North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Materials and Test Unit
Containment and Beneficial
Reuse of Blasting Sand in
A Case History
by William M. Medford
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog NO.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Containment and Beneficial Reuse of 6. Performing Organization Code
Blasting Sand in Asphalt Concrete
A Case History 8. Performing Organization Report NO.
W. M. Medford
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Materials and Tests Unit
11. Contract or Grant No.
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. o. Box 25201, Raleigh. NC 27611 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
The NC Department of Transportation has manufactured a satisfactory
I-2 asphalt concrete pavement from spent blasting sand collected from
a project in Elkin, NC. A pilot project was completed in which two
spans of a truss structure were blast-cleaned while the lead contami-
nated debris was contained by state-of-the-art techniques. Spent
materials were utilized to manufacture asphalt concrete with accep-
table strength and lead leaching characteristics. All project
activities were closely monitored by NC Department of Transportation
Engineers and Inspectors. Detailed environmental monitoring was
conducted and no significant impact outside the right of way was
noted. Recommendations are offered to improve containment and
collection techniques on ‘future projects.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Containment, Blasting, Sand, No restrictions
Asphalt, Repainting, Structures,
Lead, Reuse First Printing 100 copies
20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No, of Pages 22. Price
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
CONTAINMENT AND BENEFICIAL
REUSE OF BLASTING SAND IN ASPHALT CONCRETE
A CASE HISTORY
William M. Medford
Chemical Testing Engineer
Materials and Tests Unit
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Abstract: Containment and Beneficial Reuse of Spent
Blasting Sand in Asphalt Concrete. A NC Department of
Transportation Case History.
The NC Department of Transportation has manufactured a
satisfactory X-2 asphalt concrete pavement from spent
blasting sand collected from a project in Elkin, NC.
A pilot project was completed in which two spans of a truss
structure were blast-cleaned while the lead contaminated
debris was contained by state-of-the-art techniques. Spent
materials were utilized to manufacture asphalt concrete with
acceptable strength and lead leaching characteristics. All
project activities were closely monitored by NC Department
of Transportation Engineers and Inspectors. Detailed
environmental monitoring was conducted and no significant
impact outside the right of way was noted. Recommendations
are offered to improve containment and collection techniques
on future projects.
The material reported herein represents the finding and
viewpoints of the author and is not to be reproduced wholly or in
part without the express written permission of the author.
A special acknowledgement is extended to Kazanas Industrial
Maintenance, Mr. E. H. Seagroves, Mr. K. C. Couch and the other
Department of Transportation inspectors and engineers who were
actively involved in the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. iii
BACKGROUND ........................................ 1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 4
PROJECT ACTIVITIES ................................
PROJECT SUMMARIES ................................. 8
ASPHALT MIX AND PAVING OPERATIONS. ................. 12
CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 14
APPENDIX I CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 16
APPENDIX II BID SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDIX III PROJECT RECORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX IV VISUAL DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS . . 31
APPENDIX V EQUIPMENT LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . 42
APPENDIX VI ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND REPORTS . . . . 45
APPENDIX VII ASPHALT DESIGN AND RELATED DATA . . 51
In the fall of 1985 the NC Department of Transportation suspended
maintenance painting activities on all structures with lead paint
systems because of environmental and hazardous waste concerns.
Blasting sand collected from previous paint operations was found
to contain leachable lead levels well above the maximum 5 ppm
permitted by EPA Regulations. Various alternatives to sand
blasting were evaluated in 1986 and 1987, but contained blasting
techniques were found to be the best alternative for cleaning
severely deteriorated paint systems. Coating systems that
required little or no surface preparation were considered to be a
short term, 4-7 year solution to the problem.
Meetings were held with officials in the NC Environmental
Management Division to determine the correct disposal procedure
and possible alternatives to sending paint debris to a hazardous
waste landfill. As a result of these meetings, the NC
Environmental Management Division through its Pollution
Prevention Pays Program funded research at NC State University to
determine if there were beneficial uses for spent blasting sand.
A 1987 report titled "Recycling of Lead Contaminated Blasting
Sand in Construction Materials" identified the possible reuse of
spent blasting sand in asphalt and portland cement concretes.
The report showed that spent sand could be used to manufacture
asphalt concrete with acceptable strength and lead leaching
characteristics. The presence of aluminum in the paint chips had
presented a problem with the manufacturing of portland cement
concrete at the time of the above report but has since been
The Hazardous Waste Management Section of the NC Human Resources
Department reviewed NC State University's research and
agreed to let the Department of Transportation proceed with
painting contracts allowing contaminated blasting sand to be
utilized in manufacture of asphalt concrete. The spent materials
had to be handled and stored in a manner that would prevent
spillage or leaching to the environment and the spent sand had to
be used within a 12-month period from the time it was collected.
A contract was developed for a pilot project in July 1988 to
confirm NCSU's findings and to -determine the effectiveness of
contained blasting operations. A through truss structure over
the Yadkin River between Jonesville and Elkin, NC was selected
because of public demand and the physical characteristics of the
site. The structure contains two 150-foot steel truss sections,
each weighing 190,000 pounds and having approximately 17,000
square feet of exposed surface area. The existing paint system
consisted of 7-11 mils of red lead primer and aluminum finish
paints over mill scale.
The project required more difficult containment measures because
of its location over a scenic waterway between two towns.
truss configuration of the steel also presented more difficulty
in erecting a containment structure. The major advantage to the
site was that equipment could be left in place during blasting
and painting operations because the bridge could be closed during
the entire project.
The following special requirements were included in the contract
to deal with containment and waste control.
1. A prebid conference was held at the site and the contract
specifications were reviewed so that all bidders would not
- misinterpret the specifications.
2. As a part of the Pollution Control requirements, the
contractor was required to submit a containment plan
including a dust collection system that would maintain a
negative pressure inside the containment structure while
blasting operations were being conducted.
3. The waste was to be collected at the end of each day in 35
cu.ft. plastic lined bulk bags and stored so as
to prevent vandalism and damage.
4. All waste was to be delivered on new wooden pallets to the
State Asphalt Plant in Creswell, NC for the manufacture of
The new paint system specified for the structure consisted of
two coats of nontoxic alkyd primer and two coats of an aluminum
finish paint. A copy of the painting contract with all
specifications is provided in Appendix One.
Contracts were mailed to potential bidders in August 1988, and
the first prebid conference was held September 8th. A second
prebid conference was held on November 2nd, because several
contractors complained that the need to attend the first prebid
conference was obscurely specified in the contract. All contract
requirements were reviewed at both bid conferences, and the
contractors were advised that NCDOT would be closely monitoring
all work activities. Only those in attendance at the prebid
conference were able to bid the job. The contract was awarded to
the low bidder, Kazanas Industrial Maintenance on November 15,
1988. A summary of the bids is listed in Appendix Two.
Since this was a pilot project, special plans were made to track
and monitor all activities on the project. Before the contractor
started to work, a preliminary environmental survey was conducted
at the site. A tracking system was developed to document the
progress of the work and the amount of materials used on the job.
See Appendix Three for examples of the documents used to track
the data and information. The surface area of the structure was
accurately determined. Air quality monitoring was scheduled.
The project inspectors were trained by SG Pinney and Associates
in paint inspection techniques and various engineers were advised
of the sensitive nature of the project. The local media was
advised of the bridge closure and of the extra precautions being
taken because of lead paint removal operations. Visual document
Number One in Appendix Four is a copy of the headline of the
North Carolina's standard specifications do not allow painting
outside environmentally controlled enclosures between December 1
and May 1. For this reason Kazanas did not attempt to conduct
any painting until May 1989. In February 1989 a containment plan
was submitted for approval, but the information was incomplete
and Kazanas was requested to provide additional information. A
questionnaire was developed to assist the contractor in
furnishing the information needed. Note Visual Document #2.
The containment plan was approved April 5, 1989 after numerous
telephone conversations had taken place to clarify specific
points. The contractor began mobilization activities on May 15,
1989, the same day as the preconstruction conference. Mr. George
Gialouses, project superintendent for Kazanas, scheduled work
activities to start on the North span of the bridge.
The north section was more remote from local businesses,
therefore if any problems were encountered with the containment
structure the impact would be minimized. Because of tarpaulin
availability and dust collection capacity, the contractor altered
the containment to the truss portion of the structure. A four
phase work schedule was conducted by the contractor.
Phase 1 - Clean and paint North Truss.
Phase 2 - Clean and paint South Truss.
Phase 3 - Clean and paint North Substructure.
Phase 4 - Clean and paint South Substructure.
The weight of the abrasive and the quantity of paint utilized on
the job were verified by project inspectors. The blast pot was
weighed so that residual material could be determined at the end -
of the project. - All materials were tested for compliance with
the specifications. Detailed diaries and inspection documents
were maintained. Note Appendix Three. Six days after the
contractor had arrived on the job, he had completed mobilization
and had begun blasting. Unfortunately, the day he started was
the Sunday, May 21, the day the City of Elkin was holding its
200th Centennial Celebration. consequently operations had to be
ceased because of noise. The contractor resumed operations the
following day, and on May 25, 1989 blasting was completed on
Phase 1. All blasting operations were completed by June 22, and
the project received its final inspection June 26, 1989, 66 days
before the August 31 completion date.
Project personnel encountered these problems and incidents.
. The contractor was stopped on numerous occasions by the
inspector so that containment tarpaulins could be adjusted and
tightened to prevent leakage.
. The contractor had to be continuously reminded to collect and
bag debris. Trash, such as paper, dirt and cans'had to be
removed from sand blasting debris.
. One of the adjacent property owners complained that the noise
from the job was too loud for him to talk on the telephone
inside his establishment.
. The contractor spilled a 5 gallon pail of paint in the middle
of the detour route and had to reimburse individuals for
damage to their vehicles.
. Some members of the public reported dust leaking from the
containment structure to officials with the Environmental
Management Division and the local air quality representative
was dispached to inspect the containment structure and the air
. The water runoff from a severe thunderstorm washed away a
major portion of the debris from the bridge deck during
Phase 2. .
. A small carnival was erected under the North end of the
structure and no trespassing signs had to be posted to keep
carnival people off the project.
. An adjacent property owner was painting and his paint spray
blew into the air quality monitor.
. On Phase 4 the containment had to be changed to prevent
leakage. The funnel arrangement was not acceptable.
. The contractor's equipment was vandalized. Two five gallon
cans of red primer paint were emptied into the river and
an air hose and spray head were stolen.
. The contractor had to pay an adjacent property owner for spray
damage to vehicles parked at his establishment.
The contractors equipment complement was adequate for this
project. Note the equipment list and pictures in Appendix Five.
The equipment that impacted job productivity most included a
compressor, blaster and dust collector. An eight-ton blast pot
was utilized with an 825 CFM compressor to operate two blast
nozzles at 100 psi each (measured at the nozzle). The dust
collector operated at 10,000 CFM. Table 1 includes a summary of
the crew hours for the four-man crew on the project.
Crew/ % Total
Mobilization (1) ---------------------------- 36.0 10
Rigging (2) --------------------------------- 100.5 28
Blasting (3) -------------------------------- 80.5 22
1st Prime Coat including stripping --------- 19.5 5
2nd Prime Coat ------------------------------ 13.5 4
1st Finish Coat ----------------------------- 11.5 3
2nd Finish Coat ----------------------------- 12.0 3
Clean-up (4) -------------------------------- 39.0 11
Misc. --------------------------------------- 48.0 13
Total 360.5 99
(1) Time required for equipment setup and dismantling.
(2) Time required to hang and move the tarpaulins on each phase
of the work.
(3) Time required to obtain an SP 6 finish including reblast
time (11.5 Hrs.)
(4) Time required to collect and bag debris.
Once the contractor started work on May 15, worked continuously,
7 days a week through June 26, except for the Memorial Day
weekend. The contractor's productivity rate and materials
consumption for the entire job (34,000 Sq.Ft.) are summarized in
Productivity Rates and Materials Consumption
Sand Blasting Rate to an SP-6 Finish (l)... 211 Sq.Ft./Nozzle Hr -
1 Sq.Ft. each 17 Sec.
Sand Consumption (2)....................... 32.27 Tons
Spray Painting, Prime Coat including
Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 Sq.Ft./Nozzle Hr
1 Sq.Ft. each 4 Sec.
Primer Paint Consumption................... 0.0056 Gal./Sq.Ft.
8.96 Wt Mils/Sq.Ft.
Spray Painting Avg. of Top Coats........... 1379 Sq.Ft/Nozzle Hr
1 Sq.Ft. each 2.6 Sec.
Finish Paint Consumption................... 0.0059 Gal/Sq.Ft.
9.44 Wet Mils/Sq.Ft.
1 - Includes 11.5 hours reblasting to achieve specified finish.
2 - Includes 4.61 tons of sand for reblasting that was not
collected as waste.
The contractor spent 39 hours collecting 18.06 tons of debris
into 13 bulk bags (35 cu.ft. capacity). The spent blasting sand
was found to have 4.24% paint debris (old paint, rust, mill
scale, etc.). The total lead content found in the spent sand
averaged 0.5% and the EP toxicity leachable lead was determined
to be 16.55 ppm.
The containment efficiency (CE) as determined below was 60.7%
CE = ------- x 100 = ------------ x 100 = 60.7%
Wa + Wc 27.66 + 1.20
Wd= Weight of sand collected (18.06T) - Moisture Content (0.54T)
Wa= Weight of sand used (27.66T) - Not including reblast
WC= Weight of paint debris - Spot Clean Method . . . . . . . . . 1.23T
Chemical Method . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17T
Average . . . . . . . . . . 1.20T
The tarpaulin material was capable of containing all dust and
debris as long as the lap and corner connections were adequate.
The dust collector maintained sufficient negative pressure to
keep dust from passing through the tarpaulin unless a blast
nozzle was in close proximity to a crack or seam and was directed
toward the opening.
The two major causes for the loss of debris on the project were
ground water runoff during a severe thunderstorm and poor
tarpaulin connections in the funnel containment rigging. The
contractor was stopped on numerous instances to correct rigging.
The environmental data collected during the project is summarized
in Appendix Six. The lead content of soil samples taken before
and after -the project showed no increase in total lead. Although
most of the air monitoring results were under EPA 1.5 ug/m3 the
results on three dates exceeded the requirement. Only one
instance was noted outside of the containment structure where the
5 wh3, OSHA requirement was exceeded. Lead levels inside. the
containment structure were very high (140-5540 ug/m3). A water
sample was taken downstream just after a spill but no lead was
detected in the sample.
Asphalt Mix and Pavement Manufacture
The debris was transported 279 miles to the DOT Asphalt Plant in
Cresweli, NC. The sand was graded according to particle size and
both sand and I-2 asphalt pavements were developed for the
material. The asphalt mix design data is included in Appendix
Seven. During the mix design stage of the project, a coating
problem was encountered because of the high concentration of
paint chips in the sand. The problem was attributed to the
surfactants used in formulating the old paint system. An
explanation about the surfactant problem and how it was overcome
is also included in Appendix Seven. Laboratory samples of the
asphalt concrete mix were tested for lead leaching and no lead
August 30, 1989, the DOT Creswell Asphalt Plant utilized the
spent sand collected on the Elkin project to manufacture an I-2
asphalt concrete mix. All work activities both at the Creswell
plant and the paving site, S.R. 1303 in Washington County, were
closely monitored. Although some dust escaped during the
transfer of the spent sand to the hopper at the asphalt plant, no
lead was detected in the air monitor. Samples of the asphalt
concrete were taken at the plant and at the paving site to verify
strength, and lead leaching characteristics.
The stability test results for the asphalt concrete samples
ranged from 2126 to 2260 pounds. This exceeded the design
strength of 1680 pounds. Both EP Toxicity and TCLP lead leaching
tests were conducted on compacted samples of the plant mix. All
test results were under 1 ppm. See Appendix Seven for specific
There were only minor problems encountered during the asphalt
manufacturing and paving operations.
- The plastic liner in the bulk bags clogged the funnel opening
and prevented the bags from emptying. The bottom had to be
cut from several bags.
- The roller had a motor failure at the paving site and
the new pavement had to be compacted by a motor grader and
1. North Carolina's first contained blasting contract was
completed without a major incident well before the project
deadline and the quality of the newly applied paint system was
2. Much detail should be required for containment plans. A
limitation should be placed on the area contained. The
work phases should be clearly defined. Samples of the
tarpaulin material should be submitted with the plan.
3. Blasting debris must be collected on a frequent basis to
prevent spillage and loss.
4. A quantitative dust standard is needed to insure better control
of containment operations. Any weight gain in a low
(2 cu m/min) volume air sampler outside the containment
structure over a 2 hour period should be a reason to stop the
5. The contractor should be required to protect the bridge
and appendages from over-blast and over-spray.
6. Equipment noise is a major consideration in urban envir-
7. Acceptable asphalt concrete can be manufactured from spent
sand and there is a significant cost savings bp doing so.
$3220 was saved on this project.
8. Utilization of spent blast abrasive in asphalt concrete does
not appear to adversely affect the environment.
PROJECT SPECI,rlL PFOVISIQNS
REP.&I~:TING OF EXISTII;G STEEL STRUCTURES
CO:JT!?ACT TI.::E AliD Li@UIDATED DAHAGES:
The date of availability for this contract li!?y .1, 1989
The date of corr,pletion for this contract is August 31, 1989.
The liquid ated damages for this contract are Two Hundred
Collars per calendar day.
Secause of the unusual nature of work involved and in order for
all prospective bidders to have an extensive knowledge of the
project, all prospective bidders shall attend a pre-bid
conference at 1O:OG a.m. on 1Jovember16; 1938 in the ronfcronce
room of the District Engineer's Office located at 413 0-blqnd
Drive, :Jorth of NC 268 in Elkin, NC. This pre-bid conference
will include a thorough discussion of the plans, contract pay
items, special provisions, etc.
Only bidders who have attended and properly registered at the
w- n-bid conferenceon November 16, 1988 or attended and properly
registered at a previous pre-bid conference held on September 3,
1938 will be considered prequalified to bid on this project. A
bid received from a bidder who has not attended and properly
registered at one of the pre-bid conferences will not be
considare'd for award. .
Attendence zt the pre-bid conference! will not meet the
r;Lquirements of proper registration unless the individual
attending has registered at the pro-bid conference in accordance
wit;7 the following:
1 The individual signs his name on the official roster.
Due to plant pzst qu,rantines in various counties in which this
project may bc located, the contractor shall contact the local
Plant pest Control Office of the U. S. Department of Agriculture
to determine if any part of this project or any area of his
operations in connection therewith is within the quarantine
If so, the Contractor shell thoroughly clean and wash all
equipment t;?zt moves out of the quarantine arez at any time
during or lfter construction of the project, and sh?ll comply
with any other restrictions or regulations as required by the U.
S. Department of Agri, '-ulture and the North Carolina Department
None of thre items included in this contract yrill be specialty
items. (See Article 108-6 of the Standard Specifications.)
?he North Carolins Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads .and Structures dated January 1, 1931!,
together with thz Special Provisions included in the Proposal
Form shzll a.poly to this project. All refercnccs are to th?SC
Stand&r-d Specifica: ions unless otherwise noted. Th.2 work of
painting shall be done in accordance with Section 442 except
where otherwise pro-Tided by the Special Provisions.
TRAFFIC CCPJTROL PLAN:
Thz bridge shall be closed for the duration of the project.
The Contractor shall be required to give the Engineer ~1 mini&mum
of two (2) weeks notice before closing the bridge to tr>ffic.
The Dloartment will be responsible for erection and nF%int<n?nce
of al:-traffic control devices except for the traffic b,arricades
at thr- immedi-;te sits which sh.311 be ercctcd 5y s l2ep.a: tmen-,
Gdxintained by the Contractor.
i- I responsibility
t k -2 of the Contractor to keep a~qa.re cf
^W ;J L 1 1 5 ?
ch,:nging >lnath;lr and season?1 conditions, and to <ify
0oer:tions 2,s necessary to x,czt 111 weather and seasonal
.-L Ttr i*ct ions in the Sprcific?tions.
Paint shL:lTi r,o+.. b.2 .:““I it?5 in rsin, in continuous wind above 10
mph, snow, fcq, or mist, OL- when t.hz steel surface temperature
is less th.?.n 5 dcgr"'es Fahrenheit (3 degrees centigrade C) above
the dew Faint.
The structure, Bridge t33s, spans th#z Yadkin River on the
Yadkin-Surry County lint bctwecn Jonzsville and Elkin, NC. It
carries two lanes of traffic from SR1190, Gwyn Avenue and is onz
of two structures that connect Elkin and Jonesville., The steel
portion of the bridge consists of two through truss spans
approxic:+cly 190,000 Founds each. 'Ihc current paint system is
7-11 mils of red lead primer and aluminum finish paints which
were applied over mill scale. The structure is considcrcd to be
in an environmentally sensitive area.
The existing pJint System includes toxic substances such as red
lead oxide ;qhich may be considered hazardous if improperly
removed. No work shall begin until the Contractor has furnished
the Engineer with a containment plan for paint removal and
surface preparation operations and said plan has been approved
by the Engineer. Such plan shall include a dust collection
system which will maintain a negative air pressure inside the
enclosure while blasting operations are being conducted. Waste
debris shall be contained in a manner which will prevent its
release into the environment.
Air quality in urban or environmentally sensitive areas may be
monitored by the Engineer and operations not meeting air quality
standards shall be ceased.
Debris from blasting operations shall be collected inside an
enclosure in plastic lined bulk bags meeting the following
BAG DIHENSIONS: 35" x 35" x 40" (35 cubic feet)
BAG BODY: Polypropylene fabric 802. per square yard
uncoated. Woven in the warp direction are eight
polyester reinforcing bands each 2 inches wide.
These bands run vertically in the made up bag and
are located 5.5 inches in from each corner. One
leg of each lift strap is attached to a
reinforcing band making an eight point lift bag.
The bottom shall include a 14" dia. tuck-away
PROPERTIES: Tensile strength lbs. ASTM D 1682 300x300
Tear lbs. ASTM D 2263 120x120
U.V. resistance federal test method
Strength retention % CCC-T-191 method
5804 after 1200
hours exposure 70%
BASIC FABRIC: Polypropylene
P'ROPERTIES: Weight minimum 8 oz per sq. yd.
Tensile strength lbs.
Burst strength P.S.I. 750
Tear Strength lbs. 125x125
Puncture strength lbs. 150 minimum
U.V. resistance % 1200 hours
LIFT STRAPS: Polynster Webbing
?SOPERTIES: ;Jidth 2 inches
minimum 6,000 lbs.
. - -c
5.7480907 -.- d&z
THREAD: Polyester sewing thread used throughout bags.
PROPERTIES: Side seams and base Bonded thread 3460
seams denier with minimum
tensile of 50 lbs.
Spouts and Tops Bonded thread 1380
denier with minimum
tensile of 21 lbs
Strap Attachment 5 patterns 116 stitch
box and cross, 1380
denier bonded thread.
BAG LINER: Polyethylene - 3.0 mils + 10%
Each bag shall be permanently identified with a date and batch
number. At the end of each day, the Contractor will be required
to have all debris generated for that day stored in the bulk
bags. Such bags shall be stored so as to prevent damage or
The Contractor shall deliver and unload the bulk bags to the
State Asphalt Plant in Creswell, NC at such times scheduled
through the Engineer at least 10 days in advance of the
anticipated shipment. Such bags shall be delivered at the
plant, and placed on new wooden pallets,(TO BE FURNISHED'BY THE
ALTERNATIVE CLEANING METHODS
A written plan or alternate methods of removal, containment, and
waste storage must be submitted to and approved by the Engineer
before any such alternate is used. The plan shall include exact
details about removal and containment methods as well as a waste
disposal plan. No debris other than contam inated sil ica sand
may be delivered to the State Asphalt Plant.
STORAGE OF PAINT AND EQUIPMENT:
The Contractor shall provide adequate and safe storage space for
all paint and equipment. Paint materials shall be stored in a
moisture free environment between 40 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit,
or at such temperatures as recommended by the manufacturer that
are not outside this range.
_I. ^ Con;ra.rtor shall protect from damage all utility lines or
X-Ti n s which n2y be supported
.3 on, under, or adjacent to bridge
I --. 41e
The Contractor shall furnish all necessary apparatus such as
ladders, scaffolds and platforms as required for the inspector
to have reasonable and safe access to all parts of the work.
All steel surfaces to be painted shall be prepared by
"Commercial Blast Cleaning" in accordance with Steel Structures
Painting Council (SSPC) Surface Preparation Specification SP 6.
The anchor profile will be angular between 1 to 2.5 mils.
Before any work is started the Contractor shall clean a two
square foot area on the structure to demonstrate an SP 6 finish.
The inspector shall preserve this area by covering it with tape,
plastic or some other suitable means so that it can be retained
as a job standard.
The blasting abrasives shall be silica sand which is free of
contaminates. Abrasives that contain greater than 100 wm
chloride, sulfate or other similar corrosives shall not be used.
The gradation of the abrasive shall be so selected as to impart
the anchor profile specified. Minimum 5 pound sample per
shipment shall be inspected by the Engineer before any abrasive
All paint materials shall be furnished by the Contractor and
shall meet the following requirements:
RED PRIIJER PAINT SPECIFICATION: .
This specification covers a long oil - alkyd primer paint for
use on blast-cleaned steel surfaces.
Xaterials must be as specified here-in. Elsterials not specified
shall be selected by the supplier and shall be subject to all of
t!le provisions of this spscification. The paint shall be rnsde
GE matcrisIs which would not be toxic to personnel under normal
cti;lcltiolis cf use.
2.1 PAINT C!::iX\CTERiSTICS MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Pigment % by weight . ... . .. .. . .. 53 55
Vehicle % by weight . .. . .. .. . .. . 47
Weight per gallon . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 12.9 lbs
Solids 8 by volume . ... .. . .. . .. . 67.0
Fineness of grind Hegman units . 4.5
Moisture content % by weight . . . 0.5
Skinning hrs (3/4 volume in
closed container . 48
Viscosity . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. 85 KU 95 KU
Drying time, set to touch .. . .. . 6 Hrs
dry through .a.... 18 Hrs
* Adhesion at 14 days (ASTM D-3359) 3B
2.2 Pigment composition (% by weight)
Zinc Hydroxy Phosphite 73
Red Iron Oxide (86% Fe203) 24
Organ0 Montmorillonte 1
2.3 Vehicle composition (% by weight)
Alkyd r'esin solids.............. * 40 l
(Ped.spcc. TT-R-266 type 1,class A)
Linseed oil (ASTrl D-234)........ 20
Linseed oil to Alkyd ratio...... 1:2
Thinner and dryer............... 38
Thinner: FED.SPEC.T T-T29l,type2,gr.A
3.0 Samples and tests .
All samples shall be a minimum of one quart identified with the
manufacturer's name, batch number, date of manufacture and
location. Al 1 samples shall be taken by an approved
i- of the North Carolina Department of
‘ Tests shall be completed and results approved
before c;ny paint is used.
* The specimen for the adhesion shall be prepared by applying
two dry nils of the coating to a standard "0" panel.
f-3'. 7 L t f-.1 :?g and
_., Nonleafing Aluminum Paints shall meet the
rz;Jlr ^" -c
" Jy__Ickl ef Ai!SHTG 1!-6 9 Type 1 .
The instructions shall specifically include:
Safety handling data.
Recommended storage temperatures.
Mixing and thinning instructions.
Theoretical *coverage data.
Recommended usage including repair procedure.
The Red Primer Paint and Aluminum Finish Paint shall be
furnished in single package or two component kits not to exceed
five gallons total volume.
All tests conducted on paint shall be in accordance with Federal
Test Method Standard Number 141C,SSPC and methods in use by the
llaterials and Tests Unit.
CO:IPOEY'EPJT DESCRIPTION THICKNESS (NILS)
Primer 2” Strip Red Primer Paint * 2.0 - 3.0
1 st coat **Red Primer Paint 1.5 - 2.5
2 nd coat Red Primer Paint 1.5 - 2.5
Finish 3 rd coat Aluminum Nonleafing 1.0 - 2.0
4 th coat Aluminum Leafing 1.0 - 2.0
* Ciet Film Thickness
** Including approved lamp bltick for color contract
No paint sh311 be applied until the paint materials have been
approved by the Engineer. All paint shall be applied by
spraying, except for the strip coat and minor repairs which may
be made by brush or roller where recommended by the manufacturer
and permitted by the Engineer.
A 2” strip of primer paint shall be applied to all exposed edges
b.zfore the? first full coat of primer paint is applied, the
loration cf LhC edge being in the approximate center of ths
strip. T h -2 strip coat may be tacky when the first primer COLTit
5.7480907 , . .-
. . I&#
All paint thinning must bc approved by the Engineer. When
thinning of the material is required, only solvents compatible
with the base material and recommended by the manufacturer shall
be used, and then only to the extent permitted in the
application instructions. In the absence of any specific
requirements herein, the manufacturer's application instructions
An agitated spray pot shall be utilized. The agitator or
stirring rod shall reach to within two(2) inches of the bottom
of the spray pot and shall be in motion at all times during
paint application. Such motion shall be sufficient to keep the
paint well mixed.
DRY FILM THICKNESS
Dry film thickness shall be determined by the method described
in SSPC PA2. The average of the spot measurements shall not be
out of the thickness ranges indicated and no individual spot
shall be less than 80% of the minimum or greater than 20% of the
maximum specified. The maximum dry film thickness shall not
exceed the manufacturer's. recommendations.
MEASURING ADHESION --- TAPE TEST
The adhesion of the paint system shall meet a minimum 3B rating
when tested in accordance with ASTM D-3359.
A minimum of three tests for each Span shall be conducted t0
determine acceptability of adhesion properties of the paint
system. Such tests will be conducted by the Engineer randomly
throughout the structure no earlier than 7 days after the final
application of the top coat. The number of adhesion tests may
be reduced or increased depending on test results, as determined
by the engineer.
Any application failing to meet the requirements of the above
tests shall be cleaned, repainted, and/or repaired as required
bY the Eng inecr .
The cost of surface preparation, repainting the existing
3Kiucture, and maintaining barricades shall be included in the
r SL~I?price bid for “Cleaning and Repainting of the Existing
Structure” at Bridge Number 338. This price will be full
compensation for furnishing all paint, cleaning, abrasives,
cleaning solvents and all other materials; prc?aring and
:I:?ning surfaces to be painted: applying paint In the field;
- ) c acting work, traffic and Froperty; and furnishing blast
-.I ?^ ning equipment, paint spraying equipment, brushes, rollers
:?.:I any other hand or Fewer tools and any other equipment.
5.7480907 l ’ .
The cost of containment and delivery of blast cleaning debris
shall be included in the lump sum price bid for "Pollution
Control." This price shall be full compensation for all
materials and labor necessary to fully contain the blast
debris: daily collection of the blast debris in the bulk bags
specified in these special provisions: delivery and unloading of
the bulk bags, on wooden pallets, to the specified location at
the designated State Asphalt Plant; and any measures necessary
to ensure conformance to all environmental regulations as
directed by the Engineer.
Payment will be made under:
Cleaning and Repainting of Existing Structure Lump Sum
Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*. Lump Sum
Yadkin-Surry Counties - Project No. 5.7480907
Eng. Est. 38,000 sq.ft. Actual 34,000 sq.ft.
$19Q,OOO 190 Tons - 179 sq.ft./Ton
cost/ cost/ Cleaning/ Pollution
Contractor Bid Ton Sq.Ft. Painting Control
Kazanas (Low) 158,950 837 4.68 124,000 34,950
Second 205,500 1082 6.04 105,500 100,000
Third 218,000 1147 6.41 150,000 68,000
Fourth 244,000 1284 7.18 94,000 150,000
Fifth 278,000 1463 8.18 110,000 168,000
High 622,987 3279 18.32 * 49,997 "572,985
Avg. Cleaning/ Avg. Polution
$ 116,700 (52.8%) $ 104,190 (47.2%)
$ 614 / Ton $ 548 / Ton
$ 3.43 / Ft $ 3.06 / Ft.
*Excluded for determining averages.
-;_-. -_. =-
j ! I I I I !
- - i
- -- -- i
i I 1
COATISG Sl’ TEM
S - .---. -_-- S
CL’ TOMER _ _ ~__._____ _ _ _ .J 0 I?
? -~ L
C*0 ;\ r I N C; @7-a ,T e d --- r 1’ _ _ -t- - ‘
C:0 A 1 ‘ : IS1 YRI) 4Tll PREP ---_ R
I’ 0 F I I. E - ---
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ------ l!lU!LL5~?i~ -
,,,---~~~llLs_A’ --~~~~ _
__ _ _ - - __________._______ _.__._ - ._.~. ._... ---.----- ------- ------------ _.__ ______
PC.!dK. IST 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. IS1 2x1) 3 H 1) AVG IPC.MK. 1ST 2Nn 3 If I! AVI
I 145/q -1 IINT1*
3 - I-
I_r-l_I,l~_,IJ-_ IINTI, I . I
---- ---- -L--
; ly&.D i~,1:_i___1_1~~!-~i2,_31
I .-) 4 .‘ ‘ 7 I 1 , I
_--- *s-/&7,< ---
;---- ----;3,y-; j _---------’----:- .&J__._
---- 2 : .’ :. .s )1’ c- I______ 1 ;;I: 1I3.0
\ ,I! hi :$;A’ __ :
.i\‘ . OF SPOT CKS. I 1AVG. OF SPOT CKS. A
:2,$‘ VG. OF SPOT CKS.
====================c==--=rr==--=====================================================. i 3
PC.MK. 1ST 2h’
D 3RD AVG PC.MK. 1Sl 2ND 3RD AVG PC.MK. 1ST 2ND 3RD AVi
iI 1 I
I I I - __ t
I I ,
---- --_- _--..--- - - .-
- ._. ._ -
-L-s ip --
---- ‘ 1-
6 I, i
’ ? r: ‘
) I 1 ) ‘
I -2’ -, I‘ ;.b j 2.9 1 i ‘
>:I_.. I 2.
- - ---- --- l
-..‘- -.---- --.
lNT1. I, INTL I., I,
, . :) 3
!-r,;; --‘- 8 1 =---.i) 2,
,.A ; - ---- .
I --L-- --.
---- --- ----7- ---- ----
AVG. OF SPOT CKS. :3,3'AVG. .
OF SPOT_ CKS. 9F SPOT CKS.
======================================;==========--= :~~3=i!v::==:~ ============== 2
PC.?dK. 1ST 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. 1S? 2ND 3RD AVG IPC.MK. IST 2ND 3RD AV(
I I I I 5 8
I --.-- I I I 1 1 I I I
__---- ---- _--- ---- --- _--_-_ ---- ---- --- ------ ---- ---- ---_
t I I
_--_-.- j ---- j ---- j ,-L-5 ;j.() ; ______ 1---._
z,b 2,3 < ,-- 0---- I ---- 4--- I --_---
I I ---_ t ____ I _--_ -_~
DATE I i’ I I I
I I I
I lDATE I I
, I I
j2.s 12.7 jDATE f __--
4 ---- I
I ---- I --- 1 I
I ---- t
I ---- I
I ---.- --_
---- ---- 143 --- j I ----
, ---- a
, 4 ---- I
1 ---- I---- --_
jd,s Q, 5
3,5/5,2yTL j j j j jINTL ; j ; j
-‘ - ---- --- ____ _--- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- --.
;3.5; ---- ----
AVG. OF SPOT CKS. IAVG. OF I34 SPOT CKS. I
I :AVG. OF SPOT CKS. I
NOTE : SEPARATE FORM TO BE USEI) FOR 1;ACiI COAT.
INSPECTOR’ DAILY REPORT
Prolect No. 58 ‘
.7 3 8 @ I 0 7 Day & Date m0N. cE//.z/eq
Weather,>.C//l/j 4 ’ E /67/-w c.?T~- 3 HN Tern erature: 6
Work Day C
5-‘ ,s ’ Tir,>e Work’ :t,rted&r3 0 Hi~t!&~~~~, Works,83 ‘
Conlracror’ Forces 5urt. 7PC~c.A 4. 7 n db,.C c
Operators 2 z Laborers? Skilled /cc / ’ Ur~s:~~~~~; Others
Engineering Personnel: K.C’ Cd U c/2 - 0 Cp 9 - /D&Z
Coming Monday! A commhorative s
edition celebrating Elkin’ centennial
Vol. LXXVII - No. 66 Friday, May 19, 1989
35 cents Elkln-Jonesvllle, N.C. Two Sectlons - 30 Pages
s paint calls for extra safetv .
Bridge’ lethal lead. J
By TED ALLEN Lead is cspccinlly dAngcrous ticausc ruosr victim
Schoolscheck for lead contamination 1 r
don’ rcalizc rhcy’ c being poisoned. In Charlcrror
SC.. which has one IJIC highcsl r3tcs of lcad poisonin,
Environmcnlal offtciuls say lhcy plan lo monitor schools. private schools and day cart centers so they t
in the nation, rcsidcnls didn’ rc;III/c lhcrc was a prob
RAI.EIGII - Arca schools and day care ccntcrs
closely ihc rcpainring of rhc Ilugh Charham Memorial can sample rhcir drinking supplies. Icm unril rhcir dogs bccamc tlcrangcd or died. and WI
will be asked this summer IO rest their waler supplies
Br~dgc linkins Elkin and Joncsvillc. keeping track of In the rncanrime, EPA is working 10 ideniify and crinarians idcnificd Ic;~d 3s UIC cull)ril.
for unsaic lcvcls of Icad, SW officials rcporl.
how much of ihc hr~dgc’ old. red lead pain1 gels inlo
s rcmovc water coolers that are “not lead free.” such as Charlcslon. with i& many old houses and humid cli
Elkin Schools alrcatly is checking irs warcr coolers
the Yadkin KI\*cr. those wirh lead solder. lining or piping. The agency is male. requiring frcqucni rcpaimlng. hxl 60 rcporlcg
10 make sure none were made wirh marcrials
And. II appears, for good reason. Lead is poisonous providing schools and day care centers a list of “nor casts of lead poisoning in 1987.XY.
conraining Icad. Ron Mack, mainvnancc supervisor.
and IS eqxc~cllly harmful IO children. Studies show cx- lead free” coolers and advising them 10 remove rhcm The problem is less prcvalcnl in North Carolina; 01
said this morning rhar he’ almosr through checking
posurc IO low lcvcls of Ir.ad can stunt a child’ physical
s immcdialcly. SUIC had 44 casts Iasr year. Cotlccn hlillcr. the suuc
and has nor found any of those coolers.
devclopmcm and cause I~rning problems and hypcr- chief cpidcmiologisl. wid
The Environmental Prorccrion Agency is working Schools arc being asked lo delay testing until they
acuvny. tligh lcvcls can Icad to comas, convulsions, receive a guidance manuat and sampling marcrials lhts Dr. Dale Simmons, director of Surry’ s hcahh de
wirh stare health and education officials IO prcparc
mcmal reuirthtmn and tlc;lth. summer. The delay will nor increase risk 10 siudcnrs. paruncnr, said the counrv has had no rcportcd cases o
rcsring instrucrions so schools can determine the
The rspainung of IIIC bridge was delayed as SI;IIC Icad poisoning since hc jointtl IIIC dcparrmcnt thrcl
amount of lead in wntcr coolers or orhcr drinking siaic hcahh officials say, as long as schools rcmovc
ycxs ago. .
rransporranon ar d cnvironmcnral officials worked IO supplies. On Tuesday, the agency will hold a training unsafe warcr coolers and flush laps each morning.
come up wllh 3 I nrih0d IO rcmovc the old pain1 from Simmons noted his tlcpar~mcnt conducrcd cxrcn
session for stale officials. Once rccciving this Flushing is a good idea because water mar smnds in
dn: bridge u.h~Ic limilmg lhc x1~our11of Icad lhl g0k 111 sivc ICW, m Mount Airy ;IOWI yc;u afmr learning tha
instrucrton. rhc officials will pass ir on 10 public pipes overnight may contain more Icad.
hc rlvcr. s a
one of the iown’ u’ icr i;mk> ~3s p;\inlcd wilh lca(
Keeping lead our of rhc Yadkrn is imponant bccausc pami. hut found no cxcs 01 cxcsss~vc Isad lcvcls.
rhc river suppt~cs drtnktng water for Wrnslon-Salcrn This I< lhc fusi lime 1111s mcrhod wrll bc used 10 rc- rhcn. ffouscs painrcd before the 1950s. when lcad bc IO
Children arc more suscc~~~~hlc lend ~CC~USC thci
. . . .. . .
and orhcr communtttcs downsucam. Thcrc IS also a move palm on a brrdgc above water. If successful. UIC gan lo bc pllasco oul. arc more likely In be a lhrcal. bodies arc slill dcvclop~ng. Dr. J. RO~II Kciyart of tht
concern ihar cartrsh and orhcr boiiorn-fccdcrs would hridgc-rcparnlmg operation wilt scrvc as 3 model for Lead painr is parricularly dangerous when ii flakes hlcdical University of SouOl C;~rultn:i s;iid.
C3l 1hc Icad, poison,ng IllC pwt'lc who Cal tticn1. orhcr bridges over waler. or is ground into dust during removal. Using heat guns \
“Wnh younger kids, ihcrc’ a 101of hand-lo-mouu
To gcr around Ihc problem. workers will USCa g~anl Ahhou~h Icad-b:~sctl pami has hccn banned hy rhc and open-llamc rorchcs IO strip paim cxaccrbarcs the COIII~CI.” Rcigarr notctl. “Lw gc15 on ihc hands am
plastic canopy rhar covers Ihe brnlgc and prolccls lhc A
t~tlcral Fnvuonmcnr:~I P~OICCI~II A~cncy (Ifl’ ) ~IIIC‘ C prohtcm. producing Icad fumes. Ilcahh olllcinls rcc- dir1 gclx on lhcir lays. L~II~:IIIIIII.II~~ w~lh Ic;iJ . . if.
over. Crews will work 1nsrd1:llic canopy. santtbt;lcllng. 10x3. lhs lhrc;I~ 4 icild 51dt 5x~\~~I)~c:I~~sI: Ihc miu~y
()I omnnml paInling over Iccltl p;linl inctcad 01’ trying 10 s
ccrl;lin p:iri of ii ch~ltl’ hr;un 15 s~~n~sctl 10 lcad aI (
clcnmng and rspunung 1111: hrltlgc’ sleet \ItrucIurc.
s tlollscs ;1nd slrucIurc\ l’ um~ll wItI Icad p:11111
; octorz rcnmvc il. m~mU~~ trltl. lh;il p2ri IX tl;~m.~!:cd ;~ntl \Uys d;~~~ragcd.”
PROJECT5.7480907 - Yadkin-Surry Counties
Cleaning and Repainting Existing Structure
Please provide the following information about the containment
(1) Type of canvas
(2) Type of bracing material
(3) Type of connections to structure (A) bolted
(4) Type of lighting inside the containment structure
(5) Type of dust collection equipment
Submit an equipment brochure and include air handling
(6) Provide a detailed written description of the containment
structure from the bridge deck to the top of the truss. In-
clude the location of the dust collection system.
(7) Provide a detailed written description of the containment
structure below the deck of the structure. Include details
about the funnel construction and how the dust collector
will be incorporated.
(8) Describe the floating platform, including details about its
construction such as materials and dimensions. Describe how
debris is to be off-loaded from the platform; how the
platform is to be tied off; and if bags are to be loaded on
the'platform, how they are to be tied off and handled.
(9) State if the containment structure is to be erected in
(10) List the sequence of -operations that you are planning to
use to accomplish the job. Include painting actlvlties.
Please provide sketches and drawings as you see fit. Include as
much detail as possible.
EQUIPMENT LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS
PROJECT5.7480907 Yadkin - Surry Counties
Air Compressor, Ingersol Rand 825 CFM - 1 each
Blast Pot, 8 Ton Cap W/3 Drops - 1 each ,
Blasting: Hose, 100 L.F. of 1.5"
200 L.F. of 1.25"
15 L.F. of 1.0" Whip Hoses - 2 each
#8 (l/2") Straight Bore Nozzles - 2 each
Electric Deadman - 2 each
Blast Hoods - 2 each
300 L.F. of l/2" I.D. Hood Line
Floating platform, 4'x 12' - 1 each
Forklift, Case 585E Const. King - 1 each
Generator, Catipillar 460 Volt - 1 each
Man Lift, Simon (Capacity two men) - 1 each
Rigging: Cable - 300 L.F. of l/2" and 150 L. F.- of l/4"
.Cable Supports, 27 each
Pik Boards, 7 each
Tarpaulins, 8 PCS. 30' x 50'. 3 PCS. 50' x 70'
Funnel Tarpaulins, 2 each - 35' x 35'
Painting: Airless Paint Pumps, Grace "King" - 2 each
Airless Paint Guns, Binks - 4 each
112" Paint Lines - 500 L. F.
Sand Silo, 25 ton capacity
Storage Bags, TRANSAC,50 @ 35 cu.ft. each
Trailer, Utility Flat Bed - 1 each
Trailer Combination, Storage and Tool - 1 each
Truck, Flat Bed Chevrolet - 1 each .
Truck, Pickup - 1 each
Vacuum Recovery Dust Collector, Key Houston 10,000 CFM
Vacuum and Dust Collector Combination, Ipec
ENVIRONMENTALDATA AND REPORTS
1i :, - -- --
Dirt Wooded Area
t Parking \ !,,, ----__
( 1 RIVER .
BQL BQL -y
- -.-- -
5// 0.19 mg/m
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street l Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
JamesC. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wdms
William W. Cobey, Jr., SecretaT August 15, 1989 Director
Air Quality Section
TO: N.O. Gerald, Chief
FM: Hoke P. Kimball%
R-E: REVISED ELKIN BRIDGE SANDBLASTINGCONTAINMENT
Sandblasting to remove old lead paint from the Elkin-Jonesville
bridge, was supervised by the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Engineers Mr. Larry Absher and Mr. Bill Medford.
A private consulting firm-was contracted for the sandblasting and
repainting project. Effective dates for the sandblasting were
accomplished in 4 phases: May 22-25 (I), June 3-5 (II), June 11-13
(III), and June 18-19 (IV). The superstructure of the bridge was
encapsulated in phases as a containment area when sandblasting took
place and negative pressure was created by vaccuum dust collection.
The substructure was also encapsulated in phases with tarps and the
debris was funneled down to a large floating box. Mr. Medford has
reported that the dust collector was utilized in all phases but
seemed to be more effective in the first two phases.
In conversation with Mr. Medford on Wednesday, July 26, 1989, he
indicated that the overall project had gone well. The tarps had
contained the majority of the sandblasting debris but there had
been some leakage in containment at the connection points where the
tarps were difficult to secure. The entire project was monitored
from beginning to end by DOT inspectors and the operations shut
down when dust loss was considered excessive. DOT documents show
that on May 24th, the leakage of sandblasting debris was judged as
visibly excessive and the contractor was directed to stop
operations and tighten the tarps. On this day, the highest lead
values were reported by Natural Resources and Community (NRCD)
Development/Air Quality monitors.
Tne follouing tables give the NRCD hi-vol and DOT personal hygiene
sampling data. DOT personal hygiene monitors (calibrated at 2.0
Y',/min) ,~ere' run for 2 hours at a time to reveal additional
bac.?<grcur.--data during blasting times. The asbestos filters from
L:yese rcc:;ors were analyzed by the EP-TOS method for lead values.
LEAD DATA SUMMARYELKIN BRIDGE SPECIAL STUDY
SUMMER1989-JONESVILLE-SS # 2
DATE BLASTING HI-VOL (ug/filter) VOLUME/M3 LEAD (UC:/&
NRCD * DOT
S/01/89 NO < 140 UG 1476.0 <.09 .-
S/04/89 NO < 140 UG 1478.0 i.09
S/15/89 NO < 140 UG 1406.0 <.09
S/22/89 YES NO SAMPLE
S/23/89 YES NO SAMPLE
S/24/89 Y-ES 6200 UG 1418.0 4.4
2 YES NO SAMPLE
S/26/89 YES 380 UG 1420.0 0.3
6/03/89 YES NO SAM?LE
6/047/89 YES NO SAMPLE <.09
6/05/89 YES 2800 UG sampler unplugged void
6/10/89 NO 3400 UG 1420.0 2.4
6/11/89 YES NO SAMPLE <.09
6/12/89 YES NO SAMPLE
6/13/89 YES NO SAMPLE
6/18/89 YES NO SAMPLE
6/19/89 YES NO-SAMPLE 190
LEAD DATA SUMMARYELKIN BRIDGE SPECIAL STUDY
SUMMER1989-ELKIN SS # 1
DATE BLASTING HI-VOL (ug/filter) VOLUME/M3 LEAD (UG/M3)
NRCD # DOT
4/26/89 NO < 140 UG 1430.0 <.09
S/03/89 NO < 140 UG 721.0. VOIDED
S/04/89 NO < 140 UG 1433.0 FILTER TORN
S/15/89 NO < 140 UG SAMPLERUNPLUGGED VOIDED
S/22/89 YES NO SAMPLE.
S/23/89 YES NO SAMPLE
S/24/89 Y-ES < 140 UG 759.0 VOIDED
5/25/89 YES NO SAMPLE
S/26/89 FE s
‘ < 140 UC, 1431.0 <.09
G/03/89 JTS NO SAMPLE
G/04/89 YES NO SAMPLE <.03
F,/O5/39 YES < 140 UC; 1429.0 < .09
G/11/89 ;‘E s
‘ NO SAMPLE < .09
5'i2 '89 TS
,‘_I 620 UG 1431.0 0.4
6) 13;RO ms
‘ _‘L,S NO SAMPLE
G,!is/89 YE s NO SAMPLE
G,'l'j!% YE s NO SAMPLE 190
There were 2 monitoring sites for lead cn either side of the Yadkin for
the Elkin project - Jonesville speciai project # 1 and Elkin special
project # 2. (See Figure 1 1.
Of the 12-13 days the sandblasting was done, the Jonesville SS #l ran
with 6 valid samples. Three of these were background before the blasting
beguy on May 24 and registered Below Detectable Limits (BDL) of < 0.1
ug/M - The remaining 3 valid samples all registered lead. The highest
reading occurred on May 25, one of the beginning sandblasting days. As
this was a very windy day, the project was shut down by the DOT
inspector so that the for the contractor could tighten the tarps to
Another filter (June S), contained lead but was voided because the
sampler being unplugged from inside the monitor and the calculated flow,
rate was lost. May 26 and June 10 filter results were 0.3 and 2.4 ug/K
lead, respectively; however, a DOT personal hygiene sample at this site
on June 11 read BDL.
During the sandblasting period, the Elkin monitor collected gnly 3 vaiid
samples. One background syple on April 26 read < 0.1 ug/M or BDL.
One sample read < 0.1 ug/M or BDL during sandblasting on June 5, (a DC:
sample read BDL at this site on June 4). The third sample read 0.4 ug/M
lead on June 12 during sandblasting (a DOT personal hygiene sample read
BDL at this site on June 11).
The Stat of North Cirolina Ambient Air Quality standards for lead are
1.5 ug/M as an average not to be exceeded over a period of 90 days. 7.4C
of t e three valid samples taken at the Jonesville site exceeded 1.5
ug/M but on a daily 24 hour average. The Elkin site reported only3three
valid samples during the blasting with only one reading at 0.4 ug/M
lead and the other two samples reading BDL.
The DOT took five personal hygiene monitor samples around the bridge site
the two high‘ olum~ samplers locations. One sample collected on
June 19 reported at 190 ug/M lead and while previous samples taken at
all 4 areas around the project revealed lead at Below Detectable Limits
(BDL). (See Figure 1.)
During sandblasting, the DOT's personal hygiene monitor results fscm _
inside the contajnment area range from values of 140 to 5540 ugjM ant
300 to 1700 ug/M underneath the superst,ucture.
The sandblasting debris was bagged and deposited at the State of Ncrth
Carolina asphalt plant in Creswell, N.C.
Despite some leakage and loss of containment due to "real-world"
difficulties of securing tarp ties, the containment goal for the
sandblasting of the DOT's Elkin bridge project succeeded in keeping a
large amount of lead paint particulates from becoming airborne.
This conclusion is based on the readings taken by the DOT hygiene
monitors inside the containment area versus outside the area. NRCD'S
hi-plume samplers picked up some quantitative results but more samples
should have been collected, especially during the final week of blasting,
to obtain a larger data representation of lead particulates and envelope
the final data.
Thanks to Mr. Bill Medford of the DOT and Harvey Varner and Richard Bowen
of the Winston-Salem Regional Office for their co-operation and
information sharing in the preparation of this report.
cc: George C. Murray-, Jr. .
ASPHALT DESIGN AND RELATED DATA
TO: Bill Medford
FROM: Jim Trogdon
SUBJECT: Surfactants 'in Red Lead Paints
DATE: July 18, 1989
Red Lead Paints are traditionally manufactured with
approximately 30% linseed oil to act as a medium for pigment
dispersion. A by-product of refining linseed oil, Lecithin,
was also commonly added to this type of paint at a rate of
0.5% to 1% in order to assist in pigment dispersion.
Lecithin is an ampholytic surfactant which contains 35%
to 45% linseed oil and a mixture of phosphatides. These
contain a polyhydric alcohol such as glycerol, esterified
with fatty acids and phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid
is further esterified with a hydroxyamine compound such as
choline, or ethenslamine. Each molecule contains lyophilic
(oil loving) fatty acid groups and hydrophilic (water
loving) phosphoric acid and amino groups. The latter confer
ampholytic properties on the molecule. In a non-polar media
and in aqueous dispersion the phosphatides assume the form
of large micelles.
In the case of a hydrophilic agent, such as the
blasting sand, the hydrophilic portion of the surfactant
connects with and coats the sand exposing the lyophilic
portion of the surfactant. This process displaces moisture,
gases, etc. from the particle surface. As a result, the
surfactant acts as an emulsifing agents in the presence of
asphalt cement. This-explains the change in color from
black to brown when the asphalt is added to the sand.
This problem only occurs when the amount or
concentration of the surfactant is high enough to allow
dispersion of the asphalt cement. This did not occur during
the original research due to the fact that the blasting sand
used on the Elkin project was used in a more efficient
blasting operation which caused it to have a higher
concentration of red lead paint per pound of sand than did
the sand used in the original research. If the quantity of
lead contaminated sand is reduced in the asphalt mix to
reduce the concentration of the surfactant then dispersion
will not occur. Using the New Bern sand this percentage of
contaminated sand was found to be 25%. If there are still
problems with coating, silicone may be added to the asphalt
cement to aid in the mixing process.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION.-.MATERIALS h TEST UNIT
RALEIGH 9 NORTH CAROL INA 27607
AGGREGRATE h BITUMINOUS MIXTURES TEST REPORT
PROJECT NO. 5.7480907 DATE SAMPLED S-24-89
COUNTY ’ YADKIN-SURRY DATE RECEIVED 6-5-89
CONTRACTOR KAZANAS INDUSTRIAL MAINT. BATE REPORTED 6-7-89
FURNISHED BY ” ” .*
SAMPLED RY W. M. MEDFORD
SAMPLE11 FROM -we----
QTY REPRESENTED w---w--
EXAMINED FOR GRADATION
SOURCE ON PROJECT (SPENT BLASTING SAND) JMF
LABORATORY NO. 8Y- I 2311 I 2312 I 2313 I I I
SAMPLE NO. I1 I 2 I 3 I I I
SAMPLE OF I SAND I SAND I SAND I I I
DEPTH/STATION I I I I I I
CONT’ D I I I I I I
% BITUMEN I I I I I I
% ASH I I I I I I
% PASSING 2” SIEVE I I I I I I
% PASSING l-1/2" I I I .I I I
% F’ SSING 1"
A I I I I I I
% PASSING 314” I I I I I I
% F’ SSING l/2"
A I I ’ I I I I
% PASSIHG 3/8" I I . I I I I
% PASSING NO. 4 I I I I I I
% PASSING NO. 8 I 100 I 100 I 100 I I I
% PASSING NO. 10 I I I I I
% PASSING NO. 16 I 99 I 99 I 98 1 I I
% PASSING NO. 30 I I I I I I
% PASSING NO. 40 I 59 I 60 I 62 I I I
% PASSING NO. 50 I I . . I I I I
% PASSING NO. 80 I 21 I 22 I 23 I I I
% PASSING NO. 200 I 3.9 I 3.5 ! 4.3 I I I
% ELUTRATION LOSS I 3.6 I 1.6 I 2.1 I I I
ACTUAL SPEC. GRAV. I I 2.26 I I I I
KEQ’ D SPEC. GRAU. I I I I I I
% COMPACTION I I I I I I
ACTUAL THICKNESS (“1 I I I I I I
REQ’ D THICKNESS (“1 I I I I I I
VISCOSITY I I I I I I
F’ NETKAT ION
E I I I I I I
KEMARMS: J. E. GRADY7 JR.
R. w. HEAVES
A. W. ROGERS0
w. M. MEIlFORCl3”
P994 10 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
F’ ANT MIX JOB MIX FOKMCILA
N. C. D. 0. T. TYPE MIX: BCSC ) TYPE I-2
CRESWELL, NC JOB MIX FORM NO: 89-217-001
EFFECTIVE DATE: t:)8- 17-13$
L CERTIFICATION NO: DM-601 PROJECT NO : 4. 7 140003
THIS JOB MIX FORMULA IS BASED ON INFORMATION FROM
MIX DESIGN NO 89-217 AND TESTS PERFORMED IN THE FIELD
AGGFiEkATE SOURCES AND BLEND PERCENTAGES
SUPPLIEF: SHIPPING POINT MATERIAL AMOUNT (“/:)
____----------------- ------------_-----s-s _-_------ ----------
NELL0 L. TEER ROCb::Y MOUNT QUARRY #78M 3.7 . 0
MARTIN MARIETTA NEW BEHN GUARRY SCRGS. 77I .
MAI;:TIN MARIETTA FOUNTA IN QUARRY SCRGS. 2(:! . !:I
NCDOT BLAST PIT SAND 2c:, . (2
TOTAL 1(:!(:1. i:)%
JMF COME;INED GRADAT I ON H
ASF’ ALT CEMENT % (TOT) 6.4
SIEVE SIZE A
% F’ SSING
__-------- GRADE Ac-2(:!
2 $1 ESTIMATED ASH i:! . 5
1 l/2” MAX. THEO. SF’. GV. 2 . 4 1 (:I
1 I, LAEOF\I/1TOKY SP. GV. 2.280
.3/4” MIN. RDWY. SF’. GV. 2. 17(:!
l/2” MIX TEMPEFiATUliE F. 255
.3/S” FLOW 8
N0 . 4 STABILITY 1580
8 NON STFiIF’ ADDITIVE :i (3.00
ASF’ ALT F’
CEMENT SUF’ L I EK : SPECS.
COAT SUF’ L IER : E
ADD. SUF’ L IER:
APF’ OVED :
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPT. OF TRANSFORTATION
MATERIALS AND TESTS UNIT
RALEIGH. NORTt’ CAROLINA SHEET _______OF--_----
REPORT ON STABILITY TEST OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURE
Date Sampled 6-27-89 Date Received ;-2g-gg ~ _ Date Reported _ -_ _
Project No. 4.7140003 Collnty Washington
Specimen : March21 1 “-3
Mat: Rocky Mt:";78M Stone,
New Bern Scrg, 89-2602-04
Fountain Scrg, 89-2893-95
r z.-- 3amplea oy:
Mat. .T I,L.~ * B. Smith
Y. Coatractor: NCDOT
Xix Recommended : 6.2 :% AC-20 Mix used: 5.5-6-6.5~7-7~ .
Jlin. Stability Requirement: 750 lbs.
GRADATION OF >l.ATERIALS USED
Eiuti iatlon loss i - i - j I -
Specific Gravity 2.67 1 2.67 / 2.70 j 2.26 j I 2.582
Effective S.G. 2.662
- MIX No. 1 MIX No. 2 I hIix No. 3 MIX No. 4 M:x No. 5 1 !vllX so. 1:
t 1 /
5 Asphalt I c; 5 I 6-0 ii-2 / 7 n 7 c, I
Stability Lbs 1256 L326 i 1693 1619 ! 2010 !
__-._-_ Gravity I 2.22 L.&-l
3 34 I 338
I 3.78 i 3,30 !
Max Theoretical Sp.Gr.1 2.45 2.43 _I 2.41 j 5.3; j ;'
Total mix Ibs. per CU.ft./ 138.4 139.7 I 142.2 j 142.2 1
AT&.-i A ,
Fio~ l/l00 in. 7 7 I 8 10 10
“‘, Snlids total mix
1j 90.6 92.2 i 94.6 i 95.4 ! 96.6 /
“; \‘ ids
o total mix : 9 . 4 7.8 j 5.4 / 4.6 / 3.4 !
;‘ bv Volume of A. C.1 12.0 13.2 i 14.5
--- j 15.6 I 16.9 1 )
Sclids of ARE. on!v j 78.6 79.0 I
; j 79.8 j 79.7
--.- J.cnds oi hgfi. only I
. 21.4 21.0 : 19.9 : 20.2 j 20.3 /
v- \.o~ds filled withAsp. 56.1 / 62.9 -7----372,9- ! 77.2 1 83.3 1
% Ash 0.5
1:,*:,\:\: NCDOT - Creswell Plant-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA M&TForm602
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
MATERIALS AND TESTS UNIT
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA
BASIC MIX DESIGN
PROPERTY ) STABILITY UNIT WT. % T. VOIDS % VOIDS F. FLOW
.-PT. ON CURVE / PEAK PEAK f#---tj &A75 7-l”
% ASPHALT j 6.b ?;5 d/r 62.5 ---
VpLUES AT OPTIMUM bz
UNITED STRTES BUREAU OP PUELIC ROADS 0.45 E
FOV.‘ R GRADATION CHART
_-._ &.- __._
-._ --_.. _.-..-_-.- ____..___________------.-f -..--.- a==--
_____ ____._ ._..... ___.-. .1---- ---- ---- _-
--,I --.. -..-
-- -, _. _--...-
------‘ -- _---.--- ________.__ -..-_- -.-..- . --------_
.---.-.-*.I----.-----.-- ----- -. ___. I‘-~L.-$.-&-~ ,
---.-- 1 43 2
----.-A----- --- --’ --
.__ .__~zzE-:*I:-- x ::‘ --‘ z ---- -..--- ..--- -- _-.__ - ..-.--.------
-. ---.. I’ -- *- ._._
,,_.____. -. __- -.- -__----..--_-.._-.--_ .___ -- ___.- -.-.--.1-.---- .--.-
.._. .._._. _... __--.. - g
- --. i .-.-...... . . .~.-...-_- .__--..--..--- .___ ..-_.-..--- .-. _________
-. . -.. - I---.-- .-- I;
-- _. .- 1 --. -_
-- t-- ----
Id~m'~tolmn 3f g'odallonr
y”RTq C.~G(;L Ip;IA DEP..ff,T*,!E~IT CF T?A”!SPORTAT I:a\J
t‘ lL?iGH, -
:\;SR Tti CA’.‘jL I >~,l 27611
- --__- -w-----w---- _-e-s ------a------
, 4. C. :). r. 7, TVPE I
r’ Y: ” z 8c , TY!‘
STATE O F NORTH Caking M & T F O IU 6~0
Dept. of Transportation-Materials & Test Unit &13-74
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
AGC&l%ATES BlTUKl~W S MIXTURESTEST REPORT
Project No. Mis c . Date sampleit 8-30-89
county Date received 8-31-89
&+-qqpp-L Creswell Plant Date reported
Sampled by W . M. Medford
Sampled from SR 1303 W idening
- JMF 89-217-001 ,
-.-- 89- ! 3510 3511 3512
-_-.--. 1 2 3
sdmple of I-2ws I-2ws I-2ws $
T _ 3 7.:
Depth or Station
1% Bitumen * 7 0 * 8.4 I* 6.9
$ Ash- 0.4 0.7 ! 0.5 I?
I- - 7-h-7
100 100 I 100 I -
98 97 99 iqn-i o-
80 81 i 80 ;
j 7 n - ,A.
69 , 67 --
66 'f- - -,
CQ c)7% I 54
ryy- ds;SLnz No.
.:,f 40 s i.eTc ( /l 36 35
:J No. ? s ic v z I I
~_~J~LSbili~’ --- 50 s ieve 1 18 l?l. I - 0 112 -22 I
! .I ---
,a r:dssi:Ig ho. s
~.~ 5-5‘ 6-l I 7.7 ;7,.3-7.3 j
j >b Uutriati0n los s I
Lab S?. GR. 2.24 2.26
REF’ RT FOR : LEAD IN ASPHALT (AC-I-21