-------
>
o
<
z
o
u
ua
H-
o
a:
a.
ES
> w
2 M
LU
5
W
_1
a.
S
O
O
2
O
O
LU
ull
M C
•rt O(
< S
.. a.'
< O
UJ 0.
5 <
Q
as
o
o
O iu
Z S
in
r-t
1
9)
U
C
ca
3
CO
en
"*
jj
»— *
3
o-
i»i
-•»
Ul
a
o
u
a
z
^
*•••
LU
— *
£
2
0
Z
o
trt
5
Ul
a
^
V)
H-
2
Ul
—
a.
5
0
U
u
ULATIVE
S
D
O
eo
a
u.
u
Ul
_,
Ul
^
Ul
j
1
_J
Ul
^
Ul
1
Ul
Ul
-4
1
**1
J
Ul
Ul
J
-J
Ul
>
J
a>
OS <^
£ O
u. £
Ul
ee <
o> S
>• v>
U. Ul
Ul
CC
«)
^
Ul
5
Ul
L^
^
H
f—
2
Ul
Z
C£
m
a.
s
O
u
u
<
ca
i
•
.
o
co
r- O O
vO
O
o
03
0 -* 0
in o
0
^
o o o — -*
1
i
1
IB
"1 O O (•
r-.
0
0 10
•o
3 C •»
a> « co x ca
A G O U . • •
u to co eg
^J Ql T3
jj — bi Q Vj **
o u 3 ca , -3
C t3 04 4J CM
CO 3 -D 3 CD -H CJ
u co >-w 0 4J CT U
CO O ^^ C ^J U3 O
S jj cu co c a) M-4
a) o c •upvc JJ
""
N.
w
-_
a*
09
f^
O
ii o S .2 o Q- "** ^! § . \rt
ui^;uo.>*-i-^«c,4j ' { s.
C 1-1 Oi 00) crO 0 X jfl
O Q ^^ C^ Cl« Ci) Z CJ co ^H
n
-'••^
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
kFORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO OANR MEDIA: Air
Emission Standards and Technology Assessment
APPRO: A&c
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of this decision unit are (1) the setting of new
source performance standards (NSPS), their periodic review and revision,
and (2) the setting of national emission standards for hazardous air pollu-
tants (NESHAP). NSPS identify minimum acceptable national Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) and provide uniform guidance on alternative control
technologies, thereby significantly reducing State and regional resources
otherwise required for an estimated 4600 annual case-by-case BACT determina-
tions. A secondary objective of the decision unit is to make available
information on Reasonably Available Control Techniques (RACT) applicable to
stationary sources of air pollution for consideration by the States in
developing control strategies for incorporation in implementation plans.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
New Source Performance Standards for petroleum storage tanks, steam
electric power plants, glass manufacturing, nonmetallic mineral processing,
selected sources in refineries, and bulk terminals were proposed.
Regulations for sewage sludge incinerators, kraft pulp mills, lignite
fired steam generators, sulfur recovery plants in petroleum refineries,
grain elevators, lime plants, stationary gas turbines, and steam electric
power plants were promulgated. A guidance document concerning the lowest
achievable emission rate was issued for comment. As required by the Clean
Air Act, a list of major source categories (to be regulated by NSPS) was
developed and proposed in the Federal.Register. Guidelines defining
reasonable available control technology were issued for 15 source
categories. Also, studies to determine if existing NSPS need to be revised
were initiated for 10 source categories. The asbestos NESHAP was revised
to control the use of asbestos-containing decorative sprays. The vinyl
chloride amendment"was finalized. Regulations to control benzene emissions
from bulk terminals and selected refinery sources was published for comment.
Regulations to control hazardous emissions from coke ovens were proposed
for comment. Engineering guidelines to implement Section lll(d) were finalized
for sulfuric acid plants and proposed for kraft pulp mills.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The 1979 Program provides for promulgation of three NSPS; proposal of
nine NESHAP and seven NSPS and development work on seven additional NESHAP
and 33 additional NSPS. The NSPS development work includes the maj-or pro-
gram for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI).
Screening studies will be undertaken on up to 10 potentially major organic
solvent source categories not contained on the promulgated "list." Review
of six and revision of two existing NSPS will be undertaken. Three Section
lll(d) guidelines will be developed. Three control technique documents will
be developed, and control technique guidelines documents will be developed for
two petroleum categories, three solvent-use categories, 100 organic chemical
process sources, and synthetic organic chemical manufacturing fugitive losses,
secondary sources, and storage and handling.
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
:iSION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
1 UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA| AIR
STDS & TECHNLGY ASSESStlNCl EIS PREPAPPROj A & C
"* ""•••• •••••'••'•>•••••••••••••••«•••»•••••«»••••••• — »m»mmm m m • m m m •»••
E SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
SITIONS PFT lij.o 121.0 91,0 91,0
°PFT 8.0 13.0 10.0 10.0
FT^ 139.5 120.3 120.3
AUTH. (000.0) 9,410,0 15,975.3 1«,231.5 ia,231.5
Ion and Benefits "
ilopment of NSPS and NESHAP involves screening studies to charac-
le growth, emissions, processes and control technologies employed
dustry; emission tests of best controlled sources; analysis of
alternatives; development and adaptation of reference test methods;
it of the applicability of contiaaimis monitors; cost assessments;
omic impact analyses. These studies: are published in a Standards
Environmental Impact Statement {&5EIS} which accompanies the pro-
each standard. On the average it takes three years from the
n of a screening study to the proBttlgation of a standard. The
f standards promulgated in any one year will be approximately 1/3
otal number of standards under dsaelopment (excluding litigation).
, level 1 funding will, on the soerage, result in promulgation of
S per year. At this rate, all isajor source categories would be
by NSPS in approximately 8 years, or 4 years beyond the final date
ihed by the CAA amendments.
scifically, funding at this level provides for promulgation of NESHAP
ibestos source categories, arsenic for copper smelters and 9 benzene
:ategories; and NSPS for phosphate rock, carbon black, internal corn-
engines, sulfur recovery for oil and natural gas fields, organic
degreasing, lead battery, non-metallic minerals, organic chemicals,
and handling, and auto surface coating. Emission testing for
.ate matter will include quantification of inhalable fractions.
lal NESHAP will be proposed for 3 coke oven sources. NSPS will be
1 for 14 additional categories of najor sources. Control technique
:s (CTDs) will be revised for SO and particulate matter. The
.ate matter CTD will include analysis of small particle particulate
of Not Funding This Level
t funding this level will eliminate EPA programs directed at hazar-
r pollutants and national standards of performance for major new
Activity in both of these areas is mandated by the Clean Air Act.
case of NESHAP, EPA would be forced to neglect the responsibility for
ion of health. Dropping the NSPS program will result in: case-by-case
terminations being made with inadequate support, and resultant
ed litigation; the likelihood of Hide State-to-State inconsistencies
determinations and the potential for State-to-state competition for
•y based on differing BACT requireaents and resultant economic in-
:s; significant increases in States manpower required for BACT reviews
. manpower for oversight/audit of State BACT determinations. In the
s of enormous increases in such manpower, many of the estimated 4600
0-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
EMISSION STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (A205)
Continuation
REG.
MED|A Air
APPRO: A&C
nciOUKCE SUMMAY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 nf 06
OF
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
annual BACT determinations will be made essentially without review and the
level of BACT will be determined by the sources.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2t DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAf AIR
A205 EMISS STDS & TECHNLGY ASSESSCINCL EI8 PREPAPPROf A i C
V tf V ** •••••• 9 •} V V • V • • • V • •! ip Mt • W • • • ••• • <• • •• • M • MM A^ ^ M M ^ • • IP ^M ^ ^ ^ IM^ ^ ^^ ^K^ ^ ^ ^^^B^^ ^
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 111.0 121.0 18.0 109,0
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 13.0 5.0 13,0
02 °F 06 FTE 139,5 - 13,2 133,5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 9,410.0 15,975,3 2,8«fe.3 17,077,8
Description and Benefits - '
Funding this level provides for further development and proposal of:
(1) NESHAP for 3 additional hazardous pollutants: vinylidene chloride,
ehtylene dichloride, and acrylonitrile; and (2) NSPS covering 5 additional
source categories: industrial surface coating (coil), refinery heaters,
vegetable oil, textile processing, and steel foundry NSPS. Control technique
guidelines (CTG) documents will be produced for 100 synthetic organic chemical
processes and NSPS-SSEIS development initiated for asphalt roofing, dry
cleaning, and coal gasification.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level eliminates NESHAP for the three identified
hazardous pollutants. This will likely result in litigation and will result
in adverse health impacts. Not funding NSPS at this level increases the
.adverse-impacts^ which result ^f r.om^the_aosence^ of, national BACT specifications
and guidance which would be produced at this level. It also will result in
the inability to produce CTG documents and increases difficulty in regulation
of these sources under SIP.
J12
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO MEDIA| AIR
A205 EMISS STDS & TECHNLGY ASSESSCINCL EI8 PREPAPPROi A 4 C
__ — _ _», _^ — _^^_ —•,— — • — — — — —.— ^-.•^•••^•^••^^•^•••.•^^•••••••aa^aK^
flP ••
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ
A205 EMISS STDS & TECHNLGY ASSESSCINCL EIS PREPAPPROt A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78
POSITIONS PFT 111.0 121.0 121 0
«VEl OPFT 8.0 ,30 15.0
06 OP 06 • FTE n9;s iJi j
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 9,410.0 15,975.3 13,000.0 30,975.3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The 1977 CAA amendments require EPA to "list" by August, 1978, all
major source categories for which NSPS have not been set, and to promulgate
standards for these source categories by August, 1982. Funding at this
level provides for the initiation of standards development projects for
all remaining sources on this list. Only by beginning work in 1980 on the
standards support and environmental impact statement documents will it be
possible to promulgate.NSPS for all categories of major sources by 1982.
Also, at this level, revision of two additional NSPS will be undertaken.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will prevent meeting the CAA mandate that NSPS
-be-promulgated for—all-major source-categories by 1982. This will delay
the associated BACT guidance, with the attendant adverse impacts on State
and regional office resources.
JloJ
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
o
z
UJ
cs
<
>-
2 C£
C <
1-4 r
-i- 3-
U 3
UJ tO
O UJ
c u
O>- tt
-I 0
< CO
F"" UJ
Z (X
UJ
Z F-
•z. —>
o z
a: 3
> Z
z o
UJ •—
to
to •->
UJ LJ
F- UJ
« C
to ••
Ft
o
UJ i »•«
i- or o.
z u. a
3 Q.
CO
*-
UJ
u
z
^*
to
U.1
to
co
Z «I
c
M >•
*- IS
< —1
•— ~z
C X
F*
^
UJ
to to
••* o
o «-
z to
fc CO
££ tO
•-< »-»
•c r
UJ
«£ lf>
C
F- (\J
M •<
CC
o
Ft
CC
O *••
~« to
Ud
<
Z
^~
-•
— z
z
4
_1
a.
^
CC
c-
^*
UJ
o *—
et <
57" — f
T"
3
U
•-
UJ
e z
CC UJ
c- a:
«-• LJ
z
F-
C* UJ
F—
«r tt
— a
3
_1
F- 3
c- t—
— <_)
<
IP «f
— C
Ft O
ru a
a t-.
IP 51
» *
«- O
K> C<
nj 9
o r*.
^
IP S»
* *
— O
fO O
rv Q
«. *.
9 !*»•
^*
IT 3
• •
— O
K. 0
ru =r
*. eo ^ o o- — • rv
f\j K> cr ~
^ IM -* r^
^M •—
in o tr» ^ c o f>
— >*> y O ^ *-" f\J
(VJ »O «0 5T —
«. . « * c?-
r^ ^ — ^ o ru ^* »*i
O" v« C ^ «~ *•
*. K> r\j «
— —.
C O O (M O O
0 f\t CC *^ -* ff
— & ~« o- —
531 O K> £D —
* * * *
O- Kl ^ 3
^
O
O .—
*•*; *— Ik. UJ
^> w- _J ^ u_ Q. »-
e < o c. c u.
• LU Cl O •»-* *— '
U. I « 3 O
o ^ ^ s •* •»
D O *= *- CC
— <. x tr z
o »>- so o
H- Z X >- »-»
_l UJ •- UJ < »-
> C >~ CO
UJ ID Z? C-
_j cc o a
CO O »" Ft
0 CC -" CO — -"
r- ru a eo
••* v*
Ft O Ft -- O O AJ
« IP — 0 CC Ft Ft
sr o IP eo — —
SO 5T *t ^
^ ^ ^
rv ru —
F*I o Ft ru o o u\
IP — 5J F- — Ft t>
F-~ -o — o ru — Ft
O- •- CC Ft — —
« « » «
IT Ft l\! CC
** —
o o o ru o o
o ru cc Ft -* ec
-< o — a —
W O Ft CO —
» « » »
O- Ft -D a
O
O
0 t—
~ ~*^ I iP ••
3 0 < — tO
ru < X or z
o •- to o
_) UJ —« UJ < »-
> O »— to
UJ 3 3 O
-jer CQ.
Ft «V
in »^-
o- cc
4>
0* CO
CC C-
"
Kt «\J
• •
IP f-
r- -o
o- cc
^ »
cc O-
va
Ft ru
• •
IP r^
F>~ ^
0- CC
^ «
co cr
»*
rt o Ft ru c o a
in r~ co F-- — IP ru
p^ iO O ^ fU *• 9
O- •" CO CC ~ —
CD ft IP C-
VH w*
IP 0 IP f- O 0 C-
F^ o- — o- —
IT 0 Ft CD —
* * * ^
O*- Ft «C 5T
O
0
0 )-
«* F- U- UJ
•O •* _i r* U. a •-
e < o D. o u.
• UJ K G ^/ ^^
u. X to 3 ss
O ^" 3 z ^ ••
3 O « »«• tO
Ft < X ££ Z
C F- tO O
F— Z X >- *•!
—I UJ •- UJ < r-
> c •— to
UJ 3 3 C
_/IE oa
Ft ru
IP »^
f~ O
o- —
O X
Ft —
Ft ru
• •
IP r-
f- 0
o- —
o -c
Ft —
Ft 1M
• •
4P F>-
t~ O
o •*
» fc
o -c
Ft —
Ft ru
• •
IP r^
r* o
o -*
* »
0 -C
Ft —
Ft c Ft ru o o a
in F^ eo F^ ~ IP ru
F- *> o o ru — si
o- — co — — —
o ft r». -G
Ft ru »—
o o o
C O 0
o o sr
O O (M
« ^ «
ru rtj «
•™ «"
rt o Ft ru o o IP
IP — St F~ — Ft O-
r* .c — o AI »- Ft
O- -^ CC Ft — • —
^ » * ^
IP Ft CVICC
•M *^
o o o ru o o
o ru eo t — co
^ (^ «M O" WM
51 O Ft CC —
» » •. ^
O Ft ^ 5T
- _j.~ u. a »-
0 « 0 0. O U.
• uj a o *-• +*
u. X to 3 C
C i- 3 Z M —
3 C «t «-. to
•o - to o
^ z >c >- »-*
_) UJ — UJ < F-
u_' tr ^^ ^^ _i ~
> c F- tr;
UJ 3 3O
-Iff O O.
r^
1
Ft
1
o-
o
01,1
-------
Z
LU
o
UJ
H
o
CC
0.
H-
2 >
LU cc
11
o i
LU
Jl'^
to
O
U
o
2
D
Z
O
CO
O
LU
O
"CE
O
u_
Vj U
•H <-S
*^ ^5
f.*
< o
O ft
LU CL
S <
03
o
O
O LU
^S
LO
o
04
5
4-1
C
0}
5
tn
CO
0)
tn
to
^i
00
0
t-i
— • o
UJ £-
Q ^
O '-J
U_0)
z-o
< c
— cd
LU
-i to
HT3
11
DECISION*
ission St
a
tn
r**
z
LU
Z
v>
3
Q.
5
o
o
o
H
_J
D
S
O
§
o
*••
u.
en
£
^
u.
00
CD
^»
U.
I
c
I
c
L
•
0
L
|
f
1
|
1
1
i
«
'<
<
t
t
1
UJ
LU
J
UJ
LU
1
^
_J
UJ
^
vu
_l
j
LU
^
LU
-1
d
LU
UJ
_J
4
n i
LU
O
oc
eu
LU
H-
S
}••
c^
LU
LI
r
3
n
i
J
3
u
j
2
J
>
E
/5
J
i.
E
j
j
a:
n
.
CO H iH ai co
ID «H C tO iJ
0) tu u o tn 0) c
C O -H — 1 0) 00 t8
CO ^ O &0 ^ ^ ^5 ^^
L^ [ij M 3 3 O V^ fi-t &0
J2 C &^ fe i«Q M O CO C
^5 ^ ^ *^ ^ 0| ^J ^J r^ C/) U •!— )
C/5 lr^ O rQ ^ VH W *T3 V3 CJ CO ^yj tj bO
Q !Z2 M 03 ^ D -W *T*^ ^H ^J W ^tt O Vi
QSl t-J 3^ QJiJiJW i-tCQ"0^ O OJtJCO
^C ^« O * *^ ^"^ ^™> *^ 5 ^> CJ C O D"" h^ O ^C
>o f*^ {ft o£ ^j ^) QJ C-3 D j^ *rH cO ^0 O W ^J
^|I ^1 CD GJ ^1 to VD 3J U5 ^^ O Ofi ^N f\4 O I ^»
L^ 05 CJ ^^^^ t4 3 Ci ^*> r^ C W "***» O ^"i M
yjM -H OCyiJU-HWOO-HO) -U QP3O
cu-i 6
1—13 Cl-iO !-iOOO^! cfl-HWO) CX
C/3O 0) O >H MOiUCJO XfuSOS O
cna T300C i— 1 to to to
H (si IH o) oi c •• •• taccc
WM C 3 BJ !-i i-l OOOOO) 0)010)01 0> >>>
^ O Ota W UJ-i^-rlC CCCC Q OOO
<;'** AJ cu oc o) 0) o) o) N NNNN tucuo)
zc^ ca LJ M ^D-Qtncnc cccc -K ^^^d
OO M JS 3 10 10 »j l-i 0) 010)0)0) W OOO
Mfe 1-1 H 6
-------
o
UJ
2
O
h-
U
ai
H
O
CC
a.
> °°
Z oo
UJH
UJ
X
00
O
O
u
O
oo
O
ai
O
'a:
o
u u
•H
r-
o>
2
^
u.
CO
o>
^
u.
i
Q
o
<
u
«:
<
U
r"
H
H
l.
•s
£
3
u
Q
•5
tf
C
c.
<
0
Ul
Ul
_l
Ul
Ul
_J
J
-1
Ul
Ul
_l
-j
_1
UJ
Ul
UJ
UJ
j
Ul
>
Ul
o
cc
a.
Ul
^
5
?
co
Ul
J
•
3
i
£
j
i
3
j
j
»
]
•
i
j
*
j
;
C
3
i— IrHr-lt— 1 rt i— 1 ^| ^| rH r- 1 r-( rH r- 1 ,-lr-HiHr^i— 1
r_f
«B
u,
3
4J
CO
Z T3 0)
C •• O .. .. x-v >» 60
CC C«-4 r-ICC>«5
Cd-H 0)i-IU Cfl-rli-l'H'O CO
W 604J3 CQJJJJ4-IS COCOCO
iHcrJ (fltOCO OtScfl-HO 0) M l-i
•H -ijin)3g
rH O ClO cd C 60 rC TJ
-------
O
UJ
a
o
UJ
o
cc
a.
0
si
ui
ui;
CO
h-
Z
UJ
I
CO
O
O
O
K
Z
g
Crt
5
UJ
Q
'cc
O
u.
jj u
•H ^Q
.. D-'
< O
2-
"J a.
5 <
1
0
O LU
X CC
^^
"m
o
<
e
at
s
CO
D
to
en
^
oo
o
»— i
£g
Q.C
O y
U 0)
0^
Z-0
< c
a
HI
-1 CO
DECISION UNIT TIT
lission Standard
^w
CO
t-
^^
UJ
2
I
(A
I]
CL
S
0
u
o
5
S
CD
>
O)
O
T™
^-
u.
CO
o>
*~
^
u.
u
c
c
<
u
^
u
p
h
h
u
^
c:
a
0
Q
^
«
C
c.
t
<
c
1
-I
LU
LU
,J
UJ
^_
UJ
J
^1
_J
LU
^
UJ
-1
-j
LU
LU
_J
j
UJ
LU
j
LU
>
UJ
•S
O
c
a.
LU
^
s
V)
LU
J
t
r>
J
S
j
J
*
j
•
5
j
.
f
5
j
t
Q
WrHi-trHt-lrHOOOO O rHOO O O
to u
-1 C
y s o
C * -H C. -H |
•S e° § ° ^ ;^
*J C i-l £, Q) u O
y o -u o > < f2
T3 4J ft, o U Q
o y < u -H ....
^ 3 fc3 C crt to CO
o-cos T3ooa) to wee
c^j3 oeiy M CW-H-H
i"(J-l'H -H MCUtnWU-l 4-1 OOO-H C/3 CO OJ
4-ito-H E a) coalesce c 4->^-.e2(2
yco 3 4J i— i a) 1-1 3 c cu y-H CB >,
3OM rH60idi-IUhC/3iH E i-l>4-i60y *Q T3 T3
*o ja 4-i 4J e-ucj« so ucur-i
"tosoiue eu-Hi-ito-H Q wrto i-t s'tos^1
«-H3LiOT)i-ta)4-ia)3o jz w e P,a)P.4J
ooe.ca)oajcua)-ue M ocoi-io ai 'o o "
to y
CO CO
Furnace
y
— t-i
" <
w U
2 M
^ JJ
2 y
•» aj
11
^ *"
^
Q.
U
-------
o
z
UJ
a
o
in
i-
o
CE
CL.
uj Q:
II
il
V3
UJ
2
X
CO
O
O
U
O
C/3
U
UJ
G
'CC
O
LL
M U
•*•$ (•£}
.
u.
CD
<^"
U.
co
o
u.
u
c
z
<
u
c
«
0
L
H
H
t
«
u
«;
c
Q
«:
^
c
c.
c.
<
a
1
UJ
UJ
J
LU
LU
J
UJ
^
LU
d
UJ
>
LU
-1
i
• *4
i
UJ
>
UJ
J
j
UJ
LU
O
CC
a.
LU
5
~
c/>
LU
j
3
»
C
•
5
J
j
•
j
5
j
)
j
j
C
3
3
c ^
4) X VJ en
o M CL, 0) J
•H X 2 O 4J -0 o
r-l 4J < U 03 MH 3
o o3coo.^ -H
Cl~" (— ' r* r* i^ • 7j . ^ ^^ ""^ ^^
Ui WMMM CU3 HwO) 00 Cd M O
03 03CXO)0)0) a)fl) 034JCOOO <0-HO 00-H i-l COtfllUC fflC (DC
o)-HO)n3(U(i)iiia)T^toa3TH •aa3iH(i)o4-iooa)4-i'(ji-iE60t8-H!at0Js
^"^^gffSM^ooiDo-H^jjrowpdw-otustj^ctBXo
rrlo::r^s:'^7!'^7jia:: S 5*5 ? ^ « ^ 5 ^T3J 03 3C O.JD-H 1 to V- to
O O OOOO -r-I^SLj nj )_i X i— 1C c Oi-tX-HLiStOO4-)
PM eu cLiCucL,!^ SHSU >(XicncL,M M pncoe>fKW
-------
o
z
UJ
o
o
LU
I-
o
cr
a.
II
LU
2
X
O
CJ
U
D
Z
O
o
LU
Q
c.
Ulc 3o
L* U
1— fl i£
<^«
^i
• • CL
< O
Q £
S <
1
O
O LU
I C
u-i
0
CN
•^
C
Ol
E
CO
w
Ol
ffl
^
>v
M
Q
i— i
CODE)
Techno
i-S
-i r-i 01 C/3 0) W r-l tH
C30) O cflOl4J*j a<4-l
o) *HOO> 3*oS(— ^ojr-ioi u
T3 .. 604Jr-l > 01 OIC CO 0)4JO)4JSC3
•H -a CCOM-I -H co a era EtCEtoso-o
3 OCC-OQ i-l t-( 3 MC/5 0) 3 3-rtjJW
o < 1-1 -H >% -o -a o c a. oo-aoEcacM
rH NU-IJSTJ "O 3 C/2 -HOI O. C-HCB-H3U
ft, CJ 01OIO1 < 4-1 4JO OT3-H4JO)4Jr-l5x
•HXOiQO>4J co ^ mC OiJ!S5S-iJiJ<;D.O
Ct-iLj feco) o-Hrt rttflcdoir-i
T3LjOOn)U-il-i4JCO D S 0)1-1 l-IC/Jl-lfC'HCrJi-l'cCM
•^ 01 *C QJ W i— 1 COlcQ Ot 0) *HO1 Lj M )-l MOO)
CJ Ol
co pi
- - -
a
CO
o
E
o
U.
a.
LU
-------
o
z
LU
O
O
LU
H
o
CC
a.
si
UJ
CO
H
z
LU
X
to
O
U
u
O
C/3
O
UJ
Q
'CC
o
LL
U U
•H t£
• • Q.
< O
— CC
CL
UJ CL
2 <
0
_ d
O uj
I CC
£*•
L/")
C
^
( i
c
01
S
co
CO
0)
en
CC
;>
CJ
o
!— I
~ O
UJ C
Q Si
0 ^
o«
<1
— to
UJ
A DECISION UNIT TITL
Emission Standards
CO
z
UJ
S
I
to
13
Q.
o
u
o
w
-J
3
s
§
O)
^.
u.
U'
LU
_J
_J
UJ
UJ
_1
cj
LU
^^
UJ
_J
UJ
UJ
J
1
UJ
UJ
H
UJ
UJ
_J
O)
52 ~>
> CC
u. a.
UJ
GO rf
?I
> e/>
U. UJ
UJ
CC
HiHi-l
iH
iH i-( •-( 0 OOOOO 0 .-(r-t^H
i— 1
OOOO OOOOO o iHiHr-l
^
CO "
0) CO
•r^ 0)
W C
w o -H
O ofl-o
C/2 Orf 0) J-i s—^
H 3 CD en
Z Q rO » ^ Ja C "*. OJWOUS T3C04J 4J
z<4-ioooicn r-iOiH 52 cuiHcn en
O B rH r- ( i— I 0) >% 14-1 ,C to O T-ICX3 Jii3
MCOO)£OI^=P^-H JJOOOlfn 14-IJ3 0^
ws e OTHO.C -a 4jjj a IM os •^ME o^E
C/3O a-r-l-H 4-1 3J-I CUO !•<«-( W 4JOIQ eScJO
MQ 0 QMOJO) 4-;C Or-lE^J-H fc CScJ C «CJ
SOSiH 4JCOCOO) MJLjaiaj 01 O O 0)i-l
W<: 0) 01-HOll-i E OUOHC td G -O O. H -H 4J«rH
N > CC-OO M a r-4. 14-1 OJU O— 1 CO 4J cB to
^^ ^ ^^^^ 5^ .Cr-tOC-U ai ^ C . S ro j?CB
*^K Q ' — 1 r- i i— 1 .C i-li— 1 CJI^LjOiH ^ 4J ^D«U 00 CLOU
S ^ *,„ >->^^u so) ij:o^c o « ooo) ^H cnxJO)
OSi C/5 J3MCS-I 0)> -H4JiHMO W 00 C-4J 3 OM4-I
MO M 4JCJ-HO) 0101 Moi^tO -H 3o)C S ^fflC
Hta W W<>PM UQ HSOUCN 3 4J H^-H O ScjM
ZCO CO ZiJ PL, ^ , . ,
u
c
0)
- E
0)
4J
2
CO
4-1
o
cB
a.
M
r-H
cB
c
u
E
c
o
•H
c
&J
T3
cfl
4J
t-l
PA Form 2410-12(8-78)
* Standards Suppo
111
-------
o
Z
01
a
<
2
g
H
a
Ul
H
o
cc
a.
ED
> «
Z CO
UJ I-
UJ
X
CO
o
CJ
Z
g
CO
6
UJ
o
O
u.
1-1 a
•H <^J
< <
.. a.'
< 0
O §•
5 <
1
0
O oi
X CE
^^
m
o
CN
OJ
C
01
£
CO
en
01
to
to
ec
o
rH
£g
S-=
O o
U CU
QH
2-0
< G
~- «
at
_J CO
I--0
DECISION UNIT Tl
ission Standar
g
*~
^»
o.
j
01
Ol
1
1
01
^
01
~*
-
-f
Ol
>
Ol
—I
H
— 1
Ol
^
01
1
*Nfl
T
_J
01
01
A
Ol
>
Ol
en
5 -,-
*" O
> C
u. a.
01
CO <
G> 2
H*
O. Ol
01
Q;
W5
<
Ol
2
°3
01
_j
«•
^
i—
ACCOMPLISHMEN
CD
o
. , 0
<• rH rH fs|
O
o
CM rH r-l CM
O
_, o
rH rH rH ,H
rH rH rH Q
o so
r-i CJ c
CJ -H -H
•u LI
1 ® 3
CO .£ u
01 -O CO CO U CJ
O MH W 4>C«'
3WT>a l-l toco's
o -a c s j cu c
cftWcoS W Oucfl
^«-uu o OOE
3T3C/2O H Mn-i
cu c a ij 3 PM H
Z C3 CU 01 O co crj
iJ CJ CO JJ rH JJ rj
oow rjw u fa s~> « M^I
C 33 CUcdPcj CJ OB
•HCU o cr -OS CXH -H o.dj
4->U W M -H MCJ E CU^
(OC Z X01 Z^ 0) (JUto
•HCO 333OiJJE J2 CU'
^ £ CU CJ *H Cd CJ CO O "7J G CO
WW Z W QrH FdH OI-HCO
O H 3HZCJ4JCOI
a»<*-i cu MCJ w-Haicdu
COM CO rJ 3-H fJ2 C rHOOO
•HCU -H o «-itJ oS cs a^u
?P-I > oi rHi-i ciu an SOD.
CU 0)H3fdHOMo
C3 Z CO fX, ZQ 0 CJ
U CJ
0
C9
CN
I
O
E
5
a.
^
a.
UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIA: Air
Energy and Pollutant Strategy Development (A210) „
REG. APPRO:
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this Decision Unit include the development of approp-
riate recommendations as to the need for control of specific pollutants, the
review and development of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
the analysis of energy and economic impacts of air pollution controls
and the analysis of the implications of energy-related developments on air
quality.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Preliminary screening of some 700 organic chemicals as potential air
contaminants was continued. Those chemicals determined to be of special
concern were further assessed to establish the need for regulatory action.
A National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead was proposed.
Determinations^as jto,Jthe__neeji fjir.controJ—ojLjarsjsnic,. PQK^_and cadmium were
made..,, ,and thejaeed for_a,JJAAQS_for _sho_rt^±era__expjasures_aLjiitrogeni_d±oxide
was assessed.
A review and proposal of a revised NAAQS for photochemical oxidants was
completed. A review of the current NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide and carbon
monoxide was initiated.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A major focus will be assessment of the need to revise the NAAQS for
particulates and SC>2. Related issues such as the possible establishment of
an inhalable particulate standard will be addressed in the review of these
pollutants. In addition a short-term NO air quality standard will be
promulgated. Recommendations will be maae as to the need to revise the
annual NO air quality standard, and the CO air quality standard. A second
major empRasis will be to continue the work in the area of toxic or hazardous
air pollutants. This work will concentrate on individual assessments of
pollutants receiving high priority as a result of the review process
performed in prior years. Specifically, the program will provide analytic
assessments of benzene, arsenic, and coke ovens, POM, cadmium, acrylonitrile,
ethylene dichloride, perchlorethylene, and vinylidene chloride as
potential hazardous air pollutants under Section 112; and will complete
a preliminary classification of approximately 40 high volume organic chemicals.
In the energy areas, studies, policy recommendations, and programmatic
actions pertinent to the relationship between fossil fuel combustion and air
quality requirements will be carried out. Such actions include support for
promulgation of visibility regulations; maintenance of the energy and en-
vironmental data base for analysis of the impact of regulations on utility ., - .
U10
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIAiAir
Energy and Pollutant Strategies Development (A210)
(continuation) REG. APPRO:A&C
FY. .79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION -
boilers and other fuel burning sources; analyses of the impact of coal sulfur
variability (CSV) on compliance with current NSPS for utility boilers, (in-
cludes defining the key issues, and developing alternatives for effecting
compliance); maintenance of data on utility expansion plans and analyses with
respect to impact on PSD increments, ability to meet NSPS, increase in SO
emissions, and the impact of EPA policies on utility growth; and analyses of
the environmental impact of business and consumer practices which negatively
impact control programs, (e.g., fuel switching, malmaintenance, various gaso-
line additives programs, and control device performance variability).
EPA Fora 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2» DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
— — — ———^ — j.-^— gp — ^jp^jpjF^m^j^^^^jfr^^^^jp^^g^^^nyaidi
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE^AND CODE HQ HEDIA| AIR
AZ10 ENERG & POLUTNT STRATEGIES DEVL CINCt EIS APPROj A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C, E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT aa.o 42.o 32,0 12,0
LEVEL OPFT . 5.0 9.0 7.0 7.0
01 OF 05 FTE 54.8 47.0 «7.0
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 2*786.0 2,540.0 1*905,0 1*905,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The activities, which are conducted primarily in-house with some con-
tracts support, involve collection and review of data on effects of air
pollutants, analyses of potential effects and emissions of pollutants,
development of methodologies appropriate for the analysis of pollutant effects
and the determination of appropriate control requirements, development of
recommendations for control, preparation of analyses and documentation
requisite for rulemaking (i.e., economic analysis), and maintenance and use
for analyses of an energy-related data base.
Funding at this level will assure promulgation of revised NAAQS for SO.
and particulates if required. This, will mean that the standards will be
revised or reissued in light of latest evidence to more adequately protect
public health. Promulgation of these standards includes criteria document
development and- analysis-of -attainment-strategies;~ analysis of the energy,
environmental and economic impacts for alternative standards; development of
the preamble and regulation documents for proposal; insuring adequate public
participation through meetings and hearings;.receiving and responding to
all public comments; and developing the documents for promulgation.
At this level, the activities associated with assuring the public is
being protected against unacceptable exposures to carcinogens in the air
involves: preparing health input to permit a decision on possible NESHAPs for
acrylonitrile, ethylene dichloride, perchoroethylene, and vinylidene chloride
and completing preliminary risk assessments for 20 chemicals. (Assessments will
be done by ORD with major involvement from OANR to provide the best exposure
estimates.)
Funding at this level will also provide identification of the extent
and magnitude of problems in emission-limiting regulations, continuous
monitoring requirements, and plant siting decisions during NSR, associated
with the variability of the sulfur content of coal. In addition, the con-
tinued maintenance of an energy data base will permit analysis of the impact
of environmental regulations on fuel-burning sources.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding at this level would eliminate EPA's program to review ambient
air quality standards which is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977. It would also eliminate major regulatory effort aimed at reducing
carcinogens in the air. The Agency would not be adequately protecting the
public health if this level of funding was denied. Moreover no capability.^ ,
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIA: Air
Energy and Pollutant Strategies Development (A210)
(Continuation) v REG. APPRO: A&C
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR. FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 05
OF
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
V
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
to assess the energy/environmental interface, as required by the CAA,
would exist.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAj AIR
A2io ENERG & POLUTNT STRATEGIES DEVL CINCL EIS APPPOJ A & c
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C, E, FY §0 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 42,0 42.0 6,0 38,0
LEVEL OPFT 5.0 9,0 2.0 9.0
02 OF 05 FT£ 54,8 5,8 52.8
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 2.786.0 2,540,0 381,0 2.286,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding at this level will allow the Agency to complete preliminary risk
assessments of 20 additional chemicals, enabling the Agency to augment a
priority list of chemicals for air regulatory decision-making on the basis
of their threat to public health. Those presenting the greatest threat will
be selected for more detailed analysis.
It also provides for coordination with the regional offices to explore
opportunities for consistency in dealing with coal sulfur variability; and
developing and testing alternative approaches to resolve problems which coal
sulfur variability poses for emission limitations, continuous monitoring,
and plant siting decisions under new sources review. Thus, a better and
more consistent approach for resolution of case-specific problems generated
by the inherent variability of the sulfur content of coal will be established.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding at this level would not allow the Agency to complete the
preliminary risk estimates for the remaining 2'0 chemicals, the first step in
the regulatory process. Not funding at this level would continue to leave
the implementation of EPA's regulatory program for major coal-burners open to
a wide range of interpretations.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
" ^ * ^ ^ ™ ~™ W w w M • • W • w • • V • • V •* • • •• • • ^V9 V V V fli •• ^9 •• "• • *^ IV W • fl^ • AP •& • W • 9 • •• • W • • •
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HS MCDJAt AIR
A210 ENERG & POLUTNT STRATEGIES DEVL (INCL EIS APPROi A 4 C
^™~ • ^ ^^ ^^^^ w w vv w^^ • • 9 • • ^^ ^ 9 <• • • v & • • w ^ • * w W^B •• 9 • • w*^ w w ipv m ^ • •• • • • w • • •••
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY BO INCR FY §0 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 42.0 42.0 4,0 «2,0
LEVEL OPFT . 5.0 9.0 1,0 10.0
03 OF 05 FTE 54.8 3,5 56.3
BUDGET AUTH, COOO.O) 2*786.0 2,540.0 25«,0 2,540,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding at this level allows the listing as hazardous of trichloroethy-
lene and methyl-chloroform which may present a serious threat to public
health. This includes coordinating the detailed health risk assessments,
conducting the detailed exposure study, conducting the public participation
program for the regulatory decision, facilitating Agency review of the
decision, and publication of the listing as necessary in the Federal Register.
Following listing, support is provided to the development of the NESHAP by
assistance at public hearing, risk assessments for determining required
level of control, responding to public comments and preparing the portion
of the docket dealing with the hazardous determination.
It will also provide a coordinated, widely-distributed set of written
policies and guidelines to solve CSV problems relative to emission regulations,
continuous monitoring requirements, and new source review decisions. This
includes revised regulations, enforcement guidelines, and technical guidelines
as necessary to solve coal sulfur variability (CSV) problems relative to SIP
SO- emission limits and the consideration of.CSV in the new source review
unaer PSD and NAAQS requirements.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level would preclude the Agency from regulating two
hazardous pollutants which would result in inadequate protection of public
health. Not funding this level also will limit resolution of CSV problems
to at best an ad hoc basis, with limited dissemination, review, and
coordination.
EPA. Form 24'.0.11 (8-78)
-------
«
UJ
ts
<
V-
2 a:
0 z
2 O
UJ — 1
to
to •-»
UJ O
« o
co — a.
KI u.
C CC
uj z: a.
1- IE
Z U. —
3 UJ
;3
Z
>
UJ
to
I1J
2 e
3 UJ
*- ^
< cr
c to
IT •-
2
•f H-
3
«o c
—• a
c
Z •£
*• O
a: a
•-, UJ
< 2
UJ
Mf
< C
v_
p- rv
(V <
s
cc
o-
0
O" ^^
— 05
UJ
H-
X
CO
UJ
r\j o
£ Z
o~ >-l
— z
Z
a
CC
o*
UJ
i-^
c fr-
ee <
o- _*
— Z)
2:
^
0
z
0 Z
cc uJ
a a:
z
^-
O- UJ
r»-
o- a
~" =
o
-J
^ 5
e t-
— LJ
O t*~
^ — _) r-~ U. DL >-
C < O CL O U.
• UJ cr & *•* v^
u. X CO 3 C
o — 3 r « -
3 o < «^ cr>
— < x a. z
c •- to o
*- 4^ X >- »-»
_1 UJ *- U.1 « l-
tlj O *-* N-* _l 1— t
> O t— S3
uJ 3 30
_i cr CD.
c a
•t a
CC ft
fu ru
ru —
o a
-c a
CO KI
ru ru
« «
ru —
o a
• •
-e> a
CC HI
ru ru
ru —
o a
-c a
CC Kt
ru rv
« ^
ru —
o m in a o o cc
-t> r^ eo a «c tr- A,
ffi r^ ^ fi fi in
ru —• — ru
» ^ ^ »
ru — — —
o in m f*- o o co
— ru co in -c Ai in
CO O- CO O
KI — • ^* ru
0 0 0 « O O CO
o o o — ru O" a
a * co i- a in
in ru ru KI
ru — -• —
c o o a c c
•o ru a a ru in
co in m o a
r~ ru in in
ru -« — —
.^*
c
o
t— L. UJ
in ^ _i ~ u. a. •-
O < O CL C U.
• uj a: o «- v^
u. i - 1-1
_J UJ — U.' < •-
u.' CJ >- v^ _) — ,
> o •- er.
UJ 3 30
_l I 00.
c «
o ~«
a i^.
in 10
ru —
0 -D
O *«
a ^"
in KI
» *
ru -•
o «
• •
O -v
a F^~
in KI
ru x
o .c
o •-•
a h-
in KI
« «
ru —
e o o •« o o KI
O O «« ^« AI O *
a o- a f— a -* in
in ru ru K>
* « » »
Al -• — —
o in in A* o o in
a «• AI r~ a — K>
in ru K> Kt
ru » » »
0 O O * O O CO
o o o — A( o- a
a o cc r- a in
in ru ru KI
rv — — —
o o o a o o
o ru a a ru in
cc in KI o a
f* AI in tn
Al — — —
^^
o
c
W I- U. UJ
in «-* _j *•* u. o. ^~
c < c a. o u.
• UJ G; o *-* *^
u. I co 3 e
3 *— 3 Z ** ••
3 O « ^ to
KI < r CE Z
C »- CO O
>- Z X >- «
_) UJ •- UJ < •-
UJ & —• ^" -1 —
> c. t- to
UJ 3 3 C
_j
-------
o
Z
LU
a
O
I-
LU
H-
o
CC
a.
_i
<
Z
CC
I
I
LU
CO
-J
a.
^
O
U
u
H
Z
D
Z
O
u
LU
a
'CC
o
to O
< <
.. a.'
< O
O n
LU a.
S <
*
0
d
O LU
X CC
^-^
0
iH
CN
'
C
0)
E
O.
o
I-l
01
CU
Q
CO
01
1-1
60
•— O!
LU jj
Q co
O i-i
O "
5*°
< C
"~ cfl
LU
-J 4J
t C
r- 3
1?
^ P^4
^-
X
CO 00
LU r-
O M
4
C/S
r-
Z
LU
X
CO
a.
O
U
U
at
P
D
S
a>
u_
•1
LU
LU
J
_]
LU
^^
UJ
1
1
LU
^
ai
d
UJ
LU
J
J
LU
LU
LU
LU
a> -j
"~ O
> cc
u. a.
LU
S <
n* p
01 1
> 00
U. LU
LU
CC
J
LU
^
LU
_J
h-
I"
L_
Z
LU
I
Ij
a.
O
U
O
^
ffi
•
i-t r-i t-4 r-( r-liHOO t-li-lOO i-Hi-IO
i-lr-lr-liH OOOO OOOO OOO
t-l iH iH iH OOOO OOOO OOO
I
0. ~" - - ..
o co
0) CO <•
> U C
0) i-l U CO O
•OS O ^S rH i-i
oi IH cu co a: CD j-t
>j£ 1)0) "O-r-IO T3C3
oo -o-ox I-IM-H -HP.CD
UH -H d) -ri -O OJSVJ EOSi-ll-lr-ICUS
~3- MCU 3 CM OT30) Cw O OCfl CC
U OCDO-M CUOi-H flj CUOr-l-HO 0)O
3 M r- 1 r-l i— i CO I— 1 U-4 f^ CO CJ r-H U-f ^ " 4-t v^ i— 1 4-1
c. o o) jr XJ2 xo cj xo u >-fS >->o
e<4-i r-i y js y cu xw co .c-3- J:M co cocu js to
•H *H »H4J 1-1 i-JOi-*'*-1 iJOW p , r? ^j Q
4J CO HT3CUCU 3 O>rHSi-l i-IW Oli— IS4J CJ CU i— 1 g
C _C Cw 4-* O C CO O pC H CU CO O O «C M ot O O •£- M
CU 4J< i-tCUwCU O MCJOAJ CUU-i UOC3-U -Hen S-iUO
g i— i zn ceo *o o. o ^H ** o ^H rH o ^
Cfl cOCfi O 0) r-l i-l X r^,-4OC en i-li-(OC J3W i-H r-l O
CD fl) W rH r-l £ r-l 01 JSXWO 014-1 £>>MC 3O XXS-i
cu jrz; xxcjx co yj;o^2 uc ujsoxi o, u-i y x: o
CD )-l£HC CUr-4 -H ij -H U COCU -H-Ui— IM -r-14-lr-H
CD OJ'H UJJCU-H 4JCO HCUJ3CO C£ t-lOlJICO J->S VJOJ^i
•< i-iO coajo.> ajo ugou *H in i->Suu UCB usu
cfl r-i -H -a CD 3 M
CDC soi ocn co
co ucu .... oj; .... oco .... o to ...
4-» pLig C04JCJT3 Ocj COX3OT3 L3C3 cOjac.J'O CJC- CO-QCJ
1
o
p- r-i CN n
-------
U
Z
UJ
u
LU
r-
o
tr
a.
r-
LU QT
i
_ ID
> «
2 W
LU H-
LU
I
CV3
O
O
o
3
Z
o
LU
Q
CC
O
LL
M O
•H 4
.. oJ
< O
Q ?
UJ 0.
5 <
OS
O
C3
O LU
^— •
O
r™
CN
"""
4—
c
0
£
C
C
a
>
O)
O
CO
OJ
*r"
61
— 0)
LU 4J
Q cr.
O M
U •"
.» C/3
Z JJ
< C
— a
LU -U
-J 3
H r-l
H 'Q
Z -a
13 C
~9 CO
O >.
co «
O m
UJ f-
D t4
<
t-
Z
LU
I
CO
a.
5
O
U
o
LU
_J
3
5
§
O)
LL
1
LU
LU
-J
I
I
UJ
UJ
J
J
1
-1
UJ
^
LU
J
LU
LU
-1
J
LU
UJ
—1
j
LU
LU
-1
0) -,-
*" O
> tr
LL a.
LU
H"
i i
> CO
u yj
111
cr
D
CO
UJ
„
LU
H
Z
LLI
VIPLISHMI
O
0
o
<
CD
I
r-l O O iHOO rHOO iHrH rH
OOO OOO OOO iHrH O
OOO OOO OOO r-IO O
1
n)
H co
3 0) iH O
oo 1-1 to CD ^CN1JCM 5" W 42M C <• COCOi-l
MOUM M^4JQ i-l Z -DO -H r-l r-( 4J
w-i 0)OE W1"1 OirHE airHE EM trj«-H
>. OrHM CO OJ2M JU-i OJSM i-IO UO M
OC M4=O COG MOO 4J O MOO rH u-i -H-H O
CO OOH-i OIO O *M rH OM-i 0) EE-H
OI-H T7J'HO O-H i— liHO (TJ4JCO rHrHO MCO 0)0) M
> JJ 0) a.o).c 0,0) o-E
CM COT) 0)>0 EW EO>
OO ... -H C ... MO) ... OCO •> OJ3
CJAJ ca^ao nJ3 01,00 pM-om to^o UCB crj^j oo
* * . • •
""> vo r-. oo os
' . «J 1
OO
OO
«N
0
E
Q
LL
Q.
LU
-------
LU
o
u
LU
O
tr
a.
ES
> ^
2 W
ua r-
LU
I
CO
O
U
u
Jlk-J
o
C/3
U
UJ
Q
'CC
O
P U
•H -Ji
Q to
O P
O "
< C
"""" cQ
LU -U
_J ^
!"• rH
I-CU
§•§
2 «
2 >.
c/> 00
oS
UJ £
QH
<^
to
t—
Z
LU
I
_J
a.
5
O
o
o
UJ
D
5
^^
§
>
LL
O>
*~
>-
U.
00
01
^
LL.
L
C
Z
<
i
0
LI
h
t-
(•
u
«
:
c
c
V
!
c,
<
c
1
LU
UJ
1
1
LU
UJ
1
I
_i
LU
^
LU
LU
LU
j
LU
LU
-J
H
LU
LU
o
cc
a.
UJ
5
^_
c/?
LU
U
C
3
0
S
u
B
j
j
j
j
•
n
j
.
5
j
t
a
O OO OO r-lr-IO
O OO OO iHr-IO
O OO OO t-l i-l O
1
1-1
w >,
0) 00
CO C P 41 0)
•Ci-lOO W 4JCJ CO U
aocji-iu-i b flc w ^
11 jj < P to s E
.fii-ICOCO 33 4-1 3M-ICO u-iOiT)
CONtXi Cft COCOO4J OC
PCJ-H^ U (0 3 OP
OTH-US Z XM Ur-i 4JOO
«W g i-l W P CrH dd)1!-*
0)Pfa3 IM OTJOIC 0)
OI-COZ O -u C EC-WU5ET3CO
COCJi-l iH CO Cfl D- OJCiD4C4-J
copiw E S« 1-1 O m AJ o O co tf
•& OO-O 3 Q)OE3 »5 '""t CO o ^ o)
1-1 -H 1-11-1300 0) aipr-IPOIi-lS
COC-O 3 iH>^ >S -H 0)03 T-i >O 3 rt >cOfl)
ucoc o)co i— IP 0)0) i— t po) > a)u-i o o cu AJ 4^
COOOcfl -Hr-t >^3 P.C i— t AJ 4) T3 i-t O T3Cd30)
T3P >COPU y>>'anjc2 ITIAJP OIWAJ
0) O P'H 0)0) UO) 0) 0)iH " Up COO^AJC (0
OEAJfiO) r-IO Ewe 1-IT3 rHP U 3
p3COi-j^ & O 0) CuC ^Ll-ICOr-l
O. iH O 60 O EP OPgWE* S > O. iH
EO-H 0) •• OO . 0)O CXO" OU ... OCSO
M>«-| PQ
-------
o
z
LU
O
<
z
o
p
u
LU
(-
O
c:
a.
z >
LU QC
II
= 1
LU
00
(-
Z
LU
I
CO
O
CJ
o
D
Z
o
a
LU
Q
tr
O
1-1
CJ> -,'
*" O
> K
LL. O.
LU
e» <
i i
> E
U. LU
LU
MEASURI
<£
LU
_J
^
2
LU
s
—
3
a.
O
u
o
*£
m
i-*i-HO i— i i-l O i-li-IO O O
i— 1 iH O rHi-HO i— 1 i-l O O O
i-li-IC i-ii-JO i-l iH O O O
CO ^-v
0! C«
LJ CD cr
S o c <
0 uj o, ^
•H en e P 2
eoco c O^HLJ »LJ
c. j-1 CB a. cs cc a)
•H C a) JJ u -a j;
•HAJ «iH (DSeo 4nO
W 3 60-H E n JJ ^
ij— 1 ^O Q.KJ3T3
CO CO CUi— 1 CD CO 3&.CO CO O*J 3 C
0) C B.O Q) C E D C^HCCB B.CO
4J O &• 4J O O PH J-J O CO CU
CO «O O CCj J^ M CO ri ^ g uj 0 f^
i— 1 1-1 -HIT) i-t )-i &LJ i— I W 0)30 i-IC
3tfli-l 3cfl O3COTJOCB O
U U ,C!-i O CJ T3U-I U U OJ-»C CUN
•H O SO «H O C i-l O OJ-OCO WO
u j-i a.u-1 jj jj coco 4-1 u u ai-fl cs •>— •
l-i cvro (-1 csro -3 u rvjir; CO cd g LJ o.
raOP^ -us «o>> oil- COOP-> c-1-ia.co -H g
C-.tOjC UCO Cb.CO,£ COCO fi.GOj3 •HWOCJ CJCQ
31-i OT3 -O 41 i— 1 O -H U
"O 00 Q. C l-l U CU W «J 00
CO OCO O-H>-OPQ ' 11 f •
• 4 • OLJ ... 1-I4J ... OLja)5>> COL^ w i , .,
^ * ^ *
00
CO
o
(N
c
LL
a.
-------
o
LU
S
o
LU
o
CC
a.
h-
UJ a;
I!
> ^
2 W
Z
uu
X
c/>
O
U
U
o
t/5
U
LU
Q
CC
o
LL
rJ u
a
to
01
•H
(SO
— — ^j
LU 4J
Q CO
O *-!
0 w
2 4J
< C
~ to
LU 4J
-I 3
r-rH
HA*
11
2 «
0 x
c/5 (SO
O m
UJ c
Qw
<
CO
L^
r—
LU
2
Z
C/3
I]
0.
2
O
O
u
LU
5
3
2
O
CO
0>
u^
1
LU
LU
J
LU
UJ
j.
i
.J
UJ
^
LU
4
_i
LU
^
LU
I
^1
'
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
r»
e> -i
*" O
> CC
U- Q.
LU
^~
cn 5
h"
>~ co
U- UJ
UJ
rr
^
t/3
•^
UJ
08
LU
|—
H
t
Z
LU
5
I
vs
_J
CL
0
o
o
E 3
figo c tn « oirH-HC
Jitusn) o cutntaai EOrH-H
to Co iJrH ^rEuu aim u -^ so
•HoOt-iij -HO) u ai -H vj a cc. ^sso
WCJJ3 >3 njrHE3 MOOOCC O-HC-
CO-HCO C^M OJS-HO o*j-Hcj4j -HE'H>
>*OOtn 01 MOi-lcn u-i to C i— >!rf4-ico
tn >-itj u o< h ctntnT3oioo-nU
01 i-ico s 130 G.Q.CS oioi-HCE a.u-itn
4-iu-iaitnc co C/I-HC OI-HOI i-i oicuSC
•HrHMC 0) 4->>CO OJrH Wi-l tOO-OI-H
> 3 O"O Xtn tntjtn-o -HOICC3 -H — 14-1
•H wtn-HC ooco a) -HC >T3-Hoa- >u>y
4J E^co Mja 4JMEto OI-H -HOI oiooitu
tj rH CUCO O CO) %43054-)V4Vl ^4-1 V4 P--
oo&c u oirH&o voi
13 OOOOC TO COr-lCC QrHrHSC OOJUS-I
D S-iOJ-H CTJ- O-H-H tTJ-QtsO-H CVJ
4J OIQ.I-I(-I. -H tn O.C04JM- cuooois-i co -H 3 tn
Cfl N OS tflrHlJ OCUOO3 ^l t-t M (-1 O MrHOC
rH >-,/-^ 034JOJ 4JIOO) rH tl CU 4J C-H-H C^C CU B.-H-H O. JS C'H O. -Q -rl
OS trjt/jcc> -HCI-I >^tnc> CDO>OC OJ-HS4J
CO-HOOI COCU3 OIOCUOO) MOltn-HO M3QJO
^S K ^i R JJ t-i C H-f1—' Kr^lOUWCQ
Ij
0)
c • •
cd i— I CM m <• ir\
00
eo
cs
0
"
£
5
u.
^
a.
LU
-------
o
2
UJ
z
g
o
UJ
I-
o
cc
D.
I-
il
UJ
I
cy:
O
O
O
Z
D
Z
O
UJ
Q
'CC
O
LL
>-i O
.. oJ
< o
o £
LU 0.
5 <
*
z
0
d
O LU
X CC
/— v
o
r" 1
CM
U
C
0)
E
Cu
o
r~H
0)
01
O
w
o>
•H
60
_ flj
LU 4-1
Q nj
O >*
c/i
o
< =
LU-U
_l 3
^_t-^{
r
D"B
7 ^
o >,
to «)
O
LU
d
LU
LU
_J
j
LU
LU
_J
H
LU
_t
O)
o> -,•
>g
U- <^
LU
I-
s<
CT) S
'" h-
> co
UJ
cc
3
CO
^
LU
^
cS
LU
t_
M
^
^
.N31A1H
CO
_j
0.
O
O
o
ffi
0
o
o
" 1
CD CO ±4
•H O -H
co u co
J2 TJ >W
CD O
i-i B3
CQ CQ 4J
cue
O I-l d)
•HUE
oo c 2
0) -H -H
(_ CO
tj J ^J ,
CC O -u 0)
CO i-l
c en co
O 4-1 0) O
U J2 00
». a) AJ
QJ UJ X
x eu o -H
^ H
CO 0) 0) CO
C .C 03 3 >' t 4 f ••
<*-'3D< JlC'^
0
CO
oo
rs
*^
0
OJ
E
o
U.
a.
UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO QANR MEDIA:Air
State Programs Guidelines and Regulations
Development (A215) REG- APPRO:A&c
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this decision unit are 1) development of policies and
regulations that set forth the requirements applicable to the air pollution
control programs carried out by the States under the Clean Air Act (princi-
pally the State Implementation Plans); 2) development of various technical
guidelines including modeling guidance and emission factors to aid the States;
3) overviewing the implementation of the air pollution control programs at
the State, local, and regional levels; and 4) providing training in selected
aspects of air pollution control.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The FY 1978 accomplishments of this decision unit are primarily related
to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Nonattainment areas were designated
for all criteria pollutants. Policy and program guidance was prepared con-
cerning the content of SIP revisions for all nonattainment areas. Technical
guidance for these SIP revisions was also prepared, including major guidance
on air quality modeling. Interim procedures for modeling oxidants were
developed and technical guidance was prepared. Regulations setting out the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program were promulgated. A program
to help ensure national consistency in BACT/LAER determinations was initiated
Regulations concerning lead SIP requirements were prepared.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The program emphasizes the resolution of technical problems of attaining
the ozone (0,) standard and the provision of direction and national consis-
tency to New Source Review (NSR). The complexity of HC/NO /O relationships
creates major problems in designing control strategies for the attainment of
the 0, standard and seriously impacts the States' ability to develop 0 State
Implementation Plans (SIP's). The NSR program»which directly affects private
sector growth, will also be emphasized.
Specifically the program will develop regulations to guide States on new
or revised ambient standards for NO short-term; 0 , and CO, develop guidance
on technical issues related to SIP's; conduct a limited program to evaluate
the 1979 nonattainment SIP's to help ensure national consistency of regulation;
conduct a program of support and direct training; develop National policies
and procedural and technical guidelines in cooperation with the Department of
Transportation (DOT); assess regional office, State, and local activities re-
lated to the transportation components to determine progress towards complianc
with Clean Air Act requirements; assure that national policies and guidance
are being applied consistently; identify the need for new or revised
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A ) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
State Programs Guidelines and Regulations
Development (A215) (continuation^
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
national policies and guidance; and develop guidance which emphasizes the
identification and analysis of alternative transportation measures and
strategies.
Ul
53
EPA Form 2410-10(8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAi AIR
AatS STATE PROG GUIDELINES I REGS DEVL (INCL EUPPRO|)A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 60 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT Q9.o 97.0 73,0 73.0
LEVEL OPPT 8.0 12.0 10.0 10.0
01 OF 06 FTE iis.i 99.3 99,3
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 5,605.0 5,411.0 «,058.3 «,058.3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This program is achieved through in-house and contracts efforts involving
air pollution studies aimed at identifying and solving key technical and
policy issues; techniques and procedures used in developing SIPs; establishing
the relationship between emissions and ambient air quality through modeling;
developing and improving modeling methodologies; developing emission factors
for control strategy applications; providing training in air pollution sub-
jects to air pollution control personnel; providing guidance (through
guidelines documents, policy statements, appropriate literature, workshops,
and regulations) to the State air pollution control programs; developing and
coordinating national policy on appropriate issues (e.g., transportation
planning-and. visibility protection); and preparing analyses and documenta-
_licm_requisite for^nilemaking.
This level represents a minimum program of technical policy direction
for national regulations and guidelines to direct States in implementing Clean
Air Act. The thrust of FY 1979 and 03 control will be continued at a much
reduced level. Limited studies of 03 models and development of volitile or-
ganic compound emission factors (VOC) to support the submission of revised 03
SIP's by at least 1982 will be accomplished. Regulations (without guidance
on implementation) for new and revised ambient standards for particulates, SC>2
and CO will be developed. PSD regulations will be expanded to cover CO, N02,
0^ and Pb. Policy guidance on selected key issues will be developed. Minimal
short-term air pollution training to State and local personnel at eight
area training centers will be provided. This level also provides for a
minimum program of activities associated with the oversight and coordination
of the transportation planning process component of the 1982 SIP revisions.
Impact of Not Funding this Level
Not funding at this level will result in inconsistent State regulations
due to a lack of national direction. Inconsistent NSR determinations would
result in increased litigation and delays in private sector growth. Technical
barriers in the control of 0« would remain, jeopardizing public health.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA| AIR
A215 STATE PROG'GUIDELINES & REGS DEVL (INCL EIAPPRO|)A 8, C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 99,0 97.0 14,0 87.0
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 12,0 2.0 12.0
02 OF Ob FTE 115,1 9,8 109.1
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 5,605.0 5,«11,0 811,6 4,869.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding at this level would provide an integrated program to ensure NSR
national consistency and provide headquarters support to that program. In
addition, the ability of the States to develop 1982 0_ SIP's would be improved
Major emphasis will be given to NSR policy and guidance. A clearinghouse
for BACT/RACT/LAER determinations will be established to help ensure national
consistency and a program to assist States in case-by-case determinations will
>e managed. Policy guidance on unresolved NSR issues will be provided as re-
lated to both PSD and nonattainment. Guidance on the use of models in NSR will
be issued for State use. Additional analysis and modeling of microscale im-
jacts of 0, for transportation control measures (TCM's) will be carried out.
Regulations for visibility protection will be proposed and promulgated. Air
quality impact modeling will be provided for all national regulations. Com-
prehensive SIP documents required under Sec. 110(h) will be published.
Four courses will be added to the base training program in order to upgrade
State personnel.
Lmpact of Not Funding this Level
Not funding at this level would seriously impact NSR and result in in-
consistent determinations, 0, SIP's would be developed on an inadequate
technical base.
U155
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ "" MEDJ A "AT""""**"*""*"*
A215 STATE PROG GUIDELINES & REGS DEVL CINCL EIAPPRODA & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT% Y^r^sT''^^'^"'^^'^
POSITIONS PFT 99.0 97.0 iO.O 97 0
LEVEL OPpT 80 12 0 JO ll'l
03 OF Ofe FTE MS 1 6 « 1 5*5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 5,605.0 5,«lllo 5«l.l 5,in 0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding at this level will provide a limited technical base for SIP's
developed in response to a revised particulate matter standard. It will al-
so provide a national system for tracking regulation development schedules
and reasonable further progress (RFP) schedules. These schedules are
fundamental to decisions on the imposition of sanctions under the Act. It wil
also provide for all activities associated with oversight and coordination of
the transportation planning process component of the 1982 revisions.
Specifically a basic program will be initiated to provide States with
basic technical and policy guidance on the implementation of the revised
particulate standard. Studies will be conducted to assess the relative contri-
bution-of various sources-to small-particle particulates,- Air quality-data-
f rom-ORDls,,.dichotomous- sampling-aetw&rk will- be—analy-zed- to develop a
technical base for various control strategies. In addition, a more sophis-
ticated system to track and monitor the 1979 SIP's (e.g., RFP curves) will
be initiated. Emphasis will be given to coordinating the activities of
Regional offices and ensuring that national policies are being implemented.
Five training courses will be added to the previous levels for upgrading
State personnel.
State implementation plan revision activities will be assessed to assure.
consistent applications of national policy and to identify potential conflicts
between plan revisions and national urban policy. Policies on Clean Air Act
sanctions affecting Federally-sponsored activities, including those of EPA,
will be developed, and the application of the sanctions will be monitored
to assure nationwide consistency. Regional office, State, and local
activities related to the transportation components will be evaluated to
determine progress towards compliance with Clean Air Act requirements,
to assure that national policies and guidance are being applied consistently,
and to identify the need for new or revised national policies and guidance.
The technical guidance developed will emphasize the identification and
analysis to alternative transportation measures and strategies. Policies
and procedures for funding the development and implementation of the
transportation components of revised plans will also be prepared.
Impact of Not Funding this Level
Not funding at this level would preclude the development of cost/effective
plans to implement the revised particulate to matter standard. Also it would
'. mean that minimal national direction would be given to the implementation of
1979 SIP's.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDJA| AIR
A2t5 STATE PROG GUIDELINES i REGS DEVL CINCL EI*PPRO|)A & C
B, RESquRCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 09.0 97,0 97,0
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 13.0 13.0
04 OF 06 FTE 115,1 115,5
BUDGET AUTH, (000,0) 5,605.0 5,411,0 500,0 5,911.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding at this level will help to ensure that costly CL control programs
are developed with proper consideration of the effects of NO control. It
will also ensure that States are given policy direction in time to develop
1982 0 SIP's. It will reduce the need for EPA promulgations of 0, strategies
Technical and policy problems arising from the NO /O, relationship will
be addressed. Field study and modeling of the impact of short-range NO
transport on downwind 0, concentrations will be initiated in order to ascer-
tain the proper NO control strategy with respect to 0_. Policy and technical
guidance and national direction to the effort to develop 1982 0_ SIP's as
concerns NO control will be provided.
Impact of Nat Funding this Level
Not funding at this level may result in 0, strategies based on erroneous
assumptions concerning NO controls, leading to continued nonattainment
possibly over broader areas.
U157
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
2
U
<
>-
z cr
o «
<- z
t- z
u 3
UJ tO
c uj
cr u
o. or
_i 5
< CO
*- -UJ
Z £T
UJ
z t-
itW *"*
C 2
> Z
Z O
UJ i->
CO
CO M
UJ U
t- UJ **
« o o-
»— UJ
KI a.
c
UJ X CO
t- o: f.
z u.
3 _J
y
~
_J
UJ
C
CS
U.'
z
Z «e
o
•- CO
t- UJ
«t 2
« UJ
cr o
«e 3
u
UJ
CO C9
*^ o
o a
z a
» UJ
cr •-
»-» <
< *-
CO
3^
< in
«•
t- ru
ru <
=
cc
o~
cc
cr •"•
-• CO
UJ
«
••*
to
UJ
ru cs
ce z
tr ~
— 2
2
<
0-
ac
cr
UJ
_
o *-
cc •<
cr _>
— 3
z
3
U
UJ
0 Z
CC UJ
cr cr
•~ o
2
f—
CO
r*.
cr cr
i
-*
ff <
tr P
— o
cc o
in in
o — '
9 m
HI tr
CO O
in m
o ~*
^ ^
9 ru
HI tr
• •
CC 0
in in
O —
« «
9 ru
K> cr
cc o
in in
O f»
» «
9 fU
KI e> Ki tr o o HI
CC 9 9 C KI C tr
in o in in r- -* tr
o KI r~ —
_ » ^ *- ^ -
9 ru ~- ru
KI O KI ^ O O KI
CO 9 9 O KI O CT
in o in in r- — cr
0 Kl t- —
* » « »
9 ru <-• nj
O 0 0 CD O O •<
— — o r^ r~ ru in
— — o -c o- — —
9 ru ru cc ~-
in KI rv AJ
o o o r» => e
in 9 — o cr co
o 9 ^ ^- cr
^ r*- cc cr
inru ru ru
0
c
O t—
- «
_J UJ — UJ •« >-
UJ IS —* *~ -J —>
> c. i— tc
UJ 3 3 C
_i cc o a.
tr o
o —
•C CO
cc in
9 ru
tr o
tr —
•c cc
co in
* «
9 ru
IT o
• •
tr ~
•a cc
co in
« •>
Q O Q cr ~~ ~*
9 ruru co —
in Ktru ru
O O O t- O 0
in 9 — o cr ic
o 9 * r- tr
•c r~ co cr
in ru ru ru
o
o
o •—
« >— U, UJ
O « 0 O- O U.
• uj cr o -^ —*
u, I co 3 o
3 i— 3 z « —
r> o •< •" co
ru < i cr ::
c »- co o
1- Z X >- >-.
_) UJ "-UJ < *-
'^) o ^ *^ _> >-»
> c •- «
lu 3 3 O
_)
•- ^T
— -c
9 tO
« ^
vi ru
o o o co o o in
— ru tr »- r» KI m
— CD ru -f> o- — —
9 O KI CO —
^ ^ « ^ - - -
in KI ru ru
-« O — CO O O 9
— KI CO * O •• «
9 ru — cc ->
in K> ru fu
c. o o «o o o —
— * — o f^ r* ru in
— — o •o tr — —
9 ru ru co —
in KI ru ru
c o o r- o o
in 9 •» e cr ec
c 9 * r- tr
•c t~~ cc. tr
in ru ru ru
o
0
0 t-
"1 t- u. UJ
o < o o. o u.
• UJ or o —• •—
U. X CO 3 C
0 — 3 Z «% ••
3 C « « to
KI «r x cr z
c f- to o
1- 2 X >- •-•
_l UJ « UJ < 1-
uj ts ^* ^^ —i *^
> c t- to
UJ 3 3 C
_l CC CD.
e» CD
— • «U
— Kl
tr — •
in KI
0 CD
fU
Cf —
« «
in KI
0 CD
• •
ru
r* KI
O- -»
« ^
Ul KI
0 CD
« ru
^* KI
O —
—
•> *. ^ «
m KI CUKI
c o o
c oin
o c -o
in in ru
O O O CO O O —
— — or- r- ru in
»• «* o ^ tr w — •
9 ru ru cc —
in KI ru ru
o c Or- es o
in 9 -« s; cr ec
c o •« r» tr
* i- cc cr
in ru ru ru
o
o
o *-
«fi t- U. UJ
c < e rj, c u.
• UJ or o »•« «^
u. X (O 3 C
O •- 3 Z «•» —
3 O « ** O5
9 - l-t
_' UJ — UJ « •-
> c t- cr;
u> 3 3 o
—i
-------
u
LU
a
2
O
h-
O
LU
O
tr.
a.
p
i <
o
ED
CO
LU
to
ACCO
DECISION U
IT
O
LL
•H <^3
.. a.'
< O
Q ?
LU a.
2 <
|
O LU
I CC
/">>
• i-l
^
C
0)
E
a.
0
i-H
0)
Q
C
o
•H
3
60
0)
0£l
•o
c
UJ
Qcn
O«
Ufi
S
—•H
LU3
H0
5)-!
^00
^P-1
MO)
si
<
e/i
Z
LU
5
I
It
a.
0
O
O
LU
_J
i
o
CO
a>
T"
LL.
0)
a>
*~
^
LL
CO
^
LU
u
Q
5
<
u
•=
a
u
H
f-
£
u
^
^
a
c/
a
^
C
c.
c.
<
a
1
-i
LU
UJ
_1
LU
LU
•4
LU
^
LU
_l
_J
LU
LU
_J
J
J
«J
LU
LU
J
«J
LU
LU
->'
O
CE
a.
UJ
L_.
r"
5
t-
VJ
UJ
j
5
o
c
j
3
j
J
i
j
i
J
5
)
;
c
3
Oi—l r-H^^rHr-lr-IO tHrHrHr-l r-( r-lr-l iH
Oi-l rHlHrHr-IOOO iHlHr-liH iH OrH r-t
Oi-l i-( <-( r-l H O O O rHiHOr-l r-l OO O
^9
C
O
C C
•o o o ^-v
-1-1 W M iH C u"
M " a O-H;!^^
•HE t8<4-i 4JCB3O
II ?l 2 I^Lft.Ss^ ^ ^^
*oe c w 3 oo otnaJO1— 'ov-ij; o 100)3
oc 3-2 ^<"3 ^ oa:Bi >,
W O*J CM 03 i-IOi C M ^AJ oos <-oe e
°?P vjwwooi ocj iHtDW3(-ifia>a)
-------
u
z
UJ
a
H
O
LU
H-
o
£C
a.
O
cc
LU
to
CO
r-
2
LU
J16
C/5
-I
a.
O
U
U
2
g
CO
o
UJ
Q
CC
O
LJ U
•H vS
.. CL
< O
Q £
LU a.
5 <
PS
z
o
d
a LU
x cc
LT>
rH
CN
03
C
0)
s
a.
o
r-l
01
O)
Q
c
O
•^
CS
r-l
3
oo
a>
OS
T5
C
UJ
Q 03
O 0)
0 C
Z'a
LL
IT)
O
*""
^B
LL
00
(T>
^
LL.
^
C
C
<
L
a
u
h
h
(•
4
I,
<
:
0
c
«
c.
C.
<
C
J
LU
UJ
_!
J
111
LU
J
4
-j
LU
LU
4
LU
^
LU
-1
H
i
••<
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
_j
O
cc
a.
UJ
r-
§
r-
LU
j
I
3
0
t
j
5
j
j
f
j
•
i
j
L
5
j
D
O in
r-l
iHiHrHr-lr-IOOO OO OOOOOO U1 O
o m
rH
OOO OO O OO OO OO OOO O C O
o
OOO OO OOO OO OOOOOO O O
o
I-i
U3 CO r-l
•u 3 r-l
M C O -H
03 O 0) 3 S
W u-i EC
0) Q g 3 -H 03
cJ Q) ^o rt (^ o 4,* j^
OO Pup CflOCO
M C 00 PL, 13 O -H
•O>> OM O JJC/3C PM cfl
P^ THi-l M-tp^f "H 0)ZO rH r- — ^
HC/33tfl utn-rl COCJ3
WO* OT3 t) O THCOWM-iMOO -HOC
<« CO) DC/2 CSGU-lOD 0) J34)
^•5 00 O 1) *O PJ "rt Q) O O "*•' M "O > 3M
OZ COr-l C a> ai^a-uwto-H s to woo
o) s cnw-H ga-i Qoo->o)4J o> a oc
30)0) 03 ,S gt!) WO>rH-HO)i— iH-lT-l
030)2 0) V- OJ O*-> Olpj 03-T-I3 & JZ s~, U
w i-i o>-.o> yw o EC-US QJ oi.c coo
HSU OO«J-i 0) Ui^SnJOC W U'^'OtU'O
•OO V-iC W PS"4-I 3 rJ-HOJl-i O.O 4J-HO)
PMO)4-t P-iOJU O O O0300-UUO 03 Si — 1 CCC-LJ
HJ3 JJO)034J C CO03OCOC C O iH JJOtfl
WO03 P-.03G..UO "OC •• 0) JH 73 t-l a) O U cnSOO
CO WO) M-HnJCS G-HO CUUPwO J-> -H •— i r-t
O'r-l C wosp^cd ou-rl OOOO ECJC8 03 <4-< 4-iC3
rH 0)O^30 03rHt3 Mrti-lMOEW > 0) -HO
•H • TJ X i-l i-l rH <*H VJiHrH -H OSO) M 0)tfl 0)0)O<
^u ^J 00 i~l ^D c^ ^ CO i-H O O 00 c^ T3 C3 CD p*j ^C O W p^ *rj ^ <^H
PM Oj QJ 3 ^S C^ 0) PS O P^ )S (^ i 01 ?* 3 CO CO CO ^—^ o (3 p ! 2 Cu E E 0)
HZPSU OS PM O-i 0) J W u BJ ?M 2! tJ M H 33 30) ,2
PS CO CO 23 Z
^_.
CO
CO
-------
u
UJ
O
CJ
UJ
L_
r^
O
ff
Q.
_)
UJ £T
s <
2 s
o §
ED
Z C/5
UJ r—
2
UJ
5
r
CO
*••
a.
^>
O
o
u
^
1—
2
D
2
O
to
O
UJ
Q
^
5
J
^ 00
3 O
ofc
e/j 01
0 «
UJ 4J
Q w
<
M
P-
z
UJ
I
a.
g
O
CJ
CJ
UJ
J
^
2
o
CO
o>
Q^
j
UJ
UJ
1
ni
UJ
~*
-4
•j
UJ
^
LU
J
LLJ
^
LLJ
•J
J
UJ
UJ
H
-J
UJ
UJ
_J
en
Si -,•
^ O
> cc
u. a.
LLJ
r-
™ <
cn S
> w
UJ
a:
D
to
LU
o3
UJ
t
(-
I
Z
LLJ
I
CO
"j
Q.
0
CJ
CJ
m
iH CM CM O rH rH i-irHrHrHO
rH CM CM O i-H rH i-Hl-HrHrHO
CM
rH O CM O O rH rHrHrHrHO
^H
i-H OOOO i-H rHrHi-HrHO
i— 1
rJ 4-1 CJ
O -H < -O /-^
co CM «-i 3 c <
0) rH 05 M CO S
yC/3CO"O4-lT4 S U
i-i a)oieOrH 3 -HT3r^
4J TJCO OO"O4-I g-HO) rH r-|Or4
cnc cug w yocx4J-a to oigo
QJ CJ CO (fl 5 CO CJ f~"^ 2 iJ O t0 O ^ ^J ^
4Jg cOr<01 05 COT) i-iug td -HCC
CO 01 r> C^Q »r4 01^3CCgO)4-i 3O01
grH IO> !-l OO Ol> COCO rH C060-H> 05
•H CX rHVJCU 60< iH O 4JQ) C-HC 0) O.4JC 0)
J-ig OlCXrJ CPU 60 05T3 OJ3O T3 O0503-H -H
03 *H "O O &J CU W ^ g CL *H o -C 01 4-1 M
o) 05 o>sOi u^-' erfC airs cu rH 4J s cn IH M cs o
OCUgV^U O MOOltO 05 .^ U O O 4-1
C4JT4. OU O05 I+-I-H iO T3O f*1 01r4CUCXTH (3
O 60 r44J3 4-105 O4-1 054J rH tO "H O C O ft* CO C/5 0)
tjcu aitoo- 01 to -into co I-H rH -r-iscoeco >
4JCU4J >rH05x-v AJS-l P3 r-lrH TJ iH G, Q) rH 10-H C
rJ-OCfl O3 S -460 OlrH J23 OJSO. rH OJ MU (-1 g -H
O 01 r4 O- 60 3 ^^. OO -QtO C060 Sf^ttO CX ''UOIX4-101
CX(U4-iea)OlrHD.r4g>4-10l g'H S
oica) co >-i c — ' oicx 3ta O5r4 mi -H 31111 pu
CtJ S prS^WO WO I-H
-
00
£
CN
*^
0
CM
£
o
u.
<
Q.
u
Jit..
-------
U
LLI
O
<
z
UJ
O
Q.
_1
<
UJ
S
I
00
O
CJ
•z.
D
Z
O
w
u
UJ
Q
•5f
2
'CC
U U
•H <^J
< <
.. 0.'
< O
O ?
LU 0.
S <
O
C3
O LU
X CC
X^i
u-i
4J
C
01
£
c-
0
r-l
CD
0)
Q
C
O
•H
CO
rH
3
oo
0)
Si
•o
c
— CO
LU
Q 03
O o>
0 fl
Z cu
^ *rj
^* -H
111 2
_JCJ
t-
r™ co
£5
H- CO
Z M
3 0
Z ^
O
co a)
o u
Q M
<
H
Z
LU
5
X
CO
li
0
U
U
2
3
§
o>
l^
J
LU
LU
|
uu
LU
•4
LU
^
LU
LU
LU
MJ
d
LU
LU
H
LU
LU
0>
0) —5
" o
> cc
U. 0.
LU
t-
s **
2 —
>
, 3PUOC MQ.I OCO UHCUC
rH tHH -H4J3 -H303OT3O
Cfl rH CDrHlJ 60 4J CT flu
C O 1 01 OJ O UH G W crj M C 0) 0)
CO O. -H-OQ-O-HPu T3rJWOT3U
03 OJ-OOcfl "^^ i-l i-l i-liHC
^*t U UN 3 ECU 4J3 « rH CO U 4-1 r* CO
4JCO1I-H4J COCJ-H COOCOOTJ
•H O 4J £0) C/3 v^JU COU 03 CM >rH<4H OU-H
rH-HO4J 4-IO.C-H^- CO -HO.3
CO 4-1 CflCOOtU rH >, E-H 03 I CCtD rH OOCM
3CDCO ptiO rH cfl T3X -rl N-' >> (X OOOJ O.O O
CT rH rH *H fcfl CJ CJ 3 O rH ^ *H CO O* 4-* T3 2
0)3 CC -H -HrH4-IZ iwco CO d)4Jca CO C-~-
UTSOO OCO-O4-1 4JQ03 OO) C J2 UCXl tOCOCO
•HOC) -H60COU COU 0) U < 03 CO) T3rH O
CflEU COUOICO -H4JT300 ^U -H cfl>cO CCUC
COOrH& 4JCrHC T33 CO rH T3C-U CUT3OU
SSS i-l cOOOJefl 3O 4J ja -HOcO 4JO-rHO
CUP^rVi Elll 4JCJ-HU 4J03 CO 3 3 CJ ~) X E iJ M-4
MrHMW COCK M QCUU W
^_
CO
''J'
CO
CN
O
^
(w
CL
Ul
-------
u
2
LU
O
2
g
JH
o
LU
1- ..
O
Q.
i
^
h-
2 >
5 <
2 i
0 |
E D
> C/3
2 c/J
^ 2
LU
2
^-
c/2
j
Q_
S
O
u
u
*•
u.
LU
LU
1
_J
LU
^
LU
.J
4
LU
^
LU
4
LU
LU
_4
J
_J
LU
UJ
-J
-1
_l
UJ
LU
O)
p>-
05 _j
*" O
>• cc
U. Q.
LU
r-
5
2 —
> C/3
U. LU
UJ
D
LU
5
ce
LU
H
^
1-
Z
LU
XCCOMPLISf
•^^
CO
r-l iH r-l OOrHOOCM-*Ln
O VO rH r-l
r-l
rH rH O OOrHOOCN-i co
J^oitHO CUD "acncj 3C &o AJ
rHiJCOI OS -HO) -H C O
cOcaoij-iu-i cv-i 3 — < a. ij -H o)
CS-iOOcBO co-H OOcOcfl OO) C i—!
C04-IOOO tJCfl CJO) UH4J iH .O T3
codi-irH -Ha 0101-1 co co 3 oi
4J-H4JCO 3S >rH rHrH U CO (-1
CJrHOCOiH 60iH -H— ^J 0)3 iJCO CO
COdJlJOIJ-l 4JrH4-> TJO 0)01 O.
G,Ct8>C "O>s i-ICOi-l OiH >4-( CO CO CUTS
EOOCOl CJJ CC3 E*J OriU UO>
-rl-HMtJ CO-H -HO LJ-O 33 O.CO
•U»O rH U-ilHrH OICO!-l05OO TH
^nJH O. d-H 014-10 >a.co >,cj u co >
JJ d O • O43 T3n3u O"OCfl 0)0)
•H ^ /-N CO -H-H4J C4J UOJCTJUHU-l 05 CO 1-1
rHj-lp5C/5-H J-ICOCO CO C Q,CCO O O CXU
COi-i CMCO CO-TH3 CUi-iO^E'rHiJ u o D CO
3O«^^ Er-TS -OOlOO -HU-ICO C U 1-1 J3 O 0)
O"D.C/)3GrHcO l-i iH O« 2! "^- 0> 0) 01 CO O CO
V-iSCflWecj u-JOPu OWOc^ coup-i 3 E S >-i IS 3
•HCOJSZCOH CUHM s-iazo OICOM u 3 3 o oi o
< H e- H WEJZSZU
00
oo
CM
o
CN
o
LL
a.
It)
Jit 3
-------
u
Z
LU
U
h-
o
LU
K
O
.«-
Q.
£
> w
2 w
LUH
LU
O
a
u
Ul£ •:
o
c/o
U
UJ
Q
•
•H ^Q
.. CL
< O
Q ?
LU o.
2 <
ta
0
O LU
x tr
^
r-i
CN
v-
4J
C
cu
e
G
o
OI
01
a
c
o
JJ
to
1— 1
3
or.
01
•a
e
— cfl
LU
Q CO
o oi
U C
i^
Q i— (
2 Oi
*""' *H
LU 3
j O
u.
Hi
t 2
2 M
D 0
1«
0 «
LU iJ
Q en
<
t-
Z
LU
I
J
a.
g
u
u
LU
P
_l
i
u
o
00
o>
5.
u.
j
LU
UJ
J
LU
UJ
1
i
LU
>
LU
_J
J
J
LU
LU
H
LU
>
LU
-J
J
LU
LU
_l
o
0) -,-
*• o
> cr
u. a.
LU
i-
« <
en 2
~ t-
U. LU
LU
cc
^5
00
^
LU
&
UJ
.
«•
^B
2
LU
S
I
C/3
COMPLI
u
^
CD
oo in in
r^ to in
1-1 e
to o
1 O i-l 13
CO >, CO -H 4J SI
OI O C C tS cfl W
CO -H cfl J3 *J O
>s -H 1-1 u h co a.
r-( O H 01 O 01 CO
CO CL 4J Cu i-l C
C oi co co -a to
cfl«-ij3co T3 C 31-i
• O •>-> CU C to U H .
» u to h co co
CO 0) 0 O EH CU CO
Oi-l PM CUO OIUO
•H JJ ,cflc
>CO.UpL, H >-l r-i^S
C 4-1 C CO PU 01 0) Cfl
•HI-iOIC SCO >LjiH
OEO OWtsO i-l 0-
• CL, CL, -H -HCC -uco
COCUOU 4JOI-H tfl-UCl
•H CUJJ 1-I3C COOi-(
-O"O>!-i 3CJCO -HCXJ-l
3Ccuo oo o 1-1 eooica
4JCOT3CL, OIT3PJ OlMiJ
en oi i-J
oo
1
00
CN
o
CN
E
0
u.
^
0.
LU
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIA: Air
Mobile Source Standards & Guidelines (A220)
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The main objectives for this Decision Unit are the (1) setting of
emission standards for mobile sources, and (2) the assessment of the per-
formance of vehicles in use in relation to those standards. The benefits
derived from the emission standards are a reduction in emissions of pollu-
tants from a significant class of air pollution sources (in some cases,
this source accounts for the bulk of emissions of specific pollutants) and
a concomitant reduction in health and welfare effects associated with the
specific pollutants. Measurements of in-use vehicle emission provides a
continuing assessment of the impact of the standard setting program and
provides the basis for remedial measures, such as parameter adjustment
regulations or other actions, such as inspection/maintenance programs.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Work was concentrated on implementing the mandates of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, including initiating studies leading to standard setting
for 1) heavy duty engines and light duty trucks, 2) particulate emissions,
and 3) evaluating the relationship of electronic control systems to
the Federal test procedure. Attention was also given to the impact
that evolving technologies have on the^emission-of'uncontrolled substances "
and the fuel economy-of-motor vehicles, including the-characterization
of emissions from diesel engines and unregulated emissions from catalysts.
The special effects of ambient temperatures on emissions were assessed.
Updated emission factors for 1970 through 1977 model year light-duty
vehicles were made available, and a program to support State/local inspection
and maintenance programs was initiated.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The 1979 Program provides for the continuation work towards the promul-
gation of emission standards for mobile sources as mandated by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, including rulemaking for carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbon emissions from heavy-duty engines and for particulates emitted from
light-duty engines. Parameter adjustment regulations will be promulgated.
Potentially harmful levels of unregulated pollutants emitted from diesel-
powered engines and catalyst controlled vehicles will be quantified. Assess-
ments will be made of impacts on emissions control of special fuels and/or
additivies and of available control technology for meeting emission
standards. Support will be provided to Regions and States for widespread
national implementation of inspection and maintenance programs. Testing
programs for determining emissions from in-use vehicles in the field will be
continued.
U1G5
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO MEDIA"AJR
A220 MOBILE SRCS STDS i GUIDELINESCINCL EIS PREAPPPOt A & C
*^* — **** — *****"**********************l***»**l»»»«»**»»»W*»*l««»M««^i«l»««^«M ^^^
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY BQ INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT U6.0 133.0 Q9.0 99.0
LEVEL OPFT 1£.0 16.0 12.0 12.0
01 OF 06 FTE 154.8 132.6 132.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 7,50«.0 la,369.7 10,777.3 10,777.3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The thrust of Level 1 of the Mobile Source Standards and Guidelines
decision unit is the studies and regulations development mandated by the
Clean Air Act, the development of control measures for sources for which
significant emission reductions are feasible, and the implementation of al-
ready established stringent standards.
At this level, activities focus on completing promulgation of new
vehicle mobile source emission regulations as set forth in the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments; determining the emission levels of potentially harmful
unregulated pollutants from diesel engines and advanced catalyst control
systems; assessing emission levels from light-duty vehicles at non-standard
operating conditions; providing technical support to state inspection/
maintenance implementation; and determining the emission levels from in-use
passenger cars and trucks. Specifically; 1) Rulemaking will be completed for:
o Heavy-duty engines (HDE) for control of carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrocarbons (HC). This standard will be applicable to 1983 model
year new engines and will achieve the statutory 90% reduction in
emissions from uncontrolled levels.
o Heavy-duty engines for control of nitrogen oxides (NO ). This
standard will be applicable to 1985 model year new engines and
will achieve the statutory 75% reduction in emissions from un-
controlled levels.
o Control of particulates emitted from light-duty vehicles (LDV)
powered by diesel engines.
o Control of NO emissions from aircraft.
x
o 1981/83 high altitude emission standards.
o Allowable emission control system maintenance.
2) Assessments and Evaluation will be made of:
o Levels of particulates, potentially carcinogenic organic fractions,
and other unregulated pollutants from prototype light-duty and
heavy-duty diesels.
U1GJ
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Standards & Guidelines (A220)
( continuation')
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO:
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 06
OF
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
o Unregulated pollutant emission levels, including nitrogen compounds,
from 3-way catalyst vehicles.
o The control technology needed to meet a 0.4 grams per mile NO light
duty vehicle emission standard.
o The effect of variations in ambient conditions on emissions.
3) Support to State I/M programs will include evaluations of I/M instrumenta-
tion. Mathematical modeling and analysis of I/M benefits will be improved
by using data from the Portland project.
4) Testing of in-use vehicles, initiated in FY 1979, will be continued.
These test programs will provide emissions data for light-duty vehicles
and light-and heavy-duty trucks.
Funding this level will result in substantial reductions in gaseous
emissions from trucks. Regulations to control particulates from light and
heavy duty diesels will set the framework to deal with any carcinogenic com-
pounds found in the exhaust. Other regulatory and procedural changes will
reduce the discrepancy between emission control measured by the compliance
process and actual in-use emission reductions. Characterization of emission
levels of potentially harmful, unregulated pollutants will be fully supported.
Technical support to I/M implementation will enhance air pollution control
for States and EPA by significantly reducing emissions from vehicles.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level would terminate efforts to further reduce mobile
source emissions. Because the mobile source contribution to total HC, CO,
and NO emissions is large, plans to achieve NAAS would be jeopardized.
Regulatory controls and studies required by the Clean Air Act would not be
met. Failure to determine in-use emission rates would hamper EPA's and the
States' ability to develop control strategies. Technical support to I/M
implementation and determination of the benefits of I/M would not be performed
Harmful unregulated pollutants could not be controlled. The core technology
assessment function, widely relied on by Congress in setting mobile source
emission standards, would be lost.
U1C
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
•><••»*»»•»«»•*»••»»•••»•••»•«•«•»••••»••»»•»»••••••••»•»»•*»•»*•»»•»••••»••
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA: AIR
A220 MOBILE SRCS STOS & GUIDELINEStINCL EIS PRCAPPROi A 4 C
0 • • * • • <• Vi • • • •«• • •• W • • • • V IV 9 • •• •> • • • • ••• • • W MM • • • • M ••• • • ^ M ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A M •! ^ ^
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 126,0 133.0 20,0 119.0
LEVEL OPFT 12.0 16.0 a.O 16.0
02 OF 06 FTE 154.8 15.7 116.3
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 7,504.0 14,369.7 2,155,4 12,932,7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Level 2 will provide for needed methods to assure that in-use emissions
do not excessively deteriorate. A cost effective reduction in HC emissions
for motorcycles will be obtained by developing more stringent emissions
regulations. A laboratory correlation program to identify test procedure
problems, and improve confidence in manufacturer-provided data will be
initiated. I/M program implementation will be facilitated for some of the
larger urban areas of the country through resolution of technical problems
hampering implementation.
Some specific standards and activities include:
-- o Deve-lop-attest/evaluation procedure to assure in-use durability of
— evaporative HG- emission control systems.
o Propose rulemaking for more stringent motorcycle exhaust emission
standards, and propose standards for evaporative emissions control.
This requires the development of a test procedure for evaporative
emissions from motorcycles.
o Develop an improved test/evaluation system to assess the durability
of exhaust emission control systems as part of the new vehicle
certification process.
o Provide for the Clean Air Act-mandated NAS studies of technologi-
cal feasibility of meeting emission standards and the need for
controls. Prototype engines and control systems will be tested.
o Complete evaluation of hardware-related causes for differences
between prototype and production vehicle fuel economy values, and
complete development of procedures for assessing tire rolling
resistance.
o Support I/M implementation through an active program of information
exchange and direct technical expertise (on a selected, limited
basis).
U16J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Standards & Guidelines (A220)
HO OANR
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
02 06
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will eliminate the Clean Air Act-required NAS
study. The elimination of a laboratory correlation program will reduce confi-
dence in using manufacturer generated data for certification and standard
setting purposes. This is especially significant in light of the need to
reduce EPA confirmatory testing. Potentially large emission reductions will
be foregone with the elimination of work on improving durability assessment
tools.
ulCJ
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE "**"*HQ""""""MEDIA |*Il!T"""*"'"""""""
A220 MOBILE SRCS STDS & GUIDELINES*INCL EIS PREAPPROi A & C
^ " "" " ^" ^ ^^ " <• & 9 <• • *• • • • • V0 • •• • •• • • M M • • • Ml • • • • M M W • • M ^ M ^ • ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 126.0 152.0 13.0 132.0
LEVEL oppT 12.0 ib.o 2.0 ie!o
03 OF 06 FTE 154.8 9.^ 157.7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 7,50U.O 14,369.7 1,437.0 14,369.7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Level 3 provides for work aimed at assuring emissions reductions through
support to in-use vehicle control, continued support to established standards
through procedures refinement, and assessment of hazardous pollutant emissions
Activities include:
o Developing and assessing an improved dynamometer which will
be able to correctly simulate road loads for light duty vehicles,
thereby improving the accuracy of emissions determinations.
o Quantifying exhaust emission levels of nitrosamines for both diesel
and gasoline-fueled vehicles. This work will involve the develop-
ment of the test methodology.
o Preparing a technology status report on the development of heavy-
duty vehicle emissions controls to support the promulgation of the
statutory NO and particulate standards in 1981.
x
i
o Continuing the Portland I/M evaluation for an additional year. The
effects on emission reductions of additional cycles of inspection
and maintenance will be documents.
o Assessing ways of implementing I/M for heavy-duty vehicles.
o Providing support to Regions and States involved in developing
and implementing I/M programs. Technical issues will be analyzed
and guidance materials will be developed. Technical expertise will
be made available through appropriate arrangements among EPA, States
and localities implementing I/M.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will jeopardize EPA's ability to objectively
assess industry requests for delays in heavy-duty gaseous and particulate
regulations. Further field work on the Portland I/M project will be
cancelled, precluding an assessment of I/M benefits for a vehicle popula-
tion that has been subjected to repeated testing cycles. Active, direct
support to Regions and States for I/M implementation will not be provided.
017J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
Z tt
O «
— r
>- i
u> (o
>—
o uj
31 U
CL a:
_J O
<: (0
t- uj
Z or
z >-
2 •-•
O Z
or 3
> z
2 O
(O >-»
UJ <->
t- U.'
< C
»—
cn —
2 C
O •-
O
« tn
a: o
*—
ot (O
LJ (ft
IO U
•-i a
C en
UJ
or "i
—i I
< O
X
r\,
r~ ra
rv ^
m
c
o -^ ir>
OO05TOO
o ^- « Aj r\i —•
J/^ ec >G •£ »*
OOO^OO
in
-------
o
2L
LU
O
<
Z
O
H
U
LU
o
CC-
o.
i
il
CO
UJ
01
2
I
CO
O
O
U
2
O
u
LU
Q
O
LL.
CJ
W *•£)
•H <
.. CL
< O
O Q_
LU Q.
s <
1
o
o
O LU
x cc
o
ts
CM
5
tn
a)
c
1-1
HI
13
•r-1
3
U
— "0
^J rj
Q to
Sec
*O
1-3
~ c
LU tO
—1 JJ
h-Crt
P 0)
t °
O O
71 ^
O a)
(%<-{
p
QS
<
CA
H
LU
I
~
O.
5
0
U
u
H
J
5
0
00
LU
r-
o>
*~
^
LL.
CO
en
>
LL
U
Q
0
<
U
^
01
u
h
h
h
L
^
:
(/
c
«
t,
<
Q
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
1
1
_ J
LU
^>
LU
J
LU
UJ
.J
I
J
UJ
UJ
-1
-(j
LU
LU
-J
-i
0
cr
Q.
LU
H-
s
H
V)
LU
J
5
">
t
j
5
j
j
•
j
i
j
»
5
I
2
iH r-t r-l i-4 rH i-l -H rH
(
iH r-l !— t rH 1— 1 i— 1 i— 1 O
CQ
13 0)
U > M C 0
S Q to O C
"O X VM CMC
C C O to CO tfl 0)
X U 60 tn E C (U
COZOWO-HJSC njo-o
gWUl-tl-ir-l C<1 -H i-l OtS
O >w «-i i-i O K O ' — tOBJCUO C
£>QQOMO tJsOrH^gcO
a &. c -
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Pre-Production Compliance
Verification (A225)
HO. OANR MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO:
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objectives for this Decision Unit are to assure that new
motor vehicles and engines covered by emission standards are capable of
meeting emissions standards for their useful life, and assuring the quality
of the data used for determining compliance with fuel economy standards.
Ci FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The pre-production compliance verification process, mandated by Section
206 of the Clean Air Act, involves the submission to EPA of applications for
certification by the manufacturers, the development of emissions performance
information by manufacturers and EPA on the basis of prototype testing, and
the review of these data by EPA for the purpose of determining compliance
with standards and approval/disapproval of certificates of conformity.
Compliance of the 1978 model year with the applicable fuel economy
standards was calculated. In addition, fuel economy labeling information was
generated for trucks up to 8500 pounds.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The thrust of the 1979 Program is to continue to carry out the prepro-
duction verification process. A new emphasis is the implementation of the
Act's requirement that emission control systems or devices do not result in
an unacceptable risk to the public health and welfare, i.e., hazardous
emissions control. The pre-production review of vehicles is also carried
out to provide information on their compliance with fuel economy standards.
U17-3
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2l DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ *EDIA| AIR
A225 MOBILE SRCE PREPRODUCTION COMPLIANCE VERIFAPPROi A & C
• • 4p " • • • *• V *• • • • •§ M • • • • • V • 4W • •> • • 9W • •• MMW M Wtt MM • • • • • fll •• M M Ml M M ^ M MM ^M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 126,0 109.0 sa.o 82.o
LEVEL OPFT 12.0 H.O 8,0 8.0
01 OF 07 FTE 133.2 106.9 106.9
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 5,«00.0 a,765.0 3,573,8 3,573.8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
In meeting the objectives for this Decision Unit priority is given to
developing greater efficiency, extensive use of ADP and statistical techni-
ques, implementation of hazardous pollutants control requirements, and
compliance assurance for more stringent standards. In the long term, it is
expected that changes in procedures will result in improved operations.
Certification provides EPA with the option of precluding the introduc-
tion into the market of high-polluting vehicles and engines prior to
production and prior to the time that manufacturers make irrevocable
commitments to specific engine configurations.
The process of engineering review and verification of compliance will
specifically address:
Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks
In FY 80 the new standards for carbon monoxide of 3.4 g/mile, for
nitrogen oxides of 1.0 g/mile and for evaporative hydrocarbon emissions of
2 g/test will be implemented. The compliance with the existing 0.41 g/mile
hydrocarbon standard will be determined for light duty vehicles. For light-
duty trucks the program will implement the 1.7 g/mile hydrocarbon, 18 g/mile
carbon monoxide, 2.3 g/mile nitrogen oxides exhaust standards and 2g/test
hydrocarbon evaporative emissions standards. In addition, particulate matter
standards, which become effective during the 1981 model year, or FY 1980, will
be implemented. The requirements of section 202(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act
(regarding hazardous emissions control) will be integrated into the engineer-
ing review and testing program. Parameter adjustment regulations will be
implemented.
Technological changes in the auto industry will be addressed through the
implementation of engineering review of vehicles using electronic control
systems. These systems have the potential for being defeat devices that
cannot be readily identified through the current review procedures, which
focus on the functions of mechanical or electrical systems of limited capa-
bility.
Parameter adjustment regulations for idle mixture and initial choke
setting will be implemented for selected engine classes among those under-
going full engineering review and confirmatory testing.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Pre-Production Compliance
Verification (A225) continued
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA:
APPRO:
Air
A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
-2LOF-2Z-
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT-
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Control of hazardous emissions by manufacturers will be encouraged
through a program of engineering review and testing for selected engine
classes of vehicle classes undergoing the full process of review and
confirmatory testing.
Heavy-Duty Engines and Motorcycles
For the heavy-duty engines and motorcycles, the program will be self-
certification by the manufacturers that emissions standards are met. All
certificates of conformity with standards will be issued stating that
manufacturers of new engines are meeting emission standards based on the
manufacturer's claim that he is in compliance. EPA will not review informa-
tion .or data .-or.,conduct .confirmatory tests of suspect results at contractors'
sites.
IMPACT OF NOT FUNDING THIS LEVEL
Not funding this level will result in elimination of all EPA activities
aimed at assuring new vehicles' compliance with emission standards prior to
manufacture. Certificates of conformity with standards would be issued
solely on the basis of manufacturers' statements of compliance. Not funding
this level will allow the use of inappropriate or ineffective control systems
by manufacturers (i.e., control systems that will not do the job will not be
identified prior to manufacture). This will become a major issue affecting
in-use vehicle emissions with more strigent emission standards. Inadequate
control systems will not be kept out of the in-use vehicle population at a
low cost. The only review system effective for the new control systems
that will increasingly rely on electronic controls will be eliminated. Only
a pre-production type review can verify whether or not electronic controls
are not de facto defeat devices that will result in increased emissions from
in-use cars. No FTP or short-test-based program, such as inspection and
maintenance, can provide assurance of compliance in this area. There would
be no assurance that control systems do not emit hazardous pollutants or
that in-use vehicles are manufactured with components that would make it
more difficult to maladjust them.
J17
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA| AIR
A225 MOBILE SRCE PREPRODUCTION COMPLIANCE VERIFAPPROf A 4 C
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. g. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 126.0 109,0 16,0 98,0
LEVEL OPFT . 12.0 11.0 3.0 11.0
02 OF 07 FTE 133.2 12.3 119.2
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 5,400,0 a,765.0 71^,7 a,288.5
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
DESCRIPTION AND BENEFITS
This level provides for an increased level of efficiency in the verifi-
cation program, full implementation of the review and evaluation of hazardous
emissions for controlled vehicles, and full review of all electronic control
systems. This is expected to result in a high degree of assurance that
control systems do not lead to in-use problems due to emissions of hazardous
pollutants and that in-use vehicles will not emit regulated pollutants, i.e.,
HC, CO, and NOx, in excess of the levels assumed to be allowable by the"
Federal Test Procedure under conditions other than those accounted for by the
FTP. Preproduction review of heavy-duty engine and motorcycles and imple-
mentation of high-altitude emission standards are also provided for.
Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks
o A computer-assisted engineering and emissions data review program
will be implemented, with the major manufacturers submitting infor-
mation in computer-compatible media.
o Additional engine classes will be subjected to detailed evaluations
related to hazardous emissions and electronic control systems (as
described in Level 1).
o Pre-production review and certification of vehicles to which high
altitude standards apply will be implemented.
Heavy-Duty Engines and Motorcycles
o The program will consist of selected engineering review of design
information from the manufacturers on the new engines to identify
engine configurations for durability testing and potentially high-
polluting engine configurations for emission data testing.
o Procedures will be developed to implement evaporative emissions
standards for heavy-duty trucks.
o The motorcycle certification program will consist of engineering
review of design information, selection of vehicles for durability
and emissions testing, review of test results and examination of
the testing facilities in the U.S.
U17J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Pre-Production Compliance
Verification (A225)
HO OANR MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY80CUM.
LEVEL
02 07
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
-
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will result in a lower level of review and test-
ing of electronic control systems and a lower level of activity in assuring
that vehicles do not emit hazardous substances. The implementation of ADP-
based review systems would be delayed. No review and testing would be carried
out for heavy-duty engines, motorcycles and cars having to meet high-altitude
emission standards.
U17
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE """*"HO""""*"MEDIM"AIR""
A225 MOBILE SRCE PREPRODUCTION COMPLIANCE V£«IFAPPROi A I C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY F^TB'^^"^^'^'^'^'^^'
POSITIONS PFT ,?J.O 109,0 {,%
07 TTE • 12'° &1 -
BUDGET AUTH. (QQO.Q) 5>OQO.Q «,765'.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding this level will provide for better control of in-use vehicle
emissions through improved pre-production assessments of control system
durability and improved control of engine parameter adjustability. This
level will also provide for greater assurance of compliance with high altitude
emission standards and with evaporative emission standards. The main
activities at this level provide for:
Light-l^uty Vehicles and Trucks
o An improved method for determining deterioration of emission control
systems over the useful life of a vehicle will be implemented on a
pilot basis for subsequent full implementation in model year 1982.
o " A formal -mechanism^will ~be" established ami-a—program implemented to
incorporate Selective Enforcement Audit and other production and in-
use vehicle program data into pre-production review and compliance
verification activities.
o The high-altitude program with EPA review of designs and test
fleet identification will be expanded.
o Confirmatory tests on light-duty trucks suspected of high evapora-
tive emissions levels will be conducted. A parameter adjustment
program for parameters other than idle mixture and initial choke
settings will be implemented.
IMPACT OF NOT FUNDING THIS LEVEL
Not funding this level will preclude the implementation of improvements
in pre-production assessment aimed at making in-use vehicles' emissions
controls more durable and less tamperable. Additional pre-production assess-
ments aimed at reducing tampering in-use with engine paramenters other than
idle mixture and initial choke setting will be eliminated. Pre-production
compliance testing of evaporative emissions from light duty trucks and pre-
production testing of cars that have to meet high altitude emission standards
will be eliminated.
U1T3
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
u
UJ
(3
^
V
z a.
o <
•-• r
»- r
u 3
uj to
*-
O UJ
IT U
IL CC
_1 0
« CO
f- UJ
Z or
Uj
r »-
z ^*
0 Z
CE 3
> Z
? C
UJ •"
cc
CO —
UJ (j
>- UJ
« o
en —
Q
UJ I
•- c u.
••* o **
z u.
U.'
u
«
•M
_)
Q.
r
u
^*
O
z —
o •-
*•» ^j
*" X
< a
"" O
e i
< 0.
IT UJ
IT
«« a.
UJ UJ
CO kj
*^ ^y
O CO
z
UJ
* J
or —
M 3
< e
c
<
< tr
rvj
r- ru
ru <
a
cc
ru
B in
?o •-
r- in
in ru
« «
m ru
B B o in o e c>
p^ »^ O — • C\l B «
f*. ST Kt in B O
in in c ru —
^ ^ ^ ^
ft ru *• rv
%
B B o in e o o-
w K» o — ruB <
r* ar *\ in B o
m in o ru —
« « « «
m ru — ru
o o o o o c ru
in in o ru t> — •«
« cc cc o e — «•»
f^ P*1 »^ O «• w"
* * » ^
a K\ »• f>
o o e e o e
o o o ru -e ru
o ^» it o ru •»
9 C ^ 9 ^
» » * *
in - => r •• ~
= o < »- »
^ * X "" Z
0 •- CO 0
•- Z X >- —
_j UJ — UJ -r •-
jj tS *^ >^ «l •••
> C. •- en
IAJ 3 3 O
-J tH CO.
in B
c —
B 0
ru *•
a ru
in B
B x
B O
ru »»
9 ru
m B
V •
B —
B O
ru »•
^ ^
a ru
in co
B —
B 0
ru ^-
% ^
7 ru
in in OB o o ru
o eo c — co — o
co ru * o c» — —
ru o ru r- —
% * * %
JT K* — ru
^- *• o »^ o o »•»
3 =r o o -o .»i ru
*• B ««\ m ^ *•
r> 9 ru 9
o o o o o o ru
tn m o ru o »KI
•a eo CD e o — KI
r^ fo ft o ^ —
* ^ » »
JI Kl — Kl
o e o c o o
o c o ru •£ ru
o r- r»i o ru —
9 ^ ^^ 9 ^
« » » »
m ST «.KV
^^
0
0
o ^
•» •- U. UJ
f^- — _j — u. a. >-
e < o a. o u.
• uj ar o *•* ^*
U, I CC Z 0
n — s s •» -
= o •* *~v:
ru « r tr z
o •- en c
>— z x >• ••
_J UJ •• UJ < •-
yj (J «^ «i^ J *•
> O t" CO
uj *"" — c
-J = CO.
o e>
in ru
•o o
r- o
9 fO
o o
tn ru
« o
f~ O
9 1*1
e o
• •
•n ru
^ o
r- o
« »
9 tt
e o
tn ru
•« e
f»- O
« «
a fi
e e e o o e —
in tn o ru tr ru -o
^> ft KI o o — ru
»>- m 9 o •• •-
» M « «
a Kt — m
mm o ru o o o-
« « 0 M
»- •*! Kl O — —
» ^ « ^
9 ft — • ft
e o o o o o
o o o ru « ru
o ^ ft oru —
9 O ft 9 —
in 9 —tt
0*
o
o
e ^
•ft •- U- UJ
t^ ^^ ^ ^^ t* ^ ^B
e < e a. otk
• UJ (t O ^^ *^
u. X « 3 e
o «- 3 r •» «•
» o < *^ v>
it < I JE Z
e »- en e
i- Z x >. —
_) UJ — UJ < »-
uj (S *•• ^* «J "•
> o •- co
UJ 3 => C
_1 tt CO.
B
^
I
c:
-------
u
UJ
a
0
LU
I-
o
cc
a.
LU
UJ
S
X
to
3
Q.
O
o
o
g
cyj
U
UJ
O
u.
M U
< <
^
< o
O n
LU a.
S <
ei
1
O LU
I OC
/_v
CM
CM
^
C
o
•H
JJ
CO
U
•H
M-l
•H
CU
^
cu
a
c
re
T-H
c.
E
0
u
c
— o
O AJ
O CJ
O 3
0*0
^— Lj
^ CU
— 1
LU CU
-J S-l
h-a.
'-cu
H CJ
II
DECISION
Mobile S
^
V)
H
Z
LU
Z
00
Q.
O
u
u
LATIVE
=>
S
o
00
0)
>
LL,
O)
LU
UJ
_,
LU
LU
LU
^
UJ
j
UJ
>
LU
_J
LU
LU
_J
1
^
LU
UJ
Ci —•{
*" 0
> tr
U. 0.
LU
H-
fV S
en S
*~ )_
^* w
LU LU
LU
CC
D
00
^
LU
5
cS
LU
^
H
L.
^
LU
I
C/5
ACCOMPLI
CD
0 0
^O CM
O u">
O lA
LO rH
,
•H CO
A 0) I
0) -U T3 CO fH
> CO CU O >*-<
o co a -H
H T) <-> 3 t- H 13
Q Q) 3 O O
i-3 4-> C t8 Cu i-J E
CO O JJ •
t3 CU •*-( CO t-H *O C ^
c*-i4J"ao c o Oj
CO U t-i CO -H [d
CO 3 U-l 4J U
^> C ^3 O C ^* Cd ^J
O O O O O \-> cfl
J -H Lj >, U J 3
u a. 4J OD-O
U-l (fl -H CO CO CO
4J C — 1 -H U CU CO
COMCUS C<-IC
CUUO.V-ICU (DUO
O 3 CJ -H -H
ai -^ p* cn c cucuco
iH CM
(
^
1
\
.^
CO
CO
rsi
cs
a.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO MEDIA: Air
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT (A230) Air
REG. X APPRO: A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
This decision unit consists of the regional offices' policy direction
and program management of the process for developing SIP control strategies
and regulations. It also includes the development of control strategies
and regulations by the regional offices themselves where the States do not
act. Finally, it covers general management evaluation and consultation with
State and local governments on air pollution programs.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Work during FY 1978 concentrated on data collection, studies, and
initial development of State Implementation Plans (SIP) revisions for the
areas so required; the assessment of the plans for other areas where the
attainment of the standards was in doubt or the adequacy of the SIP was
questionable; and continued work related to the delegation of responsibili-
ties to States and new source reviews where this responsibility resides
with EPA.
The Classification of areas—Air Quality Regions or portions thereof—
of the country as to their attainment status of their status for implementing
prevention of significant deterioration requirements, was completed. In
addition, implementation actions and defense of EPA's requirements continued
for those controls that require implementation.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FY 1979 program will be oriented around the SIP revision for non-
attainment areas. The regional offices will guide the development of,
review and approve/disapprove some 460 State VOC regulations. They will
likewise promote and direct, review and approve/disapprove approximately 81
I/M programs and 176 TCM planning efforts. These three activities will
lead to approvable 0 SIPs. In addition, the regions will guide the States
in the devleopment o? TSP SIPs in some 397 non-attainment areas. A major
activity will be the engineering and air quality review of approximately
1500 sources under the PSD regulations. The regions will actively seek State
adoption of the PSD program to reduce the regional NSR workload by FY 1980.
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FO»M 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG M£DIA| AIR
A230 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPRO| A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR""""™™!!
POSITIONS PFT 299.0 331.0 272,0 272.0
LEVEL OPFT 20.0 27.0 19.0 19.0
01 OF 06 FTE 364,1 328,6 328.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 5,600.0 8,601,4 7,272.6 7,272.8
Description and Benefits
At this reduced level of funding, the regions will operate in a reactive
mode and will be unable to actively pursue new programs or stimulate the
States to correct past deficiencies. The principal task of the Regions in
FY 1980 will be to track the States in their follow up and implementation of
the SIP schedules submitted in 1979. At this.level, the regions will review
and approve/disapprove State developed RACT regulations for 16 new VOC source
categories.^ In addition, the I/M schedules, required in 1979 for 8| major
urban areas, will be tracked and SIPs disapproved where they are not followed.
Likewise.*, .the activities and analyses of the 102_MPOs_funded under Section 175
will_ be tracked to ensure^_that the approved schedules are observed.. .. Finally,
fugitive dust control schedules will be monitored, and control measures for
these sources will be reviewed and approved/disapproved as submitted. All
other State-developed SIP revisions will be reviewed and approved/Sdisapproved
as submitted. This will include any State developed PSD and lead plans. In
general, the Regional role in the SIP program will be confined to review and
approval/disapproval; resources will not be available to give policy and
programmatic guidance to the States while SIP revisions are being drafted.
The regions will not undertake promulgations or other actions in areas with
disapproved SIPs and sanctions.
The cegions will be able to perform minimum engineering and air quality
reviews in those States not assuming PSD responsibility. The_ regions will
also act on the some 120 fuel conversion orders and Section 125 actions.
The Section"105 air pollution control agency grants and the Section 175
planning grants will be negotiated by the regions.
Impact of Not Funding This Levej.
Not funding at this level would eliminate EPA's direct contacts with the
States. SIP revisions would not be reviewed nor approved, and major incon-
sistencies and inequities among States would result. Resources would not be
available to act on_new source jpermits, resulting delays in private sector __
growth decisions. The Section 105 and Section 175 grants ($100 million)
would be given without negotiated conditions.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2| DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG MEDIA! AIR '
A230 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPRO! A i C
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 299.0 331.0 36.0 306.0
LEVEL OPFT 20.0 27.0 8.0 27.0
02 OF 06 FTE 364.1 29.4 358.0
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 5/600.0 8,601.4 999.6 8,272.4
Description and Benefits
• In addition to the activities described at Level 1, the regions will be
able to provide active policy and program direction to the States for SIP
development in high priority nonattainment areas. Regional offices will give
States direction and support in developing RACT regulations for 16 VOC source
categories. They will also actively guide and manage the implementation of
I/M in the 50 areas having approved schedules in 1979. Coordination and pro-
gram support will be given to States on the continued development or
implementation of fugitive dust controls in 68 urban areas. The Regions will
actively work with the J3tates and MPOs in half of_ the 102 metropolitan areas
receiving Section 175 funds to ensure that national policies and require-
ments are met. _
A major initiative will be undertaken at this level to complete SIPs in
the some 157 nonattainment areas not completed in FY 1979. This will involve
guidance to the States and/or use of contracts.
State NSR programs will be reviewed and evaluated to ensure both techni-
cal and policy adequacy. In addition, the regions will actively work to
delegate the PSD program to all remaining States.
In summary, resources at this level will be utilized to ensure that
program called for in the 1979 SIPs are implemented in accordance with
national guidance.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding at this level would mean that approximately 157 non-attain-
ment areas would continue to have disapproved SIPs and sanctions. EPA regions
would be unable to take an active role in ensuring that national policies are
implemented_by the States in_VOC, RACT_, I/M, fugitive dus^^and TCM. SIPs
and""SIP scTiecTules would" them be approved/disapproved as submitted and
sanctions would likely increase.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2t DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
4
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE R5 MEDIA» AIR
A230 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPRO| A I C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CU«
POSITIONS PFT 399.0 331.0 39.0 3«7.o
LEVEL OPFT 20.0 27,0 27.0
03 OF 06 FTE 36«.l 24.8 382.8
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 5,600.0 8,601.« 962.7 9,235.1
Description and Benefits
The incremental activities of this level will be oriented ro providing
the States with active policy and program direction in all nonattainment
areas. Direction and coordination will be given to the remaining 51 MPOs
receiving Section 175 funds and also to additional MPOs with responsibilities
in SIP development. Fugitive dust control activities called for in the
1979 SIPs will be directed and managed by the regions in 151 smaller urban
areas. These activities will ensure that EPA takes an active role in SIP
development and implementation in all of the currently designated non-
attainment areas.
In addition, the regional offices will be able to give limited policy
and program guidance to the States in the development of lead and s^hort-term
N02 SIPs. Also, resources will be available to give program guidance and
planning to regional ozone studies, ensuring that they will meet the require-
ments of 1982 SIPs. Limited guidance will be given on the development of
visibility protection plans.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding at this level would result in no SIP guidance being given to
125 MPOs preparing TCM elements. Guidance jwould not be^ava.i-lable for 151
fugitive dust areas. In all of these nonattainment areas SIPs being
submitted on schedules would be approved/disapproved as submitted; with a
likely increase in sanctions. Work on the 1982 0^ SIPs would begin without
EPA direction. SIPs for Pb and short-term N0£ would be approved/disapproved
as submitted. No guidance would be provided for programs of visibility
protection.
U1C
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
>-
r
e:
<
>-
Ic tt
o «
•-• X
•- z
*-
O UJ
rr u
—
_1 O
•a 10
>- UJ
z a
UJ
r i-
z >-«
c r
er z;
> z
z o
UJ I—
to
CO — •
UJ U
M- UJ
« c
CO —
Kl
o
UJ 1
*- 1C
z u.
~
z
htU
X
UJ
z
z
>•
*•
J
<
^
CO C?
•z
o or
w M
0 •<
U.'
C£ C
Kl
•- ru
a «
3
cc
0
Kl
ec
o- ~
-•to
£
— z
z
•<
a.
^^
cc
D-
—
UJ
_
0 *-
cc •<
O- _J
— 3
x
3
o
UJ
C X.
CO UJ
a or
" U
z
*•
O UJ
r*
o a.
— a
x
LJ
r- 3
p* ^
»• u
CC CD
ru rx«
p"- P"
ru a
r> -c
cc cc
ru ru
f^ f^
ru a
r^ «
CD CC
m m
ru ru
r*- ^.
ru a
«. »
r~ *
cc cc
ru ru
r- r-
ru a
t^ «
cc ru •& co o o *c
ru — — ru ru o- co
r»> KI a i*- f^ •• ru
ru — ** a ru KI
* A »
r^ F*» ^
cc ru -o co o o .c
ru — -• ru ru e- s.
r* KI a >»• r- — ru
ru — — a ru KI
^ * *
t^ r^ *
a a ru o o —
_ _ ir> — r^ a
co in KI ru ji
.£> -O « Kl Kl
^ *• ^
CC CC f-
c o coo
o o a o c
o o cc o ru
•c. •£ o- ru
in in a
.*^
c
o
o »-
f> t- U. UJ
C «f C B. C U.
• UJ CC O ^ *-•
U. X CO ^i O
3 >- 3 r •» —
3> O •< ^ CO
— « Z It Z
O H- CO O
*- Z X >- »-t
.J UJ ** UJ < »-
III (^ ^^ ^v^ i ^4
> o •- co
UJ 3 DO
_i ec o a
a a
rw ru
r** ^
ru KV
ec >-
a a
ru ru
^** ^
ru KI
ec »^
a a
• •
ru ru
r- *
ru KI
* «
co »-
a a
ru ru
P»- ^
ru KI
eo r-
a v^ KI a o o c
ru o ru ru co f~ cc
r» •• -c -c e ru in
ru — — -KI KI KI
» » »
co cc r~
•o o- »^ •c o o a
O CD C (^ iJD CC O
o- r- ru cc KI ru
0-0- CO
a a ru o o —
— ~ in •- r- a
oo in KI ru -c
•C -C « Kl Kl
^ » ^
CC CC t-
o o o e o
o o a c- o
o c cc tr ru
o -c o- ru
in tn a
o
c
o *—
« *- U- UJ
0 « O O- O U.
• UJ CC 9 >~ +*
u. x to r> o
o — n z •» —
r> o « >- co
ru < i tt z
o »- to o
*— 2 x >- »-*
_l UJ « UJ < »•*
UJ t» ^ ** _J — •
> d *- to
uj z> no
— > cc o a
— ru
in o-
Kl ~«
ru ru
o cc
— ru
in e-
Kl — *
ru ru
O CO
— ru
• •
m c-
Kt —
ru ru
* ^
O CO
— ru
m o-
Kl — •
ru ru
O CO
*- O- ru ru o o cc
in KI •* o- r-* t^ ru
KI in cc » a ru CD
ru o — ru KI KI
* « ^
C- o- co
f- CD r^ CD O CD
ru KI oo <«3 o- a
,0 a — in KI ru
er o- CD
a a ru o o «••
— — in •< r~ a
o o in KI ru *
•C -G •f Kl Kt
^ ^ «
CD CC >-
O O O O C
o o a o o
o o co o ru
* « o ru
in in a
o
o
o ^
M >— U. UJ
o « o n. o u.
• uj a o v«^
u. x to n o
O *~ D X w ••
Z? O < ^ CO-
Kl < X CC Z
o *- eoo
^Z X >- l-t
_IUJ *" UK »-
UJ 17 ^'^ ^^ •J ^^
> O »- CO
uj ~ so
_i ec co.
cc
r-
I
01 5
-------
o
z
UJ
O
O
UJ
h-
O
CC
a.
h-
LU c
I-
ii
LU
2
X
O
o
o
Z
O
C/5
U
cc
O
LL
1-1 C_
*^4 fci
.. CL
< O
U ft
UJ Q.
5 <
X
d
O UJ
x cc
yMy
O
CO
CM
C$
W
z
*^
^H
H
I— I
a
cr
as
h-4
^
n i
o
o
u
Q
Z
s
LU
H
H*
H-
z
z
o
**
o
UJ
Q
<
h-
z
UJ
5
X
CO
Q.
O
u
U
<
— ^
s
o
§
CT)
r-
^
U.
O)
O)
U.
00
O)
*~
>
"•
U
a
0
<
u
«
u
h
h
H
2
u
c
c
^
C
<-
t
<
a
LU
UJ
UJ
tu
UJ
^
UJ
_J
H
UJ
LU
-1
^
LU
>
UJ
-J
A
«J
HI
^
UJ
•^
*T»
O
cc
LLJ
2
*
t/5
LU
J
C
5
1
C
J
5
j
j
]
i
J
5
;
;
t
3
C O i— 1 xC C\
O CM OO l~» i-(
1^ rH ^- i-H CM
C5 O1 00 ^C 0^
O CM r» iH
r^ r-i T-I CM
O O rH r- M
O CM 00 i-l CM
t^- rH **^ ^^- *^»
~-. ^» O iH 00
O O tf"l m vO
O CM
^
O O vd CTs
O CM fH r«- i-l
r~ T-i 00 iH CM
O O O O O
O CM
r>- iH
O vO O*>
O r-t r- rH
U-l 00 rH CM
r-l "^. "^ «^.
O 00 r- I-H
O i-l CM
iH
•5. -5 ^ ^ ^
Z Z Z Z Z
•O 1113
0) U 0)
^ 4J 00 C T3
w o) to e co 1-1
*H rH 1- 1H g I "0 3
iHO.0) > O 0)i-l 00
t-i^OE'O -HLj )43 AJ
•H pO 70 O L^ 0) ^M 00 CO 0)
T>< 0)0) SE 0)T!
(0 0) ^-^ 03 C /— v V-O UR3 i-i
3 E oiocn C Ht-i cgoi
i-^ Lj pi CO "H CM 2£ Cfl 00 ^
CXOCO >, ffl iH ~~-O OOO JJ-H
OJLJ toaicn 3 -HO, O)-H
30>t-iC!>cM oooo u Eoo
0)O.Oni-ii-i oi woo
BS-HOH-lOCM 300 ^H>, 4-IC
ooaiu-iu oi)-i E -H i 4-1
C-OU-I OICC l-lO. 1-lrH CC
•HOOB.OO T31 O OOI
V-lS C/5-Hl-l CDC SOD, CE
Oil— 1 *-l4JCQCO Cfl, 03 OlCdU 0) V OS)Cu p- r-H ^
cue UrHoi )-!>, 1-1 c u co a. o
i-l -H O WOICO CSO cfli-l HSLj
OOrHl-l30£ T-l >E -H 4-1
crooo c TD y-ii-(<; M-I-HO «-i c
W34I WCC OOP-i OOlLj OCO
^
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (A235)
HQ
REG. X
MEDIA:
APPRO:
Air
A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
This unit includes: (1) the management and overview of State ambient
air quality monitoring networks and associated laboratory and field quality
assurance support activities; (2) field investigations for collecting
ambient air quality samples; (3) determination of source emissions; and
(4) the processing and analysis of data obtained from (1), (2), and (3).
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Technical guidance and direction were provided to State and local
agencies to ensure that State and local monitoring sites operated properly
and _generated valid data_^ Data generated by States and localities was
edited and verified. Activities concentrated on auditing all State labora-
tories and evaluating ^monitoring sites,.. ISA. continued- to_fincaurage_State
and local agencies and regional councils to use the standardized air quality
index developed in JT_197_6_._ A.JFederal/Sta££_.prQgram._f.or ranid collection jand
analyses of ambient data for nonregulated pollutants was continued in order
to ensure their availability for national assessments of the need for control
or for determining trends for these pollutants. Computer software providing
expanded retrieval and analysis capabilities was developed and distributed to
all State and local users of the Comprehensive Data Handling System (CDHS).
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major thrust of the FY 79 program is to evaluate monitoring networks
and individual stations for purposes of designating a national network (NAMS)
and State network (SLAMS) and to negotiate schedules for completion of these
networks. The submission and validation of data from the States will con-
tinue. The minimum required quality assurance program including auditing
of individual sites and State laboratories will receive increased attention
in order to determine the quality of data used for SIP revisions and
regulatory decisions. The Regions will begin the coordination necessary to
have daily reporting of air quality in all major urban areas greater than
500,000 by the end of 1980. The Regions will continue their involvement in
special monitoring studies for noncriteria pollutants both in quality
assurance and sample collection.
JILT
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FO*M 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. OECISI
A235 AMBI
ON
ENT
UNIT
AIR
TITLE
QUAL
AND CODE
MONTRNG
RG
MEPIA
APPRO
I
I
AI
A
R
I
c
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FV 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 80.0 89,0 72.0 72.0
LEVEL OPFT " 6.0 7.0 7.0 7,0
01 OF 08 FTE 99.0 90.5 90.5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 1,200.0 2,222.5 , 1,663,9 1,863.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level, coordination for special regional ambient monitoring
studies for ozone in the Northeast and Great Lakes area can be done. This
activity involves design of the study and placement of instrument monitors,
and ensuring consistency of data bases collected (ambient air quality,
meteorological and emissions). An additional 500 site evaluations of SLAMS
can be performed focusing on sites needed to support new SIP's for lead and
N02.
Limited coordination with ORD and State agencies in establishing special
particulate sites capable of particle size discrimination in major urban
areas, test newly developed Q.A. procedures and work with the States in the
operation of the sites and forwarding of air samples for analysis .* In the
Western states, the monitoring study coordination will focus on visibility
protection areas and involve the Department of Interior. Regions will be
able to coordinate Quality Assurance for special studies of noncriteria
pollutants such as toxic organic compounds and to a limited extent undertake
collection of ambient samples of noncriteria pollutants such as vinylcholoride
and nitrosamines.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Inadequate development of air quality data required for 1982 SIPs and
of a data base for new TSP SIP development will result from not funding
this level.
UlC'J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2t DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT
A235 AMBIENT AIR
TITLE AND CODE
QUAL MONTRNG
RG
M£DIA| AIR
APPRO! A &
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PF7
LEVEL QPFT
02 OF 06 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
80.0 89.0
6,0 7.0
99.0
1,200.0 2,222.5
FY 80 INCR
13.0
1.0
7.9
344.5
FY 80 CUM
85.0
8.0
98.4
2*208.4
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The Regions will be limited to routine processing and validation of air
quality and emission data to support SIP revisions, attainment/non-attainment
decisions and source litigation. The air quality data from 50 percent of the
critical NAMS sites will be screnned for data anomalies and validated. The
Regions will perform on-site quality assurance audits of 75 percent of the
State laboratories and all Regional laboratories will participate in ORD's
national performance surveys. A limited number of on-site audits (primarily
a calibration check) will be done. All State networks will be reviewed for
adequacy in terms of number of sites and their geographical distribution. No
additional site evaluations of SLAMS or NAMS will be done at this level of
funding.
Impact of Not Funding This Level .
Neither processing or validation of air quality data nor review of
State/local monitoring networks can occur, if this level is not funded.
J1L-J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2\ DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
A235 AMBIENT AIR QUAL MONTRNG
R6
MEDIA| AIR
APPROi A & C
B, KESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
03 OF 08 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. COOO.O)
FY 78 ACT FY
80.0
6.0
1,200.0
79 C. E.
89.0
, 7.0
99.0
2,222.5
FY BO INCR
4,0
2.0
136.4
FY BO CUM
89.0
8.0
loo. a
2,344.8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level, 1000 additional site evaluations of NAMS and SLAMS can be
performed with emphasis on sites not attaining standards in major urban areas.
This involves an on-site evaluation and detailed documentation of the con-
ditions existing at the monitoring station. Site evaluations also include
collection of ancillary data on traffic flow and sourde emission rates near
the station. The remainder of State laboratory audits (25%) can be completed.
The Regions will coordinate daily reporting of air quality as required by
Section 319 of the Act in urbanized areas greater than 500,000 population. A
limited number of PSD ambient network reviews will be done at this level.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Inadequate data evaluation of monitoring stations and limited daily
reporting as required of the CAA will result from not funding this level.
UlSJ
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
9
cc
cr
CO
o- •-*
— CO
UJ
r;
UJ
ru ts
CC 2
e- ->
••" 2
2
•<
0.
2
IS CC
< er
V •—
2 C
C 1
*• r
i- I
bj co
0 UJ
CC u n .
Q. CC ^
-tO 0 —
•« CO CC <
>- uj o _»
2 or — n
uj r
r •- s
0 2
CC =>
> 2 *-
2 O 2
UJ *- UJ
co or
CO ••• CO UJ
Uj u O CC
*— UJ *" U
« e 2
CO ~
o
uj r
•- CC H-
2 u. O UJ
r> r-
o or
— cr
3
U
f- 3
o- *-
•— u
ts «r
2
C
Z
o
r
i
tr
»•*
«E
*-
z
to uJ
2 i-«
o cc
•• s
u «:
UJ
a: in
K>
•- ru
or <
0- f-
KI in
•0 «
cc in
»* V*
0- ^
K? tp"
-0 «
cc in
— —
e- r^
• o
KI in
^ ^
ec in
^ ^
— ^
t> r^
K! in
^ ^
co in
* %
•w w>
o* ru *- r- e> o in
KI f~ * in ryj f>- o
*O 5J ••• ^ *^ O
co cc in
•- •— WH
o ru »- r^ o o tn
•* r~ & IP tv r~ o
•c 9 — •£> r- o-
ec co in
^ ^ «
»• •* «•
in in o o o o
ru ru •« o r- tr
ru ru -o co o*
ru ru cc
^ *i ^
ru ru *•
o o o o o o
o ru co cc o
•e •- u. uj
CO *•* _> ^» u, £L *-
O < O CL O U.
•Ill Ct O ^^^.
u- x v> ^ o
o *- z> r «^ ••
r> e < •- co
— c >- i—
_* UJ — UJ < »^
--J 1 f •» ^^ ^^ 1 «^
> c t- tn
UJ — DO
_1 CC OB.
sr —
CC IT
o m
ru cc
ru -
51 —
co in
o tn
ru cc
ru —
s» —
v •
cc in
o in
ru cc
^ »
m "
a ~
cc in
o in
ru co
« ^
ru — •
.
a a o — o o a
cc r- — in in cc cc
o co ru in co o>
ru — cc
• • •
r« ru —
in ru KI 9 o o o-
sr c- 9 o- Ki — • t«-
99 CO —
Kt Kl fU
in in o o o o
ru ru * O» r-O
ru ru * co c-
ru ru cc
^ » ^
ru ru —
c o o o e o
o ru co cc o -c
o in 9 o co
ru •> o
» *i «
*^ ** «-«
e
o
o t-
*» t- U. UJ
cc ^ _» *»u. a. »-
O •< 0 O- O U.
• UJ CC 0 «- ^^
U, X CO — O
o ^- ^> x ** ••
3 C < «-< CO
ru < x or 2
c »- co o
>- 2 X >• <-<
_J UJ — UJ •< >-
UJ CS ^* *-^ «J •"*
>• c »- cc
uj r> z> o
_j cc o a
CC f-
9 O-
9 -O
KI cr
ru •-
cc f
9 0-
9 -C,
KI cr
ru -»
co r-
•> 0
9 cr
9 -O
Kl O-
^ ^
ru —
CD r*
9 O-
9 ^
KI cr
« «
ru —
CO CO O r~ 0 O 9
9 Kt •- cr tr cc c
9 ru ru ^ co o
Kirn cr —
ru «\j —
90 •<> o o
*i «D 99 ru
Kl Kl —
** «• v«
in in er o o c
ru ru *«r r» er
rw ru « oc cr
ruru co
« » •
ru ru —
o c> o o o e
o ru co co o -c
o tn 9 o cc
ru — o
^ • •
v» •* «•
-
o
0 t-
•» »- U, UJ
CO — _»--»U. O. •-
0 < OQ. O U.
• UJ CC O w >-
U. X CO S O
O — 3 I •» —
=1 o «e "CO
KI < x or z
o »- coo
— 2 x: :>- >—
_) UJ — UJ •« •-
> c >- to
u. => =0
_> cc oa
CC
r*
I
I
o-
01-1
-------
o
Z
LU
O
<
z
o
o
01
H
o
cc
D.
li
LU
2
I
CO
O
O
0
Z
D
Z
u
LU
Q
5
'CC
o
w u
•H ia
< <
.. a.'
< O
5 £
LU t£
2 <
X
d
O u
I CC
y— N
in
m
CN
<
•«*•
O
z
OS
o
H
HH
Z
o
s
f«
EH
M
,-J
<
o-
OS
M
H
Z
H
H- 1
«
y
^
UJ
O
O
(J
Q
Z
<
LU
^
H
P
H
Z
D
Z
O
53
5
LU
Q
<
M
K
z
LU
&
M
J
a.
Q
O
u
<
>
ULATI
2
O
o
00
o>
T"
>
LU
1
_j
LU
LU
-1
m j
LU
>
UJ
•J
1
1
_l
UJ
>
UJ
J
H
_l
UJ
>
UJ
-J
J
~J
UJ
UJ
— 1
H
1
_1
LU
>
LU
«J
en
r»
? 3
^ O
> CC
LL Q.
Ill
~ h
00 if
£ 1
O) ^
^^ L^
> &
U. LU
LU
MEASURI
cB
LU
_l
H
^H
I""
h-
Z
LU
5
I
CO
—1
0.
Q
U
o
<
CD
O
in
m
ro
O
-3"
o
m
o
•a-
O
cs
O
~3"
O
CM
<
•^^^
Z
CO
01
•o
s
iH
O
•H
N.^
tn
u
•H
"O
<
6
HI
4J
CO
>.
w
14-1
0
V4
01
!
z
1 a
m
o
.3-
\D O
m
o
-a- o
vO
m
o
-3- O
>o
in
<
Z
CO
3
rH 03
CO 01
> -H
OJ -o
01 4-1
•U CO
•H
co U
cfl i-H W
c o
•H > <*J
•a eo
W -H
O C •
o co o co
CJ 4J iH M
M 4-1 O
- O CO U
c «-( c u
00 VM -H a)
CD Ol -rt CU -O U
we xi co ^ u
20 E 0) O O C
< -H D T3 OS O O
Z 4J Z •
-^ * o o
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
TRENDS MONITORING AND PROGRESS ASSESSMENT
HQ OANR MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objectives for this Decision Unit are to assess the status of
attainment of ambient air quality standards, to provide national management
of the National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS), to ensure that the ambient
and emission data collected pursuant to the State Implementation Plans is
valid, to operate and maintain systems for data processing which store air
quality and emission data and make it available to both Federal and non-
Federal users,and to strengthen the data processing and analysis capabilities
of State and local control agencies.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1976 was published
During FY 1978, EPA continued to encourage State and local agencies and
regional councils to use the standardized air quality index developed in
FY 1976. To implement Section 319 of the Act, regulations were proposed
in 1978 that require the index to be used in State monitoring programs. A
Federal-State program for collection and analyses of ambient data for
nonregulated pollutants was continued. The development of a rapid capability
for obtaining air quality information for special studies was planned. Com-
puter software providing expanded retrieval and analysis capabilities was
developed and distributed to all State and local users of the Comprehensive
Data Handling System (CDHS). Guidelines for the siting of ambient air
quality monitors were proposed. In addition, a power plant modeling
system was developed and made available to support energy related analyses;
analytical techniques for estimating particulate concentrations caused
by fugitive emissions were improved; advanced computerized techniques
for graphical analysis and display of county/State/national air quality were
developed; guidance on development of quality control checks for screening
air quality data, on developing ambient concentration isopleths, and on the
use of meteorological data in air analyses were published; air quality
isopleths and population exposure assessments were prepared for eight
cities; revisions to 40 CFR Section 51.7, reporting of data to EPA,
and Section 51.17, air quality surveillance regulations, were proposed
and guidance documents on ambient monitoring needed to support revisions
to 40 CFR 51.17, were issued.
DIE 3
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78) .
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIA:Air
Trends Monitoring and Progress Assessment (A223) REG APPRD-A&C
continued "cu- Mrr""'
D .17 _1979_ PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Major emphasis will be given to national management of the 5-year plan
for implementing the recommendations of SAMWG and carrying out section 319
of the CAA. These requirements will be reflected in new regulations for
monitoring and reporting to be promulgated in FY 1979. A major goal of these
regulations is to establish a national air monitoring network which will
generate high quality data and be operated by State and local agencies
using nationally uniform methods. Effective implementation will involve
substantial national oversight, the provision of technical guidance to the
regional offices and the development of new software to facilitate reduced
State reporting. Key activities will include assuring the NAMS are being
established in a nationally uniform manner, and preparing periodic assess-
ments of the plans and first year progress of the regions arid States in
implementing SAMWG's recommendation and the regulations.'
Current programs to assess and report the Nation's progress in achieving
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, (NAAQS) and to operate EPA's national
air data systems will be continued. Efforts will be initiated to make the
States more self-sufficient in data handling and analysis by increasing the
capabilities of the EPA-developed systems used in 28 States and providing
use of these systems to additional agencies via an EPA computer.
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA| AIR
A233 TRENDS MNTRNG & PROGRESS ASSESS-AIR APPROI A t c
B" RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INC* FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 43.0 «3.0 32.0 32.0
LEVEL OPFT 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0
01 OF 05 FTE 53.0 44,6 44.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 3*500.0 2,020,9 1,515.7 1,515.7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The activities conducted are achieved through in-house contract efforts
involving data storage, processing and retrieval; development and maintenance
of systems for data processing (including systems used by State/local air
pollution control agencies); analysis of data on emissions and ambient air
quality, determination of trends in air quality and emissions; development
of standard operating procedures and regulations for the ambient monitoring
stations operated by State and local agencies; development of policy and
guidelines on air quality data analysis; and management of the National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS).
At this level through technical guidance, and visits to the regions and
selected NAMS, perform national management of the Regional/State efforts
designation of all stations to be in the NAMS network. (On or before
Jan. 1, 1980, each State must submit to EPA a detailed description to be
included in their NAMS network. This must include schedules for: re-siting
any stations not meeting NAMS criteria, establishing any new NAMS required
and implementing quality assurance). Perform overview of all required
Regional/State monitoring programs and prepare assessments of the progress
being made in designating the NAMS and in implementing EPA's monitoring
regulations and the recommendations of SAMWG. Review plans for upgrading all
monitoring stations to comply with EPA criteria. Develop information base
on 200 NAM stations. Develop regulations and related technical guidance for
the revised particulate standard. Continue program to evaluate national
progress in improving air quality to achieve and maintain NAAQS. Publish
national air quality and emissions trends report. Operate EPA's national
air quality and emission data systems without any modifications other than
remaining compatible with changes made by the computer center. Data sub-
mitted pursuant to SIP regulations would be updated periodically and
files and software would permit the retrieval of data by regions and head-
quarters. Provide basic systems, include "enhancements" support, trouble-
shooting and 3 minor systems to an estimated 28 agencies using the EPA-
developed (State operated data system). Develop statistical methods and
supporting guidance to define NAAQS for SO^, S02> and particulates in terms
of exceedances relative to a computer concentration limit. Provide
guidance to regions/States in computing the specific air quality values for
63, N02» CO and S02 upon which the specific control plans for these pollu-
tants will be based.
JU5
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
TRENDS MONITORING AND PROGRESS ASSESSMENT (A233)
CONTINUED
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA:Air
APPRO :A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 05
OF
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
. Withdrawal of funding for this level would eliminate: a program to
ensure national uniformity and overall management of the regional/State
efforts to select and establish a central core of high quality air monitoring
stations (the NAMS network) vital to the Agency in making national assessment
of air quality; a continued overview of State/local ambient monitoring and
progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Standing Air
Monitoring Work Group; development of the regulations and technical guidance
needed to support ambient monitoring of small particle particulate matter by
States; definitive evaluations of national progress in achieving the NAAQS
(as required by Congress,'CEQ, environmental groups and the public); National
air data systems which provide a storage location for data reported,in accor-
dance with SIP regulations and a means of retrieving such data by regions and
headquarters; limited but critical support to the State/local users of EPA-
developed data systems; and development of the statistical bases for new
NAAQS for particulates and SO and revisions to the NAAQS for SO .
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2! DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
4t M ^ WM4p (•• iV M4V • • IV •• • * * • Ml ••••• • •• • • • • • • M MM • MM • MMMM • ••• M • MM.^^M 0 M^ M M^^^ • MMMM
At DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDJAi AIR
A233 TRENDS MNTRNG & PROGRESS ASSESS-AIR APPROi A 4 C
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT «3.o «j.o 7.0 39.0
LEVEL OPFT 5.0 7.0 2,0 7.0
02 OF 05 FTE 53.0 6.4 51.0
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 3,500.0 2,020.9 303.1 1,818.8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level joint regional/headquarter visits of NAMS will be initi-
ated to determine, first-hand, actual degree of compliance to EPA ambient
monitoring siting criteria, equipment specifications, and data validation
procedures. Visits would be limited to a sample of 25 NAMS per year. Data
from this sample would be used to make rough national estimates of NAMS
compliance with EPA siting criteria and the overall effectiveness of State/
regional/headquarters data validation efforts. Develop information base
on the final 175 NAMS stations (completing an effort begun in FY 79). New
software which would allow EPA's national data systems to receive air
quality and emissions summary statistics would be developed. All arrange-
ments will be accomplished so that 6 States not having access to State
computer support could share in using the EPA-developed ambient and emission
data systems on an EPA computer. In addition, training for all users of
these systems would be provided. Trends and spatial/temporal analyses for
nickel, berrylium, benzo-a-pyrene and polynuclear organic materials as
support to regulatory decisions would be performed. National air quality
baseline statistics needed to project air quality impacts of alternative
national energy strategies, revised national ambient standards, revised
federal automative emission standards, and new source performance standards,
etc. will be computed. Software which allows regions and states to compute
area and pollutant-specific concentration limits not to be exceeded more
than once per year will be developed.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
On-site visits to even a small sample (25) of the entire NAMS network
('v/ 750) are vital since without such actions, EPA would have no firsthand
knowledge of the many factors bearing on NAMS data quality. Without
national involvement, there would be no assurance that NAMS are meeting
minimum criteria. EPA's efforts to base future national trends upon a small
but high quality data base would be less effective. If EPA does not develop
the software to allow its national data systems to process summary statistics
there will be no workable means for allowing the States to submit summary
statistics rather than individual readings. The sharp reporting reduction
recommended by SAMWG will have to be deferred by at least one year. If the
J1S7
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR
Trends Monitoring And Progress Assessment (A233)
continued REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY80CUM.
LEVEL
02 05
OF
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
"shared" system"is not Implemented, 6 States will, have to continue to pro-
cess data manually and depend upon EPA for any reports of their own data.
The reporting of required data by these agencies will continue to be slower
and reflect their continued inability to edit the data before submission.
Ambient analyses of un-regulated pollutants are needed to determine spatial/
temporal variability, a key component to decisions on how and whether to
regulate such pollutants. Air quality and baseline data for the criteria
(regulated) pollutants are needed in forecasting and evaluating air quality
impacts of national energy and environmental strategies. Under the revised
NAAQS for Ozone and NO , air quality managers must develop concentration
limits for each area of concern as a precondition to developing strategies.
uu;
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. AGENCY
M 2» DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ HEDIA| AIR
A233 TRENDS MNTRNG & PROGRESS ASSESS-AIR APPRO| A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 43.0 13.0 4.0 43.0
LEVEL OPFT 5.0 7.0 1.0 8.0
03 OF 05 FTE 53.0 3.« 54.4
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 3,500,0 8,030.9 202.1 2,020.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level, surveillance of the National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) will be shifted from the very limited program of visiting 25 NAMS per
year to a more comprehensive audit of 150 NAMS per year. This level of
auditing is the minimum necessary to establish a reasonable level of national
consistency among NAMS and allows each station to be visited an average of
once every 5 years. Findings from these audits will be a primary source of
data for assessment of NAMS and provide clear documentation for the correc-
tive actions needed to comply with EPA criteria. All historical data for
NAMS sites would undergo quality assurance screening and validation. Re-
quired retrieval and comparison programs will be activated and data inspec-
tion and record-keeping operated until final anomaly resolution is completed.
Trend data from NAMS will be coded to indicate reliability of trends based
on available precision and accuracy data (collected as part of the EPA/State
quality assurance program). New software and related procedures will be
developed and made available to the regions and States which can be used to
display data graphically and allow a variety of advanced statistical analy-
ses. Six modifications to the EPA-developed air quality and emission data
systems installed in 28 States would be.developed and furnished to users.
Such modifications are developed in response to a consensus of user requests
and increase the ability to State and local agencies to edit, analyze and
retrieve their data. The installation of one or both subsystems could also
be accomplished in 2 additional States if requested by the regions.
Impacts of Not Funding This Level
On-site audits of 150 NAMS per year are needed to establish a minimum
level of national air quality baseline levels and analyze pollutant trends.
The screening of all historical NAMS data and resolution of all anomalies
identified is required to ensure the integrity of data which should form the
core of the national analyses of ambient trends developed by EPA. formal
incorporation of the data quality indicators into the air quality data bank
would allow an effective link among ORD and OANR quality assurance programs
to improve data quality and monitoring methodology. Knowledge gained from
NAMS audits and ORD laboratory audits will be used to code air quality data
for more meaningful analyses. Not implementing the tie between quality
indicators and data would be contrary to recommendations of numerous study
groups to upgrade national data quality, analysis and reporting. Only a few
regions and States have any current capabilities for performing advanced
analyses of ambient data. Future air quality management efforts will be
hindered without more widespread use of such analytical tools. If EPA does
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
U-UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
HQ
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Trends Monitoring and Progress Assessment (A233)
continued REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
03 05
OF
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
not develop and furnish modified software to the State and local users of
EPA-developed data systems, these users can-be expected to either find
manual solutions to their new needs or attempt to develop their own software.
Since these agencies already have some automated capabilities, it is generally
far less expensive to add new software than it is to add new manual opera-
tions. Independent modification by each agency is not cost-effective and
would destroy EPA's program to keep all these systems standard.
U2U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
>-
z
UJ
IS
^
>-
Z ff
O •<
•-t I
«- r
0 =>
bj co
C UJ
tt u
CL Or
_J 0
•K CO
t- UJ
z a
U
r »-
Z *•*
c z
e s
> r
z c
l» t »>*4
CO
CO 1—
b.1 u
•< O
CO ~
o
uj s
•~ tr
i*^ £3
Z b.
tr
I
CO
CO
UJ
CO
iO
^
CO
Z CO
c uj
•-• tt
t- a>
« o
•-> o:
c a.
or *e
•e a
z
UJ tt
CO »-
"-> Z
O I
z
CO
•• o
c z
>-t UJ
< a:
fc-
<
< KI
Kl
r- ru
ru -e
cc
O-
Kl
CC
o- ^,
— CO
bJ
r
*—
CO
ifcj
fU C3
0 Z
cr w
— 2
5
CL
cc
CT
UJ
K-4
o *—
cc <
O1 _J
V ^
X
^
UJ
c z
cc uj
cr a:
z
•-
9- UJ
cr ct
— tr
2
u
_j
** O
p' ^
*-• u
^
r- ^
tr o-
— 0
m e*
• *
^ «
• *
If! O"
— O
IT 0*
«
•••
f~- a
• to
in c-
••• o
in t>
-
r- a
<* *
in cr
— o
in er
*
4-M
^- O f- ST G> O <£
irv if\ o O1 rxj ir< 9
— — C= O Kl 9
tn o u*v ff~
«, ^
VH OT
f^ 0 *- 3- O O -*
in m o cr AJ in ^
*• VN o O Kl <7
in o in o-
* *
cr to w »n o o o
o in in *\i K> r- KI
fv o- AJ «-• a- in
O Kl ^ Aj
* fc «k
M — *-
o e o o o o
o o o o KI m
o KI r* o sj
in =r o —
* 0 •> *
Kl AJ -• f\J
O
C
o *—
*! >- b. UJ
in w «i ^* u. a. >-
O «e C a. c U.
* UJ 2 O ^^ •«— '
u. T CO 3 0
O <- ^ I •» —
3 O < «-• CO
•• « I cr 2
c H- eo c
•- z x >- >-
_ 1 UJ •— UJ < **
.iJ CJ w. »^ _J — 1
> o •- co
uj r> =c
_J
c a in co
Kiru ~
o in a in o o o
o in in ru KI r» KI
ru c- ru ** a in
O Kl i£ ru
* ^ «
ru -> —
o e o o o c
e o o o KI in
o KI •- o a
in a o —
• » A »J
Kiru — ru
c
o
o »-
CO t- U. UJ
in •- _t — u. o. t-
o < o a. o b.
• UJ QT O ^* ^^
U. T CO 3 C
c »- 3 r w —
S O < ^ CO
ru < x tt z
o t- co c
•- Z X >- «-
_l UJ — UJ « •-
uj o ^ ^* _j **
> C H- CO
UJ — ^ O
_) (E CO.
0 «
o ru
ru —
c ru
ru —
o- -c
e ru
ru —
o ru
^ ^
ru —
o- •*
• •
o ru
ru — •
o ru
ru —
0- -0
tr •
o ru
ru —
o ru
« «
ru "
o o a * o o a
o in in ru KI cc a
ru o — — 3 en
o a ^ ru
* » »
ru -• —
-> e — KI o o a
ru m r- «- a -• KI
o a in ru
ru — • ••
o in a in o o o
o in in ru K> r> KI
ru o- ru — a m
OKI -c ru
• « ^
ru — ••
o o e o o o
o o e e KI OT
o Kir- e a
in a o -*
«•.•*«
KI ru -« ru
o
o
0 t-
K •— U. UJ
in «- _i ~ u. o. t-
C « O Q. O U.
• UJ ar o ^ %^
u. I co — e
O •— 3 Z «• ••
3 C < *» CO
KI <. x ar z
c «- co o
•- z x >- i-t
_1 UJ •• UJ «« *-
ll t r*) ^* ^^ _1 f^
> C t- CO
UJ S 3 C
_i tr oo.
I
0
o
OC-1
-------
U
z
UJ
o
Ul
I-
O
CC
Q.
2 >
Ul rr
> w
2 W
U.H
01
2
CO
O
O
o
D
Z
O
CO
O
ui
Q
'CC
o
U.
)-> U
iH Lt
.. CL
< 0
Q £
5 <
as
O
d
O uj
x cc
/—s
CM
'*-'
JJ
C
0)
CO
to
CD
CQ
CO
<
CO
CODE)
rogres
Q O,
1?
LU ^
±g?
HiH
tS
DECISION UN
rends Monit
UJ
o
e> _,•
*~ o
> ir
U, Q.
UJ
H-
03 5
2 i
> C/>
U. UJ
UJ
cc
MEASU
e3
MENT TITLE
ACCOMPLISH
CO
rH rH fO U 4J QJ O CQ-H U COM CO
>> P~-HiH COW iHC iH -OC»« CO
•U OV4JC >, JJO rHCO ' 4J 3 0) ^] Qj 4J CQ *fH LsH
"OtflO JJ COi WE O"l-i/-s fflCDO
ao'co ^jjjo xw *-iooo)3u
CO XOW1-I Xl-l J-I14-I -HC rH CL. M U4 Ij
• JH^JJ& IH JJO T-4 UM CWZ >-(O O3 HOIra
E rJ O03 W-H-H -H3CM JJ-H-H OrH WH rHM OOJJ
COCO-H iHCO 3rH3 WWO UrH3 -HOI" G.iH CDO JJHW
WT3< JJ-H cjacr JJ w W-QO" jj>mai> >&. cos
V ?, —, 2. £ C 3 O 330) WOJO HC 0)X -HOX
cooi'O zu «s;pu)-i QjJca 0*0-11-1 2; >j •— ' P.I w otd sw,a
-------
o
•z.
Ill
u
UJ
H
o
DC
O.
is
ii
>
r»
LU
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
-1
LU
>
LU
_)
LU
>
LU
H
'
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
0)
0) -,-
*~ O
> CC
u. a.
LU
CO 5
•*• 5
CD 5
> to
U. UJ
UJ
cc
3
LU
LU
P
1-
UJ
^r
CO
Q.
S
O
(J
U
ca
LA 1— i
m r-<
0 0
t
1
1 1
•O 60
- c ,Q. . .
ZWO > OC4-I4JCU 1
>.4J CUCOOS'-HCB-HLj
co»a« oic 4JTD.-I
t5 S 1 H 0 CCCtOCD/^.
C3OT3 U -H OCUCU3-C ,
CU-HI60 O4J EGCT^O i
U £ O 0) CO 4JCUE tJ -H
HTSNDi 3rHad V4rHO»O4J
COS OI3EOaO605'cfl
1-HCJOI4J 360-H O.SCUS4J'4J
ca cam oiu OIMC^-HOIS
S)-i o u-4 cd o ai 4J c QJ
OO«O. O4J C 0) iH • Es
•H WJ B O. T3-H 4J i-( • CO •> 3
4-1 3305 4JSC S O CU M
COW-HCOS ECflO OIC02EO4J
zcu^ o cu S Ewsoscn
COiHO-H BO) COOI^,-HCflS fiOf'"*
EXX4JCO aO4J CDI-ICO4-1LJ-H' UtLO
i-(r— li-i«H OSSCU60CQ3 *^^^
OtflJ-lSCJ rHCOOl CO.OT3i4-ICOT3 •
lueoioai OI-O-H ra.i-iS'cocos'
w<5aacLiQ >-Hja <;;euco *-* to co :
cu nj 3 s
Pi Q O <3 '
oo
!*•»
1
s
CM
O
CM
E
^
Q.
LU
-------
o
z
UJ
o
01
h-
o
DC
a.
=
<
UJ
s
I
CO
O
O
O
O
LU
Q
'OC
o
u.
M O
.. CL
< O
Q §J
UJ ^
2 <
ai
O
_. d
O ui
I c
cs
^~
u
C
a
UJ
to
0)
0)
MDCODE)
Progress As
DECISION UNIT TITLE (AI
ends Monitoring and
^4
< H
to
z
Ul
X
CO
0.
O
u
u
H
_l
D
O
CO
en
LL
en
en
*~
3™
u.
CO
en
>.
u.
L
C
c
<
L
•
0
I
I
f
K
u
«:
•
(
C
«
*
C
C
c
c
Ul
Ul
J
Ul
Ul
~*
j
(
Ul
^
Ul
d
Ul
Ul
J
d
Ul
Ul
_J
Ul
>
Ul
_J
_J-
o
(T
a.
Ul
^
1
h-
(A
Ul
U
C
0
J
j
3
u
j
y
J
:
o
j
L
>
5
j
a
t— i i-H PO in o
P^.
m
^i -H m m m
fv. JNJ
fO
tH O CO ® O
0
CN
n
rn ° °
co i in -H
a) 5 c id . « r. u
•C D • O E T3 4J cO
so 4jcai -nSc-oalid o -a
1C r-l U-tUOOC'O'aU-l 4JCOT-I
ti iff1 •"* 50-0x1 oid«-iidai o OIH
c ai^^ ^caictd 4J c- a)4Jr-i/-v cojsajfl
3J4J b04JQr~- y-HjSid'M SOT wosocaJremcTN -4Jcn>
•HC CC-UON 1-I4J4J B) 0) IMC hCr^-r^ O-Htn
JS-H ^-IM-HT-I t-ic CMX: -HUD oJc-HMaocn Ss,^cd'
^i-ICa)*JCfci JS 0) -O Id
•UOS-H a)y-t (uu to tn-H4Jtoo JJUCQ
CT3 -HO) (UiH Vi "O >O COTT3CZ C -HCcO
OC CM^T) 30.EOC ow QJS.C-H.-H s « «w
3T3 O'wOli COE'Jl4-ilt! "H ^-SEOo>%Miwpo to H -H
5i^ tt'S'u M **'£,';£. (0° ^ -H u -H « c a> 20.1-103
•HE c<4-ico< 4J -HI-I o u m a) 1-1
sooa) aic>-,a) ocosa) u H ooasycutnu cntoaow
4JCJ 4-ltOU.Q rHCOT-ICOCO-H 4-llfl r-l S-l-HO >, 4JECO
OJ-HM (o-oc aiTJjj'HO'iJ ye aicj-itou-arnco t-i-H-Ha)1
tiS3 "SliJL0 >-HcO>O03X a)(02 W4J4-iy-i
tooo O.3604J ai34Jai<tdcotd
3 U Z
!
i
'
CO
CO
o
U-
-
a.
UJ
-------
o
2
UJ
O
u
LU
K
O
cr
c.
UJ rr
> &
z w
UJH
I
to
_J
C.
2
O
O
z
o
Cfl
o
LU
D
O
u.
•H oa
.. b.
< O
Q ?
UJ Q_
S <
05
O
O uj
X EC
f
CN
C
0
03
03
0)
0]
EC
^
CODE)
ogress
Ij
< -a
LU 10
*J
i- a
?^ c
h- u
i 2
O -H
DECISION
ends Mon
M
< H
H
Z
LU
Z
C/J
Zl
Ou
^—
1
U
u
LU
_l
D
D
O
CO
o>
>.
u.
-j
LU
Ul
UJ
UJ
~*
J
UJ
^
UJ
-J
J
UJ
Ul
I
i
=S
•J
LU
LU
j
LU
UJ
_J
en -,•
- o
> C
LL 0.
LU
g<
Lk. UJ
LU
MEASUR
e3
LU
K
^"
H-
z
LU
J/5
ACCOMPLI
ffi
O O 'n C?> »-H SO CM
12 O
O o m PO -H o O
o
O o m m o o o
o »
1
1
« 1 eg
U CO 03 -H 0)
01 O T3 lJ W -a
tfl 03-HCU CU-OtOCUlJ
2. £3U-IJ= 0303O)r»i J-J T3 0) ,
< -H 03 r-H S 4-1 03 030)4-1 '
Zto o >o 1-1 to to -Hex3
«J •UOC i-H-l-H-D 03OD.
U-l M 03 £U bC0030) W r-n S
OO E 03 3 OJ O CO O. oi-oe
-HCJ>-, O -H SCO) 0) 0>>3-H|>
T3 OrH b > 4JC003 60*J -HOICli O < O
~ J CO EL U-13 CtO U^E CQj
< — c eoo-a i-i*j eio aiwb
0)^ 03 C C/30)!^ CCO 01to*o 01 *j bou (OO < w c ex:
•H*JC *j o O^HO b*-> 5^^4J
cnwcgco w o i-ioij H jooo cor-i
0) COQi-l WT3 03 20101 T30) C/3-Hb OCOO
x:uc4J oi oi Q*-> aix; --H -H j *->
b *JCD*H oi-i xi ooaw O-H OMX; oicoi nor •"
CXOOOJ-rH O 3 CMS bC -W4J 4JM4J U (fc U J
£ C 0) _Q *03 O • O O.b • W 10 CO
O OlUtfl OOl b OiHO S3 OCC *JC>,
U bOO. ZCrf H 2 *J *J Mb 2 M O M-HCO
4J b CO
OT (X U
*_.
CO
CO
o
CN
1
o
u.
0.
LU
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO, MEDIA:Air
Financial Support to State and Local Agencies(A245REG % APPRO;A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
This decision unit provides major financial support to State and local
air pollution agencies. States, in partnership with local agencies, will
continue to be responsible for implementation of the Clean Air Act. Emphasis
will be on the implementation and the enforcement of air quality management
programs, including monitoring and data collection. Also, States will
implement programs for the review of new sources and adopt and enforce
the standards for the expected large increase in the number of NSPS and
national emission regulations for hazardous pollutants. -
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
States completed designations of non-attainment areas and began
development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) revision; continued
priority work on programs associated with reviews of new and/or modified
sources, new source performance standards, and national emission standards
for hazardous air pollution sources; proceeded with compliance and
enforcement work in the non-attainment areas; and began the reorganization
of monitoring networks in accordance with SAMWG recommendations.
State and local control efforts have concentrated on obtaining* compli-
ance with particulate and sulphur dioxide regulations at an estimated
22,600 Class A sources across the country. As of mid-1977, 94 percent of
Class A sources were complying with final emission limitations or were
meeting increments in compliance schedules. The Class A source still in
violation were for the most part powerful and recalicitrant industries
that will require extensive resources to be brought into compliance. Since .
compliance by these large volume polluters is known to be a major factor in
both attaining and maintaining the primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), State and localities continued to concentrate on-Class A
violators. In addition, the control agencies have placed more emphasis on
compliance by Class B sources, particularly those in nonattainment areas.
It is estimated that about 130,000 Class B sources exist in nonattainment
areas.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
States will concentrate on the revision of SIPs for non-attainment areas
following the schedule set forth in CAA amendments in such a way as to
minimize the application of sanctions contained in the Act. Emphasis will be
on programs for I/M, control of VOC from stationary sources and evaluation
and regulation of urban fugitive dust. Existing EPA PSD regulations will be
implemented, and State-specific PSD regulations will be adopted as part of
the revision process. Ambient monitoring sites for adherence to SAMWG
recommendations will be upgraded, and a new daily reporting mechanism
will be developed in conformance with the Act. There will be a continuous
enforcement effort to get Class A sources in compliance with special
emphasis on VOC stationary sources. Preliminary actions to implement
inspection/maintenance programs (I/M) will be undertaken.
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG
A245 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STATE & LOCL AGNCS( 1 OAPPROl ) A & C
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CU*
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT 54.0 65.0 55.0 55.0
01 OF Ob FTE 92.6 78. « 78,4
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 65,000.0 75,000.0 56,025.0 56,025.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Because of the statutory requirement to provide 1/2% of the total grants
to each State, this level would provide support below the FY 1978 level for
most major States. This would force significant personnel cuts that would
focus on new hires made with increased FY 1979 funds, therefore, the newer
programs would be reduced most dramatically. This includes I/M, coordina-
tion with MPOs, VOC control programs, enforcement, urban fugitive dust
and implementation of PSD'regulations. Most work schedules approved in
FY 1979 as SIP submissions will not be able to be implemented, resulting
in widespread SIP disapprovals. No new Federal initiatives on SIPs or any
other air pollution program will be possible.
«
The NAMS (National Air Monitoring Stations) sites converted in
FY 1978-79 would continue to be operated, but no new conversions would be
possible in FY 1978 at this level. Quality assurance programs would be
implemented for half of the State networks. No additional implementation
of the SLAMS (State and Local Air Monitoring Stations) would be possible
and the program would remain about 40% completed. About half of the legal
minimum daily air quality reporting would be accomplished. Essentially no
new work would be possible on the regional 03 studies needed for the 1982
SIP. No guidance or review would be provided on monitoring for PSD.
Few States would continue to enforce EPA required regulations and
enforcement and inspections would proceed only on State regulated major
S02 and TSP sources, excluding fugitive dust emissions. Enforcement
initiatives would not be developed on VOC sources, in-use vehicles or
non-leaded gasoline. New source review would be limited to existing State
emission limits with about 10 States continuing to implement their more
complex PSD regulations.
Ten or 15 States with early progress and strong commitment to I/M would
continue to implement the work schedule approved in the SIP. The 15 major
urban areas with completed technical studies in FY 1979 on fugitive dust
would terminate or greatly reduce studies and fail to meet the work schedule.
States would provide only minimum coordination to the designated MPOs,
increasing the potential for inadequate transportation plan analyses. About
100 (out of 150) areas would complete or continue to implement SIPs for SO^
and routine TSP where fugitive dust is not a major problem. Except in
isolated situations, work on lead and short term N0£ SIPs will be postponed.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Financial Support to.^tace and Local Agencies
(a245)
HQ
REG. X
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 Qr06
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Biree or four western States receiving large increases in FY 1979 and FY 1980
due to the 1/2% provision, will initiate programs on visibility protection.
Approximately half of the States that developed regulations for the 1979
SIP will complete the regulation of the remaining 16 VOC RACT source
categories.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Many States complain vigorously about Federal support falling far
behind the new programs required by Federal law. A reduction in support
significantly below (considering inflation) that provided in FY 1978 prior
to the passage of the CAA would result in strong resentment and could
trigger important reprisals against air activities by many State legislatures
and administrations. This would multiply the impact of Federal cuts and
decrease greatly progress in air pollution control with most damage being
done to the unpopular regulatory efforts on SIPs for ozone and new source
reviews. This would lead to widespread SIP disapprovals and application
of sanctions, and require greatly increased EPA manpower to avoid complete
failure of the Clean Air Act.
Not funding this level of State and local grants essentially would
terminate the national air program except for selected programs (e.g.,)
new motor vehicles fuels, new source emission standards and some enforcement.
J21 3
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE «6 «£DIA| AIR
A245 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STATE & LOCL AGNCS(lOARPROi)A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY ^79*C* E. FY%0 INCR*"*™
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT Sa.O 65.0 10.0 65.0
02 OF 06 FTE 92.6 1U.2 92.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 65,000.0 75,000.0 U,205.0 67,230,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
SIPs for nearly all areas designated non-attainment for SC>2 and TSP SIPs
where urban fugitive dust is not a factor will be completed. Ten urban
areas will complete development of the data base for fugitive dust programs
and remain on the SIP-approved work schedule. Ten additional States will
write the required VOC RACT regulations for 16 new source categories. Most
States with I/M plans approved in 1979 will remain on schedule. States with
I/M schedules disapproved in' 1978 will not take new initiatives on I/M if
funds are reduced. Essentially no SIPs will be completed on short term
NC>2 or lead. Two additional States will initiate work on visibility protec-
tion.
t
The identification and operation of an additional 200 NAMS sites
(bringing the total to 1100!) is possible at this level of funding. Emphasis
will be on replacement of obsolete and unacceptable SO- instruments in
emergy conversion areas. An additional 25% of the legal minimum daily
air quality reporting would be implemented (total of 75%). No additional
State monitors will.be upgraded to SLAMS minimum requirements. Minimum
quality assurance programs would be operated for the remaiming half of the
States. Guidance and review programs for PSD monitoring will be undertaken
•in half of the States. No new network or data development for short term
N02, lead, toxics, small particle particulate or regional 03 SIPS will be
possible.
Some States would begin to pursue the development of VOC regulations for
all sources and several others would develop programs for major VOC sources
in urban areas only. An estimated ten additional States would agree to
implement PSD regulations or delegations. Generally, States would, on a
very limited basis, enforce regulations required by EPA including fugitive
dust, energy conversion, lead, 111 (d), and continuous monitoring.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Any reduction in support will be perceived by State and local legisla-
tures and administrations as a lack of interest in air pollution by the
Federal government. This could result in severe cutbacks in State budgets
and widespread pull back from regulatory programs initiated in FY 1979.
U21-J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a»••••••«•••»•*••<
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG M£DIA| AIR
A2«5 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STATE 8, LOCL AGNCS(10APPROj)A I C
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 60 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL ' OPFT 54.0 65,0 35.0 100.0
03 OF 06 FTE 92.6 09.9 1«2.5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 65,000.0 75,000.0 9,660.0 76,910.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Continuing of funding at the FY 1979 level will essentially remove
resource contraints from all States that desire to fulfill the work
schedules approved in 1979 SIPs, except for large studies on urban fugitive
dusts. This includes programs for I/M, MPO coordination (assuming continued
funding under Section 175 grants) and VOC RACT regulations. In addition,
resources will be available to complete SIPs not funded in FY 1979, except
for the most resource intensive study programs on fugitive dusts. Nearly
all States willing to undertake the new source review program will be able
to develop and implement PSD regulations. Several new visibility protection
programs will be initiated and lead regulations completed for nonferrous
smelters and for a few other major point sources. Comprehensive SIPs
for lead and short term N0£ SIPs will be developed in a few major urban
areas. Minimal efforts will be made on the design of regional ozone studies
for the 1982 SIPs.
The program of identification upgrading and operation of the 1200 NAMS
sites will be completed. About-500. additional SLAMS can be approved,
generally the inexpensive Hi-Vol and bubbler sites. Daily air quality
reporting will be raised to the legal minimum in all States. Half of the
States will upgrade the quality assurance program to the optimum level for
all monitoring.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
States would continue to enforce programs and regulations in place in
FY 1979 but would not accept new delegations nor the responsibility for
new regulations or coverage under NSPs, NESHAPS, new VOC RACT categories,
urban fugitive dust lead sources, fuels and in-use vehicles.,
J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG MEDIA| *IR
A2U5 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STATE & LOCL AGNCSC 1OAPPRD|)A & C
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 8o"ciJM
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT 54.0 65.0 100,0
0<« OF 06 FTE 92.6 102.5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 65,000.0 75,000.0 5,590.0 82,500,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The first regional ozone studies will begin in the Northeast and
Middle Atlantic including study designs, equipment purchase for 03, N02> VOC
and meteorologicalmeasurements, and initiation of the required complex
emission inventories. Studies on urban fugitive dust will be completed
in 10 remaining major urban non-attainment areas. Several additional
States will develop acceptable I/M programs. Lead SIPs will be completed
for all isolated point sources and all but a few urban areas. Visibility
protection "programs will be started in all major areas designated by DOI.
Twenty-five small urban non-attainment areas will be provided limited
funds for transportation planning. All States willing to undertake new
source review programs will have funds available for PSD activities.
Data collection monitoring emission inventories will be undertaken for
SIPs for the one hour standard for N02 in major urban areas. Quality
assurance programs will be optimized for all urban areas. An additional
300 monitoring sites will be upgraded to SLAMS standards with emphasis on
Oj and N02 in urban areas. Several areas would be able to take over and
routinely operate existing monitoring networks for inhalable particulate.
States will accept additional delegation of NSPS and new source
review responsibilities. Initiatives would be taken by a number of
States on tampering, non-leaded fuels, continuous monitoring and on the
anticipated large number of regulations for hazardous pollutants.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level would result in no preparation for 1982 SIP
submittals; failure to complete actions leading to acceptable lead and
N02 SIPs; and continued high level of EPA-NSR activity because of lack
of a new development.
U21
EPA. Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
SION UNIT TITLE AND CODE KG
A245 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STATE & LOCL AGNCSCIOAPPROI)A & C
B*"RESOURCE"SUMMARY FY 78 AtT FY 79 c. E, PY ao INCR FY BO
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEI_ OPFT ^a.O 65.0 100.0
05 OF 06 PTE 92.6 1«2.5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 65,000.0 75,000.0 7,500,0 90,000.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Regional 03 studies will begin in the highly industrialized, high
population zone along the Great Lakes. Studies will be initiated in an
additional 10 urban areas on fugitive dust, allowing them to develop
acceptable SIPs or remain on the approved schedule. Transportation plans
will be developed in 25 non-attainment cities smaller than 200,000.
Programs will be started in all .remaining visibility protection areas. SIP
development for N0£ and lead will be undertaken in all non-attainment areas.
An additional 300 monitoring sites will be upgraded to SLAMS quality with
emphasis on urban CO instruments in order to facilitate evaluation of
the effectiveness of anticipated I/M program. Limited support would be
available for about five areas to establish a small baseline monitoring
network for toxic organics. Increased State involvement in enforcement
will be possible on new regulations with widespread activity on VOC sources,
initiation of work on fugitive dust sources and delegation of NSPS and
NESHAPS. Increasing numbers of States would develop an enforcement
program on non-leaded fuels, in-use vehicles, hazardous pollutants and
continuous monitoring.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will result in inadequate preparation for 1982
SIP submittal and incomplete visibility protection programs.
021 -:
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
z
tr
•A
>•
z ac
c <
i— r
t- r
U ZJ
US CO
c u;
tr u
c«L. CC
_i 3
« en
»- uj
z cr
IU
i »-
z •-•
0 Z
a. -s
> z
z o
UJ •—
CO
en —
IU U
»— ^
< C
CO •»
0
UJ £
»- tr
— o
z u.
CO
2
^
M
J
UJ
3T
«—
a
.»«•%
«o
a
IT.
O
«••
«•«
CO
u
r
C£
0
UJ
^
t-
co
e
o
a
a
*
«o
_J
«—
u
^
<
z
M>
ft.
IT
z^
<*J
*
9
CD
o-
CC
*> ^H
«*•• CO
u*
4
r
-V-
tu
„
c »—
cc «
O- J
— Z)
3£
Z>
l^
»•••
z
ur
o r
CO UJ
e> a:
OT* U
Z
•»•
CO
0- US
^-
o a:
— a
z:
CO <
o- »—
— o
"*
c •>
• •
in ce
ru o
0 «
•c o
in — •
o as
in cc
ru o
e *
* «
•e c*
in —
O OS
• •
in cc
ru o
o -c
« o
•e v
in —
e cc
tn CD
ru o
o -a
» •»
•c e>
in ••
O O CD O9
in in ec in CB
ru ru o inr-
o o <
» •» »
o -c er
in in ••
%
e o «D 09
• » • • •
in in cc in co
ru ru o in r~
0 O -O
* % »
-o .co-
in in ••
o o o o -o
• • • • •
o o o in nj
o o tn
o o ru
» o **
in in «
*" " "*
o eo o
o o o =r
o o m in
c ° »"
in in ru
E <* —
3 O « •* CO
— < T I Z
e >- » o
•- Z x >• —
_, U) — UJ < ••
ai S3 «- >-• _J -•
> w *" W
UJ — — 3
_«c o a
o
•
c
1*1
ru
^r
*
e
o
fi
ru
^
fo
«
o
•
o
Kl
ru
^
fo
«
c
o
f\
ru
«
y^
^
O
o
f)
ni
^
P«
•a
o
•
m
o
ru
^
V*
~
0
»
o
o
o
^
in
»-
o
o
o
e
m
•o
f^
o
o
0
**
o
•UJ
0 «-D
3 O
ru < r
o
>- r
— 1 IU «
UJ •*£ >-*
> O
Ul Z<
_> a
^
•
o
p*t
in
iJT
ru
•c
o
Kl
in
^
ff\
ru
•e
m
O
f*l
m
^
Kl
ru
•o
o
p»
in
»
•^
ru
O * O •£
c o m ru
*o ft ^ o
rum
^ «
10. p*i
•e ru
o CD o ru
• • • •
in — o a-
o ru — —
ru o-
« «
•• VI
•
o e o «
• • • •
o o in ru
o in * »
o ru
« ^
- ru
o o o
e o 9
cm in
C f-
in ru
« - u. U
< o a c u.
a o •-«-
Z) es
I •» ••
< «- CO
cc z
— ef»O
X >• —
lu < »-
o* —i •«
•» ^
• *
9a
o
•
o
IP*
e>
«
"
O
o
««•>
o
%
^>
t*«
o
*
0
«•
*>
^
•e
f^.
0
o
v»
^
<*
*o
^
o
0
••
^
•»
4
lw
o
•
o
cc
•c
ill
{^
o
*
o
o
o
•fe
in
^
o
o
e
o
in
*
*^
o
o
0
•*
o
• (^
IL. zr *o
o — ~
3 v
•** < T
e
•• j
_• u. —
Uj 5 o*
s ^
w« —
_ c.
«
•
CO
v%
o-
«
ru
«
«o*
v«
c^
«
^
AJ
*
•
CO
»*
o
«
«
ru
*
CD
^»
c>
«
«
ru
o -a o in
o c o ru
-• — o a
o- o- — —
» %
•a -f
r- ru
oo o e>
• • • •
o ec in o
CD CD p*> =J
^ »t
» «
fr f^
O O O 4>
• • • •
o o tr> m
o in « cr-
o ru
^ ^
tn 4S
»na
00 0
o o v
o in tn
S> »"
tn ru
« ru
»»
•-u.it;
* e c. o u.
« = »» —
z^ * ••
< *^ ^>
cc z
»- « c
w ^ M«
LH ^ ^
•^ ^f ~*
^ CO
Z v
"* -^
0
•
0
o
in
ru
CD
O
e
o
in
*
ru
co
o
•
e
o
in
^
ru
CE
o
e
c
in
%
ru
CC
o
o
o
in
*
ru
CD
0
•
O
o
in
^J
tu 17
_£
^.
«
in
CD
CD
ru
.
in
CO
^
ec
ru
•P*
«
in
r-
co
^
CD
ru
„
m
co
«
to
ru
o — o tn
o in e ru
Of- O7
•nee — —
ruco
CD ru
om
s -o
tr in
mo ».
Ik *
in —
o o o •*>
• • •> •
o o in ni
o in < e*
o ru
^ M
in-c
i- ru
o o o
00 0
oin in
Of--
inru
•ont
^
I— U. Ul
< o a o u.
a o >- ^
o o
I w» *•
ec z
•- CO O
X >• —
Ul « •-
N^ ^ *M
— CO
ZJ C
o a
e —
• •
e c
o c
o in
e —
& *^
o —
e o
c o
o m
e —
C^ f*^
o —
«> t>
o c
=- e
o m
^ ^
c <~
O K1
0 -
C 0
o in
^ »
c •»
1? K>
C O —
O CO
o o o
o cm
•k •» «.
e o —
9" C* t^
0 00
o o m
o o ru
m in -o
*k *k ••>
^» fo ru
e oo
o o e
o cm
o e ru
o •» •>
m in -e
r~ f~ ru
0 00
O OS
o o m
0 S to
in inru
•o -c ru
^g,
0
O
O
o» »—
o < o o.
•UJ C£ O
u. S «o S o
r> o < — «r
in < r ce z
c •— to c
•^ z x >>•••>
_l Ul •— Ul < •—
^ ^ ^ CO
uj 5 z> e
-i ec o a
CO
I*.
1
1
o-
c
o ***
W f
-------
z a.
c «
— T
C Ul
a u
c. £r
z>
_l O
« in
1- UJ
z a
hJ
I •-
Z •-
o z
«£ =>
> r
z c
u. r in
•-a o
VJ
o
o
a
a
u
10 Z
z «
o z
f—l ••*
a u.
ui
cc in
9
•- fa
CL «
o- «
•-• CO
U!
C Z
O* «
— Z
Z
o- _/
— Z)
o z
to UJ
a a
— o
O- UJ
r^
O- 0:
C- «
f^ —
o- t-
o in
• •
O «M
in
-------
u
LU
O
O
UJ
r-
o
cc
a.
LU
> w
Z t/S
LUH
LU
e/5
O
u
u
<
g
to
u
LU
'tr
O
l-l C
•H v>
O m
H -a-
CN
H «fl
0
Cu C/5
Pi W
*•"*} h**4
z
iJ U
-3
_
LU
Q
O
u
o
•z
w
LU
1
^
r-
z
Z
O
O
UJ
O
<
M
Z
LU
Z
CO
a.
S
O
u
3
UJ
2
•^
2
o
00
en
^.
u.
LU
LU
4
'
LU
LU
«J
J
_J
LU
LU
_l
j
LU
^
LU
-1
H
LU
^
LU
_|
j
LU
^
LU
en
en _,•
*~ O
> cc
U. Q.
«5
o «E
^ JT
U— UJ
UJ
CC
D
^
UJ
cS
_j
IB.
«
Z
UJ
s
I
en
OMPLI
U
U
^
CO
m ~T vr.
m mm
rH ST CN
O rH VC
sr mm
rH •* CN
m 1-^0
C CN o
oo -a- CN
LO *«^ ^D
m mm
rH ^ CN
oo m sr
m CN rH
-T rH
1^1 »^ vfi
m mm
rH S3" CN
oo o sr
<• ON rH
m rH »
•3- VO
m m
•3- CN
•^ rH* -T
Z 00 rH
CN rH
< < < '
Z Z ^
1 0)
C >
0 iH
^ O 4J
J2 iH
CU 00 •*
C TJ W 3 3
O Q) H U-i O
CM I4H
*o "H o *o oo
TJ 0) E -H C C 01
01 81 Ij h CO -H C
> CO 01 O) -O -H
tH A 4J U 01 3 (TJ
01 01 C 01 rH J-l
o w -o M -H u c
41 -H 00 X O
S-i CD UH 0) 0) TJ O
)-l CO O U ^^ 4)
to oi oi co jj a. .
C J )- • MO] UrHOl
cOEcO-P J-l 0) iHCOOl
rH 3 CL 01-H-- S C
O.CMOI oo ,n .0 o
O rH 0) . 3 DM 4J
>MH 01 O -1J 01 01 01
*J (d 03 • MCflcO JSO>
rHOrH- G-UM p^cO'H
iHEHU~JOU3COHWE < -. . —
•o o co )9^ -,
"H • rH 4J • •*)£.£.*
03 M CN O M ^3 PQ
iH • O IH 3 pb, •
S» Z C/3 4J "O =S= Z
e?
S
-------
o
UJ
z
g
o
UJ
H
o
CC
a.
E S
Z C/5
UJK
LU
u
o
g
to
u
O
LL
•H kj
.. ol
< O
O n
UJ a.
5 <
x
C3
O UJ
X CC
o
Q
~z
H
H
eo
O
H
H
OS
o ^
Q-I m
ft-t -*3-
S CM
W <
tJ
< C/3
M fcJ
CJ HH
Z U
< Z
2* £x3
M e>
fa <
«-~
LU
Q
O
U
a
2
^
^•"
LU
H
^»
1-
Z
3
^
DECISIOC
<
tt>
Z
LU
X
CO
0.
SE
u
0
UJ
H
-J
**"t
•g
§
o>
>-
u.
_J
UJ
LU
LU
LU
_J
LU
UJ
_,
UJ
^
UJ
•J
LU
^
LU
.
i
UJ
UJ
J
s
en -,•
1— Q
x^. ii
U. 0.
LU
CO <
? i
>- c/s
U. LU
LU
cc
3
CO
^
LU
2
00
LU
i_
•
^»
H
Z
LU
|
•^
CO
_l
ACCOMPI
00
NO
CM
i— 1
NO
rH
CM
rH
NO
rH
CM
rH
O
O
rH
rH
O
O
0
^
ON
C
o
VC
1
}^
o
u
y
to
C
•H
60
C
•H
u
to
^
0)
c.
o
NO O
rH O
CM O
NO O
1-4 O
CM r-.
rH CM
NO O
rH O
CM -> 3 -H
•u en 4J
u en co
C < 14
•H 01
-^ >. o.
o
CM ON
-3- CM
s
O NO
CM rH
^3"
N31
^g.
fx^
O rH
CM
-a-
^f
^
O rH
CM
-3-
O
CN
S3- rH
Sff
^g.
f^
^
r-.
(
^
U
n
o
CM rH
^^.
^>
.
O
CM CO
-3- rH
*3'
-3"
'^"
1 x-v C
CO 0) o
U U -H
c c tn 4-1
0) CO 01 CO
E )-i -H M
33 -0 QJ
I-l 03 SO.
4J tB 4-1 O
03 < 03
C C
•H x o) e -H
'-' -u CO
•H O-H "O CB
J) rH N JJ Q) 01
3 CO O CO 4J M
S 3 4-J O *32
^ O* i— I C 3
4-1 o c/s to o) *a x
O -H
•a c E e eo
SrH WJ=C 03 O(0
S < 3 -<
< C/2 O1 hJ
z oo
£ TJ
U-l
1-.
01
1
1-1 C U-l
•H 60 4J O
3 60 0) M x-v 60 y
C K C CO C CD
01 -H -HO) -H i-(
y u UH -H O y
^ca OC-H o»vj -oc
3 CO 03 CO CO
00 PT3 LJ604J XV<
OJC OlrJ* OJ-HC T3fa
O-H xioc ,00101 3
C4-» £yo goi> we
10 i-l 3 y *H TJ *"r] C C/5 cfl
•^
^
CD
00
CM
•—
i^
fsl
i
Z T3 w Z cC 4J z N*^ *H to CO 1^1
leu
-------
>
u
z
LU
o
z
g
i-
0
UJ
h-
o
cc
a.
_i
<
^
P™
2^
>
s5
S <
§1
= 1
> M
Z 05
UJ r~
z
LU
z
52
a.
. ACCOM
i—
Z
•D
Z
O
CO
U
LU
Q
4f
5
cc
o
LL
I* U
•H *Q
^ ^
.. a.'
< O
O Q_
LU a.
2 <
X
d
O LU
a
z
Ed
^4
•A
/~^
O "">
'—4 *w
CM
H <
X C/5
CM U
3 M
C/2 U
h-3 W
<: u
P
K. 7
>•-«
z u
23
LU
Q
O
U
Q
^
^
LU
_J
r-
H
H
Z
3
Z
0
CO
O
LU
0
C>O
z
LU
S
I
to
I!
O
o
o
LU
H
2
ID
s
§
en
^
LL
1
_J
LU
LU
H
j
LU
LU
1
LU
UJ
j
LU
LU
-1
M
^J
LU
LU
-1
J
Hi
LU
5*
LU
-J
^
o> -,-
^ O
^* cc
LL. d.
LU
t—
CO <
O) 2
r* "~
UB UJ
LU
cr
; &MEASU
UJ
J
•^
H
z
LU
2
T
OMPLISI
o
u
CD
m
OJ tH 00 ^0
00 *tf- oo \c i—'
r**- r^>. -^^ ^^.^ ^v^
•> -- m o o
O O . vO vO <•
O in rH
2J rH OO in
OO *£• CO vO vO
o m vo m o
O CM ^j-
°0 rH CO VO
r-- -J 00 VO rH
o -^. o o~ o"
O O vo *^" ro
rH
Os u-,
00 - rH 00 vO
r~ ^. -^. ^
rH -~, O m O
~ o m CM vo
vO
in
0\ rH OO VO
00 >* CO VO rH
^»« — m m o
f O rH i— 1 m
-3-
_ m
O rH 00 VO
^° 00 VO rH
"-- O o m m
•* m in r».
CM
< < < < <
z Z "z z~ "z
1 • !-l V C J-l
OIUH^V uj:g--^o si
>-iow C'aj-'3< 01 OG/-VJJ
iH4J OC«-HtOQjOO > -H CO h -H
sec -HSAJSOSP-I c c -H -a ^-'T-ig
C*OOI 4-iOCO -H O*J OJgcO^j
Olt-tg COT3-H
OUJON -t-i mov3 *jj= r< 3 4J coaaico
r>T3r»> 3rHr^ C8O -r(iJr C 0) 4J B3 COOJrH
COOrH>-l CO81T-I OlOrH 9) COO -H CU60CB
cuooob IScoSCV^-Hja S OIVM 4-1 ill h C C
O C UCU OOJJcd ^~-^ W u 4Jj3i-ICO
WfM-HOI HM^-HIWCOCJ QrH COO) COCOCUJ-l^l
3b C at O 4J Q) rH «H rH • CUrH .OOIG •H4JOt3*Hi— IO
HHS3 CDH -UO-cfl VJQ rJ jS. UH >W0360cflO «.•-.
y ~* Cfll-l3UUH41 I-IC3SJ ]0 . •
••^ w ex xcuvjii)<;ya)a'Q.^'tJ-i
CS • X • C O. l-i JS
PQ i — !PQ cOCOOJid4JQiJ«
5^™ 2 — -^ t-) jj M w «
oz_ ez_ MCfflosa-x.
CO
o
CN
£
5
U-
CL
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO MEDIA: Air
Grants for Planning Controls in Carbon Monoxide and
Photochemical Oxidant Non-attainment areas (A250) REG" * APPRO: A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objective of this planning assistance program is to assist metro-
politan areas where national ambient air quality standards have not been
attained in developing comprehensive planning and growth management pro-
cesses which permit both attainment of standards and economic development.
The grants will provide funding for planning agencies to participate in the
development of revisions to the State Implementation Plans for urban areas
that have not attained the health-protective primary standards for photo-
chemical oxidants and/or carbon monoxide.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
This program did not exist in FY 1978, so this section is not
applicable.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Grants will be awarded to approximately 100 organizations of local
elected officials in areas having more than 200,000 population and to
organizations in selected smaller areas where local transportation related
sources contribute materially to air quality standard violations for carbon
monoxide and oxidants. To be eligible for grants, these organizations must.
be designated by the Governor as having major responsibility in plan
development and implementation. These funds will supplement transportation
planning funds provided by the Department of Transportation to the same
agencies. During FY 1979, the urbanized areas designated non-attainment
for oxidants and/or carbon monoxide must follow a continuous, phased implemen
tation of transportation control measures. Air quality related transporta-
tion measures must be included in the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and the Annual Element required by the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion. Grants under this decision unit support the implementation of this
process. It is expected that non-attainment areas will have approved
processes and schedules for developing transportation control measures by the
end of FY 1979.
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2J DECISION UNIT LEV£L ANALYSIS
,. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE «G HEDIA* AIR
A250 GRTS FOR PLNG CARB MONOX & PHQTOCHEH OX CTApPROi A > C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. ?Y 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
01 OF oa FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0) 25,000,0 25,000.0 25,000.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
These grants will provide funding for planning agencies to participate
in the development of revisions to the State Implementation Plans for urban
areas that have not attained the health protective primary standards for
photochemical oxidants and/or carbon monoxide.
The Act stipulates that there can be no construction or modification of
major pollution sources where States do not adopt acceptable plan revision.
A possible prohibition on growth of major stationary sources creates the
potential for adverse economic impacts in the nation's urban areas, especially
the central cities.
The grants to be provided under this decision unit will fund the planning
process to which a commitment is made as part of the January 1979 SIP sub-
mission. This planning and regulatory program development process will only
be carried out if adequately funded. Although DOT planning funds will
supplement the resources for the planning process, such funds are not
sufficient given the magnitude and timing of the work. The planning process
is expected to result in control measures that will be adopted and imple-
mented by local governments (which are the only ones which can assure proper
implementation given_the nature of the control measures),leading to attain-
mentTof the NAAQS in a time-frame consistent with the Act's mandate.
and urban areas will not be adversely affected.
The air quality planning activities necessary to implement the Clean Air
Act's SIP revision process involves development and evaluation of longer
range alternative growth and transportation system strategies; development
and evaluation of shorter range transportation improvement packages (includ-
ing contingency packages to best insure timely attainment of standards); a
well managed transportation planning and programming process geared toward
a regulatory product that best insures implementation of key measures; and
new planning and evaluation activities that stress not only detailed air
quality assessment, but also extensive consultation activities (with other
agencies, interest groups, and elected officials) needed for coordination,
support and timely implementation of strategies.
The organizations of local elected officials will develop appropriate
data bases on ambient air quality and emissions, as well as assess the
impacts on air quality (by using sophisticated computer models) of changes in
transportation systems. As a result of these assessments, control measures
will be adopted as formal regulatory provisions of the SIPs. Measures that
will have to be consodered include: motor vehicle emissions inspection and
EPA Form 2410O1 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
HQ
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) continued
Grants for Planning Controls in Carbon Monoxide
& Photochemical Oxidant Non-attainment Areas (A250fEG-
X
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
01 QF04
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
maintenance; control of vapor emissions from fuel transfer and storage
operations using solvents; improved public transit; exclusive bus and carpool
lanes and areawide carpools; long-range transit improvements involving new
transportation policies and transportation facilities or major changes in
existing facilities and operations of existing parking facilities for the
purpose of park-and-ride lots and fringe parking; limitations of portions of
road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of
common carriers, non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time
and place; employer participation in programs to encourage carpooling, van-
pooling, mass transit, bicycling and walking; secure bicycle storage facil-
ities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience
and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas; staggered
hours of work; road user charges, tolls or differential rates to discourage
single occupancy automobile trips; control of extended idling of vehicles;
improvements in traffic flow; conversion of fleet vehicles to cleaner engines
or "fuels, or to otherwise control fleet vehicle operations; retrofit of
emission devices or controls on vehicles and engines, other than light duty
vehicles, not subject to emission standards; and additional methods or
strategies that will contribute to the reduction of mobile source related
pollutants.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
The planning process initiated with FY 1979 funds will not be completed,
since the full funding of planning agencies will not have reached the level
of $75.0 million provided for the Clean Air Act. As a consequence the non-
attainment areas for photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide will not
have adequate SIPs for attainment of the NAAQS. The attainment of the NAAQS
will most likely be postponed indefinitely, subjecting large segments of the
population to air pollution that is harmful to public health. In addition,
the potential constraints on growth provided by the Act will not be avoided
or minimized. The Urban Policy will be jeopardized, given the likely uneven
burden that such restrictions will place on urban areas.
J2U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
u
z
cs
z a
o <
•- r
>- r
o o
UJ CO
t-
c nj
a u
a a:
_i o
«
ID —I
uj u
en •.
**i n
o _i
u. I a
*- a. f-
<-> o o
o »-
•i ce
s: o
ir.
*- ru
ce <
CC
o- »~
— to
UJ
o r
ID UJ
o- tr
CO
o u
0- E
o
o
in
CM
. I
o-
o
O
O
in
rw
o
o
o
c
in
in t-
M
o e
• •
o c
c o
c in
c
o
o
in
CM
e
e
o
m
CM
O
o
e
e e
o e
o in
•n t-
ru
o c
o o
e in
o o
o in
in r^
ru
o
o
O V-
•S k- u, I
*f ** —» »^u. 0. i
C- « O CL O I
U. I «O ^ O
~ 5 O f — CO
— -t I ce z
c *• co c
•- Z X >- M
_) UJ — UJ •< >-
> o
UJ =2
>- CO
=) O
o a.
0211
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ MEDIA: Air
Stationary Source Enforcement A305 REG. XX APPRO: Enf
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
long Range Goal - Ensure that sources are in compliance with emission
limitations under SIPs; new sources are constructed in accordance with NSR,
NSPS, and PSD provisions, sources subject to NESHAPS meet hazardous pollutant
standards, and all applicable provisions of ESECA or any subsequent energy
bill are enforced.
Objectives - Response to episodes under Section 303 emergency powers
- Assist/encourage/supplement State and local enforcement efforts
- Implement accelerated enforcement effort
- Establish noncompliance penalty program
- Issue PSD permits and review State NSR permits
- Ensure all major sources are inspected annually
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Approximately 88% of some 23,000 major sources regulated under SIPs should
be in compliance with final emission regulations, 6% should be complying with
incremental dates in compliance schedules, and the remaining are of unknown
or violating status.
• Issue 410 PSD and NSR permits.
• Completed 2030 inspections.of stationary air sources. *
• Made 300 enforcement action(s) against violating sources.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The stationary source enforcement program will continue its strong enforce-
ment efforts against recalcitrant major source violators and will begin to
focus more on the compliance problems of violators of hydrocarbon regulations
in nonattainroent areas. The new nonccmpliance penalty program will begin in
FY 1979, making possible large numbers of adjudicatory hearings that will
necessitate large inputs of federal resources. Both in size and importance,
the new source program is expanding. Much effort will be applied to issuing
PSD permits, ensuring new source comply with new and existing NSPS standards,
and reviewing State NSR permits for enforceability. Attention will also be
given to examining in detail the field surveillance and compliance monitoring
programs being implemented by States to ensure that violations of emission
limitations are being fully documented. Resources will also be applied to
enforcing the new and existing NESHAPS standards.
J21-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG M£DIA| AIR
A305 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPRO! ENFORCEMENT
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY SO INCR FY 60 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 311.0 381.0 312.0 312.0
LEVEL OPFT 21.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
01 OF 06 FTE 400.7 377.9 377.9
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 6,908.0 9,048.0 7,722.1 7,722.1
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description of Activities; This minimal level represents the core of the
Stationary Source Enforcement program without resource support for new and
expanded enforcement activities created by the Clean Air Act Amendments.
However, a minimal level of activity has to be given to the accelerated
enforcement effort, ncncompliance penalty determinations, compliance assurance
with new NSPS, PSD, and NESHAPS regulations, and enforcement of new State
Implementation Plans at the expense of other activities. Consequently, only
the nondiscretionary duties can be performed for the remaining activities in
this program. For example, EPA must review SIP revisions and would review for
enforceability, but superficially, at this resource level. EPA would implement
NSR where there is no approved State programs, but there could be no signifi-
cant overview of approved State programs. EPA would implement PSD and NSPS
where not delegated, but the Agency could only review to see if submissions
were regular; on their face there would be no capability to conduct or observe
source tests. Minimal functions required by ESECA would be conducted and EPA
would have to carry out preconstruction review and waiver issuance for NESHAPS
where there is no delegation. Cnly an exiguous number of inspections could tie
iade on major SIP sources.
Benefits of Approval; This level would allow EPA to carry out the nondiscre-
tionary duties it has under the Clean Air Act Amendments. Minimal support can
given to the accelerated enforcement effort and the new noncompliance
penalty program can be implemented, but only superficially.
Consequences of Nonapproval; This level represents the minimal program which
justify the existence of a program. The functions to be performed are
generally such that affirmative action by EPA is required as a precondition to
some other requirement: for example, a source could be confronted with a
preconstruction review requirement (as in NESHAPS) and, where a State has not
accepted delegation, there would be no permitting authority to go to. Similar-
ly, failure to implement our ESECA obligations would make it impossible for DOE
to implement its coal conversion program. Also, if this level is not approved,
the Clean Air Act Amendments could not be implemented. Consequently, air
quality will degrade aggravating non-attainment areas and causing attainment
areas to become non-attaining. The Agency may be subjected to court suits for
failure to enforce which will tie up additional program resources.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE KG *EDIA| AIH
A305 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPRO| ENFORCEMENT
* ** * * • • *• • • • V • • IB • iK • 4* IV VI •§ V • • • • • • • • • W W V • • • • • • M M M •• • ^ • ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 3ii.o SBI.O ao.o 352.0
LEVEL OPFT 21.0" 22.0 22.0
02 OF 06 FTE «00.7 20.0 397.9
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 6,908.0 9,008.0 909.0 8,631.1
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description of Activities; At this resource level, the basic program outlined
in Level I would be supplemented primarily by giving resource relief to
Regions (Regions II, III, IV, and V) who have large workload burdens due to
the Major Violators List (accelerated enforcement effort). Also, additional
emphasis can be placed on the implementation of the new nonccmpliance penalty
program. Some minimal assistance will be given for the enforcement of new
SIPs. This level will provide resources for programs designed to ensure
compliance with new NSPS, PSD, and NESHAPS regulations and with the new State
Implementation Plans revisions.
Benefits of Approval; This level will allow minimal implementation of the
new expanded programs due to the Clean Air Act Amendments which will provide
more effective enforcement of new and existing SIPs. Also, a minimal accept-
able level of compliance will be ensured in expanded new source and hazardous
air pollutants programs.
Consequences of Nonapproval; Failure to approve this level would mean that
the Clean Air Act Amendments would only be weakly enforced by the Agency.
U22
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RQ
A305 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPP,0| ENFORCEMENT
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY8o
POSITIONS PFT 311.0 jai.o 37.0 339.0
.LEVEL OPFT 21.0 22.0 22|o
03 OF Oto FTE 400.7 22.5 420. a
BUDGET AUTH. (000. 0) 6,908.0 9,048.0 829.7 9,460.6
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description of Activities: At this resource level/ a more effective acceler-
ated enforcement program will be implemented to ensure compliance with new and
existing SIPs, with new Agency initiatives in hydrocarbon control, and with
new and existing NSPS, PSD, and NESHAPS regulations. Also, additional liti-
gation support would be provided through the level of effort contracts pro-
gram. Minimal support can be given at this level for adjudicatory hearings •
from the noncompliance penalty program. This level would provide the basic
overview for State NSR, NSPS, PSD, and NESHAPS programs; however, there are no
resources for complete on-site audits of these programs. Less than 10% of the
major SIP source will be given an overview inspection and most of these
inspections will be contracted out.
Benefits of Approval: This level would provide more effective case develop-
ment for the litigation produced by the accelerated enforcement effort. The
Agency will be able to handle, in part, what is anticipated to be complex and
resource intensive adjudicatory hearings for noncompliance penalty assessments
appeals. A basic overview and compliance monitoring programs will be estab-
lished to provide necessary data on program performance and compliance status.
Consequence of Nonapproval: Rejection of this -level would provide a marginal
accelerated enforcement effort and inadequate support to adjudicatory hearings
Overview and understanding of State enforcement programs would be of unaccept-
able quality and the information on the compliance status of major SIP sources
would suffer.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE KG M£DIAi AIR
A305 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPRO| ENFORCEMENT
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E, FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 311.0 3ftt.O 6,0 595,0
LEVEL OPFT 21.0 22,0 22.0
04 OF 06 FTE ' 400.7 3.6 424.0
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 6,908.0 9,048.0 139.1 9,599.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description of Activities; This level will provide some resource relief for
the accelerated enforcement effort; in particular, for civil referrals
against major violators of new SIPs and hydrocarbon regulations.
Benefits of Approval: This level would provide sane assurance that major
sources will be complying with new SIP revisions.
Consequences of Nonapproval; Failure to approve this level will weaken the
accelerated enforcement effort and will cause Regions (mainly Region VI) who
have major hydrocarbon problems to have a less than adequate enforcement
program.
J22D
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
V
2
UJ
Ci
2 tr
c <
•1 Z
U -2
UJ CO
C UJ
a u
_l O
« CO
r- UJ
2 c:
UJ
Z *-
2 >->
O 2
a 3
> 2
2 C
UJ •—
CO
u> •->
Ul O
« c
CO —
c
UJ Z
r- IE
2 U.
co
2
Q
M
O
UJ
•; 7 tr
_ i
»~
a
»—
2
X
U
u
tr
c
u.
UJ
UJ
tr
CO
>_
tr
^
2
O
M
^-
<
f-
co
Ln
C
K>
a
CO
O
ec
o —
— • CO
*-
«
5t
*-
CO
M 13
ec 2
0 t-
^ 2
2
O.
»•«
CO
o
u.
(•N
o •-
CC «
0 _J
=>
«_1
-
U.'
o x
X' UJ
o or
_ _>
*-
o uj
r-
o o:
»*a
.?
_j
r- 3
O t-
"
M in
M O
r- r-
r- 4>
• •
M in
M O
r- r-
r*. - «-*
Ij U 3« j w
> o ^* to
UJ => O O
_J CC O O.
«M K) CC 9 O
*• in o in o
rt o * M O
« in 9 KI in
co r- o cc o
• • • • •
^* m o in o
f\ O •£ fV O
« in 9 r»i in
co r- o co o
«- m co 9 o
• • • • •
-* in o in o
mo -CM o
^ in 9 K> in
» « » « »
co r- o cc o
v-t K> CC 9 O
• • • • •
— m o in o
r<1 o -O M O
« « . . .
co r- o x o
— — = Kl O O O CCCOO9OC9 OOC
«oSoS~o SmMM£~S ? * M
•& ^ lf*i »*> P1^ 9 9 f*l >*\ 57 |T* 4T1
tk. » tf> ru *— ru o to ic rv> —• c\) o oo o
90 -O «J *\J O 99 ^>0«\JO 99
O O C1 K1 9 O O C1 Kl 9 CO
^«k «> «fc »k Cb (k
oor- oor- oo
00 00-0 00 000 00
TC*fl«» O^"3Z
M^Xtt 2 K*-i>^ ^-2X>-*^ >-2X
jJljCHiljlZ u5S~^ j!™ uiu3iii
>C •-« >C r-CO >c
ujz> .^o uJ2 3c uj3
_/ CD o a. _jtc oa. _]• a
cc
r-
9
w
CC
•
r*-
9
**
CC
CO
•
r-~
9
9
Ik.
c
0
m
r—
9
*
CO
CO
r--
a*
^
cc
9
M
M
«•»
M
M
O
O
Ik
r-
o
C1
r^.
o
*
»•%
o
o
e
^
«»,*•
03
>-
*
«_
*
O
o o o
SJSS
r*l 9
o *
•C K)
o o r-
-.«*) 0
CO M O
KI a
e o
» •>
— M
tO
H- U. UJ
•A. CL *•
Du O i
-------
o
z
UJ
C3
<
Z
o
o
UJ
I-
O
CC
Q.
Is
ED
C/5
UJ
z
'CC
o
W
O ui
X CC
H
Z
3
Z
Ul
Ul
Ul
en
>i
U. Q.
TLE & MEASURE
Z
ui
5
X
(/5
_J
Q.
O
u
o
<
CD
00
co
in
CN
O
CO
*J
«"}
(N
oo
oo
CO
LO
o
CO
en
oo
m
m
m
o
CO
CO
f>
LO
VO
in
o\
oo
o\
o
oo
o
m
(N
o
tn
591
o
m
OO
o
r*
in
o
o
W
g
§§
y '""!
•* -U
(OO
•"-<
8
«
4-!
CO
(N
O
CN
0
U.
O.
UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQXX MEDIA: Air
Stationary Source Enforcement A305 REG. APPRO: Enf
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
long Range Goal - Ensure that sources are in compliance with emission
limitations under SIPs; new sources are constructed in accordance with NSR,
NSPS, and PSD provisions, sources subject to NESHAPS meet hazardous pollutant
standards, and all applicable provisions of ESECA or any subsequent energy
bill are enforced.
Objectives - Response to episodes under Section 303 emergency powers
- Assist/encourage/supplement State and local enforcement efforts
- Implement accelerated enforcement effort
- Establish noncompliance penalty program
- Issue PSD permits and review State NSR permits
- Ensure all major sources are inspected annually
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Approximately 88% of some 23,000 major sources regulated under SIPs should
be in compliance with final emissions regulations, 6% should be complying
with incremental dates in compliance schedules, and the remaining are of
unknown or violating status.
Reviewed or provided assistance to 146 litigation actions. •
119 DCO's were reviewed for issues of national significance.
Manage $5.5 million contract program.
Provided legal/technical assistance to the ten Regional offices.
Made program reviews of all ten Regional stationary source enforcement
programs.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The stationary source enforcement program will continue its strong enforce-
ment efforts against recalcitrant major source violators and will begin to
focus more on the compliance problems of violators of hydrocarbon regulations
in nonattainment areas. Much effort will be given to assisting and reviewing
this accelerated enforcement effort. Also, large inputs of federal resources
are needed to provide guidance and support for adjudicatory hearings produced
by the new noncompliance penalty program. In FY 1979, there will be many new
regulations (NSPS, NESHAPS, etc) that will be promulgated which will have to be
reviewed for national issues and enforceability. The level of effort contracts
program which will be used for enforcement case development, compliance monitor-
ing and field surveillance, regional industrial technical and economic studies,
national profiles and enforcement strategy studies, and management and technical
data support will increase to $12.5 million, creating over 1000 contract tasks
that must be initiated and coordinated.
J22J
EPA Form 2410-10 (S-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA| AIR
AJ05 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPROf ENFORCEMENT
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E, ?Y 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 72.0 90.0 68.0 68.0
LEVEL OPFT 7.0 9.0 7.0 7.0
01 OF 05 FTE 99.8 89.0 89.0
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 8,792.0 15,525.7 11,673.0 11,673.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
DESCRIPTICN OF ACTIVITIES
This base level will provide national program management and serve as a
coordinating center for Regional and State enforcement functions. Establish
program priorities, direction, strategy, and assure nationally consistent
enforcement of the Regional and State programs. Assess the effectiveness of
the nationwide program and recommend corrective measures. Coordinate with
other agencies on matters impacting this program. Provide support and
guidance to Regional and State programs. NEIC will provide technical support
for specific case development. Major activities include:
Support for enforcement actions in emergency situations involving
substantial threats to public health and safety. *
- Develop and implement emergency procedures.
- Respond to enforcement requests for actions against unregulated toxic
pollutants.
- NEIC will make laboratory analysis and evaluation for specific case
development.
- NEIC will provide evaluation of evidence, preparation of material for
referral to DCJ, litigation support including testimony by participants,
and necessary follow-up investigation for specific Regional cases.
- NEIC will perform field investigations for specific case development.
- Administration of level of effort contracts program.
Support for the enforcement program against major source violators of the
Clean Air Act.
- Provide legal/technical/policy assistance for case development,
enforcement strategy, litigation, and settlement.
- Provide guidance and participate in exanded enforcement programs mandated
by the SIP revisions.
- Assist and review on the applicability of NSPS, Offset, and PSD
to specific sources.
- Develop guidance, recommendations, and advice for implementing energy
related programs.
- Assure a nationally consistent data system through the management of CDS.
- Assessment and review of Regional programs. J2v J
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
LEVEL
1 OF 5
(Continued)
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
J2:
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT A305
HQ XX
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: Enf
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCH.
FY 80 CUM.
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
- NEIC will perform field investigations for specific case development.
- NEIC will make laboratory analysis and evaluation for specific case
development.
- NEIC will provide evaluation of evidence, preparation of material for
referral to DOJ, litigation support including testimony by participants,,
and necessary follow-up investigation for specific Regional cases.
- Administration of .level of effort contracts program.
Enforcement aspects of SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act Amendments.
- Development and review of Federal regulations; review for enforceability
of SIP revisions. *
Support for enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants.
- Assist and review on the applicability of NESHAPS.
- NEIC will provide evaluation of evidence, preparation of material for
referral to DOJ, litigation support including testimony by participants,
and necessary follow-up investigation for specific Regional cases.
Support for enforcement against federal facilities.
- Provide guidance and review enforcement related documents.
Level of Effect Contract Funds Included;
$5,300,000 for enforcement case development, $3,000,000 for compliance moni
toring and field surveillance, $400,000 for regional industrial technical and
economic studies, $200,000 for national profiles and enforcement strategy
studies, and $365,000 for data support.
BENEFITS OF APPROVAL
- Funding this base level will make available inadequate national management
of this federal program. This level will ensure some Regional consistency
and will provide a focal point for program assistance, review and coordi-
nation, and also will provide a minimal degree of NEIC technical support
in case preparations. However, this level will not provide adequate suppor
" to new and expanded programs created by the Clean Air Act Amendments.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
STATIONARY SOUPCE ENFORCEMENT A305
HQ XX
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: Enf
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 (NCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
—I— OF—*-
(Continued)
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
CONSEQUENCES OF N3NAPPROVRL
- Not funding this level would eliminate headquarters support and management
of Regional and State programs; also, it would eliminate NEIC technical
support for specific case development; and consequently, would undermine
the Stationary Source Enforcement Program.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA| AIR
A305 STATIONARY SRCE ENFORCEMENT APPRO» ENFORCEMENT
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 72,0 96.0 ' 13.0 81.0
LEVEL OPFT 7.0 9,0 2.0 9,0
02 OF 05 FTE 99.8 9,3 98,3
BUDGET AUTH. COOO.O) 8,792.0 15,525.7 2,336.0 14,009,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Support for enforcement actions in emergency situations involving
substantial threats to public health and safety
- NEIC and headquarters would be capable of providing more comprehensive
assistance for emergency actions.
Support for the enforcement program against major source violators of the
Clean Air Act.
- Provide legal assistance in expanded enforcement programs due to
the new SIP revisions. In particular, develop and defend regulations
for noncompliance penalty program and smelter orders, and provide
legal and technical support to accelerated enforcement effort.
- Provide economic assistance as part of general enforcement support
and, in particular, for noncompliance penalties, civil penalties,
and smelter orders.
- Ensure adequate management of the greatly expanded level of effort
contract program.
- Provide adequate review of the growing number of regulations and
standards, in particular, increased number of source categories for
NSPS.
- NEIC will be able to perform more field investigations, laboratory
analysis, litigation support and follow-up investigation to support
the increased number of case preparations due to accelerated enforcement
program.
Support for the enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants.
- Provide legal/technical assistance and guidance for the enforcement
of new benzene standard.
- Provide adequate review of the growing number of regulations and
standards for NESHAPS, in particular, for new coke oven emission
standard and new arsenic standard.
- NEIC will provide more support in enforcement actions against NESHAPS
sources.
J£ V O
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT A305
HQ XX
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO:
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
OF-
(Continued)
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Level of Effort Contract Funds Included;
$1,240,000 for compliance monitoring and field surveillance, $340,000 for
regional industrial technical and economic studies, $195,000 for national
profiles and enforcement strategy studies, and $80,000 for data support.
BENEFITS OF APPROVAL
- Funding this level will ensure seme headquarters assistance and support
to expanded programs due to new SIP revisions. Economic assistance
would be provided for noncompliance penalties, civil penalties, and
smelter orders. Some legal assistance would be given to the non-
compliance penalty program and an adequate review of the growing number
of new regulations would be given. Also, the contracts program would
be managed adequately. Finally, NEIC would complete additional full-
scale case preparations and provide more needed technical support to
the Regions.
CONSEQUENCES OF NONAPPROVAL
- Not funding this level would eliminate additional headquarters assis-
tance and support to programs that have expanded significantly due to
new SIP revisions and new regulations. This would mean inadequate
national management of the noncompliance penalty program. There would
be no economic assistance from headquarters and the contracts program
would be poorly managed. In many instances there would be unsatisfac-
tory reviews of regulations and SIP revisions. NEIC would not be able
to give the needed additional technical support. Also, an additional
$1,855,000 in contract funds would be eliminated.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2s DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
• * V • V • • •• W • W • • • • V •• • • • • • 4W • • A M
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT A305
HO. XX
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO:
. Enf
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
(Continued)
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
CONSEQUENCES OF NONAPPROVAL
- Not funding this level would eliminate the additional investigative
assistance by NEIC and the needed additional Headquarters assistance
and support to expanded enforcement programs. This would mean inade-
quate headquarters support to adjudicatory hearings. Inadequate
legal/ technical support to new source programs. Also, NEIC will not
be able to provide the needed additional technical support to the
Regions. Also, an additional $1,235,000 in contract funds would be
eliminated. .
EPA Form 2410.11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT A305
HQ XX
REG.
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: Enf
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
-A-OF-'
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
021
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Support for the enforcement program against major source violators of the
Clean Air Act.
Provide legal assistance in expanded enforcement programs due to the new
SIP revisions. In particular, provide guidance and support for noncomp-
liance penalty program and the associated complex adjudicatory hearings and
for the expanded new source programs where there is not presently legal
expertise.
Provide support in innovative technology areas to assist in Sections lll(j)
and 113(d)(4) work.
Provide technical assistance in new Agency initiatives for hydrocarbon
control.
Support for the enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants.
- NEIC will provide, more support in enforcement actions against NESHAPS
sources and also SIP sources.
- Provide legal assistance in expanded enforcement programs due to the new
SIP revisions. In particular, provide guidance and support in new NESHAPS
programs.
BENEFITS OF APPROVAL
- Funding this level will improve the quality of management and support to
the Regions and States. In particular, support for the initial adjudicatory
hearing for noncompliance penalties that are anticipated to be long and
ccmplicated. Also, technical support for hydrocarbon control and innovative
technology areas. Additional support by NEIC for enforcement actions
against NESHAPS sources will be given.
XNSEQUENCES OF NCNAPPROVAL
- Not funding this level will eliminate needed support for adjudicatory
hearings, support for hydrocarbon control, and support in innovative
technology assistance for Sections lll(j) and 113(d)(4) work and will
» eliminate some legal assistance in new source and NESHAPS programs.
Also, the additional NEIC technical support would be eliminated.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
u
z
bj
U
^
>-
Z IE
O «
** I
•»- r
l-> 3
u> m
O bj
CE o
3
_J O
•a in
t- UJ
Z CE
bj
Z —
O 2
CE 3
> Z
z o
UJ •-
0}
CO «-•
UJ U
H- u;
« o
*-
Kl
O
UJ Z
>- o:
Z u.
3
»_
2
Ul
UJ
u
or
C
u.
Ul
UJ
u
e
i- a>
z
UJ >-
UJ «
«J Z
e e
o —
u. »-
Z *T
UJ r~
ao
<
•< in
o
ru KI
ru «
a
e
c-
t^
& *•*
— ID
bj
X
CO
bj
ru ca
cc z
O1 t-t
— z
<
o.
CD
{^
—
UJ
_
0 «-
0 <
0- _J
r
u
•-
u;
o x
CD UJ
o- a
«M t_>
2
»-l
CO
^ UJ
r»
o- a
— a:
^
o
CO <
r- =>
»• ^-
— u
o ru
Kl fU
**- F*-
^ ru
•• o
c ru
KI ru
••«• !*»
« ru
— 0
o ru
• •
KI ru
f. r^
•c ru
— o
o ru
KI ru
f^ r~
-c ru
» ^
•• o
o o o ru o o o
KI — ru ru co r- o-
f^ ^* O f^ ^ CO
^ po KI ru
» * « »
— ru o- o
— —
o o o ru o o o
KI •* ru ru co r- o-
f» »^ o r«- >o ao
^ tfi f«^ nj
» ^ » «
— ru O- 0
•"" *•
r* in ru <& o o co
in o- « x ^ o-
ir. — K, -c
^ ^ « *
in KI ru K>
o o o o o o
ru CD a r- iv r-
C^ KI in KI f*-
f- ,0 .. »»
cc ru * r-
^^
o
o
o <-
«% »- u. bJ
o < o a o u.
• UJ CE O ^^ *— '
U. I «0 Z 0
o •- = r •» —
3 C < »" CO
— < X CE Z
0 1— BO O
*- Z X >- f>
_j bJ ** UJ <£ ^
,Aj *•> %•? «B^ 1 *B4
> O I- £O
Ul 3 3O
— i CD c a
o o
0- •"
o ru
0 KI
sr ru
o O*
& f~
0 ru
0 KI
9 ru
o o-
• •
o* t^
o ru
0 KI
9 «C
o a-
o- r-
o ru
0 KI
» «
=r ru
c o o o- e c KI
o- co — r- — o- oo
o KI r»ru cc cr-
O CO —KI
^ » ^ *
=r ru — ru
— — —
O O Of- O O KI
* r- Cf in KI ru o-
KI -c •a in —
Kl ST CO 0
« » ^
ru — ru
r^ in ru <« o o ao
in o- «o ru o t> o
ru in •*> -C o- o-
m — KI *
» » ^ «
in KI ruKi
-
o o o o o o
ru cc =T r- rur-
O- KI mK> r-
f*. * •• K
co ru -^ r*
.^^
o
o
o t—
*> *- U. UJ
o <: o o_ o u.
• UJ CE O w ^
u. x «o 3 o
o •- 3 r «•» —
3 O < ^- CO
ru < x cr z
o «- to o
>- z x >- >-i
_J bj *•* UJ ^ **~
UJ C3 «* v» J i-l
> O •- m
bJ 3 3 C
_i a: CQ.
o r-
0- 0
* o
in r-
in KI
o r-
o- o
•0 0
in r-
m KI
o r-
• •
C> 0
« o
m r~
m KI
O I--
o- o
•c o
m r^
^ «
in KI
o n «nr- o o KI
o cr 9- o o o «r
^ in o o o — o
m ** 9 v*> *•
^ * ^ ^
IT KI fUKl
— «•• —
o in inco o o c.
o — cc rvo- — «
•c ru Kit~
in KI ruKi
« * »
v^ «• *•
r- m ni « o o co
in o- «ni o o- »
ru in -f> -i> o» o-
in — KI «
m Kt«\iK>
-
000000
ru co tr f- ru r-
o- K> in Kir-
r» •£ — r-
n ru « f-
r*
o
o
o •-
W l-b. bj
e < e a Ob,
• UJ a: o ^/^.
u. x co 3 e
O •- 3 I •» —
3 O < »» to
Kl< X CC Z
0 r-COO
1- Z X >•!-•
_J bJ — bJ < »-
Uj (3 ^* ^^ i fc^
> o »- «o
Ul 3 3 O
_l Cb O O.
I
o-
c
-------
CJ
z
UJ
o
u
UJ
t-
o
cc
Q.
°i
ED
UJ
S
X
to
O
O
J2;
o
C/5
o
UJ
Q
'CC
o
LL
O uj
Z CC
DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE
UJ
UJ
UJ
91
O) -i
> tt
U. Q.
MEASURE
B ACCOMPLISHMENT TITLE
s
§
o
m
CM
f
g
«N
O
CDCN
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OE MEDIA: Air
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310) REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The mobile source enforcement program is directed primarily towards
achieving compliance with motor vehicle emission standards and fuels
regulations.
The major goals and objectives are to (1) assure that new vehicles meet
emission standards; (2) assure that vehicles meet emission standards in-use;
(3) assure that emission control systems are not removed or rendered inopera-
tive (tampering occurring on 18 to 28% of in-use cars); (4) assure compliance
with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) measures; (5) assure control of hydrocarbon
emissions during gasoline transfer operations; (6) assure that harmful
additives are removed from gasoline; (7) administer California waivers; and
(8) administer the emission warranties.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In FY 78, the mobile source enforcement program continued to carry out
its responsibilities under Title I and Title II of the Clean Air Act by
emphasizing programs aimed at reducing the failure of vehicles to meet
emission standards. In FY 78, the mobile source enforcement program issued
33 Selective Enforcement Audit test orders to manufacturers to test vehicles
on che assembly line. Fifty-one recall investigations were conducted as
were audits of ongoing recalls resulting in the recall of 1,970,000*vehicles.
Manufacturers' certification and production compliance procedures were
enforced by conducting 25 inspections and 5 investigations. The tampering
provisions were enforced by conducting 90 investigations. The unleaded gas
regulations were enforced by contracting for 21,000 inspections.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In FY 79, efforts in the program will be focused on reducing the failure
of vehicles to meet emission standards. The program will continue to
emphasize the Selective Enforcement Audit assembly line testing program and
recall with increased testing and investigative activity as a result of
expanded surveillance activity.
The major activities will be to expand the assembly line testing
activity for light duty motor vehicles and to establish assembly line testing
for heavy duty engines; implement warranty regulations, develop
maintenance instruction regulations, and implement the aftermarket parts
certification program; administer the emission waivers; expand the
antitampering program, and reduce the improper use of leaded gasoline
(leaded gasoline is used in 10% of cars requiring unleaded fuel).
The enforcement activities will be to issue 35 Selective Enforcement
Audit vehicle test orders; conduct 27 recall investigations; conduct 20
warranty investigations; initiate a new antitampering strategy directed at
supporting the adoption of I/M programs in major urban areas; review enforce-
ability of State Implementation Plans and Transportation Control Plans;
conduct 50 imports investigations; prevent the introduction of leaded gas
into vehicles designed for unleaded by conducting inspections of fleet
facilities and retailers; and enforce Stage I vapor recovery provisions.
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE
REG.
MEDIA:
APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY79C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
1 0
OF B-
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
98
6
4183.0
117
n
114.6
5481.7
88
18
12S.2
3935.3
88
18
128.2
3935.3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Continue the assembly line test program (SEA) to deter the production of
nonconforming vehicles. Implement SEA for heavy duty engines. Continue the
recall program to improve the emissions of in use vehicles by encouraging
the manufacturer to ensure the durability of emission control systems for
the useful life of the vehicle. Operate one contractor test facility and
METFac in support of recall. Establish minimal enforcement program in
warranty area, and associated public awareness campaign. Perform mandated
emission waiver activities.
Respond to tampering inquiries from the public, Congress, and parties
covered by the prohibition; and respond to telephone inquiries concerning
the Federal tampering prohibition from the public and regional offices.
Monitor compliance by refineries with key lead phasedown construction dates
and take selective enforcement actions. Administer fuel/fuel additive
waiver requests. ,
Implement anti-fuel switching enforcement efforts by means of test
vehicle inspections targeted in potential I/M areas. Conduct inspections of
municipal and commercial fleets to deter fuel switching and tampering in
these areas.
Funding at this level will establish minimal enforcement deterrence to
fuel switching at service stations and fleet facilities in targeted I/M areas
It will also establish minimal enforcement deterrence "to tampering by fleet
facilities in these areas. This funding, level will not deter tampering by
new car dealerships and commercial automobile repair facilities.
Funding at this level-will provide minimal encouragement for manufac-
turers to design and produce cars that conform to the standards and to
commit resources to the installation of durable emission control systems.
This funding level will not encourage efforts to reduce the number of
misbuilt vehicles, and will permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles
by commercial importers, and will enable selective compliance monitoring and
enforcement of the lead phasedown requirements. Minimal deterrent effect
could be achieved. This level will preclude Stage I vapor recovery enforce-
ment efforts, review of 1979 SIP submissions for enforceability, and legal,
technical, and policy review to assure consistent national enforcement of
SIP's.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
1 OF 8
continued
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE-
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
•
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Failure to fund this level will preclude Federal enforcement to deter
fuel switching and tampering. Substantial fuel switching (currently
occurring at a 10% rate) and tampering will continue, resulting in
significant adverse air quality impacts due to auto emissions. EPA efforts
to obtain the implementation of I/M in major urban areas will be hampered,
and it is likely that I/M will not be included in SIP submissions by a
number of states which otherwise would have implemented the program.
No funding at this level will result in subs'tantial nonconformance of
new and in use vehicles with Federal emission standards due to the
manufacturers' failure to translate the certified design into production
vehicles, defective emission control components, and the insufficient
durability of the emission control system to maintain standards for the
vehicle's useful life. This noncompliance will result in significant
increase in vehicle related air pollution. No funding will provide little
support for AMPC program, which will have to be completely voluntary.
Testing support will be limited to support of warranty enforcement and
production warranty regulations with no public awareness campaign. If not
funded, most key dates will not be reviewed, no on-site inspections will
occur, and this level will preclude enforcement of the lead phasedown
requirements. In addition, fuel and fuel additive waiver requests would be
granted by operation of the Act without EPA review if this level is not
funded.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce,
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
2 8
OF
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
08
6
4183.0
117
11
1 1 L f,
5481.7
17
2
11.3
1122.2
105
20
139.5
5057.5
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Increase SEA for heavy duty engines to test most suspect nonconforming
configurations. Limited testing at second laboratory for recall purposes
will permit investigation of some consumer complaints. Increase in public
awareness campaign for warranties and additional testing support to identify
defects which should be covered by warranty.
Recall investigations focused on most obvious, grossly polluting classes
only. No recall testing to determine compliance with evaporative standards,
therefore, no incentive for production of durable evaporative systems. No
deterrence to* production of nonconforming motorcycles since no SEA or in use
enforcement. No enforcement of imports regulations or plant inspections
for misbuilt vehicles.
Failure to approve this level will permit the manufacturers to take
more shortcuts in the design of emission control systems resulting in
increased noncompliance. »
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HO OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
3 8
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
98
6
4:83.0
117
11
1 14 fi
5481.7
12
1
.7.4
561.9
117
21
146.9
5619.4
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
The SEA for cars and light duty trucks is substantially implemented. A
deterrence is established to discourage heavy duty engine manufacturers from
producing noncomplying new engines and a token SEA program is implemented
for motorcycles. Recall program confirmatory testing rate is sufficient to
permit the investigation of the most obvious nonconforming vehicle classes
suspected of noncompliance with the emission standards. Evaporative testing
of in use vehicles is initiated. Initiate recall surveillance program,
Plant inspections for misbuilt vehicles is initiated. Program to control
the importation of noncomplying cars is established. New data base
implemented, including new strategy. Conduct quality control for enforcement
testing with correlation check vehicle and METFac. METFac supports I/M
cities. Permits greater efforts in warranty enforcement with emphasis on
case referrals. Testing support will be used for warranty enforcement
actions. Audits of AMPC program will be initiated to assure integrity of
program. Initiate testing in support of new strategy. Improved quality
control of enforcement testing facilities will reduce potential for legal
challenge of EPA data.
Funding at a lower level will reduce the deterrence applicable to
engine manufacturers to produce new engines which comply with the standards,
decrease the number of ordered recalls and investigations which are
pursued, and provide no detection or investigation of misbuilt vehicles and
violations for certification. Does not permit enforcement against the
importation of noncomplying vehicles by commercial importers. Support for
AMPC program will be minimal. Public awareness campaign will be enhanced,
but consumer complaints will have to be dealt with by headquarters. Funding
at a lower level will mean the Agency will have to rely totally on
aftermarket part industry for data on certification of aftermarket parts.
Warranty enforcement activity will be hampered by paucity of test data.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
OF— B-
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
98
6
4183.0
117
11
114.6
5481.7
16
2
16.2
507.1
133
23
163.1
6126.5
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
A new antitampering and fuel switching enforcement effort will focus
primarily on areas of the country with such significant mobile source
pollution problems that I/M programs will be necessary to meet air quality
standards. The program includes support of the Denver air initiative as
well as selected other problem areas needing I/M.
Conduct tampering inspections of new car dealerships and test vehicle
inspections of new car dealerships and commercial automobile repair
facilities in potential I/M areas.
Funding this level will establish the enforcement of the new mobile
source strategy by providing a deterrence to tampering by new car dealerships
and commercial auto repair facilities in areas most likely to require I/M.
Failure to fund this level will preclude enforcement of the Federal
antitampering prohibitions against new car dealerships and commercial repair
facilities, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts due to
auto emissions. EPA efforts to obtain implementation of I/M in major urban
areas will be hampered and it is likely that I/M will not be included in
SIP's by a number of states which otherwise would have implemented the
program.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
5 OF 8
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE-
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
98
6
4183.0
117
11
114.6
5481.7
0
0
2000.
133
23
163.1
8126.5
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Conduct fuels inspections (unleaded, Stage I vapor recovery, and octane
disclosure) at service stations and fleet facilities in potential I/M areas.
Fund model anti-fuel switching and antitampering enforcement efforts by
several states or cities.
Funding at this level will provide the contract funds necessary to
substantially increase enforcement deterrence to fuel switching and
establish programs to assure compliance with Stage I vapor recovery
requirements and octane disclosure requirements in potential I/M areas.
This level of funding will also enable the implementation of several
model State and local mobile source enforcement programs.
Failure to fund this level will preclude Federal enforcement of Stage I
vapor recovery and octane disclosure requirements resulting in substantial
noncompliance. The growing demand for unleaded gasoline and the program to
phase down lead in gasoline are exerting pressures on the refining industry
to limit or reduce octane, while Federal fuel economy requirements are
exerting pressure on the automobile industry to increase car octane
requirements. These opposing pressures have the potential to crease
substantial consumer dissatisfaction if traditional gasoline purchasing
habits result in poor vehicle driveability because of mismatch between
vehicle octane needs and gasoline octane quality. Such dissatisfaction is
likely to result in increased tampering and use of leaded fuel in unleaded
cars, with substantial increases in emissions. The current 10% rate of fuel
switching may be in part due to octane related dissatisfaction.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ OE MEDIA: Air
REG. APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
6 a
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
98
6
4183.0
117
11
114.6
5481.7
5
0
11.8
179.8
138
23
17.4.9
8306.3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Conduct tampering test vehicle inspections in additional I/M areas, and
initiate antitampering and anti-fuel switching public education efforts in
potential I/M areas.
Funding at this level will provide a comprehensive approach to full
implementation of the new mobile source strategy with tampering deterrence in
additional I/M areas and enable the initiation of efforts to correct public
misconceptions regarding the affect of auto emission controls on fuel economy
the relationship of octane to fuel economy, etc.
Not funding this level will preclude Federal enforcement of the
antitampering prohibition in certain I/M areas and result in continued
public misperceptions regarding Federal automobile emission control efforts.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
z
Ul
<
>.
z cc
3 <
I- T
U 3
Ul CO
O Ul
tr u
ft. ce
I—I O
« 05
»- Ul
Z CC
UJ
r t-
2 ~-
O Z
ac 3
> z
z o
Iti l-i
CO
CO «•»
u> o
t- Ul
« o
CO ••
c
U* Z
«— a
z u.
*-
•z
•x.
UJ
Li
C
2
u-'
r-
Z UJ
Ul U
r ce
UJ CO
u
. a uJ
L 0 J
1 U. •-
r z CD
Ul O
r
<
< cr
ru HI
ru
— r
z
c.
V*
CD
er
••»
>
•-4
o *—
cc «
0- _»
~"r
3
u
Z
UJ
o r
CO Ul
cr cc
— < CJ
z
CO
cr ui
PM.
0- CC
•- ac
S
tt ^f
r~ 3
cr t-
— u
KI 0
• »
in o
KI cr
o- cr
KI ru
Kl CO
in o
KI cr
o- tr
« ~
KI CO
• •
in o
KI cr
O- 0-
* «
Kt ru
KI CC
• •
in o
Kl CT
c* tr
^ ^
KI nj
KI cr 9 co e e ru
tn o 9 e cc co
~* o- ru * r* »• 9
CO C fh. .6 -^ — *^
a a, * — «• —
* • • •
in ru ru 9
e> o o -• s> o
Kt 9 cr cr fiC ^o
— ruo- —
9 f\l — • KI
^
o
o
o »-
t& r— u. Ul
co >^ j *•* u_ Q. *-
o « o c. o u.
• ui tr o ~ ^
u. I «o 3 c
o >- 3 r ^ —
3 O * v CO
— - >-
_! Ul — UJ < •-
UJ IS >— *-• _l •—
>• O »- CO
_l CC O O.
in »^
Vx- KI
in 9
c cc
m KI
m r-
^ K?
in 9
0 «
in Kt
in r-
• •
t^- KI
in a
C CO
« ^
in KI
in r-
«k •
r*- KI
tn 9
o oc
^ ^
in KI
in e tn r» » o in
r» a KI KI in o cr
in 9 «- 9 o ru KI
o •£ a o — »••
% « % »
in ru niKi
ru -• »> ir o o KI
ru KI cr ru r* ru —
ru in ^ in •* *•
*• KI r^ 8C
•
•-
r«> v« 41 v« o o cr ru« r- — a
co o r- « — — —•
a co * — — —
* • ^ *
in ru ru a
O O 0 — 0 O
to r» o r~ cr
-« ru o» —
9 ru *->KI
^,
c
c
o »-
M •- U. UJ
CD *-* J *^ U, d. *•
C < C Q. O U.
•Ul CC O +* **
U, I CO 3 0
O ^ 3 X w* ••
3 0 -c ~CO
ru «t x tr z
O >- CO O
i- r >c >- «
_J UJ •- Ul * *-
ui u »<-> _i 1-1
> c »- to
UJ 3 3 O
_i CC O CL
9 t».
v •
0- 0
« ru
in 9
9 r-*
cr o
w !••»
•« ru
in 9
9 f-
• •
cr o
•* ^-
•£ ru
^ ^
in a
a r»
• •
& o
•*« f^-
4) t\l
•A CJk
in a
a *^ KI fr^ o o cr
tr cr © o ^* ^^
— o •—*-. — ru a
« cc co ru — —
• ^ * ^
mru ru 9
cr —co o o o 9
.. 4n >o r~ ru ~ ?-
* « o- ru —
. m •• KI 9
f*. ~* -A ~« O O ^
— cr ru -c r- •- 9
1C C f- « — — -<
9 CC « — — —
* • ^ ^
tn ru ru 9
o o o — o o
KI 9 cr cr co -c
co r«- o r- cr
— ruo- —
9 ru -« KI
^
e
ct
O l~
If *- U- Ul
co ^^ _ i --• u. a. *—
o < o CL o u.
• UJ CC O ^* *-*
U. X CO 3 0
o •- 3 r •• —
3 O « ^" CO
KI «r x ce z
O t— CO C
•- z x >- >-i
_l UJ — UJ < t-
m fl *-»%-* t M
> o »- co
UJ 3 3 O
-J cc co.
in —
• *
o *
ru in
-* *
->
• •
^ ^
ru in
*•• *D
* *
-0 9
in ••
* •
X ^
fV IT
*-• *tt
t» ^
X 9
in ruKi «• o o
*• KI CC -C -" -H
• • ^ *
J> KIM 9
^ — 9 0 0 N
r- r- «i o ru *
t» O CO — "
BMA Kl
r^ »^ «o tH O O >C
wi tr rg vC f^ ^! sr
eo O '-^ *£t r*. iH ^H
«tf~ CO !Cr *H ^H r^
* M^ * "
O O O i-* O O
Kt *& 9^ CO CO ^
CO 1"^ O f*» O^
*-4 «S ON ^
<• rg ^H ro
^.
o
c
O t-
•? t- U. UJ
CD *^ _ J ^% U. CL *•
o < oo. o u.
• UJ Cc 0 « «-•
U. X (0 3 0
o •- 3 r •» —
3 O < ^ CO
9 •< X CC Z
=> t- co o
>- z x >-«
_J UJ ""UI « >-
Ul V> ^-* ^^ _» »-*
> o f- co
Ul 3 3 O
-J CC O Q.
«n —
• •
-c -c
ru r-
"• «"
CO «
in —
•e ~D
ru f*h
•" ••
cc -c
in -•
• •
^ ^
m. ^.
«^ V4
<^ «
co «
in —
• •
•c «
ru r~
*p* w«
• «
cc .c -
in ru KI — s
^O •£> O ^ Kl
ru •- •• »^ KI
— KICC — —
» ^ «t •
CO Kl 9 *
0 O O
0 O C
o o ru
o o in
« « »
ru ru —
r- -• « — o
— < o- ru -o r-
cc e r- « »
9 CC * — —
* » • •
in ru rv a
0 0 0 — O
KI a cr cr co
ct r» o f- er
— rue- —
a ru — KI
^,
0
0
0
^
CO *^ ^j ^^ j^
c « o a
• UJ or o
U X to 3 0
O ^ 3 X M —
=> O •< ^ CO
tn < x or z
0 >- CO O
>- Z X >- 1-1
» ijl »— ^1 ^ fc-
ui is « >- _i «-•
> 0 »- CO
Ul 3 3 O
_icc co.
CO
1
1
o-
0
C2
;3
-------
«J
z
2 IT
o <
>-« I
•- r
t_> 3
u; co
*-
O UJ
tr u
o. a
3
« co
*- u>
z a:
Ul
o z
CL 3
»••
> Z
z o
UJ *-
«n
09 ~
UJ O
>- UJ
« c
LJ U
£ IE
uj Q-r
\1(. -3*
ru u
•> z
— z
€C «
O- _J
X
» a
— a.
•G
O
K)
•c ni
o —
•c
c
O —
•
Kl I
ru •
<« -o o ru a> « a
O &• —• -* f» Al ^
f^ a c »o •• —
a> co •*> o co
o- tf -c in —
o «
• •
— sr
•* —• •*> o eon
r- o- nj K> — o «
»• o f» in nt -* >*>
IT o. >-
o
o >-
n >- u. ui
O) ^> _l ~: U. O. *-
O < O Q. O U.
• UJ a: o ^ *•
u. x - Z X >- »«
_l Ul •"• Ul « c—
UJ -J •-• •— _I «-
> O »- «I5
3 O
O O.
-------
CJ
z
UJ
z
O
H
CJ
LU
H-
o
CC
a.
z
UJ
O
u
o
c/2
u
LU
Q
'CC
o
.
CU
o
M
O
(H UH
•H C
UJ
•
o
CC
0.
LU
^
_
«£
^
yj
LU
LJ
C
D
0
£
LJ
5
j
j
9
J
K
1
J
»
5
j
j
t
3
inr^srHCM r- -a-CMOcsiooenoin ocomcMmo oo vo en
en CM rH oo O O in ^ in CM CM rH o en
>£> O rH CM CM
0
rH
en
in r*^ rH CM r^> *^ CM o CM o O en o in o oo m CM in o O O \o en
en CM rH oo O O in rH in CM CN rH o en
v£> O rH CM CM
o
rH
en
mr^i-HCM r- •3-CMOcMOOenOm OoomcMino OO vo en
v£> O rH CM CM
O
.
en
inr*NrHCM r^> vycMOcMoocnoin OoomcMino oo ^o en
VO O rH CM CM
0
r"H
en
mmorH -, 00 E r<
COCO iH 01 4J 4-1 -H 0) CU
CO 4^C ^ 4"Jr u-l 3
COTJ4J 14-1 jjy CO-H(H4JCBtrJCC
MCQMCd CO CQiH'Oal CAJ CCCUSCU-HCU CD
cuuou oo 4-i -a 4-1 o cu D. -r*u a,^ M -H
T3CU O CM CO CUCO UCO CB r-j Ut-lCUXX C
U"a4J> -HC CU rHCU2tOC T3 OT3COCU34J4J (-1
OV4COCU C04-^O 4-* rH 4-1 ""•••• rH »H CQCCUOCUEECOCC O
OCUH CrH-H ed MCU CcB> VJU3CCOC8 «H
4J 4J~^ O34J >, OCU 1-ICU O -HOCUCUCOCCilHrl iH
C04J CO -H CD M (_i 0) O CO U -H CO 4J U > 0-1 C MU rH
01 W CU C 4J 0) OO O r-H-H(-lUCU UECOCO Cr( rH O -H
•H-tHOO.rHCUCCtCrlU-lO-UUO4Jll)4J-HCUS-i)-iWa.)-lW-HI-l)-l
n dO 4-* CO rH J> CJ *H CO C O n J-icncOCJJ-t^WE "4^ CUCUCUSCUCU4JCUed
••CUCO3CCICCU CUOCUCU3Ci4 o p* p *ri ni o o r> r> n n fi o qi
^ ^ Lt3 S CO O hH Oi5 33 CJ Di ^ CO E-* ^ rH p, h- ICXi^OiEEECJESfCiE e^
6d CU WCU-^E 333333
CO 3£ SZMM ZZZZZZ
•' *i L '
s
CO
CN
t
0
E
o
u.
a.
-------
>
U
<
z
g
H
U
LU
O
cc
a.
Of
5 &o
Z
LU
Z
LU
O
u
u
Z
g
CO
o
LU
Q
'a:
O
>.
^
at
J
.J
UJ
>
UJ
H
LU
LU
J
"^1
-J
LU
^
LU
_l
LU
LU
_J
J
UJ
^
LU
4
UJ
^
UJ
-1
0> -j
O
^ cc
u. a.
UJ
U. UJ
LU
cc
v>
LU
o3
LU
-J
h™
r^
z
UJ
2
I
•—
J
ex
O
U
O
CO
vD \O sTO OOO OOOO
CMO OOOO OOOO
vr OCMOO oooo
*™i in r™t in o c^ in
i— i i— i
\O \D *3"O OOO OOOO
CMO OO-* OOOO
-»"OOvO OOOO
*H m »— i m o o\ in
r— i iwj
vO xO ^f O O O O O O O O
CM o o o \o - 01 00 3 O E Q)
•H > t-l <4H iH CO a
Cd -H JJ s-' 4J AJ 0)
> « en o ^ a
3 oi en oi to -H x
X > C Q. C M OJ
O O c ocnotnoic
SU-H -H C-HC > 0
4J -H 4J O O -H
x x oo u 01-1010014-1
t-i i-i c cu a. a) 4j e a) i-i o
O O -H OOD. -HCUCO-HMSO
4J 4J Lj SCO J3 B3 4J i-l COD.
3 3 ai oc cQCnoi-iODa
4-1 4J &, -HlH I-1T-I COO'-HC
co oi i— t oo co rH -H >-HW
en en o. o e cu o > -o TJCU
"o ^"o c'to^c,c!n'a!c tu-aM airH
iH «H O "H CUOWCUCncOCUC *4H
h h u w u i-i >44to> euooco
aicooicoo)U4j -H u tn rH co -u en
'ii'S^'iS'cutn w S'U'H-D'UO'~|
333rHOIO)OI3 3
SZZP&HZHfa fc
^_
rS
•
CO
(N
1
~
CN
EJ
|
<
a.
LU
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ MEDIA: Air
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310) REG. X APPRO: Enforce.
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The long-range goal of the mobile source enforcement regional program
is to establish strong State, local, and EPA regional in-use enforcement
programs to complement headquarters' national enforcement efforts. The
primary thrust of these in-use enforcement efforts is to support the
implementation of I/M programs in major urban areas. This is a new
enforcement strategy. Regional personnel, with their State contacts and
experience in dealing with States, are the key element in developing State
and local mobile source related legislation and enforcement efforts. In
addition, because of their local availability, regional personnel will have
primary responsibility for responding to consumer complaints regarding
potential tampering and warranty violations. Maximum use of private and
State contracts will be emphasized for inspection activities.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In FY 78, the mobile source enforcement regional program conducted
2,000 service station inspections to 'assure compliance with the Stage I
vapor recovery provision, conducted 21,000 unleaded gasoline inspections;
issued 560 complaints; collected $250,000 in penalties as a result of
regional enforcement activity; and conducted a survey of 6,000 refuelings
indicating a 10% fuel switching rate. •
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FY 79 program provides a transition from FY 78 activities to the
major enforcement thrust in FY 80 to support the adoption of I/M programs
in urban areas. Service station fuels inspection activities will be
redirected to municipal and commercial fleet inspections for tampering and
fuel switching. Public education efforts will be implemented regarding
fuel switching and tampering, and regional follow-up of vehicle owner
complaints of alleged instances of tampering will be emphasized. These
efforts will complement and be coordinated with headquarters' national
efforts to achieve focused investigatory and enforcement objectives in
order to maximize the deterrent effect of the limited resources for mobile
source enforcement purposes. Maximum use of private and State contracts
will be emphasized for inspection activities.
J2f
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Mobile Source Enforcement (A310)
HQ
REG. X
MEDIA: Air
APPRO: Enforce.
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY80CUM
LEVEL
1 1
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
23
6
517.0
21
10
36.3
597.3
29
n
?Q n
800.0
29
n
29. n
800.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Conduct tampering and warranty investigations in potential I/M areas in
response to public complaints regarding alleged violations. Perform extended
observations of vehicle refueling operations to deter the introduction of
leaded gasoline into vehicles designed for unleaded. Initiate efforts in
potential I/M areas to encourage enactment and enforcement of State and
local laws to reduce fuel switching and tampering and to educate the public
regarding motor vehicle emission controls.
Funding at this level will establish a minimal response to complaints
from the public regarding warranty and tampering, thereby providing minimal
level of deterrence. It will also enable initiation of public education
efforts and liaison with State environmental and enforcement agencies for
the purpose of encouraging State and local adoption and enforcement of laws
to reduce fuel switching and tampering.
*
Failure to fund this level will preclude liaison with State and local
agencies, public education efforts and response to consumer complaints of
alleged tampering and warranty violations.
02^3
EPA Form 2410-11 (8.78)
-------
z a.
o <
•-Z
c- I
0 =>
O UJ
tt U
Q. a
-i o
f V>
*- UJ
Z CT
UJ
r •-
2 «
O Z
> z
Z O
LJ •—
*>
o
c
«
o
c-
O f\l
o c
o e
ac O-
O IV
o-
ru
o o o- o o
r- r- rufi -D
— — »• ru
ir>i/» W
= >- _j ^-u. a •-
o ^ o a. o u.
• UJ a: o *-> \*
u. I «o n o
o •- s r •» —
=>o < *" m
— « I o: z
O »- €0 O
^- Z X >- N*
_J UJ — UJ < •-
UJ t» ^ <^ _) •»
> o *- to
•jj 3 =J C
_i o o a
02
-------
UJ
z
o
K
O
LU
(-
O
C
a.
2 >
UJ C
H
ii
LU
Z
LU
S
Z
CO
O
O
D
Z
O
o
UJ
C
.
0)
u
o
•H e
< a
.. &!
< O
5 r
u a.
5 <
X!
C
O LU
o"
S^n-
^7 ^
T™ g
O g
u 5
Q £
< °
~ n
«J
K 0)
^ 3
§OT
DECISION
Mobile
<
V)
Z
LU
ft*
^j
0.
5
O
CJ
U
UJ
_l
D
0
I
LU
-i
LU
LU
_
UJ
LU
~"
J
LU
^
LU
-1
LU
>
LU
J
LU
LU
1
_]
^
LU
0>
en
"~ O
> K.
U. £_
FY 1978
ESTIMATE
LU
«
*
TJ
UJ
M
4J LJ C8 /-N
CD 0) 0) CO
0) CO >% M
> XI 1 TO
C O ^ CU
•H L4 X
00 O 1
>. C 3 *
C fi O
CO CJ CD 3
1-1 U 01 ^
LJ -H 4J
CO 3 cfl S
3 ca i-i o
w -H
•W i-H 4-1
C CU £ CO
CO 3 4-> U
«-i -H 3
00 3-0
C -o cu
•H 0) C
w -o o y
CU C CO -H
a. cu t-i i-i
E •" CB ^
CO X -H 3
H W J CL,
J
1
^
(
CO
cc
PN
0
tN
I
<
Q.
LU
-------
IRCN.VS.NTA;. PROTECTION AGENCY
M 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
"} C£c:sic.N UNIT TITLE :ANO CODE; HC ORD MEOuRadiation
jHealth & Ecological Effects-Radiation (n05) 3£S. Apogc^ & D
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
Preliminary U.S. data and reported information from Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union indicate that chronic, low-level exposure to microwaves could
produce behavioral, teratologic, and affect immune defense mofh'niimg. The
program's purpose is thus to delineate further q^d evaluate health effects in-
formation which will be needed to establish guidelines for environmental levels
of non-ionizing radiation to which the public is exposed. The research requires
a highly technical, interdisciplinary team to determine potential biological
effects from exposure to environmentally occurring electromagnetic radiation
(EMR) frequencies and power densities and to identify mechanisms of inter-
jection of EMR with biological systems, including frequency dependence and
jpower densities of those interactions. Driving forces: (1) responsibility
jfor conducting health effects research for frequencies of environmental
•consequence as part of multiagency activities; (2) need to provide health data
Jin support of the Office of Radiation Programs which will determine the need
jfor guidelines for non-ionizing radiation by 1980; (3) necessity for determining
if the-U.S. occupational standard (10 milliwatts/square centimeter (10mW/cm))
jis too high for use as a departure point for deriving environmental guidance
and standards by resolving the discrepancy between the U.S. and other standards
Such as the USSR's which is 1000-fold lower. '
FT 78 ACCOMPLISBMENTS
kultidisciplinary long-term, low-level exposure studies at frequencies of
environmental concern:
.o long-term exposure to FM radio frequency-teratologic, immunologic,
behavioral and reproductive evaluations in rats
o in vitro and postnatal exposure to monkeys to microwaves-teratologic,
growth and behavior studies
o iamunologic, genetic, reproductive aspects of long-term exposure to
UHF-TV band frequency
Cmmunologic and central nervous system studies:
o immunologic studies of mice exposed to radar frequency (report)
o replication and validation of interactive effects of AM radiation on
brain tissue
D) FT 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Determine the most sensitive biological indicators of low-level microwave
effects (teratologic, cytogenic, behavioral and neurophysiological
effects; isnaunologic studies, genetic studies).
Determine the specific microwave frequencies which may constitute
hazardous environmental pollutants.
Studies to resolve 1000-fold discrepancy in microwave exposure standards
between Russia and the U.S. (emphasis on iamunologic, behavioral, ,o, .
reproductive endpoints) . JZL
o Refinement of microwave dosimetry techniques.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM!: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW (CONTINUATION)
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ °^ MEDIARadiation
Health & Eeoloeieal Effects-Radiation (71.05) REG- APPRO: R & D
o Studies to resolve 1000-fold discrepancy In microwave exposure standards
between Russia and the U.S. (emphasis on laanunologic, behavioral
reproductive endpoints).
o Refinement of microwave doslmetry techniques.
JZt"
ram 24'.0-10 (8-73';
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORH 2S DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA| RAD
F105 HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS-RAD APPRO| RID
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 30.0 26.0 20.0 20.0
LEVEL OPFT 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
01 OF 07 FTE 32.3 25.9 25.9
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 700.0 930.0 698.0 696,0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Activities
Immunologic and cytogenetic effects: Chronic exposure throughout
gestation and postnatally) of rats to 2450 MHz (microwave oven) 425 MHz
ultrahigh frequency (UHF), 100 MHz-(FM) and 915 MHz (diathermy L band
radar) at power densities £ 5 at?/cm ; expand immune defense mechanism
studies to examine short- versus long-term exposures on lymphocyte
function, pulsed versus continuous wave exposures on iamuno-eompetent
cells, and exposure to infectious disease agents; extend lymphocyte
transformation studies to mice and to examine for irreversible changes
and chromosomal abnormalities.
Teratogenic and mutagenic effects: Determine mutagenic changes in rats
chronically exposed to various frequencies at low levels; assess through.
reproductive testing of male rats using the dominant lethal assay for
post-implantation deaths of embryos; examine teratogenic effects in
animals with chronic intrautarine exposure to low-levels of 2450, 100,
425, and 915 MHz EMR at power densities £5 mW/cm .
Dosinetry: Continue work both to provide support for effects studies at
given frequencies and power densities under study and to develop
diagnostic/analytical predictive tools.
Initiate a pilot epidemiological study to examine possible relationships
of observable health effects of exposure to nonionizing EMR and to
correlate human effects to those observed in animal models.
Impact
o Funding at this base level will allow for continued development and
verification of data on immunologic, cytogenetic, and teratogenic
responses. Current data are suggestive of deleterious effects from
chronic low-level exposure. Results will be used to develop environmental
guidelines protective of the public health, especially as regards immune
defense and teratologic/mutagenic risks. Evidence is accumulating, from
Soviet and East European and, U.S. (this program) and British sources,
which points to effects on immune defense cell types from short- to long-
term low-level exposure to microwaves. The observation of increased
white blood cell counts in U.S. embassy employees in Moscow illustrates
the immediate concern of possible deleterious effects. The Soviets and
a recent U.S. report have demonstrated teratologic effects in animals.
The implications of such responses in humans are important, and
resolution of this question is critical and will be examined in depth in
this program. J2C
5? A ?am MIO-i : i 3-73)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS (CONTINUATION) _
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Bealth and Ecological Effects-Radiation (7105)
HQ ORD -MEDIA; Radiation
REG. APPRO: R & D
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
— OP-
POSITIONS
PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Impact (Continued)
Funding at this level would allow Initiation of population studies which
are needed to complement animal studies, present a balanced program
of varied research approaches, and examine potential effects in ambient
conditions.
Not funding at this level would cause all non-ionizing radiation research
to cease, thereby finally eliminating all radiation support in ORE. The
Agency would lack any research program support, especially regarding
health effects, for any regulatory actions or regional activities.
Fifteen percent of national, Federal research efforts on non-ionizing
research would be eliminated. No other agency or program is examining
frequencies or power densities of environmental concern; those of'most
concern to the regulatory mission of EPA.
Failure to fund this level would result in direct jnman data to remain
lacking in the support of the development of non-ionizing radiation
guidelines and specific activities in various Regions.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MgDIAi RAD
F105 HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS-RAD ' ARPRDi R & D
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
02 OF 07 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0)
FY 78 ACT
30.0
3.0
700.0
FY 79 C. E.
26.0
3.0
32.3
930.0
FY 80 INCR
3.0
1.0
2.9
139.0
FY 80 CUM
23.0
3.0
28.8
837.0
C DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Activities
o Neurophysiologic and behavioral effects:
a). Examine effects of chronic low-level exposure of rats and primates to
2450, 915, 425, and 100 MHz EMR. at power densities £5 mW/cm .
Responses of concern include learning and memory (operant behavior),
reflex development, spontaneous activity, social behavior and EEG
response. Neurochemical analyses and neuropathology will also be
included to evaluate neurotransmitter levels and concentrations
of critical enzymes.
b). Examine effects of navigational radar frequency on the blood-brain
barrier in dogs. Preliminary indications of increased permeability
v to high molecular weight compounds that could impair central nervous
system (CNS) function and CNS bacterial infection are of concern here.
c). -Evaluate the physiological parameters of microwave-induced heat stress
to resolve whether or not observed effects relate solely to thermal
changes and to identify the best indicators of heat stress to use to
delineate such factors in other studies.
o Initiate full-scale epidemiology study on microwave exposure effects of
selected workers.
Impact
Funding at this level allows examination of the three primary endpoints of
most concern by reinstatement of behavioral/neurophysiologic research at the
FY 78 level. The basis for the Soviet standard, which is 1000 times lower
than the U.S., in extensive studies of the health status of workers and
animals to low levels of non-ionizing EMR in. which effects such as
irritability, decreased libido, loss of conditioned reflexes and increased
cortical brain activity were observed. These effects occurred at levels
below those required to produce other effects on other systems. This program
will examine this reported phenomenon by utilizing conditions of prolonged,
low-level exposures. Such regimens are reported as most appropriate by the
Soviets but have not generally been utilized by U.S. and Western European
researchers.
J2" J
F.m 2410.11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS (CONTOTtJATiaN)
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Health & Eeoloeieal Effects-Radiation (F105)
HQ
REG.
MEDIA: Radiation
APPRO: R & D
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
2 7
POSITIONS
PFT I
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEV EL ONLY. DESCRIBrTHE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Impact (Continued)
Not funding at this level would result in the inability to provide OR?
with relevant data on the various biological parameters cited by the
Soviets and others as most critical. Information on these endpoints,
plus the heat stress research are critical to any regulatory action on
decision making by the Agency in that the U.S. occupational guide is
based on changes in temperature whereas Soviet and East European
standards, which are lower, are based on observed biologic/physiologic
effects;
Would jeopardize maintenance of necessary in-house support function, i.e.
instrumentation, design and construction of exposure systems, animal
support, neuropathology, and quality assurance;
o Requires RIF of laboratory personnel.
U2T1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A.
Fl
DECISION
05 HEALTH
UNIT TITLE
& ECOLOGIC
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
03 OF 07 FTE
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0
AND CODE
AL EFFECTS-RAD
FY
78 ACT FY
30.0
3.0
700.0
HQ
79 C. E
26.
3.
32.
930,
0
0
3
0
MEDJA
APPRO
I
I
FY 60
RAD
RID
INCR
3,0
1.5
93.0
FY 60 CUM
26,0
3.0
30.3
930.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS L£VEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Activities
Mechanisms of action studies
o Define specific absorption frequencies of non-ionizing EMR in biological
systems; examine effects of microwave frequencies over a range of 250 to
3000 MHz on molecular, subcellular and tissue systems to determine
whether specific frequencies in this range interact with the sample to
produce Increased energy absorption.
o Define interaction of AH non-ionizing EMS. in biological system; In vitro
studies with isolated chick brain systems to establish frequency
dependence and reaction modifiers; effects on mammalian and bacterial
genetic systems, effects on membranes and membrane-bound systems.
o Define interaction of selected radio and radar frequencies with biological
system In vitro; electron spin resonance studies to examine effects of
1, 2.45, and 9 GHz on cell membranes; examine range of frequencies on
biopolymers, membranes, and genetic information in haploid and diploid
cells; examine the effects of very low frequencies (£60 Hz) on lymphocytes
In vitro.
Impact
Funding at this level allows program to develop and provide the critical
information on which frequencies at what levels present the most environ-
mental concern. This work will elucidate by what mechanism of action
effects of non-ionizing radiation occur. In general, the absorption' of
RF /microwave energy is dependent upon EMS. frequency and the size,
dialectric properties and orientation with respect to the electric field
of the absorber. The unknowns are whether specific resonant frequencies
exists which are not predicted by general whole organism models and
whether, on a lower level of biologic organisation, specific systems,
organs, cell types or biomolecules may interact with frequencies not
considered interactive on a whole arrfmal basis.
Failure to fund this level would result in lack of the necessary
complement to biologic effects studies. Emerging data indicate too
many biological phenomena which do not solely correspond to the heat
effect. If there is no obvious heat rise with exposure, the resulting
effects are unexplainable. The work at this level will address this
problem, and in addition may enable development of a predictive capability
of a given exposure, if the mechanism of action becomes known.
It should be noted that we believe this cumulative level to represent the
critical mass of this program; this is the amount of resources that allow
the basic areas of concern at present to be addressed at a m-fTi-innm level of
effort .
5? A Firm 2J10-! ' ,3-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2j DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
FJ05 HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS-RAD
HO
M£UIA| RAO
APPRO! R & D
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E, FY 00 1NCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT ' 30.0 26.0 «.o 30.0
LEVEL OPFT 3.0 3.0 5.0 8.0
06 OF 07 FTE 32.3 11.1 41. <4
BUDGET AUTH. COOO.O) 700.0 930.0 2,000.0 2,930.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONIV. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Activities
o Conduct epidemiologic study of MIT radiation laboratory workers.
o Conduct Phase II of HAS/NAVY epidemiology study to rafiae exposure data
on 20,000 radar operations and investigate the morbidity and reproductive
performance of these men.
o Study effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation of microwave
oven workers.
o Expand investigations of the effects of pre- and postnatal exposure of
squirrel monkeys to 245 MHz radiation.
o Conduct prospective studies of special populations on effects of microwave
radiation exposures, e.g., elderly and infants; heat sensitive
populations; populations with chronic diseases.
Impact
Epidemiology information will be obtained, which does not currently exist
to <"•""•**"» the possible relationships of observable health effects from
exposure to microwave radiation and correlate human effects to those
observed in •"•»*?•«* 1 models. Information will also be obtained on effects
to special populations. Preliminary indications of possible effects from
pre*- and postnatal exposure (rats) will be investigated.
J2T
EPA Farm 2410-1!
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2! DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE MQ M£l>IA| RAD
F105 HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS-RAD APPRO! R & D
^'RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 7
-------
z
ui
cs
>.
z er
c «
UJ CO
o ui
QZ LJ
33
_l O
< CO
»- UJ
z a
r »-
Z 1-1
c z
tr o
> z
Z O
lit I—I
*o
t»
UJ C
O '
c
•0 C2
UJ
U *i
a:
< X
Uf ^*
CO _l
Ul «I
a uJ
r
^t — ^<
r ^* I*"1
o
^ «••
ru u.
a
CO
»
CO
o- ~
— CO
>-
r
••4
H-
CO
Ul
ru cs
cc z
O 1-1
— z
z
«
Q.
«B^
CO
o
«M
ku
_
o >-
CO «t
o- _i
3,
u
u.
c r
CO Ul
o- o:
*** LJ
Z
1-
O> UJ
fw
o- o:
— a:
K. —
o- t-
— u
• •
cc c
o- o
O Kl
• •
CD O
o- o
O Kl
CC 0
o- o
o o «> KI e c o
cc o-
co * ru o o ru IT
o ru r^ o ru ru
•c -c «
O O O CO O O Kl
O CO AJ C*1 -^ Kl ru
KI in f^ o ru KI
c- cc r-
O O O 0 O C
o ru co ru o KI
O CO » O Kl
r- « «
^^
o
o
o >-
** ^ b. UJ
C < O Q. O U.
• UJ o: o ^f ^f
u. S «o 3; o
o •- D I «n —
3> O < ^^ CO
— •« X X Z
O H- CO C
H- Z X >- M
_J Ul -" U < *-
LU ti> *-* *-* —i ^"
> C H- to
u! 3 3> O
_> CC CO.
O CO O CO
r~ t> o o
KI -« KI e-
cc »~ o- r-
0 CO C CO
f- e> o o-
Kl -> Kl O
eo r- o- r-
o cc o co
• • • •
r- o- o »
Kl — Kl C>
cc »- o r-
C CC O CO
r» o- o o-
K> — Kl O-
CO f>- O- *-
C O O CO O O CO OOOCOOOKI
p^tnrucrKtKico cccruO'^Kio
KI -c r- — ru ru Kiir>^-o-ru KI
co f^ r^ cr co ^
oo inooo- oo oe m
c-o O-KI — ru KIKI OKI —
Kl Kl *• €>• O* CO
V* «M W4
ooecoooKi OOOCOOOKI
ccoruo-^Kiru ocoruc>«Kiru
Kimf-o-ru KI Kiinf~o-ru KI
o eo r- t> cc r-
oooooo o o o o o o
orucoruoKi orucoruoKt
O CC — O Kl 0 CC — = Kl
r- * « »^ « o
^^ ^«
o o
o c
o i- e *-
•* ^-u_uj w »-u.uJ
o ««
u.xtcr>c uxo
O»-DI^— O»-3Tl«~
3>O<^«O Z)O«»-CO
iM«ra: z KI-coo c >-coo
>-ZX>-»- p-ZX>-i-i
>UI*-UJ<»— —1 UJ •— UJ < »—
UJ^^^^^J*^ UJC£^*^*_JI-H
>c >-co >e »-K
ui3 =o uJ— z>o
_i
Kl —
o- in
« ^
ru ru
o cc
0 tf
Kl -«
e> in
* »
ru ru
o c o co o e a
c cc ru o- o co —
KI in f* — KI a
o KI ir> in »
* « * »
ru — — ru
oooooo**
e- c c c a in —
o o o ru —
o in in r-
^ « «
ru — -•
O 0 O CO O O Kl
o co ru O o KI ru
KI in r- o- ru KI
P- CO t-
o o e o o e
o ru co ru o KI
O CO — O Kl
r- « o
*s
O
c
o •-
V- *- U. Ui
C < C Q. O U.
• ui a: o ^- ^
u. i co rs o
S O < «" «O
•c < i o: z
o >- to o
t- Z X >• 1-
_! Ul — UJ < H-
uj cs ^ -^ j «
> C J; (0
_i ru
:i a
0 CC'
• •
:= o-
Kl Kl
IT ru
» ^
a a
o cc
o o-
Kl Kl
»• ru
« «
:3 a
o c- e cc o
o « ru o- -c
KI in r^ K> KI
o- in KI ru ^
» » . .^
a ru ru a •
^
O 0 O O 0
C C C' O .C
o o c ru
o ru co t-
* • ^
rvj — —
O O O CO O
0 CC IM C- JJ
K> in r> o ru
IP cc r-
o o o o o
s ru co ru o
e co — » KI
r- -C *
i*^
o
o
o
UK *-
O « C. O.
• Ul O. 0
u. r co 3 o
o ~ =- r w> ^
a o < ^-,1
P-« I C •
o ^ mV
«- z x >- 21
_, UJ «- UJ «S >-
> C »- 40
Ul 3 3 O
_i cr CD.
CO <
r- i
-------
z
UJ
is
z o:
O f
I- T
LJ =)
O UJ
a o
a. a
i o
03
> z
z o
m •-•
u u
*— UJ
«t c
o
LJ I.
>- ac
a. _>
o •<
_> u
kti <_
» o
ID O
u «t
a:
< I
UJ »-
<0 _)
UJ •<
a ui
ni cs
o- •-
K> <
r-.
i
o-
c
b. lu
r* a. *-
o o u.
-------
. —
O
Z
LU
O
** ^
1 £
t- e-
U 2
LU 5
r* H
o i
-i -
^
fMW
z >
^J ^^
s <
o 1
c «?
> *"
^? ^?
LU ^-
Z
LU
£
J
<1VM: DECISION UNIT ACCOMP
1 '5
u.
c
o
*J Q
a
LU
t/}
3
|
u
u
Ul
_l
3
S
u.
•:
>
u
oo co
I
\Q
U
5>
UJ
_i
J
Ul
^
Ul
H
Ul
u
J
H
_J
Ul
>
Ul
^
HJ
I
ui
>
Ul
en
en -,•
*~ o
> C
u. c.
Ul
03 ^
2 —
r-
^» ^^
|
4J
_1 Ul
DECISION UNIT TITLE 1AND CODE)
alth & Ecological Effecta-RadJ
—
ACCOMI'LISMMENT TITLE 8. MEASURI
c
!-l r-t
oo eo
O O O f-l CM
OO 00 OO CD 00
O O O r-l «
oo oo oo oo oo
r-l r-l
oo oo
lH r-l
oo oo
1-1 1-1 •
eo eo
00 . OO
O O r^ i-l CN
CO CO 00 CD 00
0 0 r^ ^ CM
CO 00 00 GO CO
-_ .
oo ' eo
•r-l r-l
00 00
eo oo
a
u *J
JS V
CU *W
twin-well calorimetry
measurements of absorbed dose
(monkeys, rodents)
quantify and verify thermogra
data
irophysiologic & Behavioral Ef
o o 3
z
X
il C «M
a > o o x
3 -H u
chronic exposure on spontaneo
activity and learned behavior
pulsed versus continuous wave
radiation on behavior
AM effects on spontaneous act
and learned behavior
acute versus chronic exposure
blood brain barrier
acute versus chronic exposure
pulsed EMR on short-term memo
hanisms of Action
y
O O O O O V
0)
g ~
U "ID
define specific absorption
frequencies in biological sys
(status report on blopolymers
cellular & subcellular systemi
interaction of AM frequencies
(status report)
0 0
-------
o
U
UJ
H
o
CL
2 >
"J e
H
ii
LU
a.
O
a
2
a
rr
5
c
O
d
o
•H Q
AJ
03 %0
•o ai
3
• £»
< o
^2 J^
UJ C—
5<
§
O
C5
C u
0
Cu
e
UJ
UJ
t
M
H
Z
UJ
M
J
UJ
u
O O f-(
00 CO OO
O O i-l
00 CO CO
1 1
H I
n
U
CJ
UJ
<
2
o
^
u.
^*
UJ
^
UJ
H
-t
>
UJ
j
UJ
IU
_J
H
— '
^
LU
e -,•
*• o
> s
u. ev
UJ
^ K
1— UJ
Q
..
A
_1 UJ
AND CODE)
Sffedta-Radj
LE & MEASUH
^
LU ^ —
^ 0
»- S p-
h- -H 2
t ? §
2! ^? •»
^ W y-
2 W J
5 - o
O JS u
Q ~*
4)
w
a
O • O i-l
CO 00 QO
rH O a 4) j=
i-l u IM o
C >» 0) co v«
OH JJ i-l Cd g
WO 3 CO O
j= w y 41 y w
yd aw 1-1 4 4J
y -H 1-13 2: u- ca
41 -u "O "O CO 01 W
u-i 3 d SO "O
U4.UC3CD.UB. dUI
^3 CO 0) CO X Q iH
co jv o) d eo oo
uoio)i-iO) o you
•H u w y «jyi4 1-1 r-i u
oc also oii-iw QC o y
O >— I m X r-t c u O yea
r-l CUOD.O.O4I rH-HO
o SO.B SWIM o xa.
c o x s o j= c u ox
3 ycurH u u 1-1 eg u 41
§u
O O 4) O
M H
u d v
•HO a> ca
d «> O
O 91 0) CO "O
U U W X
A 33 iH d
U CO C CO OJ O > 03 4) r-l 4J
OS O 4-1 iH ^ > u 41 O.
4J 03 T3 W i-l JJ 41 AJ U D3IOW
coo s 4-1 3 y u o AJU o
W (^ W 3 ^ C S CU W ^J W 03
«x o ui-*s yx g do.c
AJ 41 Ul 03 O. U-I !8 — *H>HVWC3
3 a
O 41 O O O O
•Z Q
-
eo
r*.
eo
*^
fN
0
§
0
LU
^
o
-------
o
o
<
o
o E
Z >
UJ g
S <
ii
z
EC
02- :§
1 ,
--
^
a
c
)-
t-
^M
6-
c
»»
»•
5
>
>
c
M
»3
IW
Z
J
^
«>
M»
J
,
i
D
J
J
••
»
>
5
9
5
•»
c
M
>
J
2
T
K
C
o
•H
«
ft vO
•a
a tri
os
.. e.'
< 0
UJ ^^
s <
- —
1
a
w UJ
1^
Cm
B
O
,>
O
^H
•o
"?
a '
83
a •«
z ^
^ «M
£w
J*-*
— ' o
t S
*••&
t 0
§«
^ PI
DECISION
alth & Ei
Of
< s
i
u
^
UJ
! —
,
.-M
V.
Z
UJ
^
e.
O
u
u
o
s
3
en
>
u.
^^1
t
u
UJ
_J
UJ
^
J
_l
w
UJ
"*
^ J
^
UJ
J(
_l
UJ
UJ
a
o -,-
- o
> C
U> B.
UJ
eo -l
M >> « ffl 3
•a u M w a
at i-t AJ a «a o
JJ > 0) C BM
u eon
a> s /-» o o u -o
i-4 > 0)
IW-HCO U-> 4J O 1-H 1-1
OU>> 0) O Q. C 0)
C CB U 1) O O CO
a oi i-i is
C 3 0! C 0) JS ffl I
o a- e -H «H s
o vi-i xi ooiua o
(8 S "O U U X i-l
M M S 3 W 0 O
01 a s oi n >H -H
u «a g tg oi u s
Gate •" ai to « 01
•Hl-iO jj S v f-l "O
o o a
0
^ (D
e u
§0)
.* x «
h u "a 01
O O 9 i-l
14 9 JJ . 0 S ep
•a o o)
9 >, >, ^H e
•u *o *a o o
a 9 » 3 -H 1-1
u jj jj S JJ
jj ffl o ffl 3 ffl
,-4 >,lw >, «H 3
•H OOU-i CO Q. B.
B. O 01 O U O
r-l r-t B.
01 O 01 O >"
4J T^ M -rt > r-l
oi e 3 S ,
o a. x a. < a.
U U 4) 4) Z CD
CO
r*.
oe
CM
o
CN_
O O O 'O O £
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HO. OHD
Offsite Monitoring-Unallocated (F110)
REG. APPRO:
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The ORD Reimbursable Program is the result of a long standing agreement
between EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide monitoring
services to the DOE in response to specific DOE requirements and programs
at and around the Nevada Test Site and other test sites and storage sites
around the United States.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In FY-78 the program provided:
- Comprehensive radiological and other environmental surveillance in the
area adjacent to the DOE Nevada Test Sites;
- Environmental sampling and monitoring;
- Investigations of environmental incidents;
- Research and field investigations to determine environmental effects
and develop methods to assess human exposure rates.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In FY-79 the EPA will:
- Deploy mobile and aerial monitoring teams for every nuclear test;
- Conduct annual visits to all Plowshare and other test sites to monitor
groundwaters;,
- Conduct periodic surveillance of animals in and around the Nevada Test
Sites;
• Continue past programs on radionuclides and biologic studies to asses?
the transport of trans-uranic compounds in animals.
»
The present form and method of operation of the ORD reimbursable program is
specified by the DOE-EPA Interagency Agreement. EPA is to provide positions
to support the program. All dollar costs are reimbursed by the Department
of Energy. Areas of effort are mutually agreed upon by DOE and the
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas. Contractural
support has been considered for numerous phases of the contract. Contractor
will be used to augment present in-house capabilities when required.
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
• ••>••••••••••••••••••• mmm»mm»~*mm»mmmmmmttmommmm»mmm*>*mm mmmmi
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIAf RAD
F110 OFFSITE MONITORING-UNALLOCATED APPROf R & 0
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
01 OF 03 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000,0)
FY 78 ACT
. 105.0
FY 79 C. E.
52.0
78.5
FY 80 INCR
30.0
ai.o
FY 80 CUM
30.0
fll.O
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level will provide a. framework that meets about one-half of the DOE
requirements as stipulated in the DOE Interagency Agreement. Specific areas to
be tasked are:
- Deploy monitoring teams in the off-site area for every nuclear test
conducted at the Nevada Test Sites to document radiation levels and provide'
public protection in the event of an emergency. Warn populace of potential
seismic effects from tests and perform radiological monitoring as needed;
- Conduct annual visits to each Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear site
in the United States. Samples ground waters to assure that no radioactivity
is transported to off-site water supplies;
- Continue the inventory of significant radionuclides from selected locations
on the Test Site using biological monitors. Appropriate studies such as
metabolism, inhalation and resuspension studies will be conducted. Operate
the Nevada Test Site Farm;
- Conduct periodic surveillance of domestic and wild animals on and around
the Nevada Test Site to assess radionuclide burden and detect pathological
changes. Investigate claims of damage to domestic animals and wildlife
resulting from the activities of the Nevada Operations Office of DOE;
- Conduct studies of the biological availability of and internal transport
of trans-uranic elements resulting from nuclear tests in animals. Provide
information on gastrointestinal adsorption, blood-milk transfer, blood -
tissue transfer and retention as well as rates of fecal and urinary
excretion of trans-uranic radionuclides.
BENEFITS
-Provides continuing information on the transport and mobility of radio-
nuclides resulting from nuclear activities.
-Assures safety of civilian population living around the Nevada Test Sites
and other nuclear test sites.
-Provides a base of information which can be used to evaluate potential
hazards of nuclear activities to man.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING
-No measure of radiation exposure to assure health and safety of the off-site
population.
-Inadequate biological data for promulgating radionuclide standards.
-No information on transport/retention/excretion of radionuclides entering
the food chain.
-No,data on contribution of game animals to human body burden of radioactive
*j
-No capability to evaluate claims of radiation damage to livestock.
Form 2410-11 (8.78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE . MO
F110 OFFSITE MONITORING-UNALLOCATED
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL ' OPFT
02 OF 03 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. COOO.O)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
105.0 52.0
78.5
MEDIA! RAD
APPROl R & D
FY 80 INCR
12.0
6.0
FY 80 CUM
42.0
47.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY.' DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WOT FUNDING.
This level will enable EPA to complete 68% of the in-house effort required
to meet the minimum DOE requirements (as stipulated in the DOE Interagency
Agreement). Contractor personnel will be utilized to augment the program
'to answer all the DOE requirements. Specific areas to be tasked are:
- Deploy monitoring teams in the offsite area for every nuclear test
conducted at the Nevada Test Site to document radiation levels and
provide public protection in the event of an emergency. Warn populace of
potential seismic effects from tests and perform radiological monitoring
as needed;
- Conduct annual visits to each Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear site in
the United States. Sample ground waters to assure that no radioactivity is
transported to offsite water supplies;
- Continue the inventory of significant radionuclid es from selected locations
on the Test Site using biological monitors. Appropriate studies such as
metabolism, inhalation and resuspension studies will be conducted. Operate
the Nevada Test Site Farm;
- Conduct periodic surveillance of domestic and wild animals on and around the
Nevada Test Site to assess radionuclide burden and detect pathological
* changes. Investigate claims of damage to donestic animals and wildlife
resulting from the activities of the Nevada Operations Office of DOE;
- Conduct studies of the biological availability of an internal transport of
trans-uranic elements resulting from nuclear tests in animals. Provide
information on gastrointestinal adsorption, blood-milk transfer, blood -
tissue transfer and retention as well as rates of fecal and urinary
excretion of trans-uranic radionucj-ides.
BENEFITS
- Provides continuing information on the transport and mobility of radio-
nuclides resulting from nuclear activities.
- Assures safety of civilian population living around the Nevada Test Site and
other nuclear test sites.
- Provides a base on information which can be used to evaluate'potential
.hazards of nuclear activities to man.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING
- No measure of radiation exposure to assure health and safety of the offsite
popultation.
- Inadequate biological data for promulgating radionuclide standards.
- No information on transport/retention/excretion of radionuclides entering
the food chain.
- No data on contribution of game animals to human body burden of radioactive
pollutants.
- No capability to evaluate claims of radiation damage to livestock.
J2U'
£PA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
U-l
e
z a.
c «
i- r
>- z
o n
UJ CO
_1 O
«t tr>
^- uj
Z or
uj
r •-
r •-
c z
> Z
Z O
UJ »~
cr>
in — i
uj u
•- UJ
< o
t—
CIS ••
K>
o
U_ i.
»- cr
1-1 o
z u.
ZJ
C?' 3
z <
UJ Z
Q. I
O (9
> a:
UJ C
o •-
co en
uj u.
a. u.
o
< c
cc
o- «
en
UJ
CO «T
0 —•
O >-
cc <
o- _i
o r
CC UJ
o- cr
(0
O- UJ
c- a:
"" S
o
O- I-
— O
ru
to
e
•
(M
in
o
O Q. O U.
u. z cc z; o
o >- r> s •« —
3 o < »» to
— « X IT Z
e *- co c
»- z x >• «
_J UJ — UJ < t-
c
o —
•» >- U. UJ
KV « _l ~ U. O. •-
e < e a O u.
. UJCt O «-«-
u. X «Z> O
o •- n r •• ••
3 O < ^* CO
«vi < x a: z
o H- to c
»- Z x >- «
— I UJ *^ UJ < *-
> c
uj z;
cc
o
UJ 5
_i cc
•- CO
D O
o a
-------
o
LU
U
LU
K
o
c
a.
Si
> w
2 »
111S
LU
S
CO
a.
^
O
2
O
U
LU
Q
CC
O
u.
c
o
ra a
— * »{
"U fif
(0
C£
.. a.'
< O
LU £
s <
a
a
O
t
O LU
"Z. C
o"
— 1
•o
LU
|
I
Ul
Ul
1
1
_J
Ul
^
Ul
1
1
J
LU
>
Ul
1
•xj
J
Ul
Ul
1
Ul
Ul
J
a>
~ O
u, a.
Ul
^
r»» 2
a> 5
> Ej
U. Ul
Ul
K
=>
^
Ul
5
Ul
H
•w
^
K
Ul
5
«2
i
ACCOMPI
0
- •
tM
-
O
t
J^
•A
in
O
f~t
'
JJ
CO
i£2 •
^i
a) n
JS, U
gl
ca ec
a» u ._ •
O 0) ^ •
•^ c S
> w 3
m ij_j ^*
MJJ ? '
= c £
^ 0) O . •
SB
*J 14 « 'tO I
•^ «o « Jt C -t
c a. JJ
o « •*
2 Q to
— ^
•i
J
^
O
j
e.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A ) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
CRITERIA, STANDARDS & GUIDELINES (F205)
HO
REG.
OANR MEDI A: Radiation
APPRO: A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objective of this Decision Unit is to develop and promulgate
environmental standards and Federal guidelines which minimize the popula-
tion's exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear energy applications,
naturally-occurring radioactive materials, medical and occupational
exposures, and nonionizing radiation sources. In addition, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 requires a determination of radioactive pollutants impact
on public health and the development and promulgation of appropriate air
pollution standards.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Criteria were proposed for the disposal of radioactive waste. Federal
guidelines were proposed for clean-up of plutonium contaminated soils.- In
cooperation with HEW, guidelines were promulgated for protection from
radiation in the use of diagnostic X-rays. Documentation was completed for
a determination of the need for guidance for the control of general popu-
lation exposures to nonionizing radiation. »
D)
FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Clean Air Act determination and listing of radioactive pollutants
which may endanger public health will be completed. Work will begin on
any necessary regulations for control of such pollutants. Criteria and
standards for disposal of radioactive waste and guidelines for clean-up of
plutonium—contaminated soils will be promulgated. Final recommendations for
protection from exposure to radiation associated with Florida phosphate-re-
lated lands will be published. Standards for land and ocean disposal of
low level wastes will be initiated, as will be regulations for uranium
milling wastes. Other work underway will be protective action guides for
airborne materials and food pathways, and guidance for general population
and occupational exposure, nonionizing radiation (if required) and environ-
mental standards for release of carbon-14 (which also may be a candidate
under the Clean Air Act).
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO M£DIA| RAO
F205 CRITERIA, STDS * GDLNSCINC EIS PREP)"RAD APPRO| A 4 C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 60 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 49.0 66.0 50,0 SO.'O
LEVEL OPFT 4.0 4.0 a.O
01 OF 05 FTE 68.8 63.7 63.7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 2,612.0 2,449.6 2,737.2 2,737.2
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Actions required by the Clean Air Act and those related to the disposal
of radioactive wastes are given the highest priority. Standards will be
promulgated as required to cover the most important sources of airborne
radiation. Potential sources include uranium fuel cycle facilities; DOE and
DOD facilities uranium mines, mills and tailings and phosphate mines and
plants. Alternate methods and strategies for the control of radon will be
investigated. High level waste criteria and standards, published in 1979
will be implemented by other Federal agencies but will require overview by
and consultation'with EPA. Work on low level waste standards, transuranic
waste and waste from decommissioning and decontaminating facilities will
continue but at a low sustaining level. A protective action guide for
contaminated equipment will be published. Follow-up consultation and'
assistance will be given on implementation of previously published regula-
tions (plutonium clean-up, drinking water, residential exposure to radon).
Impact of Not Funding This Level
This level provides a minimum standards-setting function for radiation
protection under .EPA authorities. Failure to fund means that the require-
ments of the Clean Air Act cannot be met, hence the desire for control of
airborne radioactivity will be frustrated. Guidance to Federal agencies and
the -States in key problem areas will not be available. EPA will be unable
to meet its commitments in the development of a sound radioactive waste
disposal management system and policies. No Federal focal point will exist
to consider the overall impacts of the total array of radiation sources on
public health and the environment.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO . MEDIAi RAD
F205 CRITERIA, STDS & GDLNSCINC EIS PREP)-RAD APPRCJg A 4 C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
02 OF 05 FTE
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY
49,0
2/612.0
79 C. E.
66.0
«.o
68.6
2,449.6
FY 80 INCR
10.0
5.0
507.4
FY 80 CUM
60.0
4.0
68.7
3,284.6
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS'LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level allows the maintenance of present schedules for considering
and providing criteria and standards on various types of radioactive wastes.
These schedules, however, lag the needs of other Federal agencies by one
to three years. The development of standards to insure the environmental
acceptability of low level waste management will be initiated. The develop-
ment of standards for ocean disposal of radioactive waste will be initiated.
Development of standards for uranium mill tailings will be completed and
a standard proposed.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Impact of low level radioactive wastes is a major problem which is the
subject of a multi-Agency effort to develop solutions. Two principal
methods which are candidates for acceptance are shallow land burial and
ocean disposal; this level supports the EPA program to ensure the environ-
mental acceptability of these methods. Failure to fund this level would
prevent EPA from providing necessary inputs to the required environmentally
sound solutions to these disposal problems as required by overall Federal
Government commitments to energy program options.
J21 7
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2s DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO MEDIAf RAD
F205 CRITERIA, STDS & GDLNSUNC EI3 PRCP)»RAD APPRO! * * C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E, FY 80 1NCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 49.0 66,0 6,0 66,0
LEVEL OPFT 4.0 «,0
03 OF 05 FTE 68.8 3.0 71,7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 2,812.0 2,449.6 365.0 3i649,6
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At least one additional source will be considered for regulation under
the Clean Air Act and the standards developed and published. A potential
candidate would be a non-uranium mining and milling industry.
Implementation guidance will be published for the non-ionizing
radiation. The multiplicity and complexity of the types of sources causing
the exposures will require some instruction to other agencies to expedite
effective control and monitoring.
The Uranium Fuel cycle standards will be followed up by efforts to en-
courage international control of long-lived effluents from this process.
The majority of future U.S. population exposure to these types of radio-
activity may come from foreign nuclear power production.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Without this level, coverage of airborne radioactive effluents is
limited, and population exposures to the unregulated sources will continue
unabated. Existing regulations for nonionizing radiation exposure at radio
frequencies and for the uranium fuel cycle operations will have their
effectiveness diluted through improper implementation or failure to obtain .
control of major sources. Since the U.S. is leader in regulatory control
of materials emitted in the uranium fuel cycle, EPA support of this inter-
national effort is critical.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
z
UJ
o
<
^
z or
o •«
»- f.
*- r
0 3
UJ CO
O UJ
a? u
o» or
3
_) O
« to
t- UJ
2 or
UJ
I »-
Z i->
O 2
or 3
> 2
2 O
UJ "->
CO —
UJ CJ
*- u
< e
C1
f* ^
rv rv
nj o-
r* o
Kl O-
fk. 9
•k *
rv AJ
rw o-
• •
fkk O
ft 01
f- 9
* <*
ru ru
nj O-
• »
r» o
f*l 0-
fo. y
«. «b
ru ru
r\j AJ o o- e> o r-
r- f- o o o ^ f^
K) o- ^ o- in ,c
f-- Ki K! ^
^ » *. «fc.
iv *« ** rv
ru A* o o- c o f>
fwr* c. o o « KV
t^ r** K; ? ^ "*
«* * * *
rw *• *-« rvi
<; *c c -* o o a?
O- ^-- _l <-> U. O- 1-
o < o a o u.
• uj or o <~ >^
u. T co 3 e
o •- 3 z •» ••
3 O * ^ CC
— •< I or z
o *- o: o
>- Z x >- »
_J UJ •- UJ < •-
> C. t- CO
ttl 3 30
_i er o a
-c c
? o-
CO CO
ru o-
KI rv
•a o
sr t>
CO CC
rv o
* *
KI rv
* 0
^ o
CC CC
ru o-
* ^
KI rv
•0 C
• •
JT CJ-
CC CC
t\i e-
^ ^
KI ru
.c ,c o o e> o r-.
:> a o o- o a cc
CO O CC CO ^ &
rvr- «n o
KI — — ru
sr si o — o o
r» r- o «o e in
in KI ru IT
.c o o — e o cc
O- « Kl t> 4> s cc
3- r* f»- ru * ^
JT CD IT rv
ru — nt
e o oo o
ru — -~ - -•
_1 UJ — U.' « H-
uj o ^» «-' — » —i
> c »- co
UJ 3 3 O
_J ff O O.
-c rvi
rj- —
a ru
f*l t^
-C KI o- o a cc
u cc IT ru
ru — ru
o o oo- o
ru — — cc o-
— e — in »
co -c ru in
cv — — ru
e
Q
O v-
w t- u, u.1
C < O tL O IL
• ui Or o — •—
U-X CO 3 0
o t- 3 r •» «•
3 O « ^ «B
Kl< z ft 2
0 (- CO C
t- 2 X >- >-.
UJ 15 ^ — _I ~
> C. t- V.
UJ 3 3 O
-ice o a
cc
I
Kt
I
O
-------
u
z
UJ
o
LU
H
o
tr
a.
II
ll
> w
Z w
UJ H
UJ
u
Z
g
C/5
O
UJ
Q
'CC
o
u_
e
o
•^
4J
to u
•H
*O fcfl
to
06 <
MEDIA:
APPROP.
i
o
C)
O LU
I CC
/"N
m
0
CM
to
e
•H
0)
-a
•H
O
•a
to
en
13
CO
•O
CO
CO
•H
01
JJ
•H
U
UJ
a
o
u
a
z
^
••~*
UJ
H
I—
Z
o
z
o
o
LU
O
<
LISHMENTS
a.
Q
U
<
LU
-J
p
i
>
LL
_J
UJ
UJ
-J
1
[ LEVEL.
LU
>
LU
j
UJ
UJ
-1
H
Ul
UJ
-J
H
_J
UJ
UJ
IS.
2 -»'
o
> c
u. a.
LU
CO <
IV. 5
o> 5
*• ^
U. LU
LU
e
M
^
UJ
2
LU
.
P
t-
z
LU
I
(O
a.
O
o
o
<
GO
^0
UO
•3-
»
CO
•a
Lj
tO
•o
to
4-1
w
0
CO
o
•H
CO
TH
bo
(11
cd
GO
CO
«N
t
O
J»,
g
o
u.
o.
LU
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ MEDIA:Radiation
RADIATION MANAGEMENT (F210) R£ ApPRO:A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objective of the Regional Radiation Management decision unit
is to ensure that technologically sound radiation protection concepts are
integrated into Regional decision making. This objective is to be achieved
in the Regions primarily through the reviewing of Environmental Impact
Statements for light-water reactors and uranium mining and milling. Addi-
tionally, the objective will be met by providing support to the development
of standards and guidelines for radiation protection. Subordinate activities
leading to the achievement of the objective are the provision of public and
technical information and the strengthening of State and local government
radiation programs.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Forty-eight draft and final EIS's were reviewed by the Regional Offices.
These generally related to conventional light-water reactors and uranium
mining and milling. The number of reviews/Region ranged from as low as one
to as high as twelve. Six regions completed four or more reviews. An
average of about three-fourths of a person-year per region was devoted to
assisting State and local -agencies in strengthening their programs. Techni-
cal and general information was provided to the public on a request basis.
Other activities which varied by region included assistance to the water
program on radionuclides in drinking water and investigations of special
problems, such as uranium mill tailings on Indian lands.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Approximately 58 draft and final EIS's will be reviewed. The level of
assistance to State and local agencies will be maintained at about the FY
1978 level. Public information will be provided on a request basis. Assis-
tance to the Water program and special investigations will be carried out
selectively at about the FY 1978 level.
J2
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM ^t DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSTS
•~m*»mmm»mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm*mm»mm»mmt
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG MEUIAj RAD
F210 RADIATION MANAGEMENT ' APPROi A 4 C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 76 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 JNCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 20.0 17.0 n.o 13.0
.LEVEL OPFT 3.0 2.0 3.0 30
01 OF 08 FTE 21.a i«j,3 19 3
BUDGET AUTH. (QOQ.Q) 564.0 563.7 503.3 503)3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Regional radiation expertise facilitates the integration of technologi-
cally sound radiation concepts into regional decision making on any problem
where radiation exposure is a factor.
At this level all regional offices will be able to carry out required
EIS reviews. Six Regional Offices will be able to provide a limited amount
of consultation to State agencies on general program, emergency response
planning, and implementation of drinking water standards for radiation. A .
limited response will be made to public inquiries.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
\
The routine EIS's will not be reviewed. In all probability many or
most of these will be referred to Headquarters where time will thus be lost
from other priority activities. The regional base of expertise will be lost,
thus any Clean Air Act generated activities in 1981 which should be operated
from the regional level will be delayed. More requests for public informa-
tion will be referred to Headquarters. Valuable contacts with State programs
will be lost or complicated.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A'GENCY
FORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE ' RG MEDIA? RAD
F210 RADIATION MANAGEMENT APPROi A & C
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
02 OF 08 FTE
BUDGET AUTH, (000,0)
FY 78 ACT FY
20.0
3.0
564.0
79 C. E.
17.0
2.0
21. a
563.7
FY so INCR
2.0
1.0
17.7
FY 80 CUM
15.0
3.0
20.3
521.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Two additional r egions will be able to maintain an adequate level of
liaison and consultation with State programs and a reasonable response level
to public inquiries.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Some breakdown of State relations will occur. There will be an in-
crease in referrals to Headquarters with essentially the same cost in
resources otherwise utilized on Headquarters priority tasks.
U21-3
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2} DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
F210 RADIATION MANAGEMENT
RG
RAD
APPRDi A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
03 OF 08 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. COOO.O)
FY 78 ACT FY
20.0
3.0
564.0
79 C. E.
17.0
2.0
31. «
563.7
FY 80 INCR
2.0
1.0
•78.3
FY 80 CUM
17.0
3.0
21.3
599 3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
All regional offices will have at least one professional staff member.
A minimum acceptable level of State liaison and consultation will be main-
tained. Priority public inquiries will be responded to in all Regions.
Limited field investigations can be undertaken on high priority problems.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Assistance by regional personnel in investigations relating to accidental
releases of radioactivity, development of information for Clean Air Act
Regulations, and the development of radioactive waste disposal criteria and
standards will be lost. Investigations will be slowed down or not made. An
adequate level of State contact will not be maintained in two regions.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
3
CO
o-
CO
o- ••»
— . CO
UJ
z
UJ
ru u
CC Z
O- M
— 2
Z
-1
n.
>-
U
z
u cc
< o-
>• ~-
2 Z
O <
*- r •
UI CO
O UJ
a u ui
3 _i
_» O S» H-
« CO «C <
t- UJ O -J
z a — 3
u z
Z I- 3
Z — U
o z
a. ID
3» Z •-
Z O Z
UJ «-f UJ
09 01
IO «•* CO Ut
uj u o- a
« 0 '*" Z
CO »
Kl
O
UJ Z
t- or •-
*^ O CO
Z U. O UJ
Z) r-
c- oi
— a
_j
cc <
»- 3
•" U
z
UI
UJ
u
2
^
z
2
0
»-t
^>
«o «:
r •-
0 0
*-i <
U OL.
UJ
a: c
*•
t- ru
a u.
Kl 0
Kl Kl
o in
Kl •»
o to
in a
Kl 0
• V
Kl Kl
o in
in a
Kl C
Kl Kl
O IT
in 3
KI KI s; e o KI
Kl Kl Kl Kl Kl O-
o o in ~« «*
in in a
Kl Kl O O O Kl
Kl Kl Kl Kl Kl O-
eo in — —i
in m =r
f» f~ Kl 0 O ST
Kl Kl P» 1^ O 0
a- w r- o KI
* •*> o ru
tn in in
Q
s
o >-
«• >- U. UJ
c- « o o. o u.
• UJ Qi O ^ W*
u. x co r c
c »- o z « ••
« o < ^* to
— < x or z
0 t- CO O
*~ 2 ^ ^ ^^
_) UJ — LJ < »-
UJ td ^^ *^ J >-t
> a H- co
u.1 3 O O
-J CC O tk.
o c-
— CO
ru ^
in a
o o-
— cc
ru *
in a
o o-
A •
— CO
ru -c
in a
o o-
— • CO
ru -c
in =r
o o o o o KI
_ — co in KI o
ru ru •*> — ru
in in a
t- r- o- c o
r- r- inrvi —
^> wt w*
1- r- KI o o a
KIKI »- f. fU —
« o ^- co
UJ S 3 O
_i tr oo.
KI a
o- o-
O- Kl
in in
KI a
O- O
O Kl
in in
KI a
• •
c- o-
O- Kl
in to
KI a
If O-
0- Kl
in in
Kl Kl a O O Kl
O- 0- 0- »-KI —
o tf K>— ru
in in in
KI KI mo o
cc co e ru —
l*» f* V*^
r» »•- KI o o 9
KIKI »-»» IM —
« < c — > ru
in tn tn
o o o o o
-o * oru
intn in
e
o
O »"
•> 1- U. UI
o < oo. o u.
• u tr c ^> ^
U, X CO 3 C
O t- => X •» —
r; o « ~ co
KI« x or 2
o »- 03 o
H- Z X >- w
.J U) *•* UI * H-
Ul O *^ ^^ «1 ••*
> O t- ID
uj o rs o
_1 CC O O-
CO
f-
I
-------
o
Z
LU
O
<
Z
o
o
UJ
t-
o
cc
o_
0 i
sl
> w
Z JO
Ul H
LU
S
X
CO
O
o
o
Z
g
CO
o
UJ
Q
U212
'DC
O
U-
C
o
•fH
U
CO O
•H
^3 ^J
«
.. a.'
< O
sl
X
O UJ
I CC
o
t-l
CN
fc
Nvf*
4-)
(U
E
CU
oc
CO
CO
2
C
O
•H
CO
•H
T3
CO
PS
UJ
O
0
U
Q
Z
<
LU
J
^
H
Z
3
DECISION
<
C/9
Z
LU
s
Q.
O
u
u
D
s
i
*~
^»
u.
LU
LU
_,
LU
LU
J
UJ
^
LU
H
LU
LU
H
_j
LU
^
LU
_J
1
_1
LU
LU
~*
2
2 ->
>§
u. o.
LU
K
p. S
0) 5
V™ ^
^ e/J
LU LU
LU
CC
in
LU
S
«3
LU
t
H
L^
Z
LU
I
CO
ACCOMPLI
m
in IH
CN O
tn rH
CM 00
in
*
r-4 CO
CO 4J
C U
•H 0)
"o1
"0 M
C 0.
CO
CO CO
iw a
CO 0)
M CO O.
T) * CO
(U T3
«-i -H u-i a)
O > O *J
0) CO
W M h iH
0) 4) 4-1
.aw .a -H
IS §5
!Z Z
CD
C3
C4
*
O
•^
E
o
a.
a.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (F215)
HO OANR
REG.
MEDIARadiation
APPRO:
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
This Decision Unit has three principal objectives: 1) to maintain an
awareness of radiation in the environment from all sources; 2) to make
certain that environmental considerations are a part of a major Federal
nuclear programmatic decision through implementation of the NEPA process;
and 3) to provide field, laboratory and engineering analyses and documenta-
tion to support the development, promulgation and implementation of EPA
regulations.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Passage of the Clean Air Act caused a reorientation of the FY 1978
program. Field studies and evaluations were initiated to provide definitive
information on a variety of sources and radioactive substances which might
be subject to regulation under the act. Specific areas were coal fired
electric generating plants, uranium mining, non-uranium mining (zinc, iron,
phosphates, limestone and others) and facilities in the uranium fuel cycle
(in cooperation with NRC). Assessment of problems associated with'shallow
land burial of low level waste continued. A report of studies of ocean
dumping of low level waste was developed and is currently in the printing
process. Investigation continued on uranium mill tailing piles and methods
of stabilization of such piles. EIS related reviews were completed on 21
items related to generic concepts and advanced nuclear technology. The
Environmental Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) was operated and the third
annual Report on Radiological Quality of the Environment was published.
Evaluations were completed on problems relating to decommissioning of nuclear
facilities and are continuing on the siting of such facilities.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Ongoing studies will be continued, additional studies initiated on
mineral extraction industries geothermal power sources, and DOE and NRC
licensee facilities will be evaluated. Ambient variations in radon levels
will be studied. Assessments will be completed of all data required for
determination and listings under the Clean Air Act. Studies will continue
on low level shallow land waste disposal sites. Reports will be published
on two of the previously studied sites and on low level ocean disposal.
Investigations of uranium mill tailings will continue. Development will
begin on criteria for ocean disposal site selection, monitoring, and waste
packaging. ERAMS will be operated and associated reports published. Generic
EIS reviews will be made in 15-20 situations.
J2L7
EPA Form 2410-10(8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
^ ^ ™ ™ W»^ W • w w w^^ W^ W W w w w W •• • W*9 ' W » W W • ^ w^ V "'B 9 •• tt W VflV • W 4B
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO M£DIA| RAO
F215 ENVIR IMPACT ASSESSMNT-RAO APPROj A & C
W W • • W *• • W • ••4B4B ••••••• •• • • • ••• • • • • • • • ^ MlM ^M^ ^ ^^M •• ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^MMM ^ ^ ^ ^ m* ^^ ^ ^
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT los.o 99.0 75,0 75.0
LEVEL OPFT «.0 a.O
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
LEVEL
01 05
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Environmental Impact Assessment (F215)
(continuation)
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA:Radiation
APPRO:A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY80INCR.
FY80CUM.
ocean disposal would be delayed and the environmental concerns a-bout the
radioactive waste issue would remain unresolved. EPA would not be keeping
pace with other agencies' activities in the radioactive waste disposal
area.
EPA Form 2410.11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA| RAO
F2J5 ENVIR IMPACT ASSESSMNT-RAD APPROI Ate
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 JNCR "%Y*tO CUM
POSITIONS PFT 108.0 . 99.0 ia,o 89.o
LEVEL OPFT 4,0 4.0
03 OF 05 FTE 109,2 7,0 99,7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 4,004.0 4,718.6 947,8 5,679.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level supports the carrying out of field experiments at two .
existing shallow land burial sites in different climatic and geological
regimes to assist in the definition of the ways radionuclides can escape
such sites in ground or surface water or by emission to the air. The data
will be used to further develop and validate predictive models for the
transport of radionuclides from such sites. The data and its application
are crucial parts of the technical support documentation for criteria and
standards for disposal of such w,astes. Site selection criteria and monitor-
ing requirements will be developed for ocean disposal of low level wastes.
Limited follow up will be carried out on major generic EIS's and
important Federal actions with radiation impacts. Implementation guides will
be provided for radiation portions of the drinking water standard 'and the
plutonium land clean-up guidance.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Standards for ocean disposal and shallow land burial would be delayed
beyond their scheduled date at a. time when the activities of other agencies
are being affected by the lack of environmentally acceptable radioactive
waste standards and EPA is being pressed to speed up its schedules. No
uniform guidance would be available to the states for independent monitoring
of drinking water or plutonium so that hazardous situations might not be
detected or corrected. EPA's opportunity to resolve issues through follow-
up on EIS's and major Federal actions would be eliminated.
•J3U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2l DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MgOIAt RAO
F215 ENVIR IMPACT ASSESSMNT-RAD . APPROf A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY • FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FV 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 108.0 99.0 10.0 99.0
LEVEL OPFT tt.O a.O
03 OF 05 FTE 109.2 5.0 104.7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 4,004.0 4,716.6 632.7 fe,312.b
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding this level provides the States and regional offices with an air
cleaning systems manual for use during their inspections to see what systems
are in place in determining compliance with the CAA standards in FY 1981.
Technical support is provided to determine the need for standards development
under the CAA for promulgation in a second round of regulation in FY 1981 or
1982 for non-uranium mines and mills where the potential hazards are presently
largely unknown. Pre-EIS liaison for major Federal EIS's will provide a
resolution of many environmental issues before EIS's are prepared and minimize
interagency disagreements after the EIS's are prepared. The resources would
also permit a limited degree of in-house evaluation of proposed nuclear
alternatives prior to large commitments of resources to such new technologies.
Data will be collected on extremely high voltage line radiation to develop
guidance to limit exposure and health effects from this source of'non-
ionizing radiation.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
The air cleaning technology manual would not be available for use in
determining compliance with the CAA. Standards would not be developed if
required for non-uranium mines and mills and the extent of the potential
hazards would remain unknown. Environmental issues could not be resolved
until the EIS review stage, which promotes interagency disputes. No support
would run the risk that proposed nuclear alternatives would be found
environmentally unacceptable after the fact. Federal guidance would not be
developed and radiation exposure from extremely high voltage lines would
continue to cause health effects.
J3U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
F2i5 ENVIR IMPACT ASSESSMNT-RAD
HQ
MEDIA|
APPRO |
RAO
A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q INC* FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 108.0 99.0 8.0 107.0
LEVEL OPFT 4.0 4.0
04 OF 05 FTE 109.2 8.0 H2.7
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 4,004.0 4,718.6 3,360.0 9,672.6
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The purpose of this level is to accelerate the radioactive waste dis-
posal program so that the schedule will be consistent with the needs of
the overall Federal program. EPA's present schedule is lagging one to
three years behind these requirements. The proposed activities are as
follows:
1) Uranium Mill Tailings: There is an urgent need for EPA to carry out
field examinations of alternate methods for disposal of newly generated
tailings, 15 million tons per year, as well as methods for stabilizing
existing piles (approximately 40 sites containing about 140 million tons).
The field investigations will involve both test sites for DOE proposed
methods and existing sites with differing levels of stabilization. The
ultimate end products in addition to interim advice to NRC will be EPA
Generally Applicable Environmental Standards for Mill Tailings Disposal
which will form the basis for the NRC final regulation.
2) Other Low Level Wastes: To maintain consistency with NRC and DOE
requirements and responsibilities in this area, EPA will accelerate its
program to generate the required criteria and standards for both land and
ocean disposal by 2 years (in 1982 instead of 1984). The specific end
products are environmental standards for land disposal, criteria for ocean
disposal sites and container requirements in support of issuance of ocean
disposal permits, assistance in establishment of Federal Policy on existing
sites requiring long term care. The 1980 activities are to begin studies
of two remaining unstudies burial sites; accelerate documentation of support
information on types and volumes of waste for land disposal; accelerate
criteria for the packaging of wastes to withstand pressure and corrosion
for periods as long as 100 years in the ocean; accelerate the development, of
criteria for selecting ocean disposal sites with minimum potential
environmental impact; accelerate development of monitoring requirements
for selection of ocean sites (currents, salinity, oxygen content, etc.)
and requirements for surveillance of future designated sites to assure
adequate warning of radiation leakage.
3) Decommissioning and Decontamination (D/D): NRC and DOE can establish
licensing requirements including the internalization of the costs of ulti-
mate D/D. Such requirements are dependent on EPA standards specifying
conditions which will satisfy public health and safety objectives. EPA
presently plans to provide such standards by 1984. NRC and DOE are indi-
cating a need for such standards in 1980 so that they may be used as soon
U3U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
Environmental Impact Assessment (F215)
(continuation)
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA: Radiation
APPRO :A&C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
FY 78 ACTUAL FY 79 C. EST. FY 80 INCR.
FY 80 CUM.
LEVEL
-°1OF^_
POSITIONS PFT
OPFT
FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
-
possible in licensing constraints. EPA must generate generally applicable
standards and criteria for future sites alloTJin» s^'te by site evaluation
of existing sites including those associated with restricted or conditional
release of sites, facilities and equipment. Residual activity limits will
be established in 1980.
4) Transurancics: There are presently 14.7 million cubic feet of
Transuranics in temporary containment in this country (most in shallow land
burial). Production is expected to be between 0.25 million and 4.7 million
cubic feet annually depending on the rate of decommissioning of facilities
and the nature of the facilities. ORP plans included starting the work on
TRU specific standards in 1981 with completion scheduled in 1983. The
requirements of DOE and NRC make necessary the beginning of the development
of the standard in 1980 with completion in 1982.
Impact of Not Funding This Level ,
As indicated above, EPA will be unable to_provide_its_inpu1:s to the
overall Federal program, thereby~delaying actions by other Federal agencies
or forcing them to act without the requisite environmental inputs to their
decisions.Potentially the end result will be increased costs and confusion
in the private sector as well as delay of crucial projects. _,
J3l>
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
2
IctJ
ts
<
>-
2 IT
O <
*"^ I
*- Z
U 3
UJ 00
o uj
a: u
=
_J C
« CB
»- UJ
z or
UJ
r *-
2 ->
O 2
tr =>
> 2
Z O
en
CO >->
UJ O
(~ UJ
< c
eo —
o
u z
H- tr
2 u.
3
a
<
a
•z i
o •-
1- X
« en
1-1 CC
O U!
< CC
tr co
•c
^
UJ U
eo <
C Z
2 -i
» a
a »-
*•» >
< 2
UJ
<
"5 '.« 1"
r«- f\i
IV. U.
9
CO
a-
cc
o »-
» CO
UJ
t-
X
••H
*-
en
Ul
run
CD 2
O- i-"
— Z
2
«
a.
CO
0-
•-
UJ
^*
0 t-
CC f
O _1
X
o
u
•-
UJ
c z
CO Ul
O EC
— " CJ
2
CO
o- u
r»
e> tt
—
u
r- 3
o- »-
— 0
<
ru o
KI a
r- in
a KI
„
ru o-
KI a
f- m
« •.
a KI
«••« ~*
• •
ru o-
KI a
i- in
* «
a KI
_ —
ru o-
KI a
f- in
Ik *
3 r*\
_ «x f*% — o o r»
ro AJ o- 9- IA 9 f\j
K1 ft C,* w P*- (*•
r^ ru cr ir
•. * e^ !»,
^ ru <\j K\
-* CC *O »< O O r**
f\) I\J O~ C" IT1 S3 *\i
F**K* o1 « r*- o-
*- *\* sr in
<»•>(»«.
9 fU f\i Kl
* O * O O O M
a: -c ru o- o- s» o*
-* O1 f^ *D
O IT* W C- O
0 — C 0 —
^ *. * «
ty nt — HI
o
e
o •—
*5 1— IL. bJ
O < C ft. O ii.
• UJ CC O w ^*
u. x co r> o
c »- => r « —
3 O < ^ «0
— < X tt Z
C H- « O
t- 2 X >- *-«
_i UJ — It. -
^j ^5 *"* ^^ -J "^
> c. i- to
U. 3 30
a o
0 0
P- 43
4> ru
m a
t> e
O- e
r- *
•o ru
^ «
to a
o- o
• •
o o
r^ -c
•£> ru
^ «
m a
0 0
t> 0
F*- a in e o o r-
» e> o o o a e>
r^ ry in o co o^
* f- o- ru
^ ^ ^ »
in ru ru a
cc -o ru o- o o
r- -o •• es a r~
a o- m •- •»
o a a r^
« o -t> o o o ru
•o -o ru e>- o a o-
»• « in KI c> e
r- r~ o- in —
a ru » K-.
o o o o o
a in o- K< co
o in a c &
=> — ec o —
^ fc ^ ^
a ru — KI
o
e
0 <-
«* »- U. U)
0 < C C. O U,
• uj a o « ^
u. X eo - o
S •- 3 X •» ~
3 o « ^ eo
ru < x tr z
o H- eo o
H" Z X >• •-«
_i ui •— u; «: >-
UJ h£ *"^ *"^ * ^^
> O f- eo
UJ 3 3 O
_i tr . o a
ru a
— Kl
Kl r^
•« a
-c tn
ru a
— KI
KI r-
^ «
* a
•c in
• »
ru a
— • KI
K\ r»
% «
•c a
•c tn
ru a
— KI
KI f^
^ ^
<6 a
* a rvj in c o r-
ru in »•* a o a a
-. «c (v KI o- o
KIO- Klr» —
^ * * »
* ru KI a
r- o f- in o o
ru •* -o a c in
KI in »- r- —
•o ru KI a
^ o - 1-1
_t UJ — UJ < >-
UJ C5 v^ %^ _J M
> O 1- 1C
Ul 3 3 O
— i ec o a.
•o in
ru a
f*. j/^
« ru
O 1-
* in
ru a
t- in
c ru
^ *
o r-
•e m
ru a
r- m
* ru
* ^
o- »-
-c in
ru 9
f- in
•C ru
fc ^
0- r~
•O ru a in o o »-
ru & ru a r- w ru
r- » >o in o »
* ru a ru — —
* « ^ »
cr- KI « t^
e eo ru c o o
o a in o cc x
« ru Kirvi
KI ru *• in
* » »
K> Kt IV
-A o ^ o o o ru
ec * ru o- O- a &
— •« in KI & e
t- r- o- m —
a ru — KI
o o o o o
am o K>«O
a in a o o
o — cc o —
^ « » »
a ru — KI
o
o
O t—
If, t- u. UJ
0 < C Q. C U.
• UJ or o «-^
li. X CO 3 O
o — 3 r v, —
3 o « ** ec
a < x t£ 2
o t- eo c
•- z x >- -.
_l UJ ~ UJ « t-
hj t» -'*-_)—.
> o H- to
UJ 3 3 O
.j cc o o.
CO
•
-------
u
Z
UJ
o
o
LU
h-
O
CC
a.
^ cc
il
o i
cc 2
z w
UJ H-
LU
I
O
O
o
Z
D
Z
O
CO
O
UJ
Q
'CC
o
LL
c
o
•H
CO CJ
*O *^3
CO
OS <
.. CL
< 0
II
Z
o
_ d
O ui
x cc
m
iH
CNJ
fa
»— '
4J
C
0>
E
B
CO
(U
CO
CO
"*•
u
u
CO
ex
E
1— 4
fH
CO
g
0
M
C
W
_^
Ul
o
O
U
o
Z
-7r-
UJ
,
[^
H
2
Z
O
U
Ul
O
<
CO
Z
Ul
S
X
Zj
Q.
g
U
0
_l
i
o
09
cn
u.
I
^ J
Ul
Ul
— '
I
J
Ul
Ul
-"
i
Ul
>
Ul
d
Ul
Ul
I
^1
Ul
Ul
j
Ul
Ul
0)
eft •
"~ O
> CC
U. 0.
Ul
(-
a I
1— —
> to
U. Ul
Ul
cc
CO
Ul
C0
Ul
"••
r-
.
h-
Z
UJ
2
CO
_J
a.
I
O
CO
-a- r^ .*
>a- vo ^>
-
n in CM
*
iw y-i a> vw
0 O 4J O
CO
4-1 4J CO 4J
M 4-1 MS )-,
o a o o
o. < a. at a
0. a > a
3 M 3 -H 3
03 -H 03 4J CO
< a
c c co c
•H S -HO -H
CO T-f 03
03 0) M T) 03 -O
4J rH JJ CO 4J M
M U MM M CO
O O O t3
a. oo a. oo a, c
CUCCO CDflCQ OlcO
M-H"O Mi-l-O M-u
O. M O. M 03
A o co ,c o co j:
r-f>COrH>Cfl,-I.C iJOL V
43 0) 4.) J3 0) 4.) 434J
3*O03 3-O03 3O
^
S
CO
fN
O
5
U.
0.
UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OANR MEDIA: Radiation
STATE PROGRAM SUPPORT (F220)
REG. APPRO: A&c
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The State Program Support Decision Unit assists the States and Regions
with laboratory support for special analyses, emergency response planning
assistance, and investigations of unplanned radiological incidents of nation
al and State concern. As a service, a repository is provided and main-
tained for disposal of radium sources. Other Federal agencies are assisted
with investigations, analyses, and evaluations of radiation problems beyond
their normal capabilities. The activities further the attainment of the
overall program objective of minimizing unnecessary exposure to radiation by
enabling the States to obtain control in situations where the States lack
appropriate expertise or equipment to obtain necessary environmental
information on a problem.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Approximately 70% of the priority requests of States and Regional
Offices for special analysis of radioisotopes were met. Only a limited
number of requests for special field investigations could be responded to
and those picked were generally instances where the urgency or possible
application of the resulting data to national problems dictated the decision
to respond. Examples were an investigation of potential radon exposures re-
sulting from the use of phosphate SLAGS in building foundations and parking
lots in Wyoming and Montana and the investigation of suspected health effect
from non-ionizing radiation in Eugene, Oregon.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The level of analytical support to State programs will be maintained at
the FY 1978 level, in part through the use of contracts. A limited number
of special investigations will be carried out. The disposal service for
radium sources will be maintained.
J3L3
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDjAl RAO
220 STATE PROGRAM SUPPORT "RAD APPROf A t C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 c, E. FY BO INCH FY so CUM
POSITIONS PFT 13.0 10,0 8,0 8,0
LEVEL OPFT
01 OF 06 FTE 11,5 9,0 9,0
BUDGET AUTH, (000,0) 406.0 «09,7 307.3 307,3
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This decision unit provides for the use of special expertise and equip-
ment to assist the States or Regional Offices in solving unusual radiation
problems. Generally the requests are for laboratory analysis of samples
requiring expensive and highly specialized equipment. These analyses are
not highly intensive in person hours/sample. The special field investi-
gations, however, are relatively intensive in use of personnel time. Both
types of assistance are limited on a priority basis. By providing the
assistance, the general program objective of minimizing unnecessary radiation
exposure is furthered by allowing State solution to problems. As a service,
repository is also provided for disposal of radium sources. The PFT's in
this case represent person years of effort. A larger actual number of people
are involved on a partial basis.
The Level 1 resources accomplish the following: provides analytical
laboratory services to meet approximately 30% of the specialized requests
received from States and Regions; provides limited support for the investi-
gation of unplanned environmental radiation events of interest to the
national radiological control effort; assists States with emergency response
planning; provides for headquarters support and coordination; develops
a basic public awareness activity within ORP; maintains the repository for
radium.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
The States could be provided with guidance and technical advice but
left without any Federal assistance in monitoring or radionuclide analysis.
This could cause certain hardships for States since some radionuclide
analyses are so specialized and do not occur frequently enough for States
to develop and maintain such expertise. Also, it is necessary for EPA to
assure the acquisition of adequate State data to complete its assessment of
the national radiological quality of the environment. The States might
refuse to provide voluntary assistance in the operation of ERAMS. This
would lead to a substantial reduction in the network or its continuation at
a considerable increase in cost.
J3U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2l DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
F22Q STATE PROGRAM SUPPORT -RAD
HQ
MEDIA: RAD
APPRO! A & C
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
02 OF Ob FT£
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
13.0 10.0
406.0
11.5
409.7
FY 80 INCR
1.0
61.4
FY 80 CUM
9.5
368.7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level raises the level of support to States and Regions for
investigating radiation events of specific national interest. It also
provides analytical support for about 45% of State and Regional requests.
A minimal level of assistance to States and Regions in identifying and
scoping out new radiological exposure situations will be available.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Without this level of support some potential problems will remain un-
documented. This will be the third consecutive year in which this type of
support will have been reduced. This creates major obstacles to needed
EPA/State cooperative efforts in the radiation area. The fostering of this
attitude may hinder EPA efforts to delegate Radiation enforcement* activities
for Clean Air Act Regulations in future years.
J3L
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2J DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
™w ^~™—••****•*•••••••*•••*• W »•• •• W •••••••••••••^•••4||
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO M£DIA| RAD
F220 STATE PROGRAM SUPPORT -RAO APPRO| A & C
B.
RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
FY 78 ACT FY
13.0
79 C. E.
10.0
FY 80 JNCR
1.0
LEVEL OPFT
03
OF 06 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
406.0
11.5
409.7
5
01.0
FY 80 CUM
10,0
10.0
409,7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Raises the level of support to State and Regions to approximately 50%
of the requests for investigative assistance and laboratory support. Aids
States and Regions in further identifying and scoping out new sources of
radiation exposure. Enables an exhibit to be developed that depicts the EPA
radiation control program efforts.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Without this level of support some potential problems will remain un-
documented. Funding at lower levels make this the third consecutive year in
which this type of support will have been reduced and may create problems
for efforts to delegate Radiation enforcement activities for Clean Air Act
Regulations in future years.
J3U
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
LJ
Z
o
<
>-
z a
o <
»- X
t- X
UJ CO
O U4
a: o
3
_l 0
< co
»- UJ
Z a:
UJ
z <-
o z
a s
> z
z o
UJ —
to
to —i
UJ U
< c
to —
Kl
O
U I
*- a
^4 O
z u.
~
o
<
E
Z 1
o
< o
*•* IX
° St
cr co
•ft X
<
UJ a:
toe
>-. o
c a
z a.
• UJ
a: »-
••* <
< >—
CO
<
3< s
ru
f- ru
ru u.
g
CO
0-
CD
o- «-.
— cr,
u
x
»-
«o
UJ
ru t£
cc z
o- —>
•** z
z
_J
D.
««•
CO
o
»•
UJ
r*
O ^~
tc «
O- _J
v* 2
X
,J
»-
UJ
c x
CD UJ
t> a
z
*-
O- UJ
i^
o- a
u
CO <
r- 3
0- l-
— o
^
r- c cc 9
o r«- -c ru
,9
r» e a? 9
or- -c ru
**! *. *^ %
t~ C. CO 9
o r~- o ru
Kl ru Kl Kl
Kl 9 ^ 9
r- o co 9
or- « ru
Kl ru Kt K>
KtKlCQO O f**t^O9O 11%
r»r-cocc tf CD or. o ^ c- O
OKi»-»~ ««cru
Kt re ru K» ru ** KI
KIKIO9O O 99OOO ITI
f-r~coco o- -"~O9 —
oKir-»» «K>K\in
KI ru ru
_
r~t-otr>o vi »- 1-- o in o in
O"9«noo — 0-01000 x
so- — « — ~ o p- — « — ••
a ru — KI 9 ru — KI
OOK1O OOKIO
• ••• • • « •
^^r^K) ^^f^-Ki
ootrv<« ooiri*"
9 9 Kt 9 9 Kl
0 O
O O
O H- 0 »-
M «— U. U. M 1- U. UJ
•C^ _J^.U.O.«- -O ^ _I^U-O.»-
o < e D. c. u. c < c o. o u.
• UJC£O *i^^^ *UJQrCi ** ^
U. I 05 Z C li.I«O3O
O1-3XW— Ot-DX*» —
3O«*-"to oo^v^o?
— < I a z ru-coo o >- to c
H-ZX>>-I k-ZX^"-*
_juj~ujc »-to >c f-to
u.2 ^o uj n o o
_j or ca. _i i ca.
t- in
o- o
o «
9 Kl
>~ lt\
O- 0
O •*
9 Kl
"^ "^
o o
0 «
9 Kl
r- in
0- 0
o .e
r-r» o irt e
c> 9 in o o
oe> — •*> —
9 iy» — KI
o o o — c
— -c in « »•
9 fVI *« Kl
r-r- o to o
o -
,£ ^rf _j ^^ u.
O < O O.
• uj cr o
u. x f> r> o
o >- o x •» —
r> o « «- CB
KI « X C Z
o «- to o
»- Z X >- t-t
_J UJ — UJ « >-
1^1 (^ ^^ «^> ^J ^H
> C: »- 1C
LlJ O ^ O
_i cc c- a
-
o
o
in
in
^.
_
^
U. UJ
a. •-
o u.
-------
o
z
UJ
o
Ul
+-
O
a:
a.
§1
LU
UJ
CO
_J
Q.
^
O
O
o
U
o
u_
c
o
•H
•LJ
C8 U
"D cfl
CO
.. C-'
< o
Q §£
ty a.
5 <
_ u
O uj
I CC
§
CN
fe
4J
0
D.
a.
3
C/3
CO
M
00
0
O-
01
cfl
4J
w
«^.
UJ
Q
O
U
Q
Z
w
K
K
i
o
w
u
UJ
O
<
1-
z
UJ
I
^0
~
Q.
O
u
u
UJ
5
D
D
0
CO
0
>.
u.
_l
U'
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
^
UJ
j
UJ
>
UJ
_J
N
^J
UJ
>
UJ
_J
H
_l
UJ
LU
_l
£ ->"
u. c.
UJ
CO <
t^ S
en 2
^_ H-
U. UJ
UJ
OH
*^1
U)
UJ
c^
UJ
t
K
Z
UJ
5
w
Zi
a.
O
U
o
CO
O
m
m
•*
o
^ . ,
4J
o
a.
3
U)
rH
CO
u
•H
CO ^
C 13
CO 01
O -H
U-i
01
60 CO
Cfl *J
•U CO
c a>
o> 3 ; -I o •• '
M 0)
01 h
OH
05
(•^
1
O
c«
E
o
u.
a
Ul
-------
-------
NOISE MEDIA
CONTENTS
PAGE
A. MEDIA RESOURCE SUMMARY 312
B. MEDIA OVERVIEW 313
C. MEDIA RANKING 319
D. BUDGET REQUEST BY DECISION UNIT 320
E. DECISION UNIT DESCRIPTIONS AND
LEVELS •
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL 322,
ENFORCEMENT 343
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 1980 OMB REQUEST
Noise
Media Resource Summary
FY 1979 FY 1980 Change
(dollars in thousands)
Abatement & Control
Permanent Positions 75
Budget Authority 9,905.0
•Enforcement
Permanent Positions.
Budget Authority....
83 +8
12,542.8 +2,637.8
22 24 +2
977.9 1,076.7 +98.8
Total
Permanent Positions 97
Budget Authority 10,882.9
107
13,619.5
+10
+2,736.6
J31,:
-------
NOISE MEDIA OVERVIEW
I. OVERVIEW AND STRATEGY
Consistent with the policy set forth in the Noise Control Act of
1972, the overall objective of the noise program is to achieve an
environment free from noise which jeopardizes health or welfare. In the
EPA Report to the President and Congress on Noise> noise is defined
as "any sound that may produce an undesired physiological effect in an
individual and that may interfere with the social ends of an individual
or group."
Harmful effects from noise include the following:
• Permanent damage to the inner ear, resulting in hearing
loss that ranges from mild to severe, depending upon
the level and duration of exposure. Other health
effects are suspected.
• Interference with communication thus disrupt the
social use of sound and the performance of a variety
of tasks.
• Disturbance of sleep and inner-thought processes.
\
In addition to these proven harmful effects, there is substantial but as
yet inconclusive evidence that noise can contribute to several non-
auditory health problems, including stress-related diseases, such as
high blood pressure, heart attacks and ulcers; as well as possible
adverse effects on fetal development, learning, and mental health.
The total number of people with hearing loss or other health pro-
blems resulting from noise exposure is unknown, even though noise-
induced hearing loss is a well-recognized problem both in the military
and in highly mechanized industries. An estimated 14.7 million American
workers are exposed to eight hour average sound levels (Leq (8)) above 75
decibels (dB) which pose a possible hazard to hearing. The impact of
high occupational exposure can be added to by high environmental expo-
sure. For example, an estimated 13.5 million Americans are exposed to
Leq (8) of 75 dB or greater as operators of or passengers in transpor-
tation or recreational vehicles.
The EPA identified level for protection of the general population
with an adequate margin of safety against activity interference is a
"Day-Night sound level" (Ldn) of 55 dB. This level incorporates a
penalty of 10 dB for noise occurring during the night. As outdoor noise
levels increase above Ldn 55 dB they are increasingly likely to inter-
fere with speech communication, sleep, relaxation, and privacy and
result in expressions of annoyance. An estimated 103 million Americans
are exposed to an Ldn of 55 dB or greater this is virtually half of
-------
the Nation's population. Some residential areas have been sampled where
the Ldn was 75 dB and higher. Thus, for people living in these areas,
the environmental noise background, without occupational or other high
exposures, is probably significant enough to induce hearing loss after
many years of exposure, in addition to the more subtle adverse health
effects probably induced by noise exposures:
Without coordinated Federal, State, and local programs to abate and
control noise the following can be expected to occur.
• Urban noise levels will increase in proportion to growth in
population density.
• Airports will continue to be a major source of noise even
with the short-term improvements that will result from the
introduction of larger numbers of quieter, wide-body jets
and retro-fitting of noise controls on older jets. The
estimated number of people exposed to noise levels of Ldn 65
dB or greater attributable to aircraft noise will remain
essentially unchanged in the year 2000 in the absence of
further actions.
• The number of residents adjacent to freeways and/or*
highways who will be exposed to noise levels of
Ldn 65 dB or greater will increase three to four-
fold by the year 2000.
• An estimated 50 percent increase will occur in the
number of person-hours of exposure to construction noise
above Ldn 55 dB by the year 2000.
To combat the existing problems associated with noise and their
tendency to increase, the Noise Control Act of 1972 allows EPA to
regulate the noise emissions from new products identified as major
sources of noise (other than aircraft). Emission standards may also be
set for in-use equipment of interstate motor carriers and in-use equip-
ment and facilities of interstate rail carriers (i.e., on equipment
presently in use). Noisy products and products sold to control noise
may be regulated to require labeling and thus aid consumers in product
selection. Such labeling allows the use of marketplace pressure to
obtain quieter products. EPA may also provide assistance to State and
local governments in developing programs aimed at achieving ambient
noise standards.
EPA also has the responsibility to coordinate Federal noise related
research and control activities. Furthermore, the Act allows EPA to
designate products with low noise emissions for preferential Federal
purchase, thus bringing added marketplace pressure to bear on the
development of quieter equipment.
-------
Other than the madatory time constrained actions under the Act,
EPA's general strategy has been as follows:
• Place a high priority on the regulation of new products
which tend to have wide urban impact.
• Shift emphasis to improving State and local capability to
control noise as major product sources come under regulation.
This shift is desirable because of the long turnover time
before the quieter products replace those in use and because
the impact of noise is often highly dependent on the in-use
situation. Appropriate State and local control can achieve
benefits in the short term, assist in the maintenance of new
product standards and obviate the need for and high cost of
quieting the environment solely by product standards.
• Use marketplace pressure to quiet appropriate products both
through labeling (thus aiding consumer choice) and through
the designation of qualifying products for preferential
Federal purchase.
• Give emphasis to cooperative efforts among Federal agencies
to use their grant powers and policies to control noise.
Use cooperative efforts to develop and demonstrate new
technology and new techniques for noise control. Such
efforts are viewed by EPA as a particularly cost effective
method of multiplying the impact of its limited resources
and as an efficient use of skills between cooperating agencies.
Consistent with this strategy, EPA is developing regulations to
provide an adequate measure of control over major noise sources. We
have placed particular emphasis on control of noise from surface trans-
portation and construction. FY 1979 should see the promulgation of
four noise emission regulations and the proposal of two additional
regulations. General labeling regulations, soon to be promulgated,
will provide a basis for informed consumer choices with regard to the
noisiness of new products. This program along with preferential Federal
purchases of quiet products through the Low Noise Emission Products
program (LNEP) should encourage the design and manufacture of quiet
products.
The EPA noise enforcement program is responsible for Federal enforce-
ment under the Noise Control Act of 1972 of Section 6, new product noise
standards and Section 8, informational labeling requirements applicable
to new products. The main emphasis of the program in FY 1980 will be
thie continued enforcement of the new compressors and medium and heavy
duty trucks through production verification and selective enforcement
-------
audits. Enforcement activities will also include continued development
of enforcement strategies and regulations for other Section 6 and
Section 8 products and a minimal level of guidance and assistance to
State/local noise enforcement programs.
Effective State and local noise control programs are essential if
the Nation is to reduce noise to levels commensurate with the protection
of public health and welfare. Consequently, EPA conducts, as directed
by the Noise Control Act, a program of technical assistance to both
State and local governments. This program serves as a necessary and
essential counterpart to the Federal noise regulatory development
program.
The objective of the technical assistance program is to substantially
increase the number of communities having active programs in the various
noise program elements, such as motor vehicle control (motorcycle,
trucks, autos); stationary source control (fence line standards);
construction noise control; noise abatement planning (zoning, land use
planning); and public information.
The Each Community Helps Others (ECHO) program uses local volunteer
noise control experts to assist other communities, with EPA paying
out-of-pocket expenses, but not salaries. The Quiet Communities
Program (QCP) is designed to research and demonstrate the best*
available techniques for noise control in various types of communities,
and is a major mechanism in the development and delivery of technical
assistance. The noise program elements serve as a mechanism to insure
the most effective use of ECHO and QCP.
FY 1978 saw a renewed emphasis placed upon the coordination of
Federal noise research resulting in the publication of four interagency
noise research panel reports. Efforts in FY 1979 will be directed
toward implementing panel's recommendations. FY 1979 will also see
continued reliance upon interagency agreements as the most cost-
effective mechanism for EPA to stimulate noise abatement technology
development.
II. RANKING CRITERIA AND PRIORITIES
The basic criteria used to rank decision levels for the noise
program were:
1. Enforcement of regulations currently in effect;
2. Maintainance of a base level of effort for the development of
new regulations;
03
V*. /
-------
3. Continue delivery of technical assistance to State and local
governments;
4. Establishment of a base level program for research into the
adverse health effects of noise; and
5. Reinforcement of the regulation development process because
of the impact of court ordered railroad regulation revisions
and the severe impact of FY 1979 budget cuts.
III. 1980 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
The FY 1980 Noise Program is basically a continuation of the 1979
program thrust with the addition of one major new initiative - a noise
health effects research effort. Additionally, the FY 1980 regulatory
program will seek to regain part of its lost momentum as a result of
the court-ordered railroad revisions.
IV. REQUEST SUMMARY
FY 1980 Total Change From FY 1979
PFT BA$(000) PFT BA$(000)
Abatement and Control 83 12,542.8 +8 +2,637.8
Noise Abatement Strategies
and Regulations 43 8,227.8 +8 +2,566.0
Four emissions regulations will be proposed and two other
promulgated for new products previously identified as major noise
sources. Emphasis on labeling actions initiated in FY 1978 and continued
in FY 1979 will be maintained. Identification of major noise sources
will focus on light duty vehicles in FY 1980, resulting in a general
reduction of promulgations of such regulations in FY 1981 and beyond.
The present minimum effort for developing information on new technology
to be used in the development of regulations and program strategies will
continue. Effort will be initiated to identify the auditory and non-
auditory adverse health effects of noise.
Noise Strategies
Implementation 25 3,563.8
Headquarters participation in technical assistance to State and
local government will be maintained. This effort will include 50 ECHO
community noise advisors and 4 QCPs. In addition, 45 school systems
will incorporate EPA noise curriculum into their programs. Federal
coordination efforts will include one noise proposal to the FAA, a
general aviation airport planning project, and continue reliance
on LAGs to stimulate noise abatement activities in other agencies.
Q3*.'
-------
Noise Program
Implementation 15 751.2 - +71.8
Regional Resources and Program efforts for the delivery of technical
assistance will remain at the FY 1979 level. The Regions will continue
to take the lead in managing the ECHO program with a strong emphasis on
the establishment of State ECHO programs and will provide QCP liaison.
The Regions will continue to hold workshops for State and local officials
and to carry out public information activities.
Enforcement 24 1,076.7 +2 +98.8
Noise Enforcement 24 1,076.7 +2 +98.8
FY 1980 activities will include full enforcement of medium and
heavy duty truck and portable air compressor new product regulations,
development of enforcement strategies and regulations for additional
Section 6 and 8 products, and some assistance to State/local enforcement
programs.
us:
-------
= U4 C
a z —
U
HA
- s <
•Z XT
u-1 ?•
o;
u. >-
r. 7 Q"-0
U w _ ^"^
z
i»
•S u.
rs
**\ o *^- o -cr **i i"u
3D ^ ^- ..^ C f* X in
O C, O O O O C= O O O
• rv -\j -\j ry «n *^
•\j^«O*o^«OM-i-j-^jny-iirj-i
o c ooooooooooocoo
•v ^) ^ ^ sQ ff C' t ^
is-a--^ — y c o •
r~ fv -C < »- — I
oocooooo occoocc
000000000000000
X>X>X!X>tCCC£CO —
ooooooooooocooo
__^_,______ — _ — rvjAa
i N. ru «^ ^~
I *U ^i -C W
oc oeco oo
oooocooccooo-o
OJ
Z
oJ
•J
O
Z Z
O C
1-—ZZ
—Z
Z 2.
J U »! I;
3; a: — >—
Z ; « <
j, u. ar a:
-. z z
-J Uj OJ
£ UJ 05 Jj
— -J "-? _l
Z Z
UJ UJ
Z Z
- j_j *— uj •— fl. uJ
trcocozarzzz
=f
s
« cr
z —
S uJ
< *}
Z Z
nujujucou<9:
— — — a; — za: —
I uj CO CO i_ tf! a. uJ '
* so io ~s: to co to
I UJ UJ Uj Jj UJ X! UJ
X X 4t C .C
2 Z — •- Z —
Z Z ' Z —
_J J UJ UJ _1 uJ
— — _i_J — _j is ;»
a. a. »— •— a.ujuj —
UJOJ^^'^UJUJUJ^^ Uj
— — si" ««oei
uuj««uuuj-zt-— r
a z
UJ
rt Z
05
CO CO
U- UJ
30000000000000-00
2322—3 — 3322332—2
inrrzxixxrrirxii
OOOOOOOoCOOOOOO
1 J"1 -P O J^ *5
I X M -VJ "V ">j
oooooooooooooooo
00 — — OOOOO— —
j^j-jij:rjj'jj
— _ — (X'V-MX'XJ'Vru'V.'M'V'"-^
ooooooooooooooo
-------
*-*
o
o
o
"^
Ct O- •"»
* £a
tx i-> x i o
U- <-> CD X.
2 O- UJ
U-
_
a
UJ
y-.
O
o
c
>— *-*
0>
UJ •«
c
O UJ
^* sc tr *—
^ — !- t-
>- UJ X.
LJ (3 U'
Z O H-
UJ ^ lei-
tr cc
*—
o •- a.
M •-> •X
O •- Z) t-
UJ CO U.
»- UJ 2
0 =1 O
a o >-> •—
cc *- o
_l l_| C.
*— UJ O »—
2 15 « •»
ui o >- z
Z 3 CD *-"
2 CC »—
Of- CO
CC CC CO O UJ
> o 3 ^ c^ ^— o
2 C -- — 2 >-
LL-- 0 UJ UJ -»
ff> CC CC UJ
co v tr t-
*•• UJ O
t- u. c »-
Z£ Q.
O •v
U- UJ
*-i U,
UJ
J
1—
**
u> t-
— 3
0 0
2 UJ
o
o
U
00 CC SO
• • • •
•£ * *4 •«
« -t »- f-
tn in
ru ru
Kl Kl K. K, M nj
« -O 39 99
*" «»M
O 0
nj ru
cc cc ru rv cc cc
r- >- _ _ KI KI
AJ i\j m m <* •*
CM ivi r^ r- in «n
« ^ ^ »
CC CC Kt Kl
Kl Kl — — « - * •*>
* » * » "L
in m KI KI
o o co co a a
o- o r- ^ * -c
99 *\I *V 99
CO O O O O
o- cr m in in in
KI KI — — nj nt
2
o
2 •-
O •<
»- 2
< Uj
•- Z
UJ J
z a
CO UJ Z
c; _j "->
uj a.
CC Z CO
•-> UJ
•^ f^
z a
CO CO < UJ CO
t- cc a: »- tt
< uj u * uj
cc »- o o: *-
»- O: cc »- a
CO < CL CO CO <
323
UJ 3 _! UJ O _l UJ C _J
COO •< CO»-i << COO <
ouj c: ouj o Ouj o
21 I- 2- 21 l-
ino 3 o>- 3 me 3
ox o *^tt o ••* ~ o
AJ ru AJ
C5 (9 (5
CD CC CC CC
• • • •
»^ cc cc cc
Kl O- O O
•o
ni
K, O- IT- O
9 O C- o
IM — — —
c ceo
IV, - - _
cc f- r^ r-
ru * •* 4}
9 ^- f— 1*-
in o o o
« » * »
rv — — —
o cc cc cc
CC -C -D O
9 Kl Kl Kl
vrt
o e o c
— 999*
cc ru rv rv
o o o o
m »«. r^ »^
o i- r~ ^-
e^ o- o
o-
~
ru o- o- t>
KI in in in
r\i ru nj nj
^M
e o o o
9- Kl Kl Kl
?•* r\t rvt rv
^-
2
UJ
z
UJ
U CO
cc cc
O UJ
U. >-
•z. cc
_J UJ •< _l
>- UJ 3 _l t-
o co o < o
O U O
2 2 I >- 2
CC CC
CL in o 3 n.
o. o x o a
cs
I
Kl
I
a
c
in
•
o-
A
•
CO
rw
CO
cc
n 7 ••> ">
U-j • ^-
-------
»•* ^
C 4
O
0
V
a. <>• •»
1C LJ 1-
UJ O-
z ^* o —
a o •v i >-
U. O CO 0.
zoo
!-• v«
u.
CL
'
o
o
l~ O
07 ^
lu
c
«~> O UJ
u cc a:
*"-_
U U-
>• o a.
U 3 O
Z Z.
UJ
s
Z U-
o t- a.
t- 2
o r> o
JL U) CO O
a •- o
_1 O 0
^ 1— UJ UJ ^
1- UJ C i—
z o < «
UJ O V 3L
r 3 O Z> Z O t- U.
2 O •- — 2 0.
UJ O UJ UJ O
co a; tr
co o- a:
Si "" UJ CJ
i— u. o t—
C Q.
C
Z
— ^
^%
c
0
_j e
cc « •*
« tr t- K
<
*-
O-
UJ
— '
,_
UJ f
_ —
r\ ** ' , ^ O O
i ' ' J. Z U.~
O
O
LJ
I 0
k •
•c
^
in
ru
o
n
0
ec*
00
^
ru
ru
^
cc
o
o
w
o
Kl
f
CC
^
^
-0
1*
in
0
^
o
in
o
o
<£>
f>
it.
*
0
^
«»•
CO
UJ
cr
•c
CO CO
t- a:
« UJ
Ct 1—
>— ^
» «
Hi Q
CO O
C UJ
2 I
in c
0 I
ru
u
0
B
.c
^
in
ru
o
^
0
0
in
*•
0
m
ru
o
_
Kl
«^
^
ru
2
O 0
»- m
f ru
2
UJ
UJ
_l
§
CO
UJ
»^
C2
Ut CO
t— o:
< UJ
a: •-
t- a:
to <
UJ O
co o
C UJ
2 X
IT O
— I
ru
C5
o
o
CC
r\
•o
in
^
Kl
O
in
ru
o
in
ru
CO
Kl
^
in
^
Kl
O
in
••*
o
in
ru
o
,.
Kl
••
^
ru
e
in
ru
^
_,
<
0
*—
^
D
CO
•
r-
Kl
•C
ru
o
•a
0
CO
cc
ru
or
m
^
ru
o
^
a
0
Kl
CO
c
in
o
o-
ru
,_
4>
t^
o
Cct
•"
o
P.
o
a
ru
o-
)»
1—
cr
o
ru
o
ru
ru
O
o
c?
o
^
—
o
9
ru
_i
<
O
h>
^
c
CD
V
CC
O
o
r-
C
(M
r-
•f
f~
o
^
-«
o
o-*
c
a
ru
»
^
r-
O
o
ru
c
ru
ru
o
o
0
c
^
•"
e
^*
ru
-J
"£.
o
2
Cr
O.
O.
<
^
•
•e
Kl
**•
ru
0
Kl
ru
o
o
m
o
••*
^
^
Kl
e
f
in
0
r~
&
o-
ru
cc
cc
«
o
*•
o
Kl
K\
C
pj
o
o
e
o
in
^
o
o
Kl
O
^
>"
°
*£
»^l
^
Ul
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HO M£DIA» NOISE
G205 NOISE STRATS & REGS APPKOt A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT «3.o 35.0 29,0 2?.o
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 7,0 6»0 6.0
01 OF 08 FTE 49,0 aO,6 40.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000.03 6,360.0 5,661.8 a,296,4 4,296.4
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level of resources will provide for the promulgation of two noise
emission regulations (pavement breaker and rock drills, and lawn mowers) and
one labeling regulation (vacuum cleaners). It will also allow for the
continuation of preregulatory studies through contracts, etc., on industrial
machinery (focusing on fabricated metal products industries). Studies on
the cardiovascular effects of noise will be continued. Some follow-up
work to the railroad regulation in the area of impulse noise will also be
provided.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level would result in halting development of all
Federal noise standards and regulations. The absence of Federal noise regu-
lations will mean that millions of Americans will be subjected to unhealthy
and unwanted noise for which no other cost-effective means is available for
its abatement.
J31
EPA Form 2410-1I (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
NOISE STRATEGIES AND REGULATIONS (G205)
HO. OANR
REG.
MEDIA:Noise
APPRO: .A&C
Bl LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objective of this decision unit is to develop and promulgate
emission and labeling regulations that will reduce harmful noise emissions
from new products. These regulations are developed through in-house and
contractual efforts involving: the gathering and analysis of data on noise
and its health effects to determine exposure criteria and levels of noise
reduction required for abatement options and for specific regulatory actions;
evaluation of private and public sector technology development to determine
best available technology; and assessment of economic, environmental and
health data to ascertain the costs and benefits of regulation. This
decision unit also includes development and implementation of a noise
health and welfare effects research program.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Major accomplishments for FY 78 include: proposal of a noise regula-
tion for motorcycles and the holding of public hearings on proposed
regulations for buses and motorcycles. In addition, work was carried out
which will lead to future promulgation of emission regulations for railroad
facilities, buses, wheeled and crawler tractors, lawnmowers, and pavement
breakers and rock drills and to revision of interstate motor carrier
regulations. Development of labeling regulations for lawnmowers was
continued and preregulation studies were conducted on industrial machinery,
medium and heavy trucks, light duty vehicles, motor boats, air conditioners,
chain saws, snowmobiles, electrical and electronic equipment, surface
transportation labeling and earth moving equipment. Other activities in
FY 78 included continuation of a study on the cardiovascular effects of
noise.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FY 79 program will provide for the promulgation of emission regula-
tions for motorcycles, buses, solid waste compactors and wheeled and crawler
tractors. It will also provide for the proposal of emission regulations
controlling pavement breakers, rock drills, and lawnmowers. Other regula-
tions activities will include both the proposal and promulgation of court-
ordered revision of the railroad regulation, the promulgation of general
provision for labeling and specific requirements for hearing protectors.
Labeling requirements for vacuum cleaners will be proposed. Preregulatory
studies will be continued, but at a reduced level over FY 78. The study
of the cardiovascular effects of noise will continue.
J3L
EPA Form 2410-10 (8>78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
NOISE STRATEGIES AND REGULATIONS (G205)
HQ OANR
REG.
MEDIA:Noise
APPRO: .A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The objective of this decision unit is to develop and promulgate
emission and labeling regulations that will reduce harmful noise emissions
from new products. These regulations are developed through in-house and
contractual efforts involving: the gathering and analysis of data on noise
and its health effects to determine exposure criteria and levels of noise
reduction required for abatement options and for specific regulatory actions;
evaluation of private and public sector technology development to determine
best available technology; and assessment of economic, environmental and
health data to ascertain the costs and benefits of regulation. This
decision unit also includes development and implementation of a noise
health and welfare effects research program.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Major accomplishments for FY 78 include: proposal of a noise regula-
tion for motorcycles and the holding of public hearings on proposed
regulations for buses and motorcycles. In addition, work was carried out
which will lead to future promulgation of emission regulations for railroad
facilities, buses, wheeled and crawler tractors, lawnmowers, and pavement
breakers and rock drills and to revision of interstate motor carrier
regulations. Development of labeling regulations for lawnmowers was
continued and preregulation studies were conducted on industrial machinery,
medium and heavy trucks, light duty vehicles, motor boats, air conditioners,
chain saws, snowmobiles, electrical and electronic equipment, surface
transportation labeling and earth moving equipment. Other activities in
FY 78 included continuation of a study on the cardiovascular effects of
noise.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FY 79 program will provide for the promulgation of emission regula-
tions for motorcycles, buses, solid waste compactors and wheeled and crawler
tractors. It will also provide for the proposal of emission regulations
controlling pavement breakers, rock drills, and lawnmowers. Other regula-
tions activities will include both the proposal and promulgation of court-
ordered revision of the railroad regulation, the promulgation of general
provision for labeling and specific requirements for hearing protectors.
Labeling requirements for vacuum cleaners will be proposed. Preregulatory
studies will be continued, but at a reduced level over FY 78. The study
of the cardiovascular effects of noise will continue.
J3L.
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA» NOISE
6205 NOISE STRATS & REGS APPRO: A 1 C
3. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 43.0 35,0 29.0 29.0
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 7.0 6,0 6.0
01 OF 08 FTE 49.0 40,6 40.6
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 6,360.0 5,661.8 4,296,4 4,296.4
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level of resources will provide for the promulgation of two noise
emission regulations (pavement breaker and rock drills, and lawn mowers) and
one labeling regulation (vacuum cleaners) . It will also allow for the
continuation of preregulatory studies through contracts, etc., on industrial
machinery (focusing on fabricated metal products industries). Studies on
the cardiovascular effects of noise will be continued. Some follow-up
work to the railroad regulation in the area of impulse noise will also be
provided.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level would result in halting development of all
Federal noise standards and regulations. The absence of Federal noise regu-
lations will mean that millions of Americans will be subjected to unhealthy
and unwanted noise for which no other cost-effective means is available for
its abatement.
J3i
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ M£DIA| NOISE
G205 NOISE STRATS & REGS APPROi 4 I C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 43.0 35.0 3.0 32,0
LEVEL OPFT 8,0 7.0 1.0 7.0
02 OF 08 FTE , 49.0 2.9 03, 5
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 6,360.0 5,661.8 799.2 5,095.6
I
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
The funding of this level will result in the promulgation of interstate
motor carrier regulation revisions and the proposal of one additional new
product emission regulation for light duty vehicles.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
The development of Federal noise regulations is a three to four year
process which requires that the economic and technological bases for regula-
tions be as complete and current as possible. Any major interruption of this
process which extends the time between the development of the data base and
the proposal of the regulation leads to invalidate much of the economic and
technological studies used for regulations development. Not funding this
level would represent such an interruption for the regulations involved and
would result in halting much of the development effort carried out in
previous years.
J31,
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
G205 NOISE STRATS & REGS
HQ M£DIA» NOISE
APPROi A & C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
03 OF os FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E,
«3.0 35.0
6.0 7,0
U9.0
6,360.0 5,661,8
FY 80 INCR
3.0
1.5
566,0
FY 80 CUM
35,0
7,0
«5,,0
5,661,,6
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding of this level will result in the proposal of an additional new
product regulation in the area of surface transportation (tires) and the
continuation of work leading to the FY 81 proposal of more stringent
standards for medium and heavy duty trucks. The funding of these activities
will result in EPA having initiated regulatory action upon all major surface
transportation noise sources.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level will have consequences similar to those of
previous levels, in that significant amounts of the work leading to regula-
tory proposal would be lost.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2$ DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
G205 NOISE STRATS & REGS
HQ
t NOISE
APPROf A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
04 OF os PTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
as.o 35.0
8.0 7.0
49.0
6/360,0 5*661.8
FY 80 INCR
0,0
1.0
5.4
566,2
FY 80 CUM
39,0
8-.0
50,a
6,237,8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding of this level will provide for the proposal of emission regula-
tions for chain saws, the proposal of revisions for portable air compressors
(accoustical assurance period) and the proposal of labeling regulations for
mufflers.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
All of the regulatory activities of this level were originally planned
for FY 78 and FY 79, but were forced to be postponed by the court-ordered
revision of the railroad emission regulations. Work upon railroads will
continue in FY 79. Efforts have been made to maintain the validity of
studies which support these regulatory actions. However, it would not be
practical to further extend contract efforts and maintain data baees if
proposal is postponed beyond FY 80.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASENCY
FORM 2» DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MgDIAt NOISE
6205 NOISE STRATS & REGS APPROi A & C
' WW * • V •* • 'W ^9 • • • • • • W ••• • • M • • • • w MM • ^ M B M M ^ ^^ ^^ M W^*^B M^M ^ • ^
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY SO INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT aj.o ss.o a.o 03,0
LEVEL OPFT 8.0 7.0 2.0 10.0
06 OF 08 FTE 09.0 a. 9 55,3
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 6,360.0 5,661.8 2,000.0 8,227.8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding of this level will initiate a noise health effects research
program designed to generate criteria for the development of regulations and
to provide overall support for State and local programs. At this level,
health effects studies and research investigations will be initiated to
generate dose/response criteria primarily in the area of nonauditory
effects. This program would represent the first attempt at systematically
identifying and characterizing the broad spectrum of detrimental health
effects generated by noise. The results of this effort will serve as basic
guidance in the establishment of future program priorities for all Federal,
State and local noise abatement activities. It is expected that the two
million dollars called for in this level will stimulate the investment of an
additional $500,000 by other agencies in this health effects area.
*
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will mean that any significant strengthening or
revision of noise health effects criteria will not be possible. These
revisions are vitally needed, for it is generally felt by experts in
accoustical health that, many of the health impacts of noise are not recog-
nized by EPA's current exposure criteria. These criteria serve as both the
basis of EPA's regulatory and standards setting action, as well as a basis
for the establishment of overall program priorities in all program areas.
Likewise, other agencies use EPA noise criteria and background documents in
determining their noise abatement program activities. For these reasons, it
becomes critical that a noise health effects research program be initiated
at this time.
J3L /
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
o
{^
>_
2 a
0 «t
i-i Z
•- z
(J 2
UJ CO
O UJ
a u
a. a
_i 5
* CO
*— UJ
•Z. CE
UJ
Z H-
O 2
or n
> 2
2 C
CO
UJ O
« c
CO —
c
u. Z
>— C£
« CD
2 u.
D
•z.
O
< CO
>- li
o ID
« c:
a:
•e
Of
CO
UJ »—
CO «J
c >-
z «o
• uJ
^ «D
Mt l-H
« C
^
< in
e
r- rj
9
cc
0
KI
CO
— CO
UJ
z
1-
co
UJ
CC 2
O- •-•
2
<
CL
CC
e-
Ul
o •—
CC 1
0- _J
r
2
UJ
c x
or uj
o- cc
•z
CO
C- UJ
o- t
— 5
u
CC <
c- t-
r-
•c o
0- CC
rg in
a —
»c cs*
c- cc
oj m
3T —•
9 ^
• •
•o c-
ff-
* — a o- O- « o
o* »- ru ec ru a
ru o ru in
a •— KI ~*
a cc ^ ^* o o ^
^ ^ a o* &* "C o
o- ^ rucc ru a
rv o ru in
a — KI —
ec •£/ ru o- o o e>
— KI o: o" in f- o^
- b. UJ
CO ^* _> ^^ U, Q. t—
c < c c. o u.
• uj or o ^ *-*
u. I co Z" e>
o •- ~ E « —
3 C « >- CO
— < I or 2
O >- CO O
1- 2 X >- i-c
_! U.I — UJ < •-
IL! -3 — *^ _l -*
> C »- CO
u, z. ~ &
_J EC CO.
•c a
IT IT
o- cc
c cc
in —
•c a
M> m*
O- ec
0 CC
in — •
•e a
m m
o- ec
0 CC
in —
•o a
in in
o- cc
O CO
in — •
-o *- o- a e> o in
in in Q- m ru *•- KI
o o cc cc KI a
o ru to cc
in «- KI —
ru c- KI r> o o o-
o> K» in tn KI *^ ru
o- KI -c cr
r- -« -c ru
co ^ f\i cr o o o
~KI cc a in r» o-
* ru K> o^ KI a
«C KI KI O
in — a ru
o o o ru o o
o ru co KI K» cc
•c — a in a
KI e KI KI
* m -• ru
o
o
o *-
«* *- U. UJ
to •- _i r* u. a t-
c < o o. o u.
• uj o: o -^ »-•
U. I CO Z S5
tT1 *^ 3 Z ^" ••
CJ O « *^ SO
ru < x a z
0 >- «O O
1- 2 X >- *-t
_1 UJ •- UJ < t-
>• c >- co
UJ ~ DO
_> a. c a
-c c
— a
<£ O-
•O 0
m ru
-0 CC
— a"
o o o
— o- ru a in •- in
•a KS ru o- KI a
•O K> K* C
» ^ * ^
in — a ru
o ^ KI a o in
•O KI fXJ c^ KI — *
-O KI KI C
in •" a ru
co o ru o o e o
*- K> cc a in ^- o
CO KI KI CO
•c — a in a
KI O Kt Kl
•c m •- ru
o
c
o >-
« •- U- UJ
co «-» -i ~ b. CL f-
e> < o o. c- u.
• UJ C. 0 « v
b. I to — o
=> *- s r >f> —
Z> O « »^ CO
KI •« i tr 2
C H- CO O
*- 2 X >- *-<
_ ) UJ -^ UJ < ^~
UJ C^ »•* ^* _J i— »
> C •- 10
uj r r o
j .
o o o ru o o
o ru co KI KI co
-c »- a in a
Kl C Kl Kl
•f> in — ru
o
o
o t-
w »— b. UJ
CD »- _J ^ U. 0. ^~
o < e o- c< u.
• UJ CC O ^^ w
u. I to z:' e
o >- — z «* ••
2> O < *^ CO
a < z £r 2
C t- CO C
t— 2 x >- **t
_1UJ •— tLj < •-
uj ts »- ^. _j ~
> C t- CO
uj 2> so
_i cr o ci.
CC K.
K a
ru a
rv o
ec
CC Kl
r- a
ru a
ru c
CC Kl
CC Kl
t- a
ru a
ru c
» ^
ec KI
ec KI
r- a
ru a
nj o
® ^
CO Kl in K C
f~ KI a a f^
ru ru o a a
re -e -D c
a - *«
& o o o o
es o o o a
o tn in a
o — eo •—
ru —
cc * ru o o
-« KI cc a v-
ff ru Kl O Kl
^ KI KI e
in — a ru
o o o ru o
c- ru co KI K)
•o — a in a
« e KIKI
•ft in — ru
o
c
c
Ifr ^~
CO — -}~ IL.
C < 0 O.
• uj a. o
U. I 10 3 0
O >- 3 X <» —
— C * ** a>
•C ^ X C£ 2
e >- co c
>- 2 x >- «
_1 UJ *- UJ ^ >-
Uj tS ^^ *"* _J •-!
> C. >- «0
UJ = 21 0
_j c c a
CO
1
Kl
1
£>•
C
03_3
-------
Z
c
z 1-1
c ^
> r
z c.
CO
1C •-
« c.
CO ••
o
U. 1
Z
o
u, <
-< c:
o i-
ni cr
ct> Z
— Z
z
o r
& uj
o- a
o- a
— a:
O IT
— IT.
e c
• •
f- cr
o
•
cc
b. U.'
CC O. •-
o o u.
b.
o
c
c
-------
U
2
LU
O
UJ
H-
o
£C
a.
2 >
UJ o;
II
ED
> °°
2 w
UJK
UJ
U
o
g
CO
o
UJ
cc
O
LL
a) u
CO
•H <
>g
U. Q.
UJ
H
£r ^
2 I
> U)
U. UJ
LU
CC
CO
^
LU
2
c5
LU
_l
_
^.
r-
z
UJ
X
co
O.
O
U
U
CQ
CO -3" rH O CN
fO CN rH O rH
1
fl ,
&o cd a oc eg a w
01 CO CU CO O
Bi -H M Oi -H W 4-1
&4 &4 EZ-I P-l CCj
C OC rH
0 C 3
•H O O -H O O OC
CO rH CU
CO 0) M
•H J2 01
H cd LJ
w rJ rxi
t
J3. j
CO
*-^
CH
^
o
E
o
U.
a.
UJ
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
NOISE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (G210)
HO.
REG.
MEDIA: Noise
APPRO: A&C
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
This Decision Unit provides for Regional consultation assistance to
develop State and local capabilities in managing noise abatement programs
and on specific noise abatement problems.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Major activities for FY 78 included regional participation in the
initiation of three major programs: Each Community Helps Others (ECHO),
Quiet Communities Program (QCP) and State Assignees. Other activities
carried out by this decision unit included: the review of environmental
impact statements, the holding of noise abatement workshops for State
and local officials, the providing of direct technical assistance to
local communities and public education on noise abatement and control.
This decision unit also provided regional review of Federal facilities,
to assure compliance with noise regulations, and regional support to
headquarters for the development of railroad regulations.
D) F Y 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
FY 79 will see a continuation of all FY 78 activities with an expansion
of the ECHO program from 30 to 50 community noise advisors. In FY 79,
regions and states will take the lead role in managing the ECHO program.
QCPs will be carried out in three regions.
03;.-
EPA Form 2410.10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2! DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
G?10 NOISE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
RG
MEDIA: NOISE
APPROj A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
01 OF 06 FTE
BUDGET AUTH, (000,0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
U.O 15.0
6.0 9.0
27.8
1*009.0 679.a
FY 80 INCR
11.0
10.0
27.3
613.8
FY 80 CUM
11,0
10,0
27.3
613,8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level of resources will provide a base program (one position) in
nine of the ten regions. It will also allow continuation of one of two
QCPs started in FY 79. Some limited follow-up activities to the Allentown QCP
(terminating 1979) may be required in FY 80. Activities covered within the
base program will include: direct noise technical assistance to State and
local officials; oversight of ECHO activities within the regions; and
involvement in regional noise education and consumer information activities.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level would mean the elimination of all regional
noise programs. It would also eliminate all QCP activities and reduce the
ECHO program only those efforts that could be managed from headquarters.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE RG M£DIAj NOISE
G210 NOISE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION APPffOj A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT F'Y 79 C. E. FY 80 INCH • FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 11.0 15.0 3.0 ia.o
LEVEL OPFT 6.0 9.0 ' 1,0 11.0
02 OF 06 FTE 27.9 2,
EPA Form 2410-1 T(8.78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.FORM 2i DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
5210 NOISE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
RG
Ai NOISE
APPRO| A & C
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
03 OF 06 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
11.0 15.0
6.0 9.0
27.8
1,009.0 679.4
FY 80
1.0
1.0
2s|o
FY 80 CUM
1,5,0
12.0
32,1
751.2
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
This level of funding will provide regional support for one additional
QCP. This will bring the total number of FY 80 QCPs to four (two started
in FY 79 and two in FY 80).
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level will mean a 50% cutback in new QCPs planned
by FY 80. The absence of this fourth QCP will mean not only a significant
delay in the opportunity to develop noise abatement planning techniques,
but will also reduce by one the regions that have a working demonstration of
the benefits that come from community-based noise abatement activities.
J3C
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
V
2
UJ
<
>-
2 tt
0 •<
*- Z
»- r
u o
tti w
C UJ
a LJ
zs
-i C
< 1C
^- Uj
2 o:
UJ
2 >-•
C 2
a -
>• 2
Z O
UJ •—
tn
v> +*
UJ <-)
>— bU
•< C
co —
K»
U- =L
*- d
z u.
3)
O
^»
«
h-
2
UJ
UJ
a
3:
^
^g
o:
C5
O
tt
a.
to w
2 to
0 «
1-1 C
O Z
UJ
03:5*2
t- ru
cc U
-j
cc
o-
c
o- ~
*M CO
U.'
z
>-
bJ
C 2
O" •— i
_ —
2
Q.
CD
o- *-
« u
cc *c fw cc
f'l ^ f^ ^
— Kt r\i a
•i F*> f** >^\
CD -49 fV CD
t^ f^ ^ f^
— KI ru o*
-C ft f^ ^1
cc * nj ec
f^ r^ K! r-
— KI ru cr
«C K» ^- Kl
ec ^ ru cc
fi f*1 P^ ^"^
*• PO fU t^
^ **\ r— **i
cc«->r^^oo»o ruruoccooru
r^ovt^v-OF*- KiWCJ»'P*-^»"O
-^ ^ (v M — •• • ru fwa-ruoi^'-»r^
«c in KI r* * KI
~
co -• r- * e o ~i a-^ruooo-
f^ c f r* •• c ^« ^ c tf\ o f^ ^ ru
••* ^ fU f** ^ •• fU O C ifi
-^ Ifl **> ** **
3-w r^-oocc »^ r-oocc
9-0 K\mor«- o^o Ktmo^o-
*— f*- ^»v4 ru »^- f1* f*- •-• ru
•£ <£ Kl -C ^C KV
O O O O O O O O O O O O
r^ r'l iC if> *^ ^ O~ f^ — e r*~ KI ir> «—
o^rinin c?inm
-
^^ ^K
o o
c o
O H- O H-
t* >-U.UJ « »-U.UJ
•O*-- _1^U.D_»- ^^ _I*^U,CL^
c ta* *-/
u.itorc u-icrnc
c*-z3r^-» c'-nr^ —
^•o^^-co so<^-'tn
— -i-« ^- 2 x >- i— i
_JUJ*-UJ-
>C H-CO >C H- «C
UJ^ — C UJ— 3C
_i a o a —ix c a
ru ru
^ ^
|Tl "-»
r- w
ru fv
^ PO
m -^-
" a
ru ru
— ro
in —
f>« Q
ru ru
-•" m
in —
r^ a
ru AJ o ru o o —
». ru t> »o in ru «\)
in ru ru — — — KI
r- t~ a
o o a o o o
ec ec in — — < —
ru ru —
a a »- o o co
cy e- f> «n - _i ^ u. a. •-
C < O 0. O U,
• uJ 0: o ^ ^^
U. I CO S C
3 >- 3 Z » —
zi c « ^» en
-^ < I z 2
O »- CO O
«- 2 x >- «
_1 UJ — U- •» »-
UJ (J ^w. _| «
> O >- CO
UJ D ^ O
_i cc on
-------
u
z
UJ
a
u
UJ
H
o
CC
Q.
_1
<
h-
z >
LU c
s <
z
LU
O
O
o
Z
g
CO
o
UJ
CC
O
u_
0) 0
en
_J ,!M
*n <<
o
Z
<
-J
o
CO
o
fB
>
LL
O)
pS»
_i
LU
LU
^
_l
LU
>
LU
_l
1
1
^J
LU
>
LU
I
_J
LU
UJ
-1
H
«j
Ul
>
LU
_i
H
_i
LU
LU
_l
2^
^ o
> tr
LL 0.
LU
^_
CO 5
f» 5
en 5
f" ^™
•> fe
^ GO
LL LU
LU
MEASUR
°9
LU
^
h-
^
t-
Z
UJ
COMPLISHM
O
<
m
oo \o r^
-3" C^ rt
O OO vO
•3- OO iH
O^ -^ cN
CN 00 iH
%
O VO !-.
fl o\ i-H
ro vo vo
i— 1 O\ CM
CO
l-l S
0 efl
CO M CO
•H 60 01 60
> 0 1-t rH C
•n M 4-i m 1-1
< P- -H C C
iH O i-l
0) O « -H eo
co as y 60 vi
•H U o 0) H
0 U J K
Z H
aj -o x cs
>^ 4= C ,43 y
jj 4J a o
•H -O J
c i-i w o) >^
30) 01 4J 01
g *a 4-1 co 4-1
EC cd 1-1 03
O D 4-1 CO 4-1
O CO CO W
•a <
iw Oi u-i i— i lu co
O C O X CD O (X
•H rH C O
>J c8 !-i 4.) fi Li js
0) 4J 0) y O 0) CO
,nsj2(4>tt>.n.*! , ,O-
B -H S ^ 1-1 B ^ J.V%
3t03iHCU3O s^wi.
Z S Z O PH Z 3
CO
fv
CO
CN
0
T
CM
E
5
LU
<
a.
LU
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE)
NOISE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (G215)
HQ QANR MEDIA: NOISE
REG. APPRO:
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
Activities funded by this Decision Unit include; the delivery of
technical assistance to generate and strenghthen State and local noise
control programs; the development and implementation of public information
and education programs on noise and the need for noise abatement; and
the coordination of all Federal efforts directed at noise abatement and
control.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Major accomplishments for FY 78 included the initiation of the Quiet
Communities Program (QCP), the Each Community Helps Others program (ECHO)
and a State Assignees program. Through these programs EPA greatly enhanced
its capability to develop and deliver technical assistance for noise abate-
ment to State and local communities. Other activities included the
continuation-of three interagency agreements and the initiation of six new
interagency agreements for the development and demonstration of noise abate-
ment technology. These projects included work on vehicle inspection, off-
road vehicles, highway noise mitigation, bus transit malls, general
construction sites, highway construction sites, shipyards, power plants and
improved building construction design. These decision units also supported
the development of materials for public education of noise abatement and
contxol,^ and.supported airport noise abatement planning programs in five
communities.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FY 79 program calls for an expansion of ECHO from 30 to 50 community
noise advisors, and the addition of two cities to the QCP program. In FY
79, EPA noise technical assistance to State and local communities will be
targeted to generate local noise programs which address areas of need such
as motor vehicle control, stationary source control, planning, and public
information. Other activities will include: four IAG noise abatement
demonstrations, the rewriting of an aviation noise proposal to the FAA and
five follow-ups to FAA aircraft noise abatement actions. FY 79 will also
see greater attention to occupational noise exposure and the initiation of a
national noise assessment feasibility study.
J3;
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2t DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
• M M M M M M • M ^ ^ W ^ M M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ M ^ .*• ^ ._ ^ ^ _K ^ _ «* ^ ^ ^ « ^ ^ «. ^ ^
"™^^^^^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ «• ^ ^ gp W^ V V W w ^ • W w 1W ^ ™ W ^ • ^ • ^ m 9 V IV V W IB V w • ^ ^ ^ • V IB
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAj NOISE
C215 NOISE STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION APPROt A & C
** W • •• * *• • • • • • <• • • W • O • • *• W • • • ^ • ^ ^ ^ • • ^ ^ •• ^^ M ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • <• ^ • ^ ^ M ^ ^^^k^^ ^ ^ M ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0
LEVEL OPFT ia.0 15.0 13.0 13.0
01 OF 08 FTE tit>tU ai.O 41.0
BUDGET AUTH. fOOO.O) 2,131.0 3,563.8 2,672.9 2»672.9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level of resources the program will include four QCPs — two
continued from FY 79 and two initiated in FY 80. The ECHO program will'be
expanded to fifty community noise advisors, ten over the FY 79 level. State
assignees will remain at ten. Four of the eight airport noise abatement
planning projects carried out in FY 79 will be continued. Four interagency
demonstration projects will be completed and two new ones will be initiated.
The level of effort' provided by this level of resources is expected to
generate the following number of local communities havingprograms covering;
motor vehicles, 25; stationary sources, 9; planning, 4; construction noise,
6; and public awareness, 9. (These figures assume an 80% success rate for
the ECHO program.)
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level will result in the elimination of organized
programs for the delivery of technical assistance to State and local
governments, as well as the elimination of Federal coo.rdination activities.
Both of these areas have major ongoing projects whose interuption would re-
sult in the loss of benefits from previous years' efforts. More importantly
the strengthening of State and local government capabilities to abate noise
is viewed by EPA as the most important area of noise abatement, once major
Federal noise regulations are developed. Congress, through the noise over-
sight hearings and through pending legislation, has also placed major
emphasis on this area.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ HEDIA| NOISE
5215 NOISE STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION APPROf A I C
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 80 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 25.0 25.o 2.0 22,0
LEVEL OPFT 14.0 15.0 2.0 15,0
02 OF 08 , FTE 46,a 3,9 43,9
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 2,131.0 3,563.8 534,5 3,207.4
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
Funding of this level will provide an additional 10 ECHO community noise
advisors bringing the total program to 60 noise advisors. Education and
consumer information support will be provided to technical programs, the
noise regulations process, and the noise labeling program. Agency staff will
work with 20 school systems to incorporate the EPA noise curriculum into
their program, expanding the number of systems to a total of 45. Two
additional lAG's with Federal agencies are provided for, thereby increasing
EPA's influence over the important policies of Federal agencies in the noise
field (FHWA, HUD, DOD, (air bases), UMTA, etc.). Efforts to follow-up on
aviation noise proposals made to the TAA are provided for so that the work
of past years is not lost. Assistance to other Federal agencies in imple-
menting policy changes achieved in previous years is also provided* for
under this level.
This level of resources will result in the generation of the following
additional number of local communities having programs covered: Motor
Vehicles 3, Stationary Source 2, Public Awareness 2.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Not funding this level will have two major impacts: the elimination of
most education and consumer information activities for noise, and the
elimination of a significant portion of the Federal coordination program.
Noise education and consumer information are essential supportive elements of
most noise program areas. Consequently, failure to fund the activity will
make less than optimum use of resources expended in other parts of the noise
program. Noise education and consumer information also served as major foci
of Congressional attention in the Congressional oversight hearing held this
past year.
The maintenance of an active Federal coordination program is important
because many of the most effective mechanisms for noise abatement and control
lie within the programs and activities of other Federal agencies. Without
the direction and assistance provided by the EPA Federal noise coordinating
function, most agencies will be unable or unwilling to do their part in re-
ducing the level of harmful noise.
'J31 i
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIA} NOISE
G215 NOISE STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION APPROJ A I C
8. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E, FY 60 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 25.0 25.0 3.0 ' 25.0
LEVEL OPFT .14.0 15.0 10.0 25.0
03 OF 08 FTE 46.4 15.7 60.6
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 2,131.0 3,563.8 356.4 3,563.8
' ! . 1 1 ',.
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
Description and Benefits
At this level of resources one additional aviation noise proposal to the
FAA is to be prepared and one general aviation airport noise abatement pro-
ject will be initiated. In addition, the concepts developed in airport noise
abatement planning will be transferred to the field of railyard noise abate-
ment planning through one demonstration project. Public information and
education materials are to be prepared for use in target communities where
ECHO advisors and regional personnel are working.
Impact of Not Funding This Level
Failure to fund this level means that EPA will not be able to pursue
more stringent source regulations with the FAA (source regulations ai;e the
most cost-effective means of aviation noise abatement). Neither will we be
able to demonstrate the practicality of noise abatement and land use planning
for general aviation airports (airports primarily serving private and corpor-
ate aircraft). Without the development and demonstration of these techniques
to local communities and airport operators, we can expect noise from general
aviation airports to grow into a major problem similar to that of today's
commercial airports. Another consequence of not funding this level results
from the court ordered promulgation of noise standards for railroad facili-:-.
ties. This regulation will create the need for noise abatement planning by
railroads and local communities all across the country. Since this is a
new and undeveloped area for noise abatement planning, there is a need for
EPA to demonstrate that railroad noise abatement planning is both practical
and effective. The railyard regulation's effectiveness will be severely
jeopardized unless at least one such demonstration is carried out". .
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
0
z
—
O 2
> Z
UJ •-*
CO
to *-t
UJ l_)
^ Uj
•< c
CO ••
c.
u. z
I- C
2 il
~
z
c
.-
*~
2
UJ
r r
O U»
»- a.
o
•e cc
oi C
UJ
UJ •-
to <
•-« d
C i-
2 05
* UJ
a v>
•< c
~
<
•C IT
"1 ""*
j- r-» rv
rv tr
53
CC
O^
c
f> ^
— CO
tiJ
I
CO
UJ
rv u
CO Z
O" •••*
— 2
5
O.
«c
a
••*
bJ
»— i
0 »-
co -:
— ^
r
u
UJ
c i.
e. uj
o* a.
r
*-
O~ LL>
r*.
o- c.
E
-J
t^ IP
cr t-
^~ o
4
cr — a~
n. c h- a
r- r- ox
£> =3 fU r-
f\J — F*l *»
o- — o- — •
e\t c r- =r
r- p- c -c
<£ ^ A* F*-
«*. •, » «
r\t *- P*> —
& t*" l\l — ' O O O Q&^v^OO^
rv (c =i o o K^ — r- o *- w rv in =j
r— o -o r*- i\i »^ s o o c- o oj — * cr
>o ec a r nj o- rv r-
r\j — — " K» f\i -N
o- f- rw — o o o in^*»ooo^
rv n. = o c- -A — =r — K^ a- AJ ru Ki
r*-c-£'r*-A*«-G K)Cf\o-
4>tc&7 in -- a- ru
* *• »
CD/W4)*«009 CD fU io4>
•£• O- -£> ^ nj -* S3 * 0s -C ^C Al — T
ire-ire iro^iro-
KI n. — KI rxi ^«
O 0 O — O O OOO—OO
— ec K> ru ir» ^ -»fw*-
— aj a — WAJO- —
*. *, » * ^ *.
rxi «• »* nj •« *-
o o
0 C
c *- o *-
Ift *-U.UJ « H-U.U.
ic^ ^^>u.a-*- «w* j^u_a»-
o < o G. O u. c - **( ^-z>c>-«
.JUJ*-!^**- _Jli.'— •L-'**-
LuiSiw^^x^j-^ ijj^j*^N-*_jfc^
>d H-y; >C ^-to
u.1^ ^C? Lu — — O
_j£T oa — * IT oa
CC —
Kl O
^O •£
in o-
K\ —
IT -
Kl O
^ «
in a
Kl —
CD —
• •
Kl O
-ft «* AJ »4
to IM -o •- o o 9
K) c- 9 o in in ~e
-c o- -c ^} r\j -* 9
in o- in o-
K- fU —
O C- O — O 0
-• co Kiru in 9
K> ru o r^- ru ^
— tv o- —
» * *
ru -. —
o
o
cs »-
«^ h- U. UJ
cc ^ j ^» u. a •—
o < c a o u.
• UJ tt O ^* ^
U. X to ^ C:
o •- r> r «* —
•»> •< x a 2"
0 t— CO C
»- z x >- **
— 1 UJ *^ UJ < *-
UJ tl ^» •- _> — i
> C! »- to
uj = r> o
_i cr co.
-------
LU
O
u
LU
H
o
cc
a.
p
5 <
ES
> w
z tn
LU t-
LU
I
V)
O
o
o
Z
U
LU
Q
tc
O
W 0
o
z <
.. o.'
< O
O n
sS
o;
_ d
O uj
X C
LO
CM
o
c
•H
4-1
CO
4J
C
O)
E
01
c.
M
bO
0)
CO
j-i
0)
03
•H
O
Z
UJ
O
O
u
o
z
<
*I— "
UJ
1
CISION UNITl
UJ
Q
^«
co
Z
UJ
5
I
j
a.
O
o
u
UJ
5
2
D
1
>
m
J
UJ
UJ
-J
J
>
UJ
1
«J
UJ
^
UJ
•J,
_J
UJ
UJ
_1
1
-J
UJ
UJ
H
UJ
UJ
"-1
o
o »
- o
> cc
U. CL
UJ
K
ii
K
L^ 1X1
MEASURE
#
UJ
t-
^»
£
Z
COMPLISHMEI
u
<
CO
,
-crocsjcNcM o ^^
O-OCMCMCM o 0 -H CO
l-i S C CO l-i
•H QJ -H O Z OJ
<"OZ> -H CT3
QJ-H J->< 00)
rCC^O) 10 O. 1-1 fa
•U-H4J03U UW JJ *£
•H«-HJ->« 3 coj=<
CO) H C -H T-l
03vHtO^-,CO -H -OS 0
CJi-HS-HM-H & O ^
c-y-i-iaiJ-1 co 003 03
«3 •" SO -r) -H O*T3 OCrH
4JC4JC6CC T3 ' -H < S O CO
CD3O3C3O)Q) 4JOI E-H 03
"^ c Ci) E *H EOC C003Z cdwSO
CBOOOCOcOcO M0> WJUZO
DJ "H 03C U-I03E S-I'CB Cw
H M-t *4-i CM M-i -H -H S C>^3 B-C"
CflOOOO O03COOI MC/JrH O03C
U C 4J 03SS SrHE^O
slllllo.05.03 ^^"S 2S"oi
H ZCL, Z< ZW O-O- CM WO to M<
-------
u
z
LU
O
o
UJ
H
o
CE
a.
LU
2
LU
O
O
O
D
2
O
u
UJ
Q
'CC
O
LL
0) L3
CO
o
z <
.. p.'
< 0
O ^
5 <
PS
z
O
O
O at
X C£
EN
3
c
o
•H
JJ
JJ
c
(U
0)
d
g
M
00
0)
C3
CO
0)
CO
•H
Z
LU
Q
0
u
D
Z
LU
h-
H
t
Z
•y
DECISIOr
<
CO
z
LU
5
X
co
p.
O
U
CJ
H
_l
D
3
0
CO
a
>
LL
_J
LU
LU
_
LU
LU
LU
^
LU
_]
LU
>
LU
J
LU
LU
_J
LU
LU
-J
O)
O) -;
" 0
> «r
LL p.
LU
m 5
>• to
LL LU
MEASURE
08
LU
-J
t
H
)-
Z
LU
s
X
CO
1
ACCOMPi
CD
m o\
P^ O"s
r>j m
*
t
vr n
rH iH
at
c c
O -H CO
C -H AJ C
0 « =0
^ « S -H
jj -H E 4->
e < ^S
5 c E K
LJ O I— I C
§ » « 1
U y -HQ
g ^v 0) 0
2 » o1 S<
M 3 K MM
£ -5 14-)
£ JJ O. CO MH O
w C 3 rH O
_j O 1 tB CO
tn U S CO Lj jj
2 ^ 0 O CU rH
53 H G. * 3
^ --I O E W
0, O M 3Q)
r» fiti P-i !Z Pi
(
A
\
~
ec
•
IN
^
O
o
u.
a
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM V. DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ OE MEDIA: Noise
Noise Enforcement (G305) REG- APPRO: Enf
B) LONG RANGE GOALS & MAJOR OBJECTIVES
Long Range Goals: Assure that manufacturers of products which are regulated
under sections 6 and 8 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 distribute in commerce
products that comply with the applicable new product noise emission standards,
or informational labeling requirement, or both. Assist State/local governments
in the development of effective noise enforcement programs.
iajor Objectives: Enforcement of those section 6 noise emission standards and
section 8 informational labeling requirements that have the greatest potential
for reducing the levels of environmental noise and consequently for protecting
the public health and welfare.
Integration of Federal, State and local noise enforcement activities into a
coordinated national program to reduce levels of environmental noise and to
ensure in-use compliance of regulated products with applicable section 6
noise emission standards and section 8 informational labeling requirements.
C) FY 78 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
- Initiate enforcement of section 6 new product noise emission standards for
portable air compressors and medium and heavy duty trucks.
- Development of enforcement programs for both additional section 6 noise
emission standards and section 8 information labeling requirements.
- Provide State and local noise control programs with assistance and guidance
in the development and enforcement of their noise control regulations and
ordinances. *
Specific accomplishments that supported these overall accomplishments are as
follows:
- All production verification (PV) reports submitted by truck and compressor
manufacturers were reviewed.
- Records and facilities of all compressor manufacturers and 90% of the first
stage truck manufacturers were inspected.
Three (3) selective enforcement audits (SEA) were ordered and monitored.
Contractor surveillance testing of regulated in-use medium and heavy duty
trucks was initiated.
Administrative hearing procedures were proposed and a regulation controlling
the importation of regulated products was forwarded to the U.S. Customs
Service for its review and approval.
PV tests conducted by truck and compressor manufacturers were monitored by
Noise Enforcement Division personnel.
Site correlation tests were conducted by the Noise Enforcement Division with
truck and compressor manufacturers.
Noise enforcement training program for police officers was developed.
- Assistance was provided to five (5) State and (25) local noise enforcement
programs.
- Development of a compilation of legal memoranda on State and local noise
enforcement issues.
EPA Form 2410-10(8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 1: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ QE MEDIA: Noise
Noise Enforcement (G305) REG. APPRO: Enfant.
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
- Continued enforcement of section 6 new product noise emission standards for
portable air compressors and medium and heavy duty trucks.
- Initiate enforcement of section 8 labeling requirements for hearing
protectors.
- Continue assistance and guidance to State and local noise enforcement
programs.
- Continue development of enforcement strategies for additional section 6
standards and section 8 labeling requirements.
Planned accomplishments include:
- Review of production verification (PV) reports for new model year trucks
and compressors.
-The issuance of (22) selective enforcement audit CSEA) test requests.
- The monitoring and conducting of (33) PV and (22) SEA tests conducted under
the applicable regulations.
- The inspection of (18) compressor and (21) truck manufacturers' records and
facilities.
- The conducting of test site comparison noise emission tests with regulated
manufacturers.
- The development of a catalog of noise control experts for use by State and
local noise enforcement agencies. •
- The development of a guidance package for State and local prosecutors for
use in enforcement of State and local noise control ordinances.
- The promulgation or proposal of enforcement strategies for seven (7) section
6 new product standards and section 8 labeling requirements.
Alternative schemes for enforcement of the compressor and truck standards
were considered. Some of those considered were:
1. Certification program similar to that used by Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control Program. The benefits of this type of program are as follows:
- EPA in complete control of testing; EPA personnel would
conduct the testing.
- Manufacturers would know prior to start of actual production that
they comply with the regulation since this program is based on
prototype testing.
The resource implications are that the Noise Enforcement Division would
need at least 62 people in FY 1979 to conduct certification testing of
trucks and compressors. In FY 1980 additional personnel would be necessary
for testing of other products for which section 6 standards would become
effective. The estimated 62 people is based upon the MSAPC personnel
involved in certification testing of light duty vehicles in FY 1978.
2. Testing of a statistical sample of early production products similar to
the sampling plan used in the current SEA program. Benefits of this
approach are:
- EPA is assured that manufacturers can build production products
that comply with the regulation.
- Manufacturers would conduct the testing with EPA observing.
- Since this involves up-front statistical testing, the need fqr^ .
subsequent SEA's may be greatly reduced. Uw - 5
Resource impacts for enforcement of truck and compressor standards are
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'FORM!: DECISION UNIT OVERVIEW
A) DECISION UNIT TITLE (AND CODE) HQ 0£ MEDIA: Noise
Noise Enforcement CG305) REG. APPRO: Enfant,
D) FY 79 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (CONT'D)
estimated to be significant. A single statistical testing program requires
at least 10 man-weeks of effort to monitor. Assuming that the 37 known
manufacturers of trucks and compressors had an average of 20 models and
NED monitored 50% of the statistical testing of these models, 90 man-years
of effort would be required. It would also require re-regulation for
trucks and compressors, and additional testing burden on manufacturers.
For small volume production categories (as is the case in many instances
for trucks, compressors and compactors), would appreciably increase the
cost of compliance.
3. A reactive enforcement program where NED would follow-up with an investi-
gation of regulatory violations that were brought to its attention. This
type of program would rely on feedback from State/local agencies and
concerned citizens for identification of violations. The "benefits" of
this type of program are that it requires a minimum commitment of Agency
resources. Benefit to the public health and welfare would in all likeli-
hood be low. Voluntary compliance does not work. Some Federal oversight
is required to maintain any level of compliance.
Items (1), (2) and (3) do not warrant additional consideration or study.
Item 1 does not because it would mean a significant commitment of Agency re-
sources to handle the testing burden and may not be effective in terms of
demonstrating the noise emission performance of actual production products.
Item 2, because it also requires a significant commitment of Agency resources
for monitoring and greatly increases the testing burden of the regulated
manufacturers. It would also require re-regulations for trucks and compressors
Item 3 does not because it is a form of voluntary compliance which has been
demonstrated to be non-effective in the long-range. Manufacturers may decide
that the cost of compliance is significantly greater than any liabilities that
they could incur as a result of enforcement. They may conclude that the risk
of being found in non-compliance does not justify the cost of compliance.
A fourth alternative is being considered and parts of it are being studied.
This is contract support for enforcement where the non-critical work is done
by a contractor. The contractor could conceivably review PV reports, conduct
surveillance testing, monitor and conduct PV testing; recommend manufacturers
for SEA testing. One benefit of this type of program is that manufacturers
are still in control of the bulk of the testing and EPA has an effective
enforcement program with a minimum commitment of Agency manpower. Resource
impacts would be significant in terms of dollars. Also, the total contract
effort would be limited by the availability of Agency personnel to monitor
contract performance and handle any enforcement actions that result from
contractor's efforts.
Portions of it are being studied and warrant further study. In FY 1978,
contractors are performing surveillance testing on in-use regulated medium
and heavy duty trucks and are reviewing production verification reports
submitted by the same manufacturers. Additional contracts should be let
during FY 1979 to obtain additional data for a complete evaluation of this
alternative's effectiveness.
f^ ** •"» I
Uo-o
EPA Form 2410-10 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 25 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAt NOISE*"
G305 NOISE ENFORCEMENT APPRO, ENFORCEMENT
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 60 INCR " FY 80*CUM
POSITIONS PFT aa.o 22.0 IB.O is.o
LEVEL OPFT . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
01 OF 09 FTE 25.9 22.9 22,9
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 1,000,0 977.9 783,0 783.0
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level provides for partial enforcement of section 6 new products standards
for portable air compressors and medium and heavy duty trucks. At best, it is
estimated that time-of-sale complaince will only be 75% for these two products.
This level provides for review of 40% of the submitted Production Verification
(PV) reports for trucks and compressors. If successful in FY 1979, contract for
review of remaining 60% of truck/compressor PV reports will be let. Contract to
conduct surveillance testing of these two products in-use wd.ll be let. A
limited number of PV tests and Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) tests will be
monitored and conducted. Sixteen (16) inspections of manufacturers' records
and 10 site comparison studies will be conducted. This level of enforcement
will achieve a reduction of 23% in the total equivalent population exposed to
noise levels due to trucks and compressors in excess of Ldn = 55 dBA. This
assumes a linear deterioration after sale in the noise emission performance of
trucks and compressors and a minimal State/local enforcement: effort (20%
effective). No enforcement of other effective section 6 standards will result
in an initial time-of-sale compliance of 40%.
TIME OF SALE * STATE/LOCAL % TOTAL %
PRODUCTS COMPLIANCE EXPECTED RED .I/ EFFECTIVENESS EXPECTED RED. ACHIEVE)
Trucks/Comp. 75% 16.0 20% 3.2% 19.2
Buses, et al 40% 2.8 20% 0.56% 3.4
TOTAL LEVEL 1 - 22.6
I/ Expected reduction is expressed as the percent reduction in total equivalent
population exposed to noise levels in excess of Ldn = 55 dBA. The following
expected reductions were developed by the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control assuming no deteriorations:
TRUCKS: 27.6% COMPACTORS: 1.4%
COMPRESSORS: 15.0% REEFERS: 2.1%
TOTAL 42.6% BUSES: 0.2%
MOTORCYCLES: 10.0%
TOTAL 13.7%
Not funding this level eliminates the Agency's noise enforcement program.
Funding this level does not allow any enforcement of additional section 6
standards that are effective for motorcycles, buses, compactors and truck re-
frigeration units and of section 8 labeling requirements that are effective
for hearing protectors, vacuum cleaners and air conditioners, any development
of enforcement strategies for additional section 6 and 8 products, and any
assistance and guidance to State/local noise programs for enforcement
activities.
">'"»' "7
I j 1 •
\J v i
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORM ^l DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A, DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEDIAi NOISE
G305 NOISE ENFORCEMENT APPROi ENFORCEMENT
B. RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 60 INCR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 2«.o 22.0 2.0 20.0
LEVEL OPFT 2.0 2,0 1,0 3,0
02 OF 09 FTE 25.9 2.« 25.3
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0) 1,000.0 977.9 97.9 880,9
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level provides for the EPA review of 75% of truck and compressor Pro-
duction Verification (PV) reports (660 of 880) and for the inspections of all
truck and compressor manufacturers records and facilities. Two additional PV
tests will be monitored and two additional PV tests and an additional Selective
Enforcement Audit (SEA) test will be conducted. Time-of-sale compliance level
increases to 90%. Expected reduction in total equivalent people impacted by
truck and compressor noise increases from 22.6% in Level 1 to 26%. Increased
level of in-use surveillance testing can be accomplished. Not funding this
level allows for 75% non-compliance with truck and compressor standards and
attendant reduction in environmental benefits of reduced truck and compressor
noise levels. Funding this level does not allow any enforcement of additional
section 6 standards that are effective for motorcycles, buses, compactors and
truck refrigeration units and of section 8 labeling requirements that are
effective for hearing protectors, vacuum cleaners and air conditioners, any
development of enforcement strategies for additional sections 6 and 8 products,
and any assistance and guidance to State/local noise programs for enforcement
activities.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR* 21 DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
G305 NOISE ENFORCEMENT
HQ
f NOISE
APPROi ENFORCEMENT
, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS PFT
LEVEL OPFT
3 OF 09 PTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY
24.0
2.0
1,000.0
79 C. E.
22.0
2.0
25.9
977.9
FY 80 INCR
2.0
2.0
3.8
97.9
FY 80 CUM
22.0
5.0
29.1
978.8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level provides for the development of enforcement strategies and
attendant regulatory packages for additional section 6 noise emission
standards and section 8 labeling requirements. There are five (5) packages
scheduled to be promulgated and one (1) to be proposed. Not funding this level
eliminates any development of enforcement strategies and attendant regulatory
packages for both section 6 noise emission standards and section 8 informa-
tional labeling requirements. Funding this level does not allow any enforce-
ment of section 6 standards that are effective for motorcycles, buses,
compactors, and reefers and section 8 labeling requirements for vacuum
cleaners and air conditioners.
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2: DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
• •>••*••••• • V • • • W • • • V • • • W • • • IB V V V V • IV W • • •• • •••••••• • • • W OT V • • • • ^ ^ • • ^^ ^^ ^ ^ M ^ ^ ^
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE HQ MEOIA| NOISE
G305 NOISE ENFORCEMENT APPROj ENFORCEMENT
8, RESOURCE SUMMARY FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E. FY 8Q IN/CR FY 80 CUM
POSITIONS PFT 2a,o 22.0 1,0 23.0
LEVEL OPFT . 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0
04 OF 09 FTE 25.9 3,9 33.0
BUDGET AUTH, (000.0) 1,000.0 977.9 25.0 1,003,8
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level provides for the minimal development of a program to develop
enforcement guidance and assistance for State/local noise enforcement programs.
This will raise the level of effectiveness in supporting Federal enforcement
activities to 30%. Reduction in total equivalent people impacted by noise
above Ldn = 55 dBA goes from 27% at Level 3 to 29.6%. Not funding this level
eliminates any assistance and guidance to State/local noise enforcement
programs. Funding this level does not allow any enforcement of section 6
standards that are effective for buses, motorcycles, compactors and truck
refrigeration units and section 8 labeling requirements for vacuum cleaners
and air conditioners, and development of enforcement strategies for additional
section 6 standards and section 8 labeling requirements.
03 r
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FORM 2! DECISION UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS
A. DECISION UNIT TITLE AND CODE
G305 NOISE ENFORCEMENT
HQ
MEDIAj NOISE
APPROj ENFORCEMENT
B, RESOURCE SUMMARY
POSITIONS
LEVEL OPFT
05 OF 09 FTE
BUDGET AUTH. (000.0)
FY 78 ACT FY 79 C. E.
24.0 22.0
2.0 2.0
25.9
1,000.0 977,9
FY 80 INCR
1.0
2.0
3.8
72.9
FY 80 CUM
24*0
9.0
36.6
1,076.7
C. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS LEVEL ONLY. DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS
OF FUNDING AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FUNDING.
This level provides for the expanded development of a program to develop
enforcement guidance and assistance for State/local noise enforcement
programs. This will raise the level of effectiveness in supporting Federal
enforcement activities to 40%. Reduction in total equivalent people impacted
by noise above Ldn = 55 dBA goes from 29.6% at Level 4 to 32.2%. Not funding
this level eliminates any expanded assistance and guidance to State/local
noise enforcement programs. Funding this level does not allow any enforcement
of section 6 standards that are effective for buses, motorcycles, compactors
and truck refrigeration units and section 8 labeling requirements for'vacuum
cleaners and air conditioners, and development of enforcement strategies for
additional sections 6 and 8 products.
Gi
EPA Form 2410-11 (8-78)
-------
2
iu
ts
<
>-
z a
•^ r
»- f
u 3
U. (O
C uJ
a u
°" 1
•e to
z a
UJ
r f-
o z
IE r>
> z
z o
UJ >-.
CO
CO >-
UJ U
« e
CO ••
>- ex
Z w
3
z
X
UJ
•- u
z ct
UJ C
I U..
U. Z
U Us
cc
0 UJ
u, «&
IT *••
UJ O
2!
<
< in
c
— o ££
uo: 2. ""-
33
CC
cr
eo
0- ~
UJ
Z
1—4
^_
UJ
rxj cs
HJ ^
c~ •— »
~ 2
a.
*_x
f
o^
UJ
~
tc <.
*- ^3
x
3
*"*
•-
UJ
o r
ec uj
e- a
~H
*-
to
r-
O- D:
~ a
CJ
_j
r*- — -
0* »-
<
o ^
• •
ft Q
c o
0 f*-
PO ?*
* -C O 1C
f- to ru r^
0 ^ O f^ 0
f^l * O W O
CD f*- O O «—
IN. tfl fy r^
r- — *^ «c
o o o o o
oin *f* o a-
o r^ fv o iv
-
,_
o
c
o
^ >-
C < C Q.
• uj or o
u. I CO ~ 0
c — n r «« —
3 O « •-- CO
— « r ct z
c »- co c
^ Z X >- M
_l UJ •"« UJ < »-
UJ t& 1-* ^^ _J 1^
>• £^ *•• CO
UJ ^ ^ O
_>ec o a
o- cc
» •
o rv.
cc o
cc r-
.
o rw
ec o
CO ^
0- CO
« c
c ru
ec tr-
ee r-
C» CO
o ru
ec t>
ec f-
ot> or^ruccooKi
ojru orviecruoKiin
ec * oj r-
CO OKl«^00=T
OJOJ ^£*>COOJv^OJ
ru t> r^ oj cc
ec- fr-CKi — oeo-
ojm »^«"Xoruruin
OJ ^ O t^ CO OJ OJ
O- -O KI CC
o o c e> c o o
oj o in in o si oj
o r^ ru o ru
0 -t> KI O-
^
O
c
»- o >-
U. UJ « •- U. UJ
cu, c O
O *— Z> T *« ••
O C- < »-» CO
oj •< I c: z
C H- CO C
1— 2 X >- »-l
_j U.1 •-« UJ < »-
UJ CJ ^ ^^ J t-i
> C f- CO
uj = r> o
— J ec o a
cc . o-
• •
ec e=
p»- C
er cc
ec C>
CO 0
f- CC
0- CC
cc c-
• •
cc o
>-. CC
o cc
cc 0-
ec" o
t- cc
0- eo
ec o «c P- o c •*
co a o- o nj in o
o r* fu ec
a- KI *c *« o o cc
*•» -o «« ec oj oj K*
o r^ nj cc
o- o o cr-
r^ — •£ o ru oj 1/1
f^ o f- eo oj oj
o- o KI ec
0 O O O O O
o in in o sr oj
o r- ru o oj
o « KI c-
„
c
o
o *-
K H- U. UJ
C « 0 0. C U.
• UJ or c ^ *-*
u. i v. r e:
o *- ~ t « —
o o < -^ co
K! < I CC Z
C f- CO O
»- Z X >- >-
_! UJ -» UJ < H-
UJ 15 ^* ^* «J i^
> C >- CO
uj r z; c
_i cc o a.
CC ST
• •
KI KI
0 C
0 O-
CO 3
K^ HI
C 0
O tt-
60 SI
KI KI
C5 0
e o-
ec 9
KI KI
0 0
c K) f» KI
o r- ru o- »
^ ,
o e in o e> o-
in in oj — ru KI
oj ru ru
t- •« -o o oj ru in
^. o f^ cC' oj ru
e> x K> cc
0 O O 0 0 O
o m in o 9 oj
c r^ oj o ru
o -c KI a
-*-»
o
0
o ^>
•ft *- U. U.
C « 0 O. O U.
• UJ a: o ^ ^^
U. I CO ^ O
O *- 3 r *FI ••
3 C •< •— 10
=i < r CE z
0 1- CO O
<- Z X J- «
_l UJ •• > U- « t-
uj o *•* *^ ~J •"*
> c »- to
UJ - => C
_j ec o a.
f~ O
• •
* o
r^ *
o tr
r- o
•c o-
f* ^
e o
r- o
v A
•c o-
f^ •£>
0 C-
r* o
« o*
r^ -c
0 5-
»
»- oj in es o
»C KI KI fr ^
o r~ oj o-
_
» rv t~ -o o
ru o KI in •-
t^- r\t o ^
a
C- * KI — O
r^ ~* .c o ru
f^ O F~ I» OJ
o-.Cf.ec
o o c o o
o in in o sr
o r- rv o ru
0 >O KI »
„
o
o
o
M »-
c < o a.
• uj or o
u. i co — c
o *- 3 T: « —
3 o < *- to
in « r ct z
e i- to o
1- Z X >- »-!
_1 UJ — UJ < t-
•> Ci >- CO
—ice c'a.
CO
h-
Kl
1
o-
O
-------
u
2
o <
i- Z
«- z
C UJ
or u
a a
z a
u;
z »-
2 **
c r
> 2
i C
« e
»»
to —
f^
c
U. £
>- a
-• o
U UJ
IT
O UJ
u. to
U.1 O
2
<
< 1A
O
(V C,
IN. ti
tr
o- «
ru o
C 2
c- —
— r
r
c z
flC UJ
o- a:
to
O* UJ
r^
o- a
u
o o-
• •
t\l IT
u. bj
c- a. *-
o o u.
c:-3
-------
<*,
u
o
•z.
ai
o
I-
o
LU
H
o
a:
a.
I-
LU
ED
"> CO
UJ
UJ
5
I
to
O
o
a
2
2
to
o
UJ
en
O
4J
a
QJ
E
OJ
^
0) P
03 O
, 1 L^
o c
z w
. . o.'
< o
o ^
LU a.
2 <
us
s
<
o
u
O LU
X LT
LU /— N
Q tn
8g
O V^
< J-1
m QJ
-J H
H *
— O
h- p
I- °
— >4-l
2 e
Z! W
2 01
O to
"0
u s
LU
Q
<
C/J
LU
g
I
a.
O
u
<
LU
^
t
D
5
o
CO
O)
T-
>
U-
J
LU
LU
— '
.
H
_]
LU
^
LU
EC
U. 0.
LU
(-
eo ^
en 2
U. UJ
LU
tr
t/)
LU
UJ
t-
K
>-
.N3IAIHSI
_i
c.
O
U
o
<-
m
-
or--ooocs woo o • r- '. rvl r-H
00
OI^-OOOCN WOO O CM fsjOO-O-i-i OO O u"i
(» CM CM en t-i CM
00
Or-ooorsl WOO O O OoOH cnoo-^-iH oo o o
OOCMCMiH r-t CM ?O
00
otnm^Hr— i oo r— i r» o CM -^-ooo oo o o
O CM tH i— 1 i— 1 i— 1 fi-)
r^
"W CJ
M 03 00
0) p CO
M -0 0) .*
S 0) LJ [J 0) *O
cjoTJoJj-ieo. os re
Cd O.OI-HOO) Q) -H OJWXI
iw OJJticdE OJ03 4J^-iCJ-J
t) 3 MCd3>wO) Ui-< "O *OCd >O
OJ'O'O C G.6C4J3U CO a)*Ofl)60 OJt-l 03
Sajoi cd rHwet-i toe saip-H PAJ E
(UP4J g C03 COO'O 0)!-i04J re m
•TjOO-B-B OCECE^ -Hr-l -HOJJB3 CD60 l-i
>jjDa)Qju-i oioo c sn >jj^Ha) JJ^H ^
OJ -H *O p 4J O PP03'Oa) 60O 0)-HC> 034J O
P C C O O O. iH 01 T3 OCOPCOC -HtD p
OO.U3W 4J piJtHOJAJr-la) OE-H i-HO) O.
•u ccoa)o)o3cx.HOoa)o)O4J coao eoc o>
P CC to O O *H «H E t»0 E 3 O i"H E^JCPCOAJC C "^ CO
(DttJocoKQjiHP pajQjPwcdOJaJ-ucj OJP c *o
p4J4J-.D.-HO-Q)->~.AJ'ao P4J Q, D.O 0)
<s»j>wwcc8cc-H *Jtnc*Jc>5><;cd reE •>^. co
~^ OJP-OE o) oitn
14-1 M-I IM IM IM IM tnl«y-i'«'i-1**-' 3<« a) O)u-iiwn-iw-i4jw-iy-i4jvi-i 03
OOOOOO'OOOOOO'OO'OOOOOOCJOOUOrt
P 30J-HP 33
CJQJDQJUCJUCilDQJCOOCDO'J-'QJOJOiQJCCiJCiJecjp '
rd ^ p£ .O pC ^ OJ ^O J3 ^O O ^ P «C P C J2 ^ O f*l Q O ^ Q )*1 QJ
z, z z. z z, z z. z. z z S ilii 3§ 3
CO
CO
CM
1
o
rs
E
o
u.
a
UJ
-------
-------