Navigating Today’s Wet and Vapor Abrasive Blasting Technologies Wade Hannon Graco Inc.

Wade Hannon Has been blasting with Vapor Abrasive blasting since 2007 Prior to Graco, Vice President of Marketing and Distributor Development for GEOBLASTER Hobby: Driving – taught high performance driving schools for Racing Adventures

Agenda Why the shift to wet and vapor abrasive blasting systems? Wet abrasive blasting systems How they each work and are different from one another What is Vapor Abrasive blasting and how is it different 5 things to consider before purchasing wet or vapor abrasive blasting equipment Q&A

Why the shift to wet and vapor abrasive blast systems?

Early reason for switching The main advantage of wet and vapor abrasive blasting over dry blasting is… less of this! Up to 92% dust suppression – study conducted by third party Third party report verifies this. Copies can be found in your packet.

1. OSHA Silica Rule A new rule from the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) took effect on June 23, 2016 and is aimed specifically at crystalline silica, which is used as an abrasive material. The rule defines a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for respirable crystalline silica that is 50% lower for general industry and maritime and 80% lower for the construction industry than the previous limits. Enforcement will now begin Sept. 23, 2017 The agency has determined that additional guidance is necessary due to the unique nature of the requirements in the construction standard. Originally scheduled to begin June 23, 2017, enforcement will now begin Sept. 23, 2017.

2. New EPA guidelines Emission Factors for Abrasive Materials: Abrasive blasting materials, such as coal slag garnet and copper slag, are often used for cleaning metal surfaces to remove rust and to prepare a surface before the application of a coating. The pre-blast and post-blast abrasive materials contain traces of heavy metal constituents such as Cr, Mn, Ni, Pb Fe, and Ba. Leaching into ground and water, as well as health risks from using these heavy metals to blast. Chromium, Manganese, Nickel, Lead, Iron and Barium

3. “Green” initiatives within companies Health and safety plans are changing Health insurance Liability insurance Workers comp Carbon taxes Compete for young talent

Wet Abrasive Blasting Methods

WIN Nozzles and Halo Nozzles (Modified Sandblaster) Water Injection Nozzles (WIN)  Jets of water dampen abrasive as it leaves the nozzle Halo Nozzles Halo (water ring) nozzles A curtain of water surrounds the abrasive blast, dampening dust after impact The nozzle is bought and added to a dry blaster

WIN Nozzles and Halo Nozzles Pros Cons Relatively inexpensive Suppresses 50-85% of dust* High water consumption for dust suppression High media consumption Source: http://www.elcosh.org/document/1867/d000826/Field+Tests+of+a+Water+Induction+Nozzle+as+a+Dust+Control+for+Abrasive+Blasting.html?show_text=1 Halo Nozzle * Source: eLCOSH; Field Tests of a Water Induction Nozzle as a Dust Control for Abrasive Blasting

Wet Abrasive Blaster Water and abrasive is stored in a pot under air pressure Pros: Effective dust suppression Cons: Limited flow control High abrasive and water consumption Marco Blastmaster, CLEMCO Wetblast FLEX

Problems with some wet technologies Each wet system – although reducing dust – has had many drawbacks and potential problems Over time these drawbacks and problems from older wet blast technologies have lead to many myths about anything wet abrasive Too wet, low production rate, etc. This all changed with Vapor Abrasive blasting!

What is Vapor Abrasive Blasting?

Vapor Abrasive Blasting Water and abrasive are combined in a pot under water pressure, then injected into the airflow. Rust preventers added to pot when blasting steel Pros: Up to 92% dust suppression Affords fine control over the air pressure and water/abrasive mixture, allowing for blasting of a wider range of surfaces and reducing the amount of media and water expended

A Closer Look at Vapor Abrasive Blasting Removes coatings, contaminants, corrosion and residues from hard surfaces Similar to dry blasting, except that the blast media is moistened prior to impacting the surface Optimizes airflow and water usage Only use about 1 to 2 pints (0.5 to 1.0 L) of water per minute when setup with high-performance blast media Can utilize any blast media heavier than water, except steel shot

Media Choices Vapor abrasive blasting works with any media that is heavier than water Garnet, Crushed Glass, Glass Beads, Coal Slag, Copper Slag, Walnut Shells, Soda (non-destructive) Wetness of the blast is a function of media size and shape (water space between the media in the pot)

5 Things to Consider when selecting wet or vapor abrasive blasting equipment

1. Ease of use and maintenance Are the controls simple? Are in-field adjustments required to maintain blast consistency and performance? Support from manufacturer & distributors Where are equipment and parts manufactured? What are their distributors like and are there a lot of them? What do they offer in terms of warranty?

2. Water usage Look at specs to determine how much water is used You want a machine that uses as little water as possible Less containment Less cleanup Ask to see a demo so you can gage water usage Confirm data is correct

3. Media usage Media can be pricey – want a machine that uses less to do a quality job and is easy to control Make sure machine has good control of media usage Example: Modified dry systems are typically harder to control media usage Make sure the machine handles course and fine media (12-150 grit) Don’t want media to be sensitive to moisture in dry-pot based systems

4. Blast performance What are the removal rates like? How does the machine compare to dry blasters? Wet blasters? Can they verify how they got those results? 3rd party testing? Engineered blast circuit?

5. Dust suppression Don’t take a claim at face value! Ask to see a 3rd party report on a manufacturer’s claims Remember, there is no such thing as dustless

How does EcoQuip 2 rate in these 5 areas? Easy to use and backed by Graco support New “factory set” pot pressure Ventless pot Simpler controls New Abrasive Meter and MediaTrak™ Easy media loading and handling New “factory set” pot pressure (Ease of use; No in-field adjustment between blast and pot pressure; More consistent blast pressure) Ventless pot (More consistent blast pressure; Provides 50% more usable capacity than EQ 1; Hassle free – no external vent plugging; Faster set-up / pot pressurization) Simpler controls (Blast, Wash, Off; Rinse always available) New Abrasive Meter and MediaTrak™ (Quicker and easier to set and monitor abrasive consumption rate) Easy media loading and handling (Shelf and step to reduce labor; Increased fill slope; Larger bung opening; Fewer fill obstructions; Increased bag capacity over EQ1; 50% faster reload process from empty; 30% faster media fill speed)

EcoQuip’s 5 Step Quick-Start Process

How does EcoQuip 2 rate in these 5 areas? Low water usage Water usage for EcoQuip is documented and known: EcoQuip 2 uses ½ to 1 quart per minute and has a ventless pot Below chart compares the EQm with the EQp Water Usage Approximations While Blasting Cycles/min for EQm Cycles/min for EQp 80 Grit quarts/min (liters/min) 30/60 Grit quarts/min (liters/min) 16/40 Grit quarts/min (liter/min) 5 90 0.23 (0.21) 0.29 (0.27) 0.35 (0.33) 10 180 0.45 ( 0.43) 0.58 (0.55) 0.7 (0.66)

How does EcoQuip 2 rate in these 5 areas? Low media usage Graco’s EcoQuip 2 uses an Abrasive Meter and MediaTrak™ Quicker and easier to set and monitor abrasive consumption rate Handles both course and fine media (12-150 grit) The smallest model, our EQp, has a 2 cubic foot pot and can blast for up to 90 minutes Blast performance Equal or faster removal rates compared to dry blasting* Engineered blast circuit with minimal pressure drop Increased max blast pressure from 120 psi (8.3 bar) - 175 psi (10.3 bar) Handles both low and high air flow / pressure applications Handles course and fine media (12-150 grit)

Graco’s Dust Suppression Report Graco only makes claims we can substantiate Third-party testing with Applied Environmental Sciences – May 19-21, 2014. Comparison study of airborne particulate concentrations produced by vapor abrasive blasting vs. dry abrasive blasting 3 media types: Garnet, coal slag, crushed glass 3 sets of samples dried and weighed to measure particulate mass reduction on each run Up to 92% dust reduction on steel

Models

More Educational Resources

For more information or to request a demo, visit Graco.com/EcoQuip

Q&A