EPA-450/3-75-013
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAJV REVIEW
FOR
IOWA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-013
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
IOWA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 6,8-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW . 6
2.1 Iowa Air Quality Setting 9
2.2 Air Quality Monitoring in Iowa 10
2.3 Suspended Particulate Levels in Iowa ]0
2.4 S02 Levels in Iowa 10
2.5 SIP Review 11
2.5.1 Particulates 11
2.5.2 S02 11
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY ... 13
3.1 Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential 13
3.1.1 AQCR's 087 and 091 14
3.1.2 Area Sources 14
3.2 Iowa SOg Regulation Evaluation 15
3.3 Particulate Regulation Examination by AQCR 16
3.4 Particulate Regulation Evaluation Summary 18
3.5 Iowa Fuel Availability 19
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 20
APPENDIX B 33
APPENDIX C 36
APPENDIX D 48
APPENDIX E 56
APPENDIX F '. . . 59
BIBLIOGRAPHY 65
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review
each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made
to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion sources without
interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA report to the
State on whether control regulations might be revised, ESECA provides that
EPA must approve or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burn*
ing stationary sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA
by the States. The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate
State Implementation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require
States to change any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of con-
serving low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or natural gas
to coal. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore, has
been to try to establish if emissions from combustion sources may be increased.
Where an indication can be found that emissions from certain fuel buriiing
sources can be increased and still attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be
plausible that fuel resource allocations can be altered for "clean fuel
savings" in a manner consistent with both environmental and national energy
needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel EPA's policy on clean
fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing implementation
plans with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur
dioxide air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to
either defer compliance regulations or to revise the S02 emission
regulations. The States have also been asked to discourage large scale
shifts from coal to oil in cases where such shifts are not required for the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
1
-------
To date, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with the
largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or are
currently in the process of revising S(L regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are: 1) The use of the example region approach in developing
Statewide air quality control strategies; 2) the existence of State Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and 3) the "hot spots"
in onlj part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been used
as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these situa-
tions affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current
national energy concerns, a rev.ew of the State Implementation Plans is a
logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972.
At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated tbe attainment
of NAAQS or more stringent State air quality standards. Also, at that time
an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was the use of an
example region for demonstrating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an
example region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other
AQCR's of the State if the control regulations were applied to similar
sources. The problem with the use of an example reg^jn is that it can
result in excessive controls, especially in the utilization of clean fuels,
for areas of the State where sources would not otherwise :ontribute to NAAQS
violations. For instance, a control strategy based jn a particular region or
sources can result in a regulation requiring one pe.-cent sulfur oi"! to be
burned state-wide where the use of three percent sulfur coal would oe
adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's
limitations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and
are neither intended nor adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions;
they do, howeaer, represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying
with the ESECA requirements. The time and resources which EPA has had to
prepare the reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics,
and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there has been only limited dispersion
modeling data available by which to address individual point source emissions.
Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, however, they were
used in the analysis.
The data upon which the report's findings are based is the most
currently available to the Federal Government.* However, EPA believes that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems facing
them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that States select
control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other industrial
processes. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which the
potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for combus-
tion sources might have on their future control programs. This may include
air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration, increased
TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other potential
air pollution problems such as sulfates.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attainment
of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended parti-
culate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions. This is because
*
.Except data currently being processed by EPA.
-------
stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SOp
emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 and IPS emission tolerances within each of the various AQCR's. The
regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only measure
of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance assessments
have been combined in Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators"
in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for changing
emission limitation regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis,
a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
FINDINGS
The State Implementation Plan for Iowa has been reviewed for
the most prevalent causes for overly restrictive fuel com-
bustion emission limiting regulations. Even though Iowa used
the example region appr ach to develop S02 and particulate
control strategies, the major findings are:
FOR PARTICIPATES. THERE IS LITTLE INDICATION THAT
EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION REGULATIONS ARE
OVERLY RESTRICTIVE. FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE, THERE IS
7TGOOD INDICATION THAT EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION
EMISSION REGULATIONS MAY BE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE.
IFTACT, IOWA IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING ITS'
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATION. THIS
REVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTIONS OF
SECTION IV OF ESECA.
Reported suspended particulate levels exceed NAAQS in 11 of
Iowa's 12 AQCRss. AQCR 091, which shows no NAAQS violations
for TSP, has essentially no fuel burning emission sources.
AQCR 068, 085, 088 and 092 have been designated as main-
tenance areas for TSP. The Iowa fuel burning particulate
regulation does not appear overly restrictive in the example
particulate AQCR 092 (South Central), especially if different
fuel practices than occur at present were cor^emplated. A
similar conclusion is reached for AQCR's 085 (Oma'a), 086
(Sioux City), and 088 (N.E.). AQCR's 087, 0 1, f 0, and 093
have little clean fuel savings potential based on inventoried
fuel sources. The eastern Iowa AQCR's 065, 068, 069, and AQCR
089 (N.C.) show some possibility of fuel burning particulate
regulation relaxation if non-fuel sources are scrutinized.
Clean fuel savings are possible, however, within existing
particulate regulations in AQCR's 065, 069 and 089.
-------
Limited monitoring data in all Iowa AQCR's shows S02 levels
to be below NAAQS. All Iowa AQCR's thus would appear to be
good candidates for additional S02 emissions via fuel switch-
ing. No AQMA's for S02 have been designated in Iowa. The
only available S02 modeling result for an Iowa power plant
found the Iowa S02 regulation to be consistent with NAAQS
attainment.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will
depend on many factors. For example:
i Does the State have air quality standards which are
more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limitation regulations for
control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, and
(3) area sources?
Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or. more stringent State
standards?
t Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Pel icy?
Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of
a tolerance for increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
proportionally lower than those of other sources?
Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish significant
fuel switching?
Is there a significant clean fuels savings p'>tent'al in the
region?
t Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show
a potential for a regulation revision?
-------
The following portion of this report is directed at answering
tHe'se questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases
when there are affirmative responses to the above.
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limiting
regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characterization
of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources,
and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E. Finally,
candidates from Appendix B are examined in Appendix F for adequacy or
over-restrictiveness of emission regulations.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. The following table summarizes the State Implementation Plan
Review. The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with
explanations.
-------
"INDICATORS"
Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
more stringent State standards?
t Has the State not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
t Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data.
does air quality meet NAAQS?
Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
Increasing emissions?
Are th° total emissions from slo''"nary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
t Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
* Mu-,t emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
Based on the above ' ''ors. what is the
potential for revising fuei <. source
emission limiting regulations?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential In the region?
STATE
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
BURLINGTON QUAD SIOUX SIOUX
KEOKUK SIS' CITIES OMAHA CIT₯ FALLS "-E-
AQCR 065 W" 068 AQCR 069 \QCR Ofi5 AQCR 086 AQCR 087' AQCR 088
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
No
NO
Yes
-
NO6
Poor
Yes
NO
Yes
Yel
Yes
Yes
No
No3
Y«5
Good
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
-
Yes6
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Gooc
TSP S0?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
-
No6
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Good
TSP S02
Yes
Yes
Ho.
No
Yes
-
No6
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Good.
TSP S02
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
NO6
Poor
No
Yes
res
Yes
Yes
No
No
Good
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
No
Do
Yes
4
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
4
Good
TSP S02
Yes
Yes
Yej
No
No
Yes
Y,,6
Poor
No
Y-s
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Gooc
N. C. N.U. S. E. S.C. S.W
AQCR 089 AQCR 090 AQCR 091 AQCR 092 «)CR o»3
TSP S02
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
-
No6
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Good
TSP S02
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
NO6
Poor
No
Y»«
Yes
Yes
No
-
4
Good
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
_4
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Good
TSP S02
Yes
Yes
Yes
No'
No
No'
-
Y«6
Poor
No
No
Yts
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Good
Yes
TSP SO,
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ho
Yes6
Poor
Yes
Do
Yes
Yes
»»
Yej .
Do
-
Y«»
«>o
-------
2.1 IOWA AIR QUALITY SETTING
The State of Iowa is divided into 12 Air Quality Control Regions,
including six Interstate AQCR's. These are:
1) AQCR 065 - Burlington Keokuk Interstate
(Illinois-Iowa)
21 AQCR 068 - Metro Dubuque Interstate
(lowa-Illinois-Wisconsin)
3) AQCR 069 - Metro Quad Cities Interstate
(Illinois-Iowa)
4) AQCR 085 - Metro Omaha - Council Bluffs Interstate
(Iowa-Nebraska)
5) AQCR 086 - Metro Sioux City Interstate
(lowa-Nebraska-South Dakota)
6) AQCR 087 - Metro Sioux Falls Interstate
(S. Dakota-Iowa)
7) AQCR 088 - North East Iowa
8) AQCR 089 - North Central Iowa
9) AQCR 090 - North West Iowa
10) AQCR 091 - South East Iowa
11) AQCR 092 - South Central Iowa
12) AQCR 093 - South West Iowa
The locations of these 12 AQCR's are shown in Figure A-l. For the sake
of brevity, discussions in the body of this report will combine Iowa's AQCR's
where appropriate. Ambient Air Quality Standards in Iowa are identical to
the federal standards (Table A-3).
Table A-l lists the original priority classifications of Iowa's AQCR's.
As might be expected, Iowa AQCR's having urban centers and/or high population
are classified Priority I for particulates. All Iowa AQCR's except 065
(Burlington) and 085 (Omaha) are classified Priority III for S02.
Iowa has designated counties in five AQCR's (065, 068, 069, 088 and 092)
as AQMA's for TSP. No AQMA designations have been made for S02 (or NOX) in
Iowa's AQCR's. The expected attainment dates for NAAQS are shown in Table A-2.
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING - (See Table A-4 and A-5)
All of Iowa's AQCR's appear reasonably well monitored for TSP relative
to population (Table A-l) and emission density. AQCR 065 (Burlington Inter-
state), AQCR 086 (Metro Sioux City Interstate), and the non-urban AQCR's
090 (N.W), 091 (S.E.), and 093 (S.W.) have the smallest number of hi-volume
TSP samplers. Iowa has reporting S02 monitors in eleven of twleve AQCR's.
AQCR 091 (S.E.) does not have a monitoring station which reports to the
SAROAD data bank. Only AQCR 092 (S.C.) appears well monitored for S02,
however, and most of Iowa's S02 data is from 24 hour bubblers.
2.3 SUSPENDED PARTICULATE LEVELS IN IOWA
Table A-4 shows reported violations of the Federal secondary TSP
standards in all of Iowa's AQCR's except 091 (S.E.). Further, violations
of both the annual geometric mean and the 24 hour maximum standards are
common. The annual and 24 hour primary Federal TSP standards are also
violated in at least five of Io> a's 12 ACCR's (many monitors had insufficient
data for computation of annual geometric mean). Although fugitive dust pro-
bably contributes to atmospheric particulate loadings in Iowa, the particulate
problem seems mare than merely localized emission sources or short term NAAQS
violations.
Data for the interstate AQCR's of Eastern Iowa, 065 (Burlington), 068,
(Dubuque), 069 (Quad Cities) suggest more severe TSP problems in Iowa than
in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Western Interstate AQCR data on the other
hand, shows the Iowa portions to have slightly lower levels than Nebraska
or South Dakota. This rough description may merely reflect, however, the
number and relative locations of monitoring stations.
2.4 S02 LEVELS IN IOWA
Sulfur dioxide levels in Iowa are well below th>i federal standards with
the 2nd highest 24 hour bubbler concentrations repo 'ting values of about 30%
of the federal standard. The small number of S02 runiU.'s ?nd measurements,
except in AQCR 092 (S.C.), makes spatial description of S02 levels difficult.
Indeed, some low S02 levels in Iowa probably reflect lack of source
orientation.
10
-------
2.5 REVIEW OF IOWA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.5.1 Particulates
Iowa used the example region approach to demonstrate attainment of
NAAQS for particulates. A 1968 base year participate inventory"and
maximum TSP measurement (Table A-9) in the South Central Interstate AQCR
092 (Des Moines) were chosen for control strategy development. Using a
37 ug/nr* TSP background value, a 79% linear rollback of emissions was
required for NAAQS attainment. Application of partioulate control regu-
lations, some of which are listed in Table A-ll, was calculated to achieve
81% particulate emission reduction by 1975. Example region regulations were
to apply throughout Iowa.
EPA approval of Iowa's example region particulate control strategy
was based upon:
AQCR 092" experiences the highest ambient particulate
levels in the State.
c Emission sources in 092 are representative of those
throughout the State.
The most growth was expected to occur in AQCR 092.
Towa fuel burning regulationsccurcently^n effect (Table A-6) apply to
all emission sources and allow 0.6 Ibs per 10^ Btu heat input.
2.5.2 SO
Iowa used AQCR 065 (Burlington-Keokuk Interstate) as the example region
for SO,,. The Illinois portion of AQCR 065 showed a maximum annual average of
107 ug/m3 (East Peoria, Illinois) for 1970. Linear rollback indicated a 44%
S02 emissions reduction was required for the entire AQCR. Proposed Iowa SOp
regulations were calculated to achieve about a 20% S02 emission reduction in
the Iowa portion of AQCR 065. A gaussian point source diffusion model cal-
culation was performed for major Iowa S02 emission source - the Burlington
power plant fcesult indicated that a 22% S02 emission reduction would be
necessary to meet the 24 hour S02 standard.
11
-------
The expected Illinois SCL emissions reduction and Iowa's 20% SO^
emissions reduction was stated to result in a total reduction in AQCR
065 of 66%. EPA approved Iowa's example region plan based on the
following:
Iowa SOp sources in AQCR 065 were not major contributors to
maximum observed SOg levels in Illinois.
i 82% of the inventoried S02 emissions originated in
Illinois.
t The Illinois Plan demonstrated attainment of NAAQS for
so2.
Iowa applied fuel sulfur regulations aaddsulfuric acid plant S02
emission regulations statewide, and these regulations were considered
adequate to maintain NAAQS in Iowa's non-example AQCR's.
12
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The purpose of this Section is to examine fuel switching in Iowa's
twelve AQCR's and the adequacy of over-restrictiveness of current emission
regulations for attaining and/or maintaining ambient air quality standards.
Tables A-9 and A-10 are an attempt to assign a regional emissions tolerance
for Iowa AQCR's. Appendix B uses this "tolerance," along with such factors
as the breadth and depth of air quality violations and percent of emissions
resulting from fuel combustion to rate each AQCR as a "good," "Marginal," or
"poor" candidate for fuel switching potential and regulation relaxation.
Power plants, industrial sources, and area sources are investigated
in Appendices C, D, and E, respectively, for fuel use, emissions, and
current regulations. Some calculations of emissions resulting from fuel
switching are included for power plants. Appendix F is a rough emissions
inventory whibh could hypothetically result if all fuel burning sources
emitted exactly at regulation levels. This inventory is the final test
of current regulations relative to air quality.
3.1 CANDIDACY ASSESSMENT FOR FUEL SWITCH POTENTIAL
Tables B-l and B-2 summarize an initial evaluation of the potential for
fuel switching and regulation relaxation for Iowa's 12 AQCR's. All Iowa
AQCR's except 091 show violations of NAAQS for TSP. AQCR 091 is rated as a
marginal TSP and SOp candidate, however, since it appears that few stationary
fuel combustion emission sources exist in that region. AQCR 092 (S.C.) is
initially rated as a marginal TSP candidate since a SIP to NEDS/SAROAD com-
parison (Table A-9) suggests that particulate emissions reduction under the
SIP might achieve more control than required by NAAQS.
All of Iowa's AQCR's are rated as good candidates for fuel switch/
regulation relaxation relative to S02- In fact, the State is presently in
the process of relaxing the SOp regulations for fuel burning sources. These
changes are based upon a study which was conducted by the State. The
regulation amendments which the State is making would set a 6 Ib SOp/10" Btu
limit to be met by July 1, 1975, and a 5 Ib S02/106 Btu limit to be met by
July 1, 1978. In addition, the State plans to conduct further studies to
determine whether additional regulation relaxation is possible.
13
-------
3.1.1 AQCRs 087 and 091
AQCRs 087 and 091 report no power plants and few industrial emission
sources which can be evaluated for fuel switching potential. Regulation changes
in these AQCRs is therefore not especially relevant to either clean fuel
savings under ESECA or attainment of NAAQS.
-3.1.2 Area Sources
Area emission sources are generally not covered by Iowa SO,, regulations
e £
since such sources are often below the 250 x 10 Btu/hour heat input cutoff
point. (See regulations in Table A-6).
Table E-2 shows approximate particulate emissions from area sources in
Iowa calculated on a lbs/10 B'u basis. Aggregated particulate emissions are
less than 301 of the Iowa particulate regulation|(0.6 Ibs/Vio6 Btu), reflecting
the large percentage of energy supplied by natural gas and oil for Iowa's
area sources. A-cursory examination of Iowa area sources indicates the
following:
Some coal use occurs for Iowa's area sources and is
apparently subject to Iowa particulate regulations.
Many small area sources probably have little potential for
using alternative fuels.
t Even within existing regulations total particulate
emissions would increase if gas and oil to coal conversions
were to occur for Iowa's area sources.
If Appendix F area source emissions are assumed to '-emain unaffected by
Iowa SOp and particulate emissions regulations. This assumption seems
reasonable for purposes of examining regulations a fect'ng power plants
and industries.
14
-------
3.2 IOWA S02 REGULATION EVALUATION
Since SOp levels throughout Iowa are well below NAAQS, AQCRs are not
examined separately regarding S02 regulation adequacy or over-restrictiveness.
Instead, some major qualitative features of Appendices C, D, E, and F are
summarized.
SAROAD S02 monitoring data is too limited to allow accurate
estimates of additional S02 emissions which might be
tolerated in Iowa without violating NAAQS.
e Emissions resulting from a switch entirely to coal by all
Iowa power plants would exceed total S0« emissions allowed
by regulations in Eastern AQCRs 065, 068, 069, and southern
AQCRs 092, and 093. Tables C-2 indicate even these AQCRs
could effect nearly complete coal conversion within the
existing SOp regulation.
Aggregated S02 emissions are calculated to increase in all
Iowa AQCRs (except 091 with reports np_ power plants) by
20 to 400% if all fuel burning sources were allowed to emit
exactly at Iowa S02 regulation. Many power plants and
industrial sources could, for instance, increase coal use
without SOp regulation change.
The only Iowa power plants for which modeling results were
available (Burlington - AQCR 065) would apparently violate
NAAQS for S02 if more emissions than are already allowed
by Iowa regufations were to occur. See Table C~l.
Only in AQCR 093 are total SOp emissions from power plants
excedding the amount allowed By the Iowa S0£ regulation
(Tables C-2). The western Iowa AQCRs 085, 086, 089, 090
show power plant emissions to be well below regulations due
to natural gas and low sulfur coal use.
Industrial sources, especially in central and eastern Iowa
use some coal at present and could apparently use additional
coal without violating Iowa's S02 regulations.
The conclusion resulting from the analyses of Appendices C through F
is then that all Iowa AQCR's are good candidates for some fuel switching.
15
-------
3.3 PARTICULATE REGULATION EXAMINATION BY AQCR
AQCR 065
The majority of participate and S02 emissions originate in the Illinois
portion of AQCR 065. The only large Iowa power plant in AQCR 065 (Burlington)
is currently burning essentially all coal at present (Table C-l).
Since NAAQS for TSP is not currently being met in 065, and total
emissions from the Burlington plant and industrial sources (Table D-l) are
less than allowed by Iowa particulate regulations, change in the regulation
does not seem warrented. Further, the analysis in Table F-2 suggests that
emissions allowed under existing regulations may barely be sufficient to
attain NWQS in AQCR 065.
AQCR 068
the Dubuque power plant will apparently require additional emission
control over that reported in the NEDS in order to comply with the Iowa
particulate regulation. Industrial sources in AQCR 068 appear to have some
flexibility in the use of dirtier fuels and still comply with particulate
regulation. NAAQS for particulates are currently violated.^ AQCR.068,
however, and the analysis in Table F-l does not indicate that particulate
regulations are overly restrictive in attaining NAAQS. Scrutiny of non-fuel
emission sources would be required if relaxation of fuel burning particulate
regulation is considered.
AQCR 069
The 3 power plants listed in Table C-l for AQCR 069 use coal at present
for the majority of their heat input. Total particulatn emissions from
these plants are less than allowed by Iowa Regulations ;Table C-2). A total
coal switch in these plants would increase uncontroller particulate emissions
to above the tonnage allowed by Iowa regulations, howe er.
Industrial sources (Table D-2) could apparently se additional coal
within existing Iowa SOp regulations, while particulates would require further
controls if coal use increased. The ambient TSP levels in AQCR 069 and
the analysis in Table F-l suggest that current.Iowa particulate regulat:ons
are not overly restrictive.
16
-------
AQCR 085
The Council Bluffs power plant (Table-C-l) uses coal for around 60% of
its heat input. This plant could apparently use coal entirely within existing
and particulate regulations. Many Iowa industrial emission sources listed in
the NEDS are currently burning only natural gas in AQCR 085. Table F-l
indicates that all sources existing at Iowa particulate regulation might
result in NAAQS violation for particulates. A similar conclusion was reached
for the Nebraska portion of 085 relative to Nebraska particulate regulations.
AQCR 086
Most particulate and SOp emissions in AQCR 086 originate in Iow?a. Total
particulate emissions for four Iowa power plants in AQCR 086 are nearly equal
to the tonnage allowed by the Iowa regulation (Table C-l). Table F-l suggests
that fuel switching by power plants and indistrial sources in 086 might result
in NAAQS violation within existing particulate regulation.
AQCR 088
Power plants use mostly coal at present in AQCR 088. Total particulate
emissions from both power plants and from industrial sources exceed the amount
allowed by Iowa regulations. Table F-l suggests that the existing fuel
burning particulate regulation could result in more emissions than required by
NAAQS.
AQCR 089
Power plants currently use some coal in AQCR 089. The Iowa particulate
regulation could allow more total particulate emission than occur at present
from both industrial sources and power plants. Non^fuel particulate emis-
sions appear much larger in the NEDS inventory than fuel emissions in AQCR
089. Control of non-fuel emissions thus appears more important in the
attainment of NAAQS. Some fuel switching in AQCR can be expected in 089
within existing particulate regulations.
AQCR 090
Two small power plants in AQCR 090 are listed in Table C-l. Further
particulate controls appear necessary at these plants to meet Io«?a parti-
culate regulations, especially if all coal use was desired. Since no coal
is reportedly used by industrial sources in 090, particulate emissions are
below Iowa regulations for this sector. Particulate regulations in AQCR 090
appear consistent with attainment of NAAQS according to the Appendix F
analysis.
17
-------
AQCR 092
AQCR 092 was the Iowa SIP example region for participates. A small toler-
ance for increased emissions resulted in Tables A-9 and B-l when credit was
given to controls expected by the SIP. Table F-l, however, suggests that current
total particulate emissions from fuel burning sources are essentially the same as
the amount which the regulations would allow. Further, emissions allowed by fuel
burning regulations alone exceed the tonnage estimated to be required for attain-
ment of NAAQS. Therefore, no jbanibiculate regulation relaxation appears justified
in AQCR 092.
AQCR 093
The one power plant listed for AQCR 093 burns only coal at present. Indus-
trial sources, on the other hand, burn no coal. The analysis in Table F-l
suggests that fuel burning regulations might be relaxed and still attain NAQQS
as non-fuel sources come under control.
3.4 PARTICULATE REGULATION EVA! JATION CUMMARY
The AQCR discussions in Section 3.2.4 and the analysis in Appendix F
leads to the following conclusion regarding particulate regulation change
in Iowa:
o AQCR's 087 and 091 have no significant sources affected by fuel
regulations. Change in either S02 or particulate regulations
would have little impact on NAAQS in these AQCR's. (AQCR 091
is the only Iowa AQCR not to show NAAQS violation for TSP in 1973).
o AQCR's 085, 086, 088, and 092 are very poor candidates for fuel
burning particulate regulation relaxation. Significant fuel
switching in these AQCR's even within1 existing regulations could
result in emissions exceeding the estimated emissions required
for NAAQS attainment.
o Eastern AQCR's 065, 086, 069 and the rural PiCR's 089, 090, and
093. In these AQCR's particulate emissions "rom fuel burning
sources exactly meeting the Iowa particulatr regulations could
be less than the allowable estimeie for NAA 'S at.ainment. The
degree of control expected on non-fuel sow .es lus becomes im-
portant for judging NAAQS attainment. AQC'.'s 068, u90 and 093
appear to be the most likely candidates fcv fuel particulate
regulation relaxation based on the magnitude of reported non-
fuel emissions in Table F-l. It rr>ust be remembered, however,
that NAAQS violations were reported in all of the above AQC°'s
during 1973.
18
-------
3.5 IOWA FUEL AVAILABILITY
Table F-3 shows that Iowa produced no gas or oil in 1971, and also
produced less coal than was consumed internally. Fuel switching in Iowa
would appear to involve fuels from other states.
19
-------
APPENDIX A
State Implementation Plan information
Current air quality information
Current emissions information
Tables in this appendix summarize original and modified state imple-
mentation plan information, including original priority classifications,
attainment dates, ambient air quality standards, and fuel combustion emis-
sion regulations. SAROAD data for S09 and TSP monitoring stations are shown
^ 1
for AQCR's in the State. NEDS emissions data by AQCR1 are tabulated and
broken down into fuel burning categories.
Tcoles A-9 and A-10 show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from the NEDS. An emission tolerance, or emission
tonnage which might be allowed in the AQCR and still not violate national
secondary ambient air quality si uidards., is shown for SOp and particulates.
The intent of this calculation is to indicate possible candidate regions
for fuel switching. Tolerance was based on either the degree of control
expected by the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are
calculated from more recent data. The value of the emission tolerance
provides an indication of the degree of potential an AQCR possesses for
fuel revisions and regulation relaxation.
Methodology for Increased Emissions Tolerance
A tolerance for increased emissions was determined as follows. First,
an "allowable emissions" was calculated for each AQCR based on the current
NEDS data and the percent reduction (or increase) required to meet the
national secondary ambient air quality standards in t.iat AQCR (worst case
from Tables A-4 and A-5). This "allowable" was then compared to that from
the SIP. If reasonable agreement occurred, then thf "estimated emissions"
which would result after implementation of the SIP n th .t AQCR was used to
calculate an emissions tolerance. Thus, some credit could be given to an
AQCR which might be restricting emissions more than required by ambient
air quality standards. For instance, emission controls applied to
In1972 National Emissions Report," EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
20
-------
other than the example region for the state may reduce emissions well below
"allowables." In the event that no data existed or was available from the
SIP for an AQCR, the current air quality was used to assign emissions toler-
ance based on proportional rollback or roll up. Current air quality was also
the criteria, if emissions data from SIP and NEBS did not appear to be
comparable (this is often the case).
When no SIP emissions data was available, and current air quality
levels were less than one half of the level represented by an ambient air
quality standard, no "rollup" emissions tolerance was calculated in Tables
A-9 and A-10. This arbitrary cutoff point was chosen so as not to distort
the emissions tolerance for an area. At low levels of a pollutant, the
relationship between emissions and air quality is probably not well defined.
Although this cutoff may leave some AQCR's with rtp_ quantifiable emissions
tolerance, it was felt that no number at all would be preferable to a bad
or misleading number.
It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AQCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AQCR with
geographically dispursed emissions.
A word of caution regarding particulates needs mentioning. Emission
source estimates in the NEDS data bank and most State SIP's are for total
particulates. Generally, the control strategies for particulates are aimed
at total particulates, while the high-volume particulate sampling (SAROAD data)
measures only the finer, suspended fraction. A given level of total particulate
emissions control will therefore not translate into the same level of measured
ambient air quality. Some of the larger particulates being controlled will
not remain suspended, and therefore would not be measured by the high-volume
technique. Hence, particulate control plans may have underestimated the
amount of control necessary to achieve ambient air quality standards.
21
-------
ro
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX FALLS
INTERSTATE
(SOUTH DAKOTA-
IOWA)
NORTHWEST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
NORTH CENTRAL
IOWA
INTRASTATE
NORTHEAST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
/088
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY
INTERSTATE
(iOV/A-
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
METROPOLITAN
0:Y.AHA-COUNCIL
SLUFrS
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
068 METROPOLITAN
DUBUQUE
INTERSTATE
(iOWA-
iLLIMOIS-
WISCONSIN)
_ .T ._
OuTHMf | 0*1»f, ( »0t» I <
ill
SOUTHWEST
IOWA
iNTRASTATE
0921
SOUTH CENTRAL
IOWA
;NTKASTATE
091\
SOUTHEAST
IOWA
INTRASTATE
3
"^s-/ METROPOLITAN
QUAD CITIES
069 INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
IOWA)
BUFILINGTON-
nfir KECKIIK
UD3 INTERSTATE
(iLLINOiS-
;OWA)
Figure A-l. Iowa AQCR's
-------
Table A-l. AQCR Priority Classification and AQMA's - Iowa
AQCR
Burlington
- Keokuk
Iowa
Illinois
Metro
Debuque
Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsii
Quad C1t1e<
Iowa
Illinois
Omaha
Council
Bluffs
Iowa
Nebraska
Sioux City
Iowa
Nebraska
S. Dak.
Sioux Fall
Iowa
S. Oak.
Northeast
N. Central
Northwest
Southeast
South
Central
Southwest
TOTAL
Fed. *
065
068
069
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
Part.8
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1A
3
3
1
3
»,'
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
a)Crl!
NO/
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
*H| Baitd on
Daegrtphlc Infonntltn
Population
1970
89978
551361
641339
1 32054
21766
48398
202218
247299
319318
566617
86991
455655
542646
155370
13137
9643
178150
13340
124088
137428
492186
303740
174266
230998
664688
234469
2,825,041
Klilnun Neiiured
Square
Hlles
935
6245
7180
2035
606
1147
3788
1993
2949
4942
963
574
1537
2500
255
452
3207
588
2576
3164
7195
8445
6184
5244
10005
10858
55941
or CitlBited) Pol
Population
Density
96.2
88.3
89.3
65
36
53
124
108
115
90
794
357
62
51
21
57
23
48
' 43
68
36
28
44
66
22
51
utton Connntrillc
Proposed AQWDeslgnet lots
TSP
Counties
None
3
1
1
2
1
Hone
None
None
2
None
None
None
1
None
m In Are*
S0x
Counties
None
3
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Couatlts
(tone
None
Kane
Nont
None
*,*.
.
ton*
ttoiw
Host .
Xont
Xone
None
PHoHU
'Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic »»" ..
24-hour mai1*u*
Vartfculate m«tter;
Annual geometric me in ...
Nitrogen dioxide
i
Greater than
100
4S5
95
325
no
1 " 1
Front- To
60-100
I60-4SS
60- 9S
150-325
Lett than
60
Z60
60
150
110
Fednral fleshier. Auguit. 197* SMSA's ihowlng ootentUl for NAftWS violation
23
-------
Table A-2. Attainment Dates - Iowa
AQCR 1
065
068
069
085
086
087
088
089
090
091 -
t
092
1 093
AQCR Name
Burlington/Keokuk Interstate
Metro Dubuque Interstate
Metro Quad Cities Interstate
Metro Omaha-Council Bluffs Inter.
Metro Sioux City Interstate
Metro Sioux Falls Interstate
N. E. Iowa
N. Centra.
N. W.
S.E.
S. Central
S. West
Particulates
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
/
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Secondary
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Nitroaen Oxides
Attainment Dates
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a - already below NAAQS.
-------
Table A-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards - Iowa :~ ' o
(Expressed as /ug/nr)
ro
en
1
i
Federal
i
i
i
i
i
State
Primary
Secondary
Total
Suspended Parti cul ate
Annual
75
60
SAME AS
24-Hr.
i
260
150
FEDERAL
Sulfur Oxides
Annual
80
24-Hr.
365
3-Hr.
1600
Nitrogen
Dioxide
100
-------
Table A-4. AQCR Air Quality Status (1973),
- Iowa
AQCR Name
Burlington
Iowa
Illinois
Metro Dubuque
! Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsin
Quad Cities
Iowa
i Illinois
Omaha Council
Bluffs
Iowa
Nebraska
Metro Sioux City
Iowa
Nebraska
Metro Sioux
Falls
j Iowa
S. Dakota
N. E. Iowa
N. C. Iowa
...,/?--
N.~W.*;.iowa
S. E.. Iowa
S. Central
S. West
AQCR i
065
068
069
085
066
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
1
i
Stations
Reporting
2
J_
3
4
0
2
6
4
2
6
3
12
15
1
1_
2
1
4
5
12
4
2
1
16
2
(ng/tr1)
TSP Concentration
Highest Reading
Annual
40
40
._
31
100
100
127
127
50
9£
90
27
75
75
123
118
62
40
' 82
72
24-Hr.
648
191
648
215
82
215
292
232
292
243
432
432
218
«6
496
443
370
370
520
882
251
296
972
480
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr .
405
184
405
206
75
206
246
174
246
205
316
316
189
21£
219
188
179
188
403
502
180
144
464
194
1 Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary
tanua
0
0_
0
0
-
0
0
1
-
1
_
2
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
3
0
21-Hr
1
0_
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0..
0
4
0
Secondary
Snnua
0
0_
0
0
-
0
0
1
0
1
_
4
4
0
I
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
7
1
%
33
33
>4-Hr
2
1_
3
2
-
2
2
2
4
3
6
8
1
1
2
1
1
2
7
3
2
0
13
2
%
67
53
100
40
58
75
100
0
80
Of
t M) S (j)
tetic-.io-i I reaction '
Re.r-i:j; -o j fc'jlred to
Meet A::,- iie't ' f'eet 2nd
Secor.Jcry 24-Hr.
Star.d.ii-.J Standard
63
li
0 |
1
i 2?
"
! 2_
0
j
39
14
64
27
_ 53
75 ;
I
' 20
_ ! 32
58 32
;'
1 20
16
40 20 .
73 | 63
72 70
8 17
1
0 0
49 68
i
34 23
1
j
' 'Background on annual geometric mean assumed to be 37ug/m , the value used in Iowa SIP.
(2)
(3)
No background assumed on 24 hour Standards.
SAROAD data bank, September 1974.
26
-------
Table A-5. AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), S02 - Iowa
AQCIHaM
Burlington
low*
Illinois
Metro Debuque
low
Illinois
Wisconsin
Quad Cities
Iowa
Illinois
Drain-Council
Bluffs
Iowa
Nebraska
Metro Sioux tlty
Iowa
Nebraska
Metro Sioux Falls
Iowa
S. Dakota
N. E. Iowa
N. C. Iowa
N. W. Iowa
S. E. Iowa
S. C. Iowa
S. H. Iowa
-
«QC*«
065
068
069
085
086
087
088
089
090 .
091
092
093
«
SUtleos
Mpartlif
24^*.
1
1^
2
2
0
1
3
1
0
1
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
10
2
1
Stations
1
' 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
JO. CWCWftrttlW
MW*
AHUMl
NA
- NA
NA
NA
-.
NA
NA
NA
NA
~
NA
~
NA
~
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
It »MtH
i^MBBev^eVH
l*t
162 .
Ill
162
40
11
40
31
~
31
29
31
31
2
-
2
2
-
2
136
109
2
-
148
134
a . ,.,
2nd
24-«r.
-66
jte
66
27
10
27
2
-
2
2
27
27
2
-
2
2
-
2
79
83
2
--
105
94
* Stations
Avblent Air
-JWI
Anniu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
in
24-Hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exceeding
jollity Stdj,
Secondary
3-Hr
-
_
_
~
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
Reduction
Required
To Meet
Prlnry 24-Hr
Standard
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table A-6. Fuel Combustion Regulations - Iowa
Parti culates
so2
NO
(as N02)
:. v ':'- .
Existrmj^Sources
?P
/
0.8 lbs/10 Btu Outside SMSA's
(1)
0.6 lbs/106 Btu Inside SMSA's
: (1)
5.0 Ibs S02/10 Btu heat input
for solid fuel burning
1.5 Ibs S02/10\Btu Heat Inputt
for liquid fuej^liirning
(Sources > 250 xho6 Btu/hr)
Gas - 0.2 lbs/106 Btu
Oil - 0.3 lbs/106 Btu
Coal - NO REGULATION
(After Jan. 1, 197?)"
New Sources
After March 23, 1973
all sources
0.6 lbs/106 Btu
(2}
Power Plants v '
0.1 lb/106 Btu
Power Plants ^ '
Oil - 0.8 Ibs SO^/106. Btu
Coal - 1.2 Ibs S02/10° Btu
Power Plants * '
Gas - 0.2 lbs/106 Btu
Oil - 0.3 Ibs/itO6 Btu
Coal - 0.7 lbs/106 Btu
to
00
(1)
(2)
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
Federal New Source Performance Standards, 36 Fed. Reg. 24867, Dec. 26, 1971
-------
Table A-7. Iowa - Emissions Summary,
AQCR
1 »S
f Iowa
; Illinois
068
Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsin
069
Iowa
Illinois
085
ust1on
(103 Tons/Year)
.82
15.3
16.12
1.1
.77
1.1
2.97
1.4
9.4
10.8
.30
1.9
2.2
.65
.05
^05
.75
.109
.67
.779
3.5
1.9
1.1
1.9
3.8
1.6
%
11.7
6.1
6.3
8.8
93.9
2.5
5.1
1.6
29il
8.9
3.8
5.1
4.9
4.4
55.6
45.5
5.1
66.1
16.8
18.7
10.2
9.0
23.9
38.8
4.5
48.5
29
-------
Table A-8. Iowa Emissions Summary, Participates
AQCR
065
Iowa
Illinois
068
Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsin
069
Iowa
Illinois
085
Iowa
Nebraska
086
Iowa
Nebraska
S. Dakota
087
Iowa
S. Dakota
088 (N.E.)
089 (N.C.)
090 (N.W.)
091 (S.E.)
092 (S.C.)
093 (S.W.)
(1) The Burllr
for 1n the
, Total
[103 Ton«/re«r
38.0
166.5
204.5
10.8
1.1
9.9
21.8
33.0
18.6
51.6
2.3
15.8
18.1
6.5
.06
.55
7.11
.25
7.2
7.45
20.4
48.4
4.0
9.9
59.0
5.3
gton Power PI a
1972 NEDS sum
Percent
Fuel Conbustlon
3.2
83.4
68.0
38.0
19.1
97.0
63.7
34.6
48.4
39.6
31.0
80.7
74.5
7.7
33.3
5.5
7.8
16.4
10.4
10.6
32.4
3.6
27.0
10.5
49.0
25.7
It 1n AQCR 065 (lot
nary.
Electricity (Mention
(lO? Tons/fear)
0°'
117.1
117.1
2.5
0
8.9
11.4
9.0
2.3
11.3
0.54
12.0
12.54
0.15
0
_0__
.15
0
.46
.46
4.4
.54
.59
.34
27.0
.63
*a portion) was no
%
0
70.3
57.3
23.1
0
90.0
52.3
27.3
12.4
21.9
23.5
75.9
69.3
2.3
0
0
2.1
0
6.4
6.2
21.6
1.1
14.8
3.4
45.8
11.9
t accoi
Point Source
Fuel Conbustion
(103 Tons/Year)
0.95
14
14.95
1.2
0
0
1.2
1.8
1.6
3.4
.003
.100
.103
.013
0
_0
.013
0
.11
.11
0.9
.42
.04
.02
0.3
0.1
nted
%
2.5
8.4
7.3
11.1
0
_0
5.5
5.5
8.6
6.6
.13
.63
.57
.2
0
0
.18
0
1.5
1.5
4.4
.87
1.0
.2
.51
1.9
Area Source
Fuel Coribostlon
(103 Tons/Year)
0.26
7.8
8.06
0.4
.21
.68
1.29
0.61
5.1
5.71
.170
.654
.824
.34
.02
.03
.39
.041
.18
.221
1.3
.78
.45
.68
1.6
.63
%
.68
.4-7
3.4
3.7
19.0
7.0
5.9
1.8
27.4
11.1
7.4
4.1
4.6
5.2
33.3
. 5.5
5.5
16.4
2.5
3.0
6.4
1.6
11.3
6.9
2.7
11.9
30
-------
Table A-9. Iowa Particulate Required Emission Reductions
AQCR
065
Iowa
111.
066
Iowa
111.
Misc.
069
Iowa
111.
085
Iowa
Nebr.
086
087
Iowa
S. Dak.
088
Iowa
089
090
091
092
093
control
Value
sir
CURRENT DATA
,0(.a
Emissions
^
(10J Tons)
Allomblt
Entitlons
*
(103 Tent)
EltlwUd
Editions
After Controls
i
(10J Tons)
AQCR 092 was example partlculate region
for Iowa. Linear rollback used to
demonstrate attainment of NAAQS with
Iowa particulate regulations.
AQCR 092 was example particulate region
for Iowa. Linear rollback used to
demonstrate attainment of NAAQS with
Iowa particulate regulations.
NQCR 092 was exai^le partlculate region
for Iowa. Linear rollback used to
demonstrate attainment of NAAQS with
Iowa partlculate regulations.
149 ug/nT
,11)
67.4
14.2
12.9
Percent
Reduction
Based On
1973 AQ Data
63
27
39
. 53
32
20
63
72
17
-4
68
34
1972
NEDS
Emissions
(103 Tons)
38
167
205
10.8
1.1
9.9
21.8
33
19
52
2.3
15.8
18.1
6.5
.3
7.2
7.5
20.4
48.4
4.0
9.9
59
5.3
Allowable
Emissions
(103 Tons)
8.7
38.
46.7
7.9
.8
7.2
15.9
20
12
32
1.1
7.4
8.5
4.4
.2
5^
6.0
7.5
13.6
3.3
10.4
18.9
3.5
Eiritilon
Tolerance
(103 Tons)
o«>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+0.4
6<3>
0 .
' '
'2'
3)
Annual geometric mean 1969, background assumed to be 37 ug/m
Most partlculate emissions 1n 1972 NEOS for AQCR 086 originate 1n Iowa.
Example region 092 show allowable emissions from SIP and current data to be i
similiar. To the extent that the two data bases are comparable and accurate,
a 6000 ton tolenance for increased emissions is Indicated.
All AQCR's except example region 092 show no emission tolerance based on current air quality.
No information regarding expected degree of control 1n non-exaople regions was available.
31
-------
Table A-10. Iowa SOp Required Emission Reductions
AQCR
065
Iowa
068
069
085
086
087
089
090
091
092
093
AQ
MtUMTMtKt
Control
Value
107 ug/nT
tir
CURRENT DATA
1968
Emissions
(103 Tons)
50.5
Al Iambi*
EBltilom
(103 Tom)
28.3
l»75
EstlMUd
Emissions
After Controls
(103 Tons)
40.3
Linear rollback In example SO. region
065 did not demonstrate NAAQS'attaln-
ment. Both a diffusion model and
linear rollback after applying Iowa
regulations showed ~20i reduction
ambient S(>2 levels. This reduction
combined with the 661 expected re-
duction in Illinois SO,, emissions
In AQCR 065 were states to be
adequate for attainment of NAAQS.
Linear rollback In example SO. region
065 did not demonstrate NAAQS'attaln-
ment. Both a diffusion model and
linear rollback after applying Iowa
regulations showed 202 reduction
ambient S02 levels. This reduction
combined with the 66J expected re-
duction In Illinois S02 emissions
in AQCR 065 were stated to be
adequate for attainment of NAAQS.
ttrcjnt
Refection
Required
Used On
1973 AQ Data
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEDS
Emissions
(103 Tons)
258
58
122
46
15
4
34
21
5
5
84
3
Allowable
End ss Ions
(103 Toni)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
Ealulon
Tolerance
(103 Tons)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)
(2)
Annual arithmetic mean, 1970, monitor located 1n Peoria, Illinois.
All SO; monitoring stations 1n Iowa report levels well below the SOj standards.
A rollup of emission is not calculated since unrealistic "allowables" may result.
a) No calculation was made for allowable SO, emissions or emissions tolerance 1n
Iowa AQCR's. All Monitoring stations report ambient S02 levels well below
NAAQS. The limited date make the air quality/emissions relationship uncertain
1n Iowa.
b) No S02 data available.
32
-------
APPENDIX B
Tables B-l and B-2 are the assessment of AQCR's which should be examined
for the fuel switching impact on particulate and S02 emissions. They also
provide an identification of those AQCR's which show little potential for
fuel revision or regulations relaxation if ambient air standards are to be
attained.
Those AQCR's designated "good" or "marginal" here will be examined in
later appendices where an attempt will be made to estimate the emissions
resulting from an assumed fuel schedule different from the present, or the
emissions which might result if all fuel burning sources emitted up to their
"allowables."
The criteria for candidates are (1) the severity and breadth of air
quality violations, (2) the tolerance for emissions increased in the AQCR,
(3) the fraction of total emissions resulting from fuel combustion, and
(4) AQMA designations. It should be noted that an AQCR may not necessarily
need relaxation of regulations in order to accomplish fuel switching.
Further, a good candidate in Tables B-l and B-2 may later show little poten-
tial for fuel switching after individual sources are examined. Finally, it
is possible that an AQCR may have air quality levels below standard at
present ane may require more strict regulations than currently exist if all
fuel burning sources were converted to dirtier fuels, i.e., "average"
emission rate now may be below "average" regulations.
33
-------
Table B-l. Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential/Regulation
Relaxation - Pdrticulates (Iowa only)
AQCR
Air Quality
#
Monitors
065 ; 2
068 4
069 4
085 3
086 1
087 1
088
089
090
091
092
093
12
4
2
1
16
2
Stations
Showing
Violations
2
2
2
3
1
1
7
3
2
0
13
2
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
b
a
7/75
." b ~-
Total
Emissions
(103 tons)
38
11
33
2.3
:6.5
0.25
20
48
4
10
59
5.3
Any i % Emission
AQMA : from Fuel
Designations? , Combustion
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
"o
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103 tons)
3 0
38 0
35 '0
31
8
16
32
4
27.
11
49
26
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0.4
6
0
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Marginal
Marginal
Poor
Already below standards.
DSAROAD data indicates 24 hour standard violations in AQCR in 1973; ea'rlier dataThad Tndicated
that AQCR's 093 and p90 were below NAAQS f6r~TSP"
-------
i co
01
Table B-2. Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential/Regulation
Relaxation - SO? (Iowa only)
AQCR
065
068
069
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
' Air Quality
#
Monitors
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
10
2
#
Stations
Showing
Violations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Attainment
Date
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Total
Emissions
(103 tons)
7
13
;89
: 8
15
.2
34
21
; 5
5
83
3
Any.
.. AQMA
Designations?
No
No
Oes) /< ,
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
|
i
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
92
92
99
93
96
66
94
53
83
82
83
71
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103 tons)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
\
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
^Already below NAAQS, exact allowable S02 emissions undefined.
-------
APPENDIX C
This section is a review of individual power plants by AQCR. The
intent is to illustrate: (1) current S02 and particulate emissions, (2)
fuel switching possibilities, and (3) allowed emissions for power plants
based on current regulations. The total AQCR emissions resulting from
possible fuel switches is then calculated.
Current power plant information used to prepare Table C-l wasvobtained
from three main sources: (1) Federal Power Commission computerized listings
of power plants and their associated fuel use, (2) the National Coal Asso-
ciation "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972, and (3)
NEDS Emissions data.1 For those plants listed by the FPC (1 above), the 1973
fuel schedule was assumed, otherwise, fuel use is for 1972. Heat inputs are
those based on actual fuel values vhere krc'vn, and average values shown in
Table C-3 were used where not known. SOp and. particulates emissions are those
associated with the fuel use shown. In the case of particulates, emissions
were calculated using NEDS emissions factors applied to the listed fuel schedule
(in both tonnage and lbs/106 Btu). When-a plant was not listed in NEDS, AP-42
emission factors were used to estimate SO^ and particulate emissions Csee
Table C-3).
Table(s) C-l also lists allowable emissions calculated by applying current
regulations (Table A-6) to the gross heat input to each plant. The Iowa parti-
culate and S02 regulations were assumed to apply to all power plants regardless
of size. Since Iowa's S02 regulations are different for oil and coal use,
allowable SOp emissions were calculated assuming a switch to coal where possible,
and a switch from gas to oil otherwise.
Totals of fuels, current emissions, and allowable emissions are calculated
for each AQCR at the bottom of Table(s) C-l and are sh wn : jain in Tables C-2
for comparison after fuel switch. Plants are switched entirely to coal where
possible and to "all oil" if a plant cannot use coal. The fuel switch calcula-
tions are intended to show the magnitude of emissions increase accompanying a
NEDS data bank, December 1974.
36
-------
fuel switch without additional controls. The exact emissions would depend
upon actual fuel mix, amount of sulfur in fuels, and degree of emissions
controls accompanying a fuel switch.
It might be cautioned that AQCR total emissions calculated in the
tables of Appendix C (and also Appendix D) may not agree exactly with total
emissions represented in Appendix A (Tables A-7, A-8). This is a result of
both differing fuel schedules in 1973 compared to previous years and the
relative "completeness" of the NEDS data bank. Along the same line, AQCR
totals may contain a "mix" of 1972 and 1973 fuel schedules (and resulting
emissions). The intent of the listings is not great precision, but rather to
show approximate status relative to regulations at present, and to show
results of fuel switching where possible.
37
-------
Table C-1. Power Plant Characterization
County
AQCR 065
Des Moires
AQCR 068
Jubuque
Plant Name
Burlington
212 HW
Wai del
attalr
TOTALS
Dubuque
9125 MM
. Fuel Use *
Type
X Sulfur
X Ash
Coal
2.62XS
8.2 XA
Oil
US
model 'of Bu
NAAQS. I OH
Coal
Oil
TOTAL
Coal
2.92XS
10. 5XA
011
0.4X S
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
TOTAL
Annual *
Quantity
447
0.98
Hngton PI a
regulation
447
0.98
107
2.24
1662
107
2 24
1662
Heat
Input
;iO° Btu/hr
1047
0.65
1048
t Indicates
would allow
1047
O.C5
1048
265
1.5
190
457
265
1.5
190
456.5
Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/y
22764
3
that 3
2.71 si
22767
6045
3
6048
lbs/10
Btu
4.96
M sul
fur e
4.96
3.02
3.02
5
:9H5/y
22951
ur coa
al. S
22951
10008
10008
bs/10
Btu
5.0
could
e refe
5.0
5.0
5.0
Partlculates
Existing | Allowable
fgf]S/y
440
be use
ence 1
440
3500
12
3512
bs/10
Btu
0.10
and s
0.10
1.75
1.76
tons/y
2754
till
2754
1201
1201
lbs/10(
B^u
.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Coal - 10^ tons
* 011 - 10^ bbls
Gas - 10° ft3
Indicates that
9 plant has heat
Input less thin
250xl06 Btu/hr.
38
-------
Table C-l. Power Plant Characterization
County
AQCR 069
Clinton
Scott
Muscatine
AQCR 085
Potto
Wattamie
Plant llama
Kapp
237.2 MW
Riverside
222 MW
Muscatine
118 MW
Council Bluffs
130.6 MW
Type
% Sulfur
Coal
3.0*5
10.5*A
Oil
0.4*5
Gas
Coal-
2.49*5
9. 7*A
Bas
Coal
3.2*5
9.5*A
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
TOTAL
Coal
0.94*5
8. 8*A
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
TOTAL
t'j-.-i Use *
Annual
Quantity
465
0.42
170
569
3948
81
1364
1115
0.42
5482
207
0.33
2431
?n?
0.33
2431
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
1198
0,28
1218
1417
451;
1868
. 203
155
358
2818
0.28
625
3443
480
.22
279
759
4Hn
0.22
279
759
Erissions
S02
' Existing | Allowable
:ons/y
27079
27499
1
4930
59510
3781
1
1
3783
lbs/10
Btu
5.08
3.21
3.41
3.95
1.34
1.14
5
tons/v
26674
42880
7840
77394
16622
16622
Particulates 1
Existing | Allowable j
lbs/106.
Btu Itons/v
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
635
6240
30
1700
2
8607
113
18
131
bs/10e
Btu
0.12
0.73
1.09
0.57
0.04
n.na
tons/y
3201
..
941
9288
1995
1995
Ibs/iO1?
Btu
0.6
n.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
n.n
39
-------
iduie o-i rower ridiiu
}
County
AQCR 086
Woodbury
'
I
|
1
Plant Name
!
i ' "' "
Big Sioux
40 MW
i
E
George Neal
496 MW
.
Kirk (Sio-y City)
!
Storm Lake
>
t
Fuel Use *
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Oil
Q.18%5
Gas
Coal
0.82% S
10.7% A
Oil
1% S
Gas
Coal
Oil
1% S
Gas
Coal
3.25% S
9.4% A
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Total
Annual
Quantity
13.5
1293
1072
1.94
4883
0
75
725
8.8
372
1-081 ~
90.4
7273
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
8.95
148
157
2461 ;
1.3
557
3019
48
83
13T
24
44
668
2485
58.3
832
3375
- ":"
Emissions
SO 2
.__.....
Existing
bons/yr
8
U063
6
1
247
54.3
17868
lbs/10<
Btu
0.02
1.29
0.43
1.82
1.21
Allowable
5 jibs/10*
tons/yrj Btu
1034
66116
2869
1489
715H5
1.5*
5.0
1.3
5.0*
5.0*
5.0
Parti culates
Existing
tons/ vi
2
10
7300
36
13
5
662
3
8031
lbs/106
Btu
0.02
0.55
0.03
2.23
0.54
Allowable
413
7934
344
179
8870
lbs/10^
!
B"'J
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
CD
-------
Table C-l. Power Plant Characterization
County
AQCR 088
L1nn
Allomakee
Black Hawk
Plant Name
Sixth Street
92.2 MM
Prairie Creek #4
148.7 MU
Prairie Creek (
1-3
96 MU
Lansing
64.0 MW
Maynard
100 MW
Iowa Falls
Fual Use *
Type
% Sulfur
X Ash
Coal
2.36% S
7.6X A
011
14 S
Gas
[Furfural
Residue]
Coal
2.46 X S
8.4X A
011
IX S
Gas
Gas
Coal
2.99X S
10.5* A
on
0.4X S
Coal
2.88X S
9.4X A
011
Gas
Coal
2.3% S
8.8X A
Gas
Coal
011
Gas
Total
Annual
Quantity
223
2.16
1010
66 X 103
tons
471
1.17
515
1411
114
0.30
93.9
1945
3581
16.7
327
919
23.1
6844
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
532
.1.45
115
unknown
648
1176
0.8
58.8
1235
161
292
0.2
297
237
13
409
555"
42
37
^79"
2279
15.5
781
4075.5
Emissions
SOz
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr
10220
7
-
_
22501
4
_
.
6625
_
5252
63
1
731
45404
lbs/10
Btu
3.60
4.16
.
5.18
1.84
2.11
3.37
tops/yi
14191
17047
1058
6394
14432
1730
14852
lbs/10(
Btu
5.0
5.0
1.5*
5.0
5.0.
5.0*
4.07 1
Parti culates
Existing 1 Allowable
tpps/yi
1300
-
1
.
5140
.
4
11
7700
3500
3
27
236
2
7924
b3/10(
Btu
0.46
0.95
0.02
6.02
1.22
0.69
1.33
tons/v
1702
3246
423
767
1732
208
8078
lbs/10f
Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
-------
Table C-l. Power Plant Characterization
County
AQCR 089
Cerro Gordc
Hamilton
AQCR 091
Clay
Plant Name
Mason City
23.5 MW
Webster City
37.9 MW
Humbolt
41 MW
Spencer
12.5 NK
Carrol
10 MW
Fuel Use *
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
Oil
2.8% 5
Gas
Coal
3.91% S
5.8% A
Gas
Coal
2 2% S
7. 4% A
Gas
Coal
011
Gas
Total
Coal
0.8% S
5.5% A
011
0.3% S
Coal'2'
2.5 S
10.0% A
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Total
Annual
Quantity
0
33
1000
6
30
25.6
. 483
31.6
33
1513
1.1
23.8
6
298
7.1
23.8
298
Heat
Input
(10^ Btu/hr)
0
21
114
17.1
3.3
2T
64.3 '
55.1
TT7
81.4
21.0
172.4
274.8
2.76
16.0
T?
16
34
50
18.8
16.0
it.
KK «
. " Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr
304
-
446
1072
-
isa
17
_
285
_
in?
Ibs/lO
Btu
0.51
5.09
2.06
1. 51
0.20
1.63
i n
Allowable
tons/vr
2957
438
2606
6001
416
876
17Q?
bs/10(
Btu
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0
5.0*
5.0*
S n
Partlculates
Existing
6
8
90
171
4
279
51
7
480
2
i/in
bs/10(
Btu
0.02
1.02
0.34
0.23
0.70
2.75
1 79
Allowable
tons/y
355
53
313
721
50
105
15V
lbs/10(
Btv
0.6
0.6
0.6
n fi
0.6
0.6
0.6
42
-------
Table C-l. Power Plant Characterization
County .
AQCR 092
Boone
Marshall
Polk
Monroe
Plant Name
Boone
34.2 MH
Sutherland
15666 MM
Des Molnes
325 MW
Bridgeport
71 MW
Pella
Fuel Use *.
Type
X Sulfur
i Ash
Coal
2. 6X S
lo.oi-; A
011
2* S
Gas
Coal
2.8* S
11;7% A
011
1* S
Gas
Coal
2.93% S
10.0* A*
011
0.« S
Gas
Coal
2.71* S ,,
10,0 X Au
011
1*
Coal
4.8* S
17.7* A
Oil ./,,
0.5* SU)
Gas
Annual
Quantity
20.5
0.16
1854
176.5
0.31
8076
456
3.44
11427
183
16.1
27
5286
14000
Heat
Input
[106 Btu/hr)
49.2
0.1
216
267
417 .
.2
922
1335
1007
2.3
1304
53T7
422
10.8
433
67.8.
3548
1598
smr
Emissions
SOj | Particulates
Existing
tons/yr
1115
1
_
9597
1
2
25932
4
3
9423
52
2460
.8714
4
lbs/10
Btu
0.96
1.64
2.56
4.88
0.49
Allowable | Existing
tons/vr
5804
S324
10655
9702
114187
'bs/10(
Btu
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
tons/vr1
800
^
14
790
_
61
9050
1
86
14640
3
62
888
105
bs/10f
Btu_
0.70
0.15
0.90
7.55
0.05
Allowable
tons/y
696
3519
6079
1164
|V?7n3
bs/10!
Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
(2) Assumed, No * S or * A Information available where Indicated.
43
-------
Table C-l. Power Plant Characterization
County
.AQCR 092 xr
(cont'dj
Story
AQCR 093
Union
Plant Name
Ames
C.I. Power
22.5 Mrf
Fuel Use .*
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
4.5% S
12.5% A
D. Oil
0.5% S
Gas
Coal .
Oil
Gas
Total
Coal
3.5% S
7.5% A
Coal
Annual
Quantity
42.4
32
1602
905
5338
36959
27
27
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
91.9
"21.5
183
W
2055
3583
4223
9861
67.8
67.8
Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/y_r
"3515"
'48
"6Q97T
17838;
1783
lbs/10
Btu
2JB2
".""
1.41
6.0
6.0
5
tons/yr
6504
216176'
1485
1485
lbs/106
Btu
5.0
5.0
5.0*
_,
5.0
Particulates
Existing
tons/v
100
4
26604
790
. _
790
Allowable
ibs/105.
Btu _jtons£^_
O.OJ
0,6;
2.61
2.66
781
25941
178
178
!bs/10*
Btu
0.6
0,6
0.6
......
0.6
-------
Table C-2. Iowa Power Plant Summary
r
AQCR
065
068
069
085
086
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
S02
Particulates
Coal
Oil
Gas
' " i !
: j
I
Present Use JGas & Oil to Coal
Quantity 109Btu/y Quantity 109Btu/y
447 9172
0.98 6.3
0 0
9178
447
0
0
j
i
i
107 2321 1 184
2.241 19.6 0
1664
S02
Particulates
Coal
Oil
Gas
S0?
Particulates
1115
0.42
5482
1662 0
4003
9178
0
0
9178
4003
0
0
4003
Emissions
tons/yr
Oil
& Gas
Present To Coal
22767
440
6048
3512
i '.
9767 1740 J10250 I
3.7 0 0 ;
5477
10250
0
Coal 207 4205 327
Oil
Gas
0.33
1.9 0
2431 2444 0
6651
so2
Particulates
Coal
1081 21769 1468
Oil 90.4 511 0
Gas
so2
Particulates
!
7273 7288 0
29568
1
i
i
o !
10250 ;
59510
8607
!
6651 !
0 [
0
6651
3783
1.-. [ 13T
i-
29568
0 : .
0 I
29568 i!
117868
8031
22780
440
Lbs/106 Btu
Oil
& Gas
Present To Coal
4.96
0.1
10426 3.02
6036 1.76
*
i
92915
13389
3.95
0.57
i
1
'
5980 i 1.14
179 . 0.04Ct
i
23914 1.21
10814
1
0.54
4.96
0.1
5.21
3.03
6.17
0.89
1.80
! 0.05
I
1.62
0.73
Al lovable
Emissions
tons/year
Allowable
lbs/106 Btu
i
22951
2754
10008
1201
77394
9288
5.0
0.6
5.0
0.6
j
i
5.0 ;
0.6
1
;
i
) j
»
i
16622 5.0
1995 0.6 |
1
t
i
i
t
i
71505 5.0
8870 0.6
i
i
-------
Table C-2. Iowa Power Plant Summary
AQCR
088
!
089
090
992
, 093
j
' ' . Emissions
: tons/yr
Present Use !Gas & Oil to Coal & gas
Fuel Quantity 109Btu/y Quantity 10sBtu/y, Present To Coal
Coal
Oil
Gas
S02
Parti culates
Coal
Oil
Gas
SOo
V \J )
Parti culates
Coal
.'on
Gas
C0o
%* *j ^j
Particulates
Coal
919 19964-
23.1 135.8
6844 6481.6
26941
31.6
33.0
1513
7.1
23.8
298
905
713.1
i
1240 i 26941
o ! o
o
v
107
184 0
1510.2 0
2407
0
26941
454,04
17924
2407 .
0
0
2407
1822
279
164.7 26 1 603
140.2 0 0
297.8
603
18002
Oil 5338 31387
Gas
S02
Parti culates
Coal
Oil
Gas
S02
Parti cul ate;
:'<' ? 36993
27
0
0
86382
593.9
0 0
4143
0
0
27
0 0
0 ! 0
593.9
'
603
302
86382
0
0
86382
593.9
0
0
593.9
540
60971
26604-
60971
790
61171
24124
5125
881
.
Lbs/106 Btu
Oil
& Gas
Present To Coal
3.37
1.33
1.51
0.23
i
1105
1943
250202
122083
250202
790
1.0
1.79
1.41
0.62
1.41
2.66
4.54
1.79
4.25
0.73
Allowable
Emissions
tons/year
i
Allowable
ibs/106 Btu
\
i
i
'
i 54852
8078
6001
721
i
i
3.66
6.44
5.79
2.85
5.79
2.66
1292
155
216176
25941
216176
178
1
4.07
0.6 :
i
|
i
5.0 i
0.6
5.0
0.6
»
!
5.0
0.6
5.0
0.6
-------
Table C73« AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors
(1) Coal 23 x 106 Btu/Ton
(2) Oil 140 x 103 Btu/Gal
(2) Gas 1000 Btu/Ft3
Fuel
Coal W (Bit.)
General
[
Wetbottom 10% A
Cyclone
T 6/ O
1 A? v
2% S
3% S
Oil<2> .
0.5% S
1.0% S
2.0% S
Gas<3>
(.3 Ibs S/
106 Ft3)
Parti culates
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10B Btu
160 7.4
130 7.0
20 0.9
Same Same
i - - - -
S02 f-
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
.
'
. 38 K65
as as I 76 3.3
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal
8 0.058
8 .058
8 .058
Lb/105Ft3
15 .015
114 5.0
Lb/103 Gal
79 0.56
157 1.12
314 2.24
Lb/106Ft3
0.57 .00057
i
Hydrocarbons,-
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
. 0.3 0.013
:
0.3 0.13
Lb/103 Gal
2 .014
2 .014
2 .014
Lb/106Ft3
1 .001
NOX (as N02)
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
18 0.78
30 1.3
55 2.4
Same Same
as as
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal
105 0.75
105 0.75
105 0.75
Lb/106Ft3
600 0.60
-------
APPENDIX D
The Tables D-l in this appendix list individual industrial/commercial/
institutional sources of particulates and SOg emissions which might show fuel
switching potential. The sources are from a NEDS rank order emissions listing.
Tables D-l account for at least 95% of a total emissions (both fuel and non-
fuel sources) in the AQCR, since not all industrial sources could be listed in
this report. It should be cautioned that the percent emissions accounted for
is different than the "% of fuel use accounted for." It is possible that
several potential fuel switch sources could be overlooked by the cutoff point
on the emissions (i.e., a reasonable sized natural gas used may emit below our
cutoff point in the NEDS rank order list).
All sources listed were assumed to be affected by Iowa SCL and particulate
regulations, and "allowable" emis ions for SC^ were calculated by applying the
appropriate SOg regulation (Table A-6) to the fuels currently in use.
Fuel switch emissions calculations were not made for industrial sources,
since no information was available for feasibility of any fuel switching.
Summary Table D-2" lists current fuels and emissions for each AQCR along with the
aggregated emissions which would be allowed by existing regulations.
48
-------
'Table D-1. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
County
' AQCR 065
1200
2240
| Plant Hane
Army Ammunitions
Plant
Hublnger Co.
i
Chevron Chemical
AQCR 068
1280
TOTAL
Celotex Corp.
Debuque Packing
|| John Deere
1
t
i
TOTAL
i
F-l Us:
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
2.6% S
11.3% A
R. 011
1.8% S
Coal
3.0% S
13.8% A
D. 011
0.3% S
Gas
Gas
Coal
011
Gas
Coal
1.74% S
8.9% A
Gas
D. 011
Gas
Coal
3.4% S
10.7% A
Gas
Coal
011
Gas
*
i.:cat
p65''3tu/hr;
29,000
1.021
62,600
522
517
6,767
91 ,600
1,543
7,284
57200
433
T.438
734
33,760
1,521
'
38.960
1 .438
2,688
i
Total i
82.8
17.5
179
8.9
62.0
550
772
261.8
26.4
834
r -is=1cns
S02 ' Parti culates
Existing | Allowajle Existing | Allowable
,onq/vr
1430
150
3570
13
2
1122.2 15165
14.8
49.4
54~
172
21.3 j 31
83.7
TOT" j
88.6 ^240
(
173
257
103.4 !
21.3
306.1 ,
i
lbs/10s
3.61
3.27
-
,1-fl*
0.61
0.07
1.95
430.8 2443 1.29
J j ;
; i
2190
5475
5072
27?7
1402
690
5738
7830
t-s/li^ tbs/10^
5.0
5.0
1.5
?, 5?
5.0
1.5
5.0
974
11
52
4
4
59
1104
116
4
7
204
14
4.15 356
i
!
2.25
0.05
0.02
0.22
0.43
0.04
0.19
0.19
263
657
2029
2M9
168
276
689
1133
lbs/10(
0.6
0.6
0.6
-0.4.
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
49
-------
Table D-1. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
.'
! County ji ?lant :iane
AQCR 069 j|
940 Com Processing
1 Co.
i:
2740 IGrain Processing
1 Corp.
ii
I
940 Nat. By-Prod.
i TOTAL
i !
i
j
AQCR 085 T
3140 jjGr1ff1n Pipe Prod
!i American Beef'
'; Fri to-Lay , Inc.
.I
I TOTAL
i
i-
.
{
*
j
i
Type
X Sulfur
% Ash
A- -.;* i K.r-
:.-;:;;. | Ir-'Jt
i
Coal
2.6% S
8.0% A
D. Oil
0.5* S
Gas
Coal
2.63% S
8. It A
Gas
D. Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
1
175.720 ! 421
i
3,429 54.8
1 ,260 143
BT?
22,280 53.4
4,515 515
! 568"
730 j 10.8
198,000 ! 474.4
4,159 65.6
5,775 < 658
i
; ;
;
!
Total
Gas
Gas
i 1,198.0
I
i
376 ! 42.9
t-isslws
SC'? I Participates
Existing /ino'.'^Mc : LXist^rc
'?rT,,/vr
11012
120
^
1113
1
Allowable
ibs/!C° -br/iC^ libs/100. 1bs/10fi
"tu r^s/vr -<. jtons/v- "tu krns/vt BJ.'J
4.11
1 1
|3133
13556 5.0
0.45
19
12265
-
345 ; 39.4
i ;
Gas 99 ' 11.3 j -
Coal . - ! 0
Oil . i - | -0 ;
Gas 820 | 93.6
Total
93.6 '
1
-
' i
: '
12439 5.0
0.40 71 | 1.5
i
}
I
f !
73
11
509
41
5
1 i !
2.34
-
-
26.0661 4.97^.772
" " 7 "
282 1.5 i 3
259 I 1.5 j 3
- 1 74 | 1.5 ; 1
I !
j i !
I i !
.01
i
615 1.5 7
1.19
0.22
0.11
0.72
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
i
i j
i
i i
1627
1493
28
3148
113
103
30
246
1
! i i ' i
0.6
0.6
O.f
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0,6
50
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
County
AQCR 086
4020
!
i
^
AQCR 088
2280
340
ji
::
|! Plant ;,'s-o
[j
ismark Swift
it
'Terra Chew
!j
iKinco 01 v.
||
!i
" TOTAL
i
' Renick S Ford
;
Wilson Co.
!
:
i
! John Deere
1 Waterloo
i
Rath Packing
I TOTAL
i
i
% Sulfur
% Ash
R. 011
2.0% S
Gas
Gas
D. Oil
0.3% S
Gas
F,.., _., ' C-.::-ii?'is
:?Z i Parti cuHf;s
V-i.:.--, * | }:-3t j Existing | Allcwaole Existing
C.-: ;('.y i Irrjt !
520 ! 8.90 82
i
212 j 24.2
4333 1 495 1
186 2.80 4
152 17.4 ' -
' 20 '.
1 :
Coal - . 0 ;
Oil j 706 11.7 !
Gas i 4697 ! 536.6 j
Total
D. 011
0.5% S
Gas
Coal
2.2% S
8.6% A
Gas
Coal
3.0% S
8.0% A
Coal '
2.88% S
8.8% A
Gas
Coal .
011
Gas
; 548.3 86
. . i ._._- i
i
5,330 ; 85.2 j 189
, t
1,073 i 122
22,400 | 61.4 ' 935
i
421 i 48.1
! TW
50,275 | 132 2865
36,074 103 2262
805 ; 91.9 ' -
T9? !
1 08, 749 . 296 . 4
5,330 85.2
2,299 . 262
Allowable
!bs/!3* i:=/lu5 ibs/10S( !ibs/10f
Bt.'J l'r--\f /"Y* " t ' f --"I* /* P *! ''i'T" /*'rt r *",'
'!->..'_' .__ ."_.' '_' -" ' _!.-f-i_.i_ ^_'.K_.
2.10
0.33
6
217 1.5
' i 2
3252 1.5 1 40
i 1
131 : 1.5
1
i
0.04
0.21
1.96
4.96
2.65
3600 1.5 50
._.. i i . ...
6
1360 1.5
I
938
2387 5.0
3
2891 j 5.0 1397
! i
j i
' 298
1281 1.5 J
Total ! 643.6 16251 | 2.22 7919 2.81 2642
1
!
! ' i i I
i
i
0.06
0.02
|0.02
1
0.02
1.97
2.41
0.35
0.94
87
1300
53
1440
544
286
347
512
1689
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
51
-------
Table D-1, Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
County
AQCR 089
680
3840
4060
AQCR 090
760
Plant Name
N.N. States Port
Cement
Farmland Ind.
Geo. A. Hormel
Central Soya
TOTAL
Mental Health
Inst.
Wilson S Co.
John Morrell 4 Co
TOTAL
Fuel Use '
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
. 0. 011
2. OX S
Gas
Gas
R. Oil
2.01 S
Gas
R. Oil
2.5% S
Gas
011
Gas
Total
D. Oil
0.5% S
Gas
D. Oil
0.37% S
G«
D. Oil
0.42"% S
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Total
Annual
Quantity
1032
151
4002
386
401
220
344
1638
4898
150
937
300
420
410
169
-
860
1526
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr
15.9
17.2
1?
457
6.47
45.8
57
3.69
39.3
26.1
559.3
585.4
.3.18
107
m
4.97
.47 j
6.79
19.3
0
14.94
174.2
189.1
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/y
.
1
61
-
43
-
104
5
_
8
-
12
:
25
lbs/10
Btu
-
-
0.27
0.22
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.03
Allowable
tons/y;
217
3002
342
289
3850
723
348
171
242
lbs/10
Btu
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Partlculates
Existing
ton.s/v
146
36
3
4
2
3
194
1
3
1
3
3
2
18
bs/10
Btij
1.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
Allowable
>
tons/i
87
1201
137
116
1541
289
139
68
496
1
1
lbs/106
Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
52
-------
Talbe D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
County
AQCR 091
2)00
3680
AQCR 092
3120
180
1040
2060
Plant Name
Dexter Co.
Can-Tex Brick
John Deere
Ottumwa
TOTAL
Firestone Tire &
Rubber
Armstrong Rubber
Union Carbide
Oscar Mayer
Maytag Company
TOTAL
Fu2l Use
Type
* Sulfur
% Ash
D. 011
3.8% S
R. 011 '
0.50* S
Coal
4.5531 S
10.3* A
Coal
011
Gas
Total
R. 011
1.79* S
Gas
R. 011
1.75* S
Gas
D. Oil
5.0* S
Gas
D. 011
1.0* S
Gas
R. Oil
0.5* S
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Annual*
Quantity
43
300
17.200
17.200
343
\ "*
1757
1258
790
458
20
50
- 234
191
2654
858
-
5455
2815
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
0.66
5.14
45.2
45.2
5.8
0
51.
31.1
144
T75
13.5
52.3
67
0.32
5.7V6
3.74
21-8/^6
45.4
97.9
T4T
0
94.1
321.7
Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/yj-
9
12
1490
1511
298
109
34
103
lbs/10
Btu
3.38
0.53
7.53
6.76
0.39
0.38
-
0.30
0.16
5
tons/v
4
34
990
1028
1150
434
33
171
940
Parti culates
Existing
lbs/10°
Bt'j Itons/v
1.5
1.5
5.0
4.60
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
-
4
443
447
19
11
9
4
7
;
4
2
23
6
lbs/10(
Btu
-
0.17
2.23
2.0
0.04
0.05
0.32
0.05
0.05
Allowable
tons/y
2
14
119
135
460
173
13
68
376
!bs/10(
E1H_
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Total
415.8 544 0.30 2728 1.5 85 0.05 1090 0.6
53
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
-
County
AQCR 093
3300
980
Plant Mane
Western
Engineering
Western Materials
Farmland Foods
TOTAL
Fuel Use .
Type
t Sulfur
* Ash
D. 011
0.3* S
R. 011
1.7* S
D. 011
0.3* S
D. Oil
0.05* S
Gas
Coal
011
Gas
Total
*
Annual
Quantity
601
20
56
300
18
v
0
977
18
Heat
Input
(105 Btu/hr)
9.6
0.34
TO
0.89
4.8
2.1
"7
0
15.6
2.1
17.7
Emissions
502
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr!
11
3
1
1
_
16
lbs/10<
Btu
0.32
0.26
0.03
0.21
>
tons/vr
65
6
46
117
ibs/iC*
Btu_|
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Participates
Existing
tons/'/*
-
_
-
2
_
2
ibs/10f
Btu
-
_
-
0.07
0.03
Allowable
tons/vt1
26
2
18
46
lbs/10!
Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
54
-------
Table D-2. Major Industrial Fuel and Emissions Summary - Iowa
AQCR
(Iowa Only)
065
608
069
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
Iowa Total
Fuel Accounted For
Coal 103 Gal. 106 ft3
Tons Oil Gas
91,600
38,960
198,000
0
0
0
108,749
0
0
17,200
0
0
454,509
1,543
1,438
4,159
0
706
0
5,330
1,638
860
343
5,455
977
. 22,449
7,284
2,688
5,775
820
4,697
0
2,299
4,898
1,526
-
2,815
18
32,820
so2
txi sting Allowed
Emissions Emissions
(Tons) (Tons)
5,165
2,443
12,265
-
86
-
6,251
104
25
1,511
544
16
28,410
12,737
7,830
26,066
615
3,600
-
7,919
3,850
1,242
1,028
2,728
117
67,732
Particulates
Existing Allowed
(Tons) (Tons)
1,104
356
3,772
7
50
-
2,642
194
18
447
85
2
8,677
2,949
1,133
3,148
246
1,440
-
1,689
1,541
496
135
1,090
46
13,913
-------
APPENDIX E
Table E-l shows area source fuel use for the State of Iowa by AQCR.
The approximate energy values are compared for each fuel along with the
percent of overall energy derived from each fuel. Data are those in NEDS
as of December 19, 1974. State area source totals are calculated and the
percent of energy derived from each fuel shown.
Area source fuel use is then compared to total fuel use in Iowa. The
bottom row entitled "all fuels, all sources" may not match^totals from
Appendices A, C, and D exactly, since neither the NEDS !nor individual appendix
totals are all-inclusive. Area source fuel use anti-resulting' particulate
emissions are calculated on a!lbs/106 Btu gasis in Table 1=2.
56
-------
Table 6-V. Area Source Fuel Use - Iowa
en
!
?
AOCR
L .. ._
065
| 068
069
i !
j; 085
i
! 086
: 't
t
087
/ t
i i
j 088
089
i
090 j
j 091
092
093 j
t
AQCR TOTALS
Iowa Only 3
Area Source Totals ;;
% Fuel Contributions :
(Towa Only) \>
Total , all fuels, ]
all sources 1
Tons
112670
22520
i
! 68160
i
I 2260
3220
3550
14620
7360
, 4070
\
4
7610
!
18120
5960
270120
-77970
5582500
>al
109 Btu
2591
518 '
1568
52
74
82
336
169
94
175
417
137
6213
1793
0.8%
128000 -
0
103 Gals
i
73460
42490
57490
48250
12090
15530
50040
50860
29530
26760
.
51890
27510
479900
317570
j
q, 692742
il
109 Btu
10300
5950
8040
6750
1810
2170
,. 7000
7120
3440
3740
7260
3850
67430
44460 !
20.4%
, -99000,
G
105 ft3
61240
8890
43240
44850
11760
8080
28300
19450
10510
12790
41270
12580
305920
171410
304893
as
109 Btu
61240
8890
43240
44850
11760
8080
28300
19450
10510
12790
41270
12570
305920
171410
78.7
-1 304893
T
j
Total
10 12 E'cu
74.1 j
i
15.4
52.8
51.7
13.6
10.3
35.6
26.7
14.0
16.7
48.9
16.6
376.4
217.7
100%
530
-------
Table E-2. Aeea Source Particulate Emission Estimate
AQCR
Estimated Iowa
Area Source
Fuel Use
(1012 Btu/Y):
Iowa Area
Particulate
Emissions (Tons/Y)
Average
(Lbs/106 Btu)
065
068
069
085
086
088
082
090
091
092
093
2.5
4.8
5.8
10.8
11.8
35.6
26.7
14.0
16.7
48.9
16.6
260
400
610
160
340
1300
780
' 450
680
1600
630
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.08
-------
APPENDIX F
The Tables F-l and F-2 illustrate the effect on emissions of participates
and SO 2 when the power plant and industrial fuel burning sources listed in
Appendices C and D are allowed to emit up to the amounts that existing regula-
tions would allow. It is assumed that heat input remains the same, and
existing regulations are applied to gross heat input for each power plant and
industrial source. The column in Table F-l labeled "Allowable Total Emissions"
is the tonnage from Tables A-9 and A-10 which the region can tolerate and still
not experience violations of ambient air quality standards. In Table F-2 (SOL
Evaluation) the analogous column indicates the ratio of the emissions resulting
when all sources are emitting at regulations to emissions at present.
Allowable emissions for Iowa portions of interstate AQCRs are calculated in
proportion to relative emission contributions in the 1972 NEDS.
/
Area fuel burning sources are assumed to remain unchanged, since Iowa's SO,
. - v.' ' _ £
,and particulate regulations are not expected to dramatically affect these sources.
jNon-fuel emission estimates from Tables Z and 8 of App. A are included in the balance.
Since the degree of control which will be achieved on non-fuel particulate
sources was not known for this report, the particulate totals serve mainly to
show magnitudes relative to tonnage allowed by air quality considerations.
For SOp the non-fuel estimate would, in many AQCRs, remain about the same due
to lack of other S02 regulations (except for sulfuric acid plants). Thus the
S02 "ratio" is not too far from that which would be possible under existing
regulations.
A regional approach is implicitly assumed to have some validity in this
exercise, so that any conclusions from the numbers in Tables F-l and F-2 will
have to be tempered for AQCRs with widely dispersed emissions.
Lastly, it is emphasized that these tables are hypothetical in that no fuel
mix may exist to allow all sources to emit exactly at regulation levels. The
calculations do give some insight into the adequacy of existing regulations for
allowing air quality standards to be achieved if a fuel schedule different from
the one at present were in effect.
A Table F-3 is included in this appendix to summarize gross consumption and
production of fossil fuels in Iowa.
59
-------
Table F-l. Particulate Regulation Evaluation - Iowa
AQCR
065 (low)
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
lion-Fuel
Totil
068
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
lion-Fuel
Total
069
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
non-Fuel
Tnt.l
085
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
lion-Fuel
Total
086
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
flon-Fuel
Total
087
?cwer Plants
Industry
Area Sources
. Fuel Total
::or.-Fual
T.-.r*l
1012 Btu
' *fc-i.
9.3
9.8
*.5(es
^ .
2K*
5.2
3.8
4.8(es
13.8
30.2
10.5
5.8(es
46.5
6.7
0.8
10.8(es
18.3
29.6
4.8
11.8(es
46.2
~0
~ 0
0.2(es
0.2
"a|^^:
^%^S^p
«» ., * '
1104 ."'
:) ' 260
1804\.^ ^
36*0 :*" ^
38«04'v:.- ;
3512
356
;) 400
4268
6700 "'
10968
8607
3772
) 610
12989
21400
34389
- 131 -
7
i 160
298
1590
1888
8031
50
) 340
8421
6000
14421
0
0
) 41
41
210
251
- ReguUtMns -
los/N&Btu
V 0.6
. ' 0.6
^J»' 'jfc, . .A
t4** ffltewii^-;
. ,^ . *
>f.^ j
'. ' : -*'6 . '
0.6
0.6
0.6
\
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
-
JH"' jr> "^ ,*
&' Emlsri&ns ;
' with AH- Sources
^ ,Bn1tt1nj£»t Reg's
^Jf -W^'.'-' . *^
If* **
2754
V2W9 ' "*'
-: *"*»o-; *-&*
LJT^^^*' '
r--fe*?5W6feM»«itro
«27%3
1200 -fej -
.v,|te^-^-
400
' " "33 -J-
">'.-' WOO iuneoWtro
9433
9288
3148
Bin
nn/m
21 Ann hmrnntro
34446
1995
246
160
24Q1
1S90 (uncontrol
3991
8870
1440
340
10650
6000 (uncontrr
16650
9
0
41
41
?1fl (uncontrol '
251
Estimate .SUowabl*.
El»1ss1ons'-fn AQCR
tons/yr
>-, * .-
.TOO
(Iowa only)
18f)
7900
(lorn only)
led)
20000
(Iowa only)
lerll
1100
(Iowa only)
idl
4400
(Iowa only)
id)
200
(Iowa only)
d)
60
-------
Table F-l. Particulate Regulation Evaluation - Iowa
AQCR
088
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Total
089
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
Total
090
Power Plants
Industry
Nan-Fuel
Tnt»l
091
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
non-Fuel
Total
092
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
Non-Fuel
Total
1
093
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Fuel Total
Ion- Fuel
Total
1012 Btu
35.7
5.6
35.6
76.9
2.4
5.1
26.7
34.2
0.6
16.5
14.0
31.1.
0.45
16.7
17.2
86.3
4.8
48.9
140
0.6
0.15
16.6
17.4
Current Emissions
Tons/yr
17924
2642
1300
?1RSB
35766
279
194
780
1253
46700
47953
540
18
450
3908
0
447
680
1127
8850
9977
26604
85
1600
28289
30000
58289
790
2
630
1422
3940
5362.
Regulations
lbs/106 Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0:6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
8078
1689
1300
nne7
13900 funcontrnll
24967
721
' 1541
780
3042
4_6700 (uncontroll
49742
155
496
450
4001
0
135
680
815
8850 (uncontrol
9665
25941
1090
reoo
28631
30000 (uncontrol
58631
178
46
630
854
3940 (uncontrol
4794
Estimate Allowable
Emission: in AqCR
tons/yr
7500
dl . .
13,600
*n
3300
id)
10,400
ed)
18,900
ed)
3500
ed)
61
-------
Table F-2. S02 Regulation Evaluation
AQCR
065
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
(Ion-Fuel
Total
068
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
069
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
-^jj_
085
Pcv.'er Plants
Ir.djstry
Area Sources
!
iicn-Fuel
Total
086
Pcvier rlar.ts
Industry
Area S;'-rcas
'
i..--.-?i.;-'
Total ;
087
r:..:r FHn\.s
Area Ssu.-c=;
;;^.-_ri;-> ]
1012 Btu
9.3
9.8
2.5
21.6
5.2
3.8
4.8
13.8
30.2
10.5
5.8
46.5
6.7
0.8
10.8
18.3
29.6
4.8
11.8
46.2
0.2
o.:
Current
Emissions
tons/year
22764
. 5165
820
28749
560'
29309
6048
2443
1100
9591
1000
10591
59510
12265
1400
73175
894
74069
3783
No
.300
4083
600
4683
17868
86
650 .
18604
660 j
19264
0
109 !
54 !
Reg's
lbs/106
Btu
5.0
1.5-5.0
5.0
1.5-5.0
5.0
1.5=5.
5.0
K5
5.0
1.5
i
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
22951
12373
820
36508
560 uncontro
37068
10008
7830
1100
18938
1000
19938
77398
26066
1400
104860
894
105754
16622
615
300
17537
600
18137
71505
3600
650
75765 1
660
76425
0
109
Estimated Allowable
Emissions for
AQCR
Not
Calculated
led
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Mot
CalcL ited
Rat; ; of Emissions at
Regulations to Current
Emissions
1.26
1.88
1.43
3.87
4.0
i
I
1
i
I
,
. .. .
1
1
62
-------
Table F-2. SO,, Regulation Evaluation
AQCR
088
Pe.ver Plants
industry
i'-'?a Sources
H:n-Fiisl
Total
i
t
089
Poi;er Hints
ri-jsti-y
| A.'35 SC',.:-CQS
1 -.or.-F-jal
"iotal
090
Pff.jer Plants
[ad-stvy
Area Secrets
Csn-Fudl
Total
091
PC. -or r-ltnts
;n^::,-y
Are? ".- re as
:.',in-Fi.c:
; itj 1
092
.-':.. er rt&nts
Industry
r":e; Sources
L .
I-^-F...! ;
Toii'i
093
:- .v :u«,
IrdJStry ]
frsi r^'jrc.-s |
i
I
1012 Btu
35.7
5.6
35.6
76.9
2.4
5.1
26.7
34.2
0.6
16.5
14.0
31.1
0.45
16.7
17.2
86.3
4.8
48.9
i
140
0.6
0.15
16.6
1
17.4 '
Current
Emissions
tons/year
45404
6251
3500
55155
2000
75155
1822
104
1900
Wfi
10200
14026
302
25
1100
1427
80
2227
- o
1511
1900
3411
890
4301
60971
544
3800
65315
14300
79615
1783
16
1600
3399
97(1
1
4369
Reg's
lbs/106
Btu
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.5-5.0
5.0
1.5
1.5-5.0
5.0
1.5
5.0
1.5
i
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
54852
7919
350
63121
2000
65121
6001
3850
1900
11751
10200
21951
1292
1242
1100
3634
flnn
4434
0
1028
1900
2928
890
3818
216176
2728
3800
222704
14300
237004
1485
117
1600
3202
o?n
4172
Estimated Allowable
Emissions for
AQCR
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
' Not "
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Not
Calculated
Ratio of Emissions at
Regulations to Current
Emissions
1.14
1.57
1.99
0.89
i
3.0
j
0.95
1
t
!
1
't
63
-------
Table F-3. Energy Statistics For Iowa 1971
FUEL
Coal
Oil
Gas
PRODUCTION
9.9 x 105 tons
0
0
CONSUMPTION
6.2 x 106 tons
6.4 x 107 BBLS
8 3
335 x 10 ft"3
Energy fact sheet - 1971, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "1972 National Emissions Report," U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-450/2 - 74 -012.
2. "Projections of Economic Activity for Air Quality Control Regions,"
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Prepared
for U. S. EPA, August 1973.
3. "Monitoring and Air Quality Trends Report, 1972," U. S. EPA -450/1-
73-004.
4. "Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1972," 22nd Edition National Coal
Association.
5. "Federal Air Quality Control Regions," U. S. EPA, Pub. No. AP-102.
6. "Assessment of the Impact of Air Quality Requirements on Coal in
1975, 1977 and 1980," U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, January 1974.
7. "Fuel and Energy Data," U. S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines,
Government Printing Office, 1974, 0-550-211.
8. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd Edition," U. S.
EPA, Air Pollution Tech., Pub. AP-42, April 1973.
9. SAROAD Data Bank, 1973 Information, U. S. EPA.
10. Federal Power Commission, U. S. Power Plant Statistics Stored in EPA Data
Bank, September 1974.
11. "State of Iowa Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan," January 27, 1972.
12. "Iowa Rules and Regulations Relating to Air Pollution Control," Environmental
Quality Department; Title 1, Air Quality, Chapters 1-11.
13. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air
Quality Control Regions," Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. under
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0049, preliminary draft report.
65
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instiuctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-D13
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S \CCESSION«NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR IOWA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
February 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office VII, Kansas City, Mo. and
TRW, Inc. One Space Park, Redondo Beach, Calif. 90278
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
14. SPONSOF
ENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each St'te Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document. Which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
State implementation plans
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN EN 'i D TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
EPA Fo^m 2220-1 (9-73)
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
65
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page]
Unclassified
22.-PRICE
66
------- |