Comment Log Display

April 17, 2006



Ms. Catherine Witherspoon
Executive Officer
California Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812

Re:   Comments on Proposed Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and
Goods Movement (March 21, 2006 draft)

Dear Ms. Witherspoon:

Union Pacific Railroad Company (¡§UP¡¨) appreciates this
opportunity to comment on the Air Resources Board¡¦s (¡§ARB¡¨)
March 21, 2006 Proposed Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and
Goods Movement (the ¡§Plan¡¨).  As California¡¦s largest freight
railroad, UP looks forward to continuing to play a key role in
ensuring the safe, efficient and environmentally-responsible
transportation of goods in California in the years to come.  

We are concerned, however, that the importance of completing the
Plan s soon as possible¡Xa goal with which we agree¡Xhas resulted
in a compilation of ideas and goals that lacks a solid technical
or scientific foundation.  Given all that is at stake, UP strongly
urges the ARB to take the time needed to gather further comments
from the affected communities, and to solicit peer review.   

Our comments on the Plan primarily concern its lack consistency
with other policy and regulatory actions relating to diesel
particulate matter (¡§DPM¡¨).  In particular, we are concerned
that:

„h The Plan¡¦s approach to risk assessment should be consistent
with the approach developed by ARB and the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (¡§OEHHA¡¨):   We have heard from ARB
staff on many occasions that risk assessment procedures cannot be
modified to more accurately reflect site-specific conditions due
to the need for consistency in comparing the results of one risk
assessment to another.  Yet the Plan substantially deviates from
the risk assessment guidance developed by OEHHA and ARB after
extensive public comments.  There is no reason for the Plan to
create yet another set of rules for risk assessment.

„h Reference Exposure Levels (¡§RELs¡¨) and Ambient Air Quality
Standards (¡§AAQS¡¨) should continue to be used in determining
whether particular measures are protective of public health:  
This approach has been used by ARB and OEHHA in past analyses of
risk, and there is no reason to deviate from prior practice in the
Plan.  These standards are set in order to ¡§adequately protect the
health of the public, including infants and children, with an
adequate margin of safety.¡¨  

„h The Plan¡¦s adoption of the attributable risk or
concentration/response approach to estimating health impacts and
the benefits of controls is fundamentally flawed, and can only
mislead the public by characterizing risks in an inflammatory and
inaccurate manner:  The scientific underpinnings of the
attributable risk approach to applying epidemiology to risk
characterization are extremely weak, particularly when used in the
context of DPM.  Basic assumptions upon which the attributable risk
approach is based lack a scientific foundation.  These assumptions
include: the equivalence of PM2.5 and DPM, the absence of
confounding and co-dependence, the absence of ecological
variables, that study cohorts from outside California are the same
as the California population and that results from high exposure
cohorts can be applied to very low exposure sources and measures. 
Each of these assumptions warrants careful and thorough peer review
before it becomes a premise for the Plan.  The time provided by ARB
simply does not provide sufficient opportunity for meaningful
scientific review and participation.

With respect to the specific discussion of locomotives (page 95 of
the Plan), UP agrees that the cooperative efforts of the ARB and
California¡¦s railroads is producing substantial emission
reductions, and UP looks forward to continued joint efforts with
the State.  In the time allowed for comment on the Plan, we have
been unable to review in depth all of the ideas discussed, but
will continue to review these issues and work with ARB as specific
measures are considered and proposed.

Once again, UP appreciates the work on the Plan that has been
completed to date, but believes that there is much more to be
done.  We look forward to continued cooperation in developing and
implementing the most thorough and effective plan for controlling
emissions from goods movement anywhere in the world.

Sincerely,




Scott D. Moore
Assistant Vice President & General Manager,
Public Partnerships