c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Noise
Abatement and Control
Washington DC 20460
EPA 550/9-79-258
Aug 1979
Noise
Environmental Final
and Economic
Impact Statement
Noise Emission Regulations
for Truck-Mounted Solid Waste
Compactors
-------
EPA 550/9-79-258
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR
TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
August 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
SUMMARY
Agency;
Actiont
Description; 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (EPA/ONAC)
Notice of Rulemaking (NRM) to establish noise emission
limits for newly-manufactured truck-mounted solid waste
compactors (TMSWC).
Truck-mounted solid waste compactors (refuse collection vehicles)
manufactured after October 1, 1980 shall not emit a noise level
(A-weighted) in excess of 79 decibels (the energy average of
measurements made at four positions around the truck, at a dis-
tance of 7 meters from the vehicle surface, with the vehicle
stationary, empty and operating through its compacting cycle at
the maximum engine speed allowable for compaction). The not-to-
exceed noise level is reduced to 76 decibels for vehicles manu-
factured after January 1, 1982.
The regulation requires that the manufacturer design and build
each product so that its noise level will not degrade (increase)
above the applicable level for a period (the Acoustical Assurance
Period, or AAP) of 2 years or 5000 operating hours after delivery
to the ultimate purchaser.
The regulation specifies a Low Noise Emission Product (LNEP)
level of 71 decibels, effective October 1, 1979.
4. The regulation incorporates an enforcement program modeled
after the enforcement provisions in the existing medium and
heavy truck noise regulation. This program includes produc-
tion verification, selective enforcement auditing, warranty,
maintenance, compliance labeling, and antitampering provisions.
Benefits; 1. A 70 percent decrease is expected in the population exposed
to noise levels above a yearly L, of 55 dB due to truck-
mounted solid waste compactors.
2. A 74 percent reduction is expected in the severity and extent
of annoyance and general adverse response to noise from
compactor vehicles.
3. A 75-80% reduction is expected in the potential occurrence
of sleep disturbances, sleep awakenings, and other activity
interferences such as speech interference due to compactor
vehicle noise.
4. An annual fuel savings of 2 million gallons of gasoline and
1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel is anticipated when the
entire refuse collection vehicle fleet is in compliance.
3.
-------
Impacts; 1. The average list price of refuse collection vehicles may increase
by 10.3 percent, based on the combined cost of compactor and
chassis.
2. Demand for new truck-mounted solid waste compactors could decrease
by as much as 2 percent, but total manufacturer revenue should
remain unchanged due to increased priced.
3. The annualized cost to the collection industry is estimated to
be approximately $21.5 million. This translates to an annual
cost of less than 10 cents per person served in the United
States.
4. Costs are expected to be passed through to the consumer and
should cause an increase in annual residential refuse collection
costs of no more than 50 cents per household served.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION !
REGULATORY ANALYSIS 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION 3
SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION 4
THE EXISTING TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR ENVIRONMENT 8
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 17
ECONOMIC IMPACTS 21
CONCLUSIONS 25
EXHIBITS 27
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR
TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a noise emission
regulation for newly-manufactured truck-mounted solid waste compactors. This
regulation is intended to alleviate the adverse health and welfare impacts on
people, resulting from the noise of refuse compaction in residential neighbor-
hoods.
This Environmental and Economic Impact Statement (EEIS) presents, in
summary form, the benefits to be gained from the truck-mounted solid waste
compactor noise standards, and the economic implications of this action. Also
presented are the principal regulatory options which were considered by EPA.
The information contained in this document addresses the principal issues
involved with this rulemaking and EPA's continuing activities in promoting a
quieter environment for all Americans.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
In arriving at the not-to-exceed noise standards for new refuse collection
vehicles, the Agency considered various regulatory options in the light of
available quieting technology, potential health and welfare benefits, and the
attendant costs and economic effects of compliance with each option. The
regulatory decisions involved in the rule were based on technical data and other
information gathered by EPA from meetings with manufacturers, distributors and
users, and from published data and public comments. This information has been
-------
compiled and analyzed by EPA, and published in the form of a regulatory analysis
entitled, "Regulatory Analysis of the Noise Emission Regulations for Truck-
Mounted Solid Vfaste Compactors," (EPA 550/9-79-257). This document may be
obtained upon request from:
Mr. Charles Mooney
EPA Public Information Center (PM-215)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
For the sake of brevity and simplicity the information contained in
this EEIS is presented in summary form only. Persons wishing more detailed
explanation and discussion of the facts and issues pertinent to the truck-
mounted solid waste compactor noise rulemaking are encouraged to refer to the
regulatory analysis.
The preamble and text of the regulation and additional copies of this
EEIS can also be obtained from the above address.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For further information related to the regulation, please contact:
Mr. Fred Mintz
Program Manager - Truck-Mounted Solid Waste Compactors
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(703) 557-2710
-------
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION
Congress passed the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-574), in
part, as a result of their findings that inadequately controlled noise presents
a growing danger to the health and welfare of the nation's population, particu-
larly in urban areas. Through the NCA, the Congress established a national
policy to "promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopard-
izes their health or welfare". In pursuit of that policy, Congress stated in
Section 2 of the Act that "while primary responsibility for control of noise
rests with state and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with
major noise sources in commerce, control of which requires national uniformity
of treatment." As part of this essential Federal action, Subsection 5(b)(l) of
the Act requires that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, after consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies, publish a
report or series of reports "identifying products (or classes of products) which
in his judgement are major sources of noise." Section 6 of the Act requires the
Administrator to publish proposed regulations for each product identified as a
major source of noise and for which, in his judgement, noise standards are
feasible. Such products fall into various categories, one of which is surface
transportation equipment.
Inasmuch as a number of different types of transportation equipment operate
at the same time, the quieting of one product type is often not in itself
sufficient to adequately reduce transportation noise to a level necessary to
protect public health or welfare. Accordingly, the EPA's noise regulatory
program has developed a coordinated approach to controlling overall trans-
portation noise in which various types of transportation equipment, alone or in
combination, are evaluated to assess their contribution to transportation noise
and its impact on the nation's population.
3
-------
Under the mandate of the Noise Control Act and EPA's approach to the
control of transportation noise, noise emission regulations were promulgated
on March 31, 1976, for medium and heavy trucks (41 PR 15538). These regula-
tions, however, only apply to trucks when they are in a pass-by mode. As long
as a truck is standing still, for example to collect and compact refuse, the
noise emission regulations for medium and heavy trucks do not apply.
In order to address this problem and to further control transportation
noise, in accordance with Subsection 5(b)(l) of the Noise Control Act the
Administrator published a report on May 28, 1975 (40 PR 23105) that identified
truck-mounted solid waste compactors as a major source of noise. A Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to regulate noise emissions from truck-mounted solid
waste compactors was published on August 26, 1977 (42 PR 43226). Public comment
was solicited for 90 days and two public hearings were held (New York City on
October 18, 1977, and Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 20, 1977). A detailed
review and consideration of the coirroents that were received has been carried out
prior to the issuance of the final rule.
The final regulation is intended to alleviate the adverse health and
welfare impacts of the noise of refuse collection and compaction on people in
areas at or near their residences. The regulation is also intended to establish
a uniform national noise standard for truck-mounted solid waste compactors
distributed in commerce, thereby eliminating inconsistent state and local noise
source emission regulations that may impose an undue burden on the truck-mounted
solid waste compactor manufacturer and user industries.
SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION
The regulation establishes standards for noise emissions resulting from
the operation of newly-manufactured truck-mounted solid waste compactors.
The standard specifies that those noise emissions shall be described in terms
4
-------
of the energy-averaged A-weighted sound pressure level in dB, measured at a
distance of 7 meters (approximately 23 feet) from the front, rear, and side
surfaces of the truck-mounted solid waste compactor vehicle, using "slow"
meter response. For test purposes, the vehicle is stationary, empty, and
operated through its compacting cycle at the maximum engine speed allowable
for compaction.
To minimize market impacts from substitution of unregulated vehicles,
identical effective dates were set for all types of compactor vehicles subject
to the standards. Effective on the dates listed below, truck-mounted solid
waste compactor vehicles must not produce noise levels in excess of the levels
shown, when operated and evaluated according to the methodology provided in the
regulation.
Regulatory Noise Emission Standards
Effective Date Not-to-Exceed Noise Level
October 1, 1980 79 decibels
July 1, 1982 76 decibels
The EPA believes that the estimated health and welfare benefits from this
regulation can be attained only if the compactors conform to the prescribed
noise levels for a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in order to ensure the
realization of benefits from this regulation, the Agency requires that manufac-
turers design and build each product so that, when properly maintained and used,
its noise level will not degrade (increase) above the applicable level for a
specified period of time or use, from the date of the product's delivery to the
ultimate purchaser. This period is called the Acoustical Assurance Period
(AAP). In the case of truck-mounted solid waste compactors, the Acoustical
Assurance Period is two years or 5000 operating hours, whichever occurs first.
If a manufacturer anticipates that the noise level of his product will increase
5
-------
during the AAP, then he must take into account this anticipated increase in
noise level, termed the Noise Level Degradation Factor (NLDF), when making test
measurements to show compliance with the applicable standard. He must demon-
strate that his product's noise level does not exceed an amount equal to the
regulatory level less the NLDF value.
Under the authority of Section 15 of the Noise Control Act, the regula-
tion specifies a Low Noise Emission Product (LNEP) level of 71 dB determined by
the measurement methodology prescribed in the standard, effective October 1,
1979. That is, for a product to be qualified as a LNEP, its noise level must
not exceed 71 dB. The LNEP program provides manufacturers with incentives for
reducing the noise level of their products below the regulated noise level.
The Federal government is authorized to purchase LNEPs in lieu of those like
products which just meet the regulated levels. The Federal government is
further authorized to pay up to a twenty-five percent premium over the retail
price of the least expensive product of like type.
The regulation also incorporates an enforcement program which includes
production verification, selective enforcement auditing, warranty, maintenance,
compliance labeling and antitampering provisions. Production verification
means that prior to the distribution into commerce of any truck-mounted solid
waste compactor vehicle, a manufacturer must submit information to EPA which
demonstrates that his product conforms to the standards. Selective enforcement
auditing means that in response to an administrative request, a statistical
sample of truck-mounted solid waste compactors must be tested to determine if
the units, as they are produced, meet the standard.
EPA wishes to avoid placing an excessive testing burden on distributors
who assemble a compactor vehicle by mounting a compactor body on a truck
chassis. These distributors (who are "manufacturers" under the Noise Control
Act and therefore are otherwise subject to all provisions of the regulation)
are permitted to rely on the production verification tests of the compactor
-------
body manufacturer if the distributor faithfully follows assembly instructions
provided by the compactor body manufacturer.
Current Federal regulations applicable to truck chassis noise are the
EPA Noise Emission Standards for Motor Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce
(39 PR 38208) and the EPA Noise Emission Standards for Medium and Heavy Trucks
(41 FR 15538). The U.S. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the U.S. Department
of Transportation has issued regulations for the purpose of establishing meas-
urement procedures and methodologies for determining whether*in-use commercial
motor vehicles conform to the Federal Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission
Standards.
Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972 this regulation
establishes a uniform national standard for newly-manufactured truck-mounted
solid waste compactor vehicles that preempts, after its effective date, all
state and local new source emission regulations that are not identical with
the Federal regulation.
However, since primary responsibility for control of noise rests with
state and local governments, nothing in the Act or this regulation precludes
or denies the right of any state or political subdivision from establishing and
enforcing controls on environmental noise through the licensing, regulation or
restriction of the use, operation or movement of any product or combination of
products. Furthermore, Section 6(f) of the Act, as amended, gives a state or
political subdivision the right to petition the Administrator of EPA to revise
the standard on the grounds that a more stringent standard is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare.
The noise controls which are reserved to state and local authority include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Control on the manner of operation of products
2. Controls on the time of day during which products may be operated
3» Controls on the places in which products may be operated
7
-------
4. Controls on the number of products which may be operated together
5. Controls on noise emissions from the property on which products
are used
6. Controls on the licensing of products
7. Controls on environmental noise levels.
By use of the noise controls reserved to them, state and local governments
will be able to supplement Federal noise emission standards and to effect
near term relief from truck-mounted solid waste compactor noise.
THE EXISTING TRUCK-MOUNTED
SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR ENVIRONMENT
A truck-mounted solid waste compactor is defined, for purposes of this
regulation, as a vehicle that is comprised of a mechanically powered truck
cab and chassis or trailer, and equipped with a body and machinery for receiv-
ing, compacting, transporting, and unloading solid waste. The body, which
includes a waste-receiving hopper, houses machinery which typically consists
of hydraulic actuators (rams) with the necessary hydraulic pump(s), valves,
piping, and controls and auxiliary engines, where used. The hydraulic actuators
operate various components that sweep the waste matter into the container
portion of the body and compact it. Power generally is drawn from the truck
engine by means of a power take-off (PTO) unit that is coupled by gears or other
mechanical connection to the transmission, engine drive shaft, or fly wheel.
Auxiliary gasoline or diesel engines may be used in place of the truck engine
and PTO.
Figure 1 shows line drawings of a front loader, a side loader and a rear
loader. Details regarding identification of these machines as candidates for
regulation, their design features and functional characteristics are contained
in the regulatory analysis, "Regulatory Analysis of the Noise Emission Regula-
tions for Truck-Mounted Solid Waste Compactors."
8
-------
Front Loader
Side loader
Rear Loader
Figure 1
Types of Truck-Mounted Solid Waste Conpactors
-------
The following are the major types of truck-mounted solid waste conpactors:
1. Front Loader This type of compactor body utilizes front mounted
hydraulic lift arms to lift and dump waste containers into an access
door in the top of the body. Wastes are typically ejected through
the tailgate of the body.
2. Side Loader Side loader compactor bodies vary. However, wastes are
generally deposited manually into a hopper through an access door in
the side wall. Packer plates sweep the wastes from the hopper into the
body and compress the materials against an interior wall in the same
manner as front loaders. Some side loaders are equipped to hydrauli-
cally lift and dump waste containers. Ejection of wastes is usually
through a tailgate in the body. Some side loader models do not use
their packer plate for ejection, but rather hydraulically lift the
front end of the body and dump the waste through the tailgate in much
the same fashion as a dump truck.
3. Rear Loader This is a compactor body on which the hopper is located
on the rear section. Wastes are generally loaded manually into the
hopper, although some models have the capability to hydraulically lift
and dump containers. The packer plate sweeps the wastes from the
hopper into the body and compresses the waste against an interior wall'
surface. In most models, a hydraulically driven plate is used for
tailgate waste ejection.
Based on noise measurements conducted by, and on behalf of, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, energy-averaged A-weighted sound pressure levels of
today's truck-mounted solid waste compactors were found to range from 74 to 92
10
-------
decibels at seven meters. However, EPA's studies revealed that approximately
ten percent of all newly-manufactured compactor vehicles currently incorporate
some degree of intentional quieting. The noise levels of these "quieted" vehi-
cles range from 74 to 85 decibels. It is estimated however, that 80% of the
current compactor vehicle fleet have noise levels in excess of 80 decibels.
The Environmental Protection Agency has identified a yearly L, of 55 dB
as the environmental noise level requisite to protect public health and wel-
fare with an adequate margin of safety; L^ being the Day-Night Sound Level
which is the A-weighted equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with an
additional 10 dB weighting imposed on the equivalent sound levels occurring
during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The current compactor vehicle
fleet on U.S. city streets comprises more than 80,000 vehicles. Because of
their numbers and noise levels it is estimated that approximately 19.7 million
people are exposed to environmental noise levels in excess of a yearly L, of
55 dB due to these vehicles. These levels are high enough to jeopardize the
health or welfare of those 19.7 million people by causing general annoyance,
interference with speech communication and other social activities, and sleep
disturbance and awakening.
In suburban single-family residential areas, refuse collection events
occur once or twice a week and are frequently brief in duration. Consequently,
they make only a modest contribution to the overall suburban area environmental
noise. However, the situation is quite different in high-density urban areas.
Here, the refuse collection process is repetitious with the vehicle standing in
one place for periods as great as 30 minutes, several times a week, because of
the amount of refuse generated in a relatively small area. Frequently this
11
-------
collection occurs during the night and very early morning hours to minimize
traffic problems. Therefore the bulk of the environmental noise impact/
in terms of general annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption,
occurs in such densely populated areas.
Nevertheless, significant impact, in the form of individual intrusive
events, also is caused by refuse collection in less densely populated resi-
dential areas. In such areas, the noise of compaction stands out above the
relatively low ambient environmental noise levels, being sufficiently intense
to cause incidents of general annoyance, sleep disturbance and other activity
interference for many persons in medium and low density areas.
These single event noise intrusions become particularly important in
light of other regulations and efforts to reduce the noise from other urban
noise sources. Without a reduction in emissions from refuse compactors, these
units may very well stand out as one of the more intrusive noise sources in our
environment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Section 6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 requires the Administrator to set
regulations for each product which he has identified under Subsection 5(b)(l) of
the Act as a major source of noise and for which noise emission standards are
feasible. Specialty auxiliary equipment on trucks (of which truck-mounted solid
waste compactors are one category) was identified as a major source of noise on
May 28, 1975 (40 FR 23069).
Following this identification, comprehensive studies were performed to
evaluate truck-mounted solid waste compactor noise emission levels necessary
to protect the public health and welfare, taking into account the magnitude
12
-------
and condition of use, the degree of noise reduction achievable through appli-
cation of the best available technology, and the cost of compliance. The
Agency carried out detailed investigations of compactor design, manufacturing
and assembly processes, noise measurement methodologies, available noise control
technology, costs attendant to noise control methods, costs to test machines for
compliance, costs of reoordkeeping, possible economic impacts, and the potential
environmental and health and welfare benefits associated with the application
of various noise control measures.
The results of the Agency's studies show that the regulation of truck-
mounted solid waste compactor noise is feasible through the application of
available noise control technology taking cost of compliance into account. This
has been amply demonstrated by the wide-spread use of quiet refuse collection
vehicles in a number of communities including New York City, San Diego, Cali-
fornia, and San Francisco, California. The Exhibits at the end of this document
contain an article that describes the quiet San Diego refuse collection fleet
and an advertisement for a quiet refuse collection vehicle. Both of these
exhibits were drawn from trade journals and exemplify the feasibility of noise
emission standards for newly-manufactured truck-mounted solid waste compactors.
In addition, no evidence has been received to indicate that truck-mounted
solid waste conpactors are no longer a major noise source. Therefore, based
on the requirements of the Noise Control Act, the Administrator must issue a
new-product noise emission regulation.
Within the context of the Noise Control Act, the only alternative open
to the Administrator is the selection of the specific regulatory scheme. A
13
-------
range of regulatory levels and effective dates were considered by the Agency
in the formulation of the NPRM. The final regulatory levels and effective
dates were chosen on the basis of maximum benefits and minimal adverse economic
effects. The Agency concluded that reducing the noise limits below values
established by this regulation would provide only marginal gains in benefits,
considering the other noises (not susceptible to Federal control) that are
associated with refuse collection activities.
Several examples of other regulatory options that were considered are
given below:
o Not-to-exceed noise level of 71 dB in 1982 - We estimate that this
option would have provided a further decrease in adverse impact of only
six percent from that offered by the 76 dB standard. In light of
present day noise control technology, it was highly likely that this
option would have precluded the near term use of diesel powered truck
chassis.
o Not-to-exceed noise level of 74 dB in 1982 - This option was estimated to
yield an additional four percent decrease in the severity and extent of
impact from that offered by the 76 dB standard. In order for truck-
mounted solid waste compactors to meet a 74 dB standard, it was esti-
mated that the noise level of the truck chassis would probably need to
be less than 79 dB as determined by the pass-by noise test procedure of
the current Federal regulation for medium and heavy trucks. The present
Federal noise standard for trucks over 10,000 pounds is 80 dB in 1982.
It should be noted that, in this pass-by test, the truck engine is
operating at maximum rated speed, and the noise measurement is made
at a distance of 50 feet (15 meters). The noise measurement for the
14
-------
truck-mounted solid waste compactor vehicle is made at a distance
of seven (7) meters, and the truck engine is expected to be operating
at a relatively low speed (since reducing engine speed is the most
cost-effective way of reducing the noise emissions). Therefore, the
noise levels for the two types of tests are not directly comparable.
o Based on the existing Federal truck chassis pass-by noise regulation of
80 dB in 1982, the best achievable standard for a compactor mounted on
a diesel chassis would be 75 dB. This would reduce the environmental
noise impact by two percent more than a 76 dB standard. However, such
a regulation would require the use of a quiet hydraulic pump which is
not expected to be available in production quantities until a substan-
tial market has developed. This would entail an estimated increase in
annualized cost of eight (8) percent. The incremental costs would be
less than one-third as effective in reducing noise impact as the costs
estimated for the regulatory option.
o A less stringent standard, for example 80 dB in 1982, would provide a
substantial reduction in noise impact at a relatively low cost. How-
ever, it is not a viable alternative because it does not represent the
application of best available technology as required under the Noise
Control Act.
The reliance on local curfews was advocated as a "no-cost" alternative
to Federal noise emission standards by several commenters to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and thus deserves discussion. The Agency believes
curfews simply serve to transfer some of the noise impact from nighttime
hours to daytime hours. They are not a substitute for a noise emission stan-
dard that will reduce the total noise emission and thus the public exposure.
In addition, curfews can only be implemented at the local level and thus do
not provide national uniformity of treatment.
15
-------
Although curfews are often represented as being cost-free, they can
in reality be very costly by impairing the efficiency of refuse collection
activity. In heavily concentrated metropolitan areas (where much of the
noise impact of refuse collection occurs) a curfew often forces the refuse
collection vehicles out onto the streets during times of greatest traffic
congestion. This produces inefficiencies due to both lower productivity per
unit time of the refuse crews and greater fuel demands, to say nothing of the
impact on traffic flow in commercial areas. For example, a refuse collectors'
trade association in Chicago estimates increased costs of operation, due to
inefficiencies caused by a curfew in Chicago, at $50 per refuse collection
vehicle pet day; this includes an extended work day, a reduction in the vehicle
loads per day, and increased fuel costs due to operations during peak traffic
hours. For the estimated 2000 independent refuse collection vehicles in
Chicago, this could represent a cost of $100,000 per day, or about $30 million
annually. Even allowing for some exaggeration of the cost factor, this clearly
indicates that a curfew is not cost free and quite probably is not cost
effective.
Several commenters to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stated
either that refuse container noise should be regulated as part of the stan-
dard or that refuse container noise should be regulated instead of noise from
truck-mounted solid waste compactors. The Agency agrees that in some cases,
container noise contributes substantially to refuse collection noise. However,
its presence or absence does not diminish the beneficial effects of control-
ling compaction noise. Also, it does not appear feasible to regulate con-
tainer noise by a national performance standard. Since container noise arises
primarily from handling (or, sometimes, mishandling) by collection personnel, it
is best controlled by local in-use regulation of permissible types of containers,
e.g., plastic garbage containers or garbage bags.
16
-------
Prescription of any in-use, operational controls is available to com-
munities desiring further reduction of the noise impact from truck-mounted
solid waste compactors.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Health and Welfare
Compliance with the Federal standards will, on the average, reduce noise
emissions from truck-mounted solid waste compactors by 6.5 dB from present day
levels. Compared to the noisier units in service today, some unit reductions
will be 14 dB or more. The EPA estimates that approximately 19.7 million
persons currently are exposed to residential neighborhood noise levels above
the day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 dB due to the operation of truck-
mounted solid waste compactors. The Agency believes that the entire refuse
collection fleet will be in compliance with the noise standards by 1991. As
a result, approximately six million persons will remain exposed to L^n greater
than 55 dB. This represents an approximate 70 percent decrease of the popula-
tion exposed to levels exceeding that identified by EPA. However, the six mil-
lion persons who still remain above the identified level will also receive
benefits in the form of varying levels of reduction in their exposure.
The reduction in extent and severity of impact is also evaluated in terms
of annoyance and general adverse response, as well as other effects due to indi-
vidual noise events, such as sleep disturbance and activity interference. In
order to assess the general adverse response and annoyance from these types of
noise events, the Agency uses a fractional impact analysis technique. This
technique involves evaluating the "level-weighted population " (LWP) exposed
to a noise source and is illustrated in Figure 2. The computation of LWP
* The agency has determined that an L, of 55 dB or lower is requisite for
the protection of the public health ana welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. The basis for this determination is presented in the EPA publication,
"Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety."
17
-------
allows one to combine the number of people jeopardized by noise above an
L, of 55 dB with the degree of impact at different noise levels. The circle
in Figure 2 is a source which emits noise to a populated area. The various
partial amounts of shading represent various degrees of partial impact by the
noise. The partial impacts are summed to give the LWP. In this example, six
people who are adversely affected by the noise (partially shaded) result in a
"level weighted population" (LWP) of two (totally shaded).
EPA estimates that the "level-weighted population" will decrease from about
2,110,000 in the base year, 1976, to about 540,000 in 1991. The decrease in LWP
from 2,110,000 to 540,000 represents approximately a 74 percent reduction of
the impact in severity and extent of general adverse response (annoyance) to
noise from truck-mounted solid waste compactors. Part of the estimated reduc-
tion in impact is due to the effect of recently promulgated noise standards for
medium and heavy trucks. In 1991, the reduced truck noise alone will account
for an estimated reduction of 630,000 in "level-weighted population" impacted by
refuse collection noise. The balance of the estimated reduction, 940,000 in
level-weighted population, is due entirely to the compactor noise regulation.
This represents an improvement of approximately 149 percent over the benefits
that are anticipated from refuse vehicles from the current Federal noise
regulation for medium and heavy trucks.
The intrusive nature of the noise impact of refuse collection vehicles was
assessed by the Agency through a single-event noise exposure analysis related to
sleep awakening, sleep disturbance, and speech interference. The analysis
confirmed that the noise emission regulation for truck-mounted solid waste
compactors should result in an estimated 75-80% reduction in the occurrences of
sleep disturbance, sleep awakening, and interference with other activities such
as speech.
18
-------
Figure 2
Level Weighted Population:
A Method to Account for the Extent and
Severity of Noise Impact
19
-------
Thus, in conjunction with the benefits brought about by the medium and
heavy truck noise regulation, the truck-mounted solid waste compactor noise
regulation should provide health and welfare benefits of major proportions.
Energy
The regulation is expected to have a positive impact on energy resources.
The anticipated use of slower engine speeds during compaction, a likely com-
ponent of the noise control technology, is expected to produce an annual fuel
savings of 2 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel
when the entire refuse collection vehicle fleet has been replaced with vehicles
that comply with the regulation.
Air Quality
The regulation is anticipated to have no adverse impact on air quality.
Using slower engine speeds during compaction, a component of the noise control
technology, could, in fact, result in a reduction in air pollutant emissions
from compactor vehicles and a consequent improvement in air quality. However,
the Agency has not quantified this potential benefit.
Land Use
There are potential benefits in the form of reduced noise exposure to
residents in close proximity to land-fill areas. The same components used
for refuse compaction during collection operations are used to expel the
refuse from the compactor body. Considering that land-fill operations are
generally continuous throughout the day with multiple unloading operations
occurring simultaneously, the reduction in noise impacts on workers and resi-
dents could be substantial. The Agency has not quantified this potential
benefit.
20
-------
Water Quality
The regulation is expected to have no adverse impact on water quality or
supply.
Solid Waste Disposal Requirements
No adverse effects on solid waste disposal requirements are expected due
to the promulgation of the regulation.
Wildlife
The regulation is expected to have no adverse effects on wildlife.
In fact, in rural collection areas and in areas where wildlife are in close
proximity to land-fill areas, potential benefits are expected in the form
of reduced noise exposure to the wildlife of those areas. The Agency has
not quantified these potential benefits.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The establishment of noise standards for newly-manufactured truck-mounted
solid waste compactors gives rise to expenditures which would otherwise not
be directly incurred by the private and public sectors in the absence of curfews,
However, noise pollution currently costs the American taxpayer many millions of
dollars in hidden costs associated with decreased productivity, higher medical
costs, and property value depreciation. One of the effects of a standard-
setting, noise regulation is that, by reducing noise pollution, hidden costs are
also reduced. However, visible costs are imposed on those responsible for the
pollution. It should be understood that the option of not paying for noise
pollution costs is unavailable. The only question is, in what form do we pay
those costs?
Recognizing that certain expenditures are necessary to protect the public
health and welfare from inadequately controlled noise, the Agency performed
analyses to estimate the magnitude and potential impact of these expenditures.
21
-------
Examined in the analyses were the structure of the industry, the estimated
cost of abatement by compactor type, the price elasticity of demand, the capital
and annual costs of enforcement, the impact of enforcement on annual operating
and maintenance costs, and the indirect impacts of the proposed regulations.
Price
The cost impact of quieting compactors to meet the regulatory standard
may be expressed in terms of increased list price. The Agency's studies
indicate that average list price increases for the refuse collection vehicle
can range from about 6.4 to 12.8 percent, depending on machine type and size
(this estimated increase does not account for possible inflationary affects).
This should result in an overall average list price increase of about 10.3
percent for the various combinations of compactor bodies and chassis-cab units.
There are indications that a few small firms in the industry, by virtue of
their small market share and related financial and operation factors, would
incur higher manufacturing costs resulting in slightly higher list price
increases. The price elasticity of demand, that is, the reduction in sales due
to increased list price, for this equipment is estimated to be -0.2, or a
possible decrease in sales of about 2 percent. However, the total revenue to
the industry should not decrease as a result of price increases. In view of
the current purchasing specifications of several major municipalities with
respect to garbage truck noise level and their willingness to pay a premium for
quiet trucks, a possible two percent decrease in demand must be considered a
worst case impact.
Some pre-buying of unregulated refuse vehicles is expected to occur prior
to the effective date(s) of the regulation. However, the Agency believes this
activity will be limited to the available excess production capacity of the
industry which is estimated at about 4,000 units, almost entirely rear loaders.
22
-------
Capital Costs
Capital equipment costs represent a small portion (about five (5) percent)
of the annual operating budget for the typical refuse collection and disposal
firm. Consequently, the expected increase of about ten (10) percent in the list
price of a compactor vehicle due to the regulation should result in increased
operating costs of less than 0.5 percent (5% x 10%).
The increase in the annualized cost to the collector industry as a result
of the implementation of this regulation is estimated to be $21.5 million. The
Agency expects these costs to be totally passed through to the end user of waste
collection services. The EPA estimates that, for residential refuse collection
with costs in the range of $100 per household per year, the increase in annual
cost per household served should be no more than 50 cents due to the promulga-
tion of this regulation.
Maintenance and Operating Costs
Maintenance costs for compactor vehicles are expected to increase slightly
due to the requirements of the regulation. This increase is expected to be on
the order of $45 annually for front loaders and $78 annually for side and rear
loaders. The maintenance cost increases for side and rear loaders are expected
to be due largely to maintenance on the clutch of the added direct drive power
take-off and on the impact reducing material added to the loading hoppers.
Front loaders are assumed to employ a flywheel power take-off which will
require no significant increase in maintenance costs. The increased main-
tenance costs for front loaders are expected, therefore, to be due largely
to the expected maintenance on the impact reducing material added to the
loading hoppers.
The changes in compactor operating conditions associated with the noise
control treatment are expected to result in fuel savings due to the slower
23
-------
speed of the engine. The estimated annual savings when the entire fleet is in
oonpliance are expected to be about 2 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 mil-
lion gallons of diesel fuel. The savings due to reduced fuel usage are expected
to be greater than the expected increase in maintenance costs. Due to the
rapidly rising costs of both gasoline and diesel fuel, the net savings in opera-
ting costs, taking into account possible increases in maintenance costs, may be
substantial.
Industry Structure
No significant change in industry profits is expected to occur over a
22 year period. Industry growth is not expected to be significantly impacted
due to the noise abatement regulation. Adequate lead time has been provided to
allow for proper planning and to avoid adverse conditions in the industry.
Suppliers
Some component suppliers may increase their sales depending on their
ability to reduce the noise emissions of their products. This should contri-
bute to the reduction in overall machine noise. Furthermore, those suppliers
specializing in the manufacture of sound, damping and sound absorptive materials
and other products required for noise abatement would be expected to experience
significant increased sales. The Agency has not quantified this benefit.
Employment
Employment is not expected to change significantly. Persons who might
be affected by reduction of production due to the regulation amount to less
than two percent of the industry's employee population of about 2900 persons.
However, an offsetting increase in employment is expected to occur due to the
new testing and compliance activity and procurement of noise control conponents
and materials resulting from the regulation.
24
-------
Exports and Imports
Since the noise control treatment generally represents add-on materials
or substitute components or both, machines for export generally can be produced
without noise control treatment. Units produced solely for export need not
comply with U.S. noise standards. Consequently, the impact on exports should be
minimal. However, all imported compactors will be subject to the regulation.
Therefore, domestic and foreign manufacturers will be affected equally and no
adverse competitive impact should result. Consequently, the regulation should
have no appreciable impact on the U.S. balance of trade.
Macroeconomic Impacts
No macroeconomic impact is expected as a result of noise abatement
regulations on the truck-mounted solid waste compactor body industry due
to the minor size of the industry, and the low overall costs associated
with this regulation.
Taxes
There may be an indirect increase in local taxes where collection ser-
vices are provided by municipal fleets but the amount of the increase to the
individual consumer and taxpayer is expected to be insignificant.
CONCLUSIONS
The Agency has concluded that at this time the regulatory levels and
schedule promulgated represent adequate noise reduction standards for
truck-mounted solid waste compactor vehicles. Implementation of the regulations
is expected to result in a substantial reduction in the number of people
impacted by compactor noise.
The technology to achieve the selected levels has been demonstrated.
25
-------
The effective dates for the noise level limits are coordinated with
existing Federal noise standards for medium and heavy trucks. The Agency
believes that the time schedule for application of the noise standards, cor-
responding with reduced noise limits for trucks, should allow the manufacturers
the lead time requisite to incorporate the necessary design and conponent
changes without significant disruption to production or the marketplace.
The cost of compliance and possible economic effects have been considered
and are believed to be reasonable.
26
-------
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. MAXON Industries Advertisement for a Quiet Refuse Collection Vehicle
(Source: Solid Waste Management. Vol. 21, No. 12, December 1978. pp. 44-45.)
Exhibit 2. "Silent Running - San Diego's RCV's". (Source: Commercial Car
Journal. Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1978. pp. 161-164.)
27
-------
Introducing...
The First Integrated VeNcle Ever Built for Refuse Collection
Now. for the flrst time - a vehicle engineered without compromise for the sole purpose of
efficient, reliable refuse collection. It's catted the Maxon Eagle SL - side loader body, refuse cob
and chassis designed and bult as a single urtt system - the complete vehtcte, ready now for
dekVery.
Every feature - suspension, braking, cooling, sQmfJjujaiaasjjQa frame reinforcement, weight
distribution, butt-In dual drive, oversized window area low 41" hopper. IVsecond compaction
cycle. Instrumentation, service center, diagnostic test center - everything to the Vast detail
specified to meet the rigorous demands of refuse service are included as standard equipment.
There's never been a vehicle Ike It before. And no hybrid body/chassis combination even
comes close.
REFUSE CAB, CHASSIS
AND SIDE LOADER
BODY ENGINEERED &
BUILT AS AN
INTEGRATED SYSTEM
low 41 •WcMn Height
The lowest skto-toorjng hopper h the
Industry. Mode possble by the Eogte's
Integrated Uestju computer matching the
packer body to the super-strong dourjie-
ctomel tow frame.
Rustproof Cab
6 Tlmei Stronger
than All Steel Catx
That's right, rs Ifcergbss - ol fbergka.
s or roc/. Molded over olteel
-
1 of high absorption hsutatlon material
between The entire structure b equal si
strength to 3/16' steel (that's 6x stronger
man any of today's ol-steel cabs)i It worvt
rust, b completely tie retordonr. . — -
-• — ' ----- •
Quiet
Continuous loading Compaction
with Front-Mounted
Crankihatt Driven Pump
Ever/thug about the Eagle b outer. Sound
upprenlon material hIcev areas of cob
and body produce dBA readings even
tower than Mure DOT standards.
Driver /operator con pack whto loorjna.
pock wMe movlrxj to the next itop,
wUhout on oudan/ erajne. wtltioul a
noay corwentlonol PTO. The Eogte't
5OXX3O t>. pocking ram and T7OOO b.
cruher panel are powered by an
exclusive aarfcitiuft driven punp at a tow
8OORPM.
Maximum Maneuverability
Top Operator Efflclency
wtm Fully Integrated Dual Drive
The Maxan EaglB SL b much more than a
low cob forward truck." It'i a side loader
refuse truck with every component, every
design feature matched to Its total
vetude function.
Complete iTteorolton of right fled steerlrtj
geometry provides maximum
moneuverabttv and ease of operation
wtm power steering cymders on both
sides of the front axle.
Step up b Ju«t IS'on the right tor easy
entry and exit. The right tide drMra
position b bult-h as portof the overol
EookJ SL deafen, not -add-on' egupment.
the operator rernc*«ramcletelyrutde
the cob for moxkrurt ^stbvty and
fjiOl^^lluii from posting effects.
-:i;~*
AHWeldoble
SO.OOO tSt Frame
The Eoote SL frame k
irructuroty retire; ced at ol
cillkxil lood (kjiJi with double
cliarrieb under the packer
body, extra cross rrmiijeis
between the rah, and an extra
4 terslon member under the
frame. Increasing theRBM
nMililijm.e to ttie OenUsig
Moment) to ZOOOXJOOitVbi
per rat
structural Megrrry.
i^««. Unobitrucled
7.OOO Square Inch Window Area
ful width front windows, roi-oown door
whdow.ouxfcry windows front and door i, „ _. _
_. - ol corrpielely unobstructed by unequalled Cooling Efficiency
tJastiboord. doa house, or any other The Eagle SL's remarkable coolm
^SSBSteB,£gK lessSSSXSffKSS^^
where even rty trucks" hove bsncTspotl temperatures 6s Ngh as IB-F The 12OC
sq. h cross flow radiator has rwte the
S21%2^"Lt'?uble "»"Mterflow of
'
Triple Torque tod SutpeMton
todi absorb the
.*»<*» of bod Stt durUg contort
start/slap operation and efcrtnofe sprixj
.t™^?1 ond_*«"°e rear axle
EogteStmodeh
The Eagle SL operator, working alone.
can consrstentry colect routes of
5OO-8OO homes per day In (ess time
than 2- or 3-man rearboder crews.
Cab. hopper and containers are
within a few steps of one another at
every stop. Pick up time per stop
ranges from 15-3O seconds.
Write for FREE Brochure
^^;^s^^
on standard mode*Tot the fogieSL
W
X
ffi
H
td
H
T"f Eogte b also ovotabte wtm
automated residential plckuo
systems (Utter-Wr) and front
loaders for commercial pickup.
MAXON
57» S. Eastern Ave. City of Commerce. CA vOCMO (2B) n&XOO
Aft Lorry Beotty
-------
EXHIBIT 2
SILENT RUNNING-
San Diego's RCVs
• FORGET TO rur the trash oul the
night before collection? No mutter:
the grinding garbage truck—even
several blocks away—can be a rous-
ing reminder. Unless you live in San
Diego where the newest refuse col-
lection vehicle ire lip-loeing down
suburban streets, generating com-
plaints front irate citizens who miss
the noisy fanfare that once alerted
llicm to trash lime.
"Goes lo show that you can't
please everybody." said Robert
Drown, department staff engineer
who developed specifications for
the hushed-up trash truck. He and
others in the city's Ceneral Services
Department worked closely with
Master Truck, a local equipment
manufacturer, to meet the 86 deci-
bel noise limit established earlier by
city ordinance.
"It's the quietest RCV thai I
know of," Brown said.
"A great deal of the 'old' noise
came from an auxiliary diesel com-
puclor engine. The main (ruck en-
Reipondlng lo pretiure from
city official*, San Diego's
General Service* Department
engineers an RCV thai make*
nolay, grinding Iron truck* a
thing ol the pa»t
By BERT OOLDRATH, f»XI Editor
ginc was wet sleeved and the aux-
iliary was air-cooled. With the two
running simultaneously, the noise
level easily reached an outrageous
three figures. The trash collection
industry." Brown added, "has not
been overly noise conscious. At one
lime, we used a small pump and
spun it fast with the auxiliary when
compacting, which made even more
noise. The main engine would oper-
ate at 1800 lo 2800 rpm and the
auxiliary at 2200 rpm "
In 1974, the Sun Diego city coun-
cil passed a noise control ordinance
which required major equipmrnl
changes in the trash fleet, Brown
explained.
"My department promised lo
comply and guaranteed a new RCV
with the lowest noise level package
possible.
"We Immediately knew the aux-
iliary engine would have lo go. We
laid down specifications for a new
kind of vehicle and asked RCV
manufacturers to give us a larger
pump with a lower rpm that would
still produce the required power. As
an incentive lo reduce the level of
noise, we offered our only bidder an
extra $400 for every reduced deci-
bel He responded with a unit that
reduced engine rpm by SOX, drop-
ping the noise level by close lo
300X.
"In the end, II cost the lily an ex-
tra f 2000 per collection truck. But it
was our choice, and I think it was
worth it," Brown declared.
The city got the job done, work-
ing with a local firm, with city engi-
CominuMl
COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL Jun 1*71 1(1
31
-------
RCVs
Above; Working wilh Master Truck, a to-
ol equipment manufacturer. San Diego's
General Services Department developed
one ol ihe quieteit refute collection ve-
hicles in the country- Right; Side cab view
ol the Leech 2R packer on a Master 20*
yd chassis. Low door nil makes enlry
easier lor the driver.
162 COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL Jun 1978
32
-------
neers designing anil engineering
the truck from the ground up But
the General Services Department
went beyond what city officials had
liked, coming in wilh a truck that
nut only meets nuise and pulluliun
standards lot today, but well into
the future.
San Diego's General Services De-
partment maintains a fleet uf 86 ve-
hicles that operate over 2200 miles
uf municipal streets. Operating five
days a week, each truck averages
500 to 1000 miles a month. As envi-
ronmental pressures increase, how-
ever, disposal sites available to San
Diego as well as to hundreds of oth-
er U.S. cities become more remote
and trash fleet mileage increases an-
nually.
San Diego's RCV flue) includes
27 tide-loaders, best (or a une-man
operation, and the balance is rear
loaders wilh two-man crews. A few
specialized front-end loaders are
maintained fur industrial use.
Brown projects that by the end of
the present contract, at least 80% of
the city's (rush colic-cling fleet will
be modern, low noise Master units.
If he's right, San Diego will have
more of these super-quiet trash
trucks than any other city in the
country.
"San Diego's first compactors
were equipped with PTOs running
off the front of the truck engine,"
Brown said
Recalling the city's earlier expt-ri-
enccs with those PTOs. Brown said
that "at that stage of their develop-
ment, there were several dis-
advantages: they were subject to
overspccd, expensive pump or drive
coupling assembly repairs, and were
costly to maintain complicating the
downtime problem They also in-
hibited 'packing un the go.'
"Packing on the go is important
whun you make up to 600 stops per
day" Brown said.
"Tjirn we introduced the aux-
iliary diescl which produced the 50
or more horsepower needed for the
hydraulic compaction system. This
engine and its high revving pump
were major sources of noise, espe-
cially without encapsulation. We
began In phase out that type and
started using a crankshaft-driven
hydraulic pump to power the com-
paction-type body. That was an ex-
pensive decision It's not practical
to mount the pumps directly on the
engine. Instead, the pumps were
mounted to a frame cross member
and driven by a coupling from the
engine crankshaft. There was a mis-
match," Brown said, "in vibration
between the engine and the rigidly-
mnunlcd hydraulic pump. We be-
gan experiencing a high percentage
of failures wilh different kinds of
flexible drive couplings which
couldn't be krpl in alignment, nor
effectively dampened from the in-
duced vibration.
"Technology finally came to the
rescue wilh ihe hot shift PTO. The
system it always engaged so we can
compact underway. There is a wet
disc clutch drive to the output shaft
uf Ihe PTO. and the driven gear of
the PTO is always engaged to the
driving gear of the Iransmlssioa
"It provides an acceptable drive
Operator Harold Sleeli alandi«remote
control canto* ot e new Mailer/Able
tide loader. BCVa "pack on tMoo."
crucial lor a slop and go operation.
mechanism in conjunction with the
converter lockup kit. The engine is
run at slightly over idle spued. On
earlier PTOs, it was around 2200
rpm. Now It is usually 700 lo 1000
rptn, wilh a maximum of 1400.
"We went from a 17 gallon-per-
minute lo a 69-gpm pump It's a vi-
tal element in the syslcm ami worth
Ihe $800 lo $1000 cost. Pump pres-
sure ranges up lo 2500 psi, but it
can be adjusted lo fill any hydraulic
pressure demand we foresee"
Brown explained.
"When we phased out the aux-
iliary engines, we saved 2.5 gallons
of fuel per hour or about 60 gallons
a week. Thai was « big item The
last auxiliaries we used were slide-
out, air-cooled three-cylinder Deulz
diesels. Continued
COUUCHCIAL CAB JOURNAL Jun I«7I
33
-------
RCVs
Above; Tnree generations of San D4ego reuise trucks. Oldest ll International (left); neat cama Master with alkie-out angina (right); tales!
(center) la Master tin-cab.
"Sincr all of uur RCV I ruck en-
gines art* dicscl, we are well witliin
emission standards. We have just
retired the last of our gasoline en-
gines— 478-euhic incii V8s rated a<
200 horsepower at 34(10 rpm. Mated
with the Allison MT-40 automatic
transmission, they proved to he un-
derpowered. Then we lived the .
Cummins 180 governed at 26UO
rpm which is now out of produc-
tion. The story is the surne with lite
International DV-550. The answer.
for a while, came in I lit form of I lie
Detroit Diesel 6V53 Its drawback
was that in our application— luls of
stop and go driving—it required a
substantial amount of cooling We
were frying a lot of engines until
Master cuine along with a six-inch
radiator core with a frontal area of
1250 inches.
"That should have solved «ll our
power-related problems, but now
the 6V53 is 110 lunger certified in
California. We then settled (in De-
triiit's inline 6-71, putting out 210
horsepower and 604 pound foot of
torque. We teamed the Allison 654
transmission with the 6-71, and llicy
have proved to be very compatible.
We have, avoided lurbochaiging be-
ttaiif4i.it cnuld be prone to operator
ahuke.
"Cooling engines." Ilrown con-
tinued, "used to be our biggest
headache, mainly because HCV
service Is su completely different
from a lint-haul operation. The
nearest thing to it is a transit mixer
service. Linehaul engines get a high
volume of rarn air. but our oper-
ation is practically all intra-city with
very low mileage, low speed, high
idle lime and high slop frequency.
All this can cause adverse, effects on
tlie power train. It is safe to say
that the majority of RCV residential
vehicles are plagued with cooling
problems. In line 12-month period,
we had 100X engine failures with
uur trash fleet because of over heal-
ing. Thai's 12500 in parts and labor
per unit. Aud that's wliy it pays to
pay a premium price for a new
truck with an adequate cooling sys-
tem," Brown said.
It was to keep equipment out of
the shop lhal Drown and his man-
agement team elected to go the
automatic Allison route. "It costs
more initially, but the total overall
life cost is less. The cost of clutch
discs and pressure plates is astro-
nomical with the number of stops re-
quired per day, per truck. Besides,
we encounter some hills with grades
of eight to 10%. The automatics
shift themselves; the Allisons were
chosen lecause they are the quiet-
est available for uur purpose."
San Diego's HCVs have no trans-
fer cases and no four-wheel drive
The three-axle vehicles have two
rear driving axles which are pro-
tected with spring-equipped park-
ing brakes.
The old trash units had numerous
leuf spring failures, caused mainly
b> maximum capacity loadi Using
llendrickkon suspensions with
34.000-lb capacity was too light so
the 38,000-lb was specified. The
axle ratio is 4.56 to 1.
Another feature of these luper-
qnict trucks is the 96-in. cab lhal
provides extra room for crew con-
venience.
To reduce crew fatigue, spec's
called for low cab step height am]
low pitch-in height for both side
and rear-end loaders. Vertical
height from ground to lip on the
side-loaders was reduced to 42 in.
from the usual 50. The manufac-
turer was inspired to achieve this
design innovation by an incentive
bonus of $200 for every inch shaved
off the standard height. "It's worth
it to us if only from a workmen's
compensation point of view."
Drown said. Hear loaders now have
a minimum standard height of 36
in. to lessen crew labor and fatigue.
The San Diego experiment has
IK en u blessing to environmental-
ists, but if noiseless RCVs catch on,
city dwellers nationwide may learn
to full in hive again with the strange
silence of the all loo familiar noisy
ncighliorhood Irash Irtick. D D D
FM • HM M<0< con <* »» •«<*. «1» on tompM, MMrkeMl la: Cemnwcial Cat Jowiul. QIWOII W.». Ruliw. Pi IMX9
34
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-79-258
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf+NO.
*• TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final Environmental and Economic Titpaqt Statement
Noise Emission Regulations for "truck-Mounted Solid
Waste Contactors
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
EPA 550/9-79-258
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/02
IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
This document presents an assessment of the expected environmental benefits and
economic effects of the Noise Emission Regulations for Truck-Mounted Solid Waste
Compactors. The information presented includes the statutory basis for the action,
a summary of the regulation, a description of the existing track-mounted solid waste
compactor environment, the alternatives considered, the expected environmental
benefits, the "expected economic effects, and conclusions.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Truck-mounted solid waste compactors,
noise emission regulations, environmental
benefits, economic effects, refuse
collection vehicles, garbage trucks
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
40
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |