that the training qualifies railroad employees to perform their duties safely.

One other area of interest to the Board concerns those employee error accidents involving alcohol and drugs. Recently, the Safety Board completed the investigation of two railroad accidents-specifically, Thousand Palms, Calif. and Royersford, Pa.-in which the functioning of employees critical to the safe operation of a train were significantly impaired by intoxicants.

The Safety Board now believes that the FRA must establish for train crewmen the same kind of specific no-drinking periods before they go on duty and while on duty, similar to those required by the Federal Aviation Administration for airline pilots.

Incapacitation by alcohol of railroad engineers and conductors operating 10,000-ton trains hauling numerous hazardous materials under difficult roadbed and train-handling conditions cannot be tolerated.

Therefore, we are recommending that FRA promulgate federal regulations that all U.S. railroads write strict prohibitions on the use of intoxicants, and employee's responsibility to report their use, into their rule books, and see that they are enforced.

The last area of concern to the Board is the FRA's track inspection and enforcement program. The Board applauds the FRA's efforts to expand its track inspection program given the fact that track defects accounted for 42 percent of all train accidents during 1979.

We understand that the FRA has expanded its inspection to include 52,000 miles of track and has increased the total penalties assessed for violations of safety regulations during fiscal year 1978 to more than double the amount assessed the year before.

While the Board supports FRA's increased attention to track defects, we remain concerned that train accidents, particularly those which stem from poor track, continue to increase.

The Board has expressed a particular concern over the federal inspection program in relation to state inspection programs. The Board issued a special study in 1979 which concluded that the FRA has not implemented an effective state participation program. The Board believes that a properly developed and implemented state participation program would increase the effectiveness of the track inspection program.

While the Board feels that FRA could be making more progress in the five areas we have just enumerated, Mr. Chairman, we do feel that the agency has become more responsive to the Board's recommendations over the last two years.

Also, we understand that the FRA is in the process of establishing a safety system plan which will allow it to approach rail safety problems in a more systematic and effective manner.

The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to share its concerns with you this morning. This concludes our prepared remarks; however, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator PRESSLER. Thank you very much. We would certainly like to have your full statement and any additional materials as part of our records for other members to read and study. I share your concern about the routing of rail shipments of hazardous

materials through less populated areas. But coming from a state that has less populated areas, sometimes it's pointed out that if you are exposed to a material, statistics don't mean much. You are still an individual. I hope that we consider a town of 50,000 or 450 as being well worth protecting, as I am sure you do.

But what is your philosophy there? I guess it's to try, if there is an accident, to harm as few people as possible. Still if you are living in Humbolt, S. Dak., with 450 people, as an individual, your individual rights might be as violated as if you are one person in New York City.

Mr. KING. Let us take the 105 tank car. Presently as we talk about it, most people assume the 105 is the smaller approximately 10,000 gallon tank car. The new tankers under 105 can have up to 30,000 gallons. If you dump 30,000 or 23,000 gallons of product, say chlorine gas, you run a risk for example, of being in a sealed building with an air conditioner on the right of way of the tracks, therefore asphyxiating everybody in the building with this gas. In a small community you may have vehicles nearby and have an opportunity to evacuate very rapidly whereas if you were in downtown New York, say, or downtown take your pick, how do you really escape from this kind of a gas cloud? So your opportunities available to you and methods for escape have to be weighed.

The other thing is that it is quite frankly, speed and mass do play a role in the rupture of some of these products. It's a question of where it might happen. When we are suggesting routing, we are looking for the past records of rail properties.

We can identify the properties that have had substantial accidents and where opportunities, for instance, are likely to occur. There are some that are identifiable. Many of the accidents we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, are episodic.

Senator PRESSLER. You make reference in your testimony to a study by NTSB which concluded that the state programs were ineffective. Would you please quickly recap your recommendations, or you can do it for the record, pointing out any legislative changes which could be made. This is the sort of question you could respond to more fully for the record.

Mr. KING. It's rather a basic question. Ask the states why they are not participating. And what do they need to participate. I have been able to attend track structure programs where you have had state investigators who will tell you a number of reasons why they don't feel they have the level of training necessary. Yet on the other hand we will see other areas where there has been useful state and federal participation.

The pipeline mode seems to be a good one. There the State has assumed a primary role, but this depends on the ability to recruit and train the best people. We are saying why not go out and talk to the states, find out what it will take for that involvement. If they are interested, then bring their people up so they will be of the level of skill and confidence needed to do the proper job. You might be able to do it a heck of a lot cheaper. We don't know but we would like FRA to look at it.

Senator PRESSLER. A final question. You have referred to the serious problems of grade crossing accidents. You state that FRA

should take a stronger leadership role. Would you please elaborate on this recommendation?

Mr. KING. Remembering that there are 217,000 crossings, Mr. Chairman, it may be difficult to pursue. Some people may say impossible.

We know, Mr. Chairman, it is not impossible. There are about 2,500 what we call booby-trap crossings in this country. A boobytrap crossing occurs when there is a time and speed equation on that set of tracks which means if you stop, look and listen, on the best day God ever created, and you proceed across that track, and there is a train at a given point at its speed, it will hit you. You will not see it, you won't hear it when you start. We have accidents like that.

We have asked for that to be looked at. Those should be the kinds of places you look at right away. We could be talking about larger vehicles, school buses, so forth. These crossings should be identified and protected.

When we say protected, Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that the design of these road crossings were based on horse-and-buggy premises. We might in today's market have to look at closing some of those crossings. It's a question of using a little bit of imagination and analysis, and putting it all together to make it work.

We are not at all persuaded that that has been done to date, sir. Senator PRESSLER. I thank you very much. I might commend you on your work. We are all depending heavily on you in a very serious fashion because the work that your Board does is of importance to all Americans. Thank you very much.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE ANSWERS THERETO

Question 1. You have stated your concern over the increase in rail accidents. Would you please provide the Committee with a breakdown, for the record, of the accidents which you investigated over the last five years and the attendant recommendations?

Answer. Below is a statistical chart showing the number of major and field railroad investigations conducted by the Safety Board. Also listed is a statistical breakdown of railroad recommendations from 1976-1979, which shows the number of recommendations made which evolved from a railroad accident investigation. The Committee staff was previously furnished with a printout of all railroad recommendations made by the Safety Board.

STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF RAILROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE YEARS 1976 TO 1980

Question 2. The General Accounting Office wrote a report which criticized the Federal Railroad Administration's response to NTSB recommendations. In your testimony, you state that FRA's response has improved in the last two years. To what do you attribute this improvement? When you say "response," do you mean just that? Or, are your referring to specific actions actually taken in response to the Board's recommendations?

Answer. Over the years the Safety Board has made a number of Safety Recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In 1978 and 1979 the Board adopted 50 safety recommendations which were forwarded to FRA. Thirtyfour percent of the recommendations were accepted by the FRA. In terms of "response" time defined as correspondence acknowledging the Board's recommendations there has been definite improvement. In terms of specific action response defined as plan to achieve a particular safety recommendation the response by FRA has been mixed. While the acceptance rate by FRA over the last two years was 34 percent, the Safety Board feels that a number of vital areas are not being addressed in a timely manner. A number of sensitive safety concerns which the Safety Board believes safety impacts can be made and in which accelerated FRA action has not been forthcoming include:

Installation of shelf couplers on all DOT 105 tank cars by December 25, 1980, which transport chlorine gas and Class A and B poisons.

Improved locomotive cab crashworthiness to reduce the tragic loss of life of railroad employees.

Improved railroad employee training and adequate Federal review to insure uniform application of rules and regulations by railroad properties.

Issuance of Federal regulations with adequate civil and criminal penalties to assist in the elimination of the use of alcohol and drugs when persons are operating train movements.

Improved track safety and inspection program with meaningful goals and objectives defined coupled with an effective evaluation criteria.

Question 3. Several legislative proposals have been suggested to insure effective enforcement. The FRA has proposed an expansion of its emergency order authority to include unsafe practices and operations. Rail labor has proposed legislation which would provide for a private right action to force FRA to act where it has not. How do you respond to these proposals? Are there other such proposals which you might recommend?

Answer. The Safety Board has no formal position on either proposal. However, we would offer the following general comments. First, if the FRA plans to expand its emergency order authority it appears to be critical that FRA have an overall safety program with defined goals and objectives. Within this safety program a definition of "unsafe practices and operations" must be made. Application of "emergency orders" must be accomplished in a uniform manner and understood by all parties concerned.

The rail labor proposal for a private right action may further improve safety if it can be assured that private right action will not be abused and such action is taken only when safety conditions are clearly adverse to the safety of the public. The use of private right action for overtime claim disputes or minor infringements could diminish the FRA's capacity to execute priority safety programs.

The Safety Board believes that the development and implementation of a system safety plan which sets out FRA's goals and objectives with criteria by which success of the safety programs will be measured would assist the Subcommittee in future authorizations for rail safety activities.

Question 4. The Board has indicated its concern over delay in the installation of shelf couplers in all 105 tank cars, which carry chlorine gas. What is the basis for your recommendations? Are you aware that FRA, AAR, and shipper groups are studying this issue?

Answer. The Safety Board submits that further study of shelf couplers for DOT 105 tank cars is unnecessary. FRA, AAR and shipper groups have studied shelf couplers for at least 8 years and the benefits of these couplers is established. The Safety Board recommends immediate action to install top and bottom shelf couplers on all DOT 105 tank cars.

Question 5. Apart from the routing of hazardous materials and the retrofitting of tank cars, are there other recommendations which you would make in the area of hazardous materials? As you are aware, this area is of utmost concern to the committee.

Answer. The Safety Board also has had an interest in the placement of tank cars within a train. It has been suggested that in most major train derailments that hazardous materials tank cars located toward the rear of a train better withstood derailment dynamic forces, whereas, hazardous materials tank cars in the front or middle of the train tended to be involved in the dynamics of a derailment and thus lost product or were destroyed.

The examination of specialty products and Class A poisons which are shipped in DOT Specification 111 tank cars should be reviewed and a determination made by DOT if the toxicity hazard may require an upgraded tank car with increased safety protection.

To our knowledge tank cars are not taken to the FRA Test Center at Pueblo, Colorado and tested for crashworthiness. Given the recent history of tank car releases of extremely poisonous and volatile hazardous materials the Safety Board believes that this test facility should be used to test new hazardous materials tank car designs to resist breaching in the derailment environment.

Question 6. NTSB has just concluded a study which found that the state rail safety programs were ineffective. Would you please recap your recommendations, pointing out any legislative changes which could be made? In this regard do you respond to the proposal made to grant states enforcement authority to issue orders and fines? To what extent would such authority improve the state programs? Answer. The Safety Board has made two recommendations to the FRA on the state rail safety program; neither recommendation concluded that the state rail safety programs were ineffective. As a result of states' testimony at the national hearing in 1978 the Board first recommended that FRA "Evaluate and revise the State Participation Program to allow greater State flexibility; base evaluation of the program on the States' ability to adequately monitor railroad and hazardous materials safety."

The second recommendation was made as a result of an evaluation report of FRA's hazardous materials and track safety program. This report indicated that the (State) program appears to be a potentially cost-effective activity if properly developed and implemented. The recommendation stated: "Determine through an independent study why some states have been unable or unwilling to join in the existing State Participation Program and implement a productive program as contemplated by the FRSA of 1970 in which States are true partners."

Senator PRESSLER. I will now call on Mr. William Dempsey, president, Association of American Railroads. He will be accompanied by Dr. William Harris, vice president, research and test department, Mr. A. W. Johnston, vice president of maintenance and operations department. I would like to ask you to summarize your testimony, your main statement, down to about five minutes. Then we will have some questions.

WILLIAM DEMPSEY, PRESIDENT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY A. W. JOHNSTON, VICE PRESIDENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT; AND MR. TAYLOR

Mr. DEMPSEY. Thank you. Dr. Harris was unable to be with us this morning. Instead Mr. Taylor is with me along with Mr. Johnston, as you note.

I am glad to be able to be here to present the views of the industry on this very important matter of railroad assistance.

Senator PRESSLER. We will put your whole statement in the record. If you could summarize.