THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
  wEPA
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                       PROGRAM
                                                 NSF International
                       ETV Joint Verification Statement
    TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
    APPLICATION:
    TECHNOLOGY NAME:
    TEST LOCATION:
    COMPANY:
    ADDRESS:

    WEB SITE:
    EMAIL:
   Infrastructure Rehabilitation Technologies
   Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
   Protective Liner Systems Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (PLS-614)
   University of Houston, CIGMAT

   Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
   6691 Tribble Street
   Lithonia, GA 30058
PHONE: (770) 482-5201
FAX: (770) 484-1821
   http://www.protectivelinersystems.com
   Joseph@protectivelinersystems.com
EPA created the ETV program to facilitate  the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.  The program's goal is to
further environmental protection by  accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective
technologies. ETV seeks  to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology
performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase,  and use of environmental
technologies.

ETV works in  partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations;  stakeholder groups, which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are
responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field  or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results
are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), operates the
Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the  performance of  the Protective Liner Systems PLS-614
epoxy mastic, marketed by Protective Liner Systems, Inc. The PLS-614 coating was tested at the University of
Houston's Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT).
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.

                     VS-i
                   September 2010

-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the Protective Liner Systems coating material (PLS-614) was provided by the
vendor and does not represent verified information.
Protective Liner Systems' PLS-614 is a  100% solids epoxy coating used for structural concrete protection,
rehabilitation and repair, and is designed to be applied by trowel or spray.  The PLS-614 system is formulated to
provide a monolithic structural coating or patch for rehabilitation of concrete structures and protection against
wear, corrosion, infiltration and exfiltration.

VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION - METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The objective of this testing was to evaluate PLS-614 used in wastewater collection systems to control the
deterioration of concrete and clay infrastructure materials.  Specific testing objectives were (1) to evaluate the
acid resistance of PLS-614 coated concrete specimens and clay bricks, both with and without holidays (small
holes  intentionally drilled through the coating and into the  specimens to evaluate chemical resistance), and (2)
determine the bonding strength of PLS-614 to concrete and clay bricks.
Verification testing was conducted using  relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)(1) and
CIGMAT(2) standards, as described below.  Product characterization tests were conducted on the coating
material  and  the uncoated concrete and  clay  specimens to assure uniformity prior to their use in the acid
resistance and bonding strength tests. Protective Liner Systems' representatives were responsible for coating the
concrete and  clay  specimens, under the guidance  of CIGMAT staff members. The coated specimens were
evaluated over the course of six months.

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
(a) Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance
PLS-614 coated concrete cylinders and  clay bricks were tested with and without holidays (small  holes
intentionally drilled through  the  coating)  in deionized (DI) water and a 1% sulfuric acid solution (pH=l).  A
total of 20 coated concrete specimens and 20 coated clay brick specimens were exposed. Specimens were cured
for two weeks prior to creation of 0.12 in. and 0.50 in. holidays. The 0.12 in. holidays were exposed to both DI
water and acid solution, while the 0.50 in. holidays were exposed only to the acid solution.  Observation of the
specimens at  30 and 180 days was made  for changes in appearance such as blistering or cracks in the coating
around the holiday or color changes in the coating.  Control tests were also performed using specimens with no
holidays. A summary of the chemical exposure observations is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations
   Specimen
   Material
   (Coating
   Condition)
      DI Water (days)
 Without          With
 Holidays         Holidays
30     180      30      180
 1% HiSCX. Solution (days)
 Without         With
 Holidays       Holidays
30     180    30     180
Comments
Concrete-Dry     N(2)   N (2)   N(2)    N (2)   N (2)  N (2)   N(4)   N (4)   Color change in coating
                                                                             submerged in acid solution.
Concrete-Wet     N(2)   N (2)   N(2)    N (2)   N (2)  N (2)   N(4)   N (4)   Color change in coating
                                                                             submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick - Dry    N(2)   N (2)   N (2)    N (2)   N(2)  N (2)   N (4)   N (4)   Color change in coating
                                                                             submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick - Wet    N (2)   N(2)   N (2)    N(2)   N (2)  N(2)   N (4)   N(4)   Color change in coating
                                                                             submerged in acid solution.

N = No blister or crack; (n) = Number of specimens.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
       The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.

                              VS-ii
                                     September 2010

-------
A specimen made only of PLS-614 was submerged in water for 10 days, showing no weight change over the
period.  Over an exposure time of 180 days, coated concrete specimens with no holidays showed less than 0.7%
gain in  DI water and acid exposures, as did clay  brick specimens exposed to DI water.  Coated clay brick
exposed to acid showed a 2-7% weight gain. With holidays, coated concrete specimens showed up to 1.2%
weight change, while coated clay brick specimens showed 5-7% gains. Changes in the diameters/dimensions of
the  specimens at the holiday levels were negligible after 180 days of exposure.
(b)  Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method)
Bonding strength tests were performed to determine the bonding strength between the PLS-614 coating and
concrete/clay brick specimens over a period of six months.  Eight sandwich (4 dry-condition, 4 wet-condition)
and sixteen pull-off (8 dry-condition, 8 wet-condition) tests were performed on both coated concrete samples
and coated clay bricks.

Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT 3)
CIGMAT CT 3, a modification of ASTM C321-94, was used for the testing.  PLS-614 was applied to  form a
sandwich between a like pair of rectangular specimens (Figure 1 (a)), both concrete brick and clay brick, and
then tested for bonding strength and failure type following a curing period.  The bonding strength of the coating
was determined using a load frame (Figure 1 (b)) to determine the failure load  and bonding strength (the failure
load divided by the bonded area).  The sandwich bonding tests were completed at 30, 90 and 180 days after
application of the PLS-614.
  (a) Test specimen configuration                          (b) Load frame test setup
                        Figure 1.  Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.

Dry-coated specimens were dried at room conditions for at least seven days before they were coated, while wet-
coated specimens were  immersed in water for at least seven days before the specimens were coated.  Bonded
specimens were cured under water up to the point of testing. The type of failure was also characterized during
the load testing, as described in Table 2.

Pull-Off Method (CIGMAT CT 2)
Per CIGMAT CT 2,  a 2-in. diameter  circle  was cut into  coated concrete  prisms  and clay bricks  to  a
predetermined depth to  isolate the coating, and a metal fixture was glued to the isolated coating section using a
rapid setting epoxy. Testing was completed on a load frame  with the arrangements shown in Figure 2, with
observation of the type of failure, as indicated in Table 2.  The specimens were prepared in the same manner as
for the sandwich test. The specimens were stored under water in plastic containers and the coatings were cored
24 hrs  prior to the testing. The  bonding tests were  completed at 21, 60 and 180 days after application of the
PLS-614. Results of the bonding tests are included in Table 3.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.

                      VS-iii
September 2010

-------
Table 2. Failure Types in Sandwich and Pull-Off Tests

 Failure Type         Description               Sandwich Test
                                                                 Pull-off Test
    Type-1
    Type-2
    Type-3
    Type-4
    Type-5
   Substrate Failure
   Coating Failure
   Bonding Failure
Bonding and Substrate
       Failure
 Bonding and Coating
       Failure
  Concrete/Clay Brick
  ,


  v         I
 Coating ' - '

 Concrete/Clay Brick
    X _
                                              Coating
 Concrete/Clay Brick
    X
                                               Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
    X
                                                      I        I
                                                      ' - '
                           Coating     I       'I




                             Concrete/Clay Brick
                                              Coating
 metal
 fixture
                                                                                               Coating
                                                                                 Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
                                                                                               Coating
                                                                                Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
                                                                                               Coating
                                                              Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
                                                                                               Coating
                                                                                Concrete/Clay Brick
                              metal
                              fixture
                                                                                               Coating
                                                                                Concrete/Clay Brick
               Loading Direction
    Metal Fixture
            Coring  Coating
                    Substrate
                   (a) Specimen preparation                      (b) Load frame arrangement

                         Figure 2. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
         The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.

                                 VS-iv
                                            September 2010

-------
Table 3. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests (12 Specimens for Each Condition)
Substrate -
Application
Condition
Concrete - Dry

Concrete - Wet

Clay Brick - Dry

Clay Brick - Wet

Test1
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Failure Type
1 2
4
1
3
5
4
3
4
3
- Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
345 Range

7
1
3

5

5
232
107
257
190
314
187
338
181
-293
-304
-321
-350
-350
-321
-384
-374
Average
269
205
287
234
335
253
366
264
1  Sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-2/Modified ASTM D 4541-85) or Pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-3/ASTM C 321-94).
2  See Table 2.

(c)  Summary of Verification Results
The performance of the Protective Liner System, Inc. PLS-614 epoxy mastic for use in wastewater collection
systems was evaluated for chemical resistance and the bond of the coating with both wet and dry substrate
materials, made  up of concrete and clay brick. The type of bonding test, whether sandwich test or pull-off
test, impacted the mode of failure and bonding strength for both substrate materials. The testing indicated:
General Observations
   Samples of the coating material alone  showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a 10-day
    period.
   None of the  coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with  or without holidays, showed any indication of
    blisters or cracking during the six-month holiday-chemical  resistance tests.
   There were no observed changes in the dimensions of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens at the
    holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
   All 48 of the bonding tests resulted in substrate and substrate/bonding failures, with 27 substrate failures
    (Type-1) and 21 bonding/substrate failures (Type-4).
Concrete Substrate
   Weight gain  was < 0.60% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
   Weight gain was <  1.5% for any of the coated specimens with  holidays for both water and  acid
    exposures.
   Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (7 of 12) bonding and concrete substrate (Type -4) failures,
    with the remainder being concrete substrate (Type-1) failures.
   Average tensile  bonding strength for  dry-coated concrete  specimens was 226 psi,  with individual
    specimens ranging from 107 to 304 psi.
   Wet-coated  concrete failures were mostly (8 of 12) concrete  substrate (Type-1)  failures, with the
    remainder being bonding and concrete substrate (Type-4) failures.
   Average tensile  bonding strength for  wet-coated concrete  specimens was 252 psi,  with individual
    specimens ranging from 190 to 350 psi.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.

                    VS-v
September 2010

-------
Clay Brick Substrate
   Without holidays, weight gain was < 0.45% for water exposed coated clay brick specimens; weight gain
    for acid exposed coated clay brick specimens was about 2-7%.
   With holidays,  weight gains were  > 5% for water exposed  specimens and generally > 6% for acid
    exposed specimens; the holiday size did not make a significant difference in weight gain.
   Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly  (7 of  12) clay brick substrate (Type -1)  failures, with the
    remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
   Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated  clay brick specimens was 280  psi, with  individual
    specimens  ranging from 187 to 350 psi.
   Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1) failures, with
    the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
   Average tensile bonding strength with-wet coated clay brick was  286 psi,  with individual  specimens
    ranging from 181 to 384 psi.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF completed a technical systems audit prior to the start of testing to ensure that CIGMAT was equipped to
comply with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10% of the test data to ensure
that the reported data represented the data generated during testing.

     Original signed by                                  Original signed by
     Sally Gutierrez	October 6, 2010         Robert Ferguson	November 2, 2010
     Sally Gutierrez                   Date             Robert Ferguson               Date
     Director                                            Vice President
     National Risk Management Research Laboratory     Water Systems
     Office of Research and Development                NSF International
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
    NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and
    the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance
    of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for
    complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or
    commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an
    NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
        Availability of Supporting Documents
        Referenced Documents:
        1)   Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated Products and Applied
            Coatings, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
        2)   CIGMAT Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Coating Materials, available from the University of Houston,
            Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, Houston, TX.
        Copies of the Test Plan for Verification of Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Coating for Wastewater
        Collection Systems (March 2009), the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report
        Number 10/34/WQPC-SWP) are available from:
            ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy)
            NSF International
            P.O. Box 130140
            Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
        NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/erv (electronic copy)
        EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)	
10/35/WQPC-SWP            The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.       September 2010

                                                VS-vi

-------