This page contains references and links to all electronic communications among City staff, and between City staff, Norfolk Southern, and the community regarding the establishment and operation of the Ethanol Transloading Facility. The communications, furnished in response to requests made under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, cover the period from June 20, 2006 at 8 a.m. to May 29, 2008, at 5 p.m.
E-mail addresses and telephone numbers have been redacted to protect the privacy of residents and of City staff whose home and mobile phone numbers were included on the communications. To contact City officials or staff, please use the links on the left side of this page, or Contact Us.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: Remaining Issues at NSRC's Ethanol Transloading Facility in Alexandria
- To: "City Attorney Ignacio Pessoa" <>; "Rich Baier" <>
- Subject: Fw: Remaining Issues at NSRC's Ethanol Transloading Facility in Alexandria
- From: Adam Thiel/Alex
- Date: 13 May 2008 13:53:10
- Cc: "Michele Evans" <>; "Jim Hartmann" <>
Is it worth reiterating to NSC that the
permit (unless the $10 fee is a hardship) is not a big deal, and will (by
designation of the obvious haul route) actually serve to mitigate one source
of community angst (namely, 'the trucks will be driving through the neighborhoods')?
Just a thought...
----- Original Message
From: Rich Baier
Sent: 05/13/2008 11:15 AM EDT
To: "Edwards, John, V"
<email@example.com>; Ignacio Pessoa
Cc: Adam Thiel; "McNeil,
Doug" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Lawson David <email@example.com>;
"Jordan, A. Gayle" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Webb,
Mike" <email@example.com>; "Chapman, Robin C." <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sarah Graham; "Wingo, William B." <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Remaining Issues
at NSRC's Ethanol Transloading Facility in Alexandria
Thanks for the note---Ignacio Pessoa,
the City Atty., has made this interpretation so I will copy him and allow
him to address your questions. Rich
Richard J. Baier, P.E.
Transportation and Environmental Services
City of Alexandria
301 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
|"Edwards, John, V"
05/13/2008 10:47 AM
A. Gayle" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ,
|Lawson David <email@example.com>,
"McNeil, Doug" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Webb, Mike"
<email@example.com>, "Chapman, Robin C." <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Wingo, William B." <email@example.com>
|RE: Remaining Issues at NSRC's Ethanol
Transloading Facility in Alexandria|
Thank you for your e-mail.
I take the opportunity to respond on behalf of Norfolk Southern.
With regard to the city ordinance,
unfortunately we read it a bit differently. We outline many of our
thoughts on this issue below. Perhaps after reviewing this, we could
arrange a discussion on this with the City Attorney. We thank you
for your attention to this matter, and look forward to working out any
Section 5-2-27 applies to the
of any type?
or construction supplies, materials or equipment? and
or fill of any type.?
(Obviously, under this construction,
this provision may apply to the construction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge,
to the extent it applies to the hauling of ?building or construction supplies,
materials or equipment?, and that application is not relevant to any discussion
of the hauling of ethanol.) As I stated below, this section does
not apply because it does not fit into any of these categories. I
note that your understanding is that Section 5-2-27 should be read otherwise,
so that the word ?materials? would be read as a separate category, and
that this category would include ethanol. We believe this is a fatally
flawed interpretation of Section 5-2-27. In essence, your reading
of Section 5-2-27 would have it applying to the hauling of:
of any type?
or construction supplies?
or fill of any type.?
If that were the reading, and
if somehow that listing were allowed to be interpreted to include ethanol,
then there would be no limit whatsoever to what Section 5-2-27 applies.
There would be no principled reason to read out of the provision
a host of consumer, wholesale and retail ?materials? such as glue, paper
and ink cartridges to grocery stores and office supply stores, paint to
hobby stores, and helium to party supply stores. (Even if this was
the reading of the provision, which it is not, the section would again
apply to certain aspects of the hauling of ?building or construction supplies?
and so apply to certain aspects of the construction of the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge, further making that analogy without significance.) Some of
the haulers of these other non-construction/demolition materials may need
to obtain permits (such as those hauling helium ? we are no expert on
whether that requires a city permit or not), but certainly the City does
not require these haulers to obtain a permit under this section, which
is entitled ?Hauling of waste materials, construction materials, etc.,
Our interpretation of this
provision is further reinforced by the additional provisions, and interpretations,
found on the City of Alexandria?s website that clearly indicate that the
provision really is meant to apply to hauling to and from construction
and demolition sites. Quoted from the following website:
?Required when five (5) or
more loads of ? building or construction supplies, materials or equipment
of any type?.? And ?No dirt, mud or debris shall be tracked/spilled
onto the public right-of-way.?
Required when five (5) or more loads of waste materials of any type, building
or construction supplies, materials or equipment of any type, or dirt,
debris or fill of any type will be hauled into or out of a site within
any consecutive thirty (30) day period. No dirt, mud or debris shall be
tracked/spilled onto the public right-of-way. The hauling route will be
determined by this office. Submit request on Application
for Hauling Permit.
Finally, even if the hauling
permit did apply to the facility, which it does not, the ordinance would
constitute a permit that is applicable to a railroad facility that, if
denied, would have the effect of regulating rail transportation.
John V. Edwards
Senior General Attorney
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Three Commercial Place
Norfolk, VA 23510
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Jordan, A. Gayle; ;
Cc: Lawson David; McNeil, Doug; Webb, Mike; Edwards, John, V
Subject: Re: Remaining Issues at NSRC's Ethanol Transloading Facility
Thanks for the note and as I am
sending information it is only a cover letter and the ordinance section
scanned in and sent on Friday. Per the city attorney the ordinance section
that lists the materials noted below does not contain an exhaustive or
exclusive listing. It is an exemplary in nature and it is being applied
to projects like the Woodrow wilson bridge and the like. I hope this clarifies.
I think the preemption issue is certainly correct outside of the right
of way as the city owns its roads outright unlike most other jurisdictions
in the country.
A. Gayle" [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 05/12/2008 05:07 PM AST
To: Sarah Graham; Rich Baier; Adam Thiel
Cc: Lawson David <email@example.com>; "McNeil,
Doug" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Webb, Mike" <email@example.com>;
"Edwards, John, V" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Remaining Issues at NSRC's Ethanol Transloading
Facility in Alexandria
Hello. I am responding on behalf
of Norfolk Southern on the hauler permit and storm water issues which were
raised during our Friday afternoon conference call. I do not have all the
email addresses of the others on the call from the City so I ask that you
forward this response to them.
I have reviewed Section 5-2-27
and don't see how that provision applies to trucks hauling ethanol since
ethanol is neither a waste material, construction supply, construction
material, construction equipment, dirt, debris nor fill.
The facility aspect in (d) would
also fail on two counts as ethanol tank trucks would not be covered and
given the railroad's ICCTA preemption over local permits. I understand
Mr. Baier is going to send me some more information later this week, and
we will of course consider what is presented.
As for the storm water plan, the
state storm water requirements do not apply to this operation. This has
been confirmed again with outside counsel. Nonetheless, in a spirit of
cooperation Norfolk Southern will prepare a storm water plan for the facility.
I understand that Fire Chief Thiel
is working up a revised ethanol fire/spill response list and will send
us spec and vendor information . With this additional information in hand
we will advise as the railroad's position on the 450 truck.
Thank you for forwarding my email
to the others. Gayle Jordan
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 4:27 PM
I send this on Rich Baier's behalf. He will follow with a letter next week.
City of Alexandria