Grafton & Upton Railroad (G&U) Discussion

I would think a thick earthen berm at the property line, taller than the tank would be a practical solution. Any shrapnel would be absorbed, and the shock wave would be redirected upwards.

I was working at a company that used a volatile chemical in their manufacturing process. The large above-ground tank was directly behind the office/laboratory-manufacturing building housing 100 or so employees. This explosive liquid was transferred from truck to tank via hose. The loading area was covered and "grade separated" from the tank, and the area was gated and accessible only to authorized personnel. One of the scientists whom I respected said it was a ticking time bomb that could level the whole building, while the safety officer whom I also respected said it was quite safe.

* * *

If the town doesn't like the location that G&U chose, what alternate on-line location would they suggest?

If I lived near a rail yard, I'd be more worried about the small everyday leaks from idling engines, lube oil, tops of tanks, how liquid transfers are handled, what herbicides get sprayed on the ROW, and the creosote in the ties. Beacon Park in Boston is supposedly heavily contaminated from 100 years of use.

Formal notice of appeal of Upton STB decision


http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Friend of G & U RR wrote:Formal notice of appeal of Upton STB decision


http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backing up for a second here, but didn't the First Circuit previously rule that they had no jurisdiction over the STB, or was that one of the other courts?

[quote="At 6:00 am on Jan. 23, 2015 In an article entitled "Upton: Residents to appeal ruling on Grafton & Upton Railroad", Mike Gleason of the Milford Daily News staff"]

UPTON - Residents seeking to bring Grafton & Upton Railroad activities under local jurisdiction have decided to appeal a federal ruling in the railroad's favor.

The group of seven residents filed a notice with the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 13 stating they intend to contest a Surface Transportation Board decision on the subjects, said attorney Mark Bobrowski, who represents the citizens.

"The (STB) has 40 days to put a record together (of transcripts, etc.)," Bobrowski said. "After that, the court will set a briefing schedule."

Bobrowski did not detail the legal basis of the appeal.

"We look forward to bringing these issues to the attention of the of the First Circuit Court," he said.

The group filed a petition with the transportation board in 2012, seeking a ruling on whether some work done at the railroad's Maple Avenue rail yard is subject to local and state bylaws. According to federal law, railroad "transportation activities" are exempt from such oversight.

The residents claimed that the packaging of wood pellets at the yard is not a transportation activity, but a manufacturing one. As such, the residents argue, the facility where that work takes place should be governed by local regulations.[/quote]

Read the rest of the article at The Milford Daily News' website.

you really can't fault McGovern for looking at other agencies...he's serving his constituents.

The following was copied from the Friends of The Grafton and Upton Railroad's facebook page:

For Immediate Release
Contact: Doug Pizzi
January 23, 2015
508-251-2599 (office)
508-314-7988 (cell)

Jon Delli Priscoli Statement on issues arising from
the Grafton public meeting held on Jan. 14, 2015

“It is inconceivable to me how the Town of Grafton and other state and federal elected officials, including Congressman James McGovern, can continue to state that we are not being forthcoming on the railroad’s plans for the LPG transfer facility in North Grafton.”

“On December 4, 2012, the Town held a public meeting and invited both the Railroad and the federal Surface Transportation Board to attend. The Railroad answered all questions and disclosed and discussed health and safety plans for the facility. Shortly thereafter, instead of entering into further dialogue with the G&U, which was always ready to continue discussions, the Town obtained a restraining order in Worcester Superior Court. This legal action brought construction of the facility to a halt. It also ended, due to the nature of litigation, any chance to continue an open dialogue with the town.”

“In 2014 two STB decisions stated emphatically that the G&U’s plan to build storage track and to build and operate the LPG transfer facility constitutes transportation by a rail carrier. Shortly after the STB rulings, the Worcester Superior Court dismissed the Town’s restraining order removing all legal barriers to the G&U. These actions removed any legal barrier to moving forward with the facility.”

“In spite of these legal setbacks, the Town once again elected to go to court. Instead of entering into a dialogue with the G&U, the town precluded dialogue when it filed an appeal of the STB’s recent decision to the Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Even while doing so, various Town officials publicly admitted that they have almost no likelihood of success. The Town also elected to hold another public meeting on January 14, 2015 and did not invite either the Railroad or the STB to attend.”

“As the Town has continued to refuse to enter into any real dialogue with the G&U, we have simply gone forward with the construction and plans as discussed and shared in 2012. Most recently, the G&U has hired a new fire safety engineer who is also a state Department of Environmental Protection certified Licensed Site Professional and who holds the highest federal Department of Homeland Security certification. The G&U has re-engaged the original design
and construction contractor to complete the facility. Together with G&U personnel, these experts will make sure the terminal meets or exceeds applicable safety rules and regulations. When all of our plans are updated and complete, we will share them with all required parties, as we have been willing to do all along.”

“It is also worth noting that even while being sued by the Town, the G&U has spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and training for area fire departments. This includes chemical foam firefighting equipment for both Grafton and Upton fire departments, and hosting a regional firefighter training session in Upton and a CSX Safety Train training event in Hopedale. This May we are hosting another joint training for the region in Upton with the CSX Safety Train, Upton Fire Department and the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy based in Stow, MA. Numerous fire departments, emergency responders and other railroads will all attend this training. Since I have owned and operated the G&U, I have always put safety first, and I will continue to do so when the LPG transfer facility is finally operational.”

How Safe Is the Grafton & Upton LPG Facility

According to the U.S. Department of Energy “LPG Land Transportation and Storage Safety” statistics published December, 1981

The voluntary lifetime risk of a fatality due to motor vehicle accident is 1 in 4,700.
The voluntary lifetime risk of a fatality in an airplane crash is 1 in 140,000.
The involuntary risk of a fatality by lightning strike is 1 in 3,750,000.
The involuntary risk of a fatality in a tornado is 1 in 2,450,000.
The involuntary risk of a fatality in a dam failure is 1 in 6,300,000.
The involuntary risk of a fatality in an airplane crash as an innocent bystander on
the ground is 1 in 37,000,000.
The involuntary risk of a fatality from a LPG Transportation/Storage accident is 1 in 37,000,000.

Jon Delli Priscoli is the owner of the Grafton & Upton Railroad

###

Wow... just, wow!

Well known fact - people are more scared of "the big disaster" who's probability is miniscule compared to the more mundane things like driving a car.

You have a better chance getting struck by lightning (3.75M) than hitting Powerball (200+), but people still buy tickets.

It's human nature coupled with greed, politicians, and spite. Hey - that's human nature too.

That's why we try to go by rule-of-law. The process unfortunately is drawn out and sometimes painful, but overall, the system works.

Oh, by the way - the people complaining that their property values will go down WON'T complain that their assessments on said property values were reduced and so they will pay less taxes. I'm sure that it will be compensated by the G&U's assessment being raised in compensation for the new structures being built - and maybe more so, but that is another point of potential litigation. The lawyers got it made in the shade, but the torches & pitchfork types are more entertaining.

Grafton should be reminded that in nearby Hopkinton, MA, Tennessee Gas has three above ground 290,000-barrel LNG storage tanks.

The place has been in operation since the 70's and to my knowledge there has never been a major problem of any type.

Sooner or later G&U must be thinking about a lawsuit against the town for harassment for loss of business.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve

As long as the G&U doesn't leave tanker trains under-braked and unmanned on a hill.

With the winter weather we are having today it got me thinking. What type and how much snow cleaning equipment does the G&U have, how quickly can they dig out the line after this snowstorm. I have not been to the Grafton end off the line in a year so I am vague on what they have. Thanks for any info anyone has. Bernd

BerndinMA wrote:With the winter weather we are having today it got me thinking. What type and how much snow cleaning equipment does the G&U have, how quickly can they dig out the line after this snowstorm. I have not been to the Grafton end off the line in a year so I am vague on what they have. Thanks for any info anyone has. Bernd

An operation that small? Probably none except for the hi-rails to clear the yards. And they have much bigger issues than the larger RR's simply with staff availability on a day like this, because they don't have much staff to begin with. This is well-understood by their customers with a likely official company policy indemnifying them on weather-related days they can't run. It's the inevitable trade-off for the personalized service those customers get from a mom-and-pop shortline.

This snow won't be an issue for the locomotives to clear from the tracks. Dry, powdery. It's more the fact that the street plows are running nonstop and every attempt at clearing a grade crossing is going to be undone by a new mound piled high 45 minutes later. Better to just throw more crew tomorrow at clearing the crossings when crew can actually get to work than try it threadbare today. Not sure what they'd do with heavy wet Blizzard of '78-type snow. Probably borrow a plow from CSX after CSX is done clearing the Framingham Secondary and Fitchburg Secondary...since CSX has a vested interest in making sure it's G&U-interchanged goods aren't stranded in North Grafton for more than a worst-case day or two after their own customers' goods are stranded in Framingham.

The Friends of The Grafton and Upton Railroad's facebook page is reporting that the First Circuit Court has several issues with the Brief and Appendix filed by the town counsel for the Town of Grafton and is requiring that conforming filings are made by 30 January 2015.

The documents below are from the Friends of The Grafton and Upton Railroad's facebook page

Seems to me they have their briefs where their boxers should be.

Regarding snow removal, 2 shortlines that I worked with sent front-end loaders to the grade crossings if the snow was measured in feet, otherwise on the train it was "hang on - we're coming through!" Switches were generally cleaned by the train crew. I remember some spectacular blasts through snow berms running an Alco switcher cab-first on the Connecticut Central.