Paperwork from G&U RR Chemical Spill bring Upton Petitioners out swinging – allege “GU RailCare was setup as a sham”

In August of 2012 seven Upton residents filed a petition with the Surface and Transportation Board (STB) requesting the board declare specific operations conducted at and by the Grafton Upton RR Upton do no fall under “transportation by a rail carrier” and that the Town’s zoning and other regulations are not preempted. The STB agreed the matter fell within their jurisdiction and would rule on the preemptive status after reviewing final replies by both parties. Both parties have since filed their final reply and have been waiting on a ruling from the board.

The Upton petitioners are now looking to supplement their final reply and have filed a Petition with the STB hoping the board will grant their request.

In the Petition filed on March 27, 2014 the Petitioners state they gained access to new information which supports their claim that Grafton Upton RR (G&U) is not the party performing transloading operations at the Upton yard.  The Petitioners said they were able to uncover much-needed information in their case due to a  hazardous chemical spill at the yard in December 2013.  In the Petition the Petitioners claim the “recently released Mass Department of Environmental Protection documents related to the Spill make it clear that Dana Container Inc. (DCI), not GU Railcare or the G&U, is in control of at least some of the transloading operations at the Facility.”

In the Petition it states “the Petitioners have alleged that GU Railcare was setup as a sham in order to gain STB  preemption and to disguise Dana’s larger independent business operations at the Facility.” The Petitioners listed the following in support of their claim.

• No mention of the G&U’s alleged transloading contractor GU Railcare appears in any of the Mass Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) documents
• Dana Container Inc. has taken full responsibility with MassDEP for the hazmat transloading Spill
• Dana Container Inc. has letterhead with an address of 25 Maple Avenue, Upton
• Michael Polselli, the Regional Manager of DCI, initially reported the Spill on behalf of the G&U ~ However, all subsequently filed MassDEP documents, including correspondence on DCI letterhead acknowledging DCI as solely being responsible for the Spill
• The Immediate Response Action Plan, prepared by Clean Harbors Environmental Services “on behalf of Dana Container, Inc.”  contains the following conclusion Following an incident review, DCI personnel determined that the release occurred due to the sharp drop in temperatures …. Mr. Polselli mentioned that the DCI had transferred approximately 60 million pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous materials in 2013, with no issues, indicating that this spill was an isolated incident

The seven Upton Petitioners argued transloading is the core issue before the board and claim the MassDEP documents related to the December 2013 chemical spill support their position. 

Doug Pizzi, spokesman for the railroad, did not have a comment prepared in time of publication.

In other G&U news the town of Grafton filed a response in the ongoing issue of the proposed propane facility in Grafton.  Grafton claims G&U  railroad financing “lacked any credibility” and G&U  said Grafton’s claims are  “inaccurate.” You can read the full story at The Grafton Villager.