EPA-450/3-74-057
SEPTEMBER 1974
STATE AIR DATA
INFORMATION SURVEY
FINAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air ami Want** Management
Office of Air Oualily Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-74-057
STATE AIR DATA
INFORMATION SURVEY
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709
Contract No. 68-02-1096
EPA Project Officer: Carolyn P. Chamblee
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
September 1974
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, 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
the Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27709, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1096. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from the Research Triangle
Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those
of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-057
11
-------
PREFACE
This document was originally prepared by T. H. Lewis, International
Business Machines Corporation and was issued as a preliminary report
before all of the questionnaires could be returned and analyzed.
Under Contract No. 68-02-1096, the Environmental Protection Agency
directed the Research Triangle Institute to revise this document to
include the additional twenty-five questionnaire responses which were
received subsequent to the first publication. Accordingly, the major
effort in this project has been to concentrate on revisions to the
tables and charts with updated material provided by the EPA Project
Officer, and to perform any textual rewrite necessitated by the statistical
revisions.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Tables
PAGE
ii
iii
v
SECTION 1 PROJECT SUMMARY AND MAJOR FINDINGS
1.1 Survey Objectives
1.2 Summary of Major Findings
1.2.1 Emission Inventory Systems
1.2.2 Air Quality Data Systems
1.2.3 Federal Reporting Requirements
1.2.4 Government Support
1.3 Conduct of the Survey
1.3.1 Purpose and Objectives
1.3.2 Method and Schedule
1.4 Study Constraints
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-6
SECTION 2 GENERAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO STATE AGENCIES
2.1 Introduction to State Resources
2.2 Distribution of Types of Data Systems
2.3 Government Support
2.4 Automation Consideration
2.4.1 Computer Facilities
2.4.2 Available Computer Based Systems
2.5 Discussion of Automation Options
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-4
2-4
2-7
2-11
SECTION 3 ANALYSIS FOR EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEMS
3.1 Scope of the Analysis
3.2 Storage, Access and Maintenance
3.2.1 Source of Emission Inventory Data
3.2.2 Storage Techniques
3.2.3 Access Techniques
3.2.4 Maintenance Techniques
iv
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
3.3 Significant Problems 3-6
SECTION 4 ANALYSIS FOR AIR QUALITY DATA SYSTEMS
4.1 General Comments 4-1
4.2 Storage, Access and Maintenance of Air Quality Data 4-3
4.2.1 Storage Concepts 4-6
4.2.2 Access Methods 4-8
4.2.3 File Maintenance Procedures 4-8
APPENDIX A SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B SURVEY COMPILATIONS
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1-1 Relationship of Survey Questions to Project Objectives 1-5
2-1 Distribution of Data Systems Used by Agencies 2-2
2-2 Agency Knowledge of Government Support 2-3
2-3 Computational Facilities Available to State Agencies as 2-5
of July 1, 1974
2-4 Computerized Emission Inventory Systems Currently in Use 2-8
2-5 Characteristics of Computer Based Emission Inventory 2-9
Systems for Those Agencies that Responded to the
Questionnaire
2-6 System Compatibility with NEDS Specifications 2-10
2-7 Air Quality Data Systems Currently in Use 2-12
2-8 Characteristics of Automated Air Quality Data Systems 2-13
3-1 Emission Inventory Data Sources 3-1
3-2 Emission Inventory Storage Characteristics 3-2
3-3 Summary of Agencies Storing Confidential Data 3-4
3-4 Access Techniques and Report Generation Capabilities 3-5
for Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
3-5 Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices 3-5
3-6 Number of Agencies Maintaining Files That Exceed the 3-8
Number of Sources in NEDS
3-7 Count of Agencies that Have Submitted Emission Data as 3-8
Reported by the Survey Compared with NEDS Content
4-1 Comparison of Agencies That Have Submitted One or More 4-1
Quarterly Reports as Shown by the Survey and NADB Contents
4-2 Compatibility Factors for Agency Air Quality Data Systems 4-2
4-3 Manpower Requirements for Air Quality Data Systems 4-3
4-4 Summary of Required, Proposed, and Reporting Monitoring 4-4
Sites by State
4-5 Source of Air Quality Data 4-7
4-6 Air Quality Data Storage Summary for Manual Systems 4-7
4-7 Air Quality File Maintenance Summary 4-9
vi
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT SUMMARY AND MAJOR FINDINGS
1.1 Survey Objectives
A State Air Data Information Survey was conducted under the auspices
of the National Air Data Branch, EPA, to identify and investigate possible
problems at the state level that are associated with emission inventories
and air quality data systems. The study concerns itself with problems
arising during the normal course of daily activities as well as concen-
trating on the problems related to the Federal requirements for quarterly
and semi-annual reports of air quality and emissions data.
The more significant conclusions of the survey are presented in this
section. Detailed analyses are presented in Sections 2, 3, 4, which deal
with the basic resources, emission inventory system and air quality data
systems, respectively.
1.2 Summary of Major Findings
Operating problems as well as those arising from Federal reporting
requirements are constrained to a few specific agencies rather than being
generally present at all agencies. The problems that did appear are
related to differences in coding practices used for emission inventory
systems. The relatively long period during which SAROAD has been available
as a system seems to have alleviated problems in handling air quality data
insofar as reporting procedures are concerned. Nonetheless, there seems
to be a greater need to automate air quality files than emission inventory
files. This probably stems from the differences in size, frequency of
reference and data processing requirements between the two types of files.
The major findings are presented below in four categories:
a. Emission Inventory System
b. Air Quality Data System
c. Federal Reporting Requirements
d. Government Support
1.2.1 Major Findings - Emission Inventory Systems
1. Of the 37 agencies currently using manual emission
inventory systems, only 32% indicated satisfaction with the system. From
1-1
-------
this, we might conclude that the remaining agencies (68%) will convert to
automated systems as early as practicable. Those agencies not opting for
automation are characterized by being responsible for monitoring a small
number of air pollution sources. The cut-off point appears to be near
100 file entries such as a permit or NEDS form.
2. The availability of CDHS, particularly EIS, will benefit a
significant number of agencies (approximately 35%). The ability to automate
with assurance that NEDS reporting compatibility will be achieved will
reduce agency resource requirements to store, maintain and access emission
inventory data.
3. The requirement for reporting emissions data in NEDS format
on a semi-annual basis does not affect those agencies whose existing
emission inventory systems are compatible with the NEDS specifications.
The difficulties that some agencies have in reporting in NEDS format
involve the need to cross-reference such data elements as source identi-
fication, source classification codes, units of measure, source defini-
tion and to a lesser extent differences between the data elements
maintained versus the elements required by NEDS.
4. At least 76% of all agencies have, or could have, access
to computer facilities whose use would benefit the collection, storage,
maintenance and access of emissions data. [This capability is important
as a means of recompiling inventories in order to review and modify
rules and regulations especially when it comes to accommodating changes
necessitated by such situations as the energy crisis.]
5. Agency resource requirements, especially as related to
manpower, are reduced for automated systems provided that the agency does
not undertake the development of the system. Furthermore, automated
systems reduce the dependence of manpower requirements on the size of the
emission inventory. The manpower savings achieved by installing existing
automated systems as opposed to locally developing such systems is
estimated to be at least 2 man years/year which represent manpower develop-
ment costs.
6. Agencies planning to automate their emission inventory
systems have access to at least nine automated systems. Eight are
1-2
-------
available from other state agencies. One, the Emission Inventory
Subsystem (EIS) of CDHS is available from the government. At least one
is available from industry.
1.2.2 Major Findings - Air Quality Data Systems
1. Approximately 52% of the state agencies have computer
based air quality data systems.
2. All agencies have air quality data systems which are
essentially compatible with SAROAD. SAROAD perfected input formats are
used by at least 64% of the state agencies. SAROAD reporting formats
are used by at least 95% of the agencies.
3. The storage, access and maintenance of air quality data
present no unusual problems to air pollution control agencies.
1.2.3 Major Findings - Federal Reporting Requirements
1. All agencies are aware of the Federal reporting requirements
as expressed in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 149, August 3, 1973,
as well as the support provided through NADB. However, few agencies
having manual systems have prepared semi-annual reports and, as a consequence,
may have underestimated the impact and difficulty of this requirement.
2. The Federal reporting requirement for quarterly and semi-
annual reports of emission and air quality data does not significantly
impact air pollution control activities at the state level. Less than
18% of the agencies responded that federal reporting impacted their
operations. The impacts that were reported were small and for short
periods of time.
1.2.4 Major Findings - Government Support
1. The government program to distribute information regarding
support and services in the fields of emission inventories and air
quality has been effective. Additional efforts are desirable to publicize
the services available from NADB such as those provided by remote terminals
located at Regional Offices.
2. Government provided automated systems for emissions
inventories and air quality data are desirable. Development of the systems,
particularly those designed for installation at agency locations should be
accelerated to meet agency requirements.
1-3
-------
1.3 Conduct of the Survey
1.3.1 Purpose and Objectives
A survey of all state air pollution control agencies has
been conducted under the auspicies of the National Air Data Branch of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The survey was conducted to obtain information to
describe the scope and size of state systems for handling emission
inventory and air quality data for the purposes of identifying problems
associated with the normal use of such systems as well as the impact
of Federal reporting requirements. The specific objectives established
for the survey project are:
I. Develop for internal EPA use a standardized evaluation system
that records at least the following items related to state air pollution
control agencies:
a) techniques presently used to store, access, and maintain
emission inventory and air quality data files.
b) significant problems associated with maintaining and using
such files.
c) anticipated problems in meeting proposed Federal regulations
for the state semi-annual and quarterly reporting requirements, especially
as related to providing data in standard EPA formats.
II. Identify available computer based systems and alternative
procedures for maintaining and using state files.
III. Recommend suitable options available to state agencies and
delineate advantages and disadvantages of such alternatives.
1.3.2 Method and Schedule
In order to meet these objectives a survey project was
established in late September 1973. The schedule for completing the
project was relatively stringent and allowed two weeks for each of the four
major tasks which consisted of :
a. Development of the questionnaire and distribution to regions
b. Completion of questionnaires at regional offices
c. Compilation and analysis of completed questionnaires
d. Preparation and delivery of final report
1-4
-------
The plan of action adopted at that time allowed for the development
of survey questions addressing each of the study objectives. A sample of
the questionnaire form is contained in Appendix A. The type and scope
of questions developed were influenced by the desire to limit the time
to respond to not more than 30 minutes per state agency.
A total of thirty-three (33) questions were formulated. The questions
were directed toward ascertaining: a) the basic resources of a state
agency; b) type, capabilities and problems of emission inventory systems;
and c) type, capabilities and problems of air quality data systems.
The questions related to air quality were restricted to the data handling
functions and excluded those tasks related to data collection. Most of
the questions were designed such that the responses would provide insight
into more than one survey objective. The anticipated contribution of the
questions to the study objectives is shown in Table 1-1, "Relationship of
Survey Questions to Project Objectives."
Table 1-1. Relationship of Survey Questions to Project Objectives
Questions Applicable to:
Objective Emission Inventory Air Quality
la - Storage, Access and 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 22, 23, 24, 25, 27
maintenance technique 14, 15
Ib - Problems of mainte- 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 23, 24, 26, 27, 28,
nance and use 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 31, 32, 33
16, 20, 21
Ic - Federal reporting 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 16, 1, 2, 24, 29, 30,
problems 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 31, 32
II - Available system 3, Form 1 3, Form 2
III - Agency Option 1, 2, 3, 21 1,2, 3, 33
1-5
-------
The questionnaires were distributed to each regional office by
National Air Data Branch (NADB). Various techniques were used by regional
office personnel to complete the survey forms for each state air
pollution control agency in the region. The completed forms were returned
to the NADB, EPA in Durham, N. C. Copies of these forms were then
forwarded to the project team responsible for analyzing the responses.
The responses to the questionnaires are summarized in a series of
charts and tables which are contained in Appendix B, Survey Compilations.
These compilations were reviewed and analyzed to form the body of the
report. The compilations can be used also for purposes beyond the scope
of this project; in particular, they can be used to identify subjects
and problems for which more detailed investigation would be desirable.
The responses were generally definitive although not all questions
were answered for each state agency. Appropriate adjustments were made
during the analysis to disregard the lack of responses.
1.4 Study Constraints
The analysis and conclusions of this report are based primarily on
the responses to the questionnaire and information made available from
the NEDS report monitoring system. The NEDS reports reviewed were:
a. NEDS Point Sources listing, dated July 21, 1974.
b. Summary of Monitoring Activity, NADB, July 17, 1974.
Additional sources of information are referenced in the text.
In those cases where ambiguous responses were observed in the
questionnaire, analytic interpretations were made. Such interpretations
sought the most reasonable compromise among the conflicting responses.
The decision to restrict the time to complete a questionnaire to
approximately thirty minutes limited the scope of the survey with regard
to formulation of questions and the detail that could be obtained.
The stringent schedule precluded an intermediate test of the
questionnaire prior to release to EPA.
1-6
-------
SECTION 2
GENERAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO STATE AGENCIES
2.1 Introduction to State Resources
Government support, computer facilities, data systems and manpower
are considered to be the basic resources available to state agencies for
operating emission inventory and air quality data systems.
Government support is considered in Section 2.3 from the points
of view of:
a. services provided to agencies
b. data systems made available to agencies
c. effectiveness of the distribution of information regarding the
services and systems.
Computer facilities available to state agencies are discussed in
Section 2.4. The intent of this section is to establish the availability
and capability of computer facilities as opposed to the current utilization
of computers.
2.2 Distribution of Types of Data Systems
Data systems in use include manual, punched card and automated systems.
The distribution of the types of data systems used by various agencies
provides a good background for comparing the use of existing resources
and for visualizing the effect of resource availability nationwide.
Table 2-1 shows the distribution of emission inventory and air quality
data systems currently employed by the state agencies responding to the
survey. These results were obtained from questions 5 and 21 of the
questionnaire, which are summarized by region in charts 5 and 21 of
Appendix B.
As shown, seventy percent (70%) of the agencies have manual emission
inventory systems, and over half (57%) have automated or punch card air
quality systems. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the agencies have been
able to automate both systems.
The second column of Table 2-1 was consolidated from the results of
questions 21 and 33, which addressed the subject of agency satisfaction
with their current system. Since only 12 agencies (32%) indicated
2-1
-------
Table 2-1. Distribution of Data Systems Used by Agencies
Emission Inventory
Manual
Computer
Air Quality
Manual
Computer
Punch Card
None
Both
Number
of
Agencies
37 (70%)
16 (30%)
21 (39%)
26 (48%)
5 (9%)
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
Agencies
Satisfied
With Current
System
12 (32%)
10 (63%)
9 (43%)
19 (73%)
2 (40%)
--
Both E.I. and A.Q.
System Automated
11 (26%)
(Reference: Appendix B, Charts 5 and 21)
satisfaction with their current manual emission inventory systems, it
might be inferred that the remaining 25 agencies (68%) might be expected to
change to automated systems. Such an inference is admittedly weak,
although it is supported by statements-of-intent appended to the questionnaire
by some of the agencies. Such marginal comments appended to the questionnaire
by the agencies indicated plans for local automation development, or
installation of EIS. Similarly, with regard to those agencies employing
manual air quality data systems, some indicated plans to begin local
automation development, whereas others planned to install AQDHS. Thus, it
is reasonable to conclude that many agencies will automate their data
systems in the near future.
2-2
-------
2.3 Government Support
Government support 1s defined to Include the facilities provided by
NEDS and SAROAD as well as the distribution of information discussing the
services available from these systems. Primary information in the area
is derived from questions 1 and 2 of the survey which deal, respectively
with the distribution of service information pertaining to NEDS, SAROAD,
and CDHS, and the services available to agencies from these systems.
These questions attempt to determine the extent to which EPA has been
able to publicize NEDS, CDHS, and SAROAD, the acceptability of the standard
reporting formats and the effectiveness of governmental support. The
results are summarized in Table 2-2, and illustrate the overall status of
government support. All responding states indicated that both NEDS and
SAROAD capabilities were known. However, knowledge of CDHS has not been
so widely disseminated; 65% of responding agencies indicated awareness
of the Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS) of CDHS and 81% indicated
Table 2-2. Agency Knowledge of Government Support
APTD 1135 - NEDS
EIS/CDHS
AQDHS/CDHS
SAROAD
A
98%
65%
81%
98%
B C
59% 45%
-
-
70% 76%
Col A - percent of agencies which have had a system description
Col B - percent of agencies who have used available support services
Col C - percent of agencies aware of all government services available
(Reference: Appendix B, Charts 1 and 3)
2-3
-------
knowledge of the Air Quality Data Handling Subsystem (AQDHS) of CDHS. It
is noted that official documentation on EIS became available to EPA in
November 1973; thus prepublication information distribution has been
quite effective.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the state agencies have requested reports
from NEDS and over 70% have utilized SAROAD. It would appear that the
greater awareness of SAROAD over NEDS is due to the,longer existence
of SAROAD and the consequent greater use. It is interesting to note
that although 59% of the state agencies responding have made use of NEDS
outputs, less than half (45%) of the responding agencies felt that they
completely understood the services available to them from NADB either
directly or through remote terminal facilities available at Regional
Offices.
2.4 Automation Consideration
2.4.1 Computer Facilities
Question 3, which deals with the subject of the availability
of computer facilities, is summarized in Table 2-3. The parts of question 3
requesting core size and compilers were included to determine if subsystems
of CDHS could be implemented on computers currently available to state
agencies. Of the 54 agencies responding, 39 reported having access to
one or more computers.
Of the 39 computers reported, 25 had adequate core size and the
appropriate programming language compilers; it was concluded that all
facilities having computers could accommodate CDHS. Thus it is concluded
that the CDHS concept is viable and that its subsystems (EIS and AQDHS)
can be implemented as desired for most state agencies. It was noted,
however, that the TOOK byte (or equivalent) core requirement for operating
CDHS subsystems tends to be at the upper range of core allocations
as normally made by data processing departments.
Only a small fraction of state agencies have direct control of their
computer facilities; most states rely on the facilities provided by
another state agency. Most of the agencies have adequate computer time
for their emission inventory system and air quality system.
2-4
-------
Table 2-3. Computational Facilities Available to State Agencies as of July 1, 1974
REGION
i
II
in
IV
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
MAKE
MODEL
IBM 370/155
Honeywell 6000
IBM 370/155
No computer available
IBM 360/40
No computer available
IBM 370/145
IBM 370/155
Burroughs 3500
IBM 370/155
No computer available
IBM 360/40
IBM 1130
No computer available
IBM 370/145
UNIVAC 70/45
IBM 370/155
No computer available
UNIVAC
UNIVAC
UNIVAC
IBM
IBM
IBM
1108
70-45G
1106
370/165
370/155
370/145
No computer available
IBM 370/155
IBM
IBM
IBM
CDC
CDC
IBM
UNIVAC
370/165
370/165
370/155
6500
3300
370/155
9400
CORE
250K
256K
1500K
110K
750K
500K
150K
700K
128K
8K
1000K
131K
500K
262K
196K
262K
2000K
1000K
500K
250K
200K
190K
100K
200K
230K
2000K
64K
NO. OF
TAPES
18
12
5
7
13
4
6
10
6
2
12
12
6
15
3
16
8
4
4
20
2
COMPILER
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
(3)
C, F
C. F
F
C, F
(3)
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C. F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
(1)
USAGE
(2)
El, AQ
El, AQ
El
None
AQ
AQ
El
AQ
El, AQ
El, AQ
El
El, AQ
El, AQ
El, AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
El, AQ
None
El
AQ
AQ
None
El, AQ
ADEQUATE TIME
I *
Y ,Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
-------
Table 2-3. Computational Facilities Available to State Agencies as of July 1, 1974 (continued)
REGION
VI
VII
IX
STATE
Arkansas
Louisana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kanas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
MAKE
MODEL
IBM 1130
No computer available
IBM 360
IBM 360/145
UN IVAC 1106
IBM 370
No computer available
IBM 360/30
IBM 370/155
IBM 370/145,
155
IBM 360/50
IBM 370/145
IBM 370/145
IBM 370/145
No computer available
IBM 370/158
No computer available
No computer available
CDC 3300
No computer available
No computer available
IBM 360
CORE
8K
300K
96K
NR
NO. OF
TAPES
1
NR
NR
262K
100K
NR
NR
1000K
756K
1000K
384K
384K
3
NR
6
4
NR
NR
14
12
8
. 4
4
NR
IBM
IBM
IBM
IBM
360/50
370/145
370/158
360/65
83K
512K
560K
1000K
1
4
7
16
COMPILER
C, F
C. F
C, F
C, F
NR
NR
C
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
C, F
NR
C. F
C, F
C, F
C, F
0)
USAGE
(2)
AQ
El, AQ
El. AQ
El, AQ
El,
AQ
El, AQ
ADEQUATE TIME
E A
None
None
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
None
None
AQ
El, AQ
El. AQ
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(1) C Indicates ANSI COBOL compiler available
F indicates ANSI FORTRAN compiler available
(2) El Indicates computer may be used to support the emission Inventory
AQ indicates computer may be used to support the air quaility system
(3) Does not have ANSI compilers
Reference: Data provided by EPA, OAWM, OAQPS, NADB
-------
All but one of the states operating computer systems reported having
adequate time to run their systems. The exception, New Mexico, reported
inadequate time for its emission inventory system. Thirteen states
indicated they had access to adequate computer time for one or more
systems. Since there is some question of interpretation of the response
given by the remaining agency to the question regarding availability of
computer time, it is concluded that all states having access (or potential
access) to a computer facility will also be able to arrange for enough time
to operate both emission inventory and air quality data systems if they so
desire.
2.4.2 Available Computer Based Systems
Sixteen agencies reported computer based emission inventory
systems and nineteen agencies reported computer based air quality data
systems. The availability and capabilities of these systems are discussed
in Section 2.4.2.1 for emission inventories and in Section 2.4.2.2 for
air quality data systems.
2.4.2.1 Computer-based Emission Inventory Systems. Table 2-4
lists fifteen of the sixteen agencies currently using an automated emission
inventory system (Massachusetts indicated their automated system was not
functioning). Three of the agencies use the same system, thus, there are
twelve different computer based emission inventories reported in this
survey. Eight of the systems are available on request to the owning
agency. One is available from industry. Three states do not offer their
system to other users.
Table 2-5 consolidates the basic system characteristics as reported on
Form 1, Basic Characteristics of Computer Based Emission Inventory System.
These systems, exhibited the following common characteristics:
a. card input different from NEDS
b. data storage on disk
c. file maintenance capabilities
d. data edit capabilities
e. data validation capabilities
f. production of summary reports
g. audit trail
h. support to other functional area
2-7
-------
Table 2-4. Computerized Emission Inventory Systems Currently in Use
STATE
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Wisconsin
SYSTEM NAME
Ala MIRADS EDS
IBM STARTER
Del SEI
Ga AQC PTREPORT
111 EIS
IBM STARTER
Md EIS
Mich EIS
IBM STARTER
NM EIS
NY APESMS
Ore EIS
Pa AQDMS
Tex EIS
Wis EIS
SOURCE
Al abama
IBM
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
IBM
Maryland
Michigan
IBM
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Wisconsin
AVAILABLE
FROM STATE
yes
no
yes
yes
unknown
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Note: Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, and Washington did not
respond.
2-8
-------
Table 2-5. Characteristics of Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
for Those Agencies That Responded to the Questionnaire
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTIC NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
Storage Media:
Tape 6
Cards 5
Disk/Drum 4
Tape and Disk 3
System Capabilities
File Maintenance 11
Data Edit 11
Data Validation 6
Emission Calculation 7
Logical Retrieval 10
Report Generation:
Formatted Set Dump 10
Multiple Report Forms 8
Summary Reports 13
Variable Forms 5
Programming Language:
ANSI COBOL 6
ANSI FORTRAN 2
Both 4
Other 1
2-9
-------
Table 2-6. System Compatibility with NEDS Specifications
AGENCY
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
*Pennsylvania
Texas
Wisconsin
SYSTEM
NAME
Ala MIRADS EDS
IBM STARTER
Del SEI
Ga AQC PTREFORT
111 EIS
IBM STARTER
Md EIS
Mich EIS
IBM STARTER
NM EIS
NY APESMS
Ore EIS
Pa AQDMS
Tex EIS
Wis EIS
INPUT
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
--
Yes
No
Yes
OUTPUT
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
--
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NEDS (
SOURCE
I DENT
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
:OMP/
sec
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
.._
\TIBILITY
UNITS OF
MEASURE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
DATA
TYPES
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SOURCE
DEF.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Note: Dash (--) indicates no response. *The negative responses regarding
certain NEDS items would suggest that the input-output compatibility is
questionable, and would require a conversion program.
Various other capabilities were exhibited by most systems. These
included:
a. emission calculations (7 systems)
b. logical retrieval (10 systems)
c. multiple report formats (8 systems)
d. variable forms (5 systems)
The question of system compatibility with NEDS specifications was
addressed in Question 20 and on Form 1 of the questionnaire. The results
are summarized in Table 2-6.
2-10
-------
2.4.2.2 Computer Based Air Quality Data Systems. Table 2-7
lists the twenty-eight automated air quality data systems currently in
use. Nineteen agencies indicated they would make their system available
upon request. Four indicated their systems were not available. Five
agencies did not respond. It appears that many of these systems are
based upon the original version of AQDHS and were modified by the state
agency. Table 2-7 also reflects the fact that all but five computer based
systems are compatible with SAROAD.
As can be seen in Table 2-8, there is little difference in the general
capabilities available in the air quality data systems currently in use.
Significantly, however, five systems do not provide for statistical
processing.
2.5 Discussion of Automation Options
There are three types of data systems available to state agencies
which are distinguished by the developing agency (Federal, state, industry).
The choice between these systems, should a state decide to automate, rests
on factors other than capability or compatibility with Federal centralized
systems (i.e., NEDS, SAROAD). These factors include:
a. development costs
b. documentation
c. system support
d. training
e. installation support
f. system requirements for computer facilities
g. system performance
2.5.1 Agency Options
The data processing functions of the state agencies for emissions
and air quality data can be accomplished in either of two modes: manual
or automated. A decision to employ one or the other depends primarily on:
a. the size of the data file
b. file access frequency
c. data processing/manipulation requirements
d. funding constraints
2-11
-------
Table 2-7. Air Quality Data Systems Currently in Use
STATE
Al abama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
SAROAD
COMPATIBLE
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
AVAILABLE
TO OTHER STATES
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no response
yes
no response
no response
yes
yes
yes
yes
no response
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no response
2-12
-------
Table 2-8. Characteristics of Automated Air Quality Data Systems
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTIC NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
Storage Media
Cards 12
Tape 21
Disk/Drum 6
System Capabilities
File Maintenance 24
Data Edit 25
Data Validation 19
Statistical Processing 23
Logical Retrieval 20
Report Generation:
Formatted File Dump 20
Multiple Reports 20
Summary Reports 26
Statistical Reports 21
Programming Language:*
ANSI COBOL 8
ANSI FORTRAN 9
Both 10
Other 4
*Note: Alabama did not respond. Those states indicating another
programming language also used COBOL, FORTRAN, or both.
2-13
-------
For small data files on the order of 100 emission sources or 8-10
air quality monitoring sites, the most obvious choice is the manual mode.
This has the advantage of low cost while minimizing the disadvantages
associated with manual processing of large files.
For those agencies faced with large data files and the need to
frequently reference this data, a decision to automate is most reasonable.
In this case a further decision is needed; what means of automation is
most practical? In the areas of emissions and air quality data there are
at least five choices, namely:
in-house development
contract development
installation of government-provided options
installation of industry developed systems
installation of system in use to another agency
In-house development has several advantages including:
greater assurance that system meets all agency requirements
greater assurance that agency personnel can easily maintain
the system and modify it as requirements change
There are disadvantages that must also be considered. These include:
large, but temporary personnel requirements during the
development phases
relatively large development costs
long lead time to accommodate system analysis and development
requirement to produce system documentation and manuals.
The advantage for contracting system development tends to parallel those
for in-house development. Additional advantages include:
elimination of large staff requirement during development
minimum development time
improved documentation
Contrasting possible disadvantages include:
relative costs
need to delegate staff to coordination during development
need to develop formal, detailed system specifications
some loss of flexibility during development
2-14
-------
The availability of systems provided by the government offered many
advantages to the agencies. Included among these are:
elimination of development costs
assurance that system is compatible with government
requirements
available documentation
short lead time for installation
The disadvantages may include installation difficulties and system
inflexibility with regard to unusual agency requirements. The effect
of these could be reduced if the government undertakes a program of system
maintenance, installation support and training. The choice of installing
systems available from industry could be good provided the system is
compatible with agency needs. Such systems are generally offered with
full documentation. Installation support and training are usually available.
Another source of developed systems is found in the system currently
in use and made available by some state agencies. These have the advantages
that they exist and are available without development cost. They may not,
however, meet all agency needs. Disadvantages may be caused by system
constraints, installation problems, system maintenance, possibly poor
documentation, and lack of training programs. The explicit capabilities
and support programs should, of course, be examined prior to selecting
one of the systems that are currently in use.
2-15
-------
SECTION 3
ANALYSIS FOR EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEMS
3.1 Scope of the Analysis
This section discusses the findings deduced from the survey questionnaires
as they apply to manual and computer based emission inventory systems.
Emphasis has been placed on:
a. Identifying techniques used for the storage, access and
maintenance of these systems.
b. Identifying problems associated with the routine use of thest
systems.
c. Identifying problems arising at state agencies in meeting
Federal reporting requirements.
d. Identifying techniques or systems available to state agency that
might alleviate their emission inventory problems.
3.2 Storage, Access and Maintenance
3.2.1 Sources of Emission Inventory Data
The questionnaire (question 8) suggested several different
sources of data for emission inventories. The responses from the state
agencies as summarized in Table 3-1 showed a preference for multiple
sources to include permit or registrations and questionnaires. Howevtr,
this tendency was most pronounced for states with manual systems. Th«
responses suggest that the most common basic sources of emission inventory
data, consist of permit or registration forms.
Table 3-1. Emission Inventory Data Sources
SOURCE
FORM
Permi t/regi stration
Inspection reports
Questionnaires
Multiple Sources
TOTAL
MANUAL
SYSTEMS
13
0
5
19
37
COMPUTER
BASED
SYSTEMS
5
1
3
7
16
TOTAL
18
1
8
26
53
Note: There were only 53 responses.
3-1
-------
3.2.2 Storage Techniques
Storage techniques were addressed primarily by questions 7 and 9
for manual system and by question 9 and Form 1 for computer based systems.
Table 3-2 summarizes the results obtained from these questions. States
having computer based systems used tapes and disks as storage files.
For states having manual systems, the predominant technique is the storage
of original source forms in standard file cabinets. A significant number
(47%) used NEDS forms as storage media. As shown in Table 3-2 94% of
the states using manual systems reported 5000 or fewer sources per system.
One:agency, Indiana, reported 9000 sources. New Jersey reported
Table 3-2. Emission Inventory Storage Characteristics
STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS
NUMBER OF AGENCIES
Manual Computer
Separate Files
Mixed Files
Volume:
0-1 file drawers
2-5 file drawers
6-12 file drawers
> 12 file drawers
Storate Media:
Permit/Register Forms
Local E.I Forms
NEDS Forms
Number of Sources:
0-500
500-1000
1000-5000
5000-20,000
100,000
33
9
11
10
7
5
13
10
19
20 (54%)
8 (21%)
7 (19%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
6 (38%)
1 (6%)
5 (31%)
3 (19%)
1 (6%)
3-2
-------
100,000 sources. The range in the number of sources is front.2.0 to
100,000; the average size, excluding extremes, is about 450 sources.
Computer based systems accommodated more sources than manual systems.
Twenty-five percent (25%) of the automated systems ha.ye, mores than,5000
sources and 56% have more than 1000 sources. T,h§ r^ngje^iofwthe^namber.rof
sources in computer systems is from 300 sources to 150rQOD sources.
Material in the manual files is apparently stored by> aTpfisbietic or
numeric coding schemes of local design. Storage for wmputeT?Raised systems
is controlled by source identification. Codes' ineluded'Htiayrbe numeric'or
alphabetic or a combination. It appears from the survey thatmanual
systems identify sources to the facility level whereas computer based
systems usually employ more detailed identification control. Information
from sources other than the survey suggests that computer based systems have
the capability to identify sources of pollutant down to the level of an
individual fuel. However, in these cases storage is usually maintained
at the "point" level; that is, to the level equivalent to a stack.
The storage and protection of confidential data do not seem to be a
problem. Table 3-3 summarizes the responses in this regard for manual and
computer based systems, respectively. Only 25 of the 54 agencies responded
to the question on confidentiality. Of these 25, 10 reported that no
confidential data were stored. Simple protective devices such as locked
files are used to protect confidential data.
Manual storage techniques included:
a. notebooks of NEDS Forms
b. File drawers containing source forms in alphabetic or
numeric order
c. NEDS listing of point sources
Computer based systems stored data on disk or tape and used alphabetic
or numeric sorting of coded identification keys to maintain file sequence.
3.2.3 Access Techniques
Access techniques used to extract data from manual files are
inferred from experience and related to the use of emissions data as
reported in the survey form. Access to manual emission inventories are
by manual file search. Alphabetic or numeric coding schemes for source
identification are used by most agencies.
3-3
-------
Table 3-3. Sumnary of Agencies Storing Confidential Data
,D,6 TOTAL
CONFIDENTS DATA »,
none
0-22
2-4%
4-6%
>6%
TOTAL
5
5
-
2
2
14
5
2
1
3
-
11
10
7
1
5
2
25
Note: Only 25 agencies Responded to the question regarding confidentiality.
Two-thirds of the computer based systems were reported to have a
logical retrieval capability. Thus most of these systems have the
capability to select one or more sources from the file as a function of
some predetermined criteria. These criteria may be source identification,
level of pollutant emission, source location, or other factors of immediate
interest. Ten computer based systems produce formatted file listings.
Thirteen systems produce summary reports. Table 3-4 contains a summary of
the retrieval and report generating capabilities available in existing
systems. This summary together with individual Form's 1 were used to
infer the access techniques available in computer based emission inventory
systems.
3.2.4 Maintenance Techniques
Techniques used to maintain emission inventories are summarized
in Table 3-5 based on responses to questions 12 and 13 of the survey.
A review of the table shows that the concepts for file maintenance are
the same for both manual and computer based systems. Two such concepts
are apparent. The predominant technique is to replace the entire contents
(or a significant portion thereof) of a source record whenever one or more
data elements of that record are changed as a result of an inspection,
new permit application or some other factor. This technique is employed
-------
Table 3-4. Access Techniques and Report Generation Capabilities
for Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
Access:
Logical Retrieval
Reports:
Formatted File Dump
Multiple Reports
Summary Reports
Variable Forms
10
10
8
13
5
Table 3-5. Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices
TYPE OF SYSTEM
Manual
Computer
Techniques
Form Replacement
Form Correction
Record Replacement
Field Level Update
10
9
9
4
Maintenance Frequency
Annual
Semi-Annual
Monthly
Weekly
As received
Other
6
7
1
1
14
7
3
3
1
3
4
1
3-5
-------
by 10 of the 37 manual systems reported and for 9 of the 16 computer
based systems.
The alternative technique is to change only the data element affected.
For manual systems this is accomplished by correcting individual data
forms. In computer based systems the data record is retrieved, the data
element is changed and the record replaced in the file.
Only 5 agencies having manual systems reported that a record of
changes made (i.e., an audit trail) was maintained. The remaining agencies
did not respond. If an audit trail is not maintained a problem can arise
while generating responses for the periodic reporting requirements since
these reports are based on reporting changes in the emission inventory.
Ten agencies, having computer based systems, indicated that a
complete audit trail of changes, deletions and additions of data elements
and data records was maintained. There was, however, no indication that
the audit trail was specifically related to Federal reporting requirements.
It is believed that these audit trails are made more for the purpose of
verifying individual file maintenance activities than for insuring better
response to reporting requirements.
3.3 Significant Problems
There were no significant problems related to routine use or to
Federal reporting that could be associated in general with all reporting
agencies. However, it was clear that a few state agencies were experiencing
severe problems in several areas. Perhaps the greatest problem has arisen
in those state agencies whose emission inventory was developed before
NEDS specifications became available. In some instances data storage
concepts were developed that turned out to be significantly different from
the NEDS specifications. This has created problems both in normal use and
maintenance of emission inventories as well as in the generation of
Federal reports. Major incompatibilities were reported by 29 agencies
for such key data elements as:
. Source identification (11 manual systems, 7 computer systems)
Source classification codes (12 manual systems, 7 computer systems)
Units of measure (11 manual systems, 2 computer systems)
Types of data (15 manual systems, 2 computer systems)
Definition of a source (12 manual systems, 5 computer systems)
3-6
-------
Such Incompatibilities suggest major problems by Imposing a need to
maintain and use special procedures such as:
maintaining cross references for sources, source classification
codes, units of measure, and previous changes
the addition of data elements not specified by state rules
the addition of data elements required by the state solely to
satisfy Federal reports
These activities place a burden on daily maintenance operations
as well as on the generation of Federal reports.
The selection of reportable sources is further complicated by the
fact that a source must be reported only if it emits at least 25 tons/year
of a pollutant. Progress in air pollution control tends to reduce emissions
below the reporting criteria.
The number of sources maintained by state agencies generally exceeds
the number of sources that must be reported to NADB. As shown in Table 3-6
the major impact of this is the need to develop procedures to select the
appropriate sources which are limited (Federal Register, Vol 38, August 3,
1973) for a reporting period to:
a. Those sources coming into compliance with a control regulation
b. New or modified sources
c. Discontinued sources.
In the manual systems the problem is resolved by noting changes
according to the above criteria as they occur. For computer based systems
the problem may be resolved by periodically selecting those sources
whose "date of entry" lies within the reporting period.
The foregoing problem areas were inferred from the responses to
several questions which relate to various aspects of size, content, and
compatibility of emission inventory files. Fifteen agencies, out of 47
responding, reported an impact on manpower requirements due to the require-
ments of federal reports.
Table 3-7 was constructed from the responses to question 19 which
asked if the agency had submitted emissions data. Of 52 agencies responding
3-7
-------
Table 3-6. Number of Agencies Maintaining Files That
Exceed the Number of Sources in NEDS
RANGE OF EXCESS
NUMBER OF AGENCIES
Manual Computer
Systems Systems
TOTAL
0-200 sources
200-500 sources
1000-5000 sources
5000 sources
Total
15
9
11
3
38
2
4
6
4
16
17
13.
17
7
54
Table 3-7. Count of Agencies That Have Submitted Emission Data
as Reported by the Survey Compared with NEDS Content
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
AGENCIES
IN REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
'=-55,-..
*SURVEY INDICATED DATA SUBMITTED BY:
AGENCY CONTRACTOR
2
1
2
7
3
1 3
3
2
1 2
1
23 ........... 5
TOTAL
2
1 .
2
7
3
4
3
2
3
1
28
NEDS
FILE
6
. 4
6
8
6
5
4
. 6
5
4
.54 ,
*Note: 1. Survey data based on questionnaire responses dated September -
November 1973.
2. See Appendix B, Table 3-3 for comparative NADB figures on
states generally in compliance with reporting regulations.
3-8
-------
only 28 indicated that they had submitted emissions data. The table shows
the number of agencies that have submitted emissions data, the number of
agencies whose data was submitted by contractors, the total number of
agencies submitting data as reported in the survey, and the number of
agencies listed in the NEDS file as having submitted emission data.
There is no agreement between the numbers obtained from the survey
and those obtained from the NEDS file. It is believed that this lack of
agreement reflects some misunderstanding of the survey questionnaire.
Although it is true that the NEDS file does not contain all of the
emissions data for each agency, the file does indicate that some NEDS
data have been submitted by each agency.
Some of the differences between the expected and actual data submittals
is believed to reflect the current static nature of agency inventories.
Consequently agencies may be under the impression that emissions data
submittals are not needed because of lack of changes in their inventory.
3-9
-------
SECTION 4
ANALYSIS FOR AIR QUALITY DATA SYSTEMS
4.1 General Comments
Air quality data systems were reported for fifty-three of the fifty-
four respondents. One agency did not operate any air quality measuring
sites and relied entirely on NASN stations operated by EPA. Three types
of air quality data systems were described as follows:
21 manual systems
27 computer based systems
5 punched card systems
Ninety-six percent (96%) of all the agencies have submitted air quality
data in SAROAD formats. As shown in Table 4-1, the responses to question 29
dealing with the submission of quarterly reports in SAROAD format tend
Table 4-1. Comparison of Agencies That Have Submitted One or More
Quarterly Reports as Shown by the Survey and NADB Contents
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
AGENCIES
IN REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
SURVEY
6
3
6
8
5
5
4
6
6
4
52
NADB
0
1
4
8
6
4
4
6
5
4
42
(References:- Survey data summarized from Chart 27, Appendix B. NADB
data summarized from Summary of Valid Data, National Aerometric
Data Bank, First Quarter 1974, dated July 17, 1974)
4-1
-------
Table 4-2. Compatibility Factors for Agency A1r Quality Data Systems*
NUMBER OF AGENCIES REPORTING TYPE OF SYSTEM
MANUAL COMPUTER PC TOTAL
A1r Quality Source Forms:
SAROAD
Other
20
6
10
14
6
0
36
20
Submission on SAROAD Form:
Agency
With
Method
Yes
No
File is Compatible:
SAROAD:
Yes
No
of Submitting AQ Data:
SAROAD Form
SAROAD Cards/Tape
Other
22
1
20
2
19
5
0
25
1
23
5
3
27
2
5
0
4
1
2
2
1
52
2
47
8
24
34
3
*Totals exceed number of agencies because some states reported multiple
factors.
to reflect more compliance with reporting requirements than is shown by
the NADB data. This is understandable, however, since the NADB data
represent only a quarterly summary of valid data in NADB.
The subject of compatibility between agency air quality system and
SAROAD 1s considered in various survey questions and specifically 1n
question 30; responses are summarised in Table 4-2, All evidence leads
to the conclusion that most agency systems are fully compatible with SAROAD.
The difficulties encountered by NAD& in accepting air quality data seem to
lie in formatting difficulties rather than in any Inherent system problems.
As shown in Table 4-2 the SAROAD forms predominate as source forms for
collecting and storing air quality data. This implies that both manual
and computer based systems maintain appropriate data in proper formats to
be SAROAD compatible. Table 4-2 indicates that SAROAD forms predominate as
the preferred method of submitting air quality data.
4-2
-------
Table 4-3. Manpower Requirements for Air Quality Data Systems
MANPOWER RANGE
(man-years)
0-1
1-3
3-5
5-10
10
TOTAL
NUMBER OF AGENCIES
MANUAL
10
9
1
0
0
20
REPORTING
COMPUTER
9
12
1
1
1
24
TYPE OF SYSTEM
TOTAL
19
21
2
1
1
44
Manpower requirements for operating air quality data systems are
relatively constant from state to state regardless of such factors as
frequency of use, and data volume, but do depend on type of system. There
is a tendency to require more personnel to maintain a computer based
system than for a manual system. Table 4-3 tends to show that, in general,
computerized systems require more personnel. Additionally, Table 4-4
indicates that computerized systems are required to process more monitoring
data than manual systems. Mindful of the contrasting skills required
for computerized versus manual systems (i.e., technical programming versus
clerical filing), we might conclude that, on the average, computerized
systems do require more staff personnel than manual systems.
The degree of satisfaction with air quality data systems expressed
by state agencies is similar to that expressed for emission inventory
systems. That is, agencies with computer based systems tended to be
satisfied while agencies with manual systems tended to be dissatisfied.
About 65% of the agencies with automated systems were satisfied while only
40% of those with manual systems were satisfied.
4.2 Storage, Access and Maintenance of Air Quality Data
Questions 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 as summarized on Charts 23, 24, 25, 26
and 27 of Appendix B provided specific inputs to the subjects of storage,
access and maintenance of air quality data. Discussion of these topics
is given for each area in the following subsections.
4-3
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Required, Proposed, and Reporting
Monitoring Sites by State
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryl and
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
TOTAL NUMBER
REQUIRED
61
19
51
14
172
41
56
9
13
75
95
4
22
141
104
50
44
60
25
26
86
92
77
63
22
64
27
25
30
OF MONITORING
PROPOSED
64
38
72
36
346
98
139
88
27
75
117
34
46
262
329
67
143
527
34
47
215
243
246
122
52
134
29
43
55
STATIONS
REPORTING
108
34
101
74
337
95
118
31
8
114
105
52
30
139
220
83
170
440
36
38
234
147
224
170
49
138
32
54
54
DATA
SYSTEM TYPE
C
M
M
C
C
C,M
PC
C
M
C
C
M
C
C
M
M
M
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
PC
C
PC
M
4-4
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Required, Proposed, and Reporting
Monitoring Sites by State (continued)
STATE
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Virgin Islands
TOTAL NUMBER
REQUIRED
17
61
29
188
67
8
194
35
33
177
7
20
61
10
73
148
36
9
108
67
36
47
10
2
5
7
OF MONITORING
PROPOSED
65
114
103
506
305
18
572
124
46
329
64
83
114
10
197
692
71
22
218
126
64
147
13
2
6
10
STATIONS
REPORTING
54
160
101
450
434
16
425
134
99
177
17
81
225
10
199
421
28
7
278
89
49
117
22
0
9
6
DATA
SYSTEM TYPE
M
C
C
C
C
C
M
PC
C
C
-
M
M
M
C
C
C
M
M
C
M
C
M
-
M
M
(Reference: Summary of Monitoring Activity, NADB, July 17, 1974)
4-5
-------
4.2.1 Storage Concepts
The sources of data for air quality data systems are similar
for both manual and computer based systems as reflected in Table 4-5.
About 64% of all agencies rely on SAROAD forms as a means of recording
air quality data and providing such data to air quality data systems.
SAROAD forms are used predominantly (77%) for manual systems, entirely
for punched card systems and for 42% of computer based systems.
Data storage characteristics are summarized in Table 4-6. Manual and
punched card systems used the same concept which consisted simply of
filing the original data source forms. Twenty-fOne of the twenty-seven computer
files were restricted to tape storage, six used disk/drum storage. Air
quality data is stored indefinitely, however, some agencies (about 18%)
keep an active file for one to two years, putting the older data in a
history file. Eighteen agencies indicated their air quality data storage
volume was 0-2 file drawers; 8 indicated a storage volume of 3-6 file
drawers; and 6 agencies indicated their air quality data storage volume
was 6-10 file drawers.
The accumulation of air quality data for manual systems may become
a significant problem in the future. An estimate of the magnitude of the
problem was developed from the data presented in the NADB status reports,
Summary of Monitoring Activity, dated October 9, 1973.
A rough estimate of the number of sensor sites is derived from the
number of projected particulate sites (TSP) with the assumption that other
sensors are located with at least one particulate site. Although it is
known that other pollutants are separately measured, the estimate is
useful for speculating about the impact on agency operations due to the
measurement program.
Using the estimate as described it is estimated that agencies having
manual systems operate an average of 49 sites as opposed to 104 sites for
computer based systems.
It is further assumed that each site will generate on the average
one SAROAD (or equivalent) form per day to record the sensor data. Thus
the manual storage system will grow at a rate of about two file drawers
per year.
4-6
-------
Table 4-5. Source of Air Quality Data
NUMBER OF AGENCIES REPORTING
LOCAL FORMS SAROAD FORMS
TOTAL*
Manual Systems
Computer Based Systems
Punched Card Systems
Total
6
14
0
20
20
10
6
36
26
24
6
56
*Total exceeds number of agencies because some states reported multiple
sources.
Table 4-6. Air Quality Data Storage Summary
NUMBER OF AGENCIES
Period of Storage - Active File
Indefinite
1-2 years
3-5 years
> 5 years
Storage Media
SAROAD Forms
Agency Forms
Storage Volume
0-2 File Drawers
3-6
6-10
36
8
1
1
14
17
18
8
6
Note: Some agencies did not respond'to these specific questions,
4-7
-------
(49 sites x 365 days/year x 1 page/site/day) a , gg f., drawers/vear
9000 pages/file drawer1.99 file drawers/year
This estimate agrees reasonably well with the volumes of storage
summarized in Table 4-6. The rate of growth for manual systems indicates
a growth problem that would be best resolved by automating.
4.2.2 Access Methods
The questionnaire was designed so that access to air quality
data files could be inferred from question 26 and Form 2. Unfortunately,
insufficient information was received in response to question 26, dealing
with report generation, to make valid inferences with confidence. However,
the responses in general were reviewed to infer that access techniques for
manual systems must depend on a file structuring such that measurements
of pollution concentration are filed sequentially by date, for each observing
site. This, of course, reflects the method used to collect data for
storage as discussed in Section 4.1.1 Access is then accomplished by
scanning through the files for a site until the times desired are found.
Data for pollutants desired is then extracted and processed as required.
Access to manual air quality data files may become a significant
problem in the near future because of the need to reconsider state imple-
mentation plans with respect to social, political and economic crises, such
as the current fuel shortage, which require access to air quality files
for impact studies.
Access to automated air quality data files does not present significant
problems. The access techniques reported on Form 2 for all computer based
systems employed a logical retrieval which presumably allowed selection of
data based on several criteria. The criteria probably included location,
time and pollutant as a minimum thereby exhibiting a high degree of
compatibility with AQDHS. File access for studies, reports or summaries
does not represent a problem in computer based systems.
4.2.3 File Maintenance Procedures
File maintenance for air quality data files consists of two
major functions which are considered for this survey. The functions are
the addition of data and modification of data in the file. Both of these
4-8
-------
functions, of course, require file access techniques, and, as discussed in
Section 4.1.2, can therefore create problems for manual systems in
particular.
The addition of data is the lesser problem because, in general, the
technique simply adds a form behind a series of forms at a visually
indicated position (e.g., a file separator). On the other hand, changing
a data value involves a file search to locate a particular form, the
correction of a specific entry and re-positioning of the form in the file.
This can be a rather lengthy and error-prone task particularly for large
files.
The file maintenance procedures differ somewhat in frequency between
manual and computer based systems. As shown in Table 4-7, most air quality
data files are maintenanced within one month of the receipt of new data.
Any contrast of maintenance practices between manual and computer systems
probably reflects the system's unique constraints and practical convenience.
Table 4-7. Air Quality File Maintenance Summary
NUMBER OF AGENCIES REPORTING TYPE OF SYSTEM
MANUAL COMPUTER TOTAL
File Maintenance Interval
As received
1 week
1 month
3 months
Other
Total
9
7
10
1
27
6
5
13
3
27
15
5
20
10
4
54
4r9
-------
APPENDIX A SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Emission Inventory
Air Quality
Data System Survey
The attached forms are forwarded to aid in the collection of basic
planning information related to emission inventory air quality data
systems used at the state and local government levels. The information
gathered will be used by EPA Internally to evaluate the status of such
systems and to ascertain:
a. Techniques presently used to store, access and maintain emission
inventory and air quality data files
b. Significant problems associated with maintaining and using such
files
c. Anticipated problems in meeting the proposed Federal regulations
for the quarterly and semi-annual reporting of emissions air
quality data by state agencies, especially as related to provid-
ing data in the NEDS format
d. Availability of computer based systems and other considerations
for maintaining and using state and local agency data systems.
The survey addresses the above problems in some detail as covered by
the attached questionnaire. The questions are grouped in three categories:
a. Those applicable to emission inventory system
b. Those applicable to air quality data system
c. Those applicable to both systems
The basic intent is to obtain information to describe the scope and the
size of state systems; to Identify problems associated with the use of
the systems to meet Federal reporting requirements. Thus it is important
to note that the systems of interest exclude data collection functions
which are concentrating on storage, retrieval, and report generation.
This is a particularly important distinction in the air quality system
since air quality monitoring involves many functions related to data
collection.
Questionnaires have been designed as guides for collecting relevant
information. Different regions will have different questionnaires.
Most of the questions are of the multiple choice type. The multiple
choices are believed to be reasonably comprehensive, however, the use
of remarks is encouraged to record circumstances not adequately described.
A-l
-------
You are requested to complete one set of questions for each state
within your region. It is suggested that questions whose answers
are readily known be completed first and that answers to the re-
maining questions be reserved for a later time. This will provide
for a directed search of the various sources from which the desired
information can be obtained.
In order to meet contractual schedules, you are requested to return
the completed forms to NADB within ten (10) days of receipt at your
office. However, in order to speed the analysis, we would appreciate
your .returning the questionnaire sooner if possible. The mailing
address is:
Dr. James R. Hammerle
Environmental Protection Agency
National Air Data Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
A-2
-------
1. Has the agency received
a. Guide for compiling a Comprehensive
Emmission Inventory APTD 1135? YES NO
b. Documentation or briefing on the
Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS)
of Comprehensive Data Handling
System (CDHS) YES NO
c. Documentation or briefing on the
Air Quality Data Handling System
(AQDHS) of CDHS YES NO
d. Documentation or briefing on the
Storage and Retrieval of Aerometrlc
Data (SAROAD) system YES NO
e. Approval for submitting data on locally
devised forms in accordance with para-
graph 5.1.7 (3) of the Federal Register,
Vol. 38, Aug. 3, 1973 YES NO
2. a. Has the state agency requested reports
or data from
1) NEDS YES NO
2) SAROAD YES NO
b. Does the state agency know what reports
data and data summaries are available
upon request from
1) NEDS YES NO
2) SAROAD YES NO
A-3
-------
3. What are the basic characteristics of the computer facility available
to the agency for the omission Inventory and air quality systems?
a. Same computer is used for both systems
b. Different computers are used for each system
c. List characteristics in following table
Characteristics Emmission Inventory Air Quality
Make
Model
Core Size
No. Tape Drives
ANSICOBOL YES NO YES NO
ANSIFORTRAN YES NO YES NO
d. Does the agency control (or own) the computer? YES NO
If NO; who controls the computer?
e. Does the agency have access to enough computer time to
operate its
1) Emmission inventory system? YES NO
2) Air quality data system? YES NO
4. What type of emission inventory system does the state agency use?
a. Manual
b. Uses punched card equipment
c. Computer based. If so, please complete the accompanying form
(Form 1).
d. If computer based, would state make system available to other
states?
YES NO
A-4
-------
5. If the agency uses a computer based system, does the system produce
reports (or outputs) compatible with NEDS and SAROAD/formats?
a. NO
b. YES, as follows
NEDS SAROAD
Printed list
Punched cards
Magnetic tape
c. Yes, with exceptions listed below.
NOTE: 1. NEDS compatibility Infers ability to produce output in the
format of the NEDS forms (See Guide for Compiling a Compre-
hensive Emission Inventory, PAID 1135)
2. SAROAD compatibility infers the ability to produce output
in the format of the SAROAD SITE and DATA transaction forms,
(See SAROAD, Users Manual USEPA, GAP, APTD 0063)
d. Is data edited
1. manually YES NO
2. by computer technique YES NO
6. If the emission inventory system is computer based, does the system
have the flexibility to produce reports specifically related to air
pollution control management problems such as:
o Inspection activities
o Permit (or equivalent) activities
o Enforcement activities
o Complaints
o or Scheduling
a. No - there is no automated scheme to relate emissions data
with functions
b. There is an automated scheme to extract selected data from the
emission inventory data file for special purposes
A-5
-------
7. If the emission inventory is manual:
a. Is the inventory data stored separately from other data?
YES NO
b. In what form is the data stored:
1. Originals or copies of source forms
2. Other agency forms
3. NEDS forms
4. Other (Specify)
c. What is the approximate volume of storage?
1. file drawers
2. other (specify)
8. What is the source of data that becomes the emission inventory?
a. Permits, registration, certifications or equivalent
b. Inspection reports
c. Ouestionnaires
d. Other (specify)
9. How many point emission sources are kept in the state emissions
inventory file considering that a source is the equivalent of a
permit record or a NEDS form?
a. sources
10. a. How are area sources recorded?
1. County
2. UT GRID (give dimensions of grid)
3. Other (specify)
b. How many such sources are kept?
A-6
-------
xl. LX£,_ uesccj-pcive title ana irequency of reports regularly pre-
pared from the emission Inventory data. List distribution for
those used outside of the state.
12. a. How frequently Is the emission inventory file updated?
(Indicate average number of transactions)
1. As received for a total of transactions per
2. Daily in batches of transactions
3. Weekly in batches of transactions
A. Monthly in batches of ______ transactions
5. Other (Specify)
b. Is an audit trail maintained to record
1. Additions YES NO
2. Changes YES NO
3. Deletions YES NO
13. How are changes made to the emission inventory file?
If Manual System If Computer Based
a. by replacing entire forms . d. record replacement
b. by correcting forms e. field replacement
c. other (specify) f. other (specify)
14. How long is an emission inventory file entry retained in the active
file?
a. Indefinitely
b. Until changed
1. Original data Is discarded YES NO
2. Original data is placed In
history file YES NO
A-7
-------
15. What are the provisions for protecting confidential or proprietary
emmissions data?
a. No confidential data are stored.
b. There are no provisions for isolating confidential data within
the files.
c. Approximately % of the sources contain confidential
information.
d. Briefly describe technique used to protect and handle confidential
data.
16. a. How many man years per year are needed to maintain the emission
inventory system?
b. If a computer based system is used:
1. How many programmer man years are normally needed to work
on the inventory?
2. How many of these programmers can use
a. COBOL
b. FORTRAN
c. Other (specify)
1. Are people employed with the prime function of collecting
emission inventory data (do not count inspectors or
engineers whose functions incidentally provide emissions
inventory data).
2. If so, how many?
A-8
-------
17. When semi-annual emission inventory reports are due to EPA, is it
necessary to temporarily increase the staffing level above that
normally involved in the emission inventory system?
a. No
b. Yes, then
1. What is the percentage of increase?
2. What is the manning increase?
3. What is the impact of this Increase on
other agency activities?
18. What procedure does the agency use to transmit semi-annual emission
inventory reports to the EPA regional office?
a. Annotation of the emission inventory list provided to the
agency by EPA
b. List (or collection of agency forms) containing the required
information
c. NEDS forms
d. Punched cards in NEDS format
e. Magnetic tape in NEDS format
f. Other (specify)
19. a. Has the agency submitted a semi-annual emission inventory report
in NEDS format
YES NO
b. If NO, why not?
A-9
-------
20. Is the data in the agency's emission inventory compatible with:
a. All elements of the NEDS reporting format? YES NO
b. NEDS source identification system? YES NO
c. NEDS source classification code system? YES NO
d. NEDS units of measurement? YES NO
e. NEDS requirements for types of data? YES NO
f. NEDS definition for a point source? YES NO
g. Briefly describe other significant problems arising from the
requirement to prepare the semi-annual report in NEDS format.
21. Does the agency consider the emission inventory system generally
adequate and efficient for meeting internal agency needs:
a. Yes
b. Yes, for most purposes
c. Yes, for a few purposes
d. No
Comments:
A-10
-------
22. What type of system does the state agency use for storing and
processing air quality data
a. Manual
b. Uses punched card equipment
c. Computer based. If so, please complete the accompanying form
(Form 2).
d. If computer based, would the state make systems available to
other states?
1. Yes
2. No
23. Is data edited
1. Manually?
2. By computer technique?
24. If a manual air quality system is used:
a. Is the air quality data stored separately from all other data
YES NO
b. In what form is the data stored?
1. Originals or copies of source forms
2. Other agency forms
3. Other (specify)
c. What is the approximate volume of storage?
1. file drawers
2. other (specify)
A-ll
-------
25. What Is the source of data for the air quality system?
a. SAROAD forms
b. Local agency forms
c. Other (specify)
26. List descriptive title and frequency of report that are regularly
prepared from the air quality data. Indicate distribution for those
used outside of the state.
27. How frequently is the air quality data file updated? (indicate
number of transactions)
a. As received for a total of transactions per
b. Daily in batches of transactions
c. Weekly in batches of transactions
d. Monthly in batches of transactions
e. Other (specify)
28. How long are air quality measurements kept in the active file?
a. Indefinitely
b. Until periodic summaries are available, the summarized data are
transferred to inactive (or history) file.
c. Until periodic summaries are available, then summarized data are
purged from the file
d. For years, then transferred to inactive (or history) file
e. Other (specify)
A-12
-------
29. a. Has the agency submitted air quality data in the SAROAD formats?
YES NO
b. If NO, why not?
30. a. Is the data in the agency's air quality data file compatible
with all elements of the SAROAD site and data reporting forms?
YES NO
b. If the answer to this is NO, briefly describe significant
problems arising from the requirement to report air quality
data in the SAROAD formats.
31. What procedures does the agency use to transmit quarterly air quality
reports to EPA regional offices?
a. SAROAD transaction forms
b. SAROAD transaction cards
c. Other (specify)
32. a. Considering only the filing, file maintenance, data processing or
compilation and report generation functions, how many man years
per year are employed.to operate the air quality data system?
b. If a computer based system is used:
1. How many programmers are regularly available to work on the
air quality system?
2. How many of these programmers use:
(a) COBOL
(b) FORTRAN
(c) Other (specify)
A-13
-------
33. Does the agency consider its air quality data handling procedures
generally adequate and efficient for meeting internal agency needs?
a. Yes
b. Yes, in most areas
c. Yes, in a few most significant areas
d. No
Comments:
A-1A
-------
FORM 1: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPUTER BASED
EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEM
STATE
SYSTEM NAME
DEVELOPED BY
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
TAPE
CARDS
DISK/DRUM
OTHER (SPECIFY)
IS THE SYSTEM
NEDS COMPATIBLE
FOR ?
INPUT
OUTPUT
UNITS OF MEASURE
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
BASIC CAPABILITY
FOR ?
FILE MAINTENANCE
DATA EDIT
DATA VALIDATION
EMISSION CALCULATIONS
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL
DOES SYSTEM HAVE
GENERATION CAPA-
BILITY FOR
FORMATTED FILE
MULTIPLE REPORT
SUMMARY REPORTS
VAPTATW.F ffnPMS
DUMP
FORMS
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE ?
ANSI COBOL
ANSI FORTRAN
OTHER (SPECIFY)
A-15
-------
FORM 2: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPUTER BASED
AIR QUALITY DATA FILE SYSTEM
STATE
SYSTEM NAME
DEVELOPED BY
IS THE DATA
KEPT ON?
CARDS
TAPE
DISK/DRUM
OTHER (SPECIFY)
IS THE SYSTEM
SAROAD COMPATIBLE
FOR ?
INPUT
OUTPUT
UNITS OF MEASURE
FIELD SIZES
DATA ELEMENTS
DOES THE SYSTEM
HAVE A BASIC
CAPABILITY FOR
?
FILE MAINTENANCE
DATA EDIT
DATA VALIDATION
STATISTICAL PROCESSING
LOGICAL RETRIEVAL
fc
DOES THE SYSTEM
HAVE REPORT
GENERATION CAPA-
BILITY ?
FILE MAINTENANCE
MULTIPLE REPORT FORMS
SUMMARY REPORTS
STATISTICAL REPORTS
IS THE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE
?
ANSI COBOL
ANSI FORTRAN
nflTPP fCP1?rT17V'\
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B SURVEY COMPILATIONS
LIST OF CHARTS
Number TITLE
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
27
Agency Knowledge of NEDS, CDHS and SAROAD
Use of Special Reporting Formats
Agency Use of NEDS and SAROAD Facilities
Availability of Computer Facilities
Type of Emission Inventories at State Agencies
Capabilities of Computer Based Systems at State Agencies
Storage Characteristics of Manual E I Systems
Sources of Data for Emission Inventories
Size of Emission Inventories
Reported E I Size Compared to NEDS Data Base
Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices (Manual Systems)
Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices
(Computer Based Systems)
Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors
(Manual Systems)
Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors
(Computer Based Systems)
Manpower Requirements (Manual Systems)
Manpower Requirements (Computer Based Systems)
Methods Used to Submit Semi -Annual Report
Compatibility of Agency Systems with NEDS
Agency Satisfaction with Current Emission Inventory System
Summary of Form 1 Responses
Type of Air Quality Data Systems
Air Quality Data Editing
Storage Concept Manual Air Quality Systems
Source Forms for Air Quality Data
Data Maintenance Concepts - Air Quality Systems
Storage Concepts for Air Quality Data
Sumbission of SAROAD Data
REFERENCE
la -
Ic
2
3
4
5,6,
7
8
9
9,10
12,1
12,1
14,1
14,1
16,1
Id
20
,NEDS
3
3
5
5
7,19
16,17,19
18
20
21
Form
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
1
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CHARTS (continued)
NUMBER TITLE REFERENCE
28 SAROAD Compatibility 30
29 Method of Submitting AQ Data 32
30 Staffing Levels for AQ Systems 32
31 Agency Satisfaction with Existing AQ Systems 33
32 Air Quality Data File System Summary Form 2
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE REFERENCE
B-l Compilation of Emission Inventory Sources 9,NEDS
B-2 Summary of Staff Increases due to Semi-Annual Reports 17
B-3
-------
Chart Number 1: Agency Knowledge of NEDS, CDHS, and SAROAD.
Questionnaire Cross Reference: Question la - Id.
Has the agency received documentation or briefing on support facilities for emission
inventories and air quality as provided by EPA?
o
1 1
CJJ
LU
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
z.
t 1
oo
LU
1-1 Z
0 0
Z i
LU CD
OJ LU
«t o:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
APTD
1135
YES
6
4
5
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
53
NO
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
CDHS
(EIS)
YES
3
4
3
5
1
5
4
5
1
4
35
NO
3
0
3
3
5
0
0
1
4
0
19
CDHS
(AQDHS)
YES
6
4
3
6
3
5
4
5
5
3
44
NO
0
0
3
2
3
0
0
1
0
1
10
SAROAD
YES
6
4
6
7
6
5
4
6
5
4
53
NO
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
CO
-------
Chart Number 2: Use of Special Reporting Formats
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 1e.
CO
en
forms?
Has the agency received approval to submit data to regional offices on locally devised
z:
o
> i
C3
LU
o:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
i
oo
LU
- -z.
0 O
z I"
LU O
C3 LU
O -!
Q_ LU
oo o
LU LU
a; o:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
YES
1
0
1
1
1
5
2
0
0
0
11
NO
5
4
5
6
2
0
2
6
5
4
39
UNKN.
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
-------
Chart Number 3: Agency Use of NEDS and SAROAD Facilities.
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 1.
Has the agency made use of the NEDS and SAROAD systems?
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
i *
00
UJ
' Z
0 O
z. i i
UJ O
CU UJ
cC <*.
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
REQUESTED
NEDS
SUPPORT
YES
3
4
1
5
3
3
3
4
4
2
32
NO
3
0
5
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
22
REQUESTED
SAROAD
SUPPORT
YES
4
4
2
5
5
5
4
2
4
3
38
NO
2
0
4
3
1
0
0
4
1
1
16
AGENCY AWARENESS OF
AVAILABLE EPA SUPPORT
NEDS
YES
2
4
2
3
3
1
0
6
3
1
25
NO
4
0
4
5
2
4
4
0
1
3
27
NO
RESP.
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
SAROAD
YES
4
4
4
3
6
5
3
'6
4
2
41
NO
2
0
2
4
0
0
1
0
1
2
12
NO
RESP.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
DO
O1
-------
Chart Number 4: Availability of Computer Facilities
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Question 3
What are the basic characteristics of the computer facility available to the agency
for emission inventory and air quality systems?
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
^
t i
oo
LU
t i Z
0 O
z: 11
LU O
CD LU
«=C OL
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
COMPUTER
AVAILABILITY AND
CORE SIZE
CHARACTERISTICS
NO.
COMP.
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
3
3
1
15
COMP.
AVAIL
4
3
4
7
6
4
3
3
2
3
39
CORE
>100K
4
2
4
7
3
2
0
0
0
3
25
PROGRAMMING
LANGUAGES
ANSI
COBOL
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
ANSI
FOR-
TRAN
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
5
BOTH
2
3
3
6
2
3
1
0
1
2
23
CURRENT USAGE
El
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
AQ ,
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
2
1
8
BOTH
4
3
3
5
4
4
2
0
0
2
27
FACILITY CONTROL
AGCY.
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
STATE
2
3
3
6
4
2
2
,3
2
2
29
RENT
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
EPA
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
DATA
SYS.
El
3
2
3
5
3
2
2
0
1
2
23
AQ
3
2
1
7
4
4
1
3
2
3
30
-------
Chart Number 5: Types of Emissions Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 4
What type of emission inventory system does the State agency use?
0
h-H
UJ
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
i i
c/>
LU
t Z
0 O
Z. H-l
LU CI3
CD LU
ec o:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
3
6
5
4
53
SYSTEM TYPE
MAN
4
3
3
6
3
3
1
6
5
3
37
PUNCH
CARDS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COMP.
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
AVAILABILITY OF
COMPUTER SYSTEM
TO OTHER STATES
AVAIL
2
1
3
2
2
10
NOT
AVAIL,
2
2
1
5
NO
RESP.
1
1
7
-------
Chart Number 6: Capabilities of Computer Based Emission Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Questions 5, 6, and 20.
03
I
REGION
I
IT
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
t i
oo
UJ
"z.
0 O
z. > i
LU CD
O LU
ct o:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
OUTPUT
COMPATIBLE
YES
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
0
3
21
NO
1
0
1
' 1
2
1
0
0
1
0
7
EDITING
MAN
1
0
1
2
2
4
0
2
0
1
13
COMP,
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
BOTH
1
2
2
3
1
0
2
0
1
1
13
AUDIT
FUNCTIONAL
SUPPORT
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
9
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEDS
SPECIFICATIONS
ALL
3
1
1
5
4
5
3
1
2
0
25
IDENT.
5
2
1
6
0
5
2
0
3
1
25
sec
4
1
1
6
0
5
3
0
3
1
24
UNITS
4
1
3
5
2
5
3
'0
4
2
29
SRC
DEF
3
2
3
6
1
_5
3
0
1
1
25
DATA
TYPES
4
2
2
5
1
5
3
0
4
1
27
-------
Chart Number 7: Storage Characteristics of Manual Emission Inventory Systems
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Question 7
Definitions
NO RESP -
SEP
MIXED -
LOCAL -
NEDS
o
1 1
CD
UJ
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
> 1
oo
UJ
t-< -z.
o o
z. >->
UJ CD
CD UJ
eC CC
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
No response to unique subordinate question
Emission inventory data filed separately
Emission inventory data filed with other data.
Original source forms
Special local forms
NEDS forms or listing
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
4
3
4
7
4
4
2
6
5
3
42
TYPE OF
STORAGE
NO
RESP.
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
15
SEP
4
1
4
7
3
4
0
6
5
3
37
MIXED
2
2
4
APPROXIMATE VOLUME
(NUMBER OF FILE DRAWERS)
0-1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
11
2-5
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
14
6-12
1
1
1
3
>12
2
1
1
1
5
NO
RESP.
2
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
4
1
22
STORAGE MEDIA
ORIG
3
1
4
3
2
3
2
0
4
1
23
LOCAL
2
1
3
1
5
2
1
15
NEDS
1
6
1
1
7
2
3
14
NO
RESP.
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
12
-------
Chart Number 8: Sources of Data for Emission Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 8
Definitions:
MAN - Manual emission inventory system
C-B - Computer-based emission inventory system
0
t 1
LU
o:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z
1 I
oo
LU
»-< "Z.
0 0
Z > i
LU
-------
Chart Number 9: Total Point Sources in State Emission Inventory File
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 9.
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
ZL
i <
u~>
LU
> i Z
CJ> O
z t-<
Lu CJ3
O LU
=C a:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
AS REPORTED
ALL AGENCIES
0-
500
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
3
4
4
26
500-
1000
3
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
1000-
5000
1
0
2
4
1
0
2
1
1
0
12
10000-
20000
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
>
100000
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
o
LU
oo
=c
co
i tr
a: -z.
LU COi-
\- 511-
ro LUCE
D- 1 C
2: S/10.
o >-LU
o ooce
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
AS REPORTED BY AGENCIES
WITH COMPUTER-BASED
EMISSION INVENTORY SUSTEMS
0-
500
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
-
-
1
6
500-
1000
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
1
1000-
5000
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
-
-
0
5
10000-
20000
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
-
-
0
3
>
100000
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7 -
-
0
1
-------
I
CO
Chart Number 10: Reported Emission Size Compared to NEDS Data Base
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 9, and NEDS Point Source Listing date July 21, 1974.
Definitions:
MAN - Manual emission inventory system
C-B - Computer-based emission inventory system
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
RANGE OF EXCESS SOURCES
0-200
MAN
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
15
C-B
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
TOT
1
2
1
2
4
3
2
2
17
200-500
MAN
3
1
0
1
1
2
1
9
C-B
0
T
1
1
0
0
1
4
TOT
3
2
1
2
1
2
2 ._
13
1000-5000
MAN
0
2
5
0
1
0
2
1
11
C-B
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
6
TOT
2
3
6
1
1
1
2
1
17
>5000
MAN
1
0
1
1
3
C-B
1
2
1
0
4
TOT
2
2
2
1
7
-------
CO
Chart Number 11: Emission Inventory Maintenance Concepts - Manual Systems
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Questions 12 and 13
Definitions:
RESP - Response to specific subordinate question
REPL - Whole file replacement
CORR - File corrected
o
1 1
o
UJ
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
co
m s:
t UJ
t-l t
3 CO
co co
UJ
1 1 1
^3
UJ Z
o cc
-------
Chart Number 12: Emission Inventory Maintenance Practices - Computer Based Systems.
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Questions 12 and 13.
Definitions
RESP
- Response to specific subordinate question
REC, REPL - Specific record replaced
FIELD REPL - Whole field replaced
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
AGENCIES WITH
COMPUTER SYST.
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
METHOD OF UPDATING FIELD
RESP
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
_
-
1
15
REC
REPL
1
2
1
2
2
1
9
FIELD
REPL
1
1
2
4
o
CO
1
1
C£.
LU
a:
o
1
1
UPDATING FREQUENCY
RESP
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
15
12
MO
2
1
3
6
MO
1
2
3
MO
1
1
WK
1
1
1
3
o
UJ
a:
i/)
e£
1
1
1
1
4
a:
LU
i
1
1
AUDIT TRAIL
RESP
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
12
ADD
1
1
3
1
2
2
10
DEL
1
1
3
1
2
2
?
10
CHG.
1
1
3
1
2
2
10
-------
DO
I
Chart Number 13: Storage Concept and Conficential Data Factors - Manual Emission Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Questions 14 and 15.
Definitions
RESP
INDEF -
DISCARD -
HISTORY -
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
Response to specific subordinate question
Data kept indefinitely
Data replaced by new file is discarded
Storage file for replaced data
oo
ic s:
1- UJ
i i 1
3 00
oo oo
LiJ
i i _J
^§
LLJ Z
O "=C
6
0
-
1
0
_
-
1
0
-
0
2
SYSTEM TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIAL DATA
RESP
4
3
3
5
2
3
2
5
5
2
32
YES
2
1
1
2
2
* 4
1
13
NO
4
3
1
4
1
1
1
4
2
21
-------
Chart Number 14: Storage Concepts and Confidential Data Factors - Computerized EIS
Questionaire Cross Reference: Questions 14 and 15
Definitions
RESP
INDEF -
DISCARD -
HISTORY -
o
1 I
CD
Lul
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
» i
oo
LU
C-} o
"^ » 4
UJ CD
CD UJ
i i >-
3 00
(/) O£
LU LU
>-. 1
0 ZD
z: D-
LU 5:
o o
cCCJ
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
RETENTION OF DATA
RESP
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
-
1
14
INDEF
1
1
1
1
_
-
4
DIS-
CARD
1
1
1
1
_
-
4
HIS-
TORY
1
1
2
1
_
-
1
6
PERCENT OF SOURCES
THAT CONTAIN
CONFIDENTIAL DATA
RESP
1
1
2
3
2
1
_
-
1
11
NONE
1
1
1
2
_
-
5
0-2%
1
1
2
2-4%
1
1
4-6%
1
1
1
3
AVAILABLE SYSTEM
TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIAL DATA
RESP
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
_
-
1
14
YES
2
1
1
7
4
NO
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
10
-------
Chart Number 15: Manpower Requirements - Manual Emission Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Questions 16, 17. and 19
U3
i
00
Definition:
RESP - Response to specific subordinate question
z:
o
1 1
C3
LU
o:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z.
H <
oo
LU
> 1 "Z.
0 O
z. > '
LU CU
C.3 UJ
«=C o;
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
I/O
LU O
OO UJ
z >
o -«
a. uj
(/) C_>
LU LU
a: 01
4
3
3
6
3
3
2
6
5
3
38
MANPOWER
(Man-Years)
RESP
3
3
3
5
2
3
1
5
4
3
32
0-1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
16
1-2
1
2
1
2
2
1
9
2-3
1
1
4-5
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
3
FEDERAL REPORTING
CAUSING IMPACT
RESP
3
3
3
5
2
3
2
6
4
3
34
YES
2
3
1
1
4
1
1
13
NO
3
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
2
21
AGENCY HAS
REPORTED IN
NEDS FORMAT
RESP
3
3
3
6
3
3
2
6
5
3
37
YES
1
1
1
5
1
1
1 2
1
1
14
NO
2
2
2'
1
2
3
1
4
4
2
23
-------
Chart Number 15: (continued)
Duestionaire Cross Reference: Question 16, 17. 19
DO
2:
o
* t
C3
LU
C£
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
3
2
2
14
REASONS FOR
NON-SUBMITTAL
CONTR
2
2
4
NOT
NEED
1
1
NO
SYS
OTHER
2
1
1
3
2
9
-------
Chart Number 16: Manpower Requirements - Computerized Emission Inventory Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Questions 16, 17, and 19
Definition:
RESP - Response to specific subordinate question.
CONTR - Reports compiled and submitted by contractor.
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
MANPOWER
(Man-years)
RESP
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
15
0-1
1
1
1
1 _
4
1-2
1
2
1
1
1
6
2-3
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
FEDERAL REPORTING
CAUSES IMPACT
RESP
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
13
YES
1
1
2 ^
NO
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
11
AGENCY HAS
REPORTED IN
NEDS FORMAT
RESP
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
15
YES
1
1
2
2
1
2
9
NO
1
2
1
1
?
1
6
REASONS FOR
NON-SUBMITTAL
CONTR
1
1
NO
SYS
OTHER
1
2
1
4
-------
Chart Number 17: Methods Used to Submit Semi-Annual Reports
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 18
ro
What procedure does the agency use to transmit semi-annual emission inventory reports to
EPA regional offices?
o
t <
o
UJ
ex
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
AGENCIES WITH
MANUAL SYSTEMS
"4
3
3
6
3
3
2
6
5
3
38
MANUAL SYSTEMS
RESP
4
3
2
6
3
3
2
6
1
3
33
NEDS
LIST
2
1
2
1
2
8
LOCAL
LIST
1
2
2
4
9
NEDS
FORMS
3
1
2
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
19
AGENCIES WITH
COMPUTER SYS.
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS
RESP
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
16
NEDS
LIST
2
2
4
PUNCH
CARDS
1
1
2
TAPE
2
2
CARD-
TAPE
LIST
1
9
1
1
1
6
NEDS
FORMS
1
1
2
1
?
1
6
-------
Chart Number 18: Compatibility of Agency Emission Inventory Systems with NEDS
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 20
DO
I
rvs
ro
o
* 1
CJ3
LU
C£
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
4
2
3
6
3
3
1
1
4
2
29
MANUAL SYSTEM
NO
ELEM
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
17
SRC
I DEN
4
1
1
4
3
1
3
1
18
sec
3
1
1
4
3
1
3
1
17
UNITS
3
1
1
4
3
1
4
1
18
DATA
TYPES
3
2
0
4
3
1
1
14
SRC
DEF
2
1
1
4
3
1
4
1
17
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
14
COMPUTER BASED
NO
ELEM
1
2
1
2
2
8
SRC
I DEN
1
1
2
2
1
7
sec
1
2
2
2
7
UNITS
1
2
2
2
2
2
?
1
12
DATA
TYPES
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
12
SRC
DEF
1
1
2
1
2
2
9
-------
Chart Number 19: Agency Satisfaction with Current Emission Inventory System
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 21
CO
ro
CO
Does the agency consider the emission inventory system generally adequate and efficient
for meeting internal agency needs?
Definitions:
SAT
- Satisfactory
MOST
SOME
NOT SAT -
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
Satisfactory for most purposes
Satisfactory for a few purposes
Not satisfactory
RESPONSES ;
RECEIVED
4
2
3
6
3
3
2
6
5
3
37
MANUAL SYSTEM
SAT
1
1
1
1
4
MOST
1
1
1
1
2
2
8
SOME
2
1
2
2
2
1
10
NOT
SAT
1
1
1
5
3
1
3
15
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
16
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEM
SAT
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
MOST
1
1
1
3
SOME
1
2
3
NOT
SAT
1
1
1
3
-------
Chart 20. Summary of Form 1:
Basic Characteristics of Computerized Emission Inventory Systems
BASIC
CHARACTERISTICS IUIML
Data Storage:
Tape 6
Cards 5
Disk/Drum 4
Tape and Disk 3
NEDS Compatibility
Input 4
Output 6
Units of Measure 5
Field Sizes 5
Data Elements 8
Basic Capability
File Maintenance 11
Data Edit 11
Data Validation 6
Emission Calculations 7
Logical Retrieval 10
Generation Capability
Formatted File Dump 10
Multiple Report Forms 8
Summary Reports 13
Variable Reports 5
System Language
ANSI COBOL 6
ANSI FORTRAN 2
Both 4
Other 1
B-24
-------
ro
en
Chart Number 21: Types of Air Quality Data Systems
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Question 22
What type of system does the State agency use
o
t «
03
LU
C£
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
L_ 4
6.
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
MAN
SYS.
4
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
21
PUNCH
CARD
SYS.
1
1
1
2
5
COMPUTER
BASED
SYSTEM
AVL.
1
2
3
6
1
2
1
3
19
NOT
AVL.
3
3
1
7
BOTH
MAN.
AND
COMP
SYS.
1
1
NONE
1
1
for storing and processing air quality data?
.
7
-------
Chart Number 22: Editing of Air Quality Data
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question.23
ro
CT>
How is the air quality data edited?
Definitions:
M - Manual system
CB - Computer based system
PC - Punch card system
7**
o
14
UJ
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z.
\ 1
CO
LU
> i Z
0 O
"Zi i
LU C£>
CD LU
O > i
Q_ UJ
co o
LU LU
o; c£
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
MANUAL EDITING
M
- 4
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
20
CB
1
1
1
3
PC
1
1
2
COMPUTER BASED
SYSTEM
M
0
CB
1
1
3
1
1
7
PC
1
1
2
BOTH
M
1
1
2
CB
1
1
2
5
2
3
1
1
16
PC
1
1
NONE
1
1
1
3
7
-------
Chart Number 23: Storage Concepts - Manual Air Quality Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 24
DO
i
ro
Characteristics of the storage of air quality data.
Definitions:
SEP STR -
ORIG
SAROAD -
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
Air quality data stored in separate file
Original source forms
SAROAD forms
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
5
2
5
2
3
2
4
3
5
1
32
FORM OF STORAGE
SEP
STR
5
2
5
2
3
2
4
3
5
1
32
ORIG
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
17
SAR-
OAD
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
14
STORAGE VOLUME
(file drawers)
0-2
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
4
1
18
3-6
3
2
1
1
1
8
6-10
2
2
1
1
6
7
-------
Chart Number 24: Source Forms for Air Quality Data
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 25
DO
I
CO
What is the source of data for the air quality system?
Definitions:
RESP - Response to specific subordinate question
SAROAD- SAROAD forms
LOCAL - Local forms
o
1)
C3
LU
o:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
3
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
2
51
MANUAL SYSTEM
RESP
4
1
5
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
24
SAR-
OAD
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
20
LOCAL
1
3
1
1
6
COMPUTER SYSTEM
RESP
1
2
2
6
4
2
4
1
1
23
SAR-
OAD
1
3
1
2
2
1
10
LOCAL
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
14
PUNCH CARD SYSTEM
RESP
1
1
2
2
6
SAR-
OAD
1
1
2
2
6
LOCAL
0
7
-------
Chart Number 25: File Maintenance Concepts - Air Quality System
Questionalre Cross Reference: Question 27
ro
How frequently is the air quality data file updated?
Definitions:
RESP
AS REC -
o
i i
CD
LjJ
C£
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
2:
KH
oo
UJ
> i z:
0 O
z > i
UJ C3
O UJ
a: cc
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
Response to specific subordinate question
As received
AGENCIES WITH
MANUAL SYSTEMS
4
1
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
1
26
INTERVAL BETWEEN UPDATE
MANUAL SYSTEM
RESP
4
1
3
2
1
2
4
3
4
1
25
AS
REC
1
1
2
1
1
3
9
1
MO
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
MO
1
1
3
2
2
1
10
OTHER
1
1
AGENCIES WITH
COMPUTER SYS.
1
2
3
6
4
3
0
3
1
3
26
INTERVAL BETWEEN UPDATE
COMPUTER SYSTEM
RESP
1
2
3
6
4
3
3
1
3
26
AS
REC
1
2
1
2
6
1
WK
2
2
1
5
1
MO
1
4
4
1
1
2
13
OTHER
1
* 1
1
3
-------
Chart Number 26: Storage Concepts for Air Quality Data
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 28
How long are air quality measurements kept in the active file?
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
3
6
8
4
5
4
6
4
4
50
TN-
DEF
4
3
4
4
4
4
6
4
3
36
ACT
1-2
YRS
1
3
3
1
8
ACT
3-5
YRS
1
1
ACT
>5
YRS
1
1
SUM.
AND
HTST.
1
1
2
SUM.
AND
DPI FT
1
1
OTHER
1
7
-------
DO
I
CO
Chart Number 27: Submission of SAROAD Data
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 29
Has the agency submitted air quality data in the SAROAD formats?
Note: The column labeled "NADB" is included for comparison. NADB data was .extracted from a NADB
printout entitled "Summary of Valid Data, National Aerometric Data Bank," dated July 17, 1974
and represents a summary of reports through the first quarter of 1974.
o
t f
CD
LU
CC
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
ZL
tt
CO
LU
i i Z
0 O
Z H-.
LU O
CD LU
cC. C£
6
4
6
L 8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
54
MANUAL
SYSTEM
YES
4
1
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
22
NO
1
1
COMPUTER
SYSTEM
YES
1
2
2
6
3
3
4
1
3
25
NO
1
1
PUNCH CARD
SYSTEM
YES
1
1
1
2
5
NO
0
NADB
0
1
4
8
6
4
4
6
5
4
42
7
-------
Chart Number 28: SAROAD Compatibility
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 30a
00
I
co
ro
Is the data in the agency's air quality data file compatible with all elements of the
SAROAD site and data reporting forms?
Definitions:
COM
- Compatible
NOT COM -
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
z:
i i
oo
LiJ
-" -Z.
0 O
z. i i
UJ C3
CJ3 LiJ
«=C Q:
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6 "
6
4
55
Not compatible
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
3
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
53
MANUAL
SYSTEM
COM
4
3
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
20
NOT
COM
1
1
2
COMPUTER
SYSTEM
COM
1
3
2
6
4
3
2
2
23
NOT
COM
1
2 '
1
1
5
PUNCH CARD
SYSTEM
COM
1
1
1
1
4
NOT
COM
1
1
7
-------
Chart Number 29: Method of Submitting Air Quality Data
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 31
What procedures does the agency use to transmit quarterly air quality reports to EPA
regional offices?
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
ZL
i i
oo
UJ
>-H Z
0 0
z. p-.
UJ CD
CD UJ
-------
Chart Number 30: Staffing Levels for Air Quality Systems
Questionaire Cross Reference: Question 32
Considering only the filing, file maintenance, data processing, or compilation and report
generation functions, how many man-years per year are employed to operate the air quality data
system?
o
> 1
o
UJ
C£.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6 '
6
4
55
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
3
5
8
3
4
4
5
5
3
41
STAFFING LEVELS IN MAN-YEARS BY TYPE OF SYSTEM
MANUAL
0-1
3
1
1
1
2
2
10
1-3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
3-5
1
1
5-10
>10
COMPUTER
0-1
1
2
1
1
2
2
9
1-3
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
12
3-5
1
1
5-10
1
1
>10
1
1
PUNCHED CARDS
0-1
1
1
7
2
1-3
1
1
2
3-5
5-10
1
1
-------
CO
en
Chart Number 31: Agency Satisfaction with Existing Air Quality. System
Ouestionaire Cross Reference: Question 33
Definitions
SAT
MOST
SORT
NOT SAT -
z.
o
*-H
o
UJ
CtL
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
AGENCIES IN
REGION
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6'
6
4
55
Agency generally satisfied with existing system
Agency satisfied with most aspects of existing system
Agency satisfied with a few aspects of existing system
Agency generally dissatisfied with existing system
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
6
3
6
8
6
5
4
6
5
4
53
MANUAL SYSTEM
SAT
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
MOST
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
6
SOME
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
NOT
SAT
3
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
11
COMPUTER- SYSTEM
SAT
1
2
2
5
2
1
0
1
0
2
16
MOST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
SOME
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
5
NOT
SAT
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
PUNCH CARD SYSTEM
SAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
MOST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOME
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* 0
0
0
0
NOT
SAT
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
-------
Chart 32. Summary of Form 2:
Basic Characteristics of Computerized Air Quality DAta File Systems
BASIC TOTA,
CHARACTERISTICS 1UI L
Data Storage
Cards 12
Tape 21
Disk/Drum 6
SAROAD Compatibility
Input 16
Output 23
Units of Measure 21
Field Sizes 20
Data Elements 20
Basic Capabilities
File Maintenance 24
Data Edit 25
Data Validation 19
Statistical Processing 23
Logical Retrieval 20
Generation Capability
Formatted File Dump 20
Multiple Report Forms 20
Summary Reports 26
Statistical Reports 21
System Language
ANSI COBOL 7
ANSI FORTRAN 8
Both 10
Other 5
B-36
-------
Table B-l. Compilation of Emission Inventory Sources
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
District of Col
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
NEDS*
477
1231
1048
576
164
403
1482
890
693
105
400
umbia 107
1543
4531
824
550
1668
2150
1047
2577
3036
3176
888
2401
2690
2695
1124
684
3264
897
694
1249
1177
823
4027
3149
4079
574
POINT SOURCES
4000-5000
650
800
578
100
500
110,000
150,000
500
85
1640
not reported
13000
not reported
3959
890
1687
3000
400-500
900
3000
1450
600
800
15000
9000
12000
not reported
not reported
500
not reported
1000
not reported
not reported
not reported
4500
5000
300
SURVEY RESULTS
REPORTED AREA
NUMBER
9200
unknown
variable grids
10
0
0
0
0
3
494
--
--
incl. in pt. src.
55
67
67 + grids
159
2000
not reported
not reported
46
91
96
not reported
not reported
--
72
72
64
32
76
--
100
not reported
93
SOURCES
METHOD
Conn, grid
region
UTM and MASS
county
none
county
none
none
none
county
county; UTM
--
State county grid
county, UTM
county
county
county; UTM
county
county
county; UTM
not reported
county
county
county
not reported
--
--
county
not reported
county
not reported
county
county
--
county
B-37
-------
Table B-l. Compilation of Emission Inventory Sources (continued)
REGION
STATE
NEDS* POINT SOURCES
SURVEY RESULTS
REPORTED AREA SOURCES
NUMBER
METHOD
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Guam
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
451
342
1723
1491
231
257
258
7283
535
303
12
267
518
1468
914
3000 not reported
150 5
1000 not reported
600 not reported
not reported
not reported
500 14
4000-6000 58
400 6
200 16
20 not reported
275 29
not reported
290 not reported
not reported 1000
county
AQCR
county
county
county
county
county
county
county
county
--
census
UTM
county
; AQCR
; UTM
div.
"NEDS: Data entries are "Plant Points".
July 21, 1974
NEDS Point Source listing dated
B-38
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Staff Increases and Impacts Occasioned by
Semi-Annual Report of Emission Inventory Data
RFGION STATF PERCENT
KtbiuiN bi Alt INCREASE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Okl ahoma
Texas
100
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
NR
0
NR
60
0
0
100
NR
0
0
NR
100
NR
0
0
0
0
0
NUMBER
INCREASE
1/2
NR
NR
NR
3
2-3
2
NR
NR
TMDflrr PREVIOUS
IMPACT REpQRT
decrease manpower
NR
NR
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
negative
NR
NR
NR
significant
decrease manpower
NR
NR
Minimal
decrease manpower
NR
none
NR
decrease manpower
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
yes
no
NR
no
yes
NR
no
no
yes
no
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
yes
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
B-39
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Staff Increases and Impacts Occasioned by
Semi-Annual Report of Emission Inventory Data (continued)
REGION
VII
VIII
IX
X
STATE
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Guam
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
PERCENT
INCREASE
0
0
small
0
NR
200
0
0
NR
200
0
NR
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
NUMBER
INCREASE
1
3
1-3
NR
NR
NR
NR
IMPACT
NR
NR
none
NR
NR
yes
NR
NR
yes
NR
NR
yes
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
PREVIOUS
REPORT
yes
no
yes
yes
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
no
no
yes
no
NR
NR
NR
NR
Note: "NR" means "not reported," "no response" or unknown.
B-40
-------
Table B-3. States Generally in Compliance with SIP Reporting
Regulations under §51.7 as Applicable to NADB
REGION STATE STATES REPORTING TOTAL1 POINT SOURCES
REQUIRED ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VII]
IX
X
TOTAL
1.
Rark
DC1U l\ j
6 6
23 1
64 5
8 8
6 6
5 5
4 4
: 6 5
45 4
4 4
51 43
Point sources achieving compliance with
those achieving compliance since plan development
2.
3.
4.
5.
Back = data subsequent to plan.
Quarters Quarters
, II
3
0
1
6
1
4
4
5
3
0
27
plan
(AQ
1973 III, IV 1973
0
0
3
0
1
0
3
4
1
2
14
regulation plus
Baseline date).
Not including Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands
Includes District of Columbia
Not including Guam and American Samoa.
Source: NADB Monthly Status Report, dated July 30, 1974.
B-41
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-057
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
State Air Data Information
7. AUTHOR(S)
2.
3. RECIPIENTT \CCESSIOWNO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1974
Survey
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
National Air Data Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2 AE132
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1096
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document is an update of EPA-450/3-74-001 , State Air Data
Information Survey authored by T. H. Lewis of IBM. Questionaires
from all states and the District of Columbia were reviewed and the
tables and charts of the initial IBM document were updated. Techniques
presently used to store, access, and maintain emission inventory and
air-quality files; significant problems associated with maintaining
and using such files; and anticipated problems in meeting the proposed
Federal regulations for the State quarterly and semi-annual reporting
requirements, especially as related to providing data in Standard EPA
formats were addressed in the survey.
17:
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Computer
Automatic Data Processing (ADP)
Arir Pollution
Systems
Aerometric Information Survey
survey
Emissions
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
NEDS
SAROAD
NADB
National Emissions Data
System
Storage and Retrieval of
Aerometric Data
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
103
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
B-42
------- |