BRIDGE INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND DESIGN MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1968 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Jennings Randolph (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Spong, Cooper, and Baker. Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; M. Barry Meyer, committee counsel; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority); Joseph F. Van Vladricken, professional staff member; and Martin Baker, staff assistant. The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We begin our hearings today in the Subcommittee on Roads of the Public Works Committee on the subject matter which will call for our careful consideration of bridge design criteria, bridge safety inspection standards, and also bridge maintenance. We are hoping to develop, and I think certainly with your help we can develop, significant information on the proper role of the Federal Government in the establishment of bridge design criteria and standards and criteria for bridge inspection. Our subcommittee is particularly concerned that the public be assured that our bridges are safe for travel and for the movement of products and that the investment of highway trust fund money secures the best long-term return for each dollar expended. We recall the tragic collapse of the bridge at Point Pleasant, W. Va., near Gallipolis, Ohio, on the Ohio River between our two States. This disaster occurred last December. Following that catastrophe, a special task committee was appointed by the President of the United States to investigate that tragedy and then to go into a matter of concern-bridge safety in this country. So, we began to think in terms of a national survey. The task force has not yet completed either of the studies, either ascertaining the actual cause for the Point Pleasant collapse or making recommendations that perhaps might be formulated in reference to standards, inspection, and maintenance. We are not going to hold this hearing to go into the Point Pleasant bridge collapse, though it naturally will come into discussion, and that is understandable. The information that has been gathered by investigators and survey teams determining the scope of the Federal involvement are compelling areas of inquiry. In these hearings, we hope to develop the priority of Federal activity and the proper role of the Federal Government in the bridge design, inspection, and maintenance fields. I know that the committee and the witnesses will seek to determine what importance is placed on bridge capability. We will carefully examine the facts to ascertain what are the critical features of bridge inspection, the needed frequency of such inspections, and the adequacy of maintenance procedures. These will be gone into thoroughly to determine whether the Federal Government should undertake the establishment of uniform standards for safety and maintenance of highway bridges. Now, as we begin our hearings this morning, I welcome to the subcommittee Lowell Bridwell, the Federal Highway Administrator. In addition to activities that have been placed in his hands, there are the important responsibilities which naturally fall to him in connection with the nationwide bridge review program. Administrator Bridwell is accompanied this morning by Francis Turner, who is the Director of Public Roads in the United States. We are going to be counseled with this morning from Vice Adm. Paul E. Trimble, Assistant Commandant of the Coast Guard. At the present time, this agency has significant responsibility in regards to bridges over navigable waters. Then in the further days of hearings, the Corps of Engineers will be testifying. The State highway departments will come before us as will railroads which are involved, the toll bridge authorities that are concerned, the consulting engineers and private consulting engineers, I may say, who have views on this problem. These representatives and organizations will be heard. So, we have a list of witnesses who are in a sense expert and they are concerned about this problem. The information that we shall receive from you during these hearings will help to clarify and perhaps will present answers to some important questions, problems, that are involved in bridge safety. Now, Mr. Bridwell, you are the first witness, accompanied by Director Turner. We know that you will give us a presentation which will be informative and which will assist us as we undertake this important work. Will you proceed now, Mr. Bridwell, into your statement? STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANCIS C. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS Mr. BRIDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have already noted, I am accompanied by Mr. Frank Turner of the Bureau of Public Roads. I am pleased to appear before your committee today representing Secretary Boyd who was unable to be here at this time. Secretary Boyd, as you know, is Chairman of President Johnson's Task Force on Bridge Safety which was assigned responsibility to look into the Ohio River bridge tragedy of last December 15 and to conduct a national survey of bridge safety. The bridge failure at Point Pleasant was a unique occurrence involving as it did catastrophic loss of life and property, and great economic consequences in the area which it served. There have been other bridge failures but not accompanied by the tragedy of this Occurrence. The CHAIRMAN. At this point, I am going to ask Mr. Meyer, counsel to the committee, to make certain comments. Mr. MEYER. Mr. Bridwell, is there a list available of these other major bridge failures and the assignment of the apparent or applicable cause of the failure that the committee could have for the record at this point? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes; we will provide that for the record, Mr. Meyer. Can you give us an indication of what timespan you would like to cover? Mr. MEYER. I think that it would probably be most helpful for the committee if we could have a description of the major bridge failures which have taken place in the past 25 years. This is the period of heaviest highway use and I think it would be most informative for the members. Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes; we will supply it for the record. (The document to be supplied follows:) Mr. BRID WELL. Secretary Boyd's task force has three major objectives: 1. Investigate, in coordination with officials of West Virginia and Ohio, the collapse of the bridge connecting Point Pleasant, W. Va., and Gallipolis, Ohio. 2. Determine what Federal action can be taken to accelerate the construction of a new bridge across the Ohio River to serve this area, and 3. To analyze procedures and standards used to insure the safety of bridges throughout the country and to develop recommendations to assure the safety of the public. Committees were appointed to work on these three objectives. The first, whose assignment is the investigation of the tragedy, is chaired by Mr. Joseph J. O'Connell, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The second, whose primary responsibility is to determine how quickly a new structure can be built, is chaired by Mr. Robert Y. Phillips, Director, Emergency Operations Office, of the Office of Emergency Planning. In my capacity as Federal Highway Administrator, I was assigned as chairman of the third committee-responsible for developing procedures and standards to insure the safety of bridges throughout the country. I would like to comment briefly on the work done to date by the first two committees and then to discuss in more detail the work of the third committee which is the subject of major interest in these hearings and which is my area of responsibility. The investigating committee was subdivided into three groups to better search out the pertinent facts and the sequence of events, which could lead to the answer needed in determing the cause of the bridge failure. One group interviewed and questioned eyewitnesses to the tragedy; a second undertook a study of the bridge design history, and the third is busily engaged in structural analysis and tests. The bridge members have been salvaged from the river and placed on the ground in the relative position the member occupied in the original structure. Detailed materials and stress analyses are being made. Progress has been made, many facts have been established as to loading and sequence of failure others are being sought-and in time the committee is confident they will establish the cause of this Occurrence. This is the first application to a highway bridge of techniques which have been so carefully developed for investigation of airline disasters. The second committee has met on many occasions in their search for means of financing a new bridge, and to expedite the decisions on location, design, and other preliminary work which is a necessary and essential part of so large an engineering work. On February 23, in a meeting at Point Pleasant, W. Va., the representatives of the State Road Commission of West Virginia, the Ohio Department of Highways, the Department of Transportation, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Corps of Engineers were successful in resolving many questions and in laying the groundwork for moving ahead on a project for a bridge replacement. Organization responsibility was assigned for several elements; location subject to public hearings was agreed upon; financing will be jointly with Appalachian funds and with Federal-aid highway and State matching funds; tentative span lengths were agreed upon subject to public hearings; the Bureau of Public Roads will endeavor to expedite both substructure and superstructure design; the bridge is to be four lanes in width and the general layout will be determined after a study of plan availability. Mr. Chairman, the specific location of a bridge will be the subject of public hearings to be held by both West Virginia and Ohio this Wednesday and presumably unless substantial objections are raised the location will be agreed upon at that time. Further, there is a meeting today in the Bureau of Public Roads in which will be decided the horizontal span dimensions for the bridge. The Coast Guard which has been working very closely with us will conduct public hearings as rapidly as possible to insure the adequacy and the safety of the new bridge for waterway users. It is anticipated that the actual design work or design modifications can be started immediately. We are working on a tentative schedule of having the bridge completed and open to traffic the latter part of next year. Senator COOPER. I have some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Cooper. Senator COOPER. What is the objective and the significance of holding public hearings on span length? Is this a new procedure? Mr. BRIDWELL. This is required by law, Senator Cooper. It is required for bridges over navigable streams. Senator COOPER. It gives those who use the river for transportation purposes the opportunity to present their views? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir; that is its primary purpose. Senator COOPER. My question is really to determine whether or not you are holding public hearings also on the subject of the safety of the proposed span length. Mr. BRIDWELL. From the standpoint of the public hearings to be conducted by the two State highway departments the location is the primary subject of the hearings although the safety is not foreclosed. Anyone may comment or offer suggestions or plans at their discretion. The primary purpose of the hearing to be conducted by the Coast Guard is the efficient use and the safety of the proposed bridge from the standpoint of the waterways. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper, I think we both might be interested as would all members of the subcommittee since the matter of the law is involved to ask our counsel to place in the record the appropriate section from the United States Code that bears on the matter of public hearings in this regard. (The information to be supplied is as follows:) TITLE 23 UNITED STATES CODE 128 Section 128. Public hearings (a) Any State highway department which submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving the bypassing of, or going through, any city, town, or village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and has considered the economic effects of such a location. Any State highway department which submits plans for an Interstate System project shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings at a convenient location, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, for the purpose of enabling persons in rural areas through or contiguous to whose property the highway will pass to express any objections they may have to the proposed location of such highway. (b) When hearings have been held under subsection (a), the State highway department shall submit a copy of the transcript of said hearings to the Secretary, together with the certification. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bridwell, I would like at this point to ask you if in the location of the bridge there is the matter of cost involved as well as safety. We understand the safety of the bridge may affect its location. Now, there might be a site that would take care of the traffic, take care of the safety, and yet be, let us say, $2 million less in cost. I presume the cost weighs heavily with you; is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir; it does, and I am confident that it weighs equally as heavy with the respective States of West Virginia and Ohio. |