FD 34391

Entries

1. 8 May 2006 (printed as 5/8/2006)
   Comment
   EI-2022Laurie Kennison

   Attached are my comments.

   Wilmington, MA
2. served 6 Jul 2005 (printed as 7/6/2005)
   Decision
   36004Secretary

   GRANTED THE REQUEST OF NEW ENGLAND TRANSRAIL, LLC, D/B/A WILMINGTON AND WOBURN TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY, TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S MAY 3, 2005 DECISION.
3. 29 Jun 2005 (printed as 6/29/2005)
   Motion
   214258Motion To Withdraw

   New England Transrail Llc
4. 14 Jun 2005 (printed as 6/14/2005)
   Reply
   214183Reply

   Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection
5. 8 Jun 2005 (printed as 6/8/2005)
   Reply
   214152Reply

   Town Of Wilmington Ma
6. 7 Jun 2005 (printed as 6/7/2005)
   Reply
   214147Reply

   National Solid Wastes Management Association
7. 18 May 2005 (printed as 5/18/2005)
   Motion
   214052Petition To Reopen

   New England Transrail Llc
8. served 3 May 2005 (printed as 5/3/2005)
   Decision
   35712Entire Board

   DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FILED BY NEW ENGLAND TRANSRAIL, LLC, D/B/A WILMINGTON & WOBURN TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502 FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. 10901 TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 2,700 FEET OF NEW RAIL LINE, TO ACQUIRE 1,300 FEET OF EXISTING TRACK, AND TO PROVIDE COMMON CARRIER RAIL SERVICE OVER APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET OF TRACK LOCATED ON AND ADJACENT TO LAND OWNED BY OLIN CORPORATION IN WILMINGTON AND WOBURN, MA.
9. served 26 Apr 2005 (printed as 4/26/2005)
   Decision
   35675Secretary

   ANNOUNCED THE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD'S MAY 3, 2005 VOTING CONFERENCE.
10. 28 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/28/2005)
    Letter
    213628Letter/Telegram

    New England Transrail Llc
11. 28 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/28/2005)
    Reply
    213627Reply

    Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection
12. 18 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/18/2005)
    Reply
    213583Reply

    National Solid Wastes Management Association, Solid Waste Association Of North America - Massachusetts Chapter; Massachusetts Municipal Association; Construction Materials Recycling Association; And New Bedford Waste Services Llc
13. 9 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/9/2005)
    Reply
    213506Reply

    New England Transrail Llc
14. 7 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/7/2005)
    Motion
    213500Motion For Protective Order

    New England Transrail Llc

    in the protective-order register
15. 7 Mar 2005 (printed as 3/7/2005)
    Reply
    213490Reply

    New England Transrail Llc
16. 28 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/28/2005)
    Motion
    213431Motion To Withdraw

    New England Transrail Llc
17. 28 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/28/2005)
    Letter
    213430Letter/Telegram

    New England Transrail LLC
18. 22 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/22/2005)
    Motion
    213386Petition To Revoke Exemption

    Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection
19. 17 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/17/2005)
    Reply
    213326Reply

    Town Of Wilimington Massachusetts
20. 16 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/16/2005)
    Reply
    213438Reply

    Solid Waste Association Of North America - Massachusetts Chapter; Massachusetts Municipal Association; Construction Materials Recycling Association; And New Bedford Waste Services Llc, National Solid Wastes Management Association
21. 10 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/10/2005)
    Letter
    213223Letter

    Department Of Environment Protection
22. 10 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/10/2005)
    Comment
    EI-1403state government

    comment to Wilmington's Petition to Remand Proceeding to SEA, to Reject the Post EA or Revoke the Exemption based on misleading information.

    Margaret Stolfa · Boston, MA
23. 7 Feb 2005 (printed as 2/7/2005)
    Reply
    213181Reply

    New England Transrail Llc
24. 27 Jan 2005 (printed as 1/27/2005)
    Reply
    213145Reply

    Town Of Wilmington Ma
25. 27 Jan 2005 (printed as 1/27/2005)
    Comment
    EI-1381City of Woburn,City Council

    Paul Medeiros · Woburn, MA
26. 19 Jan 2005 (printed as 1/19/2005)
    Comment
    EI-1380Woburn Law Department

    Thomas Lawton · Woburn, MA
27. 18 Jan 2005 (printed as 1/18/2005)
    Comment
    EI-1377Recycling Association

    William Turley · Eola, IL
28. served 22 Dec 2004 (printed as 12/22/2004)
    Decision
    35449Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

    PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE POST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
29. served 22 Dec 2004 (printed as 12/22/2004)
    Decision
    35412Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

    ISSUED A POST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING SERVED ON AUGUST 4, 2004.
30. 1 Oct 2004 (printed as 10/1/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1042Applicant's attorney

    Applicant's response to comments filed on the EA after the close of the comment period.

    John McHugh · New York, NY
31. 20 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/20/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1032citizen

    Suzanne Sullivan · Wilmington, MA
32. 20 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/20/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1031consultant-Geolnsight

    attachment to comments received 9/17/04 from the Town of Wilmington-comments delayed by delivery

    John Gilbert · Westford, MA
33. 20 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/20/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1030citizen

    Linda Raymond · Woburn, MA
34. 17 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/17/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1040League of Women Voters of Wilmington, MA

    Please accept the attached comments on New England Transrail, LLC d/b/a Wilmington and Woburn Terminal Railroad Co.-Construction, Acquisition and Operation Exemption - in Wilmington and Woburn, MA

    Martha K. Stevenson · Wilmington, MA
35. 17 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/17/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1029Concerned Citizens Network

    Numerous form letters attached

    Kathleen Barry · Wilmington, MA
36. 17 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/17/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1028Attorney for Wilmington

    Daniel Deutsch · Boston, MA
37. 17 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/17/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1027citizen

    Charles Gourlis · Woburn, MA
38. 17 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/17/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1026citizen

    Ann Yurek · Wilmington, MA
39. 16 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/16/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1038headwaters stream team

    Ms. Phillis Johnson-Ball September 19, 2004 Case Control Unit Surface Transportation Board 1925 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20423 RE: Finance Docket No. 34391 Environmental Assessment, New England Transrail, LLC, d/b/a Wilmington and Woburn Terminal Railroad Co. – Construction, Acquisition, and Operation Exemption – in Wilmington and Woburn, MA Dear Ms. Johnson-Ball, This comment is being made in regards to the above referenced Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted by the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) dated August 4, 2004. The purpose of the EA is to meet requirements of NEPA under the STB’s jurisdiction. According to the STB’s website and regulations (49 CFR110) the Board “must take a “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action before it makes a final decision to approve or deny the proposal”. Considering the SEA preliminary concludes that the Proposed Action would have no significant impacts if the Board imposes and the Applicant implements the environmental mitigation conditions recommended in the EA indicates that the STB has not take a “hard look” as required. I urge the STB to fulfill their absolute regulatory authority and responsibility in reviewing this Major Federal Action (Sec. 1508.18 ). ES.1.1 Board’s Obligations Under the National Environmental Policy Act The STB states that the EA identifies and evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the Proposed Action including the potential of the Proposed Action to impact Olin’s ongoing remediation activities. Sec. 1508.7 Cumulative Impact. Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. How can the SEA come to th the conclusion of no significant impact? The EA falls seriously short in recognizing and assessing the current cumulative impacts of the Project as defined under this filing. To exacerbate an already flawed conclusion the EA disregards the incremental impacts in the future. The SEA identifies two “obscure” pending actions, the MBTA Connection and a Break Bulk Facility. The EA states, “The details of any such facility, and when the property might be developed to include these structures, are not known at this time”. There is no doubt that the project before the STB today will soon change. This segmentation will side step the environmental review. It has become clear that this process is the Proponents “foot in the door” to an even less desirable adverse activity. Sec. 1508.13 Finding of no significant impact. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity: (a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: The SEA fails in the following categories outlined by the NEPA requirements.. 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The STB fails to address or realize the “Environmental Justice Issues that exist in this area. Evidence of “Environmental Injustice” is further outlined later in this comment. The natural environment can only absorb so much harmful influences before the effects are seen in the human environment. This area has had over a century of abuse and discharges of contamination. The EA only cites the regional benefits and neglects to examine the local adverse effects. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The SEA fails to address the public safety issue regarding traffic, noise, and the effect any accidents/spills will have on the contamination that exists on the Olin site. . Until “no significant health risk” is obtained at the Olin site and full discovery of attained there should be no further adverse impacts to this area to complicate or impede what little progress there has been to make this a safe place for people to work. It is the obligation of all agencies to improve conditions at this site not worsen them. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly contention The SEA acknowledges the highly controversial nature of the Olin site. Contention existed prior to this filing and is the cause and effect of the complexities and the impacts the migrated contamination has had on the surrounding communities. The STB appears to have disregarded the concerns of the citizens, state and federal legislators, town officials, the impacts and loss and loss to our community, and the controversy it has provoked. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Unknown risks; possible effects on the human environment; uncertain; and unique sum up the conditions of the Olin site well. Time and time again both Olin, the DEP, and recently the EPA have stated how unique and uncertain the conditions are at the site and with in the “plume environment”. The multiple file cabinets full of scopes of work after scopes of work, the Phase II Assessment that took approximately 10 years to develop, but is still a work in progress due to the discovery of NDMA, and the report from the EPA regarding the evaluation of Chemicals of Concern and the reactions of such with in the Dense Aqueous Plume (DAPL) that has contaminated hundreds of acres of groundwater are all evidence of the complexities of this site. The EA fails to even mention the DAPL which is one of the most prominent features of the Olin site. The fate and transport and “reactionary zones” a.ka. “Diffused Layer” of this DAPL continues to challenged some of the most astute in their field. We can not afford any more variables until a well thought out plan is in place. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The two known, however, yet to be determined projects,mentioned previously, the MBTA Connection and the Break Bulk Facility, would fall under this category. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The two known, however yet to be determined projects, the MBTA Connection and the Break Bulk Facility, would once again fall under this catagory. The Proponant can not break down the Project to avoid “Significance”. This is obviously an attempt to do so. If the Proponent know they will come forward in the future, isn’t the STB’s jurisdiction to require information on the future acts now? 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The SEA seriously fails in evaluating the impact of truck traffic in Wilmington. The SEA does efficiently address the traffic from entering the RT 38 corridor from the Olin site. However, it does not evaluate the existing conditions at the Woburn St, and Eames St intersection and the West St and 129 intersections. Trucks exiting the site to travel 93 north will use Industrial Way to West Street to 129. Olin describes this route in their original traffic study. Yet those findings are omitted from the SEA report. The Woburn and Eames intersection’s is dangerously inadequate to handle any large truck turns. This is recognized in the Olin traffic study from a previous project. The intersection of West St and 129 has a rating of F. There has been a plan to improve this intersection for decades, yet no funding has been designated for this action to date. To add to the magnitude of the existing conditions, the New Boston Street Bridge which will connect to Woburn St. will also be opened in the near future adding to the already congested area of West St and 129. Trailer trucks routinely “take out” the traffic lights at this intersection. Trailer trucks turning right onto Woburn from Eames can not avoid crossing to the opposite side of the road in on coming traffic. This is a significant challenge to over come under current conditions. The STB is required to address this issue. To indicate that mitigation of $50,000 is comparable to the impacts to these infrastructures is nonsensical and risks public safety. Mitigation The proposed offered mitigation the STB outlines appears to only be of “cookie cutter quality” Many of the requirements are redundant to what would be a required under the Wetland Protection Act and Federal Clean Water Standards. They are no comfort to the citizens of Wilmington and Woburn. In all do respect, I’m sure this mitigation would seem woefully unsatisfactory for members of the STB if this was a decision you would have to live with on a daily bases. Environmental Justice Issues It is the STB’s regulatory obligation to honestly review the Environmental Justice Issues. The Environmental Justice Laws are quite clear. “Fair treatment” means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Below are facts the STB is required to take into consideration when evaluating whether the “group of people” that inhabit this area have Environmental Justice Issues. • Wilmington has been engaged in a childhood cancer study since 1999. The Wilmington childhood cancer study is focused on finding any common factors, particularly environmental, which may have caused twice the state average in cancer among our children. Woburn’s childhood cancer study and outcome linked to the "Civil Action" is well documented. • The Anderson Commuter Rail Station, named after a little boy who died of leukemia due to the industrial contamination linked to the Industrial-Plex/Wells G and H Superfund sites is just outside the mile radius from the center of the Olin site which has been mapped (Please see photo attachments.), but which is with in one mile of the Olin property line. • Two of the Industrial-Plex Superfund site landfills are with in a mile of the center point of the Olin site (See map/aerial photo attachments). • Within a mile radius of the Olin site there are 5 landfills (6 if one of the Industrial-Plex landfills is considered 2.) They are as follows: The Olin Landfill (still not closed out properly under the MCP), The 2 -3 Industrial-Plex landfills, the Woburn Landfill (a stone’s throw from the Olin Landfill), and the Maple Meadow/Spinazola Landfill in Wilmington on the Woburn border. • The Industrial-Plex landfills, the Woburn landfill, and the Maple Meadow Landfill all received Big Dig materials (contaminated soils) for "capping". I It would be a challenge find another area in the State of Massachusetts that has received as much Big Dig and other so called shaping and grading materials (contaminated soils and construction and demotion) in such a small geographical area of a one mile radius. • According to the Scorecard website Pollution Locator out of the 56 facilities contributing to cancer hazards in Middlesex County, 12 were located in Wilmington and Woburn - six in Wilmington and six in Woburn - roughly 1/4 of all the facilities in Middlesex for the combined geographic area of both Wilmington and Woburn. The only other community in Middlesex County that comes close to the same number of facilities is Lowell, the 4th largest city in the entire state. According to the 2000 census, Lowell has a population of just over 105,000 people and a land area of 14.5 square miles. The Town of Wilmington has a population of just under 22,000. Woburn has just under 36,000 people. These numbers are alarming and statistically significant. The combined population of Wilmington and Woburn is more than half of the population of Lowell. Yet our numbers for burden of air quality are worse. As an example of just one contaminant, the attached Pollution Indicator shows toluene equivalents in pounds in relation to the facilities cited in the previous section. The numbers are alarming: 8,926,913 lbs. in Wilmington and Woburn and 8,796,023 in Lowell. Middlesex County is considered by Scorecard one of the dirtiest/worst counties in the country. • The statistics for cancer hazards are very similar. In this area it has been reported and be quantified that not just individuals have high cancer (mortality) rates, but whole families. There are many residents still on private wells in this area of Wilmington. • Both Wilmington and Woburn have 2 commuter rail stations. More than any of the other communities in the area. Wilmington has approximately one mile of railroad track for every square mile of our town. Wilmington’s historical roots run deep regarding its relationship with the railroad. This has always been viewed as a positive. Unfortunately it is also what appears to have left us vulnerable to endure more than our fair share. • According to the 2000 census and Wilmington Master Plan, Wilmington employs just as many people as we have residents. • Commercial and industrial uses cover 12% of Wilmington. Many of these business operations are located within a mile of the Olin site. The land in Woburn abutting is also Industrial except for the neighborhoods to the south of the Olin border which is primarily residential. • The Ipswich River, the third most endangered in the country (designated by American Rivers in 2003), has been impacted by this site. Since the Wilmington wells have been shut down and approximately 1.5 million gallons per day is no longer being withdrawn from Maple Meadow Brook Aquifer, the affects of not pumping on the migration of contamination to surface waters and/or in the groundwater is unknown at this time. The Ipswich River serves 14 communities as a drinking water source. Rest assure, if the STB researched into the adjacent area to this site, they would certainly find those living in close proximity to this industrialized area meet the criteria for low-income in the Middlesex region. From the data it is clear that Wilmington and Woburn are already bearing more than their fair share for the greater good of the general population. How could any Federal agency expect this area to bear more of a burden than it already does? I do not write this comment as a so called NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard). I do not live in this area of town. However, I feel it is my civic and human responsibility to speak up for those who are unfairly singled out for the profit of others. How ironic that the human sacrifice and the contribution to industry and transportation Woburn and Wilmington have made has also leaves them the target for the “dirty” development the more effluent communities do not want. The purpose of the exemption is to evenly distribute the rail road infrastructure and a use that most do not want in their back yard. I actually support the concept behind the exemption process if done transparently and accurately. But to allow the exemption to be used to facilitate a development of such a complex and highly contaminated site because the landowner can not attract a “clean use” due to hazards that exist there is not only wrong but unjust when the people this site effects have sacrificed so much already. Our government can not and should not sanction any action that penalizes any group of people because the sacrifices they have already made make them even more vulnerable. This segment of the population deserves the same same opportunities to clean air, water, and a healthy environment that so many others enjoy across the nation and to also allow us to better what is already a seriously awful situation. The people of Wilmington and Woburn are feverishly working to improve our living conditions to make this area a better place to raise our children. It is unfair to play Russian Roulette with an already complex and little understood site like this and risk setting us back 30 years. We are only asking to be given the opportunity to improve the quality of our lives, we have sacrificed enough. Therefore, I ask that you at the very least require a full EIR for this site before any actions taken result in a disastrous situation worse then the one that exists today. I also ask that you, under your regulatory authority review the Environmental Justice Issue further. Based on all the comments from the town of Wilmington, City of Woburn, the citizens of both communities, the Wilmington town counsel, the DEP, and GeoInsights anything less than this request would appear to be arbitrary and capricious and based in politics which counters the purpose of the STB’s authority and purpose. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Suzanne M. Sullivan Co-chair Headwaters Stream Team 60 Lawrence Street Wilmington, Ma 01887"

    Suzanne Sullivan · Wilmington, MA
40. 16 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/16/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1017Wilmington-Woburn Collaborative

    Kathleen Barry · Wilmington, MA
41. 15 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/15/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1037(and family)

    Dear Ms. Phillis Johnson-Ball: I am writing out of concern for my family and for members of my community. I am alarmed at the possibility that our town may have to bear the burden of a Transrail facility. You are aware that the site being considered is an environmental hazard and has caused a disproportionate number of our residents to become ill with various debilitating sicknesses. I am convinced after reviewing the various briefs filed with your agency that the facility being considered will expose our community to additional hazardous wates both airborne and waterborne. Furthermore, any new development on the site would hinder the cleanup of the site so desparately needed. I am also alarmed at the increased traffic congestion and the associated dangers involved to our community. My wife drives our three children to school over that route every day and the increased congestion would be a major impact to the safety and welfare of my family. The facility states that it would handle 400 trucks per day. That means 400 trucks entering and 400 trucks leaving the facility each day. During an 8-hour day that would calculate to more than one truck each 1 1/2 minutes on a 2-lane road that is already congested. It just won't work! The roads will not handle it. Considering these and other important concerns voiced by my neighbors, I hereby request that you and the other members of the board reject any initiative to permit building such a facility in Wilmington. Sincerely Concerned, John J. Frackleton

    John J. Frackleton · Wilmington, MA
42. 13 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/13/2004)
    Comment
    EI-995citizen

    George Rooney
43. 13 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/13/2004)
    Comment
    EI-994City of Woburn

    Thomas Lawton
44. 13 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/13/2004)
    Comment
    EI-993state respresentative

    Bradley Jones
45. 8 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/8/2004)
    Comment
    EI-985public

    Rose Buonarosa · Woburn, MA
46. 8 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/8/2004)
    Comment
    EI-984Jean courtrey
47. 8 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/8/2004)
    Comment
    EI-983public

    N. Albert Galante · Woburn, MA
48. 8 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/8/2004)
    Comment
    EI-982public

    M/M Rahpael George · Woburn, MA
49. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1024citizen

    M Caldwell · N. Woburn, MA
50. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1023citizen

    Francais Hancok · MA
51. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1022citizen

    Rose Stygles · Woburn, MA
52. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1019State Representative

    Carol Donovan · Boston, MA
53. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1018citizen

    Charles Vaughn · Woburn, MA
54. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1016Town Manager

    Peter Hechenbleikner · Reading, MA
55. 7 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/7/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1012citizen

    Betty Bigwood · Wilmington,, MA
56. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1021citizen

    William Cauty · MA
57. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1020local

    PhyllisS&Carol Myr · N. Woburn, MA
58. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1015citizen

    Linda Raymond · Woburn, MA
59. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1014citizen

    Ann Bisso · Woburn, MA
60. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1013citizen

    Michael McGrath · Woburn, MA
61. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1011citizen

    Mary Carpenter · Woburn, MA
62. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1010local

    Kevin&Patricia Kane · Woburn, MA
63. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1009Mas DEP

    C.Pyott,S.Johnson · Boston, MA
64. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1007Concerned Citizens Network

    Numerous form letters attached with original signatures

    Kathleen Barry, and parties · Wilmington, MA
65. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1005Congress

    E. Kennedy, J. Kerry, E. Markey, J. Tierney · Washington,DC,
66. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1004local interest

    Deborah Duggan · Wilmington, MA
67. 3 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/3/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1003state representative

    James Miceli · Boston, MA
68. served 2 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/2/2004)
    Decision
    35022Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

    GRANTED THE CITIZEN ORGANIZATION AND SEVERAL LOCAL OFFICIALS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE BOARD'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.
69. 2 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/2/2004)
    Comment
    EI-979citizen

    Charles McSheffrey · Woburn, MA
70. 1 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/1/2004)
    Comment
    EI-1025citizen

    Joyce Russis · Woburn, MA
71. 1 Sep 2004 (printed as 9/1/2004)
    Comment
    EI-970State Agency

    Steven DeGriele · Boston, MA
72. 31 Aug 2004 (printed as 8/31/2004)
    Comment
    EI-989John J. Frackleton

    Subject: Proposed Transfer Station at Olin Chemical Site, 51 Eames Street, Wilmington, MA I am writing to express my concern that the subject site is being considered as a location for rail to truck transfer station. This location is a well known toxic waste site and has already severely affected our resident's health and caused over 75% of our town wells to be closed. The site has become high profile" and may soon be added to the Superfund list. Considering that the materials proposed for storage and transfer pose a real threat to further contamination of the site that any development will impede the cleanup of the site, I respectfully request that the Surface Transportation Board reject all requests for such a facility at this site. John J. Frackleton"

    Wilmington, MA
73. 25 Aug 2004 (printed as 8/25/2004)
    Comment
    EI-969City Council

    Woburn City Council · Woburn, MA
74. served 4 Aug 2004 (printed as 8/4/2004)
    Decision
    34930Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

    NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS.
75. served 4 Aug 2004 (printed as 8/4/2004)
    Decision
    34929Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

    NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS.
76. served 2 Mar 2004 (printed as 3/2/2004)
    Decision
    34263Entire Board

    (1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTED NEW ENGLAND TRANSRAIL, LLC, D/B/A WILMINGTON & WOBURN TERMINAL RAILROAD CO. (W&WTR), AN EXEMPTION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502 FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. 10901 FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT 2,700 FEET OF NEW LINE, TO ACQUIRE 1,300 FEET OF EXISTING TRACK, AND TO OPERATE THE ENTIRE APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET OF TRACK LOCATED IN WILMINGTON, MA, BUT A PORTION OF THE LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED BY W&WTR ALSO WOULD BE LOCATED IN WOBURN, MA; AND (2) CONCLUDED THAT THE BOARD WILL ISSUE A FINAL DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO EFFECT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.
77. 4 Feb 2004 (printed as 2/4/2004)
    Comment
    EO-58applicant attorney

    John McHugh
78. 9 Dec 2003 (printed as 12/9/2003)
    Comment
    EI-355New England ACE

    Christine Godfrey
79. 3 Dec 2003 (printed as 12/3/2003)
    Motion
    209522Petition For Exemption

    New England Transrail Llc
80. 28 Aug 2003 (printed as 8/28/2003)
    Comment
    EO-31Attorney-Applicant

    John McHugh

Nothing of that kind in this docket.