressurized when
the bull hose is connected and pressurized.
The primary purpose of the deadman switch is safety. It
provides a means to stop the discharge of abrasive from the
nozzle when a safety hazard arises. The fact that it allows the
blaster to start and stop work at his discretion is a secondary
purpose.
Blast Hood
The blast hood (Fig. 3) is a piece of safety gear that provides
a degree of comfort to the blaster as well. This hood is gen-
erally a reinforced plastic shell with a replaceable skirt that
covers the torso of the blaster. It has a double-faced shield of
clear plastic for eye protection and an air feed line to provide
positive pressure under the hood. The positive air pressure
under the hood prevents the entrance of harmful blasting
dust and abrasive. Air coolers are also available. If the air is
coming from a diesel compressor, an air purifier and carbon
monoxide monitor are required.
Hoses
Hoses vary in size depending on the work to be performed,
available air capacity, distance to work area and other con-
siderations.
The first in the sequence is the bull hose. This is generally
a short hose less than 50 feet long, with an internal diam-
eter (ID) of approximately 2.5 inches or less that provides
passage of air from the compressor to the PBT.
The next hose is an air-line with an approximate ID of 0.75
inches or less that provides air first to a moisture trap and
then to the blast hood. The section between the moisture
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 17

trap and the hood is smaller, down to 0.25-inch ID.

Control hoses can be down to 0.20-inch ID and are gener-
ally duplex (dual-line) hoses. They run from the control valve
on the PBT to the deadman switch and back to complete the
circuit when the blaster is ready to commence work. Includ-
ed here is the electrical wiring necessary if the deadman is
electrically operated. It generally operates from a 12-volt DC
source such as the compressor power units DC system.
The last hose in the circuit is the blast hose. It is a thick-
wall, wire-reinforced hose designed and constructed to
contain the high-pressure air (up to 120 psi) and abrasive
mixture that moves from the PBT to the blast nozzle. The
blast hose is constructed in three layers: an inner wearing
lining, a conductive layer and an outer wrapping. Abrasive
passing through a blast hose builds up static electricity.
The conductive layer is needed so the whole system can be
grounded. As a general rule, the hose should be three times
the ID of the nozzle orifice; ideally, 1.25 inches to 1.5 inches
for optimum production.

Setting Up the System

With the major sub-assemblies identified, we can now set
up our blasting equipment. Position the compressor upwind
from the work area so that airborne grit does not enter the
cooling or air intake systems. The compressor should be
level so that the oil and moisture separators can function
efficiently. The power units lubrication system also depends
on the compressor being level. After fluid levels (oil, coolant
and fuel) have been verified and topped off, the compressor
is ready to start.
The bull hose should be laid out with no kinks and a min-
imum of bends. Prior to making connections at the com-
pressor and PBT, the sealing gaskets should be examined
for tears, cracks or other sealing problems. As soon as the
connectors have interlocked, a safety pin or wire should be
inserted to prevent accidental separation of the joint. If this
separation should occur, there is great potential for per-
sonnel or property damage as the hose whips around. The
hose should be examined for damaged locking lugs, missing
gaskets, soft spots, torn covers or other damage.
If any defects are observed, consideration should be given
to replacement of the worn or damaged part. If all appears
in good condition, make the connections at the compressor
and PBT moisture trap.
The next step is to lay out the blast hose utilizing the same
inspection procedures used for the bull hose and fittings. If
all is in good shape, connect the selected nozzle and pin all
fittings.
When the blast hose connection is complete, you can run
Fig 3: Blast hood
Courtesy of Bullard
the hose for the deadman switch. The fittings on the ends of
this hose are brass, male/female and threaded. It is neces-
sary to use the proper-sized wrench to prevent damage to
the brass hex surfaces. As the hose is installed, care should
be taken to lay the hose parallel to the blast hose. The
control line should also be secured to the blast hose by tape
or other means to minimize possible damage to this less du-
rable hose. This is important because air leaks in the control
line will not allow the control valve to pressurize the PBT and
thus no blasting takes place. The threaded fittings should be
tightened securely but not over tightened.
Now, go back to the air source for connection of an air-line
to feed the small moisture trap for hood atmosphere. These
fittings are usually 0.75-inch crows foot, quick-disconnect
fittings. Inspection of hose gaskets and locking lugs is once
again necessary. Be certain to pin all quick-disconnect crows
feet.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


The hood atmosphere line is the last hose to be hooked
up. This hose has brass screwed fittings similar to those on
the control line. The same care in hook-up should be exer-
cised, with particular attention to preventing entry of debris.
Now, with all hoses connected to their respective fittings,
you are ready for pressurized air. Close all air outlet valves
on the compressor. Press the shutdown bypass button
as well as the start button. The compressor should start
and run. After the temperature moves up to the operating
temperature, it is time to press the service air switch. At this
time the air pressure gauge should register approximately
110120 psi. If the reading is higher or lower, adjustments
should be made before beginning the blasting operation.
When the compressor stabilizes at working air pressure,
slowly open the valve to furnish hood atmosphere air. After
the quality (oil and contaminant-free) and quantity of this air
are verified, slowly open the valve for the bull hose. There
should be no air escape except at the moisture trap bleeds.
If air leaks are present, they should be repaired. The PBT can
now be filled with abrasive.
The blaster should be clothed with sturdy shoes or boots,
heavy pants, a long-sleeved heavy shirt and leather gloves
for protection from bounce-back of abrasive. When the blast-
er has been properly suited up, he or she can check opera-
tion of the blast equipment. He or she does this by opening
the deadman valve to pressurize the PBT and thus force
a quantity of abrasive to enter the air stream to the blast
hose.
Adjustments in the amount of abrasive delivered to the
nozzle can be made with an abrasive valve located close
to the bottom of the PBT. Enough abrasive to do the work
should be delivered, but not so much as to slow the impact
or choke the blast hose or nozzle.
18
To assure the quality of cleaning, two important checks
should be made. The first is a compressed air cleanliness
test, also known as a white rag or blotter test. This test
determines if the blast air is free of moisture and oil as it
is delivered to the nozzle. The abrasive valve is closed to
prevent abrasive from entering the air stream. A white rag
or blotter (called an absorbent collector) fastened to a
rigid backing is then positioned in the air stream within 24
inches of the nozzle. A non-absorbent collector such as rigid
transparent plastic may also be used. After a minimum of
one minute, the collector is removed and examined for oil or
moisture contamination. If evidence of oil is present on the
collector, adjustments must be made to the system, possibly
by service personnel from the supplier of the compressor.
The second test measures nozzle pressure. This measure-
ment is taken with a needle pressure gauge. The needle
is inserted into the blast hose in the direction of air and
abrasive flow. This insertion takes place close to the nozzle
with both the air and the abrasive flowing. Nozzle pressure is
read directly on the face of the gauge. Optimum blast nozzle
pressure should be approximately 100 psi for productive
work. Pressures lower or higher than 100 psi may improve
productivity depending on the abrasive being used.
With proper setup of equipment and a thorough knowl-
edge of good safety practices, your job should be safe and
trouble-free.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Surface Preparation:
Adventures in Frustration
By Peter Bock
CorrLine International
T
hese are dreaded words a contractor hates to hear,
whether they come from a third-party inspector or from
the contractors own QA/QC manager. Abrasive blasters
have been hard at work all morning. Just before lunch-
time the blasters shut down. The spent blasting grit and
the old coating (and rust) blasted from the surface have been
hurriedly gathered and removed, the blasted surface blown
down or vacuum cleaned to remove blasting dust, and the
inspector summoned.
The inspector or QA/QC person is not the bad guy he
or she is simply following his or her interpretation of the
project specification and the industry standards used to write
the specification. If there has not been sufficient discussion
and agreement about standards and interpretation during
the pre-bid and pre-job conferences, the QA/QC person, the
third-party inspector and the contractors site superintendent
may have significantly different opinions of what meets the
project surface preparation specification.
This article discusses potential ambiguities in visual
surface preparation standards and provides insight into
preventing disagreements between owners, inspectors and
contractors, and avoiding delays and costly reblasting.
SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1, White Metal Blast Cleaning
Surface preparation standards are almost entirely visual.
SSPCs definition of a White Metal Blast Cleaned surface surface shall comply with the degree of cleaning specified...
191
No, its just not
good enough.
Youll have to
reblast. Abrasive blasting structural beams
for a coastal petrochemical
project. All photos courtesy of
Mobley Industrial Services Inc.
(SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1) reads as follows:
2.1 White Metal Blast Cleaned Surface: A white metal
blast cleaned surface, when viewed without magnification,
shall be free of all visible oil, grease, dust, dirt, mill scale,
rust, coating, oxides, corrosion products and other foreign
matter.
That should be easy and straightforward its white or
it isnt. But its not always that simple. The standard states
that the the surface needs to be white when viewed without
magnification. Does that mean the inspector has a right to
get his nose half an inch from the blasted surface, or should
he view it from a more normal range? How visible are
the visible contaminants and foreign matter? What about
non-visible contaminants?
2.1.1: Acceptable variations in appearance that do not
affect surface cleanliness as defined in Paragraph 2.1 include
variations caused by type of steel, original surface condition,
thickness of the steel, weld metal, mill or fabrication marks,
heat treating, heat-affected zones, blasting abrasives, and
differences because of blasting technique.
Acceptable white metal prepared steel surfaces may
in fact be several shades of gray, some of them because of
abrasive blasting, some of them in spite of it, and white
metal is a somewhat of a misnomer.
7.4: Immediately prior to coating application, the entire
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 20

vacuumed or blown down again and the dread of dreads

the inspector has to be called back to re-inspect. In the
meantime, other previously acceptable areas of blasted sur-
face may have deteriorated, so from a practical viewpoint,
if the inspector turns down a portion, reblasting or at least
resweeping the entire shifts work is often the most cost-ef-
fective option.
White Metal Blast
Cleaning, is usually
specified only for tank
and vessel lining and for
critical exterior surfac-
es. The costs and the
perfection required are
too high for most coating
projects and SSPC-SP 10/
NACE No. 2, Near White
Metal Blast Cleaning,
or SSPC SP-6/NACE No.
An area of staining or discolor- 3, Commercial Blast
This blaster is using medium-grade garnet abrasive to obtain ation in SSPC-SP 10 blast.
a Commercial Blast Cleaned surface (SSPC-SP 6) and a 2-to- Does it pass or fail? Cleaning, are specified
3-mil anchor profile. instead. Near White
Metal Blast Cleaning allows 5 percent of a unit area of
Any visible rust that forms on the surface of the steel after abrasive blasted steel surface to be less than white metal
blast cleaning shall be removed by recleaning and Commercial Blast Cleaning allows for 33 percent. For
If the inspector thinks that the job has not been done well both standards the less-than-white areas can have only ran-
enough, the contractor will have to reblast the unaccept- dom staining consisting of light shadows, slight streaks or
able areas. Because the contractor has already set up for minor discolorations caused by stains of rust, stains of mill
painting to ensure no more deterioration immediately prior scale, or stains of previously applied coating.
to coating application, all that effort is wasted. Blasting A unit area is defined as a 3-inch-by-3-inch square.
equipment has to be brought back in, spent abrasive has to Therefore, if an inspector finds a 3-inch-square area in which
be once again gathered and removed, the surface has to be more than 3 square inches are randomly stained, the area
fails Commercial Blast. The math is easy; the stains are
not.

When is a Stain Not a Stain?

Although the SSPC Protective Coatings Glossary defines
a stain as An area of a surface which, when compared to
adjacent areas, has an equal surface profile but is discolored
(usually darker) with a material having no apparent volume;
upon visual assessment, confusion remains about what
constitutes a stain versus actual rust or mill scale left on the
surface. How light, slight or minor do the light shadows,
slight streaks or minor discolorations specified in SSPC-SP
6/NACE No. 3, Paragraph 2.1 have to be to pass, especially
since the following paragraph (2.1.1) of the specification
allows the same steel color variations as for White Metal?
Beam end area has been blasted to a "Near White Metal" Just as for White Metal Blast, Near White Metal
finish (SSPC-SP 10).
and Commercial Blast require that immediately prior to

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.


Newly-blasted support beam unit has flash rusted badly after
an unexpected rain shower.
Light flash rusting on steel dry blasted to SSPC-SP 10. This
area needs to be reblasted.
coating application, the entire surface shall comply with the
degree of cleaning specified. Any visible rust that forms on
the surface of the steel after blast cleaning shall be removed
by recleaning But are the stains the inspector is finding
on newly blasted Near White Metal or Commercial steel
from before blasting, or are they new turning or rerusting of
the steel?
Get the Picture
Visual comparison standards for acceptable quality of
dry-abrasive-blasted surfaces (SSPC VIS 1) should be avail-
able at the job site and should have been discussed and
agreed on at the pre-bid and pre-job conferences. Whether
using available photographic standards, or digital photos of
21
test-blasted areas done as part of the contractor bid quali-
fication or pre-job qualification, there should be a general
agreement between the owner, contractor and third-party
inspector. In advance of the project, a decision should be
reached about what constitutes acceptable visual appear-
ance of the prepared surfaces in order to conform to the
specification standard. Inspection of the days surface prepa-
ration work should be an opportunity for agreement, not a
source of frustration, confusion and conflict.
After a commercial or near white blast of aged steel in a
refinery or chemical plant environment (especially at a coast-
al location where high humidity and salt in the air are almost
constant), it is often difficult to determine whether stains the
inspector finds are allowable, or a result of degradation of
the blasted surface.
According to the inspector, the most straightforward way
to tell is to let the blasted area sit a while and see if the stain-
ing gets worse. From the contractors perspective, this can
be perceived as an expensive way for the inspector to force
a reblast. Using an agreed-upon visual comparison standard
up front can help to avoid disagreement.
SSPC-PA 17
Procedure for Determining Conformance to Steel Profile/
Surface Roughness/Peak Count Requirements
Testing of a dry-abrasive-blasted surface for specified anchor
profile can be a non-visual, quantifiable test. The traditional
visual comparator test has been superseded by the use
of profile replica tape, or of depth micrometer testing of the
profile. Both replica tape and depth micrometer testing are
quantitative measurements, but they measure only small
samples of the entire prepared surface. The number of
required anchor profile tests should follow standards as a
minimum or should be specified and agreed upon at the pre-
job conference. Depth micrometer testing is highly accurate,
but measures only one pit per reading, so multiple groups
of readings must be done to assure accuracy. The project
specification should clearly state the type and frequency of
blast profile tests required.
If newly-abrasive-blasted steel could be stabilized as it
was blasted and without degradation, the inspector could
inspect it and pass or fail the actual preparation work itself,
rather than the preparation that has subsequently been
affected by environmental conditions.
The presence of salts on White Metal blasted steel sur-
faces has been known since before coating inspectors were
assigned CIP numbers. When the author was first learning
the offshore oil field maintenance painting business in the
late 1970s, there was already a primitive test for salt residue
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Moderate flash rusting on steel dry blasted to SSPC-SP 10.
contamination on newly-blasted-steel surfaces. The original
field salt test consisted of licking the newly-blasted steel.
At that time the blasting medium was silica sand, and the
steel looked clean when viewed without magnification, so
licking it was safe and sanitary, but you could always taste
the salt. And, of course, the spot you licked immediately
flash rusted. Then the contractor painted over all that salt,
because there was no cost-effective way of removing it.
SSPC Guide 15
Field Methods for Extraction and Analysis of Soluble Salts
on Steel and Other Nonporous Substrates
Since then, much more sanitary and quantifiable tests have
been developed for measuring salt residues left on new-
ly-blasted surfaces. Different types of salt test procedures
measure different groups of salts and it should be noted that
test results may vary, depending on the test method used.
All the tests have in common the facts that they are expen-
sive (anywhere from $10 to $40 for the test kit itself, exclud-
ing the cost of the measuring device) and they are slow,
typically taking 10 to 30 minutes per test. All of the salt tests
are also handicapped by two other factors: first, they mea-
sure only a tiny area of the blasted surface, typically about
one one-hundredth of one percent, which is then assumed to
be uniformly representative of the entire prepared surface,
and secondly, they do not specifically measure iron sulfides
left on the surface, and these are one of the primary causes
of flash rerusting.
A salt test measures salt concentration on two-to-four
square inches of the prepared surface and the test results
will be representing several hundred square feet of prepared
22
surface or more. The project specification should include
the specific method to be used for testing for soluble salts.
It may also include the number, frequency and location of
tests. There is also a visual component structures tend
to corrode unevenly; verification tests have often shown
widely varying results, indicating that surface contaminants
are unevenly distributed on the prepared surface, tending
to cluster or aggregate. This accounts for the phenomenon
that some areas of the same abrasive blasted surface tend to
flash rust faster and more severely than others.
Both the equipment owner and a seasoned third-party
inspector may have experience indicating where the struc-
ture being prepared will tend to corrode, that is, where the
previous coating system failed the earliest or most exten-
sively. Salt tests should be specified to be taken at precise
areas which are expected to have the highest levels of resid-
ual non-visible contaminants. Without such specificity, there
may be disagreement.
Wet surface preparation methods like wet-abrasive blast-
ing or UHP water washing remove some non-visible contam-
inants, but the wet prepared steel surface can quickly flash
rust as it dries. There are methods of inspecting a flash-rust-
ed surface after wet preparation, but these are also entirely
visual and are even more subjective than the staining
described in SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 or SSPC-SP 10/NACE
No. 2.
The most common method of delaying flash rusting on
dry-abrasive-blasted steel is dehumidification reducing
relative humidity over the newly-blasted surfaces to a level
where an electrolytic cell does not exist and flash rusting
cannot occur.
Dehumidification (DH) for the interior of a roofed tank
being dry-abrasive-blasted is relatively simple. There are few
and relatively small openings, and the steel sides and floor
contain air and hold heat. Exterior structures can be scaffold-
ed and tented with plastic sheeting to allow for DH, but such
tenting can be leaky and requires more DH to accomplish the
originally desired results. In either case, the cost of running
the DH system continuously can be very expensive, and if
the DH is stopped for any reason, the blasted steel can quick-
ly flash rust.
An alternative and less expensive method of controlling
flash rusting after dry-abrasive blasting is the use of a
waterborne inhibitor chemical which changes the pH of
the abrasive-blasted steel or leaves a thin residual coat on
the blasted surface, or both. The inhibitor chemical can be
sprayed onto the newly-blasted surface immediately after
blasting is completed or it can be used as a part of a wet-
abrasive-blast process.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.
 23

Use of an inhibitor chemical allows a contractor some Whichever method is used, determination of the speci-
time to finish abrasive blasting and cleanup, allows the fied level of surface preparation is predominantly a visual
inspector time for a thorough inspection, and in some cases, process. To prevent disagreements, delays, frustration and
allows abrasive blasting to continue for several shifts before costly reblasting; the end user, contractor and third-party in-
shutting down, inspecting, and coating or lining the pre- spector should agree on visual acceptance standards before
pared surfaces. surface preparation begins. The best way to reach agree-
Inhibitors are frequently used during maintenance work ment is to use visual samples, preferably photos of accept-
where the owner or inspector requires Near White Metal able surface preparation samples, available to all parties at
appearance, but blasting and coating application cannot be the job site.
done quickly enough to prevent flash rusting. The process is
not recommended by paint companies but is frequently used About the Author
in the oil and petrochemical maintenance areas. Peter Bock is vice president and technical service manager
The dried inhibitor film is visually transparent. To the for CorrLine International in Sugar Land, Texas. He is a U.S.
inspectors eye, the steel appears to be Commercial or Air Force veteran and has degrees
Near White Metal Blast, (whatever the original standard from Tulane University and the
and quality of blast), so it fulfills the visual standard. University of Northern Colorado.
A third, relatively new method for controlling flash rust Bock has 37 years of experience with
on abrasive-blasted steel is a proprietary waterborne pas- sales, management and technical
sivation process. Unlike inhibitors, which must be applied service in oilfield and petrochemi-
before any flash rusting occurs, the passivation process cal heavy-duty coatings in the U.S.,
claims to remove flash rust, restoring prepared steel to its Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Indone-
White Metal stage. Visual inspection and salt testing after sia, and Taiwan. He has experience
the passivation process are the same as for newly dry-abra- with on- and offshore production,
sive-blasted steel. drilling and workover rigs, shipyard work, natural gas and
LNG, pipelines, terminals, refineries, and chemical plants.
Conclusion He is a specialist in elevated temperature systems and CUI
Surface preparation is the first and sometimes the most mitigation. JPCL
important part of a successful industrial coating or lining
project. Unfortunately, specification standards for surface
preparation are almost entirely visual and can be somewhat
subjective. After dry-abrasive-blast-surface preparation,
properly prepared surfaces can quickly degrade from their
initial state on completion of blasting, and need to be quickly
inspected, approved and coated.
Field-usable salt contamination tests can determine the
presence of non-visible contaminants on visually-acceptable,
prepared surfaces, but the tests available today are expen-
sive, slow, and measure too small of a percentage of the
prepared surface to be completely reliable.
Flash rusting of a newly-abrasive-blasted surface can be
prevented by dehumidification, which keeps humidity at
the bare steel surface below a level where it can act as an
electrolyte, by the use of inhibitors, or by a steel passivation
process.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.