Bridge Collapse

• Mar 27, 2008 5:15 pm US/Central
• Digg | Facebook | E-mail

  Close WindowE-mail This Page

  NTSB Memos Suggest Cause Of Bridge Collapse Close

  Required fields are marked with an asterisk(*)

  ---

  • Recipient E-mail:* 
  • • Your Name:* 
    • Your E-mail:* 
  • Add a Message:
  •   Send me a copy of this e-mail.

  • Type the characters in this picture:* Click here to refresh with new letters

  ---

  The information you provide will be used only to send the requested e-mail and will not be used to send any other e-mail communications. Read more in our Privacy Policy

  Send E-mail

  | Print

NTSB Memos Suggest Cause Of Bridge Collapse Close

While a final outcome isn't expected for several months, internal memos from the National Transportation Safety Board suggest agency staffers have already settled on a likely cause for last year's deadly Minneapolis bridge collapse.

Those memos show the deliberations among staffers and board members over whether to hold an interim public hearing -- or simply wait until the board takes up the final report in a meeting later this year, as the board ultimately decided.

NTSB Managing Director Joseph Osterman wrote in one memo that "the outcome of our investigation appears to be clear, so showing our cards at a public hearing or in the final report is simply a matter of timing."

Another memo says that while the staff continues to investigate, it "believes that the strength of certain gusset plates used in the fabrication of the bridge trusses was likely a primary factor that led to the bridge collapse. Staff also believes that the loads placed on the bridge on the day of the accident played a role in the collapse."

The NTSB has highlighted both factors before.

In January, NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said at a press briefing that the undersizing of the gusset plates was "the critical factor" in the 40-year-old bridge's collapse on Aug. 1, which killed 13 and injured 145. Rosenker did stress that a final cause had not yet been determined.

Greg Feith, a former safety investigator for the NTSB, said that the board in some cases has "locked on" to a cause.

"The objective of the NTSB is to remain objective until all facts and circumstances have been developed," he said.

In this case, Feith said, "Apparently, they've (staff) been able to garner enough information that they believe that the combination of those two factors is what led to the loss of the bridge. That's apparently where the investigation will come to fruition."

The board will ultimately deliberate on the final staff report, and it's rare when the board votes not to approve any of the findings and tells the staff to do it over, Feith said. But the board members may have questions about issues that are not adequately addressed in the report, he said.

NTSB spokesman Terry Williams, asked how people can expect that a final decision hasn't already been reached, said that a probable cause won't be determined until the board meeting later this year.

"That's the actual deliberation," he said. "And this has not come before the board yet. The actual deliberations can be pretty engaging. We do not have a probable cause. We have not had any deliberation. It's still an ongoing investigation."

While the NTSB has decided not to hold a public hearing before the final report, the investigation itself will be a subject of a public hearing -- in the House Transportation Committee.

The committee chairman, Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar, who has been highly critical of NTSB chairman Rosenker, will have pointed questions for the NTSB, spokesman John Schadl said.

The committee would have done the hearings anyway as part of the NTSB reauthorization. But Schadl says the hearings will now have a specific focus on the investigative process.

"Jim is concerned that any investigation by the NTSB be perceived as independent and credible," he said. "This is the agency that sets the gold standard for independent and non- partisan investigations."

A negative reaction in Congress to not hold a public hearing was anticipated by Managing Director Osterman in one memo. He wrote that some "political and public interest groups and individuals" wanted one.

If the board votes not to hold one, he wrote, "I am convinced that these groups will be motivated to become more vocal and critical of the board's decision and may actively work against our efforts during reauthorization and appropriations. Although unfortunate, I believe these folks could harm our efforts."

 

(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)