[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Shipyard Sandblasting/Manual Paint Chipping

In addition to reduce waste volumes there is probably a significant savings
in labor required to collect the paint chips if you would have to cover the
ground to capture the paint chips and then collect and containerize these
chips after the work is done.  There is also a material cost reduction over
traditional sandblasting in this type of removal in that there is no
requirement for the sandblast grit.  

My point is that we all need to continue to look at savings in ALL RELATED
costs of a job when we go to justify P2 projects.  Many don't pay for
themselves in waste cost savings alone but are truly good for the bottom

> ----------
> From: 	Terry Foecke[SMTP:tfoecke@matprod.com]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:38 PM
> To: 	P2TECH
> Subject: 	Re: Shipyard Sandblasting/Manual Paint Chipping
> Dick:
> I could not tell whether equipment change is possible, but I recently
> researched the different types needle- and impact-descalers for a client,
> and they would certainly help.  I think these were first marketed for
> removing lead-based paint from bridges, and they suck up the residue as it
> is generated by the hammering action.  They are slow, however, perhaps too
> slow for your application. I saw one estimate of tripled labor costs, but
> the project still came out ahead because of dramatically reduced
> (hazardous)
> waste volumes.
> At 11:00 AM 3/15/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Would appreciate any BMPs/ideas on eliminating/reducing sandblast residue
> or
> >paint chips from entering water. Not feasible to dry-dock vessel. Also if
> >anyone has a good web or email address for the US Navy that might have
> some
> >info on this subject.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Dick Burns
> Terry Foecke, Managing Partner
> Materials Productivity LLC
> 1821 University Avenue, Suite S-286
> St. Paul, MN   55104
> (p) 651-603-8282
> (f) 651-603-8286
> tfoecke@matprod.com