Program Review Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection

advertisement
Program Review
+
Massachusetts
Division Office
Office of
Infrastructure Office of Bridge
Technology
Resource Center
Structures Team
Central Artery Project
Tunnel Inspection
Progam
Virginia Division
Office
And
• Maryland
Transportation
Authority
• Pennsylvania
Department of
Transportation
• Virginia
Department of
Transportation
October 2011
FINAL REPORT
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................1 Background ..............................................................................................................3 Purpose and Objective .............................................................................................4 Scope and Methodology ..........................................................................................5 Team Members ........................................................................................................7 Observations and Recommendations .......................................................................9 Inspection Procedures ........................................................................................9 Inspection Response Activities ........................................................................15 Inspection Quality Management ......................................................................17 Staffing, Qualifications, and Training .............................................................19 Conclusion .............................................................................................................21 Attachments ...........................................................................................................23 A. Map of Central Artery Tunnel Sections
B. Review Agenda Questions
C. Meeting Agenda
D. Tunnel Inspection Policy Directive
E. Tunnel Inspection Master Tracking Spreadsheet
F. Sample Overhead Items Inspection Form
G. Notification Matrix
H. Bridge/Tunnel Consultant Inspection Guidelines
I. Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Review Guidelines
J. Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Checklist
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Executive Summary
In February 2011, a light fixture fell from the ceiling of the Central Artery at I-93 northbound
inside the Tip O’Neill Tunnel. After that event, and considering the history of the Project, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that it should conduct a review of the
Central Artery tunnel inspection program.
The objective of the review was to obtain an independent and objective assessment of the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) Central Artery tunnel inspection
program to identify good practice and opportunities for improvement. The primary focus was on
the tunnel system components that are over roadways and walkways, those that could fall and
affect public safety.
The review was facilitated by the FHWA Massachusetts Division Office, with technical direction
and oversight provided by the FHWA Office of Bridge Technology. A team of representatives
from the following organizations conducted the review: FHWA Massachusetts Division Office;
FHWA Office of Bridge Technology; FHWA Resource Center Structures Team; FHWA
Virginia Division Office; Maryland Transportation Authority; Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation; and, the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The program review took place from June 27 to July 1, 2011. The review team examined current
MassDOT business processes, developed observations, and drafted recommendations related to
four major focus areas:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Inspection procedures
Inspection response activities
Inspection quality management
Staffing, qualifications, and training
Current Inspection Practices
Each tunnel is divided into 215 sections of various lengths (depending on cross-section type)
known as Bridge Inventory Numbers, or BINs. MassDOT conducts annual inspections of 15
different overhead items in each BIN twice during the three-year cycle; a three-year “all item”
inspection, including the overhead items, is conducted once per cycle. In 2007, the first threeyear inspection cycle was initiated using in-house forces and bridge inspection consultant
contracts already in place; the second three-year cycle began in the 2010. The inspection
program is funded through a five-year budgeting process, and costs approximately $2.7 to $3.2
million per year.
During the inspection, inspectors take notes and photographs, and subsequently complete an
inspection report that includes a narrative and photographs of observed deficiencies. Each of the
-1­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
15 overhead items within a BIN is assigned a summary numerical rating from 0 to 9, one of four
deficiency rating codes, and an urgency of repair code.
When the inspection reports are submitted, MassDOT enters the summary ratings for each item
into a spreadsheet that tracks the ratings by BIN for that year. After MassDOT reviews the
inspection reports for accuracy and completeness, staff develops and prioritizes corrective
actions. If an inspection team observes a deficiency or safety hazard that may require immediate
remedial action, they notify MassDOT, which in turn takes appropriate actions to address the
issue. These actions may include performing an immediate repair, if warranted, or submitting a
Corrective Work Order that allows the repair to be performed later.
Observations and Recommendations
Inspecting and maintaining the Central Artery tunnel system is a challenging endeavor. The
system is complex and extensive, comprised of 214 lane-miles of tunnel and transition sections
divided into 205 inspection sections and built using several different construction methods. High
traffic volumes and a corrosive environment that may accelerate deterioration (due to leaks or
other factors) add to the difficulty.
MassDOT conducts annual inspections of the overhead tunnel items in accordance with the 2007
policy directive. The annual inspection schedule is appropriate, and funds are budgeted to
conduct the inspections. However, the schedule of the tunnel inspections results in a significant
amount of information to be reviewed and processed, as well as a large number of consequent
maintenance actions to be prioritized and performed.
Given the complexity of the task, MassDOT would benefit by more clearly defining and
implementing improved inspection, response, and quality management procedures, and should
fully utilize appropriate maintenance and asset management database applications. To help
MassDOT accomplish these objectives, 24 specific recommendations are included in the review,
including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Define distinct and detailed procedures for inspecting each of the fifteen overhead items
Develop written guidelines to ensure consistent assignment of summary item ratings
Inspect roof beams, roof beam connections, roof slabs, and protective coatings biannually
Develop an action plan to implement methods to inspect obscured overhead items
Continually review and modify inspection procedures to account for “lessons learned”
Include a record of all defects in the inspection reports, especially critical defects
Enter all defects included in inspection reports into an appropriate database application
Define and document inspection response roles and procedures
Develop a more comprehensive inspection quality management program
Implement a program of field verification of inspection ratings and defect detection
Institute methods to ensure consistency of rating and defect detection
-2­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Background
The Central Artery / Tunnel Project replaced a six-lane elevated highway with a network of
tunnels, bridges, and surface roads comprising 161 lane-miles within a 7.5-mile corridor. The
tunnel system includes three major facilities (as shown in Attachment A):
• The Ted Williams Tunnel, completed in 1995, is a 1.6-mile long binocular steel concrete
lined tunnel connecting South Boston to East Boston and Logan Airport
• The I-90 Connector Tunnel, completed in 2003, connects the I-90/I-93 interchange and the
entrance to the Ted Williams Tunnel. The I-90 Connector Tunnel includes the 200-foot
long D Street Portal, which was completed in 1993.
• The Tip O’Neill Tunnel, completed in 2003, is a 1.5-mile long system of tunnels and
ramps, from Kneeland Street to Causeway Street, connecting to the Leonard P. Zakim
Bunker Hill Bridge.
In 2003, as part of the project, Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff prepared the Inspection Manual for
Tunnels and Boat Structures, to provide guidance related to inspection of tunnel elements.
In 2007, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (which at that time was responsible for the
Central Artery) adopted a revised policy and protocol for tunnel inspection that required all
overhead tunnel components be inspected annually, and that all other structural components be
inspected every three years. In March 2007, four three-year consulting contracts were executed
by the Turnpike Authority to inspect all Central Artery tunnels in conformance with the revised
policy.
In June 2009, state legislation was adopted that required Massachusetts to integrate
transportation agencies and authorities into a Massachusetts Department of Transportation by
November 1, 2009. As part of that effort, responsibility for the Central Artery tunnels was
vested in the MassDOT Highway Division, primarily in the newly created District 6. MassDOT
continued implementation of the 2007 tunnel inspection policy and protocols.
On February 8, 2011, a light fixture fell from the ceiling of I-93 northbound tunnel onto the
roadway below. It was determined that the light fixture fell due to severe corrosion of the
aluminum track of the fixture wireway at locations where the light assembly was attached with
stainless steel clips. Following the incident, MassDOT electricians and consultants performed
hands-on inspections of the 25,000 tunnel light fixtures that included 250,000 clips, and
determined that 4,270, or 1.7%, of the clips were no longer sufficiently able to support the light
fixture effectively due to corrosion of the aluminum track. The lights were secured by moving
the clips to non-corroded areas of the aluminum track. In addition, MassDOT installed nylon
cable ties as a temporary redundant support system, and is evaluating alternatives for a long-term
approach.
Subsequently, FHWA determined that it would be appropriate to conduct a review of the Central
Artery tunnel inspection program.
-3­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Purpose and Objective
The objective of the review was to obtain an independent and objective assessment of
MassDOT’s Central Artery tunnel inspection program in order to identify good practice and
opportunities for improvement. The primary focus was on the tunnel system components that
are over roadways and walkways, those that if failure occurred could fall and affect public
safety.
-4­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Scope and Methodology
The review encompassed the following Central Artery facilities: the Tip O’Neil Tunnel (I-93),
the I-90 Connector Tunnel, and the Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90).
The review was facilitated by the FHWA Massachusetts Division Office with technical direction
and oversight provided by the FHWA Office of Bridge Technology, and conducted by a review
team composed of representatives of the following organizations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FHWA Massachusetts Division
FHWA Office of Bridge Technology
FHWA Resource Center Structures Team
FHWA Virginia Division Office
Maryland Transportation Authority
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Transportation
The review encompassed four major focus areas:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Inspection procedures
Inspection response activities
Inspection quality management
Staffing, qualifications, and training
Prior to the review meeting, the review team evaluated documents provided by MassDOT, as
well as a questionnaire developed by the review team and completed by MassDOT.
The review team utilized a set of questions to structure the review meetings, shown as
Attachment B. The meeting questions were developed by the review team after reviewing
submitted documents and MassDOT’s response to the questionnaire. The agenda for the review
meetings is shown as Attachment C.
The review meetings took place from June 27 to July 1, 2011. The review team met with
MassDOT Highway Division personnel involved in the tunnel inspection program and observed
tunnel inspections on one night. The following MassDOT Highway Division personnel
participated in the review meetings:
-5­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Helmut Ernst
John McInerney
Chris Evasius
David Kent
Mark Griffin
Alex Bardow
Lev Bentsman
Anthony Duros
Michael MacQueen
John Wright
District 6 Highway Director
District 6 Construction and Inspection Engineer
District 6 Assistant Construction Engineer
District 6 Inspection Engineer for Tunnels and Air Rights
District 6 District Inspection Engineer
State Bridge Engineer
District 6 Bridges and Structures Engineer
District 6 Facilities Operations and Maintenance Engineer
District 6
Assistant Chief Engineer
During the field inspection, the review team spoke with the following inspection team personnel:
Leo Marino
Jeff Kellner
Aldo Spada
Kevin Morgan
Charley Quaglia
Reed Brockman
Vinnie Mercuri
Jeff Blom
Shann Mills
Subal Das
Inspection Program Manager
Team Leader
Team Leader
Team Member
Team Member
Team Leader
Interim Team Leader
Team Member
Team Leader
Team Member
HNTB
HNTB
HNTB
HNTB
HNTB
AECOM
AECOM
AECOM
Purcell Associates
Purcell Associates
On July 1, the review team presented preliminary findings to the Massachusetts Division
Administrator and MassDOT personnel, including the Acting Chief Engineer, the District 6
Highway Director, the Deputy Chief Engineer for Bridges and Tunnels, and the State Bridge
Engineer.
The FHWA Massachusetts Division Office will be responsible for overseeing implementation of
the review recommendations by MassDOT, with assistance provided by the FHWA Office of
Bridge Technology.
-6­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Team Members
Myint Lwin (Co-facilitator)
Director, Office of Bridge Technology
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Bridge Technology
1200 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, DC 20590
Rick Marquis (Co-facilitator)
Assistant Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration – Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Jesus Rohena
Senior Bridge Engineer – Tunnels
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Bridge Technology
1200 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, DC 20590
Raj Ailaney
Senior Bridge Engineer – Planning and Contracts
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Bridge Technology
1200 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, DC 20590
Olu A. Adeyemi
Division Bridge Engineer
Federal Highway Administration – Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Mike Arpino
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Federal Highway Administration – Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
-7­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Kenneth S. Miller
Performance Management Specialist
Federal Highway Administration – Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Rodolfo (Rudy) Maruri
Division Bridge Engineer
Federal Highway Administration – Virginia Division
400 N 8th St.
Room 750
Richmond, VA 23219-4825
Sonny Jadun
Structural Engineer
Resource Center Structures Team
Federal Highway Administration
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443
Dan Williams
Deputy Director of Engineering
Maryland Transportation Authority
300 Authority Drive,
Baltimore, MD 21222
Louis J. Ruzzi, T-20 Chairman
District Bridge Engineer
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
District 11-0
Bridgeville, PA 15017
Dwayne Cook
Engineering Manager
Regional Operations Director
Virginia Department of Transportation
1700 North Main Street
Suffolk, VA 23434
-8­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Observations and Recommendations
The Observations and Recommendations section is organized into four parts, consistent with the
review’s four major focus areas:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Inspection procedures
Inspection response activities
Inspection quality management
Staffing, qualifications, and training
Each part first summarizes MassDOT’s existing current practice and business process for the
focus area, followed by a summary of good practices, and then observations and
recommendations.
A. INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Tunnel inspections are conducted in conformance with the former Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority Tunnel Inspection and Testing Program Policy Directive dated January 11, 2007
(Attachment D). The Policy Directive requires that
• ceiling panels and hanger systems over roadways, including mechanical equipment,
electrical equipment, conduits, pipes, signs, communications systems and catwalks, shall
be inspected annually;
• remaining tunnel components shall be inspected every three years; and,
• condition evaluations shall be consistent with and based on the Inspection Manual for
Tunnels and Boat Structures, Volume 5, November 2003, prepared by Bechtel/Parsons
Brinckerhoff, and, the FHWA Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual,
2005.
Each tunnel is divided into homogeneous sections of various lengths (depending on cross-section
type) known as Bridge Inventory Numbers, or BINs, as follows:
• I-93 tunnels: 83 BINS
• I-90 Connector: 107 BINs
• Ted Williams Tunnel: 18 BINs (three of which are owned by MassPort)
In 2007, the Turnpike Authority began the first three-year inspection cycle using in-house forces
and bridge inspection consultant contracts already in place. MassDOT retained these contracts
after the merger of the Turnpike Authority and MassHighway. Consultants conduct most of the
inspections: in 2008, consultants inspected 194 out of the 205 BINS; in 2009, 135; in 2010, 186.
The inspection program is funded through a five-year budgeting process, and costs
approximately $2.7 to $3.2 million per year.
-9­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
MassDOT District 6 tracks inspection assignments by BIN using a Master Tunnels Inspection
spreadsheet (sample shown as Attachment E). Annual overhead item inspections are conducted
on each BIN twice during the three-year cycle; a three-year “all item” inspection, including the
overhead items, is conducted once per cycle. MassDOT tries to rotate assignments among the
consultants each year.
The second three-year cycle began in the 2010. MassDOT assigns contract task-orders to the
consultants at the beginning of each inspection season, which usually runs from early spring to
late fall each year. At the beginning of each inspection season, District 6 hosts a “kick-off”
meeting among MassDOT staff and the consultant inspection team leads to discuss expectations
for the season.
Tunnel inspections are conducted primarily at night, generally by three-person teams. One or
more of a set of thirty standard lane closures (known as the “playbook”) are used each night to
provide access to the tunnels. In addition to the inspection teams, a MassDOT field coordinator
is assigned each night to coordinate activities and assist the inspection teams if necessary. The
field coordinator submits a nightly summary report of the inspection, including an inspection log,
activities to the District 6 Tunnel Inspection Engineer and others the next day. The inspection
teams inspect the following 15 overhead items:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ceiling panels/architectural panels
Hangers
Hanger Anchorage System
Side/End Closure Panels
Sub Ceiling
Exposed Roof Slab
Utilities
Roadway Lighting
Jet Fans
Signs/Sign Supports/Sign Lighting
Fireproofing
Exhaust Duct Lighting
Security Cameras
Concrete Portals
Seismic Struts
Other overhead items, such as tunnel wall anchors, overhead expansion joints, roof girders, and
girder bay end welds are inspected every three years, and are not inspected as part of the annual
overhead item inspection.
-10­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Inspectors take field notes and photographs during the inspection, and subsequently complete an
inspection field report. Each consultant uses its own, but similar, inspection forms (a sample
form is shown as Attachment F).
As shown, each of the 15 overhead items within a BIN is assigned a numerical rating from 0 to
9, and one of four deficiency rating codes (Critical Hazard Deficiency; Critical Structural
Deficiency; Severe or Major Deficiency; or Minor Deficiency) as well as an urgency of repair
code (Immediate, ASAP, or Prioritize). The inspection report also includes a narrative report
and photographs of observed deficiencies. Sometimes the inspection reports include tables
listing deficiencies for particular items (i.e., ceiling panels, wall panels, hangars) in addition to
the narrative report. Individual deficiencies are not given ratings. Each BIN is also assigned a
wetness rating (0 to 9) and a cleanliness rating (N, 1, 2, or 3).
Generally, inspection reports do not show critical ratings. During the inspection, if a deficiency
or safety hazard that may require immediate remedial action is observed, the inspection team
immediately notifies the MassDOT field coordinator, who then notifies appropriate maintenance
personnel (according to the “Notification Matrix, Attachment G) to address the issue, either by
performing an immediate repair or submitting a Corrective Work Order.
Typically, stationing is used as the location reference for deficiencies, although some items, such
as ceiling panels and girder bays have identification numbers. Sometimes, inspectors mark
observed deficiencies with paint, marking crayons, or ribbons.
MassDOT expects that completed inspection reports will be submitted in hardcopy form by the
consultant within four to six weeks after completion of the inspection fieldwork. Five
hardcopies of each report are submitted when they are complete; the consultants submit a CD
with electronic versions of a complete set of the inspection reports at the end of the inspection
season.
A one-page document, Bridge/Tunnel Consultant Inspection Guidelines, dated December 2009,
lists eight inspection activities (Attachment H).
Inspection Procedures: Good Practices
• MassDOT has made improvement in the inspection program for the Central Artery tunnels
since 2007. Inspections are generally conducted in conformance with the 2007 Policy
Directive, covering all sections of the tunnel system.
• The inspection program is funded through a five-year budgeting process, and costs
approximately $2.7 to $3.2 million per year.
• The more frequent schedule of inspections for the overhead components that began in 2007 is
appropriate.
-11­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
• MassDOT recognizes that tunnel inspection is demanding, that inspection teams should be
comprised of at least three members, and that it is necessary to rotate personnel appropriately
to avoid “burn out.”
• The use of a MassDOT field coordinator to oversee and assist inspection crews to ensure
adequate response and decision-making is appropriate.
• The use of a standard set of lane closures, as contained in the “playbook,” is efficient, and
MassDOT appears to maximize the use of closures.
Inspection Procedures: Observations and Recommendations
• Observation 1: MassDOT does not have written procedures for inspecting each of the 15
different overhead items. The 2007 Policy Directive cites the 2003 Inspection Manual for
Tunnels and Boat Structures, Volume 5, and the FHWA Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel
Inspection Manual, as references, but neither includes specific procedures for inspecting each
of the overhead items. As MassDOT stated in the site meeting, the 2007 Policy Directive
describes “what should be done, not how it should be done.” It is not clear whether the
consultants have their own written procedures, although one consultant may have guidelines.
Recommendation: MassDOT should define separate procedures for inspecting each of
the 15 overhead items, and develop written standard operating procedures to be utilized
by inspection teams. One option would be to update and expand the 2003 Inspection
Manual for Tunnels and Boat Structures to include these procedures.
• Observation 2: The inspection teams assign summary ratings to each of the 15 overhead
items for each BIN. However, it is not clear how these rating are derived, i.e., the extent to
which the ratings represent the average condition or the worst condition in the BIN, or some
weighted combination. During the review meetings, MassDOT suggested that an average
would not be appropriate, but said that there were no guidelines, and that it was possible that
different consultants may assign different ratings.
Recommendation: MassDOT should develop a method to develop meaningful summary
item ratings and written guidelines to ensure appropriate and consistent assignment of the
summary item ratings, perhaps using FHWA’s Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, 1995, or MassHighway’s
Bridge Inspection Handbook, 1998, as models.
• Observation 3: MassDOT inspects roof beams, roof beam connections, roof slabs, and
protective coatings every three years.
Recommendation: It is recommended that roof beams, roof beam connections, roof
slabs, and protective coatings be inspected biannually. Inspection of these elements is
critical to quickly detecting any problems caused by water leaks and/or corrosion. Given
the importance of these elements and the potential for a failure due to corrosion, the
current three-year inspection cycle of these elements is too long.
-12­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
• Observation 4: Timeframes for completion of inspections or submittal of inspection reports
are not included in consultant inspection contracts or task orders. MassDOT expects that
completed inspection reports will be submitted in hardcopy form by the consultant within
four to six weeks after completion of the inspection fieldwork. Examination of a sample of
inspection reports shows a range of four to ten weeks from the inspection date to report
submittal.
Recommendation: While it is understood that scheduling and completing the fieldwork
for the inspections is complicated, MassDOT should establish and monitor reporting
timelines for the completion of inspections and the submittal of final inspection reports.
• Observation 5: Of the sample inspection reports examined by the review team, a high
proportion included comments that certain components could not be inspected because they
were obscured by fireproofing or otherwise inaccessible. During the review meeting,
MassDOT noted that many components could not be inspected; that they had tried using
video-based methods but they did not work well; that they had discussed using destructive
sample testing; and, they had not reached any conclusion as to the appropriate approach to
inspecting these components.
Recommendation: MassDOT should develop an action plan to evaluate and implement
methods to inspect overhead components that are obscured by fireproofing, are in
confined spaces, or otherwise cannot be inspected. In addition, MassDOT should
evaluate the use of alternatives to the currently used fireproofing.
• Observation 6: Typically, stationing is used as the location reference for deficiencies,
although some items, such as ceiling panels and girder bays have identification numbers.
BINs and station markers have been painted in the plenums and roadway. Sometimes,
inspectors mark observed deficiencies with paint or ribbons. MassDOT stated that
sometimes maintenance workers could not find the defects to perform repairs, and that the
maintenance department did not use BINs and may use a different location reference system.
Recommendation: A consistent system of location referencing and defect marking should
be developed and utilized by inspectors to aid location by maintenance personnel.
MassDOT should evaluate the appropriateness of using the Component Identification
Program as shown in the Maintenance Management Information System User Reference
Manual to identify components.
• Observation 7: The inspection reports include narrative descriptions and photographs of
deficiencies, but only sometimes include lists of deficiencies for particular items at the
discretion of the inspection team.
Recommendation: The use of standard formatted lists in the inspection reports, in
addition to narrative reporting of deficiencies, would be helpful in tracking deficiencies.
MassDOT should work with the inspection teams to develop standard formats and
guidance for including lists in inspection reports. It should be noted the Inspection
-13­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Manual for Tunnels and Boat Structures includes a sample form for listing ceiling hangar
defects.
• Observation 8: After the February 2011 light fixture incident, MassDOT electricians
performed hands-on inspections of the 25,000 tunnel light fixtures. During the review site
meetings, MassDOT said that at the beginning the 2011 inspection season, consultant
inspection teams were instructed to focus on the light fixtures, and to inspect them more
closely. MassDOT also said that it expected the light inspection procedures were a work in
progress, and that the procedures would be fine-tuned through iteration and experience. It is
not clear that specific modifications to light inspection processes were implemented or that a
documented light inspection procedure was put in place.
Recommendation: Inspection procedures should be continually reviewed, modified,
defined, and documented to account for “lessons learned” from component failures,
inspection team input, and improvements in the “state-of-the-practice.”
-14­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
B.
INSPECTION RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
A one-page document, Bridge/Tunnel Consultant Inspection Review Guidelines, dated December
2009, lists eight inspection review activities (Attachment I).
When the hardcopy inspection reports are received by MassDOT, they are reviewed for accuracy
and completeness using the MassDOT Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Checklist (Attachment J). If
corrections are necessary, MassDOT “follows back” with the inspection team leader, by email or
by telephone. Approximately 5% of inspection reports require some corrective action.
When the inspection report is finalized and resubmitted, the reviewer enters the inspection date
for each BIN into 4D, MassDOT’s bridge inspection reporting database, and enters the summary
ratings for each item into the Tunnel Condition Summary spreadsheet that tracks the ratings by
BIN for that year.
After the inspection reports are reviewed for accuracy and completeness, hardcopies of the
inspection reports are transmitted to the District 6 maintenance departments (Electrical;
Civil/Structural; Millwrights; Mechanical/Fire; Communication; Sign Structures).
Each department reviews the report, and develops and prioritizes appropriate corrective actions,
and then issues Corrective Work Orders through the Maintenance Management Information
System (MMIS) to maintenance staff, although some repairs are performed without issuing a
Corrective Work Order. MMIS is a database application that is used by District 6 to schedule
and track maintenance activities.
During the inspection, if a deficiency or safety hazard that may require immediate remedial
action is observed, the inspection team notifies the field coordinator, who then notifies
appropriate maintenance personnel (according to the “Notification Matrix) to address the issue,
either by performing an immediate repair or submitting a Corrective Work Order.
MassDOT District 6 inspection and maintenance staff meet weekly or bi-weekly to coordinate
activities.
Response Activities: Good Practices
• Inspectors know to notify MassDOT of critical safety hazards during the inspection, and
MassDOT performs needed response actions.
• The bi-weekly meeting between MassDOT inspection and maintenance staff is an effective
coordination mechanism.
• Routine maintenance procedures are sometimes modified based on analysis and lessons
learned during the inspection process. For example, inspectors noticed loose nuts on jet fan
supports, and MassDOT instituted a new monthly preventive maintenance procedure for the
jet fan supports.
-15­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Response Activities: Observations and Recommendations
• Observation 9: Every year an overhead inspection report is submitted for each tunnel BIN,
and each of those 205 reports may include many observed deficiencies. While the summary
ratings are entered into a spreadsheet, and the inspection date for each BIN is entered into
4D, observed deficiencies are not entered into any database application.
Recommendation: The deficiencies described in each inspection report should be entered
into an appropriate database application so that appropriate actions can be taken. This
would also allow additional tracking, data analysis, and evaluation. MassDOT should
evaluate available tunnel management applications such as Tunnel Management System
available from FHWA, as well the possibility of expediting the implementation of
MassDOT’s recently acquired Maximo enterprise asset and maintenance management
system for tunnel assets.
• Observation 10: Inspection teams notify MassDOT of critical deficiencies that may require
immediate action, and MassDOT takes needed corrective action, often without a corrective
work order due to the emergency nature of the action (in the site meeting MassDOT noted
that “work orders are for non-critical actions.”) Because the deficiency is corrected before
the inspection report is completed, the deficiency is not listed as critical or immediate,
although the report narrative will note the deficiency and the corrective action taken. As
MassDOT noted during the review meeting, critical deficiencies never are included in an
inspection report.
Recommendation: It is important that a record of all defects is included in the inspection
reports, especially critical defects, so that they can be tracked and analyzed. Any
remedial actions taken should be noted in the report, and included in MMIS.
• Observation 11: The one-page Bridge/Tunnel Consultant Inspection Review Guidelines does
not comprehensively define inspection response procedures.
Recommendation: Inspection response roles and responsibilities should be more clearly
defined and documented, and guidelines or standard operating procedures established for
the following: prioritizing response activities; developing and entering work orders;
ensuring response activities are completed; and, establishing timeframes for completion
of response activities. MassDOT may wish to review the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation’s procedures in this area, as discussed during the review meeting.
• Observation 12: The inspection reports do not include recommendations for corrective
actions in the report. Some other states utilize the experience and knowledge of inspection
teams, and include inspector-generated suggested repair approaches in inspection reports.
Recommendation: MassDOT should evaluate the applicability of recommended repair
approaches in the inspection reports.
-16­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
C. INSPECTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The following inspection quality management activities are performed:
• MassDOT conducts an annual kick-off meeting with the consultant project managers to
discuss expectations for the inspection season.
• MassDOT performs quality control on the inspection reports by reviewing for accuracy and
completeness using the MassDOT Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Checklist. All reports are
reviewed by both the Tunnel Inspection Engineer and the District Inspection Engineer. If
corrections are necessary, MassDOT “follows back” with the inspection team leader, by
email or by telephone.
• MassDOT requires that consultants use their own procedures to conduct quality control checks
of the inspection reports, and the inspection form includes the signature of the person checking
the report. Consultants are required to assign a quality control engineer to each contract.
Quality Management: Good Practices
• The annual kick-off meeting among MassDOT and consultant personnel leads to improved
coordination and consistency, and serves a quality assurance function.
• All inspection reports are reviewed by consultant personnel and MassDOT staff using a
standard checklist, serving a quality control function.
Quality Management: Observations and Recommendations
• Observation 13: It is not clear that there is a comprehensive and documented quality
management process, with clearly defined quality assurance procedures (training,
documentation, calibration, and oversight activities designed to ensure that the inspection
process results in a quality product) and quality control procedures (review and testing
activities to gauge whether inspections are of sufficient quality).
Recommendation: A more comprehensive quality management program, with clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, should be developed, documented, and implemented. The
program could be modeled on NBIS procedures or FHWA’s Recommended Framework for
a Bridge Inspection Quality Control / Quality Assurance Program. In addition, consultants
should submit quality management plans as part of their contract proposals.
• Observation 14: The inspection reports include a summary deficiency guide that includes concise
definitions of the four possible deficiency ratings, and a list of the three possible urgency-of-repair
codes, but no other guidelines are available to ensure consistent application of terminology.
Recommendation: More complete and consistently applied definitions of critical and
major defects should be developed, and guidelines for assigning ratings should be
developed utilizing appropriate examples, photographs, etc.
-17­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
• Observation 15: The annual kick-off meeting includes only the consultant project managers, and
results or agreed-upon procedures are not documented and disseminated to the inspection teams.
Recommendation: The annual kick-off meeting should include inspection team leaders,
and results/conclusions/modifications should be documented and disseminated to
inspection teams.
• Observation 16: It does not appear that there are observations, reviews, or audits of field
inspections to ensure that inspections are conducted accurately and completely, and to ensure
that inspection reports accurately reflect the inspections.
Recommendation: MassDOT should develop and implement a program of field
verification of inspection ratings and defect detection, perhaps modeled on other states,
such as the Maryland Transportation Authority, or the MassDOT bridge inspection
program. Perhaps the night field coordinator could conduct some quality assurance and
oversight activities, with appropriate qualifications and training.
• Observation 17: The Inspection Manual for Tunnels and Boat Structures refers to “team
calibration” procedures to ensure consistency among inspection teams. It does not appear
that a process is in place to “calibrate” inspection teams.
Recommendation: Methods to ensure consistency of rating and defect detection – in
effect, calibration of rating teams – should be developed and implemented, perhaps
modeled on procedures used by other states, or the bridge inspection program.
• Observation 18: MassDOT reviews and signs the submitted hardcopy inspection reports.
The only available electronic versions are unsigned versions submitted by the consultants on
CD at the end of the inspection season.
Recommendation: Final MassDOT-signed inspection reports should be scanned, stored,
and available in electronic form.
• Observation 19: During the field inspection, the review team observed that dye penetrant was
unavailable to the inspectors. During the site meeting, MassDOT said that it did not have a
required equipment list or ensured that inspectors had appropriate equipment.
Recommendation: MassDOT should ensure that inspectors have all necessary
equipment, and that any testing equipment is calibrated. Recommended equipment lists
are included in the Inspection Manual for Tunnels and Boat Structures.
• Observation 20: During the field inspection, the review team observed much of the installed
lighting in the plenums was not working, and that temporary lighting was utilized. It is
accepted practice that the quality of inspections (and perhaps safety) is correlated with
lighting conditions.
Recommendation: To improve inspection quality, lighting conditions should be
evaluated and improved, and existing lighting repaired.
-18­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
D. STAFFING, QUALIFICATIONS, AND TRAINING
Staffing
With the integration of the Central Artery into MassDOT, District 6 is responsible for roads and
bridges beyond the Central Artery and the Metropolitan Highway System. District 6 is the only
district with tunnels yet is responsible for an equivalent number of bridge BINs (700) as District
4. During the review site meetings, District personnel contended that because of the extensive
tunnel system, and the District’s expanded role beyond the Central Artery, it was difficult to
compare District 6 to other districts. For example, the Metropolitan Highway System regulations
and trust agreement prohibit contract maintenance, and District 6 personnel are members of
private-sector unions rather than public-sector unions, as is the case in the rest of MassDOT.
According to MassDOT, personnel constraints have led to a greater reliance on consultant
inspection assistance than would be preferred. In 2010, consultants conducted 87% of tunnel
inspections. To retain institutional knowledge, District 6 would prefer to conduct 30 to 50% of
the tunnel inspections using in-house inspection teams. MassDOT estimates that 50 to 60
personnel would be required to conduct 100% of the inspections in house; District 6 has
developed a staffing plan that includes four three-person in-house teams to allow some in-house
capability.
The role of MassDOT headquarters’ departments is evolving in relation to the tunnel inspection
program and the integration of the Turnpike Authority into MassDOT. The procurement of the
next round of consultant inspection contracts is being led by the MassDOT Bridge Division in
coordination with District 6. The Bridge Division also is considering adding several positions
that would provide some headquarters tunnel knowledge and capability.
Qualifications and Training
The MassDOT District 6 Construction and Inspection Engineer and the District Inspection
Engineer are licensed Professional Engineers. Qualifications for tunnel inspection team leaders
are based on the National Bridge Inventory requirements for team leaders in lieu of federal
standards for tunnel inspection. MassDOT inspection engineers and all leaders have taken the
FHWA 10-day Safety Inspection of In-service Bridges, and the 3½-day National Highway
Institute Bridge Inspection refresher Training Course. All in-house and consultant inspection
personnel are required to attend annual MassDOT-specific confined space training.
Both in-house and consultant tunnel inspectors are primarily drawn from the ranks of trained
bridge inspectors. Over time, inspection personnel become very knowledgeable with the tunnel
system. MassDOT recognizes that tunnel inspection is a high-pressure occupation that can lead
to “burn-out,” and consequent staff turnover; MassDOT tries to address the issue by rotating
staff.
-19­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
MassDOT District 6 used a spreadsheet to track the required certifications and training of in­
house inspection staff. MassDOT headquarters is considering implementation of an enterprise
qualifications and training tracking system.
Staffing, Qualifications, and Training: Good Practices
• MassDOT inspection and maintenance personnel are dedicated stewards of the tunnel
system.
• MassDOT personnel have appropriate and up-to-date certifications and training, including
National Highway Institute Bridge Inspection Training and refresher courses.
• MassDOT maintains a spreadsheet that tracks staff certifications and training needs.
Staffing, Qualifications, and Training: Observations and Recommendations
• Observation 21: Personnel constraints have led to a greater reliance on consultant inspection
assistance.
Recommendation: To maintain institutional knowledge, MassDOT should have
sufficient in-house staff to conduct some level of tunnel inspections.
• Observation 22: For years, the Turnpike Authority was responsible for the Central Artery
tunnels. The integration of the Central Artery and District 6 into MassDOT is ongoing.
Recommendation: Some level of MassDOT headquarters oversight of the tunnel
inspection program is appropriate. As MassDOT develops its organizational approach, it
is important to recognize that the Central Artery tunnel system is unique among
MassDOT facilities. It is also important to recognize that programs benefit from review,
coordination, oversight, and integration into enterprise business processes and systems.
• Observation 23: Consultant inspection teams provide qualifications of inspection personnel
when the contracts are initiated. Due to the length of the contracts and the nature of the
work, inspection personnel change during the contract.
Recommendation: Consultants should supply the qualifications of new inspectors to
MassDOT for review and approval.
• Observation 24: Often those performing tasks have particular insight regarding training
needs.
Recommendation: MassDOT should solicit ideas for training needs from inspectors.
-20­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Conclusion
Inspecting and maintaining the Central Artery tunnel system is a challenging endeavor. The
system is complex and extensive, comprised of 214 lane-miles of tunnel and transition sections
divided into 205 inspection sections, and built using several different construction methods.
High traffic volumes and a corrosive environment that may accelerate deterioration (due to leaks
or other factors) add to the difficulty.
MassDOT conducts annual inspections of the overhead tunnel items in accordance with a 2007
policy directive and funds are budgeted to conduct the inspections. MassDOT inspection and
maintenance personnel appear to be dedicated stewards of the tunnel system. Critical safety
issues observed during the inspections are addressed by MassDOT through a field coordinator.
The tunnel inspections result in a significant amount of information that has to be reviewed and
processed, as well as a large number of consequent maintenance actions that have to be
prioritized and performed. Given the complexity of the task, MassDOT would benefit by better
defining, documenting, and implementing inspection and maintenance business processes, and
should fully utilize appropriate maintenance and asset management database applications.
FHWA will work with MassDOT to develop a plan and schedule to implement the following 24
recommendations:
Inspection Procedures
1. Define and document separate procedures for inspecting each of the fifteen overhead items
2. Develop written guidelines to ensure consistent assignment of summary item ratings
3. Inspect roof beams, roof beam connections, roof slabs, and protective coatings biannually
4. Establish reporting timelines for the completion of inspections and final inspection reports
5. Develop an action plan to implement methods to inspect overhead components that are obscured
6. Develop a consistent system of location referencing and defect marking
7. Include lists of defects in addition to narrative descriptions in inspection reports
8. Continually review and modify inspection procedures to account for “lessons learned”
Inspection Response Activities
9. Enter all deficiencies in inspection reports into an appropriate database application
10. Include a record of all defects in the inspection reports, especially critical defects
11. More clearly define and document inspection response roles and responsibilities
12. Utilize inspector knowledge and experience in developing repair strategies
Inspection Quality Management
13. Develop a more comprehensive quality management program, with clearly defined roles
14. Develop consistently applied definitions of defects and guidelines for ratings
15. Include inspection team leaders in the annual kick-off meeting and document results
16. Implement a program of field verification of inspection ratings and defect detection
17. Institute methods to ensure consistency of rating and defect detection
-21­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
18. Ensure that final approved inspection reports are available electronically
19. Ensure that inspection teams have all necessary equipment
20. Improve tunnel lighting conditions to improve inspection quality
Staffing, Qualifications, and Training
21. Maintain sufficient in-house staff to conduct some level of tunnel inspections
22. Institute appropriate MassDOT headquarters oversight of inspection process
23. Ensure that new inspection team personnel have required qualifications
24. Solicit training idea from inspection personnel
-22­
u.s.
Department
01 Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Attachments
-23­
r.=~_ _-----;Attachment A
-
"'.,
"'"'"
QjExit 26
Iili/to\ll
CHARLESTOWN
MassPike
Ted Williams Tunnel
South Boslon
Storrow Drive &
North Station
Beacoo Hill Cambndge
"'"'"
@
to (ll North
Sumner Tunnel
Government Ctr.
Storrow Drive
L"',_'--'--.J
•
W,,,"
AJRPQIIT
[E
U $5. Con../I",'/tm
EAST BOSTON
NORTH
i$jExit 26
Storrow Drive
.­
North SIa\Jon
TO Banknorth Garden
Museum Of Saence
@
........
"'­
On-famp from Storrow DrJ
Leyerett Circle 10
Q)North & South aod
Tobin BndgsCD North
NORm
i$jExit23
Gov't Center
North End
AquarIUm
QuincyMar1tet
SOUTH
I
L:::':"-"======~:.J
JDOWNTO WN
QjExit 23
Oo-"mplo
Q) North from
Purchase Street
South Boston Waletfronl
Atlantic Ave
~_-,="F",;o",.od"",,,,,o;,,,,,,,,,!!O",,,----~
&
On-famp to
\D Sooth and f-----~'/.r;6
QjExits 20B&A
20-B 100 West
West from
Congress
$I
On-ramp 10
;.
S::;lh~:
r1_-;;::::::=:---:~~?-:tE.
Surface Rd.
Massport
Haul Rd
No~toO
Albany St.
~Exit 25-24
25 to South Boston
IL~;::::='----J124 toG North & South
~---=--r---_.Jl.f/J
,
$-;:;ICI;<t
",,"
,/
Owest from
20-A South Station
.....
~:0,:' q~~~;"
On-ramp to
Albany Street
U::l::~:::"'.,
-!:
101\.:;-'..
~~-~'~~~I--:2;;:;;;;;;P:;Ol[::O;;:;;;;;;;;Olr"'::'~':~-:-:=-:-:l
o
SOUTH
Moaldey Bridge
1J"c!.. .
..
Connector
..... MassPike
-'I
<AS'
fljExits 24C,B&A
24-C
24-B
24-A
to\llSouth
to \llNorlh
EAST
~ Exit 25
to South Boston
& South Boston
Bypass Road
to South Station
SOUTH
END
SOUTH
BOSTON
"'"'"
QjExit 18
Mass Ave
Roxbury
Andrew Square
'.
....
Frontage Rd
~'1>
NOR'"
..._--------1 To 0 East Logan Airport
o
10 West
to South Station
10 South Boston
On-famp 10
En South
FrontageRd
Soulhbound
~"
Ncr..
Soulll
.-.­
~
:;
NORTH
wExit 18
To Northbound
Frontage Road
Mass Ave Roxbury
Tunnel
W.,.
.-.-
i$jExit 20
"~-,-,rrom
~~'t'
c;-
E~
\D
On-famp to
North
rfom MassAY8/
~ 1D~Ut<W·/
V
WJi'.~-
Tumel
Please note:
Color indicated corresponds
to color tile in tunnel.
High-OCcupancy.Vehicle lane
m
Hospital
Attachment B
TUNNEL REVIEW AGENDA QUESTIONS
1.
Inspection Procedures
a. How are the inspections budgeted and funded?
b. Describe MassDOT and consultant use of the 2003 Inspection Manual and conformance with the
2007 Inspection Policy.
c. The number of inspections conducted by consultants varies by year; who decides and how?
d. What are plans for proportion of inspections conducted by consultants?
e. How is work assigned and scheduled?
f. The inspection manual and reports contain specific forms for ceiling panels and hangars; are
there separate forms for other components (lights, signs, etc.)?
g. How are other components identified? Does each component have a unique ID?
h. What is the timeframe for receipt of inspection reports from inspection teams?
i. How are inspection reports transmitted, filed, and organized?
j. According to the inspection manual (p. 13) Inspection data is entered into a database; please
describe the applications used (4D, MMIS, or others), the data entry process, associated
procedures, and allocation of responsibility.
k. The inspection reports say that many components are obscured by fireproofing and cannot be
inspected; how is this being addressed? Why is the fireproofing material removed at several
locations? Is this temporary or permanent?
I. What kinds of inspections are conducted on each component?
m. Are there separate inspection procedures and associated SOPs/checklists for each overhead
component?
n. Are the procedures different for the annual and tri-annual inspections of overhead
components?
o. Where are the detailed procedures for the inspection of these components? For example,
inspecting hangers to make sure they are under tension, assessing the gaps between yokes and
ceiling, etc.
p. Please describe the rationale and method by which inspectors assign an average section rating
for a particular component based on the distribution of ratings for the number of components in
that section.
q. How have inspection procedures changed as a result of the recent events?
2. Inspection Response Activities
a. Describe the processes for addressing critical structural (C-S) and critical hazard (C-H)
deficiencies. Is there a defined process and documented SOP? Are there specific timeframes
for addressing critical deficiencies?
b. Describe the process for addressing severe/major deficiencies. Is there a defined and
documented SOP? Are there specific timeframes for addressing major deficiencies?
c. What procedures are in place to ensure that critical deficiencies are addressed?
d. Please describe how the summary (average) deficiency rating for a section is related to a
recommendation for specific action.
e. Do inspectors recommend repair or maintenance actions?
f. Describe how asset and work management applications (4D, MMIS, or others) are used to
analyze inspection data, prioritize repairs and maintenance, and issue work orders.
g. What is the relationship between the inspection program and the routine maintenance
program?
h. How are inspection and asset condition data summarized and reported within MassDOT?
i. How are Inspection and asset condition data summarized and reported to other agencies?
FHWA - Tunnel Inspection Review
Page 1 af 2
June 21, 2011
3.
Quality Management (Quality Control and Quality Assurance)
a. QC: Describe the procedure for the inspection report reviews conducted by the Tunnel
Inspection Engineer and the District Inspection Engineer;
b. QC: Describe the procedure for the inspection report reviews conducted by the consultants.
c. QC: Is there an SOP, checklist, or recommended timeframe for the report reviews?
d. QC: What are the possible actions that may result from finding errors or omissions in the
inspection reports?
e. QC: What procedures are in place to ensure that report deficiencies are addressed?
f. QA: How is consistency among inspections ensured? The inspection manual refers to "team
calibration" (pp. 37-39).
g. QA: What procedures are used to calibrate testing equipment?
h. QA: What methods are used to oversee consultant inspections?
i. QA: What are procedures are in place for the functional review of inspection procedures,
methods, forms, and results?
j. QA: What methods are used to ensure that accurate data entry of inspection data into database
applications?
4. Staffing, Qualifications, and Training
a. What is the plan to address vacancies on the inspection teams?
b. Why is the inspection program in the District Construction Division?
c. How familiar are the inspectors with the tunnel design?
d. What procedures are used to track the qualifications and training of MassDOT and consultant
personnel?
FHWA - Tunnel Inspection Review
Page 2 of2
June 21, 2011
Attachment C
CENTRAL ARTERY TUNNEL
INSPECTION PROGRAM REVIEW
JUlie 27 - July 1, 2011
MEETING AGENDA
Monday, June 27, 2011 - At Embassy Suites Hotel
• 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Review Team Meeting
Tuesday, June 28, 20 II - At
• 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM
• 8:30 AM - 9:00 AM
• 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
• IO:00AM-IO:15 AM
• 10:15 AM-NOON
• NOON - I:00 PM
• 1:00 pM-3:00 PM
• 3:00 PM - 3: I 5 PM
• 3:15PM-5:00PM
• 10:00 PM - MIDNIGHT
185 Kneeland Street
Introductions and Review Purpose (Review Team and MassDOT)
Overview of Inspection Program (MassDOT)
Discussion of Inspcction Procedures (Review Team and MassDOT)
Break
Discussion of Inspection Procedures, Cont'd (Review Team and MassDOT)
Lunch (to be provided)
Discussion of Inspection Procedures, Cont'd (Review Team and MassDOT)
Break
Review and Conclusions (Review Team)
Tunnel Inspection Field Review (Review Team; meet at 185 Kneeland)
Wcdnesday, June 29, 20 II • 9:30 AM - 9:45 AM
• 9:45 AM - 10:45 AM
• 10:45 AM - II :00 AM
• II :00 AM - 12:30 PM
• 12:30 AM - I :30 PM
• 1:30 AM - 3:30 PM
• 3:30 PM - 3:45 PM
• 3:45 PM - 5:00 PM
At 185 Kneeland Street
Introductions (Review Team and MassDOT)
Discussion of Inspection Response Activities (Rev. Tcam and MassDOT)
Break
Discussion oflnspection Response, Cont'd (Rev. Team and MassDOT)
Lunch (to be provided)
Discussion of Inspection Response, Cont'd (Rev. Team and MassDOT)
Break
Review and Conclusions (Review Team)
Thursday, June 30, 20 II - At 185 Kneeland Street
Introductions (Review Team and MassDOT)
• 8:00AM-8:15AM
Inspection Procedures and Response Follow-up (Rev. Team and MassDOT)
• 8:15 AM-9:00AM
Overview of Quality Management Program (MassDOT)
• 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM
Discussion of Quality Management Program (Review Team and MassDOT)
• 9: 15 AM - 10:00 AM
• 10:15 AM-IO:30AM Break
Discussion of Staffing, Qualifications, and Training (Review Team and MassDOT)
• 10:30 AM - NOON
Lunch (to be provided)
• NOON - I :00 PM
Review and Conclusions (Review Team)
• I :00 PM - 3:00 PM
• 3:00PM-3:15PM
Break
Review and Conclusions (Review Team)
• 3:15 PM-5:00PM
Friday, July 1,2011- At Volpe Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, Room 1-120
• 8:00 AM - 9:45 AM
Review Team meeting with DA and ADA
• 9:45 AM - 10:00 AM
Break
Close-out Presentation to FHWA DA and ADA and MassDOT officials (by
• 10:00 AM - NOON
invitation only)
• NOON - 1:00 PM
Lunch
Federal fhghway Administration
June 22, 2011
Attachment 0
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
Policy Directive
Tunnel Inspection and Testing Program
1. Purpose and Scope
1.1
To provide a uniform policy for tunnel inspection, life safety system
testing and to establish the frequencies thereof for all tunnels under
the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.
1.2
The following tunnels under the jurisdiction of the MTA are included
in this policy: 1·90 Tunnels (1-90 connector and ramps), 1-93
Tunnels (Tip O'Neill Tunnel, Dewey Square Tunnel and Ramps),
Ted Williams Tunnel (TWT), Callahan Tunnel, Sumner Tunnel, City
Square Tunnel (CANA), and portions of the Prudential Tunnel
(includes Prudential/Copley/Hancock and proposed Columbus
Center).
2. Implementation
The condition evaluation of the tunnel elements shall be consistent with
the references cited below. As the tunnels listed above are each of
unique design and contain unique components of varying functional life
expectancies, it is acknowledged that the tunnel inspection and operation
protocols mandated by this policy will evolve over time. The procedures
described in the documents below are anticipated to be amended to fit the
specific conditions and operational needs of each tunnel listed above.
2.1
Inspection Manual for Tunnels and Boat Structures, Volume 5,
November 2003
2.2
Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual, 2005. FHWA
2.3
MTA Operations Control Center response plan documents:
RP101 Tunnel Roadway Fire
RP101A Fire Response for 193 and 190 Tunnels
RP101 B Fire Response for the Sumner/Callahan Tunnels
RP1 01 C Fire Response for the Prudential Tunnel
RP101D Fire Response for CANA Tunnel
Page 1 aD
3. Frequency of Inspection
The maximum time period between inspections for tunnel components are
as follows:
3.1
Ceiling panels and hanger systems over roadways supporting:
Ceiling panels, mechanical equipment Oet fans/exhaust fans),
electrical equipment (lights), conduits, pipes, sign mounting
assemblies, communications systems and catwalks
shall be inspected once per year.
3.2
Remaining tunnel components, including but not limited to:
Roof/lining concrete, walls, SPTC walls, columns wall panels, air
supply ducts, exhaust air ducts, safety walks, barriers, curbs,
roadway pavements, decks, slabs, drainage, base slab, lining
concrete, pump stations, roof beams, roof beam connections, roof
slabs and structural protective coatings
shall be inspected every three years.
3.3
Condition evaluation of the tunnel elements shall be based on the
references cited in Section 2.1 above. Any tunnel component that
has a Condition Code of 4 (poor) shall be schedUled as a priority
and have the inspection frequency increased to no less than six
months for components described in 3.1 and to no less than one
year for components described in 3.2.
Any tunnel component that has a Condition Code of 3 (serious) or
less shall be scheduled as the highest priority and have an
inspection frequency increased to no less than three months for
components described in 3.1 and to no less than six months for
components described in 3.2.
3.4
The scheduled preventive maintenance procedures on life safety
systems and fire protection testing shall be summarized and
reported every six months.
3.5
Ventilation testing shall be performed on each individual tunnei and
tunnel ramp ventilation zone. The tests shall evaluate the ability of
the components of the ventilation system to function as designed.
Additionally, the ventilation tests shall include an evaluation of the
Page 2 of3
automated and manual response plan activation from the
Operations Control Center as well as local response plan activation
at each vent building. Such tests shall be scheduled and
conducted every six months.
4. Inspection and Testing Results
4.1
Data generated by the tunnel inspections shall be stored in a
computerized database compatible with the National Bridge
Inspection Standards.
4.2
Inspection results and testing results shall be utilized by MTA
Maintenance and Engineering Departments to correct deficiencies,
adjust scheduled preventive maintenance frequencies and plan
capital improvements.
Recommended by:
Helmut Ernst, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
Effectiv~ ttl;;)oo7
Page 3 of3
612eJ20"
MASSDOT DISTRICT 6 MHS TUNNELS INSPECTION - MASTER
Full Inspection
Overhead (Annual) Inspection
CYCLE 1
DESCRIPTION
MTASTR.
No.
6-16-625
6-16-637
6-16-625
8-10.=
BIN
SECTION
ELEMENT
TYPE
6HA
TUNNEL
Slip Ramp
6GW
TUNNEL
5VJ
TUNNEL
Ramp RS 1-90 CollectOf [email protected]+43
1-935B
5VE
5VO
TUNNEL
5V9
TUNNEL
BOAT
6-16-625
6-16-625
6-16-625
6-16-631
5UX
TUNNEL
5UR
BOAT
6-16-636
5UF
TUNNEL
6-16-621
6-16-622
6-16-623
EJR
SAO
591<
BOAT
2007
LENGTH 1FT)
2008
2009
2010
CYCLE 2
2011
2012
Oat.
RampCS-P
1·935B
1·93 S8
1·90 Coneclor End of wall !orCASB (1-93 S8)@ 112+55
Ramp CS·SA Portal @ 39+97
Ramp RR Nose '·90 [email protected]+75
Ramp L-<:S
TUNNEL
Ramp l-eS Portal @ 73.. 15
BOAT
Ramp L-eS [email protected]+45
Total Linear Foot.
ITED W1LUAMS TUNNEL (15 BINs)
6-16-549
6-16-550
6-16-551
6-16-551
6-16-551
6-16-551
6-15-551
6-16-551
8-16-651
8-16-551
.7.
M'V
TUNNEL
1-90 we (under VB6)
TWT 1·9ClWB
9TF
TUNNEL
TUNNEL
9TE
TUNNEL
9TO
TUNNEL
9EY
TUNNEL
TUNNEL
TWT
TWT
TWT
TWT
9C4
901
90W
9BV
8-16-551
90U
8-16-550
90N
8-16-549
8-16-549
7JC
7JB
8-16-549
5X8
TUNNEL
TWT 1-90 eB Wall Transition
1·90W8
1·90 fB Ramp T-AID [email protected]+12
1·90WB
1·90WB
TUNNEL
TWT 1·90EB
TWT 1-90 EB Ramp E-T POI1aI @
TUNNEL
TUNNEL
TWT f.90WB
TWT 1090 EB ElM! of interior wall 152+80·
TUNNEL
TUNNEL
TWT 1-90EB
TUNNEL
TWT 1·90EB
TWT 1·90 EB (under VB6)
TUNNEL
362~2
TWT 1-90WB
Total Unear Foot.
I 90 EASTBOUND CONNECTOR (59 BINs)
8-16-546
8-16-516
ACL
7UV
TUNNEL
BOAT
HOV EB
RAMP CC Nose Ramp C 20+88
8-16-516
7UF
BOAT
1-90 EB [email protected] 18+96.2
8-16-684
8-16-516
8-16-507
7TU
7TM
7TK
BOAT
BOAT
BOAT
RAMP C (Covered Boat 5edion)
RAMP A Nose Ramp CC 22+40.3
RAMP CC Nose Ramp C 24+90
,.,
?;
OJ
()
:::J"
3
CD
:::J
~
m
Attachment F
2-0151
,·0·,·6·
II
,.
B.J.N.
MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION
STRUCTURES INSPECTION FIELD REPORT
BR. DEPT. NO.
,6··H·-B·-
OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION
8016-625
P.ge: 1 Of
31
lINTB
CIlYITOWN
a• STRUCTURE NO.
Boston
BJ6625-6HB-DOT-TNL
11. MIlE PCINT
01- FACtllTY CARRIG>
MEMORIAl. NAM!JLOCAL NAME
1-90 Collector
1-90 Colleelor
06 - FEATURES INTERSECTED
26 - FUNCTIONAL CLASS.
"i-STATUS
INSP. FREQ.
90 ·IN$PECTION DATE
Open
)2 months
SlI712010
Irr -
YR BUILT
DISTRICT TUNNEL
22-OWNER
21 • MAINTAINER
C. EvasiuJ, P.E.
31-MTA
31-MTA
C.t .sod Cover
CONTRACT(S)
WEATHER
TEMP. (air)
Varied
Varied
43b· STRUCTURE TYPE
TUlari
CI7A6, CISAI &< CI7AA
~~dMJ)L
GUild
TEAM'lol!MBERS
.R4
P.ll<r1:quls~
CEIUNG/OVERHEAD
1. COiling P....I.
2. Hang...
3. H.nger Anchorag. Syslem
4. Side/End Closure Panels
5. Sub C.UIng
6. Expoood Roof SI.b
7. Utillllos
6. Roactw.y Ughllng
I. Jet Flna
10. SlgnsiSupporlo
1Ga. Foundation
lOb. SM. PI.tIlAnch. Bolts
lOC. GuldlraU Prollction
lOcI. Poots
100. Connoctlon To Poots
10f. ArmfTru. . Frm. Mem.
109. Sian P.n.
10h. SlIffaco Coatlng.
101. Ughting
11. Fl.-proofina
12. Exhaust Duct Lighting
13. Security COme...
14. Concrete Portal.
15.
16.
17.
N
N
N
N
H
H
5
6
N
7
N
7
N
6
7
7
7
7
I
5
N
I
N
C.Qu&Jla
I
DEF
COMMENTS
MIP
SlA
MIA
MIA
SHRemark._
see Remanel section
SH Rem.rk._
SH Remark. 5ectlon
SH Remark. Section
see Remarks Sectton
see Remarits s.ctton
see Remarks section
See Rem.rks section
SIP
See Remarks Section
CD
WETNESS
1. Structural I N I
2. R...ctw.y I N 1
P.E.
\V. GiltS
D::J
lITEM 62c
CLEANUNESS
1.Structura' I N
2. Roadway 1 N
h(~ #
J.!\of
Ga· cONsmucnoN TYPE
YRREHAS'D
2004
TEAM LEADER
G. Md,o.gbli.
Principal Arteri....'ntentate.Urb2D
INSPEcnON ENGINEER
1101 -YR RESUlLT
1955
II 3. Coiling/Overhead I 4 I
114. Supply Air Duel I N I
3
I 3. COiling/Overhead I 3 I
14. Supply Air Duel I N I
SlA
115. Cross Passage
116. Eg....
1
6. Cross Passage
6. Eg.....
ffi
N
I:B
N
117• Utility Room
0
17.UUlltyRoom0
I
.l!~!!.~S_T--,1 IL. - ':"'~"'·~o:.·_
MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION
STRUCTURES INSPECTION FIELD REPORT
BR. DEPT. NO.
OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION
8-16-625
_2_•
Page: 2 01
HNTB
31
Usl ofField rests Performed:
PhVSlC:aU;;;n;OOl Inspectjon' Hammer Sounding
o
NEE
Y
UII Budlol
Ladder
N
Woder
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Slag'n
Traflk: Control
RRF
r
Pollee
Confined Space
Air Motor
Esca Air
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
SCissor Llfl
~1![fi~
Not AppIIcobIo
0
F=====::Iooo.....~=~...IillllrectlonolT,.V.1 IS:::B:----------I
t::::::::::-:::==::-:::::--;::::::;:=;-il
Actual Field "-l$Uremenl
rfnrfol
tmtn
....
CHEMICAL ANCHORS (YIN)
..
AtTum>e/
o
Signs In Place CVnf)
.
LegIbIlity I VIsibility
A deftciency In a component or element a tunnel that poses an extreme unsafe condition to the publk:, bul dOeS not Impair the
structural integrity of the tunnel. Examples il'ldude but are not limited 10: loose conaele hanging dO'Ml over traffic; Loose bOlts
$\Jpponlng ceiling panels: Missing sectiOn 0 1 _ joint. etc.
CwS=Critical·Struetural Deficiency A delk:lency to a structural element of a tunnel that poses an extreme unsafe c:onditlon due to the failure or Imminent failure of the
element which will affect the struetufal kltegrlly Of the tunnel.
C·H=Critical·Hazard Deficiency
M=Minor Deficiency
Deficiencles which are minor in nature, generally do not impact the structural integrity of the tunnel and could easily be repaired.
Examples include but are not limited 10: Spalled concrete. Minor pot holes, MinoreorrosiOn to steel, Clogged drainage, etc.
S=SeverelMajor DefICiency
Defidencie1 which are more extensive in nature and need more planning and effort 10 repair. Examples Include but are no!: limited
to: Moderate to major deterioration 10 concrete, Expo$ed and corroding reblf1. Considerable setttement, Considerable leaking,
Moderate to exten$lve corrosion to atructural steeI-Mth meaaurabIe loss of secUon. etc.
URGENCY OF REPAIR
I
A
Inspector(S) contact Division Engiooer to report the del'iciency and to receive further insttucOOn from hlmJher,
ActionIRepair should be initiated by Division Maintenance Engineer upon rec:elp1 of the Inspection Report.
Sha" be prioritized by Division MaIntenance Engineer and repairs made when funds ancl/or manpower Is available.
Immediate
As Soon As Possible
..p'-'_ _-'pc.;ri;.;on;.;·I;.;.;;.e_ _- J
CONDITION RATING GUIDE
......_CODE
.. _.. __ •.... _---_.. CONDITION
-- -- ... .. - .. - -
....• DEFECTS
-,-
R
-------_
.. _.-
__..__ __..!!
H
~._--_.~_
Removed
---_._---_
.. -
.__~~~£.Ilcable_._._
9
._,_~
G
__
F
F
._,~..._
c
-"
Excellent
---._-_
Very Good
7.(3(>()(f.....
6 _.
S.ti_s1a<:t0"L
5
P
-4
P
3
_ _.__._....
2
c
o
-~_._------._-_.
. _._~~_ ..__.
__
__.
__.... __..__
--_..
No1App1icabJe.
Hiddenlinaccessible
Hidden
...... .. - -.----_. or "'accessible.
... __ ._.... _•...
--~---_.
G
---_._--~-
..
Removed.
_._
..__._
__
.~._._--------------_._._--_
--.--~._.
.._ _~
... ~",Inor Pro."I.."s
~_.
..
..
.~.
__..
Excellent condition.
No problem noted.
..-._._--.-_.
_--------------~
+ __
_--~
'"
-.......
,~
__._.._._"._._..__._-,_ --_.._ .. _.._ __ --_._- -
~._
•
-------~---_._
.._....
.
_.__ ..
Structural._ls.~1>ow some minor deterioration.
_
..- .. _---_ ...
_._..__.. .
_.
._.._.._.
.
.. _ - - - _ ..----­
.~_ .._..__ ._~ __._ _
_.._.._._.
__.__._.. _.._.._
All primary structural elements are SO~nd but may have minor section toss, cracki~~.~p.~~!~~ .. ~..~.!:. __..__ .~
.
__._
_._._._
,~.
_~ __ " Adv~nced ~ 1o~-,-~enoratiOn, spaling or scour.
__... '"~ ~._. ..__ ._
lost of section. deterioration or spalling have seriously affected primary structural components. lQCS;1 failures are
.
possibl!:.E.racks in s~_~:..~~.~~cks In concrete may be present.
... .. _~
._. _
Critical
Advanced deterioration or primary slruCbJral eIemefltS. CrackS in steet or Shear cracks in concrete may be present.
_~l!':~,~.~_~.I_~.~~_~~~~~_~_~_~_~ ..~.~ to dose the tunnel u'!..ti!.~_~'!.f!.~~i?!1i.S_~~_!_~ '" .. __.
...__ ~ _
"Imminenr Failure
Major deterioration or section loss present 10 critk:al structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement
affecting structure S1abllity. T~~~:~~,~sed to traffic but corrective action may put i~~_i~_~i!L~t s~~._._.
_
Failed
Out Of service· beyond corrective action
Poor
Serious
. ..
,-2_.-"~,,,"~S_T--J1 Il. . - ":~ i! ·~! .·_
MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION
STRUCTURES INSPECTION FJELD REPORT
DR. DEPT. NO.
OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION
8-16-625
Page: 3 01
31
HNTB
WETNESS RATING GUIDE
N Not AppIieabIe
___9_E><_""_~~_~._E><_""_!"",::-oon,,:-d,:ilion,,·
.,.,'O"R~Y,,,.
"....,.,._-.:=======::­
_
_ .~.~.,~ery ~~~""~~~,=,.,.~ ~~ noted. Dry with evidence 01 PAST MOISTURE Jwetne...
2~~~_,~,.
~ minor problems. DAMPNESS or moisture may be present (non-gliltenlng surface).
6 SatisfactOl)'
Structural ~ta show some condeM8.tlon or alight welMSll. GUSTENING surface with no vblble movement.
SO'''''"'5~''F~ir -=-.----_...
8tl\JCtura! elements are sound but may have wet &pOIsor soggy (11"6", STANDI!"G DROP at a rate
__
~~.~_,_~.m
EE
3 Serious
. _.,"
---AJIp;.;;:;;
of leu than 1~ Per-;;;inut:;="'~=::===
Adva'1C8d INetnes., drenched,~S8Wfated areas. Moi$lure DRIPS at a rate of groaler than 1 crop per minute.
Water in Itle foon of 8 leek is SEEP1~~~yaffect slNctlS8l ~. Lcc.a' fail~es are pCll$ibll!l. Vl$ibl& movement of a mm 01 walei' on the Mace.
Ad'Jance CONTINUOUS LEAK pourlng out with measurable fklW!rom a tridde 10 a jet ofwatltf. Un\&$$ ClOsely monitored it may be n&ee$5ary to dose the tume! f.rItil
corrective action 18 laken.
--1~1r)ent" Faif~=-M8jO( ~ preseo-l in 8 criti~l ~truelUf8! componenl';obvious $ig'liflC.llnt ~ affecting atrueture stability. TU'1081 clOsed to'ti-atr1C oorrecljy;~'m~=~~~~"
back in service.
___.__
2 Critical
W
'is
w.~~.,~._·._.~
o Failed
Flooded out of aervice. beyond C(l(feclr.. action
GUIDE
- - - - - - - ­CLEANLINESS
---­ - - - RATING
-­ -------------­
~-
1
Immediate
_
As Soon As PoSSible
Hazardous conditions.
~.==~=="'"_._',.=,,==~~,_
2
N
Not Applicable
No issues.
=.n=·,'~~
Heavy or wbstanti~ debris.
..~.!-...~!!'~.!...~. __~_._~~_'"'~~~~~~
~
·
,
==,~=~~"'
,~_'_~. __._"_ _
.~_~_.
~.·~n_.~
__~.~~_,. ~
Division III (MHS) Notification Matrix - (1-10)
Immediate Action ItIwe ....,
....UfJy lU;
Electrical:
M7 • Bill Ronayne
cc: Tony Duros
Lighting/Pull boxes/etc.......
M8· Dan Mullaly
cc: Tony Duros
Civil/Structural:
M7 • Domenic Catino/Steve Purcell/Mike M.
cc: Dave Belanger
Loose/Delaminated concrete, shielding
M8 • Ed McCarthy/Mike M.
cc: Dave Belanger
M8 ~ George Dennison
cc: Tony Duros
Mechanical/Fire:
M7 • Bill Ronayne
cc: Tony Duros
Pumps/standpipes
M8 • Scott Wilson
cc: Tony Duros
Communication:
John Woodman (M8)
cc: TonyDuros
Dave Beaudon (M7)
cc: Tony Duros
Dave Belanger
cc: Dave Belanger
,
fireproofing, etc....•
Millwrights:
Ceiling Hangers/Ceiling Panels/etc....
Sign Structures
** "IMMEDIATE ACTION" items are consifdered items that require immediate attention and pose a safety hazard. These
items shall be highlighted by Division personnel and submitted through the MMIS system for action. Notifications to the
appropriate contact shall also be made in conjuncflon with the
,
&
()
:r
3
ro
a
G)
Attachment H
BRIDGE/TUNNEL CONSULTANT INSPECTION GUIDELINES
(December. 09)
1
The Turnpike will assign· an Engineer as a "Point of Contact" for the
coordination of each Inspection work order (Consultant to do so as well)
2
A Turnpike Inspector may be assigned to help facilitate the inspections (or
portions of) as necessary.
3
The Consultant shall supply bi-weekly status updates on the inspection
progress. (status shall be reflected per BIN, % of field work completed, %
of reports completed, etc.... )
4
All access (both onloff road) will be scheduled through the Access Work
Program. Weekly coordination meetings are held each Thursday @ 9:00
am at 128 North Sl.
5
The Engineer shall maintain a file of the approved weekly AWR forms and
bi-weekly status updates. (Costs (including traffic control) associated with
"Overhead Tunnel Inspections" in the TWT, 190 Connector or 193 NB/SB
are reimbursable through the Trust Fund and should also be tracked)
6
The Consultant shall be instructed to report any "Immediate Action" items
andlor safety hazards to the assigned Engineer (copy Division Engineer)
during the field inspection for follow up and action if required.
7
The Engineer shall review issue for appropriate action and communicate to
appropriate Maintenance personnel to address accordingly. (see attached
contact list).
8
Correspondence regarding "Immediate Action Items" (or CWO's) generated
during the field Inspection or report review shall be attached to the
"Inspection Report Checklist"
Attachment I .
/
BRIDGE/TUNNEL INSPECTION REVIEW GUIDELINES
(December - 09)
1
All inspection reports shall be reviewed upon submission and an
"Inspection Report Checklist" shall be completed by the reviewer for each
BIN.
2
The Division's "Bridge Condition Summary" or "Tunnel Condition Summary"
spreadsheets shall be updated with the latest inspection information for
each BIN.
3
For Tunnel/Boat Inspections;
The inspection date is to be updated for the BIN in the 4D system. The
date shall be updated in item 91 and 91 C for each inspection (either
"Overhead" or "Full")
4
For Bridge Inspections;
All reports are to be generated in the 4D database system for the
necessary approvals.
5
Any "Immediate Action Items" noted in the reports, and not already
addressed during the field inspection, shall be reviewed and communicated
to Maintenance by generating a CWO (and notifying the Maintenance POC
directly if needed)
6
Correspondence regarding "Immediate Action Items" (or CWO's) generated
during the field Inspection or report review shall be attached to the
"Inspection Report Checklist"
7
Review memo's shall be generated for groups of six reports or less and
any major issues shall be noted. (Le. ratings of 4 or less, notable rating
changes, etc ..... )
8
3 copies of each report with SI&A sheet and review correspondence (i.e.
checklist) shall be submitted
Attachment J
MassDOT - Highway Division
Division III Engineering (MRS)
Bridge/Tunnel Inspeetion Checklist
Bridge/Tunnel BIN:
_
Location:.
_
Circle if Consultant or In-House Inspection: Consultant I In-House
Reviewer:
Date:.
If Consultant, firm:
_
_
_
Circle Inspection Type: Bridge I Tunnell Boat Section I Other
I. Has the correct Inspection Form been used?
2. Has the Team Leader and QA/QC Manager signed the report?
3. Is the Form filled out in its entirety & accurately?
4. Are cross references regarding photos and sketches correct?
5. Have deficiencies been clearly identified & coded?
HIf \'NO", follow back with Team Leader to correct.
6. Were deficiencies reported during Inspection? (Ifyes, note action taken)
7. Has Maintenance been notified of any "Immediate Action Items" noted
during the Inspection?
(Ifno,foliow up w/Maintenance to address)
8. Has Maintenance been notified of any "Irrunediate Action Items" noted in
report?
(Ifno, foliow up w/Malntenance to addres,)
9. Have FIR's/CWO's been submitted? (attach notification)
"
10. (Bridges Only) Is there a Fracture Critical Report required?
II. (Tunnels Only) Forward eopy of "Wetness Report" to Leak Group?
12. Has the SI&A sheet been updated in 4D? Print clean copy.
13. Has Division rating lists been updated?
**Comments:
USDepartment
01 TronsporfOllon
Federal Highway
Admlnl.trallon
Report prepared by:
FHWA Massachusetts Division Office
55 Broadway, Tenth Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: (617)494-3657
FAX: (617)494-3355
For additional copies of this report, contact us.
-24­
Download