Blog

If you work around cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), you’ve probably heard the debate: should you “robotically reinstate” every connection immediately, or should you keep the liner continuous and address connections with a gapping / connection-sealing approach tailored to the site? The practical answer is that both methods can be appropriate—what matters is the project’s goals (watertightness, debris control, hydraulic performance, downtime), the pipe geometry, and the specification you’re building to.What tends to get lost is this: CIPP standards and industry specifications put heavy emphasis on liner integrity and leak performance. For example, ASTM International NASSCO commonly describe a “continuous” finished liner in workmanship terms—free from dry spots, lifts, and delaminations—because those are the defects that actually compromise the pipe-within-a-pipe. (<a href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html" data-mce-href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html">ASTM 1743</a>)WHAT “GAPPING” MEANS IN PRACTICE (AND WHY IT’S NOT “CUTTING CORNERS”)In CIPP field practice, “gapping” usually refers to keeping the liner continuous through a run and handling service connections deliberately—often by (a) reinstating only confirmed active connections, (b) sealing/rehabilitating main-to-lateral interfaces with connection lining systems (top hat/full wrap, etc.), or (c) using a two-step approach where the lateral is lined/terminated near the mainline and then a connection liner is installed to provide the seal. (<a data-mce-href="https://nassco.org/trenchless-technology/rehabilitation/pipe-rehabilitation/?scLang=en" href="https://nassco.org/trenchless-technology/rehabilitation/pipe-rehabilitation/?scLang=en">NASSCO</a>)This approach aligns with the core performance objective repeated across many trenchless specifications: a continuous, tight-fitting liner that functions as a jointless, watertight “new pipe within a pipe.”WHY A CONTINUOUS LINER IS OFTEN SAFER FOR WATERTIGHTNESSEvery time you cut an opening through a newly installed monolithic liner, you are introducing a deliberate discontinuity at a location that can be sensitive to infiltration/inflow (I/I) tracking if details are not executed well. An industry paper on defect coding describes this directly: when lining is intended to reduce I/I, cutting openings can create a pathway for water to travel between the liner and host pipe into the system. (<a href="https://pipemedic.com/pdfs/cured-in-place-pipe-minimizing-risk-by-defect-coding.pdf" data-mce-href="https://pipemedic.com/pdfs/cured-in-place-pipe-minimizing-risk-by-defect-coding.pdf">North American Society for Trenchless Technology 2007 No-Dig Conference &amp; Exhibition </a>)By contrast, a gapping/connection-sealing strategy can preserve “monolithic” continuity where that is the priority, while still delivering sealed connections using purpose-built connection sealing systems. NASSCO’s lateral seal specification guideline, for example, describes systems intended to create a continuous, tight-fitting, watertight seal at the lateral-to-mainline interface to prevent leakage, root intrusion, infiltration, and exfiltration.Also, where termination fit is the issue (ends, transitions, or cut-back areas), ASTM International’s F1743 text explicitly contemplates sealing the liner circumference at termination points if it does not fit tightly—i.e., sealing details matter, and sealing is part of workmanship. (<a data-mce-href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html" href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html">ASTM 1743</a>)WHY GAPPING IS OFTEN MORE COST-EFFECTIVERobotic reinstatement can be an excellent tool, but it is equipment-intensive and operator-skill dependent. Trenchless Technology notes that robotic cutters are high-precision and fast, but typically require advanced training and come with higher purchase and maintenance costs. (<a data-mce-href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/" href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/">Trenchless Technology</a>)A gapping/connection-sealing approach can reduce (or better target) cutter time, minimize the number of cut operations, and shift effort toward planned sealing/rehab steps that are directly tied to watertightness and long-term performance—especially on runs with many laterals where “cutting everything” is not the real project goal.ROBOTIC REINSTATEMENT: WHY IT CAN LEAVE LEDGES (AND WHY THAT MATTERS)Robotic reinstatement works by mechanically cutting an opening through the cured liner. If the cut is not aligned, not finished, or is impeded by resin buildup, the opening can end up with rough edges, partial obstructions, or a lip/ledge that catches debris.This is not hypothetical—many project specifications anticipate the risk and require a smooth finish. For example, the City of North Port CIPP specification requires service openings to have smooth edges with no protruding material capable of hindering flow or catching debris. (<a data-mce-href="https://www.northportfl.gov/files/assets/main/v/1/city-services-amp-safety/utilities/utilities-specifications-and-details/npu-standard-specs-2024/336084-cure-in-place-pipe-lining.pdf" href="https://www.northportfl.gov/files/assets/main/v/1/city-services-amp-safety/utilities/utilities-specifications-and-details/npu-standard-specs-2024/336084-cure-in-place-pipe-lining.pdf">northportfl.gov</a>)Industry guidance also flags common field challenges. Trenchless Technology describes “resin slugs” (excess resin hardened in lateral connections) as a reinstatement challenge and notes they can hinder robotic cutters, including situations where cutters may not reach fully up the lateral connection. (<a data-mce-href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/" href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/">Trenchless Technology</a>) When a cutter can’t reach or the cut isn’t properly finished, you’re more likely to be left with an imperfect opening.Likewise, NASSCO’s CIPP specification guideline contemplates that service connections can be over-cut or under-cut and states those conditions must be properly repaired to meet specification requirements—another acknowledgment that reinstatement quality can vary and needs controls.This is the core “ledge” issue: a robotic cut is a machining operation in a confined environment. If it’s not executed to a smooth, flush standard, it can become a debris and maintenance problem, even if the liner itself is structurally sound.WHEN EACH OPTION MAKES SENSEGapping / connection-sealing tends to shine when:• The priority is minimizing I/I pathways and preserving a continuous liner where feasible. <a href="https://pipemedic.com/pdfs/cured-in-place-pipe-minimizing-risk-by-defect-coding.pdf" data-mce-href="https://pipemedic.com/pdfs/cured-in-place-pipe-minimizing-risk-by-defect-coding.pdf">(North American Society for Trenchless Technology 2007 No-Dig Conference &amp; Exhibition )</a> • There are many laterals and the project benefits from a planned, consistent sealing method rather than hundreds of individual cuts. • You want to reduce cutter time/cost and the associated variability in cut quality. (<a data-mce-href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/" href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/">Trenchless Technology</a>)Robotic reinstatement tends to shine when:• Confirmed active laterals must be reopened immediately to restore service. (<a data-mce-href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/" href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/">Trenchless Technology</a>) • The specification requires a defined reinstatement percentage/shape, with QA/QC and repair requirements for over/under-cut openings. • The contractor has experienced operators and the pipe conditions are favorable (good access, minimal resin slugs, manageable protrusions). (<a data-mce-href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/" href="https://trenchlesstechnology.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lateral-reinstatements/">Trenchless Technology</a>)The bigger point: reputable industry guidance recognizes that “no two projects are the same,” and that technology selection should be driven by the safest, longest-lasting, and most cost-effective method for the actual conditions. (<a data-mce-href="https://nassco.org/trenchless-technology/rehabilitation/pipe-rehabilitation/?scLang=en" href="https://nassco.org/trenchless-technology/rehabilitation/pipe-rehabilitation/?scLang=en">NASSCO</a>)BOTTOM LINE: A CONTINUOUS LINER IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUGIf your project’s success is defined by watertight performance and long-term reliability, preserving liner continuity and using a deliberate connection sealing strategy can be a highly effective approach. “Continuous” in workmanship terms is about liner integrity (free from dry spots, lifts, delaminations), and modern specifications repeatedly emphasize leak resistance, sealed interfaces, and quality-controlled finishing—whether you reinstate robotically, gap strategically, or combine methods. (<a data-mce-href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html" href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html">ASTM 1743</a>)

CIPP “Gapping” vs. Robotic Reinstatement: When a Continuous Liner (or, "Gapping") Is the Safer, Cleaner Choice

Mechanical engineer wearing safety uniform checking and inspection pipeline .

Case Study: Ensuring Safety and Compliance in Urban Pipe LiningUrban pipe lining projects live at the intersection of construction safety, environmental compliance, traffic control, and public-facing risk. In dense corridors—tight rights-of-way, mixed-use buildings, schools and hospitals nearby, constant pedestrian flow—technical success (a structurally sound liner) is only half the job. The other half is running a worksite that is demonstrably safe, documentable, and compliant.This case study is intentionally anonymized and written as a composite of common urban conditions. The point is to show a repeatable approach: how a project team can plan, execute, and document a cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lining job so that worker protection, public safety, and environmental controls are built into the method—not bolted on after the fact.Project snapshot: the “urban corridor” problem The work involved rehabilitating a gravity sewer segment serving multiple buildings along a high-traffic commercial street. Constraints included:• Minimal staging space: equipment and materials had to fit into a small footprint without blocking driveways or sidewalks. • High exposure risk: pedestrians, cyclists, and adjacent tenants were present throughout the work window. • Confined spaces: access through manholes and work around live sewer lines. Confined-space hazards are explicitly identified by OSHA as life-threatening and require disciplined controls.&nbsp; • Chemical and vapor considerations: resin handling, curing processes, odor and vapor management (including styrene, when applicable).&nbsp; • Wastewater control: bypass pumping, management of cleaning water and process water, and stormwater protection.&nbsp; • Temporary traffic control (TTC): lane closures, sidewalk routing, and night work. TTC expectations are covered in Part 6 of the MUTCD.The compliance framework used to design the job Instead of treating “compliance” as a checklist at the end, the team mapped the work plan to specific regulatory and consensus standards at the start. The exact set varies by jurisdiction and contract, but these are widely used anchors in the U.S.:A. Worker safety (core OSHA topics that reliably apply to pipe lining work) • Confined spaces (construction): 29 CFR 1926 Subpart AA and its general requirements, including pre-entry identification by a competent person.&nbsp; • Respiratory protection: 29 CFR 1910.134 (written program, selection, medical evaluation, fit testing, training, storage).&nbsp; • Hazard communication / SDS management: 29 CFR 1910.1200 and Appendix D for SDS content expectations.&nbsp; • Lockout/tagout (when servicing/maintenance creates unexpected energization risk): 29 CFR 1910.147.B. Public safety and roadway interface • Temporary traffic control: MUTCD Part 6 “Temporary Traffic Control” and associated TTC planning concepts.C. Environmental protection (stormwater and discharges) • NPDES permit basics and construction stormwater expectations (at the federal level via U.S. EPA, and then implemented through state/local permitting).&nbsp; • Stormwater BMPs and preventing sanitary sewage contamination (including discussion of lining/CIPP as a rehab approach).D. Technical / QA standards for lining and inspection • Consensus practice standards for CIPP installation methods (commonly specified in contracts), including ASTM International standards such as F1216 (inversion) and F1743 (pulled-in-place).&nbsp; • Industry specification guidance and inspection training resources from NASSCO, including its CIPP specification guideline and inspector training/certification information.E. If potable water is involved (not always the case, but common in “urban renewal” programs) • Material health-effects standards such as NSF / ANSI 61 (drinking water contact).&nbsp; • Water-industry standards like AWWA guidance for polymeric linings, where relevant to the chosen rehab technology.Pre-construction planning that prevented “field improvisation” The most consequential safety/compliance decisions happened before mobilization.A. A permit-and-constraint matrix (one page, kept current) The team built a short matrix that identified: (i) required permits/authorizations (ROW/lane closures, bypass pumping approvals, discharge or dewatering requirements, noise windows), (ii) who owned each permit condition, and (iii) what evidence would be retained (photos, logs, inspection signoffs).B. Job hazard analysis tied to work steps (not generic) Instead of a broad “CIPP hazards” sheet, the JHA was step-based:Mobilization and work-zone setup Manhole access / entry decision (no entry vs entry) Cleaning and CCTV Bypass pumping and flow control Wet-out, transport, and installation Cure Cooldown, reinstatement/service connections (method-specific) Demobilization and final CCTV Each step listed hazards, controls, and “stop-work triggers” (for example: atmospheric readings out of range; odor complaints indicating a potential containment failure; traffic-control device displacement). C. Chemical review: SDS-driven controls, not assumptions Because the hazard communication standard is designed to ensure hazards are classified and communicated to workers, the team treated SDS management as an operational control: current SDS on site, confirm required PPE, handling procedures, spill response, storage limits, and compatibility.D. Odor/vapor plan, including styrene awareness where applicable If styrene-bearing resins are used, the team anchored decisions to exposure-limit references rather than “odor alone.” NIOSH provides a concise pocket guide entry for styrene including REL/STEL context and references to OSHA PELs.&nbsp; Practical controls included: placement of exhaust away from building air intakes, cure scheduling, restricting access to exhaust zones, and documenting actions taken in response to any complaints.Execution: how safety and compliance were built into the field workflow A. Work zone and pedestrian management (the “urban multiplier”) In cities, the public interface is often the highest-frequency risk. The team treated TTC as a living system, not a one-time setup: initial installation per MUTCD principles, then periodic checks and re-checks (especially after deliveries, weather, or shifting equipment footprints).Key practices: • Keep a dedicated “TTC owner” on each shift with authority to pause production work to restore devices. • Maintain ADA-conscious pedestrian routing (stable surfaces, clear signage, no surprise closures). • Document TTC setups with time-stamped photos at shift start and after any significant change.B. Confined-space discipline (decide early: “entry” or “no entry”) Many tasks can be structured to avoid entry. When entry was necessary, the team applied the construction confined-space framework: competent person identification, evaluation/testing as necessary, and permit-space procedures where triggered.&nbsp; Even when “no entry” was planned, manhole work still demanded atmospheric awareness, rescue planning, and clear role assignments (attendant/entrant/supervisor roles as applicable).C. Respiratory protection as a program, not a mask Where respiratory hazards were reasonably anticipated, controls followed 29 CFR 1910.134’s program logic (selection, training, fit testing, storage, maintenance).&nbsp; This matters in audits and in incident investigations: you want to show that respirator use was part of an established program rather than an ad hoc decision.D. Environmental controls: wastewater, stormwater, and “don’t create a second problem” Urban work often puts you close to storm drains, waterways, and sensitive receptors. The plan treated any discharge pathway as a compliance event: contain, filter/treat if required, and discharge only under an applicable authorization.To keep the approach grounded, the team used EPA’s framing of NPDES permits: permits set pollutant/parameter expectations and may require BMPs; the operator chooses the technologies and methods to meet those expectations.&nbsp; For construction-related stormwater, EPA describes baseline permit requirements and the “C&amp;D rule” concept for minimum effluent limitations.&nbsp; And EPA’s BMP document on preventing stormwater contamination from sanitary sewage is useful because it explicitly acknowledges lining/CIPP as a rehabilitation approach in practice.Common field controls used: • Secondary containment for resin containers and fuels. • Spill kits staged at the work zone and at the wet-out area. • Inlet protection and housekeeping around storm drains. • Documented handling of cleaning water and any process water (capture, storage, disposal pathway). • “No dumping” rule reinforced in tailgate meetings.Quality assurance: compliance is easier when quality is measurable QA is not just about product performance; it is also how you demonstrate that work complied with specifications and recognized practices.A. Standards alignment (what the crew was building to) When contracts referenced ASTM practice standards like F1216 and F1743, the team explicitly mapped installation steps (wet-out control, inversion/pull-in technique, curing method) to those practices.&nbsp; Separately, the team used industry guidance like NASSCO’s CIPP specification guideline as a practical reference point for common specification elements and expectations.B. Inspection and documentation Inspection was structured so that a third party (owner rep, engineer, inspector) could understand the job without “tribal knowledge”: • Pre-clean CCTV • Post-clean CCTV • Installation logs (time, temperature/cure profile, pressures, equipment settings as relevant) • Post-install CCTV • Deficiency tracking and closeout signoffs Using inspector training frameworks (such as NASSCO’s ITCP program) helped standardize what “good inspection” looked like on site.Results: what “good” looked like in an urban setting For this case study, the team measured success using outcomes that matter to owners, regulators, and the public:• Safety: no recordable injuries; documented confined-space decisions and atmospheric testing; verified respiratory program elements where used.&nbsp; • Public interface: maintained pedestrian access; TTC remained stable and auditable; rapid correction of any device displacement.&nbsp; • Environmental: no uncontrolled discharges; stormwater controls maintained; waste and water-handling documented.&nbsp; • Quality: post-install CCTV met specification expectations and closeout documentation was complete.Practical takeaway: a “minimum viable compliance package” for urban pipe lining If you want a simple, defensible starting point, keep these deliverables together in a single job folder (digital + hard copy on site):1. Permit/constraint matrix (ROW, TTC approvals, discharge/dewatering conditions, work-hour windows). 2. Step-based JHA with stop-work triggers. 3. Confined-space plan aligned to 1926 Subpart AA (and 1910.146 if general industry applies). 4. HazCom binder: SDS + labeling + training confirmation. 5. Respiratory protection program elements where needed. 6. TTC plan and photo log aligned to MUTCD Part 6. 7. Environmental controls plan (stormwater BMPs, containment, disposal pathway). 8. QA/QC package: CCTV, cure logs, inspection checklists, deficiency closeout. A final note: none of the above replaces jurisdiction-specific permit conditions or contract specifications. But in practice, this framework makes it much easier to (i) prevent incidents, (ii) respond coherently if something goes wrong, and (iii) prove, after the fact, that the project was executed responsibly and in alignment with recognized standards.SOURCES:<a href="https://www.osha.gov/confined-spaces-construction" data-mce-href="https://www.osha.gov/confined-spaces-construction">https://www.osha.gov/confined-spaces-construction</a><a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartAA" data-mce-href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartAA">https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartAA</a><a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1203" data-mce-href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1203">https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1203</a><a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134" data-mce-href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134">https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134</a><a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200">https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200</a><a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.147">https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.147</a><a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-I/section-1910.134">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-I/section-1910.134</a><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0571.html">https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0571.html</a><a href="https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-basics">https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-basics</a><a href="https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities">https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities</a><a href="https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater-construction">https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater-construction</a><a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/bmp-preventing-stormwater-contamination-from-sanitary-sewage.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/bmp-preventing-stormwater-contamination-from-sanitary-sewage.pdf</a><a href="https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/part6.pdf">https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/part6.pdf</a><a href="https://www.astm.org/f1216-22.html">https://www.astm.org/f1216-22.html</a><a href="https://nassco.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NASSCO-CIPP-Specification-Guideline_2023-1.pdf">https://nassco.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NASSCO-CIPP-Specification-Guideline_2023-1.pdf</a><a href="https://nassco.org/education-and-training/itcp/?scLang=en">https://nassco.org/education-and-training/itcp/?scLang=en</a><a href="https://www.nsf.org/knowledge-library/nsf-ansi-standard-61-drinking-water-system-components-health-effects">https://www.nsf.org/knowledge-library/nsf-ansi-standard-61-drinking-water-system-components-health-effects</a><a href="https://store.awwa.org/AWWA-C620-19-Spray-in-Place-Polymeric-Lining-for-Potable-Water-Pipelines-4-In.-100-mm-and-Larger" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">https://store.awwa.org/AWWA-C620-19-Spray-in-Place-Polymeric-Lining-for-Potable-Water-Pipelines-4-In.-100-mm-and-Larger﻿</a>

Case Study: Ensuring Safety and Compliance in Urban Pipe Lining

If you’ve heard someone argue that “gapping” is inherently unsafe or “not allowed,” you’re usually hearing a word problem, not an engineering problem. In the field, “gapping” is commonly used to describe stop-and-start sequencing: lining in phases, lining reach-by-reach, and working around operational constraints (occupied buildings, limited shutdown windows, access limitations, bypass pumping needs).The real issue is not what you call it. The issue is whether the finished liner quality meets the governing installation practice. For pulled-in-place cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), the central practice is ASTM F1743, which describes installation of a resin-impregnated fabric tube pulled into an existing conduit and inflated via a calibration hose before curing.WHAT ASTM F1743 ACTUALLY REQUIRES: “CONTINUOUS” AS A QUALITY OUTCOMEASTM F1743 uses “continuous” in two related ways.First, it describes the cured result as “continuous and tight fitting.”Second—and this is the part that matters for the “continuous means what?” debate—ASTM F1743’s workmanship language treats “continuous” as a workmanship/acceptance condition: the finished CIPP should be continuous over the entire length of an installation and free of dry spots, lifts, and delaminations.ASTM F1743 also defines the defect terms so everyone is talking about the same thing. A “dry spot” is an area deficient or devoid of resin, “delamination” is separation of layers, and a “lift” is a portion of CIPP departing from the host wall creating reverse curvature.In other words: “continuous” is not a slogan. It’s tied to finished-liner integrity and the absence of recognized defect conditions.WHAT “GAPPING / STOP-AND-START” MEANS IN PRACTICEIn real projects, stop-and-start usually means one or more of the following:Sequenced installations. The contractor lines one reach during a controlled shutdown window, restores service, then lines the next reach in a later window. Reach-by-reach work between access points. The project is broken into manageable segments based on cleanouts, manholes, bends, or building access constraints. Operational constraints management. Bypass pumping, temporary flow control, and occupant communications are used to line without creating backups or extended downtime. None of that conflicts with ASTM F1743. It’s simply project sequencing. The controlling question remains whether each installed CIPP section meets ASTM F1743 workmanship: continuous over the installation length and free from dry spots, lifts, and delaminations.WHY STOP-AND-START CIPP IS SAFESafety with CIPP comes from control: trained crews, correct equipment, correct resin handling, correct cure protocols, and verification. ASTM F1743 explicitly recognizes that atmospheric hazards may exist in access structures and directs users to evaluate for toxic/flammable vapors or oxygen deficiency before entry, consistent with applicable safety requirements.Stop-and-start sequencing can improve safety because it reduces “all at once” pressure. Crews can isolate one reach, control the work area, manage bypassing and access, complete curing, verify results, and then move to the next reach with documented lessons learned.WHY STOP-AND-START CIPP IS EFFECTIVEEffectiveness means the rehabilitation performs in the ways owners actually care about: reduced leakage, improved flow reliability, corrosion resistance, and (where designed) structural renewal.ASTM F1743 is designed for rehabilitation across a broad set of applications (including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, process piping, conduits, and ventilation systems), which is another way of saying it’s a mainstream engineered method—not a fringe workaround.When installations follow F1743 workmanship criteria—continuous over the installation length and free of dry spots, lifts, and delaminations—you’re targeting the failure modes that actually undermine CIPP performance: resin starvation, separation of layers, and loss of tight fit against the host pipe.WHY IT’S LEGAL“Legal” in construction means a permitted, inspected, standards-based method accepted in the jurisdiction where it is installed.ASTM F1743 is expressly written for use not only by contractors, but also by designers/specifiers, regulatory agencies, owners, and inspection organizations involved in rehabilitation using pulled-in-place CIPP. That matters because it underscores what the standard is: a recognized practice that regulators and inspectors can evaluate against.So the legality story is straightforward: when a CIPP project is permitted/inspected as required locally and the work is executed to ASTM F1743 workmanship and performance expectations, it is a standards-based installation—not an improvisation.A PRACTICAL “COMPLIANCE” CHECKLIST THAT DOESN’T RELY ON BUZZWORDSIf you want to separate serious stop-and-start CIPP from marketing noise, ask for documentation that tracks directly to ASTM F1743 outcomes:1) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Pre-install CCTV and cleaning verification (so the liner can fit tightly and cure correctly).2) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Wet-out controls and resin tracking (to prevent dry spots).3) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Cure monitoring and controlled cool-down (to reduce defect risk).4) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Post-install CCTV demonstrating the finished liner condition (looking specifically for dry spots, lifts, and delaminations).When you see those items in a project file, “gapping” stops being a debate term and becomes what it should be: a sequencing strategy that still produces a continuous, defect-free finished liner.FAQsDoes ASTM F1743 require “continuous” lining?- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ASTM F1743 treats “continuous” as a workmanship result: the finished CIPP should be continuous over the installation length and free of dry spots, lifts, and delaminations.What does “continuous” mean in this context?- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In ASTM F1743 workmanship terms, it is tied to liner integrity and the absence of defect conditions like dry spots (resin starvation), lifts (loss of tight fit/reverse curvature), and delaminations (layer separation).Is stop-and-start CIPP safe?- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Yes—when crews control access hazards, follow cure protocols, and verify the finished liner condition. ASTM F1743 addresses safety considerations for access structures and inspection expectations for defect conditions.Is “gapping” legal?- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;When the work is permitted/inspected as required locally and executed to ASTM F1743 workmanship expectations, it is a standards-based method evaluated against a recognized practice used by regulators and inspection organizations.

CIPP GAPPING (STOP-AND-START) IS SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND LEGAL WHEN DONE TO ASTM F1743

Compliance to Standards, Regulations, and Requirements to pass audit and manage quality control. Concept about conformity with manager or auditor pressing buttons with icons.

<h2>Understanding ASTM Standards</h2>When it comes to Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining, adhering to ASTM standards is crucial. These standards ensure that the materials and processes used in CIPP are safe, effective, and reliable. ASTM, or the American Society for Testing and Materials, provides guidelines that help maintain the integrity of infrastructure projects.The role of ASTM standards in CIPP lining cannot be overstated. They not only set benchmarks for quality but also foster innovation by encouraging adherence to established practices. This means that contractors and engineers can confidently rely on these guidelines to produce consistent and dependable results.<figure id="figure-zhathbmebpmjj8htn2"><img id="zhathbmebpmjj8htn2" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/281qZkvbAo40SFVwPiQMD0mV6Vj6JQyN3PB03W0FhrkmQ49CEtKdJ8NyufguHYu5.jpeg" alt="ASTM standards" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/281qZkvbAo40SFVwPiQMD0mV6Vj6JQyN3PB03W0FhrkmQ49CEtKdJ8NyufguHYu5.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>The Importance of Routine Verifications</h2>Routine verifications are essential to ensure compliance with ASTM standards. These checks involve a detailed inspection of materials, processes, and completed work to verify that they meet the necessary criteria. Regular verification helps identify potential issues early, preventing costly repairs and ensuring the longevity of the infrastructure.Conducting these verifications requires a thorough understanding of the standards and attention to detail. Teams must be well-versed in the specific requirements of each project, as variations can occur depending on the type of materials used and the conditions of the installation site.<h2>Implementing a Verification Plan</h2>To maintain compliance, implementing a comprehensive verification plan is essential. A well-structured plan should include the following steps:<ol><li>Initial review of project specifications and relevant ASTM standards.</li><li>Regular training sessions for staff to ensure familiarity with standards.</li><li>Scheduled inspections at various stages of the CIPP lining process.</li><li>Detailed documentation of findings and corrective actions taken.</li></ol><figure id="figure-sr9wbfu9wumjj8hxv9"><img id="sr9wbfu9wumjj8hxv9" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2dVhzezsVAHkibHb5e7f2qJVW9qsDL2tISKkBVEVIzZC2ksNDyYYC1M0l5AuiXGl.jpeg" alt="construction inspection" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2dVhzezsVAHkibHb5e7f2qJVW9qsDL2tISKkBVEVIzZC2ksNDyYYC1M0l5AuiXGl.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>Benefits of Compliance</h2>Ensuring compliance with ASTM standards through routine verifications offers numerous benefits. First, it enhances the quality of the CIPP lining, resulting in more durable and reliable infrastructure. Second, it reduces the risk of failures, which can lead to costly repairs and potential legal liabilities.Moreover, adherence to standards fosters trust with stakeholders, including clients and regulatory bodies. Demonstrating a commitment to quality and safety can enhance a company's reputation and lead to more opportunities in the industry.<h2>Challenges in Maintaining Compliance</h2>While the benefits are clear, maintaining compliance can be challenging. It requires ongoing education and investment in resources to ensure that staff remains knowledgeable about the latest standards and best practices. Additionally, the dynamic nature of construction sites can introduce variables that complicate adherence to standards.<figure id="figure-fng3fx96pwmjj8i1na"><img id="fng3fx96pwmjj8i1na" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/32O7GwaMDWnL07n1Emd8NCjiaC4Yrxs93X496SRI1NpefFPlmfFMQJjh57sxCPLL.jpeg" alt="construction workers" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/32O7GwaMDWnL07n1Emd8NCjiaC4Yrxs93X496SRI1NpefFPlmfFMQJjh57sxCPLL.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>Overcoming Compliance Challenges</h2>To overcome these challenges, companies should focus on continuous improvement and adaptability. This includes investing in training programs and leveraging technology to streamline verification processes. Utilizing software solutions that automate certain aspects of compliance can reduce human error and increase efficiency.Regular audits and feedback loops can also help identify areas for improvement, ensuring that the company remains at the forefront of industry standards and innovations.

Ensuring Compliance: Routine ASTM Verifications for CIPP Lining

Engineers crawl inside to inspect the quality of the narrow inner pipe. Industry Engineers or technician inspection pipe circular. Checking Construction of the water, Oil Natural Gas and fuels Transport Pipeline work under a huge tube at the construction

<h2>Introduction to Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining</h2>Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining is a trenchless rehabilitation method used to repair existing pipelines. It has gained popularity due to its minimal disruption to the environment and infrastructure. However, ensuring safety and compliance during the installation process is paramount to prevent accidents and ensure the longevity of the repair.In this post, we will explore the best practices and standards that guide the CIPP lining process. These guidelines help maintain safety and compliance, ensuring that the benefits of this innovative method are fully realized.<figure id="figure-mbus0gv8cdmll8kihg"><img id="mbus0gv8cdmll8kihg" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2aKI1ydwcfjLkZVuEr7CRUJJUeZLWvcrWK09QtUSg2qZekquwliZUn0sksSuO174.jpeg" alt="pipe lining" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2aKI1ydwcfjLkZVuEr7CRUJJUeZLWvcrWK09QtUSg2qZekquwliZUn0sksSuO174.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>Understanding Safety Protocols</h2>Safety is a critical concern in any construction or rehabilitation project. For CIPP lining, specific protocols must be adhered to in order to protect workers and the surrounding environment. These include proper training for installation teams, usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and strict adherence to operational procedures.Regular safety audits and inspections can help identify potential hazards before they become significant issues. By fostering a culture of safety, companies can minimize risks and ensure a smooth operation.<figure id="figure-5o493qmgxjmll8krwp"><img id="5o493qmgxjmll8krwp" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/36R55XzMiF6TfiAnDGlUPrrX9cfb78Tn0eiNndiXyu6EG3KX7G2N3TlTj5wJT6yN.jpeg" alt="safety gear" title="safety gear" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure><h3>Compliance with Industry Standards</h3>Compliance with industry standards is essential to maintain the integrity of CIPP installations. Organizations must follow guidelines set by authoritative bodies, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These standards cover everything from material specifications to installation procedures.By adhering to these standards, companies can ensure that their projects are not only safe but also meet the expected quality benchmarks. This compliance also helps in avoiding legal issues and potential fines.<h2>Environmental Considerations</h2>CIPP lining projects must consider environmental impacts to ensure sustainability. This includes managing waste materials properly and minimizing emissions during the curing process. Using eco-friendly materials and technologies can further reduce the environmental footprint.Environmental assessments should be conducted before and after the project to measure its impact and ensure compliance with environmental regulations.<figure id="figure-fgocrtd2gmmll8mi0v"><img id="fgocrtd2gmmll8mi0v" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/fclA5BJoE9zKGvNmoM6emcG9zKfgbbTfRXofhUKbbclRC1FkCh90NxL4JCNR2gsr.jpeg" alt="environmental assessment" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/fclA5BJoE9zKGvNmoM6emcG9zKfgbbTfRXofhUKbbclRC1FkCh90NxL4JCNR2gsr.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h3>Implementing Best Practices</h3>Implementing best practices in CIPP lining involves adopting the latest technologies and methodologies that enhance efficiency and safety. Continuous training programs for employees can keep them updated on new developments and techniques in the industry.Furthermore, utilizing advanced monitoring systems during the installation process can help detect any anomalies early, allowing for timely interventions and ensuring the project's success.<h2>Conclusion</h2>Ensuring safety and compliance in Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining is crucial for the success and sustainability of this trenchless rehabilitation method. By following industry standards, prioritizing safety, and considering environmental impacts, companies can provide reliable and efficient solutions for pipeline repair.The commitment to continuous improvement and adherence to best practices will not only enhance the quality of the installations but also build trust with clients and stakeholders.<figure id="figure-i3mxqgkjbfmll8ml0n"><img id="i3mxqgkjbfmll8ml0n" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/13jFHH3dRvQNIRfXNQjOrTLD5p29v6CnMWjq4xoLAnh1h0biqZ8stH9UmLLZKwnB.jpeg" alt="construction team" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/13jFHH3dRvQNIRfXNQjOrTLD5p29v6CnMWjq4xoLAnh1h0biqZ8stH9UmLLZKwnB.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure>

Ensuring Safety and Compliance in Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining

The Florida State Capitol Building and The Florida Historic Capitol Museum in Tallahassee, FL.

Orlando, Florida – December 10, 2025 – <a data-mce-href="https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/thecode/2026_Code_Development/Pre_December_2025_FBC/plumbing_detail.pdf" href="https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/thecode/2026_Code_Development/Pre_December_2025_FBC/plumbing_detail.pdf">On December 9, 2025, in an 11–4 vote</a>, the <a data-mce-href="https://floridabuilding.org/c/default.aspx" href="https://floridabuilding.org/c/default.aspx">Florida Building Commission</a> (FBC) rejected a proposed plumbing code modification to Section 718.1 of the Florida Building Code, Plumbing, relating to cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation.The proposal would have banned the "gaaping" or "stop and start" CIPP method, effectively requiring Florida plumbing contractors performing CIPP lining to use remote-control robotic cutting devices—often costing in excess of $150,000—for work at branch or service connections. As described by opponents of the proposal, such a mandate would have immediately excluded many small and mid-sized contractors from the CIPP market based solely on capital cost, reducing competition and driving up costs for homeowners, HOAs, and businesses statewide.In real-world CIPP practice, multiple safe, established methods exist for addressing service connections while meeting applicable performance expectations. One method is conventional replacement of service connections prior to liner placement—removing and replacing deteriorated fittings so the liner terminates at new, sound fittings rather than unnecessarily lining healthy pipe. A second method is the installation of pre-made epoxy-resin fitting liners at service connections, reinforcing and sealing the fitting and tying into the mainline liner to create a smooth, watertight transition. A third method is the “gapping” method, where a precisely measured cut-out in the liner tube allows inflation at the joint connection; upon inflation, epoxy resin flows and cures to form a tapered or feathered protective layer to the existing fitting, rehabilitating the damaged host pipe while preserving sound existing fittings. These methods have been used safely and effectively in the industry for decades.The proposed modification would have functionally prohibited these alternatives by advancing a “no gaps” concept at branch or service connections and treating robotic reinstatement as the only acceptable approach. Opponents argued this would convert one useful tool into a de facto statewide mandate, regardless of project-specific conditions or cost-effectiveness.A central point of dispute involved the meaning of “continuous” and “continuous liner.” Some interpretations asserted that “continuous” requires a liner to cover every inch of an entire building plumbing system with no breaks, gaps, or transitions at any service connection. Opponents argued that this is not what <a data-mce-href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html" href="https://store.astm.org/f1743-22.html">ASTM F1743</a> requires. ASTM F1743 states: “The finished CIPP shall be continuous over the entire installation length. The CIPP shall be free of dry spots, lifts, and delaminations.” Under that text, continuity is defined by reference to the “installation length” selected for rehabilitation—not an entire building system end-to-end.Opponents further argued that adopting a “no gaps anywhere in the plumbing system” interpretation would, as a practical matter, bar targeted or partial CIPP rehabilitation unless an entire system were lined and every service connection reinstated robotically—dramatically increasing costs and making CIPP impractical for many owners and associations.The FBC’s vote preserves the availability of multiple code-compliant, proven methods for addressing service connections, and rejects an approach that would have imposed a single capital-intensive method as a statewide requirement. The decision maintains competition, supports innovation, and aligns code interpretation with the performance-based expectations reflected in the referenced ASTM standard.

Blog

CIPP “Gapping” vs. Robotic Reinstatement: When a Continuo...

Case Study: Ensuring Safety and Compliance in Urban Pipe ...

CIPP GAPPING (STOP-AND-START) IS SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND LEG...

Ensuring Compliance: Routine ASTM Verifications for CIPP ...

Ensuring Safety and Compliance in Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining

Florida Building Commission Votes to Protect Consumer