product evaluation and plant certification of hdpe pipe

PRODUCT EVALUATION AND PLANT CERTIFICATION OF HDPE PIPE

Requested by:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Standing Committee on Highways

Prepared by:

C. Joel Sprague TRI/Environmental, Inc.

Austin, Texas

July 2006

The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 191, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.

Acknowledgments This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-07. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-07 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The report was prepared by C. Joel Sprague, TRI/Environmental, Inc.

Disclaimer

The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 2. Research Approach .........................................................................................................2 2.1 Task 1 – Literature Review...............................................................................3 2.1.1 Comparison of Programs – Program Elements..................................4 2.2 Task 2 – Survey of Stakeholders ......................................................................9 2.2.1 Current / Preferred Program Elements...............................................9 2.2.2 Additional Stakeholder Input.............................................................9 2.3 Task 3 – Merger Strategy Development & Implementation Plan...................13 2.3.1 Details of Proposed Merger Plan .....................................................17 2.3.2 Implementation Plan ........................................................................17 2.4 Task 4 – Audit Training Manual ....................................................................18 2.5 Task 5 – Revised NTPEP Work Plan .............................................................19 3. Conclusions...................................................................................................................19 Appendices

PPI Documents.......................................................................................Appendix A NTPEP Documents ................................................................................ Appendix B ESC Documents ..................................................................................... Appendix C Stakeholder Survey Form ......................................................................Appendix D Stakeholder Survey Responses .............................................................. Appendix E QSM Review Checklist & Resin / Pipe Testing Specifications .............Appendix F Proposed Revised NTPEP Work Plan & Plant Audit Forms.................Appendix G

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) was established by the

AASHTO Board of Directors in 1994 as an engineering technical service program to pool the

professional and physical resources of its member departments. NTPEP conducts coordinated

testing on a wide array of proprietary, engineered products including corrugated High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) Plastic Pipe. All testing is performed in accordance with the testing

procedures outlined in the AASHTO materials specification M294. NTPEP conducts laboratory

testing on pipe and resins, which are sampled by State DOTs materials samplers. NTPEP only

tests the pipe and resin products. No other auditing function is performed by NTPEP.

In a separate effort to further product quality, the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), an industry

association, has developed testing protocols for third-party verification of corrugated HDPE

pipe. The PPI verification protocol includes the same testing called for by NTPEP (product

testing) as well as quality audits of the manufacturing process and plant. PPI third-party

verification provides a high standard of quality audit services.

Several states in the eastern United States have formed a syndicate known as the “Eastern States

Consortium (ESC)” for HDPE pipe production. The ESC requires an approved Quality System

Manual (QSM) which establishes minimum requirements for the quality control procedures, and

testing frequencies, to which manufacturers must subscribe in order to supply pipe to

participating states. While ESC concurs that a third-party plant verification program can work,

they prefer a process with more state oversight. For an effective merged program the ESC

believes that there needs to be an in-depth audit, in conjunction with established minimum

quality control testing frequencies.


NTPEP, PPI, and ESC are all interested in merging their separate programs into one

comprehensive manufacturing quality assurance (MQA) program.

2. RESEARCH APPROACH

The objectives of this research are to:

• Develop a merger strategy that includes a detailed implementation plan for the merger of

the NTPEP, PPI, and ESC Corrugated HDPE pipe testing protocols and plant

certifications into one comprehensive manufacturing quality assurance (MQA) program

jointly administered by NTPEP, PPI, and ESC stakeholders.

• Develop a plant audit-training manual for use by state highway agencies and private

sampling contractors.

Accomplishment of the project objectives has required the following tasks:

Task 1. A review was conducted of technical and business documents from NTPEP, PPI, and

ESC pertaining to each organization’s MQA programs for the evaluation of Corrugated HDPE

pipe and the certification of Corrugated HDPE pipe production plants. Plant audit procedures

and forms already developed for the PPI and ESC were also reviewed. All non-public domain

information collected in this study is regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of such

information must be approved by the NCHRP.

Task 2. A survey of stakeholders, including state highway agencies and manufacturers was

conducted to determine the current state of the practice for HDPE pipe testing protocols and

plant certifications, as well as needed improvements in the current state of practice. A synthesis

of recommended improvements was submitted to the NCHRP oversight panel for review,

comment, and approval.


Task 3. Based on the results of Tasks 1 and 2, a strategy was developed for merging the NTPEP,

PPI, and ESC Corrugated HDPE pipe testing protocols and plant certifications into one MQA

program. The merger strategy includes an implementation plan for executing the proposed

strategy and creation of a MQA program jointly administered by NTPEP, PPI, and ESC.

Task 4. Materials to be included in a plant audit training manual were developed and will be

useful to state highway agencies and private testing contractors during audits conducted as part

of the merged MQA program.

Task 5. A new NTPEP project work plan for Corrugated HDPE pipe was developed that reflects

the proposed merger strategy and implementation plan. The work plan is in a format suitable for

balloting by the NTPEP Oversight Committee.

Task 6. Submittal of this final report, concisely documenting the research effort and including

the merger strategy, implementation plan, training manual materials, and the proposed NTPEP

project work plan.

This final report reflects the completion of all tasks.

2.1 TASK 1 - LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of existing technical and business documents from NTPEP, PPI, and ESC

pertaining to each organization’s MQA programs for the evaluation of Corrugated HDPE pipe

and the certification of Corrugated HDPE pipe production plants has been completed. The

assembled documents from PPI, NTPEP, and ESC are included in Appendices A, B, and C,

respectively.


2.1.1 Comparison of Programs – Program Elements

The PPI, NTPEP, and ESC MQA programs contained similar program elements that could be

compared, including purpose, cost, resin qualification, manufacturer qualification, initial product

qualification, annual auditing, sampling, and testing, failures during audits or testing, public

notice, product design changes, and disagreements. These program elements are generally

described in the following paragraphs and detailed in Table 1. Additionally, in Table 2 an effort

has been made to synthesize an estimate of year-to-year costs for both a large multi-plant

manufacturer and a small single plant manufacturer under each of the current programs.

Purpose: Each MQA program was developed with a purpose ranging from simply providing

independent test data to combining plant and product qualification with on-going MQA audits.

Audits involve either random, spot-checks (PPI) or inspecting every plant/lab every year (ESC).

Cost: Each program has its own cost structure ranging from charging only for testing to also

requiring administration, auditing, and listing fees. In all cases, costs are paid by the pipe

manufacturer. PPI, NTPEP & ESC all have different sampling/testing frequencies, thus different

testing-related costs.

Resin Qualification: The raw material for plastic pipe manufacturing is plastic “resin” pellets.

M294 requires that this resin have specific properties. All three MQA programs require the resin

manufacturers to issue certifications for every “lot” of resin, stating that the resin has been tested

and meets M294 specification requirements. They also require independent laboratory testing of

resins sampled during audits. One program requires independent prequalification testing of resin.

Increasing use of blends has greatly complicated raw material qualification.

Manufacturer Qualification. All three MQA programs require that the manufacturer have

operational manufacturing quality assurance and quality control (MQA/MQC) plans. The


specific requirements of that plan vary from program to program. PPI sets minimum MQA

standards based on M294. NTPEP has not clearly defined MQA req’ts. ESC’s QSM requires

more uniform rigorous MQC/MQA plus a prequalification plant audit.

Initial Product Qualification. In order to assure that pipe meeting M294 specification

requirements is being supplied from the first day of program participation, some programs (PPI

& NTPEP) require that all pipe sizes be tested initially. Initial assumptions are that all plants

(PPI & NTPEP) or all products (ESC) are in compliance with quality programs.

Annual Auditing and Testing. Following manufacturer and initial product qualification, regular

independent testing and/or auditing assures that the manufacturer is properly implementing his

MQA/MQC Plan. All three programs require independent sampling and testing, while two also

include in-plant audits (PPI & ESC), though the frequency of testing and auditing varies. PPI’s

unannounced audits, with sampling from inventory, allows lot-specific auditing of the

manufacturer’s MQC system implementation and comparison to independent test results.

NTPEP and ESC’s pre-arranged sampling from production verifies that the finished product is

made from a specific raw material and provides independent test results of both for eventual

comparison to MQC data but requires additional auditing to verify that the MQC Plan has been

followed routinely. Auditing of every plant every year (ESC) – rather than once in a 5-yr cycle

(PPI) - assures that all plants maintain continuous quality systems.

Failures during Audits or Testing. Inevitably, there are times when the sampled pipe fails to

meet one or more of the M294 specification requirements when independently testing or the

manufacturer is found, during an audit, to have neglected one or more aspects of the governing

MQA/MQC Plan during manufacturing. Each program includes a procedure to address failures.

A “feedback loop” is vital to continuous improvement.


Public Notice. One of the primary reasons for all three MQA programs is to instil confidence in

the end-user and the general public that the materials being used for infrastructure construction

are of sufficient quality and to facilitate use of product that has proven to be of sufficient quality.

To this end the programs provide for public notice of approved companies and products in ways

ranging from published documents sent to the DOTs to website postings. ESC provides

comprehensive regional information. PPI and NTPEP provide nationwide coverage.

Product Design Changes. One would expect products to change over time as manufacturers

improve their products and optimize their manufacturing processes. These changes must be

shown to be consistent with the product’s ability to satisfy the M294 specifications, for which it

has already been qualified. NTPEP and ESC require pipe resulting from design changes to be

independently sampled and tested. PPI accepts manufacturer’s own test data as sufficient

evidence between audits. Both approaches are reasonable.

Disagreement. Should a disagreement arise between a manufacturer and the agency or delegated

agency representative, a procedure for resolving the disagreement must be available. Each MQA

program has a somewhat unique procedure. It is important to have unbiased, knowledgeable

resolution.


Table 1. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe – MQA Programs Comparison

Program Component PPI NTPEP ESC

Purpose Validate product certifications Provide independent test results Qualify manufacturing plants, validate product certifications, provide 3rd party test results

Cost Listing fees (to PPI) Auditing/Testing Fees (to TRI)

Admin & Testing Fees (to NTPEP) None for audit. Additional testing costs

Resin Qualification

Must be PPI listed Must be certified to meet M294 Must be certified / tested to meet M294.

Manufacturer Qualification

MQC Plan meeting the requirements of M294 Appendix must be submitted/approved.

MQC/MQA Plan must be available upon request

Quality Systems Manual, QSM, meeting detailed requirements must be submitted & approved (by lead state) + subsequent plant/testing facility inspection

Initial Product Qualification

3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style regardless of the number of plants. Samples submitted by the manufacturer.

3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style regardless of the number of plants. Samples submitted by DOT volunteers.

Granted via an initial plant quality audit and acceptance of previous 3rd Party testing.

Annual audit, sampling, and

testing

Audit, sample, and test no fewer than 25% of plants and products per year. At least 1 per year. 5-yr cycle. Unannounced audits by Administrator. Internal audit summaries required by April 1st for all plants not audited during previous year. Samples usually taken from inventory (pipe) and production (resin). Audit then includes full MQC “paper trail” for both the pipe sampled and the associated resin , as well as for the resin sampled.

3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style regardless of the number of plants every three years. Samples are submitted by DOT volunteers when notified that a certain plant and product is in production. Sampling is pre-arranged and samples are usually taken from pipe being produced so that the associated resin can also be sampled. Audits (and scope of audit) is at the discretion of the sampling agency.

Resubmit updated QSM by Nov. 1st. DOTs audit each plant, each year, for compliance to required ESC testing frequencies, and adherence to QSM. Audits include review of all M294 pipe production records covering MQC: resin & pipe testing, competence training, and equipment calibration. During the audit two products and resins are sampled, including split-samples for parallel manufacturer testing. Independent lab testing costs are paid directly by the manufacturer, and all results are provided to the ESC.

Failures (audit or testing)

Requires identification of cause, resolution, and revision to MQC plan to assure future conformance.

Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer)

Resolution responsibility of the inspecting team. De-listing (plant or company) by majority of ESC states.

Public Notice Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. Presentation of test results (summary) for each

pipe size/style on website. Test results also published and sent to DOTs.

Listing of qualified manufacturing plants and 3rd party test results on website and distribution of split-sample test results to ESC members only.

Product Design

Changes

Notify Administrator and re-qualify with before/after data. Switching between PPI-listed resins is not considered a change.

Notify NTPEP and have sampled and tested. Doesn’t apply to switching between qualified resins.

Must notify ESC and have sampled and tested. Doesn’t apply to switching between qualified resins.

Disagreements Resolved by PPI review panel. Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. Conditional qualification possible during resolution with inspecting team.


Table 2. PPI / NTPEP / ESC Estimated Cost Comparison (Min/Max Plant/Product Scenarios)

PPI Fees - paid to PPI (listing) and TRI (Admin) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

18 Plants / 13 Products

Listing & Administration (Audit/Testing)

$11500* + $11775** + $17040

$10500* +

$13550

$10500* +

$17040

$10500* +

$13550

$10500* +

$17040

$10500* +

$13550 $167,545

1 Plant / 8 Products

Listing & Administration (Audit/Testing)

$3000* + $12700** + $4550

$2000* + $7100

$2000* + $4550

$2000* + $7100

$2000* + $4550

$2000* + $7100 $60,650

NTPEP Fees – paid to NTPEP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

18 Plants / 13 Products Administration / Audit & Testing @ $3000 per product $39000 $0 $0 $39000 $0 $0 $78,000

1 Plant / 8 Products Administration / Audit & Testing @ $3000 per product $24000 $0 $0 $24000 $0 $0 $48,000

ESC Fees – paid to TRI (testing only) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

18 Plants (4 within ESC) / 13 Products Testing @ $2375 per product (4 plants x 2 products each) $19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $114,000

1 Plant / 8 Products Testing @ $2375 per product (1 plant x 2 products each) $4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $28,500

* Listing cost @ $2500 (1st yr) / $1500 (2+yr) per company & $500 per plant per year; ** Cost for initial qualification, including testing of all sizes/styles.


2.2 SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS

A survey of current MQA program stakeholders, including state highway agencies and

pipe manufacturers was conducted to determine the current state of the practice for HDPE pipe

testing protocols and plant certifications. 21 state highway agencies and 6 pipe manufacturers

responded to the survey. The survey form used is included in Appendix D. The surveys were

distributed via e-mail to state agency contacts through the NTPEP and to manufacturer contacts

through PPI. All survey responses are included in Appendix E.

2.2.1 Current/Preferred Program Elements

Table 3 presents a summary of all the survey responses. Since the survey didn’t differentiate

between those program elements that are currently used by a respondent and those that the

respondent prefers or wishes could be added, the interpretation was made that the responses

indicate those program elements that the respondent favors. The percent of responses favoring

each program element has been presented in the table, noting those elements that were favored

by more than two-thirds of all respondents and those favored by more than one-half.

Perhaps those program elements favored by more than two-thirds of the respondents can be

considered as “consensus” elements to be included in a merged program. Similarly, those

elements favored by more than one-half of respondents should be very strongly considered for

inclusion in a merged program. Conversely, those elements having less than majority support

may be identified as those areas that will provide flexibility in designing a merged program.

2.2.2 Additional Stakeholder Input

Generally, the respondents indicated a near consensus for an independent MQA program, and,

especially among the manufacturers, that the program be a result of merging as many existing

programs as possible into one. Additional observations and positions are detailed in Table 4.


Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements – Survey Responses

Program Elements Requirements PPI NT-

PEP ESC DOT Responses Manufacturer Responses % > 2/3 > 1/2

Validate product certifications X X CA CT DE FL IA LA MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 93 X X Provide independent test results X X X CA CO DE FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 96 X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X CO CT DE FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY RI VA WA WI QC So 70 X X

Administration Fees X CA CO LA MD MN NV RI TN WA WI WV Ln 44 ListingFees X MD ADS Fr Ha QC So 22

Auditing Fees X CO MD WI ADS Ln Ha QC So 30 Cost

Testing Fees X X X CA CO CT DE LA ME MD NE NH NY RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 81 X X Resin manufacturer C of A CA CT FL MD NE NV NH NY ADS Ln Ha QC So 48

Pipe manufacturer test results CA CO FL MD MN NH NY TN ADS Ha QC So 44 Resin

Qualif-ication Independent lab testing CA CT FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NH NH TN WA WI Ha 52 X

Mfr MQC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X CA CO CT DE FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 100 X X Lot identification directions X CO CT DE FL MD MN NE NV NH NY RI VA WI WV ADS Ha QC So 67 X X

Specific MQC Testing Frequencies sugg X CA CO CT DE FL ME MD MN NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 85 X X Statisitical process control X CA CO CT DE FL LA ME MD MN NE NV NY RI VA WI ADS Ha 63 X

MQC technician qualifications X CA CO CT DE FL MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI VA WI WV So 63 X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X CA CO CT DE FL IA LA MD MN NV NY OH RI TN VA WA WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 85 X X Non-conformance resolution and

documentation X X CA CO CT DE FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 93 X X

Test report retention X X CA CO CT DE FL IA MD NE NV NH NY OH RI VA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 81 X X Equipment calibration & procedure

proficiency X X CA CO CT DE FL IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI WV ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 96 X X

Manufact-urer Qualif-

ication

Pre-qualification Audit X CO CT DE IA MD MN NE NV NH NY RI VA WI So 52 X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe

size/style per company – samples submitted by company

X X CT DE MD NE NV NY OH RI VA WV ADS Fr Ln So 52 X Initial Product Qualif-ication

3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples

obtained by DOT or Admin. X CA FL IA LA ME MN NH TN WA WI Ha QC 44

Unannounced audits by 3rd Party X CA CT IA ME MN NH OH TN WA WI ADS Fr Ln Ha 52 X Pre-arranged audits by DOT X X CT DE FL LA MD NE NV NH NY RI VA WV QC 48

Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X LA MD NE OH WA WV ADS Fr Ln Ha So 41

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X CA CO CT DE FL ME MD MN NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI QC So 67 X X

Test all pipe styles/sizes every 3 years X CO LA NH WA WV ADS Ha 26 Internal or indep. Audits of every plant X X DE FL ME MD MN NE NH NY OH RI TN VA WA WI ADS Ln Ha QC So 70 X X

Samples usually taken from inventory pipe FL IA MD OH-P VA WI-

P WV ADS-P Fr-P Ln Ha-

P QC-

P 44

Samples usually taken from production resin both both CA CT DE FL LA ME MD MN NE NH NY OH-R RI TN WA WI-

R ADS-R Fr-R Ha-

R QC-

R So 78 X X

Sample MQC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? CA LA ME MD NV NH NY OH TN VA ADS Ln Ha QC So 56 X

Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X CT DE FL ME MD MN NV NH NY RI TN VA WI So 52 X

Annual audit,

sampling, and testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X CA CT DE FL MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI WV Fr Ha QC So 74 X X


Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements – Survey Responses (cont’d)

Program Elements Requirements PPI NT-

PEP ESC DOT Responses Manufacturer Responses % > 2/3 > 1/2

Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise

MQC plan to assure future conformance.

X CA FL MD MN NH NY OH TN WA WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 59 X

Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or

retesting (paid for by manufacturer)

X LA MD MN TN WA WV QC 26

Failures (annual audit

or testing)

Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working

with the inspecting team. X CT DE FL IA LA MD NE NV NH NY RI VA 44

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X CA CT FL LA NE NV TN WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 52 X

Listing of test results on website. X X CA CO CT DE FL LA MD NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WA WV ADS Ha QC 70 X X

Test results published and sent to DOTs. X CA CO CT IA ME MD MN NE NH NH OH WA WV QC 48

Listing of qualified plants on website. X CT DE FL LA MD MN NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Ha QC So 74 X X

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X CT DE ME MD NH NY RI TN VA WV 37

Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X CA IA ADS Fr Ln Ha 22 Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X CO CT DE IA LA ME MD MN NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WA WI WV QC So 74 X X

Resolved by review panel. X CA CT FL IA MD MN NH NH OH TN ADS Fr Ha 44 Retesting at alternate lab or via

round-robin. X CO CT FL LA ME NH NY RI TN WA WI QC 44 Disagree-ments

Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X CT DE MD NE NV NH NH VA WV Fr Ln So 40


Table 4. Additional Stakeholder Input DOT Responses CA Glen DeCou - Limited program to-date. Require certificate of compliance at delivery. Plan to require the NTPEP program. Interested in project specific MQC req’ts. CO Bob Locander, Dave Kotzer - CDOT is currently specifying M294. Having internal discussions and updating manuals, specs, etc.

CT Keith Lane, Andy Mroczkowski - Relying on manufacturer’s certifications; have not used plastic pipe very extensively; not currently MQA testing; currently writing new spec to include resin quality

DE Jim Pappas - M294 & M252 with participation in ESC; look into 3rd party resin testing and testing of joints

FL Rodney Powers - Mfr totally responsible for MQC. Minimum test and inspections spelled out. Mfr lab must be ISO accredited. Mfr must comply with PPI Recomm. Procedures for Mfr MQC/MQA; Districts perform quarterly inspections of mfr plants. MQA tests done on pipe delivered to projects.

IA Joe Putherickal - No additional comments. LA Henry Lacinak - No other comments. ME B. Yeaton, D. Gayne - Verification of product compliance. Product ban process for failing pipe. ESC participant. Add testing of resin from finished product. MD Paul Finnerty - Participants in ESC MN Jim Kochsiek - M294 + certificate of compliance; mandrel test after installation; Add provisions for recycled products NE Mark Burham - Limited use of corrugated plastic pipe - underdrains and cross drains. NV Dean Weitzel – no additional comments NH Alan Rawson - ESC participant; will likely need to add administrative fees to the ESC program; recommend consultant thru AASHTO; robust MQC +audits and testing.

NY Ed Lucas – Maintains approved list; Must participate in ESC + random pipe testing; Emphasis on rigorous audits – tracking minimum of 6 samples & review all M294 production over year.

OH Lloyd Welker - User of PPI with internal MQC plan review. Allow recycled materials in M252. Satisfied with PPI and don’t see need for another agency. Unannounced audits critical in order to be “random” sampling; NTPEP is not worth it.

RI Jan Bak – Limited experience. Currently participating in ESC. Limited to 24-in diameter, minimum 3-ft cover, and mandrel testing. TN James Maxwell – no additional comments VA Larry Lundy - ESC participant; continue to build on success of ESC and other similar programs WA Tom Baker - Participate in NTPEP and state testing of joints for watertightness. WI Jim Perry – no additional comments WV Larry Barker - Yearly testing of various pipe sizes from each mfr supplying in state. Manufacturer Responses ADS

Bob Slicker – Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and multiple state programs. Strongly support single comprehensive merged program. Blended resins should be accepted if 3rd party verification is provided.

Fr Chris Overmyer - IN has very simple monthly MQA submittal req’t; IL requires guarantee of product quality; M252 pipe that is obviously NOT AASHTO compliant comes in from out of state, even though it has AASHTO stamping, thus important to include M252.

Ha Tim Tolliver - Program Administrator should not be empowered to monitor or effect process controls. This is proprietary and has larger financial and performance implications. Currently a uniform nationwide MQA/MQC program is program is used with exceptions to meet more stringent state-by-state requirements. The program should be based on a sound mfr MQC/MQA Plan for both resin and pipe and finished product testing.

Ln Bob Diehl - Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and multiple state programs. Strongly support single comprehensive merged program. Merged program should be well conceived so that frequent revisions are not required.

QC Carl Tymer - Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and FlDOT. Should be effort to consolidate, so that individual DOTs don’t initiate unique requirements that force product changes that are not necessarily improvements.

So Clermond Marquis - Audited by 5 different systems/agencies. Merger of programs would be very beneficial.


2.3 Merger Strategy Development

This proposed merger strategy is based on the priorities as established by the majority of

responses to the stakeholder survey reported in the previous section and additional input from a

very thorough review by the ESC.

A couple of new items are introduced herein, including turning the program over to a

“Consultant Manager”, differentiating between “Master audits” and “DOT audits”, and including

fittings in the program. These items are conceptually defined as:

o Consultant Manager – A third party hired to review submittals, coordinate auditing and

testing, resolve failures and disputes, and manage posting/publication of results.

o Master Audits – 2-day 3rd party audits that include both standard annual product and

process audits, but also serve as opportunities to train plant MQC personnel and DOT

auditors on related issues. These audits are prescheduled, conducted by the Consultant

Manager, and open to all company personnel and DOT representatives.

o DOT Audits - Standardized annual product and process audits.

o Fittings – Documentation establishing that fittings conform to M294/M252 specification

requirements must be maintained and available for audit examination.

The proposed merger program also introduces the expectation that a manufacturer have a

thoroughly documented statistical process control program. Finally, the proposed merged

program would be mandatory for all M294 pipe/resin and optional for M252 pipe/resin. This

means that a manufacturer may choose to exclude M252 production from its participation in this

program if such exclusion is acceptable to the specific state(s) in which that manufacturer is

seeking approval.


Table 5. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe – MQA Programs Comparison Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Merged Program Proposal

Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X

Program will validate mfr product certifications, provide independent test results, and qualify manufacturing plants

Administration Fees X Include with auditing/testing fees ListingFees X $500 Auditing Fees X $3000 per Master audit / $0 per DOT audit

Cost

Testing Fees X X X $2500 / product Resin manufacturer C of A Required for all resins used Pipe manufacturer test results Required for all resins used

Resin Qualification

Independent lab testing Req’d for all resins prior to use. PPI listed. Manufacturer MQC Plan meeting M294/252 App. X X X ESC Req’ts Lot identification directions X ESC Req’ts Specific MQC Testing Frequencies sug X ESC Req’ts, MQC technician qualifications X Optional Statisitical process control X ESC Req’ts Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Master or DOT audit every year Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X ESC Req’ts Test report retention X X ESC Req’ts Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X ESC Req’ts


Pre-qualification Audit X 1 Initial Master Audit 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe sizes – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe sizes – samples obtained by DOT X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by

company with split-sample test results Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X

Unannounced audits / samplings preferred. Prearranged OK for special situations.

Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X

Master audit of each plant within a 5-year period. Master or DOT Audit of every plant every year + at least 1 pipe & resin sample per plant for independent testing. Test all

pipe styles/sizes per company every 5 years Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Covered by Master and DOT audits Samples usually taken from inventory (P = pipe; R = resin) P Pipe samples from inventory Samples usually taken from production (P = pipe; R = resin) R P & R P&R Resin samples from production Sample MQC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Pipe and resin MQC data obtained Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X Split samples obtained during audit sampling


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X Quality program re-submittal with updates Mfr identify cause, document resolution, and revise MQC plan X Mfr may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by mfr) X

Failures (annual audit or

testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the mfr working with the inspecting team. X

Mfr may request retest, if sufficient sample. Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise MQC plan to assure future conformance. Then may request

product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer). Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X List qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. Listing of test results on website. X X List lab & mfr test results on website. Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Test results published and sent to DOTs. Listing of qualified plants on website. X Listing of qualified plants on website.

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X MQC results published with lab results Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X

Notify and samples submitted by company with split-sample test results

Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Resolved by administrator via retesting or round-robin between mfr and admin lab. Conditional listing during resolution.


Table 6. Proposed Merged MQA Program (with SPC) Estimated Cost Comparison (Select Plant/Product Scenarios)

Admin. Eval/Audit @ $3,000 (Prescheduled / 2 days; Consultant Manager + State DOT in which the plant is located) Pipe Testing @ $2,500 (Typical average cost for 1 pipe and 1 resin)

Listing Fee @ $500 (+ $500/size/yr/company listing fee) DOT Audit @ $0 (Unannounced by State DOT in which the plant is located, or partner State DOT)

Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample) Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample)

Scenario Plants/Products QSM + Master Audit

Initial Prod

Qualif.

Year 1 (ESC in 30 days)

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Scenario Plants/Products QSM +

Master Audit

Initial Prod

Qualif.


Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Plant 1 1 DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT Master Plant 1 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 1 1 1 1 1 $2,500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 2 1 1 1 2 $2,500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 3 1 1 3 $2,500 $500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500 $500 4 1 1 4 $2,500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500 5 1 1 5 $2,500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500 6 1 1 6 $2,500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500 $500 7 1 1 7 $2,500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500

1 Plant / 8 Products Product

8 1 1

1 Plant / 8 Products Product

8 $2,500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500 Total # of Audits / Products 1 8 2 1 2 1 2 2 Total Cost $3,000 $20,000 $9,000 $5,500 $9,000 $6,500 $9,000 $12,000

Note 1: Adding 8 products for M252 inclusion add $2500/yr. Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample) Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample)


Initial Prod

Qualif.



Master Audit

Initial Prod

Qualif.



1 1 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 1 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 2 Master DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 2 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 3 Master DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 3 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 4 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 4 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 5 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 6 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 7 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 7 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 8 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 8 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 9 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 9 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0

Plant

10 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT

Plant

10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 $2,500 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

10 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 $2,500 $3,000 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 $2,500 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

10 Plants / 12

Products

Product

12 1 1 1 1 1 1


Product

12 $2,500 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Total # of Audits / Products 1 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Cost $3,000 $30,000 $37,000 $37,000 $37,000 $37,000 $37,000 $37,000

Note 1: Adding 8 products for M252 inclusion adds no additional cost.


Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample) Qualify Mfr Audit, Sample, Test (incl. split-sample)


Initial Prod

Qualif.



Master Audit

Initial Prod

Qualif.



1 1 DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 1 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 2 Master DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 2 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 3 Master DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 3 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 4 Master DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 4 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 5 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 5 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 6 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 7 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 8 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 9 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0

10 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 10 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 11 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 11 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 12 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 12 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 13 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 13 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 14 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 14 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 15 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 15 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 16 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 17 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0

Plant

18 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT

Plant

18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 $2,500 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 $2,500 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 $2,500 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 4 $2,500 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 $2,500 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 6 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 6 $2,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 7 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 7 $2,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 8 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 $2,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 9 $2,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000

10 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 $2,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 12 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 12 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000

18 Plants / 13

Products

Product

13 1 1 1 2 1 1 2


Product

13 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 Total # of Audits / Products 1 13 18 18 18 18 18 18 Total Cost $3,000 $32,500 $60,500 $63,500 $60,500 $63,500 $60,500 $63,500

Note 1: Adding 8 products for M252 inclusion adds no additional cost.

Table 2 Assumptions: • 1 audit per plant per year. • 1 sample per audit • All products will be sampled within a 5-year period. • All plants will receive a “Master” audit within 5 years.


2.3.1 Details of Proposed Merged Program Elements

The PPI, NTPEP, and ESC MQA programs contained similar program elements. These

common program elements have been used to detail the proposed merged program as

summarizied in Table 5 and detailed in proposed revised NTPEP Work Plan included in

Appendix G. Additionally, in Table 6 an effort has been made to estimate the year-to-year costs

for both a large multi-plant manufacturer and a small single plant manufacturer under the

proposed merged program.

The proposed strategy has been guided by responses to the stakeholders’ survey (Task 2).

Generally, those program elements favored by more than two-thirds of the respondents have

been considered as “consensus” elements to be included in a merged program. Similarly, those

elements favored by more than one-half of respondents have received very strong consideration

for inclusion in the merged program. Conversely, those elements having less than majority

support have been considered for modification or elimination.

It should be noted that survey respondents indicated a near consensus for an independent

MQA program, and, especially among the manufacturers, it was desired that the program merge

as many existing programs as possible into one.

2.3.2 Implementation Plan

A detailed strategy for merging the NTPEP, PPI, and ESC Corrugated HDPE pipe testing

protocols and plant certifications into one MQA program has been proposed. The merger

strategy is to be accompanied by a detailed implementation plan for executing the proposed

strategy and creation of a comprehensive MQA program jointly administered by NTPEP, PPI,

and ESC stakeholders. Following are specific milestones for implementing the proposed revised

NTPEP Work Plan and launching the merged program, including target dates:


Milestone Target Date • NCHRP Panel Approval of Final Study Report, including Revised

NTPEP Work Plan August 2006

• Seek ESC Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan1 August 2006 • Seek PPI Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan &

Negotiate/Revise the Resin Qualification and Listing Program1 August 2006

• Seek PPI Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan 1 August 2006 • NTPEP retains a “Consultant Manager” (Program Administrator) to

Administer the Merged Program under contract to the NTPEP. October 2006

• Consultant Manager reviews the auditing/sampling history of currently participating companies and establishes 5-year plans and cost-estimates.

November 2006

• Consultant Manager takes over resin pre-qualification administration. November 2006• Consultant Manager takes over review of initial QSM submittals and pre-

qualifying new participants November 2006

• Consultant Manager coordinates “Master” and DOT audits (including sampling) and testing/reporting.

January 2007

• Consultant Manager coordinates internet listings and report distribution. January 2007

2.4. TASK 4 - AUDIT TRAINING MANUAL

A plant audit training manual will be needed to guide state highway agencies and private testing

contractors during audits conducted as part of the merged MQA program. The audit-training

manual will include the Program Work Plan, a Quality Systems Manual (QSM) review form, a

set of in-plant audit forms, and additional background information. These materials, except for

the background documents, are included in the Appendices. The Program Work Plan will be

discussed in the next section.

A checklist has been developed to facilitate a comprehensive review of a company’s Quality

Systems Manual (QSM) that must be submitted and approved as a part of the prequalification

process. In addition to the QSM review checklist, a series of audit forms that will be filled out

by the audit team during each in-plant audit and sampling is provided in Appendix G.

The balance of the audit-training manual will provide background information to complement

the audit forms. Specifically, copies of the AASHTO M 294 and M 252 specifications as well as


referenced test methods will be included for reference during audits. Acquisition of these

copyrighted background materials will be the responsibility of the NTPEP.

2.5 TASK 5 - REVISED NTPEP WORKPLAN

A revised NTPEP project work plan for Corrugated HDPE pipe has been developed that reflects

the proposed merger strategy. The proposed revised work plan is presented in Appendix G in a

format suitable for balloting by the NTPEP Oversight Committee.

3. CONCLUSIONS

As anticipated, this research has resulted in a new (proposed) NTPEP project work plan for

Corrugated HDPE pipe that reflects a merger strategy developed in collaboration with the

NTPEP, PPI, and ESC stakeholders. Additionally, the primary components of a plant audit

training manual have been developed to guide state highway agencies and private testing

contractors in implementing the new work plan.

By consolidating the three current corrugated HDPE pipe quality assurance programs into one

nationwide program, cost savings and industry-wide uniformity will be realized while at the

same time enhancing independently verified quality assurance efforts. Specifically, the

manufacturing community will have a single, comprehensive, clearly defined quality assurance

protocol that they can rely on as the basis for doing public business in all participating states and

specifying agencies and owners will have a rigorous, independent quality assurance program that

is funded by the manufacturers on a “user fee” basis.

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendices

9063 Bee Caves Road / Austin, TX 78733 / 512-263-2101 / FAX 263-2558 / 800-880-TEST

APPENDICES

Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) –

Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturer’s Certification (PTPVMC)......Appendix A

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) –

Evaluation of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Program Documents .................................... Appendix B

Eastern States Consortium (ESC) for High Density Polyethylene Pipe –

Program Documents....................................................................................................... Appendix C

Survey of Stakeholders ..................................................................................................Appendix D

Reponses to Survey of Stakeholders.............................................................................. Appendix E

QSM Review Checklist & Resin / Pipe Testing Specifications .....................................Appendix F

Proposed Revised NTPEP Work Plan & Audit Forms..................................................Appendix G

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix A


Appendix A

Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) –

Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturer’s Certification

(PTPVMC)

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix A1

Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI)

Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturer’s Certification

(PTPVMC)

http://www.plasticpipe.org/drainage/

Protocol for Third Party Validation

of Manufacturer's Certification Corrugated HDPE Pipe (300 mm and larger)

For AASHTO M 294/MP7 Applications

Table Of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Definitions

3.0 General

4.0 Pipe Product Certification

5.0 Resin Certification

6.0 Administrator Inspection Of Pipe Manufacturing Facilities

7.0 De-certification After Administrator Inspection and Requalification

8.0 Manufacturer-Administrator Disagreements

9.0 Quality Program

10.0 Miscellaneous

Appendix I

Certified Resin

Certified Pipe

1.0 Introduction This Certification Protocol is part of a third party certification program for HDPE virgin resin and HDPE corrugated pipe sponsored by Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Association (CPPA), a division of the Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc., (PPI). This Certification Protocol constitutes part of the Agreements entered into by the Manufacturer, PPI, and the Administrator.

Under this program, a Manufacturer certifies that products (resin or pipe) it produces under this program meet or exceed the requirements in AASHTO M 294/MP7 (the Standard). The Administrator validates the Manufacturer's certification through appropriate testing and inspection of Manufacturer's virgin HDPE resin and HDPE corrugated pipe, and review of Manufacturer's QC program.

2.0 Definitions 2.1 Administrator: A third party agency designated and authorized by PPI to validate Manufacturer's certification on behalf of PPI in accordance with this Certification Protocol.

2.2 Conformance: Compliance with specified requirements.

2.3 Control: To exercise authority over and regulate.

2.4 Corrective Action: Measures taken to rectify conditions adverse to quality and to eliminate or prevent recurrence.

2.5 Day or Days: In measuring time, the term "day" or "days", as used in this Certification Protocol, refers to calendar and not business days.

2.6 Documentation: Recorded information.

2.7 Manufacturer: any organization producing Products or materials for certification under this third party Certification Protocol. For purposes of this Protocol Manufacturers shall be either pipe producers or resin producers.

2.7.a Pipe producer -- An applicant who makes corrugated polyethylene pipe as specified by AASHTO M 294, Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to 1200- mm Diameter, or AASHTO MP7, Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 1350 and 1500 mm Diameter. 2.7.b Resin producer -- An applicant who makes HDPE virgin resin in accordance with the requirements of AASHTO M 294, Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to 1200- mm Diameter, or AASHTO MP7, Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 1350 and 1500 mm Diameter.

2.8 Product: Corrugated polyethylene pipe as defined in Section 4.2. Product types are corrugated (C), smooth (S) and profile (D). Perforated classes are Class II, Class I and non-perforated.

2.9 Program Mark: As used in this Certification Protocol, the term "Program Mark" refers to a permanent affixation or printing on a pipe, or labeling of a resin box, indicating that the resin or pipe is certified under this Protocol. The Program Mark may also be used in promotional literature as defined in Section 3.8. The PPI Certification Oversight Committee (PPI staff and selected members of PPI) determines the design and information in the Program Mark.

2.10 Quality Assurance: Those planned, systematic, and preventive actions that are required to ensure materials and Products will meet specified requirements.

2.11 Quality Control: Inspection, testing, or examination to ensure materials and Products were produced to conform to specified requirements.

2.12 Quality Program: An established, documented system to ensure quality.

2.13 Validation: The process by which a separate determination is made by the Administrator that Manufacturer's certification is in accordance with the Protocol requirements.

2.14 Verify: Determine that an activity or condition conforms to specified requirements.

3.0 General 3.1 Overview of Program: The main features of the Protocol may be summarized as follows. Manufacturer enters into licensing agreements with PPI and the Administrator. Using AASHTO M 294/MP7 requirements, Administrator tests Manufacturer's product (resin or pipe) to verify compliance with the applicable Standard. Manufacturer will provide copies of test reports and other relevant information to the Administrator for review and verification of completeness and accuracy. Assuming that compliance with the Protocol requirement is demonstrated, Administrator will so notify Manufacturer and PPI. PPI will list Manufacturer in a directory of participating Manufacturers. The Manufacturer is then eligible to use Program Marks for his Administrator-validated product. Administrator will periodically inspect the applicant's place of manufacture to determine continuing compliance with the requirements of the program and the functioning of applicant's quality program. Administrator and PPI both agree to protect the confidentiality of information they receive as detailed in the agreement with Manufacturer.

3.2 Participation: Any Manufacturer of HDPE resin or HDPE corrugated polyethylene pipe as defined in AASHTO M 294/MP7 may participate in the program to certify one or more products under this program. Applicants must enter into an Agreement with the Administrator and PPI. For a pipe Manufacturer having more than one facility, each facility producing certified

Product(s) must participate in the program. As described elsewhere in this Certification Protocol, each participating facility is subject to inspection for the certified Product(s) produced on site.

3.3 PPI Functions:

a. The PPI Certification Oversight Committee guides PPI activity in connection with the Protocol subject to the approval of the PPI Board of Directors, President, and legal counsel.

b. PPI will license the Manufacturer to use the certification Mark on certified product provided the Manufacturer complies with all the requirements set forth in the licensing Agreements with both PPI and the Administrator as well as this Certification Protocol.

c. A diligent effort has been made to select appropriate standards and conduct a reliable program. However, PPI makes no representation, warranty or guarantee in connection with the standard or the program and expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from participation, for any violation of federal, state, or municipal regulation with which the underlying AASHTO standard may conflict, or for the infringement of any patent resulting from the use of the AASHTO standard.

d. PPI shall maintain a current list of certified HDPE resins and notify participating Manufacturers when changes are made. PPI shall also maintain a list of Manufacturers' certified Products. PPI shall promptly advise the Administrator and all participating Manufacturers when revisions or changes have been made to the Standard, and the effective date of implementation under this Protocol.

e. The PPI Certification Oversight Committee shall review the Certification Protocol on an annual basis.

f. The PPI Certification Oversight Committee shall designate the Administrator.

3.4 Administrator Functions: The Administrator shall perform the administration, testing and validation functions under the Protocol. Administrator will conduct in-plant inspections, sample and test pipe and virgin HDPE resin (or confirm resin certification) to validate Manufacturer's certification, develop and review test data and perform other administrative services. Administrator shall verify that an applicant has a functioning quality program. Administrator will notify program participants promptly as to how it will manage re-testing of certified Product(s) and validation of new Product(s).

3.5 Applicable Standards:

a. The Standards designated for this Protocol are AASHTO M 294 and MP7. The requirements from these Standards are outlined in Section 4.2.

b. Questions as to the applicability of the designated Standard to Manufacturer's Products are to be determined by Administrator. Administrator validation applies to the criteria as defined in AASHTO M 294/MP7; Administrator will disregard internal company criteria.

3.6 Revisions to Standard:

a. When AASHTO revises the Standard, the Administrator, consistent with this Certification Protocol, shall notify program participants of how they will handle testing and validation of Products.

b. When a revised Standard is published, a phase-in period as defined in Section 3.6 (c) will be allowed to accommodate compliance with any revision to the Standard. For the purposes of this Certification Protocol, a revision to the Standard shall be considered published when it is printed in its final form and generally available to the public through AASHTO.

c. Testing will be consistent with the revised Standard upon its publication. Testing to the previous specifications or most recent prior revision will be accepted for a period of ninety (90) days after publication of the revision. All certifying Products must be produced in compliance with the latest revision of the Standard within six (6) months of the publication of the revision unless the Administrator notifies participants that a longer period is needed for testing. The Administrator can waive re-testing under the revised Standard when previous test results adequately demonstrate compliance with the revised Standard or if the revised Standard establishes less stringent criteria.

3.7 Program Mark (See Figure 1):

a.By affixing the Program Mark, the resin or pipe Manufacturer is certifying that its products (resin or pipe) have been manufactured, sampled, and tested in accordance with this Protocol and comply with its requirements. In addition, the use of the Program Mark indicates that resin or pipe Manufacturer has obtained approval from PPI to use the Program Mark.

b.The Program Mark represents that the resin or pipe Manufacturer is producing a product that is a faithful representation of the tested and certified product in design, construction and fabrication. Neither PPI nor Administrator represents, warrants or guarantees that products bearing the Program Mark do in fact conform to AASHTO M 294/MP7 requirements.

c. Program Marks are to be printed on or affixed to each length of pipe or box of resin for Manufacturer-certified Products. Manufacturer shall comply with applicable AASHTO marking requirements

d.The Program Mark must be used as shown in Figure 1 and may not be modified. The Program Mark shall not be used or placed in such a manner as to imply any other endorsements or certifications by PPI or the Administrator.

e.The Resin or pipe Manufacturer shall not knowingly release a product for sale with the Program Mark affixed to a product that does not meet the requirements of AASHTO M 294/MP7. If a resin or pipe Manufacturer knowingly releases such products for sale that do not comply with the requirements of AASHTO M 294/MP7, all previously certified product in the non-compliant facility will be automatically de-listed pending inspection and re-certification under Sections 5.5 or 7.5.

3.8 Manufacturer Literature:

a. Resin or pipe Manufacturers are permitted to use the Program Mark in their promotional materials and literature only after an appropriate agreement between the resin or pipe Manufacturer, PPI, and the Administrator is executed and the resin or pipe are certified under this Protocol.

b. To avoid misunderstanding, references to certification in resin or pipe Manufacturer literature must specify the particular products that are certified, unless all of the products mentioned in the literature or advertising are certified under this Protocol.

c. Participating resin or pipe Manufacturers shall provide PPI with copies of current literature and promotional materials that refer to this Certification Protocol. PPI shall review this resin or pipe Manufacturer literature and determine Protocol compliance.

4.0 Pipe Product Certification 4.1 Manufacturer's Request: Manufacturer will contact Administrator to coordinate pipe Product testing for initial Product certification. The PPI designated Administrator and Manufacturer execute a valid licensing Agreement under this Protocol in order to conduct testing. A copy of the Manufacturer's quality control program complying with the Protocol Appendix 1 shall be provided to the Administrator at the time initial certification is sought, and shall be available for Administrator review during plant inspections or as requested by the Administrator.

4.2Product Certification Requirements and Product Attribute Groupings:

Product requirements are in AASHTO M 294 and MP7. Pipe inside diameter requirements are for the minimum inside diameter.

b. Each unique corrugated polyethylene pipe Product that a Manufacturer desires to be certified under this Protocol should be separately tested. For initial certification, and for future plant audits, Administrator will test every pipe diameter. Within each pipe diameter, each product type -- corrugated (C), smooth (S) and profile (D) -- must be tested. For initial certification only, within each product type, see table below to determine priority for testing perforated classes. When one perforated class passes, no further testing is required within that product type:

Priority Perforated class

1 Class II Perforated

2 Class I Perforated

3 Non Perforated

For initial Product certification purposes, it does not matter at which of the Manufacturer's plants the Product is made, provided that the Manufacturer provides an assurance that each of the facilities that produce such Products use the same or similar manufacturing procedures.

Products with similar attributes that can logically be placed in a Product attribute group may be certified based on the testing of a representative Product or Products from the Product attribute grouping. Because it is not practical to define the term Product attribute grouping precisely and because the logical grouping of Products may vary based on the characteristic being assessed, Manufacturers should contact the Administrator to discuss and agree upon the propriety of the Manufacturer's definition of a particular Product attribute group and the necessary associated testing.

4.3 Samples: Pipe samples must be submitted to Administrator in a sufficient quantity to conduct all testing, with:

a. Information showing Manufacturer's name and description of Product.

b. Information demonstrating that the HDPE resin used to fabricate the Product has been certified in accordance with this Protocol.

4.4 Product Test Report:

The Product test report will include the following information:

a. Manufacturer's Name and Address

b. Product Identification

(1) Product name

(2) Product series or model number

c. Product Description

(1) Product Type

(2) Product dimensions (minimum inside diameter, mm; wall thickness, mm; length, m)

(3) Perforation Class (if applicable)

d. Test Results

(1) For each test contained in the specification, the specification paragraph number, the test description, the reference paragraph number, the reference test

method, the applicable criteria measurement for the specification, and the test results are to be listed.

(2) The following is the list of properties to be tested. The test report shall verify compliance achieved (pass/fail), or that the test was not performed where the laboratory does not complete the test. (Parenthetical references are to the relevant sections of AASHTO M 294/MP7).

(a) Minimum inside diameter (7.2.3)

(b) Liner thickness (7.2.2)

(c) Length (7.2.4)

(d) Perforations (7.3)

(e) Pipe stiffness (7.4)

(f) Pipe flattening (7.5)

(g) Environmental stress cracking (7.6)

(h) Brittleness (7.7)

(i) Joint integrity (9.6) (for fittings)

e. Related documentation submitted by Manufacturer.

f. An authorized laboratory representative signature.

Each test report and its related documentation constitute the basic reference material for validation by the Administrator, through in-plant inspection of subsequent manufacture of the Product, that such production is a faithful reproduction in all respects of the certifying specimen and in compliance with the applicable specifications.

4.5 Notice of Product Certification:

a. A notice will be sent to Manufacturer stating the date on which certification has been granted and the Product designation.

b. The Notice of Product Certification shall contain the following information:

(1) Manufacturer's name, pipe diameter, pipe type and all appropriate classes as described in Section 4.2;

(2) Report number and date.

(3) A statement that the quality control program is satisfactory and meets minimum requirements.

4.6 Notice of Product Failure to Certify:

a. If the tested Product does not comply with all the requirements of the Standard, a notice will be sent to Manufacturer by certified mail, return receipt requested, stating that its Product(s) did not certify under the Protocol. De-certification based on unsatisfactory inspection is addressed separately in Section 7.0.

b. The notice will include:

(1) Manufacturer's name, pipe diameter, pipe type and all appropriate classes;

(2) Report number and date; and

(3) The specific test failure or failures on which non-compliance is based.

4.7 Modification of Certified Products:

a. When design changes are made in a certified Product and Manufacturer believes that this change will still result in a Product equivalent to the certified Product, Manufacturer shall notify the Administrator. Manufacturer shall submit a summary of properties in Section 4.2 to the Administrator to demonstrate compliance.

b. This process also applies to changes in Product formulation (raw materials), except that substitution of PPI listed resins from different suppliers is not considered a change in the Product. Equivalency can be established by supplier technical data, pipe producer testing, or generally recognized industry practices.

c. The legal responsibility for the authenticity of submitted data rests on the Manufacturer.

d. This procedure is only intended for use in cases of design changes or Product formulation changes deemed not to affect compliance.

4.8 Recognition of Prior Tests:

a. At the discretion of Administrator, results from tests conducted before this Protocol became effective, or tests conducted before a revision to AASHTO M 294/MP7 is published, may be deemed to satisfy the applicable testing requirement provided that:

(1) The tests and reports fully comply with the Product Certification Requirements of Section 4.2 and provide the information needed by Administrator to validate Manufacturer's certification under AASHTO M 294/MP7;

(2) Administrator deems the testing laboratory to be certified to perform the tests conducted; and

(3) Manufacturer certifies that there has been no change in the Product or production processes that would affect the Product's compliance.

b. The Administrator may request additional information or evidence supporting the request for recognition of prior test results.

5.0 Resin Certification 5.1 Initial certification:

a. Resin Manufacturer contacts the Administrator to request that their HDPE resin be listed by PPI as a certified resin.

b. Administrator conducts material testing per AASHTO M 294/MP7, Section 6.1 to assure compliance with these requirements. In addition, Administrator conducts SP-NCTL testing to assure resin meets the 15% yield stress/24 hour requirement.

c. Administrator notifies resin Manufacturer and PPI that all requirements have been met. PPI will then include the resin on the certified HDPE resin list. A corrugated pipe Manufacturer must use a resin (or combination of resins) that is on the PPI certified resin list. This PPI Protocol does not include recycled or reclaimed HDPE resin. They are not allowed by the AASHTO standards.

d. The corrugated pipe Manufacturer may also independently request PPI listing of their private formulation made by in-plant dry blending two or more virgin PE resins. The pipe Manufacturer must reveal to the Administrator and to PPI the specific resin components and their ratio for this formulation. Administrator tests a melt blend of the formulation to assure that all material requirements of AASHTO M 294/MP7 Section 6.1 have been met (while the individual components may not meet the AASHTO requirements, a melt blend of the components must meet the requirements). Administrator notifies pipe Manufacturer and PPI that all requirements have been met. PPI will then include this material formulation in the certified HDPE resin list. Only the pipe Manufacturer that owns this private formulation may use it for corrugated pipe production. The PPI listing is for this formulation only. A change in either of the HDPE resins, or the supplier used in the blend, would require another listing.

5.2 Non-compliance:

If any listed HDPE resin fails to comply with the requirements of the specification when tested by the Administrator during a pipe plant audit, the following provisions will apply:

a. Administrator will report this to the resin Manufacturer and the pipe Manufacturer and identify the part of the specification the HDPE resin does not comply with.

b. Resin Manufacturer must take corrective action as soon as possible and reply with an action plan within fourteen (14) days of notification that the corrective action has or will be taken.

c. A retest for the HDPE resin that was not in compliance will be scheduled as soon as reasonably possible after corrective action is taken, but no longer than thirty (30) days after the corrective action.

d. If the resin Manufacturer and Administrator do not agree on the retest results, PPI may select another laboratory to conduct the test on the suspect HDPE resin -- see Section 8. PPI will make the final decision on these discrepancies. Any issues related to rounding will follow the guidelines of ASTM E 29. If the HDPE resin is determined to be in non-compliance, PPI will remove that resin from the certified list. PPI will notify all pipe Manufacturers in the program that this resin is no longer certified. The Administrator and pipe Manufacturer shall determine the extent of non-compliance for affected Product in inventory and determine what action, if any, should be taken with respect to its disposition.

e. For the resin Manufacturer to be reinstated on the PPI certified list with the resin deemed to be in non-compliance, that resin is treated as if it were a new product.

6.0 Administrator Inspection of Pipe Manufacturing Facilities 6.1 Frequency:

a. Administrator will conduct its first pipe plant inspection within ninety (90) days after the pipe Manufacturer has been certified.

b. Each year including the first year Administrator will perform a minimum of one (1) in-plant inspection per Manufacturer.

c. Administrator shall inspect each Manufacturer's pipe plant at least once during a five-year period.

d. If the Manufacturer has more than four plants, the Administrator shall not inspect more than 25% of the Manufacturer's plants in a given year (rounded up to higher whole number). If a plant has not been audited in a given calendar year, they shall submit either an internal audit summary or results of another 3rd party audit to the Administrator by April 1 of the following year to demonstrate that plant's conformance to the PPI Protocol.

e. The Administrator shall test each Manufacturer's Product at least once in a five-year period. If the Manufacturer has more than four Products, the Administrator shall not test more than 25% of the Manufacturer's Product line in a given year (rounded up to higher whole number). A Product is defined as each pipe diameter and each pipe type (C, S and D). At least one Product shall be tested each plant audit, regardless of the 25% limit.

These inspections will be unannounced visits made during normal business hours. Manufacturer will provide Administrator with a schedule of normal business hours and holidays, along with Product size range produced at each plant. In the event that Administrator makes an unannounced visit for the purposes of this program during normal business hours, and the pipe plant is closed, Manufacturer will be billed, at the discretion of Administrator, for the visit and revisit.

6.2 Scope:

Administrator's representative will be equipped with copies of the current AASHTO M 294/MP7, other standards or references referred to by AASHTO M 294/MP7, this Certification Protocol, test reports, documentation and other data on Manufacturer's certified Products and any other necessary materials. An integral part of each in-plant inspection will be an examination of Manufacturer's in-house quality program and records. It is the responsibility of Manufacturer to maintain an in-house quality program as outlined in Section 9.0 and Appendix 1 of this Certification Protocol.

6.3 Inspection Testing:

a. Inspection testing will be performed on a sample or samples selected at random by Administrator from the Product line either in production (with corresponding resin) or in inventory at pipe Manufacturer's facility (with corresponding production records). Administrator's inspector will select test samples, appropriately mark them, and see that they are prepared for testing without alteration.

b. Administrator shall use the criteria specified in Sections 4.4.d.2 and 5.2 to verify compliance.

c. The Product samples selected may be transported to the Administrator's laboratory. If Manufacturer has its own test facilities that are acceptable to Administrator, testing of Manufacturer's own pipe in its own facility is permissible provided that Administrator's inspector or representative witnesses it.

d. The cost of these inspection tests will be borne by Manufacturer.

6.4 Immediate Corrective Action:

If the Administrator determines that a Product is not in compliance during a plant inspection, the pipe Manufacturer will be given the opportunity to correct it immediately. The pipe Manufacturer must take immediate corrective action, and must formally inform the Administrator within seven (7) days from the date of the receipt of a notice of non-compliance

(date of plant inspection) of the immediate remedy. If the Administrator approves this immediate remedy, the Manufacturer may continue marking the Product as certified. If the Administrator does not approve the immediate remedy, or if the Manufacturer does not notify the Administrator within seven (7) days, the Administrator will send a notice of de-certification consistent with Section 4.6 and/or 7.0 to the Manufacturer with a copy to PPI.

6.5 Inspection Reports:

a. Administrator will communicate with Manufacturer regarding any matters requiring clarification or other action on the part of Manufacturer. Administrator will discuss its findings with Manufacturer's personnel at the time of the on-site inspection; this is normally done at a closing conference. All official comments or decisions with respect to compliance or non-compliance of a certified Product will be confirmed in writing from the Administrator within thirty (30) days of the site visit.

b. The inspection report is confidential and is mailed only to the pipe Manufacturer or designated representative, with the exception that a copy will be made available to the appropriate PPI staff or counsel upon request.

7.0 De-certification After Administrator Inspection and Re-certification 7.1 Administrator's Notice of Non-Compliance: If the Administrator finds a Product to be in non-compliance after a pipe plant inspection, the Administrator will report this to the pipe Manufacturer via certified mail, return receipt requested with a copy to PPI, within ten (10) days after the determination of the non-compliance. Examples of non-compliance include, but are not limited to, failure to: (1) make faithful reproductions of tested Products, (2) follow this Certification Protocol or the underlying agreements, (3) meet the performance criteria in AASHTO M 294/MP7, and (4) maintain a QA/QC program. Administrator will completely describe the reasons for non-compliance of the Product and inform the Manufacturer of the problem and of the corrective action required. If the Manufacturer and Administrator do not agree on the test results, PPI may select another laboratory to conduct the test on the suspected Product -- see Section 8. PPI will make the final decision on these discrepancies. Any issues related to rounding will follow the guidelines of ASTM E 29.

7.2 Manufacturer Notice of Corrective Action: Upon formal receipt of a notice of non-compliance, the pipe Manufacturer must cease applying Program Marks to the Product listed in the notice of non-compliance. The Administrator and Manufacturer shall determine the extent of non-compliance for this Product in inventory and determine what action, if any, should be taken with respect to its disposition. To resume participation in the program, the Manufacturer must take corrective action as soon as possible and reply within fourteen (14) days that the corrective action has been taken. In addition, a retest for this Product deemed to be in non-compliance must

be scheduled within thirty (30) days after first receiving formal notification of this non-compliance. All costs for this extra Product testing will be borne by the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer may not resume marking the Product as certified under this Protocol until the Administrator approves the corrective action and the retest is in compliance; any Product manufactured before this occurs shall not be marked as certified. If the Administrator does not approve the immediate remedy or if the retest still results in non-compliance, the Administrator will inform the Manufacturer with a copy to PPI and the de-certification notice will be consistent with Section 4.6. If the Product is determined to be in non-compliance, PPI will remove that Product from the certified Product list.

7.3Administrator's Notice of Intentional Non-Compliance:

This paragraph addresses findings of intentional non-compliance, which leads to immediate de-certification of all Products found to be intentionally non-compliant. Examples of intentional non-compliance are: 1) use of a non-PPI listed HDPE resin, 2) repeated non-compliance by the Manufacturer, or 3) falsification of records. The Administrator will report these findings via certified mail to the Manufacturer, return receipt requested, with a copy to PPI within twenty-four (24) hours after a determination of intentional non-compliance. The Administrator will outline the specifics of the findings of intentional non-compliance in the certified letter . Upon receipt of a Notice of Intentional Non-Compliance, the Manufacturer must cease applying Program Marks to all Products found intentionally non-compliant, and make a good-faith effort to recall all non-compliant Products. In addition, all intentionally non-compliant Products in the care and custody of the Manufacturer must have the Program Marks removed or obliterated. PPI will immediately remove all intentionally non-compliant Products from the list of certified Products.

7.4 Suspension of Manufacturer Literature: A final determination of intentional non-compliance will require suspension of the use of Manufacturer literature that represents the intentionally non-compliant Product as certified under this Protocol. Manufacturer will discontinue distribution or use of the literature and remove or obliterate all inappropriate references from literature in the Manufacturer's care, custody, and control.

7.5 Requalification: To re-certify the excluded Product following intentional non-compliance, the Manufacturer must reapply and submit the same full testing and inspection data that apply to new Products. In the event of an intentional non-compliance, the manufacturer's certification under this protocol shall be suspended for a period of six months. Upon conclusion of the six-month suspension, the manufacturer may apply for product certification under this protocol through the submittal of testing and inspection data as required for newly certified products.

8.0 Manufacturer-Administrator Disagreements A thorough understanding of this Certification Protocol and proper operation of the program should minimize any disputes or disagreements. If, however, a disagreement or dispute arises between a resin or pipe Manufacturer and Administrator concerning the certification of a Product or other aspects of this program, the resin or pipe Manufacturer may request that the PPI Executive Director review the Administrator's determination.

8.1 Procedure and Timing of Review: Manufacturer-Administrator disagreements shall be handled as follows:

1. On receipt of written notice of de-certification, the pipe or resin Manufacturer has seven (7) days to notify PPI and the Administrator that Manufacturer is seeking review of the Administrator's determination. The resin or pipe Manufacturer's notice must be in writing and contain sufficient information to accurately identify the factual background, the nature of the dispute, and the decision or action sought.

2. After receipt of Manufacturer's notice, Administrator has seven (7) days to submit materials to PPI supporting the Administrator's determination.

3. Within fourteen (14) days of receiving resin or pipe Manufacturer's notice, PPI will form a review panel, whose members shall include the PPI Executive Director, PPI Counsel, and other neutral qualified individuals with pertinent laboratory, technical, or industry experience. The PPI Executive Director shall chair the review panel and determine the panel's composition in consultation with PPI Counsel.

4. The review panel may, at its discretion, hold hearing(s) on the issues raised in Manufacturer's notice. The PPI review panel will promptly inform the PPI Certification Oversight Committee of the disagreement, and seek any guidance or comments that the PPI Certification Oversight Committee might wish to make.

5. The review panel will strive to reach a determination within thirty (30) days after receipt of Manufacturer's notice.

6. If the review panel has not reached a determination within thirty (30) days after receipt of Manufacturer's notice, the PPI Executive Director shall so inform the President of PPI.

7. If the review panel has not reached a determination within forty-five (45) days after receipt of Manufacturer's notice, the PPI Executive Director, with advice of PPI Counsel, shall render a final determination on Manufacturer's request. In the event that the PPI Executive Director is unavailable or incapacitated, the person empowered to act as President will make a final determination, provided that person has no conflicting commercial interest, such as being

employed by a competing company or being a past employee of the contesting Manufacturer. In this case, the Vice President will make the final determination.

8.2 Marking During Review Process: Except when it appears to the PPI Review Panel that the alleged defect or other deficiency may have a significant adverse effect on the quality or performance of the pipe in question, the resin or pipe Manufacturer may continue to mark the Product in question during the review process. If de-certification is sustained by PPI, Manufacturer will cease marking the de-certified product. Any master list of certified products will be changed promptly if de-certification is upheld.

9.0 Quality Program Manufacturer shall prepare and maintain a written (hard copy or electronic) QA/QC program to ensure that the quality of Products is in accordance with the requirements of the underlying agreements, this Certification Protocol Appendix 1 and AASHTO M 294/MP7. When establishing its quality program, each Manufacturer should include elements that it considers necessary to assure that Products meet the requirements of the standard and other quality criteria. The Manufacturer shall also provide information that demonstrates tracability of the pipe to the certified resin. A copy of the quality program shall be provided to the Administrator at the time initial certification is sought and shall be available for Administrator review during plant inspections or as requested by the Administrator.

10.0 Miscellaneous 10.1 Public Statements and Confidentiality: PPI and the Administrator will not make any public comments on the status of a particular Manufacturer's Products or test results except to note whether Manufacturer's Products appear in the program directory of certified Manufacturers. Special care must be taken to ensure that no comments are made concerning the status of any Manufacturer's Product during the testing and certification period. At no time shall public comments be made concerning Manufacturers who chose not to participate in this program. As used here, "public comments" include statements at PPI meetings. PPI and Administrator are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information received from participating companies. This obligation is detailed in the formal agreement between PPI and the Administrator, and in the individual agreement between Manufacturer and the Administrator and PPI.

10.2 Directory: Administrator will report monthly to PPI on companies and Products certifying under the program as well as changes or de-certifications. PPI will prepare a list or directory of certified HDPE resins and Manufacturers whose Products are certified under the program. The

directory will be revised periodically to add newly certified Products or Manufacturers and delete discontinued Products or decertified Manufacturers.

10.3 Use of Non-participating Products: This program is not intended in any way to inhibit the purchase or use of Products from companies not approved to use the Program Mark.

10.4 Patent Rights: Nothing contained in this program is to be construed as granting any rights, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use in connection with any method, apparatus, or Product covered by patents, nor as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of patents.

10.5 Fees: Manufacturer is required to pay promptly any applicable fees due to PPI or the Administrator, or other costs as described in the underlying Agreement or this Certification Protocol. Failure to pay fees per invoice terms will subject Manufacturer to de-certification or exclusion from the program.

10.6 Modification of Guidelines: The PPI Board of Directors will approve all revisions to this Certification Program.

APPENDIX I QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

I.1 Quality Control Plan I.1.1 It is the responsibility of the Manufacturer to control the quality of the Products produced and to provide the quality control information needed for acceptance by the buyer/user. The Manufacturer is required to perform quality control sampling, testing and record keeping on all products they produce. All Products produced by the Manufacturer must meet all the requirements of the standard specifications, which for corrugated polyethylene pipe are AASHTO M294/MP7. Since each Manufacturer is knowledgeable about their manufacturing process and Product's history, each Manufacturer determines their appropriate quality control testing frequency. Suggested minimum frequencies for tests outlined in Section 4.4.d.(2) are:

(a) Minimum inside diameter once per week

(b) Liner thickness once per week

(c) Length once per day

(d) Perforations once per week

(e) Pipe stiffness three times per week

(f) Pipe flattening three times per week

(g) Environmental stress cracking once per production run

(h) Brittleness three times per week

(i)Joint integrity (for fittings) once per production run

I.1.2 The Manufacturer must supply to the Administrator a written quality control plan that details how the Manufacturer will control the equipment, materials, and production methods to insure that the specified products meet the requirements of AASHTO M294/MP7. The following information must be included in this quality control plan:

I.1.2.1 Provide a list of manufacturing facilities and location of plants.

I.1.2.2 Provide a list of the applicable Products produced at each plant.

I.1.2.3 Provide the name and title of the individual responsible for the quality control program at each plant.

I.1.2.4 Identify the method of sampling and testing of raw materials and Product including the lot size and tests performed.

I.1.2.5 Designate the frequency for each test conducted by the Manufacturer.

I.1.2.6 Designate the methods used to identify each lot of material during manufacturing, testing, storage and shipment.

I.1.2.7 Identify program for handling nonconforming product (resin or pipe) and investigation and corrective action procedures to remedy the problem.

I.2 Annual Update I.2.1 An annual update is required for all plants that were not subject to an Administrator audit during the calendar year. This update will assure the Administrator that all requirements of AASHTO M 294/MP7 were met for all the certified Products by summarizing results of QC tests in accordance with the Manufacturer's QC plan.

I.2.2 The Manufacturer must submit this annual update to the Administrator by April 1 of the following year.

I.2.3 The Administrator will review the Manufacturer's annual update to verify that the quality control plan has been implemented and is being followed.

I.3 Sampling and Testing I.3.1 The quality control plan approved for each Manufacturer and/or Manufacturer's location shall detail the methods and frequency of sampling and testing for all raw materials and products purchased or manufactured at that location. All testing shall be in accordance with current specifications and procedures referenced in AASHTO M294/MP7.

I.3.2 Samples of materials and pipe may be taken by the specifying agency.

I.3.3 Specifying agency may require annual third party independent assurance tests.

I.3.4 Samples must be identified for record keeping.

I.3.5 Manufacturer's Quality Control samples are to be uniquely identified by producing plant.

I.3.6 Quality Control and Quality Assurance data are to be retained by the Manufacturer for two years and made available to the specifying agency upon request.

I.3.7 Quality Control test reports shall include the lot identification.

I.3.8 Unless requested at the time of ordering, test reports do not have to be filed for specific projects.

I.3.9 Reports shall indicate the action taken to resolve non-conforming product.

Certified Resin All high density polyethylene resin products listed below meet the requirements established by Section 6.1 in AASHTO M 294 or MP7 as applied by the PPI Third Party Certification Program.

ADS GS100 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company Marlex® C514 Dow Chemical Co. DGDA 2475 ExxonMobil Chemical HDA-020 HD7800P Paxon AA53-003 ™ Equistar Chemical LP Alathon L5332CP (formerly LYHD048) Formosa Plastics Corporation Resin FPC HP5221 Resin FPC E602 Hancor Resin 8 ™ NOVA Chemicals Corporation NOVAPOL® HP-Y353-A BP Solvay Polyethylene North America Fortiflex® CP52-35 Fortiflex® K54-05 Fortiflex® G50-100 Petromont, Inc. Petromont HDPE 4101 Total Petrochemicals Usa, Inc. HDPE CD-522

Certified Pipe Be Certain. Buy Certified. All high density polyethylene pipe products listed below meet the requirements established in AASHTO M 294 or MP7 as applied by the PPI Third Party Certification Program.

Manufacturer Trade Name

Pipe Size Product Description

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.

12", 15", 18", 24" I.D.

Corrugated Type C/CP Polyethylene Pipe


N-12

12", 15", 18", 24", 30", 36", 42", 48", 60" I.D.

Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP Polyethylene Pipe

Baughman Tile Company 12", 15",

18" I.D. Corrugated Type C/CP Polyethylene Pipe

Baughman Tile Company 12", 15" Corrugated Type S Polyethylene Pipe with in-

line bell & spigot

Baughman Tile Company

Poly Smooth-Line

12", 15", 18", 24", 30", 36" I.D.


Hancor Sure-Lok F477

12", 15", 18", 24", 30", 36", 42", 48", 60" I.D.


Hancor Blue Seal

12", 15", 18", 24", 30", 36", 42", 48", 60" I.D.


Hancor 12", 15", 18" & 24" I.D.

Corrugated Type CP w/ Split Coupling Polyethylene Pipe

Hancor 12" 15" & Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ Split Coupling

18" I.D. Polyethylene Pipe

Hancor 24" and 30" I.D.

Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ no joints Polyethylene Pipe

Hancor Sure-Lok 54" I.D. Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ Bell & Spigot Polyethylene Pipe

Haviland Drainage Products

12", 15", 18", 24", 30", 36", 42", 48" I.D.

Corrugated Smooth Type S/SP Polyethylene Pipe

Haviland Drainage Products

12", 15", 18", 24" I.D.

Corrugated Type C/CP (no joints tested) Polyethylene Pipe

Lane Enterprises, Inc.

12", 15", 18", 24" 30", 36", 42", 48" I.D.


Quality Culvert, Inc.

12", 15", 18", 24" 30", 36", 42", 48" I.D.


Soleno, Inc.

12", 15", 18", 21", 24", 30", 36", 42", 48"


Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix B


Appendix B

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) –

Evaluation of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Program Documents

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix B1

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP)

http://www.ntpep.org

Last Rev. 12/07/04 NTPEP Home : Plastic Pipe

Thermoplastic Plastic Pipe for Highway Applications

PROJECT PANEL PROJECT WORK PLAN TEST FACILITIES NTPEP REPORTS SUBMIT A PRODUCT Project Panel Minutes INDUSTRY RESOURCES

NTPEP Reports on HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Chair: David Meggers, Kansas DOT Vice Chair: Thomas Baker, Washington DOT

Plastic pipe is intended for surface and subsurface drainage applications where soil provides suport to its flexible walls. Its major use is to collect or convey drainage water by open gravity flow, as culverts, storm drains, etc. For purposes of this NTPEP evaluation AASHTO has contracted with private testing laboratories for all physical testing. Three AASHTO-select labs were selected by the NTPEP Project Panel for Plastic Pipe; they are: Ohio University, Utah State University and TRI/Environmental, Inc. (Austin, Texas).

Currently, NTPEP is testing HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) Plastic Pipe. Testing protocols are described in the "Project Work Plan." All testing conforms with the latest version of AASHTO M294 Standard Specification. The NTPEP Project Panel responsible for authoring the Project Work Plan convenes yearly at the NTPEP National (Annual) Meeting. During this working meeting, the Project Work Plan is discussed, changes made, and shortly thereafter balloted for adoption. Improvements are immediately implemented in the next available testing cycle. When compared to other standards development exercises, the NTPEP process is agile, effective and efficient. -NTPEP-

PLASTIC PIPE PROJECT PANEL -- The NTPEP Project Panel is the working group charged with developing and maintaining the Project Work Plan for testing of a particular product, material or device. The Project Panel convenes at least annually in conjunction with the NTPEP Annual Meeting. Project Panel membership may range from six to ten AASHTO members; and up to two Industry members assigned by the NTPEP Chairman.

NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE David Meggers

(CHAIR) Kansas DOT (785) 291-3845

Tom Baker (VICE CHAIR)

Washington State DOT (360) 709-5588

Peter Kemp (Panel Member)

Wisconsin DOT (608) 246-7953

Oscar Mousavi (Panel Member)

Arizona DOT (602) 712-8200

L. David Suits (Panel Member)

New York DOT (518) 457-4704

Jim Goddard (INDUSTRY MEMBER)

Plastics Pipe Institute (614) 658-0248

Tim Toliver (INDUSTRY MEMBER)

Hancor, Inc. (419) 424-8243

PROJECT WORK PLAN -- NTPEP tests products according to a Project Work Plan, which describes the laboratory and/or field test protocols used to conduct the evaluation. The Project Work Plan is a consensus-based document, and includes peer review and input from industry experts. Each Project Work Plan is adopted after receiving at least two-thirds affirmative support from 52 AASHTO member states. The Project Work Plan is the basis for host states to conduct their testing and evaluation. When implemented by state DOTs, their own state standard specifications may supersede the NTPEP Project Work Plan. Industry is advised to be aware of state-level requirements, which may supersede basic NTPEP testing.

PROJECT WORK PLAN Project Work Plan for Laboratory Evauation of HDPE Pipe

(7 pages, 187 KB)

. . . Get the Plug-In

AASHTO-SELECT TEST FACILITIES -- Early on in development of their Project Work Plan, the NTPEP Project Panel for thermoplastic pipe made a decision to utilize private testing services in lieu of State DOT forces. Through communication and collaboration over several Project Panel meetings held in conjunction with the Annual NTPEP Meeting, three university/private testing facilities were identified. For purposes of the current NTPEP-coordinated testing program, the AASHTO-Select private testing labs are:

Ohio University (Athens, OH) -- ORITE, Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment

Utah State University (Logan, UT) -- UWRL, Utah Water Research Lab

Texas Research International, Inc. (Austin, TX)

. [OPTION 1] -- Electronic Application with PDF e-Forms, .OPTION 1 requires the freely available Adobe Acrobat Reader. (To save completed e-Forms to your hard drive, purchase "Acrobat Approval.")

.

[STEP 1] Download and review Project Work Plan, General Notes and Fee Schedule.....

.

GENERAL DOCUMENTS "Project Work Plan";

"General Notes";

. .

[STEP 2] Download and complete one Product Evaluation FORM (PEF) for every product being submitted for NTPEP test. Note, you must complete one form per brand name (product designation) being submitted.

.

Product Evaluation Form (PEF) Adobe e-FORM Product Evaluation Form

(1 page, 620 KB)

.

.

[STEP 3] Download and complete "Fee Calculation Sheet" for submitting products indicated on PEFs... . .

FEE CALC SHEET MS WORD ONLY

"Fee Calc Sheet for 2004 HDPE Plastic Pipe Evaluation"

(1 page, 300 KB)

.

.

[STEP 4] Mail completed application to AASHTO/NTPEP, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.

You will be contacted next by Mr. David Meggers (Kansas DOT) with instructions on product sampling,

handling and shipping. The following document describes those sampling requirements:

[OPTION 2] -- Fax-on-Demand Application,

. . . . Request Application Forms (provide your name, company and fax number)

INDUSTRY RESOURCES

ASTM International

Plastics Pipe Institute

UNI-BELL PVC Pipe Association FHWA Hydraulics & Hydrology Research

. . . . <SUBMIT A RESOURCE LINK>

Copyright © 2000 AASHTO. All rights reserved. Legal Information | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice

Bradley L. Mallory, President Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and John C. Horsley Transportation Officials Executive Director

Executive Office: 444 N. Capitol St., N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C. 20001

July 1, 2002

To the Attention of Manufacturers of HDPE Plastic Pipe Dear Industry: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) under our National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) is pleased to announce launch of it’s coordinated evaluation on HDPE Plastic Pipe. NTPEP is a technical service program which pools professional and physical resources of AASHTO member departments. Through dialogue with Industry, NTPEP establishes rigorous, yet cost-effective, testing on commonly used proprietary engineered products. Data generated by NTPEP is valuable for State DOTs to develop and maintain Qualified Products Listings (QPL). Additionally, the data is valuable to participating industry for corroborating their published specifications. While AASHTO/NTPEP does not endorse or approve products, we do allow industry to mention the evaluation has been conducted through NTPEP. Evaluation results will be readily available to the general public. AASHTO/NTPEP accepts application for testing on a “rolling basis.” To facilitate handling of product submissions, please visit our Internet website (www.ntpep.org) where application instructions and E-forms are available for download in PDF format:

http://www.transportation.org/programs/ntpep/home.nsf/AllPages/PlasticPipe

For your questions regarding NTPEP, or AASHTO in general, please feel free to contact the NTPEP Coordinator at (202) 624-3695 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Very truly yours,

Mujeeb Basha Mujeeb A. Basha, PE NTPEP Coordinator Sr. Staff Engineer, AASHTO cc: NTPEP Oversight Committee Subcommittee on Materials

Telephone (202) 624-5800 Telefax (202) 624-5806 Telex 49000095800 HTO

http://www.ntpep.org/

http://www.transportation.org/programs/ntpep/home.nsf/AllPages/PlasticPipe

mailto:[email protected]

Bradley L. Mallory, President Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and John C. Horsley Transportation Officials Executive Director

Executive Office: 444 N. Capitol St., N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone (202) 624-5800 Telefax (202) 624-5806 Telex 49000095800 HTO

Photos courtesy of TRI/Environmental, Inc. (Austin, Texas)

Pipe Testing

Stiffness and FlatteningASTM D 2412 Next


Pipe Testing

Pipe in Freezer for Brittleness

TestingASTM D 2444

Dimensions (Thickness) -ASTM D 2412

Resin Density ASTM D 1505

Next


Resin Stress Crack Resistance (SP-NCTL) -

ASTM D 5397

Next

http://www.transportation.org/programs/ntpep/home.nsf/AllPages/PlasticPipe?OpenDocument

Last Rev: November 19, 2004 1



Project Work Plan for Evaluation

of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe

November 2004 Program Purpose: A. To provide complete testing of thermoplastic pipe products in accordance with the

AASHTO Materials Specifications. State DOT materials laboratories are not generally equipped to conduct all of the tests referenced in the standards, and equipping all, or most, of the labs to do so would not be cost effective. Some of the test procedures are quite specialized and the equipment would not be useable for other products or materials.

B. To provide a listing of pipe products, by diameter and manufacturer, tested to the

requirements of the AASHTO Material Specifications (M 294, & MP7). This includes a list of base resins used in the manufacture of these products by resin manufacturer and product number or designation.

C. The test results reported through this program are provided to AASHTO member

departments, as a central primary source of information that offers credible, reliable data. Member departments are encouraged to apply this information, as they deem appropriate to their individual agencies’ requirements. The results may be used for product acceptance and/or quality assurance by individual member departments. If used for quality assurance, member departments may require certification of compliance with all material specification requirements, including testing dates, testing frequency and the facility/laboratory where the tests were conducted.

Tests/Practices to be Included: ASTM D 638 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics ASTM D 790 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced

Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials ASTM D 1238 Standard Test Method for Melt Flow Rates of Thermoplastics by Extrusion

Plastometer ASTM D 1505 Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the Density-Gradient

Technique ASTM D 1603 Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics


Tests/Practices to be Included (continued): ASTM D 2122 Standard Test Method for Determining Dimensions of Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings ASTM D 2412 Standard Test Method for Determination of External Loading Characteristics of Plastic Pipe by Parallel-Plate Loading ASTM D 2444 Standard Test Method for Determination of Impact

Resistance of Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings by Means of a Tup (Falling Weight)

ASTM D 3350 Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials ASTM D 5397 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Stress Crack Resistance of Polyolefin Geomembranes Using Notched Constant Load Test _______________ All ASTM test methods referenced herein, are copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA 19428-2959. Introduction: The AASHTO NTPEP for Thermoplastic Pipe could be used as part of a comprehensive quality control / quality assurance program for thermoplastic pipe and the resins from which it is manufactured. Under this program the Manufacturer certifies that the thermoplastic pipe it produces meets or exceeds the requirements in AASHTO M 294M or AASHTO MP7. The appropriate NTPEP testing, inspection, and review of the Manufacturer’s manufacturing and test facilities validate the Manufacturer’s certification. The Manufacturer’s quality control / quality assurance program shall be submitted for review and approval by the NTPEP Manager. Overview of the Program: The NTPEP test facilities test the Manufacturer’s product(s) to test compliance with the applicable standard. The Manufacturer will provide copies of the test reports and other relevant information to the NTPEP Manager for review and verification of completeness and accuracy. Assuming compliance with the NTPEP and the applicable AASHTO Specifications is demonstrated; the NTPEP Manager will list the product(s) in the NTPEP listing of tested products. Participation: Any manufacturer of thermoplastic pipe as defined in AASHTO M 294M and/or AASHTO MP7 may participate in the program to test one or more products or diameters under this program. Manufacturers of resin used in the manufacture of thermoplastic pipe may participate in the program to test one or more resins under this program.


NTPEP Functions: 1. So long as the Manufacturer complies with all of the requirements set forth in the NTPEP,

and tested in accordance with the applicable AASHTO specifications, the Manufacturer’s product(s) will be listed in the NTPEP reports as having been tested.

2. Testing will be consistent with the revised specification upon its publication by AASHTO. Testing to the previous specifications or most recent prior revision will be accepted for a period of ninety (90) days after publication of the revision. All qualifying products must be produced in compliance with the latest revision of the standard within six (6) months of the publication of the revision, unless the NTPEP Manager notifies participants that a longer period is needed for testing. The Coordinator can waive re-testing under the revised Standard when previous test results adequately demonstrate compliance with the revised Standard or if the revised Standard establishes less stringent criteria.

Product Qualification: 1. The pipe manufacturer will contact the NTPEP Manager to arrange for initial product

testing. One or more of the testing agencies or laboratories accepted will do all testing by the NTPEP.

2. Product certification requirements are outlined in the appropriate AASHTO specifications. Both pipe and resin compounds from which the pipe is made shall be tested and listed by NTPEP by product or resin manufacturer, diameter, or product number or name.

3. Each unique corrugated or profile wall, thermoplastic pipe product should be separately tested.

Test Samples: 1. Samples must be submitted to the designated laboratories in sufficient quantity to conduct all

testing, along with: a. information showing the manufacturer’s name and description of product; b. information demonstrating that the resin or resin compound used in the manufacture of

the product meets the current AASHTO specification requirements; c. A sample of the resin or resin compound in sufficient quantity to conduct the specified

resin tests.

Test Report: The test report will include the following information. See page 7 of Work Plan for TYPICAL report: 1. Manufacturer’s Name and Address, including primary corporate person. 2. Product Identification:

a. Product Name b. Product Series, model number, product number, diameter, and/or lot number or

identification. 3. Product Description


Test Report (Continued): 4. Product Type (or Class) 5. Product dimensions (for pipe, minimum inside diameter, wall thickness, length, liner

thickness, perforations, etc.) 6. Perforation class (if applicable) 7. Test Results (compared to minimum requirements)

a. Pipe Stiffness (required and test results) b. Flattening (Buckling point in % deflection) c. Impact results d. ESCR e. SP-NCTL f. Carbon Black Percentage g. Profile stability h. Joint performance (if applicable)

8. Related docume ntation submitted by the manufacturer Modification of Qualified Products (Retest Requirements): 1. When design changes are made in an NTPEP listed product, the Manufacturer shall notify

the NTPEP Manager. Any changes in manufacturing method, product weight, or pipe wall design shall be considered a design changes. This process also applies to changes in either resin or resin compounds; except that substitution of an NTPEP listed resin for another NTPEP listed resin is not considered a change in the product.

Inspection of Manufacturing Facilities: 1. Departments of Transportation and Federal Agencies using the NTPEP listing have the right

to: a. Visit and inspect the manufacturing facilities of any Manufacturer participating in the

program to assure compliance. These visits need not be announced. b. Randomly select sample of product (or resin, or resin compound) for confirmation testing

by the NTPEP participating test facilities. Such testing, above and beyond the basic program requirements, shall be at the DOT or Agency expense, unless the tested product(s) does not meet the specification requirements, in which case the manufacturer shall bear the cost of testing and any subsequent re-testing required. A product’s failure to comply will result in removal from the NTPEP listing.

c. Disagreements regarding test results shall be handled by a review process wherein the product is tested at another laboratory in the program or is tested in a round-robin program including the manufacturer and two of the NTPEP test facilities.


Quality Program and Performance Testing: 1. The Manufacture shall prepare and maintain a written QC/QA program to ensure that the

quality of products is in accordance with the requirements of the AASHTO Materials Specifications and the NTPEP agreements. Each manufacturer should include elements that it considers necessary to assure that products meet the requirements of the standards and other quality criteria. The Manufacturer shall maintain records that will demonstrate traceability of the pipe to the resin. Pipe/Resin records and a copy of the quality program shall be available for the NTPEP Manager to review as well as to State DOTs and other agencies participating in the NTPEP.

2. Product performance testing, such as soil cell testing (Utah State University, Ohio

University, University of Massachusetts, University of Western Ontario) and laboratory testing (California State University, Sacramento, Utah State University, Ohio University, University of Massachusetts, University of Western Ontario) should be included in any product submittal to verify performance of product designs.

[THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY BLANK]


TYPICAL REPORT FORMAT

AASHTO NTPEP Polyethylene Pipe Test Report

Manufacturer_______________________________________ Plant Name ________________________________Corporate Address __________________________________ Plant Address _______________________________ __________________________________ ________________________________City ___________________________ City ___________________________ State ______________ Zip Code ____________ State ________________ Zip Code ____________Corporate Contact ________________________ Plant Contact ________________________Phone ______________ FAX ______________________ Phone ______________ FAX ________________

Plant Designation Code _______________________TEST DATE: ___________________________________

PIPE CELL CLASS 335400C

Product Identification: _______________________Product Description: _______________________Product Type or Class _______________________

Inside Diameter __300 mm_____________________Length ______________________________Perforations (if applicable) ______________________

ASTM D 3350 Pipe Classification __________________AASHTO M 294 Pipe Type - C, CP, S, SP or DFor Perforated Pipe, Perforation Type: Class 1 Or Class 2

Test ReportA

STM

D 3212

AST

M D

3350

AA

SHT

O M

294

Test Description Specification Limits Test Results __________DOT TestASTM D 638 X X Tensile Strength at Yield 3000 psi - <3500 psiASTM D 790 X X Flexural Modulus 110,000 psi to < 160,000 psiASTM D 1693 X X ESCR Test,ASTM D 1238 X X Melt Index 0.4 to 0.15ASTM D 1505 X Density >0.940 gm/cc - 0.955 gm/ccASTM D 1505 X Density >0.955 gm/cc - 0.955 gm/ccASTM D 2122 X X Inside DiameterASTM D 2122 X X Wall ThicknessASTM D 2412 X Pipe Stiffness @ 5%ASTM D 2412 X Pipe Stiffness @ 10%ASTM D 2444 X Brittleness, Impact TestAASHTO M 294 X Flattening less than 20%AASHTO M 294 X Joint IntegrityAASHTO M 294 X PerforationsASTM C 1603 X Carbon Black % >2% minAASHTO M 294 X X Carbon Black % >2% not to exceed 5%ASTM D 3212 X Pressure TestASTM D 3212 X Vacuum Pressure TestASTM D 3212 X Joint Qualification Test

TEST COMMENTS: _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION


“General Notes”, Page 1 of 3

Instructions: Read these “General Notes”, sign acknowledgement on page 10, and return these “General Notes” with your completed application package.

1. All materials and/or products to be tested will be furnished by the manufacturer/supplier at no cost to the NTPEP. Samples will be selected for testing by Department of Transportation personnel.

2. Manufacturers/suppliers will submit a Product Evaluation Form (PEF) for each sample product submitted for testing to the NTPEP Manager.

3. Manufacturers/suppliers shall attach a check payable to AASHTO for the amount indicated on the attached “Testing Fee Schedule” based upon the type or diameter of product and number of samples to be tested.

4. Incomplete, inaccurate and/or erroneous information furnished as part of the form could result in the material being rejected for testing.

5. A handling fee of 10% of the testing fee will be charged if a Product Evaluation Form (PEF) is withdrawn prior to the beginning of the testing process. Testing fees will not be refunded once the testing process has begun.

6. A manufacturer/supplier may elect to withdraw their product from the current test cycle with a written request to the NTPEP Manager at least five business days before the next test cycle begins. If the NTPEP Manager approves the request, then the test results will not appear in the product report with a statement that the product has been withdrawn from the program and no test results will be reported.

7. A non-interference policy is in effect in regard to manufacturer/supplier inquiry as to the performance of their product under evaluation. Following submission of the product report to the NTPEP Manager, the manufacturer/supplier will be given fourteen days to review their test data. This request for comments and review will be in writing. All comments on the Product Report shall be addressed to the NTPEP Manager, and sent to AASHTO Headquarters, Washington, DC.

8. AASHTO member departments may use the laboratory test data obtained from the products evaluated by NTPEP; to establish their approved or qualified products lists.

9. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) will copyright the printed reports with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The report or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission by AASHTO.



10. The manufacturer/supplier is hereby notified that the NTPEP reserves the right to release or distribute information included in or attached to the PEF, as well as the test results obtained as part of our field and laboratory procedures.

11. Appeals by the manufacturer/supplier, in regards to test results, will be done in accordance with the appeals process in the NTPEP Policies and Procedures.

12. Continuance of product listing by AASHTO/NTPEP requires testing for re-evaluation every three years. Re-testing must be done if there is any significant change in the product composition, raw materials source (resin), and/or physical properties.

13. Participating manufacturer should be aware; AASHTO member departments may require state-level specifications that supercede NTPEP testing. Manufacturers are encouraged to be aware of these requirements, and to take proactive measures to satisfy them, outside the scope of NTPEP participation.

14. All testing shall be done at AASHTO-select laboratory/facilities, under contract with AASHTO/NTPEP. These labs currently include: Texas Research International, Austin, Texas; Ohio University, Athens, Ohio; Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

15. All laboratories participating in the program shall submit a QC/QA plan, which will be kept on file with the NTPEP Manager. Through written request, this document(s) will be made available for review by participating industry, and member departments.

16. Dependent upon sample load, participating manufacturer may elect to have their pipes tested by either Ohio University of Utah State University. Sampling of product will be done according to this NTPEP Work Plan, by state DOT inspectors.

17. A non-interference policy is in effect with regard to manufacturer inquiry, as to the performance of their product under evaluation. AASHTO-select labs are under contract with NTPEP with respect to ensuring confidentiality of “early test results”. Manufacturer/supplier may NOT contact any AASHTO-select lab to inquire about their “early test results”.



18. According to NTPEP bylaws, AASHTO members and participating manufacturers have access to “early test results” of NTPEP data. Information is made available by contacting the NTPEP Manager. Such requests must be made in writing. Whenever a member department requests “early test results”, the participating manufacturer is informed of the request.

19. Testing of new products or modified products shall be done on a quarterly testing cycle. Manufacturers may submit products on a “rolling basis”, throughout the year. Depending upon sample load, products submitted for NTPEP evaluation will be included in the next practicable, available testing cycle.

NAME ______________________________________________________ TITLE _______________________________________________________ COMPANY ___________________________________________________ ADDRESS ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ SIGNATURE _________________________________________________ TODAY’S DATE ______________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail check for the sum total of testing fees payable to “AASHTO/NTPEP”. Mail to bank lock box addressed, simply:

AASHTO/NTPEP Dept. 5051

Washington, D. C. 20061-5051 Send the completed Product Evaluation Form(s) (PEF), technical bulletins, product specifications, MSDS, other pertinent literature and instructions, and a copy of the check to:

AASHTO/NTPEP Attn.: Michael McGough, EIT

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

PIPE(2005) - ________ (For Office Use)

HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Product Evaluation Form (PEF)

PIPE SIZE(S) BEING SUBMITTED:

1. Product Trade Name: 12” 15” 18” 24” 30”

30” 36” 42” 48” 60”

Other Sizes ______________________

Manufacturer: Corporate Mail Address: Street or PO Box City State ZIP Code

2. Manufacturer’s Contact Person: (print name) Contact Mail Address: (if different than above) Street or PO Box City State ZIP Code Phn#: ( ) Fax#: ( ) E-mail: 3. Please describe the Product in 100 words or less. This description may be used in the final report under sample

identification to describe the product:

4. Material Composition Generic Description

5. Does your Product meet requirements of the following specifications? (Indicate Subgroup when appropriate) (a) AASHTO ASTM Fed. Spec. Other _______________ (b) AASHTO ASTM Fed. Spec. Other _______________

6. Is Product Commercially Available? ë Yes ë No Year Introduced on Market? __________ 7. Which AASHTO-Select Private Testing Lab do want to run tests on your Product ? (Pick One) RESIN TESTS… [OU] [TRI] HDPE PIPE TESTS… [USU] [OU] [TRI]

8. The manufacturer/supplier shall attach the following information to the PEF in order to substantiate, verify, or

clarify its contents: Product/Materials Literature, Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), Installation instructions. 9. Signature : Date:_______________________________ (For follow up correspondence)

MujeebB

Read Me First !!

MBasha

Instructions for completing this e-Form: (1) This PEF is a typical form required by most State DOTs. Provide a response to each field as noted. (2) Under Q7, you may select a lab to conduct testing on your product. Your choices are: Ohio University = OU Utah State University = USU TRI/Environmental = TRI (3) Unless you have purchased Adobe Approval software (www.adobe.com), you will only be able to print this form. You cannot save the PEF form. (4) This PEF serves as a "cover sheet" to your product submission package for the product. Attach MSDS, technical bulletins and specifications to this PEF. (5) For technical questions, contact the NTPEP Coordinator at (202) 624-3695.

MujeebB

30”

MujeebB

30”

TESTING SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE for

HDPE THERMOPLASTIC PIPE

NTPEP Testing Service Fee for each style HDPE PIPE, TOTAL FEES $3000.00 per style designation This fee is inclusive of all laboratory testing (pipe and resin); includes AASHTO Service Fees for publication and distribution of NTPEP Final report to participating Industry and AASHTO member departments. A portion is assigned for administrative promotion of the NTPEP Pipe program. Instructions: List each HDPE Pipe style you are submitting for NTPEP testing. Be sure to include any style designation you would like identified in the FINAL REPORT; typically, this is the product brand name. Note, currently there is only one testing fee amount ($3000) option, which applies to all testing labs.

NTPEP ID NUMBER

(For Office Use)

HDPE Pipe Style OR Product Designation

TESTING FEE

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____

Select Fee Here

TOTAL DUE Payable to “AASHTO/NTPEP”

** Note: If additional pipe styles are being submitted, copy this page and continue list. **

Last Rev. November 17, 2004


AASHTO NTPEP / ESCCorrugated Polyethylene Pipe Test Report

June, 2004

Manufacturer: Baughman Tile Co.Corporate Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137City: PauldingState: OH Zip: 45879Corporate Contact: Lorie ThornellPhone: 419-399-3160Fax: 419-399-4641E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Baughman Tile Co.Plant Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137City: PauldingState: OH Zip: 45879Contact: Lorie ThornellPhone: 419-399-3160Fax: 419-399-4641

Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.

Resin Classification (per ASTM D 3350): 335400C.

SpecificationTEST METHOD - DESCRIPTION ASTM

D 3350AASHTO

M 294Specification Limits Test

Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin DensityX 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 0.950

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.227ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 132,964ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3995ASTM F 2136 – Resin NCLS X X 24 hrs 29.5ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 244.0

X 2% ≤ __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black

X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%3.45

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 17.5 ≤ __ ≤ 18.5 in 17.8ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.050 in ≤ __ 0.107ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 40 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 55 / 53 / 52AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X# 2 psi ≤ __ #ASTM F477 & D 3212 – Pipe “water-tight” Joint Tests X# 10.8 psi ≤ __ #

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP



June, 2004

Manufacturer: Baughman Tile Co.Corporate Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137City: PauldingState: OH Zip: 45879Corporate Contact: Lorie ThornellPhone: 419-399-3160Fax: 419-399-4641E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Baughman Tile Co.Plant Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137City: PauldingState: OH Zip: 45879Contact: Lorie ThornellPhone: 419-399-3160Fax: 419-399-4641




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.229ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 132,145ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3886ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 42.5ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 242.7


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%4.70




AASHTO NTPEPCorrugated Polyethylene Pipe Test Report

January, 2005

Manufacturer: Prinsco, Inc.Corporate Address: PO Box 265City: PrinsburgState: MN Zip: 56281Corporate Contact: Joe LarkinsPhone: 800-869-7712Fax: 320-978-8602E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Prinsco, Inc.Plant Designation Code: .Plant Address: 32969 E 900 North RdCity: ChatsworthState: IL Zip: 60921Plant Contact: Joe LarkinsPhone: 800-869-7712E-mail: [email protected]

Product NTPEP Number: (03) - 25 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 1050 mm (42 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.090ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 150,655ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4190ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ 40ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 242


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.65

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 40.7 ≤ __ ≤ 43.2 in 41.6ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.070 in ≤ __ 0.107AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Length X 99% selling length ≤ __ passASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 20 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 25 / 27 / 26AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aAASHTO M 294 – Marking X full markings @ ≤ 11.5 ft pass

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/s – not sampled; n/a – not applicable



January, 2005






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.59





January, 2005






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.119ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 147,418ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4223ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ 42.8ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 247


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.32





January, 2005






D 3350AASHTO

M 294Specification Limits Test Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.128ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 150,394ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4335ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ >50ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 238


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.23


* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a – not applicable



January, 2005






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.14

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 14.5 ≤ __ ≤ 15.4 in 15.0ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.04 in ≤ __ 0.049ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 42 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 46 / 47 / 47AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aAASHTO M 294 – Marking X full markings @ ≤ 11.5 ft pass




January, 2005






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.07

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 11.6 ≤ __ ≤ 12.3 in 12.2ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.035 in ≤ __ 0.073ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 50 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 55 / 50 / 59AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aAASHTO M 294 – Marking X full markings @ ≤ 11.5 ft pass

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a – not applicable;



December, 2004

Manufacturer: Quality Culvert, Inc.Corporate Address: PO Box 435City: AstatulaState: FL Zip: 34705Corporate Contact: Carl TynerPhone: 352-343-8488Fax: 352-343-8422E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Quality Culvert, Inc.Plant Address: 25726 County Road 561City: AstatulaState: FL Zip: 34705Plant Contact: Carl TynerPhone: 352-343-8488Fax: 352-343-8422




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin DensityX 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 n/s

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 n/sASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi n/sASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi n/sASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ n/sASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ n/s


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.38


* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP;n/s – not sampled



December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.53





December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.50





December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.52





December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.46





December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.63





December, 2004






D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.60





December, 2004



Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type:Type S Inside Diameter: 300mm (12 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.46





January, 2004

Manufacturer: Lane Enterprises

Corporate Address: 34 Strohm RoadCity: ShippensburgState: PA Zip: 17257

Corporate Contact: Robert DiehlPhone:717-532-5959Fax: 717-532-7997E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Lane EnterprisesPlant Designation Code: S .Plant Address: 34 Strohm RoadCity: ShippensburgState: PA Zip: 17257


Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(04-01)-2Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 600 mm (24 in)Selling Length: 6.1 m ( 20 ft).

Perforation Class: non-Perf. Resin Classification (per ASTM D 3350): 335400C.

SpecificationTest Method – Description ASTM

D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 � __ � 0.955g/cm3ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density X 0.945 � __ � 0.955g/cm3

0.952

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* � __ < 0.4 0.300ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 � __< 160000*

psi143,498

ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 � __< 3500* psi 3883ASTM F 2136 – Resin Slow Crack Growth Resist. X X 24 hrs 30.1ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C � __ 231

X 2% � __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black X 2 � __ � 5%

2.10

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 23.27 � __ � 24.69 in 23.5ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.060 in � __ 0.079AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Length X 99% selling length � __ passASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X � 34 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 44 / 46 / 45AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc � 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X � 5mm separation @

20%pass

AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/a

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable;; n/a – not applicable



January, 2004

Manufacturer: Lane Enterprises

Corporate Address: 34 Strohm RoadCity: ShippensburgState: PA Zip: 17257


Plant Name: Lane EnterprisesPlant Designation Code: S .Plant Address: 34 Strohm RoadCity: ShippensburgState: PA Zip: 17257


Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(04-01)-1Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe - Type: Type S,

Inside Diameter: 375 mm (15 in)

Selling Length: 6.1 m ( 20 ft).Perforation Class: non-Perf. Resin Classification (per ASTM D 3350): 335400C.

SpecificationTest Method - Description ASTM

D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 � __ � 0.955g/cm3ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density X 0.945 � __ � 0.955g/cm3

0.952

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* � __ < 0.4 0.300ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 � __< 160000*

psi143,498

ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 � __< 3500* psi 3883ASTM F 2136 – Resin Slow Crack Growth Resist. X X 24 hrs 30.1ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C � __ 231


2.10

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 14.54 � __ � 15.43 in 14.8ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.040 in � __ 0.056AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Length X 99% selling length � __ passASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X � 42 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 50 / 52 / 51AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc � 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X � 5mm separation @

20%pass





July, 2004

Manufacturer: Hancor, Inc.Corporate Address: 401 Olive StreetCity: FindlayState: OH Zip: 45840Corporate Contact: Tim TolliverPhone: 419/424-8243Fax: 419/424-8364E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Hancor, Inc.Plant Designation Code: B, C.Plant Address: 433 Olive St.City: FindlayState: OH Zip: 45839Plant Contact: Clark InnigerPhone: 419/422-6283Fax: 419/422-

Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 900 mm (36 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955g/cm3ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density

X 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955g/cm3

0.947

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.238ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000*

psi130,270

ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3736ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs 69.2ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 254.7


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.30

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 34.9 ≤ __ ≤ 36.9 in 35.7ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.065 in ≤ __ 0.072ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 22 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 26 / 26 / 25AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @

20%pass


* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable



July, 2004


Plant Name: Hancor, Inc.Plant Designation Code: B, C.Plant Address: 433 Olive St.City: FindlayState: OH Zip: 45839Plant Contact: Clark InnigerPhone: 419/422-6283Fax: 419/422-




D 3350AASHTO


Results


X 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955g/cm3

0.945


psi135,181



X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%4.07

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects PassASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 23.3 ≤ __ ≤ 24.7 in 23.9ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.060 in ≤ __ 0.085AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Length X 99% selling length ≤ __ ?ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 34 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 38 / 38 / 39AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% PassAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks PassASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks PassAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @

20%Pass





July, 2004


Plant Name: Hancor, Inc.Plant Designation Code: LL, YY.Plant Address: 12370 Jackson TR 172City: FindlayState: OH Zip: 45839Plant Contact: Larry DunsonPhone: 419/424-8222Fax: 419/424-




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.49

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 17.5 ≤ __ ≤ 18.5 in 18.0ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.050 in ≤ __ 0.075ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 40 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 44 / 45 / 47AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/a




July, 2004


Plant Name: Hancor, Inc.Plant Designation Code: LL, YY.Plant Address: 12370 Jackson TR 172City: FindlayState: OH Zip: 45839Plant Contact: Larry DunsonPhone: 419/424-8222Fax: 419/424-

Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type C Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.44





June, 2004

Manufacturer: Soleno Inc.Corporate Address: PO Box 147City: IbervilleProv: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5Corporate Contact: Guylaine ChayerPhone: 450/347-7855Fax: 450/347-7311E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: H (Hagersville) .Plant Address: 304 Concession 11Prov: ON, Canada Zip: N0A 1H0

Plant Contact: Jayson RoyPhone: 905/768-7473Fax: 905/768-7042

Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 900 mm (36 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.



D 3350AASHTO



X 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955g/cm3

0.952


psi130,608



X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%3.19


20%pass


higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a – not applicable



June, 2004


Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: HA (Hagersville)Plant Address: 304 Concession 11

Prov: ON, Canada Zip: N0A 1H0Plant Contact: Jayson RoyPhone: 905/768-7473Fax: 905/768-7042

Product NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 750 mm (30 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%3.18


higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a – not applicable

City: Hagersville



April, 2004


Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: MC (McAdam)Plant Address: 64, Northlane Road

Prov: NB, Canada Zip: E0H 1K0Plant Contact: Steve GardnerPhone: 506/784-1888Fax: 506/784-1890

NTPEP Pipe Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%3.10


* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable, n/a – not applicable

City: McAdam



August, 2004


Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: B (Berniere) .Plant Address: 1185 Industriel, St-NicolasProv: QC, Canada Zip: G7A 1B2

Plant Contact: Marc PlantePhone: 418/836-3246Fax: 418/836-3417

Product: NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin DensityX 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 0.948**

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 .0183**ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 131,106**ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3769**ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 70.4**ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 259.3**


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%4.38



** - The original resin samples were lost in transit. A single resin was resubmitted for testing and is reported here.



April, 2004


Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: MC (McAdam)Plant Address: 64, Northlane Road

Prov: NB, Canada Zip: E0H 1K0Plant Contact: Steeve GardnerPhone: 506/784-1888Fax: 506/784-1890

NTPEP Pipe Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 375 mm (15 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%3.28



City: McAdam



April, 2004

Manufacturer: Soleno Inc.Corporate Address: PO Box 147

Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5Corporate Contact: Guylaine ChayerPhone: 450/347-7855Fax: 450/347-7311E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Soleno Inc.

Plant Address: 1160, Route 133

Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5Plant Contact: Chantal HebertPhone: 450/347-7855Fax: 450/347-7311

NTPEP PipeNumber: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.72



Plant Designation Code: IB (Iberville)

City: IbervilleCity: Iberville



August, 2004


Plant Name: Soleno Inc.Plant Designation Code: B (Berniere) .Plant Address: 1185 Industriel, St-NicolasProv: QC, Canada Zip: G7A 1B2

Plant Contact: Marc PlantePhone: 418/836-3246Fax: 418/836-3417

Product: NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S Inside Diameter: 250 mm (10 in)


SpecificationTEST METHOD – DESCRIPTION ASTM

D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin DensityX 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 0.948**

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 .0183**ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 131,106**ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3769**ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 70.4**ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 259.3**

X M294 does not apply to10SASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black

X M294 does not apply to10S 2.86

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X M294 does not apply to10S passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X M294 does not apply to10S 9.9ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X M294 does not apply to10S 0.074ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X M294 does not apply to10S 57 / 57 / 63AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X M294 does not apply to10S passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X M294 does not apply to10S passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X M294 does not apply to10S passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X M294 does not apply to10S passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X M294 does not apply to10S n/a


** - The original resin samples were lost in transit. A single resin was resubmitted for testing and is reported here.



December, 2003

Manufacturer: Advanced DrainageSystems, Inc.Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd.City: HilliardState: OH Zip: 43026

Corporate Contact: Bob SlickerPhone: 614/658-0250Fax: 614/658-0203E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: Y .Plant Address: 115 W. Crown Point RoadCity: Winter GardenState: FL Zip: 34787

Plant Contact: Mike GattPhone: 407/654-3989Fax: 407/654-5601

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-10 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipePipe Type: Type S, Inside Diameter: 1500 mm (60 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.205ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 142,780ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X*

3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3808ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 40.4ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 242


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.50

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 58.2 ≤ __ ≤ 61.7 in 59.6ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.070 in ≤ __ 0.138ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 14 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 16 / 16 / 16AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X# 2 psi ≤ __ #ASTM F477 & D 3212 – Pipe “water-tight” Joint Tests X# 10.8 psi ≤ __ #

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a – not applicable;



April, 2004

Manufacturer: Advanced DrainageSystemsCorporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd.City: HilliardState: OH Zip: 43026Corporate Contact: Bob SlickerPhone: 614/658-0250Fax: 614/658-0203E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Advanced DrainageSystemsPlant Designation Code: G .Plant Address: Muncy Industrial ParkCity: MuncyState: PA Zip: 17756Plant Contact: Mike GattPhone: 570-546-7686Fax: 570-546-7708

NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-8, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type ST Inside Diameter: 1200 mm (48 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.100ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 134,628ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3952ASTM F2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 57.3ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 237.3


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.64





April, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: G .Plant Address: 173 Industrial Parkway NorthCity: MuncyState: PA Zip: 17756

Plant Contact: Heather MillerPhone: 570/546-7686Fax: 570/547-7708E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-8 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 1200 mm (48 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density X 0.945 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 0.954

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.080ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 131,199ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3960ASTM D 1693 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 29.6ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 238

X 2% ≤ __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.52

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 49.1 ≤ __ ≤ 46.5 in 47.5ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.070 in ≤ __ 0.115ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 18 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 21 / 19 / 20AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X#

2 psi ≤ __ #ASTM F477 & D 3212 – Pipe “water-tight” Joint Tests X#

10.8 psi ≤ __ #




April, 2003


Corporate Contact: Bob SlickerPhone:614/658-0250Fax: 614/658-0203E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: J .Plant Address: 400 East High St.City: LondonState: OH Zip: 43140

Plant Contact: Bob SensabaughPhone:740-852-2980Fax: 740-852-3092E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-5 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S, Inside Diameter: 1050 mm (42 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.205ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 147,310ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3994ASTM D 5397, Appendix – Resin stress crack X X 24 hrs 26ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 240

X 2% ≤ __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon BlackX 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%

2.34

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 40.7 ≤ __ ≤ 43.2 in 41.4ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.070 in ≤ __ 0.222ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 20 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 26 / 29 / 26AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X No buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X#


10.8 psi ≤ __ #

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a – not applicable



March, 2005

Manufacturer: Advanced Drainage SystemsCorporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd.City: HilliardState: OH Zip: 43026Corporate Contact: Bob SlickerPhone: 614/658-0250Fax: 614/658-0203E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Advanced Drainage SystemsPlant Designation Code: L / 36.Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056Plant Contact: Jerry PaquettePhone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249

Product NTPEP Number: PIPE(05)-06 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 900 mm (36 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results


X 0.948 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955g/cm3

0.951


psi145,032

ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4042ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 66.0ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 229


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.30


20%pass





May, 2003


Corporate Contact: Bob SlickerPhone:614/658-0250Fax: 614/658-0203E-mail: [email protected]

Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: Y .Plant Address: 115 West Crown Point Rd.City: Winter GardenState: FL Zip: 34787

Plant Contact: Aaron BuckPhone:407-654-3989Fax: 407-654-5601E-mail: [email protected]

Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe(03-04)-4 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 900 mm (36 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3






10.8 psi ≤ __ #

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a – not applicable;? – data not provided by field sampler prior to cutting specimens



May, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: L .Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056

Plant Contact: David Pare

Phone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-3 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 750 mm (30 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.320ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 143,103ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3879ASTM D 5397, Appendix – Resin stress crackresistance

X X 24 hrs 38ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 246

X 2% ≤ __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon BlackX 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%

2.69



10.8 psi ≤ __ #




March, 2004


Plant Name: Advanced DrainageSystemsPlant Designation Code: L .Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056Plant Contact: Dave ParePhone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249

NTPEP Pipe (2002)-5, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 750 mm (30 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.290ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 150,761ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4077ASTM D 5397 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 38.8ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 253.7


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.54





July, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: O .Plant Address: 770 S. Chestnut St.City: OwossoState: MI Zip: 48867

Plant Contact: Rick LambPhone: 989-723-5208Fax: 989-723-7113E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe (03-04)-6, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 600 mm (24 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.10ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 136,432ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3864ASTM D 1693 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 26.4ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 240




10.8 psi ≤ __ #

* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a – not applicable



April, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: J .Plant Address: 400 East High St.City: LondonState: OH Zip: 43140

Plant Contact: Bob SensabaughPhone: 740-852-2980Fax: 740-852-3092E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-2 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type S, Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects PassASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 17.5 ≤ __ ≤ 18.5 in 18.0ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.050 in ≤ __ 0.155ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 40 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 44 / 44 / 44AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% PassAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks PassASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks PassAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% PassAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X#


10.8 psi ≤ __ #




March, 2004


Plant Name: Advanced DrainageSystemsPlant Designation Code: L .Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056Plant Contact: Dave ParePhone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249

NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-3 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.290ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 150,761ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4077ASTM D 5397 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 38.8ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 253.7


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.56





March, 2005


Plant Name: Advanced Drainage SystemsPlant Designation Code: B.Plant Address: 510 Factory St.City: Buena VistaState: VA Zip: 24416Plant Contact: J.J. MasseyPhone: 540-261-6131Fax: 540-261-1405




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.306ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 137,084ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3851ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs ≤ __ 108.4ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 243


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.73





April, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: L .Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056

Plant Contact: David ParePhone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe (03-04)-1 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S, Inside Diameter: 375 mm (15 in)

Perforation Class: non-Perf., Resin Classification (per ASTM D 3350): 335400C.


D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 � __ � 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin DensityX 0.945 � __ � 0.955 g/cm3 0.949

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* � __ < 0.4 0.345ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 � __< 160000* psi 135249ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 � __< 3500* psi 3915ASTM D 5397, Appendix – Resin stress crack X X 24 hrs 36.7ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C � __ 246


2.67

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 14.54 � __ � 15.43 in 15.0ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.040 in � __ 0.147ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X � 42 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 43 / 44 / 44AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc � 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X � 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X# 2 psi � __ #ASTM F477 & D 3212 – Pipe “water-tight” Joint Tests X#

10.8 psi � __ #




May, 2004


Plant Name: Advanced DrainageSystemsPlant Designation Code: S.Plant Address: Old Route 30 WestCity: WoosterState: OH Zip: 44691Plant Contact: Berry GirvinPhone: 330-264-4949Fax: 330-262-4211

NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-2 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 375 mm (15 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.255ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 142,936ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3794ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ 28.7ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 237.7


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.51





March, 2005


Plant Name: Advanced Drainage SystemsPlant Designation Code: L / 36.Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.City: LudlowState: MA Zip: 01056Plant Contact: Jerry PaquettePhone: 413-589-0515Fax: 413-583-5249




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.106ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 153,049ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 4030ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 69.4ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 238


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.54





March, 2005


Plant Name: Advanced Drainage SystemsPlant Designation Code: B.Plant Address: 510 Factory St.City: Buena VistaState: VA Zip: 24416Plant Contact: J.J. MasseyPhone: 540-261-6131Fax: 540-261-1405




D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3


ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 0.303ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi 133,687ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi 3884ASTM F 2136 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 44.6ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __ 229


X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.41





April, 2004


Plant Name: Advanced DrainageSystemsPlant Designation Code: G .Plant Address: Muncy Industrial ParkCity: MuncyState: PA Zip: 17756Plant Contact: Mike GattPhone: 570-546-7686Fax: 570-546-7708

NTPEP Pipe (2002)-1, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene PipeType: Type S Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3




X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%2.87

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 11.6 ≤ __ ≤ 12.3 in 12.1ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.035 in ≤ __ 0.058ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ 50 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 55 / 56 / 56AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% pass




August, 2003



Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc.Plant Designation Code: K.Plant Address: Buck Creek Church Rd.City: LivermoreState: KY Zip: 42352

Plant Contact: Wes GarrisonPhone: 270/733-4324Fax: 270/733-9236E-mail:

Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-7 Product Description: Corrugated PolyethylenePipeType: Type S , Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)



D 3350AASHTO


Results

X 0.940 � __ � 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density X 0.945 � __ � 0.955 g/cm3 0.947

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* � __ < 0.4 0.32ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 � __< 160000* psi 126,875ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 � __< 3500* psi 3688ASTM D 1693 – Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 26.1ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C � __ 238.5

X 2% � __ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black X 2 � __ � 5%3.61

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects passASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X 11.63 � __ � 12.34 in 12.2ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.035 in � __ 0.060ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X � 50 psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° 51 / 56 / 55AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc � 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe ESCR X no cracks passASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X � 5mm separation @ 20% passAASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/aAASHTO M 294 – Marking X full markings @ � 11.5 ft ?ASTM F477 – Pipe “silt-tight” Joint Pressure Test X# 2 psi � __ #ASTM F477 & D 3212 – Pipe “water-tight” Joint Tests X# 10.8 psi � __ #


July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent: Maine DOT______

Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X X

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X X

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin X Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X

Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) X


or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X Listing of qualified plants on website. X

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X X Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: _________B. Yeaton – D. Gayne___________________ Contact Info: _____________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____Maine DOT________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

Verification of product compliance with specifications. Product ban process for failing pipe. Active participant in ESC (conduct plant

inspection of Soleno plant).

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues:

End result testing of everything including testing of resin from finished product.

Any and all comments and recommendations related to QA of corrugated HDPE pipe are welcome and will be considered in

developing a strategy for a single, nationwide program.

Thank you for you input. Please return via e-mail ([email protected]) or fax (864-242-3107) no later than August 12, 2005.


Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix C


Appendix C

Eastern States Consortium (ESC) for High Density Polyethylene Pipe –

Program Documents

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix C1

Eastern States Consortium (ESC)

Rev 03/24/03 1

Operating Procedures for the Eastern States’ HDPE Pipe Consortium

The Eastern States noted in the attachment have formed a Consortium, known as the Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC), to establish minimum requirements for the quality control procedures that the manufacturers of High Density Polyethylene Pipe must subscribe to in order to supply pipe to participating states. It is the intent for the States to benefit through a cooperative inspection and qualification processes and for the manufacturers to benefit through having one uniform set of quality control requirements to meet for all of the participating states. The purpose of this document is to describe the operating procedures of the consortium and the responsibilities of the participating States and manufacturers. The quality control procedure requirements are described in a separate document entitled, “Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC) Quality Control Requirements for HDPE Pipe Manufacturers”. The manufacturers are to document their procedures in a Quality System Manual (QSM). The operating procedures of the consortium are as follows:

• The participating States will designate a Lead State from among the membership that will be responsible for administration of the ESC. The Lead State will serve as the point of contact for the participating States and the manufacturers for matters concerning the ESC. This State will serve as the Lead State until it asks to be replaced, or the membership votes to replace it.

• Manufacturers desiring to supply to consortium States will submit electronic copies of their QSM in either Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format to the Lead State and ask the Lead State to initiate the qualification process.

• The Lead State will forward the document to the consortium States and ask them to provide review comments within a thirty day time period.

• Once the QSM documents have been reviewed, the Lead State will contact the participating State(s) in which the manufacturer has a plant and request that that State review the plant to determine compliance with the QSM. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will ask for a volunteer from the participating States to perform the review.

• If a manufacturer has or designates a quality control testing facility not located at a plant, the Lead State will also ask a participating State to review this facility to assure compliance with the QSM. The State will be selected in the same manner as a State is selected for a plant review.

• The ESC will attempt to conduct testing facility inspections within 30 days of approval of the QSM.

• Once the review of the QSM documents, production facilities, and testing facilities has been completed, the Lead State will notify the manufacturer and participating States of the status of the request for qualification. Qualified manufactures will be placed on the ESC’s qualified manufacturers list, which will be maintained on the web site of the Lead State. If qualification is not given, the

Rev 03/24/03 2

Lead State will summarize the deficiencies in the response to the manufacturer and the participating States.

• The participating States will perform an annual review of the ESC Quality Control Requirements for HDPEP Manufacturers to ensure that they are current with specification changes and meeting the needs of participating States. The review will be administered by the Lead State, and issues resulting in differences among the States will be decided by a majority vote of the participating States. Changes in the document will be sent to the qualified manufacturers by October 1 of each year.

• The manufacturer must submit an electronic copy of their updated QSM, in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format, to the Lead State and request qualification for the subsequent year by November 1 of the year in which they are qualified. The new Manual shall clearly identify all changes made since the previous Manual was reviewed and will include a summary of all independent laboratory testing for products produced to meet the AASHTO M294 specification, including the results of the manufacturer’s split sample testing, and the most recent copy of the company’s annual quality audit of plants for which qualification is sought.

• The Lead State will process the new request in the same manner as the request for initial qualification.

Sampling for the annual submission of pipe and resin samples to the independent laboratory for split sample testing will be preformed by the State where the plant resides. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will ask for a volunteer from participating States. Any participating State can inspect plant and testing facilities and obtain split samples for acceptance testing or other testing purposes at any time. The results of this inspection and testing should be reported to the manufacturer and to the Lead State for use in evaluating the current qualification status of the manufacturer and in the annual qualification process. If at any time the Lead State determines that a manufacturer is not making a good faith effort to correct deficiencies in compliance with its QSM, the Lead State, with approval of a simple majority vote of the ESC states, will remove the manufacturer from the ESC’s qualified supplier list. The Lead State will distribute copies of all test results received throughout the year to all the participating States. HDPE pipe produced at a qualified plant is still subject to acceptance testing by the State in which the pipe will be used, in accordance with that State’s specifications.

Rev 06/07/05 1

Operating Procedures for the Eastern States’ HDPE Pipe Consortium

The Eastern States noted in the attachment have formed a Consortium, known as the Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC), to establish minimum requirements for the quality control procedures that the manufacturers of High Density Polyethylene Pipe must subscribe to in order to supply pipe to participating states. It is the intent for the States to benefit through a cooperative inspection and qualification processes and for the manufacturers to benefit through having one uniform set of quality control requirements to meet for all of the participating states. The purpose of this document is to describe the operating procedures of the consortium and the responsibilities of the participating States and manufacturers. The quality control procedure requirements are described in a separate document entitled, “Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC) Quality Control Requirements for HDPE Pipe Manufacturers”. The manufacturers are to document their procedures in a Quality System Manual (QSM). The operating procedures of the consortium are as follows:

• The participating States will designate a Lead State from among the membership that will be responsible for administration of the ESC. The Lead State will serve as the point of contact for the participating States and the manufacturers for matters concerning the ESC. This State will serve as the Lead State until it asks to be replaced, or the membership votes to replace it.

• Manufacturers desiring to supply to consortium States will submit electronic copies of their QSM in either Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format to the Lead State and ask the Lead State to initiate the qualification process.

• The Lead State will forward the document to the consortium States and ask them to provide review comments within a thirty day time period.

• Once the QSM documents have been reviewed, the Lead State will contact the participating State(s) in which the manufacturer has a plant and request that that State review the plant to determine compliance with the QSM. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will ask for a volunteer from the participating States to perform the review.

• If a manufacturer has or designates a quality control testing facility not located at a plant, the Lead State will also ask a participating State to review this facility to assure compliance with the QSM. The State will be selected in the same manner as a State is selected for a plant review.

• The ESC will attempt to conduct testing facility inspections within 30 days of approval of the QSM.

• Once the review of the QSM documents, production facilities, and testing facilities has been completed, the Lead State will notify the manufacturer and participating States of the status of the request for qualification. Qualified manufactures will be placed on the ESC’s qualified manufacturers list, which will be maintained on the web site of the Lead State. If qualification is not given, the

Rev 06/07/05 2

Lead State will summarize the deficiencies in the response to the manufacturer and the participating States.

• The participating States will perform an annual review of the ESC Quality Control Requirements for HDPEP Manufacturers to ensure that they are current with specification changes and meeting the needs of participating States. The review will be administered by the Lead State, and issues resulting in differences among the States will be decided by a majority vote of the participating States. Changes in the document will be sent to the qualified manufacturers by October 1 of each year.

• The manufacturer must submit an electronic copy of their updated QSM, in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format, to the Lead State and request qualification for the subsequent year by November 1 of the year in which they are qualified. The new Manual shall clearly identify all changes made since the previous Manual was reviewed and will include a summary of all independent laboratory testing for products produced to meet the AASHTO M294 specification, including the results of the manufacturer’s split sample testing, and the most recent copy of the company’s annual quality audit of plants for which qualification is sought.

• The Lead State will process the new request in the same manner as the request for initial qualification, and will also use the results of previous ESC and State inspections in evaluating the request for re-qualification.

Sampling for the annual submission of pipe and resin samples to the independent laboratory for split sample testing will be preformed by the State where the plant resides. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will ask for a volunteer from participating States. Any participating State can inspect plant and testing facilities and obtain split samples for acceptance testing or other testing purposes at any time. If significant problems are encountered, the results of this inspection and testing should be reported to the manufacturer and to the Lead State for use in evaluating the current qualification status of the manufacturer and in the annual qualification process. If at any time the Lead State determines that a manufacturer is not making a good faith effort to correct deficiencies in compliance with its QSM, the Lead State, with approval of a simple majority vote of the ESC states, will remove the manufacturer or the plant from the ESC’s qualified supplier list. The Lead State will distribute copies of all test results received throughout the year to all the participating States. HDPE pipe produced at a qualified plant is still subject to acceptance testing by the State in which the pipe will be used, in accordance with that State’s specifications.

Attachment

Rev 06/07/05 3

Eastern States’ Consortium Participating States 2004

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia

Eastern States’ Consortium Participating Manufacturers 2004


Baughman Tile Co. Hancor, Inc.

Lane Enterprises, Inc. Soleno, Inc.

Rev 12/01/04 - 1 -

Eastern States’ Consortium on HDPEP Participant Responsibilities

I Background: Fourteen eastern States have formed a consortium, known as the Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC), to establish minimum requirements for the quality control procedures that the manufacturers of High Density Polyethylene Pipe must subscribe to in order to supply pipe to participating states. The ESC has identified responsibilities that the participating manufacturers, States, and the Lead State must follow for the program to operate efficiently. The States currently participating in the consortium are CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, & VA. with NH as the Lead State. The manufactures currently participating are Advanced Drainage Systems, Baughman Tile, Hancor, Lane, and Soleno. This document summarizes the responsibilities for the different parties, which can be found in more detail in the ESC Operating Procedures and the ESC Quality Control Requirements for HDPE Pipe Manufacturers. II Manufacturers’ Responsibilities: Participating manufacturers must develop and implement a Quality System Manual (QSM) outlining their quality control testing program for raw materials and finished pipe. In addition, the manual must addresses the following general program, testing facilities, personnel qualification, and record keeping requirements:

1. General Requirements: • Each manufacturer must be prepared to accommodate testing facility

inspections by ESC representatives when submitting its initial Quality System Manual (QSM), or updated QSM in the case of qualification renewal, to the Lead State. The ESC will attempt to conduct the inspection within 30 days of approval of the documentation.

• Each testing facility is responsible for ensuring continuous compliance with all ESC quality control requirements. Failure to do so may result in revocation of manufacturer qualification.

• Each manufacturer is to maintain a summary of all independent laboratory test results and the corresponding manufacturers split sample tests for inclusion in the QSM at the time of submittal for re-qualification.

2. Testing Facilities: The following seven requirements pertain to the qualification of quality control testing facilities: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for

quality control testing at all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by qualified technicians.

Rev 12/01/04 - 2 -

• The testing facilities shall maintain current versions of all AASHTO, ASTM, and Company test procedures for all tests performed and a current version of the Company’s QSM.

• The facilities must adequately house and allow proper operation of all required testing equipment.

• The testing equipment shall be calibrated/verified in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations at least once every 12 months by personnel customarily involved in such work as documented in the QSM.

• All testing equipment shall be properly maintained and maintenance activities shall be documented.

• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all test results and all ESC reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies.

• Records of equipment calibration and verification will be maintained and available to Consortium States upon request.

3. Testing Personnel: The ESC has also identified the following requirements for quality control testing personnel: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall meet the requirements

established by the company for the position. The quality control manager’s resume shall be included in the QSM.

• Documentation must show that the technician has been trained in the test procedures he/she must perform.

• Documentation must show that the technician has satisfactorily demonstrated her/his ability to perform the required testing and that this ability is periodically audited.

• Documentation must show that the technician training has been updated when required by revisions in test methods.

• Review of reports must show that the technician can properly perform test procedure calculations and properly record information.

• Technicians-in-training may perform sampling and testing at ERC qualified facilities provided they are working under the direct supervision of a technician fully qualified under ESC requirements.

• If requested, technicians must perform sampling and testing for ESC observers. Split samples may also be taken for testing by ESC members.

4. Testing Documentation The ESC has established the following requirements for testing documentation: • All quality control test results for resins and pipes must be documented in

reports of the same format as the sample forms submitted in the QSM and must be kept for five years.

• The reports must document the actions taken in the event of resin or product test failures.

• The reports must show the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot designation of resin. Identification must be such that the test

Rev 12/01/04 - 3 -

reports for any piece of pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacture the pipe.

• Resin producer certifications must include the results of the producer’s tests and be kept for five years.

III. State Agency Responsibilities: Each participating State will have the following responsibilities in implementing the ESC testing facility qualification program:

• Each State will designate a contact person for inquiries regarding the program and provide the name and phone number of the contact person to the ESC Lead State.

• When requested by the Lead State, the States will make every effort to provide a person to participate in inspections of manufacturers’ quality control testing facilities within their State or an adjacent non-member State or Province using the appropriate program guidelines. If a participating state is unable to fulfill obligations due to travel restrictions, the Lead State will ask other members to perform these inspections.

• The State conducting the inspection will contact the manufacturer’s quality control manager to arrange for the inspection of quality control testing facilities.

• Once the inspection has been completed, a copy of the inspection report will be forwarded to ESC Lead State for inclusion in the facility qualification database. Each State shall retain the original copy of all completed inspection documentation.

• If an ESC State does acceptance or other testing of pipe made by an ESC qualified manufacturer, the State is encouraged to furnish a copy of the test results to the manufacturer and to the Lead State.

IV. ESC Lead State Responsibilities: The ESC Lead State will be responsible for administering the testing facility qualification program as follows:

• The Lead State will notify the contact person in the participating State where the quality control testing facility is located when an inspection is required. With the approval of this State, the Lead State may also ask other ESC representatives to participate in the inspection. When the facility is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will arrange for ESC volunteers to conduct the inspection.

• The Lead State will maintain a testing facility qualification database and will be responsible for entering inspection information obtained from the Facility Inspection Reports forwarded by the participating States for each facility that is inspected.

• The Lead State will notify the manufacturer and the participating States of the status of the testing facility qualification after completion of the

Rev 12/01/04 - 4 -

inspection. If the facility is not qualified, the Lead State notification will include a detailed explanation of the deficiencies.

• The Lead State will maintain the ESC web site that will include the list of ESC qualified manufacturers and other information relevant to the program.

• As long as the manufacturer has submitted its request for renewal of ESC qualification by November 1 of the current year, the Lead State will grant a three- month grace period for a testing facility to be re-inspected and re-qualified in accordance ESC procedures.

• The Lead State will respond to inquiries related to the qualification for individual testing facilities as they occur during the year.

IV. Manufacturer Disqualification From the ESC: All manufacturers must ensure that all quality control testing facilities, personnel, and sampling and testing activities are in continuous conformance with the ESC requirements. The Lead State, based on results of ESC inspections or the acceptance or other testing done by individual States, may rescind ESC manufacturer qualification if a facility is determined not to comply with the ESC requirements. The Lead State shall forward a letter of explanation to the affected manufacturer and all participating States detailing the reason(s) for revocation of the qualification. Appeals of such revocation shall be handled by the Lead State.

Plant Location:Tr'ee = Trainee, Tr'er = Trainer

Trainee Name:

DateTr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial

1) To attest that the training took place, the initials of both the trainee and the trainer are required.2) The initialing trainer attests that the technician satisfactorily demonstrated the test.3) If the training is due to test method modification, indicate by an asterisk next to the initials of the trainee.

[ Place company Name on This Line ]Quality Control/Assurance Training/Competency Evaluation

Weight Liner Thickness Carbon ContentInside Diameter Pipe Length Brittleness Workmanship

Lab Location:Tr'ee = Trainee, Tr'er = Trainer

Trainee Name:

DateTr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial

Trainee Name:

DateTr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial Date

Tr'ee Initial

Tr'er Initial

1) To attest that the training took place, the initials of both the trainee and the trainer are required.2) The initialing trainer attests that the technician satisfactorily demonstrated the test.3) If the training is due to test method modification, indicate by an asterisk next to the initials of the trainee.

Marking

[ Place Company Name on This Line ]Quality Control/Assurance Training/Competency Evaluation

Weight Liner Thickness Carbon Content

Perforations Inlet Area

Inside Diameter Pipe Length Brittleness Workmanship

Resin NCLSPipe Stiffness Elongation Resin Melt Index Resin Density

Rev 06/07/05 1

Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC) Quality Control Requirements

For HDPE Pipe Manufacturers

I General Description: The purpose of this document is to establish the minimum quality control requirements for manufacturers supplying High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPEP) to State Departments of Transportation (DOT) participating in this program. A manufacturer’s quality control procedures must provide adequate assurance to the State that the products purchased meet relevant AASHTO, ASTM, and Industry Standards. The principle standards governing the specification of HDPEP shall be AASHTO M252 and M294. A manufacturer’s procedures must be documented in a bound Quality System Manual (QSM) and it must contain or address the following: • A Quality Mission Statement • Quality Control of Raw Materials • Quality Control Inspection and Testing • Statistical Analysis of Test Results • Resolution of Non-Conforming Test Results • Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability from Resin Lot to Finished Pipe • Quality Control Testing Facilities • Qualification of Quality Control Personnel • Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe • Quality Audits of Each Plant Producing Product • Annual Submission of Pipe Samples and Resin to an Independent Laboratory for

Testing and Release of Data to the ESC • A List of Plants and Quality Control Testing Facilities Including Addresses and the

Names and Telephone Numbers of the Quality Control Contacts for Each Facility • Written Copies of all Company Developed Test Procedures The QSM shall be submitted to the ESC for review and use in the manufacturer qualification process. The QSM shall indicate the sizes and types of product for which qualification is requested by production facility, and the qualification, if granted, will then be specific to those products at the designated facilities. Each manufacturer will maintain its own testing facility for the purpose of quality control testing, or will designate an alternate testing facility. The facilities will be reviewed for qualification by the ESC. Qualification will be based on the facilities ability to perform the required test procedures in accordance with the applicable standards, the use of qualified testing technicians, the calibration and verification of all testing equipment, and record keeping. The ESC may require a demonstration of the equipment and procedures, split sample testing with a participating state, and/or round robin testing before granting testing facility qualification.

Rev 06/07/05 2

Each manufacturer must designate a single quality control manager responsible for all aspects of its quality control program and use only qualified quality control technicians at each plant or facility involved in the production or testing of pipe for the ESC. The quality control manager shall meet requirements established by the manufacturer and shall be responsible for qualification of technicians. The quality control manager’s resume shall be included in the QSM. The technician’s qualification shall be based on training and demonstrated ability to satisfactorily perform the required inspection, testing, reporting, and record keeping. The ESC may review the qualifications of any qualified technician and may require the demonstration of equipment and procedures, split sample testing with a participating state, and/or round robin testing. The manufacturer’s QSM shall be submitted electronically to the ESC Lead State in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format for coordination of the review process. Once accepted, the provisions of the QSM will be in effect for one year. If any changes occur in the QSM during the year, updated information must be submitted to the ESC Lead State. If the manufacturer desires qualification for a subsequent year, a written request must be sent to the Lead State before November 1 of the current year along with an updated electronic copy of the QSM, in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format, that clearly identifies all changes made since the previous Manual was reviewed. The updated QSM must also include a summary of all independent laboratory testing for products produced to meet the AASHTO M294 Specification including the corresponding manufacturer’s split sample test results. The Lead State will coordinate the qualification process, which will be based on the manufacturer’s satisfactory implementation of its QSM provisions as determined by testing facility inspections, sample testing if done, independent laboratory test results, and past performance. The QSM shall state that State DOT inspectors, or their agents, are allowed to enter any manufacturing plant or testing facility, unannounced, to observe the manufacturing process, review quality control testing and testing records, to obtain samples for testing, or to inspect testing facilities, product storage and transport. The following sections of this document provide more detail about the required provisions of each manufacturer’s Quality System Manual II Quality Mission Statement The quality mission statement shall be endorsed by the company’s Chief Executive Officer and also be made available to all employees III Quality Control of Raw Materials The QSM must include quality control testing of the polyethylene resins and must contain a statement that no raw materials will be used unless the lot has been tested and meets the following AASHTO/ASTM cell classification requirements or has been shipped with resin producer certification stating that it meets these requirements. The resin producer certification must include the test result for each property required. For material having only resin producer certification, at least one random sample must be taken from each lot and undergo subsequent testing to verify it meets the specified

Rev 06/07/05 3

density and melt index requirements. The required material properties for the resins are as described in AASHTO M252 and M294, Section 6, Materials. The ESC requires that the following properties be tested at the noted frequencies:

• Density – ASTM D1505 or ASTM D792, one test per lot • Melt Index – ASTM D1238, one test per lot • Notched Constant Ligament-Stress (NCLS) for M294 product if there is no resin

producer Certificate of Analysis or if resin producer lots are blended – AASHTO M 294 & ASTM F 2136, one test per lot

A lot is defined as a shipment (railcar or truck load) of resin. If a shipment is divided into more than one compartment, compartments with different certifications, or without any certification, will be separate lots. If the shipment consists of gaylord boxes, 10 boxes will comprise a lot. If resins from different producer lots are being blended in the manufacturing process, then the blended material is the lot and a new lot must be established each time a component resin lot changes. The location and method of sampling the resin must be included in the Manual. A lot number must be established for each lot and must be carried through to the finished product. For AASHTO M294 products, the ESC also requires that the resin producer’s Notched Constant Ligament-Stress (NCLS) test result be reported for each lot. [ Delete: for which the resin producer has run the test.] If there is no producer Certificate of Analysis for a lot of resin, the resin must pass the NCLS test requirements before the lot can be used in production. If the pipe manufacturer is blending different lots of producer resins, then the NCLS test must be performed on each resin blend at a minimum frequency of one test per month or when one of the component resin lots changes. The resin blend must pass the NCLS test before being used in production. Reworked plastic may be used provided it meets the requirements of Section 6.2 of AASHTO M252 and M294. Recycled plastic will not be allowed. The QSM shall document where fittings and couplings are manufactured, the source of the components, and the fabrication process used. It shall also document the process used to assure that all resins used to manufacture fittings and couplings meet the material requirements of section 6 of M252 and M294, including those components purchased from another party. There shall be traceability from the fitting or coupling back to the resin lot used to manufacturer it. Resin test reports and resin producer certifications, including supporting test reports, must be maintained and available for review for a period of 5 years. IV Quality Control Inspection and Testing The manufacturer shall conduct visual inspections of the exterior and interior walls for bonding, blowouts, and for workmanship items as described in AASHTO M252 and

Rev 06/07/05 4

M294, during production. The manufacturer shall monitor the process and finished product. The QSM shall define the quality control tests, the method for random sampling, the size of the sample, and the lot size for production facility quality control sampling and testing. It shall also include an example of a quality control test report form. A pipe lot shall be no larger than the amount of pipe produced per type per diameter per machine per production run. An AASHTO, ASTM, or Company procedure shall be referenced for each quality control test. If a company procedure is referenced, it must be described in the QSM and is subject to approval. The ESC requires that at least the following quality control tests, or inspections, be performed at the minimum frequency of once per pipe lot or at the frequencies noted below, whichever is more frequent:

• Unit Weight, three per work shift • Wall Thickness, three per work shift (See Appendix 1) • Carbon Black Content (AASHTO M252 or M294 and ASTM D3350), one per

day • Inside Diameter, one per work shift • Pipe Length, one per work shift • Perforation Locations and Dimensions (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Water Inlet Area (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Pipe Stiffness, two per week • Pipe Flattening, two per week • Elongation (M252 Only), one per week • Low Temperature Flexibility (M252 Only), one per week • Brittleness, two per week • Joint Integrity, one per week • Environmental Stress Cracking, one per week • Workmanship (per AASHTO M252 and M294) • Marking (per AASHTO M252 and M294)

Each sample selected for quality control inspection and testing shall be designated with a sample control number for record keeping and traceability. The test report for each sample shall identify the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot designation for the polyethylene resin. The quality control test reports (not samples) must be maintained and available for review for 5 years. V Statistical Analysis of Test Results The QSM shall contain a description of the manufacturer’s statistical process control plan. The plan shall use methods such as statistical control charts to monitor production facility quality control test results for the purpose of identifying trends and being able to make production adjustments as necessary. The plan shall monitor each production plant separately and total manufacturer product quality trends.

Rev 06/07/05 5

VI Resolution of Non-Conforming Product or Test Results The QSM shall contain provisions for resolving non-conforming product or test results. The test report will clearly identify the deficiencies and all product produced subsequent to the previous testing shall be identified and quarantined pending investigation of the failure. The investigation shall include obtaining and testing check samples. If the check sample meets requirements, the manufacturer shall document the reasons for the original failure and may release the quarantined material and resume normal production and testing. If the check sample fails, the manufacturer shall take corrective action to bring the product into conformance and shall note the corrective action on the test report. A second check sample shall be taken to verify the deficiency has been corrected. If this sample also fails, the process shall be repeated until the deficiency is corrected. All non-conforming material shall be segregated in the inventory and re-worked or scrapped. VII Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability The QSM shall describe in detail the retention of quality control test reports for at least 5 years and they shall be available to the ESC upon request. The product and test reports will be identified in such a way that the test results for any pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacturer the pipe. Test reports shall indicate the action taken to resolve resin or product failures. The manufacturer shall maintain a copy of the ESC inspection documentation for a facility on file at the facility for at least 5 years. VIII Quality Control Testing Facilities The QSM shall describe in detail the requirements for the testing facilities. As a minimum, the following requirements shall be included:

• The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for quality control testing at all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by technicians meeting the requirements of the manufacturer’s technician qualification program described in section IX.

• The facilities shall maintain current versions of all AASHTO, ASTM, and Company test procedures for all tests performed and a current version of the Company’s QSM.


• The testing equipment shall be calibrated/verified in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s recommendations at least once every 12 months by personnel customarily involved in such work as documented in the QSM.

• All testing facility equipment shall be properly maintained and maintenance activities shall be documented.

Rev 06/07/05 6

• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all ESC reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies

• Records of equipment calibration, verification, and maintenance will be retained and available to the ESC for review upon request.

IX Qualification of Quality Control Personnel The manufacturer’s quality control manager must meet the requirements established by the manufacturer and is responsible for the qualification of the technicians performing the quality control testing. Quality control personnel must be familiar with the tests they perform and have sufficient authority to assure that corrective actions are carried out when necessary. As a minimum, a manufacturer’s quality control technician qualification program shall include training in the AASHTO, ASTM, or Company test procedures, demonstration of competency in each required test, and demonstration of ability to properly document test results. It shall also include annual auditing of each technician’s ability to satisfactorily perform the required tests. The training shall include the operation of equipment, the procedures to be used, calculations required, and reporting. Re-training shall be provided when the test method is revised. Training and competency reviews shall be documented in such a way that compliance with the requirements for the initial and updated training and the initial and annual competency reviews can be demonstrated for each technician for each test the technician performs. The documentation shall include the date of the training or competency review and contain the hand written signature or initials of the trainer/reviewer and the technician. This documentation shall be maintained at each facility where quality control testing occurs and shall be available for ESC inspectors to review. See Appendix 2 for examples of forms that can be used to meet these documentation requirements. The QSM shall indicate the line of authority from the quality control testing technicians to the quality control manager, which must demonstrate their authority to require corrective action. The quality control manager must be independent of production management and of equal status. X Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe. The QSM shall describe a method for permanently marking the pipe in accordance with the minimum requirements of AASHTO M252 and M294. The Manual shall describe procedures for product handling, storage, and shipping to ensure that these processes will not adversely affect the material composition, characteristics, or product quality. XI Quality Audits of Each Plant The QSM shall include a description of quality audits of each plant producing product for ESC states. The company, or an independent auditor hired by the company, shall perform these audits on an annual basis unless problems in the quality control program or with the

Rev 06/07/05 7

quality of the product indicate more frequent audits are necessary. The audits shall include the following as a minimum:

• Inspection of plant inspection and testing equipment and calibrations • Observation of resin sampling and lot control procedures • Observation of sampling and testing procedures • Review of product certification procedures • Review of inspection and testing report documentation • Review of nonconforming product documentation and actions taken

The audit findings shall be discussed with plant management and testing technicians and documented in a report. Corrective actions will be taken as necessary and documented in the report. The most recent report shall be included in the initial or updated QSM submission. XII Annual Submission of Pipe Samples to an Independent Laboratory and Release of Data to the ESC The QSM shall include information on the annual submission of pipe samples and resin for testing to an independent laboratory qualified for testing pipe samples for the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). Each manufacturer shall have the laboratory evaluate two sizes of pipe in accordance with M294 on an annual basis for each manufacturing plant furnishing pipe. An ESC representative will select and label the samples to be tested. Each sample will be a split sample, with the manufacturer performing comparative testing. The manufacturer shall report the independent laboratiory test results and the results from the split samples to the ESC using the standard format provided in the document section of the ESC website. The submission shall also include an explanation of any significant differences between the independent laboratory and split sample test results, including any corrective actions found necessary in the manufacturing process or testing procedures. The cost of the sampling, shipping, and independent laboratory testing will be borne by the manufacturer. XIII List of Plants, Quality Control Testing Facilities, and Technicians The QSM shall include the address and telephone numbers of all plants and quality control testing facilities for which the manufacturer desires ESC qualification. The quality control contact for each facility shall also be identified with contact information and lines of responsibility shown. XIV Company Test Procedures The Quality System Manual shall include all Company developed test procedures used in quality control testing. Company developed tests shall only be used if there is no ASTM or AASHTO test method.

Rev 06/07/05 8

Appendix 1

Wall Thickness Measurement The ESC has decided to allow the use of ultrasonic thickness gauges for measuring wall (liner) thickness if the following procedure is followed:

• Each gauge and transducer will be identified and calibrated. • Records will be maintained to record all calibration activities, including the

person doing the work, date performed, and every time during the year it is done.

• The ESC auditor will witness the calibration of an instrument used and sign

the form. A copy will be included with the ESC audit forms. • When new transducers are required, they will be identified and calibrated

with the instrument. • “Calibration Blocks” will be maintained at all plants. • Use of gauges:

− The ESC requires three (3) liner thickness readings per work shift, comprised of at least eight (8) readings. All these numbers will be recorded.

− Of the three (3) sets of readings, a minimum of one (1) set will be taken

with a micrometer in accordance with ASTM D2122.

− The other two (2) sets can use the ultrasonic gauge, if the producer desires. Any thickness readings not required by M 294, M 252, the ESC, or the QSM, can be taken based on producers’ discretion.

− The reading will indicate if it is done with ultrasonic or micrometer on

the form.

Rev 06/07/05 9

Appendix 2

Suggested Forms for Documenting Training and Competency Requirements

Laboratory Training / Competency Form

"ESC Lab Training

R2.pdf" "ESC Lab Training

R2.xls"

Rev 06/07/05 10

Plant Training / Competency Form

"ESC Plant

Training R.pdf" "ESC Plant

Training R.xls"

Rev 06/16/05 1

Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC) Quality Control Requirements

For HDPE Pipe Manufacturers

I General Description: The purpose of this document is to establish the minimum quality control requirements for manufacturers supplying High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPEP) to State Departments of Transportation (DOT) participating in this program. A manufacturer’s quality control procedures must provide adequate assurance to the State that the products purchased meet relevant AASHTO, ASTM, and Industry Standards. The principle standards governing the specification of HDPEP shall be AASHTO M252 and M294. A manufacturer’s procedures must be documented in a bound Quality System Manual (QSM) and it must contain or address the following: • A Quality Mission Statement • Quality Control of Raw Materials • Quality Control Inspection and Testing • Statistical Analysis of Test Results • Resolution of Non-Conforming Test Results • Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability from Resin Lot to Finished Pipe • Quality Control Testing Facilities • Qualification of Quality Control Personnel • Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe • Quality Audits of Each Plant Producing Product • Annual Submission of Pipe Samples to an Independent Laboratory and Release of

Data to the ESC • A List of Plants and Quality Control Testing Facilities Including Addresses and the

Names and Telephone Numbers of the Quality Control Contacts for Each Facility • Written Copies of all Company Developed Test Procedures The QSM shall be submitted to the ESC for review and use in the manufacturer qualification process. The QSM shall indicate the sizes and types of product for which qualification is requested by production facility, and the qualification, if granted, will then be specific to those products at the designated facilities. Each manufacturer will maintain its own testing facility for the purpose of quality control testing, or will designate an alternate testing facility. The facilities will be reviewed for qualification by the ESC. Qualification will be based on the facilities ability to perform the required test procedures in accordance with the applicable standards, the use of qualified testing technicians, the calibration and verification of all testing equipment, and record keeping. The ESC may require a demonstration of the equipment and procedures, split sample testing with a participating state, and/or round robin testing before granting testing facility qualification. Each manufacturer must designate a single quality control manager responsible for all

Rev 06/16/05 2

aspects of its quality control program and use only qualified quality control technicians at each plant or facility involved in the production or testing of pipe for the ESC. The quality control manager shall meet requirements established by the manufacturer and shall be responsible for qualification of technicians. The quality control manager’s resume shall be included in the QSM. The technician’s qualification shall be based on training and demonstrated ability to satisfactorily perform the required inspection, testing, reporting, and record keeping. The ESC may review the qualifications of any qualified technician and may require the demonstration of equipment and procedures, split sample testing with a participating state, and/or round robin testing. The manufacturer’s QSM shall be submitted electronically to the ESC Lead State in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format for coordination of the review process. Once accepted, the provisions of the QSM will be in effect for one year. If any changes occur in the QSM during the year, updated information must be submitted to the ESC Lead State. If the manufacturer desires qualification for a subsequent year, a written request must be sent to the Lead State before November 1 of the current year along with an updated electronic copy of the QSM, in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format, that clearly identifies all changes made since the previous Manual was reviewed. The updated QSM must also include a summary of all independent laboratory testing for products produced to meet the AASHTO M294 Specification including the corresponding manufacturer’s split sample test results. The Lead State will coordinate the qualification process, which will be based on the manufacturer’s satisfactory implementation of its QSM provisions as determined by testing facility inspections, sample testing if done, independent laboratory test results, and past performance. The QSM shall state that State DOT inspectors, or their agents, are allowed to enter any manufacturing plant or testing facility, unannounced, to observe the manufacturing process, review quality control testing and testing records, to obtain samples for testing, or to inspect testing facilities, product storage and transport. The following sections of this document provide more detail about the required provisions of each manufacturer’s Quality System Manual II Quality Mission Statement The quality mission statement shall be endorsed by the company’s Chief Executive Officer and also be made available to all employees III Quality Control of Raw Materials The QSM must include quality control testing of the polyethylene resins and must contain a statement that no raw materials will be used unless the lot has been tested and meets the following AASHTO/ASTM cell classification requirements or has been shipped with resin producer certification stating that it meets these requirements. The resin producer certification must include the test result for each property required. For material having only resin producer certification, at least one random sample must be taken from each lot and undergo subsequent testing to verify it meets the specified requirements.

Rev 06/16/05 3

The required material properties for the resins are as described in AASHTO M252 and M294, Section 6, Materials. The ESC requires that the following properties be tested at the noted frequencies:

• Minimum density – ASTM D1505 or ASTM D792, one test per lot • Melt Index – ASTM D1238, one test per lot

A lot is defined as a shipment (railcar or truck load) of resin. If a shipment is divided into more than one portion with separate certifications for each portion, each portion will be a separate lot. If resins from different lots are being blended in the manufacturing process, then the blended material is the lot and a new lot must be established each time a component resin lot changes. The location and method of sampling the resin must be included in the Manual. A lot number must be established for each lot and must be carried through to the finished product. For AASHTO M294 products, the ESC also requires that the resin producer’s Notched Constant Ligament-Stress (NCLS) test result be reported for each lot for which the resin producer has run the test. If the pipe manufacturer is blending different lots of producer resins, than the NCLS test must be performed on the blended resin at a minimum frequency of one test per month or when one of the component resin lots changes. Reworked plastic may be used provided it meets the requirements of Section 6.2 of AASHTO M252 and M294. Recycled plastic will not be allowed. Resin test reports and resin producer certifications, including supporting test reports, must be maintained and available for review for a period of 5 years. IV Quality Control Inspection and Testing The manufacturer shall conduct visual inspections of the exterior and interior walls for bonding, blowouts, and for workmanship items as described in AASHTO M252 and M294, during production. The manufacturer shall monitor the process and finished product. The QSM shall define the quality control tests, the method for random sampling, the size of the sample, and the lot size for production facility quality control sampling and testing. It shall also include an example of a quality control test report form. A pipe lot shall be no larger than the amount of pipe produced per type per diameter per machine per production run. An AASHTO, ASTM, or Company procedure shall be referenced for each quality control test. If a company procedure is referenced, it must be described in the QSM and is subject to approval. The ESC requires that at least the following quality control tests, or inspections, be performed at the minimum frequencies noted:

• Unit Weight, three per work shift • Wall Thickness, three per work shift

Rev 06/16/05 4

• Carbon Black Content (AASHTO M252 or M294 and ASTM D3350), one per day

• Inside Diameter, one per work shift • Pipe Length, one per work shift • Perforation Locations and Dimensions (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Water Inlet Area (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Pipe Stiffness, two per week • Pipe Flattening, two per week • Elongation (M252 Only), one per week • Low Temperature Flexibility (M252 Only), one per week • Brittleness, two per week • Joint Integrity, one per week • Environmental Stress Cracking, one per week • Workmanship (per AASHTO M252 and M294) • Marking (per AASHTO M252 and M294)

Each sample selected for quality control inspection and testing shall be designated with a sample control number for record keeping and traceability. The test report for each sample shall identify the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot designation for the polyethylene resin. The quality control test reports (not samples) must be maintained and available for review for 5 years. V Statistical Analysis of Test Results The QSM shall contain a description of the manufacturer’s statistical process control plan. The plan shall use methods such as statistical control charts to monitor production facility quality control test results for the purpose of identifying trends and being able to make production adjustments as necessary. The plan shall monitor each production plant separately and total manufacturer product quality trends. VI Resolution of Non-Conforming Product or Test Results The QSM shall contain provisions for resolving non-conforming product or test results. The test report will clearly identify the deficiencies and all product produced subsequent to the previous testing shall be identified and quarantined pending investigation of the failure. The investigation shall include obtaining and testing check samples. If the check sample meets requirements, the manufacturer shall document the reasons for the original failure and may release the quarantined material and resume normal production and testing. If the check sample fails, the manufacturer shall take corrective action to bring the product into conformance and shall note the corrective action on the test report. A second check sample shall be taken to verify the deficiency has been corrected. If this sample also fails, the process shall be repeated until the deficiency is corrected. All non-conforming material shall be segregated in the inventory and re-worked or scrapped.

Rev 06/16/05 5

VII Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability The QSM shall describe in detail the retention of quality control test reports for at least 5 years and they shall be available to the ESC upon request. The product and test reports will be identified in such a way that the test results for any pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacturer the pipe. Test reports shall indicate the action taken to resolve resin or product failures. VIII Quality Control Testing Facilities The QSM shall describe in detail the requirements for the testing facilities. As a minimum, the following requirements shall be included:

• The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for quality control testing at all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by technicians meeting the requirements of the manufacturer’s technician qualification program described in section IX.





• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all ESC reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies

• Records of equipment calibration, verification, and maintenance will be retained and available to the ESC for review upon request.

IX Qualification of Quality Control Personnel The manufacturer’s quality control manager must meet the requirements established by the manufacturer and is responsible for the qualification of the technicians performing the quality control testing. Quality control personnel must be familiar with the tests they perform and have sufficient authority to assure that corrective actions are carried out when necessary. As a minimum, a manufacturer’s quality control technician qualification program shall include training in the AASHTO, ASTM, or Company test procedures, demonstration of proficiency in each required test, and demonstration of ability to properly document test results. It shall also include annual auditing of each technician’s ability to satisfactorily perform the required tests. The training shall include the operation of equipment, the procedures to be used, calculations required, and reporting. Re-training shall be provided when the test method is revised. Technician training will be documented and the records pertaining to qualification will be available for review.

Rev 06/16/05 6

The QSM shall indicate the line of authority from the quality control testing technicians to the quality control manager, which must demonstrate their authority to require corrective action. The quality control manager must be independent of production management and of equal status. X Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe. The QSM shall describe a method for permanently marking the pipe in accordance with the minimum requirements of AASHTO M252 and M294. The Manual shall describe procedures for product handling, storage, and shipping to ensure that these processes will not adversely affect the material composition, characteristics, or product quality. XI Quality Audits of Each Plant The QSM shall include a description of quality audits of each plant producing product for ESC states. The company, or an independent auditor hired by the company, shall perform these audits on an annual basis unless problems in the quality control program or with the quality of the product indicate more frequent audits are necessary. The audits shall include the following as a minimum:

• Inspection of plant inspection and testing equipment and calibrations • Observation of resin sampling and lot control procedures • Observation of sampling and testing procedures • Review of product certification procedures • Review of inspection and testing report documentation • Review of nonconforming product documentation and actions taken

The audit findings shall be discussed with plant management and testing technicians and documented in a report. Corrective actions will be taken as necessary and documented in the report. The most recent report shall be included in the initial or updated QSM submission. XII Annual Submission of Pipe Samples to an Independent Laboratory and Release of Data to the ESC The QSM shall include information on the annual submission of pipe and resin samples for testing to an independent laboratory qualified for testing pipe and resin samples for the National Transportation Product Evaluation program (NTPEP). Each manufacturer shall have the independent laboratory evaluate two sizes of pipe in accordance with M294 on an annual basis for each manufacturing plant furnishing pipe. An ESC representative will select and label the samples to be tested. Each sample will be a split sample, with the manufacturer performing comparative testing, the results of which will be furnished to the ESC. The cost of the sampling, shipping, and independent laboratory testing will be borne by the manufacturer.

Rev 06/16/05 7

XIII List of Plants, Quality Control Testing Facilities, and Technicians The QSM shall include the address and telephone numbers of all plants and quality control testing facilities for which the manufacturer desires ESC qualification. The quality control contact for each facility shall also be identified with contact information and lines of responsibility shown. XIV Company Test Procedures The Quality System Manual shall include all Company developed test procedures used in quality control testing. Company developed tests shall only be used if there is no ASTM or AASHTO test method.

Rev 06/07/05 - 1 -

Eastern States’ Consortium on HDPEP Participant Responsibilities

I Background: Fourteen eastern States have formed a consortium, known as the Eastern States’ Consortium (ESC), to establish minimum requirements for the quality control procedures that the manufacturers of High Density Polyethylene Pipe must subscribe to in order to supply pipe to participating states. The ESC has identified responsibilities that the participating manufacturers, States, and the Lead State must follow for the program to operate efficiently. The States currently participating in the consortium are CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, & VA. with NH as the Lead State. The manufactures currently participating are Advanced Drainage Systems, Baughman Tile, Hancor, Lane, and Soleno. This document summarizes the responsibilities for the different parties, which can be found in more detail in the ESC Operating Procedures and the ESC Quality Control Requirements for HDPE Pipe Manufacturers. II Manufacturers’ Responsibilities: Participating manufacturers must develop and implement a Quality System Manual (QSM) outlining their quality control testing program for raw materials, manufactured fittings, and finished pipe. In addition, the manual must addresses the following general program, testing facilities, personnel qualification, and record keeping requirements:

1. General Requirements: • Each manufacturer must be prepared to accommodate testing facility

inspections by ESC representatives when submitting its initial Quality System Manual (QSM), or updated QSM in the case of qualification renewal, to the Lead State. The ESC will attempt to conduct the inspection within 30 days of approval of the documentation.

• Each testing facility is responsible for ensuring continuous compliance with all ESC quality control requirements. Failure to do so may result in revocation of manufacturer qualification.

• Each manufacturer is to maintain a summary of all independent laboratory test results and the corresponding manufacturers split sample tests for inclusion in the QSM at the time of submittal for re-qualification.

2. Testing Facilities: The following seven requirements pertain to the qualification of quality control testing facilities: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for

quality control testing at all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by qualified technicians.

Rev 06/07/05 - 2 -

• The testing facilities shall maintain current versions of all AASHTO, ASTM, and Company test procedures for all tests performed and a current version of the Company’s QSM.


• The testing equipment shall be calibrated/verified in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations at least once every 12 months by personnel customarily involved in such work as documented in the QSM.


• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all test results and all ESC reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies.

• Records of equipment calibration and verification will be maintained and available to Consortium States upon request.

3. Testing Personnel: The ESC has also identified the following requirements for quality control testing personnel: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall meet the requirements

established by the company for the position. The quality control manager’s resume shall be included in the QSM.


• Documentation must show that the technician has satisfactorily demonstrated her/his competency to perform the required testing and that this demonstration is repeated annually.



• Technicians-in-training may perform sampling and testing at ERC qualified facilities provided they are working under the direct supervision of a technician fully qualified under ESC requirements.

• If requested, technicians must perform sampling and testing for ESC observers. Split samples may also be taken for testing by ESC members.

4. Testing Documentation The ESC has established the following requirements for testing documentation: • All quality control test results for resins and pipes must be documented in

reports of the same format as the sample forms submitted in the QSM and must be kept for five years.

• The reports must document the actions taken in the event of resin or product test failures.

• The reports must show the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot designation of resin. Identification must be such that the test

Rev 06/07/05 - 3 -

reports for any piece of pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacture the pipe.


III. State Agency Responsibilities: Each participating State will have the following responsibilities in implementing the ESC testing facility qualification program:

• Each State will designate a contact person for inquiries regarding the program and provide the name and phone number of the contact person to the ESC Lead State.

• When requested by the Lead State, the States will make every effort to provide a person to participate in inspections of manufacturers’ quality control testing facilities within their State or an adjacent non-member State or Province using the appropriate program guidelines. If a participating state is unable to fulfill obligations due to travel restrictions, the Lead State will ask other members to perform these inspections.

• The State conducting the inspection will contact the manufacturer’s quality control manager to arrange for the inspection of quality control testing facilities.

• Once the inspection has been completed, a copy of the inspection report will be forwarded to ESC Lead State for inclusion in the facility qualification database. Each State shall retain the original copy of all completed inspection documentation.

• If an ESC State does acceptance or other testing of pipe made by an ESC qualified manufacturer, the State is encouraged to furnish a copy of the test results to the manufacturer and to the Lead State.

IV. ESC Lead State Responsibilities: The ESC Lead State will be responsible for administering the testing facility qualification program as follows:

• The Lead State will notify the contact person in the participating State where the quality control testing facility is located when an inspection is required. With the approval of this State, the Lead State may also ask other ESC representatives to participate in the inspection. When the facility is not located in a participating State, the Lead State will arrange for ESC volunteers to conduct the inspection.

• The Lead State will maintain a testing facility qualification database and will be responsible for entering inspection information obtained from the Facility Inspection Reports forwarded by the participating States for each facility that is inspected.

• The Lead State will notify the manufacturer and the participating States of the status of the testing facility qualification after completion of the

Rev 06/07/05 - 4 -

inspection. If the facility is not qualified, the Lead State notification will include a detailed explanation of the deficiencies.

• The Lead State will maintain the ESC web site that will include the list of ESC qualified manufacturers and other information relevant to the program.

• As long as the manufacturer has submitted its request for renewal of ESC qualification by November 1 of the current year, the Lead State will grant a three- month grace period for a testing facility to be re-inspected and re-qualified in accordance ESC procedures.

• The Lead State will respond to inquiries related to the qualification for individual testing facilities as they occur during the year.

IV. Manufacturer Disqualification From the ESC: All manufacturers must ensure that all quality control testing facilities, personnel, and sampling and testing activities are in continuous conformance with the ESC requirements. The Lead State, based on results of ESC inspections or the acceptance or other testing done by individual States, may rescind ESC manufacturer qualification if a facility is determined not to comply with the ESC requirements. The Lead State shall forward a letter of explanation to the affected manufacturer and all participating States detailing the reason(s) for revocation of the qualification. Appeals of such revocation shall be handled by the Lead State.

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix D


Appendix D

Stakeholder Survey Form

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix D1

Survey of Stakeholders

E-mail

TRI/Environemental, Inc., Southeast Office / PO Box 9192 / Greenville, SC 29604 / 864-242-2220 Corporate Office & Lab / 9063 Bee Caves Road / Austin, TX 78733 / 800-880-TEST

to: Corrugated HDPE Pipe Stakeholders at State Agencies & Testing Labs

date: July 27, 2005 Dear Agency and Testing Lab Representatives: TRI/Environmental, Inc. (TRI) is performing a study for the NCHRP concerning “Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe”. Specifically, several organizations that currently maintain independent quality assurance programs for corrugated HDPE pipe are all interested in merging their separate programs into one technical service. Our study endeavors to review existing programs and develop a strategy for one combined nationwide QA program. Background The National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP), established by the AASHTO, conducts coordinated testing on a wide array of proprietary, engineered products including corrugated High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Plastic Pipe. All testing is performed in accordance with the testing procedures outlined in the AASHTO materials specification M294. NTPEP conducts independent laboratory testing on pipe and resins. No in-plant auditing is performed by NTPEP.

In a separate effort to further product quality, the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), an industry association, has developed testing protocols for third-party verification of corrugated HDPE pipe. The PPI verification protocol, like NTPEP, includes pipe and resin testing as well as quality audits of the manufacturing process and plant.

In yet another program, fourteen states in the eastern United States have formed a syndicate known as the “Eastern States Consortium (ESC)” for HDPE pipe. The ESC requirements are similar to PPI, but contain more frequent testing and oversight.

Study Objectives • Develop a merger strategy that includes a detailed implementation plan for the merger of the NTPEP, PPI, and

ESC Corrugated HDPE pipe testing protocols and plant certifications into one technical service program jointly administered by NTPEP, PPI, and ESC stakeholders.

• Develop audit materials for use by highway agencies and sampling/testing contractors. Your Input Needed As noted above, we want to be assured of the greatest breadth of input from State Agency and Testing Lab stakeholders. To this end, we have compiled the elements of the existing NTPEP, PPI, and ESC programs into the attached table and identified which programs include which program elements. Following this same approach, we would like to ask you to comment/indicate in the last column which QA elements you especially value in a QA program. Also, please append any comments to the end of this document and return it via e-mail or fax by August 12. Your assistance is greatly appreciated and will help facilitate an effective merger strategy. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please call me at 1-864-242-2220.

C. Joel Sprague, Principle Investigator, NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 191 TRI/Environmental, Inc., [email protected], Fax: 864/242-3107 xc: Sam Allen

July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:__________________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X



Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing





Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Listing of qualified plants on website. X

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: ________________________________________ Contact Info: _______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix E


Appendix E

Stakeholder Survey Responses

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix E1

Responses to Survey of Stakeholders

July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent: Bob Locander, CO Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X, annual 3rd party audit Administration Fees X X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X X, internal manufacturing

costs Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results

X, supplied to DOT in a Certificate of Compliance

- this means tracking batch and lot

Resin Qualification

Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X


Pre-qualification Audit X

X, these items are not to be included in NTPEP

testing but must be submitted to DOT in

manufacturer's QC/QA manual with a annual certification from a 3rd

party audit

3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product


Does not matter if statistical sampling is

done as per submitted in QC/QA manual





testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X

Keep minimum amount of testing per NTPEP, all

other testing is an internal QC/QA program as documented in the

manufacturer's QC/QA manual with an annual 3rd

party audit

Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X




Keep minimum NTPEP process, manufacturer must have document

procedures outlined in QC/QA manual

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X Listing of qualified plants on website. X

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Disagreements Resolved by review panel. X

July 27, 2005 Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Respondent: __Bob Locander___________________ Contact Info: __Dave Kotzer_______________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _Colorado DOT____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

CDOT is currently specifying plastic pipe conforming to AASHTO M 294, with no reference to NTPEP testing. CDOT is presently

having internal discussions and is in the process of revising culvert manuals, selection material pipe guidelines, and material

specifications.


CDOT has developed a Quality Management Plans and the Qualified Manufacturers List procedure. HDPE is not included but

concrete manholes and pipes are covered in the precast concrete structures section. Attached is CDOT's CP 11-06 procedure. The

manufacturer is required to submit a QC/QA manual for an office review for qualifying a manufacturer's plant.

Colorado_CP% 2011-% 2006.pdf




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_Keith R.Lane, CT


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X QC technician qualifications X X Statisitical process control X X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X X Initial Product


Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin X Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X X Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X



or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X X

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X X Listing of test results on website. X X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Listing of qualified plants on website. X X

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: _Keith R. Lane____________________ Contact Info: [email protected]______ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____ConnDOT________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

We rely on material certifications provided by the manufacturers.______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: _Historically

Connecticut has not utilized plastic pipe to any great extent in DOT applications; consequently we are not as familiar with the issues

as others seem to be. __________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___CT-2_________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X Resin manufacturer C of A X Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X


Pre-qualification Audit X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X X Initial Product






testing





Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X X Listing of test results on website. X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X Listing of qualified plants on website. X

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: ________________________________________ Contact Info: _______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: ConnDOT currently has no quality

assurance testing for this type of pipe. Our Standard Specifications, Materials Section, references the AASHTO materials

specifications as follows: “Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, either corrugated interior surface (Type C) or smooth interior surface (Type

S) without perforations or with perforations (Type CP or SP), shall conform to AASHTO M 252 or M 294. Type D pipe shall have a

smooth interior surface braced circumferentially or spirally with projections or ribs joined to a smooth outer wall. Both surfaces shall

be fused to, or be continuous with, the internal supports. Type D shall conform to AASHTO M 294.” We are in the process of writing

a new specification for this pipe. Resin quality and testing will likely be incorporated into the new specification.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_Jim Pappas_DE____ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X ESC Provide independent test results X X X ESC Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X ESC Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X ESC Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X ESC Lot identification directions X ESC Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X ESC QC technician qualifications X ESC Statisitical process control X ESC Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X ESC Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X ESC Test report retention X X ESC Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X ESC


Pre-qualification Audit X ESC 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X ESC Initial Product


Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X ESC Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X ESC

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X ESC Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin ESC Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X ESC


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X ESC Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X



or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X ESC

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X ESC Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Listing of qualified plants on website. X ESC

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X ESC Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X ESC Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X ESC

July 27, 2005 Respondent: __Jim Pappas____________________________ Contact Info: _______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _Delaware Dept of Transportation Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: ____AASHTO M 294 & 252 are the

governing standard specification. DelDOT as a ESC member state, is using ESC program for product evaluation._______________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: _ We need

to look on the possibilities of testing resin by third parties, for better control on resin production & to verify their variability during

production stages. Also the possibilities of testing jointing system.______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_FL Rodney Powers__Tel. 352-955-6690_______________


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X HV Provide independent test results X X X HV Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X HV Administration Fees X NEUTRAL ListingFees X NEUTRAL Auditing Fees X NEUTRAL

Cost

Testing Fees X X X NEUTRAL Resin manufacturer C of A HV Pipe manufacturer test results HV Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing HV Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X HV Lot identification directions X HV Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X HV QC technician qualifications X HV Statisitical process control X HV Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X HV Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X HV Test report retention X X HV Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X HV


Pre-qualification Audit X MV 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X LV Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X HV

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X MV Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X HV Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X MV

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X HV

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X MV Internal or independent audits of every plant X X HV Samples usually taken from inventory pipe HV Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin HV Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? MV Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X HV


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X HV Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X HV

Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) X QV


or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X HV

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X HV Listing of test results on website. X X HV Test results published and sent to DOTs. X MV Listing of qualified plants on website. X HV

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X MV Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X MV Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X MV Resolved by review panel. X HV Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X HV Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X QV

July 27, 2005 Note: MV=Moderately Valuable; HV=Highly Valuable; QV=Questionable or Low Value

Respondent: __RODNEY POWERS______________________________________ Contact Info: [email protected]_______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: ___FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION__________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: __Our specifications require that HDPE

pipe manufacturers have a quality control program that meets the requirements of our Materials Manual. (see links) Our Materials

Manual makes the manufacturer totally responsible for quality control. Minimum QC/QA tests and inspections are spelled out. The

manufacturer’s lab must be ISO accredited. We also require that HDPE pipe manufacturers comply with Plastic Pipe Institutes,

Recommended Procedures for Manufacturer’s Quality Control Quality Assurance for Corrugated HDPE Pipe.” (see file attached to e-

mail) Our District Materials Offices provide quarterly independent verification inspections at each of the manufacturing plants.

Random independent assurance tests will be conducted on pipes delivered to our projects.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/administration/resources/library/publications/materialsmanual/documents/mm-

section61-clean.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___IOWA____


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product




Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe X Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing






Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: __Joe Putherickal ______________________________________ Contact Info: 515-239-1259._______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _Iowa ,DOT.____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___LA__________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X Administration Fees X X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X




Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin X Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing


Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) X X




Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: ___HENRY LACINAK_______________________ Contact Info: ___225-548-4103________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: ___LOUISIANA DOTD____ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent: Maine DOT______


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost










testing






Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: _________B. Yeaton – D. Gayne___________________ Contact Info: _____________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____Maine DOT________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

Verification of product compliance with specifications. Product ban process for failing pipe. Active participant in ESC (conduct plant

inspection of Soleno plant).


End result testing of everything including testing of resin from finished product.





July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS –

Respondent:_Maryland_________________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X NTPEP & ESC Provide independent test results X X X ESC Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X ESC Administration Fees X NTPEP ListingFees X PPI Auditing Fees X PPI

Cost

Testing Fees X X X PPI & NTPEP Resin manufacturer C of A X PPI Pipe manufacturer test results X NTPEP ( or ESC ) Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing X ESC, if possible Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X ESC Lot identification directions X ESC Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X ESC QC technician qualifications X ESC Statisitical process control X ESC Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X 3rd party PPI Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X ESC Test report retention X X ESC Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X ESC


Pre-qualification Audit X ESC 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X ESC Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X NTPEP ( until 2005 )

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X ESC Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X PPI

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X ESC

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X ESC Samples usually taken from inventory pipe ESC Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin ESC Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? PPI Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X ESC


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X ESC Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X PPI

Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) X NTPEP ( until 2005 )


or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X ESC

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X ? Listing of test results on website. X X ESC Test results published and sent to DOTs. X NTPEP ( until 2005 ) Listing of qualified plants on website. X ESC

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X ESC Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X ESC Resolved by review panel. X PPI Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X ESC

July 27, 2005 Respondent: _Paul G. Finnerty_______________________________________ Contact Info:[email protected] Respondent Agency / Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: __________________________________________________________________________________________Program_is_part_of_Easten_States_Consortium._Until_recently,_NTPEP_was_receiving_and_testing_pipe_ sampled_the_ESC._However,_I_understand_that_NTPEP_has_discontinued_this_practice.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:__Nebraska______________



Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A X Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X QC technician qualifications X X Statisitical process control X X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X






Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin PIPE & RESIN Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing





Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X X Listing of test results on website. X X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X Listing of qualified plants on website. X X

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: Mark Burham NE Dept of Roads Contact Info: [email protected] Respondent Agency / Organization: Materials & Research Division Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: State of Nebraska

Limited use in Nebraska, primarily for use in underdrains and cross drainage applications.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:__NV_______ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent


Cost

Testing Fees X X X Resin manufacturer C of A X Pipe manufacturer test results Resin





Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X X


testing






Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: ____DEAN C. WEITZEL__________________________ Contact Info: ___775-888-7520________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: ___NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION__________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

__Pipe accepted based on Certificate of Compliance from Manufacturer

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent: New Hampshire

DOT__________________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent


Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A X Pipe manufacturer test results X Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X QC technician qualifications X X Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product


Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X Option Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Prefered Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X .5 Years Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin X Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X X Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X X




Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X Listing of qualified plants on website. X X

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: Alan Rawson Contact Info: 603-271-3151; [email protected] Respondent Agency / Organization: New Hampshire Department of Transportion Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: ESC and with project acceptance of

HDPEP by Certificate of Compliance.

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: The ESC program

will likely require administrative fees once operation is transferred to a consultant. AASHTO would probably be the best

option for administering the managing consultant contract. The key parts of any program are a robust quality control

program verified through DOT audits and testing of resin and finished pipe samples.




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_Lloyd Welker Ohio DOT__


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Yes (ODOT uses PPI) Provide independent test results X X X Yes (ODOT uses PPI)

Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X

I don’t see this as critical. That issue is critical in

audits. Administration Fees

X

Ohio gets nothing for this. We are just paying some

university to have test equipment

ListingFees X Don’t care Auditing Fees X If that’s what it takes

Cost

Testing Fees X X X If that’s what it takes Resin manufacturer C of A NO Pipe manufacturer test results NO Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing NO Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X Yes Lot identification directions X No Specific QC Testing Frequencies

sugg X

Seems like this is a manufacturer’s control issue. I don’t believe

there is anybody in the DOT’s that honestly

familiar with QC versus what is materially needed.

QC technician qualifications X Probably good Statisitical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Yes Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Yes Test report retention X X Yes Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X Yes


Pre-qualification Audit

X

Not sure what you mean. From what I remember of

PPI they Audit before qualifying.

3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Yes Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X NO

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Yes this is critical Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X This doesn’t make sense. Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X Yes

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant

X

I could go for this if it is random for the audit. – Skip the resin – test the

pipe Seems like somewhere between 5 and 1 year is

more logical Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X NO Internal or independent audits of every plant X X YES Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Yes Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Yes Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Yes Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X Yes

July 27, 2005 Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X Yes



or testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer working with the inspecting team. X What does this mean?

Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Don’t care Listing of test results on website. X X Don’t care Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Yes Listing of qualified plants on website. X Don’t care

Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X Don’t care Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X Resolved by review panel. X yes Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Respondent: __Lloyd Welker_______________ Contact Info: __Ohio Department of Transportation, 1600 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio. 43223. _614-275-1351 [email protected]____________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: ___Ohio DOT__________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

We use PPI with internal submittal of QC plan they provided PPI. We have built some additional rules in documentation requirements

and the companies responsibility to sign off for PPI to notify Ohio when there are issues. Additionally we require for M252 as well as

M 294. We do allow recycled materials for M252 with our approval of QC plan.

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: _

What see PPI like PCI or AISC. Don’t see a real need for having to develop and support our own independent agency. I believe the

random un announced audits are critical. If we are using this for acceptance then telling them we are coming just doesn’t meet the

true concept of random statistical sampling. When we wanted to pull and test previously we never said here we come. Why would a

certification program do that?

NTPEP just isn’t worth the effort. We have a test location in Ohio at a state school and ODOT doesn’t support the program.




July 27, 2005 TRI/Environmental, Inc., [email protected], Fax: 864/242-3107 xc: Sam Allen

CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent: RIDOT Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X See comments. Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X Listing Fees X Auditing Fees X

Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statistical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X






Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory Pipe Samples usually taken from production Resin Pipe & resin Pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing






Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X Disagreements Resolved by review panel. X

July 27, 2005 Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Respondent: Jan J. Bak Contact Info: 401-222-2524 x 4136 Respondent Agency / Organization: RIDOT - Materials Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

RIDOT has limited experience with HDPE but specify ESC and AASHTO M 294 but work within all three programs.

Current limitations include maximum of 24” diameter; minimum 3 feet cover; and mandrel testing. See website Standard

Specification 701.

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: Look forward to

your report – please forward a copy when completed.




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:__James Maxwell, TN Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results X Resin






Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X X EVERY TWO YEARS



testing


Manufacturer may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) X X ALSO IDENTIFY CAUSE,

DOC. RES. & REV QC




Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X & REVIEW Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: James M. Maxwell Contact Info: [email protected] Respondent Agency / Organization: Tennessee Department of Transportation Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

__NONE____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______


__NONE____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_Larry J. Lundy, VA_______



Cost






Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe X Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X X


testing





Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Listing of test results on website. X X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Listing of qualified plants on website. X X

Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: __Larry J. Lundy_______________________ Contact Info: [email protected]_____________ Respondent Agency / Organization: ___Virginia DOT/Materials Division Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: ____Virginia DOT is part of the ESC. The

ESC program is well-documented.

Additional Comments / Input Concerning Corrugated HDPE Pipe Quality, Quality Assurance, and Related Issues: Virginia DOT will

continue to build on the success of the ESC and programs of this nature.




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___WSDOT________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent


Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing X Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X QC technician qualifications X Statistical process control X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X




Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin X Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X X





Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: ____Tom Baker___________________________

Contact Info: Thomas E. Baker, P.E. State Materials Engineer WSDOT State Materials Laboratory Environmental and Engineering Programs Mailing address: PO Box 47365, Olympia WA 98504-7365 Delivery (Street) Address: 1655 S. 2nd Ave. Tumwater, WA 98512 Phone: 360-709-5401 Fax: 360-709-5588 e-mail: [email protected] Website: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/> Respondent Agency / Organization: __WSDOT______________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

NTPEP and state testing of joints for watertightness.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___Larry Barker, WV________


Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost


Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X X Initial Product




Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe X Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing






Public Notice



July 27, 2005 Respondent: _Larry Barker__________________________________ Contact Info: [email protected]_____________ Respondent Agency / Organization: __West Virginia Division of Highways________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

_ Yearly testing of various pipe sizes within our testing capability from each manufacturer supplying pipe in our state. .

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:___WI_____ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X x Provide independent test results X X X x Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X x Administration Fees X x ListingFees X Auditing Fees X x

Cost

Testing Fees X X X x Resin manufacturer C of A Pipe manufacturer test results Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing x Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X x Lot identification directions X x Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X x QC technician qualifications X x Statisitical process control X x Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X x Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X x Test report retention X X x Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X x


Pre-qualification Audit X x 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X x

Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X x Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X

Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X x

Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X x Samples usually taken from inventory pipe Pipe Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin Resin Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X x


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X x Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X x




Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X x Listing of test results on website. X X Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Listing of qualified plants on website. X x

Public Notice


Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X x Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X x Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

July 27, 2005 Respondent: __________Jim Parry__________________ Contact Info: ______608-____________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: _____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS –

Respondent:_BobSlicker_ADS_________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X X Provide independent test results X X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X ListingFees X X Auditing Fees X X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X X Resin manufacturer C of A X Pipe manufacturer test results X Resin

Qualification Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X X Lot identification directions X X Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X APPROVED MFG.’s

PLAN QC technician qualifications X Statisitical process control X X Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X X Test report retention X X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X X


Pre-qualification Audit X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X SUBMITTED BY ADM Initial Product


Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe PIPE Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin RESIN Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? X Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing

Quality program re-submittal with updates X Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and revise QC plan to assure future conformance. X X





Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X Resolved by review panel. X X Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X

July 27, 2005 Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Respondent: __Bob Slicker______________________________________ Contact Info: (614) 658-0250 _______________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: Advanced Drainage Systems. Inc. ____________________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity: _Participate in current PPI, NTPEP, and

ESC product certification and listing programs

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




July 27, 2005 CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE – QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS – Respondent:_Hancor, Inc.__________ Program Elements Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Respondent

Practice or Preference Validate product certifications X X Provide independent test results X X X Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants X Administration Fees X ListingFees X Auditing Fees X

Cost

Testing Fees X X X Resin manufacturer C of A ; or Pipe manufacturer test results ; or

Resin Qualification

Independent lab testing Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X Lot identification directions X Specific QC Testing Frequencies

sugg X

(based on approved mfg. plan)

QC technician qualifications X Statistical process control (See Note 1 Below)

X

(Statistical quality control) 1

Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X Test report retention X X Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X


Pre-qualification Audit X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples submitted by company X X

(submitted by administrator) Initial Product

Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company – samples obtained by DOT X (submitted by

administrator) Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X


Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Samples usually taken from inventory pipe

(pipe) Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin

(resin or pipe) Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X


testing






Public Notice

Distribution of split-sample test results. X

July 27, 2005 Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X Product

Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X Resolved by review panel. X Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Disagreements Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X

Note to table above: 1. We do not believe the Quality Assurance program administrator should be empowered to monitor or affect process controls since we are ultimately financially responsible for the finished product performance. Respondent: _Tim Toliver Contact Info: _419-424-8243 _________________________________ Respondent Agency / Organization: Hancor, Inc.____________ Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondent’s State / Vicinity:

Same QC/QA program across the nation with the exception of ESC where the required are more stringent.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The program should be based on a sound QC/QA program. The program should minimize pre-production testing. Wherever

applicable, the quality testing should assure finished product performance. This is especially true when several test may be

measuring the same performance criteria such as NCLS (in the case os slow crack growth resistance). In this case, finished

product testing may make the most sense (once the manufacturer has demonstrated a Statistical Quality Control of raw

materials.)

Any and all comments and recommendations related to QA of corrugated HDPE pipe are welcome and will be considered in developing a

strategy for a single, nationwide program.


Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix F1


Appendix F

QSM Review Checklist

&

Resin / Pipe Testing Specifications



NTPEP QUALITY SYSTEMS MANUAL CHECKLIST

COMPANY: ______________________________ DATE:____________

Basis: It is the responsibility of the Manufacturer to control the quality of the Products produced and to provide the quality control information needed for acceptance by the buyer/user. The Manufacturer is required to perform quality control sampling, testing and record keeping on all products they produce. All Products produced by the Manufacturer must meet all the requirements of the standard specifications, which for corrugated polyethylene pipe are AASHTO M294/252. Since each Manufacturer is knowledgeable about it’s manufacturing process and products’ history, each Manufacturer determines it’s appropriate quality control testing frequency. Written Plan: ____ The Manufacturer has a written Quality Systems Manual (QSM) containing a comprehensive

quality control plan detailing how the Manufacturer will control the equipment, materials, and production methods to insure that the specified products meet the requirements of AASHTO M294/252.

The following information must be included in this quality control plan:

____ A quality mission statement. (Comment #___) ____ Provide a list of manufacturing facilities and location of plants. (Comment #___) ____ Provide a list of the applicable Products produced at each plant. (Comment #___) ____ Provide the name and title of the individual responsible for the quality control program at each

plant. (Comment #___) ____ Describe the Quality Control lab facilities and capabilities. (Comment #___) ____ Describe systems/procedures for training and requalifying MQC personnel. (Comment #___) ____ Describe systems and procedures for acquiring and managing raw materials used in pipe production.

(Comment #___) ____ Describe the systems and procedures for marking, storage, shipping, and handling of finished pipe.

(Comment #___) ____ Designate the methods used to identify each lot of material (both raw material and pipe) during

manufacturing, testing, storage and shipment. (Comment #___) ____ Detail the Statistical Process Control (SPC) program, if any, used by the company, and describe

how the company integrates the results of the company MQC program into the SPC program. Provide evidence of MQC integration. (Comment #___)

____ Identify the method of sampling and testing of raw materials and pipe product based on the lot size

and the tests to be performed. (Comment #___)



____ Provide the location of all test methods and current specifications (incl. M294/252), in-house calibration devices, and other measuring devices used for MQC. (Comment #___)

____ Designate the frequency for each test conducted by the Manufacturer – see table.

Test AASHTO Spec

Req’d Minimum Frequency

Actual Min. Frequency Comments

Workmanship M 294/252 hourly Pipe Inside Diameter M 294/252 one per shift Pipe Wall Thickness M 294/252 three per shift

Pipe Length M 294/252 one per shift Pipe Stiffness @ 5% M 294/252 two per week

Pipe Flattening M 294/252 two per week Pipe Elongation1 M 252 two per month Pipe Brittleness M 294/252 two per week

Low Temp Flexibility2 M 252 two per month Pipe ESCR M 294/252 two per month

Pipe Joint Integrity3 M 294 one per week4 / month5 Pipe Coupling Strength M 252 two per month

Pipe Joint Integrity2 M 252 two per month Pipe Perforations M 294/252 one per shift

Marking M 294/252 one per shift 1. Type C/CP only; 2. Coiled Type C/CP only; 3. “Soil-tight” criteria;

4. Bell/spigot attached after pipe made; 5: Integrally extruded bell/spigot ____ Identify program for handling nonconforming product (resin or pipe) and investigation and

corrective action procedures to remedy the problem. (Comment #___) ____ Affirm that samples of resin and pipe may be taken by specifying agencies. (Comment #__) ____ Affirm that specifying agencies may require annual third party independent assurance tests.

(Comment #___) ____ Describe how samples are identified for record keeping. (Comment #___) ____ Describe how the manufacturer’s MQC samples are uniquely identified by the producing plant.

(Comment #___) ____ Detail how Quality Control and Quality Assurance data are retained by the Manufacturer for two

years and made available to the specifying agency upon request. (Comment #___) ____ Detail the procedure for a customer to obtain test reports related to products sold for specific

projects. (Comment #___) ____ Provide an example of a typical Quality Control test report that includes the lot identification and

other necessary documentation. (Comment #___) ____ Quality Control test reports shall track and indicate the action taken to resolve non-conforming

product. (Comment #___)



Annual Audits / Testing: ____ An annual update is required for all plants that were not subject to an Administrator audit during the

calendar year. This update will assure the Administrator that all requirements of AASHTO M 294/252 were met for all the certified Products by summarizing results of MQC tests in accordance with the Manufacturer’s MQC plan. (Comment #___)

____ The annual update should include copies of reports from all independent ausits performed during the

year. (Comment #___)

____ The Manufacturer must submit this annual update to the Administrator by February 1st of the

following year. (Comment #___)

____ The Administrator will review the Manufacturer’s annual update to verify that the QSM is up-to-date, has been implemented, and is being followed. (Comment #___)

Reviewer’s Comments:

1. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

2. ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ _

3. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

6. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

7. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

8. ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Resin & Pipe Testing Summary of Specification Requirements and Test Elements

M294 - Resin Classification: 335400C; Pipe Std. Conditioning: 23±2°C for 24 hrs M252 - Resin Classification: 324420C; Pipe Std. Conditioning: 23±2°C for 24 hrs

AASHTO

SpecProperty Test Method M 294 M 252

Specification Limits

Resin Testing

X 0.948 ≤ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3Resin Density D1505 X 0.940 ≤ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

X * ≤ 0.4 to 0.15*Resin Melt Index D1238 X * 1.0* ≤ < 0.4

X * 110000 ≤ < 160000* psiResin Flexural Modulus D 790 X * 80000 ≤ < 110000* psiResin Tensile Strength at Yield D 638 X * X * 3000 ≤ < 3500* psi

F 2136 X > 24 hrs Resin ESCR D 1693 X Cond B, 24 hrs, ≤ 50% failureResin Thermal Stability D 3350 X X ≥ 220°C

Pipe Carbon Black D 1603 X X 2 ≤ ≤ 5%Note: Rework material must also meet all cell class requirements.

Pipe Testing Workmanship M X X No visible defects

Pipe Inside Diameter D 2122 X X -1.5% ≤ ≤ +4.5%Pipe Wall Thickness D 2122 X X ≥ (see tables)

Pipe Length M X X ≥ 99% selling length Pipe Stiffness @ 5% D 2412 X X ≥ (see tables) @ 0° / 45° / 90°

Pipe Flattening M X X no buckling, etc ≥ 20%Pipe Elongation (C/CP only) M 252 X ≤ 10%

Pipe Brittleness D 2444 X no cracks Pipe Brittleness M 252 X no cracks

Low Temp Flexibility (coiled C/CP only) M 252 X no cracks Pipe ESCR M X X no cracks

Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity M 294 X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20%Pipe Coupling Strength M 252 X No damage @ 20%

Pipe Joint Integrity (coiled C/CP only) M 252 X No separation Pipe Perforations M X X Nonperf; Class 1; Class 2

Marking M X X full markings @ ≤ 3.5 m1. Resins that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties, with the exception of density, are

acceptable provided product requirements are met.



RESIN DENSITY – ASTM D 1505 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes

Standard Operating Procedure / Reference Standard / Calibrated Apparatus?

SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3 (small chip from plaque or pipe)

CONDITIONING: Standard laboratory conditioning.

APPARATUS: Gradient density column.

TEST: Compare position of 3 specimens to standard density floats.

Requirement: M 294: 0.948 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3 M 252: 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

RESIN MELT INDEX – ASTM D 1238 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 2 (3g of chips from plaque or pipe)


APPARATUS: Melt flow index tester.

TEST: Preheated sample is pushed through standard orifice under standard load. Mass extruded in 10 minutes reported.

Requirement: M 294: ≤ 0.4 to 0.15* M 252: 1.0* ≤ __ < 0.4 1. Resins that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties, with the exception of density, are acceptable provided product req’ts are met.

RESIN FLEXURAL MODULUS – ASTM D 790 (as modified in D 3350) (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 5 (½” by 2.5” bar)

CONDITIONING: Standard lab conditioning

APPARATUS: Instron with 3-point bending fixture.

TEST: Measure load to produce 2” strain in outer surface of specimen. Calculate modulus.

Requirement: M 294: 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi (758 ≤ __< 1103 MPa) M 252: 80000 ≤ __< 110000* psi (552 ≤ __< 758 MPa) 1. Resins that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties, with the exception of density, are acceptable provided product req’ts are met.



RESIN TENSILE STRENGTH AT YIELD – ASTM D 638 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 5

SPECIMEN: Type IV dumbbell


APPARATUS: Instron

TEST: Measure load to yield and calculate yield stress.

Requirement: 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi (21 ≤ __< 24 MPa) 1. Resins that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties, with the exception of density, are acceptable provided product requirements are met.

RESIN ESCR via NCLS – ASTM F 2136 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 5 (ASTM D1822 Type L)


APPARATUS: Constant load testing device

TEST: Notch specimen leaving 80% nominal thickness un-notched, apply 600 psi stress, and place in bath containing 100% Igepal CO-630 in D.I. water at 50C.

Requirement: M 294: > 24 hrs, no specimen less than 17 hrs

RESIN ESCR – ASTM D 1693 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 5 MD, 5 TD @ 0.5 x 1.5 inches with long dimension being the test dimension.


APPARATUS: Notching Jig and Specimen Holders

TEST: Notch specimen, bend specimen and load into specimen holder, and place in bath containing 10% Igepal CO-630 in D.I. water at 50C.

Requirement: M 252: 50% maximum failure rate @ 24 hrs



RESIN THERMAL STABILITY – ASTM D 3350 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3 (¼” disc punched from thin part of molded plaque)

SPECIMEN: ¼” disc punched from thin part of molded plaque


APPARATUS: Differencial scanning calorimeter

TEST: Heat specimen at 20C/min to 300C and measure onset of oxidation exotherm.

Requirement: ≥ 220°C

PIPE CARBON BLACK – ASTM D 1603 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: Number of specimens: 2 (Chips with enough mass to fill combustion boat)


APPARATUS: Porcelain combustion boat, Tube furnace

TEST: Measure initial mass of specimen then cook specimen under inert Nitrogen atmosphere and measure mass of residue. Percent carbon black is final mass divided by initial mass times 100.

Requirement: 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%

PIPE WORKMANSHIP – AASHTO M 294/252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: MQC Sample

CONDITIONING: None

APPARATUS/TEST: Visual

Requirement: No foreign inclusions or visible defects, including cracks, creases,unpigmented or nonuniformly pigmented pipe. Type S – inner liner fused to outer corregated shell at all internal corrugation crests.



PIPE DIMENSIONS - INSIDE DIAMETER – ASTM D 2122 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMENS: Number of specimens: 2

CONDITIONING: Standard Laboratory Conditioning

APPARATUS: Measured with tapered plug OR measuring stick or tape; M 294 - Accurate to 3.0 mm (0.1 in) M 252 - Accurate to 0.2 mm (0.008 in)

TEST: M 294 - Eight measurements around each of two specimens, equally spaced around circumference. Average of 16 measurements.

M 252 - Two measurements on each of two specimens, at 90 degrees to one another. Average of 4 measurements.

Requirement: Nominal diameters shall be 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 375, 450, 525, 600, 675, 750, 900 1050, 1200, and 1500 mm (also 75 to 250 mm in 25 mm increments for Type C/CP) - not more than 4.5% (not to exceed 37 mm) oversize - not less than 1.5% undersize

PIPE DIMENSIONS - WALL THICKNESS – ASTM D 2122 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMENS: Number of specimens: 1

APPARATUS: Cylindrical or ball anvil tubing micrometer (NOTE: Auditor may accept sonar readings provided calibration?); Accurate to within ± 0.001 in (0.02 mm)

TEST: Average eight measurements (record average, min, max, and range)

Requirement: M 294: Inner wall of Type S, and Inner and Outer walls of Type D shall have the following minimum thicknesses: Diameter mm (in) Thickness mm (in) Diameter mm (in) Thickness mm (in) 300 (12) 0.9 (.035) 750 (30) 1.5 (.060) 375 (15) 1.0 (.040) 900 (36) 1.7 (.065) 450 (18) 1.3 (.050) 1050 (42) 1.8 (.070) 525 (21) 1.5 (.060) 1200 (48) 1.8 (.070) 600 (24) 1.5 (.060) 1350 (54) 1.8 (.070) 675 (27) 1.5 (.060) 1500 (60) 1.8 (.070) M 252: Inner wall of Type S shall have the following minimum thicknesses Diameter, mm (in) Thickness, mm (in) 100 (4) 0.5 (.02) 150 (6) 0.5 (.02) 200 (8) 0.6 (.024) 250 (10) 0.6 (.024)



PIPE DIMENSIONS – LENGTH – AASHTO M 294/252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes

Standard Operating Procedure / Reference Standard / Calibrated Apparatus? (Note: Measurement can be made at ambient temperature)

SPECIMENS: Number of specimens: 1full stick; Specimen must be free of external forces and flat and straight.

APPARATUS: Measured with any suitable device

TEST: Measure representative sample.

Requirement: ≥ 99% stated length

PIPE STIFFNESS – ASTM D 2412 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3; Test specimen ends cut square and clean and include full corrugations. M 294 - Test specimen length must be ≥ one pipe diameter M 252 - Test specimen shall be 300 ± 10 mm in length

CONDITIONING: Standard Laboratory Conditioning

APPARATUS: Verify strain rate: 0.50 ±0.02 in (12.5 ±0.5 mm) per minute. Deflection measurements to be accurate to 0.02 mm (M 294) and 0.03 mm (M 252). Loading plate must be ≥ 0.25 in (6.0 mm), but must not bend or deflect during test. Plate length must exceed specimen length. Plate width must ≥ to pipe contact at 6 in (150 mm) deflection.

TEST: ONE test per specimen. Test first of three specimens at 0° (defined by vertical orientation of the seams formed by the mold); Next 2 specimens are tested at 45 and 90° from this orientation. Assure a straight specimen length prior to testing. Preload ≤ 20 N (5 lbs).

Requirement: M 294 - Diameter, mm (in) Minimum Stiffness, kPa (psi)

300 (12) 345 (50) 375 (15) 290 (42) 450 (18) 275 (40) 525 (21) 260 (38) 600 (24) 235 (34) 675 (27) 205 (30) 750 (30) 195 (28) 900 (36) 150 (22) 1050 (42) 140 (20) 1201 (48) 125 (18) 1350 (54) 110 (16) 1500 (60) 95 (14)

M 252 – Type Minimum Stiffness, kPa (psi) C/CP 240 (35) S/SP 340 (50)



PIPE FLATTENING – AASHTO M 294/252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes

TEST: Same as Pipe Stiffness. Flatten each of the three test specimens until vertical inside diameter reduced by 20%.

Requirement: Upon examination with the unaided eye: “no evidence of wall buckling, cracking, splitting, or delamination. Any decrease in the stiffness curve shall be considered a wall-buckling point.

PIPE ELONGATION – AASHTO M 252 (Type C/CP and length > 3m, only)

(Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3 @ 1.3 m long

CONDITIONING: Standard

APPARATUS: Suspend specimen with longitudinal axis vertical.

TEST: Hang tear mass of 0.018 kg/mm of nominal diameter from lower end of specimen. Mark a gage length of 760± 3 mm on central portion of specimen length. Apply test mass of 0.090 kg/mm of nominal diameter from lower end of specimen. After 3 minutes, remeasure gage length to nearest 3 mm and calculate elongation.

Requirement: M 252: ≤ 10%

PIPE BRITTLENESS – ASTM D 2444 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: # of specimens – 1 or 6; Specimen length is equal to the outside diameter of pipe.

CONDITIONING: : Specimen(s) is conditioned for 24 hours at -4C prior to testing.

APPARATUS: Tup - Type B - Nose radius = 2 in (51 mm); Steel construction preferred; Mass must be 4.5 Kg (9.9 lbs); Drop Tube - Must be vertical and not interfere with Tup during fall. Assures that Tup falls freely. Facilitates drop height of 3 m (9.84 ft) - (tube is usually 12 feet in length); Plate Holder - Pipe resting on FLAT plate approx. 8 x 12 x 1 in. The plate shall have a centered cut groove of 0.12 (3 mm) in depth with rounded edges. Attached to unyielding substrate.

TEST: Test shall be conducted using 6 specimens OR six impacts on same specimen. All impact locations shall be at CENTER of corrugation crown. Successive impacts on same specimen shall be separated by 120 ± 10° for same location of “length”, or 12 in (300 mm) for same location of circumference. DO NOT impact pipe within 6 in (150 mm) of specimen end. All impacts are performed within 60 seconds of removal from freezer.

Requirement: “shall not crack or split. 5 non-failures out of 6 impacts”



PIPE BRITTLENESS – AASHTO M 252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: # of specimens – 3; Specimen length is 150 mm

CONDITIONING: : Specimen(s) is conditioned for at least 1 hour at -18±3°C prior to testing. How is conditioning performed? Is temperature verified? Calibrated?

APPARATUS: Two flat parallel plates: upper (9.5 kg) plate is dropped on pipe resting on lower plate creating a 45 J impact.

TEST: Top plate free falls 500 mm to the upper most surface of the specimen; All impacts are performed within 30 seconds of removal from freezer.

Requirement: no cracking of the pipe wall, except as specified in Sections 7.9.1 and 7.9.2

PIPE ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS CRACK RESISTANCE (ESCR) – AASHTO M 294/252



SPECIMENS: Number of specimens – 3; 90° arc length by “one valley and two corrugations” wide. Bend specimens to reduce inside chord length by 20 ±1%, i.e. after bending chord length = 0.8 x inside chord length before bending

SOLUTION: Exposure solution shall be “Igepal CO-630" (nonylphenoxy poly(ethyleneoxy) ethanol) @ 50±2°C

TEST: Specimens exposed for 24 hours

Requirement: No cracks

PIPE LOW TEMPERATURE FLEXIBILITY – AASHTO M 252 (coiled C/CP only)



SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3 @ ≥ 1.5 m length

CONDITIONING: -4±2°C for 24 hours

APPARATUS: 380 mm (15”) mandrel for pipe diameters ≤ 200 mm; 500 mm (20”) mandrel for 250 mm diameter pipe

TEST: Bend conditioned specimen over the mandrel with 180 degree bend completed within 30 seconds of removal from the conditioning atmosphere.

Requirement: M 252: no cracks



PIPE JOINT INTEGRITY – AASHTO M 294 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMENS: Number of specimens – 1; : Specimens constructed per manufacturer’s recommendations. Pipe component pieces at least 12 in (300 mm) in length. Assure test assembly is straight and true.

APPARATUS: Parallel plate tester. Verify strain rate: 0.50 ±0.02 in (12.5 ±0.5 mm) per minute

TEST: Flatten test specimen until vertical inside diameter reduced by 20%

Req’t: Fittings have length dimension tolerance of ± 12 mm (0.5 in) of manufacturer’s claim. Couplings shall be bell/spigot, split collar or screw-on collar. Split couplings shall engage at least two full corrugations on each side. Maximum radial distance between pipe and fittings, or between bell and spigot, during and after test: ≤ 5 mm (0.2 in).

PIPE COUPLING STRENGTH – AASHTO M 252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 1 (made from 2 pipe samples ≥ 1.5 m length each making up joint). Assure test assembly is straight and true.


APPARATUS: Parallel plate tester (same as used for stiffness). Verify strain rate: 0.50 ±0.02 in (12.5 ±0.5 mm) per minute.

TEST: Flatten test specimen until vertical inside diameter reduced by 20%

Requirement: M 252: No damage @ 20% deflection

PIPE JOINT INTEGRITY – AASHTO M 252 (coiled Type C/CP only)



SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 1 (made from 2 pipe samples ≥ 1.5 m length each making up joint).


APPARATUS: Suspend specimen with longitudinal axis vertical.

TEST: Hang tear mass of 0.018 kg/mm of nominal diameter from lower end of specimen. Apply test mass of 0.090 kg/mm of nominal diameter from lower end of specimen. After 3 minutes, examine joint.

Requirement: M 252: no separation at joint



PIPE PERFORATIONS – AASHTO M 294/252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMENS: Number of specimens: 1; Specimen must be free of external forces and flat and straight

APPARATUS: Measure with any suitable device; Accurate to within ± 0.008 in (0.2 mm)

TEST: Measure representative specimen.

Requirement: If using coupling/bands, may be unperforated within 100 mm of end. If bell & spigot, must be unperforated in area of bell & spigot. Perforations cleanly cut so as not to restrict inflow of water.

Requirement: M294Class 1 Perforations – Approx. circular & 5mm ≤ dia ≤ 10mm; rows parallel to axis of pipe; in external valleys; each row has perforations in each valley; uniform spacing of rows; symmetrical about lower unperforated segment; distance between rows > 25 mm; M252 Class 1 Perforations – Circular and ≤ 5mm for 100- and 150-mm dia pipe and ≤ 10mm for 200- and 250-mm diameter pipe; rows parallel to axis of pipe; each row has perforations in each external valley; uniform spacing of rows; symmetrical about lower unperforated segment. Diameter Min. # Rows Hmax Lmin 75 mm 2 35 mm 50 mm H = height of centerline 100 mm 2 45 65 of uppermost row 150 mm 4 70 95 L = chord length of 200 mm 4 94 130 unperforated segment. 250 mm 4 120 160 300 mm 6 138 192 375 mm 6 184 256 450 mm 6 207 288 525 mm 6 230 320 600+ mm 8 0.46D 0.64D

Requirement: M294Class 2 Perforations shall be uniformly spaced along length & circumference in external valleys. If circular, 5mm ≤ dia ≤ 10mm; if slots, see table below. M252 Class 2 Perforations shall be uniformly spaced along length & circumference in external valleys in accordance with the following. Diameter Drilled Hole Dia Slot Width Slot Length Inlet Area 75 mm 4.75 mm 3 mm 25 mm 20 cm2/m 100 mm 4.75 mm 3 mm 25 mm 20 cm2/m 150 mm 4.75 mm 3 mm 25 mm 20 cm2/m 200 mm 6.25 mm 3 mm 30 mm 20 cm2/m 250 mm 8.00 mm 3 mm 30 mm 20 cm2/m Diameter Width Length Inlet Area 300 mm ≤ 3 mm ≤ 70 mm 30 cm2/m 375 mm ≤ 3 mm ≤ 70 mm 30 cm2/m 450 mm ≤ 3 mm ≤ 75 mm 30 cm2/m 525 mm ≤ 3 mm ≤ 75 mm 40 cm2/m 600+ mm ≤ 3 mm ≤ 75 mm 40 cm2/m



PIPE MARKINGS – AASHTO M 294/252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes


SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 1 stick of pipe.


APPARATUS / TEST: Visual and linear measurement – verifying that all required information is present at each collection of markings and that collections of markings occur at intervals not exceeding the requirement.

Requirement: Full markings (including, mfr name / nominal size / M294 or M252 / Plant Code / Mfg Date Code) @ ≤ 3.5 m

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix G1

Appendix G

Proposed Revised NTPEP Work Plan

&

Audit Forms




Project Work Plan for Evaluation of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe

Proposed Revision, July, 2006

Introduction and Purpose: The purpose of AASHTO’s NTPEP for Thermoplastic Pipe is to establish a list of manufacturing plants and pipe products that conform to the quality control and product testing requirements of this work plan. AASHTO member departments can then use this information in their quality assurance program for thermoplastic pipe and the resins from which it is manufactured. This may include utilizing the information to establish a qualified supplier list and/or a qualified products list or approved products list. By participating in this program, the manufacturer agrees to produce thermoplastic pipe that meets or exceeds the requirements in AASHTO M294 or M252 and to follow the minimum quality control provisions of the program. NTPEP validates this agreement through testing the manufacturer’s product(s) to verify compliance with the applicable standard and auditing the manufacturer’s in-plant quality control facilities and procedures. The Manufacturer agrees that NTPEP may use the test results and audit reports and other relevant information for review and verification of compliance with this NTPEP work plan and the applicable AASHTO Specifications. If compliance is demonstrated, the NTPEP will list the product(s) and plant(s) in the NTPEP listing of products and facilities conforming to this work plan.

Overview of the Program: The NTPEP for Thermoplastic Pipe assesses the conformance of both manufacturing plants and products with this work plan and includes the following:

1. Consultant Manager – A third party retained by NTPEP to review submittals, coordinate auditing and testing, resolve failures and disputes, and manage posting/publication of results.

2. Initial and Annual Audits - NTPEP will perform initial and annual quality control audits of each plant that a manufacturer desires to include in the program. The audit will also include all remote testing facilities associated with the plant’s production. The Consultant Manager will conduct these audits assisted, at the state’s discretion, by co-auditors from the state DOT where the plant is located.

3. Initial and Periodic Testing of Pipe and Resin – NTPEP will initially test and then periodically test (5 year maximum cycle) each size of pipe the manufacturer desires to include in the program. After the initial pipe and resin samples, auditors will take annual pipe and resin samples for evaluation during the annual plant audits.

4. An NTPEP website with the following information:


• A listing of pipe products, by diameter and manufacturer, tested and found to conform to the requirements of the AASHTO M294 or M252 Material Specifications.

• A listing of plants with a manufacturing quality control system found to conform to this work plan.

• A document library containing this work plan and a secure area where AASHTO member departments can view manufacturers’ QSM’s.

5. Reporting of pipe test and plant quality audit results to AASHTO member departments.

Tests/Practices to be Included: AASHTO M252 Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe

AASHTO M294 Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm Diameter

ASTM D 638 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics

ASTM D 790 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulation Materials

ASTM D 1238 Standard Test Method for Melt Flow Rates of Thermoplastics by Extrusion Plastometer

ASTM D 1505 Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the Density-Gradient Technique

ASTM D 1603 Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics

ASTM D 4218 Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Black Content in Polyethylene Compounds By the Muffle-Furnace Technique

(NOTE: Both D1603 or D4218 are permitted, but D4218 will be considered the definitive test in case of a conflict or dispute)

ASTM D 1693 Standard Test Method for Environmental Stress-Cracking of Ethylene Plastics

ASTM D 2122 Standard Test Method for Determining Dimensions of Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings

ASTM D 2412 Standard Test Method for Determination of External Loading Characteristics of Plastic Pipe by Parallel-Plate Loading

ASTM D 2444 Standard Test Method for Determination of Impact Resistance of Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings by Means of a TUP (Falling Weight)

ASTM D 3350 Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials

ASTM F 2136 Standard Test Method for Notched, Constant Ligament-Stress (NCLS) Test to Determine Slow-Crack-Growth Resistance of HDPE Resins or HDPE Corrugated Pipe

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: All ASTM test methods referenced herein are copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA 19428-2959.


Participation: Any manufacturer of thermoplastic pipe as defined in AASHTO M294 and/or M252 may participate in the program. All costs for participation in the program, including sample shipping and testing and other NTPEP auditing and administrative fees, are to be borne by the manufacturers, except for those costs associated with DOT co-auditors. 1. The pipe manufacturer will make a formal request to the NTPEP to participate in the

program, listing the plants, testing facilities, and products to be evaluated and submitting a Quality System Manual (QSM) for review and determination of conformance with this work plan.

2. Once the QSM is found to conform, the plants and all associated testing facilities the manufacturer desires to qualify will be audited. Pipe and samples of the resin it was made from will also be taken for testing in accordance with the appropriate AASHTO specification.

3. Each unique corrugated or profile wall thermoplastic pipe product will be separately tested. 4. Except for initial product conformance, as described in Part B1 below, only product samples

obtained from NTPEP sampling will be evaluated for conformance and only when produced at a plant found to conform to this work plan.

5. Plants and pipe product will be listed on the NTPEP website by manufacturer, diameter, and product number or name if the resin, pipe, and plant are found to conform to the requirements of this work plan.

NTPEP Functions: 1. A “Consultant Manager” will administer the NTPEP for Thermoplastic Pipe and will

interact with pipe manufacturers on behalf of the NTPEP. 2. So long as the Manufacturer complies with all of the requirements set forth in this NTPEP

work plan, including having product independently sampled and tested and submitting to initial and annual in-plant auditing, the Manufacturer’s product(s) will be listed by NTPEP.

3. Testing will be consistent with the revised specification upon its publication by AASHTO. 4. Auditing will be carried out by NTPEP as outlined in this work plan. Annual Plant Audits: Once initial plant and product conformance is established, annual NTPEP auditing and testing will be required for a manufacturer to maintain listing in the program. Audits will be unannounced and include sampling of pipe from inventory, allowing for lot-specific auditing of the manufacturer’s QC system implementation and comparison to NTPEP test results. Resin will be sampled for NTPEP testing from current production. If available, current pipe production will be measured/evaluated on-site for compliance with AASHTO specifications. A team consisting of the Consultant Manager and DOT co-auditors from the State where the plant is located, if that state agrees to participate, will audit each plant every year. The Consultant Manager will produce a single audit report, which will give equal consideration to his and DOT auditor findings


resulting from the audit. Departments of Transportation using the NTPEP listing and the Consultant Manager have the right to:

a. Visit and audit the manufacturing facilities and associated laboratories of any Manufacturer participating in the program to determine compliance with the program requirements. These visits need not be announced.

b. Randomly select samples of product and the resin or resin blend being used in production for confirmation testing by NTPEP. Any testing above and beyond the basic NTPEP program requirements shall be at the DOT expense, unless the tested product(s) does not meet the specification requirements, in which case the manufacturer shall bear the cost of testing and any subsequent re-testing required. A product’s failure to comply will result in removal from the NTPEP listing.

Quality Program Requirements: Part A, Plant Evaluation Plant assessment will be based on a manufacturer following a quality control program at the plant that provides assurance the products produced meet the requirements of the ASSHTO Materials Specifications and that conforms to this NTPEP work plan. The Manufacture will prepare and maintain a written Quality System Manual (QSM) documenting the quality control program. Each manufacturer shall include elements that it considers necessary to assure that products meet these requirements, but as a minimum the QSM shall address the following: • A cover page • A Quality Mission Statement • Quality Control of Raw Materials • Quality Control Inspection and Testing • Statistical Analysis of Test Results • Resolution of Non-Conforming Test Results • Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability from Resin Lot to Finished Pipe • Quality Control Testing Facilities • Qualification of Quality Control Personnel • Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe • Quality Audits of Each Plant Producing Product • A List of Plants and Quality Control Testing Facilities Including Addresses and the Names

and Telephone Numbers of the Quality Control Contacts for Each Facility • Written Copies of all Company Developed Test Procedures The following sections provide more information about each of these topics:

1. Cover Page The cover page shall include the company name, company logo, date of latest revision, and the title "Quality Systems Manual for the NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe".


2. Quality Mission Statement The quality mission statement shall be endorsed by the company’s Chief Executive Officer and also be made available to all employees.

3. Quality Control of Raw Materials

• General The QSM must include quality control testing of the polyethylene resins. The required material properties for the resins are as described in AASHTO M252 and M294, Section 6, Materials. The NTPEP requires that the manufacturer (or independent laboratory acceptable to the NTPEP) test the following properties at the noted frequencies:

a) Density – ASTM D1505 or ASTM D792, one test per lot b) Melt Index – ASTM D1238, one test per lot c) Notched Constant Ligament-Stress (NCLS) for M294 product – AASHTO

M 294 & ASTM F 2136, once on initial use of a resin or blend of resins and then quarterly with continued use of the resin or blend

Resin manufacturers will be required to furnish certifications of analysis (C of A) for every lot of resin and lot specific density and melt index data. • Additional Resin requirements for M252 Products

a) If produced from a single stream resin - there must be a C of A indicating the virgin resin meets the melt index and density requirements of M252. The resin can be used with follow-up verification testing of melt index and density for the lot.

b) If produced from a resin blend - the pipe manufacturer must test the melt index and density of each component resins and it must be found to reasonably conform to the COA results. The pipe manufacturers test results must be used to determine the blend ratios. Each blend of resin components establishes a lot, and a new lot is established each time a component resin or a component ratio changes more than allowed by the blend tolerances (±1.5%). The melt index and density of each blend lot must be tested prior to use.

• Additional Resin requirements for M 294 Products

a) If produced from a single stream resin - the virgin resin must be certified to meet the requirements of section 6.1 of M294, either through PPI listing or recognized third party testing. The resin may be used before testing, but the melt index and density must be verified for each lot by subsequent testing. The pipe manufacturer or an independent laboratory acceptable to the NTPEP must perform a full cell classification including the NCLS test on the first use of any lot of a specific qualified resin and then quarterly with continued use.

b) If produced from a resin blend – only those blends certified to meet the requirements of section 6.1 of M294, either through PPI listing or recognized third party testing, with component variations limited to ± 1.5%, are acceptable. Follow-up testing for melt index and density must be


done for each lot to verify the certification, and the pipe manufacturer or an independent laboratory acceptable to the NTPEP must perform the full cell classification testing including the NCLS test with the initial use of any lot and then quarterly with continued use. The component resins and percentages of each in the PPI or third party approved blend must be provided to NTPEP auditors so that it can be verified that an approved blend is being used to produce the M294 product.

A lot for a manufacturing facility is defined as a railcar compartment or hopper truckload of resin. If the shipment consists of Gaylord boxes, 40 boxes will comprise a lot. The location and method of sampling the resin must be included in the Manual. A lot number must be established for each lot and must be carried through to the finished product. Reworked plastic may be used provided it meets the requirements of Section 6.2 of AASHTO M252 and M294. Recycled plastic will not be allowed.

The QSM shall document where fittings and couplings are manufactured, the source of the components, and the fabrication process used. It shall also document the process used to assure that all resins used to manufacture fittings and couplings meet the material requirements of section 6 of M252 and M294, including those components purchased from another party. There shall be traceability from the fitting or coupling back to the resin lot used to manufacturer it. Documentation establishing traceability shall be maintained along with the inventory. Resin test reports and resin producer certifications, including supporting test reports must be maintained and available for review for a period of 5 years.

4. Quality Control Inspection and Testing The manufacturer shall conduct visual inspections of the exterior and interior walls for bonding, blowouts, and for workmanship items as described in AASHTO M252 and M294, during production. The manufacturer shall monitor the process and finished product. The QSM shall define the quality control tests, the method for random sampling, the size of the sample, and the lot size for production facility quality control sampling and testing. It shall also include an example of a quality control test report form. A pipe lot shall be no larger than the amount of pipe produced per type per diameter per machine per production run. An AASHTO, ASTM, or Company procedure shall be referenced for each quality control test. If a company procedure is referenced, it must be described in the QSM and is subject to approval.

The NTPEP requires that the manufacturer perform at least the following quality control tests, or inspections, at the minimum frequency noted below:

• Unit Weight, two per work shift • Wall Thickness, two per work shift (See Appendix 4) • Carbon Black Content (AASHTO M252 or M294 and ASTM D3350), one per


day • Inside Diameter, one per work shift • Pipe Length, one per work shift • Perforation Locations and Dimensions (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Water Inlet Area (Type “CP” and “SP”), one per work shift • Pipe Stiffness, two per week • Pipe Flattening, two per week • Elongation (M252 Only), one per year • Low Temperature Flexibility (M252 Only), one per year • Brittleness, two per week • Joint Integrity, one per week for welded bell/spigot, quarterly for integral

bell/spigot • Environmental Stress Cracking, one per year • Workmanship (per AASHTO M252 and M294), continuous, recorded at least

once per shift • Marking (per AASHTO M252 and M294), one per shift

Each sample selected for quality control inspection and testing shall be designated with a sample control number for record keeping and traceability. The test report for each sample shall identify the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot designation for the polyethylene resin. The quality control test reports (not samples) must be maintained and available for review for 5 years.

5. Statistical Analysis of Test Results

The QSM shall contain a description of the manufacturer’s statistical process control plan. The plan shall use methods such as statistical control charts to monitor production facility quality control test results for the purpose of identifying trends and being able to make production adjustments as necessary. The plan shall monitor each production plant separately and total manufacturer product quality trends.

6. Resolution of Non-Conforming Product or Test Results

The QSM shall contain provisions for resolving non-conforming product or test results. The test report will clearly identify the deficiencies and all product produced subsequent to the previous testing shall be identified and quarantined pending investigation of the failure. The investigation shall include obtaining and testing check samples. If the check sample meets requirements, the manufacturer shall document the reasons for the original failure and may release the quarantined material and resume normal production and testing. If the check sample fails, the manufacturer shall take corrective action to bring the product into conformance and shall note the corrective action on the test report. A second check sample shall be taken to verify the deficiency has been corrected. If this sample also fails, the process shall be repeated until the deficiency is corrected.

All non-conforming material shall be segregated in the inventory and re-worked or scrapped.


7. Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability

The QSM shall describe in detail the retention of quality control test reports for at least 5 years and they shall be available to the NTPEP upon request.

The product and test reports will be identified in such a way that the test results for any pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacturer the pipe.

Test reports shall indicate the action taken to resolve resin or product failures.

The manufacturer shall maintain a copy of the NTPEP audit documentation for a facility on file at the facility for a period of five years.

8. Quality Control Testing Facilities

The QSM shall describe in detail the requirements for the testing facilities. As a minimum, the following requirements shall be included: • A description of how QC responsibilities are covered at all time, including when the

QC Manager is away from the plant for any reason. NOTE: Audits are unannounced and must proceed regardless of the availability of key QC staff.

• The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for quality control testing at all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by technicians meeting the requirements of the manufacturer’s technician qualification program described in section 9.





• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all NTPEP reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies

• Records of equipment calibration, verification, and maintenance will be retained and available to the NTPEP for review upon request.

9. Qualification of Quality Control Personnel

The manufacturer’s quality control manager must meet the requirements established by the manufacturer and is responsible for the qualification of the technicians performing the quality control testing. Quality control personnel must be familiar with the tests they perform and have sufficient authority to assure that corrective actions are carried out when necessary.

As a minimum, a manufacturer’s quality control technician qualification program shall include training in the AASHTO, ASTM, or Company test procedures, demonstration of


competency in each required test, and demonstration of ability to properly document test results. It shall also include annual auditing of each technician’s ability to satisfactorily perform the required tests. The training shall include the operation of equipment, the procedures to be used, calculations required, and reporting. Re-training shall be provided when the test method is revised. Training and competency reviews shall be documented in such a way that compliance with the requirements for the initial and updated training and the initial and annual competency reviews can be demonstrated for each technician for each test the technician performs. The documentation shall include the date of the training or competency review and contain the hand written signature or initials of the trainer/reviewer and the technician. This documentation shall be maintained at each facility where quality control testing occurs and shall be available for NTPEP inspectors to review. See Appendix 5 for examples of forms that can be used to meet these documentation requirements.

The QSM shall indicate the line of authority from the quality control testing technicians to the quality control manager, which must demonstrate their authority to require corrective action. The quality control manager must be independent of production management and of equal status.

10. Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe The QSM shall describe a method for permanently marking the pipe in accordance with the minimum requirements of AASHTO M252 and M294. Also, any coding used to mark the pipe shall be fully detailed and explained.

The Manual shall describe procedures for product handling, storage, and shipping to ensure that these processes will not adversely affect the material composition, characteristics, or product quality.

11. Quality Audits of Each Plant

The QSM shall include a description of quality audits of each plant producing product for the NTPEP. The company, or an independent auditor hired by the company, shall perform these audits on an annual basis unless problems in the quality control program or with the quality of the product indicate more frequent audits are necessary. The audits shall include the following as a minimum: • Inspection of plant inspection and testing equipment and calibrations • Observation of resin sampling and lot control procedures • Observation of sampling and testing procedures • Review of product certification procedures • Review of inspection and testing report documentation • Review of nonconforming product documentation and actions taken

The audit findings shall be discussed with plant management and testing technicians and documented in a report. Corrective actions will be taken as necessary and documented in the report. The most recent report shall be included in the initial or updated QSM submission.


12. List of Plants, Quality Control Testing Facilities, and Technicians The QSM shall include the address and telephone numbers of all plants and quality control testing facilities for which the manufacturer desires NTPEP qualification. The quality control contact for each facility shall also be identified with contact information and lines of responsibility shown.

13. Company Test Procedures

The Quality System Manual shall include all Company developed test procedures used in quality control testing. Company developed tests shall only be used if there is no ASTM or AASHTO test method.

Part B, Product Conformance Testing The NTPEP program requires that pipe and resin samples be tested to determine conformance with the AASHTO Materials Specifications. There are two types of product evaluation required, as follows:

1. Initial Product Conformance Testing As evidence that pipe meeting M294/252 specifications is being supplied from the first day of participation in the program, NTPEP will test each size and style of pipe that the manufacturer desires to include in the program initially. At the Administrator’s option, he can arrange to oversee testing of pipe samples in the manufacturer’s laboratory if inter-lab calibration of tests has been accomplished. Initial pipe and resin samples may be selected by the manufacturer. Pipe styles tested within the previous 48 months through an independent QA program, including ESC, NTPEP, or PPI, will be accepted as pre-qualified and will not be subject to these initial testing requirements.

2. Annual Product Conformance Testing • For M252 Products

Once initial product evaluation has been established, NTPEP auditors will sample pipe and resin during each plant audit. At a minimum, all pipe styles and sizes must be sampled and tested within a 5-year period with at least 1 pipe and resin sample being taken during each audit.

• For M294 Products Once initial product evaluation has been established, NTPEP auditors will sample pipe and resin during each plant audit. At a minimum, all pipe styles and sizes must be sampled and tested within a 5-year period with at least 1 pipe and 1 resin sample being taken during each audit. The NTPEP representative will select and label the samples to be tested. Each sample will be a split sample, with the manufacturer retaining one set of samples for in-house testing. If the pipe manufacturer does not have capability to perform the cell class and NCLS testing as specified in M294, the resin split samples may be tested at a laboratory acceptable to NTPEP provided it is not the same laboratory testing the NTPEP portion of the split sample. If a resin blend is being used by the pipe manufacturer, the pipe manufacturer must have the capability of conducting the


cell class and NCLS testing as specified in M294. The manufacturer split samples shall be taken from one of the originally sampled sticks or from another stick made during the same shift. Within 14 days after the sample is taken the manufacturer shall submit their split sample test results to the Consultant Manager. Within 14 days of receipt of the NTPEP test results, the manufacturer shall report these results and the results from the split samples to the Consultant Manager using the standard format provided in the document section of the NTPEP website http://dev.www.ntpep.org/ContentManagement/PageBody.asp?PAGE_ID=24 The submission shall also include an explanation of any significant differences between the NTPEP laboratory and split sample test results, including any corrective actions found necessary in the manufacturing process or testing procedures. The Consultant Manager will annually evaluate the split sample results and report on testing proficiency.

Resolution of Audit or Testing Failures and Disputes: Inevitably, there are times when the sampled pipe or resin fails to meet one or more of the M294/252 specification requirements when tested by NTPEP or when the manufacturer is found, during an audit, to have neglected one or more aspects of the governing QSM during manufacturing. While the manufacturer may request a retest, if sufficient sample is available, the burden will be on the manufacturer to identify the cause, document the resolution, and revise his QC plan to assure future conformance. All results will be reported. Any retesting or re-auditing will be at the discretion of the Consultant Manager and the associated costs will be borne by the manufacturer.

1. Disagreements with the Consultant Manager regarding test results will be handled as follows:

a. The manufacturer should verify that his/her manufacturing process is operating correctly, that test equipment is calibrated, and that test procedures are correct. If these conditions are met, then test another piece of pipe or sample of resin, as appropriate, from the same lot as the failing test if possible.

b. If the manufacturer’s test results on the second sample are satisfactory, then send one sample of the same product to the North Carolina Department of Transportation and another sample to NTPEP and request that the product be tested. The Consultant Manager will consider the dispute resolved if the manufacturer’s test result is in reasonable conformity with at least one of the other testing facility results. If this is not the case, the manufacturer should repeat the process of checking the manufacturing process, the equipment calibration and the test procedures until satisfactory agreement with inter-laboratory testing is accomplished.

2. Disagreements with the Consultant Manager regarding procedural issues will be handled as follows:


a. The manufacturer will notify the HDPEP Administrative Oversight Committee Chairman (currently Mr. David Meggers)1 in writing of the dispute, providing appropriate documentation for the committee to fully understand the controversy, and request a resolution.

b. If the dispute is not resolved to the manufacturers satisfaction, the dispute will be raised to the NTPEP Executive Committee Chairman (currently Mr. Thomas Baker) for resolution

c. If the dispute remains unresolved after consideration by the Executive Committee Chairman, the manufacturer may litigate the matter in the US court system.

Public Notice One of the primary reasons for a quality control program is to instill confidence in the end-user and the general public that the materials being used for infrastructure construction are of sufficient quality and to facilitate use of products that have proven to be of sufficient quality. To this end the program will provide for public notice of companies, plants, and M252/294 products found to conform with the provisions of this work plan via website postings, with official hard-copy reports issued to participating DOT's. Modification of Qualified Products (Retest Requirements): Product design may change over time as manufacturers improve their products and optimize their manufacturing processes. When a design change is made in an NTPEP listed product, the Manufacturer shall notify the NTPEP of the change and submit samples for re-consideration of conformance with this work plan. Any changes in manufacturing method, product weight, or pipe wall design shall be considered design changes. Appendices: General Notes and Participant Acknowledgement – Appendix G1 NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe Participant Responsibilities – Appendix G2 Operating Procedures for the NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe – Appendix G3 Approved Alternative Testing Procedure for Wall Thickness – Appendix G4 Suggested Forms for Documenting Training and Competency Requirements – Appendix G5 NTPEP Audit Forms – Appendix G6 Typical Report Format – Appendix G7 1 The HDPEP Administrative Oversight Committee is a five member committee. The HDPEP Committee Chairman is also the Chairman of this committee and the other four members are elected by the full HDPEP Committee. At least three of the five members of the Oversight Committee must be in agreement to reach a committee decision.


Appendix G1

General Notes and Participant Acknowledgement (Instructions: Read these “General Notes”, sign acknowledgement on page 15,

and return these “General Notes” with your completed application package.)

1. All materials and/or products to be tested will be furnished by the manufacturer/supplier at no cost to the NTPEP. Audit samples will be selected for testing by the Consultant Manager or DOT co-auditors

2. Manufacturers/suppliers will submit a Product Evaluation Form (PEF) for each sample product submitted for testing to the Consultant Manager and also request an audit be scheduled for each plant to be included in the program.

3. Manufacturers/suppliers shall attach a check payable to AASHTO for the amount indicated on the attached “Testing and Plant Audit Fee Schedule”. Testing fees are based upon the type or diameter of product, and number of samples to be tested. Plant audit fees are a fixed cost per plant.

4. Incomplete, inaccurate and/or erroneous information furnished as part of the form could result in the material being rejected for testing.

5. A handling fee of 10% of the testing fee will be charged if a Product Evaluation Form (PEF) is withdrawn prior to the beginning of the testing process. Testing fees will not be refunded once the testing process has begun. Audit fees will not be refunded once the Consultant Manager or a co-auditor begins travel to a site.

6. A manufacturer/supplier may elect to withdraw their product from the current test cycle with a written request to the Consultant Manager at least five business days before the next test cycle begins. If the Consultant Manager approves the request, then the test results will not appear in the product report with a statement that the product has been withdrawn from the program and no test results will be reported.

7. A non-interference policy is in effect in regard to manufacturer/supplier inquiry as to the performance of their product under evaluation. Following submission of the product report to the Consultant Manager, the manufacturer/supplier will be given fourteen days to review their test data. This request for comments and review will be in writing. All comments on the Product Report shall be addressed to the Consultant Manager.

8. AASHTO member departments may use the laboratory test data obtained from the products and plants evaluated by NTPEP to establish their approved or qualified products lists.


9. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) will copyright the printed reports with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The report or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission by AASHTO.

10. The manufacturer/supplier is hereby notified that the NTPEP reserves the right to release or distribute information included in or attached to the PEF, as well as plant audit reports and the test results obtained as part of our field and laboratory procedures.

11. Appeals by the manufacturer/supplier, in regards to test results, will be done in accordance with the appeals process described in this work plan.

12. Continuance of product and plant listing by AASHTO/ NTPEP requires on-going compliance with all elements of the program. Re-testing must be done if there is any significant change in the product composition, and/or physical properties.

13. Participating manufacturer should be aware; AASHTO member departments may require state-level specifications that supersede NTPEP testing. Manufacturers are encouraged to be aware of these requirements, and to take proactive measures to satisfy them, outside the scope of NTPEP participation.

14. All testing shall be done at AASHTO-select laboratories/facilities, under contract with AASHTO/NTPEP. These labs currently include: Texas Research International, Austin, Texas; Ohio University, Athens, Ohio; and Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

15. All laboratories participating in the program shall submit a QC/QA plan, which will be kept on file with the NTPEP. Through written request, this document(s) will be made available for review by participating industry, and member departments.

16. A non-interference policy is in effect with regard to manufacturer inquiry, as to the performance of their product under evaluation. AASHTO-select labs are under contract with NTPEP with respect to ensuring confidentiality of “early test results”. Manufacturer/supplier may not contact any AASHTO-select lab to inquire about their “early test results”.

17. According to NTPEP bylaws, AASHTO members and participating manufacturers have access to “early test results” of NTPEP data. Information is made available by contacting the Consultant Manager. Such requests must be made in writing. Whenever a member department requests “early test results”, the participating manufacturer is informed of the request.

18. Testing of new products or modified products shall be done on a quarterly testing cycle. Manufacturers may submit products on a “rolling basis”, throughout the year. Depending upon sample load, products submitted for NTPEP evaluation will be included in the next practicable available testing cycle.


NAME ________________________________________________________

TITLE ________________________________________________________

COMPANY ___________________________________________________

ADDRESS ______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

SIGNATURE ____________________________________________________

TODAY’S DATE _________________________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mail check for the sum total of testing fees payable to “AASHTO/NTPEP”. Mail to bank lock box addressed, simply:

AASHTO/NTPEP

Dept. 5051

Washington, D.C. 20061-5051

Send the completed Product Evaluation Form(s) (PEF), technical bulletins, product specifications, MSDS, other pertinent literature and instructions, and a copy of the check to:

AASHTO/NTPEP

Attn.: Michael McGough, EIT

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249

Washington, D.C. 20001


Appendix G2 NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe

Participant Responsibilities

Background: This section summarizes the responsibilities for the different parties, which can be found in more detail in the following sections titled, “Operating Procedures” and “Quality Control Requirements for HDPE Pipe Manufacturers”. Manufacturers’ Responsibilities: Participating manufacturers must develop and implement a Quality System Manual (QSM) outlining their quality control testing program for raw materials, manufactured fittings, and finished pipe. In addition, the manual must addresses the following general program, testing facilities, personnel qualification, and record keeping requirements: General Requirements: • Each manufacturer must be prepared to accommodate plant and testing facility audits by

NTPEP representatives when submitting its initial Quality System Manual (QSM), or updated QSM in the case of the annual re-evaluation, to the Consultant Manager. The NTPEP will attempt to conduct the audit within 90 days of approval of the documentation.

• Each plant and associated testing facility is responsible for ensuring continuous compliance with all NTPEP quality control requirements. Failure to do so may result in revocation of the plant listing on the NTPEP website.

• Each manufacturer is to maintain a summary of all NTPEP laboratory test results and the corresponding manufacturers split sample tests (M294 products) for inclusion in the QSM at the time of submittal for the annual re-evaluation of conformance to this work plan.

Testing Facilities: The following seven requirements pertain to the qualification of quality control testing facilities: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall be responsible for quality control testing at

all facilities and shall assure that all sampling and testing is done by qualified technicians. • The testing facilities shall maintain current versions of all AASHTO, ASTM, and Company

test procedures for all tests performed and a current version of the Company’s QSM. • The facilities must adequately house and allow proper operation of all required testing

equipment. • The testing equipment shall be calibrated/verified in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations at least once every 12 months by personnel customarily involved in such work as documented in the QSM.


• The testing facilities shall maintain records of all test results and all NTPEP reviews and actions taken to resolve any noted deficiencies.

• Records of equipment calibration and verification will be maintained and available to States upon request.


Testing Personnel: The NTPEP has also identified the following requirements for quality control testing personnel: • The manufacturer’s quality control manager shall meet the requirements established by the

company for the position. The quality control manager’s resume shall be included in the QSM.


• Documentation must show that the technician has satisfactorily demonstrated her/his competency to perform the required testing and that this demonstration is repeated annually.



• Technicians-in-training may perform sampling and testing at qualified facilities provided they are working under the direct supervision of a technician fully qualified under NTPEP requirements.

• If requested, technicians must perform sampling and testing for NTPEP observers. Split samples may also be taken for testing by NTPEP members.

Testing Documentation The NTPEP has established the following requirements for testing documentation: • All quality control test results for resins and pipes must be documented in reports of the same

format as the sample forms submitted in the QSM and must be kept for five years. • The reports must document the actions taken in the event of resin or product test failures. • The reports must show the plant, date, shift of manufacture, production line, and lot

designation of resin. Identification must be such that the test reports for any piece of pipe can be located, including the test results for the resin used to manufacture the pipe.


State Agency Responsibilities: Each participating State will have the following responsibilities in implementing the NTPEP testing facility qualification program:

• Each State will designate a contact person for inquiries regarding the program and provide the name and phone number of the contact person to the NTPEP Consultant Manager.

• When requested by the Consultant Manager, the States will make every effort to provide a person to participate as a co-auditor in audits of manufacturers’ plant or quality control testing facilities within their State.

NTPEP Consultant Manager Responsibilities: The NTPEP Consultant Manager will be responsible for administering the plant conformance evaluation program as follows:

• The Consultant Manager will notify the contact person in the participating State where the plant or quality control testing facility is located when an audit is required and ask for


co-auditors to be assigned. With the approval of this State, the Consultant Manager may also ask other NTPEP representatives to participate in the audit. When the facility is not located in a participating State, the Consultant Manager will arrange for NTPEP volunteers to participate in the co-audit.

• The Consultant Manager will maintain a data base of testing facilities and plants found to conform to this program and will be responsible for entering audit information obtained from the facility audits.

• The Consultant Manager will notify the manufacturer and the co-audit State(s) of the status of the plant after completion of auditing of the plant and all testing facilities associated with the plant’s production. If the plant is not found to conform to this work plan, the Consultant Manager’s notification will include a detailed explanation of the deficiencies.

• The Consultant Manager will maintain the NTPEP web site that will include the list of plants and products found to conform to the requirements of this work plan.

• As long as the manufacturer has submitted its request for renewal of NTPEP listing by November 1 of the current year, the Consultant Manager will grant a four- month grace period for a testing facility to be re-inspected in accordance NTPEP procedures.

• The Consultant Manager will respond to inquiries related to the status for individual plants as they occur during the year.

• The Consultant Manager will perform an annual review of this work plan to ensure that it is current with specification changes and meeting the needs of participating States. The Consultant Manager will discuss the results of this review with the states at the annual NTPEP meeting.

Manufacturer Disqualification from the NTPEP: All manufacturers must ensure that all plants, associated quality control testing facilities, personnel, and sampling and testing activities are in continuous conformance with the NTPEP requirements. The Consultant Manager and the HDPEP Administrative Oversight Committee, based on results of NTPEP audits or the acceptance or other testing done by individual States, may rescind NTPEP plant or product listing if a facility is determined not to comply with the NTPEP requirements. The Consultant Manager shall forward a letter of explanation to the affected manufacturer and all participating States detailing the reason(s) for revocation of the qualification. Appeals of such revocation shall be handled by the Consultant Manager.


Appendix G3 Operating Procedures for the

NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe

The NTPEP herein establishes minimum requirements for the quality control procedures that the manufacturers of High Density Polyethylene Pipe must subscribe to in order to supply pipe to participating states. It is the intent for the States to benefit through a cooperative audit and conformance evaluation processes and for the manufacturers to benefit through having one uniform set of quality control requirements to meet for all of the participating states. The purpose of this document is to describe the operating procedures of the program and the responsibilities of the participating States and manufacturers.

The quality control procedure requirements are described in the section of this program entitled Quality Program Requirements, Parts A and B. The manufacturers are to document their procedures in a Quality System Manual (QSM). The operating procedures of the program are as follows:

• The NTPEP will designate a Consultant Manager that will be responsible for administration of the NTPEP. The Consultant Manager will serve as the point of contact for the participating States and the manufacturers for matters concerning the NTPEP. This Consultant Manager will administer the program until it asks to be replaced, or the membership votes to replace it.

• Manufacturers desiring to supply to participating States will submit electronic copies of their QSM in either Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format to the Consultant Manager and ask the Consultant Manager to initiate the qualification process.

• The Consultant Manager will provide review comments within a thirty day time period. • Once the QSM documents have been reviewed, the Consultant Manager will contact the

participating State(s) in which the manufacturer has a plant and request that that State participate in the co-audit of the plant to determine compliance with the QSM. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Consultant Manager will ask for a volunteer from the participating States to assist in the co-audit. If participating states are not available for the co-audit the task will be performed solely by the Consultant Manager.

• If a manufacturer has or designates a quality control testing facility not located at a plant, the Consultant Manager will also ask a participating State to take part in the co-audit of this facility to assure compliance with the QSM. The State will be selected in the same manner as a State is selected for a plant review. If participating states are not available for the co-audit the task will be performed solely by the Consultant Manager.

• The NTPEP will attempt to conduct testing facility audits within 90 days of approval of

the QSM. • Once the review of the QSM documents, production facilities, and testing facilities has

been completed, the Consultant Manager will notify the manufacturer and co-audit states if the plant was found to conform to this work plan. Plants found to comply will be placed on the NTPEP’s listing of conforming plants, which will be maintained on the


NTPEP web site. If deficiencies are noted, the Consultant Manager will summarize the deficiencies in the response to the manufacturer and the co-auditing states.

• The Consultant Manager will perform an annual review of this work plan to ensure that it is current with specification changes and meeting the needs of participating States. The Consultant Manager will discuss the results of this review with the states at the annual NTPEP meeting. Issues resulting in differences among the States will be decided by the NTPEP NDPEP Administrative Oversight Committee. Changes in the document will be sent to the qualified manufacturers by October 1 of each year.

• The manufacturer must submit an electronic copy of their updated QSM, in Microsoft® Word or Adobe® Acrobat® format, to the Consultant Manager and request re-evaluation of conformance for the subsequent year by November 1 of the year in which they are found to comply. The new Manual shall clearly identify all changes made since the previous Manual was reviewed and will include a summary of all independent laboratory testing for products produced to meet the AASHTO M294 specification, including the results of the manufacturer’s split sample testing, and the most recent copy of the company’s annual quality audit of plants for which re-evaluation is sought.

• The Consultant Manager will process the new request in the same manner as the request for initial consideration, and will also use the results of previous NTPEP and State audits in evaluating the request for re-evaluation.

The Consultant Manager and co-auditors will sample for the annual submission of pipe and resin samples to the NTPEP for testing. If the plant is not located in a participating State, the Consultant Manager will ask for a volunteer from participating States, but will conduct the audit alone if there are no volunteers. Any participating State can inspect plant and testing facilities and obtain split samples for acceptance testing or other testing purposes at any time. If significant problems are encountered, the results of this audit and testing should be reported to the manufacturer and to the Consultant Manager for use in evaluating the current status of the manufacturer and in the annual qualification process. If at any time the Consultant Manager determines that a manufacturer is not making a good faith effort to correct deficiencies in compliance with its QSM, the Consultant Manager, with approval of the HDPEP Administrative Oversight Committee, will remove the manufacturer’s product(s) or the plant(s) from the NTPEP’s listing. Throughout the year, the Consultant Manager will post copies of all test results received on the AASHTO member departments’ secure page of the NTPEP website. HDPE pipe produced at a plant found to conform to this work plan is still subject to acceptance testing by the State in which the pipe will be used, in accordance with that State’s specifications.


Appendix G4 Approved Alternative Testing Procedure for Wall Thickness

Wall Thickness Measurement The NTPEP has decided to allow the use of ultrasonic thickness gauges for measuring wall (liner) thickness if the following procedure is followed:

• Each gauge and transducer will be identified and calibrated. • Records will be maintained to record all calibration activities, including the person

doing the work, date performed, and every time during the year it is done. • The NTPEP auditor will witness the calibration of an instrument used and sign the

form. A copy will be included with the NTPEP audit forms. • When new transducers are required, they will be identified and calibrated with the

instrument. • “Calibration Blocks” will be maintained at all plants. • Use of gauges:

− The NTPEP requires two (2) liner thickness readings per work shift, comprised of at least eight (8) readings. All these numbers will be recorded.

− Of the two (2) sets of readings, a minimum of one (1) set will be taken with a

micrometer in accordance with ASTM D2122.

− The other set can use the ultrasonic gauge, if the producer desires. Any thickness readings not required by M 294, M 252, the NTPEP, or the QSM, can be taken based on producers’ discretion.

− The reading will indicate if it is done with ultrasonic or micrometer on the form.


Appendix G5 Suggested Forms for Documenting Training and Competency Requirements

Laboratory Training / Competency Form

An electronic copy of this form is available from the Consultant Manager.


Plant Training / Competency Form

An electronic copy of this form is available from the Consultant Manager.


Appendix G6 NTPEP Audit Forms


Sample Audit Agenda:

I. Introductions II. Overview of audit procedures & review of following General Instructions III. Review previous years audits (should be on file at the facility) IV. Sample and data collection;

• NTPEP pipe & resin samples (sample prep and shipping) • Random product selection • Plant tour • Lab tour • Evaluation of documentation for QSM • Collecting data to complete NTPEP Forms

1. Technical qualification & training records 2. General requirements for testing facilities 3. Retention of records

V. Completion of required NTPEP documents Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 Form 8 Form 9 VI. Close out meeting with manufacturer


Form 1 General Audit Information

AUDIT INFORMATION Manufacturer Name: DATE: Test Facility Location: Street Address City/Town State Zip Contact: Phone # Fax # E-Mail Address: Type of Testing Facility: Production Plant Other Testing Facility Consultant Manager Contact: Name: Agency: Mailing Address: Street Address: City: Concord State: Zip: Phone# Fax # E-Mail Address: Co-Auditors:(If more than one co-auditor, please provide contact information for one auditor here and other auditors(s) on form 8 or an attached sheet) Name: Agency: Agency Street Address City/Town State Zip Phone # Fax # E-Mail Address General Instructions on Form Use:

A) If all QC testing is done at the manufacturing facility, complete forms 1 through 7 at the facility and use the guidance in form 9 to select the independent laboratory samples. B) If QC testing is done both at the manufacturing plant and another site, complete forms 1 through 3 and 7 for each site. Complete forms 4 through 6 at the appropriate sites (these forms may require some information from each site). Complete form 7 for a plant after all necessary forms 1 through 3 and forms 4, 5, and 6 have been completed. Use the guidance in form 9 to select the samples for NTPEP laboratory testing while at the plant. C) Although the audit is primarily a spot check of the QC personnel working at the time of the audit, it is desirable to report on the status of training, including the periodic auditing of performance, for all QC personnel employed by the plant. It is also desirable to have a technician demonstrate a test during the audit.


D) Use form 8 and additional sheets as necessary to record audit comments. Please number comments by number-letter designation, i.e., a comment numbered 5A would pertain to the item lettered A on form 5. E) The inspector(s) should review previous NTPEP audits before conducting an audit. The manufacturers are required to keep the NTPEP audits for a facility on file at the facility for 5 years. F) The audit documentation should include the completed NTPEP Audit Forms and any attachments; copies of the manufacturer’s documentation of technician training and competency auditing; a copy of the signed ultrasonic calibration sheet if ultrasonic wall thickness measurements are used; a copy of each completed independent laboratory sample tag; a copy of the resin manufacturer’s certification and the pipe manufacturer’s resin and pipe QC test results for the NTPEP laboratory samples; and any work sheets deemed important. G) The conditional conformance on form 7 has two uses: 1) for the initial audit of a facility when audit of another facility, such as a central laboratory, is necessary before the facility can be found to conform, and 2) when findings of the audit require follow-up before the facility can be found in conformance. In the latter case, it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to resolve the issues with the Consultant Manager. H) The results of the audit should be reviewed with the manufacturer’s representative at the end of the audit and the manufacturer should be given a copy of the complete audit documentation. I) The Consultant Manager and co-auditor(s) should retain a complete copy of the audit documentation. The Consultant Manager will then post plants found to conform to this work plan on the NTPEP web site, showing the date of the audit.


Form 2 Quality Control Manager and Technician Qualification

QC Personnel Identification Manufacturer: Date: Test Facility Location: Quality Control Manager: E-Mail Address:

1) 2)

Quality Control Technician(s): (Or attach information)

3)

1) 2)

Test Methods Qualified to Perform: (Or attach information)

3)

Quality Control Manager &Testing Technician Qualifications (All Facilities) Yes No A) The quality control manager is the individual identified in the current QSM

B) Documentation shows the technician has been trained in the tests being performed

C) Documentation shows the testing technician has satisfactorily demonstrated his/her ability to perform the required tests and this ability is annually audited.

D) Documentation shows that the technician is trained when test procedures are revised.

E) Review of reports shows that the technician can properly perform test procedure calculations and properly record information.

F) If requested, technician satisfactorily demonstrated his ability to perform a test.

Not Requested

Inspected By: Date:


Form 3 General Requirements for Testing Facilities

TEST FACILITY INFORMATION Manufacturer Name: DATE: Test Facility Location: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (All Facilities) Yes No A) Quality Control Manager is person designated in the QSM B) Q/C Technicians, unless working under the direct supervision of an NTPEP qualified technician, meet the requirements for NTPEP qualification for the sampling and testing they perform. (Support with QC Manager and Technician Qualification forms)

C) The testing facility adequately houses and allows proper operation of all required testing equipment in accordance with applicable test procedure.

D) Current versions of ASTM, AASHTO, Company test procedures, and the QSM are kept at the facility and are available for review.

E) All facility test equipment has been calibrated/verified at least once in the past 12 months in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions by a person customarily performing such work. (See NTPEP Requirements, Appendix 1, for ultrasonic testing equipment)

F) Complete documentation of calibration for all facility test equipment is kept by the facility and available for review.

G) All test facility equipment observed was visually determined to be in proper working order.

H) Documentation indicates that required maintenance has been performed.

I) All testing facility test results are recorded using forms as contained in the QSM and the test results are properly recorded.

J) NTPEP test reports are kept for a minimum of 5 years.

Inspected By:

Date:


Form 4 Control and Testing of Resin

TEST FACILITY INFORMATION Manufacturer Name: DATE: Test Facility Location: Location of Records (if not at facility): Control and Testing of Resins Randomly select and review a number of test reports and complete the following information:

Yes No A) The lot size is a rail car compartment, tanker truckload, or 40 Gaylord boxes. Also, blending resins constitutes a new lot.

B) The sampling location and method used are as described in the QSM.

C) A distinct lot number is assigned to each lot of resin. D) The following resin tests are being performed at a frequency of at least one test per lot :

D1) Density D2) Melt Index E) For AASHTO M252 Pipe produced from resin blends: E1) The resin component proportions are determined from pipe manufacturer test results for melt index and density, not COA values.

E2) Changes in component resins or blend proportions constitute a new lot. F) For AASHTO M294 Pipe: F1) The Resin or blend are third party pre-certified to meet M294 F2) If a blend, the blend proportions and component resins conform to the certified formula.

G) Resins accepted by certification have resin producer test results for Density and Melt Index.

H) Test results are recorded on forms as included in the QSM. I) If failing tests are observed, the report documents the actions taken in the event of such failures.

Inspected By: Date:


Form 5 Quality Control Inspection and Testing

TEST FACILITY INFORMATION Manufacturer Name: DATE: Test Facility Location: Quality Control Inspection and Testing Randomly select and review a number of test reports and complete the following information: (NTPEP pipe lot is defined as no larger than the amount of pipe per type per diameter per machine per production run)

NTPEP required

frequency

Observed Frequency Meets Min.

NTPEP Freq.

Comments

Tests Performed: Yes No A) Carbon Black Content 1/day B) Unit Weight 2/work shift C) Wall Thickness 2/work shift D) Inside Diameter 1/work shift E) Pipe Length 1/work shift F) Perforations (locations & dimensions) 1/work shift G) Water Inlet Area 1/work shift H) Pipe Stiffness 2/week I) Pipe Flattening 2/week J) Elongation M252 1/year K) Low Temperature Flexibility M252 1/year L) Brittleness 2/week M) Joint Integrity-welded bell/spigot - integral bell & spigot

1/week 1/quarter

N) Environmental Stress Cracking 1/year O) Workmanship (No inclusions or visible defects, ends cut square, fused liners)

Continuous Observation

(Record at least 1 per shift)

P) Marking (Manufacturer, size, specification, plant & date of manufacturer)

1 per shift

Yes No Q) Test samples are randomly selected R) If failing tests are observed, the reports document the actions taken in the event of such failures.

Inspected By:

Date:


Form 6 Finished Product Documentation

Verification of Finished Product Documentation Manufacturer Name: Date: Test Facility Location:

Sample #1

Sample #2

Sample #3 Pipe or Fitting Type/Size Marking

A) Shift B) Date

C) Plant

D) Resin lot number

Raw Materials

Yes No Yes No Yes No E) Resin lot test

available

Finished Product Tests

Yes No Yes No Yes No Test Facility Reports F) Production facility

Test reports are available for the same lot of pipe.

Inspected By: Date:


Form 7 Manufacturing Facility or Laboratory Conformance

NTPEP Manufacturing Facility or Laboratory Conformance Status

The NTPEP has inspected the quality control testing program at the following polyethylene pipe manufacturing plant or central laboratory and has found it to substantially conform to the NTPEP’ Requirements for Manufacturers of Polyethylene Pipe and the Manufacturer’s Quality System Manual: Manufacturer: Type of facility: Plant Central Laboratory Facility Address: Audit Status (Indicate Status): a) Manufacturing Plant or Laboratory Conforms to Work Plan b) Manufacturing Plant or Laboratory is Conditionally Conforms to Work Plan If Conditionally Conforms Status is assigned, list the comment numbers from Form 8, comments, and corrective actions necessary for full Qualification: Yes No Additional sheets attached (number 7A, etc.): The results of this audit have been discussed with the Quality Control Manager or individual responsible for QC at the facility inspected:

Inspected By: Date:


Form 8 Audit Comments

Audit Comments (See numbering instructions on Form 1, general instruction D)

Manufacturer Name: Date: Test Facility Location: Additional sheets attached (number 8A, etc.) Yes No Inspected By: Date:


Form 9 Sampling For the NTPEP Laboratory Testing Program

M294 Pipe (M252 Pipe Similar, but Sampling and Testing Split Samples Not Required)

NTPEP Sampling for

NTPEP Laboratory Testing Program – M252/M294 Pipe

Obtain one or two 20’ long samples of pipe (Pipes larger than 24” will require two samples to obtain all the necessary specimens.) Have test specimens prepared from the sample as follows: For Pipe Stiffness and Flattening – two sets of 3 specimens, each length equivalent to the nominal outer diameter of the pipe. (These specimens will also be used to check dimensions and carbon black content) For Joint Integrity (these need only be taken for the set of specimens being sent to the independent laboratory)– 2 specimens, each 12” long, one on each side of joint, manufacturer to provide standard joint For Brittleness – Two sets of 1 specimen, length equivalent to nominal outer diameter of pipe For Environmental Stress Cracking – specimen will be taken from the stiffness/flattening specimens Obtain one, 2.5 lb. sample of the resin used to make the pipe. Only virgin resin pellets should be sampled – do not include carbon black or regrind pellets. Samples for blended resins will be obtained by weighing out the proportions of each resin or sampled after the blending operation, with the carbon black and regrind pellet feeds shut off. Obtain a copy of the pipe manufacturer’s production test results for the resin and pipe sample Obtain a copy of the resin supplier’s certification for the resin sample

1) Attach the Pipe/Resin Sample Label (see page 3) to each pipe specimen and to the resin sample that will be sent for NTPEP testing.

2) Request that the pipe manufacturer ship one set of specimens from the pipe sample and the corresponding resin sample to the NTPEP testing laboratory (see detailed instructions below)

3) Request that the manufacturer run all above tests, except the joint integrity test, on the second set of specimens for the pipe and resin sample (melt index, density, carbon black (from stiffness specimen), and NCLS if so equipped).

Additional Instructions for submitting samples, documents and fees:


A) The manufacturer should: 1) Ship the labeled resin samples, resin suppliers certification that the resin meets current AASHTO specification requirements, the labeled pipe specimens, and the MSDS sheet to the following independent testing laboratory currently approved by the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) for testing HDPEP: TRI Geosynthetics Laboratories Attn: Pipe testing Program 9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, Texas 78733 Contact: Sam Allen E-mail: [email protected] 2) Send the sum total of testing fees payable to “AASHTO/ NTPEP” to bank lock box addressed: AASHTO/NTPEP Dept. 5051 Washington, D.C. 20061-5051 3) Send the completed Product Evaluation Form(s) (PEF), technical bulletins, product specifications, MSDS, other pertinent literature and instructions, and a copy of the check to: AASHTO/NTPEP Attn.: Michael McGough, EIT 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001 4) The current fees are as follows:

• Pipe Testing (per pipe sample): $825.00 • Resin testing (per resin sample): $1550.00 • Resin Melt Blending (if applicable – per resin sample): $595.00 • Sample Shipment (if Applicable): Cost plus handling

5) Report the split sample test results along with the independent laboratory test results for each pipe sample to the NTPEP Consultant Manager (if the manufacturer re-runs the resin tests, report these results also). The test results should be provided in the standard format as provide in the document section of the NTPEP web site. B) The DOT Representative taking the sample specimens should: 1) Send an E-mail to the Consultant Manager listing the pipe sizes sampled and when shipping of pipe and resin samples is expected.


2) The audit report documentation should include a copy of the NTPEP laboratory sample tags for each sample of resin and pipe, the resin supplier’s certification for each resin sample, and the pipe manufacturer’s production resin and quality control test results.

NTPEP Pipe/Resin Sample Label

Product Trade Name: Pipe Size being submitted: (please circle appropriate size, one form per size) 12” 15” 18” 24” 30” 36” 42” 48” 60” Other size:

Lot #: ____________________Resin Sample Submitted: Yes No Lot #: ____________________Test Requested: Resin Pipe Both Test for Compliance With: (Please circle one) AASHTO M252 AASHTO M294 Manufacturer: Corporate Mailing Address: Street or P.O. City: State: Zip Code: Manufacturer’s Contact Person: Name: Contact Mail Address (If different than above): Street or P.O. City: State: Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Manufacturer’s Signature, Indicating Agreement to Pay Test Fees: NTPEP Inspector Contact Information: Name: Agency: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: On-site Measurements: Length – Markings – Marking Spacing -


Appendix G7

TYPICAL REPORT FORMAT

AASHTO NTPEP Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Test Report

Date:______________

Manufacturer: ______________ Corporate Address: ______________ City: ______________ State: _____ Zip: ________ Corporate Contact: ______________ Phone: ______________ Fax: ______________ E-mail: ______________

Plant Name: ______________ Plant Designation Code: __ Plant Address: ______________ City: ______________ State: _____ Zip: __________ Plant Contact: ______________ Phone: ______________ Fax: ______________

Product NTPEP Number: _____ Product DNTPEPription: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Type: Type , Inside Diameter: mm ( in), Perforation Class: .


Specification Test Method - Description ASTM

D 3350AASHTO


X 0.940 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1505 – Resin Density X 0.948 ≤ __ ≤ 0.955 g/cm3

ASTM D 1238 – Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* ≤ __ < 0.4 ASTM D 790 – Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 ≤ __< 160000* psi ASTM D 638 – Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 ≤ __< 3500* psi ASTM F 2136 – Resin NTPEPR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs ≤ __ ASTM D 3350 – Resin Thermal Stability X X 220°C ≤ __

X 2% ≤ __ ASTM D 1603 – Pipe Carbon Black X 2 ≤ __ ≤ 5%

AASHTO M 294 – Workmanship X No visible defects pass / fail ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Inside Diameter X ≤ __ ≤ in ASTM D 2122 – Pipe Wall Thickness X in ≤ __ AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Length X 99% selling length ≤ __ pass / fail ASTM D 2412 – Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X ≥ psi @ 0° / 45° / 90° / / AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc ≥ 20% / / AASHTO M 294 – Pipe NTPEPR X no cracks pass / fail ASTM D 2444 – Pipe Brittleness X no cracks pass / fail AASHTO M 294 – Pipe “soil-tight” Joint Integrity X ≤ 5mm separation @ 20% pass / fail AASHTO M 294 – Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 AASHTO M 294 – Marking X full markings @ ≤ 11.5 ft pass / fail



The test report will include the following information: 1. Manufacturer’s Name and Address, including primary corporate person. 2. Product Identification:

a. Product Name b. Product Series, model number, product number, diameter, and/or lot number or

identification. 3. Product Description 4. Product Type (or Class) 5. Test Results (compared to minimum requirements)

AASHTO M252 (4” – 10”) Pipe Stiffness – select specimens according to ASTM D 2412; test according to M252 Sec. 9.1;. Pipe Flattening – test according to M252 Sec. 9.2; Elongation - test according to M252 Sec. 9.3; Brittleness – test according to M252 Sec. 9.5 (and 7.9) – “similar to F405”; NTPEPR on Pipe – ASTM D 1693 except as modified in M252 Sec 9.4; Low Temperature Flexibility - test according to M252 Sec. 9.6; Joint Integrity - test according to M252 Sec. 9.8.1; Dimensions: Inside Diameter – test according to ASTM D 2122 or M252 Sec 9.7.1; Length – test according to M252 Sec 9.7.2; Perforations – test according to M252 Sec 9.7.3; Wall Thickness – ASTM D 2122 Marking – M252 Sec. 11; Workmanship – M252 Sec. 7.1.1 – 7.1.2. Carbon Black Content – ASTM D1603 AASHTO M294 (12” – 60”) Pipe Stiffness – select specimens according to ASTM D 2412; test according to M294 Sec. 9.1;. Pipe Flattening – test according to M294 Sec. 9.2; Brittleness – ASTM D 2444 except as stated in M294 Sec. 9.3; NTPEPR on Pipe – ASTM D 1693 except as modified in M294 Sec 9.4; Joint Integrity - test according to M294 Sec. 9.6.1; Dimensions: Inside Diameter – test according to ASTM D 2122 or M294 Sec 9.7.1; Length – test according to M294 Sec 9.7.2; Perforations – test according to M294 Sec 9.7.3; Wall Thickness – ASTM D 2122 Marking – M294 Sec. 11; Workmanship – M294 Sec. 7.1.1 – 7.1.2. Carbon Black Content – ASTM D1603 Resin: (as required by ASTM D3350) Density – ASTM D1505 or alternative described in ASTM D 792; Melt Index – ASTM D 1238, Condition 190/2.16 Flexural Modulus – ASTM D 790, Method 1, Procedure B Tensile at Yield – ASTM D 638; Slow Crack Growth – ASTM F 2136 except as modified in M294 Sec. 9.5.1; Thermal Stability – DSC per ASTM D 3350, Sec. 6.3.

6. Related documentation submitted by the manufacturer