Advisory Council

The purpose of NSRP Project 3-96-4 was to evaluate the productivity of and areas of hydroblast (water-jetting) removal of coatings on representative areas of a ship, such as the hull, non-skid decking areas, tanks, complex geometry using open and closed loop systems.

These procedures include surface cleanliness, surface contamination, coating removal rates, visual appearance, flash rust, and waste collection.

For the purposes of this report, the term “hydroblasting” in the abstract is used to connote the removal of coatings by using high pressure or ultra-high pressure water.

The current SSPC-SP 12/NACE 5 standard on water-jetting (prepared by NACE/SSPC Joint Task Group D on Surface Preparation by High Pressure Water-Jetting) uses the term “water-jetting” to connote coating removal by water at pressures above 10,000 psi.

Determination Of Test Procedures And Standards For Evaluation Parameters (Task 3) During production runs of the various hydroblasting equipment, various parameters were evaluated.

In most cases initial values were determined.

The first group of data (Graph 2), “USS Duluth (ballast tank)” were production rates from the hydroblasting of ballast tank 8-84-4-W.

The specification for the blasting of this tank was to spot blast to bare metal all corroded areas and sweep blast all other areas in order to remove staining, and provide a clean, profiled surface for subsequent coating adhesion.

Inboard Immersion 950 60% primer to steel, 40% cohesive in adhesive All final (after blast) adhesion values had high adhesion values.

Comparing the initial and final “Mode of Failures” for the four locations in the ballast tank where adhesion increased, the mode of failure with respect to the topcoat decreased.

·Atlantic Marine Holding Company – (Prime Contractor) Will contribute shipyard resources and shipyard facility.

· Worker fatigue induced by activities involving prolonged and repetitive use of heavy tools and equipment ·Discharge of water (process and storm water) contaminated with heavy metals into adjacent waterways and onto adjacent property via storm drains and into the ground water by percolation.

·Increasing life cycle cost associated with the surface preparation process.

IE studies were completed on current processes; Current material costs were determined;industry surveys were performed to obtain baseline metrics; metrics validated for fatigue factor inherent in current process; current environmental containment processes were documented and measured.

Task 4: Provide Ergonomic Solutions to decrease the fatigue factor Identify ergonomic risk factors associated with the uhp water blasting process; Implement ergonomic interventions and establish evaluation metrics to measure the impact of the interventions on the fatigue factor.

·Use a support for the forward part of the water-blasting gun instead of asking the operator to reach out and support the equipment all day.

·Currently no accurate system of estimating number of waterjetting injuries ·Majority of Water-jet companies are small “mom and pop” operations with undocumented workers.

Task 8: Perform shipyard trials of the recommended improvements Implement recommended ergonomic, process, material, and environmental improvements; Perform IE analysis to measure the impact of solutions on fatigue factor, safety performance, productivity, and overall cost of process; Implement recommended environmental improvements and measure impact on levels of storm water contamination.

Task 9: Demonstrate final results to industry.

Few safety departments have systems in place to verify these statements, however.

Furthermore, companies which use verification systems that simply capture cash costs are missing a significant piece of the true incident cost puzzle.

If the department does not understand an organization’s true financial loss, senior management will find it difficult to see what financial benefits the S&H department provides.

To determine average direct incident costs for a given time period, one sums the actual cash costs, divides that total by the number of incidents, and records this average in the total incident costs (TIC) worksheet (Figure 1).

To determine average indirect costs, one must multiply the average time (in hours) a department spends on incidents by the average hourly compensation rate; the result is then recorded in the TIC worksheet.

Finally, one adds direct costs to indirect costs to arrive at total incident costs.

Consultation with the victim; recordkeeping and filing; follow-up consultation; disciplinary action.

These supplemental compensations are often difficult to determine and, unless applied consistently, introduce an unstable element to the calculations.

By working to minimize these costs, safety professionals will be able to exhibit fiscal responsibility and show the value-added aspects of safety efforts.

Presentation at 1998 American Industrial Hygiene Conference, Atlanta.

. “What Does Management Think About Safety and Health?”

Jeffery E. LaBelle, CSP, CIH, is safety manager for Gateway, located in North Sioux City, SD.

He holds a B.S. in Physiology from Michigan State University, an M.S. in Industrial Hygiene from the University of Michigan and an M.B.A. from the University of Toledo.

LaBelle is a member of ASSE’s Northwest Chapter and Chair of its Siouxland Section.

Circle the corresponding number on the reader service card.