Time for Oversight: A Statement from Professional Engineers Government of Ontario Regarding the Nipigon Bridge Report

On September 22, 2016, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca and Northern Development and Mines Minister Michael Gravelle released an update on the investigation into the Nipigon River Bridge failure that occurred on January 10, 2016. The official statement, identifies three main factors that contributed to the malfunction:

“…first was the design of the shoe plate and its flexibility; second was a lack of rotation in the bearing that was constructed; and third was improperly tightened bolts attaching the girder to the shoe plate. When combined, these three factors produced the malfunction. Neither cold temperatures nor wind contributed to the closure.”

The ministers announced that a new “permanent retrofit design” has been developed to address these issues and to ensure that the Nipigon River Bridge functions safely for the rest of its intended lifespan. The cost of repair work on the bridge is expected to range from $8 – $12 million.

The following is an official statement released by Professional Engineers Government of Ontario (PEGO), regarding the latest findings from the investigation into the Nipigon Bridge failure. PEGO’s statement echoes OSPE sentiments that engineers must have a seat at the policy-making table to ensure that important government works are founded on sound engineering principles.


For eight months, the people of Ontario have patiently waited for the government to restore their faith in the safety of our Provincial Highway System by releasing reports of the investigation into the January 2016 failure of the Nipigon River Bridge. The Government assured the public that these reports would be released only when a comprehensive review of all the factors contributing to the failure was completed.

Engineering at its heart is as much art as science. Its practice is as imperfect as those of us who ply its trade despite the burden of responsibility we bear and the tireless efforts made to ensure our failings such as they are, are brought to light and corrected before the results can be disastrous.

That is why good engineering is not so much about perfect designs and never making mistakes as it is about putting the knowledge, experience and safeguards in place so mistakes are identified, corrected and mitigated. Likewise, a good investigation must identify the technical aspects of the sequence of events occurred that resulted in an engineering failure, why these events occurred and what safeguards failed to identify, correct, and mitigate these mistakes.

Upon first review, the engineers responsible for the Nipigon reports must be commended for the thorough and complete work they have undertaken in fulfilling their mandate in identifying what occurred.

However, it is clear that the mandate was not comprehensive to include examination of the processes or safeguards that failed to prevent the unfortunate sequence of events despite numerous decision points in the process where sufficient expertise may have identified the dangers prior to the failure.

Indeed the scope of the investigation seems to preclude examining the Ministry’s own role in the unfortunate series of events from the outset. Most telling is one simple line from the Ministry of Transportation’s own Bridge Office; “Factors dealing with management of the project are not the subject of this report.”

The power of adequate oversight cannot be overstated

Both the independent and Ministry reports for Nipigon identify a number of such events where proper oversight could have forestalled the future failure including: review of Contract and Specification requirements for the bearings; review of Requests for Clarification for the design of the bearing; review of the bearing fabrication drawings; review of the non-conformances related to the length of the bolts, the improper installation of the bolts; the failure to tighten the bolts, and most importantly the opening of the bridge to traffic prior to the correction of the non-conformance related to the bolt lengths.

Any and all of these events represented an opportunity for oversight and potential intervention that with the right expertise could have prevented the series of events that ultimately led to the failure of the hold-down bearing. It is only by good fortune that the north bearing on the leaving end failed first and avoided potential injury from an imminent failure of the centre bearing, which would have resulted in a collision with the raised end of the bridge.

For years, PEGO and its members have been advocating to both senior management and government that our current system for oversight of external construction contracts is inadequate. We have abdicated the traditional Ministry role of Quality Assurance and placed blind faith in the Quality Control processes of project companies and specifically in the certification of works by Quality Verification Engineers (QVE) employed directly by the project companies. Just as the 500 girders rejected in Windsor were certified as conforming to contract requirements so too was the construction at Nipigon. It is time we learned from our mistakes.

Every building constructed in Ontario is done so under the oversight of the local building department. From the smallest house to the largest hospital, Occupancy Permits are required prior to allowing use by the property owner or the public, yet we allow hundreds of thousands of people a day to use new bridges without any independent authority assuring they are suitable prior to opening to traffic. The people of Ontario deserve similar processes and safeguards in the construction of their bridges and highways.

In the recent construction of the Herb Gray Parkway, the diligence of our members during one site visit identified un-approved welding of reinforcing for the main girders. The resulting investigation, in which our members supervised the demolition of girders identifying deficiencies in the construction, eventually resulted in the rejection of over 500 non-conforming girders and ensured the safety of the Parkway.

The government is aggressively pursuing an infrastructure program that is unprecedented in its magnitude and complexity. Despite ten-fold increases in infrastructure funding government, engineering resource levels have remained static in favour of Alternative Financing and Procurement models. Increasingly, project companies are making decisions about the type and quality of infrastructure once made by government engineers with the long-term interests of the people of Ontario in mind. The government no longer has the engineering resources or expertise to properly oversee the work it tenders.

The recent Charbonneau Commission in Quebec, identified the need for more engineers at the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) to effectively oversee construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. There are currently over 800 engineers working for MTQ maintaining an inventory of over 4000 bridges whereas currently MTO has approximately 350 engineers for 2800 bridges. The MTO’s management of the infrastructure program has been rightly characterized by the Grievance Settlement Board Arbitration Decision as, “an embarrassment of riches coupled with a poverty of staff”.

Further, the eight months lost in the preparation and the release of these reports, has, disappointingly, due to the limited scope of the reviews, not resulted in any recommendations that will prevent similar failures in the future, nor has the Ministry taken any independent action to avoid these issues on other projects.

The path forward

To reverse the erosion of oversight and help prevent future infrastructure failures, a number of measures must be implemented in both the short and long term including:

  1. Establish an independent Office of the Chief Engineer of the Province of Ontario reporting to the legislature to perform audits of the government’s delivery of engineering services, provide oversight and advice to the government on engineering issues, fulfill the regulatory approval functions required under various legislation, and independently investigate engineering failures like Nipigon and the Algo Mall.
  1. Provide Legislative Authority to Government Engineers similar to that afforded Building Officials and Engineers with the Ministry of Labour to ensure compliance with Legislation and Regulation for Highway Infrastructure.
  1. Review the Quality Control (including QVE) and Quality Assurance processes at the Ministry of Transportation to ensure the Contractors obligations are carried out adequately and that a minimum acceptable level of oversight is provided.
  1. Implement Regulatory process including a permit approval requirement prior to allowing traffic on any bridge during any stage of construction
  1. Provide government engineering resources required to ensure the required level of oversight.
  1. Provide immediate communication to all Ministry Staff, Municipalities, engineering consultants and Ministry Contractors in the Province informing them of the nature of the failure and the importance of pre-tensioning high strength bolts for highway structures prior to opening to traffic.

PEGO believes these steps, when coupled with appropriate level of engineering resources, can form part of a sustainable plan to deliver the infrastructure needs of Ontario now and in the future. We would further echo the recent comments from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers that the expertise and experience of both public and private sector engineers must be leveraged with a seat at the policy-making table to ensure important government works are founded on sound engineering principles.

Professional Engineers Government of Ontario (PEGO) is the Association representing the approximately 600 Professional Engineers and Ontario Land Surveyors employed by the Government of Ontario.

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. Abdul Zahoor Khan

    Excellent advocacy , but want to mention a small observation here that….the the very first sentence of the text really caused me great deal of confusion, though got it cleared later, by referring to English dictionaries… The word” oversight” has been freely used to mean supervision in the text….but so far I knew…we always referred to it to mean..negligence in supervising some thing and the English dictionaries do mention it….as leaving out something from sight, or say being careless and an error or omission is thus made in course of supervision of any act of any kind….but reading the text…one literally goes upside down and wonders…how oversight could help…? So, will it not be more appropriate to use supervision instead of oversight ?
    On the whole….the role of engineers to produce first class structures for use by the public has been advocated profoundly and the Ministry, too, has been ticked off for their part of responsibility in the whole affair…. Well done OSPE…,,!!

    1. STAFF

      Hi Abdul Zahoor Khan – thank you for your comment and feedback. We can absolutely see why before having read the blog post, the title could be cause for confusion given the dual meaning of the word ‘oversight’. The aforementioned post was shared with OSPE courtesy of the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario (PEGO). In order to give proper credit, the post was shared on the Society Notes blog, exactly as the statement was written by the authors at PEGO, including the title. We will certainly note the suggested edit. We are also happy to hear your positive feedback in terms of OSPE’s current advocacy efforts, which are only as strong and effective as our membership base is engaged. If you would like to learn more about how you can become more involved in OSPE, feel free to visit our website here.

  2. Lo Iun

    I do not know too much about engineering but I know the process of torquing bolts.
    Did the bolts were marked according to the technical information.
    Did the contractor and consultant firm has an inspector to assure that, with written document and pictures.
    Did the inspector from Highway inspected the paper and site before they issue the permit to use.
    I do not see this in the report but some body reported another loose nut.
    If these basics were not in place, no need to go further. This is a bridge is dangerous to travel .’

  3. Michael Hogan

    Go to: MyAlgoma.ca
    Read the article: Nipigon River Bridge Failure
    It details the unsuccessful attempts at the repair.

Leave a Reply

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.