Division Office Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection ... · Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection Progam ... J. Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Checklist . u.s. ... In 2007, the first

+

Program Review

Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection

Progam

FINAL REPORT

October 2011

Massachusetts Division Office Office of Infrastructure - Office of Bridge Technology Resource Center Structures Team Virginia Division Office And • Maryland

Transportation Authority

• Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

• Virginia Department of Transportation

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. Department01 Transportation

Federal HighwayAdministration

Table of Contents



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 C enter 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. Inspection procedures B. Inspection response activities C. Inspection quality management D. 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 three-year 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



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 r ecommendations 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



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



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



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:


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



Helmut Ernst District 6 Highway Director John McInerney District 6 Construction and Inspection Engineer Chris Evasius District 6 Assistant Construction Engineer David Kent District 6 Inspection Engineer for Tunnels and Air Rights Mark Griffin District 6 District Inspection Engineer Alex Bardow State Bridge Engineer Lev Bentsman District 6 Bridges and Structures Engineer Anthony Duros District 6 Facilities Operations and Maintenance Engineer Michael MacQueen District 6 John Wright Assistant Chief Engineer

During the field inspection, the review team spoke with the following inspection team personnel:

Leo Marino Inspection Program Manager HNTB Jeff Kellner Team Leader HNTB Aldo Spada Team Leader HNTB Kevin Morgan Team Member HNTB Charley Quaglia Team Member HNTB Reed Brockman Team Leader AECOM Vinnie Mercuri Interim Team Leader AECOM Jeff Blom Team Member AECOM Shann Mills Team Leader Purcell Associates Subal Das Team Member 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



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



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



Observations and Recommendations The Observations and Recommendations section is organized into four parts, consistent with the review’s four major focus areas:


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



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 Ceiling panels/architectural panels 2 Hangers 3 Hanger Anchorage System 4 Side/End Closure Panels 5 Sub Ceiling 6 Exposed Roof Slab 7 Utilities 8 Roadway Lighting 9 Jet Fans 10 Signs/Sign Supports/Sign Lighting 11 Fireproofing 12 Exhaust Duct Lighting 13 Security Cameras 14 Concrete Portals 15 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



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 c rayons, 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



• 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



• 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



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



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



Response Activities: Observations and Recommendations • Observation 9: Every y ear 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



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



• 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 s hould 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 i n 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 w as utilized. It is accepted practice that the quality of inspections (and perhaps safety) is correlated with lighting conditions.

Recommendation: To improve inspection quality, lighting c onditions should be evaluated and improved, and existing lighting r epaired.

-18



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 a dding 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



MassDOT District 6 used a spreadsheet to track the required certifications and training of inhouse 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



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



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



Attachments

-23

r.=~__-----;Attachment A "'.,Iili/to\ll-

MassPike Ted Williams Tunnel

South Boslon

"'"'" @ to (ll North

Sumner Tunnel Government Ctr.

Storrow Drive W,,,"L"',_'--'--.J AJRPQIIT

[E

EAST BOSTON

High-OCcupancy.Vehicle lane

mHospital

Ncr.. Soulll .-. Tunnel

~ :; E~ W.,. .-.- Tumel

WJi'.~-

Please note: Color indicated corresponds

to color tile in tunnel.

EAST

~ Exit 25 to South Boston & South Boston Bypass Road Vc;-

NORm

i$jExit23 Gov't Center

North End AquarIUm

QuincyMar1tet

SOUTH BOSTON

•U $5. Con../I",'/tm

NORTH

i$jExit 26 Storrow Drive

North SIa\Jon TO Banknorth Garden Museum Of Saence

NORTH

wExit 18 To Northbound Frontage Road

Mass Ave Roxbury

On-famp to \D North rfom MassAY8/

Frontage Rd NOR'"

i$jExit 20 ..._--------1 To 0 East Logan Airport

10 oWest to South Station 10 South Boston

CHARLESTOWN

~"

@......... "'

SOUTH

I QjExit 23 Oo-"mplo

J L:::':"-"======~:.J Purchase Street Q) North from South Boston Waletfronl Atlantic Ave

DOWNTOWN ~_-,="F",;o",.od"",,,,,o;,,,,,,,,,!!O",,,----~ & Moaldey Bridge On-famp to -!: U::l::~:::"'.,

\D Sooth and f-----~'/.r;6 101\.:;-'..

oWest from ~~-~'~~~I--:2;;:;;;;;;P:;Ol[::O;;:;;;;;;;;Olr"'::'~':~-:-:=-:-:lCongress $I ;. On-ramp 10 .....

~:0,:' q~~~;" ~Exit 25-24 Surface Rd. Massport 25 to South Boston No~toO Haul Rd IL~;::::='----J124 toG North & South

, $-;:;ICI;<t 1J"c!......~---=--r---_.Jl.f/J

",," ,/..

"'"'" QjExit 26 Storrow Drive & North Station

Beacoo Hill Cambndge

"'"'" QjExit 18 Mass Ave Roxbury

Andrew Square

~ 1D~Ut<W·/'. "~-,-,-.... ~~'t' On-famp 10 ~'1> En South rrom

FrontageRd Soulhbound

..... MassPike -'I

SOUTH END

On-famp from Storrow DrJ Leyerett Circle 10

Q)North & South aod Tobin BndgsCD North

SOUTH

QjExits 20B&A 20-B 100 West 1_-;;::::::=:---:~~?-:tE.

Albany Street r On-ramp to

S::;lh~: Owest from

20 Albany St.

-A South Station Connector

<AS'

fljExits 24C,B&A 24-C to\llSouth

24-B to \llNorlh 24-A to South Station

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 af2 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 185 Kneeland Street • 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Introductions and Review Purpose (Review Team and MassDOT)

• 8:30 AM - 9:00 AM Overview of Inspection Program (MassDOT)

• 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM Discussion of Inspcction Procedures (Review Team and MassDOT) • IO:00AM-IO:15 AM Break • 10:15 AM-NOON Discussion of Inspection Procedures, Cont'd (Review Team and MassDOT)

• NOON - I:00 PM Lunch (to be provided) • 1:00 pM-3:00 PM Discussion of Inspection Procedures, Cont'd (Review Team and MassDOT) • 3:00 PM - 3: I5 PM Break • 3:15PM-5:00PM Review and Conclusions (Review Team)

• 10:00 PM - MIDNIGHT Tunnel Inspection Field Review (Review Team; meet at 185 Kneeland)

Wcdnesday, June 29, 20 II - At 185 Kneeland Street • 9:30 AM - 9:45 AM Introductions (Review Team and MassDOT) • 9:45 AM - 10:45 AM Discussion of Inspection Response Activities (Rev. Tcam and MassDOT) • 10:45 AM - II :00 AM Break • II :00 AM - 12:30 PM Discussion oflnspection Response, Cont'd (Rev. Team and MassDOT) • 12:30 AM - I :30 PM Lunch (to be provided) • 1:30 AM - 3:30 PM Discussion of Inspection Response, Cont'd (Rev. Team and MassDOT) • 3:30 PM - 3:45 PM Break • 3:45 PM - 5:00 PM Review and Conclusions (Review Team)

Thursday, June 30, 20 II - At 185 Kneeland Street • 8:00AM-8:15AM Introductions (Review Team and MassDOT)

• 8:15 AM-9:00AM Inspection Procedures and Response Follow-up (Rev. Team and MassDOT) • 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM Overview of Quality Management Program (MassDOT)

• 9: 15 AM - 10:00 AM Discussion of Quality Management Program (Review Team and MassDOT)

• 10:15 AM-IO:30AM Break • 10:30 AM - NOON Discussion of Staffing, Qualifications, and Training (Review Team and MassDOT)

• NOON - I :00 PM Lunch (to be provided) • I :00 PM - 3:00 PM Review and Conclusions (Review Team) • 3:00PM-3:15PM Break • 3:15 PM-5:00PM Review and Conclusions (Review Team)

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 • 10:00 AM - NOON Close-out Presentation to FHWA DA and ADA and MassDOT officials (by

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

DESCRIPTION 2007

CYCLE 1

2008 2009 2010

CYCLE 2 2011 2012

ITED W1LUAMS TUNNEL (15 BINs)

I 90 EASTBOUND CONNECTOR (59 BINs)

8-16-546 ACL TUNNEL HOV EB

8-16-516 7UV BOAT RAMP CC Nose Ramp C 20+88

8-16-516 7UF BOAT 1-90 EB Portal@ 18+96.2

8-16-684 7TU BOAT RAMP C (Covered Boat 5edion)

8-16-516 7TM BOAT RAMP A Nose Ramp CC 22+40.3

8-16-507 7TK BOAT RAMP CC Nose Ramp C 24+90

Oat.LENGTH 1FT)

Slip Ramp

Ramp RS 1-90 CollectOf Nose@101+43

1-935B

Total Unear Foot.

TWT 1·90EB

TWT 1·90 EB (under VB6)

1-90 we (under VB6)

TWT 1·9ClWB TWT 1-90 eB Wall Transition

TWT 1-90 EB Ramp E-T POI1aI @ 362~2

ELEMENT

TWT 1·90EB

Total Linear Foot.

TWT f.90WB TWT 1090 EB ElM! of interior wall 152+80·

TWT 1-90EB

TWT 1-90WB

TWT 1·90W8 TWT 1·90 fB Ramp T-AID Nose@148+12

TWT 1·90WB

TWT 1·90WB

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 Collector@7+75

Ramp L-<:S Ramp l-eS Portal @ 73.. 15

Ramp L-eS Portal@85+45

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

BOAT TUNNEL

BOAT TUNNEL

BOAT

BOAT TUNNEL

TUNNEL

TUNNEL

SECTION TYPE

7JB

5X8

BIN

SAO 591<

901

5UX

5UR

5UF

EJR

5VE 5VO 5V9

9TE

9TO 9EY

9C4

9BV

90U 90N 7JC

6HA

6GW 5VJ

90W

M'V.7. 9TF

8-16-549

8-16-549

8-10.=

6-16-625

6-16-625

8-16-651

6-16-551

6-16-551

6-16-551

6-15-551

6-16-622

6-16-623

8-16-551

8-16-551

8-16-550

8-16-549

6-16-549

6-16-550

6-16-551

6-16-625

6-16-637

6-16-625

6-16-625

6-16-631

6-16-636

6-16-621

6-16-551

MTASTR. No.

,.,

?; OJ () :::J"

CD 3 :::J ~

m

Attachment F

II MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION P.ge: 1 Of 31

STRUCTURES INSPECTION FIELD REPORT BR. DEPT. NO.2-0151 B.J.N. ,·0·,·6· ,. ,6··H·-B·- OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION 8016-625

lINTB

a•STRUCTURE NO. INSP. FREQ.CIlYITOWN 11. MIlE PCINT 90 ·IN$PECTION DATE

Boston "i-STATUS

)2 monthsBJ6625-6HB-DOT-TNL Open SlI712010

01- FACtllTY CARRIG> YRREHAS'D

2004

MEMORIAl. NAM!JLOCAL NAME Irr -YR BUILT 1101 -YR RESUlLT

1-90 Collector 1-90 Colleelor 1955

06 - FEATURES INTERSECTED 26 - FUNCTIONAL CLASS. TEAM LEADER h(~#G. Md,o.gbli.Principal Arteri....'ntentate.Urb2D

~~dMJ)L .R4DISTRICT TUNNEL J.!\of GUild21 • MAINTAINER 22-OWNER Ga· cONsmucnoN TYPEINSPEcnON ENGINEER

C.t .sod Cover C. EvasiuJ, P.E. 31-MTA 31-MTA TEAM'lol!MBERS P.ll<r1:quls~ P.E. CONTRACT(S) TEMP. (air)WEATHER 43b· STRUCTURE TYPE \V. GiltS

CI7A6, CISAI &< CI7AA TUlariVaried Varied C.Qu&Jla

lITEM 62c D::J I CEIUNG/OVERHEAD DEF COMMENTS 1. COiling P....I. N 2. Hang... N 3. H.nger Anchorag. Syslem N 4. Side/End Closure Panels N 5. Sub C.UIng H 6. Expoood Roof SI.b H 7. Utillllos 5 6. Roactw.y Ughllng 6 I. Jet Flna N 10. SlgnsiSupporlo 7

1Ga. Foundation N lOb. SM. PI.tIlAnch. Bolts 7 lOC. GuldlraU Prollction N lOcI. Poots 6 100. Connoctlon To Poots 7 10f. ArmfTru.. Frm. Mem. 7 109. Sian P.n. 7 10h. SlIffaco Coatlng. 7 101. Ughting I

11. Fl.-proofina 5 12. Exhaust Duct Lighting N 13. Security COme... I 14. Concrete Portal. N 15. 16. 17.

SHRemark._ SlA MIP

see Remanel section SH Rem.rk._

MIA MIA

SH Remark. 5ectlon

SH Remark. Section

see Remarks Sectton

see Remarits s.ctton see Remarks section See Rem.rks section

SIP See Remarks Section

WETNESS CD 1. Structural I N I II 3. Coiling/Overhead I 4 I SlA 115. Cross Passage ffi 117• Utility Room 0 I 2. R...ctw.y I N 1 114. Supply Air Duel I N I 116. Eg.... N

CLEANUNESS 1.Structura' I N 2. Roadway 1 N

I 3. COiling/Overhead I 3 I 6 17.UUlltyRoom0

3 1 I:B. Cross Passage 14. Supply Air Duel I N I 6. Eg..... N

MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION Page: 2 01 31

STRUCTURES INSPECTION FIELD REPORT BR. DEPT. NO. OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION 8-16-625

HNTB _2_•.l!~!!.~S_T--,1 IL..--':"'~"'·~o:.·_

Usl ofField rests Performed:

o YY

NEE

PhVSlC:aU;;;n;OOl Inspectjon' Hammer Sounding

UII Budlol

Ladder N N Woder N N

Slag'n N N Traflk: Control Y Y

RRF r N N Pollee Y Y Confined Space N N Air Motor N N Esca Air N N SCissor Llfl N N

AtTum>e/ o LegIbIlity I VIsibility

Not AppIIcobIo 0

rfnrfol tmtnt::::::::::-:::==::-:::::--;::::::;:=;-il Actual Field "-l$Uremenl

CHEMICAL ANCHORS (YIN)

~1![fi~F=====::Iooo.....~=~...IillllrectlonolT,.V.1 IS:::B:----------I

Signs In Place CVnf)

.. .... . C·H=Critical·Hazard Deficiency 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 sectiOn01_ 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.

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 Immediate Inspector(S) contact Division Engiooer to report the del'iciency and to receive further insttucOOn from hlmJher,

A As Soon As Possible ActionIRepair should be initiated by Division Maintenance Engineer upon rec:elp1 of the Inspection Report. ..p'-'__-'pc.;ri;.;on;.;·I;.;.;;.e__-J Sha" be prioritized by Division MaIntenance Engineer and repairs made when funds ancl/or manpower Is available.

CONDITION RATING GUIDE CODE CONDITION DEFECTS ......_.._..__•.... _---_.. -- --...-,-..- .. - - ....• .. __.... __..__ ..-._._--.-_.~._--_.~_ -~_._------._-_. .~._._--------------_._._--_

R Removed Removed.-------_.._.- ---_._---_..- --_.._._ _--------------~ .._--~ -.......~._ ..- .._---_...___..__ __..!! .__~~~£.Ilcable_._._ No1App1icabJe. ..__._ __.. + .~. '" ,~__ •

H Hiddenlinaccessible Hidden or "'accessible. ...... .. - -- --~---_. __.----_.__...__._...._•... G 9 Excellent Excellent condition.

---_._--~- ---._-_ __ --.--~._. __._.._._"._._..__._-,_ --_.._ --_._- - -------~---_._.._---_..-----" . .._.._ __ ._,_~ ._,~..._ Very Good No problem noted. .._ _~ ~_. .. .._.... . . .~_.._..__._~ __.__

G 7.(3(>()(f..... ... ~",Inor Pro."I.."s _.__ .. _._..__.. . _.._.._._. . __._ __F 6_. S.ti_s1a<:t0"L Structural._ls.~1>ow some minor deterioration. _. ._.._.._. __.__._.. _.._.._ _._._._

F 5 . _._~~_..__. All primary structural elements are SO~nd but may have minor section toss, cracki~~.~p.~~!~~ ..~..~.!:. __..__ .~ ,~.

P -4 Poor _~ __ "Adv~nced~1o~-,-~enoratiOn, spaling or scour. __...'"~ ~._. ..__ ._

P 3 Serious 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. ... .._~ ._. _

c 2 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_~~_!_~ '" .. __. ...__ ~ _

c "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~~._._. _

o Failed Out Of service· beyond corrective action

MassDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION Page: 3 01 31

STRUCTURES INSPECTION FJELD REPORT DR. DEPT. NO. ,-2_.-"~,,,"~S_T--J1 Il....--":~~i!!·~!!.·_ OVERHEAD ITEMS INSPECTION 8-16-625 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 -=-.----_... ---AJIp;.;;:;; 8tl\JCtura! elements are sound but may have wet &pOIsor soggy (11"6", STANDI!"G DROP at a rate of leu than 1~ Per-;;;inut:;="'~=::===

~~.~_,_~.m .._.," Adva'1C8d INetnes., drenched,~S8Wfated areas. Moi$lure DRIPS at a rate of groaler than 1 crop per minute.

EE 3 Serious 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.

2 Critical 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 'is clOsed to'ti-atr1C Woorrecljy;~'m~=~~~~" ___.__ back in service.

w.~~.,~._·._.~

o Failed Flooded out of aervice. beyond C(l(feclr.. action

CLEANLINESS RATING GUIDE ------- --- -1 Immediate Hazardous conditions. _ ~.==~=="'"_._',.=,,==~~,_

2 As Soon As PoSSible Heavy or wbstanti~ debris.

- -~- - ------------- ~ -=.n=·,'~~ · , ==,~=~~"'

,~_'_~. __._"__

..~.!-...~!!'~.!...~. __~_._~~_'"'~~~~~~ N Not Applicable No issues.

.~_~_. ~.·~n_.~ __~.~~_,..~

Division III (MHS) Notification Matrix - (1-10) Immediate Action ItIwe ...., ....UfJy lU;

Electrical:

Lighting/Pull boxes/etc.......

M7 • Bill Ronayne

M8· Dan Mullaly

cc: Tony Duros

cc: Tony Duros ,

cc: Dave Belanger

cc: Dave Belanger

cc: Tony Duros

cc: Tony Duros

cc: Tony Duros

cc: TonyDuros

cc: Tony Duros ,

Civil/Structural:

Loose/Delaminated concrete, shielding

fireproofing, etc....•

M7 • Domenic Catino/Steve Purcell/Mike M.

M8 • Ed McCarthy/Mike M.

Millwrights:

Ceiling Hangers/Ceiling Panels/etc....

M8 ~ George Dennison

Mechanical/Fire:

Pumps/standpipes

M7 • Bill Ronayne

M8 • Scott Wilson

Communication: John Woodman (M8)

Dave Beaudon (M7)

Sign Structures Dave Belanger cc: Dave Belanger

** "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

ro a G)

3

Attachment H

BRIDGE/TUNNEL CONSULTANT INSPECTION GUIDELINES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(December. 09)

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)

A Turnpike Inspector may be assigned to help facilitate the inspections (or portions of) as necessary.

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.... )

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.

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)

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.

The Engineer shall review issue for appropriate action and communicate to appropriate Maintenance personnel to address accordingly. (see attached contact list).

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 .

/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

BRIDGE/TUNNEL INSPECTION REVIEW GUIDELINES (December - 09)

All inspection reports shall be reviewed upon submission and an "Inspection Report Checklist" shall be completed by the reviewer for each BIN.

The Division's "Bridge Condition Summary" or "Tunnel Condition Summary" spreadsheets shall be updated with the latest inspection information for each BIN.

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")

For Bridge Inspections; All reports are to be generated in the 4D database system for the necessary approvals.

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)

Correspondence regarding "Immediate Action Items" (or CWO's) generated during the field Inspection or report review shall be attached to the "Inspection Report Checklist"

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 ..... )

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: _ Reviewer: _

Location:. _ Date:. _

Circle ifConsultant or In-House Inspection: Consultant I In-House

Circle Inspection Type: Bridge I Tunnell Boat Section I Other

IfConsultant, firm: _

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

Documents

Division Office Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection ... · Central Artery Project Tunnel Inspection Progam ... J. Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Checklist . u.s. ... In 2007, the first