STATUS OF NADB
DATA SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Of fire of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-75-065
STATUS OF NADB
DATA SYSTEMS
by
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Suite 13
Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-1375
Task No. 10
EPA Project Officer: Gerald Nehls
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
April 1975
-------
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 oJ 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 for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
PEDCo-En vironmental Specialists , Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio 45246, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1375. Tin- contenls of this report art?
reproduced herein as received from PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc. 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-450/3-75-065
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared by PEDCo-Environmental Specialists
under the direction of Mr. Charles E. Zimmer, Project Director.
Mr. David W. Armentrout served as Project Manager.
We would like to express our appreciation to the following
EPA offices for participating in this survey and for providing
technical information:
0 U.S. EPA Region I
U.S. EPA Region II
0 U.S. EPA Region III
0 U.S. EPA Region IV
0 U.S. EPA Region V
0 U.S. EPA Region VI
0 U.S. EPA Region VII
0 U.S. EPA Region VIII
0 U.S. EPA Region IX
0 U.S. EPA Region X
0 Office of Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.
0 Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Compliance
and Analysis Section, Washington, D.C.
0 Control Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
0 Human Studies Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
0 Strategies and Air Standards Division, Durham,
North Carolina
0 National Air Data Branch, Durham, North Carolina
0 Office of Administration, Washington, D.C.
111
-------
0 Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, Durham,
North Carolina
0 Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.
A complete list of individuals interviewed is in Appendix C.
Mr. Gerald Nehls, National Air Data Branch, served as
Project Officer for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Nehls accompanied the interview team on the Regional
Office visits. We wish to thank Mr. Nehls for his valuable
assistance .
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a survey conducted
among the Regional Offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and among selected Environmental Protection Agency
offices in Washington, D.C., in Durham, North Carolina, and
at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Recommendations
for improvements in or additions to the current NADB systems
were discussed. Specifications were written for those
recommendations with sufficient available information.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ABSTRACT
LIST
1.0
2.0
OF TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 . 1 Background
1.2 Approach
1.3 Survey Results
1.3.1 NEDS Recommendations
1.3.2 SAROAD Recommendations
1.3.3 Recommendations for Other Systems
1 . 4 Problem Areas for NEDS and SAROAD
1.5 Implementation Priorities
TECHNICAL REPORT
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Purpose and Scope
2.1.2 Interview Approach
2.2 Summary of Results
2.2.1 NEDS Recommendations
2.2.2 SAROAD Recommendations
2.2.3 SOTDAT Results
2.2.4 HATREMS Recommendations
2.2.5 SIP Rules and Regulations
Recommendations
2.2.6 APER Form Recommendations
2.2.7 QAMIS Recommendations
2.2.8 Administrative Recommendations
Page
iii
V
ix
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-4
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-14
2-29
2-29
2-34
2-35
2-36
2-37
Vll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.3 Applications Categories 2-38
2.3.1 Data Base Operations 2-38
2.3.2 Data Analysis 2-44
2.3.3 Modeling 2-49
2.4 Implementation Priorities 2-49
2.4.1 NEDS 2-49
2.4.2 SAROAD 2-54
2.5 Implementation Requirements 2-61
2.5.1 Implementation Requirements for 2-62
NEDS
2.5.2 Implementation Requirements for 2-62
SAROAD
APPENDIX A TASK DESCRIPTIONS, NEDS A-l
APPENDIX B TASK DESCRIPTIONS, SAROAD B-l
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW SUMMARIES C-l
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Survey Recommendations for Improving NEDS 2-5
2 Status of Recommended NEDS Applications In 2-15
Terms of Implementation
3 Number of Users Expressing Interest in NEDS 2-17
Recommendations
4 Survey Recommendations for Improving SAROAD 2-19
5 Status of Recommended SAROAD Applications In 2-30
Terms of Implementation
6 Number of Users Expressing Interest In SAROAD 2-32
Recommendations
7 Survey Recommendations Related to Data Base 2-38
Operation
8 Survey Recommendations Related to Data Analysis 2-44
9 Benefits To Be Realized From Implementation of 2-51
Applications - NEDS
10 Priority Assignments for NEDS Applications 2-55
11 Benefits To Be Realized From Implementation of 2-56
Applications - SAROAD
12 Priority Assignments for SAROAD Applications 2-60
13 NEDS Data Base Operation - Implementation 2-63
Requirements
14 NEDS Data Base Analysis - Implementation Re- 2-64
guirements
15 SAROAD Data Base Operation - Implementation 2-66
Requirements
16 SAROAD Data Analysis - Implementation Require- 2-67
ments
IX
-------
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains
extensive computerized systems for the storage and retrieval
of data on air quality measurements and air contaminant
emissions. The EPA system for handling air quality data is
the Storage and Retrieval of Aeromatic Data (SAROAD), and
the system for handling emissions data is the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS). The National Air Data Branch
(NADB) is developing systems to handle other types of data
such as rules and regulations data and source test data.
These systems are in various stages of development. In
addition, various changes to NEDS and SAROAD are planned or
are currently being implemented.
The purpose of this contract was to interview EPA users
of the NADB systems to determine how the current systems or
planned changes and/or additions meet the users' requirements
A list of the EPA offices included in the interviews is in
Appendix C. In the event that existing or proposed systems
do not meet the needs of a specific user, an attempt was
made to determine the specific system changes or additions
that will be necessary.
1.2 APPROACH
Prior to visiting each Regional Office, a synopsis of
current NADB system capabilities was forwarded to the NEDS-
SAROAD coordinators for distribution among Regional Office
users. Some indication of system development plans was
included for each of the NADB systems, and the Regional
Office users were asked to consider some pertinent questions
1-1
-------
prior to the interviews. For non-Regional Office users, an
attempt was made to convey as much preparatory information
as possible in telephone conversations prior to the interviews.
During each interview, the current NADB system development
plans were reviewed and the survey participants were asked
to comment. The survey participants were then asked to
discuss specific data handling problems for which the current
or projected systems are inadequate.
PEDCo reviewed all suggested changes or additions to
the current systems. Where enough information exists,
specifications or conceptual approaches were written, and
the impact of implementation on all system elements was
assessed. A schedule of priorities for implementing each
system change has been suggested. The specific systems
included in this contract are:
0 National Emissions Data System (NEDS)
0 Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD)
0 Source Testing Data System (SOTDAT)
0 Hazardous and Trace Elements Management Systems (HATREMS)
0 SIP Rules and Regulations (SIP)
° APER Forms
0 Quality Assurance Management Information System
(QAMIS)
0 Administrative Problems
1.3 SURVEY RESULTS
The results of this survey are summarized here in terms
of system changes, additions, and administrative or operational
considerations suggested by EPA users.
1.3.1 NEDS Recommendations
The major recommendations received for improving NEDS
include ten (10) applications requiring new programs, three
(3) applications requiring changes to existing programs, and
four (4) operations changes. These recommendations are
summarized in Table 1 in the Technical Report. The recommenda-
tions are related to three application categories:
1-2
-------
0 Data base operations
0 Data analysis
0 Modeling
A total of six (6) applications relate to improving data
base operations. Eleven (11) of the applications relate to
data analysis. The applications related to modeling are
essentially the same as those for data analysis.
1.3.2 SAROAD Recommendations
The major recommendations received for improving SAROAD
include ten (10) applications requiring new programs, nine
(9) applications requiring changes to existing programs, and
two (2) operations changes. Table 2 of the Technical Report
summarizes these recommendations. The Technical Report relates
these recommendations to the same three application categories
previously mentioned for NEDS. A total of five (5) applica-
tions are related to data base operations. Seventeen (17)
applications are related to data analysis. Three (3) appli-
cations relate directly to modeling capabilities.
1.3.3 Recommendations for Other Systems
No specific recommendations that can be translated into
implementation specifications were received for the other
systems. Most survey participants were only passively aware
of these systems, since the systems either have not yet been
implemented, or they have been used only marginally. Consequently,
the emphasis of the survey results is on NEDS and SAROAD.
1.4 PROBLEM AREAS FOR NEDS AND SAROAD
The major problem areas for both NEDS and SAROAD related
to data base operations, i.e. techniques for data input,
storage, and retrieval are:
0 Currency of the data
0 Data quality
0 Responsiveness of the system for report retrieval
1-3
-------
Implementation of any or all of the recommendations related
to each of these problem areas is expected to increase the
number of data users. This in turn is expected to improve
the quality of data submitted to NADB.
The major problem areas related to data analysis are:
0 Data base discontinuity
0 Definition of user requirements
° Quality control in data collection
The general benefit to be derived from implementing any of
the recommendations associated with these three areas is an
increase in the number of applications for the data. The
number of users should expand as a result.
The problem areas with modeling applications are closely
associated with the problems related to data analysis.
Implementation of the recommendations for this application
area are also expected to increase the number of users and
eventually result in an improved data base.
The most important problems with operating the NADB
systems are those associated with educating and communicating
with the users or potential users as to system capabilities.
1.5 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
The priorities assigned for implementing each of the
applications identified in the survey are based on a combin-
ation of four general expected benefits:
0 Improvement, of data quality
0 Reduction of input/output time and report turn-
around time
0 Savings of man-hours
° Improved usage of the systems
Table 10 of the Technical Report summarizes the priority
assignments for the NEDS application: Table 12 of the Techni-
cal Report summarizes them for SAROAD applications. For both
NEDS and SAROAD, the highest priorities are on the applications
that improve procedures for updating the data bases and for
retrieving reports.
1-4
-------
2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT
2.1 BACKGROUND
2.1.1 Purpose and Scope
This survey was conducted among all EPA Regional Offices
and thirteen (13) selected EPA offices at the Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina and in Washington, D.C. The offices
visited and the names of the coordinating contacts in each
office are listed in Appendix C. The purpose of the survey
was to determine if the National Air Data Branch (NADB) systems
are meeting the current and projected needs of the users
within EPA.
Where-in it was determined that existing systems can
be changed to be more responsive to EPA users' data requirements,
specifications for such changes are defined. In some instances,
not enough information was available to evaluate the benefit
derived by the implementation of an application. In these
cases more information is needed from the potential users
to justify implementation. For other cases, the benefits
to be derived are obvious and they represent solutions to
problems that were discussed in the report "Establishment
of a Non-EPA User System for State Implementation Plans" (Contract
No. 68-02-1001, Task 4).
The specific topics discussed in the survey were:
0 National Emissions Data System (NEDS)
0 Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD)
0 Source Testing Data System (SOTDAT)
0 Hazardous and Trace Elements Management System (HATREMS)
0 SIP Rules and Regulations (SIP)
0 APER Forms
0 Quality Assurance Management Information System (QAMIS)
0 Administrative Problems
2-1
-------
The survey recommendations under each topic are categorized
as additions to existing systems, changes to existing systems,
or operations changes. Where sufficient information exists,
applications have been detailed in the Appendices. Each recommen-
dation is analyzed in terms of implementation cost, and impact
on the total system.
General benefits that could be derived from the applications
presented in this report are:
0 Increase user participation and interest in the
systems.
0 Improve the quality of data and the currency of the
data in the data bases.
These benefits complement each other, i.e. as user participation
increases, the quality of data can be expected to improve and
vice versa. For any of the recommendations to be effective,
significant effort for improved communications between NADB,
the Regional Offices, and the states is essential. The availabil-
ity of any one of the capabilities identified here will not
in itself improve the system. All users or potential users
will need to be educated as to the benefits to be derived from
using the system. Until this is accomplished the overall
quality of the data bases may not show any significant improvement.
The education and communication problems cannot be overemphasized -
they are the most serious problems associated with operating
the NADB systems. These problems are discussed in detail in
Section 2.2 in this report.
2.1.2 Interview Approach
For each office included in the survey, a representative
was asked to coordinate with other users in the office to include
them in the interviews. This was an attempt to obtain information
concerning as many systems as were being used within each
office and to incorporate the views of users with as many differ-
ent applications as possible.
Prior to each interview in the Regional Offices, a synopsis
2-2
-------
of current NADB system development plans, and a summary of
the problems to be addressed in the interview was mailed
to the Regional Office AEROS contacts.
A sample of the pre-interview materials is included in
Appendix C. During each interview, the tentative system
development plans prepared by NADB were presented, and comments
on each application were solicited. Each user was then asked
to discuss their special data requirements. An attempt was
made to relate those needs to current system capabilities.
When a user indicated that current and planned systems did
not fulfill specific data requirements, detailed specifica-
tions for such requirements were requested.
In many cases users were not familiar with all of the
options of the various systems. In most cases those interviewed
were not familiar enough with the systems to be specific in
discussing their data needs in relation to the quality of
the data bases and the responsiveness of the systems. The
results of each Regional Office interview were summarized
and sent to the AEROS contacts for review and comment. The
Project Officer was also provided with a copy of the results
of each interview, and he has contacted each AEROS coordinator
to discuss any applications or problems not covered in this
report.
2.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section is a synopsis of the user recommendations
for improving each of the NADB systems discussed in the survey.
For many recommendations, not enough information was provided
to directly justify implementation. In these cases, it is
incumbent on the users, especially the Regional Offices,
to discuss the recommendations and to provide NADB with further
justification for implementing the applications of interest.
2.2.1 NEDS Recommendations
The survey recommendations for improving the NEDS include
ten (10) applications requiring new programs, three (3) applica-
tions requiring changes to existing programs, and four (4)
2-3
-------
operations changes. The applications are summarized in Table
1 and cross-referenced to Appendix A for detailed discussion
where necessary.
2.2.1.1 NEDS New Program Applications -
The applications discussed here require new programs
or subroutines. In some cases, the applications necessitate
changes in several other programs or files. The total impact
of each application on the other system components is indicated
in the applicable sections of Appendix A.
2.2.1.1.1 Latitude - longitude input with subsequent
UTM conversion - This application would allow NEDS users to
input latitude-longitude coordinates instead of UTM coordinates.
The recommendation is based on the fact that many states
routinely use latitude-longitude coordinates, and they consequent-
ly view the job of providing UTM coordinates to NEDS as unneces-
sary. As a result, the locator data for many state emission
inventories is less than desirable. The result is reflected
in increased time and manpower required for any updating
or modeling tasks. The capability for inputting latitude-
longitude coordinates directly into NEDS should be a separate
procedure from the normal activities involved with completing
NEDS coding sheets. Inclusion of a separate field on the
coding sheets requires a change of the NEDS form, changes
to several programs, restructuring of the master record,
and rebuilding of several files. Using a modified version
of the TCLCONV program that converts latitude-longitude to
UTM's and then submitting the UTM coordinates as updates
to the NADB* NEDS-USER file has several advantages. The
TCLCONV program car be changed easily to produce punched card
output in NEDS format. The update of the USER file will occur
as part of the normal update activities. The only impact
on NADB's operations will be the requirement for a programmer
to make the minimal change to TCLCONV.
2.2.1.1.2. Polygon - defined area retrieval- This applica-
tion would allow a user to define, by latitude/longitude coor-
2-4
-------
Table 1. SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING NEDS
New programs
Changes to
existing programs
Operations
changes
1. Latitude-longitude
input with UTM
conversion (Al)
2. Polygon retrieval
(A2)
3. Retrieve by range of
parameter (A3)
4. Analyze the effect
of potential
changes to a
parameter on NEDS
data (A4)
5. Lowspeed terminal
update
6. Usage statistics by
report and/or user
7. Basic accounting
capability (A5)
8. Emission trends
9. Decentralization of
edit
10. NEDS-CDS cross-refer-
ence (A6)
11. Expanded comments
capability
12 . Indicate sources
that have been
deleted from a
report because
of confidenti-
ality (A7)
13. AQMA retrieval
14. Implement user
training semi-
nars (A8)
15. Discontinue or
modify the
Verification
Report
16. Add fugitive
dust SCC's
(A9)
17. Improve the for-
mat for identi-
fying report
retrieval
options (AID)
Additional applications i.e., those mentioned in only one
interview, are included in Appendix C.
Refers to the Appendix section where application specifi-
cations are found.
-------
dinates, a polygon shaped geographical area and to retrieve in-
formation on all sources meeting specified criteria and lying
within the polygon area. The user would also have the capa-
bility to retrieve a list of NEDS points or SAROAD active
sites within a specified distance from a point in the polygon.
The capability to retrieve a listing of active SAROAD sites
within a polygon area would also be included. Implementation
of this application requires a feasibility study because current
NEDS retrieval options are flexible enough that, if used prop-
erly, they might produce the same results. This application
might be useful for AQMA retrieval.
2.2.1.1.3 Define a value range for a parameter and retrieve
sources with parameters in the range - This application allows
users to specify a value range for any data element in the
NEDS record and retrieve only those sources within the defined
range. An example is the retrieval of all coal boilers (control-
led by SCC) within a county (controlled by County Code) that
burn coal between 2.5 and 3.5 percent sulfur. The expected
benefits from this application are similar to those for polygon -
defined area retrieval (Section 2.2.1.1.2). This application
is more directly useful for special studies than for general
application, and users such as Control Systems Laboratory
can provide the major input for a feasibility study. This
application is particxilarly well suited to file management
systems such as System 2000. A secondary benefit from this
application might be to save users from writing special applica-
tion programs for batch processing using NADB files. Moreover,
system turnaround time, will be improved if this application
is available in an interactive mode.
2.2.1.1.4. Analyze the effect of potential changes to a
parameter - This application allows users to substitute new
values for parameters in an existing point source record and
to analyze the resulting effects on pollutant emissions. The
major requirement for this capability is for control strategy
2-6
-------
testing and Air Quality Maintenance Area plans development.
For example, the ability to change sulfur contents allows
users to evaluate the effect of requiring all sources of a
specific type to burn fuel with percent sulfur less than some
specified maximum value. This application is easily handled
by a file management system and will save a significant amount
of time in preparing data for modeling.
2.2.1.1.5. Lowspeed terminal update capability - This
application enables NEDS users to interactively edit new data.
Because of the cost associated with interactive operation it
is appropriate for less than 50 punched cards. Upon passing
edit, the data are added to a temporary file that is accessed
by NADB to update the NADB*NEDS - USER file. This capability
will allow Regional Offices to input data rejected by a previous
edit run into the NEDS system immediately after correction.
Such an update capability will reduce the effort on the part
of NADB, provide more direct control over updates by the Regional
Offices, and theoretically, result in a more current data
base than is presently available. Success of this application
requires the following: 1) NADB must establish a minimal
update schedule to assure that data entered to the update
file are added to the USER file in a timely manner; 2) an
audit system must be developed to notify the Regional Offices
that a maximum specifed time period has passed between the
last edit and the reentry of any cards rejected in the last
edit.
2.2.1.1.6. System usage statistics by report type - This
application provides users with a monthly or quarterly report
of the usage of specific NEDS report generating programs.
This can be a valuable budgeting tool for users. It may also
indicate application areas which are used infrequently and
might require changes to make them more applicable to user
needs. It can be a valuable planning tool for NADB to determine
areas or applications for which user activity is increasing
or decreasing. For this particular survey, for example,
2-7
-------
historical information on usage by report type would have
been valuable for helping to establish implementation priorities.
This application requires a feasibility study. It should
be directed to the EPA computer center at Research Triangle
Park, since generation of the required information is their
responsibility.
2.2.1.1.7. Basic accounting capability - This application
allows a user to determine the number of sources or facilities
in the file that conform to some defined criteria, e.g. the
number of coal-fired boilers in the file or the number of sources
with boilers burning multiple fuels. The users can then deter-
mine whether or not thc;re is sufficient data in the file to
warrant a particular report retrieval. The expected result
is that manpower is saved in scanning reports and system time
is saved by not retrieving information which serves no useful
purpose for the user. This application requires a feasibility
study, since the expected benefits are based on speculation
on the part of the potential users. This application lends
itself to an interactive mode file management system.
2.2.1.1.8. Emissions trends by area and by source type - This
application provides an analysis of data over a period of
years to show general trends in emissions for a specific pollutant,
and it is especially useful for AQMA plan development. Immediate
implementation of this capability is questionable for two
reasons:
0 Much of the data in NEDS are not updated regularly.
Consequently, significant gaps in the data for each
year exist. A schedule for updating operating
parameters and emissions estimates in NEDS needs to be
enforced. Implementation of automated emissions
inventory systems among the states and/or increased
usage of NEDS by the states would be expected to
result in increased cooperation by the states in
submitting their semiannual updates.
0 Several states have elected to replace their entire
inventories in NEDS with revised inventories.
Consequently, a direct comparison of inventories
within an affected state is impossible.
2-8
-------
2.2.1.1.9. Decentralization of the edit programs - This
application shifts the responsibility for initial edit of
data from NADB to the Regional Offices. A feasibility study
for this application has been completed and NADB is proceeding
with implementation. Consequently, no indepth analysis is
attempted in this report. The major benefit expected from
this effort is to decrease the time required for updating the
system. The current update mechanism requires the Regional
Offices to submit data to NADB for edit. NADB then sends
the edit results to the Regional Offices, where the data is
either corrected or sent to the appropriate state for correction.
The data are then resubmitted to NADB for another edit, validation
and file update. It is anticipated that from two to four
weeks can be cut from the current update time. This capability,
coupled with the capability for lowspeed terminal data entry
the Regional Offices will significantly improve the currency
of the data base. The update time now required for NEDS has
been offered by several states as a major reason for not using
NEDS.
2.2.1.1.10 Include a CDS cross-reference number in NEDS -
This application allows NEDS users, primarily Regional Offices
to include in each point source record an identifier to reference
that point in CDS. This capability will allow NEDS and CDS
users to determine the degree to which data in each data base
can augment the other. The cross-reference number from CDS
could be entered into a separate comments card for each point
source (see Section 2.2.1.2.1). A separate cross-reference
file is required to indicate updates that have occurred in
CDS for which input data to NEDS might be required. A program
to update the cross-reference file and to produce cross-reference
listings is required. Implementation of this application requires
a committment on the part of the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement (DSSE), NADB, and the Regional Offices to perform
the initial cross-reference against CDS and to keep both systems
current to reflect updates. This application warrants a feasibility
study.
2-9
-------
2.2.1.2 NEDS Program Changes -
These applications require changes to existing programs. The
total impact of each change on other system components is
indicated in the respective section of Appendix A when necessary.
2.2.1.2.1. Expanded comrr.ents_ fields - This application
is being implemented by NADB. The capability allows users
to input one or more Card 7 for each plant in the file. The
Card 7 contains the plant, point, year, and GCC (if applicable)
identifiers to parallel the other six cards. The remainder
of the Card 7 is used to enter any pertinent comments. One
Card 7 is allowed for general plant information; one Card
7 is allowed for each point source; and one Card 7 is allowed
for each SCC within a point source. Implementation of this
capability resulted partially from the need for users, especially
DSSE users, to see equipment identification data assocJated
with each NEDS record. Also, this capability fulfills the
need for providing cross-reference information for state permit
systems or for state emission inventory systems. This can
provide NEDS users witi the abJ.L.ity to trace data in NEDS
back to original documents. Acquisition of the necessary informa-
tion will require significant cooperation from the states.
2.2.1.2.2. Indicate confidential sources on reports -
This application will allow users the option of printing plant
and point identification numbers and name and address for sources
that have not been included on a report because of confidentiality.
Currently, if a point source is coded as confidential, the
record for the point source is skipped during program execution.
Consequently, the results in the report do not reflect the
contributions from the confidential sources;. No indication
is given that a source; has been excluded because of confidentiality.
Implementation of this capability is relatively inexpensive
and no significant impact on the total system is expected.
Indications are that NADB will await the Office of Enforcement
and General Council (OEGC) ruling on confidentiality before
formalizing procedures for this.
-------
2.2.1.2.3. AQMA report retrieval - The purpose of this
application is to allow NEDS users to request reports by AQMA
number. The request mechanism works in the same fashion as
the current mechanisms for state, county, and/or AQCR retrievals
AQMA retrieval will have the following impact on the NEDS
system:
0 The NEDS coding form must be restructured,
requiring OMB clearance.
0 AQMA codes must be published.
0 A minimum of four files must be reformatted.
0 A minimum of fifty programs must be recompiled.
0 AQMA codes must be added to approximately 100,000
facilities currently in the NEDS system.
The original intent of the guidelines for defining AQMA's was
that they should follow political jurisdiction boundaries.
If AQMA's are defined in this manner any selected report can
be produced simply by specifying the appropriate counties.
If AQMA boundaries do not follow political jurisdictions,
the polygon - defined area retrieval capability could satisfy
the requirement for AQMA retrieval. Because of the high cost
of implementing AQMA retrieval, and the fact that existing
options can satisfy most retrieval requests this application
is not justified at this time. An alternative approach could
be to set up a cross-reference file of AQMA numbers versus
SAROAD county numbers, or AQMA numbers versus UTM coordinates.
This approach should be investigated before any decisions
are made concerning AQMA retrieval.
2.2.1.3 NEDS Operations Changes -
This section includes user recommendations for changes
to NEDS operating procedures.
2.2.1.3.1. Implement user training seminars - NADB has
conducted several NEDS user seminars. Reactions from the
Regional Offices regarding the effectiveness of the seminars
is favorable, and several Regional Offices have requested
2-11
-------
that they be offered routinely. The seminars offered thus
far have covered these topics:
0 NEDS point source coding, updating, and edit/vali-
dation procedures.
0 NEDS area source data development and coding.
0 Summary of NEDS output formats.
° Introduction of the Emissions Inventory Subsystem (EIS).
° EIS coding and update procedures. A training manual
has been prepared to supplement existing training
materials. The seminars appear to be effective for
solving problems regarding data input. If they
are continued, they can be expected to have a long-
term positive effect on the quality of data being
input to NEDS.
An additional area of instruction that should be presented
in seminars is the topic of how to use the NEDS system. Most
states seern to be unaware of the system capabilities,, Moreover,
they have been frustrated by the time delays in getting data
into and out of the system. The states are primarily familiar
with NEDS because of the requirement for them to submit semiannual
updates. If users, especially state agencies, are made aware
of benefits to be derived from using the NEDS system, and
if they can be made aware of all of the options for data retrieval
and analysis, a significant increase in the use of the system
should occur. Increased use of the system would be expected
to generate more interest in the quality and currency of the
data going into the system. The result should be a more reliable
data base.
User seminars should emphasize both management and engineer-
ing applications for NEDS data. A survey of EPA users of NEDS
should be conducted to determine their specific applications
prior to determining the content of the seminars. Results
of the survey should be reviewed to determine how the EPA
applications might be reflated to state agency operations.
These recommendations are supported by the previous user
survey conducted among selected state agencies as well as
2-12
-------
by the current survey.
2.2.1.3.2. Modify the verification report and validation
listings - Five Regional Offices indicated that handling and
reviewing the Point Source Listing produced from the Verification
file is cumbersome. Often the listing is ignored.
The Validation Listing produced from the NEDS edit routines
was also mentioned as a topic of concern in the survey. Current
efforts for decentralizing the edit/validation routines to
the Regional Offices include plans to produce point source
listings only for those plants with parameters exceeding the
allowed validation values. The point source listing is essential
to validation procedures in order to save effort required
from the states. A point source listing further enables the
Regional Office to discriminate on specific sources for which
the state should supply information. Consequently, the listing
should continue to be produced.
2.2.1.3.3 Add fugitive dust SCC ' s - This application
will result in the addition of new SCC codes to the system.
The new SCC's will represent selected fugitive dust sources
such as coke piles for steel plants. The recommendation of
any new SCC of this type should be a Regional Office responsibi-
lity, since many of the industry types involved are regionally
oriented. Because of the cost involved with developing an
emission factor for each new SCC, preliminary studies should
be conducted to address the following problems.
0 Current emission factors for the industry of
interest must be investigated to insure that the
specific fugitive dust sources of interest have
not already been included.
0 A decision must be made as to whether the fugitive
dust category could be considered a point source, or
if it would better qualify as an area source.
0 An estimate should be made of the probable impact
of the fugitive dust source in relation to the total
particulate emissions for several plants or proces-
ses representative of the industry.
2-13
-------
2.2.1.3.4 Improved format for defining retrieval options -
NADB has printed explanations of keying options for report
retrieval, and they have been widely circulated. Many users
have indicated that these explanations are cumbersome and
difficult to be understood by anyone other than systems - orien-
ted personnel. It has been suggested that a simplified reference
table format would be more easily interpreted. An example
format is included in Appendix A. The format lists reports
by name and indicates by 'yes' or 'no' if each report is available
by specific retrieval options. Circulation of a similarly
formatted matrix table, preferably with sample reports attached,
will make potential users aware of benefits to be derived
from accessing the system. The AEROS contacts constitute
the largest group of users who understand the retrieval options.
2.2.1.4. NEDS Recommendation Summary -
The previous discussions for NEDS recommendations resulting
from this survey are summarized in Table 2 in terms of requiring
feasibility study or being ready for immediate work toward
implementation. The assessment is based solely on the amount
of background information available at the time of the survey.
Applications currently being implemented are so indicated.
Table 3 summarizes the recommendations in terms of the number
of users who expressed interest.
2.2.2 SAROAD Recommendations
The survey recommendations for improving the SAROAD system
include ten (10) applications requiring new programs, nine
(9) applications requiring changes to existing programs, and
two (2) operations changes. The applications are summarized
in Table 4 and cross-referenced to Appendix B for detailed
discussion where applicable.
2.2.2.1 SAROAD New Program Applications -
The applications discussed here require new programs or
subroutines. Some applications necessitate changes in several
other programs or files. The total impact of each application
2-14
-------
No,
1,
2.
3.
Table 2. STATUS OF RECOMMENDED NEDS APPLICATIONS
IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Application
Requires feasi-
bility study
Ready for
implementation
planning
Imple-
mentation
under way
10
11.
12
13
14
Latitude-longitude
with UTM con-
version
Polygon retrieval
Retrieval by range
of parameter
Analyze effect of
potential changes
to parameters in
source record
Lowspeed terminal
update
Usage statistics by
report and/or user
Basic accounting
capability
Emission trends
Decentralization of
edit
NEDS/CDS cross-
reference
Expanded comments
capability
Indicate sources
deleted from report
because of confi-
dentiality
AQMA retrieval
Implement user train-
ing seminars
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(completed)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(partial)
2-15
-------
Table 2 (continued. STATUS OF RECOMMENDED NEDS APPLICATIONS
IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION
No.
Application
Requires feasi-
bility study
Ready for
implementation
planning
Imple-
mentation
under way
15,
16
17,
Discontinue or
modify Verifi-
cation Report
Add fugitive dust
SCC's
Improve format for
identifying report
retrieval options
X
X
X
2-16
-------
Table 3. NUMBER OF USERS EXPRESSING INTEREST
IN NEDS RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Application
Latitude- longitude
with UTM conver-
sion
Polygon retrieval
Retrieval by range
of parameter
Analyze effect of
potential changes
to parameters in
source record
Lowspeed terminal
update
Usage statistics by
report and/or user
Basic accounting
capability
Emission trends
Decentralization of
edit
i\fUDS/CDS cross-
reference
Expanded comments
capability
Indicate sources
deleted from report
because of confi-
dentiality
AQMA retrieval
Implement user
training seminars
Interested users
Regional
offices
3
2
5
2
8
1
2
8
5
5
3
10
3
RTF
1
1
2
1
1
2
Washington
1
2
1
1
Total
4
3
7
2
9
1
3
2
9
6
6
3
12
3
2-17
-------
Table 3 (Continued). NUMBER OF USERS EXPRESSING
INTEREST IN NEDS RECOMMENDATIONS
No .
15.
16.
17.
Application
Discontinue or
modify verifica-
tion report
Add fugitive dust
SCC's
Improve format for
identifying report
retrieval options
Interested users
Regional
offices
5
2
2
RTF
1
Washington
Total
5
2
3
2-18
-------
Table 4. SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SAROAD*
New programs
Changes to existing
programs
Operations
changes
1. Polygon retrieval
2 . Trends plotting
(Bl)b
3. Audit SIP station
reporting (B2)
4. Lowspeed terminal
update
5. Usage statistics
by report and/
or user
6. Graphics to plot
site locations
(B3)
7. Calculate wind
rose and pollu-
tant rose
8. Parametric data
retrieval
9. Report on Stand-
ards viola-
tions (B4)
10. Decentralized
edit
11. Option to include
data not meeting
75% criteria (B5)
12. Include 2nd maximum
on Standards
Report (B6)
13 . Identify inactive
sites (B7)
14. Include reporting
units on edit and
validation reports
15. County retrieval
(B8)
16. Include minimum
detectable levels
on reports (B9)
17. Include accuracy of
method in Site
I.D. File (BIO)
18. AQMA retrieval
19. Reduce conversation
with interactive
retrieval
20. English language
retrieval
21. Standards Report
more frequently
Additional applications i.e., those mentioned in only one
interview, are included in Appendix C.
Refers to Appendix section where application specifications
are found.
2-19
-------
on the other system components is indicated in each respective
section of Appendix B.
2.2.2.1.1. Polygon - defined area report retrieval -
This application is part of the general purpose retrieval package
previously discussed for NEDS (Section 2.2.1.1.2).
2.2.2.1.2. Trends plotting - The purpose of this application
is to allow graphic presentation of the trends in air quality
over a specified interval of time at a monitoring site. All
plotted data could be shown in relation to the annual standard
as the baseline. The 12 month moving arithmetic or geometric
means for the pollutants of interest are also desirable. One
recommendation called for using the projected annual maximum
concentrations as the baseline with the emergency episode
level as an upper limit. Many Regional Offices are currently
producing trends graphs manually. A significant savings in
manpower and more widespread dissemination of trends data
could be expected to result from implementation of this capability.
A feasibility study is required for this application in
order to determine the specific plotting requirements that
would be of widespread interest. A significant problem associated
with this application is that agency/project codes have changed
for many monitoring stcitions with no concurrent traceability
throughout the SAROAD system. The problem (See Section 2.2.2.2.3)
should be resolved prior to implementation of the trends analysis
capability. Serious misinterpretation of data could result
otherwise. A second problem is the continuity of quality
control procedures for each site over a long time period (2.2.2.2.7).
Major discrepencies in the quality control procedures could
leave doubt as to the validity of any trends analyses.
2.2.2.1.3. Capability to track SIP station reports -
The purpose of this application is to provide the Regional
Offices with the capability to track data reported by the
states for SIP required sites. At least six Regional Offices
use a manual logging system to keep track of this information.
2-20
-------
The estimated time expended is 2 1/2 man-dayg/qua,rter/state.
A significant savings in time could be realized from implementa-
tion of this capability. Moreover, implementation is straight-
forward, and most elements in SAROAD would not be impacted.
2.2.2.1.4. Lowspeed terminal update - This application
will enable SAROAD users to interactively edit small quantities
(probably fifty or fewer) of input cards. The definition
and technical considerations for this application are the
same as for the similar application for NEDS (See Section
2.2.1.1.5) .
2.2.2.1.5. Usage statistics by report type - This application
is the same as for NEDS (See Section 2.2.1.1.6). Implementation
of this application will require a feasibility study directed
to the EPA Computer Center at Research Triangle Park.
2.2.2.1.6. Graphics to plot site locations - This application
allows SAROAD users to access the Site File and generate a
plot of site locations within a designated area. The options
for implementing this capability are to produce a relative
location type plot on-line on the printer or to produce a
Cal-Comp plot off-line. An on-line plot is relatively inexpensive
and quick. Off-line plots have greater flexibility in that
they could include an outline of the area of interest. The
cost of off-line plots is slightly higher and the turnaround
is not as rapid as for on-line printer plots. A feasibility
study is required to determine the benefits to be gained by
showing the area plot. An additional consideration for this
application is that it may be directly related to any trends
plotting capabilities as a first step in the process.
2.2.2.1.7. Calculate wind rose and pollutant rose - This
capability provides SAROAD users with reports on co-analysis
of air quality data and meteorological data collected at specific
sites. Users will be able to more accurately assess the applica-
bility of individual sites for modeling purposes, since an
enhanced capability to resolve anomalous air quality data
2-21
-------
will be gained. Implementation of this capability will provide
a combination of printed and plotted outputs. This capability
does not duplicate, but rather it enhances reporting efforts
available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA). A feasibility study on this application has
been completed.
2.2.2.1.8. Parametric data retrieval - This application
allows SAROAD users to select and retrieve data from a variety
of SAROAD files. The selection criteria are based on approximate-
ly 40 parameters or on any combination of those parameters.
The usefulness of parametric data retrieval has been well
established through prior use of MARK IV on the IBM system.
The problem at this point is concerned with deciding on the
most desireable of two approaches: 1) implementation of
a file management system with the same capabilities as MARK
IV or; 2) development of a COBOL program to perform the equiva-
lent functions. Problems exist with the ability of System
2000 to handle multiple files. This problem has led to the
investigation of other file management systems. Investigation
of the specific MARK IV applications used by Regional Offices
in addition to those used at the NERC, Research Triangle Park
should be initiated before beginning any development of COBOL
programs. This is necessary to insure that the program or
programs involved provide sufficient flexibility so that no
net loss from the capabilities on the previous IBM system
is incurred.
2.2.2.1.9. Report on standards violations - This application
produces a report similar in format to the Yearly Summary
Report. The report will reflect only those statistics necessary
to compare air quality standards with pollutant levels measured
at a given site. It will be available for the criterion pollutants.
This application is recommended highly by Regional Offices.
Related recommendations concerning percent of time the standards
-------
are violated have been made by the Monitoring and Reports
Branch. Implementation of this capability will not significant-
ly impact the SAROAD system. A feasibility study is not neces-
sary, since prior communications adequately describe the need
for this application.
2.2.2.1.10. Decentralized edit - This application parallels
the same application mentioned for NEDS. Implementation is
in progress at NADB.
2.2.2.2 SAROAD Program Changes -
The applications discussed here require changes to existing
programs. The total impact of each change on other system
components is indicated in the respective section of Appendix
B.
2.2.2.2.1. Option to include data not meeting the 75%
criteria inSummary Reports - Currently, 75% of the possible
data values from a particular station for a summary period
must be available before the summary statistics are calculated
and stored on the appropriate summary file. The capability
to calculate summary statistics regardless of the amount of
data available can be implemented by changing the existing
program logic. If this is done, summary statistics based
upon data not meeting the 75% criteria will be so flagged
and reported or included in subsequent statistical calculations
only when so requested by the user. This approach protects
the interest of any users desiring to see only statistics
for data meeting the 75% criterion. Routine reports should
be based upon the 75% completeness in order to maintain a minimal
level of quality control without requiring major reorientation
of the users. This approach requires users desiring this
option to be aware of the deficiencies in the data used to
calculate the summaries. The Regional Offices should be asked
to respond on the advantages of this option.
2.2.2.2.2. Include 2nd maximum values on the Standards
Report - This application provides users with the second highest
2-23
-------
value for the sampling or averaging period, of interest. Currently,
the system prints the maximum observed values on the Inventory
Report, on the Yearly Report by Quarters and on the Quarterly
Frequency Distribution. The second maximum observed value
is necessary to determine if the air quality standard has
been violated. As sampling frequencies increase so will the
effort required to manually .find the second maximum value.
Implementation of this capability is justified, because of
the relatively low cost of implementation and the potential
for saving manhours.
2.2.2.2.3. Identify inactive sites - This application
requires that an active/inactive code be added to each record
in the Site File so that only data for active sites can be
retrieved. A net saving of computer time and manpower for
reviewing reports will result. The problem, however, goes
beyond merely identifying each site as active or ineictive.
When there is a transfer of agency responsibilities related
to site operation, the Agency Code changes. The effect on
the system is that a new record is created since the Agency
Code is a key identifier for each site. Consequently, new
data are stored in the system according to the new Site Code.
The data under the old Site Code are not applicable for summary
statistics, etc. performed on data submitted under the new
code. Although the same station is physically active, the
system considers the station as defined under the previous
code as being inactive. The loss in data continuity causes
problems for users interested in trends analyses and/or in
tracking the data submittal status for a site. One major effort
has already been expended in which contractors nationwide
performed a manual search for missing data in the SAROAD files
and attempted to clarify the status of sites in the SAROAD
system.
Unless NADB provides a method to allow tracking changes
of site code within the system the same effort may be required
2-24
-------
again. The problem should be solved as soon as possible.
A suggested approach from the Monitoring and Reports Branch
(MRB) of the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division includes
the use of four status codes: 1) active site; 2) inactive
site; 3) modified active site; 4) modified inactive site.
These codes in conjunction with initial and terminal dates
could provide the necessary tracking capability to provide
the following advantages :
0 Knowledge of all sites and their status
0 Ease of relating changes in agency or projects to
the effect on air quality data
0 More summary statistics, since changes during the
year would be reflected in annual computations
0 Retrieval and data manipulation relating to a
specific location would be easier
These comments from MRB provide the most indepth approach
to this problem offered during the survey. The majority of
the Regional Offices expressed concern with this problem.
Although a significant amount of processing would be required
to rework the files, and an initial large effort might be
required to input the necessary historical site information,
the long-term benefits for data analysis and cost effectiveness
seem to warrant implementation of this application.
2.2.2.2.4. Show reporting units on edit and validation
reports - This recommendation will save time in reviewing
edit and validation reports. State agencies who want to check
results currently must convert the raw data values to reporting
units first. The reporting units could be shown on the reports
with minimal programming changes.
2.2.2.2.5. County retrieval - This application allows
SAROAD users to retrieve reports for sites within county.
This capability will reduce the time necessary to review reports
in addition to saving machine processing time. County retrieval
-------
can fulfill user requirements for AQMA retrieval if AQMA's
follow county boundaries. Implementation requires relatively
little effort, since the county code is already in the Site
File.
2.2.2.2.6. Include minimum detectable levels on reports -
This application allows users to compare the observed values
on any report to the minimum detectable level for the sampling
method. This comparison could provide a better idea of overall
data quality by making averaging biases more visible^ to users.
The minimum detectable level will be included in the report
heading. The system impact for this application is relatively
minor and further investigation should not be necessary.
2.2.2.2.7. Include statement on method accuracy in the
site identification file - This application will allow users
to see a statement of the method accuracy on each report.
The users can then better assess the data reliability as related
to a specific project need. The application is relatively
easy to implement, but it requires an expansion of the Site
Record.
The recommendation for this application points out the
need for a much more involved capability to qualify SAROAD
data in terms of quality assurance information. Depending
on the volume and type of quality assurance information needed,
and on the requirements for reporting this information, it
may be necessary to significantly revise the SAROAD system.
The information necessary to evaluate data quality should be
defined as soon as possible.
2.2.2.2.8. AQMA retrieval - This option which allows
SAROAD users to request reports by AQMA number has the following
impact on the system:
0 The SAROAD coding form must be restructured,
requiring OMB clearance.
0 AQMA codes must be published.
° Most SAROAD files must be reformatted,
2-26
-------
0 Most SAROAD programs would require recompilation.
0 AQMA codes must be added to all site identification
codes.
If AQMA's are assigned according to political jurisdiction
boundaries, as was the original intent of the AQMA guidelines,
then county retrieval or polygon area retrieval could complement
current retrieval options sufficiently for AQMA applications.
Because of the uncertainity of how AQMA's will be designated,
and because of the high cost of implementation, this application
is not justified at this time.
2.2.2.2.9. Reduce the conversational aspects of interactive
Retrieval - The current procedure for conversational retrieval
requires the user to answer questions at key points such as
at the end of a record on the Site Description Report. At
the end of each site description, for example, the user is
required to enter the number for the next site. The user
essentially is tied to the console until the end of job in
this case. The recommendation for reducing the conversational
aspects allows terminal users to enter most of the retrieval
keys and selection criteria only one time at the beginning
of a run. Because the user will not be required to constantly
enter replys to the system, his attention can be diverted to
other tasks while the output to his program is being printed.
Implementation of this capability should be an option, not
a user requirement, since for some retrieval requests, the
user's desire for more data may depend on the information
printed in the last data block.
2.2.2.3. SAROAD Operations Changes - This section includes
user recommendations for changes to SAROAD operating procedures.
2.2.2.3.1. Write a user manual to allow English language
retrieval - This recommendation applies primarily to users
outside of the Regional Offices. The recommendation reflects
the fact that SAROAD users are now required to reference a
series of manuals to obtain the necessary information to enter
2-27
-------
all codes necessary to retrieve a report. Understanding the
codes in the SAROAD retrieval key is necessary to properly
use the system. Because of the large number of code combinations
available, English language retrieval still requires a user
to reference parameter tables, and the chance of entering
the wrong combination can be expected to be as great as they
are with numeric code retrieval. Implementation of English
language retrieval will require revision and redistribution
of at least three user's manuals. Significant programming
effort will be required, and table lookups required for each
run will require more computer time. A more reasonable approach
to English retrieval might be to revise the "Terminal User's
Manual" to include English language examples showing the origin
of the resulting retrieval codes. This approach can be partially
documented and circulated to users for comment before implementa-
tion. Any consideration of English language retrieval should
be preceeded by a feasibility study.
2.2.2.3.2. Generate standards report more frequently-
This application allows users, especially Regional Office
users, to monitor compliance with air quality standards for
a specified area on a more timely basis. Currently, the Standards
Report is generated quarterly. Current NADB plans include
generating the Standards Report each time the SAROAD data
are updated.
2.2.2.4 Recommendation Summary -
The previous discussion for SAROAD recommendations resulting
from this survey are summarized in Table 5 in terms of requiring
feasibility study or being ready for immediate work toward
implementation. The assessment is based solely on the amount
of background information that was available at the time of
the survey. Applications currently being implemented are
also indicated. Table1, ft summarizes the recommendations in
2-2 8
-------
terms of the number of users who expressed interest.
2.2.3 SOTPAT Results
The SOTDAT system was discussed briefly with each Regional
Office. All comments on this system were speculative, because
none of the survey participants had received information other
than what had been initially circulated by NADB in a brief
brochure. A follow-up correspondence survey might be warranted
for this system after example reports have been circulated
to the Regional Offices and to the states. The comments received
for this system were:
0 A status report indicating the number and types of
tests in the system should be circulated periodically.
Circulation to the states as well as to the Regional
Office might generate state interest and consequently
increase participation.
0 The office responsible for each test should be
noted on each report so that users could contact
that office for more information.
0 Data should be available by source category.
The Control Systems Laboratory was the only office within
the NERC, Research Triangle Park, that indicated possible
applications for this system. No specific comments were made.
2.2.4. HATREMS Recommendations
No significant comments were made regarding HATREMS.
The majority of the Regional Offices indicated that the system
is of no advantage to them because of the insignificant number
of hazardous sources or because they had no firm needs for
inventories of other pollutants. Both the Human Studies Laboratory
and Control Systems Laboratory indicated that they might have
applications for the system but they were unable to make specific
comments.
2.2.5. SIP Rules and Regulations Recommendations
The SIP Rules and Regulations System was discussed with
the Regional Offices and with the Control Systems Laboratory.
The Control Systems Laboratory representative suggested that
2-29
-------
No.
Table 5. STATUS OF RECOMMENDED SAROAD APPLICATIONS
IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Application
Requires feasi-
bility study
Ready for
implementation
planning
Imple-
mentation
under way
1.
2
3
10.
11.
12.
13
14
15
16
Polygon retrieval
Trends plotting
Audit SIP station
reporting
Lowspeed terminal
update
Usage statistics
by report and/or
user
Graphics to plot
site locations
Calculate wind rose/
pollutant rose
Parametric data
retrieval
xeport on standards
violations
Decentralized edit
Option to include
data not meeting
7b% criteria
Include 2nd maximum
on Standards
Report
Identify inactive
sites
Include reporting
units on edit and
validation reports
County retrieval
Include minimum
detectable levels
on reports
X
X
A
X
(completed)
X
(planned)
X
(problems to
be resolved)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-30
-------
Table 5 (Continued). STATUS OF RECOMMENDED SAROAD APPLICATIONS
IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION
No,
17,
18.
19.
20.
21.
Application
Requires feasi-
bility study
Ready for
implementation
planning
Imple-
mentation
under way
Include accuracy
of method in
site I.D. file
AQMA retrieval
Reduce conversa-
tion with inter-
active retrieval
English language
retrieval
Standards Report
more frequently
X
X
X
X
X
X
•-31
-------
EH
CO
r-l
O
'^
H
CO
CO
w
(0
CO
D
O
W
ra
CO
i-^
b
H
EH
rH
in co
rH rH rH
rH rH CN rH rH rH CM
OOI^-^DrHi — 1 CN rO " — IO*xT
rH
CO
-P £
C 0
tji ! rd -rH
C -P O
O r3 CD O CD -rH fti rfl
CLiT^^-l CD fii -H > -P-H
0) Qi -p \ >H rd !H
hd>i-H CD 4JW rOCD
,q cn cn Q) T3 -P P
rH C rH O M rH -H CD -H
rd onjco -P !H rdidi35H
>Cn-HCO O rdT3(D:3U
OJ C -P -H -rH rH rrj -PC rH
.H -H rd £• -P M QJ d rd rrj ij U o\°
M-P-P^COO) -rH TS-PCDCi-n
-p 4-> CO Q) -H CO O 5 07 N -H t^
(DO -P -P 3 -P U -rH
SnHft rd CD -HCrHOrji
diHiii-PMco -p J-jOfd-PC
c; cooicooucord -p M -H
QCO CD \-HCrHCDCD-P-Pa-P
CnT3 -P £4 CD'Ti XlO den £ >H d OCD
>, C -H 01 Ui C 0-i-rH O O rd O CD -H 0)
rH a) "O 3 rdrO rd-prHM M O, O -Pi=
0 M rl O cn SH rd rdOJCDOi
DJ r--\ r< '- C3 U O (1| (In i3 O
i — ICNrO^Tl-O *-O r^ OOG^O" — 1
rH rH
CN CN
fO V£l
13
£
n3
-P
CO
cn
CH Q)
O -P
•H
g to
£j
g 0)
•H K>
?S -i — I
rd -P
g -P O
M rd
rd o c
£ O-i -H
(N CD
PH >1
a; HH
•ri co -H
3 T3 -P
rH SH a
U rd 0)
c rd
i j i i
• •
oj n
rH rH
-------
EH
W
W
EH
H
O
CO
CO
w
X
w
CO
w
O
w
CQ
P
CU
•H
-P
d
o
o
CO
o
H
EH
Q
s:
o
u
Q
O
CO
f -I
H
rH
rd
-P
O
EH
d
0
-P
d
•H
tn
rd
en
M
tn
d
T5 EH
(U PS
-P
tn
0)
-P tn
d cu
H O
•H
m
0
rH
rd
d
o
tn
cu
PS
d
O
• H
-P
rd
O
•H
rH
Cu
a
lt£
o
r2
ro CO rH rH
r~- tn
rH tM
rH rH
rH rH rH rH
ro r-
-p
-H
T! d
0) -H
d CU T3
O rH 0
en JQ .d
tn -p rd -p
-P JH -P a)
-HO 0 g
d ft cu
d cu -P tn HH
SH cu -p O
tn rO SH
d d rH o >i cu
-HO fd g ft U rH
-P -H > d 0) fd -H
SH -P cu E SH SH MH
O fd -H -H d
ftT3 SH d d o •
0) -H -P -HO O Q
SH rH 0) E rd •
rd SH en H
0) > 0) rH 0)
T3 !>i ^ 0) 'd CU
d TS -P d > d -P
rH d d rH 0) rH -H
u rd d o rH o tn
d o d d
H CJ H H
^ in uj r^
rH rH rH rH
VO -^
I
SH
CU
-P
d
•H
xj
-P
-H
d
O H
•H rd
-P >
rd 0)
rH 10 -H
rd SH SH
> 0) -P
CU > 0)
-H d !-)
SH 0
-P O 0)
CU >
SH 0) -H
0 -P
r£ dO
3 Ti rd
ex cu
< PS
co en
rH rH
rsi
rH
rd
>
0)
-H
SH CO
-P SH
0) O
SH g
CU -P
en M
rd O
d p i
tn cu >i
d « rH
rd -P
rH tn d
T3 CU
,d SH d
tn rd cr1
-H tJ cu
rH d M
tn rd 4H
d -P
W CO
O rH
r\i r\i
2-33
-------
retrieval should be by source type within a state, but they
were not able to site specific applications. Among the Regional
Offices only Region V and Region II indicated that the system
might be useful to them. The other eight Regional Offices
indicated that they would not use the system, or that any use
would be minimal. Any applications for this system within
the Regional Offices could be expected to take the place of
current manual activities. Most Regional Offices have staff
members contact states directly for update information, or
they use the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) publication
for updates. In any case the consensus is that interactive
retrieval is necessary before any advantage can be gained
from the system. No estimates of the time spent manually
updating regulation information was available in the survey.
Specific comments for this system follow.
0 The major use of this system within the Regions will
be to provide example texts for states that want to
write new regulations.
° Interactive retrieval is necessary. Otherwise,
current mechanisms for obtaining regulation infor-
mation are sufficient.
0 The system should contain state-approved as well as
Federally approved regulations. The four steps in
adopting a regulation as part of a SIP are: 1) State
proposal of regulation; 2) State approval; 3) State
request for EPA approval; 4) EPA approval.
0 Retrieval by source type within state should be
available.
0 A report showing most current regulation numbers and
changes within a specified period might be useful.
0 The anticipated lag time for updating the data base
makes the system less desirable for Regional Office
and State use.
Not enough information is available at this time to translate
2-34
-------
these comments into specifications for making the system respon-
sive to Regional Office needs.
2.2.6 APER Form Recommendations
The APER Forms were discussed only with the Regional Offices
The comments received indicate that modification of the forms
and of the instructions associated with the forms is necessary.
Changing the format of the forms is not warranted because
of the time and cost involved. The implementation of a limited
number of industry - specific forms may be the best approach.
The general comments received concerning APER forms are
listed below.
0 The generalized form is insufficient for many
industries or process types, for example, coking,
pulp and paper, smelters, phosphate fertilizers,
refineries, and cotton ginning. Each of these opera-
tions requires specific information, moisture content of
bark burned at paper mills, for example, not included
on the APER forms. Since OMB clearance is required
for changing existing forms or for adding new forms,
the Regional Offices should be asked to document
their industry specific requirements.
0 The maximum percent sulfur should be designated as
maximum percent burned during the previous twelve
months and the maximum percent anticipated to be
burned in the next twelve months. This information is
useful only if the forms are completed, returned to the
Regional Office, and reviewed within a few weeks. This
is usually not the case. Normally, data may be one year
old or even older before they reach the NEDS system.
This application is not applicable to NEDS, but it is
rather of interest for special studies using the
APER forms. Inclusion of this information is a
potential source of confusion for transferring data from
APER forms onto NEDS coding sheets.
0 A complete sketch of each process should be included
as an attachment to the forms. All sketches should be
labeled with the source codes used in the forms. This
requirement should be printed on Page 1.
2-35
-------
0 The source code is probably the greatest problem
with completing the forms. The instructions should
require that one source code for each source be
followed throughout the forms. The source code
should also be reflected on the process diagram. The
diagram should also make clear the stack and source re-
lationships .
0 A line should be added on Page I for the name of a cor-
porate officer, and he should be required to sign the
form. This requirement may help to improve the validity
of the data.
0 More explanation should be put at the top of each
column rather than relying on the footnote technique.
This may eliminate some problems associated with
people ignoring the footnotes.
0 On Page 2, a column should be added to allow identi-
fication of intermittent use of standby boilers.
2.2.7. QAMIS Recommendations
Current plans for QAM1S include the assignment of a Quality
Control Index for each site, and the retrieval of quality
control information by site, pollutant, laboratory, agency,
or any combination of these four types. No further development
is planned for this or any other system for quality control
information until the Quality Assurance arid Environmental
Monitoring Laboratory (QAEML) provides guidelines. The Regional
Offices would like the opportunity to comment on formal quality
control requirements before requirements are promulgated.
The comments from the Regional Offices concerning the
interim system indicate that any quality control grade assigned
for a site should not be included on SAROAD reports. The
concensus is that public criticism of monitoring activities
or associated quality control procedures might impair Regional
Office efforts toward implementing quality control programs
among the states. This is especially true if the rating
is subjective and does not take all factors into account.
2-36
-------
Also, the judgment of data quality must be separate for each
site/pollutant/method code. Selective judgment should be
used for each site. Since quality control is a dynamic constantly
changing discipline, it is probably that the information on
many of the original "Data Quality Information Sheets for
Air Pollution Agencies," which provided the data base for
QAMIS are already outdated. Consequently, the best application
for QAMIS at this time might be to indicate the relative status
of quality control programs within each Region. This application
would require frequent update of the original questionnaires
by the affected agencies as their quality control procedures
are implemented.
2.2.8. Administrative Recommendations
Several comments were made which relate to broadening
the user base for the NADB systems. All of these comments
were related to making the system capabilities more visible
to users or potential users. Increased knowledge of and
confidence in the systems would be expected to increase the
number of users. Increasing the number of users could, in
turn, result in an improvement in data quality as well as
in an increase in suggestions for making the systems more
responsive to user requirements.
Vhe two most significant recommendations were:
0 NADB should regularly publish system information in
the "EPA Systems News" published by MIDSD. This
activity could make more people outside of, as well
as within, EPA more aware of data and systems cap-
abilities available to them through NADB. Steps
to implement this recommendation have already been
taken.
° NADB should initiate an information distribution
campaign among all control agencies and selected
research and planning agencies who have a need for
air quality or emissions data. Seminars could be
offered to explain the operation of the systems and the
applications for the data. Example report formats
could be distributed along with an explanation of how
each report might relate to specific activities.
2-37
-------
These recommendations are supported by the fact that in this
survey and in the non-EPA users survey ("Establishment of
a Non-EPA User System for State Implementation Plans") the
majority of people interviewed had little or no knowledge
of the data bases maintained by NADB.
2.3 APPLICATIONS CATEGORIES
This section relates the survey results to three applications
categories:
0 Data base operations
0 Data analysis
0 Modeling The general benefits to each category that
could be derived from implementation of the survey recommendations
are discussed.
2.3.1 Data Base Operations
The major problems with system techniques and operating
procedures for data input, storage, and retrieval in the NADB
systems are:
0 Currency of the data
0 Data quality
0 Responsiveness of the systems for report retrieval.
Table 7 shows the survey recommendations related to data base
operations for each system. The general benefit from implementing
Table 7. SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO DATA BASE OPERATION
System
NEDS
SAROAD
Application (see Tables
1 and 4)
1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15
3, 4, 10, 14, 19, 20
any or all of these recommendations will be to increase the
number of data users. The result of increasing the system
usage is expected to be that more reliable data might be submit-
ted if the organizations who submit the data also use the data
base. This is not'now the case. State agencies submit
the bulk of the data to both NEDS and SAROAD, but they make
little use of the systems.
2-38
-------
Most states are not aware of the retrieval and analysis
capabilities of the NADB systems. Many of them have implemented
their own automated systems. The same problem can be seen
within the Regional Offices and within the NERC, RTF. At
least three offices within the NERC have developed or are
in the process of developing systems and data bases that
derive their input from the same sources as the NADB data
bases. The result may be that duplication of effort is diluting
development resources that could be used to expand and improve
the major NADB systems (NEDS and SAROAD). The next three
sections summarize the recommendations for each of the three
problem areas associated with data base operation.
2.3.1.1. Currency of the Data -
A major problem with keeping the data bases for NEDS
and SAROAD current is that the data submittal and update
procedures have inherent delays. Each state has forty-five (45)
days after the end of the quarterly or semiannual reporting
period cutoff to submit their reports. This means that,
assuming a state holds all of its data until the end of a
reporting period, the air quality data collected at the beginning
of the quarter is almost five months old by the time it reaches
the Regional Office; emissions data collected at the beginning
of a semiannual reporting period can be almost eight months
old by the time it reaches the Regional Office. Review procedures
at the Regional Office and at NADB can add further delays
of one to two months before update. In many instances, if
the Regional Offices have had the data keypunched, further
delays have been incurred.
Three approaches can be taken to avoid the delays at
the state level:
0 EPA can change the reporting requirements for both
air quality data and emissions data. This approach
is the least desirable because of the administrative
considerations.
0 EPA can provide a mechanism by which each state
can enter update data to a central computer via a
2-39
-------
remote terminal . The Regional Offices can then
access the update data, perform validation
and edit procedures, and release the data to NADB .
An approach similar to this was explored in a previous
report ("Establishment of a Non-EPA User System for
State Implementation Plans", Contract No. 68-02-1001).
Implementation of this approach solely for the purpose
of expediting the update procedures would not be cost
effective .
The Regional Offices can work more closely with
the states in finding a mechanism for allowing the states
to submit data more frequently. This could be accom-
plished through installation of CDHS , or through providing
assistance for interfacing each states air data systems with
NEDS and SAROAD . Both approaches are being used. After
a state's data processing system becomes operational,
the generation of magnetic tapes in NEDS and SAROAD format
directly from the state's system should be possible.
Once NEDS and SAROAD compatibility are achieved, the cost
of each update should be relatively small, and updates
could be made more frequently than at present. This
approach has the added advantage of avoiding keypunch
bottlenecks at the Regional Offices. Moreover, the data
edit and validation procedures could be expected to be
faster, since preliminary edit and validation could be
done at the state level. This approach should be
formulated into a policy, since Regional program prior-
ities differ.
has already initiated steps to improve the update
procedures between the Regional Offices and NADB. The planned
decentralization of the edit and validation functions to
the Regional Offices will eliminate one communication step
currently necessary for updates. Implementation of a lowspeed
terminal update capability at the Regional Offices will improve
the t.i.me required for resubmittal of data that have been rejected
by the edit. This capability can also allow Regional Offices
to edit data that are collected sporadically as a result
of special studies conducted by the Regional Offices or
their contractors. This will also enhance the ability of
the Regional Offices to comply with the requirements of
"EPA Order No. 7520 . 2-Policy , Procedures, and Responsibilities
for the Collection and Storage of Air Quality and Source/Emissions
Data". Item 3 from Order No. 7520.2 is especially pertinent.
-------
"... Policy - The Environmental Protection Agency will collect
air quality and emissions-related data in accordance with
the following:
a. Official EPA - and OMB-approved forms for ambient
air data collection (SAROAD Form: OMB Number 158-R0012)
and source/emissions data collection (NEDS Form: OMB Number
158-R0012) and Air Pollution Emission Report APER Form: OMB
Number 158-R75) will be used by all EPA personnel involved
in collecting, verifying, and updating such data.
b. Prior to initiation, all EPA projects, whether conducted
in-house or by grant or contract, involving the collection
of air quality or source/emissions data will be coordinated
with the National Air Data Branch, Monitoring and Data Analysis
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
c. All ambient air data and source/emissions data collected
by EPA personnel or their representatives will be submitted
to the National Air Data Branch in the proper format and
in a timely fashion according to a schedule agreed upon at
the beginning of the project...."
2.3.1.2 Data Quality -
Poor data quality is a criticism that is frequently
offered by Regional Office personnel as an excuse for not
accessing NEDS and SAROAD. The major problems with the data
quality are related to misinterpretation of coding instructions,
inadequate validation routines, and missing data.
Problems with coding NEDS are expected to diminish if
NADB continues to offer user seminars. Most Regional Offices
indicated that the seminars presented to date have provided
significant assistance to people who prepare the data. Several
Regional Offices also recommended that similar seminars for
coding of SAROAD data be implemented. Suggestions concerning
the structure of SAROAD seminars were not offered.
NADB has initiated the development of more validation
2-41
-------
routines for both NEDS and SAROAD data that will soon be avail-
able to the Regional Offices. Although the availability
of more validation checks is expected to improve the overall
data quality, if not handled properly it could negate the
beneficial effects of decentralized editing and validation,
which is intended to make the data bases more current. Verifi-
cation and correction of data problems flagged during editing
and validation procedures are manual tasks. Moreover, they
usually require at least one communication between the Regional
Offices and the states. Standard procedures should be implemen-
ted within the Regional Offices to insure that data that have
passed edit and validation are forwarded to NADB immediately.
These data should not be held until problems with other data
in a batch have been corrected. Development of a bookkeeping
system to trace dates, problems, and follow up for data flagged
during editing or validation should be implemented. Currently,
no mechanism exists for the Regional Office to easily determine
the status of data that have been returned to the states
for verification. An aging priority system that would indicate
to each Regional Office the amounts and nature of data that
have been held beyond a maximum time could improve the currency
and the quality of the data bases. Neither NADB nor the
Regional Offices have tight control over this situation.
Some potential users have indicated that they have not
used the NADB systems because the data bases are missing signifi-
cant data elements. A report is available to indicate for
each state the total number of each parameter in NEDS that
are missing. This report, however, gives no guidance on the
priorities for obtaining missing data. Priorities should
be set for the items most directly applicable to modeling
or to fuel studies and trends analyses. The Regional Offices
should use this report as a yardstick for determining NEDS
update requirements of the states, and the states should be
urged to provide these data with their semi-annual reports.
Determination of the degree to which the NEDS data base
2-42
-------
represents the total population of facilities also causes problems,
NADB has defined formal procedures for verification of sources.
The Regional Offices could use a set of internal guidelines
for time limits and for methodology to be followed by the states
in verification. NADB should also set time limits on the Regional
Offices for verification response. Implementation of the CDS-
NEDS cross-reference function should provide some assistance
in verification.
Similar problems exist for SAROAD data. With SAROAD data,
the problem could be caused by changing Agency/Project codes
for a site or by data not being submitted for a sampling period.
The problem with changing Agency/Project codes can be solved
by expanding the Site Description Record and by maintaining
the dates and numbers for changes at each site. Specifications
for this recommendation are in Appendix B. The benefits to
be derived, in terms of improved trends analyses capabilities
and savings in manpower, offset the costs for this application,
and it should receive high implementation priority. Implementa-
tion of an audit procedure to trace submittals for SIP required
sites should also provide assistance for tracing data submittals
for active sites.
2.3.1.3 Responsiveness of Systems for Report Retrieval -
Another reason given for not using the system is the lag
time between requesting and receiving a report. Implementation
of an aging priority system to assure rapid turnaround can
help to solve this problem, and it will not impact the manpower
at NADB or at the EPA Computer Center at Research Triangle
Park. No changes to the NADB systems are required. This can
help to assure a two day turnaround within the computer center.
An approach should be explored with the computer center. Delays
in transmitting batch reports from NADB to the Regional Offices
constitute a separate problem. Remote batch printing on Regional
Office printers has been mentioned by several Regional Offices
as a significant problem. Backlogs on the Regional Office
printers can cause delays as long as those normally anticipated
2-43
-------
by mailing reports. These delays negate any benefits derived
from terminal batch processing. This is not a problem for
NADB, but it is mentioned here because of its impact on the
effectiveness of NADB procedures.
Implementation of an interactive file browsing capability
would be expected to improve report turnaround time. Several
users have commented that an indication of the completeness
of parameters in the data base that pertain to a specific
project could influence the decision to request a report.
Not enough information is available to perform a cost/benefit
analysis on this capability.
Implementation of data retrieval by class of parameter
could improve report turnaround time. Total machine time
for generating reports could be reduced. The extent to which
parametric data retrieval will be implemented will depend
on the file management system used.
2.3.2 Data Analysis
The major problems with data analysis using the NADB
system are associated with:
0 Data base discontinuity
0 Definition of user requirements
0 Quality control in data collection
Table 8 shows the survey recommendations related to data analysis
for NEDS and SAROAD. The other systems are not a significant
Table 8. SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO DATA ANALYSIS
System
NEDS
SAROAD
Application
1, 2, 3, 4,
1, 2, 6, 7,
19, 20, 21
(see
7,
8,
8
9
Tables 1
, 11,
, 11,
12 ,
12,
and
13,
14,
4)
16,
15,
17
16,
17, 18
part of this discussion. The general benefit to be derived
from implementation of any or all of these recommendations
is the expansion of applications for NEDS and SAROAD. The
number of users should expand as a result. Some duplication
of system and program development efforts within EPA can probably
be avoided.
2-44
-------
2.3.2.1 Data Base Discontinuity -
A major problem affecting both WEDS and SAROAD is that
update data are often not traceable to existing facilities
in NEDS or sites in SAROAD. The NEDS problem has been caused
by differences in Regional Office priorities combined with
a lack of interest in NEDS among the states. Many states have
made no attempt to maintain a cross-reference between sources
in their permit or emission inventory systems and sources in
NEDS. The result is that updates require manual cross checking
of files at a point source level. Because of differences in
defining point sources and/or because of the absence of common
identifiers such as the equipment numbers used within a facility
to identify individual pieces of equipment, cross checking
NEDS point sources against state point sources appears to be
almost impossible in many cases. The result is that the only
way to update NEDS for some states, without huge manpower expen-
ditures, is to replace the entire data base with a new inventory.
Part of this problem is the result of states not being required
to have significant ongoing NEDS coding instructions (APTD
1135) for proper cross-referencing of sources and source documents
The current implementation of expanded comments capabilities
provides more opportunity for cross-referencing NEDS against
state source documents. Although NADB has suggested using
the Card 7 capability to cross-reference against state source
documents, no formal requirement has been written. One reason
often given for not using NEDS is the absence of any cross-
reference information. NADB should consider incorporating
the source document cross-reference requirement into APTD
1.135. The capability to include cross-reference numbers has
always been available in Card 6 of NEDS, but cross-reference
numbers have not been included. Formal requirements for cross-
reference numbers and incorporation of the requirements into
the edit rejection criteria will eliminate the necessity for
replacement of entire inventories in the future and result
2-45
-------
in a data base that can be used for emissions trends analysis.
No impact on resources allocated for NEDS updates would be
incurred.
Implementation of a CDS-NEDS cross-reference number can
provide NEDS with still another source of information for updates.
This capability requires that system development costs be
incurred. In addition, it will have limited impact on the
operating budgets of both NADB and the Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (DSSE). The benefits to be derived from
this application can be directly related to improvement of
the data base continuity, but a more important benefit is
the improvement of data base quality.
SAROAD problems with data base continuity are primarily
system problems, although associated operating problems are
also apparent. Currently, if an agency code changes or if
a modification at a site occurs, a new Site Identification
Record is generated, and the old Site Identification Record
is retained. Data for the new site are added to the summary
files; however, the "old" site is carried in the Site Identifica-
tion File, but no data for the old site code are added to
the summary files. The only mechanism for tracing data/ for
a site at which site modifications or change in agency jurisdiction
have occurred, is manual review of site records. This discontin-
uity of data that occurs for a site causes serious delays and
problems for trends analysis. Recommendations have been made
for flagging sites as active/inactive and for maintaining
a history of changes to each site so that data can be easily
traced. Users outside of EPA, and in some cases EPA users
outside of NERC, RTP, may not be aware of the problems associated
with the data continuity. Consequently, they risk reaching
erroneous conclusions when performing trends analyses, or
they may prematurely decide that not enough data for a geographical
area exist in SAROAD to warrant analysis. Implementation of the
recommendations mentioned above should improve the credibility of
analyses performed on SAROAD data as well as expand the number
2-46
-------
of users.
2.3.2.2 Definition of User Requirements -
For both NEDS and SAROAD, better communications are needed
between data base users and NADB regarding the kinds of analysis
capabilities that are needed. One mechanism for improving
communications is for NADB to publish system development plans
in the "EPA Systems News." Duplication of efforts to develop
systems within other EPA offices might be avoided. Specific
requirement capabilities were defined for SAROAD trend analyses,
but not for NEDS, One reason may be that the applications
for emissions trends analyses are rather limited. The Office
of Planning and Evaluation indicated that historical trends
of emissions reductions by area and by source type are desirable.
The NEDS is being modified to make year-of-record a key item.
Any successful applications for emissions trends analyses
will rely directly on solutions to the problems mentioned
in Section 2.3.2.1. Most administrative offices could benefit
from a trends analysis capability, but better problem definition
will be required.
General requirements for trends analyses of SAROAD data
have been defined. Most of the applications involve comparison
of air quality figures quarterly or annually over several
years against a baseline, usually an air quality standard.
The capability to plot these data could save significant manpower
within the Regional Offices. Successful implementation of
trends analyses capabilities within SAROAD will depend on
the solution of the data base problems.
Development of a general statistical package does not
seem warranted at this time. Most users could be satisfied
with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) package. Some operational
problems exist with SAS, however, and these will need to be
solved in order to satisfy current needs for statistical analyses,
2.3.2.3 Quality Control in Data Collection -
Quality control problems exist in the collection of
2-47
-------
both NEDS and SAROAD data. For both systems the implementation
of more validation checks should improve the confidence of
the data users. The major quality control problems that will
still exist are those associated with data preparation.
For NEDS input, the quality control problem can be solved
by following four recommendations; (1) all manual calculations
should be shown on the back of any NEDS sheets submitted,
(2) a specified percentage of calculations should be checked
to ensure proper application of formulae, assumptions, and
emission factors, (3) a specified percent of NEDS forms submitted
should be checked against the source documents to ensure that
data are being transferred properly, (4) identification of
the data source should be coded into Card 7. These and other
quality control procedures should be incorporated into APTD
1135. Guidelines should be developed to determine the portion
of data collection budgets that should be allocated to data
validation. This approach could be especially important in
state agencies where several field offices participate in
completing NEDS. Guidelines for quality control procedures
in data handling should be developed by NADB, but final responsi-
bility for implementation must be the responsibility of the
Regional Offices.
Quality control criteria for SAROAD data are the responsibil-
ity of QAEML. There is currently no method for comparing
the reliability of air quality data submitted by different
agencies. Quality control techniques and auditing procedures
should be uniform for all agencies submitting data to SAROAD.
The only suggestion received during the survey regarding quality
control data was for the incorporation of a quality control
program scoring grade. Some Regional Offices object to this
approach because of the possible public relations implications
for some of their states. The incorporation of quality control
into the collection of SAROAD data may require a separate
quality control screening process that incorporates data from
independent measurement system audits, calibrations,
2-48
-------
site visits, and laboratory quality control procedures. The
current QAMIS system provides interim data regarding quality
control procedures, but it is inadequate for indicating the
effectiveness of those procedures.
2.3.3 Modeling
Most of the survey recommendations that can be related
to modeling include applications to improve the data preparation
steps. These recommendations are listed in Table 7.
In NEDS, implementation of a latitude - longitude to
UTM conversion program, the polygon retrieval capability,
and the confidentiality reporting option all have the potential
for saving manpower. Implementation of the recommendations
in Section 2.3.1.2 are especially applicable to modeling
procedures, since they will help to assure that the data base
is maintained in current status. Significant time and effort
is expended collecting or validating emissions inventory data
at the local agencies within states that are being modeled.
SAROAD applications for calculating wind roses and pollutant
roses, for including data not meeting the 75% completeness
criterion for computing averages, and for tracking data for
a particular site all have the potential for expanding the
effective data base available to users. As a result, users
will have expanded bases for determining which air quality
data more adequately describe an area. In many cases modelers
currently must use data for the year that has the greatest
volume of data, and no opportunity is available for comparing
data collected for several years.
2.4 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
2.4.1 NEDS
2.4.1.1 Discussion of Benefits -
There are four identifiable benefits that may result
from the implementation of the applications under consideration:
0 An improvement of the quality and completeness of
data in NEDS.
0 Reduction of input/output time and turn around time.
2-49
-------
0 A net sayings of man-hours.
0 An improvement in usage of NEDS.
Benefits to be derived from the 17 applications under
consideration are summarized in Table 9.
It is not feasible to place a dollar value on benefits,
since usage statistics for various applications were not availa-
ble xn the survey. As has been stated previously, improvements
in data quality and the response time of NEDS are incentives
to make better usage of the system. More usage of NEDS should
result in a higher quality of data submitted by the State
and local agencies.
A total of five (5) applications are expected to result
in a direct cost savings. Each application and the expected
savings is discussed below.
0 Latitude-longitude with UTM Conversion - Currently, many
of the agencies submitting NEDS data use maps pre-
pared by their respective Highway Departments. These
maps are typically marked with only latitude and
longitude. In such instances, rather than purchase
the necessary USGS maps with UTM markings, the agency
submits their NEDS data without grid coordinates.
To determine the dollar cost of this application it is
necessary to determine the number of agencies that can
provide only latitude-longitude coordinates and the
cost of purchasing the necessary USGS maps.
0 Retrieve by Range of Parameter - This application will
save computer time primarily through a reduction in
the lines of print associated with reports that list
individual point sources. Because usage statistics
for the various NEDS reports are not available, it is
difficult to determine the dollar savings with any
degree of precision. Users of the data can also
expect to reduce the man-hours spent in reviewing the
now lengthy data listing.
2 - - 5 0
-------
Table 9. BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED FROM
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICATIONS
NEDS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Application
Latitude-longitude with
UTM conversion
Polygon retrieval
Retrieve by range of
parameter
Analyze effect of poten-
tial changes to param-
eters in source record
Lowspeed terminal update
Usage statistics by
report and/or user
Benefit
Improve
data
quality
X
X
Basic accounting capability
Emission trends
Decentralization of edit
NEDS/CDS cross-reference
X
X
Expanded comments capability X
Indicate sources deleted
from reports because of
confidentiality
AQMA retrieval
Implement user training
seminars
a
X
Reduce
input/output
tine
X
X
X
X
Save
man-
hours
X
X
X
X
X
Improve
usage
of NEDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lNo significant benefit could be determined.
2-51
-------
Table 9 (continued). BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED FROM
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICATIONS
NEDS
No.
15
16
17
Application
Discontinue or modify
verification report
Add fugitive dust SCC ' s
Improve the format for
identifying , report
retrieval options .
Benefit
Improve
data
quality
X
X
Reduce
input /output
time
Save
man-
hours
Improve
usage
of NEDS
X
0 Analyze Effect of Potential Changes to Parameters
in Source Record - This application will result
in a direct savings of man-hours when it is necessary
to calculate potential emissions from a large number of
point sources in a geographical area. Suppose an
area has 200 point sources. Working from a NEDS
point source listing one could expect than an average
of 5 minutes/point source or approximately 16 man-
hours would be required to do the necessary calculations.
The computer time required to calculate potential
emissions is not expected to exceed the computer
time required to obtain the point source listing required
for the manual calculations.
-------
0 Emission Trends - If this Application is made available
to the users it is reasonable to assume that emission
trends would be determined on an annual basis for
perhaps 300 geographical areas. To manually deter-
mine the trend for any given area may require 2 man-
hours. This time would be spent preparing the
necessary request for data retrieval from NEDS and
the calculations required to fit a trend curve.
° Indicate Sources Deleted from Reports Because of
Confidentiality - Users must now review all reports
to determine if there are sources, classified as
confidential, that have not been included in various
totals. Depending upon the specific report format and
the number of point sources in the area such review
may take 1-2 manhours per report.
2.4.1.2 Assignment of Priorities -
NEDS users generally agree that the implementation of
programs to improve data quality and procedural changes to
improve data flow should receive the highest priorities by
NADB. The implementation of these programs and procedural
changes will not require major changes to NEDS.
The implementation of programs to improve data quality
will require a commitment of additional effort on the part
of the State and local agencies in preparing NEDS data for
new and modified sources of emissions. Regional Offices will
have to expedite procedures to improve data flow to NADB.
Finally, NADB must initiate action to assure minimal turnaround
time with the computer center-
A total of thirteen (13) applications were identified
which require the development of new programs or revisions
to existing programs in the system. Four (4) applications
were identified which require changes in current operating
procedures. The PEDCo project team assigned implementation
2-5.
-------
priorities for each application (Table 10 ). The priority
assignments are based on a subjective assessment of the impor-
tance of each application as discussed with the survey partici-
pants. The highest priorities are assigned to applications
9, 5, 14, and 11, none of which are related to the actual
user applications for the data. These applications all relate
to either improving data quality (9 and 11), getting data
into the system more rapidly (5) , or increasing the number
of users (14).
2.4.2 SARQAD
2.4.2.1 Discussion of Benefits -
Benefits to be derived from the 21 applications being
considered in this survey are summarized in Table 11. Twelve
applications have multiple benefits. For example the use
of lowspeed terminal update is expected to improve data quality,
reduce input/output time and save man-hours on the part of
the system users. It is interesting to note that sixteen
(16) of the applications are expected to improve usage of
the system. Based upon the information provided by the users
contacted as a part of this survey, eight (8) applications
should result in a direct savings of man-hours. Each application
is discussed below.
0 Trends Plotting - To manually determine and plot
quarterly trends requires about 1 man-hour per pol-
lutant for each station. Considering only those
stations required by the SIP's and the pollutants
required to be monitored, there are 3,024 station-
pollutant combinations. On an annual basis, then
3,024 man-hours might be saved by the use of an
automated trend plotting procedure.
0 Audit SIP Station Reporting - Regional Offices
spend a significant amount of time tracking the
quarterly air quality data submitted by the States.
3-54
-------
Table 10. PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS FOR NEDS APPLICATIONS
No .
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8 .
9 .
10 .
11 -
12 .
13 .
14 .
15 .
16 .
17 .
Application
Latitude-longitude with UTM conversion
Polygon retrieval
Retrieve by range of parameter
Analyze effect of potential changes to parameters
in source record
Lowspeed terminal update
Usage statistics by report and/or user
Basic accounting capability
Emission trends
Decentralization of edit
NEDS/CDS cross-reference
Expanded comments capability
Indicate sources deleted from report because
of confidentiality
AQMA retrieval
Implement user training seminars
Discontinue or modify verification report
Add fugitive dust SCC ' s
Improve the format for identifying report
retrieval options
Priority
10
15
13
9
2
16
14
11
1
8
4
5
17
3
6
12
7
-------
Table 11. BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED FROM
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICATIONS
SAROAD
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16 .
Application
Polygon retrieval
Benefit
Improve
data
quality
Trends plotting
Audit SIP station
reporting
Lowspeed terminal update
Usage statistics by
report and/or user
Graphics to plot site
locations
Calculate wind rose and
pollutant rose
Parametric data retrieval
Report on standards vio-
lations
Decentralized edit.
Option to include data
not meeting 75% criteria
Include 2nd maximum on
Standards Report
Identify inactive sites
X
X
X
Include reporting units on X
edit and validation reports
County retrieval
Include minimum detectable
level on report
Reduce
input/output
time
X
X
X
X
X
X
Save
man-
hours
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Improve
usage
of NEDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 11.(continued) BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICATION
SAROAD
No.
17-
18-
19.
20-
21.
Application
Application
Include accuracy of metho
in site I.D. file
AQMA retrieval
Reduce conversation with
interactive retrieval
English language retrie-
val
Standards Report more
frequently
Benefit
Improve
data
quality
d
a
Reduce
input/output
time
X
Save
man-
hours
X
Improve
usage
of SAROAD
X
X
X
"No significant benefit could be determined.
It is estimated that such auditing requires about
30 man-hours per state per quarter. On an annual
basis this amounts to more than 2500 man-hours for
all Regions combined. Even with an automated audit
procedure some manual effort would still be necessary
Assuming the net savings of man-hours is only 1250
hours, the annual savings may still be as much as
$7,500.00 based on a cost of $6.00/hr. This applica-
tion also has the added benefit that the quality of
data in SAROAD will be improved significantly by a
better audit mechanism.
-------
0 Calculate Wind Rose and Pollutant Rose - This appli-
cation will save man-hours and also improve usage of
the system. Based upon information obtained during this
survey it is not possible to quantify the savings in
man-hours. A feasibility study, however, has been
made.
0 Parametric Data Retrieval - This application has two
possible benefits. The reduction in input/output
time will result in a savings of the computer time now
required to print lengthy reports. Users of SAROAD
data can expect a significant savings in the man-hours
required to retrieve the specific data needed for
their own reports.
0 Include 2nd Maximum on the Standard Report - With the
present format of the Standards Report the user is
required to look at a detailed tabulation to deter-
mine the 2nd maximum whenever the maximum exceeds the
pertinent air quality standard. Certainly this is
a measurable amount of time required to look up the 2nd
maximum. Because the cost of implementing this change
is expected to be negligible, The major benefit becomes
improved usage of the SAROAD data base.
0 Identify Inactive Sites - This application is expected
to significantly reduce the volume of lines of
print required on data tabulations and reports. Such a
reduction will result in a direct savings of computer
time. Users will realize a savings in man-hours
by handling a lesser amount of paper. Finally, the abil-
ity to retrieve more specific data will be an added
incentive for the users to access SAROAD. A feasibility
study is needed to estimate the actual savings in
2-58
-------
man-hours.
0 Retrieval by County - As seen in Table 15 this appli-
cation can be expected to provide multiple benefits.
Essentially the application allows the user to retrieve
more specific data, which reduces the volume of
outputs. The major benefit again is expected to be
the incentive on the part of users to make greater
use of the data base.
0 Reduce Conversation with Interactive Retrieval - This
application will result in a savings of telephone
line charges, computer time and man-hours. An evalua-
tion of the actual savings cannot be made without usage
statistics. A feasibility study is required to evaluate
this application.
2.4.2.2 Assignment of Priorities -
Users of SAROAD indicated that, for the most part, existing
data retrieval formats provide the type of data listings and
summary reports needed for planning, enforcement, and management
decision making. As was previously discussed for NEDS, SAROAD
users gave the highest priority to those applications that
tend to improve getting data into, and out of, the system.
A summary of the priority assignments for the 21 applications
is presented in Table 16 . A priority assignment for each
application was made by the PEDCo project team.
The priority assignments made by the PEDCo project team
are based upon a subjective assessment of the importance of
each application, following the interviews of the various
users of SAROAD. The highest priorities are given to: decentralized
edit (1); audit of SIP reporting stations (2);and lowspeed
terminal update (3). These applications are all concerned
with reducing the time required to get new data into the data
base. The identification of inactive sites is given a priority
2-5':
-------
Table 12. PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS FOR SAROAD APPLICATIONS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4-
5 .
6.
7.
8.
9.
10-
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Application
Polygon retrieval
Trends plotting
Audit SIP station reporting
Lowspeed terminal update
Usage statistics by report and/or user
Graphics to plot site locations
Calculate wind rose and pollutant rose
Parametric data retrieval
Report on standards violations
Decentralized edit
Option to include data not meeting
75% criteria
Include 2nd maximum on Standards Report
Identify inactive sites
Include reporting units on edit and
validation reports
County retrieval
Include minimum detectable level on report
Include accuracy of method in site I.D.
file
AQMA retrieval
Reduce conversation with interactive
retrieval
English language retrieval
Standards Report more frequently
Priority
17
9
3
2
16
15
14
12
5
1
8
11
4
13
7
18
19
21
10
20
6
?-60
-------
of 4, reflecting the need to reduce time spent in extracting
necessary data from otherwise voluminous tabulations. The
next ten applications have to do with more specific and more
frequent standards reports.
2.5 IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
This section summarizes the level of effort and cost for
implementing each survey recommendation. The recommendations
are divided into two classifications:
0 Recommendations for improving data base operations.
0 Recommendations for improving data analysis capabilities.
For recommendations specified in the Appendix, the level of
effort and cost derivations are included with the specifications.
Costs are estimated from:
0 Required manpower-professional and clerical support
(Clerical support includes keypunching)
0 Compile and run times based on UNIVAC 1100 run times for
similar programs
° Travel, printing, or other direct charges.
Manpower costs are based on the number of hours required
for previous applications similar in type and scope to these
recommendations. The cost of a professional man-hour is assumed
to be $20 per hour, or an average rate that might be expected
by using a mix of GS11 and GS12 levels. The average clerical
support cost is assumed to be $5 per hour.
Program compilation and run times are based on UNIVAC
times for current programs similar to the ones specifed. Computer
charges are based on total estimated computer time charged
at $368.00/SUP (SUP is System Unit of Processing). The SUP
is a total of CC/ER charge, CAU Time, and I/O Time,
where:
CC/ER = computer execution requests
CAU Time = time the central processor is active
I/O Time = number of file accesses.
It should be emphasized that run times are only estimates, and
that for most applications they are extrapolated from run
2-61
-------
times for programs similar to but not the same as the specific
programs discussed. Annual operating costs are not projected
here because of the lack of available information from users
concerning the number of job requests they have for current
NADB programs as well as the requests they might have for
projected programs(this supports the need for system usage
statistics).
Travel, printing, or other direct charges involved with
implementation or operation of any of the recommendations
are based on current commercial rates.
2.5.1 Implementation Requirements for NEDS
The level of effort and cost for implementing each of
the recommendations related to improving the data base operation
are summarized in Table 13. The level of effort and cost
for implementing each of the recommendations related to improving
the NEDS data analysis capabilities are summarized in Table 14.
For this application category, all annual operating costs
would be in addition to current system operating costs. Where
cost savings could be realized, they would be in terms of
manpower costs versus computer costs.
A significant cost saving might be realized by combining
the implementation efforts for:
0 Retrieval by Range of Parameter
0 Analysis of the Effects of Potential Changes.
If the NADB*NEDS USER file is defined as a system 2000 file
that meets the requirements for both applications, then the
costs anticipated for building the data base need to be incurred
• only once. As shown in Appendix A-3 and A-4, the System 2000
data bases that might be defined for each of the two applications
are similar enough for this approach to be taken. Moreover,
this approach might preclude the necessity for writing a separate
program to fulfill the requirement for a basic accounting
capability.
2.5.2 Implementation Requirements for SAROAD
The level of effort and cost for implementing each of
the recommendations related to improving the data base operation
2-62
-------
en
EH
H
D
a
w
CtJ
o
H
EH
'.p
-4-' O
C
a1
^
a;
• H
51
QJ rH
ri QJ
-P en
C 3 -P
O & u)
-H g 0
-POO
re cj
-P
C
(D
g
0)
1 — 1
a !H
g 0) en
H 3: -P
O en
di O
G 0
rd
en
S_i
;3
O
rG
1
G
rd
S
(^
O
•H
-P
rd
U
•H
rH
Cij
dj
<£
0
rd X!
O o O
o o o
mo o
•<* 0 0
in o o
^ V *•
rH m in
rH
o
o
•
in
oo
rH
-to-
es
o
0
rO
>.
rH
in-
o
CO
UH
0) O
T3 ' 1
3 rd G
-P G O
•H -H -H
CJ1 g -P
G M 'd
O QJ N
-H -P -H
1 rH
QJ rd QJ rd
13 QJ -P SH
3 QJ rd -P -P
-P O4T3 G -H
•H en QJ 0) rO
-P 33 U 0
rfl O QJ
in1 iJ Q
M in m
SH
\
o o o
o o o
s s s
C* 0 0
^ *•
r^ o ^
rH •-<
M
^~t
\
0 0
0 0
• •
0 0
rH in
'S1 r\i
•• ••
rst rH
o
O
•
o
1 en
en QJ G -H 1 QJ rH o
QM OJC rd rH Q^'U
U QJ g -H en -P QJ
i m QJ rd SH rd en •
cnaj rHrHrd n D rd
Q SH O, -P C
U g — —
.-.^ H rH CNJ
O ^J1
i— 1 rH
SH
\
o
o
o
rH
O
^
O
rH
rH
>!
\
0
o
•
0
rH
•^
••
CN
O
0
0
o
^
r~.
rH
K*1
\
O
•vf
^3*
C
o
-H
-p
rd
-P
£
QJ
en
QJ
S_l
eu
•
jq
en
en
QJ
i — 1
0)
o
-P
QJ
•P
U
QJ
a,
x
QJ
4-)
H3
,Q
•-
X
•H
G
QJ
a,
a,
^
G
•H
rj^J
QJ
-P
rd
g
-H
-P
en
QJ
-P ^
O 0
G O
-P 0
en o
O o
u •>
rH
rH {/>
rd
-P G
O rd
— -P
1
•H
r^i
0 G
g 0
•rH
SH -P
O rd
U
QJ -H
3 4H
C -H
•H SH -P
-P QJ SH
G > O
O O<
U >, QJ
en MH SH
•H
Q
rH
O
o
o
fr.
o
ro
rH
rd
-P
O
-P
QJ
.G
-P
SH
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
rH
-C/>
QJ
-P
rd
O
•H
G
•H
O
en
G
rd
en
Q
o
en
(U
.p
rd
g
I
-P
U
OJ
•o o
O O
rH O
m
CM
G
-------
CO
EH
¥-,
w
s
H
&
H
P
a
w
o
H
EH
S3
H
t^-l
H
J
ft
2
H
I
CO
H
CO
CO
Q
P
01
rH
rH
rd
-P
O
EH
03
-P
r-<
5
s
OJ
SH
-H
r3
? V*
CJ
o
M
G
0
•rH
-P
rd
-P
G
O
g
GJ
rH
Ou
g
H
SH
(!)
x;
-P
o
in
QJ
-P 01
3 -P
DJ 01
g o
O 0
U
!H
0) 01
S -P
O 01
a, o
G 0
rd
s
01
M
d
O
X!
1
d
^d
<~*
G
O
•H
-P
rd
U
•H
rH
&1
&
rt!
0
t-^
o
o
•
m
rr
in
rH
O
o
•
in
00
rH
O
o
•
o
>sD
ro
rH
O
00
QJ
T3
3
-P
•H
tn
G
O
rH
1
OJ
T3 -P
3 d
P a
-H G
P -H
rd
p
,-H
O
o
•
m
CTl
n
m
CN
0
o
•
in
r-
•^
*-
rH
O
O
•
O
CN
CTi
•-
ro
rsi
^
r^-
CN
rH
rH
rd
>
QJ
•H
JH
-P
QJ
SH
G
O
Cn
>i
rH
0
ft
•
CM
O
O
•
m
ro
oo
CO
0
o
•
m
rH
ON
*•
rH
O
O
•
o
rsi
H
•*
r^
(M
a>
ro
QJ
cn
G
rd SH
JH QJ
-P
>i QJ
XJ 6
fd
QJ M
> rd
0) &,
•H
SH m
-P 0
QJ
'A
oo
O
o
•
m
rH
m
CO
o
o
•
m
rH
o
•*
rH
O
O
•
O
o
m
•*
r-
0
CN
^r
01
OJ G
m Cn-rH
O G
rd 01 rrj
-P X! fn JH
O O i-P d
rH O 0 0
rd &i -P 0)
G
i
-P 0) SH O -P
C QJ -H
(U U g 0) H
g SH O 01 , ? r-l 3 -H
0 -P o m rd -P
U -H 03 O G
rH Id <1) OJ
n3 -iH 0) QJ X3 ^
0) X} -P -P -H
T3 rd fd QJ -P MH
G CX U H rH G
rd rd -H QJ O O
Cu U Td T3 a U
X G
rf H
rH CN
rH rH
U
u
CO
\
0
o
,
o
CM
in
rH
rH
U
U
CO
\
o
o
•
0
CM
Ln
•*
rH
rH
to
«3
IO
03
u
u
CO
rH
rd -P
> 01
0) 3
•H rO
rH
-P QJ
0) >
M -H
-p
<; -H
S C7>
a 3
f< fa
OO UD
rH H
o
0
*
O
0
in
rH
O
O
o
o
m
•(/}-
o
o
*
o
o
o
rH
0
CO
4-)
rd
g
rH
O
m
a)
X!
4-)
QJ
>
O
JH
a
g
H
r->
rH
rH
tn rd
G >
•H QJ
>1-H
4H rH
•H -P
-P QJ
G M
0) 03
T3 -P G
•HMO
O -H
M fi-P
O QJ Cu
UH !H O
2-64
-------
for SAROAD are summarized in Table 15.
The level of effort and cost for implementing each recommen-
dation related to improving SAROAD data analysis capabilities
are shown in Table 16.
Some of recommended applications for SAROAD can be combined
in the implementation phase, and a significant cost savings
can be realized. The possibility of combining applications
in the implementation phase is expected to affect the system
of priorities applied to individual applications. The suggested
areas for consolidating implementation efforts follow.
0 Polygon Retrieval and Graphics for Site Locations - The
program for polygon retrieval includes logic for determining
if a point is within a defined area. The same logic
is used in the program to provide graphic display of site
locations. As much as 50 percent of the cost of imple-
menting the latter capability might be saved by combinincf
implementation.
0 Polygon Retrieval for SAROAD is the same as for NEDS.
Changes to the input/output formats and to the JCL is
the major difference between these applications. At
least 75 percent of the cost of this program for SAROAD
should be saved if it is already implemented for NEDS,
and vice versa.
0 Several report programs will be affected if any of the
following program changes are implemented:
1. County retrieval
2. Addition of an inactive site code
3. Minimum detectable levels on reports
4. Statement on method accuracy in site record.
Any schedule for implementation should reflect the fact that
a significant amount of testing time, both programmer time
and computer time, can be saved by combining the applications
rather than making each change individually.
-------
U)
EH
H
p
a
w
o
H
EH
<;
EH
r^
w
a
w
o
H
H
ft
O
W
CO
0
G
(D
E
(D
•H
b1
0) JH
in Q)
•P tn
G 3 -P
O O, tn
•H e o
•P O O
rd U
4->
G
0)
n
Q S-l
G -j en
H '-. -p
T; co
C4 O
G O
a)
tn
S-i
|3
O
x;
i
c
rd
C
O
-r-l
-P
rrj
C;
-r-l
rH
;i.
Ol
ft!
•
'
rd X!
o o o
o o o
Lf"> O O
in oo
C?l O O
LT) UO LT)
•00- rH
o
o
LT)
00
•00-
o
o
.
o
r\i
CM
•>
LD
•00-
co
CO
(N
-P
C rH -H
O rrj 13
•H G 0)
-P -H
rd g 13
-P !H CU
in dn cu N
G -P -H
ft -H rH
H -P '"d 0) rrj
C/} 5-| 0) -P r-l
O 0) id .p
-P a ra,^ £
•H Q) in di (D
13 in S 3 O
3 O 0)
< J Q
rH ^ 0
rH
OJ
-p
0)
o
X
^
X
-H
13
C
a.
G
•H
13 o
0) 0
4-1 •
rd o
E o
-H O
-P -
tj") i — 1
a; -oo-
•P C
O rd
G x;
-p
-p
in in
O in
O 0)
rH
rd OJ
4-1 X!
0
EH O
—- -P
tn
G G
•H 4-1 O
4-> -H -H
in 13 4-i
O (U rrj
D-i 13
(D C -H
SH O i—i in
rd 4-1
0) in > SH
13 4-) O
3 -H T3 dj
rH C C 0)
O ^S rd J-i
C
H
^
rH
G
O 0)
-H >
4J -H
rd 4->
tn o
M rd
CU S-l °
> 0) rH
G -P rd
O C >
O -H d)
•H
0) XI r-l
O 4-1 -P
P -H 0)
13 3 !H
0)
tf
cn
rH
-p
o
(D
*( 1
O
Qj
rH
rd
-P
O
-P
0)
-P
!H
O
MH
O
O
0
o
( j
-oo-
0)
rd
O
-H
13
C
•H
Q
O
PH
f^C
CO
13
G
rd
en
Q
H
^
^
4J
O
^Q
5-1
O
4H
in
0)
1 i
rd
S
•r-l
4J
in
o
o
o
o
ro
-00-
o
o
o
in
-oo-
G
(U
0)
^
-P
0)
X!
4-1
in
0
o
1
i 1
rH
•H
£
in
tn
C
rd
U
Q
O
OH
CO
13
G
rd
CO
Q
W
"Z.
x;
-P
0
X)
4J
rd
X!
4-J
0)
J_l
rd
in
0)
-p
rd
j=j
•H
-P
tn
•
^
13
3
4-1
tn
^>1
-p
•H
, — j
•H
X!
•H
in
rd
0)
m
rd
in
0)
M
•H
rj
tr
Q)
-------
Table 16. SAROAD DATA ANALYSIS - IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
No. Application
1 Polygon retrieval
2 Trends plotting
6 Graphics to plot
site locations
7 Calculate wind
rose/pollutant
rose3
8 Parametric, data
retrieval
9 Report of Stan-
dards Violations
11 Option to include
data not meeting
75% criteria
12 Include 2nd maxi-
mum on Standards
Report
13 Identify inactive
sites0
15 County retrieval
16 Include mimimum
detectable
level on re-
port
17 Include accuracy
of method in site
I.D. filec
18 AQMA retrieval0
19 Reduce conversa-
tionc with inter-
active retrieval
20 English language
retrieval
21 Standards report
more frequently
Man-hours
Manpower
costs
(See Table 14)
472
272
160
144
86
112
56
(Imp]
$8,360.00
4,960.00
2,840.00
2,640.00
1,600.00
2,120.00
1,060.00
ementation c
Computer
cost
$1,205.00
1,500.00
275.00
28a.OO
185.00
185.00
370.00
osts not re
Other
quired)
Total
$9,565.00
6,460.00
30,000.00
3,115.00
2,915.00
1,785.00
2,305.00
per prog-
ram
1,430.00
These figures were taken from a feasibility study on this problem.
Cost for this may be as high as $50,000, depending on demonstrated
capability of System 2000.
Estimates not made. Feasibility study required to supply cost estimates.
2-61
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
TASK DESCRIPTIONS
NEDS
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A TASK DESCRIPTIONS - NEDS
A.I.
APPLICATION - Latitude/longitude conversion to UTM coordi-
nates in NEDS format.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to allow users
to input latitude/longitude coordinates for conversion to
UTM coordinates or vice versa. TCLCONV (FORTRAN IV) is
already available to provide the conversion algorithms.
TCLCONV will be modified for this application. The modifi-
cations will provide two types of output:
1. Punched cards with UTM coordinates in NEDS format
for direct updating of NEDS.
2. An interactive listing of latitude/longitude coor-
dinates and their corresponding UTM coordinates.
This listing includes user comments, such as plant
I.D.'s or sampling site I.D.'s, if the user pro-
vides them as input.
The first type of output should result in a more complete
data base by allowing states to input UTM coordinates to
NEDS when only latitude/longitude coordinates are available
from the state files. The second type of output will be
useful for such future applications as polygon retrieval
(A.2). This application will be executed at the Regional
Office or State Agency level to minimize the impact, on NADB' s
operating procedures and to provide maximum turnaround
efficiency.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input is punched card or keyboard input
to TCLCONV. The input must include NEDS "key" identifiers if
NEDS update cards are desired, user comments can be input
along with the latitude/longitude or UTM coordinates. An
example input description for generating NEDS output cards
follows:
A-2
-------
CC Description Format
1-2 SAROAD State No. F2.0
3-6 SAROAD County No, F4.0
7-9 Federal AQCR No. F3.0
10-13 Plant I.D. No. F4.0
14-15 Point I.D. No. F2.0
16-20 Blank 5X
21-26 Latitude F6.0
27-33 Longitude F7.0
34-80 Blank
An example input description for generating the interactive
coordinates listing follows.
CC Description Format
1-20 User comments A20
21-26 Latitude F6.0
27-33 Longitude F7.0
34-80 Blank
This format will be changed slightly to accomodate the case
in which UTM's are input.
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output for the NEDS option is punched
card from TCLCONV in NEDS format as "changes". A listing
of input/output is printed.
Card 1 - One card per plant
CC_ Description Format
1-2 SAROAD State No. F2.0
3-6 SAROAD County No. F4.0
7-9 Federal AQCR F3.0
10-13 Plant I.D. No. F4.0
14-17 blank 5X
18-19 UTM Zone F2.0
20-77 blank 58X
78 Action Code "C" Al
79 »p» A1
80 Card No. "1" II
A-3
-------
Card 2 - One card per point source
CC
1-2
3-6
7-9
10-13
14-15
16-23
24-27
28-32
33-77
78
79
80
Description
SAROAD State No.
SAROAD County No
Federal AQCR
Plant I.D. No.
Point I.D. No.
Blank
Horizontal UTM
Vertical UTM
Blank
Action Code "C"
-p..
Card No. "2"
Format
F2.0
F4.0
P3.-0
F4.0
F2.0
8X
F4. 1
F5.1
45X
Al
Al
II
INPUT/OUTPUT LISTING FORMAT
STATE
XX
COUNTY
XXXX
AQCR
XXX
PLANT
XXXX
POINT
XX
LAT,
XX XX XX
LONG.
XXX XX XX
NORTHING
XXX. X
5ASTING
XXXX.X
ZONE
XX
OPERATION - Input is either keyboard or punched cards in the
format required by the output option the user specifies. If
the NEDS output cards are desired, the complete NEDS key is
mandatory. A control card can be used to identify the input/
output options desired.
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The following changes to TCLCONV
are needed.
1. Change input formats to accomodate NEDS key data.
2. Change input formats to accomodate user comments.
3. Input a control card to identify the desired input
conversion and the output option.
A-4
-------
4. Define a card punch as an output device.
5. Format the output for each option.
6. Insert logic to punch a NEDS Card 1 for each plant
if NEDS update cards are desired.
7. Insert logic to punch a NEDS Card 2 for each input
card.
The flow diagrams for the logic to produce NEDS update cards
are shown on the following pages.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST*-
1. Changes to TCLCONV =40 hours = $ 800.00
@ $20/hr.
2. Documentation including instructions = 560.00
for R.O.'s = 24 hours @ $20/hr plus 136Q OQ
16 hours clerical support @ $5/hr.
3. Computer time is:
2 test @ 15 min/test including compile = _ 185.00
and run time = 30 min = .5 SUP @ $368/SUP
$1545.00
* Note: Costs presented in appendices A and B are given to
nearest $5.00.
A-5
-------
SYSTEM FLOW
O
LAT/LONG
TCLCONV
LISTING
OF
INPUT/OUTPUT
REVIEW
BY [
STATE/R.O.
CORRECT
INPUT
S_
f
NEDS
"CHANGES"
A-6
-------
PROGRAM LOGIC
WRITE
NEW
CARD "1"
WRITE .
CARD "2" r
PRINT
INPUT/
OUTPUT
INPUT
OUTPUT/
LISTING
A-7
-------
A.2.
APPLICATION - Polygon - defined area retrieval
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to allow users to
define, by Latitude/longitude coordinates, a polygon-shaped
geographical area and to retrieve data on NEDS point sources
or SAROAD monitoring sites within the defined area. Two
algorithms will be applied. The first is for determining if
a point lies within a defined area. This algorithm must be
developed. The second is for determining if a point lies
within a specified radius of another point in the polygon.
This algorithm has been developed but it requires s;light
modifications. These algorithms will allow users to:
1. Input latitude/longitude coordinates to NEDS
and create a subfile of point sources within
the polygon that meet selection criteria. This
will create a subfile in the same format as
NE001A.
2. Retrieve all site identification numbers for
SAROAD monitoring sites within a radius of a
specified point source.
3. Input coordinates to SAROAD and obtain an active
site listing for monitoring sites within the
polygon.
The rationale of the total capability described is to re-
duce print time and report size as well as to increase
total report retrieval flexibility. This application will
be in FORTRAN IV. Latitude/longitude coordinates are
recommended instead of UTM coordinates, because the UTM
coordinate system is based on zones around the globe, and
there is a discontinuity between zones. Consequently,
A-1
-------
when a polygon area spans two zones, it is necessary to
project coordinates from one zone into the other.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input will be punched cards or key-
board. A control card will designate the option desired.
The options will be:
1. Create the subfile of NEDS point sources that
meet a specified set of criteria and lie within
the polygon.
2. Retrieve a list of NEDS plant I.D.'s that lie
within the polygon.
3. Retrieve a list of SAROAD active monitoring sites
for a specified pollutant/method that lie within
the polygon.
4. Retrieve I.D. numbers for all point sources or
monitoring sites that lie within a designated
radius of a given NEDS point source.
5. For all NEDS point sources that meet specified
criteria and lie within the polygon, create a
subfile of I.D. numbers of SAROAD monitoring
sites that lie within a specified radius of any
of the point sources.
aBefore applying the radius selection algorithm,
the SAROAD monitoring site I.D. should be compared
to the I.D.'s already selected. This will save
processing time and insure that each monitoring
site is represented only once in the subfile being
created. This test is necessary, since it is possible
for a single monitoring site to be within the
designated radius from multiple NEDS point source
locations.
A-9
-------
For each processing option, the control card format will
differ, since different parameters must be specified.
Separate formats for designating the political subdivisions
will be applied for both NEDS and SAROAD.
NEDS POLYGON INPUT - For NEDS, the State, AQCR, and County
code numbers can be input along with the latitude/longitude
coordinates that define the area. A parameter "n" indicates
the number of vertices (points) on the polygon. If County
code is not entered, control is on AQCR code within State
code. If County code and AQCR code are not entered, control
defaults to State code*.. Two sets of cards are input. The
first card identifies the NEDS keys. The second card or
set of cards define the polygon. Multiple states can be
run, but multiple request cards are required.
Card 1
CC Description Format
1-2 State I.D. 12
3-6 County I.D. 1 14
7-9 AOCR I.D. for County 1 13
(Repeat County I.D. for
up to 11 counties per
card)
78-79 Blank X
80 "1" II
Repeat Card 1 for each, state
Card 2
1-2 Number of points on the 12
polygon
3-9 Longitude coordinate for F7.0
first point.
10-15 Latitude coordinate for F6.0
first point
A-10
-------
16-22 Longitude coordinate for F7.0
second point
23-28 Latitude coordinate F6.0
for second point
Repeat above format for
each polygon point up to
5 points per card
80 "2" II
Repeat coordinate fields on Card 2's until "n" fields equal
to the number of points defined in the first Card 2 have
been defined.
Polygon coordinate fields must be defined in sequence clock-
wise beginning with the point that has the largest longitude
coordinate.
Card 3
1-4 SIC 14
5-6 IPP 12
7-14 SCC 18
15-21 Operating rate 17
22-24 Sulfur Content F3.1
25 Source code Al
26 Run option II
27-28 Radius retrieval (km) 12
This format could be altered to include any criteria selec-
tion parameters desired.
SAROAD POLYGON INPUT - For SAROAD, the State, AQCR, and
Pollutant/Method codes can be input along with the lati-
tude/longitude coordinates that define the area. A para-
meter "n" indicates the number of points on the polygon.
If Pollutant/Method codes are not input, selection is by
AQCR code within State code. If Pollutant/Method codes and
AQCR code are not input, selection defaults to State code.
The second card or set of cards define the polygon.
A-ll
-------
Card 1
CC Description Format
1-2 State i.L). 12
3-5 AQCR 13
(Repeat AQCR's for as
many state portions of
AQCR's as desired
80 "1" II
Repeat Card 1 for each state
Card 2 - Card 2 format to identify the polygon is the same
as for NEDS Card 2.
Card 3
1-7 Pollutant/Method code 17
8 Interval code H
9-10 Year of record 12
A-ll
Repeat the above format for each pollutant/method/interval/
year combination.
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output will be the subfiles for app-
lication of report programs or an interactive listing of
desired information. An example of an interactive listing
is shown below for NEDS plants within a defined polygon.
PLANTS WITHIN POLYGON DEFINED BY
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
XX XX XX XXX XX XX
STATE AQCR COUNTY PLANT
XX XXX XXXX XXXX
A-12
-------
OPERATION - Polygon Retrieval Algorithm - Input for de-
fining the polygon must be sequential clockwise beginning
with the point with the largest longitude coordinate.
The polygon can be any triangle, any rectangle, or any con-
vex polygon, i.e. one for which the angle between any two
consecutive sides is greater tho.n 90 degrees but less than
180 degrees.
Any polygon with five or more sides having an angle less
than 90 degrees between any two consecutive sides is un-
acceptable .
Examples of acceptable and non-acceptable polygons are
shown below.
ACCEPTABLE
NON-ACCEPTABLE
Angle less than 90°
(Angles 8, 9, 10, 11
are greater than 180°)
The program gives users the flexibility for retrieving
information for counties within a state or for counties
within several states. Consequently, interstate AQCR' s
can be covered.
A-13
-------
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The following considerations
apply only to the algorithm for polygon retrieval.
1. The number of points on the polygon is read
followed by the coordinates of each point. The
coordinates are stored in an array.
2. The coordinates of the polygon are compared to
determine the minimum and maximum longitude (X)
and latitude? (Y) coordinates for the polygon.
3. The minimum and maximum X and Y become the end
points for the sides of an imaginary rectangle
enclosing the polygon.
4. Transform the latitude/longitude coordinates of
the polygon to a rectangular coordinate system
in kilometers. For simplicity, place the origin
of the rectangular coordinate system at a point
corresponding to the maximum longitude and mini-
mum latitude of the n points of the polygon, i.e.
start in the lower left corner of the imaginary
rectangle defined in Step 3.
Look up the length in kilometers of 1° of longi-
tude for the latitude that lies half way between
the minimum and maximum latitudes of the n points
of the polygon. Table A.2.1 shows the lengths
of 1° of longitude at various latitudes. The
length of 1° of latitude is approximately 111.19
kilometers.
5. Calculate and store the slopes and intercepts
of the n sides of the polygon. If the absolute
value (X. ,) - X. = 0, then b. = infinity. Test
for (X. ,) - X. - 0 before calculating b., the slope
of a line, in order to avoid dividing by zero
A-14
-------
Table A.2.1 LENGTH OF A DEGREE OF LONGITUDE
AT SPECIFIED LATITUDES
Lat°
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Degree of Longitude
(km)
111.388
111.372
111.320
111.237
111.119
110.968
110.781
110.564
110.312
110.026
109.709
109.356
108.969
108.551
108.101
107.617
107.101
106.552
105.971
105.357
104.712
104.035
103.327
102.586
101.816
101.013
100.180
Lat°
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Degree of Longitude
(km)
99.317
98.425
97.501
96.548
95.564
94.551
93.512
92.443
91.345
90.221
89.068
87.889
86.681
85.448
84.188
82.903
81.593
80.258
78.897
77.514
76.105
74.673
73.219
71.742
70.243
68.721
67.180
A-15
-------
Table A.2.1 (continued) LENGTH OF A DEGREE OF LONGITUDE
AT SPECIFIED LATITUDES
Lat°
54
55
i6
^7
53
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
73
79
80
Degree of longitude
(km)
65.618
64.035
62.433
60.812
59.171
57.514
55.836
54.143
52.432
50.705
48.963
47.206
45.435
43.649
41.849
40.035
38.211
36.375
34 .527
32.668
30.800
28 .921
27.034
25.139
23.234
21.324
19.406
Lat°
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Degree of longitude
(km)
17.483
15.554
13.620
11.683
9.741
7.797
5.849
3.900
1.950
A-16
-------
in the formula to calculate bi. If the value is
zero, this indicates that the side of the polygon is
perpendicular to the base. In testing for whatever
point lies within the interval of the end points of a
polygon side, we are actually testing to see if the
longitude of the point lies within the interval defined
by the maximum and minimum latitudes for the side.
6. Read the coordinates of a point source from NEDS
or for an active monitoring site from the SAROAD
Site Identification File.
7. If the coordinates of the point do not fall within
the imaginary rectangle defined in Step 3 above,
read the coordinates of the next NEDS point source
or SAROAD monitoring site.
8. If the coordinates of the point fall within the
imaginary rectangle, it is necessary to test to
see if the point is within the defined polygon.
9. Transform the coordinates of the point in question
to kilometers in the same manner as was done for
the polygon points.
10. Read the coordinates of points i and i + 1 on
the polygon.
11. If the X coordinate of the NEDS point source or
SAROAD monitoring site, whichever is applicable,
falls within the interval X. to X. on the
i i+l
polygon, it is necessary to determine the coordinate
of the location on the side n of the polygon
where an ordinate constructed at point X, the NEDS
A-17
-------
point source or SAROAD monitoring site location,
on the horizontal axis would intersect the poly-
gon side. This point is defined as: Y(up) =
a. + b.X.
12. Continue to read the coordinates of the end points
of the remaining sides of the polygon to find the
second side of the polygon where the ordinate at
point X intersects the polygon. Define this point
as: Y (low) = a. + b.X.
13. If Y(low) < Y < Y(up), then the coordinates of the
point in question lie within the defined polygon.
Special formulae used are:
1. X.., - X. = 0 tests the absolute value of the
j.+l i
difference between two polygon points to determine
if a slope find intercept can be calculated. This
is to handle the special case in which a perfect
vertical line has been defined. It is a necessary
test to avoid dividing by zero in the next set of
formulae.
Y - Y.
2. b. = ^3 ~ calculates the slope of each side of
1 X .... — A .
1+1 1
the polygon.
a.
= Y. - b.X. calculates the intercept for each
111
side of the polygon along the Y axis of the starting
point, i.e. the point with the largest longitude
coordinate.
The accompanying diagrams illustrate the process. The
notations are:
- The largest longitude (X) coordinate of the
ith side of the polygon.
X.
X. , = the smallest longitude (X) coordinate of the
ith side of the polygon.
A-18
-------
Y up = the highest Y point at which a vertical
line through a point within the polygon
intersects the ith side of the polygon.
Y low - the lowest Y point at which a vertical
line through a point within the polygon
intersects the ith side of the polygon .
X = the point being tested from the USER file
or from the SAROAD Site Identification file
X min. = smallest longitude (X) coordinate value for
the polygon.
X max. - largest longitude (X) coordinate value for
the polygon.
Y min. = smallest latitude (Y) coordinate value for
the polygon.
Y max. = largest latitude (Y) coordinate value for
the polygon.
Rectangle defines a general area in which a point must lie to be
considered.-
\
I
X min, Y max
X max
This point will not
be considered.
These points
will be considered,
Y min.
A-19
-------
X] is the starting point,
since it is the smallest
X coordinate value on the
polygon.
This point is within an
X-interval that is de-
fined by X2 - Xs and
also within the interval
defined by X5 - X4.
This point is not
within a polygon
X-interval.
X is within the
X-interval de-
fined by X] - X2.
Y up - Y value at which
vertical line through X _
intersects line.
Y low = Y value at which
vertical line through X
intersects line.
This point lies within the
X-interval defined by X] -
X2, but its Y coordinate
is not between Y up and Y
low.
A-20
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary study and problem
definition = 160 hrs @ $20/hr.
2. Coding = 460 hours @ $20/hr. plus
64 hours clerical support @ $5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging = 480 hours
@ $20/hr.
4. Documentation = 70 hours @ $20/hr.
plus 40 hours clerical support @
$5/hr.
5. Computer time is
12 compile/test runs @ 20
minutes/run = 240 min = 4 SUP @
$368/SUP
$ 3200.00
9520.00
9600.00
1600.00
23,920.00
1475.00
$25,395.00
A-21
-------
PROGRAM LOGIC
Retrieval
Card 1's
T
START
Initialize
arrays
Read
Control
Cards
Read
, Polygon
lat./long.
Cards
7
Calculate
X min
X max
Y min
Y max
A-22
-------
G
A-23
-------
A-24
-------
Y(low)=
ai+biX
-------
A.3.
APPLICATION - Parametric data retrieval.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to allow NEDS users
to specify a value range for one or more NEDS point source
parameters and to retrieve data only for those sources
having values within the range. The user could specify
his own report design, or he could retrieve applicable
plant/point source numbers with which to access existing
retrieval programs such as NE214, the Point Source Listing
program. This is an application for SYSTEM 2000 or an
equivalent file management system. The specifications
included here are for SYSTEM 2000. The application has
two phases. Phase 1 is a program written in Procedural -
Language - Feature - COBOL to establish a subfile of the
NADB* NEDS - USER file. The Phase 1 programming should
be completed by NADB to avoid duplication of effort within
other EPA offices. Phase 2 is a SYSTEM 2000 program
written to retrieve data elements in IMMEDIATE ACCESS
mode from the data base created in Phase 1. The user will
supply the commands necessary to load the data base and
to interrogate the elements. The rationale for this
application is that it can improve the applicability of
NEDS for special studies by eliminating the time needed
for manual review of reports. The total report print
time could be reduced, thereby improving report turnaround
time.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to Phase 1 is the NADB* NEDS -USER
file, Input to Phase 2 is the SYSTEM 2000 defined file
created in Phase 1.
A-26
-------
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output from Phase 1 is a data base with
the following description.
The heirarchical levels are:
Level 0 = State
Level 1 = AQCR
Level 2 = County
Level 3 = Plant
Level 4 = Point
COUriTY)(COUNTY][COUNTY
\
\
V
/•
r
X
-^.
N
\
/
/
/
^ -<.
f \
v ;
^. /
\
\
^
i
\
\
A-27
-------
The KEY elements are:
State Number
AQCR Number
County Number
Plant Number
Point Number
SIC
Ownership Code
Stack Height
Boiler Design Capacity
Control Equipment Codes
Emissions Estimates
Estimation Methods
Compliance Schedule
SCC
Percent Sulfur
Operating Rate
Maximum Design Rate
Percent Ash
The data base definition is:
1* STATE (KEY NAME XX):
2* AQCR (RG):
3* AQCR-NUMBER (KEY NAME XXX IN 2) :
4* COUNTY (RG IN 3):
5* COUNTY-NUMBER (KEY NAME XXXX IN 4):
6* PLANT (RG IN 5):
7* PLANT-NUMBER (KEY INTEGER NUMBER XXXX IN 6)
8* PLANT-NAME (NAME X(40) IN 6):
9* OWNERSHIP (KEY NAME X IN 6) :
10* POINT (RG IN 6):
A-28
-------
11* POINT-NUMBER (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
12* SIC (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(4) IN 10):
13* STACK-HEIGHT (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(4) IN 10):
14* STACK-DIAMETER (NON-KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10)
15* STACK-TEMP (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(4) IN 10):
16* FLOW (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
17* PLUME (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(4) IN 10):
18* BOILER (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(4) IN 10):
19* PRIM-PART (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
20* SEC-PART (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
21* PRIM-SOX (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
22* SEC-SOX (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
23* PRIM-NOX (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
24* SEC-NOX (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
25* PRIM-HC (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
26* SEC-HC (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
27* PRIM-CO (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
28* SEC-CO (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(3) IN 10):
29* PART-EFFIC (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10):
30* SOX-EFFIC (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10):
31* NOX-EFFIC (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10):
32* HC-EFFIC (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10):
33* CO-EFFIC (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10):
34* PERCENT-WINTER (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
35* PERCENT-SPRING (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
36* PERCENT-SUMMER (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
37* PERCENT-FALL (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10);
38* HOURS-DAY (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
39* DAYS (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10):
40* WEEKS (NON-KEY INTEGER NUMBER 99 IN 10):
41* PART-EST (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
42* SOX-EST (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
43* NOX-EST (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
44* HC-EST (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
45* CO-EST (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
A-29
-------
46* PART-METH (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10):
47* SOX-METH (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10):
48* NOX-METH (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10):
49* HC-METH (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10);
50* CO-METH (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 10):
51* SPACE-HEAT (NON-KE^ DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 10)
52* PART-ALLOWABLE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10)
53* SOX-ALLOWABLE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
54* NOX-ALLOWABLE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN "'10):
55* HC-ALLOWABLE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10);
56* CO-ALLOWABLE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 10):
57* SOURCE (RG IN 10):
58* SCC-I (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9 IN 57):
59* SCC-II (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 999 IN 57):
60* SCC-III (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(6) IN 57):
61* SCC-IV (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(8) IN 57):
62* OPERATING-RATE (KEY INTEGER NUMBER 9(7) IN 57)
63* MAX-DESIGN (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 9999.999 IN 57)
64* SULFUR (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 9.99 IN 57):
65* ASH (KEY DECIMAL NUMBER 99.9 IN 57):
Output from Phase 2 is defined by the user.
OPERATION - Input is user supplied commands to load NADB* NEDS
USER file or portions of it into the data base. The user
then provides a set of commands to interrogate the data
base and retrieve reports for which he specifies the format,
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The IMMEDIATE access mode is specified
because of the features available. The MIN, MAX functions
of the WHERE clauses or the Ternary Operators EQ.NE. SPANS
are necessary for maximum benefits to be derived by this
application.
A-30
-------
SYSTEM FLOW
IMADB*
NEDS
USER
(USER \
V REQUEST J
PL-COBOL
FEATURE
1/1
(NADB - SUPPORTED PROGRAM)
USER SYSTEM
2k COMMANDS
SUBFILE I (IMMEDIATE ACCESS)
I/I
T
I
I
.1-
USER - DEFINED REPORTS
A-31
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary study and problem = $2,400.00
definition = 120 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Structuring and coding the data = 880.00
base = 40 hours @ $20/hr. plus 16
hours clerical support @ $5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging data base = 1,600.00
loading = 80 hours @ $20/hr.
4. Coding retrieval logic = 40 hours = 880.00
@ $20/hr. plus 16 hours clerical
support $5/hr.
5. Testing and debugging retrieval = 800.00
logic = 40 hours @ $20/hr.
6. Documentation = 24 hours @ $20/hr = 560.00
plus 16 hours clerical support
I $5/hr —r^""- $7,120.00
Computer time is:
Data base loading debug =10 $ 920.00
tests @ 15 min/test = 150 min
= 2.5 SUP @ $368/SUP
Retrieval testing = 5 tests @ = _$ 29_5_.00_
10 min/test = 50 min = .8 SUP <-., 01C. nn
-------
A. 4
APPLICATION - Analysis of the effects of potential changes
to NEDS data.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to allow users
to substitute new values for parameters in an existing
point source record and to analyze the effects on
emissions. For example, the user may want to see the
effect on emissions if all sources of a specific type
were required to burn fuel of a specified sulfur content.
This application can be a file-management system appli-
cation or a COBOL application. A SYSTEM 2000 approach
involves several job steps, whereby the COBAL applica-
tion is less cumbersome and can work using control
cards if the job application requirements can be properly
defined prior to programming. Flow diagrams are
presented here for both concepts.
PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS - The following description applies
to a single COBOL program for this application.
1. Selection criteria are:
State
County
AQCR
Plant
SCC
2. Parameters that can be specified to be changed in
each record are:
Estimated Control Efficiency
Operating Rate
Sulfur Content
Any combination of the above
3. After the specified parameter has been changed in
the record, the emission factor will be applied,
and the emissions will be recalculated.
A-33
-------
Output will show:
Header with control card data
State, County, AQCR number
Plant I.D.
Plant name and address
Emissions by point
Program can be altered to punch AQDM or CDM -
format input cards if desired.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary study and problem = $3,200.00
definition = 160 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Program coding and testing 160 hours = 3,400.00
@ $20/hr. plus 40 clerical hours @
$5/hr.
3. Documentation = 40 hours @ $20/hr. = 900.00
plus 20 hours @ $5/hr. "$77500.00
4. Computer time is:
8 compile/test runs @ 20 min/run = JlLt.!-^-L-0 0
= 160 min = 2.75 SUP @ $368/SUP ~
$8,515.00
A-34
-------
SYSTEM FLOW (USING SYSTEM 2000)
STEP 1
USER
REQUEST
A
J-
NADB*
NEDS
USER
PL-COBOL
FEATURE
(NADB - SUPPORTED PROGRAM)
SUBFILE
TEP 2
i
USER-
SUPPLIED
SYSItM i!K ' '"*"
COMMANDS
STEP 3
Al TFR
THE (QUEUE ACCESS)
SUBFILE
i
p
(ALTERED /
SUBFILE 1
i
COB
PG
OL / NADB*
\\ ^ 1 NtDo-En-
\ FACT
V /
i
A-35
-------
NADB*NEDS-
USER
IMAGE FILE
STEP 4
A-36
-------
SYSTEM FLOW (USING COBOL)
NADB*
NEDS-USER
f
CTL
CARD
COBOL
PGM
CNADB*
FACT
i
LISTING
PROGRAM FLOW (COBOL^
C START J
READ
CTL
A-37
-------
READ
USER
FILE
COMPARE
ON
I.D. NOS.
ALTER
RECORD
PARAMETERS
RECALCULATE
EMISSIONS
A-38
-------
A.5
APPLICATION - Basic accounting capability.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this application is to allow NEDS
users to determine the number of sources or facilities
in the file that conform to some defined criteria, e.g.
the number of coal-fired boilers in the file or the
number of sources with boilers burning multiple fuels.
The application is for SYSTEM 2000 or an equivalent
file management system. The specifications included
here are for SYSTEM 2000. The application has two
phases. Phase 1 is a program written in Procedural
Language - Feature - COBOL to establish a subfile of the
NADB*NEDS-USER file. The Phase 1 programming should be
completed by NADB to avoid duplication of effort within
other EPA offices. Phase 2 is a SYSTEM 2000 program
written to retrieve data elements in IMMEDIATE ACCESS
mode from the data base created in Phase 1. The user
will supply the commands necessary to load the data
base and to interrogate the file. The rationale for
this application is that manpower should be saved in
scanning reports.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to Phase 1 is the NADB*NEDS-USER
file. Input to Phase 2 is the SYSTEM 2000 defined file
created in Phase 1.
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output from Phase 1 is a data base with
the following description. The hierarchical levels
are:
A-39
-------
Level 0 = State
Level 1 = AQCR
Level 2 = County
Level 3 = Plant
Level 4 = Point
The KEY elements are:
State Numbers
AQCR Numbers
County [Slumbers
SIC
Ownership Code
Stack Height
Boiler Design Capacity
Control Equipment Codes
Control Efficiencies
Emissions Estimates
Estimation Methods
Compliance Schedule
Regulations
SCC
Percent Sulfur
Percent Ash
Operating Rate
Maximum Design Rate
The data base definition is the same as the one described
for parametric data retrieval in Appendix A. 3. The
difference is in the addition of The Regulations as KEY
elements in this data base. The most economical approach
to this application and the one in Appendix A,3 is to
have one data base defined that will fulfill the require-
ments for both applications.
OPERATION - Input is user supplied commands to load NADB*NEDS-
USER file or portions of it into the data base. The
user then provides a set of commands to interrogate the
data base.
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The TALLY and SUM features avail-
able from SYSTEM 2000 in the IMMEDIATE ACCESS mode are
the primary vehicles for this application.
A-40
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST - (Assumes parametric data retrieval
base is built)
1. Preliminary study and problem = $1,600.00
definition = 80 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Testing and debugging data base = 800.00
loading = 40 hours @ $20/hr.
3. Coding retrieval logic = 60 hours = 1,240.00
@ $20/hr. plus 8 hours clerical
support @ $5/hr.
4. Testing and debugging = 40 hours = 800.00
@ $20/hr.
5. Documentation = 16 hours @ $20/hr. = 400-00
plus 16 hours clerical support @
$5/hr. $4,840.00
6. Computer time is:
Testing retrieval logic = 7 runs = $1,105.00
@ 25 min/run = 3 SUP @ $368/SUP
$5,945.00
A-41
-------
A.6
APPLICATION - NEDS-CDS cross-reference.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to create and main-
tain a cross-reference file for NEDS and CDS plant and point
source numbers. The capability to print the file in either
NEDS or CDS sequence is incorporated. The successful use
of this program requires that both NADB and DSSE update the
cross-reference file at regular intervals. The rationale for
the program is two-fold. First, NEDS might become more useful
to DSSE personnel if correspondence between NEDS and CDS can
be shown in the NEDS files. Second, the cross-reference
capability is a potential source for indicating to both sys-
tems when new source data might be available. The program is
in COBOL. A feasibility study is required to determine further
requirements beyond the scope of this description.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to this program comes from both NADB
(NEDS) and DSSE (CDS). Input from NEDS is Cards 1 and 2 sub-
mitted with NEDS updates,. Card 1 will be used to indicate
a plant that has been added to, or deleted from, NEDS. Card 2
will be used to indicate points that have been added to, or
deleted from, NEDS.
Input from CDS is Cards 2 and 5, the cards that are used
to input CDS source information and emission point information.
The combination of these cards is necessary in order to cross-
reference at both the plant and point level. The formats for
Cards 2 and 5 follow:
A-42
-------
Card 2
CC
1-2
3-4
5-8
9-13
14-54
55-58
59-79
80
Field Description
Region Code
State Code
SAROAD County Code
CDS Source Code
Filler
NEDS Plant No. (if
different from CDS
Source Code)
Filler
Transaction Code
Picture
99
99
9(4)
9(5)
X(41)
9(4)
X(21)
X
Card 5
CC
1-2
3-4
5-8
9-13
14-16
17-19
20-27
28-29
30-79
80
Field Description
Region Code
State Code
SAROAD County Code
CDS Source Code
CDS Point Code
Filler
SCC
NEDS Point No.
Filler
Transaction Code
Picture
99
99
9(4)
9(5)
9(3)
X(3)
9(8)
99
X(50)
X
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output from this program can be:
1. An updated Cross-Reference File
2. File listings in NEDS or CDS sequence
A-43
-------
1. Updated Cross-Reference File - Output from the update option
is a new Cross-Reference File. The file is a tape file with
sequential, variable length records in 2 formats
Plant Format
Position No. Description
1-2 State No.
3-6 County No.
7-9 AQCR No.
10-13 NEDS Plant I.D.
14-18 CDS Source No.
19-30 Blank
Point Format
1-2 NEDS Point I.D.
3-5 CDS Point I.D.
Repeat the format for each NEDS Point I.D. within a NEDS
Plant I.D.
Records are sorted by NEDS Point I.D. within NEDS Plant I.D.
When NEDS cards are used to update the cross-reference file,
they are compared to the cross-reference file to determine
if an existing NEDS-CDS cross-reference record exists. If
the record does not exist, the NEDS Plant and Point I.D. is
printed. If the record does exist, then the record is de-
leted if the NEDS transaction type is "D". If the NEDS
delete card is Card 1, the entire plant is deleted. If the
NEDS delete card is Card 2, the point is deleted.
A-44
-------
Cross-Reference Listing
NEDS-CDS CROSS-REFERENCE
NEDS IDENTIFICATION
STATE COUNTY AQCR PLANT
XX XXXX XXX XXXX
XXXX
NEDS Sequence Format
-— UPDATES FROM XX XX
CDS IDENTIFICATION
POINT SOURCE POINT
XX XXXXX XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
Cross-Reference Listing - CDS Sequence Format
CDS-NEDS CROSS-REFERENCE UPDATES FROM XX XX
CDS IDENTIFICATION
STATE COUNTY SOURCE
XX
XXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
NEDS IDENTIFICATION
POINT PLANT POINT
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
XX
XX
OPERATION - Update transactions will be applied against the
Cross-Reference File at regular intervals. A control
card is used to define the run options. The options
are:
1. Cross-check from NEDS
2. Update from CDS
3. Update and print from CDS
4. Print in NEDS sequence
5. Print in CDS sequence
6. Select up to eight states for the above functions
7. Perform the above functions for all states.
A-45
-------
CDS
Transactions
i
X-Reference
Program
NEDS
Transactions
i
Listing of
NEDS
X-Reference
Program
Listing of
CDS
vs
NEDS
A-46
-------
The control card format is:
C£
1-3
4
6-9
10-11
12-25
Valid Codes
CTL
Update option
1
2
Print option
1
2
Month, Year
State No.
Default=blanks
Function
Identifies control card.
Update from NEDS.
Update from CDS.
Print in NEDS sequence.
Print in CDS sequence.
Identifies month and year of
update run. On updates, the
month and year are added to the
end of any affected plant record.
If the update option (CC4) is
blank, the month and year entered
in CC 6-9 will cause only those
records updated after and in-
cluding that date to be printed.
Identifies the state or states
to be printed.
All states will be printed.
Repeat state numbers until up to eight states
have been entered. Designation of states applies
only to the print options.
Input transaction cards must be sorted as follows:
NEDS TRANSACTIONS
State
County
AQCR
Plant
Point
MAJOR
MINOR
CDS TRANSACTIONS
State
County
Source
Emission Point
MAJOR
MINOR
A-47
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary study = 160 hours = $3,200.00
@ $20/hr.
Clerical support = 40 hours = 200.00
@ $5/hr.
2. Coordination with DSSE =40 = 800.00
hours @ $20//hr.
3. Program coding and debugging = 2,500.00
120 hours@ $20/hr. plus 20
clerical support hours @ $5/hr.
4. Program documentation = 32 hours = 720.00
@ $20/hr. plus 16 clerical support
hours @ $5/hr.
5. 1 trip to DSSE = 2 days per diem = 110.00
@ $25/day plus air fare @ $60.00.
$7,530.00
6. Computer time is:
5 compile/tests @ 15 min/run = $ 460.00
= 75 min = 1.25 SUP @ $368/SUP
$7,990.00
A-48
-------
PROGRAM LOGIC
C START J
Read
CTL
Clear areas,
set switches
Read
NEDS
trans.
Read
X-Ref.
File
County,
'Plant I.D 's
Build
Plant
Arrays
No
A-49
-------
Update
X-Ref.
Plant
or 3
'Update\ No
switch r~-
Write
intermediate
output
Clear
work
Arrays
A-50
-------
/Print /
.intermediate
in CDS
sequence
ate
J
I Print
intermediate
in CDS
sequence
Print
X-Ref.
in NEDS
Sequence
f Print
X-Ref.
COS /
sequence /
JYes
/ Print /
/ X-Ref. /
/File NEDS /
/ sequence /
Yes
CD-
END
A-51
-------
A.7
APPLICATION - Indicate sources that have been deleted from
a report because of confidentiality.
ABSTRACT - This application will allow NEDS users to have
a listing of Plant I.D.'s, Point Numbers, and Name and
Address for all point sources deleted from a report
because of confidentiality. The application requires a
programming change to NE001A, the program that selects
data from the NADB*NEDS-USER file and prepares them for
sorting. The rationale for this change is that users
may be able to better assess their reports if they know
the degree to which the reports are complete.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to the NE001A program will not
change. The input is:
NADB*NEDS-USER file
NADB*NEDS-INDX-AQ file
NADB*NEDS-CNTY-ST file
NADB*NEDS-CNTY-AQ file
Control Card
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output from this option will be a
listing of the plant name and address, plant I.D.
number, and point source numbers for plants having
confidential SCC's. An example report format follows:
A-52
-------
REPORT OF PLANTS WITH CONFIDENTIAL SCC NE OOlA
STATE COUNTY AQCR PLANT I.D. NAME-ADDRESS POINT CODES
( 40 Char.)
XX
XXXX
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The program logic in NE207A will
need to be changed as follows:
1. The selection criteria should be changed to accu-
mulate the following each time confidential SCC
is encountered. The logic will be triggered by a
code other than a "1" in CC 70 of the control card.
2. At the end of the job, the accumulated data will be
printed in the format shown under "Output Description."
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary study = 16 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Clerical support = 1 hour @ $5/hr.
3. Program changes to NE001A = 16 hours
@ $20/hr.
4. Testing and debugging = 24 hours @
$20/hr.
5. Documentation = 8 hours @$20/hr plus
2 hours @ $5/hr.
6. Computer time is :
2 compile/tests @ 15 min/run = 30 min
=0.5 SUP @ $368/SUP
$ 320.00
5.00
320.00
480.00
170.00
$1295.00
$_185._00
$1480.00
A-53
-------
A.8
APPLICATION - Implement user training seminars.
ABSTRACT - Two types of NEDS seminars should be offered:
1. Data preparation seminars
2. User-oriented seminars.
The data preparation seminars emphasize the techniques
for coding and updating NEDS data. Emission Inventory
Subsystem (KIS) compatibility with NEDS is included. A
training manual has been developed, and several seminars
have been held. An outline of the manual is included
here, along with suggestions for revision. The format
for the seminars basically follow the outline of the
training manual.
The user-oriented seminars emphasize the applica-
tions for NEDS to agency operations. These seminars
are directed more toward data systems and/or intermediate
management levels than toward the technical personnel who
might attend the data preparation seminars. A training
manual and seminar agenda need to be developed.
DATA PREPARATION SEMINARS - The outline for the "National
Air Data Branch Emission Data Systems Training Manual"
is shown below.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
2.1 Point Sources
A-54
-------
2.1.1 Coding
2.1.2 Updating Point Source Data
2.1.3 Edit/Check Procedures
2.2 Area Sources
2.2.1 Data Development and Coding
2.2.2 Updating Area Source Data
2.2.3 Edit/Check Procedures
2.3 NEDS Output Formats
3.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUBSYSTEM (EIS)
3.1 Synopsis of CDHS
3.2 Purpose and Capabilities of EIS
3.2.1 Purpose of EIS
3.2.2 Capabilities of EIS
3.3 NEDS-EIS Relationships
3.3.1 File Structures - NEDS/EIS
3.3.2 NEDS to EIS File Conversion
3.3.3 EIS to NEDS File Conversion
3.4 EIS Coding Requirements
3.4.1 EIS Coding Instructions
3.4.2 Add, Change, and Delete
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
SAROAD CODING CHANGES FOR NEDS PURPOSES
STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS FOR USE IN
COMMENTS
TABLE FOR USE WHEN ASSIGNING PLANT
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
TEMPLATES OF NEDS POINT SOURCE CODING
FORMS FOR USE WITH IBM FORTRAN CODING
FORMS
The verification and validation procedures for NEDS should
also be discussed in these seminars. The discussion would
explain the formal procedures as outlined in the "AEROS
User Manual." Suggestions should be made for helping state
A-55
-------
and local agencies as well as Regional Offices to follow
the procedures within a reasonable time and with minimal
impact on the agency. The required revision to Section
2.1 of the training manual is shown below.
2.1 Point Sources
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4 Validation/Verification Procedures
The text in Section 2.1.4 will include:
2.1.4.1 Explanation of validation/verification
procedures
2.1.4.2 Suggestions for following procedures
with maximum efficiency.
USER-ORIENTED_ SEMINARS - An annotated outline for a training manual
to be used in user-oriented seminars is shown below.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION (Indicate that the purpose of the seminar
is to acquaint managers with reports available from NEDS.
Identify the topics to be discussed. The expected
result is to increase the number of users.)
2.0 NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
2.1 Definition and Purpose of NEDS
2.2 Operating Procedures (data flow through the
R.O.'s to NADB, etc.)
2.3 Status of NEDS (size of the data bank, completeness
of data elements, representativeness in terms of
total plant population, projected growth, etc.)
2.4 Available Reports
2.4.1 Report No.l (Insert the report name here)
(Include two subsections in the text for
each report as follows:
A-56
-------
2.4.1.1 Report format and retrieval options
2.4.1.2 Applicability for agency operations
2.4.2 Report No.2 (Repeat for each available report)
3.0 SPECIAL PROBLEMS
3.1 Trends Monitoring
3.2 Application to Air Quality Maintenance Area Plans
3.3 Application to strategy testing and modeling
4.0 OTHER SYSTEMS
(This section would briefly describe the other data
bases related to NEDS, such as the Polk Vehicle File,
FPC 67 File, and the Federal Facilities File.
The user-oriented seminars are to be directed to Regional
Office personnel as well as to state and local agency
personnel. The goal is to identify specific applications
for NEDS within the Regional Offices and within the state
and local agencies. Convincing potential users that NEDS
can be used in their routine tasks would result in more
enthusiastic participation in maintaining the data base.
Before the user-oriented seminars could be implemented,
NADB would have to perform a study to determine specific
uses for emissions data within the three agency levels.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST - The costs that might be incurred with im-
plementing each type of seminar are shown below. They
are based on one seminar per year at each Regional Office.
DATA PREPARATION SEMINAR
1. Revisions to training manual
40 professional man-hours/year = $ 800.00
@ $20/hr.
40 clerical support hours/year = 200.00
(3 $5/hr. —
$1,000.00
A-57
-------
2. Presentation of seminar
a. Manpower
10 trips 3 professional man-days/ = $4,800.00
trip, or 240 hours @ $20/hr.
1 day followup per seminar, or 80 1,600.00
hours @ $20/hr.
1/2 day clerical support per trip, 200.00
or 40 hours @ $5/hr.
$6,600.00
b Travel
30 days @ $25/day = 750.00
Ground transportation @ $5/trip = 50.00
Air Fare
RDV - Chicago = 132.00
Boston = 122.00
New York = 96.00
Philadelphia = 82.00
Atlanta = 84.00
Kansas City = 115.00
Dallas = 97.00
San Francisco = 378.00
Denver = 134 .00
Seattle = 370.00
$2 ,410.00
TOTAL $10,010.00
USER-ORIENTED SEMINAR
1. Seminar development
Problem definition and preliminary = $ 8,000.00
investigation := 400 hours @ $20/hr.
Seminar preparation = 80 hours @ = 1,600.00
$20/hr.
Manual preparation = 2,220.00
80 hours writing and edit @ $20/hr.
plus 120 hours clerical support @
$5/hr.
Printing costs for 500 copies 1, 250.00
@ 50 pages/copy fa 5^/page "
2. Seminar presentation = $10,010.00
These elements are assumed to be the
same as those for the Data Preparation -- -------
Seminar .
Total (first year) $23,060.00
A-58
-------
A.9
APPLICATION - Add fugitive dust SCC's.
ABSTRACT - This application would result in new SCC's
representing selected fugitive dust sources such as
coke storage piles at steel plants. The recommenda-
tions and rationale for new SCC's should be a Regional
Office responsiblity, since many of the industry types
involved are regionally oriented. Because of the cost
involved with adding new SCC's and developing new
emission factors, preliminary studies should be con-
ducted on the industries of interest. The preliminary
studies should minimally address the following problems.
1. Current emission factor background information for
the industry of interest must be investigated to
ensure that the specific fugitive dust sources of
interest have not already been included in the
general emission factor.
If it is in the emission factor, then that factor
will need to be adjusted, if a separate factor for
fugitive dust is desired.
2. A decision must be made as to whether the fugitive
dust category could be considered a point source,
or if it would better classify as an area source.
3. An estimate should be made of the probable impact
of the fugitive dust source in relation to the
total potential particulate emissions for several
plants or processes representative of the industry,
LEVEL OF JEFFORT - The factors determining the cost of
adding new SCC's to the system are presented here.
The Technical Data Section (TDS) of NADB must
review the request for the new SCC. The tasks
involved with adding a new SCC follow.
A-59
-------
1. The current emission factors will have to be
investigated to determine if the fugitive dust
category has already been included in the factor.
This will be an insignificant cost.
2. Estimating the relative contribution of the fugi-
tive dust source to the potential emissions of the
associated process or processes will incur a
relatively insignificant cost, since source testing,
etc. will already have been completed for most of
the sources of interest.
3. Emission factors will need to be developed if
SCC' s are added. The development of emission
factors will be the most significant cost asso-
ciated with adding SCC's. Factor development will
require:
a. Literature search of similar processes or
sources.
b. Correlation of properties of the source in
question with those of similar sources.
c. Correlation with average operating parameters,
i.e. seasonal considerations, daily process
fluctuations, etc. to establish the SCC
units.
d. Ambient monitoring to determine relative
contributions of the fugitive dust source.
This requirement is optional, depending on
the industry and source type being investi-
gated, and it is not included in the cost
estimates shown below.
4. If a general SCC has already been assigned for the
industry, the emission factor associated with that
SCC may have to be changed to reflect the contri-
bution from the new SCC.
5. Expanded instructions and changes to existing
process descriptions in AP-42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors will be required.
6. The NEDS records that show general SCC's, i.e.
99's, will have to be reviewed and updated for the
new SCC and revised emissions estimates.
The table below shows the professional and clerical
support raan-hours expected for each task.
A-60
-------
Table A.9.1
SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR ADDING AN SCC
Task Professional hours Clerical support hours
1 16/emission factor
2 40/fugitive dust source
3a 120 40
3b 40
3c 40
4 10
5 80 40
6 200 40
TOTAL 546 120
546 Professional hours @ $20/hr. = $10,920.00
120 Clerical support hours @ $5/hr. = 600.00
TOTAL = $11,520.00/SCC
A-61
-------
A.10
APPLICATION - Improve the format for identifying report
retrieval options.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this application is to provide
NEDS users with an easy reference to determine the type
of reports available and the retrieval options. A
general publication should include:
1. example report formats
2. abstract of the report
3. tabular cross-reference for identifying retrieval
options
Examples already exist within some Regional Offices,
and no significant impact on NADS's operating pro-
cedures or budget is expected. The following table is
an example of the matrix for defining retrieval options.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST - Total effort for this application is min-
imal, since the necessary materials already exist. Total
professional time and clerical support are not antici-
pated to exceed:
1. Professional hours = 40 @ $20/hr. = $ 800.00
2. Clerical support = 40 @ $5/hr. = 200.00
$1,000.00
Report reproduction = 500 copies 20 pages/ $ 500.00_
report @ 5C/page.
TOTAL $1,500.00
A-62
-------
—<\
3 =3
O c/i
—i a:
v>!
o
CO
rH
rd
0)
-P
0)
S-t
LU
H-
00
00
O O
00 C_J|
D; o
ec oo
UJ
O3
UJ
fO
-u
oo
c:
"3
Q-
o
C_)
O)
4-J
OO
o
D_
"3
4~>
OO
CJ)
CJ
00
O)
CJ
oo
-t-J
E
3
O
CU
rO
OO
O)
-a
o
CJ
CL
co
s_
a;
c
o
CO
LU
-a
o
CJ
H—I
OO
CJ
CJ
CO
o
o-
=c
co
c:
o
a.
o
s_
o
oo
A-63
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
TASK DESCRIPTIONS
SAROAD
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B TASK DESCRIPTIONS - SAROAD
B.I.
APPLICATION - Trends plotting.
- This application will allow graphic presentation
of arithmetic and geometric means for a pollutant at a
specified site over an extended period of time. A total
plotting package identified in the survey would include
the capacity to produce five types of plots :
1. High 8 -hour CO ave/wk/yr.
2. High 24 -hour S02 ave/wk/yr.
3. Monthly averages/any pollutant
4. Yearly averages/any pollutant
5. Percent of days/time period the station is in
violation of the standard.
The specifications written here are for a generalized
approach to modifying existing programs or for writing
new programs to produce the data in required format for
plotting averages. The plotting will be done on-line
using the SAS package.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - For most applications, the input will
come from one of the following files:
1. NADB* NADB-YRSUM-D
2. NADB* NADB-QRSUM-D
3. NADB* NADB-MOSUM-D
The application file will be read and the necessary
data written out as punched cards or as card image
format magnetic tape. The file will be searched by
the following key sequences:
B-2
-------
State
Area
Site
Agency
Project
Pollutant
Method
Interval
Year
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output will be punched cards or card
image tape suitable for input to a plot routine. The
output records will include the data values to be plotted
The data values will be preceded by sufficient identifier
cards to:
1. Set up the scale for the plot routine
2. Provide the necessary graphic labellina
information, i.e. assign scale values and
label the graph as "Co 8-hour values for
site xxx", etc
PROGRAM LOGIC - A conceptual logic flow for inclusion in new
programs or in current analysis programs that might be
modified is shown in the flow diagram.
A subroutine will be needed to handle the special case
in which not enough data have been reported for a period
to calculate the desired statistics. This subroutine
will also need to handle cases in which the values in the
summary record represent composite values,i.e. values for
periods other than monthly, quarterly, or yearly.
B 3
-------
c
START
PERFORM VALUE
SUBSTITUTION
READ
CONTROL
CARDS
WRITE
CONTROL
CARDS
FOR PLOT
B 4
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST - (Based on six applications)
1.
6.
Preliminary study and definition of
initial package specifications =
120 hours
-------
B.2.
Application - Capability to audit SIP stations reporting.
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this program is to provide the Regional
Offices with the capability to track data reported by
the states for SIP required monitoring stations. The program
is in COBOL. A tape file of SIP required instrumentation
is generated, and it is compared to the sorted input tape
to the SAROAD editor program. A listing of instruments
with no data submitted or of instruments not meeting the
75% criterion is produced. The 75% criteria logic is
incorporated in the program. This program will save most
Regional Offices at least 2 1/2 man-days per state per
quarter.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - The input to this program is the sorted
card image transaction tape of SAROAD update transactions
before edit, a tape file of SIP - required station numbers,
and an audit tape.
The format of the SIP Station Numbers Tape record follows:
Position Description Format
1-2 State Code 99
3-6 AQCR 9(4)
7-9 Site Code 9(3)
10 Agency Code X
11-12 Project Code 99
13-17 Pollutant Code 9(4)
18-19 Method Code 99
20 Interval X
B-6
-------
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - The output to this program is a report
listing the Master Key for each SIP instrument within a
Regional Office for which no data was reported during
the quarter or for which the 75% criterion was not met.
The format example is shown in Figure B.2.1. The
control break is on Region number.
SYSTEM FLOW - This job requires that the SIP Audit Tape be
updated quarterly to add SIP sites that have been added
to SAROAD or to change the keys for any sites at which
the Agency/Project codes may have changed during the
quarter. The mechanism for identifying a change to the
Agency/Project code and the tracing of the change
through the system has not been finalized. This mechanism
will help to define the method to be used to update the
Audit Tape. An alternative update method would require
the Regional Office to submit a change card to the
Audit Program when the Agency/Project code changed or
when a site was added to or deleted from SAROAD as a
SIP site. The specifications here are based on this
method of updating . It will also be necessary to
program the necessary logic to update the SIP Station
Numbers Tape.
B-7
-------
X
X
o
H
W
I
I
EH
Q
O
X
X
X X X
X
X X
X
-p
IM
O
0,
(U
-P
-H
EH
2;
Q
ffi X X X
EH X X X
s
• XXX
^ X X X
O X X X
CM X X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
Cb
H
CO
UH
O
cu
EH
CO
"Z
M
PH
H
CO
PM
o
EH
H
Q
Pi
X
X
PM X
O X
W
EH X
ft, X
Q
H
EH
PH X
-------
STEP 1 - (Update the SIP Audit Tape)
JTEP 2 - PRINT
Updated
SIP
Audit
Tape
B 9
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
. _ (1
1. Preliminary investigation and problem = $ 800.00
definition = 40 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Program coding = 120 hours @ $20/hr. = 2,500.00
plus 20 hours clerical support @
$5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging = 60 hours = 1,200.00
@ $20/hr.
4. Documentation = 32 hours @ $20/hr. = 720.00
plus 16 hours clerical support
@ $5/hr. 5,220.00
r). Computer time is:
6 compile/tests & 20 min/run - 120 = _$ 135^00
min = 2 SUP @ $368/SUP
$5,955.00
B-10
-------
B.3.
APPLICATION - Graphics to plot site locations.
ABSTRACT - This program will allow graphic display of the
relative locations of sampling sites within a polygon
area specified by latitude/longitude coordinates. User
input is a map scaling factor, latitude/longitude coordi-
nates defining the boundaries of the polygon, and SAROAD
geographical retrieval keys. The program reads the SITE
file and determines which stations have coordinates that
lie within the defined polygon. Output is punched cards
or card-image magnetic tape for plotting with a standard
plotter. The plotted output shows the polygon, and the
relative location of each station. The site number is
printed beside an X marking each site location. The program
is written in FORTRAN. The program operates in remote
batch mode.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input will be punched card input or key-
board input in remote batch mode. The State, and County
numbers will be input with the coordinates that define
the area. A control card will be used to define a
parameter "n", the number of vertices (points) on the polygon
The control card will also define the scaling factor
to be used in the plot. The SITE file is included as
input. The format of the input cards is:
B-ll
-------
Card 1
cc:
1-2
3-5
6-9
80
Description Format
State I.D. 12
AQCR 1 13
County I.D. 1 14
(Repeat County I.D.
for up to 10 counties/card')
"1" II
Card_ 2
CC
1-2
3-9
10-15
75-80
Description
Number of points on
the polygon.
Longitude coordinate
for first point
Latitude coordinate
for first point
Repeat above format for
each polygon point up
to 6 points/card
Scaling factor
Format
12
F7.0
F6.0
F6.0
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Output will be card image format
records for use on a plotter. The first card
defines the scaling factor and the polygon. One card
per sampling station within the polygon will be output
The polygon will bo traced, anc! the sites marked at
their respective locations. The output card format is
Card 1 (Defines the Polygon)
CC
1-6
7-13
Description
Scaling Factor
Longitude coordinate for
first polygon point.
Format
F6.0
F7 .0
B-12
-------
CC Description Format
14-19 Latitude coordinate for F6.0
first polygon point
Repeated for each point
up to 6 points/card
Card__2 (One card for each site)
CC Description Format
1-3 Site No. 13
4 blank X
11-17 Longitude coordinate F7.0
18 blank
19-24 Latitude coordinate F6.0
!)PF<;RAT?QN _AND _PRpGRAM_LOG_IC - The operating restriction.-; are
the same as those described in Section A.2, Polygon-
Defined Are* Retrieval. The polygon can be any triangle,
any rectangle, or any convex polygon, i.e. one for
which the angle between any two consecutive sides is
greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. Any
polygon with five or more sides having an angle less
than 90 degrees between any two consecutive sides is
unacceptable. The programming requirements and logic
are the same as those in Section A.2 with the following
exceptions:
1. Selection keys are: State, AQCR, County/ °r combina-
tions of these.
2. A scaling factor, corresponding to the input scaling
factor, is punched as part of the output.
3. The coordinates of the stations of interest are
retrieved from the SITE FILE.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary investigation and problem = S 800.00
definition = 40 hours @ $20/hr.
B-13
-------
Coding retrieval program = 80 hrs @ = 1,680.00
$20/hr. plus 16 hours clerical
support @ $5/hr.
Testing and debugging = 80 hours @ - 1,600.00
$20/hr.
Testing and debugging - plot routine = 320.00
=16 hours @ $20/hr."
Documentation = 24 hours @ $20/hr. = 560 .00
plus 16 hours clerical support
@ $5/hr. $4,960.00
Computer time is:
1) Assume same time as polygon = $1,475.00
retrieval
2) 3 test runs of plot routine - 2S.OO
y 10 min/run - 1/2 hour ^ $50/hr.
$6,460.00
B-14
-------
B.4
APPLICATION - Report on standards violations.
ABSTRACT - This application allows users to SOP only those
statistics necessary to compare national air quality
standards with pollutant Jevels measured at a specified
sit<^ for each of the? criteria pollutants. This report
shows primarily the same standards data as the Standards
Report, but it excludes the individual values for each
interval. The pronram is in COBOL.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to this program is the NADR*
NADB-ND-SITE file and the Standards tapes. Selection is
by State, AQCR, pollutant, year, or any combination of these-
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Th^ output is a printed report showinq
the following data:
1 . Site Code
2. Agency/Project Code
3. AOCP Code
4. Pollutant/Method Code
5. Interval
6. Year
7. Number of violations for year
8. Average concentration at this site for
the pollutant/method/interva1 code
9. Standard for the pollutant interval
10. Code to show if standard is primarv
or secondary
11. Percent of time standard was exceeded
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - Only those site/pollutant combinations
that have exceeded the standards will be printed. For each
record processed, an algorithm must be applied to compute
B-15
-------
the mean value for the site/pollutant/method
if a violation has occurred within the year.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATM)_COST -
1. Preliminary investigation and problem = $ 800.00
definition = 40 hours 2
5. Computer time is:
3 compile/tests @ 15 min/run = 45 min = $ 275.00
= .75 SUP (3 $368/StJP.
$3,115.00
B-16
-------
B.5
APPLICATION - Include data not meeting the 75 percent criteria
in the summary reports.
ABSTRACT - This application gives SAROAD users the option
to include data not meeting the 75 percent criteria in
summary reports. The logic of the reporting programs
will be altered to the extent that when the criteria
flag is not set in the summary file statistics for the
associated record will be calculated and included in the
renort to indicate that the statistics shown were calculated
from data that did not meet the 75 percent criteria.
The programs affected are NA202, which produces the Inven-
tory Report, and NA212, which produces the Yearly Report
by Quarters.
INPUT DESCRIPTION - The NADB* NADB-QTRSUM- file and the NADB*
NADB-YRSUM-D file are input to NA212. The NADB*NADB-
YRSUM-D file is input to NA202. The record descriptions
Cor the files are identical.
OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - The output from both NA202 and NA212
will include a flag to indicate cases in which reported
statistics include data not meeting the 75 percent
criteria.
PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS -
1. The NA202 program needs to be changed to calculate the
arithmetic mean for records in the NADB*NADB-YRSUM-D
file that have blanks in the criteria field. The
arithmetic mean is calculated by:
arithmetic mean = sum x
No. of observations
B-17
-------
The computed arithmetic mean is not added into the file.
2a. The NA212 program needs to be changed to calculate
an arithmetic mean for each quarter in which the criteria
flag is blank. The quarter number (position 23-24)
must be interrogated to associate the calculated
result with the proper print field. The arithmetic
mean is calculated by:
., , , . sum x
arithmetic mean =
No. of observations
The computed arithmetic mean is not added irto the file.
b. For records that are composites rather than quarterly
data, the report should be flagged to indicate that
the calculated statistics represent a composite.
c. When the criteria flag is blank in a record in the
NADB*NADB-YRSUM-D file, the arithmetic mean and
arithmetic standard deviation should be calculated.
The arithmetic mean is caluclated as:
... , . sum x
arithmetic mean =
Wo. of observations
The arithmetic standard deviation is calculated as
2
X = sum x - SUMX * SUMX/fro. of observations
standard deviation = square root of X/(No. of obser. -1)
A subroutine to calculate the square root is required.
3. For both programs, a flag should be included on the
report to indicate statistics that have been calcula-
ted using data that do not meet the 75 percent criteria.
B- 18
-------
INPUT FILE FORMAT
Position Description Picture
1-24 Key X(24)
25-28 % of observations 9(4)
29-32 arithmetic mean 9(4)
33-36 log-mean 9(4)
37-40 geometric mean 9(4)
41-44 arithmetic standard 9(4)
deviation
45-48 log-standard deviation 9(4)
49-52 geometric standard 9(4)
deviation
53-56 2nd moment 9(4)
57-60 max value 9(4)
61-64 med value 9(4)
65-68 min value 9(4)
69-72 zero sub 9(4)
73-74 No. of observations 99
75-76 substitutions made 99
77-80 sum x 9 (4)
81-84 sum x2 9(4)
85-88 sum LN(x) 9 (4)
89-92 sum LN(x)2 9 (4)
93-94 units 99
95 blank x
96 criteria flag x
97-140 blank x.(43)
B-19
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
^TJ^JJ^!OL[LJ~J^LT. ~ The following estimates cover changes to
both programs.
1. Preliminary investigation and problem = $ 800.00
definition = 40 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Coding the program logic = 30 hours @ = 640.00
$20/hr plus 8 hours clerical support @
$5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging = 50 hours @ $20/hr. = 1000.00
4. Documentation = 8 hours @ $20/hr plus = 200.00
8 hours clerical support @ $5/hr.
$2640.00
5. Computer time is:
2 compile/tests per program @ 10 min/ = 275 .00
run - 40 min = .75 SUP @ $368/SUP.
$2915.00
B--20
-------
B.6
APPLICATION - Include 2nd maximum measured value on the
Standards Report.
ABSTRACT - This application allows users to see the second
maxiumum measured value for a pollutant/interval at a
specific site on the Standards Report for that pollutant/
interval. Implementation requires the accumulation of the
second maximum value for each month and the addition of
a print line at the bottom of the report to show the
second maximum values for all months in the year of
interest. The followinq programs require modification:
1. NA224-NA234
2. NA251
3. AE003
INPUT/OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - Input to NA224-NA234 is:
1. AERO-AQCP-NM
2. AERO-CTYCNTY
3. NADB-STE-INX
4. AERO-SMSA-NM
5. NADB-ND-SITE
6. ND subfile created from NA235
Output is the current Standards Report with an extra
lino at the bottom to show second maximum values.
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - No file chanaos are necessary.
Proqrams NA224-NA234 must be modified as follows:
1. Format a print line for the 2nd max. values
2. Insert IOCTIC to determine the 2nd max. value
for each month and move the value to the proper
field in the new print line.
B--21
-------
The same basic logic as applies to determinina the
maximum values can be applied for determinina 2nd max.
values with slight modification.
Programs NA251 and AF.003 will be modified to handle the
extra print line.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED_COST -
1. Preliminary investigation and problem -- $ 600.00
definition = 30 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Coding = 24 hours @ $20/hr plus 4 hours ~ 500.00
clerical support @ $5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging = 16 hours @ ~ 320.00
$20/hr".
4. Documentation = 8 hours & $20/hr plus = _ 180_. 00
4 hours clerical support (a $5/hr. ^ .
5. Computer time is:
3 compile/tests @ 10 min/run = 30 min = $ l^-O^O
= 0.5 SUP
-------
B.7
APPLICATION - Identify inactive sites.
ABSTRACT - This application will add an active/inactive code
to each record in the Site File. Major system changes
are required in order to make this a useful feature.
In order to adequately trace chancres in a site code
throughout the system, four site status codes are required:
1. Active site
2. Inactive site
3. Modified active site
4. Modified inactive site
Applicable dates for site number changes, etc., will also
be maintained within the Site Description File. The
rationale for this application is that it will allow
users to perform trends analysis using the computer. The
specifications included here are primarilv those suggested
by the Monitoring and Reports Branch (MRB) of the Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division.
INPUT^DESCRIPTION - Input to this application is the SAROAD
Site Identification form. The form should be revised as
necessary to allow inclusion of the site number previously
used, A collection code has also been recommended. This
code will be used to flag cases in which sample collection
and sample analysis are performed by different agencies.
OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION - The output from this application will be
a reformatted NADB* NADB-STE-D file (Site Description File).
B- 23
-------
LOGIC - The following is a summary of the recommendations made
by MRB for chanoinq the Site Identification Record:
1. Make the Parameter Code part of the
site identification
2. Add a status field to show that the site is
no lonqer active. Purqe inactive sites from the
Site File after five years.
3. Add an "active date" field for each site to
indicate the date that the site became active.
4. Include a "terminal date" field for sites that
become inactive or are modified significantly
enouqh to be considered new sites.
5. A "related site" field would be added to each
new site record (if the site replaces a previous
site) to indicate the previous number.
6. A "collection code" field to indicate the
type of agency collecting the data (as opposed to
the type of agency performing the analysis).
MRB suggests that all air quality data for a site be changed
to reflect the new active site code whenever a site is
modified (in accordance with SAROAD Users Manual specifica-
tions, i.e. when the monitor location has been moved to
such a degree that equivalent ambient air is not being
monitored). This would be done to ensure that all
ambient air data collected for the same location under a
like environment are stored together and are retrieved
easily. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between
data and site information per MPB's recommendations.
B-24
-------
CO
X
rH
X
in
rH
id
C
0
•H
0)
o
CO
0)
e
o
0
0)
CQ
iH
O
<
O
rH
O
O
^*
O
(N
in
rH
0)
.p
•H
CO
6/1/72
rH
O
JC
O
f— \
o
o
**f
O
CM
in
rH
O
-P
rQ
Q)
tr.
C
id
A
Q)
-P
•H
CO
7/1/73
r—l
O
fa
o
,_{
o
o
•^J1
o
CM
in
rH
O
*&
X
o
X
in
o
CQ
rH
O
rH
fH
rH
rH
O
<
O
rH
O
O
^
o
CM
in
tH
*?
r**.
X
UD
O
X
o
o
<
ro
X
rH
O
X
o
CM
X
rH
O
X
vo
o
DC
CQ
rH
O
rH
rH
rH
rH
O
33
O
rH
O
o
o
CM
in
rH
o
6-
o
rH
O
o
O
CM
in
rH
rH
O
X
n
t-
X
rH
O
X
o
fe
rH
O
rH
rH
rH
rH
O
I"T[
o
,— 1
0
o
o
-------
BRQJECTEp_IMPACT - Implementa t i on of this apnroach to storing
site description information will require reformattino the
NAD3*NADB-STE-D file (Site Description Pile). The following
files are created from the Site Description Pile, and they
will require the same reformatt inq .-
1. NADB*NADB-STE-T (tape backup to disk file)
2. NADB*NADB-STE-INX (control file for edit process)
3. NADB*NADB-STF;-LST (tape file of print line images
of sampling site descriptions).
The following files will need to be reformatted to reflect
the addition of the "collection code".
1. NADB*NADB-YRSUM~D (for Inventory ListJnq
from NA202).
2. NADB*NADB-ND-SITF, (for row data listings).
If inclusion of the "collection code" in the headinas
of the Inventory Listing or any of the raw data listings
is not. necessary, these two files will not ream re refor-
matting, nor will their associated programs renuire any
changes.
If pollutant code (probably pollutant/method code) is made
part of the site identif cat ion, then the NADB>L K'ADB-STE-D
file will need to be expanded. Currently, the file has
approximately 10,500 site description records. The file
would be expanded to a minimum size of approximately
32,000 site description records, if it is assumed that
an average of three pollutant method codes exist for
each site in the file (from brief examination cf the
report titled "Status of the National Aerometric Data
Bank NADB as of November, J97V). Compilina the necessary
information to reformat the file would require limited
special programming to list site/pollutant/method codes
so that they can be reviewed before the Site Pile is
changed.
B--26
-------
Including the pollutant/method code as part of the site
description will necessitate minor chanqes to most renort-
qeneratinq programs in the SAROAD system.
The total impact of changing the site codes in SAROAD
necessitates a comprehensive review of the total system.
B-27
-------
B.8
APPLICATION - County retrieval of data
ABSTRACT-- This application will allow users to retrieve reports
for sites within county. No new codes are necessary, since
a county code is already part of the site identification
record. No new files are necessary since the NADB*AERO -
AQCR file (contains state/county numbers within AQCR) and
the NADB*AERO-STEAOCR file (contains site codes within
AQCR) together contain the necessary sort key information „
Each report program- using the county retrieval option will
have to be modified to incorporate these sort keys.
INPUT-OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - The input and output will depend
on the individual proarams selected to include county
retrieval .
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - Each program will require the
incorporation of the necessary loaic to use the NADB*
AERO-AQCR file and the NADB* AERO-STEAOCR file to allow
report retrieval by coordinated record keys.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTICIPATED COST -
1. Preliminary investigation and problem = $1,200.00
definition = 60 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Coding = 24 hours @ $20/hr plus 4 hours = 500.00
clerical support. @ $5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging = 16 hours @ = 320.00
$20/hr.
Documentation = 4 hours @ $20/hr plus = __ ._.
4 hours clerical support @ $5/hr.
$2,120.00
B-28
-------
5. Computer time is:
2 compile/tests @ 15 min/run = 30 min = $ 185.00
=0.5 SUP @ $368/SUP
$2,305.00
B-29
-------
APPLICATION - Include minimum detectable levels on reports.
ABSTRACT - This application allows users to see the minimum
detectable level for a specific pollutant/method on the
following reports:
1. Yearly Report by Quarters
2. Yearly Frequency Report
3. Quarterly Freauency Report
4. Raw Data (. 24 hour) Listings
The estimate of minimum detectable levels for each
pollutant/method are in the NADB*MADB-PARMFL. Programs
that require modification to include this information in
their output are:
1. NA211
2. NA212
3. NA213
4. NA219
(Modification to standards reports would require chancres
to a long series of programs, and should be carefully
considered by NADB).
INPUT/OUTPUT DESCRIPTION - All four of the above programs
use the NADB*NADB-PARMFL. The programs NA211-213 will
be modified to include a fifth line of descriptive
information for each pollutant/method. NA219 will be
modified to include the minimum detectable level at
the bottom of the page.
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS - The output formats for each proaram
will be modified to include an extra print line for each
pollutant/method. Changes for NA211-NA213 will be the
same for each program.
B-30
-------
LEVEL OF EFFORT
and
ANTIC_IPATE13 COST - (4 programs)
1. Preliminary investigation and problem - $ 320.00
definition = 16 hours @ $20/hr.
2. Coding = 16 hours @ $20/hr plus 2 hours = 330.00
clerical support (3 $5/hr.
3. Testing and debugging =16 hours @ $20/hr. = 320.00
4. Documentation = 4 hours (3 $20/hr plus = _ ^0_.^0
2 hours clerical support P $5/hr. ^-, 0gQ gg
5. Computer time is:
4 compile/tests (d 15 min/run = 60 rain - $ 370.00
= 1 SUP @ $368/SUP.
$1,430.00
B 31
-------
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
1. EPA REGION I - Boston
Tom Devine
John Courcier
Bill Servoy
- Needham
Bill Walsh
Richard Rogers
Norm Beloin
Alberto Costales
2. I,PA REGION II
Gerard Sofian
Alex Salpeter
Ed Gawlinski
3. EPA REGION III
Dan Fitzgerald
Ed Skernolis
4. EPA REGION IV
Barry Gilbert
Tommie Gibbs
Mike De Busschere
5. EPA REGION V
Dr. R. Trautner
Dr. P. Cho
B. Bolka
S. Goranson
M. Dipert
P. Cillen
T. Voltaggio
6. EPA REGION VI
E. Ray Lozano
Chris Jacobs
Marvin Waters
Carl Townsend
Peggy Re iff
7. EPA REGION VII
Art Spratlin
Charles Whitmore
Don White
Val Deschamps
Jerry Levy
Arnie Leriche
John Feldman
Dave Stonefield
Joe Mercadante
William Belanger
Connie Carr
Carolyn Heller
Vince Ilelwig
Ray Cunningham
L. Larsen
L, Lehrman
Dr. B. Fairless
B. Kramer
D. Hoglund
R. Van Mersbergen
J. Logsdon
Kay Dove
Jcannean Hayes
Stanley Spruiell
Mary Marusak
Doug Grano
Seymour Shuster
Michael Anderson
C 2
-------
EPA REGION VIII
Jim Harris Bob Fackler
John Dion Dale Wells
Doug Skie
9. EPA REGION IX
Steve Body Charlotte Hopper
Ma,rfcr Brucker Rob Ireson
Greg Fischer Lloyd Kostow
Mike Stenburg Carolyn Lewis
Jira Grove
10. EPA !»EGION X
A. E. Parlier Mike Anderson
Kenneth Feigner George Hofer
Shirley Schmidt Cecil Drotts
11. GRANTS INFORMATION BRANCH OF GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Paul Wagner
12. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION
James Janis
Frank Blair
13. COMPLIANCE AND ANALYSIS SECTION, DIVISION OF STATIONARY
SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
Michael Merrick
Carl Edlund
14. CONTROL SYSTEMS LABORATORY - NERC/RTP
Charles Chatlynne
James Wingo
15. HUMAN STUDIES LABORATORY - NERC/RTP
Dr. Bill Nelson
Vic Hasselblad
16. STRATEGIES AND AIR STANDARDS DIVISION - DURHAM
Justice Manning Ray Morrison
Dennis Ludwig Dick Atherton
17. NATIONAL AIR DATA BRANCH - DURHAM
Jim Southerland
Arch McQueen
Chuck Mann
18. OFFICE OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Lazlo Bockh
C-3
-------
19. MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS DIVISION
Dr. Tom Curran Neil Berg
Bob Faoro Tom McMullen
Jon Clark Virginia Henderson
George Manire Marty Martinez
20. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Dr. James Reisa
C-4
-------
PRE-SURVEY INFORMATION
The following letter and the 11 pages following it was sent
to the NEDS/SAROAD coordinators in each Regional Office prior
to the interviews.
l! The National Air Data Branch, in an effort to be responsive
to the practical needs of EPA users and potential users of
the EPA air data bases, has contracted with PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc. to conduct a survey among EPA
Regional Offices and other selected users of the data bases.
The purpose of the survey is to define current uses of the
data bases and to project future user requirements. Comments
on current system capabilities regarding operating
procedures, report formats, storage and retrieval options,
and summary capabilities will be required to make this
survey meaningful. Suggestions for improvement are an
important part of the survey.
The contractor will summarize the results of the survey, and
provide NADB with suggestions for implementing user require-
ments. All users of the data bases should participate in
the survey. This is an opportunity for users to provide
significant input to the future development plans for the
data bases. The users should feel free to be candid with
the contractor's representatives. A handout of materials
for distribution to personnel is enclosed. This hopefully
will provide personnel with some orientation to the kinds of
subjects to be discussed. Discussions need not be restricted
to these items.
PEDCo will contact the Regional Office NEDS/SAROAD coordi-
nators to arrange a schedule for visitation. In most cases,
PEDCo personnel will be available for interviews for two
days at each Regional Office.
Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions should be
referred to Gerald Nehls, NADB, MDAD, OAQPS. "
C-5
-------
The data bases of primary interest in the EPA Users Survey
are :
WEDS
SAROAD
SIP Rules and Regulations
QAMIS (Quality Assurance Management Information
System)
SOTDAT (Source Test Data System)
HATREMS (Hazardous and Trace Emissions Management
System)
Air Quality Mode>ls
Many of these systems and data bases are already operational.
Others are planned or are currently being developed. The fol-
lowing pages are brief synopses of each system.
Questions of concern are included, and personnel will be asked
to respond to these questions, in addition to providing their
own comments on current systems. The contractor's represen-
tatives will be prepared to discuss each system in more detail.
C-6
-------
SYSTEM: WEDS
ACCESS: BATCH, REMOTE BATCH
OUTPUTS: Reports
POINT SOURCE LISTING B,RB
AREA SOURCE LISTING B,RB
AREA SOURCE FUEL USAGE B,RB
COUNT OF PLANTS, POINTS, SCC's B,RB
CONDENSED POINT SOURCE LISTING B,RB
ALLOWED vs COMPUTED EMISSIONS B,RB
EMISSION SUMMARY B,RB
STATIONARY SOURCE FUEL SUMMARY B,RB
SCC EMISSIONS REPORT B
HIGHEST PLANT BY COUNTY B
PLANT EMISSIONS SUMMARY B
MISSING DATA ITEMS B
WEIGHTED SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS B
GRIDDING CAPABILITY B
INPUT TO MODELS B
DATA TAPE B
SIGNIFICANT COMPUTERIZED ASPECTS:
Use of emission factors to calculate emissions,
freedom to have various definitions of point
sources without limiting nationwide comparisons
and analyses, flexibility in SCC coding, remote
batch access capability for scientists and engineers
(not just computer specialists)
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY:
The following capabilities are part of current
plans for NEDS changes:
C-7
-------
The TSO capability is being expanded to include more
programs and to add selection criteria for limited
output.
Programs for retrieval according to estimation method
are planned.
A program will be added to produce a report of calculated
potential emissions for a source.
A capability will be added to determine the effects of
NEDS parameter changes on total emissions, (e.g. -
what would be the result if all sources of a specified
size burned 3% sulfur fuel.)
The area source input form is being reformatted. The
primary change will be in Card 5.
If AQMA's follow county boundaries, a capability can
be added to allow retrieval by AQMA.
A lowspeed terminal limited update capability will be
available to the Regional Offices.
Regional Offices will be given the ability to run NADB
edit programs from their terminals.
Validation routines will be available. (e.g. look at all
sources >100 TPY but without controls.)
C-8
-------
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Following are some considerations for future
development of the NEDS.
1. Is CRT (display tube) terminal access to NEDS desireable?
What applications do you have for CRT capability? How
often would a CRT be accessed?
2. Would a gridding capability be desireable for application
to air quality models? What might the gridding require-
ments be?
3. What additional data elements would be desireable in NEDS?
4. Are there elements in NEDS data that are not used?
5. Which currently available reports are used most often?
6. Are changes desireable for any of the retrieval options
(i.e. batch, remote batch, or interactive)?
7. What suggestions do you have for updating procedures?
8. What kinds of management (non-technical) reports would
be useful?
9, What long-range changes to NEDS are desireable?
(i.e. after 1975.)
10. If a general statistical package is developed for
NEDS/SAROAD, what statistics would be desireable for
NEDS data?
C-9
-------
SYSTEMS: SAROAD
ACCESS: BATCH, REMOTE BATCH, INTERACTIVE
OUTPUTS: Reports
QUARTERLY INVENTORY i
QUARTERLY SUMMARY STATISTICS I
YEARLY INVENTORY I
YEARLY SUMMARY STATISTICS I
UNITS CODES/NAMES TABLE I
POLLUTANT CODE/NAME I
QUARTERLY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS B, RB
YEARLY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS B, RB
RAW DATA LISTING B,RB
STANDARDS REPORTS B,RB
INVENTORIES (By Site, Pollutant,
or Pollutant Within State) DT,
13 f RB
YEARLY REPORT BY QUARTERS B
COMPOSITE LISTING B
STATUS REPORTS B
QUARTERLY REPORTS B
PARAMETER/METHOD INFORMATION LISTING B
DATA TAPE B
SIGNIFICANT COMPUTERIZED ASPECTS:
Data editing, criteria for summarizations of
data, criteria for incorporation of data,
ability to provide sorre results in "Standard"
units and other results in reporting units,
interactive and remote batch capability for
scientists and engineers (not only computer
specialists)
CURRENT ACTIVITY:
Current plans for additions and changes to
SAROAD include the following.
C-10
-------
1. TSO capability will be expanded to add reports and
limited selection criteria.
2. Standards printouts will be updated each time a data
update is made.
3. Reports will be available for a sampling site only when
data exists for the specified time period.
4. SAROAD reports by AQMA will be available if AQIlA's follow
county boundaries.
5. Regional Offices will have lowspeed terminal limited
update capability.
6. Regional Offices will be able to run NADB edit programs
from their terminals.
7. Regional Offices will have access to data validation
programs, (e.g. high value checks, etc.)
8. A capability will be added to identify a set of coordi
nates and find all sampling sites within those coordinates
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Following are some considerations for future
development of SAROAD
I. Is CRT (display tube) terminal access to NEDS desireable.
What applications do you have for CRT capability? How
often would a CRT be accessed?
2. Which currently available reports are used most often?
3. Are changes desireable for any of the retrieval options
(i.e. batch, remote batch, or interactive)?
4. What suggestions do you have for updating procedures?
5. What are your major concerns about SAROAD data validity?
What are your suggestions for validation routines?
h. What kinds of management reports would be useful?
C 11
-------
7. Are graphics desireable for displaying statistical summary
data? What kinds of graphics? What statistics? How
would graphics be used, i.e. how would this capability
save time or improve on summary data already available?
8. What mechanism could be applied to track nissing SAROAD
data on a timely basis?
9. Are there reports not listed above that would be useful?
What are the applications?
10. What capabilities should SAROAD have to be more useful
in conjunction with other systems?
11. What long-range changes to SAROAD are desireable?
(i.e. after 1975)
12. If a general statistical package is developed for NEDS/
SAROAD, what statistics are desireable for SAROAD?
C-12
-------
SYSTEM: SOTDAT (Source Testing Data System)
ACCESS: BATCH
OUTPUT: Reports
SOURCE DATA EMISSION FACTORS
PLANT CONTROL EQUIPMENT 3Y POLLUTANT
SOURCE TEST STATISTICS BY SCC
USE : Handle stack test data
CURRENT ACTIVITY: Installation on UNIVAC 1110 at RTP.
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Following are some considerations for future
development of SOTDAT
1. What applications do you have for stack test data?
2. How is stack test data currently filed and retrieved?
3. What kinds of reports of stack test data would be useful?
Why would these reports be useful?
4. What do the States need that night be provided through
this systen?
C-13
-------
SYSTEM;. QAMIS (Quality Assurance Management Information
System)
ACCESS: BATCH
OUTPUTS (INITIAL),
There are at present five suggested reports to
be developed by the contractor and approved by
EPA:
1. site information
2. site-pollutant, information
3. laboratory information
4. agency informeition
5. comprehensive of all of the above
Retrieval of quality assurance information will
fall into one of these five categories.
USE: Handle Quality Assurance Information
CURRENT ACTIVITY:
Under development. Questionnaires on
state and Regional Office quality assurance pro-
cedures for air quality monitoring stations have
been completed. These will be computerized, and
they will form the data base for the system.
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. How can you apply this information to current procedures?
2. How can this system be responsive to your needs for track-
ing and validating SAROAD data?
3. Do you need the capability for storage and retrieval of
estimates of precision for air quality data?
4. This i.3 an interim system,- and the base information will
probably not change. What are the system requirements
for long-range needs for quality assurance data?
C-14
-------
SYSTEM: HATREMS (Hazardous and Trace Emissions Subsystems)
ACCESS: BATCH
OUTPUTS (INITIAL):
Not fully defined the equivalent of:
AREA SOURCE FUEL USAGE
CONDENSED POINT SOURCE LISTING
STATIONARY SOURCE FUEL SUMMARY
COMPUTED vs ALLOWED EMISSIONS
USE: Develop system to be used in conjunction with NEDS to
handle up to 34 different pollutants
CURRENT ACTIVITY:
Under development. Projected completion for
mid-1975.
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. How do you currently handle hazardous and trace emissions
data?
2. What access capability is required for these data?
3. What other reports and retrieval options would be useful?
How would they be applied?
4. What features could make HATREMS more applicable to en-
foITCGr^iGnt cicti-VitiGs''3
5. What are the immediate and long-range anticipated needs
for hazardous emissions data?
C-15
-------
SYSTEM: SIP Rules and Regulations
ACCESS: BATCH
OUTPUT: Rules and regulations, current or superceded, from
State Implementation Plans. No Federal Regulations
or Local Regulations, except for Local Regulations
that are part of the SIP. Retrieval by geographic
codes. Retrieval by criteria codes similar to SCC.
CURRENT ACTIVITY: Currently under development. Projected
availability is Sept. - Oct. 1974.
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Would access other than batch be useful? What would the
access be?
2. Would limited CRT (display tube) terminal access be desireable?
What would the applications be? How often would the system
be accessed?
3. What retrieval and report options are desired? How would
these improve current procedures?
C--16
-------
SYSTEM SUiMMARY
At the beginning of each interview in the Regional Offices, the
following summary of proposed systems changes was presented.
NrlDS
1. Programs are planned which will allow for emission
factors investigation, i.e. a listing of the number of
plants by SCC and by a specific method of estimation.
2. Area source form will be reformatted. The change will
involve Card 5 primarily. Details of the change will
be distributed by NADB.
3. The edit check programs will be provided to the Regional
Offices to facilitate data input.
4_ TSO will be expanded to add programs and to add selection
criteria: Regional Offices will have the same selection
capability as WADB.
5_ A report on potential emissions is planned. Potential
emissions will probably be defined as emissions calcu-
lated by using maximum design capacity and/or assuming-
no control devices.
6. Provision of a statistical package is being considered
and will be made available if there is sufficient need
by the Regional Offices.
7. A capability may be added for selective retrievals based
on AQMA ' s . This currently is planned only if the AO-MA ' s
follow county boundaries.
8. A system will be developed to allow analysis of potential
changes to NEDS data. This capability will be useful for
control strategy testing.
C-17
-------
9. All programs written by anyone using the system should be
documented according to MADE standards. NADB will main-
tain these programs. (i.e. Changes to configuration and
file descriptions necessitated by hardware and software
changes will be made by NADB).
10. User programs not documented according to NADB standards
will not be maintained by NADB. A subfile of such pro-
grams for each Regional Office will be maintained, how-
ever, procedures for such maintenance have not as yet
been finalized.
11. A lowspeed terminal limited update capability will be
provided to the R.O.'s. This would bypass the magnetic
tape requirement. Initially, some limit such as 50 cards
would be placed on this capability.
12. Mobile source emission factors by county will be added.
This information will be compiled from the Polk tapes.
This information is currently handled on a state basis.
The data will be used for area source calculations.
13. R.O.'s will have the capability for running NADB edit
routines from terminals. NEDS edit is projected for
March '75. Output would be routed to the R.O. terminal.
14. Validation routines will be available to the R.O.'s.
These routines will point out suspicious data once they
are on file, e.g. NEDS plants with stack heights >900
meters. Plans currently do not include checking specific
problems for multiple criteria pollutants.
15. A program will be added to identify a set of coordinates
and to find all plants within the coordinates.
16. Procedures are currently in progress in MADE to identify
missing large point sources. Feedback will be to the
R.O.'s, then to the States. 20 K missing points have
been identified.
C-18
-------
SAROAD
1. Standards printouts will be updated each time a data
update is made. Currently the printout is updated
quarterly only.
2. TSO capability will be chcinged to add programs and to
add selection criteria: Regional Offices will have
the same selection capability as NADB.
3. deports for sampling sites will be available only when
data exists for a specified period. The current system
does not differentiate between active and discontinued
sites.
4. Statistical packages will be added if needed.
5. Reports by AQMA will be available if AQMA's follow
county boundaries.
6. The same documentation requirements as for IJEDS programs
written by the R.O.'s will apply to SAROAD programs
written by the R.O.'s.
7. A lowspeed terminal limited update capability is planned
This will bypass the magnetic tape requirement. The
update will initally be limited to 50 cards.
's . R.O. "s will have the capability for running IIADB edit
programs from their terminals. Output will be routed to
the R.O. terminal. SAROAD is projected for January '75.
9. R.O.'s will have validation routines. e.g. - high value
checks, or compare a quarterly average with a previous
quarter average or with the same Quarter the previous
•/ear .
C-19
-------
10. A capability will be added to find all sampling sites
within an area specified by the coordinates of a poly-
gon shaped area.
SIP Rules & Regulations
1. The system is currently under contract to the f'lTRE
Corporation.
2. Being written in SYSTEM 2000 language.
3. The system will have geographic codes and criteria
codes that are not as complete as SCC codes.
4. The system initially will contain no local regulations,
except those submitted with the SIP's.
5. The system will contain no Federal Regs, initailly.
They may be included later.
6. The system will cover only rules in force or suspended.
7. Gives the number of regulations or the full text for
the rules selcted. The capability to retrieve by regu-
lation number is not included.
8. Approximately 6000 rules and regulations are being
entered in the system.
9. Another contract, possibly in early '75, will tie SIP's
into NEDS. The capability will be added to get SIP rules
by NEDS point or to get NEDS points covered by a SIP
rule. A link between SIP and CDS will be provided also.
10. NEDS Card 5 is not related to this system.
C-20
-------
rne SJ,P system win have AQCR codet> only if the SIJN
r..:>];j 1.-it- i ons follow Ai^rR boundaries. Otherwise, li;M i ,; K
,vi LI be used .
I'rocedures for loctdiiu] and updatintf this system h-tve
•'i . t. boon final i zed ,
•- yuality Assurance ; <> inagernent Information System
The OAMIS is an interim system based on the DQIS
questionnaire that was distributed.
The questionnaire was a one-time effort to try to
define the quality of the NASN operations.
i'-^-her development of a quality assurance system depend:
on QAEML policy.
S - Hazardous and Trac°, Emission System
IIATREMS will handle up to 34 pollutants.
HVrPKMS will have a link to NEDS. If a plant address,
etc. is Ln NEDS, it wall not be duplicated in HATREMS.
Reports will parallel NEDS to a large extent, but will
ije more limited. Specific reports have not been define,i
to us .
Program development and updating efforts for HATREMS
will not parallel those for NEDS, i.e. when a NEDS pro-
Mi am change 01 addition is made, a HATREMS change or
addition will not necessarily be made.
f'i ejected completion foi HATREMS is mid-'75.
C--21
-------
CONSOLIDATED APPLICATIONS COMMENTS
REGIONAL OFFICES
NEDS
1. NEDS seminars indicated
2. Input latitude - longitude with subsequent conversion
to UTM.
3. Define ranges of parameters for retrieval
4. Expand the comments field
5. NEDS/CDS cross reference needed
6. Eliminate Verification Report
7. Include SCC ' s codes for fugitive dust
8. Develop a polygon-defined retrieval capability
9. Statistical package not needed, except for general accounting
10. Confidentiality reporting requirements cause problems with
data retrieved.
11. Need a report to show total plant emissions
12. Hand calculated vs. machine calculated emissions sometimes
confusing
13. Revisions to NEDS instruction manual (AP-42) are needed
14. Revisions to the NEDS User Manual are needed
15. Require identification of data source
16. Lack of positions at Regional Office and State levels cause
problems
17. Most states and R.O.'s not. interested in updating area
source data
C-22
-------
18. Reporting requirements should not be changed
19. EIS implementation should improve the data base
20. States lack incentives to update NEDS.
SAROAD
1. Interactive access needed for all short reports
2. Should have option to include data not meeting 7ri% critc.- ,
in data summaries
3. Include 2nd highest value in summary reports
4. Polygon area retrieval is desirable
5. A general statistical package is not needed
6. Frequency distribution for 8-hour CO and 3-hour and 24-hour
S0~ averages is needed
1. Plotting capabilities needed:
high 8-hour CO ave./week/yr.
High 24"hour SC> ave ./week/yr .
monthly averages
yearly averages
diurnal variations
% of days/year with short-term violations
8. Bypass validation rejects if desired
9. Project codes cause problems
10. Tighten the minimum requirements for averaging Hi-vol data
11. Flag SIP required stations on reports
12. Audit data from SIP required stations
13. Identify inactive sites
14. Discontinue interactive quarterly and yearly inventory report;
15. Implement an interactive report identifying the period
of most recent data for sites
C~23
-------
16. Implement a capability to track site identification numbers.
Changing numbers cause problems in historical data analysis.
17. Implement a report of values exceeding standards - include
site code, county code, No. of violations of primary
standards, % of values greater than primary standards
-8. Show raw data on edit and validation reports in reporting
units
19. Compare running averages against standards for plotting
to make trends projections
20. Add an area code to the Status Report
21. Plot trends as new data become available
22. Select output by county and AQI^A
23. Allow laboratory to input basic parameters and have the
computer determine concentrations
24. Verification Report should list only new data - not all data.
Limit volume of these kinds of reports
25. Prepare wind roses and pollutant roses
26. Validation should check data for a specific site for data
anomalies
27. Option to interactively request multiple copies of batch
reports
28. Only one R.O. requested CRT capability
29. Implement an audit of CPU and connect time by report type
30. Include pollutant/method description in site description
31. Prepare 12 month running averaaes
32. Indicate percent improvement in air quality for specific
sites
33. Eliminate some of the conversational aspects of multiple
batch requests
C-24
-------
Include short-term episode monitoring data
r> i :-,. -outinue the validation report - rather flag qa^di.i. ..-. i e
••.ulues during edit
Implement interactive capability to determine what is
monitored at a site
r.,;panded S A, ROAD city codes *- , account for burroughs, • ' s. : ., ,
< own ships are needed
j implement SAPOAD parameter listing as an interactive . L>. ,, r
Curiect data for altitude effects
0, Change "percent valid data" to "percent available data"
ii. Oxidant method codes should indicate if correction for
ixi O or SO_ interference has been made
i z „ Pet' ieve data in a county for sites in unincorporated areas
'i 5 . include the mean and standard deviation for 3-hour and 8 --hour
averages
1 : , Peports should have the same number of significant digits
i - , fiesent the standard geometric deviation to 3 decimals
> ,. , fnplement a trends report for 12 month, 24 month, and 36
i.iontli moving averages
flu significant applications in any R.O.'s for this system,
.-jo significant applications were identified.
Ueyion I would like to use to see what other states
!i:i'.'^ done.
Hiiies and Regulations
L nf-eract ive capability is necessary to make this system
'.«> j n i ngf ul .
C-25
-------
2. System should include state approved as well as federally
approved regulations.
3. A report of the most current update numbers Eor rules
might be useful.
4. Mo immediate requirements for this system were identified.
QAM IS
1. It would be possible to assign quality evaluation numbers
for each station, but several numbers would have to be
assigned - one for each pollutant method at the station.
2. Quality assurance is best controlled by site visits and
agency evaluations.
3. R.O.'s should have input before any quality assurance
requirements are promulgated.
4. The judgment of data quality must be subjective for each
site.
5. Data generators should tag data as good or bad rather
than relying on a system to do it. Subjective judgment
is required.
6. Assigning grades for data quality would be politically
unwise and would jeopardize the cooperation of the states
in implementing quality assurance programs.
C-26
-------
CONSOLIDATED APPLICATIONS COMMENTS
EPA USERS OUTSIDE R.O.'s
NEDS_
1. DSSE should have access to NEDS reports via terminal.
2. Estimation code to indicate "114" letters as data sources
3. NEDS-CDS cross-reference needed - will help facilitate
R-45 Report.
4. Expanded comments field needed.
5. Transmit update data to CDS when NEDS is updated.
6. Geographic Location Codes should replace SAROAD
city/county codes.
7. Crie or two day report turnaround required.
8. NEDS user manual describing reports, retrieval options,
etc .
9. User seminars (as opposed to contributor seminars) are
needed.
10. Establish emissions trends.
11. If potential emissions are not considered, significant
sources can be lost from the system.
12. One digit emission category.
13. Fstabli.sh emissions trends by area and by source type.
14 . Polygon retrieval.
15. Include a NEDS-FPC "67 cross-reference number.
16. Query capability to indicate the amount of data available
17. Three to four day turnaround required.
18. Do not make NEDS reporting requirements less stringent.
19. Identify data source.
20. Retrieval by ranges of parameters.
21. Publish NADB information in the "EPA Systems News",
published by MIDSD.
C-27
-------
SAROAD
1. Polygon retrieval.
2. SIP station audit capability.
3. Monthly submittal from states should be a goal.
4. Retain the agency/project code. It is important for
trends monitoring.
5. Expand the capabilities of the method code. Teach
people how to use it.
6. Add an active/inactive code, dates, station cross-
reference numbers, etc. to the Site Description File.
7. Retain the job status query capability.
8. Modify alignment of print wheel on the DCT 500.
9. Implement SAS.
10. Parametric data retrieval.
11. Plot seasonal trends.
12. Status report to show how much data, pollutants, years,
etc. are available for a station.
13. User manual to allow requests in English rather than
in codes.
14. Pvint a synopsis of available data on a map. This could
be a publication.
15. Allow users to read data directly from RTF computer into
WYLBUR file at OSI.
16. Table to describe retrieval options.
17. County retrieval.
18. Include minimum detectable level on reports.
19. Statement of method accuracy in the Site Identification
File.
20. Identify SIP stations in Site Identification File.
21. Pollutant roses and meteorological roses.
22. Report of standards violations.
HATREMS
No significant input for HATREMS.
C-28
-------
SIP Rules and Regulations
No significant input
SOTDAT
No significant input
C-29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-065
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Status of NADB Data Systems
J5. REPORT DATE
April, 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
David W. Armentrout
Charles E. Zimmer
[8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEJCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc,
Suite 13, Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT'NOT
11. CONTRACT/G'RANT NO.
68-02-1375
Task Order No. 10
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air & Water Programs
National Air Data Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING: AGENCY CODE
27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a survey conducted among the
Regional Offices of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
other EPA users of the NADB systems. Included are recommendations
for improving the current NADB systems to make them more responsive
to users and detailed requirements for new programs are outlined.
Costs for implementating each suggestion are estimated.
'17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Data Retrieval
Air Pollution
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
NADB
NEDS
SAROAD
Air Quality Data
c. COSATI Held/Group
13B
|18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
209
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
C-30
------- |