-------
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
-------
-------