By Thia James

Underwater bridge inspection plan could get final approval next week

Oct 8, 2013 | 6:34 AM

Members of Prince Albert’s executive committee welcomed a new round of inspections of the Diefenbaker Bridge, which will be funded by the province. Although the plan to inspect the underwater portion of the bridge was ultimately moved forward to council for final approval, some parts of the plan were met with a degree of hesitation.

The province agreed to fund the underwater inspection of the bridge’s piers through the Urban Connector Program – that is expected to take place this fall. The inspections will in part be looking for any damage to the bridge caused by debris swept along the North Saskatchewan River by high water levels earlier this year.

But a report from the city’s department of public works recommended that council accepts a bid from ISL Engineering and Land Services to conduct the inspections. That would be a change in firms from Stantec Consulting, which conducted the last set of inspections on the bridge. Those inspections did not include a look at the portion of the structure that is underwater.

A couple of Stantec’s bridge experts left that firm and are now employed by ISL. And that point had Coun. Don Cody concerned.

“I hate to be a broken record here, but you know, again I hearken back to the original Stantec report,” Cody said during Monday’s meeting. “And the original Stantec report said we’ve got a bridge here that’s perfectly good for 25 years. You tell me which engineer would put their name to a document like that when now they’re coming around saying ‘we want $67,887’ to tell you the bridge is going to stand there, that the piers are OK? Ridiculous. Doesn’t make any sense.”

WORLD SOFTBALL

Group stages officially set for Men's Softball World Cup in P.A.

1h ago

Safety first

Safety concerns and tips surrounding discarded needles in P.A.

19h ago

Liquor stores must change hours

Prince Albert limits liquor store hours

22h ago

When it came to the fact that two former Stantec experts were now with ISL, he said he wasn’t sure he wanted ISL around either. “If they can be talked into giving a report like they did, I’m not so sure that we want them on this one.”

Because of this, he said the city should be very careful of ISL equally as much as it was “or should be” of Stantec.

After the meeting, Cody said he’s sure the two individuals are good engineers. “And maybe now that they’re in their own firm, they will do different work,” he said. Cody does agree with having the underwater inspections take place.

Two options were on the table with regards to the method of inspection. The first option was a traditional inspection, which would involve having divers conduct visual
inspections and feel 10 per cent the underwater portion of the structure for irregularities. The recommended second option, would involve the use of high-resolution imaging using sonar equipment. Divers would also be used to take a closer look at areas of concern.

The exact percentage of the underwater portion of the bridge that would be inspected through this second option was not disclosed in the public works report.

The executive committee moved this second option to council for approval. The item will be on the agenda for next week’s council meeting.

Mayor Greg Dionne supported the idea of having more of the bridge’s underwater structure inspected. While the second option that was approved will see more of the bridge inspected, after the meeting he said that if cost weren’t an issue, he would want to have all of the piers checked.

“Who judges what pillar got water, what pillar did what? As I said, I think the middle one takes the most beating.” He said that during the summer, he saw one big tree after another hit the pillar. But, he said, the tree may not have done any damage to that pillar, and could have hit one that’s closest to the riverbank and damaged that one.

“So to me, if you have an asset that people are claiming is going to last 25 years, then you have to do an inspection that’s going to back that up.”

He does think the province is doing its part where the Diefenbaker Bridge is concerned.

“But if we have a report that says … it’s good for 25 years, then I want to make sure, if you’re saying 25 years, then that’s 100 per cent inspection. Because if you leave one or two out, those are the two that are going to fail.”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames