BRIDGE INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND DESIGN TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1968 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Jennings Randolph (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Spong, Cooper, and Jordan of Idaho. Also present: M. Barry Meyer, committee counsel; and Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority). The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, if you will, identify yourself and the officer who appears with you, for the record, and present your statement as you feel will be helpful to the committee. I believe you may want to comment on it rather than read it word for word, but it will appear in the record as written. STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. PAUL E. TRIMBLE, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD; ACCOMPANIED BY HAROLD F. OLSON, CHIEF, BRIDGE BRANCH, NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT Admiral TRIMBLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Vice Adm. Paul E. Trimble, Assistant Commandant of the Coast Guard. Accompanying me is Comdr. Harold F. Olson, Chief of our Bridge Branch in our Navigation Department at headquarters. With your concurrence, I would offer my statement for the record and summarize it briefly. The Coast Guard has no direct responsibility for the design, inspection, or maintenance of bridges. We are heavily involved in other aspects of bridges, both railway and highway bridges, but only those over navigable waters of the United States. There are approximately 5,000 such bridges. Since the Department of Transportation Act was approved last fall, there were certain functions of the Corps of Engineers relating to bridges that were transferred to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and he in turn delegated these responsibilities to the Coast Guard. Specifically, these include the location and clearance of bridges over navigable waters, the removal of obstructions from certain bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act, and the operation and regulation of drawbridges. In addition to these involvements with bridges, the Coast Guard has long been involved with the safety of navigation aspects, as far as the waterway traffic is concerned. We do investigate certain casualties, collisions between towboats or barges and bridges, as well as other marine casualties. These do have implications for the safety of bridges, both from the point of view of the mere impact on piers as well as the fact that hazardous cargo may be carried. We are interested in the waterway safety aspects such as qualifications of towboat operators and also the pilothouse manning on towboats. We do not have specific authority at the moment to make regulations in this field but legislation is being sought. There have been a number of collisions with bridges. As an example, I will cite the experience with the causeway bridge over Lake Pontchartrain, La. Since 1961, there have been seven collisions with this bridge so we do feel there is a problem as far as some of the towboat operations are concerned and hopefully it can be rectified by this legislation. I think, by and large, the waterway operators have a pretty good record as far as navigation safety is concerned and the impact on bridges. As you probably will recall from the press, the Coast Guard was heavily involved with the recovery and rescue operations following the unfortunate collapse of the Point Pleasant Bridge last December. I would like to offer a brief paragraph for the record showing our participation, if it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We would want to have that included as part of your statement. Do you wish to make reference to it or just file it? Admiral TRIMBLE. I will just offer it for the record. (The statement referred to follows:) USCG SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS POINT PLEASANT BRIDGE COLLAPSE The Coast Guard participation in search and rescue efforts resulting from the Point Pleasant bridge collapse constituted one of the largest sustained search and rescue operations performed by the Coast Guard in recent years. During the sixty two day period between 15 December 1967 and February 15, 1968, Coast Guard personnel, three river buoy tenders, several small craft and aircraft contributed to the search for survivors and bodies, marking of an emergency channel, river traffic control, coordination of volunteer and Coast Guard Auxiliary search groups and water craft, navy diving teams, procurement and operation of electronic search gear (sonar and metal detectors) water transportation of various State, Federal and Local officials, support and assistance to the National Transportation Safety Board teams, recovering of vehicles and logistic support to other involved agencies including the Corps of Engineers, Civil Defense units and local law enforcement officers. As an illustration of the magnitude of the search and rescue effort, as many as 64 volunteer water craft and 400 civilian volunteers participated in addition to the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel and facilities. Admiral TRIMBLE. This concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman, and Commander Olson, and I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have or will include material for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Admiral Trimble. (The statement referred to follows:) COMPLETE STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. PAUL E. TRIMBLE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD U.S. COAST GUARD BRIDGE CLEARANCE DUTIES Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee, I am Vice Admiral Paul E. Trimble, Assistant Commandant, United States Coast Guard. There were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation by subsection 6(g) of the Department of Transportation Act certain functions, powers, and duties previously performed by the Secretary of the Army and other officers and offices of the Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers) which included: Approval of the location and clearances of bridges and causeways over the navigable waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. 401, 491 et seq. and 525 et seq.); the regulation of drawbridge operations (33 U.S.C. 499); the administration of the alteration of obstructive bridges (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Effective 1 April 1967 the Secretary of Transportation by Department Order 1100.1 delegated to and authorized the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard to exercise these functions, powers, and duties. The Commandant by notice effective 1 April 1967 announced the adoption and continuation of applicable orders, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, privileges, waivers and other actions which had been issued, made granted or allowed to become effective prior to this date. These actions also would continue in effect until modified, terminated, repealed, superceded, or set aside by appropriate authority. In order to maintain continuity of service to the public during the transfer of records, development of necessary personnel structure and facilities within the Coast Guard the Commandant and the Chief of Engieers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding relative to the implementation of the transfer of these bridge functions from the Corps of Engineers to the Coast Guard. It was agreed that the Corps of Engineers would perform for and under the direction of the Commandant such of those services that it previously performed until the Coast Guard's facilities and personnel can provide these services for the public. Further it was agreed that full assumption of these functions would occur not later than 30 June 1968. We are now well advanced in the transfer of these functions on a district by district basis and full assumption by the Coast Guard will occur on or before the end of June. The Coast Guard carries out its duties relative to these bridge functions in the manner prescribed by Parts 114 through 117 subchapter J of Title 33 CFR. A brief summary of these procedures in table form is attached. The duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways over navigable waters are to assure that where such structures or works are to be constructed they do not constitute unreasonable obstructions to navigation. Consent for the construction of bridges and causeways is granted by a formal permit issued when the Commandant is satisfied that the public right of navigation is adequately protected. The duties relating to the regulation of drawbridges are intended to assure that persons owning, operating, and tending drawbridges open or cause to be opened the draws of such bridges under such rules and regulations as in the opinion of the Commandant the public right of navigation requires. The duties relating to the administration of obstructive bridges require that whenever the Commandant has good reason to believe that a bridge across any of the navigable waters is an unreasonable obstruction to navigation it is his duty after giving the parties interested reasonable opportunity to be heard to notify the persons owning or controlling such bridge to alter it so as to render navigation through or under it reasonably free, easy and unobstructed. The Commandant shall specify the changes that are required to be made. The alteration of railroad and publicly owned highway bridges is subject to the provisions of the TrumanHobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 511, et seq.). In the exercise of these three bridge functions notice and public procedure thereon as required by 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq. are followed. No permit to construct a bridge or causeway is issued, no drawbridge regulation promulgated and no notice to alter an obstructive bridge is issued without general notice and opportunity for public participation. In the process of review of the application and consideration of public comments regarding the location and clearances of a bridge proposed to be built over a navigable waterway many and often complex problems arise. The vigorous growth of our inland waterborne commerce is presenting greater and greater need for increased horizontal clearances because of longer and wider tow units, while the demands of highway transportation are requiring more and more bridges. Often the most desirable location for a bridge from the aspect of navigation requirements does not coincide with the demands of the highway construction. These problems to navigation are intensified when bridges are proposed to be built across bends in the channels or at the confluence of waterways. In considering the horizontal and vertical clearances and location of such structures, the safety of navigation is our most important consideration. This aspect is particularly significant in in the present day waterborne transportation of liquified petroleum gas, chlorine gas, corrosive chemicals, crude oil, petroleum products and similar dangerous materials. Construction of any bridge with piers in the water will restrict to some extent the movement of waterway traffic while facilitating the movement of vehicular traffic. Only if the cost of providing adequate navigational clearances is so great that a bridge is not built will there be no benefit to vehicular traffic. Again in the regulation of the operation of drawbridges over navigable waters, the Coast Guard encounters the problem of balancing the need of reasonably free and unobstructed navigation with the demands of highway transportation. The greatest activity in the regulations of drawbridges, as would be expected, involves metropolitan areas with heavy highway commuter traffic. Here due regard to the needs and limitations of both interests is the bases for final determination of the regulations required in the overall public interest. The administration of obstructive bridges involves much the same factors with regard to existing bridges as are considered in authorizing the construction of a new bridge. The problem arises particularly when the character of the utilization of a navigable waterway changes in such manner that the bridge constitutes an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. Organizationally these bridge functions are carried out within the Coast Guard Headquarters and nine district offices with a professional staff now established at 21 positions, supplemented by a clerical staff. The function is performed in three district offices as collateral duty of the designated aids to navigation officers. In addition a Headquarters' civil engineering support staff of six professional positions is provided for the technical review of plans and specifications for alteration of obstructive bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act. SUMMARY OF BRIDGE PERMITS, REGULATIONS, AND ALTERATIONS PROCEDURES Permits 1. Application for proposed bridge by Federal, State, local authority, or person, submitted to district commander. 2. Public notice of proposed bridge issued by district commander, with opportunity for interested persons to submit written comments and objections, if any. 3. Public hearing held by district commander if proposed bridge is of significant controversy or importance. 4. District commander submits his recommendations to the commandant, based upon his review of the public response and the facts of the matter. 5. Permit issued by commandant upon his review of the recommendations of the district commander. Regulations Application for regulation of draw- Public notice of proposed regulation Public hearing held by district com- Regulations issued by commandant 6. Permit forwarded to applicant via the Regulation published in the Federal district commander. Register. Bridge owner and ap- Alteration Complaint that bridge is unreasonable obstruction to navigation. Complaint investigated by district commander, and commandant informed. District commander authorized by commandant to hold public hearing, District commander submits his rec- Owner of bridge issued order to alter owner. The CHAIRMAN. In your statement, on page 4, I have noted the language, "The vigorous growth of our inland waterborne commerce is presenting greater and greater need for increased horizontal clearances because of longer and wider tow units, while the demands of highway transportation are requiring more and more bridges." Now this leads me to a question which is not directly associated with our subject matter of the hearing. I have been making some studies of the increased use of our inland waterways for commerce and the figures of the tonnages are revealing. It is true that on most of the rivers, let's take the Ohio, for an example, do you have knowledge of the increased tonnages moving on that stream? Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman; we do. I think Commander Olson has some figures just to give you a good illustration of the amount of tonnage that moves on the Ohio River; the amount is phenomenal. The figure for last year was 110 million tons moving from Pittsburgh to the mouth of the Ohio River. The 103 million was the amount of 1965 and it increased by 7 million to 110 million in 1966. Even on the Kanawha River, which is a much smaller river, there were 13 million tons. The CHAIRMAN. What in 1965? Admiral TRIMBLE. It was also 13 million. That traffic is fairly stable there. The CHAIRMAN. Again this is not directly related to this subject matter. This, in a sense, has caused the location of factories along the stretches of the river; is that not true? Admiral TRIMBLE. This does bring industry along the river because there is new access to the ocean and to other markets and the growth is certainly phenomenal. I know that the Chairman recognized this in a speech before the Mississippi Valley Association recently which indicated his great knowledge of this subject, and, of course, you are aware of the Arkansas River project. This is going to open up a vast new area to industry and to shipping. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, you made reference to the remarks that I gave in St. Louis. I think because of your reference to the vigorous growth of navigable waterborne commerce I will insert that address at this point. (The document to be supplied follows:) REMARKS BY SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH (DEMOCRAT, WEST VIRGINIA), CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, BEFORE THE 10TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS, Denver, COLORADO Friday, September 8, 1967 "To Strengthen and Perpetuate that Union . . .” In 1808 Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, submitted his historic report on Federal participation in an extensive public works program to develop inexpensive water transportation and post-road construction, in order to (quote) "... facilitate commercial and personal intercourse.' " In his Report, published in response to a Senate resolution, Secretary Gallatin enunciated for the first time the policy of our young Republic regarding water resources development by declaring that ". no other single operation, within the power of government, can more effectually tend to strengthen and perpetuate that union which secures external independence, domestic peace, and individual liberty." Some sixteen years after the Gallatin Report-and following the landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall which upheld the power of the Congress to 91-955-68 |