Legislation looks to address TSA holes in surface transportation security

 

A canine team searches an Amtrak train.Department of Homeland Security

Written by  Mischa Wanek-Libman, editor

A new piece of legislation, S. 3379, the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act, aims to shore up holes found in the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) approach to transportation safety.

U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who serve as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, along with Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) who serve as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security, introduced the bill that they say "addresses deficiencies in the TSA's efforts to protect rail, transit, highway and maritime passenger and freight transportation identified through congressional oversight and a recent report by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general."

The senators say the legislation is intended to address concerns, underscored by recent attacks on transit stations in Western Europe and New Jersey, that TSA is not adequately positioned to identify security risks across different modes of transportation, serve as a source of intelligence or as a training and best practices resource for federal, state, local and private transportation security. The group cites TSA's congressional testimony that it uses only three percent of its budget on surface transportation security.

The senators say the bill would enhance risk-based security planning by requiring the TSA administrator to conduct a risk analysis and implement a risk-based security model for surface transportation facilities and mandate risk-based budgeting for surface transportation security focusing resources on current threats with annual reviews of program effectiveness.

The bill would authorize as many as 70 additional canine explosive detection teams for surface transportation, which could then be increased to 200 based on review and implementation recommendations. The legislation borrows oversights implemented in the aviation industry in a bid to increase transparency and includes actions aimed at reforming port security and Transportation Worker Identification Credentials.

Concerning passenger rail security, the senators say the bill would authorize the use of computerized vetting systems for passenger rail at the request of Amtrak police and the Amtrak Board of Directors and allow grant funding to be used to enhance passenger manifest data so that rail passengers can be identified in case of emergency.

"TSA has broad responsibilities for transportation security, but oversight and independent audits have raised considerable concern about its approach to protecting rail, transit, maritime, and highway travelers," said Sen. Thune. "This legislation addresses gaps in TSA's approach to assessing security risks and will help the agency better fulfill its role as a hub of analysis, planning and information."

Al Chesser 1914-2016

Dear Brothers and Sisters: It is with great sadness that I’m reporting that yesterday a great leader in our union and a great leader in the labor movement Al Chesser passed away at the age of 102. Al not only served as our union’s president but spent most of his union career in our Legislative Department where he rose to serve as our National Legislative Director, an office I’m now honored to hold. Al was a personal inspiration to me.  I read the book about him “Making Tracks” in the 1980s while I was a young state legislative director and it helped me be a more effective representative of UTU. Our office building in Washington, DC is rightfully named in his honor because of the work that he did for our members.  I have a large picture of Al hanging in my office as a constant reminder of his service and as an inspiration of what we can do as a union. This link below is a 6 minute YouTube video about his service to our union.  Please take the time to watch it and be thankful to Al for his remarkable service for leading our members through some very challenging times. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-1BllRnhizk

Sincerely,

John Risch National Legislative Director SMART Transportation Division

Members Make the Difference

Dear Brothers and Sisters: Recently, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas – one of the most conservative members of the U.S. House of Representatives – cosponsored our two-person crew legislation, H.R. 1763, the Safe Freight Act. This show of support follows cosponsorship from Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Both are considered among the most conservative Members of Congress. Why did Rep. Gohmert sign onto the bill? The simple answer is that one of our members asked him to. General Chairman Steve Simpson’s office is located near Rep. Gohmert’s, and Steve decided to set up a meeting to engage the Congressman on our issues, including the need for two-person crews on all trains. Steve didn’t shy away because Rep. Gohmert is a conservative Republican; no, Steve’s attitude was that “this is my Congressman, and I will request a meeting.” They talked for more than an hour and Steve convinced this very conservative Republican that the only safe way to operate a train is with a crew of at least two people. Arizona State Director Scott Jones lives in Congressman Franks’ district and decided to set up a meeting with his Congressman. Scott brought along a retired engineer who attends the same church as Congressman Franks and whose children attend bible study taught by the Congressman. Hearing from a trusted friend proved extremely effective as Congressman Franks came out of the meeting understanding the importance of two-person crews and became a cosponsor of H.R. 1763. Last year, one of our bus members, Socorro Cisneros-Hernandez, had an upcoming meeting with Republican Congressman Paul Cook of California and contacted our office looking for talking points on our legislative priorities. Ms. Cisneros used the information we provided and had a very productive meeting with Congressman Cook, after which he agreed to cosponsor the Safe Freight Act. Most recently, Greg Hynes and I met with another conservative Republican, Ryan Zinke of Montana. After a robust discussion about the two-person crew legislation, Congressman Zinke agreed to sign on as a cosponsor. The lesson from all of these cases is that every member of Congress, regardless of party or ideology, should be viewed as a potential cosponsor of H.R. 1763. Our Washington team will continue to do our part, but when it comes to issues that some Members of Congress may not be naturally inclined to support, our members – their constituents – are the ones who can make the most effective case. To do your part, work with your state director to set up a meeting with your Representative to ask that they cosponsor H.R. 1763. We can provide you with handouts and other materials to help. Our recent comments on the FRA’s crew size rule are a good source of information on this issue. If you do not know who your state director is, a list can be found attached to this email. If we are going to succeed in passing this bill, we need to be engaged at the local level. Special thanks to Brothers Steve Simpson, Scott Jones and Sister Socorro Cisneros-Hernandez for stepping up to the plate and taking the initiative in getting these new cosponsors. Lastly, please visit the Legislative Action Center to contact your Representative about the Safe Freight Act and ask your coworkers to do the same.

In Solidarity,

John Risch National Legislative Director SMART Transportation Division Click To View Documents: SMART-TD State Directors.doc (60KB);

Safety Device Missing from Amtrak Site After Deadly Accident

An NBC 10 Investigation has revealed a basic safety device called a shunt missing at the site of Amtrak’s most recent deadly accident on the Northeast corridor. Amtrak 89 was traveling 106 miles per hour when it collided with a maintenance crew in Chester, PA on April 3, 2016.

The accident killed two maintenance workers.

The NBC 10 Investigators found Amtrak dispatch records show other railroads notified of the maintenance work.  Dispatch logs show the track in Chester was occupied or ‘fouled’ between Friday April 1 and Monday April 4.

“Unfortunately, you’re always going to have some kind of human error and nobody’s life should be one step away,” Jedd Dodd, the General Chairman of the union representing Amtrak maintenance workers said.

Dodd, who worked on Amtrak maintenance crews for seven years, said a simple electrical cable put on the track called a shunt would have turned the oncoming railroad traffic signal red – telling trains to stop.

“There were no shunting devices and Amtrak had routinely stopped using shunting devices out on the track from what we can see,” Dodd said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that there was no shunt on that track,” Railroad engineer and professor at the University of Delaware Allan Zarembski said.

Zarembski demonstrated how a shunt mimics a train on the tracks.  An electrical cable connects the two tracks to complete an electrical circuit and show oncoming trains the track is occupied.

The NBC 10 investigation found Amtrak changed its training manual in 2015 omitting a section dedicated to the “use of a supplemental shunting device.”

The manual’s 2000 version reads in part, “This instruction requires the employee in charge of covered fouling activities to apply an approved supplemental shunting device to the tracks…”

That section is removed in the latest version.

"I do know the shunting devices would have prevented it," Dodd said of the train 89 accident. “If Amtrak had properly trained and qualified their employees the shunting device would have been there.”

Amtrak officials would not say why the supplemental shunting device section was removed from its current training manual.  The NBC 10 investigators did find it would have been redundant.  The North American Railroad Operating rules, which govern all railroads, do include the shunting device section.

“I really can’t talk about that because that whole thing with the maintenance workers because it involves the NTSB,” Amtrak vice president of operations Chris Jagodzinski said at a public event in May when asked about how the railroad protects and trains maintenance workers.

The Amtrak 89 accident is the railroads’ second deadly accident in the Philadelphia area since May 2015.  Amtrak 188 killed eight passengers when it derailed in Philadelphia.  The NTSB determined the engineer lost situational awareness and didn’t realize the train was traveling too fast for the track.  The federal investigation also concluded that a train safety system called positive train control would have slowed Amtrak 188 and prevented the accident.  The NBC 10 Investigators first reported that safety system missing on the section of track where train 188 derailed.

SMART TD Comments on FRA Crew Size Rule

Click To View Documents: SMART TD BLET Joint Comments FRA20140033.pdf (677KB), 6.16.16 SMART-TD_BLET 2 person crew comments press statement.pdf (244KB);

Dear Brothers and Sisters: Yesterday, the SMART Transportation Division and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) filed joint comments on the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on train crew staffing. In our comments, we emphasized the critical safety importance of requiring a crew of at least two individuals - a certified conductor and a certified engineer - on all freight trains and asked the FRA to strengthen its rule by closing dangerous loopholes that would lead to increased single-person train operations. Attached you will find copies of our joint comments on the NPRM and a press release. The press release can also be viewed by following this link. We would also like to extend our thanks to all SMART TD members who submitted comments of their own.

In Solidarity,

John Previsich                                     John Risch President                                              National Legislative Director SMART Transportation Division        SMART Transportation Division

ALERT--ALERT--The Countdown is ON!

Federal Railroad Administration-Train Crew Staffing Rule...

CLICK and SUBMIT YOUR STORY NOW !!

The FRA extended the open comment period to June 15th. We only have 9 days left to FILE COMMENTS Supporting the FRA's Proposed Rule of 2 Person Crews!    Please Click Here and Comment Now!. Share your Story !!  The most effective thing you can include in your comments is a personal story of how having two people on your crew prevented an accident from happening. It is not necessary to include all the details like train numbers or dates; just an overview of the incident and how having the second crew member made a difference. Examples of how the second crew member cleared a blocked crossing for an emergency vehicle or dealt with emergency responders during a derailment would also be very beneficial. No one can make a stronger case for two-person crews than those who work - or have worked - on the front lines operating trains every day. The deadline is June 15th! CLICK and FILE COMMENTS NOW - They need to know!!

Oregon train derailment spills oil, sparks fire

A Union Pacific train carrying a volatile type of oil derailed in Oregon's scenic Columbia River Gorge

  By Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press

 

View photo: In this frame from video provided by KGW-TV, smoke billows from a Union Pacific train that derailed Friday, June 3, 2016 in Oregon's scenic Columbia River Gorge. The accident sparked a fire and an oil spill near the Columbia River. No injuries were reported. (KGW-TV via AP)

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A train towing a highly volatile type of oil derailed Friday in Oregon's scenic Columbia River Gorge, igniting a fire that sent a plume of black smoke into the sky and spurring evacuations and road closures.

Eleven cars derailed Friday in the 96-car Union Pacific train and the railroad said several caught fire. The crash released oil alongside tracks that parallel the Columbia River.

All the cars on the train traveling to Tacoma, Washington, from Eastpoint, Idaho, were carrying Bakken oil, which is more flammable than other varieties because it has a higher gas content and vapor pressure and lower flash point.

The accident immediately drew reaction from environmentalists who said oil should not be transported by rail, particularly along a river that is a hub of recreation and commerce.

"Moving oil by rail constantly puts our communities and environment at risk," said Jared Margolis, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity in Eugene, Oregon.

It wasn't immediately clear if oil had seeped into the river or what had caused the derailment. No injuries were reported.

Aaron Hunt, a spokesman for the railroad, did not know how fast the train was traveling at the time, but witnesses said it was going slowly as it passed the town of Mosier, Oregon, about 70 miles east of Portland.

Response teams were using a drone to assess the damage, said Katherine Santini, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Forest Service. Crews were working to suppress the fire, which they expected to continue doing into the night.

Officials in Mosier closed about 23 miles of Interstate 84 and evacuated a half-mile radius around the spill, including 200 school children who were later picked up by their parents and 50 homes in a mobile home park.

Silas Bleakley was working at his restaurant in Mosier when the train derailed.

"You could feel it through the ground. It was more of a feeling than a noise," he told The Associated Press as smoke billowed from the tankers.

Bleakley said he went outside, saw the smoke and got in his truck and drove about 2,000 feet to a bridge that crosses the railroad tracks.

There, he said he saw tanker cars "accordioned" across the tracks.

Another witness, Brian Shurton, was watching the train as it passed by the town when he heard a tremendous noise.

"All of a sudden, I heard 'Bang! Bang! Bang!' like dominoes," he told The Associated Press.

He also drove to the overpass and saw the cars flipped over before a fire started and he called 911.

"The train wasn't going very fast. It would have been worse if it had been faster," said Shurton, who runs a wind surfing business in nearby Hood River.

Matt Lehner, a spokesman from the Federal Railroad Administration, said a team of investigators had arrived at the scene from Vancouver, Washington.

Union Pacific said 11 cars had derailed, but a spokesman from the Oregon Department of Forestry, which helped extinguish the blaze, said 12 cars had been involved. The discrepancy could not immediately be resolved.

Including Friday's accident, at least 26 oil trains have been involved in major fires or derailments during the past decade in the U.S. and Canada, according to Associated Press analysis of accident records from the two countries.

The worst was a 2013 derailment that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Damage from that accident has been estimated at $1.2 billion or higher.

At least 12 of the oil trains that derailed were carrying crude from the Northern Plains' Bakken region — fuel that is known for being highly volatile. Of those, eight resulted in fires.

Since last spring, North Dakota regulators have required companies to treat oil before it's shipped by rail to make it less combustible.

A May 2015 derailment near Heimdal, North Dakota, involved cars carrying oil that had been treated to reduce the volatility, but the crude still ignited. At least one train wreck involving treated Bakken oil did not result in a fire, when 22 cars derailed and 35,000 gallons of oil spilled near Culbertson, Montana, last July.

Reducing the explosiveness of the crude moved by rail was not supposed to be a cure-all to prevent accidents. Department of Transportation rules imposed last year require companies to use stronger tank cars that are better able to withstand derailments.

But tens of thousands of outdated tank cars that are prone to split open during accidents remain in use.

It's expected to take years for them to be retrofitted or replaced.

Hunt, the Union Pacific spokesman, did not respond to questions about whether the Bakken oil in Friday's derailment had been treated to reduce volatility. It also wasn't clear if the tank cars in the accident had been retrofitted under the new rules.

To get to refineries on the East and West coasts and the Gulf of Mexico, oil trains move through more than 400 counties, including major metropolitan areas such as Philadelphia; Seattle; Chicago; Newark, New Jersey; and dozens of other cities, according to railroad disclosures filed with regulators.

__

Associated Press Writers Matthew Brown in Billings, Montana; Steven Dubois in Portland, Oregon and Alina Hartounian in Phoenix contributed to this report.

We need your comments on 2-person crews -Deadline extended to June 15

On March 15th, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a long overdue proposed regulation requiring that most trains in America have a minimum of two crewmembers. While SMART TD supports the core requirements of the rule, we believe that it can be strengthened and improved before this proposed regulation becomes final. We also expect the railroads to do everything in their power to weaken the rule. That is why we need your help.

As a railroad worker, you have firsthand knowledge of the importance of two-person crews and the dangers of single-person operations. That is why the FRA needs to hear your voice on this critical safety issue. Please follow this link to submit your own comments on the rule, citing your personal experiences and expertise in operating trains.

The most effective thing you can include in your comments is a personal story of how having two people on your crew prevented an accident from happening. It is not necessary to include all the details like train numbers or dates; just an overview of the incident and how having the second crew member made a difference. Examples of how the second crew member cleared a blocked crossing for an emergency vehicle or dealt with emergency responders during a derailment would also be very beneficial.

No one can make a stronger case for two-person crews than those who work — or have worked — on the front lines operating trains every day.

The deadline for comments has been extended to June 15, 2016 – more time to get your co-workers, friends, family members and community leaders to comment!

Thank you for your help with this critically important issue.

Below is an excellent example of a comment submitted by retired member Daniel Potaracke from Wisconsin:

Agency: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Document Type: Rulemaking Title: Train Crew Staffing Document ID: FRA-2014-0033-0001

Thank You for this opportunity to comment on this important issue.

I started on the BNSF RR in 1972 and retired in 2013 after 42 years of service. In 1972, I was one of 5 crew members on a train. When I retired, there were just 2 people on a train, the engineer and I the conductor. I’ve seen lots of changes on the railroad and that is putting it very mildly. With all the technology, you would think it would be safer but, I believe it has actually gotten less safe for a number of reasons. The railroads went from handling and hauling basic cargo and smaller trains to now handling much bigger trains with lots more dangerous cargo in increasing amounts. I remember having “a few” dangerous shipments but, when I retired, I was responsible for having LOTS of dangerous and hazardous cargoes. Just before I retired, I had to sift through lots and lots of paperwork to make sure I had ALL the information and redundancy so if there was a problem, I had some solutions for emergency workers and whomever needed it. I’m not saying it is bad but, making sure I had the paperwork and having someone else to count on made it somewhat better; and, how else are shippers going to transport these dangerous cargoes other than the nations highways? From what I’ve read about the trucking industry, with one person driving a huge truck with dangerous materials and the fatigue the truck drivers put up with, I’m amazed there aren’t more crashes. Having 2 people on a train is definitely much more safe!

Having two sets of eyes and ears on the front end of ALL trains is essential for safety for everyone including the public, the employees and the railroads themselves. As a retired BNSF RR conductor, I’ve personally witnessed many “emergency” type incidents that warranted immediate attention and I’m not at all sure that they would have been caught by just one person. Splitting duties in such a way that there are two people onboard makes it easier for one of them to catch a problem vs having one person having so many things to be aware of and all at the same time. I know from personal experience that I’ve averted a few derailments or possible derailments because I’ve caught a problem on either my train or another passing train be it sticking brakes, cracked wheels or hot bearings and shifted loads or other problems.

As you know, the railroads carry so many commodities that are very hazardous including oil trains that will burn out of control for days at a time, nuclear waste, chemicals that are certain death with contact or inhalation and munitions and explosives. Having two people on a train can catch a problem before a derailment with any of the above cargoes in a city or even out in the country where winds can blow dangerous inhalations to a city or town. Imagine a burning and exploding oil train in a congested city as big as Chicago or Minneapolis or even a small town where the entire population could be wiped out! We have all seen the images of burning oil trains; now imagine that in the middle of a city with populations living within a few hundred feet!

I sometimes wonder if the railroad companies are like the automobile companies that work out the risks or odds of a derailment or toxic release or something similar where they cross their fingers and hope nothing happens but, if something did happen, the chances are 1 in X amount of percent, they could live with that and the resulting monetary damages…or deaths…or whatever.

Please keep America safe with the railroads running safe with two people!

Rail Members – Your Comments on 2-Person Crews are Needed!

Dear Member, On March 15th, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a long overdue proposed regulation requiring that most trains in America have a minimum of two crewmembers. The proposed rule is a step in the right direction but as written it falls short of what SMART TD believes is necessary to ensure the safe operation of all of our nation’s trains. The proposed regulation is currently in the comment period and the deadline to submit comments to the FRA on why it is absolutely necessary to have at least two crew members on every train, is May 16.

From working with officials at the FRA, to meeting with federal and state legislative leaders, SMART TD’s long campaign to bring about this critical rail safety reform continues, and can only be successful with your voice! The railroads are doing everything in their power to weaken the rule, but your comments are more powerful than the rail industry and will make an impact!

As a railroad worker, you have firsthand knowledge of the importance of two-person crews and the dangers of single-person operations. That is why the FRA needs to hear your voice on this critical safety issue.

Please click on the following link to submit your own comments on the rule, citing your personal experiences and expertise in operating trains:

https://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FRA-2014-0033-0001

No one can make a stronger case for two-person crews than those who work — or have worked — on the front lines operating trains every day.

Again, the deadline for comments is May 16, 2016 so please submit your comments now!

Thank you for your help with this critically important issue.

Sincerely,

John Previsich President, SMART Transportation Division

FRA rule gives us chance to bar most one-person crew trains

By John Previsich and Ed Wytkind

The freight railroads would have the public believe that operating massive freight trains with a single crew member is perfectly safe. We know those claims are not true and fortunately so does our government which just issued proposed regulations establishing a two-person crew minimum on most trains. We applaud those rules and will push to make them as tough and rigid as possible.

If former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was alive today, he would probably tell the railroads, “you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.” Despite erroneous claims by the industry lobby that there is a lack of “conclusive statistical data” to support a two-person crew standard, we know from data gleaned from reports on accidents, crashes and fatalities as well as the real-life experiences of frontline employees, that the arguments in favor of a two-person crew standard are compelling.

The railroads rely on skewed statistical analysis to argue that a lack of accidents from the use of one-person crews means that this two-person train crew rule isn’t needed. The reality is that almost all trains in America operate with two crew members and thankfully, one-person crew operations are still the rare exception. Of course there is not a great deal of data available. More to the point, the safety statistics in today’s industry are a product of the skill and professionalism of the two-person and three-person crews that operate trains across America today.

Federal regulators’ own research underscores the necessity of having at a minimum a federally certified engineer and a federally certified conductor on trains. These employees support each other’s decision-making process. They work together to combat fatigue, especially in the real-world of train crews defined by mandated long shifts and unpredictable work schedules. They support safe operations in the event of emergencies or if one of the crew members becomes incapacitated, a fact that is also recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration as it prohibits cockpit crews of fewer than two pilots.

Conveniently, the railroads also fail to mention what happened three years ago in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic. A runaway train carrying 72 cars of crude oil killed 47 people and leveled most of the town. This train was under the control of a single crew member who failed to properly secure the train (because he lacked a co-crew member to assist and support him) ending in a fiery and deadly crash.

The industry’s assertion that mandates to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) technology in the rail industry are somehow in conflict with the FRA’s crew size rule is absurd. In case facts matter, PTC is simply one more redundant safety tool in rail operations that requires a great deal of train crew interaction in order for it to work. In fact, a fully operational PTC system puts more demands on the attention of the crew because of the distractions it causes. While advancement in transportation technology can provide essential safety support and save lives, it is not, and never will be, a replacement for highly trained, experienced and adequately staffed crews.

By the way, the public has spoken loudly on the subject. In states across America, both red and blue, an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support a two-person train crew standard. The numbers are consistently strong cross all political and ideological lines with up to 91 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans favoring federal action to bar one-person train operations.

The safety arguments support a two-person crew standard. The public supports a two-person crew standard. Now it is time for our government to bar most one-person train operations.

Previsich jprevisich@smart-union.org is president of SMART Transportation Division and Wytkind edw@ttd.org is president of theTransportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO.