Managing Roadway and Rail Systems Against Risks Presented by Transport of Hazardous or Explosive Cargos
In Washington State, about 302 trips each day are made by large gasoline tank trucks, and 123 additional trips
are made by trucks carrying other forms of hazardous or explosive materials (aviation fuel, fuel oils, liquefied
natural gas, etc.). These cargos present dangers of explosion or the potential dispersion of dangerous or deadly materials to land, water or air. Risks are presented not only when the cargoes are in transit, but also at the points where they are loaded or off-loaded, often with little, if any protection, for their security.
In recent years, regulations and the supervision of the movement of hazardous cargos by the U.S. Department of Transportation have become a major focus. For example, CVISN technology has been enhanced to provide increased capability to track the movements of particular hazardous cargo trucks and other steps are underway to improve the tracking of specific truck drivers. The threat of terrorists using a commercial truck to transport dangerous or hazardous material as a weapon is all too real. CVISN and other Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are currently being enhanced to track hazardous cargo and respond to such threats. Other ITS systems are being developed to track and identify commercial truck drivers. Cargo surveillance at the U.S./Canada border crossings along Washington State’s northern boundary has also received attention.
Protecting the Washington State Ferry System
The primary security issue for WSF is passenger safety. Concern that a ferry, here or somewhere else in the
United States, could be a target reflects the obvious fact that the vessels often carry hundreds of passengers.
This fact in itself has been sufficient to drive the major attention devoted since September 11 to security issues on WSF. This attention has been broadly noted in the press and has involved close involvement from the state legislature as well as WSF management within WSDOT and the Transportation Commission, the U.S. Coast
Guard and the Washington State Patrol.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, signed by President Bush in November 2002, has guided
much of the work of security assessment and preparation for WSF. In October 2003 the U.S. Coast Guard
adopted implementing regulations. The International Maritime Organization in its 2002 adoption of the
International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code, meanwhile, had taken parallel steps. These federal regulations and international standards are very similar and WSF operates under both.
In late 2003, WSF submitted a security plan to the U.S. Coast Guard under the provisions of the new regulations. This plan has received interim U.S. Coast Guard approval and is now being implemented. Under the plan and following WSF’s own management initiatives, WSF designates a Company Security Office, Vessel
Security Officers for each vessel, and regional Facility Security Officers. Detailed procedural understandings have been put in place with law enforcement and the Coast Guard for response to concerns, threats and incidents. Training, drills and exercises for crew will be integrated into WSF’s on-going program of crew drills. Video monitoring capability is being established for designated “public access areas” to meet requirements related to passenger checks and screening of hand-carried items. Cost of the investments necessary to implement this monitoring system is being defrayed in part through the federal Port Security Grant Program. On scene presence
of law enforcement is provided through arrangements with WSP that include vessel boardings/ferry rides, vehicle screening at terminals, commercial vehicle enforcement (CVE) exams; bomb dog team sweeps, other visible uniformed presence, and emergency response procedures.
Security Preparation for Transit Systems
Transit systems in Washington State are adhering to and implementing a variety of steps recommended by the Federal Transit Administration to enhance public transit security by training transit employers and supervisors, improving emergency preparedness, and increasing public awareness of security issues.
A new FTA program called "Transit Watch" is a safety and security awareness program designed to encourage the active participation of transit passengers and employees in maintaining a safe transit environment. The program was piloted last year in Mason County in Washington State and in Boston, Massachusetts.
FTA has also established guidelines on how transit systems should respond to Homeland Security threat level designations and has recommended twenty action items for incorporation into transit agency system security program plans.
Passenger Rail
Rail passenger travel provides special security challenges. Trains have frequent stops, with multiple opportunities for passengers and cargo to access or leave the train while in route. Timetables must be met if train travel is to be useful. Federal authorities have made clear that security systems for passenger trains will have to have a different model than the systems that have been put in place for airline travel.
Security procedures for Amtrak trains have been developed that respond to the varied designations of threat level employed by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Amtrak preparedness is reviewed through regular audits by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Railroad Administration. Emergency
preparedness exercises have included a joint exercise performed with Sound Transit in April 2004. Employees have been trained on identification of suspicious activities and procedures for dealing with threat situations. Enhanced security patrols have been implemented at stations and special practices are in place to secure equipment in yard facilities. WSDOT has cooperated with Amtrak to upgrade video surveillance at unstaffed facilities. Photo identification for matching with ticketed passenger names is in place; all seats on Amtrak trains in Washington State require reservations and tickets may not be purchased on board.
Pending federal legislation (The "Rail Security Act of 2004," approved in Senate committee in April 2004) may provide additional requirements including vulnerability assessments and security recommendations at facilities like rail tunnels, bridges, switching areas, other rail infrastructure and facilities, information systems, and others that pose significant rail-related risks. The pending bill would also authorize funding for employee training, public outreach, deployment of surveillance equipment and weapons detection equipment. WSDOT has worked with Senator Maria Cantwell on how this bill might best deal with US/Canada passenger train security, including providing a means for pre-clearance of Amtrak passengers and their luggage entering the United States.
General Aviation Airports
Many general aviation airports are currently broadly accessible and many are also located in isolated areas. This makes them likelier to be used as instruments of terrorism than as terrorist targets. The scenario of greatest concern is that a small aircraft operating from a general aviation airport could conduct a terrorist act by, for example, releasing into the atmosphere a chemical or biological agent over a populated area. Security measures, however, must be balanced against the convenience of operations that draws pilots to these airports in the first place.
To now, the federal government has not required specific security measures to be taken at general aviation airports. WSDOT, through its Aviation Division, created an airport security task force made up of airport officials, pilots and state and federal officials to consider security recommendations for general aviation airports in Washington State. This has led to publications by WSDOT of General Aviation Security Guidelines for general aviation airports that identify good business practices for security protection. WSDOT has also recommended that general aviation airports create voluntary security plans that include individualized airport security needs inventories. All 130 public use airports in Washington State have conducted security assessments (covering, for example, perimeter access, availability of lighting and signage, and locking of hangars). Twelve security plans have been completed, and 14 airports have received grants administered by WSDOT to provide for small-scale security improvements. In addition, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has developed security guidelines for pilots through its Airport Watch program.
The following is a summary of study findings concerning security issues at general aviation airports in Washington State as determined from the severity vulnerability checklists completed by the airports.
-
75% of the GA airports reported that attention was needed in the areas of lighting, fencing, security gates, and identity checks along the perimeter and in the ramp areas of the airport.
-
Only 30% of the airports believe that they lack lighting, security, and hangar number and owner tenant information.
-
Most of the general aviation airports do not have terminal, cargo, or industrial facilities. Security evaluations for these areas were therefore not applicable.
-
Almost none of the airports have camera and alarm systems.
-
About 50% of the airports have fuel facilities. Of these, a majority believe they need to improve lighting, fencing, and access control.
-
About 50% of the general aviation airports believe that they lack ground and airside access control.
-
40% of the airports believe they need better public phone facilities. This includes phone accessibility, who to call information, and lighting.
-
Emergency services availability during working hours is reportedly good with only 10% of the airports reporting that they need improvements of police, hospital, fire department, and ambulance services. However, 60% of the airports reported that they lacked these same services after hours.
-
Very few of the airports have security guard services available.
These results from the vulnerability checklists suggest that the greatest areas of need for security improvements
are in the perimeter, ramp and fuel facility areas, and camera and alarm systems.
Recommendations of the WSDOT Aviation Security Task Force were highlighted at three regional security meetings held across the state. Highlights of the most important areas of security to be considered include:
-
Threat Recognition: Threat recognition has to do with being aware of those facilities that make the airport most vulnerable, i.e., aerial applicators, fuel facilities, and potentially dangerous facilities adjacent to the airport such as an explosives plant, etc.
-
Reporting and Response Plan: Reporting and response planning has to do with increased awareness of security measures. This includes heightened awareness on the part of airport users
to look for suspicious activities and to report these to the proper authorities. People at airports should be on the lookout for pre-targeting and surveillance by terrorists. Airports should develop a reporting and response plan that is based on an established communication network relying primarily on trained airport users’ willingness to be vigilant and report unusual airport activity to the local authorities. For this to be effective, it is critical that airport officials contact local authorities and be provided with some level of training on airport operations, configuration, and nomenclature. It is also vital that a kiosk be provided in a convenient location with a lighted display containing concise information about what to look for, whom to call, and a telephone available for public use.
-
Policies and Procedures: Policies and procedures include the response plan discussed above.
Also included are education and meetings, pilot registration, locking and securing aircraft, signage, and access and materials restrictions. Disabling of aircraft so they cannot be used for terrorist activities was a suggestion made at one of the three regional aviation meetings.
-
Security Facilities and Systems: Security facilities and systems are comprised of the actual
physical improvements implemented to improve security. This includes, for example, fencing and gates, lighting, and protective barriers. Fencing and gates are examples of the most effective physical improvements for improving security at these airports. Full perimeter fencing would be the most secure, but is usually not financially viable. An effective means to improve security at these airports would be to place short sections of fencing and gates at strategic locations. Controlled with a key pad numerical code or individual cards issued to the airport users, automated gates across access roads and a short section of fence on each side, ending at a perimeter ditch or some other obstruction can be an effective means of access control. This approach is recommended for airports that do not currently have perimeter fencing installed, and responds to a TSA recommendation to limit access to legitimate airport users.
Other Examples and Suggestions
-
Fencing around fueling facilities with automated pedestrian gates that allow authorized users
access to the pumps. The fence should be placed around the pumps, above ground tanks,
and tank access points.
Local services and facilities, level of use, and local financial conditions vary considerably at each airport. Each airport has been encouraged to evaluate its needs and financial resources and to develop security plans that contain realistic provisions fitting within the financial resources at each airport. Advantage should also be taken of WSDOT, FAA and other funding to assist in implementing security improvements.
Public Ports:
[This discussion remains to be developed in collaboration with the ports and the Washington Public Ports Association].
Source: WSDOT