Replies to UP STB Petition – 04-03-09

There were four new replies for the Union Pacific petition posted to the Surface Transportation Board site. None of the replies were from people directly associated with specific petition, but all felt that they could be affected by precedent set by this action. The replies came from: Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Old World Industries Citizens for Rail Safety National Association of Chemical Distributors Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Reply The NNWTF opposes the UP petition and is concerned because of the precedents that could be established shipping other dangerous cargo. Their position is best stated by this statement from their filing: “What is of great concern is that the petition by the UP suggests that it should have the power to decide when and where cargo is too risky to haul and, when it does so, that it has no duty to present facts supporting those conclusions to the public, public entities, and shippers.” The NNWTF noted that UP failed to seek more appropriate remedies for this issue. If the shipment of chlorine over long distances or through HTUA were so unsafe, they should have requested an embargo on those shipments from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). If they felt that the rules and standards for such shipments were inadequate they should have made their appeal to FRA and DOT. Not having done either, the NNWTF maintains that UP has no standing to request this ruling from the STB. Old World Industries Letter As another manufacturer/shipper of TIH chemicals OWI feels that “inexplicable stance that the Union Pacific has taken, is detrimental to the industries that depend upon the manufacturing and sale of TIH commodities”. They request that “STB mandate that the rate proposal in question be provided by the Union Pacific and tendered to the company that has been unduly hindered in their attempt to conduct business as provided by the law”. Citizens for Rail Safety Reply The CRS reply, other than the address and signature, is a duplicate of the NNWTF reply. National Association of Chemical Distributors Reply The NACD feels that the “UP petition to limit, or provide an exception to, their obligation to transport chlorine m this particular case is a threat to-the entire common carrier obligation to transport TIH materials”. Given the near monopoly that railroads have, the NACD notes that the “common carrier obligation exists for the specific purpose of requiring the railroads to provide service to shippers when they would otherwise choose not to do so because it would be unprofitable or inconvenient”. My Comments on Comments It is always politically interesting to watch form letter campaigns take place. Organizations have a right to make their opinions known to legislators and executive branch agencies during the deliberations leading up to legislative or regulative actions. The individual members of those organizations also have that right. But, neither legislators nor executive branch agencies are swayed by duplicative mailings of identical comments. The only way such mass mailings can be anywhere near effective is for there to be politically significant numbers of identical mailings; two mailings are never politically significant. For two different organizations, operating in two different issue subject areas, to use duplicate mailings makes one question the legitimacy of those organizations as independent political advocates. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to jump to the conclusion that these two organizations are tools of a single organization, individual or agency. Sadly, these duplicative mailing cheapen the legitimate arguments made. The failure of UP to seek more appropriate redress to the situation raises substantive questions about the legitimacy of the petition.