Shingles Recycling: Quality Assurance / Quality Control

1
Shingles RecyclingQuality Assurance / Quality
Control

• A Presentation at theSacramento RMRC Workshop on
• Tuesday, April 11, 2006
• Presenter Dan KrivitDan Krivit and Associates

2
Recycled MaterialsResource Center
www.rmrc.unh.edu
3
Presentation Outline

• 1) Material Introduction
• 2) Engineering Properties
• 3) Applications and Performance
• 4) States Using Shingles in HMA
• 5) Specifications
• 6) Testing and Design Procedures
• 7) Further Information
• 8) Summary

4
Presentation Outline

• Modified from presentation already in your
  big books!
• Make sure to get all additional inserts
• AASHTO spec
• Bibliography
• SWMCB packet

5
Material Introduction
6
Definitions

• Manufacturers Asphalt Shingle Scrap
• Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap
• Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS)(Crushed
  screened)

7
History

• 15 years
• Multiple research studies in lab and field
• Manufacturer shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt
  best known, most accepted practice
• Still relatively new application

8
Engineering Properties
9
Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles
10
Composition of Asphalt Roofing Shingles

• Asphalt binder content 20 to 40
• Aggregate material 40 to 60
• Fibrous reinforcement 20

11
Recent Composition Weight Ranges of Typical
Asphalt Shingles

• 32 to 42 Coating filler (limestone or fly ash)
• 28 to 42 Granules (painted rocks coal slag)
• 16 to 25 Asphalt
• 3 to 6 Back dust (limestone or silica sand)
• 2 to 15 Mat (fiberglass, paper, cotton rags)
• 0.2 to 2 Adhesives (modified asphalt based)

12
Applications and Performance
13
Multiple Applications
Most Proven

• HMA

Aggregate (gravel)
Dust control
Cold patch
Ground cover
Fuel
New shingles
14
Factors Affecting HMA Performance

• Aggregate gradation of RAS
• Properties of final blended binder content within
  the HMA as affected by
• RAS asphalt binder
• Virgin binder

15
Factors AffectingHMA Performance(continued)

• Location RAS is incorporated into HMA
• Temperature
• Moisture content of RAS and other aggregates
• Retention time in HMA drum

16
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
17
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
18
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
19
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
20
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
21
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
22
Source Newcomb, April 2003.
23
Engineering Performance Advantages

• Reduce need for virgin binder
• Add fibrous reinforcement
• Modify PG grade binder
• High temp performance
• Reduce landfill needs

3-11
24
Potential Benefits ( Manufacturers RAS)

• Cracking resistance
• Rutting resistance
• Conservation of landfill space

Source Paul Lum, Lafarge Construction Materials
Ltd., April 13, 2003.
25
Challenges

• Need for improved grinding and handling
• Blending and storage
• Continued research into engineering effects of
  RAP and RAS on AC binder content
• Quality control and quality assurance

26
Barriers to Shingle Recycling

• Economic reasons
• Policy and regulatory compliance
• Environmental concerns
• Technical reasons
• Public sentiment
• -----------
• (Note These barriers may be real or perceived!)

27
Engineering Performance Disadvantages

• Hotter mix requirements
• Stiffer mix
• Possible contamination

(Justus, September 2004)
3-12
28
Source Lum, April 2003.
29
Source Lum, April 2003.
30
Source Lum, April 2003.
31
Source Lum, April 2003.
32
Source Lum, April 2003.
33
Source Lum, April 2003.
34
Source Lum, April 2003.
35
Asphalt Shingles in HMAMissouri DOT Experience

• Joe Schroer, PE
• Construction and Materials Division
• March 30, 2005

36
In The Beginning

• Approached by Pace Construction and Peerless
  Landfill
• MoDOT Not Using RAP in Mixtures
• Deleterious Material
• Stiffness of Asphalt in Shingles

37
First LookThe Ex Factor

• Exhaustive Literature Search
• Exclusion of Tear Offs in States Allowing
  Manufacturing Waste
• Extra Clean Material Contained Little
  Deleterious Matter
• Exceptionally Stiff Asphalt Extracted from
  Shingles

38
Shingle Components

• Asphalt ? 20-40
• Stiffen Roadway Asphalt
• Aggregate ? ?30
• Good Stuff
• Fiberglass or Paper Mat ? ?30
• No Harm if Well Dispersed

39
MoDOT Goals

• Engineering Properties First
• Harmful Effects of Deleterious Material
• Asphalt Binder Properties
• Traffic Safety Nails, etc.
• If Everything Else Works Out, Landfilling is
  Reduced

40
Why Should We Pursue Shingles?

• High Asphalt Content
• Granules Are Hard and Durable
• Recycling

COT
41
Concerns

• How Will Deleterious Material Affect the Mixture
• Can the Low Temperature Grading be Maintained at
  Various Blending Ratios

42
Asphalt After Blending with Shingle Asphalt

• Resist Rutting
• Resist Fatigue Cracking
• Resist Cold-Weather Cracking

43
Asphalt Grades

• High Temperature for Rut Resistance
• Low Temperature for Fatigue and Cold Weather
  Performance
• Performance Graded PG
• PG 64-22 (PG Sixty-four Minus Twenty-two)
• High Temp 64C (147F)
• Low Temp 22C (-8F)

44
Asphalt Modifications Require PG 64-22

• Stiffer at High Temperature OK
• Stiffer at Low Temperature
• Use Lower Percentage of Shingles
• Use Softer Roadway Asphalt

45
Deleterious Evaluation

• Specification for Aggregate
• 0.5 Other Foreign Material
• Sticks, mud balls, deer fur, etc.
• Shingle OFM
• Approximately 3 Total

46
Deleterious Material

• Nails
• Wood
• Plastic
• Cellophane
• Paper
• Fiber Board

47
Trial by Fire
48
No Difference

• Visually
• Standard Mixture Tests
• Placement

49
Big Difference

• Rut Resistance
• Cold Temperature Tests
• OFM in Mixture

50
Can Tear-Off Shingles be Used?

• Allowance in OFM Due to Small Percentage of
  Shingles and Trial Mixture
• Start with Softer Roadway Asphalt

51
Where Are We?The Ex Factor 2

• Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised
• 3.0 Total
• 1.5 Wood
• Expect PG 64-22 met w/ PG 58-28
• Extra grades optional w/ testing
• Examining various proportions and asphalts
• Exuberant Contractors

52
U of M Lab DataMissouri Samples

• Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil
  Engineering
• Preliminary results as of 4-6-2006
• Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon

53
MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 100sec. (PG 64-22)
54
MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 100sec. (PG 58-28)
55
MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 500sec. (PG 58-28)
56
MO Tensile Strength (PG 64-22)
57
MO Tensile Strength (PG 58-28)
58
Mn/DOT lab data

• Jim McGraw, Director of Mn/DOTs Chemical Lab,
  Maplewood, MN
• Preliminary lab data as of Thursday, April 6,
  2006
• Report with U of M lab data, including Mo/DOT
  samples, to be released soon

59
New Minnesota Lab Study

• Funded by OEA
• Co-sponsored by Mn/DOT
• Comparing manufacturer RAS to Tear-Off RAS
• Mn/DOT to conduct PG extractions
• U of M Civil Engineering to conductindirect
  tensile strength tests

60
MN Gradation of RAS Tear Off
61
MN Gradation of RAS Manufacturers
62
MN Gradation of RAP
63
MN Asphalt Content of RAS
64
MN PG Grade of RAS
65
MN PG Grade of RAS
66
MN Deleterious in RAS
67
U of M Lab DataMinnesota Samples

• Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil
  Engineering
• Preliminary results as of Thursday, April 6,
  2006
• Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon

68
MN Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 100 sec.
16
13.5
20 RAP
15 RAP 5 Tear-off
12
15 RAP 5 Manufactured
10.0
8.2
8
Stiffness GPa
5.5
5.0
4
2.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0
0
-10
-20
o
Temperature
C
69
MN Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 500 sec.
70
MN Tensile Strength MPa
71
MN vs. MO Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 100 sec.
72
MN vs. MO Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 500 sec.
73
States Using RAS
74
(Justus, September 2004)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
Western States

• California
• Montana
• Texas
• Oregon

78
Source Ordorff, March 2005
79
Source Ordorff, March 2005
80
Source Ayres, April 2003.
81
Other States Specificationsand Experiences
82

• Georgia
• - Manufacturing and Post Consumer Shingle
  
• - Mixing Permitted
• -100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
• - Maximum 5.0 RAS permitted
• - Gradation - meet requirements of Mix
  Design

• - No foreign material ( paper, roofing nails,
  wood, and metal flashing)
• - Free of Asbestos when tested with Polarized
• Light Microscopy. Test every 1000 Tons

(Justus, September 2004)
83

• Minnesota

• Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
• 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
• Maximum of 5.0 RAS permitted
• Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
• Performance grade of virgin asphalt binder based
  on the properties of the shingle asphalt binder
• No limits on deleterious materials or asbestos

(Justus, September 2004)
84

• New Jersey
• Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
• 100 passing the ¾ inch Sieve
• Maximum of 5.0 RAS permitted
• Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
• No limitations on deleterious materials or
  asbestos

(Justus, September 2004)
85

• North Carolina
• Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
• 100 Passing the ½ inch Sieve
• Maximum of 6.0 RAS permitted
• Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
• No Limitations on the presence of deleterious
  materials or asbestos

(Justus, September 2004)
86
Texas DOT

• Texas DOT- State Highway 31 Corsicana,
• Navarro County 1997
• - 2 x 1,000 foot sections post consumer RAS
• - 2 x 1,000 foot sections manufacturing RAS
• - 2 x 4,000 foot sections Control Mixture
• The Mix Design required 5 Post Consumer RAS
  and 5 Manufacturing RAS
• All three Mixes required 5 Stripping Agent

(Justus, September 2004)
7-2
87
Texas DOT Constituents of Roofing Shingles Used
in Test Project
Tear-Off Shingles
Manufacturers Shingles
Asphalt Cement ()
25
22
50
39
Mineral Filler ()
3778
Viscosity of Asphalt _at_ 140F (Poise)
1223
Penetration _at_ 77F
24
37
(Justus, September 2004)
88
Texas DOT- Conclusions

• Shingle binder content does not relate to reduced
  quantity of virgin binder
• Felt appeared to migrate to the surface
• Processed shingles (RAS) did not clump
• Post consumer shingle more difficult to handle

(Justus, September 2004)
89
Texas DOT - Conclusions

• Smoothness, stability, moisture susceptibility,
  creep indicated similar characteristics among the
  three mixes.
• 1999 Falling Weight Deflectometer testing showed
  performance agreement among the three mixes.
• Visual evaluation shows no apparent distress in
  any of the mixes.

(Justus, September 2004)
90

• Texas (old proposed specification)
• Both Manufacturing and Tear-Off Shingle Waste
  permitted
• 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
• Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
• No Contamination - dirt or other objectionable
  materials
• No harmful quantities of asbestos when tested
  according to EPA guidelines

91
New TCEQ Memo

• March 20, 2006
• Manufacturers RAS in HMA approved
• Tear-offs not approved depending on stack testing
  results and subsequent review of impacts
• Must follow same procedures as RAP into HMA

92
Testing and Design Procedures
93
American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHT0)

• Recycled asphalt shingles specification and
  practice was approved by the Subcommittee on
  Materials (SOM) August 2005

94
AASHTOSubcommittee on Materials

• THOMAS E. BAKER
• [phone]   Tumwater, Washington
    bakert_at_wsdot.wa.gov

95
Review of AASHTO Specification Subcommittee on
Materials (SOM)

• Both manufacturers and tear-offs allowed
• 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
• Maximum addition rate contractor option
• Gradation and volumetrics must meet the
  requirements of the mix design

96
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Addition rates (Section 7)
• If RAS binder if greater than 0.75 percent, the
  virgin asphalt binder and RAS binder combination
  shall be further evaluated to ensure PG
  requirements

97
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Tear-off material composition (Section 5.2)
• May only include asphalt roll roofing, cap
  sheets, and shingles (including underlayment).
• May not include other roofing debris such as
  coal tar epoxy, rubber, or other undesirables
  metal, plastic, wood, glass

98
List of Roofing Waste Items Included for
RecyclingYES (Include these items)

• Asphalt shingles
• Felt attached to shingles

99
List of Roofing Waste Items Excluded for
Recycling NO (Do NOT include)

• Wood
• Metal flashings, gutters, etc
• Nails (best effort)
• Plastic wrap, buckets
• Paper waste
• No other garbage or trash

100
Lista de material para techos basura artículo
para reciclar
Si (Incluya) No / Ningun (No incluya)
Repias Madera
Papel del fietro Metal flashings, canales
Clavos
Plastico
Basura de papel
La otra basura
101
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Asbestos levels
• shall be certified to be asbestos free.
  (Section 5.2)
• (Tear-off shingles are) construction debris and
  various state and local regulations may be
  applicable to its use. The user of this
  specification is advised to contact state and
  local transportation departments and
  environmental agencies to determine what
  additional requirements may be necessary. (Note
  2)

102
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Deleterious material maximum limits (Section
  8)(material retained on the No. 4 sieve)
• Heavy fraction 0.50
• Lightweight fraction 0.05

103
Missouri Shingle Spec

• Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised
• 3.0 Total
• 1.5 Wood

104

• NCHRP Rpt. 452 Incorporation of RAP in the
• Superpave System
• lt15 RAP, no change in PG Grade
• gt15 RAP, Assess the Effect of RAS
• on the Virgin Binder
• The Draft AASHTO specification recommends
• a similar approach.
• lt 5 RAS, no change in PG Grade
• gt 5 RAS, Assess the Effects of RAS on the
• Virgin Binder

(Justus, September 2004)
105
Design Approach gt5 RAS

• Extract Shingle Binder from RAS
• Determine PG Grade of Shingle Binder
• Evaluate effect of Shingle Binder on Virgin
• Binder
• Use PP28 Volumetric Mix Design for HMA
• Determine Optimum Asphalt Content

(Justus, September 2004)
6-5
106
What happens to RAS in Virgin Binder

• RAS binder dissolves into virgin binder
• RAS binder partially dissolves into virgin binder
• RAS binder does not dissolve but acts like an
  aggregate particle
• RAS binder particle absorbs volatile oils from
  virgin binder
• Additional virgin binder needed to coat RAS
  binder particle

(Justus, September 2004)
107
Contribution of RAS Binder to Total Binder in HMA

• Volumetric Mix Design of Control Mix
• - Determine the Optimum Virgin Binder Content
  (OVB Control)
• Volumetric Mix Design of Mixture with RAS
• -Determine the Optimum Virgin Binder Content
  (OVB RAS Mix)

(Justus, September 2004)
6-7
108
Determine the Effect of RAS on PG Grade Binder

• NCHRP No. 452 presents
• Mathematical Solution
• Graphical Solution

(Justus, September 2004)
6-8
109
Graphical Solution for PG Binder

• Determine performance temperature for RAS binder
• Use monograph to evaluate effect on virgin binder

(Justus, September 2004)
6-9
110
Comprehensive Quality Control Plan

• Quality control of supply
• Worker safety and health protection
• Final product quality, storage and handling
• Shingle recycling system design
• Final product sampling and lab testing

111
Minnesota DOT

• France Avenue, Bloomington, Mn
• June 2002 Demonstration Project
• Project Characteristics
• 25,000 ADT
• Original Construction in 1963
• Reconstruction in 1989
• Shingle Mix Overlay in 2002

(Justus, September 2004)
112
Minnesota DOT

• Overlay Construction Plan
• 550 foot Four Lane Roadway
• Northbound Lane Repaved with 5 Manufacturing
  Waste Shingle
• Southbound Lane Repaved without Shingle

(Justus, September 2004)
113
Minnesota DOT

• Specified Binder PG 58-28
• Control Mix (30 RAP with No Shingles)
• PG 67.6-27.0
• PG 68.1-27.9
• RAS Mix (25 RAP, 5 Shingles)
• PG 66.5-27.9
• PG 67.6-28.4

114
Minnesota DOT

• MnDOT Conclusions
• Constructability of RAS Equivalent to
• RAP
• Two Year performance of RAS
• Equivalent to Control
• PG Binder Performance

(Justus, September 2004)
115
Mn/DOT Spec

• Maximum 5 manufacturers shingle scrap in HMA
• Considered a type of RAPExample
• 5 shingles 25 RAP 30 max RAP
• QA/QC standards apply(blending charts)

116
Mn/DOT Spec on File

• Gradation of RAS
• 100 passing the ¾ sieve, and
• 95 passing the 4 sieve
• Shingles stockpiled separately
• Pre-blending is prohibited
• Crushed recycled shingles introduced with RAP
  at same time

117
Mn/DOT Spec on File(See SWMCB handouts of
March 4, 2004)

• Certification from
• Manufacturer
• Processor
• Sample for review
• List of pre-approved sources and processors from
  MN/DOT

118
Asbestos Risk

• Incidence of asbestos is extremely low
• Average content was only
• 0.02 in 1963
• 0.00016 in 1973
• Source NAHB, 1999

119
ASRAS Data

• Iowa (1,791 samples), no hits
• Maine (118 samples), no hits
• Mass
• (2,288 composite samples) 11 hits lt 1
• (69 tarpaper samples) 2 lt 5
• (109 ground RAS samples) 2 lt 1
• Florida (287 samples), 2 hits gt 1

Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
120
ASRAS Data(continued)

• Missouri (6 samples), no hits
• Hawaii (100 samples), 1 hit gt 1
• Minnesota (156 samples), no hits
• Minnesota (50 tarpaper), 1 hit _at_ 2 - 5
• We still want more data!
• (for EPA / CMRA project.)

Original source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
121
DKA / AESFiber Tests

• As part of the RMRC Project
• Environmental Testing of Airborne Particles
  atThe Shingle Processing Plant
• April 2003

122
Summary Highlights

• Risk from asbestos is negligible to non-existent
• Two rounds of sampling for total
• Dust (1999)
• Fibers (2002)
• Common sense and best management practices can
  help prevent employee exposure

123
Sampling Results

• PEL was not exceeded
• Peak (excursion) levels under standard
• Peak exposure during cleaning
• Worst case total fibers measured at 0.06 fibers
  per cubic centimeter (f/cc) of air
• Well within asbestos PEL

124
Key Conclusions

1. Previous waste sampling indicates negligible
   asbestos in used asphalt roofing shingles
2. Asbestos is more likely from commercial roofing
   waste, mastic, caulk or felt
3. Any new exposure to asbestos would be at shingle
   recycling (e.g., grinding) operation
4. Private, residential, shingle family homes are
   exempt from NESHAP

125
Key Conclusions(continued)

1. MN OSHA sampling in 1999 indicated total dust
   within PEL standards
2. AES sampling in 2002 indicated total fibers
   within PEL standards
3. Operators can reduce employee risk to dust and
   fiber exposure
4. Personal respirators are probably NOT necessary

126
Information Sources
127
Construction Materials Recycling Association
(CMRA)

128
EPA Project

• CMRA web pagehttp//www.ShingleRecycling.orgWill
  iam Turley, Executive Director(630)
  585-7530turley_at_cdrecycling.org
• Dan Krivit and Associates(651) 489 -
  4990DKrivit_at_bitstream.net

129
Equipment Vendors
www.GreenGuardian.com/pdf/shingle_vendors.pdf
130
SWMCB Web Site

• http//www.greenguardian.com/business/shinglerecy
  cling.asp

131
Recent Resources

• April 14, 2003 Forum web page
• RMRC web page
• www.ShingleRecycling.org
• SWMCB web page
• OEA web page
• Mn/DOT RMRC handout packet

132
States

• California, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas
  maintain Excellent Web Sites

(Justus, September 2004)
133
Trade Groups

• Shingle Recycling- University of Florida -
  www.shinglerecycling.org
• Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming
  Association-www.memberservices_at_arra.org
• Construction Materials Recycling Association-
  www.cdrecycling.org

(Justus, September 2004)
134
Summary
135
Current Trends and Future Growth

• Virgin asphalt is expensive, tipping fees are
  rising, improved economics
• Applications other than HMA are being developed
• Use of post consumer shingle waste is promising

136
National Asphalt Price Trend
Source U.S. Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics
137
Shingles Recycling into HMA is a Proven
Technology

• History of experience
• Private operators
• State engineers
• Environmental regulators
• Substantial body of literature
• High quality HMA can be maintained

138
Quality Control Savings

• QA/QC critical
• Use in HMA can be very cost effective
• Cheaper alternative to landfilling
• 0.50 to 3.30 per ton of HMA

139
Quality Specs Scrap Feedstock and Final
Products

• Free of debris / trash / foreign matter
• Tear-off scrap must be asphalt shingles only
• No nails!

140
Certification and Inspection of Shingle Supply

• Clear written spec for acceptable material
• Certify suppliers
• State licensed asbestos inspectors
• Visual screening of all shingle scrap
• Types of shingles
• I.d. non-shingle waste
• I.d., layers, composites, thickness, etc.

Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
141
Model Sampling Protocol (if required)

• Specified sampling frequency of incoming loads
• Sampling of recycled asphalt shingles (ground /
  screened product)
• Willingness to certify quality of finished
  products

Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
142
Proposed Tear-Off Supplier Certification Form

• .. We . certify that
• All tear-off shingle scrap came from residential
  buildings having four or fewer dwelling units
  and
• These residential buildings are not regulated
  facilities according to state and federal rules
  and
• The material delivered consists of asphalt
  shingles only and contains no known hazardous
  material.

143
Proposed Tear-Off Processor Certification Form

• .. We . certify that
• All tear-off shingle scrap came from certified
  suppliers only (see Supplier Certification
  forms) and
• The final product contains no known hazardous
  material.

144
Strategy

• Identify players
• Pre-meeting
• Identify unknowns
• Request demonstration project

Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
145
Minnesota Approach

• Regulatory status under NESHAP
• Single family shingle scrap only (no commercial
  or institutional buildings)
• No testing required if certified as free of
  asbestos

Source Dan Krivit, Overcoming the Barriers to
Asphalt Shingle Recycling, Environmental White
Paper Report, Mn/DOT, April 2003.
146
Key Conclusions

• Proven and documented
• Quality control is essential
• Economics are driving the market
• Manufacturer shingle scrap recycling is here
  today and commercialized
• Tear-off shingle scrap is under development, but
  feasible

147
Recommendations

• 1. CONTINUE MARKET DEVELOPMENT
• Cities, counties and states should use alternate
  bid language allowing shingles
• EPA / CMRA project in progress
• Asbestos statistics
• Best practices guideline documents
• Implementation / Outreach

148
Recommendations(Continued)

• 2. MANAGE the asbestos issue
• Restrict supply to private, residential homes
  only (per NESHAP)
• Tight supply specification
• Certify suppliers (e.g., roofing companies)
• Inspect each load (suggest becoming a licensed
  inspector)

149
Recommendations(Continued)

• 3. PROTECT employee health and safety
• Develop dust management program
• Develop employee hazard prevention
• Shroud grinder
• Water scrap shingles
• Provide accurate information as part of a full
  employee education program

150
Recommendations(Continued)

• 4. GUARANTEE YOUR PRODUCT QUALITY
• Asbestos free
• No nails (use multiple magnets)
• ½ - inch minus
• Controlled mix ratios
• Exceed State QA/QC procedures