United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 7
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City. KS66101
EPA 907/9-86-004
May. 1986
Air Branch
Iowa Air Toxics
Emissions Inventory
Phase I
Final
-------
Report No. EPA 907/9-86-004
IOWA AIR TOXICS EMISSION INVENTORY
PHASE I
Contract No. 68-02-3888
Work Assignment No. 33
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
Air Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Project Officer: Robert J. Chanslor
May 1986
46933.00/18-N, 18B
Submitted by
Engineering-Science
Two Flint Hill
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Engineering-Science wishes to express its gratitude to Federal and
State personnel who aided in the development of this study. In particular,
Engineering-Science would like to thank John Vedder of the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) who served as project coordinator for IDNR, as
well as Darrell McAllister, George Welch, Rex Walker, and Paul Nelson of
IDNR, all of whom contributed to the development of the study. Finally,
Engineering-Science would like to express its appreciation to Bob Chanslor,
USEPA Region vil's Project Officer, for his assistance, guidance, and co-
operation.
11
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by Engineering Science, Fairfax, Virginia 20030-2899, in
fulfillment of Contract Number 68-02-3888, Work Assignment No. 33. The
opinions, findings and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and
not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency or those of
cooperating agencies. Mention of company or product names is not be be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DISCLAIMER
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
INTRODUCTION
PROCEDURES
General Approach
Information Sources Reviewed
Screening of References and Calculation of Emissions
Priority Ranking of Facilities
CHARACTERIZATION OF INFORMATION SOURCES
EIS/PS
Pre-Treatment Agreements for POTWs
Landfill Files
RCRA Generator Files
SRI International 1985 Chemical Producers Directory
Directory of Iowa Manufacturers
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
Iowa DNR Files on 111(d) and NESHAPs Sources
Mobile Sources and Other Area Sources
Health Data ("U" and "A" Values) and Release Height
Data
RESULTS
Expanded Analyses
Discussion
Analysis
.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUGGESTED QUESTIONNAIRES
SOURCE SUMMARIES
RANKING OF SOURCES
OTHER SELECTED SOURCES OF INTEREST
11
iii
iv
iv
vi
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-6
2-22
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-5
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
R-1
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Screening and Prioritization of Potential Iowa Air
Toxics Sources 2-2
2.2 Tracing Potential Emissions in a POTW 2-17
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Targeted Information from Key References 2-5
2.2 Potential Air Toxics Sources 2-8
2.3 Priority Standard Industrial Classification
Codes (SICs) 2-9
2.4 Priority Source Classification Codes (SCCs) 2-11
2.5 Publicly Owned Treatment Plants Reviewed
in this Study 2-15
2.6 Countries Reviewed for Landfill Emissions 2-18
2.7 Summary of Emission Factors Used for Handlers
of Hazardous Waste 2-21
2.8 Summary of "U" Values 2-23
2<9 Summary of "A" Values 2-25
2.10 Summary of Waste Codes 2-26
2.11 Screening Value Equations 2-27
C.1 Summary of S1 Values C-1
C.2 Summary of S2 Values C-2
C.3 Summary of S3 Values C-3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Numerous studies in states and metropolitan areas in the United States
have demonstrated the existence of sources of toxic air pollutants ("air
toxics") emissions. The potential health impacts of these emissions can
include both cancer and non-cancer effects. To investigate the existence
of potential sources of air toxics emissions in Iowa, the State of Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requested assistance for a study
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On the basis of prelimi-
nary emissions estimates and other factors such as pollutant toxicity,
population proximity, and release height, the study was designed to rank
the sources identified in relative order of importance as the basis for
recommendations for additional, focused air toxics program development
activities.
Several results became apparent after a variety of information sour-
ces were reviewed, and a wide range of facilities (including landfills,
wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste treatment, storage disposal
facilities, and area sources) were analyzed. First, area sources including
mobile sources (motor vehicles) have a relatively important impact in Iowa.
Second, there is a sizable group of facilities which could be significant
air toxics sources in Iowa which are not documented in the computerized
emission inventory system kept on other air pollution sources. Finally,
the known air toxics point sources in Iowa prior to this study did rank
as relatively important sources.
Based on these trends and the ranking of sources, five recommendations
are being made. In summary, these recommendations are:
1. Expand efforts to develop a statewide VOC inventory - There appear
to be a number of significant VOC (and air toxics) sources missing
from the State's emission inventory; expansion of the VOC inventory
would thus help to close this gap in the data base for analysis
of air toxics.
2. Selectively send emission inventory questionnaires to "high risk"
sources - It does not seem justified at this time to initiate a
comprehensive statewide survey; however, this study has identified
a number of sources (including VOC sources mentioned above) for
which comprehensive air toxics emissions data would be useful.
3. Perform a more in-depth assessment of selected non-traditional
sources - Although non-traditional sources of air toxics (includ-
ing landfills and publicly owned treatment works) were not the
highest ranked sources in this study, the data utilized was rather
VI
-------
limited; therefore looking at selected non-traditional sources to
ascertain their potential impacts is needed for a more in-depth
analysis.
4. Develop pilot risk assessment program - A pilot risk assessment
program is strongly recommended; it would not only provide a means
for evaluating the potentially "high risk" sources mentioned above,
it would also provide a starting point for possibly including a
form of risk assessment in permit reviews in the future.
5. Review selected source categories - Additional source categories
known to be in Iowa and which need investigation include sterili-
zing operations (such as those in hospitals), grain fumigation,
and chrome plating.
vii
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
There has been a recognition for some time that specific air pollu-
tants can have detrimental impacts on human health. While National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (USEPA) for "criteria" pollutants (i.e., those for
which health-based criteria have been formally defined), "non-criteria"
pollutants, or "air toxics", can also have harmful effects. Depending on
the pollutant, these effects may or may not be well documented. Since the
passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, the main mechanism for
controlling such hazardous air pollutants has been Section 112 through
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). After
a pollutant is officially "listed" by USEPA, regulations for specific
source categories are to be adopted. As of 1986, source category regula-
tions had been adopted for radionuclides, beryllium, mercury, vinyl chlo-
ride, benzene, asbestos, and arsenic. Coke oven emissions have also been
listed as a NESHAPs pollutant.
Because NESHAPs only cover a very limited number of facilities and
pollutants, many state and local agencies have committed themselves to
reviewing and analyzing the health impacts of additional air toxics with-
in their jurisdictions. In a simplified form, these health impacts from
air toxics can be classified into three groups:
o Cancer - Cancer effects of specific air toxics are generally
understood to be dependent on both the degree of exposure to
a carcinogen and that carcinogen's potency. While many models
have been proposed to describe the process of carcinogenesis,
analysis of cancer effects have in general included the assump-
tion that there is no safe "threshold" exposure or concentra-
tion of a carcinogen.
o Long-term non-cancer effects - Some pollutants may cause a speci-
fic effect other than cancer, such as toxicological impairment
of certain organs of the human body or detrimental reproductive
effects. Frequently, threshold exposures or concentrations may
be determined for such effects.
o Acute toxic effects - Large instantaneous pollutant releases in
occupational environments are usually associated with accidents.
Acute toxic effects are the result of short term elevated concen-
trations of specific pollutants. The 1984 catastrophe at the Union
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, is the most well-known example of
acute toxic effects of hazardous air pollutants.
1-1
-------
Putting together an air toxics program requires conscious planning
towards minimization of these detrimental health effects, and such plan-
ning of necessity entails a review of the sources which could have an im-
pact on a specific population. In an era of very limited resources for
many State and local air pollution control agencies, identification of the
facilities most likely to cause such health effects first not only aids in
the effort to protect public health, but also provides the opportunity for
agencies to focus and prioritize available staff activities. Creating an
emissions inventory is frequently a good first step towards determining the
extent and nature of the air toxics problem in any State or local area, but
like any other part of an air toxics program, emissions inventory develop-
ment must be carefully planned to avoid wasted effort and funds.
It was in this context that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) decided to perform an initial air toxics emission inventory. To aid
them in this effort, Iowa DNR asked USEPA Region VII for assistance in de-
veloping an inventory which utilized multiple information sources to iden-
tify both traditional and non-traditional sources of air toxics. Accor-
dingly, in June of 1985, Engineering-Science (ES) was issued a work assign-
ment (No. 33 of Contract No. 68-02-3888) which directed ES to develop a
screening and prioritization plan based on the following data bases and doc-
uments:
o Iowa DNR's Emission Inventory System/Point Source (EIS/PS)
computerized emission inventory data base
o Pre-treatment agreements between major industrial users and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
o Iowa DNR's landfill files
o RCRA generator files (through July 1985)
o The SRI International 1985 Chemical Producers Directory
o The Directory of Iowa Manufacturers (1985)
o Background files from Iowa DNR on Section 111(d) and NESHAPs
sources
o Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSDF)
summaries from Iowa DNR
Certain area sources and mobile sources were also reviewed.
This final report documents the results of the project and provides
recommendations for further emission inventory related activities to aid
in the development of an air toxics program. The report includes a des-
cription of the procedures used (Chapter 2), a characterization of the
data bases reviewed (Chapter 3), an explanation of the results (Chapter
4), and a section on conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 5). A des-
cription of key facilities and suggested questionnaires for an air toxics
emission inventory survey are provided as appendices.
1-2
-------
CHAPTER 2
PROCEDURES
Emission inventories have traditionally been ah integral part of air
pollution control planning programs. Comprehensive inventories have been
instrumental in identifying and quantifying numerous emission sources which
can have an impact on the attainment and maintenance of the,National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As concerns about air toxics have in-
creased, air toxics emission inventories have frequently been used as a
starting point for the development of air toxics programs. Clearly though,
the approach taken to developing an air toxics inventory must be substan-
tially different than the approach used for a criteria pollutant inventory.
First, there are many more pollutants which must be considered, and in most
cases there are fewer sources of any specific pollutant. In addition, the
toxicity may be greater than with criteria pollutants; as a result, rela-
tively "small" sources can under certain circumstances be relatively impor-
tant from a health perspective. Finally, sources of air toxics may include
facility types which typically have not been included in air pollutant in-
ventories in the past.
Because of these differences in the types and characteristics of
sources of air toxics and criteria pollutants, procedures for creating an
air toxics inventory must be carefully planned. Experience in previous
emission inventories for" air toxics has provided indications that a vari-
ety of information sources can aid in the identification of potential air
toxics sources. For example, if generator information is available as a
result of reporting requirements from RCRA, specific wastes may provide
evidence of a particular process which is known to be an air toxics source.
Therefore, it was determined in performing the first comprehensive air
toxics inventory in the State of Iowa that a thorough screening and prior-
itization of sources should be completed before any emission inventory sur-
vey forms would be sent to individual industrial facilities. Figure 2-1
illustrates the general approach taken.
GENERAL APPROACH
In order to take the widest possible view of potential (air toxics)
sources in Iowa, it was important to meet three goals:
o Identify air toxics emissions from sources that are documented as
criteria 'pollutant sources;
2-1
-------
FIGURE 2-1
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION OF POTENTIAL IOWA AIR TOXICS SOURCES
STEP 1
IDENTIFY THROUGH DIVERSE INFORMA-
TION REFERENCES POTENTIAL AIR
TOXICS SOURCES: SCREEN THESE
REFERENCES AND ESTIMATE EMISSIONS
FOR SELECTED SOURCES
STEP 2
PRIORITIZE SOURCES ON THE BASIS
OF EMISSIONS, TOXICITY, AND
EXPOSED POPULATION
STEP 3
RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
OF HIGH PRIORITY SOURCES,
INCLUDING QUESTIONNAIRES AS
APPROPRIATE
2-2
-------
o Determine potential air toxics emissions from sources for
which indirect information is available (such as publicly
owned treatment works); and
o Develop a methodology for identifying facilities that are
not specifically documented in any data base.
It was recognized that identifying potential sources in this way does not
necessarily identify significant sources; rather it identifies "sources"
that can then be prioritized according to their potential significance.
Significance for this study was defined as potential carcinogenicity
or other potential health effects. As discussed above, impact on an
affected population depends on emissions, toxicity of the pollutant, and
the characteristics of the pollutant's release. Accordingly, the proce-
dures below describe how information sources were screened, how emissions
were calculated for facilities in each of the three groups described above,
and how emissions (and therefore facilities) were prioritized. The priori-
tization performed then was the basis for the recommendations included in
Chapter 5.
INFORMATION SOURCES REVIEWED
There were eight main information sources that were reviewed for
this study in order to identify potential sources:
1. Iowa's EIS/PS - EIS/PS (Emission Inventory System/Point Source)
contains the State of Iowa's computerized data base of emission-
related data. Iowa DNR developed a statewide emission inventory
with questionnaires during 1983-1984, and sources have been up-
dated on a case-by-case basis since then. Emissions of air
toxics may result either from particulate sources or from VOC
sources.
2. Pre-treatment agreements between major industrial users and Pub-
licly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) - In eighteen of the largest
metropolitan areas within Iowa, industrial contributors to POTWs
sign agreements to limit certain "priority pollutants" going to
POTWs. Pre-treatment agreements based on these limitations are
then developed between the municipal operators and Iowa DNR.
Waste streams entering POTWs may contain VOCs, and VOCs may vola-
tilize or be stripped from these waste streams. Therefore, VOCs
entering a POTW may result in air toxic emissions.
3. Iowa DNR landfill files - Landfills may produce air toxics
emissions in two ways. First, municipal refuse may include a
small proportion of waste solvents which volatilize within a
landfill, either with or without soil cover. Second, prior to
the passage of laws regulating the generation and disposal of
hazardous waste, hazardous waste was occasionally deposited
into municipal landfills. Emission rates are maximized when
gas is generated within a landfill.
2-3
-------
4. RCRA generator files - Until July 1985, Iowa DNR was responsible
for the regulation of the generation and disposal of hazardous
wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
As a result, DNR files document inspection of facilities, and a
computerized data base of the types of wastes generated at parti-
cular facilities until that time. Waste codes can indicate the
possible existence of particular types of emission sources.
5. The SRI International 1985 Chemical Producers Directory - Because
individual chemical manufacturing plants can be important air
toxics sources, the SRI International 1985 Chemical Producers Di-
rectory was checked to ensure that potential sources were fully
identified.
6. The Directory of Iowa Manufacturers - Industrial directories com-
monly list individual industrial facilities by county, and by
other classifications. The key classification for screening pur-
poses is the type of manufacturing at a facility. Specific pro-
ducts can determine the types of processes necessary, the types
of sources present, and the type of pollutants emitted.
7. Iowa DNR files on 111(d) and NESHAPs sources - Sulfuric acid mist
and fluorides must be regulated from specific sources under Sec-
tion 111(d) (e.g., phosphate fertilizer plants and sulfuric acid
plants). Iowa DNR has contacted these plants in the past.
8. Iowa DNR hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal faci-
lity (TSDF) files - When hazardous waste is treated or handled,
air toxic emissions can result, particularly \TOC. Under RCRA,
TSDFs are regulated, and. the amount of hazardous waste activity
at a TSDF can determine its emissions.
These eight references were chosen because they cover a broad range of po-
tential information for criteria pollutant-emitting facilities, non-tradi-
tional sources, and other sources which have not previously been documen-
ted for any reason. Table 2.1 shows the sorts of information available
from the eight references reviewed. It was recognized that the informa-
tion available from these references would (and should) overlap to a cer-
tain extent. The next section describes how the information from these
references was screened and how emissions were calculated on the basis of
the information and data available.
In addition to the basic references reviewed above, other information
related to dry cleaners, service stations, and major arterial roadways
was gathered for the purpose of calculating emissions from "typical" area
source facilities. A number of different governmental and non-governmental
organizations were contacted, including:
o Iowa Department of Job Services
o Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles
o Iowa Department of Revenue
o Iowa Department of Transportation
2-4
-------
TABLE 2.1
TARGETED INFORMATION FROM KEY REFERENCES
EIS/PS
POTW Treatment Agreements
Landfill Files
RCRA Generator Files
Additional
Information
About Known
Facilities
X
X
X
Non-
Traditional
Sources
-
X
X
Previously
Undocumented
Industry
Facilities
SRI International 1985
Chemical Producers Directory
Directory of Iowa Manufacturers
111(d) and NESHAPs Sources
Hazardous Waste TSDF Files
X
X
2-5
-------
o Iowa Department of Weights and Measures
o Iowa Gasoline Dealers Association
o U.S. Bureau of the Census
o U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Generally, the approach utilized was to obtain data which was consistent
with available emission factors so that emissions could be calculated. For
the purpose of obtaining emissions, a representative dry cleaner, gasoline
station, and major arterial were to be defined on the basis of information
gathered.
It must be emphasized that all screening and emission calculations
were based on existing information. 1985 information was used whenever
possible, but when 1985 information was not available, other data (gene-
rally 1982, 1983, or 1984 data) was utilized. As a result, emissions may
not be strictly representative of recent conditions at individual facil-
ities. However, such inconsistencies were accepted as a part of the de-
sign of the analysis. The emphasis of the analysis was to maximize the
potential sources considered, and not to spend substantial time on emis-
sion estimates at any one facility.
SCREENING OF REFERENCES AND CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS
At the beginning of this study, it was recognized that there is a
diverse range of operations which may in fact be air toxics sources. (As
discussed above, the fact that an operation is a source of air toxics may
not mean that it is significant in comparison to other air toxics sources.)
Among the sources which were considered in this assessment include those
listed in Table 2.2. The purpose of reviewing a variety of references
was to identify potentially significant air toxics emitting facilities with
one or more of these sources.
Identifying Facility Operations
This study was focused specifically on screening of information, and
as such was not oriented towards in-depth analysis of any one facility.
Elimination of a facility at one step in the analysis does not necessarily
mean that that facility might not be identified in another part of the
analysis. As such, the study as a whole may in fact leave out some facil-
ities that deserve further analysis. Nevertheless, with many potential
opportunities for facility identification and emission calculation, the
probability of omitting signficant facilities is minimized.
In each case, there was an attempt made to identify operations at a
particular facility. Emission sources at a facility may include:
o Process sources
o Fugitive sources
o Storage tanks
o Material handling losses
o Solvent evaporation
o Combustion sources „
o Area sources (e.g. surface impoundments)
2-6
-------
TABLE 2.2
POTENTIAL AIR TOXICS SOURCES
o Documented criteria pollutant sources at industrial facilities
— Process sources
— Storage tanks and materials handling
— Surface coating
— Degreasing
o Other industrial sources
— Fugitive emissions
— Wastewater treatment
o Non-industrial facility sources
— Landfills
— POTWs
o Area sources
— Gasoline marketing
— Mobile sources
— Dry cleaning
2-7
-------
Different references may include information on different sources. For
instance, surface impoundments may not be included in EIS/PS/ but they
will be included in files on hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Included here in Appendix B are summaries of what
was found at a group of major facilities in Iowa. This information was
screened and used in the following way.
EIS/PS
Iowa's EIS/PS was perhaps the single most important reference used.
Based on the VOC Species Manual (DSEPA/OAQPS, 1980) and other sources, a
list of priority Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes (Office of
Management and Budget, 1972) and Source Classification Codes (SCCs) (USEPA/
OAQPS, 1985c) were developed. These SICs and SCCs are presented in Tables
2.3 and 2.4. A series of retrieval runs was then performed on Iowa's com-
puterized master file, resulting in a set of emission points.
Emissions were then calculated in several ways. For VOC sources, the
VOC Species Manual was used to calculate specific air toxic emissions for
SCCs which were documented. Other VOC emission points were reviewed for
other identifying data or information which could be used to characterize
the operation. For example, degreasers often are coded with SCCs which
specifically designate the degreasing solvent used. In addition, during
the 1983 statewide emission inventory survey, industrial facilities were
asked if they handled or emitted any of a list of more than forty sub-
stances. Similarly, for sources in Linn County, ES used summaries of
field investigations to determine how VOC emissions should be speciated
(USEPA Region VII, 1979). For fuel combustion sources, particulates were
broken down into trace elements which are found in fuel oil and coal
(USEPA/OAQPS, 1982).
In summary, emissions were calculated using available reference
material whenever possible. Specific references were used on a case-by-
case basis (USEPA/OAQPS, 1983a, and USEPA/OAQPS, 1984) to obtain emission
factors whenever possible. Emphasis was placed on calculation of emissions
for the maximum number of sources.
Publicly Owned Treatment Plants Pre-treatment Agreements
For the purposes of this study, none of the POTWs were screened out
initially, as there were only nineteen to review. The pretreatment agree-
ments focused most on heavy metals (which are also priority pollutants).
It was recognized at the beginning that estimating emissions from indivi-
dual POTWs based on plant-by-plant data was going to be difficult, because
of the probable lack of plant-specific VOC data.
As a result, while the POTWs were individually reviewed for such
characteristics as specific processes (aeration activity, especially),
they were also analyzed as a whole to determine what typical values
could quantitatively define POTWs in Iowa. Table 2.5 lists the POTWs
reviewed. Similarly, the pretreatment agreements were reviewed for any
indications of specific industrial wastewater treatment that could be
the source of air toxics.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2.3
PRIORITY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODES (SICs)
SIC Code
2221 - Broad woven fabric mills, manmade fibers, and silk
2295 - Coated fabrics not rubberized
2451 - Mobile homes
2491 - Wood preserving
2752 - Commercial printing, lithographic
2821 - Plastic materials, synthetic resins, and nonvulcanizable elastomers
2822 - Synthetic rubber (vulvanizable elastomers)
2823 - Cellulosic man-made fibers
2824 - Synthetic organic fibers, except cellulosic
2834 - Pharmaceutical preparations
2842 - Specialty cleaning, polishing, and sanitation preparations
2844 - Perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations
2851 - Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and allied products
2865 - Cyclic (coal tar) crudes, and cyclic intermediates, dyes, and or-
ganic pigments
2869 - Industrial organic chemicals, not classified elsewhere
2873 - Nitrogeneous fertilizers
2874 - Phosphatic fertilizers
2879 -Pesticides and agricultural chemicals, not classified elsewhere
2891 - Adhesives and sealers
2892 - Explosives
2892 - Printing ink
2911 - Petroleum refining
2951 - Paving mixtures and blocks
2952 - Asphalt felts and coatings
2999 - Petroleum and coal products
3079 - Miscellaneous plastics
3241 - Cement
3312 - Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills
3321 - Gray iron foundries
3331 - Primary smelting and refining of copper
3332 - Primary smelting and refining of lead
3333 - Primary smelting and refining of zinc
3334 - Primary smelting and refining of aluminum
3339 - Primary smelting and refining of non-ferrous metals (other than
copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum)
3341 - Secondary smelting and refining of non-ferrous metals
3441 - Fabricated structural metal products
3499 - Miscellaneous fabricated metal products
3523 - Farm machinery and equipment
3531 - Construction and related equipment
3679 - Electronic components
3691 - Storage batteries
3732 - Ship and boat'building and repairing
2-9
-------
TABLE 2.3—Continued
SIC Code
3799 - Transportation equipment
4911 - Electric power generation
5171 - Petroleum bulk stations and terminals
5198 - Paints, varnishes, and supplies
7216 - Dry cleaning plants
7535 - Automobile paint shops
2-10
-------
TABLE 2.4
PRIORITY SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES (SCCs)
Source Classification Code
FUEL COMBUSTION (OTHER THAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES)
1-02-001-** Boilers - anthracite coal
1-02-002-**
1-03-002-**
1-02-003-**
1-03-003-**
1-02-004-**
1-03-004-**
1-02-005-**
1-03-005-**
1-02-006-**
1-03-006-**
1-02-012-01
1-03-012-01
1-02-013-01
1-03-013-01
1-05-002-05
1-05-002-06
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
2-01-001-**
2-02-001-**
2-01-002-**
2-02-002-**
Boilers - bituminous and
sub-bituminous coal
Boilers - lignite
Boilers - residual oil
Boilers - distillate oil
Boilers - natural gas
Boilers - solid waste
Boilers - liquid waste
Space heaters - distillate oil
Space heaters - natural gas
Distillate
Natural gas
2-02-003-01 Gasoline
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
3-01-***-** All
FOOD/AGRICULTURE
3-02-016-99 Sugar beet miscellaneous
3-02-019-99 Vegetable oil refining
2-1 1
-------
TABLE 2.4—Continued
Source Classification Code
PRIMARY METALS
3-03-001-**
3-03-003-**
Aluminum production
By-product coke
ASPHALT ROOFING
3-05-001-01
3-05-002-01
MINERAL PRODUCTS
3-05-012-**
3-05-014-06
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
3_06-***-**
FABRICATED METALS
3-09-011-99
DRY CLEANING
4-01-001-03
4-01-001-05
DECREASING
4-01-002-
Open top
4-02-002-
Conveyorized
Vapor D/G
Blowing operations
Rotary dryer (conventional plant)
Wool-type fiberglass
Glass forming and finishing
All
Solvent cleaning
Perchloroethylene
Trichlorotri fluoroethane
-02 Methyl chloroform
-03 Perchloroethylene
-04 Methylene chloride
-05 Trichloroethylene
-07 Trichlorotrifluoroethane
-22 Methyl chloroform
-23 Perchloroethylene
-24 Methylene chloride
-25 Trichloroethylene
2-12
-------
TABLE 2.4—Continued
Source Classification Code
DEGREASING-CONTIN UED
4-01-003- -02 Methylene chloride
Cold Solvent -04 Perchloroethylene
Cleaning/ -05 Methyl chloroform
Stripping -06 Trichloroethylene
TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
4-01-004-01 Knit fabric scouring with chlorinated solvent (per-
chloroethylene)
4-01-004-99 Knit fabric scouring (other solvents)
SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS
4-02-***-** All
PETROLEUM STORAGE - FIXED ROOF
4-03-001-** Gasoline storage
4-03-001-** Other toxic vol storage
PETROLEUM STORAGE - FLOATING ROOF
4-03-011-** Gasoline storage
4-03-011-** Other toxic volatile organic compounds
PRINTING - PUBLISHING
4_05-***-** All types
PETROLEUM MARKETING
4-06-001-01 Gasoline loading (splash)
PETROLEUM MARKETING-CONTINUED
4-06-001-26 Gasoline loading (submerged)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
4-90-001-99 All solvent types
2-13
-------
TABLE 2.4—Continued
Source Classification Code
SOLVENT RECOVERY
4-90-002-** All sources
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
5-01-001-01 Municipal incinerators
5-01-005-06 Sludge incinerator
5-02-001-01 General incinerators
2-14
-------
TABLE 2.5
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT PLANTS REVIEWED IN THIS STUDY
Ames
Burlington
Cedar Falls
Cedar Rapids
Clinton
Council Bluffs
Davenport
Des Moines
Dubuque
Fort Dodge
Fort Madison
Iowa City
Keokuk
Marshalltown
Mason City
Muscatine
Ottumwa
Sioux City
Waterloo
2-15
-------
Calculating emissions from POTWs can be a complicated undertaking,
and attempting an in-depth data search was beyond the scope of this study.
As a result, a simplified approach was taken to assess emissions from the
nineteen POTWs. Figure 2-2 presents a basic approach for tracing potential
POTW emissions associated with influent, effluent, and residual sludge. If
a mass balance is performed on an individual material, the emissions of
that material may be expressed simply as:
EA - CAV - CA'V<
where: EA = Emission rate of material A
CA and CA' = Incoming and exiting concentrations of the
material in the process streams
VA and VA" = Incoming and exiting volumentric flow rate of
material A in the process streams
In the simplest of cases, if all of the material is lost in the process,
the equation then reduces to:
Emissions were calculated in this way if no other data were available.
Landfill Files
Emissions from landfills may result from two main routes: diffusion
and convection. Diffusion is minimized with soil cover, while convection
is maximized when landfills are the site of codisposal, i.e., a landfill
where hazardous waste and municipal waste are disposed of at the same site.
Codisposal maximizes emissions because hazardous wastes frequently contain
organics which volatilize, while methane and other gases are generated as
municipal waste ages. This phenomenon provides a mechanism for volatilized
organics to be transferred to the surface. Therefore, Iowa's landfill
files were reviewed for a number of different parameters, including surface
area, volumetric deposition rate, and indications of disposal of hazardous
waste. Generally, it was expected that codisposal has been greatly reduced
if not eliminated as a standard practice.
Counties for which landfills were reviewed are listed in Table 2.6.
These counties are generally those which include the greatest concentra-
tions of population in Iowa. Special waste authorizations for these land-
fills were studied to determine if any specific volatile organic wastes
had been deposited.
In many cases, it was expected that insufficient data would be avail-
able to utilize emission estimation equations for landfills (see for exam-
ple, USEPA/OAQPS, 1984). In this case, a default value of 0.13% (American
City and County, 1983) of refuse was assumed to be hazardous waste, broken
down into 60% perchloroethylene, 20% toluene, and 20% xylenes. Emission
rates were then calculated using the following emission rate equation:
= 6Di Cgi A PT 4/3 (1/LHW.j/W)
2-16
-------
FIGURE 2.2
TRACING POTENTIAL EMISSIONS IN A POTW
Influent**
1:
POTW
Processes
Sludge
**
Effluent**
1
Incineration
Residual
Sludge**
* Potential emissions
** Material contains toxic organics and metals
2-17
-------
TABLE 2.6
COUNTIES REVIEWED FOR LANDFILL EMISSIONS
Black Hawk
Des Moines (Burlington)
Cerro Gordo
Clinton
Dubuque
Henry
Johnson
Keokuk
Linn
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Montgomery
Museatine
Polk .
Pottawattamie
Scott
Story
Union
Wapello
Webster
Woodbury
2-18
-------
where: E^ = Emission rate of component i (g/scc)
D^ = Diffusion coefficient of component i in air (cm /sec)
C . = Concentration of component i in air (g/cm^)
A = Area of landfill cover (cm^)
PT = Total soil porosity (dimensionless)
L = Soil depth (cm)
W^/W = Weight fraction of component i in bulk waste (g/g)
(this should properly be the mole fraction of component i)
Default values based on a selection of published data was used when data
was not available (e.g., for diffusion coefficients).
RCRA Generator Data
RCRA generator data was broken down into several parts. Each part was
reviewed for potential information which could characterize operations and
processes at individual facilities. The information that was considered
for this review were specific process descriptions, many of which it was
hoped would be included on fiche (from Iowa DNR) for specific facilities.
Because of the voluminous nature of the fiche files for Iowa, and because
it was known that substantial amounts of marginally relevant material for
emissions calculations was included within the fiche files, this informa-
tion was primarily used as a back-up reference. (The fiche was not re-
viewed as a primary source for data for emission estimates.) Generator
summaries were reviewed for unusual waste codes which would indicate spe-
cific processes at specific facilities.
SRI International 1985 Chemical Manufacturers Directory
The SRI International 1985 Chemical Manufacturers Directory was used
in several ways. First, the facilities that were identified for Iowa
counties were reviewed to eliminate producers of simple industrial gases
(such as acetylene) and distributors of certain chemically-based products.
Sources were cross-referenced against the Directory of Iowa Manufacturers
(Manufacturers News, 1986) to determine the primary SIC for that facility,
and to determine if any potential chemical manufacturers (which are likely
sources of air toxics) had been omitted frcm other data bases.
Directory of Iowa Manufacturers
The Directory of Iowa Manufacturers was used as a check on the ade-
quacy of other data bases reviewed. The same set of priority SIC codes
used to review EIS/PS (Table 2.3) was used to screen the Manufacturers
Directory. Newly identified facilities that could not be eliminated for
any reason were then assigned emissions values based on an emissions/em-
ployment ratio, developed from facilities in identical SICs that were
documented in EIS/PS. The formula used to assign emissions values is:
Qij -
2-19
-------
where: ^j = Emission rate for pollutant i and facility j;
Qi = Average emission of pollutant i for the SIC grouping
of facility j in Iowa's EIS/PS;
I2j = Employment at facility;
E = Average employment for facilities in the SIC grouping
of facility j in Iowa's EIS/PS.
Iowa's 111(d) and NESHAPs Files
Emissions estimates were taken directly from Iowa's files for the
facilities which had already been identified. To ensure that no facili-
ties had been omitted, the Directory of Iowa Manufacturers was reviewed
for NESHAPs and 111(d) source categories.
Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (.TSDF) Files
These files were reviewed thoroughly for waste and handling codes.
Depending on the type and volatility of the waste, and mechanisms available
for estimating emissions, the emission factors presented in Table 2.1 were
utilized.
Mobile and Other Area Sources
Area source data was not screened as such. Rather it was gathered
from a variety of organizations as discussed above so that emissions could
be calculated from representative "unit" sources. The procedures used are
described below.
Dry Cleaners
Emissions from dry cleaning facilities were determined in part by a
perchloroethylene use factor per dry cleaning employee (Engineering-
Science, 1985) of 149 galIons/employee-year. In fact, there are other
solvents besides perchloroethylene (such as Stoddard solvent) which are
used in dry cleaning facilites; however, because there is a unit risk
factor for perchloroethylene, to be conservative it was assumed that no
other substance was emitted. Based on 1277 dry cleaning employees and 191
dry cleaning facilities in Iowa (Bureau of the Census, 1985a), it could
be determined that a total of 2,563,000 pounds, per year were used. AP-42
(USEPA/OAQPS, 1985a) specifies an emission factor of 27.5 pounds per 100
pounds used, yielding a total emission statewide of 352.4 tons per year.
Polk County and average facility emissions then were determined propor-
tionally against the number of facilites statewide, i.e. 35/191 and 1/191
of the statewide total.
Service Stations
Because AP-42 emission factors for service stations are dependent
on throughput, emissions statewide were determined by using the July 1984-
June 1985 throughput total of 917,115,803 gallons of gasoline (Rusk,
1986). To apportion the total emissions to individual counties, registra-
tion of motor vehicles was obtained from the Iowa Department of Motor
2-20
-------
TABLE 2.7
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FACTORS USED FOR
HANDLERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
S01 Container Storage
SO2 Storage Tank
S03 Waste Pile
S04 Surface Impoundment
T01 Tank Treatment
T02 Surface Impoundment
T03 Incinerator
D79 Injection Well
D80 Landfill (use equation)
D81 Land Application
D82 Ocean Disposal
D83 Surface Impoundment
T94 Heat Treatment
T95 Chemical Treatment
T96 Physical Separation"
T05 Other Treatment
(assumed same as
tank treatment)
SOS Storage Other
(assumed same as
container)
T04 Other Treatment
(assumed as tank
treatment)
1.04 lb/1000 kg (storage only)
1.20 lb/1000 kg (disposal site)
4.43 lb/1000 kg
0.0575 lb/1000 kg
0.374 lb/1000 kg
4.43 lb/1000 kg
0.374 lb/1000 kg
0.22 lb/1000 kg
0
Municipal - 0.055 lb/1000 kg
Hazardous Waste - 4.11 lb/1000 kg
Co-Disposal - 24.7 lb/1000 kg
None documented in Iowa
N/A
0.22 lb/1000 kg
0.22 lb/1000 kg
4.43 lb/1000 kg
0.0575 lb/1000 kg
4.43 lb/1000 kg
1.04 lb/1000 kg
4.43 lb/1000 kg
2-21
-------
Vehicles (Landy, 1986), and total VOC emissions were apportioned accor-
ding to the proportion of the state's motor vehicles in each county. Based
on 164 service stations in Polk County, an average station's emissions were
calculated, i.e. 1/164 of the Polk County total. Benzene, xylene, and
toluene fractions were based on the VOC Species Manual (USEPA/OAQPS, 1980).
Mobile Sources/Arterial Highways
Calculating emissions from a "typical" arterial highway is dependent
on defining a length of highway to be analyzed. To make the calculation
more meaningful, a specific arterial highway in Polk County was chosen.
Based on ten specific segments identified by the Iowa Department of
Transportation (Pencock, 1986), a set of simplified calculations was
performed to determine the maximum VOC emission for a particular segment.
Using a set of simplified emission factors (LDGV-1.725 g/mi, LDGT1-2.305
g/mi, LDGT2-2.012 g/mi, and HDGV-8.774 g/mi) based on emission factors from
MOBILE 3 (USEPA/OAQPS, 1985a), the segment chosen was Fleur Drive from
Grande to Locust in Des Moines, with a total average daily traffic (ADT)
of 54,600 vehicles per day. VOC emissions were calcuated assuming a max-
imum of gasoline-fueled vehicle traffic (100%) with 97% of total vehicle
miles traveled being associated with light duty vehicles (Penncuck, 1986).
To calculate emissions of products of incomplete combustion of products
of incomplete combustion (PICs), all of the VMT associated with heavy duty
vehicles was assumed to be heavy duty diesel vehicle (HDDV) VMT.
PRIORITY RANKING OF FACILITIES
Besides emission estimates, data needed for the priority ranking of
sources include data that indicate the potency of health effects of spe-
cific pollutants, population data by county, and release characteristics
(specifically stack heights). Because excess cancer is such an important
impact, this analysis was split between carcinogens and non-carginogens.
For carcinogens, potency is.defined by the unit risk value* (represented
by the parameter U in the expressions used to generate screening values).
U values were obtained by reviewing summaries generated by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG). There
are currently 55 substances for which unit risk values have been generated.
Table 2.8 provides a list of all U values used.
For non-carcinogenic health effects, analysis of potential impacts is
somewhat more difficult. Analysis of such impacts in many states has been
performed using adjustments to Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) published by
the American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
There are substantial methodological problems with such an approach, parti-
cularly given ACGIH's indication that TLVs should not be used in a general
A unit value is defined as the probability of the occurrence of an ex-
cess cancer due to a continuous exposure for 70 years to a unit concen-
tration (e.g., one microgram per cubic meter) of a given substance.
2-22
-------
TABLE 2.8
SUMMARY OF "U" VALUES
POLLUTANT . U (DIMENSIONLESS)*
Acrylonitrile 72
Arsenic 4,500
Benzene 15
Benzo(a)pyrene 3,400
Beryllium 780
1,3 Butadiene 0.46
Cadmium 2,300
Carbon tetrachloride 39
Chloroform 21
Chloronethane 0.14
Chromium 12,000
Coke oven emissions 650
1,1 Dichloroethane 42
Ethylene dibronide 2,400
Ethylene dichloride 20
Ethylene oxide 1,000
Formaldehyde 6.4
F001** 9.1
F002** 4.6
Gasoline vapors 0.75
Methylene chloride 4.1
Perchloroethylene 0.58
Products of incomplete combustion 42,000
Propylene oxide 120
Styrene 0.29
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 57
1,2 Trans-dichloroethylene 300
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) 0.46
1,1,2 Trichloroethane 16
Trichloroethylene 1.3
U044** 21
U122** 6.4
U226** 0.46
Vinyl chloride 5.2
Vinylidene chloride 42
* Values have been rounded to two significant digits.
** Emissions from waste handling are assumed to be equally divided
among possible constituents of that waste. See Table 2.10 for
descriptions of wastes associated with each code.
2-23
-------
way to determine acceptable ambient concentrations of particular pollutants,
However, as a starting point, TLVs can be used to develop acceptable inha-
lation values ("A" values). Table 2.9 presents a summary of all of these
"A" values generated from TLVs and used in the S3 prioritization equation
(see below). Waste codes utilized in this analysis are presented in Table
2.10.
Population data was taken by county from July 1, 1984 census summaries
(Bureau of the Census, 1985a). The effect of using this data versus 1980
data was that the air toxics impacts of sources in Johnson, Muscatine, and
Polk Counties were magnified, because these three counties were the fastest
growing in Iowa during these four years. (Many counties actually lost popu-
lation during this time.)
Utilizing this data, a priority ranking scheme was developed to take
into account these three parameters — emissions, toxicity, and popula-
tion — as well as release height-to account for dispersion. Table 2.11
presents the screening value equations developed for the following screen-
ing values:
S1 - Carcinogens (total)
S2 - Carcinogens (within the county of release)
S3 - Non-carcinogens
These equations were based on the following assumptions:
o toxicity is related to unit risk values and inhalation criteria
developed by USEPA;
o population at risk (for S2 and S3) are within the county of
release;
o dispersion increases as the square of the release height, and no
effective dispersion because of stack height occurs until the
stack is at least 25 feet tall.
Release height data was taken from EIS/PS for facilities documented in the
system. If multiple points contributed to the total air toxics emissions
from a particular facility, then an average of the release height was taken.
If no release height was known for a particular facility, then it was as-
sumed that the release height was less than 25 feet. It should be noted
that this assumption probably underestimates release height for certain
facilities (such as some of those found in the Directory of Iowa Manufac-
turers ) for which little, if any, specific information was known.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2.9
SUMMARY OF "A" VALUES
POLLUTANT
A (DIMENSIONLESS)*
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chromium
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,3 Dichloropropylene
D009**
D016**
Ethylbenzene* * *
Fluorides****
Formaldehyde
F001**
F002**
F003**
F005**
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
P039**
Sulfuric acid****
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
1,2 Trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoroethane
U044**
U121**
U122**
U154**
U220**
U226**
Xylene
8
160
7.1
1 ,100
1.8
100
93,000
1,800
1
710
18
2
880
16,000
8.9
54
25,000
13,000
10,000
2,400
7,100
730
7,300
12,000
12,000
3
22
250
3,000
28,000
68,000
1,600
9,600
2,400
1 ,800
2,400
54
7,100
3,000
68,000
16,000
6
* values have been rounded to two significant digits.
** Emissions from waste handling are assumed to be equally divided among
possible constituents of that waste. See Table 2.10 for descriptions
of wastes associated with each code.
*** »A« value for ethylbenzene was assumed to be equal to that for xylene.
**** Based on adjusted inhalation TLV's and uncertainty factor of 10.
2-25
-------
TABLE 2.10
SUMMARY OF WASTE CODES*
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number
Contaminants/Hazardous Waste
D009
D016
F001
F002
F003
Mercury
2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
One or more of the following spent solvents used
in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethy-
lene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocar-
bons; and sludges from the recovery of these
solvents in degreasing operations.
One or more of the following spent halogenated
solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloro-
benzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane;
and the still bottoms from the recovery of these
solvents.
One or more of the following spent non-halogenated
solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl
benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-
butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; and
the still bottoms from the recovery of these
solvents.
F005
P039
U044
U121
U122
U154
U220
U226
One or more of the following spent non-halogenated
solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, and pyridine; and the still
bottoms from the recovery of these solvents.
0-0-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodi-
thioate
Chloroform
Trichlorofluoromethane
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
* Codes and descriptions taken from 40 CFR Part 261 .
2-26
-------
TABLE 2.11
SCREENING VALUE EQUATIONS
S 1 - Care inogens
S1 = QU
where: Q = Emission rate in pounds per year
U = Unit risk values (Table 2.8)
Note: Sum all S1 values for each facility.
S 2- Carcinogens
S2
QUP
Z
where: Q and U are as above
P = The population in the county of release
h1 = (h/25) when H (the release height) is more than 25 feet
= 1 when H is 25 feet or less
Note: Sum all S2 values for each facility.
S3- _Qthe r Effects
S3 = QP
A(h"")"2
where: A = The "inhalation criterion" (Table 2.9)
h" = h1 except associated with noncarcinogen release
Note: Sum all S3 values for each facility.
2-27
-------
CHAPTER 3
CHARACTERIZATION OF INFORMATION SOURCES
As expected, the quantity and quality of data and other information
sources varied. In order to interpret the results of this analysis pro-
perly (see Chapter 4), it is important to understand the limitations of
the data that went into the analysis.
EIS/PS
As previously discussed, EIS/PS was screened for certain Standard In-
dustrial Classification (SIC) codes and certain Source Classification Codes
(SCCs). As a result, there were numerous points that were identified for
air toxics review. Most of the points identified were for particulates; al-
though particulate sources can, of course, be significant air toxics sour-
ces, many of the particulate sources within the Iowa inventory were not
(e.g., grain handling operations). When the Iowa point source inventory
was assembled in 1983-1984, the emphasis was on sources which had already
been identified (USEPA Region VII, 1984). As a result, because relatively
few VOC sources were included in the list of facilities to receive question-
naires, the final EIS/PS inventory (at that time) was heavily weighted to-
wards particulate sources and fuel combustion sources. This concentration
towards particulates was verified when questionnaire responses frequently
did not identify additional, new VOC emission points which might have been
anticipated at certain facilities.
An additional piece of information available as a result of question-
naire responses in 1983 was whether facilities used or emitted any of the
materials on USEPA1s original "list" of 37 materials for study under
NESHAPs. While many facilities did not respond at all, and some facilities
responded in a very limited way, a few facilities responded in great detail.
This information was useful on a case-by-case basis (for example, identify-
ing a particular solvent used in a degreaser).
PRE-TREATMENT AGREEMENTS FOR POTWS
There are 126 priority pollutants for POTWs and many, if not most, are
VOCs. However, the pollutants of greatest concern for POTWs for their con-
tinued successful operation are removal of heavy metals. The Iowa pretreat-
ment agreements (nineteen in all) generally were based on an industrial sur-
vey of the users of the treatment plant. The depth of these surveys varied
greatly, particularly in terms of what pollutants were contributed by which
facilities. "Pretreatinent" in fact is something of a misnomer, because the
3-1.
-------
the background documents did not identify what facilities actually treated
their wastewater prior to discharge to the POTW. In addition, to the ex-
tent that they identified pollutants coming from particular industrial con-
tributors, the pollutants they identified were generally metals. (Except
in specific instances, VDC is the pollutant of concern from wastewater
treatment operations). As a result, pretreatment information gave virtual-
ly no indication of the potential emissions from industrial wastewater
treatment. Because the typical incoming concentration of certain organic
constituents was available from certain POTWs, it was possible to indirect-
ly determine the potential air toxics emission potential of certain plants.
To determine default values for POTW parameters, all of the POTWs were
reviewed. The primary pollutants of concern were:
* Benzene
* 1,1,1-trichloroethane
* 1,1-diehloroethane
* 1,1,2-trichloroethylene
* Chloroethane
* Chloroform
* 1,2-transdichloroethylene
* Ethyl benzene
* Methylene chloride
* Dichloro-bromo-methane
* Perchloroethylene
* Toluene
* Trichloroethylene
* Phenol
* 1,3-transdichloropropylene
* Acrylonitrile
* Acrolein
A range of concentrations was determined for each one of these pollutants,
based on reported values at the nineteen POTWs, and an overall average was
calculated. Because there was generally insufficient data to perform an
in-depth analysis at each POTW, the following procedure was followed.
1. Organic content was assumed to be that reported by each POTW for
each substance. If no concentration was reported, then the con-
centration was assumed to be the average of the range reported
at Iowa POTWs.
2. 100% of the organic content was assumed to be lost as a result
of process at the POTW.
LANDFILL FILES
Since the early 1970's, landfills in Iowa have been regulated by DNR
and its predecessor agencies. Waste authorizations have been historically
required for "special" wastes, including certain hazardous wastes. How-
ever, the extent to which volatile hazardous wastes were deposited prior
to 1970, or improperly deposited during the 1970's and 1980's is unknown.
3-2
-------
Given the soil cover of the last fifteen years and the degree of documen-
tation in the files showing the regulatory control which DNR has exercised
over hazardous waste disposal, it is reasonable to expect that the chance
is minimal that there are significant undocumented volatile hazardous
wastes over the last fifteen years in Iowa landfills. As a result, the
only landfill which should be expected to have potentially significant air
toxics emissions from undocumented waste would be Black Hawk County land-
fill (the only one in Iowa recently accepting hazardous waste). As des-
cribed in Chapter 2, the air toxics potential of other landfills can be
estimated through analysis of other key parameters, such as throughput
rate.
RCRA GENERATOR FILES
Information on hazardous waste generators came from three separate
documents:
* the biannual Iowa hazardous waste generation report;
* the computerized listing of waste generation by facility; and
* the actual files from Iowa DNR on generator compliance with RCRA.
As discussed in Chapter 2, hazardous waste generation data is only useful
to confirm other information about the processes at a plant. Theoretical-
ly, specific wastes can indicate specific processes at a plant; however,
within Iowa no processes were identified in this way because hazardous
waste generation summaries did not include references to process-specific
wastes. While the bulk of the RCRA files were comprised of inspection re-
ports and were not focused on particular processes; on a case-by-case ba-
sis, they were used to resolve discrepancies about operation at particular
facilities.
As stated above, generator summaries offered very few clues as to the
specific processes at individual plants. One general observation that can
be made is that there were a substantial number of facilities which (at
least as of 1984-1985) were generating halogenated solvents waste. Such
wastes are frequently a result of degreasing, which frequently does not
show up in EIS/PS. Degreasing solvents often include such substances as
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and methyl chloroform (1 ,1 ,1-trichlo-
roethane), three solvents that are frequently reviewed as potential air
toxics. This situation suggests that there could be substantially more
emission sources of these substances than the current Iowa VOC inventory
would suggest.
SRI INTERNATIONAL 1985 CHEMICAL PRODUCERS DIRECTORY
The SRI International 1985 Chemical Producers Directory lists between
50 and 100 entries for the State of Iowa. Some entries, like Monsanto in
Muscatine, list specific products (such as ABS resins) that determine what
raw materials and therefore what emissions could be expected at a particular
3-3
-------
facility.* Others, such as facilities which produce certain inorganic in-
dustrial gases could be eliminated from further consideration, because their
processes generally do not involve air toxics. Other possible facilities
were cross-referenced with the Directory of Iowa Manufacturers (see below).
The result of this review was that several facilities, such as Salsbury
Laboratories in Charles City, could not be eliminated from further consider-
ration as an air toxics source.
DIRECTORY OF IOWA MANUFACTURERS
Review of the Directory revealed over 100 facilities within priority
SIC codes not included within EIS/PS. By rtself, this result does not in-
dicate that there are numerous significant air toxic sources in the State.
Rather, it indicates that there is a substantial area which needs to be
investigated further, not only for air toxics, but also for VOCs.** The
original plan was to identify these potential facilities and develop1 "sur-
rogate" emission estimates based on employment and emission estimates that
had been made for EIS/PS facilities in identical SIC codes. What had not
been expected was the number of the facilities which would be identified
in this way. Machinery manufacturing (3523) and miscellaneous plastic pro-
ducts (3079) were among the SICs most heavily represented. In addition,
many of the facilities were classified in SIC codes for which no facilities
were identified in EIS/PS; as a result, calculation of "surrogate" emission
estimates was not possible for these facilities (e.g. 2834 -pharmaceutical
manufacturing). Nevertheless, there is a substantial group of facilities
that potentially could be as significant (in the sense of health impacts)
as facilities which have been previously documented as criteria pollutant
sources.
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES FILES
TSDF information for Iowa facilities generally reflects on-site treat-
ment and storage; disposal usually occurs off-site. (The one apparently
significant disposal facility in Iowa for hazardous waste is the Black Hawk
County Landfill). Most of the entries in the Iowa summaries are for stor-
age, and because storage time is limited on-site, air toxics emissions are
minimized on-site.
Based on the emission factors used, air toxics emissions as a result
of the handling and processing of hazardous waste (see Chapter 2) for fa-
cilities in Iowa was very small. The reason is that many of the facili-
ties have low throughputs in hazardous waste processes and the emission
factors themselves are generally not large. The resulting air toxics
emissions estimates were nevertheless included in total emission estimates
for individual facilities.
* The recent inspection report for the Monsanto facility, however, was
used to define emissions for this study (USEPA/OAQPS, 1985b).
** Iowa DNR has already started this analysis; see February 1986 memo-
randum regarding VOC sources in Iowa from John Vedder to George Welch.
3-4
-------
IOWA DNR FILES ON 111(d) AND NESHAPS SOURCES
Iowa DNR has previously surveyed specific known 111(d) facilities
and has fairly detailed emission estimates for these facilities. No spe-
cific NESHAPs sources had been identified prior to this analysis, so the
Directory of Iowa Manufacturers was reviewed to determine if any potential
NESHAPs (and 111(d)) sources had been missed. On the basis of this review,
Climax Molybdenum (Ft. Madison) could be further analyzed for possible
applicability of 111(d).
MOBILE SOURCES AND OTHER AREA SOURCES
Several simplifying assumptions were made in the analysis of mobile
and other area sources. For dry cleaners, the total emissions in the
State of Iowa were calculated using the assumption that 100% of- the sol-
vents used was perchloroethylene, and that average per employee solvent
use derived from Idaho data (149 gallons of solvent per dry cleaning em-
ployee) was appropriate for Iowa. In fact, perchloroethylene on average
accounts for less than half the solvent used in dry cleaning. Therefore,
though the single dry cleaning plant emission estimate may be representa-
tive for a perchloroethylene dry cleaning plant, the Polk County emission
estimate probably overstates the county's actual perchloroethylene emis-
sions. Also though there is no reason to believe that Idaho dry cleaning
plants are significantly better than Iowa's, Iowa-specific data would of
course be preferable.
With respect to service stations, it would be useful to know the
actual gasoline pumped county-by-county. When a variety of Iowa govern-
mental and non-governmental bodies were contacted, this information was
not available. Given the screening nature of this analysis, the indirect
method of apportioning statewide gasoline totals by county vehicle regis-
tration totals should give an acceptable approximation for purposes of
estimating emissions, but county-specific gasoline data would be preferable,
Finally, the estimates here for mobile sources include many simplify-
ing assumptions. Based on the relative importance of air toxics emissions
from mobile sources (see Chapter 4), a more in-depth analysis of mobile
source emissions (utilizing the most up-to-date emission factors and
correction factors) would probably be justified.
HEALTH DATA ("U" AND "A" VALUES)
Generally, either unit risk values ("U" values) or acceptable inhala-
tion values ("A" values) were available for every pollutant for which emis-
sions were estimated. For some pollutants both "U" and "A" values were
available (i.e., both the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of a
particular pollutant could be assessed). However, it must be stressed
that unit risk values are only currently available for about 55 pollu-
tants. The carcinogenic potential of certain pollutants cannot be as-
sessed at this time without a unit risk value (or the equivalent). As a
result, summaries of S1 and S2 values in Appendix C must emit facilities
which emit only pollutants which are nominal non-carcinogens. As more
unit risk value data becomes available, the analysis presented here could
be expanded.
3-5
-------
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
As described in Chapter 2, the results of S1 , 52, and S3 (or screen-
ing parameters 1, 2, and 3, respectively) were designed to give a rough
measure of the following descriptions of "significance":
o S1 - "total" carcinogenic potential, regardless of whether impacts
occur within or outside the county where the pollutants are
emitted (Table C. 1);
o S2 - "local" carcinogenic potential, within the county where the
pollutants are emitted (Table C.2); and
o S3 - potential for noncarcinogenic effects (Table C.3)
All tables are presented in Appendix C. In discussing and analyzing the
results of this analysis, several points need to be made. First, this
analysis is based on screening. As such, it is possible that some poten-
tially significant sources were inadvertantly eliminated early from con-
sideration. (Given the overlapping nature of the data bases, this possi-
bility should be minimized.) Second, screening values will be dependent
on the amount of information available on a particular source. This situ-
ation is true for emission estimates; if a facility has been thoroughly
studied, all potential emissions may have been identified, thereby maximi-
zing the chances for high screening values. Finally, the actual numerical
scores associated with individual facilities should not be analyzed in
too much detail, because in many cases the input assumptions are rough
approximations. Differences by orders of magnitude are probably signifi-
cant; differences of less than an order of magnitude may not be signifi-
cant. For this reason, the results presented here are limited to two
significant digits.
EXPANDED ANALYSES
The results presented in Tables C.1, C.2, and C.3 reflect expanded
analyses which were performed after the original analyses were completed.
Mobile and other area sources were looked at in two ways - as "unit"
sources (a single arterial highway, a single dry cleaner, and a single
service station) and as countywide sources in Polk County. Both results
are included in the tables. In addition, because of the large unit risk
value for products of incomplete combustion (PICs), multiple calculations
4-1
-------
were performed to determine the sensitivity of the rankings to this key
parameter. While exclusion of the effects of PICs does affect the rank-
ings, the overall impact was nominal, leaving the relative ranking very
similar to the ranking including the effect of PICs. The tables presented
here include the PICs contribution.
DISCUSSION
A review of the results in Tables C.1, C.2, and C.3 shows that the
potential impact of certain area sources (particularly mobile sources and
service stations) within Iowa could be significant when compared to other
sources in the state. Within S1 (the first screening parameter) among the
noteworthy sources were two chemical companies, an electronics firm, four
coal-fired power plants, one John Deere plant, a cement plant, a tool
manufacturer, and several POTWs. Landfills and other hazardous waste
TSDFs did not appear very high on the list. Relative to other area
sources, dry cleaning also was not very significant. In contrast, several
facilities which are not currently documented in EIS/PS, such as Freeman
Resins (Burlington), ranked relatively high.
In comparing the results of S1 (the first screening parameters) versus
the results of S2 (the second screening parameter), several observations
could be made. (As indicated above, S2 takes into account the local ex-
posed population, and the release height of the emissions.) As expected,
sources without tall stacks became more important. The most important
"source" in this ranking was mobile sources in Polk County, undoubtedly
because of the substantial air toxics emissions emitted near ground level
in a populated county. While arterial highways may present a fairly small
risk one-by-one, the combination of arterials, expressways, and local roads
together can be important. Other sources with known stack heights tended
to rank lower in the S2 rankings compared to the S1 rankings. For example,
the ranking of coal-fired power plants such as the George Neal Station
(Salix), Iowa Power and Light (Council Bluffs), and Iowa Southern Utilities
(Ottumwa) dropped substantially because their average stack heights average
well over 200 feet.
S3, the noncarcinogenic effect parameter, showed a substantially dif-
ferent ranking because the input variables (especially the pollutants in-
volved) were substantially different than those for S1 and S2. Among the
highest ranked facilities are two that are identified as 111(d) sources
in Iowa: Occidental Chemical (Buffalo), and Agrico Chemical (Fort Madison).
The high rankings for these facilities are clearly due to well documented
emissions and a relatively low acceptable daily intake ("A") value. Even
more than the S1 and S2 rankings, the S3 rankings included facilities
which have not been documented in EIS/PS as criteria pollutant sources.
Notable examples include Sheller Globe (Iowa City), Stone Container Corpo-
ration (Des Moines), and Mid-Central Plastics (West Des Moines). Other
sources such as Salsbury Laboratories (Charles City) could have been in-
cluded if there were similar sources in Iowa for comparison. It should
be noted that the S3 ranking includes many surface coating sources which
did not rank high in the S1 and S2 summaries. The reason for this
4-2
-------
situation is that surface coating solvents are generally not carcinogens,
as represented by unit risk values developed by USEPA/CAG. Therefore, if
surface coating sources are well-documented, the potential non-carcinogenic
impact will be relatively large.
ANALYSIS
To put the results presented in Tables C.1, C.2, and C.3 in proper
perspective, the nature of the screening parameter equations should be
understood. Emission estimates in many cases are very rough and in some
cases are "surrogate" values, i.e., they are not associated with any data
specific to that plant, but rather are indirect approximations based on
plants in the same industrial category. The health data used (Tables 2.2
and 2.3) is limited by the data available on carcinogenic potential from
GAG (and a few other sources), and the minimal information developed on
non-carcinogenic effects. Within the S2 and S3 rankings, relatively few
facilities were identified with specific release heights, thereby overesti-
mating the importance of certain facilities. Sources with air toxics emis-
sions which were not specifically documented in EIS/PS were assigned a de-
fault release height of 25 feet or less, thereby maximizing their ranking
in Tables C.2 and C.3. In addition, plume rise was not taken into effect,
which maximizes the ranking of power plants and other sources with release
temperatures above ambient conditions. Finally, because total county po-
pulations were used in S2 and S3 rankings, sources on the edge of metro-
politan areas may be over-emphasized, while small sources in densely po-
pulated areas (such as dry cleaners) may be underemphasized.
In reviewing the results, it is important to note that the relative
ranking of facilities were assigned with respect to other sources in Iowa.
This analysis was developed as a means to prioritize future air toxics
program activities in Iowa (particularly emission inventory activities).
A key, unanswered question is the relative risk which the State of Iowa
faces compared to other states. If Iowa, in fact, is a relatively low
risk state, even some of the facilities which appear relatively high in
the rankings may not be "significant". Such an assessment would require
a more in-depth analysis.
Nevertheless, the rankings point out several key trends:
* Area sources of air toxics in Iowa are potentially important,
particularly mobile sources.
* There is a sizable group of facilities which could be significant
air toxics sources in Iowa that are not documented in EIS/PS as
criteria pollutant sources.
* Known, well-documented air toxics sources in Iowa do rank relatively
high.
To be sure, a prioritization approach such as the one presented here is
biased towards well-documented sources. For example, Monsanto (Muscatine)
has been studied extensively because it is a source of acrylonitrile, the
first pollutant chosen by USEPA in its pilot program to "refer" certain
4-3
-------
specific toxic air pollutants to the states. An in-depth inspection and
analysis of the emissions of this plant was performed in 1984, and the
results of that work (USEPA/OAQPS, 1985b) were used in the prioritization
results presented in Tables C.1, C.2 and C.3. As a result, relative to
other plants in EIS/PS, air toxics emission estimates at Monsanto were
comprehensive.
Other specific chemical plants may also pose a local risk. Freeman
Resins (Burlington) appears high in the rankings because it is the same
Standard Industrial Classifiction (SIC) code as Monsanto, its emission
estimates are "surrogate" emission estimates and as a result shows up as
an acrylonitrile source when in fact it probably is not. This facility
is therefore a good example of a source for which additional information
is needed, and a specific questionnaire requesting emission-related infor-
mation is probably justified.
As more information on individual facilities become available, this
assessment could be expanded. For example, there are no facilities cur-
rently in EIS/PS in SIC code 2834 (pharmaceutical manufacturing). As a
result, even for large facilities such as Salsbury Laboratories (Charles
City), under the analysis presented here there was no information (except
for employment data) which could be used to estimate emissions. Such faci-
lities, if they are to be contacted by questionnaire, could be contacted
for both criteria pollutant and air toxics information simultaneously.
As mentioned above, rankings in the tables presented here are not suf-
ficient by themselves to indicate that individual facilities necessarily
pose a significant risk. Coal-fired plants, for example, rank relatively
high on S1 and S2 rankings. However, risks associated with coal combustion
are tied in a large part to chromium emissions due to trace chromium
concentrations in coal (as well as to emissions of PIC's). Carcinogenesis
of chromium is tied to its chemical state. Hexavalent chromium has a
known carcinogenic potential, while trivalent chromium does not. The
emission estimates and subsequent analysis presented here are based on
the conservative assumption that all chromium emitted is hexavalent, an
assumption that clearly produces a high estimate of the potential relative
impact.
Finally, with respect to the expanded analyses in this study, it has
been determined that with or without PICs, combustion sources (including
mobile sources) are relatively significant. Risk assessment on these
sources, particularly using local or facility-specific data, would help
to clarify the actual impacts of these souces. In addition, while the
expanded mobile source calculations were performed for Polk County, it is
reasonable to expect that other urbanized counties in the State would be
ranked high as well if they had been included in the analysis.
4-4
-------
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several observations may be made about the data bases reviewed and
the sources identified. First, the review of multiple data bases did in
fact identify potential air toxic sources which might not have been iden-
tified in other ways. In particular, the review of the Directory of Iowa
Manufacturers indicated numerous potential VOC sources which had not been
in Iowa EIS/PS. This result appears to confirm the appropriateness of
the basic approach taken in the development of this study. Second, the
data available in many data bases was not necessarily the data needed to
calculate emissions. While this result in many cases was expected, and
default values for key parameters could be assumed, a more in-depth review
of specific facilities would most likely provide a less conservative as-
sessment of emissions. Third, as the study proceeded, it became evident
that several potentially important source categories could have been in-
cluded in the study, but had not been. These categories include chrome
plating (a source of chromium), sterilizers (using ethylene oxide), and
grain fumigation. Chrome plating is apparently an undocumented source ca-
tegory due to fairly frequent references to plating operations in some of
the State's hazardous waste summaries. Ethylene oxide has been identified
as a potential problem in other studies, and none of the data bases here
effectively addressed its use as a sterilant. Similarly, grain fumigation
was never addressed as a subject in this study. Given Iowa's status as one
of the largest producers of agricultural products in the country, grain fu-
migation should probably be reviewed, particularly if it is determined that
fumigants used in Iowa are potential carcinogens.
Nevertheless, this screening study provided a comprehensive review of
point, area and mobile sources of air toxics within Iowa and provided a
consistent way of comparing the risks inherent in specific air toxics emis-
sions. Both traditional and non-traditional sources were included and po-
tential missing sources of criteria pollutants were identified. Based on
the prioritization scheme, it appears that three major source groupings of
concern for air toxics are mobile sources, coal-fired power plants, and
selected industrial facilities.
The rankings discussed in Chapter 4 and presented in Appendix C indi-
cate relative risks in Iowa. While they do not indicate absolute risks
and they do not indicate risks of sources in comparison to sources in
other states, they do provide evidence for prioritizing further activi-
ties towards development of an air toxics program in Iowa. The following
recommendations address both the gaps in key data which were found and
additional activities focused the priority sources which have already
been identified.
5-1
-------
1. Expand Efforts to Develop a Statewide VOC Inventory
Many air toxics also are VOC. This study indicated many specific
facilities which are likely VOC sources, but which are not documented in
EIS/PS. Expanding the VOC inventory would not only provide a data base
for assessing air toxics for these facilities, but if an emission inventory
survey is sent out to these facilities, then VOC and air toxics data
could be gathered simultaneously.
2. Selectively Send Bnission Inventory Questionnaires to "jligh Risk'L
Squrcejs^
Sending questionnaires to numerous facilities across the state would
be desirable eventually. However, given the fact that in-depth risk as-
sessments have not been done on many (if any) facilities in Iowa, it would
be appropriate first to study a few high risk facilities to determine how
extensive a survey is justified. Accordingly, in-depth emissions data for
several facilities chosen on the basis of the ranking is needed. It is re-
commended that a thorough emission inventory of the facilities chosen be
performed to establish a foundation for the risk assessment discussed below
(item 4).
3. Perform a More In-depth Assessment on Selected Nqn-traditional^ Sources^
The highest ranking POTWs were the Linn and Polk County plants. As
with most POTWs in Iowa, data for the purpose of evaluating plant-specific
emissions was largely unavailable and most emissions were calculated with
default values as concentrations for key priority pollutants which were
also VOC. To test this assumption, it would be useful to analyze one
POTW in the state as a test case. Using a POTW in an urbanized county
with a mix of industry (such as Linn or Polk Counties) would be an appro-
priate candidate.
Based on the rankings, landfill emissions generally did not appear to
be a problem. When special waste authorizations were approved, generally
they were focused on materials which did not offer a large potential for
air toxics emissions. The one possible exception to this observation was
the Black Hawk County landfill where it is known that hazardous waste has
been deposited in past years. One of the problems that will be encoun-
tered in terms of an emissions assessment of this facility will be the
actual materials deposited. It is therefore recommended that potential
ways of investigating the landfill be considered.
4. DeveIqpment a PiLqt Rijsk As ses sment program
Perhaps the most significant unanswered question in this study was
the level of risks from the sources which ranked high as a result of the
prioritization analysis. Risk assessments therefore should be performed
to determine whether the sources or source categories identified here in
fact pose a significant risk (when compared to similar sources in other
parts of the country) or if in fact Iowa has a relatively minimal air
toxics problem.
5-2
-------
To start, a pilot risk assessment program could be based on the emis-
sions developed for high priority sources through the questionnaires iden-
tified above (Item 2). Results could be compared to similar sources as
documented.in USEPA's National Air Toxics Information Clearing House
(NATICH) or similar sources. In addition to providing a start to quanti-
tatively assessing the magnitude and nature of air toxics impacts in Iowa,
it would also provide an opportunity to develop potential approaches to be
used in permit reviews in the future. As the pilot program develops, risks
from mobile sources could also be studied.
5. Review Selected Source Categories
As mentioned above, several source categories received little em-
phasis in this study though they could pose potential problems. It is
therefore recommended that as available resources allow chrome plating,
sterilizing, and grain fumigation be investigated.
5-3
-------
REFERENCES*
American City and County, "How Hazardous are Municipal Wastes," March
1983.
Angiola, Alfred, and Eisen Paul A., "Potential Hazardous Emissions from
Waste Disposal," Paper No. 82-46.1, Proceedings of the 75th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 1982.
Anton, John, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, telephone communication,
April, 1986.
Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns — Iowa 1984, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 1985a.
Bureau of the Census, Population - Iowa 1984, Department of Commerce,
'Washington, D.C. 1985b.
Engineering-Science, "Air Toxics and Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Inventory and Program Development for the State of Idaho," Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Boise, Idaho, 1985.
Landy, Wilma, Iowa Department of Transportation, telephone communication,
April, 1986.
Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial.Classification
Manual, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1972.
Penncuck, Roger, Iowa Department of Transportation, telephone communica-
tion, April, 1986.
Perry, Robert H., ed., Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, Sixth
Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 1984.
Rusk, Hal, Iowa Department of Revenue, telephone communication, April,
1986.
Shafter, Earl, Iowa Department of Transportation, telephone communication,
. April, 1986.
* NOTE: Numerous files of the State of Iowa were reviewed. The files which
were reviewed are discussed in the main body of this report.
R-1
-------
SRI International, 1985 Directory of Chemical Producers-United States of
America, Menlo Park, Califoria, 1983.
USEPA/IERL, "Trace Metals and Stationary Conventional Combustion Sources-
Volume 1, Technical Report," EPA 600/7-80-155a, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1980.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Species Manual," Second
Edition, EPA-490/4-80-115, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
1980.
USEPA/OAQPS, draft report submitted under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3509, Work
Assignment No. 42, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1983a.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Sources and Emission of Polcyclic Organic Matter (POM)," EPA-
450/5-83-01 Ob, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1983b.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Nonindustrial Sources of Potentially Toxic Substances and
Their Applicability to Source Appointment Methods," EPA-45014-84-
003, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1984a.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Physical-Chemical Properties and Categorization of RCRA
Wastes According to Volatility," final draft report submitted in res-
ponse to EPA Contract No. 68-03-3041, Springfield, Virginia, 1984b.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating Air Emis-
sion from Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities,"
EPA 450/3-84-020, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1984c.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," AP-42, Fourth
Edition, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1985a.
USEPA/OAQPS, "Assessment of Acrylonitrile Emissions from Monsanto Muscatine,
Iowa," submitted under Contract No. 68-02-3961, Work Assignment No.
31, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1985b.
USEPA/OAQPS, "NEDS Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing,"
National Air Data Branch, Research Triangle Park, 1985c.
USEPA/OMSAPC, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors - Highway
Mobile Sources," EPA-460/3-81-005, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981.
USEPA/ORD, "Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities," EPA 600/2-85-057, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1985.
USEPA/OWWM, "Rate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Final Report - Volume 1," EPA 440/1-82-303, Washington, D.C.,
1983.
USEPA/OWWM, "Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to
Public Owned Treatment Works" (The Domestic Sewage Study), Washington,
D.C., 1986.
R-2
-------
USEPA/Region VII, "Summary: Iowa Emission Inventory Update," EPA 907/9-
84-002, Kansas City, Missouri, 1984.
USEPA/Region VII, "Field Investigations of Major VOC Sources in Linn
County, Iowa, submitted in response to EPA Contract No. 68-02-2606.
Task Order No. 15, Kansas City, Missouri, 1974.
Vedder, John, Iowa DNR, Memorandum to George Welch, 1986.
R-3
-------
APPENDIX A
SUGGESTED QUESTIONNAIRES
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A
SUGGESTED QUESTIONNAIRES
Background for Assessing Publicly Owned Treatment Works:
a Preliminary Questionnaire
TABLE A Potential Toxic Air Contaminant Use and Disposal
Information
TABLE B Use of Waste or Recycled Oils and Solvents for Fuel
SECTION 1 Non-Criteria Substance Storage Tanks and Loading Racks
SECTION 2 Processing and Manufacturing Operations Emitting Non-
Criteria Substances
SECTION 3 Surface Coating Operations Emitting Non-Criteria
Substances
SECTION 4 Solvent Degreasing Operations Emitting Non-Criteria
Substances
SECTION 5 Dry Cleaning Operations Emitting Non-Criteria Substances
SECTION 6 Graphic Arts and Printing Operations Emitting Non-Criteria
Substances
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND FOR ASSESSING PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
AND A PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are two main types of potential
sources of emissions. Within a POTW are sludge incinerators and process
sources. For incinerators, emissions depend on the composition of the
sludge and the design of the incinerator; heavy metals are the main pol-
lutants of concern. For process sources, volatile organics are the pri-
mary focus, and emissions can be determined by knowing the specific or-
ganic content and flow of the influent, the effluent, and the residual
sludge. Partitioning of organics through these streams is the key to
emissions assessment of POTW. A preliminary questionnaire to allow as-
sessment of these sources is provided here; review of this questionnaire
should be done with the help of references as available (e.g., USEPA/OWWM,
1982 and USEPA/OWWM, 1986).
A-3
-------
PUBLICLY JDWNED TREATMENT JjORKS
AIR EMISSIONS SURVEY
A. SLUDGE INCINERATORS
1. Do you have a sludge incinerator on-site?
2. If the answer is yes, answer the following questions (if there
is more than one incinerator on-site, make as many copies as
necessary)
a. Type of incinerator
b. Type of control equipemnt
c. Estimated control efficiency - TSP
- VOC
- OTHERS
d. Amount of sludge incinerated per year
(specify)
Pollutants
.CojnpjosjLtiqn
e. Sludge composition
(priority pollutants)
A-4
-------
Pollutants Composition
f. Sludge ash composition
(priority pollutants)
B. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Describe the processes at the treatment plant. Indicate whether
processes are aerated. Include any processes which biologically
degrade priority pollutants.
A-5
-------
C. COMPOSITION OF STREAMS
(priority Pollutants)
Priority
Pollutants
Influent
(Average Flow)
Effluent
(Average Flow)
Sludge
(Average Generation)
A-6
-------
TABLE A
POTENTIAL TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT USE AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION
Material
Identification
No.
.
Description
of Use .
Total Amount
Entering
Your Facility
Total Amount
Recovered or
Recycled off
site
Method of
Disposal
of Waste
Material
A-7
-------
TABLE B
USE OF WASTE OR RECYCLED
OILS AND SOLVENTS FOR FUEL
Combustion Unit
Name
*
Emission Ft.
Reference No.
from Section ,
if any
Total Amount
of Waste Oils
and Solvents
burned in unit
Average
Composition
of all
Waste Oils
or Solvents
burned in unit
Matl
ID
No.
Oil,
distillate,
etc.
Matl
ID
No.
Oil,
distillate,
etc.
Matl
ID
No.
Oil,
distillate,
etc.
%
%
%
A-8
-------
Section 1 has chree pages; it is designed for registration of storage tanks
containing non-criteria substances with capacities greater than 250 gallons and
loading facilities for liquid non-criteria substances.
1. Company Name. Company Address. Registration Number. Facility
Operating Schedule. Information for Calendar Year, Person
Completing Form. Date. List company name, mailing address,
registration number, facility operating schedule for the source
as a whole, the year the information is given using the most
recent calendar year available, name of person completing form and
date. . .
2. Reference Number. Assign an identifying number to each tank so
that questions regarding these tanks may be identifiable. If these
tanks are already registered with the SAPCB (Section E-5 Form 7)
then use the same reference numbers.
3. Tank Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page.
4. Seal Type. Use codes 2* at bottom of page.
5. Operating Pressure. This is the pressure at which the tank's
relief values are set. Note units.
6. Average Vapor Space Height. Height of the portion of the tank above
the average liquid level.
7. Color. Color of tank shell and roof.
8. Material Stored. Non-criteria substance name: toluene, benzene,
etc.
9. Tank Diameter. Inside tank diameter in feet.
10. Tank Capacity. Tank holding capacity in 10,000 gallons.
11. Maximum True Vapor Pressure. True vapor pressure of substance at
60° F if known.
12. Vapor Molecular Weight. Molecular weight of vapor if known.
13. Liouid Density. Density of liquid material stored in pounds per
gallon, if known.
14. Annual Throughput. The number of gallons of material which pass
through the tank each year.
15. Estimated Emissions. Estimate the pounds per hour of the non-
criteria which escapes from the tank due to storage, breathing,
and working losses.
16. s Person Completing Form. Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date, and registration number.
17. Reference Number. Use the same nj^mjjers as on page one of this
form to identify information for the same tank.
-------
18. Vent/Stack or Exhaust Data
a. Vent height in feet above ground level. If there is no
stack or vent as such, estimated height of emission
point and state as such. If there are two or more vents
for the same tank, list separately, giving the data for
each, using the same reference number to show they
belong to the same unit.
b. Vent Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
c. Vent Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Vent Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet per minute.
e. Vent Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees Fahrenheit.
19. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment.
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not
listed, enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection Efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have been
made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
A-10
-------
LOADING RACK'S -
1. Person Completing Form. Date. Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date, and registration number.
2. Name of Material Loaded from Rock and Reid Vapor Pressure (Summer).
Specify the name of the liquid non-criteria substance loaded from
the rack and the Reid vapor pressure of the substance under summer
conditions, if known.
3. Type of Loading. Specify type of loading method, using code 1* at
the bottom of the form.
4. Maximum Liquid Loaded Daily. Specify the maximum number of gallons
of each material that could be loaded from the rack during a work
day.
5. Bulk Temperature of Liquid Loaded. Temperature of liquid in degrees
Rankine. °R - °F + 459.69.
6. True Vapor Pressure of Liquid. Vapor pressure at bulk liquid con-
ditions.
7. Vapor Molecular Weight. Molecular weight of vapor if known.
8. Method of Vapor Recovery. Use codes 2* at the bottom of the form to
specify type of collection system used to collect vapors displaced
during filling operations. If no collection system is used, enter
code (7) indicating the vapors escape directly to the air.
9. Non-Criteria Substance(s) Emitted from Loading Operations. Specify
the non-criteria substance(s) that is (are) emitted as vapor during
the loading operation.
10. Quantity of Non-Criteria Substances Lost. Specify in pounds per
day the amount of non-criteria substances emitted to the air from
loading operations.
11. Basis of Emission Estimates. Specify the basis for arriving at
the emission estimates above, such as material balances, tests,
emission factors, etc.
A-1T
-------
SECTION I NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCE STORAGE TANKS AND LORD I NO RACKS
Company Name
1
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Days/Week • Meek a/ Year
Company Address
Information Cor Calendar
Vear 19
Person Completing Fora
Reijlstratlon Number
Date
STORAGE TANKS (LIUUIU FUELS. SOLVENTS, HYDROCARBONS, AND OTHER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS»
2 34 5 6^ 7 8 9 JO II 12
10
13
14.
15
Refer-
ence
Number
Tank
Type
(use
codes
1*1
Seal
Type
(use
codes
2M
Oper.
Pres-
sure
(note
units)
Average
Vapor
Space
Height
«t!
Color
Shell
Root
Material Stored
Tank
Diameter
(ft|
Tank
Capacl ty
(10.3 gal)
Maximum
True
Vapor
Press.
(psla)
Vapor
Mole-
cular
Height
Liquid
Density
(lb/
gal)
Annual
Thru put
(10*
gall
Esti-
mated
Emls-
alon
(Ib/hrl
STORAGE TANK TYPE CODES
I. Fixed roof
2. Floating roof (Internal or external cover)
3. Variable vapor space
4. Pressure tank
S. Underground - splash loading
6. Underground - submerged loading
7. Underground - sulinerged loading, balance
2* SEAL TYPE CODES
I. Metallic shoe, primary seal only
2. Metallic shoe, shoe mounted secondary seal
3. Metallic shoe, rim counted secondary seal
4. Liquid mounted resilient, primary seal only
5. Liquid mounted resilient, with weather shield
6. Liquid mounted resilient, rim mounted secondary seal
7. Vapor mounted resilient, primary seal only
8. Vapor mounted resilient, with weather shield
9. Vapor mounted resilient, rim mounted secondary seal
•99. ptlter (specify)
-------
Person Conpletfnj Fora
16
I Date
(Registration Number
SECTION I NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCE STORAGE TANKS MID LOWING RACKS (Cont.)
17 18 19
U)
Reference
Number
Tank Vent/Stack or Exhaust Data
Vent/
Stack
Height
(feet)
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gas
Velocity
(feet/Bin)
Exit Gas
Volume
(acfm**)
Exit Gae
Temperature
rr»
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Hodel Number
Type
(use codes
>»l
Collection
Efficiency
Design
Actual
acfm - actual cubic feet per minute
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CODES
I. Catalytic afterburner S. Vapor compressor - condenser system
2. Direct flame afterliurner 16. Refrlicrated liquid scrul>l>er
1. Vapor absorption system 99. Other (specify)
4. Vapor adsorption syst<»
-------
Person Cotapletiit] Fora
1
Date
Registration Number
SECTION I NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCE STORAGE TANKS AND LOADING RACKS (Cont.)
2 34 56 7
in
II
Name of Material
Loaded frcn Rack
and Reid Vapor
Pressure (Sunner)
Type of
Loading
(use
codea 1*)
Max I MUM
Liquid
Loaded
Dally (I01
gal/day)
Bulk
Temperature
of Liquid
Loaded I NO
True Vapor
Pressure
of
Liquid* •
IpsUI
Vapor
Molecular
Weight
tlh/lb-
nolel
Method of Vapor
Recovery
Use
(codea 2*)
Effi-
ciency
Non-Criteria
Substances
emitted frcn
Loading
Opera tlona
Quantity
of NCS
Lost
( Ib/day »
Baals of
Emission
Esti nates
LOADING TYPE CODES
I. Submerged loading of a clean cargo tank
2. Splash loading of a clean cargo tank
3. Submerged loading, normal dedicated service
4. Splash loading, normal dedicated service'
5. Submerged loading, dedicator! va|»r balance service
6. Splash loading, dedicated vapor balance service
At bulk liquid
conditions
2* VAPOR RECOVERY METHOD CODES
I. Incineration
2. Refrigerated liquid scrubber
1. Vapor balance - return syataa
4. Vapor absorption system
5. Vapor adsorption system
6. Va|or compressor - condenser system
7. None - open to air
99. Other (describe)
-------
Section 2 has four pages; each is a continuation of the information from the
page before; fill in as completely as possible listing all operations, whether
manufacturing or processing which emit non-criteria substances into the air.
1. Company Name. Company Address, Registration Number, Facility
Operating Schedule. Information for Calendar Year. Person
Completing Form. Date. List company name, mailing address,
registration number, facility operating schedule for the source
as a whole, the year for which the information is given using the
most recent calendar year available, name of person completing
form and date.
2. Reference Number. Assign an identifying number to each manufac-
turing or processing operation which has a potential for emission
of non-criteria pollutants into the air. Use the same reference
number as used in any previous submittals to the SAPCB; also use
the same number for information for the same operation on each of
the four pages of Section 2.
3. Process or Operation Name. Identify by name the processing equip-
ment section manufacturing operation for which information is
being given (coke, oven, Nylon Reactor, Acid Plant, etc.)
4. Maximum Rated Capacity. In tons per hour, list the maximum rated
capacity of the process or operation or the maximum actual
operating rate, whichever is greater.
5. Normal Feed Input. Give in pounds per hour and tons per year, the
maximum hourly and the normal annual amount of materials fed into
the process or operation listed.
6. Number of Emission Points Into the Air. The number of stacks,
vents, transfer points, etc. in the processing or operating sec-
tion described.
7. Normal Product Output. The pounds per hour and tons per year of
product or finished material which exists from the process or
operation described.
8. Person Completing Form. Date. Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date, and registration number.
9. Reference Number. Use the same numbers as on page one of this
form to identify information for the same tank.
10. Vent/Stack or Exhaust Data
a. Vent height in feet above ground level. If there is no
stack or vent as such, estimated height of emission
point and state as such. If there are two or more vents
for the same tank, list separately, giving the data for
each, using the same reference number to show they
belong to the same unit.
A-15
-------
b. Vent Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
c. Vent Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Vent Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet per minute.
e. Vent Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees Fahrenheit.
11. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment.
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not
listed, enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection Efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have been
made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
12. Person Completing Form, Date. Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date, and registration number.
13. Reference Number. Use the same reference numbers as on pages four
and five of this form to identify information for the same opera-
tion.
14. Maximum Hourly Emission Rates. List in pounds per hour the maxi-
mum hourly emission rates of each non-criteria substance emitted
from the process or operation identified by the reference number.
This is the amount of the substance actually emitted into the air,
not the amount of material collected by control equipment.
15. Basis of Emission Estimates. List the basis on which these
emission estimates are made using code 1* at the bottom of the
form.
16. Person Completing Form. Date. Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date, and registration number.
17. Reference Number. Use the same reference numbers as on pages
four, five and six of this form to identify information for the
same operation.
18. Percent of Annual Usage by Season. List the percentage of opera-
tion by each season of the year. They are divided as December -
February (Winter), March - May (Spring), June - August (Summer),
and September - November (Autumn). The normal seasonal percentage
of operation should be listed for each individual process or
operation.
19. Normal Operating Schedule. For each operation or process, list
the hours per day, days per week, and weeks per year that it
operates.
A-16
-------
SECTION 2 PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS WITTING NUN-CRITERIA SIUSTANCES
Company Name
Facility Operating Schedule
. Hours/Day Days/Week Weeks/Year
Con party Address
Information for Calendar
Year 19
Person Completing form
Re9istratlon Number
Date
Reference
Number
Process or Operation MaM
HaxUua Rated
Capacity*
tons/hour
Nonaal reed
Input
Iba/hoor
tons/year
•
Number of
£•1 ss ion
Points
into Air
V
No mat
Out[
Ibs/hour
Product
ut
tons/year
• If units other than tons are used, specify units.
-------
Person Couplet 109 Fora
8
I Date
(Registration Hunlier
SECTION 2
9
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
10
II
00
Reference
Number
Stack or Exhaust Data
Stack
Height
(feet)
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gas
Velocity
1 feet/Bin)
Exit Gas
Volume
(acfa**)
Exit Gas
Temperature
cn
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Model Number
•
Type
(use cofles
1*1
Collection
Efficiency
Design
Actual
•• acfn •* actual cubic feet per Minute
I* AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CODES
I. Settling chamber 7. Venturl scrubber
2. Cyclone 8. Hist eliminator
3. MultIcyclone 9. Electrostatic preclpitator
4. Cyclone scrubber 10. Baghouse (fabric filter)
S. Orifice scrubber II. Catalytic afterburner
I). Packed tower
14. Carbon adsorption
IS. Refrigerant condenser
16. Refrigerated liquid scrubber
99. Other (specify)
6. Medianleal scrubber
12. Direct flame afterburner
For wet scrubbers, list gallons per minute water flow and Inches water pressure drop across scrubber. If known.
-------
Person Completing For*
12
I Date
Registration lluntier
5
10
SECTION 2 MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS CHITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
13 14 15
Reference
Number
Maxlaun Hourly Emission Rates
(List Emissions of Bach Non-Criteria Substance In Pounds [
,
er Hour)
•
Basis of Enlsslon
Estimates
(use codes 1* >
EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD CODES
t. Stack teat
2. Material balance
3. Emission factor
99. Other
-------
Person Completing Fora
16
DaU
Registration Hunker
SECTION 2 MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS EHITTIHa NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
17 18 19
to
o
Reference
Nunber
% of Annual Throughput by Season
December
March
Hard)
Hay
June
August
September
Novenber
Hornal Operating Schedule
hours/day
days/week
weeks/year
•
(FOR AGENCY USB ONLY)
-------
section 3 has three pages; each is a continuation of the information
from the page before; fill in as completely as possible, listing all sur-
face coating operations and processes.
1. Company Name, Company Address, Registration Number, Facility Operating
Schedule, Information for Calendar Year, Person Completing Form, Date.
List company name, "ailing address, registration number, facility
operating schedule for the source as a whole, the year for which the
information is given, using the most recent calendar year available,
name of person completing form, and date.
2. Surface Coating Line Name, Reference Number. Identify by name the surfac
coating process operation for which information is being given (hot
airless spray, flow coating, etc.). Page 1 of this section should
contain only information pertinent to the identified coating process.
The blank page may be copied and completed for cases where more than
one coating process exists. A reference number should be assigned
to each identified coating process which has the potential to emit
non-criteria pollutants into the air.
3. Name of Coating/Thinner Used* List each different coating and
thinner used for each coating operation, including thinners. Where
possible, give identifying names and numbers.
4. Gallons/Year. Give in gallons per year the volume of all coatings
and thinners consumed for this particular coating operation in 1984.
If volumes are given in pounds per year, indicate this on the question-
naire.
5. Name and Volume Percent of Non-Criteria Substances in Coating/Thinner.
Identify the name and volume percent of each non-criteria substance
contained in each coating and thinner. In the example, Duron's Red
Paint &65-AF contains 18.07% Xylene and 51.46% Toluene. If the units
for number 4 (above) are pounds per year, give the name and weight per-
cent of each non-criteria substance contained in each ink and solvent
and indicate this on the questionnaire.
6. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
7. Reference Number. Use the reference numbers from page 1, with appro-
priate alphabetic characters to identify the correspondence of stacks/
vents to each coating process, in the example, Reference Numbers
1A and 1B are assigned to the two stacks associated with the
conventional spray coating process identified by Reference Number 1 on
page 1 .
8. Stack or Exhaust Data.
a. Stack Height in feet above ground 'level. If there is no
stack or vent as such, estimated height of emission point and
state as such. If there are two or more stacks for the same
coating process, list separately, giving the data for each,
A-21
-------
using the reference numbers from page 1 with appropriate alpha-
betic character to show they belong to the same unit.
b. Stack Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
c.. Stack Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Stack Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet
per minute.
e. Stack Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees
Fahrenheit.
9. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not listed,
enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have
been made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
10. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
11 . Reference N""her. Use the reference number from page 1 to identify
which emissions result from which processes.
12. Maximum Hourly Emission Rates. Identify each of the 61 non-criteria
substances emitted from your facility by labeling each column with an
appropriate substance. Copies of the page may be made and completed
for cases where additional columns are necessary. List in pounds per
hour the maximum hourly emission rates of each non-criteria substance
emitted from the coating process identified by the reference number.
This is the amount of substance actually emitted into the air, not the
amount of material collected by control equipment.
13. Basis of Emission Estimates. Use codes 1 * at bottom of page. if
basis not listed, enter (99) and specify basis.
A-22
-------
SECTION 3 SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS BUTTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
Company Name
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Days/Week Weeks/Year
Company Address
Information Cor Calendar
Year 19
Person Completing Fora
Registration Number
Date
r
to
OJ
2 SURFACE COATING LINE HAHE
REFERENCE NUMBER
34 D .
Coating/Thinner Used in 1984
Name
gal/yr
List Name and Volume % of each Non-Criteria Substance in Coating/Thinner
Xylene
Toluene
-------
SECTION ) SUBrACE COM 11C OPERATIONS WITTING NOH-CPITERIA SUIISTAI4CCS
Company Name
Facility Operation Schedule
Hours/Day Days/Week Weeks/Year
Company Adrlreas
Information for Calendar
Vear 19
Per* on Camplatlnq Form
Registration Number
Date
2 SURFACE COATING LINE MAKE D1P
REFERENCE NUMBER
145
Coating/Thinner Used In 1964
Name
gal/yr
List Name and Volume % of each Non-Criteria Substance In Coatlnq/Th Inner
Xy1erm
Tnl imrm
J
-------
SECTION 3 SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cont.)
7 8
10
in
Reference
Number
Stack or Exhaust Data
Stack
Height
(feet!
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gaa
Velocity
(feet/din)
Exit Caa
Volume
(acfn**)
Exit Can
Temperature
(•ri
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Model Number
Type
(use codes
1*1
Collection
Efficiency
Design
Actual
•' acfm - actual cubic feet per minute
I* AIR POLLUTION CONTHOL EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CODES
I. Catalytic afterburner
2. Direct flame afterburner
3. Packed tower
4. Carbon adsorption
S. Refrigerant condenser
6. Refrlgerated liquid scrubber
99. Other (specify)
-------
10
SECTION 3 SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cant.)
11 12
13
Reference
Number
Max i HUB Hourly Emission Rates
(Liat Emissions of Each Non-Criteria Subatance in Pounds [
Xylene
Toluene
'
Benzene
>er Hour)
•
Baals of Emission
Estimates
fuse codes !•)
I* EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD COOKS
I. Stack test
2. Material balance
3. Emission factor
99. Other
-------
Section 4 has three pages; each is a continuation of the information
from the page before; fill in as completely as possible, listing all de-
greasing operations.
1 . Company Name, Company Address, Registration Number, Facility Operating
Schedule, Information for Calendar Year, Person Completing Form, Date.
List company name, mailing address, registration number, facility
operating schedule for the source as a whole, the year for which the
information is given, using the most recent calendar year available,
name of person completing form, and date.
2. Solvent Degreasing Operation Name, Reference Number. Identify by
name the solvent degreasing operation for which information is being
given (cold cleaner, open top vapor degreaser). Page 1 of this
section .should contain only information pertinent to the identified
degreasing operation. The blank page may be copied and completed
for cases where more than one degreasing operation exists. A reference
number should be assigned to each identified degreasing operation
which has the potential to emit non-criteria pollutants into the air.
3. Name of Solvent Degreaser Used, List each different solvent
used for each degreasing operation, including cleanup solvents.
Where possible, give identifying names and numbers.
4. Gallons /Year. Give in gallons per year the volume of all degreasing sol-
vents consumed for this particular degreasing operation in 1984. If
volumes are given in pounds per year, indicate this on the questionnaire.
5. Name and Volume Percent of Non-Criteria Substances in Degreaser.
Identify the name and volume percent of each non-criteria substance
contained in each degreaser. In the example, varsol contains 5.00%
Benzene, if the units for numer 4 (above) are pounds per year, give the
name and weight percent of each non-criteria substance contained in each
ink and solvent and indicate this on the questionnaire.
6. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
7. Reference Number. Use the reference numbers from page 1, with appro-
priate alphabetic characters to identify the correspondence of stacks/
vents to each degreasing process, in the example, Reference Numbers
1A and 1B are assigned to the two stacks associated wi-th the
cold cleaner degreasing operation identified by Reference Number 1 on
page 1 .
8. Stack or Exhaust Data.
a. Stack Height in feet above ground level. If there is no
stack or vent as such, estimated height of emission point and
state as such, if there are two or more stacks for the same
degreasing operation, list separately, giving the data for each,
using the reference numbers from page 1 with appropriate alpha-
betic character to show they belong to the same unit.
A-27
-------
b. Stack Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
c. Stack Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Stack Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet
per minute.
e. Stack Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees
Fahrenheit.
9. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not listed,
enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control' that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have
been made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
10. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
11 . Reference Number. Use the reference number from page 1 to identify
which emissions result from which processes.
12. Maximum Hourly Emission Rates. Identify each of the 61 non-criteria
substances emitted from your facility by labeling each column with an
appropriate substance. Copies of the page may be made and completed
for cases where additional columns are necessary. List in pounds per
hour the maximum hourly emission rates of each non-criteria substance
emitted from the degreasing operation identified by the reference
number. This is the amount of substance actually emitted into the air,
not the amount of material collected by control equipment.
13. Basis of Emission Estimates. Use codes 1* at bottom of page, if
basis not listed, enter (99) and specify basis.
A-28
-------
SECTION 4 SOLVENT DECREASING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-C.RITEHI A SIJUSTANCES
to
VO
Company Name
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Day a /Week Weeks/Year
Con party Addreae
Information for Calendar
Year 19
Person Completing Fora
Registration Number
Date
2 SOLVENT DECREASING OPERATION NAME
3 4
REFERENCE NUMBER
Solvent Degreaeer Uaed In 1984
Na«e
•
gal/yr
Llat Mane and Volume % of aach Non-Criteria Substance in Deqreaser
Benzene
CFC 113
•
Trichloroe
-
:hylene
-------
Person Completing For*
Date
Registration Number
SECTION 4 SOLVENT DECREASING OPERATIONS EMITTIKG NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cont.)
7 fl
Reference
Number
Stack or Exhauat Data
Stack
Height
(feet)
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gas
Velocity
(feet/Bin)
Exit Gas
Volume
(acfm")
Exit Gas
Temperature
CF»
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Model Number
•
Type
(use codes
IM
Collection
Efficiency
Design
Actual
acfoi - actual cubic feet per minute
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BQIIIPHF.NT IDENTIFICATION CODES
I. Catalytic afterburner
2. Direct flame afterburner
3. Packed tower
4. Carbon adsorption
5. Refrigerant condenser
6. Refrigerate! liquid Rcmhlior
99. Other (s|>ecify>
-------
10
SECTION 4 SOLVENT DECREASING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cont.)
11 12
13
10
Reference
Number
.
HaxlMUM Hourly Emission Ratea
(Llet Emissions of Each Non-Criteria Substance in Pounds f
Trichlorc
ethylene
Benzene
Freon 113
•
•
ter Hour)
Baa la of Emission
Estimates
(use codes 1* )
EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD CODES
I . Stack test
2. Material balance
3. Emiualon factor
99. Other
-------
Section 5 has three pages; each is a continuation of the information
from the page before; fill in as completely as possible, listing all dry
cleaning operations.
1. Company Name, Company Address, Registration Number, Facility Operating
Schedule, Information for Calendar Year, Person Completing Form, Date.
List company name, mailing address, registration number, facility
operating schedule for the source as a whole, the year for which the
information is given, using the most recent calendar year available,
name of person completing form, and date.
2. Dry Cleaning Facility Name, Reference Number. Identify by name the dry
cleaning facility for which information is being given (transfer,
dry-to-dry). Page 1 of this section should contain only information
pertinent to the identified dry cleaning facility. The blank page
may be copied and completed for cases where more than one dry cleaning
facility exists. A .reference number should be assigned to each
identified dry cleaning facility which has the potential to emit
non-criteria pollutants into the air.
3. Name of Dry Cleaning Solvents Dsed« List each different solvent
used at each dry cleaning facility. Where possible, give identifying
names and numbers.
4. Gallons /Year. Give in gallons per year the volume of all dry cleaning
solvents consumed at this particular dry cleaning facility in 1984.
If volumes are given in pounds per year, indicate this on the question-
naire.
5. Name and Volume Percent of Non-Criteria Substances in Dry Cleaning Sol-
vent. Identify the name and volume percent of each non-criteria substanc
contained in each dry cleaning solvent, in the example, Reference Number
2 uses Dupoht Preon 113 which contains 100% CPC 113. If the units for m;
ber 4 (above) are in pounds per year, give the name and weight percent of
each non-criteria substance contained in each ink and solvent and indicat
this on the questionnaire.
6. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
7. Reference Number. Ose the reference numbers from page 1, with appro-
priate alphabetic characters to identify the correspondence of stacks/
vents to each dry cleaning facility. In the example, reference numbers
2A and 2B are assigned to the two stacks associated with the dry-to-dry
dry cleaning facility identified by reference number 2 on page 1.
8. Stack or Exhaust Data.
a. Stack Height in feet above ground level. If there is no
stack or vent as such, estimated height of emission point and
state as such. If there are two or more stacks for the same
dry cleaning facility, list separately, giving the data for each,
using the reference numbers from page 1 with appropriate alpha-
betic character to show they belong to the same unit.
A-32
-------
b. Stack Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
•
c. Stack Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Stack Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet
per minute.
e. Stack Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees
Fahrenheit.
9. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not listed,
enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have
been made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
10. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name .of person
completing form, date and registration number.
11. Reference Number. Use the reference number from page 1 to identify
which emissions result from which facilities.
12. Maximum Hourly Emission Rates. Identify each of the 61 non-criteria
substance emitted from your facility by labeling each column with an
appropriate substance. Copies of the page may be made and completed
for cases where additional columns are necessary. List in pounds per
hour the maximum hourly emission rates of each non-criteria substance
emitted from the dry cleaning facility identified by the reference
number. This is the amount of substance actually emitted into the
air, not the amount of material collected by control equipment.
13. Basis of Emission Estimates. Use codes 1 * at bottom of page. If
* basis not listed, enter (99) and specify basis.
A-33
-------
SECTION 5 CRY CLEANING OPERATIONS fM ITT I IK »in|l-CRITKBIA SUMSTAHCKS
Company Name
1
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Days /week Weeks/year
Company A'Mress foiji s irai ion llumlior
Information for Calen.lar Person Completing Form ti.ite
Year 19
2 DRY GLEAMING FACILITY NAME REFERENCE NUMBER
3
4 5
Dry Cleaning Solvents Used In 1984
Nane
.
^ai/yr
List Nane and Volume % of each Non-Criteria Substance in Dry Cleaning Solvent
cvc. in
-------
Person Cample 1 1 mj
Fona
Date
Registration Number
SECTION S • DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cont.)
7 8
CJ
Ul
Reference
Number
Stack or Exhaust Data
Stack
Hel9ht
(feet)
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gaa
Velocity
1 feet/din)
Exit Gas
Volume
lacfm")
Exit Gas
Temperature
(T)
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Model Number
Type
(uiie codna
1*)
Collection
Efficiency
Design
Actual
acfm » actual cubic feet per minute
AIR POLLUTION COHTHOL-EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CIJIJE.S
I. Catalytic afterburner
2. Direct flame afterburner
). Packed tower
4. Carbon adsorption
5. Refrigerant condenser
6. Refrlgeratal liquid scrubber
99. Other (specify)
-------
SECTION 5 DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS SHITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
>
en
Company Name
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Days /Week Weeks/ Year
Company Address
Information for Calendar
Vear 19
Person Completing Form
Registration Number
Date
2 DRY CLEANING FACILITY NAME
REFERENCE NUMBER
3 4 .5
Dry Cleaning Solvents Used In 1984
Mama
gal/yr
List Name and Volume % of each Non-Criteria Substance In Dry Cleaning Solvent
Pe r nh 1 r»rr»i
tihvlenf*
•
-------
10
SECTION 5 DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (Cont.)
Person Couple ting
Form
Date
Registration Number
LO
-J
Reference
Number
Haxlnun Hourly Emission Rates
(List Emission* of Each Non-Criteria Substance In Pounds [
-
Perchlor
iethylene
•
•
er Hour)
Basis of Emission
Estimates
(use codes 1 • )
I* EMISSION ESTIMATION HCTIIOU CODES
I. Stack test
2. Material balance
3. Emission factor
9S. Other
-------
Section 6 has three pages; each is a continuation of the information
from the page before; fill in as completely as possible, listing all
printing operations and processes.
1. Company Name, Company Address, Registration Number, Facility Operating
Schedule, Information for Calendar Year, Person Completing Form, Date.
List company name, mailing address, registration number, facility
operating schedule for the source as a whole, the year for which the
information is given, using the most recent calendar year available,
name of person completing form, and date.
2. Printing Process Name, Reference Number. Identify by name the print-
ing process operation for which information is being given (rotogra-
vure, web offset lithography, etc.). Page 1 of this section should
contain only information pertinent to the identified printing process.
The blank page may be copied and completed for cases where more than
one printing process exists. A reference number should be assigned
to each identified printing process which has the potential to emit
non-criteria pollutants into the air.
3. Name of Solvent/Ink Used. - List each different ink and solvent
used for each printing operation, including thinners and cleanup sol-
vents. Where possible, give identifying names and numbers.
4. Gallons/Year. Give in gallons per year the volume of all inks and
solvents consumed for this particular printing operation in 1984. If
volumes are given in pounds per year, indicate this on the questionnaire,
5. Name and Volume Percent of Non-Criteria substances in Solvent/Ink.
Identify the name and volume percent of each non-criteria substance
contained in each ink and solvent, in the example, Johnson's Black
Ink #4237 contains 25.55 volume % toluene, and 35.19 volume % Xylene.
If the units for number 4 (above) are pounds per year, give name and
weight percent of each non-criteria substance contained in each ink
and solvent and indicate this on the questionnaire.
6. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
7. Reference Number. Use the reference numbers from page 1, with appro-
priate alphabetic characters to identify the correspondence of stacks/
• vents to each printing process. In the example, Reference Numbers
1A, 1B and 1C are assigned to the three stacks associated with the
rotogravure printing process identified by Reference Number 1 on
page 1 .
8. Stack or Exhaust Data.
a. Stack Height in feet above ground level, if there is no stack
or vent as such* estimated height of emission point and state as
such. If there are two or more stacks for the same printing
A-38
-------
process, list separately, giving the- data for each, using the
reference numbers from page 1 with appropriate alphabetic character
to show they belong to the same unit.
b. Stack Inside Exit Diameter in feet.
c. Stack Exit Velocity in feet per minute.
d. Stack Gas Exit Volume in actual cubic feet
per minute.
e. Stack Gas Temperature of Exit in degrees
Fahrenhei t.
9. Air Pollution Control Equipment
a. Manufacturer and Model Number. Nameplate data from
control equipment
b. Type. Use codes 1* at bottom of page. If type not listed,
enter (99) and specify type.
c. Collection efficiency. List the efficiency in percent
control that the equipment was designed to control.
Also, list the actual percent control if tests have
been made to determine the efficiency.
For control measures which are unconventional, note this as such.
10. Person Completing Form, Date, Registration Number. Name of person
completing form, date and registration number.
11 . Reference Number. Use the reference number from page 1 to identify
which emissions result from which processes.
12. Maximum Hourly Emission Rates. Identify each of the 61 non-criteria
substance emitted from your facility by labeling each column with an
appropriate substance. Copies of the page may be made and completed
for cases where additional columns are necessary. List in pounds per
hour the maximum hourly emission rates of each non-criteria substance
emitted into the air, not the amount of material collected by control
equipment.
13. Basis of Emission Estimates. Use codes 1 * at bottom of page. if
basis not listed, enter (99) and specify basis.
A-39
-------
SECTION 6 GRAPHIC ARTS AND PRINTING OPERATIONS EMITTING NON-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES
Company Name
Facility Operating Schedule
Hours/Day Days/Meek Weeks/year
Company Address
Information for Calendar
year 19
Person Completing Porn
Registration llumbar
Date
2 PRINTING PROCESS NAME
REFERENCE NUMBER
r
34 5
Solvent/Ink Used In I9B4
Name
gal/yr
List Name and Volume % of each Non-Criteria Substance In Solvent/Ink
Toluene
-
Xylene
Benzene
•
-------
Per son C»ui|i!atln<; Fora
jidM
)l sir-it I on Itiimlw.-r
SECTION 6 GRAPHIC ARTS AND PRINTING OPERATIONS EMITTING IIOH-CRITERIA SUBSTANCES (font.)
7 8
Reference
Number
Stack or Exhaust Data
Stack
Hei9ht
(feet)
Inside
Exit
Diameter
(feet)
Exit Gaa
Ve loci ty
(feet/Bin)
Exit Gas
Volume
(acfn**)
Exit Gaa
Temperature
IT)
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Manufacturer and Model Number
Typo
(use codes
l»)
Collection
Efficiency
Uesiqn
Actual
•• acfn » actual cubic feet per minute
I* AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CODES
I. Catalytic afterburner
2. Direct flame afterburner
3. Packed tower
4. Carbon adsorption
5. Refrigerant condenser
6. Refrigerated liquid scrubber
99. Other (specify)
-------
Person Co»|>lotln
-------
APPENDIX B
FACILITY SUMMARIES
-------
-------
S2 = QUP (summed for all pollutants)
Where: Q for benzene is 2,000 pounds
Q for methylene chloride is 20,000 pounds
U for benzene is 15
U for methylene chloride is 4.1
P for Des Moines (Polk County) is 303,170
(h1)2 is (1.2H1.2) = 1.44
Therefore S2 = ((2,000)(15) + (20,000)(4.1))(311,600)
1.44
= 2.4 x 1010
Several observations may be made about these summaries. First, there
are numerous potential air toxics facilities in Iowa which manufacture
machinery (especially SICs 3523 and 3531). Many of these facilities can
be expected to have degreasing, but in many instances degreasing is undo-
cumented if indeed it does exist. Second, there are many miscellaneous
plastics processing and manufacturing plants (SIC-3079), most of which are
not in Iowa's EIS. Emissions from these plants vary with the processes in-
cluded, and may in fact be quite small. The limited sources in EIS gener-
ally reflect surface coating solvents, and other pollutants such as styrene
(e.g. Cedar Manufacturing in Cedar Rapids) could be emitted as well.
Concentrations of air toxics sources in Iowa are rather limited ex-
cept for Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and several cities along, the Mississippi
River (e.g., Clinton/Camanche, Ft. Madison, Muscatine, and Quad Cities).
For example, Clinton appears to have a concentration of plastics processing
plants, while several 111(d) facilities (sulfuric acid and fluorides) are
located in Ft. Madison. Major surface coating operations are located in
Waterloo, Des Moines, and several other cities.
Foundries and other metals operations exist throughout Iowa, and es-
pecially seem to be concentrated in Keokuk. Such operations can be sources
of many trace metals, including manganese. Based on emission factors of
0.003 Ib Mn per ton of metal charged for cupolas, one of the most signifi-
cant facilities appears to be Griffin Pipe in Council Bluffs. Alloy Metal
Products and Alcoa, both in Scott County can be expected to be metals
sources as well.
Coal-fired power plants can also be expected to be the source of trace
metals, including such elements as cadmium, beryllium, arsenic, and chromium.
Two of the most significant within Iowa are the George Neal Station in Salix
and the Ottumwa station of Iowa Southern Utilities. In both cases, over
2,000,000 tons of coal per year were burned (1984). The metal emissions
shown in the summaries reflect this fuel use, as do the reported PlCs
emissions.
B-3
-------
Finally, there appear to be at least three municipal sludge inciner-
ators in Iowa which could be the subject of further investigation. These
incinerators are located at:
* Cedar Rapids Water Pollution Control Facility
* Davenport Water Pollution Control Plant
* Dubuque Sewage Treatment Plant
All three plants are currently in EIS. As there may be a large range of
heavy metals in sludge to be incinerated (e.g. an order magnitude for
many metals), no emissions were estimated for these plants. To evaluate
each of the plants, an assessment of each plant's sludge would have to
be performed first.
A key to county codes is provided as page B-28.
B-4
-------
0180 Union Carbide, Centerville
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2879 and 3079 (plastic bags and other food casing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 68 tons
Xylene: 47 tons
Methy_l__eth_ylL ketone; 1 2^2 tons
0340 0080 John Deere Component Works, Waterloo
FACILITY ID - IAD005289806
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Farm machinery manufacturing (including an
epoxy coating system and degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Benzene, asbestos, trichloroethylene
TSDF DATA - Significant waste handling; no handling codes
EMISSIONS - Trichloroethylene: 3 tons
Xylene: 3.6 tons
Toluene: 8.8 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 1.7 tons
h' = 2
h" = 1.56
0340 0083 John Deere Engine Works, Waterloo
FACILITY ID - IAD000671404
SIC - 3519
EIS/PS - Diesel engine production (including paint booths)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Toluene, mineral spirits
TSDF DATA - Primarily container storage
EMISSIONS - Xylene: 7.8 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 1.2 tons
Toluene: 6.6 tons
h' = N/A
h" = 1 .64
0340 0084 John Deere Tractor Works, Waterloo
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Tractor production (including spray booths)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Antimony, cadmium, chlorobenzene,
chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, nickel, phenol, PCBs, toluene
TSDF DATA - Substantial wastes, primarily container storage
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 5.1 tons
Toluene: 288 tons
Xylene: 116 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone; 54 tons
B-5
-------
0340 0155 Waterloo Industries, Waterloo
FACILITY ID - IAD005277959
SIC - 3499 (EIS/PS); also 2599, 3444, and 3469
EIS/PS - Cabinet production (including paint, spray booths,
and baking ovens)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 79 tons
Xylene: 32 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 15 tons
h1 = N/A
h" = 1.12
0340 Clay Equipment, Cedar Falls
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (Farm equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.06 tons
Toluene: 4.3 tons
Xylene: 1.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.8 tons
Tjcj^cjiloroethylene; 2.6 tons
0340 Control-O-Fax, Waterloo
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 36 tons
Xylene: 25 tons
Me thy 1 e thy 1 kejtqnej 65 jtpA3
0340 Black Hawk County Landfill
FACILITY ID - IAD075848085
THROUGHPUT - 477 tons/day
TYPE OF DISPOSAL - Co-disposal (historically)
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 16.4 tons
Xylene: 4.3 tons
Perchloroe thylene*.: 34^. 1 tons
0340 Waterloo POTW
THROUGHPUT - 17 mgd
PLANT-SPECIFIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS - N/A
B-6
-------
EMISSIONS (over 1 ton) - Chloroform: 5.3 tons
Ethyl benzene: 2.6 tons
Toluene: 7.0 tons
Xylene; 4.6 tons^
0420 Koehring Crane and Excavator, Waverly
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3531 (excavator and crane manufacturing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.27 tons
Toluene: 94 tons
Xylene: 38 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 18 tons
Trichloroethylene: 1.3 tons
Methyl chloroform; _0,»_6_6_ tons
0680 0035 Lehigh Portland Cement, Mason City
FACILITY ID - IAP00000002
SIC - 3241
EIS/PS - Cement production
POLLUTANTS LISTED: N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Nickel: 0.05 tons
Manganese: 0.03 tons
Chromium; 0.007 tons
0680 0060 Northwestern States Portland Cement, Mason City
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3241
EIS/PS - Cement production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Chromium: 0.005 tons
Manganese: 0.02 tons
Nickel; 0.04 tons
0680 David Manufacturing, Mason City
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (produces grain stirring machinery and parts)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.06 tons
Toluene: 4.3 tons
Xylene: 1.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.8 tons
Trichloroethylene: 26 tons
B-7
-------
0940 0020 Chemplex, Clinton
0940
FACILITY ID - IAD045372836
SIC - 2821
EIS/PS - Polyethylene production and plastic resins
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Asbestos, benzene, acetonitrile, chloroform
TSDF DATA - Numerous wastes (chloroform, trichlorofluorometh-
ane, methanol, etc.) stored in containers.
EMISSIONS - Neglible amounts of emissions occur as a result of
waste handling. Depending on the uses of the ma-
terials listed, other air toxics emissions may also'
occur; polyethylene production results primarily
in emissions of monomer.
h1 =
h" =
0940 0065 Hawkeye Chemical, Camanche
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2873
EIS/PS - Primarily ammonium nitrate production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Formaldehyde, nickel
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - This facility may be a formaldehyde source if it
is involved in the production of solid urea and
ureaform fertilizers. Available information im-
pl_i_e_s__th_at_ it is not involved in these^ oj>era/tions,
0940 0075 Interstate Power, Clinton
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 4911
EIS/PS - Electric power generation (including coal-fired
boilers)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS
h1
h"
= 9.8
= 9.8
- Cadmium: 0.048 tons
Beryllium: 0.38 tons
Arsenic: 0.095 tons
Chromium: 0.27 tons
PIC's: 0.099 tons
DuPont, Camanche
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079
EIS/PS - Film and cellophane manufacturing
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 53 tons
Xylene: 37 tons
•_Methylethylketone: 113 tons
B-8
-------
0940 Carlon, Clinton
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic fittings and electric conduits)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 45 tons
Xylene: 31 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 80 tons
0940
Custom Pak, Clinton
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic carrying cases and other miscellaneous
products)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 29 tons
Xylene: 20 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 52 tons
1140 0023 Prestolite Battery, Manchester
FACILITY ID - IAD069619765
SIC - 3691
EIS/PS - Battery manufacturing (no degreasing indicated)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Arsenic, lead, methylene chloride
TSDF DATA - Primarily container storage
EMISSIONS _^__(Other than lead) — Manganese; __2.2 tons
1200 Freeman Resins, Burlington (H.H. Robertson)
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2821 (resins, urethane prepolymers, and highway
expansion joint fillers)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.2 tons
Toluene: 0.03 tons
Chlorobenzene: 0.6 tons
Ajc_ryJ^qni_trjLl_e_! E\_,,8 tons
1280 0065 John Deere, Dubuque
FACILITY ID - IAD005269527
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Farm machinery (including degreasing and paint booths)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Antimony, chlorobenzene, fluorides, tri-
chloroethylene, methylchloroform, formal-
dehyde, PCBs, toluene, asbestos, xylenes,
B-9
-------
lead, radionuclides, manganese, methyl
chloroform, methylene chloride, perchlo-
roethylene, phenol
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Trichloroethylene: 22 tons
Methlyl chloroform: 12 tons
Toluene: 150 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 28 tons
Xylene: 60 tons
h' = 1.28
h" = 1.40
1280 0105 Koch Sulfur Products (U.S. Industrial Chemicals), Dubuque
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2819
EIS/PS - Sulfuric acid production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Asbestos
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Sulfuric acid: 0.6 tons
h" = 3.6
1280 Regency Thermographers, Dubuque
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2752 (Commercial printing and thermography)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 18 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 2.4 tons
Me thylene chloride; 3.4 tons
1480 0050 White Farm Equipment, Charles City
FACILITY ID - IAD06521734
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Farm machinery (including paint booths and some
degreasing without throughputs)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Radionuclides
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 5.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 1.0 tons
Xylene: 2 tons
h1 = N/A
h" = 1.40
B-10
-------
1560 Sukup Manufacturing, Sheffield
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (agricultural heaters and handling equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 3.7 tons
Xylene : 1.4 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.6 tons
_ Trichlqrqe thylene ; 2.3
1660 Norwesco Industries, Grundy Center
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (molded plastic parts)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 18 tons
Xylene : 1 3 tons
_ Methyl ethyl kejtqnej ___ 33 tons ' _
1660 Ritchies Industries, Conrad .
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (valves, space heaters, and miscellaneous products)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.08 tons
Toluene: 5.3 tons
Xylene: 2 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.9 tons
_ Trichlorqe thy jlene ; 32 ,tqns _
1980 Kinze Manufacturing, Williamsburg
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (seed planters)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.08 tons
Toluene: 5.3 tons
Xylene: 2 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.9 tons
_ Trichloroethylene: 32 tons
B-11
-------
2060 0050 Maytag Co., Newton
FACILTY ID - IAT200010585
SIC - 3633
EIS/PS - Appliance manufacture (spray booths, dipping
and painting tanks, but no documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Methyl chloroform, antimony, bromine,
cadmium, fluorine, manganese, trichloro-
ethylene, and other organic materials
TSDF DATA - Substantial tank storage of characteristic
waste (D002)
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 4000 tons
Xylene: 1620 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 756 tons
h' =1.6
h" = 1 .6 '_ •
2060 Vernon Co., Newton
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2752 (signs, calendars, and advertising materials)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 63 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0*9 tons
Trichloroethylene; __32_ tons
2120 0125 H.P. Smith Paper Co., Iowa City
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2621
EIS/PS - Paper production (including coating operations)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - Primarily container storage of non-halogenated
solvent wastes
EMISSIONS - Diethylbenzene: 19 tons
Ethylbenzene: 17 tons
Methyl _ethy_l_ ketone_;28tons
2120 Sheller Globe, Iowa City
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (automotive foam and padded and plastisol safety
products)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 217 tons
Xylene: 151 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 389 tons
B-12
-------
2240 0015 Agrico Chemical, Ft. Madison
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2873
EIS/PS - Sulfuric acid production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Sulfuric acid: 16.8 tons
Fluorides : 1.2 tons
h1 = N/A
_ h" = 6 _ _________ _
2240 0030 Chevron Chemical Division (Ortho), Ft. Madison
FACILITY ID - IAD005173992
SIC - 2873
EIS/PS - Phosphate fertilizer production (ammonia and nitro-
gen based)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - Primarily container storage of P039
EMISSIONS - The Directory of Chemical Producers indicates
that this facility produces urea. As such, it
would probably be a source of formaldehyde;
insufficient information is available for the
calculation of formaldehyde emissions.
_ Fluorides;' Q.?4_jtp_ns _ ____ _
2240 0102 Climax Molybdenum,' Ft. Madison
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2819
EIS/PS - Sulfuric acid, tungsten, and ammonia compounds
production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - NA
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - As a sulfuric acid producer, this facility is
presumably a sulfuric acid source. However,
there was insufficient information to calculate
emissions. It is not now apparently regulated
2280 0055 Cherry Burrell, Cedar Rapids
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3999
EIS/PS - Food equipment manufacture (including paint booth
and degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Trichloroethylene
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Xylene: 1 ton
Trichloroethylene: 3 tons
h' = 1
h" = 1.32
B-13
-------
2280 0061 Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids*
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3679
EIS/PS - Electronic equipment (including numerous spray booths,
but no documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 1.5 tons
Xylene: 5.4 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 3.5 tons
Methylene chloride: 75 tons
Trichloroethylene: 55 tons
h' = 1
h" = 2.1
*Emissions determined in part from Linn County inspection
report (USEPA/^Region VII, 1979).
2280 0081 FMC Corporation, Cedar Rapids*
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Machinery production
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Perchloroethylene: 1.3 tons
Toluene: 12 tons
Xylene: 8 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 21 tons
h1 = 1
h" = 1
*Emissions determined in part from Linn County inspection
repor t (USEPA Region VII, j.979) .
2280 0095 Cryovac (W.R. Grace), Cedar Rapids
FACILITY ID - IAD022017112
SIC - 3079
EIS/PS - Printing presses for plastics
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Diethylbenzene: 6.9 tons
Methanol: 6 tons
Ethylbenzene: 6 tons
h'= 1.04
h"= 1.04
2280 0130 Iowa Manufacturing, Cedar Rapids
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Road equipment manufacturing (including paint booth)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 23 tons
Xylene: 2.4 tons
h1 = 1
B-14
-------
2280 0155 Rockwell Graphic Systems Division, Cedar Rapids
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3861
EIS/PS - Paint shops and printing presses
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Xylene: 5.2 tons
Toluene: 5.2 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 13.2 tons
Perchloroethylene: 13.2 tons
Methyl isobutyl ketone: 6.6 tons
h'= 1
h"= 1
2280 0200 Quaker Oats, Cedar Rapids
NOTE - Quaker Oats' air toxics emissions are primarily furfural for which
there is insuf fi^cient health-rela^ted infformation.
2280 0230 Square D, Cedar Rapids
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - N/A
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Trichloroethylene: 19 tons
Xylene; 14 tons
2280 Cedar Manufacturing, Cedar Rapids*
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3261 (laminated plastic tub and shower enclosures)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Styrene: 30 tons
*Emissions taken from Linn County inspection report (USEPA/
Region VII, 1979) .
2280 Fischer Printers, Cedar Rapids
FACILTY ID - N/A
SIC - 2752 (printing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 20 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 2.0 tons
Methylene^ cjiloride; 3,8__tqns
B-15
-------
2280 Universal Hammermill
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (rubbish and automobile shredders)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.13 tons
Toluene: 8.8 tons
Xylene: 3.3 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 1.6 tons
Trichloroethylene; 54 tons
2280 Cedar Rapids POTW
THROUGHOUT - 35 mgd
PLANT-SPECIFIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS - N/A '
EMISSIONS (over 1 ton) - Chloroform: 10.9 tons
Ethyl benzene: 5.3 tons
Toluene: 14.5 tons
Trichloroethylene: 1.1 tons
Xylene; 94 tons
2380 International Material Handling Equipment, University Park
FACILTY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (aggregate material handling equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 3.7 tons
Xylene: 1.4 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.6 tons
Tjr ichloroe thylene^; 23 tons
2460 Vermeer, Pella
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3531 (treemovers, stump cutters, and other equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.3 tons
Toluene: 108 tons
Xylene: 44 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 21 tons
Tjc^cjiloroethylenej 1.5 tons
B-16
-------
2480 0135 Marshalltown Trowel
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3423
EIS/PS - Trowels and other hand tools (including degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - Primarily container storage
EMISSIONS - Trichloroethylene: 150 tons
h'= 1
2740 0036 North Star Steel, Wilton
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3312
EIS/PS - Steel making
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - There is insufficient information to calculate
emissions. However, it is known that North
Star Steel has an electric arc furnace which
can be expected to produce emissions of both
chromium and manganese.
2740 0045 Monsanto, Muscatine
FACILITY ID - IAD005273594
SIC - 2821
EIS/PS - Production of ABS resins
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Acetylchloride, chlorobenzene, ethyl-
dichloride, styrene, cicrylonitrile,
butadiene, formaldehyde
TSDF DATA - Substantial container storage and incineration of
characteristic waste (over 2,000,000 kg)
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 9.3 tons
1.3 tons
16.3 tons
429 tons
Toluene:
Chlorobenzene:
Acrylonitrile:
h1 =
h" =
1.8
2.0
NOTE - Acrylonitrile estimate is taken from the 1985 USEPA inspection
report.
2740
Letica, Muscatine
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic industrial shipping containers)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 21 tons
Xylene: 15 tons
ethyl ketone; 37 tons
B-17
-------
2740 Thatcher Plastic Packaging, Muscatine
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic injection molding and squeeze tubes)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 81 tons
Xylene: 56 tons
_ Methyl ethyl ketone; 145 tons _
3120 0010 American Can, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - IAD00181327
SIC - 3079
EIS/PS - Plastics production (including extruders, printing
presses, and lamina tors)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Toluene
TSDF DATA - Container storage of non-halogenated solvents
EMISSIONS - American Can does not appear to be producing poly
merized plastics, but rather printing on plastic
which is supplied to them.
Toluene: 63 tons
Xylene: 44 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 113 tons
3120 0250 Firestone Tire and Rubber, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - IAD07 3494296
SIC - 3011
EIS/PS - Pneumatic tire manufacturing (including green tire
spraying with both water-based and solvent-based
coatings, cementing operations, and incinerator of
class "0" rubber oil
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - Less than 1 ton of container storage of halogenated
solvents; other storage is of characteristic waste
3.4 tons
1.4 tons
EMISSIONS - Benzene:
Toluene:
h'= 1.08
h"= 1 .08
3120 0390 John Deere, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - IAD069624500
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Farm equipment manufacturing (including vapor degrea-
sing, zinc and chrome platers, heat treating furnaces,
paint spray booths and dip tanks)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Chromium, benzene, lead, methyl chloroform,
PCBs, toluene, and xylene
TSDF DATA - Generally oriented towards characeristic wastes
EMISSIONS - Point 1 is specifically designated as a methyl
chloroform degreaser emitting a total of 3,000 tons,
B-18
-------
Methyl chloroform: 3000 tons
Toluene: 39 tons
Benzene: 1.9 tons
Xylene: 2.9 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 1.4 tons
h'= 1.76
h"= 1.60
3120 0410 Monarch Cement, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3241
EIS/PS - Cement production (including kilns and other typical
processes)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Nickel: 0.005 tons
Chromium: 0.0006 tons
Manganese: 0.003 tons
3120 0420 Meredith Printing, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - IAD005279799
SIC - 2751
EIS/PS - Commercial printing (web offset and rotogravure,
plus unspecified degreasing solvents and one chrome
plater)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Toluene
TSDF DATA - N/A, though the facility generates characteristic
wastes and non-halogenated solvent wastes, inclu-
ding toluene.
EMISSIONS -Methylene chloride: 44 tons
Toluene: 233 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 31 tons
h'= 2.04
h"= 1
3120
Commercial Printing, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 2752 (commercial printing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 18 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone:
Methylene chloride;
2.4 tons
3.4 tons
B-19
-------
3120 Delevan, West Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (Industrial and agricultural equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.18 tons
Toluene: 12.3 tons
Xylene: 4.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 2.1 tons
Tr^ichloroethylene; 75 tons
3120 En-Save, Grimes
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (water conditioning systems)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 3.6 tons
Xylene: 1.3 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.6 tons
Trichloroethylene; 22 tons
3120 Little Giant and Shovel, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3531 (industrial and construction equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 19 tons
Xylene: 7.9 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 3.7 tons
Trichloroethylene; 26 tons
3120 Mid-Central Plastic, West Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic injection molding and extrusions)
EIS/PS -N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 18 tons
Xylene: 13 tons
Methyl ethy1 ketone; 33 tons
B-20
-------
3120 Stone Container, Des Moines
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (polyethylene and multi-wall bags, grocery, and
shopping sacks)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 58 tons
Xylene: 41 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 105 tons
3120 POLK COUNTY - AREA SOURCES
The following description provides the key assumptions and the results of
the area source analyses.
Dry Cleaning - Total solvent use in Iowa (1984): 192,073 gallons
- 191 facilities in Iowa, including 35 in Polk County
- Total solvent use in Polk County (1984): 469,660 Ibs
- 0.275 Ib emitted/lb used
- Emissions -Perchloroethylene: 64.6 tons (Polk County)
-Perchloroethylene: 1.84 tons (Single Facilty)
Mobile Sources - 97% light duty vehicles, 3% heavy duty vehicles
- No light duty diesel trucks
- Annual VMT of sample arterial is 19,929,000 (over a two-
mile link)
- Light duty vehicles are categorized as follows:
LDGV -85.7%; LDGTI -9.0%; and LDGT2 -5.3%
- Annual VMT for Polk County (1983): 2,076,460,000
- Emissions - (Polk County) -Benzene: 82 tons
-PICs: 2.3 tons
-Toluene: 459 tons
-Xylene: 147 tons
-Butyl-benzene: 2.2 tons
-Trimethyl benzene: 84 tons
-Ethyl benzene: 33 tons
-Formaldehyde: 306 tons
- Arterial -Benzene: 0.79 tons
-PICs: 0.022 tons
-Toluene: 4.4 tons
-Xylene: 1.4 tons
-Butyl-benzene: 0.02 tons
-Trimethyl benzene: 0.8 tons
-Ethyl benzene: 0.3 tons
-Formaldehyde: 2.9 tons
Service Stations - Total gallons purchased in Iowa (7/84-7/85): 933,000,000
gallons
- Percentage of Iowa fleet in Polk County: 10.5%
- VOC emission factor: 20.0 lb/103 gallons throughput
(submerged filling)
B-21
-------
Service Stations - (continued)
- 164 service stations in Polk County
- Emissions (Polk County) -Benzene: 23.5 tons
-Toluene: 138 tons
-Xylene: 133 tons
-Total vapors: 980 tons
(Single Facility) -Benzene: 0.14 tons
-Toluene: 0.84 tons
-Xylene: 0.81 tons
-Total vapors;6.0 tons
3120 Metro East Landfill (polk County)
FACILITY ID - N/A
THROUGHPUT - 1200 tons/day
TYPE OF DISPOSAL - Municipal waste
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 8.8 tons
Xylene: 2.3 tons
Perchloroethylene; 18.2 tons
3120 Des Moines POTW
THROUGHPUT - 35 mgd (assumed)
PLANT-SPECIFIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
- Methyl chloroform: 25 ug/1
- 1,1,2 trichloroethane: 21 ug/1
- 1,2 trans-dichloroethylene: 1.4 ug/1
- Ethyl benzene: 200 ug/1
- Methylene chloride: 22 ug/1
- Dimethyl benzene: 360 ug/1
- 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane: 3.4 ug/1
- Chlorobenzene: 3.0 ug/1
EMISSIONS (over 1 ton) - Methyl chloroform: 1.3 tons
1,1,2 trichloroethane: 1.1 tons
Chloroform: 10.9 tons
Ethyl benzene: 10.6 tons
Methylene Chloride: 1.2 tons
Toluene: 14 tons
Xylene; 19 tons
3140 0015 Iowa Power & Light Council Bluffs
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 4911
EIS/PS - Electric power generation (including coal-fired
boilers)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS -
h1
h"
= 22
= 22
Cadmium: .063 tons
Beryllium: .50 tons
Arsenic: .13 tons
Chromium: .36 tons
PIC's: 0.45 tons
B-22
-------
3140 0095 Griffin Pipe Products'- Council Bluffs
FACILITY ID - IAD022079446
SIC - 3321
EIS/PS - Cast iron production (including cupola)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Manganese; 1.5 tons
3140
3140
Cresline Plastic Pipe, Council Bluffs
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (plastic pipe manufacturing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 18 tons
Xylene: 13 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 33 tons
3140 Future Foam, Council Bluffs
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (polyurethane foam and carpet underlay)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 23 tons
Xylene: 16 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone; 42 tons
Omaha Standard, Council Bluffs
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (hoist manufacturing)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 3.6 tons
Xylene: 0.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone:
Trichloroethylene;
0.6 tons
22 tons
3160
Farmhand, Grinnell
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (agricultural equipment)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.05 tons
Toluene: 37 tons
Xylene: 1.4 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.6 tons
Trichloroethylene; 23 tons
B-23
-------
3280 0005 Alloy Metal Products, Davenport
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3341
EIS/PS - Production of nickel alloys including electronic
furnace
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Nickel
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Alloy Metal Products is a potential manganese and
nickel source; there was, however, insufficient
information to calculate emissions.
3280 0030 Caterpillar Tractor, Bettendorf
FACILITY ID - IAD005262639
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Farm equipment manufacturing (paint booths but no
documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Xylenes, asbestos, methyl chloroform
TSDF DATA - Almost 15 mkg of characteristic waste handled (T05)
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 3.7 tons
Xylene: 1.7 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.3 tons
h"= 1
3280 0105 J.I. Case, Bettendorf
FACILITY ID - IAD005265863
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Construction equipment manufacturing (paint booths
but no documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Lead, methyl chloroform, methylene chloride,
xylene, PCBs
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 4.7 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 3.9 tons
Xylene: 4.8 tons
Toluene: 11.4 tons
h'= 1.4
h"= 1.6
3280 0106 John Deere, Davenport
FACILITY ID - IAD073489726
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Farm machinery production (paint booths but no docu-
mented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Lead, hydrogen fluoride, methyl chloroform,
phenol
TSDF DATA - Over 37,000 kg of characteristic waste handled (T05)
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 70 tons
Xylene: 28 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 13 tons
h" =2.2
B-24
-------
3280 0150 Occidental Chemical, Buffalo
FACILITY ID - IAD091 382648
SIC - 2819
EIS/PS - Fluorides processing (calcium phosphates and hydro-
fluosilicic acid)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Fluorides: 4.6 tons
h"= 1
3280 0160 Alcoa, Riverdale (Davenport)
FACILITY ID - IAD005270160
SIC - 3353/3362
EIS/PS - Aluminum products manufacturing processes
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Perchloroethylene, aluminum
TSDF DATA - N/A, but generated nearly 50,000 kg of halogenated
solvent waste
EMISSIONS - As a secondary aluminum processing facility, Alcoa
is a potential source of nickel as well as other
trace metals. There was, however, insufficient
information available to caJLcula, te emissions^
3280 0206 Caterpillar Tractor, Davenport
FACILITY ID - IAD049997125
SIC - 3531
EIS/PS - Farm machinery manufacturing (including paint booths
but no documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 1481 tons
Xylene: 599 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 280 tons
h"= 1.6
3280 0210 Davenport Cement, Buffalo •
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3241
EIS/PS - Cement manufacturing (including kiln)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Nickel: 0.09 tons
Chromium: 0.012 tons
Manganese: 0.05 tons
h'= 11.6
h"= 11.6
3280
Davenport POTW
THROUGHPUT - 20 mgd
PLANT-SPECIFIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS - N/A
B-25
-------
EMISSIONS (over 1 ton) - Chloroform: 6.2 tons
Ethyl benzene: 3.1 tons
Toluene: 8.3 tons
Xylene; 54 jtons
3380 Dethmers Manufacturing, Boyden
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (miscellaneous garden and lawn products)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.06 tons
Toluene: 4.3 tons
Xylene: 1.6 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 0.8 tons
Trichloroethylene; 26 tons
3680 0027 Iowa Southern Utilities, Ottumwa
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 4911
EIS/PS - Electric power generation (including coal-fired boilers)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Cadmium: 0.05 tons
Beryllium: 0.40 tons
Arsenic: 0.10 tons
Chromium: 0.28 tons
PICs: 0.38 tons
h1 = 24
h" = 24
3680 0030 John Deere, Ottumwa
FACILITY ID - IAD005291182
SIC - 3523
EIS/PS - Farm machinery manufacturing (including several
paint spray booths, an incinerator with an undocu-
mented fuel, and no documented degreasing)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - Asbestos, lead, cadmium, nickel, phenol,
methylene chloride
TSDF DATA - Substantial generation and treatment of charac-
teristic waste
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 73 tons
Xylene: 29 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 14 tons
h" = 1
B-26
-------
3700 Herschel, Indianola
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3523 (agricultural machinery)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Benzene: 0.12 tons
Toluene: 8.4 tons
Xylene: 3.1 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 8.5 tons
Trichloroethylene; 51 tons
4020 0190 George Neal Station, Salix
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 4911
EIS/PS - Electric power generation (including coal-fired boilers)
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Cadmium: 0.053 tons
Beryllium: 0.43 tons
Arsenic: 0.11 tons
Chromium: 0.30 tons
PICs: 0.60 tons
h1 = 12
h" = 12
4020 Weller Plastics, Sioux City
FACILITY ID - N/A
SIC - 3079 (miscellaneous plastic products)
EIS/PS - N/A
POLLUTANTS LISTED - N/A
TSDF DATA - N/A
EMISSIONS - Toluene: 19 tons
Xylene: 13 tons
Methyl ethyl ketone: 34 tons
B-27
-------
IOWA COUNTY CODE
0020 ADAIR
0040 ADAMS
0100 ALLAMAKEE
0180 APPANOOSE
0240 AUDUBON
0300 BENTON
0340 BLACK HAWK
0400 BOONE
0420 BREMER
0440 BUCHANAN
0460 BUENA VISTA
0500 BUTLER
0520 CALHOUN
0560 CARROLL
0580 CASS
0600 CEDAR
0680 CERRO GORDO
0760 CHEROKEE
0780 CHICKASAW
0840 CLARKE
0860 CLAY
0880 CLAYTON
0940 CLINTON
0980 CRAWFORD
1040 DALLAS
1080 DAVIS
1100 DECATUR
1 1 40 DELAWARE
1200 DES MOINES
1240 DICKINSON
1280 DUBUQUE
1360 EMMET
1460 FAYETTE
1480 FLOYD
1560 FRANKLIN
1580 FREMONT
1620 GREENE
1660 GRUNDY
1680 GUTHRIE
1700 HAMILTON
1740 HANCOCK
1760 HARDIN
1800 HARRISON
1840 HENRY
1860 HOWARD
1900 HUMBOLDT
1920 IDA
1980 IOWA
2040 JACKSON
2060 JASPER
2100 JEFFERSON
2120 JOHNSON
2140 JONES
2180 KEOKUK
2220 KOSSUTH
2240 LEE
2280 LINN
2300 LOUISA
2320 LUCAS
2340~ LYON
2360 MADISON
2380 MAHASKA
2460 MARION
2480 MARSHALL
2540 MILLS
2580 MITCHELL
2600 MONONA
2620 MONROE
2640 MONTOMGERY
2740 MUSCATINE
2820 O'BRIEN
2940 OSCELOA
3000 PAGE
3020 PALO ALTO
3080 PLYMOUTH
3100 POCAHONTAS
3120 POLK
3140 POTTAWATTAMIE
3160 POWESHIEK
3200 RINGGOLD
3.240 SAC
3280 SCOTT
3300 SHELBY
3380 SIOUX
3480 STORY
3520 TAMA
3540 TAYLOR
3600 UNION
3640 VAN BUREN
3680 WAPELLO
3700 WARREN
3740 WASHINGTON
3820 WAYNE
3840 WEBSTER
3960 WINNEBAGO
3980 WINNESHIEK
4020 WOODBURY
4040 WORTH
4060 WRIGHT
B-28
-------
APPENDIX C
RANKING OF SOURCES
The following three tables are presented in the following order:
Table C-1 - S1 Values (total carcinogenic potential)
Table C-2 - S2 Values (local carcinogenic potential)
Table C-3 - S3 Values (local non-carcinogenic potential)
The reader is urged to review the text of this report to properly inter-
pret the results.
C-1
-------
TABLE C-1
SUMMARY OF S1 VALUES
"TOTAL" CARCINOGENIC SCREENING VALUES
Polk County Mobile Sources (w/PIC's)
Monsanto, Muscatine
George Neal Station, Salix
Iowa Power & Light, Council Bluffs
Iowa Southern Utilities, Ottumwa
Interstate Power, Clinton
John Deere, Des Moines
Polk County-Single Arterial (w/PIC's)
Service Stations in Polk County (using
"gasoline vapor" U value)
Freeman Resins, Burlington
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids
Polk County POTW
Cedar Rapids POTW
Davenport POTW
Marshalltown Trowel, Marshalltown
Waterloo POTW
Davenport Cement, Buffalo
Delevan, West Des Moines
Lehigh Portland Cement, Mason City
John Deere Tractor Works, Waterloo
Universal Hammermill, Cedar Rapids
Herschel, Indianola
2.0 x 108
6.1 x 107
6.0 x 107
4.9 x 107
4.0 x 107
1.6 x 107
2.8 x 106
1 .9 x 106
1.5 x 1O6
7.6 x 105
7.6 x 105
7.3 x 105
6.2 x 105
4.2 x 105
3.9 x 105
3.6 x 105
2.9 x 105
2.0 x 105
1 .7 x 105
1.5 x 105
1.4 x 105
1.4 x 105
C-2
-------
(Table C-1 continued)
Northwestern States Portland Cement, Mason City 1.2 x 10^
Firestone Tire & Rubber, Des Moines 1.0 x 10^
Ritchies Industries, Conrad 8.6 x 1 O4
Kinze Manufacturing, Williamsburg 8.6 x 104
Meredith Printing, Des Moines 8.8 x 1 O4
Vernon Co., Newton 8.3 x 1 O4
Highway Equipment Co., Cedar Rapids 8.0 x 1 O4
Little Giant and Shovel, Des Moines 8.0 x 104
Polk County - Dry Cleaning Total 7.5 x 104
Farmhand, Grinnell 7.1 x 104
John Deere, Dubuque 7.0 x 104
Clay Equipment, Cedar Falls . 6.9 x 104
David Manufacturing, Mason City 6.9 x 104
Dethmers Manufacturing, Boyden 6.9 x 104
International Material Handling Equipment,
University Park 6.1 x 1 O4
En-Save, Grimes 5.9 x 104
Omaha Standard, Council Bluffs 5.9 x 104
Square D, Cedar Rapids 4.9 x 104
Black Hawk County Landfill 4.0 x 1O4
Collegiate Pacific, Ames 3.6 x 104
Fischer Printers, Cedar Rapids 3.1 x 104
Commercial Printing, Des Moines 2.8 x 104
Regency Thermographers, Dubuque 2.8 x 104
Cedar Manufacturing, Cedar Rapids 1.7 x 104
C-3
-------
(Table C-1 continued)
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Cedar Rapids 1.5 x 104
Vermeer, Pella 1.4 x 104
J. I. Case, Bettendorf 1.4 x 104
Monarch Cement, Des Moines 1.4 x 104
Koehring Crane and Excavators, Waverly 1.2 x 104
Single Gasoline Station in Polk County (using "gasoline
vapor" U value) 9.0 x 1 O3
Cherry Burrell, Cedar Rapids „ 7.8 x'103
John Deere Component Works, Waterloo 7.8 x 103
Sukup Manufacturing, Sheffield 7.4 x 103
Polk County - Single Dry Cleaning Facility 2.1 x 103
FMC Corporation, Cedar Rapids 1.5 x 103
C-4
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY OF S2 VALUES
"LOCAL" CARCINOGENIC SCREENING VALUES
Polk County-Mobile Sources (w/PIC's)
Monsanto, Muscatine
Polk County - Single Arterial (w/PIC's)
Polk County - Gasoline Stations (using
"gasoline vapor" U value)
John Deere, Des Moines
Des Moines POTW
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids POTW
Davenport POTW
Freeman Resins, Burlington
Waterloo POTW
George Neal Station, Salix
John Deere, Dubuque
Firestone Tire and Rubber, Des Moines
Little Giant & Shovel, Des Moines
Universal Hammermill, Cedar Rapids
Polk County - Dry Cleaning Total
John Deere Tractor Works, Waterloo
En Save, Grimes
Marshalltown Trowel, Marshalltown
6.1 x 1013
7.9 x 1011
5.9 x 1011
4.6 x 1011
2.8 X 1011
1.9 x 1011
1 .3 x 1011
1.2 x 1011
6.7 x 1010
5.6 x 1010
4.9 x 1010
4.2 x 1010
3.8 x 1010
2.7 x 1010
2.5 X 1010
2.4 x 1010
2.3 x 1010
2.1 x 1010
1.8 x 1010
1.6 X 1010
C-5
-------
(Table C-2 continued)
Highway Equipment Co., Cedar Rapids 1.3 x 1010
Interstate Power, Clinton 9.6 x 1 O9
Clay Equipment, Cedar Falls 9.5 x 1 O9
Iowa Power & Light, Council Bluffs 8.8 x 10^
Commercial printing, Des Moines 8.7 x 1 O9
Square D, Cedar Rapids 8.4 x 1O9
Lehigh Portland Cement, Mason City 8.2 x 1 O9
Meredith Printing, Des Moines 6.6 x 1O9
Northwestern States Portland Cement, Mason City 5.8 x 1O9
Black Hawk County Landfill 5.4 x 1 O9
Fischer printers, Cedar Rapids 5.3 x 109
Omaha Standard, Council Bluffs 5.2 x 1O9
Herschel, Indianola 5.0 x 1O9
Monarch Cement, Des Moines 4.4 x 1O9
David Manufacturing, Mason City 3.4 x 109
Vernon Co., Newton 3.0 x 1O9
Cedar Manufacturing, Cedar Rapids 2.9 x 1O9
Iowa Southern Utilities, Ottumwa 2.8 x 1O9
Single Gasoline Station in Polk County (using
"gasoline vapor" U value) 2.8 x 109
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Cedar Rapids 2.6 x 1O9
Regency Thermographers, Dubuque 2.6 x 1O9
Collegiate Pacific, Ames 2.6 x 1O9
C-6
-------
(Table C-2 continued)
Dethmers Manufacturing, Boyden 2.2 x 10^
International Material Handling Equipment, 1.4 x 10^
University Park
Kinze Manufacturing, Williamsburg 1.3 x 10^
Cherry Burrell, Cedar Rapids 1.3 x 10^
Ritchies Industries, Conrad 1.2 x 10^
J. I. Case, Bettendorf 1.2 x 109
Polk County-Single Dry Cleaning Facility 6.7 x 1O8
Vermeer, Pella 4.1 x 108
Davenport Cement, Buffalo 3.5 x 1O8
Koehring Crane and Excavators, Waverly 3.0 x 108
John Deere Component Works, Waterloo 2.7 x 108
FMC Corporation, Cedar Rapids 2.6 x 1O8
Farmhand, Grinnell 1.3 x 108
Sukup Manufacturing, Sheffield 9.4 x 10?
C-7
-------
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF S3 VALUES
'LOCAL" NON-CARCINOGENIC SCREENING VALUES
Polk County - Mobile Sources
Occidental Chemical, Buffalo
Polk County - Gasoline Stations
(using A values for benzene, toluene and xylene)
Stone Container, Des Moines
American Can, Des Moines
Caterpillar Tractor, Davenport
Sheller Globe, Iowa City
Agrico Chemical, Ft. Madison
Meredith Printing, Des Moines
Maytag, Newton
Monsanto, Muscatine
John Deere Tractor Works, Waterloo
Des Moines POTW
Polk County - Single Arterial
Mid-Central Plastics, West Des Moines
Control-0-Fax, Waterloo
duPont, Camanche
Thatcher plastic Packaging, Muscatine
John Deere, Des Moines
Cedar Rapids POTW
CarIon, Clinton
Waterloo Industries, Waterloo
3.7 x 109
1.7 x 108
1.7 x 108
1.3 x 108
1.1 x 108
1.1 x 108
1 .0 x 108
7.7 x 107
7.6 x 107
• 6.9 x 107
6.0 x 107
5.0 x 107
4.3 x 107
3.5 x 107
3.1 x 107
2.4 x 107
2.0 x 107
1 .9 x 107
1 .9 x 107
1 .5 x 107
1.4 x 107
1.1 x 107
C-8
-------
(Table C-3 continued)
FMC Corporation, Cedar Rapids 1.1 x 107
Future Foam, Council Bluffs 1.1 x 10^
Weller plastics, Sioux City 1.0 x 10?
Custom Park, Clinton 9.2 x 106
Little Giant & Shovel, Des Moines 9.1 x 1 O6
Cresline Plastic Pipe, Council Bluffs 8.8 x 10^
John Deere, Dubuque 8.7 x 10^
Davenport POTW 8.3 x 10^
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Cedar Rapids 7.2 x 10^
¥>
H.P. Smith Paper, Iowa City 6.6 x 10^
Waterloo POTW 6.0 x 10^
Commercial Printing, Des Moines 5.8 x 106
Union Carbide, Centerville 5.7 x 106
Freeman Resins, Burlington 5.6 x 106
Highway Equipment Co., Cedar Rapids 4.9 x 1O6
Letica, Muscatine 4.8 x 10^
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids 4.2 x 106
Koehring Crane & Elevator, Waverly 4.0 x 10^
Vermeer, Pella 4.0 x 10^
Chevron Chemical, Ft. Madison 3.9 x 10^
Universal Hammermill, Cedar Rapids 3.8 x 1O6
Vernon Co., Newton 3.7 x 10^
Fischer Printers, Cedar Rapids 3.5 x 10^
Polk County-Dry Cleaning Total 3.3 x 106
J. I. Case, Bettendorf 3.1 x 1O6
C-9
-------
(Table C-3 continued)
John Deere, Davenport 2.8 x 10^
En-Save, Grimes 2.7 x 1 0*>
Iowa Manufacturing, Cedar Rapids 2.6 x 10^
Black Hawk County Landfill 2.4 x 106
Monarch Cement, Des Moines 2.1 x 10^
Collegiate Pacific, Ames 1.8 x 106
Regency Thermographers, Dubuque 1.7 x 10^
Clay Equipment, Cedar Falls 1.5 x 10^
Norwesco Industries, Grundy Center 1.4 x 10^
Polk County - Single Gasoline Station 7.0 x 1O6
Omaha Standard, Council Bluffs 7.7 x 10^
Cherry Burrell, Cedar Rapids 7.3 x 10^
John Deere Component Works, Waterloo 6.5 x 10^
David Manufacturing, Mason City 5.8 x 105
John Deere Engine Works, Waterloo 4.4 x 10^
Caterpillar Tractor, Bettendorf 3.8 x 105
Herschel, Indianola 3.8 x 10^
International Material Handeling Equipment,
University Park 3.1 x 10^
Square D, Cedar Rapids 3.0 x 10^
Dethmers Manufacturing, Boyden 2.7 x 10^
Firestone Tire & Rubber, Des Moines 2.5 x 10^
Cryovac, Cedar Rapids 2.5 x 10^
Interstate Power, Clinton 2.2 x 10^
Kinze Manufacturing, Williamsburg 2.0 x 10^
C-10
-------
(Table C-3 continued)
Ritchies Industries, Conrad 1.8 x 10^
George Neal Station, Salix 1.7 x 10^
Farmhand, Grinnell 1.7 x 10->
Koch Sulfur Products, Dubuque 1.3 x 10^
White Farm Equipment, Charles City 1.3 x 10^
Davenport Cement, Buffalo 1.2 x 10^
Polk County-Single Dry Cleaning Facility 9.6 x 10^
Iowa Power and Light, Council Bluffs 9.2 x 104
Sukup Manufacturing, Sheffield 6.0 x 10^
Iowa Southern Utilities, Ottumwa 3.8 x 10^
Lehigh Portland Cement, Mason City 3.8 x 102
Northwestern States Portland Cement, Mason City 2.8 x 102
C-1-1
-------
APPENDIX D
OTHER SELECTED SOURCES OF INTEREST
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D
.OTHER SELECTED SOURCES OF INTEREST'
The following list of sources includes facilities which were not evalu-
ated, generally because they were categorized in a SIC code which was not
previously documented in EIS. Included are facilities with an employment
of over 100 which could be significant VOC and/or air toxics sources, and
facilities with an employment of over 10 which could potentially be liable
to specific existing NESHAPs regulations.
D-2
-------
City
Ames
Ames
Britt
Burlington
Burlington
Camanche
Carroll
Cedar Falls
Cedar Falls
Cedar Falls
Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids
Charles City
Clinton
Council Blutts
Des Moines
Ft. Dodge
Ft. Dodge
Ft. Dodge
Ft. Madison
Ft. Madison
Ft. Madison
Ft. Madison
Iowa City
Iowa City
Iowa City
Madison City
Red Oak
Sioux City
Sioux City
Sioux City
Sioux City
Spirit Lake
West Burlington
Facility
Hach Co.
3-M Co.
Britt Tech Corp. (N)
Exide Battery
U.S. Borax (N)
Central Steel Tube
General Electric
Container Corp.
Doerfer (Container Corp.)
H&H Machine Tool of Iowa
Clyde Industries
Weyerhauser
Salsbury Laboratories
International Paper
Barton Solvents (N)
Basic Chemicals, Inc. (N)
Centralab
Ft. Dodge Laboratories
Sundstrand Hydrotransmission
Consolidated Packaging
DuPont
Gleason Corp.
Sheaffer Eaton
Proctor and Gamble
Moore Business Forms
National Computer Systems
Alexander Manufacturing Co.
Union Carbide
Prince Manufacturing
Rochester Products
Sioux Tools
Wilson Tractor
Berkley Co.
General Electric
SIC
Employment
2817
3219
2819
3692
2844
3312
3613
3823
3444
3544
3674
2653
2834
2653
2819
2819
3613
2834
3494
2653
2851
3499
3951
2842
2751
3674
3691
3692
3494
3714
3423
3715
3949
3613
175
400
60
250
65
350
500
140
125
150
150
110
450
500
25
40
400
400
535
150
250
150
1300
440
250
385
175
500
150
300
450
300
450
850
(N) = potential NESHAPs source
D-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 907/9-86-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Iowa Air Toxics Emissions Inventory Phase I
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
Air Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
May 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3888
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
m
16. ABSTRACT
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTI
Air Pollution
Emissions Inventory
Air Toxics
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECUf
20. SECUI
FIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
3ITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
=ilTY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |