December 14 - December 18, 2020

The United States Navy recently announced the launch of its new research competition, “Rust-A-Thon.” Do you think the endeavor will prove effective in developing new protective coating materials?

Answers Votes
Yes. 60%
No. 35%
Other (please respond in the comments). 5%

Suggest a topic


Tagged categories: Asia Pacific; Coating Materials; EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa); Latin America; North America; Protective coatings; Research; Research and development; Z-Continents

Comment from michael beitzel, (12/15/2020, 6:05 PM)

For industrial structures and bridges in particular I would suggest continued use of lead based coatings Lead based coatings have been unmatched in performance in comparison with other corrosion inhibitive coatings. For structural steel paint protection from corrosion nothing has out preformed lead based coatings In some cases 50 + years is the useful life. Current regulations are sufficient to protect the public and workers from lead based removal operations. In fact these regulations are costing us millions of dollars in unnecessary expense because regulations do not account for structures that have minimal lead content found in all newer coatings and zinc primed coatings and require the same compliance requirements as high lead level coatings. There is coatings with highee level of lead in all coatings I have tested at extremely low lead levels that incur the same costs ar lead levels due to regulation language. We can safely remove lead based coatings at high levels from structures with current regulations and can do so less frequently than with less effective alternative "lead diminished " coatings. There is no such thing as lead free coatings. We have and can identify structures with these coatings and take reasonable and necessary precautions when removing them. For bridge structures I would allow for continued use of lead based coatings

Comment from michael beitzel, (12/15/2020, 6:42 PM)

All coating systems I have tested have some level of lead content and by regulation require full compliance regardless of lead levels with no de-minimus level of disturbance or removal.

Comment from michael beitzel, (12/15/2020, 7:01 PM)

The OSHA regulations require that best reasonable engineering control be considered when planning the removal of lead based coatings to reduce lead exposure levels. Wet abrasive blasting or vapor abrasive blasting procedures are unparalled in reducing lead airborne exposures to workers and the public so why isn't this method of coating removal the preferred and required removal procedure from structures rather than the usual dry abrasive blasting?

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Sauereisen, Inc.

Axxiom Manufacturing



HoldTight Solutions Inc.

Abrasives Inc.

KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office


Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL

The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

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   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us