EPA-45 0/3-74-001
January 1974
STATE AIR DATA
INFORMATION SURVEY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
-------
EPA-450/3-74-001
STATE AIR DATA
INFORMATION SURVEY
by
T . H . Lewis
InternationaJ Business Machines Corporation
Federal Systems Division
18100 Frederick Pike
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
Contract No. 68-02-1008
EPA Project Officer: Carolyn P, Chamblee
Prepared ior
U.S. bNVIRONMEN TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of A i r and Water Programs
Office ol Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
J anuary 1974
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available
free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees,
and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Interna-
tional Business Machines Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland, in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-02-1008. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from International Business Machines Corporation. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention
of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-001
11
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
Section 1 Project Summary and Major Findings 1-1
1.1 Survey Objectives 1-1
1.2 Summary of Major Findings 1-1
1.3 Conduct of the Study 1-6
1.3.1 Purpose and Objectives 1-6
1.3.2 Method and Schedule 1-7
1.3.3 Normalization Study 1-10
1.4 Study Constraints 1-12
Section 2 General Resources Available to State Agencies 2-1
2.1 Introduction to State Resources 2-1
2.2 Distribution of Types of State Systems 2-1
2.3 Government Support 2-5
2.4 Automation Considerations 2-7
2.5 Discussion of Automation Options 2-15
Section 3 Analysis for Emission Inventory Systems 3-1
3.1 Scope of the Analysis 3-1
3.2 Storage, Access and Maintenance 3-1
3.3 Significant Problems 3-11
iii
-------
Page
Section 4 Analysis for Air Quality Data Systems 4-1
4.1 General Comments 4-1
4.2 Storage Access and Maintenance of Air Quality Data 4-7
Appendix A: Sample Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: Survey Compilations
IV
-------
List of Tables
Number Title Page
1-1 Relationship of Survey Question to Project Objectives 1-9
2-1 Distribution of Data Systems Used by Agencies 2-3
2-2 Agency Knowledge of Government Support 2-6
2-3 Computational Facilities Available to State Agencies 2-9
2-4 Emission Inventory Systems Currently in Use 2-11
2-5 Characteristics of Computer Based Emission 2-12
Inventory Systems
2-6 System Compatibility with NEDS Specifications 2-14
2-7 Air Quality Data Systems Currently in Use 2-16
2-8 Characteristics of Automated Air Quality Data Systems 2-17
3-1 Emission Inventory Data Sources 3-2
3-2 Emission Inventory Storage Characteristics 3-4
3-3 Summary of Agencies Storing Confidential Data 3-6
3-4 Access Techniques and Report Generation Capabilities 3-8
for Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
3-5 Emission Inventory Maintenance Factors 3-9
3-6 Uumber of Agencies Maintaining File that Exceed 3-13
the Number of Sources in NEDS
3-7 Count of Agencies that have Submitted Emissions Data as 3-15
Reported by Survey Compared with NEDS Content
-------
Number Title Page
4-1 Count of Agencies that have Submitted Air Quality 4-2
Data as Reported by Survey Compared to SAROAD Content
4-2 Compatibility Factors for Agency Air Quality Data 4-4
Sys terns
4-3 Manpower Requirements for Air Quality Data Systems 4-5
4-4 Summary of Required, Projected and Reported Sensors 4-6
Sites for Various States
4-5 Sources of Air Quality Data 4-8
4-6 Air Quality Data Storage Summary 4-10
4-7 Air Quality File Maintenance Summary 4-14
List of Figures
1-1 Plot of Business Establishments Versus Number 1-11
of Plant-Point Sources in NEDS
VI
-------
Section 1. PROJECT SUMMARY AND MAJOR FINDINGS
1.1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES
A State Air Data Information Survey was conducted under the auspices of
the National Air Data Branch, EPA to identify and investigate possible
problems at the state level that are associated with emission inventories
and air quality data systems. The study concerns itself with problems
arising during the normal course of daily activities as well as concen-
trating on the problems related to the Federal requirements for quarterly
and semi-annual reports of air quality and emissions data.
The more significant conclusions of the survey are presented in this
section. The reports of the detailed analyses are contained in Sections 2,
3, 4, which deal with the basic resources, emission inventory system and
air quality data systems respectively.
1.2 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Operating problems as well as those arising from Federal reporting
requirements are constrained to a few specific agencies rather than being
generally present at all agencies. The problems that did appear are
related to differences in coding practices used for emission inventory
systems. The relatively long period during which SAROAD has been available
as a system seems to have alleviated problems in handling air quality data
insofar as reporting procedures are concerned. Nonetheless, there seems
1-1
-------
to be a greater need to automate air quality files than emission inventory
files. This probably stems from the differences in size, frequency of
reference and data processing requirements between the two types of files.
The major findings are presented below in four categories as follows:
a. Emission Inventory System
b. Air Quality Data System
c. Federal Reporting Requirements
d. Government Support
1.2.1 Major Findings - Emission Inventory Systems
1. Eighty percent of the agencies currently having manual emission
inventory systems will convert to automated systems as early as
practicable. Those agencies not opting for automation are
characterized by being responsible for monitoring a small
number of air pollution sources. The cut-off point appears to
be near 100 file entries such as a permit or NEDS form.
2. The availability of CDHS, particularly EIS, will benefit a
significant number of agencies (approximately 15-20). The
ability to automate with assurance that NEDS reporting
compatibility will be achieved will reduce agency resource
requirements to store, maintain and access emission inventory
data.
1-2
-------
3. The requirement for reporting emissions data in NEDS format on
a semi-annual basis does not impact those agencies whose
existing emission inventory system are compatible with the NEDS
specifications. On the other hand, where state agencies have
non-compatible systems, there are serious problems in converting
to NEDS formats. The difficulties arise from the need to cross-
reference such data elements as source identification, source
classification codes, units of measure, source definition and
to a lesser extent differences between the data elements main-
tained versus the elements required by NEDS.
4. At least 90% of all agencies have, or could have, access to
computer facilities whose use would benefit the collection,
storage, maintenance and access of emissions data. [This
capability is important as a means of recompiling inventories
in order to review and modify rules and regulations especially
when it comes to accommodating changes necessitated by such
situations as the energy crisis.]
5. Agency resource requirements, especially as related to manpower,
are reduced for automated systems provided that the agency does
not undertake the development of the system. Furthermore,
automated systems reduce the dependence of manpower requirements
on the size of the emission inventory. The manpower savings
achieved by installing existing automated systems as opposed to
locally developing such systems is estimated to be at least
2 man years/year which represent manpower development costs.
1-3
-------
6. Agencies planning to automate their emission inventory systems
have access to at least six automated systems. Four are
available from other state agencies. One, the Emission
Inventory Subsystem (EIS) of CDHS is available from the govern-
ment. At least one is available from industry.
1.2.2 Major Findings - Air Quality Data Systems
1. Approximately 50% of the state agencies have computer based
air quality data system. At least 90% of the remaining agencies
will convert to automated systems in the near future.
2. All agencies have air quality data systems which are essentially
compatible with SAROAD. SAROAD perfected input formats are
used by at least 70% of the state agencies. SAROAD reporting
formats are used by at least 85% of the agencies.
3. The storage, access and maintenance of air quality data present
no unusual problems to air pollution control agencies.
1.2.3 Major Findings - Federal Reporting Requirements
1. All agencies are aware of the Federal reporting requirements
as expressed in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 1A9,
August 3, 1973, as well as the support provided through NADB.
However, few agencies having manual systems have prepared
1-4
-------
semi-annual reports and, as a consequence, may have under-
estimated the impact and difficulty of this requirement.
2. The Federal reporting requirement for quarterly and semi-
annual reports of emission and air quality data does not
significantly impact air pollution control activities at the
state level. Less than 18% of the agencies responded that
federal reporting impacted their operations. The impacts that
were reported were small and for short periods of time.
1.2.4 Major Findings - Government Support
1. The government program to distribute information regarding
support and services in the fields of emission inventories and
air quality has been effective. Additional efforts are desirable
to publicize the services available from NADB such as those
provided by remote terminals located at Regional Offices.
2. Government provided automated systems for emissions inventories
and air quality data are desirable. Development of the systems,
particularly those designed for installation at agency locations
should be accelerated to meet agency requirements.
1-5
-------
1.3 CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY
1.3.1 Purpose and Objectives
A survey of all state air pollution control agencies has been conducted
under the auspicious of the National Air Data Branch of the office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
survey was conducted to obtain information to describe the scope and size
of state systems for handling emission inventory and air quality data for
the purposes of identifying problems associated with the normal use of such
systems as well as the impact of Federal reporting requirements. The
specific objectives established for the survey project are:
I. Develop for internal EPA use a standardized evaluation system
that records at least the following items related to state and
local air pollution control agencies:
a) techniques presently used to store, access, and maintain
emission inventory and air quality data files.
b) significant problems associated with maintaining and using
such files.
c) anticipated problems in meeting proposed Federal regulations
for the state semi-annual and quarterly reporting require-
ments, especially as related to providing data in standard
EPA formats.
1-6
-------
II. Identify available computer based systems and alternative
procedures for maintaining and using state files.
III. Recommend suitable options available to state agencies and
delineate advantages and disadvantages of such alternatives.
1.3.2 Method and Schedule
In order to meet these objectives a survey project was established in late
September 1974. The schedule for completing the project was relatively
stringent and allowed two weeks for each of the four major tasks which
consisted of:
a. Development of the questionnaire and distribution to regions
b. Completion of questionnaires at regional offices
c. Compilation and analysis of completed questionnaries
d. Preparation and delivery of the final report.
The plan of action adopted at that time allowed for the development of
survey questions addressing each of the study objectives. A sample of the
questionnaire form is contained in Appendix A. The type and scope of
questions developed were influenced by the desire to limit the time to
respond to not more than 30 minutes per state agency.
1-7
-------
A total of thirty-three (33) questions were formulated. The questions
were directed toward ascertaining; a) the basic resources of a state agency;
b) type, capabilities and problems of emission inventory systems and c) type,
capabilities and problems of air quality data systems. The questions
related to air quality were restricted to the data handling functions and
excluded those tasks related to data collection. Most of the questions
were designed such that the responses would provide insight into more than
one survey objective. The anticipated contribution of the questions to
the study objectives is shown in Table 1-1, "Relationship of Questions to
Project Objectives."
The questionnaires were distributed to each regional office by the National
Air Data Branch (NADU). Various techniques were used by regional office
personnel to complete the survey forms for each state air pollution control
agency in the region. The completed forms were returned to the NADB, EPA
in Durham, N. C. Copies of these forms were then forwarded to the project
team responsible for analyzing the responses.
The responses to the questionnaires are summarized in a series of charts
and tables which are contained in Appendix B, Survey Compilations. These
compilations were reviewed and analyzed to form the body of the report.
The compilations can be used also for purposes beyond the scope of this
project; in particular, they can be used to identify subjects and problems
for which more detailed investigation would be desirable.
1-8
-------
Questions Applicable to:
Objective Emission Inventory Air Quality
la - Storage, Access and 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 22, 23, 24, 25, 27
maintenance technique 14, 15
Ib - Problems of main- 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28,
tenance and use 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 31, 32, 33
16, 20, 21
Ic - Federal reporting 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 16, 1, 2, 24, 29, 30,
problems 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 31, 32
II - Available system 3, Form 1 3, Form 2
III - Agency Option 1, 2, 3, 21 1, 2, 3, 33
Table 1-1. Relationship of Survey Questions to Project Objectives
1-9
-------
The responses were generally definitive although not all questions were
answered for each state agency. Appropriate adjustments were made during
the analysis to disregard the lack of responses. For the most part there
were sufficient responses from the 30 agencies to consider the results
representative. In some instances results were considered sufficient to
extrapolate the analysis to the 25 state agencies for whom responses were
not available. The responses to only three questions 5c, 11 and 26 were
insufficient for analysis.
1.3.3 Normalization Study
It was originally hoped to normalize the various responses based on the
size of data files and some measure of size for the state. Several
measures of state size were tested unsuccessfully before the normalization
concept was abandoned. The measures of state size include area, industrial
population, number of business establishments and industrial population
density. Figure 1-1 is included to illustrate the wide scatter obtained
in testing correlations between file size and state size. Figure 1-1 is
a plot of the number of business establishments in a state versus the
number of sources for that state in NEDS. The wide scatter of this plot
is typical of the scatter obtained for other measures of state size. This
wide scatter, coupled with the shortage of time for analysis, led to the
abandonment of the normalization concept as an analytic tool for this
project.
1-10
-------
CM
M-l l-»
O ON
r-t
U
U 1
M CO
4-1 0)
CO 4J
-JZ *J .C
pi H CO 4-1
£3
0
C/3 rH
x *
*
it
4
*
*
^
*
*
X
f.
^n *
X
M
«
1
O O O
o o o
0)
rf
4-1
M-l
O
CO
<0
±4
3
M
A
£
O
W
f >
x
X
C
O
4-1
rl
*T3
U
i-H
CO
3
C
3
*X3
^i
C*^
Q1^
»i
CO
ca
cu
u
«
*
*
vD
r-l
M
CO CU
4J *^
CO O
Q *J
U
CO O
a
O «4-(
H O
CO
CO -U
H M
P O
W p,
cu
t-l (6
cfl
C B
O CU
H 4J CO
4J co r-
Cd ^s O
Z tO rH
CM
"*
<
.A
x *
K
X X
-r **
' A
X x *
* * -X
O
o
u~> C/3
CO Q
gr
C
H
CO
CU
O
M
0 3
O O
o in
CO
4J
p
i|--t
o
cu
I
4J
C
CO
r-1
O AH
O W
in to vw
CM
to co
pa 4J
P^ cu
P B
0 J2
co ca
i
rt
fe rH
O O J3
O CO
" lA Prf 4-1
tH W CO
g
5 CO
Z ca
cu
.3
ca
3
O
O IM
- o o
rH
4-1
O
p-
r f
1
f"H
0
C CU
u^ M
00
H
0 0
o o
CM i-l
Number of Business Establishments (1970)
1-11
-------
1.4 STUDY CONSTRAINTS
The analysis and conclusions of this report are based primarily on the
responses to the questionnaire and information made available from the
NEDS report monitoring system. The latter information consists of:
a. untitled report of number of emission sources contained in
the NEDS (November 6, 1973)
b. Monthly Status Report, Annual Pollutant Monitoring Summary
dated September 10, 1973.
Additional sources of information are referenced in the text.
In those cases where ambiguities in questionnaire responses were observed,
analytic interpretations were made. Such interpretations sought the most
reasonable compromise among the conflicting responses.
The decision to restrict the time to complete a questionnaire to approxi-
mately thirty minutes limited the scope of the survey with regard to
formulation of questions and the detail that could be obtained.
The stringent schedule precluded an intermediate test of the questionnaire
prior to release to EPA.
1-12
-------
Section 2. GENERAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO STATE AGENCIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO STATE RESOURCES
The topics of government support, computer facilities, data systems and
manpower are considered to be the basic general resources available to
state agencies for operating emission inventory and air quality data
syterns.
Government support is considered in Section 2.3 from the points of view of:
a. services provided to agencies
b. data systems made available to agencies
c. effectiveness of the distribution of information regarding
the services and systems.
Computer facilities available to state agencies are discussed in Section 2.4,
The intent of this section is to establish the availability and capability
of computer facilities as opposed to the current utilization of computers.
2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF DATA SYSTEMS
Various types of data systems are in use including manual, punched card and
automated systems. The distribution of the types of data systems used by
the various agencies provides a good background for comparing the use of
existing resources and for visualizing the effect of resource availability
nationwide. Survey questionnaires were returned for 30 states. This
2-1
-------
number is believed to be large enough to be representative of all 55 state
(or equivalent) air pollution control agencies. The statistics are not,
however, considered representative of local agencies because of the
difference in political and budgetary circumstances. The survey results
are extrapolated to estimate the distribution of the type of systems
used for emission inventories and air quality data systems.
Table 2-1 shows the distribution of emission inventory and air quality
data systems as currently employed by the agencies responding to the
survey and as extrapolated for a distribution for all state agencies.
These results were obtained from question 5 and 21 of the questionnaires
which are summarized by region in charts 5 and 21 of Appendix B.
Table 2-1 shows that most agencies (70%) have manual emission inventory
systems whereas over half have automated or punch card air quality systems.
Only a few agencies (7%) have been able to automate both systems.
The third column of Table 2-1 was consolidated from the results of
questions 21 and 33 which addressed the subject of agency satisfaction
with their current system. Seventeen agencies (80%) were dissatisfied and
can be expected to change to an automated system. The questionnaires of
the 21 agencies using manual systems were reviewed for possible marginal
comments on the desires of the state with regard to their plans for auto-
mation. Such comments were found for only 10 agencies. Five of these
have started or plan to start local development; the other five have opted
for installation of EIS of CDHS. It can be concluded that 80% on the manual
2-2
-------
Emission Inventory
Manual
Computer
Number
of
Agencies
21 (70%)
9 (30%)
Extrapolated
to 55
Agencies
39
16
Agencies
Satisfied
With Current
Sys tern
4 (20%)
6 (67%)
Air Quality
Manual
Computer
Punch Card
None
13 (43%)
12 (40%)
4 (13%)
1 (4%)
24
22
7
2
5 (39%)
7 (58%)
2 (50%)
_
Both E.I. and A.Q.
System Automated
7 (23%)
Table 2-1. Distribution of Data Systems Used by Agencies
2-3
-------
systems will be automated and that one half of these will be converted to
EIS and one half will be locally converted. A similar search for air
quality systems revealed that of seven agencies indicating plans to auto-
mate, five planned for local development and two planned to install AQDHS.
It is noted in Table 2-1 that 80% of the agencies employing manual emission
inventory systems express dissatisfaction with their current systems and
95% of manual air quality systems are considered unsatisfactory. Thus it
is reasonable to conclude that many agencies will automate their data sys-
tems in the near future. Insofar as the survey is representative, it can
be estimated that there are 39 agencies (of a possible 55) that use a
manual emission inventory. Of these, 31 are dissatisfied to the extent
that attempts to automate will be (or are) undertaken. Further, about one
half will opt for EIS while the rest will develop their system locally.
It is believed that this estimate should be modified somewhat by the
recent availability of EIS which may increase the proportion of agencies
adopting EIS .
Applying the same reasoning to manual air quality systems results in the
estimate that 23 of 24 manual air quality systems will be automated and
of these 16 will be undertaken by local development and 7 will install
AQDHS. These estimates, as in the case of emission inventory systems,
should be reconsidered when the availability of the revision to AQDHS
is announced.
2-4
-------
2.3 GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Government support is defined to include the facilities provided by NEDS
and SAROAD as well as the distribution of information discussing the
services available from these systems. Primary information in the area
is derived from question 1 and 2 of the survey which deal, respectively,
with the distribution of service information pertaining to NEDS, SAROAD
and CDHS, and the services available to agencies from these systems.
These questions attempt to determine the extent to which EPA has been
able to publicize NEDS, CDHS and SAROAD, the acceptability of the standard
reporting formats and the effectiveness of governmental support. Table 2-2
reduces results of the survey as summarized in Charts 1 and 3, Appendix B,
to reflect the overall status of governmental support. All responding
states indicated that both NEDS and SAROAD capabilities were known.
However, knowledge of CDHS has not been so widely disseminated; 53% of
responding agencies indicated awareness of the Emission Inventory Subsystem
(EIS) of CDHS and 90% indicated knowledge of the Air Quality Data Handling
Subsystem (AQDHS) of CDHS. It is noted that official documentation on EIS
became available to EPA in November 1973; thus prepublication information
distribution has been quite effective.
Two thirds of the state agencies have requested reports from NEDS and over
83% have utilized SAROAD. It appears that state agencies are more familiar
with SAROAD than NEDS. Although not a subject of the questionnaire, it
is concluded that the greater awareness of SAROAD over NEDS results from
2-5
-------
A B. £
APTD 1135 - NEDS 100% 67% 43%
EIS/CDHS 53%
AQDHS/CDHS 90%
SAROAD 100% 83% 60%
Col A - percent of agencies which have had a system description
Col B - percent of agencies who have used available support services
Col C - percent of agencies aware of all government services available
Table 2-2. Agency Knowledge of Government Support
2-6
-------
the longer existence of SAROAD and its consequent greater use than any
other factor. It is interesting to note that although 67% of the state
agencies responding have made use of NEDS outputs less than half (43%)
of the responding agencies felt that they completely understood the
services available to them from NADB either directly or through remote
terminal facilities available at Regional Offices.
2.4 AUTOMATION CONSIDERATION
2.4.1 Computer Facilities
Question 3 which deals with the subject of the availability of computer
facilities is summarized in Table 2-3. The parts of question 3 requesting
core size and compilers were included to determine if subsystems of CDHS
could be implemented on computers currently available to state agencies.
Of the 30 agencies responding, 20 reported having access to one or more
computers, 5 of the 30 agencies did not respond to the questions, and only
five agencies indicated they had no access to computers (Virgin Islands,
Louisiana, Missouri, Hawaii, Guam).
For the 20 computers reported, 15 had adequate core to accommodate CDHS
subsystem (EIS and AQDHS) and all of these had the appropriate programming
language compilers. Nonetheless, because of the type of computer reported,
it was concluded that all facilities having computers could accommodate
CDHS. Thus it is concluded that the CDHS concept is viable and that its
subsystems can be implemented as desired for most state agencies. It was
noted, however, that the 100K byte (or equivalent) core requirement for
2-7
-------
operating CDHS subsystems tends to be at the upper range of core alloca-
tions as normally made by data processing departments.
Only a small fraction of state agencies have direct control of their
computer facilities; most states rely on the facilities provided by
another state agency. Over three-quarters of the agencies have adequate
computer time for their emission inventory system and 95% report adequate
time for their air quality system.
All but one of the states operating computer systems reported having
adequate time to run their systems. The exception, New Mexico, reported
inadequate time for its emission inventory system. Twenty-four states
indicated they had access to adequate computer time for one or more
systems. Since there is some question of interpretation of the response
given by the remaining agency to the question regarding availability of
computer time, it is concluded that all states having access (or potential
access) to a computer facility will also be able to arrange for enough time
to operate both emission inventory and air quality data systems if they so
desire.
2.4.2 Available Computer Based Systems
Nine agencies reported computer based emission inventory system and
12 agencies reported computer based air quality systems. The availability
and capabilities of these systems are discussed in Section 2.4.2.1 for
emission inventories and in Section 2.4.2.2 for air quality data systems.
2-8
-------
H
§
O1 W
w S
Ml
0£ Btf Of!
Z Z S5 >» >- >« ;>H
>-> >« 55 >«
Ofi OtJ
>*>->. >>> X > 55Z&-S5 >« >< S5
z ><
z >< > ss SE a; > j>- z s:
+~s
W
3
C/5
D
/-s
1-1
s«^
OS
W
H
S
8
Pu
°s
3
0
U
<-J
u
Q
a
2
s
Cd
5
H
CO
M
U
s
o* o*
< <
M
H
O O CJ U
oo -* CM m
H rH
o o vo in
in 1-4 m
CM i-< CM r-l
m in
m o in
M VT -H
--.-^ 0 --
0000
CO ro ^D CO
*o
0)
jj
f-4 jj
H O
|_^ f g
u o S
OI 41 41 fl) K
C 13 C CO
C O -H CO ?
o ,e
M
H
CJ CJ
vO fi
0 0
o o
r>» in
m in
m m
i-l iH
"*"«. **»
0 0
ro co
z. s
M M
0
O
H
Oi X
0 0
y 01
P- Z
I-l
M
<< <
s^ (fa P*
en
^CJ* CJ
"* M *°
O 0 0
m in en
iH f^> iH
m
-* 01
M i-l
O ~- jO
O O CO
n PI T-I r~
cd
^
cd
ki
01
eg u
J3 3
00 CX
300
o o cd
ki O >
US -H
3 M O C
00 M C »
CO
J
4) O
01 M
kl CO
o) e «
OC kl
S ki O
OI 1-4 rH
Z > fe
>
HI
« »
MM M
W W H
fe, (t, fa PL, (t,
CJ CJ U U
O CM » CM -» O pi
CM -( CM Z
u-1 v£> -*'O CM O
Z CM m
^^
m m m m
to m m vo
-< i-l M r-l
~-~^ o o o ^-.~-~
o o c o o o o
o PI vo PI en PI
co
J^
S £ U -H CJ Z S
to 03 o e Q ca ca
M M CJ 3 CJ M M
c cd
01 C -H 4-1
H cd co o cd
O DC BO] C
C -H o 4) n)
H X O C O i-l
MCJ 01 C -H T3
IH -H -H ;H JS C
M s 3 S O M
>
«
M
Eh d,
CJ CJ
vO pS
CM
CM Z
in
-a-
vD ***
o o
i-l en
o
01
4J
kl
o
CX
01 CJ
ki CO
4-1 1-1 Z
0 C 03
C ^3 M
0! CO
co e
CO O
e w .e
kl 41 ^
< H O
M
>
M
CJ
en
PA
z
OI
iH
XI
r9 ^D
H en
cd
^
cd
kl
0)
3
CX
§
o
z
O 03
a M
o
cd o
e 1-1
CO X
H 4)
o ^
M M
H r*i
o
*
00
01
M
lf\
to o
H ro
cd
^
cd
o -o
kl 01 4)
01 4.1 4J
4J kl kl
30 0
CX CX CX
30) 4}
0 ki kl
u
0 0 CO 0
e c M e
H CO
kl ^
3 CO CO
O cO cO
in ^i co w
0) .e > C
H
vo PS
vO
Ji5
41 01
i-l M
O A ft
O O CO cd
m en 1-1 IH
cd cd
^ s*
cd CO
kl kl
01 41
3 3
CX CX
E e
0 0
u u
0 S
Q ca o o
u M e c
td
H
E
O CO i-l
M-l -O -H
1-1 cd cs E
M > 3 CD
co oi a s
O Z S CJ)
X
M
O 4J
S £
0) CO
>
C X
H 4J
H
O eg
i-l 3
co cr
co
H kl
oi eg
01 01
4J 4J
4J 4J
0) kl kl
i-l O O
41 ,0 CX CX
M cd cx ex
J5 M 3 3
cd 1-1 co a)
M cd
H > O O
CO CO 4J U
^
Cd kl -O TJ
41 4) 41
kl i-l 01 01
41 i-t 3 3
M ex
H Q oi oi ca
ex o fi ja u
E U 41
O >> X r-«
O Z id ed >H
a §*
O H ki ki O
ca ps oi oi y
O O 4J 4J
CJ PL, g 3 HI
M M 0 B 5S
tO CO O O <
5 < 0»
co co >
CO CO 41 01 cd
01 41 4J 4J Ji
4J 4J (0 Cd
co cd o o 4J
O O 1-1 -rl O
H -rl T3 13 a
a TS c c
cs c i-t T» a
H -H 4)
M o 6
CJ PK U < Q
00
01
rl
o
qt
M
o
«J
01
I-l
8
M
rl
I
»
1-1
u
iH
H
rl
u
r>4
1-1
0
rl
4J
ed
4J
3
CX
1
CM
01
H
A
cd
H
2-9
-------
2.4.2.1 Computer-based Emission Inventory Systems
Table 2-4 lists the nine agencies currently using an automated emission
inventory system. Three of the agencies use the same system, thus, there
are seven different computer based emission inventories reported in this
survey. Three of the systems are available on request to the owning
agency. One is available from industry. Two states do not offer their
system to other users.
Table 2-5 consolidates the basic system characteristics as reported on
Form 1, Basic Characteristics of Computer Based Emission Inventory System.
These systems, exhibited the following common characteristics:
a. card input different from NEDS
b. data storage on disk
c. file maintenance capabilities
d. data edit capabilities
e. data validation capabilities
f. production of summary reports
g. audit trail
h. support to other functional area
2-10
-------
State
Connecticut
System Name
IBM STARTER
Source
IBM
Available
from State
no
flew York
:3Y APESMS
yes
Illinois
111 EIS
111
unkn i
Michigan
llich EIS
Mich
yes
Wisconsin
Wis EIS
Wis
yes
Texas
Tex EIS
Tex
no
New Mexico
1JM EIS
Nl-1
no
Nebraska
IBM STARTER
IBM
no
Iowa
IBM STARTER
IBM
no
Table 2-4. Emission Inventory Systems Currently in Use
2-11
-------
System Characteristic No. of Systems
Storage Media:
Tape 1
Disk 3
Both 2
System Capabilities:
File Maintenance:
Card Replacement
Field Update
Data Edit 6
Data Validation 5
Emission Calculation 3
Logical Retrieval 4
Report Generation:
Formatted Set Dump 4
Multiple Report Forms 3
Summary Reports 5
Variable Forms 3
Programming Language:
ANSI COBOL 2
ANSI FORTRAN 2
BOTH 2
Table 2-5. Characteristics of Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
2-12
-------
Various other capabilities were exhibited by most systems. These included:
a. emission calculations (3 systems)
b. logical retrieval (4 systems)
c. multiple report formats (3 systems)
d. variable forms (3 systems)
The question of system compatibility with NEDS specifications was addressed
in Question 20 and on Form 1 of the questionnaire. The results of these
are summarized in Table 2-6. Conflicting responses were received in that
only two agencies reported their system output compatible on Form 1, while
6 agencies reported their system completely compatible in question 20. With
the exception of one agency system, which had compatibility problems with
regard to source classification codes, units of measure and source defini-
tion, computer based emission inventory systems are generally compatible
with NEDS. However, it was noted that most agencies experienced difficulty
in generating their semi-annual reports in the NEDS format. This is
believed to arise from a formatting problem rather than from inherent
system or data difficulties.
2-13
-------
NEDS COMPATIBLE FOR:
AGENCY
Connecticut
New York
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Texas
New Mexico
Nebraska
Iowa
SYSTEM
NAME
IBM STARTER
NY APESMS
111 EIS
Mich EIS
Wise EIS
Tex EIS
NM EIS
IBM STARTER
IBM STARTER
INPUT
N
Y*
-
-
N
N
-
N
N
OUTPUT
Y
N
-
-
Y
N
-
Y
Y
SOURCE
IDENT.
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
sec
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
UNITS OF
MEASURE
Y
N
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
DATA
TYPES
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SOURCE
DEF.
Y
N
N
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
* This response conflicts with other available information
Y: YES
N: NO
-: no response
Table 2-6. System Compatibility with NEDS Specifications
2-14
-------
2.4.2.2 Computer Based Air Quality Data Systems
Table 2-7 lists the thirteen automated air quality data system currently in
use. Six agencies indicated they would make their system available upon
request. Three indicated their systems were not available. The remaining
four agencies did not respond. It appears that many of these systems are
based upon the original version of AQDHS and were modified by the state
agency. Table 2-7 also reflects the fact that all but two computer based
systems are compatible with SAROAD.
As can be seen in Table 2-7, there is little difference in the general
capabilities available in the air quality data systems currently in use.
Significantly, however, two systems do not provide for statistical pro-
cessing. Only two of the systems produced outputs that were incompatible
with SAROAD.
2.5 DISCUSSION OF AUTOMATION OPTIONS
There are three types of data systems available to state agencies which
are distinguished by the developing agency (Federal, state, industry). The
choice between these systems, should a state decide to automate, rests
on factors other than capability or compatibility with Federal centralized
systems (i.e., NEDS, SAROAD). These factors include:
a. development costs
b. documentation
2-15
-------
State
New York
New Jersey
California
Arkansas
Texas
New Mexico
Massachusetts
Iowa
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
SAROAD
Compatible
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
no response
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Available
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
no response
YES
no response
YES
no response
no response
Table 2-7. Air Quality Data Systems Currently in Use
2-16
-------
System Characteristic Number of Systems
Storage Media:
Tape 5
Disk 3
Both 5
System Capabilities:
File Maintenance 12
Data Edit 13
Data Validation 11
Statistical Processing 11
Logical Retrieval 12
Report Generation:
Formatted File Dump 9
Multiple Reports 10
Summary Reports 12
Statistical Reports 9
Programming Language:
ANSI COBOL 5
ANSI FORTRAN 3
BOTH 5
Table 2-8. Characteristics of Automated Air Quality Data Systems
2-17
-------
c. system support
d. training
e. installation support
f. system requirements for computer facilities
g. system performance
2.5.1 AGENCY OPTIONS
The data processing functions of the state agencies for emissions and air
quality data can be accomplished in either of two modes; the manual and
automated. A decision to employ one or the other depends primarily on:
a. the size of the data file
b. file access frequency
c. data processing/manipulation requirements
d. funding constraints
For small data files on the order of 100 emission sources or 8-10 air
quality monitoring sites, the most obvious choice is the manual mode.
This has the advantage of low cost while minimizing the disadvantages
associated with manual processing of large files.
For those agencies faced with large data files and the need to frequently
reference this data, a decision to automate is most reasonable. In this
case a further decision is needed; what means of automation is most
2-18
-------
practical? In the areas of emissions and air quality data there are at
least five choices; namely:
o in-house development
o contract development
o installation of government provided options
o installation of industry developed systems
o installation of system in use to another agency
In-house development has several advantages including:
o greater assurance that system meets all agency requirements
o greater assurance that agency personnel can easily maintain
the system and modify it as requirements change
There are disadvantages that must also be considered. These include:
o large, but temporary personnel requirements during the
development phases
o relatively large development costs
o long lead time to accommodate system analysis and development
o requirement to produce system documentation and manuals.
2-19
-------
The advantage for contracting system development tend to parallel those
for in-house development. Additional advantages include:
o elimination of large staff requirement during development
o minimum development time
o improved documentation
Contrasting possible disadvantages include:
o relative costs
o need to delegate staff to coordination during development
o need to develop formal, detailed system specifications
o some loss of flexibility during development
The availability of systems provided by the government offer many advantages
to the agencies. Included among these are:
o elimination of development costs
o assurance that system is compatible with government
requirements
o reduced installation costs
o available documentation
o short lead time for installation
2-20
-------
The disadvantages may include installation difficulties and system
inflexibility with regard to unusual agency requirements. The effect
of these could be reduced if the government undertakes a program of system
maintenance, installation support and training. The choice of installing
systems available from industry could be good provided the system is
compatible with agency needs. Such systems are generally offered with
full documentation. Installation support and training are usually available,
Another source of developed systems is found in the system currently in use
and made available by some state agencies. These have the advantages that
they exist and are available without development cost. They may not, how-
ever, meet all agency needs. Disadvantages may be caused by system con-
straints, installation problems, system maintenance, possibly poor
documentation, and lack of training programs. The explicit capabilities
and support programs should, of course, be examined prior to selecting one
of the systems that are currently in use.
2-21
-------
Section 3. ANALYSIS FOR EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEMS
3.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
This section discusses the findings deduced from the survey questionnaries
as they apply to manual and computer based emission inventory systems.
Emphasis has been placed on:
a. Identifying techniques used for the storage, access and
maintenance of these systems.
b. Identifying problems associated with the routine use of
these systems.
c. Identifying problems arising at state agencies in meeting
Federal reporting requirements.
d. Identifying techniques or systems available to state agency
that might ameliorate their emission inventory problems.
3.2 STORAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE
3.2.1 Sources of Emission Inventory Data
The questionnaire (question 8) suggested several different sources of data
for emission inventories. The responses from the state agencies as
summarized in Table 3-1 showed a preference for multiple sources to include
permit or registrations and questionnaries. However, this tendency was
most pronounced for states with manual systems. The responses suggest that
the most common basic sources of emission inventory data consist of permit
or registration forms.
3-1
-------
Computer
Source Manual Based
Form Systems Systems Total
Permit/registration 7 3 10
Inspection Reports 0 11
Questionnaries 2 35
Multiple Sources 12 2 14
TOTAL 21 9 30
Table 3-1. Emission Inventory Data Sources
3-2
-------
3.2.2 Storage Techniques
Storage techniques were addressed primarily by question 7 and 9 for manual
system and by question 9 and Form 1 for computer based systems. Table 3-2
summarizes the results obtained from these questions. States having computer
based systems used standard storage techniques using tapes and disks. For
states having manual systems, the predominant technique is the storage of
original source forms in standard file cabinets. A significant number (26%)
used NEDS forms as storage media. Manual systems accommodated 5000 or fewer
sources except for one agency having 100,000 sources. However, 70% of
such systems handled less than 1000 sources and 53% handled less than 500
sources. The range in the number of sources is from 20 to 100,000; the
average size, excluding extremes is about 450 sources.
Computer based systems accommodated more sources than manual systems.
More than 57% of the automated systems have more than 5000 sources and
86% have more than 1000 sources. The range of the number of sources in
computer system is from 300 sources to 150,000 sources.
Material in the manual files is apparently stored by alphabetic or numeric
coding schemes of local design. Storage for computer based systems is
controlled by source identification. Codes included may be numeric or
alphabetic or a combination. It appears from the survey that manual systems
identify sources to the facility level whereas computer based systems
usually employ more detailed identification control. Information from
sources other than the survey suggest that computer based systems have the
3-3
-------
Storage Characteristic
Separate Files
Mixed Files
Volume:
0-1 file drawers
2-5 file drawers
6-12 file drawers
12 file drawers
Storage Media:
Permit/Register Forms
Local E.I Forms
NEDS Forms
Number of Sources:
0-500
500-1000
1000-5000
10,000-20,000
100,000
No. of Agencies
Manual Computer
14
4
5
3
2
3
10
4
5
9 (53%)
3 (18%)
4 (23%)
0
1 (6%)
1 (14%)
0
2 (29%)
3 (43%)
1 (14%)
Table 3-2. Emission Inventory Storage Characteristics
3-4
-------
capability to identify sources of pollutant down to the level of an
individual fuel. However, in these cases storage is usually maintained
at the "point" level; that is, to the level equivalent to a stack.
The storage and protection of confidential data does not seem to be a
problem. Table 3-3 summarize the responses in this regard for manual
and computer based systems respectively. Only 16 of the 30 agencies
responded to the question on confidentiality. Of these 16, nine reported
that no confidential data was stored. Simple protective devices such as
locked files are used to protect confidential data.
Manual storage techniques included:
a. Notebooks of NEDS Forms
b. File drawers containing source forms in alphabetic or numeric order
c. NEDS listing of point sources
Computer based systems stored data on disk or tape and used alphabetic or
numberic sorting of coded identification keys to maintain file sequence.
3.2.3 Access Techniques
Access techniques used to extract data from manual files are inferred from
experience and related to the use of emissions data as reported in the survey
form. Access to manual emission inventories are by manual file search.
Alphabetic or numberic coding schemes for source identification are used
by most agencies.
3-5
-------
No. of Agencies
Amount of Manual Computer
Confidential Data
none
1-2%
2-4%
4-6%
6%
no response
Systems
4
-
-
2
1
14
Systems
5
1
1
2
-
0
Total
9
1
1
4
1
Table 3-3. Summary of Agencies Storing Confidential Data
3-6
-------
Two thirds of the computer based systems were reported to have a logical
retrieval capability. Thus most of these systems have the capability to
select one or more sources from the file as a function of some predetermined
criteria. These criteria may be source identification, level of pollutant
emission, source location, or other factors of immediate interest. A few
(probably 2) computer based systems are restricted to summary reports and
a formatted listing of the file content. Table 3-4 contains a summary of
the retrieval and report generating capabilities available in existing sys-
tems. This summary together with individual Form's 1 were used to infer the
access techniques available in computer based emission inventory systems.
3.2.4 Maintenance Techniques
Techniques used to maintain emission inventories are summarized in Table 3-5
based on responses to questions 12 and 13 of the survey. A review of the
table shows that the concepts for file maintenance are the same for both
manual and computer based systems. Two such concepts are apparent. The
predominant technique is to replace the entire contents (or a significant
portion thereof) of a source record whenever one or more data elements of
that record are changed as a result of an inspection, new permit application
or some other factor. This technique is employed by 14 of the 16 manual
systems reported and for 6 of the nine computer based systems.
The alternative technique is to change only the data element affected.
For manual systems this is accomplished by correcting individual data fields.
In computer based systems the data record is retrieved, the data element
is changed and the record replaced in the file.
3-7
-------
No. of Systems
Access:
Logical Retrieval 4
Reports:
Formatted File Dump 4
Multiple Reports 3
Summary Reports 5
Variable Forms 3
Table 3-4. Access Techniques and Report Generation Capabilities
for Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
3-8
-------
Type of System
Techniques Manual Computer
Form Replacement 14 -
Form Correction 2
Record Replacement - 6
Field Level Update - 3
Maintenance Frequency
Annual 4 4
Semi-Annual 7 2
Weekly 0 2
As received 6 1
Table 3-5. Emission Inventory Maintenance Factors
3-9
-------
Only 3 agencies (of 21) having manual systems reported that a record of
changes made (i.e., an audit trail) was maintained. The remaining agencies
did not respond. If an audit trail is not maintained a problem can arise
while generating responses to the periodic reporting requirements since
these reports are based on reporting changes in the emission inventory.
On the other hand, a complete audit trail of changes, deletions and additions
of data elements and data records is maintained by all computer based systems
reported. There was, however, no indication that the audit trait was specif-
ically related to Federal reporting requirements. It is believed that these
audit trails are made more for the purpose of verifying individual file
maintenance activities than for insuring better response to reporting
requirements.
3.3 SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
There were no significant problems related to routine use or to Federal
reporting that could be associated in general with all reporting agencies.
However, it was clear that a few state agencies were experiencing severe
problems in several areas. Perhaps the greatest problem has arisen in those
state agencies whose emission inventory was developed before NEDS specifi-
cations became available. In some instances data storage concepts were
developed that turned out to be significantly different from the NEDS
specifications. This has created problems both in normal use and maintenance
3-10
-------
of emission inventories as well as in the generation of Federal reports.
Major differences were reported by 17 agencies for such key data elements
as:
o Source identification (5 systems)
o Source classification codes (6 systems)
o Units of measure (5 systems)
o Types of data (7 systems)
o Definition of a source (6 systems)
Such incompatibilities suggest major problems by imposing a need to maintain
and use special procedures such as:
o Maintaining cross references for sources, source classification
codes, units of measure, and previous changes
o the addition of data elements not specified by state rules
o the addition of data elements required by the state solely to
satisfy Federal reports
These activities place a burden on daily maintenance operations as well as
on the generation of Federal reports.
3-11
-------
The selection of reportable sources is further complicated by the fact that
a source must be reported only if it emits at least 25 tons/year and is
part of a facility that emits at least 100 tons/year of a pollutant.
Progress in air pollution control tends to reduce emissions below the
reporting cirteria. Other factors, such as the current fuel crisis, tend
to increase emissions above the criteria. Since these factors will be
active in the future, significant inventory changes will occur and the
difficulties in identifying reportable sources can be expected to increase
substantially.
The number of sources maintained by state agencies generally exceeds the
number of sources that must be reported to NADB. As shown in Table 3-6
the major impact of this is the need to develop procedures to select the
appropriate sources which are limited (Federal Register, Vol 38, August 3,
1973) for a reporting period to:
a. Those sources coming into compliance with a control regulation
b. New or modified sources
c. Discontinued sources.
In the manual systems the problem is resolved by noting changes according
to the above criteria as they occur. For computer based systems the problem
may be resolved by periodically selecting those sources whose "date of
entry" lies within the reporting period.
3-12
-------
Number of Agencies
Manual Computer
Range of Excess
0-200 sources
200-500 sources
1000-5000 sources
5000 sources
Total
SYS terns
10
2
3
2
17
Systems
2
0
1
2
5
Total
12
2
4
4
22
Table 3-6. Number of Agencies Maintaining Files That
Exceed the Number of Sources in NEDS
3-13
-------
The foregoing problem areas were inferred from the responses to several
questions which relate to various aspects of size, content, and compatibility
of emission inventory files. It is interesting to note, however, that only
four agencies reported any anticipated impact due to federal reporting.
Those agencies that anticipated an impact reported only a slight effect on
overall manning. Thus, unless circumstances change drastically, it must
be concluded that state agencies anticipate little or no problem in
meeting Federal reporting requirements for emissions data. This conclusion
may not be representative in its application to agencies having manual
systems since only about one third reported having experience in generat-
ing a semiannual report.
Table 3-7 was constructed from the responses to question 19 which asked
if the agency had submitted emissions data and the NEDS report monitor
status report of September 10, 1973 (Annual Pollutant Monitoring Summary,
Year 1972). Comparable data in the sense that data for the same number of
agencies were provided from both sources were available for four of the
seven regions in the survey. The table shows the number of agencies that
have submitted emissions data, the number of agencies whose data was sub-
mitted by contractors and the total number of agencies submitting data as
reported in the survey. The remaining data in the table shows the number
of agencies for which there is emission data in NEDS and the number of
agencies for which data is expected.
3-14
-------
Survey Results
Region
II
V
VI
VII
Data Submitted By
Agency Contractor
2
3
1
1
3
1
Total
2
3
4
2
NEDS Report
Monitor Results
Data In Data
NEDS Expected
1
6
5
1
2
6
5
4
Table 3-7. Count of Agencies that have Submitted Emission Data
as Reported by the Survey Compared with NEDS Content
3-15
-------
There is no agreement between the numbers obtained from the survey and
those obtained from the NEDS report. It is believed that this lack of
agreement reflects some misunderstanding of reporting requirements since,
in three of the four regions, more states believe their emissions data
had been submitted than are recognized as data submitters by NEDS.
Some of the differences between the expected and actual data submittals
is believed to reflect the current static nature of agency inventories.
Consequently agencies may be under the impression that emissions data
submittals are not needed because of lack of changes in their inventory.
3-16
-------
Section 4. ANALYSIS FOR AIR QUALITY DATA SYSTEfIS
4.1 GENERAL COlEffiNTS
Air quality data systems were reported for twenty-nine of the thirty
respondents. One agency did not operate any air quality measuring sites
and relied entirely on NASN stations operated by EPA. Three types of
air quality data systems were described as follows:
o 13 manual systems
o 12 computer based systems
o 4 punched card systems
All but one agency, that is 97%, have submitted air quality data in SAROAD
formats. The responses to question 29 dealing with quarterly report tend
to reflect more compliance with reporting requirements than is shown by the
internal EPA report monitoring system. Where comparable numbers were
available, the values from the NADB report monitor were uniformly smaller
than the survey numbers as shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 shows that in only one region of the regions for which comparable
information is available did the NADB report monitor count agree with the
count obtained in the survey. The differences are inexplicable from the
information available. It is suggested that there is some misunderstanding
of the definition of the quarterly report and, if so, further efforts by EPA
to clarify these requirements is in order.
4-1
-------
No. of States Submitting One or More
Quarterly Reports As Shown By
Region Survey NADB
I 53
II 22
V 64
VI 54
VII 4 4
Table 4-1. Count of Agencies that have Submitted as Reported
by Survey Compared to SAROAD Content
4-2
-------
The subject of compatibility between agency air quality system and SAROAD
is considered in various survey questionnaires and specifically in question
30, all of which are summarized in Table 4-2. All evidence leads to the
conclusion that at least 90% of agency systems are fully compatible with
SAROAD. The difficulties encountered by NADB in accepting air quality
data seems to lie in formatting difficulties rather than any inherent system
problems. As shown in Table 4-2 the SAROAD forms predominate as source forms
for collecting and storing air quality data. This implies that both manual
and computer based systems maintain appropriate data in proper formats to
be SAROAD compatible. Table 4-2 indicates that SAROAD forms and punched
card formats predominate (in 26 of 29 cases) as the preferred method of
submitting air quality data.
Manpower requirements for operating air quality data systems are relatively
constant from state to state regardless of such factors as frequency of use,
and data volume, but do depend on type of system. There is a tendency to
require more personnel to maintain a computer based system than for a
manual system. Table 4-3 reflects this tendency in that about 63% of the
manual system are operated by one person while 80% of the computer based
systems require 1-3 people. This is expected in view of the data summarized
in Table 4-4, which shows, on the average, that computer based systems
handle data from 132 sites sources while manual systems handle data from 70
sources. The type of resources required is somewhat different in that computer
based systems require programming skills in addition to data collection
skills.
4-3
-------
Number of Agencies Reporting
Type of System
Manual Computer PC_ Total
Air Quality Source Forms:
SAROAD 10 6 4 20
OTHER 3 609
Submission on SAROAD Form:
YES 13 11 4 28
NO 0101
Agency File is Compatible:
With SAROAD:
YES
NO
Method of Submitting AQ Data:
SAROAD Form
SAROAD Cards/Tape
OTHER
Table 4-2. Compatibility Factors for Agency Air Quality Data Systems
12
1
10
3
0
11
1
0
9
3
3
1
2
2
0
26
3
12
14
3
4-4
-------
Number of Agencies Reporting
Manpower Range
(man /years)
0-1
1-3
3-5
5-10
10
Total
Type
Manual
7
3
0
I
0
11
of System
Computer
0
8
1
0
1
10
Total
7
11
1
1
I
21
Table 4-3. Manpower Requirements for Air Quality Data Systems
4-5
-------
0?
c
1
I
>.
§
s
X
o
v,
_1
g
O
o
u
i*
K
3
O
CM
*
J
M
CM
O
>-
^
0
CM
0
tA
*
1
CM
O
r-
Ot
*
«a
CO
r-l
rH
W
CO
CO
CM
CM
to
CO
CO
CM
g
M-l
0
41
55
i
CU
u
rH
rH
rH
tO
co
^
o
CM
CM
CM
00
*
O
o
CO
00
-
0
M
CM
CM
rv
CO
in
CO
rH
CO
r-
o
in
Ot
rH
t
z.
>2 C sites projected
tyt
*^
CM
^
CO
O
o
CM
O
O
0
CM
O
CM
0
CM
^.
tO
m
CM
CM
tO
rH
tO
rH
S
o
CO
o
CO
g
i
rH
§
rl
a
0>
00
tO
CM
rH
i-l
O
i-l
O
S
0
rH
rH
rH
rH
0
*a
a
CM
rH
rH
rM
tO
rH
r^
CO
O
m
r-
CO,
-a
in
in
CM
rH
tO
in
rH
r-l
>6 C mentation plan
rH
tO
CM
O
o
o
o
rH
O
O
m
0
tO
CO
-H
CM
00
rH
CO
^
CM
tO
CO
Ot
rH
00
S
CM
rH
CT>
CM
U
3
o
u
(
rH
O
rH
a
o
Ot
o
o
tO
0
CO
00
s
o
rH
CO
s
00
r-
;»
-a
CM
O
09
rl
3
U
CO
CM
rH
to
rH
O
CM
a
a
rH
CO
0
*a
rH
S
s
CM
CM
tO
to
1-1
o
CM
to
rH
m
00
tO
P^
CM
e
c
IW
O
3
e
J5
Cr.
CM
m
s
tO
CM
s
in
a
CM
o
CO
a
CO
o
tO
to
in
Cf>
m
in
to
in
rH
*O
to
-a
0
CO
CM
rH
in
in
CM
00
r*.
O
s-.
o
8
H
0
U-l
0)
V
u
H
0)
to
CM
CM
CO
o
rH
^.
0
r-
a
o
o
0
r*.
^a
o
CO
i-H
,,
CM
O
rH
f^
tn
g
CO
CM
rH
rH
CM
rH
in
-a
o
c
s
01
.c
tt
a
a
o
sr
S
rH
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CM
rH
i-H
0
O
CM
tO
a-
^
o>
9*
|
o
u
D
41
4J
rl
E
3
09
U
to
rH
Ot
tO
rH
O
00
a
o
Ot
rH
0
S
O
CO
rH
O
CM
O
to
CM
rH
CO
rH
rH
rH
^
CO
O
tO
rH
rH
CM
CM
CM
m
n
i
m
rH
A
<
CU
CO
rH
CM
rH
CM
^
CM
-a-
o
i-H
o
o
00
rH
O
o
0
o
m
CM
m
rH
r.
0
Ot
CO
Ot
a
CM
0)
rH
-i
O
O
Ti
It
i
s
a
CO
CM
in
o
o
o
o
o
o
-a-
o
o
0
m
r^
rH
CO
rH
0
1
rH
rH
Ot
m
3
CM
S
tt
rl
rl
9
U
3
er
o
CO
s
rH
CO
i-H
CO
rH
O
O
O
in
00
rH
O
o
rH
in
CM
CM
to
tO
CM
CM
in
tO
rH
§
U
Cu
CO
a
r-l
O
rH
O
O
O
O
O
CO
'"
to
0
rH
CM
tO
tO
s
o\
CM
CM
rH
JO
CO
rH
-a
rH
CM
CO
CO
tn
i-H
CM
rH
O
00
CM
in
CM
o
CO
o
CO
CM
S
^
r*
in
m
^
fi
I
u
Cu
in
CO
rH
rH
tO
i-l
CO
rH
to
rH
rH
O
a
-a
r-
rH
rH
a
CO
to
^
rH
tO
a
m
Ot
CO
§
S
to
o
CM
O
rH
O
O
O
O
CM
-a
CM
O
rH
CM
CO
rH
CM
rH
tO
CM
a
a
CO
CO
4
g
M
CM
CM
CM
tO
a
CO
r«*
rH
CO
tO
00
CM
CO
to
-a
in
CO
CM
a
-a
in
o
m
H
CM
rH
CO
tO
1-1
CM
CM
m
rH
'*
m
i-H
CO
-i
CM
o
rH
m
to
IM
Tt
CJ
CO
in
rH
CM
rH
CM
CM
CM
CO
o
O
m
m
o
CM
CO
10
*
rH
a
a
CO
CO
rH
5*
CO
«*!
3
-I
O
r-l
CM
O
O
o
o
rH
rH
C*
O
0
o
CM
rH
oo
rH
-»
1-1
CM
rH
CO
3
X
m
\o
0
tO
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
rH
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
rH
1
CO
O\
H
a
U
U
o
&
>
^2
u
<
oc
o
rl
O
a
a
g
*M
O
X
s
g
g
3
CO
rl
0
ex
41
§
a
«
S3
|
M
IM
a
41
4
4J
3
*
3
3
n
0
<*
CJ
lus States
w
H
S
O
IH
09
41
rl
rl
O
a
01
t?
S
4J
O
$
o
3
o
u
o
4)
r-l
0
rl
O
2
rl
O1
S
O
S
g
9
CO
.
^
>a
r-l
3
H
4-6
-------
The degree of satisfaction with air quality data systems expressed by state
agencies is similar to that expressed for emission inventory systems. That
is agencies with computer based systems tended to be satisfied while
agencies with manual systems tended to be dissatisfied. About 65% of
agencies with automated systems were satisfied while only 40% of those
with manual systems were satisfied.
4.2 STORAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF AIR QUALITY DATA
Questions 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 as summarized on Charts 23, 24, 25, 26
and 27 of Appendix B provided specific inputs to the subjects of storage,
access and maintenance of air quality data. Discussion of these topics is
given for each area in the following subsections.
4.2.1 Storage Concepts
The sources of data for air quality data systems are similar for both
manual and computer based systems as reflected in Table 4-5.
About 69% of all agencies rely on SAROAD forms as a means of recording air
quality data and providing such data to air quality data systems. SAROAD
forms are used predominantly (77%) for manual systems, entirely for punched
card systems and for 50% of computer based systems.
4-7
-------
Table 4-5. Source of Air Quality Data
Number of Agencies Reporting
Local Forms oAROAD Forms .
Manual Systems 3 10 13
Computer Based Systems 6 6 12
Punched Card Systems 0 44
Total 9 20 29
4-8
-------
Data storage characteristics are summarized in Table 4-6. Manual and
punched card systems used the same concept which consisted simply of filing
the original data source forms. Five of the thirteen computer files were
restricted to tape storage, three were restricted to disk and the
remainder used both tape and disk storage. Air quality data is stored
indefinitely, however, some agencies (about 20%) keep an active file for
one to two years putting the older data in an history file. To date the
agencies have collected data requiring not more than 3 file cabinets for
their storage, and for most agencies (80%) less than 1 cabinet. Currently,
therefore, the storage of air quality data does not present a problem for
manual sys terns.
The accumulation of air quality data for manual systems may become a
significant problem in the future. An estimate of the magnitude of the
problem was developed from the data presented in the NADB status reports,
summary of monitoring activity dated October 9, 1973.
A rough estimate of the number of sensor sites is derived from the number
of projected particulate sites (TSP) with the assumption that other sensors
are located with at least one particulate site. Although it is known that
other pollutants are separately measured, the estimate is useful for
speculating about the impact on agency operations due to the measurement
program.
4-9
-------
Number of
Agencies
Period of Storage - Active File
Indefinite 22
1-2 years 6
Storage Media
SAROAD Forms 10
Agency Forms 3
Punched Cards
Tape/Disk
Storage Volume
0-2 File Drawers 8
3-6 1
6-10 1
Table 4-6. Air Quality Data Storage Summary
4-10
-------
Using the estimate as described it is estimated that agencies having
manual systems operate an average of 49 sites as opposed to 104 sites
for computer based systems.
It is further assumed that each site will generate on the average one
SARDAD (or equivalent) form per day to record the sensor data. Thus the
manual storage system will grow at a rate of about two file drawers per
year.
(49 sites x 365 days/year x 1 page/site/day) = 1.99 file drawers/year
9000 pages/file drawer
This estimate agrees reasonably well with the volumes of storage summarized
in Table 4-6. The rate of growth for manual systems indicates a growth
problem that would be best resolved by automating.
4.2.2 Access Methods
The questionnaire was designed so that access to air quality data files
could be inferred from question 26 and Form 2. Unfortunately insufficient
information was received in response to question 26, dealing with report
generation, to make valid inferences with confidence. However, the
response in general were reviewed to infer that access techniques for
manual systems must depend on a file structuring such that measurements of
pollution concentration are filed sequentially by date, for each observing
4-11
-------
site. This, of course, reflects the method used to collect data for storage
as discussed in Section 4.1.1. Access is then accomplished by scanning
through the files for a site until the times desired are found. Data for
pollutants desired is then extracted and processed as required.
Access to manual air quality data files may become a significant problem
in the near future because of the need to reconsider state implementation
plans with respect to social political and economic crises, such as the
current fuel shortage, which require access to air quality files for impact
studies.
Access to automated air quality data files does not present significant
problems. The access techniques reported on Form 2 for all computer based
system employed a logical retrieval which presumably allowed selection of
data based on several criteria. The criteria probably included location,
time and pollutant as a minimum thereby exhibiting a high degree of
compatibility with AQDHS. File access for studies, reports or summaries
does not represent a problem in computer based systems.
4.2.3 File Maintenance Procedures
File maintenance for air quality data files consists of two major functions
which are considered for this survey. The functions are the addition of
data and the modification of data in the file. Both of these functions,
of course, require file access techniques, and, as discussed in Section
4.1.2 can therefore create problems for manual systems in particular.
4-12
-------
The addition of data is the lesser problems because, in general, the
technique simply adds a form behind a series of forms at a visually
indicated position (e.g., a file separator). On the other hand, changing
a data value involves a file search to locate a particular form, the
correction of a specific entry and re-positioning of the form in the file.
This can be a rather lengthy and error prone task particularly for large
files.
The file maintenance procedures differ somewhat in frequency between
manual and computer based systems. As shown in Table 4-7, there is a
noticeable tendency to update manual files continuously whereas computer
files are predominantly maintained in a batch mode at some time interval
ranging from one week to one month. These techniques probably reflect
the handling characteristics of data files more than any other factor.
4-13
-------
File Maintenance Interval
As received
1 week
1 month
3 months
Total
Number of Agencies Reporting
Type of System
Manual Computer
3
2
11
Total
2
3
7
12
8
3
10
2
23
Table 4-7. Air Quality File Maintenance Summary
4-14
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
Emission Inventory
Air Quality
Data System Survey
The attached forms are forwarded to aid in the collection of basic
planning information related to emission inventory air quality data
systems used at the state and local government levels. The information
gathered will be used by EPA internally to evaluate the status of such
systems and to ascertain:
a. Techniques presently used to store, access and maintain emission
inventory and air quality data files
b. Significant problems associated with maintaining and using such
files
c. Anticipated problems in meeting the proposed Federal regulations
for the quarterly and semi-annual reporting of emissions air
quality data by state agencies, especially as related to provid-
ing data in the NEDS format
d. Availability of computer based systems and other considerations
for maintaining and using state and local agency data systems.
The survey addresses the above problems in some detail as covered by
the attached questionnaire. The questions are grouped in three categories:
a. Those applicable to emission inventory system
b. Those applicable to air quality data system
c. Those applicable to both systems
The basic intent is to obtain information to describe the scope and the
size of state systems; to identify problems associated with the use of
the systems to meet Federal reporting requirements. Thus it is important
to note that the systems of interest exclude data collection functions
which are concentrating on storage, retrieval, and report generation.
This is a particularly important distinction in the air quality system
since air quality monitoring involves many functions related to data
collection.
Questionnaires have been designed as guides for collecting relevant
information. Different regions will have different questionnaires.
Most of the questions are of the multiple choice type. The multiple
choices are believed to be reasonably comprehensive, however, the use
of remarks is encouraged to record circumstances not adequately described.
A-l
-------
You are requested to complete one set of questions for each state
within your region. It is suggested that questions whose answers
are readily known be completed first and that answers to the re-
maining questions be reserved for a later time. This will provide
for a directed search of the various sources from which the desired
information can be obtained.
In order to meet contractual schedules, you are requested to return
the completed forms to NADB within ten (10) days of receipt at your
office. However, in order to speed the analysis, we would appreciate
your returning the questionnaire sooner if possible. The mailing
address is:
Dr. James R. Hammerle
Environmental Protection Agency
National Air Data Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
A-2
-------
1. Has the agency received
a. Guide for compiling a Comprehensive
Emmission Inventory APTD 1135? YES NO
b. Documentation or briefing on the
Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS)
of Comprehensive Data Handling
System (CDHS) YES NO
c. Documentation or briefing on the
Air Ouality Data Handling System
(AQDHS) of CDHS YES NO
d. Documentation or briefing on the
Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric
Data (SAROAD) system YES NO
e. Approval for submitting data on locally
devised forms in accordance with para-
graph 5.1.7 (3) of the Federal Register,
Vol. 38, Aug. 3, 1973 YES NO
2. a. Has the state agency requested reports
or data from
1) NEDS YES NO
2) SAROAD YES NO
b. Does the state agency know what reports
data and data summaries are available
upon request from
1) NEDS YES NO
2) SAROAD YES NO
A-3
-------
3. What are the basic characteristics of the computer facility available
to the agency for the emission inventory and air quality systems?
a. Same computer is used for both systems
b. Different computers are used for each system
c. List characteristics in following table
Characteristics Emmission Inventory Air Quality
Make
Model
Core Size
No. Tape Drives
ANSICOBOL YES NO YES NO
ANSIFORTRAN YES NO YES NO
d. Does the agency control (or own) the computer? YES NO
If NO; who controls the computer?
e. Does the agency have access to enough computer time to
operate its
1) Emmission inventory system? YES NO
2) Air quality data system? YES NO
4. What type of emission inventory system does the state agency use?
a. Manual
b. Uses punched card equipment
c. Computer based. If so, please complete the accompanying form
(Form 1).
d. If computer based, would state make system available to other
states?
YES NO
A-4
-------
5. If the agency uses a computer based system, does the system produce
reports (or outputs) compatible with NEDS and SAROAD/formats?
a. NO
b. YES, as follows
NEDS SAROAD
Printed list
Punched cards
Magnetic tape
c. Yes, with exceptions listed below.
NOTE: 1. NEDS compatibility infers ability to produce output in the
format of the NEDS forms (See Guide for Compiling a Compre-
hensive Emission Inventory, PAID 1135)
2. SAROAD compatibility infers the ability to produce output
in the format of the SAROAD SITE and DATA transaction forms.
(See SAROAD, Users Manual IISEPA, OAP, APTD 0063)
d. Is data edited
1. manually YES NO
2. by computer technique YES NO
6. If the emission inventory system is computer based, does the system
have the flexibility to produce reports specifically related to air
pollution control management problems such as:
o Inspection activities
o Permit (or equivalent) activities
o Enforcement activities
o Complaints
o or Scheduling
a. No - there is no automated scheme to relate emissions data
with functions
b. There is an automated scheme to extract selected data from the
emission inventory data file for special purposes
A-5
-------
7. If the emission inventory is manual:
a. Ts the inventory data stored separately from other data?
YES NO
b. In what form is the data stored:
1. Originals or copies of source forms
2. Other agency forms
3. NEDS forms
4. Other (Specify)
c. What is the approximate volume of storage?
1, file drawers
2. other (specify)
8. What is the source of data that hecomes the emission inventory?
a. Permits, registration, certifications or equivalent
h. Inspection reports
c. Ouestionnaires
d. Other (specify)
9. How many point emission sources are kept in the state emissions
inventory file considering that a source is the equivalent of a
permit record or a NEDS form?
a. sources
10. a. How are area sources recorded?
1. County
2. TIT GRID (give dimensions of grid)
3. Other (specify)
b. How many such sources are kept?
A-6
-------
11. List descriptive title and freqtiency of reports regularly pre-
pared from the emission inventory data. T.ist distribution for
those used outside of the state.
12. a. How frequently is the emission inventory file updated?
(Indicate average number of transactions)
1. As received for a total of _____ transactions per
?.. Daily in batches of _______ transactions
3. Weekly in batches of __ transactions
4. Monthly in batches of transactions
5. Other (Specify)
b. Ts an audit trail maintained to record
1. Additions YFS NO
2. Changes YFS MO
3. Deletions YES NO
13. How are changes made to the emission inventory file?
jf Manual System If Computer Based
a. by replacing entire forms d. record replacement
b. by correcting forms e. field replacement
c. other (specify) f. other (specify)
14. How long is an emission inventory file entry retained in the active
file?
a. Indefinitely
b. Until changed
1. Original data is discarded YES NO
2. Original data is placed in
history file YES NO
A-7
-------
15. What are the provisions for protecting confidential or proprietary
emmissions data?
a. No confidential data are stored.
b. There are no provisions for isolating confidential data within
the files.
c. Approximately % of the sources contain confidential
information.
d. Briefly describe technique used to protect and handle confidential
data.
16. a. How many man years per year are needed to maintain the emission
inventory system?
b. If a computer based system is used:
1. How many programmer man years are normally needed to work
on the inventory?
2. How many of these programmers can use
a. COBOL
b. FORTRAN
c. Other (specify)
1. Are people employed with the prime function of collecting
emission inventory data (do not count inspectors or
engineers whose functions incidentally provide emissions
inventory data).
2. If so, how many?
A-8
-------
17. When semi-annual emission inventory reports are due to FPA, is it
necessary to temporarily increase the staffing level above that
normally involved in the emission inventory system?
a. No
h. Yes, then
1. What is the percentage of increase?
2. What is the manning increase?
3. What is the impact of this increase on
other agency activities?
18. What procedure does the agency use to transmit semi-annual emission
inventory reports to the EPA regional office?
a. Annotation of the emission inventory list provided to the
agency by EPA
b. List (or collection of agency forms) containing the required
information
c. NEDS forms
d. Punched cards in NEDS format
e. Magnetic tape in NEDS format
f. Other (specify)
19. a. Has the agency submitted a semi-annual emission inventory report
in NEDS format
YES NO
b. If NO, why not?
A-P
-------
20. Is the data in the agency's emission inventory compatible with:
a. All elements of the NEDS reporting format? YES NO
b. NEDS source identification system? YES NO
c. NEDS source classification code system? YES NO
d. NEDS units of measurement? YES NO
e. NEDS requirements for types of data? YES NO
f. NEDS definition for a point source? YES NO
g. Briefly describe other significant problems arising from the
requirement to prepare the semi-annual report in NEDS format,
21. Does the agency consider the emission inventory system generally
adequate and efficient for meeting internal agency needs:
a. Yes
b. Yes, for most purposes
c. Yes, for a few purposes
d. No
Comments:
A-in
-------
22. What type of system does the state agency use for storing and
processing air quality data
a. Manual
b. Uses punched card equipment
c. Computer based. If so, please complete the accompanying form
(Form 2).
d. Tf computer based, would the state make systems available to
other states?
1. Yes
2. No
23. Is data edited
1. Manually?
2. By computer technique?
24. If a manual air quality system is used:
a. Is the air quality data stored separately from all other data
YF.S NO
b. In what form is the data stored?
1. Originals or copies of source forms
2. Other agency forms
3. Other (specify)
c. What is the approximate volume of storage?
1. file drawers
2. other (specify)
A-ll
-------
25. What is the source of data for the air quality system?
a. SAROAD forms
b. Local agency forms
c. Other (specify)
26. List descriptive title and frequency of report that are regularly
prepared from the air quality data. Indicate distribution for those
used outside of the state.
27. How frequently is the air quality data file updated? (indicate
number of transactions)
a. As received for a total of transactions per
b. Daily in batches of transactions
c. Weekly in batches of transactions
d. Monthly in batches of transactions
e. Other (specify)
28. How long are air quality measurements kept in the active file?
a. Indefinitely
b. Until periodic summaries are available, the summarized data are
transferred to inactive (or history) file.
c. Until periodic summaries are available, then summarized data are
purged from the file
d. For years, then transferred to inactive (or history) file
e. Other (specify)
A-12
-------
29. a. Has the agency submitted air quality data in the SAROAD formats?
YES NO
b. If NO, why not?
30. a. Is the data in the agency's air quality data file compatible
with all elements of the SAROAD site and data reporting forms?
YES NO
b. If the answer to this is NO, briefly describe significant
problems arising from the requirement to report air quality
data in the SAROAD formats.
31. What procedures does the agency use to transmit quarterly air quality
reports to EPA regional offices?
a. SAROAD transaction forms
b. SAROAD transaction cards
c. Other (specify)
32. a. Considering only the filing, file maintenance, data processing or
compilation and report generation functions, how many man years
per year are employed to operate the air quality data system?
t<
b. If a computer based system is used:
1. How many programmers are regularly available to work on the
air quality system?
2. How many of these programmers use:
(a) COBOL
(b) FORTRAN
(c) Otheor (specify)
A-13
-------
33. Hoes the agency consider its air quality data handling procedures
generally adequate and efficient for neeting internal agency needs?
a. Yes
b. Yes, in most areas
c. Yes, in a few most significant areas
d. Vo
Connents:
A-1A
-------
FORM 1: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPUTER BASED
EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEM
STATE
SYSTEM NAME
DEVELOPED BY
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
TAPE !
CARDS :
DISK/DRUM
OTHER (SPECIFY) ;
IS THE SYSTEM
NEDS COMPATIBLE
FOR ?
INPUT
1
OUTPUT
UNITS OF MEASURE
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
BASIC CAPABILITY
FOR ?
FILE MAINTENANCE 1
DATA EDIT . !
DATA VALIDATION ;
EMISSION CALCULATIONS :
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL ' ;
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
GENERATION CAPA-
BILITY FOR
?
FORMATTED FILE DUMP :
MULTIPLE REPORT FORMS
SUMMARY REPORTS
VARIABLE FORMS
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE ?
ANSI COBOL
' 1
ANSI FORTRAN
OTHER (SPECIFY)
A-15
-------
FORM 2: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPUTER BASED
AIR QUALITY DATA FILE SYSTEM
STATE
SYSTEM NAME
DEVELOPED BY
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
< ' i
CARDS i
TAPE '
DISK/DRUM
OTHER (SPECIFY) ''
; IS THE SYSTEM
SAROAD COMPATIBLE
! FOR ?
INPUT
OUTPUT 1
UNITS OF MEASURE '
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
DOES THE SYSTEM
i HAVE A BASIC
1
CAPABILITY FOR
?
i
FILE MAINTENANCE |
DATA EDIT
DATA VALIDATION |
STATISTICAL PROCESSING
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL . j
1 DOES THE SYSTEM
i
! HAVE REPORT
j GENERATION CAPA-
: BILITY ?
i . _
FILE MAINTENANCE
MULTIPLE REPORT FORMS '
SUMMARY REPORTS i
STATISTICAL REPORTS
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE
7
n
ANSI COBOL i
ANSI FORTRAN .'
OTHER (SPECIFY) |
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY COMPILATIONS
-------
Appendix B
List of Charts
Numbe r
Title
Ref.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Agency Knowledge of NEDS, CDHS and SAROAD
Use of Special Reporting Formats
Agency Use of NEDS and SAROAD Facilities
Availability of Computer Facilities
Type of Emission Inventories at State Agencies
Capabilities of Computer Rased Systems at
State Agencies
Storage Characteristics of Manual E I Systems
Sources of Data for Emission Inventories
Size of Emission Inventories
Reported E I Size Compared to NEDS Data Base
Emmission Inventory Maintenance Practices
(Manual Systems)
Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices
(Computer Based System)
Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors
(Manual Systems)
Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors
(Computer Based Systems)
Manpower Requirements (Manual Systems)
Manpower Requirements (Computer Based Systems)
Methods Used to Submit Semi Annual Report
Compatibility of Agency Systems with NEDS
Agency Satisfaction with Current Emission
Inventory System
Summary of Form 1 Responses
Type of Air Ouality Data Systems
Air Ouality Data Editing
la - Id
Ic
2
3
4
5, 6, 20
7
8
9
0, 10, NEDS
12, 13
12, 13
14, 15
14, 15
16, 17, 19
16, 17, 19
18
20
21
Form 1
22
23
B-l
-------
Appendix B
List of Charts (Continued)
Number Title Kef.
23 Storage Concept Manual Air Quality Systems 24
24 Source Forms for Air Duality Data 25
25 Data Maintenance Concepts - Air Quality Systems 27
26 Storage Concepts for Air Ouality Data 28
27 Submission of SAROAD Data 29
28 SAROAD Compatibility 30
29 Method of Submitting AQ Data 32
30 Staffing Levels for AO Systems 32
31 Agency Satisfaction with Existing AO Systems 33
32 Air Ouality Data File System Summary Form 2
B-2
-------
Appendix B
List of Tables
Number Title PPf.
B-l Computational facilities Available to
State Agencies 3
TV-2 List of Computer Rased KT Systems Currently
in Use Form 1, ft, ?n
B-3 Compilation of Emission Inventory Sources P,
R-4 Summary of Staff Increases due to Semi Annual
Reports 17
B-5 List of Computer Rased Air Oualitv Systems
Currently in Use
R-3
-------
Ichart Number 1 Agency Knowledge of NEDS, CDHS and SAROAD
Questionaire Cross Reference la _ i*
i
Cfl
K
fH
i
CO
12
§
w
u
>-
C W a3AI3D3d
& g S3SNOdS3y
< TH
£ 2 NOID3d
w g Nl S3I3N39V
CO >
TO (3
PC -H
NOID3H
c
VC
O
vC
CO
en
o
SO
vO
co
o
>3-
C
sr
o
st
O
*
sf
^r
=
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
o
co
=
O
r-t
C
rH
iH
C
0
H
iH
CO
>
C
vO
m
en
lO
iH
C
SO
SO
co
>
c
m
c
in
c
m
o
m
m
in
>
o
sr
o
sr
CSJ
CSI
o
sr
sr
«fr
>
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
c
co
>
c
sr
o
vj
CO
!-t
c
sr
sr
co
X
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
0
tf
X
c
c
CO
ro
r^
es
si-
f-l
so
rH
O
O
en
0
CO
in
in
15
*-»
o
B-4
-------
Chart Number 2 Use of Special Reporting Formats
Questionaire Cross Reference le
Has the agency received approval to submit data to regional offices on locally devised forras?
o
!Z
CO
W
^
d3AI333a
S3SNOdS3a
NOID3U
Nl S3ION39V
NOI93d
vO
O
VC
co
«a-
o
-a-
^j-
t
I
c
(O
=
l-l
c
iH
00
>
CM
r-t
m
CO
>
c
in
m
LO
>
CM
«S
o-
*
>
1
1
o
CD
>
«*
C
vr
CD
X
1
I
o
*t
X
ON
i-H
CO
r--
CNI
LO
in
"TO
*-*
o
R-5
-------
iChart Number 3 Agency Use of NEDS and SAROAD Facilities
Questionaire Cross Reference 1
DAD systems?
AGENCY AWARENESS OF AVAILABLE
EPA SUPPORT
NEDS SAROAD
3 i
co c
: K
0 H O H
C CO < &
a ; w o c
& PS p-
co c <; PH
C W v: 5
£1 pi w
0)
4J
U-l
O i'
01 O
CO ' W H
3 H W Pi
. co P! o
0) W U PH
-C ' » fc 0,
«3 C- 5
e w w
p=:
f>-,
pi
O CO
S5 W
Pi
i
CO
w
>-
cS5
Kg
i
CO
£
i
CO
£
i
CO
K
^
g Q3AI333U
cc S3SNOdS3d
«
| NOI93B
Nl S3ION3DV
w
«fl
tr.
NOID3U
c
CN
-3"
C
>a-
CM
CM
St
n
en
vO
CD
o
c
sl-
o
c
>»
O
si"
c
sr
-*
c
c
vD
rH
Cs]
ro
i-l
in
ro
ro
^D
CD
>
C
m
o
o
st
rH
0
IT)
CN
cn
m
in
>
rH
cn
o
o
-*
0
0
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
c
to
>
c
rH
CO
H
rH
CM
rH
CO
rH
CO
sf
co
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
<*
X
r~i
iH
rH
00
rH
CN
U~l
rH
CO
rH
IT)
LO
CN
O
rH
C
CM
C
CO
Lf>
Lf)
"CD
4-1
£
-------
Chart Number 4 Availability of Computer Facilities
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 3
,
H-
c
»
c
r
P
o
ss
i £ H
£ 5s
pi co
i 6 &
r - --
O
£
, M CO
| |
8 1
Pi <
P, 3
<
P-
w
H
S3
K
P-
(r,
<
V,
>-
u
c
<
1
tO
§
1 1
V*
H
§
M H
V- &
& C
< fr-
hJ
M C
CO (C
S3 C
<: u
^
w o
pi c
C iH
^ Al
iJ
IS
u <
cl
Ss u
Q3AI303H
S3SNOdS3H
NOID3H
Nl S3IDN3DV
NOID3H
o
iH
(M
C
1-1
CS)
iH
CO
en
-a-
a-
*
o
vr
co
c
o
01
C
£»
CM
iH
CO
ro
CO
ro
en
i-H
sj-
n-
=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
o
co
=
o
iH
C
C:
i-H
C
iH
iH
11
iH
i 1
O
t-\
co
>
c
c
.-(
c
f>
c
CSI
n
CN
0")
00
PI
rH
CO
iH
c
c
CN
C
C
c
fS
1-t
iH
rH
O
iH
t-H
CM
^t
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
CO
>
c
c
CN
c
c
rH
O
1 1
iH
T-H
r-H
CN
CN
N?
CO
X
tf
X
iH
CN
v£>
rH
CN
m
CO
iH
r-
B-7
-------
CO
0)
H
CJ
§
tc
0)
4J
4->
C/2
4J
CO
0)
H
0
4J
0)
1 1
C
o
H
CO
(0
w
U-J
o
01
a
H
in
CD
.0
|
z
c
(0
U
c
o
H
4J
ca
01
o>
o
a>
k_
a>
'Si
DC
tf)
tn
O
O
2f
o
0)
a
COMPUTER
BASED
H
1
U l-i
C n)
3 u
1 iH
C «
s 3
S3SNOdS3d
NOID3H
Nl S3ION39V
NOID3H
c
i-i
o
m
VO
CD
o
l-l
c
M
-
-
1
1
1
1
o
CO
=
c
o
0
f-l
l-l
oo
2
rH
CM
O
en
*
CD
>
CM
O
o
CO
m
LO
>
CM
O
o
CM
-
»
5
1
1
1
1
O
CO
1
o
c
o
»
-
CO
X
1
1
1
1
O
-
X
m
-
o
CM
0
en
ID
ID
"ro
o
1-
B-8
-------
Chart Number 6 Capabilities of Computer Based El Systems at State Agencies
Questionaire Cross Reference 55 6, 20
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEDS
SPECIFICATIONS
XHO<
1VNOI.
EDITING
OUTPUT
COMPAT-
IBLE
to
££
££
fi-
CJ W
d P
V.
to
f-1
M
g
u
CJ
to
&
K
M
3
WHS
LDM1L1
H
M
g
<
EC
£-<
§
1 Pi
|P
C K^
CJ ,
^
i
to
K
>
Q3AI333H
S3SNOdS3d
NOID3B
Nl S3DN39V
NOID3U
r-(
i 1
t-t
rH
i-H
iH
i"-i
T-I
r-t
c
c
c
rH
rH
IO
r-l
r-1
r-t
iH
C
r-f
C
t-l
c
rH
rj"
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
(O
=
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
oo
>
rH
CM
CN|
tH
iH
iH
rH
1
C
r-t
rH
iH
C
cs
CD
>
fsl
CM
CM
CM
CM
CS
iH
CM
C
O
CM
iH
rH
CM
in
>
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
iH
CM
CM
C
c
o
CM
CM
>*
>
I
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
C
CD
>
1
1
1
'
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
to
xC
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
o
*
X
f-
1^
r»
\c
i^-
VC
U~l
VC
CO
CM
CO
ro
>3-
oo
in
in
"S
*->
0
B-9
-------
1
CO
E
CU
4J
CO
^-J
CO
M
_ J
^H
cfl
C
14H
O
CO
CJ
H
4J
03
H
l-l
cu
4-J
U
Cfl
CO
jC
CU
CO
t-l
o
4-1
CO
^
^
CU
1
3
t
(0
u
f*^
c
o
H
4J
CO
CU
O"
CU
o
c
CU
CD
CD
cc
VI
(T>
o
o
CD
:ionaii
*--
r-l
iH
t-t
CO
O
C
o
o
o
CM
rH
ro
CD
>
tH
C
CN
O
i-H
rH
iH
C
O
en
0
CO
LT5
>
C
c
CM
C
rH
O
rH
O
«N
O
0
CN
*f
>
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
I
1
O
CD
>
CN
tH
rH
CN
C
C
C
CN
c
-3-
X
m
<
c
rH
(--.
CO
CO
CO
m
-------
CO
r-l
i-<
O
rH
i-H
C
rH
f-l
O
CM
0
CM
in
co
>
CM
r-l
iH
C
c
O
c
c
O
n
iH
CM
m
in
>
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
C
O
C
c
O
O
O
<
^~
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
O
CO
>
3
c
It
0
O
O
O
O
O
c
0
c
sl-
CO
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
<*
X
-*
r-H
CM
CM
iH
m
CO
CM
rH
rH
c
c
rH
cn
r-^
ON
CM
Lf)
LD
"co
+-*
O
B-ll
-------
Chart Number 9 Type of Emission Inventories
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 9
AS REPORTED BY AGENCIES
WITH COMPUTER BASED
EMISSION INVENTORIES
ONI
sua
uasva-na
AS REPORTED BY ALL
AGENCIES
> 1 00 000
10000 -
2000O
1
o o
§§
in
1
o
0 0
o o
m
1
o
o o
m
LHOd3tf
LSAS
indwoD
OOOOOK
1 0000 -
20000
1
§0
0
o o
in
11
1 o
°8
Q3AI333d
S3SNOdS3H
NOI93d
Nl S3IDN3DV
NOI93U
o
o
i-H
O
c
iH
C
C
i-H
fO
CN
vO
CO
rH
O
O
C
o
rH
CN
O
O
c
CN
-*
^r
=
i
i
i
i
1
o
i
i
'
i
i
o
co
=
1
1
1
1
1
c
c
o
rH
O
0
i-H
CO
>
O
n
c
c
o
ro
o
P">
c
o
H
~*
CD
>
1
1
1
1
1
C
O
o
rH
o
O
i-l
in
>
c
o
iH
0
rH
CN
O
o
CN
O
CN
*
<*
>
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1
O
UD
>
1
1
1
1
1
O
c
c
iH
O
m
sr
CD
I
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
t
X
rH
f)
CN
O
i-H
r«
CN
CO
VD
C»1
O
iH
st
CN
U5
un
CD
4->
0
B-12
-------
Chart Number 10 Reported El Size Compared to NEDS Data Base
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 9, NEDS Report dated November 6, 1973
i
i c
0
in
o
0
c
to
CO 1
cu
0 ; C
r< , C
3 C
O iH
CO
CO
CO
cu
cj
X
, w
<4-< i O
0 i 0
m
cu
CiC 1
« 0
ft C
r
co
e
cu
4J
CO
5* 0
W C
CO CM
£5 *X3
CO
«N
rH
O
o
0
o
o
o
rH
i-H
O
-3"
05
>
C
C
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
rH
O
iH
rH
lf>
>
C
O
c
rH
c
i-H
O
0
c
CM
i-H
rH
CO
<3"
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
'
1
O
CO
>
o
o
o
rH
C
rH
O
O
o
CO
1
CO
-------
Chart Number 11 Emmission Invenotry Maintenance Practices (Manual Systems)
Questionaire Cross Reference Questions 12, 13
NUM. RESP. = Number of agencies responding.
REPL = Update by replacing entire system.
CORR « Update by correcting form in file.
AUDIT
TRAIL
UPDATING
FREOUENCY
METHOD FOR
UPDATING FILE
E-
M H
f^ p j
< W
PH
e? w
is
3£
C/2
C
*> s:
CM «
i-l tO
g
s»'
Is
«
p^
c
o
nJ
S PH
tD C^
^g
Q3AI3D3H
S3SNOdS3d
NOI93U
Nl S3IDN3DV
NOID3d
CN
CM
0
CM
CM
^a-
o
vr
st
ITS
CD
1
c
o
c
CM
CM
O
CM
CM
CO
1
C
rH
O
O
rH
O
CM
CM
CO
CD
>
1
O
o
CO
o
CO
o
CM
CM
CO
in
>
1
o
o
CM
o
CM
rH
rH
CM
CM
*
>
1
O
1
1
1
o
1
1
o
c
co
>
rH
rH
<3-
C
C
-------
Chart Number 12 Emission Inventory Maintenance Practice (Computer Based Systems)
m
iH
*i
CM
i-l
03
C
O
1-1
4-1
CO
01
&
i
i
i
o
o
rH
0
CN
CO
CM
r-l
PI
(O
>
CM
CN
CM
CM
rH
C
c
rH
CM
C
CM
CM
un
>
CM
CM
CM
CM
C
o
CSI
C
CM
O
CM
CM
^1-
>
1
1
1
O
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
0
CD
>
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
c
'
1
o
CO
X
1
1
1
o
'
1
1
1
1
'
1
o
*
X
vO
vC
vO
\O
t-H
CM
CM
sf
Oi
CO
vO
Oi
if)
in
"co
4-J
o
R-15
-------
[Chart Numbei 13 Storage Concept and Confidential Data Factors (manual Systems)
0
0)
oc
c
.c
o
in
Qucstionmre Cm- , H- fpron; .- Questions 14, 15
NUM. RESP. = number of agencies responding HISTORY = Emission inventory data that i
is put in a historical file
INDEF. - emission inventory data is kept
indefinitely
DISCARD « emission inventory is kept until
changed, replaced data is discarded
SYSTEM TO
PROTECT CON-
FIDENTIAL DATA
PERCENT OF SOURCES THAT
CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
DATA
RETENTION OF DATA
--4
1
1
1
' ' T H ' ; -
O 1 1 l.lrHrHO IfM 1 , ~3-
Z , ' 1 1
W 1
1
vO O
O ,
VD O
-» 0
CM O
rH C
53
C co
1
II 1
c o c
1
II
H I ; I
1 1
rH 1 1
£ to
B K f> CM, c o
' ' 1
1
to >-i
M pi CM
as o i
1 0
00 pi
So°
^ W CM
^"^ P3
*
fc
p W «O
G H O M (*\ ' Cj J s4
o n oi\ \_/ii ^*> j c*
NOi'.-Jt n
Nl S3IDN39V "
NOID3B -
1
C 1 i O
1
rH 110
rH I I i-l
t
CM O ' rH
^r CD ! oo
i
1
rH CM rH 1 rH | m
CM CO rH O CO 1 <^
1
J 1
1 j 1 rH 1 1 1 rH
j !
1 I 1 rH 1 1 1 CN
1 1,1 1 1 1 O
II 1 1 1 1 -*
| |
o o | CM o o o r^
i
H CM rH 1 ' rH 1 r»-
O O C 1 rH 1 CM
rH rH rH 1 CM 1 O
CM f> i CM O >* O i CO
CD LO ^ CO
-------
[Chart Numbt, ^ Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors (Computer Based Systems)
Questionoire Cross leferen, o Questions 14, 15
NUM. RESP. = number of agencies responding HISTORY = emission inventory data that is changed
INDEF - emission inventory data that is is put in historical file
kept indefinitely
DISCARD « emission inventory data is dis-
carded as new data becomes available.
AVAILABLE SYSTEM
TO PROTECT CON-
FIDENTIAL DATA
PERCENT OF SOURCES THAT
CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
DATA
RETENTION OF DATA
o
!z
CO
p
p*
£ to
5 W
K t>i
^0
-i
M (3d
EC 0
C/3 K
D O
1 CK
!Z W
W 0
PH
£ C/3
5 W
fe C*
QSAId'iaa
S3SNOdSiH
NOiOaH
Nl S3ION3DV
NOiD3b
t
O
i-H
TH
O
O
0
iH
^^
[
o
o
rH
rH
CD
1 1
I
. .
1 1 1
1 1 1
CM
rH
O O O f)
1
H ' 1 \ 1
;
O.I 1
I
O II
O
-
O
O 1 ! CM
O
t-i o ;
O 1
, ' i
r-f
i
i
i i
o
I
1
0 0
i-H
.-! O O
*3 U; CO
\
= E!>
CO
CM
iH
CO
CO
CD
>
i .
1
1
: i
i
CM IH ' I ii m
i
O rH 1 1 1 , CO
1
CM CS O O O ! 00
1
1
O rH 1 1 1 CM
,
O 1 1 1 rH
O rH | 1 1 rH
1 '
1
CM , i i i in
CM CM O O O ' O1
i
O rH 1 1 1 -*
rH O 1 1 1 CM
i i ;
rH rH 1 1 1 CO
1 i '
CM ' CM 1 1 1 O-.
1
I ; '
CM 1 CM O O O Ol
' i
in «a- CD x> M- [^
.
>JM;S x i
i i
R-17
-------
CO
4J
rH
as
3
C
CO
U
§
i
rH
- i
rH i
i
g vo |
0) rH ' 03
l-i : Hi
ri
3
0) 1 01
C
O'i O
0)
PS
C
o
H O.
4J
to
^1
41)
Q)
co
0)
3
5 cr M-I
0 O
ex
Cs|
i-t
CO
rH
r4
CM
O
rH
C
o
rH
CM
C^
CD
>
CO
o
ro
CO
C
rr
iH
c
CN
c
o
ro
CO
un
>
J
r-H
iH
CN
rH
?H
CM
rH
C1
0
o
rH
CM
CM
1
1
O
1
1
o
1
1
1
1
1
\
o
CO
>
CO
rH
-3-
CM
rH
CO
O
CN
O
0
rH
cn
-------
Chart Number 15 (Continued) Manpower Requirements (Manual Systems)
Questionaire Cross Reference Questions 16, 17, 19
.on Inventory compiled and submitted by contractor
REASONS FOR NON-SUBMITTAL
pi
g
s
oo
K &
H@
ig
6
Z
O
o
$ Q3AI333H
B sssNOdssa
w
" NOID3U
| NIS3IDN3DV
u
NOI93U
cs
O
c
o
(N
to
r-H
iH
O
fN
Tf
=
1
1
1
1
O
(O
E
i
i
.
i
o
co
>
I
i
i
i
o
(X)
>
o
o
c
CO
PO
if)
>
c
o
c
iH
iH
1
1
1
1
O
CD
>
1
1
1
Cvl
tM
CD
X
1
1
1
I
o
t
X
CM
,-)
iH
vO
O
r-H
in
in
15
+^
o
B-19
-------
Chart Number 16 Manpower Requirements (Computer Based System)
Questionaire Cross Reference Questions 16, 17, 19
REASON FOR
NON-SUB-
MITTAL
AGENCY HAS RE-
PORTED IN NEDS
FORMAT
FEDERAL RE-
PORTING LOSES
IMPACT
MANPOWER
(man-years)
O to
Zfc
O
C3
O
55
CO
PC
>"
p-l
X w
Is
o
2:
C/3
P
(^
X c/3
B w
5 PJ
in
fi
1
CM
CM
1
iH
i-i
i
s'fe
Is
Q3AI333H
S3SNOdS3a
NOI03H
Nl S3ION3DV
NOID3U
o
I-(
iH
C
H
i-H
0
O
O
H
i-<
fl
CO
_
i-4
r-H
O
r-l
iH
O
iH
0
r-<
O
0
I-I
?H
vr
=
1
1
o
1
1
o
1
I
1
1
o
o
to
=
1
1
o
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
o
o
co
>
I-I
I-I
CM
CO
rH
o
i-H
CM
O
O
^
co
CO
CO
>
t-l
i-H
«s
CN
0
CN
i-l
O
o
iH
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
C
CM
O
o
iH
t-H
CM
CM
*
>
1
1
O
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
o
o
co
>
1
1
o
1
1
o
1
1
1
1
o
o
CO
X
1
1
o
1
1
o
1
1
1
1
o
o
cr\
in
LD
15
^
1.2
B-20
-------
co
4J
n
ex
0)
04
rH
j
w
4J
1-1
1
CO
O
4J
"8
n
;=>
09
O
J
4J
0}
a
I**
rH
k_
0)
.O
E
3
2
t
co
.c
o
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 18
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEMS
co
CO £
O S
W 0
55 fa
rH
O
O
O
CS
cn
CM
rH
O
n
v£
CC
>
rH
0
o
o
rH
CM
rH
O
Csl
m
m
Lf>
>
0
o
CM
O
c
CM
CM
O
c
CM
sr
*t
>
I
1
I
I
I
o
i
i
i
o
o
CD
>
1
1
1
1
1
O
rH
O
0
rH
iH
(D
X
'
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
'
C
o
5t
X
CM
rH
m
c
n
o
o
rH
>a-
f>
t
rH
-------
Chart Number 18 Compatibility of Agency Systems with NEDS
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 20
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEM
u fe
f& W
CO O
to
< w
H P*
< p
P H
UNITS
u
8
H
U W
& P
CO g
^
§
O J
E W
cZ
X CO
P Cd
5 es
O Pn
pi W
CO O
co
< W
%£
P H
CO
H
W
c_>
%
trf
£
u
u p
Pi 55
CO M
& W
Q3AI303H
S3SNOdS3H
NoiDsy
Nl S3I3N3DV
NOI93H
l-l
rH
rH
r-(
rH
rH
CM
ro
CO
ro
>*
sr
<0
-
rH
rH
o
O
i-H
rH
<3"
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
co
=
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C
o
o
o
o
rH
rH
CO
>
rH
CM
CM
rH
rH
rH
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
>
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
in
>
CO
CO
CO
CM
i-H
0
CM
O
O
o
o
o
CM
CM
-3-
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
I
1
1
1
1
1
o
CD
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
CO
rH
CO
CM
CM
rH
-JT
CO
X
1
I
I
1
I
I
O
1
'
1
1
1
1
o
<*
X
r--
oo
VO
vO
vO
rH
O>
r-t
rH
O
rH
CM
rH
rH
rH
CM
rH
-*
r>.
rH
l£>
in
"CD
«-*
o
B-22
-------
Chart Number 19 Agency Satisfaction with Current Emission Inventory System
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 21
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEMS
to
M
H H
iS3
1
&
g
w
M
H
$
(C
S to
S W
E f*1
to
M
0 <
!Z to
1
i
to
M O
H W
< M
to fa
Q3AI3D3H
S3SNOdS3H
NOI93U
Nl S3IDN39V
NOID3H
C
O
rH
O
i-l
CM
CM
0
rH
u-i
(£>
O
o
o
tH
rH
T-\
O
O
rH
CS
tj
=
1
1
1
I
O
1
1
1
1
O
CD
1
1
1
1
0
r-<
O
O
o
iH
03
>
CM
O
rH
O
CO
en
o
o
o
CO
CD
>
O
i-H
rH
O
CM
co
o
o
CO
in
>
o
o
o
CM
CM
O
o
iH
.-H
CM
SJ-
5
,
1
1
1
1
O
1
1
1
1
0
CD
>
1
1
1
1
O
CO
rH
0
O
Si-
CD
X
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
1
1
o
*
X
~
CM
rH
CO
CO
cr.
o
rH
VO
rH
CO
O
CM
LT5
in
15
+-<
o
R-23
-------
CHART 20
SUMMARY OF FORM 1 RESPONSES
TOTAL SYSTEMS - 6
.
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
TAPE
1
CARDS
DISK/DRUM
TAPE AND DISK
3
2
IS THE SYSTEM
NEDS COMPATIBLE
FOR ?
INPUT 1
OUTPUT
UNITS OF MEASURE
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
2
2
1
3
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
BASIC CAPABILITY
FOR ?
FILE MAINTENANCE
DATA EDIT
DATA VALIDATION
EMISSION CALCULATIONS
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL
6
6
5
3
4
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
GENERATION CAPA-
BILITY FOR
7
FORMATTED FILE DUMP
MULTIPLE REPORT FORMS
SUMMARY REPORTS
VARIABLE FORMS
4
3 ;
5
3
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE ?
ANSI COBOL
ANSI FORTRAN
BOTH
2
2
2
B-24
-------
09
1
4-1
CO
WJ
tO
4J
0)
o
4J
rH
n)
*o
CO
(V
p.
rH
CJ
.C5
E
to
6
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 22
COMPUTER
BASED
w
I
i|
AVAIL
*
o
I
Q3AI3D3H
S3SNOdS3H
NOID3d
Nl S3IDN3DV
NOID3H
o
rH
rH
-
*
CO
-
CN
rH
-
"
=
1
1
1
1
O
CD
=
O
rH
0
O
-
CO
>-
CO
rH
CN
\o
CO
>
ro
O
rH
rH
m
LO
>
O
o
r-J
c.
-
-
5
'
i
i
i
o
CO
1
o
rH
m
-
CO
X
1
1
'
1
o
'
x
-»
«
n
rH
a
LO
ID
16
4-*
1
B-25
-------
oc
a
4J
H
o
w
cs
4J
a
P-,
4-1
H
l-l
to
<§-
(-1
H
<
CN
CSI
£
.a
E
^
2
C
CO
U
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 23
S3
H
; s
i
: c
W
CO
3
*g
W M
H H
£5 M
£6
C_>
I
r ' " " '
.J O
< 2
E3 M
^C H4
^g
!
i
1
j"' ~
(I) CO
4J I
co 8
^ w
to
-"
o
o
o
n
c
tH
C
1-1
iri
in
>
C
o
,H
O
O
1 i
c
CS
<»
*
>
-
i
" "
i
i
i
I
i
i
1
o
to
>
1
i
- -
iH
C
o
o
c
c
0
04
-------
Chart Number 23 Storage Concept - Manual Air Quality System
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 24
SEP STR - Air quality stored in separate file
STORAGE VOLUME
(file drawers)
FORM OF
STORAGE
o
i-H
vO
vO
1
f)
CN
i
S§
0
l-l
(*
o
o< a
W H
CO CO
Q3AI3D3d
sssNOdssy
NOID3d
Nl S3IDN3DV
NOID3d
0
i-i
f>
CM
cs
-*
-*
CO
o
o
T-l
r-4
O
i-H
r-l
f
=
1
1
1
1
1
'
O
co
=
I
I
I
i
i
I
o
CO
>
I
I
I
rH
0
O
iH
0
iH
iH
in
>
0
o
CN
iH
rH
C-J
CN
^3"
>
1
1
1
1
1
i
o
to
>
c
0
CM
m
0
0")
CO
ID
X
1
1
1
1
'
o
o
<*
X
iH
r-l
oo
o
rH
m
co
iH
ro
r-l
if)
LT>
"(D
^~>
O
B-27
-------
id
tfl
o
4-1
H
iH
«0
rt
O
0)
e
o
0)
u
o
sfr
CM
k_
0)
E
2
C
CO
6
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 25
PUNCHED CARD
SYSTEMS
COMPUTER BASED
SYSTEMS
MANUAL
SYSTEMS
!J
PT^ Q
£ CO
LOCAL
p
i "
i
< §
CO O
ii
S3SNOdS3y
NOID3d
Nl S3I3N3DV
NOID3U
o
i-H
-
O
rH
iH
CM
CM
sj
CD
1
1
O
CM
0
CM
O
1-t
r-l
»
1
1
O
1
t
O
1
1
o
CD
=
1
1
O
o
f-l
tH
1
1
O
co
z
\
1
c
CO
^
*
0
CM
CM
CD
>
O
-
rH
O
^
CO
o
iH
rH
ID
>
O
CM
CM
.
1
O
i-H
.H
CM
-
§
1
O
1
.
c
1
1
0
CD
1
1
C
rH
O
iH
C
M
CO
CD
X
1
1
O
1
1
O
*
X
o
«*
-4-
SO
vo
CM
rH
CO
O
CO
Lf>
LO
"CD
O
B-28
-------
Chart Number 25 File Maintenance Concepts - Air Quality System
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 27
I
'
INTERVAL BETWEEN UPDATES
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEMS
"i
iH ^
Cog
^g
£ P-
5 co
!z; w
i*
*
CO
"g
Hg
*
co 5
< fc
Pi
P*
S to
Q3AI303a
S3SNOdS3d
NOID3d
Nl S3I3N3DV
NOID3d
i-t
o
o
iH
O
rH
CO
sr
CO
o
CN
CN
o
o
l-l
t-l
<*
=
1
!
1
c
1
1
1
o
(D
O
tH
O
tH
1
1
1
O
oo
>
-*
o
o
-*
rH
O
0
iH
CO
>
rH
CN
O
CO
o
o
iH
iH
\r>
>
1
1
1
o
rH
H
O
tN
et-
>
1
1
1
O
1
1
1
O
CD
>
!-(
O
iH
0
rH
fH
«N
CO
X
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
O
-3-
X
!-
ro
CM
CN
t-H
CN
m
v£>
i-H
i-l
in
LO
"ro
+-*
o
B-29
-------
Chart Number 26 Storage Concepts for Air Quality Data
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 28
A.Q. data stored in active file for 1-2 years, then transferred to inactive
or history file
i
tt>
fc
H cvj
U I
< iH
1 f^
K W
H 0
- Q3AI3D3H
JS S3SNOdS3U
j" NOID3d
NIS3IDN3DV
H
<
NOID3U
i-l
in
m
CD
iH
sr
sj-
^
=
1
1
o
CO
r-H
fH
1-1
CO
>
f>
v£>
vO
(O
>
;
1 |----|
j
1
iH
iO
lA
LD
1
O
-*
^r
i
>
i
I
o
CO
>
1
_..
c
m
en
OD
1
X
1
1
r 1
O
<3-
X
i
1
1 1
i
1
o
CO
(N
«,
,"
!
LO
LD
T
*->
if.
B-30
-------
Chart Number 27 Submission of SAROAD Data
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 29
The number of states in each region that have submitted SAROAD data as measured
by the NEDS report system are entered in the column labeled "NEDS" and were
extracted from the NEDS report "States Generally in Compliance with SIP Reporting
Regulation" dated September 10, 1973.
0
BJ
CJ
0*
@
CO
2
&
w
O
0
i-3
CO
Q
O
&
CO
fa
>*
i
CO
S3
g
CO
w
!*
d3AI3D3a
S3SNOdS3d
NOID3d
Nl S3ION3DV
NOI93U
CO
O
o
o
r-4
O
sr
u-i
CO
CM
O
iH
O
«N
O
i-l
vf
-3-
O
O
iH
fl
O
Cvl
vO
CD
>
-*
O
i-l
O
CO
0
iH
m
LO
>
vr
o
CM
O
O
o
cs
vt
^t
>
s-**
-*
>«x
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
CD
>
. _^ _
i i
1 J '
.
m
c
o
0
r-t
o
f>
- r-
B-31
-------
>.
4-1
H
r-l
rl
3
4-1
CO
CJ
§
3
oo
CN|
u.
0)
.a
E
D
z
r
CO
O
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 30
jle with SAROAD specifications for data submittal
MANUAL COMPUTER BASED PUNCH CARD
OO
&u
u
gg
Sao
s
CJ
oo
!ZCJ
s
o
% Q3AI3D3a
a S3SNOdS3B
|
" NOI93B
1 Ni S3IDN3DV
§
cj>
NOID3y
o
rH
O
r-l
O
sr
u->
co
_
O
CM
o
i-H
PI
^J-
=
1
1
1
.
O
CO
=
o
iH
1
1
i-(
00
>
o
<
o
cs
*£>
CO
>
O
1-1
o
m
o
iH
<
in
>
t-t
TH
1
1
1-1
tH
«N
T
>
1
1
1
1
O
CO
1
i-H
O
O
PI
-3-
CD
X
1
1
1
.
o
sf
.:.
r-l
CO
rH
.-(
rH
-I
\°
B-32
-------
Chart Number 29 Method of Submitting AQ Data
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 31
PUNCHED-CARD
SYSTEMS
SAROAD
COMPUTER BASED
SYSTEMS
MANUAL
SYSTEMS
SAROAD
SAROAD
@
e
o
CO
s
<
CJ
CO
£
<£
w
1
CO
1
CJ
CO
§
£
co
to
g
Q3AI333H
S3SNOdS3H
NOI939
Nl S3ION39V
NOID3U
O
rH
H
O
O
o
o
-*
CO
_
o
CM
O
C
O
i-H
*d-
'
1
1
1
1
1
co
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
oo
>
iH
CO
o
o
H
f-l
CO
>
O
iH
O
«M
r-t
O
O
rH
LT>
>
tM
1
1
1
'
CN
0
«t
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
>
iH
O
O
O
O
CO
to
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
^J-
X
CN
CM
cn
oo
tH
O
CO
O
rH
LO
in
"S
4-*
O
B-33
-------
Chart Number 30 Staffing Levels for AQ Systems
CM
n
c
0
H
4-1
S
&
CD
0
CO
o3
H
Q>
OC
CO
co
o
CJ
0)
k_
'5
c
o
+-»
10
0)
D
O
i
STAFFING LEVEL IN MAN YEARS
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEMS
o
i-H
0
rH
1
m
m
I
n
f>
I
rH
rH
i
O
r-(
0
r-1
in
m
PO
CO
1
iH
iH
i
Q3AI3D3y
S3SNOdS3y
IMOID3d
Nl S3I3N39V
NOID3U
O
O
o
iH
O
0
rH
O
CM
rH
co
_
rH
O
O
H
O
O
C
o
o
rH
^t
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(O
=
O
o
o
rH
O
1
1
1
1
1
co
>
o
o
o
f)
c
1
1
1
1
1
CD
>
C
O
o
I
I
I
i
I
o
o
o
o
CM
- -,
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
CD
>
0
O
rH
C
o
o
o
o
o
CO
co
X
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<*
X
rH
O
]
*
i
GO
O
O
rH
O
CO
r-
in
in
5
LiL
B-34
-------
Chart Number 3! Agency Satisfaction with Existing AO System
Questionaire Cross Reference Question 33
SAT - Agency generally satisfied with existing system
MOST - Agency satisfied with most aspects of existing system
SOME - Agency satisfied with a few aspects of existing system
NOT SAT - Agency generally dissatisfied with existing system
<
o
PS
c_>
ft*
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
MANUAL SYSTEM
H
H <
O W
^
O
CO
H
CO
s
H
<
CO
H
SS§
g
S
K
i
H
S5
H
S33
1
H
CO
i
H
3
Q3AI303y
S3SNOdsay
NOID3y
N! S3IDN3DV
NOID3U
i
i
.
I
o
o
o
1-1
m
o
r-l
O
m
CO
i-l
O
O
O
o
CN
O
C
O
tH
rn
M-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
co
=
O
o
c
rH
1
!
1
1
r-\
CO
>
O
iH
O
*-*
o
CN
O
i-l
rH
0
o
o
CM
1
1
1
1
o
o
1-1
iH
CM
s±
>
I
I
!
1
'
1
1
|
O
CO
>
o
rH
O
O
M
0
o
I-l
f>
<:o
_
X
"
I
1
1
I
1
1
'
!
O
T
X
CM
O
o
-------
CHART 32
AIR QUALITY DATA FILE SYSTEM
SUMMARY
TOTAL SYSTEM - 13
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
CARDS
TAPE
DISK/DRUM
5
3
5
IS THE SYSTEM
SAROAD COMPATIBLE
FOR $
INPUT
OUTPUT
UNITS OF MEASURE
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
9
11
11
10
10
DOES THE SYSTEM
HAVE A BASIC CAPA-
BILITY FOR
?
FILE MAINTENANCE
DATA EDIT
DATA VALIDATION
STATISTICAL PROCESSING
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL
12
13
11
11
12
DOES THE SYSTEM
HAVE A REPORT
GENERATION CAPA
BILITY ?
FORMATTED FILE DUMP
MULTIPLE REPORT FORMS
SUMMARY REPORTS
STATISTICAL REPORTS
9
10
12
9
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE ?
ANSI COBOL
ANSI FORTRAN
BOTH
5 !
!
3 !
5 1
R-36
-------
5 <
< <
sa
x-s
P>J
Is
<
c/j
a
^
H
^
OS
3
M
fe
8
O C/J
Z H
S
8
J
W
1
H
y|
B
H
10
Q
M
0
3
I !M
i >
I-H
U
PL.
O
CO
tH
^
O
in
in
o
en
^
CQ
M
3
U
r4
4J
U
E
B
O
U
l-l
OS
1^4 M K* ^f
r* 9* f *z*
ai
>.>>- z
O V O
-* CM m
i-i
ft^ W X
O *o in
t-l CM i-t
in
c m
» rH
~- o -^
coo
en vo en
11
fH O O
01 a. a.
5 at u
P, b b
01
SQ O PQ O O
l-l 33 M B B
to ai
O u b
B 4-" -H
a o> .E
iH 0] 09
n 3 a.
l-f .E 6 4J
u eg B
oi ai eg 33 0
o E ra g
O -H 09 ;* b
£ S X z >
OS OS
OS
> > Z
o
»-!
M
PL. PL, ^,
en
^-*
U 0
vogsr
SM£ btl ^
O O O
o o to
r- in i-i
in in
in in
< i-i
-^.«. o
000
i i m
09
X
00
b
S £ b
CO M 3
i-i 1-4 a
0
u
<
b
01 ?
3 01
PL, Z
*-l
M
>>
c-
O-
g
^j
O
m
r*
in
-a- o1
r^ i-l
o a
i i i
0)
b
91
U
3
U
a o
M E
CO
o
B
eo
Ol' 0)
n M
01 B
"5:
3 b
O> i-l
K >
>* >M>*>H>-tZ>-'>' Z>-"
O* O" O" O" O" O* O
M >-< M 1 1
WWW U
(b (b (b b. b, PL. PL,
o;
. . -z
CJ CJ O U O U
sD OeM«*CM^afcOPS so
CM ,-t CM Z
^ t^J^&^&«*S!*e* *>e<
c m \o -^-'o CM o CM
-( Z CM in CM
m in in m
%o m m ^o
H i-l >-l i-H
^^OOO*-~*^ vo
ooooooo o
e
01
b
o
a
U U 01 U
H 2u £ O iH C_? 22^ AJ ^
C P3 CQ O B Q PQ PQ O E
*~> h^ 1 1 QJ ^. [J ) 4 ^-4 (3 J3
B eg
(0 E iH *J 03
(Q i^ eg to o eg eg
13 O C£ Bo) B CO
H B-H OO1 r3 Bto
b -H sz (JEOn e3ig
o -4o ojBi-i-a * *
(-1 i-*i-4 ^H^IJTE bew
PL. MS 3201-1 - > M
1-4 J»
l>- 35 K
M
Cd
o o
g en
2 z
m
^ V
r-l >-l
~- J3
O eg o
eg
Ol
4J
3
|
*S E
CQ O ff5
MEM
0
eg u
6 S x
£ w K
n 1-1
H 3 3
j: o ai
0 J Z
« o;
Z Z £" Z
z > >- z
l-l M
u a
(X
*
u
»
w
oo
01
M
eg 0
H en
eg
5^
b 0} cy
o) *J *J
4J b b
3 O O
a a. c.
S 01 01
Ob b
U
o o pa o
e B M B
1-1 a
3 « CO
O W eg
B b OS to
OJ ^j ^ C
-r4 o O eg
£ Z i * ^6
M
M
OS
Z
h
O
tei
M5
tJ\
0
O
en
O
a
u
tg
i-i
E
O
H
M
eg
O
X
M
^, gj jg
>i Z Z
g
z
g
0) Q)
iH iH
U3 JO
O eg eg
en "H M
eg tg
a eg
01 0)
4J 4J
3 3
c- a.
§§
_ o u
S 0 0
M E B
eg T-«
Pi eg £
> s o
u eg 3
Z X O
O 4-1
4J 09
B >s
01 01
C >,
iH 4J
B -!
O ffl
H 3
0]
*rl b
8
O At
U 4J
Ol b b
iH O O
fll JS O. Q.
-i eg a p.
J> i-l 3 3
eg -H cc to
^ J* O O
eg eg 4J 4-i
eg b -a -a
o) o) tu
b »H 0) CO
01 -H 3 3
M A.
^1 B 01 01 09
a O .a j3 b
B u «)
o g g tg 1-1
>J w B
O H b b O
PQ PS Q) O O
O O 4-1 4-1
O tn 3 3 M
a a. 10
M M B B Z
Z Z cj o
< < Ol
to o> >
to n 01 01 eg
eg 01 4J w j:
4J 4J eg eg
eg eg u U 4J
O O M -r-l O
i-l «H T3 TJ B
0 -0 E 6
B B iH -H a>
^ -rt a)
U (U U] < O
0)
tl
1-f
u
1
4-1
m
o
4-1
0)
1-1
§
l-f
f-t
I
o
-------
K
CO
!Z
M
hJ
i~*
1
u
CO
CM S
1 H
PQ CO
W CO
lJ
« p
H co
as
pi
H
1
o
O
O
H
CO
O
H on
M <
CO
l&
M CO
ft.
CO
H Cu
^ r*
O H
CJ fa
erf w
CO O
CO
H
M
S
U
o
CO
g
Cx3
o
5
CO CO O
0) CU JS
CO CO O
cu cu ^
{H >.
CO CO O
eu cu g:
p-t ^-4
CO O CO
cu g; CU
> ><
CO O CO
cu s cu
>H >,
CO O O
CU JZ fi
^4
co co o
cu cu ^
> fH
(0
o
2;
CO
0)
co
cu
CO
0)
CO
cu
co
cu
Cfl
0)
co
cu
w
cu
co
(U
CO
cu
CO
cu
co
cu
CO
0)
CO
cu
CO
cu
CO
cu
co
cu
CO
cu
CN
CN
CO
0)
CO
cu
CO
cu
m
cu
M
I-l
(0
4J
CO
w
S!
Crt
CO
M M W
a s H
M
X
R-38
-------
TABLE B-3
COMPILATION OF EMISSION INVENTORY SOURCES
Survey Resxilts
Region State NEDS*
I Connecticut 477
Massachusetts 1048
Rhode Island 164
Maine 382
New Hampshire 287
Vermont 146
II New York
New Jersey 1469
Puerto Rico 343
Virgin Islands 85
IV Florida 205
V Illinois 2695
Michigan 1124
Wisconsin 897
Minnesota 716
Ohio 3242
Indiana 1616
VI New Mexico 1177
Texas 4027
Arkansas 694
Oklahoma 823
Louisiana 1250
VII Missouri 512
Nebraska 210
Iowa
Kansas 346
IX California 2688
Nevada 300
Hawaii 476
Guam 12
Reported Area Sources
Point Sources
4000-5000
800
100
650
578
500
150,000
110,000
500
85
3,000
15,000
12,000
500
not reported
not reported
9,000
not reported
not reported
not reported
not reported
1,000
300
300
4,500
5,000
4000-6000
200
400
20
Number
9200
variable grids
0
unknown
10
0
0
0
3
67 + grids
96
not reported
72
not reported
not reported
not reported
32
not reported
72
76
64
115
93
100
not reported
58
16
6
not reported
Method
Conn, grid
UTM and MASS
none
region
county
counties
none
none
none
counties
counties, UTM
counties
not reported
counties
not reported
not reported
not reported
counties
not reported
counties
counties
counties
counties
counties
counties
not reported
counties
counties
counties
not reported
NEDS - data extracted from NEDS summary report dated
November 6, 1973. Data entries are numbers of "Plant-Points."
B-39
-------
TABLE B-4
Question 17
C
M
M
M
M
M
C
M
M
M
M
C
C
C
M
M
M
C
C
M
M
M
M
C
C
M
M
M
M
M
SUMMARY OF STAFF INCREASES AND IMPACTS
OCCASIONED BY SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
OF EMISSION INVENTORY DATA
% Increase No Increase
Impact Prev Rpt
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Ohio
Indiana
New Mexico
Texas
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
California
Nevada
Hawaii
Guam
100% 1/2
not reported
no increase
not reported
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
unknown
not reported
no increase
not reported
not reported
100%
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
no increase
small 1
no increase
no increase
no increase
yes
no increase
not reported
no increase
decrease manpower
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
unknown
manpower from
other section
none
manpower from
other section
no impact
unknown
yes
NR
yes
NO
NO
NR
NO
NO
yes
NO
yes
NO
yes
yes
yes
NO
NO
NO
yes
NO
NO
NO
yes
yes
yes
NO
NO
yes
NO
NO
R-40
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION1 NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
State Air Data Information Survey
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5. REPORT DATE
January 1974
7. AUTHOR(S)
T. H. Lewis
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
International Business Machines Corporation
Federal Systems Division
18100 Frederick Pike
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AE152
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1008
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
National Air Data Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The results of the State Air Data Survey were based on the states for which
information was available in a timely fashion. The techniques presently used to
store, access and maintain emission inventory and air quality files; significant
problems associated with maintaining and using such files; and ant Lcipated
problems in meeting the proposed Federal regulations for the State quarterly
and semi-annual reporting requirements, especially as related to providing data
in standard EPA formats were addressed in this survey.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Computer
Automatic Data Processing (ADP)
Air Pollution
Systems
Aerometric
Survey
Information Systems, Emissions
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
NEDS
SAROAD
NADB
National Emission Data
System
Storage of Retrival of
Aerometric Data
c. COSATl Held/Group
13 B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReportj
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
130
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
B-41
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date oj issut, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.j.
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary postmg(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
B-42
------- |