[Senate Hearing 107-1042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1042
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
91-424 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 25, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 13
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Witnesses
Blakey, Hon. Marion, Chairman, National Transportation Safety
Board.......................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. There is an embarrassment of absences
this morning, which is not deliberate, nor is it personal. It
is just that one of the two parties is having a caucus, which
evidently relates to the amount of time that one can serve on
Committees, which would be a very important caucus.
Fortunately, it is not the one that I belong to, and so I feel
relatively comfortable here, and I am extremely glad to see
you. We have a history which the Committee need not know about
and which is nothing they would wish to know about, but my
mother and you worked together, and that is something that I
certainly will never forget.
It has been a long time since September 11, and we have
done a lot of work on security-related issues and not much on
safety-related issues, and both are important and, of course,
NTSB's job.
And Good morning, Senator Nelson. This is actually a
hearing that has been going on for about 25 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. We started about 30 seconds ago. You
do a superb job at safety, but it is in danger of being
bypassed, in a sense, or put backwards a little bit because of
the question of security. We cannot let that happen, and I
think that under you, Ms. Blakey, the NTSB has done excellent
work, and we have every expectation that will continue.
Now, I think it is essential that we give you the tools to
do what you need to do, and in this case you have some
requests. You need additional staff, and I want you to talk
about that, and I also think that you are looking at building a
facility where you cannot only train your own people but you
can train other people, and a new facility is not
inconsequential in these budget days, but everything that has
gone on really has had to do with an investigation of
accidents, which has become incredibly important in spite of
the sort of preoccupation with security.
So funding for this project is needed and it is
appropriate, in my view at least, and we will have to see how
things proceed. You want some statutory changes, and one of
these would give you priority in marine investigation. It is a
very interesting subject to me, because you currently share
this with the Coast Guard. Two years ago we looked at this
issue. We directed NTSB and the Coast Guard work together. Was
that a really naive mistake on our part, or does it mean the
NTSB or the Coast Guard, the one or the other or the both,
conduct the usual business of Washington. I am interested in
your views on that, and we were hoping to get a memorandum of
understanding to address this, quote, jurisdictional issue, all
of which seems to have less meaning post 9/11.
And then finally you request language that would relieve
NTSB of the responsibility for family assistance in cases of
accidents caused by intentional criminal acts, and would give
responsibility for family assistance in these circumstances to
the FBI, and I think we want to talk a little bit about that to
make sure (1) that it is the right thing to do, and (2) that
the FBI could do it, and it's not just putting-off the
responsibility but, in fact, something the FBI would be in a
position to do. They are fairly busy folks these days.
I think that NTSB has been doing a lot better job over the
last few years, and I would be comfortable transferring such
responsibility to another organization from that point of view,
but I really would want to make sure that the so-called new
organization could handle the responsibility, because dealing
with families of transportation accident victims is, as you
know, very serious and deep stuff.
So I hear what you're saying, I'm glad you're here, and I'm
glad that Senator Nelson is here, and he always has important
things to say and will want to do so at this very instant.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I follow your enlightened
leadership.
Senator Rockefeller. You see how we are around here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. We welcome your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARION BLAKEY, CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Ms. Blakey. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Senator
Nelson. I am very pleased to be before you today representing
the National Transportation Safety Board. As you know, we have
a limited time this morning, so I will submit my longer
comments for the record and simply take a few moments to
summarize our request, which Chairman Rockefeller already
clearly has a good grip on at this point.
As you know, it is my responsibility to advance the board's
critical safety mission, a mission that can't be achieved
alone. In fact, the help of this Committee, the support you
have given over the years, has been critical in making possible
the work that we have undertaken. So as I approach you today
with these requests, I think we are keeping a collective
objection in mind in this agency's reauthorization.
The Board's request asked essentially for three things. We
ask for, number one, the budget and the personnel levels to
sustain the NTSB's training academy. We are very excited about
this new academy, which is scheduled to open in the fall of
2003.
Second, we are looking for a clarification of our family
affairs responsibilities when transportation accidents that
involve intentional criminal acts. And third, we are seeking
full independent investigative authority for the marine
accidents that we investigate.
First, the NTSB requests a budget level capable of
sustaining the NTSB's soon-to-be-built academy. We have broken
ground and the walls are going up. The NTSB has for many years,
of course, provided training for its investigators and for
other accident investigators from foreign lands who request our
assistance. The board also provides family affairs training,
and we provide assistance to international agencies and groups
on that front as well.
The academy, as I say, is expected to open next fall, and
it will enable us to consolidate and formalize all of the
training activities that we are undertaking and expand them.
The academy is also going to house the TWA-800 reconstruction
that I know you are familiar with. We will be rebuilding it at
the Academy. We have on-site as well as state-of-the-art
classrooms, a simulation court, all of the things that are
really going to make this a first-rate accident investigation
and training academy for safety.
Helping to ensure the best investigative techniques and
high standards worldwide at present is essential for thorough,
independent accident investigations, and I stress this because
we are talking about an increasingly interdependent global
system, and therefore the extensions that we make to others
abroad as well as to our own and to a larger group of first
responders in training them what needs to happen in accident
sites, all of this is what the academy is all about.
Next, we do request your assistance in clarifying our role
in terms of our Office of Family Affairs when a disaster is
deemed criminal, and the investigation at that point is
transferred to the FBI. We have got good reasons for this. As
you know, the Aviation Family Assistance Act triggers our
family affairs response regardless of the suspected source of
the accident. The intent of the act is to provide family
assistance without any delay due to uncertainty about which
agency ultimately may take control. The Board fully supports
the letter of this and the spirit of the law, and we think the
request we are making of you today is consistent with both of
those.
Once an investigation, however, is transferred to the FBI,
any uncertainty about the lead agency at that point is
resolved, and the Board believes that responsibility for family
assistance should be transferred as well. At this point, the
accident site is deemed a crime scene, and the situation
changes. Access is restricted, information about the
investigation becomes tightly controlled, and understandably
so, much more so than when the NTSB has investigative
authority.
For this reason, the FBI's own Office of Victim's
Assistance is in a better position to make decisions regarding
victim recovery, identification of remains, and the extent to
which information can or cannot be shared with the families of
victims. The events of September 11 demonstrated that these
decisions should be made by the agency that is leading the
investigation. The NTSB's Office of Family Affairs will be
ready and willing to provide any assistance that the FBI
requests, but they do need to be the lead.
Finally, to turn to the third aspect of our request today,
the NTSB requests full, independent investigative authority in
the marine accidents we investigate. Currently, we have such
authority in all modes except marine--aviation, railroad,
pipeline, highway, railroad. The NTSB's independent accident
investigation authority has never interfered with any of DOT's
statutory responsibilities.
In fact, we have developed a very healthy relationship with
agencies such as the FAA and the FRA, which has been
significant in improving transportation overall. All of the
other modes of transportation have benefited from our
investigations for over 30 years, and passengers and crew who
rely on marine transportation, as well as the public that is
affected by maritime accidents, should be given the full
benefit of a system that is similar to that in terms of checks
and balances.
It is important to recognize that in granting the NTSB's
request, it will in no way fundamentally affect the
responsibilities of the Coast Guard. In fact, we ask only to
examine those accidents that pose the most significant risk to
the traveling public, a very limited number of accident
investigations that offer the greatest potential for yielding
safety improvements.
Why? Because our goal is to protect the American public by
preventing future accidents. It is our sole mission. It is what
makes us different, and for this reason we must have the
authority to lead a limited number of accident investigations
which we believe will allow us to best improve safety in the
marine area as well.
As a result of NTSB investigations, a number of important
marine safety improvements have taken place that may not
otherwise have resulted from Coast Guard investigations. This
is so because the Coast Guard's focus is primarily on
compliance with current regulations which, of course, it
develops and enforces. For example, as a result of Safety Board
investigations, large cruise ships are now required to have
sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, and improved permanent fire
barriers.
In addition, all commercial fishing vessels are required to
carry emergency radio beacons, survival suits, and life rafts,
and seven cruise lines have now either installed or are in the
process of installing locally sounding fire alarms which will
alert passengers and crew in their quarters when there may be a
fire threat.
We commend the Coast Guard for its actions in making these
recommendations a reality. They do have the responsibility for
carrying it out. However, the current investigative
relationship between the Coast Guard and the NTSB frequently
does have a detrimental effect on NTSB investigations. Because
the Coast Guard investigation focuses on enforcement and
penalties, it makes it difficult for the NTSB to obtain the
kind of cooperation we often employ, and we rely on in terms of
all the parties to the accident to determine both the probable
cause of the accident and to develop safety recommendations to
improve marine safety for all Americans.
When we investigate accidents, there is really no need to
duplicate the effort as well. Currently, when the NTSB
investigates a marine accident, two reports are issued, one by
the NTSB, one by the Coast Guard. In today's climate, when we
are talking about safety and security being threatened on a
daily basis, we need to maximize our resources and avoid
redundancy that affects not just our agencies but others at the
State and local level and in the private sector who receive
these reports and respond to the recommendations and the
analysis.
As you are aware, during our last reauthorization we
requested congressional assistance in resolving this issue. You
listened to our request, and you responded. The National
Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000 included a
deadline of 1 year for the revision of the interagency
memorandum of understanding to clarify with the Coast Guard the
circumstances in which NTSB would lead marine investigations.
Over the past year, both agencies have tried. The NTSB and
the Coast Guard met on numerous occasions and exchanged
proposals to amend the MOU. Unfortunately, the negotiations
between the agencies appear to be at a standstill, and for this
reason we are again asking for congressional intervention.
Although the board is asking for congressional intervention, I
tell you, we continue to try. I have discussed the matter with
Secretary Norman Mineta. I plan soon to meet, in fact, with
Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and the new Commandant,
Admiral Tom Collins.
Mr. Chairman, I would leave the Committee with one last
thought regarding our request. The NTSB is a very small agency
relative to the Coast Guard, and this has been a significant
problem for us, with a great deal of time and effort invested
in it for more than 10 years. That is how long we have been at
this.
Currently in the marine area the NTSB operates with less
independence, and less efficiency than in any other mode. If we
are to keep the public trust that results from fully
independent accident investigations, we need your support to
permit the NTSB to lead a small number of marine
investigations.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and I
would be happy to respond to any questions you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marion C. Blakey, Chairman,
National Transportation Safety Board
Good morning Chairman Rockefeller and Members of the Committee. I
am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) regarding our request for
reauthorization.
Mr. Chairman, I was extremely honored when President Bush nominated
me for the position of NTSB Chairman--a position I have held for about
nine months. I believe the agency has a critical mission, to protect
and advance public safety in all modes of transportation, and I am more
and more impressed with the men and women of the NTSB and the work they
do to advance that mission each and every day. I would be remiss,
however, if I did not acknowledge that many of the accomplishments of
the NTSB would not have occurred without the continued support of this
Committee.
As you know, the work of the NTSB was last reauthorized in 2000,
and this Committee supported many new Safety Board initiatives, such as
true overtime for Safety Board investigators at accident sites, the
authority to enter into agreements to be compensated for our
instructional or analytical services, and the clarification of the
Department of Justice/NTSB relationships during accident
investigations. I was on-scene at the American Airlines flight 587
crash in Queens, New York, and I can personally tell you that the on-
scene relationship between the NTSB and FBI worked well. I thank you
for your support and I look forward to working with you to further the
interests of transportation safety.
SAFETY BOARD ACTIVITIES
Before I present our request for our three-year reauthorization, I
would like to highlight several Board activities since our last
reauthorization hearing. The Board continues its core mission of
investigating accidents, issuing safety recommendations, and
coordinating family affairs activities. Since the Board's last
reauthorization appearance in July 1999, until mid May, 2002, we have
investigated over 5,988 aviation accidents, issued 4 major aviation
reports, including TWA flight 800 and American Airlines flight 1420,
and 3 studies; 111 highway accidents and issued 5 major highway
reports, including the motorcoach accident at New Orleans; 13 marine
accidents, one special investigation, and issued 6 major marine
reports, including reports involving the Ecstasy the Morning Dew; 8
pipeline/hazardous materials accidents and issued 5 major pipeline/
hazardous materials reports, including as the pipeline explosion in St.
Cloud, Minnesota; and 56 railroad accidents, and issued 15 major
railroad reports, including the Amtrak grade crossing accident in
Bourbonnais, Illinois. We have issued a total 645 safety
recommendations. The modal breakdown follows: aviation--270; highway--
124; intermodal--18; marine--84; pipeline--30; and railroad--119.
The Safety Board has also begun work on the NTSB Training Academy,
a major training initiative to increase the knowledge and skill of our
investigators. As you may recall, in 1999 the Rand Corporation issued a
report that strongly recommended that the Safety Board devote more
resources and staff to keep its investigators on the cutting edge of
investigative technology, skill, and performance.
In the aftermath of the tragedies that occurred on September 11,
2001, for many weeks the Board assisted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the
clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and at our headquarters in
Washington, DC., assisting with aircraft parts identification,
searching for and analyzing flight recorders, and working with the air
carriers to assist the victims' families. Although Safety Board
employees frequently view the aftermath of aviation disasters, nothing
in their experience prepared them for the magnitude of the September
11th devastation. I applaud all involved, and want to take this
opportunity to publicly commend them for their accomplishments.
Safety Recommendations
The most important results of any accident investigation, no matter
what mode of transportation, are the safety recommendations. It is
clear that adoption of our safety recommendations saves lives.
The Safety Board currently has over 1,100 open safety
recommendations, and some of them have been open for a number of years.
Approximately half of the recommendations are to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and its modal administrations, with most of the
remaining half to the private sector or the States. Because we have
been typically receiving progress reports on only about one-third of
our open recommendations, we are working with the DOT modal
administrations to get an update on the status of each and every one of
them and to ensure that in the future we receive at least an annual
report. As part of this effort, for all that remain open I have begun
to meet with each of the modal agency administrators to discuss which
of the open recommendations can and should be accomplished within the
next two years, and have already met with the Administrators of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). These meetings have been productive and are helping to
accomplish the goals of a number of open safety recommendations.
I am also focusing special attention on our advocacy and outreach
activities. This includes working with consumer and industry
organizations to garner support for our safety recommendations. In
addition, we are going to step up our efforts to work with the states
to implement recommendations we have made to them. Our Board is
launching a new program to help. The five Members have each agreed to
be responsible for ten states. Board members will meet with state
officials and departments to promote the passage of legislation. We
will also address open safety recommendations, speak at public events,
target print, radio and television media, and establish contacts with
important state groups.
We are confident that our Members' state strategy will prove to be
successful, and I believe these steps will reduce the time it takes--
currently a five-year average--to implement the improvements that we
see as necessary for the safety of the traveling public.
Aviation
As you know, the NTSB investigates every accident involving civil
aircraft, accidents involving both military and civil aircraft, and
aircraft accidents involving public aircraft other than aircraft
operated by the Armed Forces or by the United States intelligence
agencies. On-going NTSB major aviation investigations include crashes
involving: Alaska Airlines flight 261 near Port Hueneme, California;
Emery Worldwide Airlines flight 17 in Rancho Cordova, California;
Southwest Airlines flight 1455 in Burbank, California; and American
Airlines flight 587 in Belle Harbor, New York. The Safety Board plans
to hold a public hearing on the American Airlines accident in our Board
Room and Conference Center in October 2002.
The Safety Board also recently sent investigators to assist in the
foreign aviation accidents that occurred: May 25, 2002, near Makung
Island, Taiwan, involving a China Airlines Boeing 747; May 7, 2002, in
Dalian, China, involving a China Northern Airlines MD-82, and Tunisia,
involving an EgyptAir Boeing 737; May 4, 2002, in Nigeria involving an
EAS Airlines BAC 1-11; April 27, 2002, in San Salvador involving a
Centurion Air Cargo DC-10; and the April 15, 2002, accident involving
an Air China Boeing 767-200 in Pusan, South Korea.
A number of recent aviation safety accomplishments that have
resulted from NTSB aviation investigations:
Runway Safety--Runway safety has been a concern of the NTSB for
many years, and we are pleased that recent accomplishments have been
made in this area as a result of NTSB investigative activities--some
without the need for safety recommendations. For example, in December
1999, an Emery DC-8 collided with a parked Gemini DC-10 while taxiing
on a ramp at Indianapolis International Airport, resulting in
substantial damage to the DC-8 aircraft. As a result of the
investigator's discussions with the FAA and the ramp control and ground
handling firm, ground operations at the airport were revised.
Other runway safety accomplishments resulted from suggestions made
by NTSB investigators following potentially catastrophic incidents in
New York, Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago and Juneau. Remedies ranged
from improved pushback and ramp and controller procedures, to proper
runway markings and safety education for ground crews that service air
carriers.
Lubrication and Inspection Procedures for Horizontal Stabilizer
Acme Screws and Acme Nuts--The NTSB investigation of Alaska Airlines
flight 261 raised concerns regarding industry maintenance practices
associated with the MD-80's horizontal stabilizer trim system and
potential adverse effects caused by the use of inappropriate greases or
mixtures of incompatible greases. As a result of issues raised in our
investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered
inspections of the stabilizer control mechanisms of over 1,000 aircraft
and held a forum to address grease and lubrication issues. The FAA is
also working with the manufacturer to rewrite the aircraft's
lubrication procedures.
Pilot Training on Transport-Category Airplanes--The investigation
of the American Airlines flight 587 crash in Belle Harbor, New York,
has a number of different areas of inquiry, but one aspect has raised
questions regarding pilot training programs. Many programs do not
include information about the structural certification requirements for
the rudder and vertical stabilizer on transport-category airplanes. The
NTSB issued a recommendation requesting that the FAA require the
manufacturers and operators of transport-category airplanes establish
and implement pilot training programs that address the issues of pilot
rudder inputs we identified in our recommendation letter, and to review
all existing and proposed guidance and training provided. The Safety
Board notes that the FAA has taken positive action regarding our
recommendations. In an April 2002 letter, they advised that they had
reviewed operators' training programs, issued a notice to principal
operations inspectors of the potential subsequent effects on the
vertical stabilizer resulting from improper rudder use, and contacted
manufacturers and industry organizations to inform them that it shares
the Board's concern regarding pilot training on the use of the rudder
in transport-category airplanes.
Highway
Until recently, the Board's Office of Highway Safety has, until
recently, conducted in-depth investigations of single, major accidents
and issued safety recommendations on issues resulting from those
investigations. The accidents investigated generally involved large
loss of life and property damage, but in many cases may not have been
representative of the typical highway accidents occurring daily,
nationwide. Now, because of the Board's limited highway staff, we
devote our resources to those accidents that have a significant impact
on the public's confidence in highway transportation safety and
highlight national safety issues. Currently under investigation are
four school or commercial bus accidents, two 15-passenger van
accidents, a grade crossing accident, a work zone accident, an accident
that occurred on the Washington Beltway on February 1, 2002, when the
driver of an SUV lost control of her new vehicle in windy weather while
talking on a cell phone, and the May 26, 2002, collapse in Oklahoma of
a bridge on Interstate 40 after being struck by a barge. We are also
conducting a special investigation regarding 15 passenger vans.
The Safety Board is also continuing a high level of advocacy work
with the states on a number of important highway safety issues,
including booster seats, hard core drunk driving, graduated driver
licensing, the need for personal floatation devices and boating
instruction.
The NTSB's Office of Highway Safety is focusing its resources on
identifying trends from the investigation of similar accidents to
develop potential root causes and appropriate countermeasures. As you
may recall, in 1999, the NTSB embarked on a multi-year initiative to
improve heavy vehicle transportation safety, and conducted four public
hearings on truck and bus safety issues. As a result of those hearings,
individual reports and a number of safety recommendations on each issue
either have been or will soon be issued, including:
Technology applications for heavy vehicle safety;
Adequacy of the commercial drivers license medical
certification process;
Intrastate truck safety; and
Collision warning technology.
A number of recent highway safety accomplishments have resulted
from NTSB highway investigations:
Heavy Trucks--In October 2000, a Freightliner dump truck lost
primary braking capability near Lincoln, Nebraska, killing two people.
Our investigation revealed that a brake pin had fractured, rendering
the service brakes inoperative. Working closely with the NTSB,
Freightliner, in November 2000, voluntarily recalled approximately
133,000 trucks to replace the defective brake pedal push rods without a
safety recommendation being issued.
Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing--In March 2000, a school bus
carrying elementary school children failed to stop at a railroad grade
crossing and was struck by a CSX freight train. The accident resulted
in the deaths of three students and three serious injuries. As a result
of NTSB discussions with CSX, the railroad corrected a sign error,
replaced a missing whistle post at another crossing, surveyed signs in
the rail subdivisions for accuracy, and reiterated to employees rules
dealing with the installation, maintenance and inspection of crossing
signs.
Marine
The NTSB investigates major marine casualties occurring on the
navigable waters or territorial seas of the United States, or involving
a vessel of the United States, under regulations agreed to by the Board
and the Department of Transportation. On-going marine investigations
include accidents involving the grounding of the U.S. passenger ferry
Finest during an approach to a New Jersey ferry terminal; the collision
of the U.S. nuclear attack submarine USS Greeneville with the Japanese
fisheries training vessel Ehime Maru near Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; the
fire aboard the passenger ferry Seastreak in New York, New York; and
the collision of a U.S. Coast Guard patrol boat with the small
passenger vessel Bayside Blaster in Miami, Florida. We are also
conducting a special investigation regarding fire standards for small
passenger vessels.
Several recent marine safety accomplishments have resulted from
NTSB marine investigations:
Cruise Ship Safety--Because precious time is often lost between the
detection of smoke and the time that passengers or crew are ultimately
notified of the problem, the NTSB repeatedly has urged that the cruise
ship industry install smoke alarms that sound where the smoke is
detected, not just in a remotely located control room. Over the last
year, we received commitments from several cruise lines to comply fully
with our recommendations. Combined, these seven cruise lines operate 50
cruise ships with a capacity to carry more than 76,000 passengers and
approximately 30,000 to 40,000 crew. As a result, improved shipboard
fire safety will be available for more than three million passengers
and more than a million crewmen annually.
Permanently Moored (Gaming) Vessels--In September 2000, following
our investigation of the near-breakaway of a gaming vessel moored in
the Mississippi River in St. Louis, Missouri, the Safety Board issued
recommendations to improve the safety of permanently moored gaming
vessels on U.S. navigable waters. According to Coast Guard data, there
are 30 permanently moored gaming vessels on the Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers, with an aggregate capacity of 50,000 people. Coast
Guard policy, established after this accident, requires owners/
operators of permanently moored vessels to protect them from waterborne
and current-related risks. Failure to comply with this requirement will
result in vessels not being designated as a permanently moored vessels.
The vessels will also remain under Coast Guard jurisdiction and require
a certificate of inspection.
Pipeline/Hazardous Materials
The NTSB investigates pipeline accidents in which there is a
fatality, substantial property damage, or significant injury to the
environment. Selected areas of emphasis include accidents involving
aging pipeline infrastructure failures, government pipeline safety
regulatory programs or industry practice inadequacies, accidents
involving recognition or response delays, and environmental damage
following the release of a significant amount of product that threatens
water supplies. On-going major NTSB pipeline investigations include
accidents that occurred in Bellingham, Washington, involving Olympic
Pipeline Company; Chalk Point, Maryland, involving Potomac Electric
Power Company; and Carlsbad, New Mexico, involving El Paso Natural Gas
Pipeline Company.
Several recent pipeline safety accomplishments have resulted from
NTSB pipeline investigations:
Pipeline Integrity--The continued operation of pipelines with
discoverable integrity problems has been a recurring issue in Safety
Board investigations and numerous safety recommendations have been
issued to address our concerns. We are encouraged that the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) recently published final rules
that will require integrity assessments for liquid pipelines in high
consequence areas, and requires operators to assess the integrity of
pipelines using in-line inspection tools, pressure tests, or other
technologies that will provide equivalent results.
Data Collection--The Safety Board has been concerned with RSPA's
data collection process. Over the years, we have made recommendations
to correct trend analysis and pipeline operator performance evaluation
inadequacies. In May 2001, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued
new accident reporting requirements for gas transmission pipelines, and
in January 2002, OPS issued new accident reporting requirements for
hazardous liquid pipelines. We believe the new reporting requirements
will include information that will assist the Safety Board with
operator evaluation and trend analysis.
Excavation Damage--Excavation damage prevention was removed from
the Board's ``Most Wanted'' list of safety issues last month. We are
encouraged by OPS research to improve pipeline location technologies,
improve inspection technologies to find pipe defects, monitor for
mechanical damage and leaks in real time, and improve technologies to
avoid damage to underground facilities and to increase the security of
pipelines. We are hopeful that this on-going research, which addresses
many Safety Board recommendations, will lead to increased excavation
prevention safety.
Railroad
The NTSB investigates railroad accidents in which there is a
fatality or substantial property damage, or that involve a passenger
train. There are over 6,500 railroad accidents and incidents reported
annually. Because of limited resources, the Safety Board investigates
fewer than 25. On-going major NTSB railroad investigations include a
CSX tunnel fire in Baltimore, Maryland; an Amtrak derailment in
Crescent City, Florida; a grade crossing accident involving an Amtrak
train and a tractor-trailer in Coosawhatchie, South Carolina; a
collision between a freight train and a commuter train in Placentia,
California; and a derailment that resulted in the release of hazardous
materials in Minot, North Dakota. The Board will hold a public hearing
on the Minot accident in our Board Room and Conference Center in July
2002.
Several recent railroad safety accomplishments have resulted from
NTSB railroad investigations:
Freight Train Brakes--Significant progress on freight train braking
systems was made with the promulgation of new power brake regulations
in 2001. The FRA issued new regulations that close several outstanding
recommendations concerning cold weather operations, steep-grade train
handling practices, and dynamic brake requirements to prevent ``run-
away'' trains. Additionally, train crews will be provided with training
in the use of air brake retaining valves and will be required to have
knowledge of their trailing tonnage. The regulations address many
Safety Board recommendations issued regarding this subject.
Positive Train Control (PTC) Since its formation in 1967, the NTSB
has investigated numerous major collision accidents, most of which
could have been prevented had PTC systems that ensure safe train
separation been in effect. We are currently investigating a number of
railroad collision accidents that may have been prevented had PTC
systems been in place, including a recent head-on collision that
occurred between a freight train and a commuter train in Placentia,
California, on April 23, 2002. These systems have been developed and
are being tested. For example, Amtrak employed a 118-mile PTC system
along the high-density Northeast Corridor between New Haven,
Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts. Amtrak has installed another 76
miles of PTC on a Michigan line. Additional projects include an
advanced speed enforcement system with PTC capabilities, which is
planned for installation on 540 track miles owned by New Jersey
Transit. In addition, a positive train control system is being
designed, tested, built, and installed on a 123-mile section of the
high-speed Chicago-St. Louis Corridor by the AAR in cooperation with
the Illinois Department of Transportation.
NTSB Board Room and Conference Center
Finally, since the Board's last reauthorization, the NTSB
inaugurated in Spring 2000 a new Board Room and Conference Center at
its headquarters. The new complex significantly increases the Board's
space and capabilities for Board meetings and other agency events. The
main auditorium holds close to 400 people, compared to about 100 in the
old facility. It also includes state-of-the-art electronics equipment
and areas designed for the news media, family members, private
conferences and meetings. Because of the size of the room, we are now
able to hold investigative public hearings at the facility. It is
estimated that we saved taxpayers over $100,000 in calendar year 2000
when we held the Alaska Airlines flight 261 accident hearing in our
Board room.
REAUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, the Board is requesting two changes to its
authorizing authority. Attached to our statement is a copy of our
formal request, but the following is a summary of each issue.
Marine Priority
This amendment would give the NTSB the same priority in marine
accident investigations as it has in all other modes of transportation.
The NTSB included a proposal in our Senate reauthorization request of
1996 for NTSB marine investigations to have priority over other federal
investigations. In 1999, the NTSB included another request in our
reauthorization on this issue to clarify the relationship with the
Coast Guard. The Congress responded with the National Transportation
Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000, which included a deadline of one
year for the revision of our inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Coast Guard and language directing the agencies to
clarify the circumstances for NTSB to lead investigations.
We have met with the Coast Guard on numerous occasions and
exchanged proposals to amend the MOU. Our most recent proposal
submitted to the Coast Guard would have enabled the NTSB to elect to
take the lead in no more than five accidents per year. The Coast Guard
has thus far indicated no inclination to permit NTSB to elect
leadership in any investigation, and the negotiations between the
agencies are currently at a standstill.
Because it appears that our two agencies will not reach an
agreement, and we will not find a mutually acceptable formula that
would permit NTSB to elect leadership in even a limited number of
accidents, we are again asking for congressional intervention.
Be assured, Mr. Chairman, that although the Board has asked for
congressional intervention, our negotiations have not stopped. In fact,
I plan to soon meet with Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and the new
Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thomas Collins to pursue the matter.
Clarification of Family Affairs Responsibilities in Intentional
Criminal Acts
Since passage of the Aviation Family Disaster Assistance Act in
1996, the NTSB has been responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to
assist family members following an aviation disaster. The legislation
wisely triggers our family affairs response regardless of the cause or
suspected cause of the occurrence. The intent was to provide family
assistance without any delay due to uncertainty about which agency
would lead the investigation. Uncertainty in Federal response to meet
the needs of families would lead to confusion, neglect, distrust, and
further traumatize the next of kin of the victims.
However, when investigative responsibility is transferred to the
FBI, the NTSB believes that the responsibility for family assistance
should be transferred as well. When the FBI has investigative priority,
the site of the crash is considered a crime scene and access to the
scene and release of information about the investigation are much more
restricted than when the NTSB has investigative priority. Following the
events of September 11, 2001, it was apparent that an agency that is
not responsible for the investigation cannot be responsible for
coordinating family affairs support, such as facilitating victim
recovery and identification or briefing the families.
Additionally, since September 11th, the FBI has reorganized its
Office of Victims Assistance, hired a program director to work with the
NTSB and other agencies to support victims and their families following
terrorist/criminal events resulting in mass fatalities, and is in the
process of hiring more than 100 victim assistance staff that can be
organized into quick response teams in the event of mass fatalities.
Although the NTSB is certainly ready to assist, we believe that the FBI
and Department of Justice should undertake family assistance
responsibilities when the event is deemed criminal.
NTSB Academy
The NTSB's reauthorization request also provides for budget and
personnel resource levels to sustain the NTSB's Academy. The NTSB has
for many years provided training for its investigators and other
transportation accident investigators from around the world. We also
provide training for other U.S. and international government agencies
and industry representatives on how to comply with the Aviation Family
Disaster Act following major transportation accidents. The academy will
enable the NTSB to consolidate and formalize all NTSB training
activities. In fact, we are currently enrolling major domestic and
international air carriers in a family assistance course to be held
next month. The facility will also house the reconstruction of the TWA
flight 800 accident aircraft and provide state-of-the-art classrooms
and laboratory space for accident investigation.
A 20-year lease agreement with The George Washington University to
build a 72,000 square foot training academy in Loudoun County, Virginia
has been signed and construction began in December 2001. It is expected
that the Academy will open in fiscal year 2003, and we are looking
forward to the opportunities it will provide to advance transportation
safety worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my testimony and I will be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you very much. I have just a
couple of questions. I gave a speech, which I thoroughly
enjoyed giving, several weeks ago in which I sort of took apart
the European Community for its protectionist policies on
aircraft, and was visited by most of Europe within 2 weeks
after that, and one of the things that I talked about, not to
enlarge my role, was the question of aerospace research. You
have to have the best in order to do what you need to do,
whether it is American Airlines Flight 587, or whatever.
Presumably you have the vertical stabilizers, the composites,
all of those kind of things as questions.
Now, you can use NASA, you can use private labs, and you
presumably have some of your own capacity. I would like to
understand two things. One is, what do you have in the way of
research, and to the extent that you do not have it, where do
you have to go, and can you achieve access in the real time
that you need it, let us say, into, for example, NASA or
private labs? Can you get what you want when you need it?
Ms. Blakey. That is a good question, and a very important
one. As you know, we have a small staff, less than 450 on
board, and it would be impossible even under the best of
circumstances to cover all possible technical issues with
state-of-the-art knowledge, which is really exactly what is
required in terms of research, and getting to the bottom of
issues in these accidents.
I have been very please so far by the kind of response we
have received. Certainly we do have some depth on our own staff
in terms of composite materials, and in terms of knowledge,
therefore, of what is a coming trend, if you will, in aircraft
manufacture, where more and more composites are taking the
place of metal in terms of the overall shape of our aircraft
today.
That said, we have certainly gone outside, and we did so
immediately following the crash of 587. We turned to NASA,
because they have had, as you know, extensive experience in
spacecraft, as well as support in terms of military aircraft
for over 20 years, and doing analysis and research and R&D on
composite materials, and therefore we have had the vertical
stabilizer, the rudder down at NASA Langley all these months,
where they have been doing initially noninvasive testing, and
now we are actually moving toward the more destructive forms of
testing to look at the question of what kind of failure may or
may not have taken place in terms of composite materials.
I have also been pleased, though, also by how the private
sector stepped up, and others have volunteered their help. I
will tell you that right now we in fact are using a very large
CAT scan, that the only one we know about is in the private
sector. It is owned by Ford Motor Company and we have,
therefore, the vertical stabilizer out at Ford at the moment,
where we are looking at the questions of, could delamination
have occurred somewhere down in the depths, because that
machine is really able to look at each and every layer and
analyze that for us in a way that would not have been possible
otherwise, and so I use those as examples, but we have also
turned to Sandia.
We have looked to others to give us assistance on this
crash, and I see that being more and more the role that the
board will look to for those both in terms of Government
research agencies as well as the private sector.
I would also mention one other thing, which is one reason
why I put such emphasis on and stock in our academy. It will
have a laboratory facility, which I think will give us much
more capacity than we have right now. It will be larger, it
will have more state-of-the-art equipment, but also, because it
is a teaching facility, I think it will have a reason to draw
the best and the brightest from around the world to come there
to teach.
What we are looking to do is to bring our investigators up
with the knowledge of those individuals from around the world
to really state of the art as the academy moves forward, and I
think that is going to be an exciting opportunity to have, if
you will, the kind of synergy and cross-fertilization that an
institution like that can provide.
Senator Rockefeller. I am encouraged by your answer, but it
still leaves open the question. It is human nature, and the
NTSB-Coast Guard situation is an example of that, that when,
whether it is a Government agency or a private lab, one which
is busy, underfunded and overwhelmed and the other of which is
overwhelmed, needs to make money, and has things that they are
working on at the time that you request their assistance in
research, that being private labs, you paint a picture wherein
in the sense that you get the immediate response that you want.
Now, I can understand that in something where 260 people
are killed. There are a lot of accidents that you investigate
that are less than that which also require less traumatic--less
dramatic, not traumatic, but dramatic at that. Do you get the
same immediate response? Because if you do, it sort of works
against institutional human nature, so I want to be sure that
you are not just praising your partners here.
Ms. Blakey. Well, my experience is limited to the last 9
months, because that is how long I have been on the job, so my
first-hand knowledge of this, therefore, does not go back that
long. But that said, certainly the second worse crash in U.S.
aviation history has galvanized help and support in a way that
I am not aware of anyone failing to step up to the plate when
we have asked for assistance. The FAA has contributed.
Certainly we have had help from the parties involved, a lot of
support out of Toulouse, as you would appreciate, since it was
an Airbus aircraft, and so I am not aware of any less than
complete and immediate response when we have asked for it.
Some things have not happened as fast as we would like for
them to have because there have been technical issues involved.
I could go down a number of things that may have been a bit
slower than we would have liked, but as a question of
willingness and a question of resources, I do not think we have
experienced that.
There have been times when we would like to have the
contracting for things move forward more quickly. In fact, I
know that we are being held up right now pulling a piece out of
Jamaica Bay because we have not been able to get the actual
contract let yet, so there are moments like that, but I think
they are endemic to Government work, and any help you could
give us, obviously, on that front we would be very pleased.
Senator Rockefeller. I think Senator Nelson and I would
both agree that if you run into problems on that you should use
us to be helpful, because I think instant response is all you
can do, and Senator Nelson has to leave very shortly, so I will
call on him.
STATEMENT OF BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. I am just glad to be here to support you,
Mr. Chairman, and I have to chair the Foreign Relations
Committee. I have elevated in seniority considerably, but they
could not find anybody else to chair the meeting.
I think that this little agency is an example of what
Government should be about, and the kind of cooperation that
you have with another little agency known as NASA is, again,
what we like to see, the kind of efficiencies. That as a little
agency that is having difficulty with its budget as well, and
yet you all perform such a major service to the country,
indeed, to the world. You have my support.
I had a glimpse into this agency years ago from a long-time
friend named Joe Nall of North Carolina, who lost his life on
one of the trips in an airplane accident having to do with the
NTSB, so I have been a fan of this agency for some period of
time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Have a good
hearing.
On the Coast Guard situation, this is what, a 10-year
process?
Ms. Blakey. It has been 10 years, yes.
Senator Rockefeller. It is perplexing, and I can see two
reasons for it. One, I read my paper this morning and they are
getting a big bump in budget. You know, hopefully you will get
something, too, but I did not read about it in the paper, and
there are two answers, possible answers at least, and there may
be more, to this. One is the one I suggested, and that is the
classic bureaucratic behavior. I have this, I possess this, I
will not change it.
We have that up here. We have people from regulatory
agencies that come and virtually admit that things do not work,
but they said, if you want us to do things differently, then
change the law, which then throws you immediately into the
second problem, which is the politics involved with the Coast
Guard and this Committee and others.
I have spent a long time in West Virginia and have never
detected an ocean, but we nevertheless support the Coast Guard
through our tax dollars, and I care about that. I would really
be interested--I mean, it is just very annoying when you have a
lot of people dying, or a few people dying, or people injured,
and you have an accident and you need an investigation, and
then you get two agencies of Government, both of whom are sworn
to work for the people of the country, fighting.
Now, it may only be one party. It may be only one party,
but I think our general view in talking with Sam Whitehorn
behind me is that this is going to get straightened out or we
are just going to give you the authority, and the Coast Guard
is going to lose, but I would be interested in what your
analysis is of what you have heard of why behavior like this
happens, and maybe it is us.
Maybe it is not the Coast Guard. Maybe it is the Coast
Guard egged on by those who on this Committee and elsewhere who
protect the Coast Guard and who want to for good reasons
protect the Coast Guard. How do you read it? Why has there not
been more progress? It is embarrassing, is it not?
Ms. Blakey. Well, I will have to say, I am glad I have not
been here for the full 10 years of it, so I cannot speak for
all the dynamic, but what it would appear--and by the way, I
must tell you that 10 years ago I was at the Department of
Transportation working well with the Coast Guard and have
tremendous admiration for the Coast Guard. It is one of those
agencies that wears a white hat for good reason, so from that
standpoint I have a healthy respect for their positioning and
concerns.
What I suspect is the following. The Coast Guard, of
course, has a 200-year-plus history, and are used to doing
things a certain way. They also carry responsibility for
enforcement issues, for penalties, for making certain that the
regulations are carried out to the letter, et cetera. That is
the mind set that they come into this with, which immediately,
of course, goes to issues of blame and what, therefore, should
be the penalty involved.
That is not conducive to learning from the parties involved
what really went on in an accident investigation, quickly
getting to the bottom of things in terms of the probable cause
and, frankly, looking from a much broader standpoint at what
the issues are involved that really address public safety. They
may or may not be contained within the letter of a set of
already prescribed regulations, and that broader set of issues
is really our perspective and what we care about, as well as,
as I say, we are not looking to cast blame.
We carry no enforcement authority, we carry no regulatory
authority, and that does mean that the parties involved will
cooperate with the NTSB, I find remarkably so, in our accident
investigations. I think the public needs that where you are
talking about a marine accident when there are significant
issues of public safety. We are only asking for a handful of
investigations here. The rest, the Coast Guard should proceed
as they do, but in those where public safety is really
challenged, and there are a handful every year, we think that
it is important that we be given the authority to lead it so
that the environment that goes with an enforcement action with
the marine board, which is a very formal board, and the way the
Coast Guard conducts their investigations can lead to real
liability issues for individuals. We think that needs to be set
aside so that we are able to get to the bottom of what really
went on, and try to make better investigations for the public
at large.
Senator Rockefeller. It just does not make a whole lot of
sense to me to have an investigation about safety where people
have lost their lives or limbs or suffered in some way and then
to have a bifurcated responsibility. I mean, yes, you do have
the majority of it, but you do not have all that you need.
Their life is going to grow a great deal more complicated for
the next 20 or 30 years, and your mission continues unabated,
and I think you ought to have that responsibility. How often do
the two parties try to work this out? Do you sort of meet once
a year or something, or is there kind of an ongoing, active--or
does it just come to a stalemate?
Ms. Blakey. Well, we have met, I believe it is six or seven
times in the last 12 months on this, so this effort to achieve
an MOU has been a very active one on both sides, but we really
have got to a stalemate. I think we got to the point where
everyone agreed we simply cannot bridge this difference in
positioning.
Senator Rockefeller. So it is a stalemate?
Ms. Blakey. I would like to think that with the new
commandant perhaps something would change, but we feel at this
point we need to come to you.
Senator Rockefeller. Okay, a final question, and then I
have some I want to submit to you, if that is okay.
Ms. Blakey. Absolutely.
Senator Rockefeller. You have asked for $76.7 million,
which is about $2.8 million more than the President's budget.
He is fairly exacting about that budget. I want to give you a
chance to make a case for your needs for additional funding,
and the 16 full-time equivalent staff years that you seek.
Ms. Blakey. We are basically, of course, looking at the
authorization level with an eye to what we believe should be
the authorized level for the agency. We do understand that
there are budget constraints, and that everyone must operate
within them, and we certainly intend to also.
Challenging for us right now is that we have a new academy
that is a brand-new responsibility. We are in the early stages
of construction and we are looking at business models and ways
that we can look for tuition to supplement the cost of running
that academy, et cetera.
At the outset, obviously this is going to have to be borne
through appropriated funds. As you can appreciate, this is
causing a set of needs that were not there several years ago.
Once it is up and running, we are going to have a functioning
business model that will certainly supplement from a revenue
standpoint the financial needs there.
We also do see, and you touched on this earlier, the need,
as we are moving into ever more complex accidents, for a
greater degree of specialists, if you will, on our staff in
terms of our investigative force. It has become apparent that
if we are going to be able to respond to the number of
accidents and to the complexity of accidents that we are seeing
now, and I must tell you we have launched a remarkable number
of accidents in other countries this winter and spring, as I
look down where we have had our investigators deployed. It is
not around the corner, it is around the world, and these often
involve U.S.-manufactured aircraft with vital interests of ours
at stake. But nevertheless, we need more bench, because right
now if your specialist on structures is in Taiwan and something
happens here, it really does cause some vital issues from our
standpoint. We would like to develop a greater degree of
expertise as well in the new computer systems, the software
challenges that are there, because the next accident could very
well be caused by an error in a line of computer code as much
as it may be in the mechanical system.
So that is the kind of strength we are looking to establish
with the additional positions, and as I say, we will work
within the constraints that we need to, but that is the concern
that we have in bringing the request before you.
Senator Rockefeller. It is a very interesting point,
because you mentioned Taiwan. They are in the process of
developing a new really high performance corporate jet, but it
is going to be in part made in this country and, of course, it
will be used in this country or sold in this country. It is
going to have to be certified by the FAA, and people forget
that often.
They think that well, here Taiwan is building a jet, or
somebody is building something or another, and yet the reach of
the American Government to make sure that the 30,000 parts that
go into that jet, each and every one of them has to be
certified and approved, cleared, tested, and then finally
certified by the FAA, otherwise Taiwan does not fly jets, and
they do not make jets.
So regarding the reach of our Government in terms of safety
approval and other important missions, we think in terms of the
more conventional and terribly important areas of military and
others. But this reaches into approval of parts and
investigation of accidents, as it well should, because we have
very high standards, and we are not going to see those
compromised.
So anyway, I support very much what you are doing, and as
Senator Nelson, for a discrete and very hard-working agency. I
will support your efforts completely.
Ms. Blakey. Thank you, and I should also probably before
ending, because I thought after Senator Nelson left, in
mentioning the small agency that is supporting us, NASA, that
they are doing this entirely out of their own budget, too. They
have not asked for any transfer of funds from us, so that shows
the level of cooperation that I think we have.
Senator Rockefeller. Which is important, because they have
been financially challenged from the start.
Ms. Blakey. That is exactly right, and the fact that they
did not ask us to reach into our pocket at all I found most
impressive.
Senator Rockefeller. Ms. Blakey, thank you very, very much.
We are very honored to have you here. I am sorry this is a
short hearing, but my colleagues have no further questions.
Ms. Blakey. Thank you very much.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]