AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe

Technical Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (1:00pm-3:00pm)

Indianapolis, Indiana Working Session #7

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012

1) Introduction of Panel Members

i) Chairman: Dave Meggers ii) Vice Chair: Tom Baker iii) (Sign In sheet distribution)

2) Minutes from 2011 Meeting – San Antonio, Texas 3) Update – Katheryn Malusky, AASHTO, PPT

a) NTPEP Audit Program Statistics (AASHTO) i) 13 state DOTs attended audits in 2011 ii) States using NTPEP – 31 total use, 11 moving forward on total use (42 total) iii) Most widely used program that NTPEP offers iv) Florida requires a joint test v) Michigan is testing pipe, including joints, on their projects vi) Katheryn covered the new audit procedures – no questions from the group vii) AASHTO audited both testing labs, Microback-Hausser and TRI and both labs passed the

audits. viii) State and Industry Feedback issues:

(1) VDOT – Calibration of weight blending equipment (2) ILDOT and INDOT want to remove the 5 yr split sample testing cycle for M252 and

M294. (This is what is being used in the new PVC plan). (a) Discussion: testing on the pipes are very similar for similar sizes (b) INDOT/ILDOT to provide proposed language

(3) Unannounced sampling audits (from Industry) (a) Discussion: pros and cons (b) Need proposed language for work plan ballot

(4) Split sampling discussion 4) Data Mine update

5) Summary of Changes to NTPEP Workplan Balloted in December 2011 and Approved in January 2012 (Michael Pluimer, PPI)

6) New Business:

AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe

Technical Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (1:00pm-3:00pm)

Indianapolis, Indiana Working Session #7

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012

a) Feedback from State DOTs regarding current work plan i) 8.3.3 If the Manufacturer’s facility produces both AASHTO M 252 and M 294 pipe, then all

diameters will be tested within a 5 year cycle for both M 252 and M 294 requirements. Comment 5: This requirement is too costly. If a manufacturer produces 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 inch single wall and produces 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60 inch smooth wall he needs evaluation of 17 different sizes. 2 sizes are evaluated for each audit. In order to get all sizes every 5 years would require 3 additional audits in that five year period. Therefore they have to have 8 audits every 5 years at 6500 per audit totaling 52000 dollars every five years or 10000+ dollars per year which is excessive. Suggest 2 sizes per year with no 5 year requirement.

b) Feedback from Industry c) Feedback from Testing Facilities

7) Open Discussion

a) PPI presentation – Michael Plumier - PPT i) NCLS Testing history and current proposal and industry concerns – work coming in

ASTM/AASHTO ii) Buckling – needs better definition. Proposal is to clarify the work plan, by following the

ASHTO M294 spec, but adding the note: “Buckling – any decrease or downward deviation in the load-deflection test curve shall be considered a wall-buckling point.” This removes the requirement for visual interpretation.

iii) Certificate of Analysis clarification (1) Adds language to 6.1.16.1 to include the requirement for the CoA being maintained from

the resin supplier or an independent laboratory. Also need to add a definition to what CoA means.

(2) State proposal to retain CoA for seven (7) years instead of the current five (5) years. Requires workplan ballot.

(3) M252. 6.1.16.1.3: Remove “CoA” requirements and add in requirement that the final blend must meet the M252 cell class requirements.

iv) Proposal to change Appendix A: punch the dogbone sample from “a location 45 degrees from the seam” or similar. Additional proposal was from 30-60 degrees. Workplan ballot proposal. Need PPI to propose wording.

v) Additional points which PPI asks NTPEP to consider; (1) Opportunity for cost reductions? (2) Can we have a log that tracks the changes in the workplan over the years?

b) Arizona DOT is working on LRFD calculations for HDPE pipe. ADOT rep. i) Michael noted that different wall designs (pipe profiles) will result in different LRFD

performance.

AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe

Technical Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (1:00pm-3:00pm)

Indianapolis, Indiana Working Session #7

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012

c) Question on adding polypropylene pipe to the program? i) Needs to go to SOM to become a full standared

8) Adjourned Meeting

AASHTO’s 2012 Annual NTPEP Meeting

HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Technical Committee Meeting

Indianapolis, IN

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

Katheryn Malusky

NTPEP Project Engineer

• NTPEP Audit Program Statistics for HDPE Pipe

• Number of Participants – AASHTO Member Departments

– Industry

• New Procedures for On-Site Audits

• Program Information

• Feedback from State DOTs

• Feedback from Industry

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

4 6 8 10 12 15 18 24 30 36 42 48 60

Num

ber o

f Sam

ples

Pipe Diameter (Inches)

Number of Samples vs. Pipe Diameter

- 3 Split Sample Failures - 46 Audits Completed in 2011 (3 Surveillance Audits)

• State DOTs who attended audit(s) in 2011:

AL IA OH VA

GA MA OR

IN ME PA

IL NJ VT

• States utilizing data from NTPEP audits (32): • States moving toward utilizing data from NTPEP

audits (10): ** IN and OR attended on-site audits in 2011 **

AK IA MO PA WV

AL IL NC RI TX

AR KS NH SC WA

AZ LA NJ UT IN

CA MA NY VA

CO ME OH VT

DC MN OK WI

CT WY MS NE OR

ID KY MT NV TN

Manufacturer Participation for 2012

• 13 Manufacturers are participating in the 2012 Audit Tour (47 facilities)

– ADS/Hancor – Baughman Tile Company – Fratco Inc. – Haviland Drainage Products – Infiltrator Systems Inc. – JM Eagle – Lane Enterprises Inc. – Pacific Corrugated Plastic Pipe – Prinsco Inc. – Soleno Inc. – Southeast Culvert – Springfield Plastics – Timewell Drainage Products

(14 manufacturers, 47 facilities participated in 2011 Tour)

New Procedures for On-Site Audits • Samples for test demonstration purposes need to be

conditioned prior to on-site audit. This information is noted in the Announcement Letter: “Please have the AASHTO pipe samples conditioned in accordance with the AASHTO/ASTM specification in advance of your scheduled on-site audit (one day in advance is sufficient). The Auditor will check to make sure the test is run correctly and the test results are satisfactory.”

• For each size of pipe selected for split sample testing, a

retain sample will need to be kept at each plant until third party test results are received. The Auditor will cut the samples to length and sign each sample. A resin sample should be retained as well.

• The Stub Compression Test (AASHTO T341-10) is not part of the split sample testing procedure. The Auditors will review the test reports for this test to be sure each plant is having this test completed twice per year per diameter (per manufacturer)

• The NCLS pipe liner test and NCLS resin test are included in the split sampling procedure. If either of these tests fail, retest samples (both resin and pipe) will need to be sent to the third party lab for retesting.

• The date of expiration on each Certificate of Compliance will be 1 year from the date a manufacturer receives their split sample test results

Program Information • Current work plan (balloted in November 2011 and

approved in January 2012) and audit worksheets can be found on the NTPEP website, www.ntpep.org

• REMINDER: After you have received an email notifying you your Audit Report is available on the NTPEP DataMine website, please remember to log onto the NTPEP DataMine website to access your invoice (from the My DataMine screen) and submit payment.

• AASHTO completed on-site audits at Microbac- Hausser Laboratories and TRI Environmental in March 2012. The full audit report along with comparison split sample reports will be available to all HDPE pipe manufacturers within the next couple weeks.

Feedback from State DOTs

• AASHTO M294-11 Annex Section A1.2.1.1 states “The manufacturers shall have current calibration records for the automated or manual weight blending equipment” . Due to a concern brought up by the VADOT, the Auditors will now be checking for this information during each on-site audit.

• IL DOT and IN DOT want to remove the 5 year cycle requirement for split sample testing for both M252 and M294.

Feedback from Industry • Since manufactures pick the size(s) that are selected for split

sampling there is a chance that they could produce pipe just for that split sampling, and is not a good representative of the pipe that they produce throughout the year. When the manufacture fills out its application each year they can put down which size(s) they would like tested this year, and a State DOT representative could come into that plant unannounced sometime before the NTPEP audit and select the samples to be tested for the NTPEP split samples.

• Somewhere in the Work Plan there should be a definition of Internal Audits and Management Reviews. The manufactures and the Auditors have different ideas of what these mean.

HDPE Pipe Technical Committee Chairman: Dave Meggers KS DOT Phone: 785-291-3845 Email: dave.meggers@ksdot.org HDPE Pipe Technical Committee Vice-Chairman: Tom Baker WA State DOT Phone: 360-709-5588 Email: bakert@wsdot.wa.gov HDPE Pipe Technical Committee Industry Representative: Michael Pluimer Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) Phone: 469-499-1049 Email: mpluimer@plasticpipe.org HDPE Pipe Technical Committee AASHTO Liaison: Katheryn Malusky AASHTO Phone: 202-624-3695 Email: kmalusky@aashto.org