COMPLAINT REPORT

CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

28 FEDERAL STREET
BRUNSWICK, MAINE 04011
(207) 725-6651 FAX (207) 725-6663
COMPLAINT MADE BY:
(check one)

IN PERSON: X
MAIL:
Complainants Name/Address/Phone: Date: August 21, 2017
Charles F. Wallace, 30 Parkers Way, Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 725-7896
Dan Sullivan, 24 Bouchard Dr., Brunswick, ME 04011 Time: 2:30 pm
(207) 725-7578
Robert Morrison, 37 Bouchard Dr., Brunswick, ME 04011
(207)721-0218

Address at Issue: Owners Name/Address/Phone: (207) 780-1000

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA)
Map#U23 Lot # 93 75 West Commercial St., Suite 104, Portland, ME 04101

Details of Complaint: NNEPRA Brunswick Layover Facility (BMLF) heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems (HVAC) violate
Town of Brunswicks nighttime Noise Standard of 45 dBA from 10 pm until 6 am. Attached measurements compare pre-construction sound
pressure levels from January 2011 and September 2013 with measurements recorded on January, March and August of 2017. Based on
observations and measurements, the BMLF HVAC systems violate nighttime Noise Standard of 45 dBA whenever the system operates
regardless of the time of year. The measurements of interest are without locomotives operating inside or outside the BMLF.

Investigator: Date :
Investigation Report :

O:\Forms\Complaint.Form.doc
SOUND LEVELS FROM THE MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITY
BRUNSWICK, MAINE

RECORDED BY RESOURCE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

SEPTEMBER 2011
JANUARY 2013
JANUARY 2017
MARCH 2017
JULY 2017
AUGUST 2017

Resource
Systems
Engineering
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
July 2017
Copyright 2017
 Resource Systems Engineering
August 2017
Copyright 2017
Human Perception of dBs

Change in Sound Change in

Level (dB) Perceived Loudness

3 Just perceptible

5 Noticeable difference

10 Twice (or 1/2) as loud

15 Large change

20 Four times (or 1/4) as loud

15 www.bksv.com
 RELATION BETWEEN SOUND PRESSURE IN PASCALS AND
TYPICAL SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS IN DECIBELS

Quiet Urban
Setting
Normal Jet Take-off @ 200
Conversation @
Refrigerator 3-5
@ 10 Vacuum @ 10
Quiet Rural
Setting Diesel Truck @ 50

Riffle blast @ 250

SOUND NIGHT DAY NIGHT DAY

PRESSURE IN
MICROPASCALS 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

SOUND 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

PRESSURE
LEVEL IN
DECIBELS (dBA)

Air Horn @ 100

Whisper
@ 5 Lawn Mower @ 20

Car / light truck @

100
Perceived Song birds
Silence @100

Jackhammer @ 50
Rustling leaves
100

Compiled by RSE from Multiple Sources Including: RSE measurements; U.S.E.P.A, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, Dec. 1971.; Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition, edited by C.M. Harris,
McGraw-Hill,1991.; FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin, Washington D.C., FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978.; U.S.E.P.A, Information on Levels Noise Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety, March 1974.; Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, J.P.Cowan, Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1994.
About NNEPRA and Preemption:

NNNEPRA does not enjoy the benefit of AMTRAK's or Freight Rail preemption on the proposed
Brunswick MLF because:

1. According to Jeff Tweedies Interoffice Memo to Commissioner Bernhardt dated February 7,

2013 (see excerpt attached) he states Compliance with Brunswick sound ordinances is required at both
sites, as a result, the details of the layover building design and construction are considered equivalent at
both locations.

2. NNEPRA by itself is not regulated by the federal laws that govern rail as these pertain to freight
rail and NNEPRA IS NOT FREIGHT. One exception is that NNEPRA could enjoy preemption if a project is
undertaken as a joint project WITH freight and freight rail is a direct partner in the project. THE MLF HAS
NO RELATIONSHIP To FREIGHT RAIL.

2. AMTRAK statutes require AMTRAK to comply with federal, state and local laws, rules and
regulations. AMTRAK does not have global preemption. However, Congress established preemption for
AMTRAK in the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR to facilitate construction of MLF's because no municipality
wanted these dirty facilities and their unavoidable impacts in their communities and AMTRAK needed
MLFs in the Northeast Corridor.

3. NNEPRA does not operate in the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR. NNEPRA operates a short State rail
line strictly for passenger service and does not perform a freight function.

4. NNEPRA subcontracts with AMTRAK for passenger service.

5. NNEPRA owns the Brunswick West site, and is the owner of record for the proposed MLF.

6. NNEPRA intends to lease the MLF to AMTRAK but will retain ownership.

7. NNEPRA is the Applicant for Maine DEP permits such as the VRAP Contract under DEP
Hazardous Waste Rules and the Stormwater Permit recently vacated by superior court.

8. NNEPRA claims preemption on the basis of two opinion letters prepared by former Brunswick
Town Attorney Patrick Scully. Scully's first letter was vetted by USDOT STB Attorney Gabe Meyer. Meyer
provided a letter to Senator Gerzofsky that explained that Scullys letter #1 did not apply to either
AMTRAK or NNEPRA because the cited statute did not apply to either entity.

9. Scully then invented NNEPRA preemption based on the statute applicable to AMTRAK in the
Northeast Corridor and cited to case law that occurred as a result of projects in the Northeast Corridor.

10. There has been no credible, legal review of Scully's letter #2 and it has not been tested in court.
11. As it relates to DEP jurisdiction, the whole preemption issue is moot because the Maine DEP
enforces both State of Maine environmental laws and certain Federal environmental laws such as water
quality, air quality, groundwater protection and hazardous waste.

12. NNEPRA must comply with federal environmental laws and the DEP enforces those in Maine
under contracts with USEPA and receives grant money for these purposes from USEPA.

13. NNEPRA has not claimed preemption from City of Portland land use laws and regularly seeks
local permits from Portland.

14. Portland has rejected NNEPRA's attempts to build an MLF in that City.

15. NNEPRA may have violated Federal Law by moving the MLF to Brunswick because in their 2009
Environmental Assessment that secured a FONSI from FRA it was clearly stated that the existing MLF
would remain in Portland. This was a key factor supporting the FONSI and the $38 million Cooperative
Agreement for 100% FRA funding for the track upgrade north of Portland using ARRAS funds. Splintering
federally funded projects is illegal.

16. NNEPRA has never met with the DEP Commissioner in the pre application meeting required by
the DEP Administrative Procedures Act to determine the full scope of Environmental Permits required
for NNEPRA to construct the MLF at the Brunswick West Site.

17. NNEPRA began construction on the MLF project without the required DEP permits by
completely clearing, grubbing, rough grading, and stump removal for off-site disposal that contained
hazardous waste imbedded in the root balls of some if those stumps.

18. The VRAP Contract NNEPRA has with the DEP clearly shows that the chosen MLF site is a
contaminated, hazardous and special waste brownfield.

19. The Brunswick West MLF is located on a major, mapped sand and gravel aquifer with a seasonal
ground water.

20. Geotechnical exploration of the MLF site indicates that construction of the MLF will require a
major fill to raise the existing grade to accommodate foundations for this 55,000+/- sf train garage.
STATE OF MAINE. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JEFFl'wEEDIE, P.E
BUREAU OF PROJECT DEVEWPMENT AsSISTANT PROGRAM MANAGER
MULTIMODAL PROGRAM PH: 207.624.3427
16 STATE HOUSE STATION FAX: 27.624.341
AUGUSTA, ME 04333-0016 jeff.tweedie@maine.gov

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER DAVID BERNARDT

FROM: JEFF TWEEDIE
SUBJECT: OPINION OF COST DIFFERENTIAL FOR NNEPRA LAYOVER FACILITY
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2013
CC: JOYCE TAYLOR, BILL PULVER, RICH CRAWFORD

Per your request, we have reviewed the potential cost difference of constructing a rail layover facility hy the
Northern New England Passenger Rail Association (NNEPRA) at the West Brunswick and Industrial Park
Sites in Brunswick. The results of our review indicate the rail layover facility will cost approximately $2.8
million more to construct at the Industrial Park Site than at West Brunswick Site. We also estimate that the
time to deliver the project will be increased by approximately 2.5 years.

The details and rationale behind our opinion of the potential cost difference for the facility at the two sites is
included in the attached report. If you have any questions regarding the contents of the report please contact
us.
 MaineDOT Bureau of Project Development Multimodal Program

NNEPRA: OPINION OF COST DIFFERENTIAL FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF

A RAILROAD LAYOVER FACILITY AT TWO DIFFERENT SITES IN BRUNSWICK

Task:
To determine the difference in cost between constructing a railroad layover facility at two site
locations in Brunswick. Material provided to the Department consisted of planning reports,
preliminary design aspects, and topographic information at one of the sites. The two sites are
described as follows:
West Brunswick: Site was a formal rail yard, which is no longer in use. Surrounding properties
consist primarily of residential dwellings. Preliminary design has been completed for this
location. Property and environmental approvals have been obtained for this location. Project
was advertised as design-build, not yet awarded.
Industrial Park: Site is northerly of PanAm rail line at Brunswick Industrial Park. No formal
design has been initiated for this location, beyond planning level review. The site is bound to
the North by several businesses, two of which are motels.
Compliance with Brunswick sound ordinances is required at both sites; as a result, the details of
the layover building design and construction are considered equivalent at both locations. The
difference in cost between the two sites will consist of additional design for the Industrial Park
Site, additional property rights, variability in material quantities required for construction, site
specific design, environmental, & construction features.

Design:
Review of available subsurface conditions, and knowledge ofthe soils at the location of the
Brunswick Platform, indicates the soils to consist of fine sands & silts. Due to the depths of the
fill, along with the foundation loading for the layover facility, site specific geotechnical design
and construction monitoring is probable in order to develop the industrial Park Site. The cost
for completing the geotechnical engineering work from design through construction is
estimated at $180,000.
The West Brunswick Site currently has an existing entrance. In comparing the cost difference
between the two sites, an entrance will need to be designed and constructed for the Industrial
Site. We estimate the cost for design for the entrance at $20,000.
The resulting total additional design costs, beyond what is needed for the West Brunswick Site
is estimated at $200,000.

Environmental:
Additional costs associated with environmental requirements for the Industrial Park Site was
determined to be primarily due to additional fees for permitting the site. The Industrial Park
Site is within the watershed area of an Urban Impaired Stream. The stream is also a tributary to
the Androscoggin River, which has been determined to be Endangered Species Critical Habitat;
as a result, Section 7 Consultation would be required. Permitting requirements for the site
would require Site Law and Storm Water Treatment Requirements.
Total cost for the increased permitting effort for the Industrial Park Site is estimated at $50,000.

February 7, 2013 1 of 5