REMOVAL AND CONTAINMENT OF LEAD-BASED PAINT
VIA NEEDLE SCALERS
by
Paul B. Kranz
Erie County Department of Environment and Planning
Division of Environmental Compliance
Buffalo, NY 14202
James E. Stadelmaier
Recra Environmental, Inc.
Amherst, NY 14228-2298
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-816762
Project Officer
Paul M. Randall
Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LABORATORY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement Number CR-816762-02-0 to Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. This document is identified as an advisory guideline only to assist in
developing approaches to waste reduction. Compliance with environmental and occupational safety and health laws
is the responsibility of each individual business and is not the focus of this document.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices frequently carry
with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and
the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our environmental
problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing
research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in
support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides,
toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, Superfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication
is one of the products of that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
This report describes the results of a technical and economic evaluation of the comparison between
conventional abrasive blasting and a dustless needlegun system for removing lead-based paint from steel structures.
The objective of the study was to substantiate the reduction of hazardous waste generation and airborne lead-
containing dusts from the paint removal operations through the use of the dustless needlegun system and to
comparatively analyze the economics associated with its substitution for conventional abrasive blasting.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes a comparative technical and economic evaluation of using a dustless needlegun system.
versus a conventional abrasive grit blasting system in the removal of lead-based paint from steel structures. The
objective of the study was to comparatively analyze the operational and logistical aspects of using dustless
needleguns for lead-based paint removal as they relate to hazardous waste generation, worker health and safety and
associated economic factors.
The dustless needlegun system demonstrated its ability to produce a substantial reduction (97.5%) in the
generation of hazardous waste when compared to conventional abrasive blasting. Also demonstrated was the ability
to substantially reduce (up to 99 %) the airborne concentrations of respirable dusts and lead-containing particulates
generated during paint removal operations.
Labor costs were decidedly higher (approximately 300%) for the dustless needlegun system primarily due
to slower production rates which would necessitate more operating personnel. These costs are substantially
mitigated by the reduction of costs associated with expendable abrasive blast material and hazardous waste disposal.
Conventional abrasive blasting proved to be decidedly superior in the quality of surface preparation, based
upon prescribed contract specifications.
The dustless needlegun system is shown to be economically competitive with conventional abrasive blasting
when considering the reduced requirements for containment, hazardous waste disposal and worker protection.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract number CR-816762 by the Erie County
Department of Environment and Planning, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period from July 1992 through August 1993. Field and analytical work was completed as of
March 1993.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgement viii
1. Introduction 1
Program Overview 1
Project Purpose 1
Industrial Participants 1
Background 2
Objectives 3
2. Technology Description 4
Paint Removal Systems 4
3. Methodology % 8
Background and Historical Data 8
Procedures-Conventional Abrasive Blasting 9
Procedures-Pentek Dustless Needlegun System 11
Sampling and Analysis Plan 12
4. Results and Discussion 16
Performance and Discussion 16
Environmental, Health and Safety 16
Economics 18
Analytical Data Quality Assurance 22
5. Conclusions 24
Appendices
A. Surface Preparation Specifications 26
SSPC-SP 6
SSPC-SP 11
B. Condensed Operating Procedures 35
Pentek CORNER-CUTTER®
Pentek VAC-PAC®
C. Demonstration Log Sheet 44
D. NYSTA Air Sampling Forms 49
Air Sample Chain-of-Custody Forms
E. Analytical Results 65
NOTE: Appendix D has been deleted from this report. Copies are
available from Paul Randall or James E. Stadelmaier.
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Pentek CORNER-CUTTER® Schematic Diagram 7
2 Abrasive Blasting Process Schematic Diagram 7
3 CORNER-CUTTER® Productivity Ranges .,19
VI
-------
TABLES
Pa
Table 1 Specifications for Air-Powered and Electric-Powered Systems 6
Table 2 Paint Specifications , 9
Table 3 Typical Chemical Analysis of Blast Media 9
Table 4 Air Analysis Methods 13
Table 5 Waste Analysis Methods 13
Table 6 Type and Location of Samples 14
Table 7 Air Sampling Analytical Results 17
Table 8 Labor Costs-Paint Removal Operations 18
Table 9 Labor Costs-Paint Removal Operations Support Labor (Entire Structure) 19
Table 10 Labor Costs-Mobilization 20
Table 11 Labor Costs-Demobilization .20
Table 12 Cleanup Costs : 20
Table 13 Total Estimated Labor Costs 21
Table 14 Materials Costs 21
Table 15 Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Costs 21
Table 16 Total Costs .22
Table 17 Waste Analytical Results 22
vu
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The USEPA, Erie County and Recra Environmental, Inc. acknowledges the New York State Thruway
Authority (NYSTA) and Pentek, Inc. for its assistance and cooperation during this evaluation.
The NYSTA Buffalo Division Department of Maintenance Engineering, Civil Engineer I Environmental
Specialist, Gary Hart, provided the evaluation sites and historical information. The NYSTA Department of
Administrative Services Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health Services Senior Industrial Hygienist, Carol Butt,
performed the worksite air sampling. Mr. Brad Fuller of Pentek, Inc. provided the operators and equipment for
testing. Commercial Painting Co., Inc., Niagara Falls, New York, performed the abrasive blasting. The final report
was reviewed by Dr. Ralph Rumer of the New York Center for Hazardous Waste Management, Mr. George Moore
of the USEPA Toxics Control Branch, and Mr. Bernard Appleman of the Steel Structures Painting Council.
viu
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
This is a final report for the third of five innovative waste minimization technology evaluations which are
being conducted under the cooperative agreement program between the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Erie County, New York entitled "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation" (WRITE)
Program, Contract No. CR-816762-02-0. The project entailed the technical and economic assessment of a dustless,
mechanical lead-based paint removal system as compared to conventional abrasive blasting on a steel bridge. The
program was completed in conformance with work plans and quality assurance project plans previously submitted
and approved by the EPA.
The project was completed under the terms of the Erie County/WRITE Program as a joint effort by the
New York State Thruway Authority; Pentek, Inc., Coraopolis, PA; Erie County Environmental Compliance
Services, Buffalo, NY; Recra Environmental, Inc., Amherst, NY; and the EPA Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of this project was to evaluate an alternative to the current practices of abrasive blasting using
expendable media for removing lead-based paint from bridges and other structures with respect to any reduction in
the generation of waste or in worker exposure to hazardous materials. Furthermore, it was to evaluate the economic
and logistical aspects of replacing current practices with such an alternative.
INDUSTRIAL PARTICIPANTS
The industrial participants for this program were the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) and
Pentek, Inc.
The NYSTA is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the New York State Thruway system.
The Buffalo District of the NYSTA, with offices located at 3901 Genesee Street in Cheektowaga, New York, 14225
(716-631-9017) is responsible for the westernmost part of New York. A significant portion of the maintenance
requirements for the Thruway deals with the upkeep of elevated portions of the roadway including bridge painting'.
The Buffalo District had scheduled for 1992, the commercial abrasive blast cleaning and repainting of 33 bridges
in Western New York. This work encompasses approximately 8,644 lineal feet of bridge span requiring the cleaning
and repainting of 5,832 tons of structural steel.
Pentek, Inc., with offices located at 1026 Fourth Avenue, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, 15108 (412-262-0725),
has been manufacturing dustless surface preparation equipment for use by nuclear facilities and hazardous waste
cleanup/remediation contractors since 1985. The equipment was developed in the early 1980's for the removal of
1
-------
radioactive surface contamination during the Three Mile Island Unit 2 remediation efforts. The benefit derived from
the containment of the contamination enhanced the applicability of the technology for other surface contamination
removal projects including PCBs and lead-based paint.
BACKGROUND.
In order to achieve sufficient metal surface preparation to insure proper coating and adherence of newly
applied paint, the NYSTA has relied upon a commercial blasting procedure as defined in the Steel Structures
Painting Council Specification SSPC-SP 6. This procedure is a common standard for paint removal for bridges and
other similar structures. The procedure is proficient at achieving the necessary surface cleanliness and profile for
the subsequent coating operation.
Although the use of standard blast cleaning technologies are proficient in the removal of paint and rust and
surface preparation prior to repainting, there are disadvantages to its use:
1. Blast technologies present a problem with respect to containment of the blast media and removed
paint. Blasting technologies tend to pulverize the paint and the blast media resulting in the
generation of a significant amount of airborne lead-contaminated particulates which are difficult
to contain. Contract specifications usually dictate the requirements for varying levels of
containment of the blast residues, which can range from simple curtains or barriers to
sophisticated containment structures which include additional controls such as negative pressure
or water curtains. Increasing regulatory attention toward reducing the amount of lead in. the
environment, fueled by increasing public concern and an aging infrastructure, will tend to force
contractors to utilize the more sophisticated forms of particulate containment. This containment,
while minimizing environmental contamination, will tend to result in more hazardous localized
environments for workers, and substantially higher costs for lead-based paint removal operations.
2. A high potential for worker exposure to lead requires the use of extensive personal protective
equipment to meet the new OSHA standards which were published as an Interim Final Rule in the
Federal Register on May 4, 1993. The new standard requires lead paint removal contractors to
institute worker protection practices when airborne lead concentrations reach an action level of
30ug/m3 of air when expressed as an 8 hour time-weighted average (8 hour TWA). Worker
protection practices include medical monitoring and surveillance, employee training, respiratory
protection with higher protection factors, disposable protective clothing, upgraded personal hygiene
facilities, and more efficient engineering controls. These worker protection practice requirements
become more pronounced when complete environmental containment structures are specified. The
enhanced worker protection requirements all serve to increase the cost for lead paint removal
operations.
-------
3. Blast technologies using expendable media generate an excessive amount of waste material in the
form of lead-based paint chips mixed with substantial volumes of spent abrasive blast grit which
require disposal as a hazardous waste. Additionally, depending upon the concentration of lead in
the waste abrasive blast mixture, additional treatment or stabilization of the waste may be required
to meet land ban disposal restrictions (LDR).
Since 1986, the NYSTA has been aware of the potential adverse environmental and health effects of lead-
based chips contained in sandblasting debris generated during routine bridge maintenance. A policy of specifications
was developed by the NYSTA for the containment of blast cleaning debris generated by paint removal operations.
The 1986 directives were focused on the handling and disposal of the waste material. In addition, it was during
1986 that the NYSTA stopped using lead-based coatings on steel structures.
The 1986 directives stipulate the use of blast cleaning methods which, as best as possible, contain the lead
contaminated debris for disposal as hazardous waste. Provisions contained in standard NYSTA specifications call
for comprehensive coverage of potentially impacted surface areas, daily cleaning or vacuuming* of contaminated
surfaces and placement of residues in clean, resealable, watertight 55 gallon steel drums. Containment, however,
becomes even more difficult where the bridge spans a continuously used right-of-way such as railroad or water
crossing.
A potential solution to the difficulties encountered with the utilization of blast cleaning technologies for lead
paint removal would include a blastless paint removal system which had the capability to contain paint residues as
they are removed from the structure surface. One such technology available for evaluation under the WRITE
Program is the Pentek dustless needlegun system.
OBJECTIVES
It is the intent of this WRITE Program evaluation to comparatively analyze the technical and economic
advantages of employing Pentek's dustless surface preparation system for the containment and reduction of
hazardous waste relative to conventional abrasive blasting paint removal technologies.
The objectives of the dustless paint removal and surface preparation system evaluation are as follows:
To determine the economics associated with removing lead-based paint from steel structures using
Pentek's dustless needlegun system relative to conventional abrasive blasting paint removal.
To quantify the potential reduction in the generation of hazardous waste through the utilization of
a blastless paint removal technology.
To compare the ability of the Pentek System to contain dust and particulates for the protection of
the environment and minimization of worker exposure.
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
PAINT REMOVAL SYSTEMS
There exists a variety of paint removal systems, most of which represent a variation of the traditional sand
blast methods. Most recently, blast paint removal utilizing recycled blast media, such as steel shot or plastic beads,
have been used. Other blast media used for specialized applications include baking soda and pelletized dry ice. High
pressure water has been used both independently and in conjunction with an abrasive blast media. Manual and
powered hand tools, along with chemical paint removal, are still utilized in areas inaccessible by other means.
The disadvantage to some of these methods is that the residue generated as a result of the paint removal
is increased by the introduction of a blast media or water, magnifying the waste disposal problem. In addition, these
methods do not address the concerns with respect to environmental and worker exposure.
Mechanical Power Tool Paint Removal
Power tools, such as rotary grinders and wire brushes and orbital, belt, and vibrating sanders, have been
utilized for years to remove paints and coatings from both interior and exterior structures. The mechanism behind
this process is primarily that of abrasive cutting action followed by mechanical displacement of the paint by a
rotating or reciprocating tool member at the point of operation. The efficiencies of paint and coating removal are
a function of the relative hardness of the coatings to be removed as compared to the abrasive impact of the power
tool and the forces exerted by the operator and/or by the power tool itself, in addition to the tool's accessibility to
different structure configurations.
Pentek's Dustless Needlegun Sealer System
The Pentek System is a form of power tool cleaning which combines material removal and containment.
Pentek Inc. manufactures three models of surface preparation tools as follows:
1. "MOOSE®" - for scabbling and scarifying of large horizontal concrete surfaces.
2. "SQUIRREL III®" - for scabbling and scarifying smaller horizontal concrete surfaces including
corners and wall/floor joints.
3. " CORNER-CUTTER®" - hand-held needlegun for surface preparation in tight spots and/or vertical
and inverted horizontal steel or concrete surfaces.
Material removal is accomplished through the actions of pneumatically operated reciprocating cutting bits
or steel needles which scarify and pulverize the paint or coating. This cutting action does not adversely impact the
structural integrity of steel substrates. The surfaces of concrete substrates, on the other hand, can be removed in
-------
controlled layers of between 1/16 and 1/4-inch thick. Containment of the removed material is accomplished first
by utilizing an adjustable shroud located at the tool's point of operation to localize containment, and second, to
transport the contained materials via vacuum to an attached VAC-PAC® containment vessel (DOT 17-H drum).
The vacuum head of the containment drum (VAC-PAC® system) is equipped with High-Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA) filters which serve to prevent the escape of airborne dusts at the containment vessel. Based on field
experiences, Pentek claims to provide immediate capture of 100% of airborne dusts and 99.5% of solid debris at
the surface.
The Pentek System utilized in this evaluation is comprised of the following components:
1. CORNER-CUTTER® needlegun - This hand-held, pneumatic, piston-driven power tool uses
multiple 2mm diameter hardened steel needles which strike the surface 3500 times per minute,
independently conforming and adjusting to surface irregularities, to scarify and pulverize the paint
or coating and produce a surface profile required by SSPC-SP 11. These specifications are
depicted in Appendix A. As many as three CORNER-CUTTER® units can be supported by a
single vacuum system (see VAC-PAC®, Item 3 below). Each CORNER-CUTTER® consumes 5
scfm of 90 psig compressed air and is capable of a production rate of 20-30 sq. ft. per hour on
flat surfaces and 30-60 linear feet per hour on edges and corners.
2. ADJUSTABLE CONTAINMENT SHROUD - This component, which is attached to the
CORNER-CUTTER®, provides containment of the dislodged material at the point of operation.
Interchangeable end shrouds on the tool conform to the work surface, flat inside/outside corners,
and custom contours to direct the vacuum flow and provide effective localized containment.
3. VAC-PAC® HEPA VACUUM/DRUMMING SYSTEM - This vacuum system provides negative
pressure at the CORNER-CUTTER® containment shroud, which serves to complement the
localized containment shroud's effectiveness by minimising fugitive dust emissions from the paint
removal point of operation. The VAC-PAC® system may be operated remotely at distances of up
to 100 feet from three (3) simultaneously operating CORNER-CUTTER® tools without
compromising air flow or process containment. The VAC-PAC® is equipped with self-cleaning
first stage filters in order to maintain continuity of rated flow. Self-cleaning is accomplished by
blowing back high pressure pulses of air which restores the filter to near-original efficiency while
depositing the dislodged particulates into the waste collection drum. First stage filtration
efficiency is 95% at 1 micron. A second stage high efficiency particulate air filter has an
efficiency of 99.9% at 0.3 micron. Recommended filter service intervals are once per year for
average usage.
-------
The design of the VAC-PAC® incorporates a controlled-seal drum fill system that allows an
operator to fill, seal, remove and replace the waste drum under controlled vacuum conditions.
This feature serves to positively control waste and dust and minimize the production of fugitive
dust emissions during waste drum changes. The system is equipped with a bin level indicator
which informs the operator both visually and audibly that the waste drum requires changing.
Vacuum units can be either pneumatically or electrically driven. Specifications for the various systems are
presented in Table 1:
Table 1. Specifications for Air-Powered and Electric Powered Systems
Rated Vacuum Flow (scfm) [Note 1]
Rated Static Lift (in W.G.)1
Air Consumption @ 85 psig (scfm)
Rated Motor HP
Primary Roughing Filter Cartridges
Secondary HEPA Filters
Overall Dimensions: LxWxH
(inches)
Standard Waste Drum Size (gallons)
Approximate Weight
(pounds)
AIR-POWERED
Model 6
150
100
70
N/A
2
2@ 8"
dia.
48x28x72
21/52/55
650
Model 9D
225
100
105
N/A
3
3@8"
dia.
48x28x72
21/52/55
750
ELECTRIC-POWERED
Model 10
250
93
N/A
5
2
1@
12"x24"
48x28x72
21
950
Model 11
325
102 *
N/A
7.5
2
1@
12"x24"
48x28x84
21
1100
Model 12
550
102
N/A
15
3
1®
12"x24"
48x28x84
21
1250
1 Inches of vacuum measured by water gauge.
Condensed operating procedures for the CORNER-CUTTER® and VAC-PAC® systems are included in
Appendix B. The CORNER-CUTTER® is schematically shown in Figure 1.
Conventional Abrasive Blasting
In this method, compressed air is used to propel expendable abrasive particles against the surface to be
cleaned, to produce a surface profile required by SSPC-SP 6. These specifications are provided in Appendix A.
The spent abrasive and paint debris are manually collected for disposal, usually as hazardous waste. A conventional
abrasive blasting operation is schematically shown in Figure 2.
-------
Corner-Cutter®
Pneumatic
Operation Housing
Removed Paint
Chips/Dust/Rust
Needle
Piston Anvi| Holder
Adjustable Containment
Shroud
. Substrate
Figure 1. Pentek CORNER-CUTTER® Schematic Diagram
Compressed
Air Supply In
Blasting
Grit and
Compressed
Air
Removed
Paint and
Spent
Abrasive
Grit
Abrasive
Stream
Removed
Paint and
Spent
Abrasive
Grit
jm1490
Painted
' Surface
Figure 2. Abrasive Blasting Process Schematic Diagram
7
-------
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY
Both paint removal technologies were evaluated on New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) bridges
located on Interstate 90 in Western New York, and as such receive essentially identical exposure to weathering and
traffic flow. The abrasive blasting evaluation was performed on NYSTA Bridge #10 on October 7 and 8, 1992.
The Pentek evaluation was performed at NYSTA Bridge #1 on October 13, 1992. The evaluations consisted of
observations of work practices, equipment and labor requirements, time required for various task completion as well
as physical measurements of background, and work-in-progress airborne dust and lead concentrations during the
paint removal operations. Waste materials from both processes were collected and analyzed for lead concentrations.
Interviews were conducted with NYSTA, Pentek, Inc., and paint removal contractor personnel in order to obtain
background information and historical data relative to the evaluations.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL DATA
Conventional Abrasive Blasting
NYSTA Bridge #10 is of rolled beam design and is comprised of approximately 151 tons of steel and
14,946 sq. ft. of surface area by NYSTA calculations. The paint thicknesses on this bridge were estimated to range
from 10 mils (.254 mm or 0.01 inches) to 13 mils (.330 mm or 0.013 inches), based upon NYSTA upon field
measurements. Previous testing by NYSTA had determined the presence of lead-based paints as the primer and
finish coatings.
Historically, surface preparation of similar NYSTA bridges using conventional abrasive blasting methods
with expendable media to SSPC-SP 6 specifications has generated an average of 0.15-0.20 tons of waste per ton
of steel consisting of spent abrasive, paint and miscellaneous dirt, rust and mill scale. Theoretically, this would
equate to 22.7-30.2 tons of waste generated by conventional abrasive blasting operations at this structure. This
waste has been characteristically hazardous due to its leachable lead content.
Pentek Dustless Needlegun System
NYSTA Bridge #1 also of rolled beam design, is comprised of approximately 315 tons of steel and
approximately 25,000 sq ft of surface area. The paint thickness on this bridge was again estimated by the NYSTA
to range from 10-13 mils. As with Bridge #10, previous testing by NYSTA had determined the presence of lead-
based paints.
Historically, paint removal from similar substructures would generate paint waste at a rate of 1 ounce per
sq. ft. of area cleaned. This waste has been characteristically hazardous due to its leachable lead content.
Paint
Based upon information provided by the NYSTA, the following represents specifications for the lead-based
paint on the structures evaluated. These are estimated averages based upon paint specification sheets and are used
in subsequent calculations and comparisons:
-------
Table 2. Paint Specifications
Ibs/gallou (liquid) 14.3 Ib/gallon
% solids (non-volatile) 62.2%
Ibs/gallon (solids) 8.9 Ib/gallon
density 66.3 Ib/cu. ft.
% Pb in solids (average) 20%
Abrasive Blast Media
The abrasive blast media utilized in this evaluation consisted of Ebony Grit 20, non-silica abrasive provided
to the contractor by Barmin, Inc., of Waterdown, Ontario, Canada. The abrasive was certified to be lead-free based
upon technical data sheets provided by the supplier. The bulk density is 128 Ibs/cu. ft. as per technical data sheets,
provided by the NYSTA.
Table 3 lists the typical chemical analysis of the blast media.
Table 3. Typical Chemical Analysis of the Blast Media
Silica (as Iron Silica) 32.6%
Silica (Crystalline) 0.1%
Iron Oxide (Fep^+FeO) 54.0% :
Alumina (A12O3) 4.7%
Lime(CaO) 2.3%
Magnesia (MgO) 1.3%
Alkalies (NazO+KjO) 1.5%
Copper (Cu) 0.8%
Zinc (Zn) 2.8%
100.1%
PROCEDURES - CONVENTIONAL ABRASIVE BLASTING
In order to minimize the potential for cross-contamination and to satisfy bridge painting schedules and other
logistical concerns, these comparative evaluations were conducted on two separate bridges. It was felt that this
would not compromise the quality of the data obtained due to the similarity of structures and the paint coatings used
on each.
The conventional abrasive blasting evaluation was performed on October 7 and 8, 1992. Day 1 was
dedicated to obtaining background information regarding the process and to observe and record both clean-up
activities from the prior day's work and set-up activities for work to be performed. Day 1 was also used to perform
background air monitoring of lead-in-air concentration to be used as a baseline for both technology evaluations.
Day 2 activities consisted of observing work procedures, conducting personal and area air monitoring and recording
appropriate measurements to assess productivity and waste generation.
Employee and supervisor interviews were conducted to develop information relative to time and labor
requirements for daily cleanup and job site mobilization and demobilization activities. This information was
integrated with job site observations to calculate estimates of man hours required and their associated costs.
-------
Set-up/Mobilization
Job set-up and mobilization required seven workers for 1.5 hours each and consisted mainly of establishing
traffic control, positioning equipment and installing hanging enclosure tarps and ground cover tarps. Equipment
used consisted of two 7-ton capacity abrasive blast reservoir pots with compressors, two truck-mounted mobile
platforms and several straight body and pick-up trucks for hauling equipment and transporting personnel. The work
enclosures, which are contractually required by the NYSTA consisted of canvas tarpaulins which were suspended
from cables attached to the bridge structure so as to form a three-sided enclosure, the closed sides facing traffic
during abrasive blasting operations. The tarpaulins extended from the underside of the bridge structure to the
ground cover tarps placed below. The suspended tarps were fastened at the grommeted edges with clips to minimize
sailing due to winds or passing traffic.
Abrasive Blasting Operations
Abrasive blasting operations conducted on October 8, 1992 were performed simultaneously on the interior
eastbound and westbound lanes. Two operators with abrasive blasting nozzles were utilized per section, which
consisted of six 32 inch x 12 inch flange I-beams placed 20 feet on center with connecting 13 inch steel channel
bracing and mechanical fastening with nuts and bolts. The beam undersides are elevated approximately 15 feet
above the center median and road surfaces, which necessitated the use of a mobile elevated work platform for access
by the abrasive blast nozzle operators. Only the operations on the westbound section of the Thruway bridge were
considered for the purposes of this evaluation. The operations conducted concentrated on the 30 foot length of I-
beam extending from the center of the westbound lane to the support column located in the median, in addition to
all connecting braces and supports. A total of approximately 1180 sq. ft. of surface was completed during the 4-hour
evaluation. The blasting grit vessels and compressors •were located approximately 150 feet from the work zone.
Grit usage, based on past experiences, was estimated to be 4-7 tons per day of average production per vessel, based
upon 1/2 ton/hour of grit usage per nozzle operator. This usage was expected to produce specification surface
preparation at a rate of 120 sq. ft. per hour per operator.
Prior to commencement of the evaluation phase, the two nozzle operators performing work on the
westbound section were each fitted with two air sampling pumps (SKC low volume) which were calibrated to
provide a flow rate of 1.5-1.7 liters of air per minute using an SKC digital calibrator. The media for collection of
total and respirable dusts emitted during the blasting process consisted of Millipore 37mm, 0.8/i MCEF Matched-
Weight Cassettes with cyclone separators for respirable dust collection. The nozzle operators were dressed in
standard work clothes with cloth coveralls and were equipped with air supplied, type CE abrasive blasting helmets.
Work progressed continuously from 9:45 am to 1:45 pm with three short (5 minute) breaks taken for the purpose
of changing air monitoring cassettes. The operation was very noisy, however, sound pressure levels were not
evaluated. Hearing protection was available, but was not utilized by all workers.
10
-------
During the abrasive blasting operation, it was very apparent that the tarpaulins installed to enclose the
operation were less than 100% efficient in containing the abrasive blast grit and paint removal residues. Visible
plumes of dust were noted escaping from the enclosure and depositing along the Thruway and elevated sections of
roadway and median areas. Light winds were noted to be from the East Northeast at 1-5 mph and were not
considered to be a factor in this evaluation. The weather was clear and 65°.
Clean-up
The clean-up activities observed were performed at the termination of abrasive blasting activities on
October 7, 1992, one day prior to the abrasive blasting operation evaluation. The clean-up activities were described
by NYSTA and the contractors to be typical and consisted of manually dry sweeping spent abrasive and paint
residues, progressively elevating ground tarps to consolidate wastes and then manually shoveling the collected
materials into openhead 55 gallon steel drums. The section cleaned was approximately 40 feet x 100 feet with a
3:1 sloped earthen embankment from the road surface to the bridge and bearing supports. The slope served to
facilitate the consolidation of spent abrasive and paint, as much of the material was swept yja gravity to the
collection points. Manpower consisted of six laborers and clean-up of this section took 1.5 hours. The clean-up
operation was noted to be very dusty. Laborers wore only standard work clothes. Paper dust masks (non-toxic
variety) were available, but noted to be used by only one worker.
Additional clean-up was also required of the roadway above which had received overspray or deposits of
fugitive dusts. The material was dry swept and shoveled to drums.
PROCEDURES - PENTEK DUSTLESS NEEDLEGUN SYSTEM
The Pentek System evaluation was performed on October 13, 1992 at NYSTA Bridge #1, which was not
scheduled for paint removal and repainting until the spring of 1993. Evaluation activities consisted of observing
and documenting mobilization, paint removal, and clean-up and demobilization activities, as well as performing
personal and area air monitoring and making necessary measurements to assess productivity and waste generation.
Set-up/Mobilization
Job set-up and mobilization required four workers for 0.5 hours each and consisted primarily of positioning
equipment. Equipment used consisted of one pick-up truck which carried the VAC-PAC® system and CORNER-
CUTTER® units and hauled a trailer with an air compressor. There were no containment enclosures or ground
cover tarpaulins used.
Pentek Dustless Needlegun Paint Removal Operations
The Pentek System was evaluated above the upper section of the sloped embankment on Bridge #1 so as
to eliminate the necessity of using elevated working platforms and thus simplify later cost comparisons. Three
11
-------
operators each with a CORNER-CUTTER® unit were employed for paint removal at the evaluation area which
consisted of four 34 inch x 12 inch flange I-beams with connecting 13 inch steel channel bracing and connecting
hardware. A total of approximately 119 sq. ft. of surface was completed during the 3 hour, 15 minute evaluation
period, however, Pentek, Inc. reported that this is most likely a depressed number due to several factors including,
but not limited to, the inexperience of operators and their unfamiliarity with SSPC-SP 11 requirements. Pentek, Inc.
management stated that this production number should be closer to 260 sq. ft. based upon previous experience.
Prior to commencement of the evaluation, two of the three CORNER-CUTTER® operators were fitted with
two air sampling pumps each, with appropriate media for collection of total and respirable dusts emitted during the
paint removal operations. The CORNER-CUTTER® operators were dressed in Tyvek suits and were equipped with
full-face, negative pressure air-purifying respirators with high-efficiency particulate cartridges. Work progressed
continuously from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm with three work breaks totalling 45 minutes.
During the Pentek System paint removal operations, there were no visible emissions of dust or paint
residues. The operation was very noisy, however, sound pressure levels were not evaluated and operators were
utilizing hearing protection. The CORNER-CUTTER® units removed the finish paint coat layers with little
difficulty, however, the orange primer required considerably more effort and time, which served to further depress
the square foot production area expected by Pentek, Inc. personnel.
Clean-up
Upon completion of paint removal operations, it was apparent that nearly all paint residues had been
effectively contained and collected by the Pentek System. Some minor residues consisting of large paint chips and
rust were easily collected using the vacuum hose attached to the CORNER-CUTTER®. Clean-up operations then
consisted of wiping down, disassembly and storage of equipment which required four workers for 0.5 hour. This
operation would normally only be conducted after job completion and not on a daily or shift-by-shift basis.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Sampling and analysis for this evaluation was conducted in accordance with the approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPjP).
Air sampling consisted of pre-work samples taken at Bridge #1 on October 7, 1992, to establish a baseline
of background airborne dust and lead in air, and work-in-progress samples of operator breathing zones and work
areas for both the abrasive blasting and Pentek System operations. All air sampling was conducted over a 4-hour
period coinciding with the technology evaluations. Air samples were collected on 37mm, 0.8/t matched-weight,
mixed cellulose ester fiber (MCEF) filter cassettes. This type of filter media was chosen so as to allow both dust
and lead analyses to be performed on the same cassette, thus minimizing the amount of sampling equipment and
the number of samples required for this evaluation. Digestion procedures were evaluated using an SRM (NIST
1579). The first procedure, from NIOSH 7082, resulted in a 65.2% recovery. The second procedure, a modified
12
-------
version of NIOSH 7082 as described in the NTIS publication "Standard Operating Procedures for Lead in Paint by
Hotplate - Microwave - Based Acid Digestions and Atomic Absorption or Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission
Spectrometry", resulted in a recovery of 121 %. The second procedure was utilized for this evaluation. Samples were
analyzed for the following:
Table 4. Air Analysis Methods
Parameter Method
Total Dust NIOSH 0500
Lead in Total Dust NIOSH 7082
Respirable Dust NIOSH 0600
Lead in Respirable Dust NIOSH 7082
Waste samples were collected from both operations by compositing grab samples and were analyzed as
follows:
Table 5. Waste Analysis Methods
Parameter Digestion Method Method
Total Lead Modified NIOSH 7082 SW-846 7420
TCLP Lead 3010 SW-846 7420
13
-------
The following Table 6 summarizes the type and location of samples:
Table 6. Type and Location of Samples
Total Nuisance Dust
Non-QC (primary)
Field blank2
Total Lead in Total
Nuisance Dust
Non-QC (primary)
Field blank2
Matrix spike
Total Respirable Dust
Non-QC (primary)
Field blank2
Total Lead in Resoirable
Dust
Non-QC (primary)
Field blank2
Matrix spike
TCLP Lead in Waste
Non-QC (primary)
Matrix spike
Matrix spike duplicate
Total Lead in Waste
Non-QC (primary)
Matrix spike
Miscellaneous
Independent check3
(Lead in paint SRM)
Number of Analyses Performed
Sample Points*
a
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
f
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
i
0
0
Total
0
0
0
Total
0
0
.Total
0
0
0
Total
1
1
1
Total
1
1
Total
0
Total
Total
101
JO.
20
10'
10
_5_
25
10
10
20
10
10
5 ,
25
2
2
2
6
2
2
4
1
1
' Sample Points:
a. Background d. Abrasive blasting area g. Pentek area
b. Abrasive blasting operator #1 e. Pentek operator #1 h. Abrasive blasting waste drams
c. Abrasive blasting operator #2 f. Pentek operator #2 i. Pentek waste drums
Each sample consists of 3, 37mm matched weight 0.8 micron MCEF filter cassettes. Samples to be taken in consecutive 80-minute
sequences with a maximum air volume throughput of 133 liters/cassette. The analysis results are additive for both total dust and lead
in total dust.
Field blanks for air monitoring are included at the rate of one blank per sample set for a total of 10 field blanks. Each blank is to
be analyzed for dusts and total lead.
The independent check standard will consist of a Standard Reference Material (SRM) for lead based paint. The SRM was used to
determine the adequacy of digestion procedures used in lead analysis and also for performing necessary matrix spikes.
14
-------
Work area samples for the abrasive blasting operations were obtained within the tarpaulin work enclosure
approximately 25 feet distant from the points of operations. No evaluations were performed outside the work
enclosure. Work area samples for the Pentek operations were conducted approximately 25 feet distant from the point
of operations, but were more vulnerable to changing air currents due to Thruway traffic.
Waste quantities generated by the abrasive blasting operations were determined by examining Line 11 of
the New York State Hazardous Waste Manifests from Bridge #10 and extrapolating data based upon total surface
areas of the bridge versus total surface area of paint removal
Waste quantity generated by the Pentek operations was determined by performing net and tare drum
weights of the VAC-PAC® system collection drum. This figure could then be extrapolated to total quantity for an
entire structure based upon surface area of paint removal during the evaluation.
Surface areas cleaned were calculated based on direct measurement with a standard 25 foot carpenter's tape
measure.
15
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PERFORMANCE AND PRODUCT QUALITY
The contract specifications for the bridges evaluated called for SSPC-SP6 (commercial blast) to remove
all visible paint from two-thirds of the bridge surface area prior to repainting. This specification was augmented by
NYSTA's requirement for all paint to be removed. This additional requirement was included in order to minimize
the potential for lead releases and exposures during future maintenance operations. The abrasive blasting operation
was able to meet or surpass this level of surface preparation for all areas of the structure.
The Pentek system, by definition, cannot meet SSPC-SP6 specifications as it is not an abrasive blasting
technology. As evaluated according to the contract surface preparation specifications, the Pentek System
demonstrated a less efficient removal of paint, especially the orange primer coat, and was also less effective while
performing around irregular surfaces such as nut and bolt heads and in inaccessible corners. The NYSTA bridge
inspectors indicated that a post-blast would be required for the Pentek-cleaned sections in order to meet contract
specifications.
Historical information provided by Pentek indicates the post-blast operation necessary to ashieve the desired
surface quality would typically require consumption of about 1 Ib. of abrasive/sq ft of surface area. Pentek reported
that spent abrasives would typically be classified as non-hazardous, however, this would need to be determined on
a case-by-case basis.
The Pentek System demonstrated superiority in its potential to minimize the generation of hazardous waste
(see Table 14).
ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY
The results of the air sampling performed before and during the evaluations is presented in Table 7. Air
sampling was performed for four hour periods on two abrasive blast operators and two Pentek CORNER-CUTTER®
operators in addition to work areas proximate to the paint removal activities. There was no sampling performed
on support labor or during mobilization, demobilization or cleanup operations, and no area samples were obtained
from outside the abrasive blasting containment area.
As can be seen from the abrasive blasting sampling data, OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) were
exceeded for total dust, respirable dust and total airborne lead on three samples and respirable lead on two of four
samples based upon eight hour time-weighted averages (TWA). This is assuming that no other dust or lead
exposures are encountered for the remainder of the work day. If exposures were to stay constant for the entire work
period, PELs would have been exceeded by all samples based upon levels encountered in the four hour sampling
period. Nonetheless, even extrapolating eight hour TWA values from the four hour sampling period, all sampling
results obtained for the abrasive blasting operation are above the OSHA action level for lead of 30 /i/m3 or 0.03
mg/m3 of air. This value is irrespective of personal protective or respiratory protective equipment used.
The Pentek air sampling results exhibited no detectable airborne lead or respirable dust, and only negligible
amounts of total dust.
16
-------
Table 7. Air Sampling Analytical Results
Sampling
Point
Background
Background (D)
Abrasive Blast
Area
Abrasive Blast
Area (D)
Abrasive Blast
Operator #1
Abrasive Blast
Operator #2
Pentek Area
Pentek Area (D)
Pentek
Operator #1
Pentek
Operator #2
Sampling Period
Total
Dust
mg/ms
0.6
ND
41.2
34.1
8.0
89.2
0.2
ND
2.9
2.7
Respirable
Dust
mg/m5
0.2
ND
12.5
11.9
0.7
12.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total Pb
mg/m'
0.01
ND
0.32
1.4
0.1
0.89
ND
ND
ND
ND
Respirable
Pb
mg/m'
ND
ND
0.26
0.1
ND
0.24
ND
ND
ND
ND
8 Hour TWA"
Total'
Dust
mg/m'
0.3
ND
20.6*
17.1*
4.0
44.6*
0.1
ND
1.5
1.4
Respirable2
Dust
mg/m'
0.1
ND
6.3*
5.9*
0.4
6.2*
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total3
Pb
mg/m'
.005
ND
0.2*
0.7*
0.05
0.45*
ND
ND
ND
ND
Respirable
Pb
mg/m3
ND
ND
0.1*
0.05
ND
0.12*
ND
ND
ND
ND
LEGEND: D = Duplicate sample
1 OSHA PEL = 15 mg/m3
3 OSHA PEL = .05 mg/m3
* Exceeds OSHA PEL
ND - Not detectable
2 OSHA PEL = 5 mg/m3
4 Assuming no exposures during remainder of work day totalling 8 hours.
N.D. (not detectable) is used in all cases where all contributing values are below the detection limit. In
cases where all contributing values are above the detection limit, the arithmetic mean is used. If one or more values
are below the detection limit, and the remainder above, then the arithmetic mean of the values is used, preceded
by the "less than" sign (<) where applicable.
It is customary for the laboratory to report all non-detectable or zero values at the DL followed by a "U"
or undetectable designation. The values appearing in Table 7 are actual values derived from raw data. Therefore,
even if the lab report shows 1.7 (U), the actual value may be zero. In these cases, the zero value is used to
complete the applicable Table 7 calculation. For example, for the background total dust sample, the actual amounts
of dust detected are 0.2, 0.0 and O.Omg, respectively, with an air volume of 360 liters. This calculates to 0.55 or
0.6 mg/m3.
17
-------
Total and respirable lead values, as they appear in Appendix E, are in units of ing/I/cassette and required
conversion to mg/m3 via the formula.
Conc.(mg/m3) = Cs.Vs, + CsWs-, + Cs,Vs,
V,
Where Cs = concentration of Pb in mg/ml in sample
Vs = volume of sample solution
Vt = total volume of air sampled
The respiratory protection worn by the abrasive blasting nozzle operators appeared to have been adequate
for this particular job; (i.e, A type CE, continuous flow respirator carries a protection factor of 25 as assigned by
NIOSH which provides protection for up to 1.25 mg/m3 of lead in air). This level was exceeded by one area sample
(1.4 mg/m3). This is probably not true for ground support labor or cleanup laborers who performed their duties
without benefit of any respiratory protection.
Because the tarpaulin containment systems were less than 100% efficient, visible plumes of potentially lead-
contaminated material exited the immediate work area. This potentially provides a source of lead exposure to the
general public and the environment.
ECONOMICS
The economic evaluations depicted here are not intended to be all-inclusive or representative of all potential
project costs. Specifically excluded from this evaluation are costs related to capital equipment, equipment
maintenance, vehicles, utilities and fuel, containment structures , and personal protective equipment.
Observations and interviews were utilized in lieu of in-depth time studies for determining and calculating
labor costs. For the purposes of simplicity and uniformity, a standard labor rate of $15.00 per hour was assumed
for all labor classifications.
Labor Costs
Labor activities were divided into five categories: Paint Removal Operations, Support Labor, Mobilization,
Demobilization and Cleanup.
Table 8 shows the paint removal operators' (abrasive blasting nozzle and Pentek CORNER-CUTTER®
operators) labor time and surface area of paint removal performed during the evaluation period. This data is used
to calculate a production rate in sq. ft. per hour per operator, a unit cost of $/sq. ft. and a "total" cost assuming
work on an identical 15,000 sq. ft. bridge. As can be seen, at the production rates demonstrated, it would require
approximately eight Pentek systems utilizing three CORNER-CUTTERS® each to equal the production rate of the
two operator abrasive blasting process. This translates into approximately an eightfold increase in production labor
requirements and a greater than tenfold increase in associated production costs for the Pentek System.
18
-------
Table 8. Labor Costs - Paint Removal Operations
Abrasive
Blasting
ff
Operators
2
Time
-------
Table 9. Labor Costs
Paint Removal Operations - Support Labor (Entire Structure)
Abrasive
Blasting
Pentek
Total Time
(far.)
75
406
Rate
($/hr.)
$15.00
$15.00
Total
Cost
$1125
$6090
Table 10 shows labor costs for daily mobilization. Again, here it is assumed that eight Pentek Systems
requiring thirty-two employees would be required. As before, labor costs are higher due to sheer number of
employees, however, the daily time required for this activity is reduced.
Table 10. Labor Costs - Mobilization
Abrasive
Blasting
Pentek
#
Personnel
7
32
Rate
$/hour
$15.00
$15.00
# Hours
Daily
1.5
0.5
#Days
6
6
Total
Cost
$945
$1440
Table 11 depicts a one-time demobilization. Again, Pentek costs are higher due to the number of workers
required. As with mobilization, however, the times required for this activity are reduced.
Table 11. Labor Costs - Demobilization
Abrasive
Blasting
Pentek
# Personnel
7
32
Rate
$/hour
$15.00
$15.00
# Hours
2
1.5
Total Cost
$210.
$720.
Table 12 shows costs associated with cleanup activities for a ground surface area of 26,000 sq. ft. wMch
would be typical for a 15,000 sq. ft. bridge. Here costs are substantially higher for the abrasive blasting process
due to the requirements for raising and sweeping ground tarpaulins and manual handling of the abrasive blast debris.
20
-------
Table 12. Cleanup - 260' x 100' - Ground Area Only
Abrasive
Blasting
Pentek
#
Personnel
7
32
# Hours'
Section
8
0.5
#
Sections
6.5
N/A2
Total
Man
Hours
364
20
Rate
$/hour
$15.00
$15.00
Total Cost
$5460.
$240.
1 One section = 4000 sq. ft of flat ground area.
2 Cleanup of ground sections not applicable due to minimal residues noted.
Table 13 compiles the total labor costs developed in Tables 8-12, and shows the Pentek System labor costs
to be approximately three times that of abrasive blasting.
Table 13. Total Estimated Labor Costs
Abrasive Blasting Pentek
Paint Removal
Support
Mobilization
Demobilization
Cleanup
Labor Totals
$1500
$1125
$945
$210
$5460
$9240
$18450
$6090
$ 1440
$ 720
$ 240
$26940*
* Not including additional labor which would be necessary if a post-blast were required to meet surface preparation specifications.
Material Costs
It was assumed that all Pentek equipment was reusable and that the only expendable material to be
evaluated would be the abrasive blasting media used. Table 14 shows this usage and the approximate cost based
upon operator usage of 0.5 ton per hour per operator.
Table 14. Materials Costs
Abrasive
Blasting
'Tons of
Abrasive Grit
50.8
Cost
$/ton
$38.50
Total
$1957
Pentek 0 — 0
1 Based upon 0.5 ton of grit usage/hour/operator.
Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Costs
Table 15 shows the amount of wastes generated during the evaluation periods and extrapolates these
numbers to a complete bridge. As can be seen, abrasive blasting generates approximately 40 times more waste than
the Pentek System due to the use of expendable blasting media. The total waste generated by the abrasive blasting
process was obtained from New York State Hazardous Waste Manifests and weights determined at the hazardous
waste disposal facility. It should be noted that only 31 tons of waste was disposed from this job, and that, based
upon usage estimates, approximately 50.8 tons of abrasive grit was used (see Table 14).
21
-------
Table 15. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Costs
Removal
Area
(sq.ft.)
Abrasive
Blasting
Pentek
Pentek
1180
119
—
Waste
Generated (Ibs)
Theo. Actual
4170
7.4J
—
1 4807
11.5
—
Lbs. Waste
sq.ft.
4.1
0.1
l.O4
Est. Total
Waste flbs.)
61,500
1500
15,000
Total Waste
(tons)
30.8
0.75
7.5
'Disposal
$/Ton
$300
$300
$300
Total
Disposal $
$9240
$225
$2250
(post-blast
if required)
Theoretical waste generated based upon .175 tons waste/tons of steel cleaned.
Theoretical waste generated based upon 11.5 mil. paint thickness and paint solids density of 66.3 lbs./ft?.
Industry average for bulk waste including transportation.
Theoretical post-blast abrasive usage as per Pentek historical data.
Table 16 shows a summary of total costs for labor, materials and hazardous waste disposal.
Table 16. Total Costs
Abrasive Blasting Pentek
Labor
Materials
Haz. Waste
Disposal
$ 9240.00
$ 1957.00
$ 9240.00
$26,940
$ 0
$ 225
Total $20,437 $27,165*
* Not including additional labor, materials and waste disposal costs if a post-blast was required.
Table 17 shows analytical results for abrasive blasting and Pentek waste samples obtained during the
evaluation periods. As can be seen, both wastes are considered characteristically hazardous for lead by TCLP
analysis. Total lead analysis shows the Pentek waste to be approximately 39% lead by weight. This waste may now
or in the future, be acceptable by some secondary smelting operations for lead recovery which would present a less
expensive disposal option. For both wastes, land ban disposal restrictions (LDRs) require that treatment or
stabilization be performed and that a teachable lead in waste concentration of less than 5 mg/£ be attained prior to
land disposal.
Table 17. Waste Analytical Results
Waste Type
Abrasive Blast
Abrasive Blast
(MD)3
TCLP Pb
rng/61
78.0
77.7
Total Pb
/*g/g
14,600
75602
Pentek
Pentek (MD)3
440
391,000
381,000
Above EPA maximum of 5.0 mg/£ categorizes waste as hazardous.
Difference due to reported non-homogeneity of waste sample.
MD = Matrix Duplicate
TCLP MD not performed
22
-------
The estimate of 1 oz. of paint per ft2 of area cleaned was provided by Pentek based upon historical data.
The actual paint removal, based upon this evaluation, is 11.5 lbs/119 ft2 or 1.55 oz./fi2 of area cleaned. This
calculates to 114 Ibs. of paint waste generated by the abrasive blasting operation. Assuming that 8000 Ibs of grit
were used and an average of 38.6% Pb in the paint, the average concentration of Pb now should not exceed 5500
ppm (0.386 x 114 x 10*78000 = 5500 ppm Pb). This value is reasonable as compared to the analytical results
obtained on the abrasive blasting waste when considering that not all of the paint was removed by the Pentek
process. Had all the paint been removed, it is reasonable to assume that paint removal could approximate the 2.1-
4.1 oz/ft2 required to reconcile the 7560-14,600 ppm analytical results.
ANALYTICAL DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
Although not all quality assurance objectives relative to precision and accuracy of analytical results were
met, all data is deemed useable based upon the following results.
Solid Matrix Data Quality Objectives fDOQ')
Pentek Bridge #1 analytical results displayed excellent reproduceability (381,000 vs. 391,000 pg/g) for a
relative percent difference (RPD) of 0.13 % which is significantly lower than the DQO of < 20 %. NYSTA Bridge
#1 analytical results displayed a significantly higher RPD of 31.8% (7,560 vs. 14,600 /xg/g). Although the RPD
for the NYSTA Bridge #10 duplicate analysis exceeds the stated DQO, these results are usable based upon the
Pentek results and the reproduceability of results obtained from the analyses of the standard reference material
(SRM). The reported apparent heterogeneity of the NYSTA Bridge #10 samples is believed to be the reason for this
higher RPD as opposed to any analytical control variances.
Accuracy, measured as % recovery, was 102% for NYSTA Bridge #10 and 83.5% for Pentek Bridge #1.
These results, coupled with a 99.7 % SRM recovery support the useability of the data. Precision results are all well
within Quality Assurance Project Plan stated DQO's of 50-140%.
TCLP Extracts
NYSTA Bridge #1 analytical results displayed excellent reproduceability (78.0 vs. 77.7 mg/1) for a RPD
of 0.2%, with an accuracy as % recovery of 101.9% and a SRM recover of 99%. These results all support the
useability of the data.
The failure to meet the DQO for the Pentek Bridge #1 matrix spike is the result of serial dilutions
necessary to accurately quantitate the sample and is not reflective of uncontrolled analytical recoveries.
23
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS
Although, the economic and product quality aspects tend to favor conventional abrasive blasting over the
Pentek system for lead paint removal, the volume of hazardous waste generated and its associated increased costs
need to be factored in when considering the surface preparation specifications of similar projects.
The decision to specify a lead paint removal system should also be strongly influenced by the potential
impacts to worker health and safety and to die environment. Conventional abrasive blasting, as suggested by this
evaluation, exposes workers to airborne lead levels which exceed current Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) as
established by OSHA, and potentially exposes the local environment to unacceptable levels of lead-contaminated
dusts. On this job alone, based upon the estimated abrasive blast grit usage and the total lead analysis results in the
waste samples, it can be estimated that between 465 and 900 Ibs. of lead were released to the local environment.
The safe use of the abrasive blasting process for the removal of lead-based paints requires the utilization of
additional controls which specifically address the issues of worker health and safety and lead-contaminated residuals
containment. These controls, depending on the sensitivity of the worksite locations, may require highly engineered
containment systems that, while providing for the necessary levels of worker and environmental safety, also
significantly increase total paint removal costs.
The option of using alternative processes such as the Pentek dustless needlegun system becomes more
economically advantageous when sophisticated containment structures, personal protective equipment, training and
medical surveillance programs and their associated costs become unnecessary due to the Pentek system's ability to
control potential contaminants at the source.
Additional evaluations of post-blasting requirements necessitated by the Pentek system's apparent inability
to remove paint from inaccessible areas, should be performed. Also, future research and development activities for
Pentek and other similar blastless technologies should focus on maximizing paint removal efficiencies, especially
in inaccessible areas, to eliminate the necessity for post-blasting activities, which would increase overall paint
removal costs.
The potential benefits of using the Pentek dustless needlegun system in helping to address the global lead-
based paint removal problem are clear. These include:
Substantial reductions (up to 97.5%) in the generation of hazardous wastes.
Enhanced worker health and safety through substantial reduction (up to 99 %) of airborne dusts
and lead-containing residues, thus eliminating the necessity for additional administrative controls
necessary to comply with OSHA standards.
Enhanced protection of the local environment through substantial reduction (up to 99 %) of fugitive
emissions of lead-containing dusts and spent abrasive debris. This may preclude the necessity for
additional measures in order to comply with federal, state and local regulations dictating control
over multi-media toxic chemical releases.
24
-------
Optimization of the concentration of lead in solids, thus enhancing the potential to reclaim the
metal for reuse rather than disposal in secure landfills.
Economically competitive when factoring in costs of sophisticated containment structures and
engineered systems to assure worker health and safety and environmental protection.
25
-------
APPENDIX A
SURFACE PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS
SSPC-SP 6
SSPC-SP 11
Reprinted from Volume 2, "Standards and Specifications" of the Steel
Structures Painting Manual, Sixth Edition, 1991, Steel Structures Painting
Council, 4516 Henry Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
26
-------
SSPC-SP 6
March 1. 1985
September 1, 1989 and June 1, 1991 (Editorial Changes)
Steel Structures Painting Council
SURFACE PREPARATION SPECIFICATION NO. 6
Commercial Blast Cleaning
1. Scope
1.1 This specification covers the requirements for
Commercial Blast Cleaning of steel surfaces by the use of
abrasives.
2. Definition
2.1 A Commercial Blast Cleaned surface, when
viewed without magnification, shall be free of all visible
oil, grease, dirt, dust, mill scale, rust, paint, oxides, corro-
sion products, and other foreign matter, except for stain-
ing, as noted in Section 2.2.
2.2 Staining shall be limited to no more than 33 per-
cent of each square inch of surface area and may consist
of light shadows, slight streaks, or minor discolorations
caused by stains of rust, stains of mill scale, or stains of
previously applied paint. Slight residues of rust and paint
may also be left in the bottoms of pits if the original sur-
face is pitted.
2.3 ACCEPTABLE VARIATIONS IN APPEARANCE
THAT DO NOT AFFECT SURFACE CLEANLINESS as
defined in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 include variations caused
by type of steel, original surface condition, thickness of
the steel, weld metal, mill or fabrication marks, heat
treating, heat affected zones, blasting abrasive, and dif-
ferences in the blast pattern.
2.4 When painting is specified, the surface shall be
roughened to a degree suitable for the specified paint
system.
2.5 Immediately prior to paint application, the surface
shall comply with the degree of cleaning as specified
herein.
2.6 SSPC-Vis 1-89 or other visual standards of surface
preparation may be specified to supplement the written defi-
nition.
"NOTE: Additional information on visual standards is
available in Section A.4 of the Appendix.
3. Blast Cleaning Abrasives
3.1 The selection of abrasive size and type shall be
based on the type, grade, and surface condition of the
steel to be cleaned, type of blast cleaning system
employed, the finished surface to be produced (cleanli-
ness and roughness), and whether the abrasive will be
recycled.
'Notes are not requirements of this specification.
3.2 The cleanliness and size of recycled abrasives
shall be maintained to insure compliance with this
specification.
3.3 The blast cleaning abrasive shall be dry and free
of oil, grease, and other harmful materials at the time of
use.
3.4 Any limitations or restrictions on the use of
specific abrasives, quantity of contaminants, or degree of
embedment shall be included in the procurement docu-
ments (project specification) covering the work, since
abrasive embedment and abrasives containing contam-
inants may not be acceptable for some service re-
quirements.
'NOTE: Additional information on abrasive selection is
available in Section A.2 of the Appendix.
4. Reference Standards
4.1 If there is a conflict between the cited reference
standards and this specification, this specification shall
prevail unless otherwise indicated in the procurement
documents (project specification).
4.2 The standards referenced in this specification
are:
SSPC-SP 1 Solvent Cleaning
SSPC-Vis 1-89 Visual Standard for Abrasive Blast
Cleaned Steel
5. Procedure Before Blast Cleaning
5.1 Before blast cleaning, visible deposits of oil or
grease shall be removed by any of the methods specified
in SSPC-SP 1 or other agreed upon methods.
5.2 Before blast cleaning, surface imperfections such
as sharp fins, sharp edges, weld spatter, or burning slag
should be removed from the surface to the extent required
by the procurement documents (project specification).
'NOTE: Additional information on surface imperfections is
available in Section A.5 of the Appendix.
6. Blast Cleaning Methods and Operation
6.1 Clean, dry, compressed air shall be used for
nozzle blasting. Moisture separators, oil separators, traps
or other equipment may be necessary to achieve this re-
quirement.
27
-------
SSP-C-SP 6
March 1,1985
September 1, 1989 and June 1, 1991 (Editorial Changes)
6.2 Any of the following methods of surface prepara-
tion may be used to achieve a Commercial Blast Cleaned
surface:
6.2.1 Dry abrasive blasting using compressed air,
blast nozzles, and abrasive.
6.2.2 Dry abrasive blasting using a closed cycle, recir-
culating abrasive system with compressed air, blast noz-
zle, and abrasive, with or without vacuum for dust and
abrasive recovery.
6.2.3 Dry abrasive blasting, using a closed cycle,
recirculating abrasive system with centrifugal wheels and
abrasive.
6.3 Other methods of surface preparation (such as
wet abrasive blasting) may be used to achieve a Commer-
cial Blast Cleaned surface by mutual agreement be-
tween the party responsible for performing the work and
the party responsible for establishing the requirements or
his representative.
* NOTE: If wet abrasive blasting is used, information on the
use of inhibitors to prevent the formation of rust im-
mediately after wet blast cleaning is contained in Section
A.9 of the Appendix.
7. Procedures Following Blast Cleaning and
Immediately Prior to Painting
7.1 Visible deposits of oil, grease, or other con-
taminants shall be removed by any of the methods
specified in SSPC-SP 1 or other methods agreed upon by
the party responsible for establishing the requirements
and the party responsible for performing the work.
7.2 Dust and loose residues shall be removed from
prepared surfaces by brushing, blowing off with clean, dry
air, vacuum cleaning or other methods agreed upon by the
party responsible for establishing the requirements and
the party responsible for performing the work. Moisture
separators, oil separators, traps, or other equipment may
be necessary to achieve clean, dry air.
7.3 After blast cleaning, surface imperfections which
remain (i.e., sharp fins, sharp edges, weld spatter, burning
slag, scabs, slivers, etc.) shall be removed to the extent re-
quired in the procurement documents (project specifica-
tion). Any damage to the surface profile resulting from the
removal of surface imperfections shall be corrected to
meet the requirements of Section 2.4.
"NOTE: Additional information on surface imperfections is
contained in Section A.5 of the Appendix.
7.4 Any visible rust that forms on the surface of the
steel after blast cleaning shall be removed by reblasting
the rusted areas to meet the requirements of this
specification before painting.
'NOTE: Information on rust-back (rerusting) and surface
condensation is contained in Sections A.7 and A.8 of the
Appendix.
8. Inspection
8.1 Work and materials supplied under this specifica-
tion are subject to inspection by the party responsible for
establishing the requirements or his representative.
Materials and work areas shall be accessible to the in-
spector. The procedures and times of inspection shall be
as agreed upon by the party responsible for establishing
the requirements and the party responsible for performing
the work.
8.2 Conditions not complying with this specification
shall be corrected. In case of dispute the arbitration or
settlement procedure established in the procurement
documents (project specification) shall be followed. If no
arbitration or settlement procedure is established, then
the procedure established by the American Arbitration
Association shall be used.
8.3 The procurement documents (project specifica-
tion) should establish the responsibility for inspection and
for any required affidavit certifying compliance with the
specification.
9. Safety and Environmental Requirements
9.1 Blast cleaning is a hazardous operation.
Therefore, all work shall be conducted in such a manner to
comply with all applicable insurance underwriter, local,
state, and federal safety and environmental rules and
requirements.
*NOTE: SSPC-PA Guide 3, "A Guide to Safety in Paint
Application," addresses safety concerns for coating work.
10. Comments
10.1 While every precaution is taken to insure that all
information furnished in SSPC specifications is as ac-
curate, complete, and useful as possible, the Steel Struc-
tures Painting Council cannot assume responsibility nor
incur any obligation resulting from the use of any mate-
rials, paints, or methods specified therein, or of the
specification itself.
10.2 Additional information and data relative to this
specification are contained in the following brief Appen-
dix. More detailed information and data are presented in a
separate document, SSPC-SP COM, "Surface Preparation
Commentary." The recommendations contained in the
Notes, Appendix, and SSPC-SP COM are believed to repre-
sent good practice, but are not to be considered as re-
quirements of the specification. The table below lists the
subjects discussed relevant to Commercial Blast Cleaning
and appropriate section of SSPC-SP COM.
28
-------
Subject
Abrasive Selection
Degree of Cleaning
Film Thickness
Wet Abrasive Blast Cleaning.
Maintenance Painting
Rust Back (Rerusting)
Surface Profile
Visual Standards
Weld Spatter
Commentary Section
5
11.6
10
9
3.2
8
6
7
4.1
A. Appendix
A.1 FUNCTION—Commercial Blast Cleaning (SSPC-
SP 6) provides a greater degree of cleaning than Brush-Off
Blast Cleaning (SSPC-SP 7) but less than Near-White Blast
Cleaning (SSPC-SP 10). It should be used where a high but
not perfect degree of blast cleaning is required. The
primary functions of blast cleaning before painting are: (a)
to remove material from the surface that can cause early
failure of the coating system, and (b) to obtain a suitable
surface roughness.
A.2 ABRASIVE SELECTION—Types of metallic and
non-metallic abrasives are discussed in the Surface
Preparation Commentary (SSPC-SP COM). It is important
to recognize that blasting abrasives may become embed-
ded in or leave residues on the surface of the steel during
preparation. While normally such embedment or residues
are not detrimental, care should be taken (particularly if the
prepared steel is to be used in an immersion environment)
to assure that the abrasive is .free from detrimental amounts
of water soluble, solvent soluble, acid soluble, or other such
soluble materials. Requirements for selecting and evaluat-
ing mineral and slag abrasives are given in SSPC-AB 1,
"Mineral and Slag Abrasives."
A.3 SURFACE PROFILE —Surface profile is the
roughness of the surface which results from abrasive blast
cleaning. The profile depth (or height) is dependent upon
the size, type, and hardness of the abrasive, particle veloci-
ty and angle of impact, hardness of the surface, amount of
recycling, and the proper maintenance of working mixtures
of grit and/or shot.
The allowable minimum/maximum height of profile is
usually dependent upon the thickness of the paint to be
applied. Large particle sized abrasives (particularly metal-
lic) can produce a profile which may be too deep to be ade-
quately covered by a single thin film coat. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the use of larger abrasives be avoided
in these cases. However, larger abrasives may be needed
for thick film coatings or to facilitate removal of heavy mill
scale or rust. If control of profile (minimum/maximum) is
deemed to be significant to coatings performance, it
should be addressed in the procurement documents
(project specification).
Typical maximum profile heights achieved with com-
SSPC-SP 6
March 1, 1985
September 1,1989 and June 1, 1991 (Editorial Changes)
mercial abrasive media are shown in Table 8 of the Surface
Preparation Commentary (SSPC-SP COM). Methods (i.e.,
comparators, replica tape, depth micrometers) are
available to aid in estimating the profile of surfaces blast
cleaned with sand, steel grit, and steel shot.
A.4 VISUAL STANDARDS—Note that the use of
visual standards in conjunction with this specification is
required only when they are specified in the procurement
documents (project specification) covering the work. It is
recommended, however, that the use of visual standards
be made mandatory in the procurement documents (proj-
ect specification).
SSPC-Vis 1-89, "Visual Standard for Abrasive Blast
Cleaned Steel," provides color photographs for the various
grades of surface preparation as a function of the initial con-
dition of the steel. The following table lists the photographs
for this specification that are applicable to the rust grades
listed below.
Rust Grade
Pictorial
Standards
Mill Scale
and Rust
BSP 6
100%
Rust
CSP 6
100% Rust
With Pits
D SP 6
Many other visual standards are available and are
described in Section 7 of the Commentary {SSPC-SP
COM).
A.5 SURFACE IMPERFECTIONS—Surface imperfec-
tions can cause premature failure when the service is
severe. Coatings tend to pull away from sharp edges and
projections, leaving little or no coating to protect the
underlying steel. Other features which are difficult to prop-
erly cover and protect include crevices, weld porosity,
laminations, etc. The high cost of the methods to remedy
the surface imperfections requires weighing the benefits
of edge rounding, weld spatter removal, etc., versus a
potential coating failure.
Poorly adhering contaminants, such as weld slag
residues, loose weld spatter, and some minor surface
laminations, may be removed during the blast cleaning
operation. Other surface defects (steel laminations, weld
porosities, or deep corrosion pits) may not be evident until
the surface preparation has been completed. Therefore,
proper planning for such surface repair work is essential
since the timing of the repairs may occur before, during, or
after the blast cleaning operation. Section 4 of the Com-
mentary (SSPC-SP COM) contains additional information
on surface imperfections.
A.6 CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION—Steel contam-
inated with soluble salts (i.e., chlorides and sulfates)
develops rust-back rapidly at intermediate and high
humidities. These soluble salts can be present on the steel
surface prior to blast cleaning as a result of atmospheric
29
-------
SSPQ-SP 6
March 1, 1985
September 1,1989 and June 1,1991 (Editorial Changes)
contamination. In addition, contaminants can be de-
posited on the steel surface during blast cleaning
whenever the abrasive is contaminated. Therefore, rust-
back can be minimized by removing these salts from the
steel surface, preferably before blast cleaning, and
eliminating sources of recontamination during and after
blast cleaning. Identification of the contaminants along
with their concentrations may be obtained from laboratory
and field tests. A number of tests for soluble salts are now
under study by the SSPC, ASTM, Maritime Administration,
and ISO.
A.7 RUST-BACK—Rust-back (rerusting) occurs when
freshly cleaned steel is exposed to conditions of high
humidrty, moisture, contamination, or a corrosive at-
mosphere. The time interval between blast cleaning and
rust-back will vary greatly from one environment to
another. Under mild ambient conditions it is best to blast
clean and coat a surface the same day. Severe conditions
may require coating more quickly while for exposure under
controlled conditions the coating time may be extended.
Under no circumstances should the steel be permitted to
rust-back before painting regardless of the time elapsed
(see Appendix A.6).
A.8 DEW POINT—Moisture condenses on any sur-
face that is colder than the dew point of the surrounding
air. It is, therefore, recommended that the temperature of
steel surface be at least 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) above
the dew point during dry blast cleaning operations. It is ad-
visable to visually inspect for moisture and periodically
check the surface temperature and dew point during blast
cleaning operations. It is important that the application of
paint over a damp surface be avoided.
A,9 WET ABRASIVE BLAST CLEANING—Steel that
is wet abrasive blast cleaned may rust rapidly. Clean water
should be used for rinsing (studies have shown that water
of at least 15,000 ohm-cm resistivity is preferred). It may be
necessary that inhibitors be added to the water or applied
to the surface immediately after blast cleaning to tem-
porarily prevent rust formation. The coating should then be
applied before any rusting is visible. One inhibitive treat-
ment for blast cleaned surfaces is water containing 0.32%
sodium nitrite and 1.28% by weight secondary ammonium
phosphate (dibasic).
CAUTION: Some inhibitive treatments may interfere with
the performance of certain coating systems.
A.10 FILM THICKNESS—It is essential that ample
coating be applied after blast cleaning to adequately cover
the peaks of the surface profile. The dry paint film
thickness above the peaks of the profile should equal the
thickness known to be needed for the desired protection. If
the dry film thickness over the peaks is inadequate, prema-
ture rust-through or failure will occur. To assure that coating
thicknesses are properly measured, refer to SSPC-PA 2,
"Measurement of Dry Paint Thickness with Magnetic
Gages."
A.11 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PAINTING —
When this specification is used in maintenance painting,
specific instructions should be given on the extent of sur-
face to be blast cleaned or spot blast cleaned to this
degree of cleanliness. SSPC-PA Guide 4, "Guide to Main-
tenance Repainting with Oil Base or Alkyd Painting
Systems," provides a description of accepted practices for
retaining old sound paint, removing unsound paint,
feathering, and spot cleaning.
30
-------
SSPC-SP11
November 1, 1987
September 1,1989 and June 1, 1991 (Editorial Changes)
Steel Structures Painting Council
SURFACE PREPARATION SPECIFICATION NO. 11
Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal
1. Scope
1.1 This specification covers the requirements for pow-
er tool cleaning to produce a bare metal surface and to re-
tain or produce a surface profile.
1.2 This specification is suitable where a roughened,
clean, bare metal surface is required, but where abrasive
blasting is not feasible or permissible.
1.3 This specification differs from SSPC-SP 3, Power
Tool Cleaning, in that SSPC-SP 3 requires only the removal
of loosely adherent materials and does not require produc-
ing or retaining a surface profile.
2. Definition
2.1 Metallic surfaces which are prepared according to
this specification, when viewed without magnification, shall
be free of all visible oil, grease, dirt, dust, mill scale, rust,
paint, oxide, corrosion products, and other foreign matter.
Slight residues of rust and paint may be left in the lower por-
tion of pits if the original surface is pitted.
2.2 When painting is specified, the surface shall be
roughened to a degree suitable for the specified paint sys-
tem. The surface profile shall not be less than 1 mil (25
microns). 'NOTE: Additional information on profile is con-
tained in Sections A.5 and A.6 of the Appendix.
2.3 Photographs or other visual standards may be used
to supplement the written definition. *NOTE: Additional in-
formation on visual standards is available in Section A.7 of
the Appendix.
3. Power Surface Preparation Tools and Media
3.1 Surface Cleaning Power Tools (that may or may not
destroy the surface profile): any tool capable of appropriate-
ly driving the media of Section 3.3 is acceptable.
3.2 Impact and Other Profile Producing Power Tools:
any tool on which the media of Section 3.4 can be properly
mounted and used to produce the required uniform profile
is acceptable. *NOTE: Information on suitable tools is found
in Sections A.S.a and A.S.b of the Appendix.
3.3 Surface Cleaning Media:
3.3.1 Non-woven abrasive wheels and discs — con-
structed of a non-woven synthetic fiber web material of con-
tinuous undulated filaments impregnated with an abrasive
grit. *NOTE: Information on suitable discs and wheels is
found in Section A.S.c of the Appendix.
3.3.2 Coated abrasive discs (sanding pads), coated
abrasive flap wheels, coated abrasive bands or other coat-
ed abrasive devices capable of running on power tools.
'NOTE: Information on suitable wheels is found in Section
A.S.d of the Appendix.
3.3.3 Other materials that produce the requirements of
Section 2.1.
3.4 Surface Profile Producing Media:
3.4.1. Rotary impact flap assembly consisting of a flexi-
ble loop construction with carbide spheres bonded to the
peening surfaces of each of the metal supports fastened to
the loop.* NOTE: Information on suitable flap assemblies is
found in Section A.S.e of the Appendix.
3.4.2 Needle guns consisting of a bundle of wire "nee-
dles" which can impact a surface, producing a peened ef-
fect. 'NOTE: Information on suitable needles is found in
Section A.S.f of the Appendix.
3.4.3 Other materials which, when mounted on power
hand tools, can produce the profile required in Section 2.2.
4. Reference Standards
4.1 The standards referenced in this specification are
listed in Section 4.4. and form a part of this specification.
4.2 The latest issue, revision, or amendment of the refer-
enced standards in effect on the date of invitation to bid shall
govern unless otherwise specified.
4.3 If there is a conflict between the requirements of any
of the cited reference standards and this specification, the
requirements of this specification shall prevail.
4.4 STEEL STRUCTURES PAINTING COUNCIL
(SSPC) SPECIFICATIONS:
SSPC-SP 1 Solvent,Cleaning
SSPC-SP 3 Power Tool Cleaning
31
-------
: SSPC-SP -U
, November 1, 1987
September 1, 1989 and June 1, 1991 (Editorial Changes)
!5. Procedures Prior to Power Tool Surface
Preparation
: 5.1 Prior to power tool surface preparation, remove visi-
• ble deposits of oil or grease by any of the methods specified
in SSPC-SP 1, "Solvent Cleaning," or other agreed-upon
;methods.
5.2 Prior to power tool surface preparation, remove sur-
face imperfections such as sharp fins, sharp edges, weld
spatter, or burning slag to the extent required by the procure-
ment documents (project specification). *NOTE: Additional
information on surface imperfections is available in Appen-
dix A.9.
;6. Power Tool Surface Preparation Methods
and Operations
, 6.1 Depending on profile conditions, use either or both
of the following methods to remove tightly adhering materi-
als and to retain or produce the required surface profile with
power tools:
6.1.1 Profile Condition A, Acceptable Profile Exists:
Achieve the cleanliness required in Section 2.1 by using pow-
er tools described in Section 3.1.
| 6.1.2 Profile Condition B. Unacceptable Profile Exists:
Achieve the cleanliness required in Section 2.1 and the pro-
file required in Section 2.2 by using power tools described
in Section 3. *NOTE: Information on the selection of tools
and cleaning media is found in Section A.2 of the Appendix.
7. Procedures Following Power Tool Surface
Preparation
7.1 After power tool surface preparation and prior to the
application of coatings, reclean the surface if it does not con-
form to this specification.
, 7.2 Remove visible deposits of oil, grease, or other con-
taminants by any of the methods specified in SSPC-SP 1 or
other methods agreed upon by the party responsible for es-
talishing the requirements and the party responsible for per-
forming the work. 'NOTE: Information on oil contamination
is found in Section A.4.d of the Appendix.
7.3 Remove dirt, dust, or similar contaminants from the
surface. Acceptable methods include brushing, blow off with
oil free, clean, dry air; vacuum cleaning; or wiping with a
clean, dry cloth.
7.4 Power tool prepared surfaces must be coated prior
to the reformation of rust or visible contamination.
8. Inspection
8.1 Surfaces prepared under this specification shall be
subject to timely inspection by the purchaser or his author-
ized representative. The contractor shall correct such work
as is found defective under this specification. In case of dis-
pute, the arbitration or settlement procedure as established
in the procurement documents (project specification), shall
be followed. If no arbitration procedure is established, the
procedure specified by the American Arbitration Association
shall be used.
8.2 The procurement documents (project specification)
covering work or purchase shall establish the responsibility
for testing and for any required affidavit certifying full com-
pliance with the specification.
9. Safety
9.1 All safety requirements stated in the procurement
document as well as this specification and its component
parts apply in addition to any applicable federal, state, and
local rules and requirements. They also shall be in accord
with instructions and requirements of insurance underwriters.
10. Comments
10.1 While every precaution is taken to insure that all
information Burnished in SSPC specifications is as accurate,
complete, and useful as possible, the Steel Structures Paint-
ing Council cannot assume responsibility nor incur any obli-
gation resulting from the use of any materials, paints, or
methods specified therein, or of the specification itself.
10.2 Additional information and data relative to this
specification are containec in the following Appendix. Addi-
tional detaiied information and data are presented in a
separate document, SSPC-SP COM, "Surface Preparation
Commentary." The recommendations contained in the
Notes, Appendix, and SSPC-SP COM are believed to
represent good practice, but are not to be considered as re-
quirements of the specification.
The tabie below lists the appropriate section of SSPC-
SP COM.
Subject
Degree of Cleaning . .
Film Thickness
Maintenance Painting
Rust-Back (Rerusting)
Surface Profile
Visual Standards ....
Weld Spatter
Commentary Section
11
10
3
8
6
7
: 4.1
32
-------
A. Appendix
A.1 FUNCTION —Power tool surface preparation to re-
move tightly adherent material produces a surface which is
visibly free from all rust, mill scale, and old coatings and
which has a surface profile. It produces a greater degree of
cleaning than SSPC-SP 3, "Power Tool Cleaning," (which
does not remove tightly adherent material) and may be con-
sidered for coatings requiring a bare metal substrate.
The surfaces prepared according to this specification are
not to be compared to surfaces cleaned by abrasive blast-
ing. Although this method produces surfaces that "look" like
"near-white" or "commercial blast," they are not necessar-
ily equivalent to those surfaces produced by abrasive blast
cleaning as called for in SSPC-SP 10 or SP 6.
A.2 SELECTION OF TOOLS AND CLEANING
MEDIA—Selection of power tools and cleaning media shall
be based on (1) the condition of the surface prior to surface
preparation, (2) the extent of cleaning that is required to re-
move rust, scale and other matter from the surface and (3)
the type of surface profile required.
A.2.1 Selection of Media—If an acceptable surface
profile existed prior to preparing the surface, cleaning
media, such as found in Section 3.3, shall be selected that
will remove surface contaminants without severely reducing
or removing the profile, if possible. If the surface profile is re-
moved or severely reduced when preparing the surface, or
if there was no profile prior to surface preparation, surface
profiling media, such as found in Section 3.4, shall be select-
ed that will produce an acceptable surface profile as required
by this specification. When power tool cleaning rusted sur-
faces it is important to avoid embedding or peening rust into
the substrate. This may require removal of rust prior to use
of surface profiling media. These factors may require em-
ploying more than one type of medium in order to obtain the
desired end result. 'NOTE: Power wire brushes when used
alone will not produce the required surface profile and may
remove or degrade an existing profile to an unacceptable
level.
A.2.2 Selection of Tools—Power tools shall be se-
lected on the basis of the size and speed rating of the
media. These requirements may differ from one type of
media to another and shall be taken into consideration in
more than one type of medium will be used in the surface
preparation process. Power tools shall be selected that will
produce enough power to perform the cleaning operation
efficiently. Operator fatigue shall be considered in the selec-
tion of power tools.
Further information on the selection of power tools and
media is contained in Chapter 2.6, "Hand and Power Tool
Cleaning," of Steel Structures Painting Manual, Volume 1,
"Good Painting Practice," 2nd Edition, 1982.
A.3 SUITABLE TOOLS AND MEDIA—The text of this
specification makes reference to the following footnotes. In-
clusion of these items in this appendix is intended solely to
guide the user to typical types of equipment and media which
are available to meet the specification. The items mentioned
SSPOSP I!
November 1, 1987
September 1, 1989 and June 1,1991 (Editorial Changes)
are not exhaustive of the tools or products available, nor does
their mention constitute an endorsement by SSPC.
a. The "Mini-Flushplate"® from Desco Manufacturing
Company, Inc., Long Beach, California, has been
found suitable as a tool system which meets the re-
quirements of this section.
b. The Aro Corporation, Bryan, Ohio, and VON ARX Air
Tools Company, Englewood, New Jersey, are sup-
pliers of needle gun equipment.
c. 3M Scotch-Brite Clean 'n Strip discs and wheels are
able to satisfy the requirements.
d. Grind-O-Flex wheels from Merit Corporation,
Compton, California and Nu-Matic air inflated wheels,
from Nu-Matic Grinders, Euclid, Ohio, have been
found suitable.
e. 3M Heavy-Duty Roto-Peen flap assembly has been
found suitable.
f. Needles having a diameter of 2 mm have been
found to produce a surface profile suitable for many
painting systems.
A.4 OPERATION OF TOOLS—The tools shall be
operated in accordance with the manufacturers' instruc-
tions. In particular, note the following:
a. Observe the recommended operating speed
(ROS). The maximum operating speed (MOS) does not
necessarily give the most efficient cleaning.
b. The "rpm" (rotational speed) rating of some pow-
er tools and the cleaning media may not be compatible and
could result in physical injury to the operator.
c. Exercise caution when power tools are used at
critical structures (e.g., pressure vessel boundaries) so that
excessive base metal is not removed.
d. When air driven tools are used, the exhaust could
contain oil and/or moisture that could easily contaminate the
recently prepared surface.
e. The media used on power tools have a finite life.
When they do not produce the specified profile they shall be
replaced.
Additional information on the operation of tools can
be found in Chapter 2.6 of Volume 1, "Good Painting Prac-
tice" of Steel Structures Painting Manual, 2nd Edition, 1982.
A.5 PROFILE—The type of power tools to be used
depends upon whether or not an acceptable profile exists
on the surface to be cleaned.
Some limitations of the various types of media to
produce a specific profile or to preserve an existing profile
are as follows:
Media of Section 3.3 produce a profile of approxi-
mately one-half mil (10-15 microns), whereas the media of
Section 3.4 may produce a profile of 1 mil (25 microns) or
more. The profile depends on the abrasive embedded in the
rotary flaps or the diameter of the needles.
Impact tools may produce sharp edges or cut into
the base metal if not used properly.
33 it is important to determine whether the profile re-
-------
SSPC-SP 11
November 1,1987
September t, 198S ar\d June -(., 199V (Editorial Changes)
quirements for the specified coating system can be met by
this power tool cleaning method of surface preparation.
A.6 MEASUREMENT OF SURFACE PROFILE —
Surface profile comparators and other visual or tactile
gages used for abrasive blast cleaning are not suitable for
measuring profile produced by power tools because of the
differences in appearance. One acceptable procedure is
use of coarse or extra coarse replica tape, as described in
' Method C of ASTM D-4417, "Field Measurement of Surface
Profile of Blast Gleaned Steel." Replica tapes are valid for
profiles in the ranges of 0.8 to 1.5 mils (coarse) to 1.5-4.5
mils (extra-coarse). (Note: Because of the limitations in
compressibility of the mylar film, however, even very
smooth surfaces will give readings of 0.5 mils or greater
using the replica tape.)
A.7 VISUAL STANDARDS —SSPC-Vis 1-89, "Visual
Standard for Abrasive Blast Cleaned Steel," ISO
8501-1:1988, and the National Association of Corrosion En-
gineers "Blast Cleaning Visual Standards," TM-01-70 and
TM-01-75, are not suitable for assessing surfaces power
tool cleaned to bare metal.
The SSPC is currently preparing photographs which il-
lustrate typical end conditions achieved using the power tools
described in this specification over the initial rust grades
depicted in SSPC-Vis 1-89.
A.8 INACCESSIBLE AREAS —Because of the shape
and configuration of the power tools themselves, some areas
of a structure may be inaccessible for cleaning. These areas
include surfaces close to bolt heads, inside corners, and
areas with limited clearance. Areas which are inaccessible
by this method of surface preparation shall be cleaned us-
ing an alternate method of surface preparation which may
result in a different degree of surface cleanliness and sur-
face profile. The alternate method shall be mutually agreed
upon before commencing work.
A.9 SURFACE IMPERFECTIONS—Surface imperfec-
tions can cause premature failure when the environment is
severe. Coatings tend to pull away from sharp edges and
projections, leaving little or no coating to protect the under-
lying steel. Other features which are difficult to properly cover
and protect include crevices, weld porosity, laminations, etc.
The high cost of methods to remedy the surface imperfec-
tions requires weighing the benefits of edge rounding, weld
spatter removal, etc., versus a potential coating failure.
Poorly adherent contaminants, such as weld slag
residues, loose weld spatter, and some minor surface lami-
nations, must be removed during the power tool cleaning
operation. Other surface defects (steel laminations, weld
porosities, or deep corrosion pits) may not be evident until
the surface preparation has been completed. Therefore,
proper planning for such repair work is essential, since the
timing of the repairs may occur before, during, or after the
cleaning operation. Section 4 of the "Surface Preparation
Commentary" (SSPC-SP COM) contains additional informa-
tion on surface imperfections.
A.10 CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION—Steel contami-
nated with soluble salts (i.e., chlorides and sulfates) devel-
ops rust-back rapidly at intermediate and high humidities.
These soluble salts can be present on the steel surface
prior to cleaning as a result of atmospheric contamination.
In addition, contaminants can be deposited on the steel sur-
face during cleaning whenever the media is contaminated.
Therefore, rust-back can be minimized by removing these
salts from the steel surface, preferably before power tool
cleaning, and eliminating sources of recontamination during
and after power tool cleaning. Identification of the contami-
nants along with their concentrations may be obtained from
laboratory or field tests.
A.11 RUST BACK—Rust-back (rerusting) occurs
when freshly cleaned steel is exposed to conditions of high
humidity, moisture, contamination, or a corrosive atmo-
sphere. The time interval between power tool cleaning and
rust-back will vary greatly from one environment to another.
Under mild ambient conditions, it is best to clean and coat a
surface the same day. Severe conditions may require coat-
ing more quickly, while for exposure under controlled condi-
tions the coating time may be extended. Under no
circumstances shall the steel be permitted to rust-back
before painting regardless of time elapsed (see Appendix
A.10).
A.12 DEW POINT—Moisture condenses on any sur-
face that is colder than the dew point of the surrounding air.
It is, therefore, recommended that the temperature of the
steel surface be at least 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) above
the dew point during power tool cleaning operations. It is ad-
visable to visually inspect for moisture and periodically check
the surface temperature and dew point during cleaning oper-
ations. It is important that the application of a coating over
a damp surface be avoided.
A.13 FILM THICKNESS—It is essential that ample
coating be applied after power tool cleaning to adequately
cover the peaks of the surface profile. The dry film thickness
above the peaks of the profile shall equal the thickness
known to be needed for the desired protection. If the dry film
thickness over the peaks is inadequate, premature rust-
through or failure will occur. To assure that coating thickness-
es are properly measured, refer to SSPC-PA 2, "Measure-
ment of Dry Paint Thickness with Magnetic Gages."
A.14 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PAINTING— »
When this specification is used in maintenance painting,
specific instructions shall be given on the extent of surface
to be power tool cleaned or spot cleaned. SSPC-PA Guide
4, "Guide to Maintenance Repainting with Oil Base or Alkyd
Painting Systems," provides a description of accepted prac-
tices for retaining old sound paint, removing unsound paint,
feathering, and spot cleaning.
34
-------
APPENDIX B
CONDENSED OPERATING PROCEDURES
PENTEK CORNER-CUTTER®
PENTEK VAC-PAC®
35
-------
CONDENSED OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
PENTEK CORNER-CUTTER®
Introduction
The CORNER-CUTTER® is designed to remove lead-based paints, radioactivity and other
hazardous contaminants from both steel and concrete surfaces in an environmentally-safe
manner. Pentek developed the CORNER-CUTTER® to scarify walls, joints, ceilings, girders,
equipment supports and other hard to get places in a single step process. Surfaces are left clean
and ready to receive new protective coatings, toppings and overlays.
The CORNER-CUTTER® operates by pneumatically driving specially hardened needles into the
surface being cleaned. The process takes place within an evacuated enclosure preventing the
escape of dust, debris and airborne contamination. Standard shrouds are provided with each unit
to allow the cutter to conform to inside corners, outside corners, door jambs and flat surfaces.
Special shrouds can be custom engineered to conform to particularly odd geometric shapes.
The CORNER-CUTTER® is one of several types of pneumatically operated scarifiers
manufactured by Pentek that operates in conjunction with an ultra-high performance HEPA-
filtered vacuum system. The CORNER-CUTTER® incorporates unique vacuum flow design
features which provide high efficiency performance in contaminated or clean room environments
which require stringent control of loose material. Users will find that the CORNER-CUTTER®
minimizes the need for the respiratory protections of operating personnel from airborne
radiological and toxic particulate hazards; the need to erect tents or temporary enclosures to
protect nearby operating equipment from flying dust and debris is also reduced.
The CORNER-CUTTER®'s light weight, low reaction forces and infinitely adjustable vacuum
enclosure minimizes operator fatigue and provide for comfortable operation in*any position. The
ergonomic design of the operator's handle provides complete operator control, and is equipped
with a quick-release-to-off safety feature.
General Safety Precautions
1. Keep hands and feet away from the needles when connected to a compressed air supply.
2. The CORNER-CUTTER® should be operated utilizing an air supply capable of delivering
90 psig measured at the tool, with consumption of approximately 5 scfm.
3. The CORNER-CUTTER® operator and other personnel near the work area must wear
safety goggles.
36
-------
4. Ear protection should be required for all personnel in the vicinity of CORNER-
CUTTER® operation.
5. The proper shroud should be installed at the tool end to ensure proper control of
contamination. The shroud should be inspected prior to using the equipment; its integrity
is important in maintaining the proper contamination control.
Support Requirements
The following are to support the operation of the CORNER-CUTTER®.
1. Clean, dry air supply rated at 90 psig at approximately 5 scfm, supplied through a
pressure-rated air hose. The air hose should be at least 1/2 inch in diameter or larger.
2. A HEPA-filtered vacuum system.
3. Standard 1-1/2 inch RX polyethylene-EVA vacuum hose or equivalent.
4. Correct shrouds to provide contamination control to the surfaces encountered in the work
area.
Preparing the CORNER-CUTTER® for Operation
1. , Check the condition of the CORNER-CUTTER® prior to operation on a new job. The
CORNER-CUTTER® maintenance should be current. Bolts and fittings should be tight.
2. Before operation and after each three hours of continuous operation, it is recommended
the CORNER-CUTTER® be lubricated with Marvel Mystery Oil or equivalent. Five to
ten drops of Marvel Mystery OH should be placed directly into the CORNER-CUTTER®
in the pneumatic supply port at the base of the handle.
3. Another approach is to install an in-line oiler to the air supply line to ensure continuous
lubrication during tool operation.
4. Connect a 1-1/2" vacuum hose from the CORNER-CUTTER® to a filtered vacuum
system; HEPA filters are required for contamination control; turn the vacuum system on.
5. Connect the pneumatic supply hose. The CORNER-CUTTER® requires a pneumatic
supply of 90 psi and a flow of about 5 scfm; in no event should the air supply pressure
exceed 120 psig.
37
-------
Operation of the CORNER-CUTTER®
1. Adjust the orientation of vacuum hose by rotating the vacuum front piece barrel such that
it does not interfere with the work or the comfortable operation of the unit.
2. Place the shroud firmly against surface and squeeze the throttle valve to begin operation.
3. Move the CORNER-CUTTER® along the surface or edge to be cleaned at a sufficiently
slow and steady rate to allow for complete scarification. Be certain to maintain the
shroud in contact with the surface to avoid loss of control of contaminated material.
4. When scarifying concrete, it is possible to control cutting depth. To make a rough-
adjustment, loosen Locking Collar and ran unit on area to be cleaned. When the desired
depth of cut has been attained, hold vacuum slide firmly in place and tighten Locking
Collar; finer adjustments may be required after first use.
5. Monitor the hoses and tend them as required; stop the CORNER-CUTTER®, if necessary
to permit adjustment of the hoses.
6. When operating the CORNER-CUTTER® on a ceiling, it is recommended to set the
locking collar as instructed in Step 4. This will minimize operator fatigue and promote
contamination control by maintaining constant clearance between the shrouds and the
ceiling surface.
38
-------
CONDENSED OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
PENTEK VAC-PAC® MODEL 9D
Introduction
Pentek developed the VAC-PAC® ultra-high performance vacuum system to support our line of
concrete decontamination equipment: MOOSE®, SQUIRREL IE®, AND CORNER-CUTTER®.
This manual describes the VAC-PAC® as an independent system for use to support other
decontamination operations, or any operation where a high-performance vacuum system is
required.
The VAC-PAC® offers two stage positive filtration sufficient to support safe and efficient
vacuuming of radioactive and toxic materials. First stage roughing filter efficiency is 95% at
1 micron, with second stage HEPA efficiency of 99.97% at 0.3 microns. The VAC-PAC®
features automatic self-cleaning of the first stage filters using reverse-flow pulses of high-
pressure air. This exclusive feature virtually eliminates filter clogging, and allows for
continuous vacuuming without interruptions to change filters.
The portable VAC-PAC® system utilizes high recovery pneumatic eductors which use
compressed air to produce vacuum performance rivaling that produced by much larger truck-
mounted "super vacuums".
Also featured in the VAC-PAC® design is Pentek's exclusive controlled seal drum fill system,
which allows the operator to fill, seal, remove, and replace the waste drum under controlled
vacuum conditions. This assures positive control of waste and dust, and minimizes the
possibility of releasing airborne contamination during drum changing operations.
The entire vacuum system is mounted on the VAC-PAC®'s powered lift mechanism. The
wheeled lift permits easy transport and positioning of the VAC-PAC®, and for the waste drum
as well. The VAC-PAC® can accommodate either 21-, 52-, or 55-gaUon waste drums.
General Safety Precautions
1. When charging the battery, use a 110 VAC, 60 Hertz electrical supply which is properly
grounded and protected with a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupt.
2. Clean, dry compressed air should be used to drive the VAC-PAC®. Air supplies
contaminated with excessive amounts of water and oil should be processed an using an
in-line separator located upstream of the VAC-PAC®.
3. Use only lockable air supply fittings when connected an air hose to the VAC-PAC®; e.g.,
Chicago fittings, Hansen couplings, National couplings.
39
-------
4. Disconnect the electrical power and the air supply before opening any electrical
enclosures, or performing maintenance or any other service on the VAC-PAC®.
5. Disconnect the electrical power and air supply before cutting or disconnecting any tubing
on the unit.
6. Ear protection should be required for all personnel in the vicinity of VAC-PAC®
operations.
7. Keep hands clear of the vacuum head and lift mechanisms when raising or lowering the
vacuum head.
8. Drum changeout procedures must be carefully followed to prevent the release of
hazardous materials.
Support Requirements
The following are required to support operation of the VAC-PAC®:
1. Standard 110 VAC electrical outlet (for battery charging).
2. Air supply rated at a nominal 120 psi. Air consumption for the VAC-PAC® 6 is 70
scfm, and for the VAC-PAC® 9 it is 105 scfm; both are 85 psi measured at the VAC-
PAC® pressure gauge.
3. Replaceable vacuum nozzles and strap wrench for installation/removal.
4. Standard 1-1/2 inch RX polyethylene vacuum hose or equivalent. Note that while the
VAC-PAC® is supplied with standard 1-1/2 inch nozzle/hose connection, 2 inch, 2-1/2
inch, and 3 inch hose connections are available.
5. 21-, 52-, or 55-gallon drums (with lids) to be used as waste containers.
6. Disposable cardboard disks used to provide temporary containment of the vacuum head
during drum changeout.
7. Aluminum positioning disc (reusable) used to position the disposable cardboard disc
during drum changeout.
8. "Shower Cap" covers to cover the open mouth of the vacuum head during storage and
transport of the VAC-PAC®.
9. Selection of plastic caps to cover vacuum nozzles, ports, and hose ends when not is use.
40
-------
10. Pentek recommends the use of Pentek's line of hand tools whenever aggressive, dust-
controlled surface preparation, material removal, and decontamination are desired. 'The
SQUIRREL III® scabblers remove concrete from horizontal surface areas. The
CORNER-CUTTER® removes paint and other coatings from corners, floors, walls,
beams and from spaces inaccessible to larger equipment.
Preoperational Checks
Physical setup:
1. Ensure that the items described in "Support Requirements" are available.
2. Move the VAC-PAC® to a central location in the work area.
3. Apply the brakes by pulling up on the brake lever until it is locked in the horizontal
position.
4. If a drum is not in place, follow the instructions in the "New Drum Installation
Procedure."
5. Confirm that a drum is in place and resting against pin locators on the legs of the VAC-
PAC®, or on a pallet.
6. Confirm that the vacuum head is fully lowered and resting squarely on the lip of the
drum by slowly moving the lift control level to the "Down" position. If there is no
motion, the vacuum head is resting on the drum.
7. Insert vacuum nozzles into the vacuum ports which are to be used during the vacuuming
operation using the strap wrench supplied with the unit (Figure 2). Plug unused nozzles
or ports with appropriate plastic plugs, and tape the plugs securely in place.
NOTE: It may be necessary to remove the vacuum nozzles to provide sufficient
clearance for the VAC-PAC® to pass through some doorways. Insertion and removal of
the vacuum nozzles requires the use of the strap wrench provided.
8. Install vacuum hose(s) in the nozzles to be used by threading them into place using a
counter-clockwise twisting motion. Tape the hoses securely in place.
41
-------
Power and Controls
1. When the charging battery, plug the VAC-PAC® power cord into a 110 VAC, 60 Hertz
source which is properly grounded. It is also recommended that the VAC-PAC® power
supply be protected by a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupt (GFCI).
2. Confirm that the "Vacuum-Exchange" mode selector switch on the main control panel
is positioned to "Exchange".
NOTE: The mode selector switch should be positioned to "Vacuum" ONLY during
normal VAC-PAC® vacuuming operation and ONLY when a drum is in position and
sealed against the foam drum seal. When the switch is in this position, the green "OK
to Vacuum" indicator will light and the lift will be disabled for added safety.
3. Test the drum level detector by placing a solid object (such as a drum lid) directly in
front of the blue sensor. Hold the object in place for approximately 30 seconds, or until
the "Full Drum" alarm sounds.
4. Confirm that the drum level detector retracts properly. Connect the VAC-PAC® to an
air supply, and open the air supply valve. Move the "Vacuum-Exchange" switch to the
"Vacuum" mode, then back to the "Exchange" mode. Look to confirm that the dram
level detector has withdrawn into the filter housing.
NOTE: When conducting this test, DO NOT allow the VAC-PAC® to remain in the
"Vacuum" mode for more than 15 seconds. As discussed above, the VAC-PAC® should
not be in the "Vacuum" mode without a drum in place. This test is the only exception
to that rale.
5. The green and red indicator lamps contain push-to-test lamps. The green indicator may
only be tested when the mode selector switch is in the "Vacuum" position; the red
indicator may be tested with the mode selector switch in any position.
Air Supply
1. Confirm that the air supply valve on the VAC-PAC® is turned to the "OFF" position
(i.e., handle in horizontal).
2. Connect an air supply hose to the air supply fitting on the VAC-PAC®.
3. Connect the opposite end of the air hose to the fitting at the main air supply.
4. Open the valve at the main air supply valve. This will start the VAC-PAC® at low flow,
even though the air supply valve at the VAC-PAC® inlet manifold is closed.
5. The VAC-PAC® is now ready for operation.
42
-------
Operation
1. Open the air supply valve at the VAC-PAC®; this initiates full vacuum flow. Check the
air supply pressure gauge on the VAC-PAC®; it should be 85 psig. Adjust the optional
pressure regulator accordingly; set 9/16 inch locking nut. The VAC-PAC® is now ready
to supply vacuum to the hose nozzle.
2. Move the mode selector switch to the "Vacuum" position.
3. When the drum is empty, the green "OK to Vacuum" indicator will light. This indicates
that it is all right to proceed with vacuuming operations.
4. When the drum is full, the green "OK to Vacuum" indicator will go out, and the red
"Full Drum" indicator will light. This will be accompanies by a loud beeping signal.
When this occurs, discontinue vacuuming immediately.
5. Turn the mode selector switch to the "Exchange" position. This will silence the full
drum signal, and prepare the VAC-PAC® for drum changeout. The drum* level detector
will automatically withdraw into the vacuum head, causing the red "Full Drum" indicator
to go out as it loses contact with the material in the drum.
6. Begin drum changing operations in accordance with the "Full Drum" changeout
procedure.
43
-------
APPENDIX C
DEMONSTRATION LOG SHEETS
44
-------
FORMA
CONVENTIONAL ABRASIVE BLASTING LOG SHEET
Location:
I. Mobilization
Date:
n.
Equipment Arrival Time:
Equipment Set-Up Completed:
Total Time:
Equipment Used:
No. Personnel Required:
Operations
Material Use:
Total Abrasive at Start:
Total Abrasive at Finish:
Total Abrasive (spent):
Start Time:
Finish Time:
Hours/Total:
No. Personnel Required:
Duties
at.
.at.
at.
at
hours
hours
hours
hours
Production:
Paint Removal Area:
% Vertical Face
No. Inside Corners
No. Outside Corners
No. Bolt Heads
No. Nutted Ends
Air Monitoring
ft. X
% Horizontal Face (top).
Total Length
_ft. = sq. ft.
_ % Horizontal Face (bottom)
ft.
Total Length ft
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Type
Location
Time
On
Time
Off
Flow
Rate
Total Air
Volume
45
-------
FORMA
CONVENTIONAL ABRASIVE BLASTING LOG SHEET
(Continued)
m.
Clean-Up
Method:
No. Personnel Required:,
Equipment Used:
Start Time:
Waste Collected:
Finish Time:
Hours/Total:
Type
Amount
Lbs.
n
n
D
Ft.3
n
n
n
Gals.
-'- How Stored
IV. Demobilization
Start Time:
Finish Time:
No. Personnel Required:_
Hours/Total:
V.
Quality of Surface Preparation
VI.
Observations - Other
46
-------
FORMB
DUSTLESS NEEDLEGUN SYSTEM EVALUATION
DEMONSTRATION LOG SHEET
Location:
Date:
I.
n.
Mobilization
Equipment Arrival Time:
Equipment Set-Up Completed:
Total Time:
Equipment Used:
No. Personnel Required:
Operations
Material Use:
Total Abrasive at Start:
Total Abrasive at Finish:
Total Abrasive (spent):
Start Time:
Finish Time:
Hours/Total:
No. Personnel Required:
Duties
at
at
at
at
hours
hours
hours
hours
Production:
Paint Removal Area:
Vertical Face
ft. X
% Horizontal Face (top) .
Total Length
.ft- = sq. ft.
_ % Horizontal Face (bottom).
ft.
No. Inside Corners •
No. Outside Corners Total Length ft.
No. Bolt Heads
No. Nutted Ends
Air Monitoring
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Type
Location
Time
On
Time
Off
Flow
Rate
Total Air
Volume
47
-------
FORMS
DUSTLESS NEEDLEGUN SYSTEM EVALUATION
DEMONSTRATION LOG SHEET
(Continued)
ffl.
Clean-Up
Method:
No. Personnel Required:_
Equipment Used:
Start Time:
Waste Collected:
Finish Time:
Hours/Total:
Type
Amount
Lbs.
D
D
D
Ft.3
D
n
a
Gals.
How Stored
IV. Demobilization
Start Time:
Finish Time:
No. Personnel Required:,
Hours/Total:
V.
Quality of Surface Preparation
VI.
Observations - Other
48
-------
APPENDIX D
NYSTA AIR SAMPLING FORMS
AIR SAMPLE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORMS
This Appendix has been deleted because of poor reproducible quality. Copies of
p. 49-64 are available from:
Paul Randall
Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
or
James E. Stadelmaier
Recra Environmental, Inc.
Amherst, NY 14228-2298
49
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
65
-------
RECRA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Stadelmaier
Deborah J. Kinecki
March 12, 1993
Analytical Results
Deborah J. Kinecki
Date
KPK/DJK/dras
LD. #93-0334
#NYOC2448
66
-------
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Prepared For
Jim Stadelmaier
Prepared By
Recra Environmental, Inc.
10 Hazelwood Drive, Suite 106
Amherst, New York 14228-2298
METHODOLOGIES
The specific methodologies employed in obtaining the enclosed analytical results are
indicated on the specific data table.
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste-
Physical/Chemical Methods." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
November 1986, SW-846, Third Edition.
* The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure was performed in accordance with
modified method 1311, 40CFR, Appendix H to Part 261, June 1990.
* Methods approved by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
COMMENTS
Comments pertain to data on one or all pages of this report.
In accordance with the recent update to the TCLP protocol, sample results are not
corrected for analytical bias.
TCLP extractions were performed on February 15, 1993.
The qualifier "U" indicates a result below the method detection limit.
The difference between Total Lead results for sample NYSTA BRIDGE 10 and
NYSTA BRIDGE 10 MATRIX DUP is attributable to sample non-homogeneity.
RECRA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INC.
-------
The spike percent recovery for sample PENTEK BRIDGE 1 MATRIX SPIKE was
0.0%. This is due to the elevated concentration of Lead in the associated sample.
The results for undetected Total and Respirable Dust analyses are presented in two
forms:
1.) Undetected results for samples which had air passed through them are reported
as the method detection limit, corrected for the volume of air sampled. The
value is qualified with a "U".
2.) Undetected results for samples which have not had air passed through them
(ie. FIELD BLANK), are reported as "ND".
The "B" qualifier indicates that associated field blank exhibited detectable levels and
are included in one calculation.
RECRA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INC.
-------
TOTAL NUISANCE DUST - NIOSH 0500
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: mg/m3
69
-------
TOTAL NUISANCE DUST - NIOSH 0500
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: Mg/M3
CI*ZENT SAMPLE' ZD"
T-10892-A.3D
FB-10892-AD
T-10892-OP.1.1
T-10892-OP1.2
T-10892-OP1.3
FB-10892-OP1
T-10892-OP2.1
T-10892-OP2.2
T-10892-OP2.3
FB 10892-OP2
T-10892-A.1
T-10892-A.2
T-10892A.3
FB 101392 AD
ItKB &SMP3HE ID
AS026270
AS026272
AS026273
AS026274
AS026275
AS026277
AS026278
AS026279
AS026280
AS026282
AS026283
AS026284
AS026285
AS026286
ANMtYSlS
I3&TE
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
- RESTJI*T
43.0
ND
19.0
5.0
1.6
ND
•"5.9
6.7
250
ND
27.0
32.0
62.0
ND
$
U
U
U
U
U
70
-------
RESPIRABLE NUISANCE DUST
AIR MATRIX
- NIOSH 0600
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: mg/m3
caaaaSF"skw&t^ , to: J
R-10792
R-10792-D
FIELD BLANK
10792
FIELD BLANK
10792D
R101392-OP-1
R101392-OP-2
FB 101392-OP1
FB 101392-OP2
R 101392
R 101392-D
R 10892-OP1
FB 10892-A
R10892-D
FB-10892-AD
R-10892
FB-10892-OP1
R-10892-OP2
FB 10892 -OP2
.. •• *• * % *. - ^"*i**i>^*V^'> "*•' :
%±a*3B 3BttE£g3BEH
*. : >>*rija ~\$0** j
AS026242
AS026246
AS026247
AS026248
AS026254
AS026255
AS026262
AS026263
AS026264
AS 02 62 65
AS026266
AS026267
AS026271
AS026272
AS026276
AS026277
AS026281
AS026282
^Stafcysis' |
* VJSRSKS " j
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
02/25/93
^'SESUl*^, ;
:: •.* :
0.50
0.50
ND
ND
0.50
0,50
ND
ND
0.50
0.50
0.71
ND
12.0
ND
13.0
ND
12.0
ND
* ^
%- '•
U
U
U
U
U
U
71
-------
TOTAL LEAD - NIOSH 7082
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334 '*
Units: mg/1/cassette
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
C&H38HP SAM3?I*E X» -
FB 101392 -OP2 -
R 101392
R 101392-D
R 10892-OP1
FB 10892-A
T-10892-A.1D
T-10892A.2D
T-10892-A.3D
R10892-D
FB-10892-AD
T-10892-OP.1.1
T-10892-OP1.2
T-10892-OP1.3
R-10892
FB-10892-OP1
T-10892-OP2.1
T-10892-OP2.2
T-10892-OP2.3
R-10892-OP2
FB 10892-OP2
T-10892-A.1
T-10892-A.2
T-10892A.3
FB 101392AD
££B SHaJQM^'XD
AS026263
AS026264
AS026265
AS026266
AS026267
AS026268
AS026269
AS026270
AS026271
AS026272
AS026273
AS026274
AS026275
AS026276
AS026277
AS026278
AS026279
AS026280
AS026281
AS026282
AS026283
AS026284
AS026285
AS026286
&KaXtfS2£ -
* XWS&
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
mSSEfM*'..,
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.36
0.05
0.08
Q;.09
1.6
0.40
0.05
0.23
0.05
0.06
1.3
0.05
0.14
0.06
0.89
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
1.1
0.05
,«K' !
^•x ;
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
72
-------
TOTAL LEAD - NIOSH 7082
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: mg/1/cassette
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
c&zmz '$m&i& txf
* ^'- •• i
T-10792-1
T-10792-2
T-10792-3
R-10792
T-10792-1D
T-10792-2D
T-10792-3D
R-10792-D
FIELD BLANK
10792
FIELD BLANK
10792D
T-101392-OP1.1
T-101392-OP2.1
T-101392-OP1.3
T-101392-OP2.2
T-101392-OP2.3
R101392-OP-1
R101392-OP-2
T-101392-A.1
T-101392-A.1.D
T-101392-A.3
T-101392-A.2.D
T-101392-A.3.D
FB 101392-A
FB 101392-OP1
LAB SAMPLE ID \
AS026239
AS026240
AS026241
AS026242
AS026243
AS026244
AS026245
AS026246
AS026247
AS026248
AS026249
AS 0-2 62 50
AS026251
AS026252
AS026253
AS026254
AS026255
AS026256
AS026257
AS026258
AS026259
AS026260
AS026261
AS026262
' *Jttfti&SXS
USES - * i
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
. f K&sttK? \
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
- "~ar |
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
73
-------
TOTAL LEAD - NIOSH 7082
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: mg/1/cassette
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
| CLXEHT SAMPLE ID ,
FB 101392-OP2
R 101392
R 101392-D
R 10892-OP1
FB 10892-A
T-10892-A.1D
T-10892A.2D
T-10892-A.3D
R10892-D
FB-10892-AD
T-10892-OP.1.1
T-10892-OP1.2
T-10892-OP1.3
R-10892
FB-10892-OP1
T-10892-OP2.1
T-10892-OP2.2
T-10892-OP2.3
R-10892-OP2
FB 10892-OP2
T-10892-A.1
T-10892-A.2
T-10892A.3
FB 101392AD
LAB SAMPLE TD
AS026263
AS026264
AS026265
AS026266
AS026267
AS026268
AS026269
AS026270
AS026271
AS026272
AS026273
AS026274
AS026275
AS026276
AS026277
AS026278
AS026279
AS026280
AS026281
AS026282
AS026283
AS026284
AS026285
AS026286
^ ANALYSIS
I O&TE
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
1RESULT
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0 .05
0.08
0.09
1.6
0 .40
0.05
0.23
0.05
0.06
1.3
0 .05
0.14
0.06
0.89
0 .36
0.05
0.05
0.05
1.1
0.05
Q
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
74
-------
TOTAL LEAD - NIOSH 7082
AIR MATRIX
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Units: mg/1/cassette
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
, . , - %:-.xf '^WVA
CLIENT SAMPLE XD; ,
PATE
02/19/93
• -
02/19/93
-- • - •
02/19/93
-
02/19/93
02/19/93
. - -
02/19/93
- . - -
02/19/93
02/19/93
.
02/19/93
AS026239
T-10792-1
AS026240
T-10792-2
AS026241
T-10792-3
R-10792
AS026242
AS026243
T-10792-1D
AS026244
T-10792-2D
AS026245
T-10792-3D
AS026246
R- 10792-D
AS026247
FIELD BLANK
10792
FIELD BLANK
10792D
T-101392-OP1.1
T-101392-OP2.1
_ •
T-101392-OP1.3
T-101392-OP2.2
T-101392-OP2.3
™ "
R101392-OP-1
R101392-OP-2
T-101392-A.1
T-101392-A.1.D
_
T-101392-A.3
T-101392-A.2.D
T-101392-A.3.D
FB 101392-A
FB 101392-OP1
AS026248
AS026249
AS026250
• —
AS026251
AS026252
•
AS026253
-
AS026254
__
AS026255
AS026256
-
AS026257
— •
AS026258
. • —
AS026259
1
AS026260
AS026261
AS026262
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
__
02/19/93
_.
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
— "-
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
•-
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
02/19/93
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
U
U
U
U
JJ_
_u_
U
U
U
75
-------
TOTAL LEAD
SOLID MATRIX - PAINT CHIPS
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Method: 7420
Units: ug/g
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
Sample Volume:
100 ml
NYSTA BRIDGE 10
___———————^^—
NYSTA BRIDGE 10
matrix dup
••
PENTEK BRIDGE 1
matrix dup
matrix spike
PENTEK BRIDG
matrix spike
E aas |
E 10
E 10
GE 1
GE 1
& ED
JE 10
:e
)GE 1
ce
3*6B S
ASO
ASO
ASO
ASC
IAB i
AS(
AS
S£K&&£ 33D |
02/19/93
14600
02/19/93
7560
J7MD
r.ts TTI
02/19
^•KTAI.^
/93
/93
39100
38100
AS026236MS
AS026237MS
02/19/93
02/19/93
102.0
83.5
76
-------
TOTAL LEAD - TCLP EXTRACTION
SOLID MATRIX - PAINT CHIPS
Laboratory: Recra Environmental, Inc.
Lab Job No: 93-0334
Method: 7420
Units: mg/1
Digestion Date: 02/17/93
Sample Volume: 100 ml
C&EESP? &&K&I& i'fc
•• 't ""%*' f
NYSTA BRIDGE 10
PENTEK BRIDGE 1
LEAD STANDARD
CLIENT S^MPItE TD '\
NYSTA BRIDGE 10
matrix spike
PENTEK BRIDGE 1
matrix spike
•
£&Bij£&lS|I3ti& 3C&
' ^
AS026236
AS026237
AS026238
liaB S2a»I,B 3J*
.. ' ' %
------- |