NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

UNION PACIFIC PUBLIC HEARING

Springfield Hilton
6550 Louisdale Road
Springfield, Virginia
Thursday, March 19, 1998
9:00 a.m.

NTSB Board of Inquiry Members

Technical Panel Members

United Transportation Union Representatives

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Representatives

Union Pacific Railroad Representatives

Federal Railroad Commission Representatives

A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM

Adjournment

P R O C E E D I N G S
---------------------------

9:00 a.m.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Good morning, everybody.

We will go back on the record for Day 2 of a special hearing into the 15 accidents involving the Union Pacific Railroad.

Mr. Dunn, will you please call the first witness?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: The National Transportation Safety Board calls Mr. Robert Castiglione. Mr. Castiglione, would you raise your right hand?

Whereupon,

having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows:

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CASTIGLIONE
MOTIVE POWER AND EQUIPMENT INSPECTOR
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Castiglione, what's your present position with the Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: It's Castiglione.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I apologize.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm a Motive Power and Equipment Inspector.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And how long have you held that position?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I have been with the agency for 12 years. During that time, I've also worked as a motive power and equipment specialist.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And at what locations have you worked?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Chicago, Hearst and Houston.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Hearst is in Texas?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Oklahoma City as well.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And Hearst is in Texas?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And you're presently in Houston?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm located in the Houston area. That's correct.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. How long have you been in Houston?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Five years.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And what other positions have you held in the railroad industry?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Prior to FRA, I worked with the Texas Railroad Commission. I also -- prior to that, I worked with the Southern Pacific as -- in the corps department.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: How long were you with Southern Pacific?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Five years.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what locations did you work?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: San Antonio and -- San Antonio, Texas, and Eagle Pass, Texas.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. We'll begin the questioning with the Technical Panel. Mr. Patrick Sullivan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Mr. Castiglione.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Howdy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you describe your general duties and responsibilities as a motive power and equipment inspector and list your responsibilities in order of priority?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Certainly. I enforce the policies and objectives of the agency. I do this through accident investigation, complaint investigation, special investigation, waivers, SACP, site inspections, training for FRA and railroad employees. That's formal and informal training. I also do steam locomotive inspections.

MR. SULLIVAN: What percent of your total activities is spent on regular inspections or site inspections, as you call them?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I complete a two-week plan and submit that plan in advance, one week in advance of my scheduled activities. It's what's called an alternate work schedule.

On the back side of that form, I will indicate the type of work that I will be engaged in for that two-week period.

I would say that when I'm not doing accident or complaint or any other special assignment, I'm doing site inspections. I can't give you a percentage, but if that answers your question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Can you tell us what drives the amount of time you spend on site inspections?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: There is a model or plan that the regional administrators use. I believe it's called an annual asset allocation model. I'm not really familiar with how it works. I have a territory, and I'm expected to cover that territory in the most time-efficient manner.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Were you involved in the SACP on the Union Pacific Railroad?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, I was.

MR. SULLIVAN: And what was your involvement?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I worked under the direction of the team leader in both instances that happened in a two-week period concurrently, one at North Little Rock, Arkansas, and one at Fort Worth, and in both instances, it was locomotive inspection.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you inspect any freight cars?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I did not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Does the SACP process replace your site inspections?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, not really. I -- my involvement with SACP has been somewhat limited. The two weeks that I just mentioned to you. I also had another week stint that I did in '96 on the KCS, and other than the blitzes that we did in September and in November, if you want to include that in SACP, well, that would make it about a total of five weeks.

But my involvement really has been limited in SACP. So, no, it hasn't.

MR. SULLIVAN: What was that initial SACP you were talking about, where you were in -- was it Little Rock?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: What time period was that around?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That actually was just recently, the last part of January.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I want to say maybe the third week.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. What does your inspection territory encompass?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I have essentially half of Houston on a line south of Houston to Freeport, down along the coast to Seadrift, coming up north to College Station, Bryan College Station, and back towards Houston.

I also, as I said earlier, I do steam locomotive inspections, which takes me to Arkansas, Fort Worth, Austin, New Orleans, and I believe that's it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. How many railroads do you inspect?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Right now, I have two Class 1s. I believe a half a dozen smaller lines, regionals and -- and smaller roads.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the Union Pacific one of those Class 1s?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Do you know how many total inspections you made, you performed during 1996 and 1997?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I made a total of 71 in '96 and a 121 in '97.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know how many inspections you made on the Union Pacific for that same time period?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: 51 was on the -- what is now the Union Pacific in '96 and 81 in '97.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I notice that your inspections have been going up. When you do these SACPs, are you also writing inspection reports for those?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, in '96, I worked approximately six months as a -- as the acting motive power and equipment specialist, which, by my -- which is the reason why my reports were somewhat lower, but when we do team inspections or SACP inspections, we work -- typically work in teams, and it is possible that -- that the inspector that I'm working with may fill out the report or I'll fill out the report. So, we'll have our total defects or exceptions on one report, and then there are instances when we both make out reports.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know how many violations you wrote during 1996 and 1997?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I wrote two in 1996 and five in 1997.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know how many of those were on the UP?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: One in '96, and all five were on the UP in '97.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you recall what those violations were for?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I think with one exception, they were all locomotive-related. The other was, I believe, something on the freight car standards.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know what your defect ratio was on the Union Pacific for '96 and '97?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: If I can break it out for you, locomotives for '96 was 43 percent, '97 for locomotives was 48; for freight car, and I'm talking about freight car standards, which is typically stuff associated with the running gear, it was 2.5 in '96, stayed the same in '97. Safety appliances in '96, it was three percent, and in '97, it was 3.5.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So, it seems like your defect ratio has gone up slightly in '97.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: A little bit. Yes, sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. PAYAN: Good morning, Mr. Castiglione.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Howdy.

MR. PAYAN: As you know, the Safety Board is investigating 15 accidents which occurred on the Union Pacific between October '96 and October '97.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Right.

MR. PAYAN: Five of these accidents occurred in Texas. During your regular or site inspections or any work you did out there, did you notice any change in the level of safety in -- on the Union Pacific during this time frame?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, I can't say that I did.

MR. PAYAN: Did you observe an increase in the accidents during this time period?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, obviously I did. We had a series of unfortunate accidents that actually hit pretty close to home, but I think if you look at a little bit wider time band, the data will indicate that accidents were actually going down for that same time period overall.

MR. PAYAN: Were -- were you -- as far as FRA, were you provided any information on the other accidents outside of your regions?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I saw the summaries, and that was -- that was the extent of it. I didn't really get too involved with -- with the accidents outside of the region.

MR. PAYAN: Did you participate in any -- either one of the two safety assurance assessments on the UP?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, I participated in both.

MR. PAYAN: What role did you play in those?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Again, I was an inspector in the first -- the first assessment we did was I inspected locomotives in Fort Worth at Centennial Yard. The more recent one was at Englewood. I inspected cars, observed brake tests, things of that nature.

MR. PAYAN: And what were your findings?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: We had non-compliance with locomotives at Fort Worth in the August blitz, somewhere in the order of, I want to say, around 70 percent ball park. I know we've submitted several violations in the November blitz that we did. Again, I just did cars. I want to say it was around -- it was less than five percent, maybe -- maybe around six- percent defect ratio for cars. No violations, and we did not take exception to any brake tests.

MR. PAYAN: Okay. Did you make your supervisor aware of any findings or did you communicate any concern about --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Certainly.

MR. PAYAN: -- the safety conditions?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Certainly. That report was forwarded to the team leader, and actually it went through the supervisor and then to the team leader, who was Mr. Ralph Forney in the Portland Region.

MR. PAYAN: Were all the motive power and equipment inspectors involved in the safety assurance and assessment?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: In Region 5?

MR. PAYAN: Yes.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I think -- I -- I do believe that all state and federal motive power inspectors participated in -- in those audits.

MR. PAYAN: Were you provided any specific guidance between October '96 and October '97 that modified the inspection activity on the UP?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes. Right after the Devine accident, the regional administrator provided an e-mail, and I think I remember a verbal directive to increase our presence and inspections on the UP.

MR. PAYAN: Did the SACP process provide any guidance that changed your inspection activity?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: As I said, I wasn't that involved with the SACP process. I am somewhat familiar with how it works, but since I didn't get really involved with the process, I have to say no.

MR. PAYAN: So, were you aware of the topics that were being discussed?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Oh, absolutely. Sure. In that regard, yes. Yes, I was aware of the things that were problematic in nature specifically with locomotives.

MR. PAYAN: That's all I have.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Good morning. I'm interested in -- in the SACP process a little bit more. You were on -- on a team in January, is that correct?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And how do you get picked to be on -- on the team or --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's at the discretion of the motive power and equipment specialist.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: So, he places you on a team?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's correct.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And -- and this one that you went to Little Rock in January, --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: -- who was on that team with you?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: My partner, an inspector by the name of Erwin Blair.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And was there -- was there union people and UP people or -- on that team, also?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: For the most part, it was

-- I know -- I believe the union folks were cut in prior to our arriving on the property, but when we actually arrived on the property, it was -- it was us and management, FRA, that is, and management.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And you -- you inspected the cars?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I inspected locomotives, and again what my role in that -- in that effort was strictly site inspection. Whatever went on before I arrived and after I left, I wasn't a part of. So, I really can't speak of it, but my role in those efforts were strictly just making -- making site inspections, and that was it.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Now, you were personally making the inspections or were you observing employees making the inspections?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, in the sense we were doing both. We weren't actually standing over employees making inspections, but we tried to concentrate our inspections at times on equipment that were being serviced and offered for service off the service ramp at North Little Rock, which gives us an indication of the quality of work performed by the employees.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: What took place -- let's say it this way. Did you find violations during this process?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I took one violation personally, and I know there were additional violations submitted in connection with that -- with that effort.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And what -- what's done with that? I know what you do if you were by yourself as an FRA inspector. What happens in -- in the SACP if you find a violation?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: They're transmitted through the normal procedure/protocol through the regional -- to the regional office, and it's my understanding that the regional motive power and equipment specialist will prepare a cover letter for the deputy regional administrator's signature designated as top priority because it is in connection with the SACP effort.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Thank you. Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, we have no questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: The Union Pacific?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. WALPERT: Yes, we have a couple of questions.

Mr. Castiglione, would you explain to me what you mean by violations? You said you found five violations in 1997 on Union Pacific. What were those violations again?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I believe they were locomotive violations. I know I had one freight car standard-type violation in that bunch. I don't recall exactly where or what the circumstances were.

MR. WALPERT: Once you note a violation, then what is the course of action? What happens with that violation?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I submit the -- I gather the evidence, submit it on a -- on a form, and it's processed to the regional office to determine if it's technically correct, and from there, it goes to Washington, to the Office of Chief Counsel, for collection.

MR. WALPERT: And what happens in Washington once it's collected there?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I really can't speak of that. That's sort of out of my bailiwick.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. You spoke of the blitz in Fort Worth where you found several locomotives that were in, the term you used, "non-compliance". What do you mean by non-compliance?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: They were locomotives that did not meet all the requirements of 229. Bear in mind that some of those defects could be what I would characterize as minor in nature. For instance, stenciling. Regulations require the letter F to be stenciled on a locomotive which to my knowledge I've never heard of anybody getting hurt with stenciling being missing, but those -- we're compelled to report anything we see.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. And then once those reports were made, what happened to those reports?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: They were transmitted in routine fashion, gathered and assembled. A cover sheet is prepared and forwarded to the regional office.

MR. WALPERT: Is there any oversight to see that these locomotives then become in compliance?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: For locomotives that are -- that are found or submitted -- a violation is -- is filed, regulation requires the carrier to provide us notification within 30 days.

MR. WALPERT: You also said that you observed employees inspecting engines. What -- what craft of employees did you observe inspecting engines?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: In the Little Rock effort, it was typically mechanical folks, machinists, electricians.

MR. WALPERT: And you also said that you observed the quality of their inspections. What was your evaluation of the quality of the inspection of the employees?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, it's my understanding that they -- that they're doing a better job. Some inspections had been made by the -- by the local inspector prior to our actual team effort in January, and in talking with -- with the local inspector, it's my understanding that they had made some pretty good improvements.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for now.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: United Transportation Union?

MR. LARRY DAVIS: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: To the head table. Ms. Beal? Oh, FRA.

MR. GAVALLA: No questions at this time.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Thank you.

MS. BEAL: Good morning.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Hi.

MS. BEAL: I'm sorry. You may have said and I missed. How many railroads are there in your region that you have responsibility for?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Two Class 1s and about a half dozen smaller roads.

MS. BEAL: And how many inspectors are there in your region?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Total? I think there's somewhere on the order of 60. Somewhere around there.

MS. BEAL: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm not including state. It may be state, but I'm not sure. I'm not really -- I don't keep track of that, to be honest with you.

MS. BEAL: Well, we'll ask later. So, then what would be the frequency of your visits to, for example, a carrier as large as UP?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Several times a year, as evidenced by the number of inspections total versus the number of inspections on the UP in '97.

MS. BEAL: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Large percentage.

MS. BEAL: And you said that you don't -- I think when you were talking about the defect ratio, that you didn't know how that -- theirs compared to, say, carriers in other regions, is that correct?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm not sure I understand the question.

MS. BEAL: You said you don't get data from other regions, so that you really don't know how the defect ratio that you found in your region compares to other regions?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I don't recall saying that, but --

MS. BEAL: Is that true or --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I do see -- at the end of the year, there is information that's provided by the statistical staff that we have in Washington. So, I have an idea of what's going on elsewhere.

The locomotives -- for instance, my locomotive defect ratio is pretty consistent with -- with what's going on in the rest of the country, and I would say the same for cars.

MS. BEAL: Well, that's what I'm getting at.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yeah.

MS. BEAL: So, you would --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I have an idea.

MS. BEAL: Okay. You would make that comparison. You say annually you get those statistics. That would be your indicator?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Probably more than that. I talk to -- I have friends throughout the country that we correspond e-mail. We exchange ideas frequently. So, it's -- we have an idea what's going on on a regular basis.

MS. BEAL: But that would be something you would be motivated to do; it's not done at headquarters and provided --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, they provide -- headquarters provides the information to the regional office, the regional office provides it to us. We get hit with all sorts of numbers on a regular basis.

MS. BEAL: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Ellingstad?

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Thank you. Following up on this inspection workload a little bit, you indicated that in '97, you did a 121 inspections, and I think when Mr. Sullivan had -- had tried to inquire as to what your weekly workload is, you had a problem with estimating a percentage of time.

But with a typical inspection, how -- how much time are you spending?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: On a daily -- for instance, --

MR. ELLINGSTAD: On a particular.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, when I'm doing a site inspection, it's -- it's an all-day affair. Eight hours on the property and perhaps another hour or two preparing the reports.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Thank you. And you had -- you indicated you did a 121 of these in 1997?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Following up on -- on a couple questions that Mr. Walpert had asked having to do with observation of railroad employees performing inspections, could you elaborate a little bit in terms of -- of what -- how regular of an activity this is?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: It's more frequent than not. Typically in a train yard, when I'm inspecting a train, it could be right on the heels of -- of the car department making their inspection. I -- generally I attempt to look at equipment that's previously inspected. I do make in-bound inspections when I want to gauge the level of compliance of outside points. So, I'm typically looking at something that somebody's looked at somewhere.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: What kind of reporting is there with respect to your observations of these railroad employees' performance doing that inspection?

Is that recorded somewhere? Do you keep a database of -- of these observations?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I do not.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Is there any specific feedback that is made to the railroad?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Absolutely. If I -- if I observe people, what I term as, doing a good job, I tell the individuals themselves as well as their supervisor.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. So, this isn't just an exception reporting of --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Absolutely not.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: -- problems?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: With respect to the overall inspection activity that you do, what kind of record-keeping/data-reporting responsibilities do you have?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, we have an electronic reporting where I can keep inspection activity and databases on my personal laptop. So, I can generate defect ratios, frequency of inspections, things of that nature on my own laptop. So, I can -- that's readily available to me at any time.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: That database concerns your inspections?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's correct.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Are these transferred on and uploaded to --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Uploaded --

MR. ELLINGSTAD: -- a central system?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Uploaded weekly to a -- to a contractor in Washington, who can make that information available to -- to anyone upon request, and there are plans to post a bulletin board in the very near future where anybody can call in and access that -- that information.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Is the access to that information of a voluntary one on the part of the inspector or are there regular feedback mechanisms from -- from the contractor or from FRA headquarters?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, yes. As I said earlier, they -- headquarters and the regional office provides us with numbers on a regular basis that we can -- accident incident data, inspection efforts, things of that nature.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: How long is your typical work week?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Lately, it's been rather long. You looking for hours?

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Yes, I'm looking for hours.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: 50-55.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Thank you. No further questions.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: Thank you. I just have a couple follow-up questions to some of the questions that Mr. Ellingstad raised.

I'd like to understand a little bit better the on-site inspection procedure.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Okay.

MR. LAUBY: And I think you've answered part of this, but I need a little bit of clarification in my own mind.

How -- how do you decide when and where to do an on-site inspection?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: If I'm not assigned a complaint or a special investigation, if I'm not inspecting steam locomotives or preparing to present -- do a class or any type of formal training, that's when I do a site inspection. If -- again, I'm given a territory to cover, and I cover it in the most efficient manner that I can.

MR. LAUBY: So, it's basically your decision where to go next and what railroad to look at or --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Not really. As I said, I submit a weekly plan of -- or it's a two-week plan of what I'm going to do in that -- and that report is submitted a week in advance of the work to the regional office. If my supervisor thinks that that report needs to be tweaked, he'll contact me, e-mail, verbally, page me, whatever, and I'll be assigned elsewhere.

MR. LAUBY: Does the -- does your supervisor -- does he often change your -- your inspection plan?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I wouldn't characterize it as often, but it does happen.

MR. LAUBY: Well, typically, how -- how many times a year is your plan going to be changed?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, the last couple of years, it's -- I guess I should say it's happened on a relatively regular basis, maybe once monthly or twice monthly, something along --

MR. LAUBY: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: -- those lines.

MR. LAUBY: These are one-week -- these are one-week plans?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: They're two-week plans.

MR. LAUBY: Two-week plans?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Hm-hmm.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. So, that would be about 50 percent of the time?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Somewhere around there, I suppose.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. Do you discuss with your supervisor the need to go to one area or another --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Certainly.

MR. LAUBY: -- as part of this decision-making?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, I do.

MR. LAUBY: Once you're out and doing your site inspection, how do you report back to your supervisor on -- on your activities?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, if it's unusual in nature, I will prepare either a formal memorandum. I'll jot an e-mail to him, identifying my concerns. Otherwise, it will be on a typical inspection report, reporting what my observation and defects.

MR. LAUBY: So, if you were to stumble across a safety problem that you felt required additional attention, your method would be to go directly to your supervisor with the memo, is that correct?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Something that I felt was systemic in nature, yes, sir.

MR. LAUBY: Day-to-day, how -- how is the relative safety measured based on your inspections?

Is it violations or is it -- how -- how -- how do you keep your finger on the pulse of safety on a particular property?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I -- there are several -- under -- under the Appendix 209 -- 49 CFR, Part 209, Appendix A, there's some guidelines that -- that we're required to use in our discretion, but generally since I'm intimate with -- with my inspection points, I have an idea of -- on a regular basis of what's going on at any given point. So, I have firsthand knowledge of where -- where the problems are, if there are problems, and what needs more attention.

MR. LAUBY: When you do report a problem to your supervisor, what kind of response do you get?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: If it -- if it requires a team effort, he'll ask me to prepare a -- a plan of attack.

MR. LAUBY: Are you satisfied with -- with how these -- these problems are taken care of as far as are they fully addressed?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Sure. Yes, they are.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. Mr. Castiglione, going back to Mr. Sullivan's questioning, I don't think I was clear on the percentage of -- of your activities that are spent on site inspections, and I understand the two-week schedule, but I'm looking more for what -- what you believe a ball park figure would be of your activities spent on site inspections.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: If -- if the information is requested, I believe our -- my work schedule could be analyzed and that figure could be narrowed down to exactly what it is. I -- I can't tell you off the top of my head.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I understand you don't have it here with you, but what would you say -- and I understand it's not a hard figure, but what do you think your -- the percentage of your activities is spent on site inspection?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Somewhere around perhaps 40 percent, maybe 45, something like that.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Thank you. In the period of time that encompasses these 15 accidents, October '96 to October '97, did you notice an erosion of safety on the Union Pacific property?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I did not.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And I believe you indicated that you participated in the safety assurance assessments that were conducted by the FRA on Union Pacific in the Summer of '97 and in the Fall of '97, I believe began in November?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, I did.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And then again in response to Mr. Lauby, you said that you have a method for keeping your finger on the pulse of safety, that you are intimate with the properties you inspect. You know what's going on, and you know where the problems are, is that correct?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I feel that's an accurate statement.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And you do inspect the Union Pacific in Texas?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir, I do.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. In this period of time, October '96 to October '97, do you believe there was a fundamental breakdown in some of the basic railroad operating procedures and practices on the Union Pacific Railroad?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: In hindsight, I would agree with that statement.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. You believe that now, but -- but you didn't see an erosion of safety at the time?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: In hindsight, I believe that's an accurate statement. That's correct.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. In this period of time again, October to October, '96 to '97, do you believe UP had a uniform safety culture?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: At my level, I believe that it was uniform. Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Once again in this same time frame, do you believe the safety policies of the Union Pacific were effectively implemented in the field by first-line supervisors?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Couple questions on guidance you received in this time from your supervisors. I'm going back to the period of October '96 to October '97.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Hm-hmm.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Could you expand on that a little bit?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Other than what I said earlier, Mr. Dunn, it was a statement to spend -- to increase your inspections and presence on Union Pacific properties.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And did you do that?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Did you investigate the Navasota accident?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I did not.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Are you familiar with air tests on the Union Pacific property in Texas?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: In general. I'm more familiar with the sites that I inspect. I have a general knowledge of some of the other points.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Did -- during your inspections in this 12-or-13-month period, was there any occasion where you took exception to air tests on the Union Pacific, initial terminal air brake tests?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I believe I took issue with one initial terminal brake test, and that was at Settigus Yard in Houston.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Was there a violation or a memorandum prepared as a result of that?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I noted a deficiency, and I believe I indicated that I handled it for correction with the individual and his supervisor.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Do you recall what that deficiency was in that initial terminal air brake test?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: As I recall, the -- it was the -- it was a piston travel that was in excess of the required limits. One car.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Were you present for yesterday's proceedings?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Part of it.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Do you -- were you present when we talked about the three-minute or 10-minute air test --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I was not.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. That's all the questions I have at this time.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. Technical Panel, any follow-up?

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Yes, sir. I'm going to try a few more.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Okay.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: When you do these inspections, either in the -- in the SACPs or when you do alone, how are the hours? Do they vary or is it mostly all daylight?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir. It -- the -- both the -- both blitzes that I was involved with and SACP were 24-hour efforts, two-man, sometimes three-man, teams, 24-hours around the clock.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And your hours would vary, too, then?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I was assigned to a night shift work, I think, at Little Rock, and in Fort Worth as well.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: How about when you're not on the SACPs, and you yourself are -- you know, you go out on your own inspections?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir. I change my hours frequently.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I also work weekends.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Very good. Besides UP, what's the other Class 1 railroad that you -- you have -- you're in charge of or --

MR. CASTIGLIONE: BN Santa Fe.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: BN Santa Fe?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Hm-hmm.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Is there a comparison -- can you compare their equipment problems?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, I cannot.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Do the two -- does one have higher than the other?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I don't know. I would say they're about the same. I think the inspection data will -- will show that locomotives and as well as cars, I would say that the compliance and defect ratios are rather -- probably pretty close.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Speculating.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Did you also do inspections before the merger on the SP and the UP?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Sure.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Was there a comparison there that -- that you could give me?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, sir, there's not. I would say I didn't see any trends one way or the other. Southern Pacific, UP, Missouri Pacific, Okadee Railroad, they're all about the same.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Were you able to inspect the SP maybe a year before the merger?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I inspected the SP at one site in the Houston area. Englewood Yard is not my inspection point. So, I didn't typically go to Englewood Yard, and it still isn't my inspection point.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. What I was getting at was the relationship and the power or the locomotives between those two railroads. Did one appear to be better than the other?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I think some would characterize the UP's power to be better than the SP simply because the UP had a paint program or they were painting locomotives where SP wasn't. I would say they were relatively the same, even though they didn't appear to look in the same condition.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: As far as running, operating?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Thanks. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Thank you. Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: No, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Union Pacific?

MR. LARRY DAVIS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. WALPERT: Yes, I have a couple more questions. Prior to an on-site inspection, do you notify the carrier that you are going to do an inspection?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Almost never.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. And when you are performing an inspection, are you accompanied by either someone from the carrier or from labor?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Both almost always.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. We have heard reports that there will be up to 300 additional locomotives in the fleet in Texas. Are there any plans to -- or let me ask it this way. What are your plans to inspect those additional locomotives?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I would imagine I would include those in my normal inspection efforts. Whatever the region or headquarters has planned, I'm sure they'll let me know at the appropriate time.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: UTU? Anybody at the head table? FRA? Yeah, FRA. I wrote a note, and I didn't follow my own note.

MR. GAVALLA: Mr. Castiglione, do you perform your inspections primarily or solely within your inspection territory?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: For the most part.

MR. GAVALLA: So, would you be familiar with the conditions of the UP locomotive fleet throughout Texas, outside of your inspection territory?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, not really.

MR. GAVALLA: Are you aware of whether any of the accidents that occurred within your inspection territory were related to mechanical failure?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Not specifically. I've -- I have information that one within my territory was attributed to a mechanically-related cause, but there's still critical evidence that we haven't received to be able to adequately determine if in fact that was the cause.

MR. GAVALLA: So, you testified initially as to the priorities of your duties, and you started with accident investigations. During an accident investigation, would you fill out inspection reports?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Sometimes I would. I -- I would inspect equipment. Post-accident inspection is -- is typical. If I -- if I feel that an inspection is warranted, I'll make out -- inspect the equipment and

-- and make out an inspection report. Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: And would you find defects and tape violations?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I could, depending on the circumstances.

MR. GAVALLA: And if you did so, would you submit that into the database that you referred to?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir. It all feeds into the same place.

MR. GAVALLA: You also mentioned complaint investigations. Would you also fill out inspection reports in regard to complaint investigations?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Almost always.

MR. GAVALLA: Likewise, would that information include defects and violations?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, it would.

MR. GAVALLA: And would that feed into the national database?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: You also mentioned that you do special investigations. For example, waivers and other activities. Also, would you fill out an inspection report for that?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Would you take violations and defects?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Typically wouldn't take violations. Might take defects, but, yes, it would all feed into the same location.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. So, your immediate supervisor, would that be the motive power and equipment specialist?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Is there one in each FRA region?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: To my knowledge, yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Do you know if they meet periodically, all the specialists get together for a specialist meeting several times a year?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I think they meet quarterly, and they also have conference calls every first Monday of the year -- of the month.

MR. GAVALLA: Are you aware if they are provided with databases, inspection data, defect data, accident data relative to the railroads under their jurisdiction?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm sure they are. When I was a specialist, that information was part of the -- part of the agenda, and I also would add that the minutes of -- of the conference call is -- is forwarded to each inspector at least in Region 5.

MR. GAVALLA: No further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Ms. Beal?

MS. BEAL: Prior to this time and in hindsight, you missed some of the indicators that UP may be having some problems prior to these accidents.

What would you look for differently now having had this experience as indicators?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I think I need to be more involved with -- with direct conversation and communication with railroad employees, both in training engine service and in mechanical, exchange more information, be -- make myself more available.

I have already made that attempt to make myself more available in the past. On my business cards, I have my personal pager number and my e-mail address where they can contact me directly on a daily basis 24 hours a day, and I intend to expound on that or enhance that.

MS. BEAL: So, you've actually implemented those changes?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes. Yes, ma'am.

MS. BEAL: Do you know if that information in your experience has been shared with the people of your level in the other regions that are overseeing carriers that are undergoing mergers and a lot of rapid growth?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I couldn't speak to that.

MS. BEAL: Thank you.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Ellingstad?

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Just one follow-up. It was pointed out that one of your duties -- and I guess we didn't identify your involvement with accident investigations so much. How many accidents -- accident investigations did you do in 1997, and how much of your time did you spend doing them?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I did one accident, and it consumed -- happened at West Junction, October 25th, 1997, and it essentially consumed most of my time for the remainder of the year till I went on annual leave.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yes, just a couple follow-up. Mr. Castiglione, have you read the safety assurance assessment put out by the FRA in February?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Yes, sir, I have.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Have your duties and responsibilities changed at any time since October of '96?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Other than -- other than trying to make my presence more available on the UP, I guess, yes, they have.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: But that is in -- you indicated that having not seen the indicators, you believe that it might be a good idea to make yourself more available. As I understood it, that was a personal choice, is that correct?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: It's -- yes, sir, I believe that's fair to say.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Has there been any change in your duties and responsibilities from the agency? I'm talking officially now.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Well, I know there are official policy or we have -- one of the tools that we try to encourage compliance is SACP. Again, I say my involvement with SACP has been somewhat limited.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. But have your duties and responsibilities changed officially at any time since October '96?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: No, I can't say that they've changed officially.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: I'm doing more than I have in the past when I first hired out. Again, I do steam inspections which takes up some of my time. I'm devoted to that a great deal.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And you do that outside the state of Texas? I think you talked about going to Arkansas and Louisiana.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: That's correct.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And I have to apologize. Somebody has told me up here that I neglected to ask you to spell your name for the record, and I apologize for that. If you'll do that?

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Certainly.

C-A-S-T-I-G-L-I-O-N-E.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. That's all the questions I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Castiglione, you are released. Thank you very much.

MR. CASTIGLIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn, would you call the next witness, please?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: The National Transportation Safety Board calls David H. Green and Cindy Gross.

Mr. Green, would you raise your right hand, please?

Whereupon,

DAVID H. GREEN

having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows:

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. Ms. Gross, would you raise your right hand, please?

Whereupon,

CINDY GROSS

having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows:

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID H. GREEN
OPERATING PRACTICES SPECIALIST
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, AND
TESTIMONY OF CINDY GROSS
OPERATING PRACTICES SPECIALIST
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Green, would you state your full name for the record, and please spell your last name?

MR. GREEN: My name is David H. Green, and my last name is spelled G-R-E-E-N.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what is your present position with the Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. GREEN: I'm a Railroad Operating Practices Specialist for FRA's Region 5. I'm headquartered in Hearst, Texas.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And how long have you held that position?

MR. GREEN: About six years.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And could you briefly tell us what other positions you have held in the railroad industry?

MR. GREEN: I started in the industry with Southern Pacific Railroad as a switchman, and I've worked as a switchman, brake man, conductor, locomotive engineer. I've been an operating officer, railroad rules examiner, train master, and terminal superintendent, all with Southern Pacific.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: What general location did you work in the -- with the Southern Pacific?

MR. GREEN: I worked in Tucson, Phoenix, Houston, Luffkin, Texas, and San Antonio, Texas.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what were your -- what positions did you hold in Houston?

MR. GREEN: In Houston, I was a division train master, and later a rules examiner.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Ms. Green, what is your present position with the Federal Railroad Administration?

MS. GROSS: I like being with him, but it's Gross.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Oh, I apologize, Ms. Gross.

MS. GROSS: We're close, but we're not that close. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question you just asked me?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: What is your present position with the Federal Railroad Administration?

MS. GROSS: I'm the Operating Practices Inspector at Omaha, Nebraska.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And how long have you held that position?

MS. GROSS: I've been with the FRA since approximately the last of June of this past year or July of this past year.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what other positions have you held in the railroad industry?

MS. GROSS: In the railroad industry?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yes, ma'am.

MS. GROSS: Prior to coming to the FRA, I spent 19 years on the Southern Pacific Railroad, and I spent three years in light rail and mass transit.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Could you tell us what you did with the Southern Pacific?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir. I began my career as a crew caller and a train order operator, yard office-type extra work clerk, went to traffic department and worked as a recompilation clerk for a period of time, went back to the mechanical department and the yard, worked as a chief mechanical clerk at the locomotive shop and the car shop.

In 1984, I was promoted yard office supervisor in Los Angeles, California, and became an assistant train master on the Coast District for the Los Angeles Division, then became the regional agent for the Southern Pacific in Los Angeles, went back to the Midwest as a train master, then as a safety officer for the Midwest Region, and then a safety officer for the Eastern Region when I resigned in 1994.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And I believe I have not asked you to state your full name and spell your last name. Could you do that, please, for the record?

MS. GROSS: Surely. My name is Cynthia Sue Gross, G-R-O-S-S.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. We will start the questioning with the Technical Panel, Mr. Patrick Sullivan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning. Mr. Green, we just heard what the duties and responsibilities are of an inspector. I was wondering if you could tell us what the duties and responsibilities are of an operating practices specialist?

MR. GREEN: Well, my responsibility is to ensure uniform implementation of FRA's policies and practices for conducting accident investigations, complaint waiver investigations and special investigations and inspections and regular and site-specific inspections for both the federal operating practices inspectors and for the state participation program operating practices inspectors.

I provide technical and interpretative guidance for the railroad industry, for labor and management, for the general public, to the regional administrator and his staff, and to the operating practices inspectors.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So, you basically oversee all the duties and responsibilities of an inspector to see that they perform the duties uniformly?

MR. GREEN: That's correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Do you make regular inspections yourself?

MR. GREEN: Occasionally. Not regularly. It's not one of my regularly-assigned activities.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Ms. Gross, what would you say the percentage of your time is spent on site inspections?

MS. GROSS: A good deal of my time. My primary responsibility is to the Union Pacific Headquarters and to the Harriman Dispatch Center and the Council Bluffs Service Unit, basically.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, you don't perform site-specific inspections?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir, I do. Quite frequently, all the time. I have -- I'm there so often, I have a vendor badge. I don't even sign in anymore.

MR. SULLIVAN: Approximately what percentage of your time is spent doing that?

MS. GROSS: A very large percentage of my time.

MR. SULLIVAN: And, Ms. Gross, could you tell us what drives the amount of time you spend on regular inspections?

MS. GROSS: I submit every week a work schedule to my specialist. The activities that are going on in my region would sometimes dictate or always dictates my activities, and I'm overseen by my specialist.

MR. SULLIVAN: And I asked Mr. Castiglione if there's any program that determines the amount of time he spends, and he talked about some type of asset -- an annual asset model -- annual asset allocation model.

I was wondering, can you describe that?

MS. GROSS: I -- I really couldn't. I'm too new at the agency, and it's sort of above -- it's -- that's -- I leave those things to my specialist and my superiors.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Green, could you answer that question?

MR. GREEN: I believe I can. The annual allocation analysis model is the program that Robbie referred to, and it replaces our old national inspection planner. It's the current evolution of the national inspection planner.

The model is used to develop historical data and direct -- not direct but to give us guidance on the distribution of our human resources and the allocation of our inspection time to the railroads within the region.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Ms. Gross, were you involved in the SACP process?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: And what did you -- what did

-- what type of inspections or functions did you have in that process?

MS. GROSS: I took place in both the assessment done in August and early September and then again in November, and my activities would include the Harriman Dispatch Center, with two different teams at the Harriman Dispatch Center in August and September, and in November securement inspections, train rides, listening post as well as handling e-mails and phone calls for the project manager.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Green, did you participate in that SACP process?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I have.

MR. SULLIVAN: And what was your functions?

MR. GREEN: I was an operating practices team leader in both of the -- or in the development of information about the Union Pacific Railroad, worked with the field inspectors in conducting listening post -- listening post sessions with railroad labor and management and in conducting field inspections.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you tell me what the findings were of the team, the operating practices team?

MR. GREEN: We found problems with timely relief train crews at the end of tour of duty because of congestion problems and because of the shortage of transportation, carry-all transportation.

We had identified problems in radio communication. We found some problems with -- or anecdotal reports of harassment, intimidation of employees, in relationship to reporting employee injuries, and in relationship to the railroad's efforts to get traffic moving, where they would ask employees or -- or influence the employees to work faster.

We found some problems with crew management systems and the line-ups for crews that they used to plan their rest that impacted cumulative fatigue on the railroad.

MR. SULLIVAN: And my last question in this area. Does the SACP process replace on-site inspections?

MR. GREEN: Is that directed to me, Mr. Sullivan?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Mr. Green.

MR. GREEN: No, it does not. It enhances our field inspection activities, and it gives us the ability to make contacts that we traditionally didn't use, and that's by communicating with rail labor and rail management to identify areas that they are concerned about in rail safety that are not traditionally regulated by the agency.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. How many operating practices are there in your region?

MR. GREEN: How many operating practices inspectors?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. GREEN: There are currently 10 operating practices inspectors positions in Region 5. There are five positions with the Railroad Commission of Texas, and one in the state of New Mexico. Two of the employees at the Railroad Commission of Texas are currently in training, and the New Mexico state inspector is in training.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know how many operating practices inspections were conducted on the Union Pacific in '96 and '97 for all the inspectors combined?

MR. GREEN: For Region 5, there were 2,732 inspection reports filed.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your answer.

MR. GREEN: I said within Region 5, there were 2,732 operating practices inspections.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was that for '96 or '97?

MR. GREEN: I didn't break the numbers out by year. I think I can give it to you, though. For 1996, we had 1,290 within Region 5, and in 1997, we had 1,442.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. At the beginning of our conversation, you said that you monitor inspectors' activities, and I was wondering, how do you monitor the activity?

MR. GREEN: Through their AWS or their alternative work scheduling plans that they provide to me, and also through their inspection reports and then the -- the analysis of the -- what our computer database reports on their inspection activity.

MR. SULLIVAN: And what do you look for when you're monitoring their inspection activity?

MR. GREEN: Essentially I look for broad coverage, full coverage of the inspection territories, the amount of time that they -- the amount of their efforts that are dedicated to inspections and other activities.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know how many operating practices violations were written on the Union Pacific during '96 and '97?

MR. GREEN: There were 15 completed actions recorded in the Office of Chief Counsel. Some of those actions were multi-count actions, and we have some that have been initiated by inspectors but not worked through to completion.

MR. SULLIVAN: And is that 15 the total for '96 and '97?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you have that broken down by the two years?

MR. GREEN: No, I don't.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Did you notice an increase in operating practices defects of Union Pacific during '96 and '97?

MR. GREEN: There was a substantial increase in defects during 1997. A good part of that increase occurred during the latter months of '97.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was that due to those blitzes that you had?

MR. GREEN: In part, and to our increased activities prior to the blitzes, in between the blitzes and after them. So, we have increased activity on UP, and then as a result, we saw an increase in defects.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

MR. PAYAN: Good morning. You say you participated in the two safety blitzes?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I did.

MR. PAYAN: What role did you play in those two blitzes?

MR. GREEN: I was a team leader in the -- for the operating practices inspectors for both of the blitzes, organized their activities and gathered their data, the information that they gathered, assimilated that into a report that I passed through our region to the FRA's headquarters and to the overall project coordinator for the UP SACP effort.

MR. PAYAN: And were you in the state of Texas or for the whole safety blitz?

MR. GREEN: I was -- worked in Texas, gathered reports during the safety blitz, the second one in November, from all the OP activities across the railroad. In the first one, I gathered only the Southwestern Region.

MR. PAYAN: What were your findings on the two safety blitzes that were conducted?

MR. GREEN: Much the same as our listening post activities. We had some concerns particularly with the managers who had been relocated to the Houston area to operate as train crews. We found some problems in their hours-of-service recordkeeping. We found some problems with drug and alcohol pre-employment testing for those managers who had not performed recovered service prior to that relocation, and we found some defects in their -- in their standards for locomotive engineer certification.

MR. PAYAN: Okay. Can you describe what criteria was used to determine that the two safety blitzes were required?

MR. GREEN: Well, it was clearly in response to the -- the accidents, the accident trends that occurred in early Summer of '97, and in the second round, we were going back to look at the progress that had been made to take the temperature of the railroad to see where we stood and what we needed to do next.

MR. PAYAN: Were the findings from the two safety blitzes, were they incorporated into the SACP or were they handled separately?

MR. GREEN: They were incorporated into our SACP efforts, yes, and then there would have been some cases where we had some independent enforcement action that grew out of it, that by and large went into the SACP effort.

MR. PAYAN: You mentioned you noticed an increase in the defects in '97. Did you communicate any concern about safety to anyone?

MR. GREEN: Well, we had constant communication within the agency on -- on our findings, and we -- we did, of course, talk about our findings during the safety activities that we carried on, starting before the first blitz.

Prior to our activities in '97, I don't know that we had any outstanding issues that we were taking exception to, but, of course, all of our findings were communicated throughout the FRA.

MR. PAYAN: Did this increase -- did you notice it was an indicator that the safety was eroding on the Union Pacific?

MR. GREEN: I didn't note that. No, I didn't.

MR. PAYAN: Were you provided any guidance from October '96 to October '97 that modified your operating practice inspection activity on the Union Pacific?

MR. GREEN: Could you give me the time frame again, please?

MR. PAYAN: October '96 to October '97.

MR. GREEN: Not that would change how we did our inspection activity, no.

MR. PAYAN: So, you didn't -- you -- did you provide any guidance to your inspectors?

MR. GREEN: We were -- we elected, I guess, throughout FRA and throughout the Western United States to increase our activities, and our regional administrator did communicate to us that we needed to increase our emphasis on the Union Pacific, and -- and I guess that would be the kind of guidance you were looking for, but it didn't change how we do our inspections or how we approached them, other than to be sure that we included our contacts with labor and with management through our listening post sessions and activities.

MR. PAYAN: And this guidance came from your regional administrator?

MR. GREEN: That's how I got it, yes.

MR. PAYAN: Okay. How do you incorporate the Texas Railroad Commission's factors into your inspection activity?

MR. GREEN: The Railroad Commission inspectors -- excuse me. The Railroad Commission inspectors are -- are co-equal with the federal inspectors, and they're well-qualified, well-trained individuals. I work closely with the Railroad Commission's managers and their -- my counterpart in the Commission, their lead inspector for the OP section to provide them the same kind of guidance, technical interpretations that I provide to the FRA inspectors.

I've utilized Railroad Commission inspectors to provide training for new FRA inspectors, and, of course, we do the same for them.

MR. PAYAN: Do you review their inspection reports?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I do.

MR. PAYAN: That's all I have.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Mr. Green, do you set up the work schedules for the inspectors?

MR. GREEN: No, I don't. The inspectors generally plan their own activities, other than team inspections or -- or some other special project. Their routine activities or team- or site-specific inspections are presented in their AWS scheduling in the two-week increment. I overview that, review it, and talk to the inspector if I see that they're planning something that I think they should be doing differently or if I have some other activity that I'd like them to be involved with, like a complaint investigation, or some special project. But I don't specifically plan their daily activities, other than special project assignments or complaint or accident investigation assignments.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: But you do review to see that they're going out at different shifts?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I do.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay.

MR. GREEN: And that the types of inspections they're planning, if they're planning to do records inspections as opposed to train-riding inspections.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. And you stated that during the audit or the assessment is when you found out that crews weren't being relieved on time, is that true?

MR. GREEN: That's not exactly true. We -- we confirmed that it was still a problem during the special assessments. We had identified that through our listening post activities, through complaint work that we -- complaints we'd received from the labor organizations prior to a special investigation.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. That was my question because I was wondering if labor --

MR. GREEN: It was not a surprise to us when we hit the ground during the special assessments, no.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Well, what -- what were you doing with these complaints prior to the assessment, I mean as they were coming in?

MR. GREEN: That was an issue that's a non-traditional problem for the railroad, from our enforcement standpoint. The timely relief of crews, while it's a problem, is not statutorily prohibited.

We did talk to the railroad, and I believe it was communicated at the railroad's headquarters, but I -- I wasn't there. I didn't participate in that, but we handled it as best we could locally.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. How many Class 1 railroads are you responsible for?

MR. GREEN: Within Region 5, there are -- presently, there's five Class 1 railroads and about 90 smaller railroads and short-line operations.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Can you give me a comparison between the five as far as rating them or are they all about the same as far as your inspection failures?

MR. GREEN: They're roughly the same. The non-compliance issues are -- are very similar between the different properties, generally speaking.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: That's -- that's all the questions I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: We will go to the parties. UTU?

MR. BOYD: Mr. Green, in your duties and review capabilities, do you look at the safety appliances? I'm speaking specifically of lights.

MR. GREEN: Lights?

MR. BOYD: Lights as in headlights or ditch lights, things like that.

MR. GREEN: That regulation is under the Motive Power and Equipment discipline, although our inspectors have been familiarized with the requirements for locomotive head lamps, and they'll look at that as a part of the train-riding inspection along with other features.

MR. BOYD: Have you done any studies as to which type of lighting is -- is safer from an operating standpoint from one train being able to identify another train at a farther distance, let's say?

MR. GREEN: I don't believe that there's been any study that -- let me rephrase that. I have not participated in any study of that feature.

MR. BOYD: Ms. Gross, do you know of any?

MS. GROSS: No, sir, I do not.

MR. BOYD: Do you have any practical experience or knowledge that would -- would -- you would tend to characterize one lighting system being better than another? And the point I'm getting at, would ditch lights versus oscillating lights or oscillating lights and ditch lights, in addition to headlights, be a safer way of providing lighting on locomotives?

MR. GREEN: Oscillating lights were a feature that was -- was only used on railroad locomotives, to the best of my knowledge. Oscillating lights would clearly identify a railroad locomotive to another railroader from a distance.

To say that they were better would be difficult for me, except for in the scenario where you were trying to identify the source of light from a distance, and an oscillating light would clearly do that.

Oscillating lights at the same time presented their own problems because as they oscillated, if you were running parallel to a roadway, you blinded traffic going in the opposite direction.

We created some safety hazards for the public through that, you know, that feature of an oscillating light. Oscillating lights were also difficult and expensive to maintain as is any moving equipment as opposed to something that stays fixed.

So, there are -- are clear advantages in my mind and my opinion. There are some clear disadvantages as well.

MR. BOYD: That's all the questions I have.

MR. GREEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. WALPERT: Yes. Ms. Gross, did -- during the safety assurance review on the UP, did you do any inspections of the Harriman Dispatching Center?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir.

MR. WALPERT: What results, what findings did you have after you did the inspection?

MS. GROSS: The first -- the first group I was with at the end of August, we were doing a check for compliance with 97-1, which they were in compliance with 97-1 on our inspections.

We looked at corridor manager qualifications and their training as dispatchers and found that some of the corridor managers were not qualified dispatchers and were supervising dispatchers.

We found that 83 percent of the errors that had been committed by rules infractions by the dispatchers were on just a few positions, and generally they were dispatchers with five years or less seniority. It indicated that we needed to come back and quickly do a workload study, which we did.

The next group that I took part was the second -- about the first-second week of September, and we identified that there was excessive workload on quite a few of the UP dispatcher desks.

MR. WALPERT: Are you aware of any changes have been made as a result of your findings?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir. They've made quite a few changes at the Harriman. They've responded to quite a few of our recommendations. They have decreased the workload on 11 dispatcher positions. They've established a train verification desk and train line-up territory. They've developed a new training program, an extended training program for the dispatchers that includes trips under their territory which we suggested.

They've also come up with a new training program for the corridor managers, so that they will become qualified dispatchers had they not been dispatchers.

We requested that they provide a method for us to be able to monitor dispatcher communications, and they did that down in the CAD room. We can go down in the CAD room now, and we can listen to dispatchers' live transmissions with the crews without them knowing they're being observed.

MR. WALPERT: Were there any discrepancies that you noted during your inspections that they have not been addressed to date?

MS. GROSS: Well, it's -- the Harriman Dispatch Group, there were a lot of places that we wanted to go, and we formed a working group for the Harriman Dispatch Center, and that's a work in -- you know, it's an on-going project.

As -- as they look at the workload study, they've developed a workload model now to use. There's just a whole lot of projects going on at the Harriman that the working group has become involved in. So, it's -- it's an evolving process to improve. It's not where we can say we stopped and start.

MR. WALPERT: All right. Mr. Green, you indicated that during the safety assurance review, you were informed of problems with timely relief of train crews.

Can you give us some anecdotal examples of the failure to timely relieve crews?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I can, and this information came to us largely in our listening post sessions with railroad employees.

I think one example that jumps to mind immediately is a crew that reported that they were in -- in dog-catch service, relieving trains that had died on the law, had expired under hours of service, and they had moved five trains during their tour of duty, and every time they finished one move, it was time to move to the next train, there was a carry-all waiting for them, and at the end of their hours of service when they died on the law, the carry-all was gone, and they waited about five hours for a carry-all to pick them up, transport them to the terminal.

There have been some pretty egregious abuses in that area reported to us, some we confirmed, some we were unable to, where a crew finally was able to get a ride after sitting in a siding for eight and nine hours, and when they were -- when they pressed for a reason why they stayed there that long, it was -- there just simply wasn't a carry-all available. The railroad was using its carry-all assets, the contractors, to transport crews who had time to work to other trains before they had enough assets available to pick up the crews that were dead on the law.

MR. WALPERT: And did I understand you to say that you have no enforcement power to correct some of these problems because this in and of itself is not a violation of any federal regulation?

MR. GREEN: It's not a violation of the federal statute governing hours of service. The time spent waiting for -- for dead-head transportation as interpreted by the courts, by the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of fact, is the same as time being in dead-head transportation, which is neither time on duty nor off duty.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Do you know that if -- if any efforts have been made to improve the relief of crews timely?

MR. GREEN: Substantial efforts have been made to -- by the railroad to improve that timely relief. It hasn't been fully effective everywhere on the railroad. I can attest in our region that they're still having substantial problems in and around Hearn in Central Texas and in some of the other locations, but I believe that the railroad is making a concerted effort to get better control of that.

Perhaps Ms. Gross would like to respond as well.

MS. GROSS: I would. We recognized early on in the SACP process as all the partners discussed the problems on the UP railroad that this was a very high- priority situation related to fatigue as well as to hours of service, and we formed a crew utilization committee or hours-of-service committee as an offshoot, which sprang out of some of the Harriman HDC working groups.

Originally when the HDC group started, and we started to recognize fatigue and this on-going problem with establishing responsibilities and accountability for the relief of crews, we thought it could be solved in a 30-day project. Oh, well, we didn't get it done.

So, it off-shooted into a full-grown working group. Now we selected one of the Northern regions because it had been unaffected by any merger activity or seniority hub agreements, and what we -- we have done is we identified quickly, along with the UP and partnership and the organizations, BLE, UTU, and the TCU, and we quickly identified lines of accountability for different people involved in crew relief process because, you know, to dog-catch a crew involves different people with accountabilities as it does when you initiate a crew going on duty.

So, we established that, and as we got into the project, we began to notice that coordination in the field became somewhat of a problem, and, so, the Union Pacific committed to establishing 89 positions called managers of asset utilization, and they're put in command centers across the country, major terminals, hubs if you will, that, along with a dispatcher from the limo vendor companies.

They are to work in coordination with each other to help get the crews not only out of the terminal but back into the terminal. It -- we -- we changed the philosophy. It's a way of thinking. In traditional terms, whenever you relieved a crew, you waited till the relief crew was there to send the carry-all out to go get the other crew, and then you brought him back.

So, we don't -- we don't let them do that anymore. We double the hill now. If we don't have a relief crew, the limo people and the manager of asset utilizations know they're under running orders to go out and get that crew, get them off the train, try to get them in as quickly as possible, and then take the relief crew out to the train.

We've asked the vendor to leave on their radios all the time to help monitor activities, so that they can be utilized fully. We've provided maps with more readily-accessible sidings to the dispatchers as well as to the taxicab drivers so that they know where they're going and no longer get lost.

As a result of some of these activities, after two months of data-gathering and the third month just to be sure because we had Christmas thrown in there, we saw a 22-percent reduction in re-crews in that area.

So, we knew we were on to something. We've continued to refine it, and I'm happy to state here that as of Monday, this past week, we've started the process down in Texas.

Simeron, who is the primary limo vendor for the Houston area, has even committed a dispatcher -- limo dispatcher to the Woodman Building and also one for the Houston Terminal, so that we can make sure we get that relief out there.

The Union Pacific has assured us that by June of this year, they will have a software package developed that will monitor the limo vendor's performance, i.e. the utilization of their vans. Do they have enough vans? If they don't have enough vans, then you don't wait until you have one available. You get a commercial carrier to relieve that crew like you committed to when you signed the agreement to do business with them.

They will monitor the expenditure for the UP so it's a win-win. We'll be able to monitor the hours that the drivers of the vans are on duty and how they're utilized. We'll be able to tell in real time where those taxicabs are and how effectively they're being used, and then we'll be able to measure everyone's performance and the response that they give. How quickly did the dispatcher respond to that train hogging on line? How quickly did the corridor manager call crew management to get that crew on duty?

So, it's -- there's a lot going on in that area, and it's showing good signs of improvement.

MR. WALPERT: Thank you, Ms. Gross, for that real true answer.

Mr. Green, you also indicated that they are trying to review harassment and intimidation, and let's address that question.

MR. GREEN: I'm trying to think of a good, clear example, and I'm drawing a blank. Sorry. But there was some general allegations that if an employee reported an injury at the local level with local managers, that the local managers would counsel the employee about the effects on his career if he pursued filing the report, and then there was always substantial pressure to suppress lost time counts and all the other features that make an injury reportable.

A lot of that was -- I guess it was more prevalent in '96 than it was in '97 when the FRA passed the regulation amendment to our accident/incident regulation and intimidation and harassment to suppress an injury report or to interfere with medical treatment was made a violation of federal regulation.

The problem, I believe, has substantially improved. I'm not sure that -- that it will ever be resolved completely because of the differences in perception by the manager and the employee.

MR. WALPERT: So, in your opinion, the -- the regulation that went into effect concerning harassment has had an effect?

MR. GREEN: Positive effect.

MR. WALPERT: Oh, positive. Okay. In regard to the problems that you heard about crew management systems, can -- can you detail some of those problems?

MR. GREEN: Some of the problems were calling employees during their period -- their off-duty periods, statutory off-duty periods for service before they were rested for that service. Crew managers couldn't keep -- apparently couldn't keep track of when the employee had gone off duty and when he'd be available to return to duty, and there was other problems with employees being called for service on territory that they were outside their seniority districts or outside their areas of qualification for locomotive engineers and in particular territories they were not familiar with, and then some problems with the crew managers or crew dispatchers actually instructing an engineer, for example, to take a train on territory the engineer says I am not familiar on that territory. I'm not qualified to operate that, and the crew managers say take the call, take the train.

MR. WALPERT: Has there been any resolution to your knowledge of -- of some of these matters that were brought to your attention?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I believe there has. The railroad has done several things to resolve some of the problems. I know that they've added crew management, added crew management training. We've amended -- the railroad's amended its locomotive engineer certification program, the features that have pertained to an otherwise-qualified and certified locomotive engineer who's operating on new territory, changed its interpretation of its existing familiarization policy and amended the policy itself to provide for qualified persons to pilot locomotive engineers over new territory, and also given some good solid guidance apparently to the crew management system because now I understand when an engineer asks for a pilot, crew managers don't overrule him.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Union Pacific?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one clarification.

Getting back to the allegations that you heard on intimidation and harassment in covering up injuries, did you investigate any of those allegations to find out whether they were true and -- and to what manager was doing that?

MR. GREEN: We have investigated a few cases that came to us as a formal complaint. We're in the process of investigating a few more, and, Mr. Davis, I have to state that some of the -- some of the formal complaints that we received contained allegations of harassment that fell outside our regulatory authority, where a claims department or an operating department manager would write to an employee who'd been off duty, off injured for some time, asking for a medical update, and the employee perceived that as harassment and interfering with his ability to obtain medical treatment, and that I don't believe is what the intent of the regulation is.

Some of the cases, we have -- have some difficulty, I should say, trying to resolve because there are only two parties involved. There's no documentable evidence.

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: Of the 15 exceptions that you took on Union Pacific in 1996 and 7, did any of these involve harassment of employees in covering up injuries?

MR. GREEN: I don't believe so. I don't have that figure or fact in front of me, but I don't believe it did.

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: Thank you.

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Mr. Green, let me ask you one question. You have considerable experience. You're an inspector along with our inspectors. Were those found uniformly across the -- the UP system or do you think that they were concentrated in the Gulf Coast area and specifically in Texas?

MR. GREEN: I believe that -- that we found some features of these problems across the entire system. The problems were more pronounced in some cases in the Gulf Coast region and in Texas, but, generally speaking, we found the problems with carry-all relief at the end of tour of duty was a widespread systematic problem.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. GAVALLA: Mr. Green, earlier you discussed the interface between yourself and your inspectors in regards to allocation of duties.

Are there inspection manuals or manuals for each discipline within the FRA to --

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir, there are.

MR. GAVALLA: Do inspectors receive training, periodic training, regarding the performance of their duties?

MR. GREEN: Inspectors receive substantial technical training and quite a bit of on-the-job training with experienced inspectors and specialists.

MR. GAVALLA: Within the manuals and in the training programs that they attend, is there any discussion of how they might -- the factors and criteria that they would use to allocate their time towards inspections?

MR. GREEN: I beg your pardon. Could you repeat?

MR. GAVALLA: Certainly. Within the manuals that you referenced and within the training that the inspectors receive, is there any discussion regarding some of the criteria that they would use in deciding how to allocate their time towards inspections?

MR. GREEN: Yes, there is.

MR. GAVALLA: You also referenced violations, completed violation reports regarding -- at least your knowledge of them regarding the Union Pacific in 1997, is that correct?

MR. GREEN: Yes, I did.

MR. GAVALLA: Are you aware of the total number of counts that have been assessed against the UP in 1997 or the total number of -- total dollar value of the fines assessed?

MR. GREEN: I can't provide information about the dollar value of the violations completed.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GREEN: And we can talk to the number of counts, if you like, and in 1997, we had a total of 3,213 counts in the violations that were presented by the inspectors. Substantially most of those 3,000 counts were in areas of electronic recordkeeping hours- of-service records that were improperly or incompletely completed, in drug and alcohol pre-employment testing for managers working in train service in the Texas area, and in hours-of-service records not available for inspection for managers, and some of those multi-count issues.

MR. GAVALLA: And those were counts and violations for the -- for Texas?

MR. GREEN: From Region 5.

MR. GAVALLA: From Region 5?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. Ms. Gross, you described the activities that you were involved in to address issues with crew management and crew fatigue, and you used the term "we" repeatedly. Can you explain who you mean by "we"?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir. It's a partnership with Union Pacific, labor organizations and the FRA.

MR. GAVALLA: And did this occur under the SACP program?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Can you elaborate a little bit on how that -- that group was formed?

MS. GROSS: After the safety assessments, the groups came together, after Jolene's visit to Omaha, and worked on what were the major areas of concern that needed to be addressed that were -- that were system problems, and the group came to a consensus of areas that relate to fatigue and the Harriman hours of service, training, discipline, culture, those sort of things.

MR. GAVALLA: You specifically mentioned some of the activities that have taken place in the Harriman Dispatch Center, particularly it's been mentioned that there have been an increase in the number of dispatchers.

Is -- is there any federal regulations which stipulate the number of dispatchers that a railroad must have?

MS. GROSS: No, sir, there is not.

MR. GAVALLA: You mentioned that -- it has been mentioned that there was a re-balancing of the workload of dispatchers. Are there any federal regulations which address the workload of dispatchers?

MS. GROSS: No, sir, there is not.

MR. GAVALLA: There was mention of upgrades to the computerized dispatching system, the CAD system. Do you know if there's any federal standards or regulations regarding dispatching software or computer systems?

MS. GROSS: Not to my -- not to my knowledge.

MR. GAVALLA: The changes that have taken place in the Harriman Dispatch Center, based on your experience, your long experience in the railroad and with railroad operations, in your opinion, have these been beneficial to safety?

MS. GROSS: Oh, yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Mr. Green, yesterday, there was testimony to the issue of qualification rides for locomotive engineers.

Have you had any experience in that issue in Texas?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir, I have.

MR. GAVALLA: Did you find any problems or did you -- did FRA raise any concerns that dispatchers may not -- excuse me -- locomotive engineers may not be receiving qualification runs before they're ordered to take trains out in certain circumstances?

MR. GREEN: During our activities in 1997, that was a strong concern of ours. We found some indications that the railroad managers transported into Houston and for some of the regular locomotive engineers, they were not getting -- either not getting familiarization trips at all or that the trips that they did get were inadequate.

As an example, we had anecdotal information that railroad managers making a familiarization trip would run maybe a third or a half or a quarter of the district and end up stuck in a siding and die on the law and that was counted as a complete familiarization trip over the territory.

MR. GAVALLA: Overall in your investigation of the -- that issue, did you find that the UP's program was in compliance with the letter of the law or generally in compliance with the letter of the regulations?

MR. GREEN: Yes, it was.

MR. GAVALLA: But did you have concerns that the enhancements were needed above and beyond those regulations?

MR. GREEN: Yes, we did.

MR. GAVALLA: And were you able to do anything about that?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir. We worked with the railroad and with the organizations and the information that they provided to us to bring this problem on familiarization standards, particularly for engineers who had not been over a territory in the past, to the railroad's attention.

The railroad's familiarization program and the add-on in time table Special Instruction 7-A provided that an engineer who had not been over a territory in the past 12 months would have to be either given a trip with a pilot or could talk with his manager of operating practices about any changes in the -- in the lay-out of the -- of the subdivision or the territory, any rules applications changes or signaling changes, and after a discussion with a manager of operating practices could be allowed to run on the territory without a familiarization trip.

The railroad's local managers in Texas interpreted that provision of the time table Special Instructions, which is a part of their program, to apply to an engineer who had never seen a territory as well as an engineer who had been on the territory but had been absent from that territory for 12 months or more.

MR. GAVALLA: And the changes that took place at the end of all this, could you --

MR. GREEN: That changes that took place were that the -- the railroad reordered and reorganized that portion of the familiarization to provide for familiarization trips based on the engineer's capabilities and the territory that he was qualifying on to establish at least a minimum number for each territory of familiarization trips that would be made by an engineer on new territory.

MR. GAVALLA: Since that change has been made in the program, has FRA had the opportunity to go into the field and verify that particular issue on any occasion?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir. We were -- we were particularly concerned about this issue toward the end of 1997 and early 1998 because the railroad was about to implement directional running between Houston and Poplar Bluff and Dexter, Missouri, which would put roughly one-half of the engineers in that geographic territory running one direction on new railroad because the Union Pacific would run -- would operate in one direction, and the Southern Pacific would operate in the other, and the two engineers' boards would be merged into one.

So, everyone on the district would have to run on -- on new territory in the initial stages of that start-up. We were concerned that the engineers would be put on the territory without sufficient familiarization.

We were also concerned that conductors as well would be operating without sufficient familiarization, and they fall outside our -- clearly fall outside our regulation, but we addressed specifically the railroad's program for familiarizing its engineers in order to ensure that the engineers would have an opportunity to familiarize themselves or have qualified pilots when the start-up occurred. That occurred on February 1.

The railroad went to great lengths to get as many qualified people as they could familiarized with the territory before the start-up date on February 1. They incorporated cooperative efforts of their labor organizations to help organize the qualification process, familiarization process, and to manage the piloting that took place when the start-up took off.

There was a lot of effort on the part of the railroad put in to making sure that these folks had an opportunity to qualify, and there was substantial support from the labor organizations for the railroad's efforts in that regard.

MR. GAVALLA: Did FRA have inspectors in the field to monitor this process?

MR. GREEN: We put inspectors at all of the major on-and-off-duty points throughout that territory from Memphis, Pine Bluff, Little Rock, Poplar Bluff, Dexter, Missouri, Longview, Shreveport and down into Houston.

MR. GAVALLA: No further questions at this time.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Thank you. To the head table. Ms. Beal?

MS. BEAL: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Ellingstad?

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Thank you. Mr. Green, how many reports of excess service incidents under the hours-of-service act did the Union Pacific make to FRA in 1997?

MR. GREEN: I don't have that figure, Mr. Ellingstad. I couldn't respond to that accurately.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Could -- could you or someone in the FRA provide that for the record?

MR. GREEN: Yes, we could.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: You had indicated as one of the results of the safety assurance assessments that there were hours-of-service recordkeeping problems.

First of all, could you elaborate on what those hours-of-service recordkeeping problems were?

MR. GREEN: The Union Pacific Railroad, like most of the railroads, is in the process of developing an electronic recordkeeping system for both payroll and for federal hours-of-service records.

We have been working with them for some time to help support their efforts, to simplify and stream-line the methods of gathering the hours-of-service recordkeeping data.

The regulation as it stands right now, in order to comply with the law, is to gather a hard paper copy signed by either the employee or the ranking crew member hours-of-duty report.

The railroads are running a parallel electronic recordkeeping system for both payroll purposes and hours-of-service purposes, and they use the electronic recordkeeping system to generate the hard paper copy that's signed by the ranking employee and put on file.

What we've experienced is that this is -- this is a very difficult developmental process for the computer programmers because there are so many intricacies in both the hours-of-service law and in the labor agreements across the railroads on how to gather this data, separate payroll from hours-of-duty and then generate an hours-of-service report.

We've had -- we've taken exception several times. We've had several inspection activities to see what progress the railroad's making in gathering the hard copy data required by the regulation. We find that there was -- in this particular activity, we found that there was a substantial number of hard copy documents missing because they were improperly filed or improperly gathered and transmitted to the railroad, the railroad wasn't able to produce them for inspection, and in some cases, the data collected was improperly filled out in the form, in the hard copies.

Those are the kinds of defects we were taking, records missing, records improperly filled out.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: So, your -- your comments here pertain to what could be characterized as a recordkeeping problem?

MR. GREEN: That's correct.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Ms. Green, when you are conducting an inspection of whatever kind of operating personnel we're talking about, could you explain to us what you do with respect to examining hours-of-service as an issue in that inspection? What -- what -- what are you looking at? Are you -- are you sorting through these hard copy pieces of paper exclusively?

MR. GREEN: Is that directed to me or Ms. Gross?

MS. GROSS: I think he --

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Ms. Gross. I apologize.

MS. GROSS: That's all right. We're going to do something about that.

MR. GREEN: I'm wearing a tie.

MS. GROSS: Generally whatever those kind of complaints, they come to me usually in the form of a complaint from my specialist, and the first thing I would do is call the complainant and try to establish what happened during the incident in question, and then I would go back and -- and establish whether or not the facts are as the complainant alleges, and I do that by going to and visiting on site crew management timekeeping, and most of them I've been involved in so far, they still involve the manual time slip.

I have been involved in some with other railroads so far that -- that -- but not with the Union Pacific, other than with the manual time slip. So, that basically would be what I would do first.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: So, most of your indications of a concern in this area would initiate from -- from some kind of a complaint rather than some -- from some more global review of -- of hours-of-service records?

MS. GROSS: Not necessarily. We -- during the safety assessment, there was a team that came to Omaha to -- and that was -- their sole function was to -- to examine the hours-of-service and timekeeping records, and they did that, and then also during listening posts, if we pick up on an incident that might be a violation of the regulations and the law, then we take the initiative to go ahead and document that and investigate that incident.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: But is there any regular process at any level within the FRA with respect to examining hours-of-service, of routinely examining these databases?

MS. GROSS: We have -- I'm not quite sure I know how -- what he's asking, David.

MR. GREEN: I think I may be able to respond to that better, Mr. Ellingstad.

The FRA has found with railroads this size, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and some of the other big carriers, that systematically inspecting records for the entire property has become very nearly impossible.

We do routinely inspect the records that are available at division levels before they're transmitted to the recordkeeping locations. We've conducted system inspections at the recordkeeping locations.

But it's our firm belief that handling that paper is an undue burden on the industry, and it's an undue burden, and it's unduly time-taking -- time-consuming for the FRA.

If we are able to -- and I clearly believe it's a doable project. If we're able to establish electronic recordkeeping systems, the kind of systematic inspection that you're talking about will be greatly simplified, where the inspector at any location on the system can sit down at a computer terminal and scroll through computer database records for hours-of-service exceptions or hours-of-service generally.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Is there any activity underway at FRA to encourage or require that kind of an automated system?

MR. GREEN: We don't require it, but we have a substantial effort to encourage the development of these systems, yes, and we have had for a number of years.

The CSX currently holds a waiver on the signature requirement for signed hard-copy hours-of-service reports. They're the only railroad in the United States that's fully developed a -- a program that's been given a waiver on the signature requirement, which, by the way, is all we waive. That enables the railroad to keep the data electronically rather than in a hard copy, signed copy.

The Southern Pacific did receive a waiver on its program not long before the merger took place. I believe it was in 1996. That program was incompatible with the overall computer database systems in use on the Union Pacific and therefore was dropped by the merged companies, and the Union Pacific fell back to its developmental project for electronic recordkeeping for its system.

We've been working with the folks in that project for a number of years, and we have a dedicated headquarters specialist who does nothing other than development of electronic recordkeeping systems and hours-of-service compliance.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Let me ask the same general set of questions with respect to the inspector responsibilities for drug and alcohol testing and compliance.

MR. GREEN: In drug and alcohol testing, we have an on-going project, periodic review conducted in concert with our drug and alcohol headquarters specialist and our contractor MRO functions provider, and we'll meet at a railroad's headquarters or inspection location with Mr. George Ellis from our contractor and with our headquarters specialist and the local specialists and inspectors to conduct a system review of the drug and alcohol control program of the railroad.

We also do routine inspection activities on drug and alcohol compliance at the inspector's level and the regional level, and we respond, of course, to complaints about improper drug collection procedures.

So, there are several levels at which we -- we evaluate those programs on all railroads.

MR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: Thank you. I have a couple questions. First, I'll start with Mr. Green.

MR. GREEN: Thank you.

MR. LAUBY: Then I'll go to Mrs. Green. No. Mr. Green, do you ever accompany your inspectors on their site inspections?

MR. GREEN: I do as much as I can. I don't have a lot of opportunities to do that, as I'm primarily an administrative-type, and I have a tremendous workload. I also participate in several headquarters projects and committees and training assessments and planning sessions.

So, I don't get the opportunity to inspect in the field with my inspectors as much as I'd like, but I do as much as I can.

MR. LAUBY: So, I assume that you rely heavily on the input of your inspectors to -- to have a feeling of what's going on and --

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir, I do.

MR. LAUBY: -- the safety of the railroads, etc.?

How many inspectors do you have?

MR. GREEN: There -- currently, I have nine assigned and one vacancy in the federal program, five in the Railroad Commission of Texas program that I work with closely, and then the young man in New Mexico who's in training.

MR. LAUBY: So, that's 16 inspectors, I believe?

MR. GREEN: Well, 15, and I'll have 16 when we fill the vacancy in Houston.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. And all of these inspectors provide you with -- with reports on their inspections, is that correct?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

MR. LAUBY: Even Texas Railway Commission inspectors?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.

MR. LAUBY: Do the Texas Railway Commission inspectors act as -- just like an FRA inspector? Is there a difference in what they provide you?

MR. GREEN: In the operating practices discipline, the Railroad Commission of Texas inspectors inspect all of the regulations and standards of the federal program.

I understand that the Railroad Commission does have standards in other disciplines, such as track and the walkway standards, and I believe MPNE has -- has locomotive and caboose toilet standards that -- that the FRA inspectors don't have. So, they do inspections in some parts of their programs that they don't do -- that our inspectors don't do, but, generally, they do operating practices discipline exactly the same inspections, and they get the same guidance materials, training, that our inspectors get.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. With the information that's provided to you by your inspectors, what do you look for in these reports? And what I'm getting at is how do you -- how do you again keep your finger on the pulse of -- of railroad safety? What is it you look for? Violations? Number of inspections? Special memos with problems?

MR. GREEN: I suppose I really rely less on reviewing the inspection reports than I do in close communication with the inspectors in either telephone, verbal, face-to-face communications, e-mail reports.

If the inspectors are seeing problems on the railroad in their local area, I'll query the other inspectors in the region and the other specialists across the country to determine if anyone else is seeing the same kinds of problems, to see if there's a developing pattern or trend or a systematic problem across one railroad that needs to be addressed.

MR. LAUBY: Do you have an example of a problem that was handled in that --

MR. GREEN: In that fashion?

MR. LAUBY: -- way? Yeah.

MR. GREEN: A good example would be the familiarization trips for locomotive engineers. That was actually surfaced as a substantial concern by an inspector who was investigating a train accident outside this area of our inquiry here today that occurred at Appleby, Texas, and involved a Burlington Northern Santa Fe manager of operating practices and a certified locomotive engineer, who are operating on joint track owned by the Union Pacific Railroad, and what we found in that accident investigation, which, by the way, I believe was a track-caused accident, was not attributed to the handling of the train by the manager of operating practices or locomotive engineer in any case.

We found that the engineer had not had any familiarization trips over that railroad and was not provided the pilot by the Union Pacific. The pilot for that engineer was a BNSF manager of operating practices, and he had only qualified on 42 miles of a 212-mile territory.

Of course, that constitutes a violation of our Part 240 locomotive engineer standards, and we prosecuted Union Pacific for -- for that non-compliance. But that's when these kinds of features come up to us through these accident investigations or other inspection activities, and I didn't look for that from an inspection report. That came to me directly through communication with my inspector.

MR. LAUBY: You talked a little bit about listening posts, and -- and I think you indicated that you have -- you had an early indication that fatigue or a fatigue situation may be developing on the UP from the listening posts, is that correct?

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir, that's correct.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. What time frame are we talking about?

MR. GREEN: I don't ever recall going on a railroad that the train service employees and engine service employees didn't talk about working too much and being fatigued, but the real problem, what I would characterize as this, what, disaster that was building really started in 1997, where the problems were just constantly getting -- seemed to be getting worse, and that was the reports and anecdotal information that was provided to us.

MR. LAUBY: Well, what the listening posts -- is this a formal activity with -- with the FRA?

MR. GREEN: Yes, it is, and it's a part of the information-gathering process for our safety assurance compliance program.

MR. LAUBY: How -- how would it work in this case?

MR. GREEN: Well, we -- we have several avenues to initiate a listening post session. Probably the most common is to contact the local -- local labor organizations and invite ourselves to a labor organization meeting and set up perhaps a formal listening post session in a hotel room, a hotel meeting room, and announce or ask the labor organization local leaders to publicize our -- our planned activity and invite all of the organization members to participate.

Frequently they're conducted with multiple organizations represented or participating. We've also had listening post sessions with as few as one or two railroad managers, ad hoc meetings on the railroad property, where we had a few minutes to sit and talk and drink a cup of coffee and find out what their perceptions were.

Listening post sessions occur in train register rooms, while you're in there to do other inspection activity, the railroad bulletin boards and

-- and notices to its employees, and a crew or two comes in or goes out. The inspector will initiate a listening post session right there right then and visit with the crews and see what their perceptions are.

MR. LAUBY: And how long has -- has the listening post program been in place?

MR. GREEN: We started to formalize the process under SACP probably in 1995, as I best recall, but I don't think I ever worked that I didn't do that, and I've been with FRA 10 years, five years or six as a specialist in several locations, and every inspector that I trained with, worked with, and every time I was on the property, I talked to the people.

But to formalize the process, that probably started in 1995, to the best of my recollection.

MR. LAUBY: So, as -- as we moved up towards the Summer of '97, were you seeing increased complaints about fatigue or --

MR. GREEN: Yes, I was.

MR. LAUBY: Are these complaints -- would you characterize them as -- as tired engineers having to go to work or were they actual hours-of-service violations?

MR. GREEN: We rarely get allegations of an actual hours-of-service violation. When we do, that's generally proven to be true, and we take enforcement action.

But what I'm talking about hearing are people who are tired because they're working too many days in a row, and that they're working too many hours because they're stuck in a siding somewhere waiting for dead-head transportation to pick them up. When they do get in, they get their statutory rest, and they go back to work and work their statutory limitation on hours, and then they repeat the cycle. That's the kind of thing we were talking about, and it falls outside our laws and regulations but not outside our interests.

MR. LAUBY: So, other than a -- a violation of the hours-of-service, there's really not too much that you can do in those situations?

MR. GREEN: Not without SACP, there isn't.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. Let me move over to Ms. Gross. I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the problems that were detected at the Harriman Center through the final safety assessment report.

I know that Ms. Molitoris, the Administrator, mentioned a couple items yesterday, talked about too few dispatchers and some training problems.

Could you just give me -- give me your feeling of, in a nutshell, what some of the problems are at the dispatching center?

MS. GROSS: Well, first of all, we had a manpower shortage. So, hiring and the training of new people to give some relief to the senior dispatchers became a priority. A lot of the senior dispatchers were working their rest days and then could not receive comp time later because of personnel shortage.

The training. We felt that the training, of course, was not long enough, and the workload, when we analyzed the number, the different types of authority and the number of track warrants, for instance, that a dispatcher may handle in his eight-hour shift along with his ave tech time, that he became multi-tasked. He didn't have think time, appropriate think time.

Basically I'd say that's probably the two most important issues, were training issues that were brought up, manpower issues, and just excessive workload.

MR. LAUBY: Were these issues specific to dispatchers working in any one section of the country? I mean were the dispatchers from Texas -- were they having these problems and dispatchers in other -- that had other territories not?

MS. GROSS: Well, one of the things that we -- we found initially on our first visit was that the day shift seems to be the heaviest shift, and, so, quite a few of the senior people, when they could, would move to the second and third shift, which left our junior people on the first shift handling the bulk of the workload.

MR. LAUBY: What authority does the FRA have in the area of dispatching?

MS. GROSS: Could you be a little more specific?

MR. LAUBY: Well, engineer certification's a good comparison. Engineers are certified. There's programs that are submitted to the FRA. They have input on training and other things through that process.

Let's take training. What -- what authority do you have or input do you have on dispatcher training?

MS. GROSS: Basically, it would be -- I -- I would assume, it would be that they would be tested and qualified on the book of rules and radio communications under 217.

MR. LAUBY: And that would be an FRA requirement that that's done?

MS. GROSS: I'm sorry?

MR. LAUBY: Would that be an FRA requirement that that's done?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir, I believe it is. I'm new with the organization. I feel it's my mission in life.

MR. LAUBY: Mr. Green, can you -- can you --

MS. GROSS: Thank you.

MR. LAUBY: -- expand on that or --

MR. GREEN: Yes. Our regulations specifically address rules and training requirements, and that the railroad prepare its employees to perform within the context of its rules. We also have radio standards for communication of train orders.

But to address, I think, your specific question, is do we set standards for the training for dispatchers the way we do in our Part 240 locomotive engineer certification regulations, no, sir, we do not.

We allow the railroad to develop its own program of training in order -- in compliance with our Part 217 requirements. If I may?

MR. LAUBY: Go ahead.

MR. GREEN: I'd like to add to that. We do, and we have for many years, conduct system inspections of train-dispatching offices, and we develop recommendations for the dispatching managers and for the railroad senior management on problems that we perceived with their train-dispatching centers.

That process has been in existence since I came to work for the agency, and I know that it went on before I came here because I was on the railroad on the receiving end of some of that, and it worked much like our SACP process works today, where the FRA and the state participation program reaches into areas of the railroad industry that aren't regulated.

MR. LAUBY: Do any of your activities include looking at dispatcher operations to determine dispatcher errors or error rates, anything like that?

MS. GROSS: Is that addressed to me?

MR. LAUBY: Either one.

MS. GROSS: One -- one of the first assessment teams that I was on, we looked at the rules violations that had taken place in the previous year for dispatchers. Yes, sir. Is that your question?

MR. LAUBY: Is that a normal -- yes. Is that a normal activity for you? Is that --

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir, it is.

MR. LAUBY: -- something special?

MS. GROSS: Yes, sir, it is. Yes, sir, it is. We -- we frequently -- when I frequent the Harriman, discuss with the supervisors rule infractions that have taken place, discipline that is followed up on it and training as a result of -- of those errors.

MR. LAUBY: Have you seen any increase over the course of 1996-1997 in the number of errors?

MS. GROSS: Electronic organizational management from my reference prevents us from being in the area, somewhat decreases in -- maybe Mr. Green can answer that.

MR. GREEN: Well, I haven't participated in Union Pacific's dispatching center assessments or inspections, so that I'm really not qualified to answer your question about that period.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. Well, we can ask somebody else that.

MR. GREEN: Okay.

MR. LAUBY: Just -- just to wrap up, the problems that -- that you found at the Harriman Center, do you have any feeling -- and this is -- this is for either one on the panel. Do you have any feeling on what the root cause of these problems would be? What triggered -- what triggered them?

And let me give you an example. We're talking about workload, workloads increasing, not enough manpower. Is this something that's developed over a number of years or has it developed in the short term or what?

MR. GREEN: Maybe I'd be better prepared to address that than Ms. Gross. Several factors conspired on the railroad to create the problem that they were facing that resulted, in my opinion, in the Devine train accident as an example, which was attributed to dispatcher error, one of which was the consolidation of the train-dispatching centers from the Southern Pacific into Omaha, moving dispatchers from Denver to Omaha, and many of those dispatchers were originally from train-dispatching offices across the southern tier of the states on the Southern Pacific, and they were reluctant to make another move into cold country.

At the same time, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe merger had taken place, and they were consolidating a dispatching center from Schaumburg, Illinois, down to Texas.

So, a good many of the railroad's train dispatchers who could left Union Pacific and went to -- went to the dispatching center in Fort Worth, Texas, with BNSF. Some of them, I think, retired out of the railroad industry.

Those kinds of things were going on throughout this period leading up to the Summer of '97 and the tragic events of that year that resulted in work overloads, stress levels that impacted the dispatcher's ability to comply with all of the standards that the railroad has set to ensure safe train dispatching, safe transmission of track warrants by radio, train order by radio, that resulted in -- in the error that occurred.

I think that it was an overall workload/work stress problem that was the root cause rather than a simple train dispatcher who didn't comply with the railroad's rules for some personal reason.

MR. LAUBY: So, would it be accurate to say that you -- you would consider this to be related to the merger and the changes that took place as part of the merger?

MR. GREEN: It would be related to this merger and others, yes.

MR. LAUBY: Yes. One final question. I know my panel is happy to hear that. One more -- one more question, and this relates to training.

Do you see any -- any effect that the merger had on -- on the problems that you experienced with the training or was this a pre-existing condition?

MR. GREEN: I -- I don't have the ability to respond to that on a training issue.

MR. LAUBY: Maybe Ms. Gross.

MS. GROSS: Well, I'm not sure I could respond to it in detail. I think that there's always a sense of urgency to get qualified people on the job as quickly as possible and sometimes that happens.

MR. LAUBY: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: The Chairman has been threatened with mutiny if we don't take a facilities break. So, given that, we'll take a 15-minute break.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. We will go back on the record, and the questioning will continue with -- with Mr. Dunn for Mr. Gross -- see, now I slipped -- Mr. Green and Ms. Gross.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Green and Ms. Gross, I would remind you you're still under oath.

MR. GREEN: Thank you.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Green, in some of the questions from Mr. Gavalla, he asked you about allocation of the inspectors' duties, and are there manuals that address that.

Could you expand on that a little bit?

MR. GREEN: Each of our disciplines has a manual or the guidance for the inspectors that governs all of the aspects of the regulations that we inspect for and enforce as a discipline and also has general guidance on accident investigation procedures to be followed and for complaint waiver investigations that are general across the board for all disciplines, and we also have, of course, our enforcement policies covered in our manuals, and those stretch across all disciplines.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Specifically allocation of duties. Is that addressed in these manuals?

MR. GREEN: Yes, it would be or I guess it would be addressed in that guidance is there for prioritizing your inspection complaint investigation/ accident investigation activities.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And according to the manuals, what percentage of an inspector's duties should be spent on or dedicated to site inspections?

MR. GREEN: There's not a hard, firm guideline or a bright line to follow on how much or what percentage of time should be dedicated to routine or site inspections.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Absent a bright line, is there any line? Is there any guidance about what percentage of an inspector's duties should be dedicated to site inspection?

MR. GREEN: No, sir, there is not.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Is that monitored? In other words, the percentage of time that is sent -- spent in site inspection, is that monitored at any level within the agency?

MR. GREEN: We had at one time a program called the Quality Improvement Program. That prog