level 3 course evaluation program awr 147 rail car ......awr 147 level 3 course evaluation | 5 . the...

AWR 147 Level 3 Course Evaluation | 1

Level 3 Course Evaluation Program

AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response

This report was supported under award #2008-GD-T8-K015 from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Training and Education Division. Points of view or opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.


Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Program Purpose ................................................................................... 4

2.0 Course Overview ................................................................................................................ 6

3.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 19

6.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 21

7.0 Appendix A: Modified Version of First Invitation Letter ................................................ 22

8.0 Appendix B: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................... 23

9.0 Appendix C: Responses to Open-Ended Questions ........................................................ 27

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Modules and Corresponding TLOs ............................................................................... 8 Figure 4-1: Question 1 Results ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4-2: Question 2 Results ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4-3: Question 3 Results ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4-4: Question 4 Results ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4-5: Question 5 Results ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-6: Question 6 Results ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-7: Question 7 Results ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-8: Question 8 Results ...................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-9: Question 9 Results ...................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-10: Question 9a Results .................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4-11: Question 10 Results .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 4-12: Question 11 Results .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 4-13: Question 12 Results .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 4-14: Question 13 Results .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4-15: Question 13a Results ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 4-16: Question 14 Results .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4-17: Question 15 Results .................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4-18: Actions Taken Subsequent to AWR 147 Completion ............................................... 17


Executive Summary

In 2010, the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) implemented a post-training evaluation program to evaluate the effectiveness of its courses. This report details the results of the course evaluation for AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response, which is one of several awareness-level courses that RDPC currently offers to rural communities. AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response course was developed to educate emergency responders on freight rail car incidents involving hazardous materials.

The sample drawn for the evaluation consisted of participants who had completed AWR 147 between February 2009 and December 2010. The adjusted sample size was 1,876 and a total of 390 completed surveys were received, resulting in an adjusted response rate of 20.7%.

Overall, the data indicates that the course helped the majority of the participants to better understand the response elements of rail car incidents, including:

• Importance of U.S. railroad freight industry (96%)

• Relevant federal laws, regulations, and industry associations (95%)

• Recognition of rail car designs, construction, tank car fittings, and accessories (98%)

• Ability to read and understand CONSIST shipping papers (87%)

• Understanding of mitigation techniques and strategies (94%)

Despite the low numbers in terms of the overall opportunities for respondents to implement KSAs acquired via AWR 147, a vast majority of the respondents indicated that they did use their acquired KSAs in the opportunities they were offered. This indicates that one of the main goals of this course, which is to prepare the participants to manage and/or respond to a rail car incident without endangering the health and safety of the responders, has been met.

The RDPC will use the information obtained from this study to refine the AWR 147 course curriculum during its upcoming three-year review process in order to ensure the RDPC continues to offer high-quality training courses.


1.0 Introduction and Program Purpose

The Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) was established in 2005 by Congress to develop and deliver all-hazards preparedness training to rural communities across America. The mission of RDPC is to coordinate the development and delivery of preparedness training in support of rural homeland security requirements and facilitate relevant information sharing. It is essential that emergency responders in small, rural, and remote communities are properly trained to deal with all-hazards events. It is also important that the training delivered to rural emergency responders be effective in meeting its goals and objectives. For more information on the RDPC, please visit http://www.ruraltraining.org/.

In 2010, the RDPC established a Level 3 Course Evaluation Program to evaluate the training effectiveness of its courses. This program is based on Level 3 of Donald Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of evaluating training programs — behavior.1

Kirkpatrick claims that four conditions are necessary for change to occur in a participant’s behavior once he/she has attended a training course. The first two conditions — the person must have a desire to change and the person must know what to do and how to do it — can be accomplished through a training course by “…creating a positive attitude toward the desired change and by teaching the necessary knowledge and skills.” Furthermore, these two conditions are bestowed upon on the participants and their willingness to learn the training curriculum, as well as the training instructor and his/her ability to educate the participants to meet the learning objectives. The third condition — the person must work in the right climate— is outside of the training program’s (e.g., RDPC) control, as this condition pertains to the participant’s immediate supervisor or work environment as a whole. Kirkpatrick lists five different kinds of climate, which range from a supervisor intentionally preventing a participant from implementing the KSA that he/she acquired from the training course to a kind of climate in which a supervisor requires the participant’s learning transfer courses. It is likely that participants in RDPC training courses will work in climates more like the latter, since the participants of such courses are middle-to-senior management level and the training courses are essential to participants’ job duties. The final condition — the person must be rewarded for changing — can be either intrinsic or extrinsic, according to Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick explains that intrinsic rewards may include the feelings of satisfaction, pride, and achievement that can occur when change in behavior has positive results, while extrinsic rewards include praise from the boss, recognition by others, and monetary rewards, such as merit pay increases and bonuses. The RDPC may contribute to either type of rewards by simply encouraging participants throughout the training process and by providing an incentive to participants, such as continuing education units.

The purpose of the program is to measure the transfer in behavior that has occurred in the participant due to his/her completion of the training course. Therefore, the program assesses whether the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that each participant acquires via the training course are being applied in the daily work setting of the participant.

1 See Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

http://www.ruraltraining.org/�


The RDPC used these conditions as a framework in developing the four criteria that courses must meet in the Level 3 Course Evaluation Program.

1. The Terminal Learning Objective (TLO) for each training module must be observable and measurable for research and training purposes.

2. A process and the needed tools must be in place to be able to evaluate the transfer in behavior from the classroom to the workplace (e.g., RDPC’s Level 3 Course Evaluation Program).

3. Participants can and must use the tools that are in place to fulfill their responsibilities in the evaluation of the transfer in behavior.

4. Participants must be provided with on-the job opportunities to demonstrate the TLO for each module learned in the training course.

Based on the criteria above, AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response was selected as a suitable candidate for evaluation. Further, the evaluation was conducted in parallel with the required U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) three-year course review and update of AWR 147. The remainder of this report details the results of the course evaluation.


2.0 Course Overview

Railroads remain the backbone of America’s freight transportation network and are vital to the economic health of the United States. America’s freight railroads today serve nearly every industrial, wholesale, retail, and resource-based sector of the economy, operating over a network of nearly 140,000 miles. Railroads carry 43 percent of intercity domestic freight – more than any other mode of transportation. Together with their counterparts in Canada and Mexico, America’s freight railroads form the world’s most efficient, lowest-cost freight rail system. In addition to providing shippers with an affordable and efficient way to move their products, freight railroads provide enormous public benefits, including increased fuel efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and less highway congestion.2

More than 560 freight railroads operate in the United States. The seven “Class I” railroads account for approximately 69 percent of U.S. freight rail mileage, 90 percent of employees, and 94 percent of revenue. Class I railroads typically operate in many different states over thousands of miles of track. Non-Class I railroads — also known as short line railroads — range in size from small operations handling a few carloads a month to multi-state operators that are similar to Class I railroads. Together, America’s freight railroads form an integrated system that provides very productive and lowest-cost freight service

3

AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response course was developed to educate emergency responders on freight rail car incidents involving hazardous materials. As more and more rail traffic transports cargo, including hazardous materials, it is critical that emergency responders are well trained. The increase in traffic adds to the already present risk of transportation incidents involving hazardous cargo. In addition, since a majority of the rail traffic travels through rural America, it is important that the often times resource limited rural responder community become educated about the dangers and unique hazards presented with rail cars. The information covered in this course will enhance the ability of emergency responders, especially rural emergency responders, to manage rail car incidents.

.

• Recognizing the chemical being transported, which has physical, chemical, and toxicological properties that dictate the transportation requirements and the manner in which the chemical must be considered in an emergency situation.

Some of the key elements as well as the topics addressed through the course include the following:

• Identifying the packaging system, which is reflected in the design and construction of the rail tank car, and the components of the rail car as well as all the information conveyed in the car stenciling.

2 Association of American Railroads (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved October 2012 from: http://www.aar.org/About-Us/Industry-Information.aspx 3 Association of American Railroads (2012, July). An Overview of America’s Freight Railroads. Retrieved October 2012 from http://www.aar.org/About-Us/~/media/aar/Background-Papers/Overview%20of%20US%20Freight%20RRs%20October%2019%202011.ashx

http://www.aar.org/About-Us/Industry-Information.aspx�

http://www.aar.org/About-Us/Industry-Information.aspx�

http://www.aar.org/About-Us/~/media/aar/Background-Papers/Overview%20of%20US%20Freight%20RRs%20October%2019%202011.ashx�

http://www.aar.org/About-Us/~/media/aar/Background-Papers/Overview%20of%20US%20Freight%20RRs%20October%2019%202011.ashx�


• Assessing the incident to determine the damage to the car and the potential hazard to people, property, and the environment from the release or reaction of the chemical and to take appropriate protective action.

• Recognizing the appropriate and safest handling method of the chemical in the damaged car to mitigate the situation, whether by transfer, neutralization, venting, flaring, etc., and understanding these options.

• Managing the incident and the many conflicting interests represented by all the potential participants at an incident.

• Identifying federal, state and private sector resources available to assist in the response.

This course also covers additional information including topics such as the effects of Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (B.L.E.V.E.), the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E.) analysis system, basic rail car design, damage assessment, product transfers, and a glossary of railroad terms. Upon completion of this course, the participant should be well prepared to manage and/or respond to a rail car incident without endangering the health and safety of the responders.

This course supports the strategic goals of Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8), National Preparedness Goal, and the Core Capabilities in the areas of:

• Planning

• Operational Coordination

• Situational Assessment

• Threat and Hazard Identification

• Physical Protective Measures

• Response/Health and Safety

• Public and Private Services and Resources

• Public Information and Warning

To cover the items above, AWR 147 is comprised of ten modules each with individual Terminal Learning Objectives (TLOs). Figure 2-1 presents the modules and their corresponding TLOs, which were utilized in the research design.


Figure 2-1: Modules and Corresponding TLOs

Module TLOs Module 1: Introduction, Administration, and Pre-test

To explain the course purpose, goals and objectives, and summarize how course materials will give the participants an understanding of maritime security basics.

Module 2: Introduction to Rail Car Emergency Response

To discuss potential hazards at a train derailment and explain a systematic process for making emergency response decisions

Module 3: Overview of the Rail/Freight Industry

To discuss rail/freight industry characteristics as well as identify the regulatory requirements pertinent to a rail car emergency.

Module 4: Basic Rail Car Design

To be able to identify and interpret key rail car design features to aid in the assessment of a rail car incident

Module 5: Characteristics of Chemicals and Toxicology

To able to define basic chemical terminology and will be able to differentiate the behaviors of chemicals based on physical and chemical properties. In addition, participants will be able to describe toxic effects of hazardous materials especially the impact on the human body.

Module 6: Hazardous Materials Recognition and Identification

To recognize and identify hazardous materials by evaluating available information present at a rail car incident such as occupancy/location, container/vehicle shape, markings and colors, placards and labels, documentation/shipping papers, as well as senses..

Module 7: Rail Tank Car Damage Assessment and Mitigation Techniques

To recognize important tank car features to assess during an emergency response. In addition, participants will perform simulated damaged tank car inspections utilizing assessment techniques discussed during the module. The simulated assessment is not conducted in a real world hazardous environment (i.e., hot zone) but rather conducted in a hazard free environment (i.e., cold zone) using pictures of damaged tank cars. Participants will also be able to recognize various incident control, confinement, and containment techniques that might be used by trained specialists during an incident.

Module 8: Application of the Incident Command System in Rail Car Incidents

To explain the important elements regarding planning, organizing, locating resources, and responding to a rail car incident as part of the overall incident command effort to ensure a safe conclusion of the incident and also to understand the roles and responsibilities of each responder as they apply to the Incident Command System (ICS) organization that is consistent with NIMS.

Module 9: Review of Case Studies

To apply the knowledge learned throughout the course to a real life rail car incident case study, specifically elements regarding recognition, evaluation, control, information, planning, and safety.

Module 10: Post-test and Course Evaluation

To complete a comprehensive post-test and course evaluation.


3.0 Methodology

As previously mentioned, an evaluation survey was used for the AWR 147 Level 3 course evaluation to assess whether the KSAs that each participant acquired via the training course have been applied in the daily work setting. The sample drawn for this study was comprised of all participants who had completed the course from February 2009 to December 2010. Most of the participants selected for the Level 3 survey had completed the AWR 147 training within the previous 1.5 years resulting in a minimum amount of time between completing training and receiving the survey of 2.5 months. This timeframe was determined to be an adequate amount of time for participants to have possibly utilized the KSAs acquired from the training. A total of 2,879 participants were invited to participate in the survey. The postal mailing address or e-mail address that a course participant provided during course registration was used to send the evaluation invitation letter.

Multiple methods were implemented to collect data for the study. The majority of respondents (78%; n=2,244) were initially contacted by e-mail with a letter inviting them to participate in the study by completing it online (see Appendix A for a copy of the invitation letter). The remaining respondents (22%; n=635) were contacted via postal as no e-mail address was available. The date for the first dissemination of invitations (e-mail and postal mail) was March 8, 2011. On June 3, 2011, as a courtesy reminder of the RDPC’s invitation to participate in the survey, postcards were e-mailed and postal mailed to all subjects who did not respond to the initial mailing. Lastly, in a final attempt to solicit a response from those subjects who had not yet participated in the study, the RDPC e-mail and postal mailed reminder postcards on August 11, 2011 and October 22, 2011. The RDPC officially ended data collection on January 4, 2012.

The course evaluation was completed via a survey instrument, which included fifteen single-choice and two open-ended questions. Eleven questions were directly aligned with the TLOs listed in Section 2.0. The remaining four questions focused on obtaining details of actions taken after completion of AWR 147. Please see Appendix B for a copy of the survey instrument.

The RDPC utilized two survey formats to collect data for this study. The first format was a pen or pencil self-administered survey, which respondents returned via postal mail. The other format was an online self-administered survey which enabled the RDPC to download the data from a central server via the Internet. The software used to create the instrument and collect the data was the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences® (SPSS) Dimensions’ mrInterview™ program. Respondents were provided the online link to the survey in the cover letter that accompanied each mailing. Additionally, each subject was assigned a unique three-digit survey code as an identifier to track his/her completion of the survey, which was also provided within the invitation letters. Subjects had to enter their survey codes in order to access the online survey. When participants preferred to mail the hard copy of the survey back the research personnel at the RDPC, the data was manually entered into a database. After data collection was complete, both databases (on-line and hard copies) were combined and analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences® (SPSS) 19.0.


4.0 Results

The adjusted sample size was 1,876 due to some subjects having an insufficient e-mail or postal mail addresses. Overall, a total of 390 completed surveys were received, resulting in an adjusted response rate of 20.7%. Survey completion method favored online completion (92%; n=359) versus pen/pencil completion (8%; n=31).

The data from each of the 390 surveys was analyzed using the SPSS® 19.0. Statistical analyses including frequencies and percentages were conducted to analyze the data. It was determined that these methods of univariate analysis were the most appropriate given the research objective. In regard to the single-response questions, subjects were asked whether they have utilized the skills learned via AWR 147.

The objective of this study was to determine if participants who successfully completed AWR 147 have a better understanding of concepts related to rail car incident response as well as if they have utilized the KSAs acquired from the course in their work setting. Overall, the data indicates that the course helped the majority of the participants to better understand the response elements of rail car incidents. For example, more than 80% of the respondents indicated “Yes” on eleven specific questions (1-8, 12, 14, and 15) designed to capture whether the participants felt that the course was helpful in learning the concepts. These questions captured concepts such as:

• Better understanding of the importance of the U.S. railroad freight industry to the Nations’ overall economy and the need for protection (96%; n=376);

• Better understanding of relevant federal laws, regulation, and industry associations important to the safety and security of the U.S. railroad freight industry (95%; n=370);

• Ability to recognize various rail car designs and aspects of their construction, including tank car fitting and accessories (98%; n=381);

• Ability to recognize the different rail car classes based on the specification markings that appear on tank cars (94%; n=367);

• Better understanding of the chemical characteristics and the toxicology of hazardous materials often transported by rail cars (94%; n=365);

• Proficiency in ability to read and understand U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) placards and labels in order to recognize the presence of hazardous materials in a rail car (96%; n= 375);

• Proficiency in ability to read and understand CONSIST shipping papers in order to gain details regarding hazardous materials in a rail car (87%; n=336);

• Better understanding of the appropriate inspection guidelines, procedures, and safety measures associated with performing a rail tank care damage assessment (87%; n=337);

• Better understanding of the various mitigation techniques and strategies associated with responding to a rail car incident (94%; n=367);


• Better understanding of the use of the Incident Command System (ICS) at rail car incidents (94%; n=365); and

• More familiar with the duties and responsibilities of the various ICS positions that would be utilized at a rail car incident scene (93%; n=363).

Additionally, there were four questions (9, 10, 11, and 13) developed to evaluate whether the KSAs acquired via AWR 147 have been applied in the respondents’ daily work setting, which are noted below:

• 8% (n=30) have conducted a rail car damage assessment

• 10% (n=39) have responded to a rail car incident

• 27% (n=97) have utilized the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E) process for making emergency response decisions

• 12% (n=45) have witnessed or assisted with mitigation techniques during a rail car incident (e.g., product transfer, grounding and bonding, hot tapping, and/or flaring)

Despite the low numbers in terms of the overall opportunities for respondents to implement KSAs acquired via AWR 147, a vast majority of the respondents indicated that they did use their acquired KSAs in the opportunities they were offered. For example, over two thirds of the respondents stated they used KSAs acquired through AWR 147 when performing rail car damage assessments (85%; n=22) and mitigation techniques (68%; n=30).

Figures 4-1 through 4-17 present the detailed results of each close-ended survey question (questions 1-15).

Figure 4-1: Question 1 Results

Question 1: Did the course help you to better understand the importance of the U.S. Rail/Freight Industry to the Nation’s overall economy and the need to protect the Nation’s freight transportation network? (n=390)

Answers Frequency Percent

Yes 376 96

No 14 4



Question 2: Did the course provide you with a better understanding of the federal laws, regulations, and industry associations important to the safety and security of the freight transportation network in your jurisdiction? (n=389)


Yes 370 95

No 19 5


Question 3: Since taking this course, are you able to recognize various rail car designs and aspects of their construction including tank car fittings and accessories? (n=390)


Yes 381 98

No 9 2


Question 4: Since taking this course, are you able to recognize and understand the different rail car classes based on the specification markings that appear on tank cars? (n=389)


Yes 367 94

No 22 6



Question 5: Since taking this course, do you have a better understanding of the chemical characteristics and the toxicology of hazardous materials often transported by rail cars? (n=390)


Yes 365 93

No 25 7


Question 6: Since taking this course, do you feel proficient in your ability to read and understand U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) placards and labels in order to recognize the presence of hazardous materials in a rail car? (n=390)


Yes 375 96

No 15 4


Question 7: Since taking this course, do you feel proficient in your ability to read and understand CONSIST shipping papers in order to gain details regarding hazardous materials in a rail car? (n=388)


Yes 336 87

No 52 13



Question 8: Since taking this course, do you understand the appropriate inspection guidelines, procedures, and safety measures associated with performing a rail tank car damage assessment? (n=389)


Yes 337 87

No 52 13


Question 9: Since taking this course, have you performed a rail car damage assessment? (n=390)


Yes 30 8

No 360 92

Figure 4-10: Question 9a Results

Question 9a: If “yes,” did you use the procedures you learned in this course when assessing the damage? (n=26)


Yes 22 85

No 4 15



Question 10: Since taking this course, have you responded to a rail car incident? (n=390)


Yes 39 10

No 351 90


Question 11: If you have responded to a rail car incident since taking this course, did you utilize the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E) process for making emergency response decisions? (n=364)


Yes 97 27

No 267 73


Question 12: Since taking this course, do you understand the various mitigation techniques and strategies associated with responding to a rail car incident? (n=390)


Yes 367 94

No 23 6



Question 13: Since taking this course, have you witnessed or assisted with any mitigation techniques such as product transfer, grounding and bonding, hot tapping, and/or flaring? (n=388)


Yes 45 12

No 343 88

Figure 4-15: Question 13a Results

Question 13a: If “yes,” did you use the procedures you learned in this course when conducting the techniques? (n=44)


Yes 30 68

No 14 32


Question 14: Since taking the course, do you have a better understanding of the use of the Incident Command System (ICS) at rail car incidents that is consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS)? (n=390)


Yes 365 94

No 25 6



Question 15: Since taking the course, are you more familiar with the duties and responsibilities of the various positions that are used in the Incident Command System (ICS) at the scene of a rail car incident? (n=390)


Yes 363 93

No 27 7

In addition to the questions above, respondents were asked to answer two open-ended questions (16 and 17). The first open ended question focused on actions taken as a direct result of attending the class (Please list any actions your organization has taken as a direct result of attending AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response [e.g., pre-incident planning has been conducted and documented, performed a rail car damage assessment, etc.]?). Coding of the 149 responses resulted in seven main categories, which are provided in Figure 4-18 below.

Figure 4-18: Actions Taken Subsequent to AWR 147 Completion


Updated policies, procedures, plans, etc. 38 25

Completed additional training (in-house and/or external) 30 20

Began closer relationships with local rail road companies 7 4

Increased general awareness 7 4

Participated in drills and exercises related to rail car incidents 7 4

Successfully responded to a rail car incident 5 3

No action taken 55 36

The second open-ended question asked if the participants have been involved in rail car incident response and what skills they used (Because of what you learned in AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response, have you responded to or assisted with a rail car incident in your jurisdiction? If so, please explain the incident and how you applied the knowledge you learned through the course). While a majority of respondents indicated that they have not responded to an incident, the comments below are from those respondents who have responded to an incident since taking AWR 147.

• “We got a call that a rail car was leaking sulfuric acid in the rail yard downtown. I responded for our emergency response team. An ICS was set up and procedures followed. The local fire department and police here do an excellent job in emergencies. Turned out to be just a venting car. This class helped me to understand everything


going on there and will help in future derailments. We have had two in the last five years here. Great class!!”

• “February 8, 2010, 21 rail car derailment; Incident Commander. I was able to have an informed discussion with railroad personnel; provided verbal command to fire personnel much closer to the scene and helped them interpret what they and not I could observe; I was able to read the CONSIST.”

• “We used DECIDE to get the ball rolling on discovering the magnitude of the hazardous materials spill as well as the danger associated with it and the community surrounding it.”

• “We have responded to several incidents from derailments into rivers to small leaks in non pressure cars. Our team has progressed in our knowledge of rail car safety and container design and construction. This course has allowed us to build many relationships with our local rail yard, which has in turn allowed us to obtain several training classes with local engineers and repairmen.”


5.0 Discussion

In The Kirkpatrick Four Levels: A Fresh Look After Fifty Years, 1959-2009, authors Dr. Jim Kirkpatrick and Wendy Kirkpatrick state that the actual execution of learning programs and overall corporate strategy occurs primarily at Level 3. In this article, the authors also quote 2008 research by Bersin and Associates that indicates that as much as 70% of learning may take place when a trainee takes the learning material back onto the job. The course designers of AWR 147 wanted to ensure that the learning objectives of the course focused on providing information that would make the rural emergency responder’s job more efficient and effective while ensuring safety for personnel and environment when responding to a rail car incident in their jurisdiction. In addition, since the course was designed at the awareness level, it was hoped that participant’s interest would be sparked to obtain additional specific training in topics that were of interest to the participant. A closer examination of the survey data provides some interesting insight about the respondents’ opinions of the course’s effectiveness.

An overwhelming majority of participants responded positively to gaining a better understanding of major response elements of rail car incidents as noted below.

• Importance of U.S. railroad freight industry (96%): This is a critical element that rural emergency responders need to comprehend because the U.S. railroad freight industry is a major player in the event of a rail car incident.

• Relevant federal laws, regulations, and industry association (95%): It is important for rural emergency responders to understand the applicable laws, regulations, and industry association standards that impact safety and security of the U.S. railroad freight industry.

• Recognition of rail car designs, construction, tank car fittings, and accessories (98%): One of the key goals of AWR 147 was to ensure the emergency responders were able to identify rail cars by just looking at key features. It is evident by the 98% response that this goal was accomplished. Being able to identify what types of rail cars are involved in an incident is paramount in determining response options.

• Ability to read and understand CONSIST shipping papers (87%) One of the key documents that can be found at the scene of a rail car incident is the CONSIST shipping papers. The CONSIST documents every rail car that is part of the train as well as its contents and quantity. The CONSIST identifies any hazardous materials that are stored in any of the rail cars along with emergency contact information. Being able to read a CONSIST can be very helpful in a crisis incident, especially when it comes to communicating with railroad personnel.

• Understanding of mitigation techniques and strategies (94%): Although mitigation techniques and strategies are discussed in AWR 147, the performance of these techniques is not covered in detail. Therefore, the results of Questions 13 and 13a are a somewhat misleading in that the actual procedures to conduct mitigation strategies are not specifically taught in AWR 147, but rather only reviewed at a high level.


Emergency or crisis response training is conducted to prepare responders in the event an incident happens; however, no one ever knows if responders will be able to put into action the training experienced. Given the rail car incident focus of AWR 147 and the relatively few rail car incidents that occur nationwide, it was surprising that 10% of the respondents had an opportunity to utilize the KSAs learned through AWR 147. Of particular interest was of those who responded that they performed a rail car damage assessment in which 85% used procedures learned during the training, which is a testament to the value of the assessment discussion included in the training. Participants may not have had many opportunities to respond to a rail car incident, but when they did, an overwhelming majority utilized techniques covered in the training.

This was evident on June 10, 2010 in the rural community of Liberty in Pickens County, South Carolina when a 24-car train derailment occurred resulting in a highly volatile situation of rail cars leaking hazardous materials. Just three months prior, members of the response team attended at delivery of AWR 147 along with other first responders in and around the area. Director Lynn Fisher, Pickens County Emergency Management Agency, stated that a value a mount cannot be assignment to the training the emergency responders received prior to the incident. Further, at the scene of the derailment, leftover field guides from the AWR 147 delivery were distributed to first responders thereby putting critical information in the hands of those who needed it, exactly when they needed it. Please see the Fall 2010 issue of the Rural Preparedness Quarterly, the official newsletter of the RDPC, for an in-depth article on the Liberty train derailment and response.4

Another important finding is that 27% of respondents indicated they used the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E) process for making emergency response decisions which is a process covered in AWR 147. D.E.C.I.D.E. is a decision-making process, developed by Ludwig Benner that guides responders through a thorough and systematic approach that minimizes risk and creates continuity and accountability.

5

It is evident from some of the responses that the “awareness” level of the course may not be understood by all participants. This emphasizes the criticality of making sure all marketing materials for the course are clear on the “awareness” level focus. This course is not designed for the hazardous materials technicians who are proficient with rail cars and may be expecting a performance/operational level course. Emphasizing this fact in the marketing materials as well as with the sponsoring agency will help to ensure the participants registered to attend have the correct expectation of the level of details covered in the course.

Responders who follow it have the right mind-set to deal with incidents thoroughly and safely.

4 RDPC (2010, Fall). Derailment: South Carolina Puts Rail Car Training Into Action. Rural Preparedness Quarterly: Training and Information for America’s Rural Communities, pp. 1-3. Retrieved October 2012 from: http://www.ruraltraining.org/sites/default/files/RDPC-Newsletter-Fall-2010.pdf 5 Benner, L., Jr., (1973) D.E.C.I.D.E in Hazardous Materials Emergencies. Retrieved from: http://www.bjr05.net/papershm/DECIDE.htm#Heading1

http://www.ruraltraining.org/sites/default/files/RDPC-Newsletter-Fall-2010.pdf�

http://www.bjr05.net/papershm/DECIDE.htm#Heading1�


6.0 Conclusion

What effect does successful completion of AWR 147 have on job performance and what value does it bring to the cadre of courses that the RDPC provides to rural jurisdictions? Questions 16 and 17 directly addresses this by asking respondents to identify action taken as a result of attending the course (List any actions your organization has taken as a direct result of attending AWR 147; Because of what you learned in AWR 147, have you responded or assisted in a rail car incident). Although there are many valuable responses to these open-ended questions (see all data included in Appendix C), those listed below provide a representative sample of the responses:

• “Knowing rail car design, specifically the types/locations of valves within the protective dome, helped us safety control the leak.”

• “The knowledge I learned from this class helped me in my assessment, and relay information and findings to Incident Command.”

• “The information from your course did help with our using the correct names for the rail equipment involved in the incident. This made it much easier to work with rail crews as the train was removed from the scene.”

• “I work for the only paid municipal department in my county. Your course was what prompted me to further increase my knowledge by seeking specialized training.”

It is evident that AWR 147 was a positive learning experience for the respondents and the primary learning objectives of the course had been met. Since a majority of the respondents obtained a better understanding of major response elements of rail car incidents, it is likely that in the event of an actual rail car incident the participants will be better prepared to respond and assist as a result of their completion of AWR 147.

In summary, the findings from this study suggest that the course development and evaluation processes developed and administered adopted by the RDPC is effective at producing training courses that achieve the goal of increasing the KSAs of participants. In any event, the RDPC will use the information obtained from this level three course evaluation to refine the AWR 147 course curriculum during its scheduled three-year review and update and integrate the lessons learned from this evaluation into future evaluations.


7.0 Appendix A: Modified Version of First Invitation Letter

Dear AWR 147 Participant: You have been selected to participate in an evaluation research study regarding your completion of the course AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response, a training sponsored by the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC). This study is being conducted by the Justice and Safety Center (JSC) at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) and is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Training and Education Division. In this study, researchers are assessing the transfer of knowledge from the classroom to the job in order to determine the success of the training, as well as to help guide the development and delivery of future training. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There will not be any consequences for refusal to participate, nor will we identify those who refuse to participate. Your willingness to participate, however, will result in highly beneficial information for RDPC. It is important that your unique perspective is represented, so we ask that you not transfer the survey to another individual to complete without first consulting us. The information that you provide us will be kept confidential and you will not be identified in any way. Your information will only be combined with information from other respondents taking part in the study. This project was reviewed and approved by EKU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Research Subjects. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this study, please contact the EKU IRB Administration at 859-622-3636. You may access the survey online at the following link: http://surveys.jsc.eku.edu/AWR147survey.html . Once you access the survey, you will be required to enter a three or four-digit survey code number. Please locate your survey code number in the top-right corner of the first page of the paper version of the survey. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please complete your survey by May 15, 2011. If you have any questions, please contact Erin Henry at (859) 622-6763 or [email protected]. Thank you for your willingness to share your experiences with us. We appreciate your participation. Sincerely,

Dr. Pam Collins Principal Investigator, RDPC / Executive Director, JSC – EKU

http://surveys.jsc.eku.edu/AWR147survey.html�

mailto:[email protected]�


8.0 Appendix B: Survey Instrument

Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response Level 3 Course Evaluation Instructions: Please answer the questions based on your experiences since taking AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response. If you encounter any problems while taking the survey, or have any questions or comments in general, please contact Erin Henry at (859) 622-6763 or [email protected]. Thank you in advance for your participation. Click "Next" to proceed in taking the survey. Survey Code: Please enter the survey code number that can be found at the top right corner of the first page of the paper version of the survey instrument, above your mailing address on the reminder postcard or highlighted in your course evaluation email. You must enter your assigned number before you may proceed in taking the survey. (Please set number range 1 – 5,000) 1. Did the course help you to better understand the importance of the U.S. Rail/Freight Industry

to the Nation’s overall economy and the need to protect the Nation’s freight transportation network?

Yes No

2. Did the course provide you with a better understanding of the federal laws, regulations, and

industry associations important to the safety and security of the freight transportation network in your jurisdiction?

Yes No

3. Since taking this course, are you able to recognize various rail car designs and aspects of

their construction including tank car fittings and accessories?

Yes No

4. Since taking this course, are you able to recognize and understand the different rail car

classes based on the specification markings that appear on tank cars?

Yes No


5. Since taking this course, do you have a better understanding of the chemical characteristics and the toxicology of hazardous materials often transported by rail cars?

Yes No

6. Since taking this course, do you feel proficient in your ability to read and understand U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) placards and labels in order to recognize the presence of hazardous materials in a rail car?

Yes No

7. Since taking this course, do you feel proficient in your ability to read and understand

CONSIST shipping papers in order to gain details regarding hazardous materials in a rail car?

Yes No

8. Since taking this course, do you understand the appropriate inspection guidelines,

procedures, and safety measures associated with performing a rail tank car damage assessment?

Yes No

9. Since taking this course, have you performed a rail car damage assessment?

Yes No (a) If “yes,” did you use the procedures you learned in this course when assessing

the damage?

Yes No

10. Since taking this course, have you responded to a rail car incident?

Yes No (b) If “yes,” please explain your role in the incident response and how you

applied what you learned in this course. (Open-Ended Response)


11. If you have responded to a rail car incident since taking this course, did you utilize the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E) process for making emergency response decisions?

Yes No (a) If “yes”, please give a brief explanation of the incident and how the

D.E.C.I.D.E process was utilized.

(Open-Ended Response) 12. Since taking this course, do you understand the various mitigation techniques and strategies

associated with responding to a rail car incident?

Yes No

13. Since taking this course, have you witnessed or assisted with any mitigation techniques such as product transfer, grounding and bonding, hot tapping, and/or flaring?

Yes No (a) If “yes,” did you use the procedures you learned in this course when

conducting the techniques?

Yes No

14. Since taking the course, do you have a better understanding of the use of the Incident

Command System (ICS) at rail car incidents that is consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS)?

Yes No

15. Since taking the course, are you more familiar with the duties and responsibilities of the

various positions that are used in the Incident Command System (ICS) at the scene of a rail car incident?

Yes No


16. Please list any actions your organization has taken as a direct result of attending AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response (e.g., pre-incident planning has been conducted and documented, performed a rail car damage assessment, etc.)?

(Open-Ended Response)

17. Because of what you learned in AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response, have you responded to

or assisted with a rail car incident in your jurisdiction? If so, please explain the incident and how you applied the knowledge you learned through the course.

(Open-Ended Response)

Closing Text: You have now completed the survey. Please look back over the survey and make sure you have answered all of the questions. If you have questions or comments about the survey, please contact Erin Henry at (859) 622-6763 or [email protected]. In addition to AWR 147, the RDPC offers a wide variety of training courses for rural first responders. Please visit the RDPC website (http://www.ruraltraining.org) for more information on additional course offerings. Thank you for your time and participation.

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.ruraltraining.org/�


9.0 Appendix C: Responses to Open-Ended Questions

Question 10. Since taking this course, have you responded to a rail car incident? (n=390)

Question 10b. If “yes,” please explain your role in the incident response and how you applied what you learned in this course.

• This course was too basic for our needs. We contacted both Norfolk Southern and CSX to bring classes to us. The only thing this course has able to do is to let us know that we need to search for another source to instruct.

• Traffic control in the area ... no up-close work.

• I took this course expecting to learn from the instructor.

• Recon.

• Standby with an engine until railroad was able to send crews to fix damage done to engine and acquire onboard film of incident.

• February 8, 2010, 21 rail car derailment; Incident Commander. I was able to have an informed discussion with RR personnel; provided verbal command to fire personnel much closer to the scene and helped them interpret what they and not I could observe; I was able to read the Consist. This was a UPRR incident.

• My role was SOSC for a derailment involving hazardous materials.

• Low speed derailment of freight train box cars.

• Recalled as part of the HazMat Regional Response Team for a LP tank car leaking product. I was the team leader of the team that went down range to conduct Recon and ultimately stop the leak. Knowing rail car design, specifically the types/locations of valves within the protective dome, helped us safely control the leak.

• Part of county hazmat team, responding to a leaking styrene tank car.

• Provided on-scene manpower and apparatus to next town during a product leak.

• I was the Lead assessor on a railcar leak in FD jurisdiction. The knowledge I learned from this class helped me in my assessment, and relay information and findings to Command.

• Incident Command Post Liaison to local health department. Training exercise involving bioterror elements.

• A derailment occurred and one hazmat car containing hydrochloric acid was involved. The car was checked for leaks and although derailed, it was upright. No leaks were found. There was no need for any emergency procedures, remediation or evacuation.

• I was support to the responding departments and the rail yard official along with the city and county officials and reporting to the state officials.


• The incident was a rain/tractor trailer incident at a crossing. We were able to determine the railcars posed no hazard, as they were gondola type cars normally carrying aggregate from our area to the east. The cars were empty and posed no hazard. The information from your course did help with our using the correct names for the rail equipment involved in the incident. This made it much easier to work with rail crews as the train was removed from the scene.

• I responded to the Fallon Amtrack vs tracker trailer incident. Although that did not involve any cars other than passenger and mail cars, who would have ever thought an accident like that could happen. Our agency was called to assist our hospital ambulance dept which was called to assist the Fallon Fire/Police/Ambulance depts. We assisted with setting up support services for those doing all the real hard work.

• A chemical tank car overturned within the city limits and we assessed the damage and helped mitigate the call. We were lucky the chemical was quite safe and was a good "trainer" call.

• I am the Safety manager for Pan Am Railways covering the state of Maine. At a propane release I contributed my expertise at the pre and post job discussions. I was included in the discussions on repair as well as answer any questions pertaining to redeployment of the tank car. I stayed in communication with company managers on the progress of the release. Also was the liaison between company and hazmat team. Performed damage assessment.

• I proceeded to the yard office and observed the rail car in the yards on video cameras and relayed to the Assistant Chief consist information, visual aspects of the car, and hazardous material car information. Used rail car markings.

• I work for the only paid municipal department in Greenwood County. Have been called in for advice and to survey rail problems on several incidents by the County Fire service. I've also attended CSX Sentinel School in Pueblo Colorado. Your course was what prompted me to further increase my knowledge by seeking specialized training.

• Incident commander to train vs SUV with multiple injuries and a fatality. Had to access damage, vehicle location to railcars, work with railroad through their 1-800 number and the conductor to gather information and to have train broken for better access to scene. At the end, talked with railroad investigators to pass on information.

• As Safety manager of Tacoma Rail I respond to incidents of many kinds. Derailments, road grade crossing car crashes, etc.

• Minor derailment.

• I worked with in the incident command structure (in an environmental capacity) at a recent train derailment. The load consisted of sodium hydroxide. I was able to understand the different terminology and have a clear picture of the incident and how the cars were being assessed. I rotated out of the IC before Operations began.


• On incidents of this type I serve as the IC or Operations Officer. Identify the rail car type. Coordinate with the rail company.

• Operations Chief. Assisted entry team in looking for sign of container weakness and obtaining pictures for further evaluation at the command post.

• First arriving unit. Used ERG to identify the contents of the rail cars involved in the incident. help make appropriate response decisions for further responding units and hazmat responders.

• July of last year respond to a tank car that was leaking acid from the bottom of the tank at the sump pit. Advised the rail road that they were gone to need a new tank to transfer the product and to have a cleanup crew come in also. I was one of the first responders from the fire department.

• Hazmat leak from a railcar.

• We responded to a 20 car derailment, box cars, tank cars, hopper cars. Met with RR personnel, snowshoed into the scene, did an assessment. No oil or hazardous materials were discharged as a result of the derailment. Some oil was leaked by the crane car when they were re-railing the damaged units. Our role is to ensure the public is protected from adverse impacts to the environment. We may take samples or direct soil removal as warranted.

• It was a follow up to a minor derailment. Nothing serious. A few cars hopped off the track. I was just doing a courtesy call with the repair crew. I did not need to use my knowledge from the class.

• Emergency response management of personnel and materials. Ensuring proper cleanup standards have been met. Ensuring no offsite impacts or releases

• Hazmat team called to an Amtrack train and work train accident. Out rigger struck fuel tanks on Amtrack and also knocked out electrical boxes on side of train.

• Observation - No hazmat involved/no leaks it was determined. Cars derailed and only required railroad personnel to right and clear.

• Used every knowledge that was given to me at this class and put it into action


Question 11. If you have responded to a rail car incident since taking this course, did you utilize the Detect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, and Evaluate (D.E.C.I.D.E) process for making emergency response decisions? (n=364)

Question 11a. A. If “yes”, please give a brief explanation of the incident and how the D.E.C.I.D.E process was utilized.

• Using the intent of the process.

• Your course did not help understand the D. E. C. I. D. E. process; I gained my understanding of the process while working with the author of the concept in the mid 1970s. I have been using the process ever since and felt that the instructor did not do it justice in the class I attended.

• N/A.

• During size-up of the risks.

• It was an acid car the DECIDE process made everything go easy.

• The hazmat team was doing this and I was paying attention.

• See previous response.

• We had a chlorine incident from several one ton cylinders in Portsmouth, RI. We used DECIDE as part of the process to assess the situation.

• Hazmat was present, potential harm was estimated, goals and objectives were considered, the option to inspect and identify was selected and carried out and after the incident was found to be secure, continued oversight was carried out.

• Used in a mock facility incident.

• N/A.

• N/A.

• Incident is described in the previous question. We followed the model. No one got hurt.

• Essentially same answer as 16A.

• Reported engine fire, full scale evacuation and foam operations being set up upon my arrival, due to train consisting of 68 full methanol cars. Quickly able to determine the fire was oil burning on outside of engine block due to the turbo charger blowing apart. Extinguished residual fire with dry chem. extinguishers and downgraded everyone's response.

• 1. Safety; 2. Recognition and how much; 3. Look for downhill or water drain evaluation; 4. How long would it take to control it; 5. Up to date phone number for information the close hazmat team and back up with all your cards ready to read. That is responding.

• FD on scene. When we got there we went through the DECIDE process and it was done


• General assessment that detected no damage or leak that was hazardous.

• First what was involved, looked over the scene, and made sure it was nothing that was going to endanger us or anybody else responding. Vehicle vs. train scene secured.

Question 16. Please list any actions your organization has taken as a direct result of attending

AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response (e.g., pre-incident planning has been conducted and documented, performed a rail car damage assessment, etc.)?

• Working with Union Pacific Railroad hazmat Specialist in my area. Will be attending a tank car blitz with him next month to evaluate tank cars in their yard.

• Increased personal observations of RR car characteristics.

• I have used the knowledge that I learned in the class to better my delivery of training when discussing rail incidents with our hazmat team.

• No incidents has accrued since we have taken this course.

• Contacted the railroad to come and teach what was not taught in this class.

• Instituted updated rail car emergency protocol.

• General discussion of railroad emergencies. After our incident with the train vs. SUV we stressed to our members to never crawl under a railcar, always cross railcars over the couplings while maintaining 3 point contact with the car. At this incident we had numerous members crawling under railcars to gain access to the scene. Getting equipment through a stopped train also provided problems.

• We are more aware of a railcar incident and what response is necessary in our county.

• Awareness class with a component of rail car safety included.

• We have documented an incident action plan based upon the training we completed due to this course that we had not had previously. We also have had in service training for team members who did not attend so they have an understanding of the complexity of rail car incident response.

• We have implemented SOGs based on the information gained while attending this course.

• Looked at several different situations and scenarios that could affect our response areas.

• None, most of the guys in this department left this class feeling they had wasted their time.

• Initiated pre-incident planning.

• More pre planning of local rail yard.

• I have not had any actions to responding to a rail car incident. I do think that the class should have a rail car on site for more hands-on and to be able to see all the hazards


and shut off up close. Should also have more inter actions with the engine of the train for the teaching in the locations of shut offs and disconnects.

• No actions have been taken.

• Pre incident planning and training at an awareness level of other Officers who may respond to a rail card incident or assist in evacuation procedures.

• Conducted Full Scale Exercise with Railroad and local fire departments simulating Hazmat incident.

• Utilized information from the RDPC AWR 147 course to assist me in pre-planning for rail incidents within my response district.

• None at this time.

• as time allows, working on a training session with the railroad, and also gathering updated material in regards to the chemicals being transported through our jurisdiction.

• I attended the program to see just what was being taught and was appalled with what I saw in the program. My efforts have been to get the railroad industry to review the program and modify it to reflect the real world and provide viable information to the responders who attend the program. I am not the only one in the industry to have these comments. I felt that the program did not increase my ability to handle rail car emergencies, partially because of my 35 plus involvement with the rail industry.

• Both the State Emergency Management Agency and our municipal government hosted a pre-planning and hazard assessment session for the members of our Industrial Community. The scenario used was a rail incident impacting both the residential area and industrial area. I was able to speak more specifically about the rail scenario because of the class I took.

• I have contacted CSX rail service and received a training information DVD that we use in F. D. training classes and also use information gained through the AWR- 147 Class to advise our members about responding to rail incidents. Also I have put together a more detailed response pre-plan to help our department when responding to rail incidents.

• Since taking this course our hazmat team has purchased proper fittings needed for the many different types of valves in the rail car industry. Discussed the need to purchase different types of gaskets and the need to keep attending classes to keep up with the progress the rail service had made over the years. We placed the booklet we received in class on our library for future references.

• Pre-Incident planning and different access points to different spots on the rail. Also have some foam training for tank car fires.

• our plant has added a rail car training program which we share with a partner plant we have used many of the techniques in our training program.

• We are following the procedures for rail car incidents we had in place before taking this course. We have been dealing with the type of situations for many years because of our


location to a major yard and rail lines. This course was very beneficial to new members and the additional information it provide for seasoned veterans so they do not become complacent.

• Duty Officer Book info for emergency rail contacts and an EOC binder set up specifically for railroad accidents.

• My department hasn't conducted any further training or planning.

• We have not had any incidents.

• Safely and successfully controlled a leak from a rail car as part of a multi-jurisdictional response.

• Further training with the near future drill of the safety train.

• Planning an exercise for this type of event in our community.

• none> Our Rail Car incidents would be run by the fire dept.

• Updated damage assessment procedures.

• We haven't had a chance to use our training. We have about dozen firefighters that need this training but haven't had a chance or time to schedule another class. All of our firefighters where impress with this class.

• Unknown.

• We have chosen to continue training with our previous training partners as opposed to RDPC.

• More planning, information and additional course taken.

• None.

• I have recommend the course to several people and departments.

• We have done pre-incident planning in the event a rail car were to become a hazard in our jurisdiction.

• I am not aware of pre-planning as a direct result of this class. however, it is my understanding that pre-plans are in place.

• none, except now I know more than before I went to the training.

• "We already have a fully functional Haz Mat Team based out f the Pulaski Co. OEM.

• Great course, continue to offer it.

• Our agency has spent an unusual number of hours handling winter storm, high water and animal related incidents since the class was taught. This has interfered with routine planning activities during the winter months, and no AWR 147 actions have taken place.


• In our regularly scheduled monthly hazmat training we have used the DECIDE process in conduct worst case and most likely scenarios of some of the more common products moving through our response district.

• We have taken the members of our Emergency Squad personnel to the area we cover that has the only potential for a railcar incident and performed pre-planning followed by scenario based hands-on training.

• I attended the course as a review of rail car incident response.

• I came back to work and shared the 147 info with them.

• By letting the citizen know the danger they put them self and others in when they try to beat a train. and telling them that it is better wait for three minutes and live.

• Had training with other departments.

• Revised contingency checklists to include rail-car recognition and response actions.

• PRe Incident Planning with Amtrak and NJ transit.

• More aware of car markings and design

• None that I am aware of.

• We have not used this as of yet.

• We have gone over a preplan.

• We have done preplanning on the railroads in the area.

• We were all ready "up to speed" on many of the techniques before the class. Much of it was review, but good review.

• Performed a rail car damage assessment.

• Since I am in the railroad business, This course reinforced my procedures in responding to incidents. Although propane can be dangerous use procedures to investigate what actually is going on. There is no need to get excited unless its out of control. In this case the shipping procedure was in question. it leaked but it only needed a reasonable response.

• None.

• We have ensured our employees have a better understanding on the procedures, protocol and communication in dealing with rail-car incidents.

• My organization has encouraged more members of the organization to attend the Hazmat Emergency Response for Railroad Incidents course offered in Pueblo, CO. My organization also participated in a ethanol rail car exercise with various local agencies.

• None.

• My organization is not proactive. We do have a major rail line through the city but current management has no focus on that.


• As a team leader/adviser I have supplied my team with electronic versions of the NIOSH pocket guide and the Emergency Response Guidebook. We are planning trainings in using these tools to identify HAZMAT in all forms of transportation, with an emphasis on Rail cars.

• Handed off my student manual to our training officer to use as he sees fit for in-service training.

• Since taking the class I have now been in contact with the Federal Rail Administration and they will be teaching a class to DEM and HazMat Teams in RI on March 11th. I have also been talking to Providence and Worcestor Rail to have them come in and teach a rail class as well. The AWR 147 class has brought to light the fact that we need to work with these other agencies and be prepared for a rail car incident. Thank you for providing the class and I would like to see them come back every couple of years as a refresher.

• We continuously plan and train for such responses.

• No actions taken as of present. I foresee this material (AWR-147) being used in future planning meetings and exercises.

• Conducting Vulnerability Assessments for our Correctional facilities taking into account rail car derailments and possible outcomes.

• None.

• Verified that our response procedure includes a DECIDE-type analysis format.

• None.

• Developed an attachment to the Emergency Response Plan specific to rail incidents

• Pre Incident Planning.

• Have made more awareness of rail lines near emergency shelters.

• Requested and received training from Railroad Haz Mat contractors.

• Training and a risk assessment of our rail lines.

• I have not been able to use the skills I have learned and I cannot reflect the exact details of the rail cars, however, I know where to go to get the info and I can better manage an incident should it occur. This has to be reviewed or thought repeatedly in order to stay current.

• We have done more pre-incident planning and have also done a table-top exercise involving a railcar incident. We have also built up our emergency contact list with Union Pacific Railroad emergency numbers.

• Nothing yet.

• We have contacted Canadian National and asked if they could put on training on how to respond to rail car incidents. They said they would be happy to help in any way, and to


let them know what we would like. They said they could help pre=plan some incidents and pre-plan some target hazards in the area.

• Have not used the training yet.

• I am the Accreditation manager and Training Officer for the Police Department as well as the law enforcement liaison to the Office of Emergency Management. The information learned in AWR 147 is very helpful in my day to day responsibilities.

• Several tabletop discussions were made following the training. County hazmat team practiced various training leak procedures drills, not specific to rail cars, but would work as such.

• Had training on damage assessment and responding with a patch kit.

• None at this time.

• As we do have trains running through town.

• Thanks.

• We were taking this as an awareness course. Thankfully we have yet to have a rail car incident in our region since taking this course.

• Rail car mock drills.

• Improved dispatch.

• Information has not been incorporated into organization training to date. Organization is currently training to anticipated missions of sheltering and points of distribution.

• Additional training for our volunteer firefighters.

• I am currently an RSER Instructor since 2008.

• Unfortunately no actions have been done. On my own I have reviewed the training and info given and use it every time I see a train.

• Rail Incident preplanning, talked with rail reps about response to incidents.

• We've inspected rail crossing for proper company identification and also gone to the local rail yard where ethanol is off loaded and inspected the fire protection system there.

• OJT to crews of participants using learned techniques.

• We have gone to the FRA for more training on Rail in general emergencies.

• We have taken some of the material and used it in our monthly training program. We have also developed at HazMat Tactical Worksheet that some of the critical information needed to run an incident.

• Met with rail yard reps. to explain our response methods and needs.

• Wauwatosa Fire Department.


• We have spent time performing pre-incident planning and training to our fire department volunteers.

• We have done more incident pre-planning with County hazmat team and local fire department.

• Far as being in the Texas State Guard, it has brought more awareness and incite to planning.

• Participate in a functional exercise in a rural community where rail runs through it.

• Have done minimal assessment of rail problems but have done updating (keeping current) knowledge by visiting rail yards. Some preplanning has been accomplished.

• Developed a rail car damage assessment class and on scene check sheet to assist in strategic and tactical decision making.

• Passed on training and info to our regional hazmat team.

• We have a rail yard in two towns in our county. I took the course so I would understand the rail system and cars. We have not done an exercise.

• We held a department training discussion on the hazards present in our area regarding rail cars and how to respond.

• None that I can speak to.

• We are working with various fire departments in preparing for emergencies involving Ethanol shipments by rail.

• Briefed the rest of the team on the workings of the class and what we learned.

• We have not had any recent exercises.

• Bryan Tello.

• We have brought back understanding to the volunteer department and shared literature.

• Sent 8 employees to SERTC in Pueblo to be certified as tank car specialist.

• We already had a lot of the pre-planning done before. We know how the winds and how the rail yard is laid out so we have an ideal what we have to do if there is a spill. We just have to find out what the product is to better fit the preplan and how we will handle the incident.

• We have one exercise focusing on a rail incident.

• This was a great class and was an excellent offering for responders. Keep up the trainings in our area.

• We have added some items to our Standard Operating Procedures and have revised our pre-incident planning to include a lot of the information we have learned that was specific to rail cars. In the past we have included information on DOT hazardous


materials but mostly handling of transports by highway/roads. Now we have a better understanding of rail cars and the railroad system so we have modified our planning to include that aspect of transportation.

• Done pre-incident planning with a mutual-aid department.

• Our agency has performed at least one rail car incident since your class...your information was useful and was applied.

• Thankfully there has been no rail incidents.

• Damage assessment, control, containment and cleanup of derailed cars in Pickens, SC.

• We have done some additional training on identifying rail cars from pictures.

• Pre-incident planning with the Rigby rail Yard. Also Amtrak provided classes on locomotive response.

• We have completed a mock exercise involving a potential rail car incident and have completed department wide training provided by the railroad.

• Our jurisdiction does not have any rail lines. Consequently, we would only assist those who do have lines in their local and who would hopefully prepare for such an event.

• Pre-planning, area review.

• Company level cross training.

• Technicians are encouraged to attend TTCI Railcar and Cargo Tank Specialist training.

• We have attempted to obtain from railroad a short list of hazmat materials that go through our area to make a faster product identity possible Request was refused at all levels. Disappointing as we could sit by the tracts and record placard numbers so it is not a security issue. Railroad policy seems illogical and is frustrating.

• Have practiced on an old railcar, gone over identifying placards, dos and don'ts, and our safety as well as the safety of others.

• Preformed inspection of rail yard. Inspect and identify railcars.

• Our department was called out for an assist with a derailment. From that we have taken some pre-incident plans in case it were ever to happen in our area.

• Discussed some basic points on what would have to be done for our department for a rail car incident.

• Pre-planning.

• Drill on incident while filling a rail care with liquid HF.

• Have gone over a pre-incident plan and simulated patching a rupture on a railcar.

• Pre-incident plans, procedure changes and focused training, equipment purchased.


Question 17. Because of what you learned in AWR 147 Rail Car Incident Response, have you responded to or assisted with a rail car incident in your jurisdiction? If so, please explain the incident and how you applied the knowledge you learned through the course.

• We are a regional response team and once again, this course did not teach this, we had to go outside to get the information needed.

• No other incident has occurred since taking this course.

• As noted above in reference to the derailment.

• Yes 15 car derailment.

• Accident involving a passenger truck and engine collision in which engine was damaged and unable to move until repairs were made.

• I have not had any incidents involving rail cars, etc. since the AWR 147 class (to date).

• Retired.

• February 8, 2010, 21 rail car derailment; Incident Commander. I was able to have an informed discussion with RR personnel; provided verbal command to fire personnel much closer to the scene and helped them interpret what they and not I could observe; I was able to read the Consist. This was a UPRR incident.

• As of yet we have not responded to any rail incidents.

• It seems that CSX has a great safety record for in our area our team has only had to respond to one incident years ago.

• I have not responded to rail car incident.

• Yes. As I indicated previously, my job was to observe from the Yard Office and relay vital information to the IC.

• None have occurred per se where hazmat was released

• Yes, as previously answered in this survey.

• Have not had one.

• No, have not had a disaster like this

• We responded, but not because we took this course.

• See previous answer.

• There have been no rail car responses in our jurisdiction since the class.

• As before.

• No incidents in our jurisdiction. We responded as an outside agency assist for that Fallon Amtrak incident.

• Yes, see previous.


• Yes, already have.

• No, I have only participated in rail car exercise.

• I have not responded to any railcar incidents in the time following this class.

• I have not responded but we will be conducted a Tri-State Drill this September with MA, CT, and RI. The full scale exercise will include a rail accident concerning ethanol burning and leaking into a river that runs from MA into RI adjacent to CT.

• See previous comments.

• I have since responded to a rail incident involving hazardous materials-details in previous question answer.

• Have not responded to rail incident since the course was completed.

• Have not responded to an incident.

• We used DECIDE to get the ball rolling on discovering the magnitude of the hazmat spill as well as the dangers associated with it and the community surrounding it.

• No incidents.

• We got a call that a rail car was leaking sulfuric acid in the rail yard downtown. I responded for our emergency response team. An ICS was set up and procedures followed. The local fire department and police here do an excellent job in emergencies. Turned out to be just a venting car. This class helped me to understand everything going on there and will help in future derailments. We have had two in the last five years here. Great class!!

• I have not responded to a incident at this time.

• We have responded to several incidents from derailments into rivers to small leaks in non pressure cars. Our team has progressed in our knowledge of rail car safety and container design and construction. This course has allowed us to build many relationships with our local rail yard, which has in turn allowed us to obtain several training classes with local engineers and repairmen.

• We respond the rail car incidents as a matter of duty rotation.

• Have not responded to or assisted with a rail car incident.

• Have not responded.

• See previous description.

• Hazmat leak from a railcar. Just used hazmat containment procedures.

• Haven't responded.

• Yes. From the incident I stated in a prior question. I have learned to have a better working relationship with the rail road because I understand more of what they have to do also along with the cleanup crews.


• No, thankfully we have not had any though there have been some within a couple of counties from us. I do feel better prepared to respond to an incident and want to be sure that everyone knows that we felt this was a class that we should have had a long time ago since we have a major railroad hub in our county. Everyone who took it enjoyed it tremendously.

• Would like to have this class for the Depts. in Wythe Co. VA.

• Not within my jurisdiction

• Yes, see prior.

• Haven't had any responses.

• See #10

• Train vs. car, more or less made sure none of the cars were damaged and extraction fo vehicle fire department and made sure nothing was going to endanger us or others and use of erg was used.

level 3 course evaluation program awr 147 rail car ......awr 147 level 3 course evaluation | 5 . the...

Documents