Group Memory - dot.ca. Web view28.07.2017 · Group Memory. ATG Co-Chairs Meeting. ... RPC...

Group Memory

ATG Co-Chairs Meeting

July 28, 2017

NOTE: all comments prior to July 7, 2015 have been deleted from this document and can still be found on GROUP MEMORY FOR SEPTEMBER 8. 2015 and earlier.Attendees: July 28, 2017 – Tim Greutert, Sri Balasubramanian, Pat Imhoff, Jack Van Kirk, Blair Anderson, Marcella Wiebke Next Meeting dates

August 17, 2017 – 3:30pm – 5:00pmAugust 20, 2017 – 10:00am – 11:30amSeptember 12, 2017 – 1:00pm – 2:30pmSeptember 28, 2017 – 1:30pm – 3:00pmDesired outcome for every meetingUpdate tasks and action items

From April 26, 2016

180 Sri Develop CT position regarding non-amine based products and the New Products process. (See agenda item # 20.16 then #5 below)

5/26/2016

6/16/2016

7/26/2016

8/17/2016

8/30/2016

11/4/2016

11/18/2016

1/13/2017

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

4/17/2017

6/7/2017

7/28/2017

8/17/2017

188 Tim/Jack Revise the scoping document for vacuum seal to reflect the inclusion of drying option and route the revised scoping document to ATG (See agenda item # 16.13).

This may not be necessary. Tim and Jack to meet and discuss.

7/29/2016

8/17/2016

8/30/2016

9/19/2016

10/14/2016

ATG Co-chairs Meeting Notes March 17, 2017

11/4/2016

11/18/2016

1/13/2017

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

3/17/2017

6/7/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

8/6/2017

From August 30, 2016

196 Tim/Sri/ Tracy

Review the new requirement for IA certification for binder labs and report back to ATG. (See agenda item 6.23)

1/13/2017

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

3/17/2017

4/17/2017

5/1/2017

5/22/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

8/15/2017

From November 4, 2016

197 Sri Develop guidelines for designers regarding WMA. (See agenda item #5.27) - Don 3/17/2017 Finalize guidelines and share with ATG co-chairs.

11/18/2016

1/13/2017

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

3/17/2017

4/17/2017

5/1/2017

6/7/2017

6/16/2017

7/12/2017


From January 13, 2017

202 Jack Work with Al Vasquez (Caltrans) on the report and minor modification to the test method on AR binder reheat. (See agenda item #10.22)

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

4/17/2017

5/1/2017

6/7/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

8/21/2017

206 Jack/Tim Meet to refine issues and objectives associated with CT 125 and develop/refine scoping document (see agenda item #20.15)

1/30/2017

2/17/2017

3/1/2017

3/17/2017

4/17/2017

5/1/2017

5/22/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

From March 1, 2017

210 Pete/Rich

Tracy

Blair

Evaluate the status of the draft CPB related with CRM usage reporting. (see upshot #11.22)

3/17/17

5/7/2017

5/22/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

From April 17, 2017

214 Tim/Sri/TracyBlair

For active and the two proposed new 17/18 scoping documents, request a remaining effort resource estimate from the Caltrans STG co-chairs broken down by functional unit. Compile estimates and report back to ATG at next meeting.

5/1/2017

5/22/2017

6/28/2017

6/30/2017

7/28/2017

8/17/17

From May 5, 2017


218 Jack (See upshot 5.36) Raise the issue of sampling OGFC behind the paver with the Section 39 STG and the smoothness STG.

6/7/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

8/17/17

219 All

Jack/Pat

Review the May 27, 2016 letter from Industry ATG co-chairs to RPC. Sri to send the letter to all ATG co-chairs. Identify items that will not be covered in the Operating Principles effort.

Identify items in the letter that are not addressed through the Operating Principles effort and provide to the ATG.

5/22/2017

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

8/17/17

From June 7, 2017

220 Tim Determine if R47 is a requirement for the District 2 lab is included to include in the scope of their AASHTO Re:Source accreditation.

Inquire with D2 why the lab is not accredited to R47.

6/28/2017

7/12/2017

7/28/2017

8/17/17

From July 12, 2017

221 Sri Provide response to industry proposal regarding # of inspectors including sampling (See 12.35)

7/28/2017

8/17/17

From July 28, 2017

222 Tim/Sri/Marcella, Blair

Review the letter from Jack/Pat and consider strategies to address concerns in order to keep work products moving forward

8/17/2017

1 0900 Opening and Introductions, Purpose of meeting Introduce new Industry/Caltrans rep?

Agenda Item 1.1. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) No comments1. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) No comments1. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) New item to add: New Products issue. 1. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) No comments1. 5. (Comment from 09/29/2015) No comments1. 6. (Comment from 10/27/2015) No comments1. 7. (Comment from 12/08/2015) No comments1. 8. (Comment added 1/12/2016) No comments1. 9. (Comment from 2/09/2016) No comments1. 10. (Comment from 2/22/2016) This is Mike’s last ATG meeting.


1. 11. (Comment from 4/25/16) No comments1. 12. (Comment from 11/4/16) Chuck announced this would be his last meeting with ATG. He is moving to the office of Contract Administration.

1. 13. (Comments from 1/13/2017) This is Rich’s first meeting. We are excited to have him on board!1. 14. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Team had a discussion regarding the scheduling of these ATG meetings. Team decided to continue establishing future meetings in the current ATG meetings rather than pre-populating a calendar for 2017 and posting on the RPC website.

1. 15. (Comment from 5/22/2017) Team met to prioritize scoping documents for 17/18. Team developed a consensus document after reviewing the rationale from each side. Consensus list (spreadsheet) will be sent out along with this meeting minutes.

1. 16. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Phil Stolarski has been appointed as the Chief for the Division of Environmental Analysis and therefore will not be returning to METS.

1. 17. (Comment from 7/12/2017) This will be Tracy’s last meeting. Blair Anderson is the permanent Chief of Construction Standards. We will start including Blair in correspondence from now on.

1. 18. (Comment from 7/28/2017) Today is Blair Anderson’s first ATG meeting. Marcella is also joining us this morning. Team engaged in a discussion regarding work product progress and how ATG can help. Jack and Pat indicated that two key items that have not been discussed and agreed upon within industry are the specification development process and the pilot project process. ATG ran out of time and did not complete an assessment of all STG work products. Tim indicated that he would not sign the two new ATG Project Scoping Documents until there is a clear path to complete the existing RPC projects. Marcelle indicated that there is 98 percent chance that RPC Co-Chairs would not approve any new projects for FY 17-18 since there are several project that are still incomplete and there is not clear path for completing the current RPC projects highlighted in “red”.

2. 0904 Agenda Review

3 0905Review and status the upshot list OK as written? Corrections needed?

Assignments done?

4 0915 HMA-LV (Formerly was TYPE B Aggregates)

Agenda Item 4. HMA-LV4. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) No information on the scoping document at this time. 4. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) The RPC Co Chairs have not made a decision on how to deal with HMA-LV. Industry concern is that the RPC Co Chairs may not have been kept informed as to what this issue is about. It was discussed by the RPC co-chairs, and they are discussing this and will decide what avenue to take. Caltrans concern is that it appears that industry is trying to re-write Section 39. Industry does not agree. There have been a lot of meetings on this with Caltrans and industry. Industry concern is that there seems not to be any decision makers at the STG meetings. Caltrans does not agree with this. The industry and Caltrans co-chairs will not have any more meetings of the STG until RPC resolves the issue.

4. 3. (Comment from 08/04/2015) Outcome4. 3. 1. Sri will notify the Caltrans STG co-chairs to not meet until the RPC has resolved their issue as to

how to proceed. 4. 4. (Comment from 8/27/2015) RPC Co Chairs are going to get back to the STG and the ATG Co Chairs on the status of the scoping document and how they want to see this proceed. Industry ATG Co Chairs will check with industry RPC Co Chairs.

4. 5. (Comment from 09/08/2015) No change in status. Industry comment: We continue to wait for RPC decision. Caltrans says they want to talk to the industry co chairs to see what is going on.

4. 6. Outcome:4. 6. 1. (Comment from 09/08/2015) (See upshot # 151) Pat and Jack will check on the status of the

scoping document with Caltrans and provide information to Caltrans on why there needs to be a revised scoping document.

4. 7. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Mike C and Toni C were going to contact Tim to figure out how we need to proceed on this. We are waiting for the RPC to respond back to us.


4. 8. (Comment from 12/08/2015) According to CT: RPC industry co chairs are going to have an industry-only meeting to discuss this item. Industry says there is nothing to discuss at this point because industry does not have any information from CT on their concerns. Industry (Mike and Toni) has asked for Caltrans to put their concerns in writing. Caltrans does not want to have a parallel section 39. CT says this does not relate to CT highways, so it should not be moving forward. Industry says CT has oversight on local streets and roads. Industry says this was never intended to be on Caltrans roads. We are still trying to identify the Caltrans position on the scoping document and why this has not moved forward. Industry is still waiting for a response on this.

4. 9. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Outcome: 4. 9. 1. Sri will look at RPC minutes and any other correspondence related to the HMA-LV issue and

provide that information to industry on CT concerns. (See upshot # 161) 4. 10. (Comment added 1/12/2016) This discussion is still happening at the RPC level. Industry reports they are very frustrated with this. Industry got new information from Caltrans and will bring industry response back to Caltrans at the next ATG co-chair meeting.

4. 11. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry report: Mike Cook will take this back to the RPC and they will revisit it. Then we will get a report back. Caltrans reports they are checking into a special meeting of the 4+2 to work on HMA-LV before the third Monday in February. Caltrans reports that Chuck is preparing something for RPC. Industry is waiting for the outcome of the 4+2 meeting discussion. Industry comment: We may have dropped the ball on this.

4. 12. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Caltrans reports that we need a new date for the 4+2, as the usual date falls on a holiday. Caltrans reports they will set up a special 4+2 meeting to discuss this item.

4. 13. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Outcome: 4. 13. 1. Chuck will make sure a 4+2 meeting is set up to discuss this. (See upshot # 170)

4. 14. (Comment from 2/22/2016) There was a 4+2 meeting on 2/19. Caltrans will be putting their position into writing on the Local Agency Low Volume, as requested at the meeting. This should happen within two weeks.

4. 15. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Tim Denlay to provide the industry position on the Local Agency low volume issue/specification development by next ATG meeting. (See upshot # 176)

4. 16. (Comment from 6/1/2016) On 5/28/2016 Kee requested ATG to make a decision that the subtask group can reconvene if they eliminate specifications for roadways with a TI>8. Industry position is that they are willing to proceed with a specification that eliminates roadways with a TI>8. Caltrans/Industry ATG co-chairs unanimously concur. Sri to contact Kee about this decision. Pat will contact Tim Denlay to convey this decision.

4. 17. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Jack – a meeting date has been set 6/21/2016. Industry is very happy about that.

4. 18. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Pat – a meeting occurred 6/21/16, which included local agency representation. Tim D. is taking the lead for industry for revising the draft specifications. Next subtask group meeting is scheduled for 7/26/2016.

4. 19. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Pat – HMA-LV STG meeting occurred today that appeared to make good progress with local agency participation.

4. 20. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – There is a meeting scheduled for 8/22. Jack to report back to team at next ATG meeting.

4. 21. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – We had our second meeting after re-activating this subtask group. Next meeting set for 9/6. Work continues on the draft specification.

4. 22. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Pat – Last meeting was cancelled because draft specification was not ready. Tim Denlay is collecting data. No meeting date set yet.

4. 23. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Still collecting data4. 24. (Comment from 11/4/2016) Pat – The subtask group is waiting for lab data from participating private and county/city labs.

4. 25. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Pat – Tim Denlay is still collecting data from other labs (industry and local agencies).

4. 26. (Comment from 1/13/2017) Jack – No change. Tin Denlay is still collecting data. Once data is collected, another STG meeting will be scheduled.

4. 27. (Comment from 1/30/2017) Jack – There is a meeting scheduled 2/7/2017. 4. 28. (Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – this is moving forward. We are still collecting data. Work is progressing. There has been no decision where this guideline/specification would reside. Local Assistance may be the appropriate location.


4. 29. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Pat - There was a conference call with industry and local agencies 3/22/2017. The team is still collecting data.

4. 30. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Pat – Team still compiling data. Next meeting is scheduled for 3/28/2017.4. 31. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack/Pat – Next HMA-LV meeting is scheduled for 5/16/2017. There will be an update at that meeting.

4. 32. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – Specification is essentially complete. Where will the specification reside? Sri – It will probably go to Local Assistance to post on their website for locals to use. It doesn’t have to go through the Caltrans formatting process as it will not be used on the State Highway System (Caltrans).

4. 33. (Comment from 6/28/17) Pat – STG met last week and they are going to send out their draft document for one final review with the large group. Brandon Milar is going to send it to CalAPA's contacts with the local agencies across the state for review also. Barring any major fatal flaw comments, the STG intends to have all of their work complete by the first week in August.

4. 34. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Pat – Brandon and Tim Denlay distributed the final draft document to industry and some local agencies for comments by 7/21/2017. Sri wants to be sure that Kee has received a copy.

5 Review progress of Section 39 STG Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 5. Section 395. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Still making progress – we are working on the aggregate temp. – We are putting a white paper together for this.

5. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) “White Paper” document for aggregate max temp is now in the hands of the STG industry co-chairs. It has been sent on to the Caltrans STG co-chairs to be forwarded to the ATG co-chairs. This will follow the RPC process. Caltrans has developed their own white paper which will be sent on to the STG industry co-chairs.

5. 3. (Comment from 08/04/2015) Caltrans and industry agree that the Section 39 STG can continue to meet. Industry’s opinion is that the Section 39 STG should be a standing committee to address issues on the specification, if this STG is sunsetted. They want to continue to meet and work on the Section 39 issues that are in their document. Additionally, new issues come up on projects due to changes that have been made in the spec. At this time there are too many issues to roll into QCQA. Next meeting is in Southern California on August 25. Caltrans does not want to modify the scoping document.

5. 4. (Comment from 08/04/2015) Outcome5. 4. 1. The ATG Co-Chairs will let the STG co-chairs for Section 39 know that they can continue to meet

until all issues are resolved. (See upshot # 148) 5. 5. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Section 39 co-chairs are working to focus the discussion to resolve issues and remove them from the active issues list before adding new issues.

5. 6. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Task group continues to work on outstanding issues. Still working on temperature issue. CT understanding is that the white paper has been sent to industry via the STG co-chairs. CT reports that the white paper was sent to industry, and the STG needs to see if this needs to be elevated to the ATG if issue needs resolution. Industry reports that it was agreed to elevate this issue to the ATG.

5. 7. Outcome5. 7. 1. Jack will check with the STG co-chairs to see where we are on the aggregate temperature issue.

(See upshot # 153)5. 8. (Comment from 09/29/2015) Jack sent this issue forward – It needs to be taken to the next level to resolve.

5. 9. (Comment from 10/27/2015) The issue has been raised to ATG – Industry: We got two position papers from Caltrans last week. We do not have a consensus on this since industry is not in agreement among ourselves. We will not be able to make any agreement at this time, and we want to move this up to the RPC for a decision.

5. 10. Outcome:5. 10. 1. Pat and Jack will sign the decision document and send it back to Sri. (See upshot # 155)

5. 11. (Comment from 12/08/2015) CT Pavement Chief Jesse B has the two options for the decision document. He will take the two aggregate temperature options to the RPC Co-Chairs in writing and a decision will be made.


Industry says we are not making any progress on this. We are waiting for a response from Caltrans on this. This is holding up work at the STG. Industry hopes to hear back at our next meeting of the ATG Co-Chairs.

5. 12. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Caltrans will wait for industry to report back from their industry-only meeting re: location of future meetings – north only vs north and south.

5. 13. Outcome5. 13. 1. Jack and Pat will bring the issue of Section 39 meeting locations up to the industry meeting

participants and report back to CT (See upshot # 164) 5. 14. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Industry position is that it is unfair to expect the participants in Southern California to always come to Sacramento. Caltrans wants to ensure there is enough participation in the south to justify moving the meeting back and forth. Industry will convey the Caltrans position back to industry at the next industry only meeting.

5. 15. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Meeting location for Section 39 will be going south and north, per industry request. Industry reports that the aggregate temperature issue is holding up the Section 39 progress. ATG co-chairs are waiting for the 4+2 RPC co-chairs to work on this and send it back down to the ATG co-chairs.

5. 16. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry reports that they are continuing to move ahead – Caltrans reports that the north/south rotation of meetings is OK.

5. 17. (Comment from 2/22/2016) There will be a meeting tomorrow at the SRL. The RPC Co Chairs are requesting a scoping document for post-plant gradation. This needs to be done at the sub task group level. This will be discussed at the Section 39 meeting.

5. 18. (Comment from 4/25/2016) At the Section 39 meeting last week, industry agreed to provide a draft scoping document for post-plant gradation by mid-May (see upshot #177).

5. 19. (Comment from 6/1/2016) At last meeting Kee requested team go back to initial scoping document. ATG Co-chairs will attend the next Section 39 meeting (6/14) 9:00-2:30 at Granite Summit Room (Bradshaw) to better understand the team’s challenges.

5. 20. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Jack – Team met this week. Team is continuing to work through the initial items and any additional items as time allows. Of the 81 items on their task list, 37 have been resolved and 44 are still being worked on.

5. 21. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – nothing to report. July meeting was cancelled. Next meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2016.

5. 22. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing new to report. 5. 23. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – STG meeting 8/18. 5. 24. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – We had the meeting and continue to work on items. Next meeting is set for 9/27 in Sacramento. Caltrans has indicated that they want to pull all of the RHMA-related work into a single subtask group. A scoping document is in draft phase. Industry is recommending that Shawn Rizzuto continue on that subtask group. At this time Shawn is no longer leading the work group. Industry would like Caltrans to consider allowing him to continue working on that group. Industry will draft an email to this effect.

5. 25. (Comment from 9/19/2016) – Next meeting 9/20. Nothing else to report. The non-amine based products issue identified by Jack in the 20.16 and upshot #180 will now be tracked and managed through this Section 39 STG and closed in 20.16. Pat and Jack had discussions with Toni and Mike related with post-plant gradation and maximum aggregate temperature. Toni and Mike will elevate this issue at the next RPC 4+2.(Comment from 4/17/2017) – Sri – Caltrans is having internal discussions to determine an appropriate approach when considering the incorporation of non-amine based products. Past efforts to incorporate these type of products have taken significant resources to implement on a pilot basis.

5. 26. (Comment from 10/14/2016) – A draft document has come back from the RPC Co-chairs indicating that Caltrans will move to post-plant gradation which will take care of the maximum aggregate temperature. The final document has not been provided to the ATG yet. Item 5.24 – Industry drafted the email in support of Shawn and CT Co-chairs forwarded it on to the district.

5. 27. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Team – We are awaiting signature from Roberto Lacalle regarding post-plant gradation. Tim indicated that this should occur today. Jack and Pat asked about the status of the email regarding Shawn remaining engaged in RPC. There has been no response to date from District 11. Caltrans is reviewing comments received on the draft approval process for the non-amine based liquid antistrip technologies. The draft will be sent to industry by 11/18/2016. (See upshot #180)Industry is asking if there will be guidelines drafted for the use of warm mix asphalt (WMA) additive technologies (excludes foamed asphalt). Caltrans will be drafting guidelines and provide to designers. (See upshot #197)(Comment from 3/17/2017) Sri – Draft guidelines have been sent out to HQ Construction.


(Comment from 4/17/2017) Sri – Sri believes he sent an email to ATG members indicating intent. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Sri – Other pressing issues have taken precedence over this task. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Sri – Should be able to get the WMA guidelines to ATG co-chairs by 6/16/2017.

5. 28. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – RPC signed the decision document indicating that Caltrans will be moving forward with post-plant gradation. Tim and Chuck agree that we should create a new sub-task group with scoping document in order to clearly define objectives and allocate resources. Jack/Pat indicated that industry would prefer to just address the issues in a working group within Section 39 STG. Jack/Pat have committed industry to develop a draft scoping document in January 2017. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Pat – Will have scoping doc for post plant gradation by 3/20/2017.

5. 29. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Sri – Sri’s team has a draft document (approval process for non-amine based liquid antistrip technologies) but the team is focused on other areas at this time. This item will be pushed to the next meeting (see upshot #180).

5. 30. (Comment from 1/13/2017 – Sri –– Progress has been made. When draft is ready, it will be sent out to industry for information. (see upshot #197)

5. 31. (Comment from 1/30/2017) Jack – Next Section 39 meeting is in 2 weeks (2/15 and 2/16) at Granite in Sacramento.

5. 32. (Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – Sri said the WMA additive-only guidelines for the SSP have been worked on and in the review process is moving forward. A meeting will be scheduled by Sri to finalize the document. Sri is still working on the draft document for non-amine based liquid antistrip technologies.

5. 33. (Comment from 3/1/2017) Sri – There has been little progress on non-amine based additives, as other issues have taken priority. Regarding WMA guidelines, a draft has been developed that will be finalized and distributed for review. Regarding post-plant gradations – Jack – Industry has been working on a draft scoping document and should have for Caltrans by next ATG. Jack/Sri - There is a STG meeting planned for next week. There are a number of things going on and we are making progress.

5. 34. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Sri – Progress continues, next meeting is scheduled for 4/11/2017. There are 29 outstanding items remaining.

5. 35. (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Jack – There is a new item regarding rubber plants and scheduling of JMF approvals. Team had a robust discussion regarding how we capture agreements and communicate these to future generations (perhaps FAQs and issue/decision matrix) without modifying the specification or a test method. This issue of capturing agreements was discussed during the Operating Principles meeting. Operating Principles may be the appropriate forum to evaluate and address for all RPC.

5. 36. (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Jack - Industry disagrees with sampling OGFC behind the paver because of smoothness concerns. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack –Raised this issue with Section 39 STG. Caltrans will discuss internally prior to next ATG meeting.

5. 37. (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Pat – Tony L. sent a letter to Kee identifying an issue with splitting of QA samples. ATG will evaluate next meeting 5/22/2017.

5. 38. (Comment from 6/7/2017) – Sri – (See upshot #180) We are working on the requirements for acceptance of non-amine based products based on the new Products Evaluation Program (replaces New Products program). CalAPA has indicated that they would like to discuss this subject at their next quarterly meeting with Caltrans Pavement Program. Whatever decisions are made will be coordinated through Section 39 STG. Pavement Program has been working with some vendors of these products to see about pilot project(s). Jack – Section 39 has only 23 remaining items outstanding. These items have been prioritized and will be addressed by 7/1/2018. A few additional items were identified and added to a “bin list” that will not be acted upon until the prioritized items are complete. Any new items will be assessed and pushed to the bin list as a standard course of action. Easy items (grammar, etc.) may be addressed at the time.

5. 39. (Comment from 6/28/17) A few more items were completed. Work continues5. 40. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – No changes. Next meeting in about 10 days in San Diego. Tim – The decisions regarding changes to the Hamburg Wheel Tracker test are being evaluated internally. The goal is to present the Hamburg approach to the group at the next 39 meeting.

5. 41.


6 Review progress of RAP/RAS Subtask Group Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 6. RAP/RAS6. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Form is in draft form and is being reviewed. The Forms unit will be uploading them on the web site – two other forms are being reviewed by Construction. A new spec has been circulated for comments – there will be a combined meeting on July 28th at Translab to discuss the changes.

6. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) A meeting took place. Joe Peterson’s revised spec for RAP/RAS was discussed and is being worked on.

6. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) The STG will meet next week. Caltrans reports that this scoping document is closed. Industry response is to close this off after discussing the changes that were made, and it should not take much time. The spec is finished.

6. 4. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Outcome6. 4. 1. Jack and Pat will talk to Tony to find out where we are on this issue and complete the changes or

produce an expedited scoping document. (see upshot #149) 6. 5. (Comment from 09/08/2015) There was a RAP/RAS meeting last week. This item still needs discussion in the STG. Refiners will come back with a recommendation on dealing with the variability of their product. Caltrans has requested an expedited scoping document. Caltrans wants to confirm what the STG is working on.

6. 6. (Comment from 10/27/2015) No new information available. 6. 7. (Comment from 12/08/2015) A scoping document was sent to industry to carry forward. Industry comments are due today on the scoping document. CT has extended the comment period to Friday, December 11. Caltrans will be working on an NSSP until this group can get going. When a draft of the NSSP is ready it will be sent to industry.

6. 8. Outcome6. 8. 1. Caltrans will send the draft NSSP for RAP/RAS to industry. (See upshot # 163)

6. 9. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Caltrans wants to set up a meeting to discuss this long-term. Caltrans is requesting Industry to send in any fatal flaws in the NSSP by next Friday, January 15t.

6. 10. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Outcome: 6. 10. 1. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Industry will report back to Caltrans by COB on 1/15/2016 any fatal

flaws in the NSSP for RAP/RAS. 6. 10. 2. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Caltrans will share the draft the Construction Procedure Directive

with industry. 6. 10. 3. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Pat and Jack will comment back to Caltrans on the draft CPD by

1/22/2016. 6. 10. 4. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry reports this went out for comments. Industry comments on

the NSSP have been sent back to Caltrans. Caltrans needs to look at the comments sent by industry. 6. 11. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry reports that the NSSP was sent back to Caltrans with comments. Industry refiners met and drafted a letter to send to Caltrans. Caltrans has not seen a letter on this issue form the refiners. Caltrans reports that there is an approved scoping document for a STG to look at this issue. Kee Foo is the Caltrans lead. Industry leads are Tony and Pascal.

6. 12. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry reports there are major problems with the NSSP. 6. 13. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Caltrans reports that they decided to do three things when industry brought this to their attention, because industry said they needed action immediately. Therefore the three action are , 1) Caltrans would in the long term, put a STG together to look at this in detail, and 2) in the short term draft up an NSSP for an interim solution. This was sent out for comment on it. Also 3) write change orders on on-going projects to deal with this.

6. 14. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry reports they have sent in comments with several fatal flaws documented. Industry reports they have not seen any response form Caltrans. Industry says there needs further discussion before this NSSP is sent out. They are requesting that a meeting should be set up to discuss this, immediately. Caltrans replied that, based on the comments they have, there is no indication that binder refiners will be unable to provide the test. Caltrans and industry will set up a meeting ASAP.

6. 15. Outcome


6. 15. 1. Caltrans will respond back to the people who have sent in comments on the NSSP. Industry requests the comments be sent back to Tony and Pascal, with a cc to all those who commented. (See upshot # 171)

6. 15. 2. If necessary, as a follow up to responding to the people who have sent in comments, coordinate setting up a meeting with Tony and Pascal to address industry refiner concerns on the NSSP. (See upshot # 172)

6. 16. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Caltrans is still working on comments from the Asphalt Institute. The letter was sent from the AI by US Mail, and Caltrans reports they have not received the letter as of today. Caltrans has not received the letter by e mail either.

6. 17. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Caltrans received the Asphalt Institute letter. CT met with industry including Jack, Tony L., Russ S. A comment matrix was developed. Industry is waiting for revised NSSP that incorporated issues on the matrix. Sri will look into the revised NSSP and get back to ATG by 4/29. (See upshot # 174)

6. 18. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Sri has completed the NSSP. Sri to send out 6/3/2016. 6. 19. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Sri sent out the NSSP on 6/13/2016. Jack – CT is waiting for industry review. Attempt to complete in the next 3-4 weeks.

6. 20. (Comment from 7/12/16) CPD went out regarding blending charts. Jack – industry is generally not happy with outcome. Sri – This is a stop gap measure to address an immediate concern raised. Scoping document has been drafted and posted to come up with a long-term solution. The RAP/RAS STG will need to get together (Kee Foo, Pete Spector, Tony Limas and Pascal M.). Meeting date has not been established to date.

6. 21. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Sri – STG scheduled meeting date 8/12/2016. 6. 22. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – STG meeting met last Friday on RAP/RAS. Team is making progress. 6. 23. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – The specification (nSSP) now requires binder labs to be IA certified. This is new requirement. Tim, Sri, Chuck to discuss and get back with ATG by next meeting. (Comment from 4/17/2017) – Tim indicated he requested to Sri that the requirement to have binder labs/technician IA accredited be modified to only include AMRL (AASHTO Re:Source) as a requirement. Sri indicated that FHWA required binder labs to be IA certified. Sri will evaluate this and get back to Tim. (Comment from 7/28/2017) Tim – Tim met with Sri and re-iterated the message above. Sri needs to update the specification to reflect this change. Sri does not agree with Tim’s position and this issue will be elevated within Caltrans to be discussed further.

6. 24. (Comment from 9/19/2016) – Tim, Sri and Chuck still need to determine CT position. Intention is to have clarity by 9/23.

6. 25. (Comment from 10/14/2016) – No decision on IA certification of binder labs and technicians yet. RAP/RAS meeting was held to start the process for the long term solution for using RAP/RAS in HMA.

6. 26. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Tim – Caltrans is evaluating the need to have binder labs IA certified. Considerations include job-produced materials where testing is used in the acceptance decision in accordance with 23CFR637. Currently, there is no IA system in place to certify binder labs/equipment/technicians. Jack has requested a written response from Caltrans ATG as soon as possible. Industry has asked – what is a contractor going to do with this specification requirement.

6. 27. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Tim’s position is that IA certification is not needed if the binder lab is AAP-certified (or AMRL or Re-Source). The RAP/RAS sub-task group will be looking at how Caltrans will specify incorporation of RAP at volumes greater than 15%. This will be taken care of in the sub-task group. Jack – the next RAP/RAS STG meeting is 12/12/16.

6. 28. (Comment from 1/13/2017) Tim/Sri/Richard to meet and provide Caltrans position prior to the next ATG meeting. (see upshot #202)

6. 29. (Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – We continue to work on this. This is a long term solution and we expect this will take some time to accomplish.

6. 30. (Comment from 3/10/2017) – Tim – Tim and Sri will discuss the impacts of requiring IA certification for binder labs for blending chart work. Jack – We are continuing to work on a long term solution.

6. 31. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Jack/Sri – Progressing – Next meeting is 4/10/2017. 6. 32. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Team – Nothing to report. Next meeting is 5/23/2017. 6. 33. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Team – We are continuing work. Nothing new to report6. 34. . (Comment from 6/28/17) STG met at UCPRC and reviewed the SCB Test and iFit Test. STG continues to move forward looking at cracking tests.


6. 35. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – General consensus within ATG is that a SCB test could be beneficial by capturing performance of HMA and eliminate prescription-type tests such as blending charts, solvent extraction, some binder tests, etc. The STG is considering pilot projects to shake out approach.

7Review progress of binder set point scoping document (Possibly expedite)

Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 7. Binder set point7. 1. (Comment from 02/24/2015) Closed today

8 Intelligent Compaction Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 8. Intelligent compaction8. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Still monitoring the pilot projects. Caltrans reports: We will have another STG meeting soon – no date yet. The STG met and will be making modifications to the spec. We received input from industry on modifications on future improvements to the VETA program. Industry still has issues with the temperature probe, the intelligent compaction measurement value. These issues will need to be worked out in the STG. We have a ways to go before we have a spec we can all live with.

8. 2. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Nothing new to report. 8. 3. (Comment from 10/27/2015) We have a STG meeting scheduled for Nov 6. 8. 4. (Comment from 12/08/2015) The meeting was held, next meeting is set for December 15. 8. 5. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Caltrans: There was a follow-up meeting on January 7th with the technology providers. The revised draft spec was sent out last week for comments.

8. 6. (Comment added 1/26/2016) No report8. 7. (Comment from 2/09/2016) No report8. 8. (Comment from 2/22/2016) No report8. 9. (Comment from 4/25/2016) CT is doing pilot projects with IC. No action. 8. 10. Comment from 6/1/2016) Chuck – next meeting is scheduled for 6/9 10:00-2:00 from Ebi.(See upshot #182)

8. 11. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Meeting occurred 6/9. Team is gathering data. Jack indicated that industry has some disagreements.

8. 12. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – Described a project-specific issue. The pilot project concept will be discussed at the RPC Operating Principles meeting.

8. 13. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing to report. 8. 14. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Project issue was resolved. Jack will elevate at the next IC meeting. Not clear if there is a date set for next meeting.

8. 15. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Chuck – Meeting set on September 14 (9:00-2:00). Jack did not get the invitation. Chuck to send to Jack.

8. 16. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Chuck – Team at the 9/14 meeting focused on how to make the specification “street ready”. New version of the VETA software was released from Trans-Tech recently.

8. 17. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Work is continuing.8. 18. (Comment from 11/4/2016) Work is continuing. Jack – There are a couple of areas (incentive/disincentive and temperature control) where Caltrans has told industry they are pursuing. Industry is opposed to the Caltrans approach.

8. 19. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Jack/Chuck – no meetings, no additions today. 8. 20. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Jack – Industry continues to have serious concerns about the Caltrans temperature control and incentive/disincentive specification development related with IC data collected during paving.


8. 21. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Rich – There is Caltrans/FHWA training at the Translab for contractor technicians 3/2 and 3/3 (software).

8. 22. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Jack – Industry continues to have concerns about Caltrans implementing IC for acceptance and incentive/disincentive. Industry may be writing a letter to Caltrans regarding this issue.

8. 23. (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Jack – Industry position is unchanged on this. Tracy – Caltrans conducted training for IC technicians (Caltrans and industry) last week and this week.

8. 24. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – The incentive/disincentive specification was sent out to industry for comments.

8. 25. (Comment from 6/28/17) No new information – haven’t met to discuss comments8. 26. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Tracy – 7/10/2017 was the latest IC meeting – lively discussion. Meeting was focused on scoping doc tasks, next steps, etc. We want to complete this item and move on. The group considered the development (via scoping doc) of a team to address the incentive/disincentive concept related with IC.

9 Review progress of PGAR Subtask Group Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 9. PGAR9. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Nothing new to report. 9. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) There is a meeting set today with the co-chairs to discuss the data. They will just be looking at the data.

9. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Nothing new to report. Expect a report at our next meeting.9. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Sallie Houston has results from the labs and has done a preliminary evaluation of the data. She will continue to evaluate the data and make a presentation in October 20/21 at the PCCAS meeting at UNR in Reno.

9. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) No new information available. 9. 6. Outcome

9. 6. 1. Jack will check on the PGAR with Sallie Houston and report back at the next meeting. (See upshot # 156)

9. 7. Meeting of co-chairs was held on PGAR. CT reports they have not had the small group meeting on this item. It is set for tomorrow afternoon (12/9/2015). Sallie will share her information with us at this time.

9. 8. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Caltrans reports Co Chair meeting took place. Next step is to do additional analysis. Once this is done, there will be a larger group meeting and the information will be shared.

9. 9. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry reports that the data from the second round-robin testing are still being analyzed. Once the analysis is completed on the second round robin the STG will decided what to do next. ,

9. 10. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Nothing new to report9. 11. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Industry says this will be discussed at the PCCAS meeting this week.9. 12. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Industry says this will be discussed at the PCCAS meeting in early May. Team is working on the statistics of the data. Jack will talk to Sallie and provide and update at the next meeting.

9. 13. (Comment from 6/1/2016) See upshot #178. 9. 14. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Nothing new to report. 9. 15. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – Team is still working on this. Nothing new to report. 9. 16. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Pat – Jack to update next meeting. 9. 17. (Comment from 8/17/2016) – Jack – Sallie still analyzing the data. Jack to report back at next ATG meeting.

9. 18. (Comment from 8/30/2016) – Jack – Sallie is still analyzing the data. Due to the extensive amount of data, team is looking for assistance to complete. Within the next month or so, we will have more information and be able to get the subtask group meeting setup by the end of September.

9. 19. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – Jack discussed with Sallie. Team is still evaluating data. 9. 20. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Jack – Sallie is trying to get assistance in analysis of the data. Hoping to make more progress. They are also looking to others or UCPRC for assistance as it may fit into their current contract. Update at next meeting.


9. 21. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Nothing new to report. 9. 22. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Jack – Nothing new to report. Chuck suggested that Caltrans could make UCPRC available for data evaluation if Sallie would like assistance.

9. 23. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Sallie does not need assistance. She received assistance from Shakir Shatnawi. The precision and bias review is compiled in a draft report. The PGAR task group will review the report and identify next steps.

9. 24. (Comment from 1/13/2017) - Sri – PGAR effort looks like it is moving forward and we will be closing out the results of the round robin testing, which will allow us to move forward with the STG.

9. 25. (Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – Shakir has developed a report related with precision and bias for the testing. The STG will be setting up a meeting to discuss the data/report.

9. 26. (Comment from 3/1/2017) Sri – STG co-chairs are working to develop a STG meeting (tent. 4/19-Sacramento) to discuss the data/report.

9. 27. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Sri – Co-chairs are still developing a meeting date. 9. 28. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack – There was a meeting last Friday. Work was completed on the 2nd round robin. A precision statement was developed. The short term goal is to have a specification developed for “report only” for all projects (by change order) for a few quality characteristic requirements (PG grading system). Sri anticipates that there will be additional support needed by METS to evaluate the tests identified in the PG grading system. Tim wants to be clear on expectations.

9. 29. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – A specification will be finalized for all projects to gather data. Tim has expressed concerns that decisions are being made in these meetings that increase the work load of ORMT, but there is little to no consideration of these impacts. Jack committed to making Tim aware of these potential impacts so that Tim can prepare (evaluate work estimating norms, purchase equipment, hire/train staff, etc.). Sri – Tim has been invited to these meeting, but Tim indicated that he does not have resources to attend these meetings.

9. 30. (Comment from 6/28/17) Work continues – New industry co-chair – Sallie Houston. Next meeting is in late July.

9. 31. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – no meeting set yet. Work continues to draft specification for pilot projects.

10Review progress of asphalt rubber binder quality control Subtask Group

Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 10. asphalt rubber binder quality control10. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) No new report. Industry will report more next meeting. 10. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) No new report. 10. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Samples have been located and we will move this forward now. 10. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Samples are being taken next weekend. Results are expected by our next meeting.

10. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Industry: We have samples and they should be sent to the labs this week. Expect results from tests within the next two weeks.

10. 6. (Comment from 12/08/2015) The samples are being sent out this week. We hope to get testing done next week.

10. 7. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Industry reports that the results from testing will be available in the next month. The samples were sent out to the three labs. Testing was conducted last week.

10. 8. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry reports they are still waiting for the testing that Al was going to do. We will report back on the next meeting on this.

10. 9. (Comment from 2/09/2016) There was a problem with an industry lab, so retesting is necessary. This will be done next week. Industry did receive what they needed from the Caltrans binder lab. Industry will report back at the next meeting.

10. 10. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Industry reports that all the work has been done. Jack will be talking to Al about a report on the study. This report will show the results of the study and recommendations. This will be a short


report conveying what was done, what was concluded and what is recommended. Caltrans would like to have this in a MS Word format so it can be posted on the web site.

10. 11. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – the preliminary data indicates there is no issue on the reheat. The report will be generated and shared with Section 39 STG along with a recommendation for action within the Section 39 STG. Jack working with Al Vasquez to develop data/report information. The report should be out by next meeting and will be presented at the next Section 39 meeting. After that this sub task group can end.

10. 12. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Jack to get with Al for resolution. Once this is done this project will be CLOSED OUT!!!!

10. 13. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Jack – will report back next meeting (7/12/2016). 10. 14. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – I met with Al. Al agreed to draft a summary document and Jack is drafting changes to the test method (a previous LP). Jack collaborating with Al to get final reporting completed. Jack will have more info at next ATG meeting.

10. 15. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing to report. 10. 16. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – Industry is happy with the teamwork and collaboration with Caltrans. The final recommendations indicate minor changes to specification and test method.

10. 17. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – Jack and Al are still working with the report and change to the test method. (re-heat study).

10. 18. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – Team is progressing. Draft test method is in the works. 10. 19. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Team is progressing. Draft test method is in the works.10. 20. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Other work is taking priority for industry and Caltrans. 10. 21. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Jack – Wants to wrap up with Al Vasquez in January. 10. 22. (Comment from 1/13/2017) Jack – I want to wrap this up in January with Al Vasquez. Jack feels this has gone on too long. (see upshot #202). (Comment from 4/17/2017) Jack has draft copy of the two documents. Jack will review and provide comments by 5/1/2017(Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack – The ball is in Jack’s court. He will have more to report at June ATG meeting.

10. 23. (Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – Jack will contact Al today to get this back on track with Tim’s support. 10. 24. (Comment from 3/1/2017) Jack – We are making progress and will try to have the report and draft test method modifications completed by 4/1.

10. 25. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Jack – Jack is still working with Al for 4/17/2017 completion. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack – This should be completed by 6/7/2017.

10. 26. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – Working with Al, we should have this finished by July 1, 2017.10. 27. (Comment from 6/28/17) Jack and Al are still working to get this done by next meeting.10. 28. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – Work complete. We are looking to finalize draft changes to CT 388.10. 29. (Comment from 7/28/2017) Jack – This will be complete in the next 2-3 weeks.

11 Asphalt Binder Crumb Rubber Verification STG Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 11. Asphalt Binder Crumb Rubber Verification11. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Caltrans has nothing new to report. We are in the implementation phase. 11. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) Nothing new to report. There will probably not be anything to report until the end of the calendar year.

11. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Nothing new to report. 11. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Noting new to report11. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) We are continuing to work on this. Compliance is required by July 2016. The forms are being finalized.

11. 6. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Industry is working on this. Nothing new to report. 11. 7. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry reports that Caltrans has indicated they have put the requirement for CRM verification into the RSS and they will be requiring this to be included for all projects starting on July 1, 2016.

11. 8. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Nothing new to report.


11. 9. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Nothing new to report.11. 10. (Comment from 4/25/2016) RSS has been published. Chuck – needs to develop CPB. Draft to be available by next ATG meeting. Plan to have CPB out by June. After the CPB is issued, this sub task group can end (See upshot # 173)

11. 11. (Comment from 6/1/2016) 5/23/2016 Chuck emailed out draft CPB for CR verification with comments due 6/1. No comments from Pat/Jack or Tim. Specifications will start coming out in projects starting today. Once this is signed, this project will be CLOSED!!!!

11. 12. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Chuck – still waiting to get CPB signed. 11. 13. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Sri – We have a new issue. No CRM vendors have submitted their products for inclusion to the Authorized Materials List (AML). Doug Carlson with Liberty Tire sent an email Kee Foo and others on 7/26/2016 indicating that the current chemical formulation of scrap tires will not meet the current Caltrans specification. The AML has a population of zero, therefore no vendors can meet the specification.

11. 14. (Comment from 8/17/2016) – Jack discussed with Belshe and suppliers. Suppliers will be providing necessary paperwork. Jack to get back with Sri/Tim/Chuck/Pat to collaborate a response. Jack will be looking to validate of the comments and get back with team.

11. 15. (comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – The CRM industry and RPA do not agree with the concerns identified in the Carlson email. Jack and Chuck will report on the progress of this issue/non-issue at next meeting.

11. 16. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – Jack will report back to ATG by 9/23. To date, only one sample from CRM. Caltrans expressed concern that only one supplier has submitted a sample. Jack to look into this.

11. 17. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Sri – 2 items need to be reviewed for approval. 1) Paperwork trail from tire supply to processed rubber when it leaves the site and 2) actual testing of the material by Caltrans.

11. 18. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Sri discussed with Jim St. Martin that there is additional information needed from industry to clearly demonstrate/identify chain-of-custody of crumb rubber modifiers.

11. 19. 11. 20. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Tim - Caltrans (ORMT and Pavement Program and HQ Construction) need to clarify the criteria for suppliers to be included on the AML for crumb rubber as the list is empty. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Tim is developing draft language to be added to the AML webpage to clarify the criteria for a supplier to be added to the list. (see upshot #200) (Comment from 3/17/2017) Tim – ORMT is working to develop a site audit to evaluate crumb rubber supplies to be included on the AML. Parameters of the audit will include chain-of-custody verification and materials quality. Anticipate will be complete 5/17/2017. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Tim – The draft final audit is complete. Tim to send out ATG. He anticipates 5/20 posting date on the METS website.

11. 21. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Tim – Tim will be working with Jack to evaluate the material stream and identify sensible quality management mechanism to be incorporated in the specification or AML.

11. 22. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Tim – Tim working with Jack and Jim St. Martin representing CRM to evaluate the material stream then develop appropriate mechanism to define acceptance activities related with crumb rubber modifier. Tim to keep Sri posted regarding progress. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Tim – CRM has been added to the Authorized Materials List.

11. 23.

11. 24. (Comment from 3/1/2017) - Sri – Section 39 (RSS – 39-2.01A(1) ) specifies that the contractor complete crumb rubber usage reports (CEM-4410) monthly and at the end of the project. The form indicates (page 2 of 4) that the contractor submit the report to an email address ([email protected]) and submit to the RE. To date, no usage reports have been received at the email address. At this point it is unknown if REs are receiving this data. Pete/Rich and Pat will evaluate and get back with ATG next meeting. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Pat – At last STG meeting, Brandon Milar indicated CalAPA would send out industry notice regarding the requirement to include crumb rubber usage reports. (Comment from 4/17/2017) Pat – Usage reporting was completed. A request was sent out through CalAPA newsletter alerting contractors to comply with the CRM reporting requirement.

11. 25. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Sri – Communication has been completed to industry. To date, there has been no information submitted associated with the CRM email address.

11. 26. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Sri – Caltrans has not received any data to date. Tracy – HQ Construction should have the CPB by the end of June 2017. Hopefully the CPB will increase participation.

11. 27. (Comment from 6/28/17) CPB should be going out in the next 2 weeks.


mailto:[email protected]

11. 28. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Tracy – Draft CPB is still in the development/evaluation phase. Jack – Please provide a copy to ATG once complete.

12 Section 39 QCQA STG Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 12. QC/QA for Superpave12. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Industry reports we are making progress. 12. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) We have had another meeting and are continuing to make progress. The big issue is max. aggregate temperature. This issue has been taken outside the group.

12. 3. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Industry reports they are solid on their position. Caltrans is waiting to confer on September 29th with FHWA before any further action is taken.

12. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Continuing to make progress. 12. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) We are continuing to make progress. We had a meeting last Friday. 12. 6. Outcome

12. 6. 1. Caltrans will discuss the issue of minimum number of technicians for QC and discuss at our next meeting. (See upshot # 159)

12. 7. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Industry reports they will be discussing this issue tomorrow at their meeting. Industry will discuss this at the next QCQA meeting. Industry will decide what they will do at that meeting and report back to CT.

12. 8. Outcome12. 8. 1. Jack and Pat will take the issue of technician requirements to industry tomorrow and report back.

(See upshot #164) 12. 9. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Caltrans has proposed a certain number of QC technicians to Caltrans. Industry has also made a counterproposal. If Caltrans cannot live with the industry recommendation, they need to come back with the Caltrans position. Industry will look at the Caltrans position and decide if they can agree with it. This is still at the STG level.

12. 10. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry has provided their proposal, and they are waiting for a decision. Caltrans reports they are working on this in a small group and will report back to the STG.

12. 11. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Outcome12. 11. 1. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Sri will check on the small working group who are discussing the

industry proposal re: number of inspectors required and clarify what has happened, and will report back at the next meeting. (see upshot #168)

12. 11. 2. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Jack will check on the status of the proposal on the number of inspectors required from industry with Tony Limas. (see upshot #169)

12. 12. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Caltrans reports they have prepared a position paper and they are waiting for industry to report back. Industry reports that this will be cleared up at the next meeting.

12. 13. (Comment from 2/22/2016) The group met last week and is continuing to move forward. The post-plant gradation decision will be holding up the progress. This will be discussed at the next QCQA STG meeting on March 23.

12. 14. (Comment from 2/22/2016) As to the number of inspectors, industry does not have consensus among themselves, and want to have Caltrans make the decision. Industry reports there is not any dispute, since they do not have a position on the issue, due to a lack of consensus.

12. 15. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Caltrans requests that the STG put their request in writing for Caltrans to unilaterally make a decision

12. 16. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Once the STG request is received, Caltrans to develop a decision document (Sri) with Caltrans position. Jack/Pat to prepare the STG document. Sri to prepare ATG position document. Industry cannot come to consensus. (See upshot #168)

12. 17. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Industry is asking for the final decision on the number of technicians required. (See upshot #168)


12. 18. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Jack – During the QC/QA meeting yesterday, industry could not reach consensus on the number of inspectors. Industry will discuss and provide more information at the next Section 39 meeting (7/13/16). We continue to move forward on the issues.

12. 19. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – This will be discussed at the August 19, 2016, Section 39 QC/QA meeting as the 7/13 meeting was re-scheduled.

12. 20. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing to report. 12. 21. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – latest meeting was cancelled. Jack to report at next ATG meeting. 12. 22. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – This issue did not get discussed during the Section 39 meeting. Jack will report back after next Section 39 meeting on 9/27 in Sacramento.

12. 23. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – Item 12.18 this issue did not get discussed. Next Section 39 meeting is 9/20.

12. 24. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Jack – Item 12.18 will be discussed at the next QC/QA meeting. Otherwise work is moving forward.

12. 25. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Number of inspectors will be discussed at the next QC/QA STG meeting next week.

12. 26. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Jack – Group did not have time to address this element in the last STG meeting. Nothing to report.

12. 27. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Jack and Pat will be discussing at the RPC industry-only meeting on 1/18 to consider number of inspectors issue. Jack/Pat to report back at next ATG meeting. (see upshot #188)

12. 28. (Comment from 1/30/2017) – Jack – Will be discussed in industry only meeting prior to next RPC meeting.

12. 29. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Jack/Pete – At the Section 39 QC/QA meeting last week, CT/industry developed a proposal that will be reviewed by stakeholders regarding the number of inspectors on the jobsite. The STG has settled on a number of things including the pay factors for quality characteristics. Team is moving forward.

12. 30. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Jack – STG meeting next week. Industry is making progress on the number of inspectors issue. This will be discussed at the next week.

12. 31. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Jack – Meeting occurred and work continues to progress. 12. 32. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Team – Nothing new to report. Making progress. 12. 33. (Comment from 6/7/2017) – Pat – What happened with # of inspectors? Jack – That proposal will be pushed up to ATG co-chairs.

12. 34. (Comment from 6/28/17) Sri - Kee shared industry's proposal from last STG meeting with Sri. Sri says that he needs to discuss it internally before making comments.

12. 35. (Comment from 7/12/2017) – Sri – We are still looking at the proposal (See upshot #221).

13 PG+X (Crumb Rubber Usage) Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 13. Increasing Crumb Rubber Usage (added October 28, 2014)13. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) Caltrans has received the information from UCPRC and we are working to finalize the research proposal. After that, we can move forward with the scoping document which will include the cost of the research proposal.

13. 2. (Comment from 08/04/2015) No new report. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Caltrans is working to secure funding for the research project. Caltrans is making a ballpark estimate of the money needed. After this, the STG will have the opportunity to offer input on the research work plan. Scoping document is expected soon.

13. 3. (Comment from 09/08/2015) We are waiting for a scoping document. 13. 4. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Caltrans sent out draft scoping document to the ATG industry co-chairs.

Outcome


13. 4. 1. Comments need to be sent to Chuck on the draft scoping document by 9/15/2015 (See upshot # 153)

13. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Scoping document has been approved, and we have the research funding, jointly with Cal-Recycle. Right now we do not have any co-chairs.

13. 5. 1. Outcome: Pat and Chuck will identify STG co-chairs for (rubber usage. (See upshot # 157)13. 6. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Industry will have a response at the next meeting of the ATG Co Chairs. 13. 7. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Co chairs have been selected, meetings will be scheduled soon. 13. 8. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry reports the meeting date was set. March 10, from 9-4.13. 9. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry co-chairs are Mark Belshe and Edgar Hitti. Caltrans co-chair Haiping Zhou

13. 10. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Nothing to report.13. 11. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – 3 working groups had a meeting. Still working on those items. Haiping has moved over to concrete. Sri will find a replacement. Sri may have an interim staff working.

13. 12. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Chuck – Understanding that Haiping has finalized the work plans. Sri’s group is looking for a replacement for Haiping sometime around July. Until then Haiping is still the co-chair.

13. 13. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Chuck - I think Mark B. sent out the final work plan today. 13. 14. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Chuck will confirm that the Cal-Recycle monies have been transferred to Caltrans. Once this is confirmed a meeting of this subtask group will be scheduled.

13. 15. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Chuck – the money has been transferred. Meeting still needs to be set. 13. 16. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Chuck – Meeting has been set.13. 17. (Comment from 8/30/2016) There will be a meeting on 9/9. 13. 18. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Chuck – 9/9 meeting occurred. Next steps are to finalize work plan and obtain representative binder samples. Can industry provide a suggestion to provide field- blended samples? UCPRC stated they need about 100 gallons of sample. ATG to discuss at next ATG meeting.

13. 19. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Chuck – Work is progressing.13. 20. (Comment from 11/4/2016) Jack – This will be discussed at the next meeting (11/17) with hope for resolution.

13. 21. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Chuck – Samples are being collected from a single source. On hold until Sri returns. ATG agree that an update from Haiping would be helpful to keep this effort on task.

13. 22. (Comment from 2/17/2017) - No report today. 13. 23. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Sri – STG co-chairs are looking to set a meeting in mid-April. 13. 24. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Jack – To date, no invitation has been sent out – tentative date is 4/28/2017. Jack forwarded an email indicating 4/28.

13. 25. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack – Last Friday there was a meeting held. UCPRC made a presentation of what progress they have made. UCPRC continues to work on testing the material submitted by industry.

13. 26. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Sri – Work continues, this group is working in collaboration with the PGAR STG (See comment under PGAR project - #9 ). Working on developing specification to be used on pilot projects.

13. 27. (Comment from 6/28/17) No new information13. 28. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Sri – UCPRC is continuing work (receiving samples and performing testing).

16 Vacuum Sealing Cores Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 16. vacuum sealing cores16. 1. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Scoping document for vacuum sealing cores has been approved. This needs to be added to the agenda for future meetings.

16. 2. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Co Chairs for Industry will be picked by the next meeting. Caltrans has not selected a co-chair yet.

16. 3. (Comment from 09/29/2015) Tony will be the co-chair for industry.


16. 4. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Scoping document has been signed. We are looking at how vacuum sealing would be implemented. Next meeting is November 5 at Translab. STG co-chairs are Tony Limas and Al Vasquez.

16. 5. (Comment from 12/08/2015) CT reports the team has been meeting. The next meeting today at 1 pm and this is moving forward in a positive manner.

16. 6. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Making progress, meeting today. 16. 7. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Caltrans reports the team met, they have draft specs. Tony Limas is going to route this through the Section 39 STG at their next meeting.

16. 8. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry met on this issue and had no comments for Caltrans. Industry reports this will be discussed at the Section 39 STG on Feb. 23.

16. 9. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Nothing new to report.16. 10. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Draft specification language provided to 39 STG co-chairs. Next 39 STG meeting is 5/26. This item was not discussed at the 4/12 STG meeting.

16. 11. (Comment from 6/1/2016) This issue became linked with the effort to drop the drying temperature of cores specified in AASHTO T275 from 125 to 100 degrees. A draft CPD has been developed and will be distributed to ATG co-chairs by 6/6. Expectation is that the spec will be updated in the July posting.

16. 12. The specification language was sent through the Section 39 group. The draft language does not include the option to include the drying options in T331. Team to evaluate after receiving the CPD language from Chuck. (Upshot #186)

16. 13. (Comment from 7/12/2016) The ATG decided to incorporate the drying options. The scoping document for vacuum seal will be revised to reflect this inclusion by Tim. Tim to route revised scoping document to ATG by 7/29.

16. 14. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Tim – A meeting has been scheduled in early August with Jack, Al V., Tony Limas and Tim to assess recent changes that impact this project. A likely outcome of this meeting will be a closing of this project and develop a new scoping document that outlines the objectives and stakeholders impacted.

16. 15. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Tim – Jack, Tony L. and Al V. met to discuss modifications to the scoping document. Tim/Jack to report back at next ATG meeting.

16. 16. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Tim – Team met. Al V and Tony L are drafting CT 308 modifications. Tim and Jack to draft modifications to the vacuum seal scoping document.

16. 17. (Comment from 9/19/2016) – Jack/Tim – Team is working on that now.16. 18. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Jack – We had to delay the meeting and work is continuing. Report at next meeting.

16. 19. (Comment from 11/4/2016) Jack/Tim – We had to delay the meeting and work is continuing. Report at next meeting.

16. 20. (Comment from 12/6/2016) Jack/Tim – Draft specification/test method modifications have been developed by Al and Tony Limas. Tim and Jack to review on 12/15/16 and report back at next ATG.

16. 21. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Tim and Jack will meet prior to the next ATG meeting to evaluate the status of this issue and develop next steps/actions to accomplish the objectives.

16. 22. (Comment from 2/17/2017) - Tim and Jack to work on this next week. 16. 23. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Tim – Tim and Jack met on this to define next steps. There are modifications to CT 308 along with minor Section 39 revisions. The plan/schedule is to have these draft changes to the Section 39 STG by 3/17.

16. 24. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Tim/Jack – No updates today. 16. 25. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack/Tim – We are progressing. 16. 26. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – Work is progressing. Tony and Al are close to getting something out. 16. 27. (Comment from 6/28/17) Jack – work is continuing.16. 28. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – Work is continuing. Should have something to report.

17 RHMA with small amount of RAP Current status, progress since last report, next steps


Agenda Item 17. RHMA with small amount of RAP (Comment from 09/08/2015) 17. 1. (Comment from 07/07/2015) 1) RHMA with low percentage of RAP scoping document, this is going to be signed by the last of the RPC Co Chairs and 2) Vacuum Sealing Cores scoping document. Two of the three co-chairs have signed this, should be signed at next RPC meeting and 3) temporary transverse tapers scoping document. This still needs two Caltrans Task Group co-chair signatures before it can go to RPC before it can be approved by the RPC, and 4) The fourth one, a scoping document for the low amount of crumb rubber in HMA will be written up soon. RHMA scoping document should be signed soon. We will be incorporating the information from UCPRC.

17. 2. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Scoping document for RHMA with small amount of RAP has been approved.

17. 3. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Co Chairs for Industry will be picked by the next meeting. Caltrans has not selected a co-chair yet.

17. 4. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Caltrans and industry have not selected any co-chairs. 17. 5. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Outcome

17. 5. 1. Jack and Chuck will select co-chairs for the RHMA small amount of RAP STG. (See upshot # 160)

17. 6. (Comment from 12/08/2015) We will have the names for industry co-chairs after the meeting tomorrow. 17. 7. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Co chairs have been selected, meeting date will be set. 17. 8. (Comment added 1/26/2016) No date set yet. CO-chairs are Tony Limas and Hongbin Xie, Kee Foo and Haiping Zhou.

17. 9. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Industry will provide a co-chair to replace Hongbin Xie. 17. 10. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Industry will get a replacement co-chair and report at the next meeting.17. 11. (Comment from 4/25/2016) This first meeting will take place on 4/26/2016. 17. 12. (Comment from 6/1/2016) First meeting occurred. Team is waiting for a UCPRC report due out in August. Rita looking for some preliminary data. This is moving forward.

17. 13. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Moving forward – making progress. 17. 14. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Nothing new to report. The next subtask group meeting is scheduled for August 4, 2016.

17. 15. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing new to report. 17. 16. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – We had a meeting about 2 weeks ago. We are making progress. Objective is to have a draft spec then develop pilot projects.

17. 17. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Jack – There will be a meeting 8/31. Still making updates to the scoping document and the draft work plan that is being developed.

17. 18. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – STG has come to loggerhead. There were three issues industry is looking for Caltrans position on as described in an email from Jack and Pat.

17. 19. (Comment from 10/14/2016) There was an industry only meeting to discuss the Caltrans response regarding the 7.5% minimum asphalt rubber binder content and the fatigue testing. The industry STG co-chairs are drafting a letter back to Caltrans regarding the industry position on the disposition of the committee.

17. 20. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Industry is working on a response to the Caltrans response to the email. 17. 21. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Jack – Industry (Hongbin Xie) developed a response and circulated it within industry to refine their response. Jack anticipates a response to Caltrans in January.

17. 22. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Sri received industry’s position. CT is evaluating and will provide a response. CT is concerned with issues such as cracking potential and the effectiveness of using the asphalt rubber. (see upshot #204)(Comment from 4/17/2017) Sri – Sri will review industry’s position. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Sri – He has prepared a response and will provide it to ATG and Kee in the next week or so.

17. 23. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Jack – We will push this until March 1 meeting. 17. 24. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Sri – No response has been provided by Caltrans at this point. Jack indicated that the RAP in RHMA STG work is suspended pending response from Caltrans.

17. 25. (Comment from 3/17/2017) – Sri – Caltrans will respond by 5/1/2017. 17. 26. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Sri – I will be sending out a response. Currently this group is not meeting.


17. 27. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Sri – Should send out the response to Hongbin Xie’s note today or tomorrow.17. 28. (Comment from 6/28/17) Sri has provided response to Hongbin's email. Industry is reviewing and will comment back.

17. 29. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – Industry has not compiled a response yet.

18 0955 Temporary Transverse Tapers Current status, progress since last report, next steps

Agenda Item 18. Temporary transverse tapers18. 1. Temporary transverse tapers scoping document has been approved. All three have been posted on the web site. The scoping document for the low amount of crumb rubber in HMA scoping document should be signed soon and is already included in these notes as agenda item 14. Completing the scoping document is dependent on resolving the funding issue for the research.

18. 2. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Co Chairs for Industry will be picked by the next meeting. Caltrans has selected Ken Darby.

18. 3. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Industry has not selected any co-chairs yet. 18. 4. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Outcome:

18. 4. 1. Pat will select a co-chair from industry for Temp Transverse Tapers. (See upshot # 158) 18. 5. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Industry will have names after the industry meeting tomorrow. 18. 6. (Comment added 1/12/2016) Co chairs have been selected, meeting date will be set. (Feb 6??) 18. 7. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry co chair is Frank Rancadore and for Caltrans it is Ken Darby. First meeting is set for February 26.

18. 8. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Nothing to report18. 9. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Meeting has been set up for this Friday.18. 10. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Meeting took place. Chuck - There were minor changes made and sent out. Few comments received back. Chuck will see that Ken sends out resolution table within a week or so. (See upshot # 179)

18. 11. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Only one comment received that dealt with approach slabs. Chuck estimates the posting will be by end of July. That will CLOSE THIS PROJECT!!!

18. 12. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Chuck – we should know by 7/15 if spec is posted. Then a CPB will be issued describing changes.

18. 13. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Chuck – Draft CPB has been generated. 18. 14. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Chuck – Draft CPB was transmitted to ATG. A few comments were received from Sri. Jack asked for one additional week for review (due 8/24/2016)

18. 15. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Chuck – Industry had opportunity to comment. 18. 16. (Comment form 9/19/2016) Chuck – CT is waiting for final signatures internally. Chuck to submit to ATG co-chairs after signature. Chuck to provide comment/resolution matrix to Jack and Pat.

18. 17. (Comment from 10/14/2016) CT is continuing to wait for signatures internally. Chuck to provide comment/resolution matrix to Jack and Pat.

18. 18. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Uncertain if Chuck sent out the matrix. Tim to check with Chuck. 18. 19. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – Chuck – this task will be completed once Chuck sends out matrix.18. 20. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Rich will check with Chuck on the status of the comment/resolution matrix by next ATG meeting. (see upshot # 205)

18. 21. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Jack/Pat – Rich sent the matrix resolution table to the ATG on 2/6/2017. This is the last action for this project. TEMPORARY TRANSVERSE IS FINISHED!!!

19 Pavement Smoothness Current status, progress since last report, next steps


Agenda Item 19. Pavement Smoothness (added 2/09/2016) 19. 1. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Pavement Smoothness will be a new project. Caltrans co-chairs are Pete Specter and Ken Darby.

19. 2. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Scoping document has been signed. Still waiting for industry to appoint co-chairs.

19. 3. (Comment from 4/26/2016) 4 working groups created. Jack – industry has a lot of concerns. Co-chairs have been identified. (STG - Charles Stewart and Don Matthews). Work groups have already set up meetings and are meeting.

19. 4. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Lively meeting occurred last Friday. This is moving forward. 19. 5. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Lively meeting – still continuing to work. 19. 6. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Sri - work groups are meeting and working through the details. 19. 7. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Sri – Nothing new to report. 19. 8. (comment from 8/17/2016) Jack – We are making progress. There is some encouraging discussion. A new STG meeting has been set (9/1/2016).

19. 9. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Working group meeting on 9/1. 19. 10. (Comment from 9/19/2016) Jack – STG is still gathering and evaluating data. Small working group of Industry is developing a proposal for CIR.

19. 11. (Comment from 10/14/2016) Progress is being made. Small working group of Industry is developing a proposal for CIR.

19. 12. (Comment from 11/4/2016) – Jack – Work is continuing. 19. 13. (Comment from 12/6/2016) – There was a STG meeting 12/2/2016. Work is continuing. One aspect under discussion is how Caltrans will administer pre-grinding requirements in order to achieve desired smoothness.

19. 14. (Comment from 2/17/2017) – Jack – Industry has concerns with lump sum for pre-grinding. STG is continuing work to come to resolution/consensus.

19. 15. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Sri/Jack – CT and industry are working through this issue. 19. 16. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Jack/Sri – CT and industry continue to work together. 19. 17. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Jack – There was an industry only meeting on Tuesday. The STG co-chairs are expected to meet next week to discuss this issue and propose a solution to move ahead.

19. 18. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – Work is continuing. 19. 19. (Comment from 6/28/17) Work is continuing.19. 20. (Comment from 7/12/2017) Jack – No new meeting set yet. The OGAC sampling has not been addressed yet.

20 Miscellaneous issues/items Item 20 is an area where new Items or miscellaneous issues can be identified and tracked.

Agenda Item 20. Any new items,other business?20. 1. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Industry concern on new products evaluation. There is frustration with the approval process. Industry partners have not been able to get anything finalized, even though everything Caltrans has requested has been done. How do we move this forward? The process

20. 1. 1. (Comment from 09/08/2015) follow-up – This is something that needs to have a small working group in Section 39 to deal with this. The issue relates to a specific product and the evaluation of it is taking too much time from the industry perspective. Industry agrees with Caltrans that new products are evaluated, they have a history and they do work. When there are products that have a history of success and have been used in other states, there needs to be a faster way to get them incorporated into Caltrans specs faster. Caltrans suggests there may need to be a scoping document for non-amine based LAS products.

20. 2. (Comment from 8/27/2015) Pavement smoothness forum has been set up for September 28th. Right now there are 51 people signed up. We expect a good turnout. It will be held at the CHP Building – 601 North 7 th Street - in Sacramento. - CLOSED

20. 2. 1. (Comment from 09/08/2015) All slots in the training have been taken. - CLOSED20. 3. (Comment from 08/04/2015) No new report. - CLOSED


20. 4. (Comment from 8/27/2015) FHWA is offering to do tack-coat training – best practices. We are looking for November – there will be one north and one south. - CLOSED

20. 5. Outcome 20. 5. 1. Chuck will send an e mail to Jack and Pat when this is set up. (see upshot # 151) November 10

at Red Lion in Sacto and Nov 12, in SRL in Fontana. Registration portal and flyer will be developed. - CLOSED20. 6. (Comment from 09/08/2015) Caltrans and industry have an issue about AR binder being allowed for hot drop from an alternate site– CT responded back to industry. There will be a meeting set up to discuss the issue. There will be a report at the next ATG co-chair meeting. Next meeting dates - CLOSED

20. 7. (Comment from 09/29/2015) Industry has major issues with smoothness. We need to discuss this at the next meeting. This issue may be residing with the PPTG task group. See STG #19 for smoothness. - CLOSED

20. 8. (Comment from 10/27/2015) Tony is working on a scoping document for smoothness. We will report back in November. – See STG #19 for smoothness. – CLOSED

20. 9. (Comment from 10/27/2015) We need more people for the Southern California session of Tack Coat. We are looking to fill 80 seats in each of the sessions. - CLOSED

20. 10. (Comment from 12/08/2015) Good participation both north and south on the Tack Coat workshop. - CLOSED

20. 11. (Comment added 1/26/2016) Industry comment: Caltrans has announced in the new spec they are only going to split a sample into two – Industry would like to have the samples split into 4. Caltrans reports this issue of split samples is being worked on by the same group that is working on the QCQA issue about the number of QC personnel. We can discuss this at the next section 39 meeting. – See STG #13 for QCQA. – CLOSED

20. 12. (Comment from 2/09/2016) Pavement Smoothness will be a new project. Caltrans co-chairs are Pete Specter and Ken Darby. – See STG #19 for smoothness. – CLOSED

20. 13. (Comment from 2/22/2016) We need to see how we can proceed with Mike Halverson’s contract. - CLOSED

20. 14. (Comment from 2/22/2016) Caltrans reports the possibility of a DME meeting in the immediate future is unlikely.

20. 15. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – CT125 scoping doc needs to be provided to industry. Tim to provide by 4/29. (See upshot # 175). Tim provided. Tim set up a meeting with industry for 6/6 to better understand industry concerns.(Comment from 1/13/2017) Jack and Tim to meet to refine the issues and objectives associated with CT 125 and develop/refine scoping document. (see upshot #206) (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Jack and Tim have met and will meet again soon to describe concerns related with CT 125. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Tim – Tim has asked Al Vasquez to cause a meeting to occur with Jack, PP representative, HQ Const representative to evaluate concerns related with CT 125 in the next two weeks. Based on the discussion, there may be a scoping document developed. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Jack – Tim, Al, Jack and Tony L met to discuss approaches to address the compiled comments received related with CT 125 (2014). Team is developing revised scoping document language to focus the team’s efforts.

(Comment from 6/28/17) Jack – We revised the scoping document and are making a final review and it will likely be sent to the ATG Co-chairs next week.20. 16. Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – Non-amine based products are funneled through New Products process. Sri – internally CT needs to evaluate how to address this issue. Caltrans cannot be developing specifications for individual product and industry has indicated in the past that a specification cannot be developed that would cover different types of non-amine based products. Sri will put a position together to provide at the 5/26 Section 39 STG meeting. (See upshot # 180)(Comment from 6/1/2016) Chuck to suggest to the RPC that the improved New Products Process be presented at the next quarterly RPC meeting.(Comment from 7/12/2016) Nothing new to report. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing new to report.(Comment from 8/17/2016) Nothing new to report. (Comment from 8/30/2016) Sri- CT is developing/proposing a new process to get non-amine based products used on a pilot project. Sri to update at end of September to ATG. – Item moved to Section 39, 5.25 - CLOSED

20. 17. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack –On using AR Binder blended at blending plant off-site, CT allows the hot drop using the binder from the other plant as long as the same materials and same blending plant are relocated to new HMA plant and passes MPQP. This will not be addressed in the specification. As issues arise, direct questions to Chuck Suszko. – CLOSED.


20. 18. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – What is the hold-up for the DME meeting.. DME meetings were not conducted due to travel restrictions per Tim. (See upshot # 181) Industry wanted to know the status of their request to allow industry personnel to inspect Caltrans labs during testing. Caltrans is looking at this internally and will get back to the industry. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Issue elevated to Roberto L. No word back. Jack requested a response to the request. Tim to further pursue (upshot #181).(Comment from 7/12/2016) Nothing new to report. – See 20.14. CLOSED

20. 19. (Comment from 4/25/2016) Jack – Specific questions/issues were generated (33-38) during the Section 39 meeting with regarding to the interpretation of FHWA guidance. Tony L. and Kee were going to go to FHWA jointly. Kee was not comfortable going to FHWA. Why can’t we get input from FHWA for interpretation on QC/QA specification? Healthy discussion took place. – Moved to Section 39, Item 5 - CLOSED

20. 20. (Comment from 6/1/2016) – See upshot 177. Pat and Jack had discussions with Toni and Mike related with post-plant gradation and maximum aggregate temperature. Toni and Mike will elevate this issue at the next RPC 4+2. – Moved to Section 39, Item 5 - CLOSED

20. 21. (Comment from 6/1/2016) Industry ATG Co-chairs sent a letter last Friday to the RPC 4+2 and are awaiting a response. CLOSED

20. 22. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Pat and Jack have been asked by RPC 4+2 to send a written document indicating industry’s position on aggregate temperature and post-plant gradation. Pat and Jack will send an email today to Toni C. indicating that industry could not reach consensus on this issue and Caltrans should make the decision. The intent is to have Toni send a letter to the RPC (4) Caltrans Co-chairs indicating industry’s position. The Caltrans Co-chairs have requested 2 weeks to respond to Toni’s upcoming letter. (see upshot #185) – completed - CLOSED

20. 23. (Comment from 6/16/2016) Jack – 4+2 has responded to industry concerns letter. At the next ATG meeting we will have more information. – completed - CLOSED

20. 24. (Comment from 6/16/2016) There will be a new scoping document drafted related with AR binder that includes ¾” vs. ½”, Ndesign requirements for RHMA, pressure, and gyrations. Shawn Rizzutto will work with Kee to develop the scoping document. – being addressed in the RHMA mix design working group, Section 39, Item 5. - CLOSED

20. 25. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Jack – Jack and Pat are awaiting a response from RPC (4+2). Jack and Pat to discuss with Toni C. today then report back to ATG at the next meeting as there is some confusion related to other alternatives that can/should be considered per the email from Toni. (Comment from 7/26/2016) Nothing new to report. This is related with post plant gradation/maximum aggregate temperature. 4+2 has moved this topic to their next meeting. ATG awaiting 4+2 meeting outcome for next actions. – completed - CLOSED

20. 26. (Comment from 7/12/2016) Sri – An issue was brought up at the testing turnaround time meeting regarding quality control of Caltrans test results. What is Caltrans doing to make sure that all Caltrans test results are reviewed and approved by a Caltrans quality control manager? this is not a requirement in the specifications. Jack – this is not a widespread problem, in certain places test results are being reported directly by a tester to the RE with no quality review by a quality manager associated with an accredited laboratory. For contractor’s labs, results are reviewed by a quality manager. Chuck, Tim and Sri to discuss this internally and report at next ATG. (See upshot #189)(Comment from 7/26/2016) ATG – The CLAM defines the responsibilities of lab managers. Team agreed to continue this discussion when Jack is in the meeting. (Comment from 8/17/2016) Discussion - DMEs/REs/ACEs are responsible via the CLAM as manager of construction labs (for this discussion - field and mobile labs). On hold until industry approaches ATG with further information. - CLOSED

20. 27. (Comment from 7/26/2016) ATG – This agenda item is becoming difficult to manage. Tim will look at elements and indicated – CLOSED and possibly change the color (blue) of the closed items. (Comment from 9/19/2016) – ATG – Team closed and re-distributed issues to appropriate STG/Items.

20. 28. (Comment from 1/13/2017) - Jack – There are a number of items that Jack emailed to the ATG co-chairs yesterday. These are described in the new bullets below and within existing Item #20 as appropriate.

20. 29. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Industry is not happy with the meeting minutes format for STG that has recently been introduced. Sri clarified the intent of the new format. Jack appeared satisfied with Sri’s explanation and will bring that perspective back to industry. (see upshot #207)

20. 30. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Industry would like finalization on the comments regarding Hamburg Wheel Tracker test. Tim will be providing a status document as a response to the draft specification developed by the STG. (see upshot #208)


(Comment from 3/1/2017) – Tim – ORMT has reviewed the suggested CT 389 draft presented by the Section 39 working group. Tim will submit comments back to Kee and Pete by 3/3 and have a meeting with the small working group in the next 2 weeks to review the points evaluated. (Comment from 3/17/2017) Tim – Small working group gathered 3/13/2017 to review the contested items in the draft Hamburg test method (CT 389). Issue matrix/resolution table will be sent out to gather opinions by 3/24/2017. Opinions will be provided by the team members and returned. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Tim – The issue matrix/resolution table was sent out. Some comments have been received back. Tim is asking for small working group members to review and comment on the table within the next week. Once received, Tim will evaluate where there are differences of position. (Comment from 6/7/2017) Tim – Comment resolution matrix will be shared with Section 39 STG next week regarding the Hamburg test. (Comment from 6/28/17) Waiting to hear from Tim

20. 31. Comment from 1/13/2017) Jack – Industry has concerns that certain districts (1, 2, & 3) as demonstrated on the AMRL (AASHTO Re: Source) webpage do not have accreditation for the R47 test. This test directs technicians to split lab samples. In addition, District 1 currently has a suspended accreditation. Industry and Caltrans have concerns about statewide consistency and acceptance testing. (Comment from 3/1/2017) – Tim – Tim has not looked into this yet. (Comment from 3/17/2017 – Tim – No update on this. (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Tim – No update on this. (Comment from 6/7/2017) – Tim – D1, D2, and D3 accreditation information is separate on the AASHTO Re:Source website (Caltrans vs. California Department of Transportation). Jack – The R47 accreditation issue has still not been addressed. (Comment from 6/28/17) Waiting to hear from Tim.

20. 32. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Chuck had proposed putting all RHMA issues/projects under a single subtask group. Where are we with that? Sri – CT is evaluating and will report back soon. (see upshot #209)(Comment from 2/17/2017) Jack – In our ATG scoping document review meeting on 2/16/2017, Sri indicated that at this time Caltrans will not be combining all of the RHMA tasks/issues under a single STG.

20. 33. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Kee recently mentioned that each major decision will have an associated decision document with signatures for future reference and document control. Example – max. aggregate temp. Sri – minor decisions do not need this rigor. Every decision will be in the comment/resolution matrix, however.

20. 34. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – Industry disagrees with sampling OGFC behind the paver because of smoothness concerns. Jack suggested sampling could be performed at the paving hopper or the windrow. This item is moved to Section 39 STG (5.36).

20. 35. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Jack – We need to get together (ATG) to evaluate new/proposed scoping documents within the next month. Sri – we have several ongoing projects/STGs, we also need to look at the availability of resources and decide if we should complete the existing projects before taking on new projects.

20. 36. (Comment from 1/13/2017) Jack – Industry is proposing a joint meeting between the ATG and STG chairs to discuss and define business processes (e.g. – agendas, decision documents, scoping document development). Sri – This would be evaluated and defined in the Operating Principles meetings. As an anticipated outcome of the Operating Principles effort, there will be a rollout/implementation/training component with the STG chairs. (Comment from 5/5/2017) Team – We have decided to dedicate the 5/22/2017 ATG meeting towards evaluating the letter (May 27, 2016) from industry to the RPC and identifying issues that would fall outside of the Operating Principles (see Action Item #219) and the split sample issue identified in the STG item above. (Comment from 5/22/2017) Team dedicated today’s meeting to 17/18 scoping document prioritization. We did not take time to evaluate the industry letter as identified directly above.

Comment from 6/7/2017) (See upshot #219) – Sri – RPC did respond to the 5/27/2016 letter stating that the Operating Principles meetings should cover concerns identified in the letter. If industry feels that the points in the letter are not covered through OP meetings, then those issues should be identified and managed. Jack – Industry will bring concerns to the OP meeting this Friday. (Comment from 6/28/17) Next Operating Principles meeting is sometime in July 2017.20. 37. (Comment from 1/13/2017) – Sri – Caltrans is seeing premature asphalt paving failures (D2, D6 and perhaps D8). CT is evaluating the issue and wants to develop effective and unbiased actions to mitigate. Sri to elevate at the RPC meeting. Jack – Industry wants to be part of the evaluation and solution development.(Comment from 5/5/2017) Team – We will continue to discuss this in the future.(Comment from 6/7/2017) Sri – We had asked D2 and D6 to provide additional information to perform forensic investigation. We have not heard back. In D8 they said they are working with the contractor . (Comment from 6/28/17) No update


20. 38. (Comment from 4/17/2017) Jack sent an email to ATG co-chairs addressing an inconsistency between Districts regarding the 300psi requirement for high RAP (>15%) mixes. Sri indicated that he will review the email with the Section 39 Caltrans co-chair and share with ATG at next meeting. (See upshot #216) (Comment from 5/5/2017) – Sri – Kee sent out an email to concerned Districts saying that the 300 psi requirement only applied to mixes with over 15% RAP. For on-going projects, there will be a no cost change order. If there is a problem, contact Kee.

20. 39. ( 20. 40. (Comment from 6/28/17) Tracy – New Scoping Document for Incentive/Disincentive for Intelligent Compaction on Pilot Projects. Incentive/Disincentive was not included in the original Intelligent Compaction Scoping Document. This will allow the completion of the original Scoping Document. The STG needs to meet and determine how much work is left to complete and how to move forward.

21 0955 Review upshot and bin list all

22 0959 Next meeting date, location and expected outcome all

23 1000 Adjourn


Group Memory - dot.ca. Web view28.07.2017 · Group Memory. ATG Co-Chairs Meeting. ... RPC...

Documents

Transcript of Group Memory - dot.ca. Web view28.07.2017 · Group Memory. ATG Co-Chairs Meeting. ... RPC...