Research News

SSPC Research on
Performance Testing of
Abrasives and Salt
Retrieval Techniques
By Dr. Simon K. Boocock,
Director, Center for
Protective Coatings,
SSPC
Editors Note: An earlier version of this
article was presented as a paper at
SSPC 93, November 13-18, 1993, in
New Orleans, LA, and was published in
the conference Proceedings (Innovations for Preserving and Protecting Industrial Structures, SSPC Report No.
93-06).
A primary function of the SSPC research group is to foster standards development. This article describes 2
current studies that support 2 draft
standards on surface preparation and
environmental compliance. One study
provides information on the degree of
cleanliness and performance of recyclable abrasive; the other addresses the
reproducibility and efficiency of different methods for retrieving salt from a
contaminated surface.
Performance Testing of
Recyclable Abrasives
Recently, much attention has been
paid to reducing the volume of waste
from abrasive blast cleaning operations. Waste reduction is prompted by
2 factors: the desire to lower costs for
the disposal of bulk wastes, and the
need for environmentally compliant
means of removing lead paint.

Table 1

Some Requirements in Draft Specification for

Recycled Metallic Abrasive

Requirement

Level Suggested

Work Mix or New Abrasive

Conductivity

1,000 S/cm

both

Specific gravity

7.0

both

Oil content

none visiblewater emulsion

both

Durability

varies with hardness and size

new

Lead content

200 ppm total

both

Non-abrasive residue

1 percent by weight

work mix

Note: These were the levels suggested at the beginning of the SSPC research program.
Levels for lead content have been relaxed to 1,000 ppm in the latest draft standard.

Researcher swabs a
contaminated test panel to
retrieve soluble salts for
analysis.
Photos courtesy of SSPC

Researchers evaluated the

blister patch test for its
effectiveness as a salt
retrieval technique.

Recyclable Abrasives in
Lead Paint Removal
It is no surprise that lead paint removal has renewed interest in the field
use of recyclable abrasives. Common
single-use abrasives can be consumed
at rates between 5 and 10 lbs per sq ft
(24 to 49 kg per sq m). With waste
treatment and disposal costs running
up to or near $500 per ton ($450 per
megagram), an owner can face significant costs when removing paint from a
large structure. More than 50 tons (45

megagrams) of waste can

be generated from the
blast cleaning 10,000 sq ft
(900 sq m) of coated steel.
To minimize waste,
many owners are changing to recyclable abrasive.
Because of their proven
record for prolonged
re-use in shop settings,

28 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Table 2

Performance Testing of New Abrasive

Size

Hardness
Rockwell C

Conductivity
S/cm

Energy Test
S/cm

Durability
(50 cycles)

S-170

40-50

21

0.0092

3670

S-230

40-50

0.0110

3306

S-280

40-50

0.0120

3521

S-330

40-50

1100

0.0145

3170

S-550

40-50

62

0.0174

3273

S-550

40-50

55

0.0177

2808

SG18

40-50

11

0.0143

3073

SG25

40-50

10

0.0121

3475

SG40

40-50

20

0.0090

3603

MG25

50-55

18

0.0156

1770

LG25

55-60

24

0.0139

1491

S230H

60

0.0093

297

S330H

60

18

0.0137

652

HG25

60

16

0.0116

417

metallic abrasives are considered to be

well-suited for removing lead paint in
the field. As with any dramatic shift in
technology, there have been some
growing pains as owners and contractors became more familiar with the requirements for effective, economic use
of metallic abrasives in the field.
To help provide a common basis for
determining the performance of competing metallic abrasives, the SSPC
Technical Committee C.2.1, Abrasives,
began development of a set of standards for recyclable metallic abrasives.
Three reasons for these efforts are relevant to this paper.
First, there was a need to standardize the level of cleanliness of the recyclable abrasive. Second, there was a
need to find out the number of times
abrasives from different suppliers
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

could be re-used. Third, for lead paint

removal projects, there was a desire to
limit the amount of lead that would be
present in the new or recycled material. This last requirement measures the
efficiency of the field recycling process
as well as abrasive cleanliness.
The 3 primary requirements are also
based on 3 assumptions about abrasives in general and metallic recyclable
abrasives in particular.
First, a chemically clean abrasive has
been found to be desirable from research conducted by SSPC for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).1
Abrasives containing large quantities
of soluble salts reduced useful coating
life if the salty abrasive became embedded in the cleaned steel surface.
Second, for waste reduction to be effective, the chosen recyclable abrasive

must withstand repeated use. Such repeated use can occur only if the weight
or volume of abrasive loss in each cycle
of use is small. Furthermore, because
the metallic abrasive is expensive, marginal differences in the number of cycles for competing abrasive products
should be weighed against initial cost
per lot for each product.
Third, abrasive lead levels must be
limited to protect the workers removing the lead-based paint. If a metallic
abrasive is inadequately cleaned for reuse, it could carry microscopic lead
dust. This dust is often small enough
to be inhaled. Blasting with lead-contaminated abrasive inside a containment
structure may actually re-introduce
respirable lead dust into the air and
concentrate the dust in the containment. At some point, the ability of engineering controls, such as air moving
equipment, to maintain a safe working
environment could be overcome.
To address these concerns, SSPCs
technical committee on abrasives
drafted a standard for the quality and
performance characteristics of metallic
abrasives in the field. Key requirements of the draft SSPC specification
XRAX-92P for Cleanliness of Recycled
Ferrous Metallic Abrasives (Work Mix)
are shown in Table 1. The SSPC staff is
studying the adequacy, relevance, and
reproducibility of the methods used to
measure an abrasive against the requirements in the draft standard.
Program To Assess Draft Recycled
Abrasive Specification
The program includes 4 elements:
determination of cleanliness of new
and work mix (recycled) abrasives, typically from bridge painting sites;
determination of the durability of
new abrasives from a variety of manufacturers;
determination of the lead content of
new and recycled abrasives; and
determination of the hardness of
standard and field-acquired abrasive
samples.
Results presented in this article are
preliminary.
continued
March 1994 / 29

Research News
continued

Table 3

Analysis of Contaminated Metallic Abrasives

Samples from Blasting Cabinet

Sample

Weight of Dust/g

Oil Present

Conductivity S/cm

1.5

none

130

4.0

none

380

10.0

none

1000

Table 4

Characteristics of Selected Field Work Mixes

Sample

Lead Content, ppm

Limit 200 ppm

Percent Fines and

Non-Ferrous Limit
1 Percent

Conductivity
S/cm
Limit 1,000

Recycled
Y/N

8,200

1.2

480

220

0.1

480

8,400

6.7

540

<50

0.1

120

1,100

2.5

400

2,800

2.1

280

2,600

2.6

700

7,900

4.5

1,130

Characteristics of New Abrasives

The first task of this program was to
determine if the specification set adequate standards for new metallic abrasives. Accordingly, a series of metallic
shot and grit abrasives representing a
wide range of hardnesses and sizes was
tested for durability, conductivity, and
the presence of oil.
The following tests were performed.
Conductivity was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4940, Test
Method for Conductimetric Analysis of
Water Soluble Ionic Contamination of
Blasting Abrasives. Equal volumes of
abrasive and deionized water are
mixed. Salts on the abrasive are easily
leached over a few minutes. The liquid
above the abrasive is poured into a
conductivity meter, and a measurement is taken.
Durability was measured in a metalCopyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

lic abrasive durability test machine.

Specimens of abrasive weighing 100 g
(3.5 oz) were run for as many as 500
cycles. The remaining abrasive passing
a specified sieve size, e.g., for G14 grit
the #40 sieve, would be weighed. The
abrasive mix was restored to 100 g (3.5
oz) again with new abrasive. This
process was repeated until 100 g (3.5
oz) or more of new abrasive had been
added to the working mix.
The presence of oil was determined
by visually examining the liquid from
the conductivity test.
At the suggestion of several manufacturers of metallic abrasive, a standardized test to determine transmitted
energy was also performed on the new
abrasives. This test was done because
of the concern that with a focus on reusability, there might be a loss of atcontinued
March 1994 / 31

Research News
continued

Table 5

Degree of Retrieval for Blister Patch Cell Method

Method*

Chloride g/cm2

Age of Panel**

Average Retrieval
(percent)

50

63

25

95

10

72

50

90

25

55

10

42

50

76

25

78

10

69

50

28

25

17

10

20

50***

100***

25***

100***

10***

100***

50

26

25

53

10

26

* Method A: Boiling retrieval (control); Method B: Blister patch cell

**1: New, unaged panel; 2: Panel aged for 10 days at 80 percent relative humidity;
3: Panel aged 10 days, then abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC-SP 10
***Note that for blast cleaned samples, retrieval achieved is calculated against the chloride
retrieved by boiling the panel.

tention upon the intended use of the

abrasive. In principle, the transmitted
energy test can indicate the aggressiveness of the abrasive in removing mill
scale or coatings.
Transmitted energy was also determined using the Ervin test machine.
Researchers examined the deformation
of a thin strip of metal, called an
Almen Strip, after 40 cycles of peening
in the machine with a 50-gram (1.8ounce) sample of the abrasive.
32 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Table 2 summarizes results from a

typical test performed on newly manufactured abrasive. Not surprisingly, the
harder the abrasive, the faster the
complete breakdown. The table also indicates a complex relationship between
abrasive hardness and degree of transmitted energy to a surface. In fact, only
those abrasives with Rockwell C hardness in the range 40 to 50 are durable
enough to pass the requirements of
continued
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

Table 6

Acid Versus Water Retrievals

Method

Age*

Cl- Level

Cl- Found
per ppm

Ratio of Acid
to Water

Acid

low

2.8

Water

low

2.0

1.4:1

Acid

medium

4.4

Water

medium

3.6

1.22:1

Acid

high

7.2

Water

high

6.4

1.12:1

Acid

50 g

43.5

1.04:1

Water

50 g

42.0

Acid

25 g

18.08

1.19:1

Water

25 g

15.2

Acid

10 g

7.04

1.29:1

Water

10 g

5.44

*A: Newly prepared panel; B: Panel aged for 3 months at 80 percent

relative humidity
Note: Where levels of chloride were deliberately administered, the level is given in units of
g/cm2 of Cl- ion. Three sets of samples were made using solutions of unknown strength.
Low and medium levels were created by stepwise dilution of this solution, 2:1 by volume.

Table 7

Suggested Correction Factors for

Different Retrieval Methods

Method

Retrieval Correction Suggested

Swabbing

multiply value found by 3-4

Magnetic cell retrieval

multiply value by 1.8 to 2

Blister patch cell

multiply value by 1.8 to 2

Acid Retrieval

multiply values from 25 to 50 g by 1.2;

multiply values from 1 to 10 g by 1.4

the draft SSPC specification. Only one

abrasive sample failed the requirement
for conductivity, and all abrasives were
shown to be free of oil.
Characteristics of Work Mix
Several samples of work mix abrasive
were acquired from lead paint removal
34 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

sites in the field. Additional abrasive

samples were procured from an abrasive blasting cabinet used by SSPC to
produce standard steel panels for coating evaluation projects. These cabinet
samples were deliberately contaminated with fines at 3 levels.
The specification required that
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

4 tests be performed on the following

work mixes:
conductivity;
oil content;
non-abrasive residue (non-magnetic
matter and material finer than #100
sieve); and
lead content in accordance with
ASTM D 4834, Test Method for Detection of Lead in Paint by Direct Aspiration Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.
Early in our work, it was decided that
a more suitable lead analysis be used in
place of D 4834. The method used was
based on ASTM D 3335, Test Method
for Low Concentrations of Lead, Cadmium and Cobalt in Paint by Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy. Only preliminary results are presented here. Additional samples are being tested.
Results from deliberately contaminated samples of abrasive are presented in Table 3. Contamination was created by adding different weights of rust
and fines to the recycled abrasive.
These pilot tests were conducted to
familiarize researchers with the handling characteristics of material from
the field that would contain lead and
thus require special safety precautions.
Table 4 shows results from a selected
few field samples. These samples were
retrieved by state transportation officials and recycling equipment manufacturers. They are intended to be the
material from the recycled working
mix. For comparison purposes, 2 sets
of abrasive were tested before and after
recycling to assess the efficiency of the
recycling machinery. They are shown
as samples 5, 6, 7, and 8.
These results will be supplemented
as more samples are received from the
field. One initial interpretation is that
a significant quantity of non-ferrous
material is not needed for high conductivity or high lead levels.
Procedure for Assessing
Non-Ferrous Material
The draft specification requires assessing the percentage of non-magnetic
material in the mix. The CPC staff has
devised a simple method for assessing
non-metallic material.
The procedure uses a common circular magnet with a tall metal handle attached. A cylindrical plastic sheath precontinued
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

March 1994 / 35

Research News
continued

vents the abrasive from attaching to the

magnet. The magnet is inserted into
the cylinder until it hits the bottom.
The abrasive is spread thinly and uniformly over a piece of white cardboard,
and the plastic sheath is put in contact
with the abrasive. The magnet is kept in
close contact with the cylinder while

abrasive attaches to the sheath bottom.

The whole assembly is then placed over
a previously weighed collection vessel.
The magnet is then raised within the
cylinder, causing the abrasive to deposit
in the collection vessel. This method
avoids manually removing metallic particles from the magnet, a practice that

could cause an inspector to inadvertently touch lead dust.

The simplified equipment for determining non-magnetic material is
shown in Fig. 1. A sample vial of the
type found in most laboratory supply
houses was adequate as the plastic
sheathing cylinder.
Remaining Questions
Some issues raised by the tests remain
unresolved. No information has been
developed to link the amount of nonabrasive material in the mix to the
level of respirable lead generated during blasting.
In addition, it will be useful to determine the type of machine from which
work mix samples are obtained. This
information will help researchers assess the role that machine design or
operator process plays in controlling
the cleanliness of recyclable abrasive.
Finally, all results to date have been
generated using samples based on
newly manufactured abrasive. SSPC
will later determine the durability and
other required characteristics of remanufactured metallic abrasives.
continued

Fig. 1
Retrieving magnetic material
from the mix

36 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

Salt Retrieval Techniques

Many research groups have shown the
negative effect of salts on coating performance. Most of this work has focussed on samples of steel treated with
known levels of salt. As a result of this
previous work, advisory levels limiting
the amount of salt on a steel surface
have been suggested.
A primary difficulty in bringing the
results of this work into the real world
had been a lack of adequate methods
for retrieving salts from a contaminated steel surface. During the latter part
of the 1980s, several candidate methods for retrieving salt were suggested.
Earlier work by SSPC on behalf of the
FHWA sought to determine the efficiency of the following methods:1
swabbing retrieval;
retrieval using magnetic limpet
cells; and
retrieval using boiling water, a control method.
In the FHWA project, researchers

38 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

determined that the level of retrieval

depends on 3 factors:
the method used,
the time the salt remained on the
surface, and
the amount of salt deposited on the
surface.
The method with the highest rate of
retrieval was a cell extraction using
deionized water to wash salts from the
surface. The retrieval rate quickly diminished on actively rusting steel
when salt had been present for as little
as 2 weeks.
The easiest materials to retrieve
from the surface were simple anions
such as chloride or sulfate ion.
From the work on soluble salts, researchers concluded that the best retrieval rate on aged, contaminated
steel in the field was between 50 and
60 percent. This degree of retrieval
was obtained using a magnetic limpet
cell with deionized water as the
extracting fluid.

Soluble Salt Specifications

SSPC recently revisited research on
soluble salts for 2 reasons:
SSPC Technical Committee C.2.7,
Soluble Salts, is drafting a guide document on soluble salt detection; and
a draft International Standards Organization standard proposes as a default method a new method of retrieval
based on an adhesive blister patch cell.
The latter reason also compelled
SSPC to investigate the retrieval efficiency using the blister patch with a
protocol identical to that employed
under the FHWA contract. The retrieval efficiency claimed for this
method was very high, i.e., quantitative or total retrieval, in fact. Given
SSPCs experience, such a claim warranted investigation.
Evaluation of Retrieval Techniques
A set of experiments was devised to establish the efficiency of retrieval shown
by the proposed blister patch cell

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

method. In the first of these tests, the

chief factors examined were
degree of original contamination, set
at 50, 25, and 10 g/cm2 of chloride
ion;
condition of panel at time of retrieval, set at the following: new, unaged panel (Condition 1); panel aged
for 10 days at 80 percent relative humidity (Condition 2); and panel aged
10 days, then abrasive blast cleaned to
SSPC-SP 10 (Condition 3); and
type of retrieval method, set at boiling retrieval (Method A) and blister
patch cell (Method B).
Chloride ion was measured using an
ion-specific electrode.
Table 5 summarizes the results of
these tests.
The actual amount of salt that could
be retrieved using these cells was very
high when the panel was newly prepared. Unfortunately, steel recently
contaminated with salt is unlikely to
be encountered in the field, so it was of
interest to see if the high level of retrieval from a doped panel was found
after a period of rusting in a high humidity environment.
The results in Table 5 show that as
with the control method, retrieval
from a rusted panel was much less efficient than with using a blister patch.
In fact, the degree of retrieval at its
lowest is comparable to the rate
achieved using swabbing. At its highest, the retrievable rate is comparable
to the rates of all other cell retrieval
methods that SSPC investigated under
its FHWA-sponsored research project.
Sample leakage from the blister
patch cell was noted on new and rusted panels. Such leakage is a commonly
encountered problem with all cell retrieval techniques.
To allay the concern, researchers ran
a second series of retrieval tests after
first removing the rust layer by blast
cleaning the panels. As shown at the
bottom of Table 5, in the section labeled Age3, the degree of retrieval
shown by the blister patch cell method
was not markedly improved compared
with the control, boiling retrieval.

free of chloride, could help dislodge

chloride ion from the aged, rusted surface and improve retrieval efficiency.
To assess the benefits achieved by
using a mineral acid, researchers set up
a two-phase test for retrieving chloride
ion from contaminated panels at different levels of contamination using ei-

ther an acid extraction fluid, 1.0 molar

nitric acid, or deionized water. Two
types of panel were used, newly prepared panels (Condition A) and panels
aged for 3 months at 80 percent relative humidity (Condition B). Chloride
ion was measured using an ion-specific
continued

Effect of Retrieval Fluid

During discussions about the blister
patch cell, it was suggested that rather
than deionized water, a mineral acid,
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

March 1994 / 39

Research News
continued

electrode or a titration method. Table 6

shows the results of the test.
It is quite clear that for new and
aged panels, an acidic extraction fluid
is preferred, especially at low ranges of
chloride ion surface concentration.
This information will help improve the
methods for cell retrieval described in
the draft SSPC standard.
This phase of the test program
also confirmed that for newly contaminated surfaces, very high retrieval
rates can be expected. Unfortunately,
no inspector is likely to come across
a newly contaminated surface except
when using abrasives contaminated
with soluble salt. Thus, in calculating
actual surface contamination, SSPC
will continue to recommend correction factors (Table 7) appropriate
for the individual retrieval method.
Coating performance will be affected
by the total amount of chloride on
a surface, not by the amount of chloride retrieved.

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Further Research in the Industry

The portion of this work concerning
abrasive cleanliness has already resulted in changes being made to draft
SSPC specifications. Analyses for lead
were performed by technicians at the
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research Center (UPARC). Abrasive samples were first weighed, then ashed, before digestion with nitric acid and
assaying for lead in accordance with
ASTM Test Method D 3335 using
atomic absorption spectroscopy.
The reader is alerted that this analysis, which adheres to classical chemical methods, does not match any of the
industry standard methods currently
used to measure or assay lead in either
waste or the work place. An FHWAsponsored study conducted by an independent, private laboratory is examining the ruggedness of many such
methods. Variables to be examined in
the FHWA study include:
analytical technique, e.g., atomic ab-

sorption spectroscopy or inductively

coupled plasma spectroscopy;
method of analysis, e.g., NIOSH7082, EPA-3050;
method of sample pretreatment, e.g.,
raw sample or pre-ashed sample;
type of lead waste; and
type of abrasive.
Editors Note: A report on this study is
anticipated this year.
Acknowledgements
The following organizations and individuals are thanked for their generous
support of these programs and their
technical input.
Analysis of Abrasive Performance:
Chesapeake Specialty Products
(William Hitzrot), Ervin Industries
(George Rader), U.S. Metals, Corcon,
UPARC, and the Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan DOTs.
Salt Retrieval Methods: The FHWA,
continued

March 1994 / 43

Research News
continued

KTA-Tator, Inc. (Ken Tator and

William Johnson), and CGS Corrosion
Services (Gerald Soltz).
References
1. B.R. Appleman, S.K. Boocock, G. Soltz, and
R.E.F. Weaver, The Effect of Surface Contaminants on Coating Life, SSPC Publication 9107, sponsored by the Federal Highway Admin-

istration under Contract DTFH61-C-00027,

SSPC, Pittsburgh, PA, 1991.

NSRP Research on Ship

Maintenance Continues
Surface Preparation and Coatings
Panel SP-3, a technical panel of the

National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), continues its progress

on research involving the maintenance
and coating of ships. NSRP falls under
the auspices of the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers
(SNAME) and is administered by the
U.S. Navy through the Naval Surface
Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock Division in Bethesda, MD.
Current Projects
Work continues on the following projects, according to John Meacham (Peterson Builders, Inc.; Sturgeon Bay,
WI), Program Manager for Panel SP-3.
On Surface-Tolerant Coatings
Coatings Applied on Less than Ideal
Surfaces, a project funded in 1990,
will continue until August 1995.
An interim report on the project was
published in the February 1994 JPCL
(Surface-Tolerant Coatings for Marine
Service, Benjamin S. Fultz and John
W. Peart, pp. 29-37).
Repairing and Coating Ballast Tanks
Twenty percent of the work on New
Surface Preparation and Coating Repair Techniques in Ballast Tanks (FY93) was reported to have been complete at the Panel SP-3 meeting in
Portland, ME, in October 1993. The
purpose of the project is to determine
which surface-tolerant coating systems
can significantly reduce the cost of
maintaining ship ballast tanks. April
1996 is the estimated completion date
for the work.
Project Creates Publication on
Surface Preparation and Coating
At press time, the Surface Preparation
and Coating Handbook was to have
been completed in March 1994. Funded in fiscal year (FY) 1991, the project
is intended to create a reference document for surface preparation and coating operations in U.S. shipyards.
Qualification for Painters Studied
NSRP will redirect the focus of the
Painter Contractor Qualification Program (FY-90), pending permission
from the Navy. The original project
was based on SSPCs Painting Contractor Certification Program (PCCP). Becontinued

44 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

cause shipyards provide their own contracting services, the PCCP model did
not fit their needs, reported Simon
Boocock of SSPC at the October 1993
meeting. Thus, the program will turn
its focus to an internal, self-auditing
quality program. SSPC, the contractor
for the project, has supplied a new
title, scope of work, and technical approach, says Meacham.
Completed Projects
Work on several projects has resulted
in the publication of final reports.
Two final reports were published in
August 1993, entitled Solvent Recycling for Shipyards (FY 90) and Purchasing Agents Guide for Buying
Paints and Coatings (FY 90). The former report assesses the requirements
for implementing solvent reclamation
programs at shipyards with the goal of
reducing costs associated with hazardous waste. The latter report is a
handbook that helps purchasing

46 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

agents better understand the factors

affecting the cost of coatings.
Another project is Bid Estimating
Transfer Study, The Economics of
Shipyard Painting Program (FY 90).
The aim of the project is to use the
technologies developed in earlier phases of the project at 3 shipyards.
The final report for Transfer Efficiency Requirements, funded in FY
1989, is scheduled for publication in
the spring of 1994. The project studied
the development of standards on transfer efficiency for different methods of
application to various substrates.
Three projects funded by the U.S.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
have reached publication. Tank Blasting Using Recoverable Steel Grit was
published in July 1993. Standard Certification and Testing of Weld-Thru
Primers (FY-84) was to be published
this month, according to Pamela
Roach, NSRP Program Coordinator.
Another final report, Power Tool

Cleaning: An Alternative for Abrasive

Blasting (FY 87), will be published in
April 1994, she says.
Future Projects
Numerous projects have been approved by the Executive Control Board
and are now awaiting funding, says
Meacham. The projects and their objectives appear below.
Reclamation, Disposal & Recycling
in Shipyards (FY 92) will define
the best methods for efficient and effective control of reclamation and
disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous material in the areas of container recycling, bulk containers, secondary containment, storage shelters,
and transportation.
Performance & Environmental Acceptability of Surface Preparation
Cleaners (FY 93) will determine the
environmental acceptability and health
and safety requirements of surface
preparation cleaners for shipyard use.

Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

Research News
continued

Corrosion control benefits provided by

the cleaners will also be studied.
Reduced Volume of Spent Abrasive
in Open Air Blasting (FY 93) has the
goal of reducing the amount of spent
blast cleaning abrasive by at least 15
percent using available technology
such as pre-cleaning, improved abrasive metering, controlled nozzle pressures, and quality abrasives.
Methods To Control Hazardous AirBorne Dust (FY 94) will develop
methods of maintaining employee exposure to hazardous air-borne dust
below the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration permissible exposure limits by means of engineering
controls such as ventilation, tool design, and production process changes.
Abrasive Recycling/Containment
Systems for Shipyard Applications (FY
94) will design a flexible abrasive containment system that will permit the
use of recyclable abrasives and prevent
air and water pollution. The system
will incorporate abrasive recycling to
allow the use of recyclable abrasives to
minimize waste.
Compliant Paint Handling and Application Options (FY 94) will provide
an engineering tool to evaluate options
in paint handling and application efficiency by utilizing and improving the
latest equipment technology under actual shipyard production conditions.
Tank Blasting with Recoverable
Steel Grit, Phase III (FY 94) will identify the optimum surface preparation
technique that meets shipyard productivity and environmental requirements. A blast cleaning test facility will
be designed to demonstrate how shipyards can comply with federal, state,
and local air and water quality and
waste disposal requirements.
Proposed Projects for FY 95
According to Meacham, Panel SP-3
was to determine FY 95 projects at its
February 21-22 meeting in Houston,
TX. All projects being considered must
have a shipyard sponsor.
The next meeting of Panel SP-3 is
tentatively scheduled for the week of
May 15, 1994, in New Orleans, LA. For
information about the meeting, call
Meacham at 414/743-5574 (ext. 281) or
Kay Freeman, chair of the panel, at
601/935-3919.
Copyright 1994, Technology Publishing Company

March 1994 / 47