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.
------- |