Editor’s note: This commentary on behalf of VermontUnited is by Shelburne residents David Connery, Roberta Nubile, Derrick Senior, Elise Seraus and Lisa Winkler. VermontUnited’s mission is to unite stakeholders and ensure that the safety, environment and community of Vermont are never put at risk by lack of oversight and regulations governing rail freight and all associated rail operations in the state.
[A] few days ago, Agency of Transportation Secretary Chris Cole, Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz, Agency of Commerce and Community Development Secretary Pat Moulton and Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets Secretary Chuck Ross ran an opinion piece (VTDigger, Sep. 5, 2016, “Cole, Markowitz, Moulton & Ross: Achieving Our Shared Clean Water Goals”) that identified issues central to improving Vermont waters’ health and sustainability. Seeing multiple state agencies working collaboratively on a shared goal of clean and healthy waters gives us hope for our future.
There is one key pollution source that the secretaries overlooked. One that is growing in scope and size and therefore impact — industrial rail in Vermont. One glaring example of this imminent pollution risk is in Shelburne. In late 2015, Vermont Rail System bought 43 acres of land — bordered by the LaPlatte River and conserved forests and floodplains — from a relative and immediately clear-cut 19 acres, including 8.8 acres of fragile valley clay plain forest, without any permits or notification. In place of these forests and buffer zones will be 80,000 tons of salt, fuel storage and significant fuel tanker operations. Gone is the protection the trees provided to wetlands, wildlife, the LaPlatte River and Lake Champlain. Federal pre-emption has allowed Vermont Rail Systems to begin to construct an intermodal industrial complex, including two Quonset-style buildings to store more than 80,000 tons of salt on the banks of the LaPlatte River. Vermont has several environmental protection laws, such as Act 64 and Act 250, but the rail industry is not held accountable like everyone else.
With a doubling of freight rail growth projected for Vermont in the next 20 years, we are all at risk of serious environmental degradation, especially to our water systems. Each secretary’s purview includes some latitude to hold Vermont Rail Systems Inc. accountable to the barest of standards, yet industrial rail in Vermont is allowed to create environmental havoc that is truly irreversible.
Other things to know:
At least 15-30 million gallons of explosive crude oil and other hazardous products are transported through New York and Vermont communities along the shores of Lake Champlain each week — only a few miles from our most populated communities. More than 250 oil-carrying trains have derailed in the U.S. since 2013. Vermont freight traffic business is expected to double by 2035 with through freight (not for Vermont business) accounting for 70 percent of that. Hazardous materials will increase proportionately. An explosion of chemicals is a direct cost to taxpayers. The estimated cleanup, following the rail disaster in Lac Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 citizens in 2013 (pop. 6,000), is $400 million.
In 2010, Vermont Rail Systems (VRS) was fined $120,000 to settle claims that the company violated Vermont’s hazardous waste management laws at its Burlington and Rutland facilities. A 2000 Vermont Supreme Court case between the City of Burlington and VRS found that federal pre-emption laws cannot override state and local laws. In 2006 VRS salt sheds in Thetford contaminated a private well. In October 2007, 14 VRS cars carrying 25,000 gallons of gasoline each, derailed and toppled over toward Otter Creek in Middlebury. On Dec. 10, 2015, Fire Chief Chris Davis of Charlotte highlighted 17 substantial issues related to public safety that arose from Vermont Rail’s inaccurate claims included miscounting and mislabeling potentially hazardous materials. Other Vermont towns have also all taken serious issue with the negative impact of VRS.
PQ Can we ensure no railroad accident ever happens? No, but we can use the current laws to enforce both environmental and freight safety rules and regulations.
Side rails (an additional track besides the main line), which are also largely unregulated, are used throughout Vermont by VRS and subcontractors to store unspecified hazardous materials. Since November 2015, as many as 40 tanker cars carrying 1.2 million gallons of explosive Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) are currently stored in Charlotte,within less than 200 feet of homes, environmentally sensitive areas and a VELCO high-voltage electricity sub-station. Side rails in Burlington are being used to store hazardous materials directly on the waterfront in the midst of Vermont’s largest city potentially putting Lake Champlain (and all its tributaries), city residents, wildlife, and property at risk.
The State of Vermont owns the western rail corridor and uses taxpayer dollars for its maintenance and upgrades but not for rail safety inspections. The state holds the position that the federal pre-emption laws are absolute. Vermont should follow the lead of New York, Maine, New Hampshire and 28 other states that conduct state inspections, find hundreds of rail safety violations, and impose fines or stop service until violations are corrected. The Western Rail Corridor Lease states that Vermont Railway must comply with state and local laws – not just federal laws. In 2008, the state of Vermont auditor’s report took the Vermont Agency of Transportation to task due to lack of oversight of its railroad contracts.
Since then, nothing has been done.
The secretaries’ essay mentions the effects of decreasing property values for lakeshore homes. Imagine what will happen when multiple counties’ water supplies are polluted from toxins leaching into water supplies or tracts of land are contaminated by fuel oil spilled when a rail car derails?
Can we ensure no railroad accident ever happens? No, but we can use the current laws to enforce both environmental and freight safety rules and regulations. We know the risk, what we don’t know is why state officials in Vermont refuse to take any action.
Moving supplies by rail makes good sense. Storing hazardous materials on the banks of a river that flows into Vermont’s largest body of water does not. Allowing high-speed transport of hazardous materials through our state without any safety inspections or knowledge of what is speeding through makes no sense. Our current relationship with freight rail in this state makes many dollars for a few and no sense for many.
