# Media blasting and RRP



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

I have my first customer that falls into the RRP rule. Right now, im trying to help them find the best and most efficient way to completely strip the exterior of a home. I was thinking media blasting. Its a historic home with very intricate trim, windows, overhangs etc etc. Sanding is out, due to containment, as is power washing. I'm wondering if media blasting would be the best route? It seems that containment would be easier. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Bender (Aug 10, 2008)

Fukishima


----------



## Bender (Aug 10, 2008)

Sorry. I'm assuming you mean blasting with a dry medium? Have you ever seen a sand blaster in action? Clouds and clouds of dust. Containment would be almost impossible.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I too think containment with blasting would be almost impossible, but not my area of knowledge.

I would either sand with the proper vac attachments or try one of the paste strippers then sand.


----------



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

DeanV said:


> I too think containment with blasting would be almost impossible, but not my area of knowledge.
> 
> I would either sand with the proper vac attachments or try one of the paste strippers then sand.


Depends on what media you are using. Some are heavier than others, and wouldnt be as much of an airborne threat. Although with heavier media, you'll have more pitting on the wood, but at least you could sand afterwards without containment, plus its going to be repainted after, so some pitting is ok.

Im trying to think in the ways of speed, compliance, and cost. With the blasting, if its compliant, would really increase the speed, be a greener method, and probably the most effective for complete removal.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Sitting in the lead class now, and asked this question. Instructor said there is no way he can see blasting in compliance being economical.


----------



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

straight_lines said:


> Sitting in the lead class now, and asked this question. Instructor said there is no way he can see blasting in compliance being economical.


Dam...There has to be a better way than the old strip, scrape, and sand method.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

NCPaint1 said:


> Dam...There has to be a better way than the old strip, scrape, and sand method.


 In my market it is called vinyl siding :yes:
I'm even seeing it on older more "historic" type homes. The upkeep and now the lead thing is more than many customers are interested in dealing with. Up here they say "vinyl is final". It's a shame, but in many cases I can't really blame them.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Well most of our historic homes see restoration many times here so I am lucky I guess. That is a lot of American history being lost is a bit painful for me to think about.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Also, even after stripping the epa does not consider it lead free. Compliance is still needed. Maybe a abatement company can do it to a level considered lead free, but we cannot.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Dean,

Was the issue to make the house lead free? Or just to strip to allow a better surface to apply new coatings?

I agree with you if the goal is to make the house lead free. But if it is just to bring it down to a better surface, then I would think a vac attached to some kind of compliant sander/scraper would be a avenue to explore.

One benefit to HAND scraping is that the chips are larger and fall better - ie, less dust. 

Back a few decades (exact details withheld to protect all involved), I "knew a guy" who stripped an entire house with 5F5. Although it was costly and subjected all workers to all sorts of risks, the leaded paint did fall to the drops below and was easy to control, collect, and contain.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

In post 5 NC mentioned sanding without containment after blasting, and I do not think the EPA would let fly based on my conversations with them.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Abrasive blasting is prohibited according to the rule.


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

We're royally fuc**d!


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Has it been tested positive? By swab or XRF?
Dean(crcna) if a XRF showed levels under minimum level would blasting be acceptable?

Why does it all have to be removed?


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Abrasive blasting is prohibited according to the rule.


 Not what I was told today, in fact it was on the test. I scored a 98 btw, and this is not the question I missed.:thumbsup:

Only one that was prohibited was heat over 1000 degrees. I think you could tent 100% containment and dust removal. It would be stupid expensive however, and all the equipment for containment would still be disposable. The instructor gave an example he saw first hand on an industrial scale.

Huge cooling towers at a local Dupont plant, came shiny and new from China with.. You guessed it lead based paint. The company sent some workers over, put them in 100' tents and they blasted away.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Congrats on the test!
From the rule,



> (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below shall be prohibited or restricted during a renovation as follows:
> 
> (i) Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is prohibited.
> 
> ...


And under the abatement rules,



> (ii) Machine sanding or grinding or abrasive blasting or sandblasting of lead-based paint is prohibited unless used with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) exhaust control which removes particles of 0.3 microns or larger from the air at 99.97 percent or greater efficiency;


----------



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

The home has some really nice wood, and of course has some great detail work. Gonna be "stupid expensive" no matter the method. Customer understands and is willing to do it. I think the customer wants complete removal so that it will never be a future concern. I mean if its not removed completely, any time anything needs to be done on the exterior, RRP would apply right? Seems like he wants to do it once and be done with the nonsense.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Well, complete removal by an abatement firm is going to be way more expensive than having it done following RRP Rules. 
Has it been tested?


----------



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

RCP said:


> Well, complete removal by an abatement firm is going to be way more expensive than having it done following RRP Rules.
> Has it been tested?


Yep...its lead alright. 

Abatement will be more expensive sure, but its a one time cost. If is not all gone, RRP would apply on every paint job/window replacement/power wash...hell maybe even window washing...in the future.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> if a XRF showed levels under minimum level would blasting be acceptable?


it would be acceptable, because RRP wouldn't apply.


----------

