NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE PROPOSED REGULATION
FOR TRUCK-MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
PARTI.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
PART 2.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
AUGUST 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Economic
Impact Statement, and Background Document were
prepared in support of the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed regulation which sets noise
emission standards for newly manufactured truck-
mounted solid waste compactors. The proposed
regulation has been published pursuant to the
mandate of Congress as expressed in the Noise
Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234).
-------
EPA 550-9-77-204
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED REGULATION
FOR TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
PARTI
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
AUGUST 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
s ******* "gencv
-------
SUMMARY SHEETS
FOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. Title of Action: Regulation of Noise Emissions for Truck Mounted
Solid Waste Compactors. This is an Administrative Action.
2. Description of Action: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
regulation is intended to reduce the level of noise emitted from truck mounted
solid waste compactors used in collecting solid wastes. The regulation is
also intended to establish a uniform national standard for this equipment
distributed in commerce, thereby eliminating inconsistent State and local
noise source emission regulations that may impose an undue burden on the truck
mounted solid waste compactor industry. The recommended action proposes to
establish noise emission standards for newly manufactured compactors and to
establish enforcement procedures to ensure that this equipment complies with
the standard.
The proposed regulation is based on anticipated health and welfare
benefits to the public by reducing noise emission from truck mounted solid
waste compactors. In arriving at the proposed regulation, the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency investigated in detail the truck mounted solid waste
compactor industry, noise control technology, noise measurement methodolo-
gies, and costs of compliance. Three major issues were identified requiring
resolution: (1) identification of machines to be regulated, (2) measurement
methodology to be employed, and (3) noise levels and effective dates.
v
-------
Three types of compactors are included as subject to the proposed
regulation: front loaders, rear loaders, and side loaders.
The proposed noise emission standards for truck mounted solid waste
compactors and effective dates are:
Maximum Steady A-Weighted
Sound Level
(dBA) @ 7 Meters
Effective Dates Not-to-Exceed Sound Level
January 1, 1979 78 decibels
January 1, 1982 75 decibels
Machinery-related impulse sounds shall not exceed the maximum steady
sound level limits by more than 5 decibels.
A two-step reduction in equipment noise levels was concluded to be
preferable to a one-step requirement that all equipment meet the most strin-
gent levels achievable and desirable. To minimize market impacts from
substitution of unregulated machines identical effective dates were set for
all equipment subject to the standards. The second step of the regulation is
scheduled to coincide with the second step of the noise regulation for medium
and heavy trucks on January 1, 1982. The reduced (80 dBA) sound level limit
(at full throttle, maximum engine speed) for new trucks in 1982 should permit
attainment of the reduced (75 dBA) limit (during the compaction cycle) for
compactors with no additional application of noise control technology.
Other provisions of the regulation relate to sound level degradation of
compactors and the proposed LNEP level.
Following the effective date of the regulation, newly manufactured
truck-mounted solid waste compactors must be designed and manufactured to
meet the appropriate standard for a period (Acoustical Assurance Period)
vi
-------
of 3 years of 7500 operating hours, whichever occurs first, after sale to the
ultimate purchaser, provided that the product is properly used and maintained.
low Noise Emission Product sound level for truck-mounted solid waste
compactors is 70 dBA, effective January 1, 1978. The reason for selecting a
IMT? level 8 dBA rather than the more usual 5 dBA below the initial standard
is that certain currently available models come close to meeting a 73 dBA
level, and therefore such a LNEP level would provide no incentive for further
development of technology.
3. Environmental Impact: Compliance with the proposed standard for truck
mounted solid waste compactors, when considered in combination with existing
Federal standards for medium and heavy trucks, should result in a reduction
of approximately 71 percent in the severity and extensiveness of trash collec-
tion noise impact by the year 1991, assuming 100 percent turnover of regulated
equipment to quieted units in that period. This represents an improvement of
approximately 88 percent over the benefits that are anticipated from current
Federal noise regulation of medium and heavy trucks.
list price increases to quiet new truck mounted solid waste compactors
are estimated to range from 6.4 to 12.8 percent (based on the complete vehicle),
depending on machine type and size. The average list price increase for all
machines is estimated to be 10.3 percent. This percentage increase is based
on the price of the complete compactor vehicle.
An economic analysis of the truck mounted solid waste compactor manufac-
turing industry indicates a significant price elasticity of demand. Demand
could decrease by as much as 4 percent as a result of the proposed regulation,
but total revenues should remain constant as a result of associated price
increases.
VII
-------
In terms of societal resources, capital costs for the first year of
compliance are estimated at above $27 million, with annual costs (including
amortized capital cost, operation and maintenance) at $6.5 million, compared
to 1974 net sales estimated at $125 million; and costs are expected to pass
through to the end user, and ultimately the consumer of waste collection
services. The equivalent annual costs of implementing the regulations are
estimated to be $18.7 million for the period of the complete regulatory
scenario. Because equipment costs represent a small portion of the total
cost of solid waste collection, the consequent cost increase for service is
expected to be small, an estimated 0.5 percent.
Mr quality, water quality, land use, solid waste disposal requirements,
employment, regional economics, foreign trade, national GNP, and energy
consumption are not expected to be significantly impacted by the noise levels
proposed. The proposed regulation will support the efforts of the Federal
Trade Commission and other organizations to inform and protect consumers.
van
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
Page
Number
ABSTRACT 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3
INTRODUCTION 3
Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor 4
PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION 7
Statutory Basis 7
Alternatives Considered 7
Proposed Regulation 8
Regulatory Schedule 8
Enforcement 9
Production Verification 9
Selective Enforcement Auditing 9
Relationship with Other Federal
State and Local Government Agencies 9
Federal Government Agencies 9
State and Local Government 10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT > 11
Impact on the Population of the United States 11
Impact on Other Environmental Considerations 11
Land Use 11
Water Quality 12
Air Quality 12
Solid Waste Disposal Requirements 12
Wildlife 12
IX
-------
Page
Number
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT 13
SUMMARY 13
ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATES 15
Cost of Compliance 15
Effects on Manufacturers 15
Demand Decline 15
Profits 15
Competitive Effects 16
Direct Effect of Prices 16
Effect of List Prices 16
Effect on End User 16
Effect on Operating and Maintenance Costs 17
Productivity Effects 17
Indirect Effects 18
Impact on Suppliers 18
Impact on Exports and Imports 18
Impact on Energy Use 19
Macroeconomic Assessment 19
Impact on Taxes 19
-------
PART 2
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Page
Section Number
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT 2-1
3 TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR NOISE LEVELS 3-1
4 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 4-1
5 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF TRUCK MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
AND WELFARE OF THE U.S. POPULATION 5-1
6 NOISE CONTROL 6-1
7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7-1
8 ENFORCEMENT 8-1
9 EXISTING LOCAL, STATE AND FOREIGN
NOISE REGULATIONS 9-1
xi
-------
TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
ABSTRACT
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Economic Impact State-
ment address a proposed noise emission regulation for truck mounted solid
waste compactors. In arriving at the proposed regulation, the Agency carried
out detailed investigations of compactor design; manufacturing and assembly
processes; noise measurement methodologies; available noise control technology;
costs attendant to noise control methods; costs to test machines for compliance;
costs of record keeping; possible economic impacts; and the potential environ-
mental and health and welfare benefits associated with the application of
various noise control measures. Data and information generated as a result of
these investigations are the basis for the statements made in Part I of this
document. Part I has been designed to present, in the simplest form, all
relevant information regarding the environmental and economic impacts expected
to result from the proposed action. Where greater detail is desired, the
Agency encourages perusal of Part II, the "Background Document".
- 1 -
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Congress passed the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972, in part, as a result
of their findings that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger
to the health and welfare of the nation's population, particularly in urban
areas. For this and other reasons, the Congress established a national policy
to "promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare". To further this policy, the NCA provides for the
establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in
commerce and specifies four categories of important noise sources for regulation,
of which transportation equipment is one.
It has been estimated that over 17 million people located in urban,
suburban, and rural areas in the United States are exposed to noise levels
form trash collection equipment that jeopardize their health or welfare.
Inasmuch as a number of different types of transportation equipment
operates at the same time, the quieting of only one product type is often not
in itself sufficient to adequately reduce transportation noise to a level
requisite to protect health or welfare. Accordingly, the EPA'S noise regula-
tory program has effected a coordinated approach to control overall trans-
portation noise in which various types of transportation equipment, alone or
in combination, are evaluated to assess their contribution to transportation
noise and attendant impact on the nation's population.
- 3 -
-------
Pursuant to the mandate of the Noise Control Act and EPA's approach to
the control of transportation noise, noise emission regulations were promul-
gated on April 13, 1976, for medium and heavy trucks (41 FR 15538).
Ho further control transportation noise, noise emission standards for
truck mounted solid waste compactors are being proposed at this time.
Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactors
A truck-mounted solid waste compactor (TMSWC, or compactor) is defined,
for purposes of this regulation, as a vehicle that is comprised of a mechani-
cally powered truck cab and chassis or trailer, and equipped with a body and
machinery for receiving compacting, transporting, and unloading solid waste.
The body, which includes a waste-receiving hopper, houses machinery which
typically consists of hydraulic actuators (rams) with requisite hydraulic
pump, valves, piping, and controls. The hydraulic actuators operate various
components that sweep the waste matter into the container portion of the body
and compact it. Power generally is drawn from the truck engine by means of a
power take-off (PTO) unit, coupled by gears or other mechanical connection to
the transmission, engine drive shaft, or fly wheel. Truck-mounted solid waste
compactors are used for the collection of solid wastes in residential and
commercial areas.
The Agency determined that regulation of truck-mounted solid waste com-
pactors is required to protect the public health and welfare. The following
are the major types of compactors:
1. Front Loader. Compactor body that utilizes front mounted hydraulic
lift arms to lift and dump waste containers into an access door in the top
of the body. Wastes are typically ejected through a tailgate.
-------
2. Side Loader. Compactor bodies vary; however, wastes are generally
deposited manually into a hopper through an access door in the side wall.
Packer plates sweep the wastes from the hopper into the body and compress the
materials against an interior wall, in the same manner as front loaders.
Some are also equipped to hydraulically lift and dump waste containers.
Ejection of wastes is usually through a tailgate. Some side loader models
are not equipped for packer plate ejection, but typically, hydraulically lift
the front end of the body and dump the waste through a tailgate.
3. Rear Loader. Compactor body on which the hopper is located on the
rear section. Wastes are generally loaded manually into the hopper but some
models have the capability to hydraulically lift and dump containers. The
packer plate sweeps the wastes from the hopper into the body and compresses
the waste against an interior wall surface. In most models, a hydraulically-
driven plate is used for tailgate waste ejection.
Figure 1 shows line drawings of a front loader, a side loader and a rear
loader. Details regarding identification of these machines as candidates
for regulation, their design features and functional characteristics are
contained in Part 2, the "Background Document".
- 5
-------
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Figure 1. Line Drawings of Types of Conpactors
-------
PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION
This proposed regulation is intended to reduce the level of noise emitted
from truck mounted solid waste compactors. It also establishes a uniform
national standard for these machines when they are distributed in commerce,
thereby eliminating differing State and local noise control source emission
regulations which may impose a burden on the truck mounted solid waste compactor
industry.
Statutory Basis
The proposed action establishes noise emission standards for newly manu-
factured truck mounted solid waste compactors and enforcement procedures
to ensure that this equipment complies with the standard. This proposed
rulemaking is being issued under the authority of the Noise Control Act of
1972 (P.L.92-574, 86 Stat. 1236).
Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives to noise emission regulation available to EPA are: no
action and labeling. These actions may be taken only if (a) the product does
not contribute to the detriment of the public health and welfare, or (b) in
the Administrator's judgment noise emission regulation is not feasible.
Specialty auxiliary equipment on trucks (of which truck-mounted solid
waste compactors are one category) was identified, pursuant to section
5(b)(l) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, as a major noise source on May 28,
1975 (40 FR 23069). Subsequent to this identification comprehensive studies
were performed to evaluate truck-mounted solid waste compactor noise emission
levels requisite to protect the public health and welfare, taking into account
the magnitude and condition of use, the degree of noise reduction achievable
- 7 -
-------
through application of the best available technology and the cost of compliance.
The results of these studies show that the regulation of truck-mounted solid
waste compactor noise is feasible through available technology taking cost of
compliance into account. Accordingly, the Act permits no alternative action
to be taken.
Proposed Regulation
Regulatory Schedule. The proposed noise emission standards and effective
dates are shown ,in Table 1.
Table 1
PROPOSED NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
Maximum Steady A-Weighted
Sound Level
(dBA) @ 7 Meters
Effective Dates Not-to-Exceed Sound Level
January 1, 1979 78 decibels
January 1, 1982 75 decibels
Machinery-related impulse* sounds shall not exceed the maximum steady
sound level limits by more than 5 decibels.
The estimated health and welfare benefits from this proposed regulation
can be attained only if the compactors conform to the regulated sound levels
for a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the Agency proposes to adopt an
Acoustical Assurance Period (AAP) of three years of 7500 operating hours,
whichever occurs first.
*see discussion of impulse sounds in Part 2, the Background Document.
- 8 -
-------
In conjunction with the proposed regulation, the Low Noise Emission
Product (LNEP) program provides incentives for achievement of lower noise
emissions from regulated products than those required. The LNEP sound level
for compactors is 70 dBA, effective January 1, 1978.
Enforcement. The EPA will use the following two methods to determine
whether truck mounted solid waste compactors comply with the acceptable noise
emission standard:
Production verification - Prior to distribution into commerce of any
truck mounted solid waste compactor, as defined in this regulation,
a manufacturer must submit information to EPA which demonstrates
that his product conforms to the standards.
Selective enforcement auditing - Pursuant to an administrative
request, a statistical sample of truck mounted solid waste compactor
may be tested to determine if the units, as they are produced, meet
the standard.
Relationship with Other Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies.
The proposed regulation will preempt any non-identical State and local regula-
tions. It will interact with several other government regulatory efforts, and
it will require supplementary actions by State and local governments in order
to achieve maximum benefit.
Federal Government Agencies. Current Federal regulations applicable to
specialty truck noise are the EPA noise emission standards for motor carriers
engaged in interstate commerce (39 FR 38208) and the EPA noise emission stan-
dards for medium and heavy trucks (41 FR 15538). The U.S. Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety of the U.S. Department of Transportation has also issued regula-
tions for the purpose of establishing measurement procedures and methodologies
- 9 -
-------
for determining whether commercial motor vehicles conform to the Interstate
Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards of EPA. EPA is relying on this regula-
tion to quiet the trucks upon which the compactors are mounted.
State and Local Government. Although the Noise Control Act prohibits any
State or political subdivision thereof from adopting or enforcing any law or
regulation which sets a limit on noise emissions from such new products, or
components of such new products, which are not idential to the standard pre-
scribed by the Federal regulation, primary responsibility for control of noise
rests with State and local governments.
Nothing in the Act precludes or denies the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof from establishing and enforcing controls on environmental
noise through the licensing, regulation or restriction of the use, operation
or movement of any product or combination of products.
The noise controls which are reserved to State and local authority include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Controls on the manner of operation of products
2. Controls on the time in which products may be operated
3. Controls on the places in which products may be operated
4. Controls on the number of products which may be operated together
5. Controls on noise emissions from the property on which products are
used
6. Controls on the licensing of products
7. Controls on environmental noise levels.
- 10 -
-------
By use of the noise controls reserved to them, State and local governments
are able to supplement Federal noise emission standards and to effect near-term
relief from TMSWC noise. The EPA has developed a model ordinance to indicate
the form and content of an instrument whereby State and local governments may
control TMSWC noise in the absence of Federal regulation or in the time frame
before Federal regulations become effective. The model ordinance is contained
in section 9 of Part 2 of this document, the "Background Document".
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The environmental impacts of the proposed regulation include the primary
beneficial impact, which is reduced annoyance from trash-collection noise
resulting from lower truck mounted solid waste compactor noise and the secondary
impacts on other environmental factors.
Impact on the Population of the United States
Compliance with the most stringent proposed standards will, on the average,
reduce noise emissions from truck-mounted solid waste compactors by 6 dBA;
compared to the noisiest types of units measured, .reductions may average as
high as 8.9 dBA. In terms of reduced impact on the nation's population, the
reduction in sound level, when considered in combination with existing Federal
standards for medium and heavy trucks, should result in a reduction of approxi-
mately 71 percent in the severity and extensiveness of IMSWC noise impact by
the year 1991. This represents an increase of approximately 88 percent in
additional benefits over those anticipated to accrue from current Federal
noise regulations of meduim and heavy trucks.
Impact on Other Environmental Considerations
Land Use. The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact on land
use.
-11-
-------
Water Quality. The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact on
water quality or supply.
Air Quality. The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact on
air quality.
Solid Waste Disposal Requirements. The proposed regulation will have no
adverse effects on solid waste disposal requirements.
Wildlife. The proposed regulation will have no adverse effects on
wildlife.
- 12 -
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
The establishment of noise standards for newly manufactured truck-mounted
solid waste compactors gives rise to expenditures which would otherwise not be
directly incurred by the private and public sectors. However, it should be
understood that the option of not paying for noise pollution costs is unavail-
able. The only question is, in what form do we pay; for example, lost worker
productivity due to noise induced task interruption, lost sleep due to intrusive
noise, or successful litigation for hearing loss.
Recognizing that certain expenditures are necessary to protect the public
health and welfare from inadequately controlled noise, the Agency performed
analyses to estimate the magnitude and potential impact of these expenditures.
Examined in the analyses were the structure of the industry, the estimated
cost of abatement by compactor type, the price elasticity of demand, the
capital and annual costs of enforcement, the impact of enforcement on annual
operating and maintenance costs and the indirect impacts of the proposed
regulations.
The following conclusions were reached in these studies:
1. The aggregate list price of truck mounted solid waste compactors
may increase by 10.3 percent, based on the cost of the complete
vehicle.
2. It is estimated that demand for truck mounted solid waste compactors
could decrease by as much as 4 percent, but total manufacturer
revenue in such a case should remain unchanged due to increased
- 13 -
-------
due to increased prices. Some pre-buying is expected to occur prior
to the effective date of the regulation. However, this will be
limited by the available excess production capacity of about 4,000
units, almost entirely rear loaders.
3. The estimated increase in annual costs to users (including increased
capital cost, operation and maintenance) through the year 2000 is
estimated to be about $6.5 million or an increase of approximately
0.5 percent.
- 14 -.
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATES
Cost of Compliance.
Total capital and annual costs accruing from the proposed regulatory
schedule are displayed in Table 2.
. Table 2
ESTIMATES OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS OF ABATEMENT
($ OOOs)
Year
Costs 1982 1983 1984 1988 1990
Incremental Capital 27,431 2,802 2,864 3,110 3,233
Total Annual 6,520 6,659 6,807 7,391 7,686
Effects on Manufacturers
Demand Decline. Theoretically, based on economic theory and statistical
estimates of demand elasticity, unit demand could be expected to decline in
direct dollar-to dollar proportion to price increases resulting from noise
control. Further dampening of demand could also ensue from the imposition of
higher ownership expenses resulting from the increased costs for operation and
maintenance (O&M). Because the O&M cost elasticity is small, dollar sales
should remain approximately the same, with price increases offsetting unit
sales decline.
Profits. No significant change in profits is expected to occur over a
22 year period.
- 15 -
-------
Competitive Effects. There are indications that a few small firms in
the industry, by virtue of their small market share and related financial
and operation factors, would incur higher manufacturing costs resulting in
slightly higher list price increases. It is possible that one to three
manufacturers may cease production of truck mounted solid waste compactors
due to industry pressures and competition.
Direct Effect on Prices
Effect on List Prices. The average estimated increase in list price for
each type of loader is displayed in Table 3. The potential cost increases on
a per model basis may vary from the average since abatement costs are somewhat
sensitive to variations between machines.
Table 3
ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST INCREASE AS A PERCENTAGE
OF LIST PRICE FOR THE COMPLETE VEHICLE FOR
THREE TYPES OF COMPACTORS
Compactor
Body Type Percentage Increase
Front Loaders 6.4%
Side Loaders 12.8%
Rear Loaders 9.8%
Effect on End User. The end user will feel more of the direct impact
of increased costs. The truck mounted solid waste compactor body industry
operates on the "full cost pass through" principles. Cost increases to the
manufacturer are passed down to the end user through the distributor in the
form of increased list price.
- 16 -
-------
The consumer of solid waste collection services will ultimately absorb
the cost increases through increased collection rates. The rate increases
are not expected to be significant due to amortization of the increased costs
by the large number of consumers.
(a) The anticipated percent increases for service will be insignificant;
approximately 0.51 percent.
(b) The increased service rates to the consumer will be paid indirectly
with taxes (if municipal fleets provide the service) or directly to private
haulers.
Effect on Operating & Maintenance Costs. The estimated average O&M cost
increases to be faced by users in the collection industry are displayed in
Table 4 for each type of compactor, based on a 100 percent population of units
conforming to the noise standard.
Table 4
ESTIMATED O&M COST INCREASES (DECREASES)
IN $'s PER VEHICLE PER YEAR
Dollars
Front Loader (50)
Side Loader (55)
Rear Loader (55)
Actual O&M costs are expected to decrease due to reduced fuel requirements
resulting from the progressive noise control technology discussed in Part 2 of
this document.
Productivity Effects
Production of goods is estimated to decline in unit volume by no more
than 4 percent. Employment is not expected to change significantly due to
the noise regulations.
- 17 -
-------
Persons who might be affected by the production reduction amount to less
than two percent of the employed population of about 2900 persons within the
industry and produce less than three percent of the total units estimated.
An offsetting increase in employment is expected to occur due to testing
and compliance resulting from the noise treatment regulation.
Industry growth is not expected to be significantly impacted due to the
noise abatement regulation. Adequate lead time is provided to allow for
proper planning and avoid adverse conditions in the industry.
Equipment productivity will not be impacted by the noise standards.
Indirect Effects
Impact on Suppliers. Some component suppliers may increase their sales
depending on their ability to reduce the noise emissions of their product and
thereby contribute to the reduction in overall machine noise. Furthermore,
those suppliers specializing in the manufacture of sound damping and sound
absorptive materials and other products required for abatement would be
expected to experience increased sales.
Impact on Exports and Imports. As the noise control treatments generally
represent add-on materials or substitute components, or both, machines for
export generally can be produced without noise control treatment, if desired.
Consequently, since units produced solely for export need not comply with U.S.
noise standards, the impact on exports should be minimal. With respect to
imports, the regulation will apply to imported compactors. Therefore, no
adverse competitive impact is expected and, in view of the small percentage
of machines imported, the proposed regulation should have no applicable
impact on the U.S. balance of payments.
- 18 -
-------
Impact on Energy Use. Technological changes due to noise treatment
regulations are expected to result in lower fuel consumption. Annual fuel
savings of approximately $95 per unit are expected.
Macroeconomic Assessment. ND macroeconomic impact is expected as a
result of noise abatement regulations on the truck mounted solid waste com-
pactor body industry due to:
(a) The minor size of the industry.
(b) The small size of the changes expected to occur.
Impact on Taxes. There will be an indirect increase in local taxes
where collection services are provided by municipal fleets but the amount of
the increase to the individual consumer and taxpayer will be insignificant.
- 19 -
-------
EPA 550-9-77-204
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
FOR TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
PART 2
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
AUGUST 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 2
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Page
Number
Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION 1-1
PREEMPTION 1-2
LABELING 1-4
IMPORTS 1-5
RATIONALE FOR REGULATION OF THE TRASH COMPACTOR TRUCK 1-5
NEED FOR CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOISE
STANDARD 1-7
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE 1-10
OUTLINE AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 1-11
Section 2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT 2-1
INTRODUCTION 2-1
THE PRODUCT 2-1
PRODUCT APPLICATIONS AND COMPETITIVE SYSTEMS 2-9
THE INDUSTRY 2-12
Solid Waste Generation 2-12
Solid Waste CollectionThe Packer Body 2-13
SIZE AND GROWTH OF THE PACKER BODY INDUSTRY 2-16
Units In Operation 2-16
Unit and Dollar Manufacturer Shipments 2-16
Export Sales 2-19
CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRY SEGMENTS 2-19
Packer Body Manufacturers 2-19
Truck Body Distributors 2-33
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Number
End Use Market Fleet Operators 2-37
Truck Chassis Manufacturers and Dealers 2-43
Raw Material and Component Suppliers 2-44
Section 3 TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR NOISE LEVELS 3-1
SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 3-1
TIME HISTORIES 3-3
NOISE SOURCES 3-14
Component Sound Levels 3-14
Truck Chassis Noise 3-17
SAN FRANCISCO NOISE DATA 3-20
SOUND LEVEL DEGRADATION 3-23
REFERENCES 3-27
EXHIBIT 3-28
Section 4 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 4-1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4-1
NOISE CHARACTERISTICS 4-3
Alternative Measurement Methodologies 4-5
Operating Conditions 4-5
Compactor Load 4-5
Engine Speed Control 4-5
Measurement Criteria 4-7
Steady Levels 4-7
Measurement of Impulse Noise 4-7
Microphone Locations 4-8
Combining Noise Levels 4-9
EPA MEASUREMENT METHOD 4-9
Instrumentation 4-9
Test Site 4-10
Test Procedure 4-10
Truck Chassis Noise 4-11
Waste Compaction Equipment Cycling Noise 4-11
Waste Compaction Equipment Impact Noise 4-12
Cycle Time of Waste Compaction Equipment 4-12
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Number
General Comments 4-12
SUGGESTED REFERENCES 4-14
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY 4-14
Measurement Distance 4-14
Operation of the Compactor Truck Empty 4-15
Energy Average 4-15
REFERENCES 4-16
Section 5 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTORS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 5-1
INTRODUCTION 5-1
Measures of Benefits to Public Health and
Welfare r 5-2
Regulatory Schedules 5-3
Outline of the Health and Welfare Section 5-5
TRASH COLLECTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT 5-5
Truck Noise Per Collection Cycle 5-6
Compactor Noise per Collection Cycle 5-7
Sound Propagation and Amplification 5-11
Sound Attenuation within Buildings 5-13
Average Noise Levels Per Unit Area 5-13
Noise Metrics 5-18
Equivalent Sound Level (L ) 5-18
eq
Day-Night Average Sound Level (L ) 5-19
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) 5-20
Compactor Noise Levels Under Regulatory Options 5-22
Consideration of Ambient Noise Levels 5-28
NOISE IMPACT FROM TRASH COMPACTORS 5-29
REDUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL TRASH COLLECTION NOISE IMPACT 5-38
Sleep Disturbance 5-39
Speech Interference 5-50
Outdoor Speech Interference 5-51
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Number
Indoor Speech Interference 5-53
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5-58
REFERENCES 5-62
EXHIBITS 5-64
Section 6 NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 6-1
INTRODUCTION 6-1
STAGE 1 - ENGINE SPEED REDUCTION TO 1200 RPM 6-2
Speed Controls 6-3
Noise Levels 6-4
Fuel Savings 6-7
Conclusions 6-8
STAGE 2 - ENGINE SPEED REDUCTION AND REDESIGN OR
ELIMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION PTO 6-8
Front Power Takeoff 6-9
Flywheel Power Takeoff 6-11
Noise Levels 6-13
Conclusions 6-15
STAGE 3 - STAGE 2 PLUS A QUIET PUMP AND 75 dBA CHASSIS 6-15
Quiet Pumps 6-17
Noise Levels 6-17
Auxiliary Engines 6-17
Quieting of Impact Noise 6-21
Garbage Can Impacts - Rear and Side Loaders 6-22
Hydraulic Cylinder Bottoming - Rear Loaders 6-22
Banging of Containers - Front Loaders 6-24
Banging of Hopper Lid - Front Loader 6-24
CONCLUSIONS 6-24
Section 7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7-1
COST ANALYSIS 7-1
Direct Material and Labor Cost Estimates 7-1
Overhead Cost Estimates 7-9
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Number
Maintenance and Operating Cost Estimates 7-11
Maintenance Costs 7-11
Operating Costs 7-13
Summary of Cost Estimates 7-14
Lead Time for Implementation 7-19
ECONOMIC IMPACT 7-19
Introduction 7-19
Impact Framework 7-20
Dynamics 7-22
Regulatory Sequence 7-24
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7-25
Volume Impact 7-25
Purpose 7-25
Base Line Forecast 7-25
Pricing and Price Elasticity 7-32
Cost Estimates of Regulatory Options 7-35
Price Elasticity of Demand 7-39
Equivalent Annual Costs for Changes in
Demand Elasticity Estimates 7-42
Volume Impact 7-44
Impact of Pre-Buying on Volume 7-57
Summary 7-59
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 7-76
METHODOLOGY 7-76
Plant Visits 7-76
Manufacturers' Cost Structure 7-77
Impacted Costs 7-78
Overhead Expense 7-79
COMPANY PROFILE 7-80
REFERENCES 7-85
Section 8 ENFORCEMENT 8-1
GENERAL 8-1
PRODUCT VERIFICATION 8-2
Vll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Number
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AUDITING 8-7
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 8-11
COMPLIANCE LABELING 8-12
APPLICABILITY OF PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED REGULATION 8-12
ACOUSTICAL ASSURANCE PERIOD COMPLIANCE 8-13
IN-USE COMPLIANCE 8-14
Section 9 EXISTING LOCAL, STATE, AND FOREIGN NOISE REGULATIONS 9-1
LOCAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO REFUSE TRUCK NOISE 9-1
OTHER MUNICIPAL NOISE LAWS 9-15
Conclusions - Local Refuse Truck Noise Laws 9-17
STATE LAWS APPLICABLE TO REFUSE TRUCK NOISE 9-18
FEDERAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIALITY
TRUCK NOISE 9-20
EPA Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Regulation 9-20
EPA Noise Emission Standards for New Medium
and Heavy Duty Trucks 9-22
FOREIGN SPECIALTY TRUCK NOISE LAWS 9-23
MODEL LOCAL SPECIALTY TRUCK NOISE ORDINANCES 9-24
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR TRUCK NOISE LAWS 9-28
COUNTY SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR TRUCK NOISE LAWS 9-36
EXHIBIT A 9-38
Vlll
-------
FIGURES
Page
Figure Title Number
2-1 A Front Loader 2-2
2-2 Six Step Operational Sequence for Front Loading 2-3
2-3 Operation of a Front Loader (Compaction Cycle) 2-5
2-4 A Side Loader 2-7
2-5 A Rear Loader 2-8
2-6 Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body Industry
Structure 2-21
2-7 Estimated Body Mounting Practices for Truck Mounted
Solid Waste Compactor Bodies 2-31
2-8 Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body Channels
of Distribution, Based on Total New and Used Units
Sold Annually 2-35
3-1 Histogram of All Trucks 3-4
3-2 Histogram of Rear Loaders 3-6
3-3 Histogram of Front Loaders 3-7
3-4 Time Histories of Quieted Rear Loader 3-11
3-5 Time History of the A-Weighted Noise Level Generated
by a Front Loader During a Dump and a Partial
Compaction Cycle. Noise Levels were Measured 50 ft
to the Left of the Vehicle Center 3-12
3-6 Operational Passby of a Sideloader 3-13
3-7 Truck Chassis and PTO Noise 3-16
3-8 Noise Diagnosis 3-18
3-9a Noise Levels of Unregulatd Chassis 3-19
3-9b Noise Levels of Chassis Regulated to 80 dBA Under
Test SAE J 366b 3-19
4-1 Illustration of Test Standards that Correlate
(a) Poorly and (b) Well with Environmental Levels 4-2
4-2 Time History of the A-Weighted Level Measured 50 Feet
to the Left Side of a Front Loader 4-4
5-1 Typical Collection Cycle Noise Levels at 7m 5-6
5-2 Fractional Impact of Sleep Disruption as a Function
of Sound Exposure Level (Regression of Sleep
Disruption on SEL) 5-44
5-3 Frequency of Arousal or Awakening from Sleep in
College and Middle Aged Men and Women as a Function
of Sound Exposure Level (Regression of Percent
Awakened on SEL) 5-45
5-4 Fractional Impact Criteria of Outdoor Speech
Interference (Normal Voice at 2 Meters) 5-52
5-5 Fractional Impact of Indoor Speech Interference
(Relaxed Conversation at Greater than 1 Meter
Separation, 45 dB Background in the Absence of
Interferring Noise) 5-55
ix
-------
FIGURES (continues)
Page
Figure Title Number
6-1 Overall Noise Level Under Stage 1 of Noise Control 6-6
6-2 Front Power Take-Off 6-10
6-3 "Flywheel Power Take-Off" 6-12
6-4 Overall Noise Level Under Stage 2 of Noise Control 6-16
6-5 A Quiet Hydraulic Pump Design 6-18
6-6 Overall Noise Level Under Stage 3 of Noise Control 6-20
6-7 Hydraulic Cylinder with Cushions 6-23
9-1 Range of Maximum Source Levels for Solid Waste
Compactor Trucks in Noise Ordinances 9-5
-------
TABLES
Page
Title Number
Estimated Number of People in Residential Areas
Subjected to Different Kinds and Levels of Outdoor
Noise 1-6
2-1 Classification of Truck Mounted Solid Waste
Compactor Bodies 2-4
2-2 Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body
Applications by Product Classification 2-10
2-3 Baseline Estimates and Projections of Post-Consumer
Solid Waste Generation, Resources Recovered and
Disposed, 1971-1985 2-14
2-4 Post-Consumer Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Generated and Amounts Recycled, by Type of Material,
1973 2-15
2-5 Estimated Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body
Units in Operation, 1974 2-17
2-6 Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body Manufacturer
Shipments, 1964-1974 2-18
2-7 Estimated Value of Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor
Body Manufacturers' Exports, 1974 2-20
2-8 Financial Profile of Truck Mounted Solid Waste
Compactor Body Manufacturers, 1974 2-23
2-9 Facility Profile of Truck Mounted Solid Waste
Compactor Body Manufacturers, 1974 2-24
2-10 Estimated Manufacturer Share of Truck Mounted
Front- Loader Solid Waste Compactor Body
Shipments, 1974 2-28
2-11 Estimated Manufacturer Share of Truck Mounted
Side Loader Solid Waste Compactor Body
Shipments, 1974 2-29
2-12 Estimated Manufacturer Share of Truck Mounted
Rear Loader Solid Waste Compactor Body
Shipments, 1974 2-30
2-13 Range of Suggested List Prices of Selected
Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Bodies 2-32
2-14 Estimated Pricing Structure for Truck Mounted
Solid Waste Compactor Bodies 2-34
2-15 Profile of Truck and Tractor Parts and Supplies
Merchant Wholesalers, 1972 2-36
2-16 Profile of Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor
Body Distributors, 1972 2-38
2-17 Primary End Use Markets for Truck Mounted
Solid Waste Compactor Bodies 2-39
2-18 Private Contractors, Equipment, Employees,
Customers and Collection Tonnage by Metropolitan
Area Population Size, 1970 2-40
xi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
Table Title Number
2-19 Private Contractor Truck Equipment Composition, 1970 2-42
2-20 Percent of Residential Customers Served by
Private Haulers Under Direct Contract and
Government Franchise 2-43
3-1 Measured Sound Levels:
Solid Waste Compactors 3-2
3-2 Summary of Sound Level Data 3-8
3-3 Summary of Sound Level Data by Vehicle Category 3-9
3-4 Noise Contributions 3-15
3-5 Summary of San Francisco Noise Measurements 3-21
3-6 Noise Levels of San Francisco Compactor Trucks 3-22
3-7 Available Data on Noise Degradation for Waste
Compactors Regulated at 78 dBA at 7m in 1979 3-24
5-1 Regulatory Options: Not-to-Exceed A-Weighted
Sound Levels at 7m 5-4
5-2 Estimated A-Weighted Sound Levels at 7m of the
Non-Compaction Components of the Collection Cycle 5-8
5-3 Average A-Weighted Sound Levels at 7m of Existing
Refuse Compactors 5-9
5-4 Estimates of the Average A-Weighted Sound Level
at 7m Produced by Different Compactor Types 5-10
5-5 Average Percent of Different Type Collector Vehicles
Operating Per Day in Each Land-Use Category 5-15
5-6 Amplification Factors Due to Reverberant Buildup
in Narrow Streets (Ground Reflection Ignored) 5-17
5-7 Existing Average Maximum Steady Sound Levels at
7 Meters for Various Land-Use Categories (Adjusted
for Truck Mix, Trash Noise and Reverberant
Amplification) 5-21
5-8 Average Collection Cycle Times for Various
Land-Use Areas 5-23
5-9 Day-Night Distribution of Average Compactions Per
Hectare for 1976 5-25
5-10 Projections of Average Solid Waste Truck Compactions
Per Hectare to the Year 2000 5-26
5-11 Equivalent Number of People Impacted (ENI) and
Percentage Benefit (RCI) 5-35
5-12 People Exposed to L, Over 55 5-36
5-13 People Exposed to L, Over 55 for Each Land Use Type 5-37
5-14 Percentages of Total Refuse Collections 5-41
xn
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
Table Title Number
5-15 Sleep Disturbances ENI 5-48
5-16 Sleep Awakenings ENI 5-49
5-17 Outdoor Speech Interference 5-53
5-18 Indoor Speech Interference 5-56
5-19 Total Outdoor and Indoor Speech Interference 5-57
5-20 Summary Equation Describing Calculation of Trash
Compactor Noise Impacts 5-59
6-1 Overall Noise Levels Under Stage 1 of Noise Control
(Transmission PTO = 74 dBA at 7m) 6-5
6-2 Fuel Savings Due to Reduced Engine rpm 6-7
6-3 Overall Noise Levels Under Stage 2 of Noise Control
(Hydraulic Pump = 64 dBA at 7 m) 6-14
6-4 Overall Noise Levels Under Stage 3 of Noise Control
(Hydraulic Pump = 55 dBA at 7 m) 6-19
7-1 Estimated Annual Unit Operating Cost Reduction
Due to Fuel Economies 7-14
7-2 Summary of Estimated Direct Labor and Material Cost
For Noise Abatement 7-15
7-3 Summary of Estimated Overhead Costs for Noise
Abatement 7-15
7-4 Summary of Total Estimated Cost for Noise Abatement 7-16
7-5 Summary of Total Estimated Cost Increases for Noise
Abatement 7-17
7-6 Manufacturers Input and EPA Contractor Estimates 7-18
7-7 Summary of Incremental Maintenance and Operating
Costs Due to Quieting 7-19
7-8 Baseline Forecast by Year and Compactor Body Type 7-26
7-9 Composite Manufacturer's Projection of Unit Shipments,
1975-1985 7-26
7-10 On-Route Productivity and Collection Costs 7-29
7-11 Percent of Total Time Utilization 7-30
7-12 Estimated and Projected Unit and Dollar Volumes
of Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Bodies,
1974-1985 7-31
7-13 Projected Unit Shipments of Solid Waste Compactor
Bodies, 1985-1995 7-32
7-14 Estimated Average List Price Percentage Increase
by Noise Level and Category 7-33
7-15 Estimated Incremental Price Between Noise Control
Stages by Compactor Body Type 7-34
7-16 Percent Incremental Price Between Noise Control Stages 7-35
Xlll
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
Table Title Number
7-17 Summary of Fuel, Maintenance and Equipment Cost
Estimates Associated with Proposed Regulatory Options 7-37
7-18 Regulatory Options and Cost Impacts 7-38
7-19 Representative Solid Waste Compactor End User Cost
Structure Model 7-40
7-20 Development of Estimated Price Adjustments Associated
With Stage 1 Noise Emission Requirements 7-45
7-21 Percent Volume Decline - Stage 1 7-46
7-22 Adjusted Baseline Forecast - Stage 1 (1979-1987) 7-47
7-23 Stage 1 - Estimated First Year Unit Reduction From
Baseline Forecast, 1979 7-48
7-24 Development of Estimated Price Adjustments Associated
with Stage 2 Noise Emission Requirements 7-49
7-25 Percent Volume Decline - Stage 2 7-50
7-26 Adjusted Baseline Forecast - Stage 2 (1982-1990) 7-51
7-27 Stage 2 - Estimated First Year Unit Reduction From
Baseline Forecast, 1982 7-52
7-28 Development of Estimated Price Adjustments Associated
with Stage 3 Noise Emission Requirements 7-53
7-29 Percent Volume Decline - Stage 3 7-54
7-30 Adjusted BAseline Forecast - Stage 3 (1985-1993) 7-55
7-31 Stage 3 - Estimated First Year Unit Reduction
from Baseline Forecast, 1985 7-56
7-32 Estimated Excess Production Capacity by Body Type
in Year Prior to Regulation 7-57
7-33 Anticipated Prebuying in Years Prior to Effective
Dates 7-58
7-34 Total Estimated First Year Increased Capital Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 1, 1979 7-61
7-35 Total Estimated First Year Increased Annual Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 1, 1979 7-62
7-36 Total Estimated First Year Increased Capital Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 2, 1982 7-62
7-37 Total Estimated First Year Increased Annual Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 2, 1982 7-63
7-38 Total Estimated First Year Increased Capital Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 3, 1985 7-63
7-39 Total Estimated First Year Increased Annual Costs
for End User Industries - Stage 3, 1985 7-64
7-40 Estimated Total Packer Truck Price Increases by
Regulatory Level 7-67
7-41 Total Annual Cost Per Vehicle for Stages 1, 2 and 3 7-68
xiv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
Table Title Number
7-42 Estimated Current and Incremental Direct Labor Hours
by Regulatory Level 7-70
7-43 Summary of Estimated List Price Increases 7-73
7-44 Summary of Escimated First Year Unit Reduction
from Baseline Forecast 7-74
7-45 Summary of the Resource Costs Associated with Noise
Abatement 7-74
7-46 Representative Solid Waste Compactor Manufacturer
Cost and Profit Structure 7-78
7-47 Estimated Unit Production of a Typical Company 7-83
7-48 Estimated Cost Structure for a Typical Company 7-83
9-1 Local Solid Waste Compactor Truck Noise Laws 9-3
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION
Through the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234) , Congress estab-
lished a national policy "to promote an environment for all Americans free
from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare." In pursuit of that
policy, Congress stated in section 2 of the Act "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
requires National uniformity of treatment." As part of this essential Federal
action, Subsection 5(b)(1) requires that the Administrator of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, after consultation with the appropriate
Federal agencies, publish a report or series of reports "identifying products
(or classes of products) which in his judgment are major sources of noise."
Section 6 of the Act requires the Administrator to publish proposed regulations
for each product identified as a major source of noise and For which, in his
judgment, noise standards are feasible. Such products fall into various
categories, of which surface transportation is one. Pursuant to subsection
5(b) (1), the Administrator has published a report identifying truck-mounted
solid waste compacters as a major source of noise.
1-1
-------
PREEMPTION
Section 6(e)(1) of the Noise Control Act states that after the effective
date of a Federal regulation "no State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce...any law or regulation which sets a limit on noise emissions
from such new product and which is not identical to such regulation of the
Administrator." Section 6(e)(2), however, states that "nothing in this
section precludes or denies the right of any State or political subdivision
thereof to establish and enforce controls on environmental noise (on one or
more sources thereof) through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of
use, operation or movement of any product or combination of products." The
central point to be developed here is the distinction between noise emission
standards on products, which may be preempted by Federal regulations, and
standards on the use, operation, or movement of products, which are reserved
to the states and localities by Section 6(e)(2).
Section 6(e)(1) forbids State and local municipalities from controlling
noise from products through laws or regulations that prohibit the sale
(or offering for sale) of new products for which different Federal noise
emission standards already have been promulgated. States and localities
may augment the enforcement duties of the EPA by enacting a regulation
identical to the Federal regulation, since such action on the State or local
level would assist in accomplishing the purpose of the Act. Further, State
and local municipalities may regulate noise emissions for all new products
that were manufactured before the effective date of the Federal regulation(s).
1-2
-------
Section 6(e) (2) explicitly reserves to the states and their political
subdivisions a much broader authority: the right to "establish and enforce
controls on environmental noise (or one or more sources thereof) through
the licensing, regulation or restriction of the use, operation, or movement
of any product or combination of product." Environmental noise is defined
as the "intensity, duration, and character of sounds from all sources"
(Section 2 [11]). Limits may be proposed on the total character and
intensity of sounds that may be emitted from all noise sources, "products
and combinations of products."
State and local governments may regulate community noise levels more
effectively and equitably than the Federal government due to their per-
spective on and knowledge of state and local situations. The Federal
Goverment may assume the duties involved in regulating products distributed
nationwide because it is required and equipped to do so. Congress divided
the noise emission regulation power in this manner to allow each level
of government to fulfill that function for which it is best suited. Through
the coordination of these divided powers, a comprehensive regulatory program
can be effectively designed and enforced.
One example of the type of regulation left open to the localities is
the property line regulation. This type of regulation would limit the
level of environmental noise reaching the boundary of a particular piece
of property. Noise emitters would be free, insofar as State regulations
are concerned, to use any products whatsoever, as long as they are used or
1-3
-------
operated in such a fashion so as not to emit noise in excess of the state-
specified limits. This type of regulation may be applied to many different
types of properties, ranging from residential lots to construction sites.
In such a case, state and local regulation of trash compactor trucks may
take the form of, but would not be limited to, the following examples:
o Quantitative limits on environmental noise received in specific
land use zones, as in a quantitative noise ordinance.
o Nuisance laws amounting to operation or use restrictions (including,
for example, curfews).
o Other similar regulations within the powers reserved to the states
and localities by Section 6(e) (2).
In this manner, local areas may balance the issues involved to arrive at
a satisfactory environmental noise regulation(s) that protect the public
health and welfare as much as deemed possible.
LABELING
The enforcement strategies outlined in Section 8 of this document
will be accompanied by the requirement for labeling products distributed
in commerce. The label will provide notice to a buyer that a product is
sold in conformity with applicable regulations. A label will also make
the buyer and user aware that the trash compactor truck possesses noise
attenuation devices and that such items should not be removed or rendered
inoperative. The label may also indicate the associated liability for
such removal or tampering.
1-4
-------
IMPORTS
The determination of whether individual new products comply with the
Federal regulation will be made by the U.S. Treasury Department (Customs),
based on ground rules established through consultation with the Secretary of
the Treasury.
It is anticipated that enforcement of the actual noise standard by the
use of a standard test procedure would be too cumbersome for Customs to
handle, especially in view of the tremendous bulk of merchandise they must
pass on each day. A case in point occurs with imported automobiles, in which
Customs inspectors presently assess compliance with requirements of the Clean
Air Act solely on the basis of the presence of a label in the engine compart-
ment. A similar mechanism (labeling) appears viable for use to assess
compliance of imported trash compactor trucks with the proposed regulations.
RATIONALE FOR REGULATION OF THE TRASH COMPACTOR TRUCK
To develop an EPA criterion for identifying products as major sources of
noise, first priority was given to those products that contribute most to
overall community noise exposure. Community noise exposure is defined as
that exposure experienced by the community as a whole as the result of the
operation of a product or group of products, as opposed to that exposure
experienced by the user(s) of the product(s).
, In terms of assessment, community noise exposure was evaluated in terms
of the day/night average sound level (L ) (Ref. 1-1) that was developed
especially as a measure of community noise exposure. Since L, is
1-5
-------
an equivalent energy measure, it can be used to describe the noise in areas
in which noise sources operate continuously or intermittently but are pre-
sent enough of the time to emit a great deal of sound energy in a 24 hour
period.
Studies have been made of the number of people exposed to various
levels of community noise (Ref. 1-1). Table 1-1 summarizes the estimated
number of people in residential areas subjected to urban traffic noise,
aircraft noise, construction site noise, and freeway traffic noise at or
above an outdoor L, of 60, 65, and 70 dB, respectively.
EPA has identified an outdoor L , of 55 dB (Ref. 1-1) as the day/night
average sound level requisite* to protect the public from long-term adverse
health and welfare effects in residential areas. Table 1-1 shows that it
will be necessary to quiet the major sources contributing to urban traffic
noise, construction site noise, freeway traffic noise, and aircraft noise if
this level is to be achieved.
Table 1-1
ESTIMATED NUMBER (in Millions) OF PEOPLE IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT KINDS AND LEVELS OF OUTDOOR NOISE (Ref. 1-1)
Outdoor
Ldn Level
70 dB+
65 dB+
60 dB+
Urban Traffic
Noise
4-12
15-33
40-70
Aircraft
Noise
4-7
8-15
16-32
Construction
Site Noise
1-3
3-6
7-15
Freeway
Noise
1-4
2-5
3-6
*With an adequate margin of safety and without consideration of the cost and
technology involved to achieve an L, of 55 dB.
1-6
-------
NEED FOR CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOISE STANDARD
It is important to the purchaser that the product has been designed and
built so that it will continue to meet its noise emission standard for a
stipulated period of time or use when it is properly used and maintained.
The attainment of the estimated health and welfare benefits, requisite
to a regulated product or class of products, is dependent upon its continuing
to comply with the Federal not-to-exceed noise emission standard for a pre-
scribed period of time or use.
The question of "Useful Life" with respect to product noise regulations
was first addressed in the proposed rule making for medium and heavy trucks
and for new portable air compressors. The initially proposed useful life
provisions required the manufacturer to assume that his product would continue
to meet the EPA noise emission standard throughout the product's useful or
operational life. This requirement was intended to ensure that the public
health and welfare benefits derived from the product standards would not
degrade during the product's life as a result of the product's sound level
increasing over time. The Agency deferred action on setting a useful life
standard in the final regulations for new medium and heavy trucks and portable
air compressors based on a need on the part of EPA to further assess to what
degree the noise from a properly used and maintained product would increase
with time. However, the Agency reserved a section in the regulations for the
proposal of useful life standard at a later time.
1-7
-------
The Agency has given considerable attention to this question of product
noise degradation (increase in noise level with time) and firmly believes
that if a product is not built such that it is even minimally capable of
meeting the standard while in use over a specified initial period, when
properly used and maintained, the standard itself would become a nullity and
the anticipated health and welfare benefits will be illusory.
Consequently, the Agency has developed the concept of an "Acoustical
Assurance Period" (AAP). The AAP is defined as that specified initial period
of time or use during which a product must continue in compliance with the
Federal standard provided it is properly used and maintained according to the
manufacturer's recommendations.
In contrast to the previously proposed "Useful Life" requirements, the
Acoustical Assurance Period is independent of the product's operational
(useful) life which is the period of time between sale of the product to the
first purchaser and last owner's disposal of the product. The Acoustical
Assurance Period is product-specific and thus may be different for different
products or classes of products. The AAP is predicated, in part, upon (1)
the Agency's anticipated health and welfare benefits over time resulting from
noise control of the specific product, (2) the product's known or estimated
periods of use prior to its first major overhaul, (3) the average first owner
turnover (resale) period (where appropriate), and (4) known or best engineering
estimates of product-specific noise level degradation (increase in noise
level) over time.
1-8
-------
The AAP will require the product manufacturer to assure that the product
is designed and built in a manner that will enable it to comply with the noise
emission regulation which exists at the time the product is introduced into
commerce and that it will continue to conform with the applicable regulation
for a period of time or use not less than that specified by the AAP.
While the Agency believes that products, which are properly designed and
durably built to meet a product specific noise emission standard, should
continue to meet the standards for an extended period of time, it recognizes
that some manufacturers may wish to stipulate, based on test results or best
engineering judgment, the degree of anticipated noise emission degradation
their product(s) may experience during a specified Acoustical Assurance Period.
A procedure has been developed by the Agency that permits manufacturers to
account for sound level degradation in his compliance testing and verifica-
tion program. This procedure, if used, would require a manufacturer to apply
a "Sound Level Degradation Factor" (SLDF) to the Agency's not-to-exceed
noise emission standard and thus would result in a manufacturer specific
production test level that is lower than that specified by the EPA standard.
For example,a manufacturer who estimates that the noise level of a given
product model may increase by 3 dBA during the prescribed AAP would specify
an SLDF of 3 dBA. For production verification the manufacturer would then
test to ensure that his product's sound level is 3 dBA below that specified in
the applicable Federal standard. For those products not expected to degrade
during the AAP the manufacturer would specify an SLDF of zero.
1-9
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE
Section 6(A)(1)(C) of the Noise Control Act specifies four possible
categories of products that may be regulated by the Administrator:
1. Construction equipment.
2. Transportation equipment (including recreational vehicles and
related equipment).
3. Any motor engine (including any equipment of which an engine is an
integral part).
4. Electrical or electronic equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3(3)(A) aircraft are excluded as products under
Section 6 of the Act. Aircraft noise regulations have been proposed to the
FAA as delineated in Section 7 of the Act. Medium and heavy-duty trucks
contribute the most sound energy to the environment of any highway vehicle
and, as such, have been identified for regulation as major noise sources, a
number of trucks operate with special equipment mounted, some of which may
contribute significant noise to the environment aside from that due to the
normal operation of the truck in its transportation mode. One such product
is the truck-mounted solid waste compactor, which is known to be a source of
annoyance and sleep disturbance. In order to preclude a lessening of the
beneficial effect of truck noise regulation in reducing noise impact, the EPA
has identified the truck-mounted solid waste compactor for noise regulation.
1-10
-------
OUTLINE AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Background information used by EPA in developing regulations limiting
the noise emissions from new truck-mounted solid waste compactors is pre-
sented in the following Sections of this document:
Section 2 - The Industry and the Product: contains general information
on the manufacturers of truck-mounted solid waste compactors and descriptions
of the product.
Section 3 - Baseline Noise Levels for New Truck-Mounted Solid Waste
Compactors: presents current noise levels relative to degradation noise
levels for existing new solid waste compactors and a discussion of the data
used in the development of an Acoustical Assurance Period.
Section 4 - Measurement Methodology: presents the measurement meth-
odology selected by EPA to measure the noise emitted by this product and to
determine compliance with the proposed regulation.
Section 5 - Health and Welfare: discusses the benefits to be derived
from regulating noise emissions of solid waste compactors.
Section 6 - Noise Control Technology: provides information on available
noise control technology and the criteria for determining the levels to which
solid waste compactors can be quieted.
Section 7 - Economic Analysis: examines the economic impact of noise
emission standards on the solid waste compactor industry and society.
Section 8 - Enforcement: discusses the various enforcement actions open
to EPA to ensure compliance.
Section 9 - Existing Local, State and Foreign Regulations: summarizes
current noise emission regulations on truck-mounted solid waste compactors.
1-11
-------
Appendix A - The Docket Analysis (Reserved).
References - Section 1
1-1. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
1-12
-------
SECTION 2
THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT
INTRODUCTION
This section provides a description of truck mounted solid waste com-
pactor bodies and an overview of the compactor body industry. The section is
organized as follows:
Tne Product
Product Applications and Competitive Systems
Tne Industry
Characteristics of Industry Segments
THE PRODUCT
A truck mounted solid waste compactor consists of a truck chassis and a
compactor body. The body is equipped to receive, compact, transport and
unload solid wastes.
The major compactor body types can be operationally classified by the
body loading configuration as seen in Table 2-1.
1. Front Loaders. These bodies utilize front mounted hydraulic lift
arms to lift and dump waste containers into an access door in the top of the
body. Packer plates compact the wastes inside the body. Wastes are typically
ejected through a tailgate. A typical front loader is illustrated in Figure
2-1, and the six step operational sequence for front loading is shown
in Figure 2-2. The compaction cycle for a front loader is illustrated in
Figure 2-3.
2-1
-------
H
(N
2-2
-------
a.
E
rs
o
V
o
t<3
r
cu
OJ
c:
a
CT
ra
en
c
CJ
to
H1
4-1
I
§
u
.3
o
to
o
J-
o.
ex
a:
QJ
CT
f3
cn
c
UJ
.a
(N
Q)
-H
CM
2-3
-------
to
w
M
DQ
|
U
w
fe
&
2
Q
M
$
rH Q
CN EH
H S
CQ S
p| ^j
Q^
1
6
M
EH
QJ
M
fci
M
CO
u
8
M
3
0
i-l
O
1^
s
>1
"8
CQ
V-l
O
ti
01
£
U
tiraate
IQ
w
g
H
rH
8
Q
cu
£
-H
£
B
E^
>i
H
C ^
S 'O
gf0
>H
'.p o
O -H
E cj
o ^NN-
C5 u}
T3 1
CD 3
P O
(0 &
fH
4_>
a
^S|
ro
0 13
CQ M
(0
M-l JH
CD -H
C O
<$ u
Ssj
^
H
rH
-H
X
^
1
rH
0
o
H rH
Ql
C
H
rH
8
(0
1
01
2
I
0
0
un
0
g>
0
m
r-
l
0
o
^*
>i
-p
H
O
(0
g
rH
(0
U
r-t
H
1
rH
CJ
CN
in
1
o
i-l
fQ
a
g
£
0P
in
rH
o
dp
0
o
o
m
0
m
o
\Tl
*3*
00
n
1
0
rH
id
TD
(0
a
0)
T3
H
CO
ro
1
CN
O
O
0
in
r--
0
o
o
rH
1
O
O
m
rH
ro
1
o
rH
VJ
cu
""O
s
^
fi
(U
g
0)
M
D
%
VJ
0>
4J
H
rH
4J
O
D
"8
^
cu
1
U}
s
3
X>
rH
i-l
^J
cn
T3
**
en
M
§
nufact
(rt
G
-p
o
3
3
M
O4
5
H
?
W
O
H
z
%
C
rH
-0
3
H
fa
U
§
w
x7
5
u
3
£
-<
5
^
2
0)
^
k«
4J
C
S1
fl
i
a
rH
O W
u5 SH
c&i
^a
2 £
4J -H
(0 J«J
i> ^
w O
u5
5 ID
^>
ra
rH -H
Cl> o
3 O
b U)
>.»
P t3
rH C
CJ ra
c»
<*
§r-
o\
^^
(0 SH
S-8
!Ti 8
M U
5! a
2-4
-------
Dump
Compaction
Return
Figure 2-3. Operation of a Front Loader (Compaction Cycle)
2-5
-------
2. Side Loaders. Considerable variation exists in these bodies, but a
typical model is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Generally, wastes are manually
deposited into a hopper through an access door in the side wall of th>- body.
Packer plates sweep the wastes from the hopper into the body and congress
the materials against an interior wall, in the same manner as front loaders
(Figure 2-3). Some side loaders are also equipped to hydraulical.ly lift and
dump waste containers. Ejection of wastes is usually through a tailgate.
Many side loader models are not equipped for packer plate ejection, but
typically, would hydraulically lift the front end of the body and dump the
wastes through a tailgate.
3. Rear Loaders. The hopper on these bodies is located on the rear
section of the body (Figure 2-5}. Wastes are generally loaded manually into
the hopper, but some models have the capability to hydraulically lift and
dump containers. The packer plate sweeps the wastes from the hopper into
the body and compresses the wastes against an interior wall surface. In most
models, the packer plate is also used for tailgate waste ejection.
Two additional categories of solid waste compactors are produced:
1. Satellite Vehicles. These bodies function much like other packers,
but are relatively small. They are used in door-to-door waste collection and
in conjunction with a larger packer truck. The satellite vehicle body ejects
wastes into the hopper of a larger packer truck or serves as a detachable
container which is lifted and dumped by a larger truck. These bodies were
excluded from consideration because available test information indicated they
were not a significant source of noise.
2-6
-------
a)
H
Cfl
CM
2-7
-------
in
0)
H
2-8
-------
2. Route Trailers. These solid waste compactors are pulled by a truck
rather than being mounted on the truck chassis. Operation of the unit is
similar to a side loader, except that trailers are powered by a stand-alone
auxiliary engine mounted on the trailer. This type of compactor has been
excluded from consideration because the potential economic impact associated
with these units is insignificant. Fewer than 50 units were shipped in 1974
and the estimated number of units in operation is less than 100.
As indicated in Table 2-1, packer bodies can also be classified by body
cubic year capacity and the compaction density rating of the body.
Front loaders are essentially all mounted on a heavy duty truck chassis
powered by a diesel engine. Side loaders can be mounted on a light, medium,
or heavy duty truck chassis. Rear loaders are typically mounted on a medium
or heavy duty truck chassis. Approximately 40 percent of the side and
rear loader truck chassis are powered by diesel engines, the remainder are
powered by gasoline engines. It is estimated that 15 percent of the side
loaders and 2 to 3 percent of the rear loaders are powered by a stand-alone
auxiliary engine rather than the truck engine.
PRODUCT APPLICATIONS AND COMPETITIVE SYSTEMS
Tne distribution of packer bodies by loading type and application are
shown in Table 2-2 and summarized below:
1. Front loaders are used predominantly in commercial and industrial
applications. Commercial collection includes residential complexes with more
than two-family units.
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-2
TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY APPLICATIONS
BY PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION
Percent of Total Units Employed
by Major Application
Commercial
Equipment Classification Residential* and Industrial
Front Loader 10-15 85
Side loader 85 15
Rear loader 70 30
SOURCE: Field interviews with product manufacturers, distributors
and fleet operators.
*Residential includes single*-family dwellings and duplexes.
2-10
-------
2. All other categories of bodies are 'used principally for residential
waste collection. Commercial and industrial application of this equipment is
typically limited to light commercial collection utilizing small containers
and compactor bodies equipped with hoists.
Substantial potential exists for substitution of equipment for residential
collection. Several studies have demonstrated that collection productivity
can be dramatically increased by utilizing one-man versus multi-man crews.
This provides a competitive advantage for side loaders as compared to the
more broadly used rear loader.
The available competitive waste collection systems identified vary by
nature of application. Residential collection could be accomplished by three
means:
1. Centrally Located Roll Off Packers. A truck would periodically
remove either a detachable container or the entire unit and dispose of the
collected wastes.
The advantages of this substitute system, depending on methods used to
transfer wastes from the household or commercial establishment to the packer,
population density and a number of other variables, could include higher
collection productivity, increased flexibility in usage of sound deadening
shields and increased ability to monitor and control noise levels.
Potential disadvantages would include a negative public reaction to
having to transport wastes to the compactor location, increased exposure of
the general public to injury from operation of the compactor, and heavy
initial investment in packers and containers.
2-11
-------
2. Truck Mounted Shredder-Compactor Bodies. This product concept
entails a rear loader cylindrical body which rotates and tumbles wastes. The
tumbling action and spiral ribs inside the body shred wastes and drive them
toward the front section of the body. In this manner, wastes are compacted
to a density similar to that achieved by standard rear loaders.
The only potential advantage identified would be possible reductions in
body maintenance expense.
Disadvantages relating to models currently available, may include higher
levels of crew personal injury attributable to lifting wastes to a higher
level for deposit in the body. Crew productivity may also be reduced by the
higher lift height.
No. U. S. manufacturer currently produces this type of body. They are
imported from Europe and currently have insignificant penetration in the
U.S. market.
No noise measurements were made of this type collection vehicle. However,
domestic conventional packer body manufacturers report that noise levels
parallel those of rear loaders.
3. Truck Mounted Non-Compacting Bodies. Essentially, this represents
a return to prepacker body collection practices. Noise levels would probably
be reduced but crew productivity would be substantially lower.
THE INDUSTRY
Solid Waste Generation
The demand for the product of the compactor body industry is derived
from the generation of solid wastes, particularly by residences and com-
mercial establishments, that are subject to collection and disposal.
2-12
-------
The availability of solid waste generation data is relatively limited
and of recent origin. While estimates are universally accepted as accurate,
the most broadly accepted estimates are reflected in Table 2-3. It can be
seen that total residential and commercial solid waste generation in 1973 is
estimated at 144 million tons. Resource reclamation provided for the disposal
of 9 million tons, resulting in a net solid waste disposed quantity of 135
million tons.
Projections of total residential and commercial solid wastes are also
shown in Table 2-3. The tonnage of total gross discards is expected to
increase to 175 million tons in 1980, an average annual growth of four
percent between 1973 and 1980. New wastes disposed are expected to increase
to 156 million tons during the same period, an average annual growth rate of
two percent. The growth rates are expected to decline between 1980 and
1990.
The composition of residential and commercial solid wastes is shown in
Table 2-4. Nearly 70 percent of total wastes are paper, food and yard
wastes.
Solid Waste CollectionThe Packer Body
Tne first packer bodies were broadly introduced for solid waste collec-
tion in the early 1950s. Market penetration of this equiment was relatively
rapid since it provided a means for dramatic productivity increases in solid
waste collection. The major benefit, relative to the traditional open body
collection truck, is that compaction allows larger quantities of wastes to be
2-13
-------
a 0) m
C -P 00
^ C fO (7^
^"i c2 PH r~i
rH 4->
(0 -H CU X! 1 dp
4J 4J t7>4-> OO CN
O C (0 S ro rH
EH O rH
<£
. u
""0
o5
^J
ci;
m
O
in
-00
§cn
rH
CO M 1
g H rH
F-l EJ i~H
O £3
goo"
ro § § M
1
co co
H £2 O
2 CD tJ
j V
W EH CO
f^ c5 ^-**
CQ CM ffi
£D
fj^ ^^
O CO
cu
m
00
en
rH
O
00
en
rH
a>
(li *0 CQ
4-1 fQ
^1 >rH C
rH O[ 3
-H fTJ O
« CJ ft
f^ rH
^ 00
9 1
"*
rH
(0
4J
^
rH in
o ro
CN
U
0)
CU (0 CO
>I-H "i
rH O) 3
H (0 O
(0 U OH
oo vo
CN T
^
Q
1
a
in en
l*~ rH
rH
u
"S
2
ffj
p
*H
CO
W
ro
rH
rH
r^
en
rH
0)
dl fO CO
4J ro
rH^'CU §
H m o
CO U CU
in ro
r^ CN
ro
'it
4_)
o
fH
* en
^j*
rH
CU
Cu (0 to
4-* n^j
^j-H C
rH di 3
H (0 O
-H
,CU Q
«k
in
r~
« en
^
C -
0) -.
DlrH
< VO
rH
C ,1
o S
"'"f CO
4J ^^
g
-p -
o =
u C
a, o
H
rH 4->
(0 O
4J D
C T!
0 cD
6 K
Q
o cu
U 4-1
H CQ
> 03
£*
CO* §
D >i
iH
- QJ
CO >
c O
<3 cj
U 0)
g"*
U 0)
o< u
Vj
4-) D
C O
cn
C CQ
fO CQ
S 0)
u
3H1
i§8
12
O
fO 4J
H
rH 4-J
0 U
w a
M-l CU
0 &
o
g1^
H -H Q)
HH EH (C
O = &<
U
ED
s
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-4
POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE GENERATED AND AMOUNTS RECYCLED,
BY TYPE OF MATERIAL, 1973
(AS-GENERATED WET WEIGHT IN MILLIONS TONS)
Material
Category
Paper
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber
Leather
Textiles
Wood
Total Non-Food
Gross
Discards
53.0
13.5
12.7
5.0
2.8
4.9
94.8*
Quantity
of
Materials
Recycled
8.7
.3
.2
.2
Net Waste Disposed
Percent
Quantity of Total
9.4
44.3*
13.2
12.5
5.0
2.6
1.0
1.9
4.9
85.4
32.9%*
9.8*
9.3
3.7
1.9
.8*
1.4
3.6
63.4
Product Waste
Food Waste
Yard Waste
Misc. Inorganic
Wastes
Total
22.4
25.0
1.9
144.1*
9.4
22.4
25.0
1.9
134.7*
16.6
18.6*
1.4
100.0%
SOURCE: Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "Third Report to Congress, Resource Recovery
and Waste Reduction," (SW-161), 1975 Page 10.
Arithmetic summations and differences modified to reflect correct total.
2-15
-------
collected between trips to the disposal site. Consequently, more waste
collection points can be served between trips and a substantially higher
proportion of total collection crew time is productive.
Even with the advent of this equipment, waste collection remains an
extremely labor intensive operation. Recent product enhancements and new
product introductions have focused on further increasing collection crew
productivity. The major equipment innovations have been higher density
compaction, larger volume bodies and different loading configurations
intended to reduce total crew size.
SIZE AND GROWTH OF THE PACKER BODY INDUSTRY
Units In Operation
The estimated number of packer body trucks in operation is shown in
Table 2-5. It can be seen that approximately 76,000 units are in operation.
Rear loaders account for 73 percent of the total. Tne estimated functional
life of front loaders is eight years and rear and side loaders is seven
years.
Unit and Dollar Manufacturer Shipments
The units and value of manufacturer shipments in 1964, 1967, and 1972
and estimates for 1974 by loader type are shown in Table 2-6. An estimated
12,300 units with a value of $125 million were shipped in 1974. This repre-
sents an average annual growth rate between 1964 and 1974 of 10 percent
on a unit basis and 19 percent on a dollar basis. The unit growth rate
remained the same and dollar growth increased to 22 percent between 1967 and
1974.
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-5
ESTIMATED TRUCK MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODY UNITS
IN OPERATION, 1974
Equipment
Classification
Truck-
Ill Iss
(Millions)
Average
Annual
Miles/Truck
(Thousands)
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Satellite Vehicles
Total 841
12.2
Units
11,200
11,600
53,700
500
Percent Estimated
of Average
Total Functional
Units Life Cvcle
14.6%
15.1
69.7
.6
77,000 100.0%
3
7
7
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Census
of Transportation, 1972, Truck Inventory and Use Survey,
1972", Page 2.
Truck Body and Equipment Association, National Solid Waste
Management Association and field interviews with equipment
manufacturers.
2-17
-------
U4
_]
PQ
<
H
S fi,
0
O
4J
O
0
O
O
J-l
u
H
CO
5
M
O
4-»
a
H
o
r-M
O
r-l
IH
B
o
M
m
T3
rt
E
H
4-)
CO
CD
0)
fX
>>
4-)
V-l
0)
O
r-l
X
CJ
to
CD
O
r-l
B §,
T3 4-J
C W
r3 (U
V-i
W , cd
U W O
d W C
0) CJ
£ V-i O
CX 3 iJ
rH iJ
^ 0 13
co nj
-------
It is estimated that 73 percent of 1974 shipments were rear loaders.
Export Sales
The estimated value of manufacturers' exports in 1974 are shown in Table
2-7. Approximately 20 percent of manufacturers' shipments, or $25 million,
are estimated to be exports. More than 90 percent of the value of exports
are completed bodies.
CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
The general structure of the compactor body industry is depicted in the
schematic shown in Figure 2-6. Generally, the packer body manufacturer pur-
chases raw materials and components from suppliers and builds the body. Bodies
are then sold to either truck chassis dealers or truck body distributors,
dominantly to the latter. The body is then mounted on a truck chassis and
sold to the ultimate end user. The primary end users are municipal govern-
ments and private contractors.
A profile for each of the following industry segments is described in
this section:
Packer Body Manufacturers
Truck Body Distributors
End Use Market Fleet Operators
Truck Chassis Manufacturers and Dealers
Raw Material and Component Suppliers
Packer Body Manufacturers
1. Currently, 25 companies have been identified as manufacturers of
packer bodies in the United States (Table 2-8).
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-7
ESTIMATED VALUE OF TRUCK MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODY
MANUFACTURER'S EXPORTS, 1974
(MILLION)
Total Shipment Export Shipments Export Percent
Equipment Type Value Value of Total Shipments
Complete Bodies 99 20 20%
Components 11 2__ 20
Total 110 22 20%
SOURCE: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., "Analytical Financial Reports".
Field interviews with equipment manufacturer.
2-20
-------
Raw Material
Sunoliers
Truck
Chassis
Manufacturers
Compactor Body
Manufacturers
I
Truck Chassis
Dealers
i
Municipal
Governr.ani
Private
Contrac
tors
1
Federal
GovernnerJ
Component
Manufacturers.
p-ro' s
Purr.ps
Valvgs
I
Truck Body
Dis tributor
Assemblers
s/
Corporations
and Others
Figure 2-6.
Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body
Industry Structure
2-21
-------
2. These companies, including total corporate revenues, range in size
from $100,000 to $1.4 billion. Nearly 50 percent of the manufacturers are
divisions or operating companies held by corporations which are substantially
larger. Nearly all of the specialized independent companies for which data
are available have revenues less than $10 million (see Table 2-8).
3. Manufacturer production facilities and products manufactured at each
plant are indicated in Table 2-9.
Plants are concentrated in California, Texas, Michigan, Ohio and the
Southeastern states. Nearly one-half of the companies have two or more
plants. Proximity to markets is an important factor due to the costs for
transporting bodies, but favorable investment incentives and labor climates
have attracted many plants in the Southeastern states.
In addition to packer bodies, the more common products manufactured are
containers, portable and stationary compactors, transfer trailers, transfer
station equipment, hydraulic lift gates and hoists.
4. The type and cubic yard capacity of packer bodies produced by each
manufacturer is summarized below:
a. Eleven companies currently produce front loaders. Body cubic
capacity of front loaders ranges from 20 to 52 yards. Most
models are in the 25 to 35 yard range. Most producers have a
broad product range.
b. Ten companies produce side loaders. Body cubic capacity ranges
from 10 to 38 yards. The most common size range is from 16
to 24 cubic yards.
c. Ten companies produce rear loaders. Body capacity ranges from
10 to 31 cubic yards. The dominant sizes are 16, 20, and 25
cubic yards.
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-8
FINANCIAL PROFILE OF TRUCK MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODY MANUFACTURERS -
1974
$ (MILLIONS)
NET
PROFIT
(LOSS)
DATE NUMBER OF NET
COMPANY NAME FOUNDED EMPLOYEES REVENUE
Company S 1946 50 $ 1.9
Company T (a) n/a 27,079 984.6
Company U (b) 1912 40,765 1,428.0
Company V n/a n/a 25.0
Company W (b) 1918 26,400 1,315.0
Company X (c) 1938 27 2.4
Company Y 1956 n/a 30.0
Company Z 1899 14,900 498.1
Company C (a) 1901 1,633 70.3
Company AA (d) 1953 140 7.1
Company D (e) 1957 300 11.4
Company BB 1945 175 7.9
Company CC 1960 14 .2
Company B (f) 1952 230 6.8
Company DD (g) n/a n/a 257.9
Company EE (b) 1906 2,151 109.1
Company FF (i) 1966 200 13.3
Company I (g) n/a 1,622 61.8
Company GG 1953 150 n/a
Company HH (fg) n/a n/a 123.0
Company II (h) n/a 80 2.4
Company JJ 1976 7 n/a
Company KK n/a 36 1.5
Company LL 1975 3 .2
Company MM n/a 35 4.0
Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Analytical Financial
otherwise indicated.
(a) Fiscal year ending October 31, 1974.
AFTER TOTAL
TAXES ASSETS
S $
8.6
37.5
n/a
22.7 1
.1
n/a
25.4
2.8
.2
.4
(.3)
n/a
n/a
9.6
5.2
(.7)
1.7
n/a
2.8
.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.3
794.2
982.0
n/a
,020.8
.1
n/a
318.6
41.7
3.4
8.5
n/a
.1
4.8
205.4
57.0
8.3
38.8
n/a
86.6
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TANGIBLE
NET WORTH
$
337.1
331.0
n/a
342.2
.1
n/a
182.0
22.1
.9
1.8
n/a
n/a
1.9
70.0
37.6
2.0
16.7
n/a
22.4
.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
NET
WORKING
CAPITAL
$
330.0
158.8
n/a
139.9
.2
5.0
103.8
23.6
.9
1.8
n/a
n/a
1.5
71.4
25.6
.5
16.1
n/a
24.8
.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
REFUSE
DIVISION/ COMPACTOR
SUBSIDIARY BODY
n/a $
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.7
5.0
n/a 4.0
n/a
7.1
1.8
7.9
6.8
54.2
n/a
13.3
8.7
n/a
20
1.2
n/a . 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Report*, unless
(b) Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Industrial Manual, 1975.
(c) Revenue and earnings extrapolated from 6 month
March 31, 1975.
(d) Fiscal year ending May 31, 1975.
(e) Fiscal year ending May 31, 1974.
(f) Fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
(g) Annual Report, 1974.
(h) Fiscal year ending August 31, 1974.
(i) Fifacal year ending March 31, 1975.
data ending
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-9
FACILITY PROFILE OF TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY MANUFACTURERS, 1974
Production Facilities
pany Vnnc
Company S
Company T
Facility
Sire
(Thousands Owned
of Square or Number of
Foot) Leased. Employees
n/a
n/a
107
n/a
n/a
n/a
50
450
n/a
350
Products X-inufactured
-Dump truck beds, hoists, co-npactor
bodies.
-Containers, transfer stations, refuse
compactor bodies, roll-off hoists, coa-
pactor trailers.
-Stationary packers.
-Transport trailers and containers.
Company U
Company V
Company W
Company X
Company Y
n/a
n/a
n/*
29
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
L
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
27
n/a
n/a
n/a
-Transport trailers, compactor trailers,
compactor bodies, transfer trailers.
-Truck dealer and auto repair.
-Truck t,-.nks and refuse compactors.
-Trailers, axles, brake shoes 4 drucs.
Company z
200 n/a -Containers, refute compactor bodies,
statlonjry cc-^prctors, roll-off hoists,
n/c. n/a 1,100 tr.in:;ttr tr.iLlc.rs.
n/a n/a -Kefuse compactors.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-9 (continued)
Production Facilities
Company C
facility
Size
(Thousands Owned
of Square or
Feet) Leased
760 0
n/a
Products tonul'actured
n/a
-Truck todies and hoists, tanks, tanks
for trailers, refuse collection and pro-
cessing equip '^nt, dehydrating machines,
material handling equipncnt, and pulver-
izing and recla.-natlcn equipzenc.
n/a
80 L n/a
Company AA
Company D
Company BB
Company CC
480 0 n/a -Front loaders, side loaders,
stationary compactors.
L n/a -Refuse compactor bodies, stationary
compactors & hydraulic lift r.ates.
194
-------
TABLE 2-9 (continued)
Production Facilities
Cc-pa-iv N'--c
Company B
Company DD
Company EE
Company FF
Company I
Company GG
Company HH ld'
Company II
Facility
Size
(Thousands
of Square
Feet)
80
80
n/a
219
87
196
n/a
n/a
34
Owned
or
Lensed
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
L
n/a
n/a
0
Number of
Employees
135
95
n/a
n/a
120
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
Products Ilanufaeturctl
-Stationary refuse compactors, compac-
ting & transfer trailers, containers,
& front loader compactors.
-Refuse ccnpactcrs, refuse trailers,
containers 4 front loader cor.pactors.
-Refuse compactor bodies, containers 4
transfer stations.
-Rail car auto shipping racks, refuse
corr.paccor bodies.
-Solid waste conpactor bodies, contain-
ers & roll-off containers & hoists.
-Dump bodies, containers and refuse
packer bodies.
-Refuse conpactor bodies, containers &
roll-off hoists.
-Refuse compactor bodies.
-Refuse corpactor bodies, true'* hoists
& miscellaneous truck codifications.
SO'JSCE: Dun & 3rad:treet, Inc., Analytical Reports, unless otherwise indicated.
(a) Annual Hcp-rt, 1974 and interviews with conpany pan.-:(;r"*enr.
(b) Xocdy's Investors Service, Ir.i.. "Industrial Manual, 1975".
(c) Ar.r.ual P.oport, 1974 snd fora 10-K filed with she Securities and Exchange ConmJssion, 1974, Pages 2, 3 and 9.
W Annual ?.cpcr:, 1974.
(e) Total car.cr'ccturlng facilities in Huntingdon Park & Los Angeles, California: 194,000 square feet.
2-26
-------
5. The estimated manufacturer share of shipments by body type in 1974
are shown in Tables 2-10 through 2-12 and summarized below:
a. Two firms dominate the market with approximately 60 percent of
all front loaders shipped. The remainder of shipments is
rather evenly distributed among the other nine producers.
b. Three firms shipped about 20 percent of total side loaders
each.
c. Two firms shipped about 55 percent of all rear loaders. These
two firms in combination with two others shipped about 80
percent of rear loaders.
Tne geographic markets served by a plant are limited, typically to a
regional area, by the cost to transport a body and the body type usage
patterns within a region. This is particularly true for front and side
loaders. To a greater extent than other manufacturers, two of the largest
shippers of rear loaders serve a national market.
7. Packer body manufacturers mount about 70 percent of the bodies they
sell, on truck chassis, for the ultimate purchaser (Figure 2-7). About 90
percent of all front loaders are mounted by the manufacturer. This proportion
for all body types will probably increase in the future as larger packer body
size increases the need for more specialized and heavy-duty mounting equipment.
Increased manufacturer concern regarding product liability will also encourage
this practice.
8. The suggested end user list price of packer bodies varies by loader
type, nature of body construction and body capacity. The price range of
selected manufacturers and packer bodies by sizes is shown in Table 2-13.
Note the following ranges:
Front loaders $16,000 - $24,000
Side loaders 6,000 - 11,000
Rear loaders 9,000 - 15,000
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-10
ESTIMATED MANUFACTURER SHARE OF
TRUCK MOUNTED FRONT LOADER SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY SHIPMENTS. 1974
Percent of Total
Shipments
MO. of Firms
Three Firms 75%
Four Firms 20%
Four Firms 5%
Total 100%
SOURCE: Field interviews with equipment manufacturers.
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-11
ESTIMATED MANUFACTURER SHARE OF
TRUCK MOUNTED SIDE LOADER SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY SHIPMENTS. 197A
Percent of
No. of Firms Total Shipments
Three Firms 60%
Three Firms 30%
Three Firms 10%
Total 100%
SOURCE: Field interviews with equipment manufacturers.
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-12
ESTIMATED MANUFACTURER SHARE OF
TRUCK MOUNTED REAR LOADER SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY SHIPMENTS, 1974
No. of Firms
Two Firms
Two Firms
Three Firms
Three Firms
tPercent of
Total Shipments
55%
25%
15%
5%
Total
100%
SOURCE: Field interviews with equipment manufacturers.
2-30
-------
Compactor
Body
Manufacturer
70%
Truck Chassis
Dealers
(Negligible)
Truck Body
Distributor
30%
Fleet Operators
(Negligible)
Figure 2-7
Estimated Body Mounting Practices for Truck
Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Bodies
(Percent of Total New Bodies Mounted)
SOURCE:
Truck Body and Equipment Association, and field
interviews with equipment manufacturers,
distributors and end users.
2-31
-------
TABLE 2-13
RANGE OF SUGGESTED LIST PRICES OF SELECTED
TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODIES*
Equipment Classification Overall
and Body Cubic Yard Capacity Price Range Average Price
Front Loaders $18,780
24-25 $16,000 - $21,000
30-31 17,000 - 23,000
40-42 20,000 - 24,000
Side Loaders** 7,650
12-14 6,000 - 7,000
16-18 9,000 - 11,000
Rear Loaders 11,580
16-17 9,000 - 12,000
20 10,000 - 14,000
25 13,000 - 15,000
SOURCE: Manufacturer price lists and interviews with
manufacturers.
^Complete factory mounted units with standard equipment,
exclusive of freight and Federal Excise Taxes.
**Does not include prices for products built and sold as
an integral body and chassis unit.
2-32
-------
9. The estimated pricing structure for packer bodies is shown in Table
2-14. These estimates represent an overall average for all manufacturers,
distributors, end users and products. Some variation was noted in pricing
practices. Note that average distributors and end user prices are 20 percent
and 12 percent off list, respectively.
10. Manufacturer warranty provisions vary considerably. Typically, only
parts are covered, but service adjustment policies may cover labor in some
instances. Warranty periods range from 90 days for selected components or
the complete body to 12 months or the complete unit excluding selected
components.
Truck Body Distributors
The estimated flow of new and used packer bodies is depicted in Figure
2-8. About ten percent of the packer bodies sold annually are rebuilt/
reconditioned units, sold by truck body distributors. The dominant pattern
is for manufacturers to utilize distributors to sell and deliver bodies to
packer truck fleet operators. Leasing companies finance the purchase
of about ten percent of all units sold, dominantly, new bodies. Rental of
packer body truck is negligible.
A profile of all truck and tractor parts and supplies wholesalers is
shown in Table 2-15. This grouping of wholesaler distributors includes a
broad spectrum of product areas but does provide perspective. Note that
the total number of firms is 2,420 and that the average sales revenue per
firm is $1.8 million.
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-14
ESTIMATED PRICING STRUCTURE FOR TRUCK
MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODIES
Average Percent Discount
Purchaser Off Suggested List Price
End User 12
Distributor 20
SOURCE: Field interviews with equipment
manufacturers, distributors
and end users.
2-34
-------
Compactor
Body
Manufacturer
90%
5%
Truck Chassis
Dealer
5%
5%
80%
Truck Body
Distributor
Leasing
t-o Companies
10%
r
Rebuilt/
Reconditioned
Bodies
I 10%. I
5%
5%
10% 70%
Fleet Operators
10%
Figure 2-8,
Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body
Channels of Distribution, Based on Total
New and Used Units Sold Annually
SOURCE: Truck Body and Equipment Distributors Association,
and field interviews with product manufacturers,
distributors and fleet operators.
2-35
-------
TftELE 2-15
PROFILE OF TRUCK AND TRACTOR PARTS AND SUPPLIES
MERCHANT WHOLESALERS, 1972*
Character istic Value/Quantity
Number of Firms 2,420
Sales Revernue $(Millions) $ 4,430
Sales Revenue/Firm $(Millions) $ 1.3
Number of Paid Employees** 41,481
Number of Employes/Firmn 17
Payroll, Entire Year $(Millions) $ 387.5
Payroll/Firm $160,000*
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
"1972 Census of Wholesale Trade", 1972, Page 8.
'Includes distributors of solid waste compactor bodies and
insulated-refrigerated truck bodies and trailers.
'For week including March 12.
2-36
-------
A profile of packer body distributors constructed from data provided by
the Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association (Table 2-16) indicates
that:
1. There are approximately 500 firms, with average annual revenue of
$2.5 million.
2. The distributors' sources of revenue are approximately two-thirds
new equipment and one-third parts, used equipment and service labor.
3. The overall gross profit on net sales is 23 percent, operating and
non-operating expenses are 16 percent and net profit after taxes is 3 percent.
4. These firms have average total assets of $700,00.
End Use Market Fleet Operators
As shown in Table 2-17, the two major end use markets for packer trucks
are private contractors and municipalities are:
1. Private Contractors. These companies are heavily engaged in residen-
tial, commercial and industrial refuse collection. Services are contracted
on the basis of a direct contract or a municipal contract, franchise or award
of a competitive bid.
Even though the operations of a private contractor are local in nature,
several agglomerated companies with 100 or more operating locations across
the country have evolved in the industry.
A profile of private contractors is shown in Table 2-18. In summary:
a. The number of private contractors in 1970 was greater than 10,000.
These companies employ more than 102,000 people.
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-16
PROFILE OF TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODY DISTRIBUTORS. 1972
Characteristic
Number of firms
Revenue Mix (Percent of Total)
New Equipment
Parts, Used Equipment & Labor
Financial
Median Value/Quantity
500
60-70%
30-40%
Average Net Revenue
Cost of Goods Sold
Gross Profit
Operating Expenses
Kon-Operating Expenses
Net Profit Before Taxes
Profit After Taxes
Assets
Current Assets
!;ct Worth
!>on-Current Assets
$2.5 Million
1,9
$ .6
.4
$ .1
Percent of Median
Net Revenue
100
77
23
16
1
6
3
$700,000
580,000
233,000
120,000
Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association,
field interviews with product manufacturers and
distributors.
2-38
-------
TABLE 2-17
PRIMARY END USE MARKETS FOR TRUCK MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODIES
Percent of Total
End Use Market Units in Operation
Private Contractors
Municipalities
Federal Government
Industrial Corporations
Other
Total 100
SOURCES: Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Solid Waste Management
Association, "The Private Sector in Solid Waste Management-
A Profile of Its Resources and Contributions to Collection
and Disposal", Volume 2 - "Analysis of Data", 1972; U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Census of
Transportation, 1972, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, 1972f;
field interviews with product manufacturers.
2-39
-------
oo
W
«
«
t)
O
id
C
0
t-l
Zh
rH
rl
n
ty
O
rH
A
JJ
o
H
JJ
C
t)
iH
O
fe
^-*
in
U TJ
U C
1 S
3 3
Z O
EH
O f> 00 M O f>
«* vo t^ in - in
VO rH
r» f» «n vo ON rH
CO rH rO in \O ON
ri rH in n n
«f rH
^11
«>
0
rHl!
"Ill
in
00
Wll
(0
t .
L Customel
id
jj
o
K
4J
c
o
IH
O
&.
ON ON rH oo
UlrH
co co vo in m m
in M IN CN M
H J
o
o
o
rH
|M|| CO
11 rsi
It * '
r- r-
w
CM
V!
X
o
3
M
r .
t*
rH
(d
1 1
+J
o
EH
JJ
G
o
M
o
d<
^
n
u >o
o c
i 5
c ^
3 3
Z O
fi
EH
< M ON rH n O
CO PI ON 00 H ON
in rH
ON C4 rH O CO in
in co VD in in
M
o
o
o
rH
«
«
4c
"If
^
vol
in
il Employet
1 J
JJ
£
J>
G
o
IH
o
ex
M
to -a
o c
^ 13
E; LO
3 3
Z O
EH
rH 00 ON OO rH C!
CT> T O VO rH r~
in 1-HrH
in rH rH O rH in
O Ul rH f^ rH r»
VO i-HrH
0
o
0
rH
«
«
"1
si
rHl
1 "I
o
"
l-r1
I R
r.l o
«. I f *
M | ^
O O2 >4
P jj.3 o
« ujj&,
> «°9
rl to\\ to
M -Pil O
04 Ct£
OS R
UD 3
12
in rH ON. rH in ON
*! PI V O rH in
«] rH rH rH i-H
U) rH 00 r- ON VO
in rH ON rH T ON
<» m T o <-H in
V rH rH i-l rH
«*
O
O
rH
l~-
-rl
C rH (N
w o
in a)
e
w G 3
-rl rH
D 0
M >
- o
W JJ -
fi OrH
id o> id
,1 W 10
Ui 0
0 01 CU
U -U in
CU Id -rH
> Q
JJ -rH
G M "O
0) Pi G
G id
0 vU
tcJ5 G
id H O
n* -rl
id J>
2*u
G fl)
4) O rH
JJ -rl rH
OT JJ O
id id u
£ -H
0 O
O 0 JJ
rl W
rH U) W)
0 < C
to o
JJ-iH
Mj G JJ
O O 3
n xi
D I) -rH
O Cr> ri
rH Id JJ
IM G C
VM id O
O S U
M
U
§
O
ta
to
0)
.H
'O
o
A
M
O
JJ
O
id
a
e
o
o
a
jj
o
id
S
a
H
rH
O
V)
rH
id
c
o
H
JJ
R
0)
>
0
u
r-j
o
vo
*
rH
V
10
o
'O
.3
rH
O
C
rl
«
O
JJ
10
id
S
rH
id
rl
M
JJ
W
3
o
G
rl
13
G
fd
rH
id
H
o
M
O
£?
O
u
%
rH
rj
-H
JJ
C
O
"O
H
W
O
tH
U)
U
t)
3
rH
11
G
H
«
«
ON
G
H
o
G
3
O
M
4J
O
a>
rH
-------
b. These firms serve 27.3 million customers, operate 61,500 total
trucks (41,602 of which are packer trucks) and collect 685,000 tons
of waste daily.
c. Operations of private contractors tend to be concentrated in large
metropolitan areas.
The truck equipment operated by private contractors is indicated in Table
2-19. Of the 61,500 trucks operated, 41,602 are packer trucks (primarily rear
loaders).
More than 90 percent of private contractor customers are residential,
but the total quantity of wastes collected is fairly equally distributed
among residential, commercial and industrial customers. Over 40 percent of
the contractors collect only commercial and industrial wastes, but, all
together, private contractors collect more than 90 percent of commercial and
industrial solid waste. Private haulers serve 50 percent of all residential
customers and collect the same proportion of total residential solid waste.
The level of concentration within the industry is relatively low, as
measured in terms of number of employees and packer trucks employed.
2. Municipal Fleets. The scope and nature of municipalities which
provide public refuse collection services are difficult to ascertain. There
are more than 78,000 local governments of which 35,500 are municipalities and
townships of 2,500 or greater population. Packer body manufacturers report
that the latter are the major purchasers of equipment, especially munici-
palities and townships with populations of 25,000 people or more. This
includes between 800 and 900 governmental units which account for approxi-
mately two-thirds of the population within municipalities and townships,
about 85 percent of governmental general expenditures, and slightly more than
80 percent of the expenditures for sanitation other than sewage.
2-41
-------
TABLE 2-19
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR TRUCK EQUIPMENT
COMPOSITION, 1970
Thousands Units
Equipment Type NumberPercent
front Loaders 7.7 12.5
Side Loaders 7.7 12.5
aear Loaders 26.2 42.6
Open Non-Packer 7.2 11.7
Side Loader, Non-Packer
Roll-Off Chassis 6.5 10.6
Hoist Type Vehicles 2.2 3.6
Other Collection Vehicles 4.0 6.5
Total 61.5* 100.0
SOURCE: Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Solid
Waste Management Association, "The Private Sector
in Solid Waste Management - A Profile of Its Re-
sources and Contributions to Collection and Dis-
posal, Volume 2 - Analysis of Data", 1972.
Adjustedto reflect rounding.
2-42
-------
Approximately 35 percent of the packer trucks in operation are owned and
operated by municipalities and used to collect approximately 50 percent of all
residential solid wastes. This understates the direct and indirect influence
of municipalities with regard to total residential collection activity. A
large proportion of private hauler residential collection is controlled by
municipalities by means of contracts, franchises or competitive bid awards.
It is shown in Table 2-20 that nearly 50 percent of private hauler
residential customers are served on the basis of a government franchise:
TABLE 2-20
PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
SERVED BY PRIVATE HAULERS UNDER
DIRECT CONTRACT AND GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE
Percent of Customers
Direct Contract 50.3%
Government Franchise 49.7
Total 100.0%
Source: "The Private Sector in Solid Waste Management," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1973, page 6.3
Truck Chassis Manufacturers and Dealers
Truck chassis manufacturers, through their franchised truck dealer
organizations, generally sell truck chassis to the fleet operator to be
used in conjunction with a packer body. In a small proportion of total unit
sales, the truck dealer will sell an equipped packer body truck to the fleet
operator.
2-43
-------
The four largest firms accounted for more than 80 percent of total sales
of medium and heavy duty trucks in 1975.
The National Automobile Dealers Association, in Franchised New Car and
Truck Dealer Facts, 1973 indicated that there were 22,270 new truck dealers
in 1972.
Raw Material and Component Suppliers
Products purchased from suppliers consist of roll and bar metals and
general components such as PTOs, pumps, cylinders, and valves. All sources
of supplies are major manufacturers, and requirements of the packer body
industry are considered insignificant when related to their total shipments.
2-44
-------
SECTION 3
TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR SOUND LEVELS
SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
A total of 32 noise measurement tests were run on 28 different trucks (4
trucks were measured in two modes). For most of the tests, a microphone was
placed at 7 meters (approximately 23 ft.) from each of the four sides of the
truck and both the maximum steady "A" -weighted level and maximum impulse
"A"-weighted level were recorded. In addition, the cycle time of the truck
was measured. All the data which have been obtained is recorded in Table 3-1.
In this table, the energy average of the individual microphone measurements
around the truck and the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) have been recorded for
each test. The number of measurement tests made for each category of truck
were:
Rear Loaders - 23
Front Loaders - 6
Side Loaders - 3
TOTAL - 32
A number of these trucks already had some degree of noise control incor-
porated (7 rear loaders, 1 front loader, and 1 side loader) and their noise
levels are accordingly lower than the other trucks. The sample taken is not
intended to be representative of the solid waste compactor truck population in
general, but rather what was available for measurement. Particular interest
was shown in the quieted trucks which are in service and the measured sample
therefore incorporated a disproportionately large number of these quieted
vehicles.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. MEASURED SOUND LEVELS: SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
Measurement
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8a
I8b
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26o
26b
27
28
Body
Manufacturer
(Company)
A
A
6
C
D
£
E
£
F
F
F
C
G
H
H
1
1
F
1
J
J
J
F
|
t
F
J
1
K
H
H
1
1
Loader
Type
Rear
Rear
Side
Front
Rear
Side
Side
Rear
Front
Front
Rear
Rear
Front
Rear
Front
Rear
Rear
Front
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Front
Rear
Front
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Fuel
C jol ine
Gasol ine
Diesel
Diesel
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Diesel
Diesel
Gasol ine
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Gasol i ne
Gasol Ine
Gasol ine
Gaso 1 ine
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Gasol ine
Di cse 1
Di esel
Gasol inc
Gasol i ne
MAX STEAD? LEVELS AT 7m
Cycle
Energy Time
Average (Sec) SFL
74 30 87.5
87 12 94.5
74 10 64
79 35 88
74 20 87
77.5 8 8ii
76 75 95
76 I? 88
83 'to 92
85 40 100
79 16 96
80 25 94
83 -
87 -
87 20 100
79 40 55
82 -
85 20 -
84 40
82* - -
67* - -
74 8 83
80 20 90
73 27 85
74 25 87
74 10 62
75 28 87
76 Cont.
79 -
78 -
79 - -
78 - -
MAX II1PUISL
LEWLS AT
7i»
Energy
Average SCI
78 75
89.5 85
-NO IMPACT S-
86 85
89 78
84.5 80
84 79
94 82
89 80
98 93
88 87
87.5 86
-NO IMPACTS-
93.4 -
97.1 97
84
82 -
94
85
- -
70* -
84 79
82 84
83 78
75 68
79 73
79 79
-NO IMPACTS-
- -
-
_~ '
Remarks
Quieted truck
2000 rpm
300 rpi.i FPTO
3 measurement points
Li ft ing
Uses auxiliary engine
Pack 1
I measurement point (side)
(50 ft + 6 dB) Dump
1 measurement point (side)
(50 ft + 6 dB) Compact
50 ft + 6 dB
50 ft + 6 dB
50 ft + 6 dB
50 ft + 6 dB
50 ft + 6 dB
1 measurement point (side)
1 measurement point (side)
1 measurement point (side)
"Conventional" * (see note)
'Silencer" * (see note)
F lywheet PTO
Includes Overhead measurement
(5 points total)
Transmission PTO
Includes (includes overhead n,easurement
-5 poi nts tota 1 )
Flywheel PTO
Includes (includes overhead measurement
5 points total)
Flywheel PTO (cushions)
Front PTO (includes
overhead measurement
5 points total)
Front PTO (includes
overhead 'measurement
5 poi nts tota 1 )
(lOm + 3 dB)
Packing
Fject ing
3 measurement points
3 mcdsurcnien t puints
*NOTE: These measurements were made at a single measurement point with a Type 2 meter under inadequately controlled
conditions, primarily to show the difference between "convent ionol" and "sileno.-d" configurations in a staqi'd
demonstration. Consequently, th<, levels measured arc not believed to be reliable, and the data are not In-
cluded in the -jtatistical analysis.
3-2
-------
Figures 3-1 through 3-4 show histograms of the measured noise levels
in each category. Both the maximum steady level and the maximum impulse
levels are shown. The energy average around the truck is employed whenever
it is available. Figure 3-1 is a histogram for all of the trucks measured
and Figures 3-2 and 3-3 are histograms for the rear and front loaders,
respectively.
Table 3-2 summarizes these various noise measurements in terms of the
mean level and its standard deviation for each type of truck. Front loaders
appear to be noisier than rear loaders on both steady levels and impacts.
This is probably due to the lack of speed control of the engine and the
banging of the container on the arms of the loader. Side loaders appear to be
quieter than rear loaders, but the sample of side loaders measured is too
small to make this conclusion firm.
Since certain of the compactor trucks measured had some degree of noise
control treatment, it is informative to separate the sound level data out in
terms of "conventional" and "quieted" units. As there appears to be a dif-
ference in the sound emissions between gasoline-powered and diesel-powered
vehicles, it also is instructive to categorize the sound level data to show
this difference. This is done in Table 3-3, which lists the mean values of
the compactor truck sound levels of the various types of compactor, sub-
categorized into "conventional" and "quieted" units, and also-classed in terms
of diesel or gasoline-powered units.
TIME HISTORIES
Typical time histories of the three types of compactors are shown in
Figures 3-4 through 3-6.
3-3
-------
T r
12
< 10
on
UJ
LTV
CO
I 6
(£.
o:
UJ
CQ
60
27 TRUCKS
I
I
70 80 90 100
MAXIMUM STEADY LEVEL AT 7m (dBA)
110
Figure 3-la. HISTOGRAM OF ALL TRUCKS
3-4
-------
10
<
CO
UTV
oi
LU
CO
60
1
21 TRUCKS
I
70 80 90 100
PEAK IMPULSE LEVEL (dBA)
110
Figure 3-lb. HISTOGRAM CF ALL TRUCKS
3-5
-------
10
>
(£.
LA
<
z.
CO
o
^
C£.
C£.
UJ
CO
60
18 TRUCKS
1
I
70 80 90 100
MAXIMUM STEADY LEVEL AT 1m (dBA)
110
1
I
1
1
TRUCKS
I
I
I
60 70 80 90 100
MAXIMUM IMPULSE LEVEL AT 7m (dBA)
Figure 3-2. HISTCGRAM OF REAR IDADERS
3-6
110
-------
10
I I
7 TRUCKS
<£
O
O
C£.
LJ
00
:D
60
I
I
70 80 90 100
MAXIMUM STEADY LEVEL AT 7m (dBA)
I
I
T
6 TRUCKS
no
I
60 70 80 90 100
MAXIMUM IMPULSE LEVEL AT 7m (dBA)
Figure 3-3. HISTOGRAM OF FRONT LOADERS
3-7
110
-------
Table 3-2. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL DATA
Compactor Type
All Vehicles
Rear Loaders
Front Loaders
Side Loaders
Mean
Standard
Deviation
All Vehicles
Rear Loaders
Front Loaders
Side Loaders
Maximum Steady Level (dBA at 7 m)
79.0 4.56
78.3 4.38
81.9 4.49
75.8
Maximum Impulse Level (dBA at 7 m)
85.9 5.86
85.4 5.1
87.2 8.1
84
Number of
Vehicles
27
18
7
2
21
14
6
1
3-8
-------
Table 3-3. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL DATA BY VEHICLE CATEGORY
Category
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Front Loader
Front Loader
Side Loader
Side Loader
Gasoline-Powered
Gasoline-Powered
Diesel- Powered
Diesel-Powered
Conventional £
or Quieted
Conventional
Quieted
Conventional
Quieted
Conventional
Quieted
Unquieted
Quieted
Unquieted
Quieted
Mean Standard
Sound Level Deviation
dBA dBA
80.0 4.0
74.0 0.7
83.2 3.1
74.0
77.5
74.0
78.5 3.7
74.0 0.6
82.7 3.1
74.. 0
Number of
Samples
13
5
6
1
1
1
9
6
11
1
3-9
-------
Figure 3-4 shows the time history of a rear-loader. The time history
of a rear loader has typically three phases corresponding to different func-
tions during the cycle. There is typically an impact at the end of each phase
due to the bottoming of the hydraulic cylinders.
The time history of a front loader in loading and compaction is displayed
in Figure 3-5. The noise level of a front loader is quite erratic during its
loading cycle, due to the variations in engine speed. There are numerous
impulses due to the banging of the container and closing of the cover during
the dump portion of the cycle. Fewer peaks occur during the compaction
phase.
In Figure 3-6, which depicts an operational passby of a side loader,
various noise events can be distinguished. There is the noise of the truck as
it arrives, the squeal of its brakes as they are applied, the shouts of the
crew between each other, the banging of the garbage cans or containers, the
actual compaction of the garbage by the trucks, the bursting of bottles or the
breaking of items as they are compacted, release of the air pressure of the
truck's brake air reservoir and, again noise from the truck as it moves off.
All these many different noises are part of the refuse collection process.
The noise of major concern in this study is that due to the compaction by the
garbage truck itself. This noise is believed to be controllable by Federal
regulations of the source, whereas the other sources are not susceptible to
Federal regulatory control.
The truck whose time history is shown in Fig. 3-6 was a quieted one with
the engine governed at 900 rpm. The truck was also equipped with a front
power takeoff and was powered by a 6-cylinder diesel engine.
3-10
-------
80
70
r.
o 60
u
X 80
D
i
70
I
T
h
\'f
t
1
\
\
M
V.
'1
I'l
fa
"'i
RIG
»0£
,
,/ft
tf
HT
5EC
' i
i
JV
l^
i
.1
^ip
V
11
60
N
an
FRONT
H
i
/
i
-------
10
o.
o-l
3
O
I i !
.U.J.J.
ii|[!!;
lil
liil
i
1 .
! I !
in
o
in
in
in
s
o
CJ
QJ
in
o
vo
-------
is
a
en
(0
g
t
w
J?
ft
1
OJ
Q31H9I3/A
3-13
-V
-------
The scenario consists of the truck driving up (80 dBA) and applying its
brakes, producing a squeal (82-85 dBA). The truck is left idling (75 dBA)
while it is being loaded. There are impacts from the loading of the garbage
cans (80 dBA metal and 77 dBA plastic). The side loading compactor is cycled
(75 dBA) and the air brakes are released (87-90 dBA). Finally, the truck
moves off (80 dBA peak).
NOISE SOURCES
Component Sound Levels
EPA considered in great detail the diagnosis of noise sources of a rear-
loading solid waste compactor truck. The noise sources considered were:
(1) Truck Chassis,
(2) Transmission power take-off,
(3) Hydraulic pump, and
(4) Compactor body when isolated from the chassis.
Table 3-4 details the measured noise levels of each of these components.
This particular truck was not a standard one but had had some noise control
treatment incorporated. The chassis had a better than standard muffler
installed, the truck cycled at an engine speed of 1050 rpm and electric
switches were used to reverse the hydraulic cylinders, rather than allowing
them to bottom. The interesting point was that very little noise came from
the compactor body itself. No significant noise came from the hydraulic lines,
valves, or moving parts on the body. Most of the noise came from the chassis
power takeoff and some from the hydraulic pump.
The chassis and power takeoff noise were found to be very much speed
dependent. Figure 3-7 shows the variation of noise with speed of the chassis
3-14
-------
Table 3-4. NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS
SPL (dBA at 7m)
Chassis
j^TO
Pump
Body*
Total
Righ-;
64
73.5
64
<65
76
Left
64.5
72.5
62
<60
75
'Front
63
72
58
<65
72.5
Rear
63
68
61
<65
70
Energy
Average
64
72
62
74
*Noise levels dominated by PTO over 100 ft away.
3-15
-------
90
80
CQ
X3
< 70
_J
CL
CO
60
6 dB/OCTAVE
PTO ENGAGED
o
o CHASSIS ALONE
1000
16OO
RPM
2COO
Figure 3-7. Truck Chassis and PTO Noise
3-16
-------
and power takeoff individually. Many trucks cycle at engine speeds up to 1800
rpm and it can be seen from this figure that a substantial noise reduction can
be achieved by reducing the truck engine speed while it is cycling.
Figure 3-8 shows the various spectral contributions from these noise
sources. The low frequency noise comes from the engine. The hydraulic pump
generates two pure tones at 125 and 250 Hz. The high frequency noise is due
entirely to the transmission power takeoff which both radiates sound directly
and through vibrations in the chassis frame.
Truck Chassis Noise
It is clear from the previous section that the overall noise from a solid
waste compactor truck is very much a function of the noise from the chassis
itself. The noise level generated by the chassis is a function of both the
engine rpm and the degree of quieting of the chassis. EPA has issued a regula-
tion setting a not-to-exceed noise level of chassis; clearly the overall noise
level of the solid waste compactor truck will be a function of this regulation
noise level. The EPA truck noise regulation provides a measurement procedure
in which the chassis noise is measured at a distance of 50 feet, at full power
and maximum rpm in accordance with the SAE test J 366b. Clearly, under these
conditions the chassis will generate much more noise than when it is cycling
and generating only a small fraction of its rated horsepower. EPA analysts
have reviewed this difference in noise level and predicted the chassis noise
as a function of both engine rpm and the EPA regulation. Figure 3-9 predicts
the noise levels of seven chassis as a function of engine rpm based on a
regulation level of 80 dBA as measured by SAE test J 366b. Similar plots
can be made for other levels of regulation. Clearly, substantial reductions
in noise can be achieved by lowering the engine rpm during cycling.
3-17
-------
M
re
O
^£T
LJ
13
O
LiJ
cn
u_
o:
UJ
z:
LU
O
Q
z:
<
CO
O
o
IE
UJ
-z.
O
4J
(0
I
CO
0)
H
(/}
g
H
§
T
CO
s
(VCP)13A31 3y
Q.NinOS 3AV100 Ob'iHl 3NO Q31JLH9I3A\-V
3-18
-------
< QO
£D 3U
XJ
E
H-
4:1 80
LJ
LJ
liJ
7O
0 70
r
<_
L
L
1
lor
C 0 TRUCK
Q 3 TRUCK
A -A TRUCK
TRUCK
A -A TRUCK
c a TRUCK
r- i nA^ni i
_^ A-tf*-
'"^""^^L-^J
: "-"
!
in Tjc.n
1
2
3
5
4
6
MF TRUCK 7
^-^-::
fli;S^---====;
Z^- - "
i
T;nn IT
"
*
0 -
4
rj
cin
ENGINE SPEED (rpm)
Figure 3-9a. Noise Levels of Unregulated Chassis
§ 80
X)
e
j-
70
LU
LJ
LJ
to
O GO
2
-O TRUCK 1
O TRUCK 2
TRUCK 4
TRUCK 5
TRUCK 3
A TRUCK 6
-3 GASOL: T
TRUCK 7
1000 1250 1500
ENGINE SPEED (rpm)
1750
Figure 3-9b. Noise Levels of Chassis Regulated to 80 dBA
Under Test SAE J 366b
3-19
-------
SAN FRANCISCO NOISE DATA
Noise measurements have been reported on solid waste compactor trucks
operating in the city of San Francisco (Ref 3-1). One hundred and fifty-two
noise measurements, listed in Exhibit 3-1, were made on compaction vehicles
operating in the streets of the city rather than under the controlled con-
ditions of the methodology used in the EPA measurements. Table 3-5 summarizes
the statistical data for two scavenger fleets.
Since San Francisco contains a considerable amount of row housing, a
reverberant build-up of noise can take place on the narrow streets. The noise
measurements were made at a distance of 50 ft from the rear of the truck.
Elsewhere in this report, the noise data presented are based on measurements
made at 7 meters (about 23 ft.). Finally, the trucks measured by the city of
San Francisco were measured while compacting garbage and this may contribute
some noise to the measurements. For the foregoing reasons, the San Francisco
measurements show significantly higher sound levels (when corrected by 6dB to
account for the greater distance of the measurement point from the vehicle)
than those tested and reported in Table 3-1.
Table 3-6 compares the noise levels of six trucks measured both by EPA
investigators and by San Francisco. Again, it is seen that the noise levels
measured by the city of San Francisco for the maximum steady level are generally
as high as or higher than the EPA levels, even though the San Francisco levels
were measured twice as far from the truck. The agreement is much better for
the maximum impulse levels which, because of their short duration, would not
experience significant reverberant build-up.
3-20
-------
Table 3-5. SUMMARY OF SAN FRANCISCO NOISE MEASUREMENTS
(Measured 50 ft. to Rear of Compactor Vehicle)
Fleet Max Steady Compacting
Sound Level Std
dBA Deviation
A 75.35 0.51
B 78.57 0.36
"Crushing Spikes"
Average of 3 highest peaks No.
Sound Level Std of
dBA Deviation Vehicles
78.32
81.08
0.32
0.32
57
95
3-21
-------
Table 3-6. NOISE LEVELS OF SAN FRANCISCO COMPACTOR TRUCKS
Operator
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Golden Gate
Golden Gate
Truck
No.
EPA 23 ft to rear
Max Max
Steady
Impulse
City of San Francisco
In Street 50 ft
Max
Steady
Max
Impulse
29A
21A
51A
29
1
73
76.5
74
75.5
76
72
88
85
86
78.5
82
80
77
78
74
/80
\82
73
« »
81
81
79
83 \
86 /
78
_«
3-22
-------
SOUND LEVEL DEGRADATION
There are two general causes of degradation: (1) changes in the noise
emitted by individual components; and (2) changes in noise abatement perfor-
mance of noise treatments.
Tne sources of noise from waste compactors are listed in Table 3-7. They
comprise the truck chassis (engine casing, exhaust and fan), power takeoff
(PTO) and hydraulic pump, all of which may be subject to degradation. In
discussing waste compactor noise degradation, we include the noise treatments
applied to the truck chassis in order to comply with the EPA noise emission
regulations on new medium and heavy trucks as noise sources rather than as
noise treatments.
Tne noise emissions from the two International Harvester DOT Quiet Trucks
that had initial noise levels of approximately 80 dBA (low enough to comply
with the 83-dBA regulatory level) increased by about 1 dBA from the initial
levels during the approximately 150,000 miles of use (Ref. 3-2). Truck diesel
engines are warranteed for 50,000 miles or 24 months on parts and labor, and
for 10,000 miles or 24 months on parts (Ref. 3-3). Truck gasoline engine
warrantee periods are half of the periods for diesel engines (Ref. 3-3). Waste
compactor truck diesel engines are overhauled approximately every 150,000
miles (Ref. 3-4). Gasoline engines probably have a shorter average period
between overhauls of between 80,000 and 100,000 miles. Itowever, because the
noise level from chassis equipped with gasoline engines is lower, the shorter
life and thus greater degradation of gasoline engines is probably less of a
factor than chassis with diesel engines. Department of Commerce data indicate
an overall average annual mileage of 12,200 miles for all Compactor Vehicles.
3-23
-------
r-
n
" 1
S5
|oE
!,_ C 0
.,, (0 C
£ -^
"SS
o 3
"Set;
r- aj ^
s|£
** 0)
o in ^
"*- 5 g
a ^: ^
QJ -r- S_
QJ r o ai
U J3 2= C-J
'- "i en
O -~ O O)
CO ry O
> i_
CO
c
O
ra cr 4~>
Q QJ fti
l» -T!l CT.
O fO QJ
QJ -r-
Q. ra QJ
>, > °
o cu ^ is Tt
u on ^ a Jr^
*" * (U
o;
a)
o
"i
o
ty)
at
--"
I
I
o
a)
a
H
00
c
CJ
QJ T3
D a
G CO
al
U 0
S-i W] U
H w ^i n
>j l-M O<
-H 1-1 ^1 U
3 Vi (U O 0)
C.-" O C rH cj i-i
O ^ C 3 O 3
. . -
(U
CJ J-J rH
J rH C 3
Vj W 3 rt 4-4
3 T3 OJ ft) »y
o1 r-^ c oj c n
ca H r-.
^-
H
tn
r' in AJ
o :) r:
l(. ^^ f,r- fj
'-j x .: o
) lit 111 i-lH
t- . . *
I
I
0
W >>
C rH
W O
a-) ,d W H
LJ O PJ
CU iH
CJ 3 4J rH
a C QJ
rH O O QJ
a' jx 4-4 3
Pi
o
u
Q.
e
o
o
0
0 J^
U (1)
V) Ul
r] 3
V.
a
U-l
H
O 4-> OJ O
-O 0 rH t-1
to a^
3 t; rH W
,C1 H rt t/1 U)
r-< Q) rH
«. U OJ iH -iH
Wl O > C Pj
QJ C O 3 U-(
1
<^>
v^
CQ
o
I
'U
h-"
J-j
b o
1
1
1
OJ
r:
^p
o
CJ
ex
u
tn
a i-i
w en
rj 3
^
QJ
rH CJ
d co
a w
tn «
Q)
t: -H e
-J rH 3
Cu P-i
'
W
OJ
T)
^
TJ
^O
CN
cd
T)
OO
t
n.
c
n-
3-24
-------
Discussions with trash collection service operators indicate that vehicles
used in residential operations (rear loaders and side loaders) may be driven
less than 10,000 miles per year. Front loaders used in commercial trash
pickup service, are driven greater distances, perhaps 15,000-25,000 miles
per year. These vehicles therefore may be driven 5 to 6 years or more before
first overhaul.
Exhaust mufflers are another source of chassis noise degradation. In
general, exhaust mufflers on trucks have an average life longer than engines,
many lasting longer than five years (Ref.3-5). Therefore, it appears that
over the first 50,000 to 75,000 miles of use, the chassis noise from waste
compactors equipped with gasoline or diesel engines will not degrade signifi-
cantly. Replacing the transmission PTO with a flywheel or front PTO reduces
the noise from the PTO to insignificant levels, so that the degradation of the
PTO can be ignored. When the engine speed is reduced to comply with the
proposed regulations on waste compactors, the noise from the pump is also
reduced to an insignificant level; more than 10 dBA below the chassis noise
level (see Table 3-7). Thus, the pump degradation can also be ignored.
The noise treatments of reducing the engine speed and replacing the
transmission PTO with a front or flywheel PTO are not expected to significantly
alter degradation of compactor noise. In fact, the reduction in engine speed
will probably reduce engine wear and, therefore, decrease engine noise degra-
dation. Also, since alignment of gears will probably be better for front or
flywheel PTOs than for transmission PTOs, gear wear should be less and, there-
fore, PTO noise degradation less. Therefore, the chassis noise degradation
will probably dominate waste compactor noise degradation.
3-25
-------
Waste Compactors on 80 dBA-Regulated Chassis
During normal use, the two International Harvester DOT Quiet Trucks that
had noise levels of approximately 78 dBA (low enough to comply with the 80-dBA
regulatory level) demonstrated reductions in their initial noise levels over
an average mileage of 90,000 miles.
With an 80-dBA chassis, the chassis noise is reduced to a level where the
noise from the hydraulic pump will be a factor in the overall computer noise
degradation. Otherwise, as discussed for compactors mounted on 830-dBA chassis,
the PTO noise degradation and the degradation of noise treatments can be
ignored. Pumps are warranteed for six months by the Heil Company, and, in
general, last from one to two years during normal use (Ref. 3-6).
3-26
-------
REFERENCES
3-1. Noise Control/Technology for Speciality Trucks (Solid Waste Compactors),
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., BBN Draft Report 3249, February 1976.
3-2. J.T. Shroder, "Field Test Results on a Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Having
Reduced Noise Emissions," Truck Noise IV-G Report No. DOT-TST-76-42,
December 1975.
3-3. Telephone conversation on 24 May 1977 between C. Burroughs of BBN and
Chris Kouts of EPA/ONAC.
3-4. Telephone conversation between Fred Mintz of EPA/ONAC and Allen Berger
of Browning-Ferris Industries.
3-5. Gene E. Fax and Michael C. Kaye, "The Economics of Quieting the Freight-
liner Cab-Over-Engine Diesel Truck," Truck Noise III-D, Report No.
DOT-TST-75-22, October 1974.
3-6. Telephone conversation on 22 June 1977 between C. Burroughs of BBN and
John Waite of Heil Company.
3-27
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1. NOISE EMISSION TESTS MADE ON SAN FRANCISCO CITY TRASH TRUCKS
Vehicle Ho. Compacting (dBA) Crushing _Spi kes ,(dB_A_)_
39 80.0 85.0 81.0 81.0
5-3 73.0 75.0 7G.O 75.0
5-8 69.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
5 86.0 87.0 88.0 88.0
35 71.0 72.0 74.0 75.0
36 73.0 73.0 74.0 75.0
40 74.0 79.0 80.0 81.0
41 76.0 79.0 80.0 80.0
42 70.0 72.0 72.0 76.0
43 75.0 75.0 77.0 77.0
44 74.0 74.0 75.0 81.0
4tf 71.0 72.0 74.0 77.0
48 75.0 83.0 84.0 85.0
23 75.0 81.0 82.0 83.0
23 75.0 75.0 76.0 81.0
24 76.0 78.0 77.0 83.0
25 78.0 80.0 82.0 85.0
27 78.0 79.0 80.0 80.0
26 72.0 73.0 78.0 80.0
27 78.0 79.0 79.0 80.0
28 76.0 76.0 76.0 77.0
29 73.0 74.0 76.0 78.0
3147 75.0 75.0 78.0 81.0
32 78.0 79.0 82.0 84.0
33 82.0 86.0' 86.0 89.0
10 75.0 77.0 78.0 78.0
12 77.0 82.0 82.0 83.0
11 71.0 75.0 75.0 78.0
14 73.0 73.0 73.0 75.0
15 73.0 73.0 73.0 74.0
169 74.0 75.0 76.0 77.0
169 75.0 78.0 79.0 79.0
1720 73.0 73.0 75.0 81.0
1720 73.0 76.0 76.0 77.0
1720 71.0 71.0 74.0 75.0
1830 75.0 75.0 75.0 79.0
19 75.0 77.0 81.0 84.0
20 70.0 73.0 74.0 73.0
21 72.0 76.0 76.0 78.0
21 74.0 76.0 76.0 81.0
22 73.0 74.0 80.0 85.0
F2 86.0 87.0 87.0 88.0
F5 77.0 78.0 79.0 80.0
2 79.0 79.0 80.0 80.0
411 77.0 78.0 78.0 80.0
X4 74.0 75.0 76.0 77.0
P4 77.0 78.0 80.0 80.0
411 83.0 83.0 84.0 86.0
411 76.0 76.0 76.0 77.0
X5 75.0 75.0 77.0 77.0
6 73.0 78.0 79.0 82.0
7 79.0 80.0 81.0 83.0
X7 83.0 83.0 84.0 85.0
X8 C7.0 68.0 70.0 71.0
8 79.0 80.0 82.0 84.0
9 77.0 77.0 78.0 79.0
10 77.0 79.0 79.0 80.0
3-28
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1 (Cont.)
Vehicle No. Compacting (dBA) Crushing Spikes (dBA)
698 78.0 78.0 79.0 81.0
70A 76.0 75.0 77.0 78.0
72A 75.0 79.0 82.0 83.0
74A 81.0 81.0 82.0 84.0
74A 81.0 85.0 85.0 86.0
75A 78.0 80.0 81.0 81.0
75A 79.0 79.0 80.0 82.0
76A 80.0 80.0 80.0 83.0
49A 79.0 79.0 80.0 80.0
78A 79.0 81.0 81.0 81.0
79A 78.0 79.0 79.0 79.0
79A 77.0 78.0 77.0 77.0
71A 86.0 87.0 87.0 89.0
73A 78.0 79.0 80.0 87.0
78A 82.0 82.0 82.0 83.0
F4 85.0 85.0 85.0 86.0
63A 80.0 81.0 82.0 82.0
63A 80.0 8C.O 82.0 83.0
67A 73.0 76.0 77.0 79.0
68A 78.0 79.0 84.0 85.0
68A 80.0 83.0 84.0 85.0
57A 77.0 78.0 79.0 80.0
58A 82.0 82.0 84.0 85.0
59A 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0
60 75.0 76.0 76.0 77.0
61A 79.0 80.0 81.0 83.0
62A 77.0 80.0 82.0 88.0
62A 73.0 73.0 75.0 75.0
64A 76.0 80.0 81.0 81.0
64A 78.0 79.0 79.0 80.0
65A 84.0 84.0 85.0 86.0
66A 83.0 86.0 86.0 87.0
68A 75.0 78.0 79.0 79.0
3s) A 80.0 83.0 85.0 85.0
40A 87.0 90.0 90.0 90.0
41A 80.0 83.0 84.0 86.0
42A 78.0 78.0 82.0 83.0
43A 77.0 80.0 81.0 81.0
44A 80.0 80.0 82.0 84.0
45A 75.0 77.0 78.0 80.0
46A 88.0 94.0 96.0 97.0
47A 79.0 83.0 85.0 87.0
48A 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0
49A 77.0 81.0 81.0 81.0
51A 82.0 84.0 85.0 86.0
52A 82.0 83.0 84.0 85.0
54A 80.0 80.0 82.0 82.0
55A 79.0 82.0 82.0 85.0
56A 80.0 83.0 87.0 86.0
53A 82.0 82.0 83.0 83.0
3-29
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1 (Cont.J
Vehi cle No. Compacting (dHA) Crushing Spikes (dBA)
51A 80.0 80.0 83.0 83.0
34A 81.0 84.0 T5.0 88.0
WD 75.0 81.0 83.0 83.0
2A 74.0 74.0 78.0 79.0
X2 79.0 79.0 79.0 80.0
3A 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0
4A 75.0 77.0 77.0 77.0
4A 75.0 77.0 78.0 79.0
5A 78.0 79.0 82.0 81.0
X6A 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0
15A 75.0 75.0 75.0 76.0
16A 80.0 82.0 84.0 84.0
17A 80.0 80.0 82.0 88.0
ISA 82.0 84.0 84.0 85.0
19A 79.0 83.0 84.0 84.0
19A 81.0 ai.O 8?.0 82.0
20A 86.0 87.0 8/.0 87.0
21A 74.0 78.0 78.0 79.0
22A 80.0 81.0 81.0 81.0
23A 82.0 82.0 84.0 87.0
24A 84.0 85.0 86.0 86.0
28A 75.0 78.0 79.0 80.0
27A 76.0 77.0 79.0 80.0
27A 79.0 80.0 81.0 82.0
29A 78.0 79.0 79.0 81.0
30A 78.0 78.0 79.0 80.0
32A 78.0 78.0 79.0 80.0
34A 77.0 79.0 79.0 79.0
36A 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0
9A 80.0 80.0 80.0 81.0
38A 82.0 82.0 83.0 83.0
37A 80.0 82.0 83.0 88.0
37A 81.0 83.0 83.0 83.0
38A 77.0 77.0 77.0 bO.O
14A 75.0 78.0 80.0 82.0
13A 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0
12A 71.0 72.0 72.0 74.0
11A 67.0 72.0 73.0 74.0
10A 77.0 79.0 80.0 82.0
8A 68.0 70.0 71.0 71.0
X7A 79.0 79.0 79.0 82.0
X7A 78.0 80.0 82.0 82.0
X7A 80.0 83.0 84.0 89.0
7A 75.0 78.0 78.0 78.0
X6A 81.0 80.0 81.0 83.0
3-30
-------
SECTION 4
MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A noise measurement methodology is essentially an easily-conducted,
repeatable procedure for acquiring data that correlate well with noise
generated under service conditions. In this section, we discuss each of
these factors as a basis for developing a measurement methodology.
Perhaps the most important feature of a measurement methodology is its
correlation with environmental impact. It is not necessary that levels
acquired in a standardized way are identical to those observed under ordinary
operating conditions. What is important is that standardized data enable one
to predict environmental levels. The consequences of inadequate correlation
are less than expected environmental protection in certain cases and inefficient
allocation of noise-abatement resources in others. As illustrated in Figure
4-1, the lines corresponding to the desired level of environmental control
and the not-to-exceed regulated level divide the sources into four categories.
In Category I the sources have passed the standard test and therefore would
not be controlled further, but are still environmentally objectionable.
Those in Category II fail the test and are environmentally objectionable.
However, one may presume that some of these will be quieted to the point
where they pass the test but are still environmentally objectionable; others
will be quieted at some needless expense beyond the point where they are
of concern. Similarly, all sources in Category III will be quieted need-
lessly. Category IV sources will appropriately not be quieted.
4-1
-------
In practice, the shortcomings of standard test procedures are inevi-
table, but may be minimized. Figures 4-la and 4-lb contrast test procedures
that correlate poorly and well with environmental levels. Ihe problems
associated with procedures that correlate poorly are inevitably worse that
those that correlate well. Our objective will be to develop a standard
measurement procedure that correlates well with environmental levels, con-
sistent with other test requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL.
LEVEL
3ESIRED
LEVEL OF
ENVIRON.
CONTROL
ENVIRONMENTAL
LEVEL
A
nr
m
(a)
REG.
LEVEL
TEST
STD
LEVEL
(b)
Figure 4-1. Illustration of Test Standards That Correlate (a) Poorly
and (b) Well With Environmental Levels.
Ease of performance is a second factor that must be carefully evalu-
ated in developing a measurement methodology. The methodology should be
readily performed by manufacturers to facilitate the many tests required
during usual developmental phases. Undoubtedly, manufacturers will wish
to test at least a sample of products prior to introducing them into com-
merce. Also, the methodology should be easily performed by enforcement
4-2
-------
personnel who may test at a manufacturer's facility and/or at a special test
site.
Finally, repeatability is of obvious desirability. A test which is
nonrepeatable is invariably corrupted by random, or at least unknown, factors.
To be meaningful, such tests must be conducted many times in order to obtain
a statistical characterization. Such a procedure can increase the cost and
effort of testing by an order of magnitude and must therefore be avoided.
NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Before proceeding to specific requirements, it is useful to consider the
noise profile of a solid waste compactor. Figure 4-2 shows a time history of
the A-weighted level measured 50 ft. to the left side of a front loader. The
first part of the trace is measured during the dump cycle, the second during
a sweep cycle. There are two noteworthy features of the data in Figure 4-1.
First, there are a number of very noticeable impacts, which for this unit
correspond primarily to container impacts. For other units, especially rear
loaders, hydraulic actuators generate similar impacts. Secondly, the quasi-
steady level between impacts varies with time. This level is dominated by
engine noise, which depends on the speed that is controlled by the driver.
Thus, we see that a reasonable method for characterizing impacts must be
established as well as a technique for specifying engine operating conditions
or cycle time.
4-3
-------
o
cu
<+-
QJ
_l
«3
0)
r0
fa
s
0)
s
0
M
0)
O
>J
4-J
5 1T5
-------
Alternative Measurement Methodologies
Measurement methodologies comprise three parts: (1) specification of
operating conditions, (2) establishment of measurement criteria (e.g.,
whether to use A-weighting, B-weighting, etc.,) and (3) test site and instru-
mentation specification.
Operating Conditions
Itoo primary factors of concern are the specification of compactor load
and of engine speed for engines which are not equipped with mechanical speed
control devices.
Compactor Load
A decision must be made as to what load will be placed in the hopper of
the compactor truck when its noise is being measured. Suggestions have been
made that a standard load should be used. This load could consist of paper,
garbage or bottles. However, any such load will inevitably vary from one
sample to another and not be reproducible. The sample could not even be used
twice in the same truck since it would change on being compacted the first
time. Accordingly, the only reproducible load that could be devised would be
no load. Although an empty hopper does not precisely simulate actual loads,
it does provide a constant baseline against which all trucks can be compared.
Engine Speed Control
It is desirable to make some provision for specification of engine speed
for trucks, such as front loaders, which are not normally equipped with
engine speed control devices. At least three possible approaches for doing
this are:
specifying an engine rpm in the regulation
4-5
-------
requiring that the dump or compaction cycle be performed within
the time published in manufacturer's advertisements
specifying the operation of the engine at maximum allowable engine
or dump rpm, whichever is lower
It does not seem appropriate to specify a fixed engine rpm. Such a
specification would be a counter-productive constraint on manufacturers who
wish to achieve noise control without compromising performance by minimizing
engine speeds and using high capacity pumps.
The second approach, requiring that operational cycle times conform to
advertised values, has some merit. However, the obvious problems are that, on
one hand, cycle times are not advertised for all vehicles and therefore would
not be regulated; on the other hand, manufacturers might cease such advertise-
ment if it led to excessive noise control problems.
The third technique, specifying operation at the maximum speed allowed by
the manufacturer, also has positive and negative attributes. It could be
argued that engines or pumps are rarely operated at maximum allowed speeds.
However, compactor operators are motivated to operate dump and compaction
cycles as quickly as possible to minimize the route-collection time. In fact,
there have been cases of operators changing engine speed control settings for
this purpose. Furthermore, testing at maximum allowable speed is consistent
with many industry practices. SAE test procedures typically specify maximum
acceleration/maximum speed conditions. Therefore, we conclude that compactors
without mechanical speed controls should be tested at the maximum engine or
pump rpm allowed by the manufacturer.
4-6
-------
Measurement Criteria
As indicated under Noise Characteristics, the key measurement problems
relate to characterization of steady and impulsive noise levels, the number of
microphone locations required, and means to combine levels acquired at various
locations.
Steady Levels
The major question concerning steady levels is which scale should be used.
Although many scales (A,B,C, etc.) have been proposed and are often available
on sound level meters, the A-^weighting scale has achieved overwhelming accep-
tance. The A-scale has been used exclusively by EPA for evaluation of impact
and for regulation of all non-aircraft sources of noise. Consequently the use
of A-weighting for compactor measurements appears most suitable.
Measurement of Impulse Noise
An impulse noise is one which lasts for a very short time and is generally
associated with the impact of two components. The measurement of impulse
noise can present a severe problem since, if the response of the instrument
being used to measure the impulse is not fast enough, the true peak reading
will not be obtained. ANSI, in the standard, ANSI.4-1971, Specification for
Sound Level Meters, describes two speeds of response for sound level
meters: on the "fast" response the meter must read 0-2 dB below the steady
reading when a pulse of 0.2 seconds is applied; on the "slow" response the
meter must read 3-5 dB below the steady reading when a pulse of 0.5 seconds is
applied. These speeds correspond to averaging times of 0.125 seconds and 1.0
seconds, respectively. The human hearing mechanism itself also has a finite
response time to an impulsive sound.
4-7
-------
Authors differ as to the duration of this response time, and many authors
argue that it is the energy in the impulse which determines the human response.
Meter response of 0.125 second yields impulse results that correspond well to
the "true" impulse of compaction sounds (Ref. 4-1). When the sound is tape
recorded, however, and played back into a graphic level recorder (GLR), the
response of the recorder is specified in terms of the maximum writing speed of
the pen. The response time of the pen then depends on the magnitude of tlte
impulse, being slower for larger impulses. Bruel and Kjaer (Technical Review
No. 1, 1974) do suggest a correlation between averaging time and writing
speed, providing the impulses are not too large (6-8 dB). A 0.125 sec (SIM
fast) averaging time corresponds to a writing speed of 8 mm/sec (3.15 ins/sec)
on paper 50 mm (2 ins) wide. Similarly, an averaging time of 1.0 sec corres-
ponds to a writing speed of 10 mm/sec (0.4 ins/sec) on paper 50 mm (2 ins)
wide and 20 mm/sec (0.8 ins/sec) on paper 100 mm (4 ins) wide.
If one is interested in measuring the levels of impulse noise, then the
fast meter response or writing speeds of 80 or 160 mm/sec (3.15 or 6.3 ins/sec)
should be used. If a slow meter response is used, the true peak level of the
impulse will not be observed. However, the meter response will be related to
the energy in the impulse, averaged over the 1.0 sec time constant of the
meter.
Microphone Locations
Gompacting-vehicle machinery is often distributed around the vehicle
requiring noise measurements at various locatons. Drive train equipment
such as the engine and fan are located at the front. PTO's and pumps are on
the side, as are auxiliary power plants. Noise-producing hydraulic rams
4-8
-------
A microphone windscreen may be used provided that its effect on "A"
weighted sound level is negligible under zero wind velocity conditions for the
type of noise source being measured.
A stopwatch having an accuracy of better than one percent.
Test Site
The following test site requirements shall be considered the minimum
necessary to conduct effective measurements.
An approved test site shall consist of a level open space free of large
reflecting surfaces, such as parked vehicles, signboards, buildings, or
hillsides, located within 50 ft (15 meters) of either the vehicle or the
microphone.
One microphone shall be located 4 ft +1/2 ft (1.2 meters) above the
ground plane and 23 ft +1 ft (7 meters) from the mid-point of the surface of
the truck on the side on which the measurements are being made. Measurements
will be made at four microphone positions to the front, rear and each side of
the vehicle.
The measurement area shall, as a minimum, extend from the microphone to
the farthest extremity of the truck or trailer and be surfaced with concrete,
asphalt, or similar hard material, and shall be free of powdery snow, grass,
loose soil or ashes, or other sound-absorbing materials.
Test Procedure
The waste compaction equipment shall be operated with the vehicle
stationary.
Ohe vehicle engine will be started and allowed to reach its recommended
operating temperature. In addition, if the ambient temperature is below
4-10
-------
are at the rear of rear loaders. To account adequately for these distributed
sources, we have selected measurement at four locations at 90 degree intervals
around the vehicle.
Combining Noise Levels
The truck noise levels are measured on four sides; one then needs a single
number to describe the noise level of the truck. The quantity of concern is
the total impact of the noise on the community. This is best evaluated by
taking an energy average around all sides of the vehicle. The energy average
is obtained by averaging the antilogarithms of the levels on the four sides of
the truck and then taking the logarithm of the result.
EPA MEASUREMENT METHOD
Based on the foregoing considerations, the following measurement meth-
odology has been adopted.
Instrumentat ion
Tne following instrumentation shall be used, where applicable, for the
measurement required.
A precision sound level meter which meets the Type 1 requirement of
American National Standards Specification for Sound Level Meters, SI.4-1971.
As an alternative to making direct measurements using a sound level
meter, a microphone or sound level meter may be used with a magnetic tape
recorder and/or a graphic level recorder or indicating meter, providing the
system meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J184, Qualifying
a Sound Data Acquisition System.
A sound level calibrator with an accuracy of +0.5 dB.
4-9
-------
60°F, the compaction equipment will be operated for enough cycles to allow
the hydraulic oil and components to reach a stable operating temperature.
The compaction equipment shall be operated empty. Trucks which normally
load containers will be measured loading an empty container.
Ihe compaction equipment shall be operated in accordance with its normal
operating procedures. The truck engine will be operated at its speed which is
governed for the cycle or if there is no such speed, the maximum allowable
engine or pump speed, whichever is lower.
The waste compaction equipment shall be run through two complete com-
paction cycles for each noise measurement taken. If the readings differ by
more than 2 dBA, further readings will be taken until two agree within 2 dBA
and the average taken.
Ihe meter shall be set for "fast" response and on the "A"-weighted
network.
Truck Chassis Noise
For waste compaction equipment mounted on a chassis, the truck engine
will be operated at "solenoid speed" with the power takeoff not engaged. The
noise level will be recorded at this condition with the meter set for "fast"
response and "A"-weighting.
Waste Compaction Equipment Cycling Noise
The waste compaction equipment will be operated through its normal cycle.
The maximum noise level, ignoring any peaks due to impacts, will be recorded
with the meter set for "fast" response and "A"-weighting.
4-11
-------
Waste Compaction Equipment Impact Noise
The waste compaction equipment will be operated through its normal cycle.
The peak noise level due to impacts will be recorded with the meter set for
"fast" response and "A"-weighting.
Cycle Time of Waste Compaction Equipment
Ihe waste compaction equipment will be operated through its normal cycle.
The time from the beginning to the end of the cycle will be recorded.
Noise level measurements shall be taken at each of the four microphone
positions around the vehicle and the following data will be reported.
1. Truck chassis noise,
2. Maximum noise level at each location, ignoring impacts,
3. Maximum impact level,
4. The four-location energy average for each of the above three data
categories, computed according to the equation
L = 10 L 1, 10 V10 / - 6 dB
ec\ i=i /
where L- is the A-weighted sound level corresponding to the ith
truck orientation,
5. Cycle time.
General Comments
It is strongly recommended that persons technically trained and experi-
enced in the current techniques of sound measurement select the equipment and
conduct the tests.
4-12
-------
Proper use of all test instrumentation is essential to obtain valid
measurements. Operating manuals or other literature furnished by the instru-
ment manufacturer should be referred to for both recommended operaton of the
instruments and precautions to be observed. Specific items to be considered
are:
The effects of ambient weather conditions on the performance of all
instruments (for example, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure).
Proper signal levels, terminating impedances, and cable lengths on multi-
instrument measurement systems.
Proper acoustical calibration procedure, to include the influence of
extension cables, etc. Field calibration shall be made immediately before and
after each test sequence. Internal calibration means are acceptable for field
use, provided that external calibration is accomplished immediately before or
after field use.
Proper orientation of the microphone relative to the source of sound as
specified by the manufacturer.
Measurement shall be made only when wind speed is below 12 mph (19 Km/hr).
The ambient sound level (including wind effects) from sources other than
the vehicle being measured shall be at least 10 dBA lower than the level of
the tested vehicle.
Because bystanders have an appreciable influence on meter response when
they are in the vicinity of the vehicle or microphone, not more than one
person, other than the observer reading the meter, shall be within 50 ft
4-13
-------
(15 meters) of the vehicle or instrument, and that person shall be directly
behind the observer reading the meter, or on a line through the microphone and
the observer.
SUGGESTED REFERENCES
Suggested reference material is as follows:
ANS SI.1-1960 Acoustical Terminology.
ANS SI.2-1967 Physical Measurement of Sound.
ANS SI.2-1971 Specifications for Sound Level Meters.
SAE Recommended Practice J-184 - Qualifying a Sound Data Acquisition
System.
Applications for copies of these documents should be addressed to the
American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, New
York, 10018; or, The Society of Automotive Engineers, Incorporated, Two
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 10001.
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
There are a number of points in the methodology presented above which
need further explanation. A number of decisions have been made concerning
certain parameters in the methodology, and the reasons for these decisions
need to be enumerated.
Measurement Distance
Two measurement distances are commonly employed in the measurement of
noise from vehicles: the SAE generally adopts a 50 ft distance and the
European ISO adopts a 7 m (23 ft) distance. In this methodology, we have
selected the latter distance (7 m) for two reasons. First, a smaller measure-
ment site is required for the closer distance. Buildings and reflecting
surfaces need only be 50 ft away from the truck and microphone, whereas they
4-14
-------
need to be 100 ft away if a 50 ft measurement distance is employed. 9naller
sites are more readily available. Second, since the noise levels we are
concerned with measuring are not very high, there will be less interference
from ambient noise at a 7 m distance than at a 50 ft distance. Accordingly,
all noise measurements in this study are quoted for a distance of 7 m (23 ft).
Operaton of the Compactor Truck Empty
A decision had to be made as to what load will be placed in the hopper of
the compactor truck when its noise is being measured. Suggestions have been
made that a standard load should be used. This load could consist of paper,
garbage or bottles, However, any such load will inevitably vary from one
sample to another and not be reproducible. The sample could not even be used
twice in the same truck since it would change on being compacted the first
time. Accordingly, the only practical reproducible load that could be devised,
was no load. An empty hopper may not be a good simulation of actual loads,
but it does provide a constant baseline against which all trucks can be
compared. Also, one series of measurements made on compactors indicated an
average increase in noise of approximately 0.5 dB between empty and full load
conditions (Ref. 4-2).
Energy Average
The truck noise levels are measured on four sides. The SAE generally
takes the highest of the four levels measured and quotes that level. This is
appropriate if one is concerned with determining if there is an excessive
noise level in any direction. However, in this study, EPA is concerned with
the total impact of the noise on the community. This is best evaluated by
4-15
-------
taking an energy average around all sides of the vehicle. The energy average
is obtained by averaging the antilogs of the levels on the four sides of the
truck and then taking the log of the result. That is, if the four measure-
ments are L,, 1^, L^ and L^, the energy averaged level, L, is
[, L./10 L2/10 W10 IM/IO x 1
1/4 (10 + 10 * + 10 J +10 ) J ,
a result that is influenced more strongly by the highest levels measured at
individual microphone positions.
REFERENCES
4-1. Blomquist, Donald S. (National Bureau of Standards) letter to Fred
Mintz, EPA, dated March 23, 1977.
4-2. Mansbach, Peter A. (National Bureau of Standards) letter to Fred Mintz,
EPA, dated August 31, 1976.
4-16
-------
Section 5
EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTORS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has proposed noise emission regulations on newly manufactured
truck mounted trash compactor units. Tne proposed regulations specify levels
not to be exceeded as measured according to a specified test procedure, and
are intended to control compaction noise, including truck engine contributions.
Predictions of both costs and benefits involved are required as necessary
inputs to define the trade-offs among the various options for the regulatory
levels to be included in the final regulations. Presented in this analysis
are predictions of the potential health and welfare benefits of selected
noise control options that cover a range of possible regulatory programs of
new truck mounted trash compactors. Costs of compliance and economic impact
for different regulatory programs are presented in Section 7 of this document.
Because of inherent differences in individual responses to noise, the
wide range of situations and environments which relate to compactor noise
generation, and the complexity of the associated noise fields, it is not
possible to examine all situations precisely. Hence, in this predictive
analysis, certain stated assumptions have been made to approximate typical,or
average, situations. The approach taken to determine the benefits associated
with the noise regulation is therefore statistical, in that an effort is made
to determine the order of magnitude of the population that may be affected
for each regulatory option. Some uncertainties with respect to individual
cases or situations will remain.
5-1
-------
Measures of Benefits to Public Health and Welfare
The phrase "public health and welfare," as used here, includes personal
comfort and well-being as well as the absence of clinical symptoms such as
hearing damage. People are exposed to noise generated from trash compacting
operations most notably when inside their homes. Reducing noise related to
trash compaction activity may produce the following benefits:
1. Reduction in average urban noise levels and associated cumulative
long-term impact upon the exposed population.
2. Fewer activities, i.e., sleep and speech communication, disrupted
by individual noise events.
Predictions of noise levels under various regulatory schedules are
presented in terms of the noise levels associated with typical trash collec-
tion operations. The trash produced within a unit area of land will be
generated at a rate dependent upon population density and land use. The
collection and compaction of this trash is expressed on an amount-per-person-
per-day basis for the unit area. The number of noise-producing compaction
cycles is a function of this daily collection. The basic unit of area used is
the hectare (ha). This unit is about the size of a city block (175 x 600
feet for an oblong block or 330 x 330 feet for a square block).
Reductions in the average urban noise levels from current conditions
(i.e., with no compactor noise emission regulations) are presented for
comparison with reductions expected for the regulatory options on newly
manufactured truck mounted trash compactors. Projections of the population
impacted by compactor noise during the regulatory period are determined
from estimating reductions in the average noise levels of various types of
residential land use areas.
5-2
-------
However, measuring nationwide impact in terms of average urban noise
levels does not adequately account for extremely annoying situations arising
from a single trash compaction operation, since annoyance frequently depends
on the activity and location of the individual. In addition, measures of
average urban noise level tend to cancel out the disruptive and annoying peak
noise levels produced by individual trash compaction cycles. Additional
benefits are obtained by the reduction of current noise levels generated fro ,
a single compaction activity. These benefits are evaluated in terms of sleep
disturbance and speech interference at current noise emission levels and at
the reduced levels associated with the reduction of noise attributable to an
individual trash compaction cycle.
Regulatory Schedules
Predictions of the population impacted by noise related to trash collec-
tion activity are presented for the regulatory options shown in Table 5-1.
The base option assumes no specific noise regulation for compactors, and
hence the total reduction in noise impact is the result of the noise regula-
tions on medium and heavy duty trucks. Cptions 1, 3, 5, and 7 were selected
from a large list of options which was reduced to these final four, for
further study. In all cases, each compactor type is being regulated to the
same level. The Silent option is included for comparison purposes to
indicate the lower limit of noise reductions, and the impact of eliminating
compactor noise.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1
REGULATORY OPT IMS: NOT-TO-EXCEED
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS AT 7m
Compactor (all types)
Options*
Base
Option 1
Option 3
Option 5
Option 7
Silent
1979
u**
80
U**
U**
78
0
1982
U**
75
79
75
75
0
1985
U**
75
79
75
75
0
* In all cases, truck regulations are 83 dB(A) in 1978 and
80 dB(A) in 1982.
** U = unregulated.
5-4
-------
Outline of the Health and Welfare Section
A description of the existing trash compactor noise environment is
presented in the following section. The next section presents the predicted
reduction of the population impacted within various land uses due to the
reduction of average community noise levels by regulating truck-mounted trash
compactors. Following that, predictions of changes in sleep disturbance and
speech interference due to a single trash collection cycle are estimated for
each land use for the regulations under consideration.
TRASH COLLECTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
A single collection cycle is defined as a collector truck arriving at a
location, loading trash into the truck, compacting the trash, and finally,
the truck pulling away. This collection event may be considered a stationary
noise source which produces a noise field that attenuates in intensity with
distance.
Four elements must be evaluated to define the population exposure
produced by the noise environment from a single collection cycle:
The noise level of the truck which carries the compactor
The noise produced by the compaction cycle of the compactor type
being evaluated
Propagation of the noise from the source to the receiver through
situations which range from narrow streets to open areas
Attenuation of the sound by buildings or walls.
These elements may be combined and translated into average levels by
considering the number of collections occuring per unit area and the mix
of collection trucks.
5-5
-------
Truck Noise Per Collection Cycle
Much of the total collection cycle noise is generated by the truck
which carries the compactor. Time histories of the noise emitted during
typical residential trash collection cycles are summarized in Figure 5-1.
Truck engine noise occurs while the truck pulls up, while it is idling and
the truck is being loaded, while the engine is accelerating during the
compaction cycle, and while it is idling and then driven off.
90
80
XI
o
UJ
£60
50
PULL-UP AKO
BRAKE SQUEAL
25 sec
IDLE AND TRASH LOAD
40 sec
_L
COMPACTION
CYCLE
IDLE
20 sec
_J
BRAKE
RELEASE
AND
PULL-AWAY
15 sec
10
TIME, seconds
Figure 5-1. Typical collection cycle noise levels at 7 m.
Medium and heavy gasoline and diesel trucks, the type which carry
trash compactors, have been recognized as major contributors to environ-
mental noise. The noise produced by these vehicles will be regulated to a
not-to-exceed level of 83 dBA (based on the J336b test) in 1978 and to a
level of 80 dBA in 1980. A more stringent regulation may be promulgated
at a later time. As these quieted trucks are introduced into the compactor-
truck fleet, the noise associated with the collection cycle will decrease.
5-6
-------
Table 5-2 presents an estimate, based on Reference 5-1, of the collection
cycle noise levels produced by these quieted trucks. Also included in Table
5-2 are estimates for three possible levels of future truck noise reduction.
The average values of truck noise during pullup, idle and pull-away phases
(independent of the increased noise level during the compaction cycle), are
calculated by summing the equivalent energy of each component in the cycle,
and used for the analysis in this report.
Compactor Noise per Collection Cycle
A summary of measurements of the noise emissions associated with the
compaction cycles on 28 different trucks* (Reference 5-2) is presented in
Table 5-3. The measured sample was not intended to be representative of
refuse compactors in general, but rather, measurements were made on avail-
able trucks. A relatively large number of quieted compactors were in the
measured sample so that average sound levels may be much lower than those
which would be observed in actual operation. However, for purposes of this
analysis it is assumed that the measurement results presented in Table 5-3
are representative of average national values, although a number of large
cities (e.g., New York and San Francisco) require the use of quieted trucks,
and thus some densely populated urban areas may be subjected to compactor
noise levels lower than those reported in Table 5-3. Independent measure-
ments made by the EPA (Reference 5-3) are in agreement with the average
values listed in this report.
Table 5-3 includes measurement results obtained at 7 meters of
the maximum steady sound level (Imax), the maximum impulse level,
*Four trucks
were measured in two different modes so therefore the sample consisted
of 32 measurements
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2
ESTIMATED A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS
AT 7m OF THE NON-COMPACTION
COMPONENTS OF THE COLLECTION CYCLE
Event
Pull-up
Brake Squeal
Idle while Loading
Trash Loading Impacts (4)
Compaction Cycle
Idle
Brake Release
Pull- aw ay
Average (not including
compaction cycle)
Duration
(sec)
25
0.5
40
(ea)0.5
20
0.5
15
100
Regulated Truck
Level @50 Ft.
dB(A)
Ua 83
80
90
67
77
67
90
86
77.2
74
90
66
77
66
90
80
72.8
Noise
80
71
90
65
77
65
90
77
71.2
Note:
Ua = existing unquieted trucks
5-8
-------
w
CO
D
PH
§
o
25
H
EH
CO
H
X
w
O
CO
Q
W
EH
ffi
O
w
o
rn
O G
g -3
r- -P
o
EH 0)
ro
Q)
H1
>1
13
fd
Q)
-P
CO
g
g
H
X
(d
5!
i_i|
H
co
13 rH ^
G Q) <
O QJ PQ
CO J 13
(d
(_}
W
CO
0)
rH
o
£>1 ^-.
U CQ
13
G QJ G
O g O
H -H D
-P EH 0)
U CO
CL *"
K
0
u
^ 1 1 , x
BQJ ri!
> *-*
O QJ pq
co hH1 13
QJ
>i
EH
j_l
O
-P
U
(d
p.
g
O
u
Q)
tn
G
(d
«
QJ
Cn
(d
QJ
£
0)
Cn
G
=C
QJ
tn
C
a
Q)
Cn
fd
(H
0)
3
r^* <") [^^
O^i 00 CO
I i i
co cr\ ro
i>0 r-> r^
CN Tf
r^" ^ in
CO 00 CO
o
^D m **o
rH CTi CTi
1 1 1
r- ^ CN
00 CO CO
o in o
*^* r^* ^j*
t i i
O CO CO
CN
i 1 i 1 ^J1
oo ro CN
r^ o U3
co co r-
1 i I
-a* CN -^
r- r^ r^
QJ
^
QJ
CO
O
X^
w
13
C
p
O
CO
II
J
w
CO
0)
iH
Q)
r{
^
rH
QJ
|>
QJ
13
G
J3
O
CO
CO
-H
£
1 "|
13
G
fd
o
u
m
co
w
EH
O
5-9
-------
and the time over which these levels were attained during a compaction
cycle. The total noise level of the compaction cycle used in this analysis
includes both the steady-state and the impulsive sounds. EPA data indicates
that the number of impulses during a cycle varies with the type of compactor.
An average of 8 impacts was noted for each front-loader compaction, 2 for
each side-loader and 5 for each rear-loader. Each impact noise is assumed
to have a duration of 0.5 sec. The average noise level was calculated using:
Lavg = 10 109
where
dB(A)
t = compaction time,in seconds, from Table 5-3
tj = impulse time = number of impulses x 0.5 seconds
LC = sound pressure level of steady-state compaction
from Table 5-3, dB(A)
L-j- = sound pressure level of impulse noise, from
Table 5-3, dB(A).
Table 5-4 presents the results of these calculations for the three
compactor types and defines the noise levels of existing compaction cycles.
TABLE 5-4.
ESTIMATES OF THE AVERAGE A-WEIGHTED SOUND
LEVEL AT 7m PRODUCED BY DIFFERENT COMPACTOR TYPES.
Sound Level
Compactor Type dB(A)
Front-loader
Side-loader
Rear-loader
85.8
76.7
79.4
5-10
-------
Sound Propagation and Amplification
A sound level at a given distance from a source located on an urban
street may be considerably higher than the sound level at the same distance
from the source in a free-field environment. This phenomenon is referred
to as reverberation build-up which occurs when the walls of the buildings on
each side of the street cause several multiple-reflection sound propagation
paths between source and receiver.
In urban areas where the height of a flanking facade is nearly con-
tinuous and is greater than or comparable to the street width, there is a
reverberant build-up of sound. Furthermore, there are shielding effects
from different types of barriers or buildings on apparent source intensity.
For a u-shaped space, which approximates an urban street, amplification
factors may be estimated. Ihese factors are dependent on the width of the
space. For example, when building fronts are separated by 15 meters (49
feet), if the amplification factor is estimated to be 2.2 dB, and if a 7.6
meter (25 feet) separation of building fronts amplifies sound at the source
by 8 dB, a sound source of 80 dB, referenced at 7 m free field, would on
the 15 meter wide street be amplified to 82.2 dB and on a 7.6 meter wide
street (alley) to 88 dB.
Since the apparent build-up in sound level is a function of the width
between facing buildings, the technique suggested in Reference 5-4 was used
to calculate the amplification and propagation factors for representative
street widths. It was determined that adjustment factors of 11.6, 8.0,
2.2, and -1.6 dB added to the noise levels on streets 4.5 meters (15 feet),
7.6 meters (25 feet), 15 meters (49 feet) and 24 or more meters (>78 feet)
5-11
-------
wide respectively best represented truck mounted solid waste trash compactors
activity in urban areas. These reverberant buildup factors were added to the
percentage of collections occurring on various street widths in urban areas
(see Table 5-6).
Sound levels attenuate spherically from the source in a free-field
environment. The sound-pressure level loss due to propagation varies
inversely with the square of the distance between the noise source and a
receiver. In the free-field environment the propagation loss is equivalent
to 6 dB for each doubling of distance between the source and the receiver,
i.e., a -6 dB/dd attenuation rate.
Trash compactor noise, however, does not occur in a free-field environ-
ment. Non-uniform attenuation rates have been developed to estimate the
sound level attenuation in varying environments (Reference 5-4). For this
analysis, uniform attenuation rates providing an approximation to the non-
uniform attenuation rates are used for each land use category. The uniform
attenuation rates selected are -6dB/dd for the suburban single-family
detached and suburban duplex dwelling categories, -6.5 dB/dd for urban row
apartments, -8 dB/dd for dense urban apartments, and -8.5 dB/dd for very
dense urban apartments. These attenuation rates apply to distances beyond 50
feet from the source.
No reduction in noise level due to the shielding of a row of buildings
between the source and the observer was considered for the suburban single-
family detached and suburban duplex land-use categories. The typical
collection noise levels in these areas are low enough that they will be
5-12
-------
insignificant on an adjoining street. For the denser dwelling areas, the
barrier effect of a row of buildings is taken into account in the sound
propagation (attenuation) rates.
Sound Attenuation within Buildings
To estimate indoor noise levels from outside noise sources, the attenu-
ation factor of building walls and windows must be calculated. Although
dwelling walls attenuate sound, windows generally provide poor insulation
from exterior noise. When windows are open the difference between indoor and
outdoor noise varies from 10 to 18 dB; this is representative of the typical
summer situation. In winter, with windows closed, the attenuation varies
from 15 to 27 dB, and with double-glazed windows, noise may be reduced as
much as 45 dB.
The maximum, closed value in winter is seldom achieved in older urban
areas, for in these areas the noise reduction is governed by the minute
cracks and spaces around the glass panels and the window and door frames.
In this analysis an attenuation value of 15 dB will be used for the suburban
single-family detached and the suburban duplex areas, and a value of 20 dB
for the other dwelling areas to represent the attenuation of outdoor noise
by the exterior shell of the house. These attenuation factors represent
an average between summer, winter, new construction, and old construction.
Average Noise Levels Per Unit Area
Each compactor type generates a different noise level, and the mix of
compactor types in each of the land-use categories varies as presented in
Table 5-5.
5-13
-------
To simplify the health and welfare calculations, an average noise level
per collection for each land-use type was calculated as follows:
(1) The truck noise level (Table 5-2) was energy-averaged with the compac-
tion noise (Table 5-4) as:
1
LiL ' 10 1Q9 -ETT
MK- )(-.) ("'
Jc/10\
dB(A) (5-2)
V
where
L.T = the noise level for each truck-compactor combination, dB(A)
111
Itj, = truck noise level, from Table 5-2, dB(A)
t = time truck noise in the collection cycle (omitting compaction
time) = 100 sec
L = average noise level for each compactor type, from Table 5-4,
dB(A)
tQ = compaction time from Table 5-3, sec.
(2) The noise level for each compactor type was multiplied by the use
factor from Table 5-5, for a mix of truck types in a given area.
L -(fFL)^)^^)^)^)^) {5-3)
where
fp, = fraction of front-loaders in a given land-use area,
from Table 5-5
L = noise level of front-loaders from Equation 5-2;
and the subscripts SL and RL refer to side-loaders and rear-loaders,
respectively.
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-5
AVERAGE PERCENT OF DIFFERENT TYPE COLLECTOR VEHICLES
OPERATING PER DAY IN EACH LAND-USE CATEGORY.
Land Use
Collector Type
Front-Loader Side-Loader Rear-Loader
Percent Percent Percent
Surburban Single-
Family Detached
Suburban
Duplexes
Urban Row
Apartments
Dense Urban
Apartments
Very Dense
Urban
Apartments
7.4
6.8
15.8
19.4
31.8
21.5
21.7
18.7
17.5
13.5
71.2
71.6
65.5
63.1
54.8
5-15
-------
(3) 0.5 dB was added to the result to account for trash in the compactor.*
The result is the average sound-pressure level produced by a single
collection unaffected by reverberant build-up.
No data were found for the frequency of alley pickup versus street
compactions, or on the relative distribution of alley and street widths
between buildings in urban areas. A sample survey therefore was conducted
in four metropolitan areas** to relate distance between building fronts to
collection location for various population density categories. Oi the
basis of this survey it is assumed that one-half of the compactions occur
on streets wider than 24 meters and one-half on streets where amplification
may be a problem. In urban row apartment areas, 25 percent of the impact
situations will be on streets less than 15 meters (36 feet) and 25 percent
on streets less than 7.6 meters (25 feet). In the dense urban and very
dense urban apartment areas compactions are assumed to occur 10 percent of
the time in 4.5 meter (15 foot) wide alleys, 20 percent on 7.6 meter (25
foot) streets, and 20 percent of the time on 15.2 meter (50 foot) streets.
Table 5-6 gives the percentage of collections estimated by the survey for
different street widths and the amplification factor associated with that
width.
* The measurements all relate to empty compactors. A recent study (Reference
5-14) indicates that, on the average, there is about a 0.5 dB(A) difference
between the load and no-load conditions.
** Los Angeles, Berkeley, Atlanta, Washington, D.C. Distances between
building fronts were paced or estimated.
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-6.
AMPLIFICATION FACTORS DUE TO REVERBERANT BUILDUP IN
NARROW STREETS (GROUND REFLECTION IGNORED).
Land Use
Urban Row
Apartments
Dense Urban
Apartments
Very Dense
Urban
Apartments
Width between
Buildings3
meters
7.6
15.2
>24
4.5
7.6
15.2
>24
4.5
7.6
15.2
>24
feet
25
50
>78
15
25
50
>78
15
25
50
>78
Percent of
Total
Collections
25
25
50
10
20
20
50
10
20
20
50
Amplification
Factor
dB(A)
8.0
2.2
-1.6
11.6
8.0
2.2
-1.6
11.6
8.0
2.2
-1.6
Assumes continuous building fronts
5-17
-------
Noise Metrics
As discussed in the introduction of this section, two methods are used
to evaluate the health and welfare benefits of reduced trash compactor noise
emissions on the human population. The first method relates to general
aversiveness due to trash collection cycle noise as a component of the
overall noise levels of urban areas. The second method relates to sleep
disturbances and speech interference attributable to individual trash
collection cycles.
Three primary noise metrics are used in the two methods. The primary
measures of noise exposure for general annoyance are the equivalent A-
weighted sound level (L_J and the day-night average sound level (L-, ).
GCJ Qn
Sleep disturbances are calculated using the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) of
the individual event as the primary measure of noise impact. Speech
interference is calculated using the L of the individual event as the
primary measure of noise impact. A brief description of these three noise
metrics follows:
Equivalent Sound Level(L )
eq
The Noise Control Act of 1972 required EPA to present information on
noise levels that are "requisite to protect the public health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety." The equivalent A-weighted sound level
in decibels, L , was selected as the primary measure of noise levels
eq
since it is the descriptor which correlates best with the overall long-
term effects of pervasive environmental noise on the public health and
welfare (Reference 5-5).
5-18
-------
The basic definition of L is:
eq
= 10 log -F -- -- at (5-4)
10
10
±F -- f
fcl J
where t2 - t, is the interval of time over which the levels are evaluated,
p(t) is the time-varying magnitude of the sound pressure, and pQ is a
reference pressure standardized at 20 micropascals. When expressed in terms
of A-weighted sound level, LA, the equivalent A-^eighted sound level, L ,
A eq
is defined as:
t.
10 " . dt I (5-5)
The L is associated with a specific time period t0-t,, or T. When
GCJ Z J.
associated with a specific short time interval, T, the L (T) represents
eq
the energy-averaged sound level, over that interval of time. Commonly used
time intervals are 24-hour, 8-hour, 1-hour, day and night, symbolized as
Leq (24)' Leq (8)' Leq (1)' Ld ard Ln' respectively.
Day-Night Average Sound Level (L, )
In describing the impact of noise on people, the measure called the
day-night average sound level (L, ) is used. This is a 24-hour measure
with a weighting applied to nighttime noise levels to account for the
increased sensitivity of people to intruding noise associated with the
decrease in background noise levels at night. The L, is defined as
the equivalent noise level during a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB
weighting applied to the equivalent noise level during the nighttime
hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This is expressed by the following equation:
5-19
-------
Ldn = 10
V10 v
a \
10 1 49
i- (L +10)/10 -i
n
10
(5-6)
where L^ is the "daytime" equivalent level obtained between 7 a.m. and
10 p.m., and L is the "nighttime" equivalent level obtained between
10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
Most of the criteria which relate noise exposure to human impact
deal with pervasive environmental noise rather than discrete noise events.
Specification of the noise environment in terms of equivalent A-weighted
sound level is adequate for pervasive noises. Single events, like a
trash collection cycle, may contribute an insignificant amount to the
total environmental noise, yet be of severe impact. Fortunately, some
effects of noise on people have been quantified in terms of sound level
over a particular duration. A simple metric which measures sound level
taking into account the duration of the event is the Sound Exposure
Level (SEL). The SEL is the integral of the sound power per unit area
received at a specified distance during a single occurrence of a noise-
producing event. The SEL is defined as:
/ / D (t) \
SEL = 10 log/ / ^^ ] dt dB(A) (5-7)
where p(t) is the A-weighted sound pressure at time t, pQ is the reference
pressure (20 micropascals), and T is the duration of the noise event. For
a rectangular pulse time history of approximately constant average sound
level, L , such as a trash collection cycle, an approximation is:
r°i
5-20
-------
SEL = L^ + 10 log (T) (5-8)
where T is the time in seconds over which the sound is present, in this
case the time of the compaction cycle, or the truck collection cycle, and
Lm^ is the maximum A-weighted sound level.
Values of SEL were calculated for each component of truck collection
noise shown in Table 5-2 and for compaction and impulse noise shown in
Table 5-3. For steady-state noise pulses, Equation 5-8 was used. For
triangular pulses, SEL was approximated by:
SEL = L^ + 10 log(t/2) (5-9)
where Lmax is the maximum sound level.
The calculated SELs were combined in the same manner as the sound
levels. Table 5-7 presents the results of these calculations and defines
the existing noise environment for a single compaction.
TABLE 5-7.
EXISTING AVERAGE MAXIMUM STEADY SOUND LEVELS AT 7
METERS FOR VARIOUS LAND-USE CATEGORIES (ADJUSTED FOR
TRUCK MIX, TRASH NOISE AND REVERBERANT AMPLIFICATION).
Land Use Type
Suburban Single-
Family Detached
Suburban
Duplexes
Urban Row
Apartments
Dense Urban
Apartments
Very Dense Urban
Apartments
Ifc (dB(A))
78.0
78.0
81.9
83.6
83.9
SEL
98.9
98.9
102.8
104.6
105.6
Propagation
-6 dB/dd
-6 dB/dd
-6.5 dB/dd
-8 dB/dd
-8.5 dB/dd
5-21
-------
Compactor Noise Levels Under Regulatory Options
The average life of a compactor is about 7 years (Reference 5-6).
Therefore, 1/7 of the compactor fleet is replaced each year.* Two assump-
tions were made of the compactor noise levels under the regulation options.
First, that manufacturers would design to a level 2 dB below the not-to-
exceed level, and secondly, the maximum impulse levels would be regulated to
a maximum of 5 dB over the steady-state levels. Using these assumptions,
the regulatory schemes presented in Table 5-1, the regulated truck noise
levels of Table 5-2,and the method outlined in the preceding section,the
tables in Exhibit 5-A at the end of this section were calculated, presenting
the average sound level LAfor each land use area to the year 2000.
Similarly, the L for a 24-hour period for each year of each option
was calculated in the following manner:
1. An average time of collection (t_ ) for each land-use class was
qVCj
calculated. This average time changed as the mix of collector
vehicles, each with different compaction times, changed. The
average time of compaction for each collector type is listed in
Table 5-3, the average time of non-compacting truck noise is given
in Table 5-2, the fraction of collection in each land-use class
in Table 5-5. The average time in each dwelling cagetory was
calculated as:
*Reference 5-6 reports that often a compactor body is remanufactured and
placed on a new truck. This analysis assumes the remanufactured units
meet the noise standards of new units.
5-22
-------
x fc> + fcT
where
t = compaction time, Table 5-3
f = fraction of compaction in land-use class,
Table 5-5
ty = truck noise time, Table 5-2
Average times for the complete collection cycle and
components of the collection cycle are shown in Table 5-8.
TABLE 5-8.
AVERAGE COLLECTION CYCLE
TIMES FOR VARIOUS LAND-USE AREAS.
Land Use
Suburban Single-
Family Detached
Suburban
Duplexes
Urban Row
Apartments
Dense Urban
Apartments
Very Dense Urban
Apartments
Average
Compaction
Time
( seconds )
20.8
21.1
21.5
23.5
24.7
Average
Truck Sound
Time
(seconds)
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Collection
Cycle Time
( seconds )
120.8
121.1
121.5
123.5
124.7
5-23
-------
The number of seconds per day the noise source operated in each
ha of land-use class for each year up to year 2000 was calculated.
The average collection time was multiplied by the number of
compactions per ha per day (Table 5-9) for each land-use class
for each year. The number of total daily compactions for each
year was taken from Table 5-10 which incorporates the yearly
growth factor into daily compactions.
L for each year and dwelling category was calculated as:
eq
= 10 log
fl - ts 1
1 t
r
fcs /10L/10\1
. ^ ^ >J
dB(A)
(5-10)
where
t = time of source, from Step 2 above
s
t = reference time, 86,400 sec/day
A-weighted sound-pressure level from Table 5-7.
The resulting 24-hour L for each year of each option is given in Exhibit
5-B at the end of this section.
5-24
-------
3
8
o
CO
in
oo
r-
vp
CN
CN
ro
in
CN
ro
vo
vo
ro
vo
IT)
3
o
o
in
o
o
ro
m
CN
CTN
O
O
a
CN
CN
O
o
o
o
00
o
ro
r-
r-
CN
ro
ro
o
CN
CN
00
4->
H
Z
CTt
s
o
m
ro
o
o
cs
m
ro
oo
CTi
m
o
I
CN
O
m
CN
in
CN
ro
ro
«*
cr.
o
CN
s
O
O
O
O
O
in
o
o
CN
m
m
CTi
CTi
a
00
ro
ro
10
ro
r-
m
ro
CN
ro
CN
CN
00
in
ro
o
o
o
in
ro
o
o
en
00
o
00
m
m
o
m
ro
CN
T
m
a
I
c
I
.H
CN
O
m
o
ro
ro
r-
S
a
a
in
in
CN
5-25
-------
TABLE 5-10
PROJECTIONS OF AVERAGE SOLID WASTE TRUCK COMPACTIONS
PER HECTART TO THE YEAR 2000
YEAR
1976D
1976N
1976T
1977D
t977N
1977T
1978D
1978N
1978T
1979D
1979N
1979T
1980D
1980N
1980T
1981D
1981N
1981T
1982D
1982N
1982T
1983D
1983N
1983T
1984D
1984N
1984T
1985D
1985N
1985T
1986D
198GN
1986T
1987D
1987N
1987T
1988D
1988N
19U8T
Suburban Single-
Family Detached
(SSF)
0.2V 72
'J.'.'O't 1
0 . JO I 3
0-.3026
O.C'J^2
O.JLor.
0 . 30B 1
J.l;C . OO"O
o.33K'i
''. J370
0.00*; 6
0.3''. ;i
0.. ','...':
Suburban
Duplexoi
(SO)
O.^O'K)
U.OS! 1
O.bl)l 1
O.o 14')
U.Ub2U
0 .{5 660
O.H202
U.Ob3O
U.i-822
O.b^42
O.U539
0.0932
O.b546
U.U545
0.9092
O.b6'5!
0.0553
O.V204
O.b7':>8
0.055V1
0.931 7
O.f>865
O.U566
0.9-t32
O.o9/-l
0.05/3
O.VSld
0.90/1
0.05/9
0.9651
0.9169
0.05vdo
O.V/55
0.926*3
0.05^2
0.9tk>0
O.«:J-K<
o.u'V/'H
O.1'1'-1.') /
Urban Row
Apartment!
(UR)
! . /3ul
0.b3/4
2.26/5
1 . /ol 4
0.54/1
2 .30-1'.)
1 .70J3
0 . 55 /O
2.3503
1 .32-jrl
0.56/1
2.3929
1 .o'-b2
0.5741
2.4223
1 .8709
0.5bl 1
2 . ^ 52 1
1 .H940
0.5i;y3
2.4823
1 .9173
0.5°55
2.S12^
1 ,9'!-jy
0.602^
2.543/
! .961 -:
0.0094
2.5/12
1 .9h30
0.0160
2.59d9
2.00-14
0 .o22o
2.02/0
2.0200
J.62V3
2 . o 5'j 4
Dense Urban
Apartments
(DU)
3.3271
2.99b2
6.3253
3.3r73
3.Ob25
6.4.j^a
3.44H6
3.107 7
6.vj563
3.51 1 I
3. 1 64 'j
6.o7b.J
3.5^42
3.2029
6./57I
J.50bO
3.2423
6.-i^02
3.6^-22
3.2d?2
6. ^2^4
3.6H/0
3.3225
/.;)()Vi;>
3. /3:-M
3.3034
/.o"1-.-;
3. /727
3 . 3 09 /
7 . 1 72 4
3.JI34
3 . 4 36 4
/.24^0
3.: 3 5 -'6
3.4/36
/ . Wi' 1
3. -3 «6 2
3.5111
/.40/3
Very Dense Urban
Apartments
(VDU)
H..M2H
/.40O9
15.6137
^.301^
/.^>349
lh.^963'
o'.5 12"
'/.6/12
i6.i rJ40
d.6660
/ .C5 10 1
16.4 770
o.7/3^
7.9062
16.6 /96
0.^.^1 A
3.0034
1 6 .>'r-<4tf
0.0906
b . i 0 1 c:
1 /.(.'025
9.1012
b.201 5
17 .3027
V.<>132
ij.302'1
1 /.-ji'j^
9.3127
H.3«;>o
17. /04 7
9.4132
8.4H27
1 7.11^59
«.bl4Q
>).5 /43
IH.OhO;>
9.01.77
.S.f.^-jO
1H .2.<4l;
5-26
-------
TABLE 5-10 (CONTINUED)
YEAR
1989D
1989N
1989T
1990D
1990N
1990T
1991D
1991N
1991T
1992D
1992N
1992T
19930
1993N
1993T
19940
1994N
1994T
19950
1995N
1995T
1996D
1996N
1996T
1997D
1997N
1997T
1998D
1998N
1998T
19990
1999N
1999T
2000D
2000N
2000T
Suburban Single-
Family Detached
(SSF)
0.3blH
0.0049
0.350 /
0.3546
0.004V
0.3:;9b
0.3b/5
0. (.'<>'! 9
O . 3o2b
0 .3604
i> . H;50
(;.3ob4
O.J6 33
0 . <.O5o
O.JObJ
O..^o3
'., . 005 1
C..J/I j
0.3oFd
0.0051
U . J, 7 3 9
0.3713
0.005 i
0.3765
O . 3 ?3c.'
O.t>052
u.J/^i
u.376b
u . OO'i;.'
0.331 /
(J . 8 79 1
0 .00^2
0.3H43
U. J'.j] 7
(} .'KJ53
0 . 3i: /O
Suburban
Duplexes
(SD)
0.94/0
0.0605
1.00/5
0.9546
0.0610
1 .0156
0.9624
0.061 5
1 .023d
0.9702
0,0620
1 .0321
0.9730
0.0.625
1 .0405
0.9H59
O.0630
i .0489
0.9927
0.0634
1 .0562
0.9996
0.063H
1 .0634
1 .00 A 5
O.O643
1 .w70S
1 .0134
O.Oo4 /
1 .0732
1 .0204
0.0652
1 .0856
1 .02/5
0.0050
1 .093 1
Urban Row
Apartments
(UR)
2.04/9
0.636 1
2.684 1
2.0645
0.641 3
2.7058
2.0812
O.o465
2.7277
2.0981
0.651 7
2.7^98
2.1151
0.6570
2.772!
2 . i 322
0.6623
2.7045
2. 1469
0.6 60 9
2.yi38
2.1618
0.0715
2.b332
2.1 /67
J.o/u 1
2.b528
2 . i " 1 /
0.6oOH
2.8725
2.2068
0.68r>5
2.b923
2.2220
0.6902
2.9122
Dense Urban
Apartments
(DU)
3.93b3
3.-j490
/.4^i73
3.9 /02
3.57.77
7.5479
4 . 002 4
3. 6 Oo 7
7.6091
4.0348
3.0359
7.6707
4.0675
3.6654
/.732b'
4 . I 00 4
3.695!
/./955
4. 1 2b7
3.7200
7.3493
4. i S72
3.7462
/.9034
*4.IH59
.1. I U i
/.^5f-'0
4 . 1 \ A H
3 . / Oh i
3.0129
4.2438
3.8243
8.06H2
4.2731
3.^507
8.1233
Very Denje Urban
Apartments
(VDU)
9. /2I5
H.7605
lb.4.^G
o.b003
d . .- 3 1 A
<~H . 6 3 1 7
o.b797
b.9030
Ib.7b26
9.9597
b .9 75 1
18,984!-!
1 0.0404
9.047H
19.0 He-: 2
1 0 . 1 2 i 7
9.1211
19.^428
10.1915
9 . 1 c KJ
19.3 755
10.2619
9 . s. 4 7 <
19.5092
1 0 . 332 7 '
" .3 It 2
19.o-tJ.--i
lij.-iu'to
9!j/5.4
19. .7 70 4
10.4/57
9 ,/MOI
10.0159
10.5480
o .5ir>3
20.0533
5-27
-------
Similarly, Exhibit 5-C gives the values of L^n for the five dwelling
categories to the year 2000. The values for L^ and 1^ were calculated using
Equation 5-10 except that the source time, t. was calculated using the
s
Table 5-9 values for day and night, respectively, and the reference time
tr, was 54,000 sec for day and 32,400 sec for night.
The minimum value of Iy is attained at the time that the entire fleet
is composed of trucks quieted by the regulation. After this date, the values
of L-, rise, reflecting the growth rate of the refuse collection activity.
Consideration of Ambient Noise Levels
The previous analysis of compactor noise and calculation of L, assumes
no background ambient noise levels, i.e., levels of noise due to all other
conditions. These ambient levels must be considered since it is total noise
*
exposure upon which the EPA's assessment of health and welfare impacts rests.
It has been previously determined that day and night ambient levels can
be represented as a function of population density (Reference 5-7) as follows:
ADL = 7.90 x log PD + 29.1 (5-11)
ANL = 9.73 x log PD + 17.4 (5-12)
where
ADL = ambient daytime equivalent sound level
ANL = ambient nighttime equivalent sound level
PD = population density (people per square mile)
Population densities used in the compactor study are in units of people
per hectare and can be converted to people per square mile by dividing by
3.861 x 10~3. The tc
computed as follows:
_3
3.861 x 10 . The total ambient day-night equivalent sound level, L, is
5-28
-------
Suburban Single Family Detached - 56.18
Suburban Duplexes - 59.74
Urban Row Apartments - 62.67
Dense Urban Apartments - 65.94
Very Dense Urban Apartments - 67.84
However, for purposes of this analysis, where ambient levels exceed
minimum impact criteria levels (L^n = 55 dB), the ambient levels were
arbitrarily set instead to a level of 1 dB under the criteria level under
the assumption that ambient levels will be lowered by coordinated Federal,
State and local efforts to reduce noise.
The total day-night average sound level L, including ambient levels
and compactor sound levels is calculated as follows:
Jdn
= 10 log
LjL/LO LA/10 "
10 dn + 10 dn
(5-13)
UIl
where
Lj = the compactor sound levels calculated by Equation 5-6 and
applied to the options in the previous section
a
L, = ambient noise levels as discussed above.
The results of these calculations for each year, area, and option are
presented in Exhibit 5-D at the end of this section.
NOISE IMPACT FROM TRASH COMPACTORS
To assess the impact of compactor noise, a relationship between the
noise levels in terms of L_ and L-, (Exhibits 5-B and 5-C) and the
eq on
responses of the people exposed to the noise is needed. Human responses
may vary depending upon previous exposure, age, socioeconomic status,
political cohesiveness, and other social variables. In the aggregate,
5-29
-------
however, for residential locations, the average response of groups of people
is related to cumulative noise exposure as expressed in a measure such as L
or L-, . The different forms of response to noise, such as hearing damage,
speech or other activity interference, and annoyance, and their relationship
to Lea or Ldn are Discussed in tne EPA Levels Document (Reference 5-5). For
the purposes of this study, criteria based on L, presented in the EPA Levels
Document are used. It is assumed that if the outdoor level of L, is less than
dn
or equal to 55 dB, (which is identified in the EPA Levels Document as requisite
to protect the public health and welfare) no adverse impact in terms of general
annoyance and community response exists.
The community reaction and annoyance data contained in Appendix D of the
Levels Document (Reference 5-5) show that the expected reaction to an identifi-
able source of intruding noise changes from "none" when the day-night average
sound level of the intruding noise is 5 dB below the level existing without
the presence of the intruding noise to "vigorous" when the intruding noise is
19.5 dB above the level before intrusion. For this reason, a level which is
20 dB above L, =55 dB is considered to result in a maximum impact on the
people exposed. Such a change in level would increase the percentage of the
population that is highly annoyed by 40 percent of the total exposed population.
Further, the data in the Levels Document suggest that for environmental noise
levels which are intermediate between 0 and 20 dB above L, =55 dB, the impact
varies linearly; that is, a 5 dB excess (L, =60) constitutes a 25 percent
impact and a 10 dB excess (L, =65) constitutes a 50 percent impact.
5-30
-------
For convenience of calculation, percentages of impact may be expressed
as Fractional Impact (FI). A FI of 1.0 represents an impact of 100 percent,
in accordance with the following formula:
PI _ .05 (L-55) for L> 55 ,,-,4,
" ~ 0 for IX 55 (* 14}
where L is the observed or measured L(jn for the environmental noise. Note
that FI can exceed unity for exposures greater than L, = 75 dB.
The impact of noise may be described in terms of both extensiveness
(i.e., the number of people impacted) and intensiveness (the severity of
impact). The fractional impact method explicitly accounts for both the extent
and severity of impact.
The Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI) associated with a given level of noise
(LJ ) may be assessed by multiplying the number of people exposed to that
level of noise by the fractional impact associated with the level as follows:
= (FIi)Pi (5-15)
where ENI-, is the magnitude of the impact on the population exposed to noise
(L* ) and is numerically equal to the number of people who would all have a
fractional impact equal to unity (100 percent impacted). FI. is the fractional
impact associated with a day-night average sound level of (L* ); over 55 dB,
and P. is the population exposed to this level of noise. To illustrate this
concept, if there are 1000 people living in an area where the noise level
exceeds the criterion level by 5 dB (and are thus considered to be 25 percent
impacted, FI = 0.25), the environmental noise impact for this group is the
same as for 250 people who are 100 percent impacted, (1000 x 25% = 250 x 100%).
5-31
-------
When assessing the total iirpact associated with trash compactor noise,
the observed levels of noise decrease as the distance between the source and
the receiver increase. The magnitude of the total impact may be computed
by determining the partial impact at each level and summing each of the levels.
The total impact is given in terms of the equivalent number of people impacted
by the following formula:
ENI = ?i Flif (5-16)
i
where FI. is the fractional impact associated with (L* ) and P. is the popula-
tion exposed to this level of noise. In this analysis, the mid- level of each
1 dB sector of levels above L, =55 dB was used in computing ENI.
Without ambient levels included, the distance associated with each 1 dB
decrease in ly from the source until it reaches the threshold of 55 dB is
determined from the attenuation rates for the various land use types. However,
with ambient levels included, the determination of distance associated with
each 1 dB decrease in L, is as follows:
dn
R = R
o
LQ/10
10 °
Lp/10 - IA./10
^ dn
(log 2)/d (5-17)
10
where
R = distance from source
R = reference noise source distance (7m)
Lo = Ldn at source
I^ = L^n at distance R from source
IA^ = ambient noise level
d = attenuation rate (-6, -6.5, -8 or 8.5 depending on land use
category)
5-32
-------
The change in impact associated with regulations on the noise emissions
from trash compactor vehicles may be assessed by comparing the magnitude
of the impacts, both with and without regulations, in terms of the relative
change in impact (RCI), which is calculated from the following expression:
RCI = 100 [EMI (before) - ENI (after)]
ENI (before) (5-18)
Vfciile the exact value of present or future ENI's may not be known
precisely, the relative reductions of the ENI due to noise regulations - of
primary interest hereare known with much greater accuracy than the absolute
value of the ENI since the changes in the theoretical components of ENI can be
well defined. For instance, it may not be possible to determine whether the
present estimated ENI due to urban street traffic noise, an absolute value, is
actually 0.1 million too high. However, it is possible to determine, for
example, that the regulation of rear loading truck mounted trash compactors
will not reduce the ENI by more than 0.1 million. Extensive investigation of
such small changes may seem innocuous if it is not kept in mind that although
truck mounted solid waste compactors represent only a small part of urban
activity in the United States, their impacts may be considerable when measured
by metrics other than ENI. Thus, the changes found to occur in ENI may help
indicate what equivalent changes would occur in impact measures which are not
used in this analysis but whose absolute values may reflect more accurately
the effects of compactor noise on people.
As discussed above, the concept of fractional impact, expressed in units
of ENI, is most useful for describing relative changes in impact from a
specified baseline for the purpose of comparing benefits of alternative
5-33
-------
regulatory schedules. In order to assess the absolute impact or benefits
corresponding to any regulatory schedule, information on the distribution of
population as a function of noise environment is required. This information
is included in this section in the form of tables showing the number of people
exposed to different levels of compactor noise. The anticipated absolute
impact of noise upon those individuals exposed to any given noise level may be
traced by referring to the various noise effects criteria presented in the
Levels Document as well as in this analysis.
The resulting noise impact, in terms of ENI, for each land use area is
calculated for each regulation schedule and study year by applying the noise
reduction of new trucks in combination with lessened emissions from the
compactor unit. A summary of the results of this analysis is displayed
in Table 5-11. Also included in Table 5-11 is the year by year percentage
benefit in extensiveness and severity of impact relative to the impact in
19"76. Tabulated complete results of ENI and RCI are presented in Exhibit
5-E at the end of this section.
To further illustrate the significant benefits and relief afforded
the population by reducing new trash compactor noise levels, Tables 5-12 and
5-13 are presented. In Table 5-12, the number of people exposed to L, above
55 dB, in 5-dB increments, for the existing noise level and the 1991 maximum
quieted level for each option is shown. Table 5-13 is presented as an
example to show that the impact is not uniform over the entire population.
5-34
-------
TABLE 5-11
EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF PEOPLE IMPACTED (ENI) (in millions)
PERCENTAGE BENEFIT (RCI)
Year
Base
One
Options
Three Five
Seven Silent
1976 Total
RCI
RCI*
1982 Total
RCI
RCI*
1991 Total
RCI
RCI*
2000 Total
RCI
RCI*
1.62
0.0
0.0
1.20
26.2
0.0
0.99
39.0
0.0
1.03
36.4
0.00
1.62
0.0
0.0
1.00
38.1
52.55
0.47
71.1
52.5
0.52
67.7
49.5
1.62
0.0
0.0
1.14
29.6
5.0
0.68
57.8
31.3
0.77
52.5
25.2
1.62
0.0
0.0
1.03
36.3
14.2
0.47
71.1
52.5
0.52
67.7
49.5
1.62
0.0
0.0
0.93
42.6
22.5
0.47
71.1
52.5
0.52
67.7
49.5
1.62
0.0
0.0
0.63
61.1
47.5
0.36
77.8
63.6
0.38
76.5
63.1
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option. Base option includes
benefits from medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-35
-------
TABLE 5-12
PEOPLE EXPOSED TO L, OVER 55
dn
(in millions)
Ldn
55-59
60-64
65-69
>70
Baseline
1976
14.5
1.7
.4
.1
Base
9.4
0.7
0.2
0.01
One
5.4
0.42
0.03
0.0
Options
Three
7.2
0.49
0.08
0.0
(1991)
Five
5.4
0.42
0.03
0.0
Seven
5.4
0.42
0.03
0.0
Silent
4.1
0.30
0.01
0.0
Total 16.7 10.31 5.9 7.8 5.9 5.9 4.4
5-36
-------
TABLE 5-13
PEOPLE EXPOSED TO Ldn >55 FOR EACH LAND USE TYPE
(in millions)
Base Option (1976)
L,
an
55-59
60-64
65-69
>70
Total
ENI
SSF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UR
5.6
.43
0.0
0.0
6.0
.86
DU
7.0
1.0
.33
.04
8.4
1.49
VDU
1.9
.3
.1
.04
2.3
.45
TOTAL
14.5
1.7
.4
.1
16.7
2.8
SSF - Suburban Single Family Detached
SD - Suburban Duplexes
UR - Urban Row Apartments
DU - Dense Urban Apartments
VDU - Very Dense Urban Apartments
5-37
-------
REDUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL TPASH COLLECTION NOISE IMPACT
Until now, the analysis of truck mounted trash compactor noise impact
has been concerned with the contribution that compactors make to average
day-night urban noise (Ldn). The impact contributions which are calculated
in this way are somewhat generalized and do not necessarily represent specific
impact situations. For example, they do not reflect the fact that almost the
entire amount of daily acoustical energy contributed by trash compactors in an
area may be generated in only a few minutes of noise during trash collection
activity. Yet this intrusive, short, intense event may be one of the most
annoying noise-related situations faced over the entire day by a large number
of residents.
Annoyance is difficult to describe. It may pass rapidly and the cause
remain unnoticed. Or it may add to other agents causing stress and lead to
physiological problems (Reference 5-15).
A loud, short-duration noise event may also interrupt people's activi-
ties, such as conversation or sleeping. The interruptions may again lead to
annoyance, but in themselves they may represent a degradation of health and
welfare. For instance, in a recent study of the annoyance caused by different
levels of simulated aircraft noise for people seated indoors watching televi-
sion, annoyance was seen to be mediated at least in part by speech interference.
Not only is the TV program or other person speaking, more difficult to hear
during the time in which there is a noisy event, but it has been observed that
the distraction which may occur from the conversation in which the person is
engaged may contribute in itself to annoyance (Reference 5-9). The speaker
may behaviorally attempt to cope with the noise intrusion either by increasing
5-38
-------
his or her vocal effort, or in more severe cases, by discontinuing conversation
altogether. Such behavioral reactions may be quite indicative of general annoy-
ance and disturbance with the intrusive noise event. Similarly, the reaction to
a noise intrusion during sleep may be in many cases a change in sleep stage (from
"deeper" to "lighter" stage) or, if the intrusive noise is intense or long enough,
an actual awakening may result. In either case, repeated disturbance of people's
activities may be expected to adversely affect their well-being. Covariance of
verbalized annoyance with the interference of activities has been amply demonstrated
in many social surveys (Reference 5-5, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18).
For these reasons it seems appropriate for the analysis of the noise
impact associated with trash collection to examine the activities of speech
communication and sleep in some detail, both in order to determine the direct
effect trash compactor noise may have on them, as well as to aid in an estima-
tion of the total annoyance attributable to the noise. These single event
noise intrusions become particularly important in light of other regulations
and efforts to reduce the noise from other urban noise sources, i.e., without
a reduction in emissions from trash compactors, these units may very well
stand out as one of the most, if not the roost, intrusive noise source.
Sleep Disturbance
The sleep periods of humans are typically classified into five stages.
In Stages I and II sleep is light and the sleeper is easily awakened. Stages
III and IV are states of deep sleep where a person is not as easily awakened
by a given noise, but the sleep may shift to a lighter stage of sleep. An
additional stage is termed REM, rapid eye movement, and corresponds to the
5-39
-------
dream state. When exposed to an intrusive noise, a sleeper may (1) show
response by a brief change in brainwave pattern, without shifting sleep
stages; (2) shift to a lighter sleep stage; or (3) awaken. The greatest known
impact occurs due to awakening, but there are also indications that disruption
of the sleep cycle cause impact (irritability, etc.) even though the sleeper
may not awaken (Reference 5-14).
TVra recent studies (Reference 5-10, 5-11) have summarized and analyzed
sleep disturbance data. These studies show a relationship between frequency
of response (disturbance or awakening) and noise level, and furthermore
demonstrated that the duration of the noise stimulus is a critical parameter
in predicting response. The studies also showed that the frequency of sleep
disruption is predicted by noise exposure better than is arousal or behavioral
awakening. ff\ important fact is that sleep disturbance is defined as any
physiological change which occurs as a result of a stimulus. The person
undergoing such disturbance may be completely unaware of being afflicted;
however, the disturbance may disrupt the total sleep quality and thus lead to,
in certain situations, behavioral or physiological consequences (Reference
5-14). To determine the magnitude of sleep disturbance caused by trash com-
pactors, some consideration must be made of the hours of trash collection
activity. Table 5-14 shows the percentage of day, evening and night time
collections occurring in the trash collection model used for this analysis.
Although some fraction of the population sleeps during the day, it is assumed
for this analysis that sleep occurs only during nighttime hours and only the
fraction of total refuse collection activity that occurs during nighttime
hours is applicable.
5-40
-------
*,
co
C)
M
g
3
jl
8
u
CO
^ CLJ
rH M
in
w <
OQ iJ
J2 P
6
w
$
g
w
u
PM
C to
o & c c
H ro O TJ O
4J -rH 35 - > rH
CU 0 <0 rH rH
8 i o4^ w"
CM C
I a -I
4_) O M-4 O
4J O O CU
.C rH
fJlO dp rH
H rH 0
*- -
O & O "D O
H -r-t CU -rH
4-1 O 4-> > rH
O O (0 rH rH
(I) r-H O -H
rH 0 D > g
rH rH Qj C ^*
8O " tQ
1 OJ C
O
DI e -H
c a 4->
r-t M-l O
Co O .« <*> rH
w vo O
CJ
C g O -0 O
O &'H CU -H
-H 4-> > rH
4-1 O «3 rH rH
O O rH O -H
rH VO Qj C ^->
81 & C
o
0)1 "4J
So o D rH
aS
^
(^
g
rij
^
*2
li
r?
CN
Wilderness
m
o .
rH
1 -*
rH
I r->
o
r-
0 0
O O>
r~ n
in o
rH
O 00
O
vo ro
CN
m vo
O CN
o oo
<^O rH
i-H
oo ro
in tr
rH rH
in
CTi VO
«* CN
r- CN
rH CN
(0
S 4-1
C W Q C
S3 CD ffi -l
Q P! o (Tj
cH Q ^ f£
r^ i fd -H nj
C 3 E P
5-41
-------
To determine impact on sleep and the reduction in sleep disturbance
achievable with noise emission regulations for compactor trucks, the following
method was utilized:
Step 1. Average SEL levels at 7-meters were computed for all collector
truck types (rear, front and side loaders). These data are
presented in Exhibit 5-F at the end of this section.
Step 2. The distances from the compactor operation at which these levels
are decreased in steps of 1 dB were calculated. Propagation laws
employed for each land use area were discussed previously in
this Section.
Step 3. The number of people living in each 1 dB band from the 7-meter
level is calculated by multiplying the population density within
each land use area in which trash collection activity takes
place by the width of the 1 dB bands (calculated in Step 2) and
then by the number of trash compactions within the given land
uses. The number of trash compactions by land use area is
presented in Table 5-10.
Step 4. The average sleep impact is calculated for each of the 1 dB
bands. The impact, expressed as a fraction, is found from a
curve relating sleep impact to sound exposure level (Figure 5-2
for disruption and Figure 5-3 for awakening). This procedure is
analogous to the fractional impact method used for calculating
ENI for generalized impact.
Step 5. The relative total impact is computed in each band by multiply-
ing the number of people living in each band (from Step 3) by
the associated fractional impact (from Step 4).
5-42
-------
To determine the resulting SEL level inside the hone, the following
transmission losses were applied to the propagated noise levels, depending
on land use.
1. A noise level reduction of 20 dB was used for Urban Row, Dense and
Very Dense Urban areas to represent an average of the case in which
the windows of half of the homes are open and half are closed
because of the type of building construction (Ref. 5-19).
2. A noise level reduction of 15 dB is used for suburban and rural
areas to represent an average of the case in which the windows of
all homes are open (Ref. 5-19).
Ihe fractional impact of the disruption of sleep by noise is given
in Figure 5-2 where the frequency of no sleep disturbance (as measured
by changes in sleep state, including behavioral awakening) is plotted as a
function of the SEL of the intruding noise. Note in Figure 5-3 that levels
exceeding SEL = 95dB are an extrapolation of the data. It also should be
noted that, in the calculations of the impact of trash collection noise, the
analysis ignored impact contribution below SEL = 50 dB. This cut-off was
selected to account for the continuous presence of ambient noise. Efcwever
indoor sound exposure levels from trash collection activity rarely exceed
SEL = 82 dB. Likewise, frequency of behavioral awakening as a function
of SEL is shown in Figure 5-3. These relationships, adapted from Figures
1 and 2 of Reference 5-10, consist of data derived from a review of most
of the recent experimental sleep data and noise relationships. The curves
of Figures 5-2 and 5-3 have been modified slightly from those contained in
5-43
-------
Q_
2
S o.
J: Cl
Q_
«/}
*.' O
w 7-
n *
jr o-
TJ
1001
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Sleep Disruption
FI = 0.0135 (SEL
- 37)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)/ dB
Figure 5-2. Fractional Impact of Sleep Disruption
as a Function of Sound Exposure Level
(Regression of Sleep Disruption on SEL)
5-44
-------
100
80
o
O)
C.
V
60
J 40
a
CQ
H-
o
X
u
O
I .20
0
(SEL - 50)
50
70 90 110
Sound Exposure Level (dB)
130
Figure 5-3. Frequency of Arousal or Awakening from Sleep
in College and Middle Aged Men and Woman as
a Function of Sound Exposure Level (regression
of percent awakened on SEL)
5-45
-------
References 5-10 and 5-11*. The curves indicate the approximate degree of
impact (percent disruption or awakening) as a function of noise level. Further-
more, the noise data contained within these references were measured in terms
of "effective perceived noise level" with a reference duration of .5 second
(EPNL ^ sec ) was converted to SEL by the following approximate relationship:
SEL = EPNL - coo-16 dB (5-19)
J OCL.
The ENI for sleep disturbance and awakening was derived for each of
the regulatory schedules and study years under investigation using the
formula, ENI =/"^pi*"[ The FI equations for sleep disturbance and sleep
awakening are based on Figures 5-2 and 5-3. Table 5-15 shows the sleep
disturbances (ENI) for each option and the percent reduction in impact accom-
plished by each regulation with reference to the no regulation case for
selected years. A complete listing of the results is provided in Exhibit 5-G
at the end of this section.
Table 5-16 shows the sleep awakening ENI and the percent reduction in
awakening-related impacts accomplished by each regulation with reference to
the no regulation case for selected years. A complete listing is presented
in Exhibit 5-H at the end of this section.
*Personal Communication, J. S. Lukas, July, 1976.
5-46
-------
The probability of disruption was a compound probability which accounted
for the number of nightly compactions in each area.* The compound probabilities
were calculated as:
Pa - l - [(Pna) °]
where
P1 = probabilty of sleep disruption at L1
a
P1 = probability of no disruption = 1 - [L1 - 37) (.0135)]
na
C = compactions per night per hour from Table 5-14
L1 = noise level in the i increment.
The probability factor was multiplied by the population contained in the 1-dB
annulus and the sum of the annuli resulted in the number of equivalent people
per night with a probability of 1.0 of having sleep physiologically disrupted.
The probability of an awakening was computed in the same manner as the
probability of disruption except that the probability of no awakening used
the following basic equation:
Pna = 1 ~ tlji ~ 50) <-
It should be noted that the calculation of people-impacts is a measure of
people times events. One person impacted (e.g. awakened) 10 times is assumed
to be equivalent to 10 people being impacted one time each.
*For example, if the probability of awakening is 0.34 for a single event it
is 0.56 for two events and 0.71 for three.
5-47
-------
TABLE 5-15
SLEEP DISTURBANCES ENI
(ENI in millions; RCI percentage benefits)
Options
Year Base One Three Five Seven Silent
Base 1976 Total
RCI
RCI*
1982 Total
RCI
RCI*
1991 Total
RCI
RCI*
2000 Total
RCI
RCI*
34.1
0.0
0.0
23.4
31.5
0.0
18.0
47.2
0.0
19.0
44.3
0.0
34.1
0.0
0.0
19.1
44.0
18.4
7.6
77.6
57.8
8.1
76.3
57.4
34.1
0.0
0.0
22.2
34.8
5.1
7.6
77.6
57.8
8.1
76.3
57.4
34.1
0.0
0.0
17.7
47.9
24.4
7.6
77.6
57.8
8.1
76.3
57.4
34.1
0.0
0.0
17.7
47.9
24.4
7.6
77.6
57.8
8.1
76.3
57.4
34.1
0.0
0.0
11.0
67.7
53.0
4 4
Tt *X
87.1
75.6
4 7
~ * /
86.2
75.3
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option in given
year. Base option includes benefits from
medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-48
-------
TABLE 5-16
SLEEP AWAKENINGS ENI
(ENI in millions; RCI percentage benefits)
Options
Year Base One Three Five Seven Silent
Base 1976
1982
1991
2000
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
30
0
0
20
31
0
16
47
0
17
44
0
.3
.0
.0
.8
.3
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
30
0
0
17
43
18
6
77
57
7
76
57
.3
.0
.0
.0
.9
.3
.8
.5
.8
.2
.2
.6
30.
0.
0.
19.
34.
4.
10.
64.
33.
11.
62.
33.
3
0
0
8
7
8
7
7
5
3
8
5
30
0
0
18
38
10
6
77
57
7
76
57
.3
.0
.0
.7
.2
.1
.8
.5
.8
.2
.2
.6
30.3
0.0
0.0
15.8
47.8
24.0
6.8
77.5
57.8
7.2
76.2
57.6
30.3
0.0
0.0
9.8
67.7
52.9
3.9
87.1
75.8
4.2
86.1
75.3
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option in given
year. Base option includes benefits from
medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-49
-------
Speech Interference
As is the case with sleep disruption, speech interference occurs as a
result of individual noise events. Interference of speech (i.e., the interrup-
tion of conversation) due to trash collection activity occurs when externally-
propagating collection noise exceeds certain levels. However, unlike sleep
disruption, the impact of noise on speech interference is not cumulative.
That is, the duration of the noise event causing speech interference does not
affect the kind of interference, although it does, of course, affect the
duration of the interference, whereas in sleep disturbances the cumulative
effect of noise can change the impact from one of sleep disturbance to actual
sleep awakening. Therefore, the appropriate noise metric for measuring speech
interference is an L__ occurring for the duration of the event, rather than a
eq
SEL which considers the effects of the duration of the event.
Also, unlike sleep disruption, interference of speech may occur both
indoors and outdoors. The degree of speech interference from noise is
dependent on the particular circumstances involved. Noise level and duration,
separation distance of the conversers, and loudness of voice are all factors.
The relationship of these factors is described in Reference 5-5. Sentence
intelligibility of 95% with a normal voice is assumed as the minimum value for
satisfactory outdoor communication. However, 100% speech intelligibility in a
normal voice is considered necessary for acceptable conversation in the indoor
environment. The methodology for determining outdoor and indoor speech
interference will be discussed separately in the following sections.
5-50
-------
Outdoor Speech Interference
The population exposed to potential outdoor speech interference are those
people who are outside of any building but not along a street. The population
exposed does not include pedestrians or people engaged in other forms of trans-
portation during the day. Rather, it is intended to include those time-periods
in which people are relaxing outdoors - either outside a home, business, or
cultural institution.
Outdoor speech interference due to trash collection activity occurs
when the noise level of the activity exceeds a typical outdoor background
level of 55 dB. Although average outdoor urban ambient noise (L^n) tends
to be about 5 dB greater than the assumed outdoor background level, a concerted
effort to reduce urban noise in the future would make the 55 dB level a more
appropriate figure to use for this analysis.
Propagation loss is computed for each land use category in the same
manner as discussed in the section, Sound Propagation and Amplification. The
distances at which the noise levels fall off in 5 dB steps are computed,
and the equivalent number of "impacted people" living within each band is
derived using the fractional impact relationship of the criteria shown in
Figure 5-4 (Reference 5-5). This number is multiplied by the number of
compaction cycles occurring during the time in which people are estimated to
be outdoors each day (.4 hours, i.e., 2.7 percent of the day) (Reference 5-13)
to give the total ENI due to outdoor speech interference.
The potential ENI for outdoor speech communication for selected
years is given in Table 5-17 for the study regulation schedules. The
relative change in impact obtained with these regulations also is tabulated.
Complete results are presented in Exhibit 5-1 at the end of this section.
5-51
-------
TABLE 5-17
OUTDOOR SPEECH INTERFERENCE
(ENI in millions; RCI percentage benefits)
Year
Base 1976 Total
RCI
RCI*
1982 Total
RCI
RCI*
1991 Total
RCI
RCI*
2000 Total
RCI
RCI*
Base
30.5
0.0
0.0
19.3
36.8
0.0
15.0
50.7
0.0
15.7
48.7
0.0
One
30.5
0.0
0.0
17.0
44.3
11.9
8.1
73.5
46.0
8.4
72.3
46.5
Options
Three
30.5
0.0
0.0
18.7
38.7
3.1
11.4
62.5
24.0
11.9
60.9
24.2
Five
30.5
0.0
0.0
17.7
41.9
8.3
8.1
73.5
46.0
8.4
72.3
46.5
Seven
30.5
0.0
0.0
15.9
48.0
17.6
8.1
73.5
46.0
8.4
72.3
46.5
Silent
30.5
0.0
0.0
10.7
64.9
44.6
6.1
80.0
59.3
6.4
79.0
59.2
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option in given
year. Base option includes benefits from
medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-52
-------
100
£
o
fc
a.
80
u
1 60
"5
u
D
40
u
0)
-------
Indoor Speech Interference
Indoor speech interference is assumed to occur when trash collection
activity noise propagates through walls of residences or buildings and remains
above a typical indoor background level of 45 dB. The criterion of impact for
indoor speech interference is given in Figure 5-5 (Reference 5-5). The curve
is based on the reduction of sentence intelligibility relative to the intelli-
giblity which would occur at 45 dB. If people are conversing indoors during
the time a trash compacting operation is occurring, the probability of a
disruption in communication is given by Figure 5-5. Before the fractional
impact is computed, the same reductions in levels due to transmission through
walls which were used previously must be taken into account. During times
when trash collection activity is not occurring, no trash collection speech
interference occurs. It is estimated that people spend an average of 13
daytime hours inside each day, i.e., they spend about 86.7 percent of the day
inside (Reference 5-13). Taking the fraction of the daytime spent inside and
the number of compaction cycles occurring during these hours the indoor speech
impact can be computed in the same manner as the outdoor impact. A summary of
the estimated ENI for indoor speech interference and the percent reduction are
given in Table 5-18 for each of the regulatory options. A complete listing of
results is presented in Exhibt 5-J at the end of this section.
Adding these impacts to the outdoor impact described above gives the
total estimated equivalent noise impact due to the interference of speech by
trash collection operations. The result is the equivalent number of people
who are unable to conduct normal conversation during each two minute collection
cycle as shown in Table 5-19. The associated percent reduction is also shown
in Table 5-19.
5-54
-------
100
c
o
U
O
O.
U
O
I)
c
tt)
«J
t/
80
60
40
'g 20
50
55 60 65 70
Level of Continuous Noise Causing Interference (dB)
Figure 5-5. Fractional Impact of Indoor Speech Interference
(Relaxed Conversation at Greater Than 1 Meter Separation,
45 dB Background in the Absence of Interferring Noise.)
5-55
-------
TABLE 5-18
INDOOR SPEECH INTERFERENCE
(ENI in millions; RCI percentage benefit)
Options
Year Base One Three Five Seven Silent
Base 1976
1982
1991
2000
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
Total
RCI
RCI*
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
49
0
0
46
0
.92
.0
.0
.59
.0
.0
.47
.4
.0
.49
.5
.0
0
0
0
0
43
11
0
73
46
0
71
46
.92
.0
.0
.52
.7
.9
.25
.3
.8
.26
.8
.9
0.
0.
0.
0.
37.
3.
0.
61.
25.
0.
59.
24.
92
0
0
57
9
4
35
5
5
37
3
5
0.92
0.0
0.0
0.54
41.2
8.5
0.25
73.3
46.8
0.26
71.8
46.9
0
0
0
0
47
18
0
73
46
0
71
46
.92
.0
.0
.48
.4
.6
.25
.3
.8
.26
.8
.9
0.92
0.0
0.0
0.32
65.2
45.8
0.17
81.5
63.8
0.18
80.4
63.3
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option in given
year. Base option includes benefits from
medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-56
-------
TABIE 5-19
TOTAL OUTDOOR AND INDOOR SPEECH INTERFERENCE
(ENI in millions; RCI percentage benefit)
Options
Year Base One Three Five Seven Silent
1976 Total
RCI
RCI*
1982 Total
RCI
RCI*
1991 Total
RCI
RCI*
2000 Total
RCI
RCI*
31.4
0.0
0.0
19.9
36.0
0.0
15.5
50.6
0.0
16.2
48.4
0.0
31.4
0.0
0.0
17.5
44.3
12.1
8.4
73.2
45.8
8.7
72.3
46.3
31.4
0.0
0.0
19.3
38.5
3.0
11.8
62.4
23.9
12.3
60.8
24.1
31.4
0.0
0.0
18.2
42.0
8.5
8.4
73.2
45.8
8.7
72.3
46.3
31.4
0.0
0.0
16.4
47.8
17.6
8.4
73.2
45.8
8.7
72.3
46.3
31.4
0.0
0.0
11.0
65.0
44.7
6.3
79.9
59.4
6.6
79.0
59.3
RCI - percentage benefit from base year (1976)
RCI* - percentage benefit from base option in given
year. Base option includes benefits from
medium and heavy truck regulations.
5-57
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The impacts from trash compactor noise are based primarily on a single
equation:
ENI = FI x P
where
ENI is the equivalent noise impact
FI is the fractional impact produced by the noise
and P is the population impacted.
This basic equation finds many forms as the investigated area of impact changes
from urban noise to individual collection events. Table 5-20 summarizes the
forms used in the preceding sections. Three areas of impact are distinguished:
a. Annoyance from urban noise.
b. Sleep disturbance from individual events.
c. Speech interference from individual events.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the data shown in Tables
5-11, 5-15, 5-16, and 5-19:
(1) Substantial benefits in terms of reduction in extensiveness and
severity of impact are realized as a result of a compactor regula-
tion in concert with reduced new truck emissions as promulgated
(Reference 5-1).
(2) Relief afforded by limiting noise emissions from newly manufactured
truck-mounted trash compactors adds significantly to the benefits
consequent to a new truck regulation, i.e., absence of a trash
compactor regulation will negate the full potential benefits that
may be realized.
5-58
-------
TABLE 5-20
SUMMARY EQUATION DESCRIBING CALCULATION OF
TRASH COMPACTOR NOISE IMPACTS
Basic Equation: Equivalent Noise Impact =
Fractional Impact x Population
a. Impact of total urban noise.
Ldnmax, I v
= V / FI x P°P- '
traffic > V annoyance i /
i = 55 dB
where
FI
annoyance
o ' U. s 55dB
L>55dB
dn
b. Sleep disturbance and sleep awakening from individual
events.
*
ENI , - SELmax /FI* , x Pop Density x Size of Area ^
sleep y | sleep >
disturbance - = 37^8 \ disturbance )
(awakening) ' , (awakening) /
where
FI , .. , =1.35 SEL -50.0 x .01
sleep disturbance
FI, , . = 1.19 SEL -59.7 x .01
sleep awakening
5-59
-------
TABLE 5-20 (Continued)
c. Speech interference from individual events.
ENI
speech
disturbance
outdoors
(indoors)
i = 55 dB
(45)
FI , x Pop Density x Size of Area \
speech r ' v
outdoors f
(indoors) '
where Leq = is defined over the duration of the event
Lmax ^ tne maximum level of a triangular time history passby
Lb 1s the background level
FIspeech 1s def1ned*1n reference 5-6.
5-60
-------
(3) As new truck regulations become more stringent, greater relative
benefits are realized from noise emission restrictions on trash
compactors.
(4) Regulating a truck-mounted compactor more stringently than engine-
related truck noise (as measured during the compaction mode) results
in only minimal benefits, as the engine noise is the predominant
source of noise.
(5) Benefit is afforded mainly to those people in dense urban areas.
The population living in suburban or low density urban areas receive
lesser benefit.
5-61
-------
REFERENCES
Section 5
5-1 Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation Noise Emission Controls,
Proposed Standards for Medium and Heavy Trucks, Federal Register 39: 210
(Part II), 38338, October 30, 1974.
5-2 Noise Control/Technology for Specialty Trucks (Solid Waste Compactors),
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., BBN Draft Report 3249, February 1976.
5-3 Letter from R. A. Simmons, SupervisorNoise Control Program, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/Region VIII to Fred Mintz, EPA/ONAC,
dated August 24, 1976.
5-4 Plotkin, K., "Assessment of Noise at Community Development Sites,"
Appendix A, Noise Models. Wyle Research Report, WR75-6, October 1975.
5-5 Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With An Adequate
Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
5-6 Cost and Economic Analysis: Specialty Truck Components, A. T. Kearney,
Inc., Preliminary Draft report submitted to EPA Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, February 6, 1976.
5-7 Environmental Protection Agency, Population Distribution of the U. S.
As A Function of Outdoor Noise Level, EPA-550/9-74-009, June 1974.
5-8 Background Document for Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Regulations,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-550/ 9-76-008, March 1976.
5-9 Gunn, W., T. Shighehisa, and W. Shepherd, "Relative Effectiveness
of Several Simulated Jet Engine Noise Spectral Treatments in Reducing
Annoyance in a TV-Viewing Situation." NASA Langley Research Center,
Draft Report, 1976.
5-10 Lukas, J. S., Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy in
Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep,
Stanford Research Institute Report to EPA, October 1975.
5-11 Lukas, J. S., Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed
Criterion for Assessing Effect, Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, Vol. 58(6):1232-1242, December 1975.
5-12 Lukas, J. S., "Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy in
Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep."
Stanford Research Institute, Project 4050, October 1975.
5-62
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
5-13 Sutherland, L., M. Braden, and R. Colman, "A Program for the Measurement
of Environmental Noise in the Community and its Associated Human Response,
MDlume 1, "Wyle Research Report WR-73-8 for the U. S. Department of
Transportation, December 1973.
5-14 Environmental Protection Agency, Public Health and Welfare Criteria
for Noise. EPA 550/9-73-002, July 27, 1973.
5-15 Welch, B. L. and Welch, A. S. (Eds.), "Physiological Effects of Noise."
New York, Plenum Press, 1970.
5-16 "Noise-Final Report," Cmnd. 2056, July 1963, Her Majesty's Stationary
Office, London.
5-17 Grandjean, E., Graf, P., Lauber, A., Meier, H. P., and Muller, R., A
Survey of Aircraft Noise in Switzerland, Proceedings of the International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, May
13-18, 1973, pp. 645-659.
5-18 Sorenson, S., Berglund K., and Rylander, R., "Reaction Patterns in
Annoyance Response to Aircraft Noise,"Proceedings of the International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia,
May 13-18, 1973, pp. 669-677.
5-19 "House Noise Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft
Noise," SAE Report AIR 1081, October 1971.
5-63
-------
Section 5 Exhibits
The following Exhibits present tabulations of computations concern-
ing the health and welfare impacts for the various cases being ex-
amined for each year and land use type. Results are presented for
each of four final regulatory options (1, 3, 5, and 7), the Base
Case (no regulation) and the Silent Case (see Table 5-1).
The Exhibits are presented as follows:
Exhibit 5-A: LA (Average sound level in dB(A))
Exhibit 5-B: L (Equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period)
Exhibit 5-C: L, (Day-night equivalent sound level)
Exhibit 5-D: L , A (Day-night equivalent sound level with ambient)
Exhibit 5-E: ENI and RCI for General Annoyance
Exhibit 5-F: SEL (Sound Exposure Level)
Exhibit 5-G: ENI and RCI for Sleep Disturbance
Exhibit 5-H: ENI and RCI for Sleep Awakening
Exhibit 5-1: ENI and RCI for Outdoor Speech Interference
Exhibit 5-J: ENI and RCI for Indoor Speech Interference
Symbols defining columns are as follows:
SSF - Suburban Single Family Detached
SD - Suburban Duplexes
UR - Urban Low Apartments
DU - Dense Urban Apartments
VDU - Very Dense Apartments
5-64
-------
C
O
H
-P
Q
D
n
^
u", ir\ o F~ ^o u*i co *> r~j Is* r\j o <>* u' o CT^ tr> ;r-
^ rv ("^ ij ^ (") ^*^ fT* C3 *"^ *"* ' "4 ' r NJ 3U "^ vf ""-3 "^ >»f" ^*
_* j I**- ,-j T r\j CM m u"-( f\j v£ t-j f- r*- re en m T
Q-\ rrr tO ^^; ^*" C3 »"^ ^ rO *' * NO ^^ f^" f^ "*" ' ^ ^ ^'
r- ^ ... w -3 r> c,- a; ^ ^ * < 10 in u\ ^ u , m
^* -sj* ~^ *^ ^f "^ VT"
(jrj en U^ VAy '^J 0^ W
<\j r i rv. (\i r-j ^ r^j
-T J- --T >r f 3 -T
^ ^ " 2 ^ ^ J^
^ ,n i" IP u-, in u
a
00
^J ^J ^. '* 'N | -^S 'X^1 "-4 lv, r --I fJ J I-"1 . -J r^ J H
^ ,_j (j , ^_i rv ~*^ Q f*-i & ^- .-4 ** ( i- J »-^ < r-l t* -^
O sT «- f O1 -sj" ^ f\! iT*1 '.f "* "-* '"^ ""^ «*'J "-"*' r-4 ^-J I ,<
a, a i
41 ^. u .
^ -"\j rx t\j <%j CM
u i O ML,
I
in
4J
H
(U
w
(0
O
O
rd
W
01
01
OJ
r L \O -11 -C
O O C C
O
cr- or ^^
r* h* »^
N o so ix^ sj" r<~ r^". c\j fV- r\ r\l tNJ oo f\i r^J <^vj c\j f\ ^\j
r^f^-r^p^fs^p*., p»-f*» fwi^-r* r**p»- r**-r*» r>"r**r-r**
xaJccaocrcccocrcconosoc7*c> cro
CT"' C^ C7* 0s CT"1 O" C7^ C^ CT*^ ^~** ^**" f^1 0^ CJ*" C^*1 C/^
cr
r\l r\l
r» p-
rr> O
o o
o
r\j
X 0
H CM
Q)
CO
(0
CQ
O
Q
O
CO
w
rd
0)
coininininmin ininminminin
-toooooo ooooooo
cococococooococococooocococococoooco oococococoooco
(7^ ^ «n -^ tn P** C5 r**~ 0^ CT^ C5 ^^ f\i r\j r\j CNJ (\j CM c\j (\j r\i (\j CM rsj r\j
«»»»»»»«»t»»«»»»» t t
rn fJ- -J-
r- r- r~ r-
r-- h-
o cr>
rn
^ * J- >*
r- r-- r~ f-
5-65
-------
i" LH o -f> »} ui *' en m r-< r- o u- CT- f
ro en -r -<"> "< 03 CM xQ r-i r\i vD tn tr> m r-j on <} u > in o o ir i,~*
-n o o o -j;
-t O o <_ o
o cr* f> c^ (T> r?~ O" CT*
>f! .T sf O ^
pr, ^"i M; i ( r-
O O Lf' -O
t\
u"i un un i<~> \f, .o
r~ fv ^ r*- r* is,
_J r -J ^ I ft ~4 ~~t
. ,-J ,. > _l _( _'
_ ,_( ! ~ ._( _1
(^ "SJ CX !N> rxj (%j
U' C1
.(,
o
t.-i
CO CC
CNl C\J f\J
CXI OJ f\J
CU
01
£> ^ IT. r-) >T
rosfvij^cn^xT
cr- m r"' UJ \r
OOOOOC* OOOOOOO
(JtJUUvJxv c_Ji_;i_j(_)OtJCJ
(r>
Q
r- "I o a;
on UC_> OCJOO
ir '-j 'o w* u o tj <_) v,' ^-i ij
» cr> cr cr- cr> cr cr c^ a^ t^ CT>
o
cr, a- a^ cr cC cr tx, a: ,-x
rr- cc or cr^ a; cr cr cc
ro
c
o
H
-P
Qi
O
Q
CO
-< r-H r-l I , < H
r r> -5 cr y ^r
o
O IT ,-J
aj ct, r- P-- -o
uv cr «. f>- fs
is- rv ix, (^ ^
r:
(_;
tvi
rr> cr (.r1 t<"
ir in u- u-
ir ir
J- <) --t
L>, u^
r- i
m jr- ro, ,~n
CO
CO
P. co o u> u» ri r>
r» f^. ^. r-
i rn p~i ro PI <
-------
co u-\ (V
i-' .v, sj-
ui r^ ijr\
pr,
cj
-o
P- p» ir\
O O cr> CT> w CT> i'-> ir> tr u<
f- ^ Is- r- ^, r~ P-. r- r-
O O O tJ O O O O O
-n
-P
p3
QJ
H
CO
c"i v"1^ -t
,-»- xt '
\: . L'I cr-
o o o-
ro
LT- CM
<\
ro
cr
'X1, cr,
^; ^
1.0 cr.
i_' r^ -,t sC r» ai on aj or 50 cr; T or co or: rr u~ c~
r\i r-i r- 1
o o o cj o
o o
0)
CO
< nJ
I O
in
£3
4-) O
-H (0
.
a ai cr a) a)
r-> a. a; on a. '~ (T u (r> f\i ^(> p- C.;
n> p^ ni (x <\j ,-j <_j tr a^ cr or f-
a, u* rr cr> (;i tr (f> t/*
s.r ir
r- r~ r» ex"! PC ^ r o * ^ cc ui a> a/ (j> re a, PI CO « cr
LT o " a o i ri a; u^ -> f\ (x rg c\j rvj (\i r\i r\j rsj og r\j r\i (\j
O
H
-P
CU
O
Q
CO
u in ^-' -x; -.n ir m rg o m w. N. o-.
«f)
ci o o -O o O O o o tJ
a- cr r^ f^ i> n~ o -CT- r^ rr
P> ^-^ i*- K. r- ^ i^r^ N-
if- ip, ir\ u-, u- tn U' u\ Ui U i
t r-< J <)- O JD P-i *
\O O sr tr- »-f IT in in
o > r~t
'. TV r\j e\j r\ r\, rv f\j r-w rv rv r\i rx ex
rv
fn
CO
CO
o f< O ( CM rf' MJ t\j vjj u. \o it' J") \u -u «fi
xT^r^ c_5~j-a (^cocoooo
O O in u >3~ a o *-« m (n ^c ^.i ~u ft c> cr
ir,
cr rr O
«-4 «»l r-l
5-67
-------
QJ
to
(C
m u
i
in ,£
o
-P (0
H W
c
o
H
-P
Q
PH
Q
CO
CO
CO
i'i ' m vr> co
cO aj <|- o IT. O IA O tn ui LT> at
o o r- ^ cr u' on o cr>
oa
c_>
- N. r» ^o vC m -T --t' n i r\ cxj CM r i ^j ,-H - J
- C -i/ ^D /} " MJ -U -4' MJ >U Jl \O ^C -JJ vU *'
rsi
Nrfv-.no*-- -T a1 f\j Jl O
r\i
r j in r> rv o r^ rv Tn aj * r-
r- ^. «< ai «' cr i^ (^ IP o t_> o
-0 '-
10 LT\
LO
<
j
(">
tr -i IT <'
r> *"j in co
" ^7 cr T CT
-J U"
Lf
.">
i rr» O u'i r-) is O u"i in .J- - 1- ^t
c Ji " cr ir- r <: r~ -xj t-j , *.- vc -tj i^ ^ ^ Co a~ cr o
a: ai '.r 'x
n \ t. C ir> Q' r-
cr1 <; f*- vn --t * o r^ rr r> rr^ c> c? cr o rr r>
o' oi r°, n^ r«i m r11 m c<"i f f~i f~i
,r> r» oo o C f\i rr' -t LO -o i»- cr c- o J
r-^^i^crcccooT'Cocr, cooror. cccrcr
X!
W
o
0)
D
Q
a
0)
W
n
CO
CO
0
5-68
-------
0)
to
(0
ffl U
I
in si
o
-P (0
H W
in
O
H
-P
D
Q
Pi
Q
CO
CO
co
w
«t CM O'4-rMr\jfo
m u>, i° in in in
Orrih' o ro ^o cr^
aj u/ a rr w v r"> o o v-j
^~ h* ^" *O -4j N[J in o in r-. c\i
.-4 r\; u. m ** cr o fXi f^i n* >4 > vfj vu sU ^' H.' sC" J'
a) 'jr5 ct' U^ U" ('^ O r_1
r~J o O on cr CT
-ij -n u^ LT l!1 Li1
»«. r«- r- cr OT1.
ir> in o IT to
m
CC IP
o cc to
Ovi,^)-^-JU\U/~\NT(x^r"ir\'nj)t-Jr-lr»lr-(i-Hw-'r-' U. -^ vt1 I"* O ^ J >
d" uj ip P-» o *! no on in ^/ VJLJ -X^ p%. ^- P*- co cr co (r cr cr-
or,, i-u OLJ ct: r* r*- s4j in ui ss i rn rci ,'i n' m
ti. NU rs, us pj ai «. i r» cv vT ft ci") in O ui O u> <_' o O O ir o''
T NC r>- O ( N^- in MO " cr r\| f* ff. a; r\j in cr CM o r> rvi in "- o
(\l Cf» n'* u"\ 04 en Q 0-4 »j- r rn m
mm ro t"O r) p>. r" IP on IP ^j u\ o vj- UN ^r tT- m vt/ O fi <» o c\i in cr; t -j1
rsj aj wi -H Cw ixi <» i rr -jj rn r-' "\i rv ,~n ni f«i NT ,r %r ' i° u~> JT\ m if, in ir in in in IP u"\ u» in u\ in
< ;?» n 4' >cr f nj xp in ip ^n 'X) nj ON ^j f-n C IP T? nj IP' 'r r^j LI cc i %t ^- O
cr ON v£} rsj or ^. CT> rr-> rr if* rn r~* rr cr cr ^5 o O ~* "J p^ CNJ r\! f\i rn
\t, MI in
i", in ip
l co m m ^n f^i m r*i 01 "^^
ul u LA i/> i o if *i ip t r N u > if A m in *p,
in cr co -*C C" m r** IQ fi^ 41 rr rv ui
rr el* o o -' < '-' M f J n« nj r >u Ui if\ u\ it\ ^ s}- >o m
-f ^r --t -J NJ- T u rH -^ 4J ^ in u > u \ in
otj o ^ cr- --^ N^ r* r-< r* o;j cr o '-* ^j cr m ^ c r* i
(\l r*i i/* ^o '\^ en (\j r*. f^* (jr* f** »^ ^ *^ vj* tn 10 4* *o \o MJ c* i^~ f** d)
^stf^'mmrxjrsitr-iooooc3Ooooooooooo
vt, N or- Cr O »^ fx r^i NJ' LO o r^ cr. CT1 O **J n« rn *^ in so ^* cc") cr O
5-69
-------
iD
Q
n'i to f\j t>.
. ( cc CM cc; rn u1 ru
CO ro <\j fst
(U
ID
Q
PH
ID
Q
CO
S,' -OJ sL/ ''-< slj si "U ^ >O»U<5J'IvO»O>fsl.'t'>O^tNO'ii^l>*.1>O
t-r cr oc « cv * "<"> C^ in iT * V '- -T CT tf i/> cc u1 en cc
tf- «-< -;; i ir CM
vu rv *-t -u C u; j^ m fx m sr \J ^ u> ui ir> c u >J) vU r>
c c
'-r c~ o o
j", C- -t sC
vc o <" <-' -f> o ^o
to, ui I.A tr\ u< ir> IT
o c^ f~ 'r^ i-" vT <>
-< c\i -r >i., i-" <* fr
iT *, -t fV (^ f1". (-^
LO u^ in ir
t
>T lJr^ in
r\i ^ r. "- cv rv r\i r-j rv (\i r-t
O cf r> CJ -f r- O (T' J' "" OJ
41 ^ ^i IT- u to vQ \i, J^ \C l*»
cu
CO
m u
i
in X
o
fO
w
-P
H
u' r fi ft p*
r c f-1 f\i re -.t ir ^i
r-
r<"i
O a "-1 i '-*
r>- N or oc ori or oo co
cr cr- O -1 f*' en -4- ir.
" CT> C
X
H
o
0)
O4
o
Q
I g
Q
cn
co
w
o, j- o f-j
r?> (N, »J_ O
rv, rv a; on or
O O O
c\;
CT' C.
HI -f> vC i
o O (M -T in
Qf- /p f»- ^,
in u- if' u
ir> to
3- .-4 '.f a- r\:
r- in in in <
r> «-- r> a O; 00 C7*
ir
in U'1
ir
^' c? -n --^ T ST v-f ^T si ^j "vT u, rvj ij o rvi >O
r<'> f<"> o>
o
-j- -j- m ri CM r\i .-i o c CT> rr
v-f vj- vr >f ir vf..
iv, (v (v-rv-crocoococr, oocc
rr>
m
cc.
o >-J
r> o m
rr cr tf»
or, a o
r*i 01
in o
5-70
-------
w
r^incocT>rof^cx)cnootnnjfT>xtaor-* 1-1 /^ o -*- no cr n i \o ** '
4_. *T rr- f** VT »~4 CO xT t**1
ro j CM co U* "* ro
o o o T* T* cr ^~ P*- vO
rx. ix. rx. u j.i o O >O ^
r~i T) 'x.j >n ''n "-^ '^ 'r c"
h- i/
U ' 10 m -T tf -T xj xf x)
xJ c; xf r~ y.' n r\i r-. <-j
(7. /) r» -O f *f '<\ -O <*
^cosrw^rMsr^oj
cr c^
m o
r~ 'i
CO 'J^
r^ -x
r c
r~ *.
i) C
.P -C
ro o
4j -c;
xT xt
-j ^
cr c
XT ^
Cr oci
i- rj
'-? in
r^ ()
T '^
xj" r**~i
^ -t
IT, in
xj xT
U "
xf xf
d) LO
u, m f- CM^ in c^ ^ 0
r*- r\ N- f\ ^» AJ fNj *\i f^j
"'1 r^ tj ^j r-. -4 >j- r*- r^
[]> U^ rJ O O ^ **<* -* r^J
vf -I- 1.0 t-"1 '^ LO ir ^n ic
sL> O ^ ' ^*J -w '^Q v> sf ( ^
« --t P-. -t Ul Ul in in Hi j"v
X^ "^" ^ x^~ ^5" ^J xt" "$ ~^f
aj r»i or" ro -±j r° rn (<" oi
TI r\i m fr- r\i >n CT CM in
in u f> vO i- »>- r~ ^ u>
(.* u" t;
(NJ nj ,..)
m ^j cr
r-| r\j r\j
a tn (r
n ^
f"wf v^" ***
T,' T- a
HV «/ vi-
i"' in ip,
r-l -4 (_>
*-XJ f-"^ X|"
I*- T «;
1*1 in u"\
f ~T XT
01 ro ex
CIJ r-l xT
uj (0 0>
r" r<) (\J i O O O O vT CT> CT- f> (T> CT- r>
y sr
m
in
xt
CM sO
00
so
in
O $ r-l *0 1-4
CM CT xf f- r-l
in »t in m *o
co
-o in
r- o
r- oo
in m in
ro o o
co oo co
ro -4-
o o
f- f-
O 00
00 CT>
4- xt ro
Is- r- f-
o -4- xt
O Is- -41
o o^ o
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CM oo
o *>o
ro (f
r- r-i sn
in CM co
cr r-
r- in
H r-< O
sjQ *>O ^Ct
CM ^ xt
\^) CO O
ro 0" -o
oo r- r-
r- r-l xt
m u^ co
\O CM PM
c> oo in o in
CM oo ro r~ o
co r-» OD oo CT>
CM CM CM CM
^»» ^»» ^«» ^»
O in o o
o & o o
CM CM
f- f-
o o
Is- O
O r-l
CM (M CM
0^ CT* CT*
CM in oo
cr
r- r- r- r-
^O \Q **O ^0
r^* co irv o 10
c\( r** fM ^0 0s
*$ C5 ^^ *H *~"f
>O
00 00
vO -£>
o in o o
ro vO O ro
CM CM ro ft
oo oo co co co
O O-'
*O 00
ro m
rg
cr* cr* CT*
in in m
CM xt CO
CM CM in
ro cr* co
in
o cr>
in
in
in in in in in in
xt n CT>
r"~" S^D r** r** r*~
oc ro oo so
CM *o o^ CM
CO 30 CO O
oo oo
in co
in in in
oo r^ r-
r-* -4" f^"
O O O
o o
in in
o co
CT* sQ
r- co
o a*
in -4-
co oo
o r-
in
o rH m
ro ro >o
xt O CT*
O ro O xt C>
xt CO CM xQ O^
co r- oo oo oo
r^ r- r- r*-
in xt
ro <} o ro
U* O^ O O
ro
^
CM CM
CM CM
*t -4-
*4* xt
O 0*
O O
I
CM CM
xt %t
co co oo
CM in co
r-l r-4 r-l
ft*
CM CM CM
xt xt xt
CO CT- O
5-71
-------
0)
W
rt
U O
I
in x!
O
-P (tf
H &J
JQ
H M
X! O
X CM
1)
Q^
ir4
Q
rn
rrt
ir> r-~ c^ CO in Cf CNJ a; ,0 O CM m CO in O Ui O ",n O O O O O ;r> (.r-
r>-inro^^>o-r>u^in^or<>(>^co'~'inQCT>
-0 "- -T -* a" «i <*' * co rn CP m an IT> if o O o * r-i < oj CM "\j CM
.««»«»t»»»«««««»»«»»»«»«»
vj- *T -4- >T r i on CM 4 o o C.P p» on co en cr> CT^ tr> (r> tr> i/> (r- ir* tr u'1
cr> in i cr l° <"- r-i on r-
'* o
(i- fr> a" ^- MJ ir> if1 -J-
f>» N- (» vo^}so%n\C'>o>r)vuO'«U
O on tv HJ jOsf ' r-' iO f*-
cc fT1 i^1 «'M ao to. -o cr o -4' (\i or *
-4,1
LO vu -n ^o
>f) v(J -U
u\iou~i
O a- -j"
(7* >O f~ -
in
sr >r
LCN IT.
LT,
in ir\
C -* O i J \P --1 »-*
oo c\< ^ c? <\j o a*
or rr> fM
cr to fvi
10
a; of en r<) ro fi fT r»i n) 00 cu cp w<
co m
r P i
rn
co %j- cr
<>
ro
O D
H
-P
CU
O
Q
ir\
c^ iriu': j-^-
CT* rr c^ O o O ' i
f\j
HI' Q o r^ cr o> u> or, cr, *- f» r-- f» cc co or. en op
-u fi -c o in 10 in iTi LT. m tr, i.~s m IT n m in m IP TV
a
IT-,
-t < o .-i cr --4 m in en j<5^''~'0xw H »\j r» i~
vu CM sC r-j 10 rn c\j o en a; r^
o in o o f> cr
aOr-Jiocr/or*1
(? C tj o -' -*
CO
en
an a,
OCTO
5-72
-------
n'-'iriC!)i-'xt^
u> 10 o O P-* P- >
o
aj
r-
, o
u".
at")
or ro
on ex;
f\i
-u
co
f-
ro
c -n
.n
f
r- vC'
O fv
o n -t ao CM m cr
tr * f"* u^ *v
rr
oo
r\i ^
CD <*'
4 o'v rrr~>r^romror"r0rnrri
-jo >o £, Ji -c ^o *n o st M; ^ -i) \o o ^n vo
Oo* <>f»-<>Pr-'o>c 3 ^C o i<"> IT,
P~ cr o (\, N- o (V
r- ^ ^r (v r\j c^ P>" f" -4 $ <; u u'1 w "' «> us us in u^ ir> in in in u"'. u-. m u^
-C1 ir i<^ IT ir in LI IT- ir> u> ir> ur in if> u i iT- 10 u u ^ iTs m 10 LP
cr r^ rv <^ o"> (r IT < - ^- tr ' rr, rf1 r\ (v vt ^o ^» t" r'l tr, r- (r r- ir\rO»-'(NJ<\.rr»<<<"vrO-y«J- ^t IT IT* m IT
«.
in
cr
0)
M
nJ
U U
i
in xl
-P
H
O
(0
w
Pn
CO
co
o rv ir. tr,
>tj o
O U> O O O O
co r~> in on r\i m oo "
o fT> cr> f> a' cc
O
cr>
O
o
: O
cj sj- N-
CJ O CP
o 01
o o
or
m IT ir, L*- IT T IT. IT
fi
O
H
-P
Q
CO
CO
CO
»
CT a) r\j P- en i ' r\i ro i">
^ st^ ir
u; o- 'n o u1 O *- tf m
a. or. a;
C -C in U" in U". IP in y~ ip, 10 y\ ,4-^ IP LP, in ip i^, i/> ,_-. tr\
f\j r- O n m %t » m -.C f\ CT -t > -O < <> -' f-1 -~i - » < <-< C
. «w f- ** i>'^cros'>3"Op" r^oc'Niu', trfv<;cpnju'. oHi <-,t
m oo rn «j o rv * --i o -n ^ ^ v* tn in >o M,V -fi N- P- ^ cr oo
O C d rr tr a/ co »- <4'
10 u< ir T T
O ia -a r- a >-> rr ^ ^
C7* sO r^ rr"1 ^ f" ^ oc~ CJ^
I*- ct' u i in y, in u u in un u^ u", u
u. r^i u> fci cr- m ro ni r <\i ^o o cv u cr r-i <-
cr o O '"' nj rn ^ tr> ^ ^ or C71 O «* f\iro<4"ir'N£r*kcriO'"O
f^r* cncocrocjCC,'cr>cocooooocT'C7>qvtTcT-OC7vcrcrosO
5-73
-------
fl
O
H
-P
ft
O
D
Q
ID
P
Q
CO
co
- t
. -i fr* r\j t sO *
.-J c\i <'"> in O £>
~) O
r^ CJ
-TI 4-
r\i
o o rr-
CO O )
'f -'-o f^J
r-4 UJ ir\
O O
o ,">
-o -o
^ U\ i-T\ ir, c\i ;> ir\ 'vj u> ^r>
'U *J >n -o -v
« (T O O OJ
PI i (Ni u^ *
«' ^ -t -4" »,'
-Ti £>
sO an
LO U i
CJ O
-O
tNj ^j r j » -- < .. 4 o f>
^C -T '-C -O -T -*) .J U^
O in (X (fi O ^ c^ ir>
.5 cc MD vj- rn r^ -f en
; o '-O .t ro !Nj n CO
c"i a^ or en yj
^ -A l^ L^> : "^
on cc "' en or or ,y cr. or1
^^ i'~> LT, L ^ tn LO ^ 1C IT.
D an cr fr- o o
T- LA n LT\ Ui ^i
I/- in tO L"' '.n if; t_p\ lf^ IT\ >n U"> n in in. UA in in L^ tr> in in LT> ,_-^ i/> u->
cr^ O i^ c\j cfi u' c^ ^T" O ^ f* o t(^ m fii in i> \ u^ ^ %o ^ 4J ^ v^ v^j
fc^-'.n-*Txt"'^rrifN-jnjC\Jft*fItIt-t^w^,-J r-4 * i* »-4 = H *4 r-l *^4
U1 m u> to m tr\ '.n
un ui I," in
CO
Q U
I
U
4J (0
H H
£!
H M
^ O
X PM
W
C
J
(0
CU
W
(0
CQ
ID
Q
Q
Q
CO
co
CO
OOCD
M
m
cncno
5-74
-------
,T. ,v) co m cr> -o o
,*;>'^'nir'.-t:\|
N. K. ,* i on vi) "-
o -t" o IT. o". *- r»i *n o -J en CM
i-o t- -t -> '.->. >
en r?- -4- o> 4- ru o < < ' CM ^
O O t" ** J
--1 ."> n CT- ri
.4- j- fi lO r\j i 7) O rr-
f^ fs. f- !» is. * i^- *> o
r> ,-")
ij -n
D
Q
CO xt ^ r« ^ ^ ^ "^ -< '^ °° *"> ° ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '^ -1"
-D -4- ir .f> 'O !N ' «" * ^ "O 3O ""> *- O 'O r-- O *"0 -O
-» try r-< en in tM NT -0 CO "i cr> in rvj CM ro fi o1* -T >r vr
-t * O
o
or; r»- -u
^^ in u1 u\ 10 tn ui LA uv u\
-»,> -O <> JJ «') O J.J ^ -A' --D
c
0
Q
M
C/l
CO
r- ^ CM
f\i ir* r-
-n
CC
ro
CO
j- cj cj -t"-
rr- er 10 en co cr
^ L". 4', u-. ur i m
on oo ,-n
in LA ,a
t\i co c~ O o
IP J1 O r- <
-n -~> in o 0s
in in m ir\ in
O O
o CO
OP co cr, co cc
O O < .-" »-
in u in in if ir> Ln O U^ fsi 00
r\j
cr>
1. 1 tn
in
in ^U r*-
>O xO -0
f>- :,,% ^t ^ r-O -^
-o
N.
31
-d-^J"«i-ropOiir\j,_i._i^-ir5C3OOO-oooo
^--Ocn'v.c0^,rgj.fSjrsjj. cofMunco^j^j-Tciji
»t'cri-Oi^fsjtno-OfMa3-d'OiTCOr-4inTOr-«vt
UN *~4 cc? UN rv -u "* in r*i C3 oo *-o ^(j ^ *^- r-*- ** ex? no
.- o
CO CO
o o
cr
-^ ro
~- O
en [>
O O O
CT- CO
m CD
fM
in
OO^^C^COCONr^-r** ^\O-O
^** r*- xQ >u sO xO *o sO -o sij ^o v^ '"O
sf rg -( cr co < oo -H t» co (\i a) i-»
cr»f** r^-vUcn-HmfninofNjUNO*
U~y (Nj O ^o ro O si- o co -4j in ro ro
f\| f\l p-J --* r-> r-^CJOOC^C^CT f^CT^C
j^ 'O 4!) -o ^o ij*^ sO ^o ^i m m in ' n "* i
C3 u^ r\j *^H ^ f\j m -4) fsj -O ' n c*"^ o-j o^ in f~*
^ooOvOin-^hin^o^rriinogosO o^'CO
O vO in >y rn CM i o oo co co N ^ r«. r» tv.
xt
in
>c -o -n
-1 sO TO
cr> r-i ro
sf m in
00
Ul
0^0
'-> rg
00
ITi I
ro co ro
ir> r> O
r*" S- CO
IT-. l'"\
TO .j-
O r-<
a) co
in m i«
w -4" ir>
< r\i r\j
co a. oo
in
in
in in
u^ in
O CT^
O in
on
m m in m m m in in in m in in .
r\j vj- -n
o
in m.
f\i v-j-
rsj
m in in
CM r\i
ur\ UN in in
;n in in in
u*. m
13
CO ON o
CTN CT\ O
cn c>i o
H r-l (N
5-75
-------
D
Q
_< is c\i " o . i ,".
ro r^ m 'oo cv 's 'T-
CM
o
o 30
en sp
o en
on oo
O CT fs vQ
fs c** r\j '.n
co an r> a-
,~T <\j
---< sj*
o O
rvirxjoor-i-'Or^fT'CPo"!
r>, fv. rs K. fs N., ,£ .f* .ft j\
-o
.o i o o~ or o i o o - -t i co y->, -g
o ^ rn O i<^ -~< IT. O -d o M -*i o ^f (* O f> >O O cvj in en o m »o
cr> O u i o - <-< fNJ f\l (M <~M r<> rvi rc\
.p
c
r\
-T -f -f f-f^^f~r
u", m u^. in in in m in
in
0)
U)
(0
Q U
I
in x:
o
-P (0
H H
X!
H M
£! O
X fa
E3
d
CO
CO
r~ I Qf. (^ ~| ^ f^* li , ^
a. ex: -4- a vp <^ cr
r" ft r- N
u> u> i" u<
(-n rr >s r
o o ^. G.J -^ L'-,
L' i (\j O O -i . -4
o <» cr n: ^-i o cr-
.-< u^ co .-< r>i
r\j N- ~y rn ji c^ r-» -^ fs
ni rr, r 4 cY>t;'7>cncjC;oriccoD'x co coooco
(j^ 4J in «4j f\j sjj t«-i in c? -^r ufj l'^J '-O O m f1*
C -'} in m tr u> IT, m in in in vO vti o \».>
-------
u
o ro 00 ro ^inrj
*
«««»»
EH
O
EH
o o o o o o o
* * * t * t t
CO r-t 4- ro ,£,_,,_,
o r-
fxj O
CD
en
(0
U
&
U
(0
w
W o
I h
in
w
-P -P
H H
XI P
-H M
£! OJ
H
O
c
0)
M
(0
PQ
D
Q
* * t
vO >O ro r\i
co ro f-- r-
tn in >* o
(M 00 !A r- CO
*****
^1 V r-l CO >t
tr> r» h- r-i
o^ o co ^ %o
(_4 i-l O I"*- C^
O Is- -^ ^ CO
O* P^ CT> 00 f.
oo «o f1- ro i
* * t t t
O U"> O* Is- O
tn co ^H r\) co
ro o> in 0> o
00 CT1 -J- \0 CO
t-4 rvt co r~- r-i
>^ ^ ro rn ro
< i-i 4- r\j rg -( O *O ^0 »O -O 'O
in
H
a
w
Q
0000
t f t »
o o o o
oooooooooooooooooooo
*********»*.
0000000000000000000(0
o o o o
* f
o o o o
°ooo°oooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOC3000C3000C3
5-77
-------
H
EH
8
o m CM Ti o «t oo
I CM f\J <"O
<-> o o
o on
oo <> co
o h- 10
fM O N.
Q
c: o
.- o O O
<"O $ A t) -0 <1 ^~ f"
CO »O ST ' "*~ CM fi 51' fO U CTN r<1 in <\1 01 CM <\J
cr N- f«-
-r> o -.o
1' r^ IT (M ro rn r>j
5 OP r\j o ^J "»
4 r\ -g o on vti -u
--> ^H < 4
r ^J j rn rf-i
r-> CT» i^ <^- j- o
a) m m u^ uo to
^j CQ ai an cr- i^
^t -4- >t r cr. -o O * rg N- on ~< >u co ^- co c
ITi -a ,t -O CT. -T 4 xt fM O ^ H) 'X! ''O -O Or- O
O £> ^H CM CM en o ,0 iri r- ir\ u^ vi u^ m in o
OOf^^ *(\JOi'>rn'M en vt- j
CD ^ Nt f\) O
LO tn u^ ITS -.}
OOOOO
-I ^-1 t I <-< ~t
W O
I U-4
m
3
en
Q)
W
H
o
H
-p
s
10 r<)
ur\ r^ rr. r*.
co
<)' t\
CM in
cc «-i
ro m m
(N
MJ en o
a> CM >j-
f i r>'i CM
rvj CM
O in t^
iTi a; -j
rf) c^ in
a^o^^
i CM cr
CM >u
an n~
to ,-<
I <3 PN)
r» -f
ro -o
CT* an ,«» ^-j ^o
-o C3 on CT> cu
r-j o rr> rsj
L,^ CM ro sn r- < CT^
< rf>fv-u;
or~ or sc cc
M
S
w
Q
Cfl
COOO OOQOOQOOOOO COOOO
1OO
en
CO
o<->oo ooooooooooo oooooooooo
O<->OO OOOOOOOOOOO OCJOtJOOOOOU
cnr^
m
u'> >o »- crcrc
5-78
-------
QJ
w
(0
u
u
m
w
5-1
H O
I T*T i
in
tn
-P -P
H H
X
W
co
0)
H
fd
H
53
W
C
O
-H
-P
D,
O
O ,<> a m ^ m ,n IA r- .$ <» I-* oo *o m. m u* -4- o in o in
H , ....!..< *f*»(>t»<*
U o in \ f\i *.* f m ^ in ^ i^ i^ i^ in in 10 in in *.o in m in
Q O <-> O <->O'3f*JfN|i'>*UO'-I -r (71 o**roornr in CT* K) "*
O ON-^^W* o^jr-i>TC7*('Ol>~-pfco^l>ofX|S*-J|s^h*' c^>cKlJ*^\1J^^^mxtu^-ul<*
^ f*. u ^ u» ' * i ^j "^^ c/^ CJG ^ f^ f** **3 ^o *ji »o >o *o Is* *"** r^ ^** '**' (*** ^
^-J ,_! ,~< r-4 I »-J (
oo ^ ^J .^ ' *^ o 0s ^ *o n* ^x1 vC* ^ (NJ rr1" r*» *j* ^** rj* co rn P** r*j ^7* >*NJ
n ^j "n r'j ^N! en o ^^ '^ r^ in *Q in f** ^D m *^ '»*^ o *^" in ^* ^* r-^ ^
O 'TO m *- r- -Ta5C7*sOfO'"f>»~<4"^^'^ O'*l"'-»i-<^OOM
Q j-\ i.-\ -j- cr ^~ -u i^ on m o o 43 t\j >o '3D o ^ ^f) yw4 ^4- i\j ^ to co \o -c^ ^*" f** ^o ^ co C5 *~^ (NJ en in -»o ?* oo C3 *^
o o f* f*- *o -.1" fNi cfi r^ 10 m sj- on m m >f J(NJ>~Jr-l't'-4»-<*"'I »-4"4r«»i<^-l«li~li4^4t(
f\i op* Li"^\ ^» ^JD m ^Z3 *r o^ ^H ^NJ pn *^H if*, (r* c) ^^ ^^« f\j u i f^ u* f^ rfrt »fi
I [ |> ,»! rt ^ *^" (H^ f^5 *^ (%I ^-J ^*^ f* 1 ^3 **^ ^J If *i W* f ^ (NJ I./* U1 U ^ sO O '**~
*-J '*7\ f^j co ^o ^^ f^ ^^ c3 f^ en ^n co ^* c\j *f r~^ en r"^ ^* f^ ^** pn *^ C) f^*
CTJ j^ ^* c^ ^~H o* %^ c^ ^4* 0*J Cr^ f^t CT^ ^^ *"^ f^ f^) ^*- ^7 ^* O* f^* C? ^^ pn
f^ t^ ci^ f*^ CD *^ ^*i^ ^T? ^* i^ CNJ o^j c^ in ^f* ^cJ c^^ in *^ o* in c^? in j* ^
PH u"* UJ ^-J f\j UJ *4~ C3 NT (1 (NJ f*- OQ »"^1 sj W^ ^4" *NJ CT^ P" ^- U ^ CJ r~t O %f
^ n^ c*^ 1^ ^ c?*- *^ ^" i*^ *-5 OD CNJ co u ^ ^ oo if^ * *o cr> ""^ f^*- ^* (NJ o co co
r-~t c\ 'T~' *** "~* ^o w^ ^^ cc wn ^ m *H r*^ * «ff-4 Q ^? on m <*o m pr\ vj" ^
Q oooo oooooocoooococooooooo
w ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
^ (_?c;oc ooooooaoooooooooooooo
w OOOd OOOCJCJOOOOCPOOOWOOVJOOOO
f\J
5-79
-------
O m en m on I* O
O O * 'O (T» N.
O in
C\l 3 Lf\ a -H <\| K O O t-H »-* O O O
rvj PO .4- ir, j^ .n o fv ^ is, K^*»K
O <-> O
f > i*- rn a.)
on _i ^- m ji ,-j in 43 CT> £J rr> .4 or
a1 o <*> r» en nv o c<\ so f^ -« m ,r 4) -r
U^ -AJ ti) L^ Is- T l<1 ,i1 I_> -^ Ol U* J1 ;«'! .r1
o P- u> IP o vij ro ;r> MJ o ^ o r\i r-i cT1
f\j r^ r- ^,( r~ U1 CO CU U (^ CJ iN| !» !» sj
-ij i«- a> b M (\. o 01 r- s^ o u. *t <( j
(\|
CO I .fr.
^ u-i m
£> CJ J-
CX' i r\ IO Ts if\ U^ Ci
»ij u' u> i2 on u> ^-< .-» rvj "\j
Sf -t vt" xT -t -r 111 u\ U', J-,
0)
01
m
u
o
td
w
o o
-o -o m r\i f\i ir\ r^ -o (v1 <} ' cr> <|- 0 i^
a; i-fi i^ rs. xt m rr f\i o t>. r-i a^ -i) co N
to '^^ Nj" CT< t m in
f\l
cr> o
CM ,
IT-
in
H O
i m
-P -P
H H
X
w
(fl
(U
H
ID
ti
O
H
4J
D
Q
o
on
in a> - 1 <\j
m CT* irv o*
or, a^ o w rvj
rf> f\J ^ cr>
en vo -o o
or
ci> t\i
10 in
o in f-<
cj co r»
m -TO <> r- cr i»- o
-^ r\i a" o i c an
r\j CM < i ' i 4
ai c^
vi> cr
u~>
cr
in
rn
in CM m cc
r.^ m LO r»
i t\ rn %r
or, v> a- ?o
» co
or rr>
H
S3
H
Q
oooc oooocoo-Toot; cooor>ooooo
oooo ooooooocooc cooooooooo
03
o o o o ooooooooooo
cooooooceccocncoccaocr<
5-80
-------
Q . n cr (xi o *- -f <<> cc; * ^ o or. ox o <~> c o o o < no »-» ' * *
O ^ CM ,-j. OO O -T f"' CM r-* vf -J" fi en m -3 ^ ro in »\j p , CM cv -i, -t)
oj ,_, ^ oir-l r\j rr o f^l v> xT J' o? ^ cr N en IT ^- C^ o -t M O a
co o T -J"^ * c"' * ^r -4" (_J o vf --P -t f- O m in i/\ r j o «' <-i «3*
en o a> -.u,-t o 05 ui f- t.) r- -.r -r m <> i CT- (.r- r- .T -3 ^ ^ Ul p,,
O !» u oj a; «J u\ r\, r-* cr> U) IT Ui in m ',1 rr- -j,, c ^T
(-.,1 rj i^ i>i ,'i vf CM CO f< «i -7- TO ^- «*" ^ *' rjl' Ul '* °- ~ *"* '"* r-l ^
^ (^ IT' NT Og -* iT1 ^ vJ a'» u"' ^i' ->r >r -t <} g i 4^ TV Is- i -i co c M' f T- - -1''1 .+ r> O n
(rt i) O .n i*n ^ c c\ (T- n -t -T Q vU or r- a O u . <*- o r\ c> I,A m -j- rr> 'M O ro J'-1 f f* C- O on c' CM c\ LO c^ f~- cj -o -3" m in m »n \D ji in i,n in i/> iri r\j O CJ P" ******** ***
I r^r 1-) r-i (^ r-1 c> ' a ic-, r~< o o i'' cr u' m cr <) >jj u1. f-> ui vf) o & CM in
LQ P^ Q u-. N CT~ sr < c^ >> o V' CM in o -" ^J °~ o --« r>i j; o >r rr --< u\ ir>
rn crcaii)Or>imrMcrj-|vcru>cT>fv-j-."fMcc^
j jj f-i »-i r-< IP (0 w o <(' CM u> in >- f»- «f rr r» u i tM ui f>- O
."^ |_i O or»«~«jivoriona:i>()miroooooc3(To<-^c\{\;fMfri
^Q ,-j .^ cr> c^ cr- x '~ M,I in vr ni m m r i f<> rf] tn r^, ,-" i f> r\, CM CM f". c CT^ f- r-i »u c\, 41 ^ O c\ <> c«^. rvj
rl § UN «J *< O^ ^ M tt *"-' °^ ^ U ^ ^ u ° ° 'J' "-f 'f' ^ ^ ai ^ *"* ^
Q^ (n c^ LI UA a, si.1 "' m > O :fi Is- a;
rrj -j (\ oj- in vT o <^ ir f-* O r- M~ --C ^c -r ir. ~- " c^ cr cr c~ r- cc ^
(0
H COOOOTOOCT'TJ^OOOOC'O^OOf^OOCJO
S Q »»»
H 55 COCOCOOOOOOOOOOdOCOOOCC'OO
01 cr o "< c\, m CP o r-^ cv rr ^j u~ %o ^ on cr o
r>- r* cnocor, oDoccr/croocr, oocTicTOO-crocroooo
O>0^0'-CT1f^C71CIxOKOC3>CTCrCT>CT'O1'CT'CT(TO
r_l^|^-l_J^-r~(^Jr-
-------
O in c\j
ir ,n en
r-j cr-
-0
so
o o n- on CM - to rr tn er y> o o o o
I ,-1 ro en ,t in .n ,n -C J *- >- Is-
o
EH
O O ->r c\ IT> i t\j tr o
4- NT i u- a. .-j r- >n ~-1 >n r\j
Ui in 10 m in cr ,~» o O co f-
*-> O <« CT1 O1 CM ro o ot) j* o ro CD *o
rj\ i n cr CM "^ O -^ t' *i-* ^* u \
CT^ ^" »* co co in dp ** ^J* *C' cr* -H m ^o ^u >O ^*- f** ^*" f**" P" r* *^
d" in O O J- oj o »O O r\i i° ro cy cr, o ~t « N in vr ^o a; rvj
r«j (j^ (\j ^r r-j on cr r- (T- r*~i O 10 CNJ rv.1 cr ^- O -J- ro O co >o »i- o ~in.jprsjocfcncocoKKiv ^^coooccoTcrcf'OOCo
(\i fV, -« i-» >-J -H^r-*
cr
cr O
U3inr>"(\)xi ^ r* i CM ^t-' «? *u ro ^
d"i«'O^*%"^Ir<^u O fi 0s "^ "*' (\ <" Ji u
U > »l ir- r-4 Jl If
cc *n nj r*> ci^ c\j
<) vU
a;
O r\i
in JT
ro 4- rri c>
r>- r^ vy tr,
mro rorororororo
fM CV ffi OT' CC. ,-.T CNj ("- fT> C" t-* IO Q CT CT~ -J ''I \O
cz ^ f»\ ^ ro u11 a"J n 't >( > ci oc *'' co rTi ^ v^ f** cr o < "^ >M
r-^ '41 f""4 »1 sO ^ C^ CO CO U ^ CO r*4 W^ ^ CC ^ C^ C^sl (^1 ^\T
vO 'O N ' C; >0 vO u^ m * -* vt
-------
H f-t
ft O
CM
ex;
N; o OD co
' .* cr^c>Cx(!>O
, t H . 4 *-H I
CJ^ (i^ rn vn < CM co if» m r*> o pn m f ^ rn
in to tj -f «^ (V! >-i --H -' m vo o o
-O *£> O (>
ir> t^ cr CT«
m ro
o r-J
rr>
r<--, -o rv rr-
rjj a; rn ij
-t
or rr> a" en or or en cr en
(f. ^ (r) ,<> rr, v-n ,-f-, po, rri
fM *
or* a- r- CT o <~r> a
O Q
CO
a, a:
'OOQCJOOC3OOOOO
t^ (.!* u^ (T o"1 cr cr> cr> c?' o cr> cr cr
0
CO
a
PH O
I
10 £3
o
-P rt
on o"i -3t~ f~ si" ro
cr. c<, i < so ~*j
CO U; CD U> P- i-
u^ f7> ^ cr G^
10 J a: a1 a/ a; co tu cr, a) co on
o
Tvl fNJ ,~> >-l CJ O O O <-> O
o o cr fT> cr t^ IT< a> tr tr
or- T" o *
(_> O
<\J
co
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
CO
<1
03
K
Q
CO
ra
CO
0)
5-83
-------
j;-
O
*f
00
I
ID
r>«-i-p.N>r-COflOcOCOQOCDCOeOCOOOO»ChO*CT'CNOxCOsOsO\(?1CriO<0>OO*OC>O»O
s-
O
oo
Q
uj uo
ft
i
tr
ra «') rn fV f w tr y>
<>J Cy fV f>4
tr w 0s w
to
00
u;
uu
oi cu o> y* '
w> tr>
u* w
»
i.
as
-------
Id IT. f. (X _ t * ri Q ,-1 - IP oj m 01 r- r~< ir. O r-
rj ^ o o i/> cr r> \u
o O o o 0s cr> o* w>
in
01 rn
..
pn ,-o
rn
CT
ID
Q
in
rv rv
(V o-l i <
O O O
pi
tr>
-p
CJ
Q)
rH
H
en
Q
C/3
o O O
r- vj.
rn c;-
IT in .T CT (V
cr
f\,
Ti IT
vt- -J" P1 »v
u* cr CT o-
(r r^ cc u- on a: cr: a
o." a- -r; CD a a. or cr
a" cr on a. or
a c-: a: a. a-
\j en m ^-i
<.r
f° fM
CT tr
ir> ir> iw
« TO a:
a) ifc a a) ou o; a, a) u< cr co
cr oo o; o oo (y en on or, co on
I
in
en
(0
U
U
H >c- «- or. O on oo on co co or cr
r\J t-< SJ (T^ UO »^" P-
Q
IT* O vf f\j in ro rr pi c^
00 C1 - I"- (-T vT t'"> -vT (Nj
m
91 ST ^" frs c\l ' CJ cr> CO
o o O O cj O cs o» cr-
O U C,' O O U O O
r>i
C
O
H
-P
Q
01
^ ~1 r-j a >c ^ ^ ^ i.^ O IP .-r cr s-j- r- cr -r o~ or cc on jr co cr. on
~ en P"I in on r- o O o ro *- fs, »» vo in ro p^ P^ r^ "> P"i P^ pi ^ P~I
-. >r oi o% CT 0' O' tT< cr< cr CT o CT- f> CT c^ o u
uu uj o1 * u^ O co a. rj (\ O t^ cr u> r-4 tt< on cc: cr, a; «; ai cc a) ai
CO ...».»»».». ,»».«.»
cc o Q r-i (\j rfi -t i^ *v i1- cr. c> C
5-85
-------
-JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
<*.«*t»***t*«***««t««t*t*t*
fc--d>COCMvOCOvt'J>'*'M(\ICO\000OCO
OsO^of**m^oo^Oi*Ofi^o>oofocorHcooof^c\jrH»^3O'i^'i«ocr'O
^sfrooos$-(\jCT'OQ^'{\jrocoin'4i'in'd'roorofO«-t»O
*4* o ro in rn ^ >rf" o ro i< t*" ro r** ^ ** oococoo^c\ih*F-^\Ofsjco
r*» s^ in CNJ c\j *j* in co *^ o1* in cj ?«< in so ^* o** **"* ro *%(* ^t* in in ^o *o
O"OODin«^>sOfrtmfMinO'>o<\)'~*ocT>o(NJro«^'invO^~'00o
s^«^>-'>"infOr«IOO>O>vCOOOCOOOr*-COCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCO
(^<<)fOr>J(Njrj(\J(\lfSjf-li-4r-»r-4'-lr-«r-4i-<«--ti-f'H»- ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
yj | QQ r4 ^J *"H ^^ s£) ^^ CO ^]^ ^J* CD ^^ 0^ 0^ t**4 ""^ (^ O5 l^\ ^* CO sfi f*1^ ^* ^^
^^? j^1 (%j '^D ^* ^* ^0 O^ rO ^0 C^ *^ Lf^ C3 %0 *""^ ^5 ^J CO *->0 ^C^ '"^ C?* OQ CQ ^* 00
y^ i^j tgf^ f\j ^s QQ ^J ^<^ ^) ^^ ^^ f'Cj CQ ^f* *"H I»O fO C5 ^M L^ 00 *JD c'^ *^ C^ ^* 1*^
m y. ij^ i^^ ^^* ^D ^3 fvt **4 ^^ co ^^ ^^ ^^ ro ^) ^* c^ c^ c^ ^^ co ^* ^0 ^j* co c^
f^ IHM Q\ fC) ^_3 ^^ f^ ^» ^«» ^_^ QQ ff^ QQ ^o C3 C?^ 00 ^** 00 O^ C3i *"^ c^J CO sJ* ^^ ^0
o^ ^j j^« ^^ f^ f»>4 ^x ^^ ^3 ^^ ^^ ro co f^^ ^^ c\j ^vi ^^ r\i ro po o ^ ro ro (o PO
i** "^ C^ fO CO PO f^'i (^ ^J f^ ^^ fSJ fSj ^J Cvl ^J C\l C\i ^Sj f\J f^ fS/ ^J f^ fVJ ("\J ^^
aC O.
01 <
>
oooooooooooooooooo
zr ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
«4 *«**««*«««
oo
fit in in
o f\J in
rs J o «* in
i2T H" *4" ^ ?n
UJ DC fH r-l ^
a <
a.
COCOCOCOOOCOOOOOOOCOCOCOCO
O
oooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Q. rH r-t I f-<
Q r-
o
-------
-» o u"\
"- I Q in
o in i^
O CO Q
O -<
ro ^»
-< m t
o
-<
-t r-« co in CM
oo *» IA <( m
in
f*» rw O -O -n
fs. f^ f^ K N.
oooooonooooooo
_jOOOOOO"3OOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOO
< t . t .«.«. t . ,.......,
! stcofxivt-ooorvji^-nvfi r> ro 0 m rjN ro f*- oorrx-.tin^
T! *? O *"" vt O fM fM oo -J cn LA r-* o *-.< * m O <( -JD O -J- f*o
l- - r-j ^0 m -f> f* .3 CT *-< T* --3 -t rr. o c^ O O
^ .^- ^ I ^ LTli ^ n\ in ro *^J O 0' ^o ^* ^ ^ ^ N* ^^ ^ P^ *** h* 't^ o";
rr»rr>rors!fMCVIi>-*f-l«-« "'
n
O
I
in
-P
H
A
rH
X!
X
w
O
H
-P
in
H
a
CD
t CO
IA 'xi cr* c^
in .n j- -*
fM N in, O
f-l LA *" O
' > r>
m r
K- r^ ,-xj fM CM 4 r-4 ii
CO N.
O CM
co r-j
b
o T> K-
rsj -« v
t O
C ;o
O f-
o^ r-a
CO -f!
CT- C7^
r-
a.
>
cc
r.'
a.
<
o o o o o o
oooooooooooo
o u o o o o
oooooo
o o
oa
ro O
41 O
LA -O
o o
oo
o o c_>
ooc-
coinin;f\rn»-'.nOo/i**orT>*» o K CM O
r,^ O fM u^ ro in >- o ~^ -u CD «~) n ^i u"i 15 CM c^ ^
t - Q * tr* o j* o ^ fM '^ r> o >c o *n ct^ f*- CT^ ^ cxj r-i ^3* cf'
U Oft-^O-^-O^OcM^fMCOmcO >D O ~.t- OO O (XI
c\j
D.
to
H
<£
U.
Ji.
H
at
<
a
<
O O '-J
CM a, o f-- O
OQOOOOOO
rJ> O O O O O O O
OOOOOO
< J O O O O O
in
OO
c -<
N. co
OO
O O
rn m r-
^5 -' cr.
OOO
O 'J O
co
(\j r>- o
"4 a> co
co
ni
*
t~ xj-
a o* u\
rri'-fM
j> in m
. o
(j
r-
cr-
o
r\j
r\i
v/i O o o o o o o m
Li. O O O CJ O .O O ^
1^ ^** OJ ^ "sf* O^
u) r", -u rn r^- cfi -,l IA
cy c^ r* o (7^ ^ n> ro \o -C ^ *^ fM ' o rr* CA co f*^ r^ p«» co cr cr "j^~ ^ r*^ Q>
O 1-4 or o "> r vC
r-HI --1 C O
tA T
O
r-< u.;
O l^ '
ci
'v -
CO i.
<\j ao cr^ CM (7*1 cr* (i^ C5 <\j
rxi r» f~ u\ ex »-4 ^ ,-»i -w
fMOfioo^nop ^f-^-^fvorOiAr^t^ cx-4 in N corr^
t\j rn ui INJ CM ^* c/r u1* CM f^ c/^ ou co c^'. yu u'. <* co
ccr^ \oi*^i
cr> CM
ro u'
or
IA
cn
C i
o
5-87
-------
N. O IT) 111
>~< O
(^
r o
O O
IT, CO -- <
o 0s -t -t ?\
i ,-« oj ro ^
ro
-f
m
o
f\i
_jooooooooooooooooooooooooo
h- ..f T; (M VT -r> -J- ,n vj- f- 4- ro
" -o >-> N- >,n vt or (? o -+ -* >n
f- * rr-, rr^ vf- *\j ;T\ ji rt^ o ^ ^
1- O ^ in ;"!*- in <5 CO (T, O
in
X) ^n vf ,£ (\j ^ 4 r» vl~ rj r\j
~* 0s ^* l^"i nj 'T1 ^** tn *3~ CO "%(
""l (\ f\J CM CvJ 4 "-I r~4 .-I *- ,-4
-0
O
o
rvj
CO
l^ *^* *«!" ^" "^T
a. o.
C5
I
m
-P
-H
X!
><:
w
O
H
tn
-H
Q
a,
r-H
en
C
O
H
-P
P-i
O
*L
cc
I/)
O C O
OCJOO'JOOOOOUOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooooo
OO
oo
m in in o W so o O -J- -f) 4 N-
^ ^ O nj IT, ^ o -o m m m in
in f\j o o * rrj
^^ QN «^ sj* *j* ^y -^j"
0^ c\j *O c^1 nj in co
% in in in in m.
aooooooooooooooooa
OOOOCJOOOOOCJOOOOOOOOOOOO
JD O
ro in
^ o
on cc
in in
o a
o o
xC if CF ir< <! -O -H
< Is O G» IT> (f\ (\J
CO i. f^l in r^- (\j i*.
Z3 Of CC U O CT^ O
'»'vO«H
SJ fsl 00
rn in
< X
o o o a
o
i-j on ^j cr o co ao CP o » CD si- u-1 o
'O OU «J 1C. CJ vU U^ CD O O OU r-t
oOvt-n-jOr^c^vOQ^^
cr r~ m vr r\j o ff1 oo r«-. r^ ji \o
cotvr-
(NJ *> <
in
t
-V C
_J W,
C X
l~< <
UJ
A. C.
a. >-
o-. _J
00 Ji.
i/J >JLr
r-
ro
a
if- f nj -w O eo o^ o cr: r- < <-i «- u> -< a;
«NJ <) cjj ao rf\ vu t\j ^-4 w-i o in cr* o in «-" in ->» ro
^invj-g-oo>A/ao>Tmmrri'-i4r'irixj-srujr~t^-
in cr vu oo 4 u f- o (M tr^ oo c^j cr sr
-------
»-. o IT*
o
'_ O .-'
ro
O '-Tl 4D 3T.
r-4in -O I -£> O
f- I m » CM r-«
cr in CM
vt C."' (T- <~T> P
r-j O O O O O O
"\ fMCM-torsiro
cc .*> -I* v,i o r-j ,-o ro
*- "7- *- m o f- -t fM
r, 1 -^ f .' CM Oj J 4 *
-o \i
p- Ji o ir<
'* """} SJ- T1
i. ^ co f-j cr
-4- If, p-
..t .-I -*>
rvj N.
O O
o o o
, .1 i"; o
co o O
in »-'
01 '
rg -oj
ro ro
OJ -I fM -ft X
-4- -4- O r,-. ,-
a-- en o ro "
t" -0 O .'M *f
O O o,j f- <
a 'M 4 ..TS vi
,<^ ,-.1 m CM ex
O PI r-l CC '<~|
I- t*. ^ O CO
no ,o
00
O en
O or.
CM .-'»
O -1 O -J- -' -H
:»> o f "" o fo TO O ro 4 o o < cr r- ^o * CM O
o" Tl CM 'H f»- 4" r-j O cr> ;o cjf> 04 \*M ^O ,~v O (XJ (^ >O
h "^ >"*" u". O ^ O --J" r-vi (^ '"^0 ."T- iO O ^ u' *V -I1 O
>_ . "» a) 10 r- o ro en co ^ -*; ^ ^ r- P- '^ a" en en co
i- ,} 'M , -4 ^-4 r. p-. ^n n in Nt ro ,o i<-i on ro '(i to ro >>"! co ro f1 10
000
h rv 05 o
O O O O O O O O O U C3 O O O O O O O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'-JOOOO
CM
U.. O CTi U'l ro CM OJ o PI >r Pi O r- >}-
co <) ^o ro ^* oj ^*~ (T* *~"* r*1 ^ ^o co ro *4 oi
"i ir\ O o tr> u"^ -T -Jh ui u^ in u\ in n \o -jj
vr
ro oj
IXl
CM f\' OJ !M fM f\ fM 01
O O O O O O O s.t CM
O O O O 'J O O -.f -*'
o
o
a; ro 4; ^ -f
IO P» O <^ 4 .,_,
CM c») o -n ro o
10 rr o .0 -O
^" m XJ-
ri ^- ^ P*- -J3 P*
ji CM <^ 1.0 r\i cp
«r. o^ cc T
-t ri-, (O ro
r- " a* a: -r> cr, f> ,> cr
01 > i r° rr ,n P-- CM
(- o rn r-
P1 CM O CC
u<
^ c^ r-i m o (TN -jj j-
f i r-< a. o, o --i c1 c,-
O -C UT1.
(_- O P-
cc
D
c-j o CT-
4J in tP CT- U> t_J ro -V P1* sO vO 41 -O' u,; CJ CM O OT;
>* CM P*~ P* u^ tr v m u-< CM -^" ro u"s cc til r-« ci* sj u") p'i **: c/^
Jf^JOrfl^tlno«^o^-rou^P- mr-jp- M -ttrp* a d-
*^ CM J" ^u o 1,0. -^r NU r-i -jj r\j u^ CT* ot, cr ex/ cu u-^ ou o)
2-000" QKr«-P* urvvTP'rnfMrVjr f\i r^ c w
«j> cr o CM in uu
CM c-O u\
CI> (T- CT<
r?>
o
f in
ro
cr
CM
5-89
-------
»~. O ir\ in co oc
u O - - ' -
o> o ro rr n
t\j f~" f> co f- in vt
o
l
~ t C\l
a -n
K N-
ooooooooooooooo
.JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f- vt 00 rxj n
rn o * -f >n O %j" -n T1 } en -j- ,-»
O vt* f*- n^ ir* .o (T in on c\j c") * o
O <& in vO r* -n :r> ir-. O } fr ro r- CM
cr o f> *- o vC K cr; cr co o o O
nrt 0^ ^ ^ ^~~ ^* ^ ^ "^ ^ ^" ^ "O
a.
CG
ft OOOOOOOOOOOO
ZD OOOOOOOOOOOQ
41 i>- r-< vT O "? (N) in.
ororooOirt.-i^
cc
' i U_ ff) fJ f\j (7* vj|_) {T%
i/" i' f\J o -.t u> O r^
U uO f\l O f^ rj LT\
-' ^ iTi '.r\ - C C^ >C
sC f-l N r-4 O-j N- ^-* ^C) o
cn vt O 33 O sf- '-»'--
vO -O i>1 CT^ ^ vj- f-J O
^ O *» fO O K -j- J
x^- f> r\j -45 o f , ^ fi
xj- vt -t in m vi .£> f> r~
O
1
in
P
rH
c\
H
^
H
C
0
H
4->
P-i
.^
CO
H
a
DJ
0)
I CC CTi O r< i CP N-
f^ C' O r^- ..n *"* ^ .* cr cr> cn ?~t *t \Q r^i in
"Dh- Ovt"inf~i^Qr^crc'>\c*~'4>D^GOoo
Z.". ^ O f"- cr co o or -j r. o ro >T CT r*-
u u ro si" O O* ro /i -o Is- (\i in. in f> -O o
V1 3» ^ -^ -O O r^ in CT* s^j ^o f^ in *4 co cr"
xT*, H *^" ^1* ro r\j ^^ f)s ^< -^5 i^ xf r>-
..' nj c^ %o ro >* m n*1 CM rri
j'a"icof7ror\ifvirsjsf-jD
Vi t* ^ CO f-1 r-H r-< ti -H »-
w vQ r^" ^ ^* *** fs^ &"> CO 'X)
o (-0 ro f i ro '"> ro r">, ro ro
o
O
oooooocoooooowoooooo
OOOOWOOOOOvJOUOOOCJOvJOOCJ
o
CJ
o
u;
< U.
LC *,
CC I-
O C«-
r\j a> o in o oc co CT- m "vj cr- *-> r\j r~ O (TI fi tn aj CM o « in r\ CT >o in u>
f\j (f*) »^ t^? CG ^~ ^O If" "*sf* f ^ O"1 C\J f"^t f\J fvi
ro r-\ ~-> sr
O 0>. CfJ U3
r»
vO
O,
«-< fl ST vO Q! O r-1
rv f\l r\i C\j f\j r\j ^"J
in
cu
ro
C O O O O O U^ in O
O O O O O O (V I* <5
J-. IT r-
O C «<>
(.!*
O O'
3D a ^- f*1 vf cr ,T ^
u- ) c" u'< *p on O (f
ec a IT a- o -< a '
~ ^ o ** *J O C Ji
1/1 c ^ o n- vt (M en
O »-< ou vO -t (Ni
fNJ (X I * - 1 rw* I 4
ro '
C71 LP
r>j TV)
in
m xc *
a:, o OM in <
or fi ex; u>
cr j- rr cr <
-J- ^ re ro ,-.
O u'". fi rf ^- r<^
c\j vj- o r-1 * CJ f i ^c. oc
^- * a) cr a <~~
pr r*1 f ^; f f'
<<^ O
if- .f
-
~ £
3D 5'
vC1^!M^^sC-JlTiOtxOsru"-'^jj u\ tr- r*- sr r- IP ir> o r*~ »-i un cj^ o tvj in
r\j ^- r* r* o »-j ci^ LT1 o «T' »"i rj ^- ir> >i r- n. .t if f* a~- r^ >
-------
en in
>-( o in in r- vD ,-1
o t . . t
ii'Or-t^j(\jf\ii--i
I I (V, (V> xj-
f- JT> ro O
if- - CT>
,0
OOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-JQOOQOOQOOCCOOQOOOOOOOOOOO
<»» «..««
I" (\j v£ f\j or} o in tn vO so ^ fM "** \O ^o »i rn n« -^ O >-t~ o^ m ro xt* f^
r? 0s -< «-< o tr- rvj ro o
t~ in f\i r-i rr> Ti cr- f> in o in -~'' fv r\i ^/j (\i o on fr> ^ r i en -<3 in sf o
«jr^Orom nj or- f.i K on ^0 en , > fji o vi K O -t i^ ** m vf ^J" ''i o t~ m c*> ^ ^^ ^ -T> xi_. m oo
O
-t cr, o
o
u £ cc
o. ex
U1 t o -o
T; < >* ,c
o ro IP, »>
mcncncr
in u~\ ui in u\ u^ tn u^
o t) r-i -d- -o
o
O -H
I -p
in DJ
-P
H
W
-rl
Q
a
dJ
QJ
iH
en
o ooocoor.j
oooooooooaooooooooooocooo
03
ll- U
1/7 I"
T" 1-
I.' O
C. <
C.
Oir, a)v£>^croc"inc>v'1is*-r'icoocc i
O> inro^ C>
c^ O
M'J O
O I*
^-i r". -n en o r-
< L-
O, H
Z) (X
n.
OC
-J- U-, >T >T CO fl O O I" Ct
!"- oj-cT-occOi-Ju^o-j-
i-- >t> MI
r- i (\j CO
socrCfMvCcr'
' rr- o
u O
a-
rr u.
cc v. , O en _i oc --t
a: -j CM o ««j -< vf!
~ Z3 cr-
C f~ nj
fT: t.)"- tr vi..
ro n
c\l O rr *-
t>»l r^l
nj cr
u. m o i* c^ ^ (^
arir, cgstCvP
cu or, oo cr; o <
rsi »-t Is- -4- O .T)
-T v£j r- ST
I- P-. if o oc r< ^ o o> ^
in "* u~> r~ o rj ax. i~* -r o
it.
^ C;
CM
CL
o.
oc- a. r»
O <
sj- r** f\r O in ii »"' (rv r^- ^fv Q, Qfi r>J i^^ ^, Q[-
<, a; u n1 o rw ^.' r-
u , rr. rv tv -.T CM o a> if, f\i ir
cr, o- c r-> rj ri
-------
o
(_;
0£ O
in in o
-4-
O O O «-l
ro if\ in co
r-
00
O O» 00
NO M 0s-
$ (M
m o
r* NO ro o"-
_JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f»v sO C? fNJ ^* 00 *^ NO ^O f^J r\j ^J *J* '4 <^^ «^^ CO O\ CO ^^ 00 0^ r*" ^\J
ou^^«~'oooooov'-'(\i'>^f~fOtArooofNjoxis~'Nl"ro
f~-of~*roroOC7sooQO*of*'fo»t'j'Orot*-t*-r-«o
fO 00 lf> fxj f** rH *4" 00 "^ CO 4 0^ CO IA N^ CvJ r"4 rH *H IA O NO t\l
^iiOOfvivf>co^"NOlAOror\joOrOlAcoo<>O»-4OOONO>
fOOOrOriNjhoOOOfNJOiAONOfMCM'HOr-lfOsJ'lANOsOr-
^j C5 00 >O ^* ^^1 C3 O^ CO ^*" ^* ^D ^O \£) ^0 ^5 *O ^) sf) sQ %0 ^3 ^0
roroe\jrsir\jf\jr\ji^»HH«-»i-4>Hi-(^trHt-HrH»-irHfH
o o
00 CO
CO rH
co in
CO 00
00 O*1
03
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2 uj *$* o ^ (f) o
o i o «fr ro in co
Qi j-
oo cc
o
ro
I
UJ Q
_l UJ
O X
z o
w t~
UJ
33 >-
or ~*
CQ X
r>
-------
N U~\ (M (T" CO rn vQ CT CO O O O CM
i-iOiAvj-orn-oooo^tntMJ-iMo
!_)««««
a'. O -- 1 O 10 st r-4 ro ro 4 O O rr vO O
-O ,f) CM fT
QON. in-j-n^-i
O -4" >C «n ^ C<
_J O O O
ooooooooooooooo
OOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O "1
N .M
J~" -D O 'M >T) O t *O f"*" cr ^*- vQ 'Cr rO Cr vD f*~; ^s*, r7> C?
^"5 10 rM «* f** ro cv in vO O rr co -.£, sO
! O * ro to CO M "> r. <-j .jp -n o <
,-0 cr. i," CM O -t co o '.n rr C> r\i o ir. ro o o
-J- r-l CO i -t -t fM O '& CO st N (M (T -ft ijn :-0
O O CO 10 N) O f- st ' "3 O 'O r.. r~. j-> ,£ >.>
ro rn i*sJ C\ rM r-l i .~i »-i -t
10 00
O O
co ri
r o
x* ,.-J O -H 1"
._, r\i ro 4- ;n
vO O xt en 0,1
O -J -H -I rM
en
O O ^ ^ '*"*'
o o o 6 o
-; o o o o o c:
"3 Q "3 O O k;1 IT
O O
O 10
t cr1 a- co ro cr on -^
i/>
yj |«- ^}- ._< xt CM cr cr t t » CM CM *~ t- OTJ JH o N- cr -$ >t cr
t'5 2" CO sO rO O -"M iO rO O ^ j-> CC .jTi N \O (T> O> <; ~< rO 4- -f U^ ^- (T1 ^-i
. ,*j -t O »t ro -< sQ -"^ -' cr t co -,n ^ " t vf "*- n- .-' N ,<) c* IA -H on
'-7: ! O -t ro ">j ,t O f> O O I'M O O O cr ao -C' * n» ^- CO CO on cr tr O
o.. -r ~f CM rr O 10 cr o ^r CM O (r a> oo a> cc cr co cr> co on oo a) tr
>. st t
r cc o ro
oo 20 r\j i a1, ro ijn '.TI ji <^- N- 10 Q rj m O
14 f°- ui rr u" r-- 'M -1 1.0 f* in st ro i* 'J cr>
to ^^ ir\ r*- fM >A »--4 c<~i in ^"* Cr * ^o [/^ ^ po
r* CM co vt -sf ro -.(> m ro. co (O -t st 't ^t st
vt -t CO "I ro ro r«l rr\ f«-( m ;f\ ro r^ ,-r^ rq rO
r_)
0
ooooooooo
OOOCJOOOOCJOO
o
a
o
c
o ~>
a ca
o o
0 O
0
a
0
*^J 'O
ri r»- >j- st o - ioo CT w in
i'^ ni cc »* O o <»J Cr O >t st ro CM O "' sL.
m CM O o CM O rn CM -f -0 -J ro ro ^ ^ cr
iH s,")r c^ 'M ^* Cr m c°\j fjs ^_^ p^* ^ j ^ j ^j ^,4 ^_)
cnf<- cMr-HsCi« coo**
ro r> >n ro r\i c>j "< >~t CM CM
n ;D o
S/> O r-»
OC
o o o o o .n Q
O O O O O «' >Ti
.M
ro CC
10
cr CM
,t
or-
10 10 cr rv
CT* cr in f*-
vO GO cr ro
^ st a. i'1
sO O -O
i* tr tr rj o i ri in or *M
oj -' -n
u^ >..< ex. cr en 10
r-- rv r-<
* >-j o in oj TO c o ^ r-- vt (r o) r~» rr i^- ui fr co cr '-^ co uj csj i in»j'uuc\m-4jcrcMiocT<'iiOvt >«cc.
cr sQ -T co so o <-4 «--i r* st ^ r-1 r* ro fr «-" f\ c*^ m j^ r- cu rr o
fj t -^ CM st 'Xfc o (** C2 in CM w^ r** su ^o in vu xo so *4J sr< so -JQ o r*
crcor* sO^st^r^^rxjrwrww-i,^!if^fw-jf^^HtJiI^HP*rH»-^
cc rr o ^J rj m ^t 10 so r- or. CT> o
^ (s. oDoococococoor, oococr, cr
CM
«:
5-93
-------
H-I o
O
- O
-JO
< .
OOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
t , . ...... t t .
i s f* in O o cr> ^ f-~ f\j -
i O <( ^4 -O m sQ f1- <* ~J m m m <\i .-
f~i <3t> f* in O o cr> ^ f-~ f\j -. < ro in -o cr» * tn
-O m sQ f1- <* ~J m m m <\i .-> .-< -n CT> jn -d- fO
CO or in fA CT O !-+ rf\ N- >$" N (\i O (">J K m
'-r- IT' r-j * i f1- xi <-i 'Xi o co oo O m oo . t ,* oo /-i in o ro ^ (\!
'< oo CJ LT eo -j -o in co er o r» st -i en 4- O N >M o
or) ro f°> ^ co co . to N. ^o f1- "?> £> O o 4 »-i (\J f^
o :r> o vi- f^j rr> ^ '^> st nj r-i ^ o o O O o O O < "' -* *
(»> IM r\J ("0 <\| i I *~ ' J " * i-i '< 4 »-< r-< I r-l t I -4 I r~<
./)
t; H --f
U'i *_' iV»
r- u. 4-
11. 5 if\
U h~ O
> O O O O O O ^ O O O O O 'O O O O C O O O O O
OOOOO'SCIOOOOOO'OOOOOOOOOO
i vf .T> ^ LA o -o ro f"
»"! m (\i m O co in co ff
o -t m o m f*- ">j o .r
vt ro rsj ^- in t\i cr, O t<"
st1 ro ^ en -4" o -~4 on ~
N-f cxi o 'J^ r^ cf ---* CLJ ^
rfsJC\lr\;'\|r-i_
vt CO ,0 O o
CNJ ^ -,t in ro
CO O C^ O O
O i<-\ < ,-) o
m -4- i>o f> ro
'JO O fft O O PO vO O -* N*-
cno^tinN or^j^om
o rvi -* J? o^ CM -0 o» ro 43
O^roO^OtnOJI<
rncr-oOr-«(MC\JrO(«osr
(\jr\Jromrfiroi
,-) r-< ^-< 4 ,< ( »~J r-l -^ **
ffi
I
in
-H
C
-P (0
A
H
X!
X
M
O.
(U
m
8'
CC r<- r-
'>.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
on f> co cr^ ^ c
0:2 ^ ,
o on in cr,
o o r-i <+ r--i >n .'"i
(T. ^O -O ~n IT, C7> I
oo N c\j ^ tss cr, o
UT lA -H CT> t> cr i-j
43 O $ t-4 O C? fNj
r\i
O to tn
O co lx-
m u"\ in m 'J:^ in in
in in in ,r» i<*»
a
oooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOC3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
u
CT> 1-1 o *- »-« f-i
co co tr> i ^o o
nj o oj in w u^
m en C^ O ^ <_>
ui UA o <_> r-i r- u% r
UiCOOJ>TO'-«Or
TO -*i- t11 f~| in CT' ^-^ ^ yo ^ «* n~i r~< CT^ o r~t u"\ c\i cj co !"* »^4 >iJ w in cj in
mf-cocooo -rtrvj-coocnocom»-ico.-»-'^voo^r-i
a, »-< »^ ii
l/! O ^-i A
CT
on
"^ r*~ »
.
_) ~ <_) ro PI --f -T aj eg o i~> sT m "^ «H -* -.1" O on f- (M ^u O ^ 00 (M sO
cy c >-' ^ rr t\j \o »-^ Ji -o LT< J1 tn ir> o ^o ** ^* ** cr oo
cf rti -jo -i" rfi CM O r> N- i~- ^o so i° in "> tn u- IA to IT m in to in m
L- C,
> U-
O X
L-.
^ C ^ r^ -H -4)
^[ (^ O *sT tj
Qg ?" '^ C7* (
33 >. ou cr^ co r-
13 <
/i »> -j- r* (\. tn
m u. w a< >o r»
O cr* in
C r <«
-------
is m
.- O IT. f> r"
K> f\J f o f- f^ -I -^ ^ N"
H *1 P" xt cn CT * rr 'CJ *M C -D K
I ,t r-i CM . "i xj~ in xO o N "x PS fs.
-0 <,
_J O
o
o o o o o
.7? '"J O O O O ~> O D
o "b o o '?
o o o
o o o
O . -\i -r cr
O ^x fO i fs
O'} .T> '^ Xj Is-
4- i cr- rg m
.-- 5) .'I ,> xf-
.i i--) , ,1 i *
.-s fs. ps. .->( ,_!
O "" f*- ar C>
-4 o r\i T r~>
m ,? m f"- m o rr-
O TO O < -I N- P"
fs. fs -NI fs. ,;-, , -, a.
i A O O ,P "M O ~>
K.. rp
,1 ,+
"3 .1
o ")
Ps. -s.
ro
ri O O .">
o a "3 o
"> O D "A 'O O
O "3 O 'M O Q
.1"
-i .j .' i CM ,n >P' r-J o -O ^ al ' C-J "J ^ .1" "^ -O O ^- C^ xt -1 c?
J ,-a 'i u~> C"^ ^0 r"! < -! j- ro *- ,o C^ C7* o --i to
I"" - st .*~1 ," .'1 O lO ^ 0s st 'T ^ J- "x f-- --4 x* fs. CT -H N- ^ "> l!~. . < .'JO
. i sc m j' (O -"M ^ in co N- cr CM "7 rs. n j- o -Q o CM o rr* <) ^ ^
C.'. h - o -"t" c<^ m co "f ^- CTN or; fx- .^ **^ rj fjx co vO fs. fx. fx. cr r^i ^^ c^ C^ o
,£ -t xt f«i o w ^- "^J cn m ,-TI T-< o T 'O 01 ui cn .D o;; m cc A3 cn ai (i*
j <.
I
m
-P
H
ft
H
X!
X
W
a)
OJ
to
m
C
O
H
-P
o
O O O C O O O
"joooooc'sjoooosjorivj
o ;-< c a o o -> cj o '_> a o ' o o o
Ps, J ;l-\
CM ^ r-j
^^ O co s> "^ f^ O
O O o o t r\,
"» r" fx- O "- a1
L.'I T-" ^ .~-i rj xT fs. O xj- O >;
._" i CM c-i --j -4 cj o co *- <,.'
-« I
_, fs. ,n ._<
,-> --I -. ,-i
r- ir. r,i T
T> cr> i -\ <-
O CM CT> ^ 5
-* K> i,rv ^s ,^rj
xT -I" sT xj- -f-
rn
-£ O CJ O O CJ O O O O CJ O O O O '-"5 O O O O O O O
CJ O O O '-J VJ CJ O O 'J O rj O CJ O O CJ CJ O O CJ O .J O O O
I-~ u* nu .Q £y* ii ,j- tr CM rj if* rj ci) of) (7* XT c^ -} so fw IM (X) ^o c^ xi> u^
^* y^ ^ \£) fs. rr^ ff. (^J sij Ps, «^ (^-, fs. ^j\ ps,. r^ pv ^ ^J\ ^_) ^*» ^J- ^> (x^J r^j Q/; .^J
< u. Is- c<* i a> cr co xt m o a> c^ >n o CM ^i ^> r-j (\s i:» sj »H >tj .< j; >-» -<;
cv.(--^1cavOOxroco»-irMr~rou'»-< D^H^ ovC5CMxrinfs, on o <
-<-, vl; xT 4j i \ u"., »s.
m
o
..c
CC
C " O O r-> i
(o Q fr rr* i 4 o f "" c°
L'\ I> fNi O» rr o rJ J'
xt O N fi -O O c>l J"i
ijx cr U ."'' -° r"1 xJ tNi
(v CN! '-.'1 ,'^ -O .', J- -T
i
o
«* xj~ CNI fi^ *"4 ^ LO xt ^ ^c CM L^> p*-- cj r> o cr ^ xj- t( j^ xt h-
xT ' ii ai in iN; xj- »jo o --' i*- .' i xj » u 4 a' U"> a, L^ (.r rf.
^CLT''fs' "-^snoc^jcsjxTOcr^xTxfi'noj'^ocMCMcrxJNQ^ucji^ xto
cj on (ix >--4 n co CM <* xt ii
G. ^ >0 CT^ (* i fr* QJ ^* r^1. *4^j f»* cr o* ^nrf hs ft *, f7^ ps. \ij j-) n \ ^^ ^Q ^j s^f ^^j s^j ^ j xO ^
ti a. aie^cor- xC^o »f m m f\i CN > r-i *-*** >~i *~> > ~ri -* *-t *-t ,-)*-**-*
u; u.
^ r. ** o- o-. c « (N, c^ -t IT < N a; a- o *->
-------
r-« O T\ vj" * fv
o »
L O I vP rs. fs,
I I CM
f\i
c
4J tO CT
or r- in
vt cc < .-»
CXJ 10 vt O vt '-O
-i c? vf,- CM ^ r"
c 1 r\ CM r- i i , '
O
L"
-O -.1-
-n )
ro r> <"'
vO o or
cr-
< o cxi O '.r,
-f rvi rr r^i r>
} o a- ro 0
CT- -^T fv. rv rvv
rn
cr.
cr
i~2 fr- i- vt i-J
i"* T> r j ro i/^
(O ~fl .4 ,< f-s,
O" rv sC O st
,T o o r-i 1-1
« fv rs. v_ rv
fNJ
rv.
cc
C>OOOQOC~>OO
OOOOOC3OOOO
O o
u-\ O
vt ' vt f-
vt K~, CT »
(/')
-.- sif r-1 vt f*1 f J *"1 vi" lO O rO
~ Ml «O rf T> ("i O -i1 (T >'"' If",
i -t O vt ro r^ n~i r\i or " o i
>, L.O t ro cr o cr m T< ,-i cr-
O t ro i-'i CNJ ,(-, vO n -i vt
t -T -r rvi of' m 'Xj cr- in CM t-j
cj ,n ro pr> CM n oj .- ~i i r-i
i < 0s O
CP AJ iv, r- .~i 4- f-
o i cr- st O -0 o
^ cr O c> Y) sO rv
O o i/^ ^^ ori ou CEI
on en O f-- cr-
r-J ro vt -1 in
f" i *- ,-n r--
vr > oj O o
>v. rv. el :0 tT
/ en en a;
vt f~ rxi
O OD , -t
vt t CT-
LP.
O
a
JO
o
o
a
>
ffi
1
in
-P
'H
XI
H
(-;
X
w
H
CJ
CU
s>
rd
^
rij
04
CU
CU
r-
C
o
H
4J
C^i
0
CO
ai
<
.
O O O O O l_>
ooocoooooo
***>«t'*l<«
p* r-i ro rvi if\ vt vt si.> i fxj
C"1 -X1 »4 CT< O ;^1 oj vO CT' L'1
rxfv- rvcorv vtOccnior,
crcT1'** if'vQOi^iocno
r-* r\i co vT) 10 **"i o C3 o
CT r- ji
,- O ^
IT, fv or,
ro r<> m
O O O
U O O
a;
n
(- U" fNJ ^> fM l.--\ vC J.i CC fv.
u, pv. (T-, ,_ f,, o1! P- O r-4 SO
r vl) 00 Jl V!' CT N CM vO rO
<5 ,i fi o cr» p* sT, if ^ -vj- '^ i
rniNjf- cjcTOf^OvtvrrrrvitrfaJvO
CT»J OfXvOif|fXvtsOvfrorOvtuivk<
o»ifNjrv u^ tr*. rx CT- ,u *--i vu i s^i t*-1 ^i
fMUnr-lvOr-lpvfT-OrvJvttPltv vX)^,^
co ur, r» ex CM ti it r\j (XI oj txi fx cxi ro rr,
fX n^ (vj rv, rv! <^' fx CM f i fX1 CXJ cv r\j rj rvl
o. O O O C O O v" iV\ o C O
;_' >i O t-J O O O O O cxj ir, CJ in
in
< X
fNJ r-
n; J f" irs
cc c, c* NL.'
-T CT
-0 -st -I sT. -- --}
r~'X)sOCT>cx c_;
ir o
CT
-I O
CT CX.
«' -4^ cr fx CT" v,j i ir o sO LT v>- rr^ -t o p* m ^ cT1 r^, vC c^ m
_ r^T vy r^ ^ n r^ r\j 04 rsj f^ o o IM u', cr- tj r^i 10 T o ex ir> PV
C. ' vj- in rr, ..-t- cr c cr vC cr rf-, c vj vt m r "xi r" c<~, .f\ r*" vr s* -4- vt
cr; a" a". «J- (NI r? t-;. ^ ,jr>, vj- .t r i rr. r1" rr, ,-r, rr, (*"< r>, r-1 rr. r<" r*-, rf ro
I
t' C
_> l!
t.? I
I. . < 4 r I r-4 C r~ 'v fv C Ci' O <"* IV -st I -6 sj'
i/, i c*1, vj- -^ u; -t -^ o Ti pr, ic u. c, pc t; i u i f-H a u cx u~, cr>
ex ~*
tI ,-J. O
sf, lA fv fl. U'-, f CX i
-------
Lfi (X tf\ ro
J- 4") LT, O
IT i vC
ro O
CO -O rO IP. T*
CM SO - 1 O Is-
ro O *- UD xf CM r-< CT r-
xj- CO. r~l O CT CO »* in xf
O I r-4 (X O.I
I .-4 cx ro
c f-
0 JJ
on oo rr> o O
o O cr
4 ro o ' O co co ir, cr rM CM O r-i rr X -r: O '.O xt
o o
"") fM cr
O . -4 ,-<
IT* L"\ fM Cr xt
r-j *- -i --O xf
"\J
o
r\j to o -O o <)
O Is- 01 O '.P. !*
.'' k ~ j IP or) rr r\i ro -n * < o ir> ^- cr cr or <7NvCOrOt>f>> -*j CC f> t fO l^N OT'
;"',: j'' <; rj CM r-l f-i I I-* !~!
ffi
1
in
-P
H
H
_rj
X
w
c
-H
f^
0)
*^
rd
&
D4
Q)
Q)
-P
C
CD
, |
-H
CO
00060oocooooooooooooooooo
)- ,~o LT^ '-."t" r^ r* \ CT* f T* \o o o fvi O1' f*fc o rr* *** -o ^o
^: U" ^f ^AI of r~^ r*~ ^ r^ ^j* '-t" *^ **i^ ^~ ^">i ^" ^-J ^0 CT^ p'xi
rx1 in "o fM o
x, cr O c\j ro
i iL1 CT *M c* 10 01 <i Q*. 0*1 rf^ ro xo r\i ~* ro vD on o ii CM ro ^ u N or cr
; "o O cr c CM if m u.; r-i rr ^ xj- CM ,-< o CT> cr o O o o o o o o
;." f - a^, (r ^ N \c b . xt ro ro rv CM (\i 'M r>j c^j ---4 i' CM CM CM cx CM r-j fM CM
' u
C <
C
.? oooooonoooGoooooooooowaoo
I.' OOCJCJOCJOvJxJOOOxJOOOxJOxJOOxJxJ'-'C'
su o fM en or »-i J IP »3" r\i \c; on r- m su xT o^ r- r-i tj
-< . -i o -*5 co if, r- urrsjc~'^xj-x}-vC)crvvivt-ixj-cooon"C(Mincr
-U in a CM f* \t-' f* u) u i l-'\ N u^ ND U> CM Ci; CO h- vU xl1 CM r~i (T> <~- Ui
a
<
o o o
O 'J O
'Xl O O
-! O O
rr -n
«*J ^-^
r-l CJ IT, CM ~
IT. IP i-1 f.*» in i-i
r\) >* ro r CM or.
<
CT
f.f
a.
u. ^ xt o o n o or n~ r-i i c\! cr rx1 cr UA ^ C -t cr co i/> xC IP fO
_j^rri^j'^cr'^cxocronrr-Ofxt)f(>rMr<^sTxOcjicxvOr-'h.
Q i' i^ ro xtj rr cr r^ xt CM CP o '-0 r<~, cx r-j " *> IP cr ' * xi, in xt P i r^ r, rj rv "''-< r~| -''< f-1 -< «-''-'
c;
t>
IJ
i >* C -» . -> CX (X
r" a t.-i u.j a. 4* i
< r-i O U.O If O C CX tf
a; r i u , r~ ex O 'f\ vt,' r-
cx
cr xf
<:' r,' °~ J' o ir* on p^i < »»> tx J. i c^ -<* xt ro r* xt J1 li"1 tr> P* CM oo o ~*
< msncrcucr.:oOvt)vOu;xrri tr u- 01 xt m ro m ro xt ui --u (r r-4
a. > CNJ r1-, XT t sC fs u". ro o r- i r- cx or XT fM cr- *. o, cr m r-i i»- rti o
a _> o i O ^ xt xt i >~4 ' ir O cr ro cr m IT j-ji"- " u;o c^O'1
_5 >~« r tx CM u * a. CM ur1! C HJ >T CM f' i'1 u- ct' uu uj a,1 u u/ uj u, u- fr cr
a: ± ^ 41 u-i .1- r>! c-i r-< r-j
CT O - C) T' xi 1° xC ^- V CT C
|v, or a-' oc or. or or: on oo on ec o
CM o">
OT (T O
5-97
-------
_)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
H OQ»Oco-tf-aocoOvOOfO'-'*OvO.iOo->£y»mooo<'J'f'~O>^'>O
c_i^"'""'OOfM'>Qcor*"'Oi»tfi'ooinroQsf""*0* ** f~^ 0s (7s *o *H in co co
jn*-rMCOfor>*»H^fMroin^o>4"CO^OxO^mocoo^o»4" ^ ^ ^ f**
(^^\ofMf\iO"^fOrMOsfMOforocj'infMcotnfMcoinfMC^'^)
r-4 ro p*» o r*" *o CT^ 'H vQ sQ (y\ ro co co in ro r~t co %o ro rj* ^5 ro fJ* \0
mcooo>i"in(\j^'coinfMO^*'QOCT*O'i*»~* CM ro ro >^ in in \o
oooomfOf'0''KmmmiA'^»*s*'U"|inir\inininininintn
fOrOCSl(V-*»-»
CO
a: o
ID o
o o .-H
O O CO
X
K
0)
o
a
o
o
oooo
oooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
03
o:
2-
UJ UJ
UJ £
Q «t
CC CO
(M
o
\0 r~ »i
ooo
o o
o o o o
rg fM r\j
ro m ro
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
CO
z z >*
^ UJ C^
CD s: <}
Qt h ^>
O O C3^ Q^
in »f o fg
ff) ^-» CO r-4
in >* -* -4-
r** ^- fx*^ f-^ m p"** *4* ^^ r** o^ ^
h-O^^i-h-OCT'OO^OoOt-i
»^'COrOro^*st'^coinrj>in
po *^ ro sO ^^ co r** «"H o^ ^* *^D
CNJ(\JvO'lr-4r-*fM>f^~OrO
Q. ^ ^ ,H
l/:OOOOOOOOOOOO<->OOOOOOOOOOOO
2;- ujooooooooooooooooooooooooo
<: x t . . . . i . . t , t . < . t , . i . .
QC Bu.,1 mf* cO ^* ^0 c\J is^ ijO O^ >*^ oo sO rO ^O C5 ^f C3^ ^^ *^ C^ C^t 00 ^* 0^ ^^ f^O
oo ex. i^ 'w? CJ **"^ ^f* ^* co f*j ^s^ (NJ co p' o^ ^^ *^ cr^ co co ^* ^3 ^^ co oo ^^ f^
i/1 ^*^ ^O 0^ ^0 f"4 ^** ^O HI d? rO d5 ^** i*iJ* CXI ro fO ^JT ^f\ vO ^* f*** 00 C7^ (T^ ^J **^
I
UJ C
_J UJ
o x
i: o
« O 00 t
CD s:
D <
oo u.
5-98
-------
tA
>-i O
F«- f\, m rr> or. fri -n
us o r\i c\i ,"i or. in
o -O rsi ^ .r\ ci ,o f> o T> in r\j
en -r in m c\: o o G^ N.. ui -t m
o o * "-1
^ -± -* -O ^ m O LA .-4 vO <~» f> CM
( r\( o^1 '"^i ^"" m JN' ^ ^** m in ,T* ro
ro 4- o f cr ro, r- O J- <) j.)
r-4 m P» or«. * o < -d" o in u~i
t'i on o rf> 3~> -C iT- o ro CM
T> i," (M O -0
m -\i fM r\ f\! i -
T)
m ;i i 31 -n o -o rr> '>- ;! in r\j
.-4 n y> c\i O .-4 rsi o LP. ^ n r\,
*- .-i- fM m r> ~4 'NJ .i"i -i» n fo, r-o
;n r>- r-t in o> ..j- 'M o 'T Is- s,') u~\
rn rr, fM MJ -< in (^ r\j o o ^j-
o O O -' * rv) -"NJ CN. .-<) 10 *
n
o o o CM -
~ O O O r-i ro r^
^ ^ .''i O « cn ;> o O CT> O «"i in O f-1 i'^ -4;
jj i-- IP, cr m i^ m O CT o ^ ^ >j- 01 CNI £) f~» ^ "\i ^ in ,xj
-.* ; ,i ,:r ii I o fA "' il* fi ^" '"* r\j -4~ IT o , n 4 ^ nj ;r> *\l u\ :"^
jj 3T ^ N -4" *'s~ ** r^1 re xO cc". riT ^- f^- rM sf O '-i"1 l"^ < \J J" m -3 co r*. j
C^ h - *- i CM *-O f"C O !**"! * t 'NJ 'J; \^\ CO O O O O '"-3 <~* ~4 > -I -~^ H , i «-^ \J
ot "-4 -^ o m CT> cj) r>» sp ui vr
fi'
O O O O O CJ O O O O O O D O O O O O O C? O O O O O
c o o o o > oooooooooooooo o o o o o
o r-4 ,+ o :,> ^
i; o r«i
w-i i, f\l <\j f!> in I-H oo t\i v.'
i.~ v- in m '-n rr, (\j
,Q u i CM a^
O "^ co ^ o
o "» M -o t-
in LT N ^ '.^
0:1 u~ , r«-i -3- t~\
o jr. -T! o. a~,
r\j ,,,j -^ -< , <
O '--' ~t f~- ;1"i -t- -O r\i -^ i- <-» r- ^ o cr. -n
ro '-' o o -n i sj- r^ ^ o
«, .-i o^ ^- m o ^ -4- ^ ^
J~i f- f^ cr- f> o O -~i ex r\i
20 a'. ;,-; a, O.T c> a- o rr> cr-
j .-i r~4 i i - i '-' --( f i -i
a.
5 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LJ O O O (-> r> O O O U O O O O O CJ O 'J O O O O U C_: O -*J
:r
f cn o ^ CA i(^ r'') '«u u] *"* n *\r u\ \t) ^T CNJ <^ r-4 eg P* c^ >->> o >--4 f^ *
O r-4 u^ Cr* ^\T
^D it fMtxi'Tsru^'^-^rr'isr OvO-r^^'~0 rfi
tX >~4 ^4 >I
t/;
<
03
cc
ffl
II 0.1
a ir.
o <>
O "J O O O'O O O m
.^f) 'vj /\j ciJ ^ -n O '-P fn cf.' P*, r,i
O C CM *O (\"1 O in Q> cc O O m
O J- " fM r"
o '^ i * i 'su f ^
O vt O C> ^ ^ O
n tr if' r, cr r" u-.
u~i (X1 o
o
en u fi t> i*» or; .-^ o 1*1 CM 01 vO
^j-r-ii-- r>-iO^ cnix.oOt-i'Nj
<- cri fO a> ' \ Is- .-4 T\ n> -t oo fNj
O O "* 4 n j rv ro ("O .^TI vj* ."Ir in
I.
_j
C
Q
j.1
O
O
OOOCQOCOOOOOCCOOUOOOQC-iOO
O O Q O O d O O O O O O O C. O CJ u O O O O O U C
IU
c
< in u^ fM CM "> vn fi rn rr in m an
cxii ir*- ^r* oi/ r-4 \^ ^ (i i ^ \ p-4 ,*\j i^ u'» u ^ ^n
ct. i «-4 c^ fi »4 .Q f<-, »». in on cp 4> n* m o , oc; u^ CT> cr O CM CT* cn o u> r, a;
U-
a <
cc
c>o
f>Cr'CJ1O
-^ i-a v>*4 r*4 CM
5-99
-------
t-4 O O
o « «
r. O -*
o
so J"> vj- ,-4 in 0">
cr -O ro JD ;n O
-o -t -
,-<">
O oo
<\<
f~-.i (\, r\i
-o -n o
>- -' "-i
^i -o -o
4 *"4 O
-o en in -\j o f*- O
>f ~4 o O "Nj v£> -J ^ on CG in rr: o -< 0" o o M ""o K ro r\j r<"i j^ ,<^
^ - ''M o~> r^ *- * **- r*t f\^ o ^ * n> o ^ co i^ «* * ^ O *"<"* fT- N N- f> ^7> ^ f\j ^ r\j CO rg f.j fvj pj r-I r-I «,( ^-4 -4 ,.-4 ( < ^-4 _4 ( 4 I t -1 ) --4 r-1 I --4
O".
'~> O O -! ~5 l*"5 ** in -i) ;) -g ^t ^- st fM C7» O ."> »T O r J -'< f>
O o O or > in ->"! rsj u"\ o vD O' (tj cr> r-4 ^-i o o O O -} oo fn 1-4
r. h- u^ co m on -4 >* o O -0 O co vo
(y i _ (\J O ^" f^ ii ^-- ,j" -~v l~ »-' r^j vQ O tn 4 »4 '-o sO ^\j 'TO in
rr -> _4 o i_j fr, v-j> OQ fs, ^j £ ic\ in
r\jvfini*'~Ornr-«-JinOin -4
^ K«. is. N oo en in '-o o ^ m ,o
f*» CT* (t {<\ in r^* CT* «"*, ro x}' -O en
in in m in in i^ m 't~\ u^ UA in in
Q,
0)
o
c
Q)
H
0)
hH 0)
I -P
in c
^J
H
A
-H
^H
O
0)
QJ
ua
M
o
o
-P
o
C
O
H
-P
a,
o
OOOOOOQOCJOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOO
OOOOOOOOOOQOOO ,20000000000
t/1 CJ
*: t-- m
u o.
C':, ^j o
in >> _i
u\
O CM O
,-g ^i in.
m '\j
jiOc7%'CO^. r*oncc>nC7x<-< -« CM t-i
in M- CO ^1 O i O :,O CO ,-o ,-^j ,^ i«- ,j-
rv * i- 00 T> O i r<^ i.r\ ro 4 ,T» ~- ^O
rn o -43
cr ir~' in rn -43 rri in m \c
trrxjOOO 4" *i O r-j *4«
ro IT* **"' "'"4 *** ^i en >j* o
l-»-
r r«< o O O O O O O O O <-" r-<
OOOCJCUOOOOOOOCJOOOOOOOOOO
o a a o o
5-100
-------
A d
>-: O O cr
(_)
oc n .~H iv
I
.f- -n -t. i°
ro a! «* .<
O
CD
-r, a-.
(O
CO O Of) uA (M
on iv LA xt co
rvi 01
"-1 .'< 'i ro f "D O O O O O O O O 3 CP O *2 O
xfj en
t-
f\
xt xu fX! ,-x) O
>A TO o n xt
t> O "1 LA .".I
ro .-.-, fxi ,-y. /x.,
rvi n- O o" O ;> xO LA n ~i ^J
r-l CM !" ,0 r"-'' l"^ "7 ."4 '.A X1 A)
-V, -.-, n." .-I- *. Q rv * -xj ,f)
xt o .-«) (T- m -"o o ro cr cvi
IA -.n o c ^ ."" IT> o O >
i-J r-J O i A Is- «o CM
--i At iA rT* LA ^O ro
-t rj o on r- -o I.A
. -i uA CN CM -ft O xt
CM CNJ r^J pO ,*v^ xt xt
O O O
o o o
cc
i' ' Z" fv
O »- < "M -O
,t i ~( O
x^ <( ^ r_( , I
L- Ci.
^ * .f ^j rv ~i . i .T O C^
,^t j rT> o ro en crj n\ O D
^ O
O LA
or.
,>
O
O m -o
n> -n T.
i- -* Q
O oo m m CM
o
vO
-o (-g t r^ ""
aT .-n O cr vO
.A -i ^ r\j cr
4") -T> o i rvi
,o o o o o a
-r r XT xt ^ r
r O OO ff r,J
_, r,i ^ji -i r\)
r -T -xT
QJ
U
C
Q)
M
CL>
H M-l
I M
in 0
-P
-P C
-H H
X!
H A
A O
X 0)
W 0)
PJ
cn
o
o
in
C!
0
-rH
-P
p..
o
o
oocjooooo
oooooooo
o o o o o o
oooo ooo
/'. 0
U) U- O
v/> >. AJ
.~ H- ^A
J a-
Q.
O xQ fv- --«. O* CT» i«1 o fv -O fv
^ O O C' *- ^- in >\J (>. IT. C^
i"* 1 U"\ fv - -* rv ^) Li~, ,^- ^ (-v> r^
LA O O H u~ rv rx. .+- (X
l> CST Cv^J ^ ^ CO
_| , | _l ,-l -4 ^,
O . xi- O CXT cr.
\-
o O O r^ "vi rvi
_4 _| ,~l _< < ,-,)
'. 1 O
a
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C? O CJ O O tJ i^ O "> O O O O <-> CJ
O O U^ (^ ^ O if oc rv, iv. ^r
'A >t o r\) iv oo ir -o XT xt co
ro ,.J co --I xt f*- n O ro -t -4-
u \ xt »»-i xt fo ro o ,^j *4 r*- -,1"
^) C5 xO V^> r*4 xt1 CT^ fsj CO C^ >O
r-i o cr u> or- ^ LA r xt ro ,-ci
r\i T> «.' xO r^ r * xj m c^> o LP *v-
r* o^tQ^iAf4co^Oxt**;ro
ui rvi x xt *-i a? TX) 4) ^i a\ v^ xt
(T* i AJ xt *n 'v* c^ *^5 r\j ro xt xt3
*^' rvj '"\i rM rsi r\i r-g ro o^ (M ro ro
u-;OOOOOOOOO
i= OOOOCJOOOO
o
rj rx ^.-j
u M m
O
:A
O (M
Lf> ,I
< X
1 (Nl ff xC fV
n' ««j x^ r*^ *"-* -o rs CM "> "o
CM C i) T> cr r- iv ,3
O O 'x m rv O
m ro rvi fM r\j rvj
I
o -o r1"
cri xj ro
a; r-i '-^ ^ rvj ro xt r-i ix- ro
'i\ ,i xt ? p» a: xt rr> ri co
xt (U" J1 xD fv O C1 O I r-l fSj
O rx
rsj rvi
f*. »Xv rv- rv fx
Iv fh CC fx- -A tM
r-4 s(J fO 0*4 0*^ xtJ
co ^ rT1 O H rsj
-< m n^ t on rv
rv rv N rv rv rv
xJOCOOOOOCOOOOxJOOvJCJOCJOCOocj
OOOxJQOOOOO'-JiOOOtjQvJOQxJOC^'OU
cc
rv
(r>
as
a: _; r-< o ti xu IT. u
;_; »-- uj aj .--4 r- ci O
co i uo LT o (.^ r-i xj-
^5 cr1 at' xj-
ir\xtru u> in u .
r or; «-i ro O xr fv ,.,1 ^j- cc O r-« IA * ^
JQ an w* O rvj fi xt IM 41 r»
so xt ,-* crs oc oo a) co CT> o rr o cr « »-» i-i t-< -< i i r-i r-» i r-<
5-101
-------
in o O O re
>-> Q o cr* ^ 4 s,"
u «
.-' O < fv cr co -f
I ^-i CM rr
m O i^
o ~ --° f' m vo o vj- rr\
r^ T, vt r-; -T* :n r; -3 rr c* 3" *
m r j r-j ^-i ii -i << 14
-* "" >£> O -n c> f*" i?> T> <\i
rrCMO^-4(MC'ir\fv o rv
rj f"* P *-« f\ ir, ~v m -^> r<^
r4 I.O fT- H, ^ CM C; 13 *** /T * *"\
cTi f\i vO ri to ;> r-j vf' c~* ' (^j c\ M ori fi i -.} ,r
Ci~ T "" CO O"1 tT fO CO TO -VI
^^ o o -o O
o o o o o
.g r^ , i _.t vf- O ("v
O -H r-i x cr* C .O
ir .o -« rr>
IT)
O
QJ
Cl)
m
i-l
CD
4J H
-H
-H O
.£ Q)
X C1J
pa DJ
U)
O
O
ti
-P
G
O
-H
-P
P-i
O
r tn CO u , >i r--1 -t ir. o r-4 ./*i r\j O r**-
fM O vf- .I r^ ex" ^"t *"i /* pf> ^* C7* . i ^T- -C
\ J CO t- I r-t sQ vO -"^ O ' "\ |v f" l1^-) * O CT^ U'*.
^T rv ^* --t' ,A ro o O"i r\j o> o O -^ r>j
h ^-4 ,*M v(> JO rv fin, rv r-^ ^ y -^ OxJ C_> O O
(*- r~4 *---* CO (7^ Ci- ^v ^} in
O ro c -l>-4r-li-4'-<»JCM
>t vj" vf" vf *^ f" V?" V?" *^-
>
ti
>
."-,
3D
r.
)
1 1
V1
*.-'
I,
-S.
C
*£.
< l
a.
"^
o
'^
CM
(/, O
i rr-
»_ "f*
L ! O
^Z CM
i- in
"f
C.
o
& ex.
if T
o o
ff; vj-
^-i O
o o
0 O
ai o-
r-vj *-
'n ro
O i 1 v^ fM «- '
rO "-'i r\) fM rM
o o o o c_*
O v-> U O vJ
tn *u *,' CM " i
-T! f) tr ft> Ui
o st o* f\i r*
O Ui f r*- U-
iv m o m r*
CM ^? v*J >-* ***-
fv vO (J^ ^3 r*1*
O
.3
ro
O
^o
o
CM
0
fM
C
O
(M
CP
cc
-4
vTI
U'i
f«)
O Cj O
O O O
O -< (M
j"' cn ri
vt f>l O
TI ^ fv
M cn vf
p- cn ro
i 4 r 1 i~t
o C o
o u a
irv vt) >r
n- o r-j
tO t~J fv
c*"i sr i> i
T) r.l r--
rO rn r*"1
O 0
O G
f> C
-C J
vt -<"*
in m
tr, o
a') cr
» 4 ,^
o o
vJ C*
!M tr
(r> cr
0 v|-
CM CO
« r\j
CM f\j
r* r"
O O
O O
~4 vf
co a'
-4 O
i O
fv rv.
""
ir, vj o in
*C O i pi f f*
o
o
rri
1)
C3
a:
(NJ
CT*
r->
O
u
4
rv
f!',
vj
o
rO
r>)
<
cc
f'OOOOOCOOr-v'MUivrivt-rvr-jrv ^.vC-J OCTrvrvC' r-J
i
V;
i.
<
u.
O <\i n: if a;
i" CT f\i j> f\i
o o. i-> J) --1
^H n> 01 ^-4 r~>
u- on r-H ^- uj
in o P- >ii
cr or r» o
;:. o c o o o c
T* l*v, r-j ^
r*v o M. i° r*, O *> C! cj> vT «< fv. CM c''* 'M r3 u1 fi* or, vj-
r*) CM O o CM fs i(* c"o ok, CM vj_ v-» v4j r*"1. O co -*^ i^ u> u
i4 CM vt O CT* C? CT f(-| O vT fv ^_ vf CC; O *** rn i^ *- C"
u* CM ci *0 ^* CM FH r\j vj" in so tv w* t_i CM o i -vf i'* *o fv
rv t^ u,, ^ ^" f\j (^*> ^ c*^ or cr cc cr CT1 rr* r^ c** c?* CT* cr*
ir'.^TrOCMfMfMCM^^,^!It<>*r-<
o i-
cr, oo
* ir
o -'
or r- o
CM
5-102
-------
0.; m CC I (\J (V
o o ^ 3 ro roo
(M CD
CO
co
ro
r\i
oooooooooooooooooo
-JOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO
<«»«» »t»«..t»«»»
} A) O <5 -r r~ CM -O O ^" T* O CM lA vO >0 ro £> <* fM fM O O CO O *-
C" r-4 vt ,"O O (Tv O r-4 vQ "J CT -vt CC ? T> TO vt t-4 l"\ f- O CO (SJ C5 CO (T-
_- po co 4 r-< r\, on »-< o CM o in cc IA t\j rr vP in in * ro o <^j ro o cr- fM in co O ro \c
-D O O N!" r-* C \O *" fM en r-4
,n
o t\i -o cr m
iri
r- O
10 vO (\i in rn
t~- ^.4 rsj
cc ro cc:
-t !» O 'Pi t
'<^or\)O'-D
^- I LO P- ^
^j -ti 10,
ro o>
r; *\| r^ ^-i tr-,
^1 ro i,f\ on O
-o
in
co sC
<\l
.~1 CM OJ (\J
ro rn cq m
N
ro
CNJ
CM f\( CSJ
ro rn pi
Q)
U
c
QJ
H
(1)
I (U
in -P
C
-P H
H
-H
43
U
0)
0)
w a.
en
o
o
a
-P
d
o
-p
c
Q)
CJOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOC3
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Li O *-" ro ^-- sO ^-4 co UN f\
CO P" f\l O fM ro ^f O -O vQ o,
fM O O <7» T! fM CC rO O CC f*1
r" f!- f\j fi O O r-t tM if1, ro vl
^- O 4 m (M fM U*. rO f CT"' ,v
(T O vQ f J Ch <.Q r-J u\ IT
'o ^ rn^rNjcMrv^Hr-^r-t
cc
M ro in in ^ ro r<". o O r
i1 jnrMCCCocrcx)!-»rMON.r^(MOvrvf(7v'-'r-'*-rMi
C? r* ^"4 *U tA vT" CO f^ *3" \i) p^i »*^ CC - sO ^**
oorMt-4iA\ucror* ^jr-4r-iiAf\iuvr>- orginoc^tt-tT'O
ocr'^'^iArnN *ninr\jocoijncocj^ofMrO'sfin\Q'w coo
vj"ir*'O**vfcor**sUvj'rornr('^iVvrvfvt'xrv>w^'in
cocor*H^'iAu\jf\j rv rv r\j f\i rv r\j f\j rM ^ fM fM cv fM
<-> O
O O O *-> '
O f' «-:
O o
cr. rv
if^ i f O** or* d5 ^0 vt o^* ^* ^^ i*^1 fo ro ro fv j
cc CL ^ ^o ci- CM ? (Ti o r*^ u? ^J
cv r^ CT' r* vt r\i C~ ^~ "acooooccoocococcocooooocoo
I' I- C. O O U O O O O O O M C: O O O <"3 O ^J O O O O O <-> O
a- > f
a,
in in r»
cr« P-. fj- cr
cr> (T- cr. r> o
5-103
-------
O in -4" ff\ fNJ r-t O
ro o Is- «* r* oo in
r-(Min'x-r>-r~"O«-4tn
rO\OfMrocoroOroh-
CT>»-»l-«frr~r\JfM>J'
O <£> CT1 O (M ro «H
fr^^ ro 0** \o *""^ ro *^
O ^ CO CM sO GO
CM ro in oo r-i in
oo
uj in
z -H
a <
a.
3E
o
QC
CM
Z Z ro
< UJ o
LU««ttt««
y ^^ ^iQ ^^ ^^ ,^4 !,jQ i^" (J^
*«t (7s >0 O ^*J l^ "^ "^
co > ro in co f-< c>
a: _j cr m <-« CM «^
~^ ^«4 ^^ m r\i u* ^3
co Si ro rn ro CM tM
O <»
oo u.
CM
UJ
5-104
-------
fT> 'A
t-> O in IN
O «
0 e-> _) rv
I
O -0 00 ? ro in
f> 4" r-i o -o >
f\!
o-> m -O 0s
in j- CM O
f\i r
CM CM
tr- -< in f -t o m n *- O «J- -4-
fMaD^c^ -tinf- O ao in o -4-
CM -o
"vi ir\ (M -« iri -o o ^ vtr*'("\f!-H30'f> ii^-nsc
T N 1A O * f> on iO n r~» i U"N m (M -,t ^J ^ -» r* ^ *». t .-\] <^ »«. t\i ^- m v>
O j- r^ ^ -">" .~i T> * IT. r-j J- ~< o r\j ,-n ir» r«« a" o r^ ri 10 -o
rv ro in r- a> f-i ^-< t -? -J- -4- in ir IT i** tn
,T» O fO ^ --J O m xt -n "^1 CV 'Xl O-J ^J rNI f\J f\) INI 'NJ --J CM (\J f\J
£C
N. T'
-] fi
> c\j
or,
rv o J kn
rr> -» r-4 oo
m cr
O O o
u.' j~ o r-t /-) i-4 O CO vt ft' O -J -4*
Z? ..i i .^ 'A O ^ *" £T ^ fT* '""1 vO -t -O
') 'C %! CM O 'f.' ro O sO t T) "I in -^
CO -U vl" -H CT> -ft
(\| CO -J- O 1A -H
t "t" 'n -C ^ ^~
ro 'PO fO r'^i '*n ro.
tt ' *< '**^ -4 »"-! r-^
ir> 4 -j co CM i
o 4 -o -< -o <
fv* 01 0"' ^ O^ O
0)
O
a
Q)
M
Q)
i a)
in -P
H U
,C 0)
X Q)
w a
o
o
d
c
H
c
o
H
-p
u: a.
. j <
<
cc
(Y VI
r> ^-
i' 1C
I/) 2L
2: H-
(7"1 CM CM "-O <> -< r-l -^ fv
o -o ^n o NT i < i a~! .t t-. i
f\
cn
o
ir rv
< oo f* '"^ o r"\ " in xf o »t cn ^j ^o or o fs^ o ,t -^ >f\ ^
"o o in O cr-Ln"oo^ ^-^v-t-fvopopvrr'f^'in'v. ^ ^
u> i~i o ex1 r- >n ofi CM a.J CM fv cn i^ o o o | ' r- ii r < CM c\j cn ro
in -JD irt ^ nJ ' CT1 cc ->0 o in in .-t- in m in ^n IT. in n in m in IA m
r-4 r-« i< »--< * r-4
o
Ci.
in cr.
CM &
c-j
ro -H ro co
r~ iv. a> CM
r-i in co
cr uj <3
< U
ai a.
a: K
D Of.
a,
cr> ~j- o iv,
c> O fM l'«
fM rv o I
-H NJ- m m
(M (M O OD
CM <^J CM t
xQ CT> p* (7\ o O C^ f^* CT* i^ I'M ort r<> u* ro cn
O r-i O "~ t"'1 in o^ -j' to in in in in in in in in
1/1 i m CM o 'v "-' u > o -J"
,,j CO (V -fi O :XJ fO rfi (N. rr) u'l
X t > <
U. CM CM O vO CO <* J s(3 O CO
Of^-O'-HO^Or-^C^^ll'v
OCMrnOvJ'CJfv ,«iOQfv
O o O co
^fi cr n %P
OO
(\.
00 (7-
O
'Nl
rO
r
>
O
<
i/,
cc
a
cc
u;
*~ (T> -C 0* rg fv r-i O O O C\J J3 vO -O 'M r-l O
oo -< C -i-i »- >~o m ur- in a- in ^u ir ir in ^ cr. rj
Q
O
< « < . f I , « .
O vo vj -T vT m ro »^ u CM ->f)C'iiT'OCr-Tr\j'>)r>rrOtMCMfMt*>rM^vDcr>v-im
> r>i u"v vO t^ u\ u* o U1 <\i »u oc or. » 4) rn >J ^* sr "* «* n cr v CM ao
_jomfCT'-C-J'<"4-ini\if^jrou''vn'vcocriCT>oo*~(io
*-< sj1 in CM on \Q r^ cr> u\ c\ r-< o ir uj CK tu <*/ uj uu u* CT* u' CT* u> tr »r>
5', m rr m CM CM c\i -* «-« - ~t f-4
on o- C i
in
r- or
o
f\
ir
f It I r-J f\|
5-105
-------
o>i*> -4- ***
o o o o o
CM
CM cr
~C\jO>i-IO^- o
t- "" >0 !M CO O LA (T- (M
'~> O <"^ O CM CO r-> O '
I rf\ C^ ^ ,! Q _< (1-| (Ts
O -^ ro rsj o cn «.j j">
oo
if-, -t
vj* (\j '43 CD ^"" D in c\j r"4
co >o 5^0 CM co ^o *n in N- CD '**' *& in *o co
O .p (\j (T* r-4 \O i"* ^O r-J h* CO O CSJ st" ^O
^N-^int^^sj'.oop^f1^ OOOOCM
2:
XI
N a~, lA
O ,-< fjT)
CsJ
N«
i^ N o »- m co f> <} o
o .-n -! o IT* 4- on in o
fTi MD CO ^ (N
CO CT< O -H CM
1^-1
...! v- jD''O'-'Ococo^-fM^cnocoao-.tOinOi.nO'^'COtM^oo
to j/ N o r\j --O in n^ in CNJ in r '!" >i~ CM t^ f"-- in csj on in »-i ao <} ii
'.J^^CMO^lA'^O'-UP^CSJOO^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOcOCOC^CT*
t~' V- sj- t* 4" CO C<1 Xl CO (M C\l {\| fvj ,-» »H 1-4 r^ r-« 4 .-I r-t --< -< < -» r-4 i-»
fY
u. CL
I
in
0)
u
a
0)
cu
-P H
D
0)
Q)
0.
C/3
M
O
O
T!
on
C
O
H
-P
cx
o
o ji -i
*o ^^ fNi '4j c\i r^ »n r"^ ^o »^ CD ^*~
Oco-^OjOOPf*1 oo o jo o an
03
a.
U' t'J
lu a,
CJ <
Q,
< u
aj i.
cs: h-
Z5 ff
ex
-^ o
>JD O
ro
INJ l\J
o a* co on
in O ui ~u ir\ u\
fvi u-\ CM o " I*-
a- c^
00 lO I CO I*"*
m i rn o -« in c\i ii
if u,, a> CM J) oo
<( X * «
re \\ CM (v O o
O <> J" i"1 O
o o -4" m "
r. O -
^j- lf^ oo co co in
^** CO (^ f^ CC sD
>o
y; c <( m f"> m i" in m i" in in in in in
.~( ,-!»-( r-l f-. 1t
I
u c
-J U.
O I
i O
*-. <
l/y |-
^J
CO >
a _J
CC 3E.
t/; u,
u
-t sf CT CsJ -4" 1-1 N O U> O
ro -j- * < (.r a; (<\ o c\ O
tn
CO -H
"*O ^J >r i«^ '4_J ^j1 \Q uu ^3 00
^^^Oc\|u^^<^u^o^K' f"**
oi) u ^ co «^ CT* f^ Nt? rvi ro ro
sJ-U^fStO^NU NTO^^U^Sr
ro co ro ^ r\4 f\j 04 ^i* >^ t-4
NjD*JuO'-^*rvji»Tf**ocTioo'jjc^or\(
(NjiTi. N cco^Or-*rsi(\ir^ON
m r\j CM CM i>j co m rn rn en r^ m ro PO
5-106
-------
«> m rvi o C> ro r- vo cr* in O 10 -- 1 f J ro
Q in rvj o oj $ oj eo * * oj ro rr> "- u"\ r'i
O
a
~o f ro -C c^
fx, u> <"\ c\j
O co in o -r ~* in f-i cr, O
t\") (> j^
O j
r\i ,*
CM sO on o i\i ' 4-
CO r~4 lf\ -t" ^ ^ (\t
^ fw ,0 v.»> >+ CO .V,
a*
o M ro
to, ''
*u,
tC
J3 0* o .^<
V) « «
U. f- .0 -I O
.T '-! -" 10 o
i. ' >_ CM (M O
'.I h- xf ,-t xj-
IX,
fl Oj -f
xT *~ O
f- j ^ ^ f7\ ,,^ ^ *x.
N-ojCO A">^^ rom
rO
~)
>^g) ^\ fiS* f^~ ^. ^("
o O o - -o r'
ro O r>~ O xj- r
,"vj CM »^ -( r-l
CO sO vt t > vC in v* -4" rO (\i <~>
oj CO -t O 10 -( -0 < 0 «-" /! -''
xj- t io -.O 0 ** ^" cr "T> CT> fTi O
t<^ m ro ""\ r>> .o 'O ro <<> ro ro --l
tx
i
in
(1)
U
fi
(U
M
M-l
M
a)
-P
c
4J H
H
rQ rC
-H O
^d a)
X Q)
w a.
o
o
d
in
C
O
H
-p
G.
O
-. r- oj rr
ro rf* ^0 ^
Si Oj vf >M O O til
s> U"> O "1 a'J O O
<)
CE
-» CC
i; tr i
M_: U'i ^)
i^_
Uf
»- ro r«- "^ o on CP cc *" vf oj c/1 co n u TO o *- >P -4" -J- .n ^
U~ vT fO . J -^ ir\ fO r-» m in Ct- xf l< . 4 f~- O) O -0 -i", U3 *- It <->
^ *O 'o fr* ("*\ pg f^ 0^ ^*" xj- ^ ** * ^- O r-^ ^^ c^- oj 'n Pv- o s"O
O O <-* f> rn (* cv to (P to in u^ in sn in in if. 10 m
a.
OJ
CT- J-
o 4- oj cr o- O ^ ro of' '"*
in w> j) t-» xQ m vj uj oj ro
ro
r-l UO CC (7»
co w; >o oj
03
DC
U.' Oj (*..
i, »«J >^
K* C^ ^^
tt OJ IN
a.
u* r~i ui o s(.i i sr cc "* O O ir (N -i! co ro ui o ix\ rti ro in a)
ojOQ'CJp* «*ojf\j'^'ir^fT*oo('^^|NO^frxr*^coriioiirocx)
O c^ oo 0s f^- in rn o r-< oj ro f^ ro >n o --4- a. CM in IT> f\j ji (r»
tf\ fV. pMf f»w- yy ^ ^p ^"\ IXfc f^J ^J" xf" U > 1*1 %ij ^J \4> fX. px- fx. ^Q ^ dJ
o on i*" in oj Q eo *> ^3 o m m in i" in u^ m m in m m io in
l-»J _4 ^1 ,_! _4 II
f\j >- 10 o i o
2f U.
r » o ~f> <-« ec rfi ^ ro o o o 01
mo <; cr> i^> vc
cr j f» ^-
CC Q. "- CM
^3Z?'"~o
1/5 O <( in
«' tn c/> -t r» ro on m
fT (7- r-> j"! f«- rj ,* oj
m < o cr>
r>- O
u.
c x
^ o
r «t. r-< xf O OJ
I/- (-- (T'' ^ < "'
rr-. o.
-4 C O .-H O Oj
ro ir. io a- in wi
C 04 o
?n <, oo o
O
03 > P1 a\ ou «-" (i^ i m 1/1 cr
!3*~'^^U^OJU> 4^«J'U'inf\j»-«O
O rsj m en
^j U\ px ^y
rx xf.- uu o tr>
< r-
oocr-O'~
-------
*-' O in r\j
ir
c
r< i ro f\i a1* f" m ro 4 cr * in < ni o O1 . N
t>«*<«>.
cr c» (V ro m fr ro p , M CM fv "%i rv; rv 4 r-4
on
in o < o o 'M r~» -4 i-o in
00 T; o r-j C7> r- .n
IT- -t r" ol CM r-1 rvl
in vi'
f\l O
P1^ O
CT> r j
to, u
f\) r-i
O
rg
- 10 ir i^--
\j c\l 'M C-.j
> o
4 l<
"^ CM
*O
O *-
o in
n xf i
r-i .-1 1
rv i i
-< -o r<
tM cn j
* cr .1-
T 4 N
to :*;
CT* p* O *"
Si fC
-O r\i vt co .o o f TI *
ir, -i <-> ,,^ CT. Nt ir> rj jo
r-j o .n r\j OD j- O f- in
s-t" vl" rO ,"O tSJ C\j ni r-4 '4
4 r\j a** i/i -* »i o
~r- '.r ev co -4~ O i"\
O 'O -t st >j~ <5 o
J r<) ;"0 f* '> ro ro
'n ^- -f ro na 1-4
-.f. 4 -O 14 vC r-4
fv "O Q') p> (T\ ^)
r° 'O ro ro m -4-
r~l r-~4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4
I
in
H
rd
H
rC
X
w
(U
O
c
Q)
M
0)
M-l
H
(U
^J
H
u
0)
a.
M
O
o
cr
c -4- a'' ev
a,
c
vt r>j TM ^- ro o O cr-
O o" Ct.": O tfs 00 O C7^
m
CD r-l CO r* ^t C\J (<"l O
ti i/- m N o « m rsj
.2' tr> -H o -n CM cr rv
u u in -c in ro <\j o r>
r*. r-ioo-t-rsjcT-oovON^cnOf"- vCvf-vj-tn'*-
r-4 ,n r-i ',r-. *>- O ri^
-T co ir, csj ir u o O «- i4 '* -* t\j CNJ n./ ro m
O m in :r\ xf in in in in m ir, m in ir, m m in.
d ^ »--
O i'' a
H C' <
.p a
O 3^
O C'"
i£ <£
< lu
X S-
oc t-
^J Of
tvj in
sr <*-
O U\ Cf- !»
ro ro fl -T
O ro CM r^
IM r-4 t^x U1
O on in ro
rv r-J 4 r-i
cvj-i-'Ocvcrvt 01 or o
r i (_j cj r-j in -xt a1 r»j ro.
in a> IP in ^- r ' o CT tv
r** CM P*» 01 r*. pr^ rj* Q r^
PV f-^ rr\ \fj rvj r 4 pi i cr^ ro
ro (M «> >n CM co -3- vi~ m
r-4 cr^ ^ >p »f> m in in in
r-l
O r" ro
u> rn ro
\4J ft ^ f»f^
(^ c^ c^
-0 C *>
m 10 m
sO
r-l
in
I"
cx-
MJ
IT
r-4
0
Ci>
ro
fM
f»-
in
^
or
in
an
in
r>
in
ir
00
(^
ffl
cr
rv
in
SP
-o
ro
co
(M
aT
in
C7^
^
u~<
ro
<,
cu
in
N
vO
or.
a;
CT
CO
in
t>«i if- (V (vj ^J r-J in O O fT- -.* O O -< O -O r CO \C h» f*i O O O Cf.
l.icr.pv cvoOL^r-Jrui'iOsT O"1* "", CJ f- (T^-OcTiU'^ O
cr u r>' r\ o (v 4 r<- r ir o jf *
o. _j r» r- CT- f» N "^ ro r^ 30 rv 'i.1
3Ca*^ rsiO-'-1in'v
f'l cr ro
~ a T! 0.1 a CT ^
in c
^ c?
. cr
^ u-
»--<3,-i<*'C!>ou"QP-*C'>j"O«-'
i/. H- c1* -t «' o c\j c a. c f" o r-,
«f«t««
i ro in i f* XL.'
ir a i^ vu u in ir. -v a-
t«»»«««««t««
ro CP u-, >o r\
-------
i
m
H
-H
X
W
Q)
0
C
Q)
M
Q)
14-1
M
OJ
.p
H
u
0)
a.
o
o
0)
H
H
CO
(* W' (\J cff ^" ^X) C5 CX^ C5 *"*^ ^^ *O CTf "N^" 00 C^ l^ C^1 ^ *"*^ r"f ^~ C^ ^ i*^ *^
("*"7 ^^ i»«"l r^ f*N "O ^r s$* **^ t^i CT"1 O^ CO fsj >^ ^ **"^ l^' <">T^ ^* \£*\ CO ^^1 ^J fO ^*
j._ ^ t/5 ^ ^. i ^ ^ fv co ^ r»< *o ^ -^* C5 f^J IA ^*^ O ^J rn %(" i^ \o ^** CTJ
OO fT" ^^ 0^ tO C7* ^.| >f) «-^ fl^ C^ ^~ vO ^" ^* 1^* ^* ^*- ^* ^~ ^* Of^ 00 CO 00
j ~j *!.) 'ft ij^4 st* ro ro Csj r^ i»^ ^*4 »»j r^ r~^ »«j ^^ ^ »*'* ^^ r-n «~^ "^ »^-' »^ *^^
CO
(^ J£T r^ ^^ ro vj* c^ ^*~ ix^ '^ CT^ C^ <( ^T" CT^ to {^ r^ oo ^^j ^^ *~^ ^i* co ^4 ^5 c^
]s,' i!.' C^ ^J »"4 fO ^ r(*i ^(" fT^ «>^ r* ^* ^J I*"* CTi CO CT* r*^ ^^ *"^ ~**~4 f*t ^^ M OJ C\J
OC
D, QL
i~_ r> »H a"1 >o u"> o >-4 41 iA a1 rsj o co P- o »A o o r-> o f*- o >< CT^ ro
n i/^r^CT^^ir1. o^^-cotoincr^o^cccOr'i j'^o' 1I r-* »-<
C-
<
4~ ^*' ^^ ^*" f^ ^^ f^ C^ ^J ^A C^ m on Q cu -^ SLJ co (7s »^j pc, m N- on
r-< p-J
I
li, C.
_ u.,
*- U
^* c^ c? if >f* o^^ '"^ ^^ f^ c\j ^^ u "i r^ ro ^r~ f^ *^r ^^ c?1* ?^ cr^ ~*t^ *f! ^^ r* i T^ f\i
^1 sQ ^^ IO *4J ^*1' *^ t^ C^ CO ^M CJ*1 ^f (^ ^H C^ ^*" *t J \f3 IO ULJ v*^ »J~ tt ^ C^ *O
ctn ^ r*"i CJ1^ ^(j cc? cr- m sj* ^ rri t\i {^j u^. r^ tx) c\j f** rv f*" cv ^A) f*1 w\ t/^ *0" u-
/ a.
o.
5-109
-------
Section 6
NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
There are four main sources of noise on a garbage compactor truck.
These are:
1. Truck chassis,
2. Power take-off,
3. Hydraulic pump,
4. Impact between components.
The control of truck chassis noise in not addressed by this study,
but the garbage truck manufacturer has control over its noise in the
compaction cycle by his specification of the engine speed during compaction.
A significant reduction in noise can be achieved by restricting the
maximum engine speed during the compaction cycle.
The transmission power take-off currently used on most garbage
trucks produces an obtrusive whine. Alternative designs and types of
PTO will be discussed so that this whine can be greatly reduced or elimi-
nated. The hydraulic pump can also make a measurable amount of noise
and on some trucks a noise reduction can be achieved by employing a
quiet pump. Methods for reducing the noise from impacts between components
by means of cushioning these impacts will be discussed.
It has been found that the hydraulic lines and valves on a garbage
truck generally makes very little noise. In a properly designed system,
there is some very slight flow noise from control valves and that is
all. Sometimes a valve or very sharp bend may produce flow cavitation
and hence noise. However, this is easily cured with a large valve or
6-1
-------
bend radius. Measurements have been made of the hydraulic system noise of
a truck body on which no special precautions had been taken to reduce the
hydraulic system noise. The lines were hard bolted to the body and there
was no hydraulic accumulator. In spite of this, the noise was very difficult
to measure and insignificant when compared with the noise from the rest of
the truck (less than 60 dBA at 7 m). Thus, it appears unnecessary to
address further the matter of quieting hydraulic lines and valves.
Three stages of noise control treatment will be discussed for the
steady noise levels. These are:
Stage 1 - Reduction of engine speed to 1200 rpm maximum.
Stage 2 - Elimination or redesign of transmission power take-off
in conjunction with reduced engine speed.
Stage 3 - Quieting the hydraulic pump in addition to the above.
These noise control treatments will be considered in conjunction with
a chassis noise control program and the combined noise levels presented.
Reduction of impact noise by hydraulic and rubber cushions will also
be discussed.
STAGE 1 - ENGINE SPEED REDUCTION TO 1200 RPM
The speed at which the engine is operated during the compaction
cycle is currently determined by the cycle time desired and the size
of the hydraulic pump fitted. Typically, truck engines at present run
between 1200 and 1800 rpm and employ a pump of about 5 cubic inches/revolu-
tion displacement (20 gpm at 1,000 rpm). The speed of the engine while
the truck is compacting is set to a nominal value by the manufacturer,
but the operator can, and sometimes does, reset the cycle speed to any
value he desires. Thus, the manufacturer's speed may not have any particular
meaning.
6-2
-------
Speed controls
There are a number of different types of engine speed control available.
The simplest is a solenoid or an electropneumatic cylinder which advances
the throttle linkage by a preset amount when the "compactor cycle" button
is pressed. Other speed controls are pneumatic governors and a electronic
governor. However, none of these governors are tamper-proof and all
can be reset by the operator. Further, most front loading garbage trucks
do not have any form of automatic speed control. The engine speed during
cycling is controlled only by the operator's foot. Therefore, the hard-
ware required for this level of noise reduction consists of two items:
1. An electro-pneumatic throttle control or some other form of
governor. This is already installed on most compactor trucks,
except for the front loaders and thus, only these will require
them to be installed. They are not installed at present since
the cab operator is able to control both the loading cycle
and engine speed.
2. A larger hydraulic pump is needed if the same cycle time is
to be achieved with a lower engine speed. If a 20 gpm at
1,000 rpm pump is currently used at an engine speed of 1800
rpm, then a 30 gpm at 1,000 rpm pump will be required for
an engine speed of 1200 rpm to achieve the same volume flow
rate.
An engine speed of 1200 rpm has been chosen since this is typically
the slowest idle speed to which a gasoline engine can be set and yet
not have the engine stall during the compaction cycle. An engine which
is set up to a no-load speed of 1200 rpm will lose speed to about 1,000
6-3
-------
rpm when it comes under load. Typically, an engine is required to produce
20 hp. Most truck engines rated at 200 hp or more are capable to
delivering 40 hp at 1,000 rpm.
The simplest types of governors allow a substantial speed drop, as men-
tioned above. More sophisticated governors, such as some of the electronic
governors, permit very much less speed loss. However, the diagnostic measure-
ments showed that there was no noise difference between the case when the
engine was closely regulated to 1050 rpm with or without load and the case
when the engine was set to 1200 rpm under no load and its speed allowed to
drop under load. Accordingly, there is little to be gained from a noise point
of view by installing the better governor. However, it can help in preventing
the engine from stalling under load.
Noise levels
Table 3-2 in Section 3 presented the mean sound levels of 27 truck
mounted solid waste compactors. The noise generated by a power take-off
driven from an automatic transmission has been analyzed. The noise level at
1200 rpm was 74 dBA at 7 m (as compared to 79 dBA at an engine speed of 1800
rpm). Table 6-1 predicts the overall levels to be expected for 7 trucks which
were considered. The chassis noise level, as a function of any noise regula-
tion, has been combined with an assumed transmission power take-off noise level
of 74 dBA at 7 m to give the overall noise level of the truck while cycling. An
engine speed of 1200 rpm has been assumed for most trucks. However, on some of
the larger diesel powered trucks, it has been supposed that the engine can be
slowed down to 1,000 rpm. With no chassis noise regulated, no truck can be
quieter than 78 dBA at 7 m. However, with an 80 dBA regulation, all trucks are
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-1
OVERALL NOISE LEVELS UNDER STAGE 1 OF NOISE
CONTROL (TRANSMISSION PTO = 74 dBA at 7m)
Overall Noise Levels at 7 m
Chassis Regulation dBA
Truck Fuel
RPM
Unreg.
83*
80
78
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
1200
1000
1200
1000
1000
1200
1200
82
82
80
81
79.5
80
78
77
77.
76.
77.
77.
77
75
5
5
5
5
76
76
75
76
76
75.5
74.5
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
.5
.5
.5
.5
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
*This assumes actual truck-noise level 2.5 below reg level
6-5
-------
90
e
CO
"O
UJ
_J
_J
_J
<
cc
O
80
70
60
TRUCK 1
TRUCK 2
TRUCK 3
TRUCK 4
TRUCK 5
TRUCK 6
TRUCK 7
(GASOLINE)
UN'REG 03 80 76 75 dBA
CHASSIS REGULATION (SAE TESTS)
Figure 6-1. Overall Noise Level Under Stage 1 of Noise Control
6-6
-------
quieter than 76 dBA at 7 m. Figure 6-1 illustrates these quieted noise
levels further.
Four trucks have already been measured which incorporated this noise
control method. They all meet a noise level of 76 dBA at 7 m. Three of
the trucks were gasoline powered and operated with engine speeds of 1200
rpm or less. These three were all rear loaders. One diesel-powered
side loader also met this noise level, but it employed a front power
takeoff instead of the noisier transmission power takeoff. In addition,
this engine was only operated at 900 rpm during its compaction cycle.
Fuel savings
One consequence of the lower engine speed during cycling is that
the truck engine will consume less fuel. These savings come about
because the engine has to do less work overcoming internal friction,
even though it develops the same power externally. Estimates have
been made by an EPA contractor for the fuel savings to be expected for
both diesel and gasoline engines which are rated at 200 hp yet are
only developing 20 to 40 hp during cycling.
Table 6-2
FUEL SAVINGS DUE TO REDUCED ENGINE rpm
Engine Rated Developed Standard Reduced Fuel Savings
hp hp rpm rpm gal/hr
Gasoline 200 20 1800 1200 0.33
Diesel 200 20 1500 1000 0.55
The fuel savings are larger on diesel engines than on gasoline
engines because the former have more internal friction. If we suppose
that the trucks are cycling 25 percent of the time for an 8-hour
6-7
-------
day, then the fuel savings are 2/3 gallon/day on a gasoline powered
truck and 1 gallon/day on a diesel powered truck.
Conclusions
A noise level of 76 dBA at 7 m can be achieved for a garbage compactor
truck primarily by slowing the engine down to 1200 rpm or less. This
requires an automatic engine throttle control which exists on most garbage
trucks at present, except for front loaders. In these cases, an automatic
throttle limit will be required. In order to retain the productivity
of the truck, a larger hydraulic pump is required for these lower engine
speeds. An overall noise level of 76 dBA at 7 m can be achieved during
the compaction cycle only when this noise reduction measure is used
on a chassis which has been quieted to some extent.
STAGE 2 - ENGINE SPEED REDUCTION AND REDESIGN OR ELIMINATION OF
THE TRANSMISSION PTO
In order to reduce the noise of compacting garbage truck below
that of Stage 1, in addition to reducing the speed of the engine, the
power take-off noise must be reduced. Under Stage 1, the overall noise
was dominated by the transmission power take-off gear at 74 dBA. There
does not appear to be any simple way to reduce this noise, which is
the source of the whine heard from compacting garbage trucks. Previously,
it was found that vibrations from the gears were transmitted quite exten-
sively throughout the truck chassis. Thus, large areas of the chassis
and transmission as well as the PTO would have to be wrapped with sound
deadening material if this were to be selected as means of reducing
the noise. It is therefore not considered to be a practical means of
reducing PTO noise by enclosing it in a sound absorbing enclosure.
6-8
-------
One manufacturer of automatic transmissions for trucks, is currently
undertaking a test program into the source and means of reducing the noise
from transmission PTO's. The tooth design of the PTO goes back over 40
years and is very stubby by modern standards. Accordingly, they are
considering a finer tooth design or helical gear teeth with the prospect of
generating less noise. However, at this time it is not known what the
outcome of this study is nor how much noise reduction is possible by
redesign of the PTO gears. Other types of PTO which do not make as much
noise as the conventional transmission PTO are discussed below:
Front Power Takeoff
One such power takeoff which has been tried by a number of manufac-
turers is the "Front Power Takeoff." This takes the power from the
front end of the engine crankshaft. A double-jointed shaft couples
the crankshaft with the hydraulic pump which is installed on the front
bumper of the truck. This arrangement is similar to that employed on
cement mixer trucks. On diesel engines, the driver can be direct, but
on gasoline engines which can rotate at up to 4,000 rpm, a clutch must
be installed between the engine and pump in order to prevent the pump
from overspeeding. Most hydraulic pumps cannot be driven above about
2,800 rpm.
Company E reported that they had reliability problems with an electric
clutch on a front power takeoff when installed on trucks. This was also
confirmed by Co. F. However, Co. G claims very good reliability for their
pneumatic-hydraulic clutch (Figure 6-2). This clutch comes in several gear
ratios:
6-9
-------
i
/ \,
' " '"''" .- .;;/' . <*. . -.-- !;:. v-1';;^
-...*.. i f;' / »! ,-. -- .-'. .',;.-!--^fel?i '^^^aWjaLi;ja!^>V> ^ fe^^^i^iiil^^^^^'U^^SS
GEAR MDUNTED ON A TRUCK WITH A REFUSE PACKER
Figure 6-2. Front Power Take-Off
6-] 0
-------
0.5, 0.75, 1.0 and 1.25. One compactor truck manufacturer says that
he prefers the 0.75:1 ratio with the pump running at only 75 percent
of engine speed. This would still prevent the pump from overspeeding
should the clutch be engaged with the engine at all but the highest
rpm. Electric interlocks can be installed to prevent pump overspeed-
ing and are supplied by Co. H. This will disconnect the pump should
the engine exceed a certain preset rpm.
Front power takeoffs have been used on front, rear, and side loaders.
There do not appear to be any inherent problems in the use of front
PTO's. Even the clearance problems on front loaders due to the mounting
of the pump on the front bumper can be overcome by lengthening the loading
arms. One major manufacturer, Co. I, is offering front power takeoffs on
their "quieted" trucks.
A problem with a front power takeoff is that the drive shaft has
to pass through the radiator. This generally requires either the rais-
ing of the radiator for clearance, or cutting a hole in the radiator for
the drive shaft. Some truck manufacturers do offer front-mounted PTO
options on their medium trucks. Co. J offers a front PTO option on two
of its lines of trucks. However, it is what they call a "Limited Produc-
tion Option" which requires a long lead time and special tooling charges.
Co. E and Co. K (private communication) are also planning to offer a
front PTO option on some of their medium trucks later this year.
Flywheel Power Takeoff
An alternative, and very successful, type of power takeoff is the
"Flywheel Power Takeoff" (Figure 6-3). This is a PTO inserted between
the engine crankcase and transmission. It is about 8-1/2 inches long
6-11
-------
6-12
-------
and weighs 180 Ibs. It is currently available only on Co. L engines.
This PTO did not make any noise that could be discerned from the chassis
noise on the trucks that were measured. There was no whine of the PTO
gears as with transmission PTO's. This is presumably because the gears
are all mounted in one integral housing and are correctly aligned. Thus,
a garbage truck manufacturer who employs a Co. L chassis need not employ
any special hardware to achieve a Stage 2 truck other than to employ a
quieted version of the chassis and regulate the engine speed, during
compaction, on the engine's own governor.
Co. K has also supplied a flywheel power takeoff on a number of
their chassis. It is not currently available, but they have supplied
it on Co. M gasoline engines and Co. N diesel engines. They have used a
toothed belt, driven off the engine flywheel, to drive the hydraulic
pump. This appears to be a very reliable system and has been in service
in San Francisco for over eighteen months.
Noise Levels
A direct drive PTO does not, of itself, make any significant noise.
If the PTO is geared, then it may make some noise, but since the gears
are a modern design and are incorporated in an integral housing, they
are not expected to make any significant noise. The main scarce of
noise comes from the chassis, with some from the hydraulic pump. In
the diagnostic study, the noise level of a Co. 0 pump at 1,000 rpm was
64 dBA at 7 m.
Table 6-3 shows the chassis noise levels of unregulated and regu-
lated chassis. The unregulated trucks are all well over 75 dBA at 7 m,
but under an 80 dBA regulation, all trucks generate less than 72 dBA
6-13
-------
TAELE 6-3.
OVERALL NOISE LEVELS UNDER STAGE 2 OF NOISE
CONTROL (HYDRAULIC PUMP = 64 dBA at 7 m)
Truck Fuel
RPM
Unreg
Overall Noise Levels at 7 m
Chassis Regulation (dBA)
83
80
78
75
1
2
3
H
5
6
7
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
1200
1000
1200
1000
1000
1200
1200
81
81
80
80
78
78
76
74.5
75.5
73
75.5
75.5
7^.5
70
71
72
70
72
72
71
67.5
70
71
6.9
70.5
71
70
67.5
68
68
67
68
69
67-5
66
6-14
-------
at 7 m, with the gasoline trucks generating 67.5 dBA. The largest diesel
engines have sufficient power that they can be slowed down to 1,000 rpm, as
was done on a Co. D side loader with a Co. N diesel engine. The levels are
also illustrated in Figure 6-4.
The fuel savings with a front PTO and reduced engine speed are
expected to be the same as for reduced engine speed (Stage 1) alone.
One truck has already been measured with this Level 2 of noise
control treatment. This was a Co. I truck with the quieted option and a
Co. J gasoline engine. The noise level measured was 69 dBA at 7 m.
Conclusions
By combining a reduction of engine speed to 1200 rpm or below, and
elimination or redesign of the transmission power take-off, the sound
level of garbage trucks can be reduced to 72 dBA at 7 m.
STAGE 3 - STAGE 2 PLUS A QUIET PUMP AND 75 dBA CHASSIS
Under Stage 2 of noise control, the main noise sources are the
hydraulic pump, which generates 64 dBA of noise at 7 m, and the chassis.
When regulated for 80 dBA under the SAE J366b test, the chassis gives
a noise level of less than 70 dBA at 7 m during the compaction cycle.
Now, if the truck chassis is regulated for 75 dBA under the SAE
J366b test, then the noise level would be 65 dBA or less during the com-
paction cycle. At this level, the truck chassis and hydraulic pump
generate very similar noise levels (65 and 64 dBA at 7 n, respectively).
Further noise reduction can now be achieved by using a quiet pump.
6-15
-------
90
fe
CO
o
U.1
>
UJ
-J
.J
-J
<
K.
UJ
>
O
70
60
O
©
A
A
D
n
V
TRUCK 1
TRUCK 2
TRUCK 3
TRUCK 4
TRUCK 5
TRUCK 6
TRUCK 7
(GASOLINE)
UNREG 83 80 78 75 dBA
CHASSIS REGULATION (SAE TESTS)
Figure 6-4. Overall Noise Level Under Stage 2
of Noise Control
6-16
-------
Quiet Pumps
There are a number of proprietary pumps on the market. One very
sucessful design is a German patent being marketed by Co. P (Figure
, 6-5). This design uses a outer gear and a smaller eccentric gear inside.
The two are spaced by a cam. This type of gear pump is particularly
quiet. Noise levels of less than 55 dBA at 1,000 rpm and 7 m can be
obtained. Co. Q has also developed quiet versions of their vane
pumps.
An alternative means of quieting the pump is to enclose it. This
would require building a sheet steel box around the pump with seals
around the holes of the drive shaft and hydraulic lines. The box would
be lined on the inside with acoustic foam and would be mounted on the
chassis frame and not the pump. The pump would be vibration isolated
from the chassis frame. This technique should give at least 10 dBA
reduction in noise from a standard pump.
Noise Levels
Table 6-4 predicts the expected overall noise levels of the solid
waste compactor trucks with Stage 3 of noise control treatment. Signif-
icant differences with Stage 2 only occur when the Stage 3 treatment is
combined with a 75 dBA chassis regulation. Then all trucks are quieter
than 67 dBA at 7 m and the gasoline powered truck is 62 dBA at 7 m. This
data is illustrated in Figure 6-6.
Auxiliary Engines
A number of garbage trucks drive their hydraulic systems from aux-
iliary gasoline engines mounted on the truck body, rather than using
6-17
-------
Figure 6-5. A Quiet Hydraulic Pump Design
6-18
-------
TABLE 6-4
OVERALL NOISE LEVELS UNDER STAGE 3 OF NOISE
CONTROL (HYDRAULIC PUMP = 55 dBA at 7 m)
Overall Noise Levels at 7 m
Chassis Noise Regulation
Truck Fuel
RPM
U n r e g
83
80
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
1200
1000
1200
1000
1000
1200
1200
81
81
80
80
78
78
76
74
75
72.5
75
75
74
69
70
71
69
71
71
70
65.5
69
70
68
b9.5
70
69-5
65.5
66.
67
64.
65
66.
65.
62
5
5
5
5
6-19
-------
so
r;
i-
r-
UJ
U!
^v
O
00
rS
60-
UNKEG
O TRUCK 1
O TRUCK 2
A TRUCK 3
A TRUCK 4
n TRUCK 5
£3 TRUCK 6
V TRUCK 7
(GASOLINE)
8?, 80 78 75
CHASSIS REGULATION (SAE \ESTS)
dBA
Figure 6-6. Overall Noise Level Under Stage 3 of Noise
Control
6-20
-------
the main truck engine. These engines are typically water cooled, four
cylinder engines and run on the same fuel as the main truck engine.
They typically are between 100 and 172 cubic inches displacement and are
considerably underrated for this application. Air cooled diesel engines
have also been used as auxiliary engines on garbage trucks.
Only one truck with an auxiliary engine was measured. It had a
Company R gasoline engine and generated 81 dBA at 7 m. These engines
are also used to drive the larger engine generator sets used in recrea-
tional vehicles and boats. Some manufacturers produce specially enclosed
low noise engines. This is a very important selling point in the Recrea-
tion Industry. Noise levels as low as 66 dBA at 1 in (equivalent to 50
dBA at 7 m) have been quoted verbally by the manufacturer. This is a
very low level and well below any noise level to which chassis powered
equipment can be quieted. Thus, it appears to be well within the state
of the art to build an acoustic enclosure around a water cooled auxiliary
engine which will make it at least as quiet as any chassis powered equipmer *
Air cooled engines may be more difficult to quiet, however.
Quieting of Impact Noise
There are a number of sources of impact noises which occur during
the loading and compacting cycles. Garbage cans impact on the loading
hopper; hydraulic cylinders bottom while performing the compaction; the
container and forks of a front loader bang; and container covers bang.
Although the quieting of the containers is not strictly within the scope of
a compactor noise regulation, it is pertinent here to comment briefly on
techniques that are expected to provide some improvement.
6-21
-------
Garbage can impacts - rear and side loaders
This noise can be minimized by covering the edge of the loading
hopper with a 1/2 inch thick rubber strip.
Hydraulic cylinder bottoming - rear loaders
On rear loading compactor trucks, one significant source of noise
is the impact of the hydraulic cylinders as they "bottom" at the end
of their stroke. Typically, the piston is driven to the end of the
cylinder which it strikes and a peak noise level of 90-100 dBA is typi-
cally observed. A commonly used technique to lessen the impact is to
install "cushions" inside the cylinders at the end of the stroke.
Inexpensive cushions are made of rubber, but are not very durable. A
irore durable mechanism is a pin on each side of the piston, which engages
the hydraulic oil exit port as the piston nears the end of its stroke.
This gradually shuts off the flow of oil and slows down the piston.
Figure 6-7 shows a cutaway view of a hydraulic cylinder with these
cushions installed. The cushions are standard items and are recommended
by the manufacturer for all applications with piston speeds in excess
of 20-25 ft/min (manufacturer's literature).
Co. C rear loaders do not require cushions since their cylinders
do not bottom; rather, the stroke is reversed electrically before it
has bottomed. There is no evidence that cylinder bottoming is a signif-
icant source of noise in side and front loaders and therefore, these do
not require cushions. Hydraulic cushions are only required on rear
loading garbage trucks.
6-22
-------
Figure 6-7. Hydraulic Cylinder
with Cushions.
Upper Cushion Pin
Lower Cushion Pin
and Seat
6-23
-------
There are two compacting cylinders on each truck, requiring a cushion
at each end. Thus four cushions are required on each truck. The hydraulic
cylinders which require the cushions are between 3 inches and 5-1/2
inches bore, depending on truck model.
Banging of containers - front loaders
Banging of a container takes place while it is being lifted and dumped
on the arms of the front loader. One of the best ways of reducing this
noise is to coat the container with a damping material in order to damp
its noise. In this respect, some noise reduction might be obtained by
coating the front loader arms with an epoxy damping material, which
/
although not producing much damping, may lessen the impacts themselves.
It is not clear, however, how durable such an epoxy compound would be
under such severe service.
Banging of hopper lid - front loader
At the end of a front loader cycle, the lid covering the hopper
is allowed to drop fairly rapidly and creates a large impact. This
impact can be minimized by riveting a 1/2 inch rubber seal around the
hopper mouth in order to cushion the impact.
There is a great deal which can be done to lessen impact noise
on garbage trucks: Hydraulic cushions, rubber edgings or stops and
damping compound.
CONCLUSIONS
There are three stages, or levels, of noise control which can be
applied to compacting garbage truck bodies. The first stage is to
restrict the engine speed during cycling to 1200 rpm or less. This
6-24
-------
reduces both engine and power takeoff noise. Most rear and side loading
trucks already have automatic engine speed, but front loaders do not.
They will require the installation of an engine speed control.
The second stage of noise control is the quieting of the power
take off. Either the transmission power take off can be redesigned
(although this is not currently available) or different types of power
take off can be used. A "front power take off" is connected to the
front of the engine crankshaft. This type is quiet but requires extend-
ing the front bumper and a special radiator with a hole for the drive
shaft. This radiator (and associated fan modifications) is available
from some truck chassis manufacturers with some engine combinations. A
"flywheel power takeoff" is available on all Co. L diesel engines and
Co. K has engineered a design for Co. M gasoline and Co. N diesel engines.
This design can be adapted to other engines.
The final stage of noise control is to use a quiet hydraulic pump.
There are a number of proprietary designs available.
The use of truck noise control levels must be coordinated with
truck chassis noise regulations. The noise control measures will not
be very effective by themselves unless the chassis are also quieted.
The resulting overall noise level will then be a function of both the
level of noise control for the compactor body and the chassis.
Impact sounds can be reduced by a variety of techniques which vary
with the source. The bottoming of the hydraulic cylinders can be quieted
by installing hydraulic cushions. Areas where impacts take place with
garbage cans or container lids can be covered with rubber sheets and the
noise appropriately reduced.
6-25
-------
Section 7
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The three different noise emission standards for truck mounted
compactor bodies are analyzed in this section from two points of view:
First, the additional costs associated with achieving each specified stage
of quieting are examined and second, the various economic impacts expected
to result from achieving each stage are pointed out. The various stages
of quieting relate to specific options which have been considered by EPA.
The proposed rule focuses on an option which requires Stage 2 quieting.
The cost and economic impacts resulting from the adoption of this proposed
regulatory option will be examined in a later part of section 7.
COST ANALYSIS*
Estimates of the costs incurred to achieve three different stages of
quieting for compactor bodies are presented in this section. The cate-
gories of costs considered include: direct material and labor costs;
overhead costs; and, maintenance and operating costs.
Direct Material and Labor Cost Estimates
Stage 1. Cost Estimates
The Stage 1 quieting technology consists of governing the engine speed
to a maximum of 1,200 revolutions per minute during the compaction cycle.
To estimate the cost of this treatment, the following assumptions have been
made:
1. The general design and capacity of side and rear loading
compactors are similar and it is not necessary to distinguish between
the two for costing purposes. A review of component systems (i.e.,
* The methodology used in developing the costs in this section is
presented in Section 7 Exhibit.
7-1
-------
hydraulics) and discussions with manufacturers of both types of vehicles
validated this assumption.
2. The existing governors on side and rear loading vehicles can
be adjusted to achieve the desired engine speed.
3. A speed control device will be installed on front loading
vehicles.
4. The size of the hydraulic pump or the gear ratio of the power
take-off unit on all three vehicle configurations will be increased to
preserve the existing flow rates and compaction cycle times.
5. Special treatment will not be required to prevent tampering
with speed control components.
The front and rear loading vehicle configurations will require
only minimal modifications to achieve Stage 1 treatment. Engine speed
controls are already standard equipment on these vehicles since they
are necessary to operate the compaction cycle from the side or rear of
the vehicle. It is assumed that these governors can be calibrated to
1,200 rpm and are sufficiently sensitive to prevent engine stalling.
Therefore, no appreciable material cost is estimated for the speed con-
trol aspects of Stage 1.
Slowing the engine speed will reduce the hydraulic flow rate
and thus slow the compaction cycle on these vehicles. To sustain pro-
ductivity, a larger hydraulic pump or a higher ratio PTO will be required.
The additional capacity needed will vary with the size of the compactor
unit, but the incremental material cost for the average vehicle is
estimated to range between $200 and $300.
7-2
-------
The additional labor cost for Stage 1 treatment of side and rear
loaders is estimated to be approximately $70. This amount represents
roughly nine direct labor hours which should be adequate allowance for the
minor modifications involved.
Stage 1 treatment for front loading vehicles is more extensive than
that for the other two configurations. Existing models do not have engine
governors since the speed of the engine is regulated by the driver. Thus,
it will be necessary to install a speed control device along with necessary
instrumentation and hardware components. The system must maintain an
engine speed of 1,200 rpm and lock out the engine accelerator in the cab.
The cost for the governor and associated hardware will range between $300
and $500 depending upon the type of chassis and engine.
As with the other two vehicle categories, the hydraulic pump capacity
or PTO gear ratio must be increased to preserve compaction cycle times.
Again, depending upon the size of the pump, the additional cost will range
between $250 and $300 per unit.
The additional labor cost will vary depending on whether the engine
governor is ordered with the chassis or must be installed by the compactor
manufacturer, but it is estimated to range between $100 and $200.
Stage 2. Cost Estimates
The Stage 2 quieting technology consists of employing alternate
methods of power take-off (PTO) from the engine. An EPA sponsored study
has indicated that the design of the transmission PTO is unsuitable for
effective noise control. Two alternatives are: the flywheel PTO and the
direct drive, crankshaft PTO.
7-3
-------
The flywheel PTO option is effective in noise reduction but, at the
present time, is limited in availability from chassis manufacturers. Co. L
is the only manufacturer which offers the flywheel PTO as a standard
option. Some other chassis manufacturers offer the flywheel PTO as a
special option. An independent component manufacturer was also identi-
fied which manufactures a flywheel PTO which can be applied to other
makes of medium and heavy duty truck chassis.
The direct drive, crankshaft PTO is effective in noise reduction but
is also limited in availability. Only a few truck chassis are on the
market which are designed to accommodate a front mounted power take-off
unit and, because these have been designed primarily for the cement mixer
market, they are much bigger and heavier than the chassis normally used for
solid waste compactors. Chassis which are not designed for the front PTO
must undergo extensive modification to extend the frame in front and to
provide clearance for the pump to crankshaft coupling.
This makes the front PTO an impractical alternative for front loading
trucks. Not only is the required frame extension on the front of the
vehicle too long to allow safe clearance between the container forks
and the frame extension of the front loading truck, but the cab, frame
and radiator modifications required on the cab over engine used with
front loaders are so extensive as to be impractical.
The cost estimates for Stage 2 treatment are based on the following
assumptions:
1. Stage 1 noise control treatment has been implemented.
2. Side and rear loading vehicles are again assumed to be the
same for costing purposes.
7-4
-------
3. The most cost effective treatment for side and rear loading
vehicles is the front mounted, crankshaft power take-off. (Some end users
may elect to purchase Co.L chassis with the flywheel PTO option but this
would generally be a more expensive alternative and not really indicative
of actual quieting costs.)
4. The most cost effective treatment for quieting front loading
vehicles appears to be the flywheel PTO option.
The cost associated with Stage 2 treatment for side and rear loading
vehicles consists of three major elements: radiator modification, frame
extension, and hydraulic system components. Each of these cost elements is
described in the following paragraphs.
The radiator modification consists of cutting a hole in the radiator
to provide clearance for the driveshaft connecting the crankshaft to the
hydraulic pump assembly. Most chassis manufacturers do not currently make
modifications of this nature. Therefore, the compactor body manufacturers
must assume responsibility for this modification. Since radiator work is a
specialized process which most compactor manufacturers are not equipped to
handle, it is assumed that the radiator will be removed from the truck
chassis and sent to a subcontractor for modification. The additional cost
incurred in this operation will range between $150 and $250 per vehicle.
The frame extension consists of extending the basic frame of the
chassis by 18 inches to 24 inches to provide a front mount location for the
hydraulic pump assembly. It is assumed that most compactor body manufac-
turers will fabricate the necessary structural components in-house. The
basic materials required are steel channel, steel sheet and miscellaneous
7-5
-------
hardware. The cost of material required will vary according to chassis
type and size, but should not exceed $100 to $150 per unit.
The hydraulic system components consist of the hydraulic pump, clutch,
and additional hardware. A clutch is required with most direct drive
configurations to isolate the pump from the engine and prevent overspeed-
ing. A number of different clutches can be purchased for this application,
including electrically, centrifugally, and pneumatically operated models.
The cost of the clutch and associated hardware will vary between $400 and
$600 per unit.
It is possible that a special tandem pump could be used which would
eliminate the need for the clutch.
Additional hydraulic components such as tubing, cheek valves, fit-
tings, etc., will be required since the hydraulic pump will be located in
front of the cab and hence further away from the compactor body. These
components are expensive and the added cost may be as high as $75 to $125
per unit.
The total incremental cost of materials and subcontract work for side
and rear loading vehicles ranges between $725 and $1,125 per unit.
However, an estimated $100* of this cost is offset by the fact that a power
take-off unit is no longer required. The net incremental material cost is
therefore estimated to range from $625 to $1,025 per vehicle.
The incremental labor is estimated to be 25 to 35 man-hours per unit
for production, assembly and checking. This is equivalent to an additional
cost of $200 to $280 per unit.
* The cost of the power take-off unit can vary from $75 to as high as $600
depending upon the type of transmission and the PTO features desired. This
estimate reflects the labor and component cost for installation of the most
commonly used PTO.
7-6
-------
Front loading vehicles are assumed to employ the flywheel PTO alter-
native. The incremental cost of this option from Co. L is approximately
$915 per vehicle. This estimated cost should be representative of the cost
of other alternatives which are applicable to the front loading configuration.
The additional labor cost associated with the flywheel PTO option
should be minimal. An additional cost of $50 to $100 has been estimated to
account for possible increases in installation and checking time.
Stage 3. Cost Estimates
The Stage 3 technology consists of quieting the hydraulic pump. Two
alternative treatments are considered: a pump sound enclosure and a
quiet hydraulic pump.
The cost of labor and material for a pump sound enclosure is estimated
to range between $30 and $50 per unit and has the disadvantage of being
subject to contamination from leaking hydraulic fluid and being costly to
maintain. However, the quiet pump has the disadvantage of costing between
$200 and $300 depending on the size and type of pump used.
The estimated cost for Stage 3 treatment for all three vehicle types,
therefore, ranges between $30 and $300 assuming no additional labor for
installation of the quiet pump.
Inpact Noise Cost Estimates
The technology to reduce impact noise consists primarily of lining the
rim of the loading hopper of each vehicle type with an impact absorbing
rubber strip. An additional treatment is needed for rear loaders to
reduce the impact noise associated with the bottoming and reversal of the
compaction ram cylinders.
7-7
-------
The application of a two inch rubber strip to the loading hopper does
not present any significant manufacturing problems. It is assumed that
manufacturers will glue or rivet the rubber to the hopper rim at a final
assembly station without any major impact on present operations.
The cost of this treatment will vary with each type of vehicle as a
function of the hopper size. Assuming an average vehicle size, it is
estimated that labor and material cost for front loaders will range between
$35 and $50 per unit. The estimated cost for side and rear loaders ranges
between $10 and $20.
The reduction of impact noise associated with the hydraulic cylinders
of rear loaders poses a more significant problem to manufacturers. Since
most manufacturers produce their own cylinders, the need for cushioned
cylinders requires a major redesign of the component and major changes in
the production of the cylinder assembly. It is difficult to determine at
present whether manufacturers will redesign the present cylinders and
processes, purchase the cushioned cylinders from other raanufacturers, use
rubber cushions, or seek out other means of eliminating the impact (i.e.,
using electrical limit switches).
Assuming that manufacturers elect to redesign their present cylinders,
the estimated cost will vary with the size of cylinder and the ability of
the producer to modify the design and production process. However, once
the initial design and implementation costs are amortized, it is estimated
that the additional labor and material cost for the modified cylinders
should not exceed $150 to $200 per compactor unit.
7-8
-------
Auxiliary Engine Cost Estimates
The technology proposed for quieting auxiliary engines on all types of
vehicles is to install an engine enclosure to muffle noise emissions. Two
types of auxiliary engines are used on compactors: air cooled and water
cooled.
Application of the technology to the water cooled engine presents no
major problems, assuming that the enclosure is properly designed and
provides adequate venting for dissipation of engine heat. However, the
proposed technology is not applicable to air cooled engines since the
enclosure would interfere with cooling of the engine. As a result, the
application of the proposed quieting technology will probably preclude the
use of air cooled engines on future compactors.
The labor and material cost of enclosing the water cooled auxiliary
engine is estimated to be $165 to $260 per unit. The cost should be
approximately the same for all three vehicle types since all generally use
the same type and size of engine.
Overhead Cost Estimates
Manufacturing overhead costs are expected to increase in some cost
categories such as additional indirect materials (adhesives, assembly
hardware, etc.), supervision, inspection, and manufacturing technical
support (methods, standards, production scheduling and control, etc.) as a
result of quieting.
These additional overhead costs should not exceed 100 to 125 percent
of the incremental direct labor associated with quieting. (The existing
manufacturing overhead rate is estimated to be 200 percent of direct labor
cost.)
7-9
-------
General, Sales, and Administrative (GS&A) costs will also increase
slightly as a result of noise emission standards. These costs will arise
from two sources: the cost of planning and implementing the noise control
technology and the cost of ongoing compliance with the noise standard.
The necessary planning and implementation efforts will result in
additional costs amounting to 20 to 30 percent of incremental direct
labor.
The compliance costs result primarily from product testing and record-
keeping costs. It is assumed that two types of product testing will be
required. The first type would be product verification (PV) testing by the
manufacturer to insure that initial production runs of each type of vehicle
meet noise standards. It is estimated that between 2 and 15 percent of the
units produced annually will require testing. The second type of test
would be the selective enforcement audit (SEA) which would be conducted by
EPA officials. It is expected that 50 such requests will be made within
the industry each year and that this will average out in a way that requires
each company to test an additional two percent of the units produced annually.
The cost per vehicle tested is estimated to range between $350 and $600
and the annual testing costs are assumed to be allocated over the total
number of units produced each year.
Manufacturers will also be required to maintain complete records of
test results as well as records of product sales (for the purpose of
recall).
The total estimated cost of both these compliance activities ranges
between 35 and 180 percent of incremental direct labor cost depending upon
7-10
-------
the equipment category and level of quieting treatment. This variability is
reflected in the estimates of incremental GS&A overhead cost for each
treatment level and vehicle configuration.
Maintenance and Operating Cost Estimates
Maintenance Costs
* Stage 1
The Stage 1 technology for side, rear, and front loaders requires the
adjustment or addition of a speed control device and installation of a larger
hydraulic pump. Both of these components are relatively low maintenance
items. For example, a fleet of 60 trucks, representing a mix of front,
side, and rear loaders, showed no maintenance charges over a ten-month
period associated with the engine governor and only minimal expenses for
the hydraulic pump. Based on this historical data and an evaluation of the
quieting technology, it is estimated that no increases will occur in main-
tenance costs for Stage 1 treatment of side, rear, and front loading vehicles.
* Stage 2
The installation of a front mounted, direct drive hydraulic pump on
side and rear loaders will result in additional maintenance costs. It is
estimated that the clutch, which" is required on the hydraulic pump to
prevent overspeeding, will require replacement every four years. The annual-
ized labor and material cost for this maintenance is estimated to be $100 to
$150 per vehicle. Some additional maintenance will also be required on the
hydraulic system (typically a high maintenance area) due to the increased
number of components. This added cost is estimated to be $30 to $40 per
year per vehicle.
7-11
-------
Offsetting these costs will be savings in power take-off (PTO) mainten-
ance. The standard PTO unit presently used on compactors has an expected
life of approximately three years. By eliminating this unit, the annualized
maintenance savings are estimated to be $75 to $125.
The net increase in maintenance costs for side and rear loaders is
therefore estimated to be approximately $60 per year per vehicle.
Front loaders are assumed to employ the flywheel PTO option which will
not significantly increase maintenance costs.
*Stage 3
Industry experience does not now exist for the life expectancy of the
quiet pump, but it appears to perform as well as standard, conventional
units. It may, however, be more susceptible to damage from dirt within the
hydraulic system. Thus, it is conceivable that maintenance costs could
rise, but it is not possible at this time to quantify the potential increase.
The sound enclosure alternative will increase maintenance costs
slightly since the life expectancy of the sound absorbing material is
limited. The film coated fiberglas, used to line the pump enclosure, is
susceptible to accumulations of dirt and grease as well as damage from
routine maintenance. It is, therefore, assumed that this lining will be
replaced every other year at a cost of $10 to $15 per year.
*Impact
The rubber material used to line the loading hopper will be subject to
a high level of wear and damage and will probably require replacement each
year. The annual cost of this operation is estimated to be $40 to $50 for
front loaders and $15 to $20 for side and rear loaders.
7-12
-------
The use of cushioned cylinders on the rear loading vehicles is expected
to have offsetting impacts on maintenance costs. The effect of the cushion-
ing action should reduce the amount of wear on the cylinder and thus, to
some extent, prolong the life of the component. However, the added complex-
ity of the cylinder design will lead to increased costs when the cylinders
are rebuilt. It is difficult to assess the net tradeoffs between these two
factors since there is little experience in the compactor industry with
cushioned cylinders, but the net impact is not expected to be significant.
*Auxiliary Engines
The maintenance cost of the auxiliary engine is not expected to change
as a result of quieting, but some additional maintenance costs are antici-
pated for replacement of the sound enclosure lining which has a limited
life expectancy. The resulting annual increase in maintenance cost for
replacing this lining is estimated to be $15 to $20 per vehicle.
Operating Costs
The only operating cost significantly impacted by the quieting techno-
logy is fuel cost. Fuel economies are projected for all vehicles due to
the Stage 1 reduction in engine speed. Assuming that trucks are cycling 25
percent of the time, the fuel economies will amount to 0.008 gallons per
hour for gasoline engines and 0.13 gallons per hour for diesel engines.
The estimates reflected in Table 7-1 assume that:
1. The average compactor is operated 2,200 hours per year.
2. Fuel prices are $.50 for gasoline and $.40 for diesel.
3. All front loaders are diesel engine powered.
4. Sixty percent of all side and rear loaders are gasoline-powered
engines and 40 percent are diesel-powered.
7-13
-------
TABLE 7-1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT OPERATING
COST REDUCTION DUE TO FUEL ECONOMIES
BODY TYPE ANNUAL SAVINGS
Front Loader $114
Side Loader 90
Rear Loader 90
Summary of Cost Estimates
The range of estimated costs for direct labor and material is summar-
ized in Table 7-2 and the estimated increases in overhead expenses are
summarized in Table 7-3.
The overhead increases shown for Stage 1 treatment include the esti-
mated costs of compliance (i.e., testing and recordkeeping). These costs
are not included in the estimates of treatment beyond Stage 1 since it is
assumed that these costs will remain essentially constant in that the
number of vehicles to be tested and the necessary documentation and
procedures will remain the same as the stage of quieting increases.
The total estimated cost increases associated with increasing stages
of quieting are shown in Table 7-4 and summarized in Table 7-5. The costs
shown in the table are based on the expected cost estimates for direct
labor and materials and incremental overhead expenses. The cost for each
level is cumulative over the preceding levels with the exception of impact
and auxiliary engine treatments which have not been associated with a
particular treatment level.
7-14
-------
T3
CD
4J
0
CD
i
^j
(0
fi
X
W
S
i_5
o in in o in 01
CN VO VD CTi iH JJ
ro O rH rH CN O
^ GJ
rH . Qj
cu
o in o o in Q
r- CN ro vo VD t_5
CN 00 ro ro ro CN CN tT« CN ^J" VD ro in
HI » -H ro r~- ro rH
*r> 1 1 T« 1
M-< 1 r I ^ l
to- to-
1
CD
M
r^
0
{_)
Q *
M U W M
CN EH EH EH g
r-- W S CQ
J^ fY]
13 c3 § w ft
eg < co
<] >H M EH
^ rH iH JJ
ro O rH CN O
^ ay
H VJ
co- £5 *^ O
OO CTi rH CN SO S-l
tO- CO CD
s
a
Q
r-3
o in o m in
CD ID ro ro i^ i j
ID CTi rH C
in- o
£
^4
w
o m in o in
G\ O CN ro ID
CO i -U
M C
rH CN ro (0 QJ CD
-P-H C S
cu cu CD o IH -H 43
CT* cr* cT' ^d -H en rcj
(B to (5 QI x C CD
-u -u -u & 3 u >j
CO CO CO M < En
>1
M
rH CN ro fO CD
4J -H C
CD CD CD O rH -H
CO (Tj (0 Qj X C
-P -P 4J K D W
CO CO CO H <
CD
5
C
(0
CO
CD
rri
ra
CO
H1
'5
8
CD
f^
CD
M-l
0
CO
CD
4J
S
(0
ro
T!
CC
CN
CO
CD
f
CO
LJ [/I
O -U
M-) CO
^8
CO
6 CD
O CO
H
rH O
4J
SJ
CD Qj
E^ H
*
7-15
-------
TABLE 7-4
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST FOR NOISE ABATEMENT*
Front Loader
Treatment
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Impact
Auxiliary
Engine
High
$1,740
2,985
3,345
120
410
Low Expected
$ 885 $1,215
1,920 2,310
1,970 2,500
60 75
215 280
Side Loader
High Low Expected
Rear Loader
Low Expected
$1,215
2,310
2,500
75
280
$ 705
2,750
3,110
40
410
$ 460
1,560
1,610
15
215
$ 320
1,930
2,120
25
280
$ 690
2,735
3,095
550
410
$ 445
1,545
1,595
235
215
$ 520
1,915
2,105
340
280
*These estimates do not reflect estimated maintenance and operating cost changes.
The total cost for each Treatment Stage is the sum of the dollar value shown
for that Stage and the cost of Impact Noise Abatement.
7-16
-------
Treatment
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Impact
Auxiliary Engine
TABLE 7-5
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST INCREASES FOR
NOISE ABATEMENT
Front Loader Side Loader Rear Loader
$1,215
2,310
2,500
75
280
$ 535
1,930
2,120
25
280
$ 520
1,915
2,105
340
280
The EPA contractor cost estimates shown in Table 7-5 are compared
with estimates supplied by specific compactor body manufacturers in
Table 7-6.
7-17
-------
TABLE 7-6
MANUFACTURERS INPUT AND EPA CONTRACTOR ESTIMATES
Front Loaders
Manufacturer #1 Estimate
Manufacturer #2 Estimate
EPA Contractor Estimates:
- Expected
- High
- Low
Rear Loaders
Manufacturer #1 Estimates:
- RL (A)
- RL (B)
- RL (C)
Stage 1
$1,085
840
1,215
1,740
885
Stage 1**
$ 775
780
835
Stage 2*
$2,600
1,100
2,310
2,985
1,920
Stage 2
$1,765
1,785
1,925
Stage 3
$2,870
3,520
2,500
3,345
1,970
Stage 3
$1,935
1,965
2, 110
Manufacturer #2 Estimate 840 1,100 3,520
EPA Contractor Estimates:
- Expected 520 1,915 2,105
- High 690 2,735 3,095
- Low 445 1,545 1,595
NOTE: - Manufacturers not identified due to the confidential
nature of the information.
- No response received from side loader manufacturers.
*Manufacturer #1 estimate is based on a front mount, direct
drive pump. The EPA contractor estimate assumes the flywheel PTO
option on a Co. L chassis.
**Stage 1: Manufacturer #1 estimates include the cost of an
improved speed control device. The EPA contractor estimates assume
that the existing engine governor is adequate.
7-18
-------
The impact of noise control treatments on maintenance and operating
costs are summarized in the following table:
TABLE 7-7
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL MAINTENANCE
AND OPERATING COSTS DUE TO QUIETING
(DOLLARS PER VEHICLE PER YEAR)
Maintenance
Operating
Treatment
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Impact
Auxiliary
Lead Time
Front
Loader
$ 0
0
10-15
40-50
15-20
Side
Loader
$ 0
60
10-15
15-20
15-20
Rear
Loader
$ 0
60
10-15
15-20
15-20
Front
Loader
$ -114
-114
-114
Side
Loader
$ -90
-90
-90
Rear
Loader
$ -90
-90
-90
for Implementation
The lead time associated with implementation of quieting technology
for compactor bodies is conservatively estimated at 12 to 18 months.
With a few minor exceptions, the compactor technology impacts only
the mounting operation of the compactor assembly on the chassis.
The impact on the production and assembly operations is negligible.
In addition, the components impacted by the technology are primarily
purchased items which are readily available from suppliers. Therefore,
12 to 18 months should be sufficient for the required engineering
and marketing efforts and for depleting present inventories and building
new ones.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Introduction
This section describes the estimated economic impacts of the
adoption of three different noise treatment stages.
flarket and total industry impacts are considered first, then the
implications of these impacts are correlated with other factors and
7-19
-------
analyzed to identify specific impacts regarding individual firms or
groups of firms.
Impact Framework
Analysis of information obtained from manufacturers, raw material and
component suppliers, distributors, and end users has established a probable
overall framework for solid waste compactor industry/market reaction to
adoption of the noise emission standards suggested for study. The elements
of this framework are:
1. The total costs to manufacture the equipment will increase.
2. The manufacturers, within their competitive framework, will
pass this cost on in the form of an increase in the distributor price
(list price).
3. The distributor will pass its cost increase on in the form of an
increase in the negotiated price to the end user.
4. The truck mounted solid waste compactor end user will pass
the increase in his equipment purchase costs on to his customers as an
increase in the price of collection services provided. End users will also
pass on increased costs in operations and maintenance, if any. In the
case of municipalities, increased costs will be reflected in increased
costs for the taxpayer.
5. Final changes in industry prices and volumes will reflect the
changes in solid waste compactor purchase prices and operating costs.
6. Ultimately, the consumer will pay a higher price for collection
services due to the increased cost resulting from reduced noise. This
will be reflected in higher prices paid for the services which utilize
solid waste compactors. If there are over-all cost reductions as opposed
7-20
-------
to cost increases from the adoption of noise control technology, competi-
tive pressures will cause cost decreases to be passed on down the economic
chain to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
7. It is assumed that the technology and resulting costs used in the
study would be the actual future technology adopted and costs incurred.
This approach is conservative because, with the passage of time, new
technology at lower costs is likely to be developed. Thus, the current
costs used in this study (which are based on an assessment of on-the-shelf
technology) are essentially an upper bound estimate.
There are several special characteristics of the compactor body
industry which should be noted in conjunction with the above overall impact
framework. First, most of the larger solid waste compactor manufacturers
have a noise engineering staff and are currently manufacturing quieted
products (on a special order basis at a higher price) while other manu-
facturers have no quieting experience. The former companies should be
better prepared to meet the noise emission standards when they are set.
Their initial costs under the standards will probably be lower than for
those firms which have little or no experience in quieting their products,
if they maintain their current advantage. And, in that the compactor body
market is extremely price-competitive, the prices of these larger firms
with quieting experience will tend to become industry prices. Firms
without quieting experience will have to meet the established market price
level and can be expected to absorb costs in the form of lower profit
margins until their costs are in line.
Second, a truck-mounted solid waste compactor is a capital good
which provides a flow of productive service over a period of years.
7-21
-------
Thus, first year cost/price increases are reflected only in the portion
of compactor bodies manufactured and put in service that year. End
user costs will continue to rise until all the equipment in service
is quieted.
Another factor to note is that, given the competition in the industry,
price increases for services in the end user markets depend on the level
of cost increases. These costs include the increased price of equipment,
expenditures for maintenance and operations, and costs associated with
decreases, if any, in productivity from changed performance characteristics.
Fourth, another important consideration is that the purchaser views
the price of a solid waste compactor body as only a portion of the total
price of an operational unit. The cost of the truck chassis and additional
accessories necessary to make a complete unit can amount to 60 percent of
the total price. Thus, price increases developed for the compactor body
alone, when viewed from the buyer's perspective, represent an overestimate
of the percent price increase.
Finally, compliance enforcement will focus on the final assembler or
mounter of the compactor body onto the truck chassis, a function now
performed by distributors for approximately 30 percent of the compactor
bodies sold. Many of these distributors may not be capable of adequate
installation testing and compliance verification when new noise standards
are promulgated. This may place smaller distributors at a competitive
disadvantage with larger and more capable distributors in the same market
area and/or shift the installation function upward to the body manufacturer.
Dynamics:
*Adjusting to a Known Future
7-22
-------
The dynamics associated with the adoption of noise emission standards
reflect econmic conditions which are somewhat unique. In effect, the truck
mounted solid waste compactor end user is not-respending to short-term or
unexpected phenomena, but rather to changes mandated for some point in the
futuretwo or three or possibly even eight or ten years away. Thus, the
requirements for adjustment are neither unexpected nor the result of a
gradual long-term trend. They are definite and scheduled, and the adjust-
ment response will reflect this.
The economic impact assessment specifically considers this time range
of adjustments. Due to the planning horizon of two years or more from the
date of promulgation and the state of expectations today, it is estimated
that the major adjustments required will be made in the first year of
enforcement. The adjustment period is expected to extend beyond the first
year, but to be of second order significance.
*Extending the Life of Unquieted Equipment
During the first year of enforcement, it is anticipated that old solid
waste compactors not subject to regulation may very well be extended in
life due to the economic advantages which they have over the more costly
compactors with noise control. These solid waste compactors will be phased
out of the population in future years due to increased maintenance costs as
they age physically and accumulate more hours of operation. Also, the
impact of local noise ordinances will narrow the range of applications for
the unquieted units. Further adjustments will occur in the period beyond
on. /ear due to adoption of practices which conserve the use of solid waste
compactors in response to the increased costs.
*PreBuying Unquieted Equipment
7-23
-------
There is also a dynamic problem in reflecting the adjustments which
may occur because of rearranging the timing of purchases to avoid buying
more expensive solid waste compactors as long as possible. The strength of
economic incentives for rearranging the timing of purchases will depend on
a number of factors. It will be a function of the size of the cost penalty,
constraints on sales set by manufacturing capacity, the availability of
capital funds and negative incentives caused by the possible application of
local noise ordinances. The latter two factors restrict the amount of
prebuying in,relation to what end users may desire solely on the basis of
the expected cost increases.
Some end users may replace equipment ahead of the normal cycle in
order to purchase at lower prices before the regulation takes effect. In
this case, the stock of solid waste compactors will be higher before the
regulation becomes effective. This will lead to a short-term drop in
sales of the more expensive quieted solid waste compactors until this
extra stock is worn out.
Manufacturers of solid waste compactors are not operating near their
production capacity at the present time, and industry projections indicate
a fairly constant growth in unit volume over the next several years.
Consequently, existing plant capacity should be adequate to absorb a
substantial surge of prebuying.
Extension of the life of current compactor bodies and prebuying both
indicate the period of adjustment is likely to last longer than one year.
The amount of activity in each case is directly related to the size of the
cost penalty incurred.
Regulatory Sequence:
7-24
-------
The magnitude of changes caused by the enforcement of the regulation
in any one given year will tend to directly affect the impact occurring in
that year. For example, EPA's model predicts that a move from current
prices and noise levels directly to a Stage 2 cost for truck mounted solid
waste compactors will result in a sharper economic impact and create
more incentives for prebuying and other rearrangements to avoid the
consequences of the regulation than a stair-step type of sequence in which
Stage 2 is reached after a number of years at Stage 1.
A chronological sequence of three stages was used in this section
for initial assessment of economic impacts: Stage 1 is assumed to
be effective on January 1, 1979; Stage 2 on January 1, 1982; and Stage
3 on January 1, 1985.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Volume Impact
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to analyze the impact of the noise
standards suggested for study on the volume of truck mounted solid waste
compactor production. Volume change is a critical impact since it becomes
reflected in other impacts such as production employment, activity in
downstream channels of distribution and impacts transmitted to upstream
component suppliers.
2. Base Line Forecast
The baseline forecast provides a pre-regulation base of estimated
future industry activity levels which is then related to estimated post-
regulation activity levels to determine the economic impacts of the regula-
tions.
7-25
-------
TABLE 7-8
BASELINE FORECAST BY YEAR AND COMPACTOR BODY TYPE
1979-1993
BASELINE FORECAST(l)
Year
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total
Units
13,344
13,700
13,985
14,284
14,598
14,928
15,275
15,581
15,893
16,211
16,535
16,866
17,204
17,547
17,899
Front
Loader
1,524
1,600
1,680
1,764
1,852
1,945
2,042
2,083
2,125
2,167
2,210
2,255
2,300
2,346
2,393
Side
Loader
3,660
4,100
4,305
4,520
4,74b
4,983
5,233
5,338
5,445
5,554
5,665
5,778
5,894
6,011
6,132
Rear Loader
Total Quieted(2) Standard
8,160
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,160
8,323
8,490
8,660
8,833
9,010
9,190
9,374
816
800
800
800
800
800
800
816
832
849
866
883
901
919
937
7,344
7,200
7,200
7,200
7,200
7,200
7,200
7,344
7,491
7,641
7,794
7,950
8,109
8,271
8,437
Source: Exhibit IV-2 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) This exhibit is the detailed breakdown of
Exhibit IV-2 of Ref. 7-1 showing the projected estimates
of units for each compactor body type.
(2) Quieted units are produced for rear loaders only,
and are estimated at 10% of total rear loader
units.
TABLE 7-9
COMPOSITE MANUFACTURER'S PROJECTION
OF UNIT SHIPMENTS, 1975-1985
Average Annual Growth Rates
Body Type 1975-1980 1980-1985 1985-1995
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
5%
12
-2
5%
5
0
2
2
Total
2%
2%
7-26
-------
The baseline forecast through 1993 and 1995 is presented in Tables
7-8 and 7-9. The forecast is a composite projection of unit shipments
and is based on manufacturers' forecasts.
It can be seen that side loader and front loader shipments are
expected to grow fastest between 1975 and 1985. Rear loader shipments
are expected to decline by one percent per year over the period 1975-1985.
»
The growth of all three body types is expected to be 2 percent over
the period 1985-1995.
The projections are in marked contrast to the actual shipment growth
of ten percent per year between 1964 and 1974. This rapid growth rate
resulted, first from increasing market penetration by compactor bodies
during this period (open body collection trucks were being phased out) and
second, from the substantial increase in total solid wastes being collected
between 1964-1974. The latter resulted from higher consumer disposable
incomes and related purchases of more products with a larger quantity of
disposable packaging per product increased, the migration of higher income
families to houses with larger yards and increases in the quantity of yard
waste in the suburbs, and to more local ordinances restricting open burning.
However, a number of other factors are expected to interact to reduce
the shipment growth rates and to change the loader type mix between 1975
and 1995. Front loader units will increase during the first decade
(1975-1985) and level off during the second (1985-1995) due to increased
use in the commercial and multi-unit dwelling market. Side loaders
are projected to increase significantly to about a 9 percent annual
growth rate during the first decade and stabilize during the second
period. There will be increased replacement of rear loaders by side
7-27
-------
loaders which offer greater labor efficiency and lower operating costs.
Finally the use of rear loaders is expected to decline during the
period 1975-1985 and stabilize during the second ten year period.
These factors include the fact that the packer body market has been
fully penetrated so that future new unit sales will result from growth
in solid waste generation and replacement of units being retired.
Also, as indicated in section 2 of Reference 7-1, the growth of total
solid wastes requiring collection is expected to be at a lower rate. This
will be coupled with some technological changes in packer bodies that will
result in shipments growing even slower than increases in solid wastes
generated. These changes include larger packer body capacity and compac-
tion density, particularly for municipal fleets, and the use of transfer
stations, combined with satellite units to make waste transport collection
and disposal more efficient. Highway load restrictions place an upper
limit on packer body capacity and compacting density. Also, the mix of
packer bodies by type will shift toward more productive equipment. Front
loaders will be substituted for rear loaders for non-residential applica-
tions and side loaders will be substituted for rear loaders for residential
applications.
The latter is supported by data presented in a recent study which are
summarized in the following table:
7-28
-------
TABLE 7-10
ON-ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY AND COLLECTION COSTS
System
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Vehicle
Loader
Type
Side
Side
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Side
Detachable
Contnr.
Rear
Rear
Rear
Productivity/Collection Hours
Crew
Size
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
Homes/
Crewman
107
56
53
58
35
21
84
67
66
35
22
Tons/
Crewman
2.5
2.0
1.3
1.5
1.1
.7
1.2
.8
1.1
.6
.6
Homes/
Crew
107
56
107
123
104
63
84
138
200
72
44
Tons/
Crew
2.5
2.0
2.6
3.1
3.3
2.0
1.2
1.7
3.3
1.2
1.1
Costs
Homes/
Year
$ 9.88
15.60
11.96
11.44
20.28
28.80
19.24
28.52
24.96
16.64
24.44
Ton
$ 8.29
8.48
9.53
8.72
12.82
17.13
13.48
21.15
14.67
19.26
18.41
Source: "Eleven Residential Pickup Systems Compared for Cost and
Productivity," Kenneth A. Shuster, Solid Waste Management
Magazine, May 1975. (Reference 7-2)
Even though the above systems varied considerably, (i.e., point of
collection, frequency of collection, incentive system, loading method and
vehicle size and type, etc.), the overall higher efficiency of one-man
crews (side loaders) under a number of application environments is clear,
as is further demonstrated in Table 7-11. The importance of these effi-
ciency factors for side loaders is further enhanced when it is recognized
that side loaders are most effectively applied to curbside collection
systems which presently account for 60 percent of the collection systems in
the U.S. and which are expected to further increase in importance in future
years.
It is believed that the value of shipments will increase somewhat
faster than unit shipments due to increased body size, product enhance-
ments to achieve greater compaction density, and other product modifications.
7-29
-------
TABLE 7-11
PERCENT OF TOTAL TIME UTILIZATION
System
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Crew
Size
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Loader
Type
Side
Side
Side
Rear
Rear
Detach .
Contnr .
Rear
Rear
Rear
Crew
Produc-
tive Time
98.5%
97.2
97.6
63.0
58.3
69.5
61.3
58.7
61.0
Crew Non-
produc-
tive Time
1.5%
2.8
2.4
37.0
41.7
30.5
38.7
41.3
39.0
Total
100%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Residential Collection Systems
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
(530/SW-97c.l), March, 1975, Page 24.
(Reference 7-3)
Consequently, it is estimated that the average annual real growth
(constant 1974 dollars) will be three percent per year between 1974 and
1985, and that unit shipments will increase at the two percent level.
Industry shipment levels, which reflect these growth rates, are
shown in Table 7-12. In 1985, unit shipments are expected to be at the
15,000 level and value of shipments are expected to be at the $173 million
level.
Projected unit shipments for the time frame up to 1995 are required to
evaluate the economic impact of totally quieted population of solid waste
compactor bodies.
7-30
-------
TABLE 7-12
ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED UNIT AND DOLLAR
VOLUMES OF TRUCK MOUNTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR BODIES, 1974-85*
$( MILLIONS) -
Estimated
Unit Shipments 1974
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
TOTAL
Value of
Shipments
Source : Manufacturers '
1.2
2.1
9.0
12.3
$125
interviews
UNITS (OOOs)
Average Annual
Projected Growth Rate
1980 1985 1974-1985
1.6 2.0
4.1 5.2
8.0 8.0
13.7 15.2
$149 $173
and projections
5%
9
_i
2%
3%
* Dollar forecasts are in 1974 constant dollars.
It is shown in section 2 of Reference 7-1 that total gross discards
of solid wastes are expected to increase 2.5 percent annually between
1980-1990. No forecast is currently available beyond that time frame.
Consequently, the 2.5 percent has been utilized as the best measure avail-
able. It is reasonable to assume, however, that technology advances will
increase the capacity per unit and offset the 2.5 percent average annual
growth estimate. Further, it is not known whether the trade-offs between
side and rear loaders will persist over this time frame. Consequently,
the projections reflected in Table 7-13 assume that the average
annual growth rates for each body type are equal at two percent per
year.
7-31
-------
Body Type
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Total
1985
2.0
5.2
8.0
15.2
(thousands)
1990
2.2
5.7
8.8
16.7
1995
2.4
6.3
9.7
18.4
TABLE 7-13
PROJECTED UNIT SHIPMENTS OF
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR BODIES,
1985-1995
Average Annual
Growth
1985-1995
2%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Table 7-12 and Manufacturers' interviews and projections.
3a. Pricing and Price Elasticity
Assuming a full incremental cost pass-along, purchasers of quieted
solid waste compactors will be presented with price increases attribut-
able to the costs of sound attenuation, compliance, and enforcement.
Estimates of the price increases that would result from these costs are
summarized in Table 7-14. Costs related to the treatment of auxiliary
engines are presented separately since these treatments have not been
associated with a particular level. The estimated cost related to
impact noise has been included with each of the levels.
Quieted units produced on a special order basis are also indicated
in Table 7-14. It is estimated that in 1975 ten percent of rear loaders
were shipped with quieting equipment and that the unit price increase
resulting from the quieting treatment was approximately ten percent. In
that it was not possible to relate the quieted units to a specific noise
7-32
-------
Stage 1
Stan-
dard Quieted
6.9%
7.3
7.4
Stage 2
Stan-
dard
12.7%
25.6
19.5
Quieted
9.5%
Stage 3
Stan-
dard
13.7%
28.0
21.1
Quieted
11.1%
standard the incremental price of these units is treated as a reduction
in the cost to attain the EPA specified technology levels. Quieted side
or front loaders are not produced.
TABLE 7-14
ESTIMATED AVERAGE LIST PRICE
PERCENTAGE INCREASE BY
NOISE LEVEL AND CATEGORY
S
Compactor
Body Type
Front Loaders
Side Loaders
Rear Loaders
Consideraton was also given to the costs of quieting auxiliary
engine usage on side and rear loaders, but analysis indicated that
there was no significant difference between the costs of quieting aux-
iliary engines and the costs of quieting standard units.
The expected price increases between noise control stages for each
type of compactor body are presented in detail in Table 7-15 and sum-
marized in Table 7-16.
The dynamics of demand volume reaction to increased solid waste
compactor prices can be expected to vary depending upon:
A. The extent of price increases.
B. The significance of equipment cost in the end user's cost
structure giving specific consideration to depreciation, operating costs,
maintenance costs, and crew productivity.
C. The ease of substitution of one packer body type for another
(i.e., side loaders for rear loaders).
D. The option of renting or leasing truck mounted solid waste
compactors as an alternative to purchasing the equipment.
7-33
-------
TABLE 7-15
ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL PRICE BETWEEN NOISE CONTROL STAGES BY COMPACTOR BODY TYPE
Standard Units
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Quieted Units ^
Rear Loader
Average
Level Price
To 1 $18,780
1-2
2-3
To 1 7,650
1-2
2-3
To 1 11,580
1-2
2-3
)
(2)
TO 1
1-2 11,580
2-3
Estimated
Increase
Between
Stages
$1,290
1,095
190
560
1,395
190
860
1,395
190
(2)
1,095
190
Total Total
Stage 1 Stage 2
Average Average
Price Price
$20,070
$21,165
8,210
9,605
12,440
13,835
12,675
Total
Stage 3
Average
Price
$21,355
9,795
14,025
12,865
Percent
Change
Between
Stages
6.9%
5.5
0.9
7.3
17.0
2.0
7.4
11.2
1.4
9.5
1.5
Source: Exhibits V-l, V-2 and V-3 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Quieted units are produced for rear loaders only.
(2) No calculation rrade for Stage 1 rear loaders since price of
quieted units exceeded estimated cost for Stage 1 technology.
7-34
-------
TABLE 7-16
PERCENT INCREMENTAL PRICE
BETWEEN NOISE CONTROL STAGES
Stage 1 Stage 2
Compactor Body Type To Stage 1 to 2 to 3
Standard Unit
Front Loader 6.9% 5.5% 0.9%
Side Loader 7.3 17.0 2.0
Rear Loader 7.4 11.2 1.4
Quieted Unit*
Rear Loader ** 9.5 1.5
* Quieted front and side loaders are not manufactured.
** Quieted rear loaders are estimated to cost 10 percent more
than standard units. This amount exceeds the Stage 1 expected
increase.
E. The trade-off of new equipment purchases to extending the life
of used equipment.
F. The ease of substitution of competitive solid waste collection
systems.
G. The potential of achieving greater efficiency of operation.
H. The level of imports and exports.
3b. Cost Estimates of Regulatory Options
EPA considered various regulatory options. The options utilize
Stage 1, 2, and 3 technology and their associated costs. The variable
elements in each option include: 1} the year of implementation,
2) maximum noise level allowable, and 3) quieting technology.
Because the costs of quieting are dependent upon these factors, the costs
associated with these options also vary.
7-35
-------
For the major cost elements, operating (or fuel) costs, maintenance
costs, and equipment costs (direct labor and materials) estimates have
been developed and are summarized in Table 7-17. Table 7-18 shows
the percentage cost increase to achieve the required noise levels
of the regulatory options as well as the equivalent annual cost for
implementing and maintaining the noise level of selected options.
The regulatory option which has been proposed for rulemaking
is option 7, which requires the noise level of truck mounted solid
waste compactor bodies to reach a maximum of 78 dBA in 1979 and 75 dBA
in 1982. To achieve the 78 dBA level, Stage 2 technology is assumed
for all compactor body types. To reach the overall 75 dBA level, there
will be a 3 dBA noise reduction in the truck itself due to noise regula-
tion which EPA has promulgated for medium and heavy duty trucks
(41 FR 15538).
The costs for this proposed regulatory option are exactly equal
to those costs imposed to achieve Stage 2 technology. Using the
average price of the compactor body, the estimated increase in price
from the baseline to Stage 2 technology for option 7 is 12 percent for
front loaders, 25.6 percent for side loaders and 19.5 percent for rear
loaders. On quieted rear loaders the estimated percentage price
increase is 9.5 percent. Taking the price of the truck chassis into
consideration, the effective percentage increase in price for the
complete units are about one-half of these figures, or about 6.4
percent for front loaders, 12.8 percent for side loaders, and 9.8
percent for rear loaders. Estimated maintenance cost increases are
small for all compactor body types. They averaged $45.00 for front
7-36
-------
TABLE 7-17
SUMMARY OP FUEL, MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT COST
ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED REGULATORY OPTIONS
Option Year NTE*
Level
1 1979 80
1 1982 75
3 1982 79
5 1982 75
7 1979 78
7 1982 75
a 1979 80
a 1982 79
b 1979 78
b 1982 74
Treatment
Stage
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Body Type Fuel Cost
Increment
$
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Front Loader -114.00
Side Loader - 90.00
Rear Loader - 90.00
Maintenance
Cost Increment
$
45.00
17.50
17.50
45.00
77.50
77.50
45.00
17.50
17.50
45.00
77.50
77.50
45.00
77.50
77.50
45.00
77.50
77.50
45.00
17.50
17.50
45.00
17.50
17.50
45.00
77.50
77.50
57.50
90.00
90.00
Equipment
Cost Increment
$
1,290.00
560.00
860.00
2,385.00
1,955.00
2,255.00
1,290.00
560.00
860.00
2,385.00
1,955.00
2,255.00
2,385.00
1,955.00
2,255.00
2,385.00
1,955.00
2,255.00
1,290.00
560.00
860.00
1,290.00
560.00
860.00
2,385.00
1,955.00
2,255.00
2,575.00
2,145.00
2,445.00
*Not to Exceed
7-37
-------
TABLE 7-18
REGULATORY OPTIONS AND COST IMPACTS
Option No.
Baseline
1
3
5
7
1979
Regulatory
Level
New truck
83 dBA @
50 feet
80
(not
regulated )
(not
regulated)
78
%Cost Increase
0
3.7
0
0
9.9
1982
Regulatory
Level
New truck
80 dBA @
50 feet
75
79
75
75
%Cost Increase
0
6.2*
3.7
9.9
0
Equivalent
Annual Costs
$( Mi 11 ions)
0
14.53
1.63
12.29
18.72
*Incremental percentage cost increase due to moving from Stage 1 technology
to Stage 2 technology.
7-38
-------
loaders and $77.50 for both side and rear loaders. Fuel (operating)
costs will decrease due to the reduced engine speeds entailed in the
quieted compactors. Front loader fuel changes are expected to decline
by $114.00 while side and rear loader trash compactors will each
reduce fuel expenses about $90.00 per year.
It should be noted however that percentage price increases are
based on the cost of the compactor body alone, not the price of the
complete operational unit which also includes the truck chassis and
cab. The percentage price increase computed using the total price
of the operational unit (which is the price the end user vould have
to pay) is significantly smaller.
The equivalent annualized costs for adoption of the Option 7
regulatory scenario is $18.72 million when the regulatory scenario
begins in 1979 and quieting costs are computed through 1993.
4a. Price Elasticity of Demand
The price elasticity* of demand is used as a measure of the reaction
of the market to a price increase. It relates the change in quantity
demanded to the change in price. The estimate of elasticity reflects
the total net interaction of the preceding factors impacting on the
quantity demanded as prices change from present levels.
* Mathematically, the price elasticity (e) of demand can be defined as:
e = Percentage Change in Quantity Demanded (q)
Percentage Change in Price (p)
e = dq/q = d£ . p_
7-39
-------
Background & Assumptions:
A model of the "typical" solid waste compactor body end user was
constructed to evaluate the effects of price on volume and to analyze
several other economic factors. The model represents a composite of
all end user types: large and small private contractors and municipal-
ities. It is summarized in Table 7-19.
The analysis which follows assumes that the "full flow-through" con-
cept is applicable to the market and the industry. Therefore, cost
increases experienced by the manufacturer will be passed down through
the distributor to the purchasing end user in the form of price
increases. The price increases will result in higher collection fees
for collection sevices to the consumer.
The analysis also assumes that demand for solid waste compactor
bodies, as an intermediate product, is less sensitive to changes in its
own price when that product represents a small proportion of the cost
for the final product or service demanded (i.e., solid waste collection).
TABLE 7-19
REPRESENTATIVE SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR
END USER COST STRUCTURE MODEL
Percent of Oper-
Expense Category ating Revenues
Equipment maintenance 11.8
Collection labor 47.5
Equipment operation 3.7
Other expenses 32.6
Depreciation (collection equipment) 4.4
Total expense 100.0%
The rationale is that for a given level of demand for collection services,
the impact of a change in compactor body prices is small when compared to
the total cost of collection services and the price charged for the ser-
7-40
-------
vices. A relatively small change in the price of collection services
implies a relatively small effect on the quantity demanded of both collec-
tion services offered and compactor bodies.
Table 7-19 shows that collection equipment (the major component of
the depreciation account) represents a small fraction of total operating
expenses, less than five percent. This includes truck chassis, bodies
and containers. Considering that the purchaser views the price of
the compactor body as only a portion of the total price of an operational
unit (i.e., truck chassis and cab) the price increases developed for
the compactor body alone represent an overestimate of the percentage
price increase. Thus the depreciation expense for compactor bodies
alone is in effect an even smaller portion (of total operating expenses)
than the amount noted here. Therefore, a change in the price of new
compactor bodies resulting from noise abatement regulations has a
small effect on the "derived" demand for new compactor equipment.
This enhances the ability of the compactor body manufacturer to pass
through additional costs without reducing production volume significantly.
It is believed that there is a relatively low demand elasticity.
The reasons for this are:
A. Equipment cost as reflected in depreciation charges are a small
factor in the end user's total cost structure. Our model indicates that
these costs represent 4.4 percent of operating revenues.
B. Truck mounted solid waste compactors presently have a high
degree of acceptance in the industry. There are no viable competi-
tive systems.
C. Differential price increases between side and rear loaders
could precipitate a change in the mix of these units. At Stage 1,
7-41
-------
the estimated percentage price increase of these body types is essen-
tially the same. No change in mix attributable to this factor would
be expected.
D. The level of imported and exported compactor bodies will not
be affected by a price increase at Stage 1 since all imported units will
be subject to the same noise abatement standard and exports will not be
subjected to the noise attenuation standards.
E. Lease of compactor bodies will not materially change at Stage
1 price increases.
F. The increased price for new equipment will not materially change
the trade-offs associated with buying new equipment versus extending the
life of units currently in operation.
G. Prebuying will occur somewhat in response to higher prices.
It is estimated that the elasticity of demand for truck mounted
compactors remains relatively low for Stage 2 and 3 treatment.
4b. Equivalent Annual Costs For Changes in Demand Elasticity
Estimates.
To test the sensitivity of the equivalent annual costs relative
to changes in the demand elasticity for compactor bodies under noise
regulation, scenarios were developed in which widely varying demand
elasticities were used for the purpose of comparison.
7-42
-------
The equivalent annualized costs of regulation for the trial scenario
are $15.5 million. This scenario assumes: 1) A regulatory process
in which Stage 1 technology is adopted in 1979, Stage 2 in 1982, and
Stage 3 in 1985 for all body types; 2) Cost increment estimates used
were those discussed earlier in this section, 3) Demand elasticity
of -.20.
Equivalent annual costs also were computed for assumed elasticities
of -1.0 and 0. The first case implies an equal reduction in quantity
demanded for a given percentage change (increase) in price; the second
case assumes no change in quantity demanded for change in price (of
the magnitude discussed here.)
The equivalent annualized costs of regulation assuming an elasticity
of -1.0 are $13.1 million; assuming an elasticity of 0, the equivalent
annualized costs are $17.1 million. In these two cases, the
equivalent annualized costs of regulation vary from the original case,
decreasing 15.5% or increasing 10.3% from the original estimate of
$15.5 million. It is concluded from these results that the economic
analysis is relatively insensitive to the assumed value of elasticity,
within the magnitude of change considered.
7-43
-------
5. Volume Impact
Stage I
Estimated lead times for an orderly adoption of on-the-shelf quiet-
ing technology has been conservatively estimated to be 12 to 18 months.
The analysis of Stage 1 economic impact is based on the regulation taking
effect January 1, 1979.
Estimates of the Stage 1 increased list prices of standard and
quieted units are presented in Table 7-20. The calculation of volume
impact in all cases is based on the cost of quieting for each category
considered. A separate calculation is made for each compactor body type
and for standard and quieted units.
Volume reductions resulting from price increases associated with
Stage 1 are estimated based on an elasticity of -.20. The original
baseline forecast is presented in Table 7-8 and the expected Stage
1 decreases in demand are shown in Table 7-21. The adjusted baseline
forecast resulting from the adoption of Stage 1 for calendar years
1979-87 are shown in Table 7-22.
Table 7-23 summarizes the estimated Stage 1 reduction in unit
volume in 1979:
7-44
-------
TABLE 7-20
DEVELOPMENT OF ESTIMATED PRICE ADJUSTMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH STAGE 1
NOISE EMISSION REQUIREMENTS
STANDARD UNITS
Equipment List
Classification Price
Front Loaders $18,780 $1,290
(3)
Side Loaders
Rear Loaders
7,650
11,580
Expected
Price
Increase
$1,290
560
860
Adjusted
Average
List Price
$20,070
8,210
12,440
Percent
Price
Increase
6.9%
7.3
7.4
QUIETED UNITS
(1)
Average Adjusted
Price Average
Increase List Price
_J2) _
(2)
Source: Exhibits III-20 and II-6 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Cost of Stage 1 quieted units estimated at 10% over standard price which is
greater than Stage 1 price increase. No computation of percent made.
(2) Quieted front or side loaders are not manufactured.
(3) Does not include prices for products built and sold as an integral body and
chassis unit.
7-45
-------
TABLE 7-21
PERCENT VOLUME DECLINE - STAGE 1
(1)
STANDARD UNITS
QUIETED UNITS
(2)
Compactor
Body Type
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Percent
Price
Elasticity Increase
.20
.20
.20
6.9%
7.3
7.4
Percent
Decrease
in Demand
1.4%
1.5
1.5
Percent Percent
Price Decrease
Elasticity Increase in Demand
Source: Exhibit V-4 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Volume impact is based on the cost of quieting each compactor body type as
developed in Section II (Reference 7-1)
(2) The number of quieted rear loaders producted is less than 10% of total
shipments. Quieted units are produced on an optional equipment, special
order basis only at an approximate price of 10% greater than standard units.
No incremental costs are expected to apply the specified noise abatement
technology to quieted units since current price premium exceeds the estimated
Stage 1 cost.
7-46
-------
TABLE 7-22
ADJUSTED BASELINE FORECAST - STAGE 1 (1979 - 1987)
TOTAL PROJECTED
UNITS SHIPPED( '
Unit Decrease Adjusted
Year from Baseline Baseline
1979 186 13,158
1980 192 13,508
1981 197 13,788
1982 201 14,083
1983 205 14,393
1984 210 14,718
1985 216 15,059
1986 219 15,362
1987 224 15,669
FRONT LOADER
Unit Adjusted
Decrease Baseline
21
22
24
25
26
27
29
29
30
1,503
1,578
1,656
1,739
1,826
1,918
2,013
2,054
2,095
SIDE LOADER
Unit Adjusted
Decrease Baseline
55
62
65
68
71
75
79
80
82
3,605
4,038
4,240
4,452
4,675
4,908
5,154
5,258
5,363
REAR LOADER
Unit Adjusted
Decrease Baseline
110
108
108
108
108
108
108
110
112
8,050
7,892
7,892
7,892
7,892
7,892
7,892
8,050
8,211
Source: Exhibits IV-2, V-6, and V-7 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Unit decrease equals the difference between baseline forecase and the baseline
as adjusted for Stage 1 price increases.
(2) Quieted units are not included since the estimated cost of quieted units over
standard units is 10% and this exceeds the Stage 1 price increase.
7-47
-------
Table 7-23
STAGE 1 - ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR UNIT
REDUCTION FROM BASELINE FORECAST, 1979
Reduction in
Annual Volume
Compactor Body Type Units Percent
Front loader 21 1.4%
Side loader 55 1.5
Rear loader 110 1.5
Total 186 1.5
The reduction in unit volume resulting from the adoption of the Stage
1 standard ranges from 21 to 110 units depending on compactor body category,
and the total unit reduction is about 1.5 percent of baseline shipments.
The largest unit reduction occurs in rear loaders, and the smallest unit
and percentage reduction occurs in front loaders. Stage 1 does not
reduce industry volume below the 1978 baseline forecast shipment level.
Stage 2
The analysis of the Stage 2 economic impact is based on the regulation
taking effect January 1, 1982. However, to facilitate subsequent analysis
of proposed regulatory options, adjusted forecasts of demand include the
years 1979-1981 in parentheses.
Estimates of the list price increases associated with the modifi-
cations necessary to achieve Stage 2 are presented in Table 7-24. The
estimated elasticities, percent price increases, and decreases in demand
used to calculate the Stage 2 volume impact are presented in Table 7-25.
The adjusted baseline forecast associated with adoption of Stage 2
for calendar years 1979-90 is shown in Table 7-26. Table 7-27 summarizes
the estimated Stage 2 reduction in unit volume in 1982 relative to the
baseline volume.
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-24
DEVELOPMENT OF ESTIMATED PRICE ADJUSTMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH STAGE 2
NOISE EMISSION REQUIREMENTS
STANDARD UNITS
QUIETED UNITS
(1)
Equipment
Classification
Front Loaders
Side Loaders^ '
Rear Loaders
Average
List
Price
$18,780
7,650
11,580
Expected
Price
Increase
$2,385
1,955
2,255
Adjusted
List
Price
$21,165
9,605
13,835
Percent
Price
Increase
12.7%
25.6
19.5
Expected
Price
Increase
_<2)
_(2)
$1,095
Adjusted
List
Price
$12,675
Percent
Price
Increase
9.5%
Source: Exhibits 111-20 and II-6 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Cost of quieted units estimated at 10% over standard price.
(2) Quieted front or side loaders are not manufactured.
(3) Does not include prices for products built and sold as an integral body and
chassis unit.
7-49
-------
TABLE 7-25
Compactor
Body Type
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
STANDARD UNITS
Elasticity
.20
.20
.20
Percent
Price
Increase
12.7%
25.6
19.5
Percent
Decrease
in Demand
2.5%
5.1
3.9
QUIETED UNITS ^
Percent
Price
Elasticity Increase
.20 9.5%
Percent
Decrease
in Demand
1.9%
Source: Exhibit V-2 (Reference 7-1)
Notes: (1) Volume impact is based on the cost of quieting each compactor body type as
developed in Section II (Reference 7-1)
(2) Quieted units are assumed to require the same technology package as
unquieted units for this level. Quieted units are priced ten percent
higher than the equivalent unquieted units.
7-50
-------
4-1 -rH
CO rH
3 0
r-i CO
rrrrrr
ooooooooiintn^o
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOCQ
4J
H
o
CT>
CTi
CTi
r-
CTi
£
OH
OH
OH CO
$
"8g
4J -H
CO rH
3 0
n M
as
SI
CO rH
3 0
n to
-U
O
4J -H
tO rH
3 0
n to
0
CO
03
0
4-> >-)
H O
"Sg
4-> -H
CO rH
3 0
n W
0 0
10 C
03 "H
0 rH
OOCOOOCX300COOOCOCriCT\ir>
ooocNrr)«a
rHCNCSCNCMCNCNOMCSlCNCNCN
VDOOOOVOVDrHrHCNmLOCTi
rHiHrHrHrHiHr-ICNCNCNCNCN
OO
g
§
0
"S
CN
CO
4J
H
S
0
CO
S
0
5 CN
'Q 0
4->
4-> CO
CO
0} O
O 4J
0
4H -H
0
CO
0
£ 0
4J CO
03
C 0
0 U
0 O
5 C
4-1 -H
QJ
0
0 (0
II I ^
H Q
0
0 VJ
H
CO
rH 0)
03 £
3 4-1
0 M
0 MH
CO
to. TD
0 0
o to
0 3
T3 T-I
T!
4-1 10
03
I
O
o
4-1
03
4-1
CO
0
CO
(0
O
4J
0
rH
XI
03
CJ
(0
V-i
03
CO
"8 .
4-> CO
0 4J
H -H
s§
03 CN 03
4J
C 0 CTi
O t7>r-
N (0 CTi
H 4-1 rH
SH CO «
o c
*o-
g'E
CO CO -H
!ui 3 O 4-i
03 O 4-1 QJ
0 CO O
>1-H >~|
QJ
5
S88
§0 0 rJ
tjl 4-1 03
I»J Pi
ip, 03 O-j
4-1
TD C 0 03
0
cn.c
tO 4J
03 Ti 4J
rJ 0 CO W
OS T3 O
QJ 3 CO HH
0 rH (1)
CO O M CO
C -H 4->
0 -H 3 O
oo i * r
O 1
n T5 -H rH
C 0 4-> O
CO
o
oo 0 0
CTi £1 CO
H 4J 0
-x:
en en
o co
DJ
O 0
CN
(Ti O OS
rH £ - 4-1
I 1 ^>_
co H &! 0
S-J i C *
rn
(0
r^-oooooooooooocooooooo^
8
CO
0
4J
7-51
-------
Table 7-27
STAGE 2 - ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR UNIT
REDUCTION FROM BASELINE FORECAST, 1982*
Reduction in
Annual Volume
Compactor Body Type
Front Loaders
Side Loaders
Rear Loaders
Units
44
231
296
Percent
2.5%
5.1
3.9
Total 571 4.0%
The total reduction in unit volume resulting from the adoption
of a Stage 2 standard is about 9.0 percent and ranges from 101 to
668 units, depending on the type of compactor body. The largest unit
reduction occurs in the rear loader category. The largest percentage
reduction occurs in the category of side loaders, reflecting the higher
cost of meeting a noise standard. The smallest unit and percentage
reduction occurs with front loaders. The introduction of a Stage
2 standard reduces industry volume approximately two percent below
the 1981 baseline shipment level. The adjusted baseline forecast
represents a reduction of about four percent from the average annual
volume during the period 1982 to 1990.
Option 7 which requires a 78 dBA noise level in 1979 and .a 75
dBA level in 1982 requires Stage 2 technology to be implemented in
1979. Table 7-27 shows the volume impacts (annual volume reduction)
which would follow from adoption of Option 7.
* The units of volume reduction for Stage 2 assume implementation of
that level exclusive of the impact of previous levels.
7-52
-------
**»
rH
fA
^j
2j
s
p
w
g
1
p~i
Fp
(3 CV3
5] rH
U E
C_> W S
MOW
« g S
Q< EH M
oo So D
1 W 02 Cd
r- EH P 3
p^£ rH
W S S jg
DQ EH Q M
< w « cfl
EH W Ej CO
< M
CL. M S
o y S
^5
Is Cfl W
1 g
s
^>
ly
Q
EH
w
M
8
4J
C
8
rJ
«
S
CO
n
S
CO
8
-H
^j
(5
8
H
&
4J
CO
-H
J
8
4J
CO
|J
4->
C
i
H
3
cS1
CO
<0
Q
c
M
1
1
8
H
}H
1
i
CO
(0
i
i i
_^
CN
"I
S
Increa
e»P
m
8
H
AJ
in
m
n
rH
CN
CO
(0
cu
1
m
m
CN
s
-H
(5
c
o
H
4->
(0
CJ
H
n i
H~i
H
CO
CO
flj
o
00
r-
00
rH
CO-
CO
^J
cu
(Tj
5
_p
g
fc
1
i
1
1
___
CN
O
00
CN
in
r-
CM
*
in
CN
O
in
^o
^
*~^.
CO
**-*
CO
o
T3
J
«
H
<*>
rH
rH
rH
IT)
VD
00
CN
rH
in
00
CN
rH
rH
rH
CN
in
CN
0
«^4
rH
in
a*
CN"
o
00
in
rH
rH
CO
cu
o
3
to
£
rH
r-
-j
i
QJ
M 1
§
i-D
1
M
M
"S
rd
o
CN
1
M
M
M
CO
4-1
r-l
O
rH
f~|
^
w
8
3
Cfi
H
Qi
4J
H
C
3
'O
^_|
m
"S
m
CO
J^
fU
o
o
rH
4J
(0
'S
4->
S
-H
4->
CO
CO
4->
H
C
3
D
CD
cy
H
rj
Cr
8
4-)
CO
O
CJ
' *
H
CO
QJ
4-)
§
T3
2
3
4-1
4-1
3
C
«
4J
0)
to
CO
"fO
o
rH
CU
H
CO
O
4->
C
O
IW
"8
-P
0)
H
.- *
CN
* f
§
CO
o
rH
S
T5
4->
rH
H
j=|
CO
4J
CJ
M 4-J
DJ-H
Ij ^J
M-l CO
H
CO CO
SCO
(T3
H J3
rH O
d) C
3
1 1 1>H
O T3
C O
H JLJ
4-1 rH
82
co »^
7-53
-------
s
M
Q
8
iH
W
CO
8
15
CO
1
CT> W
CN 2
r- 3
W W
r-J Q
§H
EH g
§
PH
2J
PQ
&
w
&l
g-g
c (0 i
||f
cu
4J CO
C rd
88S
!H -H O
H
0
H
4-J
CO
<0
3
CN
CN
dP
iH
1 i ^
rH
1 I 0
I i CN
EH
M
Q
PS
s
I*J
s
In
C/3
'D
4J to ro
C ro E
r4 O
r- v£> CN
CN LO *
O
4J CO
C ro
W 0 i«J
M -H O
dp
r~ 0 rH
m CO rH
rH CN CN
4J
o
H
4-1
CO
3
O O O
ro T3 t3
CO
5
4-1
CO
01
s
o
^
fn
H
co
CO
m
8
c
cy
r^
C^
4J
iH
s
I
X3 fO
VJ fC
O Pi
4J CU
O CO
CO
p, nj
p tn
o cu
si
nj O
CU
H rH
g-rl
UH cu
O 4J CU
O co u
8cu
IW
W CU PH
o §5
CU -H
w 4J x;
moo
ia cu m
w
H C
cu
4-1
o
H rH 4J
§I> -H
CU 3
TJ O
rH rH
O co m
> ro o
W
cu
cu
7-54
-------
21
CO rH
3 CU
n w
r~r--oooooooooooocTi
CNCNCN
CTi
m
oo
n
w
g
O C/l
^EH
a:
CO i_
Pi
H
(H"
w
t-l
<£
u
u
« m
Oi 01
W rH
3 CU
n to
as
'SS
4-1 -H
CO i-H
3 CU
n CO
"S
. g
4-1 -H
CO rH
3 CU
CU
to
03
CU
I \ t I
H O
sa
4J -H
CO rH
3 CU
n CO
CU CD
CO C
CU rH
^-l CU
o to
4J E
H O
CD IH
(NOjrooorororonro
r^-r-ooooo^oonoo
oocMvooincTimcjorN
(TiOOiHiIr-ICNCNrO
OOCTiO-HCNLOCOrH
8
c
s
£
CN
I
a
H
rH 00
CU
M CU
CU C/l
4J 13
TJ (0
(0 CD
4-1 -H
CO rH
ea CU
o to
o
4-1 C
CD
CU
to
~ <0
C CU
CU O
s c
4-1 -H
5 8
8'd
C Ch
Q) 03
4H 4-1
111 £*
H CU
'XJ E
CU
CU f-l
10
CU
V£> O
I cu y-i
(0 TD
" CU
w
H -1-1
o to
CU 3
T! T-i
co 4-i m
4-1 -H
H C tO
X3 D 03
CU
<#>
o
4J
m
"8
4-1
4-1
CO
c
m
'I
g
CO
i-l
CU
o
ro
CU
rH
X)
s
H
§0
g
CU 3
M "
to
4-1
S.t
to
4-> rH
cu m
H 4-1
52
CN
LOU3t^-OO
-------
Stage 3
The analysis of economic impact is based on Stage 3 regulations taking
effect January 1, 1985.
Table 7-28 provides the estimated price increases related to Stage 3
modifications. The estimated elasticities, percent price increases, and
decreases in demand used to calculate Stage 3 volume impact are presented
in Table 7-29.
The adjusted baseline forecast associated with the adoption of Stage
3 for the calendar years 1985 through 1993 is shown in Table 7-30. Table
7-31 summarizes the estimated Stage 3 reductions in unit volume for the
first year, 1985.
TABLE 7-31
STAGE 3 - ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR UNIT
REDUCTION FROM BASELINE FORECAST, 1985*
Reduction in
Annual Volume
Compactor Body Type Units Percent
Front Loader 55 2.7
Side Loader 293 5.6
Rear Loader 320 4.2
Total 668 4.3
*The units of volume reduction for Stage 3 assume
irtpleinentation of that level exclusive of the
impact of previous levels.
The total reduction in unit volume resulting from adoption of Stage
3 standards is approximately 4.3 percent. The decrease in projected units
ranges from 55 to 320 units. The largest unit reduction is in the rear
loader category. The largest percent reduction is in side loaders. The
7-56
-------
smallest unit decrease and percent reduction are in front loaders. Intro-
duction of Stage 3 standards reduces total projected volume approximately
two percent below the 1984 baseline forecast shipment levels.
Impact of Prebuying on Volume
The solid waste compactor body industry will be subject to some pre-
buying activity immediately prior to the effective date of each noise
abatement level. The time period for prebuying is estimated at three
months to one year prior to the effective date for each noise level regu-
lation. The amount of prebuying is assumed to depend on three factors:
1. The amount of excess capacity of manufacturers to produce
compactor bodies above the baseline production level at that time.
2. The economic benefit of purchasing compactor bodies earlier
and the potential savings resulting from early purchase.
3. The risk of the technology required to quiet the compactor
bodies as related to possible increased cost of maintenance and operation.
TABLE 7-32
ESTIMATED EXCESS PRODUCTION
CAPACITY BY BODY TYPE IN
YEAR PRIOR TO REGULATION
Estimated Unused as Per-
cent of Total Capacity
State 1 State 2 Stage 3
Compactor Body Type 1978 1981 1984
Front Loader 900
Side Loader 000
Rear Loader 20* 20* 20*
* Exhibit V-13 shows estimated unused capacity in excess
of 30 percent for the years prior to each noise level
regulation date. EPA estimates this level to be excessive
since some rear loader manufacturers will shift production
away from rear loaders in favor of side loaders or other
non-compactor body production. (Ref. 7-1).
7-57
-------
Estimates of the excess production capacity available in the year
prior to each effective date of noise level regulation are summarized
in Table 7-32, and the prebuying anticipated in the year prior to the
effective date for each new noise standard is summarized in Table 7-33.
TABLE 7-33
ANTICIPATED PPEBUYING
IN YEARS PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATES
(Percent Increase in Total Units
Shipped Over Baseline Forecast)
1978 1981 1984
Front Loader 200
Side Loader 000
Rear Loader 6 25 25
The unused capacity will allow prebuying to increase the 1978 pro-
duction approximately six percent for rear loaders and two percent for
front loaders. There will be no excess capacity available to support
prebuying for side loaders. Prebuying is not expected to exceed these
percentages since the technology applied to attain Stage 1 noise abate-
ment has no risk involved to suggest significant increases in maintenance
operations cost.
Stage 2 price increases for rear loaders is 19.5 percent (based
on the body only) above the base period price. It is expected that
all available production capacity will be utilized to accommodate
prebuying. This assumes an annual cost of capital of ten percent.
At Stage 3, the incremental price difference for rear loader
bodies is 21.1 percent. Unused capacity is available for rear loader
production and sufficient economic advantage exists to encourage a
full year of early purchasing given an annual cost of capital of ten
7-58
-------
percent. As in the previous two noise stages, the technology applied to
achieve Stage 3 does not involve increased risk and is not considered a
factor in stimulating prebuying.
No adjustments to the baseline forecast or the revised baselines for the
three levels have been made to reflect prebuying. The adjusted baseline fore-
cast can be modified to reflect prebuying by adding the incremental volume
produced in the year preceding the effective date of the noise abatement
standards (1978, 1981, and 1984). A similar reduction in the volume of pro-
duction would be necessary in the first year of each effective noise level to
compensate for prebuying. After the first year:, it is assumed that shipments
will return to the adjusted baseline levels.
Summary
In summary, the reduction in industry volume at Stage 1 is relatively low
(186 units). The impact on volume at Stages 2 and 3 is a reduction of 571 and
668 units respectively. The effects of respective treatment stages are not
additive. Each stage is assumed to include the units of reduction related to
moving from the preregulation baseline to the given treatment level. Movement
from one treatment stage to the next higher level would involve a reduction of
the net difference expected between the two stages. As previously noted, the
estimated cost of quieting based on current on-the-shelf technology represents
a conservative estimate. Insofar as the actual costs incurred for quieting is
lower, the resulting volume impact will be correspondingly lower.
Resource Costs:
* Purpose and Methodology
The resources which will be used to meet each noise standard are estimated
in this section, using three measures:
7-59
-------
A. The annual increase in capital cost required by end user industries
in the first year of enforcement. This represents the additional capital
required to purchase the more expensive quieted units.
B. The total increase in annual costs in end user segments in the
first year of enforcement. Estimates include depreciation, cost of capital,
operation and maintenance costs. This represents the incremental annual
costs to own and operate the more expensive quieted units.
C. The total increase in annual costs for operation of a 100 percent
quieted population of solid waste compactors based on a future date when
nonquieted compactors have been phased out of the population of packer
bodies in use.
The estimates of first year capital costs for end user industries
are based on the increased purchase price paid and the volume of purchases
estimated. Pricing is at the list price level. This measure represents
the additional capital which must be financed by end user industries due
to the enforcement of the noise standard.
The resource cost factors included in the estimate of the total
annual cost increases for end users are:
A. Depreciation. Seven-year, straight-line depreciation of 14.3
percent per year is used. Current Internal Revenue Service guidelines
allow solid waste compactors to be depreciated over a five year period.
Hcwever, seven years is generally accepted as the average packer body
economic life. Therefore, seven years is a better period to use in
assessing economic impact.
B. Capital Cost. A return on investment or capital cost rate of
ten percent of the additional capital investment is used.
7-60
-------
C. Operating Costs. Analysis based on industry information indi-
cates that there will be a reduction in operating costs.
D. Maintenance Costs. Maintenance cost increases associated with
the modifications necessary to attain Stage 1 will be negligible.
Stages 2 and 3 are estimated to result in a slight increase in
maintenance cost.
Mid-range estimates of resource costs were developed to answer the
question: What is the annual bill society pays for quiet solid waste
packer bodies? Resource cost estimates are based on the revised base-
line forecast and the incremental resource costs from the baseline to
each respective regulatory level.
* Estimated Costs
Stage 1
The total increased capital cost to end user industries is esti-
mated to be $10.9 million for the first year of enforcement of the Stage
1 noise standard (Table 7-34). Incremental capital costs represent the
adjusted baseline unit forecast by the increased unit price.
Table 7-34
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED CAPITAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 1, 1979
S(OOOs)
Increased Capital Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimates
Front Loader $ 1,939
Side Loader 2,019
Rear Loader 6,923
Total $10,881
7-61
-------
Estimated total annual cost increases in the first year for adoption
of a Stage 1 noise standard in 1979 are $1.9 million (Table 7-35).
Table 7-35
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED ANNUAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 1, 1979
$(OOOs)
Increased Capital Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimates
Front Loader $ 383
Side Loader 196
Rear Loader 1,368
Total $1,947
Stage 2
Increased end user capital costs are estimated at $27.4 million
in the first year of enforcement for adopting a Stage 2 noise standard
in 1982 (Table 7-36). Again, incremental capital costs are determined
by multiplying the adjusted baseline forecast unit shipments by the
unit cost increase.
Table 7-36
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED CAPITAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 2, 1982
$(OOOs)
Increased Capital Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimates
Front Loader $ 3,966
Side Loader 7,820
Rear Loader 15,645*
Total $27,431
* Cost of quieted units, $839,000 included for
rear loaders only.
7-62
-------
Estimated total annual cost increases in the first year of enforcement
of a Stage 2 noise standard in 1982 are $6.5 million (Table 7-37).
Table 7-37
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED ANNUAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 2f 1982
$(OOOs)
Increased Annual Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimate
Front Loader $ 954
Side Loader 1,852
Rear Loader 3,714
Total $6,520
Stage 3
Stage 3 increases in capital cost are presented in Table 7-38.
Table 7-38
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED CAPITAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 3, 1985
$(OOOs)
Increased Annual Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimate
Front Loader $ 4,931
Side Loader 9,811
Rear Loader 16,909*
Total $31,651
* Includes $977,000 for quieted rear loaders.
The total estimated increases in annual costs for Stage 3 are pre-
sented in Table 7-39.
7-63
-------
Table 39
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
INCREASED ANNUAL COSTS FOR
END USER INDUSTRIES - STAGE 3, 1985
$(OOOs)
Increased Annual Costs
Compactor Body Type Mid-Range Estimates
Front Loader $1,110
Side Loader 2,114
Rear Loader 3,679
Total $6,903
The total annual costs (capital expenditures, operating and main-
tenance costs) for a 100 percent quieted compactor body population in
1993 and beyond are estimated to be $43 million.
* Summary
Analysis of the resource costs required to quiet solid waste compactor
bodies indicates that: The capital costs associated with sound attenuation
are significant. Total solid waste compactor body sales were approxi-
mately $125 million in 1974. First year capital costs are projected to be
approximately $10.8 million for Stage 1, $27.4 million for Stage 2 and
$31.6 million for Stage 3.
For a 100 percent quiet population at Stage 3 in 1993 and beyond,
total annual costs are estimated to be $43 million.
Market Impact:
* Purpose
This section describes additional impacts anticipated from the adop-
tion of noise control technology, and includes consideration of both the
upstream component suppliers and the downstream distributors and end
users.
7-64
-------
* Suppliers
General suppliers to truck mounted solid waste compactor body manu-
facturers will not be adversely affected by the adoption of noise control
technology, mainly because all suppliers derive only a small portion of
their business from the packer body industry. The effects of quieting
solid waste compactors on the major suppliers are briefly described below:
A. Truck Chassis Manufacturers. The major truck chassis manufacturers
are large, financially sound companies with strong technical capabilities,
and truck chassis on which to mount solid waste compactors are not a major
portion of the truck chassis market. Manufacturers are not expected to
make design changes as a result of packer body noise attenuation.
No meaningful change in sales volume is expected as a result of
regulation. Using an extremely conservative truck chassis shipment level
(i.e., 1975 medium and heavy duty shipments), the unit reductions associ-
ated with Stages 1, 2, and 3 are .09, .27 and .31 percent respectively.
B. PTO, Pump and Valve Manufacturers. Power Take-Off units, hydraulic
pumps and valves are the major components affected by the proposed regula-
tions. The components utilized by the solid waste compactor body industry
are standard product items, and the volume purchased by the industry is
insignificant relative to total production and sales. No significant
changes are expected.
C. Distributors.
Solid waste compactor body distribution channels and distributor
operations will not be significantly affected by the noise emission
standards. EPA has established that enforcement of the standards will
be at that level which mounts or assembles the compactor body on the
7-65
-------
truck chassis. An estimated 30 percent of total new bodies are mounted by
distributors.
The worst case impact of noise regulation on distributors is considered
by applying the following assumptions:
(1) New compactor body sales are $1.75 million (70 percent of $2.5
million).
(2) The average price of a new compactor body is $11,580 (the
average list price of a rear loader) and the average distributor sells
151 bodies annually.
(3) The distributor mounts 45 of the 151 bodies sold (30 percent
of 151).
(4) The revenue derived from mounting bodies is between $300 to
$500 per unit. For the 45 mounted annually, total revenue is between
$13,500 and $22,500.
(5) The above estimated revenue loss represents between .5 and .9
percent of current sales.
It is not believed that loss of these revenues will directly impact
total net profit before taxes since costs will also be reduced.
D. End Users
The potential impact of regulation on end users will be reflected
in their ability to finance purchases of new packer bodies and the
incremental annual costs to operate quieted units.
(1) Ability to Finance New Unit Purchases. End users view the
purchase of a packer truck as being comprised of a packer body and truck
chassis as a unit. The regulations under study affect only the packer body.
Consequently, the price increases reflected in this report overstate
7-66
-------
the perceived price increase from an end user perspective. It can be seen
in the following table that the total packer truck price increases are more
moderate than previously presented:
Table 7-40
ESTIMATED TOTAL PACKER TRUCK
PRICE INCREASES BY REGULATORY LEVEL
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3
Type
of
Loader
Front
Side
Rear
Compactor
Body
Price
Increase
6.9%
7.3
7.4
Compactor
Body and
Truck
Chassis
Price
Increase*
3.5%
3.7
3.7
Compactor
Body
Price
Increase
12.7%
25.6
19.5
Compactor
Body and
Truck
Chassis
Price
Increase
6.4%
12.8
9.8
Compactor
Body
Price
Increase
13.7%
28.0
21.1
Compactor
Body and
Truck
Chassis
Price
Increase
6.9%
14.0
10.6
* It is conservatively estimated that the packer body and truck chassis
individually account for 50 percent of total purchase price.
SOURCE: Table 7-6
It is expected that price increases will reduce overall demand for
packer bodies in both the private hauler and municipality end user segments.
The level of reduction is reflected in the estimates of price elasticity
previously presented.
(2) Incremental Annual Costs. Changes in depreciation, maintenance,
capital costs and vehicle operating costs resulting from regulation are reflec-
ted in increased annual costs per vehicle as shown in Table 7-41. It should be
noted that the total annual costs to operate a quieted compactor vehicle are
less than one percent greater than preregulation levels for Stage 1 and less
than 1.4 percent greater for Stages 2 and 3 for all types of compactors.
Cost increases of this level will not be difficult to pass on to consumers
in the form of either higher collection rates for private haulers or higher
taxes to fund municipal collection operations.
7-67
-------
-y
O 03
-p
g
m
'S
4J
4-> S W >H
O ft O
EH -H CJ >-i
D 0)
d 51 CP ft
rl H d
H (1)
O rH 4J iI
CP 03 03 O
' g '
W J2
W U
to
(0
a
c
(0
4J
i
4-J 0
O 4->
ro d
en
4J
5
CO
00 in rH
in rH on
Lf) *^S^ P"""
in vo on
CN rH
in oo oo
T rH rH
T^< O O
O CTl CT>
1 1 1
o o o
in o on
00 OO CN
rH rH
O1 VO <^>
CN in co
rH
to-
Front Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Stage 2
CTi ^O CN
rH 0 CN
rH rH rH
rH T r^
CN VD on
in ^J< in
in oo oo
** rH rH
00-
^t1 co co
O CTi (Ti
1 1 1
O 0 0
VD VD
CN 0 00
«* 00 CN
oo CN on
t/>
00 VD VD
OO CT> CN
CN rH CN
Q) M M
T3 (U Q)
333 «
-P CU
o 'a
7-68
-------
Impact on Solid Waste Compactor Manufacturing Operations:
* Purpose
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential impacts
from adoption of noise standards on manufacturers of solid waste compactor
bodies.
The assembly operations in the manufacturing process are most
affected by noise abatement technology (Ref. 7-1). Basically, new
purchased components are substituted for purchased components currently
utilized. Consequently, significantly different plant and equipment
investment levels are not expected to result from regulation.
Assessment of regulation impact on overall industry employment
levels involves consideration of the expected reduction in units produced
and the incremental labor required to intergrate the new technology. These
factors are considered for each regulatory level in the following para-
graphs .
* Stage 1
Total unit reduction under Stage 1 regulation is expected to be
approximately 1.5 percent with a similar reduction in employment. How-
ever this reduction is offset by increases in employment to integrate
the new technology. The estimated number of incremental direct labor
hours required to integrate the new technology for each regulatory level
are shown in the following table:
7-69
-------
TABLE 7-42
ESTIMATED CURRENT AND INCREMENTAL
DIRECT LABOR HOURS BY
REGULATORY LEVEL
Current
Unit INCREMENTAL DIRECT LABOR HOURS**
Direct Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Compactor Labor Abso- Percent Abso- Percent Abso- Percent
Type Hours* lute Increase lute Increase lute Increase
Front Loader 290 18 6.2 27 9.3 27 9.3
Side Loader 120 9 7.5 39 32.5 39 32.5
Rear Loaders 180 9 5.0 39 21.7 39 21.7
Note that direct labor inputs to produce units increase from 5.0 to
6.2 percent depending upon body type. A net increase in employment is
expected under Stage 1.
* Stages 2 and 3
Demand reduction resulting from Stage 2 regulation would produce an
employment reduction of 2.5, 5.1 and 3.9 percent for front, side and rear
loaders, respectively. It can be seen in Table 7-42 that these reductions
are more than off-set by increases in direct labor inputs required by the
new technology. The same pattern is expected to result under Stage 3.
Foreign Trade:
* Purpose
This section covers the impact of the regulation on export and import
patterns for truck mounted solid waste compactor bodies. Noise regulations
*Estimated direct labor hours were derived by utilizing the
typical manufacturer model shown in Section II (Reference 7-1).
Total direct labor costs account for 12 percent of total list
price. Labor hours were calculated using $7.80 per hour.
**Incremental direct labor hours are taken from Section II
(Reference 7-1).
7-70
-------
do not apply to export products, but do apply to products imported for use
in the United States.
* Exports
Domestic solid waste compactor body manufacturers will be able to
export quieted and unquieted products to foreign countries depending on the
requirements of the foreign market. To the extent that some foreign markets
require quiet compactor bodies, domestic manufacturers will be in an improved
competitive position.
life expect no negative change in compactor body export patterns to
result from regulation.
* Imports
Imports have not significantly penetrated the United States solid
waste compactor body market. This indicates that U.S. producers have a net
cost/technology advantage over foreign producers have a net cost/technology
advantage over foreign producers. This is not expected to change as a
result of regulation.
* Balance of Trade
Based on the factors reviewed above, no material impact on the balance
of trade is anticipated from setting any of the noise abatement levels.
Individual Impacts:
* Purpose
This section addresses differential impacts which may develop,
affecting a single firm or set firms.
* Truck Mounted Solid Waste Compactor Body Manufacturers
The modifications necessary to meet all regulatory levels require a
minimum level of technical expertise in quieting technology. Small
7-71
-------
manufacturers will be less able to support requirements for specialized
personnel than larger companies but the relative impact is considered
minimal in view of the technology. Further, it is believed that the lead
times are adequate for compliance with the impending regulations. Conse-
quently, no differential impacts on manufacturers of different size of mix
of product offering are expected.
Distributive Impacts:
* Purpose
This section assesses the potential for disruptive economic impacts due
to the establishment of noise standards per se. It concerns "real" world
impacts as opposed to impacts which are a change in a forecasted future.
With adequate lead time and appropriate planning, business management is able
to adjust its plans to reflect changing conditions and avoid adverse impacts
of its operations. Through adjustments in planning, future over-capacity,
unemployment and other adverse conditions are avoided.
* Assessment
The adoption of the noise emission levels suggested for study will have
the following probable effects:
A. Stage 1 1979. No disruptive impacts are indicated at this
level. Cost changes for the bodies are from 6.9 to 7.4 percent, and
volume changes are minor from baseline conditions. The solid waste com-
pactor body industry would be expected to continue its normal growth
pattern with a Stage 1 noise standard. No unemployment would be
anticipated.
B. Stage 2 1982. Adoption of a Stage 2 standard will result in
high costs reflected in substantial price increases (12.7, 25.6 and 19.5
7-72
-------
percent for front, side and rear loader bodies, respectively). This will
result in an overall 4 percent decrease in domestic solid waste compactor
body demand. The growth pattern of the solid waste compactor body industry
will remain at the baseline average annual rate. No unemployment is
anticipated.
C. Stage 3 1985. Compactor body price increases for Stage 3 range
from 13.7 to 28.0 percent. Demand is expected to decrease by 4.3 percent.
No unemployment is anticipated and the growth of the industry will continue
at the baseline average annual rate.
Given the size of the solid waste compactor body industry, no signifi-
cant economic disruption to the national or a regional economy will occur
from these changes.
Summary:
In this section, the economic impact has been assessed based on
required product technology modifications provided by EPA. A brief
summary of the results are:
A. Equipment prices will increase as shown in Table 7-43 and will be
passed on to end users.
TABLE 7-43
SUMMARY OF ESTIflATED LIST PRICE INCREASES
Percent
List Price Increase
Compactor Body Type Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Front Loader 6.9 12.7 13.7
Side Loader 7.3 25.6 28.0
Rear Loader 7.4 19.5 21.1
Quieted Rear Loader 9.5 11.1
SOURCE: Tables 7-14, 7-15
7-73
-------
B. Unit volume will be affected as indicated below:
TABLE 7-44
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR UNIT
REDUCTION FROM BASELINE FORECAST
Unit Reduction
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Compactor Body Type (1979) (1982) (1985)
Front Loader 21 44 55
Side Loader 55 231 293
Rear Loader 110 296 320
Total 186 571 668
SOURCE: Tables 7-24, 7-28 and 7-33
Stage 1 will result in an overall 1.5 percent decline in unit volume
Stage 2 in an overall 4.0 percent decline in unit volume, and Stage 3 in
an overall 4.4 percent decline.
C. The cost of noise abatement is presented in Table 7-45.
TABLE 7-45
SUMMARY OF THE RESOURCE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH NOISE ABATEMENT
$(OOOs)
First Year of Enforcement
Noise Standard Capital Costs Annual Costs
Stage 1 - 1979 $10,881 $1,947
Stage 2 - 1982 27,431 6,520
Stage 3 - 1985 31,651 6,903
The cost of noise attenuation is high in relation to the total 1974
dollar volume of the solid waste compactor body market of approximately
$125 million.
D. There will be little effect on upstream component suppliers,
or downstream distributors or end users.
7-74
-------
E. There will be no effect on factory operations at any of the
regulatory levels.
F. No unemployment is expected to occur at any of the regulatory
levels.
G. No changes in import and export patterns will occur because
of noise regulations.
H. No manufacturers are likely .to withdraw from the solid waste
compactor body market as a result of regulation.
I. There is no expected disruptive impacts from adoption of noise
standards.
7-75
-------
SECTION 7 EXHIBIT
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF COST ESTIMATES
The methodology used to develop cost estimates for applying noise
abatement technology is described in this Exhibit.
METHODOLOGY
The approach used to estimat the costs of applying noise abatement
technology is summarized below:
1. Conducted plant visits.
2. Collected published data relating to manufacturers' cost structure.
3. Identified costs expected to be impacted by noise regulation.
4. Collected component cost data from suppliers, manufacturers
and end-users.
5. Utilized industrial engineering analysis of production and en-
use changes.
6. Analyzed changes in overhead expenses.
7. Formulated the profile of a typical company and developed the
overall estimated cost and charges resulting from noise regulation.
Plant Visits
The plants of several manufacturers of truck mounted solid waste compac-
tor bodies were visited in order to obtain an understanding of production
process, the level of vertgical integration in manufacturing major components,
and the nature of other products being made at these plants.
The basic manufacturing process for compactors was similar among the
manufacturers though a wide variation appears to exist in the technical
sophistication of the process. In general, compactors are manufactured in
the following sequence:
7-76
-------
1. Purchased sheet steel is cut to size using shears and torch-
burning equipment. (One manufacturer purchases coil stock, which
is more economical, and shears the coil sheet to size).
2. The cut-outs are formed and machined to final specifications.
3. The basic body parts are kitted and moved to the first assembly
station where they are placed in assembly fixtures and spot welded.
4. Dimensions and tolerances are checked and welding of the body
is completed.
5. Welds are ground down and checked for quality.
6. The balance of the compactor components including the hydraulic
system are assembled onto the body.
7. The body is moved to the paint shop for prime and top costs.
8. The completed body is inspected (and reworked if necessary) and
then moved into storage or to the mounting area.
9. The compactor bodies are lifted onto the truck chassis and secured.
Hydraulic and control systems are installed and the completed unit
inspected prior to shipment.
Some of the individual characteristics of compactor manufacturers are
discussed in more depth subsequently.
Manufacturers' Cost Structure
An overall estimate of manufacturer cost structure was constructed
from data from the 1972 Census of Manufacturers and Dun & Bradstreet,
Analysitcl Financial Reports for selected companies. The contractor's
own experience with the operating ratios of similar industries was also
utilized in this analysis. A representative cost structure for the
industry is shown in the following table:
7-77
-------
TABLE 7-46
REPRESENTATIVE SOLID WASTE
COMPACTOR MANUFACTURER COST AND
PROFIT STRUCTURE
Net Percent of
Element Sales Revenue
Direct Material 44%
Direct Labor 12
Manufacturing Overhead 24
Total Cost of Goods 80%
General, Sales, and
Administrative 13
Profit 7_
Total 100%
Impacted Costs
The nature of costs expected to be impacted by noise regulation are
specified below in accordance with the sequence in the production process:
! Planning. The planning effort associated with noise control is a
one-time overhead cost consisting of preliminary design and review in the
functional areas of engineering, marketing, and data processing. The
engineering effort generally includes:
a. A review and possible redesign of affected components
and systems.
b. Testing of prototype vehicles to assure desired results.
c. A review of manufacturing facilities, layout, equipment,
tooling, etc., to insure optimal manufacturing practices.
The marketing effort consists of a review of sales and technical
literature, updating of training programs, and evaluations of warranty and
other policies. The data processing effort includes design or modification
of manufacturing support systems required by process changes.
2. Implementation. Implementation of the noise control technology is
a one-time overhead cost incurred as a result of material sourcing, tooling
and equipment acquisition, production facility changes, hiring and training,
management information system modifications, and marketing changes.
7-78
-------
3. Production. The production cost represents an ongoing incremen-
tal cost associated with each unit produced. It is comprised of direct
labor and direct material costs. The direct labor cost reflects the
additional time required to manufacture and/or assemble quieting components.
It also includes the cost of any additional production checking or inspec-
tions. "The direct material cost reflects the cost of additional raw
materials and components or the cost increase over existing levels.
4. Enforcement/Compliance. The enforcement/compliance costs repre-
sent an on-going overhead cost related to product warranty and anticipated
EPA requirements related to testing and recordkeeping. Additional warranty
costs may result if the noise control technology reduces the component life
and/or reliability of the equipment. Testing costs include sound measure-
ment equipment and the cost of administering tests. Recordkeeping costs
relate to the need to maintain test data for product verification and
selective enforcement audits.
Overhead Expense
Overhead is broken down into two areas: manufacturing overhead; and,
general, sales, and administrative (GS&A) overhead. Overhead costs are
usually allocated to a product as a percentage of the direct labor cost.
As indicated in Table 7-45, manufacturing overhead is estimated to be 200
percent (24/12) of direct labor and GS&A is estimated to be an additional
108 percent (13/12) of direct labor. It is likely that the application of
noise control technology will result in some increases in overhead cost,
but it is unlikely that the increase will be as large as that derived by
applying the existing rates to the additional labor cost resulting from
the quieting technology.
7-79
-------
COMPANY PROFILE
The typical company developed for the purposes of estimating costs does
not represent an existing manufacturer but instead reflects a composite of
firms in the industry. The composite is based on an evaluation of the indus-
try in terms of production rates, manufacturing processes, and estimated cost
and profit structure. The following paragraphs describe the general and spe-
cific assumptions on which the typical company is based and the factors used
to estimate the cost of noise control technology.
(a) Background and General Assumptions
The general manufacturing process for truck mounted solid waste
compactor bodies is described in Section 2 (Reference 7-1). While
the basic process is essentially the same for all manufacturers,
there are some variations in the methods of operation. The following
paragraphs describe the differences among manufacturers noted in
terms of manufacturing methods and technology, product mix,
production rates, and level of vertical integration.
The differences in manufacturing methods and technology are most
pronounced in the areas of physical plant, tooling, and equipment sophisti-
cation. These differences are characterized in the following company
profiles. One manufacturer has a large, modern plant, a large number of
technologically advanced, numerical control machines, and sophisticated
assembly jigs and fixtures. A second manufacturer also has a modern
plant, but does not have as mucn state of the art equipment as the first.
The third manufacturer has a very old and generally run down facility,
does not appear to have any numerical control equipment, and uses
relatively unsophisticated jigs and fixtures in the assembly process.
7-80
-------
Although the range of manufacturer labor versus capital intensity is
considerable, the EPA contractor concluded that the proposed noise control
technology would not have a significant impact on either existing manufac-
turing operations or labor content and thus should not result in unique
cost advantages to either the labor intensive or the capital intensive
manufacturer.
Differences were also noted in production rates. Some manufacturers
produce truck mounted compactors in sufficient volume to justify continuous
production lines while others produce in intermittent small lots. The
proposed quieting treatment is concentrated primarily in the mounting
operation where the compactor body is mounted on the chassis. The techno-
logy has little impact on the actual production of the compactor body
itself. Thus, the quieting technology does not appear to result in cost
disadvantages to either continuous or intermittent production.
All of the manufacturers visited produce items other than truck mounted
compactors including stationary compactors, dump bodies, hoists, and trash
containers. The overall product mix varies with each company. The primary
reason for the industry's general product mix is commonality of manufacturing
processes.
According to manufacturers, there is very little commonality of non-
purchased components between these products. Thus, it was concluded that
product mix should not be a factor in the cost of applying quieting
technology.
It appears that the make versus buy mix for the components affected
by the quieting technology is similar among manufacturers. All manufac-
turers purchase power take-off units, instrumentation and speed control
7-81
-------
components from the same group of vendors. In addition, most companies
purchase the hydraulic pumps used on cmpactors. However, it appears that
most companies produce their own hydraulic cylinders since the process is
relatively simple and the necessary equipment can be used to produce
cylinders for a wide line of products.
The implementation of noise standards should not significantly effect
the existing make versus buy mix. It can be assumed that those components
presently purchased will still be purchased after quieting and that the
same type of purchase economies will be achieved. The only potential
impact of significance relates to the in-house production of hydraulic
cylinders for rear loading vehicles. If cushioned cylinders are required
to reduce impact noise, then some manufacturers may elect to purchase these
items rather than incur the expense of redesigning the cylinder and produc-
tion process.
*
In summary, the EPA contractor concluded that the proposed noise
control technology would not result in any major changes or disruptions in
the existing patterns of operation. Consequently, the contractor developed
cost estimates for noise control technology based on the profile of a
"typical" company.
b. Specific Assumptions for the Typical Company
1. Production Rates. The estimated production levels for the
industry and estimated market share of existing companies have been presen-
ted in the economic profile phase of this study. Using this information,
the following production rates have been assumed for the typical company
manufacturing one of the three types of equipment:
7-82
-------
TABLE 7-47
ESTIMATED UNIT PRODUCTION
OF A TYPICAL COMPANY
Typical
Company
Production
Manufacturers of; (units/year)
Front Loader 200
Side Loader 300
Rear Loader 400
The production rates for the typical company have been used to
estimate annualized unit cost (i.e., annual cost - units per year = cost
per unit).
2. Cost Structure and Profitability. Manufacturers have not
divulged cost and profitability data, so it was necessary to develop estimates
based on Analytical Financial Reports (Dun and Bradstreet,Inc.), industry
statistics (1972 Census of Manufacturers), and the contractor's experience in
similar industries. The following cost and profit estimates are assumed to
be representative of the "typical" company:
TABLE 7-48
ESTIMATED COST STRUCTURE
FOR A TYPICAL COMPANY
Percent
Percent of Average
Cost Category of COGS* Sales Price
Direct Material 58% 44%
Direct Labor 15 12
Manufacturing Overhead 30 24
General, Sales and
Administrative 13
Gross Profit 7_
Total 100% 100%
*Cost of Goods Sold.
7-83
-------
This breakdown shows that direct material represent the largest
cost element and that the total cost of goods sold is approximately 80
percent of the average sales price.
3. Overhead Expenses. Based on the assumed overhead cost
structure fo the typical company, the full overhead allocation would be
308 percent of direct labor costs.** It is unlikely that quieting will
lead to overhead cost increases of this magnitude and, therefore, estimates
of the actual incremental overhead expenses for the typical company have
been developed.
**Full Overhead = [Manufacturing Overhead (24%) + GS&A (13%)]
/Direct Labor (12%) = 308%
7-84
-------
REFERENCES
SECTION 7
7-1. A Study to Determine the Economic Impact of Noise Emissions Standards
in the Speciality Truck Components Industry. Truck Mounted Solid
Waste Compactor Bodies, A.T. Kearney, Inc. Draft report submitted to
EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, December 1976.
7-2. Shuster, Kenneth A., "Eleven Residential Pickup Systems compared for
Cost and Productivity", Solid Waste Management Magazine, flay 1975.
7-3. Residential Collection Systems, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(530/SW-97C-1), March 1975.
7-85
-------
Section 8
ENFORCEMENT
GENERAL
The EPA enforcement strategy will place a major share of the
responsibility on the manufacturers who will be required to conduct pre-sale
testing to determine the compliance of truck mounted solid waste compactors
with these regulations and emission standards. Besides relieving EPA of an
administrative burden, this approach benefits the manufacturers by leaving
their personnel in control of many aspects of the compliance program and
imposing only a minimum burden on their business. Therefore, monitoring by
EPA personnel of the tests and manufacturers' actions taken in compliance
with these regulations is advisable to ensure that the Administrator is
provided with the accurate test data necessary to determine whether the
compactors distributed in commerce by manufacturers are in compliance with
these regulations. Accordingly, the regulations provide that EPA Enforcement
Officers may be present to observe any testing required by these regulations.
In addition, Enforcement Officers under previously promulgated regulations [40
CFR Part 205 Subpart A] are empowered to inspect records and facilities in
order to assure that manufacturers are carrying out their responsibilities
properly.
The enforcement strategy proposed in these regula tions consists of three
parts: (1) Production Verification, (2) Selective Enforcement Auditing, and
(3) In-Use Compliance Provisions.
8-1
-------
PRODUCTION VERIFICATION
Production verification is testing by a manufacturer of selected early
production models of a configuration intended for sale. The objective is
to verify that a manufacturer has the requisite noise control technology in
%
hand to comply with the standard at the time of sale and during the two year
acoustical assurance period and is capable of applying the technology to the
manufacturing process. The early production models of a configuration tested
must not exceed the level of the standard minus that configuration's expected
sound level degradation factor (SLDF) before any models in that configuration
may be distributed in commerce. Any testing shall be done in accordance
with the proposed test procedure.
Production verification does not involve any formal EPA approval or
issuance of certificates subsequent to manufacturer testing, nor is any
extensive testing required of EPA. All testing is performed by the manufac-
turer. However, the Administrator reserves the right to be present to monitor
any test (including simultaneous testing with Agency equipment) or to require
that a manufacturer supply the Agency with products for testing at EPA's Noise
Enforcement Facility in in Sandusky, Ohio, or at any other site the Administra-
tor may find appropriate. When the Administrator tests a product, that test
becomes the official test for that model. The manufacturer is afforded an
opportunity to invalidate any test that the Administrator conducts.
The production unit selected for testing is a product configuration. A
product configuration is defined on the basis of the parameters delineated in
8-2
-------
section 205.205-3 of the regulation and any additional parameters that a
manufacturer or the Administrator may select. The basic parameters for
configuration identification include the types of truck engine, exhaust and
transmission, compactor capacity, and power taken off type or auxiliary engine
type.
A manufacturer shall verify production products prior to sale by one of
two methods: The first method will involve testing an early production
product (intended for sale) of each configuration.
Alternatively, production verification testing of all configurations
produced by a manufacturer may not be required where a manufacturer can
establish that the sound levels of some configurations at the end of their
defined acoustical assurance period (based on tests or on engineering judge-
ment) are consistently representative of other configurations. In such a case,
that product which emits the highest noise level at the end of the defined
acoustical assurance period would be the only configuration requiring verifi-
cation testing.
The second method allows a manufacturer, in lieu of testing products of
every configuration, to group configurations into categories. A category
will be defined by basic parameters of truck engine and fuel type, compactor
type, compactor power system and hydralic power system. Again, the manufacturer
may designate additional categories based on additional parameters of his
choice.
3-3
-------
Within a category, the configuration estimated by the manufacturer to be
emitting the greatest. A-^weighted sound pressure level at the end of the two
year acoustical assurance period is determined either by testing or good
engineering judgment. The manufacturer can then satisfy the production
verification requirements for all configurations within that category by
demonstrating that the loudest configuration at the end of the acoustical
assurance period complies with the applicable standard. This can eliminate
the need for a substantial amount of testing. However, it must be emphasized
that the loudest configuration at the end of the acoustical assurance period
must be clearly identified.
These proposed regulations also provide that the Administrator may test
products at a manufacturer's facility using either Agency equipment or the
manufacturer's equipment. This will provide the Administrator with an oppor-
tunity to determine that the manufacturer's test facility and equipment are
technically qualified as specified in section 205.204 for conducting the
tests required by this subpart. If it is determined that the equipment and/or
facilities are not technically qualified, the Administrator may disqualify
them from further use for testing under this subpart. Procedures that are
available to the manufacturer subsequent to disqualification are delineated
in the regulation.
A production verification report must be filed by the manufacturer before
any products of the configuration represented are distributed in commerce.
A product configuration is considered to be production verified when the
8-4
-------
manufacturer has shown, based on the application of the noise measurement
test, that a configuration conforms to the standard minus the SLDF and when a
timely report has been mailed to EPA indicating that it complies with the
standard.
If a manufacturer is unable to test due to weather conditions, the
production verification of a configuration is automatically waived by the
Administrator for a period of up to 45 consecutive days without the manufac-
turer's request provided that the test is performed on the first day that the
manufacturer is able. This procedure will minimize disruptions to manufactur-
ing facilities. The manufacturer may request an additonal extension of up to
45 days if it is demonstrated that weather or other uncontrollable conditions
prohibited testing during the first 45 days. However, to avoid any penalties
under these proposed regulations, the manufacturer must test for purposes of
production verification on the first day that he is able.
If a manufacturer proposed to add a new configuration to a product line
or change or deviate from an existing configuration with respect to any of hbe
parameters which define a configuration, the manufacturer must verify the new
configuration either by testing a product and submitting data or by filing a
report which demonstrates verification on the basis of previously submitted
data.
Production verification is an annual requirement. However, the Adminis-
trator, upon request by a manufacturer, may permit the use of data from
previous production verification reports for specific product configurations
8-5
-------
and/or categories. The considerations that are cited in the regulations as
being relevant to the Administrator's decision are illustrative and not
exclusive. The manufacturer can submit all data and information that he
believes will enable the Administrator to make a reasoned decision. It must
be' again emphasized that the manufacturer must request the use of previous
deta. If the manufacturer fails to do so, then all categories and configura-
tions for each subsequent year must be production verified.
The manufacturer need not verify configurations at any particular point
in a year. The only requirement is that a configuration be verified prior to
distribution in commerce. The inherent flexibility in the scheme of categori-
zation in many instances will allow a manufacturer to either verify, based on
representation, a configuration that may not be produced u.itil late in a year
or else wait until actual production of that configuration to verify it.
If a manufacturer fails to properly verify and a configuration is found
not to conform with the regulations, the Administrator may issue an order
requiring the manufacturer to cease the distribution in commerce of products
of that configuration. The Administrator will provide the manufacturer the
opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of such an order.
Production verification performed on the early production models provides
EPA with confidence that production models will conform to the standards and
limits the possibility that nonconforming products will be distributed in
commerce. Because the possibility still exists that subsequent models may
not conform, selective enforcement audit testing of assembly line products is
8-6
-------
made a part of this enforcement strategy in order to determine whether produc-
tion products continue to comply with the standard.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AUDITING
Selective enforcement auditing (SEA) is the term used in this regulation
to describe the testing of a statistical sample of production products from a
specified product category or configuration selected from a particular assembly
plant in order to determine whether production products comply with the noise
emission standard, including the acoustical assurance period standard, and to
provide the basis for further action in the case of noncompliance. The
selective enforcement audit plan is designed to determine the acceptability of
a batch of items for which one or more inspection criteria have been estab-
lished. As applied to product noise emissions, the items being inspected are
compactors and the inspection criterion is the noise emission standard.
Testing is initiated by a test request which will be issued to the manufa-
cturer by the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement or his authorized
representative. A test request will address itself to either a category
or a configuration. The test request will require the manufacturer to test a
sample of products of the specified category or configuration produced at a
specified plant. An alternative category or configuration may be designated
in the test request in the event products of the first category or configura-
tion are not available.
Upon receipt of the test request the manufacturer will randomly select
the sample from the first batch of products of the specified category or
configuration that is scheduled for production. (The purpose of the random
8-7
-------
selection is to ensure that a representative sample is drawn.) The Adminis-
trator also reserves the right to designate specific products for testing.
Generally, a batch will be defined as the number of products produced during a
time period specified in the test request. A batch defined in this manner
will allow the Administrator to select batch sizes small enough to keep the
number of products to be tested at a minimum and still enable EPA to eventually
draw statistically valid conclusions about the noise emission performance of
all products of the category or configuration which is the subject of the test
request.
One important factor that will influence the decisions of the Adminis-
trator not to issue a test request to a manufacturer is the evidence that a
manufacturer offers to demonstrate that a product category or configuration
complies with the applicable standard. If a manufacturer can provide evidence
that his products are meeting the noise emission standard based on testing
results, the issuance of a test request may not be necessary.
The particular type of inspection plan which has been adopted for SEA of
compactors is known as sequential batch sampling. Sequential batch sampling
differs from single sampling in that small test samples are drawn from sequen-
tial batches rather than one large sample being drawn from a batch. This
sampling offers the advantage of keeping the number of products tested to a
minimum when the majority of products are meeting the standard.
8-8
-------
Once the test sample of a batch has been selected from the batch sample,
each item is tested to determine whether it meets the prescribed criterion;
this is generally referred to as inspection by attributes. The basic criteria
for acceptance or rejection of a batch is the number of sample products whose
parameters meet specification rather than the average value of some parameter.
The sampling plans (A, B, C, and D) are arranged according to the size of
the batch from which a sample is to be drawn. Each plan specifies the
sample size and acceptance and rejection number for the established acceptance
quality level (AQL). As applied to compactor noise emissions, this AQL is the
maximum percentage of failing products that for purposes of sampling inspection
can be considered satisfactory.
A product is considered a failure if it exceeds the noise emission
standard minus the SLOP. An AQL of 10% was chosen to take into account some
test variability. The number of failing products in a sample is compared to
the acceptance and rejection numbers for the appropriate sampling plan. If
the number of failures is less than or equal to the acceptance number, then
there is a high probability that the percentage of noncomplying products in
the batch is less than the AQL and the batch is accepted. On the other hand,
if the number of failing products in the sample is equal to or greater than
the rejection number, then there is a high probability that the percentage of
noncomplying products in the batch is greater than the AQL and the batch
fails. Since the sampling strategy involves a sequential batch sampling plan,
in some instances the number of failures in a test sample may not allow
8-9
-------
acceptance or rejection of a batch so that continued testing may be required
until a decision can be made to either accept or reject a batch.
Regardless of whether a batch is accepted or rejected, failed products
would have to be repaired and/or adjusted and pass a retest before they can be
distributed in commerce.
The proposed regulation establishes two types of inspection criteria.
These are normal inspection and 100 percent testing. Normal inspection is
used until a decision can be made as to whether a batch sequence is accepted
or rejected. When a batch sequence is tested and accepted in response to a
test request, the manufacturer will not be required at that time to do any
further testing pursuant to that test request. When a batch sequence is tested
and rejected, then the Administrator may require 100 percent testing of
the compactors of that category or configuration produced at that plant. The
Administrator will notify the manufacturer of the intent to require 100
percent testing. The manufacturer can request a hearing on the issue of
noncompliance of the rejected category or configuration.
Subparagraph (1) of section 205.207-1(d) pertains to batches which
consist of three or less compactors. The subsection requires that each
compactor in that batch be tested and comply with the noise emission standard
minua rhw SLDF. This subparagraph will allow testing to take place within a
more reasonable period of time when a test request is issued for particular
categories or configurations which are not produced in a sufficiently high
volume for the normal SEA scheme to be applicable.
8-10
-------
Since the number of oonpactors tested in response to a test order may
vary considerably, a fixed time limit cannot be placed on completing all
testing. The proposed approach is to establish the time limit on a test-time-
per-product basis, taking transportation requirements, if any, into considera-
tion. The manufacturer would be allowed a reasonable amount of time for
transport of products to a test facility if one were not available at the
assembly plant.
The Administrator estimates that the manufacturers can test a minimum of
five (5) compactors per day. However, manufacturers are requested to present
any data or information that may effect a revision of this estimate.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
Section ll(d)(l) of the Act provides that:
"Whenever any person is in violation of section 10(a) of this Act, the
Administrator may issue an order specifying such relief as he determines is
necessary to protect the public health and welfare."
Clearly, this provision of the Act is intended to grant to the Adminis-
trator discretionary authority to issue administrative orders to supplement
the criminal penalties of section 11(a). If compactors which were not designed,
built, and equipped so as to comply with the noise emission standard at the
time of sale and during the two year acoustical assurance period were dis-
tributed in commerce, such act would be a violation of section 10(a) and
8-11
-------
remedy of such non-compliance would be appropriate. Remedy of the affected
products shall be carried out pursuant to an administrative order.
The proposed regulation provides for the issuance of such orders in the
following circumstances: (1) recall for the failure of a product or group of
products to comply with the applicable noise emission standard, (2) cease to
distribute products not properly production verified, and (3) cease to
distribute products for failure to test.
In addition, 40 CFR §205.4(f) provides for cease to distribute orders for
substantial infractions of the regulation requiring entry to manufacturers'
facilities and reasonable assistance. These provisions do not limit the
Administrator's authority to issue orders, but give notice of cases where such
orders would in his judgment be appropriate. In all such cases, notice and
opportunity for a hearing will be given.
COMPLIANCE LABELING
This regulation requires that compactors subject to it shall be labeled
to provide notice that the product complies to the noise emission standard.
The label shall contain a notice of tampering prohibitions. The effective date
of the applicable noise emission standard is also required on the label. A
coded rather than actual date of manufacture has been used so as to avoid
disruption of marketing and distribution patterns.
APPLICABILITY OF PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED REGULATION
Manufacturers who will be subject to this regulation must also comply
with the general provisions of 40 CFR Part 205 Subpart A. These include the
8-12
-------
provisions for inspection and monitoring by EPA Enforcement Officers of
manufacturer's actions taken in compliance with this proposed regulation and
for granting exemptions from this proposed regulation for testing, pre-verifi-
cation products, national security reasons, and export products.
ACOUSTICAL ASSURANCE PERIOD COMPLIANCE
The manufacturer is required to design, build, and equip compactors
subject to this regulation so that the products comply with the standard
during the acoustical assurance period provided that they are properly main-
tained, used, and repaired.
EPA does not specify what testing or analysis a manufacturer must conduct
to determine that his product will be in compliance throughout the acoustial
assurance period of this regulation. However, these regulations require the
manufacturer to make such a determination and maintain records of the test
data and other information upon which the determination was based. This
determination may be based on information such as testing of critical noise
producing or abatement components, rates of noise control deterioration,
engineering judgements based on previous experience, and physical durability
characteristics of the product.
An SLDF is the degradation (sound level increase in A^weighted decibels)
which the manufacturer expects will occur on a configuration during the two
year acoustical assurance period. The manufacturer must determine an SLDF for
each of his product configurations.
8-13
-------
To ensure that the products will meet the noise standard throughout the
two year accoustical performance period, they must emit a time of sale sound
level less than or equal to the noise standard minus the SLDF. A product is
in compliance only if its measured dBA level, added to the SLDF, is less than
or equal to the applicable standard. Production verification and selective
enforcement audit testing both embody this principle.
All compactors must emit a sound level that is less than or equal to the
standard at the time of sale, so a negative SLDF cannot be used. A product
that becomes quieter during the two year accoustical performance period must
still meet the standard on the day of sale; so an SLDF of 0 must be used for
that configuration.
As stated above, the Agency is not requiring durabilty testing as a
matter of course, however, should it be necessary, §13(a) of the Noise Act
authorizes EPA to require the manufacturer to run such tests on selected
compactors.
IN-USE COMPLIANCE
These provisions include a requirement that the manufacturer
provide a warranty to purchasers [required by section 6(d)], assist the
Administrator in fully defining those acts which constitute tampering [under
section 10(a)(2)(A)], and provide retail purchasers with instructions speci-
fying the proper maintenance, use, and repair required to minimize degradation
during the life of the compactor, and with a log book to record maintenance
and repairs performed.
8-14
-------
SECTION 9
EXISTING LOCAL, STATE, AND FOREIGN NOISE REGULATIONS
According to section 6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the proposed
Federal regulation of new trash compactor trucks will preempt new product
standards for the local and state level* unless those standards are
identical to the Federal standards. Further, according to section 9 of
the Act, regulations will be issued to carry out the provisions of the
Act with respect to new products imported or offered for importation.
EPA reviewed available literature and conducted a survey to determine
the number of existing regulations that are applicable to refuse truck
noise and that may be affeted by the proposed Federal regulation. In the
following subsections, the findings of the review are summarized.
LOCAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO REFUSE TRUCK NOISE
This section of the report presents the results of a detailed study
of nineteen local noise laws, which are specifically applicable to refuse
truck noise. In this study, the sources listed below were reviewed.
Compilation of noise laws maintained by the Technical Assistance
Division of the EPA Ofice of Noise Abatement and Control
Compilation of noise laws maintained by Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon
of the Georgia Institute of Technology
Noise publication data base maintained by Informatics for
the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control
*Local and state governments are. not prohibited from "establishing or
enforcing controls on environmental noise through licensing, regulation
or restriction of the use, operation or movement of any product" or
from establishing or enforcing new product noise standards for types
of equipment not regulated by the Federal Government.
9-1
-------
Noise abatement staff at each of the EPA Regional Offices
State noise abatement staffs.
The study showed that there are presently nineteen city and county
laws specifically applicable to truck^mounted solid waste compactor
noise in the United States. These laws are summarized in Table 9-1,
where it can readily be observed that there is a great deal of variation
from one jurisdiction to the next. Of the nineteen laws, eight specify
sound levels for the product. All the remainder have curfew provisions,
usually applying only to residential areas, prohibiting night collections
of garbage.
Interviews with the local people involved have revealed that five
of the refuse truck noise laws have not been enforced to this date.
For the remaining laws, which are in fact being enforced, the approach
has generally been to try to get the cooperation of the scavenger companies
through negotiation rather than to bring them into court. The study
has found that there have been gargabe truck noise court prosecutions
so far only on Cook County, Illinois, and Littleton, Colorado. All
these prosecutions have been for curfew violations.
The local solid waste compactor truck noise laws which specify
a maximum source level have a very wide variation in those levels.
The degree of variation is shown by the scale in Figure 9-1, which shows
the source levels in equivalent terms of dB(A) at 50 feet. Those regula-
tons which call for a different measurement distance are shown in terms
of equivalent 50-foot levels, assuming 6 dB per double-distance spreading
9-2
-------
W
W
H
es
S
f
U
*J
c
0 i
V (.'
~
v
4> >.
tn £
c c-
f- <
c.
- t
£ c
i
3 -
1 1
1 ~
Q
7 <
C C
0 *-
4J IT,
>3 C.
II
C
c
J
1
3
3
0 C . o
if 1 . f
3 C O O L
;f 41
t U fc, £
? f | ^
"0 15 I i.
_i o i/* . r ci <
i-^ffi L p *
£ ~ £ -, ^ * B e
3 a » i c (
--3^1 5 x i
> r o *J o -i »* i*
C > £ E C 0 ° *
"-j a. >- «(
J C E « U C Q, <
S -C > * fl * J tn ».
I- *J fc u :> *> 0 f - ft C O
3 CXEO OCOC, C C
'_ Z,< <(JZUZ. f- **"
3
§ OQ.OQ. W C O Q. O
3 O 3 O 3 OO3O
V»*. V» *J W 4J 0 - V> V> i) V>
2 i in c 0 V O » - C 0 OVw O
wf *C^| ^fi C, w jje^^
; 1= H Hs Hs If : Hs 1
i
c.
3
II
^ittio! aitJOJii
s s s s li s s 2
4J *ifl
>» C *J >.
- 4* E *-* ', > >
t u'«4i c c--1" i i
2 T *JJ5 U O *-»5 O*J O*J
Q. c. c-- ="a.uc "_ic
i i Ea~*c ** f t" S ^6 -l
c : S ;^ 35 fit s °t ! j
~ > o. o t- "« 2>-^^' a> a.;
i .- CS 3* £>:P 4* -'
^5?xxx ^p
- ~ ~4 0305 a: irtc x
^" XX XX X XX *
^j nn c rsr- s
1 '1 1 i 1
i k^ . t ok k
C J^ 1 C 1 C
1 C j 00 ^ C
i ^ 1 ^ " ^ ^
£ V ^ 0 u-i C C
c~o «r- r- - g |
tc- o , c o 2 c
« t fi" £ 6 f ^-S-i
Oi.C 4> O - C w A vT-
« C ' > U > > n C -"' O
- -" ig
-H Vi U
4 O O
~> 0* 0 (J -O
t> ti D> C O 13
| ... .' S 1
4 5 Q h. T3 V J
o 5 S S Ell
J '/) W Ul < W _1
i 3 i
1 i .| | |
01 jj * §, g « *
>. u ^ H £ »
£ 15 °! *
* 'M > 3 H M
E O*O WQ,
8 * =S I! ; s
c u o y 3 c
^ (0 X IM *
-2 S JS S« 5 f
*> o 5.x o i
Is ,3 si 5 !
s g s s l-s a i
S £ .£ JL ! |
, i. »»i M I
c| cj °255^ = i
>> > y S * y § * « *
*JJ j; ^3i>,flj ^ J
33 30 S 9 * C ^ -
oo uo £ O1 T3 Qi O Q. ~
Ofc03 03 03 S&** U4I 03 ^
ftto? c c co osm o£«-
c. & act) ao-o aon 0.00 41 3> . *j * aoti -
3 3-0 3V 3« 3«X3«6W C-HIB 3°1-v =
C HO -> O H« <4C - O *J C HO
a vo o kj "*^ aikiON ti IH tj ai w ^ * o -< « » - 41 M i*^ i
c cu c a. co. ca 2 S « owe*-* eg, =
H -4. "6o -£° r'fio nco1" -nioo1" u!5£ tl
1
3 «
i3
o ii si v « aj u oT
4iu« at u « *j u o c.
S S S S S IS S S r-
c >,
0 O
I t f
Mill!! i
S O <8 So U fl °
».|=°SSs g Si
°lSS S5S ", £'T
^>^Jn ^H "5 S'e *^ **
1^1 £ £ £ £ 53 2 SC
X? x XX inOv'N
t * X O FH -H XXX X
Cx* x ^ xx 2WW" ~
in^V O X r-4 S fiS.ii E
o2^ 5-o I iiiik i
1 I o o o o i
>. * ^§>
£ ai OD a> z ^
*.2ncuci.e oc^ ^c-
0 O W 0 « O HO HC ^ 0 '-
t'ia*4i<« «4 u u -5 ij S. S rt '-
r^**"14 fl W "^ 5 'O C. -^ >" >
1
^
S ' 5 ^ * "'
- S S 2 * I «
§ . . % S. ° S J
o>:J0^>o 0 -^
3 ! § g 5 5 7 S «
ss^:s.| P IS
*J O O 0- « J H 0 W
1 §5 ., |
i li li
fl C.
41 '' J
SI S
5
> H
I 1
?
5 ° c
--* u *-
s t!
r~-
r~ s ^
^ X
X -v ^,
i
"k
I
O C
O tr g
10 £Q
S s. li
>,
§ *^
o
!. 1
S3 I
9-3
-------
of sound. It can be observed that the levels range from 87 dB(A) at
50 feet for Toledo to 75 dB(A) at 10 feet for New York City [equivalent
to about 61 dB(A) at 50 feet].
The community programs vary as much in their degree of enforcement
as in their levels, ranging from continuous in-use enforcement on all
garbage trucks to no enforcement at all. In the subsections which follow,
each of the local noise laws listed in Table 9-1 is briefly discussed.
The order of discussion is cities first and then countries, with cities
addressed in alphabetical order by the states in which they are located.
The text of the refuse truck noise provisions for each jurisdiction
is presented in Appendix A.
1. Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles noise law provides for a 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
curfew on garbage collections. There is no numerical sound level specified
in this law for truck-mounted solid waste compactors. As in other laws
that specify curfews, the provisions apply to the scavenger operations
themselves rather than to the truck or the compactor. Violations of
the law are treated as a misdemeanor, as in most municipalities, with
fines ranging up to $200 or imprisonment ranging up to 6 months. The
law is enforced by the Los Angeles Police Department, with the cooperation
of the Acoustics Division of the Department of Environmental Quality.
2. San Anselmo, California
San Anselmo has a year-old law specifying a maximum source level
for the compactor of 75 dB(A) at 50 feet. There is an unusual provision
in the San Anselmo law, found in none of the other laws analyzed, that
states the noise is "not unlawful if sound deadening devices are used
9-4
-------
90-
85-
80-
75-
70
65
SPRINGFIELD, N.J
-TOLEDO. OHIO
- SAN DIEGO, CAL. (Repealed in 1977)
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CAL.
SAN ANSELMO, CAL
ARVADA, COL.
SAN JOSE, CAL. (75 @ 25')
-NEW YORK, N.Y. (75@10'1
Figure 9-1. Range of Maximum Source Levels for Solid Waste
Compactor Trucks in Noise Ordinances*
*A11 levels not measured at 50 feet have been normalized to an
equivalent 50 feet level.
9-5
-------
to the extent reasonably feasible." Nominally the law is to be enforced by
the Police Department on an in-use basis, with violations of the law treated
as infractions. Up to the present, however, the law has not yet been enforced,
and no sound level measurements have been made on refuse trucks.
3. San Diego, California
The former San Diego noise law was one of two in the nation which had
contained both a curfew provision and a maximum source level provision for
refuse trucks (the other is Salt Lake County, Utah). However, an amended ver-
sion of the law was adopted in March, 1977 which strikes the source level
provision and leave only the curfew. The maximum source noise level provision
was repealed because it was not found to be as effective as the curfew.
The noise law in San Diego is administered by the Noise Abatement and Con-
trol Administration of the Building Inspection Department. This is one of the
more active noise programs in the nation. Since April 1976 they have been per-
forming noise measurements of solid waste compactor trucks at a test site near
the Chollar landfill. The measurements are made at a distance of 50 feet at
four points: front, rear, and both sides. The tests are conducted on a spot
check basis, with the duration of each test running one to five minutes for
two compacting cycles. The company name, license number, and vehicle type are
recorded for each test. Scavenger companies receive copies of the test
reports on their vehicles and are required to correct vehicles found to be
excessively noisy.
The garbage truck curfew provision of the San Diego noise law is also
enforced by the Noise Abatement and Control Administration. The refuse
companies have cooperated by planning their routes and schedules around the
curfew.
9-6
-------
4. San Francisco, California
San Francisco presently has the most active refuse truck noise
abatement program of any city in the United States. The noise standard
of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet is enforced on an in-use basis by mobile units
operated by the Bureau of Environmental Health. These units generally
operate from marked cars equipped with sound level meters and strip
chart recorders. The sound measurements they perform are unannounced
spot checks of refuse vehicles operating on the streets, often in the
pre-dawn hours of the morning.
One of EPA's study investigators observed the San Francisco refuse
truck noise measurement procedure during an actual enforcement operation
conducted on the morning of November 6, 1975. After locating a refuse
truck on the street, an Environmental Health man pulled his car up 50
feet to the rear of the truck. This particular truck was a rear-loader
No. 3941, operated by Co. F, having a Co. I compactor and a Co. K chassis.
Measurements were made with a GR 1933 sound level meter with the microphone
on a 5-foot probe out the driver's side car window. Sound levels were
recorded on a Simpson Model 2745 strip chart recorder. In recording a
compacting cycle the peaks from the sounds of bottles popping and cans
crushing during compaction were noted on the strip chart. The sound
level assigned to the trace was 76 dB(A), the highest level attained
aside from the extraneous peaks.
In the course of enforcing the San Francisco refuse truck noise
law, over 150 such strip chart recordings have been made by the Department
of Environmental Health. On the basis of the strip chart recordings,
the Department has issued abatement orders to the scavenger when trucks
9-7
-------
have been found to be over the limit. The scavengers have generally
been cooperative in retrofitting their trucks when necessary to make
the 80 dB(A) limit.
5. San Jose, California
The San Jose Refuse truck noise level is a part of the regulation
of garbage and rubbish vehicles which was added in October of 1975.
The law is administered by the Property Codes Department of the Bureau
of Housing and Community Development. The Department has tested newly
manufactured refuse trucks and found them to comply with the law. Besides
enforcement through refuse truck licensing, San Jose puts similar wording
in its contracts with scavenger companies for municipal trash collection.
6. Arvada, Colorado
The Arvada noise ordinance provides a maximum noise level of 74
dB(A) at 50 feet. The noise law has been in effect for a year, but
no enforcement actions have yet been taken against refuse trucks. Arvada
has not yet made any refuse truck measurements.
The administering agency for the noise law is the Police Department.
Penalties up to $300 are provided for violations.
7. Englewood, Colorado
The Englewood, Colorado, refuse truck noise provision was apparently
patterned after that of Lakewood, Colorado. It calls for a 10 p.m.
to 7 a.m. curfew on scavenger operations within a residential district
or within 300 feet of a hotel or motel.
8. Lakewood, Colorado
The Lakewood noise ordinance has been in effect since 1973. It
provides a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on scavenger operations in residential
9-8
-------
districts or within 300 feet of a hotel or motel. Lakewood has an active
enforcement program for the curfew using the "soft fuzz" approach.
No summonses have yet been issued to scavenger companies for curfew
violations. Good cooperation has been obtained from the scavenger companies
by the Department of Community Development in changing routes and schedules.
The Department has required these changes on several occasions in response
to citizen complaints of refuse truck noise at night.
9. Littleton, Colorado
Littleton, Colorado, is another community located near Denver with
considerable noise awareness. There are 30,000 people and an active noise
abatement program dating from 1974. The refuse truck noise provision
provides a curfew of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., which was copied from the Lakewood
ordinance.
In drafting the Littleton noise ordinance the noise officer used
as inputs the Lakewood ordinance and the NIMLO/EPA model ordinance.
There were three or four refuse collection noise complaints per year
in the years before the noise ordinance was passed in 1974, and a total
of 15 since that time.
The enforcement approach is similar to Lakewood and Englewood in
trying to work with the scavengers in getting them to change routes and
schedules in response to complaints. In Littleton, however, one scavenger
company refused to cooperate, and it was cited and taken to court. The
company was convicted and issued a $30 fine. Apparently this was still not
convincing enough for them and they were later brought into court again
for a second violation and received a $45 fine. Upon being convicted the
second time the company changed its schedules and has not broken the curfew
9-9
-------
since. These two convictions represent the only examples outside Cook
County, Illinois, where a speciality truck noise case has gone to court.
There has not yet been a court challenge to any specialty truck noise law.
The Littleton refuse truck curfew appears to be a success, like its
neighbors in Lakewood and Englewood. After proving the seriousness
of the law with two convictions, Littleton appears to be receiving co-
operation from the scavengers.
10. Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago noise ordinance provides a 9:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew
for all areas of the city except the downtown business district and
the airport. The ordinance is enforced by the Police Department and
provides fines up to $500 for the second and subsequent offenses.
11. Dubuque, Iowa
The Dubuque noise ordinance provides a 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew
on scavenger operations in residential areas. The law is enforced by
the Police Department. The law provides penalties of fines up to $100
and imprisonment of up to 30 days.
12. Princeton, Hew Jersey
The Princeton noise ordinance provides a 1 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew
on scavenger operations Monday through Saturday, with scavenger operations
prohibited completely on Sunday. This particular law is unusual in providing
a provision for its own suspension for emergency garbage collections.
The law is enforced by the Police Department, and penalties for violations
can go up to a $200 fine or 90 days imprisonment.
13. Springfield, New Jersey
The Springfield, New Jersey, noise law specifies a maximum noise
9-10
-------
level for garbage trucks of 94 dB(A) at 50 feet. This level is far higher
than that specified in any other noise law. The reason is that an erroneous
provision of the New Jersey Model Community Noise Ordinance was copied by
Springfield. According to the State of New Jersey Noise Control Office, the
New Jersey Model Community Noise Ordinance (discussed further in this
report under State Laws) supplied filled in noise levels for the NIMLO/EPA
model ordinance. Unfortunately, the level which they filed in for "compactor"
was copied from another noise ordinance which referred to a piece of
construction equipment used for compacting the ground and not to a device
which goes on a garbage truck. The writers of the Springfield ordinance
accepted the 94 dB(A) level without checking any further or making any
measurements. This level is so high that even the noisiest compactor is
not likely to exceed it. No refuse truck noise measurements have been made
by Springfield either before or since passage of their noise law. They had
one sound level meter which they borrowed from the State Department of
Environmental Protection but they have since given it back.
The Springfield noise law also contains a curfew provision of 10 p.m.
to 7 a.m., which is apparently not being enforced. They receive about
5 complaints per year of refuse truck compactor noise, which is approximately
what they received before passage of the law. The rate of complaints
generally runs higher in the summer when people keep their windows open.
The scavenger companies have resisted any changes in schedule, claiming that
they interfere with logistics of getting to the dump on time. No citations
have been issued to the scavengers.
Besides its own difficulties, the Springfield, New Jersey, noise law
is also under legal challenge for its zone-ambient noise provisions. A
9-11
-------
local quarry has been cited for noise violations and intends to fight the
law in court. None of the municipal officials interviewed had information
on the current status of this challenge or whether it applied to the whole
law or just one provision.
Apparently the noise law had been passed primarily with the quarry in
mind, with the refuse truck provisions as an afterthought. There was no
input from the scavenger in formulating the noise law and there was no
discussion of the refuse truck provisions at the hearings. One difficulty
with the noise law is that it was passed as a Board of Health ordinance
rather than a township ordinance, which makes its enforcement weaker.
Besides the quarry noise situation, the law has been used primarily
in neighbor vs neighbor noise complaints.
In summary, the Springfield, New Jersey, noise law has been unsuccessful
in dealing with refuse truck noise, due both to the law itself and to
its enforcement program.
14. New York, New York
The New York noise ordinance as amended provides a maximum noise
level of 75 dB(A) at 10 feet for vehicles manufactured after December
31, 1974. The law as presently worded calls for measurements with the
slow scale of the sound level meter. The earlier version of the New
York noise law called for 70 dB(A) measured at 10 feet from the side
of the compactor using the fast scale. However, the city was not able
to obtain trucks which met the provision and held up in service. The
amended version of the law, therefore, relaxed the requirement to 75
dB(A) with the slow scale. The New York City Environmental Protection
Agency has measured newly manufactured refuse vehibles which meet the
9-12
-------
relaxed requirement. However, the law contains a provision to ratchet the
level back down to 70 dB(A) on December 31, 1978.
Since the law exempts the city's own fleet of garbage trucks, the only
enforcement would be against newly manufactured privately operated trucks.
So far the law has not been enforced against them, because of other problems
affecting refuse collections in New York City and because other noise
enforcement has had higher priority.
Since New York's noise law applies to newly manufactured refuse vehicles,
it is the type of law which would be preempted by a Federal new product noise
regulation for truck-mounted solid waste compactors if one is promulgated by EPA.
15. Toledo, Ohio
The Toledo noise ordinance is unique in its refuse truck provision in that
it provides a curfew-like maximum noise level requirement, with a higher level
permitted during the day. The daytime level is 87 dB(A) at 50 feet and the
nighttime (9 p.m. - 7 a.m.) level is 80 dB(A) at 50 feet. This, in effect,
provides that only quieted equipment may operate at night. The law also contains
a ratchet provision to lower the permitted daytime noise level to 82 dB(A) in
1979. An additional margin of 5 dB is allowed for impulsive sounds from the
compactor.
The law is administered by the Toledo Pollution Control Agency. It has an
unusual penalty provision, in that the fine is $100 for an individual but $1000
for an organization.
16. Ogden, Utah
Ogden, Utah, has a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on scavenger operations
in areas zoned residential. The law has been in effect there since
1972, with enforcement responsibility given to the City Manager. Penalties
9-13
-------
provided are fines up to $300 and imprisonment of up to 30 days.
17. Salt Lake City, Utah
The Salt Lake City noise law provides a curfew of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.
for scavenger operations. The curfew applies in areas zoned residential
and is enforced by the City-County Health Department. Penalties provided
in law are fines up to $299 and improsinment of up to 6 months.
18. Cook County, Illinois
Cook County, Illinois, in which Chicago is located, has a noise
law which provides a 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. curfew for scavenger operations
in residential zones.
Cook County's enforcement program is unique among all those in the
nation because of the policy of routinely giving citations for refuse
truck curfew violations. It is estimated that 15 citations per year
are handed out to the scavenger companies. When this occurs the company
has to appear in court with its lawyer. Convictions almost always are
returned. The only exception is when the arresting officer has a discrepancy
in his report, such as an error in transcribing the license numbe. Fines
of $50 are typically required. Since the law was enacted, there have only
been two firms cited more than once. Generally the scavengers become very
careful in their schedules once they have gone through the inconvenience of
hiring a lawyer and appearing in court to answer a citation. Because of
this policy of strict prosecution, the situation has now come to the point
where most of the firms cited are small new companies that do not know the
law. There has been good cooperation from the larger firms in obeying
curfews. In all the prosecutions there has never been a challenge to the
law itself.
9-14
-------
19. Sacramento County/ California
The Sacramento County, California, noise ordinance was recently passed
and has an effective date of July 1, 1976. The maximum refuse truck noise
level provision of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet, however, has an effective date of
January 1, 1977. This level is slated to ratchet down the 75 dB(A) at 50
feet on January 1, 1980. The refuse truck provisions are quite similar to
those in nearby San Francisco except for the later effective date.
The noise ordinance was written by a committee which included the
industrial hygienist who administers the noise program. There have been a
large number of complaints of garbage collection noise at night in Sacramento
County, typically averaging about 200 per year. This is particularly true
of areas near hotels and schools in the city areas, where complaints often
refer to such things as banging of cans and racing the motor.
Although the new law has a maximum penalty of a $500 fine or 6 months
imprisonment, the Environmental Health Office does not plan to issue cita-
tions for refuse truck noise once that provision goes into effect. Instead
the San Francisco approach will be used which is working with the scavengers
in trying to get them to retrofit their trucks or buy quieter new ones.
OTHER MUNICIPAL NOISE LAWS
The nineteen noise laws discussed above were of the most immediate
interest because:
They specifically mentioned either waste compactors or
garbage collection.
They are presently in effect.
Each of the above laws was discussed in detail here and summarized in
Table 9-1. The full texts of their noise provisions are provided at the end
of this section.
9-15
-------
Besides these nineteen laws there are others worthy of mention, but not
of as immediate interest because they are still drafts, not yet in effect,
already repealed, or do not specifically mention the product. Those laws hav-
ing a motor vehicle provision usually have a general truck provision which can
be used against specialty trucks when they are in motion. Of course, the non-
quantitative nuisance noise laws can also be applied to refuse trucks.
Those noise laws (and draft laws) which mention refuse trucks
but have not been treated in detail because they are not presently in
effect are the following:
Cape Canaveral, Floridarepealed. It had a maximum of 80 dB(A)
at 50 feet, but it was never enforced. The sucessor noise law
has no refuse truck provision.
»
Kansas City, Missouriearly draft. An early draft had a provi-
sion for 70 dB(A) at 10 feet, like the original New York City
Noise law. The present draft has removed the provision.
Cleveland, Ohiostill in draft. It has a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
curfew for scavenger operations.
Portland, Oregonearly draft. An earlier draft had a provision
of 70 dB(A) at 25 feet for newly manufactured refuse compacting
vehicles. The present draft has removed this provision.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvaniaearly draft. It applied to the "loading
and unloading of garbage cans" rather than to the compactor or
the vehicle. It called for a maximum level of 15 dB(A) above
ambient as measured at the property line for 10 percent of the
measurement period which must be at least 10 minutes long. The
present draft has removed all mention of refuse trucks.
9-16
-------
o Salt Lake County, Utah - early draft. It specified a maximum
level of 80 dB(A) at 25 feet for solid waste compactors, measured at the
rear. There was also a curfew of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. provided for collections.
Penalties called for in the law were fines up to $299 and imprisonment up to
6 months. An amended version of the Salt Lake County noise law is now being
considered and may be adopted in the near future. This amended draft does not
contain the maximum noise level provision.
Conclusions - Local Refuse Truck Noise Laws
The above analysis discussed in detail the nineteen local refuse truck
noise law which are presently in effect and have also noted those laws that
were repealed or stayed in draft form. The analysis indicated that the re-
fuse truck laws specifying curfews have generally been more successful than
those specifying maximum levels. In cases where a law specifies both a curfew
and a maximum level, it has been the curfew enforcement which has reduced the
number of complaints.
Curfews, however, have varying effects on the garbage collection
process in different local areas. The interference with collection logistics
appears to be least in flat areas with wide streets that are not too densely
populated. In those areas where curfews can be applied to an area, they appear
to offer the best possibility of relief from refuse collection noise. A vigorous
enforcement of the curfew is a necessary factor in such an approach.
9-17
-------
STATE LAWS APPLICABLE TO REFUSE TRUCK NOISE
A search of all state noise laws has established that there are none which
apply specifically to solid waste compactor truck noise. However, the
States of Florida and New Jersey have model community noise ordinances which
have provisions covering refuse vehicles. The text of their refuse truck
provisions follow below:
Model Coromunity Noise Control Ordinance, Florida
8.1.1 Refuse Collection Vehicles. No person shall collect
refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between the hours of 7 p.m.
and 7 a.m. the following day in a residential area or noise sensitive
zone.
It is apparent from the above language that this is a typical
curfew provision, similar to the ones found in eleven local juris-
dictions discussed in the previous section. As of this writing, however,
none of the municipalities in Florida has yet adopted the suggested
wording for its own ordinance.
Model Community Noise Ordinance, New Jersey
9.1.3 Refuse Collection Vehicles. No person shall:
(a) On or after (2 years) following the effective date of
this ordinance, operate or permit the operation of the
compacting mechanism of any motor vehicle which compacts
refuse and which creates, during the compacting
cycle, a sound level in excess of 86 dB (A) when measured
at 50 feet from any point on the vehicle;
(b) Operate or permit the operation of the compacting mechanism
of any motor vehicle which compacts refuse, between the
hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. the following day in a residential
area or noise sensitive zone;
(c) Collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between
the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. the following day in a resi-
dential area
[Choose b or c]
9-18
-------
The above provisions have been recommended by New Jersey since
1976. Before that time a provision with a 94 dB (A) level had appeared
in the New Jersey Model Community Noise Ordiance, as shown below:
6.2.11 Refuse Compacting Vehicles. The operating or permitting
to be operated, of any motor vehicle which can compact refuse and
which creates, during the compacting cycle, a sound pressure level
in excess of 94 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet from any point of
the vehicle, or between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following
day (in residential use districts).
This provision combines a maximum sound level and curfew similar
to the way recommended in the NIMLO/EPA model ordinance. The difficulty
in the above model is that it contains an erroneously high level of
94 dB(A) at 50 feet for the compactor noise requirement. This resulted
when those who promulgated the New Jersey Model Ordinance mistook the
word "compactor" in another ordinance for a solid waste compactor.
The "compactor" whose 94 dB(A) level they put into their model ordinance
was in fact a piece of construction equipment used for compacting the
ground. Subsequent editions of the New Jersey Model Community Ordinance
will have this error corrected.
Besides the Florida and New Jersey model ordinances the only applicable
state laws found were the state laws specifying general truck noise
levels. These have been tabulated by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's
Association, (Exhibit 9-1). These general truck noise laws are only of
limited interest for this study because:
o Those truck noise laws that specify levels of newly manufactured
vehicles are preempted by the recent EPA new truck noise regulation.
9-19
-------
The laws specify passby levels. Since the compactor is generally
not in operation when the truck is underway, the passby tests
do not measure compactor noise.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIALTY TRUCK NOISE
Current Federal regulations applicable to specialty truck noise are
the EPA noise emission standards for motor carriers engaged in interstate
commerce (39 FR 38208) and the EPA noise emission standards for medium and
heavy trucks (41 FR 15538). The U.S. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the
U.S. Department of Transportation has also issued regulations for the
purpose of establishing measurement procedures and methodologies for
determining whether commercial motor vehicles conform to the Interstate
Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards of EPA.
EPA Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Regulation
This regulation was promulgated by EPA under authority of the Noise
Control Act of 1972. Section 18 of the Noise Control Act requires the
Administration to promulgate noise emission regulations for motor carriers
engaged in interstate commerce. The Secretary of Transportation is respon-
sible for promulgating regulations to insure compliance with the EPA
standards, through the enforcement and inspection powers authorized by the
Interstate Commerce Act, the Department of Transportation Act, and the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
Section 18(c)(l) of the Act requires that "no State or political
subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any standard applicable to the
same operation of such motor carrier unless such standard is identical to a
standard applicable to noise emissions resulting from such operation
prescribed by any regulation under this section."
9-20
-------
On February 1, 1973, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
published in the Federal Register soliciting public comment. Proposed
standards were published in the Federal Register (38 FR 20102) on July 17,
1973, and final noise emission standards were established on October 29, 1974
(39 FR 38208). The standards went into effect on October 15, 1975.
Maximum noise level under test conditions established by DOT is 86 dB(A)
at 50 feet from centerline of the lane of travel on highways with speed
limits of 35 mph or less; or 90 dB(A) at 50 feet on highways with speed
limits or more than 35 mph.
The interstate motor carrier emission standards are relevant to
future specialty truck noise emission regulations. The proposed standards
did not originally specify clearly whether "auxiliary equipment" noise
is to be included in the specified "total vehicle" noise levels. Based
on the comments received during the public comment periods and hearings,
the final regulation included a clarification as follows:
"The provisions of subpart B (Interstate Motor Carrier Operations
Standards) do not apply to auxiliary equipment which is normally
operated only when the transporting vehicle is stationary or is
moving at; a speed of 5 miles per hour or less. Examples of such
equipment include but are not limited to, cranes, asphalt spreaders,
ditch diggers, liquid or slurry pumps air compressors, welders,
and trash compactors."
The noise from trash compactors is not included in the "total vehicle"
noise. The Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Compliance Regulations
issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation on September 12, 1975,
include additional language in the scope of the regulations. It is
9-21
-------
stated that the rules do not apply to the sound generated by auxiliary
equipment which is normally operated only when the motor vehicle on
which it is installed is stopped or is operating at a speed of 5 mph
(8 kph) or less, unless such a device is intentionally operated at speeds
greater than 5 mph (8 kph) in order to preclude an otherwise valid noise
measurement. Trash compactor noise would be included in the total vehicle
noise under such circumstances. The need for this language arose out
of comments received by the Director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety after publication of a text of the proposed regulations in the
Federal Register (40 FR 8658). Several commenters suggested that it
would be possible to intentionally thwart noise measurements by sounding
warning devices or by operating auxiliary equipment even if it is not
designed for operation above 5 mph.
EPA Noise Emission Standards for New Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks
The EPA new truck noise standards appeared in the Federal Register
on April 13, 1976 (41 FR 75538). The standards call for a new truck
low speed acceleration passby test level of 83 dB(A) at 50 feet, effective
January 1, 1978. The level will be reduced to 80 dB(A) effective January
1, 1982, and may be reduced further to an as yet unspecified level effective
January 1, 1985.
The medium and heavy truck noise regulation standards apply to
any vehicle which has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in excess
of 10,000 pounds, which is capable of transportation of property on
a highway or street and which meets the definition of the term "new
product" in the Act. However, in paragraph 205-50(b) of Subpart B, it
is stated that the vehicle noise emission standards included in this
9-22
-------
subpart "do not apply to highway, city, and school buses or to special
purpose equipment which may be located on or operated from vehicles.
Tests performed on vehicles containing such equipment may be carried
out with the special purpose equipment in nonoperating condition. For
purposes of this regulation special purpose equipment includes but is
not limited to construction equipment, snow plows, garbage compactors,
and refrigeration equipment."
Clearly, the intent of this statement is that garbage compactors
were to be regulated under independent rules and operating conditions
after the Administrator had determined that noise emission standards
are feasible for these types of special purpose equipment.
FOREIGN SPECIALTY TRUCK NOISE LAWS
The only foreign specialty truck noise law on which information
has been found is a municipal solid waste compactor truck noise ordinance
which is in effect in Stockholm, Sweden. The law sets a noise limit
during loading of 70 dB(A) at a distance of 3 meters from the truck
side. This law is more stringent that any presently in effect in the
United States. It is comparable to the Mew York City noise ordinance
level of 70 dB(A) at 10 feet which was scheduled to go into effect on
January 1, 1977.
An extensive effort has been made to uncover other foreign laws
relating specifically to specialty trucks; it appears that the Stockholm
law is indeed the only one in existence. There appear to be no specialty
truck noise laws in Australia, Japan, Switzerland, or Germany.
9-23
-------
MODEL LOCAL SPECIALTY TRUCK NOISE ORDINANCES
This section provides model provisions for local noise laws for
solid waste compactor trucks. The general problem is first discussed,
then the product is defined and the model law provision is presented.
As can be observed from examining the nineteen local noise laws
discussed earlier, there are many different legal approaches to controlling
refuse truck noise. Basically the approaches are of two types: maximum
source noise level standards and curfews. The approach we propose here,
which combines both, is patterned after the refuse truck provision of
the model community noise control ordinance prepared by the National
Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO) in conjunction with EPA.
The NIMLO model provision is as follows:
Refuse Collection Vehicles. No person shall:
(a) On or after (2 years) following the effective date of this
ordinance, operate or permit the operation of the compacting
mechansim of any motor vehicle which compacts refuse and which
creates, during the compacting cycle, a sound level in excess
of dB(A) when measured at feet (meters) from any
point on the vehicle;
(b) Operate or permit the operation of the compacting mechanism
of any motor vehicle which compacts refuse, between the hours
of p.m. and a.m. the following day in a residential
area or noise sensitive zone;
(c) Collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between the
hours of p.m. and a.m. the following day in a
residential area or noise sensitive zone.
9-24
-------
The only modification which we have made to the NIMLO model is
to introduce some noise measurement procedures which are used in the
San Francisco enforcement program.
(1) Definition
In each noise law a definition of each product to be regulated
is usually provided. The definition adopted by EPA is:
"A truck-mounted solid waste compactor is a vehicle comprising
an engine-powered truck cab and chassis or trailer, equipped
with machinery for receiving, compacting, transporting and
unloading solid waste."
The above definition was chosen to specifically exclude non-compacting
container handling vehicles, non-compacting open top dump trucks,
stationary compactors not mounted on trucks, and containers.
(2) Model Ordinance Provision
By combining the NIMLO provision with the San Francisco measure-
ment procedure one can generate a broad and probably effective ordinance,
as follows:
Refuse Collection Vehicles. No person shall:
(a) On or after (2 years) following the effective date on
this ordinance, operate or permit the operation of the
compacting mechanism of any motor vehicle which compacts
refuse and which creates, during the compacting cycle, a
sound level in excess of dB(A) when measured at
feet (meters) from the rear of the vehicle. Measurements
9-25
-------
shall be made with whatever load is present in the compactor
at the time. The measurement shall be that of the average
compaction noise level, and peaks due to transient phenomena
in the load, such as cans crushing, shall be ignored.
(b) Operate or permit the operation of the compacting mechanism
of any motor vehicle which compacts refuse, between the
hours of p.m. and a.m. the following day in
residential area or noise sesitive zones;
(c) Collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between
the hours of p.m. and a.m. the following day
in the residential area or noise sensitive zone.
Note in the above model provision that the noise level measurement
distance and hours of the curfew have been left blank. Since this is
an in-use noise law the level and distance will be community options, as
long as it is consistent with EPA's new product noise law. As EPA noise
levels are specified for an empty compactor, some adjustment may have to be
made in the level in the above community noise ordinance to account for the
slight additional noise when loaded and possible reverberant effects in
narrow streets and alleys. The curfew hours should be strictly the preroga-
tive of each community. In the ordinances surveyed, the curfews were
observed to start as early as 6 p.m. and as late ao 10 p.m. Curfews ran
until 6 a.m. in some localities and 7 a.m. in others.
The provisions in the model ordinance for measurement at the rear for
load condition as found on the street, and for ignoring transient peak sound
levels orginating in the load are all patterned after the successful
San Francisco program. There is much to be said for the repeatability
9-26
-------
of measuring vehicles in an open area isolated test site, away from
the sound reflecting surfaces of the city streets, with a standard empty
compactor condition. However, repeatability as a primary consideration
is better suited to product certification measurements. In an in-use
enforcement such as this, it is more important that the noise measurement
be applicable to impromptu spot checks and that it disturb the waste
collection process as little as possible. The fact that spot checks
are being made also seems to encourage the refuse collectors to be quieter
in other parts of the process not connected with compaction, such as
banging cans and shouting to one another.
9-27
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR TRUCK NOISE LAWS (FULL TEXT)
Los Angeles, California (1/24/73)
SEC. 113.01. Rubbish and Garbage Collections and Disposal. It
shall be unalwful for any person engaged in the business of collecting
or disposing of rubbish or garbage in any residential zone or within
500 feet thereof to collect, load, pickup, trnasfer, unload, dump, discard
or dispose of any rubbish or garbage as such terms are defined in Sec.
66.00 of this Code between the hours of 9:00 p.m. of one day and 6:00
a.m. of the next day, unless a permit therefore has been duly obtained
beforehand from the Board of Police Commissioners, Such permits shall
be issued pursuant to standards established by said Board and approved
by the City Council by ordinance.
No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined
in Sec. ll.Ol(c) of this chapter.
San Anselmo, California (2/11/75)
Section 4-7.09. Refuse Collection.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person authorized to engage in
waste disposal services or garbage collection to provide such services
in such a manner a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness working
or residing in the area is caused discomfort, annoyance, or whose peace
is disturbed. For the purpose of this section noise emitted by equipment
shall not be deemed unlawful if the person engaged in such services has,
to the extent reasonably feasible in the judgment of the Director of
Public Works incorporated available sound-deadening devices into equipment
used in rendering those services.
9-28
-------
(b) Any person authorized to engage in waste disposal services
or garbage collection shall not operate any truck-mounted waste or garbage
loading and/or compacting equipment or similar mechanical device acquired
after the effective date of this chapter in a manner to create noise
exceeding 75 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment.
(c) Mechanical street sweepers shall not operate in the manner
to create noise exceeding 80 dBA and 75 dBA six (6) months and twenty-four
(24) months respectively after the effective date of this chapter.
San Diego/ California
Present Law [since March 22, 1977]
SEC. 59.5.0406. Refuse Vehicles and Parking Lot Sweepers.
No person shall operate or permit to be operated a refuse compacting,
processing or collection vehicle or parking lot sweeper between
the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in any residential area unless
a permit has been applied for and granted by the Administrator.
Repealed March 22, 1977
SEC. 59.5.0406. Refuse Vehicles. No person shall operate or permit
to be operated a refuse compacting, processing or collection vehicle
after December 31, 1973, within the City of San Diego which when compacting
creates a sound level in excess of eighty-six (86) decibels when measured
at a distance of fifty (50) feet from any point of the compacting vehicle
unless a variance has been applied for and granted by the Administrator
or Appeals Board. No refuse collection shall be permiteed from 7:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in any residential area. Notwithstanding the above,
on or after a date forty-eight (48) months after the effective date
9-29
-------
of this article, no person shall operate or permit to be operated, a refuse,
compacting, processing or collection vehicle which when compacting creates a
sound level in excess of eighty (80) decibels when measured at a distance of
fifty (50) feet from any point of the compacting vehicle.
San Francisco, California (9/18/72)
SEC. 2904. Waste Disposal Services. It shall be unlawful for any person
authorized to engage in waste disposal services or garbage colletion to provide
such services so as to create an unnecessary amount of noise, in the judgment of
the Director of Public Health or his authorized representative. For the purpose
of this section or Sec. 2915 noise emitted by equipment shall not be deemed
unnecessary or without justification if the person engaged in such services has,
to the extent reasonably feasible in the judgment of the Director, incorporated
available sounddeadening devices into equipment used in rendering those services.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall be unalwful for any person
authorized to engage in waste disposal services, or garbage collection
to operate any truck-mounted waste or garbage loading and/or compacting
equipment or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create
any noise exceeding the following levels when measured at a distance
of 50 feet from the equipment:
(a) On and after a date 6 months after the effective date of this
Article ... 80 dBA
(b) On and after a date 66 months after the effective date of this
Article ... 75 dBA
San Jose, California (10/14/75)
PART 7A. REGULATION OF CABBAGE AND RUBBISH VEHICLES
5307.20. Garbage and Rubbish Vehicles, Moise Levels.
9-30
-------
No refuse collector shall use, in his business, for the purpose of collect-
ing, transporting or disposing of any refuse within the City of San Jose
any motor vehicle or any motor vehicle and trailer which exceeds, during
stationary compaction, 75 dB at a distance of 25 feet from said vehicle
at an elevation of 5 feet from the horizontal base plane of said vehicle.
Notwithstanding the above provisions specifying refuse vehicle
noise levels, the Council may arrange for other or different noise level
requirements, or dispense with noise level requirements for certain
refuse vehicles, as the Council may deem necessary.
Arvada, Colorado (2/75)
Section 2.2.14 Kefuse Compacting Vehicles. The operating, causing
or permitting to be operated or used, any refuse compacting vehicle which
creates a sound pressure level in excess of 74 dB(A), at 50 feet (15
meters) directly to the rear of the vehicle (is prohibited).
Englewood, Colorado (7/18/74)
SEC 6-8-5. SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS
The following acts are declared to cause unnecessary noise in violation
of this Ordinance provided however that the following enumerations shall
not be deemed to be exclusive.
(d) Loading Operations - The loading, unloading, opening or otherwise
handling boxes, crates, containers, garbage containers or other objects
in such a manner as to cause a disturbance; the loading of any garbage,
trash or compactor truck, or any other truck, whereby the loading,
unloading or handling of boxes, crates, equipment or other objects
is conducted within a residential district nor within 300 feet
of any hotel or motel between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
9-31
-------
Lakewood, Colorado (7/23/73)
9.52.130. Truckloading. No person shall load any garbage, trash
or compactor truck, or any other truck, whereby the loading, unloading
or handling of boxes, crates, equipment or other objects is conducted
within a residential district nor within three hundred (300) feet of
any hotel or motel between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Littleton, Colorado (5/74)
Truckloading. No person shall load any garbage, trash or compactor
truck, or any other truck, whereby the loading, unloading or handling of
boxes, crates, equipment or other objects is conducted within a residential
district nor within three hundred (300 feet) of any hotel or motel between
the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Chicago, Illinois
167.8. Scavengers. Zone of Non-Operation: No private scavenger,
its agents or employees shall grind garbage, refuse or other matter
(as defined in Section 267-3 of this Chapter), between the hours of
9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., within the boundaries of the City of Chicago,
except that this Section shall not apply to that area within the boundaries
of O'Hare International Airport and within that area bounded by Michigan
Avenue on the East, and south branch of the Chicago River on the West,
the North branch of the Chicago River on the North and Roosevelt Road
on the South.
Any person violating this Section shall be subject to a fine of
not less than $25.00 nor more than $200.00 for the first offense, not
less than $50.00 nor more than $500.00 for the second and each subsequent
offense in any one hundred and eighty (180) day period.
9-32
-------
Dubuque, Iowa (4/8/74)
Section 2. Noises Prohibited.
(h) Garbage collection. The collection of garbage, waste or refuse
by any person in any area zoned and residential except between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. of any day and then only a manner so as not
to create a loud or excessive noise.
Princeton, New Jersey (10/10/72)
(k) Refuse collection. The collection, transportation or disposal
of garbage, trash, cans, bottles, and other refuse by persons engaged
in the business of scavenging or garbage collection, whether private
or municipal, at any time on Sundays, or other than between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on all other days, except in case of urgent
necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and, if the nature
of the emergency will admit of the prior procurement of a permit, then
only in accordance with a permit first obtained from the Borough Engineer
pursuant to section 4 hereof.
Springfield, New Jersey (3/75)
6.2.11. Refuse Compacting Vehicles.
The operating or permitting to be operated, any motor vehicle which
can compact refuse and which creates, during the compacting cycle, a sound
pressure level in excess of 94 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet from any
point of the vehicle, or between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the
following day (in residential use districts).
New York, New York (4/23/75)
1403.3-5.15. Refuse Compacting Vehicles. No person shall sell,
offer for sale, operate or permit to be operated a refuse compacting
9-33
-------
vehicle manufactured after the effective dates set out in Table IIIA,
which when compacting produces a maximum sound level, when measured by
a sound level meter set for slow response at a distance of ten feet
from the center line of the face of the compacting unit, exceeding the
applicable sound level set out therein.
Table IIIA
Effective date Allowable sound level
December 31, 1974 75 dB(A)
December 31, 1976 70 dB(A)
This local law shall take effect immediately.
Toledo, Ohio (1/4/75)
SECTION 17-15-115. Waste Disposal Services.
It shall be unlawful for any person authorized to engage in waste
disposal services or garbage collection to provide such services so
as to create an unnecessary amount of noise. For the purpose of this
section, noise emitted by equipment shall not be deemed unnecessary
or without justification if the person engaged in such services has
to the extent reasonably feasible in the judgment of the Director of
Pollution Control, incorporated available sound-deadening devices into
equipment used in rendering those services.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall be unlawful for any person
authorized to engage in waste disposal services, or garbage loading
and/or compacting equipment or similar mechanical device in any manner
so as to create any noise exceeding the following levels when measured
at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment when within 500 feet of
a residential zone:
9-34
-------
(a) On or after a date
one (1) year after
the effective date 9 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 9 p.m.
of this ordinance 80 dB(A) 87 dB(A)
(b) On or after a date
48 months after
the effective date 9 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 9 p.m.
of this ordinance 80 dB(A) 82 dB(A)
(c) Impulsive sounds must not exceed the levels specified in (a) or
(b) of this section by more than 5 dB(A)
unless said person has filed an Application for Variance in accordance
with the provisions of this ordinance.
Ogden, Utah (5/25/72)
19.9.2. Prohibited acts specifically. The following acts, among
others, are declared to be loud, disturbing or unnecessary noises in
violation of this ordinance, . . . namely:
L. Garbage trucks. The operation of any garbage pick up in any
area zoned residential on at least one side of the street by the zoning
ordinance between the hours of 7 p.m. anc? 6 a.m.
Salt Lake City, Utah (8/16/72)
Section 39-9-3. Moises Prohibited - Standards. The following acts,
among others, are declared to be in violation of this ordinance . . .:
(i) Garbage collection. The collection of garbage, waste or refuse
by any person in any area zoned residential except between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. of any day and then only in a manner so as
not to create a loud or excessive noise.
9-35
-------
COUNTY SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR TRUCK NOISE LAWS
Cook County, Illinois
9.5 Scavenger Operations
All scavenger operations in the County of Cook, commercial and
municipal, shall limit the actual contact hours involved in the pickup
of refuse and all other solid waste in any residential or business-
commercial zone (Rl through R6 and Bl through B5) whenever regular human
occupancy is involved by virtue of residence only and such place of
regular residence or the institutional equivalents (hospitals, nursing
homes, etc.) to the period of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. These limits apply only
to those contact periods wherein the collection function is in progress in
Rl through R6, Bl through B5 and contiguous portions of Hi through M4
zones and are not intended to include or confine such functions as start
up and shut down operations at the central operating point (transfer
station, sanitary landfill, incinerator, etc.) or the transit time of
the first trip to and the last trip from the defined collection areas.
Noise levels in such central operating points shall be governed by the
property line values applicable for their location (Section 9.14 through
9.17). The exemptions on engine operation when parked, of Section 9.7
shall apply as will the restrictions on new vehicles of Section 9.8(b)
and vehicle use of Section 9.9(a). When under severe conditions it
can be shown to the satisfaction of the Director that operation outside
these hours is in the overall public interest or operationally essential,
a special variance can be requested for such period as can likewise
be shown necessary.
9-36
-------
Sacramento County, California
6.68.140. Waste Disposal Vehicles.
It shall be unlawful for any person authorized to engage in waste
disposal service or garbage collection to operate any truck-mounted waste
or garbage loading and/or composting equipment or similar mechanical device
in any manner so as to create any noise exceeding the following level, when
measured at a distance of fifty feet from the equipment in an open area.
(a) New equipment purchased or leased on or after a date six
months from the effective date of this chapter shall not exceed a noise
level of 80 dB(A).
(b) New equipment purchased or leased on or after forty-two
months from the effective date of this chapter shall not exceed a noise
level of 75 dB(A).
(c) Present equipment shall not exceed a noise level of 80
ciB(A) on or after five years from the effective date of the chapter.
The provisions of this section shall not abridge or conflict with the
powers of the State over motor vehicle control.
9-37
-------
SECTION 9
EXHIBIT A
STATE AND LOCAL LAWS A^'D REGULATIONS
ON
MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE
CONTENTS
1. List of states, counties and cities having noise
laws and regulations and date of onactrr.ent or
adoption.
2. A table showing the decibel limit.3 of each law
.and ordinance and the test procedure utilized.
Prepared by
State Relations Department:
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
of the United States, Inc.
June 24, 1975
9-38
-------
MOTOR vi:
:LE NOIPC
Laws and Regulations
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Washington
City Ordinances
Albuquerque (New Mexico)
Barrington (Illinois)
Billings (Montana)
Birmingham (Michigan)
Boston
Boulder (Colorado)
Chicago ..
Denver (Colorado)
Des Plair.es (Illinois)
Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Helena (Montana)
Lakevood (Colorado)
Madison (Wisconsin)
Minneapolis
Missoula (Montana)
New York
Ogden (Utah)
San Francisco
Sparta (New Jersey)
County Ordinances
Arlington (Virginia)
Cook (Illinois)
Montgomery (Maryland)
Salt Lake (Utah)
Administrative Authorities
Baltimore (Maryland)
Louisiana
Maryland
Milwaukee (Wisconsin)
Minnesota
New Jersey
North Dakota
Washington
Other
Kew Jersey Turnpike Authority
law enacted 1967 (amended 1971, 1975)
law enacted 1971
?y .regulation enacted 1971 (attended 1973)
law enacted 1974 (amended 1975)
by regulation enacted 1972
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1971 (repealed 197-5)
lav; enacted 1972
by regulation enacted 1971
law enacted 1965
by regulation enacted 1974
law enacted 1972
by regulation enacted 1975
law enacted 1975
law enacted 1973
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1973
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1974
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1973
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1973
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1971 (attended 1972)
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1974
law enacted 1972
3aw enacted 1975
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1972
law enacted 1973 (amended 1974)
law enacted 1973
law enacted 1974
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1971
law enacted 1974
law enacted 1974
9-39
-------
to
CO
C
o
u
0)
M
fl]
M
O
o
M
flj
«
o o>
Vl C
O
0) -U
n
Vi nl
l-l
CJ Q
J «
O
u
to Q
M "£.
0 <
^
f*
in
U 2
J O
CJ M
t- EH
= <
y »4
> D
O
A W
O CS
CH
b -
s: in
u
t< e
0 3
u^
j H
a to
<
C_|
=>
Vl
C_4
m * ^ ^ ^ - .
S M in co co n Vi
\p-r~r~co r-oVi
t ^.^ ^^ v^ **v \_ rrt f(\
f^ ^N ^S ^V ^ ^» ^J V**
\r-lr-l^lr-l -HC>
"* \\'vv\ \ 3 O
c^ - ~ »
* i « 1 rH rH < (
Mb < _^*
o **! *<
ViVlViVlVl VlXlX)
OOOOO O'O'O
U_l U 4J 4-> 4J 4-1
rj *4-j n j n j \4_j \4_j \Q f^
co<«;rt;«; -.
o Xi Xi Xi J-> -X3
CQ < < DO
C^
M
0) ^^
u>
o
4J
«J
rH
3
CT
S
3
re
t-
a
^.
A
4.
r
Ci *rt *s« (11
M *J f^\ W
3 o VM o
4J N -H d Vl
O Vl -^ -P «} O
f3 O Vl VI -H 4J
VM .-) O Q> ^ RJ
3 «5 XI O IX V»
C G) -U fi Q)
« a 3 o o Oi
s:
%*
O «.
'a x»
o
CO
CO VO
CO
f*1
r- ro
\r«
H \
^H\
»-l
O
VI Vl
o a>
VM 4->
O VM
« <
ff
§rf
**-* ^s
T3 XI
"O
vo
CO «S«
CO
«*
f*\ ^
1 ^
r» n
v^ r»
^s I
i 1 X^
1 * ^v
i-t
\ 3 O
» 1
3 O
Operator
§,*
m
in
in Vi
4)
C >
3 O
V( J3 XI
OJ T3 -O
*J
VM ^ CO
< CO CO
eo,
in
n in
M
Vl
0) Vl
t»
3 O
XI XI
o -o
vo
co
to
VI
o
4J
n)
M >.
CJ iI
ixe
oo
O
H
-P
O
0)
C!
C
O
u
xi «: <
T3 XI X>
co o in
co r^
M
0)
M
3 1 »-»
i5.^ -d
o "w
rH
O
^<
CJ
<-l
u
r-l
.a
a
L.)
'.1
O
Vl
u
9-40
-------
I
CJ
I
cj
a
73
G
O
O
u,
C,
JJ
w
Cy
64
4_|
Q)
W H >
»< O f3
W Vi Vi H
c -a w
o o AJ c 0 ^s. ro £
r-( rH
*-£ *^ *-N *^C
V< XI XI <-i XI XI
O T3 *O O 'O *O
-i-> JJ
it-i «r XT g_i tn m
< co TO «; r^ f-
in m
0} 01
a
0
*c£
O 0
r** j^j ^ j^
r^ Cu f^* Q<
\Hr-S
\ in IH in
r-i n x^ ro
r-f
o < <
J_j _Q y i O
O T3 CJ *O
V-4 .p
C) n «»-i in
m r*- f$ vo
VI
O
4J
<«
3
Cr
O
CJ
01
Vl
o
nj
Vl >i
O rH
a G
0 0
XJC
-00410
c e
nj «
O 4J
O vo c>
H O «W
O 0
G w m
O 0
4J flj »Cf
5rH Ci .
(t3 fd 01
f. *gt
Vl O -U 0
O CJ 3
in x; 4J O
CJ O rH
rH OJ XI
-P 0
O -H 0 -H
rH fj »
X
rH
X^
u>
Vl
t
fl) rH
O4 G
O O
0) IM
H O
u
-- >. c -c
x: c: o o
OJ (;} -^i ^
> *J JJ
Vl -H ,
*3 O O C nj o
m
O M
'a a)
c >
P o
.Q
eo o
CO O)
ax:
fl&
m
n m
a vi
o «
c >
3 O
i
e
o
Vi
04
M
c
o
rtJ
o en
c
3 Vl
rH O
O O
CO
a
d)
^) ^7 .0 J3
TJ -O T3 'TJ
CO vo ^ O
oo cu TO os
m o
r- r- r~ co
a>
Vl
3
o
C
flj
s
CJ
.u
rl
K
id
-d
H
H
O
C
H
o
0)
-------
Test Procedure
§
d
0)
to
ns
W Q) V)
< M Q)
U) O-O
* C
c x; a
o wx
a 13 a
Vi Q) Q) rfl
3 CJ U V4
W vj-4
0) O
Sin
a>
a vi
o
T>
O -P
Vl O
3 O
W vn
m
o o
2 m
o
nt
«-i o
P
Vl f.
P U
nj
O O
TJ
^
6 CU
e
in o
n in vi
M
j^
0
3
Vl
£H
« n O
m vi e,
r^ O
\ 3 0
i~t in
f£ rij *O
Vl X5 i) C
0) tJ T3 3
-P 0
tJ vo O Qi
<; co en
o
o
o
o
rS
M
O
-p
A
-H
n
cu
^
^5
O
g
O
jo
3
<
(U
^4
U
*r4
pC
co d.
CO JQ .G
** 6 Di
m vo g
r- co in
X M in
*-~t » ^ fO
\ n n vi
~i c^ r^ QJ M
\ \13
-P \ \ 3 O
H ^
cs tt, *e>
r- vi vi XJ ft
^"X^ Q^ ^) HJ *d
1 -^ 1 1 1 1
V^ i[ i i[ i 1^ ^>
r~i ^ rtj co cn
^
13
VO ff.
<» is x:
^ 6 O*
c*l ^? 6
r^ co in
\, mm
X.01 M
H r^ o Vi
V, -O (U
O --i C >
P \ 3 O
rH
rtj
XI
tJ
CO
CO
^
V)
CJ
3
Cr
&
tn
to
O
V)
O
(A
\ Q) T3 fQ
.-I -P
co
O
4J
(d
VI
0)
&
M
Q)
O
3
f.
id
M
O
4J
n)
M
i
O
a
o
s:
d
CO
co
O
-P
«J
0) ^
a:a
'O
O
r> co
l< CO
J3
O » co
co r~
vo r^ en
co en .H
in
\
-i n o
O «< f<
v< A J3
O T3 T3
u-l
«
-(
-1
Vl
Vl
r}
±1
U
«1
*4-(
3
C
s.
13
O
CO
^
CO
[-^
en
f\
\
vo
r-
cn
r-t
\
H
t^4
H
4J
M
O
O
in
CO
f"^
<3\
r- {
^
O
+J
n_i
flj
^^
*v3
O
^
J^
*o
in
CO
w
/»
in
O.
K ^
co in >
r** ro o
vo *O 'O
r--
cr> m r^
f-l CO CO
M
ti
O
a,
£
CO
in
o
6
I XI .Q
vo U rO
r-
cn co oi
H r-» co
w
w
O
in
CO O
r~ in >
en m o
«H
i< irtj
Vl J3 XI
Q) T3 TJ
-P
< CO CO
U)
to
0
D,
^1 fc«
O
m
cu
^ E V-J
CO O
r~ m >
c?> ro o
fl)
XI ,Q
rt
O
rt
-p
M
w -
^ O
O O
a
n)
RJ
O
tn
8
o
9-42
-------
OJ
%
o
o
u
o
yt
a.
4->
W
CJ
£4
(U
O
e
^1
o
tl
13
C
to
.y
O
3
1-1
£**
3
O
a
o
o
o
^
VO
U-l
O
4J
x;
cr>
H
O
^
0
0
H
x:
0
w
CJ
t~t
«-i
X!
0
f^
c5
jj
3
<;
>
M tO
3 W
a o
w
T3 U
C
(3 1
AJ J»i
O U
3 3
Vl V4
£* £-*
*
U) C
VI O
CJ -H
cn -P
C* 'd
CJ W
M c
(0 CJ
n a
a. s
o
en o
G
-t Vl
>! O
)-l U-l
Vl
(3 W
O M
OJ
VI Vl
o a
U-l X
0)
13
M C
3 (3
'O CJ
C D^
(3 d
cr*
a o>
CJ <3
C X)
H t~t
M 13
0 G
'O O
C/J
CJ Vl
1 CJ
o a
r-t
.C $-1
o '»-c
>
O "J
> CJ
u
Vi CP
o
^j t 1
0 O
e
a o
a cj
V) U-l
3
m
Vl t
Q* ^Q
H
U-l 'tj
*H CJ
a vi
CJ 3
a w
W <3
CJ
o e
en
»-l W
«< itj
Q)
rH
XJ
r^
Cj
^
#«|
a
a
m
a
^i
fi$
w
4J
H
S
H
#|
CJ
0)
H
O
G
+J
C
H
c
OJ
x:
M
o
o
r4
Vl
CJ
O4
fl)
e
4J
d
c
04
w
C3
o
o
Vl
CJ
^i
U-l
f£
*,
r-4
r^
\
.H
X»
O^
VI
o
4J
U-l
<2
x:
ax:
E a
e
in
en in
d
Vl
CJ Vl
t3 (U
c >
3 O
*dj rtj
XI XI
ro *o
O O^
x:
ax:
a a
g
in
n in
r^
VI
CJ Vl
*o o
C £»
^ o
*3^ rij
XlXl
13 *X3
CO CO
O
0
o
%
r-
H-l
O
0^
c
H
40
<3
Vl
4J
x:
tr>
H
a>
P
U-l
U-l CJ
< so
f£
XI
a
o
CO
^
VO
r>
x^
H
^x^
r^f
Vl
CJ
4J
U-l
r-4
CJ
>
flj
VI
4J
H-4
o
tr
C
§
M
CJ
Vl
Vl
4J
o
nj
(t
O
VI
«J
3:
X?
e1
in
in
r- o Vi
c >
3 O
Vi XI X)
CJ T3 13
4J
U-i vo o
rtj co crt
K
ax:
Ea
in
n m
«n vi
Vi X) XJ
cj -a t>
UJAO O
ft, t-» 03
Vl
2
(4
Vl
0)
£
Vl
o
g
Vl
o
OJ
-a
c
3
O
a
o
o
o
p
fi
cr>
H
CJ
GJ
r-H
O
H
f:
CJ
w
10
o
Vl
o
*
CJ
0)
el
o
a
p a
u c; >
V-l O Ci "i
3 O U Vl
tn u-i -P
<3 CJ
o o x: ; in P o
to
M
x:
ax:
e a
e
o
vi
oj
>
3 O
T3
U-l VO O
ft, co en
U)
w
o
p
nj
V4 >1
CJ rH
a c:
oo
o o
3 O
a :
tr
3 ^
XI OJ
O
v«
o
u
Vl
o
01
M
t:
b
a.
o
o
o
*
ca
A
ax:
e a
g
o
«3> O
IA Vl
r^ cj vi
XT) o
-* c >
^ 3 O
«: -=>:
vi xi xi
o 'O 'O
4J
U-l VO 0*1
f$ r~ 03
U-l
O
4J
f.
H
CJ
^;
r-l
O
-H
x:
-------
CJ
^
^
~j
y
U
O
IH
C-,
4J
w
a
6
O
Vl
M 0)
a w
Vi CJ O O
3 CJ C 0
wT *M M
r) CJ 3
a m x: O
< < < <
X) J X) XJ
-c -a -o T3
co vo «r in
co co co r~
^ ^ * *
w
jii
u
3
Vi
t<
O ro m O
r- r> r~ co
"X "v, ^x "v^
rH rH rH rH
V*x ^X ^X^s
rH rH ^H rH
Vl Vl Vl Vl
O O O CJ
4J 4J 4J 4J
V.-r-( rH rH
rH \\\
r-\ ^H ^H
CJ
JH J-I Vl Vl
O O O i
3
Q
f£
JH
3 1 ^
4J -H TJ
O *»H CJ
C -H G Vl
IW 4J 0-rt
^* .. (_._! r<
I* ** ^ ^ ^> w
c rH o 4J cr1
r! r: u d .
1
*H
u
C -~
P tl
tr> o
G G
-H *f"i
HrH
Vl .H
n -^
CJ
VI
o
^
M
o
'O
c
3
0
O
o
o
CO
o
4J
x:
^TI
H
a
3
CJ
rH
U
rl
JZ
a
Ci
n
0
J_j
O
*
CJ
4!
c
4J CJ
ia u
-a o
a> JJ jj x
V4 CJ O -U
3 CJ CJ
oi u-i IM 2
*3 O
xi
o *o 'O
4-1
u-i «a- o
< r» co
0}
V|
0
4J
1^
Vl >,
CJ rH
CU f3
o o
*^*
0) A]
O* C«
C r4
H J i^
rH rt
rH O
fl ^"*
03 ^
rH
O
^
(3
V4
4'
VtJ
0
3J
C
rtJ
CJ
o
&
V4
o
CO
a
c,
3
O
04
o
o
o
o
rH
14
O
4J
_rj
CP
H
XJ .C
QJ jC 04 jr!
e a E a
e E
in in
<*> tn ri m
co f*i n
r** JH co j-i
\ o JH t-» oj u
rH t3 O \ 13 O
\ C > rH C >
f> 3 O V, 3 O
CJ f£ *£ *£ <£
M X) X) JH XI jD
O 'O *O CJ *O *O
U_j .p
O vo o UH oj vo
3 CO <3\ ft. CO CO
*
.C J3
e DJ e cu
E E
m in
* o"i m f**i in
CO f*") * C*\
0*^ JH co j-i
\ o n r- o n
^X C > rH C >
r- 3 O V> 3 O
CJ < f£ f£ «<
j-i X* xi JH xi XI
O 13 'O O T3 *O
HJ 4-1
O VO IS UH O
C3 r*" co rfj p- p*
V)
M
O
P
rd
CJ rH
Ou G
0 0
5 £
.G itj
C^ Cr*
r, -H
fi 0
VI -H
£4 ^J-
9-44
O
VI
o
g
Vl
0
U)
o
G
3
O
cu
o
o
o
o
H
«W
O
iJ
J^
cr>
r-t
O
*J
0)
rH
o
^
OJ
^
en
to
O
VI
u
^c
rH
41
H >
O n>
W VI Vl
^M O ^
O 4J»
CJ -V G *M
Vl O CJ O
a 0 o
M 4-1 O
n] 0) C
o o x: «
K in 4-> rH
xj .a x» x)
7) TJ 'd fO
co vo ^t* m
co co co r»
*» *» % %
o fi m o
r- t*- r^ co
X. Sw ^. **x^
rH rH rH rH
^N. V^ V^N^
rH rH rH rH
Vl Vi M Vl
a o o o
4J 4J -IJ 4J
VM »j-J tw M-|
^ ^ ^ *^
*
n^*
xi <; ft, f£
13 XI X) X)
'0 'O 'O
V£>
co T? o in
co o> r-
^
fo - « »
c-> M in o
\ r- r- co
rH "^x*^*^
\ r-t r-\ rH
rH ^"^ ^SN.>\
rH rH rH
O
O G O CJ
\^\ ±\ 4_) 4.J
£i IK UM n_i
0 < ff, ft.
to
0
3
4J
U
*M
3 >!
G rH
n3 G
X 0
G
o
(/I
O
a
(U
VI
o
E
£4
0
w
t»
c
3
O
Cu
o
o
o
o
H
U)
01
O
5-1
O
*
<3 G
H 1
F. ci x: 14
4J O O 4J O
(3 s U M -H |
1 J t^t "^ > ^ J
TD W O -G
C) rj 4J 10 *O D^
Vl O O CJ --H
P ( CJ O <- Vl
O «H ui «1
rj 4J -ri O CJ 5
o <3 m o o x: «
Si CN C rH 4J :
o
X >
Cn o
3 XJ
O .1
}*(
XI T3
4J Jj
nt
>i
^s w
a -o
c c
0 3
< so
/Q CU
a G
O o
00 0
CO O
* e -
o
DjrH
0 MH
o O
10 O»
G
O -rf
4J 4J
(T$
VI
£
4J
O
01 0\ nl
Vi C 1-1
0 -n 3
4J Vl G
rj 3 ifl
Vl >i t3 fi
CJ rH
Hi fl >i <>J
O O *J
X
*J >t
m
Vl G *^
(U -rl J-I
Oi f. '.^
rH P »>
^3 -«-4 i^
0 3= "»
m *
-------
a
d
it
O
jj
' 0) iH
i *-> U)
U C >
U CJ o 13
rj i u> O Vi
in VM 4J
O i/l 0>
o o o x: m
>.< -H m P o
ui -u c e >u
T O r3 O C
o c x: vi W cH
XJ XJ X»
'U T3 'O
us rr in
co co r^
*» ^ ^
en
^
CJ
2
v<
£-<
e^i m o
fx (** CO
v^ x^ v^
* 1 rH i i
V^ V^X^
( r-\ w-\
Vt V< VI
O O O
4-J JJ -M
IM 4_< t*-|
f£ f£ f£
*
1
*Q rfj rfj *£
I .Q ,Q J^
*O 'O *O
'.1
CJ
0 t
^
«X2
o
e
o
4->
^j
f^
T o in
CO CO f**
- - ..
ro in o
r-> r> co
"NX x^ x^
-I ^1 r-l
x^x^x^
-t r* r-\
t j i. ii
o o aj
4-* 4J 4J
IK n-i «-i
«s fJj «i3
0)
w
o
U
CJ
r-4
3
C^
O
C£
1)
o
c
<3
c
M
-a
u
o
x.
4J
'ft
O
^1
3 1 -%
U p^i fc3
O t-l H)
O -H
3 Vl-H 3
C O 4J CP
fl5 CJ fij ^)
X O Vi
o
tr*
flj
o
H
x«
0
ax:
n ou
m in
s. ro
CO W
r^ o M
x^ 13 o
rH C >
\ D 0
r-l
*5j rtj
Vi _f) .^
a) T3 HD
4J
*W VO O
«J co cn
x: x:
ax: ax:
e a e a
e e
m in
» n m ro in
co ro «. n
r*^ Vi co vi
x^ ^j vi r^ o Vi
r-t -a o \ 'O cj
\ C > r-l C >
^ 3 O \ 3 O
j |
O /aj /^ rfj
»-i
o
^
«;
ta xi
Ul T3
O
Vl O
O co
*
0
^1
o
4J
fij
M ^*
0» rH
a. c:
0 O
o
*o
0
5jp If.
0) O
J> r-|
c o
a) o
Q *""
w
D
t:
3
o
a
o
o
o
^
o
0
4J
x:
H
0)
^
CO -rH CTl
M (U
x:
e ^
d
(360
o «s <
0 Xl
.. o -a
r- o
.. CO
>w r> co
O
o »a
M C C W
H PJ nj >,
3 fll
0 M 3
x: 6 «s o
. Q) ta
a a vi M
O rj >w
,
«H o ^O rj
Xl -*-i 3
<3 tn w x:
o vi o cr>
H 3 H -<
rH O X!
ax: c
a -H tj
nj C fl)
O < i-l
-U O X) CJ
*H J *^ ^
e -u rf
ft a o 1-1
t4 CO CO JJ
Q) ^H
4-) (1)
*J C >
«J : O U Vl
M <*-i -U
aw a
a o o .c m
f-t 1 1 -(
M Vi Vl
O CJ Vl
n *i O
fx c> Vi ti
\ ';.> o
' ' *"* i^1 M
\ ':< o o
'-^ «; c/i
vi .a .a T3
0 '0 '0 C
J-) 3
t-i vjo o o
e£ C5 O Cb
0
O
o
^
03
U~4
O
4J
fi X JZ
ax; n,.c; &
e a i; P4 -H
e GO
in in ^
v m to <*i t/i
c3 ro » r*i o
(x Vl CO 1-| i-H
\ o Vi rx ,-j vi o
-H 'O o \ ^ >y -H
\ c > x:
rH 3 O \ -J O 0
-t ( >
V( XI X) M .2 X! 01
O t3 'O 11 rO 'O 01
U-i -U O
(1) VO (N '-M c.t> o Vi
CQC^CQ /J^r^c^* O
X
Vl
o
^»
t_l
a)
Q
9-45
-------
0)
=>
C-'
u
0
Vt
a,
»J
11
CJ
6
o o
vi c
VM *^ 1
73 "-* CJ
CJ -P >
i-* CJ t-4 <^
DOOM
W U-l -P 4J
rd C
r> O o >*-i
X m u O
.O
T3 'O 'O
CO
co vo ^r in
O3 CO (^
^
CO «* * *
C1
*M
Cj
£j
£
r^ n in o
\ r^ f^ co
i \ \\
\ rH rH ^1
^^^^f
V? M Vl Vi
o cj K
±J
f\
U
(fl
o
CU^
ITJ ni
cj tr>
-H
T3 X*
C O
«J -H
Vl S
o
o 6
C 00)
I CUC
13 x: -i cj
0 -P -P >
V4 CJ Vi r}
3 t G CJ Vl
1/1 10 U-l -P 4J
rO I/I C
O O O O U-l
a -H ui o o
*X^
cux:
& cu
e
m
ro in
^ ro
fO V)
1""^ CJ Vl
*^^v t!3 OJ
-H C >
\ 3 O
Vl X! X>
OJ *O 'O
4J
u-i «> o
rtj co cr>
XI XI
CU X* O^ X»
g CU C CU
g 6
m in
. ro m n m
co n ^ m
^"* ^1 CO ^-4
\ O Vi r~ o Vi
*~H T3 CJ "\ T3 O
^x. C > ^< C >
r^ 3 O \ 3 O
QJ f£i f^ ff, ff.
in XJ XI Vi XJ, X)
O *X3 'O CJ ^ t5
U-l 4-1
O CO (N <+-! oo O\
p) r- co *5j r^ o
M
0
nJ
Vl
0)
cu
0
0)
M
O
g
VI
o
w
a
0
o
o
o
o
H
O
^j
x:
en
H
CJ
^
CJ
u
f\
A
CJ
£>
(/I
M
O
}_(
o
*
Si
TI Vi nj o m c
CJ O «N CJ
V( U >, C U
3 -I r3 (0 -P
W -! S -P M g
<3 XJ 1 W tj O
CJ 3 *w ~^ CJ Vl
2 CU O 'O -» u-»
<
J3
^3
CO
CO
**
n
r»»
x^
in
v^
o
M
OJ
-P
\n
ft.
1
XI
o
CO
%
<"*!
^
x^
in
^«^
o
ii
Vi
OJ
.p
m
*4
C/)
Vl
o
4J
flj
VI >i
OJ /-I
Q. fj
00
^^»
n)
f*
«J ri
C -P
G) G
rH O
Gl >-i
T* ^ '
9-46
G
4J (^
in ^
o
M 0
a *
PJ U-l
G u-i
^H Vj
0 -P
O
F. -X)
O 0) ra
V4 -H tJ
u~i o 4J r:
T> -H CJ 3
a> p x: o o
u a o O»
W U-l V«
r3 O 3 CJ
o m js o x:
CJ
M
O
6
Vl
o
13 *<
C X)
3 *O
O
04 co
CO
O -X
0
o
n.
o
H
U-l
O
fi
cn
H
CJ
£
0
r^i
u
r-l
J3
O
w XJ
OT 13
O
VI 0
O co
*
0)
Vl
o
4J
(U -«
cue
00
"o"
*CJ 13
O rt
O Vl
£ O
OJ r-\
X 0
«J CJ
9
t/)
c
o
13
CJ
Ul
ftj
XJ
a
CO
CO
X
in
r-
^s
X.
^
CJ
^j
IM
"S
*
XJ
VO
CO
x
in
r-.
"\
rH
\
^H
j^
0
.p
U-4
^
W
Vl
0)
3
P
O
W
g
rj
"^
C
O
(17
^1
T3
rj
O
l^
0
fj
Vl
o
01
*o
c
Jj
o
cu
0
o
o
»
VO
tt
0)
O
Vl
o
*
rH
£i
O
3
01
C*
o
o
W
rl
s
-------
-1
-%»
^
^1
o
P _
*J
ir
^'
£l
U
f.
(Jl
C
o
3
a
w
o
a
^
*3«
(,1
^
r^.
\^
o *~*
' **>*
Vi
EH
rH
Vl
O
JJ
UJ
<^
n
o
rH
-H
X!
0
C
o
-J
3
^
f^
r-
x^
rH
^s^
rH
o
Vl
o
*4-4
CJ
CQ
01
a
4-1
f$
rH
3
O
C
M
Vl
0
-p
nJ
0)
O*
o
a
u
c
rj
'c
ri
rrj
Vl
O
^.,
P
rH
01
-r*
f
O
a
(*J
0
C
C
X'
o
3
1/5
r3
O
V)
w
o
Vl
o
ff^
a.
in
ro
^
£>
'O
^r
CO
U)
M
CJ
r-f
Vl
O
JC
C
0
Vl
V-4
4J
£)
a
u-<
O
in
JS
a,
e
in
<">
C
a
jz
.P
OJ
1_|
0
£
*£
_Q
TJ
^r
CO
^,
a,r^
e
in
n
<;
.Q
fQ
r^-
**x
rH
\
f i
Vr
O
4J
Vi
0)
c
0
o
0)
_r^
JJ
k
r-
r~
\^
rH
^x.
rH
Vl
o
^J
IM
#^
cn
n
o
rH
Vl
0
JJ
04
g
in
n
(tj;
f)
Tj
rt^
X!
'O
in
r-*
s:
a.
e
m
m
c
j3
p
«
^
O
e
^
j3
*O
in
r-
n u-i in
r-^
^
r-i
C
O
« ^
rtB
u
O
w
o
G
C
I
S3
<
kD
w «
4J tJ
H O
e a)
H U-4
rH
O
O "1
Q)
CJ *O
a c:
w m
TJ -H
CJ CJ
*- CJ
Ul U-J
o
a.m
M
A;
o »
a -p
Vl CJ
-P aj
14H
T)
C 0
nj M
<1) -P
rH (^
H
JQ t3
O CJ
e M
O 3
-P W
o id
nj QJ
e
M
O >
IM oj
Vi
M O
P £
H
e M
H O
rH
rf
rH DJ
O 6
>
CJ O
rH \O
V O
W -P
H
O M
C M
CJ
w /~^
0)
u-i O
r-|
0 J^
O Oj
vxe
M
in
0 04
w
< td
*
w
^
u
0
M
4J
Vl
O
QJ
rH
,Q
nj
O
.,_!
rH
D.
Q,
t$
CJ
x:
^
a)
13
0
f^
VI
OJ
a.
OJ
g
4J
-a
c
nl
0)
G
G rH*
P O
f3 Vl Vl
«M CJ rH
O P OJ
cj 4J r, >
Vi CJ (U tg
3 CJ U Vl
W <*H p
«3 CJ
CJ m _f* ^_(
5C (N ^j o
IC]^
XI «<
'O
r^
O^ i i
c^
*>
CO ^
p** fl
\ r>-
rH \^
^\ »H
*~* X^
r {
0
Vl VI
O CJ
U-( 4J
O W-l
ff) f£
yt
ft:
A4
-a
rH
CT^ CT*
CO
^
CO «
r~ f*i
^^x r^
rH "X
"X r-i
*"* rH*
CJ
M Vl
o 1
G /-<
ra q
SO
^^
flj n)
-< c
3 i
m x: >, 'u u o
O v< u ^-i O
o o o ' 4 i .T. jr. u o c. "~i o o Vi .n n
m o> 'j o cr> P --H '* f^ u o :) c. o c .t: o
CJ rH CM rj c U > -< > CJ '-1 IN C '« ^i -i-1 cj
Vi f)4 O OJ O -H rH id Vi O, (JO "J -< U>
3 w -< -H .IT; v< -y vi n ui 3x0 t:
1/1 P rs C -H '_j o '-i -u in j-> p n o ,':: o H r<
'OcJcOtiXi j' r3'Hj;'-(
o c --i ^ ^r rJ c o w w o o -^ u rj -H x; cj -a
2^ H-l [j >m J.J Qj '.H g -rH -rH i^ t-l g ^ 1 X S > '^
cn o
w w
O CJ
fH rH
M Vl
ox: ox:
Q! O.
x: g x: t;
a, a.
P. in 6 in
H r*^ ^ r^i
04 m cs in
r^ ro Vi t-» m Vi
X cj \ iu
H -P > rH -P >
X «J O X "3 O
o% cn
>< Xl Xl Vl Xl XI
CJ "U 1} C) T3 'O
*» -P
'i-l ^O O 4-1 CN W)
»aj oo cn e£ cn cn
*" ^
XI X« ^* X«
Oi x: o,fi o, j.: Oi x:
e a e 04 t-; o. g o^
e E n e
in m m m
r>i m m m - n LI n in
CO f*^ ^ (^1 O3 CO ^ O^
r^ Vi co vi r^ vi co Vi
\CJVi C-OVl XOM (^CJVl
~l 1J O X Tj CJ >-H TJ O X "O CJ
\t:> -ic> XG> rHc>
-iyo xyo ^130 XDO
i j
"3
Vi
4J
o
\i
o
e
Vl
o
tn
'O
cj
3
O
a
o
0
o
*
CO
i^i
O
-p
x:
Cr>
H
CJ
^
a
u
H
f^
O
*
m
m
o
V4
o
-x
O S ^
9-47
-------
4J O fj
O u-i .C
C ^
o
rj f- 4J
'J X" O
O 4-> M U-l
H UH O
3 =
m M 4-> o
r! cn O C
O O O -H
v* ff 1^4 ff
a
a>
a
4-1 O
OJ -«J
4->.a> ni
rO W4 CJ O 0) CT>
to o x: -H
TJ m
Q) CM O
H C
3 -P
to to
rj rj
-P
x:
H rH 4-> ,|
01
CJ O
S; rH U4
C O >
U -H -iH r
0)
,'J
C >
O rj
o Vi
01 .C
E o
o c
V4 -H
-iJ O
O m .C
O
c
-H
= r:
<3 tn O C rS
O QJ O O M
S rH m O 4J
rH tO
nj nj
H O
M M *
C rtJ
0)
O SH
H (U
> to x:
ro O *>
r- M O
in X> X!
O "O t3
U-l U3 O
«3l CO CA
flS
M
ra
rj rt
H O
I j t *
G fiJ
CQ
a)
H
Xl
o
§
3
CJ
TJ H
H C)
^ w x:
fO CJ 4J
r- M O
x.
r- I C G
\.-r( -H
rH
J4 X) X)
O rO T3
4-1
U-| 1C O
rt, co cn
iH
O
4J
CU G
oo
co
0)
4->
10
rH
3
Cn
OJ
K
U O
G s:
O «3
Tl 4J
w
>-q
O
M
M
W
o
EH
9
o
w
^
04
S!
§
C
o .
U) R)
r4. -H
O G
G M
(d O
G m
rd U
V)
I
4J
r^ -H
\rG
00 4J
CN -H
ff, W
4J
U-l CO
ft CO
04
H
A
c/)
G
§
4J
(N
CO 4-1
«N -H
<: w
J-4 jQ ^*
G) 'O -H
4-1 fi
U-l CO -H
ri! CO H
O
.p
G rH
£XG
00
CO
0)
Q. S3
*h
>*x TJ
H G
Xs. 3
rH
(TjJ
nx>
4J
UH VO
rtj CO
*
x:
CJ
>
o
rt«
X)
13
O
o\
more
}_i
o
tn
G
3
0
di
0
o
o
»
o
rH
Xl Xl Xl
'O 'O rO
10 « in
co co r^
ro in o
r*^ r^ co
x. x. x^
rH rH rH
X, X. X»
rH rH rH
M M VH
CJ CJ 0)
4J 4-' 4-*
U-l U-l U-l
r3^ (^ f£
*
»
ro
X.
rH
X.
rH
Q)
^
0
U-l
O
ca
A
CU
e
m
ro
o
*"U
r4
3
<
.a
ro
CO
CO
"Si
e
in
ro
U
0)
>
o
^
X!
13
O
CTi
.C
EJ
m
ro
ro Vi
f- a
X. T3
-H C
X. 3
rH
O
rtj
X!
*^3
0
cn
rj
5.1
q
M
O
'/I
t1
G
O
ft
O
o
o
*,
CO
9-48
,d
cux:
S D<
in
ro m
x fO
in SH
r^ o in
*x *d Cj
rH G >
X. 3 O
rH
< *<
M Xl Xl
cj -a -a
U-| VO ^J1
f£ f*-* CO
W
M
O
n
CJ rH
OJ
o
c
G
H
Vl
o
J>..
4J
C
3
O
O
a. G
0 O
G "ft
O -H
-P G
G cn
*H VH
rH -H
(H >
^ v^
4J
f:
tr*
-rH
O
£5
(U
rH
(J
H
£l
OJ
^
cn
CO
O
o
k
/ef| rtj -i
X^ ^x "X rH *XJ O
rH rH rH X. G >
X..X.X rH 3 O
rH rH rH
CJ f?, (£
M ^4 M V-4 X) X)
CJ CJ O O 'O t3
4-> 4-1 4J UH
l[ 1 l[ ] \^j (11 y^o fNJ
<<1 f^ f£ c3 r^ co
M
O
M
3 1 *-»
4-> -rl >O M
O "W a) O
rt -H C M -P
U-l 4-> O -H «J
3 SH -H 3 Vi
C CJ 4J D' CJ
rj (J A3 OJ O-»
S ^ 0 5H O
i7
H
O
G
T-l
^ rH
0 «H
O H .
CJ
4J
r, &
Qj j£ tip
fi CU -H
g CJ
in D:
ci in
~ ro
CO ^4
r- o VH <,
^TJ O -rl
rH G > .::
\ rJ o <~)
rH >
aj
W X) Xl f,
CJ TJ T3 tl
4J (J
ui o cn si
a', r-- r^ v5
-x
-------
69/££0-Tt'Z-0
*
O
n
O
to
o
p*
p-
o
M
(0
^
(I*
p-
ft
0
<
(p
h-»
O
O
O ~J *«J Jf
O CO Ul l-h
rt
13 fli d> fD
o cr cr n
C/ ^ Iw*
a ocx
cu n. x
ti o vo
H 0
,»JV ^
Ul *»
Ul
3
0_ 3
c c cjj"
rt H C
O ^O C-i
H P- D
p- X" hj
rt (0 to
*C 0
o o
< n
rt
O
to
vj *O Jf CO "O ^
VD O Hi N* cri M)
rt rt
Cl, DJ Ti> DJ CO- O
tr cr n cr cr ^
'ft 'fi Jf ^f
OCX OCX
< 3 M < 3 (-*
(D fi> X C5 fi> X
H fo >J *^ ft) ~J
(^ CO ^ *"
u> * u> -
ui u> ui co
Ul Ul
3 3
V 3 '03
tr P-
*
CO CO > VD CO >
it^- O Hi O C7* Hi
rt rt
d. C) O Du CL. O
cr cr H. cr cr M
> > > >
OCX OCX
fD CL \ C5 D, X
hi O -J h^ fD ^O
^ CO 1-1 U>
iX^» * CO "^
ui ^ ui co
Ul Ul
3 3
03 T3 3
rt o MI s
H CD CD CD
tu 3 CD 0)
< rt ft M
CD fD C
M l-< Mi h
i-t fD
M o a
0) 3
3 cn
fD rt O
0 CD
Mi
"f 1-3'^
c c r~
-"
rt H £
O ^O C-i
H H- D
p- X" hj
rt n> to
*< ©
**
o o
H" ' Cl>
< n
c>
rt
O
to
1 U V \J
O - . in
rt . , C P>
D" rt M
0> P> .rt
^ t-i
' P1
, , \ X
0
0 0
P 'O
. M CD
fU
/ rt
^ 0
H
in
»-* *2
K 0
PI 3
H rt
K vq
i- 0
P 3
M 0
£u t-f
o n
n O
a r:
H- y
3 rt
ftl ^
3
O
a
* " *£
0 0
3 'O
H- fp
< M
tu
rt
O
H
to
»
fD
XI
C
\->
ft"
rt
fD
(A
*
CD
O
to
to
CD
P-
O
O
s:
o
H>
o
o
o
o
c
a
w
3
O
D
CO O Js*
CO O°i Hi
rt
P; ti fD
cr cr n
CD fix
H fD «-J
M CO
Ul CO
3 ^
'O 3
w
VO CO D-'
O Hi
rt
DJ D> CD
cr cr n
o c
fD
D vj
CO
Ul CO
3^
3
it-
CD
O
to
O
ft)
C
CD
P-
O
M»
I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
w
3
O
H
CD
CO -O Jf
tO O1 Hi
rt
&. CX D
cr cr hi
o c o
< 3 X
fD f^ t^
ii fD X
CO CTl
Ul CO »
Ul
£3
VD CO >>
O cr» i-t»
rt
fi Cb Q
cr cr H
O c o
CD a H-
I-! O X
CO cv>
Ui CO ^
Is
P"'O
c
rt
O
3
O
cr
p-
ra
to
c
o
to
rt O MI S
n CD CD CD
tu 3 CD 0)
< rt ft M
CD fD C
M l-i Mi h
l-( fD
h-g a
O 3
3 cn
fD rt O
**
0 fD
Mi
ft O Ml S
i^ (D CD CD
0) 3 CD fi)
< rt rt cn
CD CD C
M H Mi i-(
K (D
M O O-
£y ^
3 cn
fD ft O
P*
O CD
Mi
rt O Mi 2
H CD fD CD
0) 3 CD 0)
< rt rt yi
CD CD C
t-1 h Ml H
( CD
M o a
H- 3
3 cn
CD rt O
3"
O fD
Ml
-3
CD
0)
rt
^3
M
O
O
CD
a
c
n
CD
o
I
-------
|