Rail Security
110th
Congress
So far this year (2007), there have been several bills filed in the House and Senate dealing with rail security, and more are expected. At some point, probably later in the year, the bills will be combined. For now, the best thing is that this issue is finally being given the attention needed, five and a half years after September 11th, and less than a year following terrorist bombings in Mumbai, India, which killed 209 and injured over 700.
S. 184, the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007 (STARS) is an updated version of Rail Security Act of 2005, and includes provisions contained in the SAFE Port Act passed by the Senate during the 109th Congress, but were removed in conference committee. Major provisions pertaining to railroads include: requiring the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to conduct a railroad sector risk assessment and submit prioritized recommendations to improve rail security; provide grants through TSA to Amtrak and freight railroads to upgrade security across the entire freight and intercity passenger railroad system; provide funding through the DOT to upgrade Amtrak tunnels in D.C. and northeast corridor; create a DHS rail security research and development program and encourage the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for hazmat shipments; authorize studies to improve passenger rail security screening and immigration processing along the northern border; require railroads to create a railroad worker security-training program; provide whistle blower protections for reporting security concerns; require railroads to create mitigation plans for high hazard materials; require TSA and DOT to clarify respective roles for rail security (this has been ongoing since 9/11); and require DHS to develop a program to encourage equipping of rail cars transporting high hazard materials. A total of 22 Senators have now signed on as co-sponsors. The bill has been voted out of committee and placed on the Senate calendar, but a recent attempt to move the bill forward was withdrawn to consider other 9/11 issues first. This Act would be the first time rail security was considered a statutory entity under the TSA.
Please contact your two U.S. Senators to support S. 184. There has been no activity since February 27, 2007, when the Motion for Cloture was withdrawn.
On the House side,
on March 7, 2007, Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 1269, the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
BLET 1st Vice President Ed Rodzwicz and Vice President John
Tolman testified at committee hearings pertaining to rail security on the 6th
and 7th. Their continuing
presence on Capitol Hill punctuates the need to address the many facets of
securing all our nation's transportation systems, not just aviation. In the BLETs most recent testimony, they
stressed the need for caution in dealing with Research and Development,
including positive train control, so that Federal Departments and Regulatory
agencies do not succumb to the temptation to reduce crew size based on
technology designed to improve safety, not as a means to lowering operating
costs through labor reductions. In
addition, strong support was offered for the whistleblower protections
contained in the bill, allowing for damages and recourse to provide workers
protection in the event they report a serious concern. Worker training, another prominent provision,
is addressed recognizing railroaders key roles as first responders in rail
emergencies, yet safety and security training is seriously lacking for railroad
employees, which puts not only them in harm's way, but by extension the
communities served by the railroad. H.R.
1269 covers many of the issues raised by rail labor the last 5½ years, so we
encourage each of you to contact your Congressional Representative to encourage
their support and co-sponsorship. There
has been no movement, other than assignment to committees, since this bill was
introduced. We will keep you advised of
more information and/or legislation as it becomes available.
109th
Congress
(Spring 2006)
In December, Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA) introduced H.R. 4372, the Rail Worker Emergency Training Act of 2005. The bill addresses many of the concerns expressed by BLET members. H.R. 4372 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a wide-range of guidelines addressing equipment inspection, hazardous materials storage, rail yard access, and rail worker emergency training for preparation and response to potential or actual terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. It would also require carriers to file specific training plans yearly with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and face fines if their plans fell short of Federal standards. In a letter to Congress from the Association of American Railroads, they purport that a bill to require rail worker emergency training is unnecessary since they already have programs in place. In their letter, they cite requirements by the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Regulation, believing the terms of the Act would be a redundancy of requirements, precluding the industry from “quickly and consistently adapting to new circumstances. . .” They also contend that they are being unfairly singled out by requiring Federal approval for corporate training practices.
Based on UP’s training regime, I can tell you the AAR letter wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. There is a sign in the UP yard that says “Staging Area 2,” but most, if not all employees, do not know what this means. Hazmat training consists of, “Here’s your book. Sign the card and return it. You’re trained.”
Additionally, the AAR contends that, in addition to existing rail worker training for those specifically involved in hazmat transportation, freight railroads are including security awareness training as part of their workers’ annual safety certifications. The only certification I am aware of occurs every 3 years for engineers, and no such “security awareness training” is included. Regarding their contention that they provide daily safety briefings, those consist of requiring the employee to “be vigilant and report any suspicious people or activities,” all occurring as the yardmaster is rushing the employee to get on the train and get out of town. When asked what UP’s Security Plan consists of if it is ever needed, employees are told that they don’t put that information out because too many people would know, which would breach security. What good is a plan if not enough people are aware of it. In the event of an occurrence, those who do know the plan would probably be running around “with their hair on fire.” The UP does have an alert scale in place, but never seem to raise that alert even when credible threats are directed at them. It remains business as usual. As far as the AAR’s alleged course modules containing instructions on reacting to threats, identifying suspicious activity and objects, and responding to incidents, which is due out in early 2006, I have to ask the question as to why it has taken 5 years to actually train employees, and it is now March, so what constitutes early? The letter all boils down to their continued lip service to Congress on issues that truly are critical to our national security and the safety and security of our spouses and our communities.