Polyolefin Pressure Pipe Committee Response

Polyolefin Pressure Pipe Committee Response Appeal Hearing on Publication of AWWA C906-12 Standard

Committee Response • • • • • • • • • •

Group 1 (Gill – IPEX) Group 2 (St-Aubin – IPEX) Group 3 (Gross – NAPCO) Group 4 (Keil – NW Pipe) Group 6 (Houle – Uni-Bell) Group 8 (Walker – UGSI) Group 9 (Shepherd – UGSI) Group 10 (UGSI) Group 11 Group 13 (Posada – Otay Water)

Group 1 (Gill - IPEX)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: PPI Reimbursement of Travel Expense (Tab A) Format of Standards Council hearing unfair (see also Oberoi letter) Gas Technology Institute Experience (Tab B) Potential for Oxidative Degradation (Tab C) In-Service History of PE4710/PE100 (Tab D) Committee Balance/Dominance by Producers (Tab E) (including Municipal Advisory Board concerns) • Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab F) • • • • • •

Introduction to the Municipal Advisory Board Presented by Greg Scoby, PE City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Water Gas Wastewater Engineering Manager (Retired) 4

Why I joined the MAB? • Expanding use of HDPE into water system due to success of material in natural gas system • Validate/vet existing specifications with industry experts • To establish a network with other users • To guide industry development • Direction of organization defined by users • Ensure that my customers are able take advantage of best practices 8” HDPE Launch Pit

5

Function of MAB

(as stated in original invitation) • Address MAB member priorities • Implementation of trenchless methods • Research and Development • Design • Construction • Education • Training • Publications • Comprehensive Construction Specifications • Product selection • Installation • Inspection

• Maintenance

Prefabricated Pipe String

6

Breakdown of MAB Members MAB PARTICIPANTS

Users Aguiar (Miami Dade) Fishburne (Charlotte Mecklenburg) Owens (Springfield, MO) Wirtz (Ft Wayne, IN)

Consultants 23%

Trentoff (EBMUD)

Users 41%

Academia 18%

Leung (LADWP)

Link, McGowen (Colorado Springs, CO)

Contractors 18%

Contract Academi Consulta ors a nts Miller (Miller Pipelines) Grafenuar (Murphy Pipelines)

Isley (IUPUI)

Orton (TT Technologies) Smolk (Garney Construction) Heitmann (Garney) former member (2008-2012) McGuire (Ditchwitch) former member (2008-2010)

Knight (Univ. of Waterloo) Najafi (UT Arlington)

Atalah (Bowling Green)

Castronovo (AECOM) Kramer (HNTB) Oliphant (Jana) Ostler (PEC)

Ariaratnam Slavin (OPCS) (ASU), former member (2008-2012)

Lambing (San Jose Water, CA) Scoby (Palo Alto, CA) Keys (Veolia) former member (2008-2010) Klein (Citizens Energy) former member (2011-2012)

Note: Membership does not include any PPI member company representatives

MAB Accomplishments • Increased participation by end users • Development of Website to assist users • Development of design tools to assist end users and consulting engineers (Bore Aid, PACE) • Identification of repair methods and development of new repair methods • Research into identified failure mechanisms • Life cycle prediction study • Users only roundtable to discuss what works

8” HDPE in CALTRANS ROW 8

PPI – MAB Website

http://plasticpipe.org/municipal_pipe/hdpe/index.html

9

Bore Aid Calculator (HDD Design) http://plasticpipe.org/publications/software-boreaid.html

10

Pipeline Analysis & Calculation Environment (PACE) http://ppipace.com/

What did my customers gain from MAB participation?

• Fused distribution system (minimized mechanical connections) • Lower life cycle cost based on gas system experience • Self restraining water system capable of resisting seismic events • Life cycle material testing based on unique water conditions of Palo Alto

12” HDPE Fused Tee 12

Why Users Need MAB Type Forums • Increased sharing of information with other users • To establish industry contacts/networking • Ability to identify and implement best practices • Guide development of new tooling, equipment, fittings, installation/repair methods

8” HDPE Launch Following Reamer

13

Response to Allegations • California Public Employees must report outside income annually (Form 700) • MAB participation limited to travel expense reimbursement • No Stipends offered or provided • Locations of meetings • • • •

Member’s home locations (no exotic locations) Non-resort hotels Universities Members offices (City owned facilities, consultant’s offices, university facilities)

• Meetings have written agendas, established goals focusing on defined issues • Meetings held separately and not associated with industry conferences • C906 has never been on MAB Agenda nor has there been any effort to influence 263 committee work


Group 2 (St.-Aubin - IPEX)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: • • • • • •

Format of Standards Council hearing unfair (see also Oberoi letter) Strength of PE4710 and Related Criteria in C906 (Tab A) AWWA Margins of Safety for Piping Materials (Tab B) Higher Effective Strength of Polyethylene (Tab C) Toughness of Polyethylene (Tab D) Committee Balance/Dominance by Producers

Committee Dominance

• Questions regarding composition of committee and PPI’s undue influence on development of C906 has been previously reviewed by Standards Council and Executive Committee • NEITHER SC or EC found any merit to these allegations

• Committee was not dominated by any particular viewpoint • Committee Composition: 43% GI; 30% Producer; 26% Users • 2 of the 7 producers primarily manufacture PVC pipe

• None of the AWWA pipe committees (fiberglass reinforced pipe, concrete, PVC, stainless steel, steel, ductile iron, or polyethylene) meet the AWWA SPOP requirement that no single interest category shall constitute more than one-third of the committee membership

ANSI Essential Requirements • Section 1.2 defines dominance:

Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.

Consultant Report to AWWA

• “The only way a Producer member or a group of Producer members could exercise “dominance” with respect to a new standard for their product would be by explicit coercion, misrepresentation, bribery, or withholding critical information from the Product Committee majority.” Donald I. Turner, Report to AWWA Executive Committee, August 2, 2012 page 14

Consultant Report to AWWA

• “A small group of Producer members can probably exercise “dominance” in preventing the adoption of a standard for a competing product, because their collective opposition inevitably bars the required consensus and may prevent “fair and equitable consideration of the other viewpoints” in favor of the competing product (as contemplated in ANSI Requirements Section 1.2)” Donald I. Turner, Report to AWWA Executive Committee, August 2, 2012 page 13-14

Appellant Connections UGSI

Appeal 10


Group 3 (Gross - NAPCO)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: • • • • • • • •

AWWA Margins of Safety for Piping Materials (Tab A) Derivation of 0.63 Value for Design Factor (Tab B) In-Service History of PE4710/PE100 (Tab C) Strength of PE4710 and Related Criteria in C906 (Tab D) Higher Effective Strength of Polyethylene (Tab E) Toughness of Polyethylene (Tab F) HSB Ballot on Design Factor Change (Tab G) Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab H)

Justification for Increased Design Factor for PE4710

Ernest Lever R&D Director, Infrastructure Gas Technology Institute

Pathway to Design Factor = 0.63

Operational Robustness

Material Properties

Requirements

Necessary Elements in Increased Design Factor Process

500 h PENT

LCL Ratio >= 0.9

Improved Material Science

Reduced Process Variability

Improved Toughness

Increased Design Factor Justified

Design Factor  Confidence • Design factors are an expression of our confidence in: – Material variance, – Loading condition variance, – Design variance, – Manufacturing variance, – Installation variance. • Any steps that are taken to reduce variance in any part of the system can be translated into an increased design factor

ASTM D2837/PPI TR3 Directly Address Variability for All Thermoplastic Pipe • LCL Ratio is defined as: – (97.5% Lower Confidence Limit)/LTHS – Has always been set at 0.85 – Increased to 0.90 for PE4710

• Minimum sample set is 18. • How does the LCL Ratio and minimum sample set specify maximum variance? • What are the implications?

Statistical Points for Increased Design Factor • Reduced variance is required to meet the increased LCL Ratio (0.9 as opposed to 0.85) • 95% confidence we can state that fewer than one pipe in a million will have a strength lower than 0.67*HDB • This is a 34% increase in lower tolerance strength • Specify the next lowest R10 number – 0.63 as the increased DF – Aligns with DR numbers chosen from R10 series

PE4710 DF is Statistically Equivalent to Most Stringent Steel Gas Pipe DF

• The most liberal design factor of 0.8 allowed for Class 1 Locations. • Class 4 locations (e.g. Manhattan, NY) DF of 0.4 corresponds to a LTL of 95%/99.9999%. • DF of 0.63 for water applications corresponds to the most stringent gas design factor for steel.

Increased Toughness  More Confidence • The PENT test directly measures fracture toughness of the material. • First generation PE PENT = 1 h • PE 3408 PENT ≥ 10 h • PE 4710 PENT ≥ 500 h  50 fold increase = 5000% increase in toughness

Increased Toughness  More Confidence • The stress at a defect tip is directly related to the geometry of the defect. • The critical fracture toughness of the material will determine at what load a defect of given geometry will begin to propagate. • Increasing the fracture toughness by a factor of fifty results in the critical load needed to induce damage propagation increasing by a factor of fifty. • Increased toughness increases confidence in in-field performance and is relevant to the DF discussion: – Better fatigue resistance, better slow crack growth resistance and greater damage tolerance

Safety Factors for PE4710 •

HDB not relevant to Safety Factor Discussion

•

It is an expected mean rupture stress 11.4 years into the future

•

Time to failure at HDS=100 psi is 10 times greater than design life of 100 years

•

Yield strength remains constant over time – Instantaneous safety factor of 3.6

DF = 0.63 Has Multiple Justifications • LCL Ratio > 0.9 requirement can only be met by better material science. • Better material science: – Reduces variability – Increases toughness • at least 50 times greater stress needed to initiate damage propagation

• Better material science validated by: – PENT requirement – Substantiation requirement – 140°F HDB requirement


Group 4 (Keil – NW Pipe)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: • Standards Council did not provide explanation (see also Oberoi letter) • AWWA did not provide notice of right to appeal • Manufacturing Tolerances and Allowable Damage to Pipe (including response to recurring surge) (Tab A) • Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab B) • Committee Balance/Dominance by Producers (Tab C)

C906 Surge Allowance Safety Factors Mark Knight PhD, P.Eng. Associate Professor Department Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Waterloo Ontario, Canada

C906 Surge Allowance Safety Factors During a surge event what is the Safety Factor against: 1. Peak pressure? 2. Fatigue life?

C906 Surge Allowance

Frequency

Working Pressure (WP)

Surge Allowance at Rated Pressure (Ps)

Occasional

PC

1.0 x PC

Total Pressure During Surge (WP + PS) 2.0 x PC

Recurring

PC

0.5 x PC

1.5 x PC

AWWA M55 Occasional surge emergency operations: fire fighting, power failure or system component failure …

PE4710 Total Stress During Surge (psi)

1,500

2,000

AWWA C905-10 Recurring surge “… occur frequently and are inherent to the design and operation of the system normal pump start up or shutdown normal valve opening or closure. may occur up to millions of times in a piping system’s lifetime.”

Typical Pressure Fluctuation from Sudden Valve Closure in DR 11 Pipe Pressure (bar)

Load Rate ~ 120 psig/sec

Time (seconds) G.P. Marshall, S. Brogden, M.A. Shepherd (1998) “Evaluation of the Surge and Fatigue Resistance of PVC and PE Pipeline Materials for use in the U.K. Water Industry”, Plastics Pipe X, Goteburg, Sweden

Impact of Short Loading Rates (i.e. higher frequency Loading) SURGE Event

Higher Ultimate Stress – Peak value

STRESS

Higher Modulus (stiffness) – Slope of stress strain curve

Typical Tensile Test

STRAIN

Pressurization Rate vs Burst Failure Pressure

Burst Failure Pressure = 870 psig Fast Rate Slow Rate

120 psig/sec

Burst Failure Pressure (bar)

DR11 Pipe with external 100mm long sharp notches 10% of wall depth

Pressure Rate(bar/sec) G.P. Marshall, S. Brogden, M.A. Shepherd (1998) “Evaluation of the Surge and Fatigue Resistance of PVC and PE Pipeline Materials for use in the U.K. Water Industry”, Plastics Pipe X, Goteburg, Sweden) (non-PE100 materials removed from plot)

PE4710 Safety Factor (SF) against Peak Surge Pressure

DR

11

PC

200

Surge Wave Burst Pressure (psig) 870

Surge Wave Burst Stress (psi)

4,350

Frequency

Total Stress During Surge (psi)

S.F.

Occasional

2,000

2.2

Recurring

1,500

2.9

PE4710 Recurring Surge Pipe Tests ( cycles 0 to 1.5 x PC) Test Specimens

Cycles at 1.5 x PC (Recurring Surge)

Status

11,213,023 Straight Pipe

10,038,073 6,754,833

Pipe with buttfused joint

10,952,363

No Failures

11,017,153

Tests conducted by Jana Labs See Crabtree et al., PPXVI, 2012 After completion pipes cycled from 0 to 2 x PC for 2739 to 6665 cycles no failures – Shows lots of life remaining

Number of Cycles to Failure Stress for PE4710 at 1.5 x PC = 1500 psi (10.34 MPa) Jana 4 tests 4th Generation PE at 1500 psi

1450 psi 1st Generation PE

G.P. Marshall, S. Brogden, M.A. Shepherd (1998) “Evaluation of the Surge and Fatigue Resistance of PVC and PE Pipeline Materials for use in the U.K. Water Industry”, Plastics Pipe X, Goteburg, Sweden

Occasional

Recurring

2.0x PC

1.5x PC

2,000

1,500

Surges per day

Stress Range (psi)

Frequency

Working Plus Surge Pressure

PE4710 100 years Fatigue HDPE Safety Factor

N/A

551

Total Surges per 100 year service

Fatigue Life per IGN 4-3702 (Cycles)

S.F.

36,500 (365*100)

424,000

11.6

7,200,000 UK Water

3.6

10,000,000 Jana Labs

5.0

2,000,000

1. C900 and C905 Appendix are based on 55 surges/day

C906 PE4710 Surge Safety Factors (SF) >2 • Peak Burst Pressure – SF = 2.2 Occasional Surge at 2 x PC – SF = 2.9 Recurring Surge at 1.5 x PC

• Fatigue at 100 years – SF = 11.6 Occasional Surge with 365 surges/yr – SF = 3.6 Recurring Surge* UK PE100 tests – SF = 5.0 Recurring Surge*, Jana PE4710 tests *55 surges/day (i.e. 2 million surges)

Keil’s Flawed Analysis


Group 6 (Houle – Uni-Bell)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: • • • • • • •

C906-12 not harmonized with C900, C905, and C909 Committee unbalanced due to misclassifications Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab A) Standards Council did not provide explanation (see also Oberoi letter) AWWA Consistency on Margin of Safety for All Materials (Tab B) Revisions to Table 1 of C906-12 (Tab C) Potential for Oxidative Degradation (Tab D)

Lack of Specific Response

• Per SPOP, Article 6.2.1, chair has responsibility for determining how to resolve negatives (whether by telephone, correspondence, or by meeting) • Chair’s July 23, 2012 letter resolved nearly 2/3rds of negative public comments – both efficient and effective • Unresolved public comments provided to committee for consideration during reaffirmation ballot 49-12 • To ensure committee had situational awareness, all public comments (resolved and unresolved comments) circulated to committee • No committee member changed vote, even considering all the points raised by the public commenters

• Thus, public commenters’ written presentation of concerns not persuasive to the 263 Committee


Group 7 (Bishop – Diamond Plastics) • Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information: • • • • • • • • • • •

Strength of PE4710 and Related Additional Criteria (Tab A) AWWA Margins of Safety for Piping Materials (Tab B) Higher Effective Strength of Polyethylene (Tab C) Toughness of Polyethylene (Tab D) HSB Ballot on Design Factor Change (Tab E) Potential for Oxidative Degradation of PE Pipe (Tab F) In-Service History of PE4710 and Relevance of PE100 (Tab G) Committee Balance/Dominance by Producers (Tab H) Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab I) Committee meetings not open to non-members 263 Committee operates differently than other AWWA committees

HDPE For Drinking Water Pipes The European Experience Ulrich Schulte Denver CO, July 10, 2013

Outline • How do PE100 materials compare to PE4710 materials • Regulatory approach to pressure pipe design in accordance with ISO standards • Actual failure statistics • Composition of the European drinking water grid (selected countries) • Conclusion

59

PE100 vs PE4710 • Same Material Listed:

– For example, PPI TR-4 listing for Borealis BorSafe HE3490-LS • Culmination of extensive advancements by the PE resin manufacturers BorSafe HD34990-LS Classification

PE100

PE4710

Temperature

68°F

73°F

HDB

--

1600 psi

MRS

1450 psi (10 Mpa)

--

60

PE100 vs PE4710

• Differences:

– Calculating Long Term Pressure Strength – Maximum Operating Pressure Equations Different

•𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = •𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =

2 ×𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 × 𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆−1)

20 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑪𝑪 × [𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆−1]

61

PE100 vs PE4710 • Pressure Rating of Pipe

– Systems and Equations Different HDB, psi

PE 3408

PE 4710

1600

1600

MRS, psi Design factor

1450 0.5

0.63

Design coefficient Pressure (DR 11), psig

PE 100

1.25 160

200

232

– PE4710 Pressure Rating Still 16% lower than PE100 62

Classification, design coefficient and designation of thermoplastics for pipes • ISO Standards – ISO 12 162 defines the minimum design or service factors for the different piping materials, assessed on their own merits. Thermoplastics piping system

Minimum design factor

PE (all types)

1.25

PE-X

1.25

PVC-Hi

1.4

PVC-U

1.6

PP homopolymer

1.6

63

Regulatory approach to the design of pressure pipes for water supply • ISO Standards – ISO 4427: Plastic piping systems; Polyethylene pipes and fittings for water supply • European System Standards deriving from ISO with national preambles – EN 12201: Plastic piping systems for water supply – Polyethylene

• Following ISO 12162 a design coefficient of 1.25 is applied - corresponding to a design factor of 0.8! 64

German DVGW code W400-1 Approved pipe dimensions for drinking water

Accepted diameters DN [inch] Admissible DR and pressure [psig]

PE80

PE100

PE-Xa

PVC-U

Ductile Iron

Steel

GRP

≤25

≤25

≤10

≤16

3-79

3-79

6-95

DR7.4 up to 290

DR11 up to 232

SDR7.4 up to 290

DR13.6 up to 232

DR11 up to 182

DR17 up to 147

DR11 up to 182

DR21 up to 147

Pressure less

DR34.4 up to 87

Design coefficient for pipes made from PE80 and PE100 is 1.25! 65

Drinking water mains in France are standardized by NF144

• Design coefficient is 1.25!

66

UK – Choice of materials • „In common with the vast majority of UK water companies, Thames‘ standard material for new lay distribution mains and services is polyethylene (PE). • Specifically, PE100 SDR 17 pipes for mains (147 psig rated) • …and PE80 SDR 11 (182 psig rated) pipes for services.“

• Hence a design coefficient of 1.25 is applied here as well (IGN 4-32-18) Quote from „Replacing London‘s Victorian Water Mains“, Bill Becker, Mike Shepherd – Thames Water Utilities Ltd., Plastic Pipes XIII, Washington DC, 2-5th October 2006

67

Total failure statistics of Gelsenwasser mains 35 0.35 0.3 30 0.25 25 0.2 20 failures / 100 km

0.15 15 0.1 10 0.05 5

Absolute number of failures:

9.4

1973 = 1.385 2009 =

564

0

• 19 failures in 2009 on a total PE100 network of 800 km result in an average failure rate of 2.4 failures /100 km and year • A low failure rate of 9.4 for the total pipe grid is still significantly higher than the rate of 2.4 just for the PE part. 68

Failure statistics of UK water mains for reference

Source: UKWIR National Mains Failure Database, Steve MacKellar, Bodycote PDL, PP XIII, Washington DC, 2006 69

>7 inch Piping: Drinking water supply in Europe % Share of Kilometers by Material, DN ≥ 7 inch (180 mm)

Intermaterial competition – Long term demand 1999 - 2008

100%

5% 3%

4% 3%

4% 3%

4% 3%

3% 3%

14%

12%

11%

17%

15%

25%

25%

25%

34%

38%

42%

6%

5%

4%

13%

12%

10%

80%

26%

25%

60%

40%

25%

20%

10% 14%

47%

3% 8%

Concrete GRP Steel Ductile PE100 PE80 PVC

Source: AMI and LYB Market Intelligence

0% 1999

2001

2003

2005

2008

Germany: Wide market acceptance with higher design factor 70

> 7 inch Piping: Drinking water supply in Europe % Share of Kilometers by Material, DN ≥ 7 inch (180 mm)

Intermaterial competition – Long term demand 1999 - 2008 100% 21%

20%

19%

18%

18%

80% GRP Steel 60%

Ductile 56%

60%

61%

65%

65%

40%

20%

PE100 PE80 PVC

10% 10%

8%

7%

10%

10%

6%

6%

8%

8%

2005

2008

Source: AMI and LYB Market Intelligence

0% 1999

2001

2003

UK: PE100 pipes are well established with higher design factor 71

Drinking water supply in Europe in a nut shell!

TEPPFA: Today about 90% (in length) of all newly installed pipes are made from certified HDPE grades

72

The vision of the 1950s has today become a reality • From the very beginning, pipes manufactured from HDPE were able to meet high service life expectations. • Today‘s HDPE pipe extrusion compounds of the 4th generation are high-performance materials distinguished by their strength, stability and durability. • Pipes made from HDPE have proven highest reliability over the recent half century. This covers a total diameter range from less than 1“ up to 65 inches. • The MOP for these systems is already higher than the proposed values for AWWA C-906 by using a higher design factor. • The European experience is relevant for the US situation

73


Group 8 (Walker - UGSI)

• Committee has responded to all of Appellant’s claims in EC appeal in specific response and in tabulated information, including: • Committee Balance/Dominance by Producers (Tab A) • Lack of Specific Response to Public Comments (Tab B) • Revisions to Table 1 of C906-12 (Tab C) • Surge Pressure Allowances (Tab D) • Strength of PE4710 and Related Additional Criteria (Tab E) • AWWA Margins of Safety for Piping Materials (Tab F) • Higher Effective Strength of Polyethylene (Tab G) • Toughness of Polyethylene (Tab H) • Derivation of 0.63 Value for Design Factor (Tab I) • In-Service History of PE4710/PE100 (Tab J) • Design Factors for Steel Gas Pipe (Tab K) • Potential for Oxidative Degradation of PE Pipe (Tab L) • HSB Ballot on Design Factor Change (Tab M)

╣J ANA AWWA C906 PE in Highly Aggressive Chlorinated Potable Water Applications Patrick Vibien, M.Sc., P.Eng. Principal Consultant - Pipelines Jana Laboratories Inc. 76

Chlorine is Addressed in C906 • The impact of chlorine issue has been adequately considered in C906 Standard • Committee 263 • Standards Council

77

Committee & Council Approved: AWWA C906-12 II. Special Issues. II.C. Emerging Potential for Performance Requirements Based on Oxidative Resistance Testing.

• • • •

Alerts Users to Issue Explains Factors Relevant to Issue Indicates Research is on-going Directs Users to Manufacturer

C906 Standard is responsive on this issue

78

Committee had Balanced View Public Information AWWA Journal 10/2010 PPI Website Jana: 18 Papers Suez: 4 Papers 100’s more….

Committee Circulated Jana Presentations Jana Papers Furano, Choi SUEZ-Environnement Duvall/UGSI Report Duvall/UGSI Critique Jana Carollo/UGSI Report Carollo: Non Responsive to Invitation

SUEZ-Environment Research • • • •

Suez independence Long-term Asset Focus: What should go in ground? Build test bench & dev. proprietary accelerated methods Initiate field sampling throughout networks • All environments, ages and quality of pipe • 7 Countries: USA, Europe, UK, & North Africa • Jana evaluated 201 pipe samples for Suez

• Results: • • • •

Each PE material has difference performance Application conditions define aggressiveness Synergy may result in highly aggressive conditions Suez is on record as committed to the use of PE

Suez: PE/Chlorine Design Considerations Rozental et al, Suez,The life cycle of Polyethylene, ASTEE, Nice, June 12th,2009

→ AWWA Needs Similar Design Methodology

North American Design Guidelines • Only synergy results in highly aggressive applications → limited number of utilities • Industry is committed • On going research has led to: • • • •

Material Performance Categorization (TN-43) Design Guidelines (TN-44, in progress) Will be presented to Committee thru AWWA M55 Design Guidelines → PDI (years) 82

Model Predicts Field Performance Actual Field Performance (years)

• Validate with Suez & 8 Aggressive N.A. Utilities 75

8 Utilities • Highly Aggressive Applications • Early Generation PE • Small Diameter Service Tubes

50

25

• Average Actual = 26 yrs. • Average Model = 27 yrs.

0 0

25

50

75

Projected Field Performance (years)

83

Pipe Design Index - Examples 4” DR21, 70 psig Operating Pressure (based on draft TN44 design guidelines) Annual Avg. Ambient Temperature

Water Quality Report

Material Chlorine Category

AVG, oF

Range, oF

Temp.*

pH

CL

CLA

CC3

CC2

CC1

Phoenix, AZ

70

52-89

40-100

7.4

0.85

--

87

>100

>100

Las Vegas, NV

70

48-93

--

7.6

1

--

78

>100

>100

Long Beach, CA

65

57-75

--

7.8

--

2

>100

>100

>100

Portland, OR

55

41-69

41-68

7.1

--

2

>100

>100

>100

Denver, CO

50

31-72

--

--

--

1.6

>100

>100

>100

Voorhees, NJ

55

33-77

--

6.9

0.65

--

>100

>100

>100

Location

* Where water temperature data was unavailable, ambient temperature was used as a estimate

Wrap Up: • • • • • •

Industry → Design Guidelines Design Guide → AWWA M55 PE Pipe C906 Ballot Chlorine Issue: Item IIC AWWA Committee 263 well briefed AWWA Standards Council reaffirmed ballot PDI projects >=100 year service life in majority of C906 chlorinated applications

85

Backup Slides

Chlorine Requirements Not Ready • Research is On-going: • • • • •

TN-43 Material Classification requirements new No materials yet categorized No utility without design guidelines Design guidelines are in progress Evolution / tweaks should be expected.

• Committee Deliberated: • • • •

Understood timeline of research & testing Recognized manufacturers require notification Limited scope of issue: Raw Water, Waste, etc. Decided to appropriate action: include Forward

Chlorine Dioxide • • • •

Different Mechanism Chlorine Dioxide >> Chlorine/Chloramines North America: