BEAUMONT - PORT ARTHUR
       METROPOLITAN AREA

-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical  Data)  series of reports is issued by
the Office of Air Programs, Environmental  Protection Agency, to report
Technical data of interest to a limited  number of readers.   Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge  to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit  organizations - as  supplies
permit - from the Office of Technical  Information and Publications,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 or from the National Technical  Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia  22151.

-------
   BEAUMONT-PORT AltfHUR METROPOLITAN AREA AIR
          POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY
                    Prepared by
                   David V. Mason
    Division of Air Quality and Emission Data
IJ, S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
              PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
           ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
  National Air Pollution Control Administration
               Durhamj North Carolina

-------
                           PREFACE
     This report, which presents the emission inventory for the Beaumont-
Port Arthur Metropolitan Area, is another in a series of surveys outlining
the sources and emissions of air pollutants for major metropolitan areas
in the country.  These surveys, conducted by the National Inventory of
Air Pollutant Emissions and Control Branch of the National Air Pollution
Control Administration, provide estimates of the present levels of air
pollutant emissions and status of their control.  The pollutants, which
include sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides, are delineated with respect to source type, season of
the year and geographical distribution within the area.  The general
procedure for the surveys is based upon the rapid survey technique for
estimating air pollutant emissions.   These reports are intended to
serve as aids in the proposing of boundaries of Air Quality Control

-------
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     Sincere gratitude is extended by the National Air Pollution Control
Administration to the many individuals and companies who contributed to
this air pollution emission inventory.
     Special thanks are extaided to Robert C. Curry and Victor Bateman
of the Jefferson County Health Department, and to members of the Texas
Environmental Health Section, who contributed invaluable assistance in

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                  Page
Introduction. ................	..................   1
Summary of Results ...... ........	......	...   3
Description of Study Area.	   6
Grid Coordinate System.	..................  13
Emissions by Category.	  16
  Stationary Fuel Combustion.	  16
    Steam-Electric.	  16
    Industrial	  20
    Residential	  20
    Commercial-Institutional.	  20
  Transportation.	  22
    Road Vehicles.	  22
    Aircraft	  22
    Railroads	  22
  Solid Waste Disposal	  25
  Industrial Process Losses	  28
  Evaporative Losses	  28
Emissions by Jurisdiction.	»	  32
Emissions by Grid	  38
References	  50
Appendix A............o..	.......<>..........  51

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                               Page
  1    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions Using English Units......   4
  1A   Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions Using Metric Units,,......   5
  2    Area and Population Characteristics for Study Area..,..,....   9
  3    Number of Industrial Establishments in Study Area...........  12
  4    Annual Fuel Consumption for Study Area	  17
  5    Chemical Analysis of Fuel Burned in Study Area..............  18
  6    Air Pollutant Emissions from Fuel Combustion in
       Stationary Sources	  19
  7    Vehicle Mies of Travel for Road Vehicles...................  21
  8    Air Traffic Activity at Jefferson County Airport............  23
  9    Air Pollutant Emissions from Transportation Sources.........  24
 10    Solid Waste Disposal Balance.	  26
 11    Air Pollutant Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal...........  27
 12    Air Pollutatn Emissions from Industrial Processes...........  29
 13    Hydrocarbon Emissions from Evaporative Losses...............  31
 14    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Hardin County.........  33
 15    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Jasper County.........  34
 16    Summary of Mr Pollutant Emissions in Jefferson County......  35
 17    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Newton County.„.„..„.„  36
 18    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Orange County.........  37
 19    Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Point Sources.......  40

-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                              Page
  1    Map of Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area and Surrounding
       States ..ooo...„..„	..o........... o  7
  2    Detailed Map of Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area..............  8
  3    Population Density Map of Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area..,,,, 10
  4    Grid Coordinate System for Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area»oo 14
  5    Point Source Locations....................................... 39
  6    Sulfur Oxides Emissions Density Map...	 . 0». ... ... 45
  7    Psrticulate Mission Density Map.	 „ „.«..... „.. 46
  8    Carbon Monoxide Emission Density Map............0..........0 o 47
  9    Hydrocarbon Emission Density Map	 0... o. o. o 48

-------
                          INTRODUCTION
          report is a summary of the Beaumont-Port Arthur area air
pollutant emission inventory conducted in October, 1969.  Since all inven-
tories are based upon a calendar year, the data and emission estimates
presented are representative of 1968 and should be considered as indicating
the conditions as existed during that year.
     The Study Area, which was chosen on the basis of the distribution
of population and air pollution sources, consists of five counties
surrounding the cities of Beaumont-Port Arthur and Orange.  This area
covers approximately 
-------
a particular source category.  Since individual sources have inherent
differences that cannot always be taken into consideration, discrepancies
between the actual and estimated emissions are more likely in individual
sources than in the total emissions for a source category.
     As in all emission surveys, the data presented are estimates and
should not be interpreted as absolute values.  The estimates are, in
some cases, partial totals due to the lack of emission factors and
production or consumption data.  Despite these limitations, the estimates
are of sufficient accuracy and validity to define the extent and

-------
                            SUMMARY
     An estimated 1.0 million tons of five major pollutants are emitted
annually in the Study Area.  The breakdown of these emissions by type of
pollutant and source category are summarized in Table 1.  The following
is a presentation of the relative contribution of different source categories.
Sulfur Oxides
1968 Total - 124,500 tons
Industrial Processes  98%
Transportation         1%
Other                  1%
Particulates
1968 Total - 24,700  tons
Industrial Processes  73%
Solid Waste Disposal  18%
Transportation         6%
Other                  3%
Carbon Monoxide
1968 Total - 608,900 tons
Industrial Processes  75%
Road Vehicles         20%
Other                  5%
Hydrocarbons
1968 Total - 198,500 tons
Industrial Processes  86%
Transportation         6%
Evaporative Losses     4%
Other                  4%
Nitrogen Oxides
1968 Total - 47,200  tons
Industrial Processes  45%
Industrial Fuel Use   29%
Transportation        18%
Solid Waste Disposal   6%

-------
TABLE 1     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE BEAUMONT-
                  PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial-
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

610
770
1,380

0
10
0
0
10

110
240
350
122,780
..
124,520
Par tic -
ulates

1,050
510
1,560

20
520
60
30
630

530
3,830
4,360
18,130
--
24,680
Carbon
Monoxide

123,500
4,320
127,820

0
0
0
0
0

2,350
20,340
22,690
458,350
--
608,860
Hydro-
carbons

9,850
1,330
11,180

0
0
0
0
0

40
7,180
7,220
171,540
8,570
198,510
Nitrogen
Oxides

7,200
1,220
8,420

200
13,480
350
160
14,190

160
2,630
2,790
21,800
_„

-------
          TABLE 1A     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE BEAUMONT-
                          PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)*
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial -
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

550
700
1,250

0
10
0
0
10

100
220
320
111,360
—
112,940
Partic-
ulates

950
460
1,410

20
470
50
20
560

480
3,470
3,950
16,440
—
22,360
Carbon
Monoxide

112,010
3,920
115,930

0
0
0
0
0

2,130
18,450
20,580
415,720
__
552,230
Hydro-
carbons

8,930
1,210
10,140

0
0
0
0
0

40
6,510
6,550
155,590
7,770
180,050
Nitrogen
Oxides

6S530
1,110
7,640

180
12,230
320
150
12,880

150
2,390
2,540
19,770
==
42,830

-------
                DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
     The Study Area for the Beaumont-Port Arthur Metropolitan Area Air
Pollutant Emission Inventory is situated in the southeast corner of  the
State of Texas.  As can be seen in Figure 1,  the Study Area  lies along
the Gulf of Mexico and directly beside  the Houston Air Quality Control
Region.
     Five counties have been included in the  Study Area  (Figure 2).
Jefferson County, which is the most urbanized county in  the  Study Area,
and Orange County have been designated  the Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area  (SMSA).  Hardin County, Jasper
County and Newton County, which are very lightly populated,  were included
in the Study Area to insure that all counties which may have a high  rate
of growth in future years would be surveyed.
     The approximate 1968 population for the  Study Area was  387,000.  The
rate of increase in population for the  five county area has  been lower
than the nation's average increase.  Between  1960 and 1968 the nation's
population increased 10.9 percent, while the  Beaumont-Port Arthur Study
Area increased only 3.8 percent.  The majority of the people live in the
urbanized area of the Study Area.  The  urbanized area only covers 4 percent
(153 square miles) of the 4,087 square mile Study Area.  Table 2, which
gives further demographic data by county, and Figure 3, which shows  a
population density map, will give the reader more information on the
geographical distribution of the population.

TOPOGRAPHY

     The Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area lies on the Gulf Coastal Plain
which makes up over 40 percent of Texas.  The elevation of the Study
Area rises from sea level to only a few hundred feet in upper sections
of Jasper and Newton counties.  The Sabine Bay, which forms  the eastern
border, and Nechis River have enabled Beaumont and Port Arthur to become

-------
                                                                     Scale in Miles

-------
                                                  \

                                                  \
                                      JASPER COUNTY  \  NEWTON COUNTY

                                                                       J






                                                                     /  LOUISIANA
                                                                 r
                                                              S
                                           wa or NEXICO

-------
          TABLE 2     AREA AND POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE BEAUMONT-
                             PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA
                         Land Area            Population             Population
County                   (Sq. Mi.)         1960         1968        Density (1968)

Hardin County               897           24,6bO       32,300             36
Jasper County               927           22,100       28,800             31
Jefferson County            951          245,700      247,100            260
Newton County               953           10,400       11,100             12
Orange County               359           60,400       67,700            189

-------
                                         JASPER COUNTY  \ NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                   POPULATION DENSITY,
                                                                         people/mi ^
Figure 3.  Population density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1968.

-------
CLIMATOLOGY

     The climate Is predominantly marine.  The numerous small streams
and the nearness to the Gulf o f Mexico and Sabine Bay cause the develop-
ment of both ground and advective fog.  Prevailing winds are from the
southeast and south,except in the winter months when frequent passages
of high pressure areas bring prevailing northerly winds.
     Temperatures are moderated by the influence of winds from the Gulf,
which results In mild winters and relatively cool summer nights.  Another
effect of the nearness of the Gulf is abundant rainfall.  The rainfall
Is evenly distributed throughout the yeer with total precipitatlve  ranging
from 30 and 60 inches.

INDUSTRIAL FACTORS

     The Beaumont-Port Arthur=0range area Is one of the largest petroleum
petrochemical centers In the nation.  Five major oil companies and numerous
chemical companies have facilities in the Study Area.  Other industries
Include the agriculture Industries and lumber and pulp Industry.  Table 3
shows the number and type of industries located in the Study Area.

-------
          TABLE 3     NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN BEAUMONT-
                          PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1960
Hardin
Xnduatry County
Jasper
County
Jefferson
County
Newton
County
Orange
County
Food and Tobacco
Textiles
Paper and Printing
Chemicals
Lumber and Wood
Stone and Gravel
Primary and Intermediate
Electrical Machinery
Transportation and
Ordinance
Instruments and
Miscellaneous
1
1
6
19

 5
21
 3
 5

15
 4

 4

 2
3
9
1
1

-------
                    GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM
     A grid coordinate system, based on the Universal Transverse Mercator
Projection (UTM), was used in the Beaumont-Port Arthur Study Area to
indicate the geographical distribution of emissions.  A map showing the
grid coordinate system is presented in Figure 4.
     An evaluation of the available coordinate systems was completed
before choosing the UTM system to present emissions in this series of
emission inventories.  The systems evaluated were the State Plane system,
the Longitude°Latitude system and the UTM system.  Although each of the
systems had valuable qualities, the use of the UTM coordinate  system
was felt to completely meet the requirements of these emission inventories.
     Two priamry requirements of the grid coordinate system were used to
evaluate each system.  On© of the requirements was that the grid coordinate
system had to have square grid sones, since the data were to be used in
meteorologies! dispersion models.  The grid zones, which the UTM system
and most of the State Plane systems project, are always square, but the
longitude^latitude system projects grid sones that become skewed as the
sones become further from the equator.  The other quality the grid
coordinate system had to possess was consistency.  Each emission inventory
should be conducted on a grid coordinate system which uses the same
reference point throughout the Study Area.  Since some air pollutant
inventories would include areas in two or more states, the State Plane
systems could not be used.  However, since the UTM system, as well as
the longitude"latitude system, is not referenced to points in individual
statess it is not influenced by jurisdiction boundaries.  The UTM system
was chosen since it was the only coordinate system which could project
square grid sones over any Study Area using a common reference point.
     The Universal Transverse Mercator Projection is based upon the
metric system.  Each north-south and east<=west grid lines9 as illustrated
in Figure 4, is identified by a coordinate number expressed in meters.

-------
Figure 4.  Grid coordinate system for Beaumont-Port Arthur study

-------
Each point source and grids using the geographical center of the grid,
is identified by a horizontal and vertical coordinate to the nearest
100 metero.
     Grid sones of different sizes are used in the grid coordinate
system to allow a satisfactory definition of the geographical gradation
of emissions and to limit the number of grid zones„  Since the majority
of emissions is usually concentrated in the populated and industrialized
portions of a Study Area9 smaller grids are placed over these areas to
allow the grid coordinate system to reflect the changes of emissions
over short distances.  Grid sones smaller than the 25 kilometer grid
sones used in this report are not usually warranted because of the
inherent inaccuracies in the data.  Larger grid zones are used in the
rural portions9 because a smaller portion of the total emissions usually
occurs in lightly populated areas.

-------
                  MISSIONS BY  CATEGORY

STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION

     The stationary fuel combustion source category is concerned with
four primary sources: industrial, steam-electric, residential and commer-
cial-institutional.  Usually, four fuels are considered in the source
category, but in the Beaumont-Port Arthur only one, natural gas, was
burned in sufficient quantity to be considered.

Steam-Electric
     METHODOLOGY: There are two major power plants in the Study Area.
Fuel consumption data for the two plants were obtained from the Federal
Power Commission.  The summer to winter fuel burning ratios found in the
Houston Study Area's power plants were also used for the Beaumont-Port
Arthur power plants.
     RESULTS: The fuel consumed by the two power plants caused over
113,000 tons of nitrogen oxides  to be emitted.  This nitrogen oxide
accounts for almost a third of  the total nitrogen oxide in the Study Area.
The amounts emitted of the other pollutants were negligible except for
the 500 tons of particulates.
     METHODOLOGY: Natural gas data for the industrial sources were supplied
for each county by the Texas Environmental Health Section.  No fuel con-
sumption data were received on any individual sources.
     The emissions caused by this fuel, were proportioned into grids using
© snap distri. buted by the Gulf Oil Company.  The map locates all major
industries in the Study Area.
     RESULTS: Emissions caused by this source can be considered negligible
in all pollutants.  Only 200 tons of nitrogen oxides were emitted by
industrial fuel consumption during 1968.

-------
TABLE 4     SUMMARY OF FUEL COMBUSTION IN BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR
                       STUDY AREA, 1968
County
Natural Gas (10 cu.
Hardin County
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Newton County
Orange County
Distillate Fuel Oil
Hardin County
jasper County
Jefferson County
Newton County
Orange County
Coal (tons/year)
Hardin County
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Newton County
Orange County
Residential
ft „ /year)
100
200
4,900
0
800
(1,000 gal /year)
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Commercial °
Institutional
100
100
2,000
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Industrial
100
300
1S300
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Steam-
Electric
0
0
23,600
0
45,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
 TABLE 5     CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FUELS IN THE BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR
                            STUDY AREA
                     Sulfur
  Ash
% Volatile Material
                     1.0
Residual Fuel Oil    1.97
Distillate Fuel Oil  0.18
Natural Gas          0.0008
9.0
     30.7

-------
6     AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION
  IN THE BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Natural Gas
Industrial
Steam-Electric
Residential
Consa®Eici©l°
Institutional
Subtotal
Fuel Oil
Industrial
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial •=
Institutional
Subtotal
Coal
Industrial
Steam°Electric
Residential
Commercial"
Institutional
Subtotal
STUDY AREA
Sulfur
Oxides

0
10
0
0
10

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Partic-
ulates

20
520
60
30
630

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
630
Carbon
Monoxide

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydro-
carbons

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen
Oxides

200
13,480
350
160
14,190

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,190

-------
Residential and Commercial-Institutional
     METHODOLOGY? Data on these two source categories were also received
on & county basis from the Texas Environmental Health Section.
          categories were proportioned into grid zones using population.
               distribution was determined by using census tract data
                                3 4
©nd other available information. '
     RESULTS? Approximately 350 tons of nitrogen oxide was emitted by
            sources and about 160 tons by commercial sources.  The
               of the other four pollutants was very small.
     Th<3 transportation source category is concerned with all mobile sources.
SGUTCGS in this category include road vehicles (gasoline and diesel
          aircrafts vessels, and railroads.
                        vehicle activity in each county was estimated by
                         m figures obtained from the United States Depart-
        Commerce.   These 1963 fuel consumption figures were updated to
              state vehicle mile data obtained from the United States
Bspsrtmant of Transportation.
     In order to better proportion the road vehicle's emissions, the
vehicle mile activity from major highways was measured into grids using
traffic flow maps.  After the majority of the vehicle miles had been
       into grid g@ness the remaining vehicle miles were proportioned
                The vehicle miles contributed to diesels were proportioned
with th© flow maps slone.
              fetor vehicle activity was found to be heaviest in Jefferson
          s-'eoiratiesg Table 7,  Jefferson County alone had over 65 percent
of th@ traffic in the Study Area.

-------
          TABLE 7     VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL FOR ROAD VEHICLES IN THE
                  BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (1,000 v.m./yr.)
County                   Gasoline Powered        Diesel Powered         Total

Hardin County               98,800                   2,750             101,550
Jasper County               93,800                   2,650              96,450
Jefferson County         1,024,000                  28,650           1,052,650
Newton County               47,500                   1,350              48,850
Orange County              213,000                   5,950             218,950
STUDY AREA               1,477,100                  41,350           1,518,450

-------
                        number one  contributor of air pollutants In the
               source category.  When compared to other source categories,
                   were major contributors  to the total air pollutants
                                 second largest emitters of sulfur oxides,
                                      They are third for the other two
pollutants.
                            obtained  on  the Jefferson County Airport from
          ccsEHMKiieQtiongi ^yith the  flight controlers at the airport.
     RESULTSs Scissions ware estimated for four of the five pollutants.
Sulfur oxides 
-------
     TABLE 8     AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT JEFFERSON COUNTY AIRPORT
                                        Number of Engines
                             1 Engine    2 Engines    3 Engines   4 Engines

Conventional Jets               0          19600         0           0
Fan Jets                        0          1,800         0           0
Turbo ~psrop                      0          5S400         0           0
Piston                        490         16,400         0           0

-------
TABLE 9     AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
                     •FORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Cat©g©ry
Road Vehicles
Gasolia© PsK-ycared
Dies©! Pogrersd
Evaporative Lossso
Subtotal
Aircraft
Jet
Piston
Turboprop
Subtotal
Vessels
Railroads
STUDY AREA
Sulfur Partic-
Oxides ulates
440 590
170 560
==
610 1,150

0 20
0 20
0 0
0 40
610 40
150 420
1,380 1,650
Carbon
Monoxide
123,230
250
--
123,480

20
4,060
10
4,090
0
230
127,800
Hydro-
carbons
9,290
570
6,200
16,060

20
780
0
800
0
530
17,390
Nitrogen
Oxides
6,270
920
—
7,190

10
190
10
210
160
860
8,420

-------
Approximately 125 ships per month use the Port Arthur port and 125 ships
per month use the Beaumont port,
     RESULTS;•The residual fuel oil burned by the vessels accounts for
45 percent of the sulfur oxides attributable to transportation sources.
The other pollutants emitted are either small or negligible.

SOLID WASTE

     The solid waste source category is concerned with the air pollutant
emissioni! caused by refuse disposal.  Refuse includes not only the
municipal refuse9 but ©Is© refuse generated by coassercial and industrial
facilities.  The primary means of disposing of refuse are: landfills,
dumps„ incinerator®, and on~site burning.  Only open burning dumps,
incinerators &n& on°sit@ burning are considered air pollutant sources.
     MTTOBOLOGYs The total tons of refuse generated in the Salt Lake
City ®E-aa TOSS determined by using the national generation rate of 10
                          8
pounds par person per day.   This total includes municipal, commercial
and industrial refuse.  In order to determine the amount of refuse being
disposed of by each means of disposal, data was collected on all land-
                 in the Study Are®.  The ©mount of refuse being
         of by on-sit© incineration ©nd on-site burning was determined
                       10
with national averages,,    These data were assembled into a refuse
balance (Table 10).
     The proportioning of the county totals into grids was done in three
steps.  The first ws the accurate locating of all open burning dumps
which had been surveyed.  Then the on=site burning and on-site incineration
were distributed into grids on th© basis of population.
     RESULTS? Emissions caused by the open burning of refuse, contributed
most of the emissions in the solid waste source category (Table 11).
About twice as much emissions were caused by the open burning dumps
than ^®re caused by on°site burning.

-------
                              10     SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BALANCE FOR THE BSAUMQNT=PORT ARTHUR  STUDY AREA
                                                                       0
to
County
Hmrdin County. .
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Newton County
Orange County
STUDY AREA
Total
Generation
59 , 000
53 , 000
450,000
20 , 000
124,000
706 , 000
Incineration
Municipal On=Site
9,000
8,000
68,000
3S000
19,000
107,000
Landfill Bump*
39,000
19,000
168,000
4,000
41,000
271,000
On=Site Burning
11,000
26,000
214,000
13 , 000
64 , 000
328,000

-------
TABLE 11     AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN
            THE BEAIM>NT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Incineration
Municipal
On-Site
Subtotal
Open Burning
Dumps
On-Site
Subtotal
STUDY AREA
Sulfur
Oxides

0
110
110

160
70
230
340
Partic-
ulates

0
530
530

2,620
1,200
3,820
4,350
Carbon
Monoxide

0
2,350
2,350

13,940
6,400
20,340
22,690
Hydro-
carbons

0
40
40

4,920
2,260
7,180
7,220
Nitrogen
Oxides

0
160
160

1,800
830
2,630
2,790

-------
     The Solid waste category when compared to the other emission sources
       Study Arisa ranged third or fourth in all pollutants.
     The industrial process category is concerned with all industrial air
                  other than the burning of fuel or the disposal of refuse,
That portion of fuel which is used for process heating is included in the
fuel combustion source category-
     METHODOLOGY; Information concerning industrial processes was
gathered on an individual plant basis.  Each company was contacted by the
Texas Ifiredx-mmsiftitai Health Section and asked to supply the estimated
                                Because of the cooperation in the Study
                          estimate was made.  That estimate determined the
asaount of carbon monoxide being emitted by a petroleum refinery which did
not have a waste heat boiler on its fluid catalytic unit.  A standard air
pollutant emission factor publiched by the Department of Health Education,
and Welfare w©s uaed*
     RESULTS? The industrial processes source category was the major
©slitter of all pollutants.  The amount of emissions attributed to each
industrial category is found in Table 12.
     The evaporative losses source category is concerned with emissions
of hydrocarbonso  The three primary sources studied in this category were
dry cleaningp the automobile, and gasoline marketing.  There are a
          of other domestic and commercial sources of evaporative losses,
                            because emission factors were not available.
                  Dry cleaning emissions and gasoline emissions were
                                              2
estimated using factor® based upon population.   The emissions were
     proportioned into counties ©nd grids using population.  Evaporative

-------
TABLE 12     AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES IN
     THE BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Chemical Processes
Petroleum Refining
Synthetic Rubber
Wood Products
Coke Calcining
STUDY AREA
Sulfur
Oxides
4,820
115,810
0
1,070
1,080
122,780
Par tic -
ulates
80
8,920
50
5,800
3,280
18,130
Carbon
Monoxide
6,360
451,870
120
0
0
458,350
Hydro-
carbon
22,950
146,800
1,780
0
0
171,530
Nitrogen
Oxides
11,780
9,740
280
0
0
21,800

-------
losses by the automobile were estimated using vehicle mile activity.
These emissions were distributed in the same manner that the balance
of the automobile emissions were.
     No estimates were made on the evaporative losses due to the
petroleum storage and handling in the Study Area because of the limited
time available for the emissions inventory.
     RESULTS: The automobile was the largest single source in the evap-
orative losses category with 6,200 tons of hydrocarbons (Table 13).  Dry
cleaning and gasoline storage and handling contributed 750 tons and
12620 tons of hydrocarbons respectively.  In the Study Area evaporative
losses surveyed accounted for only 4 percent of all hydrocarbons emitted.

-------
TABXJE 13     HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM EVAPORATIVE LOSSES IN THE
         BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
            Dry Cleaning            750
            Gasoline Marketing    1,620
            Road Vehicles         6,200
            STUDY AREA            8,570

-------
                    EMISSIONS BY JURISDICTION
     The previous section presented air pollutant emissions by source
category.  In order to show the contribution of each county to the air
pollution in the Study Area, their emissions are summarized in Tables
14 through 20.

-------
TABLE 14     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN HARDIN COUNTY
                        1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial ~
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

40
10
50

0
0
0
0
0

10
10
20
0
—
70
Par tic -
ulates

70
30
100

0
0
0
0
0

50
90
140
0
—
240
Carbon
Monoxide

8,280
20
8,300

0
0
0
0
0

200
480
680
0
—
8,980
Hydro-
carbons

660
40
700

0
0
0
0
0

0
170
170
0
590
1,460
Nitrogen
Oxides

480
70
550

20
0
10
0
30

10
60
70
0
«
650

-------
TABLE 15     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN JASPER COUNTY
                      1968 (Tons/Year)
Souree Category
Tranopor ta tion
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam°Electrie
Residential
Commercial -
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

40
10
50

0
0
0
0
0

10
20
30
500
„_
580
Par tic -
ulates

70
30
100

0
0
0
0
0

40
310
350
3,430
_-
3,880
Carbon
Monoxide

7,840
20
7,860

0
0
0
0
0

180
1,660
1,840
0
--
9,700
Hydro-
carbons

630
40
670

0
0
0
0
0

0
590
590
0
550
1,810
Nitrogen
Oxides

460
60
520

30
0
10
10
50

10
220
230
0
W OB
800

-------
TABLE 16     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
                           1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial =•
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

420
720
1,140

0
0
0
0
0

70
160
230
120,710
—
122,080
Partic-
ulates

730
360
1,090

10
180
50
20
260

340
2,640
2,980
12,270
--
16,600
Carbon
Monoxide

85,600
4,240
89,840

0
0
0
0
0

1,500
14,000
15,500
387,250
—
492,590
Hydro-
carbons

6,830
1,140
7,970

0
0
0
0
0

30
4,940
4,970
160,960
5,900
179,800
Nitrogen
Oxides

4,990
910
5,900

140
4,610
290
120
5,160

100
1,810
1,910
12,420
—
25,390

-------
TABLE 17     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN NEWTON COUNTY
                      1968 (Tons/Year)
Smasre© Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Other©
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Sterna-Electric
Residential
Coirmercial-
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid ¥sate Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur Partic-
Oxid@§ uletes

20 30
0 10
20 40

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0 10
10 140
10 150
0 0
~~
30 190
Carbon
Monoxide

3,950
10
3,960

0
0
0
0
0

70
730
800
0
—
4,760
Hydro-
carbons

320
10
330

0
0
0
0
0

0
260
260
0
270
860
Nitrogen
Oxides

230
20
250

0
0
0
0
0

0
90
90
0
—
340

-------
TABLE 18     SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY
                       1968  (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Others
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial-
Institutional
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL ALL SOURCES
Sulfur
Oxides

90
30
120

0
10
0
0
10

20
40
60
1,570
—
1,760
Partic-
ulates

150
70
220

0
340
10
0
350

100
650
750
2,430
—
3,750
Carbon
Monoxide

17,810
40
17,850

0
0
0
0
0

420
3,460
3,880
71,100
-.
92,830
Hydro-
carbons

1,420
90
1,510

0
0
0
0
0

10
1,220
1,230
10,580
1,260
14,580
Nitrogen
Oxides

1,040
150
1,190

10
8,870
40
30
8,950

30
'450
480
9,390
__
20,010

-------
                        MISSIONS BY GRID
     For th© purpose of defining the geographical variation in air
pollutant emissions in the Study Area, the emissions were apportionned
onto a grid coordinate system.  The emissions were divided into two
source groups--point sources and area sources.  Thirty-two point sources
are presented individually in Table 19.  Each of these point sources
emitted more than 0.25 tone per day of a pollutant.  The approximate
location of these point sources are shown in Figure 5.  Area sources
which made up the balance of emissions have not been presented separ-
ately j, but have been combined with the point source emissions and
presented with eiaisiions from all sources in Table 20.
     In order to present a visual representation of the emissions of
pollutants by grid!D emission density maps have been prepared.  Emission
densities were obtained by stsnming the annual area and point source
emissions for eaefe grid and dividing this total by the land area of the
       Figures 6 through 10 show the variation in emission densities for
    respective grids throughout the Study Area.

-------
                                          JASPER COUNtY ', NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                      O POWER PLANT
                                                                      • INDUSTRY
                                                                      A AIRPORT
                                                                      A DUMP
Figure 5.  Point source location map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1968.

-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM POINT SOURCES FOR THE BEAUMOWT-PORT ARTHUR STUDY AREA, 1968
Source Category
Dump
Bump
Industry
Dump
Dump
Industry
Industry-
Industry
Power Plant
Industry
Industry
Power Plant
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Grid
1
4
6
6
9
20
20
23
23
25
25
27
29
29
29
29
34
35
35
35
35
HC
4070
4250
3980
4280
3925
4327
4332
3990
3990
3970
3976
4175
4298
255
4296
4280
4030
4057
4090
4084
4084
VC
34280
34100
33600
33425
33370
33325
33335
33260
33264
33240
33225
33220
33271
33260
33268
33270
33195
33187
33165
33168
33163
S
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
SOx
w
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
A
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
S
0.21
0,08
9.39
0.05
0.21
0.17
6.48
0.21
0.78
0.00
0.00
1.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.05
0.06
0.00
PART.
W
0.21
0.08
9.39
0.05
0.21
0.17
6.48
0.21
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.05
0.06
0.00
A
0.21
0.08
9.39
0.05
0.21
0.17
6.48
0.21
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.05
0.06
0.00
S
1.16
0.46
0.00
0.29
0.16
180.99
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.47
0.00
0.00
9.30
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.13
1.28
CO
H
1.16
0.46
0.00
0.29
0.16
179.99
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.47
0.00
0.00
9.30
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.13
1.28
A
1.16
0.46
0.00
0.29
0.16
179.99
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.47
0.00
0.00
9,30
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.13
1.28
S
0.41
0.16
0.00
0.10
0.41
13.69
0.00
2.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.69
0.00
0.52
1.03
35.79
43.09
1.18
3.15
1.65
HC
W
0.41
0.16
0.00
0.10
0.41
13.69
0.00
2.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.69
0.00
0.52
1.03
35.79
43.09
1.18
3.15
1.65
A
0.41
0.16
0.00
0.10
0.41
13.69
0.00
2.45
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.69
0.00
0.52
1.03
35.79
43.09
1.18
3.15
1.65
S
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
20.47
0.00
0.00
39.41
21.89
2.46
0.70
0.47
0.00
1.71
0.00
0.05
7.41
NOx
W
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
10.23
0.00
0.00
19.70
21.89
2.46
0.70
0.47
0.00
1.71
0.00
0.05
7.41
A
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
12.62
0.00
0.00
24.29
21.89
2.46
0.70
0.47
0.00
1.71
0.00
0.05
7.41

-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM POINT SOURCES (cont.)
Source Category
Dump
Industry
Dump
Dump
Industry
Airport
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Grid
35
36
37
37
35
38
40
43
46
46
46
HC
4075
4101
4165
4175
4095
4014
4141
4075
4064
4075
4073
VC
33154
33154
33154
33170
33176
33136
33145
33058
33036
330 5
330 5
S
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
60.2
152.9
81.2
1.0
2.9
SOx
W
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
60.2
152.9
81.2
1.0
2.9
A
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
60.2
152.9
81.2
1.0
2.9
S
1.31
0.00
1.21
0.10
0.00
0.10
1.17
5.47
15.59
0.00
8.98
PART.
W
1.31
0.00
1.21
0.10
0.00
0.10
1.17
5.47
15.59
0.00
8.98
CO
A S W A
1.31 6.98 6.98 6.98
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.21 6.42 6.42 6.42
0.10 0.58 0.58 0.58
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 11.19 11.19 11.19
1.17 487.99 487.99 487.99
5.47 569.99 569.99 569.99
15.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
S
2.46
8.21
2.26
0.20
13.49
2.18
13.99
41.09
207.99
68.79
0.00
HC
W
2.46
8.21
2.26
0.20
13.49
2.18
13.99
41.0$
207.99
68.79
0.00
A
2.46
8.21
2.26
0.20
13.49
2.18
13.99
41.09
207.99
68.79
0.00
S
0.90
0.00
0.83
0.07
0.70
0.56
2.46
17.79
3.45
0.36
0.00
NOx
W
0.90
0.00
0.83
0.07
0.70
0.56
2.46
17.79
3.45
0.36
0.00
A
0.90
0.00
0.83
0.07
0.70
0.56
2.46
17.79
3.45
0.36
0.00

-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (Tons/Year)
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.)
617.7
617.7
617.7
617.7
617.7
617.7
154.4
38.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
38.6
38.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
38.6
9.6
S
oa
0,0
oa
oa
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.3
SOx
w
oa
0.0
oa
oa
oa
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.3
A
oa
0.0
oa
Ool
0,2
Io5
oa
oa
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.3
S
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.6
9.8
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.1
oa
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
oa
0.6
6.8
0.4
1.5
PART.
w
0.5
oa
0.3
0.7
0.5
9.8
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.1
oa
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
6.8
0.4
1.5
A
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.5
9.8
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
oa
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
6.8
0.4
1.4
S
7oO
2o5
7.3
16.2
20.6
10o7
5.0
13.6
2.4
1.0
29.5
3.9
2.1
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.4
2.1
15.1
183.5
13.2
46.6
CO
6.4
2.2
6.5
14,6
18.3
9.6
4.5
12.1
2.3
0.9
26.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.9
13.5
182.2
11.7
41.5
A
6.7
2.3
6.9
15.3
19.4
10.1
4.7
12.8
2.3
1.0
27.8
3.6
2.0
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.4
2.0
14.2
182.3
12.4
43.9
S
1.5
0.4
1.3
2.9
3.3
1.9
0.9
2.3
0.6
0.2
4.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
oa
0.4
2.6
14.1
2.2
7.8
HC
1.4
0.4
1.2
2.7
3.0
1.8
0.8
2.1
0.6
0.2
4.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
2.4
14.1
2.0
7.1
A
1.4
0.4
1.2
2.8
3.2
1.8
0,8
2.2
0.6
0.2
4.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
2.5
14.1
2.1
7.4
S
0.6
0.2
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.9
3.4
KOK
W
0.6
0.2
0.5
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.9
3.4
A
0.6
0.2
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
oa
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.9
3.4

-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (cent.)
Grid
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Land Area
(Sq. Ml.)
9.6
9.6
9.6
38.6
38.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
38.6
154.4
154.4
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
S
0.3
0.1
10.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
22.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
60.5
0.0
0.0
153.2
0.2
SOx
W
0.3
0.1
10.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
22.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
60.5
0.0
0.0
153.2
0.2
A
0.3
0.1
10.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
22.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
60.5
0.0
0.0
153.2
0.2
S
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
3.8
0.0
1.4
0.4
0.3
1.9
0.0
0.1
6.2
0.8
PART.
W
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
3.8
0.0
1.4
0.4
0.3
1.9
0.0
0.1
6.2
0.9
A
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
3.8
0.0
1.4
0.4
0.3
1.9
0.0
0.1
6.2
0.8
S
11.1
17.1
9.6
2.2
2.5
2.7
30.8
3.1
1.8
2.7
3.8
5.9
20.2
0.9
7.8
20.4
8.9
513.0
0.7
2.7
595.0
30.2
CO
W
10.1
15.2
8.6
1.9
2.2
2.4
29.1
2.8
1.6
2.4
3.4
5.2
18.9
0.8
7.7
19.4
7.9
510.3
0.7
2.4
592.3
26.9
A
10.6
16.1
9.1
2.0
2.3
2.5
29.9
3.0
1.7
2.6
3.6
5.5
19.5
0.9
7.8
19.9
8.4
511.5
0.7
2.6
593.5
28.4
S
4.1
2.8
1.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
19.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.7
36.8
53.5
8.4
2.6
17.2
1.5
18.1
0.1
0.5
45.2
4.9
HC
W
3.9
2.6
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
17.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
36.7
53.4
8.4
2.6
17.1
1.4
17.8
0.1
0.5
44.9
4.5
A
4.0
2.7
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
17.9
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
36.8
53.4
8.4
2.6
17.1
1.4
17.9
0.1
0.5
45.0
4.7
S
21.2
1.2
0.7
0.2
39.6
0.2
26.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
11.0
0.1
1.0
1.9
0.7
4.2
0.0
0-.3
19.6
2.0
NOx
W
11.0
1.2
0.8
0.2
19.9
0.2
26.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
11.0
0.2
1.0
1.9
0.7
4.2
0.0
0.3
19.6
2.0
A
13.3
1.2
0.7
0.2
24.5
0.2
26.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
11.0
0.1
1.0
1.9
0.7
4.2
0.0
0.3
19.5
2.0

-------
TABLE 20          SUMMARY OF AIR POtLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (cont.)

Grid
45

46
47
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.)
9.6

9.6
9.6

S
0.0

85.8
0.3
80s
W
0.0

85.8
0.3

A
0.0

85.8
0.3

S
0.0

25.1
0.0
PART.
W
0.0

25.1
0.0

A
0.0

25.1
0.0

S
0.4

12.9
0.2
CO
W
0.4

11.5
0.2

A
0.4

12.2
0.2

S
0,1
.«*
279.0
0.0
HC
W
0.1

278.8
0.0

A
0.1

278.9
0.0

S
0.0

5.0
0.1
NOx
W
0.0

5.0
0.1

A
0.0

5.0
0.1

-------
                                              JASPER COUNtY  \ NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                       SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS,
Figure 6.  Sulfur oxide emission density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1968.

-------
                                              JASPER COUNtY \ NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                       PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,
                                                                             tons/midday
Figure 7.  Paniculate emission density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1968.

-------
                                                          1_J	I	I
                                             JASPER COUNtY  \ NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                   CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS,
                                                                           tons/mi 2-day
Figure 8. Carbon monoxide emission density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1U68.

-------
                                               JASPER COUNTY  \  NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                        HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS,
                                                                              tons/mi
Figure 9.  Hydrocarbon emission density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1968.

-------
                                !_L_J
                                                 JASPER COUNTY \ NEWTON COUNTY
                                                                        NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS,
                                                                               tons/mi 2.day
Figure 10. Nitrogen oxide emission density map for Beaumont-Port Arthur study area, 1969.

-------
                             REFERENCES
 lo   Ozolins,  G.  and Smith,  R.,  Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
     Community Air Pollution, DHEW,PHS, October 1966.

 2.   Duprey, R. L., Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors,
     DREW,  PHS, April 1967.

 3.   United States Census of Housing: 1960-Utah, United States
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

 4o   United States Census of Population: 1960-Utah,  United States
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Cnesus.

 5.   1963 Census of Business: Retail Trade, United  States Department
     of Commerce, Bureau of  the Census.

 6,   Highway Statistics/1968, United States Department of Transportation.

 1,   Petroleum Facts and Figures,  American Petroleum Institute.

 8.   1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste  Practice,  Interim
     Report, DHEW, PHS.

 9.   Mineral Industry Surveys,  Burner Fuel Oils, 1967, United States
     Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.

LO,   National  Air Pollution  Control Administration  Reference  Book
     of Nationwide Emissions, 1968.

-------