Chapter 9.

3
Other Regulations Affecting Protective Coatings
Bernard R. Appleman

Introduction charge Elimination System (40 CFR 122)

This chapter discusses the impact of regula- • Water Quality Standards (40 CFR 131)
tions concerning: • National Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141)
• Water quality (surface water, ground water, and
sediment) Reportable Quantities For Hazardous Substances
• Potable water in storage tanks and pipes Approximately 300 chemicals have been
• Hazardous materials designated by EPA as potential hazards when dis-
• Secondary containment of above-ground storage solved in water. Any discharge exceeding the report-
vessels able quantity is in violation of the Clean Water Act and
• Leak prevention for underground storage tanks must be reported. The list includes only a few materi-
• Coatings for food and beverage facilities als commonly used in protective coating activities,
• Soil quality such as toluene, xylene, and sodium nitrite (a wet blast
• Fouling resistant coatings inhibitor). Certain lead compounds are on the list, but
• Slip resistance of erected steel not the type that have been used in painting industrial
structures.
Water Quality However, when the material being discharged
is a waste product, the activity would be subject not
Federal Clean Water Act only to FWCPA but also to the Comprehensive Envi-
The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act ronmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(FWPCA) and subsequent amendments in 1977 and (CERCLA).3 Reportable quantities for lead or lead
1987 established the current framework for water compounds and other toxic metals such as chromate
quality controls.1 The goal of this legislation is to are covered by CERCLA.
minimize pollutant discharge into navigable waters
(lakes, streams, oceans) and to achieve water that is Ambient Water Quality Standards
suitable for human recreation and aquatic organisms. EPA has established National Ambient Water
The two basic approaches utilized are: Quality Standards (NAWQS) for a variety of materials
• Controlling the concentrations of toxics in the water including lead, chromium, copper, and cadmium.4
• Controlling discharge of toxics into the water at the These standards place limits on the maximum concen-
point of discharge tration of material at a given site for a one-hour period
(acute) or over a four-day period (chronic). Standards
Both of these approaches are incorporated are set for human consumption (ground or drinking
into the FWPCA, commonly referred to as the Clean water) and for aquatic life.
Water Act.2
As with other environmental statutes, the Water Standards for Aquatic Life. The ambient water
Clean Water Act is a far-reaching, comprehensive, quality standards for toxic metals address fresh water
multi-faceted federal/state program. Several of the and salt water conditions. In fresh water, for several
provisions of the Clean Water Act potentially impact metals the acute and chronic levels are based on
protective coatings activities, including: hardness. Some examples are given in Table 1.
• Reportable quantities for hazardous substances (40
CFR 117) Drinking Water Standards. EPA has also established
• Permits issued under the National Pollutant Dis-
standards for maximum concentrations of metals and
other constituents in drinking water.5,6 Some of the
criteria are listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Water Standards for Aquatic Life.

Figure 1. Water contamination from blasting debris.

Impact of Paint Removal on Aquatic Life. Smith has

reviewed a number of studies on the effect of lead
paint removal and other painting activities on aquatic
life.8 These studies present no evidence that such
activities have resulted in any long-term or immediate
violation of the Clean Water Act.
Table 2. Drinking Water Standards.
A few researchers have conducted bioassays
of fish to determine the sensitivity of various organisms
to suspended or dissolved substances resulting from
new paint materials and paint and abrasive debris. In
two studies, there was evidence of toxic effect from
some surface cleaning compounds used to pre-wash a
bridge and from lead and other paint ingredients. The
levels of concentration used in these studies exceeded
the levels measured in field analyses.
A California Department of Transportation
study investigated the effects of bridge painting
operations on fathead minnows, rainbow trout, and
other species.9 The results indicate that lead-
There is a direct relationship between the level pigmented and zinc-rich paints may cause toxicity.
for drinking water and the level for certain heavy Biocides from water-borne paints and cleaning deter-
metals under the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching gents tested were highly toxic. A set of guidelines was
Procedure (TCLP).7 EPA assumes that water leached developed to assist highway officials in determining
from a landfill will be diluted by a factor of 100 before it and mitigating the impact of bridge painting projects on
can penetrate into drinking water sources. For ex- the aquatic environment. Blasting abrasives range in
ample, chromium-containing waste cannot be toxicity from somewhat toxic to innocuous.
land-disposed unless the leachable chromium content The Department of Fisheries and Oceans of
is less than 5,000 µg/L (5 mg/L), which is 100 times Vancouver, British Columbia, has also issued guide-
the drinking water standard of 5 µg/L (50 PPB). The lines for the protection of fish and fish habitats during
drinking water standard for lead has recently been bridge maintenance.10 These are based on a series of
reduced from 50 µg/L to 15 µg/L. The TCLP level for tests on the effects of abrasives, paints, and surface
lead, however, is still 5 mg/L, rather than 1.5 mg/L, cleaning agents on rainbow trout and other species.
which would represent “100-times” the drinking water The degree of toxicity depended on the specific paint
standard. formulation, with some chemicals found to have lethal

468
effects and cause long-term damage. The guidelines fabricators of structural metal, and construction
provide procedures and strategies, including regular activities on five or more acres.
meetings among the affected parties; scheduling to Paint and surface debris from a painting or
avoid spawning seasons; pre-testing of cleaning paint removal activity that is not properly contained
agents; greater control of degreasing; use of pressur- and collected could be considered an unpermitted
ized waterjetting without abrasives; and containment. discharge. Such discharge may be limited by state or
Even if federal water quality standards are not federal water quality standards or other state or local
exceeded, it is prudent to avoid contaminating any ordinances. Preventing storm water discharge nor-
bodies of water with paint or abrasive materials or mally entails a combination of controls. Drop cloths are
waste. A number of states have more stringent regula- often placed under points of likely emission to facilitate
tions than EPA. For example, the North Carolina clean up in the event of a sudden storm. In addition,
Division of Environmental Management has an action dikes, booms, or other materials may be placed
level of 50 µg/L for zinc in fresh water.11 around entries to storm or sanitary sewers to collect
In addition, visible evidence of inadequate debris for subsequent clean up.14
containment of debris from a structure (e.g., paint
chips and residues floating on the water’s surface) can State Ordinances and Best Management Practices
result in local complaints. At the very least, such (BMPs). EPA has given states much of the responsibil-
actions will generate bad publicity for the facility owner ity to enforce the Clean Water Act and eliminate
and the contractor. Citations for violating local “nui- discharge into water bodies. Some states issue
sance” ordinances, fines, and delays or shutdowns are ordinances regarding floating objects or debris, scum,
also likely to occur. and oil or other materials. BMPs are used by the
states typically to control non-NPDES permitted
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System12 sources (e.g., lead paint discharge). They establish a
minimum acceptable level of practice, frequently
Point Source Discharge and Permits. The National invoking a combination of control techniques to
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) minimize the risk to the environment. Where a BMP
established under the Clean Water Act requires exists, there is typically no subsequent requirement to
permits for all point sources of discharged effluent. A file for permits or conduct testing. The obligation is
point source is normally an industrial or municipal simply to comply with the BMP: for example using a
discharge that is designed to emit effluent into a water three-stage system to filter gray water prior to dis-
body. Thus it covers operations at manufacturing charge to a POTW. Similarly, a BMP on waterjetting
plants, fabrication shops, mills, and shipyards. An operations may not allow any direct discharges.
example of a non-point source would be municipal or
agricultural runoff. These are not covered under
NPDES. Discharges from painting bridges or other
structures over or near water are not point sources
because there is normally not an intent to discharge
into the body of water. Some states are utilizing best
management practices (BMPs) to regulate any pro-
cessed water discharges.

Controlling Storm Water Discharge. In 1990, EPA

started requiring industrial facilities and municipalities
to acquire permits for storm water discharge and
municipal storm water systems.13 An exception is that
permits are not required for publicly owned treatment Figure 2. Another case of water contamination.
works (POTW). Industries affected include waste
treatment facilities, metal scrap reclaimers, paper Water and Sediment Monitoring
mills, chemical plants, primary metals industries, It may be necessary to sample water or

469
sediment in the vicinity of paint removal projects to vessel. This ratio increases as tank size decreases.
determine if the level of lead or other hazardous metal Thus, the standard includes a normalization factor for
exceeds the EPA CWA or state limits. A procedure for MALs to account for this variation.
site sampling is given in Project Design.14 It is noted
that in fast moving or deep water, meaningful samples Table 3. ANSI/NSF 61 Qualified Coatings.
may not be available. SSPC-TU 7 describes a proce-
dure for lead sampling analysis and reporting for water
and sediment.15 A “dip” or “grab” sample is used to
collect about 8 oz. (240 mL) of water. For sediment
sampling, a scoop is stipulated. Samples are typically
collected at project start-up and completion at a
minimum and analyzed for lead in accordance with
EPA Method 3050.16

Potable Water In Storage Tanks

Regulation of Additives
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974
charged EPA with the responsibility for issuing guid-
ance to states on additives to drinking water.17 The
EPA program, which included a list of approved
coatings for potable water tank interiors, expired in
April 1990. In its place, NSF International (formerly the Certification of Coatings to ANSI/NSF 61
National Sanitation Foundation) established voluntary Coatings meeting the criteria of this
standards in conjunction with the American Water health-based standard are certified by NSF Interna-
Works Association, the Conference of State, Health, tional.19 The NSF has also established a program to
and Environmental Managers (COSHEM), and the evaluate coatings against the standard. Other third
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators party organizations may also serve as certifying
(ASDWA).18 The principal standard of interest is ANSI/ bodies. The coatings submitted for testing are classi-
NSF Standard 61, Drinking Water System Compo- fied based on the temperature of the intended service
nents Health Effects, which deals with indirect addi- and the size of the tank. Examples of coatings that
tives that may contaminate drinking water. It was have met the requirements of ANSI/NSF 61 are:20
approved by NSF and ANSI in 1989. Section 5:
Protective Barrier Materials includes requirements for • Water tanks greater than 500 gallons [1,900 L]
submittal and testing of coatings intended for use in (cold)—epoxy
potable water systems. The testing is designed to • Water tanks greater than 1,000 gallons [3,800 L]
measure the quantity of heavy metals and organics (cold)—epoxy, vinyl, polyurethane
leached from cured film and applied to a glass sub- • Water tanks greater than 1,000 gallons [3,800 L]
strate. The maximum allowable levels (MALs) of these (tested at 180°F [82°C])—phenolic epoxy
contaminants is set at 10% of the maximum contami- • Water tanks greater than 50,000 gallons [190,000 L]
nant level (MCL) from EPA’s Primary Drinking Water (cold)—epoxy
Standards, or by an alternate procedure outlined in • Four-inch (100 mm) pipe and greater (cold)—
Standard 61. The standard also evaluates the ability of asphaltic coating
coatings to support microbial growth. • Six-inch (150 mm) pipe and greater (cold)—polyure-
As part of the submittal, coating manufacturers thane
must furnish composition data and product data • Repair materials—epoxy filter
sheets, including use and application instructions. An
important variable, which affects the solubility of a Examples of qualified coatings are given in
leachate, is the ratio of the surface to volume of the Table 3. Information on specific test requirements and

470
a list of approved systems can be obtained from NSF not appear on the TSCA Inventory, a list of chemicals
International. published by EPA. Formulators must file a
ANSI/NSF 61 does not address performance Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for such a chemical
aspects such as durability, resistance to undercutting, unless they qualify for exemptions such as the one
and application tolerance. These properties must be available for chemicals used only for research and
ascertained by the specifier or owner, as is done for development. Reviews may also be expedited for
other immersion-type linings. In addition, this standard chemicals made or imported in quantities less than
does not evaluate taste or odor. 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) per year.
The PMN should list the chemical’s identity,
Hazardous Materials intended use, volume to be produced, by-products,
number of people likely to be exposed through manu-
Toxic Substances Control Act facturing, and intended means of disposal. EPA
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), normally has 90 days to review the information and to
passed in 1976, was intended to cover uses and evaluate the risks of the chemical, usually by examin-
exposures to toxic chemicals not covered specifically ing existing chemical literature and comparing it to
under other environmental or health and safety similar chemicals. A notice of the review must appear
regulations. 21 Substances, such as pesticides, that in the Federal Register.
are covered by other regulations are not are not In some cases, EPA may extend the review
addressed. and request additional information. The agency has
TSCA is often thought of as a set of regula- authority to temporarily or permanently ban materials
tions that primarily affect paint formulators, and several under review, but generally prefers to develop consent
sections are important to this segment of the industry. agreements under which the manufacturer agrees to
However, other sections of the act can soon be restrictions on the use of the chemical.
expected to affect the kinds of paint end users can Restrictions may involve stipulating the
apply. amount of a material used and the way it is used, or
requiring personal protective equipment for those
Provisions That Will Affect End-users. EPA intends to exposed to it. By issuing a significant new use rule
use TSCA to respond to broad concerns about expo- (SNUR), EPA can extend the restrictions in such an
sure to lead, as it has in the past to regulate asbestos agreement to other companies interested in manufac-
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). It is in the turing, using, or importing the substance.
process of conducting a comprehensive review of lead There are also several requirements for
under the act and is considering a variety of steps up recordkeeping and reporting. For instance, chemical
to and including a ban or severe restrictions on the use manufacturers, processors, and distributors are
of lead pigments in industrial paint. required to keep records of health or environmental
At present, there is no restriction on the effects, such as those reported by employees or
amount of lead paint permitted in industrial paints. The consumers. They are also required to report to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission has estab- EPA within 15 working days any study or event that
lished a maximum of 0.06% by weight (600 PPM) of suggests that a particular chemical poses a substantial
lead in paint commonly used by the general public.22 risk. Rauscher provides a description of the manufac-
turing steps required in producing a new material.23
Provisions Primarily Affecting Formulators. TSCA
authorizes EPA to obtain and evaluate information on Lead Regulations Under TSCA
the health and environmental effects of chemicals. If
EPA concludes that a particular substance poses an EPA Title X and TSCA Title IV. Under Title X, the Lead-
unreasonable risk, it also has the authority to restrict, Based Paint Reduction Act of 1992, Congress had
or even ban the use and manufacturing of the material. tasked EPA to promulgate a rule to assure that the
A manufacturer is required to notify the EPA public, the environment, and employees are protected
before manufacturing, using, or importing a new during lead paint activities. EPA’s 1994 response
chemical. A chemical may be considered new if it does added Title IV to TSCA.24

471
The four sections of TSCA Title IV are: and effectively
• Section 401: General • Procedures for states to apply for authorization and
• Section 402: Training, Certification, and Work administration of these programs
Practices Standard
• Section 403: Hazards Requiring Action in Buildings As a result of eliminating OSHA training, EPA
and Housing reduced the total training hours for workers from 32 to
• Section 404: Process for States to Administer the 16. EPA also reduced the emphasis on instruction in
Program basic construction techniques to focus on abatement
methods and practices. EPA was to maintain a list of
Proposed Rule for Industrial Structures. The EPA accredited training providers in order update them on
proposed rule included requirements for training and technology advances. A certification exam was to be
certifying workers, supervisors, and firms for both required for supervisors, project designers, and risk
residential and child-occupied public buildings and assessors.
commercial and industrial structures.25 The rule Work practice standards have been estab-
addressing residential structures was finalized in 1996. lished for conducting three lead-based paint activities:
The portion of the rule for industrial structures was to inspection, risk assessment and abatement. EPA does
be issued at a later date, as the most pressing con- not prescribe detailed work practices to be followed in
cerns for lead paint was the potential health hazard for each unique situation. Instead EPA refers to existing
children under 6 years old exposed to lead paint dust documents from the Department of Housing and
or residue from old housing and schools. Urban Development (HUD) and to other EPA guidance
For industrial workers and supervisors, the documents. EPA does not specify that certain tech-
1994 proposal stipulated 32 hours of training and nologies be used for sampling, analysis, or abatement.
defined the responsibilities of each. In addition, the Some work practices are explicitly prohibited
certified supervisor would be required to submit a by the rule. EPA bans the use of open flame burning
written deleading plan and to document work sched- and torching when deleading target housing. Heat
ules, certifications, and deleading methods used. Any guns operated above 1,100°F (579°C) are prohibited.
lead-containing waste generated during lead paint Machine sanding, grinding, and abrasive blasting
activities would require disposal in accordance with require HEPA exhaust controls. Dry scraping and
RCRA. EPA did not delineate specific standards for sanding are permitted only around electrical outlets or
acceptable levels of lead in soil, dust, or paint. in treating very small areas. No restrictions have been
In 1998, EPA conducted some public hearings established for cleaning with pressurized water.
to focus on the needs for protecting the public from
deleading activities on commercial and industrial EPA Definition of Lead Hazard. In a rule effective in
structures.26 The agency decided to separate commer- 2001, EPA defined what constitutes a lead-based
cial buildings from industrial structures because of the hazard in paint, and contaminated dust and soil in
wide difference in practices and exposures to the residental settings.28
public. In 2000, EPA renewed activity to revise the
1994 proposal. A second proposed rule is expected A paint lead hazard is:
in 2003. • Any lead-based paint on a surface subject to abra-
sion or friction where the lead dust levels on the
Residential Structures Rule.27 The scope of the rule, nearest horizontal surface (e.g., a window sill or floor)
issued in 1996, is target housing and child–occupied equal or exceed the dust-lead hazard
public buildings. It has four basic elements: • Any damaged or deteriorated lead-based paint on a
• Training and certification to ensure the proficiency of surface (e.g., a door frame) that is subject to impact
individuals and firms who conduct lead-based paint from another building component (e.g., a door)
inspection, risk assessment, and abatement • Any chewable lead-based painted surface on which
• Accreditation requirements for training programs there is evidence of teeth marks
• Work practice standards to ensure that lead- • Any other deteriorated lead-based paint in or on
based paint activities are conducted safely, reliably, the exterior of any residential building or

472
child-occupied facility and substances listed under CERCLA (Section 102).

A dust-lead hazard is any surface that, based Release—A release is defined as a discharge or spill
on wipe samples, contains: of any amount of the hazardous substances identified
• 40 µg/ft2 or more of lead on floors above. Thus there is no minimum quantity below which
• 250 µg/ft2 or more of lead on interior window sills a facility owner is exempt. Under CERCLA, EPA also
requires that any release at or above a designated
A soil-lead hazard is bare soil on a residential quantity be reported to the National Response Center.
or child-occupied facility property that contains: For example, for lead compounds, the reportable
• 400 PPM or more of total lead in a play area quantity is 10 lbs. (4.5 kg) of hazardous lead released
• An average of 1,200 PPM or more of lead in any within a 24-hour period. Amounts less than the report-
other area able quantity need not be reported but are still suffi-
Generally, abatement work must reduce lead cient to establish liability.
concentrations to below the hazard levels listed above.
These levels have been set as the upper limits to the Table 4. Selected Hazardous Substances and Reportable
“clearance” levels mentioned in existing regulations. Quantities.
Furthermore, soil removed from a lead abatement
project cannot be reused as top-soil at another resi-
dential or child-occupied property.

CERCLA and Superfund

The Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
issued in 1980, is intended to prevent and correct
spills and releases of hazardous substances and
wastes.3 It is also known as “Superfund” because the
act is to use a fund based on petroleum and chemical
industry taxes, corporate environmental taxes, and
general revenues to clean up hazardous waste sites.
The act was extended in 1986 under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA),
more commonly known as the Superfund Amendment
and Reauthorization Act (SARA). This clarified provi-
sions of CERCLA and increased the funds for
clean-up.29
CERCLA authorizes EPA to force responsible
parties to remove and remediate any release of
hazardous substances into the environment. The
Threat of Release—Even if a release does not occur,
definitions of these terms provide EPA with very broad
a party can be held liable for remedial costs based on
power.
a “substantial threat of release.” Examples include
lead lying on the ground, badly corroded chemical
Hazardous Substances—Hazardous substances are
storage tanks, or abandoned drums.
defined by reference to substances listed or desig-
nated under other statutes , including waste under the
Environment—The environment is defined broadly to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act30 (40 CFR
include surface water, ground water, drinking water
261 hazardous substances [Section 311]); toxic
supplies, land surfaces, sub-surface strata, and
pollutants [Section 307] under the Clean Water Act;
ambient air.
hazardous air pollutants (Section 112) under the Clean
Air Act; hazardous chemicals (Section 7) under TSCA;
Violations Triggering CERCLA Actions. Examples of

473
leaks and spills that have triggered CERCLA commissions. Another provision requires companies to
actions are:31 determine whether any chemical found on a list of over
• Depositing hazardous lead waste onto ground 300 extremely hazardous substances (40 CFR 355) is
adjacent to paint removal operations on bridges and present at their facilities in an amount exceeding the
tanks Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ), a quantity that
• Leaks from tanks containing solvents and other triggers regulation. Companies that determine that
chemicals (Note: Petroleum products are specifically they have had more than the TPQ on-site must notify
exempt from CERCLA.) authorities and appoint a facility coordinator who will
• Leaching of metal (e.g., lead) from a hazardous participate in local emergency planning.32
waste landfill. (Note: If the material has passed the
TCLP and been properly buried, there is no longer any Emergency Notification. To comply with Section 304 of
liability under RCRA; CERCLA liability, however, SARA Title III, companies must determine whether
extends indefinitely.) they produce, use, or store a hazardous substance
that is included on the list of extremely hazardous
CERCLA violations can be brought to EPA’s substances (40 CFR 355) or the list of substances
attention through National Response Center reports, subject to emergency notification requirements, found
state and local investigations or inspections, or citizen under CERCLA (40 CFR 302.4). A company that does
complaints. Table 4 presents a list of selected hazard- produce, use, or store such a substance is covered by
ous substances and reportable quantities. Section 304. It must notify the National Response
Center and the state and local emergency planning
Other Requirements of CERCLA Regulations. The committees if it spills or accidentally releases more
regulations provide details on the following than the reportable quantity of any such substance
procedures: that may result in exposure outside the company site.
This does not include releases such as permitted
• Setting priorities for cleanup discharges to water or emissions to air. The notifica-
• Identifying remedial actions tion should include:
• Identifying responsible parties • chemical name
• Determining liability for cleanup costs • an indication of whether the substance is extremely
• Enforcement and inspection of cleanup hazardous
• Recordkeeping • an estimate of the quantity released into the environ-
ment
Superfund. Overall, the Superfund program as • the time and duration of the release
administered by EPA has made little progress in • known or anticipated acute or chronic health effects
achieving the intended hazardous waste cleanups. • proper precautions
Over 50% of the several billion dollars that make up • name and phone number of a contact person
the fund has gone to administrative and legal fees.
A written emergency notice should include
Sara Title III (“Right-To-Know”) response actions and any need for medical attention
The use of industrial chemicals is also affected for those exposed.
by reporting regulations developed under EPCRA
(SARA Title III).29 This legislation established require- Material Safety Data Sheet. Sections 311–312 of
ments for federal, state, and local governments and SARA Title III apply to any company that must prepare
industry regarding emergency planning and “commu- or maintain a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for
nity right-to-know” reporting on hazardous and toxic any of the materials it uses, stores, or manufactures.
chemicals. An MSDS is required for any material that is a physical
or health hazard, including materials that can catch
Planning and Response. Sections 301–303 of SARA fire; are suspected of causing cancer; can cause
Title III require state and local governments to develop central nervous system effects; or can irritate skin,
or designate emergency planning and response eyes, or the respiratory system. The regulations apply

474
to a very broad range of chemicals, including solvents, Current SARA 313 thresholds require only
paints, and most other materials commonly used in the larger coating operations to report. These businesses
coatings industry. The MSDS must include information often have greater resources and specialized person-
on any component present at concentrations of 1% or nel, and are better able to comply with 313 require-
greater. Carcinogenic compounds that make up 0.1% ments. Proposals to lower TPQs would result in
of a mixture or greater must also be included. smaller operations, perhaps those using as little as
500 gallons (1,900 L) of paint, also being required to
Toxic Chemical Release Forms. Companies with more report under 313.
than 10 employees must ascertain if Section 313
applies to them. They must first determine whether Secondary Containment for Above-
they “manufacture, process, or otherwise use” any Ground Storage Tanks and Vessels
material on the list of chemicals found in that section.
Many materials common used in coating operations Effect on Coating Suppliers and Contractors
are on the list, including the solvents methanol, n-butyl Federal regulations require that some above-
alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, 2-nitropropane, toluene ground storage (AST) tanks be supplied with second-
and xylene, and such pigments as zinc dust, zinc ary containment, i.e., a structure capable of preventing
chromate, titanium dioxide, and nickel titanate. Some material stored in a tank from migrating to soil, ground-
paint additives and resin components are also found water, or surface water. Another incentive for compa-
on the list, including melamine, dibutyl phthalate, nies to invest in such systems is avoidance of
diethanolamine, ethyl acrylate, formaldehyde, vinyl CERCLA liability and civil liability associated with a
chloride, methyl methacrylate, and toluene- spill. The need for secondary containment systems
2,3-diisocyanate. provides a business opportunity for coatings suppliers,
Companies must next note if their use of these specifiers, and contractors. Concrete is the material
materials exceeds the TPQ. The TPQ for materials most often used for secondary containment structures.
that a company “manufactures or processes” is 25,000 Coatings are an integral part of such designs because
pounds (11,360 g). The TPQ for a material that is they increase the impermeability and chemical resis-
“otherwise used” is 10,000 pounds (4,540 g). To meet tance of concrete and prevent cracking.
the requirements of Section 313, companies that
exceed the TPQ must annually report routine emis- Regulatory Requirements
sions of each such chemical, including releases into
water, air, or soil during the preceding year. Applicable Regulations. Tanks that are used to store
A company finding that the provisions of and treat hazardous wastes are subject to 40 CFR
Section 313 apply to one or more of its materials Part 264, Subpart J of the Standards for Owners and
should draw a process flow diagram to determine each Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
point at which the material leaves the system. For and Disposal Facilities (part of RCRA).33
many coating operations, the primary release is the The title of this section is somewhat mislead-
evaporation of solvents and other materials in a ing as the requirements apply to treatment, storage,
coating as it is applied. and disposal facilities and to large quantity generators
After identifying all sources of chemical (defined as those generating more than 2,200 lbs.
releases, the quantity released must be identified for [1,000 kg] of hazardous waste a month or storing the
each chemical that exceeds the TPQ. A number of material for more than 90 days on site). Tanks contain-
approaches and formulas can be used to do this, ing hazardous waste must be equipped with second-
including direct measurement, mass balance formulas, ary containment structures. An exemption is provided
and engineering calculations. Overspray releases are for hazardous waste that contains no free liquids and
often the most important factor in estimating releases is stored inside a building with an impermeable floor.
from coating operations, and published estimates are In order to prevent migration, a secondary
available for some types of spraying methods and containment system must be capable of containing
surfaces. However, site-specific calculations may be spills and leaks, and must be equipped with a leak
required. detection system to alert owners and operators to such

475
an event. A containment system must also be made of usually only exposed to the material for a short period
or lined with materials compatible with the waste of time. When a tank is used to store an extremely
stored in the system. The system must include an toxic or dangerous material, the secondary contain-
appropriate foundation or base and be sloped or ment system should be more durable than it would be
designed in such a way as to permit draining and for a less hazardous material. Choice is complicated
removing liquids.34 by the fact that a coating may need to be capable of
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required EPA to resisting several different materials. Installation
study the need for similar regulations applicable to performance and other properties of coatings for
above ground tanks used to store petroleum prod- secondary containment are described in SSPC TU-2.37
ucts.35 The American Petroleum Institute (API) has Types of coatings commonly used to protect second-
reported that there are more than 700,000 above ary containment systems include:
ground petroleum tanks in North America.36
Thin Films. Thin films (up to 10 mils [0.25 mm]) of
Acceptable Containment Structures. An external liner, unreinforced spray-applied coatings are adequate for
a vault, a double-walled tank, or an equivalent device containment of less hazardous materials, and are less
may provide containment. External liners and vaults expensive than other approaches. However, some
must be capable of containing 100% of the capacity of may not withstand long periods of chemical exposure.
the largest tank within their boundaries. They must Epoxies and polyurethanes are commonly used in
also prevent rain from entering the secondary contain- this way.
ment system unless the system has the capacity to
hold the extra liquid. Flake and Fiber-filled Coatings. Flake and fiber-filled
External liner systems must surround the tank coatings typically result in films of 40 to 80 mils (1 to 2
completely and cover any surrounding soil likely to mm). They cost more than thin film coatings. Some
come in contact with leaked or spilled waste. Vault may provide a longer period of containment.
systems must include water stops that are capable of
resisting the waste in all joints, and must be coated Reinforced Thick-film Systems. Reinforced thick film
with a waste-compatible lining that will prevent the systems can be used to create films of more than 80
waste from permeating the concrete. They must also mils (2 mm). Glass cloth or synthetic fibers are chosen
be able to prevent the formation of and ignition of on the basis of their resistance to a particular chemi-
vapors within the vault. Double-walled tanks must be cal. These systems can be effective in preventing
designed so that the outer tank completely surrounds some cracks, and should be designed to withstand
the inner tank, preventing any releases and protecting exposure to the most aggressive chemicals for up to
the exterior of the inner tank from corrosion. 72 hours. A resinous topcoat improves their chemical
Materials that could cause the tank or ancillary resistance.
equipment or the containment system to rupture, leak,
or fail may not be placed in the tank. Owners and Composite Lining System with Leak Detection. A
operators must use appropriate measures to prevent coatings manufacturer has developed a composite
spills and overflows and must visually inspect visible system consisting of an epoxy-impregnated three
portions of the tank and review data from monitoring dimensional (3-D) glass fabric that is bonded to the
and leak detection equipment at least once each tank floor.38 The system allows for detecting leaks
operating day. through the epoxy laminate, thereby serving as the
primary containment with the tank serving as a sec-
Coating Choices for Secondary Containment ondary containment. The 3-D glass fabric provides
Systems interstitial air spaces that the manufacturer claims can
A secondary containment system must be able be monitored for leaks by hydrostatic pressure,
to survive contact with the substance in the tank until a vacuum, or liquid or gas sensor. The state of Florida,
leak or spill can be removed. Since leaks and spills which will require double-walled tanks as of 2009, is
should be infrequent and a detection system is often considering this system as an alternative.39
required, secondary containment components are

476
Underground Storage Tanks certain residential motor fuel and heating oil tanks and
pits. Responsibility for complying with the regulations
Background falls on the owners and operators of the tanks. The
specific requirements depend on the date of tank
Potential for Spills. Certain underground storage tanks installation.
(USTs) are regulated because they may leak and pose
a threat to the environment and human health. Coat- Types of Underground Structures Regulated
ings and lining systems are among the accepted
means of preventing leaks in underground storage New Petroleum USTs. USTs installed after December
tanks (USTs) and complying with federal and state 1988 must meet these requirements:
regulations.
There are several million underground storage • Qualified Installation. The tanks must be properly
tanks in the United States containing petroleum or installed by qualified installers following industrial
hazardous chemicals. The tank system consists of the codes. Examples are those established by Steel Tank
tank itself and associated piping. A tank system is Institute, American Petroleum Institute, National Leak
considered underground if at least 10% of the volume Prevention Association, Petroleum Equipment Insti-
is below grade level. The vast majority of underground tute, and NACE International.
storage tanks (in particular those installed before • Spill Prevention. The tanks must be equipped to
1980) were constructed of bare carbon steel. As a prevent spills and overflow through proper filling
result of differential aeration of soils, aggressive soil procedures, catchment basins, and alarms.
conditions, pH variation, and the presence of water • Leak Detection. Approved methods for leak detec-
and other corrosive materials inside the tank, there is tion must be part of the design.
the possibility of severe corrosion of both the interior • Corrosion Protection. Among the methods to
and exterior of tanks and piping. ensure proper corrosion protection for new tanks are
As a result of corrosion as well as piping and the use of a corrosion-resistant coating together with
mechanical failures and installation mistakes, many cathodic protection; construction with non-corrosive
thousands of USTs are leaking. Leaks may also result material (e.g., fiberglass-reinforced plastic, or FRP);
from spills and overfills during filling, emptying, or installation of a bonded, secure system liner. (Note:
operating the tanking system. Leaking underground The liner is not acceptable for piping.)
storage tanks can contaminate groundwater, which is • Other Requirements. Special instructions are
a major source of drinking water for U.S. populations. provided for tanks of a certain size and age and for
EPA estimates that as many as a quarter of all the tank pressure or suction piping. These instructions cover
systems in the U.S. are leaking.40 monitoring soil vapors and liquid in groundwater,
automatic tank gauging, and automatic shutoff and
1984 Federal Regulations. In 1984, Congress included tightness tests.
requirements for technical standards and corrective
action for owners and operators of underground Existing Petroleum USTs. For tanks built before
storage tanks. These are part of the RCRA regulations December 1988, EPA has set deadlines for establish-
discussed in the chapter on waste handling and ing corrosion protection, incorporating filling devices to
disposal. The underground storage tank regulations prevent spills and overfill as well as leak detection
(40 CFR 280) are intended to: systems.
• Prevent leaks and spills These options are available to upgrade tanks for
• Identify and correct problems corrosion protection:
• Ensure that owners and operators are able to pay for • Install an interior lining. The lining must be inspected
spill prevention and correction within 10 years after installation and every 5 years
thereafter. (40 CFR 280.3 gives requirements for the
The regulations apply only to USTs storing inspection.)
petroleum or hazardous chemicals. Some tanks are • Install cathodic protection systems. Using the various
specifically excluded from the regulations, including methods described in 40 CFR 280.21, the tank must

477
be internally inspected to ensure that it is free of ground storage tanks containing hazardous chemicals
corrosion holes. NACE RP0285-95 may be used to are also regulated under 40 CFR 280. Hazardous
verify proper inspection and operation of a cathodic chemicals are those that are listed in CERCLA (40
protection system.41 CFR 302.4, Table 1). Hazardous wastes are excluded
• Use both an internal lining and cathodic protection. from this section of the regulation because they are
• Use a thick liner bonded to the exterior of the tank. covered under other provisions of RCRA. These tanks
This requires excavations around the tank and is not are subject to many of the same regulations as
often feasible for existing tanks. petroleum tanks. All chemical USTs installed prior to
December 1988 were required to be upgraded by
December 1998. As with petroleum tanks, corrosion
protection can consist of installing a liner, a cathodic
protection system, or a combination. The tank must
also be provided with devices that prevent spills and
overfills while detecting leaks. Tanks installed after
December 1988 must meet the same requirements as
the new petroleum USTs (i.e., properly installed, spill
and overfill protection, protection from corrosion, and
leak detection).
In addition, new tanks containing hazardous
materials must be provided with secondary contain-
ment. The primary containment is the tank or pipe wall
itself. The requirements for secondary containment of
underground chemical storage tanks are essentially
the same as the requirements for secondary contain-
ment of storage tanks containing hazardous waste.
There are three types of secondary contain-
ment used for underground tanks and piping:
• Double-walled systems in which one tank is placed
inside another, or one pipe inside another
• Concrete vaults that surround tank and piping
systems, isolating them from the ground
• Chemical resistant liners placed around the tank to
isolate it from the ground

Figure 3. Installing an underground storage tank. In addition, chemical USTs must have a leak
detection system that can detect a leak in the “intersti-
Metal piping must be upgraded using a tial” space between primary and secondary contain-
cathodic protection system. December 1998 was the ment. The epoxy laminate system with interstitial
deadline for upgrading corrosion protection systems spaces for leak detection, described for ASTs, may
for all tanks and piping. All new and existing tanks also be suitable for USTs.38
were also required to have leak detection installed by
December 1993. Corrosion Protection of Underground Storage
The regulations also provide instructions on Tanks
how to correct problems caused by leaking, how to The approaches for preventing corrosion and
permanently or temporarily close (take out of service) leaking (primary containment) are:
a tank system, and how to meet the extensive record- • An external coating system applied to the exterior of
keeping and reporting requirements. the tank
• A lining system applied to interior of tank
Underground Hazardous Chemical Tanks. Under- • Cathodic protection applied to the exterior of the tank

478
• External coating plus sacrificial anodes integral part of the STI-P3 system.
• FRP construction
External Coating Plus Sacrificial Anodes. For new
External coating system. A coating system is designed tanks, a combination of a dielectric coating and
to isolate the steel of the tank from corrosive soil sacrificial anodes has proven to be extremely effective
conditions, thereby preventing the corrosion cell from over the last 30 years. The Steel Tank Institute (STI)
being completed. A significant amount of testing, has developed an industry standard known as STI-P3,
research, and evaluation has been conducted on which combines dielectric coating, sacrificial anodes,
underground coatings. Among the most important and electrical isolation.44 The dielectric coating (e.g.,
properties are adhesion, impact resistance, and typically coal-tar epoxy, polyurethane, or FRP lining)
impermeability. Among the most widely used coating serves as the first line of defense, with a complete
systems are asphalt cutbacks, coal tar epoxy, polyure- covering of the external surface of the tank. The
thane, and FRP. Several of these systems have been galvanic anodes provide protection from nicks and
approved by the Steel Tank Institute under their scratches in the coating, which are often produced
STI-P3 system.42 during transportation and installation or settling. The
Application of a coating to a new steel tank third component of the system is to prevent stray
can be accomplished at the factory shop, which allows currents from entering the tank via the piping system
much greater control of the quality of the surface or at other potential areas of metal-to-metal contact.
preparation, application, and environmental conditions. STI also has established a quality assurance system
Applying an external coating to upgrade an existing for the testing of coatings, tank fabrication, and
tank requires excavating around the tank and back installation.
filling after application of the coating.
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Construction.
Internal Lining System. To upgrade an existing tank, FRP is a composite consisting of a chemically reacted
the lining can also be applied to the interior. The resin impregnated with glass fibers. The resin system,
American Petroleum Insitute (API) has issued recom- when reacted and cured, forms a strong, relatively
mended practice RP1631, Interior Lining of Under- impermeable barrier to moisture, while the fibers
ground Storage Tanks, which describes the various impart tensile strength. This results in a high
steps in preparing the tank and applying the lining, strength-to-weight ratio for these light materials, and
including qualifications of applicators and testing of provides an optimum combination of corrosion resis-
linings.43 A number of coating systems have been tance and strength. FRP, like other construction and
used for lining petroleum tanks, including epoxy corrosion protection materials, must be carefully
polyamide, epoxy phenolic, epoxy amine, coal-tar selected, tested, designed, and installed to ensure
epoxy, glass-flake-filled polyester, and fiber-reinforced proper performance and compliance with design
polyester. criteria.
More detailed discussions of corrosion protec-
Cathodic Protection. This method consists of applying tion alternatives and materials are given in various
an external electric current to force the steel to behave publications available from STI, NACE, and SSPC.
as a cathode. Loss of metal occurs only at the anode,
where the metal gives up electrons. Two types of State Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks
cathodic protection have been developed: sacrificial The underground storage tank program, like
anodes and impressed current. Sacrificial anodes are many federal laws, is delegated to the states. Numer-
metals, such as zinc or magnesium, which are con- ous states have adopted existing federal regulations
sumed (sacrificed) while the steel remains intact. for upgrading USTs or installing new ones. Several
Impressed current cathodic protection sends a con- states have adopted their own regulations, which may
tinuous stream of DC electrical current through the be more stringent than the federal. For example, some
steel. The current ensures that the steel cannot states, such as Connecticut, limit the number of times
discharge current (i.e., in the form of ferrous ions) into that a tank lining can be used to extend the life expect-
the environment. Cathodic protection is also an ancy of a tank. Other states (e.g., Massachusetts and

479
Maine) require double walls in all new tanks. Certain coatings, but sets the guidelines. It is the
states require that all new tanks (including petroleum manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the raw
and chemical storage tanks) be provided with second- materials and test results comply with the federal
ary containment. Still others also require that installers regulations. An appropriate statement by a manufac-
be certified (e.g. Florida, Arkansas, and California). turer would be that the coating will meet the require-
Two standards, the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) ments of 40 CFR 175.300 (FDA) for use in contact
79 and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) with specific foodstuffs. The phrase “approved by
30, are frequently cited in state UST regulations.45 FDA” is not valid for protective coatings.
These standards outline safety parameters for tank
lining procedures. UFC 79 does not permit repairs to United States Department of Agriculture
USTs; NFPA 30 allows USTs to be repaired and lined. Prior to November 1995, the USDA required
coating manufacturers to provide a list of all the
Regulating Coatings for Food and ingredients in the formulations or to certify that the
Beverage Facilities coating would withstand daily cleaning, cyclic tempera-
ture, and wet conditions. However, under Food Safety
General and Inspection Service Directives, this requirement
The U.S. federal government regulates was eliminated.48 The directive is in effect at “official
coatings intended for surfaces at food and beverage establishments,” which are federally inspected meat or
plants to assure that sanitary conditions are main- poultry packing facilities.
tained. The food and beverage industry consists of
production, processing, and distribution facilities for Soil Quality Regulations
fruits and vegetables, grain, meat and poultry, soft
drinks, beer and other alcoholic beverages, and Sources of Lead in Soil
pharmaceuticals (because the end products are Because of extensive use of leaded gasoline
consumed). Federal agencies having jurisdiction are and lead-containing traffic marking and bridge coat-
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. ings, much of the soil in the U.S. contains measurable
Department of Agriculture (USDA). amounts of lead. The geometric mean in the U.S. is 16
mg/kg (ppm), but in urban or industrial areas or along
Food and Drug Administration roadways, concentrations often exceed 100 mg/kg.49
The FDA regulates coatings that come into Soil can also become contaminated with dust,
direct contact with food and beverages under 21 CFR paint, and abrasive debris. One of the primary
175, Parts 300-390.46 These include coatings applied concerns is lead contamination of soils, because of the
to floors, walls, and counters, as well as containers potential health effect on children in nearby
and vessels. The FDA limits ingredients to those that communities.
are listed in the CFR or that are generally recognized
as safe for food. In addition, the cured film must meet Lead in Soil Regulations for Residential Area
limits for the maximum amount of extractable material. In 1989, EPA adopted an interim guideline for
According to Boyer, there are no limitations on sol- cleanup of soil at Superfund sites of 500-1,000 mg/kg,
vents, and a wide range of organic binders is permit- with the lower end of the range being considered more
ted.47 There are, however, limitations on the color of appropriate for residential areas and the upper end for
pigment allowed. The standard provides a description use in industrial settings.50
of the conditions under which resinous and polymeric In 1995 under TSCA Title IV, EPA established
coatings may be safely used as food contact surfaces. guidelines for assessing hazards from lead in soils
The standard also lists dozens of specific components near housing.51 For lead concentrations under 400
that have been approved. PPM, no action is required. For levels between 400
The extraction tests are based on the food and 5,000 PPM, it is necessary to change the use
types (e.g., acid, non-acid, dairy, beverages, bakery, patterns of the area (e.g., by restricting access or by
and dry solids) and the temperature and sterilization planting ground cover). At levels above 5,000 PPM, it
conditions required. The FDA does not approve is necessary to abate the soil, including removal and

480
replacement or to create permanent barriers along ASTM’s practices for analyzing lead samples by
with public notice. atomic absorption spectroscopy are covered under E
In 1998’s Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction 1726-95 while other analytical techniques are covered
Rule, EPA established a federal standard for treating by E 1613-94.
lead contaminated soil.52 The final concentration is
required to be a 90% reduction or 7.5 mg/L by TCLP Regulation Of Anti-Fouling Coatings
(whichever is less stringent).53 Previously, EPA had
required use of the TCLP level of 5.0 mg/L. (See Use
discussion in the chapter on waste regulations.) Anti-fouling coatings are used to discourage
A review of guidelines of levels of lead in soil colonies of mobile marine organisms, such as bar-
requiring cleanup in several states indicates a range nacles, mollusks, sponges, and algae from building up
from approximately 100–1,000 mg/kg, with most on the bottoms of ships or other substrates. Fouling
values in the range between 250 and 500 mg/kg.49 increases the weight of ships, reducing speed and
increasing fuel consumption. It also interferes with the
Regulating Lead in Soil for Industrial Areas operation of moving parts. Anti-fouling coatings are
As of the first quarter of 2002, EPA had not also being used to prevent zebra mussels from fouling
issued a regulation on lead in soil in industrial areas. It fresh water intakes on power stations.55 Power stations
is anticipated, however, that as part of the their man- have reported condenser tube blockage in unheated
date under Title X of the 1992 Housing and Commu- intakes. Protective coatings have been evaluated as
nity Development Act, they will issue guidelines or alternatives to chlorination, water filtration, and other
regulations on acceptable levels of lead in soil in chemical and physical treatments.
industrial as well as residential areas.24 These regula-
tions may also require remediation or other treatment Regulations
for soil exceeding a defined level of lead.
Organotin Anti-fouling Paint Control Act. Until 1988,
Monitoring For Lead in Soil copper and organotins (such as tributyl tin oxide) were
Facility owners and painting contractors often the compounds most commonly used to prevent
elect to measure the level of lead in soil prior to and fouling of underwater hulls of ocean-going ships. Both
following lead paint removal to determine if the types kill target organisms by releasing small quanti-
removal process resulted in an increase. The number ties of materials toxic to them. Concern about effects
and locations of the samples collected are critical of organotin compounds on non-target organisms such
because of the large variability of lead levels on or as oysters and crabs led to passage of the Organotin
slightly below the surface. SSPC-TU 7 describes a Anti-fouling Paint Control Act in 1988.56 The act limited
procedure for sample collection, analysis, and releases of tin from such coatings to 4 µg/cm2/day. The
reporting. Each sample requires collecting 5 plugs of legislation also required each state to set up a plan to
soil from the corners and center of a 12 inch (300 mm) certify applicators of these coatings. Organotin coat-
template. The 5 plugs are mixed to form one sample ings are now seldom used except on aluminum boats,
with a duplicate taken approximately 3 inches (75 mm) where copper (for which there is no regulation for
from the first. The samples are analyzed for total lead maximum release rate) cannot be used. Some states,
in accordance with EPA Method 3050 by a laboratory for instance Virginia and New York, also regulate such
participating in the Environmental Lead Laboratory materials under their water quality regulations. The
Accreditation Program.53 ASTM has also issued ASTM U.S. Navy has voluntarily agreed to discontinue use of
E 1727-95, Standard Practice for Field Collection of organotin paints on its oceangoing vessels.57
Soil Samples for Lead Determination by Atomic
Spectrometry Techniques. This practice covers the IMO Restrictions on Tributyl Tin Compounds. The
collection of soil samples using coring and scooping International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recom-
methods for subsequent determination of lead mended a ban on application of organotin based anti-
concentration. Soil collection is limited to fouling coatings after January 1, 2003.58 Furthermore,
approximately the top half inch (1.5 cm) of the surface. by January 1, 2008, all ships are required to have

481
organotin compounds removed from the hulls or other try had expressed several concerns about the rule,
external parts or be encapsulated to prevent leaching including the need for time to reformulate coatings, the
of the organotin. The ban would become effective 12 inappropriateness of OSHA’s proposed reference of
months after ratification by at least 25 nations repre- bare steel, and the lack of a validated test procedure.
senting at least 25% of the world’s merchant shipping The final rule addresses the first two concerns by
tonnage. The IMO indicated it would prepare a list of allowing a five-year phase-in time and by establishing
the anti-fouling systems covered by the ban. The a numerical reference of 0.50 slip units. The coatings
provision applies to all ships, fixed and floating plat- industry has established a task force (headed by
forms, and other floating facilities. SSPC and the American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion) to address the inadequacies of the test method
Federal Insecticid, Fungicide, or Rodenticide Act This effort is expected to provide an improved proce-
(FIFRA). 59 Biocides like copper and organotin com- dure in time for the regulation’s implementation date.
pounds are considered pesticides and must also be
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, or Preliminary Slip Rating of Coatings
Rodenticide Act. According to some paint manufactur- The conclusions of the preliminary
ers, meeting all the requirements of registering a new testing are:62
biocide is so prohibitively expensive ($2-$5 million) as • Zinc rich coatings (both inorganic and organic) give
to effectively preclude introduction of new materials. high slip index
Notwithstanding this concern, over the last few years, • Other organic coatings (e.g., epoxies, polyurethanes,
several manufacturers have introduced new biocides and acrylics) give a range of slip indexes depending
to enhance the fouling resistance of copper-based on the particular formulation
anti-fouling coatings. These are often designated “co- • Adding polyolefin beads to the formulation and
biocides.” applying the coating over blast cleaned steel signifi-
cantly improves the slip properties
Fouling-Release Coatings
Some ship and power plant operators have A major source of uncertainty is the test foot
begun to use silicone, siloxanes, and fluorinated resins used to strike the surface during measurement.
because these materials do not need to be registered
under FIFRA. They are not considered pesticides Implementation of Rule
because they do not kill marine organisms, but make it OSHA has commented that any projects that
difficult for them to attach to the painted surface. are bid after the fall of 2006 will be included in this
regulation. According to the regulation, the testing
Slip Resistance Of Coatings For Steel could be done by the coating manufacturer or by an
Erection outside testing laboratory. In many cases, these
coatings must also be pre-qualified by state depart-
Background and Rule Development ments of transportation under programs such as
In July 2001, OSHA issued a regulation AASHTO’s National Transportation Product Evaluation
establishing standards for steel erection under 29 CFR Program (NTPEP), or individual state qualification
1926.754.60 Part 3 of this standard addresses a programs.63 Qualification of a coating by these entities
concern for the possibility of workers falling off the often takes one to two years or longer.
structures during the erection process because of
slippery paints.61 In drafting this rule, OSHA has The expected responsibilities under this
worked with a government industry task force known regulation are:
as SENRAC (Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking • Industry associations (SSPC, AISC, ASTM): develop
Advisory Committee). suitable test methods and keep all parties informed
Part 3 establishes a minimum coating slip • Coating manufacturers: formulate and evaluate
resistance of 0.50 when measured in accordance with coatings meeting the OSHA requirements and also the
a device such as a variable incidence tribometer (VIT) well-established, long-term performance requirements
using specified ASTM standards. The coatings indus- • Departments of transportation: incorporate the OSHA

482
standard into specifications and allow these new Projects; California Dept. of Transportation Report
formulations to be tested under standard state proto- FHWA/CA/TL/90/08, 1990.
cols for laboratory and field performance 10. Canadian Fisheries Dept. Issues Guidelines on
• Fabricators: be aware of the requirements for testing, Protecting Aquatic Life During Bridge Painting.
including compliance dates, and maintain appropriate Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, January
records 1992, pp 32-34.
• Erectors: ensure that only qualified coatings are used 11. Thorpe, G. Water Quality Impact: Environmental
(The erector has primary responsibility to conform to Viewpoint. In Lead Paint Removal from Steel
the regulation.) Structures, SSPC: Pittsburgh, 1988 pp 50-54.
12. U. S. EPA Home Page. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
Regulatory Language National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The final language of this section is: (accessed April 2002).
§1926.754 Structural steel assembly (Final rule) 51 13. U. S. EPA. Update Paper: Overview of the
(3) Slip resistance of skeletal structural steel. Workers Stormwater Permit Program; Car Department Officers’
shall not be permitted to walk the top surface of any Association Protective Coatings Committee:
structural steel member installed after [INSERT DATE: Washington, D.C., 1992.
5 years after effective date of final rule] that has been 14. Trimber, K.A.; Adley, D.P. Project Design:
coated with paint or similar material unless documen- Industrial Lead Paint Removal Handbook; Volume 2;
tation or certification that the coating has achieved a SSPC: Pittsburgh, 1994.
minimum average slip resistance of 0.50 when mea- 15. SSPC Technology Update 7: Conducting Ambient
sured with an English XL tribometer or equivalent Air, Soil and Water Sampling During Surface
tester on a wetted surface at a testing laboratory is Preparation and Paint Disturbance Activities; SSPC:
provided. Such documentation or certification shall be Pittsburgh, 2000.
based on the appropriate ASTM standard test method 16. EPA Method 3050B Acid Digestion of Sediments,
conducted by a laboratory capable of performing the Sludges, and Soils. In SW-846: Test Methods for
test. The results shall be available at the site and to Evaluating Solid Waste, 3 rd Edition; U.S. EPA:
the steel erector. (Appendix B to this subpart refer- Washington, D.C., 1995.
ences appropriate ASTM standard test methods that 17. U. S. EPA Office of Drinking Water Criteria and
may be used to comply with this paragraph (c)(3)). Standards Division, Washington D.C.
18. Bauer, M. Changing Regulations on Coatings for
References Contract with Potable Water. Journal of Protective
1. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Public Law 92- Coatings and Linings, December 1988, pp 27-33, 89-
500, 1971, and Clean Water Act. Public Law 95-217, 90.
1977. 19. ANSI/NSF 61-2000a. Standard for Drinking Water
2. Clean Water Act. Public Law 100-202, 1987. System Components–Health Effects.
3. Comprehensive Environmental Response, 20. National Sanitation Foundation Home Page. http://
Compensation, and Liability Act. Public Law 96-510, www.nsf.org/Certified/PwsComponents (accessed
1980. April 2002).
4. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Fed. 21. Toxic Substances Control Act. Public Law 94-469,
Regist. 1998, 63, 68353-68364. 1976.
5. U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water Criteria and 22. Consumer Product Safety Commission Home
Standards Division, Washington D.C. Page. http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/
6. Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523, 1974. SUCCESS/lead.html (accessed April 2002).
7. U.S. EPA Method 1311, Toxicity Characteristic 23. Rauscher, G. Compliance with TSCA for Product
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Development. Journal of Protective Coatings and
8. Smith, L.M. Water Quality Progress Report; FHWA Linings, May 1990, pp. 68-72.
Contract DTFH61-89-C-00102, 1989. 24. U.S. Congress. Title X: Residential Lead-Based
9. Hunt, H.; Gidley, J. The Toxicities of Selected Bridge Paint Hazard Reduction Act—Housing and Community
Painting Materials and Guidelines for Bridge Painting Development Act of 1992.

483
25. Kapsanis, K. EPA Proposes Title X Lead Rule. 41. Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Tank
Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, November Systems by Cathodic Protection; NACE RP0285-95;
1994, pp 23-33. NACE: Houston, 1995.
26. U.S. EPA. Proposed EPA Rulemaking for OPPT’s 42. Cronau, R.C. Protecting Underground Storage
Bridges and Structures—Lead-Based Paint Activities Tanks. Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings,
Rule: Frequently Asked Questions. U.S. EPA: Wash- August 1988, pp 48-49.
ington, D.C., 1999. 43. American Petroleum Institute. Interior Lining of
27. Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Underground Storage Tanks; API RP 1631, 2nd Edition;
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final API: Washington D.C., 1987.
Rule. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 744, Title 44. Sti-P3. Specification and Manual for External
40, 1996; Fed. Regist. 2001, 66, 45778-45812, 45813- Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage
45830. Tanks; Steel Tank Institute, 1996 (http://
28. Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead: Final www.steeltank.com/spec/stip3.htm).
Rule. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 745, Title 45. Uniform Fire Code 79; International Fire Code
40, 1996; Fed. Regist. 2001, 66. Institute, 1997 and NFPA 30; National Fire Protection
29. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Association’s Flammable and Combustible Liquids
of 1986. Public Law 99-499, 1986. Code.
30. Resource Conservation Act. Public Law 94-580, 46. Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives and
1976. Components of Coatings. Code of Federal
31. Environmental Law Handbook, 12th Edition; Regulations, Section 175, Title 21, Fed. Regist. (http://
Government Institutes Press: Rockville, MD, 1993. www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/
32. U.S. EPA. Title III Fact Sheet: Emergency Planning 21cfr175_99.html)
and Community Right-to-Know; U.S. EPA: 47. Boyer, C. Protective Coatings for Food and
Washington, D.C., 1988. Beverage Plants: Regulatory and Formulating Issues.
33. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, July 1990,
Waste Treatment, Storage, And Disposal Facilities. pp 36-39.
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 264, Title 40, 48. Food Safety and Inspection Service Directives
Fed. Regist. 11,000.4, Revision 1, 1995, and 11,000.4, 1994.
34. Nau, P.R.; Fultz, B. S. Coatings and Linings for 49. LaGoy, P. K.; Wilder, W. Evaluation of the Potential
Secondary Chemical Containment in Power Plants. for Environmental Exposure to Lead Released from
Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, October Paint Containing Zinc Dust. Journal of Protective
1990, pp 42-49. Coatings and Linings, March 1993, pp 24-36.
35. Oil Pollution Act. Public Law 101-380, 1990. 50. U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Environmental
36. Myers, P. E. Aboveground Storage Tanks; McGraw Response. Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead
Hill: New York, 1997; p 2. Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites; Directorate
37. SSPC TU-2/NACE 6G197. Design Installation and 9355.4-02; U.S. EPA: Washington, D.C., 1989.
Maintenance of Coating Systems for Concrete used in 51. U.S. EPA. EPA Guidance on Identification of Lead-
Secondary Containment; SSPC: Pittsburgh and Based Paint Hazards (Section 403 of Title IV of the
NACE: Houston, 1997. Toxic Substances Control Act); U.S. EPA: Washington,
38. O’Donoghue, M., et. al. Reinforced Glass Fabric D.C., 1995
Epoxy Linings with Leak Detection for Storage Tanks. 52. Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV. Code of
Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, March Federal Regulations, Sections 148, 268, and 271, Title
1999, pp 24-37. 40, Fed. Regist. 1998, 63, 28555-28604.
39. Kapsanis, K.; Markle, P. The Debate Over Tank 53. SSPC Home Page. http://www.sspc.org/site/
Linings: Protecting Aboveground Storage Tanks and regnews/EPAWASTERULE.html
the Environment. Journal of Protective Coatings and EPA’s Regulation on Lead Waste Treatment and
Linings, May 1997, pp 53-56. Handling (accessed April 2002).
40. U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks. 54. American Industrial Hygiene Association Home
Musts for USTs; U.S. EPA: Washington, D.C., 1990. Page. http://www.aiha.org/LaboratoryServices/html/

484
lead.htm Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation resistant ship coatings. He is an SSPC protective
Program (accessed April 2002). coatings specialist (PCS) and has published over 100
55. Leitch, E.G.; Puzzuoli, F.Z. Evaluation of Coatings technical publications.
to Control Zebra Mussel Colonization: Preliminary
Results, 1990-1991. Journal of Protective Coatings
and Linings, July 1992, pp 28-38.
56. Organotin Anti-Fouling Paint Control Act. Public
Law 100-333, 1988.
57. Swain, G. Redefining Antifouling Coatings. Journal
of Protective Coatings and Linings, September 1999,
pp 26-35.
58. IMO Adopts Controls on Harmful Antifouling
Systems. Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings,
December, 2001, pp 10-11.
59. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. Public Law 92-516, 1982.
60. Structural Steel Assembly: Final Rule. Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 1926.754, Title 29, Fed.
Regist. 2001, 66, 5317-5325.
61. Proposed OSHA Safety Standard for Steel
Erection Could Affect Use of Coatings. Journal of
Protective Coatings and Linings, January 1999, pp 65-
67.
62. Appleman, B. R. Slip Testing to Meet Construction
Safety Regulations for Coated Steel. Journal of
Protective Coatings and Linings, October 2000, pp 73-
82.
63. National Transportation Product Evaluation
Program. Project Work Plan for Laboratory Testing
and Field Evaluation of Structural Steel Coatings;
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials: Washington, D.C., 2001.

Acknowledgements
The author and SSPC gratefully acknowledge Gary
Tinklenberg’s peer review of this document.

About the Author

Bernard R. Appleman
Dr. Bernard R. Appleman has been active in the
protective coatings industry since 1974. He served as
executive director of SSPC from 1984–1999, prior to
his current position as vice president and technical
director of KTA-Tator, Inc. He has also worked at
Federal Highway Administration on research and
testing of bridge coatings, at Exxon Corporation on
coatings and corrosion for the petrochemical industry,
and for the U.S. Navy on corrosion and fouling-

485
 Appendix
Selected Environmental
Regulations From Title 40 Of The Code Of Federal Regulations:
Protection Of The Environment*

40 CFR 50-99 Air Pollution Control Regulations 266 Standards for Management of Specific
50 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air 267 Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of
Quality Standards New Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities
51 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
Submission of Implementation Plans 280 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations
52 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent
Methods 40 CFR 300-399 Superfund, Emergency Planning,
60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary and Community Right-to-Know Programs
Sources 300 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Contingency Plan
Pollutants 302 Designation, Reportable Quantities, and
66 Assessment and Collection of Noncompliance Notification
Penalties by EPA 355 Emergency Planning and Notification
81 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 370 Hazardous Chemical Reporting
372 Toxic Chemical Releases Inventory Reporting,
40 CFR 100-149 Clean Water Act/Safe Drinking Community Right-to-Know
Water Act Regulations
112 Oil Pollution Prevention 40 CFR 400-699 Clean Water Act (CWA)
116 Hazardous Substances Under Federal Water Regulations
Pollution Control Act 40 CFR 700-799 Toxic Substances Control Act
117 Determination of Reportable Quantities for Haz- (TSCA) Regulations
ardous Substances 710 Inventory Reporting Requirements
125-125 National Pollution Discharge Elimination 720 Premanufacture Notice
System Permits 721 Significant New Use of Chemical Substances
136 Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants 722 Premanufacture Notice Exemptions
149-149 Drinking Water
*
Citations include some sections reserved for future
40 CFR 150-189 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and regulations.
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Regulations
152 Pesticide Registration and Classification
Procedures
155 Registration Standards
156 Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices

40 CFR 240-299 Solid and Hazardous Waste

Programs
260 General Guidelines for Hazardous Waste
Management
261 Identifying Hazardous Waste
262 Hazardous Waste Generators
263 Hazardous Waste Transporters
265 Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Facilities

487