December 31, 2024 • 28 mins
In the final part of this series, uncover the essential subsections of Section 3.5 of the AASHTO Accreditation Procedures Manual. Our exploration reveals the significance of independence of judgment, the importance of transparency in conflict scenarios, and how demonstrated job performance can outweigh formal education in personnel qualifications. Discover the historical context and evolution of temperature guidelines and learn how labs can navigate unexpected challenges, like seasonal shutdowns while maintaining accreditation. The conversation also spotlights the need for clear definitions and the role of standards development organizations in addressing ambiguities.
Have questions, comments, or want to be a guest on an upcoming episode? Email podcast@aashtoresource.org.
Related information on this and other episodes can be found at aashtoresource.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we are continuing our
discussion today in part two ofthe section 3.5 of the AASHTO
Accreditation Program Manual.
So if you didn't listen to thefirst part, I encourage you to
go back, because you go throughall the background of what the
procedure manual is and how it'sapproved and all that fun stuff
(00:43):
.
But I think we're going to justdive right in to this next one.
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think that's a good idea, and I'm sure people just
could not wait for part two.
Oh, of course.
So the wait is over.
Yes, I know you have tocontinue the conversation.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Unbated breath, I'm sure.
So, yes, so picking up where weleft off.
If I recall correctly, we willbe at, and I know this one has
your favorite words in it, butit is section 3.5.8.
And it says the laboratoryshall be organized in such a way
(01:18):
that confidence in itsindependence of judgment,
integrity and impartiality ismaintained at all times.
And those are like all of yourfavorite words, brian.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
They are, they are.
That sentence has it all.
Confidence judgment, integrity,impartiality.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Some of my favorite words, All of those things.
So let's dive into like thatwhat that actually means.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Yeah, and this definitely falls under the
category of.
I want this one in my backpocket, because if we have an
issue with integrity,falsification of records, I'd
say there's also conflicts ofinterest.
So we do have from time to time, issues where a laboratory may
(02:05):
be have they may have some builtin conflicts of interest.
So like, let's say, it's asupposed to be an independent or
third party testing lab, butthey're owned by the company
that produces the material thatis supposed to have the
impartial testing performed onit.
(02:28):
That is a conflict of interest.
Now, conflict of interest isinherently problematic, but it
does have to be recognized anddealt with.
So if there is a situationwhere a conflict of interest
exists, laboratory has to bereally careful to explain what
that is, how they mitigate it,what is the situation that
(02:50):
exists where the conflict ofinterest is remedied.
And if they can't do that, thenthat's a problem.
And that is also one of thosethings I'd want to bring to our
oversight committee to see ifthey agree, before we just say,
no, you can't be accredited.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
But we have had labs that we've refused accreditation
because of conflicts ofinterest and integrity problems.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Hopefully few and far between.
Yeah, that would be great and Iwould love to have no more of
those if we could, but I knowthat that's not possible.
But we will deal with them aswe find them.
Next one personnel shall havenecessary education, training,
technical knowledge andexperience for their assigned
functions.
Super subjective on that one aswell.
But I think the technicalknowledge and experience, it is
(03:39):
shown by performance right.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah, can you do your job?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
If you can do your job, then great.
I think education has been areal tough one for us over the
years because there arerequirements for biographical
sketches, for example in R18, toinclude educational experience.
Some people don't really have alot of education.
That may be because ofcircumstances, that they're
(04:06):
dealt with right.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, formal education, you mean.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Formal yes, formal education, and it doesn't
necessarily indicate that theirjob performance is going to be
impaired in any way.
So I think that you know, if Iwere to be able to make a
unilateral decision on that,they don't view that as
something that doesn't make orbreak them.
You know that doesn't definethem, so they don't really want
(04:53):
to put that on there, and I kindof agree with that If they're
doing a good job.
And I mean, what does it matterfor accreditation if they put
that on their biographicalsketch or not?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yeah, I would say, in this scenario, education and
training are kind of synonymous,where, because you're like, are
you trained to do it, like, doyou have the knowledge to do it?
That's all we care about forthe most part.
Right, that's right.
So I don't know, maybe it'sjust the definition of education
as well.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, that is true, because there's all kinds of
education.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yes, there definitely is.
So are we going in order of allof these?
I didn't know if we were goingin specific order we were.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I was going to skip around, but we're kind of
plowing through it.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Yeah, okay, so we're at 3.5 points Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I think I'm going to jump over.
Okay, good.
I'm going to skip a couple Well,I'm not.
One is about reporting resultsaccurately, objectively and
without bias.
That's more of what we alreadytalked about.
A good laboratory has to havegood organizational practices
and have good housekeeping, sothat's one of those.
(05:54):
You know, if we go to alaboratory that's just trashed
and not well maintained and itaffects their testing, then that
could be something we wouldwrite.
Workload has to be consistentwith their equipment.
I think that has a coupleaspects of it, some just about
having appropriate equipment tohandle the workload, which we
(06:16):
wouldn't be able to tell.
But also if they were trying tobe accredited for something
that they don't even have theequipment of.
We wouldn't want that.
So I think that would fall intothat category, and just under
the test method.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Yeah, yeah, could they?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
you know, I said that you, yeah, yeah, you would
think.
They would say how could I getaccredited for this?
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I don't even have the equipment and yet people try
something well, I mean in myhead it's like let them pay for
that, to be assessed on that,but they're not going to get
accredited without no, theywon't, they won't so like why
does it like anyway go?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
ahead.
Great question.
That's a great question.
I wish I had the answer to it Ithink sometimes people, uh, they
plan to have things before acertain date and they just don't
show up on time and like thatcan be an impairment, but that's
not really indicative of theirproblem.
Yeah, it's just that they gotahead of themselves.
But the fact remains we have tocome back when you have it,
(07:09):
because we can't really watchyou do something with nothing.
Yeah, we've also had people saycan I just rent everything?
And no, you can't, like we, youwant to be accredited.
You have to be an actualtesting laboratory with
equipment and personnel and allof that stuff.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
It would never even occur to me to ask if I could
just rent the equipment.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yeah, some people, they have this idea that this is
a real chicken egg problem.
You know like I have to beaccredited before I can do any
(07:54):
work.
You know like I have to beaccredited before I can do any
work.
So can you just accredit mebased on my intentions?
And no, we cannot.
So I mean, even if you have todo work that's not accredited,
work until you get your feet wet.
And in certain areas where Ithink that the specifying
agencies really have tounderstand that you can't just
automatically snap your fingersand get accredited, some of the
(08:26):
airport authorities kind ofstruggle with this, where
they'll have a contract and theymight have like a multi-year
contract to work on airportfacilities and they'll say, okay
, well, this person won thecontract.
We expect on day one for them tomove in and be accredited.
But it can't work that way.
So while they're moving in,while they're transitioning
staff, while they're doing allthese things, they can't all,
they can't have us there whilethat's all happening.
So they have to get set up,kind of work out the bugs and
(08:47):
make sure everything's operatingproperly.
Then they can get theirassessment and then it takes
time for them to resolve issuesand then they get accredited.
So what would be appropriatefor those agencies is to give a
certain time frame in which thelaboratory can obtain the
accreditation once they takehold of that contract.
(09:07):
Next one that we're going totalk about is labs have to pay
all the fees for services.
That's pretty obvious, but itis a requirement because we
aren't going to just accreditwithout people paying for the
services.
(09:41):
And that is, does that includenot just the accreditation
invoices from AASHTO Resource?
Or yeah, from AASHTO Resource,right?
So whoever provides theirassessments or proficiency
samples, if it leads to AASHTOaccreditation, they have to
fulfill their obligation to paythose bills as well, Because if
they can not continue to receivethose services, then they can't
(10:03):
maintain their accreditation.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Going on.
The next one I'm seeing hasmultiple parts.
The other ones were prettystraightforward and so let's
dive into 3.5.14.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Okay, 3.5.14 is the last section in this, the last
subsection in this section, andit says for those test methods
for which the laboratory isseeking accreditation,
laboratory has to maintainfacilities for proper control of
the laboratory environment.
Laboratory has to maintainfacilities for storage, handling
(10:36):
and conditioning of testspecimens and samples.
Laboratory has to maintainnecessary calibration equipment
and reference standards.
So that would be like if youstandardize your own ovens and
bath temperatures andthermometers, you'd have to have
a reference thermometer, forexample.
Laboratory has to maintainfacilities and equipment
(10:57):
conforming to specificationrequirements necessary for
testing.
So that we're getting into alot of like r18 app procedures
manual crossover here that'swhat I was actually just
thinking of.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Why is this in the procedures manual and not in an
actual standard?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
that is a good question and I think some of
this stuff could get get removed, uh, from the app procedures
manual, uh.
The next one is the one thathas created and this was kind of
the cause of the disruption forthis particular customer that
kind of prompted this correctiveaction episode, and it is that
(11:38):
the laboratory has to have testareas, energy sources, lighting,
heating, cooling andventilation necessary to
facilitate performance of tests.
And then it says the testingenvironment when workers are
present in normally occupiedspaces inside facilities fixed,
mobile or temporary shall bemaintained at 60 to 85 degrees
(11:59):
Celsius.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Question about that real quick.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
How was that range determined the 60 to 80
fahrenheit?
Speaker 2 (12:09):
so the original ballot for this item uh did
include.
So the original text hadheating but not cooling in it.
So that ballot item includedcooling and then it also added
this idea of what a reasonablelaboratory temperature would be.
(12:31):
The reason is because we haveheating and cooling but really
no parameters, so it's kind ofhard to tell what you're even
talking about there.
Yeah, and I went back andlooked at the actual valid item
and it just vaguely said thatthis is recommended temperature
(12:52):
range for a professionallaboratory setting.
That should be able.
You know that that's kind of theend of the rationale, but the
idea is that a laboratory thatmaintains this I mean this is a
wide range, 60, 85c should beable to control temperatures for
(13:13):
all the tests that are in ourprogram.
So like, let's say, they have abath that maintains a certain
temperature this is not going tobe too high or too low from
what's expected in there,whereby they couldn't achieve
that temperature.
But the thought is, if theystart getting too far beyond
like below 60 or above 85,starts getting harder to
(13:36):
maintain those temperatures fortests, um, I would say materials
might not act the way they'resupposed to act, especially if
you've got any sort of viscositytesting going on well, yeah,
and temperature is such animportant part of the testing,
like in so many tests, like theyrequire, like there's it's
temperature specific of like.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
So it makes sense to me that the room should be, you
know, not too far out of those.
You know, like, make itpossible to run those tests
within those temperatures.
But also, just selfishly, as aworker, I would not want to work
in a building not too far outof those.
You know, like, make itpossible to run those tests
within those temperatures.
But also, just selfishly, as aworker, I would not want to work
in a building that was only 60degrees.
I could be just my warm bloodnot wanting that cold air.
(14:18):
But also 85, you know 85, Idon't want to work in it.
I'm going to say my, mydexterity is going to be
different in all of thosesituations, at the extremes as
well.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So Absolutely so.
So what I explained to thisperson is that equipment,
materials and people are notnecessarily going to operate
according to the standard.
Uh, when you start getting intoextreme temperatures, and
that's extreme heat and extremecold, um, the dexterity thing I
(14:47):
think takes it.
It really shows that thetemperatures that are cold oh
yeah uh, and we've seen it.
We have had laboratories try toget accredited.
They do not have any temperaturecontrols and it is just too
cold, uh, and you and you see it, because they can't run the
tests, yeah, but for for them to, let let's say, we didn't have
(15:07):
any requirement like this andthey somehow were able to cobble
together things that one timefor the two days and two to
three years to be able to getthe temperatures right, I don't
have a lot of confidence if theydon't really have any controls
(15:27):
whatsoever.
I don't have a lot of confidence, as the accreditation body,
that they're going to keep upwith this when we're not there
on top of them.
So we really need to make surethat, as the accrediting body,
we have confidence that thelaboratories are going to be
able to keep up with everythingyou know, maintain all the tests
, demonstrations or performance,the way that they're supposed
(15:49):
to be carried out in standards,and it really, if we don't have
the confidence in that, then thelaboratory might not qualify
for accreditation.
So this laboratory temperaturerange, you know, while I would
say it, you know, justly hassome questions about.
You know, like you're asking,like, where do these
temperatures come from?
(16:10):
Right, there wasn't anindependent laboratory study to
determine when dexterity startsto falter or when the material
you know, every material that'sin our program starts to
change its viscosity or or oryou know starts to fall apart.
You know there was.
There was not a study done likethat, so I don't have any
(16:32):
numbers for people on that and I.
But I would also argue that atbeing in standards development
this long, just about everythingstarts out as an arbitrary
number.
People pick a number and itworks, and they go with it, and
then other things build on that.
They get years of data showingthat, yes, that was the right
temperature.
Maybe it was wrong, so let'sballot a change.
(16:52):
So that happens too.
So I don't want people to gettoo bent out of shape about
maybe 60 wasn't the right numberfor the low, maybe 60 wasn't
the right number for the low,maybe 85 wasn't the right number
for the high.
But I will tell you one thingthat the other question that
comes out of this one that Ithink is a good one is why does
it say when workers are presentin normally occupied spaces?
(17:16):
Is that?
You know, one of the questionsthat we get is like why does
ashto have like an osharequirement in here about
workers?
And I want to tell people wherethat came from.
It is not an osha safety typerequirement.
The original ballot didn't haveanything about that wording in
(17:36):
it, it was just all the timeshould be those temperatures.
Now one of the voters thatsubmitted comments it was a
negative on this said you knowthat there isn't always testing
going on you know in eveningsand weekends, holidays, there
are times when there's notesting.
(17:56):
So, you know, does it make senseto make laboratories expend the
cost of maintaining thosetemperatures when nothing is
going on?
You know, presuming thatcylinder curing is still
maintained according to, youknow, c511, m201 requirements,
whatever other requirements forconditioning may exist, but if
(18:18):
there's nothing going on, dothey still have to maintain that
?
Might be better to allow that,you know, some allowance for
that when there's no work goingon.
So that is where that whenworkers are present language
came from.
So I want to make that veryclear that it is not a OSHA
safety requirement.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
So is this one of the things, if we go back to the
very beginning of theconversation in section 3.5.1,
that if a laboratory's HVAC orheating and cooling capabilities
go kaput, or that they are, youknow their air conditioner
breaks that they have to lettheir quality analysts know
(18:59):
within 60 days.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Yeah, I mean according to that section.
Yes, they should notify us ifthere's any significant change
in their capabilities of testing.
Where this can be advantageousto the laboratory is if they run
into a long-term problem.
For example, we've had someinstitutional laboratories that
(19:26):
have a hard time maintainingtheir working environment where
they've had to basically go on along pause and not be able to
run tests at all for an extendedperiod of time, and they wanted
that to be identified becausethey were going to miss
proficiency samples.
They had to postpone anassessment and in this case we
actually had to put theiraccreditation and suspension for
a while while they got this allworked out, because it took a
(19:49):
lot longer than the 60 dayperiod and that actually allowed
them a time to get things rightand to be able to document that
properly and say you know, weweren't doing work during this
time because we were suspendedand we asked for this allowance
(20:10):
because we couldn't do the workbecause of our environmental
conditions that we were dealingwith, and and they were able to
tell the agencies that theyreport to about this and have it
all documented and kind of, Iguess, make sure that they were
shown to do things the right way, which adds to the confidence
level of that agency that isoverseeing them.
(20:33):
So at the end of the day, itworked out for them to be able
to do that.
I know a lot of our laboratoriescan't just do that.
They can't just say, oh, we'regoing to be out of business for
three months and still actuallybe in business as a business.
So I think it probably is lesslikely to be a long-term
situation for a place like that.
You know, small business, theyusually jump on it right away
(20:56):
and they don't have thecomplications that a large
institution might have.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
I know there's a lot of, you know, seasonal
fluctuation in temperatureswhere perhaps you know in winter
that is not a problem with themaintaining those temperatures,
but in summer it might be a realproblem.
And is there any allowance forthat, or what do we do in those
situations?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
There isn't.
I mean, if they're operating,they're expected to adhere to
these requirements.
One thing I would say that wedon't do and I think this is
kind of what your question kindof triggered this thought in my
head is that there are labs inthe northern United States that
just shut down in the winter,particularly if they're
producing asphalt mixtures.
There's no paving going on thattime of year.
(21:43):
Where they are, they're snowedin, people are laid off in some
cases or they're doing otherjobs during that time period and
we have not required them toget suspended in those cases
because they're not operating.
And I'm torn on that because,while I think it might make
(22:06):
sense, I think that it wouldhave to be some other name for
it other than suspension, like aseasonal shutdown.
Yeah, because no one in thatarea is operating, so it's not
really like competitors arereally taking advantage of
taking advantage of this at thatpoint, like it doesn't really
impact anything.
But I also wouldn't want themto not be able to bid on
contracts for the spring, whenthey are going to be operating,
(22:29):
because they're just shut downand everybody's shut down.
But I think it would be good ifwe could address that somehow.
I don't know exactly what thatwould look like at this point,
though.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
So is there anything else about that 3.5.14e that we
want to talk about anymore, orshould we go on?
Because I know this sectionsubsection of this section goes
down to I, I believe, and we'reat E.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
So what else it does.
It does.
They're just more about, youknow, work environment.
You know testing environmenthas to not adversely affect the
test results.
They have to monitor, controland record environmental
conditions as appropriate.
They have to demonstrate thecapability of performing tests
in accordance with the currentversion of the test
specifications.
That's kind of another one thatI'm not sure needs to exist the
(23:15):
way it does in here, while wedo require that in other places.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Yeah, isn't that in the literature?
Is there not a literature part?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Not specifically.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I'm making stuff up, then never mind.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yeah, I think there are requirements all over the
place about that.
The laboratory shalldemonstrate adequate care when
recording and processing dataand test results, and shall
demonstrate proper techniquesfor selecting, identifying,
handling, conditioning, storingand retaining test samples A lot
there.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
There is, and I'm not going to help the conversation
with this, but I'm still goingto say it and maybe I'll keep it
, maybe I'll delete it.
But who's defining adequate,proper, those words Like what is
adequate care and what areproper techniques?
So I know proper techniques arelisted in the standard, and
(24:11):
wouldn't that then be thestandard and not need a separate
thing?
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, the hard part about some of this is we've got
standard requirements.
Not all test methods get intothe details about selecting,
identifying, sometimes handling,not always detailed enough.
If there's conditioning,definitely.
If there's storage, not usuallyRetention almost never are
(24:38):
addressed.
So there's a lot of things thatjust aren't addressed in test
methods.
And actually, excuse me, back tothat laboratory temperature
thing that's almost neverdefined in the test method and,
as you know, I'm involved inASTM and AASHTO standards
development activities and whenwe were going through this this
(25:00):
I did talk to other people instandards development.
I said you know, one of thethings that people are asking me
is why doesn't it say it in thetest method?
Like why almost no test methodsays what the room temperature
is supposed to be?
And most of the answers I gotwere well, it's just assumed
it's a laboratory and it's acontrolled environment.
I'm like that, that's what Ithought.
(25:22):
But that doesn't help becausepeople are telling, like I have
some people saying we have nobusiness defining temperature
controls and you're saying youdon't need to define them
because they're understood.
But clearly they're notunderstood because somebody is
disagreeing with 60 to 85 asbeing reasonable, because
(25:43):
somebody's disagreeing with 60to 85 as being reasonable.
So I think that what would begood is if a lot of these
standards developmentorganizations, subcommittee
members, would look at thesethings and say, well, if they do
care about it, put it in there.
But I don't think anybody iscorrect in saying the absence of
a statement means that no onecares about it.
(26:04):
It's just that it was anincorrect assumption, made
collectively.
I would say, by a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
All right, well, this was a very long discussion, as
you said, but do you think thatwe have met the corrective
action?
Do you think this is part, thispart of it?
Okay, so I did talk to ourstaff.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, there's more to it.
I think we have more moretalking to do to other people on
staff, to CCRL staff, and thelast part of my corrective
action is actually to take therecommendation from the
complaint and go to ouroversight committee with it.
So what I want to do is presentthis in a fair, unbiased way.
(26:49):
So I'm going to just take theinformation and I'm going to say
, okay, we had a complaint aboutthis.
This person would like to see achange to the ad procedures
manual.
What do you think change the adprocedures manual?
What do you think?
And based on the result of thatdiscussion, I will follow up
and ballot.
If there's a change needed,we'll ballot it and see where it
goes.
But you know I can't emphasizeenough how important it is for
(27:19):
us to be transparent and howmuch we actually do care about
feedback and we do want to makechanges where it is appropriate
to make them, and that we willdo it in an unbiased way.
Does that sound good?
Speaker 1 (27:30):
That sounds good to me and I did want to put a plug
in as we're preparing for ourannual technical exchange that's
coming up in March 17th throughthe 20th 2025 in Bellevue,
washington, and I will say, asof the recording of this episode
, there is a draft agenda on ourwebsite that is
(27:51):
ashtoresourceorg slash events tocheck out that, and it has some
registration information aswell is now available.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Sounds good.
I hope we see you there.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we are continuing our
discussion today in part two ofthe section 3.5 of the AASHTO
Accreditation Program Manual.
So if you didn't listen to thefirst part, I encourage you to
go back, because you go throughall the background of what the
procedure manual is and how it'sapproved and all that fun stuff
(00:43):
.
But I think we're going to justdive right in to this next one.
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think that's a good idea, and I'm sure people just
could not wait for part two.
Oh, of course.
So the wait is over.
Yes, I know you have tocontinue the conversation.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Unbated breath, I'm sure.
So, yes, so picking up where weleft off.
If I recall correctly, we willbe at, and I know this one has
your favorite words in it, butit is section 3.5.8.
And it says the laboratoryshall be organized in such a way
(01:18):
that confidence in itsindependence of judgment,
integrity and impartiality ismaintained at all times.
And those are like all of yourfavorite words, brian.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
They are, they are.
That sentence has it all.
Confidence judgment, integrity,impartiality.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Some of my favorite words, All of those things.
So let's dive into like thatwhat that actually means.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Yeah, and this definitely falls under the
category of.
I want this one in my backpocket, because if we have an
issue with integrity,falsification of records, I'd
say there's also conflicts ofinterest.
So we do have from time to time, issues where a laboratory may
(02:05):
be have they may have some builtin conflicts of interest.
So like, let's say, it's asupposed to be an independent or
third party testing lab, butthey're owned by the company
that produces the material thatis supposed to have the
impartial testing performed onit.
(02:28):
That is a conflict of interest.
Now, conflict of interest isinherently problematic, but it
does have to be recognized anddealt with.
So if there is a situationwhere a conflict of interest
exists, laboratory has to bereally careful to explain what
that is, how they mitigate it,what is the situation that
(02:50):
exists where the conflict ofinterest is remedied.
And if they can't do that, thenthat's a problem.
And that is also one of thosethings I'd want to bring to our
oversight committee to see ifthey agree, before we just say,
no, you can't be accredited.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
But we have had labs that we've refused accreditation
because of conflicts ofinterest and integrity problems.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Hopefully few and far between.
Yeah, that would be great and Iwould love to have no more of
those if we could, but I knowthat that's not possible.
But we will deal with them aswe find them.
Next one personnel shall havenecessary education, training,
technical knowledge andexperience for their assigned
functions.
Super subjective on that one aswell.
But I think the technicalknowledge and experience, it is
(03:39):
shown by performance right.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah, can you do your job?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
If you can do your job, then great.
I think education has been areal tough one for us over the
years because there arerequirements for biographical
sketches, for example in R18, toinclude educational experience.
Some people don't really have alot of education.
That may be because ofcircumstances, that they're
(04:06):
dealt with right.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, formal education, you mean.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Formal yes, formal education, and it doesn't
necessarily indicate that theirjob performance is going to be
impaired in any way.
So I think that you know, if Iwere to be able to make a
unilateral decision on that,they don't view that as
something that doesn't make orbreak them.
You know that doesn't definethem, so they don't really want
(04:53):
to put that on there, and I kindof agree with that If they're
doing a good job.
And I mean, what does it matterfor accreditation if they put
that on their biographicalsketch or not?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yeah, I would say, in this scenario, education and
training are kind of synonymous,where, because you're like, are
you trained to do it, like, doyou have the knowledge to do it?
That's all we care about forthe most part.
Right, that's right.
So I don't know, maybe it'sjust the definition of education
as well.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, that is true, because there's all kinds of
education.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yes, there definitely is.
So are we going in order of allof these?
I didn't know if we were goingin specific order we were.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I was going to skip around, but we're kind of
plowing through it.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Yeah, okay, so we're at 3.5 points Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I think I'm going to jump over.
Okay, good.
I'm going to skip a couple Well,I'm not.
One is about reporting resultsaccurately, objectively and
without bias.
That's more of what we alreadytalked about.
A good laboratory has to havegood organizational practices
and have good housekeeping, sothat's one of those.
(05:54):
You know, if we go to alaboratory that's just trashed
and not well maintained and itaffects their testing, then that
could be something we wouldwrite.
Workload has to be consistentwith their equipment.
I think that has a coupleaspects of it, some just about
having appropriate equipment tohandle the workload, which we
(06:16):
wouldn't be able to tell.
But also if they were trying tobe accredited for something
that they don't even have theequipment of.
We wouldn't want that.
So I think that would fall intothat category, and just under
the test method.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Yeah, yeah, could they?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
you know, I said that you, yeah, yeah, you would
think.
They would say how could I getaccredited for this?
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I don't even have the equipment and yet people try
something well, I mean in myhead it's like let them pay for
that, to be assessed on that,but they're not going to get
accredited without no, theywon't, they won't so like why
does it like anyway go?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
ahead.
Great question.
That's a great question.
I wish I had the answer to it Ithink sometimes people, uh, they
plan to have things before acertain date and they just don't
show up on time and like thatcan be an impairment, but that's
not really indicative of theirproblem.
Yeah, it's just that they gotahead of themselves.
But the fact remains we have tocome back when you have it,
(07:09):
because we can't really watchyou do something with nothing.
Yeah, we've also had people saycan I just rent everything?
And no, you can't, like we, youwant to be accredited.
You have to be an actualtesting laboratory with
equipment and personnel and allof that stuff.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
It would never even occur to me to ask if I could
just rent the equipment.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yeah, some people, they have this idea that this is
a real chicken egg problem.
You know like I have to beaccredited before I can do any
(07:54):
work.
You know like I have to beaccredited before I can do any
work.
So can you just accredit mebased on my intentions?
And no, we cannot.
So I mean, even if you have todo work that's not accredited,
work until you get your feet wet.
And in certain areas where Ithink that the specifying
agencies really have tounderstand that you can't just
automatically snap your fingersand get accredited, some of the
(08:26):
airport authorities kind ofstruggle with this, where
they'll have a contract and theymight have like a multi-year
contract to work on airportfacilities and they'll say, okay
, well, this person won thecontract.
We expect on day one for them tomove in and be accredited.
But it can't work that way.
So while they're moving in,while they're transitioning
staff, while they're doing allthese things, they can't all,
they can't have us there whilethat's all happening.
So they have to get set up,kind of work out the bugs and
(08:47):
make sure everything's operatingproperly.
Then they can get theirassessment and then it takes
time for them to resolve issuesand then they get accredited.
So what would be appropriatefor those agencies is to give a
certain time frame in which thelaboratory can obtain the
accreditation once they takehold of that contract.
(09:07):
Next one that we're going totalk about is labs have to pay
all the fees for services.
That's pretty obvious, but itis a requirement because we
aren't going to just accreditwithout people paying for the
services.
(09:41):
And that is, does that includenot just the accreditation
invoices from AASHTO Resource?
Or yeah, from AASHTO Resource,right?
So whoever provides theirassessments or proficiency
samples, if it leads to AASHTOaccreditation, they have to
fulfill their obligation to paythose bills as well, Because if
they can not continue to receivethose services, then they can't
(10:03):
maintain their accreditation.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Going on.
The next one I'm seeing hasmultiple parts.
The other ones were prettystraightforward and so let's
dive into 3.5.14.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Okay, 3.5.14 is the last section in this, the last
subsection in this section, andit says for those test methods
for which the laboratory isseeking accreditation,
laboratory has to maintainfacilities for proper control of
the laboratory environment.
Laboratory has to maintainfacilities for storage, handling
(10:36):
and conditioning of testspecimens and samples.
Laboratory has to maintainnecessary calibration equipment
and reference standards.
So that would be like if youstandardize your own ovens and
bath temperatures andthermometers, you'd have to have
a reference thermometer, forexample.
Laboratory has to maintainfacilities and equipment
(10:57):
conforming to specificationrequirements necessary for
testing.
So that we're getting into alot of like r18 app procedures
manual crossover here that'swhat I was actually just
thinking of.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Why is this in the procedures manual and not in an
actual standard?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
that is a good question and I think some of
this stuff could get get removed, uh, from the app procedures
manual, uh.
The next one is the one thathas created and this was kind of
the cause of the disruption forthis particular customer that
kind of prompted this correctiveaction episode, and it is that
(11:38):
the laboratory has to have testareas, energy sources, lighting,
heating, cooling andventilation necessary to
facilitate performance of tests.
And then it says the testingenvironment when workers are
present in normally occupiedspaces inside facilities fixed,
mobile or temporary shall bemaintained at 60 to 85 degrees
(11:59):
Celsius.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Question about that real quick.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
How was that range determined the 60 to 80
fahrenheit?
Speaker 2 (12:09):
so the original ballot for this item uh did
include.
So the original text hadheating but not cooling in it.
So that ballot item includedcooling and then it also added
this idea of what a reasonablelaboratory temperature would be.
(12:31):
The reason is because we haveheating and cooling but really
no parameters, so it's kind ofhard to tell what you're even
talking about there.
Yeah, and I went back andlooked at the actual valid item
and it just vaguely said thatthis is recommended temperature
(12:52):
range for a professionallaboratory setting.
That should be able.
You know that that's kind of theend of the rationale, but the
idea is that a laboratory thatmaintains this I mean this is a
wide range, 60, 85c should beable to control temperatures for
(13:13):
all the tests that are in ourprogram.
So like, let's say, they have abath that maintains a certain
temperature this is not going tobe too high or too low from
what's expected in there,whereby they couldn't achieve
that temperature.
But the thought is, if theystart getting too far beyond
like below 60 or above 85,starts getting harder to
(13:36):
maintain those temperatures fortests, um, I would say materials
might not act the way they'resupposed to act, especially if
you've got any sort of viscositytesting going on well, yeah,
and temperature is such animportant part of the testing,
like in so many tests, like theyrequire, like there's it's
temperature specific of like.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
So it makes sense to me that the room should be, you
know, not too far out of those.
You know, like, make itpossible to run those tests
within those temperatures.
But also, just selfishly, as aworker, I would not want to work
in a building not too far outof those.
You know, like, make itpossible to run those tests
within those temperatures.
But also, just selfishly, as aworker, I would not want to work
in a building that was only 60degrees.
I could be just my warm bloodnot wanting that cold air.
(14:18):
But also 85, you know 85, Idon't want to work in it.
I'm going to say my, mydexterity is going to be
different in all of thosesituations, at the extremes as
well.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So Absolutely so.
So what I explained to thisperson is that equipment,
materials and people are notnecessarily going to operate
according to the standard.
Uh, when you start getting intoextreme temperatures, and
that's extreme heat and extremecold, um, the dexterity thing I
(14:47):
think takes it.
It really shows that thetemperatures that are cold oh
yeah uh, and we've seen it.
We have had laboratories try toget accredited.
They do not have any temperaturecontrols and it is just too
cold, uh, and you and you see it, because they can't run the
tests, yeah, but for for them to, let let's say, we didn't have
(15:07):
any requirement like this andthey somehow were able to cobble
together things that one timefor the two days and two to
three years to be able to getthe temperatures right, I don't
have a lot of confidence if theydon't really have any controls
(15:27):
whatsoever.
I don't have a lot of confidence, as the accreditation body,
that they're going to keep upwith this when we're not there
on top of them.
So we really need to make surethat, as the accrediting body,
we have confidence that thelaboratories are going to be
able to keep up with everythingyou know, maintain all the tests
, demonstrations or performance,the way that they're supposed
(15:49):
to be carried out in standards,and it really, if we don't have
the confidence in that, then thelaboratory might not qualify
for accreditation.
So this laboratory temperaturerange, you know, while I would
say it, you know, justly hassome questions about.
You know, like you're asking,like, where do these
temperatures come from?
(16:10):
Right, there wasn't anindependent laboratory study to
determine when dexterity startsto falter or when the material
you know, every material that'sin our program starts to
change its viscosity or or oryou know starts to fall apart.
You know there was.
There was not a study done likethat, so I don't have any
(16:32):
numbers for people on that and I.
But I would also argue that atbeing in standards development
this long, just about everythingstarts out as an arbitrary
number.
People pick a number and itworks, and they go with it, and
then other things build on that.
They get years of data showingthat, yes, that was the right
temperature.
Maybe it was wrong, so let'sballot a change.
(16:52):
So that happens too.
So I don't want people to gettoo bent out of shape about
maybe 60 wasn't the right numberfor the low, maybe 60 wasn't
the right number for the low,maybe 85 wasn't the right number
for the high.
But I will tell you one thingthat the other question that
comes out of this one that Ithink is a good one is why does
it say when workers are presentin normally occupied spaces?
(17:16):
Is that?
You know, one of the questionsthat we get is like why does
ashto have like an osharequirement in here about
workers?
And I want to tell people wherethat came from.
It is not an osha safety typerequirement.
The original ballot didn't haveanything about that wording in
(17:36):
it, it was just all the timeshould be those temperatures.
Now one of the voters thatsubmitted comments it was a
negative on this said you knowthat there isn't always testing
going on you know in eveningsand weekends, holidays, there
are times when there's notesting.
(17:56):
So, you know, does it make senseto make laboratories expend the
cost of maintaining thosetemperatures when nothing is
going on?
You know, presuming thatcylinder curing is still
maintained according to, youknow, c511, m201 requirements,
whatever other requirements forconditioning may exist, but if
(18:18):
there's nothing going on, dothey still have to maintain that
?
Might be better to allow that,you know, some allowance for
that when there's no work goingon.
So that is where that whenworkers are present language
came from.
So I want to make that veryclear that it is not a OSHA
safety requirement.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
So is this one of the things, if we go back to the
very beginning of theconversation in section 3.5.1,
that if a laboratory's HVAC orheating and cooling capabilities
go kaput, or that they are, youknow their air conditioner
breaks that they have to lettheir quality analysts know
(18:59):
within 60 days.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Yeah, I mean according to that section.
Yes, they should notify us ifthere's any significant change
in their capabilities of testing.
Where this can be advantageousto the laboratory is if they run
into a long-term problem.
For example, we've had someinstitutional laboratories that
(19:26):
have a hard time maintainingtheir working environment where
they've had to basically go on along pause and not be able to
run tests at all for an extendedperiod of time, and they wanted
that to be identified becausethey were going to miss
proficiency samples.
They had to postpone anassessment and in this case we
actually had to put theiraccreditation and suspension for
a while while they got this allworked out, because it took a
(19:49):
lot longer than the 60 dayperiod and that actually allowed
them a time to get things rightand to be able to document that
properly and say you know, weweren't doing work during this
time because we were suspendedand we asked for this allowance
(20:10):
because we couldn't do the workbecause of our environmental
conditions that we were dealingwith, and and they were able to
tell the agencies that theyreport to about this and have it
all documented and kind of, Iguess, make sure that they were
shown to do things the right way, which adds to the confidence
level of that agency that isoverseeing them.
(20:33):
So at the end of the day, itworked out for them to be able
to do that.
I know a lot of our laboratoriescan't just do that.
They can't just say, oh, we'regoing to be out of business for
three months and still actuallybe in business as a business.
So I think it probably is lesslikely to be a long-term
situation for a place like that.
You know, small business, theyusually jump on it right away
(20:56):
and they don't have thecomplications that a large
institution might have.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
I know there's a lot of, you know, seasonal
fluctuation in temperatureswhere perhaps you know in winter
that is not a problem with themaintaining those temperatures,
but in summer it might be a realproblem.
And is there any allowance forthat, or what do we do in those
situations?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
There isn't.
I mean, if they're operating,they're expected to adhere to
these requirements.
One thing I would say that wedon't do and I think this is
kind of what your question kindof triggered this thought in my
head is that there are labs inthe northern United States that
just shut down in the winter,particularly if they're
producing asphalt mixtures.
There's no paving going on thattime of year.
(21:43):
Where they are, they're snowedin, people are laid off in some
cases or they're doing otherjobs during that time period and
we have not required them toget suspended in those cases
because they're not operating.
And I'm torn on that because,while I think it might make
(22:06):
sense, I think that it wouldhave to be some other name for
it other than suspension, like aseasonal shutdown.
Yeah, because no one in thatarea is operating, so it's not
really like competitors arereally taking advantage of
taking advantage of this at thatpoint, like it doesn't really
impact anything.
But I also wouldn't want themto not be able to bid on
contracts for the spring, whenthey are going to be operating,
(22:29):
because they're just shut downand everybody's shut down.
But I think it would be good ifwe could address that somehow.
I don't know exactly what thatwould look like at this point,
though.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
So is there anything else about that 3.5.14e that we
want to talk about anymore, orshould we go on?
Because I know this sectionsubsection of this section goes
down to I, I believe, and we'reat E.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
So what else it does.
It does.
They're just more about, youknow, work environment.
You know testing environmenthas to not adversely affect the
test results.
They have to monitor, controland record environmental
conditions as appropriate.
They have to demonstrate thecapability of performing tests
in accordance with the currentversion of the test
specifications.
That's kind of another one thatI'm not sure needs to exist the
(23:15):
way it does in here, while wedo require that in other places.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Yeah, isn't that in the literature?
Is there not a literature part?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Not specifically.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I'm making stuff up, then never mind.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yeah, I think there are requirements all over the
place about that.
The laboratory shalldemonstrate adequate care when
recording and processing dataand test results, and shall
demonstrate proper techniquesfor selecting, identifying,
handling, conditioning, storingand retaining test samples A lot
there.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
There is, and I'm not going to help the conversation
with this, but I'm still goingto say it and maybe I'll keep it
, maybe I'll delete it.
But who's defining adequate,proper, those words Like what is
adequate care and what areproper techniques?
So I know proper techniques arelisted in the standard, and
(24:11):
wouldn't that then be thestandard and not need a separate
thing?
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, the hard part about some of this is we've got
standard requirements.
Not all test methods get intothe details about selecting,
identifying, sometimes handling,not always detailed enough.
If there's conditioning,definitely.
If there's storage, not usuallyRetention almost never are
(24:38):
addressed.
So there's a lot of things thatjust aren't addressed in test
methods.
And actually, excuse me, back tothat laboratory temperature
thing that's almost neverdefined in the test method and,
as you know, I'm involved inASTM and AASHTO standards
development activities and whenwe were going through this this
(25:00):
I did talk to other people instandards development.
I said you know, one of thethings that people are asking me
is why doesn't it say it in thetest method?
Like why almost no test methodsays what the room temperature
is supposed to be?
And most of the answers I gotwere well, it's just assumed
it's a laboratory and it's acontrolled environment.
I'm like that, that's what Ithought.
(25:22):
But that doesn't help becausepeople are telling, like I have
some people saying we have nobusiness defining temperature
controls and you're saying youdon't need to define them
because they're understood.
But clearly they're notunderstood because somebody is
disagreeing with 60 to 85 asbeing reasonable, because
(25:43):
somebody's disagreeing with 60to 85 as being reasonable.
So I think that what would begood is if a lot of these
standards developmentorganizations, subcommittee
members, would look at thesethings and say, well, if they do
care about it, put it in there.
But I don't think anybody iscorrect in saying the absence of
a statement means that no onecares about it.
(26:04):
It's just that it was anincorrect assumption, made
collectively.
I would say, by a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
All right, well, this was a very long discussion, as
you said, but do you think thatwe have met the corrective
action?
Do you think this is part, thispart of it?
Okay, so I did talk to ourstaff.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, there's more to it.
I think we have more moretalking to do to other people on
staff, to CCRL staff, and thelast part of my corrective
action is actually to take therecommendation from the
complaint and go to ouroversight committee with it.
So what I want to do is presentthis in a fair, unbiased way.
(26:49):
So I'm going to just take theinformation and I'm going to say
, okay, we had a complaint aboutthis.
This person would like to see achange to the ad procedures
manual.
What do you think change the adprocedures manual?
What do you think?
And based on the result of thatdiscussion, I will follow up
and ballot.
If there's a change needed,we'll ballot it and see where it
goes.
But you know I can't emphasizeenough how important it is for
(27:19):
us to be transparent and howmuch we actually do care about
feedback and we do want to makechanges where it is appropriate
to make them, and that we willdo it in an unbiased way.
Does that sound good?
Speaker 1 (27:30):
That sounds good to me and I did want to put a plug
in as we're preparing for ourannual technical exchange that's
coming up in March 17th throughthe 20th 2025 in Bellevue,
washington, and I will say, asof the recording of this episode
, there is a draft agenda on ourwebsite that is
(27:51):
ashtoresourceorg slash events tocheck out that, and it has some
registration information aswell is now available.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Sounds good.
I hope we see you there.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.