Attorneys for activist Arturo Uribe say they will ask the judge to reconsider the jury’s verdict of $75,000 in punitive damages awarded in a civil defamation suit brought by Helena Chemical Co., which operates a fertilizer warehouse near Uribe’s home in Mesquite. Houston Attorney Linda Thomas told Green Markets that the jury’s decision was out of line with what’s considered appropriate in these cases.

Thomas said the verdict was a “real shocker” based on all the bad press Helena has been getting in newspapers and television and its ongoing disagreements with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). “What Mr. Uribe was saying was obviously not hurting their reputation,” Thomas remarked. “My whole point is that Mr. Uribe was an outspoken critic of Helena in the community and that this suit was to quiet Mr. Uribe from speaking out.”

But attorneys for Helena are insisting that the damages were appropriate because they serve as a deterrent against future claims by the defendant or others. “The jurors were convinced that if they didn’t award sufficient damages Mr. Uribe or others might continue to engage in the conduct,” declared Robert Sosa with Jackson Walker in San Antonio. “The jury wanted to send a message to Mr. Uribe and others that defamation was wrong and would be punished.” More seriously, Sosa added, is that Uribe was attempting to raise money from environmental groups by implying that Helena was causing birth defects, was an explosion risk, and was contaminating the community.

Uribe himself wasn’t available for comment, but he told the local press that “this lawsuit was expected to shut me up and intimidate me. That’s what I believe. I believe what I’ve said to be true. I don’t understand the jury’s verdict. They made mistakes, and we will appeal. We went up against a giant corporation with high-dollar attorneys, high-dollar expert witnesses, and expensive paid studies. They asked for $600,000. The jury came with $1 for actual damages and $75,000 for punitive. It’s not going to scare me from speaking out when I believe something is wrong.”

One of the final witnesses in the trial was NMED Secretary Ron Curry, who was videotaped in January at his office with attorneys present from both sides. Thomas said she didn’t know what the impact was on the jury when Curry confirmed that he stated in the Las Cruces press that he “hoped Helena is genuinely interested in improving its relationship with Mesquite residents (which) means taking serious steps to reverse cumulative impacts on the community from the company’s bad environmental record.”

Sosa responded, “I think that factored into the jury decision, but what is important to note that the NMED never accused Helena of contaminating any of its neighbors or causing birth defects.”

Thomas said she is representing Uribe in his suit against Helena for damaging the health of children in the Mesquite community and “that Helena filed this lawsuit in retaliation.” She described the Mesquite resident as an $18,000-a-year community organizer with a master’s degree in social work who devoted his time to projects such as raising money for street lights and working with a local dairy to reduce odors and bothersome flies.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in consultation with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has issued a final rule modifying current security plan requirements for the commercial transportation of hazardous materials by air, rail, vessel, and highway.

Current hazardous material regulations require transporters to develop and implement security plans for a range of hazardous products, including explosives and poison-inhalation-hazard (PIH) materials such as ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia. At a minimum, these security plans must address personnel security, unauthorized access, and en route security. The final rule narrows the list of materials subject to security plan requirements and reduces the associated regulatory costs and paperwork burden.

Regarding PIH materials such as anhydrous ammonia, current regulations require security planning requirements for any quantity that is transported. PHMSA said it is maintaining the existing “any quantity” threshold in the final rule. PHMSA said it received several comments regarding the inclusion of anhydrous ammonia as a Division 2.3 material, noting that the Association of American Railroads, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) all requested clarification of the requirements applicable to anhydrous ammonia. PHMSA noted that anhydrous ammonia meets the definition of a PIH material and poses “a significant inhalation hazard.”

PHMSA did make a change to ammonium nitrate transportation requirements. Current regulations require security plans for ammonium nitrate in quantities that require placarding. The new rule clarifies the threshold quantity, requiring security plans for perchlorates and ammonium nitrate when transported in quantities greater than 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs.) for solids and 3,000 liters (793 gallons) for liquids in a single package.

PHMSA first published a notice of proposed rulemaking in October 2008 to propose modifications to the list of materials for which a security plan is required. PHMSA said it consulted with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the TSA, and considered specific transportation scenarios in which terrorists could use hazardous materials to cause large-scale casualties and property damage. The final rule takes effect Oct. 1, 2010.

In a related development, The Chlorine Institute has asked the FRA to correct what it sees as a flawed cost-benefit analysis in FRA’s recently published positive train control (PTC) rule, which calls for the implementation and development of new technologies to enhance safety and security on passenger and freight rail lines. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires the deployment of interoperable PTC systems on mainline tracks that carry passenger trains or PIH materials by Dec. 31, 2015.

The FRA describes PTC as “an integrated set of technologies that will help avert train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, accidents caused by human error or misaligned switches, and harm to roadway workers.” PTC systems use digital radio links, global positioning systems, and wayside computer control systems to send and receive a continuous stream of data transmitted by wireless signals about the location, speed, and direction of trains.

The final PTC rule, announced on Jan. 12 and published in the Federal Register on Jan. 15, said that railroads should immediately begin finalizing their PTC implementation plans and submit them to the FRA by April 16, 2010. “Safety is our highest priority, and we believe the installation of this equipment will make our nation’s railroads safer,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

According to a study commissioned by The Chlorine Institute and performed by L.E. Peabody & Associates, however, the PTC rule underestimates the net direct and indirect benefits of the rule’s implementation by more than $12 billion. In a March 30 letter to the Department of Transportation, TFI also pointed out what it described as “fundamental flaws with the final rule’s cost-benefit analysis that have profound implications for shippers of toxic-byinhalation (TIH) materials.”

According to The Chlorine Institute, the PTC rule’s faulty cost-benefit analysis “could foster a situation that would allow railroads to impose an unfairly large share of the costs of applying PTC technology on shippers of chlorine” and other TIH chemicals.

In a recent earnings call, CSX said it will invest $170 million in 2010 for PTC, with a multi-year investment estimated at $1.2 billion. Arthur Dungan, president of The Chlorine Institute, said the railroads have announced that they will attempt to recover their investment in PTC from shippers of TIH materials.

“These efforts will have a direct and substantial impact on prospective TIH rail shippers and a strong incentive to move TIH shipments from the safer rail mode to the less-safe highway mode of transportation,” Dungan said. “Certainly, TIH shippers also will be negatively impacted by the railroads rolling their PTC investments on regulated shipments into their regulatory rate base, thereby leading to a double recovery of PTC costs well into the future.”

The FRA announced on April 7 that it will begin accepting grant applications for the deployment of PTC systems and complementary advanced technologies under a new $50 million rail safety technology program. The program requires that the funded PTC projects or related systems be ready for deployment within 24 months of the grant award.

Canadian agribusiness Richardson International Ltd., Winnipeg, is in an expansion mode in 2010, recently snapping up two ag retailers in the Peace River area of Alberta as well as revealing plans to expand its existing retail outlets.

Richardson this week bought Eco Seeds, Fairview, Alberta, which includes crop service centers in Fairview and Rycroft. Richardson plans to add a new 1,200 mt fertilizer storage facility with a high-speed blender to the Fairview location. Adam Laliberte, previous owner-operator of Eco Seeds, will stay on to manage the Fairview operation.

In February, Richardson completed the acquisition of Total Ag Ltd.’s crop input facility at Falher, also in the Peace River region of Alberta. Kimber Mader, the previous owner-operator, will continue to manage operations at the location.

“This year, we will be rolling out the third phase of our multi-year strategic plan to expand and improve our operations,” says Darwin Sobkow, Richardson’s Agribusiness vice president. “By investing in the front end of our Richardson Pioneer Ag Business Centers, we are not only improving the capacity and efficiency we can provide to our customers today, we are anticipating their future needs as we work together to meet the growing global demand for quality Canadian crops.”

In 2010, Richardson is to invest C$20 million to expand the following ag business centers in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

• Olds, AB – Increasing storage capacity by 13,000 mt, adding a high-capacity grain dryer, enhancing on-site office space, and expanding rail car capacity to accommodate a 112-car unit train.
• Hamlin, SK (North Battleford) – Increasing storage capacity by 14,000 mt.
• Canora, SK – Building a new 1,200 mt fertilizer storage facility with a 300 mt/hr continuous high-speed blender.
• Yorkton, SK – Building a multi fertilizer distribution facility with 30,000 mt of storage capacity, including the ability to receive fertilizer unit trains, support rail and truck receiving at 750 mt/h, and ship at 300 mt/h (with an additional 400 mt of overhead storage).