Page | 1

Table of Contents
“Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Abrasive
Media” written by Chad Quatman. This article discusses
media selection based on type, size, and shape. 3
“The Importance of Monitoring Abrasive Cleanliness” written
by John Todd. Oil, salt, or rust contamination on an abrasive
may be transferred to the surface during blast cleaning 9
operations and adversely affect long term coating
performance.

“OSHA’s Final Rule on Beryllium: Key Provisions and

Proposed Modifications Affecting the Abrasive Blast
Cleaning Industry” written by Leah Tipton. Abrasive material
and the surface being blasted may contain toxic materials at
levels which are hazardous to workers. Recent regulatory 13
changes issued by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) include regulations to protect workers
from exposure to respirable crystalline silica and beryllium.

“Respirable Crystalline Silica Exposures in the Coatings

Industry” written by Christopher Peightal. This article
discusses the OSHA action level and Permissible Exposure 18
Limit for crystalline silica exposure.

“Performance of Abrasive Media” by Carly McGee. This

section discusses testing abrasives for practical physical
properties such as efficiency, cutting speed, and recyclability. 23

Page | 2
Abrasive blasting is used to prepare a surface for coating by removing rust, mill
scale, or paint and to provide a profile to improve bonding. It sounds simple
enough, however selecting the correct abrasive is a complicated task. Abrasive
media are evaluated for relevant physical attributes for a number of reasons: to
determine if the media meets specification requirements, to determine if it is
detrimental to the health of the user or the environment, and to compare
performance such as productivity and consumption.

________________________________________________________________

“Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Abrasive

Media”
Abrasive blast cleaning is the process by which an abrasive media is propelled
through hoses and a blast nozzle by means of compressed air. The abrasive exits
the nozzle at a high rate of speed (velocities approaching 650 – 1,700 feet per
second) and as it impacts the surface removes existing materials and imparts a
roughness (surface profile). The abrasive used varies based on the surface
treatment required. Performance characteristics and evaluations are very
important when determining which abrasive media to select for a specific project.
Abrasive media is available in different shapes
and sizes. The size and shape as well as the force
with which the abrasive is propelled to the
surface are key factors in determining surface
roughness characteristics. Most industrial
coating systems require an anchor profile on the
surface or substrate for adhesion. Coating
thickness and severity of the service environment will dictate the required surface
profile depth, which helps determine the size of abrasive to use. When choosing
an abrasive size, it is important to remember that either too deep of an anchor
profile or too shallow of an anchor profile may result in coating performance
issues and/or failure.

Page | 3
Types of Abrasives
Various abrasive types offer different advantages depending on the intended use.
It is important to understand the differences and to select the appropriate media
for the job. Table 1 lists the different types of abrasive media, ideal uses, and
certain characteristics. Abrasives used for blast cleaning are generally divided into
two categories: expendable and recyclable. Expendable abrasives are highly
friable and breakdown at a relatively high rate, making them too small (and too
dusty) to reuse; while recyclable abrasives can be used multiple times, since their
inherent friability is low.

Media selection is a critical decision in the development of abrasive blast cleaning

processes. The different media types have a different hardness, shape, and
density, and most are available in a wide range of particle sizes. It is
recommended to prepare a project-specific standard to verify that the cleaning
rate and surface roughness characteristics can be achieved with the selected

Page | 4
media, based on the equipment type and operating parameters, prior to
production work.

Traditionally blast cleaning has been considered a “low

tech” process, generically called sand blasting. Today
however, abrasive blast cleaning is a vital process used
not only to remove rust, but to prepare surfaces for
high performance coatings or to treat final products to
give them the luster and surface texture desired by a
consumer.

Standards used to Evaluate Abrasive Media

The abrasive industry is reasonably competitive. Many projects set forth specific
abrasive requirements to be met prior to approval (prequalification testing).
Abrasive media are often specified by DOTs, facility owners, or military. Abrasives
used on bridges or industrial structures such as tanks often require qualification
according to one of five standards:

SSPC-AB 1: Mineral and Slag Abrasives

SSPC-AB 2: Cleanliness of Recycled Ferrous Metallic Abrasive
SSPC-AB 3: Ferrous Metallic Abrasive
SSPC-AB 4: Recyclable Encapsulated Abrasive Media
MIL-A-22262B: Military Specification: Ship Hull Abrasive Blasting

Standard tests are listed in each; the abrasive material must meet the minimum
requirements for each test to be included on an approved products list. These
standards include tests such as specific gravity, hardness, water-soluble
contaminants (conductivity), weight change on ignition, oil content, crystalline
silica content, surface profile (yield), particle size distribution (sieve analysis),
soluble and total metals content, friability, radioactivity, size, shape, and
durability. Additional performance tests are non-mandatory unless invoked by the
procurement documents. Health and safety regulations dictate that all abrasive
materials be tested for toxic/hazardous materials that may adversely impact
worker health and/or the environment.

Page | 5
Note that SSPC-AB2, Cleanliness of Recycled Ferrous Metallic Abrasive, is a
standard for “in-process” abrasive cleanliness and does not contain performance
test requirements; therefore, it is not a “qualification-based” document.

Effect of Abrasive on Surface Characteristics

Coating performance is often predicated on the quality of the preparation of the

underlying surface. And surface preparation is typically regarded as the most
expensive step in the corrosion control process. Abrasive selection remains a key
factor. Choosing an abrasive that cleans effectively, imparts a surface profile that
is compatible with the thickness of the coating system, and cleans/roughens
efficiently to minimize abrasive volume will not only achieve quality but improve
profitability.

More specifically, a fine abrasive will yield more impacts per volume. The more
particles in the stream, the more work is accomplished in the same amount of
time. When roughening concrete or wood, a hard, expensive abrasive, or a coarse
particle is unnecessary; crushed glass or agricultural abrasives are good choices
for work on relatively soft surfaces. However, when preparing steel for a
protective coating system, there are additional considerations. Many coatings
adhere poorly to hard, flat surfaces, so the abrasive needs to generate a pattern
of indentations that the coating can anchor to (a.k.a. anchor pattern or surface
profile).

Page | 6
An 80-mesh garnet particle
leaves up to 3.6 mil depth
profile in steel.
1. 177 microns = 7 mils
2. Peak
3. 76.2 microns = 3 mils
4. Valley

When a sufficiently hard

abrasive particle strikes steel, it
deforms the surface into
a valley and pushes
up peaks. The distance between
the top of the peak and the
bottom of the valley is known
as the surface profile depth. In the U.S., the profile is measured by mils –
thousandths of an inch; for the metric system, the micron (one millionth of a
meter) is used. For reference, 1 mil is equal to 25.4 microns.

For optimal adhesion, the applied coating should completely fill the valleys and
cover the peaks. The deeper the profile, the more anchoring occurs. However, if
the surface profile is too deep, the peaks can protrude beyond the surface of the
coating, causing pinpoint rust. In some cases, the contractor may be required to
go back over the area with a finer abrasive to reduce the surface to specified
profile depth – a costly mistake. The surface profile range is typically established
by the coating manufacturer depending on the total coating system thickness and
service environment. This range often becomes part of the coating specification.

Abrasive Properties that Contribute to Surface Profile Depth

There are four properties of an abrasive that contribute to surface profile
depth: size, shape, hardness, and density. Shape also contributes to peak density.

SIZE -The bigger the particle, the deeper indentation it will make, but blast
cleaning with large particles will yield fewer impacts than an equal volume of
smaller particles. Small particles clean faster, provide better coverage, and result
in a more uniform profile; however, if the abrasive is too small the resulting

Page | 7
surface profile will be too shallow. The most efficient approach is to use the
smallest particle necessary to achieve the desired surface profile. Particle sizes are
commonly classified by mesh sizes, often given as a range, for example: 30/60.
This indicates that 95% of the mix will fall through a 30 mesh but not pass through
the 60.

SHAPE – The shape of the abrasive effects how deeply it cuts into the coating and
underlying substrate. Shapes are classified according to angularity. Angular
particles cut through soft coatings and rust, cleaning faster, and producing
sharper anchor patterns. Rounded particles produce a more even, peened
surface, good for breaking away hard, brittle coatings and mill scale. Sub-rounded
and rounded particles generate comparatively fewer peaks than the angular and
sub-angular abrasives. Peak density is an important consideration for thermal
spray coatings (metalizing) but less significant for liquid-applied coatings.

HARDNESS – Hardness
determines whether an
abrasive particle can etch or
provide an anchor pattern on
a particular-type of substrate.
Surface profile is not only
based on the hardness of the
abrasive but also the hardness of the substrate (i.e., think aluminum versus steel).
The hardness of an abrasive is frequently communicated according to the Mohs’
hardness scale. The scale ranges from 1 to 10, with 1 being the softest (talc) and
10 being the hardest (diamond). Most abrasives that effectively produce an
anchor pattern in mild carbon steel have a Mohs’ hardness of at least 6.0.

DENSITY – The density or specific gravity of an abrasive affects the cleaning rate
and anchor profile produced into the substrate. Density is measured in pounds
per cubic foot. Specific gravity is measured by the density of the particle-relative
to the density of water. An abrasive with a high specific gravity is heavier. When
propelled at the same pressure, a heavier abrasive achieves a deeper anchor
pattern than that from a lighter one. Abrasives with a high specific gravity tend to
be less dusty. Those with a low specific gravity impact the substrate with less
force and are used for light cleaning, polishing, and deburring.

Page | 8
Other Considerations

Other considerations that can affect productivity include cleaning rate (square
feet/minute), consumption rate (pounds/square foot) and dust generation.

Conclusion

A key factor in determining the long-term performance of a protective coating

system is the quality of surface preparation. The two-fold purpose of surface
preparation (when abrasive blast cleaning is specified) is to both clean and
roughen the surface. The abrasive selected must be able to accomplish both
simultaneously, yet these surface characteristics are mutually exclusive. Selecting
the correct abrasive is paramount to achieving both. Conducting performance
testing of an abrasive to ascertain its inherent cleaning and roughening
characteristics can benefit the facility owner, abrasive manufacturer, and
contractor.
________________________________________________________________

“The Importance of Monitoring Abrasive Cleanliness”

There are many factors that impact quality and productivity during abrasive blast
cleaning operations, but the abrasive quality is critical for long-term performance
of the applied coating system. The degree of embedment from abrasive blast
cleaning operations can vary widely even within a generic category of abrasive.
Abrasive embedment is inevitable and is not normally detrimental, but if the
abrasive is contaminated, so is the embedment.

Oil transferred to the substrate can cause film defects (e.g., fish eyes) and
potentially affect adhesion of the primer. Water soluble salts transferred to the
surface can cause accelerated rust back, osmotic blistering, under-film corrosion,
and premature coating failure. Without routine monitoring of abrasive
cleanliness, these contaminants could go unnoticed.

What if the Project Specification Doesn’t Address Abrasive

Cleanliness?
Page | 9
Project specifications may not specifically address abrasive cleanliness. However,
many will invoke one of more of the SSPC abrasive blast cleaning standards (e.g.,
SSPC-SP 10 Near-white Metal Blast Cleaning; SSPC-SP 6 Commercial Blast
Cleaning, etc.). The abrasive blast cleaning standards are composed of both direct
and indirect requirements. The “direct” requirement is the degree of cleaning; for
example, SSPC-SP 10 permits a maximum of 5% staining. There are several
indirect requirements, including:

▪ Removal of grease/oil contamination prior to blast cleaning, per SSPC-SP 1

▪ Compressed air cleanliness tested in accordance with ASTM D4285
▪ Abrasive cleanliness, per the SSPC Abrasive (AB) Standards

An excerpt from one of the SSPC abrasive blast cleaning standards addressing
abrasive cleanliness is shown below:

So even if the project specification does not specifically address abrasive

cleanliness, it is automatically invoked when an SSPC abrasive blast cleaning
standard is specified. That is, abrasive cleanliness is an indirect requirement.

How can I tell if the abrasive is contaminated?

Abrasive manufacturers may have performed laboratory analysis of the product,

but this does not satisfy the requirements of SSPC abrasive standards. More
importantly, it does not reveal the current condition of the abrasive. Transporting,
storing, and recycling of the media can affect the cleanliness of the abrasive. The
two tests that are used to verify abrasive cleanliness are oil content and water
soluble salt content. The contractor’s quality control inspector typically performs
these tests.

Page | 10
Oil contamination is determined in accordance with
ASTM D7393, Standard Practice for Indicating Oil in
Abrasives. This field test, commonly known as the
vial test, requires that a sample of abrasive be
placed in a clean, sealable container. Tap water is
added to the container so that it is approximately 1
inch above the abrasive. The container is shaken for
about 1 minute and allowed to stand up to 5
minutes. The surface of the water is then visually
examined for any oil droplets or sheen. If oil is
visually evident, the abrasive fails the test. This test
should be conducted at least once per shift (during
blast cleaning operations) and at least 3 tests per
shipment of bulk delivery. This test also reveals
whether the abrasive is excessively dirty. If dust
settles on the surface or water remains cloudy, the overall cleanliness of the
abrasive should be questioned as this could cause impede production.

Water soluble contaminants are the non-visible soluble salts that may be present
on an abrasive. The abrasive is tested in accordance with ASTM D4940, Standard
Test Method for Conductimetric Analysis of Water Soluble Ionic Contamination of
Blast Cleaning Abrasives. According to the SSPC AB standards the conductivity of
the abrasive cannot exceed 1,000 µS/cm (micro-siemens/cm).

This field test takes equal parts abrasive

and deionized water (300 mL of each) that
are combined and are twice stirred for 1-
minute (with an 8-minute standing time
between stirs) to leach any soluble salts
from the abrasive. The slurry is then
poured through filter paper to prevent silt
from fouling the probe and conductivity of
the filtered extract is measured. It is
important that the conductivity meter compensate for temperature and that the
probe is verified for accuracy using a controlled solution with a known
conductivity value prior to use.

Page | 11
Which abrasive cleanliness standard should be used?
Of the four SSPC abrasive standards, each standard has different requirements
based on the type of media but are identical when it comes to the quality control
tests for oil content and water-soluble contaminants. SSPC-AB 2 requires
additional field and laboratory tests for cleanliness to help ensure the abrasive
recycling equipment is functioning properly and that the abrasive operating mix is
still adequately sized. SSPC-AB 4 requires more frequent testing including at least
three water-soluble contaminants tests at different times during an 8-hour
period.

Page | 12
“OSHA’s Final Rule on Beryllium: Key Provisions and
Proposed Modifications Affecting the Abrasive Blast
Cleaning Industry”
Introduction
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies beryllium and
beryllium compounds as carcinogenic to humans, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) classifies inhaled beryllium as a possible
carcinogen. Despite its toxicity, beryllium is an important material in the
aerospace, electronics, energy, telecommunication, energy, medical and defense
industries due to its physical properties, such as its strength-to-weight ratio. In
the construction (and maritime) industries, worker exposure to respirable
beryllium primarily occurs when slags that contain trace amounts of beryllium
(<0.1 percent weight) are used for abrasive blast cleaning. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates approximately 11,500
construction and shipyard workers who may conduct abrasive blast cleaning with
slags may be exposed to trace amounts of beryllium. Abrasive blast cleaning
typically produces a large amount of dust, some of which may contain small
(respirable) beryllium particles. Inhaling beryllium may lead to beryllium
sensitization which ultimately puts an individual at risk for developing varying
diseases affecting the lungs, including chronic beryllium disease (CBD), acute
beryllium disease, and lung cancer.

Occupational Exposure to Beryllium; Final Rule (29 CFR Parts

1910, 1915 and 1926)

Page | 13
According to OSHA, despite the known
health dangers related to beryllium
exposure, the permissible exposure limit
(PEL) remained outdated and ineffective
for preventing beryllium-related
diseases for decades. After years of
science supporting the need for an
updated beryllium standard, on January
9th, 2017, OSHA issued a final rule that
established greater protection for
workers exposed to beryllium in general
industry (1910.1024), construction (1926.1124) and shipyards (1915.1024).

The rule applies when materials being used contain greater than 0.1 percent
beryllium by weight. Employers using materials with a lesser beryllium content
are exempt only where the employer has objective data demonstrating that
employee exposure to airborne beryllium will remain below the action level under
any foreseeable conditions. Employers can use objective data, based on industry-
wide surveys or calculations based on the beryllium content in dust, that
represent typical exposures during the employers’ operations, to determine if
they are covered under the standard. The data must reflect workplace conditions
closely resembling or with a higher airborne exposure potential than the
processes, types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental
conditions in the employer’s current operations.

Key Provisions in the Beryllium Standard

There are seven key provisions in the standard:

▪ The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for beryllium was reduced to 0.2
microgram per cubic meter of air, averaged over 8-hours.
▪ The action level for beryllium was reduced to 0.1 microgram per cubic meter
of air, averaged over 8-hours.
▪ It established a new short-term exposure limit (STEL) for beryllium of 2.0
micrograms per cubic meter of air, over a 15-minute sampling period.
▪ It requires employers to use engineering and work practice controls (such as
ventilation or enclosure); limit worker access to high-exposure areas;

Page | 14
 provide respiratory protection where exposures are, or can be reasonably be
expected to be, at or above the action level.
▪ The standard requires provisions for respiratory protection and
implementation of a written exposure control plan whenever employees
are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at
levels above the TWA PEL or STEL.
▪ The employer must train each employee on beryllium hazards who has, or
can reasonably be expected to have, airborne exposure to or dermal contact
with beryllium.
▪ It requires employers to make medical surveillance available at no cost to
the employee to monitor exposed workers identified with a beryllium-
related disease or who are reasonably expected to be exposed at or above
the action level for more than 30 days per year.
All three standards took effect May 20, 2017 but employers have until March 12,
2018 to comply with most provisions of the rule.

Proposed Modifications to the Beryllium Rule:

On June 23, 2017, OSHA announced its proposal to revoke certain provisions of
the beryllium rule in the construction and maritime industries. However, the
standard would maintain the requirements for exposure limits. OSHA estimates
that revoking the provisions below (while retaining the lower PEL and STEL for
construction and shipyards) would yield a total annualized cost savings of $10.2
million across these industries.

The following provisions are subject to revocation:

▪ Exposure assessment
▪ Methods for controlling exposure
▪ Respiratory protection equipment
▪ Personal protective equipment and exposure
▪ Medical surveillance
▪ Hazard communication
▪ Housekeeping

The proposed modifications come supported by evidence that beryllium exposure

in the construction and maritime industries primarily results from abrasive blast
cleaning and welding (specifically in maritime). Therefore, the proposed changes
Page | 15
stem from the fact that there are regulations currently in place to address
particulate exposure, similar to beryllium, in these operations. The abrasive blast
cleaning industry is subject to additional OSHA rules requiring engineering and
administrative controls, personal protective equipment and employee training,
including:

▪ Ventilation standard in construction (1926.57)

▪ Ventilation standard in general industry for exhaust ventilation and
housekeeping (1910.94(a)(4), (a)(7))
▪ Respiratory protection standard in general industry (1910.134)
▪ Hazard communication standard in general industry (1910.1200)

That is, would workers in construction and maritime workplaces be adequately

protected by already-existing health and safety regulations if the above provisions
in the beryllium standard were revoked?

Implications of the Revocation of Certain Provisions

Under the new beryllium standards, the employer is required to assess the
exposure of each employee who is, or who is reasonably expected to be above
the action level for beryllium. Aligning with the exposure assessment provision is
a requirement for medical surveillance. The medical surveillance provision in the
new rule includes a requirement for an employer to provide beryllium exposure-
related medical surveillance to employees who meet certain criteria, including
exposure above the action level of 0.1 microgram per cubic meter for 30 days a
year or more, or showing symptoms of a beryllium-related disease. Employers’
costs would be saved under these revocations, but worker exposure levels to
beryllium would be unknown. Although exposure assessments and medical
surveillance is required under separate OSHA standards, air monitoring and
medical exams in these standards would not monitor for beryllium exposure.

Abrasive Blast Cleaning Industry Response

Page | 16
Industry organizations such as
the Abrasive Blasting
Manufacturers Alliance
criticized the “overreaching”
beryllium standard and
applauded the proposal to
revoke the ancillary provisions
of the construction and
maritime industries. The
Alliance, which represents
manufacturers of coal slag,
argues there is an important
distinction between beryllium alloy and the mineral form of beryllium, which is
found in trace amounts in abrasive. While the Alliance agrees beryllium alloys
and other processed forms of beryllium have been found to lead to illness, they
argue, that the Alliance is “not aware of a single documented case of beryllium
sensitization or beryllium-related illness associated with coal or copper slag
abrasive production among their employees, or their customers’ employees
working with the products of Alliance members” (82 FR 29182). However,
without a medical surveillance program in place OSHA states that such reports are
not compelling evidence.

The Alliance also stresses the beryllium rule not only affects slag abrasive
manufacturers but the entire abrasive industry. According to the Alliance all blast
cleaning media and blast cleaned surfaces can contain trace amounts of
beryllium. Therefore, due to the dramatic reduction in the beryllium PEL and
action level, all blasters would need to comply with the regulations regardless of
abrasive media.

Request for Comment

OSHA requested further comment on “whether existing standards covering

abrasive blast cleaning in construction, abrasive blast cleaning in shipyards, and
welding in shipyards provide adequate protection for workers engaged in these
operations.”

Page | 17
Specifically, the agency was looking for “responses, supported by evidence and
reason, to the following questions:”

▪ Would workers in construction and maritime workplaces be adequately

protected by already-existing health and safety regulations if the ancillary
provisions of the new beryllium rule are revoked?
▪ Should OSHA keep any of the provisions it has proposed to eliminate for the
construction and maritime industries?
▪ What is the incremental benefit if OSHA keeps the medical surveillance
requirements for these industries, but eliminates all other ancillary
provisions?
▪ Should OSHA keep some of the medical surveillance provisions, and if so,
which are most appropriate?

The request for comment period ended on August 28, 2017. Until a final decision
is made on the proposal to revoke ancillary provisions of the construction and
shipyards beryllium standards, the status of these two standards will remain in
limbo.
__________________________________________________________________

“Respirable Crystalline Silica Exposures in the Coatings

Industry”

Introduction

Occupational exposure to respirable

crystalline silica in the coatings industry may
occur during, or while working alongside
dust-producing operations involving a
concrete substrate, while using sand as an
abrasive (silica may be present in the
abrasive), or as a component of the coating
(silica may be an extender used in coatings).
Operations using sand or products containing
silica can result in worker inhalation of small (respirable) crystalline silica particles
that become airborne.
Page | 18
Possible Health effects from silica exposures include:
▪ Silicosis, a disabling, non-reversible and sometimes fatal lung disease;
▪ Other non-malignant respiratory diseases, such as chronic bronchitis;
▪ Lung cancer;
▪ Kidney disease, including nephritis and end-stage renal disease; and
▪ Auto-immune disorders and cardiovascular disease.

OSHA Action Level and Permissible Exposure Limit

Each employer is responsible for ensuring that no employee is exposed to
respirable crystalline silica above OSHA’s permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of air averaged over an 8-hour work shift
(time-weighted average, or TWA). OSHA has defined the Action Level for
respirable crystalline silica at 25 µg/m3 of air TWA. Once employee exposure
reaches the Action Level the employer is required to implement engineering
controls, administrative controls, then personal protective equipment in order to
comply with the OSHA’s Respirable Crystalline Silica Regulations.

Page | 19
What do I need to do to comply with OSHA?
Compliance with OSHA’s Respirable Crystalline Silica regulations includes
development of a
written exposure
control program,
personal air
monitoring within
the worker’s
breathing zone,
medical evaluations,
and training.
The written
exposure control
program must
contain at least the
following
information:

▪ A description of
the tasks in the
workplace that
involve
exposure to
respirable
crystalline
silica;
▪ A statement
that the
employer fully and properly implements the engineering controls, work
practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1A or;
▪ A description of the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory
protection that will be used to limit employee exposure to respirable
crystalline silica for each task;
▪ A description of the housekeeping measures used to limit employee
exposure to respirable crystalline silica; and

Page | 20
 ▪ A description of the procedures used to restrict access to work areas, when
necessary, to minimize the number of employees exposed to respirable
crystalline silica and their level of exposure, including exposures generated by
other employers or sole proprietors.

The employer is required to review and evaluate the exposure control plan at
least annually and update it as necessary. The written exposure control plan must
be readily available for examination and copying upon request, to each employee,
their designated representatives, and OSHA. A designated competent person is
required to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, and to implement
the written exposure control plan.

Air monitoring

An assessment of the exposure level of employees who may reasonably be

expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the Action Level
is required to be performed in accordance with either performance options or
scheduled monitoring. Performance monitoring consists of assessing the 8-hour
TWA exposure for each employee based on any combination of air monitoring
data or objective data sufficient to accurately characterize the employee
exposures to respirable crystalline silica.
The scheduled monitoring option requires the employer to perform initial
monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee based on one
or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of
employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area. Where
several employees perform the same tasks on the same shift and in the same
work area, the employer may sample representative employees to meet this
requirement.

If representative sampling is employed, the employer must sample the

employee(s) who are expected to have the highest exposure to respirable
crystalline silica. When initial monitoring indicates that employee exposures are
below the action level, monitoring for those employees may be
discontinued. When the most recent exposure monitoring indicates an employee
exposure at or above the Action Level, and below the PEL monitoring for that
employee must be repeated within six months. When the most recent
monitoring indicates that employee exposure is above the PEL, monitoring for
Page | 21
that employee must be repeated within three months. Where a follow up (non-
initial) exposure monitoring indicates that the employee exposure is below the
Action Level, the employer shall repeat such monitoring within six months of the
most recent monitoring until two consecutive measurements, taken seven or
more days apart, are below the Action Level, at which time monitoring may be
discontinued for those employees.

Whenever a change in production, process, control equipment, personnel, or

work practices may reasonably be expected to result in new or additional
exposures at or above the action level, or when there is reason to believe that
new or additional exposures at or above the action level have occurred employee
exposures are required to be reassessed. Samples for respirable crystalline silica
are required to be evaluated by a laboratory that is accredited to ANSI/ISO/IEC
Standard 17025:2005.

Medical Surveillance

Medical surveillance is to be provided to employees exposed to respirable

crystalline silica at or above the action level of 25 µg/m3 at no cost to the
employee, and at a reasonable time and place. An initial (baseline) medical
examination must be conducted within 30 days after the initial assignment, unless
the employee has received a medical examination within the last three years.
Medical exams must include:

▪ Medical and work history emphasizing past, present and anticipated

exposures to respirable crystalline silica, or other respiratory system
affecting agents.
▪ History of respiratory system dysfunction or disease
▪ Physical exam that focuses on the respiratory system
▪ A chest X-ray
▪ Latent Tuberculosis infection testing
▪ Pulmonary function test
▪ Medical evaluation for respiratory protection in accordance with the
employers Respiratory Protection Program.

Page | 22
All medical evaluations are to be perform by a Physician or a Licensed Health Care
Provider (PLHCP), with results provided to the employee and employer within 30
days of the medical examination.

Training

Each employee exposed to respirable crystalline silica is required to be trained

prior to an initial assignment, and when there is a change in the process. The
training should include:

▪ Health hazards associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica;

▪ The tasks with potential exposure to respirable crystalline silica;
▪ The engineering controls, work practices, and respirators to be used;
▪ Content of the companies Respirable Crystalline Silica Policy;
▪ Information pertaining to Silicosis;
▪ Identity of the competent person; and
▪ Purpose and description of the employer’s medical surveillance program

__________________________________________________________________

“Performance of Abrasive Media”

Perhaps just as fundamentally important as specification or OSHA compliance are
efficiency and effectiveness of an abrasive. If the media is not economical or
generates a large amount of dust, it may not be a practical option. Testing can be
performed to compare the cleaning rates of media (calculated as square feet per
minute), whether being used to remove mill scale, existing coatings, or rust. Steel
plates prepared to replicate the specific structure conditions can be specially
prepared. Alternatively, if the intent is to measure the cleaning rate of an abrasive
on new construction, plates bearing tightly-adhered mill scale should be used.
Simultaneously, the consumption rate of the material (in pounds per square foot)
can be evaluated to generate material and labor cost data. Following the cleaning
and consumption rate trials, the blasted plates can be analyzed for additional data
such as embedment of the media and surface profile generation if desired. Direct
comparison of materials under identical circumstances is recommended for an
accurate analysis.

Page | 23
Efficiency of a material can also be affected by its friability, or breakdown rate.
The percentage reduction in size is a key factor in determining how recyclable a
material is. The particle size of the media can be analyzed following impingement
at a specified pressure and distance in a specially-designed, contained chamber
and compared to the original size. The change in size (calculated as percentage of
change) is called the Breakdown Rate. Similarly, the dust generation can be
determined in the same manner, either by collecting the dust which would
otherwise be removed by a dust collection system in a cloth bag, or by complete
containment of the spent abrasive in the collection chamber. The breakdown rate
and subsequent dust generation of materials not only affect material costs, but
indirect costs as well. Visibility, equipment wear, and filter replacement are just a
few of the indirect effects of dust generated by a friable media. Up-front
comparison testing can save not only material and labor costs, but these
inadvertent expenses as well.
The benefits of testing of abrasive media reach far beyond specification
compliance. Whether your intention is to protect worker safety or generate
marketing data, the complexity and intricacies of the physical properties and
effectiveness of an abrasive blasting media can not be overstated.

Page | 24
 About KTA’s Paint and Coatings Laboratory
KTA’s coatings laboratory provides paint,
corrosion and material testing services including
paint failure investigations, compositional
analysis, accelerated weathering, cyclic corrosion
testing, abrasive performance, and other physical
testing. Conducted by scientists and chemists, these comprehensive services
provide clients with independent, accurate analyses of coating problems, and
advance the industry’s understanding of the performance characteristics of
protective coatings and abrasive media. Accredited by the American Association
for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 (Testing
Cert. #2455.01), KTA’s Coating Laboratory is the premier provider of forensic
evaluations, a veritable ‘CSI’ of coating system failure investigations.

KTA’s analytical laboratory draws upon an array of sophisticated instrumentation

including a scanning electron microscope (SEM/EDS), ion chromatograph (IC),
high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC), gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer (GC-MS), Fourier transform infrared (IR) spectrometer, optical
digital 3-D microscopes with microphotography capabilities, and differential
scanning calorimeter. KTA’s materials testing laboratory draws upon accelerated
weathering testing equipment and houses a complete supply of test panels and
surface preparation and coating application facilities including a walk-in abrasive
blast cleaning room. For more information on KTA’s Laboratory services, click on
any of the links below:

▪ Abrasives Testing
▪ Coating Performance (Accelerated Weathering and Corrosion Testing) Services
▪ Compositional Analysis of Coatings
▪ Forensic Coating Failure Investigations
▪ Miscellaneous Coatings Testing
▪ Physical Testing of Applied Coatings
▪ Test Panel Preparation and Coating Services

Page | 25
Contact Information and Credentials
Robert Leggat is the KTA Laboratory Services Manager and
has over 15 years of experience in the protective coatings
industry. He holds a PhD in Materials Science and
Engineering from the University of Virginia and successfully
completed the KTA Level I Basic Coatings Inspection
training course. Mr. Leggat joined KTA in August 2016 as
the Laboratory Services Manager overseeing the operations of the Analytical and
Physical Testing Laboratories. In this position, he oversees all laboratory services
which include paint, corrosion and material testing services, coating failure
investigations, coatings research, and compositional analysis. Under his oversight,
senior chemists, chemists, and research and development specialists provide
clients with independent, accurate analyses of coating problems and advance the
industry’s understanding of the performance characteristics of protective coatings
and abrasive media. Prior to joining KTA, Mr. Leggat held various senior research
and technical management positions with the United States Steel Corporation in
Pittsburgh, PA. Call 412-788-1300 x176 or email me at rleggat@kta.com

Carly McGee is the Materials & Physical Testing Laboratory

Manager for KTA where she has been employed for 17 years.
Carly is responsible for facility operations including abrasive
blast-cleaning and coating of specimens, corrosive and
accelerated weathering exposure of specimens, and
evaluation of exposed panels. Carly is an SSPC Certified
Protective Coatings Specialist, American Concrete Institute
Certified Concrete Field Testing Technician Grade 1, a member
of the ACI Pittsburgh Chapter Board of Directors, a member of ASTM Committees
G01 (Corrosion of Metals) and C09 (Concrete and Concrete Aggregates), and a
member of the Research Council on Structural Connections. She has a B.S. in
Chemistry from Grove City College and additional industry-specific training
through ASTM and SSPC. Call (412) 788-1300 x181 or email me at
cmcgee@kta.com

Page | 26