Bridge Inspection Practices (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

70 TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES AND INFORMATION SOURCES The questionnaire on inspection practices that was prepared for U.S. state departments of transportation (DOTs) was also dis- tributed to Canadian transportation agencies. Six agencies responded: provincial agencies of Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec, and municipal agencies of Edmonton and Ottawa. Two provinces, Alberta and Ontario, provided copies of their bridge inspection manuals (see Table 2). Inspection information from the six Canadian agencies is presented in this appendix. The information is useful itself, but is not a full report on Canadian practices. Most Canadian provinces and territories are not represented. Canada has road agencies at three administrative levels: federal (national, Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities), provincial/state [provincial and territorial agencies (13; see Table C1)], and municipal (local). The Min- istry for Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities has a broad portfolio that includes roads, ports, recreational resources, cultural resources, and the postal service. Transport Canada, a part of the federal ministry, administers roads, marine ports, and airports. Infrastructure Canada (http://www. infrastructure.gc.ca/index_e.shtml), a program within the federal ministry, addresses renewal of infrastructure. The Canadian Transport Agency (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/about- nous/role_and_structure_e.html), a seven-member tribunal within the federal ministry, decides economic matters arising from air, rail, and marine transport. Canada’s National High- way System includes interprovincial and international roads. There are about 27,000 km of national highways. INSPECTION PROGRAM Inspection Inventory Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation is responsible for approximately 5,600 bridges. The province has direct over- sight of inspections of 2,000 bridges and delegates inspection of the remaining 3,600 bridges to local road authorities. In addition, 8,200 bridge-size culverts are inspected by the provincial ministry or by local road authorities. Alberta’s inspection program includes bridges, culverts, ferry struc- tures, and sign structures (Table C2). • The city of Edmonton inspects 270 bridges. • The New Brunswick DOT inspects 2,823 bridges. • The Ontario Ministry of Transportation inspects 2,700 bridges. • The city of Ottawa inspects 667 bridges having an aggregate deck area of 294,604 m2. • Transports Quebec inspects 8,600 bridges. Quebec also inspects sign structures. Documents Alberta has a two-volume manual for bridge inspection and maintenance (BIM) (C1,C2). The two volumes correspond to two levels of inspection; Level 1 is routine visual inspection and Level 2 is in-depth inspection and can involve material sampling and testing. BIM manuals are maintained by Alberta’s Bridge Preservation Specialist. BIM is the inspec- tion component of Alberta’s Transportation Infrastructure Management System (TIMS). TIMS, deployed in 2005, absorbed Alberta’s older Bridge Information System (BIS) and Culvert Information System (CIS). Edmonton, a city in Alberta, also uses the BIM manuals. The Edmonton Bridge Engineer has general responsibility for documentation of inspection methods. Ontario province publishes the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) (C3). The manual is maintained by Ontario’s Bridge Inspection Program Manager. The province of New Brunswick and the city of Ottawa also use Ontario’s inspection manual. Quebec has a two-volume bridge inspection manual main- tained by the structural head office. INSPECTION PROGRAM PERSONNEL Inspection Program Manager Inspection program manager titles for each responding agency in Canada are listed in Table C3. Three provinces, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, have regional or district managers in addition to a central manager. New Brunswick reports that three technical assistants man- age the inspection program. Edmonton and Ottawa report only a head for inspection programs. Bridge Load Rater All four provinces reported a person in charge of bridge load rating. Provinces also have engineers in regional offices that perform ratings as a part of their duties. Ottawa uses consul- tants for load rating (see Table C4). APPENDIX C Bridge Inspection Practices of Canadian Transport Agencies

71 Inspection Team Leaders, Inspectors, and Inspection Assistants Alberta certifies two classes of bridge inspector. Class A inspectors are qualified for all structures including major bridges and complex bridges. Class B inspectors are qualified for standard bridges and culverts. Quebec identifies Class A and Class B bridge engineers who are qualified for complex bridges and for simple bridges, respectively. Quebec also has Class B inspectors and Class B2 assistants. Both work with Class A bridge engineers. Ontario identifies both inspection team leaders employed by the agency and inspection senior structural engineers employed by the agency or by inspection consultants. Ottawa reports that it has inspection technologists as team leaders assisted by struc- ture inspectors. Edmonton and New Brunswick reported inspection team leaders only (Table C5). Underwater Inspection Leaders and Inspectors Quebec employs two staff members as leaders for underwater inspections. Ottawa employs consultants for dive inspections. Alberta’s BIM manual requires that underwater inspectors be Province or City Agency Portfolio Alberta Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation Roads, water, and wastewater British Columbia Ministry of Transportation Roads, ports, commercial transportation Manitoba Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Roads and water stewardship New Brunswick Department of Transportation Roads Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation and Works Roads, ports, and marine transport Northwest Territories Department of Transportation Roads, ports, community airports, and ice crossings Nova Scotia Transportation and Public Works Roads, government buildings, environmental projects Nunavut Pivalliayuliqiyikkut Ingilrayuliqiyitkullu, (Department of Economic Development and Transportation) Roads, mining, fishing, tourism, cultural industries Ontario Ministry of Transportation Roads and Rails Prince Edward Island Transportation and Public Works Roads Quebec Transports Quebec Roads; public transportation; air, rail, and marine transportation Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation Roads, ferries, and airports Yukon Territory Highways and Public Works Roads, government buildings, government property Structures DOT Bridges Culverts Alberta 5,600 8,200 Edmonton 270 New Brunswick 2,823 Ontario 2,700 Ottawa 667 Quebec 8,600 Agency Executives Inspection Program Managers Regional Inspection Managers Alberta Director, Bridge Engineering Bridge Preservation Specialist (1) Regional Bridge Manager (4) Edmonton Bridge Engineer New Brunswick Assistant Director—Bridge and Ferry Maintenance Senior Technical Advisor (3) Ontario Manager Bridge Office Head Inspection and Evaluation Engineer (1) Head Regional Structural Engineer (5) Ottawa Program Manager, Infrastructure Assessment and Program Development Unit Needs and Programming Engineer—Structures (1) Quebec Head of structural department State Bridge Inspection Program Manager (1) Ingénieur régional en structures (1 per district) Note: Shown in parentheses is the number of DOT staff holding each title. TABLE C1 CANADIAN PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AGENCIES TABLE C2 CANADIAN INSPECTION INVENTORY TABLE C3 CANADIAN DOT EXECUTIVES AND INSPECTION PROGRAM MANAGERS

72 DOT State Load Rater Regional/Other Load Rater Alberta Bridge Rating Engineer (1) Varies—Numerous consulting firms are used Edmonton New Brunswick Senior Bridge Design Engineer (2) Ontario Inspection and Evaluation Engineer (3) Regional Structural Engineer (responsible for all aspects of structures—No individual responsible for only inspection) (30) Ottawa Structural Engineering Consultant—Structure/seismic evaluation (15 firms to call on) Quebec State Bridge Load Rater (1) Ingénieurs en évaluation de la capacité portante (7) TABLE C4 CANADIAN BRIDGE LOAD RATERS DOT Team Leader Inspector Assistant BIM project manager (consultant 3) Various titles (agency 20, consultant 75) Class A inspector (major bridges) Alberta Class B inspector (standard bridges and culverts) Edmonton Bridge technologist New Brunswick Bridge maintenance technician (agency 2) Team leader (agency 15) Senior structural engineer (50 total, 50% agency, and 50% consultant) Structural technician or engineering trainee (5 to 10) Ontario Senior structural engineer (50% agency, 50% consultant) Ottawa Structure inspection technologist (3) Structure inspector (3) Class A bridge engineer (complex bridges) (agency 25, consultant 30) Class B inspectors (technicians) (agency 40, consultant 50) Class B2 inspectors (agency 40) Quebec Class B bridge engineer (simple bridges) (agency 30) TABLE C5 CANADIAN TEAM LEADERS, INSPECTORS, AND ASSISTANTS experienced bridge inspectors or work under the direct super- vision of bridge inspectors. Inspection Specialists Quebec province has specialists for equipment inspections, fracture-critical inspections, scour inspections, in-depth inspections, and sign structures. Other Canadian agencies employ consultants for special inspections (Table C6). Alberta uses consultants for most specialized inspections except damage inspections. Alberta’s Senior Bridge Main- tenance Technologist is responsible for initial damage in- spections, with further inspections done by consultants as needed. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSPECTION STAFF Program Manager Responsibilities for inspection program managers at Cana- dian transportation agencies are collected under several headings. Administration At most Canadian agencies, the inspection program manager is involved in hiring inspection consultants. Edmonton’s in- spection program manager oversees program budget and workforce, and hires agency personnel and inspection con- sultants (Table C7).

73 DOT Inspection Staff Title Fracture-critical Consultants Scour Consultants In-depth Consultants Alberta Damage Senior bridge maintenance technologist (1) Fracture-critical Consultants Scour Consultants In-depth Consultants Edmonton Damage Consultants Electrical equipment Consultants Mechanical equipment Consultants Fracture-critical Consultants New Brunswick Scour Consultants Ontario None Electrical equipment Consulting firms (13) Mechanical equipment Consulting firms (13) Fracture-critical Consulting firms (13) Scour Consulting firms (2) Ottawa Damage Structure inspection team Electrical equipment Electrical equipment inspector (10) Other equipment Signage structure (5) Fracture-critical Fracture-critical inspector (2) Scour Scour-critical inspector (4) In-depth In-depth inspector (4) Quebec Damage Damage inspector (3) DOT Inspection Annual Report Inspection Annual Budget Inspection Workforce Inspection Equipment Hires Agency Leaders and Inspectors Hires Inspection Consultants Hires Agency Load Raters Alberta Yes Edmonton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Ontario Ottawa Yes Yes Yes Yes Quebec Yes Yes TABLE C6 CANADIAN INSPECTION SPECIALISTS TABLE C7 ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS Inspection Policies At all six reporting agencies, program managers develop in- spection reporting forms. At most agencies, managers set inspection methods, inspection intervals, and formats for bridge databases (Tables C8 and C9). At most agencies, man- agers direct the use of bridge monitoring, and may direct the application of special, damage, and in-depth inspections (Table C10). Inspector Training and Qualifications At three agencies, program managers direct the training of inspection staff. In Alberta and Quebec, program managers certify bridge inspectors (Table C11). Quality Programs Four Canadian agencies reported that program managers set policies and procedures for the quality control and quality assurance of bridge inspections (Table C12). Bridge Load Rating Two of the six agencies (Edmonton and Ottawa) reported that inspection program managers keep bridge load rating data. In Quebec, the program manager sets load rating methods. Bridge Maintenance In New Brunswick, the inspection program manager allocates repair funding. In Ottawa, the manager prepares scoping doc- uments for bridge design and construction. Bridge Load Rater Bridge load raters at the Canadian agencies request inspec- tions, if needed, for re-rating. Alberta’s load rater initiates reviews of ratings, Edmonton uses consultants to provide assessment reports that include load ratings, New Brunswick’s load rater reviews requests for load permits, Ontario’s load rater responds to requests for review from inspection team leaders, Quebec’s load rater performs inspections as needed for re-rating (Table C13).

74 DOT Orders Damage Inspection Orders Special Inspection Orders In- Depth Inspection Orders Hands-On Inspection Orders Bridge Monitoring Orders Field Tests for Inspection Orders NDT Methods Identifies Critical Findings Alberta Edmonton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ontario Ottawa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Quebec Yes NDT = non-destructive testing. DOT Trains Leaders and Inspectors Certifies Leaders and Inspectors Decertifies Leaders and Inspectors Certifies Inspection Consultants Alberta Yes Yes Yes Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Yes Ottawa Yes Quebec Yes Yes DOT QA/QC Standards and Oversight Agency QA/QC Execution Consultant QC/QA Execution Alberta Yes Yes Yes Edmonton Yes New Brunswick Ontario Yes Ottawa Yes Quebec Yes TABLE C10 CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND INCREASED INTENSITY INSPECTIONS TABLE C11 CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND TRAINING TABLE C12 CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES DOT Bridge Manual Inspection Methods Reporting Forms Bridge Database Format Local Bridges Alberta Yes Yes Yes Edmonton Yes Yes Yes New Brunswick Yes Yes Ontario Yes Yes Yes Ottawa Yes Quebec Yes Yes Yes DOT Sets Inspection Intervals Identifies Complex Bridges Identifies Fracture- Critical Bridges Identifies Scour- Critical Bridges Forms Agency Inspection Teams Assigns Bridges to Agency Teams Selects Access Methods or Equipment Assigns Bridges to Consultants Alberta Edmonton Yes Yes Yes New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ontario Yes Yes Ottawa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Quebec Yes Yes Yes TABLE C8 CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND PROGRAM PROCEDURES TABLE C9 CANADIAN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND INSPECTION DETAILS

75 Bridge Inspection Team Leader Inspection team leaders have responsibilities for inspection planning, field operations, and data entry reporting (Tables C14 and C15). At three agencies (Alberta, Ontario, and Que- bec), the team leader performs QC for inspection reports (Table C16). Inspection team members, where used, perform similar activities as leaders but with less independence (Table C17). QUALIFICATIONS OF INSPECTION STAFF Training In Alberta, inspection personnel complete a combination of in-house training and field training. There are separate training courses for Class A and Class B inspector certification. Quebec has in-house training courses for inspectors. Other Canadian agencies use on-the-job training or employ consul- tants for training (Table C18). Refresher Training Alberta provides additional training when there are changes to inspection practice. Ontario provides a 3-day course that all bridge inspectors must complete every 2 years. Quebec will require refresher training in the future (Table C19). Special Training Quebec provides special training courses for hands-on and fracture-critical inspections. Other agencies do not provide training, but do consider experience in special inspections when hiring inspection consultants. Inspection Program Manager Four Canadian agencies require a Professional Engineering (PE) license for inspection program managers (Table C20). All six agencies require an engineering degree. Four agencies require 5 years or more experience in bridge inspection. Requirements for regional inspection managers are similar (Table C21). DOT Inspection Role Inventory Data Load Permit Review Reports to Alberta Requests inspection Load ratings Director, bridge engineering Edmonton Requests inspection Requests monitoring Bridge engineer New Brunswick Requests inspection Requests monitoring Requests measurement Yes Assistant director—Structures Ontario Requests inspection Requests monitoring Requests measurement Head evaluation and inspection engineer Ottawa Quebec Requests inspection Requests monitoring Requests measurement State bridge engineer DOT Inspection Planning Traffic Control Access Equipment Critical Findings Load Posting Alberta Plans Recommends Edmonton Plans Requests Requests New Brunswick Ontario Plans Requests Requests Recommends Ottawa Plans Requests Quebec Plans Requests Requests Recommends DOT Inspection Methods Special Inspections, Monitoring Directs Hands-On Inspection Note Alberta Directs Yes Edmonton Directs Yes New Brunswick Ontario Directs Recommends Yes Ottawa Directs Yes Quebec Directs TABLE C13 CANADIAN BRIDGE LOAD RATER RESPONSIBILITIES TABLE C14 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAM LEADER RESPONSIBILITIES TABLE C15 CANADIAN TEAM LEADER FIELD RESPONSIBILITIES

76 DOT Inspection Report Performs Data Entry Verifies Data Entry Alberta Yes Yes Edmonton Yes Yes New Brunswick Ontario Yes Yes Ottawa Yes Yes Quebec Yes Yes TABLE C16 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAM LEADERS AND INSPECTION DATA Bridge Load Rater Four agencies reported on the qualifications for bridge load raters; all four require engineering degrees. Three agencies require PE licenses (Table C22). Inspection Team Leader In Alberta, Class A inspectors must have a civil engineer- ing degree or certification as a civil engineering technolo- gist (certified by the Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists). Class B inspectors must have a high school diploma. Training and examinations differ for Class A inspectors (all bridges) and Class B inspectors (standard bridges). Inspectors’ certifications are reviewed every 3 years. Individuals must demonstrate adequate continuing practice in bridge inspection. For team leaders, Ontario requires either a PE license or certification as a civil engineering technologist. Edmonton, Ottawa, and Quebec require a college education for team leaders. Most agencies require bridge inspection experience (Table C23). Quebec measures individual experience as aggregate deck area, in square meters, inspected. In the current workforce, many Canadian inspection team leaders (agency and consultant) are licensed engineers and have many years experience (Tables C24 and C25). Qualifications for inspection team members, other than leaders, are listed in Table C26. Underwater Bridge Inspection Team Leader, Underwater Bridge Inspector Qualifications for leaders of underwater inspections were reported by three agencies. Edmonton requires an engineer- ing degree for leaders, whereas Ontario and Quebec require PE licenses (Table C27). Other Certifications Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Ottawa all recognize certification as a civil engineering technologist as one measure of inspector preparation. Quebec issues certificates to inspectors completing the agency’s in-house training courses. Hands-On Inspection DOT In-Depth Inspection Traffic Lane Closures Access Equipment Bridge Monitoring Critical Findings Data Entry Report QC Alberta Recommends Recommends Requests Recommends Recommends Verifies Performs Edmonton Recommends Requests Requests Recommends Performed and verifyies New Brunswick Recommends Requests Requests Recommends Recommends Ontario Recommends Requests Requests Recommends Performs and verifies Performs Ottawa Recommends Performs and verifies Performs Quebec Recommends Performs DOT Training Alberta In-house and field training programs for inspectors, leading to two levels of certification: Class A is all bridges; Class B is standard bridges and culverts only. Edmonton New Brunswick On-the-job training Ontario In-house training Ottawa College education, on-the-job training, training consultants Quebec In-house; two courses of 4 days each TABLE C17 CANADIAN BRIDGE INSPECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES TABLE C18 CANADIAN BRIDGE INSPECTION TRAINING DOT Course Interval Alberta In-house As needed for changes to inspection practice Edmonton No requirement New Brunswick No requirement Ontario 3-day inspection course 2 years Ottawa No requirement Quebec No present requirement; may in future TABLE C19 CANADIAN REFRESHER TRAINING

77 Inspector Requirements for Fitness, Vision, and Color Perception Edmonton, New Brunswick, and Quebec require that inspectors be adequately fit to perform their work. Quebec requires that divers meet commercial qualifications. No agency reported that there was a periodic review of physical fitness (Table C28). No formal requirements or pe- riodic review are reported for vision, color perception, or hearing. INSPECTION TEAMS Ontario and Ottawa use two-person inspection teams in summer and three-person teams in winter. Edmonton and Quebec use two-person teams, and New Brunswick uses one-person teams year round. Team size varies in Alberta (Table C29). All six agencies reported the use of specific teams for frac- ture-critical inspections and for special inspections. At five agencies, these are consultant teams and can be agency teams in Quebec (Table C30). In Ontario and Ottawa inspection teams work together consistently. Alberta, Edmonton, and Ontario prefer to assign the same bridges to the same teams (Table C31). Quebec reported that maintenance crews may perform routine inspections. Other Canadian agencies reported no inspections outside of agency inspection staff and consultants. Alberta uses consultants for 95% of its bridge inspections, whereas Ontario and Quebec use consultants for 50% or less of their bridges. Edmonton, New Brunswick, and Ottawa reported that all inspections are by agency staff (Table C32). Bridges are assigned to consultants as needed for individual bridges, or by region and route when many bridges are included in a contract (Table C33). INSPECTION TYPES AND INTERVALS Alberta defines two levels of inspection. Level 1 inspections are routine visual inspections. Reporting forms are tailored to the type of main structure. There are 25 dedicated forms for in- spection reporting (Table C34). Level 1 inspections report only the worst condition rating among similar elements at a bridge. DOT Certification Education Bridge Inspection Experience Bridge Inspection Training Alberta PE Engineering degree 10 years Yes Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario PE Engineering degree 5 years Yes Ottawa Quebec PE Engineering degree 5 years Yes DOT Certification Education Bridge Inspection Experience Bridge Inspection Training Alberta PE Engineering degree 10 years Other training Edmonton Engineering degree New Brunswick Ontario PE Engineering degree 5 years Ottawa Quebec PE Engineering degree 2 years Yes TABLE C21 CANADIAN QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM MANAGERS TABLE C22 CANADIAN QUALIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGE LOAD RATERS DOT Certification Education Bridge Inspection Experience Bridge Inspection Training Alberta PE Engineering degree 10 years Yes Edmonton Engineering degree 5 years New Brunswick Engineering degree Ontario PE Engineering degree 5 years Yes Ottawa PE Engineering degree 10 years Quebec PE Engineering degree 5 years Yes TABLE C20 CANADIAN QUALIFICATIONS FOR INSPECTION PROGRAM MANAGERS

Level 2 inspections are in-depth inspections of specific components using special tools, techniques, or equipment. Level 2 inspections usually are element-level inspections that report condition ratings for individual elements. Level 2 inspections include: • Concrete deck • Copper sulfate electrode testing • Chloride testing • Ultrasonic truss • Culvert barrel measurements (barrel shape) • Vertical clearance measurements • Paint • Concrete girder (crack measurement and mapping) • Scour monitoring 78 DOT Title PEa Cert. BSb ADc HSd Bridge Inspection Experience Bridge Inspection Training Team leader Yes 10 years Yes Class A Yes 2 years Class A training and exam Class A 3 years Class A training and exam Alberta Class B Yes 2 years Class B training and exam Edmonton Team leader Yes New Brunswick PE Engineering 5 years Yes Ontario Team leader Structural technician college 5 years Yes Ottawa Team leader Yes Yes Quebec Team leader Yes 5 years Yes aRegistered Professional Engineer. bCollege bachelorís degree; usually Bachelor of Science in engineering. cAssociate’s degree in engineering technology, usually civil engineering technology. dHigh school diploma or equivalent. TABLE C23 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAM LEADER QUALIFICATIONS DOT PE Bridge Inspection Experience Note Alberta Edmonton 100% Team leaders (other categories blank) 100% 28 years Team leadersNew Brunswick 100% 10 years Bridge inspectors 100% 10 years Agency team leadersOntario 90% 8 years Agency bridge inspectors 0 19 years Team leadersOttawa 0 6 years Bridge inspectors 100% 5 years Team leaders 50% 2 years Bridge inspectors Quebec 2% 10 years Underwater inspectors TABLE C24 CANADIAN AGENCY TEAM LEADERS—CURRENT WORKFORCE • Timber coring • Special structure monitor • Underwater • Linear polarization testing of concrete • Bond testing • Steel culvert corrosion testing • Pin and hanger connection • Steel girder cover plate. Some Level 2 inspections are periodic. Alberta conducts periodic half-cell testing on approximately 500 bridge decks. The program began in 1977. Electrical potential measure- ments are taken at all points in a 1.2 m x 1.2 m grid and along all curb lines. The data are used to make predictions of the progress of deterioration.

79 DOT PE Bridge Inspection Experience Note Alberta Edmonton New Brunswick 100% 10 years Team leaders Ontario 75% 8 years Bridge inspectors 100% 15 years Underwater inspectors Ottawa 100% 15 years Equipment inspectors Quebec 100% Team leaders 50% 2 years Bridge inspectors DOT Inspector Certification Education Experience Bridge Inspection Training Alberta Inspector Yes High school 2 years Yes Edmonton Inspector Yes College degree New Brunswick College degree Ontario Ottawa Inspector PE Engineering degree 2 years Yes Quebec Electrical equipment Yes College degree 5 years Yes TABLE C25 CANADIAN CONSULTANT TEAM LEADERS— CURRENT WORKFORCE TABLE C26 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAM MEMBERS DOT Leader Inspector/Diver Certifications Experience Training Education Alberta Team leader Engineering degree Edmonton Inspector College degree New Brunswick Team leader PE 5 years Bridge inspection Engineering degree Ontario Inspector 5 years Ottawa Team leader PE 2 years Bridge inspection, diving Engineering degree Quebec Inspector NICET III 2 years Bridge inspection, diving Engineering degree NICET = National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies. TABLE C27 CANADIAN UNDERWATER INSPECTION TEAM LEADER AND UNDERWATER BRIDGE INSPECTOR Alberta also makes periodic ultrasonic inspections of approximately 75 truss bridges built in the 1920s and earlier. Ontario’s inspection types include routine inspection, emergency inspection, and the following set of specialized inspections: • Detailed deck condition survey • Non-destructive delamination survey of asphalt covered decks • Substructure condition survey • Detailed coating condition survey • Underwater investigation • Fatigue investigation • Seismic investigation • Structure evaluation. INSPECTION INTERVALS Alberta sets inspection intervals at 21 months for bridges along primary highways, 39 months along secondary highways, and 57 months along local roads. Ultrasonic inspections of fatigue- prone bridges are performed at 5- to 7-year intervals. Ontario uses 24- and 48-month inspection intervals. The longer interval is for culverts in good condition. Quebec has intervals ranging from 24 to 60 months for routine inspec- tions (Table C35). Hands-On Inspection All six agencies reported the use of hands-on inspections in re- sponse to floods, accidents, critical findings, or other singular

80 DOT Good Health Agility Strength Equipment Note Alberta No specific requirements or review Edmonton General physical suitability No periodic review New Brunswick Ability to climb Work in confined space No periodic review Ontario Must be able to get around at bridge site No periodic review Ottawa No specific requirements or review Quebec Good health Ability to climb Able to work at height Commercial qualification for divers Other, no periodic review DOT Team Size Make Up Team Formation/Stability Note Alberta Varies Based on assignment and consultant’s experience Edmonton 2 Leader + inspector 1 Inspector 2 Leader + inspector Long-term Ontario 3 Leader + two inspectors Long-term Near ice or fast water 2 Leader + inspector Long-term Some rotation to accommodate annual leave Ottawa 3 Leader + two inspectors Long-term In winter Quebec 2 As needed New Brunswick TABLE C28 CANADIAN FITNESS REQUIREMENTS TABLE C29 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAM SIZE DOT Fracture- Critical Members Special Inspections Increased Intensity Access Bridge Type Movable Bridges Notes Alberta Yes Yes Yes Consultants with recognized experience engaged Edmonton Yes Yes No Consultants New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes Consultants Ontario Yes Yes No Consultants selected among list of qualified firms Ottawa Yes Yes No Consultants Quebec Yes Class A inspector No Fracture or scour specialists join inspection team as needed Special inspections performed by Class A inspectors. DOT Teams Repeat Teams Rotate Neutral Notes Alberta Yes Team inspects same bridges to the extent possible Edmonton Yes New Brunswick Yes Ontario Yes Same bridges; encourages familiarity Ottawa Yes Random assignments Quebec TABLE C30 CANADIAN INSPECTION TEAMS AND INSPECTION TYPES TABLE C31 CANADIAN ROTATION OF INSPECTION TEAMS

81 DOT DOT Inspections, % Consultant Inspections, % Alberta 5 95 Edmonton 100 0 New Brunswick 100 0 Ontario 50 50 Ottawa 100 0 Quebec 40 60 DOT Inspections Assignment Basis Assignment Term Assignment Repeat Alberta All types of inspection By region 3 years No policy Edmonton Damage Fracture-critical In-depth Scour-critical special Underwater As needed New Brunswick Damage Fracture-critical In-depth Scour-critical underwater Ontario All types of inspections By region No Ottawa Most types of inspections Pre-qualified firms No Quebec In-depth Damage Hands-on By region No TABLE C32 CANADIAN USE OF INSPECTION CONSULTANTS TABLE C33 CANADIAN INSPECTION CONSULTANT TEAM ASSIGNMENTS Reporting Form Bridge Type TH Through trusses PT Pony truss SG Rolled beams Riveted plate girders Welded girders Steel rigid frames SS Other trusses and arches DT Deck trusses TT All timber bridges PCS Standard precast bridges PSR Regular prestress bridges CON All cast-in-place concrete bridges Concrete tee girder bridges Concrete flat slab bridges CUL1 Single culverts CULM Multiple culverts CULE Culverts extended with different material and/or size SIGN Sign structures THTT Through trusses with timber approaches THPCS Through trusses with standard precast approaches THPSR Through trusses with regular prestress approaches THSG Through trusses with steel girder approaches THPT Through trusses with pony truss approaches PTTT Pony trusses with timber approaches PTPCS Pony trusses with standard precast approaches SGTT Steel beams with timber approaches SGPCS Steel beams with standard precast approaches PSRPCS Regular prestress with standard precast approaches SSSG Special steel with steel girder approaches DTSG Deck truss with steel girder approaches TABLE C34 ALBERTA INSPECTION FORMS

events. Four of the six agencies set maximum intervals be- tween hands-on inspections. Two agencies consider bridge age in the application of hands-on inspection (Table C36). Underwater Inspection Alberta reported that approximately 15% of its bridges require wading for inspection of some components. Dive inspections are not routinely performed. Edmonton reported that no bridges require either wading or diving for inspections. New Brunswick reported that approximately 1% of bridges that cross water require dive inspections. Ontario reported that ap- proximately 10% of bridge inspections include wading, and only 30 to 40 bridges require dive inspections. Ontario uses 82 dive inspections in water depths of greater than 1 m. Ontario’s interval for dive inspections ranges from 5 to 10 years. Ottawa reported that 257 bridges require wading during inspections and 113 bridges require dive inspections. Quebec performs wading inspections for all components in water and dive in- spections for approximately 10% of water crossings. Ottawa and Quebec reported 10-year intervals for dive inspections. Fracture-Critical Inspection As noted earlier, Alberta performs periodic Level 2 ultra- sonic inspections of approximately 75 truss bridges built in the 1920s and earlier. DOT Name Location on Component Notes Alberta Hands-on Locations identified in report Specific elements; extent of hands-on varies as needed Edmonton Hands-on Locations identified in report Can include entire bridge or specific elements New Brunswick Hands-on Locations identified in report and in database Can include entire bridge or specific elements Ontario Hands-on Locations identified in report and in database Specific elements; extent of hands-on varies as needed Ottawa Routine, hands-on Locations identified in stand-alone report via detailed element maps. Database indicates occurrence and date of hands-on inspection By consultants; use and extent based on findings of regular inspection Quebec Hands-on Locations identified in report Entire bridge, often; specific element(s) in response to accident or flood TABLE C36 CANADIAN ROUTINE, HANDS-ON INSPECTION Agency Inspection Standard Interval Bridges and culverts on primary highways 21 months Bridges and culverts on secondary highways 39 months Bridges and culverts on local roads 57 months Pedestrian bridges in parks 57 months Alberta New bridges, bridge after major repairs Immediate on completion Bridges and culverts with spans more than 3 m All retaining walls All movable bridges 24 months Culverts in good condition with spans up to 6 m Retaining walls in good condition 48 months Structures with extensive poor condition Posted structures Structures with restricted clearance Single-load-path structures Structures with fatigue-prone details Structures with fracture-critical components Pins and hangers in arch structures Pins in suspended spans and pinned arches <24 months Ontario Underwater 60–120 months Routine 24 monthsOttawa Underwater 120 months Routine 24–60 months Underwater 120 months Quebec Fracture-critical As needed TABLE C35 CANADIAN INSPECTION INTERVALS

83 Bridge Types Complex Type or Inspection Cable-stayed Orthotropic decks Suspension Tied-arch 4 Agencies Fatigue-vulnerable Swing Vertical-lift 3 Agencies Bascule Box beams with external post-tensioning Cantilever arm Eyebar Floating Jack-arch Patent-truss 2 Agencies Bridges lacking design documents Bridges with obsolete reinforcing steel Flatcar Historic Post-tensioned timber decks Single box—concrete Single box—steel Two-girder 1 Agency Bridge age Concrete without shear reinforcement Covered Length of bridge Length of main span 0 Agencies DOT Maintenance Source State Police Source Public Source Store in Bridge File (paper) Stored in BMS/Database Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes Inspection in response to high-load strike or other event. Initial report is in bridge file, but not part of database. Edmonton Yes No New Brunswick Yes No Ontario Yes No Ottawa Yes Yes Yes No Note for significant information; may be added to database. Quebec Yes No Reports are very seldom BMS = bridge management system. TABLE C37 CANADIAN COMPLEX BRIDGE TYPES TABLE C38 CANADIAN INFORMAL INSPECTIONS Complex Bridges Cable-stayed bridges, suspension bridges, tied arches, and orthotropic decks are identified as complex by four of six agencies. No agencies identified complex bridges based on bridge length, span, or age. Complex bridge types are listed in Table C37. Ontario reported that no bridge types are iden- tified as complex. Complex bridge inspections are most often assigned to Class A inspectors (Alberta) or Class A bridge engineers (Quebec). Edmonton, New Brunswick, and Ontario reported no special methods, training, or experience for inspections of complex bridges. Ottawa noted that requirements for special access equipment or traffic management are complex inspections. Informal Inspections All six Canadian agencies respond to damage reports submit- ted by maintenance crews, state police, or the public. Alberta keeps initial reports as part of paper bridge files (Table C38). Monitoring of Bridges Five agencies equate bridge monitoring with interim inspec- tion and employ visual inspection as the most common form of bridge monitoring (Table C39). Alberta uses monitoring when a problem or potential problem of a critical nature is found (e.g., a fracture-critical member in a two-girder bridge has evidence of cracks) or there is major deterioration in condition from one inspec- tion to the next (e.g., sudden shifting of an abutment). Methods vary: Visual monitoring is common and instru- mentation is used where needed. Monitoring continues until the deterioration halts or rehabilitation or repairs are made. Edmonton reported only visual monitoring of bridges and New Brunswick uses only visual monitoring at short or interim intervals. Inspections can be as frequent as monthly. Monitoring continues until repair or replacement. Ontario applies measurements of crack opening, move- ments, or deflections in response to observed problems such as tilting or settlement. These measurements become part of routine 24-month inspections of bridges. Measurements may

occur more often if needed, and continue until repairs are made or until movement becomes stable. Ottawa monitors bridges in response to known problems or deterioration. The monitoring often is by measurement of movements. Intervals range from 3 to 12 months and con- tinue until repairs are made. At one large post-tensioned bridge, acoustic emission sensors were installed during con- struction and are still monitored. Quebec employs instrumentation and data logging to monitor known problems at bridges. In most cases, data transmission and office review occurs weekly. Instrumenta- tion is deployed until defects are repaired, usually in 24 months or less. CONDITION DATA Alberta Alberta uses a 1 (poor) to 9 (good) scale for condition ratings. In Level 1 inspections, the rating is set to the worst condition 84 among each common group of elements. The rating “N” means not visible for inspection or inadequate access for inspection. Rating “X” means an element is not present at the bridge (Table C40). There are also general ratings; one each for superstructure and for substructure. Inspection reports require that inspectors estimate the year of future repairs or replacement of bridges. Level 2 inspections report condition ratings for all elements, not just the worst one in a group. Level 2 inspections also report quantitative data collected from testing or sampling. Ontario Ontario reported deterioration severity and extent for bridge elements. There are four deterioration states: Light, Medium, Severe, and Very Severe. The extent is reported as a percent- age of element quantity. Ontario reported on performance deficiencies. These are similar to U.S. smart flags and include: • Load carrying capacity • Excessive deformations DOT Method Notes Visual monitor Interim inspection Alberta Instrumentation Annual ultrasonic inspection of two-girder bridges Sonic radar inspection of footings at 15 river bridges after significant flood event Edmonton Visual monitor 1-, 2-, and 5-year cycles; for poor condition; indefinite duration New Brunswick Visual monitor Interim inspections as frequent as monthly Ontario Measurement Crack opening, movement, or deflection, often at 2 years Measurement Relative movement using slide gauges and survey points Ottawa Instrumentation Acoustic monitoring of a large post-tensioned bridge Visual monitor Hands-on inspection at 6 or 12 monthsQuebec Instrumentation Usually with data logging TABLE C39 CANADIAN BRIDGE MONITORING Rating Commentary Maintenance Priority 9 Very good New condition No repairs in foreseeable future 8 Almost new condition No repairs in foreseeable future 7 Good Could be upgraded to new condition with very little effort No repairs necessary at this time 6 Generally good condition Functioning as designed with no signs of distress or deterioration No repairs necessary at this time 5 Adequate Acceptable condition and functioning as intended No repairs necessary at this time 4 Below minimum acceptable condition Low priority for repairs 3 Poor Presence of distress or deterioration or not functioning as intended Medium priority for replacement, repair, and/or signing 2 Hazardous condition or severe distress or deterioration High priority for replacement, repair, and/or signing 1 Immediate action Danger of collapse and/or danger to users Bridge closure, replacement, repair, and/or signing required as soon as possible N Not accessible Element cannot be visually inspected X Not applicable Element not applicable to this bridge TABLE C40 ALBERTA CONDITION RATINGS

85 QUALITY PROGRAMS Quality Program Documentation A chapter in Alberta’s BIM manual addresses quality pro- grams for bridge inspections. Ontario reviews inspection reports, but does not have formal documents for quality pro- grams. Quebec requires that all regional offices be certified to ISO 9001-2000 (C4) (Table C42). Program Staff in Quality Control and Quality Assurance Quality programs are executed by Class A inspectors in Alberta, by the Head Inspection and Evaluation Engineer in Ontario, and by special staff for ISO 9001 procedures in Que- bec (Table C43). Action Maintenance Description 1 Lift and swing bridge maintenance The operation, maintenance, and repair activities that are unique to lift and swing bridge structures, including all mechanical equipment and electrical devices such as signals, flashers, lighting, navigation lights, etc., but not including work defined by other structural maintenance operations. 2 Bridge cleaning The cleaning of bridge components including: 1) Washing of bearings, bearing seats, truss members, etc. 2) Sweeping of bridge decks, curbs, and gutters. 3) Removal of debris from expansion joints. 4) Debris pick-up or minor removal of aggregate. 5) Cleaning of catch-basins, manholes, and deck drains. 3 Bridge handrail maintenance The painting, repair, and/or replacement of metal handrails and posts, as well as touch-up painting activities. 4 Painting steel bridge structures The preparation (sandblasting, etc.) and painting of structural steel. Includes handrails when performed as part of an overall bridge painting operation. 5 Bridge deck joint repair The repair and/or replacement of expansion and/or fixed-deck joints and end dams. 6 Bridge bearing maintenance The adjustment, repair, and/or replacement of bridge bearings. Includes all work directly associated with bridge bearings. 7 Repair to structural steel The repair of all structural steel, including repair or replacement of steel components, bolts, and fasteners. 8 Repair of bridge concrete The repair of all concrete components of the structure, such as decks, curbs, pedestrian walks, concrete handrail posts, parapet walls, abutments, and piers, except when the repair is more directly associated with one of the other defined bridge maintenance operations. 9 Repair of bridge timber The repair of all bridge timber, including the repair of timber decks on steel bridges. 10 Bailey bridges— Installation, maintenance, and removal The installation, removal, repair, and maintenance work that is unique to Bailey Bridges, but not including work defined by other structural maintenance operations. 11 Animal/pest control The installation and maintenance of animal/pest control devices under bridge structures such as pigeon proofing. 12 Bridge surface repair The repair of bridge surfaces such as pothole patching. 13 Erosion control at bridges Operations performed to prevent or repair damage due to erosion, such as scour at abutments and around piers, and washouts on slopes. Includes removal of obstructions to water flow, clearing of vegetation growth, etc. 14 Concrete sealing The sealing or treatment of bridge concrete surfaces with approved materials, as well as the preparation of surfaces prior to treatment. 15 Rout and seal — Concrete and asphalt pavement on bridge decks The routing of joints and/or cracks in concrete and asphalt pavement and the filling of same with joint fillers or rubberized asphaltic sealing compounds. 16 Bridge deck drainage The repair, maintenance, and replacement/extension of deck drains. Includes steaming and calcium application to unthaw. TABLE C41 ONTARIO STANDARD ACTIONS FOR MAINTENANCE • Continuing settlement • Continuing movements • Seized bearings • Bearing not uniformly loaded, unstable • Jammed expansion joint • Pedestrian/vehicular hazard • Rough riding surface • Deck drainage • Slippery surfaces • Flooding/channel blockage • Undermining of foundation • Unstable embankments. Ontario inspectors indicate maintenance needs, mostly using selections from a standard list of actions (Table C41).

86 Quality Control of Inspector Qualifications For QC of bridge inspectors, Alberta tracks the individuals’ certification as Class A or Class B inspector. Ontario reviews resumes of personnel at the time of their assignment to bridge inspection work and Quebec has its inspectors registered with an external QC firm (Table C44). Quality Control Review of Inspection Reports In Alberta, all inspection reports are reviewed by Class A in- spectors. Each report is placed in one or four “Lots” depend- ing on the significance of repair needs (Table C45). Alberta’s inspection reporting forms show both current and prior con- dition ratings for every element. Inspectors must provide adequate notes on all changes to condition ratings. Ontario makes spot checks of some inspection reports. Ottawa and Quebec review all inspection reports (Table C46). Quality Control of Inspections by Consultants Transportation agencies in Alberta, Ontario, and Ottawa re- view inspection reports submitted by inspection consultants (Table C47). Ontario keeps records of errors in reports and these records can affect future awards to the contractor. Quality Control Program Validation Alberta relies on routine QC review of inspection reports as means of validation of the quality program. Ontario has its program manager and regional heads conduct peer reviews of QC. DOT Documents Alberta Chapter 2 of the BIM Inspection Manual provides a general outline for QC/QA requirements. Detailed QC/QA is further defined in the contracts signed with the consultants performing our BIM inspections. Edmonton No formal procedure New Brunswick N/A Ontario Informal review of reports; no documentation is produced Ottawa No documentation Quebec Every regional office has to be certified ISO 9001-2000. N/A = not applicable. TABLE C42 CANADIAN QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTS DOT Personnel Qualification Bridge preservation specialist Class A Inspector Regional bridge managers Class A Inspector Alberta BIM inspection reviewer (consultant) Class A Inspector Edmonton No response New Brunswick N/A Ontario Head inspection and evaluation engineer Structure inspection technologists Ottawa Structure inspectors Quebec Specific staff Special ISO 9001 training courses N/A = not applicable. TABLE C43 CANADIAN PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DOT Certification Agency Consultants Alberta Certified as Class A or Class B inspector Database with certification (A or B), courses completed, date of certification, expiration date of certification Same Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Resumes of inspectors, submitted at time of assignment Ottawa No formal procedure Quebec Registration with external QC firm TABLE C44 CANADIAN QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION LEADERS

87 DOT Review Set Review by Action All inspection reports Class A inspector; prior to database entry Return for errors or omission Alberta Reports with large change in condition Reports having ratings that do not match photos Class A inspector Possible re-inspection Edmonton New Brunswick Spot check for data integrity Random QA re-inspection Ontario Reports having gross errors Possible re-inspection Ottawa All inspection reports Needs and programming engineer Review prior to acceptance of report All inspection reports Verification of reportQuebec Reports inconsistent with recent maintenance Possible re-inspection Inspection Report Description Lot 1 Reports for structures requiring major repairs, a Level 2 inspection, reduced inspection cycle, or an engineering assessment Lot 2 Reports for structures requiring minor or routine repairs Lot 3 Reports for municipal structures requiring minor repairs not funded by the department Lot 4 Reports for structures requiring no action or monitoring TABLE C46 CANADIAN QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS TABLE C45 ALBERTA INSPECTION REPORT LOTS DOT Consultant Review QC QA Alberta Review all inspection reports by Class A inspector Agency does periodic audits/spot checks of consultant inspections C, A Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Regional structural engineer and head evaluation and inspection engineer A Ottawa Design and construction project manager assigned to the project A Quebec Agency staff using ISO 9000 procedures Notes: A = agency or DOT; C = consultant. TABLE C47 CANADIAN QUALITY CONTROL FOR INSPECTIONS BY CONSULTANTS QUALITY ASSURANCE In Ontario, QA programs are performed by regional struc- tural engineers. Quebec uses bridge inspectors who are trained in ISO 9000 procedures to perform QA activities. Both Alberta and Ontario use annual meetings and close-out meetings with inspection consultants to discuss their perfor- mance. Alberta conducts quality audits of inspection consul- tants. In Quebec, QA is part of the ISO audit report (Table C48). Alberta verifies inspection reports at 15 bridges each year. Ontario verifies 50 bridge inspections per year. Quebec veri- fies approximately 5% of all bridge inspections each year (Table C49). Intervals for Quality Assurance Review Alberta makes QA reviews of team leaders and regions every 4 years. Ontario makes annual reviews of regions and bien- nial reviews of team leaders. Quebec performs QA audits every 3 years (Table C50). Tolerances Used in Quality Assurance Review Alberta requires that condition ratings by inspectors be within ±1 of ratings obtained in verification inspections. Ontario requires that element condition reports of inspectors vary by less than 10% from verification inspections. Quebec uses overall field verification to assess the quality of inspection work (Table C51).

88 DOT Target Office Review Field Review Reviewer Report All inspection reports, reviewed for maintenance recommendations Senior Bridge Technologist, Class A inspectors A hard copy of the QA results is maintained on file. Alberta Inspection report Verification Senior Bridge Technologist, Class A inspectors In annual meetings with the BIM consultant, the consultant is informed of any outcome of a QA audit. Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Regional structural engineers, head inspection and evaluation engineer Agency staff: Personnel performance reviews are filed. Consultants: Corporate performance rating at end of assignment. Rating considered for next award. Ottawa Quebec Bridge inspectors with ISO 9000 training ISO audit report DOT Bridge Review Unit Unit Bridge Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Review Current Inspection Report Review Bridge File Review Load Rating Report 100% 100% Alberta Bridge 15 per year Poor condition Specific bridge types Yes Yes Edmonton Bridge 100 per year Type, age, and use Yes Yes New Brunswick Report 100% 100% Re- inspection Isolated, for verification Ontario Bridge 50 per year (2%) Various bridge types and locations Yes Yes Ottawa Quebec Bridge 5% 5% per year Random Yes Yes TABLE C48 CANADIAN BASIC ELEMENTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW TABLE C49 CANADIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS DOT Team/Team Leader Interval Region/District Interval Note Alberta 4 years 4 years Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario 24 months 12 months Ottawa As required As required Quebec 3 years Full verification TABLE C50 CANADIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVALS

89 Benchmarks in Quality Assurance Reviews Alberta files reports on field verifications that include the overall ranking of inspection work. Quebec prepares ISO audit reports (Table C52). Disqualification of Inspection Program Staff Only Quebec reports a basis for disqualification of individual inspectors and that is related to a lack of current experience. Alberta and Ontario consider quality in their selection of inspection consultants Tables C53 and C54. Additional training can restore firms and individuals who have been disqualified. REFERENCES C1. BIM Inspection Manual, version 3, Alberta Infrastruc- ture and Transportation, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2005. C2. BIM Inspection Manual—Level 2, version 1, Alberta In- frastructure and Transportation, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2004, 153 pp. C3. Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000, 380 pp. C4. Chung, H.W., Understanding Quality Assurance in Construction—A Practical Guide to ISO 9000, E&FN Spon, London, United Kingdom, 1999, 251 pp. DOT Object Tolerance Alberta Condition rating (1 to 9) ±1 Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Element condition reports >10% Ottawa Quebec Element condition reports Site verification DOT Benchmark QA Report Consultant Benchmark Alberta No formal benchmark A report of the number of structures audited, variations in ratings, and overall ranking of the inspections (not acceptable, marginally unacceptable, acceptable, very good) A report of the number of structures audited, variations in ratings, and overall ranking of the inspections (not acceptable, marginally unacceptable, acceptable, very good) Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario No formal benchmark Ottawa Quebec ISO audit report DOT Team Leaders Load Raters Inspection Consultants Alberta No set policy; corporate rating affects award process Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario No set policy; corporate rating affects award process Ottawa Quebec 5 years without bridge inspection work DOT Inspector QA Remedies Personnel Re-Qualify Promotion/Award Alberta Training No for agency staff, yes for consultants Edmonton New Brunswick Ontario Training Yes for consultants Ottawa Quebec Training New training + exam Yes TABLE C51 CANADIAN TOLERANCES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW TABLE C52 CANADIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS TABLE C53 CANADIAN BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAM STAFF TABLE C54 CANADIAN INSPECTOR REMEDIES, DISQUALIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT