Comment EI-14205
Received or sent (printed as 9/30/2008)
Docket 35087 INTRODUCTION These comments are being submitted on behalf of the approximately 45 homes and 150 Wayne, Illinois residents who are members of the North Country in Wayne Community Association (“NCIWCA”), which is located on Brewster Creek Circle in Wayne, Illinois, southwest of the intersection of Stearns and Dunham Road. These comments are intended to supplement and be in addition to earlier comments by NCIWCA. These comments are duly authorized by the elected Board of Directors of NCIWCA pursuant to Special Meeting and are duly authorized and in accordance with the Charter and ByLaws of NCIWCA, and reflect the views of NCIWCA and its members. COMMENTS 1. NCIWCA strongly objects to the Proposed Action described in the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), with or without the proposed mitigation efforts, because either would be arbitrary, capricious and illegal, and, among other things, would place a highly disproportionate and illegitimate adverse impact on the safety, air quality, energy, environment, productivity, cost of living and quality of life of NCIWCA and the Village of Wayne. (In support thereof, the remaining comments on the EIS are submitted.) 2. The EIS is based on a comparative risk analysis assuming that the proposed increase in volume of freight rail traffic along the EJ&J rail line will accompany a corresponding decrease in the volume of freight traffic along the CN subdivisions. (See, e.g., ES-5.) However, such an analysis is premised on the assumption that CN or another railroad will abide by the proposed reductions along the CN subdivisions. However, there is no assurance that this will occur. Accordingly, the attempt to made a risk based determination on such a comparative analysis is inappropriate because the risk of CN or another railroad increasing traffic along the CN subdivisions has not been factored in. The EIS should assume that there will not be a decrease in the CN subdivisions unless those subdivisions are permanently abandoned by CN or subject to a permanent and legally binding obligation not to increase levels above the levels proposed by CN. Otherwise, any comparative risk analysis is erroneous. 3. The EIS states that “the EJ&E rail line would be at or near its practical train volume capacity if the Applicants chose to operate on it the number of trains proposed by the Applications in their Operating Plan”. However, despite this fact, the EIS relies on historical aggregated data for all U.S. railroads to calculate environmental, safety and human health risks (see, e.g., p. ES-12). The reliance on such data is erroneous, and underestimates all of these risks. Any reliable source of data show that any transportation system (or other operational system) will experience a substantial increase in failure, accident and other adverse environmental, safety and human health incident when it is operated at nor near capacity, due to, among other things, the strains placed on the physical infrastructure as well as supporting human and operational infrastructure. Among other things, the EIS should specifically break out historical data pertaining to rail transportation systems that were operated at capacity, and additionally account for an increased risk due to such condition, to perform such risk. This approach should be applied to all identified risks in the EIS. Such analysis will show that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate, particularly in relation to CN’s operations within the current CN subdivisions, which are not being taxed at their practical train volume capacities and/or which have nevertheless been demonstrated to show (through continuous historic operation) that they are capable of being utilized safely at the current freight traffic levels. 4. The purpose and need offered by CN for the Propose Action includes, among other things, to enable it to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in and serving the steel, chemical and petrochemical industries as well as Chicago-area utilities and others. (See, e.g., p. ES-4.) However, the EIS does not identify the companies that would be served, and their current and projected freight demands, including, without limitation, and it also does not identify the actual and projected volumes of specific chemicals and other hazardous substances that will be transported, the specific identities thereof or their material safety data sheets, or other data necessary in order support a sufficient risk analysis. In order to perform a sufficient risk analysis, the actual and projected transit times, quantities and properties of each chemical and other hazardous substance must be identified and analyzed. Furthermore, the operations and safety records and resources of each company that will be serviced must be identified and analyzed. This approach should be applied to all identified risks in the EIS. Such analysis will show that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate, particularly in relation to CN’s operations within the current CN subdivisions. 5. The EIS erroneously eliminated four additional alternatives on the ground that they were “found … to be unreasonable because they would not meet all elements of the Applicants’ purpose and need for the Proposed Action.” (See, e.g., p. ES-9.) Also, “because they would not give CN full ownership and use of a continuous rail route around Chicago, the Applicants could not gain acess to EJ&J rail yards, or the alternative(s) would be more expensive . . .”. (see id.) 5.a. These are inappropriate grounds for ruling out the alternatives, as they are not the statutory and regulatory criteria against which proposed actions are to be measured. Indeed, it would seem rather preposterous that an Applicant can craft its own purpose in its own discretion and have that held to be the criteria against which alternatives are to be measured. If such an approach were appropriate, any Applicant could craft any set of purposes it so chose in order to avoid application of laws and regulations, rendering such laws and regulations meaningless. 5.b. Moreover, there was no analysis whatsoever of CN’s financial condition and resources to support any determination that an alternative was “too expensive”. Indeed, a quick review of CN’s financial statements (which may be found at CN’s website) indicates that CN averaged approximately $8 billion in revenue and $3 billion in operating revenues, annually, for the last three years alone. Furthermore, it is reported that for fiscal year 2007 alone, the CEO of Canadian National Railway made $12 million in annual compensation, and held nearly $75 million in stock options. 5.c. In summary, CN has tremendous financial resources and profitability, and none of the alternatives are “too expensive” for CN. 6. NCIWCA is located within a mile from the intersection of Stearns Road and Dunham Road. There is currently a road extension under construction at Stearns Road that will extend Stearns (which currently dead-ends into Dunham) into the Western suburbs, and thereby dramatically increase traffic not only on Stearns Road, but also Dunham Road. The EIS failed to account for this construction and inevitable dramatic increases in traffic that will result, as well as the substantially increased adverse impacts in environment, health and safety (including, without limitation, to NCIWCA) that will result from this construction, which will have an additive effect on the safety, environmental quality and human health risk in the EIS. In other words, this omission leads to a gross underestimation of risk and harm, particularly to NCIWCA, whose families travel on these roads daily. If the study included appropriate analysis of these factors, it would show that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate. 7. A Union Pacific spur cuts across Dunham Road and runs between and immediately adjacent to NCIWCA and the Lamplight Equestrian Center as well as high habitat Wetlands. NCIWCA objects to any alternative that would call for any increase in rail traffic on or otherwise call for utilization of that spur, because its immediate proximity to these facilities would pose an extremely high and disproportionate risk on our health, safety and the environment. Neither NCIWCA nor Lamplight have any resources to respond to any threats, and the families and children that live and ride horses in these areas would be subjected to releases of hazardous substances and an increase in the already dangerous railway traffic that cuts across Dunham Road. In addition, on September 12, 2008, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County refuted claims that it had suggested that the use of the Union Pacific spur ever be considered as an alternative to a connection with Pratt’s Wayne Woods Forest Preserve. Any increase in rail traffic on or other use of the spur by CNR would result in an unacceptable and disproportionate risk to human health, safety and the environment. 8. The analysis done by the EIS relative to hazardous materials releases has absolutely no credibility. The Study admits that the increase in reportable hazardous material releases would increase, and that there would be a large percentage increase in the volume of hazardous materials that would be transported on the EJ&J rail line. However, the study only focuses conclusorily on the likelihood of an accident being quote unquote “remote”, and does no analysis whatsoever of the extent of damage, personal injury and death that would be caused by such a release. A proper risk analysis factors in not only probability but also the magnitude of damage that can be caused. (By way of example, in 1984, the Union Carbide chemical release in Bhopal India that killed nearly 4,000 people, was a remote likelihood, but the damage was catastrophic.) The study failed to do this. The study also erroneously relies on historical data, while ignoring the added operational and safety risks that will arise from the EJ&J line operating at or near capacity - such operation levels make useless any historical data. Further, the study admits that emergency services response times would experience substantial delays, and these delays were not factored into the risk analysis relative to the damages and harm that can be caused by releases. In addition, the study failed to account for a shortage of federal, state and local funds, and poor economic conditions, as well as inadequate existing emergency response infrastructure, as factors that will increase risk due to the greater potential for harm and inability to response. If the study included appropriate analysis of these factors, it would show that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate. 9. The EIS’s analysis relative to hazardous waste sites is also erroneous. NCIWCA is situated within 1-mile of the Tri-County Landfill Superfund Hazardous Waste Site, one of the world’s worst hazardous waste sites. The study failed to perform a cumulative or additive risk analysis that will be posed by the combination of the current risks posed by that site, or any of the identified hazardous waste sites for that matter, through air, ground and groundwater migration, with the factors of increased risk of hazardous substances releases, groundwater contamination, a change in groundwater flow dynamics, or increase in hazardous air emissions from traffic that will result from the Proposed Action. It is also noted that NCIWCA is also on well and septic with no readily available alternate public water supply, and, again, this was not considered in the analysis. If the study included appropriate analysis of the additive and cumulative risks posed by the Tri-County Landfill Superfund Hazardous Waste site, as well as the other identified hazardous waste sites, together with the Proposed Action, it would show that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate. Indeed, the Proposed Action would violate the EPA’s risk-based decisions embodied in the approved removal and remedial actions associated with those sites. 10. The EIS admits that the Proposed Action will result in an annual net increase in energy use of 639,442 gallons per year of diesel fuel and 84,000 gallons of gasoline. However, the study fails to account for the fact that this community, not to mention the country, is suffering from an energy crisis and record fuel prices. The study does not factor in disproportionate adverse impact this will place on our residents, and we venture to further state that this is violative of state and federal energy policies. 11. The EIS fails to compare the revenue, tax base, past grants and funding received, and safety and other infrastructure resources of the communities through which the existing CN lines run, and those of the communities that the Proposed Action would affect, particularly in light of the lack of the fact that neither the federal, state nor local governments have or will have any financial or other resources to assist the communities that would be adversely affected by the Proposed Action to meet acceptable health and safety standards. Such a comparison would demonstrate that the study’s comparative risk analysis is erroneous, and that the risks to human health, safety and the environment associated with the Proposed Action, with or without the proposed mitigation measures, are unacceptable, and disproportionate.
Submitted by: Michael Anastasio · The North Country in Wayne Community Association · Wayne, IL
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35087/comment/EI-14205 · back to the docket sheet