905R81112
The Review of Railroad Project Related Environmental
Impact Statements for Noise Concerns: A Brief Outline
and Checksheet
By
Gale R. Hruska
Noise Control Specialist
Region V Noise Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
- 1981 -
-------
PREFACE
Many projects, especially those involving Federal actions or Federal funding,
require the submission of environmental impact statements (EIS). To assist
the people responsible for EIS preparation, many useful sources of information
have been developed. However, almost no attention has been given to assisting
the person who has to review one. It seems to be implied that the same
material used for preparation of the document is adequate for its review.
Unfortunately, as people who have had to review EIS's know, this is not quite
the case. The different perspectives of the preparer and the reviewer require
that they approach the EIS from different directions. The EIS preparer
strives to include sufficient information to provide a complete description
of the noise impact of the project, while the reviewer must be able to ask
the right questions to pinpoint any inadequacies that remain.
In response to requests from both professional EIS reviewers and the public,
the Region V Noise Program has assembled a list of concerns that it feels
every EIS should address. This particular document is concerned with rail-
road projects. It is our hope that, in spite of its brevity, it will be a
basis from which a competent noise review can be effected.
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION - Al - A2
CHECKSHEET • Bl - B
COMMENTARY ON CHECKSHEET CONCERNS Cl - C
REFERENCES Dl
-------
INTRODUCTION
Anyone who reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for noise consideration
is certain to discover that there is no single set of questions that can be used
to judge EIS adequacy. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that each project
and environment is unique. What is a major concern for the project can often
have minimal impact on another. However, this is not to say that there is no
systematic way to evaluate an EIS.
After reviewing many EIS's for noise impact, the Region V Noise Program has come
to feel that there are five basic areas in which an EIS should provide informa-
tion:
1. Site description
2. Project description
3. Existing and future noise levels
4. Noise impact caused by the project
5. Mitigation measures necessary to reduce noise impact to
acceptable levels
To assist the reviewer in determining whether or not a railroad related EIS has
adequately addressed these concerns, an EIS Review Checksheet has been prepared.
The purpose of this exercise is not to set standards, but only to provide a
systematic list of concerns that the well prepared EIS will address. Therefore,
there is no discussion of the quantitative aspects of environmental review.
There are no tables, graphs, or equations for predicting how much noise will be
produced or how serious the noise impact will be. If the reviewer wants to
corroborate this type of information, he will have to go to other sources, such
as those given in the references.
A-l
-------
The checksheet consists of six major questions relevant to the adequacy of the
noise portion of the EIS. Associated with each question are a number of minor
aspects which can be used to determine if the question is adequately addressed.
It is suggested that the reviewer checkoff the minor aspects as he encounters
them in the EIS. Those that are poorly discussed should be noted. For those
aspects that are not discussed at all, the reviewer should determine if they are
relevant to the particular project. Those that are not discussed but are rele-
vant should be noted. After the adequacies and inadequacies of all of the minor
aspects have been examined, the reviewer then uses the accumulated findings to
determine how well he believes the major question has been aswered, i.e. Has
the EIS addressed the question adequately, adequately with reservations, or not
adequately?
Those who are not familiar with environmental noise assessment may find the
checksheet rather terse. For these people, a brief commentary dealing with each
of the six basic questions has been included. Should one want to probe deeper
into this subject, he must go to the literature.
A-2
-------
RAILROAD PROJECT EIS REVIEW CHECKSHEET
PROJECT
DATE
1. IS AN ADEQUATE VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AR-EA AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT
PROVIDED?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Type of visual overview
[ ] Aerial photographs
[ ] Drawn schematics
[ ] Other
[ ] None
[ ] Map scale: explicitly identified, of reasonable size
[ ] Fixed facilities: marshalling yards, maintainance shops, terminals,
etc.
[ ] Site boundaries located and identified
[ ] Individual noise sources at the facility located and identified
[ ] Railroad track: located and identified
[ ] Main line track
[ ] Spur line track
[ ] Affected roads and highways: located and identified
[ ] Land use and zoning districts: located and identified
[ ] Individual noise sensitive sites: located and identified
B-l
-------
[ ] Residential areas
[ ] Schools and libraries
[ ] Churches
[ ] Hospitals and nursing homes
[ ] Parks and zoos
[ ] Other
2. IS SUFFICIENT QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION GIVEN ABOUT THE PROJECT AFFECTED
AREA AND ITS PRESENT USAGE?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Fixed facilities (marshalling yards, terminals, maintainance shops,
etc.)
[ ] Hours of usage
C ] Typical schedules: number of movements, train lengths, speeds,
number of locomotives
[ ] Identification of individual noise and vibration sources;
[ ] retarders, coupling areas, shop areas, etc.
[ ] Main line and spur line track operations
[ ] Typical schedules
[ ] Times of day
[ ] Number of operations
[ ] Lengths of trains, numbers of locomotives and cars
[ ] Speeds
[ ] Parking and idling schedules
B-2
-------
[ ] Locations
[ ] Lengths of track involved
[ ] Dimensions of rights-of-way
;. [ ] Distances to noise sensitive areas
[ ] Rail and roadbed conditions
[ ] Continuous welded or sectioned track
[ ] Road bed condition
[ ] Elevated, depressed, or at-grade road beds
[ ] Existance of grades
[ ] Roads and highways
[ ] Traffic data: volumes, car-truck percentages, speeds
[ ] At-grade crossings: locations, physical condition, blockage times
[ ] Affected noise sensitive sites
[ ] Distances from noise and vibration sources
[ ] Hours of usage
[ ] People affected: numbers and types
3. IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Description of proposed physical changes
[ ] Fixed facilities: location, renovation or construction, distance
to noise sensitive areas, dimensions, new equipment in use
[ ] Main line and spur line track: relocations, new construction,
track and road bed upgrading, elimination of at-grade
crossings, changes in total length of track, grades
B-3
-------
[ ] Description of operational changes
[ ] Fixed facilities: number of operations, times of usage, types
of operations
[ ] Main line and spur line track: numbers and times of operations,
numbers of locomotives and cars', speeds
[ ] Identification of changes in roads and highways: new roads, road
closings, new speed limits and traffic volumes, improved crossings
[ ] Newly impacted noise sensitive sites
[ ] Identification
[ ] Distances from tracks or facilities
[ ] Population affected
[ ] Identification of noise affected sites that will experience a decrease
in impact
[ ] Discussion of project alternatives
[ ] Identification of ultimate development plans
[ ] Description of construction and demolition phases of project
4. ARE ADEQUATE QUANTITATIVE NOISE LEVEL PREDICTIONS PROVIDED?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Noise level representation used
[ ] Contours
[ ] Individual levels
B-4
-------
[ ] Noise and vibration descriptors used
[ ] Day-night equivalent sound level L(dn)
[ ] Hourly equivalent sound level L eq(h)
[ .] Maximum A-weighted sound level Lmax
[ ] Other noise measures
[ ] Vibration measures
[ ] Typical noise and vibration levels documented
[ ] Facilities: locomotives, cars, retarder noise, coupling
noise, whistles and horns, repair shop noise, ventilation
noise
[ ] Main and spur line tracks: locomotives, cars, refrigera-
tion units, whistles and horns, crossing signals
[ ] Predicted general overall area noise levels - preferred
alternative
[ ] Existing
[ ] After project completion
[ ] Predicted noise levels at individual noise sensitive sites-
preferred alternative
[ ] Existing
[ ] After project completion
[ ] Predicted noise levels - non-preferred alternatives
[ ] Existing
[ ] After project completion
B-5
-------
[ ] Measured noise levels
[ ] From specific equipment: locomotives, retarders, etc.
[ ] At specific sites
[ ] Adequate site selection
[ ] Adequate times and durations of measurement
[ ] Noise levels along affected motor vehicle routes
[ ] Vibration levels
[ ] Construction noise levels
[ ] Noise and vibration levels agree with reviewer's corroborating
calculations
5. IS THE NOISE IMPACT ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Discussion of noise measures and their relation to impact
[ ] Definition of noise level metrics (L(dn), Leq (h), etc.)
[ ] Discussion of relations between noise levels and
degrees of hearing loss and annoyance
[ ] Discussion of the impact on the area in general
[ ] Numbers of people affected at various noise levels
[ ] Land use zones affected last various noise levels
[ ] Discussion of areas which will experience significant
increased impact
[ ] Discussion of areas which will experience significant
decreased impact
B-6
-------
[ ] Discussion of increased or decreased impact on specific noise
sensitive sites
[ ] Residential properties
[ ] Schools and libraries
[ ] Churches
[ ] Hospitals and nursing homes
[ ] Parks and zoos
[ ] Other
[ ] Concerns and comments from other governmental agencies and the
general public included and discussed
C 3 Discussion of relative imact between alternatives
[ ] Discussion of construction noise impact
[ 3 Discussion of vibration impact
6. ARE MITIGATION MEASURES ADEQUATEDLY CONSIDERED?
[ 3 Adequate [ 3 Adequate with reservations [ 3 Not adequate
[ 3 Areas needing noise or vibration mitigation documented
[ 3 Specific mitigation measures proposed for each impacted area
[ 3 Facility
[ 3 Restrictions on locomotive and refrigerator car standing
areas
[ 3 Relocation of equipment to non-sensitive sites
[ 3 Noise barriers for retarders
[ 3 Sound insulation for noise sensitive sites
[ 3 Time restrictions on operations
[ 3 Zoning and land use restrictions on surrounding land
[ 3 Other
B-7
-------
[ ] Main line and spur line tracks
[ ] Limitations on parking of locomotives or refrigerator cars
[ ] Use of continuous rail
•[ ] Improved roadbeds
[ ] Use of underpasses in congested areas
[ ] Restrictions on horn and whistle blowing
[ ] Speed limitations
[ ] Time usage limitations
[ ] Other
[ ] Mitigation measures related to demolition and construction activities
[ ] Equipment standards
[ ] Applicable state and local regulations
[ ] Time of operation restrictions
[ ] Noise and vibration isolation measures
[ ] Use of noise barriers
[ ] Other
[ ] Stated commitment to provide mitigation where needed
B-8
-------
BRIEF COMMENTARY ON CHECKSHEET CONCERNS
1. IS AN ADEQUATE VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT PRO-
iVIDED?
-An EIS should provide an overview of the affected area. A pictorial
representation seems the best choice to meet this need. It should be of
sufficient scale and clarity to provide unambiguous information about the
concerns listed in the Checksheet. The information will be used primarily
in corroborating the EIS noise predictions and in pinpointing areas where
noise problmems could surface.
Although blueprints and other drawn graphics can provide much information,
the aerial photograph is by far the most useful tool. It allows the reviewer
an independent look at the site. There have been many instances where the
study of an aerial photograph has located potential noise problem areas that
were not discussed in the EIS. Close scrutiny of this photograph should
always be made if one is provided. In particular, the reviewer should be
able to identify those individual noise sensitive sites that are presently
being affected by railroad operations noise, as well as those that could be
affected by new relocations or construction (see question 3). The well pre-
pared EIS will identify the noise affected areas which this question addresses
by specifically locating them on the aerial photograph.
2. IS SUFFICIENT QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION GIVEN ABOUT THE PROJECT AFFECTED
AREA AND ITS PRESENT USAGE?
The EIS should include the detailed information outlined in the Checksheet.
C-l
-------
It deals with existing noise sources affecting the project area, as well
as those noise sensitive activities that are presently being affected
railroad noise. This information is essentially a detailed analysis of the
material covered in the visual overview of the project. It will provide
the reviewer with the data needed to corroborate the existing noise levels
given in the EIS as well as providing specific information relevant to
assessing the existing noise impact.
3. IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED?
The term "scope of the project" usually refers to the direct physical and
operational changes to the railroad properties which are expected to occur
as a result of the project. In addition to these concerns, we include the
identification of sites which are expected to experience either increases
or decreases in noise impact. The areas of decreased impact are as impor-
tant as the increased impact areas when the benefits of the project are
weighed against its negative impacts to determine overall impact.
Most EIS's include a description of alternatives to the proposed project plan.
These alternatives normally do not need to be described as thoroughly as does
the preferred alternative, yet they should contain enough information to
allow the reviewer to estimate the relative impact between alternatives, at
least on a qualitative basis. If there are good reasons to believe that one
or more of the non-preferred alternatives produces substantially less noise
impact than the preferred one, the reviewer should investigate the possibil-
ity that the preferred alternative is not environmentally the best choice.
C-2
-------
Most railroad project EIS's present the total package of the actions to
be taken. However, if the reviewer has reason to believe that there may
eventually be more construction or relocations beyond that proposed in
the EIS, he should be careful to verify that the EIS has identified the
ultimate development plans.
Construction and demolition noise can often be a serious short term noise
problem. Jackhammers, bulldozers, and pile driving equipment are the
most often mentioned sources of construction noise. The EIS should be
examined to determine if there will be any substantial impact.
4. ARE ADEQUATE (QUANTITATIVE) NOISE LEVEL PREDICTIONS PROVIDED ?
Determining whether or not the noise level predictions in the EIS are
reasonable is the most technically difficult part of the EIS review.
If all of the previous questions have been answered satisfactorily, the
reviewer has all of the data needed to assess this concern. The
references in Appendix 1 provide the methods of calculating the noise
levels. Generally, a corroboration of the entire set of noise levels
presented in the EIS is not necessary. A set of calculations of noise
levels at some of the more important noisesensitive sites is usually
adequate. If the reviewer's results are within roughly 3 decibels of
the reported values, agreement can be assumed. Differences of more than
5 decibels are cause for concern.
How should the EIS present quantitative noise level predictions? The
predominant method in use today is with noise contour maps. A noise
level contour is a line drawn on a map of the site area, along with a
particular noise level, such that the land within the contour will ex-
perience noise levels greater than or equal to the given level.
C-3
-------
A complete noise contour map consists of a set of contours (each separated
in level by either 5 or 10 dBA) superimposed on a site map, usually down to
the 40 or 45 dBA level. It is analogous to a topographic map where points
at a specific height are all connected to make a height contour, only in this
case it is equal noise level points that are connected.
Most contours today are given in terms of the day-night equivalent sound
level (L(dn)). This descriptor is used to provide an energy-average sound
level over a 24-hour period, with a 10 decibel penalty assessed on all noise
occurring between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (The complete definition
can be found in reference 1.) USEPA has correlated annoyance and hearing
loss to L(dn) values, which makes L(dn) useful in assessing noise impact.
Maximum noise levels caused by train and yard operations are useful, but are
not included in many EIS's. We feel that they should be included especially
when switching and humping operations are part of the project scenario. When
cars are coupled together short duration impulsive noise is produced. The
use of retarders can cause high levels of high frequency noise. L(dn) values
in these situations would greatly underestimate the noise impact.
Some EIS's include estimates of the number of minutes per day that the noise
exceeds a particular decibel level. This measure is not particularly useful
since it provides no information about the time of day of occurrance of the
events or the amount above the base level that is exceeded. As an example,
an eight minute daily exceedance of 85 dBA minutes might mean that noise level
of 86 dBA were produced for two minutes four times during an afternoon, or
it could also mean that noise levels or 100 dBA were produced eight times
for only one minute each between the hours of 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. The impact
on the public is enormously different between these two extreme cases.
C-4
-------
Noise contours should be provided for all of the important scenarios: present
conditions, the preferred alternative, the no-build alternative, and any of
the other alternatives that have a chance of being chosen. In addition to
contours, noise level predictions should be provided for specific noise
sensitive activities in the project affected area. Levels at schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, zoos, etc., can be provided either by specifically
stating the expected levels or by locating the activities on the noise ocntour
map.
Although at first sight it may seem strange, there are situations where motor
vehicle traffic noise levels should be included in a railroad EIS. Projects
that result in major changes to existing vehicle traffic patterns can cause
serious noise problems in some areas while alleviating existing ones in other
areas. The inclusion of pre-project and post-project noise levels is needed
to document the impact.
Occassionally EIS's include actual noise measurements made around the site.
Most reported measurements ususally turn out to be inadequate in that they
are taken at too few locations and for not long enough periods of time.
Because of the variability in operations during the day, noise measurements
need to be taken over long periods to obtain meaningful results.
C-5
-------
Vibration, in addition to airborne noise, can often be a significant
problem along railroad rights-of-way. In serious situations the passing
of trains can cause both human annoyance and structural damage. If
noise senssitive sites are located within 100 feet of railroad tracks,
the reiewer should expect at least a qualitative discussion of the vibra-
tion levels. Quantitative vibration levels are difficult to accurately
predict and only in situations where large numbers of sites are affected
or where major impact is expected, do we expect them to be presented.
5. IS THE NOISE IMPACT ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED?
A discussion of noise impact involves more than simply providing noise
levels. The EIS should discuss how the noise measures used in the EIS
relate to hearing loss and annoyance. General relations between noise
levels and the degree of impact on people (e.g. noise levels vs percent
of people annoyed) can be obtained from the literature and should be
included. The annoyance aspects are most important since there are very
few railroad operations will be so loud to cause physical hearing damage.
The EIS should discuss the degree overall noise impact on the area
surrounding the project site. The land use zones and the number of people
(or residences) exposed to various levels of noise should be identified
and the magnitude of the impact stated. The previously listed noise
sensitive activities should be discussed in detail with respect to
potential noise impact. If no significant impact is expected at a
particular site, that fact should be stated.
C-6
-------
It should be noted that "the degree of impact" is a relative concept. If
ambient noise levels are low to begin with, the impact of a project could
be significant in spite of the fact that the new noise levels might not
exceed normal standards. For example, consider a rail line build in a
rural area which originally experienced L(dn) noise levels in the 40
decibel range. If the post project levels turn out to be 10 dB greater,
they would still be acceptable for most residential areas. To the people
living in the quiet area, however, the new levels would be subjectively
twice as loud as they originally were.
For our considerations of noise impact, we generally feel that outdoor
L(dn) levels of 55dB or less are quite reasonable for residential areas,
while levels above 65-70dB are definitely excessive. In term of identifiable
changes in impact, a 3-4dB increase in L(dn) is noticeable, while increases
greater than 7-8dB are considered major.
Good sources for locating potential noise problems are letters from the
public and from governmental agencies. They are usually printed in an
appendix associated with public comments. The EIS should provide specific
replies to their concerns.
Initially vibration impact analysis for a railroad project should answer
two questions: Will the vibration levels be great enough to be perceptible
to the average person? Will they be great enough to cause structural
damage? Whether the EIS addresses these concerns qualitatively or quanti-
tatively, the answers should be made clear to the reviewer. When a major
impact is indicated, he should consider the need for a more detailed
investigation of the problem.
C-7
-------
Strangely, railroad EIS's often do not put enough emphasis on the positive
aspects of the project. Relocations and consolidations can be especially
beneficial. Entire neighborhoods can have railroad noise eliminated. The
elimination of at-grade crossings can alleviate auto traffic bottlenecks
and their associated traffic noise. In addition, the elimination of these
crossings also removes the crossing signal and whistle blowing that
generate so many public complaints.
6. ARE MITIGATION MEASURES DETAILED?
Most EIS's make some mention of noise mitigation measures. Many only pay
lip-service to their need for implementation, and dismiss them on the
grounds of cost. The good EIS documents the areas needing mitigation,
lists the methods available, and then either states which measures will be
used or provides verbal commitment to implement those that are needed to
reduce the noise impact to acceptable levels.
There are many well known, proven methods that can be used to minimize
and abate the impact of railroad operations noise. Some of these are
given in the Checksheet. Many of them can be implemented at relatively
little cost. The reiewer is not unreasonable in expecting the EIS to
consider those methods that are applicable to the project.
C-8
-------
Appendix 1 - References
1. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, 550/9-74-004 March 1974
2. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise, Committee
on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1977
3. Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise in and Around Buildings,
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
003-003-016870, 1978
4. Background Document for Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission
Regulation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,
EPA 550/9-78-207, February 1979
5. Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion
Engines. USEPA, NT1D300.13 December 1971
------- |