Comment EI-18357
Received or sent (printed as 9/28/2010)
Sarah Palin and her bridge to nowhere have nothing on this project! Per paragraph one of Virginia Rutson’s opening letter to “Dear Reader”, the Draft EIS states that the proposed rail line would serve a NEW quarry, landfill and industrial park currently being developed by RRLLC. Let us take a look at the status of these three projects so we can clearly see what that term “being developed” means: To date, there is no new quarry and there is not even an application filed with D.E.P for a quarry. Permit application #14-10-10-01 filed by Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc is for a borrow area which means the applicant intends to use a small area to remove a little material and perhaps store a little material; not ship material. Earlier this year, Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. had an exploratory permit for possible stone quarrying on the RRLLC site. When the exploratory work didn’t yield quality stone, the area was closed. At this point, the permit documentation does not support the applicant’s claim of a quarry as a viable rail user. What quarry? The landfill has been in the development phase for over four years and not one permit has been issued. The landfill application with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection was placed in “suspense” in October of 2006 and has remained there. Permit applications necessary to support the landfill permitting process have been withdrawn or denied as follows: Sewage Planning Module – submitted and withdrawn Wetlands Encroachment Permit – submitted and withdrawn Highway Occupancy Permit and Federal Highway Approval – denied by FHWA In the past four years, the access issues with developing the remote RRLLC site have presented many challenges. When the use of local roads didn’t fly, the access was then going to be a new I-80 interchange. Now that the interchange isn’t flying, the access is going to be a rail line. RRLLC never tried to pretend to the FHWA that the interchange was not a connected action to the proposed landfill. Without the proposed landfill, there would never have been a proposed I-80 interchange. And, just as with the interchange, if it were not for the proposed landfill, there would be no proposed rail activation. The prepared draft EIS treats the two projects as connected the entire way through the document. Under what technicality then is the STB making a decision that the two projects are not connected and should not be evaluated as a connected action? How can our governmental agencies justify segmenting these very connected projects instead of admitting that they are truly connected and evaluating the impact from both? To this “dear reader” of the draft EIS, these projects are clearly connected. All one needs to ask is: If there isn’t a landfill, do we need rail service to this area? Obviously not since this area hasn’t had rail service for years. The only reason this is coming up is because of the proposed landfill which remains unpermitted and thus another phantom project. In fact, RRLLC keeps changing the definition of what the rail line will serve. Although the original landfill permit has not been withdrawn, in recent press releases, RRLLC is now stating that they intend to use the site for a trash to ethanol project which is experimental at best . Are they trying to put lipstick on a pig? Is the STB really prepared to approve a rail to nowhere to serve an unpermitted moving target of a project? Now, for the big carrot, the mythical industrial park which does not show up on any material submitted by RRLLC to permitting agencies or municipalities to date. Lots of talk to the press and the citizenry about this coming industrial park on a site with absolutely no infrastructure but nothing on paper anywhere. If RRLLC has some industry to bring to the area, they need to speak to the Mo Valley Economic Development Director about locating to the already existing industrial park served by Route 322 where there are lots of empty spaces with brand new infrastructure just waiting for use. The bottom line to this discussion is that there are no permits, there are no contracts, and thus there is no need for this rail line and any of the impacts such activation would bring to the area.
Submitted by: Jenn Shufran · Philipsburg, PA
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-35116/comment/EI-18357 · back to the docket sheet