Laserfiche WebLink
The Chair inquired whether Cavossa was trucking or if they had resumed using rail. Mr. <br /> Cavossa confirmed that they had two rail cars now, scheduled to leave sometime during the <br /> week. <br /> The Chair inquired about the rail costs and Mr. Renker responded that he hoped to have costs <br /> identified by the end of the week. The Chair inquired whether repairs had been initiated and Mr. <br /> Renker responded that they had been completing minimum repairs all along, such as brush <br /> cutting and the replacement of hundreds of ties. Routine maintenance had been conducted in <br /> order to avoid a railroad incident,but there continued to be confusion regarding who owned the <br /> tracks and who bore the responsibility of maintenance. Mr. Renker noted that the study seemed <br /> to indicate that the Air Force owned the inspected tracks. <br /> Mr. Segura inquired whether repairs had been completed since the inspection and Mr. Renker <br /> confirmed there had been no repairs. Mr. Cavossa confirmed that the tracks had been blocked <br /> following the inspection. Mr. Cavossa then contacted Mr. Podgurski about how he could assist <br /> with repairs. Mass Coastal wished to install railroad ties and would train Cavossa in bolt repair. <br /> Mr. Cavossa indicated that areas needing repair had been spray painted and that he had walked <br /> the track with a group and pictures were taken. Mr. Cavossa explained that eight or nine ties <br /> may be bad,but replacing one or two in the middle would repair the cluster. Mr. Cavossa was <br /> unsure about monetary costs, but wished to spend more time reviewing the report, emphasizing <br /> that he would like to see repairs made as soon as possible so the track could be utilized. <br /> Mr. Segura referenced Colonel Doonan's 60 day notice, as well as the inspection and cease and <br /> desist order, and inquired about what was being hauled by truck and what was being hauled by <br /> rail. Mr. Cavossa responded that the material on site, including MSW, left and then they went to <br /> trucks to begin hauling off site to another rail provider. However, not as much could be moved <br /> by truck as by rail. As a result, Cavossa experienced a back-up at the building, requiring a shut <br /> down for a few days, when the 60 day notice letter was received. Rail cars recently arrived and <br /> Cavossa began emptying the building, filling up the rail cars. Mr. Segura summarized Mr. <br /> Cavossa's explanation that initially there was material on site that left by rail, then for a period of <br /> time Cavossa was trucking and had since returned to rail use. Mr. Cavossa confirmed that they <br /> were continuing to truck some material because they were backed up. Mr. Segura inquired about <br /> the constraints of the rail cars and Mr. Cavossa explained about the two week turnaround <br /> timeframe for his assigned 20 rail cars, which was based on volume, adding that the cars could <br /> arrive at the transfer facility in groups of 3 or 5. Mr. Cavossa described the rail car traffic as an <br /> ebb and flow. Mr. Cavossa was anticipating more consistency with the return of rail service, but <br /> would be trucking until enough cars were received and the company was back to its working <br /> cycle. <br /> The Chair summarized that, now in receipt of the report highlighting deficiencies, an estimate <br /> and timeframe would be expected in a couple of days from Mass Coastal. In the meantime, no <br /> repairs had been made since the inspection. The Chair noted that, during conference calls, Mr. <br /> Podgurski indicated that Mass Coastal would address railroad tie needs,but the report may show <br /> items needed beyond what Mass Coastal could address, requiring further conversation about <br /> whether additional reimbursement was necessary. <br /> 3 <br />