20-07 (191) FR

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.

2
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 organizations 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.

3
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 organizations 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.
4
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
5
specific requirements of that plan vary from program to program. PPI sets minimum MQA
standards based on M294. NTPEP has not clearly defined MQA reqts. ESCs 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. PPIs
unannounced audits, with sampling from inventory, allows lot-specific auditing of the
manufacturers MQC system implementation and comparison to independent test results.
NTPEP and ESCs 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.

6
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 products 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 manufacturers 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.
7
Table 1. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe MQA Programs Comparison
Program
PPI NTPEP ESC
Component
Validate product certifications Provide independent test results Qualify manufacturing plants, validate product
Purpose
certifications, provide 3rd party test results
Listing fees (to PPI) Admin & Testing Fees (to NTPEP) None for audit. Additional testing costs
Cost
Auditing/Testing Fees (to TRI)
Resin Must be PPI listed Must be certified to meet M294 Must be certified / tested to meet M294.
Qualification
MQC Plan meeting the requirements of M294 MQC/MQA Plan must be available upon Quality Systems Manual, QSM, meeting detailed
Manufacturer
Appendix must be submitted/approved. request requirements must be submitted & approved (by lead
Qualification
state) + subsequent plant/testing facility inspection
3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style 3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style Granted via an initial plant quality audit and acceptance
Initial Product
regardless of the number of plants. Samples regardless of the number of plants. Samples of previous 3rd Party testing.
Qualification
submitted by the manufacturer. submitted by DOT volunteers.
Audit, sample, and test no fewer than 25% of 3rd party testing of one each pipe size/style Resubmit updated QSM by Nov. 1st. DOTs audit each
plants and products per year. At least 1 per year. regardless of the number of plants every three plant, each year, for compliance to required ESC
5-yr cycle. Unannounced audits by years. Samples are submitted by DOT testing frequencies, and adherence to QSM. Audits
Administrator. Internal audit summaries required volunteers when notified that a certain plant and include review of all M294 pipe production records
Annual audit,
by April 1st for all plants not audited during product is in production. Sampling is pre- covering MQC: resin & pipe testing, competence
sampling, and
previous year. arranged and samples are usually taken from training, and equipment calibration. During the audit
testing
Samples usually taken from inventory (pipe) and pipe being produced so that the associated resin two products and resins are sampled, including split-
production (resin). Audit then includes full MQC can also be sampled. samples for parallel manufacturer testing. Independent
paper trail for both the pipe sampled and the Audits (and scope of audit) is at the discretion lab testing costs are paid directly by the manufacturer,
associated resin , as well as for the resin sampled. of the sampling agency. and all results are provided to the ESC.
Failures Requires identification of cause, resolution, and Manufacturer may request product withdrawal Resolution responsibility of the inspecting team. De-
(audit or revision to MQC plan to assure future and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) listing (plant or company) by majority of ESC states.
testing) conformance.
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. Presentation of test results (summary) for each Listing of qualified manufacturing plants and 3rd party
Public Notice pipe size/style on website. Test results also test results on website and distribution of split-sample
published and sent to DOTs. test results to ESC members only.
Product Notify Administrator and re-qualify with Notify NTPEP and have sampled and tested. Must notify ESC and have sampled and tested.
Design before/after data. Switching between PPI-listed Doesnt apply to switching between qualified Doesnt apply to switching between qualified resins.
Changes resins is not considered a change. resins.
Resolved by PPI review panel. Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. Conditional qualification possible during resolution
Disagreements
with inspecting team.
8
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 $11500* + $10500* $10500* $10500* $10500* $10500*
$11775** + + + + +
Listing & Administration (Audit/Testing) $167,545
+ $17040 $13550 $17040 $13550 $17040 $13550
1 Plant / 8 Products $3000* +
$12700** $2000* $2000* $2000* $2000* + $2000*
Listing & Administration (Audit/Testing) $60,650
+ $4550 + $7100 + $4550 + $7100 $4550 + $7100
NTPEP
Fees paid to NTPEP
18 Plants / 13 Products
Administration / Audit & Testing @ $3000
$39000 $0 $0 $39000 $0 $0 $78,000
per product
1 Plant / 8 Products
Administration / Audit & Testing @ $3000
$24000 $0 $0 $24000 $0 $0 $48,000
per product
ESC
Fees paid to TRI (testing only)
18 Plants (4 within ESC) / 13 Products
Testing @ $2375 per product (4 plants x 2
$19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $19000 $114,000
products each)
1 Plant / 8 Products
Testing @ $2375 per product (1 plant x 2
$4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $4750 $28,500
products each)
* 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.
9
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 didnt 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.
10
Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements Survey Responses

Program NT-
Requirements PPI ESC DOT Responses Manufacturer Responses % > 2/3 > 1/2
Elements PEP
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
Purpose 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
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
Cost
Auditing Fees X CO MD WI ADS Ln Ha QC So 30
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 Resin manufacturer C of A CA CT FL MD NE NV NH NY ADS Ln Ha QC So 48
Qualif- Pipe manufacturer test results CA CO FL MD MN NH NY TN ADS Ha QC So 44
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
Manufact- MQC technician qualifications X CA CO CT DE FL MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI VA WI WV So 63 X
urer Qualif- 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
ication Non-conformance resolution and
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
documentation
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
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
proficiency
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
Initial size/style per company samples X X CT DE MD NE NV NY OH RI VA WV ADS Fr Ln So 52 X
Product submitted by company
Qualif- 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe
ication size/style per company samples X CA FL IA LA ME MN NH TN WA WI Ha QC 44
obtained by DOT or Admin.
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
X LA MD NE OH WA WV ADS Fr Ln Ha So 41
and products over 5-year period.
Audit every plant every year + test 2
X CA CO CT DE FL ME MD MN NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI QC So 67 X X
pipe & resin samples per plant
Test all pipe styles/sizes every 3 years X CO LA NH WA WV ADS Ha 26
Annual
audit, 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
sampling, Samples usually taken from inventory pipe OH- WI- ADS Ha- QC-
FL IA MD VA WV Fr-P Ln 44
and testing P P -P P P
OH- WI- ADS Ha- QC-
Samples usually taken from production resin both both CA CT DE FL LA ME MD MN NE NH NY RI TN WA Fr-R So 78 X X
R R -R R R
Sample MQC documentation obtained
X ? ? CA LA ME MD NV NH NY OH TN VA ADS Ln Ha QC So 56 X
during audit
Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X CT DE FL ME MD MN NV NH NY RI TN VA WI So 52 X
Quality program re-submittal with
X CA CT DE FL MD MN NE NV NH NY OH RI TN VA WI WV Fr Ha QC So 74 X X
updates
11
Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements Survey Responses (contd)

Program NT-
Requirements PPI ESC DOT Responses Manufacturer Responses % > 2/3 > 1/2
Elements PEP
Mfr must identify cause,
document resolution, and revise
X CA FL MD MN NH NY OH TN WA WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 59 X
MQC plan to assure future
conformance.
Failures Manufacturer may request
(annual audit product withdrawal and/or
X LA MD MN TN WA WV QC 26
or testing) retesting (paid for by
manufacturer)
Resolution is the responsibility
of the manufacturer working X CT DE FL IA LA MD NE NV NH NY RI VA 44
with the inspecting team.
Listing of qualified pipe
X CA CT FL LA NE NV TN WI ADS Fr Ln Ha QC So 52 X
sizes/styles on website.
Listing of test results on
X X CA CO CT DE FL LA MD NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WA WV ADS Ha QC 70 X X
website.
Public Test results published and sent
X CA CO CT IA ME MD MN NE NH NH OH WA WV QC 48
Notice to DOTs.
Listing of qualified plants on
X CT DE FL LA MD MN NE NV NH NY RI TN VA WA WI WV ADS Ha QC So 74 X X
website.
Distribution of split-sample test
X CT DE ME MD NH NY RI TN VA WV 37
results.
Notify and re-qualify with
X CA IA ADS Fr Ln Ha 22
Product before/after data.
Changes Notify and have sampled and
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
tested.
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
Disagree- X CO CT FL LA ME NH NY RI TN WA WI QC 44
round-robin.
ments
Conditional qualification
X CT DE MD NE NV NH NH VA WV Fr Ln So 40
possible during resolution.
12
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 reqts.
CO Bob Locander, Dave Kotzer - CDOT is currently specifying M294. Having internal discussions and updating manuals, specs, etc.
Keith Lane, Andy Mroczkowski - Relying on manufacturers certifications; have not used plastic pipe very extensively; not currently MQA testing; currently writing new spec
CT
to include resin quality
DE Jim Pappas - M294 & M252 with participation in ESC; look into 3rd party resin testing and testing of joints
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.
FL
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.
Ed Lucas Maintains approved list; Must participate in ESC + random pipe testing; Emphasis on rigorous audits tracking minimum of 6 samples & review all M294
NY
production over year.
Lloyd Welker - User of PPI with internal MQC plan review. Allow recycled materials in M252. Satisfied with PPI and dont see need for another agency. Unannounced audits
OH
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
AD Bob Slicker Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and multiple state programs. Strongly support single comprehensive merged program. Blended resins should be accepted if 3rd
S party verification is provided.
Chris Overmyer - IN has very simple monthly MQA submittal reqt; IL requires guarantee of product quality; M252 pipe that is obviously NOT AASHTO compliant comes in
Fr
from out of state, even though it has AASHTO stamping, thus important to include M252.
Tim Tolliver - Program Administrator should not be empowered to monitor or effect process controls. This is proprietary and has larger financial and performance
Ha 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.
Bob Diehl - Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and multiple state programs. Strongly support single comprehensive merged program. Merged program should be well conceived
Ln
so that frequent revisions are not required.
Carl Tymer - Participate in PPI, NTPEP, ESC and FlDOT. Should be effort to consolidate, so that individual DOTs dont initiate unique requirements that force product
QC
changes that are not necessarily improvements.
So Clermond Marquis - Audited by 5 different systems/agencies. Merger of programs would be very beneficial.
13
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.
14
Table 5. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe MQA Programs Comparison
Program
Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC Merged Program Proposal
Elements
Validate product certifications X X Program will validate mfr product certifications, provide independent test results, and
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X qualify manufacturing plants
Qualify manufacturing plants X
Administration Fees X Include with auditing/testing fees
ListingFees X $500
Cost
Auditing Fees X $3000 per Master audit / $0 per DOT audit
Testing Fees X X X $2500 / product
Resin manufacturer C of A Required for all resins used
Resin
Qualification Pipe manufacturer test results Required for all resins used
Independent lab testing Reqd for all resins prior to use. PPI listed.
Manufacturer MQC Plan meeting M294/252 App. X X X ESC Reqts
Lot identification directions X ESC Reqts
Specific MQC Testing Frequencies sug X ESC Reqts,
MQC technician qualifications X Optional
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X ESC Reqts
Qualification Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X Master or DOT audit every year
Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X ESC Reqts
Test report retention X X ESC Reqts
Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X ESC Reqts
Pre-qualification Audit X 1 Initial Master Audit
Initial Product 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe sizes samples submitted by company X X 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per company samples submitted by
Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe sizes samples obtained by DOT X company with split-sample test results
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X
Unannounced audits / samplings preferred. Prearranged OK for special situations.
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X
Random auditing/sampling of all plants and products over 5-year period. X Master audit of each plant within a 5-year period. Master or DOT Audit of every plant
Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin samples per plant X every year + at least 1 pipe & resin sample per plant for independent testing. Test all
Annual audit, Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X pipe styles/sizes per company every 5 years
sampling, and Internal or independent audits of every plant X X Covered by Master and DOT audits
testing 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
Quality program re-submittal with updates X Quality program re-submittal with updates
Failures Mfr identify cause, document resolution, and revise MQC plan X Mfr may request retest, if sufficient sample. Mfr must identify cause, document
(annual audit or Mfr may request product withdrawal and/or retesting (paid for by mfr) X resolution, and revise MQC plan to assure future conformance. Then may request
testing) Resolution is the responsibility of the mfr working with the inspecting team. X 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.
Public Notice 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.
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 samples submitted by company with split-sample test results
Notify and have sampled and tested. X X
Resolved by review panel. X Resolved by administrator via retesting or round-robin between mfr and admin lab.
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X Conditional listing during resolution.
Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X
15
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 + Initial Year 1 Scenario Plants/Products QSM + Initial Year 1
Master Prod (ESC in Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Master Prod (ESC in Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Audit Qualif. 30 days) Audit Qualif. 30 days)
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
1 Plant / 1 Plant /
4 1 1 4 $2,500 $500 $500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500
8 Products Product 8 Products Product
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
8 1 1 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.
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
4 DOT Master DOT DOT DOT DOT 4 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Plant Plant
6 DOT DOT Master DOT DOT DOT 6 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0
8 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 8 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0
10 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0
10 Plants /
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Plants / 1 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500
12
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Products 2 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $500
Products
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
Product Product
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
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 $2,500 $500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Note 1: Adding 8 products for M252 inclusion adds no additional cost.
16
1 1 DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT Master 1 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000
Plant Plant
18 Plants / 15 DOT DOT DOT Master DOT DOT 15 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0
18 Plants /
13 16 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0
13 Products
Products 17 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0
18 DOT DOT DOT DOT Master DOT 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
Product 7 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Product 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
13 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 13 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500
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.
17
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:
18
Milestone Target Date

NCHRP Panel Approval of Final Study Report, including Revised August 2006
NTPEP Work Plan
Seek ESC Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan1 August 2006
Seek PPI Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan & August 2006
Negotiate/Revise the Resin Qualification and Listing Program1
Seek PPI Approval of NCHRP-approved Revised NTPEP Work Plan 1 August 2006
NTPEP retains a Consultant Manager (Program Administrator) to October 2006
Administer the Merged Program under contract to the NTPEP.
Consultant Manager reviews the auditing/sampling history of currently November 2006
participating companies and establishes 5-year plans and cost-estimates.
Consultant Manager takes over resin pre-qualification administration. November 2006
Consultant Manager takes over review of initial QSM submittals and pre- November 2006
qualifying new participants
Consultant Manager coordinates Master and DOT audits (including January 2007
sampling) and testing/reporting.
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 companys 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
19
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
APPENDICES
Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI)
Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturers 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
9063 Bee Caves Road / Austin, TX 78733 / 512-263-2101 / FAX 263-2558 / 800-880-TEST
Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix A
Appendix A
Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturers Certification
(PTPVMC)
Appendix A1
Protocol for Third Party Verification of Manufacturers 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 Pipe Size Product Description

Name
Advanced 12", 15",
Drainage 18", 24" Corrugated Type C/CP Polyethylene Pipe
Systems, Inc. I.D.
12", 15",
Advanced 18", 24",
Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP
Drainage N-12 30", 36",
Polyethylene Pipe
Systems, Inc. 42", 48",
60" I.D.
Baughman Tile 12", 15",
Corrugated Type C/CP Polyethylene Pipe
Company 18" I.D.
Baughman Tile Corrugated Type S Polyethylene Pipe with in-
12", 15"
Company line bell & spigot
12", 15",
Poly
Baughman Tile 18", 24", Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP
Smooth-
Company 30", 36" Polyethylene Pipe
Line
I.D.
12", 15",
18", 24",
Sure-Lok Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP
Hancor 30", 36",
F477 Polyethylene Pipe
42", 48",
60" I.D.
12", 15",
18", 24",
Hancor Blue Seal 30", 36",
Polyethylene Pipe
42", 48",
60" I.D.
12", 15",
Corrugated Type CP w/ Split Coupling
Hancor 18" & 24"
Polyethylene Pipe
I.D.
Hancor 12" 15" & Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ Split Coupling
18" I.D. Polyethylene Pipe
24" and 30" Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ no joints
Hancor
I.D. Polyethylene Pipe
Corrugated Smooth Type SP w/ Bell & Spigot
Hancor Sure-Lok 54" I.D.
Polyethylene Pipe
12", 15",
Haviland 18", 24",
Corrugated Smooth Type S/SP Polyethylene
Drainage 30", 36",
Pipe
Products 42", 48"
I.D.
Haviland 12", 15",
Corrugated Type C/CP (no joints tested)
Drainage 18", 24"
Polyethylene Pipe
Products I.D.
12", 15",
18", 24"
Lane Enterprises, Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP
30", 36",
Inc. Polyethylene Pipe
42", 48"
I.D.
12", 15",
18", 24"
Quality Culvert, Corrugated Smooth Interior Type S/SP
30", 36",
Inc. Polyethylene Pipe
42", 48"
I.D.
12", 15",
18", 21",
Soleno, Inc. 24", 30",
Polyethylene Pipe
36", 42",
48"
Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix B
Appendix B
Evaluation of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe Program Documents
Appendix B1

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 Kansas DOT (785) 291-3845
(CHAIR)
Tom Baker Washington State DOT (360) 709-5588
(VICE CHAIR)
Peter Kemp Wisconsin DOT (608) 246-7953
(Panel Member)
Oscar Mousavi Arizona DOT (602) 712-8200
(Panel Member)
L. David Suits New York DOT (518) 457-4704
(Panel Member)
Jim Goddard Plastics Pipe Institute (614) 658-0248
(INDUSTRY MEMBER)
Tim Toliver Hancor, Inc. (419) 424-8243
(INDUSTRY MEMBER)
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
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 its
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 mujeebb@aashto.org.
Very truly yours,
Mujeeb Basha
Mujeeb A. Basha, PE
NTPEP Coordinator
Sr. Staff Engineer, AASHTO
cc: NTPEP Oversight Committee
Subcommittee on Materials
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
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
Pipe Testing
Stiffness and Flattening

ASTM D 2412 Next
Photos courtesy of TRI/Environmental, Inc. (Austin, Texas)
Pipe Testing
Dimensions
(Thickness) -
ASTM D 2412
Pipe in Freezer
for Brittleness
Testing
ASTM D 2444 Resin Density
ASTM D 1505
Next
Resin Stress Crack
Resistance (SP-NCTL) -
ASTM D 5397
Next
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program

(NTPEP)
Project Work Plan for Evaluation

of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe
November 2004
P rogram 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
Last Rev: November 19, 2004 1

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 Manufacturers manufacturing and test
facilities validate the Manufacturers certification. The Manufacturers 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 Manufacturers 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 Manufacturers
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 manufacturers 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. Manufacturers 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 products 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 D
For Perforated Pipe, Perforation Type: Class 1 Or Class 2
Test Report
SPECIFICATION
ASTM D 3212
ASTM D 3350
AASHTO M 294
Test Description Specification Limits Test Results __________DOT Test

ASTM D 638 X X Tensile Strength at Yield 3000 psi - <3500 psi
ASTM D 790 X X Flexural Modulus 110,000 psi to < 160,000 psi
ASTM D 1693 X X ESCR Test,
ASTM D 1238 X X Melt Index 0.4 to 0.15
ASTM D 1505 X Density >0.940 gm/cc - 0.955 gm/cc
ASTM D 1505 X Density >0.955 gm/cc - 0.955 gm/cc
ASTM D 2122 X X Inside Diameter
ASTM D 2122 X X Wall Thickness
ASTM D 2412 X Pipe Stiffness @ 5%
ASTM D 2412 X Pipe Stiffness @ 10%
ASTM D 2444 X Brittleness, Impact Test
AASHTO M 294 X Flattening less than 20%
AASHTO M 294 X Joint Integrity
AASHTO M 294 X Perforations
ASTM C 1603 X Carbon Black % >2% min
AASHTO M 294 X X Carbon Black % >2% not to exceed 5%
ASTM D 3212 X Pressure Test
ASTM D 3212 X Vacuum Pressure Test
ASTM D 3212 X Joint Qualification Test
TEST COMMENTS: _______________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 _________________________________________________
TODAYS 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) Read Me First !!
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. Manufacturers 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? Yes 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)
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 HDPE Pipe Style OR Product Designation TESTING FEE

NUMBER
(For Office Use)
PIPE(2005) - ____ 0 Select Fee Here
0 Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____
0 Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____
0 Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____
PIPE(2005) - ____
0 Select Fee Here
0 Select Fee Here

PIPE(2005) - ____
TOTAL DUE Payable to AASHTO/NTPEP 0
** Note: If additional pipe styles are being submitted, copy this page and continue list. **
Last Rev. November 17, 2004

AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Test Report
June, 2004
Manufacturer: Baughman Tile Co. Plant Name: Baughman Tile Co.
Corporate Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137 Plant Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137
City: Paulding City: Paulding
State: OH Zip: 45879 State: OH Zip: 45879
Corporate Contact: Lorie Thornell Contact: Lorie Thornell
Phone: 419-399-3160 Phone: 419-399-3160
Fax: 419-399-4641 Fax: 419-399-4641
E-mail: lorie.thornell@baughmantile.com
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.
Specification
Test
TEST METHOD - DESCRIPTION ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density 0.950
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X 0.227
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X 132,964
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X 3995
ASTM F 2136 Resin NCLS X X 24 hrs 29.5
ASTM D 3350 Resin Thermal Stability X X 220C __ 244.0
X 2% __
ASTM D 1603 Pipe Carbon Black 3.45
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Workmanship X No visible defects pass
ASTM D 2122 Pipe Inside Diameter X 17.5 __ 18.5 in 17.8
ASTM D 2122 Pipe Wall Thickness X 0.050 in __ 0.107
ASTM D 2412 Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X 40 psi @ 0 / 45 / 90 55 / 53 / 52
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc 20% pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe ESCR X no cracks pass
ASTM D 2444 Pipe Brittleness X no cracks pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe soil-tight Joint Integrity X 5mm separation @ 20% pass
2 psi __
#
ASTM F477 Pipe silt-tight Joint Pressure Test X #
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
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
June, 2004
Manufacturer: Baughman Tile Co. Plant Name: Baughman Tile Co.
Corporate Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137 Plant Address: 8516 Twp. Rd. 137
City: Paulding City: Paulding
State: OH Zip: 45879 State: OH Zip: 45879
Corporate Contact: Lorie Thornell Contact: Lorie Thornell
Phone: 419-399-3160 Phone: 419-399-3160
Fax: 419-399-4641 Fax: 419-399-4641
E-mail: lorie.thornell@baughmantile.com

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X 0.229
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X 132,145
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 42.5
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
ASTM F477 Pipe silt-tight Joint Pressure Test X# 2 psi __ #
10.8 psi __
#
ASTM F477 & D 3212 Pipe water-tight Joint Tests X #
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Manufacturer: Prinsco, Inc. Plant Name: Prinsco, Inc.
Corporate Address: PO Box 265 Plant Designation Code: .
City: Prinsburg Plant Address: 32969 E 900 North Rd
State: MN Zip: 56281 City: Chatsworth
Corporate Contact: Joe Larkins State: IL Zip: 60921
Phone: 800-869-7712 Plant Contact: Joe Larkins
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712
E-mail: jlarkins@prinsco.com E-mail: illab@prinsco.com
Product NTPEP Number: (03) - 25 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X 4190
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs __ 40
ASTM D 3350 Resin Thermal Stability X X 220C __ 242
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Length X 99% selling length __ pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Perforations X Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/a
AASHTO 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
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712
E-mail: jlarkinsr@prinsco.com E-mail: illab@prinsco.com

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs __ 42.8
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712

Specification
TEST METHOD - DESCRIPTION ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits Test Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs __ >50
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2005
Fax: 320-978-8602 Phone: 800-869-7712

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a not applicable;
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Manufacturer: Quality Culvert, Inc.
Corporate Address: PO Box 435 Plant Name: Quality Culvert, Inc.
City: Astatula Plant Address: 25726 County Road 561
State: FL Zip: 34705 City: Astatula
Corporate Contact: Carl Tyner State: FL Zip: 34705
Phone: 352-343-8488 Plant Contact: Carl Tyner
Fax: 352-343-8422 Phone: 352-343-8488
E-mail: ctyner@qualityculvert.com Fax: 352-343-8422

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density n/s
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X n/s
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X n/s
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X n/s
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs __ n/s
ASTM D 3350 Resin Thermal Stability X X 220C __ n/s
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP;
n/s not sampled
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Manufacturer: Quality Culvert, Inc. Plant Name: Quality Culvert, Inc.
Corporate Address: PO Box 435 Plant Address: 25726 County Road 561
City: Astatula City: Astatula
State: FL Zip: 34705 State: FL Zip: 34705
Corporate Contact: Carl Tyner Plant Contact: Carl Tyner
Phone: 352-343-8488 Phone: 352-343-8488
Fax: 352-343-8422 Fax: 352-343-8422
E-mail: ctyner@qualityculvert.com

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X n/s
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
2 psi __
#
n/s not sampled
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Phone: 352-343-8488 Phone: 352-343-8488
Fax: 352-343-8422 Fax: 352-343-8422

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
2 psi __
#
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Phone: 352-343-8488 Phone: 352-343-8488
Fax: 352-343-8422 Fax: 352-343-8422

Specification
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X n/s
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
n/s not sampled
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Fax: 352-343-8422 Phone: 352-343-8488

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Phone: 352-343-8488 Phone: 352-343-8488
Fax: 352-343-8422 Fax: 352-343-8422

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X n/s
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X n/s
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
10.8 psi __
#
n/s not sampled
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Phone: 352-343-8488 Phone: 352-343-8488
Fax: 352-343-8422 Fax: 352-343-8422

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
2 psi __
#
n/s not sampled
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2004
Fax: 352-343-8422 Phone: 352-343-8488

Type:Type S Inside Diameter: 300mm (12 in) Perforation Class: non-Perf.
Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
10.8 psi __
#
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2004
Manufacturer: Lane Enterprises Plant Name: Lane Enterprises
Plant Designation Code: S .
Corporate Address: 34 Strohm Road Plant Address: 34 Strohm Road
City: Shippensburg City: Shippensburg
State: PA Zip: 17257 State: PA Zip: 17257
Corporate Contact: Robert Diehl Corporate Contact: Robert Diehl
Phone: 717-532-5959 Phone: 717-532-5959
Fax: 717-532-7997 Fax: 717-532-7997
E-mail: bdiehl@lane-enterprises.com E-mail: bdiehl@lane-enterprises.com
Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(04-01)-2

Product 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.
Specification
Test
Test Method Description ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density 3 0.952
X 0.945 g/cm __ 0.955
3
X* 0.15 g/cm
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X __ < 0.4 0.300
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 __< 160000
*
143,498
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __< psi 3500* psi 3883
ASTM F 2136 Resin Slow Crack Growth Resist. X X 24 hrs 30.1
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Pipe soil-tight Joint Integrity X 5mm separation @ pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Perforations X 20% 1; Type 2
Nonperf; Type n/a
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable;; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP
January, 2004
Manufacturer: Lane Enterprises Plant Name: Lane Enterprises
Plant Designation Code: S .
Corporate Address: 34 Strohm Road Plant Address: 34 Strohm Road
City: Shippensburg City: Shippensburg
State: PA Zip: 17257 State: PA Zip: 17257
Corporate Contact: Robert Diehl Corporate Contact: Robert Diehl
Phone: 717-532-5959 Phone: 717-532-5959
Fax: 717-532-7997 Fax: 717-532-7997
E-mail: bdiehl@lane-enterprises.com E-mail: bdiehl@lane-enterprises.com
Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe (04-01)-1

Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe - T ype: Type S,
Inside Diameter: 375 mm (15 in)
Selling Length: 6.1 m ( 20 ft).

Specification
Test
Test Method - Description ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density 0.945 g/cm
3
__ 0.955
0.952
X 3
X* 0.15 g/cm
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X __ < 0.4 0.300
* *
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X 110000 __< 160000 143,498
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __< psi 3500* psi 3883
ASTM F 2136 Resin Slow Crack Growth Resist. X X 24 hrs 30.1
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
Nonperf; Type n/a
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
July, 2004
Manufacturer: Hancor, Inc. Plant Name: Hancor, Inc.
Corporate Address: 401 Olive Street Plant Designation Code: B, C.
City: Findlay Plant Address: 433 Olive St.
State: OH Zip: 45840 City: Findlay
Corporate Contact: Tim Tolliver State: OH Zip: 45839
Phone: 419/424-8243 Plant Contact: Clark Inniger
Fax: 419/424-8364 Phone: 419/422-6283
E-mail: ttoliver@hancor.com Fax: 419/422-

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
X 0.945 g/cm
__ 0.955
3
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X* __ < 0.4
0.15*g/cm 0.238
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 __< 160000* 130,270
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __<psi 3500* psi 3736
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR (via NCLS) X X 24 hrs 69.2
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Perforations X 20%
Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/a
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
July, 2004
Corporate Address: 401 Olive Street Plant Designation Code: B, C.
City: Findlay Plant Address: 433 Olive St.
Phone: 419/424-8243 Plant Contact: Clark Inniger
Fax: 419/424-8364 Phone: 419/422-6283

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
X 0.945 g/cm
__ 0.955
3
0.15*g/cm 0.228
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Workmanship X No visible defects Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Length X 99% selling length __ ?
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc 20% Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe ESCR X no cracks Pass
ASTM D 2444 Pipe Brittleness X no cracks Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe soil-tight Joint Integrity X 5mm separation @ Pass
Nonperf; Type n/a
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
July, 2004
Corporate Address: 401 Olive Street Plant Designation Code: LL, YY.
City: Findlay Plant Address: 12370 Jackson TR 172
Phone: 419/424-8243 Plant Contact: Larry Dunson
Fax: 419/424-8364 Phone: 419/424-8222

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
July, 2004
Corporate Address: 401 Olive Street Plant Designation Code: LL, YY.
City: Findlay Plant Address: 12370 Jackson TR 172
Phone: 419/424-8243 Plant Contact: Larry Dunson
Fax: 419/424-8364 Phone: 419/424-8222

Type: Type C Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)
Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
June, 2004
Manufacturer: Soleno Inc. Plant Name: Soleno Inc.
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: H (Hagersville) .
City: Iberville Plant Address: 304 Concession 11
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 Prov: ON, Canada Zip: N0A 1H0
Corporate Contact: Guylaine Chayer
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Jayson Roy
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 905/768-7473
E-mail: gchayer@soleno.com Fax: 905/768-7042

Specification
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
X 0.945 g/cm
__ 0.955
3
0.15*g/cm 0.189
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Perforations X 20%
Nonperf; Type 1; Type 2 n/a
higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
June, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: HA (Hagersville)
City: Iberville Plant Address: 304 Concession 11
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 City: Hagersville
Corporate Contact: Guylaine Chayer Prov: ON, Canada Zip: N0A 1H0
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Jayson Roy
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 905/768-7473

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
April, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: MC (McAdam)
City: Iberville Plant Address: 64, Northlane Road
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 City: McAdam
Corporate Contact: Guylaine Chayer Prov: NB, Canada Zip: E0H 1K0
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Steve Gardner
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 506/784-1888
NTPEP Pipe Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Type: Type S, Inside Diameter: 450 mm (18 in)
Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable, n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
August, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: B (Berniere) .
City: Iberville Plant Address: 1185 Industriel, St-Nicolas
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 Prov: QC, Canada Zip: G7A 1B2
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Marc Plante
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 418/836-3246
Product: NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density 0.948**
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X .0183**
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X 131,106**
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X 3769**
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 70.4**
ASTM D 3350 Resin Thermal Stability X X 220C __ 259.3**
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
** - The original resin samples were lost in transit. A single resin was resubmitted for testing and is reported here.
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
April, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: MC (McAdam)
City: Iberville Plant Address: 64, Northlane Road
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 City: McAdam
Corporate Contact: Guylaine Chayer Prov: NB, Canada Zip: E0H 1K0
Plant Contact: Steeve Gardner
Phone: 450/347-7855 Phone: 506/784-1888
Fax: 450/347-7311 Fax: 506/784-1890
E-mail: gchayer@soleno.com
NTPEP Pipe Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
April, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: IB (Iberville)
City: Iberville Plant Address: 1160, Route 133
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 City: Iberville
Corporate Contact: Guylaine Chayer Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Chantal Hebert
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 450/347-7855
NTPEP PipeNumber: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
110000 __< 160000 psi
* *
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
August, 2004
Corporate Address: PO Box 147 Plant Designation Code: B (Berniere) .
City: Iberville Plant Address: 1185 Industriel, St-Nicolas
Prov: QC, Canada Zip: J2X 4J5 Prov: QC, Canada Zip: G7A 1B2
Phone: 450/347-7855 Plant Contact: Marc Plante
Fax: 450/347-7311 Phone: 418/836-3246
Product: NTPEP Number: N/A Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
TEST METHOD DESCRIPTION ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1505 Resin Density 0.948**
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X* 0.15 __ < 0.4
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X .0183**
110000 __< 160000 psi 131,106**
* *
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X 3769**
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 70.4**
ASTM D 3350 Resin Thermal Stability X X 220C __ 259.3**
X M294 does not apply to10S
X M294 does not apply to10S
AASHTO M 294 Workmanship X M294 does not apply to10S pass
ASTM D 2122 Pipe Inside Diameter X M294 does not apply to10S 9.9
ASTM D 2122 Pipe Wall Thickness X M294 does not apply to10S 0.074
ASTM D 2412 Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X M294 does not apply to10S 57 / 57 / 63
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Flattening X M294 does not apply to10S pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe ESCR X M294 does not apply to10S pass
ASTM D 2444 Pipe Brittleness X M294 does not apply to10S pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe soil-tight Joint Integrity X M294 does not apply to10S pass
AASHTO 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.
AASHTO NTPEP
December, 2003
Manufacturer: Advanced Drainage Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: Y .
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 115 W. Crown Point Road
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Winter Garden
State: FL Zip: 34787
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Mike Gatt
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 407/654-3989
E-mail: bob_slicker@ads-pipe.com Fax: 407/654-5601
Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-10 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Pipe Type: Type S, Inside Diameter: 1500 mm (60 in)
Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
*
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X 0.15* __ < 0.4 0.205
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 __< 160000* psi 142,780
*
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X 3000 __< 3500* psi 3808
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
ASTM D 2412 Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X 14 psi @ 0 / 45 / 90
16 / 16 / 16
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a not applicable;
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
April, 2004
Manufacturer: Advanced Drainage Plant Name: Advanced Drainage
Systems Systems
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: G .
City: Hilliard Plant Address: Muncy Industrial Park
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Muncy
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: PA Zip: 17756
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 570-546-7686
E-mail: bob_slicker@ads-pipe.com Fax: 570-546-7708
NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-8, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Type: Type ST Inside Diameter: 1200 mm (48 in)
Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
3000 __< 3500 psi
* *
ASTM F2136 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 57.3
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
April, 2003

Systems, Inc. Inc.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 173 Industrial Parkway North
State: PA Zip: 17756
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Heather Miller
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 570/546-7686
E-mail:

Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X* *
0.15 __ < 0.4 0.080
* *
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X 110000 __< 160000 psi 131,199
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* *
3000 __< 3500 psi 3960
ASTM D 1693 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs 29.6
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
April, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: J .
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 400 East High St.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: London
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: OH Zip: 43140
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Bob Sensabaugh
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 740-852-2980
E-mail:

Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4 0.205
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X* *
110000 __< 160000 psi 147,310
3000 __< 3500 psi 3994
ASTM D 5397, Appendix Resin stress crack X X 24 hrs 26
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Flattening X No buckling, etc 20% pass
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2005
Manufacturer: Advanced Drainage Systems Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: L / 36.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 58 Wyoming St.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Ludlow
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: MA Zip: 01056
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Jerry Paquette
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 413-589-0515
Product NTPEP Number: PIPE(05)-06 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955
X 0.948 g/cm
__ 0.955
3
0.15*g/cm 0.351
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __< *
psi 3500 psi 4042
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
Nonperf; Type n/a
AASHTO NTPEP
May, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: Y .
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 115 West Crown Point Rd.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Winter Garden
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: FL Zip: 34787
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Aaron Buck
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 407-654-3989
E-mail: aaron.buck@ads-pipe.com
Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe(03-04)-4 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4 0.230
110000 __< 160000 psi 155,085
3000 __< 3500 psi 4102
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
? data not provided by field sampler prior to cutting specimens
AASHTO NTPEP
May, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: L .
State: MA Zip: 01056
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: David Pare
Fax: 614/658-0203
Phone: 413-589-0515
E-mail: bob_slicker@ads-pipe.com
Fax: 413-583-5249
E-mail:

Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4 0.320
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
143,103
3000 __< 3500 psi 3879
resistance
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2004
Systems Systems
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Dave Pare
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 413-589-0515
NTPEP Pipe (2002)-5, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15* __ < 0.4 0.290
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X *
110000 __< 160000* psi 150,761
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __< 3500* psi 4077
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
July, 2003
Plant Name: Advanced Drainage Systems,

Manufacturer: Advanced Drainage Inc.
Systems, Inc. Plant Designation Code: O .
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Address: 770 S. Chestnut St.
City: Hilliard City: Owosso
State: OH Zip: 43026 State: MI Zip: 48867
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker Plant Contact: Rick Lamb
Phone: 614/658-0250 Phone: 989-723-5208
Fax: 614/651-0051 Fax: 989-723-7113
E-mail: bob_slicker@ads-pipe.com E-mail:
Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe (03-04)-6, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe
Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
* *
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X 0.15 __ < 0.4 0.10
* *
3000 __< 3500 psi 3864
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
* - higher class (exceeding specification limit) is acceptable; # - testing not yet implemented by NTPEP; n/a not applicable
AASHTO NTPEP
April, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: J .
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 400 East High St.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: London
State: OH Zip: 43140
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Bob Sensabaugh
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 740-852-2980
E-mail:

Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4 0.295
110000 __< 160000 psi 145,279
3000 __< 3500 psi 3940
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Workmanship X No visible defects Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe Flattening X no buckling, etc 20% Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe ESCR X no cracks Pass
ASTM D 2444 Pipe Brittleness X no cracks Pass
AASHTO M 294 Pipe soil-tight Joint Integrity X 5mm separation @ 20% Pass
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2004
Systems Systems
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Dave Pare
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 413-589-0515
NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-3 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 790 Resin Flexural Modulus X X *
110000 __< 160000* psi 150,761
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2005
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: B.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 510 Factory St.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Buena Vista
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: VA Zip: 24416
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: J.J. Massey
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 540-261-6131

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.948 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM F 2136 Resin ESCR X X 24 hrs __ 108.4
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
April, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
State: MA Zip: 01056
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: David Pare
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 413-589-0515
E-mail:
Product NTPEP Number: PE Pipe (03-04)-1 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe
Perforation Class: non-Perf., Resin Classification (per ASTM D 3350): 335400C.
Specification
Test
Test Method - Description ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
* *
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X 0.15 __ < 0.4 0.345
110000 __< 160000 psi 135249
* *
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X 3000 __< 3500 psi 3915
ASTM D 5397, Appendix Resin stress crack X X 24 hrs 36.7
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
ASTM D 2412 Pipe Stiffness @ 5% X 43 / 44 / 44
42 psi @ 0 / 45 / 90
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
May, 2004
Systems Systems
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: S.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: Old Route 30 West
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Wooster
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: OH Zip: 44691
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Berry Girvin
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 330-264-4949
NTPEP Pipe: (2002)-2 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2005
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: L / 36.
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Jerry Paquette
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 413-589-0515

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.948 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
March, 2005
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: B.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: 510 Factory St.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Buena Vista
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: VA Zip: 24416
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: J.J. Massey
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 540-261-6131

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.948 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP / ESC
April, 2004
Systems Systems
City: Hilliard Plant Address: Muncy Industrial Park
Corporate Contact: Bob Slicker State: PA Zip: 17756
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 570-546-7686
NTPEP Pipe (2002)-1, Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Specification
Test
Results
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
0.15 __ < 0.4
* *
X* 110000 __< 160000 psi
*
X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO NTPEP
August, 2003
Systems, Inc. Inc.
Corporate Address: 4640 Trueman Blvd. Plant Designation Code: K.
City: Hilliard Plant Address: Buck Creek Church Rd.
State: OH Zip: 43026 City: Livermore
State: KY Zip: 42352
Phone: 614/658-0250 Plant Contact: Wes Garrison
Fax: 614/658-0203 Phone: 270/733-4324
E-mail:
Product NTPEP Number: PEPipe(03-04)-7 Product Description: Corrugated Polyethylene

PipeType: Type S , Inside Diameter: 300 mm (12 in)
Specification
Test
D 3350 M 294
X 0.940 __ 0.955 g/cm3
X 0.945 __ 0.955 g/cm3
ASTM D 1238 Resin Melt Index X X* 0.15
*
__ < 0.4 0.32
* *
ASTM D 638 Resin Tensile Strength at Yield X X* 3000 __< 3500 psi
*
3688
X 2% __
X 2 __ 5%
AASHTO M 294 Marking X full markings @ 11.5 ft ?
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent: Maine DOT______
Program Respondent
Requirements PPI NTPEP ESC
Elements Practice or Preference
Validate product certifications X X
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X X
Qualify manufacturing plants X X
Administration Fees X
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X X
Resin manufacturer C of A
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results
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
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X
Qualification 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
X X
Initial Product company samples submitted by company
Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per
X X
company samples obtained by DOT
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X X
Random auditing/sampling of all plants and
X
products over 5-year period.
Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin
X X
Annual audit, samples per plant
sampling, and Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X
testing 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
Quality program re-submittal with updates X
Mfr must identify cause, document resolution, and
X
revise QC plan to assure future conformance.
Failures
Manufacturer may request product withdrawal
(annual audit X
or testing) and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer)
Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer
X
working with the inspecting team.
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X
Listing of test results on website. X X
Public Notice Test results published and sent to DOTs. X X
Listing of qualified plants on website. X
Distribution of split-sample test results. X X
Product Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X X
Resolved by review panel. X
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X 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 Respondents 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 (cjoelsprague@cs.com) 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
Appendix C1
Eastern States Consortium (ESC)

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 ESCs 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 1
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 manufacturers split sample testing, and
the most recent copy of the companys 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 ESCs 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 States specifications.
Rev 03/24/03 2
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 ESCs 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
1
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 manufacturers split sample testing, and
the most recent copy of the companys 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.
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 ESCs 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 States specifications.
Rev 06/07/05
2
Attachment
Eastern States Consortium

Participating States 2004
Connecticut New Jersey
Delaware New York
District of Columbia North Carolina
Maine Pennsylvania
Maryland Rhode Island
Massachusetts Vermont
New Hampshire Virginia
Eastern States Consortium

Participating Manufacturers 2004
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.

Baughman Tile Co.
Hancor, Inc.
Lane Enterprises, Inc.
Soleno, Inc.
Rev 06/07/05
3
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 manufacturers 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 -1-

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 Companys 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
manufacturers 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 manufacturers quality control manager shall meet the requirements
established by the company for the position. The quality control managers
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 -2-

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 producers
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 manufacturers 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 -3-

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.
Rev 12/01/04 -4-

[ Place company Name on This Line ]
Quality Control/Assurance Training/Competency Evaluation
Plant Location:
Tr'ee = Trainee, Tr'er = Trainer
Trainee Name: Weight Liner Thickness Inside Diameter Pipe Length Brittleness Workmanship Carbon Content
Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er
Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial 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
Lab Location:
Tr'ee = Trainee, Tr'er = Trainer
Trainee Name: Weight Liner Thickness Inside Diameter Pipe Length Brittleness Workmanship Carbon Content
Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er
Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial
Trainee Name: Marking Perforations Inlet Area Pipe Stiffness Elongation Resin Melt Index Resin Density Resin NCLS
Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er Tr'ee Tr'er
Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial Initial Date Initial 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.
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 manufacturers
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
manufacturers 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
1
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 managers
resume shall be included in the QSM. The technicians 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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers split sample test results. The Lead State will coordinate the
qualification process, which will be based on the manufacturers 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 manufacturers Quality System Manual
II Quality Mission Statement

The quality mission statement shall be endorsed by the companys 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
2
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 producers 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
3
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 manufacturers 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
4
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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers 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
Companys QSM.
The facilities must adequately house and allow proper operation of all required
testing equipment.
equipment manufacturers recommendations at least once every 12 months by
All testing facility equipment shall be properly maintained and maintenance
Rev 06/07/05
5
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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers 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 technicians 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
6
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
7
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
8
Appendix 2
Suggested Forms for Documenting Training and Competency Requirements
Laboratory Training / Competency Form
"ESC Lab Training "ESC Lab Training

R2.pdf" R2.xls"
Rev 06/07/05
9
Plant Training / Competency Form
"ESC Plant "ESC Plant

Training R.pdf" Training R.xls"
Rev 06/07/05
10
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 manufacturers
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
manufacturers procedures must be documented in a bound Quality System Manual
(QSM) and it must contain or address the following:
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
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 1
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 managers
resume shall be included in the QSM. The technicians 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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers split sample test results. The Lead State will coordinate the
qualification process, which will be based on the manufacturers 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 manufacturers Quality System Manual
II Quality Mission Statement

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 2
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 producers 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.
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

product.
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 3
day
Elongation (M252 Only), one per week
Low Temperature Flexibility (M252 Only), one 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)
V Statistical Analysis of Test Results

VI Resolution of Non-Conforming Product or Test Results


scrapped.
Rev 06/16/05 4
VII Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability
years and they shall be available to the ESC upon request.
VIII Quality Control Testing Facilities

The manufacturers 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 manufacturers 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
Companys QSM.
The facilities must adequately house and allow proper operation of all required
testing equipment.
equipment manufacturers recommendations at least once every 12 months by
All testing facility equipment shall be properly maintained and maintenance
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

when necessary.

proficiency in each required test, and demonstration of ability to properly document test
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 5
X Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe.

the minimum requirements of AASHTO M252 and M294.
XI Quality Audits of Each Plant

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:
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 6
XIII List of Plants, Quality Control Testing Facilities, and Technicians
control testing facilities for which the manufacturer desires ESC qualification. The
XIV Company Test Procedures

Rev 06/16/05 7
Eastern States Consortium on HDPEP
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 manufacturers 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 -1-

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 Companys QSM.
The facilities must adequately house and allow proper operation of all
required testing equipment.
manufacturers recommendations at least once every 12 months by
All testing equipment shall be properly maintained and maintenance
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 manufacturers quality control manager shall meet the requirements
established by the company for the position. The quality control managers
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 competency to perform the required testing and that
this demonstration is repeated annually.
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 06/07/05 -2-

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 producers
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 manufacturers 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 -3-

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.
Rev 06/07/05 -4-

Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix D
Appendix D
Stakeholder Survey Form
Appendix D1
Survey of Stakeholders
E-mail
to: Corrugated HDPE Pipe Stakeholders date: July 27, 2005
at State Agencies & Testing Labs
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., cjoelsprague@cs.com, Fax: 864/242-3107
xc: Sam Allen
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
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent:__________________
Program Respondent
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X
Resin
Qualification
Independent lab testing
Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X
Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X
Qualification Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X
Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X
Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X
X X
X
X
X
testing Internal or independent audits of every plant X 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
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X
Public Notice Test results published and sent to DOTs. X
Distribution of split-sample test results. X
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: ________________________________________ Contact Info: _______________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: _____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Product Evaluation and Plant Certification of HDPE Pipe Appendix E
Appendix E
Stakeholder Survey Responses
Appendix E1
Responses to Survey of Stakeholders

July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent: Bob Locander, CO
Program Respondent
Qualify manufacturing plants X X, annual 3rd party audit
Administration Fees X X
ListingFees X
Cost Auditing Fees X, internal manufacturing
X
costs
Pipe manufacturer test results X, supplied to DOT in a
Resin Certificate of Compliance
Qualification - this means tracking
batch and lot
Specific QC Testing Frequencies sugg X X, these items are not to
QC technician qualifications X be included in NTPEP
testing but must be
rd submitted to DOT in
Qualification Annual internal or 3 party audits X X
manufacturer's QC/QA
Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X manual with a annual
Test report retention X X certification from a 3rd
Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X party audit
3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per Does not matter if
X X
Initial Product company samples submitted by company statistical sampling is
Qualification 3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per done as per submitted in
X
company samples obtained by DOT QC/QA manual
rd
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3 Party X
X Keep minimum amount of
testing per NTPEP, all
X other testing is an internal
QC/QA program as
documented in the
testing Internal or independent audits of every plant X X manufacturer's QC/QA
Samples usually taken from inventory pipe manual with an annual 3rd
Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin party audit
X Keep minimum NTPEP
Failures process, manufacturer
(annual audit Manufacturer may request product withdrawal
X must have document
procedures outlined in
Resolution is the responsibility of the manufacturer QC/QA manual
X
Listing of test results on website. X X X
Disagreements Resolved by review panel. X
July 27, 2005
Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X
Respondent: __Bob Locander___________________ Contact Info: __Dave Kotzer_______________________________

Respondent Agency / Organization: _Colorado DOT____________________
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.
C olorado_C P% 2011-% 2006.pdf
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent:_Keith R.Lane, CT
Program Respondent
Validate product certifications X X X
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
Lot identification directions X X
QC technician qualifications X X
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X X
Test report retention X X X
Pre-qualification Audit X X
X X X
X
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X
X
X
Quality program re-submittal with updates X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X X
Listing of qualified plants on website. X X
Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: _Keith R. Lane____________________ Contact Info: _____keith.lane@po.state.ct.us______
Respondent Agency / Organization: _____ConnDOT________________

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 Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X
Resin manufacturer C of A X
Resin
Qualification
X X X
X
X
X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
Resolved by review panel. X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: ________________________________________ Contact Info: _______________________________________
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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 Respondent
Validate product certifications X X ESC
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X ESC
Qualify manufacturing plants X ESC
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X ESC
Resin
Qualification
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
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X ESC
Qualification 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
X X ESC
X
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X ESC
X
X ESC
testing Internal or independent audits of every plant X X ESC
Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin ESC
Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X ESC
Quality program re-submittal with updates X ESC
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X ESC
Listing of test results on website. X X ESC
Listing of qualified plants on website. X ESC
Distribution of split-sample test results. X ESC
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X ESC
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 Respondents 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_______________
Program Respondent
Validate product certifications X X HV
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X HV
Qualify manufacturing plants X HV
Administration Fees X NEUTRAL
ListingFees X NEUTRAL
Cost
Auditing Fees X NEUTRAL
Testing Fees X X X NEUTRAL
Resin manufacturer C of A HV
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results HV
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
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X HV
Qualification 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
rd
3 party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per
X X LV
rd
Qualification 3 party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per
X HV
rd
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3 Party X MV
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X HV
X MV
X HV
sampling, and Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X MV
testing 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
Quality program re-submittal with updates X HV
X HV
Failures
(annual audit X QV
X HV
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X HV
Listing of test results on website. X X HV
Public Notice Test results published and sent to DOTs. X MV
Listing of qualified plants on website. X HV
Distribution of split-sample test results. X MV
Product Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X MV
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X MV
Resolved by review panel. X HV
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X HV
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:

RODNEY.POWERS@DOT.STATE.FL.US_______________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: ___FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION__________________
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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
manufacturers lab must be ISO accredited. We also require that HDPE pipe manufacturers comply with Plastic Pipe Institutes,
Recommended Procedures for Manufacturers 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____
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X
Resin
Qualification
X X
X X
X
X
Samples usually taken from inventory pipe X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
Product Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: __Joe Putherickal ______________________________________ Contact Info: 515-239-
1259._______________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: _Iowa ,DOT.____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent:___LA__________
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X
X X
X X
X
sampling, and Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X X
X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: ___HENRY LACINAK_______________________ Contact Info: ___225-548-4103________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: ___LOUISIANA DOTD____

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent: Maine DOT______
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X
X X
X
X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: _________B. Yeaton D. Gayne___________________ Contact Info: _____________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: _____Maine DOT________________
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 Respondent
Validate product certifications X X NTPEP & ESC
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X ESC
Qualify manufacturing plants X ESC
Administration Fees X NTPEP
ListingFees X PPI
Cost
Auditing Fees X PPI
Testing Fees X X X PPI & NTPEP
Resin manufacturer C of A X PPI
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results X NTPEP ( or ESC )
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
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X ESC
Qualification 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
rd
X X ESC
rd
X NTPEP ( until 2005 )
rd
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X ESC
X PPI
X ESC
testing 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
Quality program re-submittal with updates X ESC
X PPI
Failures
(annual audit X NTPEP ( until 2005 )
X ESC
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X ?
Listing of test results on website. X X ESC
Public Notice Test results published and sent to DOTs. X NTPEP ( until 2005 )
Listing of qualified plants on website. X ESC
Distribution of split-sample test results. X ESC
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X ESC
Resolved by review panel. X PPI
Conditional qualification possible during resolution. X ESC
July 27, 2005
Respondent: _Paul G. Finnerty_______________________________________

Contact Info:__pfinnerty@sha.state.md.us
Respondent Agency / Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration
__________________________________________________________________________________________
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______________
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X X
X
X X
X
Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin PIPE & RESIN
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: Mark Burham NE Dept of Roads Contact Info: mburham@dor.state.ne.us
Respondent Agency / Organization: Materials & Research Division
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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 Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X
Resin
Qualification
X X X
X
X
X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: ____DEAN C. WEITZEL__________________________Contact Info: ___775-888-7520________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: ___NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION__________________

__Pipe accepted based on Certificate of Compliance from Manufacturer
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent: New Hampshire
DOT__________________
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results X
Qualification
rd
X X
rd
X X
rd
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3 Party X X Option
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X X Prefered
X
X X
sampling, and Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X X .5 Years
X X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: Alan Rawson Contact Info: 603-271-3151; arawson@dot.state.nh.us
Respondent Agency / Organization: New Hampshire Department of Transportion
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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__
Program Respondent
Validate product certifications X X Yes (ODOT uses PPI)
Provide independent test results X X X Yes (ODOT uses PPI)
Purpose Qualify manufacturing plants I dont see this as critical.
X That issue is critical in
audits.
Administration Fees Ohio gets nothing for this.
We are just paying some
X
university to have test
Cost equipment
ListingFees X Dont care
Auditing Fees X If thats what it takes
Testing Fees X X X If thats what it takes
Resin manufacturer C of A NO
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results NO
Qualification
Independent lab testing NO
Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X Yes
Lot identification directions X No
Specific QC Testing Frequencies Seems like this is a
manufacturers control
issue. I dont believe
sugg X there is anybody in the
DOTs that honestly
familiar with QC versus
what is materially needed.
Manufacturer
QC technician qualifications X Probably good
Qualification
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 Not sure what you mean.
From what I remember of
X
PPI they Audit before
qualifying.
X X Yes
X NO
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X Yes this is critical
Pre-arranged audits / samplings by DOT X X This doesnt make sense.
X Yes
Audit every plant every year + test 2 pipe & resin I could go for this if it is
samples per plant random for the audit.
Skip the resin test the
X pipe
Annual audit,
Seems like somewhere
sampling, and
between 5 and 1 year is
testing
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
Quality program re-submittal with updates X Yes
July 27, 2005
X Yes
Failures
(annual audit X
X What does this mean?
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X Dont care
Listing of test results on website. X X Dont care
Public Notice Test results published and sent to DOTs. X Yes
Listing of qualified plants on website. X Dont care
Distribution of split-sample test results. X Dont care
Resolved by review panel. X yes
Respondent: __Lloyd Welker_______________ Contact Info: __Ohio Department of Transportation, 1600 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio. 43223. _614-275-1351 lloydwelker@sprynet.com____________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: ___Ohio DOT__________________

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. Dont 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 doesnt 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 isnt worth the effort. We have a test location in Ohio at a state school and ODOT doesnt support the program.
July 27, 2005
TRI/Environmental, Inc., cjoelsprague@cs.com, Fax: 864/242-3107
xc: Sam Allen
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent: RIDOT

Program Respondent
Validate product certifications X X See comments.
Listing Fees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Testing Fees X X X
Resin
Qualification
Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X
Manufacturer Statistical process control X
X X
rd
X
rd
X
X
Samples usually taken from inventory Pipe
Samples usually taken from production Resin Pipe & resin Pipe & resin
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X
Disagreements Resolved by review panel. X
July 27, 2005
Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X
Respondent: Jan J. Bak Contact Info: 401-222-2524 x 4136
Respondent Agency / Organization: RIDOT - Materials
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 Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X
X X
X
X X EVERY TWO YEARS
X
Failures
Manufacturer may request product withdrawal X ALSO IDENTIFY CAUSE,
(annual audit X
or testing) and/or retesting (paid for by manufacturer) DOC. RES. & REV QC
X
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X X & REVIEW
July 27, 2005
Respondent: James M. Maxwell Contact Info: james.maxwell@state.tn.us
Respondent Agency / Organization: Tennessee Department of Transportation

__NONE____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______
__NONE____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent:_Larry J. Lundy,_______
VA
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X X
X
X
X X
X
Failures
(annual audit X
X X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: __Larry J. Lundy_______________________ Contact Info: ____Larry.Lundy@VDOT.Virginia.gov_____________
Respondent Agency / Organization: ___Virginia DOT/Materials Division
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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 Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
Manufacturer Statistical process control X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
Failures
(annual audit X X
X
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: bakert@wsdot.wa.gov
Website: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/>
Respondent Agency / Organization: __WSDOT______________
NTPEP and state testing of joints for watertightness.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS Respondent:___Larry Barker, WV________
Program Respondent
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X
Resin
Qualification
X X X
X
X X
X
X
Failures
(annual audit X X
X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: _Larry Barker__________________________________ Contact Info: _lbarker@dot.state.wv.us_____________
Respondent Agency / Organization: __West Virginia Division of Highways________

_ 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 Respondent
Validate product certifications X X x
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X x
Qualify manufacturing plants X x
Administration Fees X x
ListingFees X
Cost
Auditing Fees X x
Testing Fees X X X 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
Manufacturer Statisitical process control X x
Qualification 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
X X
X x
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X x
X
X x
testing 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
Split samples obtained for Mfr testing X x
Quality program re-submittal with updates X x
X x
Failures
(annual audit X
X
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X x
Listing of qualified plants on website. X x
Changes Notify and have sampled and tested. X X x
Disagreements Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X x
July 27, 2005
Respondent: __________Jim Parry__________________ Contact Info: ______608-____________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2005
CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE QA PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Respondent:_BobSlicker_ADS_________
Program Respondent
ListingFees X X
Cost
Auditing Fees X X
Resin
Qualification
Specific QC Testing Frequencies APPROVED MFG.s
sugg X
PLAN
Manufacturer
Statisitical process control X X
Qualification
Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X X
X X SUBMITTED BY ADM
rd
X
rd
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3 Party X X
X X
X
Samples usually taken from inventory pipe PIPE
Samples usually taken from production resin pipe & resin pipe & resin RESIN
X X
Failures
(annual audit Manufacturer may request product withdrawal X
X
Product Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X X
Disagreements Resolved by review panel. X X
Retesting at alternate lab or via round-robin. X
July 27, 2005
Respondent: __Bob Slicker______________________________________ Contact Info: (614) 658-0250

_______________________________________
Respondent Agency / Organization: Advanced Drainage Systems. Inc. ____________________
Description of Corrugated HDPE Pipe QA Program used in Respondents 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 Respondent
Validate product certifications X X 9
Purpose Provide independent test results X X X 9
ListingFees X 9
Cost
Auditing Fees X 9
Testing Fees X X X 9
Resin manufacturer C of A 9; or
Resin
Pipe manufacturer test results 9; or
Qualification
Independent lab testing 9
Manufacturer QC Plan meeting M294 App. X X X 9
Lot identification directions X 9
Specific QC Testing Frequencies 9
sugg X (based on approved mfg.
plan)
Manufacturer Statistical process control 9
Qualification X (Statistical quality
(See Note 1 Below) control) 1
Annual internal or 3rd party audits X X 9
Non-conformance resolution and documentation X X 9
Test report retention X X 9
Equipment calibration & procedure proficiency X X 9
3rd party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per 9
company samples submitted by company X X (submitted by
Initial Product
administrator)
Qualification rd
3 party testing of one each of all pipe size/style per (submitted by
X
company samples obtained by DOT administrator)
Unannounced audits / samplings by 3rd Party X 9
X 9
X
samples per plant
Annual audit, Test all pipe styles/sizes per company every 3 years X 9
sampling, and Internal or independent audits of every plant X X 9
testing Samples usually taken from inventory 9
pipe
(pipe)
Samples usually taken from production 9
resin pipe & resin pipe & resin
(resin or pipe)
Sample QC documentation obtained during audit X ? ? 9
Quality program re-submittal with updates X 9
X 9
Failures
(annual audit X
X
Listing of qualified pipe sizes/styles on website. X 9
Listing of test results on website. X X 9
Listing of qualified plants on website. X 9
July 27, 2005
Product Notify and re-qualify with before/after data. X 9
Resolved by review panel. X 9
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.____________

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 its manufacturing process and products history, each Manufacturer determines its
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.
AASHTO Reqd Minimum Actual Min.

Test Comments
Spec Frequency Frequency
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
1
Pipe Elongation M 252 two per month
Pipe Brittleness M 294/252 two per week
2
Low Temp Flexibility 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 manufacturers 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 Manufacturers 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 Manufacturers annual update to verify that the QSM is up-to-
date, has been implemented, and is being followed. (Comment #___)
Reviewers 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: 232C for 24 hrs
M252 - Resin Classification: 324420C; Pipe Std. Conditioning: 232C for 24 hrs
AASHTO
Test Spec
Property Specification Limits
Method
M 294 M 252
Resin Testing
X 0.948 0.955 g/cm3
Resin Density D1505
X 0.940 0.955 g/cm3
0.4 to 0.15*
*
X
Resin Melt Index D1238
X* 1.0* < 0.4
X* 110000 < 160000* psi
Resin Flexural Modulus D 790
X* 80000 < 110000* psi
Resin 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% failure
Resin Thermal Stability D 3350 X X 220C
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 m
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 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 reqts are met.
RESIN FLEXURAL MODULUS ASTM D 790 (as modified in D 3350) (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes
SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 5 ( 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)
the exception of density, are acceptable provided product reqts 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)
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 ( disc punched from thin part of

molded plaque)
SPECIMEN: 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:
220C
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

(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 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes

(Type C/CP and length > 3m, only)
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 -183C

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) (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes
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) @ 502C
TEST: Specimens exposed for 24 hours
Requirement: No cracks
PIPE LOW TEMPERATURE FLEXIBILITY AASHTO M 252 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes
(coiled C/CP only)
SPECIMEN: Number of specimens: 3 @ 1.5 m length
CONDITIONING: -42C 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

manufacturers 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%
Reqt: Fittings have length dimension tolerance of 12 mm (0.5 in) of

manufacturers 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 (Y/N), (Pass/Fail) & Notes

(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
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Project Work Plan for Evaluation

of HDPE Thermoplastic Pipe
Proposed Revision, July, 2006
Introduction and Purpose:
The purpose of AASHTOs 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 manufacturers product(s) to verify compliance with the applicable
standard and auditing the manufacturers 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 plants production. The Consultant
Manager will conduct these audits assisted, at the states 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 QSMs.
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 Manufacturers 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 manufacturers 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 products 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 List of Plants and Quality Control Testing Facilities Including Addresses and the Names
and Telephone Numbers of the Quality Control Contacts for Each Facility
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

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.
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

product.
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)
day
Elongation (M252 Only), one per year
Low Temperature Flexibility (M252 Only), one per year
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
5. Statistical Analysis of Test Results

6. Resolution of Non-Conforming Product or Test Results


scrapped.
7. Retention of Test Results and Product Traceability

years and they shall be available to the NTPEP upon request.
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

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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers technician qualification
program described in section 9.
The facilities shall maintain current versions of all AASHTO, ASTM, and Company
test procedures for all tests performed and a current version of the Companys 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 equipment
manufacturers 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.
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

when necessary.

competency in each required test, and demonstration of ability to properly document test
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.
10. Marking, Storage, Shipping, and Handling of Finished Pipe

the minimum requirements of AASHTO M252 and M294. Also, any coding used to
mark the pipe shall be fully detailed and explained.
11. Quality Audits of Each Plant

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:
submission.
12. List of Plants, Quality Control Testing Facilities, and Technicians

control testing facilities for which the manufacturer desires NTPEP qualification. The
13. Company Test Procedures
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 Administrators option,
he can arrange to oversee testing of pipe samples in the manufacturers 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 manufacturers 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
manufacturers 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 ____________________________________________________
TODAYS 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
Appendix G2
NTPEP QA Program for HDPE Pipe
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 manufacturers 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 Companys 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 manufacturers
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 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 manufacturers quality control manager shall meet the requirements established by the
company for the position. The quality control managers 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
competency to perform the required testing and that this demonstration is repeated annually.
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 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.
Resin producer certifications must include the results of the producers tests and be kept for
five years.
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 plants production. If the plant is not found to conform to this work
plan, the Consultant Managers 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
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 NTPEPs 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 manufacturers split sample testing, and the most recent copy of the
companys 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.
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
manufacturers product(s) or the plant(s) from the NTPEPs 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 States 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 manufacturers 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 manufacturers certification and the pipe manufacturers 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 manufacturers responsibility
to resolve the issues with the Consultant Manager.
H) The results of the audit should be reviewed with the manufacturers 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:
Quality Control Manager:
E-Mail Address:
Quality Control 1)
Technician(s): 2)
(Or attach
information) 3)
Test Methods 1)
Qualified to 2)
Perform: (Or
3)
attach
information)
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 Not Requested
demonstrated his ability to perform a test.
Inspected By: Date:
Form 3
General Requirements for Testing Facilities
TEST FACILITY INFORMATION

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 manufacturers
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

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

Randomly select and review a number of test reports and complete the following information:
(NTPEP pipe lot is defined as no larger than NTPEP Observed
the amount of pipe per type per diameter per required Frequency Comments
machine per production run) frequency Meets Min.
NTPEP Freq.
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 1/week
- integral bell & spigot 1/quarter
N) Environmental Stress Cracking 1/year
O) Workmanship Continuous
(No inclusions or visible defects, ends cut Observation
square, fused liners) (Record at least
1 per shift)
P) Marking 1 per shift
(Manufacturer, size, specification, plant &
date of manufacturer)
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:
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 Manufacturers 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:

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 manufacturers production test results for the resin and pipe
sample
Obtain a copy of the resin suppliers 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: Sallen@tri-env.com
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
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 suppliers certification for each resin sample, and the
pipe manufacturers 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:
Manufacturers Contact Person:
Name:
Contact Mail Address (If different than above):
Street or P.O. City:
State: Zip Code:
Telephone: Fax:
E-mail:
Manufacturers 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
Date:______________
Manufacturer: ______________ Plant Name: ______________

Corporate Address: ______________ Plant Designation Code: __
City: ______________ Plant Address: ______________
State: _____ Zip: ________ City: ______________
Corporate Contact: ______________ State: _____ Zip: __________
Phone: ______________ Plant Contact: ______________
Fax: ______________ Phone: ______________
E-mail: ______________ Fax: ______________
Product NTPEP Number: _____ Product DNTPEPription: Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Type: Type , Inside Diameter: mm ( in), Perforation Class: .
Specification
Test Method - Description ASTM AASHTO Specification Limits Test Results
D 3350 M 294
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 220C __
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. Manufacturers 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

20-07 (191) FR

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

20-07 (191) FR

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PRODUCT EVALUATION AND PLANT CERTIFICATION

American Association of State Highway

Standing Committee on Highways

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

2.3 Task 3 Merger Strategy Development & Implementation Plan...................13

2.3.1 Details of Proposed Merger Plan .....................................................17

2.4 Task 4 Audit Training Manual ....................................................................18

2.5 Task 5 Revised NTPEP Work Plan .............................................................19

verification provides a high standard of quality audit services.

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

quality control testing frequencies.

comprehensive manufacturing quality assurance (MQA) program.

The objectives of this research are to:

certifications into one comprehensive manufacturing quality assurance (MQA) program

jointly administered by NTPEP, PPI, and ESC stakeholders.

Accomplishment of the project objectives has required the following tasks:

information must be approved by the NCHRP.

comment, and approval.

of the merged MQA program.

balloting by the NTPEP Oversight Committee.

project work plan.

This final report reflects the completion of all tasks.

2.1 TASK 1 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.1 Comparison of Programs Program Elements

Increasing use of blends has greatly complicated raw material qualification.

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

manufacturers MQC system implementation and comparison to independent test results.

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

A feedback loop is vital to continuous improvement.

comprehensive regional information. PPI and NTPEP provide nationwide coverage.

evidence between audits. Both approaches are reasonable.

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

Table 1. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe MQA Programs Comparison

2.2 SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS

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

2.2.1 Current/Preferred Program Elements

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

2.2.2 Additional Stakeholder Input

Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements Survey Responses

Table 3. Current/Preferred MQA Program Elements Survey Responses (contd)

Table 4. Additional Stakeholder Input

2.3 Merger Strategy Development

very thorough review by the ESC.

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

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

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.

2.3.1 Details of Proposed Merged Program Elements

proposed merged program.

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

support have been considered for modification or elimination.

as many existing programs as possible into one.

2.3.2 Implementation Plan

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

Milestone Target Date

2.4. TASK 4 - AUDIT TRAINING MANUAL

discussed in the next section.