U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–566 PDF 2007

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 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

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 MissouriColumbia ............................................................................................................... 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 MissouriColumbia, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .............................. 127 

vi 


38566.001
vii 


38566.002
viii 


38566.003
ix 


38566.004
x 


38566.005
xi 


38566.006
xii 


38566.007
xiii 


38566.008
xiv 


38566.009
(1) 

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. 

2 

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. 

3 

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 elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
4 

nate 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. 

5 

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 MunicVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
6 

ipal 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 

7 

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. 

8 

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 

9 

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. 

10 

[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 tarVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
11 

gets 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 cablestayed 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. 

12 

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. 

13 

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 moniVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
14 

toring 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. 

15 

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. 

16 

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 men- tion 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 geoVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
17 

graphical 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. 

18 

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. 

19 

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? 

20 

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. 

21 

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. 

22 

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. 

23 

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 computerbased 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? 

24 

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 highVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
25 

lighted. 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. 

26 

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. 

27 

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. 

28 

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. 

29 

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 fourpoint 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 

30 

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 wideVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:20 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38566 JASON
31 

ly 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 multitasking 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.] 

32 


38566.010
33 


38566.011
34 


38566.012
35 


38566.013
36 


38566.014
37 


38566.015
38 


38566.016
39 


38566.017
40 


38566.018
41 


38566.019
42 


38566.020
43 


38566.021
44 


38566.022
45 


38566.023
46 


38566.024
47 


38566.025
48 


38566.026
49 


38566.027
50 


38566.028
51 


38566.029
52 


38566.030
53 


38566.031
54 


38566.032
55 


38566.033
56 


38566.034
57 


38566.035
58 


38566.036
59 


38566.037
60 


38566.038
61 


38566.039
62 


38566.040
63 


38566.041
64 


38566.042
65 


38566.043
66 


38566.044
67 


38566.045
68 


38566.046
69 


38566.047
70 


38566.048
71 


38566.049
72 


38566.050
73 


38566.051
74 


38566.052
75 


38566.053
76 


38566.054
77 


38566.055
78 


38566.056
79 


38566.057
80 


38566.058
81 


38566.059
82 


38566.060
83 


38566.061
84 


38566.062
85 


38566.063
86 


38566.064
87 


38566.065
88 


38566.066
89 


38566.067
90 


38566.068
91 


38566.069
92 


38566.070
93 


38566.071
94 


38566.072
95 


38566.073
96 


38566.074
97 


38566.075
98 


38566.076
99 


38566.077
100 


38566.078
101 


38566.079
102 


38566.080
103 


38566.081
104 


38566.082
105 


38566.083
106 


38566.084
107 


38566.085
108 


38566.086
109 


38566.087
110 


38566.088
111 


38566.089
112 


38566.090
113 


38566.091
114 


38566.092
115 


38566.093
116 


38566.094
117 


38566.095
118 


38566.096
119 


38566.097
120 


38566.098
121 


38566.099
122 


38566.100
123 


38566.101
124 


38566.102
125 


38566.103
126 


38566.104
127 


38566.105
128 


38566.106
129 


38566.107
130 


38566.108
131 

Æ 


38566.109