LD8_BIR_FINAL_2019 1.pdf

STATEMENT OF INSPECTION REVIEW AND APPROVAL

Part 1: TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DISTRICT OR OPERATING MSC

UPON COMPLETION OF INSPECTION AND EVALUATION

A qualified inspection team, according to the NBIS and USACE Policy, has completed the inspection and evaluation of the CENMVPWI-00LD08 / Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge.The inspection report received an independent technical review by a qualified bridge engineer and all substantive issues arising during the review have been resolved to meet the provisions of PL 100-17 and existing USACE policy.

/s/ Coralys N. Nunez Orta 29-JAN-2020 Bridge Inspection Team Leader (Final Report Signature Date)

03-DEC-2019

(Initial Report Signature Date)

/s/ Anthony Levine 28-FEB-2020 Technical Review Team Leader (Date)

/s/ Michael Bart, P.E. 29-SEP-2020 Chief, Engineering and Construction Division (Date)

Part 2: TO BE COMPLETED BY MSC

The inspection, evaluation and review of the Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge has been completed in accordance with the approved Quality Control Plan, and this report is approved as sufficient in accordance with ER 1110-2-111 for updating the data in the CEBIS, and for proceeding to budget, schedule and design all maintenance and rehabilitation work necessary to correct deficiencies which jeopardize the structural safety and integrity of the Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge.

/s/ Jennifer Chambers 18-MAR-2022 Chief, Engineering Division (Date)

Reports https://cebis.sec.usace.army.mil/cebis2/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_u...

1 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge

CENMVPWI-00LD08

GENOA WISCONSIN

Vernon County, Wisconsin

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION

ST. PAUL DISTRICT

INSPECTED OCTOBER 2019

2 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

1. Summary of Inspection:

This combined routine and fracture critical inspection of the Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge was conducted on October 8 and 9, 2019 by Coralys Nuñez-Orta (Inspection Team Leader), and Lexi Goergen of the St. Paul District and Scott Hibbs, P.E. and Mike Coleman of Extreme Access, Inc. Access to the bridge was from the deck, piers, tainter gate machinery compartments and the ground. Extreme Access provided rope access supervision services to ensure a close up hands on visual inspection was conducted. Temperatures ranged between 50 and 74 degrees with partially sunny skies.

The bridge is located over the Lock and Dam 8 control gates near Genoa, Wisconsin. Construction of the dam was completed in 1937.

The bridge is comprised of 18 simple spans founded on the dam piers. The bridge is 1,042 feet long. Each span consists of riveted steel main plate girders. The bridge has a steel deck over the roller gate and tainter gate spans. There is a serrated steel grating deck over the storage yard. Floor beams transmit the pedestrian live load to the main plate girders. The crane load is transmitted directly to the main plate girders, as the rails are situated directly over main plate girder flanges.

The bridge was sandblasted and repainted in 1999. Concrete pedestals under the bearings were replaced prior to the 2004 Inspection. Top flange plates and rails were metalized and rail clips replaced in 1999. The previous inspection was conducted in September 2014.

Fracture critical and routine inspection plans were prepared prior to the inspection. The inspection team leader ensured all required pre-inspection planning was conducted and also ensured the inspection plans were followed during the inspection execution phase. The quality control process for the pre-inspection planning and inspection execution are documented in checklists which are in the bridge file rather than attached to this report.

2. Summary of Findings:

The primary focus of this combined routine and fracture critical inspection was to conduct a close up (within arm's length) visual inspection of all FCMs and fatigue sensitive details (FSDs). This two girder multi span bridge is primarily riveted construction. Careful attention was given to the two primary built up plate girders and their connections. Previously documented defects such as extraneous welds were closely examined with no problems noted. There are many poor quality welds that were used in conjunction with riveted stiffeners. No problems were noted regarding these welds. FSDs such as lateral bracing connections, transverse stiffeners and utility brackets were also closely inspected. No problems were noted with these details. All members were inspected for section loss, distortion, bends, buckling, and cracks with no major defects noted.

The deck is in overall fair to good condition. There are some isolated areas of paint system failure and corrosion, which primarily coincides with deck drain holes and ponding water on the deck.

The superstructure is in overall fair condition. Only the top flanges of the primary plate girders under the rails have section loss, which was documented in prior inspections. This section loss is not a concern because it has not changed from the prior inspections, nor does it negatively impact the structural carrying capacity of the superstructure. Additionally, there is heavy corrosion and pitting on the horizontal gusset plates with significant trapped debris between. The maximum depth of the pitting on the horizontal gusset plates was estimated at .25 inches. This has not progressed since the 2004 inspection. The only cracks observed were those on four knee brace field welds. The rivets at these connections are still fully intact and supported the load, thus the cracked field welds do not affect the carrying capacity of the connections. The cracks were not documented in previous reports.

The substructure is in overall fair condition. There are numerous small to moderate cracks and spalls present on the dam piers and many are leaching efflorescence. There are areas of spalling concrete on Pier 4 directly under the bearings on roller gate span 4. These areas were sounded at the previous inspection with a hammer and approximately two square feet of delamination were detected in these areas under the bearings.

The bearings were found to be in fair condition overall, with corrosion and pitting as well as cracked grout pads.

The railing was found to be in poor condition overall. Four posts have completely corroded through at the base plates, and another wall connection has corroded through completely. Neither of these findings pose an immediate safety risk, because the base plates and posts on either side of the corroded plates are still completely intact and would carry the load. A crack was found in the railing as well as corrosion at isolated areas.

Neither the crack nor the corrosion pose immediate safety risks as they do not impact the structural carrying capacity of the railing.

3 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

The protective coating was found to be in fair condition overall. The paint was found to be ineffective at locations on the bridge and corrosion and pitting was taking place at multiple bridge elements.

The channel/waterway was found to be in good condition overall, as there were no visible signs of sloughing or misalignment.

The crane undercarriage was not moved to allow for inspection access, therefore the bridge was not observed under load.

The load rating needs to be updated to reflect the section loss in the main girder top flanges.

This is a non-public access bridge, therefore, no load limit or speed limit signs are required.

3. Previous Inspection Findings and Recommendations:

Recommendations from the previous bridge inspection are:

Develop operating procedures that prevent operating loads greater than those allowed by load limiting devices and implement measures to ensure load limiting devices function as required.(Not Done) The two girders on each span are FCM. Provide access sufficient to conduct a close up hands on visual inspection during the next inspection in 2014. In 2009 rope access was successfully used. Also, the inspection team leader should be sufficiently trained and certified in rope access techniques to allow them to ascend and descend in a harness to get within an arm’s length distance. This would greatly aid the inspection of suspected defects and allow closer monitoring of fatigue sensitive details.(Done) Monitor the poor quality welds associated with the main plate girders on all spans. (On-going) Monitor pack rust on storage yard tension flanges and the tainter gate machinery support brackets. (On-going) Conduct next combined routine and fracture critical inspection in 2019.(Done)

4. Recommendations:

Recommendations for this inspection are:

Conduct next routine and fracture critical inspection in September 2024. (60 month inspection interval) estimated cost: $20,000.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

Touch up areas of failing paint to prevent further coating system failure and corrosion. estimated cost: $5,000.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

B Protective Systems Steel Protective Coating

Develop operating procedures that prevent operating loads greater than those allowed by load limiting devices and implement measures to ensure load limiting devices function as required. estimated cost: $1,500.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

Updated load rating to reflect main girder top flange section loss. estimated cost: $7,000.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

Repair areas of spalling concrete and delamination on pier 4 directly under the span 4 bearings. estimated cost: $15,000.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

B Substructure Reinforced Concrete-Pier Wall

Repair/replace corroded baseplate to guardrail post connections (on the downstream right side of Span 1, 4 and 5, and on the downstream left side of Span 6) and rail to concrete pier connection (on the downstream right side of Span 3), prior to the end of FY20. estimated cost:

$5,000.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

5. Evaluation Summary:

No evaluations were conducted for this inspection.

4 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

PUBLIC HIGHWAY/ROADWAY BRIDGES INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL (SI&A) SHEETS Printed: 05-APR-2022

202. Structure Number: CENMVPWI-00LD08 8 NBI Structure Number: CENMVPWI-00LD08

Geographical and Route Data

1. State Code Wisconsin

2. District 00

3. County Vernon County

4. Place Code 00000

6. Features Intersected MISSISSIPPI RIVER

7. Facility Carried by Structure SERVICE BRIDGE

9. Location GENOA WISCONSIN

16. Latitude 433414.07

17. Longitude 0911358.17

103. Temporary Structure Designation

On and Under Record Data

5. Inventory Route 188000000

10. Inv. Route, Mim. Vertical Clearance 99.99 feet

29. Average Daily Traffic 000001

30. Year of Average Daily Traffic 2009

47. Inventory Route, Total Horizontal Clearance 3.9 feet

General Data

12. Base Highway Network 0

22. Owner 70

34. Skew 00

37. Historical Significance 4

38. Navigation Control 0

42. Type of Service 45

43. Structure Type Main 303

44. Structure Type Approach 000

45. No. of Spans Main 018

46. No. of Approach Spans 0000

27. Year Built 1937

106. Year Reconstructed 0000

107. Deck Structure Type 5

108. Wear/SurfProt Sys 000

111. Nav Pier/Abut Protection 1

Condition Rating

58. Deck 6

59. Superstructure 5

60. Substructure 5

61. Channel and Channel Protection 8

62. Culverts N

Inspection Data

90. Inspection Date 10-2019

91. Designated Inspection Frequency 60

92. Critical Feature Inspection Frac Crit Insp: Y60

Underwater Insp: N

Other Spec Insp: N

93. Critical Feature Inspection Date Frac Crit Insp: 10-2019

Underwater Insp: -

Other Spec Insp: -

Dimensional Data

32. Approach Roadyway Width 3.7 feet

48. Length of Maximum Span 25.6 feet

49. Structure Length 318.2 feet

53. Minimum Vertical Clearance Over Bridge Roadway 99.99 feet

54. Minimum Vertical Underclearance N 0.00 feet

55. Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Right N 0.0 feet

56. Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Left 0.0 feet

Proposed Improvements

75. Type of Work 000

76. Length of Structure Improvement 318.2 feet

94. Bridge Improvement Cost 58

95. Roadway Improvement Cost 6

96. Total Project Cost 87

97. Year of Improvment Cost Estimate 2020

114. Future Average Daily Traffic 1

115. Year of Future Average Daily Traffic 2036

Appraisal Rating

67. Structural Evaluation 5

68. Deck Geometry 2

69. Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal N

71. Waterway Adequacy 9

72. Approach Roadway Alignment N

36. Traffic Safety Features NNNN

113. Scour Critical Bridges 9

Load Rate and Post

41. Structure Open, Posted or Closed to Traffic A

63. Method Used to Determine Operating Rating 3

64. Operating Rating 31.80 ton

65. Method used to Determine Inventory Rating 3

66. Inventory Rating 31.80 ton

70. Bridge Posting 5

Over 200 Items

200. COE Division CEMVD

201. COE District CEMVP

202. Number CENMVPWI-00LD08

203. Inspection Office CEMVP

204. Inspector Coralys Nunez-Orta

205. Inspections Cost 20000

216. Seismic Category A

217. Acceleration Coefficient 0.03

218. Soil Site Coefficient 1.20

SR Sufficiency Rating: 62.6%

5 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Structure Number Name NBI Structure Number

CENMVPWI-00LD08 Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge CENMVPWI-00LD08

Operational Condition and Relative Risk Assessment

System: Nonpublic Vehicle 231) Life Safety: Low Impact (10)

235) Subsystem: Dam 232) USACE Mission: Moderate Impact (50)

233) Business Line: Navigation 234) Regional Commerce: Moderate Impact (25)

236) Project (P2) number: 074295 Consequence Score/Category : 19.5 / III

Bridge Subcomponent Condition Classification

Component Subcomponent Condition

Classification

Bearings Fixed Bearing B

Moveable Bearing (roller, sliding, etc.)

B

Bridge Rail Metal Bridge Railing C

Channel Channel A

Deck Steel Deck- Corrugated/Orthotropic/Etc.

B

Steel Deck-Open Grid A

Protective Systems Steel Protective Coating B

Secondary Members Bracing B

Substructure Reinforced Concrete-Pier Wall

B

Superstructure Steel-Floor Beam B

Steel-Girder/Beam B

Utilities/Attachments Attachments B

6 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Bridge Number: CENMVPWI-00LD08 Bridge Name: Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge Inspection Date: 10-2019 NBI No. CENMVPWI-00LD08 Condition Ratings Appraisal Ratings

1.State: Wisconsin 58.Deck: 6 67.Structural Evaluation: 5 2.District: 00 59.Superstructure: 5 68.Deck Geometry: 2 9.Location: GENOA WISCONSIN 60.Substructure: 5 71.Waterway Adequacy: 9 6.Features Intersected: MISSISSIPPI RIVER 61.Channel: 8 72.Approach roadway Alignment: N

203. Inspection Office: CEMVP 36.Traffic Safety Features: NNNN

204. Inspector: Coralys Nunez-Orta 113.Scour Critical: 9

Element Cond Cond Cond Cond No. Name QTY ENV 1 2 3 4

Decks/Slabs Span Range: 16 to 018

28 Steel Deck with Open Grid 1083 2 1083 0 0 0 Quantities are in square feet. Storage yard deck was recently replaced with serrated steel grating. There are less than 10 clips connecting the grating to the superstructure that are missing at various locations. There are few enough clips missing that the grating is still connected, thus the missing clips do not pose an immediate risk. No other problems noted. See photograph 11.

Span Range: 1 to 015 30 Steel Deck Corrugated/Orthotropic/Etc. 7359 2 3847 3482 30 0

Quantities are in square feet. Steel deck plate is in generally good condition, except where water can pond, or at drain holes. A few isolated areas of paint system failure is causing surface rust. Section loss is not yet a concern. The hatch cover is missing bolts at Pier 9 and 13, see photograph 20. There is pack rust between the deck pannel and channel up to 1/4", seen at majority of the spans, see photograph 13. Typical conditions see photographs 4 & 6.

Superstructure Span Range: 1 to 018 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 2084 2 0 1994 90 0

Quantities are in linear feet. The main plate girders are in generally fair condition. Pitting corrosion up to a quarter of an inch deep was observed during the last painting contract on the main girder top flanges. This condition has not progressed appreciably in the previous two inspection cycles. This inspection cycle has found 5 areas on the girders where the plate connecting the bracing to the vertical beams, has pitting corrosion up to 1/4 inch. Areas appear to not have been painted during the 1999 painting contract, see photographs 10 & 12. Impact damage was noted on Tainter gate span 15 on the bottom flange of the downstream girder near mid span. The bottom flange plate is bent approximately .25 inches over a four inch span. See photograph 9. Separation between the bottom flange plates was noted in the storage yard spans and in some of the roller gate spans. This is likely due to previous pack rust, which appears to have been mostly removed during the last painting job, see photograph 27. Some pack rust was observed between the cross bracing to bottom flange connection in the Tainter gate spans. Maximum separation was found to be 3/4 of an inch (a (1) separation was found).

Span Range: 1 to 018 152 Steel Floor Beam 1066 2 0 1066 0 0

Quantities are in linear feet. The steel floor beams support the deck over the roller and Tainter gate spans, as well as the serrated grating over the storage yard spans.

The floor beams transmit the pedestrian live load to the main plate girders. These members are in generally satisfactory condition. Many of the filler plates on the vertical beams attached to the bearings are cracked and deteriorated, see photograph 22. Cracked field welds were found on walkway knee braces, the adjacent riveted connections were still intact, see photograph 28. Typical roller gate span interior is seen in photograph 17.

Substructure Span Range: 1 to 018 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 19 2 0 17 2 0

Quantities are each. The dam piers are in generally FAIR condition except for pier 4 which has spalls directly under the span 4 main girder bearings. See photograph 9.

All piers have some degree of small to moderate cracking and spalling, some which are leaching heavy efflorescence. The floor surface surrounding the bearings (or pier cap) is delaminated on most of the piers. Typical pier conditions, see photographs 18, 19, 21, & 23-26.

Bearings Span Range: 1 to 018 311 Movable Bearing 36 2 23 12 1 0

Quantities are each. Most of the moveable bearings are in good condition. Bearings appear to be within normal limits. There is some staining due to corrosion, however, no significant section loss was observed. A few of the grout pads under the bearing are cracking. See photograph 11. The grouted area supporting the bearings are cracked at numerous bearing locations. Photograph 31 shows a typical moveable bearing connection.

Span Range: 1 to 018 313 Fixed Bearing 36 2 18 18 0 0

Quantities are each. Most of the fixed bearings are in good condition. The paint system is mostly intact and there is either no corrosion present, or very light corrosion and staining. A few of the grout pads under the bearings are cracking, see photograph 15. The up and downstream fixed bearings at pier 1 have loose nuts, see photograph 16. Photograph 31 shows a typical fixed bearing connection.

Bridge Railings Span Range: 1 to 018 330 Metal Bridge Railing 2084 1 1093 521 120 350

Quantities are in linear feet. The painted steel hand railing is in generally poor condition. Corrosion is occurring at isolated areas on the bridge railing. Four rail posts have corroded bases, see photograph 5. At pier 3 one of the rail to wall connections has corroded through and is no longer attached to wall, see photograph 7. There are 4 locations on the bridge where 1 of 3 bolts are missing from the vertical guardrail, see photograph 14. The missing bolts have not compromised the connections and therefore do not pose an immediate hazard. These connections do not show signs of shearing off or advancing. Typical railing is shown in photograph 32.

Protective Coatings and Concrete Reinforcing Steel Protective Systems Span Range: 1 to 018 515 Steel Protective Coating 24791 1 14875 4959 2974 1983

Quantities are in square feet. The bridge steel protective coating is starting to show signs of wear at isolated areas on the bridge. The paint system is mostly intact on the superstructure members. Paint failure on the steel floor beams is beginning to become more prevalent with some minor corrosion. There is some paint system failure and minor surface corrosion noted at the deck drain holes. Most of the paint is intact at both the fixed and the moveable bearings. Paint failure and surface rust is occurring at isolated areas on the bridge railing.

Agency Developed Elements Span Range: 1 to 018 601 Channel/Waterway Condition 1 1 1 0 0 0

Quantities are each. The channel is in generally good condition. The banks are well vegetated with no signs of slumping. The structure aligns well with the river alignment. See photographs 2 & 29.

7 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 1: General View of Bridge Looking Downstream

Photo 2: General View of Upstream Channel

8 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 3: General Deck View Looking East

Photo 4: General View of Deck looking West

9 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 5: Corroded Bridge Railing Base

Photo 6: Deck View. Example of corrosion and paint failure on deck.

10 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 7: Bridge Railing. Corrosion between railing and wall pier wall connection. Pier House 3

Photo 8: Broken Ladder Rung at Pier House 2.

11 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 9: Two spalls on Pier 4

Photo 10: Typical. Flange with heavy corrosion due to trapped debris. Seen at numerous spans.

12 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 11: General view of the storage yard deck. No problems noted.

Photo 12: Horizontal gusset plate with paint failure and pitting 1/16

13 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 13: Pack rust between deck panel and channel to 1/4

Photo 14: Bolt missing on guardrail vertical. Similar to 4 other locations.

14 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 15: Typical roller gate span bearing. Note failing paint, surface rust, and cracked grout pad.

Photo 16: Pier 1. Fixed upstream and downstream E bearings have loose nuts.

15 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 17: Typical roller gate span interior. No problems noted.

Photo 18: Typical downstream tainter gate pier.

16 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 19: Typical Downstream Tainter Gate Pier

Photo 20: Hatch cover is missing bolts at Pier 9 and Pier 13

17 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 21: Typical delamination and cracking seen on floor of some pier rooms.

Photo 22: Typical. Filler plates on vertical beam attached to bearing cracked and deteriorated.

18 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 23: Typical roller gate pier. All piers have at least some degree of minor cracking and spalling.

Photo 24: Typical tainter gate pier. Cracks with leaching efflorescence.

19 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 25: Typical spalling near tainter gate pier ladders.

Photo 26: Typical storage yard pier. Hairline cracks and light spalling.

20 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 27: Typical bottom flange. Note pack rust between cover plate and flange 3/16

Photo 28: Cracked field weld on walkway knee brace, riveted connections intact. Seen at spans 12, 13 & 14.

21 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 29: General View of Downstream Channel

Photo 30: Typical moveable bearing

22 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Photo 31: Typical fixed bearing

Photo 32: Typical railing and deck grating

23 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Independent Technical Review CENMVPWI-00LD08 Lock & Dam 8 Service Bridge

PRE-INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION

PMP/QMP/QCP A Program Management Plan (PMP), Quality Management Plan (QMP), and Quality Control Plan (QCP) are on file and current.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

PMP plan last updated Jan 2019.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Inspection Type The PMP/QMP identifies the proper inspection type(s), includes the last inspection date, and the current inspection frequency.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Routine.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Personnel and Requirements All plans identify personnel and resource needs, inspection sequences, schedules, traffice control, specialized training, certification, or other qualifications, permits, coordination with other personnel or organizations, and emergency response plan as applicable.

Item Compliance: Incomplete Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

No qualifications in bridge file for Cora or Lexi. Please add their qualifications.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-JAN-2020

Cora's qualifications indicate 1 year of bridge inspection experience. She needs two (2) years to qualify as team leader. Please clarify.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020

Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Inspection Plan Inspection Plan- Meets minimum ER/IM requirements, matches inspection type, uses avaliable standard forms and formats, and was documented in the bridge file

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Appears to be complete.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

FCM Plan FCM Plan- Identify FCMs, uses proper procedures, access, testing (material and NDT), and was documented in the bridge file.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

FCM plan located in bridge file. Appears to be up to date.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Safety Plan Safety Plan is documented in the bridge file - Addresses safety of public and inspectors, meets standards, accounts for varying site conditions. CPR and first aid trained inspectors are identified as needed. Emergency rescue plan is included as needed.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

In bridge file.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Inspection Inspection- selection and use of proper tools for type of inspection conducted Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Listed in inspection plan.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Access Access- selection and use of proper equipment for required access Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Listed in inspection plan.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Specialized Specialized- NDT, etc. identified along with qualified inspectors Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes

24 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Listed in inspection plan.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Inspection Team Inspection Team- team members identified, qualifications documented and meet requirements. Proper number of inspectors are identified for inspection type and scope

Item Compliance: Incomplete Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

See above comment under Personnel and Requirements.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Please enter into bridge file the team leader's qualifications. Bridge file should contain all of the documentation used to justify Cora's ability to serve as team leader. Possible combinations per https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/150413.cfm The qualifications of a team leader are described in 23 CFR 650.309(b). There are five ways to qualify as a team leader. Each includes some level of education, experience and training. Be a registered professional engineer (PE) and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course Have five years of bridge inspection experience and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course Be a certified NICET Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course Have a bachelor's degree in engineering from an ABET accredited college or university, successfully pass the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam, have two years of bridge inspection experience, and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course Have an associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology from an ABET accredited college or university, have four years of bridge inspection experience, and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course Comprehensive bridge inspection training is the one consistency among all the ways to qualify as a team leader. The people in these roles must successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-JAN-2020

Info in bridge file.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020

Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

RE Qualifications Responsible engineer qualifications for load ratings & other evaluations (scour, fracture & fatigue, seismic, damage, etc.) are documented & ER requirements met.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

Located in bridge file.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Plan Review Team Leader/Team has reviewed the Bridge File and all inspection plans Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Safety Review Inspection and Inspector Safety- The team has reviewed safety plan, equipment meets safety standards and is in acceptable condition.

Inspectors are certified for equipment use and training is up to date as appliicable

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Bridge File The Bridge file is complete and up to date Item Compliance: Incomplete Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

See previous comments.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020

Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

FIELD DOCUMENTATION

Inspections Inspection, safety, and other plans are followed. Inspection meets type(s) identified in the Inspection plan Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Frequency Meets minimum requirements for routine, underwater, & FCM inspections. Frequency is commensurate with condition of bridge Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Qualifications All inspection personnel meet qualification requirements Item Compliance: Incomplete Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

See previous comments.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020

Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

25 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Access Proper access provided; Meets inspection needs and safety requirements Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Field Book Field book is completed and adequately documents the inspection. Standard forms used with proper input of data. Sketches, notes, and photos provided with proper detail. Proper type and accuracy of field measurements are recorded. All is documented in the bridge file.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Condition Rating Follows NBI coding guidelines, consistent with condition recorded Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Observations Under Traffic Note vibration and deflection and bearing movements under heavy loads Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

QC during the Inspection Checklist or other documentation showing that all members were inspected as required, QC was conducted on the inpsection team, and proper procedures were followed.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Other Inspections Underwater, FCM, NDT, damage, in-depth, and other special or supplemental inspections not part of this inspection, but included in the documentation, are properly documented.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Critical Findings Critical Findings were adequately recorded, procedures followed, and reported in a timely manner in accordance with the Critical Findings Plan (see the USACE Inspection Manual for detail)

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019

Appears that there may be critical finding w/ bridge rail. Please clarify with Jake Fall and Cora.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-JAN-2020

Clarified in comments that findings are not critical, not life safety risk.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Load Posting Load Posting- signs are in place, are legible, and match required limits Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Speed Restrictions Speed restrictions- signs are in place, are legible, and match required limits Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Bridge Markers Bridge Markers- Delineators and markers are properly located and meet standarrds Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Other Signage Other- signs are in place, are legible, and match required limits Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

26 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

INSPECTION REPORT

Content Serves purpose of documenting inspection, OCA/ORA process completed, & provides level of information necessary for decision making Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 23-DEC-2019

All comments in pdf sent to Lexi, CC Jake Fall.

ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-JAN-2020

Report corrected errors found.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Summary of Findings Consistent with Inspection documentation Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019

See .pdf

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Summary of Inspection Consistent with Inspection documentation Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019 see .pdf

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Summary of Evaluations Consistent with Inspection documentation Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019 see .pdf

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Recommendations Reasonable, consistent with inspection documentation. Identify any repairs and evaluations that are needed.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes ITR Comment posted by: Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019 see .pdf

Backcheck completed, comment closed

Cost Estimates Cost estimates are provided for recommendations.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Future Inspections Future intervals identified are acceptable Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Notes, Photos, and Sketches Provide adequate backup to conditions and recommendations Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Format Report is input into the standard CEBIS format and meets requirements Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Timely Submission Submitted within 60 days of inspection Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Documented The bridge has been rated to its safe load carrying capacity and documented in the bridge file.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

27 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM

Verified TL verified that the load rating reflects current conditions or needs updating and documented this information in the report.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Data Current and Error Free Data reflects most recent inspection, error report run, and necessary corrections made.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Data Corresponds to Load Rating The CEBIS SI&A data inventory rating, operating rating, and posting status correspond to the load rating.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Met ER Deadlines The District met ER deadlines for reporting data.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

Seismic Category Performance category and soil type noted.

Item Compliance: Complies Reviewer Concurrence: Yes Backcheck completed, comment closed

GENERAL COMMENTS

General Comment1 Anthony Levine on 30-DEC-2019 Waiting on Lexi to fix.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

General Comment2 Anthony Levine on 30-JAN-2020 Cora's qualifications need to be updated to reflect how she qualifies as team leader under FHWA guidelines.

Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020 Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

Anthony Levine on 28-FEB-2020 Per Cora and Jake Fall, Cora was most senior personnel available at time of inspection. She did not meet FHWA requirements for team leader, but contract with rope access company required USACE personnel on-site. Report is being released with this note.

Backcheck completed, comment closed

APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION/CERTIFICATION

All comments not satisfactorily addressed; but are not critical and will be addressed as needed. Approval is recommended

28 of 28 4/5/2022, 6:16 PM