CoatingsPro Magazine

MAY 2015

CoatingsPro offers an in-depth look at coatings based on case studies, successful business operation, new products, industry news, and the safe and profitable use of coatings and equipment.

Issue link: https://coatingspromag.epubxp.com/i/504582

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 56 of 92

56 MAY 2015 COATINGSPROMAG.COM Not Just Water Under the Bridge for City-Spanner PHOTOS COURTESY TITAN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. BY JENNIFER FRAKES For residents of the city of Cumberland, Md., the bridge that goes over the city is the only way to get from point A to point B. It is an essential artery in the community, and shutting it down entirely for the application of coatings was not an option. In addition, because the bridge is not just above Wills Creek but also crosses over public streets, walkways, tourist attractions, parking lots, railroad tracks, and retail establish- ments, bridge construction of any sort would have a major impact on the public and the environment. So when it needed a new coating system on several areas, what did coating applica- tors Titan Industrial Services do? Divide and Conquer When the Maryland State Highway Administration (District 6) decided that a major overhaul of the bridge was necessary, it was a given that the job would be challenging, to say the least. Titan Industrial Services was awarded the job and tasked with apply- ing a three-part coating system that included zinc, epoxy, and urethane to the existing steel bridge. Tey also installed a carbon fber wrap and coated the concrete pier caps and columns. Te bridge, which is a total of 3,178 feet long (969 m), consists of a total of 43 spans over Cumberland. According to Charles Brown, project manager/area engineer for the Maryland State Highway Administration, it was imperative to limit the impact to the businesses and homes around the work site. "We also wanted to ensure that enough parking was available to the public and tourists who visit the Cumberland area," said Brown. Coating work on the bridge was divided into seven sections, and only two sections could be closed at one time. " T hese sections could not be adjacent to one another. We had BRIDGE EPOXY two crews of 12 guys cleaning and painting simultaneously to ma ximize our work time," said Michael Forakis, president of Titan Industrial Ser vices. In addition, if work stopped progressing in any one section, the contractor had to demobi- lize. As stated by Forakis, this ended up not being as big of a factor in the job as it could have been; however, it was always in the back of the crew's mind as they worked on surface preparation and coating application. Environmental Impact As if public inconvenience wasn't enough of a challenge on this job, there was another critical component to consider: containment and environmental impact. "Lead was present in the existing coating, and to prepare the steel for a new coating system, the old coating had to be removed," stated Brow n. Lead contamination from the abrasive blasting of the steel was a huge concern for all parties involved. T he specifica- tions required Titan to provide a third party onsite industrial hygienist during all dust-producing operations to perform air monitoring, soil testing, and random visible emissions inspec- tions. Forakis explained, " Titan also had an onsite competent person who is specially trained and can shut the job dow n if he or she deems the conditions unsafe for workers or the public." T his member of the team also performed visual inspections during all blasting or dust-producing activities. Titan installed platform scafolding and non-permeable (aka zero emission) containment, and they also laid down secondary containment tarps, manufactured by Indian Valley, on the ground. "Te only areas we did not put down second- ary containment were on the train tracks and over the river," explained Forakis. STEEL

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of CoatingsPro Magazine - MAY 2015