Loading...
4.2. ERMUSR 05-12-20094-L Elk River .~ . Municipal Utilities Memorandum To: Elk River Utilities Commission Jd~n Diesri Jen'y ~' D~y1'll~a~~pem From: David Berg Date: 5/5/2009 Subject: Jackson Street Water Tower The Jackson Street Water Tower was also inspected by one of the major tower paint supply companies, TNEMEC Coating Resources Inc. Their review consisted of a site visit, "x" scratch test, and laboratory testing. Attached is the detailed report they provided. The main conclusion in their report is as follows: "Based on the age and the excessive film build of the existing coatings, an over-coat of this tank would be a very risky application. Additionally, results of the X-scribes I performed indicate moderate to poor adhesion. In our freeze/thaw climate, the addition of more coatings and curing stresses will greatly increase the likelihood of a coatings failure/delam ination." We received the Jackson Street Water Tower lead sample test results from the State of MN Public Health Lab. The tank showed to have 0.026% of lead contaminant in the paint on the bowl. Whereas, the tank legs contain 1.5% lead contaminants. Under MPCA jurisdiction the max lead rule is 0.5% total lead by weight. The tank legs exceed this regulated amount. The risk of airborne lead drift would be a problem, especially being so close to residents & schools. We would need to be sure that preventative actions are taken with either demolishing/refurbishing the tower. Based on the above information, I received two quotes for $190,000 to $300,000 to re- condition the tank with the current lead contaminants. Since there are too many unknowns for this project this value can vary greatly. If there are more underlying problems it could be closer to $300,000 to be sure the structure (ladder, roof, rail, etc...) is OSHA approved. t0aIING RESOURCES, INC I~C:f.'(Ctf~1• ,f„l.r,.f 1, t:.i 7f ".C '9['!4C ~ ,.., ,~'a. .~t.pnt. ,,..f(: ._. " !_':f! <.~~~'{ ~~.ii! 6;li;illl"Itf ,.fl .:?;., •t ..).I.; °u ,. ,~ Jif 1 ,.,~ i ',hi .. .. NIr. David Berg Cite of Elk River Public Utilities 1705 Main Street Elk River, ~fN 5.5.330 RE: Jackson Street Tower 4!20/09 ivlr Berg: I appreciate you calling me to meet and evaluate the conditions of the coatings on the above mentioned water tank. 1~B® bolted 1L~~edo "]Cank _(]E1k 1l8iver° 1~N1 ~acflrground: 'This bolted tank was onginall}* constructed and coated in 1920 by IV'linneapolis Steel & Machinery Company Microscopic examination showed what appears to be 5 distinct layers with an average film thickness of 34.2 mils. Spectral analysis of the front layer shows what appears to be an alkyd coating- Please refer to the TNEI~LEC lab report. ®bservadons: Exterior: The beige finish has faded and shows a moderate to severe amount of chalking. 'I~here is some spot corrosion on the side walls of the tank (photo 1, 2 & 3) and at the interface of where the side walls meet the coned roof. X-scribes were performed resulting to adhesion ratings consistent with L~ and 3.~ adhesion per aSTM D 3359 :Method .~ (Photo 4, 5 & 6) additionally, while cutting into the coatings they appeared brittle and did trot ribbon off the substrate. 1 nterior Wet: I did not observe this portion of the tank. conclusion: Based on the age and the excessive film build of the existing coatings, an over-coat of tlis lank would be a very risky application. additionally, results of the X-scribes I performed indicate moderate to poor adhesion. In our Ereeze/thaw climate, the addition of more coatings and curing stresses will greatly increase die likelihood of a coatings failure/delamination. Please read TNEMECs Technical Bulletin "Over-coating aged Paint Systems." Based an the eecorrtmendations of this document I suggest a complete reconditioning of this tan!: The tnterior wet coatings have reached then expected setwice Gfe of "l2-15 years. I suggest where reconditioning the exterior the Ezell removal these coatings and the applicaton of ~: new coating system. Logically speaking, the tank will be out of sen*ice Eor less time and economicallc it .~]l r_ost less to have the pain ring contractor do the entire rank at: once. boating II+;ecommendations: Exterior ~;~tion ,~1 Hydr-oFlon: Tlus is die best available coating system Eor Iong-term aesthetics. Series 700 (gloss) or "i01 (setru-gloss] ldydroFlon is a fluoropolymer finish that has superior resistance to color fade; chalking, U~ radiation; graffiti, and dirt and mildew pickup. This system. has an expected aesr}tetic set-vice life of o~rer 20 years The HydroFlon system is designed to provide color%gloss retention 2-3 times longer than traditional polyurethane systems. Surface Preparation: SSPC-SI'6/N_~CE 3 Corrunerciai Blast Cleaning of Steel. Provide and angular anchor profile of at Least 2-0 mils. .~I] surfaces shall be clean, dtz- and free of contaminants. Primer: Tnemec Series 91-H2O Hydro-Zinc at 2.5 - 3.5 day mils. Intermediate: Tnemec Series 7 ~ Endura-Shield at 2.0 - 3.0 dn~ mils. Finish: Tnemec Series 700/701 (gloss/serru-gloss) HydroFlon at 2.0 - 3-0 dr}- mils. Lettering/Logo Two coats of Tnemec Series 700 HydroFlon at 2.0 - 3.0 dry mils, each. Exterior Option 2 -Endura-Shield II System: This system will provide similar corrosion protection to Option 1 but will show challcu~g and fading much earlier (approximately 7-10 years). Surface Preparation: SSPC-SPGjN_~CE 3 Commercial Blast Cleaning of Steel. Provide and angular anchor profile of at least 2.0 mils. _~ll surfaces shall be clean, drti- and free of contaminants. Primer: Tnemec Series 91-H2O Hydro-Zinc ar 2.5 - 3.5 dry mils. Intermediate: Tnemec Series 27VUB Typox}- at 4.0 - G.0 dry trails. Finish: Tnemec Series 1074/ 1075 Endura-Shield II at 2.0 - 3.0 dry mils. Lettering/Logo: Two coats of Tnemec Series 740 Endura-Shield at 3.0 - 5.0 drp trails, each. Interior Wets Surface Preparation: SSPC-SP10/ N.~CE 2 Near-~y'hite Blast Cleaning Primer: Tnemec Series 91-H2O EIydro-Zinc at 2.5 - 3.5 dry mils. Finish: Tnemec Series FC22 Pota-Pox 100 at 20.0 - .i0.0 dt,~ mils. Please don't hesitate to contact us if }•ou have any questions or if we can be of Further service. Best regards, Kevin Renslow, CSi, CDT Technical Sales Representative Coating Resources, Inc Independent Representatives of Tnemec Company, Inc ~. Photo G `~ rya t , ~. .~ ~ ..F T . I y~ A ti p 1 M _ I 1 . ` ~~ 1. ' :{.n~ - _ ~ F ~~ ~ r ~ .. "' tip` - _ ~.d r ~~.v ~ ~ ~., Lp JhF~ t ~~Y.1 1F~" 7 // 4 ,~ V~~H ~ ~ 4'y N~~1. d 'i ?1 #~'y ~~5y y ~ 4 ~t ~~ ~ sn rj 5 t ~ 1 ~. ~4 ~ ~ if~; ~ e~ k r ~ w '~~ r t ~ E Photo 3 w ~y a ~~f r ~,~ r "~ ~# ~4 '~ Photo i Ra' 4 ' ~ # t~ 1. S r A , r i ~ 1ti~ ~ ~ " `~ , r f s; _ '. ~ ~4 ,a<' ' x F bk4 i~sti ~y-h rr r c .r r'.:~ ~ t ~S~} ~,~ tAt r..~ r ~ t ~ ! +'t ~ 1 ~~ ~ 1' ~ ~~ ~^ ~. r i ~y ~ f ~ .. ~}ii, k. ~ Y r:3:. i`~ k,~ AYE.. F ~ ~ ` ~~k'~l L~ {yl ~~ ~ ~ t • ~~ t~. ~'~ } ~ }' ~ .4 .. ~X'S , . ,, I ~ ~ ~ ~~ rd.. f4 ~ ' a r~A~ Y r ~ ~) ~ 't ,;~'a;jy~ "I:::~:. ~.!.~ :~::;~5~ r.a:':; ' ~ ~~~'• ~;,Y r ~ ' - ' "~~ i 7~ ~ . ~ : : . ~X r' • _ Al . f , S 'G , ,. , r ;1 , ~ ~ < i ~t ~~,~ ~ i y 7~ add,'' ;,,} ~~ ~ a`~ ,F r k ~: i rP r~ y ;y3. ~11-.i_~j~~, i'Y L`1'.t'1~'~, '.. Via;! y~'f.,'t y~C~ ~'~::?~!%h~. J+.ic) d C"Y~ . ~ ~ w ~'• x{~ ,~ ' ~~ ~~:Mf ~ r Photo ~ _,......_. . __._.._ ._ _ _ r ,~~~~+~ - t54. q( i ~ ; ,. ~ y ~ ~ i"1 y^. r V it tlf'`, ~ i~•~,c~~777 r~~~.' ;f ~ .; ~ , ' ~J,'. ^"_ r , }rya' !.r ° ~ `~ ~~~ ~:,_ ri a i ~~~ ~,. ~~: T~IE;1~; CUP;iPA?IY Ii1CC??4RATEG li! `~1ESi '•6`F ;Pdi~BE iJuR~`1 `:sitSl~A "il{ ~i'_' 641ic [!- 8'h i~4~~;CQ i~~. 3~~6 iu J;i~ v~4'i'_ ~N C!:. Date; To: Front: Subject: ActivBty: Cetstot>rter. April 14, 2009 i<evin Renslow (092) Mark Bollinger i/Vater Tank -Elk River, N1~I Generic Identification City of Elk River Tnemec Technical Service Prelirnina~ ~eseaa-ch ~~arnna~~yy PURPOSE / iBACKGROUND INFORMATION Per your request, Technical Services has examined the sample submitted from the subject site for generic identification and total film thickness. ANALYSES Microscopic examination showed what appears to be five distinct layers with an average total dry film thickness of 34.2 mils. Spectral analysis of the front layer showed what appears to be an alkyd. if you have any additional questions, please call. Regards, ~-~.-'mac.: ~~~,~~~ -~--! Mark F. Bollinger Sr. Technical Service Representative Tnemec Co., Inc. Information, suggestions, and opinions in this report are based upon what is conveyed from the Pairding Contractor/General Corrtrador/Archited/Engineer/Owner/Tnemec Representative; inducting but not limited to, the Analytical Analyses of the samples Tnemec receives from the Subject Project/Representatives. Therefore, the comments contained herein may or may not be pertinent to and reflective of all aspects of the Project. T~z~~i~a~ iB~sl9etin ~~~ ~;~-~a ~~ ~, i ,luiy :ooz SUBJECT Overr:oating Aged IPaant systems PURPOSE To discuss test procedures and criteria necessary to make decisions on overcoating (or not overcoating) aged coating systems. GEIIERAL The success or failure of an overcoat system depends on several variables: v Condition of existing coating system. Geographic location (exposure conditions). ~ Surface preparation pror• to overcoating. a Type overcoat system selected. Determinine Condition of Existine Paint system Whether or not overcoating is a feasible alternative to complete removal and repainting depends a ;rear deal on the condition of the existing paint system. The amount of corrosion present, number of coats, adhesion to the substrate, adhesion between coats and geographic location (exposure conditions) are all factors that need to be considered before a specifier can make an overcoat or complete removal decision. Corrosion: One of the criteria used to determine if an existing paint system can be effectively overcoated is the extent of corrosion that has occurred. This can be evaluated by visual assessment using ASTM D 510 Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces. ASTM D 610 cor?tains photographic reference standards that illustrate the degree of rusting on a numerical scale from 0 to 10 where Rust Grade L0 indicates no rust and Rust Grade 1 represents 50% rust. [n other words, a higher rating indicates less rust. Surfaces with 10% or more rust (Grades 4, 3, 2 and t) are normally not considered candidates for overcoating. Page 1 of 6 1?'esllnisal ~u9letin i~io. 9$-1® IZfl duly 2002 Adhesion/Film [ntegritya Before determining if the existing paint system is a candidate for overcoating, it is also important to obtain answers to the following questions: 1. What is the total film thickness? 2. How many coats of paint? 3. How good is the adhesion to the substrate and betvreen coats? 4. Are there f•.!m defects such as cracking or blistering? Physical and visual tests are required to answer the above questions and determine film integrity (cvercoating risk factors). Conduct the following tests at a minimum of 3 locations (3 trials at each location) and record results on attached Form No. l01 X 588. Draw a diagram of the structure on a separate piece of paper and mark the locations where tests were conducted. Large structures such as bridges should be divided into zones and a minimum of 3 locations tested within each zone. Use a separate Form No. 101 X 588 for recording test results at each zone. I . Measure total dry film thickness with a Tooke gauge, magnetic pull-off or magnetic flux film thickness gauge. Measurements should be taken at a minimum of ~ separate locations (3 trials at each location). 2. Determine approximate number of coats with a Tooke gauge or visual examination of a paint chip cross section. 3. Visually inspect the film far defects such as delamination, cracking and blistering. List any significant film defects that are observed. Existing coatings with extensive delamination or cracking should not be overcoated. If blisters are present, report blister size and frequency in accordance with ASTM D 7l4 Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints. (Existing systems that have extensive blistering should not be overcoated unless frequency of blisters is such that each blister or blistered area can be spot repaired.) 4. Check adhesion at the same locations (3 trials at each location) where dry film thickness readings were taken. Use the following adhesion test methods: "X" Scribe and Tape Test -Conduct this test in accordance with ASTIVi D 3359 Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test, Method A. Adhesion is rated on a scale of 0 to 5 as outlined in the ASTM Test Method. No removal is rated as SA and removal beyond the area of the "X" is rated as OA. Knife Adhesion -Probe at the coating with the point of a knife blade in an attempt to delaminate the coating system between coats or from the substrate. Rate "knife adhesion" as poor, fair, good or excellent. Note: The ASTM D 3359 "X" scribe and tape adhesion test can sometimes give misleading results if only delamination around the "X" scribe is evaluated. Always examine the back (sticky side) of the tape. If it is covered with a thin layer of topcoat, rate the adhesion as "OA" even though the "X" scribe indicates better adhesion. Aged leafing aluminum coatings sometimes display this topcoat splitting phenomenon. Page 2 of 6 Technical 13~~lletin 1Voo ~~-~~ ;(23 ~aEy 2®~? SelectinS an Appropriate (3vercoat System Adding additional coats of paint to an old paint system will always increase the degree of cohesive stress. The risk factor question is usual{y not if the new system will adhere to the properly prepared surface of the old, it's whether or not the old system has good enough film integrity, adhesion between coats and to the substrate to support an overcoat system without literally falling apart. Before selecting candidate overcoat system(s) one must keep in mind that cohesive stress exerted on the existing system will vary with generic type. Non-flexible conventional 2-component epoxies like Series 27, aliphatic urethanes like Series 1075 and moisture cured urethanes like Series 530 will develop more cohesive stress upon curing than more flexible coatings such as acrylic emulsions (Series 30), medium to long oil alkyds (Series 23) and epoxy mastics (Series 135). One must also keep in mind That wgardless of generic type overcoat system, the higher the film thickness the greater the cohesive stress on the existing system. For example, application of a Series N69/Series 1075 system at i2.0 mils tots! DFT to an old paint system possessing marginal adhesion, would most likely lead to a delamination disaster. Enough cohesive stress will be developed that the old system will be literally pulled apart at its weakest adhesion link (between coats or from the substrate). Geographic location {exposure conditions} also plays a role in the selection of an appropriate overcoat system. Paint systems in the northe--n states undergo more stress because of freeze/thaw cycling. Flexible, low cohesive stress overcoat systems, therefore, become even mere important in those areas of the country that are subject to frequent freeze/thaw cycles during winter months. Delamination Risk Factor: As mentioned earlier, it is important to check adhesion of the existing paint system before deciding whether or not it is a candidate for overcoating. After testing adhesion in accordance with ASTM D 3359 Method A, a delamination risk factor can be assigned on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 the lowest delamination risk after overcoating and 5 the highest. See Table I, page 5. Worse case scenarios are multi-coat, high film thickness, existing coating systems with poor adhesion between coats or to the substrate in a freeze./thaw locale. A Tnemec overcoat system should not be suggested if a worse case scenario exists. Old paint systems with high delamination risk factors (4.5 to 5) are usually not candidates for overcoating. `vVhen in doubt check with Tnemec's Technical Services Department. Page 3 of 6 ~'°chnicau ~$te.aet3te l~i~. 95-~0 '{°a~ Cohesive Stress Factor: Cohesive stress factors for various generic type coatings on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) can be found in Table 2, rage 5. System Selection vs. itisic c& Stress Factors: Based on the fact that cohesive stress exerted by an overcoat system is directly related to the delamination potential of an existing paint system, Table 3 and Table 4 on page ti can be used as guides in selecting candidate Tnemec overcoat systems. Table 4 contains a partial list of overcoat systems available from Tnemec. i'.andirlate Svstem(s) Test Patches: Before making the firai decision on whether or nor to suggest a specific overcoat system, it is important to evaluate the adhesion of the candidate overcoat system(s) to the existing paint system. Make sure the existing system is dry and clean prior to applying test patches. Use ASTM D 5064 Standard Practice for Conducting a Patch Test to Assess Coating Compatability as a guide in conducting adhesion test patches. Use ASTM D 3359 Method A to evaluate adhesion of the new system ±o the old. The overcoat system should not wrinkle, lift or show any other adverse effects to the existing system. The adhesion of the existing system should be at least as good to the substrate and between coats as originally tested. The adhesion of the overcoat system to the existing system should exhibit an average adhesion rating of at least ~.0. Surface Prepaaation: Requirements may vary from job to job. A11 existing paint systems must be dry and clean prior to overcoating. This can usually be accomplished by power washing with 140° F. biodegradable detergent/water solution (l to Z oz. detergent per gallon of water) at 1000 to 2000 PSi at the rotating nozzle using 3 to 5 gpm delivery. Rinse with clean tap water. Some existing paint systems (e.g. two-component aliphatic polyurethanes) may require scarification prior to overcoating. If mildew is present, allow the surface to dry following the above power washing procedures. Wet mildewed surfaces with a bleach solution consisting of 3 parts warm water and 1 part household bleach. Allow the bleach solution to remain on the surface until dry. It will evaporate over a short period of time. Rinse with clean tap water. Rusty areas should be power tool cleaned (SP11 is the preferred method), and spot primed (Federal and local laws pertaining to the removal of lead-containing coatings will need to be considered). Edges of existing coating should be feathered to form a smooth transition prior to spot priming. Page 4 of E Technica9 Bsslletin No, ~8-t~ Rt July 2002 if in doubt as to whether or not the surface preparation methods listed above are suitable for a specific job, please contact Tnemec's Technical SPI~.'SCes i'epartmsnt. Forms: If the generic type of existing system is unknown and/or assistance is needed in making overcoat suggestions, send a completed Dopy of attached Fo--m No. I O l X 588, Request for Overcoat Candidate Systems, to Tnemec's Technical Services Department. The applicable sections of this form should be completed and filed regardless of whether or not assistance is requested from Tnemec Company. r1t€ached Form No. 101 X 5$9, Overcoat Test Patch Evaluation should also be completed and filed. Note: Tnemec Company assumes no liability with worker safety, safety of the general public, contamination of the environment, or any other liability associated with removal of paint containing lead and/or other toxic substances. TABLE 1 Adhesion Results **Delamination Risk Factor Risk Factor Vb'ith Freeze/Thaw Locale Risk Factor With Freeze/Thaw + High DFT (10 mils +) 0 Poor 5 High 5+ 5++ I 4.5 5 5+ 2 4 4.5 5 3 ; 3.5 4 ~ 2 2.5 3 5 Excellent 1 Low 1.5 2 * Average of adhesion tests at a minimum of 3 separate locations. (3 trials at each location in accordance with ASTM D 3359 Method A.) ** Degree of risk associated ~~~ith the existing system delaminating between coats ar from the substrate following application of an overcoat system. TABLE 2 Generic Type Cohesive Stress Factor Elastomeric ac lic emulsions 1 Low Acrylic emulsions 2 Medium to Ion oil alkyds 3 E ox mastics 4 Conventional 2-component epoxies, aliphatic urethanes and moisture cured urethanes 5 High Page 5 of 6 '3'~echnical Batletin 1alo~ 98-10 I~1 duly 201e' TABLE 3 Delamination Risk Factor Coating Selection Sased On Cohesive Stress Factors 5 or greater Not Recommended 4.5 3.5 - 4 Not Recommended l or 2 (From Table 2) 3 2 1, 2, 3 or 4 (From Table 2) 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (From Table 2) 1 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (From Table 2) TABLE ~ Spot Primer Intermediate Topcoat Cohesive Stress Series 135 Series 156 Series 30 (optional) 1 Series 18 or Series 30 Series 30 Series 30 Series 4 Series 23 Series 2H, 23 ~ Series 135 Series 135 Series 73, 1074 or 1075 4 Series 27 or N69 Series 27 or N69 Series 73, 1074 or 1075 5 Note: After spot priming, the number of coats required to achieve complete coverage depends on method of application and color of the intermediate and/or topcoat. Series 6, 7, 18, 30 and 156 are considered "dry fait" products, but jobsite conditions must be taken into account when spraying. See the appropriate PDS for additional information. MB Page 6 of 6 9C5Ca~iai !"Ci~..l ?"?,~. !_eac~ - _t„iYt41-~_"g i,°aCY !'~,dfia~, iTfld~ ,9f~.r~? ~~it"_t~LL?I~S -- i"/i~,~`3i'_.~~~9~La *'t~~~_ ~ _'•_~a ,+ P~1PCA Home - Air = Special Pollut_ants_Lead = "'lassi~ica`ion ~ ~%2°I Str~ctur2 Lead_ Special Air Pollutant ~t~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~'~~~~~~~~~: ~~ °°'m '~~'~'~`~I~~~;J ~~~~'~~ °J~~~~n 9~2~°~S, 'y ~- o 1 ~1! 1~ ~~l ~Jii7 ~~~~ ~~~N~'Sg1.Jl ~~ Air The Nlinr:esota Pollution (:ontrol ~ Background Agency ;MPC~\j has devUloped ~ Identi ing Lead in Paint Cleanup regulal;ion~; with procedi.~res that ~ Notification Waste owners of steel structures o~ . Classification of Steel -- _- contractors must follow in removing Structures ibis Web sde contains PDF lead paint from exterior st.~rfaces of the o Bridges documents that require Adobe structures. The regulations affect Acrobat for viewing. almost everyone who removes lead v Storage Structures paint from steel structures such as o Other Steel Structures water tanks, fuel tanks, grain bridges ~ Restrictions , storage bins, railcars and pipelines. ~ Definitions Who to Contact for. Help 13a~9c~o-a~u~~ The removal of lead paint from steel structures has gone largely unregulated i.~ Minnesota, posing a risk to public health and the environment. MPC A staff estimate that 130,000 to 180,000 pounds of lead are removed each year from steel structures in Minnesota. Commonly used for removing corrosion and. deteriorated paint, dry abrasive blasting can release large amounts of lead- containing particulate matter into the air. The regulations,lVlN Rules ch. 7025 = ,require the use of pollution control that combines paint removal methods with different levels of contairunent to prevent environmental contamination and human exposure to lead particles. 5teei structures affected by the regulation include: . structures that are permanently fixed in an outside location, mobile or portable steel structures located outside during lead paint removal, and . exterior metal building components. There are about 1,000 steel water tanks, 8,000 steel bridges, and more than 10,600 chemical and fuel storage tanks in the state, most of which are coated with lead paint. Provisions of the rules include: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/leadpaint.html 5/1 /2009 t~ ~_~ l v i;7 t~: E~a.v~'E`S `~~Y' : ~l?1i yJl:~e~:~ , r'r ..i. _. (l t~CN (x^^~~ ~5 fin(~p /'411 k ~ 1a1. J ~.. ~ ~^'~~C!l~~d.l i R~~~ 7lSes.._ n_Yc~{„a I I. .~ ",mil ~~~1. .~ ~J~ ,1RY l ~,._- r ::.~n,~~P~_ ~~~ a~?~i°~:.~ ~h~ ~. tec:et~TC~ T~-~ .rrtu~l'~~; ~td.~r,` _ ^_~. _ ,.~ l~~~tafi?~ar~t~ la~~~ i~ ~~i l~~j®rE: ~/a1C7t S N4: ~"3~ 1'°wIi1C~vCC~ ~€`im thC; d.`:~~.~rd(?r <.7{ a i ~~li_i#i G.~. _y~l;S~~ s~,:"'_! "4.~.Gi~, ~epresentatY'Ve, samp?.es ~~l~ti'ie ^C)atdng S?~s 1131, .`itr~lC;tLdre 6"Y~ICS~ l.~ LC',S~~C.I ~:C3~ k~:aC r,'AaE`dri,'C'rl~ratde~CF. ~aCl"d .`5amplC-~' rT?~€kS7 ddlGllXde °'C~UaI Si.&d'~aC~; `~~"C~ ~;c ~u~.f,,~! ~;~`.sl.tdf?7. ~lil4d 3~fii~3pll'S 3e an'~ dFiferen~ EJaFI?,~;S lisd,e~ ~n t12C StrI,BCY~~if`~,. 'j~C~;'ski". ~y4 yCt,C'ur•",S %ar'y '~~3t1;~ ll"le t°/pc f)1 S$rl.tCtrkr~:, -S®me Sc:YtkC+:urd~"S., S!_dCh as s"s.kk~8wtl.e~ N.%k'~zer ~aG'ikS, require a minimum of three samples while others; such as '~r.dges~ s~a;y Fedilirti. only a eeview of paintinb records. Test methods include both acid digestion (laboratoryy analysis and x-ray fluorescence (XRF~ analysis. Lead paint is def ned as paint that contains 0.5 `?ia 0;000 ppm} or more total Lead by weight or 0.5 dig/crn~. or d~ore by ART measurement. l~le~tof9~atraon Cnce lead paint has been identified, the owner of the steel structure must pd•ovide notice at least ten working days prior to the removal project" i~o notification is required, however, if the total exterior surfave area to bP removed is less than or equal to 500 square feet. Whose to be notified include neighbors and the owners or administrators of child .;are or school buildings within a distance equal to twice the structure's heigl-it, the combined height of multiple storage structures at one (ovation, or. within 200 feet of a bridge portion. This notification informs of the presed~kce of lead on the structure and includes information about the removai project and ways in which health risks can be minimized. The 1VIPC~ commissioner must also be notified of the project: with specific information. about the structure and the pollution. control methods to be used. A Notification of Lead Paint Removal and a Sample Notification to Residents and Child Care Buildings are available below. . C~ NOtlfiCatlorl of Lead Paint Removal from Steel Structures . ~'~' Sample Notifcation to Adult Residents_an_d_Child Care/School Buildings R~s>rricti®ras . Waste from the removal of lead paint from steel structures must be http://wv~'w.pca.state.mn.us/air/leadpaint. html 5/ 1 /2009 ~ - "., ~;,i' ':' r. -:',~i1L;~~ i_i'.tE~', -- i4 tiC 'f~. / ,`_t~ _..rt~ '%11 :~".. - ~;. .... :.s IV' .. ,,. ~;_. ,, s,. w-`aiuatecl and disp~3sed ~_~s: ex~;~ct~ciiilb I:o ~iit?et• IyIN Rules chapter 70~5'~-~ .solid 4~st:4 s:us., 7x chapter_70~~twi -*. ~?az<I{d.~ r~~ti= t•?~ie~. rani. F7e°~: et ~;lpai - -- :1t~it-~:}i ~5bi~ti~; .s/d.~..,, ., 'C _. ~ :tyC;s_z,_ ''1- 1'a.~1 .,.. €:i'd, ,t~ii "5~ :.i:~;.'{'. ,iT1..,/,,, ;e~~l ji~.i,lt a, .<<s n. 7?.i;, ii;'Lt:._C :; It'-`:S; l~"lC `c1le.i .i:.:.' ,?.,.i sari .?ti5 .~~ ^.,!)ii~a ;9C. 1 t ~ ,._~~{} t n~~ ~:;dtltr~tL,~:`iC`~S }?aerie .~n_i f;:leplloi?E nt.t!T=`lei' t-1_?L1~I tad ~C}Si_PC~ to {;i:[:'+"•:: ~I?{'~ ;:?~tmbeC:4 at ;•„d~=. {:~ `_t 6: i.t?C°t~:'S h1~r ~_!{I ;%E ~efitC~e ili' :)ri a Slbii ':i1. ~"'i. pr=:,~pert•y trdnl titC'")r;,'gi111t`_kf~ s1 lead ~)aiitl t~t7}L`V~1 !tnttl {'{}t}'}p~ti',CjY': ,}_ tl`!.~ Cd[1traCtC'=T~s WCirl< ~)t !_~;; Ji.[I.?Ct".!r~(S ~ t.{? Help prti\~e)i ~C-a~~ ~7OIIE~(i+:Ia'~ 'n i;h:-' 1t:tUr lead patlll. Cdii?a.lnin~ ~, t"'C= Chart 0.~°% total lead ny x~vcigls;: tray tlvt: be applied t{, the exterio,• sLrl'~~v{ of any steel structure irt. Minnesota except with the vNritten permission v~ the MP~A commissioner ~ha~ ~~ ~-~~n~~~~ ~~~rr ~~a~ for questions ar assistance regarding removing lead-based paint Pron. steel structures, send an e-mail. to Jackie Deneen or call 800-6~7-864 or b5l -7~?- 2304. This page was last revieuved December 15. 2C06 tf you have suggestions on how we can improve Phis site, or if you have questions or problems, please contact us if you have questions or problems with this Web site, contact webmaster@pca.state.mn.us Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone: 651-296-6300, 800-657-3864; 24-Hour emergency number: 651-649-5451 or 800-422-0798; TTY 051-282- 5332, TTY 24-hour emergency number: 65 i-297-535.', or 800-627-357.9 MPCA Web Site Policies http://wwtiv. pca.state.mn. us/air/leadpaint.html 5/ 1 /2009 il~ ~ )e/ 1 ~, Q ~" I I ~~ ,..7 (V ~ o ~ ~ _ n ® ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ A Q '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ C ~ Q 0 :3 ~ :J ~I c~ v ~ ~I ~ I ,,, i ~ ~ '~ O "' ~_ vi ~ C ~ a ~~ C~ ci] 'il F ~ ~ .~ N c~ ~I ~ 0 o _ O ` ~ ~ ~ ~ C U ~y C _U l~(!, L i r o J ~~ U~ - u a. 0 I~ a _~,r i 'y s ~~ s Iv ~ o ~ .~~ ~ I ~ _ ~ I ! S ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~~ I I I. ~ V ~ I O ~ ~ ~ I I '~ I ~, i rysy 11 I I'I i I I 'I I I ~ ~, I I ~ I~ ;~ r> ly ~I I I ~ I • I y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ r:~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ li., ~ G ~ ~ I ~ I j ~ ~ I . ~ op ~ ~ f ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~~ ~I I ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I , I I I ~ =' ~ I I i 3 I ~ Q ~ ~ c-~+ ~, ,~ ~~ I ~! I I ~ I ~ I ~~ I ~ ~ I ~'' YYY ~ ~ ~J ~ I i ~ j I i , I i ~ I --I a 3 T `' ,. -~._ v Q ~~' I I ~ ( I ~ I III I ~ ~ = I ~ ~ ~C~`~. v.: ~ ~ >; ~ ~ ~ I I i I ~ °S ~~ ~ } ~S , I ~ I x ~ ~ ~' •~ ~.~' ~ ~ ~ t~1, ~ I I I ~ II i I ~ I I Y, I Q'~ ' >.. ~ cci ~ c3 ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ . I I ,y tts `a.c~ ® (J j I ~ ., ~j: QI- ~ ~ ~ ~~ C N ~ ,. ~~ ~. ^~ y i -° v I ~, ~ _~ 3 ~ ~ :~ o ~ . ~ II r o ~ Z7 ~ N ~ ~ ~~ 3 Q 3 ~, ~. ~ ~ L o ~ ,~ ~ a --t VD ~ ~ ^, Ts .~ ~ _~ '~ o Z ~ Q T O U cC ~ . ~ ;> -:~~ ~ ~ U ~ 4J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ a ~ ~ J , ~ I ~ ~: C ~y ~ ~.~~ U .y ~ _, T ''a, ~'` ~ w ~ `~ ~ ~. y O ai ~ 3 y 1 '±' l ~ ~ .f+ , ~ .Q ~ '=1 I ~ - rh ® ~+ ~ ~ ~ `" ~~ Lt. ~ o ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a b a~ ~ ~ c °J ~ ,_ ~ ~ z c1 U ~ '~~ ~=~ U m L .., ~ ~ _ ,/ e. - o U c ~' ~ U c ~ - ~ r _ J ~ _ c ~ N G ~(~ 2 ~- u o r ° o~,~. ~~ I II = ~` II ~v -N~ n^3 c _~¢f ~? '~ o o o V C II II II a~_~~~ J © ~'. ^ y J~ , r U ~ C ~ >~o a ' v II a II o ~,>UO L ~a ~ T .~ ~ ~, ~ -~ v F- a~ ti ~ V ~ O v ~ ~ n 3 ti ~ U ~ II C II 5 ~ ~U,~ o u v ~ L ^~~ v ¢ o a~ ~ ~.. ~ N ~ ~ u j ~ G ~ J O II II II II !IJ ~ W ~. ~ O Z _L~ ~~~~;~~ ~, - II p II II r_ /~ J ti ~ ~~n5~< L` ~~ d ,, .. 3 X33="~ o ti 3 5 r~ U II li II u _ 3v3~5_