North Carolina Department of Transportation

Division of HighwaysMaterials and Test Unit

Containment and BeneficialReuse of Blasting Sand inAsphalt Concrete

A Case Historyby William M. Medford

September 1989

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Containment and Beneficial Reuse ofBlasting Sand in Asphalt ConcreteA Case History

7. Author’s

W. M. Medford9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Materials and Tests UnitDivision of Highways

N. C. Department of TransportationP. o. Box 25201, Raleigh. NC 27611

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

15. Supplementary Notes

Technical Report Documentation Page

3. Recipient’s Catalog NO.

5. Report Date

September 19896. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report NO.

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstract

The NC Department of Transportation has manufactured a satisfactoryI-2 asphalt concrete pavement from spent blasting sand collected froma project in Elkin, NC. A pilot project was completed in which two

spans of a truss structure were blast-cleaned while the lead contami-nated debris was contained by state-of-the-art techniques. S p e n t

materials were utilized to manufacture asphalt concrete with accep-table strength and lead leaching characteristics. All project

activities were closely monitored by NC Department of TransportationEngineers and Inspectors. Detailed environmental monitoring was

conducted and no significant impact outside the right of way wasnoted. Recommendations are offered to improve containment and

collection techniques on ‘future projects.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Containment, Blasting, Sand,

Asphalt, Repainting, Structures,No restrictions

Lead, R e u s e First Printing 100 copies

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No, of Pages 22. Price

U n c l a s s i f i e d U n c l a s s i f i e d

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

FINAL REPORT

CONTAINMENT AND BENEFICIALREUSE OF BLASTING SAND IN ASPHALT CONCRETE

A CASE HISTORY

William M. MedfordChemical Testing EngineerMaterials and Tests Unit

September 1989

Division of HighwaysNorth Carolina Department of Transportation

ABSTRACT

Abstract: Containment and Beneficial Reuse of Spent

Blasting Sand in Asphalt Concrete. A NC Department of

Transportation Case History.

The NC Department of Transportation has manufactured a

satisfactory X-2 asphalt concrete pavement from spent

blasting sand collected from a project in Elkin, NC.

A pilot project was completed in which two spans of a truss

structure were blast-cleaned while the lead contaminated

debris was contained by state-of-the-art techniques. Spent

materials were utilized to manufacture asphalt concrete with.

acceptable strength and lead leaching characteristics. All

project activities were closely monitored by NC Department

of Transportation Engineers and Inspectors. Detailed

environmental monitoring was conducted and no significant

impact outside the right of way was noted. Recommendations

are offered to improve containment and collection techniques

on future projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The material reported herein represents the finding and

viewpoints of the author and is not to be reproduced wholly or in

part without the express written permission of the author.

A special acknowledgement is extended to Kazanas Industrial

Maintenance, Mr. E. H. Seagroves, Mr. K. C. Couch and the other

Department of Transportation inspectors and engineers who were

actively involved in the project.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. iii

BACKGROUND ........................................ 1

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 4

PROJECT ACTIVITIES ................................ 5.

PROJECT SUMMARIES ................................. 8

ASPHALT MIX AND PAVING OPERATIONS. ................. 12

CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 14

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

I CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 16

II BID SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

III PROJECT RECORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

IV VISUAL DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS . . 31

V EQUIPMENT LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . 42

VI ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND REPORTS . . . . 45

VII ASPHALT DESIGN AND RELATED DATA . . 51

iii

Background

In the fall of 1985 the NC Department of Transportation suspended

maintenance painting activities on all structures with lead paint

systems because of environmental and hazardous waste concerns.

Blasting sand collected from previous paint operations was found

to contain leachable lead levels well above the maximum 5 ppm

permitted by EPA Regulations. Various alternatives to sand

blasting were evaluated in 1986 and 1987, but contained blasting

techniques were found to be the best alternative for cleaning

severely deteriorated paint systems. Coating systems that

required little or no surface preparation were considered to be a

short term, 4-7 year solution to the problem.

Meetings were held with officials in the NC Environmental

Management Division to determine the correct disposal procedure

and possible alternatives to sending paint debris to a hazardous

waste landfill. As a result of these meetings, the NC

Environmental Management Division through its Pollution

Prevention Pays Program funded research at NC State University to

determine if there were beneficial uses for spent blasting sand.

A 1987 report titled "Recycling of Lead Contaminated Blasting

Sand in Construction Materials" identified the possible reuse of

spent blasting sand in asphalt and portland cement concretes.

The report showed that spent sand could be used to manufacture

asphalt concrete with acceptable strength and lead leaching

1

characteristics. The presence of aluminum in the paint chips had

presented a problem with the manufacturing of portland cement

concrete at the time of the above report but has since been

resolved.

The Hazardous Waste Management Section of the NC Human Resources

Department reviewed NC State University's research and

agreed to let the Department of Transportation proceed with

painting contracts allowing contaminated blasting sand to be

utilized in manufacture of asphalt concrete. The spent materials

had to be handled and stored in a manner that would prevent

spillage or leaching to the environment and the spent sand had to

be used within a 12-month period from the time it was collected.

.

Project Development

A contract was developed for a pilot project in July 1988 to

confirm NCSU's findings and to -determine the effectiveness of

contained blasting operations. A through truss structure over

the Yadkin River between Jonesville and Elkin, NC was selected

because of public demand and the physical characteristics of the

site. The structure contains two 150-foot steel truss sections,

each weighing 190,000 pounds and having approximately 17,000

square feet of exposed surface area. The existing paint system

consisted of 7-11 mils of red lead primer and aluminum finish

paints over mill scale.

2

The project required more difficult containment measures because

of its location over a scenic waterway between two towns. The

truss configuration of the steel also presented more difficulty

in erecting a containment structure. The major advantage to the

site was that equipment could be left in place during blasting

and painting operations because the bridge could be closed during

the entire project.

The following special requirements were included in the contract

to deal with containment and waste control.

1. A prebid conference was held at the site and the contract

specifications were reviewed so that all bidders would not

- misinterpret the specifications.

2. As a part of the Pollution Control requirements, the

contractor was required to submit a containment plan

including a dust collection system that would maintain a

negative pressure inside the containment structure while

blasting operations were being conducted.

3. The waste was to be collected at the end of each day in 35

cu.ft. plastic lined bulk bags and stored so as

to prevent vandalism and damage.

4. All waste was to be delivered on new wooden pallets to the

State Asphalt Plant in Creswell, NC for the manufacture of

asphalt concrete.

3

The new paint system specified for the structure consisted of

two coats of nontoxic alkyd primer and two coats of an aluminum

finish paint. A copy of the painting contract with all

specifications is provided in Appendix One.

Contract Implementation

Contracts were mailed to potential bidders in August 1988, and

the first prebid conference was held September 8th. A second

prebid conference was held on November 2nd, because several

contractors complained that the need to attend the first prebid

conference was obscurely specified in the contract. All contract

requirements were reviewed at both bid conferences, and the

contractors were advised that NCDOT would be closely monitoring

all work activities. Only those in attendance at the prebid

conference were able to bid the job. The contract was awarded to

the low bidder, Kazanas Industrial Maintenance on November 15,

1988. A summary of the bids is listed in Appendix Two.

Since this was a pilot project, special plans were made to track

and monitor all activities on the project. Before the contractor

started to work, a preliminary environmental survey was conducted

at the site. A tracking system was developed to document the

progress of the work and the amount of materials used on the job.

See Appendix Three for examples of the documents used to track

the data and information. The surface area of the structure was

accurately determined. Air quality monitoring was scheduled.

The project inspectors were trained by SG Pinney and Associates

in paint inspection techniques and various engineers were advised

of the sensitive nature of the project. The local media was

advised of the bridge closure and of the extra precautions being

taken because of lead paint removal operations. Visual document

Number One in Appendix Four is a copy of the headline of the

local newspaper.

Project Activities

North Carolina's standard specifications do not allow painting

outside environmentally controlled enclosures between December 1

and May 1. For this reason Kazanas did not attempt to conduct

any painting until May 1989. In February 1989 a containment plan

was submitted for approval, but the information was incomplete

and Kazanas was requested to provide additional information. A

questionnaire was developed to assist the contractor in

furnishing the information needed. Note Visual Document #2.

The containment plan was approved April 5, 1989 after numerous

telephone conversations had taken place to clarify specific

points. The contractor began mobilization activities on May 15,

1989, the same day as the preconstruction conference. Mr. George

Gialouses, project superintendent for Kazanas, scheduled work

activities to start on the North span of the bridge.

5

The north section was more remote from local businesses,

therefore if any problems were encountered with the containment

structure the impact would be minimized. Because of tarpaulin

availability and dust collection capacity, the contractor altered

the containment to the truss portion of the structure. A four

phase work schedule was conducted by the contractor.

Phase 1 - Clean and paint North Truss.

Phase 2 - Clean and paint South Truss.

Phase 3 - Clean and paint North Substructure.

Phase 4 - Clean and paint South Substructure.

The weight of the abrasive and the quantity of paint utilized on

the job were verified by project inspectors. The blast pot was

weighed so that residual material could be determined at the end -

of the project. - All materials were tested for compliance with

the specifications. Detailed diaries and inspection documents

were maintained. Note Appendix Three. Six days after the

contractor had arrived on the job, he had completed mobilization

and had begun blasting. Unfortunately, the day he started was

the Sunday, May 21, the day the City of Elkin was holding its

200th Centennial Celebration. consequently operations had to be

ceased because of noise. The contractor resumed operations the

following day, and on May 25, 1989 blasting was completed on

Phase 1. All blasting operations were completed by June 22, and

the project received its final inspection June 26, 1989, 66 days

before the August 31 completion date.

6

. The contractor was stopped on

inspector so that containment

tightened to prevent leakage.

Project personnel encountered these problems and incidents.

numerous occasions by the

tarpaulins could be adjusted and

. The contractor had to be continuously reminded to collect and

bag debris. Trash, such as paper, dirt and cans'had to be

removed from sand blasting debris.

. One of the adjacent property owners complained that the noise

from the job was too loud for him to talk on the telephone

inside his establishment.

. The contractor spilled a 5 gallon pail of paint in the middle

of the detour route and had to reimburse individuals for

damage to their vehicles.

. Some members of the public reported dust leaking from the

containment structure to officials with the Environmental

Management Division and the local air quality representative

was dispached to inspect the containment structure and the air

quality monitor.

. The water runoff from a severe thunderstorm washed away a

major portion of the debris from the bridge deck during

Phase 2. .

7

. A small carnival was erected under the North end of the

structure and no trespassing signs had to be posted to keep

carnival people off the project.

. An adjacent property owner was painting and his paint spray

blew into the air quality monitor.

. On Phase 4 the containment had to be changed to prevent

leakage. The funnel arrangement was not acceptable.

. The contractor's equipment was vandalized. Two five gallon

cans of red primer paint were emptied into the river and

an air hose and spray head were stolen.

. The contractor had to pay an adjacent property owner for spray

damage to vehicles parked at his establishment.

Project Summaries

The contractors equipment complement was adequate for this

project. Note the equipment list and pictures in Appendix Five.

The equipment that impacted job productivity most included a

compressor, blaster and dust collector. An eight-ton blast pot

was utilized with an 825 CFM compressor to operate two blast

nozzles at 100 psi each (measured at the nozzle). The dust

collector operated at 10,000 CFM. Table 1 includes a summary of

the crew hours for the four-man crew on the project.

8

Table 1

Operation

Mobilization (1) ----------------------------

Rigging (2) ---------------------------------

Blasting (3) --------------------------------

1st Prime Coat including stripping ---------

2nd Prime Coat------------------------------

1st Finish Coat-----------------------------

2nd Finish Coat-----------------------------

Clean-up (4) --------------------------------

Misc. ---------------------------------------

Total

Crew/ % Total

Hours

36.0

100.5

80.5

19.5

13.5

11.5

12.0

39.0

48.0

360.5

10

28

22

5

4

3

3

11

13

99

(1) Time required for equipment setup and dismantling.

(2) Time required to hang and move the tarpaulins on each phase

of the work.

(3) Time required to obtain an SP 6 finish including reblast

time (11.5 Hrs.)

(4) Time required to collect and bag debris.

Once the contractor started work on May 15, worked continuously,

7 days a week through June 26, except for the Memorial Day

weekend. The contractor's productivity rate and materials

consumption for the entire job (34,000 Sq.Ft.) are summarized in

Table 2.

9

Sand Blasting Rate to an SP-6 Finish (l)... 211 Sq.Ft./Nozzle Hr -

1 Sq.Ft. each 17 Sec.

Sand Consumption (2)....................... 32.27 Tons

Table 2

Productivity Rates and Materials Consumption

1.9 lbs./Sq.Ft.

Spray Painting, Prime Coat including

Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 Sq.Ft./Nozzle Hr

1 Sq.Ft. each 4 Sec.

Primer Paint Consumption................... 0.0056 Gal./Sq.Ft.

8.96 Wt Mils/Sq.Ft.

Spray Painting Avg. of Top Coats........... 1379 Sq.Ft/Nozzle Hr

1 Sq.Ft. each 2.6 Sec.

Finish Paint Consumption................... 0.0059 Gal/Sq.Ft.

9.44 Wet Mils/Sq.Ft.

1 - Includes 11.5 hours reblasting to achieve specified finish.

2 - Includes 4.61 tons of sand for reblasting that was not

collected as waste.

The contractor spent 39 hours collecting 18.06 tons of debris

into 13 bulk bags (35 cu.ft. capacity). The spent blasting sand

was found to have 4.24% paint debris (old paint, rust, mill

scale, etc.). The total lead content found in the spent sand

10

averaged 0.5% and the EP toxicity leachable lead was determined

to be 16.55 ppm.

The containment efficiency (CE) as determined below was 60.7%

Wd 17.52

CE = ------- x 100 = ------------ x 100 = 60.7%

Wa + Wc 27.66 + 1.20

Wd= Weight of sand collected (18.06T) - Moisture Content (0.54T)

= 17.52T

Wa= Weight of sand used (27.66T) - Not including reblast

WC= Weight of paint debris - Spot Clean Method . . . . . . . . . 1.23T

Chemical Method . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17T

Average . . . . . . . . . . 1.20T

The tarpaulin material was capable of containing all dust and

debris as long as the lap and corner connections were adequate.

The dust collector maintained sufficient negative pressure to

keep dust from passing through the tarpaulin unless a blast

nozzle was in close proximity to a crack or seam and was directed

toward the opening.

The two major causes for the loss of debris on the project were

ground water runoff during a severe thunderstorm and poor

tarpaulin connections in the funnel containment rigging. The

contractor was stopped on numerous instances to correct rigging.

11

The environmental data collected during the project is summarized

in Appendix Six. The lead content of soil samples taken before

and after -the project showed no increase in total lead. Although

most of the air monitoring results were under EPA 1.5 ug/m3 the

results on three dates exceeded the requirement. Only one

instance was noted outside of the containment structure where the

5 wh3, OSHA requirement was exceeded. Lead levels inside. the

containment structure were very high (140-5540 ug/m3). A water

sample was taken downstream just after a spill but no lead was

detected in the sample.

Asphalt Mix and Pavement Manufacture

The debris was transported 279 miles to the DOT Asphalt Plant in

Cresweli, NC. The sand was graded according to particle size and

both sand and I-2 asphalt pavements were developed for the

material. The asphalt mix design data is included in Appendix

Seven. During the mix design stage of the project, a coating

problem was encountered because of the high concentration of

paint chips in the sand. The problem was attributed to the

surfactants used in formulating the old paint system. An

explanation about the surfactant problem and how it was overcome

is also included in Appendix Seven. Laboratory samples of the

asphalt concrete mix were tested for lead leaching and no lead

was detected.

August 30, 1989, the DOT Creswell Asphalt Plant utilized the

spent sand collected on the Elkin project to manufacture an I-2

12

asphalt concrete mix. All work activities both at the Creswell

plant and the paving site, S.R. 1303 in Washington County, were

closely monitored. Although some dust escaped during the

transfer of the spent sand to the hopper at the asphalt plant, no

lead was detected in the air monitor. Samples of the asphalt

concrete were taken at the plant and at the paving site to verify

strength, and lead leaching characteristics.

The stability test results for the asphalt concrete samples

ranged from 2126 to 2260 pounds. This exceeded the design

strength of 1680 pounds. Both EP Toxicity and TCLP lead leaching

tests were conducted on compacted samples of the plant mix. All

test results were under 1 ppm. See Appendix Seven for specific

test data.

There were only minor problems encountered during the asphalt

manufacturing and paving operations.

- The plastic liner in the bulk bags clogged the funnel opening

and prevented the bags from emptying. The bottom had to be

cut from several bags.

- The roller had a motor failure at the paving site and

the new pavement had to be compacted by a motor grader and

dump truck.

13

Conclusions

1.

2.

3.

North Carolina's first contained blasting contract was

completed without a major incident well before the project

deadline and the quality of the newly applied paint system was

very good.

Much detail should be required for containment plans. A

limitation should be placed on the area contained. The

work phases should be clearly defined. Samples of the

tarpaulin material should be submitted with the plan.

Blasting debris must be collected on a frequent basis to

prevent spillage and loss.

4. A quantitative dust standard is needed to insure better control

of containment operations. Any weight gain in a low

(2 cu m/min) volume air sampler outside the containment

structure over a 2 hour period should be a reason to stop the

contractor.

5. The contractor should be required to protect the bridge

and appendages from over-blast and over-spray.

6. Equipment noise is a major consideration in urban envir-

onments.

14

7. Acceptable asphalt concrete can be manufactured from spent

sand and there is a significant cost savings bp doing so.

$3220 was saved on this project.

8. Utilization of spent blast abrasive in asphalt concrete does

not appear to adversely affect the environment.

15

.

APPENDIX I CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS

5.7&3O?C7

PROJECT SPECI,rlL PFOVISIQNS REP.&I~:TING OF EXISTII;G STEEL STRUCTURES

CO:JT!?ACT TI.::E AliD Li@UIDATED DAHAGES:

The date of availability for this contract li!?y 1, 1989 .

The date of corr,pletion for this contract is August 31, 1989.

The liquid ated damages for this contract are Two Hundred Collars per calendar day.

PRE-BID CONFEREIJCE

Secause of the unusual nature of work involved and in order for all prospective bidders to have an extensive knowledge of the project, all prospective bidders shall attend a pre-bid conference at 1O:OG a.m. on 1Jovember16; 1938 in the ronfcronce room of the District Engineer's Office located at 413 0-blqnd c. 8. . .I Drive, :Jorth of NC 268 in Elkin, NC. This pre-bid conference will include a thorough discussion of the plans, contract pay items, special provisions, etc.

Only bidders who have attended and properly registered at the w- n-bid conferenceon November 16, 1988 or attended and properly registered at a previous pre-bid conference held on September 3, 1938 will be considered prequalified to bid on this project. A bid received from a bidder who has not attended and properly registered at one of the pre-bid conferences will not be considare'd for award. .

Attendence zt the pre-bid conference! will not meet the r;Lquirements of proper registration unless the individual attending has registered at the pro-bid conference in accordance wit;7 the following:

1 - . The individual signs his name on the official roster.

5.7480907

Due to plant pzst qu,rantines in various counties in which this project may bc located, the contractor shall contact the local Plant pest Control Office of the U. S. Department of Agriculture to determine if any part of this project or any area of his operations in connection therewith is within the quarantine area.

If so, the Contractor shell thoroughly clean and wash all equipment t;?zt moves out of the quarantine arez at any time during or lfter construction of the project, and sh?ll comply with any other restrictions or regulations as required by the U. S. Department of Agri, '-ulture and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

SPECIALTY I'I'EI4S:

None of thre items included in this contract yrill be specialty items. (See Article 108-6 of the Standard Specifications.)

SPECIFICATIOXS

?he North Carolins Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads .and Structures dated January 1, 1931!, together with thz Special Provisions included in the Proposal Form shzll a.poly to this project. All refercnccs are to th?SC

Stand&r-d Specifica: ions unless otherwise noted. Th.2 work of painting shall be done in accordance with Section 442 except where otherwise pro-Tided by the Special Provisions.

TRAFFIC CCPJTROL PLAN:

Thz bridge shall be closed for the duration of the project. The Contractor shall be required to give the Engineer ~1 mini&mum of two (2) weeks notice before closing the bridge to tr>ffic. The Dloartment will be responsible for erection and nF%int<n?nce of al:-traffic control devices except for the traffic b,arricades at thr- immedi-;te sits which sh.311 be ercctcd 5y s l2ep.a: tmen-, Gdxintained by the Contractor. - --

:,:'EAT"HER COP~DITIOMS

i- I ^W ;J L 1 1 5 ? t k -2 responsibility of the Contractor to keep a~qa.re cf ch,:nging >lnath;lr and season?1 conditions, and to ITOP <ify his 0oer:tions 2, s necessary to x,czt 111 weather and seasonal L .- . Ttr i*ct ions in the Sprcific?tions.

I

Paint shL:lTi r,o+.. b.2 .:““I it?5 in rsin, in continuous wind above 10 mph, snow, fcq, or mist, OL- when t.hz steel surface temperature is less th.?.n 5 dcgr"'es Fahrenheit (3 degrees centigrade C) above the dew Faint.

The structure, Bridge t33s, spans th#z Yadkin River on the Yadkin-Surry County lint bctwecn Jonzsville and Elkin, NC. It carries two lanes of traffic from SR1190, Gwyn Avenue and is onz of two structures that connect Elkin and Jonesville., The steel portion of the bridge consists of two through truss spans approxic:+cly 190,000 Founds each. 'Ihc current paint system is 7-11 mils of red lead primer and aluminum finish paints which were applied over mill scale. The structure is considcrcd to be in an environmentally sensitive area.

i I 5.7480907 . \ M I_ .--.

POLLUTIGFJ CSN'I'P3L . The existing pJint System includes toxic substances such as red lead oxide ;qhich may be considered hazardous if improperly removed. No work shall begin until the Contractor has furnished the Engineer with a containment plan for paint removal and surface preparation operations and said plan has been approved by the Engineer. Such plan shall include a dust collection system which will maintain a negative air pressure inside the enclosure while blasting operations are being conducted. Waste debris shall be contained in a manner which will prevent its release into the environment.

Air quality in urban or environmentally sensitive areas may be monitored by the Engineer and operations not meeting air quality standards shall be ceased.

Debris from blasting operations shall be collected inside an enclosure in plastic lined bulk bags meeting the following specifications:

BAG DIHENSIONS: 35" x 35" x 40" (35 cubic feet)

BAG BODY:

PROPERTIES:

BASIC FABRIC: P'ROPERTIES:

LIFT STRAPS: ?SOPERTIES:

Polypropylene fabric 802. per square yard uncoated. Woven in the warp direction are eight polyester reinforcing bands each 2 inches wide. These bands run vertically in the made up bag and are located 5.5 inches in from each corner. One leg of each lift strap is attached to a reinforcing band making an eight point lift bag. The bottom shall include spout.

a 14" dia. tuck-away

Tensile strength lbs. Tear lbs. U.V. resistance Strength retention %

Polypropylene Weight minimum Tensile strength lbs. minimum Burst strength P.S.I. Tear Strength lbs. Puncture strength lbs. U.V. resistance %

Polynster Webbing ;Jidth Tensile strength minimum

ASTM D 1682 300x300 ASTM D 2263 120x120 federal test method CCC-T-191 method 5804 after 1200 hours exposure 70%

8 oz per sq. yd.

400x400 750 125x125 150 minimum 1200 hours

2 inches

6,000 lbs.

5.7480907 . - -c

-.- d&z

SEWIPIG THREAD: Polyester sewing thread used throughout bags. PROPERTIES: Side seams and base Bonded thread 3460

seams denier with minimum tensile of 50 lbs.

Spouts and Tops Bonded thread 1380 denier with minimum tensile of 21 lbs

Strap Attachment 5 patterns 116 stitch box and cross, 1380 denier bonded thread.

BAG LINER: Polyethylene - 3.0 mils + 10%

Each bag shall be permanently identified with a date and batch number. At the end of each day, the Contractor will be required to have all debris generated for that day stored in the bulk bags. Such bags shall be stored so as to prevent damage or vandalism.

The Contractor shall deliver and unload the bulk bags to the State Asphalt Plant in Creswell, NC at such times scheduled through the Engineer at least 10 days in advance of the anticipated shipment. Such bags shall be delivered at the plant, and placed on new wooden pallets,(TO BE FURNISHED'BY THE CONTRACTOR). .

ALTERNATIVE CLEANING METHODS

A written plan or alternate methods of removal, containment, and waste storage must be submitted to and approved by the Engineer before any such alternate is used. The plan shall include exact details about removal and containment methods as well as a waste disposal plan. No debris other than contam inated sil may be delivered to the State Asphalt Plant.

STORAGE OF PAINT AND EQUIPMENT:

ica sand

The Contractor shall provide adequate and safe storage space for all paint and equipment. Paint materials shall be stored in a moisture free environment between 40 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit, or at such temperatures as recommended by the manufacturer that are not outside this range.

UTILITIES:

'_ ̂ _I. Con;ra.rtor shall protect from damage all utility lines or X-T .3 i n s which n2y be supported on, under, or adjacent to bridge ~-7rk sites.

%

20

I

5.7480907 I

. - 41e - -.

INSPECTI& .

The Contractor shall furnish all necessary apparatus such as ladders, scaffolds and platforms as required for the inspector to have reasonable and safe access to all parts of the work.

SURFACE PREPARATION

All steel surfaces to be painted shall be prepared by "Commercial Blast Cleaning" in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) Surface Preparation Specification SP 6. The anchor profile will be angular between 1 to 2.5 mils.

Before any work is started the Contractor shall clean a two square foot area on the structure to demonstrate an SP 6 finish. The inspector shall preserve this area by covering it with tape, plastic or some other suitable means so that it can be retained as a job standard.

The blasting abrasives shall be silica sand which is free of contaminates. Abrasives that contain greater than 100 wm chloride, sulfate or other similar corrosives shall not be used. The gradation of the abrasive shall be so selected as to impart the anchor profile specified. Minimum 5 pound sample per shipment shall be inspected by the Engineer before any abrasive is used.

PAIXT MATERIALS:

All paint materials shall be furnished by the Contractor and shall meet the following requirements:

RED PRIIJER PAINT SPECIFICATION: .

1.0 SCOPE This specification covers a long oil - alkyd primer paint for use on blast-cleaned steel surfaces.

2.0 IJATERIALS Xaterials must be as specified here-in. Elsterials not specified shall be selected by the supplier and shall be subject to all of t!le provisions of this spscification. The paint shall be rnsde GE matcrisIs which would not be toxic to personnel under normal cti;lcltiolis cf use.

4 21

5.7480907 . .

- -. bar

2.1 PAINT C!::iX\CTERiSTICS

Pigment % by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle % by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight per gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solids 8 by volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fineness of grind Hegman units . Moisture content % by weight . . . Skinning hrs (3/4 volume in

closed container . Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drying time, set to touch . . . . . .

dry through .a.... * Adhesion at 14 days (ASTM D-3359)

2.2 Pigment composition (% by weight) Zinc Hydroxy Phosphite ASTM D-4462-85 Red Iron Oxide (86% Fe203) Organ0 Montmorillonte

2.3 Vehicle composition (% by weight) Non-volatile.................... Alkyd r'esin solids..............

(Ped.spcc. TT-R-266 type 1,class Linseed oil (ASTrl D-234)........ Linseed oil to Alkyd ratio......

MINIMUM

53

12.9 lbs 67.0

4.5

48 85 KU

3B

73

24

62 * 40 l

A)

20 1:2

MAXIMUM

55 47

0.5

95 KU 6 Hrs

18 Hrs

1

38 Thinner and dryer............... Thinner: FED.SPEC.T T-T29l,type2,gr.A Dryer: FED.SPEC.TT-D-643B

3.0 Samples and tests . All samples shall be a minimum of one quart identified with the manufacturer's name, batch number, date of manufacture and location. Al 1 samples shall be taken by an approved r? North Carolina i- presentativc of the Department of ‘Transportation. Tests shall be completed and results approved before c;ny paint is used.

* The specimen for the adhesion shall be prepared by applying two dry nils of the coating to a standard "0" panel.

f-3'. 7 -. _., L t f 1 :?g and Nonleafing Aluminum Paints shall meet the rz;Jlr " Jy ̂ " - c __Ickl ef Ai!SHTG 1!-6 9 Type 1 .

9rr 22

5.7480907 l I

. .

--- 24

.

The instructions shall specifically include:

Safety handling data. Recommended storage temperatures. Mixing and thinning instructions. Application instructions. Theoretical *coverage data. Recommended usage including repair procedure.

The Red Primer Paint and Aluminum Finish Paint shall be furnished in single package or two component kits not to exceed five gallons total volume.

All tests conducted on paint shall be in accordance with Federal Test Method Standard Number 141C,SSPC and methods in use by the llaterials and Tests Unit.

PAINTI:JG

CO:IPOEY'EPJT DRY F1Lf.I

DESCRIPTION THICKNESS (NILS)

Primer 2” Strip Red Primer Paint * 2.0 - 3.0 1 st coat **Red Primer Paint 1.5 - 2.5 2 nd coat Red Primer Paint 1.5 - 2.5

Finish 3 rd coat Aluminum Nonleafing 1.0 - 2.0 4 th coat Aluminum Leafing 1.0 - 2.0

* Ciet Film Thickness ** Including approved lamp bltick for color contract

No paint sh311 be applied until the paint materials have been approved by the Engineer. All paint shall be applied by spraying, except for the strip coat and minor repairs which may be made by brush or roller where recommended by the manufacturer and permitted by the Engineer.

A 2” strip of primer paint shall be applied to all exposed edges b.zfore the? first full coat of primer paint is applied, the loration cf LhC edge being in the approximate center of ths strip. T h -2 strip coat may be tacky when the first primer COLTit

L.> “,v_u- . -nr-lizC.

23

5.7480907 , . .- . . I&#

All paint thinning must bc approved by the Engineer. When thinning of the material is required, only solvents compatible with the base material and recommended by the manufacturer shall be used, and then only to the extent permitted in the application instructions. In the absence of any specific requirements herein, the manufacturer's application instructions shall govern.

An agitated spray pot shall be utilized. The agitator or stirring rod shall reach to within two(2) inches of the bottom of the spray pot and shall be in motion at all times during paint application. Such motion shall be sufficient to keep the paint well mixed.

DRY FILM THICKNESS

Dry film thickness shall be determined by the method described in SSPC PA2. The average of the spot measurements shall not be out of the thickness ranges indicated and no individual spot shall be less than 80% of the minimum or greater than 20% of the maximum specified. The maximum dry film thickness shall not exceed the manufacturer's. recommendations.

MEASURING ADHESION BY TAPE TEST --- , .

The adhesion of the paint system shall meet a minimum 3B rating when tested in accordance with ASTM D-3359.

A minimum of three tests for each Span shall be conducted t0 determine acceptability of adhesion properties of the paint system. Such tests will be conducted by the Engineer randomly throughout the structure no earlier than 7 days after the final application of the top coat. The number of adhesion tests may be reduced or increased depending on test results, as determined by the engineer.

Any application failing to meet the requirements of the above tests shall be cleaned, repainted, and/or repaired as required bY the Eng inecr .

The cost of surface preparation, repainting the existing 3Kiucture, and maintaining barricades shall be included in the lur‘r: SL~I? price bid for “Cleaning and Repainting of the Existing Structure” at Bridge Number 338. This price will be full compensation for furnishing all paint, cleaning, abrasives, cleaning solvents and all other materials; prc?aring and :I:?ning surfaces to be painted: applying paint In the field;

- ‘) c acting work, traffic and Froperty; and furnishing blast -.I ?^ ning equipment, paint spraying equipment, brushes, rollers :?.:I any other hand or Fewer tools and any other equipment.

24

5.7480907

.

l ’ .

a@

The cost of containment and delivery of blast cleaning debris shall be included in the lump sum price bid for "Pollution Control." This price shall be full compensation for all materials and labor necessary to fully contain the blast debris: daily collection of the blast debris in the bulk bags specified in these special provisions: delivery and unloading of the bulk bags, on wooden pallets, to the specified location at the designated State Asphalt Plant; and any measures necessary to ensure conformance to all environmental regulations as directed by the Engineer.

Payment will be made under:

Cleaning and Repainting of Existing Structure Lump Sum

Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*. Lump Sum

25

APPENDIX II BID SUMMARY

,

BID SUMMARY

Yadkin-Surry Counties - Project No. 5.7480907

Eng. Est. 38,000 sq.ft. Actual 34,000 sq.ft. $19Q,OOO 190 Tons - 179 sq.ft./Ton

Contractor Bid cost/ cost/ Cleaning/ Pollution Ton Sq.Ft. Painting Control

Kazanas (Low) 158,950 837 4.68 124,000 34,950 Second 205,500 1082 6.04 105,500 100,000 Third 218,000 1147 6.41 150,000 68,000 Fourth 244,000 1284 7.18 94,000 150,000 Fifth 278,000 1463 8.18 110,000 168,000 High 622,987 3279 18.32 * 49,997 "572,985

Avg. Cleaning/ Painting

Avg. Polution Control

$ 116,700 (52.8%) $ 104,190 (47.2%) $ 614 / Ton $ 548 / Ton $ 3.43 / Ft $ 3.06 / Ft.

*Excluded for determining averages.

12 -01-88

26

I

APPENDIX III PROJECT RECORDS

NciFr:-l d -;_-. -_. =-

27

j ! I I I I !

.

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- I

C T

-

-

-

-

1

i

1

I -1

-.

I -7

,

I

i

i

1

a-..

!.-

t

--

-1’ i I

I- 1

-i j ’ i ’

--L--l- :

.

COATISG Sl’STEM - .---. -_--

C* 0 ;\ r I N C; @7-a ,T e d ? r 1’~ L t- --- - _ _ - -

CL’STOMER .J 0 I? _ _ ~_ _._____ _ _ _

C: 0 A ‘1‘ : IS1 YRI) 4Tll PREP I’R 0 F I I. E ---_ - ---

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ------ l!lU!LL5~?i~ ,,,---~~~llLs_A’---~~~~ _

__ _ _ _ - - __________._______ _.__._ - ._.~. ._... ---.----- ------- ------------ _.__ ______

PC.!dK. IST 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. IS1 2x1) 3 H 1) AVG IPC.MK. 1ST 2Nn 3 If I! AVI

____-- ‘----

DATE I 126 ----

IS-I-I, I ; ly&.D 145/q 3 IINT1* IINTI, I . I I- I - _r-l_I,l~_,IJ-_:_‘:3-. ---- ---- -L-- -1 i~,1:_i___1_1~~!-~i2,_31

; 2 *s-/&7,< ;3,y-; 23 j I .-) 4 \ :. : .’ ’ s )1’7c- hi 1 _- 1 , I I I ,I! . ‘. I ______ : $;A’J ;;I: __ 1 : 3.0 _ --- ---- ---- _----- ---- ---- : ‘-.&J I _ _._ .i\‘G. OF SPOT CKS.

---- --- I

32 1AVG. OF SPOT CKS.

.- :2,$‘AVG. OF SPOT CKS.

i 3 ====================c==--=rr==--=====================================================.

3RD A V i ,

PC.MK. 1ST 2h’D 3RD AVG i I ---- --_-

c-7 i ,.-i ip -L-s --

‘$‘I 1 ‘32 ---- 1-

‘I;.b j 2.9 ---- ---

!-r,;; 3 8 ---- --‘-

LJa.3 ; 3 5 ---- ---

PC.MK. 1Sl 2ND 3RD AVG 1 I I I I _--..--- - - - ._. .- ._ - __ -

PC.MK. 1ST 2ND t I I

DATE I I!l,r:,;:‘, 5 jz.5 ;3,3

__-- ---- _--- --- 6 ’ ? r: I, i

-, i ‘) I ‘1 ‘) , 1 >:I_.. -..‘l- -.---- I 2. I -2’- - --.

lNT1. I, , . :)

INTL I., I,

,.A ; - I . 1 .i) --L-- =--- 2, --.

----7- ---- ---- --1- 3

AVG. OF SPOT CKS. :3,3'AVG. . _ OF SPOT CKS. 9F SPOT CKS. :~~3=i!v::==:~ ============== 2 ======================================;==========--=

PC.?dK. 1ST 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. 1S? 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. IST 2ND 3RD AV( I I I I 5 8 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 ---- _--- ---- --- _--_-_ --.-- ---- ---- --- ------ ---- ---- ---_ --_ __---- I I I 8 I , I 8 I 0 t I I I I

1 0 I 4 I t I I I 1 ---._ ---- ---- --- --_--- ---_ ____ _--_ -_~ _--_-.- j z,b j 2,3 j < 5 ;j.() ; ---- ,-L- ---- ,-- ______ DATE I i’ I I

f l,j;?& j2.s 12.7 jDATE f I I I lDATE I I I I I , I I I 1 I t I 4 I I I I I _--- __-- ---- --- __-- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---.- --_

jT,il, y-/,oj72 143 j I I

,

, , I a 1 , 4 1 a I , I ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --.-- ---- --- ---- ---- I---- --_

TXTL jd,s Q, 5

-‘- -

3,5/5,2yTL j j j j jINTL ; j ; j

---- ---- --- ____ _--- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- --.

;3.5; 3.0; 4.5/3,3 j I 1 0 t I I I I 4 6 I I t I I 8 I 4 I 1 , 1 6 f , I -- ---- __.-- ---- ---- --- ------ ---- ---- ---- --- __--.- - ---- ---- __-- --

AVG. OF SPOT CKS. I34 IAVG. OF SPOT CKS. I I :AVG. OF SPOT CKS. I ========================-=====I==-==========~~==== ===================I============.

NOTE : SEPARATE FORM TO BE USEI) FOR 1;ACiI COAT.

INSPECTOR’S DAILY REPORT

Prolect No. 58 .7 3 8 @ ‘I 0 7 Day & Date m0N. cE//.z/eq Weather,>.C//l/j 4 ’ E /67/-w c.?T~- 3 HN Tern erature: Work Day 5-‘C,s ’ Tir,>e Work’ :t,rted&r3 0 Hi~t!&~~~~, Works,83 ‘1~.

6

Conlracror’s Forces 5urt. 7PC~c.A 4. 7 n db,.C c Operators 2 z Laborers? Skilled Others /cc / ’ Ur~s:~~~~~;

Engineering Personnel: K.C’ Cd U c/2 - 0 Cp 9 - /D&Z

APPENDIX IV VISUAL DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Coming Monday! A commhorative edition celebrating Elkin’s centennial

ribune Vol. LXXVII - No. 66 Friday, May 19, 1989 35 cents Elkln-Jonesvllle, N.C. Two Sectlons - 30 Pages

Bridge’s lethal lead. paint calls for extra safetv . J By TED ALLEN Stall Reporter

Environmcnlal offtciuls say lhcy plan lo monitor closely ihc rcpainring of rhc Ilugh Charham Memorial Br~dgc linkins Elkin and Joncsvillc. keeping track of how much of ihc hr~dgc’s old. red lead pain1 gels inlo the Yadkin KI\*cr.

And. II appears, for good reason. Lead is poisonous and IS eqxc~cllly harmful IO children. Studies show cx- posurc IO low lcvcls of Ir.ad can stunt a child’s physical devclopmcm and cause I~rning problems and hypcr- acuvny. tligh lcvcls can Icad to comas, convulsions, mcmal reuirthtmn and tlc;lth.

The rspainung of IIIC bridge was delayed as SI;IIC rransporranon ar d cnvironmcnral officials worked IO come up wllh 3 nrih0d IO rcmovc the old pain1 from I dn: bridge u.h~Ic limilmg lhc x1~our11 of Icad lhl g0k 111 hc rlvcr.

Keeping lead our of rhc Yadkrn is imponant bccausc rhc river suppt~cs drtnktng water for Wrnslon-Salcrn and orhcr communtttcs downsucam. Thcrc IS also a concern ihar cartrsh and orhcr boiiorn-fccdcrs would C3l 1hc Icad, poison,ng IllC pwt'lc who Cal tticn1.

To gcr around Ihc problem. workers will USC a g~anl plastic canopy rhar covers Ihe brnlgc and prolccls lhc over. Crews will work 1nsrd1: llic canopy. santtbt;lcllng. clcnmng and rspunung 1111: hrltlgc’s sleet \ItrucIurc.

Schools check for lead contamination RAI.EIGII - Arca schools and day care ccntcrs

will be asked this summer IO rest their waler supplies for unsaic lcvcls of Icad, SW officials rcporl.

Elkin Schools alrcatly is checking irs warcr coolers 10 make sure none were made wirh marcrials conraining Icad. Ron Mack, mainvnancc supervisor. said this morning rhar he’s almosr through checking and has nor found any of those coolers.

The Environmental Prorccrion Agency is working wirh stare health and education officials IO prcparc rcsring instrucrions so schools can determine the amount of lead in wntcr coolers or orhcr drinking supplies. On Tuesday, the agency will hold a training session for stale officials. Once rccciving this instrucrton. rhc officials will pass ir on 10 public

move palm on a brrdgc above water. If successful. UIC hridgc-rcparnlmg operation wilt scrvc as 3 model for orhcr bridges over waler.

Ahhou~h Icad-b:~sctl pami has hccn banned hy rhc t~tlcral Fnvuonmcnr:~I P~OICCI~II A~cncy (Ifl’A) ~IIIC‘C 10x3. lhs lhrc;I~ 4 icild 51dt 5x~\~~ I)~c:I~~sI: ()I Ihc miu~y tlollscs ;1nd slrucIurc\ l’;um~ll wItI Icad p:11111 octorz

This I< lhc fusi lime 1111s mcrhod wrll bc used 10 rc-

schools. private schools and day cart centers so they can sample rhcir drinking supplies.

In the rncanrime, EPA is working 10 ideniify and rcmovc water coolers that are “not lead free.” such as those wirh lead solder. lining or piping. The agency is providing schools and day care centers a list of “nor lead free” coolers and advising them 10 remove rhcm immcdialcly.

Schools arc being asked lo delay testing until they receive a guidance manuat and sampling marcrials lhts summer. The delay will nor increase risk 10 siudcnrs. siaic hcahh officials say, as long as schools rcmovc unsafe warcr coolers and flush laps each morning. Flushing is a good idea because water mar smnds in pipes overnight may contain more Icad.

rhcn. ffouscs painrcd before the 1950s. when lcad bc gan lo bc pllasco oul. arc more likely In be a lhrcal.

. . . . . . .

Lead painr is parricularly dangerous when ii flakes or is ground into dust during removal. Using heat guns and open-llamc rorchcs IO strip paim cxaccrbarcs the prohtcm. producing Icad fumes. Ilcahh olllcinls rcc- omnnml paInling over Iccltl p;linl inctcad 01’ trying 10 rcnmvc il.

Lead is cspccinlly dAngcrous ticausc ruosr victim don’1 rcalizc rhcy’rc being poisoned. In Charlcrror SC.. which has one IJIC highcsl r3tcs of lcad poisonin, in the nation, rcsidcnls didn’t rc;III/c lhcrc was a prob Icm unril rhcir dogs bccamc tlcrangcd or died. and WI crinarians idcnificd Ic;~d 3s UIC cull)ril.

Charlcslon. with i& many old houses and humid cli male. requiring frcqucni rcpaimlng. hxl 60 rcporlcg casts of lead poisoning in 1987.XY.

The problem is less prcvalcnl in North Carolina; 01 SUIC had 44 casts Iasr year. Cotlccn hlillcr. the suuc chief cpidcmiologisl. wid

Dr. Dale Simmons, director of Surry’s hcahh de paruncnr, said the counrv has had no rcportcd cases o Icad poisoning since hc jointtl IIIC dcparrmcnt thrcl ycxs ago. .

Simmons noted his tlcpar~mcnt conducrcd cxrcn sivc ICW, m Mount Airy ;IOWI yc;u afmr learning tha one of the iown’s u’aicr i;mk> ~3s p;\inlcd wilh lca( pami. hut found no cxcs 01 cxcsss~vc Isad lcvcls.

Children arc more suscc~~~~hlc IO lend ~CC~USC thci bodies arc slill dcvclop~ng. Dr. J. RO~II Kciyart of tht hlcdical University of SouOl C;~rultn:i s;iid.

“Wnh younger kids, ihcrc’\ a 101 of hand-lo-mouu COIII~CI.” Rcigarr notctl. “Lw gc15 on ihc hands am dir1 gclx on lhcir lays. L~II~:IIIIIII.II~~ w~lh Ic;iJ . . if. ccrl;lin p:iri of ii ch~ltl’s hr;un 15 s~~n~sctl 10 lcad aI ( m~mU~~ trltl. lh;il p2ri IX tl;~m.~!:cd ;~ntl \Uys d;~~~ragcd.”

PROJECT 5.7480907 - Yadkin-Surry Counties Cleaning and Repainting Existing Structure

Please provide the following information about the containment structure.

.

(1) Type of canvas (2) Type of bracing material (3) Type of connections to structure (A) bolted

(B) welded (C) clamp (D) other

(4) Type of lighting inside the containment structure

(5) Type of dust collection equipment Submit an equipment brochure and include air handling capacity.

(6) Provide a detailed written description of the containment structure from the bridge deck to the top of the truss. In- clude the location of the dust collection system.

(7) Provide a detailed written description of the containment structure below the deck of the structure. Include details about the funnel construction and how the dust collector will be incorporated.

(8) Describe the floating platform, including details about its construction such as materials and dimensions. Describe how debris is to be off-loaded from the platform; how the platform is to be tied off; and if bags are to be loaded on the'platform, how they are to be tied off and handled.

(9) State if the containment structure is to be erected in phases.

(10) List the sequence of -operations that you are planning to use to accomplish the job. Include painting actlvlties.

Please provide sketches and drawings as you see fit. Include as much detail as possible.

Signed Dated

Title

.

33

34

: ,,. (:’ . .

.\ ! :

:

I

I

W

s

I-

f

W

k

5;

k

40

41

APPENDIX V EQUIPMENT LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS

PROJECT 5.7480907 Yadkin - Surry Counties

EQUIPMENT LIST

Air Compressor, Ingersol Rand 825 CFM - 1 each Blast Pot, 8 Ton Cap W/3 Drops - 1 each , Blasting: Hose, 100 L.F. of 1.5"

200 L.F. of 1.25" 15 L.F. of 1.0" Whip Hoses - 2 each

#8 (l/2") Straight Bore Nozzles - 2 each Electric Deadman - 2 each Blast Hoods - 2 each 300 L.F. of l/2" I.D. Hood Line

Floating platform, 4'x 12' - 1 each Forklift, Case 585E Const. King - 1 each Generator, Catipillar 460 Volt - 1 each Man Lift, Simon (Capacity two men) - 1 each Rigging: Cable - 300 L.F. of l/2" and 150 L. F.- of l/4"

.Cable Supports, 27 each .

Pik Boards, 7 each Tarpaulins, 8 PCS. 30' x 50'. 3 PCS. 50' x 70' Funnel Tarpaulins, 2 each - 35' x 35'

Painting: Airless Paint Pumps, Grace "King" - 2 each Airless Paint Guns, Binks - 4 each 112" Paint Lines - 500 L. F.

Sand Silo, 25 ton capacity Storage Bags, TRANSAC, 50 @ 35 cu.ft. each Trailer, Utility Flat Bed - 1 each Trailer Combination, Storage and Tool - 1 each Truck, Flat Bed Chevrolet - 1 each .

Truck, Pickup - 1 each Vacuum Recovery Dust Collector, Key Houston 10,000 CFM Vacuum and Dust Collector Combination, Ipec

42

43

44

APPENDIX i/l ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND REPORTS

I

ELKIN

,L Factory North

NRCDGSS2 Ball Field

1 i 1 r----- i

Pond / .

RnT. CR- :, - -- --

Dirt Wooded Area t Parking \ !,,, Picnic Area ----__

m--l--

YADKIN ( 1 RIVER -FE? .

West -m-v---

BQL -y

@ /------------ BQL - -.-- -

5// 0.19 mg/m +f 1

Trim Shop

Parking Area

45

State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street l Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

James C. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., SecretaT August 15, 1989

Air Quality Section

R. Paul Wdms Director

MEMORANDUM

TO: N.O. Gerald, Chief

FM: Hoke P. Kimball% Environmental Chemist

R-E: REVISED ELKIN BRIDGE SANDBLASTING CONTAINMENT PROJECT REPORT

Sandblasting to remove old lead paint from the Elkin-Jonesville bridge, was supervised by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Engineers Mr. Larry Absher and Mr. Bill Medford. A private consulting firm-was contracted for the sandblasting and repainting project. Effective dates for the sandblasting were accomplished in 4 phases: May 22-25 (I), June 3-5 (II), June 11-13 (III), and June 18-19 (IV). The superstructure of the bridge was encapsulated in phases as a containment area when sandblasting took place and negative pressure was created by vaccuum dust collection. The substructure was also encapsulated in phases with tarps and the debris was funneled down to a large floating box. Mr. Medford has reported that the dust collector was utilized in all phases but seemed to be more effective in the first two phases.

In conversation with Mr. Medford on Wednesday, July 26, 1989, he indicated that the overall project had gone well. The tarps had contained the majority of the sandblasting debris but there had been some leakage in containment at the connection points where the tarps were difficult to secure. The entire project was monitored from beginning to end by DOT inspectors and the operations shut down when dust loss was considered excessive. DOT documents show that on May 24th, the leakage of sandblasting debris was judged as visibly excessive and the contractor was directed to stop operations and tighten the tarps. On this day, the highest lead values were reported by Natural Resources and Community (NRCD) Development/Air Quality monitors.

Tne follouing tables give the NRCD hi-vol and DOT personal hygiene sampling data. DOT personal hygiene monitors (calibrated at 2.0 Y',/min) ,~ere' run for 2 hours at a time to reveal additional bac.?<grcur.-- data during blasting times. The asbestos filters from L:yese rcc:;ors were analyzed by the EP-TOS method for lead values.

LEAD DATA SUMMARY ELKIN BRIDGE SPECIAL STUDY SUMMER 1989-JONESVILLE-SS # 2

DATE BLASTING HI-VOL (ug/filter) VOLUME/M3

S/01/89 NO < 140 UG S/04/89 NO < 140 UG S/15/89 NO < 140 UG S/22/89 YES NO SAMPLE S/23/89 YES NO SAMPLE S/24/89 Y-ES 6200 UG 5/‘25/89 YES NO SAMPLE S/26/89 YES 380 UG

6/03/89 YES NO SAM?LE 6/047/89 YES NO SAMPLE 6/05/89 YES 2800 UG 6/10/89 NO 3400 UG 6/11/89 YES NO SAMPLE 6/12/89 YES NO SAMPLE 6/13/89 YES NO SAMPLE 6/18/89 YES NO SAMPLE 6/19/89 YES NO-SAMPLE

LEAD

DATE BLASTING HI-VOL (ug/filter) VOLUME/M3 LEAD (UG/M3)

4/26/89 NO < 140 UG S/03/89 NO < 140 UG S/04/89 NO < 140 UG S/15/89 NO < 140 UG S/22/89 YES NO SAMPLE. S/23/89 YES NO SAMPLE S/24/89 Y-ES < 140 UG 5/25/89 YES NO SAMPLE S/26/89 ‘FE s < 140 UC,

G/03/89 G/04/89 F,/O5/39 G/11/89 5'i2 '89 6) 13;RO G,! is/89 G,'l'j!%

JTS NO SAMPLE YES NO SAMPLE YES < 140 UC; ‘;‘E s NO SAMPLE ‘,TS _I 620 UG ‘m‘s _ L,S NO SAMPLE YE s NO SAMPLE YE s NO SAMPLE

1476.0 1478.0 1406.0

1418.0

1420.0

sampler unplugged 1420.0

LEAD (UC:/& NRCD * DOT <.09 .- i.09 <.09

4.4

0.3

void 2.4

<.09

<.09

190

DATA SUMMARY ELKIN BRIDGE SPECIAL STUDY SUMMER 1989-ELKIN SS # 1

* NRCD 1430.0 <.09

721.0. VOIDED 1433.0 FILTER TORN

SAMPLER UNPLUGGED VOIDED

759.0 VOIDED

1431.0 <.09

1429.0 < .09

1431.0 0.4

# DOT

<.03

< .09

190

47

CONCLUSIONS:

There were 2 monitoring sites for lead cn either side of the Yadkin for the Elkin project - Jonesville speciai project # 1 and Elkin special project # 2. (See Figure 1 1.

Of the 12-13 days the sandblasting was done, the Jonesville SS #l ran with 6 valid samples. Three of these were background before the blasting beguy on May 24 and registered Below Detectable Limits (BDL) of < 0.1 ug/M - The remaining 3 valid samples all registered lead. The highest reading occurred on May 25, one of the beginning sandblasting days. As this was a very windy day, the project was shut down by the DOT inspector so that the for the contractor could tighten the tarps to prevent leakage. Another filter (June S), contained lead but was voided because the sampler being unplugged from inside the monitor and the calculated flow, rate was lost. May 26 and June 10 filter results were 0.3 and 2.4 ug/K

lead, respectively; however, a DOT personal hygiene sample at this site on June 11 read BDL.

During the sandblasting period, the Elkin monitor collected gnly 3 vaiid samples. One background syple on April 26 read < 0.1 ug/M or BDL. One sample read < 0.1 ug/M or BDL during sandblasting on June 5, (a DC: sample read BDL at this site on June 4). The third sample read 0.4 ug/M lead on June 12 during sandblasting (a DOT personal hygiene sample read BDL at this site on June 11).

The Stat of North Cirolina Ambient Air Quality standards for lead are ‘5

1.5 ug/M as an average not to be exceeded over a period of 90 days. 7.4 C

of t e three valid samples taken at the Jonesville site exceeded 1.5 ug/M 9 but on a daily 24 hour average. The Elkin site reported only3three valid samples during the blasting with only one reading at 0.4 ug/M lead and the other two samples reading BDL.

The DOT took five personal hygiene monitor samples around the bridge site including the two high‘volum~ samplers locations. One sample collected on June 19 reported at 190 ug/M lead and while previous samples taken at all 4 areas around the project revealed lead at Below Detectable Limits (BDL). (See Figure 1.)

During sandblasting, the DOT's personal hygiene monitor results fscm _ inside the contajnment area range from values of 140 to 5540 ugjM ant 300 to 1700 ug/M underneath the superst,ucture.

The sandblasting debris was bagged and deposited at the State of Ncrth Carolina asphalt plant in Creswell, N.C.

Despite some leakage and loss of containment due to "real-world" difficulties of securing tarp ties, the containment goal for the sandblasting of the DOT's Elkin bridge project succeeded in keeping a large amount of lead paint particulates from becoming airborne.

48

This conclusion is based on the readings taken by the DOT hygiene monitors inside the containment area versus outside the area. NRCD'S hi-plume samplers picked up some quantitative results but more samples should have been collected, especially during the final week of blasting, to obtain a larger data representation of lead particulates and envelope the final data.

Thanks to Mr. Bill Medford of the DOT and Harvey Varner and Richard Bowen of the Winston-Salem Regional Office for their co-operation and information sharing in the preparation of this report.

. cc: George C. Murray-, Jr. Bill Medford Harvey Varner

49

3 3

@ -7

1 c‘ , - 7, .

I I

APPENDIX VII ASPHALT DESIGN AND RELATED DATA

I

l

TO: Bill Medford Chemical Lab NCDOT

FROM: Jim Trogdon Research Assistant NCSU

SUBJECT: Surfactants 'in Red Lead Paints

DATE: July 18, 1989

Red Lead Paints are traditionally manufactured with approximately 30% linseed oil to act as a medium for pigment dispersion. A by-product of refining linseed oil, Lecithin, was also commonly added to this type of paint at a rate of 0.5% to 1% in order to assist in pigment dispersion.

Lecithin is an ampholytic surfactant which contains 35% to 45% linseed oil and a mixture of phosphatides. These contain a polyhydric alcohol such as glycerol, esterified with fatty acids and phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid is further esterified with a hydroxyamine compound such as choline, or ethenslamine. Each molecule contains lyophilic (oil loving) fatty acid groups and hydrophilic (water loving) phosphoric acid and amino groups. The latter confer ampholytic properties on the molecule. In a non-polar media and in aqueous dispersion the phosphatides assume the form of large micelles.

In the case of a hydrophilic agent, such as the blasting sand, the hydrophilic portion of the surfactant connects with and coats the sand exposing the lyophilic portion of the surfactant. This process displaces moisture, gases, etc. from the particle surface. As a result, the surfactant acts as an emulsifing agents in the presence of asphalt cement. This-explains the change in color from black to brown when the asphalt is added to the sand.

This problem only occurs when concentration of the surfactant is dispersion of the asphalt cement.

the amount or high enough to allow This did not occur during

the original research due to the fact that the blasting sand used on the Elkin project was used in a more efficient blasting operation which caused it to have a higher concentration of red lead paint per pound of sand than did the sand used in the original research. If the quantity of lead contaminated sand is reduced in the asphalt mix to reduce the concentration of the surfactant then dispersion will not occur. Using the New Bern sand this percentage of contaminated sand was found to be 25%. If there are still problems with coating, silicone may be added to the asphalt cement to aid in the mixing process.

52

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION.-.MATERIALS h TEST UNIT

RALEIGH 9 NORTH CAROL INA 27607 AGGREGRATE h BITUMINOUS MIXTURES TEST REPORT

****Y~**~**************************~~*~***.~*****~*************~*****~~******.~*

PROJECT NO. 5.7480907 DATE SAMPLED S-24-89 COUNTY ’ YADKIN-SURRY DATE RECEIVED 6-5-89 CONTRACTOR KAZANAS INDUSTRIAL MAINT. BATE REPORTED 6-7-89 FURNISHED BY ” ” .* SAMPLED RY W. M. MEDFORD SAMPLE11 FROM -we---- QTY REPRESENTED w---w-- EXAMINED FOR GRADATION SOURCE ON PROJECT (SPENT BLASTING SAND) JMF --_------------------------------------~-------------------------------------- LABORATORY NO. 8Y- I 2311 I 2312 I 2313 I I I SAMPLE NO. I1 I 2 I 3 I I I SAMPLE OF I SAND I SAND I SAND I I I DEPTH/STATION I I I I I I

CONT’D I I I I I I % BITUMEN I I I I I I % ASH I I I I I I % PASSING 2” SIEVE I I I I I I % PASSING l-1/2" I I I . I I I % F’ASSING 1" I I I I I I % PASSING 314” I I I I I I % F’ASSING l/2" I I ’ I I I I % PASSIHG 3/8" I I . I I I I % PASSING NO. 4 I I I I I I % PASSING NO. 8 I 100 I 100 I 100 I I I % PASSING NO. 10 I I I I I % PASSING NO. 16 I 99 I 99 I 98 1 I I % PASSING NO. 30 I I I I I I % PASSING NO. 40 I 59 I 60 I 62 I I I % PASSING NO. 50 I I . . I I I I % PASSING NO. 80 I 21 I 22 I 23 I I I % PASSING NO. 200 I 3.9 I 3.5 ! 4.3 I I I % ELUTRATION LOSS I 3.6 I 1.6 I 2.1 I I I _______-__-_-_-_--_-------------------------------------- ‘.------------------- ACTUAL SPEC. GRAV. I I 2.26 I I I I KEQ’D SPEC. GRAU. I I I I I I % COMPACTION I I I I I I ACTUAL THICKNESS (“1 I I I I I I REQ’D THICKNESS (“1 I I I I I I VISCOSITY I I I I I I F’ENETKAT ION I I I I I I _______-__-----_---------------------------------------------------------------

KEMARMS: J. E. GRADY7 JR. R. w. HEAVES A. W. ROGERS0 w. M. MEIlFORCl 3” BIT. LAR.

E~ZTUMINCIUS 0 53

P994 10 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611

BITUMINOUS F’LANT MIX JOB MIX FOKMCILA -__-_---------~-_------~-~-~--------

N. C. D. 0. T. TYPE MIX: BCSC ) TYPE I-2

CRESWELL, NC JOB MIX FORM NO: 89-217-001

EFFECTIVE DATE: t:)8- 17-13$

F’LANT CERTIFICATION NO: DM-601 PROJECT NO : 4. 7 140003

COUNTY: WASHINGTON

THIS JOB MIX FORMULA IS BASED ON INFORMATION FROM MIX DESIGN NO 89-217 AND TESTS PERFORMED IN THE FIELD

------

AGGFiEkATE SOURCES AND BLEND PERCENTAGES

SUPPLIEF: SHIPPING POINT MATERIAL AMOUNT (“/:) ____----------------- ------------_-----s-s _-_------ ---------- NELL0 L. TEER ROCb::Y MOUNT QUARRY #78M 3.7 . 0 MARTIN MARIETTA NEW BEHN GUARRY SCRGS. 77 - i I . 1-j MAI;:TIN MARIETTA FOUNTA IN QUARRY SCRGS. 2(:! . !:I NCDOT BLAST PIT SAND 2c:, . (2

JMF COME;INED SIEVE SIZE __--------

2 $1

1 l/2” 1 I,

.3/4” l/2”

.3/S” N 0 . 4

8 4(:j 80

NO. 2 (1, (1)

GRADAT I ON % F’ASSING

ASF’HALT CEMENT SUF’F’L I EK : SPECS. TACt COAT SUF’F’LIER : SF’ElCS. NON-STRIP ADD. SUF’F’LIER:

COMMENTS :

54

TOTAL 1(:!(:1 i:)% .

ASF’HALT CEMENT % (TOT) 6.4

GRADE Ac-2(:! ESTIMATED ASH i:! . 5 MAX. THEO. SF’. GV. 2 . 4 1 (:I LAEOF\I/1TOKY SP. GV. 2.280 MIN. RDWY. SF’. GV. 2. 17(:! MIX TEMPEFiATUliE F. 255 FLOW 8 STABILITY 1580

NON STFiIF’ ADDITIVE :i (3.00

APF’ROVED 6)‘:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSFORTATION

MATERIALS AND TESTS UNIT

RALEIGH. NORTt’ CAROLINA SHEET _______ OF--_----

REPORT ON STABILITY TEST OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURE LYD 89-217 Date Sampled 6-27-89 Date Received ;-2g-gg ~ _ Date Reported _ -_ _ Project No. 4.7140003 Collnty Washington

“-3 c---:l:^"*:^.. . T-3WS Specimen : March21 1 bJyecurcrrcr"fi.

Mat: Rocky Mt:";78M Stone, New Bern Scrg, 89-2602-04 Fountain Scrg, 89-2893-95

r z.-- .T I,L.~ * B. Smith Coatractor: NCDOT :% AC-20 Mix used: 5.5-6-6.5~7-7~ 5% F

Mat. 3amplea oy: Y.

Xix Recommended : 6.2 ._-- . L-20

Jlin. Stability Requirement: 750 lbs. GRADATION OF >l.ATERIALS USED

COMBINATION %

Eiuti iatlon loss - i i - j I - --- Specific Gravity 2.67 1 2.67 / 2.70 j 2.26 j I 2.582 Effective S.G. 2.662

t

j FOR3I1ILATIOX.S - MIX No. 1 MIX No. 2 I hIix No. 3 MIX No. 4 M:x No. 5 1 !vllX so. 1:

/ 5 Asphalt I c; 5 I 1 6-0 ii-2 / 7 n 7 c, I

Stability Lbs I 1256 L326 i 1693 1619 ! /

2010 ! I

I Spcc:flc Gravity I 2.22 L.&-l 3 34 338

r----='=' I 3.78 i 3,30

5.3; j ;' ! __-._-_

Max Theoretical Sp.Gr.1 2.45 2.43 _I 2.41 j 1

,.38 i Total mix Ibs. per CU. ft./ 138.4 139.7 I 142.2 j 142.2 In-2 A 1 i AT&.-i , I , Fio~ l/l00 in. I 7 7 I 8 10 10 1 “‘, Snlids total mix j 90.6 92.2 i 94.6 i 95.4 ! 96.6 / _-- “; \‘oids total mix : 9 4 . 7.8 j 5.4 / 4.6 / 3.4 ! ‘; bv Volume of A. C.1 12.0 13.2 i 14.5 j 15.6 I 16.9 1 ) --- - :‘* Sclids of ARE. on!v j 78.6 79.0 ; 8Gl I

-,---.5-. j 79.8 j 79.7 --.- I’. J.cnds oi hgfi. only I 21.4 21.0 : 19.9 : 20.2 j 20.3 /

v- \.o~ds filled withAsp. 56.1 / 62.9 -7----372,9- ! 77.2 1 83.3 1 % Ash 0.5

1:,*:,\:\: k> I--

NCDOT - Creswell Plant-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

MATERIALS AND TESTS UNIT

RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA

M&TForm602 7-l-85

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

BASIC MIX DESIGN

1

PROPERTY ) STABILITY UNIT WT. % T. VOIDS % VOIDS F. FLOW

.-PT. ON CURVE / PEAK PEAK f#---tj &A75 7-l”

% ASPHALT j 6.b ?;5 d/r 62.5 ---

VpLUES AT OPTIMUM bz

56

UNITED STRTES BUREAU OP PUELIC ROADS 0.45 FOV.‘ER GRADATION CHART

‘--,I --.. -..-

_---_

-- -, _ . _- -... - ----i-- ---- ----.-A-----

.--_--j.---.--- -. ---.. I’--- --. -- _. .- 1 --. -_ _-._. 1 1 _. _ ..- ---t----- --.--j .z:- -------i- .---- --.I---.---- -+.---- -- t-- ---- -- r------

6

&.- __._ --_.. ------.-f -..--.- a==-- L’; _- ._ -._ _.-..-_-.- ____..___________ _____ j.--- ____._ ._..... -.- ___. 1 I

-. .1---- ---- ---- _ -

------‘I- ---.-----.-- ----- .---.-.-*. -- _---.--- ________.__ -. ___. -..-_- -.-..- . 1 --- --’ .__ ._ ._ _ ~zzE-:*I:-- ‘x::‘z-- ----

--------_ ‘I-~L.-$.-&-~ ---.-- , 4 3 2 --

__-- -..--- ..--- -- _-.__ - ..-.--.------ ,,_.____. *- ._._ -. __- .._. .._._. -.- _... -__----..--_-.._- .--_ .___ -- ___.- -.-.--.1-.---- - g __--.. .--.- I _________ - I---.-- --- .-- ; . i .- .-...... -. . . _--II.-.-..-- -_,.. .~ .-... -_- .__-- . ..--..- -- .___ -.. ..-_.-..--- .-.

SIEVE SIZES -5 ZlaJS -.---__-_- ._____ --.-l_--------l_----...----_---_--

Id~m'~tolmn 3f g'odallonr

m

. .-

y”RTq C.~G(;L Ip;IA DEP..ff,T*,!E~IT CF T?A”!SPORTAT I:a\J ‘tlL?iGH, :\;SR Tti CA’-‘.jL I >~,l 27611

- --__- -w-----w---- _-e-s ------a------ .

‘, 4. C. :). r. 7, TVPE r’IY: ” z 8 c , TY!‘$ I-2

I

STATE OF NORTH Caking M & T FOIU 6~0 Dept. of Transportation-Materials & Test Unit &13-74

Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

AGC&l%ATES & BlTUKl~W S MIXTURES TEST REPORT -

Project No. Misc . Date sampleit 8-30-89 county Date received 8-31-89 Contractor &+-qqpp-L Creswell Plant Date reported 9-5-89 Furnished by Sampled by W . M. Medford Sampled from SR 1303 W idening Quantity represented Examined for Source

- JMF 89-217-001 !

, Lciboratory No. 89- 3510 3511 3512 -.-- Sample No. 1 2 3 -_-.--. sdmple of I-2ws I-2ws I-2ws T _ 3 7.: $ Depth or Station 1% Bitumen * 7 0 * 8.4 I* 6.9 I? 7-h-7 $ Ash- 0.4 0.7 ! 0.5 I- - n-5

I I

I I I ! 100

100 100 I 100 I - ,9b-lC?(J 98 97 99 iqn-i o- 80 81 i 80 j - 7 n ,A. ; 69 , 67 66 -- 'f- -, I / - -

! CQ c) 7% I 54

.:,f cLss; iflz No. 40 s i.eTc 10 ( ryy- /l 36 35 :J ds;SLnz 4 ~_~J~LSbili~’

No. ? s icvz I - , ho. 50 s ieve 1 I 112 -22

I --- --- 18 l?l. 0 I

! .I ,a r:dssi:Ig ho. 21><1 s ieve 1 ~.~ 6-l I 7.7 ;7,.3-7.3 j j >b Uutriati0n loss

5-5‘ I

I I

i I I

RCDlU-ks: Lab S?. GR. 2.24 2.26

-7

TEST REF’ORT FOR : LEAD IN ASPHALT (AC-I-21

L’ . i-r1

I! 1 ;l