SSPC GUIDE 18-2008 Specifier-s Guide for Determining Containment Class and Environmental Monitoring Strategies for Lead-Paint Removal Projects《铅涂料移除工程的容器级别和环境监控策略用指示语指南》.pdf

《SSPC GUIDE 18-2008 Specifier-s Guide for Determining Containment Class and Environmental Monitoring Strategies for Lead-Paint Removal Projects《铅涂料移除工程的容器级别和环境监控策略用指示语指南》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SSPC GUIDE 18-2008 Specifier-s Guide for Determining Containment Class and Environmental Monitoring Strategies for Lead-Paint Removal Projects《铅涂料移除工程的容器级别和环境监控策略用指示语指南》.pdf（11页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、SSPC-Guide 18February 1, 20081SSPC: The Society for Protective CoatingsTeChnology guide no. 18Specifiers Guide for Determining Containment Class and Environmental Monitoring Strategies for Lead-Paint Removal Projects1. Scope1.1 This guide describes a six-step process to assist in determining the typ

2、e of containment system and the level of environmental monitoring that should be specified on a project-specific basis when removing coatings that contain lead. The selection of the containment and monitoring strategies is based on an assessment of the type of paint removal method that will be used

3、and the potential impact of the operations on the public, other workers in the area, and the environment. Note that local and state codes and regulations must be reviewed and take precedence to any guidance provided in this document. The guidance provided in this document also applies to coatings co

4、ntaining other hazardous metals such as cadmium and chromium; however, the recommended analytical monitoring is often based on an analysis for lead. Paint chip sampling and testing for lead and other hazardous metals should be undertaken to properly characterize the paint being removed.1.2 This guid

5、e does not cover the selection of paint removal methods, or design of containment/ventilation systems.2. descriptionThis guide is intended to assist those who specify, design, construct, or monitor the effectiveness of containments and environmental monitoring procedures on projects where lead-conta

6、ining coatings are being disturbed. It provides users with a series of steps for gathering and organizing information about a specific lead paint removal operation in order to select the type of containment and the environmental monitoring strategy that will result in the least risk to the public an

7、d the environment. 3 Information ResourcesMuch of the information contained in the guide has been extracted from Project Design,1which also provides additional details on the design process for lead-paint removal projects. Additional sources of information that the reader should consult for the prop

8、er use of this guide are SSPC-Guide 6, Guide for Containing Debris Generated During Paint Removal Operations2, and SSPC-TU 7, Conducting Ambient Air, Soil, and Water Sampling During Surface Preparation and Paint Disturbance Activities.34. Steps for Gathering and Ordering InformationStep 1 Identify t

9、he Emissions Potential of the Selected Paint Removal Method(s) The various methods of paint removal will create differing amounts of emissions. The particle size distribution (PSD) of emissions may range from a few large paint chips and little airborne dust in the case of hand scraping, to large amo

10、unts of smaller particles, debris, and airborne dust in the case of abrasive blast cleaning. The small particle sizes will be carried further by the wind, placing the removal method into a higher “Paint Removal Emissions Category.” For the purpose of this guide, four “Paint Removal Emissions Categor

11、ies” are defined based on the general amount of emissions created, whether the emissions are wet or dry. NOTE: No relationship is being implied between the emis-sion category and the amount of lead that may be present in the emission. For example, open power tool cleaning is clas-sified “moderate em

12、issions potential,” whereas water jetting is classified as “high emissions potential.” However, the actual amount of lead in the dust surrounding the power tool operation may be greater than the amount of lead in the mist of water surrounding the water jetting operation.Paint Removal Emissions Categ

13、ories:Category 1 - Very High Emissions Potential: The paint removal methods in this category include open abrasive blast cleaning with expendable or recyclable abrasives. Category 2 - High Emissions Potential: The paint removal methods in this category involve the use of water and include high and u

14、ltra-high pressure water jetting, low and high pressure water cleaning, and wet abrasive blast cleaning.Category 3 - Moderate Emissions Potential: The paint removal methods in this category include sponge jetting, chemical stripping (removal of stripping residue by means other than hand scraping), v

15、acuum blast cleaning, wet abrasive blasting and waterjet cleaning with vacuum attachments, portable centrifugal wheel blast cleaning, and power tool cleaning. Note that when used with proper operating techniques on flat surfaces, wet or dry abrasive blast cleaning SSPC-Guide 18February 1, 20082with

16、vacuum attachments and waterjetting with vacuum attachments can meet Category 4 requirements.Category 4 - Low Emissions Potential: The methods in this category include hand tool cleaning and chemical stripping when removed by hand scraping only.Record the paint removal methods and the associated Emi

17、ssions Potential Category on the attached Form A.Step 2 Collecting Site-Specific Project Data and Potential Risk IndicatorsBefore the degree of containment and environmental monitoring strategies can be selected, site-specific data should first be collected. Data includes the proximity of the public

18、, other workers, and soils/water to the paint removal operations. Each is discussed below. Determine Relative Risk to the Public: The impact that project emissions might have on the public is significantly influ-enced by the relative proximity of the public to the paint removal operations, and the f

19、requency of their presence. “Public” is defined as anyone who is not employed at the jobsite, whether by the contractor or the owner of the facility for which the work is being performed (as a direct facility employee or by another firm contracted to work at the facility).Use Chart 1 to determine th

20、e relative risk to public health based on their proximity to the project and the frequency of their presence. Proximity is based on distances and is self-explanatory. Frequency is defined as follows:Never: Public has no access near the site, such as work in the middle of an industrial facility.Rare:

21、 Public has limited access near the work site, or may be present for a very limited duration such as driving on a roadway near a bridge project. A tank located in a remote rural area away from routine public access is included in this category.Occasional: Public may be near the work site on a period

22、ic basis. Examples include nearby parks or recreational areas.Always: Public maintains a relatively full-time status near the work site, such as housing, schools, and commercial businesses.Other Considerations: The designer should also review other factors that might affect potential public exposure

23、s:Time of Year parks, ball fields and other open spaces may have higher usage at certain times of the year.Recreational Activities such as fishing and boating, or outdoor festivals, fairs, carnivals.Wind Velocity wind velocity can effect the distribution and concentration of the emissions, and may a

24、lter the general citing criteria presented in this Guide. Wind Direction Note that sensitive receptors that are proximate to (near) the work site may warrant a monitoring location, even when located upwind. Other Sources of Emissions the location of support operations in relation to the public shoul

25、d also be considered. Support operations include blast media transfer systems, blast media cleaning systems, exhaust air filtra-tion, waste conveyance, etc. Record the raw data and the relative public health risk on the attached Form A.Determine Relative Risk to Adjacent Workers (to other site worke

26、rs who are not involved in the paint removal project, but who are proximate enough to the work to potentially be exposed, as defined below).The impact that project emissions might have on adjacent workers is significantly influenced by the relative proximity of the workers to the paint removal opera

27、tions, and the frequency of their presence.Use Chart 2 to determine the relative risk to adjacent workers based their proximity to the project and the frequency of their presence. Proximity is based on distances and is self-explanatory. Frequency is defined as follows:Rare Adjacent workers have no r

28、outinely sched-uled activities near the work area. This would apply to workers that may be needed to perform random maintenance or repair of facility equipment located within the work area.Occasional Adjacent workers have routine, scheduled periodic stays of 2 hours or less per shift near the work a

29、rea.Always Adjacent workers have routine, scheduled stays of greater than 2 hours per shift near the work area.Record the raw data and the relative risk to adjacent workers on the attached Form A.Determine Potential Impact to the Environment (Adja-cent Soil/ Water): The impact that project emissions

30、 might have on the environment (defined as adjacent soil and water) is significantly influenced by the relative proximity of soil and water to the paint removal operations.Use Chart 3 to determine the potential impact to the environ-ment by plotting the proximity to both soil and water. Note that pr

31、oximity to soil or water is independent of use. Lawns are treated the same as farmland. Ponds and lakes are treated the same as rivers. However, certain land and water uses (e.g., water intakes, fisheries, vegetable gardens, etc.) may require special considerations and highest levels of protection.

32、Proximity is based on distances and is self-explanatory. Record the raw data and the potential environmental impact on the attached Form A.SSPC-Guide 18February 1, 20083CHART 2 DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE RISK TO ADJACENT WORKERSFREQUENCYPROXIMITY TO WORKERSRare (no scheduled presence)Occasionally(2 h

33、rs/shift)Close (500 ft) Nil Nil NilCHART 3 DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTPROXIMITY TO WATERdistant(200 ft)2near(200 ft)2Low High1 or within 5X the height of the structure, whichever is greater.2 or more than 5X the height of the structure, whichever is greater.CHART 1DETERMINATION O

34、F RELATIVE RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTHProximityFrequencynever Rare Occasionally AlwaysClose(100 ft)1Nil Moderate High HighModerate(100-1000 ft)2Nil Low Moderate HighFar(1000-2500 ft)3Nil Low Low ModerateN/A4Nil Nil Nil Nil1 or within 2X the height of the structure relative to the receptor whichever is gre

35、ater.2 or within 5X the height of the structure relative to the receptor, whichever is greater.3 or 5X the height of the structure relative to the receptor, whichever is greater, but less than 2,500 ft.4 or greater than 2,500 ft.SSPC-Guide 18February 1, 20084Step 3 Determining Degree of Emissions Co

36、ntrol RequiredThe risk indicators from Step 2 are combined in Chart 4 to determine the degree of emissions control required for the specific project.Two “Emission Control Levels” are established as defined below:Emission Control Level A This category requires a very high level of control over emissi

37、ons. The intent is to prevent essentially all emissions from escaping the work area.Emission Control Level B This category requires a high level of control over emissions, with the recognition that periodic, but infrequent, emis-sions are allowed.Record the Emissions Control Level on the attached Fo

38、rm A.Step 4 Matching the Containment Requirements with the Paint Removal Method(s) and Degree of Emissions Control RequiredClasses of containment are defined in SSPC Guide 6 for dry abrasive blast cleaning, wet methods of removal (e.g., wet abrasive blast cleaning or water jetting), hand/power tool

39、cleaning, and chemical stripping. The containment classes are identified as 1 through 3 for hand/power tool cleaning and chemical stripping. Classes for dry abrasive blast cleaning and wet methods of removal are 1 through 4. The lower the number, the greater is the degree of control over emissions (

40、and correspondingly the more elaborate the containment system). The containment classes also contain a letter that corre-sponds to the method of removal:A Abrasive Blast Cleaning (Classes 1A through 4A)W Wet Methods (Classes 1W through 4W)P Hand/Power Tool Cleaning (Classes 1P through 3P)C Chemical

41、Stripping (Classes 1C through 3C)Select the recommended class of containment from Chart 5 based on Emissions Potential of the paint removal method from Step 1 and the Emissions Control Level from Step 3.Record the SSPC class of containment on the attached Form A.CHART 4 SELECTION OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC

42、 EMISSION CONTROL LEVELRISK TO ADJACENT WORKERSNil Low high Nil Low highPUBLICHEALTHRISKHigh A A A A A AModerate A-B A-B A A A ALow/Moderate B B A A-B A-B ANil B B A A-B A-B ALow highENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTCHART 5 SELECTION OF CONTAINMENT CLASS BASED ON EMISSIONS POTENTIAL OF PAINT REMOVAL METHOD AND E

43、MISSIONS CONTROL LEVEL REQUIREDPAINT REMOVAL EMISSIONS POTENTIALEMISSIONS CONTROL LEVEL REQUIREDSSPC guide 6 CONTAINMENT CLASSVery HighA 1AB 2AHighA 1WB 3WModerateA 1P/1CB 2P/3CLowA 3PB Ground tarpsSSPC-Guide 18February 1, 20085Note that it may be necessary to place restrictions on some of the avail

44、able options within a given containment component category from SSPC-Guide 6. For example, rigid or flexible containment materials may be permitted for a given class of containment. However, site-specific conditions may warrant restricting portions of the containment to rigid materials only to avoid

45、 the potential for flapping (e.g., immediately next to traffic lanes on a bridge). This guide provides general guidance on containment system selection, but does not address the selection of the paint removal method. It should be recognized that the risk of breaches and emissions is greater with pai

46、nt removal methods such as abrasive blast cleaning than hand tool cleaning. Accordingly, depending on site specific conditions (e.g., day care adjacent to the structure), even though the guide indicates that emissions during blast cleaning can be controlled and monitored, the impact of a single emis

47、sion may be so great that consideration may need to be given to changing the method of paint removal (e.g., changing dry abrasive blast cleaning to wet abrasive blast cleaning).Step 5 Selection of Monitoring Strategies for Assessing EmissionsSSPC-Guide 6 identifies a series of options for monitoring

48、 the project to assure that emissions are being controlled appropriately. Refer to Section 5.5 of Guide 6 for a description of the following monitoring options:Method A Visible Emissions (total emissions and opacity)Method B Ambient Air Monitoring for PM-10Method C Regulated Area Monitoring Method D

49、 Ambient Air Monitoring for TSP-LeadMethod E Soils Analysis (laboratory and visual)Method F Water and Sediment (laboratory and visual)Use the appended tables to determine the type of project monitoring that is recommended based on the emissions potential of the paint removal method (from Step 1), the rela-tive risk to the public (from Step 2, Chart 1), the relative risk to adjacent workers (from Step 2, Chart 2) and the potential impact to the environment (from Step 2, Chart 3). A separate table is provided for each of the four paint removal emission