United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Noise Abatement Control
Washington DC 20460
EPA 550/9-80-215
June 1980
Noise
Official Docket for
Proposed Revision to
Rail Carrier Noise
Emission Regulation
Part III
-------
OFFICIAL DOCKET FOR PROPOSED REVISION
TO RAIL CARRIER NOISE EMISSION
REGULATION
(PART III)
JULY 1980
-------
FOREWORD
Proposed revision to the rail carrier noise emission regulation, encom-
passing a railyard property line standard and source standards, was published
on April 17, 1979 (44 FR 22960). The official public comment period began
with this Federal Register publication and closed July 2, 1979. All comments
received or postmarked by the closing date were published in a two part
Official Docket for Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regula-
tion (EPA 550/9-79-208).
On January 4, 1980, we published final railyard noise source standards
and also reopened the formal comment period for the proposed property-line
noise regulation (45 FR 1252). Public comments were accepted until April 4,
1980, to allow all interested parties the opportunity to express their opin-
ions on the proposed property line standard in light of the finalized source
standards.
This publication consists of the public comments that we received during
the reopened comment period and an appendix that includes those comments that
were received between July 2, 1979 and January 4, 1980, the period of time
after the closing date of the first comment period and before the reopening.
It is designated as part III of the official docket for the April 17, 1979,
proposed revision to the rail carrier noise regulation.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTING BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES
STATE AGENCIES
TITLE
DOCKET NUMBER
PAGE
Arizona, State of,
Transportation,
Department of
California, State of.
Business and Transportation
Agency, Transportation,
Department of
Delaware, State of,
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control,
Department of
Illinois, State of,
Attorney General
Iowa, State of,
Transportation, Department of,
Planning and Research Division
Maryland, State of
Executive Department
New York, State of
Transportation, Department of
008
Oil
020
022
19
30
117
124
014
005
006
49
14
15
CITY/COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
Government of,
The District of Columbia,
Environmental Services,
Department of
Government of,
The District of Columbia
Transportation, Department of
Lansing, Michigan,
City of
Montgomery, Maryland, County of,
A1r Pollution and Noise Control Section
National League of Cities
004
007
003
002
017
12
18
10
7
105
iii
-------
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
IUki DOCKET NUMBER PAGE
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.,
Office of noise Abatement and Control (Rose) 001 1
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (Rose) 012 31
Youth, The Federal Minister for,
West Germany 023 135
PRIVATE CITIZENS
Kupper, A.J., Private citizen 010 23
Matza, Sol, Private Citizen 013 48
Josephsen, Norman 0., Private Citizen 018 115
Project Whistle Stop, Inc. 019 116
INDUSTRY
Consolidated Rail Corporation 016 75
QIV, Inc. 009 21
ASSOCIATIONS
American Railroads, Association of 015 50
Noise Control Officials, National
Association of 021 123
iv
-------
APPENDIX
STATE AGENCIES
TITLE DOCKET NUMBER PAGE
Georgia, State of,
Law, Department of 169 L A-59
New Jersey Noise Control Council 172 L A-64
CITY/COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS
Carson, California,
City of, 168 L A-58
Dade, Florida, County of,
Environmental Resources Management 162 L A-58
Government of,
The District of Columbia,
Environmental Services,
Department of 163 L A -4
Minneapolis, Minnesota,
City of,
City Clerk, Office of 167 L A-38
Orange, Florida, County of,
Public Health and Medical Services 170 L A-60
San Bernardino, California,
County of,
Environmental Improvement Agency,
Environmental health Services Department 173 L A-66
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., 166 L A-36
Region 10 ( Yamamoto )
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.,
Office of Noise Abatement & Control (Thomas) 175 L A-72
Federal Railroad Administration,
Transportation, Department of, U.S. 165 L A-15
PRIVATE CITIZENS
Salter, Charles M., Associates Inc,
Consultants 1n Acoustics 174 L A-69
-------
INDUSTRY
TITLE DOCKET NUMBER PAGE
Consolidated Rail Corporation 176 A-80
ASSOCIATIONS
Acoustical Society of America 164 L A-5
National Environmental Health Association 171 L A-62
v1
-------
•HKfi*
'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 6 1980
SUBJECT: Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Environmental Advisory Group Meeting
FROM: Robert C. Rose, Program Manager, Railroads
TO: Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Mr. Charles Elklns, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, spoke to the subject Advisory Group from 1:30 to
2:30 p.m., on January 30, 1980. Mr. Elklns' presentation concerned the
recently published Source Standard Regulation for railyards as well as, a
general discussion as to the future development of a final railyard
property-line standard, and related issues and policies associated with
the railroad noise program. Upon completion of Mr. Elklns' presentation,
a number of questions and responses were made both from the audience and
by Mr. Elklns. Listed below are the questions, the response given and
comments.
1. Question from industry spokesman: - What kind of industry data
was used in the development
of the source regulations?
Answer by Mr. Elklns: AAR provided some information
relative to noise levels as
well as certain state agencies.
CONRAIL provided valuable
information relative to qar
coupling impact noises.
2. Question from industry spokesman: • What are the penalties under
the Noise Control Act for
violation of the railroad
regulations?
Answer by Mr. Elklns:
3. Question by industry spokesman: -
Answer by Mr. Elklns:
Civil penalties are at $10,000
per day. criminal penalties
are at $25,000 per day. ,
Should CONRAIL resubmit their
materials to the new docket?
If you wish to highlight any
particular information on your
previous submlttal, please
feel free to do so; however,
the Agency will be reviewing
all material relative to the
property line previously
submitted under the earner
docket.
o
- 1 -
-------
4.
Question by industry spokesman:- Why is the Congress changing the
effective date for regulations
from three years to four years?
Answer by Mr. Elkins:
5.
The primary concern of Congress
was to have additional time to
evaluate the impact of final EPA
rail carrier noise regulations.
They have allowed six months for
the Federal Railroad Administra-
tion to make a study on any new
final EPA noise regulations and
six months for Congress to review
the study.
Question by industry spokesman:- Is there an existing Memorandum of
Understanding between EPA and FRA
relative to enforcement?
Answer by Mr. El kins:-
6.
No. Although a Memorandum of
Understanding would be beneficial
in this regard, and FRA has argued
that EPA has central regulatory
enforcement authority, we do not
foresee any difficulties with
FRA proceeding with their obliga-
tions under the law. We see our
efforts as one of providing
technical assistance to them as
they develop their compliance
regulations.
Question by industry spokesman:- Why does EPA feel that preemption
is such a central issue? As I
read the law, it's not necessarily
so.
Answer by Mr. Elkins:-
EPA reads the law as requiring
total preemption of state and
local regulations and ordinances
under Section 17 of the Act.
However, until 1984 in this case,
or whenever EPA final rail carrier
regulations are effective, the
states and localities can regulate
those railyard noise sources not
covered by effective Federal
rules.
- 2 -
-------
- 3 -
7. Comment by Industry spokesman:-
Answer by Mr. Elklns:-
8. Question by Industry spokesman:-
Answer by Mr. Elklns:-
9. Comment from Industry spokesman:-
Mr. Peter Conlon of the AAR took
exception to the notion suggested
in the presentation that AAR did
not provide extensive materials
to the docket relative to the
proposed source standards and
property-line standard. Quite the
contrary, Mr. Conlon cited, the
AAR spent many dollars and many
manhours in developing an exten-
sive submission to the docket.
The EPA thinks that the AAR
material submitted should not be
construed by the industry as the
only submission acceptable to the
Agency. Quite the contrary, EPA
encourages individual railroad
companies to submit their com-
ments, particularly information
and data in order to assist us.
What are the health and welfare
effects on people 1n regards to
these regulations?
The Agency was not, under the law,
permitted to use health and
welfare impact as a decision
making criterion. Although the
Agency does review the general
Impact to health and welfare in
conjunction with its environmental
mandate.
Looking at State and local rules
and ordinances, Chicago, for an
example, has a 55 decibel
level. Their standard for rail
carriers and railyards does not
have any reality. It's really a
reflection of previous EPA
recommended noise levels.
Realistic standards must be
based on a combination of
community needs, industry
concerns, and technology cost.
- 3 -
-------
- 4 -
Response to comment by Mr. Elkins:-
10. Comment by industry spokesman:-
11. Comment from industry spokesman:-
12. Comment by Mr. El kins:-
What is so special about the
railroad industry? Why should
State and local rules and
ordinances be preempted? It seems
to us that the railroad industry
does not want to be treated the
same way as other industries.
After all, EPA regulates many other
industries in the noise area and in
those , State and local rules and
.ordinances are not preempted.
It appears to EPA that the railroad
industry is attempting to go the
opposite way from the present
trend in State and local regulation.
It is my observation that industries
have a tendency to move away where
environmental laws become more
stringent and move to those areas
where these types of laws are less
stringent.
Sounds like the EPA is setting
standards on railroads because
after all, EPA develops regula-
tions on other types of transpor-
tation equipment. Consequently,
we will have a tendency to suffer
as a result of your needs to
satisfy environmental considera-
tions and budget justifications.
I feel that 55 decibel level is
not in the cards for the final
railyard property-line standard.
However, you must realize that
you cannot have your cake and
eat it, too. The final regula-
tion is not going to be a give-
away nor is it going to be cheap
relative to cost in order for the
industry to implement. The
industry brought on the need for
EPA to Issue these kinds of
regulations; it must accordingly
accept the consequences.
- 4 -
-------
- 5 -
13. Comment from Industry spokesman:-
Answer by Mr. Elkins:-
Should it be 1n our interest to
change the current law?
Yes, but I'm not here to convince
you today, but it would seem to me
that EPA has gone far enough in its
rail carrier rulemaking already.
The meeting was adjourned relative to Mr. Elkins' presentation.
- 5 -
-------
AGENDA
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING
JANUARY 30-31, 1980
INTERNATIONAL CLUB - 1800 K STREET, N.W.
THEME: RAILROADS, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE 1980's
WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 30
8:30 - 9:00 Registration
9:00 - 9:15
9:15 -10:15
10:15 -10:30
10:30 -12:00
12:00 - 1:15
1:15 - 2:30
2:30 - 2:45
2:45.- 4:00
4:00 - 5:00
Introduction - William J. Harris, VP, Research & Test, AAR
Department of Transportation - Robert E. Gallamore, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration
Coffee Break
Environmental Protection Agency - Stephen Plehn, Deputy Assistant
Administrator For Solid Waste; Henry Van Cleave, Manager of Spill
Prevention and Control Programs
Lunch
Environmental Protection Agency - Charles Elkins, Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Noise Control Programs (Railroad
Noise Standards)
Coffee Break
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Linda Anzalone-Woolley (Legislative
and Regulatory Trends)
National Commission on Air Quality - Karen Neale (Revising
the Clean Air Act)
8:30 -10:00
10:00 -10:15
»'..
10:15 -12:00
12:00 - 1:15
1:15 - 2:30
2:30 - 2:45
2:45 - 5:00
Environmental Legislation Panel - Christine Rochford, AVP
Government Affairs, 1C Industries; Kimball Clark, AAR
Legislative Department; Tom Ryan, Counsel, House Interstate
ft Foreign Commerce Committee
Coffee Break
Complying With Environmental Regulations Panel - James B.
Gregory, AVP Operations, ConRail
Lunch
•
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act Panel - A. Gayle Jordan,
General Attorney, SOU; George Hanks, Asst. Director of
Federal Government Relations, Union Carbide Corp-.; George
Kush, Director, Chemical Waste Programs, National Solid
Waste Management Assoc.
Coffee Break
Environmental Studies Division Activities - NPDES - Walt
Studabaker; Pesticides - Peter Conlon; Noise - Peter
Conlon; Air - Peter Conlon; Spills - Walt Studabaker;
Wrap up - Conan Furber
- 6 -
-------
Xbunw
oranoi _
Making aCountyaCommunity
February 14, 1980
Robert Rose
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Rose:
Mr. Henry E. Thomas', Director, Standards and Regulations Division,
letter of January 25, 1980 advised me that the regulatory docket for
Sections 201.17 and 201.30 through 201.33, "Noise Emission Standards for
Transportation Equipment; Interstate Rail Carriers," was reopened and
comments were Invited. Because railroad noise standards at receiving
properties have been of considerable citizen Interest 1n this County, I
have taken this opportunity to submit comments which are of concern to
many local governments.
I am concerned that the only economic analyses conducted Involved
costs to the railroad Industry without consideration of costs to adjacent
communities 1n reduced land values, costs for exterior wall construction
to Increase sound transmission losses, loss of HUD grant funds, higher
interest rates for mortgages which cannot be Insured by HUD, and Increased
noise-related health costs. I am also concerned that no provisions have
been Included 1n this proposed rule making for the railroad Industry to
reduce receiving property noise levels through Improved design of rail
yard facilities and equipment. There appears to be no motivation for the
railroad Industry to engage in research and development of lower-noise
equipment and facilities, accelerate the Installation of noise-reduction
alterations on equipment and facilities, and change operating procedures
to reduce the Impact on the adjacent community.
For local government to engage 1n the enforcement of these standards,
1t will be necessary to develop laws compatible with the proposed Federal
regulations, to procure more sophisticated equipment, and to add trained
personnel to do the required field monitoring. Considering the constraints
on local budgets, 1t appears that only a few local governments will be
able to participate 1n the noise enforcement process 1n the protection of
local residential populations against excessive, rail yard nolst.
_ . .0
- 7 - -r ^
6110 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Pollution Control
-------
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Comments Concerning Proposed Changes to 40 Code
of Federal Regulations,
Sections 201.17 and 201.30 through 201.33
Section 201.17
The establishment of a receiving property noise standard of Ldn/24\ of
70 dBA for both existing rail and future new construction facilities and equip-
ment appears to be excessively high. This liberal standard restricts the use
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in large areas adjacent to rail
yard facilities because HUD will not grant funds or insure loans for residential
property wherein the Ldp(24) sound level is 65 dBA or higher. Because it is
possible to design and build new construction rail yard facilities and equipment
with significantly lower overall noise levels, the railroad industry should be
willing to accept a more restrictive standard for new yard facilities. In areas
where new rail yard facilities will be established adjacent to residential
development, the property line standard should approach or equal the HUD
standard for residential property.
Tables (1) and (2) are very useful for field monitoring personnel and can
be used without additional technical information by persons unskilled in
acoustical engineering. It would be useful for the Environmental Protection
Agency to publish a more detailed explanation of tables for use by engineering
and management personnel without acoustical engineering training. This would
assist management and field monitoring personnel in their discussions with
railroad engineering and management personnel in interpreting the results of
field tests. It is recommended that Tables (1) and (2) be retained in the
final version of Section 201.17.
Sections 201.31-201.33
The requirement that an Integrating Type I sound level meter be used to
measure sound levels increases the cost for surveillance monitoring for local
governments. Some local governments have purchased integrating sound level
meters in the past to specifications which do not precisely match the speci-
fications contained in these Sections. It is recommended that some provision
be included for the Environmental Protection Agency to certify equipment
meeting other specifications for use in making field measurements.
If a separate integrating sound level meter certification procedure is
not included in these Sections, costs for instrumentation may cause local
government to fail to provide services to local residents to determine whether
the railroad yard operators are complying with receiving property standards.
Some communities have been able to purchase non-Integrating Type I sound
level meters, but there 1s no provision for the use of this precision sound
level meter 1n this proposed rule making. Many local governments could measure
rail yard sound levels using Type I sound level meter reading sound exposure
levels at ten-second intervals and use a calculator to determine one hour Leg
as a spot check on rail yard performance.
REL:drc
- 8 -
-------
Robert Rose
February 14, 1980
Page 2
Enclosed are the specific comments concerning the proposed rule
making for 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 201.17 and 201.30
through 201.33.
I hope that I have been able to make a significant contribution
towards the improvement in receiving property standards for rail yard
facilities and equipment.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Mendelsohn, Chief
A1r Pollution and Noise
Control Section
ESM:REL:drc
Enclosure: Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Environmental
Protection, Comments Concerning Proposed Changes to 40 Code
of Federal Regulations, Sections 201.17 and 201.30 througi
201.33.
cc: DPC File No. AD-11-3-2
- 9 -
-------
City of LANSING
LANSING, MICHIGAN
GERALD W. GRAVES. MAYO*
February 15, 1980
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This letter is in response to your communication of January 25, 1980,
received in this office February 4, 1980 and the Federal regulations of
January 4, 1980 regarding railroad noise. Despite the opportunity for
establishment of a local ordinance on this subject which has been provided
by the Environmental Protection Agency, this is not a policy matter which
I would in any way promote to the Lansing City Council. The City of
Lansing does not have the manpower, equipment or financial resources to
adopt a railroad noise ordinance and enforce same. The City is already
relying upon its fund balance from previous years to balance present
budgets and the forecast is for more of the same. Additionally, in all
probability it will be necessary to raise taxes and cut programs just to
make ends meet next year. There is no capacity given present resources
for the City to initiate a program of railroad noise enforcement, even
by 1984 when the various regulations are scheduled to take effect.
This is not to say that the City of Lansing does not have problems
with the railroads in this jurisdiction. Lansing is a significant manu-
facturing center and has a full complement of railroads - many of which
are adjacent to residential or commercial uses. However, the City has other
priorities in its relations with the railroads. In general, but not neces-
sisarily in order, those priorities include: 1.) grade separation of rail-
road/automobile intersections; 2.) improved crossings for at-grade inter-
sections; 3.) improved safety equipment for at-grade intersections;
4.) maintenance and redevelopment of railroad-owned properties no longer
used for railroad purposes; 5.) relationships of railroad service and
expansion of the City's economic base.
- 10 -
-------
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
February 15, 1980
Page 2
While railroad noise is a concern of our citizens, it is perhaps only
on a par with noise pollution from trucks and general traffic and existing
industries. In many instances, railroad noise is a significant factor be-
cause of its intermittent nature on top_ of a steady level of industrial
noise. By and large, those sources are adjacent because the railroads ser-
vice the industries. Lansing, like many older communities, saw its residen-
tial stock develop around the factories which provided jobs to our residents.
As a result, many of our homes were built close to industries or railroads.
The sources of noise pollution were established first, and Were necessary to
the growth and development of our City.
It has been virtually impossible for the City of Lansing to effectively
regulate railroads where other City ordinances have been developed, such as
elimination of trash or weed complaints on railroad properties or enforcement
penalties for excessive idling which blocks automobile traffic. It is not
apparent how the City could expect to have better success in enforcing rail-
road noise violations.
If consideration is given by Congress of Federal appropriations to assist
local enforcement of railroad noise regulations, I would suggest that consid-
eration first be given to those problems I have listed above and that noise
regulations be limited to manufacturers' standards. I would warn that over-
zealous regulations by an agency with a history of over-zealousness would
only further injure what is unfortunately already a sick industry.
Sincerely,
GWG/lb
cc: Congressman M. Robert Carr
Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Conrail
- 11 -
-------
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2OOO4
FEB231980
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the property-line
standard for railroad noise. We are glad to see that EPA has promulgated
source.standards for some noise sources in railyards and look forward to
the general property-line standards.
Like other communities around the country we have in our noise regulations
a section that exempts "vehicles propelled only upon rails and tracks".
However, this exemption does not extend to the aboveground "subway" cars
of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. For these vehicles
a noise standard has been set which has proved very successful and we
courage EPA to set a similar* standard instead of using the Uln. Our
standard is:
Railroad cars operated by the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority shall be operated in such a
manner so as not to emit maximum noise levels in
excess of those established in Table II of this act
when measured at a distance of one hundred (100) feet
from the track centerline. The slow meter response
of the sound level meter shall be used and the measure-
ment shall be taken approximately five (5) feet above
grade.
- 12 -
-------
Table II
Zone Maximum Noise Level
A. Residential, Special
purpose or waterfront zone 75dB(A)
B. Commercial or Light- 80dB(A)
manufacturing zone
C. Industrial zone 90dB(A)
We would be glad to discuss this with you and share with you some of
our measurements taken in Washington, D.C. (this ability to communicate
directly 1s one advantage of being close to EPA Headquarters). My
telephone number 1s 727-5748.
William B. Johnjo
Acting Director
- 13 -
-------
HARRY HUGHES
GOVERNOR
STATE OF MARYLAND
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
ANNAPOLIS MARYLAND 2I4O4
March 3, 1980
Mr. Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, 0. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Elkins:
This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1980 in which you outline
the final EPA specific source noise standards for interstate rail carriers.
Anticipating Federal preemption of State and local authority, Maryland
noise regulations were developed so as to exempt railroads. The published standards
allow noise levels up to 92 dBA at receiving residential and commercial properties.
These levels are considerably higher than those currently being enforced in
Maryland. They fail to address the duration of exposure at these levels and as
a result are too lenient. This matter should be given consideration in establish-
ing future property line standards.
I hope that these remarks will be of value in future considerations.
Sincerely,
- 14 -
-------
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
William C. Hennesty, Commissioner
1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232
MAR 1 01980
Bail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Gentlemen:
This is in response to your request for additional comments on the
proposed property line noise standard published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 1980. The enclosed comments are a
resubmission of our recommendations concerning the April 17, 1979
proposal. In almost all cases our previous comments applied to the
property line standard and are thus still applicable.
Please carefully consider these recommendations in your final rule-
making. Should you require any additional information or clarification
of the material transmitted herewith, you may contact Mr. W. McColl
of our Environmental Analysis Bureau at (518) 457-5672.
Sincerely,
W. C. HENNESSY
Commissioner
Enclosure
- 15 -
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'
COMMENTS ON U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT; INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS
FEDERAL REGISTER APRIL 17, 1979
June 28, 1979
As a general comment, we do not agree that a single Federal solution is
not possible to solve the many local and site-specfic rail noise problems
that exist nor do "we believe that the standards have been developed in terms
of typical and average situations. In the first instance, we realize the great
range of existing noise levels in communities near railroad facilities. In
New York State levels may very from an Leq of 30 dBA in rural upstate areas to
80 dBA in New York City. We therefore appreciate the difficulty in attempting
to set a single absolute standard level and effectively protect different areas
with their great environmental diversity. Thus, we feel the standards have been
developed in terns of at least common denominator epproach rather than for
typical or average situations.
It is our recommendation that a r.el_atj_ve_ standard could have been developed
that would satisfy the need for national uniformity of treatment. Rather than
a mere single level for all receptors, a single level lncre_as_e limit could be
provided, e.g. existing level plus 5, 10, or 15 dB. In tfiTs manner existing
quiet areas can be protected while recognizing the additional problems associated
with extremely noisy areas. A relative standard need not be any more difficult
to measure or enforce as well in that the existing levels can be satisfactorily
calculated using the population density relationship mentioned in Section 201.33
(d)(l)(i). In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, we see no reason
why this approach would not prove to be more satisfactory to all parties con-
cerned (federal, state, local, railroads, etc.).
A second general comment involves the lack of recognition or requirement
concerning local responsibilities for land use and zoning control. Some
consideration should be given to adjoining land that becomes developed after
the implementation dates of this directive. The railroads should not be
responsible for noise impact to receivers who come into existence at some
future point in time. Local government has the clear right and responsibility
to provide the necessary preventive protection in these cases.
Although we fully understand the mathematics involved in converting from the
day-night sound level to its equivalent hourly or cumulative hourly levels,
we feel that some very excessive impacts could result that would not be
considered violations of the proposed receiving property standards. Hourly
Leq levels of 84 dBA are very high for any level of population density develop-
ment. As a practical matter, the enforcement procedure for this or any other
similar regulation will involve as many short-term screening measurements
as possible at as many sites as possible rather than a few 24 hour measurements.
Thus, the one hour Leq will be the prime metric in the implementation of the
standard and not the Ldn. It is our opinion that the levels should have been
developed based on a single worst hour condition with appropriate levels stipulated
- 16 -
-------
This being the case, the day-long condition would take care of itself.
Perhaps a night time level could also be stipulated (10 dB lower) to
deal with the occurrence of specific night time operations.
Specific Comments;
Section 201.1 (n) - No indication is given for the purpose of the "Adjusted
Measured Sound Level" or the reason one decibel is subtracted from the
measurement. Perhaps it is a tolerance.
Section 201.1 (kk) - The definition of "Receiving Property" should consider
our second general comment mentioned above.
Section 201.1 (qq) - We see no reason to specify Type 1 measurement equipment
nor tlis FAST dyrianiic response for all cases. Type 2 instrumentation is
sufficient in all situations while the SLOW response is best for all
conditions save for the car coupling and retarder tests.
Section 2011.25 (b) - We do not understand the reason for this provision.
When the line-of-sight is broken and diffraction occurs, a similar
result is usually obtained when the break is either a certain distance
from the source or that same distance from the receiver.
Section 201.26 (a) - Some measurement provision arid, perhaps, a standard
decibel level should be given for large groups of refrigerator cars parked
in one area. Although the control of the specific car correctly rests with
the owner, the yard operator has other abatement measures at his disposal
(such as barriers) to control the operation and cumulative effects from this source.
Section 201.2G (b) - The waiver of this standard and procedure where it is
demonstrated that the cars are not travelling at a speed greater than 4 mph renders
the entire section useless. The requirement to obtain ten measured maximum
impact levels together with their ten measured speed levels is virtually
impossible.
Section 201.31 (a) - The measurement instrumentation criteria given is much
to restrictive and" excessively precise. Precision instrumentation satisfying
these requirements is frequently expensive, hard to operate, and hard to
maintain.
Section 201.33 (d)(V)(111) - The highway traffic component of the noise level
should not be estimated by using the procedures contained 1n FHWA-RD-77-18.
Instead, Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108 must be used. This is not a typographical
error! Report 77-18 is the TSC method which is now outdated. Report 77-108
1s the FHWA method which will be mandatory in federal highway work after
January 1, 1980.
- 17 -
-------
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4IB I1TH STRCCT. N. W.
HOOM SO*
WACHINHTON. O. C. 1OOO4
OIMCCTOR OP TRAK«^OdTATION
MARlOt980
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revised and
expanded railroad noise regulations.
The only applicable railroad noise source affected by the regulations
in the District of Columbia is the locomotive load cell test stand.
Our test stand is located in the center of our railyard and sound is
buffered from impacting residents and private property. There is no
recorded violation of standards in adjacent areas to the railyard.
Therefore, we believe that the proposed regulations do not have
significant impact upon District of Columbia rail operations.
Mr. William B. Johnson's letter to you (February 28, 1980, copy
attached) explains in additional detail the noise standards which
have been set for rail transit cards operated by the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
t !
ai
»*»
- 18 -
-------
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007
BRUacJUB,™BITT March 17, 1980
WILLIAM A. ORDWAY
Director
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Attn: Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the final EPA railroad
specific source noise standards and the additional information
contained in your letter of late January. We've now concluded
this review.
We confess to being disappointed that standards are not more
stringent, although we understand there are railroad cost con-
siderations. But the bottom line, we feel, is that the EPA
noise standards will do little to alleviate rail yard noise
problems . . . and we support measures that can bring a meaningful
reduction in noise impacts.
Our concern about the limited effectiveness of the proposed
regulations is intensified by the legislative pre-emption in
Section 17 of the Noise Control Act, which prohibits state and
local governments from adopting or enforcing standards for
equipment or facilities covered in Federal regulations unless
they are identical to the Federal standards.
Though state and local governments may regulate railroad sources
not covered by EPA regulations, the number of such sources
eventually will be quite limited. We, therefore, believe that
Section 17 should be amended to permit state and local govern-
ments to address local railroad noise problems in a manner
consistent with, rather than identical to, Federal regulations.
A further problem is that since EPA standards must be uniform
throughout the nation, they are based on "average" yard condi-
tions. Thus, they may not be appropriate for specific cities
in Arizona.
The FRA is charged under the Act with issuing rules to assure
compliance with the EPA standards. However, FRA has indicated
(con't)
.* -19-
o
ce
HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICS • MOTOR VEHICLE v !• PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVB SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
-------
Rail Carrier Docket -2- March 17, 1980
that it has limited enforcement manpower. Consequently, full
compliance with the railroad noise regulations in specific state
and local jurisdictions may depend on these governments adopt-
ing and actively enforcing standards identical to the EPA
standards.
Again, thanks for this chance to give our comments.
Cordially,
^^f. <$w£~-—-s
W. A. ORDWAY /
Director /
WAOrhbb
cc: C.W. Rider
- 20 -
-------
Q'J\A Incorporated
300 United Bank Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
March 10, 1980
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20^60
Gentlemen:
In my study of the "Noise Emission Standards for
Transportation Equipments Interstate Rail Carriers" pub-
lished January 4, 1980 in the Federal Register, I find
the regulation does not suggest nor does it make any
mention of the possibility of eliminating or controlling
retarder screech at the source. This indicates there is
no sufficiently advanced state of the art available to
meet your published receiving neighborhood requirement.
I.call to your attention the fact that we have been
extremely successful with our LOW-NOISE shoe which we have
been marketing for the past four years.
It is our opinion that the best and surest solution
for any problem such as this is to eliminate the cause
rather than to try to treat the effect. This is what can
be done easily, feasibly, economically and without creating
worker hazards when Q-'IV LOW-NOISE retarder shoes are in-
stalled as direct replacements on equipment presently in
place.
Your regulation proposes only barriers as a logical
solution for the problem. Barriers in freight classifi-
cation yards must be considered worker hazards when they
are located adjacent to retarder activities and their im-
placement will certainly necessitate substantial-invest-
ment for the railroads as well as added maintenance costs
because barriers often will have to be setaside. Once in
place the barriers still will not have lessened the noise
problem for railroad employees who must work in the areas
of the retarders.
I submit that several railroads have been extremely
pleased with the results obtained when our LOW-NOISE shoes
have been installed. Among them, the RF&P, the Southern,
ICG, Burlington and Santa Fe. We also have been working
with other roads and expect to soon have their situations
resolved, too.
- 21
-------
(2)
We're certain you're aware that low noise shoes are
available for retarders because your preliminary document
contained reference to them as a possible solution to the
problem. Thus, I cannot understand why the total omission
in this promulgation.
Your immediate reconsideration and correction will
be most appreciated so that your regulation properly re-
flects that there is another solution available for re-
tarder noise control than the erection of barriers.
We make this request as a Small F isiness Firm trying
to make its way in a field of giants.
Sincerely yours,
dfU $ thffa
<. -
Harold F. Torok,
President
Phone: (615) 892-7291
cc» Mr. Peter Conlan
Association of American Railroads
1920 L Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Mr. Steve Urman
Mail Code RRS-2^
Federal Railroad Administration
UOO 7th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
- 22 -
-------
'
<~
-------
PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Mandan, North Dakota, are hereby
protesting the excessive and unnecessary noise levels created by the
Burlington Northern Railroad during the course of their switching operations
and general movement of trains in the area known as the west end of Mandan.
In many cases the cars roll down the tracK unattended, banging Into one
another with such force that reverberations are felt in the homes in the area
up to a distance of three and four blocks away. Many times the shock sounds
like the shattering of glass, wall hangings rattle and vibrate and cracks are
beginning to appear on interior walls of homes that are twenty to thirty years
old and had no visible cracks until just the past few years. In some instances
the vibrations are felt while a person IB sitting in an easy chair in the
family living room. The excess noise appears to be more prevalent during the
late afternoon, evening and late night hours.
In m*ny instances i.he diesp.l engines are on faat idle which creates a
continuous loud rumble — - this is most annoying as it interferes with normal
conversation within the home, interrupts the audio portion of television, as
well as disturbing while sleeping.
Those of us residing on the south side of the railroad tracks are unable
to open our windows in the summer months due to excessive diesel exhaust fumes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5-
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1.5-
ADDRESS
~J/L^<^L^
i^w/c^^-rV
M-u)
Jt /-
- 24 -
-------
- 25 -
-------
jrisTlTION
We, the undersigned residents of Mandan, North Dakota, are hereby
protesting the excessive and unnecessary noise levels created by the
Burlington Northerft Railroad during the course of their switching operations
and general movement of trains in the area known as the west end of Mandan.
In many cases the cars roll down the track unattended, banging into one
another with such force that reverberations are felt in the homes in the area
up to a distance of three and four blocks away. Many times the shock sounds
like the shattering of glass, wall hangings rattle and vibrate and cracks are
beginning to appear on interior walls of homes that are twenty to thirty years
old and had no visible cracks until just the past few years. In some instances
the vibrations are felt while a person is sitting in an easy chair in the
family living room. The excess noise appears to be more prevalent during the
late afternoon, evening and late night hours.
In many instances the diesel engines are on fast idle which creates a
continuous loud rumble - -• - this is most annoying as it interferes with normal
conversation within the home, interrupts the audio portion of television, as
well as disturbing while sleeping.
Those of us residing on the south side of the railroad tracks are unable
to open our windows in the summer months due to excessive diesel exhaust fumes.
I(0.(X),...l»akvo flWWv
- 26 -
-------
15f
JVC
-dzAue y^z^^ct
y
M
Vi
- 27 -
-------
H5TITION
Ve, the undersigned residents of Mandan, North Dakota, are hereby
protesting the excessive and unnecessary noise levels created by the
Burlington Northern Railroad during the coijtrse of their switching operations
and general movement of trains in the area known as the west end of Mandan.
In many cases the cars roll down the track unattended, banging into one
another with such force that reverberations are felt in the homes in the area
up to a distance of three and four blocks away. Many times the shock sounds
like the shattering of glass, wall hangings rattle and vibrate and cracks are
beginning to appear on interior walls of homes that are twenty to thirty years
old and had no visible cracks until just the past few years. In some instances
the vibrations are felt while a person is sitting in an easy chair in the
family living room. The excess noise appears to be more prevalent during the
late afternoon, evening and late night hours.
In many Instancfcs the diesel engines are on fast idle which creates a
continuous loud rumble — - this is most annoying as it interferes with normal
conversation within the home, interrupts the audio portion of television, as
well as disturbing while sleeping.
Those of us residing on the south side of the railroad tracks are unable
to open our windows in the summer months due to excessive diesel exhaust fumes.
15.
- 28 -
-------
PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Mandan, North Dakota, are hereby
protesting the excessive and unnecessary noise levels created by the
Burlington Northern Railroad during the course of their switching operations
and general movement of trains in the area known as the west end of Mandan.
In many cases the cars roll down the track unattended, banging into one
another with such force that reverberations are felt in the homes in the area
up to a distance 01 tnree ana zour oxociui away. Many uxmet> one shook oouiiua
like the shattering of glass, wall hangings rattle and vibrate and cracks are
beginning to appear on interior walls of homes that are twenty to thirty years
old and had no visible cracks until just the past few years. In some instances
the vibrations are felt while a person is r.l tting In an oacy chair in the
family living room. Tho excot.a noise UI>IHJUT~ to bo more- prov;ilorit during the
late afternoon, evening and late night hours.
In many instances the diesel engines are on fast idle which creates a
continuous loud rumble — - this is most annoying as it interferes with normal
conversation within the home, interrupts the audio portion of television, as
well as disturbing while sleeping.
Those of us residing on the south side of the railroad tracks are unable
to open our windows in the summer months due to excessive diesel exhaust fumes.
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
/
ADDRESS
/o/-/>^r# ^
;..-. .-A ,-
- 29 -
-------
STATE OF CAUfCMNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY JDMUND O. BROWN JR., Cownar
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
^FICE OF DIRECTOR
> N STREET
•.RAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 445-2171
March 11, 1980
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Gentlemen:
Proposed Railroad Noise Regulations
We have reviewed the proposed Noise Emission Standards for
Interstate Rail Carriers which appeared in the Federal
Register on Friday, January 4, 1980.
Although we have no specific comments to offer, we fully
support your efforts in controlling noise from a signif-
icant noise source.
Sincerely,
,RUPP
bctor
'Planning and Programming
- 30 -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Railroad Locomotive Noise From Horns, Bells and DATE: March 27, 1980
Whistles-Appearance before the Dade County Commission^-
Robert C. Rose, Program Manager, Railroad^jJ}} tT C^ '
Memorandum to the Record
At the request of John A. Cavalier, Jr., Mayor, City of Miami Springs,
Florida, I appeared before the Dade County Commission on March 18, 1980
concerning the Agency's regulatory position pertaining to the abatement
and control of noise associated with railroad locomotive horns, bells,
and whistle blowing; particularly at railroad crossings.
Relative to my testimony (which was restricted to not more than 5 minutes)
because of a tight schedule I made the following points:
1. That the Environmental Protection Agency is aware of a number of
cases in the country where communities and railroads have already
worked together to compromise and resolve the problem. We would be
glad to provide such information if requested by the Commission.
2. In view of the over-riding concern and questions of liability associated
with an accident it is even more important that local communities
and the railroad mutually resolve any question and share in the
consequences.
3. If the Agency (EPA) is involved we will tend to further confuse
the issues even more as the Federal Governement will not put itself
in the position of being sued.
4. The EPA has indicated in several rulemakings both proposed and final
on railroad noise that we do not intend to regulate horns, bells,
and whistles.
5. That to my knowledge, neither OSHA or FRA have issued any regulations
that are over-riding or constrain the issue before the Commission.
6. That the legal brief written by Mr. Ginsberg, General Counsel for the
Dade County Commission contains certain statements and assumptions
that should be further validated or invalidated before the Commission
makes a final determination on their local ordinance.*
7. That I will have our General Counsel review their legal brief and
provide further discussion and guidance to this Office and the Dade
County Commission.
On Thursday March 20, 1980 I met with Sam Gutter EPA OGC to discuss in
detail the matter. He stated that he would look into the entire issue
and the Dade County General Counsel's legal brief specifically and get
back with me no later than Thursday March 27, 1980.
IPA fern 13204 (fc». 4-72)
Attachment
cc: H. Thomas, R. Westlund, J. Bowman*
- 31 -
M£
nis>
(2)
-------
-/
•«
<•/;,
-''. )' ?;},!», !•! '. A;:,'/
r / i f'\i. , ->\-s :• •*.. *.->/
JOHNA.CAV-MlfR. JR..r.%r
-------
v—\
JOMNA.CAVAUCR.JR.M4v*'
GlvH»H 885 4f,8t
U?
15 February 1980
The Honorable Tony Pontana
Florida House of Representatives
1003 East First Avenue
Hialeah, Florida 33010
Dear Representative Fontana:
The enclosed is an exanple of the "Catch-22" situation we are
fighting. Please help.
Sincerely,
U
John1 A. Cavalier, Jr.
Mayor
JAC:pac
Did.
cc: Honorable Ron Silver
P.O. Box 601035
N. Miami Beach, FL 33160
- 33 -
-------
MEMORANDUM
101.01.14
Honorable Stephen P. Clark o.»e February 8, 1980 <£
Kayor, Dade County <*
.„..,„, Request for draft ordinance
prohibiting audible railroad
warnings at certain crossings
equipped with crossing gates
*••" Robert A. Ginsburg and signal li«jhts.
Dade County Attorney
In response to your request dated November 29, 1979, for a
draft ordinance concerning railroad crossing noise pollution in
Miami Springs, etc., this office has engaged in extensive legal
research and investigation in cooperation with Mayor John Cavalier, Jr. ,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. We have reached the
conclusion that an ordinance prohibiting audible railroad warnings at
certain crossings equipped with crossing gates and signal lights 'is
legally prohibited by both federal and state law.
Both Congress and the District Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia have mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency
forthwith issue regulations pursuant to the Noise Control Act of
1972 for all railroad equipment and facilities including horns, bells,
whistles, and other audible railroad warning devices. Ai-.rfouiatin of
*
American Railroads v. Castle, 562 F.2d 1310* (D.C. App. 1977). Despite
said court order, the Environmental Protection Agency, as l^ite as
January 4, 19SC, has failed to follow the Congressional --..ir.o.iJ-e.
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 3, January 4, 1980, page 1_o5. Federal
law allows review of these latest regulations in the Court: of Appeals
within 90 cays of their promulgation! It is clear that tho enfc.-ce-
ment of any county ordinance on this subject would be i ": visible
because such regulations are vested in the Environmental Protection
•Agency. Ccr.raii v. City of Dovor, 450 Fod.Supp. 971 (L'.S.n.C.
Del aware 1 y .' b } ; Kappe Irian v. Dolta A ir Lir.es , Inc . , 539 J-' . 2d 165
(D.C. Cir. 1976), cert, dt-r.io^ 42iTI;.S. 1UO~1 OY77).
•
Even if nc problem existed on the federal lovcl, s-.vh an
ordir.AT.cQ would conflict with state law. House Bill 915 in the
1979 Florida Legislative Session contained provisions ui -liar
to the nrcv-isicr.s of the proposed orUir.jr.ee. Tho Tran.; -vtation
Corr.i it. toe's cement on Houf.c'sill 919 statow: "No prov • i*.»r. i:;
made for •..-arr.ir.c an er.^inocr if cror.sir.c ij.it es or wu'niru; r.i.:r..ilr
arc temporarily ir.c: •.:-.»'. ive. " It is this p.irt ioul.ir i/;\ ^i.v.: that
naXos r.uch a law su-sccpt ible to successful uttuck. It is this
prociso tooi-.r.ical probU :n th.Jt rhoulii Lo u-.Uhor-.eii by '-.'.-•.) •': v i •. ••.r.r.-.eiit
Protectior. Aoency in cooperation with the CcpJrir..enc o: L.iior tuSHA)
and the Federal Railroad Administration.
- 34 -
-------
Honorable Stephen P. Clark
February 8, 1980
Page No. 2
Additionally, such an ordinance would violate Florida
Statutes, Section 316.1575 which requires a nibtorist to stop
before a crossing when a railroad train "approaching within
approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a
signal audible from such distance, and the railroad train, by
reason of speed or nearness to the crossing, is an iirjncUiate
hazard." Likewise, Florida Statutes, Section 351.031 which
requires "every railroad company shall exercise reasonable
care for the safety of motorists wherever its track crosses a
highway," would be violated by such an ordinance. Under
circumstances such as sudden temporary automatic crossing gate
and signal failure, "reasonable care" would certainly include
an audible warning signal such as a whistle or horn. See
Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. v. Buchir.an, 358 So.2d 836 (2nd
DCA 1S/a); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Wallace, 61 Fla. 93,
54 So. 893 (Fla. 1911); Florida East Coast Railway v. Soper,
146 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Therefore, we must conclude that the County lacks the
authority to legislate in this field.
ROB-CRT A. G1NSBUJ..
Dade County Attorney
Prepared by
Peter S. Teil
Assistant County Attorney
RAG:TS?:rt
cc Va'yor TToW^Av^lifrT^Trr .*
Corjr.isr,ioru?r Barry SohreiLer
Colin r:c
- 35 -
-------
UNITCDSTA1FS
ENVIRONMENTAL PHOT POTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2C1GO
1-,28-SO
sUO
I* faUtf^ do <*4*< Co**
CtZu C[JD<
v u 0
i
i*»* '*«
y
36 -
-------
r
\j UNITED GTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC1 ION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
ornci or
Mr. Peter Tell
Assistant County Attorney
Law Department
Office of County Attorney, Courthouse-
Miarai, Florida 33130
Dear Mr. Tell:
With reference to your letter of December 5, 1979, I
appreciate your interest and concern about railroad noise
and hope that we can be of some assistance to you.
The Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seg.,
states "while primary responsibility for control of noise
rests with State and local governments. Federal action is
essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce
control of which require national uniformity of treatment."
Moreover, State and local responsibility for noise control
was reemphasized in the fiuiet Communities Act of 1978, 42
U.S.C. 4913.
As you know railroad noise is a common and pervasive
noise problem which is currently regulated at the Federal
and local level. At the Federal level EPA has promulgated
Kail road N'oise Emissions Standards, 40 CFK 201, and DOT has
published proposed compliance regulations, Fed. Reg.
January 34, 1976. A year later, as a result of ARR v.
Cpstlo. 562 F.2d 1310, 1321 (1977), EPA was recuTrc-iTto
regulate more fully "the equipment and facilities of inter-
state rail carriers . . ." The regulation required by that
decision was published in the Federal Pc-ginter on January 4,
1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 1252 et seq.TI This regulation aJarccrcc
noise from: active rctarders, locomotive load cell test
stands, car coupling, and switcher locomotives.
Many types of local controls on railroad noise also
exist. For example, Pcndlelon, Oregon has a municipal
ordinance forbidding engineers to blow their whistles during
nighttime.
37 -
-------
Minhavaka, Indiana, adopted the following:
Horn/whistle restriction; It shnll be
unlawiul ... to :;ou:id the whistle or ring
the bell on such locomotive engine at uny
highway crossing or at any approach thereof
vhere such crossing is protected by a watchrr.an
or automatic device, except in cases whore it
is apparent that vehicle or predestrian is in
a place of danger .... 10-4-48
In 1974 Mishawaka added:
Horn/whistle prohibition; No person ...
shall sound the whistle or horn [locomotive]
upon approaching or crossing the Grand
Trunk Western Railroad Company crossing
at Logan Street . . .
Highland Park, California has a similar" regulation:
Horn/whistle restriction; No sounding
of horns except in cases of safety or emergency.
In response to the Highland Park restriction, the
Assistant General Manager for Santa Fe Railway ".-ztern
operations stated:
We want to comply with the city ordinance
and we tell the engineers that they must
comply.
Eagle Rock Sentinel
(Los Angeles, CA) May 13, 1078
EPA encourages alternate solutions to the routine rise
of acoustic warning devices at rail and hiohway err ->3S.
For example, the elir.ination of public grade level r--Trend.
crossings would do away with the source of thc> rrob'! - — the
interaction of rail tracks and public thorouyhflron.
Warning gates, too, as suggested, would ar:>-»ar to be- .;n
effective safety alternative to acoustic warning su -'.In.
41 Fed. Reg. 2185 (1976)
The preamble to the first EPA noise regulations also
stated:
- 38 -
-------
The L?A does recognize that a noise probT^ exists
as to the use and extent of r.»ilrcad warni-ig :l-_-^;ccs
and that regulatory action tr.ay be appropriate for
controlling naine-. However, the Agency believes that
such regulation can b«st be considered and imple-
mented by State and local authorities who are better
able to evaluate the particular local circumstances
with respect to the nature and extent of the noise
problem and the requisite safety considerations
involved. Ibid.
ions
One person who commented on the proposed railroad regulati
suggested th.it roadway drop gates equipped with flasher
units provide visual warning that is adequate without
acoustics signals. 41 Fed. Reg. 2185(1976).
There are two general restrictions on local control of
railroad noise: the commerce clause and Federal pre-emption.
The commerce clause, as you know, restricts undue burdens on
interstate commerce. The preemption argument raised in
COMSAT L v. City of Dover, 450 Fed. Supp. 966 (1978) (in
which CO::RA1L prevailed against local legislative attempts
to regulate railroad noise in a marshalling' yard) , was that
federal noise regulations were intended to be applicable to
all phases of railroad operations. The CON RAIL decision
frora the Third Circuit notwithstanding, the Noise1 Control
Act wakes it clear that State and local governments have the
power to regulate some local conditions which require
Special local treatment. In discussing special local
.conditions and possible local variances, AAR ;_v. Costle, at
1313, states that §17(c)(l) of the Koise Control Act " . .
performs a valuable function in its recognition that local
conditions may dictate seme degree of flexibility in the
approach to noise control ..."
Unfortunately NED does not have the resources to write
an ordinance for Metropolitan Pnde County. It is ray hope
that the information we have b-->en able to provide will be
of sen? assistance to you. In addition, I have aod«?d
Cfimonts to the margins of the proposed orilini-nce which you
provided. I will be happy to review any uroptv.ed ordir.ur.ce
which r.ay be prepared by Metropolitan D-sde County.
^ According to r.y files, the City of Miami Springs,
Florida, was conducting :vriodic "Round table discui-.r.ions"
with representatives of the Florida East Coast Railway and
Other officials in an effort to resolve noise problems frora
- 39 -
-------
existing and new railroad yards and other rallrcvid f-cllltlos
(1978). I would be interested in hearing if (....;> »li:;ouu!slon8
were at all successful.
I also thought you night be interested in the enclosed
correspondence on a related issue.
Sincerely yours,
. D . ICcsJL^^
.Helen B. Keplinger
Law Clerk
Regional, State and Local Programs
Noise Enforcement Division
Enclosure
ccs Mr. Jair.es Orban
Kr. Robert Bruce
- 40 -
-------
Audible warnings by trains are prohibited at
railroad c^ade crossings. V.'hencver
any train approaches a railroad grade crossing
which Is equipped w*th c_rogr.1r..'r_ntes and sls-
nal lights,Cftb audible v;?.rnir..- sr.?.ll be requirec! v
of the train, efccept in case of err-er^ncy. How- \
ever, if two o:/ nore railroad grade crossings
are located wi/hin a distance of 1,500 feet or
less of each .other and one or more of the cross-
ings is not equipped with crossing gates and
signal lights', the audible warning shall be made
at all such ^crossings. Violation of the provi-
sions of th/s section shall be a misdemeanor of
the second/iegree, punishable by fine.
Sec, 2: When'a tr/in approaches any railroad grade cross-
ing whlcli is equipped with crossing rates and
signal yights, {hriy auainle warn 1_r;~ is nor required
except /n casey6f energency.
Sec. 3i All r.aborisy-o approaching a railroad crossing'
shaly exencise reasonable care for their own
safety ywi that of their passengers and for the
v/of railroad train crews operating trains
« such crossings.
if atiat! bt un!a*»fuf
- 41 -
-------
UNITED STAFFS ENVIRONMENTAL PUO TKC flON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 23:60
Orf ICt G*
Mr. Robert J. Bruce
3900 County Lino Road, Apt. 9-D
Teguestra, Florida 33458
Dear Mr. Bruce:
We have received a copy of your letter of January 10,
1980, to Mr. Charles Elkins. Ke appreciate your interest
and concern about railroad noise and hope that we cnn be of
some assistance to you.
As you know railroad noise is a common and pervasive
noise problem which is currently regulated at the Federal
and local level. There are certain Federal regulations
which must be uniform throughout the United States sa.-that
railroads which are engaged in interstate commerce will .hot
be subject to new laws at each state border. At the Siirae
time, however, state and local laws may also regulate
railroads so long as these state and local laws do not
conflict with the Federal laws. States and localities may
also request and be granted special exemptions to enact
their own laws where special local conditions exist.
I have enclosed a copy of a letter I have recently r>ont
to the Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Assistant County
Attorney, Mr. Peter S. Tell. Metropolitan Drsde County
authorities are well aware of the hardship being experienced
by citizens like yourselves who live near railroad/hvjhway
crossings. Metropolitan Cnde County is trying to determine
if it is feasible to re-write local law or to write new law
to control railroad noise. If Metropolitan Dade County
cither abends existing law, or writes new lo.w, you r.ay
experience relief from the noise pollution in your «rc-a in
the future.
You asked if it is Florida law that engineers ir.-irtt
whistle a given nur.ber of tir.es at a crossing. For such
specific information I suggest you contact Mr. Toll's
- 42 -
-------
office. However, the letter which you onclc-od from
Mr. V.'yckoff, Senior Vice ProsicK-nt of the FlonMa E,u;t
Coast Railway Company, states that, "Florida law :>rov?'!es
that a car jr.ust stop when an audible sou rid is sounded 1500'
in advance of a crossing ..." Ke then states that "railroads
have imposed the whistle operating rule to insure thnt .ill
necessary precautions are. taken to protect the public and to -
prevent the railroad from being liable in case of an accident.
Therefore, it appears that the whistle operation is rcerely a
railroad procedure, but not required by Florida law.
I recommend that you contact the Metropolitan Dade
County, County Attorney's Office to register your specific
complaints about railroad noise. You night also contact the
Florida East Coast Railway Company again and inquire if the
"round-table discussions" on railroad noise for public
Officials and railroad representatives, which were held as
recently as 1978, night be revived to discuss this problem.
You night also contact your local mayor "to suggest that
certain crossings have local curfews imposed during nighttime,
vhere there are other safety devices at* the crossing such as
crossing gates and lights.
I hope there will soon be some local solution to your
problem. Please contact us again if we can provide other
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Helen Kepringef
Law Clerk
Noise Enforcement Division
Enclsoure
cc: Mr. Peter Tell
Mr. Charles Klkins
Mr. Juries Orban
- 43 -
-------
January l'p, 19 ;.Q
?•>. Chirlcs L.. Slkir.
Lopii'cj A:;:u.;tanc Adr.
for I.'oi32 Alit~-.^t?r!
Er.virc.— .••;-.- tal TL*ct.?c4
£ Control
ashir.to::f E.G. 2^:-
Zr.clc-tJd nre ccpiar. v/2 have r.3Cs?ivec cf le'tera fro^ Fr. K. ;J.
l^yc-coff of tr.e Florida l-ast Ccaat hallway Co.-parv. :Vc realise
the .-rail re ad v.^.- here first but also foci: the r»oi=:a v/rip.v is
hcrrsndcus could be tonad do\vr..
islhcn the t:*ains pass, it is i-poscibla ro hear television, ~als
on ths phcno or cArry on a ccnvarcation even with -r.e ivir.ccwa"""
^3 v^:l^ apwciat'j i- if you coul-i jchsc!-: t.he x-cliroJii Vrv;
ar.d Cw*~:e up with r"-co:rjr^r.dUT:.or:3 tr.^z ;.;;r.z .:-'<£ everyc.—.- .livi:
in tMr, r.rc'a hapriar ar.n CUT dc;n o;i the r.oice nolluilo.:.
-fleets
-------
..•oce:.:!>or S, 1979
Icnicr Vice Provident
Florida ."-.ass . c:v.3t ailv.-ay Co;r.pany
1 rala-a Jtreet
3t. August* no, Florida 320&
Tear Sir,
Please refer to our letter of August 13. 1979 (fiU-i7?.12)..
As of this v/ock the whistle signals are deplorable here at
the cro3C'n£ in Toques ta, Florida at County Line Road.
From the hourr. of llpm to 5: 30am, we are now havir.;; z.y
where fro:: four to oif.hu trains. They are now blov;Jr.u:
their whis*lo not only at the 1500 ft froir. the cror,fri::£
but frer. b to 7 tl^.o-3 s-«ariin,a around 1500 ft., and ccv.tinuine
Ell the v.tiy thru r.ho croasin^s. Yhes^e arc r.o; toots but
lonr lon;7 blar.ta that raise you right out of i-od.
'£* certainly unrioraland the neceusity for lh-3 whistles
an<5 at 1500 foot can live with it but we do not see \ny
reason for Ui.ht Iraina ,h.it could por.jioly ctop in^'-iio oT 4
rile rc.-.ari'ltv.r;. .tiiilo on the ;suojoct of al\',»ctl."..-.:il
roicc, J nolinvo you ulr.o have a i>ad r.octior. of tr;ic. just
•5ou'.h of ;J>e ''ouir.y 1-ine oaj Cro.::-!ir..: at the :r.vit-:h ': -cause
when every car hita *.hla jiioce cT readied, i\ :-.a'
-------
FLORIDA KAiST COAST HAITAVAY COMPANY
CSl M»l«o* ill" I ' >l * ".' .H\< . IIM-IIA :.1)4«
December 12, 1979
File: 79.12
Mr. Robert J. Bruce, Apt. 9-D
3900 County Line /toad
Tcquesta , Florida 33458
Dear Mr. Bruce:
J have your letter of December 8 , 1979, concerning the sounding of
tfhistlc signals at *he County Lino Ec.id crossing in reguesta, Florida.
As I explained to you in my letter of August 17 , 1979, it is a
jnent that Locorotive Engineers of the Florida East Coast Puilw.iy nound
whistle sicnals at all crossings, regardless whether public or private
and regardless of whether protected by autoratic crossing protection or
not. This is obviously, a safety rt-tjuiru.T^nt and the type of whistle
signals which jnust bs sounded are standard a.id consist of two lor.g blasts,
one short blast and a final long blast which must continue until the
engine is blocking the crossing.
Kith respect to noises r.T-anatir.g fro.-a our trac* just south of Co»-ity
Line Koad crossing, this ratter is ie'ini? chucked by our Ko.jdvjy r\->pjrt-
c
-------
PLOIUOA. KAST COAST RAIIAVAY
ONI »'»<«.'.» il"> I I. M "U".>. ,1'S« , • ICMIO* I.'IIU
o*»«ci o»
August 17, 1979
Flic: 79.12
Mr. & Mrs. Robert J. Bruce
• 9-D 3900 County Line Road
Tcquesta, Florida 33'»58
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bruce:
I have your letter of August 13, 1979, concerning the sounding of whistle
signals at railroad crossings.
locomotive engineers are required to sound crossing signals for any crossing,
regardless of whether it Is private or public, or regardless of whether it
is protected by autotr-atic crossing protection or not.
Florida law provides that a car must stop when an audible sound is sounded
1500* in advance of the crossing (Section 316. 05^ Florida Statutes). This
requires that approaching trains make their presc-nce known 1500' in advance
of a crossing and the railroads have imposed the whistle operating rule to
insure that all necessary precautions are taken to protect the public and
to prevent the railroad from being liable in case of an accident.
One vay, of course, to reduce the sounding of whistle signals is to reduce
the nunber of crossings and the Florida Department of Transportation has
regulatory authority over public railroads crossings, including authority
,to issue permits for the opening and closing of such crossings (Section 3^8.21
Florida Statutes). Therefore, you nay wish to investigate the possibility of
having the offending crossing or crossings eliminated. Klir.ination of cross-
ings r.ay be. sought through the local government body having jurisdiction in
the area.
Insofar as concerns the sounding of whistle slyn.-ils, the Railway has its
F'.sp««rvi:;ory personnel constantly policing its cnpintu-rs to insure that there
is no ur.««v.-iv:s.»ry Rounding of whistle nly::nls. Frt-scr ihr«! ;;:. y.isal r, , V^w.-wr,
are required for o.ioh crossing and the tone of the whistle is pre :••". '-o that
the individual «•:'..; in«--:r cannot alter its tone or velocity. T'avrt-t'orc, in or dor
to confers with \.\\\- requirements oi Florida law and povM.- the £r»-.it «-*t di»i«.roo
of safety possible to the traveling public, it will Vt- necor.s.iry for the !l.iil-
vay to continue to have its locomotive engineers sound prose r iV«l i-toi.
signal whistles.
Yours very^r^uly.
. 47 _ R. W. Vyckoff
Senior Vice President
-------
;:t;i:ajn virtually •
'apprise fat
^^^t^^^^*^^^
-------
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION
800 LINCOLN WAY AMES. IOWA 50010 515-296.166)
March 17, 1980
. Rtr. NO. 766.
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards & Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sir:
Mr. Henry E. Thomas' letter of January 24, 1980, explaining the final EPA
railroad specific source noise standards also indicated that comments are
being accepted on the rail yard receiving property line standard currently
under development.
Sections 201.17 and 201.30 through 201.33 of the originally proposed standards
(44 FR 22960, April 17, 1979) have been reviewed by the technical staff of
the Iowa DOT. Although, our experience with rail yard noise matters has not
been extensive, it is felt that the standards represent reasonable limits.
It is further felt that while we are unaware of major problem areas in our
State relative to rail yard noise, our agency would have sufficient capability
to determine compliance with the proposed rule as described in these Sections
1f the need arises.
Iowa's primary concern regarding the proposed noise regulations is their
economic impact on the financially troubled railroads serving this State.
The overall economic Impacts on these marginal or bankrupt railroads should
be thoroughly Investigated before the new regulations are enacted.
It 1s suggested that the use of the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (SNAP 1.0 or STAMINA 1.0) be considered instead of Mod 04 as originally
required for estimating the motor vehicle traffic noise component hourly
equivalent sound level or day-night sound level. This would allow consistency
between EPA and U.S. DOT-FHWA relative to required procedures for estimating
highway traffic noise.
The opportunity to comment on this proposed re/gtt^ation 1s appreciated.
iinvray
Director
Planning & Research Division
CIM:GH:ss *
COMMIMIONCM f I
JUMM.WMUM •AMAIUOUNN 0. ROOM Mm DONALD K. OAMN« VWUIAM C. M-«"~ ~^i-
-------
AS30C1A7ION OF
LAW DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN RAILROADS BUILDING
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2OO36
HOLLIS G. DUfNSING
Gtn»r»t Attomty
April 4, 1980
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division
(ANRO-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Docket No. ONAC 80-01, Noise Emission
Standards for Transportation Equipment;
Inters tate Rail __ _ _
Gentlemen:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned pro-
ceeding are the original and three copies of the Comments of
the Association of American Railroads.
Respectfully submitted,
Hollis G. Duensing
enc.
- 50 -
-------
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control
Proposed Noise Emission Standards ) Rail Carrier Docket
for Transportation Equipment; ) Number ONAC 80-01
Interstate Rail Carriers. ) (ANR-490)
40 CFR Part 201 )
COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
Association of
American Railroads
1920 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
April 4, 1980
- 51 -
-------
-2-
INTRODUCTION
These comments are filed on behalf of the members
of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) in response to
the invitation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
published at 45 Fed. Reg. 1252 (1980), for comment on the
proposed property line noise standards for railyards. AAR
submitted extensive comments on this subject on July 2,
1979> but a supplemental discussion of certain aspects of the
proposed property line noise standards might aid EPA in its
quest for fair and reasonable regulations.*
It must be noted at the outset that the only
proposed property line standards available for public comment
are those proposed by the EPA in the Federal Register of
April 17, 1979. (44 Fed. Reg. 22959 et seq.) The AAR
submitted comprehensive comments which addressed those
proposals, the relative merits of abatement techniques
identified by the EPA, and the potential costs of implementing
those techniques. The EPA acknowledges that it must undertake
"additional study and assessment necessary to address the
complex issues associated with the proposed property line
noise standard...," and the AAR would welcome an opportunity
to participate in such study and assessment. During, the period
« In addition, this opportunity for further discussion enables
the AAR to include comments responsive to certain questions posed
by Mr. Henry Thomas in his letter of August 27, 1979. The
balance of Mr. Thomas' questions were answered in separate
correspondence.
- 52 -
-------
-3-
from September 1977 through the beginning of 1979, the EPA
and the railroads exchanged test data and generally cooperated
in an effort to build a data base upon which reasonable action
could be taken. The EPA was given open access to rail yards
and facilities. The railroads would now like to have the
opportunity to reestablish a cooperative effort in the further
development of the property line standards.
Subsequent to the time the comments were filed with
the EPA on July 2, 1979, interested parties have been given
no alternatives on which to comment. While we know that the
EPA was influenced by the comments filed in July 1979 to seek
additional time from the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit for the promulgation of a
property line standard, little indication has been given of
EPA's reaction to those comments. It is thus extremely
difficult to ascertain whether there has been any change in
EPA's views on property line standards from its expression
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking nearly one year ago.
Thus the AAR must Incorporate by reference its previous
comments in their entirety in this statement.
In the commentary preceding the point source
regulations published in the Federal Register of January 4,
1980, the EPA discussed several subjects which may be relevant
to its further consideration of the property line standards.
In addition, there are specific provisions in the published
- 53 -
-------
-4-
regulatlons themselves which lack a supportable basis in the
record of this proceeding, particularly as they may apply to
reasonable property line standards. While the previous
comments filed by the AAR addressed these points • in detail,
prudence dictates that we now comment again on these matters.
The Lrin Descriptor
In the "Background Document for Final Interstate
•Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation: Source Standards"
(EPA 550/9-79/210), the EPA noted that it "...believes that
it should spend more time analyzing available data concerning
the Ldn descriptor rather than issue a standard quickly."
Since the Agency provides no indication of its reaction to
the comments filed by the AAR on this subject, we are compelled
to urge that the EPA reexamine the AAR's comments which
conclusively demonstrate that the proposed receiving property
standards are unreasonably low, that the EPA record contains
no identifiable abatement techniques which are feasible or
cost effective, and that the EPA cannot Justify the use of
the L(jn descriptor in the railroad property line standards.
(AAR July 2, 1979, Comments, pp. 104-126)
The EPA should reject the proposed use of the L^n
descriptor for three reasons. First, the Agency has no
technological or economic studies which demonstrate how
society as a whole or the railroads in particular can meet the
EPA's expressed intention of obtaining an L^n of 75dB now and
an Lfln of 65dB in the near future in all communities.
- 54 -
-------
—5—
Second, in "experimenting" with the use of the Ldn descriptor
as a standard rather than just as an analytical tool, the
Agency would impose its experiment on the one industry for
which it would be eminently unreasonable to penalize nighttime
noise. Third, by proposing the application of this standard
to commercial property where generally there are no people
attempting to sleep, the L
-------
-6-
record contains no analysis of the benefits which could be
achieved by reducing railroad noise in the vicinity of any
commercial establishments,* and there is absolutely no rational
basis for including the specific commercial properties listed
above in the protected group. It is not Justifiable with
respect to point source standards, and it is even less
justifiable with respect to property line standards. The
•AAR urges the EPA to revise substantially the definition of
"receiving property" by eliminating such categories as ware-
houses, storage facilities, stockyards, automobile repair
and washing facilities, and bowling alleys from the definition
of "commercial property."
BARRIERS
In promulgating the final point source standards,
•
the EPA stated it was not prescribing specific noise abatement
techniques but instead was prescribing performance standards,
giving the railroads the discretion to implement whatever
techniques they feel are necessary to meet the standards.
While there is merit in the flexibility afforded by this
approach, the EPA cannot promulgate standards unless it first
demonstrates that cost-effective technology for the abatement
* As a practical matter, "commercial" properties consist of
access roads, parking lots, and buildings. The access roads
and parking lots deserve no more "protection" than city
streets which the EPA does not propose to include in the
protected group. The activities conducted on the commercial
properties are normally indoors and thus are effectively
insulated from noise in the surrounding area.
- 56 .
-------
-7-
of noise exists. Since it seems likely that the EPA will
extend this performance approach to the property line standard,
it is essential that the EPA make a more detailed analysis
of the cost and effectiveness of the various abatement
techniques it has identified.
The use of barriers has been suggested as one of
the primary means of controlling noise radiated into the
.community from various railroad sources. It has further been
suggested that when the construction of such barriers near
the source is not feasible, a situation the EPA acknowledges
occurs often, the barriers be constructed at the railroad
property line. It is well known that barriers are most
effective when located close to the source or close to the
receiver. When located at points midway between the source
and receiver, as would be the case at the boundary of many
railroad yards, the barriers are less effective and thus
must be proportionately higher and longer than would be
required at locations closer to the source or the receiver.
When developing the property line noise standards, considera-
tion must be given to the technological feasibility and the
cost of constructing unusually high and long barriers at the
boundaries of railroad yards. Additional consideiatlon should
be given to undesirable side effects from barriers, such as
the intensification of noise on the other side of the barriers
or aesthetic problems. If the EPA does rely on barriers as a
primary noise abatement technique, it must make a far more
- 57 -
-------
-8-
detailed analysis of the cost and effectiveness of barriers than
any previously published.
Noise Impact Model
The EPA has apparently concluded that even with the
point source.standards and the proposed property line standards
in effect "...there would be an appreciable number of people
in the nation who would still suffer significant adverse
effects of railroad noise..." (December 1979 Background
Document, pp. 1-2). The EPA reaches this conclusion on the
basis of the Agency's health and welfare analysis of its
noise Impact model. In relying on its noise impact model,
the EPA has created an artificial problem. Because of the
inaccuracies and deficiencies of the model, it cannot serve
as the basis for accurately estimating the number of people
currently adversely affected by railroad noise and cannot
serve as the basis for EPA's conclusion that even with all
of its proposals in effect an appreciable number of people in
the nation would still suffer significant adverse effects
from railroad noise. The EPA railyard noise impact model
undoubtedly overestimates the true impact of railroad noise
by leaving out other noise sources which may be major
contributors to the noise level in a community. The analysis
la Appendix A of Exhibit A, submitted by the AAR in July
1979, shows that noise from non-railroad sources such as
motor vehicles and aircraft is often comparable to the noise
eminatlng from rallyards. As the distance from a railyard
- 58 -
-------
-9-
property line increases, the amount of measurable noise from
the yard decreases so that noise from sources which are not
as localized as railyards should become more pronounced in
relation to railroad noise. This is an important consideration
since railyards are often located near commercial or industrial
areas, airports, and highways.
An examination of available data leads to the
•conclusion that railroad noise does not Jeopardize public
welfare and not even the EPA suggests that railroad noise
impairs public health. Table 4-8 from EPA's February 1978
Background Document, shows typical property line day and
night Leq values in the mid 60fs to low 70's. Such noise
levels are similar to those found near urban row housing on a
major avenue and high density urban apartment areas.
Furthermore, the number of people exposed to railroad noise
is small in comparison to the number exposed to noise sources
such as trucks, airplanes, and lawnmowers. In fact, EPA's
noise impact model probably overestimated the impact of
noise on a community by making a questionable assumption
concerning population distribution around a railyard.
EPA's model assumed that people in the areas around railyards
were uniformly distributed. Although no detailed data on
population density around railyards exists, it seems reason-
able to assume that population density increases with distance
from a railyard since most yards are adjacent to Industrial
and commercial facilities, and some distance away from
- 59 -
-------
-10-
res idential areas. If population density does increase with
distance from a rallyard, EPA's noise impact model must have
overestimated the impact of railyard noise since the sound
level from a noise source decreases with the distance from
that source.
In the commentary preceding the final point source
standards, the EPA attempted to defend its noise Impact model.
•The points it raises in defense are mere conjecture at best.
For each of the elements which the AAR criticized in its July
1979 comments, the uncertainty could be as high-as 10 to 15
percent. The cumulative effect of all such elements is likely
to be substantially greater.
Measurement Methodology
In the past the AAR has pointed out that noise
measurements taken two meters from the surface of a residential
building would artificially increase source levels by as much
as 3dB as compared to the free-field measurement. This effect
is caused by surface reflections. At two meters from a
surface, reflections would contribute up to one-half of the
total acoustic energy, thereby increasing noise level
measurements for distant noise sources by as much as 3dB,
Although the AAR clearly discussed this effect on page 136
of its July 1979 Comments and page 40 of Exhibit A to those
Comments, EPA chose to disregard reflection problems when
promulgating noise source standards. In fact, without
opportunity for comment and without assessment of the impact
- 60 -
-------
-li-
on the railroads, the EPA expanded their measurement method-
ology to include measurements next to commercial buildings
as well as residential buildings. This effectively eliminates
any requirement for free-field measurements. Thus it is
unclear whether the maximum noise levels permitted are those
set in the regulations or as much as 3dB less than the published
levels. If EPA's intention is that the noise levels stated
•in the final source standards and proposed property line
regulations should govern, it must clearly provide for a 3dB
allowance when the measurement is made two meters from a
building or other reflecting surface. However, if EPA decides
that maximum noise levels should be 3dB less than those
stated in the final source standards and proposed property
line regulations, new cost of compliance estimates and new
studies of technological feasibility must be made.
Nondegradat ion
Certain commentors on the April 17, 1979, proposed
rulemaking have urged the EPA to include a nondegradation
clause in its property line standard to prevent the railroads
from increasing noise at yard facilities which are relatively
quiet even though such an increase would not result in a
violation of the Federal standards. In response to those
comments, the EPA on page 7-15 of the December 1979 Background
Document has expressed an intention to consider the issue of
nondegradation in developing its property line standard.
While the Industry appreciates these concerns
- 61 -
-------
-12-
regarding nondegradation, the EPA has no authority to Impose
such a requirement. A clear reading of the statute, supported
by the legislative history, reveals no Congressional intent
to inhibit railroad growth (or curtail railroad'operations
for that matter) as a noise abatement technique. On the
contrary, Congress' primary purpose in enacting Section 17
was to insulate the railroad industry from state and local
•noise regulation which could unduly burden the industry and
stifle its growth and operations. Thus a nondegradation
clause would contravene Congressional intent.
In actual practice the railroads often plan railroad
development away from noise sensitive areas, e.g., the
construction of new yards in rural areas. However, the needs
of the shippers they serve as well as economic and labor
circumstances often dictate that existing yards have to be
expanded to absorb increased demands on railroad facilities.
No support can be found for the proposition that Congress
intended to undercut the railroads' prerogative to make
such business decisions as whether to expand yards or construct
new ones on account of the noise factor.
Lack of growth for the railroads results in the
loss of railroad service. The Attorney General of the State
of South Dakota expressed the concern of communities threatened
with a loss of railroad service. (Dkt. No. 006) In large
measure the State of South Dakota's concern reflects the
Congressional intent to provide uniform railroad noise
- 62 -
-------
-13-
regulations which do not inhibit the growth of the industry.
Railroads have an obligation to meet the increased
demands of the nation's shippers and Section 17 expressed an
intent that the railroads' ability to respond would not be
inhibited by arbitrary noise regulation adopted in disregard
of rational criteria. Congress did not intend that Section
17 be used as a mechanism for the implementation of a national
•transportation policy of no growth for the railroads.
The potential cost to the railroad industry and
the nation of a nondegradation provision would far exceed
any costs the EPA has identified in this proceeding and
would exceed any measure of reasonableness required by
Section 17. The inflationary impact, long-run and short-run,
of a no-growth, nondegradation standard would be substantial.
A no-growth rule imposed on the rail carriers would limit
the facilities available for transportation, lower efficiency
of rail carriage, and cause cost increases to railroads and
shippers. For the foregoing reasons, we urge the EPA to
reject any suggestion that it adopt a policy of "nondegradation"
in the area of railroad noise.
REFRIGERATOR CARS
In deciding to defer promulgation of standards for
refrigerator cars, EPA stated, "The Agency rejects industry
assertions that no further noise reduction Is achievable on
refrigerator cars." (p. 7-13, Background Document for Final
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation: Source
- 63 -
-------
-14-
Standards) At pages 71-83 and Appendix J of our Comments
submitted on July 2, 1979, we clearly explained that present
noise levels from normal operations cannot be further reduced
by the standard low cost abatement methods suggested by EPA
such as mufflers. Present fan noise levels are the result of
many years of research and cannot be improved upon by
replacement with another fan without entirely redesigning the
•cooling system. Noise may be reduced by blocking all engine
compartment ventilation grills on each side of the car and
redirecting the cooling air flow through the top of the car,
but this cannot be accomplished simply and without great
expense. It would involve reengnineering the cooling system
and would require substantial modification of the engine
compartment. The AAR provided the EPA with preliminary cost
estimates of $5,000 per car or $118 million for the entire
fleet for such modifications. Any additional point source
standards or property line standards which assume given
reductions in noise from refrigerator cars must take Into
account the true cost of EPA's stated assumptions.
Response to Mr. Thomas' Questions
HEALTH/WELFARE
1. Question
What would the AAR propose as the noise impact descriptor(s)
for assessing impact of rail yard noise on surrounding
communities? (pp. 122-126} Would you provide your rationale
for this proposal?
- 64 -
-------
-15-
Response
It is the consensus of the industry that an Leq noise descriptor
is more appropriate than an L$n descriptor. We note, however,
that the EPA proposed a two hour Leq standard mathematically
related to the proposed L$n standard. Such an arbitrary
selection of an Leq standard cannot be supported by the record
in this proceeding. The important consideration in connection
•with the L(jn descriptor is that the railroads are not able to
reduce noise emission by lOdB at night to compensate for the
lOdB penalty contained in the L^n definition.
2. Question
What data or other information does the AAR have to support
your view that rail yard noise has no greater impact (on
surrounding communities) at night than during day time?
Response
It is not our view that railyard noise has no greater impact
at night than during the day. What we have said is that
imposition of a noise standard that penalizes nighttime noise
by lOdB in commercial and industrial areas is unnecessary
because people generally do not sleep in such areas. Use
of the L<3n descriptor to control rail yard noise is unreason-
able regardless of the nature of the surrounding land uses
because a lOdB penalty requires a reduction in the level of
sound energy by a factor of 10 which is impossible to achieve
while still maintaining the unimpeded flow of commerce by rail
throughout the nation. (See AAR Comments of July 2, 1979
- 65 -
-------
-16-
pp. 111-121.)
3. Question
What data or other information does the AAR have to support
your (view that) non-rail yard noise sources are generally at
the same level or greater than rail yard source noise? (pp.
122-126)
Response
•Although we make no such claim in our comments, we recognize
that in many situations rail yard noise is very difficult, if
not impossible, to isolate from the surrounding community
noise. The analysis in Appendix A of Exhibit A (Wyle Research
Report WR 79-10) clearly shows that, even at measurement
sites on railroad property, the Leq due to non-railroad
sources such as motor vehicles on nearby roads and aircraft
flying overhead is often comparable to that from specific
railroad noise sources. At points within the community, the
levels of railroad noise should be less than at the
measurement sites while the levels of the non-railroad noise
should be about the same, so that non-railroad noise
will be even more pronounced than at the measurement
sites. This is clearly illustrated when attempting to measure
rail yard noise near a highway, airport, manufacturing district,
or other busy areas. This fact was clearly considered by EPA
in Issuing its final measurement procedure since it is designed
to exclude from consideration those areas where the background
noise levels are within lOdB of the railroad noise.
- 66 -
-------
-17-
Question
What data or other information does the AAR have to support
the view that annoyance due to rail yard noise does not have
an adverse public health and welfare impact? (p. 130)
Response
Our Comments on pages 129-130 note the fact that railroad
noise is capable of constituting an annoyance at some locations
some of the time. Noise data shown in the proposed background
document show typical property line day and night Leq values
in the mid 60's to low 70's range which are similar to noise
levels found near urban row housing on a major avenue and
high density urban apartment areas. Railroad noise is highly
localized and activities producing noise levels almost always
are confined to the same general areas of a rail facility.
The numbers of people exposed to such noise are very small in
comparison to those exposed to other, more pervasive noise
sources such as trucks, airplanes, and lawnmowers. The
correlation between "public health and welfare" and
"annoyance" has never been properly defined. The community
noise levels caused by railroad operations, as reported in
the Background Document, by themselves are not high enough
to have an impact upon the public health. There has been no
showing in this proceeding of any impact on public health at•
all. Whether or not those noise levels are sufficient to
significantly impact the public "welfare" is a matter of
speculation only since "annoyance" has never been properly
- 67 -
-------
-18-
quantified. For EPA to say that railroad noise
Jeopardizes public health, even though it can at most be
classified as annoying, is at best an exaggeration and a
conclusion without support in logic or fact.
5. Question
What data are there to support the AAR view that leaving out
many non-rail yard sources from the analyses does not
•underestimate the impact? (p.127)
Response
The analysis of why it is felt that the EPA railroad yard
noise impact model may underestimate the true impact is
presented in Section 4.0 of Exhibit A in our earlier comments.
6. Question
Could the data used to conclude that non-rail yard noise
sources that are dominant at a particular location are also
equally dominant through the entire community, be provided
us? (p. 13D
Response
The analysis in Appendix A of Exhibit A showed the dominant
non-railroad noise sources to be aircraft and motor vehicle
traffic. Noise from such mobile sources is generally widespread
over a given area. At locations further from the railroad
yard (the analyzed measurement sites being generally on
railroad property near the edge of the yard), it could be
expected that noise from aircraft and motor vehicles would
even further dominate the overall noise levels.
- 68 -
-------
-19-
7. Question
Could the supporting data or analyses used to conclude that
It is Incorrect to consider that some community areas are
impacted by several rail yard noise sources be made available?
(p. 13D
Response
No such contention is made. If the objective of property
•line or receiving property standards was the reduction of the
computed average noise level and that objective was met, it
would be illogical to count the impacted people twice simply
because the total noise affecting such people prior to the
application of successful abatement techniques emanated from
separate railroad sources. Moreover, this question tends
to suggest that the EPA failed to understand the deficiencies
in its health and welfare model. In it's earlier Comments at
page 131, the AAR correctly contends that the EPA's model
was deficient because of its decision to consider only rail-
road noise thereby including people as benefiting from a
reduction in railroad noise even in circumstances in which a
complete elimination of railroad noise would have little or
no beneficial impact on the community because of the presence
of non-railroad noise.
8. Question
Would the supporting data or analyses used to conclude that a
non-uniform population density around a rail yard results in
a significantly different impact magnitude than a uniform
- 69 -
-------
-20-
density be made available? (p. 132)
Response
Since the sound level from a source falls off with distance
from that source, a non-uniform population density which
increases with distance from the source there must be a
smaller impact than would be the case were the population
density uniform within a given distance from the source and
•assuming that the total population remains constant.
9. Question
Do you have any data or other information to indicate that
there are no cases where the population density decreases
with distance from rail yards? (p. 132)
Response
No detailed data on the change in population density with
distance from a yard is known to us. Since most yards
have industrial and commercial areas on at least some of
their boundaries, with residential areas generally lying
beyond, it seems reasonable that population density
increases with distance from the yard. To the extent
this assumption is correct, the EPA's health arid welfare
model overestimates the number of people adversely affected.
Importantly, the EPA model relies largely on speculation to
support its assumption that there is a uniform distribution.
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Question
In the AAR's analysis of technology and cost, what assumptions
or data have the AAR used with respect to the number of ra.il
. 70 -
-------
-21-
yards for which the day-night equivalent sound levels are
clearly dominant with respect to receiver property measurement
locations?
Response
The record in this proceeding contains no definitive data
indicating the number of rail yards for which the day-night
equivalent sound levels are clearly dominant at receiving
•property measurement locations. It is assumed that those
facilities listed in the SRI study of Classification Yard
Technology as being adjacent to residential or commercial
property may be subject to any standard utilizing such a measure-
ment approach. That information, according to the authors,
is intended to be a general guide indicating predominant
land use characteristics surrounding a yard and not a defini-
tive listing to be used in an analysis of regulatory impact.
Therefore, we have not developed any assumptions regarding
the number of yards with noise levels dominant at
receiving property mesurement locations.
2. Question
In the AAR's analysis of technology and cost, what assumptions
or data have the AAR used with respect to either the distance
between the rail yard property line and receiver property
measurement locations, or the amount of noise attenuation
achieved due to any buffer regions separating the rail yard
property line from receiver property measurement locations?.
- 71 -
-------
-22-
Response
The AAR has made no assumptions and the record in the proceed-
ing contains very little data concerning the distances between
railyard property line and receiving property measurement
locations. The Information we do have indicates that receiving
property, defined by EPA as residential and commercial land
uses, is very often contiguous to railroad property. Also,
•receiving property is often separated from railroad property
by a street or highway. In many situations we note that
community land use planning practices have permitted the
location of residential development adjacent to railroad
yards which in our opinion, shows extremely poor judgment on
the part of local planners. Highways and other sources of
noise act well to mask the railroad noise. Increased distance
between source and receiver also acts to reduce the level of
railroad noise reaching receiving property.
3. Question
Is the AAR aware of noise problems associated with rail
carrier activities which have served to impede interstate
commerce by rail? If so, would you provide us with the state
or local political entities involved, the date or dates
associated therewith, and whether the problem was resolved or
not. Further, we would appreciate your providing us with a
list of state or local government actions related to noise
which have resulted in railroads having to commit staff or
other resources to resolve.
- 72 -
-------
-23-
Response
It is clear that the intent of Section 17 is to avoid conflicts
with local regulations of noise that are not sensitive to the
railroads task of conducting the transporation of goods from
one jurisdiction to another. Most, if not all, state and
Icoal regulations concerning noise are not based on the
ability of the regulated party to achieve the desired level;
'rather the standards are based on-the concept of eliminating
"objectionable" or "unnecessary" noise. Without national
uniformity of interpretation of noise abatement, the railroads
would be faced with unreasonable noise ordinances in each
Jurisdiction served by a railroad. Given EPA's Quiet Communities
Program, complete with Federal encouragement of local noise
control, the likelihood of this happening absent Federal
preemption is even greater now than when the original Act
was passed in 1972. Since the EPA has significantly more
contact with State and local authorities and has on several
occasions suggested that it is under severe pressure from such
sources to take strict measures in the area of railroad noise,
it is to be expected that the EPA rather than the AAR would
have the most comprehensive file on local laws or ordinances.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the AAR respectfully urges the EPA
to give full consideration to these comments and the comments
submitted by the AAR on July 2, 1979. The proposed property
line standards contained in the April 17, 1979, Notice of
- 73 -
-------
-24-
Proposed Rulemaking provide for unreasonably low receiving
property standards which cannot be met and which are inconsistent
with the statutory criteria of Section 17. To implement
standards which are not technologically feasible, practical,
or cost-effective would unduly interfere with the essential
operations of the railroads, would impose a substantial
burden on the shipping public, and would do an extreme dis-
• service to the public welfare in general. The AAR has
submitted extensive comments to aid EPA in devising noise
regulations consistent with the public Interest, and in the
coming year would welcome the opportunity to further
participate in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
Hollis G. Duenslng
Attorney for the
Association of American Railroads
April 4, 1980
-------
CONRAIL
J. B. GREGORY
April 3, 1980
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Div. (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. - 20460
Dear Sirs:
The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) thanks the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the opportunity
to submit the attached comments on its April 17, 1979
proposed property line standard for facilities and equip-
ment of interstate rail carriers.
Conrail would be pleased to provide EPA with any ad-
ditional information concerning these comments. Mr. Jeffrey H.
Teitel, Director-Regulatory Affairs at (215) 977-4474 has
been assigned to respond to any questions arising from these
comments.
Sincerely,
B. Grego
is1stant vice President-Operations
Room 830, Six Penn Center Plaza
Philadelphia, Pa. - 19104
CONSOUDAICO (All CORPORATION SIX t'INN CINUK I'lA/A PHIl ADf IPHIA PA I«)04J
-------
i.
INTRODUCTION
The Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail"), the
Nation's largest freight railroad in terms of tonnage moved
and revenue earned, thanks the Environmental Protection Agenqy
("EPA") once again for the opportunity to comment on its
April 17, 1979 Proposed Rules, entitled, "Noise Emission
Standards for Transportation Equipment; Interstate Rail Carriers."
Although at first blush, it would appear that Conrail
is now in a better position to comment after EPA published its
January 4 final noise regulations for point sources, it is in
fact more difficult. Conrail may have considered making either
additional or different comments if it could have assessed the
proposed property line and final point source regulations
together. Conrail had to speculate over what final regula-
tions EPA will publish but not without some confusion.
If EPA publishes a property line standard more stringent
than the point source property line standard, the point source-
property line standards would be meaningless or illusory. Conversely
if EPA publishes a property line standard less stringent than
the point source-property line standards, the agency should consider
complying with either in..the. alternative. Perhaps, if EPA
promulgates the same property line standards as it did on
January 4, at least EPA's regulations'will be consistent even
- 76 -
-------
11.
if it obfuscates the purpose behind this rulemaking.
The information and comments on this proposed rulemaking
are divided into three chapters addressing public health and
welfare, best available technology and comments on the proposed
regulations themselves.
Conrail again stands ready to assist EPA by providing
more information to substantiate any statements or explain any
issues contained in these comments.
- 77 -
-------
HEALTH AND WELFARE
Section 2(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, P.L.
92-547 ("The Act"), states:
"The Congress declares that it is the policy
of the United States to promote an environ-
ment for all Americans free from noise that
jeopardizes their health or welfare."
(Emphasis supplied).
Conrail believes that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has attempted to promote a more noise-free environ-
ment as evidenced by its April 17, "Proposed Noise Emission
Standards for Transportation Equipment for Interstate Rail Carriers. "
Nevertheless, Conrail submits that EPA has not justified or sub-
stantiated a relationship between its noise limitations and thresh-
holds affecting health and/or welfare.
The EPA document providing a basis for its proposed
regulations, "Background Document for Proposed Revision to Rail
Carrier Noise Emission Regulations ("The Document"), fails to
provide data to demonstrate railroad noise impact on health and
welfare thereby failing to show a basis for its receiving property
standard. A reduction in any railroad noise is not an a priori
improvement in public health or welfare. Community exposure is
irrelevant without data evidencing benefits or detriments. If
none had been collected, EPA should have developed some sub-
stantive health data so that rational, realistic and relevant
- 78 -
-------
- 2 -
limitations related to the finalized point source standards
could have been established.
EPA's opening statements used in both its development
documents in the Section entitled, "Health and Welfare," serves
to underscore Conrail's initial objections:
'Noise affects people in many ways, although
not all noise effects occur at all levels.
Rail facility noise may or may not produce
the effects mentioned below, depending on
exposures and specific situations. The
discussion here refers to noise in general.
(Emphasis supplied.)"Background Document
for Final Interstate Rail Carrier Noise
Emission Regulation: Source Standards,"
EPA 550/9-79-210 (December 1979); "Background
Document for Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier
Noise Emission Regulation," EPA 550/9-78-207
(February 1979).
EPA has based the need for and value of these proposed
regulations on a model which fails to assess accurately the
number of people and the extent to which these people are affected.
EPA states that public health (and welfare) benefits may be
quantified both in terms of reductions in noise exposures and,
more meaningfully, in terms of reductions in adverse effects.
EPA cited time exposure of railroad noise as a function of the im-
pact on health and welfare but without relevant data involving
railroad noise. Conrail submits that the relative benefits and
detriments of noise reduction cannot be assessed without more
substantive, empirical data.
- 79 -
-------
- 3 -
Although noise interference effects can reportedly
be quantified, EPA states that a lack of time and resources pre-
cluded such calculations. Instead, EPA offers "predictive
analysis" with reference to some photography and census data.
Conrail submits that the model described in the Document cannot
substitute for quantified information on the impact that point
source and non-point source regulations will have on the railroad
industry.
EPA's basis for the Proposed Regulations includes
averages/ groupings, estimates, assumptions, etc. which have led
to some very arbitrary noise limitations. EPA's reliance on this
modeling technique as a result of limited time and resources
should have resulted in some flexibility in assessing the overall
impact and interrelationship between embient and point sources.
perhaps, EPA might have concluded that a simple property line
standard would have served everyone's best interest.
EPA in its proposal established a noise measurement
indicator stating:
"This indicator correlates well with overall long
term effects of noise on the public health and
welfare...."
(Background Document, Page 6-5).
The reference that EPA cited for establishing the
indicators for estimated day-night average sound levels (L )
dn
- 80 -
-------
- 4 -
and average equivalent sound levels (L ) and their relationship
eg
to health and welfare is Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA (March 1974). This reference
seems less than adequate as a primary resource for developing
railroad noise regulations.
This 1974 publication was based on analyses, extra-
polations and evaluations of the then-present state of scientific
knowledge. On page 7 of the "Forward," it is stated in part:
"Not all of the scientific work that is
required for basing such levels of en-
vironmental noise (to protect public
health and welfare, etc.) on precise
objective factors has been completed."
This section states that the reference's use of "health and
welfare" applies, "/t/o those levels of noise that have been
shown to interfere with the ability to hear...." This refer-
ence simply fails to address railroad noise specifically; it
also fails to cite a single railroad noise study in its 102
listed references. The limited value of this EPA reference as
it applies to the Proposed Railroad Noise Regulation is stated
on Page 8:
- 81 -
-------
- 5
"The general purpose of this document is rather
to discuss environmental noise levels requisite
for the protection of public health and welfare
without consideration of those elements
necessary to an actual rule-making.11
Absent detailed health data relating to railroad noise,
EPA may have intended to concentrate its protection more broadly
on the Nation's welfare. Nevertheless, EPA fails again to present
sufficient data or demonstrate which reductions in railroad noises
would protect the Nation's welfare.
EPA suggests that the term welfare should include personal
comfort arising from disturbances and annoyance. However/ annoyance
per se is not a legal concept; it merely expresses what amounts
to a wide spectrum of individual human response and not the cause.
Yet the proposed regulations refer to "annoyance" as a legal threshold
concept. The Background Document expressly admits H/i7tress, re-
sponse cannot be quantified." Page 6-2. The Document speculates
on the meaning of "stress response";
VS7ome of this stress response may be reflected
in what people express as 'annoyance,' 'irritation,'
or 'aggravation.'" Page 6-3.
Irritating and aggravating disturbances are subjective.
- 82 -
-------
- 6 -
Subjective loudness is a function of magnitude or pressure and
of frequency; there are different subjective responses to each
of the octave bands. EPA's data do not satisfactorily demonstrate
the impact of disturbances on the Nation's welfare from railroad
noise.
Factually, railroads have been operating in the North-
east more than 125 years, and "discomfort" has not thwarted
residential and commercial development near railroad facilities.
Nor has EPA cited such as an issue in this development. Even if
it did, there still would be no demonstrated basis for imposing both
point source and a general property line standards to protect ;
health and welfare.
EPA states in Page 4, in the "Health and Welfare"
section of the preamble to the proposed regulations, "/t/he
only utility of noise reduction is the protection of health and
welfare." Neither the Proposed Regulations nor the Background
Document cite or focus on economic data related to railroad noise
impact on welfare. EPA's mathematical model for predicted impact
from railroad noise is based upon many inaccuracies, omissions and
unfounded conclusions. These criticisms are documented in Chapter 4
"Wyle Research Report," WR 79-10, entitled "A Review of the Railroad
Yard Noise Standards as Proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency on April 17, 1979," as submitted by the Association of
American Railroads.
- 83 -
-------
- 7 -
EPA's calculations in assessing the cost of compliance
with the Proposed Regulations are strictly theoretical. Conrail
submits that compliance costs to industry will have a more direct
and immediate impact on the Nation's welfare than the impact of
noise on adjacent property values. Costs to industry could be
ameliorated without jeopardizing public health and welfare by a
single property line standard.
EPA should consider the economic impact on many of
Conrail's 85,000 plus employees and its thousands of customers if
railroads are compelled to spend excessive sums to comply with
these Proposed Regulations. DOT's 1978 study 503/901, entitled
"A Prospectus for Change in the Freight Railroad Industry."
indicates that railroads in the United States have a rate of return
of .86% with a projected capital shortfall between now and 1985 of
approximately $13 to $16 billion. Taxpayers are expected to pay
more than $4 billion to keep trains operating during this period.
The U.S. Government has evidenced a commitment through
the passage of the Regulatory Reform and Railroad Revitalization
Act of 1976: It has authorized and appropriated substantial
amounts of money to support rail service, but insisting that
these funds be invested in such a way as to enhance the continua-
tion of the rail industry in the private sector.
The pub-lie welfare, if evaluated in light of this com-
mitment alone, would be enhanced by continued rail se'rvice. Any
new regulations, whether in the noise or any other area, must take
into account the impact they may have on the ability of the railroads
- 84 -
-------
- 8 -
to meet the public welfare goals set by the Congress and the
Administration. The proposed noise abatement regulations, if
implemented, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to
achieve those goals.
Section 5(a)(2) of the Act states that the EPA Administra
tor is required to establish criteria for noise and to "publish
information on the levels of environmental noise the attainment
and maintenance of which in defined areas under various conditions
are requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an
•
adequate margin of safety." (Emphasis supplied).
EPA has not demonstrated empirically that the costs
associated with the final point source and proposed receiving
property line regulations are commensurate with the alleged
benefits. EPA must offer some evidence that the rail operations
which they seek to control have adversely affected the public
health and welfare.
Conrail urges EPA to reconsider the limitations pre-
scribed in its proposed receiving property line-standard. EPA
should review available information and develop new empirical,
substantive data that is either "/r/equisite to protect the
public health and welfare ..." or no stricter than the final point
source standards.
Section 556(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act
states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent
of a rule or order has the burden of proof." The Noise Control
-85-
-------
- 9 -
Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seg. states, "The Congress declares
that it is the policy of the United States to promote an environ-
ment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their
health or welfare." EPA has the burden of showing more than a
nexus between its proposed standards at receiving properties and
the impact of railroad noise on a public health or welfare. EPA
must carry this burden in a clear and convincing manner.
Conrail submits that EPA has not demonstrated much more
than a slight nexus between noise from railroad yards and impact
on health or welfare. EPA states presumptively in the preamble
to its April 17, 1979 proposal at page 22963, that its noise
descriptor that is used is one that "/r/elates best to protecting
the public health and welfare." Furthermore, EPA states on this
page "the only utility of noise reduction is the protection of
public health and welfare." (Emphasis supplied.)
The protecting health and welfare seems equally obscured
by imposing both point source and receiving property line standards
on railroads. EPA has promulgated on January 4, 1980, regulations
for specific point sources; it will also publish a receiving prop-
erty standard. Conrail submits that regulations for both point
sources and property lines may not be necessary; a property line
standard may be sufficient to protect public health and welfare.
The effect of both makes point source standards, par-
ticularly, superfluous if not arbitrary and capricious to allegedly
protect public health and welfare by ameliorating noise beyond the
property line. _ 86 _
-------
- 10 -
Logically, point source and the receiving property line
standards should be assessed together. Railroads cannot specu-
late fairly, accurately or responsibly without understanding more
clearly the relationship between the two.
- 87 -
-------
- 11 -
NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY
Section 17(a)(1) of the Act states, in part:
'/S/uch proposed regulations shall include
noise emission standards setting such limits
on noise emissions resulting from operation
of the equipment and facilities of surface
carriers engaged in interstate commerce by
railroad which reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application
of the best available technology, taking into
account the cost of compliance."
(Emphasis supplied).
Congress in passing the Noise Control Act of 1972
was concerned over the Nation's quality of life, dissatisfied
with the functioning of common law and undesirous of a prolifera-
tion of local regulation. Congress wanted to protect the Nation's
health and welfare by limiting noise through uniform regulation.
Congress intended that best available technology (BAT), a dynamic
concept, be used as a technology-forcing mechanism. Neither the
-------
- 12 -
Act nor the regulations officially define BAT for railroad noise;
EPA was "guided" by a definition in its preamble:
"'Best available technology1 is that .noise abatement
technology or technique available for application
to equipment and facilities of surface carriers
engaged in interstate commerce by railroad which
produces the greatest achievable reduction in the
noise produced by such equipment and facilities."
BAT has been described by EPA in other regulatory noise
schemes as that technology which is applicable to equipment and
performs the greatest noise reductions. Documentation exists
that noise BAT is available to reduce aircraft and motor vehicle
noise. There appears to be no state of the art to reduce
railroad noise. EPA has not satisfactorily documented the ex-
istence of BAT for railroad noise reduction.
EPA's mis-characterization and incomplete assessment of
BAT were products of its testing methodology. As EPA knows,
noise resulting from railroad facilities is a complex mixture
of sound which may be generated by many noise sources. As EPA
states on page 5-16 of its "Background Document," "/f~7or a property
line standard, available technology requires only that total noise
emissions from the operations of all equipment on the property not
exceed a specified level at each point along the property line or
the adjacent receiving land.
- 89 -
-------
- 13 -
' Existing sound monitoring equipment does not - and
did not for EPA - distinguish railroad noises from non-railroad
yard noises, such as those from adjacent highways and nearby air-
ports. EPA states, on page 5-16 of its "Background Document,"
"It is realized that yards vary considerably in their configura-
tion and that no yards are 'typical.' Thus, any given yard may
have measured property line levels which differ significantly
from the estimated property line level for a typical yard." The
timing and positioning of EPA's noise monitoring resulted in
sharply differing reported noise levels. EPA's absence of
demonstration is obvious.
EPA alleges that the BAT cited in its Background Document
is "proven technology" for railroad noise. Conrail submits that
EPA's assessment of existing BAT is incorrect; the Agency has
not clearly established whether the benefits to be gained justify
industry's investment in the purported BAT. EPA's required use
of BAT on point sources may be enough noise control, as suggested
by its techniques for reducing noise in our yards.
EPA identifies Table 5-1 in its "Background Document,"
as summarizing techniques for reducing noise emissions in railroad
yards. Major noise contributors will require some treatment as
effective as that which EPA suggests. Conrail contends that once
these sources meet EPA's January 4, 1980 limitations, the proposed
receiving property line standard may be superfluous. Certainly,
- 90 -
-------
- 14 -
technological problems which railroads experience to control
point source emissions may be magnified when attempting to con-
tain sporadic sources at appropriate property lines.
EPA's testing of noise barriers failed to consider the
following variables and consequences: EPA tested barriers using
different monitoring locations before and after barrier con-
struction; the controlled microphone monitoring positions used
by EPA recorded lower sound levels but EPA's reported 2Odb re-
duction from the use of barriers did not reflect in their test
results the different barrier orientation or angle in relation
to the noise source and property line. More measurements at
the same and different locations would have revealed the daily
noise-fluctuations and provided for more reliable data and valid
assessments.
As documented in Sections 1.3 and 5, "Wyle Research
Report," WR 79-10, "A Review of the Railroad Yard Noise Standards
as Proposed by the U.S. EPA on April 17, 1979," some non-absorptive
barriers may serve to channel noise toward their open ends re-
sulting in redistributed noise levels; snow would build up between
any kind of a barrier creating a maintenance problem and employees
working between barrier walls would be endangered in confined
areas by moving trains with limited visibility. Barriers are
frequently not physically satisfactory or possible for point source
or property line noise control in yards due to inadequate space
- 91 -
-------
- 15 -
and elevation of humps. There are many locations in the Conrail
System where barriers would preclude minimum clearance for main-
tenance and operation. EPA has not assessed the utility, cost
and impact of barriers satisfactorily; they should not fall within
the category of BAT based upon EPA's narrow findings. EPA should
consider offering noise limitation variances where railroads can
show that their facilities are fundamentally different due to
technological economic infeasibility or physical impossibility.
Conrail submits that EPA has misrepresented various
noise abatement equipment as "proven technology." Major
engineering issues arise from EPA's proposed yard modifications
as follows:
There is insufficient clearance between tracks in most
existing yard layouts to accommodate noise barriers. As a result,
the fan layout of the yards would require modification. Extensive
concrete construction would shut down all or part.of the yard
if precast concrete sections could not be used. Concrete poured
on-site can require from 7 to 28 days to cure to reach its full
load-bearing strength.
Additional operational impact attributable to yard
modifications not readily quantifiable include:
- Delays in traffic due to rehandling (i.e., multiple
switching).
- Increased per diem and transportation costs due to
less efficient handling and added train miles (out of route).
- 92 -
-------
- 16 -
- Reduced car utilization.
- Deterioration of service (longer transit times,
less available equipment).
- Erosion of traffic and revenues.
The accomplishment of hump yard modification would take
at least ten years to accomplish, even under ideal conditions.
This assumes that Conrail would proceed at the rate of two classifi-
cation yards per year; it should be noted, however, that in each
case, construction would require from one to three years to
complete.
Alternative noise control options such as the shutdown
or relocation of locomotives, reduction in operations and land
acquisition for buffer zones are often neither possible nor
economically feasible.
Conrail will begin shutting down diesel-electric
locomotives when not in actual use. .However, the industry-wide
practice of idling engines will continue to be necessary below 40°F.
because only in this way can the diesel engine protect itself from
mechanical damage.
A satisfactory engine temperature ensures proper
mechanical fit between mating parts and gaskets and provides
proper lubrication between moving parts. Water and oil leaks are
thereby reduced and the potential for damage through cold start-up
i§ minimized.
- 93 -
-------
- 17 -
When a diesel engine is permitted to cool during a prolonged
shut down period, i.e., below 40°F., the metal parts contract and
water, can leak .into the combustion chamber (cylinder) and on top
of the pistons. When the engine is restarted, the water on top
of a piston cannot be compressed and serious mechanical damage
results, usually a broken connecting rod, piston cylinder liner,
or any combination thereof. Additionally, after prolonged shut-
down (8 hours or more), the lubricating oil will drain from the
bearing surfaces and into the sump (crankcase). When 40 weight
lubricating oil becomes cold it will not flow readily when
the engine is restarted. Therefore, moving parts incur extra-
ordinary wear and possible damage when a diesel engine is re-
started cold after a shut down.
In temperatures below 40°F., a shut down locomotive
must be protected from freeze damage to its water-activated cooling
system. Generally, this protection must be provided from October
through April in Conrail's operating territory. Anti-freeze
solution in the cooling system is not feasible because of the
danger to moving parts if the coolant should leak into the
lubricating oil. Anti-freeze can cause damage to bearing sur-
faces and serious mechanical failure.
Another compelling reason for keeping diesel engines
running and at operating temperature is the fact that at
relatively low temperatures, it is virtually impossible to
start a diesel engine using the locomotive starting batteries.
- 94 -
-------
- 18 -
This phenomenon results from the viscosity of the cold lubricating
oil, reduced lubrication on bearing surfaces, reduced efficiency
of starting batteries at low temperatures, and the inability to
achieve firing temperature in the combustion chamber through
compression. The use of ether to assist in starting diesel engines
is hazardous to both employees and equipment and is expressly
prohibited by Conrail policy.
Relocation of locomotives and a change in operations
would require more track, land, locomotives, crews, fuel and
supervision. Railroad operations and concomitant maintenance
activities are continuous and do not decrease with the onset of
night. Similarly, traffic patterns are continuously changing.
Locomotive relocation or operation curtailment during the night
is less feasible and practical for railroads than for tracks and
planes, since the continuous rail traffic is confined to movement
on available and unblocked rails. These suggested noise abate-
ment alternatives are not tantamount to BAT and clearly indicate
EPA's failure to understand the logistics and timing of railroad
operations.
EPA should reexamine the technology it has cited as BAT,
perform demonstrations where appropriate, consider existing BAT
performance records and reassess the technological and economic
impacts in the context of actual operating practices and' over-
lapping regulations. EPA should consider a variance'where it
is technologically not feasible to apply BAT. Finally, EPA should
- 95 -
-------
- 19 -
offer its technical findings to the railroad industry for its
comment since this is where resides the greatest expertise.
- 96 -
-------
- 20 -
STANDARDS
Subpart A (Definitions) of EPA's April 17, 1979
Proposed Standards ._.
There is no definition for "best available technology.
(BAT). Nor has such a definition been offered by EPA in its
January 4, 1980 noise standards. The following definition is
offered by Conrail:
'Best available technology means the best proven
technology currently known and available in
the railroad industry."
The following letters refer to respectively lettered
sections in Subpart A:
(n) There should be no provision for a day-night
distinction as comments suggest below.
(r) "Component sounds" definition is without value
unless, technologically, there is sufficient
integrity in monitoring equipment to dis-
tinguish the "through train" from operating
equipment.
(s) Same comment as above in (r) but distinction
made would be between railroad and non-railroad
noise sources.
(u) Same comment as in (n) : This definition, like
the standard itself is arbitrary, capricious and
- 97 -
-------
- 21 -
discriminatory by virtue of its intended
application.
(ee) Same comment as in (u).
(gg) Same comment as in (u).
(hh) Same comment as in (u).
Subpart B of April 17, 1979 Proposal (Interstate Rail
Carrier Operations Standards)^
Section 201.10 (b). This receiving property standard
discriminates in favor of Western railroads; the Northeast has
little undeveloped land by EPA's definition. Moreover, EPA's
January 4, 1980 definition of "receiving property" is broad and
buttresses this argument. As EPA states in its February 1979
"Background Document," pages J-4 and J-5,
"Conrail has a large number of railroad yards,
many of which are in areas of high population
density... About 30 percent of the nation's
total yard operations are being carried out by
Conrail."
Also, the Northeast offers much less of an opportunity to purchase
additional land around yards to serve as buffer zones.
EPA has identified some seventeen pieces of maintenance
of way equipment. EPA has identified and regulated noise levels
coming from four of these individual pieces of equipment. EPA has
stated on the one hand that it is not establishing a specific
- 98 -
-------
- 22 -
aggregate noise limit on yard equipment; yet on the other hand
it imposes this standard which would not distinguish among all
noise sources. EPA's January 4, 1980 final regulations for.four
point sources do not regulate maintenance-of-way equipment. Conrail
submits that either the January 4 regulations or the proposed prop-
erty line standards are sufficient to protect public health and welfar*
Alternatively, EPA should offer a range of noise limita-
tions to account for non-railroad noise contributions or at least,
offer a variance procedure whereby petitioners can make a showing
on a case-by-case basis of non-railroad noise contributions.
Alternatively, EPA should consider compliance with the
January 4 Joint Source Standards to be compliance with the
receiving property line standard.
EPA should also consider providing for a procedure
allowing a variance from the receiving property standard. The
variance should be based upon petitioner's technological or
economic showing of fundamentally different factors impeding
the use of BAT. As stated by EPA on Page J-4 of its February
1979 "Background Document," "Because of its size and location,
the expense of a noise regulation can be expected to fall heavily
on Conrail."
Section 201.17. The imposition of a day-night
standard for railroads would restrict all rail operations.
Compliance with the night time limit would effectively disrupt
Conrail's activities at many flat switching and industrial train
yards. These disruptions would in many cases result in operational
delays and prevent Conrail from establishing itself as a reliable
carrier. - 99 -
-------
- 23 -
Additionally, the nightly shutdown and morning startup
of diesel locomotives without consideration of temperatures would
damage many engines: Contraction of the piston casing caused by
cooling would permit water to enter the cylinders.
EPA has not documented a need for the more restrictive
L standard of 10 db intended to ameliorate the intrusive impact
dn
of noise. The alleged interruption of sleep of residents living
adjacent to railroad facilities serving, in part, as a reason for
the L regulations, is an arbitrary and spurious premise. The
dn
unfounded assumption of railroad-caused insomnia should not be
the rationale for using the L (1) or L requirements. EPA
eg dn
has not correlated the added lOdb restriction at night with
health; this day-night restriction offers no substantial gain
to the Nation's welfare!
The L standard is highly discriminatory. There is
dn
no L standard being imposed on any other mode of transportation.
dn
EPA has not carefully considered costs relating to loss of business
and jobs or the additional cars needed for the daytime car cycle.
During 1978, for example, Conrail moved over 4.95 million carloads
and trailers containing perishables and non-perishables; the vast
majority of this freight must meet a schedule requiring daily
movement over a 24-hour period. If hump yards close down from
11:00 PM until 7:00 AM, Conrail predicts that within one week's
- 100 -
-------
- 24 -
time, disruptions caused by physical obstruction would result
in a regional system shutdown. It clearly is safe to say that
there would be no service at all or decreased service and in-
creased costs arising from a more stringent nighttime standard.
These impacts have been grossly understated or overlooked by
EPA.
EPA's casual reference to curtailment of night time
activities cannot be dismissed without pointing to a number of
serious business and operational implications, both within and
without the rail industry, including:
Less efficient utilization of fixed plant and
equipment, which would translate into operating
problems, competitive disadvantages, etc.;
operating and service deterioration would quickly
lead to a diversion of traffic and revenue to
other modes.
Disruptive effect of not providing continuous
support to heavy industry that operates on an
around-the-clock basis. In addition to its
impact on the rail industry, such restrictions
would also result in less efficient utilization
of industrial facilities, with a resultant
rippling effect throughout the economy.
- 101 -
-------
- 25 -
Inability to provide early morning staging
activity in support of daytime operations.
This would seriously impair Conrail's ability
to meet service commitments, e.g. intermodal
loadings and service to major eastern perishable
markets.
Decreased service arising from a more restrictive night-
time standard is contrary to Congressional intent. Congress
expressed its "policy" in Section 2(b) of the Act, but it ex-
pressed specific intent when it set aside funds for Conrail to
assist it in increasing revenues from rail service.
These regulations should technically and legally dis-
tinguish railroad from non-railroad noise sources. The EPA
proposal, for example, fails to provide for non-railroad noises
audible in and around yards, viz: overhead aircraft, adjacent
highways, scrap yards, foundries, forges, construction, trash
compacting trucks, and subway or elevated trains may add to
railroad yard noises. Wheels squeal around curves; cars rattle
as they adjust to the slack; dynamic brake systems whine as they
are applied to multiple unit locomotive consists; and longer
trains beat out a familiar click as they pass over frogs and
joints. The receiving property standard also fails to distinguish
noise from 24 hour operations at factories, mills, mines and
waterfronts.
- 102 -
-------
- 26 -
Again, EPA should provide procedurally for a railroad
to petition EPA for a variance from this standard where it can
show economic or technological infeasibility, physical im-
possibility or no exposed population.
Subpart C (Measurement Criteria for Specific
Noise Sources) of the April 17, 1979 Proposal,
As a general comment, Conrail submits that EPA's measure-
ment criteria does not account for a wide variety of combined
effects. Instrument accuracy tolerances, reflecting noise off
of objects near the source, competing noise sources, ground
surface contours and various weather conditions have an effect
on noise measurement accuracy. Conrail believes that EPA should
consider these contingencies in their measurement methodology.
Subpart D (Measurement Criteria for Receiving
Property) of the April 17, 1979 Proposal
EPA's measurement methodology in this subpart fails
to consider that noise dominance can change hourly; there is
no commonality of railroad sites as a consequence of variations
in property lines and yard activities; and noise measurements
do not always record the noise from an identifiable source.
As mentioned earlier, there are several non-railroad
noise sources which contribute to the receiving property noise
- 103 -
-------
- 27 -
levels. Measurement methodology must ensure monitoring of
railroad noise exclusively; this standard fails to the extent
that non-railroad noises may be recorded by monitoring equipment.
Monitoring equipment should be positioned some distance from
any background object which is likely to reflect and register
both the direct and reflected sound waves.
- 104 -
-------
National 1 620 Eye Street. N.W. OFFICERS:
League Washington, D. C. n""tm
_rt___ J*«t« V "Htlfcv
Of ZOOOO CourctoOfTiwi W»«Wrt Nvm. Vtro;
Cities (202)293-7310 f,.«v«.. >•,««*.«
Cable: NLCITIES
Sarood V'
JWM» T
Mt*v Si Lou« MiMOuh
i, 1980 w
TO: Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
REF: Noise Emissions Standards for Transportation
Equipment; Interstate Rail Carriers
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 3,
Friday, January 4, 1980
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 201
Subpart B Interstate Rail Carrier
Operations Standards
On January 2, 1979, the National League of Cities (NLC) prepared
and submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) objecting to proposed national property line noise emission
standards for fixed railroad facilities. Briefly, we stated that
the EPA proposals failed to strike a reasonable balance between
city and rail carrier interests; failed to provide for the recog-
nition of special local conditions which would require variances
from the national rule; failed to consider existing federal po-
licies on adequate protection of public health and welfare; and
failed to adequately address urban impacts.
NLC stands by these previous comments (attached) and would like
to elaborate on them during this extended comment period. This
rulemaking neglects procedures established by the President under
Executive Order 12044 "Improving Government Regulations" (dated
March 23, 1978) and Executive Order 12074 "Urban and Community
Impact Analyses" (dated August 16, 1978). The following extensions
of NLC comments address these two major concerns.
I. Executive Order 12044 "Improving Government Regulations"
This Presidential directive requires EPA to prepare a semi-
annual agenda of significant regulations which impact state
and local government. EPA has determined that all of its
- 105 -
HUT HttSIOMT* Tw MUn. Mw» u» »'W> l>*»™« • ««"•» » •""• M-"°1 •*""»•'»» *isn»*.r • To*HMdy. M.vi-r ......ntx:. Oln• OlMcrOM: K. MUM
L.«,U«'H«10I..>. iOO*C[«J1.m*«»iO«« Mwoicuo kr.Mc.....,-tM|MllC.I«l«.rut...-«l!ui lOmMII t. (Mm. Md,^. LX1WC1O Lou.I
D/«OW COoMc «Am.e«l IM&* • Htm « OUIVM. Cou.t •• M.rtui S««An«»» t»,a>. ctiMM 0 Ckck. M«oi U«.*«l !«..)>• TMIIIH 1 OM. ULi, u. Lo^Bm.B '.*•
ftthinufld tfKQ.ni.. *il»HIBn Otoon. Cwncrt &ia""W «^^ng-,n DC •PMri»h 4. Own*. Cirtai:.*.' Hif. 1,,i Mi^«'.pit. W.MH. .iw 4.-,,x ,.ii^,>. Ww*y CHMMy J*HCa«x-.i Mw-m . ._ .
MaykD 0«l«>tlo (K«ul»'»«n«W». Lwto. rowi-vw^o. I* vny-w N«v-J«• JMIteCWMV M W-" H....WII,, !u..,7. KuQt W. M««tif««f. t !>."n " Mc't*^ New fort NM >on.. ImMI N. MMM. Mi^of Nm» Oihjwn L«M^ V3
. MM «. NUIIIOIH. »'«:«.• M«h.g«n Ifcrncol I .»•»<• • «M»Hi H«r>, t,«c.;l«e C.'ft^" PI. lie I'Mru | „»., « ;-,,,,.s ,,,( I »,.... jnn< H Punk. Ws.o' K«r.»»glo,i w«>>m . JcwpK l>. Mtf *.. «»»»• '
''fnnwHW So««> C»OHII* • FWrte* •••eh.Comt™*..--." r^ivi-.! (>».*. C*wrtw W»V». Miuiw •« ."n. W;i-.h..if|ii., • JWIIM T. RyM, ^rtyu. AN,, (,n*. tfa.«}iiis IMm*t • Vtotof r. ••lytftn. Couw.iMfnriUet H;,.*rtsf..'v • (>t
M,l«k,.i-»»<'"1»««.U»-'» "«*v>tart tw» I.i.,..^.Ow»»V«i Mom.ro •«*««. - .•.".• •-.' l> ».,. John F. WM»I|H. I .. .-.,. !>..,•,,.. Ai»,«r, I ,,„,„ oC|»»«i»'«fllm «••»*. M.i(,« Hav.^ll '.-,
OHom* • T«I WIMll. «»>™ b«i •.-.•'•« C«, UUH '
-------
April 1, 1980 -2-
regulations are significant unless they meet any of five
special criteria set forth in "Improving Environmental
Regulations, Final Report Implementing Executive Order
12044," 44 FR 30988 (May 29, 1979). (None of these cri-
teria apply to this action.) Furthermore, the Agency clas-
sifies each regulation as either "major," "routine," or
"unclassified." Mayor regulations are those that have sub-
stantial impact on health, ecology, the economy, particular
communities or regions, and the activities of federal and
state agencies.
In EPA's most recent regulatory agenda dated March 14, 1980
(45 FR 16832), the Agency classifies the Interstate Rail
Carrier Noise Standards Revision—Property Line Standard
as a major regulation and indicates that a regulatory analy-
sis is planned to be performed. Yet in a notice in the
Federal Register to reopen the docket on this regulation
dated January 4, 1980 (45 FR 1263), the Agency lists this
regulation as a "significant routine" regulation and states
explicitly that a regulatory analysis is not required.
Furthermore, in April, 1979 when the property line standard
was first proposed, EPA classified the regulation as "not
significant." Thus this railyard property line noise stan-
dard has gone from "not significant" to "significant routine"
to "major significant," and the Agency has twice said a regu-
latory analysis is not required in proposals dated April,
1979 and January, 1980, yet reverses itself in its present
regulatory calendar dated March 14, 1980 stating explicitly
that a regulatory analysis is being performed.
NLC is pleased to see the upgrading of this proposed regula-
tion to "major significant" and is pleased to see that a
regulatory analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12044 is
in the making. However, due to the "about face" on this
issue between January and March of this year we are not
completely certain that a regulatory analysis is, in fact,
underway. NLC requests that formal notice of the action be
published separately in the Federal Register so that all in-
terested parties may participate.
If a regulatory analysis is not being prepared, NLC would
like to offer the following reasons why it is necessary.
Under Section 3 of Executive Order 12044 entitled "Regulatory
Analysis" it is stated that regulations identified as signifi-
cant may have major economic consequences for industries,
regions, or levels of government and require a regulatory
analysis. The minimum criteria for a regulatory analysis
as stated in this Executive Order is a $100 million or more
impact on the economy. The national railyard property line
standard meets this criteria according to cost estimates
given in the Federal Register on Friday, January 4, 1980
- 106 -
-------
April 1, 1980 -3-
(45 FR 1261 Table 5.1). Capital costs for rail carriers
alone were calculated to be $110 million, a full $10 million
above the President's minimum requirements for a regulatory
analysis. Costs to local government were not even mentioned,
but nonetheless would represent a sizable addition to this
sum. It is worth mentioning that in this same Federal Re-
gister notice, EPA stated that a regulatory analysis was
not required. It is very clear that it is required and the
National League of Cities formally requests that it be done.
Such an analysis should include full documentation of the
entire EPA decisionmaking process for this regulation in-
cluding alternative approaches considered early on; an analy-
sis of the economic consequences of each of these alterna-
tives; a detailed explanation for choosing one alternative
over another; and complete documentation of all public par-
ticipation. Furthermore, as required by Executive Order
12044, a regulatory analysis must be developed with public
comment opportunities and must not be finalized prior to
outside comment.
Improving Government Regulations Having Major Intergovern-
mental Significance (Memorandum from the President dated
March 23, 1978 to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies)
As part of the President's Regulatory Reform Initiatives,
new procedures to "assure full state and local participation
in the development and promulgation of federal regulations
with significant intergovernmental impact" were established.
These procedures specifically state that organizations re-
presenting general purpose state and local governments may
notify an agency if a regulation included on an agency regu-
latory agenda is apt to have major intergovernmental signifi-
cance. Upon such notification, according to the order, the
agency shall develop a specific plan for consultation with
state and local government in the development of that regula-
tion. Such consultation places an "affirmative obligation"
on the Agency to "actively seek out, encourage, and facili-
tate the submission of state and local comments."
This railyard noise regulation is of major intergovernmental
significance and we have notified Mr. Alan Magazine, Director
of EPA's Intergovernmental Relations office, to that effect.
A copy of our request submitted to Mr. Magazine is attached
to these comments. NLC believes that cities have not been
"affirmatively" consulted by EPA on the proposed railyard
property line noise standard. The only notification has
been in a passive form limited to a direct mail solicitation
for comments to select local government bodies. No public
hearings have been held and no formal state and local con-
sultation meetings have been convened to the best of our
knowledge. NLC requests that public hearings be held and
that EPA meet its obligations outlined in the Presidential
memoranda cited above.
- 107 -
-------
April 1, 1980 -4-
II. Urban and Community Impact Analyses (UCIA)
Executive Order 12074 dated August 16, 1978
The National League of Cities firmly believes that the pro-
posed EPA national property line noise standards for fixed
rail facilities are of major intergovernmental significance
and will have an adverse impact on local governments. EPA
has itself stated in press releases and regulatory background
information that local governments will be thoroughly pre-
empted from doing anything to control railyard noise if such
noise is within federal "average" noise guidelines. In many
cases this "average" guideline will allow for significant
increases in noise up to the allowable federal maximum. The
average standard itself is so permissive that railyard noise
at this level will not be unlike the local noise environs of
a city situated next to a major airport.
The National League of Cities has informed the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) that EPA1s proposed national
property line noise standard for fixed rail facilities will
adversely impact cities, and has requested that a Urban and
Community Impact Analysis be performed according to the pro-
cedures outlined in Executive Order 12074 and OMB Circular
No. A-116, "Agency Preparation of Urban and Community Impact
Analyses," implementing that Order. The circular explicitly
states that agencies are to subject major regulatory initia-
tives to Urban Community Impact Analyses if these regulations
require an economic analyses under Executive Order 12044.
EPA has determined that the railyard noise regulation is sub-
ject to an economic analysis pursuant to Executive Order
12044 as stated in "Supplementary Information, Part 10.0,
Regulatory Analysis" published in the Federal Register,
Vol. 45, No. 3, on January 4, 1980. Clearly EPA is obligated
and required to prepare an Urban and Community Impact Analysis
for this regulation. The National League of Cities requests
further that EPA continuously consult with NLC before and
during the preparation of this impact statement. A copy of
the NLC request to James Mclntyre, Director of OMB, that this
regulation be identified as a major urban regulatory initia-
tive requiring an Urban and Community Impact Analysis is at-
tached.
On behalf of our 15,000 members NLC appreciates this oppor-
tunity to comment once again and looks forward to EPA's timely
response to our requests.
Please contact Lloyd Chaisson of my staff at (202) 293-7174
regarding these comments.
Sincerely^>
) I
L cW^_/
Alan Beals
Executive Director
-------
National 1620 Eye Street, N.W. OFFICERS:
League Washington. D. C *"*»"
Ol 20006 Corehnrvi. IM»poil Hun Wo**
Cities (202)293-7310 «•»««-««.
Cable: NLCITIES
April 1, 1980
.-=-«,>».
Mr. James T. Mclntyre, Jr.
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Mclntyre:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a regulation setting
national property line noise emission standards for fixed rail facilities.
This regulation is being promulgated under Section 17 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972. The regulation will totally prevent cities from controlling
excessive railyard noise, and by EPA's own admission will protect rail car-
riers at the expense of cities. NIC sees this federal policy as unreason-
able and as having a severely adverse impact on cities with significant
urban rail noise problems.
Executive Order 12074, Urban and Community Impact Analyses (UCIA), issued
by the President on August 16, 1978 establishes a procedure for identifying
aspects of proposed federal policies adversely impacting cities. Clearly,
this regulation will adversely impact many cities throughout the country
and represents a major EPA policy initiative fulfilling all UCIA require-
ments spelled out in OMB Circular No. A-116 implementing Executive Order
12074. As such, the National League of Cities formally requests that the
Office of Management and Budget identify EPA's national property line rail-
yard noise standard (40 CFR 201) as a major policy initiative warranting
the preparation of an Urban and Community Impact Analysis, and that such
analysis be prepared by EPA in mandatory consultation with state and local
government.
A copy of NLC's comments on the proposed EPA railyard regulation 1s enclosed
for your information. Lloyd Chaisson of my staff is handling matters per-
taining to this request. He may be contacted at (202) 293-7174.
I look forward to your early response.
Sincerely,'
Alan Beals
Executive Director - 109 -
MST m«OINT8: Tom fcVotftav. Mayor. Lm Angelas CaMorrw • Ha*wy W. Malar. Mayw W."w*>w \V»V.W"rf» • T«m Maaay V irt- Cohynhut <*• o • DHWeTOft* H. MdwM Any*. t«oc* *• Dtcvy vw«m WL"*
It*** • Patrick J. BMa. Counoi Ptovdart AOuguarQuB Nt* wa.'co • fcaphan C. •««*, E»ecuti¥t Oufc'ty LMJ;* ol U<*jv Cii tf • KWMMI* f . IBMIH. Vavo- iv«.f* Lot-Mr*) • XMMWW 0 tuMli* t««c- t*t
D.'«CIC» COWMO Mu.w.rmi !»»»-IMiryo. Clm>w,Caure>lta>n»- S«iAnio>"> IoufClntlMG.Ctocli.Wixx G»'»o Ic.« • TKnut J. ciMt. VJMI- lu-jB-^n Ca -ix~. . wiol. Dw. ox^e. »»rw.
•rcl J«ma wvna • AnMWI Olnfl. Counc< C~»tr«,. w«4r>ngnn O C • HUK H. Oumt. EnCUM 0 «W >•<«.«• V.-^»JI tator.^Mr. • «OM» HUM, * . Kfc»" • '.Vnxl. ¥-, M chuln • OH T UJ_C1I1.
MWX O-urao. Hra* • MiuM P. lurtt. Carnwor.,. u« V./O.1 N.,acU • JU> IKCom. «/j^-, H».«o" too. • «M« W Hnnmn. C»«i >«<»• w. Von *., ,-,, . lmM ^ „.«,, »„_ t*.
• Mn H. PMfttnkl, Dnoctw M«r>g», Mur«<>« t«^« .««>11« f»^» l..=ul.*t 1>KW *"Xlt i^lM to«ou. •)•:•-.,. il.^n, .J^»ll ««*. Ua.o. Mri^y^ ...... --- MIT" r THIt. J" MJ,I.
CNMWn .South C»o'«u • 'MrW. IteMS Conwcntr IMvUx. Oho • Cllidn M««, U||(« SWW «3«H«(P<" -JXKW T. l»v«v H'wv »-»-5t.i. M»*» '-••• 1 - Vtiar f. tmy«i., r,, . a luTT, iir<>
W.«n»i.|ta4Timi4l,Wl
-------
National 1620 Eye Street, N.W. OFFICERS:
League Washington, D.C. «•»«»•»
"* " ""''•»
Cities (202)293-7310
• Cable: NLCITIES
JotnP AMMM
Wtyor. Swam*. GWQfe
April 1, 1980 f.«*.o™»,
J«ne& F Conwcy
Mayor SI Lr. t-ariycw LauiKVU • KwwMh 0. auMlw, r-truKv*
CXMor C«o»yO.CI«liM,Cl— lrt|^CllKjI<,Ii,M
-------
National 1 620 Eye Street. MW. OFFICERS:
League Washington, D. C. »•»«»•«
July 2, 1979
Cities (202) 293-7310
Cable: NLCITIES
M4tor.tn4f.wc*!
*»«»•**• fttt A»Mto*
Tom MOO* M»yw. CM**** Oo
Mr. Charles El kins, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (AW-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Ref: Rail Carrier Docket (ONAC 79-01)
Dear Mr. El kins:
The National League of Cities (NLC) finds the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposed noise emission standards for railroad facilities and equipment-
wholly inadequate from both technical and policy perspectives. We object to
the concept of absolute inflexible federal regulation of fixed facilities with-
in a local jurisdiction and find such federal policy without precedent. With-
in the legislative parameters to control railyard noise, EPA has opted for a
very unreasonable course of action, unreasonable for cities and unreasonable
for the rail industry.
Specifically, the regulation fails to conform with the following articulated
federal policies:
• The President's Urban Policy
• EPA's National Strategy for Noise Control
• Protection of public health and welfare (Section 2(a), Noise Control
Act of 1972, as amended)
Additionally the regulation as proposed fails to address the following impor-
tant local concerns:
t Reasonable balance between community and industry concerns
• Recognition of special local conditions necessitating special control
measures.
• The unique, localized nature of noise pollution
President Carter, in announcing the Administration's commit»ient to urban
America called upon each department and agency to recognize local initiative
- ill -
••IT mMf NTS: To. Indlt* MM>. lot»
-------
and leadership in all federal programs and regulations which impact local
government. EPA's proposed railyard regulation does not reflect this
directive, since it eTiminates all local initiatives to reduce railyard
facility noise. It provides for a single-number uniform national stan-:
dard which fails to recognize the complexity of combating individual fixed
facility noise levels. (NIC, however, does recommend that all source
standards be retained for "rolling stock," i.e. refrigerator cars, loco-
motives, etc.)
The proposed railyard regulation establishes a standard which conflicts
with articulated EPA noise control policy in two ways:
(1) It fails to "reduce environmental noise exposure to Ldn 65 dB
by vigorous regulatory and planning actions" (Toward a National
Strategy for Noise Control, Environmental Protection Agency, April
1977)
(2) It fails to "strive for an eventual reduction of noise levels to
an Ldn of 55dB" (Ibid)
Furthermore, the enforcement measures set forth are unworkable; they rely on
measurements of 1 hour or more. This approach is impossible from a local
cost and a local enforcement standpoint.
NIC views this regulation as excluding local participation even more than fed-
eral airport noise policies. At the very least, local governments can be
consulted in preparing an airport noise abatement plan, but not so in the
federal regulation regarding railyard facilities. Since EPA strongly ad-
vocates such cooperative airport noise abatement planning, NIC finds such
a dramatic reversal of previously articulated policy alarming.
We urge EPA to eliminate the use of property-line standards as the basis for
regulating railroad noise emissions. EPA is ignoring other possibilities.
In the case of Association of American Railroads et. al. vs. Costle the Court
stated, "if the federal level issues all of its regulations concerning 'equip-
ment and facilities' at one time, the localities can plan their own activi-
ties in the area of.noise regulation with increased certainity and confi-
dence that their efforts will not go for naught." Clearly this statement
embraces the idea that cities can play a role, within federal parameters, in
controlling railyard noise. The property-line standard is contrary to the
Court's acceptance of local initiatives within federal preemptive guidelines.
This concept together with the lack of a definition of "noise emmission stan-
dards" in Section 17(a) leaves EPA considerable regulatory latitude, more
than it has opted to exercise.
Within the context of Section 17 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, NLC be-
lieves that the intent of Congress was to provide a uniform set of regulations
which do not burden the railroad industry. NLC supports regulatory action
which would accommodate the rail industry concerns but which will also pro-
vide a high degree of local planning and initiative.
- 112 -
-------
NIC PROPOSAL
In lieu of the proposed property line standards, NIC supports a package of
uniform local options to control railyard noise which could be activated by
any community seeking relief from rail noise; if the local government sees
no necessity for railyard noise reduction, then none would be required. The
benefit of such an approach, as opposed to EPA's proposal, is that it does
not mandate the rail industry to reduce noise at every rail facility in the
country whether or not such reduction is necessary to protect public health.
Under our proposal, a community, experiencing railyard noise problems, would
have several federally prescribed options which it could consider in develop-
ing and implementing an abatement plan. Abatement requirements would become
mandatory upon a local railyard operator only if a city, with approval of
EPA, decided that they were necessary. In effect, the city and the railroad
would consult with one another and develop an abatement plan based on pre-
scribed federal options such as modified curfews, barriers, speed limits,
operations, etc. Only action by municipal government would result in abate-
ment requirements being placed upon the local railyard operator. An option
package would allow the rail industry to target its noise abatement resources
on "problem" yards rather than scattering investments at every yard in the
country. In return for such targeting, lower noise levels than those pro-
posed by the regulation could and should be achieved in heavily noise im-
pacted urban areas. NIC anticipates that a regulatory approach of this
nature would cost the rail industry considerably less money and allow it to
Invest its noise abatement resources where they would provide the most noise
relief to citizens. Such a city-industry plan of action is currently being
Implemented by the city of Dover, Delaware and Con Rail in solving an acute
railyard noise problem in that city". NIC supports such a balance of concerns
1n controlling yard noise and urges EPA to issue a standard which sets forth
equitable local options for control within certain uniform parameters.
We feel that such an approach is both reasonable to cities and the rail in-
dustry and will save significant time and money. NIC believes that such
city-industry cooperation must be encouraged by regulations, not eliminated.
This approach is not unlike that currently available to cities seeking re-
lief from noise generated by an airport, a fixed facility also. Furthermore
such an "optional" regulatory proposal conforms with current moves to de-
regulate the rail industry.
While we recognize the legal restraints which have been imposed on EPA to
issue regulations expeditiously under the federal noise law, NIC feels that
because of the controversy about these regulations an extension of the pro-
mulgation deadline would allow adequate time to develop a meaningful and
balanced noise abatement strategy. Extensive public hearings should be
conducted which would lead to a more reasonable regulation rather than one
which removes noise control from the hands of local government. •
We recognize that the existing law preempts state and local governments from
establishing noise emission levels in conflict with federal limits But we
do not believe that Section 17 precludes EPA from establishing several uni-
form options which local governments can choose among subject to EPA ao
proval. EPA's approval of a local government's abatement plan would be con-
tingent on protecting public health and welfare and on "taking into account
the cost of compliance" by railroads. a
- 113 -
-------
The National League of Cities appreciates this opportunity to comment on
the proposed regulation and would be happy to meet with representatives of
the rail industry and-'EPA to develop a fair solution to the rail noise pro-
blem within the existing parameters of The Noise Control Act of 1973.
Alan Beals
Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Senator John C. Culver
Senator William V. Roth
Representative James Florio
Jack Watson
Stuart Eizenstat
- 114 -
-------
March 26, 1930
Whistle Blowing
Noise pollution is no joke. The worst local
example of this proven detriment to human
health and well-being is the FEC and SCL Rail-
roads whose locomotives and cars ride rough-
shod over human sensibilities during the eve-
ning, night and early morning hours with an
unholy howling and clatter that night after
night disturbs the much-needed rest of hard
working people.
It is time for Palm Beach County citizens
to make known their indignation at this envi-
ronmental degradation and demand a ban on
the banshees that so directly undermine the
quality of our lives.
it-21-SO N.O. Josephsen
M— £J.-ou Lake Worth
Mr. Dennis E. Wile
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
#5 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia. 30303
Dear Mr. Wile:
I wish to share with your office my recently
published viewpoint on NOISE POLLUTION in Palm
Beach County, Florida. (See atchd.)
The purpose of this statement was not alone to
express a personal sense of pique, but rather
to give expression to a widespread problem
affecting the lives of many people on the east
coast of Florida.
Anything that your office can do to support the
right of County governments to retain their
right to control noise, speed and hours of rail-
road operation will be gratefully received by
the thousands of citizens now so adversely
effected.
All of us greatly appreciate your efforts in
our behalf.
Very truly yours,
Norman 0/Jo'sephsen
2508 - 10th Ave. No.
Lake Worth, Florida.
33^61
•8 *
- 115 -
-------
PROJECT WHISTLE STOP,
FLORIDA, U.S.A.Jnc.
SAULS LEVY- Pr«id«nt- 299§PointEa$tDri«,H.MiamiBe?ch.FI.J3HD 932-9324
A.JOSEPHPLATMICK-Tr.a$irer.ttfl7iBr$cayn«BI»d.H.MiamiBch.FI.33«q9JMOtfl
April 2,'80
Rail Carrier Docket
ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Washington.D.C.20^60
Dear Sirs*
We should like to make comments on Sections 201.12 and
201.30-201*33.
The noise made by trains as they cross roads is sometimes
unbearable due to the horn-blowing by the engineers. Some
engineers act differently than others* and some horns are
of different volume than others.
Needed looking into would be the 1* The various loudness
of the different horns. It seems that different trains have
horns which emit different loudness of sound.
2. The engineers vary their use of the horn in length of
sound. Some engineers will tap their horns lightly, and a
few minutes later, another train engineer will hold his hand
down on the horn and make one long blast instead of four
short ones. 3* The need of four blasts of the horn is
silly. This is a means of warning. Why does the engineer have
to blow the horn as he passes through the intersection? Once
the train reached the distance of not being able to stop for
someone in his path, isn't it ridiculous to continue blowing
his horn? Two short blasts should be more than sufficient
if done at the proper distance.from the intersection.
't. The need of horn blowing at all. It seems that horn blowing
makes an entire community aware that a train is passing an
intersection or is doing some work in a yard. Only those
people interested in crossing the intersection, or are involvec
in the yard, should be warned through the use of devices
which would be more localized, such as bells, or WalkieTalkies.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
f v\w // '
I
o * A.Joseph Platnick
-------
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
EDWARD TATNALL BUILDING
OFFICE OF THE DOVER. DELAWARE 199O1 PHONE: OO2> 078-4403
SECRETARY
April 3, 1980
Rail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 80-01
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Gentlemen:
The State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control requests that the following comments be considered in the promulgation
of receiving railyard property line noise emission standards pursuant to the
notice in the federal register of January 4, 1980.
Our comments of May 29, 1979, apply equally to the promulgation of this
standard and we request that the enclosed copy of those comments be considered
1n your current deliberations.
The following portions of the proposed regulation are of particular
concern:
(1) Property Line vs Receiving Property Standard: The standards
proposed on April 17, 1979, are designated as "Receiving Property
Standards," but the federal register dated January 4, 1980, proposes
a "property line" standard. It is essential that you clarify
precisely where the standard is to apply.
(2) Proposed Standards; Assuming the proposed standards are applicable
to receiving properties, we again reiterate our concern that the
standards will legally permit levels of noise which will adversely
Impact several million people throughout the country. Further, the
proposal provides no expectation that a day-night sound level of
55 dBA will ever be achieved.
(3) Economic Impact on Railroad Industry: Section 17 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972 clearly places emphasis on matters of costs Imposed on the
Industry. EPA reports that 1t "forsees no significant economic Impact
1n the industry overall" resulting from the cost of applying available
technology to meet the proposed regulations. We believe, therefore, ",
that it 1s reasonable to expect any industry to accept some economic
burden in an effort to alleviate adverse environmental conditions.'by
which 1t 1s responsible. It appears that the proposed standards eould
• \
- 117 - S
-------
Rail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 80-01
Page Two
be made more stringent to obtain greater protection of public
health and welfare without undue economic burden to the railroad
industry.
(4) Effective Date; The specific railroad noise source standards
promulgated on January 4, 1980, require compliance by January 15,
1984. The proposed regulation would require "All Facilities &
Equipment" to comply by January 1, 1982. We urge you to retain
this earlier compliance date for these facilities to achieve
a measure of relief from railroad noise levels at the earliest
practicable date.
(5) Preemption and Enforcement; We wish to emphasize our earlier
comments on these subjects which question whether the public will
accrue any benefit from the proposed regulations because of the
limited enforcement resources of the Federal Railroad Administra-
tion and the preemptive nature of the federal regulation. As a
minimum, the regulations should specify rules and procedures which
would allow State and local governments to apply for waives of
exemption to permit them to deal effectively with local conditions.
We urge you to give further consideration to amending the proposal in a manner
which will provide a greater measure of protection to the public health and welfare
and afford State and local agencies the opportunity to resolve their individual
problems.
Very truly yours,
JEW:RRF:Kk
cc: Mr. John Mogan, City Manager, Dover
Mr. Eugene Ruane
Enclosure
John E. Wilson, III
Acting Secretary
- 118 -
-------
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
EDWAND TAINM.L BuiuWMtt
OFFICE OF THE DOV«. O«c*WA« 1 MO1 ««•«: OO2I 678 - 44O3
SECRETARY
May 29, 1979
Rail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 79-01
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Gentlemen:
The State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control requests that the following comments be considered in the promulgation
of rail carrier noise emission standards pursuant to the notice in the federal
register of April 17, 1979.
The proposed regulations, in our opinion, will be virtually ineffective
toward resolving the noise problems associated with the complex and pervasive
railroad industry. They are not protective of public health and welfare; they
are inconsistent with the national noise policy; they are totally preemptive
and; they are unenforceable. It is gratifying, however, to note that by
making the proposed standards applicable at all.receiving property, the regu-
latory approach is, 1n this respect, consistent'with the Levels Document
(EPA 550/9-74-004, March, 1974).
It 1s evident that the proposed regulations attempt to follow the mandate
of Section 17(a)(l) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 ("the Act") requiring regu-
lations "which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technology, taking Into account the cost of
compliance." It is unconscionable, however, to believe, as reportedly stated
by the American Association of Railroads (AAR), that the intent of Congress
was to protect the railroads and Interstate commerce and that any .concern the
Congress may have had over the Impact of railroad noise upon the health and
welfare of the American public was secondary at best. Indeed, this is con-
trary to the findings of Congress expressed tn Section 2(a) of the Act: "(1)
that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health
and welfare of the Nation's population, particularly in urban areas: (2) that
the major sources of noise Include transportation vehicles and equipment,
machinery, appliances, and other products in cpmmerce." In Section 2(b),
"The Congress declares that is is the policy of the United States to promote
an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health
or welfare." The sound level measurements reported in the Background Document
make it abundantly clear that railroad noises substantially impact public
health and welfare. This data notwithstanding, the AAR reportedly has issued
- 119 -
-------
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
May 29, 1979
Page Two
statements to the effect that there is no available evidence that a health
and welfare problem exists and, hence, there is no justification for crippling
the nation's rail network through imposition of a standard penalizing night-
time operations or requiring the expenditure of hundreds of million of dollars
for noise control. This Department does not advocate crippling the railroad
industry, but, as in most efforts to protect health and welfare, an expenditure
is required which must be factored into the cost of doing business. Certainly,
this cost must be considered in the development of regulations, but the regu-
lations can be.structured in a manner which will allow the industry to absorb
these costs over a period of time. But, there can be no doubt about the fact
that the corrective actions will be costly, but cost per se should not forever
preclude the public from the healthy environment to which it is entitled.
Clearly, as EPA acknowledges, "The Agency has been extremely sensitive to
costs and potential effects on railroad operations in setting its standards."
Apparently, as evidenced by AAR statements, the industry considers public
health and welfare secondary to its own interests.
The limited concern over public health and welfare is further evidenced by
the fact that in a Background Document measuring 1-1/8 inches in thickness,
EPA has devoted only nine pages to the health and welfare impact of the proposed
regulations, and much of this is an explanation of how the Agency approached the
subject. Our understanding of EPA's statistical impact analysis is that some
830,000 persons may expect an environment free from railroad noise as a result
of these regulations, leaving over three million persons exposed to average
daytime-nighttime sound levels of 75 decibels.
The Background Document also is deficient in documenting the extent of
public participation in the rule-making process. A statement in one of the
accompanying fact-finding sheets indicates that numerous local officials and
media representatives were contacted, but we could find no documentation of
the names of persons contacted and their reactions or inputs to the proposed
regulations. Unquestionably, in developing these regulations EPA has failed to
follow its plans for implementing Executive Order No. 12044 for assuring that
all interested parties have an opportunity at a very early stage to participate
in the development of federal regulations. We strongly urge EPA to seek a
further extension of the date for final promulgation of these regulations to
allow participation by interested parties.
Because of obvious limitations in the provisions for enforcement, It is
questionable whether the public will accrue any benefit from the proposed regula-
tions. The Act requires the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to issue
rules to assure compliance with the EPA regulations, but the FRA reportedly
doubts that it has the authority or the resources for adequate national enforce-
ment. Thus, EPA expects that those State and local governments encountering
noise problems covered by federal- regulations will adopt and actively enforce
standards identical to those in the federal regulations. However, State and
- 120 -
-------
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
May 29, 1979
Page Three
local officials may have little incentive for adopting the federal standards.
The measurement criteria are far too complex to be workable, and in many
instances the standards will do nothing to alleviate a local problem.
Although the Act provides for waivers of preemption, the proposed regulations
do not set forth the necessary ground rules and procedures for considering
such actions. It is clear, however, that the preemptive nature of the Act
will not be compromised by the waiver proceedings. Thus, there appears to
be no mechanism for dealing with those local noise problems which impact on
public health and welfare, but will not be alleviated even by effective
enforcement of an applicable standard.
To provide some measure of relief through the proposed regulations, we
recommend the following actions:
(1) Amend the proposed standard for car coupling operations to provide
State and local officials with a more effective enforcement tool. The stated
technology for controlling noise from this source is speed control, requiring
only a measure of self-discipline on the part of the railroads. The industry
incurs no cost and no disruption of operations/from enforcement of this regula-
tion. Therefore, there is no apparent reason why this standard should not be
effective immediately upon promulgation. However, since it represents current
-practice it should be included as a minimum standard. We recommend that the
standard be reworded as follows:
"Effective immediately, the sound level for car coupling opera-
tions shall not, at any receiving .property, exceed an A-weighted
sound level of 55 dB between the hours of 11:GO p.m. and 7:00
a.m. and a level of 65 dB at any other time. Whenever any
State or local government has determined by measurement that
the sound level of car coupling operations exceeds this stan-
dard, it may require the railroad .to implement one or more
noise abatement techniques to achieve this standard. Such
techniques include, but-.are not limited to, the rescheduling,
relocating or cessation of the non-complying car coupling
operations. In the event that the railroad can demonstrate
to the satisfaction of such government that there is no
available noise abatement technique which can achieve the
standard, no car coupling operation shall be performed at
speeds greater than four miles per hour at the point of
impact or in such manner as to cause.a sound level of 95 dB
at 30 meters from the center line of the track on which the
coupling occurs.
(2) Simplify the measurement criteria using simple statistical procedures
based upon the use of the Type II sound level meter.
- 121 -
-------
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
May 29, 1979
Page Four
(3) Specify ground rules and procedures which would allow State and local
governments to apply for waivers of preemption so they can deal effectively
with "special local conditions" without jeopardizing the basic areas of pre-
emption set forth in the Act.
(4) Include, as a minimum, a statement of intent to the effect that as
future regulations are developed, EPA will give increasingly greater condiera-
tion to alleviating the public health and welfare impact of railroad noises
consistent with the findings of the Congress.
(5) In the development of these and any future railroad noise regulations
adhere strictly to the procedures set forth in EPA's plans for implementing *
Executive Order No. 12044. It is essential that citizen groups, the general
public, and federal, state and local agencies have opportunity for input at
the earliest stages of the regulatory development procedure.
(6) To the extent that any of these recommendations is contrary to pro-
visions of the Noise Control Act of 1972, begin immediately to prepare appro-
priate recommendations for amendments to the statute for consideration by the
Congress.
We have reviewed and concur with the statements submitted by the City of
Dover, Delaware, and by Mr. Eugene B. Ruane, who resides in Dover. We join
with them in urging you to reject the proposed regulations and to enlist the
aid of the public, state and local governments -'and other interested groups
in formulating a regulatory strategy which is both effective and oriented
in larger measure toward the protection of the public health and welfare.
Very £ruly yours,
Austin P. Olney
Secretary /
APO/RRF/rdr
cc: The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The Honorable Thomas B. Evans
The Honorable Charles Legates
Mr. Eugene B. Ruane
The Honorable Pierre S. du Pont
- 122 -
-------
NATIONAL 'AS8Ni<«F»NOm«CONTR8t'*0
PO BOX 3616
FT WALTON BEACH PL 32549 •
4*0057598095003 04/04/80 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP W8HB
2 9042438129 MGM TQMT FT WALTON BEACH FL 04-04 Q920A EST
USE?A»ONAC (ANR«49Q) ATTN BOB ROSE RAIL
CARRIER DOCKET ONAC 60-01
401 M ST SN
WASHINGTON DC 20460
*
9
3
THI3 IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF A PREVIOUSLY PHONE-DELIVERED TELE6RAM
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NOISE CONTROL OFFICIALS STANDS BY ITS
ORIGINAL POSITION AS STATED IN OUR JUNE 27TH 1979 LETTER TO THE
DOCKET, IF PROMULGATED THIS REGULATION WOULD BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO
THE NATIONAL NOISE CONTROL EFFORT AND SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE STATE AND
LOCAL NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS. RECOGNIZING THAT THE MAJOR PROBLEM IS
SECTION 17 OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO CALL FOR
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HEARINGS,
JESSE BORTHWICK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PO BOX 2618
FT WALTON BEACH FL 32549
09|20 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
>
- 123 -
TO REPLY BY MA.LGRAM. SEE REVERSE S.OE FOR WBgTERN U^ON'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBE
-------
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD
627O6
April 2, 1980
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-01
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed, please find the supplemental comments of the Attorney General
of Illinois on the Environmental Protection Agency's "Notice of Proposed
Rule Making" on Noise Emission Standards for Transportation Equipment;
Interstate Rail Carriers, published January 4, 1980.
Sincerely,
Reed W. Neuman
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
RWN:sb
End.
.
- 124 - rr.
-------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards;
Property Line Noise Standards
[Docket No. 80-01]
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General of Illinois
The following comments are tendered as a supplementation
of our intitial comments in this matter, submitted June 29, 1979
(to Docket No. 79-01).
As indicated in our prior comments, we support the proposal
to establish overall railyard noise emission standards as measured on
receiving property. In general, the overall receiving-property-standard?
concept for railyard noise most effectively brings the goals of the
Noise Control Act within reach of technological feasibility and reasonable
cost, and focusses the strongest abatement efforts on those areas where
the potential benefits are the greatest. As noted earlier, a reclassifi-
cation of "receiving property" would serve to direct abatement energies
where truly needed while allowing for a more realistic assessment of
the costs of the proposed regulation. However, as also noted earlier,
the proposed standards appear so lenient as to do no more than preserve
the status quo.
We have previously illustrated, and USEPA seems to have
noted well, the appeal of a receiving-property approach which necessitates
compliance (and its attendant costs) only where there exists an adverse
noise impact. The limitation on overall railyard noise levels allows
for the greatest flexibility in devising control Strategies, and gives
life to abatement options other than physical modification of the noise
source. To reduce average sound energy (at receiving property) to a
specified level, the railyard proprietor can apply the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive abatement techniques.
It is imperative that the proposed overall limits be viewed
not merely as duplicating or overlapping the specific-source standards
promulgated by USEPA, but rather as supplementary controls. The specific-
source standards are admittedly lenient, primarily because compliance costs,
if applied across-the-board, rule out tougher limits. Overall limits,
based on average energy levels, seem a good way to supplement specific-
source standards where impacts on receiving property are known and severe.
Given that the major sources of railyard noise have or will be covered by'
specific-source standards, the overall noise limits would require any
- 125 -
-------
Comments (continued)
April 2, 1980
Page Two (2)
further abatement only where the noise impact is not sufficiently relieved
by the specific-source standards.
Thus, to award the overall railyard noise limits a meaningful
role in the regulatory scheme, the proposed limits need to be toughened
substantially. As has been well documented by the Illinois EPA's field
data (see Illinois EPA's 6/29/79 Comments), the limits as proposed .
seem to promise virtually no regulation at all, and it is not at all
clear that the "overall" concept adds anything of substance to the
program.
Also, to emphasize the ^supplementary nature of the (hopefully
more stringent) overall railyard noise limits, perhaps some express
language should be included to the effect that proof of compliance with
any or all of the specific-source standards does not constitute a defense
to a violation of the overall yard limits.
The point advanced by Illinois EPA that equivalent sound
level (Leq, Ldn) measurement techniques are inappropriate descriptors
for certain types of noise is well taken. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed overall, time-weighted average limits are appropriate to the
mix of railyard sources, we urge the adoption of the property-line noise
standards, hopefully in a significantly more stringent form.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois
BY:
K-£-£A OJ. Ai LtxasX cud
Reed W. Neuman**~
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
500:South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9031
RWN:sb
- 126 -
-------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards;
Property Line Noise Standards
[Docket No. 80-01]
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General of Illinois
The following comments are tendered as a supplementation
of our intitial comments in this matter, submitted June 29, 1979
(to Docket No. 79-01).
As indicated in our prior comments, we support the proposal
to establish overall railyard noise emission standards as measured on
receiving property. In general, the overall receiving-property-standards
concept for railyard noise most effectively brings the goals of the
Noise Control Act within reach of technological feasibility and reasonable
cost, and focusses the strongest abatement efforts on those areas where
the potential benefits are the greatest. As noted earlier, a reclassifi-
cation of "receiving property" would serve to direct abatement energies
where truly needed while allowing for a more realistic assessment of
the costs of the proposed regulation. However, as also noted earlier,
the proposed standards appear so lenient as to do no more than preserve
the status quo.
We have previously illustrated, and USEPA seems to have
noted well, the appeal of a receiving-property approach which necessitates
compliance (and its attendant costs) only where there exists an adverse
noise impact. The limitation on overall railyard noise levels allows
for the greatest flexibility in devising control strategies, and gives
life to abatement options other than physical modification of the noise
source. To reduce average sound energy (at receiving property) to a
specified level, the railyard proprietor can apply the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive abatement techniques.
It is imperative that the proposed overall limits be viewed
not merely as duplicating or overlapping the specific-source standards
promulgated by USEPA, but rather as supplementary controls. The specific-
source standards are admittedly lenient, primarily because compliance costs,
if applied across-the-board, rule out tougher limits. Overall limits,
based on average energy levels, seem a good way to supplement specific-
source standards where impacts on receiving property are known and severe.
Given that the major sources of railyard noise have or will be covered by
specific-source standards, the overall noise limits would require any
- 127 -
-------
Comments (continued)
April 2, 1980
Page Two (2)
further abatement only where the noise impact is not sufficiently relieved
by the specific-source standards.
Thus, to award the overall railyard noise limits a meaningful
role in the regulatory scheme, the proposed limits need to be toughened
substantially. As has been well documented by the Illinois EPA's field
data (see Illinois EPA's 6/29/79 Comments), the limits as proposed
seem to promise virtually no regulation at all, and it is not at all
clear that the "overall" concept adds anything of substance to the
program.
Also, to emphasize the supplementary nature of the (hopefully
more stringent) overall railyard noise limits, perhaps some express
language should .be included to the effect that proof of compliance with
any or all of the specific-source standards does not constitute a defense
to a violation of the overall yard limits.
The point advanced by Illinois EPA that equivalent sound
level (Leq, Ldn) measurement techniques are inappropriate descriptors
for certain types of noise is well taken. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed overall, time-weighted average limits are appropriate to the
mix of railyard sources, we urge the adoption of the property-line noise
standards, hopefully in a significantly more stringent form.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois
BY:
Reed W. Neuman
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
500:South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9031
RWN:sb
- 128 -
-------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards;
Property Line Noise Standards
[Docket No. 80-01]
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General of Illinois
The following comments are tendered as a supplementation
,of our intitial comments in this matter, submitted June 29, 1979
(to Docket No. 79-01).
As indicated in our prior comments, we support the proposal
to establish overall railyard noise emission standards as measured on
receiving property. In general, the overall receiving-property-standards
concept for railyard noise most effectively brings the goals of the
Noise Control Act within reach of technological feasibility and reasonable
cost, and focusses the strongest abatement efforts on those areas where
the potential benefits are the greatest. As noted earlier, a reclassifi-
cation of "receiving property" would serve to direct abatement energies
where truly needed while allowing for a more realistic assessment of
the costs of the proposed regulation. However, as also noted earlier,
the proposed standards appear so lenient as to do no more than preserve
the status quo.
We have previously illustrated, and USEPA seems to have
noted well, the appeal of a receiving-property approach which necessitates
compliance (and its attendant costs) only where there exists an adverse
noise impact. The limitation on overall railyard noise levels allows
for the greatest flexibility in devising control Strategies, and gives
life to abatement options other than physical modification of the noise
source. To reduce average sound energy (at receiving property) to a
specified level, the railyard proprietor can apply the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive abatement techniques.
It is imperative that the proposed overall limits be viewed
not merely as duplicating or overlapping the specific-source standards
promulgated by USEPA, but rather as supplementary controls. The specific-
source standards are admittedly lenient, primarily because compliance costs,
if applied across-the-board, rule out tougher limits. Overall limits,
based on average energy levels, seem a good way to supplement specific-
source standards where impacts on receiving property are known and severe.
Given that the major sources of railyard noise have or will be covered by
specific-source standards, the overall noise limits would require any
- 129 -
-------
Comments (continued)
April 2, 1980
Page Two (2)
further abatement only where the noise impact is not sufficiently relieved
by the specific-source standards.
Thus, to award the overall railyard noise limits a meaningful
role in the regulatory scheme, the proposed limits need to be toughened
substantially. As has been well documented by the Illinois EPA's field
data (see Illinois EPA's 6/29/79 Comments), the limits as proposed .
seem to promise virtually no regulation at all, and it is not at all
clear that the "overall" concept adds anything of substance to the
program.
Also, to emphasize the -supplementary nature of the (hopefully
more stringent) overall railyard noise limits, perhaps some express
language should be included to the effect that proof of compliance with
any or all of the specific-source standards does not constitute a defense
to a violation of the overall yard limits.
The point advanced by Illinois EPA that equivalent sound
level (Leq, Ldn) measurement techniques are inappropriate descriptors
for certain types of noise is well taken. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed overall, time-weighted average limits are appropriate to the
mix of railyard sources, we urge the adoption of the property-line noise
standards, hopefully in a significantly more stringent form.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois
BY:
Reed W. Neuman
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
500:South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9031
RWNssb
-130 -
-------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards;
Property Line Noise Standards
[Docket No. 80-01]
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General of Illinois
The following comments are tendered as a supplementation
.-of our intitial comments in this matter, submitted June 29, 1979
(to Docket No. 79-01).
As indicated in our prior comments, we support the proposal
to establish overall railyard noise emission standards as measured on
receiving property. In general, the overall receiving-property-standards
concept for railyard noise most effectively brings the goals of the
Noise Control Act within reach of technological feasibility and reasonable
cost, and focusses the strongest abatement efforts on those areas where
the potential benefits are the greatest. As noted earlier, a reclassifi-
cation of "receiving property" would serve to direct abatement energies
where truly needed while allowing for a more realistic assessment of
the costs of the proposed regulation. However, as also noted earlier,
the proposed standards appear so lenient as to do no more than preserve
the status quo.
We have previously illustrated, and USEPA seems to have
noted well, the appeal of a receiving-property approach which necessitates
compliance (and its attendant costs) only where there exists an adverse
noise impact. The limitation on overall railyard noise levels allows
for the greatest flexibility in devising control strategies, and gives
life to abatement options other than physical modification of the noise
source. To reduce average sound energy (at receiving property) to a
specified level, the railyard proprietor can apply the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive abatement techniques.
It is imperative that the proposed overall limits be viewed
not merely as duplicating or overlapping the specific-source standards
promulgated by USEPA, but rather as supplementary controls. The specific-
source standards are admittedly lenient, primarily because compliance costs
if applied across-the-board, rule out tougher limits. Overall limits,
based on average energy levels, seem a good way to supplement specific-
source standards where impacts on receiving property are known and severe.
Given that the major sources of railyard noise have or will be covered by'
specific-source standards, the overall noise limits would require any
- 131 -
-------
Comments (continued)
April 2, 1980
Page Two (2)
further abatement only where the noise impact is not sufficiently relieved
by the specific-source standards.
Thus, to award the overall railyard noise limits a meaningful
role in the regulatory scheme, the proposed limits need to be toughened
substantially. As has been well documented by the Illinois EPA's field
data (see Illinois EPA's 6/29/79 Comments), the limits as proposed
seem to promise virtually no regulation at all, and it is not at all
clear that the "overall" concept adds anything of substance to the
program.
Also, to emphasize the supplementary nature of the (hopefully
more stringent) overall railyard noise limits, perhaps some express
language should .be included to the effect that proof of compliance with
any or all of the specific-source standards does not constitute a defense
to a violation of the overall yard limits.
The point advanced by Illinois EPA that equivalent sound
level (Leq, Ldn) measurement techniques are inappropriate descriptors
for certain types of noise is well taken. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed overall, time-weighted average limits are appropriate to the
mix of railyard sources, we urge the adoption of the property-line noise
standards, hopefully in a significantly more stringent form.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois
BY: JM-3-& (J • Al Lu-xV< QUA
Reed W. Neuman N ""
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
500:South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9031
RWN:sb
- 132 -
-------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards:
Property Line Noise Standards
[Docket No. 80-01]
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General of Illinois
The following comments are tendered as a supplementation
of our intitial comments in this matter, submitted June 29, 1979
(to Docket No. 79-01).
As indicated in our prior comments, we support the proposal
to establish overall railyard noise emission standards as measured on
receiving property. In general, the overall receiving-property-standards
concept for railyard noise most effectively brings the goals of the
Noise Control Act within reach of technological feasibility and reasonable
cost, and focusses the strongest abatement efforts on those areas where
the potential benefits are the greatest. As noted earlier, a reclassifi-
cation of "receiving property" would serve to direct abatement energies
where truly needed while allowing for a more realistic assessment of
the costs of the proposed regulation. However, as also noted earlier,
the proposed standards appear so lenient as to do no more than preserve
the status quo.
We have previously illustrated, and USEPA seems to have
noted well, the appeal of a receiving-property approach which necessitates
compliance (and its attendant costs) only where there exists an adverse
noise impact. The limitation on overall railyard noise levels allows
for the greatest flexibility in devising control Strategies, and gives
life to abatement options other than physical modification of the noise
source. To reduce average sound energy (at receiving property) to a
specified level, the railyard proprietor can apply the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive abatement techniques.
It is imperative that the proposed overall limits be viewed
not merely as duplicating or overlapping the specific-source standards
promulgated by USEPA, but rather as supplementary controls. The specific-
source standards are admittedly lenient, primarily because compliance costs,
if applied across-the-board, rule out tougher limits. Overall limits,
based on average energy levels, seem a good way to supplement specific-
source standards where Impacts on receiving property are known and severe.
Given that the major sources of railyard noise have or will be covered by
specific-source standards, the overall noise limits would require any
- 133 -
-------
Comments (continued)
April 2, 1980
Page Two (2)
further abatement only where the noise impact is not sufficiently relieved
by the specific-source standards.
Thus, to award the overall railyard noise limits a meaningful
role in the regulatory scheme, the proposed limits need to be toughened
substantially. As has been well documented by the Illinois EPA's field
data (see Illinois EPA's 6/29/79 Comments), the limits as proposed .
seem to promise virtually no regulation at all, and it is not at all
clear that the "overall" concept adds anything of substance to the
program.
Also, to emphasize the supplementary nature of the (hopefully
more stringent) overall railyard noise limits, perhaps some express
language should be included to the effect that proof of compliance with
any or all of the specific-source standards does not constitute a defense
to a violation of the overall yard limits.
/
The point advanced by Illinois EPA that equivalent sound
level (Leq, Ldn) measurement techniques are inappropriate descriptors
for certain types of noise is well taken. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed overall, time-weighted average limits are appropriate to the
mix of railyard sources, we urge the adoption of the property-line noise
standards, hopefully in a significantly more stringent form.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois
BY:
Reed W. Neuman
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
Southern Region
500:South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9031
RWN:sb
- 134 -
-------
The Federal Minister
for
Youth, Family and Health
345 - 4517
In all replies, please cite the
above transaction number.
53 BONN BAD GODLSBERG 1, March 25, 1980
P. 0. Box 490
Telephone (illegible) Ext. 343
(or through operator 83433)
Telex: (illegible)
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80 -01
Standards and Regulations
Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re:
US Regulations (railroad noise)
Reference: Your Letter EPA - Office Air, Noise and Radiation
(ANR - 490) of January 25, 1980
I am very grateful to you for sending me the interesting materials through
your Director Henry E. Thomas. From a health perspective, I take the liberty
of making the following remarks:
The limit values for intense noise processes were worked out under the
condition of economic tolerability of technical anti-noise measures. With
the exception of speed limits during switching operations, only acoustic
engineering measures are used to increase passive noise protection. Because
these measures are very expensive, the regulated limit values are set so
high that the objective of an external level of
Ldn • 55 dB (A)
is sometimes considerably exceeded for a significant number of people.
Page 4, second paragraph specifies that at this time about 6.5 to 10 million
people experience immision levels from railroad installations which exceed
- 135 -
-------
- 2 -
L. = 55 dB (A). The present regulation would decrease this number by about
10 to 15 percent. The effect of the regulation cannot be easily estimated,
since noise emission but not immission is limited - as it is, for example,
in the traffic noise protection law of the Federal Republic, In order to
be able to evaluate whether an adequate improvement of the noise situation
has been reached from a health perspective, a detailed immission study would
therefore be of interest.
In such a study, for example, the number of persons which are currently
exceeding 55 dB (A) by 5, 10, 15, and more dB, could be compared with the
corresponding number of persons after the regulation has been implemented.
A value of 15 dB or more beyond this limit should in no case be tolerated,
for health reasons.
Consequently, one must examine whether a maximum allowable immission limit
level of
Ldn - 70 dB (A)
cannot be specified 1n addition to the existing emission limit levels
Corresponding to the German legislation on traffic noise).
A corresponding formulation is already contained in the regulation, since
either the emission level or the immission level 1s limited for locomotive
test stands (p 2, 4th paragraph), 1n order to minimize costs. In this case,
the emission level value may be exceeded if the immission level does not
exceed 65 dB (A). Analogous to this, one should examine, for reasons of
health protection, whether the immission limit level required above could
not be generally Introduced. In contrast to a determination on the basis
- 136 -
-------
- 3 -
of cost savings, a criterion more favorable for environmental protection
should be chosen here.
Very truly yours,
Under authorization
Cslgnature)
Dr. Holl
- 137 -
-------
D«r Bundetmlnliter
fur
Jug«nd, Famllla und Go*undhalt
U BONN-BAD CODESBERC I. d.r, 25. MarZ 1980
Poitfach 490
B«l »H.n Anlwortiehrilbtn wird urn Ane.b« «Mg"
O»»eMtl»numm»r (•b«Wn.
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC 80-0=!
Standards and Regulations
Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Ob.r Vcrminlung (Mil
. I-WSI7
Dl»n»t.Hi: Ktnntdyill** 1»-107
,
Betr.: US-Regulations (railroad noise)
Bezug: Ihr Schreiben EPA - Office Air, Noise and Radiation
(ANR - 490) vom 25. Januar 1980
Fiir die Ubersendung der interessanten Materialien durch Herrn
Direktor Henry E. Thomas danke ich verbindlich. Aus gesundheit-
licher Sicht erlaube ich mir folgende Bemerkungen:
Die Grenzwerte fur larmintensive Vorgange wurden unter der Be-
dingung der wirtschaftlichen Tragbarkeit von technischen Schall-
schutzmaBnahmen erarbeitet. Hit Ausnahme der Geschwindigkeits-
begrenzung beim Rangieren werden nur technisch akustische MaBnahmen
zur Ernbhung des passiven Schallschutzes in Rechnung gesetzt. Vege.
der hohen Kosten dieser MaBnahmen werden die Regelgrenzwerte so
hoch angesetzt, daB das Ziel eines AuBenpegels von
Jdn
55 dB (A)
fur eine betrachtliche Bevblkerungszahl zum Teil erheblich iiber-
schritten wird.
Auf S. 4 2. Absatz wird angegeben, daB z.Zt. ca. 6,5 bis 10 Mill.
Menschen bei hbheren Immisionspegeln von Eisenbahnanlagen als L.
^^ On
U. « 55 dB (A) leben. Durch die neue Regulation wiirde diese Zahl ca.
"10-15 /•> kleiner werden. Die Auswirkung der Regulation ist nicht
S
-------
leicht abzuschatzen, da die Schallemission, nicht aber die
Immission - wie z.B. im Verkehrslarmschutzgesetz der Bun-
desrepublik - begrenzt wird. Urn beurteilen zu kb'nnen, ob
vom gesundheitlichen Standpunkt eine ausreichende Ver-
besserung der Larmsituation erreicht werden wird, ware
deshalb eine detaillierte Immissionsuntersuchung von Inter-
esse.
Bei dieser Untersuchung konntm z.B. die Bevolkerungs-
zahlen gegeniibergestellt werden, die z.Zt. und nach Durch-
fiihrung der Vorschrift den Wert von 55 6B (A) um 5» 10,
15 und mehr dB iiberschreiten. tJberschreitungen von 15
und mehr dB sollten aus gesundheitlichen Griinden in keinem
Fall toleriert werden.
Daher sollte geprtLft werden, ob nicht zu den vorgesehenen
Emissionsgrenzpegeln ein hochstzulassiger Immissionsgrenz-
pegel von
. Ldn =.?0 dB (A)
festgelegt werden kann (entsprechend der deutschen Ge-
setzgebung zum Verkehrslarm).
Ein entsprechender Ansatz ist bereits in der Regulation
enthalten, da aus Kostenersparnisgrunden fur Lokomotiv-
Priifstande (S. 2 4. Absatz) entweder der Emissionspegel
Oder der Imraissionspegel begrenzt wird. In diesem Tall
darf der Emissionspegelgrenzwert iiberschritten werden,
wenn der Immissionspegel 65 dB (A) nicht iiberstei^t.
Analog dazu sollte aus Griinden des Gesundheitsschutaes
gepriift werden, generell den oben geforderten Immissions-
grenzpegel einzufiihren. Entgegen einer Festlegung nach
Kostenersparnisgriinden ware hierbei das fiir den Umwelt-
schutz giinstigere Kriterium zu wahlen.
Mit/vorziiglicher Hochachtung
Im Auftrag
•^-4——
Dr.'
- 139 -
-------
APPENDIX
-------
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY •
909 S.E. First Av«nu«
Brlckell PUU, Building - Rm. 402
MUml, Florida 33131
Telephone: 579-2760
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
July 2, 1979
Mr. Henry Thomas
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Noise Regulations
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This office has reviewed the proposed rules governing noise levels from
railroad yards throughout the United States. The EPA also has rules
which govern noise from the trains themselves as they move from one
local jurisdiction to another. In general, we question the enforceabll-
Ity of the proposed rules since average noise level readings are pro-
posed rather than maximum levels. Considerable time and effort will be
required of the enforcing agency In order to obtain results on which to
base a violation of the standards.
More specifically, we question the exclusion by EPA of rules regulating
"Horns, Bells & Whistles". These warning devices are part of the train
and therefore move from one jurisdiction to another. It would be very
difficult operationally for regulations to vary In different states or
counties and EPA is the only regulatory agency which can adopt a national
standard on the devices. As you are aware these devices are very noisy
and In some cases constitute the primary source of noise creating a
nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. We strongly urge that EPA
reconsider excluding these devices from the proposed regulations since
their continued operation on a routine basis will make It almost Imposs-
ible to control the noise nuisance no matter how effective the remaining
rules turn out to be. Also, enforcement Is made that much more diffi-
cult by the exclusion since average noise readings taken In accordance
with the proposed regulations would have to be adjusted so that the
contribution from the warning devices Is not reflected In the final average
noise level.
as
•o
•V.
A - 1
-------
Mr. Henry Thomas -2- July 2, 1979
We have also consulted with the Office of the County Attorney who has
suggested that EPA's most recent draft regulations which exclude from
their consideration "horns, bells and whistles" would also be in viola-
tion of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia as set forth in the case of Association of American Rail-
roads v. Costle, 562 F.2d 1310 (D.C. App. 1977). in that case, certain
exclusions in your previous regulations regarding this matter, including
the exclusions for horns, bells and whistles and other warning devices,
was considered by the court as to whether or not such exclusions were
permissible under the clear and distinct mandate of the Noise Control
Act of 1972. In holding that the exclusions were not permitted the Court
stated: (562 F.2d at 1315)
...there is absolutely no indication in Section
17(a)(1) that Congress intended to vest discre-
tion in the E.P.A. to decide which of the equip-
ment and facilities would be subject to regula-
tion. Nothing in the statute diminishes or
qualifies the generality of these two key words —
equipment and faciIity. Nothing in the statute
states that only certain kinds of equipment or
facilities need to be regulated. The plain and
natural meaning of the phrase 'the equipment and
facilities' Is that the power of the E.P.A. is
plenary with respect to those objects and places
customarily thought to be included in the defini-
tion of the phrase. To read this language other-
wise would be to distort a relatively clear sig-
nal from the national legislature. Indeed, in the
context of this case, the E.P.A. chose not to regu-
late any 'facilities' at all; this action in
effect reads this word out of the statute. We
are not prepared to label this word as being super-
fluous to the statutory mandate.
The court also noted that the EPA itself had shown that it was capable
of defining railroad "equipment and facilities" in a realistic and reason-
able manner and noted that the background document for Railroad Noise
Emission Standards identified certain broad categories of railroad
equipment and facilities including "horns, whistles, bells and other
warning devices..." (Id. at 1319). The court hereupon found that the
failure of EPA to regulate such equipment was a violation of the statu-
tory mandate to compel the EPA to promulgate new regulations to cure these
defects.
The existing proposed regulations attempt to cure one defect while leaving
the others in existence. This expressed Intent by EPA to not regulate
acknowledged railroad equipment such as horns, whistles, bells and other
warning devices Is as clear a violation of the statutory mandate as is
possible as previously noted by the court.
A - 2
-------
Mr. Henry Thomas
-3-
July 2, 1979
Accordingly, we would respectfully request the EPA obey the mandate of
the Court of Appeals and the express statutory mandate of the Noise Control
Act of 1972 and promulgate a regulation setting a national standard for
noise emissions from horns, whistles, bells and other warning devices.
Very truly yours,
>lin Morrissey, Directed
EnvIronmentaI Resou rcestManagement
CM/RR/jjn
Enclosure
cc: Peter Tel I
Asst. County Attorney
A - 3
-------
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2OOO4
JUL 21979,
Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revised and
expanded railroad noise regulations, that by 1982 will extend Federal
noise controls to most equipment and facilities of interstate rail
carriers, has been reviewed.
The District of Columbia's Noise Control Act (D. C. Law 2-53) of 1977,
Section 5(5) states:
"Vehicles propelled only upon rails and tracks shall be
exempt at all times".
The EPA's railroad noise regulations will not, therefore, preempt
existing state ordinances.
Many thanks for your interest.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert L. Tucker
Director
V
I
§
Cs
ft
A - 4
-------
ACOUSTICAL-SOCIETY-OF-AM ERICA
ROBERT W. YOUNG YfrPi^Y NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER
ASSOCIATE EDITOR 111®))), SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92152
THE JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
5 July 1979
Ra±I Carrier Docket No. ONAC 79-01
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20^60
Gentlemen;
1. This is to invite your attention to some technical inaccuracies in the proposed
Rules for Noise Emission Standards ... for Rail Carriers, Federal Register Vol. kk,
No. 75, April 17, 1979, and to offer words to correct those inaccuracies. Many of
my suggestions are aimed at replacing the jargon of governmentese with plain
language. Corrections of inaccuracies will possibly result in inconsistency with
some earlier EPA documents in which the same inaccuracies occured; but now is the
time to correct for the future.
2. A serious defect in the proposed Rules is the omission of the word "average" in
the name of the quantity represented by the symbol Ldn« I" an early report the EPA
correctly told Congress it was going to use day-night average sound level (L
-------
R. w. young to 5 July 1979
Rail Carrier Docket No. ONAC 79-01 Page 2
be 70 dB. Use of dB is acceptable in text if it is preceded by a number, in fact
it is often preferable in technical writing, but I am suggesting that for regulations
to be understood and discussed by the public that decibel be written out.
5. The clumsy clause on page 22965, "...people...exposed to day-night average railyard
noise levels of 55 Ldn or greater" should be replaced by something like "...people...
near railyards exposed to day-night average sound levels of 55 decibels or greater."
On page 22964, "exceed the hourly L8q value..." should be replaced by "...exceed
the one-hour average sound level...." It is Jargon in what is apparently the caption
of Table ^.4, "...To Go From Ldn70 to L(jn65." This will be better understood when
worded: "Additional costs to reduce the day-night average sound level at hump-yard
boundaries from 70 to 65 decibels.
6. Enclosed are proof pages 6, 7, 8, 22, 23 of American National Standard Letter
Symbols and Abbreviations for Quantities Used in Acoustics, Y10.11-[l979] . It ia
expected that this standard v/ill receive final approval in 60 days. Notice on page 6
that the attachment of an A to dB is strongly deprecated, and that the decibel is not
A-weighted. This is a long-standing principle for unit symbols, not new in Y10.11-
1979 . The caption for Table 2.1(c) of the proposed Rules is "Equivalent of 70 L
-------
R. '.'.'. Younc to 5 July 1979
Rail Carrier Docket Ho. ONAC 79 01 Pace 3
12. Only the first sentence of (pp) should be retained as the definition of sound
exposure level. The remainder in nuch modified form belongs in subpart D on
measurement technique. But even there, the measurement should not be United to
times "when a specified threshold" is exceeded, in the practical measurenent of
sound exposure level there must be freedom to select whatever threshold is necessary
to cope with the extraneous noise in a given situation. It is not feasible to set
the threshold "at least ten decibels below the maximum sound level of the event"
before the event has actually occurred; in some situations of steady background
noise it is feasible to deduce the sound exposure level within* 1 dB when the maximum
sound level is only 6 dB above the background. There should be no "specified threshold"
in these Rules.
13. The appearance of the word "means" in technical definitions is very disconcerting.
It suggests that elsewhere in the technical literature "sound level", for example,
is something different than what is defined here. I urge that you replace "means"
by "is", so the correct definition will be copied in the many cities that look to
the EPA for guidance. Better still, write the definitions in dictionary format,
with "is" omitted and without initial capital letters; this is now the format
required by standards bodies.
14. In Section 201.31(a)(1) for sound exposure level, an integrating sound level
meter is not required to have any sensitivity to sounds that last less than 100 milli-
seconds. Such a loose requirement is very inadequate for the very impulsive sounds
of car coupling and hump yards, portable instruments are now available for measuring
sound exposure level, automatically, of pulses as short as 1 ms, withm* 1 dB of the
theoretical level of the pulse relative to steady state. I suggest that instrumenta-
tion be required to integrate correctly within * 1 dB, as short as 2 ns.
15. It would be a mistake in 201.3l(b)(2) for one-hour average sound level, to
require only that signals that last longer than one second and whose frequencies
lie between 200 and 1000 hertz need be integrated correctly, \7hile it ie true that
some of the instruments which were used to collect the background information for this
rail carrier regulation may not have been capable of integrating correctly sounds
lasting less than a second, instruments are available that will integrate and average
correctly pulses shorter than 1 ms. It is important to specify instrumentation that
will integrate and average correctly all the sound that occurs during an hour, v/ithin
the tolerances at different frequencies for a Type 1 sound level meter, whether the
sound is steady or consists of isolated tonebursts each as short as 2 us.
16. Sound exposure level is given much less attention in tho proposed Rules than
it really deserves. The present measurement of
fast sound level at 7 or 30 meters fror. the source cives
no indication of how long a sound lasts or how frequently it occurs. But sound
exposure automatically takes into account both magnitude and duration. The sound
of any discrete event, such as a sucession of car couplings or the passing of a
train, should be monitored by sound exposure level, not by maximum sound level.
If desired, sound exposure level can be obtained for all the sounds that occur
in an hour.
17- I do not agree that (at the middle of page 22961) "Tables 2.1(c) and 2.1(d)
provide a simplified reference for determining the compliance...." Even with
informative table captions (the present ones are not), the method is unduly involved.
It is not adequate to assume that all the noise that will occur at a site has occurred
during the hour or two during which someone happened to measure. The costs of
making remedial changes in railroad equipment are so high, in comparison with running
A - 7
-------
R. '.v. Young to 5 July 1979
Rail Carrier Docket IIo. c:TAC 79-01 Page /f
an autor.at.ic noise nonitorinc equipment for a week or so, that there is no justifica-
tion to report compliance or non-conpliance on the basis of a test for ar. hour or
two. V/hat constitutes a. "lone-enough" test period depends upon the typical distribu-
tion of the rail carrier operations. Largely from my experience with highway noise
and airport noise I am guessing that a week is the minimum period during which the
one-hour average sound level and the day-night average sound level ought to be
monitored. Ordinarily it is not worth while to monitor maximum sound levels during
the v/eek.
13. Nevertheless, if a rough screening test is wanted, it can be made easily by
measuring the one-hour average sound level at the nearest residence. If the
measurement was made in the daytime and it exceeded the day-night average sound
level limit for that location, then more monitoring may be in order;if the measure-
ment was nade at night and if the one-hour average sound level was greater than
the limit there minus 10 decibels, likevrt.se nore monitoring may be in order. But
none of this is conclusive.
19 It is alleged on page 2296ft., first column, that a day-night average sound level,
being a 2*t-hour average, does not account sufficiently for the irritating and
intrusive screeches of retarders being clamped against wheels. In a superficial
glance at the background information, I did not see any tests in support of this
allegation. I did notice, however, that some instrumentation used is not capable
of adequately integrating the short screeches. It is not feasible for a local
government - nor for the FRA - to monitor the fast sound level of isolated screeches
that may occur at any time of the day or night, particularly if the speed oS the
car must also be measured. But it is feasible and cost effective, to install in
residential areas an automatic environmental noise monitor of adequate dynamic •
range that unattended will print in compact format the one-hour average sound level,
the day-night average sound level, and sound exposure levels (with times of
occurrence) of especially noisy events. (At least two models will also print the
naximura sound level during a noisy event but I have seen little use later nade of
such data.) I believe the Rules should be simplified by elimination of limits on
maximum sound level at stated distances.
20. Most of the advice above is aimed at making rules for r.oiso abatement easy to
understand and to enforce, by use of average sound levels, plain English and full words
in consonance with Executive Order 120^/f. v/hen abbreviations or letter symbols are
needed, they should be taken from AT-1S 710,11-1979. There are other EPA noise standards
and regulations to which this advice is also relevant; I suggest that copies of this
advice be made available to those in the EPA who are preparing or revising other noise
regulations.
submitted,
End: Y10.11-1979 pages
6,7,3,16,22,23.
A - 8
-------
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LtrrrH SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
6.3.1 Attachments to Unit Symbols. Because a unit
Is fixed and unique, it cannot be modified. On the
other hind, a variable quantity which may be modified
is independent of the unit in which it is measured.
For both reasons, it is misleading and incorrect to
attach any letter to a unit symbol in an attempt to
qualify, modify, or desctibe the quantity whose unit
it represents. Exceptions are those cases where a sub-
script changes the meaning of a unit symbol as, Tor
example jalus. B»IUK. calif, cal,h. Such cases rarely
occur in acoustics.
Any attachment to a unit symbol, other than a
itandani prefix, is strongly
-------
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LETTER SYMBOLS AMD ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
ANSI V 10.11-19 7S
Any qualification of a level should be indicated,
not by attaching letters to the unit symbol dB or B
or Np, but by attaching appropriate subscripts to the
quantity symbol L, or by an appropriate abbreviation,
as in Tables 9 and 10. An example is /.AK for fast-
A-weighted sound level. In a limited context, where
it has been made clear what kind or weighting is con-
cerned, the symbol L may be used without a sub-
script.
6.4.3 Sequence of Subscripts for a Level. Asucccssion
of subscripts on L, the quantity symbol for a level.
identifies the kind of level and fiequencywise and
timewise modifications of it. For example, Lf* fust
of all represents the level of a power for which the
symbol is P. secondly, the A signifies that the A-rie-
qucncy weighting was applied.
In acoustics, the absence of a first subscript for
the kind of level is an indication that the symbol L
stands for a sound pressure level. The subscripts sig-
nify modifications of sound pressure level. For ex-
ample, IAs represents the level of A-frcqucncy
weighted, squared sound pressure followed by slow
exponential time averaging.
As another example, £CBh represents an 8-hour
average, C-weighted sound level; the C-frequency
weighting was applied to the sound pressure signal;
next the sound pressure was squared; then the arith-
metic mean of the squared sound pressures was taken
during 8 hours; finally the level was obtained.
Sound level is understood to mean A-weighted
sound pressure level if no frequency weighting is
specified. Hence in a context in which only sound
level is Involved, L represents (A-weightcd) sound
level, and £*v*h or simply £(h represents an 8-hour
average sound level. The usual unit of all these levels
Is the decibel.
Maximum tone-corrected perceived noise level is a
special frequency-weighted sound pressure level with
nominally "slow" time averaging. The quantity sym-
bol is /-PUTmix- The fust two subscript letters PN
signify the somewhat involved "perceived noise" fre-
quency weighting; the subscript T signifies a further
frequency weighting for prominent tonal components:
after the slow exponential time average, another time
weighting identified by max is applied by selection of
the greatest tone-corrected perceived noise level that
occurs during (for example) the flyover of an aircraft.
5.5 .Remarks Concerning Abbreviations
An abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or
phrase, used to represent the complete form. The
shortened form is attained by omission of some let-
ters, even all of the letters of some words. The ab-
breviations recommended in this Standard use capita]
letters, particularly for convenience in the use of a
computer-controlled printer which often can print
only capitals.
5.5.1 Use of Abbreviations. Abbreviations are to be
used only where necessary to save space or time. The
lime saved by a writer who uses an abbreviation is
often less than the time lost by each reader who must
find its meaning. An abbreviated term should be
spelled out in full at its first appearance in text, fol-
lowed by the abbreviation in parentheses In addition,
a glossary may be provided for the convenience of the
reader.
Abbreviations for the names of quantities are used
as nouns because the names they stand for are nouns
or noun phrases. They may also be used as adjectives,
as for example: "the day-night average sound level
limit" may be abbreviated to "the DNL limit". As a
further example, the statement: "The limit is 92
decibels, fast, A-weighted sound level at 15 meters"
can be shorted to "The FA limit at 15 m is 92 dB".
Abbreviations should not immediately follow a unit
symbol. For example, instead of "92 dB FA", use
"FA:92dB".
5.5.2 Foreign Use. Abbreviations should be especially
avoided in publications and drawings that are in tended
for circulation in foreign countries, because they are
formed from words that often differ from one lan-
guage to another. In this respect, abbreviations stand
in contrast to letter symbols for quantities and units
that are standardized internationally.
5.5.3 Mathematics. Abbreviations should not be used
in mathematical formulations. Letter symbols should
be used instead.
5.5.4 Sequence of Letters in an Abbreviation. The
original sequence of letters in the words, and of words
in any phrase, is to be maintained in an abbreviation.
As an example, day-night average sound level is ib-
bicviatcd to DNL; the single letter L in this context
serves as the abbreviation fcr average sound level.
LDN or Ldn is not correctly an abbreviation for day-
night average sound level because LDN or Ldn is not
a shortened form of the full phrase.
A.- 10
-------
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LETTfcR SYMBOLS AMD ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
In phrases and abbicviations in this Standard for
oscillating quantities, the averaging time is stated first,
the limiting frequency band second, the kind of
variable is next,'and finally level. For example, 8HL is
the abbreviation for 8-hour average sound level; much
of the abbreviation is feasible because sound level un-
modified has the connotation of sound pressure level
within the frequency band delimited by the A-frc-
qucncy weighting. As a longer example of the
sequence, slow octave-band sound pressure level cen-
tered on 125 hertz may be abbreviated to SOBSPL at
125 Hz.
5.5.5 Invarisnce of Form. The form of an abbrevia-
tion shall be invariant. Syntactical endings shall not
be used. For example, an s shall not be added to in-
dicate plural.
5.5.6 Subscripts. Subscripts should not be used in or
with abbreviations.
5.5.7 Punctuation. Except as shown in abbreviations
in this Standard, punctuation marks shall not be used
as part of an abbreviation. However, a period may be
placed at the end of any abbreviation that spells an
English word if the omission of such a period could
result in confusion.
5.5.8 Capitalization. As a general rule, lower case let-
ters are recommended for abbreviations in text and in
tabular matter when the words for wliich they stand
for would normally be printed in lower case. This
Standard, however, shows abbreviations in capitals in
accordance with long-standing practice in acoustics.
5.5.9 Additional Abbreviations. For abbreviations of
terms other than those in this Standard, authors are
•dvised to refer to American National Standard ANSI
Yl.1-1972. Abbreviations for Use on Drawings and
in Text.
ANSI Y 10.1 1-
INTRODUCTION TO THE TABLES
Tables 1 through 10 list quantities, grouped in
several categories, and give quantity symbols for each.
In addition, Tables 8 through 10 give standard ab-
breviations for the quantities listed in them. (Abbic-
viations are usually not appropriate for the quantities
listed in Tables 1 through 7.) Only abbreviations are
given for some quantities that arc not operated on
mathematically, and so do not require letter symbols.
To aid in identifying the quantities, their units based
on the International System (SI) and their standard
unit symbols are included.
A quantity shall be represented by the standard
symbol appearing in the Tables, regardless of th:
units in which it is expressed. Those quantity :ymbols
that are separated by a comma arc alternatives on
equal standing. A symbol enclosed in parentheses is a
reserve symbol, to be used only where there is a
specific need to avoid a conflict.
Tables 1 through 5 contain quantities of interest in
acoustics, many of whose symbols have already been
standardized for broad fields of application. These
have been copied from ANSI Yl 0.5-1 968 and the
same item numbers retained. Those items not com-
monly of interest in acoustics, including all of Table 4
RADIATION AND LIGHT, have not been copied,
and consequently there are gaps in the item numbers.
A few items not in ANSI Y 10.5- 1 968 have been
added, and given numbers followed by a letter. Every
item identified by a number without a letter has been
copied with no change in the letter symbol, except
where noted under Remarks. Tables 6 through 10
contain quantities of interest primarily in acoustics,
and bear no particular relation to ANSI YlO.S-1968.
Quantity symbols and abbreviations are listed
alphabetically in Tables 1 1 and 12 for ready reference.
Finally, all quantities, together with variants of theit
names, are listed in the index.
A - 11
-------
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LETTER SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
ANSI Y10 11-1979
TABLES. ACOUSTICS (Cont'd)
Symbols for Quantities
Item
6.27
6.28
629
» 6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.47
648
6.49
650
Quantity
sound energy
sound energy density
sound exposure at jrtJB per
halving of duration
scund exposure (at 3 dB
p*r halving of duration)
sound rxpoiure at 5 dB per
halving of durat.on
characteristic impedance of
a medium
specific acoustic impedance
specific acoustic admittance
acoustic impedance
acoustic resistance
acoustic reactance
acoustic mass.
acoustic inertance
acoustic stiffness
acoustic admittance
acoustic conductance
acoustic susceptance
acoustic compliance
mechanical impedance
mechanical resistance
mechanical reactance
dynamic mass
dynamic stiffness
mechanic*) admittance.
mobility
mechanical conductance
Quantity
Symbol
K. W
wte)
*,
fiL.)
Zc
z*
Yt
zt
Rt
xt
m.
*a
Yt
c,
*a
c.
. Z«
*"W
*m
"m
*m.*
Ym
cm
Unit Basad on
International Syttam
joule
joule per cubic meter
pascal to the 6/jr power
times hour
pascal squared times hour
pascal to the 1.2 pone-
times hour
pascal second per meter
pascal second per meter
meter per pascal second
pascal second per cubic
meter
pascal second per cubic
meter
pascal second per cubic
meter
pascal second squared per
cubic meter
pascal per cubic meter
cubic meter per pascal sec-
ond
cubic meter per pascal sec-
ond
cubic meter per pascal sec-
ond
cubic meter per pascal
newton second per meter
newton second per meter
newton second per meter
kilogram
newton per meter
meter per newton second
meter per neMtton second °
Unit
Symbol
J
J/m'
Pe^'h
Pa'h
P»"h
Pa-s/m
Pa-s/m
m/(Pa s)
Pa-s/m'
Pa-s/m'
Pa-s/m»
Pa-s'/m'
Pa/m»
m'/(Pa s)
m'/(Pa s)
m«/(Pa s)
m'/Ta
N-s/m
N-s/m
N-s/m
k>
N/m
m/(N-s)
m/**d,
J o
The sound pressure may be frequency
weighted.
1 Pa1 h is the exposure for 8 h at 85 dB
re 20*iPa.
1 P» '-*h is tk.e,e»posu'c for 6 h at 79
dBie20MPa. '
Zt*t«
Zt'P/u
y.-i/z,
Zi-Vrf-ae*!*.
jr. « m,w - r./u,
1 Pa-s/m1 - 1 kg.'m*
AT. - -wAT.
Ynm 1/7, «C, * ifl
C. - 1/^.
2m2jJ-*m*Urm
Also called damping coefficient, but
that is deprecated for this purpose cf
6.69
*m-»"m«.'-*»/w
"m-JWu.
A'm - -w.Ym
rw:^m"CBi41*"
A - 12
-------
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LETTER SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
ANSI V10.11-1979
TABLE 9. LEVELS AND NOISE RATINGS
Abbreviations and Symbols for Quantities
•AA^—
Item
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
99
9.10
9.11
913
9.13
9.13a
9.14
9.15
9.16
917
9.17a
9.18
9.19
9.20
9.21
9.22
9.23
9.24
9.75
9.26
9.27
Quantity
sound pressure level in a stated frequency
band
fast A-weigMed sound level
slow A-weighted sound level
fast B-weigrtted sound (pressure) level
slow 6-weighted sound (pressure) level
fast C-weighted sound (pressure) level
slow C-weighted sound (pressure) level
fast D weighted sound (pressure) level
slow D-weighted sound (pressure) level
octave-band sound pressure level
one-third-ociave-band sound pressure
level
sound power level
A-weighted sound power level
noise power emission level
product noise rating, hemispherical
source sound level
sound pressure spectrum level
impulse A-vvtighted sound level
average sound level during time T
.
equivalent steady sound level
hourly average sound level
8-hour average sound level
day average sound levtl
daytime average sound level
evening average sound level
night average sound level
day-night average sound level
community noise equivalent level
A-weighted sound exposure level
last. A-weighted sound level exceeded
10% of time
Abbreviation
SPL
. FA
SA
FB
SB
FC
SC
FD
SO
OBSPL
TOBSPL
PWL
APWL
NPEL
PNR
PSL
IAL
TAL
QL
1HL
8HL. 8HAL
OL
OTL
EL
NL
ONL
CNEL
ASEL. SEL
Quantity
Symbol
Lp
£AF
IAS
f-BF
/-us
'•CK
/•cs
**DF
*-*DS
L\l\
J-l/3
l.f (Ln\
/•PA<'-KA»
INPE
'ps
/-Al
LnT
L*1
/.,„
tABh
LA
*oia
Ln
Lm
too
L*°
tAE aAX,
t,e
Unit
Symbol
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB.B
dfi.B
B
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
. 48
dB
dB
48
48
4B
48
48
ftemartu
The symbol N for level is deprecated
I Substitute B. C. etc. to denote other
[weightings
INTC'^A
Space everage sound level at 1 m; see ANSI
$3.1 7-1975.
Substitute 8. C, etc. to denote other
weightings.
tlvr - 10 log If/Po' 1
where p0" 20iiPa.
Same as average sound level.
Also called 1-hour equivalent continuous
sound level
Substitute B. C. ate.. In abbreviation and
symbol to denote other weightings.
0700-2200 noun
0700- 1900 hours
1 900-2200 hours
0000-0700 and 2200-2400 noun
24 h average after 10 4B »>4>d to in
24 h average attar S dB added to £„ and
The level of f (see item 6.30) re (20 tiPa)'
and 1 s. Substitute B. C. etc. to denote
Other weightings.
Other exceeded percentil«s are similarly
Indicated.
A - 13
-------
AMCRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
LtTTER SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FOR QUANTITIES USED IN ACOUSTICS
ANSI Y10 11-1979
TABLE 9. LEVELS AND NOISE RATINGS (Cont'd)
Abbreviation* and Symbols for Quantitia*
lum
9.78
9.29
9.30
9.31
9.33
9.33
9.34
9.35
9.36
9.37
9.3B
9.39
9.40
9.41
'9.42
9.43
9.44
9.45
9.46
9.47
Quantity
noise pollution level
maximum A-weighted sound level
peak A-w«ighted tound level
noiM and number index
traffic noise index
noi:e criterion level
preferred frequency noile criterion level
rating icund level (ISO 1996-1971)
AH I found rating number
AR 1 tound level number
tound trantmittion lott. tound reduction
index, sound intulition (of a partition)
noiu reduction
level reduction (by • barrier)
touncf level difference
field transmission lots (of • partition)
sound transmission class (of • partition)
field sound transmission class (of t parti-
tion)
airborne sound insulation (of • partition)
noise, isolation class (between room*)
normallied noise isolation elan (between
rooms)
Abbreviation
NPL
MXAL
PKAL
NNI
TNI
NC
PNC
SRN
SUN
TL
NR
LR
*LO
m
«TC
fSTC
NIC
NNIC
Quantity
Symbol
t-NP
^Arnai
^Apk
it
R
*>f
D*
/.
Unit
Symbol
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
d8-
3.3 dB
3.3 dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
08
dB
dB
Nemawfcs
iNP'^eq*256o
The constant 2.56 is subject to revision.
• • standard deviation.
Greatest fast, A -weighted sound level dur-
ing an event, unless other time and fre-
quency weighting! are indicatrd by ap-
propriate subscripts.
Greatest instantaneous A-weighted sound
level.
Substitute B, C. etc. to denote other
weightings.
J-PNmix * 16 logi -BO
ii • number ol audible events.
LM4*(Ltt -Iw)-30
Level at 1.7 kHz of • noise criterion curve.
tangent to octave-band spectrum. (See L.
L. Beranek, Noiu Control, vol. 3, pp. 19-
27, January 1957.)
Level at 1.0 kHz of noise rating curve tan-
gent to octave-band spectrum, (see
Berenek, Blazier and Figwer, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 50. 1223(1971).)
24 h average sound level plus cny correc-
tion for tone or impulse.
rEqueJ to 0.4 plus 0.30 times A-weighted
sound level at 10 ft. (See ARI Standard
1275-69)
Such use of "sound level" is deprecated.
See ASTM E90 and E336. also ISO/DIS
140/111.
Difference in apace-time-average sound
pressure level in two rooms at frequency
f.
Sea ASTM E336
Sea ASTM 6413
Saa ASTM E336
Sea ISO/R 717-1969 Rating of sound In-
tulation for dwellings
See ASTM E336
NormaliMd to 7*M • 0.5 s (See ASTM 336)
A- 14
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. MStO
Office or
TNCCHIff COUMCt
3 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Director, Standards & Regulation
Division
ANR-490
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington/ D.C. 20460
Dear Henry:
I am enclosing four copies of the DOT response to
the proposed railroad noise emission regulations.
As you are probably aware, the original document was
hand delivered to the EPA document facility at 401
M Street in order to meet the time frame established
in the notice.
If additional copies or other information can be provided,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lawre6£e I. Wagner
Attorney Advisor
Enclosure
a
£
A- 15
-------
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
JUL2
Rail Carrier Docket ONAC-79-01
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oftice of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-490)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sirs:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is vitally
concerned with the preparation and issuance of Railroad
Noise Emission Standards as prescribed by the Noise
Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574). The statute recognizes
the appropriate concern of DOT in this matter by requiring
(in section 17) that the Administrator of EPA consult
with the Secretary of Transportation prior to promulgation
of the standards. The views of the Department are
to be obtained not only regarding "safety and technological
availability" but also regarding "the cost of compliance"
with such standards.
It is particularly toward this question of the cost
of compliance that the Department wishes to direct
its comments; and to recommend related changes in
the regulation.
In summary, the Department believes the costs estimated
by EPA for the proposed regulation are understated,
as discussed below. Even given EPA's cost estimates,
EPA's cost/benefit analysis (Appendix L of the Background
Document) indicates that approximately 85 percent
of the identified health and welfare benefits could
be achieved at slightly more than half the cost of
compliance if Option 3 (70 Ldn for all yards) were
selected instead of the proposed Option 4 (70 Ldn
for all flat yards within three years, and 65 Ldn
for hump yards within six years). We believe it is
unwise to double the cost of the regulation in order
to gain such a relatively modest increment in benefits,
particularly in light of the current economic conditions
of the rail industry. It should also be noted that
selection of Option 3 would make railroad noise levels
comparable to those currently regulated for the highway
node and contained in 23 CFR Part 772. Finally the
selection of Option 3 would avoid adoption of a regulatory
provision that would, by virtue of the additional
A - 16
-------
$40 million in capital costs associated with lower
noise levels in a hump yard, serve as an economic
disincentive for railroads to use the more efficient
and cost effective hump yard facilities.
One example of cost under-estination relates to locomo-
tive noise. Examination of the available noise measure-
ment data indicates that locomotive noise accounts
for the largest percentage of acoustic energy of any
source in the yard. It, therefore, has a marked influence
on Ldn, which is essentially an energy-average noise
descriptor. Consequently, in small yards, with liiuiteo
trackage, even idling locomotives can cause the receiving
property standard to be exceeded it located near e
yard boundary even though these locomotives coasply
with EPA locomotive standards. This situation way
result in a major increase in the number of locomotives
that will require installation of Mufflers and cooling
tan modifications, competed to the number used in
EPA's cost estimates. The increased number of locomotives
needing retrofit would result in significant out-of-service
costs for locomotives that EPA has not accounted for
in assessing the cost of this regulation.
Turning to some specifics of the proposed regulation,
EPA proposes an emission standard for refrigerator
cars of 78 db at 7 meters in 3 years. Compliance
with this provision will necessitate the installation
of mufflers and sound-absorptive materials. EPA proposes
that this retrofit program be completed within a 2-1/2
year period and indicates that this work could be
done during the normal maintenance cycle tor the refrig-
eration units. Based on the information available
to the Department, the normal maintenance cycle for
this equipment is approximately six years. Consequently,
if these cars must be retrofitted within the EPA proposed
time period, it will be necessary to remove these
cars from service for the specific purpose of retrofitting
with the attendant imposition of significant out-of-service
costs. This analysis is also reflected by the Background
Document in which EPA states that retrofit of refrigerator
cars will take up to five years in order to avoid
operating disruptions.
A- 17
-------
Accordingly, we recommend that/ at the minimum, EPA
make the effective date requirement consistent with
the inspection provisions contained in the FRA Railroad
Freight Car Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 215, in
order to avoid such out-of-service costs.
It should also be noted that trailers and containers
on flcitcars are equipped with similar refrigeration
units anci are more significant contributors to rail
yard noise than refrigerator cars. The problem of
yard noise caused by these truck related units is
not addressed by this regulation and accordingly we
recommend that EPA provide a mechanism for excluding
these noise emissions from any determination of whether
a facility is in compliance with these standards instead
of placing a burden of compliance on a yard operator
who is handling these urunuffled units.
The Department is also concerned over the omission
of "out-of-service" costs in the cost analysis of
the proposed ret'arder standard. The Department has
supplied data to EPA which indicates that some hump
yards are physically constructed in such a manner
that the application of barriers, to control noise
emissions from the retarders, may require redesign
of existing hump yards. The -costs, associated with
taking a portion of such a facility out of service
to accommodate relocation of tracks, would be significant
and would include such costs as track construction,
land acquisition or reduction in yard capacity, anu
disruption costs while such work was being performed.
In part because of these costs, we recommend that
the requirement of a 30 meter measurement distance
for retarders be amended, setting the noise level
at the receiving property line, as is the case for
the overall yard noise standard. We also recoioroenu
that the standard not apply when outside noises dominate
or when surrounding land use is undeveloped again
as in the case for the overall yard noise standard.
A - 18
-------
Regarding car coupling, based on the measurement data
in the Background Document, it appears that car coupling
'speeds just slightly above 4 rat'h will violate the
propOLeu noise limit. Therefore, the Department uoes
not agree with the EPA contention that the car coupling
standard imposes no additional costs because it "cecities
existing general practice". The Department's reviev;
of the material furnished to us regarding the EPA
survey of car coupling practices of major railroads
does not convince us that the 4 mph car guideline
is strictly or universally adhered to in the industry.
For example, close to 20 percent of the respondents
cited the applicable operating rule as "take proper
precaution to prevent damage" or to "couple so as
to avoid injury to persons or damage to property."
Another 20 percent claimed adherence to the guideline
by verbal instruction, but without its incorporation
as an operating rule. Finally, close to seven percent
of the respondents stated that slightly higher than
4 roph coupling speeds were permitted on their railrouc.o,
with speeds of up to 7 or 8 mph allowed for empty
cars.
The Department contends further that it is difficult
to consistently achieve the optimal speed of 4 mph
and at least one study has shown that more than 70
percent of coupling occurs at speccls higher than 4
mph. Additionally, EPA has not consicereo otfcer factors
in their measurement program which also aiteet car
coupling speeds. For example, although both loaceu
and unloadeu cars were tested, consideration was not
given to the type of load and different car weights.
Other important parameters are the effects of car
type, date of manufacture, track conditions and gradient,
mechanical conditions affecting the reliability of
the car, foreign substances on the wheels ana the
retarders, and human factors in speed control.
In view of these facts, the Department believes that
EPA has underestimated the cost of the proposed car
coupling standards. We recommend that the coupling
operation standard apply at the receiving property
line and be modified to correspond with a coupling
«peed of 6 or 7 mph, or another level which reflects
the distribution of expected coupling speeds above
4 ay?h that are likely to occur.
A - 19
-------
Enclosed are additional, more detailed views, prepared
by the Federal Railroad Administration, regarding specific
provisions of the proposed regulation and regarding the
Background Document.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
John
Deput
Fearnsldes
Under Secretary
A - 20
-------
Enclosure
GENERAL COMMENTS
Enforcement
The Department equally encourages local and State
participation in enfor'.ement of these Standards. However,
we are also concerned that such efforts are in keeping with
the spirit and the statutory intent of the Noise Control
Act in order to minimize any interference with the flow
of interstate commerce. In other words, local and State
regulation of the railroads must be identical not only to
the EPA Noise Emission Standards, but also to the forthcoming
FRA Compliance Regulations. In view of the fact that
different compliance procedures could prevent uniform appli-
cation of the standards to rail facilities, the Department
strongly believes that State or local officials must follow
the same rules as Federal personnel.
The Department urges EPA to incorporate the above in
the discussion on Enforcement in the preamble to these rules.
Only then can we be assured that State and local participation
will maintain the national uniformity of enforcement and
compliance effort required by the Statute.
Wheel/Rail Grinding. The statement in the preamble that
Federal Railroad Safety Regulations require wheel and
rail grinding is not accurate. Although compliance by the
industry nay result in grinding, FRA regulations do not
specifically require this practice.
A - 21
-------
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Additional recordkeeping requirements should be antici-
pated as a result of FRA enforcement regulations or those
promulgated by State and local jurisdictions enforcing these
Standards. These costs are quantifiable and would include
such items as documentation of noise surveys, status of
muffler retrofit on refrigeration cars and locomotives,
track construction, and operational restrictions.
Specific Comments on the EPA Proposed
Interstate Rail Carrier Operations Standards
Section 201.1 Definitions
(1) Equipment. The term "special purpose equipment"
is defined in this Section even though it is not used in
the standard. Its inclusion is also inconsistent with
the statement in the preamble that specific noise limits
have not been set for the use of this equipment in main-
tenance -of -way work situations.
(kk) Receiving Property. Receiving property standards
should be restricted to residential property or similar
to the definition used by the Department in its Procedures
for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise, 23 CFR Part 772. Also, the flexibility of a railroad
A- 22
-------
would be limited by requiring them to reduce noise levels
to those residences located on their property rather than
availing themselves of other options.
Section 201.10 Applicability
EPA's analysis in the Background Document focuses on
the identification of over 4,000 yards in the contiguous
48 States that meet the criterion of serving as the inter-
change or terminal point of rail cars and the trains which
they form. This was based on the Stanford Research Institute
(SRI) report prepared for the Department entitled, "Railroad
Classification Yard Technology," (FRA/ORD-76/304). It appears
that EPA's intent is to apply the proposed noise limits
only to operations and facilities in these yards as well as
the identified automatic hump class yards and not operations
involving railroad equipment (idling locomotives or refrigerator
cars) located on a spur or branch line.
EPA's intention to exempt main AND branch-line rights
of way should be clearly stated in this Section. DOT suggests
that EPA use as a reference point for applicability those
specific facilities identified by the SRI index. Periodic
updating of that index would then suffice to reflect any
changed conditions Occurring subsequent to the com-
pilation of the SRI data.
A - 23
-------
Section 201.14 Standard for Mechanical Refrigerator Cars
The Department has the following specific comments
concerning EPA's proposed noise limits for mechanical refrigera-
tor cars:
Applicability. EPA indicates, in its background material
distributed with the NPRM, that truck trailer refrigera-
tion units placed on flat bed rail cars are not covered
by these regulations. However, this intention is not
repeated in this Section, nor in the preamble to the
NPRM. Assuming that these standards do not apply
to truck trailers, these units should not be included
in the overall yard noise measurement, and the regula-
tory language should directly reflect this fact.
Control Technology. EPA states in the preamble that
refrigerator car noise can be reduced by the use of
a better muffler for the diesel engine and the appli-
cation of sound-absorptive foam. However, there is
not sufficient data supplied in the Background Document
to enable the Department to assess the validity of
this claim. In particular, the phrase, "requires
quieting" used in the Background Document needs to
be quantified.
DOT is concerned that the application of available
muffler technology may not be totally successful in
reducing refrigerator car noise to the EPA proposed limit.
A - 24 l
-------
According to the EPA1s proposed measurement procedures,
the limit of 78dB at 7 meters is to be measured on
the "A" scale. However, the authors of a DOT-TSC
report, "Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Refrigeration Unit
Noise", which focused on noise measurement and muffler
application on trailer mounted units, concluded that
although total refrigeration noise may be reduced with
muffling, the "A" scale noise level reduction was not
significant. This was because the diesel engine's
fundamental frequency amplitude reduction is masked in
the "A" weight network attenuation. Although the DOT
report dealt with trailer mounted units, the conclu-
sions reached appear to be applicable to refrigerator
cars as well.
201.17 Standards at Receiving Properties
The Department, as requested by EPA during the drafting
of this NPRN, furnished a list of "technical hot-spot" yards
for further noise testing. Selection of these yards was
based on the criteria specified by EPA--special topographical
restrictions such as the location of a yard in a valley
A- 25
-------
with residences on surrounding hills, or conditions where
noise sources, not amenable to control are in close proximity
to the receiving property. Although detailed site charac-
terization or acoustical analysis was not involved in this
study, it is interesting to note that, based on the EPA
Railroad Yard Noise Measurement Data, measured Ldn levels
both at and inside the railroad property line were generally
higher for these yards than the others studied by EPA.
Our concern is that the proposed receiving property standard
does not recognize these unique situations. This becomes
especially significant when considered in light of the waiver
procedures of the Noise Control Act which do not give the
EPA or the Department the alternative of issuing waivers
of compliance with these standards. Accordingly, it may
be appropriate to establish an alternative limit for those
yards which meet specified topographical criteria similar
to those described above.
The EPA data base for Ldn variation does not account
for seasonal effects. As the majority of the yard measure-
ments were performed in a period of January to August, the
standard may not account for increased activity levels
during the harvest season. A provision for seasonal varia-
tion should also be incorporated in the receiving property
standard to allow for these temporary high noise levels.
A- 26
-------
Noise Level Descriptor. The Department objects to
the use of Ldn as the noise descriptor for overall
yard noise. We are mainly concerned with potential
compliance difficulties and excessive costs involved
when this descriptor is mandated. Receiving property
noise levels, measured in accordance with Section 201.^3
will be very difficult to substantiate considering
background noise and the through train exclusion.
Although the proposed equivalent hourly Leq values
are useful for determining instances of non-compliance,
oftentimes a complete 24-hour measurement will have
to be performed (for those instances where the one
hour measurement exceeds the specified level).
The level of effort and the cost involved to obtain
a 24-hour Ldn measurement is not warranted for either
the yard operator or enforcement official. In our
opinion, this regulation could be simplified a tremen-
dous amount without sacrifice to the public health
and welfare by the use of a decile level (L10) or some
such time statistic. This concept is presently incor-
porated in other Departmental noise regulations such
as the Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise and Construction Noise, 23 CFR Part 772. The
benefits are quite substantial for measurement procedures*
-a sound level meter with suitable timing devices
would be sufficient to determine compliance with a
A - 27
-------
L10 standard. A manual override button could also
be used to preclude recording noise during the intru-
sion of identifiable noise from non-railroad opera-
tions. Ldn determination, on the other hand, requires
complex measurement techniques normally associated
with detailed acoustical analysis. In addition, as
identified in the Background Document, minimum equip-
ment costs are $10,000 with an attendant high cost
for data analysis, exclusion of non-railroad noise,
and verification of railroad dominance or non-dominance.
The Department maintains it is possible to correlate
measured Ldn values at different railroad yards with
L10 values without a Sacrifice in accuracy. A
reliable relationship can be made between the proposed
Ldn criteria and time criteria such as L10. The
correction only becomes poor when the noise is dominated
by very loud and brief duration events, such as car
impacts and retarder squeals. However, these events
would be covered if the source standards proposed
in Sections 201.15 and 201.16 are retained.
The use of Ldn as a noise level descriptor could
severely impact those yards that operate on a 24-hour
basis and prevent capacity increases in those yards
A - 28
-------
that do not currently have sufficient demand to justify
24-hour operation. This could be an impediment to
the increased use of coal for power production as an
example. Also, the lOdB night time differential in-
herent in the Ldn calculation is not a fully accepted
criteria.
Section 201.22 Measurement Instrumentation
The "fast" response;is not appropriate for refrigerator
car measurements as it imposes an unnecessary degree of
variability to the measurements. This response mode can
produce levels up to 3dB higher than would be measured under
calm wind conditions (within the requirements of Section
201.25) even with use of a windscreen. Furthermore, this
mode is inconsistent with technical practices today where
most noise data is recorded and processed by computer which
results in averaged data. The average value of the "slow"
response more accurately measures the true noise output
since transient noise may be generated by other sources.
The Department also does not not agree with the speci-
fication of Type 1 instrumentation. While the specifications
for Type 2 meter accuracy are less stringent than those
for Type 1 meters, the cost of a Type 2 meter is about half
that of a Type 1 instrument. This additional cost will
increase the railroads' monitoring expenditures and will
also undoubtedly influence State and local noise authorities
A - 29
-------
who are considering the enforcement of these standards.
Although potential errors in the Type 2 instrumentation
when measuring high frequency free field sound may be fairly
large, the increased accuracy of Type 1 instrumentation
is counterbalanced by the estimation procedures outlined
in Section 201.33 to determine non-railroad sound levels.
Section 201.25 Acoustical Environment. Weather Conditions,
and Background Noise
A wind speed direction should be specified in addition
to the wind speeg. Wind speed increases with elevation
and nay enhance propagation in down wind direction. Accuracy
obtained particularly with Type 1 instrumentation may be com-
promised.
Section 201.26 Procedures for the Measurement of Retarder
Car Coupling, and Mechanical Refrigerator Car Noise
As proposed, the limits for noise emissions from retarders,
mechanical refrigerator cars, and car coupling operations
are based on specific measurement locations and are not
dependent on receiving property usage as is the case for
the overall yard standard. Therefore, it is possible that
noise controls may have to be implemented for these sources
in a particular yard with negligible population impact.
A- 30
-------
Additionally, these measurement distance specifications
do not account for the presence of stationary rail cars
or other fixed objects, and topographical considerations,
outside the measurement location. These factors may. be
equally as effective as the EPA-required controls.
ix these source standards are retained in the final
rule, the Department suggests that the measurement distance
requirements be modified by setting the noise limits at
the receiving property lint, as is the case for the overall
yard noise standard. At the same time, these standards
should not apply when outside noise dominates, or when
surrounding land use is undeveloped.
We have the following additional comments in this
Sect ion:
Refrigerator Car Test
The term "throttle setting11 is not really applicable
•
to refrigerator car operation and is more appropriate for
locomotive engine characterir.ttion. Rather, the load con-
ditions of the car under test should be described. The
previously referenced DOT-TSC report on trailer mounted
refrigeration units demonstrated that a differential of
up to lOdB can occur between what can be considered maximum
and minimum load conditions. These load conditions were
A- 31
-------
determined by either opening or closing the trailer doors
and setting the trailer compartment thermostat, and then
noting the refrigeration unit compressor suction pressure.
Retarder Test
This Section requires that individual "retarder squeals"
be measured to determine compliance with the standard.
However, no description of the term "squeal" is furnished.
This term should be clarified to eliminate individual inter-
pretation of when a particular measurement is to be included
in the minimum of 10 required.
Section 201.33 Procedures for Measurement
The method for substantiating the receiving property
noise levels will be- difficult with the exclusion of through
trains and background levels. An alternate technique to
that suggested by EPA would be to develop mathematical models
for receiving property noise using single event noise levels
for the various railroad noise sources to determine compliance.
(A similar approach is used for airport noise regulation.)
The model would also have the capability to analyze noise
levels of new facilities and changes in yard capacity.
A - 32
-------
It could also be used to optimize operations for minimal
noise impact on adjacent communities.
Microphone Location
The tolerance on the 2 meter measurement distance in
Figure 3 (residential dwelling surface) would allow measure-
ments to be made at 1.5 meters from a building side facing
railroad property. These measurements could be higher (up
to 3dB), because of acoustic reflections, than measurements
made in a free field. In addition, noise from the adjacent
community would be significantly reduced because of the
barrier effect of the building. These compound effects
could increase railroad costs for noise abatement without
any signficant reduction in the noise climate if community
noise were dominant. To minimize this problem receiving
property noise should be measured under free field conditions
only.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
EPA should conduct a similar cost/benefit analysis for
the individual source standards that was done for the overall
yard standards. For example, it appears that no considera-
tion was given to the effects to the impacted population
of the limits selected nor the associated costs and whether
an equivalent cost/benefit ratio could be achieved by the
selection of alternative regulatory levels.
A - 33
-------
Switch Engine Noise
EPA's estimate of 6,500 switch engines should be revised
to include road locomotives which, in some yards, perform
virtually all of the "switching" function and thus, would
have to be quieted as well. EPA identifies exhaust muffling
and cooling fan treatment as the technology required to
quiet switch engine noise. However, this contention merits
further analysis. Mufflers are only effective at full throttle
conditions where it is desirable to silence the exhaust
frequency noise. At the lower throttle settings, the main
contribution is mechanical noise rather than exhaust. The
document should recognize the "low idle" option presently
being offered by one locomotive manufacturer as an
option for fuel savings purposes. This setting with its lower
engine speed also achieves an attendant noise reduction.
The muffler costs shown in the EPA Background
Document do not account for labor installation.
According to EPA, the options of shutting down or re-
locating idling locomotives do not involve significant costs.
This is not accurate since in many locations, during periods
of cold weather, the units must be kept idling to avoid
mechanical damage, and in some yards, track for storing
idling locomotives will not be available unless new construction
A - 34
-------
is undertaken.
Appendix A
This discussion on Page A-l concerning frequency of
railroad operations should be deleted as it is not relevant
to the proposed standard.
A- 35
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 2, 1979
SUBJECT: Region 10 Comments on the Proposed Revisions
to the EPA Rail Carrier Regulations
FROM: Deborah J. Yamamoto
Noise Control Representative
TO: William Roper, Chief
Surface Transportation Branch
Office of Noise Abatement and Control ANR 971
I have reviewed the proposed revision to the EPA Rail Carrier regulation
and find our comments do not differ substantially from the memo from
Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator to Edward Rousch dated February
16, 1379. A copy of that memo Is attached.
In addition to the points outlined in that memo* I wish to offer the
following comments.
A statement should be added under the Technology and Cost Section that
If there are future technological Innovations, more effective and less
costly than present techniques which reduce rallyard noise levels, they
must be employed at the earliest possible date.
Also, the section, Procedures for Measurement (201.33) rules out buildings
of three stories or higher of having any adequate means of measurement
to assess their noise exposure. This 1s because it allows for measurement
up to seven meters only, thus excluding all residences in three story or
higher buildings from having any recourse to severe noise exposure from
rallyards.
$ S
I *
I 5
* 8 A-36
-------
UNITED STATES ENVlRGiCicNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Recommendation of Non-concurrence with Draft Rallyard Equipment
and Facility Regulations Under Red Uorder Review
Donald, P. Dubols
Regional Administrator
0. Edward Roush, Director
Office of Regional and Intergovernmental Operations
THRU: L. Edwin Coate
Deputy Regional Administrator
He are non-concurring with the proposed railroad equipments1 facility
regulations currently under red border review. He recognize there may
be overriding considerations at the national level; our non-concurrence
Is therefore based on our concerns about negative Impacts on the Region
10 noise program. Our objections to the package arc summarized below.
1. The proposed regulations (both 24 and one-hour) are not protective
of public health and welfare and are Inconsistent with our national
noise strategy.
«
2. Because they arc totally preemptive, the proposed standards would
prohibit one of our states (Orccjon) froia enforcing its own standards
which are protective of public health and welfare, enforcement actions
taken by Oregon using their more stringent standards have not resulted.
In placing an unreasonable economic burden on the railroads 1n order to
achieve compliance. We understand Illinois has also been enforcing wore
stringent standards.
3. The regulations will allow degradation 1n the noise climate around
sooe existing rallyards.
4. The draft regulation proposes a one-hour standard which is inconsis-
tent with measurements made 1n Region 10 and by Regions 4, 6. and 8.
These measurements were taken to provide data to support the regulation
development. From our data, our worst one-hour level was within 5 dB of
the 24 hour levels. The regulation proposes a one-hour daytime level 14
dB higher than the 24 hour level. Ue cannot see the justification for
such a high one-hour level and reconroend a more reasonable level be
established based on real world measurements.
Yamamoto/mm 2/16/79
/•/
P.
•war f
OATC £
YAMAMOTO
— •» / . . / "Jj>
^J / / (a 1 "TJ
•fc'"
m&m
...^c%...
CCNCUWJENCES • " ""
•
EPAFK»I12
-------
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
LYALL A. SCHWARZKOPF. CITY CLERK
311 CITY HALL. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55413
PHONE: 348-2215
July 23, 1979
Rail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 79-01
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (AMft-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Aoency
Washington, D.C. 20460
To whom It may concern,
Enclosed Is Resolution 79R-279 passed by the Minneapolis City Council on June 29,
1979 opposing the establishment In the Environmental Protection Agency Rail Carrier
Docket Number ONAC 79-01 and concurrence In the objections raised by the Chief of
the Minnesota State Holse Section. I have also enclosed the Draft by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Sincerely yours,
Lyall A Schwarzkopf CMC
City Clerk
»A . • ,.»*» «*»
Jt/ls
encl '
4'JO
F
-------
DRAFT
June 12, 1979
Rail Carrier Docket Number ONAC 79-01
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-M90)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20160
Dear Sirs:
Staff of the Noise Pollution Control Section of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the proposed "Noise
Emission Standards for Transportation Equipment; Interstate Rail
Carriers" MM Fed. Reg. 22960-22972 (April 17, 1979),
documentation supporting the proposed regulation, and the draft
"Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Revision to Rail
Carrier Noise Emission Regulation" ("Draft EIS"), EPA
550/9-78-207 (February 1979), and offers the following comments
for the record.
A - 39
-------
1. Establishment of Health Standards
The proposed regulation 10 C.F.R. Section 201.17 clearly
establishes "Standards at receiving properties." Such receiver,
or ambient, standards are clearly not the "noise emission
standards" mandated by section 17(a) of the Noise Control act of
1972, P.L. 92-574 (hereinafter the "Act"), and thus if adopted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") would exceed the
Agency's statutory authority.
The distinction between the statutory authority to adopt
emission standards as opposed to receiver standards is
significant. If EPA adopts the regulations as proposed, it will
establish for the first time health standards for noise pollution
control. Congress has not given EPA that authority. In adopting
the Noise Control Act of 1972 Congress specifically recognized in
Section 1 that "primary responsibility for control of noise rests
with State and local government." It was Congress1 intent to
leave the protection of health and welfare through enforcement of
ambient standards to state and local government, while reserving
to EPA in Section 17(a) of the Act the task of setting
technology-based emission limitations "which reflect the degree
of noise reduction achievable through the application of the best
available technology, taking into account the cost of
compliance." State and local governments may not under section
17(c) of the Act adopt any noise emission regulations which
conflict with EPA's regulations. They may however, adopt
A - 40
-------
receiver standards which do not conflict with EPA's emission
regulations. Source and receiver standards can be enforced
independently without conflict. A conflict arises only when one
tries to attack a noise problem through hybridization of source
and receiver regulations, as EPA is proposing in this case.
EPA itself has recognized publicly that it has no statutory
authority to adopt receiver standards. In its document "Toward a
National Strategy for Noise Control" (April 1977) EPA states at
page 15: "EPA has no authority to regulate ambient noise
.levels". EPA's proposal to adopt receiver standards clearly
exceeds its statutory authority under the Act. EPA is limited to
establishing emission standards only and may not adopt the
receiver standards as proposed.
2. Use of Ldn as Descriptor
Section 201.17 of the proposed regulation designates the
proposed standards in terms of the Ldn descriptor. Use of the
Ldn descriptor is ineffective as a tool to protect the health and
welfare of people affected by railroad facility noise.
As a part of its justification for use of the Ldn descriptor
applicable to a health standard, EPA cites its own publication
entitled "Information of Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety", 550/9-7«-OOM (March, 19714) (hereinafter "Levels
A - 41
-------
Document") for the proposition that "An outdoor Ldn value of 55dB
is the level of noise EPA has identified as being protective of
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety." HH
Fed. Reg. at 22965. In citing the Levels Document as support for
the use of the Ldn descriptor EPA misrepresents the nature of the
Levels Document. The Levels Document did not identify Ldn
as an appropriate descriptor for health standards. It used as
the descriptor the yearly average Ldn, which differs
significantly from the Ldn. The proposed regulation is based on
the Ldn and not the yearly average Ldn.
In 1974 the MPCA adopted receiver noise standards using the
hourly L1Q and L^Q descriptors based on the A-weighting network
and has had five-and-a half years experience in enforcing and
working with its standards. In the process of adopting and
enforcing these standards we have found a total lack of
information to support the use of any 24-hour or yearly average
descriptor as applicable to health standards. EPA cannot support
the use of the Ldn descriptor for this regulation.
3. Use of Levels Document as Support for Health Standards
As previously noted, EPA has cited the Levels Document as
support for the health-based standards it proposes to adopt under
40 CFR Section 201.17.
A - 42
-------
The levels Document was never intended to serve as the basis
for a federal health-based noise standard. The Levels Document
was prepared in response to a Congressional mandate under section
5(a)(2) of the Act to "publish information on the levels of
environmental noise... requisite to protect the public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety". (Emphasis added.)
The document purported to identify noise levels for the
protection of public health and safety but such levels were not
adopted by EPA for any regulatory purpose. They were not subject
to the public scrutiny afforded regulatory actions. If EPA goes
forward with adoption of the proposed receiver standards it must
be able to support such standards with documentation that will
•stand up under such public scrutiny. In the opinion of the MPCA
the Levels Document does not support the adoption of a federal
health-based standard.
M. Car Coupling Operations Standard
The standard established by section 201.15 for car coupling
operations are in effect impulsive noise standards. Such
standards lack support because EPA has not yet identified
impulsive noise levels "requisite to protect health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety" as required by section 5(a)(2)
of the Act. Little information is readily available on the
subject. To our knowledge, work done for EPA by Wyle Labs in
1976 is yet to be published. EPA must identify safe levels
before they are adopted as standards.
A- 43
-------
.$••
5. Difficulty of Enforcement of Proposed Standard
In addition to exceeding the statutory authority of the EPA
and in addition to using an unsupportable descriptor, the
proposed receiver standards if adopted will be unenforceable,
resulting in their being ineffective to protect persons adversely
affected by railroad facility noise.
EPA, although recognizing that "the major enforcement
activity will need to be conducted by State and local agencies if
the regulations are to be effectivel.")(44 Fed. Reg. at 22967), has
tied the hands of enforcement officials by the very terms of the
regulation itself. Proposed 40 CFR section 201.31 specifies that
measurements must be obtained using an instrument that does not
presently exist. An integrating sound level meter or
instrumentation system, that meets all of the requirements of
American National Standard (ANSI) for sound Level Meterr
51.4-1971, Type 1, does not now exist for the purpose of
measuring Ldn. Should such an instrument become available it is
likely to be exorbitantly priced. It will be required to be used
for 24 hours stints in conjunction with computer programs not
presently being used for enforcement purposes.
Background information to the proposed regulation does not
support the need for Type I instrumentation. Even though it is
fun to play with such equipment in the laboratory and discuss the
significance of .1 decibels over coffee breaks, few discrepancies
A - 44
-------
are found between Type I and Type II instrumentation in the real
world due to the frequency components of environmental noise
sources. Railroad facilities are no exception. The economic
impact of requiring Type I meters for State and local programs
cannot be taken lightly. The need for such arbitrary
requirements must be thoroughly analyzed and documented.
For enforcement actions to survive court tests, qualified
technicians will have to be present during any data gathering
effort. The 21-hour monitoring period required to enforce a
standard using the Ldn descriptor will drain the staff resources
of State and local programs in a very short period of time.
Although the proposed 40 CFR section 201.17(b) provides for
enforcement of the alternative Leq descriptor, the hourly 84 Leq
for daytime and 74 Leq for nighttime periods are so grossly
inadequate as standards that they are meaningless.
In addition, enforcing the proposed regulation requires that
the data be adjusted using computer programs not commonly used
'pu«-p04«.«»
for enforcement jiiJH^*e^~ For example, the "indigenous" noise
level prediction [22 + 10 log (population density)] is based on
regression analyses of a minimum data base. It is our opinion
that the concept overestimates levels for background noise in
Minnesota neighborhoods. Similarly, the "calculation of
day-night levels resulting from civil aircraft operations" it is
not an easy task for specific daily operations since it is
designed for an average yearly Ld/j£) This implies a requirement
A - 45
-------
of having an individual present at the control tower of the
nearby airport, for 2M hours, charting the flight tracks for the
day in question. (EPA should try to do such a feat once for the
nearby National airport to assess its reasonableness.) When it
thcx't.*.
comes to highway noise prediction the •h»ia* is made of a model
(Mod 04, FHWA-RD-77-18) that is well known to "break down" for
arterial and local traffic conditions.
Let us assume that revised ANSI standards allow for the
manufacturing of the Type I integrating sound level meter
specified and that all the money in the world becomes available
to State and local programs to: a) buy the equipment, b) have
staff available to monitor the railyard and the nearby airport,
c) obtain and implement the computer programs, d) hire or
contract with computer operator. With all of those obstacles out
of the way, all that the railyard operator has to do to protect
himself from any enforcement action is to ring a bell or blow a
whistle (to which the regulation does not apply - see 11 Fed. Reg
at 22963) constantly and he has sufficiently invalidated the
measurement that a violation of the standard could not be proved.
EPA15 decision not to regulate maintenance of way equipment
(see 44 Fed. at 22963) raises the same issue: How is the
receiver limit enforced if one of those devices is operational in
the yard when monitoring of the facility is being conducted?
Section 201.15 of the proposed regulation provides that M[T]
A- 46
-------
he car coupling requirement can be alternatively met by
demonstrating that the car coupling operations are not performed
at speeds greater than M miles per hour at point of impact."
This alternative should be dropped from an enforcement
standpoint. As determined by EPA in the testing phase of the
development of this standard, noise produced by car couplings
depends mainly on the loaded condition of the cars and the speed
of coupling. The speed of coupling itself is highly dependent on
the care exercised by the yard crews. Knowledge that enforcement
testing is being done (present test requirements does not allow
for the enforcer to remain incognito) will result in 100%
compliance under testing conditions since 1 mph can be easily
achieved and under observation cars can be made to couple as
gently as two sticks of butter. The easy avoidance of finding a
violation could easily make this standard meaningless in
protecting the public. Section 201.26 of the proposed regulation
specifies height and distance in measuring car coupling noise.
For effective enforcement of the car coupling standard,
measurement should be able to be done at all distances and
elevations where a problem might exist. The requirement of
section 201.26 that energy averages of sound levels from at least
ten couplings shall take place at a specified distance and
elevation makes enforcement of this standard meaningless.
A- 47
-------
In summary, the MPCA's evaluation of the regulation as
proposed indicates that significant enforcement difficulties, and
in many cases impossibilities, will result from promulgation of
the regulation in its present form, especially in light of the
fact that EPA intends for the enforcement burden to fall on State
and local governments.
6. EPA's Approach to Adopting Standards
Although the foregoing comments have related generally to
specific sections of the proposed regulation, the MPCA wishes to
comment upon the approach EPA has taken with respect to
compliance with the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia which mandated adoption of regulations for
railroad facilities.
A reading of the proposed regulation and the supporting
documentation shows that EPA has approached the task of adopting
railroad facility regulations as if the Act specifically
authorized receiver standards instead of emission standards. In
three instances EPA actually pXroposes the kind of standards
authorized by the Act: sections 201.14, 201.15 and 201.16
propose emission standards for refrigerator cars, coupling
operations and retarders. Rather than treating the emission
standards as the norm from which the receiver standards depart,
EPA takes its bizarre approach a step farther by justifying the
emission standards of section 201.14 - 201.16 as a necessary
A - 48
-------
exception to the rule. In its "Background Document for Proposed
Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation". EPA
explains why these three sources should be regulated differently
than other railroad facilites, using an emission limitation
rather than the I/TVeceiver standard. The document states:
The Ldescriptor is inadequate for characterizing
annoyance from certain types of sources. For
example, sources such as retarders and refrigerator
cars which have large, pure-tone components can be
especially annoying even when they are not affecting
ambient levels appreciably. Likewise, impact noise
from car coupling can be a major cause of annoyance while
contributing little to
This approach is regulating railroad facilities—applying a
24-hour L7\ \or some sources and an L for others—is not only
confusing"but shows EPA's lack of belief in the |Lj ^standards as
an effective means of protecting the public health. EPA must
confine itself to adopting the emission standards authorized by
the Act and leave the establishment and enforcement of ambient
standards to State and local officials.
The MPCA believes that the most troubling aspect of EPA's
approach to adopting a railroad facility regulation is that the
regulation proposed seems to be deliberately designed to be
A - 49
-------
outside EPA's statutory authority and totally ineffective to
regulate railroad facilities. Remarks by an EPA consultant at a
November 2, 1977, meeting in Chicago at which the writer was
present, along with EPA staff and consultants and other State and
local officials, went so far as to suggest that EPA's course of
action should be to adopt regulations that would not withstand a
challenge as to their effectiveness. It appears that such advice
was heeded. EPA has previously stated its desire to leave the
regulation of railroad facilities to state and local governments.
It proposes these regulations under a court order which attempted
to ascertain Congress1 intent in enacting section 17 of the Act.
The MPCA urges that EPA seek from Congress a clarification to the
Act relieving EPA of the court imposed duty of regulating
railroad facilities. Such a Congressional clarification would be
far better than the proposed course of action in which EPA will
adopt ineffective standards which will tie the hands of State and
local noise regulatory agencies from giving the public relief
from railroad facility noise.
7. Draft EIS
Staff of the MPCA has reviewed the Draft EIS and finds it to
be inadequate in the following specific respects:
a) It does not discuss why stricter limits were not
considered by the EPA for new facilities.
A - 50
-------
b) It ignores any adverse impact that ethylene glycol
runoffs from retarders might have on water quality.
c) It does not address the impact of idling locomotives
(a large source of noise complaints) on energy
consumption.
d) It is well known that noise has a detrimental effect on
' property values. The economic impact to receiving
properties left unprotected by the regulations was not
discussed or even mentioned. The economic impact to
industry in achieving the specified levels, on the other
hand, was thoroughly investigated.
However, in general terms the Draft EIS fails to be what the
National Environmental Policy Act envisions: a concise,
free-standing document which is helpful to the decisionmaker in
arriving at a conclusion on the environmental impacts of the
proposed action. Instead it is a six-page nod to the concept of
environmental impact analysis. The conclusion that the Draft EIS
reaches that "compliance with the proposed standards for existing
yards is expected to provide an environment free from annoying
levels of railroad noise for about 830 thousand of the H million
exposed11 ought to be stated in the converse to convey the true
A- 51
-------
impact of the proposed regulation. It should read: "The
proposed EPA regulation will prevent 3.170 million people from
obtaining relief from railroad noise by the un-authorized
pre-emption of State and local programs from implementing
meaningful noise controls on rail yards."
Sincerely,
Alfonso E. Perez/Chief
Noise Section
Division of Air Quality
Telephone: (612) 296-73^0
A- 52
-------
A PRELIMINARY CRITIQUE
OF THE
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
PROPOSED RAILYARD NOISE REGULATION
SUMMARY: The following is a preliminary critique of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed noise emission regulations for facilities and equipment of the nation s
interstate rail carriers as published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 17, 1979.
These comments have been drafted by a special NANCO review committee made up of John
Hector, Bob Hellweg, Jerry Jensen, Jack Swing and Jesse Borthwick. They do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of any State or local agency nor do they represent a formal
position by NANCO. They have been prepared in an effort to stimulate and encourage
review of the regulation by all interested persons.
ISSUE: Property line standards versus source standards.
COMMENT: The committee feels that EPA should not establish property-line type noise
emission standards for railyards or any other sources of environmental noise. Any prop-
erty-line standards promulgated by EPA would have to be based on worst case or "least
common denominator" situations since there are no variance provisions in the Noise Con-
trol Act. We don't feel that a standard based on the worst case would be in the best
interest of the public health and welfare. Such standards would only serve to legal-
ize existing levels of noise and in the case of railyards actually allow significant
increases in noise emissions at yards which are currently "quiet."
Recognizing the restrictions that would be placed on establishing national property-
line railroad noise emission standards and the uniqueness of local acoustic environ-
ments, the committee would recommend the adoption of receiving property criteria to
aid in determining when source controls should be imposed. The following scenario
is suggested:
(1) EPA should establish receiving property noise impact criteria which when vio-
lated would constitute an impact on the public health and welfare and therefore
be considered excessive. Such criteria should be established without consider-
ation for cost of compliance or technology requirements. We would recommend
LDN 55 dBA be adopted as the criterion for longterm steady state noise expo-
sure (based on information published by EPA) and that maximum hourly Leq's of
60 dBA (day) and 50 dBA (night) also be established to allow shortterm monitor-
ing. These hourly levels are recommended based on the need to protect against
communication interference and sleep interference, and are supported by (i)
the data presented in EPA's Appendix V which shows the greatest difference be-
tween maximum measured hourly Leq values and LQN values being 4.5 dBA, indi-
cating that the daytime hourly Leq should be set no higher than 5 dBA above
the LDN value; and (ii) the need for a 10 dB nighttime penalty. A third set
of criteria needs to be established as a measure of intrusive noise, perhaps
a maximum LJ^-LJQ difference or some similar measure.
(2) Once the above criteria are established Federal, State and local enforcement
officials can determine where noise impacts exist. When the noise emissions
from a given railyard are found to be in violation of the criteria at a re-
ceiving noise sensitive site, the next step is to determine whether the noise
is necessary. We would define unnecessary noise as any noise which is exces-
sive (violates the criteria) and which has not been controlled using best a-
vailable technology (BAT) as identified by EPA source standards which includes
A - -n
-------
administrative controls.
(3) A railyard which is found to be generating excessive and unnecessary noise
would be required to bring its noise within the criteria or comply with all
EPA source standards through the application of BAT and administrative controls.
This scenario would result in noise abatement only at noise sensitive sites as opposed
to requiring abatement on all sources industrywide, thereby reducing drastically the
economic impact on industry. We feel it would also encourage the use of administrative
controls Including cooperation with local planning officials to prevent encroachment
and encourage compatible redevelopment.
ISSUE: Through train noise emissions
COMMENT: We feel that through train noise has not been adequately addressed. Exist-
ing source standards fail to protect the public health and welfare. We strongly urge
that standards for rolling stock be reexamined.
ISSUE: Best Available Technology definition
COMMENT: Best Available Technology should include administrative control. Control con-
sidered workable and reasonable should be published by EPA for use by the railroads and
enforcing agencies.
ISSUE: Car coupling noise standards
COMMENT: We recommend the car speed criteria be dropped since it will only serve to
complicate enforcement. As currently written the regulation would require the monitor-
ing of car speed to document it moving less than 4 mph in order to fully support a vio-
lation.
We also recommend that the standard be reduced from 95 dBA to 90 dBA at 30 meters. A
minimum of 10 readings all within 10 dBA of the maximum reading should be required, it
appears that the 90 dBA standard could be reached through speed controls, especially when
the energy averaging of 10 readings is considered.
ISSUE: Retarder noise standards
COMMENT: We support EPA's application of 12 ft. barriers with absorptive lining as BAT.
We support the 90 dBA standard but suggest that the measurement criteria be amended to
require a minimum of 10 readings, all within 10 dBA of the maximum reading, be used in
arriving at the energy average.
ISSUE; Refrigerator car noise standard
COMMENT: The background documentation presents insufficient data to support a review
of the standard. However, it does not appear that the use of electric service for com-
pressors as opposed to diesel-generatcd service was given adequate, if any, consideration.
This control approach is currently being used in Orange County, California.
ISSUE; Acoustic environment degradation
COMMENT: The regulation should be amended to include provisions limiting degradation
of the acoustic environment surrounding railyards that currently have low level noise
emissions.
A- 54
-------
ISSUE; Land use planning
COMMENT: All railyards should be required to provide noise contours to local planning
departments showing current and future noise impact zones, in order to encourage com-
patible land use planning.
ISSUE; State and local enforcement of the regulation
COMMENT: The measurement criteria are extremely complex and will result in little, if
any, enforcement by State and local noise control agencies. We know of no agency that
is willing to participate in the enforcement of the regulation as proposed. Even if
acceptable standards and measurement procedures are promulgated by EPA, State and
local governments will be required to adopt identical regulations before they could
become involved in enforcement. This process could prove to be a lengthy if not im-
possible task in many jurisdictions. Furthermore, we feel that without financial and
technical support (training enforcement officials, providing legal advice, equipment,
technical consultation, etc.), no State or local noise control agency will be able
to successfully enforce against a major rail company.
ISSUE; Measurement criteria
COMMENT: The measurement criteria as proposed are too complex to be considered work-
able. Modeling out all non-railyard noise sources and through trains as proposed
using sophisticated techniques such as the TSC Highway Noise Prediction Method is asking
too much. There are currently no integrating sound level instrumentation systems that
meet all ANSI Type I specifications du* to the lack of specifications for digital read-
out. Those that meet the Type 1 accuracy specifications are overly expensive and are
therefore rarely found in the equipment inventories of State and local noise control
programs. Although we recommended earlier against the use of LDN or Leq for enforce-
ment, if L.QH and Leq metrics are adopted, a simple statistical measurement procedure
using Type II sound level meters and a method of calculating Leq should be established.
ISSUE; EPA Region X Recommendation of non-concurrence
COMMENT: The comittee completely concurs with EPA Region X Administrator Dubois'
comments as outlined in attached letter.
A- 55
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 10
DATE. FEB 1 6 ,979
SUBJECT: Recommendation of Non-concurrence with Draft Railyard Equipment
and Facility Regulations Under Red Border Review
FROM: Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
T0 J. Edward Roush, Director
Office of Regional and Intergovernmental Operations
THRU: L. Edwin Coate J
Deputy Regional Administrator 7\
We are non-concurring with the proposed railroad equipments' facility
regulations currently under red border review. We recognize there may
be overriding considerations at the National level; our non-concurrence
is therefore based on our concerns about negative impacts on the Region
10 noise program. Our objections to the package are summarized below.
1. The proposed regulations (both 24 and one-hour) are not protective
of public health and welfare and are inconsistent with our national
noise strategy.
2. Because they are totally preemptive* the proposed standards would
prohibit one of our states (Oregon) from enforcing its own standards
which are protective of public health and welfare. Enforcement actions
taken by Oregon using their more stringent standards have not resulted
in placing an unreasonable economic burden on the railroads in order to
achieve compliance. We understand Illinois has also been enforcing more
stringent standards.
3. The regulations will allow degradation in the noise climate around
some existing railyards.
4. The draft regulation proposes a one-hour standard which is inconsis-
tent with measurements made in Region 10 and by Regions 4, 6, and 8.
These measurements were taken to provide data to support the regulation
development. From our data, our worst one-hour level was within 5 dB of
the 24 hour levels. The regulation proposes a one-hour daytime level 1
dB higher than the 24 hour level. We cannot see the justification for
such a high one-hour level and recommend a more reasonable level be
established based on real world mea
UDOl S
EPA F*nn 1320-4 (R.v. 3-74)
A - 56
-------
RESOLUTION 7IR-m
By Alderman Kaplan
Opposing the establishment of'1*
proposed regulations hi Hie1''
Cn*firotts*entar 'ProtectloV*
Agency RaB Carrier Docket
Nnmber ONAC 79-91 'and *
a^—m• • • -.. ,, |_ 4Wm •Ilia ^l*»» '^
CflBCWraiCQ 01 UW ODjtCIMBS
raised by the Chief of the
Minnesota State Noise Section.
Whereas, noise has a
detrimental effect on, property!
values; and ,1
Whereas, local government1
would be required to enforce the
proposed Environmental
Protection Agency's Interstate
Rail Carriers Noise Regulations;
and —
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis
feels these proposed receiver
standards, if adopted, would be
impossible to enforce; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis
would be pre-empted from en-j
Eorcing standards which it believes
are protective of public health and;
welfare;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved!
by the City Council of the City
i of Minneapolis:
That the City of Minneapolis, by
passage of this Resolution, goes on'
record as being strongly opposed
jto establishment of regulations as
proposed in the Environmental
Protection Agency Rail Carrier
Docket Number ONAC 7941. The
City of Minneapolis also concurs
with the specific objections raised
In the comment document as
written by the Chief of the Min-
nesota State Noise Section.
Passed June 29, 1978. Louis G.
DeMars, President of Council.
Approved July 5,197*. Albert J.
Hofstede, Mayor.
Attest: Lyall A. Schwarskopf,
City Clerk.
A- 57
-------
CITY OF CARSON
July 24, 1979
Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
In response to your letter of April 17, 1979, please be advi
that on July 16, 1979 City Council concurred with the recom-
mendation made by the City's Environmental Commission to ado,
the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Revised and
Expanded Noise Regulations; and request that EPA amend their
regulations to provide for a 70 dB(A) ambient noise level for
background sounds at the boundary of industrial zoned distric
Permitting an ambient noise level in excess of 70 dB(A) to ex
tend beyond the boundaries of industrial zones would not be
consistent with the City's adopted Noise Element of the Generj
Plan.
If the City of Carson can be of further assistance regarding
the matter, please feel free to contact the Community Developm
Director, Richard K. Gunnarson, at 830-7600, extension 325.
Sincerel
A - 58
701 EAST CARSON STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 6234, CARSON. CALIFORNIA 90749 • PHONE (213) 830-
-------
•p*;mrhn*ttt ot
30334
ARTHUR K.BOLTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
133 STATE JUDICIAL BUILDING
July 30, 1979
Mr. Henry Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulation Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
RE: Proposed Regulations Regarding Railroad Noise
Dear Mr. Thomas:
I have received and appreciate the proposed revised regulations
regarding railroad noise which you have mailed to this office.
This office will make no comment upon these regulations.
However if you desire to consult with the appropriate officials
in this state who administer the Georgia Noise Control Act
of 1974, I would suggest that you contact Mr. Roger Justice
of the Environmental Health Section, Georgia Department of
Human Resources, in Atlanta, Georgia.
L. JOSEPH SHAHEEN, JI
Assistant Attorney General
LJSjr:ml
A - 59
-------
o
MARGARET C. GRIER
OUISITVOF« •RANGE DIRECTOR
MORTON NELSON, M.D., MPH
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY HEALTH OF"""
I72S WEST I7TH STREET
SANTA ANA. CA 92706
TELEPHONE: 714/134-7700
PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES "*"-ING ADDRESS, p. o. .ox 35.
SANTA ANA. CA *2702
July 31, 1979
Rail Carrier Docket (ONAC 79-01)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier
Noise Emission Regulations (40 CFR, Part 201)
Gentlemen:
In response to a request from Henry E. Thomas, Director of Standards and Regu-
lations Division, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, EPA, dated April 17, 1979,
the proposed noise emission regulation was reviewed. Our opinions are based on
our past experiences associated with difficulties encountered in the enforcement
of community noise control ordinances and several problems we anticipate in the
enforcement of the proposed noise standards. It should be noted that the opin-
ions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policy or opinion of the
government of the County of Orange.
The concept of a property line noise intrusion standard is generally a good
criterion. However, the proposed revision promotes a "worst case" exposure
standard. The proposed railyard and equipment standard of 70 Ldn, effective in
1982, appears to be much higher than communities consider acceptable. In order
to protect the health and welfare of residents near these areas, it is recom-
mended that the noise exposures should not exceed 65 Ldn by 1986. If airports
can accomplish this task, then the railroads should also be able too. If rail-
road activities in certain facilities do not currently create noise intrusions
greater than 65 Ldn, this regulation would grant the railroads a "license to
make more noise" by permitting the noise level to rise to the proposed standard.
To permit some flexibility in railroad operations, a maximum increase of 3 dB
above today's exposure could be allowed until 1985.
The concept of permitting an entire 24 hour noise exposure of 70 Ldn to take
place in a one hour period to obtain permissible 84 Leq is mathematically cor-
rect, but quite unrealistic. To carry this reasoning one step further, as an
example, if all of the day's activities in a small switchyard occurred within
a 6 minute period during the selected one hour monitoring period, the allowable
exposure would be approximately 94 Leq for the 6 minutes, thus creating a noise
exposure that is considered intolerable. A more realistic approach would be to
adopt either a time-weighted (i.e. LIQ per hour) exposure or to permit an in-
crease of 5 dB above the Ldn standard for the hourly Leq.
A - 60
-------
Rail Carrier Docket (ONAC 79-01)
Environmental Protection Agency
July 31, 1979
Page 2
A "baseline" noise inventory (including noise contours) for the various noise
emission sources within a given facility should be prepared by the railroads to
determine the noise impact upon persons living near railroads and to establish
a priority system for noise abatement. This inventory should be updated periodi-
cally so that it could be used as a planning tool for local jurisdictions in the
development of future land use compatibility criteria in cooperation with the
railroads.
The definition of "railroad facility boundary" and "receiving property", Section
201.1 (jj) and (kk), needs further clarification and should include switching
activities controlled by franchises or easements, e.g. tracks located on paved
city streets in residential areas.
Section 201.26 (a) Refrigerator Car Test procedures are not adequately described.
It appears that the concept was to require that each car be measured independently
(7 meters from the track centerline). In actual practice, there are usually
unattended groups of refrigerator cars on a siding with diesel engines operating
generators to power the refrigeration units. Without cooperation of the specific
railroad company involved, it would be impractical to attempt isolation of a
single refrigerator car for measuring noise emissions and applying the refriger-
ator car standard. In addition, such uncontrollable noise sources would require
application of the receiving property standard. This situation would result in a
conflict of standards so nothing would be accomplished. Locally, one way we have
reduced the noise 5-6 dB, without modifying the cars, is to use commercial power
to drive the refrigeration units, thereby eliminating the noise of the diesel
engine and generator.
Section 201.26 (b) Car Coupling Test measurements are limited to 4 miles per hour.
This appears to be an unnecessary complication for completing an evaluation be-
cause the standard requires the noise measurements to be made at a distance of
30 meters from the track centerline while the speed is being measured. Locally
this measurement can be made by using a special low speed "hand held" radar unit.
These units are very accurate for "head on" measurements but are very inaccurate
when measured at right angles to moving vehicles. A simpler and more accurate
method of measuring coupling noise would be to take the average noise level
obtained from 10 coupling operations using a peak reading meter and evaluating
the data in terms of a permissible impact noise standard.
Overall, the proposed noise regulations appear to be very favorable to the rail-
road industry, with overly complicated measurement procedures requiring sophis-
ticated noise monitoring equipment. Such validation for determining compliance
would require highly trained persons, therefore restricting local jurisdiction
activities in enforcing the proposed regulations.
Very truly yours
E. G. Brickson, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist
Division of Environmental Health
EGB/st
A - 61
-------
FAOM. E. G. Brickson
Orange County Human Services Agency
Public Health & Medical Services
Division of Environmental Health 1200 LINCOLN ST. SUITE 704
P.O. Box 355 DENVER, CO. 80203
Santa Ana, CA. 92702 PHONE (303) 861-9090
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
July 26, 1979
Rail Carrier Docket (ONAC 79-01)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECTi Review of Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier
Noise Emission Regulations (40 CFR, Part 201)
Gentlemen!
In response to a request from Henry E. Thomas, Director of Standards and
Regulations Division, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, EPA, dated April 17,
1979, the proposed noise emission regulation was reviewed. Our opinions are
based on our past experiences associated with difficulties encountered in the
enforcement of community noise control ordinances and several problems we
anticipate in the enforcement of the proposed noise standards.
The concept of a property line noise intrusion standard is generally a good
criteria, however the proposed revision promotes a "worst case" exposure
standard. The proposed railyard and equipment standard of 70 Ldn, effective
in 1982, appears to be much higher than communities consider acceptable. In
order to protect the health and welfare of residents -near these areas, it is
recommended that the noise exposures should not exceed 65 Ldn by 1986. If
airports can currently accomplish this task, then the railroads should also be
able too. If railroad activities in certain facilities do not currently create
noise intrusions greater than 65 Ldn, this regulation would grant the railroads
a "license to make more noise" by permitting the noise level to rise equal to
the proposed standard. To permit some flexibility in railroad operations, a
maximum increase of 3 dB above today's exposure could be allowed until 1985.
The concept of permitting an entire 24 hour noise exposure of 70 Ldn to take
place in a one hour period to obtain permissible 84 Leq is mathematically
correct but quite unrealistic. To carry this reasoning one step further, as
an example, if all of the days activities in a small switchyard occurred within
a 6 minute period during the selected one hour monitoring period, the allowable
exposure would be approximately 94 Leq for the 6 minutes, thus creating a noise
exposure that is considered intolerable. A more realistic approach would be to
adopt either a time-weighted (i.e. LIQ per hour) exposure or to permit an
increase of 5 dB above the Ldn standard for the hourly Leq.
t; a
*
ft 8'
- 62
-------
Rail Carrier Docket (ONAC 79-01)
Environmental Protection Agency
July 26, 1979
Page 2
A "baseline" noise inventory (including noise contours) for the various noise
emission sources within a given facility should be prepared by the railroads to
determine the noise impact upon persons living near railroads and to establish
a priority system for noise abatement. This inventory should be updated period-
ically so that it could be used as a planning tool for local jurisdictions in
the development of future land use compatibility criteria in cooperation with
the railroads.
The definition of "railroad facility boundary" and "receiving property", Section
201.1 (jj) and (kk), needs further clarification and should include switching
activities controlled by franchises or easements, e.g. tracks located on paved
city streets in residential areas.
Section 201.26 (a) Refrigerator Car Test procedures are not adequately described.
It appears that the concept was to require that each car be measured independ-
ently (7 meters from the track centerline). In acctual practice, there are
usually unattended groups of refrigerator cars on a siding with diesel engines
operating generators to power the refrigeration units. Without cooperation of
the specific railroad company involved, it would be impractical to attempt isola-
tion of a single refrigerator car for measuring noise emissions and applying the
refrigerator car standard. In addition, such uncontrollable noise sources would
require application of the receiving property standard. This situation would
result in a conflict of standards so nothing would be accomplished. Locally, one
way we have reduced the noise 5-6 dB, without modifying the cars, is to use com-
mercial power to drive the refrigeration units thereby eliminating the noise of
the diesel engine and generator.
Section 201.26 (b) Car Coupling Test measurements are limited to 4 miles per
hour. This appears to be an unnecessary complication for completing an evalu-
ation because the standard requires the noise measurements to be made at a
distance of 30 meters from the track centerline while the speed is being mea-
sured. Locally, this measurement can be made by using a special low speed
"hand held" radar unit. These units are very accurate for "head on" measure-
ments but are very inaccurate when measured at right angles to moving vehicles.
A simpler and more accurate method of measuring coupling noise would be to take
the average noise level obtained from 10 coupling operations using a peak
reading meter and evaluating the data in terms of a permissible impact noise
standard.
Overall, the proposed noise regulations appear to be very favorable to the rail-
road industry, and with overly complicated measurement procedures requiring
sophisticated noise monitoring equipment. Such validation for determining
compliance would require highly trained persons therefore restricting local
jurisdiction activities in enforcing the proposed regulations.
Very truly
E. G. Brickson, Chairman
NEHA Noise Committee
A- 63
-------
NEW JERSEY NOISE CONTROL COUNCIL
380 Scotch Road
West Trenton, N.J. 08628
609-292-7696
August 6, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S.E.P.A.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This will aknowledge with appreciation your communications and materials forwarded
regarding proposed revised and expanded railroad noise regulations. I regret our
belated response but submit the following questions raised by our Council for your
consideration. . -
1. Where does the Federal Court Decision leave our State with respect to
enforcement?' Miist we adopt or pass identical statutes in order, to take any
action or can we proceed to enforce newly determined Federal requirements?
2. Can enforcement only be taken with regard .to the railroad operations defined
in the Federal regulations, or can we: proceed under existing industrial noise
ordinances where appropriate ? • .
3. Can the State or local governments enforce their own standards for railroad
equipment not covered by the Federal regulations?
4. Must EPA be petitioned for a waiver of preemption under Section 17(C)(2) of
the act if a local rule is necessitated by "special local conditions" and is
"not in conflict" with the Federal regulations?
5. What enforcement activity can be expected from Federal sources and how soon?
6. What effort has been made to determine levels for the pass-by operation of
trains? Are we specifically prohibited from developing ordinances and
regulations to control this source?
It was the considered opinion of our Council that enforcement was rather indefinite.
We are also left wondering whether Federal responsibility will terminate with the
writing of this regulation. In general, it appeared to some of our members that the
Federal Court Decision might make it might make it more difficult for the State of
New Jersey and its. municipalities to take action on the types of railroad noise
problems we have experienced in the past.
a *' ••
•}' 8
IW
'* R
"xtabllshed by the ."rr" jrn •-;'-•' i-.—..- -0>,fl-T „%,
* A - 64
-------
Page 2 - H. Thomas August 6, 1979
Thanks again for keeping us posted on this action. We trust our comments will be
of some value.
Sincerely yours,
is
IxJoseph Jr Soporowski, Jr., Ed.D.
Chairman, N.J.N.C.C.
cc: H. Doerfler
A- 65
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY
County of San Bernardino
i.WIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1111 East Mill Street, Building 1 • San Bernardino, CA 92415 • (714) 383-1617
August 1, 1979
Richard L. Roberts, R.S., M.P.H.
Director
Environmental Health Services
Also serving the cities of:
Ac/elan to
Bantow
Chino
Cotton
Fontana
Loma Linda
Montclair
Needles
Ontario
Redlands
Rialto
San BernarO'no
VictorviHe
Upland
Henry Thomas, Director
EPA Standards & Regulations Division
U.S. Environmental Improvement Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
PROPOSED REVISED EPA RAILROAD NOISE STANDARDS
On July 23, 1979, the San Bernardino County, California, Board of
Supervisors adopted the enclosed resolution pertaining to the EPA
proposed revised railroad noise regulations.
The County Board of Supervisors resolved to encourage the executive and
legislative branches of the U.S. Government to reconsider the immediate
adoption of proposed revised railroad noise regulations; and, encourage
a national forum for debate on the impact of these pre-emptive regu-
lations on local government.
Further, the County requests that this resolution be disseminated to
appropriate federal and state political and decision making levels for
the purpose of enlisting support and stimulating action on their part.
Your assistance on this matter is appreciated.
iSYVltd
RI'CHARD L. ROBERT
Dept. of Environmental
MPH, Director
Services
"%/
fKENNETH C."TOPPING, Director
Planning Department
RLRrdr
Enc.
a:
V
A - 66
-------
RESOLUTION #79-196
A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROTESTING THE ADOPTION OF E.P.A. REVISED
NOISE REGULATIONS PRE-EMPTING THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TO INDEPENDENTLY SOLVE COMMUNITY NOISE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED
WITH RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC DEBATE ON
THE ISSUES.
WHEREAS, the E.P.A. has been given U.S. Court of Appeals order
to adopt revised noise regulations governing all railroad
equipment and facilities; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Noise
Control Act (PL 92-574), Section 17, these regulations
completely pre-empt the authority of local government; and,
WHEREAS, the standards will not only legalize existing levels
of railroad operation noise but will also in the case_of
railyards, allow significant increases in noise emissions
at yards which are currently "quiet"; and,
WHEREAS, the adoption of the revised proposed E.P.A.
railroad noise regulations, because of the pre-emption clause,
will potentially have serious adverse impact on land use
decisions previously made by local governments in reliance
on local standards; and,
WHEREAS, although it is recognized that certain uniformity
of standards must prevail in matters of inter-state commerce,
to totally pre-empt local authority in its traditional
responsibility to protect public health and welfare is not
in the best interest of the local citizenry; and,
WHEREAS, with the passage of the Noise Control Act, congress
intended that pre-emption of local authority be limited and
that federal control should center on those aspects of the
industry truly in need of uniform treatment of a national
standard,
<
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. that the San Bernardino County,
California, Board of Supervisors encourage the Executive
and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government to reconsider
the immediate adoption of the proposed revised noise regulations
and to delay said adoption until such time that sufficient
public congressional hearings are held to clearly identify
the impact upon local government as it affects their responsi-
bilities to their constituents; and,
A- 67
-------
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that short of conducting public_
hearings on the matter that arrangements be made in conjunction
with the Federal Office of Mediation and Conciliation Service
to provide for debate and compromise between the railroad
industry and state and loc.il government on the matter of
pre-emption; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be
forwarded to legislators who represent San Bernardino County
at both the Federal and State levels, the County Legislative
Advocate in Sacramento and the National Association of
Counties, for the purpose of enlisting their support and
stimulating action on their part.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of San Bernardino, State of California, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS: McElwain, Hansberger, Townsend, Hammock,
NOES: SUPERVISORS: None
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS: None
-•2 —
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO f
I, ANDREE DISHAROON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, California, hereby certify
the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the record of the action taken by said Board of Supervisors,, by vote
of the members present, as the same appears in the Official Minutes of said Board of its meeting of julv 23 197 Q
Dated: July 23, 1979 ANDREE DISHAROON
cc: EHS-Roberts (10); EIA (1); Clerk of said Board
PLANNING (1); FILE A - 68
-------
/
consultants
*
acoustics
architecture
engineering
the environment
17 August 1979
.
~£
*^~
(
Rail Carrier Docket No. ONAC 79-01
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission
Regulations—Measurement of Average Sound Levels
Near Railyards
Res Railyard Noise Measurement Data, Background Document
EPA 550/9-78-207 Appendix B, February 1979
pp. 290-4, 319-31
Gentlemen:
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some
recent research accomplished in conjunction with a proposed
draft ANSI standard for environmental noise monitors. This
information may be of use to the EPA, especially when
considering the contribution of impulsive sounds to the
average railyard noise le'vel. These comments are offered as
part of the public response to the proposed regulations.
Discussion
The above-referenced EPA document cites several instances when
impulsive sounds occurred near railroad "hump" yards. For
example, Mr. G.A. Russell reported that events such as wheels
screeching and cars coupling at the West Springfield and East
Deerfield, Massachusetts Railyards generated maximum noise
levels whose values exceeded the hourly average noise level
(Leq) by 10 to 40 decibels. Mr. Russell pointed out that the
"bangs" and "crashes" from the railyard are loud enough to be
startling; however, since these impulsive noises last for only
a fraction of a second, he felt that they did not
significantly affect the Leq. This latter assumption may be
erroneous for reasons discussed below.
Charles M. Salter. PE
Marjjn MuJcrbdchtol
Anthony P. Nash. PE
Richard R Illinsworth, 1'E
Ricluird B. Rocikin
' .VWfiicifie Avenue. Sim Frctnciscn. CA. 94111 A - 69
„,,. (4J!it 397.0442
-------
U. S. EPA
17 August 1979
Page Two
Integration of Acoustical Transients
Standardizing the response of integrating sound level meters
to single transients is a subject of concern to members of
ANSI working group Sl-45 because modern acoustical
instrumentation enables one to obtain an average noise level
generated by a complex mixture of both steady and transient
analog signals. These analog signals may not be available for
later inspection or analysis by specialized instruments, nor
is it practical in most cases to do so. Thus, it is important
that these data be processed correctly by the environmental
noise monitor in the field.
Unfortunately, simply requiring that the monitor meets ANSI
Slo4-1971, "Specifications for Sound Level Meters" does not
necessarily mean the instrument will integrate or average
transient signals with adequate accuracy*
Proposed Test for Transient Signal Response
Dr. Robert Wo Young of the Naval Ocean Systems Center has
proposed that a series of transient tests be incorporated in
the draft ANSI standard for environmental noise monitors.,
These tests are intended to quantify the transient response
fidelity of integrating and averaging sound level meters
relative to the computed response for an idealized sound level
meter. The test series employ a single-cycle sine burst which
is applied to the microphone input and is subsequently
processed by the frequency-weighting, squaring, and
integrating sections of the instrument.
Several existing environmental noise monitors have already
been evaluated with this technique- I have studied these test
results and found that the measured response of existing
instruments range from excellent to grossly deficient when
compared to the predicted values. The response deficiencies
are almost always negative; i.e., the instrument reports a
maximum sound level or sound exposure level less than the
predicted value. It occurred to me that these measurement
deficiencies could also cause existing instruments to report
incorrect average noise levels near railyards, especially if
impulsive noise is present-
When I discussed these test results with one instrument
manufacturer, he expressed the opinion that the proposed test
is too severe for classifying the accuracy of environmental
noise monitors. He felt that high level transients of short
duration rarely occur in community noise measurements.
Moreover, this manufacturer and a number of other people
A- 70
-------
U. S. EPA
17 August 1979
Page Three
probably assume that such transients do not materially
increase the Leq. I think this belief may have originated
from experience with instruments which did not accurately
process short transients.
In conclusion, I suggest that railyard noise data collected to
date using environmental noise monitors be reviewed carefully
with consideration for the instrument's capabilities. In the
interim, average railyard noise levels should be measured only
with instruments whose impulse response has been demonstrated
to be within one decibel of the predicted value for pulses as
short as two milliseconds.
Sincerely,
Anthony P.'Nash, PE, Mem, INCE
/APN
cc: B. Conner, Tracer
B. Ceci, Metrosonics
K. Eldred, BBN
W. Kundert, GenRad
R. Procunier, EPA, region IX
J. Wootten, Bruel & Kjaer
R.W. Young, Naval Ocean Systems Ctr
A- 71
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
27 AUG1979
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
(ANR-490)
Mr. Hollis Duensing, Esq.
Association of American Railro^s
American Railroads Building
1920 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Mr. Duensing:
We appreciate the interest and concerns of the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) as expressed in their July 2, 1979, Rail Carrier Docket
submission in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in
the Federal Register of April 17, 1979 (44 F.R. 2295.9 et. seq.). We are
carefully considering the data, analyses, and suggestions provided by the
AAR in developing the final rules. As such, a number of issues and
questions have surfaced which, we believe, if clarified will be helpful
in developing the final regulation. This letter, therefore, is to
solicit the additional clarifying information specified in Attachments
A and B.
We would appreciate responses to the questions posed at your earliest
convenience, but, in order to be useful, no later than September 15,
1979. In some instances we appreciate that additional time may be needed
to compile certain data or responses from your members. Nevertheless, we
would like to receive responses to as many of the questions as possible
at your earliest convenience.
If there are any questions relating to this request, Mr. Bob Rose may
be contacted at (703) 557-7666.
Sincerely,
,O
Jenry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division
Attachments: (2)(A & B)
A- 72
-------
August 21, 1979
ATTACHMENT A
QUESTIONS POSED TO THE AAR CONCERNING THEIR DOCKET RESPONSES
(Rail Carrier Docket No. ONAC 79-01)
A. Retarder Barriers
1. In arriving at its estimate of $75 per linear foot, the EPA
assumed that many yard operators would use proven barrier con-
struction techniques, such as those employed by the Terminal
Railroad Association of St. Louis as described in the Background
Document, and in the Illinois EPA submission to the Docket
(June 18, 1979). These 12-foot high barriers were constructed
and installed at a cost of approximately $50 per linear foot.
In its submission to the Docket (July 2), the AAR estimates a
"real world" cost of $200 per linear foot installed. Could the
AAR provide the EPA with details of the cost estimate? Is this
an average cost from several suppliers? If so, would you identify
the suppliers who provided the AAR data? Are the assembled labor
rates those of railroad personnel or local contractors? For
which geographic parts of the country are the rates applicable?
Would you provide the breakdown of hardware and installation costs
underlying the $200 per foot estimate? Could the separate costs
for master and group retarders be provided? Are any costs for
service interruption included? If so, please delinate.
2. On page 25, reference is made to cost estimates from an
established supplier of $200 per linear foot. Would you please
identify this supplier.
3. On pages 26 to 29, reference is made to potential costs
incurred for track relocation, service interruption, and
miscellaneous other items in connection with barrier installation.
These costs appear in grand total in Table 11 without specific
allocation or statement of underlying assumptions. Would the AAR
provide the EPA with a cost allocation breakdown for the AAR cited
$271 million cost for barriers?
A- 73
-------
Attachment A (Continued) Page 2
A. Exhibit C of the AAR docket submission tabulates the number of
retarders requiring relocation and the number of tangent point
retarders by district or railroad. Could the" AAR provide the same
data to the EPA by individual yards so that the location and
number of yards potentially affected can be determined?
5. Could the four rail-yard yards referenced on page 28, which
are equipped with a total of 166 tangent point retarders be
identified with the breakdown of the number of retarders and
location relative to the railroad property line for each?
6. The discussion on pages 29 and 30 refers to safety and
maintenance difficulties created by the presence of barriers. Can
the AAR provide EPA with more detail on the types of difficulties
encountered and their approximate operating or other costs? In
particular, what new maintenance procedures or safety requirements
will be imposed, what new difficulties will be encountered, and at
what cost? In what aspects are these different from other
difficulties procedures or requirements presently encountered
by the railroads for analogous situations?
B. Switch Engine
1. On page 37, reference is made to noise measurements of a study
performed for the AAR on an EMD SD 40-2. The study performed for
the AAR by the Donaldson Company is entitled "Locomotive Muffler
Feasibility Study" (September 1975). The AAR assertion that little
or no reduction in the overall noise of idling locomotives appears to
rest heavily on this study. Would the AAR provide the EPA with
a copy of this study, and any other studies which may have been
done for them to determine locomotive noise abatement feasibility?
2. Would you provide us the survey referenced on page 36 of the AAR
submission indicating the number of road locomotives and switch engines
assigned to switching service?
3. Could a breakdown be provided of the labor costs for switch
engine retrofit (reference on page 42) in terms of labor rates and
hours of effort?
A - 74
-------
Attachment A (Continued) Page 3
4. Could the basis of the annual muffler maintenance cost* of
$2000 referenced on page A3 be provided?
5. Does AAR have data indicating which railroad companies would
require the purchasing of 450 new locomotives indicated on page 46,
and the basis for determining the number of new locomotives pur-
chased on a road-by-road basis?
6. If railroads were to purchase the 450 new locomotives cited in
the AAR submission, is it reasonable to assume that these locomotives
will be used exclusively for yard service, or can it be expected that
some or all will see service in other areas? Will the purchase of these
locomotives make available for other service, locomotives which will be
replaced by these 450?
7. The AAR analysis of restarting cold locomotives cites a new
GM/EMD system which allows an engine to be shut down and restarted
without engine damage. The analysis further states that the system
is available only on the new F-40 series of passenger locomotives,
and at an added cost of $16,000 to $20,000. Is this system now being
ordered by any of your member roads? If so, what roads and how many
locomotives are being so ordered? Is such a system cost efficient in
your view, over the life of a locomotive taking into account present
and likely increases in fuel costs?
Are any other systems available to perform a similar task? The
Conrail submission to this docket proposes an electrical standby
system which would require an investment of $5,300 per locomotive,
plus investment in compatible yard facilities. What is the
feasibility of this system for other railroads in the United States?
Does this Conrail system meet the same needs as the GM/EMD system,
which appears somewhat more costly and more limited?
C. Refrigeration Cars
1. In the statement of Robert McKee (Exhibit J), the major noise
sources of the mechanical refrigerator car are identified as
muffler noise, fan noise, and engine mechanical noise. He states
that the muffler currently in use reduces muffler noise to a level
approximately equivalent to the engine mechanical noise. Are these
observations based on actual noise measurements? If diagnostic
studies have been performed by the Pacific Fruit Company to de-
termine component noise levels, the EPA would like to take the
results of these studies into consideration in any reassessment it
night make regarding the refrigerator car noise standard. Would
you provide us with a copy of those noise studies and noise data
regarding the insertion loss provided by the heavy-duty muffler
now installed in "virtually every refrigerator car"?
A - 75
-------
Attachment A (Continued) Page 4
2. Doas the AAR have any data concerning the current noise
emission, and costs of quieting of TOFC/COFC units? Also, would
the AAR provide us data concerning the number of TOFC/COFC units
presently in use and any projections of the growth of the fleet
vis-a-vis the projection of the fleet of refrigerator cars?
3. Would the AAR provide the names of suppliers of the refrigeration
units used on refrigerator cars?
4. Would the basis for the costs quoted on page 80 for the
refrigerator car retrofit technology be provided?
D. Load Cell Test Sites
1. Reference is made on pages 84-85 to load test cell enclosures
that have been constructed by the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
at a cost of $300,000 and that Santa Fe estimates multi-unit load
test cell facilities at $1.6 million each. Do the referenced
existing load cell enclosures serve any other purpose(s) than
noise reduction from load cell testing?
2. Does the difference in the number of load cell sites mentioned
on page 84 (182) and the number requiring enclosures stated on
page 86 (179) imply that three load test sites are currently
enclosed?
3. Would the enclosures proposed by the AAR, estimated at $500,000
each, serve any purpose(s) other than noise reduction for load
cell tests?
4. Could a cost breakdown including materials, labor, heating,
cooling, insulation, lighting, etc., be provided for the various
load cell enclosures referenced on pages 84 through 87?
5. What noise reduction was assumed to be required of the load
test cell enclosures in order to meet the proposed property line
standard?
E. Releasable Retarders
1. For the Chessie System's releasable retarders discussed on
page 95; could the breakdown of costs among retarder removal,
engineering, materials, contingencies, equipment rental and
insurance be provided?
A - 76
-------
Attachment A (Continued) Page 5
2. Similarly, could such cost breakdowns be provided for the
releasable retarder cost estimates provided on pages 94 and 95?
3. Could the AAR estimate of $40,000 for releasable retarders be
broken down into equipment pruchase and installation costs?
F. Yard Measurement
Would any backup data you have be provided concerning the basis of
the costs for yard measurements provided on pages 102 and 103?
G. Health/Welfare
i. What would the AAR propose as the noise impact descriptor(s)
for assessing impact of rail yard noise on surrounding communities?
(pp. 122-126) Would you provide your rationale for this proposal?
2. What data or other information does the AAR have to support your
view that rail yard noise has no greater impact (on surrounding
communities) at night .than during daytime? (pp. 122-126)
3. What data or other information does the AAR have to support your
non rail yard source noises are generally at the same level or
greater than rail yaard source noise? (pp. 122-126)
4. What data or other information does the AAR have to support your
view that annoyance due to rail yard noise does not have an adverse
public health and welfare impact? (p. 130)
5. Section IV (p. 127) is general: What data are there to support
the AAR view that leaving out many rail yard noise sources from
the analyses does not underestimate the impact?
6, Could the data used to conclude that non rail yard noise
sources that are dominant at a particular location are also equally
dominant throughout the entire community, be provided us? (p.131)
7. Could the supporting data or analyses used to conclude that it
is incorrect to consider that some community areas are impacted by
several rail yard noise sources be made available? (p. 131)
8. Would the supporting data or analyses used to conclude that a
nonuniform population density around a rail yard results in a
significantly different impact magnitude than a uniform density be
made available? (p. 132)
9. Do you have any data or other information to indicate that there
are no cases where the population density decreases with distance from
rail yards? (p. 132)
A - 77
-------
Attachment A (Continued) Page 6
H. General Questions
1. In the AAR's analysis of technology and cost; what assumptions
or data have the AAR used with respect to the nun.ber of rail yards
for which the day-night equivalent sound levels are clearly
dominant with respect to receiver property measurement locations?
2. In the AAR's analysis of technology and cost; what assumptions
or data have the AAR used with respect to either the distance
between the rail yard property line and receiver property
measurement locations, or the amount of noise attenuation achieved
due to any buffer regions separating the rail yard property line
from receiver property measurement locations?
3. Is the AAR aware of noise problems associated with rail carrier
activities which have served to impede interstate commerce by rail?
If so, would you provide us with the state or local political entities
involved, the date or dates associated therewith, and whether the
problem was resolved or not. Further, we would appreciate you
providing us with a list of state or local government actions related
to noise which have resulted in railroads having to commit staff or
other resources to.resolve.
A - 78
-------
ATTACHMENT B
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE WYLE REPORT WR 79-10
A. Section 2
1. What were the specific reference documents associated with each
•et of noise level samples for each source listed in Table 2-1?
2. Which statistical test or procedure was used to calculate the
90 percent confidence limits shown in Table 2-1? Are these limits
the levels of the noise energy or intensity 90 percent confidence
limits, or the 90 percent confidence limits of the level (dBA)
values, and wiiy?
3. Why were car impacts not ranked in Table 2-2?
4. Why were Wyle Labs data for Barstow, Barr, and Cicero rail
yards not included in analyses shown in Table 2-3?
B. Section A
1. What are tbe supporting data to indicate that the L
-------
CONRAIL
August 21, 197S
Mr. Richard Westlund
Project Engineer
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, ANR
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, CM-2, Rm. 1102
Arlington, Va. 2O460
Dear Rick:
Conrail hopes that the enclosed data that you requested
on August 20, 1979 on car coupling speeds will assist
you in setting realistic noise limitations. As requested,
the raw data reflecting 63,979 speed readings is accom-
panied by a summary for each quarter. This data, accum-
ulated between August 1978 and August 1979, reflects one
page for each yard tested plus every 4Oth page.
Please let me. know if Conrail can supply you with any add-
itional information to evidence actual car coupling speeds,
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Teitel
Regulator Affairs
83O - Six Penn Center Plaza
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
A- 80
CONiOt.OATID RAU COWOBANON SIX TfNN C.NtrR « A7A PHUADIIPH.A PA .9.04
-------
NOTE: Conrall submitted 143 raw data sheets on this car
coupling survey, conducted by the various yards in the
Conrall system. These data sheets contain information on
the individual car coupling events such as car number,
loaded or empty, impact speed, track number, etc. with
approximately 20 coupling events displayed on each sheet.
Because of the lengthiness of this submittal we have chosen
to print only the two summary tables along with one sample
data sheet. The full subtnittal with all data sheets may
be persued at EPA's Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2404, 401 "M" Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20460, or
obtained by contacting Mr. Robert C. Rose, Railroad Program
Manager (ANR-490), 401 "M" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.
20460, (703) 557-7666.
A- 81
-------
0 lr>t quarter 7 fr [x] ^ quarter?? REGION:
0 3rd quarter 7f 0 4th quartor7f DIVISION:
DATE: £';?/-?* YARD:
JL~*
Ll L2 X
0.0 - O.9 .5
1.0 - 1.9 1.5
2.0 - 2.9 2.5
3.0 - 3.9 3.5
4.0 - 4.9 4.5
5.O - 5.9 5.5
6.0 - 6.9 6.5
7.0 - 7.9 7.5
8.0 - 8.9 8.5
9.0 - 9.9 9.5
10.0 - 10.9 10.5
11 .0 - 11 .9 11.5
12.0 - 12.9 12.5
13 - 13.9 13.5
14.0 - 14.9 14.5
15.0 - 15.9 15.5
it- o - n *i i'i 2
To * ** 1
,»**W ,-*
f
51
J.,^
i>-i^
ItW
t>'W
/«yjj
fci«3
35^
/C*7
V»7
n't
rv
/V
12
4
i _
i
6c Kt
lr_&~.
0
fX
U.e
3314-i"
a cisc
yni-f
7o iSc.f
h v/.y
395rr.i'
n&.o
IM.*
Kit.*'
Hfi.f
6J/.C
. /7J. C
/6Z.o
5*.*
/!->-
/?.**
Zfy^tf
£~*AJ
/
&~4L
X; ^
; c
~.*+~^
•
i
Total. Impact Average = [fX s
n
Total Overspeed Average = [fX
n
A - 82
-------
PT 1st quarter n^ 2nd quarter 7?
£2 3rd quarter It £3 4th quarter 7f
Region:
Division:
Yard:
Date:
Shift
3* «T<
V" "
J** *
•
> T«v
B T6t
r. Tot .
Total
WMl'i
Tot«l
7/73
4*70
7t*2
7772
tf.m
V«-*3
«/m
3-//J-
67i'3
^ ,/3j,
5^o 5
leM
231?
tjlfl
It'tM
6?f
-1
I
3
6
//
,/
/
7
/^
17
9
y
27
52
1
_fc3
^97
3
' ifW^""*4/
3
/j,,0
HIS
1121
/372
f/^3
tCff
S'f
7f-/
/til
&&_
M
974
vfr
^•/
i«-i
/< s.i y
//^
»/ >«•
X <;
4
/i/y
nfi
If*
r/fir
11*73
IXlf
fl>j
l*0>>'
If 10
MIL
irt
->'*-/
7^6'
/3H
/^i'/
/2t3
//7*
•
5X73
&3
tfi
/ "f tJ
O ^ f
/*-/z
3--.JV
A./H
/>
• V. (AS\Jf-
r>
!*<,
<,*(.
71 V
UK
*n
w
v»
^t.
^0'
:}«<>
»
/J<
*<•
l/Tjf
(.•"I)
/ Sf>
•i*' C-^
7
^»-5
^Oi-
J6/
wr
1017
Jf<.
2,*'
l9L
2VI
'
14S
/>/9
U
.<*-
/^L
j*«v* /¥*"+
8
A'X
i»
//?
//«/
v«-r
/2V
.-»
9f
/y/
•V.7
77
3?
*r
vr
/.*s-
IcS/
J/ '
Vfct «•**•/*
9
•Js
«/y
S'7
??
/7i"
^7
>i
M
S/
17*
73
f
7
/i"
5V
vry
X
10
f
7
17
n
5<*
13
9
7*
^^
if
^
m
/-,'W
29*
^'f
7. Z i.
.Z//
I^Z
/v'/
*/
97
/«•/
V',',.
?<-2/
oo
, OO/
-Co/
-------
^.loncflirtg program yard rodor monitoring record ^
CONRAIL:
OHiCINAL - MANAGER OPERATIONS, O.P.
COPY -. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 311-132/53 1-3
S - NO COUPLING (REMARKS)
L - L.OAC ((./£)
E - EMPTY JV./K)
M - MULTI-CAR CUT (REMARKS)
A - 84
------- |