[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HIGHWAY BRIDGE INSPECTIONS
=======================================================================
(110-82)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 23, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-566 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
?
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERROLD NADLER, New York THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
JULIA CARSON, Indiana ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Carolina
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Virginia
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
JERRY MCNERNEY, California TED POE, Texas
BOB FILNER, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Louisiana
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Andersen, Bart, Level 2 Bridge Inspector, Minnesota Department of
Transportation................................................. 2
Garrett, Matthew, Director, Oregon Department of Transportation.. 2
Gee, King, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal
Highway Administration, accompanied by Gary Henderson, Director
of Infrastructure R&D, Federal Highway Administration.......... 2
McCabe, Ray, Senior Vice President and National Director of
Bridge and Tunnels, HNTB....................................... 2
Washer, Glenn A., Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor, University of
Missouri-Columbia.............................................. 2
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 32
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon................................ 33
Mitchell, Harry E., of Arizona................................... 36
Walz, Hon. Timothy J., of Minnesota.............................. 40
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Andersen, Bart................................................... 41
Garrett, Matthew L............................................... 45
Gee, King W...................................................... 61
McCabe, Ray...................................................... 99
Washer, Glenn.................................................... 104
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Garrett, Matthew, Director, Oregon Department of Transportation,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 53
Gee, King, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal
Highway Administration:
Responses to questions from Rep. Carney........................ 71
Responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio....................... 73
Responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano.................... 90
Washer, Glenn A., Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor, University of
Missouri-Columbia, responses to questions from the Subcommittee 127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.009
HEARING ON HIGHWAY BRIDGE INSPECTIONS
----------
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
A. DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Higgins. [Presiding.] Welcome everyone. I am not Peter
DeFazio. I am here in his brief delay. He will be here.
I want to welcome everybody to the Committee hearing. My
name is Brian Higgins. I represent Buffalo, New York, the 27th
Congressional District.
We have Ranking Member Petri here as well, and I will read
the opening statement on behalf of Chairman DeFazio.
On August 1st, our Nation's eyes were opened wide to the
state of our infrastructure with the tragic collapse of the I-
35W bridge in Minneapolis. While we don't yet know what caused
that bridge to collapse, we drew necessary attention to the
needs of our Nation's infrastructure.
This is the second hearing this Committee has held on the
state of our bridges since August, and I intend to focus today
on bridge inspection standards and types and quality of data
collected through those inspections.
There are several issues on which I would like to hear from
our witnesses. I would like to hear about whether or not the
Federal Government should increase the frequency of baseline
inspections or perhaps a risk-based approach utilizing in-depth
inspections on a less frequent basis, the way bridge
inspections are done in Europe, would that be more appropriate.
A case could be made for more Federal oversight of
inspections. Do we need to reevaluate standards for inspection
qualifications and training?
I am concerned by the fact that visual inspections are
still the primary method used to perform routine bridge
inspections. Visual inspections can only get us so far. In
today's day and age, technology is revolutionizing the way we
do business in many different sectors. The tools we use to keep
our bridges safe should reflect our capabilities in the 21st
Century. It seems to me we should have better ways of
inspecting bridges than using a hammer.
I am also concerned with the 2006 Inspector General's
report that found that one of 10 structurally deficient bridges
on the National Highway System had inaccurate load rating
calculations. Furthermore, signs were not posted on 7.8 percent
of bridges that were required to have maximum safety weight
signs posted. That is very troubling.
Finally, on a positive note, according to a recent survey
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 24 out of 40 States responded and stated that they
go above and beyond the current requirements of the National
Bridge Inspection Standards. But if 24 States are surpassing
Federal standards, that begs the question, what are the other
16 responding States doing and should we raise Federal
standards to match what many States already have in place?
We have enormous opportunity before us to evaluate existing
inspection standards and to strengthen the current program to
make our system of bridges safer. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Petri for an opening statement.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much.
I am not John Duncan any more than you are Peter DeFazio,
but I would like to ask unanimous consent that a statement
prepared for Mr. Duncan be made a part of this record and to
say that I would like to thank the panel of witnesses for being
here today. This is obviously a very important subject.
Technology data, processing technology or sensor technology
has moved well beyond where we are in terms of utilizing it in
transportation. We don't do sensors very much on trucks unless
people pay for it, automatically register their weight and so
on, which is a big issue with bridges and overweight vehicles.
A lot of things we could be doing to make the system safer and
have regulation which was realistically and then actually
enforced to make the system last longer.
I look forward to the entire panel's testimony and thank
you very much for the prepared statements that you are making a
part of the record.
Mr. Higgins. Any other Members have an opening statement?
If not, we will proceed to our panel.
Mr. King Gee, Federal Highway Administration, Associate
Administrator for Infrastructure here in Washington, D.C.,
welcome, Mr. Gee.
TESTIMONY OF KING GEE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY
GARY HENDERSON, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE R&D, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION; MATTHEW GARRETT, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; BART ANDERSEN, LEVEL 2 BRIDGE INSPECTOR,
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RAY MC CABE, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF BRIDGE AND TUNNELS,
HNTB; GLENN A. WASHER, PH.D., P.E., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA
Mr. Gee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the National Bridge
Inspection Program and the Federal Highway Administration's
research work on bridge technology and inspections.
With me today is Gary Henderson, Director of Federal
Highway's Office of Infrastructure Research and Development.
This is a very important hearing topic in the wake of the
tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. As
the Chairman noted, the cause of the collapse is still being
investigated, and we must fully understand what happened so we
can make sure that it does not happen again.
Federal Highways is assisting the National Transportation
Safety Board to complete the investigation as soon as possible.
Examination of the recovered physical members of the bridge is
necessary to determine how the bridge collapsed. A computer
model developed at our Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center,
based on the original design drawings for the bridge, can
simulate various failure scenarios which can then be validated
against the physical evidence.
As we await the NTSB findings, the Department is taking
steps in response to what has been learned so far to ensure
that America's bridges are safe. Two advisories have been
issued to the States asking that they reinspect their steel
deck truss bridges and that they be mindful of the added weight
construction projects may place on bridges.
Federal, State and local transportation agencies consider
the inspection of the Nation's nearly 600,000 bridges to be of
vital importance and invest significant funds in bridge
inspections. Since the establishment of the National Bridge
Inspection Standards over 30 years ago, methods and
technologies for inspections have been continuously evolving
under a partnership among Federal Highways, the State DOTs,
industry and academia.
The NBIS define by regulation not only the frequency and
types of inspections but the procedures to be used in
inspecting and rating highway bridges. A ``routine''
inspection, which is primarily visual, is the most common type
and is generally required every two years. The NBIS also define
qualifications for inspection team leaders, project managers,
underwater bridge inspection divers and individuals responsible
for load rating bridges.
Inspection data on bridge composition and conditions are
maintained in the National Bridge Inventory. A sufficiency
rating is calculated based on the data items on structural
composition, functional obsolescence and essentiality for
public use. This rating determines funding eligibility for
rehabilitation or replacement of a structure and assists States
in prioritizing their bridge investments.
This sufficiency rating should not be confused with whether
a bridge is safe. Unsafe bridges are closed.
Numerous technologies are under development that have the
potential to substantially advance the practice of bridge
inspection. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all
approach in the use of non-destructive evaluation and testing.
Each technology is designed for a specific purpose and
function.
There are also a number of monitoring systems that can be
used to provide real-time data and alert the bridge owner to
such things as threshold stresses in load-carrying members,
excessive movements, crack growth or scour around a bridge
pier. However, monitoring systems require customizing for a
bridge and do not eliminate the need for regular visual
inspections, nor can they fully guarantee against failure of a
bridge component.
Federal Highways actively coordinates a National Bridge
Research Program with our partners and stakeholders, and that
program is focused on three areas: the ``Bridge of the
Future,'' the effective stewardship and management of bridges
and the safety, security and reliability of bridges.
Our responsibility for research and technology encompasses
managing and conducting research, sharing the results of
completed projects, and supporting and facilitating technology
and innovation deployment, and that is with academia, the State
DOTs and industry.
However, in recent years, the funding structure for the
Federal Highways Research Program has limited our flexibility
to carry out many activities important for a national program.
Nonetheless, I can assure you that any findings and lessons
that come out of the NTSB investigation will be promptly
learned and appropriate corrective actions taken and
institutionalized.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Gee.
Our next panelist is Mr. Matthew Garrett from the Oregon
Department of Transportation, Director.
Mr. Garrett, thank you.
Mr. Garrett. I am pleased to be here today and have the
opportunity to discuss bridge inspections with you.
In Oregon, as in every State, ensuring the safety and
reliability of the transportation system are top priorities. We
take our responsibility for inspecting bridges very seriously,
and I will tell you this was validated last week when I was out
on site with some of my dedicated bridge staff. I can tell you
they understand the gravity of the job they have.
The Bridge Inspection Program is a comprehensive set of
procedures, and while the Federal Highway Administration sets
the standards and monitors State implementation, it is the
States that actually develop and execute the program. There are
three types of bridge inspections: routine inspections,
fracture critical inspections and underwater inspections.
During routine inspections, engineers and trained
inspectors look for any signs of deficit or distress. These are
the symptoms, both on the external and the internal sides, that
they note. Those conditions are documented, monitored, and
repairs and recommendations are made if necessary.
A fracture critical inspection is one that requires an
inspector to be within an arms-reach of any member that is
designated fracture critical: beams, bents, cross members and
such. This normally involves access equipment and climbing.
This is a very physical inspection.
Underwater inspections are done by a team of divers looking
at bridge piers that are in waterways. Oregon's underwater
Bridge Inspection Program is one of the oldest in the Country.
It dates back to 1964 when we had floods that damaged several
of our bridges.
All bridges receive some form of routine inspection.
Bridges that are designed to modern standards and are in
satisfactory or better conditions are inspected very two years.
The level and frequency of inspection on older bridges can
vary greatly. Inspection programs are tailored to each of those
bridges. The bridges we look at we base the inspection program
on their conditions. In Oregon, we have 78 State-owned bridges
and 161 local bridges that are inspected more often than twice
a year.
States do use a number of types of inspection techniques.
As mentioned, visual inspections are by far the most common,
but they are not the only thing. At times, we augment or
supplement the visual inspections with magnetic particle
methods, ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions and ground
penetrating radar. These techniques require special training as
well as special equipment.
In Oregon, we are using special gauges and sensors to
monitor the health of certain bridges. Oregon is out in front
when it comes to using advanced technology to assess the
condition of its bridges.
The Bridge Inspection Program is continuously modified and
improved as new knowledge, technologies and standards are
incorporated. Increased qualifications for bridge inspectors
were updated as recently as January of 2005, as was the
inspection interval for fracture critical bridges. In addition
to that, States must now have quality control and assurance
programs in place.
I am proud to say that Oregon has had a very robust quality
assurance program in place since 1994. It far exceeds the
minimum Federal requirements. Each year, we select portions of
each inspector's work, and it is reviewed by a team of their
peers. Passing this ODOT proficiency test is demanding. The
scrutiny is intense. We are better for it in the State of
Oregon, and we have seen greater consistency and continuity in
our bridge reports, better informing our maintenance plans and
our long term investment strategies.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying there is one
absolute fact of life: All things will deteriorate. Bridges
represent the highest unit investment of all elements on the
highway system. Bridge deficiencies can present the greatest
danger of all potential highway failures.
The men and women of ODOT's Bridge Inspection Program are
committed to maintaining the public safety and confidence in
those bridges, protecting that public investment, maintaining a
certain and desired level of service, providing bridge
inspection proficiency, and providing accurate records and
information, again to inform the maintenance plans and our long
term investment strategies.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Garrett.
Next to testify is Mr. Bart Andersen, Minnesota Department
of Transportation, Level 2 Bridge Inspector.
Mr. Andersen.
Mr. Andersen. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. I
have a larger statement that I would like to have placed in the
record.
I am a bridge inspector and a bridge maintenance worker for
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, MnDOT, and I am
also a member of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFSCME, Minnesota Council 5. My union
represents transportation workers across the United States, and
I am here today to explain how bridge inspectors are trained
and how we conduct our inspections.
First of all, our two biggest problems are the lack of
MnDOT staff and the lack of funds to do the bridge work. MnDOT
has only 77 inspectors who are responsible for approximately
14,000 MnDOT bridges. MnDOT policy is to check every bridge at
least once every two years, and about 30 percent of our bridges
are fracture critical. We are expected to check these fracture
critical bridges once a year.
There aren't enough hours in the work day for 77 inspectors
statewide to take care of 14,000 bridges the way we should. In
addition to bridge inspecting, we have a host of other bridge-
related responsibilities that must be performed: patching holes
on the concrete decks, repairing railings. We also repair wood
and concrete noise walls and retaining walls. We inspect,
repair and replace all of our steel support structures for our
highway signs, and this is by no means a complete list of the
tasks performed by those 77 bridge inspectors.
Recently, MnDOT hired private inspectors to assist with the
backlog to help us meet a December 1st deadline that Governor
Tim Pawlenty put out for Minnesota. We do not believe this is a
long-term solution to the problem. In fact, these private
inspectors were hired after the 35W bridge collapse. If MnDOT
had a sufficient number of bridge inspectors to begin with,
there wouldn't be a need to bring in these private inspectors
at a significantly higher cost.
In addition to insufficient numbers of personnel, we are
lacking the funding to improve the safety of the bridges. Many
of our bridges have reached their 20 year replacement age.
To compound that need for investment, our bridges built
since 1950 are, on average, four times larger in size than
their predecessors. The weight they hold is much greater as the
trucks that are carrying freight these days are carrying that
in lieu of trains that used to carry that transport. That means
our bridges are under more stress and cost more to replace and
preserve.
When employees start a career in bridge maintenance and
inspection, they are required to take a one-week course called
Concepts for Bridge Inspection. We learn about bridge
technology, architecture and key components. Then we attend a
two-week training on comprehensive bridge safety inspection,
and this course trains us to identify deficiencies and detect
what is causing them.
Our inspection program treats bridges differently depending
on their condition and design. In Minnesota, we have the four
categories that have been mentioned previously. We also have a
category that we just call specialized inspections, and these
are for bridge hits, high load hits or heightened homeland
security inspections.
In closing, please understand that MnDOT doesn't have
enough full time inspectors to keep motorists safe. It is
impossible for 77 inspectors to check 14,000 bridges throughout
Minnesota while still performing all the other tasks that are
required of our job. Although we have a backlog of structurally
deficient bridges and an increasing problem with steel fatigue
in many bridges, we lack the funding for replacement, repair
and preservation.
I am looking forward as Congress considers these issues. I
hope you help us solve the problems of insufficient staffing at
State Departments of Transportation, and I hope you will help
us with the lack of funding in maintaining the transportation
infrastructure we currently have.
The work performed by people like me who inspect, maintain
and repair bridges is critical to the safety of the citizens
who use our bridges every day. As public employees, we are
committed to doing everything we can to protect citizens who
use those bridges and highways, but we need your support to do
our jobs as well as we possibly can.
Thank you for listening. I welcome any questions.
Mr. DeFazio. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. McCabe.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
Good afternoon. I am Ray McCabe, National Director of
Bridges and Tunnel Design for HNTB. HNTB is one of the Nation's
leading engineering and architecture firms with particular
expertise in the planning and design of transportation
infrastructure. I am a licensed professional engineer with over
30 years of experience in bridge planning, design and
inspection of all bridge types. I have been involved in
designing some of the Nation's most significant bridges and
have incorporated the latest technologies when appropriate.
HNTB is also a member of ACEC, the American Council of
Engineering Companies, the business association of America's
engineering industry, representing over 5,500 member firms
across the Country. On behalf of ACEC and the industry, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to
discuss issues that contribute to bridge safety.
Bridges are the vital link allowing our transportation
system to operate seamlessly across the Country. Over half of
our Nation's bridges were built prior to 1964. Of the 600,000
public road bridges in the Country, 74,000, roughly 12 percent,
are classified as structurally deficient. While this percentage
has declined since the early nineties, progress has been slow
and the magnitude of structurally deficient bridges is still
clearly unacceptable, even understanding that deficient bridges
does not imply unsafe.
The I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a national
tragedy and wake-up call on how we invest in our Nation's
bridges. While we certainly do not know the cause of the I-35
bridge collapse, we do know that the bridge was inspected
according to Federal standards. The engineering community
anxiously awaits the findings of the NTSB to determine what
corrections need to be made to our design, construction,
inspection and maintenance practices.
Clearly, we need to make improvements to our Bridge
Inspection Program. Improving inspection procedures and
techniques will allow us to better allocate available
resources. However, it is important to remember that the
information gathered from inspections must be applied to a well
funded and focused program of bridge repair and replacement to
prevent future disasters.
Maintaining our Nation's bridges in a cost effective manner
and ultimately ensuring the safety of the people who travel
them requires adequate funding combined with the following
three components:
Improvements to our bridge inspection and rating system.
The National Bridge Inspection Standards enacted in 1974 have
served us extremely well. FHWA has been very diligent in
updating standards to meet changing needs and technology as
well as understanding of bridge problems. Nonetheless, we know
that the process is not perfect. Bridge inspections are
generally visual which lead to subjective determinations of
bridge conditions.
An FHWA study indicated that in-depth inspections are
unlikely to identify many of the specific defects for which
they are prescribed. The study found that less than 8 percent
of inspections successfully located weld cracks and other
implanted defects in test bridges.
Furthermore, the study revealed the inspection ratings were
highly variable and dependent on such things as bridge
inspectors' condition and training, inspection site conditions
and accessibility, structure complexity, and available funding.
Many factors go into the calculation of sufficiency rating, and
thus a bridge that is rated structurally deficient may still be
completely safe.
Visual inspection practices must be supported by rigorous
training, certification and quality assurance programs and
supplemented with testing techniques where necessary to ensure
reliable results.
Additionally, the emerging field of structural health
monitoring holds much promise for real-time evaluation of
structures and objective evaluation of bridge conditions.
Providing more quantitative data to bridge program managers
will enable them to more accurately rate bridges which will
allow States to effectively allocate bridge rehabilitation
dollars.
Two, a dedicated methodology to allocate funding for
structurally deficient bridges. More money is definitely a
necessary part of the solution. However, any money targeted to
fix our Nation's structurally deficient bridges needs to be
spent based on safety and prioritized using a rational
approach.
Funding must be established based on accurate and
consistent data, used strategically and stretched over as many
deficient bridges as practical. This can be accomplished only
by prioritizing our bridges and the individual repairs
necessary to advance the most critical bridges out of the
deficient category. As indicated earlier, improved inspection
techniques will facilitate this approach.
Such a system may have focused more resources on non-
redundant welded bridges. These bridges must be given special
attention because we know that non-redundant bridges pose a
higher risk of sudden bridge collapse from failure of an
individual member. We have the technology to analyze failure
scenarios and use the resulting data to determine bridge
inspection methodology and retrofit techniques to reduce risk
of bridge collapse.
Finally, applying advanced technologies, techniques and
materials. New bridge designs and rehabilitation of existing
bridges must make full use of innovative technologies and more
durable materials. Resiliency is the key. Today's bridges need
to diffuse loads and absorb stresses more effectively. They
need to be able to withstand abrupt forces more readily and
with less resultant damage.
We need to incorporate high performance concretes and
steels into new spans and into the structural renovation of
existing bridges. Innovative rapid construction techniques
should also be considered to minimize inconvenience to the
traveling public.
The probability of a bridge failure is extremely low.
However, it is not zero. It should be, except for failure due
to extreme events.
The way to insure the safety of our Nation's aging bridge
infrastructure is not just additional funding or rigorous
inspection or advanced technologies alone. It is all three put
to a concerted use. Let's not wait for the next failure.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony. I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. McCabe.
Dr. Washer, we are going to have to hold your testimony. We
have a series of three votes. There is five minutes left until
the next vote. So we should hopefully be back in about 20
minutes.
On that, the Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. Back to order. We left off with Dr. Washer's
testimony. Thank you for your indulgence with the schedule
here.
Dr. Washer, please, go ahead.
Mr. Washer. Chairman DeFazio, Congressman Duncan and
Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon.
My name is Glenn Washer, past Chair of the Committee on
Bridge Management, Inspection and Rehabilitation of the
American Society of Civil Engineers and Assistant Professor at
the University of Missouri-Columbia. I am a licensed
professional engineer in Virginia.
I am testifying today on behalf of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, the Country's oldest national civil
engineering organization representing more than 140,000 civil
engineers. We would like to thank you for holding this hearing.
My testimony today will attempt to provide some explanation
of the nature and role of non-destructive evaluation or NDE
within the context and condition assessment of highway bridges.
NDE technologies describe a class of technologies intended to
characterize the conditions of materials and structures without
causing damage. Visual inspection is the most common form of
NDE. More advanced NDE methods frequently depend on
characterizing waves propagating within a material to detect
anomalies which may be hidden from view.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Washer. A familiar example to most people is a medical
sonogram which uses acoustic waves launched from a transducer
on the surface of the skin to assess conditions within the
body, for example, the existence of a fetus in the womb of a
pregnant woman as shown in this image.
The image is an indirect measurement of the fetus based on
its effect on a propagating wave such that uncertainty can
exist. For example, the single fetus shown in this image was
later discovered to actually be twins.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Washer. In a similar manner, acoustic waves can be used
to detect flaws in bridge members by a technique known as
ultrasonic testing. This figure shows an image of internal
flaws in a weld. The bottom image represents the results of
ultrasonic testing. The top image shows a radiograph or x-ray
image of imbedded flaws.
NDE methods such as these can provide powerful tools that
increase the ability to understand the condition of bridges and
improve bridge safety.
There are many NDE techniques available depending upon the
type of bridge you are assessing. For concrete bridges, NDE
methods such as sounding, impact echo, ground penetrating radar
and infrared thermography are available among others. NDE
technologies for steel bridges include dye penetrant, magnetic
particle, ultrasonic testing, eddy current testing and acoustic
emission.
The role of NDE technologies has traditionally been limited
in terms of routine inspections of highway bridges. This is due
in part to the reality that the data generally required to
complete an NBIS inspection does not require NDE. However, that
does not mean that NDE technologies are not used for the
condition evaluation of bridges by State Departments of
Transportation.
A significant challenge to the application of NDE
technologies is providing reliable quantitative results under a
variety of experimental conditions. Although the capability to
detect certain types of defects or flaws may exist, the
reliability of that process under real world conditions must be
established.
This has proven difficult in a number of cases due to the
challenging environment experienced during bridge inspections.
Widely varying materials, designs and construction practices
may lead to uncertainty in the results of NDE inspections. A
broader understanding is required of the complexity of bridge
inspections and the application of NDE technologies as a part
of those inspections.
An additional complication with NDE technologies in general
is that these technologies are intended to detect and
characterize flaws. The significance of a detected flaw
requires engineering analysis to determine if the flaw has a
detrimental impact on the behavior or durability of a bridge
and, if so, to also determine the appropriate remediation. This
process is complicated if the NDE results include significant
uncertainties.
In spite of these challenges, the role of NDE technologies
in bridge inspection has been growing. Methods such as
ultrasonic testing of bridge pins are in widespread use as are
magnetic particle testing, dye penetrant and impact echo, to
name a few. These methods are frequently employed within the
context of a special inspection where visual inspections have
identified potentially problematic areas in need of additional
analysis and testing.
Research is required to establish which NDE technologies
can provide data that is reliable and produce results
significantly beyond what could be accomplished with visual
inspections. To date, this remains an elusive goal for many NDE
technologies.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Washer. This figure is an example of such research in
progress. It is a thermographic image of a concrete block with
targets embedded in concrete at depths of one, two, three and
five inches. While providing an impressive demonstration of the
capabilities of this technology, the practical application of
this technology within the context of highway bridge
inspections is a subject of research.
Significant research gaps also include effective methods
for the condition assessment of prestressed, post-tensioned and
cable-stayed bridges where critical structural elements are
embedded in concrete such that visual inspections are not
possible.
In terms of bridge inspection frequency, it may also be
appropriate to explore if a rational approach to establishing
inspection intervals based on design, materials, age and
condition of specific bridges could result in a more effective
utilization of resources that improves bridge safety.
Finally, there exists a need for improved training of
engineers in the science of NDE technologies which is multi-
disciplinary in nature. Such education and the undergraduate
and graduate levels is needed to develop a foundation of
knowledge within the engineering community.
This testimony has attempted to provide some explanation of
what NDE technologies are and how they are applied within the
context of highway bridge inspections. Limitations associated
with the complex nature of bridges and their deterioration has
been described. There exists tremendous potential to improve
bridge safety and maintenance through the proper application
and use of NDE technologies, and additional research and
development is critical to realizing that potential.
Successfully and efficiently addressing the Nation's
transportation infrastructure issues will require long term,
comprehensive nationwide strategy including identifying
potential financing methods and investment requirements. For
the safety and security of our families, we cannot afford to
ignore this growing problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I
would be pleased to take any questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses.
We will now proceed to a round of questions.
First to the Federal Highway Administration, I guess my
first question would be, does the Federal Highway
Administration believe that routine visual, periodic visual
inspections should continue to be the primary method employed
by bridge inspectors?
Mr. Gee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, we do because it has been shown that it has been
reliable all these years and, as Mr. Garrett said earlier, we
have been evolving the technology and the methodologies, so we
are pretty confident that it is still a cost effective
inspection technique.
Mr. DeFazio. But we have the study in 2001 that showed that
trained bridge inspectors doing visual inspections from around
the Country, bridges identified with fatigue problems, found
only 8 percent of the inspectors correctly identified fatigue
cracks, and you are saying that just because of enhanced
training or awareness, situational or something, that suddenly
that 92 percent is now on the ball here?
Mr. Gee. Well, that study was an internal Federal Highway
study, and it was a small sample. I would be very careful.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Have we replicated it as a larger
sample?
Mr. Gee. It has not been.
Mr. DeFazio. What?
Mr. Gee. It has not been replicated yet.
Mr. DeFazio. No, it has not been. Okay.
Mr. Gee. But based on the findings, partly based on the
findings of that study, in 2005, we did tighten up the
regulations so that there is now a quality assurance/quality
control requirement on the whole program.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, AASHTO has a study here. They are not
represented directly today, but perhaps you can address it.
AASHTO conducted an informal survey in response to one of
the questions asked on September 5th, and 40 States responded.
We haven't had a chance to identify who that universe is.
Twenty-four of the States exceed National Bridge Inspection
Standards. Depending on how the rest of it breaks down, if it
continues proportionately, it would be over half up to three-
fifths of the States exceeding the standards.
Does that cause you some concern or are you just defending
the basic minimum Federal standards and saying those are more
than adequate?
Mr. Gee. It all depends on what you are using it for. I
think for the safety of bridges in this Country, the standards
that we have in NBIS are adequate.
I think the reality is that for the last 10 years the
Federal Highway Administration has been encouraging the States
to move more and more towards bridge management, management of
the assets. In order to do that, the States really do need more
detailed information, and so we are encouraged that the States
are moving in that direction to collect more data than is
required for our National Bridge Inventory.
Mr. DeFazio. Now the Federal requirement says that
basically there is a mandate. You have to visually inspect
bridges once every two years. Is that correct? Okay.
Is there an enhanced Federal mandate for structurally
deficient bridges, requiring more frequent review or more in-
depth review or a different sort of review of those bridges?
Mr. Gee. Yes, there is.
Mr. DeFazio. Would you explain that?
Mr. Gee. If a bridge is found to be deficient to a certain
degree, then there is a more frequent inspection.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the witness submitted the
following: while the NBIS does not specify exact intervals for
any situation where more frequent inspection is required, the
NBIS does recognize that there are situations where the Program
Manager must determine that more frequent inspections are
warranted.]
Mr. Gee. For example, fracture critical, it can go to one
year or even more frequent if the State decides that it is that
much of a concern.
Mr. DeFazio. If the State decides, it is not a Federal
requirement.
Mr. Gee. The framework is set up, and the States have to
interpret and apply it.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but I think perhaps a little more.
Given the experience which triggered this most recent round of
scrutiny on bridges, one would think that we might want to be
reviewing whether or not that is adequate.
What about these enhanced technologies?
You said something about incentives in your testimony,
implementing incentives to increase utilization of advanced
technology. What sort of incentives are you talking about that
would get enhanced technology out there? We heard about some
advanced technology at the other end of the panel.
Mr. Gee. I think the reference directly was about bridge
technology as opposed to bridge inspection technology.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, so that is initial construction
basically. You are talking about new.
Mr. Gee. And maintenance and management.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, okay, but not about inspection
technology.
Mr. Gee. On inspection technology, I agree with Mr. Washer
in that there is research that yet needs to be done, and so far
we have been accomplishing some of that research with pooled
funding with the States because our own funding, our own
research funding, has been constrained.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Garrett, you have something that I
couldn't fully understand from your testimony about seven
bridges that have some sort of enhanced monitoring technology.
Could you explain that?
Mr. Garrett. We have, again supplemental to the visual
inspection and just to go back to your earlier question to Mr.
Gee, I think it is very similar to a medical examination.
I think Dr. Washer's MRI or sonogram of the child reminded
me of a conversation I had with a bridge inspector last week
when I was out with him. Bottom line, they use that visual and
that touch. It is a very sensory approach, first line of
defense, looking for those deficiencies. If they find those,
they bring forth recommendations, and they apply certain pieces
of equipment to enhance the visual inspection.
So we have a variety of gauges or sensors we put on. Just
to name a couple, corrosion gauges, again this is applied down
in the coastal area where we measure the electric current
between the reinforcement in the concrete.
Mr. DeFazio. Is this on a real-time basis or just as you go
and inspect?
Mr. Garrett. As we go, but then we come back. This is one
of those things that as we see, we want to make sure the
corrosion is not bleeding into the rebar. We have a process
called cathodic protection where we coat the bridges with zinc
and then charge. We are constantly going back, making sure the
zinc is taking the hit of the corrosion. So we have that
application.
We have load cells we place on bridges to make sure that
the direct load on beams or bearing devices is not compromising
the load carrying capacity of the bridge. We don't want that
exceeded.
We have deflection gauges that measure the lateral movement
and the vertical movements of the various beams. With crack
gauges, and certainly this is something that we have placed on
bridges going back to a couple of years ago, where we are
monitoring the growth and the movement of cracks in certain
bridges. So we have those applied.
Mr. DeFazio. None of these were required by the Federal
requirements?
Mr. Garrett. They are not. They are not.
Mr. DeFazio. Are you aware how many other States might be
using these sorts of devices?
Mr. Garrett. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else want to comment on the adequacy
of the current inspection regime and how we might enhance it
with technology or any concerns you have about it, frequency?
Anybody? It is a pretty open question.
Mr. McCabe. I truly believe that when we look at our
inspection system, that the qualifications of our inspectors
have to be tied to the complexity of the bridge and its
condition, number one. We need improved training in fatigue and
fracture of structures to our inspection staff.
Our inspection frequency needs to be risk-based. We can no
longer just set arbitrary limits and durations for bridge
inspection. We really need to look at what is the risk of a
problem with a certain structure.
Mr. DeFazio. How would that be determined? Who would
determine the amount of risk and increase the frequency?
Mr. McCabe. Well, I think we need to come up with a process
to determine what the risk is based on a number of factors: the
bridge age, is the bridge fracture critical, what is the level
of traffic that the bridge sees, are the actual loads that
bridge sees much more than we even rate the bridge for. So it
would go through a bunch of factors that would enter the risk-
based equation.
Mr. DeFazio. So you think you would set up some sort of
range of parameters, Federally, that then the States would have
to consult in terms of determining the frequency of their
inspections and/or the depth of the inspections.
Mr. McCabe. Correct.
Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else have any comments to add?
Mr. Gee?
Mr. Gee. Mr. Chairman, I think the notion of risk-based is
something that we have already moved towards. As you know, some
bridges, especially the newer ones, have inspection frequencies
that are four years instead of two years.
Jointly with AASHTO, we sponsored an international scan
that looked at the practices in Europe, and we are looking at
the results of those.
Mr. DeFazio. They are at six years, but they use enhanced
technologies.
Mr. Gee. And more in-depth inspection every time. So we are
looking at that, and we are working together with AASHTO on
where we go with that.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, because you don't want to be wasting
the time of the inspectors on bridges that are newer, that have
redundancy built in and other things, when they have other
bridges they should get to. Particularly, Mr. Andersen talks
about the problem of just getting around to look at everything
they have, meeting the current schedule, let alone any
enhanced.
Do you want to comment on that at all, Mr. Andersen?
Mr. Andersen. As I had said before, in my situation, I am
on a crew of five people. So if you take two people off to do
bridge inspection three days a week, that leaves three people
to get anything constructive done as far as preventive
maintenance.
That is very difficult to do because, and like I said, out
of those three people, they are responsible for setting their
own traffic control, transporting all the vehicles and
materials out to do any patching or anything like that. At the
end of the day, it is not productive for us to have such low
level numbers of full time inspectors.
The inspectors we have, we feel they have adequate
training. We think they have sufficient information to get
their job done thoroughly, but it is only when you have the
time to do.
When we have bridge hits, when there is a high load that
comes through and hits a bridge, that is it. That decimates any
preventive maintenance we can do for sometimes up to two weeks
because all our concentration goes to that bridge.
I am a little leery about keeping the emphasis on just the
routine annual visual inspections because I mean there are
bridges that we do our routine annual visual inspections on
that some bearings are 40 feet away. We don't ever look at
them, and they are never scheduled to get any in-depth
inspection because they are not quantified as a fracture
critical bridge. So they don't get the snooper inspections or
the bridge unit inspections.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Henderson, is there anything coming along
the pipeline, R&D, that you can see that is going to help us
with some of these problems?
Mr. Henderson. Mr. Chairman, while we do recognize the
value of the visual inspection, as more detailed information is
needed, we do recognize that we need to move toward the use of
NDE technologies.
One of the programs that we have in place currently is the
Steel Bridge Testing program that was authorized under SAFETEA-
LU. With that program, we are facilitating the development of
NDE technology with the States, and encouraging advances in
that particular area. We also are developing a database of
commercially available NDE technology as well as prototype
information, and with that database we believe that we will be
able to provide information to the States that will identify
the capabilities of those various types of technologies.
Mr. DeFazio. It is always bad when I ask someone from the
Administration if they have enough money, and the answer always
has to be yes. If Congress, in its wisdom, provided, say in the
next reauthorization, more funding for research in these areas,
could it be productively spent?
Mr. Henderson. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, I think
that we are spending our money in a most effective way, and the
funds that we are spending in this effective way are addressing
our current program needs. As you know, with the designated
program, we do have some limited flexibility as to what we can
do. However, we do feel that our current program needs are
being addressed.
Mr. DeFazio. So you came over from the State Department
with that. That was a very diplomatic answer. That is good.
Okay, with that, I turn to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gee, the front pages of the newspapers all across the
Country have diagrams and charts and articles about the number
of structurally deficient bridges, but a lot of those same
articles didn't have the information that we have been given
and that you mentioned in your testimony, that the percentage
of structurally deficient bridges had gone down from 18.7
percent to 12.1 percent today. No matter what somebody's job
is, they should always be trying to improve and get better.
Do you think those figures are accurate and, secondly, do
you think that we are doing better in both bridge construction
and bridge inspections and do think that percentage is going to
continue to decrease in the years ahead?
Mr. Gee. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
I believe that the numbers do reflect the trend, that we
have been, in fact, reducing the number of structurally
deficient bridges. I think that we have been promoting the use
of improved materials--high performance steel, high performance
concrete--and that will keep the bridges lasting longer.
I think that as we go forward into the future, because we
have never needed to, we have never been required to, we have
never had the focus to look at the performance of bridges as
they near the end of their lives, it is hard to project what is
going to happen in the future, but we do have an active long
term bridge performance research program underway right now,
and we will need results from that program to answer your
question.
Are we going to continue to gain on the bad bridges or are
we going to begin to lose? Right now, we don't have an answer.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you this. In your testimony, you
mention a program in Missouri. I know SAFETEA-LU authorized $15
billion in private activity bonds. I didn't get to hear your
testimony, but I take it that you are impressed by this
Missouri program or you think it has good possibilities.
Mr. Gee. We are impressed. Yes, we are impressed because it
is an innovative approach to a huge problem. As you may know,
it is 800 and some bridges that the State of Missouri is trying
to bring to a satisfactory condition within 5 years and then to
maintain it for another 25, all with private investments that
will be paid out over time in what we call ``availability
payments.''
The point of innovation there is that the private
consortium will be required to maintain the bridges at a
certain condition, and I think that is where the innovation is.
It is to be responsible for maintaining the bridge as opposed
to reacting to a bridge when it becomes deficient.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Mr. Garrett, in your testimony, you mention that the Oregon
Department of Transportation has greatly increased the
requirements for bridge inspectors, the qualifications and so
forth. Are you seeing results from that? These better qualified
inspectors, are they finding more flaws or what have you found
from those increased qualifications?
Mr. Garrett. Sir, the first thing that jumps out is the
consistency of the reports across the State of Oregon with
different geographical challenges across the State of Oregon
but again with this peer review, and that is what it is. It is
bringing folks in to oversee and literally scrutinize the
inspection reports of the previous years. We are seeing
continuity and consistency in what is coming back to us.
We think that is yielding better results, and we have seen
over the last couple of years a 2 percent increase in the
improvement of our bridge conditions. We see that gradually
playing itself out over the next five, six years until some of
the investments we have at the State level and some of the
investments that came from this Committee play themselves out.
Again, we are identifying it. We are looking at it specific
to structurally deficient bridges. We know we have 203
structurally deficient bridges on the State Highway System, 99
of those on the National Highway System, NHS. As we forecast
out to 2011, we will be able to repair or replace 67 of those
99. So two-thirds of those bridges will be moved up.
Now again, it is a fluid situation because bridges do
deteriorate and move on.
We think we are identifying the problem. We think we have
people that bring a little more experience and wisdom because
they are engaged and tested, and we have seen a benefit in the
State of Oregon because of that.
Mr. Duncan. I think the only thing you need to be careful
about is everybody is all for better qualified people and
continuing education and training and so forth, but you don't
want to give people so much training that they are not out
inspecting bridges. There is a balance there.
Mr. Garrett. Sir, I completely agree with you, but my
people are thirsty are training. But I certainly understand we
want them on the ground, eyeballing the bridges.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Andersen, you mention that Minnesota's 77
bridge inspectors cannot be expected to inspect 14,000
annually. I don't know this. Is Minnesota's ratio of inspectors
to bridges roughly what other States have and, secondly, how
many inspectors do you think you really need to inspect those
bridges?
As Mr. Gee said a while ago, this raises the question I am
probably going to get into with maybe one of the other
witnesses. With improved bridge construction, do you need to
inspect a brand new, well built bridge as frequently as you
would an older bridge that perhaps needs more work?
Mr. Andersen. As far as our ratio to other States, I guess
I don't have the answer to that, but I think there is a
difference in the fact that the majority of our inspectors, the
vast majority, are not just full time bridge inspectors. We are
required, when we are not bridge-inspecting, every other day to
do preventive maintenance and repairs off bridges. So there is
a multitude that we are responsible for outside of just bridge
inspection.
I mean I guess to throw out a number, I don't know what an
accurate number would be to say this is now many would be able
to fulfill the duties of a demand like we just got to have
every bridge in the State inspected by December 1st. If we had
150 inspectors, I don't know if we could have met that deadline
either.
Some of those bridges had been inspected within the year,
but we were instructed they get inspected again. When demands
come out like that, I don't know there is a number out there
that we could have on an everyday basis that would still cover
something like that.
Like I said, our biggest struggle is we don't just do
bridge inspections. If that was the case, 77, maybe that is an
adequate number. I don't know.
Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. McCabe, you have a better targeting
of funding for bridge repairs and improvements and so forth,
and I suppose everybody is for that.
In an earlier hearing on this subject, I mentioned that my
own State of Tennessee, after a bridge collapse in 1988,
started spending a lot of money on bridges and because of that,
where the national average is, I think, 12.7 percent or
something like that, I think we are down 6 percent. We are
about half the national average. How do you do that?
If you target the funding to the States that haven't done
very much, then it looks to me almost like you are rewarding
States that haven't done what they should have done and you are
punishing States like mine where the bridges are in better
shape. So how do you handle that and be fair about it?
Mr. McCabe. I think it is certainly clear that more funding
is necessary to attack structurally deficient bridges. I think
we need to come up with a process to be fair on how we
distribute those funds. For example, I truly believe that if we
were to look at deficient bridges, we probably ought to assign
a time line by which a State needs to turn that bridge around
and get it out of the deficient category and, if they don't,
perhaps there needs to be a penalty or perhaps they need to use
other funding to get it out of that deficient category.
As I look at some of the bridges, and I-35 might be an
example, I believe that bridge was on the deficient category
since 1990. That is 17 years. We need a process that says I
can't let a bridge be deficient for that period of time.
Otherwise, maybe there are some penalties that are invoked.
I do agree that that is an issue that some States that are
doing the right thing with their funding and their resources
are turning their system around, and they should be commended
for that, but I don't believe that we ought to use that as a
means to say that we don't need to have more funding for a
national approach to address the deficient bridges.
Mr. Duncan. Dr. Washer, I think you got into this a little
bit. Do you think that older bridges need to be inspected more
than newer bridges, and how would you handle that?
Mr. Washer. As I mentioned in my testimony, I think that is
something that is worth looking at, whether a time-based
inspection frequency makes sense. In many other industries,
they are looking at actually participating in inspection cycles
and management methods which are based on different things
other than time, for example, on risk, to be able to look at
what is the probability of a certain type of deterioration and
what are the consequences of that deterioration in order to
prioritize their inspections and also define their scope.
Through doing that, you are able to liberate resources in
order to do more in-depth inspections and possibly utilize
assessment technologies like NDE to a higher extent than you
could be if you were, say, inspecting all the bridges on the
same time line and a frequency based solely on time rather than
on condition or on risk.
Mr. Duncan. Right. I assume when you are talking about
risk, you are talking about what I would assume is bridges that
carry more traffic or heavier traffic should be inspected a
little more often than those in very rural or remote areas that
don't carry much traffic.
Mr. McCabe. One would expect that to be a component of that
analysis along with the types of deterioration typical to that
construction of bridge, the year of construction of bridge,
knowledge of the deterioration modes are. It is applied in
manufacturing industries, this concept of a risk-based
inspection.
This particular challenge is the highway bridges based on
the fact that there is a wide variety of materials, different
constructions, different ages of constructions, which may be
unique to bridges. So that is an area, I think, of research
that is certainly worth exploring.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was a little concerned about Mr. Andersen's statement
that the inspectors are also the maintenance workers that
actually carry out the corrective actions. It is almost a
conflict of interest.
Mr. Gee, do you know if that is a common practice
throughout the States?
Mr. Gee. I can't say how common it is, but it does occur.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Garrett, is that done? Is that what you
do in Oregon?
Mr. Garrett. At ODOT, we have in-house inspectors. We have
about seven to nine folks that are specific to bridge
inspection, and then we augment with consultants to focus on
the local system.
Mr. McNerney. The people who carry out the maintenance are
a different set of people?
Mr. Garrett. That is correct.
Mr. McNerney. Could you describe, Mr. Garrett, the
underwater inspection procedure?
I know, for example, the Bay Area, the Bay Bridge has
wooden members that are structural members under water. What is
the procedure for inspecting under water?
Mr. Garrett. It literally is a team of divers that go down
and look. We are looking for scour, obviously. So we get down
there, and we just look for any deficits that are identified.
Again, we have a very specific team that goes out and crawls
underneath those bridges.
We conducted, if my memory serves me correctly, roughly 200
underwater inspections over the course of the last year.
Mr. McNerney. Do they have some way to test the steel, the
structural integrity of the member?
Mr. Garrett. Yes, exactly. Again using the term, sensors or
gauges, we actually have a measurement of air flow, air
pressure. We are looking on there. If it changes, we know
something has changed within the pier itself.
Mr. McNerney. How many teams do you have?
Mr. Garrett. I think we have one team, sir. I don't know
the number that comprises the team.
Mr. McNerney. I am not sure who wants to answer this
question. How is steel fatigue monitored? How do you determine
if a structural member has integrity?
Go ahead, Mr. Washer.
Mr. Washer. I would be happy to address that. There are a
variety of ways to address that. In terms of monitoring,
measuring the stresses that are occurring in a bridge has been
the practice that has been utilized for 30 years, to go out and
instrument a bridge, measuring which stresses are applied via
traffic and then measure in terms of the number of cycles and
the level of those cycles to estimate what the fatigue life is
of a particular defect or a particular bridge.
That technology is quite mature following the Silver Bridge
collapse when there was a lot of focus in that area for steel
bridges, and so we have the capability to do that.
There is a host of technologies that are able to go out and
detect cracks in steel bridges. In one respect, it is because
cracking in metals is such a large problem over a broad range
of industries, that there are methods from other industries
that can be applied to highway bridges.
The American Society for Non-Destructive Testing has a
number of methods in which you can become certified for finding
flaws in steels and metals and things. So there are a lot of
technologies available for detecting a crack inside a steel
bridge members.
Methods of implementing that within the context of bridge
inspections with the access limitations, the materials
involved, the coatings and the other difficult environmental
conditions of bridges is really a large challenge. My view
would be that the detection of those defects is not as large a
research challenge as the appropriate implementation of the
technologies within bridge inspection.
Mr. McNerney. A lot of what you are describing is you take
some measurements, so you know what the loads are or the
stresses too, and then you calculate from the S-N curves or
wherever, when failure might be expected.
Mr. Washer. Right, and that is a way of monitoring for the
development of fatigue cracks, and there is a large body of
knowledge in that for highway bridges.
One of the things that has to be recognized is that many of
the details that were historically problematic in terms of
fatigue have been eliminated over the last 30 years in the new
designs. So this goes back to whether it makes sense to be
inspecting bridges that are 40 years old and which have certain
design characteristics which are not beneficial in terms of
fatigue at the same rate that you are inspecting a bridge that
is 10 years old that has different characteristics in terms of
fatigue design as well as the quality assurance and the
manufacturing process of that bridge.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. McCabe, you stated, I think, that less than 8 percent
of staged problems were identified. Was I hearing you correctly
on that, that less than 8 percent of some sort of problems were
not identified in regular routine inspection?
Mr. McCabe. I believe they put out a test to a bunch of
inspectors, had some flaws in a bridge, and less than 8 percent
of them were identified by the inspection teams.
Mr. McNerney. Those are just routine inspections. They are
not the critical fatigue.
Mr. McCabe. Fracture critical, right.
Mr. McNerney. Those weren't staged then. Those were known
problems that were already diagnosed, and inspectors missed
them anyway.
Mr. McCabe. I believe that is correct.
Mr. McNerney. So that is a fairly alarming statistic then.
Mr. McCabe. I would say that is an area of concern.
However, we do know that we have the technology to look at
cracks in bridges and assess when a crack will become critical.
Generally--and I don't know what the background of that testing
was--cracks that are fairly small will take some time before
they would become of a critical nature.
I believe our focus really needs to be on the fracture
critical bridges. History would tell us that those are the ones
that have had the problems. Those are the ones that have had
collapses, and we really need a much better risk-based approach
to inspection and rehabilitation as well as the potential to
add redundancy to our fracture critical bridges.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I would look to the structural
health monitoring sub-branch of engineering to help us through
that sort of decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman with his expertise for
those excellent questions. I realize he is an engineer.
Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. This is a general question,
perhaps to Mr. Henderson first and then to Mr. McCabe.
In reading your testimony, I have discovered that there is
no uniform standard, correct me if I am wrong, for bridge
inspection throughout the 50 States, that there seems to be
each State having their own opportunity to design their
inspections. I know, in some cases, some States have a
different rating system. In the case of Minnesota, it is far
different of a rating system than it is in Ohio.
My concern is two-fold. One is if you don't have matched
requirements. In Ohio, we have bridges that connect with other
States. In my district, many of those bridges connect with
Kentucky. At least with Kentucky, we have the same rating
system, so it is a zero through nine, I think it is, rating
system. You can match apples to apples.
My concern, though, is if inspection teams in one State are
more proficient in inspecting that bridge than in another
State. They have more expertise. They have more training. That
same bridge that is connecting the two States may not be
getting the same results from the inspections.
What kind of coordination is going on currently? If there
isn't, if it is just a handshake kind of a deal, should we at
the Federal level mandate more close-knit inspections between
States?
Mr. Henderson. Congresswoman Schmidt, I believe that King
Gee would certainly be in a better position to address that
question regarding the uniform standards for bridge
inspections.
Mr. Gee. Congresswoman, we do have national standards, and
we have had them for about 35 years now. So if there was
implication in the testimony that there was not, that was not
correct. We have had those national standards, and we have been
tightening them over time to take care of scour critical
structures, to take care of fracture critical.
We continue to tighten those up as we learn about gaps. For
example, we now have a requirement that the team leader for a
bridge inspection team be experienced, qualified according to
some very specific and objective criteria, and that the team
leader must be on site. The whole point of having a National
Bridge Inventory is to have the data collected from all 50
States be the same.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Gee, the team leader in all 50 States, do
they have to have the same educational requirements and
experience behind them or is that however the State determines
that?
Mr. Gee. There are five ways that a team leader can be
qualified, and that is spelled out in our regulations.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. McCabe?
Mr. McCabe. I agree with Mr. Gee. I think the standards
that are set forth by Federal Highway are quite well
documented, and so there are not differences in the standards.
Your point about two inspection teams inspecting perhaps
the same bridge and coming up with somewhat different ratings
is a fact, and I think it can only be addressed by increased
training programs, more focus on training these staffs with
specific examples to get a little bit more uniformity. But I
think it is a fact of life that we are going to have some
spread. In a nine-factored rating system, there is going to be
some spread in that.
Is it probably out of the ballpark? I mean is the standard
deviation off a little bit? Perhaps, and I think that will only
come with some improved training.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
A follow-up question, do you think that we should have a
national standard of rating so everyone is on a one to nine
basis instead of some folks on a one to fifty basis, so we can
clearly look at the ratings of all of these bridges across the
United States and figure out where they actually fit instead of
trying to recalculate it to see which is severe and which is
not severe?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, I do believe we need a uniform system, and
I thought there was one in place. I wasn't aware that some
States may not use the nine-point rating system. I thought that
was uniform.
Mr. Gee. Some States have their own systems, but they have
to crosswalk between what they have and what we have at the
national level, so there is consistency throughout the national
compliance reviews. We have compliance reviews that our
division office in each of the States has to conduct every
year. We enforce that compliance that way.
Mr. DeFazio. Have you concluded, Mrs. Schmidt? Okay, thank
you.
We then turn to Ms. Richardson. Welcome to the Committee
and go ahead.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to
thank Ranking Member Duncan for holding this very appropriate
hearing today. I believe one of the reasons we are here is we
are obviously here because we need to have this discussion, but
I think the recent collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis has
caused us to come to this table again and stress the importance
of us covering it.
I have a special issue in this hearing today or a special
interest, I should say, because 12 of those 74,000 that have
been identified as being structurally deficient, 12 of those
are housed in my district alone. So this is something that is
of great concern to me.
I have six questions, and then I would like to follow up on
what Mrs. Schmidt said because we obviously have a little
difference of opinion here.
We have a background document that I will reference that
says on page eight: most States have developed some form of
computer-based bridge management programs. These systems are
utilized to assist States in managing bridge programs to
improve the bridge inspection process and the quality of data
collected and reported to the National Bridge Inventory. These
systems also assist States in prioritization of system-wide
investment decisions based on the needs of the bridges and
tracking the deterioration rate of bridge elements.
The bridge management systems currently being utilized by
the States, Mr. Gee, however, vary in complexity and
capabilities. So you hear several questions. I am hearing you
saying they are standardized, and yet we have two references on
both page eight and on page seven that say that both the
training and the systems that are being used are not
consistent. They either are or they aren't, which one is it?
Mr. Gee. There are two things in view here. One is the
bridge inspection process and the rating system. That is
standardized. What we refer to as a bridge management system,
that is not standardized.
Ms. Richardson. Okay, so that helps clarify that. Thank you
very much.
My further questions are, number one, first of all to Mr.
Gee, regarding the I-35 Mississippi River bridge situation, who
or what organizations are potentially liable for that
situation?
I am a new Member.
Mr. Gee. The Federal Highway Administration does not own
any bridges. Actually, we had one that I think we are just rid
of, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The States and local governments
and other Federal Agencies own the bridges. So it is the owner
agencies that are liable.
Ms. Richardson. Okay, thank you.
Could you provide for us, and maybe you have already but I
haven't received it, a list of all the steel arch truss design
bridges in the U.S. that had similar designs as what recently
collapsed?
Mr. Gee. Okay, there is a list of about 700. You want the
list?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, by State.
Mr. Gee. We will be happy to provide that.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
My third question is could you also provide us with a list
of all the bridges that were noted in the IG's 2006 audit that
noted there were miscalculations in terms of loads, load
rating, and also that didn't provide signs of the maximum
weight allowed?
Mr. Gee. That study, or audit, was conducted by the
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation. We
don't have his records, so I think the best thing that we can
do is to talk to him, to ask him to provide those to you.
Ms. Richardson. Could you, please?
Mr. Gee. Yes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much.
Question number four, which line item in the Department of
Transportation budget reflects the inspection, repairs and
ongoing maintenance?
In the background information we received, it talks a lot
about funding for inspections but very little discussion about
the actual ongoing maintenance required. So if you could just
advise of where that would be in the line item budget.
Mr. Gee. In our Federal Highway program, the main focus
over the majority of the last 50 years has been capital
construction. It is only in the last couple of reauthorizations
that we have shifted to maintenance. Even then, it is not
routine-routine maintenance. It is heavier rehabilitation
maintenance, preventive maintenance.
But under SAFETEA-LU--and this Committee did accept our
recommendation and I am very much appreciative of that--under
the Highway Bridge Program, there is now a preventive
maintenance element that can be used. In other words, Highway
Bridge Program monies can be used for preventive maintenance
activities if it is part of a systematic bridge management
framework.
Otherwise, the routine maintenance of bridges is up to the
States and the local governments, but there is not a specific
line item for maintenance per se.
Ms. Richardson. How much is in that account that you
referenced?
Mr. Gee. The Highway Bridge Program?
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Gee. About $4 billion a year.
Ms. Richardson. I think it was noted in our material that
in the one area alone $63 billion was needed to address some of
the structural issues that we have.
Mr. Gee. That is the backlog of bridge needs right now.
Based on the Conditions and Performance Report analysis, to
maintain where we are would require about $8 billion a year
over the next 20 years to just maintain the condition of
bridges where they are. I would point out that in 2004 at all
levels of government, the total spending was $10.5 billion. So
we are spending more than what the C&P report says we need to
maintain our condition.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Last question because I see my time
is wrapping up here, on the map that was provided from the
Department of Transportation that shows the bridges by
district, it was interesting in my area the Gerald Desmond
Bridge was not highlighted. The Gerald Desmond Bridge is along
47 right on the coast there, and it is in such bad shape that
there is actually what they call a diaper that is underneath it
to catch the falling pieces of concrete.
If you could follow up with my office and this Committee as
to why that bridge isn't included, what is its current status,
so I can more appropriately be advocating on what is happening
there.
Then my final one is we were provided a list of bridges
that have deficiencies in our districts, but they don't include
what the structural rating, so if that could be provided as
well.
Mr. Gee. Yes, we will do that.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. I
think she is an excellent addition to the Committee, and doing
a fine job.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing on this particular subject which is so important.
I guess we had a failure of the bridge, but we had a
failure of the inspection process in the sense that nobody
envisioned that bridge collapsing. So I guess since there was a
failure of the inspection process or a failure of the
inspection, I would like to know what you want to do
differently as far as the process because if you don't have a
very, very reliable way of identifying the bridges that are in
trouble, then it doesn't matter if you stick more resources in
there. You are not sticking them in the right direction.
If we ranked bridges that people felt like were imminently
in the worst shape, I think most of the people I have talked to
and most of the people who have testified would not say that
based on the inspection, that this bridge would be at the top
of the list.
The other thing is that there is some concern, I know,
about perhaps that there was something that contributed as far
as the work on the bridge and weight placements on the bridge
when work was going on and stuff. I would like to know your
opinion as to whether or not, short term right now, if any word
is being disseminated as to whether or not that information has
gotten out so that we don't duplicate that effect. Does that
make sense?
Mr. Gee. Sir?
Mr. Boozman. My sister was redoing the shingles on her
house. Well, they stacked all the shingles on one side of the
house and collapsed that portion. That is common sense, but I
guess I am wondering if we need to legislate or somehow if we
make a rule or how far do we need to go if that is a major part
of the deal.
Mr. Gee. To answer your last question first, I would
caution against jumping.
Mr. Boozman. I understand. Yet, on the other hand, I would
caution if there is strong suspicion that that is the case,
then you don't want something to happen in the meantime.
Mr. Gee. Sure, and Secretary Peters, acting out of an
abundance of caution, did cause us to take some steps to
respond. Now I would hasten to say, first of all, that the
exact cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis
has yet to be determined by the NTSB.
Nevertheless, we did issue two technical advisories. One
was immediately after the collapse. We asked all States to
reinspect that type of bridge.
Secondly, when we found out that construction loadings,
your point, might be a factor, we asked and reminded all the
States to keep that in mind. It is already a requirement, when
they design work on a bridge, to take into consideration all
the loadings during the construction phasing. That is an actual
standard, and so we just reminded the States to keep that in
mind.
Mr. Boozman. Does somebody actually look at that during
that? I mean is there a bridge inspector as it goes on?
Mr. Gee. Not an NBIS bridge inspector as it goes on. It is
as a project is designed, the structural engineers need to look
at the loadings that will be on that bridge during the
construction time.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. How about the first question about the
fact that again nobody really anticipated that bridge to
collapse based on the information that we had?
Like I say, if we had resources, and I think we are all
committed to try and get more resources into bridges, the fact
that that bridge probably would not have been on the top of
list as far as putting more resources into it.
Mr. DeFazio. While they are queuing up to answer that
question, I forgot to recognize that Mr. Garrett has to leave
at 4:00 to catch a plane. I know how difficult it is to get to
Oregon. So, Mr. Garrett, if you have to leave, if you want to
address his question before you leave, you could. If you don't,
you are dismissed.
Mr. Garrett. I will defer to my friends.
Mr. DeFazio. There you are.
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Boozman. It is okay, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't seem like
we have a whatever to get it done, but I do think that is an
important distinction. Like I say, we are committed to try and
put resources in, but if you are putting based on the
information that we currently had, we would be putting
resources in the wrong place in the sense, like I say, that
bridge would have collapsed based on the inspection thing.
I know the fact that we have gone and reinspected. The
other question I would have is in these re-inspections that we
have done, were there any surprises or were there a lot of
surprises out there that automatically placed them from the
middle all the way up to the top or vice versa?
Mr. Gee. You asked two questions there. The first one is
there were no real surprises of the almost 700 bridges of that
same type that were reinspected. We are about 96 percent done
with the reinspections, and the rest should be done by the
middle of November. But out of the ones that have been already
done, there were three States that found problems with some
bridges, but all told there were only six bridges altogether
that had a problem that had not been caught in previous
inspection.
Now as to whether any of the reinspections cause a bridge
to be ranked higher, I cannot answer that question.
Going back to your other earlier question, the I-35W bridge
was programmed by Minnesota DOT for reconstruction of some
type. It just hadn't gotten there yet.
Again, without knowing why it collapsed, we cannot say that
it was an inspection failure. It was a failure. We just don't
know what failed.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
With that, I would turn to the Chairman of the Full
Committee. Everyone else has gone, Mr. Chairman. It would be
your prerogative.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, and I apologize for not
being here at the outset of the hearing. I had a speech to the
International Aviation Club about the status of our Aviation
reauthorization Bill, the U.S./E.U. aviation trade relations
and the future of investment in airport modernization, and
upgrading and modernization of the air traffic control system.
The Q and A period was rather lively.
I just got back to the Hill, and the votes were underway on
the House Floor. So I am sorry I have been delayed.
I want to thank you for chairing this second of our
hearings on the bridge proposal and for the time and effort
that you, Mr. Chairman, have devoted to the subject. You are
very bridge-conversant with the unique situation in Oregon, and
it has been my pleasure to be there with you to see the
situation.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for participating
today. I did spend time last night, reading over your
testimony.
I want to come back to Mr. McCabe. I made tab notes on your
testimony, parts that I thought were particularly significant.
Mr. Andersen, I am enriched by your testimony because of
its honesty, integrity, the straightforward statements that you
made, unafraid of consequences. I am quite confident that your
testimony will not be admired at the uppermost echelon of
MnDOT, but I respect it immensely--your candor, your honesty
and the factual situation.
You say we have only 77 inspectors for 14,000 bridges. When
you point out the exodus of personnel from MnDOT, it has been
appalling in these last three and a half years. MnDOT has lost
nearly a thousand top-notch professionals.
We have a big transportation program in Minnesota, a robust
transportation program. We have a reputation over many years of
having the best, one of the best programs of any Department of
Transportation in the Country, but in recent years it has gone
downhill.
As the best skilled personnel--engineers and inspectors and
managers--have left the program and gone to work for a lot more
of the private sector, even the private sector has complained
the MnDOT doesn't have the personnel to oversee the work and
the contracts that they are carrying out.
Now I say in our State--and I have told this to the
governor--that we have a lieutenant governor who is
commissioner of transportation. Either we don't need a
lieutenant governor or we don't need a commissioner of
transportation. My view is we need the latter more than the
former, and that one person cannot do both jobs and cannot do
both of them well and is certainly doing neither well right
now.
The observation that MnDOT is out of money is very clear
when the governor and the lieutenant governor try to shift the
blame or the problem onto the Congress because Congress didn't
appropriate the $250 million authorized in the bill that we
passed within 48 hours of the bridge collapse. Forty-eight
hours, to get a bill through Congress in 48 hours, you can't
even pass a prayer in Congress in 48 hours anymore.
To say, well, we can't move ahead because we don't have
that whole $250 million appropriated, they know full well that
the way the Federal-Aid Highway Program works is that the State
pays the contractor and then bills the Federal Government for
repayment.
MnDOT's problem is they had only $6 million in the whole
transportation account because this Administration has had the
entire transportation on auto pilot ever since 1988 when, under
the Perpich Administration and two successive legislative
sessions, we increased the gas tax a total of 7 cents. We had
enough revenue going to cover over through the Carlson
Administration, through the Ventura Administration and now into
this one.
They have had the luxury to say, well, we don't have to
increase the gas tax. All during that time, the value of the
construction dollar has been eroding 33 to 47 percent, and you
have to replenish those funds in order to be able to make the
investments.
When, in your testimony, Mr. Andersen, you say routine
annual inspections are typically done without specialized
equipment. Visually survey the deck, bearings railings.
Fracture critical inspections are done with trucks, scaffolds
or man lifts. Underwater inspections are done by private
contractors.
Twenty years ago, I held hearings on bridge safety. One of
the salient issues raised in those hearings was underwater
inspections to be done by seasoned, experienced personnel
within the Department. We held that hearing on the 20th
anniversary of the collapse of the Silver Bridge in West
Virginia when 46 people died to see what improvements have been
made in bridge safety. A witness at those hearings, and this is
a Ph.D. bridge engineer, said that bridge inspection and
maintenance is in the Stone Age across America.
In 1987, I observed at the opening of that hearing, we had
363,000 bridges in America. Today, we have 597,000 bridges
throughout the Country. We had 73,000 bridges in 1987 that were
structurally or functionally deficient, 73,000 total. Now we
have 73,000 structurally deficient bridges and another 74,000
that are functionally deficient.
We can't keep sweeping this problem under the rug and
expect the Nation to function effectively. Now the 70,000 or so
bridges on the National Highway System that are structurally
deficient carry 70 percent of the bridge traffic of the Nation.
There is a financial cost to a bridge being shut down as we
are experiencing in Minnesota. When it collapsed, on the south
side, it shut down barge traffic. That diverted those
commodities, aggregate principally, sand and gravel, to truck
traffic. Put another 275 trucks on the road. On the north side,
it shut down rail traffic. That put another 50 trucks on the
road, 50 to 75, by some estimates.
Now the channel is open. The barge traffic has resumed. The
rail will be able to operate. But there is a huge cost, a huge
loss.
Now it is going to take longer and be more costly to
replace that bridge under a contract that was awarded to the
highest bidder, not the lowest bidder, the one that will take
the longer time, not the shorter period of time, and with a
number of questions hanging over whether there is going to be
enough capability to oversee the construction to make sure it
is all being done properly because we don't have the personnel,
as you point out very well in your testimony.
I thank you for your courage in coming to the Committee and
laying it out.
Now let me ask you. I had a meeting with some of your
colleagues the week after the bridge collapsed, and I laid out
my four-point proposal for the bridge program including raising
the standards by which we determine structural deficiency,
having more rigorous evaluation of bridges. That may include
more bridges that are structurally deficient--I don't know--but
I think we need to do that.
Raising the qualifications and training, intensify the
training and skills of bridge inspectors and their overseers,
establishing a bridge trust fund for structurally deficient
bridges.
The fourth item is a dedicated revenue stream with a five
cent increase in the user fee in an earmark-free process by
which the determination of the structural deficient bridges
will be made, verified by the National Academy of Sciences and,
once established, will not be tampered with by the National
Executive Branch or State Executive Branch or by the Congress.
If there is any deviation from the list, then the Secretary of
the Treasury will be directed to shut down funding for the
whole program.
Now what problems do you see?
This is a three-year program, sunsetted at the end of three
years.
What problems do you see along the road for assuring that
we have sufficient trained bridge inspectors, trained to the
highest level? Where should the funds come from to do that?
What are the issues raised in evaluating and permitting
bridges?
What are the obstacles to getting something like this done
in a very short time frame to deal, say, 6,000 or so if you
make a rough estimate of the most critical structurally
deficient bridges? What are the obstacles to getting there?
Let me start with you, Mr. Andersen.
Mr. Andersen. To be quite frank, some of those answers are
probably above my pay grade. My biggest concern at this point,
to be honest, would be the accountability at the level of
management and engineering that make the decisions.
Like I said, I am about as rank and file as it gets. When I
go out, if I am involved in an inspection, once my inspection
report is done, it is passed on to the engineering level, and
that is the last I see of it. I won't get any feedback, whether
any of the deficiencies I found or any preventive maintenance
items I found need to be attended to immediately. I don't have
that decision-making power.
So, like I said, I guess my concerns would lie in the fact
that any changes in the system at this point, any new monies
allocated to take care of some of these issues, just I would
hope there would be some sort of an accountability factor built
in there that there is going to have to be a very adequate
recording purpose from your level on down that says these are
our expectations; these were things we assumed were going to be
looked at and taken care of; where are we at now.
If that is in there, that is wonderful. But I hope all
departments are held to that accountability standard because,
like I said, when we get to a point where a deficiency rating
is given to a bridge which ultimately depends on how some of
the funding comes down, at the lowest levels where those
ratings are being made, the decision-making and the monies that
come back to those problem areas are decisions made far above
where I am at. Like I said, it is hard for us on a daily basis
to see these problems going untouched.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I appreciate that. Accountability
is absolutely critical.
Mr. McCabe, you have three items: apply advanced
technologies, techniques and materials; a dedicated methodology
to allocate funding, which we would address; and improvements
to the bridge inspection and rating systems.
Those points that I raised in our draft proposal, is that
square with what you are thinking about?
Mr. McCabe. Very much so, Mr. Oberstar.
I think I would just like to go back to your roadblocks. I
think it is very clear that the roadblocks to accomplishing
what we need to accomplish are fairly simple: money,
prioritization and, as Mr. Andersen said, accountability. We
need those three things to enter the equation to get our
bridges safe.
Mr. Oberstar. Using non-destructive evaluation of bridges,
which was in Dr. Washer's testimony, that was an issue raised
20 years ago. It has not been fully implemented across the
Country. What is the resistance? Is it resistance or is it
simply neglect of using available technologies? We do it in
aviation.
Mr. Washer. Well, yes, it has been an issue for 20 years.
There have been a lot of advancements in the last 20 years.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Mr. Washer. Is it used as broadly maybe as it could be
used? Maybe not, but there has certainly been a lot of
advancements in the number of times, in the frequency of use,
and there are surveys of States that demonstrate that that have
been published by the Federal Highway Administration. So there
has been a lot of progress in this area of implementing NDE
technologies.
But I think one of the points that ought to be is that it
is not a simple process. It is not simple in aerospace, and it
is not simple here. Finding a way to integrate those
technologies into the operation has a lot of challenges.
Learning the reliability of those beyond just being able to
demonstrate a simple capability in a laboratory is a subject of
research.
I would find that we have made a tremendous amount of
progress in the last 20 years in that particular area, in
figuring out what are the capabilities of these different NDE
techniques and how to integrate them into our systems.
I will give you, as an example, ultrasonic inspection of
bridge pins which is widely used. It wasn't used at all 30
years ago. Learning from experience that we had with failures,
now it is widely used. I would venture that almost every State
uses it for pins in their particular State, and various States
are looking at advanced ultrasonic technology like phased
arrays that have come out of medical industry on how to improve
that process.
It is a growing field. There is more research needed, in my
opinion, in that particular field. There are a lot of
technologies available. If we can figure out how to apply them
effectively within the context of a bridge inspection, then
there is a tremendous amount of potential there to improve the
safety of bridges.
Mr. Oberstar. Are you familiar with the application of
those technologies by the various State Departments of
Transportation?
Mr. Washer. Generally familiar with it, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. Twenty years ago, they weren't applying those
technologies, and I have the impression that dragging a chain
over a bridge is still a widely applied technology to determine
what the sound is and how it sounds to the trained ear instead
of using eddy current technology and dye and ultrasound which
we use in testing the hull of aircraft.
Mr. Washer. Yes, there are a few different, I guess, issues
to address there. The sounding and chain drags have proven to
be extremely effective over the years in terms of cost of
assessing concrete which is a heterogenous material, which is
very complicated to assess with NDE technologies.
Metals are really a separate thing because metals are much
less heterogenous, and so you can use eddy current and
ultrasound on them and have more effective techniques.
Now having said that, the sounding and chain drag
techniques have been advanced over the years, and there are a
lot of flavors of that technique in terms of impact echo,
instrumented chain drags and a whole host of others that have
been developed. Those are implemented periodically.
Sporadically would not be the right term, but when needed with
State DOTs, they do implement some of those technologies.
But it is really hard and difficult to compete with
sounding and chain drag. In fact, I would submit that most
States would measure any new technology according to its
effectiveness compared with chain dragging and sounding because
that has proven to be a reliable technique within their
experience.
Now does that have reliability issues as well? Yes, and the
study of those reliability issues is an important factor in the
widespread use of newer technologies.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I have a ton of other questions,
but you have been here a long time and we have votes on the
Floor and I have another meeting to attend to.
So I will have to just say thank you and thanks to the
Federal Highway Administration for being here. Thanks every so
much for your presentations.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman is
multi-tasking as usual.
I want to thank you all for being here, for your testimony
today and looking for ways to enhance and improve these
programs so we can better protect the traveling public.
With that, the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8566.109