Herbicide vital to Alaska Railroad safety

February 14, 2001 February 14, 2001 (The following column was written by Tom Brooks, the Alaska Railroad's chief engineer, and appeared in the Anchorage, Alaska, Daily News.) Inspectors from the Federal Railroad Administration--the regulatory agency with safety-related authority over all U.S. railroads--were back in Alaska earlier this summer. Among other things, FRA inspectors require the Alaska Railroad Corporation to improve weed control.

Fortunately, the Alaska
Railroad has a fighting chance to control rampant weed growth on its tracks
this summer thanks to a recently issued permit to prudently apply an
EPA-approved and well-studied herbicide, glyphosate (same active ingredient as
found in Roundup). However, several environmental groups have asked both the
Department of Environmental Conservation and the courts to revoke the permit.

We don’t take the use of
herbicides lightly. But the FRA is very clear and has given the Alaska Railroad
an ultimatum: Control vegetation or suffer restrictions and/or fines. Yet, in
spite of earnest attempts to use every non-chemical means including
experimental technology, the railroad still received more than 100 costly
vegetation-related FRA violations.

Our driving factor is
safety, not cost. In fact, we agree with the April 2009 assessment the FRA’s
chief safety officer expressed in a warning letter sent to the Alaska Railroad:
"Particularly troublesome is the fact that overgrown vegetation can hinder
railroad employees from visually inspecting crossties, fasteners, tie plates,
rail bolts and other parts of the track structure. This can lead to track
defects that go undetected and result in accidents. Considering that Alaska
Railroad transports more than a half million passengers and 30,000 freight cars
containing hazardous materials each year, an accident on the railroad could be
catastrophic. Proper track inspections are essential, particularly during the
summer months when passenger travel is at its peak and the vegetation problem
is at its worst."

ARRC was relieved to
finally receive DEC approval to use herbicide in critical track locations. To
our knowledge, all other North American railroads do this routinely as part of
their weed control programs. We will still continue to use non-chemical means
of weed control in appropriate locations.

Our permit application
addressed concerns the public has expressed. We also came prepared with a
University of Alaska study specifically addressing glyphosate use on the rail
where we propose to apply it. Study results provide assurances that this
herbicide will not linger after it has done its job.

Unfortunately, misinformation
has been repeated in recent articles that quote the appealing groups. A few
points of clarification are in order.

First, the DEC permit
stipulates that no herbicide will be applied within 100 feet of any surface
water body. That means what it says. Herbicides will only be applied in areas
that are more than 100 feet from any surface water body and within the permit
area, which is an eight-foot-wide swath centered on the track and in the Seward
rail yard.

Secondly, herbicide
opponents claim that glyphosate can cause human health effects. An independent
environmental toxicologist reviewed the literature recently cited by appealing
groups. That review concludes this information is "misleading and
inaccurately represents the potential health risks." We encourage
interested parties to review all the data, not just the information from either
the proponents or the opponents. That is what the DEC did to arrive at its
decision to issue the permit.

Lastly, the public supports
our efforts to run a safe railroad. A 2008 public opinion survey conducted by
Craciun Research Group found that 54 percent of those polled "would
support the use of chemical weed killer, given that other methods have not
worked. An additional 27 percent would support the use if the University of
Alaska assures that it is safe."

The bottom line is that
DEC, the agency with the expertise to sort through dueling scientific opinions,
reviewed ARRC’s proposal for nearly a year and determined that this limited use
of herbicide is both prudent and safe. We need to get started now.