PaintSquare.com


The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings

A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare
JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker

Resource Guide Extreme Temperatures

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Tank Painting Taints NY Town’s Water

Friday, April 1, 2011

More items for Coating Application

Comment | More

More than 500 households in the town of Ithaca, NY, have been drinking from a tainted water supply since a coatings curing problem in November apparently contaminated the town’s water storage tank.

The Ithaca Public Works Department informed residents in a letter in late March—three months after officials knew of the problem—that “concentration of certain volatile organic compounds in the water you receive are temporarily above the maximum contaminant levels that have been established by the New York State Health Department.”

The notice says the contaminants present “no immediate health concern” to customers, who include a day-care center.

Refilling, Retesting

The contaminants are the colorless solvents m-xylene, o-xylene and ethylbenzene. All tested, as recently as Feb. 18, above the state’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion (PPB), the town concedes.

The tank has already been drained of its 500,000 gallons of water and refilled, and officials have been overflowing it since March 23 to flush out the contaminants.

Testing is ongoing, and the town says it is working with the county health department on a solution.

Recoating Project

The issue began last summer, when the town’s board unanimously awarded a $115,800 contract to JNP Construction Corp., of South Hackensack, NJ, to recoat the interior of the Ridgecrest Road Water Tank. Officials had expected the project to cost up to $150,000, records show.

The tank interior was last recoated over 20 years ago. The new job involved removing what was left of the previous coating and then applying a Sherwin-Williams epoxy coating system to the interior. The coating system is approved by the American Water Works Association and New York’s state health department.

“Due to various delays,” the recoating was not completed until Nov. 15, the town told customers in the March letter. The coating was then allowed to dry.

Blowers and Heaters

A blower was installed at the tank from Nov. 15 to Dec. 2 to promote drying, town records show. On Dec. 2, “due to the continued cold temperatures, a heater was installed to blow warm air into the tank.”

On Dec. 8, Sherwin Williams performed a “rub test” to determine if the paint had cured, and the test indicated that it had, the town reported.

The tank was then disinfected, filled and tested for VOCs. On Dec. 14, the test results showed that the VOC MCLs had been exceeded, and the tank was emptied the next day.

From Dec. 17 to Dec. 21, the town said it “applied forced air heat to the interior of the tank.”

On Dec. 21, the heat was removed and a blower was installed “to ventilate [the] tank to promote further drying of the paint.”

On Dec. 27, the tank was again disinfected and filled.

On Dec. 29, VOC samples were collected again. This round of testing found the tank “free from bacteriological contamination” but still containing “detectable concentrations of ethylbenzene and xylene.”

Notification Challenged

Walter Hang, owner of the local consultancy Toxics Targeting of Ithaca, said in an interview Friday (April 1) that the concentrations revealed in the Dec. 29 test were “a hair“ below the 5 PPB limit.

Hang, whose company has been active in the area’s environmental issues for decades, was tipped to the problem by an anonymous caller just two weeks ago. He then wrote to the state health commissioner, expressing concern and requesting that the public be notified of the problem.

Hang’s letter said state law “requires supply systems to confirm the presence of identified contaminants that exceed MCLs within 30 days. Public notification is required within 30 days of contaminant confirmation unless the problem has been remedied.”

Officials said they were not required to notify customers of the problem when they discovered it because the tank was out of service at the time.

Service Begun

In the minutes of their Dec. 31 meeting, commissioners of the Bolton Point Water System, which runs the tank, noted that “the curing time of the paint was prolonged since the work was completed late in the year, and the paint does not cure unless temperatures are above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. There has been little of that type of weather in recent weeks, so the interior of the tank had to be heated.”

On Jan. 3, the tank was placed back into service, but the Tompkins County Health Department required that the water continue to be analyzed for VOCs. The next sampling, conducted later in January, revealed that the concentrations were again above the MCL: 5.0 ppb for ethylbenzene and 24.8 ppb for xylene.

Yet another round of testing Feb. 18 also found the chemicals above the MCL in five of six samples. The town decided to keep the tank in service and says it “began additional consultations with the health department on how to proceed.”

Waiting for Warmer Days

In its letter to customers, the public works department said the problem was “suspected to be a result of the cold ambient temperatures that were present when the curing process occurred. Further drying of the epoxy coating should remove ethylbenzene and xylene from the tank coating.”

The letter says “higher ambient temperatures will be required to complete the curing, and these temperatures are historically not encountered until the end of April.”

Nevertheless, it says, the town will keep the tank in service to reduce the “greater chance of bacteriological contamination” and notify residents “once the concentrations … have been reduced to below the MCLs for those compounds.”

The town also points out that the federal Environmental Protection Agency sets a maximum level of 700 ppb for ethylbenzene and 10,000 ppb for xylene.

‘Not a Danger’

Town and Bolton Point officials did not return calls seeking comment Friday, but Bolton Point general manager Paul Tunison told the Ithaca Journal that there was “not a danger for the people served by the tank.”

“It could be a problem if a person drank water with these levels over the course of their lifetime, but it is not a problem in this case,” he said. “If it was, we would have taken the tank off-line.”

Steve Maybee, public health engineer at the Health Department, told the newspaper that a higher MCL is allowed after repainting “for up to 60 days from when the tank goes back on-line.”

Coatings Questioned

Hang said the issue has given public safety in his area “a black eye, because the public just didn’t know what was going on, and for a very long time.”

He added: “This underscores that if you’re going to use this kind of coating that has toxic chemicals in it, you have to be very careful. If you are using a product that has VOCs in it, you have to be experienced and you have to know how you’re going to do it and avoid problems.”

No additional information could be obtained Friday about JNP Construction. The company has no web site, and a call to the published phone number triggered an automated message saying that the voice mailbox for the phone number (the company was not identified) was full and unable to accept messages.

   

Tagged categories: Tank interiors; Water Tanks; Xylene

Comment from Billy Russell, (4/4/2011, 6:21 AM)

This is just plain incompetence on the part of the contractor, I would be interested in knowing how many mills he ended up with in that tank he is probably heavy, I also am surprised that paint company should have raised a red flag about cure time temp (HELLO) its winter also would like more information on the (blower) for this half million gallon tank in the dead of winter, I am willing to bet they have to go in and remove the coating system and start over, was it mixed right how many mills, companies with little or no experience with tanks just because they can color a house does not qualify them to apply a coating system especially in winter.....


Comment from Ron Lewis, (4/4/2011, 6:36 AM)

Sherwin-Williams has a lot of experience and a lot of coatings for interior and exterior of wooden houses and barns. By now Sherwin-Williams must be the largest paint company in the world. They have bought a lot of prominent coating and paint manufactures and either used or modified some of those purchased formula's to be more competitive, economic, and sale-able. Some of the incidents leading up to this tank lining failure could have been avoided had the water district purchased a ultra-high performance tank lining that Sherwin-Williams hasn't yet modified to fit their pattern of product/sales/profit incentives. Then again, anyone starting a job with temp below 50F without heating and ventilating equipment, even dehumidifiers is as careless as the house paint company.


Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (4/4/2011, 8:58 AM)

5 ppb is a very low number to reach, and xylenes/ethylbenzene are not really that high of a number. To hit that target, you really should be using a true VOC-free coating. The article seems to also be conflating two related but separate issues: Epoxy curing (crosslinking/polymerizing and xylenes coming off of the coating. These are related (both improve with higher temperature) but are not the same thing. While some coating polymerization reactions do actually produce volatiles, I'm not aware of any which produce these particular ones. These volatiles were in the coating merely as a solvent. Heating combined with ventilation at the same time will help remove the volatiles - the article was not entirely clear about this, and even implied that part of the time the tank was being heated without ventilation. Unless you have adequate, simultaneous ventilation to remove the volatiles, heating alone will not be doing much for you to actually solve the stated problem. It also makes me wonder how warm they actually managed to make the steel and paint, not just how warm the air was. Leaching is what they appear to be choosing now - which is definitely a slow process.


Comment from Mary Chollet, (4/4/2011, 9:32 AM)

FYI: The town's ventilation/heating chronology is available at http://www.theithacajournal.com/assets/doc/cb171846317.doc. The town's full notification letter is at www.town.ithaca.ny.us.


Comment from Gary Meyer, (4/4/2011, 10:19 AM)

It's interesting to note the dramatic difference in MCL from the County level (Tomkins Co Health Dep. ethylbenzene 5 PPB xylene 24.8 PPB)to the Federal level (ethylbenzene 700 PPB xylene 10,000 PPB). From my experience it's hard to exceed the Federal level no matter how sloppy the application is. A common misconseption is that anything below MCL is safe. There is no safe level of contamination. The comment from the Bolton Point General Manager stating present levels are safe may be irresponsible. It is possible to achieve non-dectable levels with proper down-draft ventilation and ambient conditions above 50 F. Also the use of 100% solids coatings remove the threat of solvent release completely.


Comment from John Lehr, (4/4/2011, 10:23 AM)

The old axiom "Paint can't think" is appropriate here. All paint manufacturers are at the mercy of qualified installers, especially protective coatings with plural components. Who is at fault? Any owner accepting a low bid on a public works project should be accountable, especially if the contractor references are not in order. Did the owner have a clerk of the works to oversee? What was next lowest bid? One employee - $1.5 in sales - Micheal Angelo did not produce that much. Did the contractor subcontract? Pay prevailing wage? Have current insurance and proper documentation? Was this an NSF approved coating? Did the contractor add solvents to reduce and accelerate the cure? What was the substrate surface temperature, not the ambient temperature? Was a Sherwin Williams rep on the site and contact with the owner on the history of the painting contractor? Morally, if the contractor had little industrial experience, SW should notify the owner, regardless of the chance of losing a sale. Good business practices always win. From experience, the contractor and SW are fortunate this did not occur at a major beverage plant or distillery ruining product - all would be culpable and financially responsible, but its only the public! This is not rocket science, the correct specification with an experienced contractor and proper conditions equal success. Change one factor and the results will be compromised. A cheap price will be forgotten once the bitter taste of failure is experienced.


Comment from John Benoit, (4/4/2011, 10:32 AM)

I would have to agree with Tom Schwerdt, having been on 25 tank projects myself, PPG Industrial certified and IICRC flood certified, you have to look at several things. First SW did rub tests. Just because a product is "dry" doesn't make it cured, some VOCs come out of products up to 30 days. Next, did they use Potable epoxies for drinking water, and did they apply coating within 5 degrees of the dew point? They have to take into consideration the surface temp of the exterior of the tank, the interior of the tank, and of the circulated air. Next, being flood certified, there is a ratio of how many circulators vs how many dehumidifiers. By circulating air, it allows the excited molecules to leave the surface, similar to how the body cools itself, then the increased humidity, here we can say VOC's that enter the air space, needs to be removed. Otherwise, all you are doing is increasing the humidity in the space of the tank. However, having said that, how many times have we been forced to get a job done under circumstances that are not conducive to our coatings. I'm sure we've all been there ... may have gotten away with it ... or perhaps, a much smaller project!


Comment from Jeff Green, (4/4/2011, 10:58 AM)

As a Tank Coating Contractor that has used S&W tank linings, I will say that this a reoccuring problem with(a very well lied about problem) S&W Tank coatings. We had a six tank project that had this problem as well. S&W did the rub test and said it isn't our problem. We asked if there were any other documented problems and they said NO!! Turned out this is a reoccuring problem, that the multi-billion dollar company keeps buried. We no longer use them and have no problems with other products. And yes we applied with in the perimeter of THEIR SPECS! They gave no tech help or no support.


Comment from Andrew Mumford, (4/4/2011, 11:02 AM)

We routinely inspect JNP, their primary business is tank painting, and they have far more than 1 employee, so I wouldn't give Manta.com too much credibility. The point I want to make is a Contractor is just a piece in this whole process, and their role is generally surface prep and application, in this case they are not experts with heat, and d.h. They must rely on direction for this, just as they do for the paint that is specified. Each service provider (i.e. public utility, engineer, contractor, inspector, vendor) has limited knowledge, and as we all know this industry is very technical, especially when dealing with high solids coatings. The success of the project depends on the collaboration, communication, and cooperation of a group industry professionals as a whole.


Comment from Jim Climo, (4/4/2011, 11:04 AM)

Sherwin Williams is not the culprit here. Their data sheet clearly states how and when to apply coatings. The contractor applied when it was too cold and then tried to force cure with heat. The tops cures first and the underlying coating is slowly releasing VOC's. If you see what level they are testing to; we are talking about 50 drops of VOC's spread thoughout 500,000 gallons of water. Not a dire life threatening event; a short term nuisance at best. Some warm weather and a thorough rinsing will do wonders for the drops of VOC. I would worry more about the artificial sweeteners that are in my kids soft drinks ... or the chemicals leaching from the plastic bottle it comes in.


Comment from M. Halliwelll, (4/4/2011, 11:29 AM)

The MCL values set by the state for the drinking water are not atypical of values elsewhere. In my jurisdiction, they are the same or lower. I'd like to note for Mr. Meyer that "contamination" is present in the world around us...some man made, some naturally occuring. The study of toxic effects does note that there are chemicals (or "contaminants") that have a "zero dose"...a level below which we cannot detect any adverse effect on the human body. All chemicals around us...including the oxygen in the air we breathe...can be toxic (or even lethal) to us under the right conditions. I'm not saying that it is wrong to be concerned when possible human carcinogens are in the drinking water...but rather that the response needs to be better than a panic. As for the job, it sounds like there could be a heck of a lot going on and I hope that the responsible parties (including SW) are taking appropriate steps to bring the tank back into compliance and prevent potential future occurrences.


Comment from Dennis Broecker, (4/4/2011, 1:51 PM)

Andrew--Absolving suppliers because they don't have the resource talent to understand the job is not the answer. If a company does not understand the specifications and how to use them, then they should not bid the job. Municipalities bid for the lowest price. Those companies that do not invest in the talent needed to do the job properly will have the lowest cost and get the bid. Hmm, maybe the city should qualify the bidders to make sure they have the ability to do the job properly. Nah, too easy. Anyone can slap some paint on a tank.


Comment from Tim Karschner, (4/4/2011, 3:14 PM)

I don't believe I've read anywhere here that there was a COATINGS Inspector on this job. This industry has come a long way from the old days. All DOT's and majority of tank owners (city, municipalities, etc.) put little more in their budget for a qualified inspector. That way you insure the contractor is doing whatever the specification requires. As far as witnessing proper mix, insuring dew point, surface temp, % relative humidity, etc...etc..criteria are met.


Comment from Trevor Neale, (4/5/2011, 10:15 AM)

Has anyone checked the oxygen level of the incoming water, low levels can lead to zero or low levels of hydrocarbon consuming bacteria. Many years ago we overcame a similar problem by enriching the water oxygen levels by bubbling clean air through the tank. I have also seen retained solvent evident trapped in cured films after a year, the obvious answer is to formulate without solvents or that are ethylbenzene free and can evporate cleanly from the coating during any of the curing conditions specified by the manufacturer. Epoxies generally do not cure well in low temperature conditions and a specifying authority should take this into consideration when generating the job specification. NSF and AWWA approval does not imply fitness of purpose under any or all conditions. In summary these are are jobs for experienced professionals who have a complete understanding of the liability of their actions.


Comment from Steve Stroud, (4/5/2011, 12:12 PM)

Keep your eye on the ball guys! Anyone with any time in this industry knows ... "you don't apply these types of products when it's cold unless they are designed for cold application".


Comment from Duane Mensch, (4/5/2011, 2:10 PM)

It all boils down to thorough, competent inspection and the ability to ensure that contract compliance, and Manufacturer's product data are observed.


Comment from Doug DeClerck, (4/5/2011, 7:34 PM)

If this tank was in any other State other than NY or CA or a very few other States, there would not be a problem - I have been potable water tank consultant & QA inspector on drinking water tank projects for 30 years and mainly deal with the States of PA & MD - The MCL for xylene is 10,000 PPM or MG/KG and ethylbenzene is 700 PPM or MG/KG in PA & MD - I believe these levels are consistent and in line with the established Federal levels for drinking water - NYS in its infinite wisdom has chosen to significantly lower the levels to 5 PPB - It would appear that NYS did not revise their acceptable coatings list when they lowered the VOC MCL's, as it has been my experience that the only way to even come close to the 5 PPB level is to use 100% solids plural component materials - The article stated that the material used by the contractor was on the NYS acceptable list - The material was most likely SW #646 PW or SW #846 Winterpoxy - Both materials are NSF approved - Maybe it was applied during cold temperatures, maybe the tank was not ventilated properly, maybe the heating in an attempt to force cure the material was not adequate, maybe the contractor used the wrong solvent, maybe the contractor applied the material too thick thus causing solvent entrapment and slow solvent release, plus numerous other reasons, including a bad specification and poor QA inspection or lack thereof in which all of these together or by themselves can, could and often do lead to failures and uncured coatings systems, but the fact still remains it is extremely difficult and often almost impossible to obtain a VOC level of 5 PPB using conventional 2 part catalyzed epoxies - If NYS desires to the 5 PPB level then they should revise their acceptable coating list to reflect only those producvts that have a chance of meeting those requirements - I have done solvent rub testing on conventional 2 part epoxy applied coatings on the inside of drinking water tanks to determine whether they are cured sufficiently to put into service - The testing has resulted in a "GO" - The water quality testing for VOC's indicates xylene, often in the 50 PPM - 100 PPM range which is way below the PA & MD 10,0000 PPM MCL - The test results are provided to the PA DEP or MD MDE and the tanks are put back into service - No problem - Just because you perform a solvent rub test and the test indicates a coating is ready for service does not mean it is done releasing solvent - When performing the solvent rub test make sure the individual doing the test does not spill any MEK in the tank or that he/she does not over-saturate the rag - Sometimes it is the testing that is at fault - I've had water sampler arrive to take water samples smelling of gasoline - They just filled up before coming to the tank site - I've know of labs that clean their glass testing equipment with acetone. I really think NYS needs to revise their VOC MCL to coincide with Federal levels or remove all of the non-100% solids materials from their accepted list. Good luck!


Comment from Billy Russell, (4/6/2011, 8:23 AM)

Gentleman,now this article has resulted in alot of positive feedback so we can all learn from the mistakes we all run into in the field I am very grateful to everyone...


Comment from Billy Russell, (4/6/2011, 8:27 AM)

I do believe (SW) does have part of the blame here, the paint rep for that area should have alerted the city of the (DRASTIC) change in cure time when its cold. it takes everyone on that ladder to step up and do it right,they sold the paint and left.


Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (4/6/2011, 8:50 AM)

Doug, please clarify on your units. The Federal xylene level that I can find is 10,000 PPB (parts per billion or ug/kg) not PPM (parts per million or mg/kg.) 10,000 PPB translates to 10 PPM. This would mean your 50 PPM results are significantly in violation, unless you really mean you had 50 PPB. I would NOT want to drink 10,000 PPM xylene in my water. That's 1% xylene and it would be effectively impossible to get that much xylene from a coating into a normal-sized water tank. Additionally: Spilled MEK or "acetone in the glassware" would have NO effect on xylene results unless the lab is dumb enough to use those as their internal standard for the GC (gas chromatograph) - even then, it would give false LOW results on xylene, not higher ones. Spilled MEK from the rub test can (of course) spike your MEK results, as it would contaminate the tank with MEK. Gasoline contamination from your sampler has a real potential for problems.


Comment from Jane Warren, (4/6/2011, 10:41 AM)

100% solids epoxy that uses no solvents and is rated by NSF as having passed Standard 61 for drinking water use should have been used for this application.


Comment from Doug DeClerck, (4/6/2011, 4:36 PM)

I'm not a true 100% expert on the Federal MCL's - I was really attempting to make a comparison between states within the same geographical local - NYS, PA, MD - I know beyond a shade of a doubt that the MCL's for total xylene in PA & MD is 10,000 PPM of MG/KG - In addition, I'm not a true 100% expert on whether the individual states are required to comply to Federal MCL's in relationship to water quality after recoating the interior of a potable water storage tank or if the Federal MCL's are for direction, guidance and recommendation only - If you correct in your statement about the Federal MCL's for xylene and if the states are to adhere to those requirements as minimum standards, then PA & MD are way out of line - My real point was NYS has seen fit to lower the MCL, which they have the right to do, but it appears in so doing they did not take into account the numerous coatings on their approved list that would represent a problem in obtaining the revised extremely lower MCL's - In order to meet those MCL's the use of 100% solids material is almost mandatory - I have spoken to several water tank painting firms and when they have done work in NYS they have had to hot water wash and/or steam clean the interior as precautionary step in hopes of removing any lingering solvent on the coated surface before disinfecting, tank refilling and water quality sampling/testing - Not sure whether this actually helped with the VOC's or not, but the contractors did state they were able to pass the testing. They also informed me that work on Long Island does not permit or allow any material on the tank interiors except for 100% solids - If that is in fact correct, then why is the remainder of NYS still allowing non-100% solids materials?


Comment from Gunnar Ackx, (4/7/2011, 3:56 AM)

Guys, Primo: The town council had expected a budget of 150k and the job got awarded at 118k. That should already ring a bell, no? Secundo: For the entire 2nd half of November, only 'blowers' were used and heaters were only brought in by December 2nd. In NY, that time of the year, only blowers are NOT going to cut it. When they eventually brought in the heaters, it was probably already too late. Sure, the topcoat cured pretty much OK, but for the layers underneath it was probably already too late and that would NOT have been picked up by a solvent-rub test. Tertio: I see only a mentioning of a SW-rep coming by to 'oversee' the tank lining application, no mentioning of a third-party QA. No offense to the SW rep, but when are owners going to see that the coating-manufacturer's rep is what he is and can never be neither the contractor's QC, nor the third party QA? I think that pretty much sums up what went wrong here, no? If the town council had invested half of the difference in price between the budgeted price and the contractor's bid in a decent third-party inspection, that would probably have avoided this all together. Now, the town council has exposed itself to possible claims. They are trying the timely way of resolving this by wasting tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of gallons of potable water in an attempt to leach out the solvents. And in the meantime, they have to take intermediary actions to ensure water supply. I'm guessing that the solvents will remain leaching out for quite a while, as temperatures gradually increase in the upcoming months, so they could be rinsing for a while. And they may still end up losing their patience and going for a recoat all together. Sounds like a classic example of the “pennywise/pound-foolish” proverb if you ask me.


Comment from Jeff Croll, (4/7/2011, 8:02 AM)

Some things to consider: Use of a 100% solids and zero VOC coating would help. How fast will the xylene "get out of" the film at low temperatures? What were the wet film thicknesses of the coating? Did the applicator follow the recoat times for low temperatures? Having an impartial third party NACE certified inspector with the authority to shut down the job may have helped. Fully educating the applicator and the crew on the job would have helped. It is correct that the supplier is not the inspector, however, a supplier should approach the project from the standpoint that his ultimate customer is the municipality and not the purchasing contractor. It is also important to note the post regarding the low bid. Too often municipalities and companies accept low bids without inquiring as to wide disparities between budget price and low bid and/or low bid and second low bid.


Comment from Doug DeClerck, (4/7/2011, 9:20 AM)

Tom S - You had me thinking about my statements concerning the ppb vs. the ppm units - In my checking, I find I referenced the ppm units incorrectly as you pointed out - The PA & MD MCL for xylene is 10,000 ppb NOT ppm - The lab results we normally get after recoating the interior of a water tank is under 100 ppb - Sorry that I may have confused everyone.


Comment from Kevin Ervin, (4/8/2011, 9:44 AM)

It's interesting to read that many comments state that a quality third-party inspector would have prevented this problem. Without knowing exactly what was applied and under what conditions that it was applied, no one can say that it was applied incorrectly. If the coating was applied properly but low temperatures prolonged the curing times, then there is nothing that a third-party inspector would have done to "prevent" this problem.


Comment from Billy Russell, (4/11/2011, 8:58 AM)

(Kevin) I disagree, Sir a third party inspector would have been documenting steel temp/enviormentals/batch numbers now one that has extensive tank experiance like myself would have insisted on inderect heater and blower at the pre construction meeting and with winter comeing fast this contractor on the days of blasting when he only had one man inside would have had to explain the lack of production on a simple ground storage tank that any body can do,if this was a million gallon elevated I would understand the time it took him but looking at the pics this guy was lost regarding SQ/feet per man hour,in fact clueless


Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (4/11/2011, 12:04 PM)

Doug - Thanks for verifying and correcting. Heaters and blowers in the tank will help remove solvents from the coating - but they won't do much unless they actually heat up the paint (not just the air) and the blowers are used to blow the air OUT of the tank, not just circulate it. Once the solvents are out of the paint, you must get the solvent-laden air out of the tank so that more solvents can evaporate into the (fresh, heated) air.


Comment from Richard McLeay, (4/12/2011, 12:29 AM)

This is simple, if you are going to apply an internal lining and the weather is not co-operating, you simply have to create the proper environment. If you have the right conditions and a certified inspector on site to verify the conditions there is rarely an issue. As stated earlier in this forum "their primary function is tank painting" Then with all due respect, the contractor should have known what it takes to have a successful job.


Comment from Kevin Ervin, (4/12/2011, 8:13 AM)

(Billy) Are you sure that the contractor didn't ask the owner to pay for heat/DH? What would you have done in the pre-construction meeting if the Owner would have said no to paying for heat/DH? Again, what would the third party inspector add at that point?


Comment from Timothy Leise, (12/30/2011, 7:36 AM)

After reading Ron Lewis' comment, have to wonder what competitor of Sherwin-Williams he works for, or perhaps he is just not aware of their long history in protecting steel in all sorts of environments.


Comment from Car F., (12/30/2011, 11:02 AM)

“no immediate health concern” to customers????? Yes, but how about long term concerns?, who looks after those concerns?


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

PaintSquare
SSPC 2014 Product Demos

Watch product demos by SSPC 2014 exhibitors. Check them out now!


Corrosion Probe, Inc.
From Detection to Correction

Corrosion Probe, Inc. has the Most Concrete Coatings Experience and Expertise. Contact us today at
860-767-4402, www.cpiengineering.com


Polygon
POLYGON - Temporary Humidity Control

We specialize in innovative climate control solutions for industrial painting, utilizing alternative energy sources and combining desiccants with heating or cooling.


DeHumidification Technologies
HUMIDITY PROBLEMS?

DH Tech has the most innovative and reliable equipment available to
control humidity efficiently
and effectively.
IT'S UNDER CONTROL!


Sherwin-Williams
Nova-Plate® 325

• Extends Service Life
• Single Coat Application
• Cure to Service in 24 Hours


Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America
Performance Amine 1,3-BAC

A highly reactive cycloaliphatic diamine offering superior performance. Reasonable cost and curing efficacy makes it suitable for all types of epoxy resin applications.


Denso North America Inc.
Denso Tank Base
Protection System

An easily applied prevention system, utilizing Denso tapes and coatings around the tank base, that helps prevent corrosion from external elements.
Call 1-281-821-3355 or Visit www.densona.com

 
 
 
Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
 

© Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com