EPA-600/5-7^-032
September 1971*
WASTE AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICATING OIL
REUSE AS A FUEL
By
Steven Chansky
James Carroll
Benjamin Kincannon
James Sahagian
Norman Surprenant
Contract No. 68-01-1859
Program Element 1BA030
Roap/Task 51AQK-03
Project Officer
Dr. John Jaksch
Washington Environmental Research Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20U60
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 201*60
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.85
-------
ABSTRACT
This study evaluates the technical, economic and environmental feasibility
of automotive waste oil reuse as a fuel. The supply and potential market-
ability of waste oil fuel is considered in relationship to existing and pro-
jected fossil fuel usage in the United States. Although the total automotive
waste oil generated annually represents less than 0.5% of the total U. S.
fossil fuel production, it is concluded that waste oil can serve as an economi-
cally advantageous supplement to present domestic fuel supplies. Moreover, its
use will alleviate a serious waste oil disposal problem.
The physical and chemical properties of waste oil are presented and serve
as the basis for subsequent assessment of waste oil usage options. Options
considered are the use of untreated waste oil as a blended fuel oil or as a
supplement to coal combustion and the use of waste oil following treatment to
alleviate technical and environmental impacts. Although the use of untreated
waste oil blends appears feasible for large utility and industrial boilers,
some treatment will be required for smaller boilers. Various treatment methods
are discussed and their cost and effectiveness assessed. The reduction of
environmental impacts by the use of particulate emission control systems also
is considered in relationship to the cost and effectiveness of control equip-
ment, and present utility and industrial utilization of fuel and control
equipment.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures iii
List of Tables v
Acknowledgements viii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 8
III Introduction 11
IV Potential Marketability of Waste Oil Fuels 15
V Characterization of Untreated Waste Oil 48
VI Technical Feasibility of Untreated Waste Oil As A Fuel 61
VII Environmental Impacts of Untreated Waste Oil Fuel
Combustion 75
VIII Reduction of Waste Oil Fuel Combustion Impacts 89
IX Economics of Impact Reduction Alternatives 122
X Market Analysis of Waste Oil Fuels 143
XI References 153
Appendix A-l
iii
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Major steam generating electrical power production centers 27
in the continental United States, 1970, including both
fossil fueled and nuclear powered facilities
2 Major steam generating electrical power production centers 28
in the continental United States, projected to 1990, in-
cluding both fossil fueled and nuclear powered facilities
3 Spatial distribution of fossil fuel consumption trends by 30
Steam-Electric Power Plants in the United States
4 Steam-electric utility questionnaire response by census re- 36
gion on potential use of waste oil fuel
5 Priority of air quality control regions based on ambient 45
sulfur oxide levels as determined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
6 Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property ranges 49
7 Isopleths of average ground-level concentrations of Pb for 87
December 1970
8 Isopleths of average ground-level concentration of Pb for 88
September 1970
9 Settling pretreatment 96
10 Centrifugation pretreatment 97
11 Flow diagram of continuous acid/clay unit for the reclama- 99
tion of used motor oils with capacity of 15,000 tons per
annum
12 Re-refining by a propane extraction process 100
13 Solvent treatment subsection 101
14 Norco solvent extraction system 104
15 Norco re-refining facility 106
16 Solvent extraction process 108
17 Vacuum distillation treatment 110
iv
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No.
18 Venturi scrubber penetration vs. aerodynamic particle
diameter with gas velocity as parameter 114
19 Control equipment sales in United States and Canada 119
20 Investment and Operating cost of pretreatment as a 139
function of treatment facility capacity
21 Investment and operating cost of particulate collection 141
equipment as a function of control capacity
22 Comparison of fuel saving and annual control equipment 150
operating cost
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 National waste oil supply projections by U.S. census 16
regions
2 Production and consumption of fossil coal and oil fuels 18
in the United States: Magnitude and regional character
3 Quantitative comparison of potential waste oil fuel 19
supply relative to recent fossil oil and coal fuel pro-
duction and consumption trends in the United States
4 Supply price comparison of fossil coal and fuel oils 22
with untreated waste oil: recent trends
5 Petroleum energy domestic supply envisaged and required 26
supplementations to meet rising demand projections
6 Quantity and cost of purchased fossil fuels by major U.S. 31
industry group (SIC codes) in 1972
7 Waste oil fuel use questionnaire: Selected responses 34
monitoring potential demand by electrical utilities and
various industrial firms
8 Residual fuel oil sulfur content limits as required in 42
selected cities and regions in the United States
9 Characterization of waste oil/distillate oil blends 62
10 Characterization of waste oil/residual oil blends 63
11 Characterization of waste oil/bituminous coal blends 65
12 Influence of dilution of waste oil with virgin fuels 77
on trace element content of resulting blend
13 Summary of available data on quantities of lead emitted 79
with flue gas as a percentage of lead entering with
waste oil fuel
14 Wt. percent of trace contaminants in particulate emis- 81
sions from the combustion of waste oil
15 Particle size distribution of lead and other major con- 81
taminants in emissions from waste oil combustion
VI
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
16 Summary of available estimates and measurements of ambient 83
lead concentrations resulting from waste oil combustion
17 Assumed physical and operating characteristics of 560 85
megawatt power plant firing waste oil
18 Potential impacts and impact reduction alternatives of 91
untreated waste oil utilization as a fuel
19 Settling of particles in 100°F waste oil 93
20 Major element analysis on engine lab oil 103
21 Removal of major elements from used oil 103
22 Waste oil contaminant removal by treatment processes 111
23 Fuel oil consumption practices- of potential industrial 115
waste oil users
24 Summary of United States precipitator installations in 117
major fields of application, 1907 to 1957
25 Industrial gas cleaning equipment--manufacturers' ship- 118
ments by end use, 1967
26 Use of particulate collectors by industry 120
27 Assumptions made in the development of capital investment 124
costs
28 Capital cost estimation of a treatment facility: settling 127
29 Estimated operating cost of a treatment facility: settling 128
30 Capital cost estimation of a treatment facility: 129
centrifugation
31 Estimated operating cost of a treatment facility: 130
centrifugation
32 Capital cost estimate of a treatment facility: vacuum 131
distillation
33 Estimated operating cost of a treatment facility: vacuum 132
distillation
vii
-------
TABLE (continued)
No. Page
34 Capital cost estimate of a treatment facility: solvent 133
extraction
35 Estimated operating cost of a treatment facility: solvent 134
extraction
36 Estimated capital cost of precipitators 135
37 Estimated operating cost of precipitators 135
38 Capital cost estimate of fabric filtration 136
39 Estimated operating cost for fabric filtration 136
40 Capital cost estimate of high energy venturi scrubber 137
41 Estimated operating cost of high energy venturi scrubber 137
42 Summary table on the economics of impact reduction 138
alternatives
43 Effect of capacity on processing cost 140
44 Effect of profit on market price of treated waste oil 143
45 Selling price of treated waste oil 144
46 Selling price comparisons of virgin fossil fuels and 145
waste oil fuels
47 Selling price of blended waste oil products 146
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of this program by the Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency and the help provided by Dr. John Jaksch,
the project officer, is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
IX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Potential Waste Oil Marketability
• Supply and Production
a. If all automotive waste oil generated annually were avail-
able for fuel reuse, this total fuel energy would repre-
sent less than 0.5 percent of the total annual coal and
crude oil energy production in the United States. Waste
oil fuels, therefore, may serve as incremental regional
supply inputs to supplement existing domestic fuel supplies.
b. Waste oil generation is a variable process, varying both
spatially and temporily, thereby affecting the regularity
of supply availability for fuel usage. Use may be re-
stricted to a reserve or supplemental fuel in the short
term, while in the longer term, systems may be developed
to promote supply regularity through improved collection,
storage and/or pretreatment, and distribution systems.
c. A range of alternate blended and unblended waste oil fuel
products may be marketed based on the extent of untreated
oil reprocessing and the nature of fuel combustion.
Associated with this range of waste oil fuel products is
a range of market prices, with differences reflecting
the degree of reprocessing and handling.
d. Comparative fuel costs for coal, virgin fuel oils, and
untreated waste oil show a large competitive advantage
for waste oil in present fuel markets. Average prices
for untreated waste oil in December 1973 were about 30
percent of average distillate fuel oil prices and 40 per-
cent of residual oil prices. This fuel price advantage
leaves a large cost margin for pretreatment to meet
technical and environmental quality specifications.
• Demand and Consumption
a. Rapidly expanding national fuel energy consumption, com-
bined with an unstable foreign petroleum supply market,
-------
have created a domestic fuel market supply-demand im-
balance. This imbalance requires expanded domestic
energy production, energy conservation, and develop-
ment of new fuel supply forms and sources. Reuse of
waste oil as fuel promotes energy conservation and pro-
vides a supplemental fuel supply source to help meet
demand.
b. The electrical power industry, which accounts for about
25 percent of the nation's total annual fossil fuel
consumption, represents a large potential demand market
for waste oil fuels in most regions of the nation.
Some electric power plants are currently combusting waste
oil routinely or are testing waste oil fuels for poten-
tial routine usage; and 86.5 percent or 59 of 68 electric
utility companies responding to a nationwide survey felt
that some form of a waste oil fuel product could be used
at their facilities.
c. The industrial sector of the economy, presently the
largest consumer of energy in the United States using
about 30 percent of the nation's annual energy input,
contains numerous process applications to which waste oil
fuels may be applied. Several industrial plant operating
factors may serve as criteria in identifying potential
users of waste oil fuels to include:
- Present fuel energy consumption levels
- Installed particulate matter emission control
technology employed
- Present trends in waste oil fuel use and/or
combustion testing.
Based on these factors, selected firms in the following
Department of Commerce industrial categories represent
prime potential consumers: (1) lumber and wood products,
(2) paper and allied products, (3) chemical and plastic
products, (4) petroleum and coal products, (5) rubber
and plastic products, (6) stone, clay, and glass products,
and (7) primary metal industries. In general, industrial
firms are more heterogeneous in character than electric
power plants, and require more detailed analysis of fuel.
logistical and utilization methods before potential
regional waste oil users may be identified.
Institutional and Legal Factors
The ultimate sale and use of waste oil fuels may be affected
by a range of non-market, institutional factors based on the
-------
specific locality and application being investigated. These
may be divided into several categories to include:
a. Laws and regulations uniquely applicable to waste oil
Presently limited, but generally favorable toward waste
oil fuel usage by restricting the marketability of
waste oil derived products relative to virgin oil de-
rived products thereby restricting the range of economi-
cally viable waste oil reuse options.
b. Environmental management and pollution control actions
directly affecting the use of waste oil fuel
Existing or anticipated air quality and emission stan-
dards directly govern the acceptable quality of waste
oil fuel at the federal, state, and/or local levels.
These include particulate matter standards and hazardous
pollutant standards for lead and other metallic and in-
organic pollutants found in waste oil.
c. Environmental control actions indirectly influencing waste
oil fuel use
These actions generally tend to enhance its marketability
potential. First, air pollution emission controls have
resulted in the installation of stack gas effluent con-
trols which may remove harmful particle emissions from
waste oil combustion without a large additional outlay
of capital for control hardware. Second, sulfur oxide
emission controls and fuel sulfur content regulations
tend to improve the market demand for recovered waste
oils low in sulfur for use as blended fuels.
2. Technical Impacts of Untreated Waste Oil Combustion
Because of the level and variability of contaminants in untreated
waste oils, the following technical problems have been encountered
as a result of untreated waste oil combustion:
- Stratification in storing with distillate oils be-
cause of differences in specific gravity
- Fuel line freezing, burner flameout, and inconsistent
heating values due to excessive water content
- Burner and pump abrasion; line strainer plugging and
storage tank sludge buildup due to excessive coarse
solids content
- Contribution to scaling and corrosion of heat transfer
surfaces in boilers due to high ash content
-------
- Contaminants in waste oil influencing product composi-
tion when direct-fired into kilns, driers, and other
process equipment
3. Environmental Impacts of Untreated Waste Oil Combustion
Although untreated waste oil contains significant levels of metal
contaminants (i.e., up to 1 percent by weight lead), its utiliza-
tion for selected applications has been shown to result in maxi-
mum ground level concentrations of lead at least an order of mag-
nitude below a recently proposed 90-day average standard of 2 micro-
grams per cubic meter (2 |j.g/nr*). Such applications include:
Application
500 raw Utility Boiler
56 mw Utility Boiler
operating at 20 mw
Industrial Steam
Boiler
Industrial Steam
Boiler
Auxiliary fuel for
municipal incin-
erators
Fuel
Blend of residual and
untreated waste oil
Blend of residual and
untreated waste oil
Blend of residual and
untreated waste oil
Untreated waste oil
Untreated waste oil
Total
firing
rate
(gal/hr)
31,000
1,900
476
100
300
Weight
percentage
of waste oil
5.0
7.4
75.0
100.0
100.0
The resulting ground-level lead concentration for a specific appli-
cation depends on such factors as stack height; flue gas velocity
and temperature; and meteorological and topographical conditions.
GCA feels, however, that the conditions upon which ground-level
concentrations were estimated for the above applications were not
atypical and therefore represent a realistic order of magnitude
estimate for similar and related applications.
4. Impact Reduction Alternatives - Pretreatment
Technical and environmental impacts can be alleviated by employing
various levels of existing technology to pretreat waste oil prior
to combustion. These pretreatment techniques include:
-------
o Vacuum Distillation or Solvent Extraction
These are high level, commercially available pretreatment
processes which essentially remove all contaminants and
therefore eliminate the adverse technical and environmental
impacts resulting from waste oil combustion. These high
level pretreatments, particularly vacuum distillation, yield
large quantities of waste residues which must be disposed of
in landfills or by further processing.
• Settling and/or Centrifugation
These are lower level pretreatment operations which are
capable of removing coarse solids and free water (water
which is neither emulsified or chemically bound). These
techniques can be combined with heating and demulsifica-
tion to further enhance coarse solids removal and to re-
move all volatiles and remaining water.
These lower level pretreatment options will alleviate the techni-
cal problems mentioned above which are associated with the stor-
age, transport and burning of waste oil. However, these pretreat-
ment systems will not significantly reduce the soluble and sub-
micron sized ash constituents in the waste oil. These remaining
contaminants contribute to scaling of heat transfer surfaces as
well as contain virtually all the trace metals which are of con-
cern from an environmental viewpoint.
5. Impact Reduction Alternatives - Emission Control Systems
High efficiency particulate control devices can reduce lead and
other submicron-sized emissions and therefore their resulting
contributions to ambient concentrations by one to two orders of
magnitude (i.e., 90 to 99 percent control). Fabric filter bag-
houses, electrostatic precipitators and to a lesser degree high
energy venturi scrubbers, are all capable of achieving this range
of performance. It should be emphasized, however, that optimal
performance of a control system can only be achieved if the sys-
tem is designed for the primary fuel type and operating charac-
teristics employed. For example, optimal performance of an
electrostatic precipitation system at Northern States Power
Company, has been observed in removing 98+ percent of the lead
generated from the firing of a 3 wt. percent waste oil/ 97 wt.
percent coal fuel blend. This system was designed for a coal-
fired plant. However, such performance could not be achieved
if the plant were to convert over to residual oil as its primary
fuel.
-------
6. Capital Investment and Operating Costs for Impact Reduction
Alternatives
The capital investment and operating costs associated with waste
oil pretreatment options and emission control systems are summarized
below. These pretreatment costs are based on a pretreatment plant
capacity of 15,000,000 gallons per year (85 percent yield or
12,750,000 gallons per year output for settling, centrifugation,
and solvent extraction; 70 percent yield or 10,500,000 gallons
per year for vacuum distillation). The costs associated with
the emission control systems are based upon a stack flow of one
million actual cubic feet per minute (acfm). This is the approxi-
mate stack flow of a large utility boiler (~ 500 mW) utilizing
12,750,000 gallons per year of waste oil to supply 5 percent of
its energy requirements; a reasonable example of a large-scale
application for waste oil fuel utilization. The benefits derived
from the alternatives presented below are delineated in Item 5 above.
Impact Reduction Options
Pretreatment Options:
Low Level
Settling
Centrifugation
High Level
Vacuum Distillation
Solvent Extraction
Emission Control Options:
Precipitators
Fabric Filtration
High Energy Scrubbers
Capital investment
Millions
of $'s
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8
3.1
2.9
2.5
A.nnual operating cost
Millions f£/gal of
of $'s waste oil
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
0.3
1.1
1.4
11
10
12
12
2
9
11
Capital and operating costs for different capacities can be ob-
tained from Figures presented in Section IX.
7. Comparison of Waste Oil Selling Price with Alternative Virgin Fuels
Waste oils undergoing a high level of pretreatment (vacuum distil-
lation or solvent extraction) are very competitive relative to
virgin fuel oils but less competitive relative to coal. Based on
-------
a capacity of 15,000,000 gallons per year for the treatment facilities
considered a cost of untreated waste oil to these facilities of 50 cents
per gallon, the comparative selling prices for waste oil and virgin
fuels are presented below for the Northeast:
Cost
Fuel Type (cents/million BTU's)
Waste oil with low level of 138.8
treatment
Waste oil with high level of 153.3
treatment
Residual oil (< 0.57»S; Dec. 73) 140.3
Residual oil (0.5-1.07.S; Dec. 73) 125.0
Distillate oil (Dec. 73) 191.6
Coal (> 3%S; Sept. 72) 39.2
Coal (l-37oS; Sept. 72) 43.6
Coal (< 1%S; Sept. 72) 46.0
8. Favored Use Options
The purpose of treating waste oil is to reduce environmental damage
and technical impacts while at the same time adding to energy sources.
Certain alternatives represent a path of least resistance in the
achievement of these two goals.
(1) Large users, especially utilities, could blend small
percentages of a low-treated or untreated waste oil
with their existing energy source without necessarily
adding emission control equipment.
(2) Medium-sized users with existing effective emission
control equipment could blend higher amounts of high-
treated or low-treated waste oil with their other
fuel sources.
(3) High-treated waste oil combusted by itself by a number
of relatively small users.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Although this study addresses itself to the technical, environmental
and economic factors affecting waste oil as a fuel, its scope does not
include techniques for systematically weighting the importance of these
parameters at a regional level. The ability to do so would provide
invaluable insight into the selections of optimal regional market size,
treatment location, and treatment options. Consequently, it is recom-
mended that future studies include the development of a comprehensive
regional model(s) to specify optimal regional market size, treatment
location(s), and treatment option(s). This model will utilize the fol-
lowing key input parameters.
Supply and Production Factors:
• Untreated waste oil recovery and collection
a. Number of sites
b. Collection system
• Storage - Reprocessing
a. Process alternatives - regional constraints
b. Technical limits to size
c. Economic constraints
d. Input requirements
• Product Marketability
a. Availability of substitute fuels
b. Market supply price - private market and/or
public subsidization
c. Other waste oil fuel products and their
marketability
• Regulations - Institutional Constraints
-------
Demand and Consumption Factors:
• Types of Potential Users (Cross-section)
a. Electric utilities
b. Industrial firms
• Number of Potential Users
a. Size
b. Geographic distribution
• User Costs Components
a. Waste oil fuel supply price
b. Cost of fuel use
(1) maintenance and operation
(2) occupational health impacts
(3) emission control utilization including
collected flyash byproduct quality
impacts and resultant salability
• Regulations - Institutional Constraints
2. This study indicates that several estimates of maximum lead ground-
level concentrations have been made for a variety of waste oil fuel
combustion applications. These estimates have utilized standard dif-
fusion modeling techniques as well as plant operating and meteorologi-
cal data. The estimates show that for typical plant meteorological
and topographical conditions, ground-level concentrations are below a
recently proposed standard of 2 micrograms per cubic meter. Although
these results are consistent with the results found experimentally and
reported in Section 1-3, it is recommended that a comprehensive air
quality sampling program be executed in the near future in conjunction
with a utility company or industry currently burning or planning to
burn waste oil. The purpose of this sampling program is to validate
models such as the ones utilized in this study to develop lead ground-
level concentrations.
3. In conjunction with an air quality monitoring program such as
discussed above, it is recommended that more substantial data be gen-
erated on incremental operating and maintenance costs associated with
waste oil utilization. For example, incremental costs associated with
the following operations at a utility boiler should be evaluated:
• Sootblowing
• Boiler cleaning, including potential occupational
health hazards associated with the cleaning procedure
• Fuel storage and handling
• Burner maintenance
• Emission control operation and maintenance
• Salability of byproduct flyash from particulate
control system
-------
Such costs would provide much needed inputs into the iterative process
of formulating the overall economics of waste oil fuel utilization.
4. Additional laboratory and pilot scale work is needed to evaluate
the effectiveness of waste oil pretreatment and control options. This
additional effort should focus on the following areas:
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of chemical treatments
such as demulsifiers and flocculants on solids removal.
• The effectiveness of various solvents should be evalua-
ted in regard to separation of waste oil from its im-
purities. Consideration should also be given to solvent-
oil separation methods other than distillation, such as
crystallization, and differential solubilities as a
function of temperature.
The further characterization of the physical and chemical
state of additives and contaminants. This would help in
evaluating the effectiveness of the various pretreatment
options available.
10
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses two problems of increasing concern in urban areas
throughout the country:
• The recovery and utilization of growing quantities of waste
automotive lubricating oils, economically and without con-
tributing to environmental insult.
• The increasing gap between the demand for fuel and the avail-
able supply to meet this demand.
This study investigates the feasibility of alleviating these two prob-
lems by utilizing the waste lubricating oil as a fuel in power plant
and industrial applications. Specifically, this study examines the
economic, technical, and environmental factors associated with the use
of waste oil as an industrial fuel source.
BACKGROUND
Two broad categories of waste oil include residue oil derived from
automotive and industrial lubricating oils. This report focuses on the
reuse of waste oil derived from automotive and other vehicular lubrica-
ting oils.
It is currently estimated that as much as 700,000,000 gallons of waste
automotive lubricating oils are generated annually in the United States.
These waste vehicular lubricants are a heterogeneous grouping of oils
including:
• Crankcase oils, transmission fluid, hydraulic oil, and dif-
ferential gear lubricants which are derived from service
stations and garages; automobile dealers and fleet operators;
agricultural and marine applications; and individual vehicle
operators.
Currently, a range of waste oil reuse and disposal techniques are being
utilized or are being investigated for potential application.1 These
include:
Re-refining
Incineration
Land application and disposal
Deep well disposal
Combustion as a fuel
11
-------
Re-refining, once the primary use for collected oils, has become less
attractive due to such technical, economic, and institutional factors
as: more rigid specification requirements for automotive lubricants;
increasing costs associated with re-refining to remove spent additives
and impurities and to bring oils back up to specifications; disadvan-
tageous tax situations in many localities as compared with virgin fuels;
and labeling requirements in many localities to indicate that the oil
was "previously used."
Incineration of waste oil has not been widely advocated because a
"valuable" commodity is being discarded as opposed to recycled. There
are, however, specific instances when the incineration of waste oil is
beneficial such as when utilized in a municipal incinerator to improve
the combustion process.3 Land application and deep-well disposal also
result in the discarding of a potentially valuable resource as well as
posing, in the case of ground-level disposal, a serious pollution threat
to water tables and estuaries.
The inherent limitations of the first four reuse and disposal schemes
listed above, in addition to inadequate industrial virgin fuel supplies,
have resulted in increased utilization of and attention to waste oil as
a fuel. Waste vehicular oil contains approximately the same heating
value as virgin oil (15,000 to 20,000 BTU/lb)2'3'4 and burning this oil
as a fuel component implies economic and efficient resource utilization
as well as the mitigation of potential oil pollution environmental im-
pacts. The relative potential merits of waste oil reuse as a fuel,
which are the primary motivation factors for the conduct of this study,
include:
• Provides a fossil fuel source to supplement growing energy
demands
• Provides a waste oil reuse method with broad applicability
in most regions of the nation
• Achieves a reuse mechanism yielding minimal unusable by-
products for subsequent disposal
• Achieves a reuse procedure requiring no or minimal new
technology development or large capital equipment outlays
for combustion and ultimate disposal
Significant uncertainty, however, exists concerning the use of waste
oil derived fuels in terms of combustion equipment operation and main-
tenance impacts, and air pollution emissions from this heterogeneous
mixture of oils. These technical and environmental factors associated
with waste oil fuel combustion then become critical parameters in the
economic assessment of alternate waste oil fuel combustion trade-offs.
12
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the technical and environmental
feasibility and economic factors associated with utilizing waste vehicu-
lar lubricants as an industrial fuel. Emphasis is placed on use of
waste oil as a blended fuel in steam-generating power plants, in indus-
tries currently burning waste oil, and in industries whose energy needs
and level of particulate emission control make waste oil utilization
potentially attractive.
The study includes the determination of:
• Potential marketability of waste oil Fuels (Section IV)
A review of the current and future industrial fuel demand
for waste oil is presented together with current and pro-
jected waste oil supplies. Price and geographic varia-
tions in supply and demand are two parameters evaluated
in detail. The identification and implication of regula-
tions influencing the use of waste oil as a fuel will also
be presented. This section lays the foundation for the
potential roles that waste oil can play as an industrial
fuel source.
• Characterization of untreated waste oil (Section V)
The important characteristics and properties of waste oil
and the primary virgin fuels are presented and compared.
The information generated in this section will be utilized
as primary inputs in the determination of the technical
feasibility (Section VI) and environmental impacts (Section
VII of untreated waste oil as an industrial fuel.
e Technical feasibility of untreated waste oil as a fuel
(Section VI)
The technical advantages and disadvantages of utilizing
untreated waste oil as an industrial fuel is presented.
A key parameter evaluated in this section is the influ-
ence of blending ratios (ratio of waste oil to virgin
fuel) to the technical viability of waste oil as a fuel. '
• Environmental impacts of untreated waste oil as a fuel
(Section VII)
The impact to the environment of untreated waste oil as
an industrial fuel is examined. The major emphasis is
placed on the estimation of lead emitted to the atmo-
sphere and resulting contribution to maximum ground-
level lead concentrations.
13
-------
• Reduction of waste oil fuel combustion impacts (Section VIII).
This section presents viable technical options for alle-
viating the adverse technical and environmental impacts
(presented in Sections VI and VII) of waste oil utilized
as an industrial fuel.
• Economics of impact reduction alternatives (Section IX)
The economics of the impact reduction alternatives dis-
cussed in Section VIII are presented here. Capital in-
vestment and operating costs are provided for varying
plant and equipment capacities.
• Market analysis of waste oil fuels (Section X)
The array of costs associated with waste oil utilization
as a fuel are developed and compared with existing
alternative virgin fuels.
Each of these areas will be discussed in detail in the remaining sec-
tions of this report.
14
-------
SECTION IV
POTENTIAL MARKETABILITY OF WASTE OIL FUELS
The scope of this study has been structured to evaluate the technical
and economic feasibility of waste oil reuse as a fuel, and economic fac-
tors associated with attaining acceptable waste oil fuels. This economic
evaluation provides cost estimates for attaining acceptable quality waste
oil fuels but is only a partial measure of the benefits to be derived
from its usage; namely, the explicit energy value derived from its com-
bustion, and its potential market price as a fuel. These cost and mar-
ket values (prices) provide the essential data for private market feasi-
bility assessment of establishing a separate waste oil fuel supply firm
or making investments at the user level for internal fuel supply for
combustion. For a total benefit-cost feasibility appraisal, however,
the abatement of potential oil pollution impacts must be assessed. The
aggregating of these implicit benefits with the fuel energy asset value
must be undertaken in order to make public investment/policy decisions
concerning waste oil fuel systems: public subsidization of private
systems; public provision of collection, pretreatment and/or distribu-
tion; policies regulating private marketing, etc.
A pragmatic assessment of waste oil reuse as a fuel must begin with an
evaluation of the potential marketability of waste oil fuels; i.e.,
potential supply/production, demand/consumption, and institutional/
legal factors influencing this market analysis.
POTENTIAL SUPPLY OF WASTE OIL FUEL
Magnitude and Distribution of Supply
The magnitude and distribution of vehicle waste oils generated in the
United States are important parameters governing the potential supply
of waste oil fuel products. National, regional, and state estimates
of waste oil lubricants have been derived based on the annual use of
virgin oil used for industrial and vehicle lubrication,-* and a detailed
analysis of the approximate percentage of this oil not consumed in the
original application. National and regional waste oil supply projec-
tions are presented in Table 1. A more detailed statewide tabulation
appears in Appendix A of this report. In general, focusing on vehicle
lubricants, such as automotive crankcase drains, the amount and dis-
tribution of this waste oil will correspond with population and vehicle
use densities: highly populated metropolitan regions will exhibit a
15
-------
Table 1. NATIONAL WASTE OIL SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
BY U.S. CENSUS REGIONS 1971a
Census Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic
East South Central
East North Central
West North Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
U.S. Total
Estimated waste oil supply
Vehicle
(gal)
28,410,650
85,817,580
77,125,940
48,109,500
146,363,970
77,013,540
82,689,610
36,569,250
98,355,350
680,455,390
Industrial
(gal)
11,823,629
61,829,173
31,751,940
18,508,285
93,815,889
14,985,071
52,183,669
7,435,345
26,035,678
318,368,679
Data and reference sources:
1. Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., Waste Oil Recovery
Practices, State of the Art (1972), prepared for the
Maryland Environmental Service and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1972.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Census of Population 1970, Vol. I, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
3. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Study of Waste Oil Disposal
Practices in Massachusetts, report to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control,
January 1969.
Estimating procedure
Estimated
Vehicle
Wasta Oil
Supply
Estimated
Industrial
Waste Oil
Supply
<>
Annual Per Capita
Automotive
Oil Consumption
by State 19711
,
'
/1970 State ]
I 9 I
I Population-^ I
1970 State,.
iPopulation^
/ 66% = EstimatedX
f Portion of Virgin!
I Oil Available As I
\ Waste3 /
30% = Estimated \
Portion of Virgin j
,0il Available As I
Waste /
16
-------
higher waste oil supply potential due to the concentration of motor
vehicles, and thus lubricating oil use.
Industrial lubricants, as shown in Table 1, constitute about 32 percent
of the total estimated waste oil supply. Industrial lubricant utiliza-
tion and disposal practices are more complex than for automotive waste
oils. Because of their wide variation in properties, they are not
generally reprocessed to fuel. Certain oils, such as hydraulic oils,
even are compounded with ignition inhibitors to insure safety in their
normal application.3 For these reasons, this study will concentrate on
waste automotive oils, and industrial lubricants will not be considered
further.
A convenient index of the relative magnitude, 680 million gallons of
waste vehicle lubricants generated annually, may be derived through 'com-
parison with recent fossil fuel production and consumption trends in
the United States. Table 2 provides a regional and national accounting
of domestic coal and petroleum production and corresponding consumption
levels in 1971.' ^Based on potential heat energy from fuel combustion,
the potential waste oil supply represents less than 0.5 percent of the
total coal and crude oil annual production, as illustrated in Table 3.
Assuming that all vehicle waste oil generated annually in the United
States were available for fuel use, Table 3 further shows that this
would only constitute about 1 percent of the total coal and 5 percent
of the total oil supply consumed by steam-electric power plants in 1970.
In overview, waste lubricating oil does not represent a large new al-
ternate source of fuel energy; rather waste oil fuel may serve as an
incremental supply input to supplement existing domestic fossil fuel
supplies. As a fuel supply supplement, local and regional factors as-
sociated with waste oil generation, collection, and related market
forces will dominate waste oil fuel production decisions. This region-
al supply orientation implies a close balance of production and con-
sumption levels by region, unlike the pattern of crude oil production
and petroleum products consumption imbalance exhibited in Table 2,
arising from inter-regional marketing and foreign importation of fuel.
Supply Regularity, Quality, and Alternate Fuel Products
In addition to potential supply magnitude and distribution dimensions,
other waste oil fuel supply characteristics may serve as ancillary
criteria in marketability evaluation. Principal supply factors for
consideration include: regularity of supply, quality of supply, and
alternate forms of waste fuel oil products. Waste oil generation for
potential fuel reuse is a variable process over time, resulting in an
irregular pattern of waste oil supply availability. This irregular
availability characteristic, varying both spatially and temporily,
greatly reduces the reliability of potential fuel supply at the present
time. Use may be restricted to a reserve or supplemental fuel supply
in the short term, while in the longer term systems may be developed to
promote supply regularity through improved collection, pretreattnent
and/or storage, and distribution systems.
17
-------
Table 2. PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF FOSSIL COAL AND OIL FUELS IN
THE UNITED STATES: MAGNITUDE AND REGIONAL CHARACTER 197la
oo
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic
East South Central
East North Central
West North Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
U.S. Total
Coal: anthraci
an
Production
(million tons)
0
81.5
150.5
146.6
131.2
12.3
2.5
34.4
1.8
560.9
te , bituminous,
d lignite
Consumption
(million tons)
2.5
83.4
90.5
72.4
188.3
35.5
0.4
21.6
4.1
501.4
Crude oil: pet
Production
(million gal)
0
206.8
349.3
3,485.5
2,768.7
4,642.9
100,369.3
14,846.8
18,395.1
145,064.4
roleum products
Consumption
(million gal)
16,939.4
39,203.4
31,360.3
10,099.0
33,420.4
15,980.3
25,476.3
8,717.2
24,790.2
233,209.2
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, United States Energy Fact Sheets by State
and Region, 1971, Washington, D.C., February 1973.
Based on United States Census Regions defined'as follows:
New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont
Middle Atlantic: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
South Atlantic: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, District of Columbia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
East North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee
West North Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota
West South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas
Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah
Wyoming
Pacific: California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska
-------
Table 3. QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL WASTE OIL FUEL SUPPLY
RELATIVE TO RECENT FOSSIL OIL AND COAL FUEL PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES
Year
Fossil fuel consumption
Type and category
of fuel use or
production
Coal:
Oil:
million tons
million gal
Energy consumption
(trillion BTU)
Range estimate:
present waste
oil energy
potential supplyc
(trillion BTU)
Range estimate:
waste oil fuel
energy as a percentage
of fossil fuel energy
1970
Coal: Total consump-
tion by electric power
plants
322'
8,050
7?.
0.89
1.79
1970
Oil: Total consump-
tion by electric power
plants
13,944
1,992
72
144
3.59
7.17
1971
Coal: Total produc-
tion in the United
States
561L
68,605
72
144
0.11
0.21
1971
Oil: Crude oil total
production in the
United States
145,064
56,901
72
144
0.13
0.25
Source: Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey. Part 1, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., December 1971, p. 1-4-2.
A gallon of fuel oil was assumed to produce approximately 142,850 BTU of energy, calculated from
averaging the heat of combustion values for distillate and residual fuel oils, as reported in
American Petroleum Institute's Petroleum Facts and Figures. 1971 Edition, p. 589.
A ton of coal was assumed to produce 25 million BTU of energy using the same API reference.
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Energy Fact Sheet by State and Region, 1971,
Washington, D.C., February 1973.
Source: Based on a potential waste oil supply range estimate of 500 to 1,000 million gallons per
year as calculated in Table 1 of this report.
A gallon of waste oil was assumed to produce 143,330 BTU of energy as reported in "Final Report of
the API Task Force on Used Oil Disposal," American Petroleum Institute, New York, May 1970, which
reported a heat of combustion value for waste oil of 19,132 BTU/lb of oil.
-------
Quality characteristics of untreated waste vehicle oils may vary widely
due to the heterogeneous sources and types of vehicle lubricating oils.
Automotive lubricants, for example, include crankcase oils, transmission
fluids, differential gear lubricants, hydraulic oil and small quanti-
ties of solvents, originating from diverse sources. Since automotive
lubricants are highly refined petroleum products, their original charac-
ter is compatible with efficient combustion. Waste oils have exhibited
their fuel potential in various combustion tests and in selected cases
of routine usage. Significant uncertainty, however, exists concerning
the continued use of waste oil fuels in terms of combustion equipment
operation and maintenance impacts, and air pollution emissions from this
heterogeneous mixture of oils containing a number of oil and gasoline
additives and gasoline combustion products. Large amounts of water,
sediments, and inorganic residues including ash and metallic constitu-
ents in waste lube oil which cannot be combusted require detailed evalu-
ation for defining the acceptable range of waste oil fuel supply quali-
ties. Sections V, VI, and VII, respectively (pages 48, 61, and 75, re-
spectively) report on detailed investigations undertaken by GCA to
evaluate: (1) vehicle waste oil chemical and physical properties,
(2) technical feasibility and impacts of combustion, and (3) environ-
mental impacts upon waste oil combustion.
In context to the foregoing supply quality considerations, a range of
alternate waste oil fuel products may be marketed based on the extent
of oil reprocessing and nature of fuel combustion. The form of the
final fuel product may be arrayed around two major options:
1. Waste oil fuel in untreated, recovered or settled forms.
2. Waste oil fuel derived from reprocessing or pretreat-
ment to certain quality specifications using chemical
or physical processes.
A second category of trade-offs then arise, related to the specific
form of combustion to include:
1. Combusting of waste oil fuel alone
2. Blending of waste oil in various admixture ratios
(0 to 100 percent) with virgin fossil coal or oil
fuels.
Associated with this range of waste oil fuel products is a range of
market prices reflecting the degree of reprocessing. The ultimate
user cost is a combination of this direct market supply price and costs
incurred in the combustion of the oil.
Supply Price of Marketable Waste Oil Fuels
Fuel energy supply prices reflect production input resource costs, pro-
duct quality, delivery charges, demand levels, and related interfuel
20
-------
For preliminary waste oil fuel marketability re-
of untreated waste oil must be comparable to ex-
gy prices or preferably be lower in unit cost to off-
r risk associated with combustion of waste oil fuel
Table 4 provides such a preliminary overview of recent
jes of various fossil fuel types and quality grades in the
,ates, and supply price ranges for untreated or settled waste
.ar oil in the New England region. Due to recent demand-supply
ances in this nation, fuel prices have increased dramatically in
United States and throughout the world. The average price for
.sidual (grade No. 6) fuel oil, for example, rose about 12 percent
during the last half of 1972. Even more dramatic, fuel supply short-
ages in late 1973 provoked by non-availability of foreign supplies,
witnessed over a 100 percent increase in fuel costs for the year, and
over 12 percent increase in overall fuel costs in December 1973 alone,
as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Comparative fuel costs, therefore, show a large competitive advantage
for untreated waste oil today, as shown in Table 4. Average prices
for untreated waste oil in December 1973 were only about 30 percent of
distillate fuel oil prices, and 40 percent of residual oil supply
prices. This represents a significant reversal of the situation in
1969 when waste oil was equal to or greater than the average price of all
fuel oils purchased by electrical power plants. Waste oil supply prices
vary regionally, but currently are well below virgin oil prices, leav-
ing a large cost margin for pretreatment and reprocessing to meet
quality specifications.
This waste oil supply analysis provides a partial view of the poten-
tial marketability of waste oil fuel reuse. Equally important is the
market demand side of the picture directing the focus of attention on
potential waste oil fuel users: their number, spatial distribution,
and product requirements. This interplay of demand factors appears
next followed by a review of institutional factors and legal require-
ments placing a third layer of constraints on the potential reuse of
waste oil as a fuel, thereby directing the report analysis.
DEMAND FOR WASTE OIL DERIVED FUELS
Demand for energy resources in the United States has dramatically in-
creased in the past decade, impacting all major markets and types of
energy sources. The two largest consuming sectors of energy in the
economy are industrial and electrical generation. This demand analysis,
therefore focuses on steam-electric power plants and various industrial
installations due to their large fuel requirement for energy generation,
space heating, and/or process steam; and where on-site combustion units
are readily available to handle waste oil fuels. In addition, prelimin-
ary investigations revealed that several electrical utilities and in-
dustrial firms are presently using, or testing for use, waste oil as a
blended fuel, mixing it with fuel oil or spraying it over coal. This
information served to sharpen the direction of potential demand analysis.
21
-------
Table 4. SUPPLY PRICE COMPARISON OF FOSSIL COAL AND FUEL OILS WITH
UNTREATED WASTE OIL; RECENT TRENDS
Time
period
1969
Sept. -Dec .
1972
Sept. -Dec .
1972
Sept. -Dec.
1972
Sept. -Dec.
1972
Sept. -Dec .
1972
Sept. -Dec.
1972
Sept. -Dec.
1972
Sept. -Dec.
1972
June
1973
June
1973
Fossil fuel type
«a
Average: all fuel oils
Coal greater than 3 percent
sulfur^
Coal between 1 and 3 percent
sulfurb
Coal less than 1 percent
sulfurb
Average price of all coals
Residual oil with greater than
2 percent sulfur^
Residual oil between 0.5 and
2 percent sulfur^
Residual oil less than 0.5
percent sulfur^
Distillate oil less than 0.1
percent sulfur^
Residual oil less than 0.5
percent sulfur0
Residual oil between 0.5 and
1 percent sulfur0
Price per
million Btu
(cents)
34.5
34
39
42
37.3
41
55
68
82
84.2
75.5
Price per
gallon
(cents)
4.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.4
8.2
10.2
11.4
12.6
11.3
Waste oil price as
percentage of fossil fuel price^
June 1973
price ratio
101.4
102.9
89.7
83.3
93.8
85.4
63.6
51.5
\
December 1973
price ratio
156.6
158.8
138.5
128.8
144.8
131.7
98.2
/
V
-------
Table 4 (continued). SUPPLY PRICE COMPARISON OF FOSSIL COAL AND FUEL OILS WITH
UNTREATED WASTE OIL: RECENT TRENDS
Time
period
Dec.
1973
Dec.
1973
Dec.
1973
June
1973
Dec .
1973
Fossil fuel type
Residual oil less than 0.5
percent sulfur
Residual oil between 0.5 and
1 percent sulfur
Distillate oild
e f
Untreated waste oil '
Untreated waste oil
Price per
million Btu
(cents)
140.3
129.9
195.8
35
54
Price per
gallon
(cents)
20.0-22.0
18.8-20.1
16.6-37.7
5-6
8-9
Waste oil price as
percentage of fossil fuel price
June 1973
price ratio
26.2
28.6
20.0
NA
NA
December 1973
price ratio
40.5
43.7
31.3
NA
NA
K)
OJ
"As Burned" Cost of Fuel Oil reported in the following reference:
Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, Part 1, December 1971, p. 1-4-2.
Federal Power Commission "Monthly Report on Cost and Quality of Fuels for Steam Electric Plants,"
Questionnaire Form 423, 1972.
"Market quotation from several fuel oil dealers in the Massachusetts region, specifically the quota-
tions were No. 6 grade oil (1.0% sulfur) at $4.74/bbl, and No. 6 (0.5% sulfur at $5.29/bbl, received
in June 1973.
December 1973 market value quotations from Platt's Oilgram News Service, applicable for costs in the
United States.
u
"GCA Technology Division, Study of Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil as an Auxiliary Fuel to Improve
the Municipal Incinerator Combustion Process, February 1973, p. 60.
-------
Table 4 (continued). SUPPLY PRICE COMPARISON OF FOSSIL COAL AND FUEL OILS WITH
UNTREATED WASTE OIL: RECENT TRENDS
^Settled waste oil cost estimates provided in June and December 1973 by Pierce Brothers Oil Service,
Inc. Waltham, Massachusetts. Cost includes collection, storage, settling, and transport.
Percentage values were derived as follows:
Fossil Fuel Price
June 1973 price percentage = June 1973 Untreated Waste Oil Price
Fossil Fuel Price
December 1973 price percentage = December 1973 Untreated Waste Oil Price
-------
The approach employed in this waste oil fuel demand/consumption evalua-
tion follows a sequence of stages to include: (1) literature and statis-
tical survey of steam-electric power plants and major industry groups,
(2) comprehensive questionnaire development and distribution to poten-
tial industrial and electric utility waste oil fuel users, and (3)
personal communications, field interviews and site investigations to
prepare detailed case studies of firms routinely combusting waste oil,
or testing and analyzing waste oil for potential fuel use.,
Fossil Fueled Steam-Electric Power Plants
The electrical power industry is the largest industry in the United
States in terms of capital assets, and this industry accounts for about
25 percent of the nation's total energy consumption in the form of coal,
oil, and natural gas. * Fossil fueled steam-electric power plants are
the keystone of the electrical power industry, currently accounting for
approximately 76 percent of the nation's total generating capacity and
more than 80 percent of the actual electricity generated." The Federal
Power Commission predicts that the growth in electricity consumption
will continue at a doubling rate every 10 years, or at an annual rate
of 7.2 percent. Although increasing reliance on nuclear power and other
sources of energy will occur, fossil fuels will remain as significant
energy sources for electrical power generation. As previously shown in
Table 3 , if all the waste oil presently being generated were available
for fuel reuse, this total fuel energy potential would represent 1 to 2
percent of the total coal energy, and 3 to 7 percent of the total oil
energy consumed by electrical power plants in 1970. Thus the total
consumption of waste oil as a supplemental fuel source is well within
the capacity of the electrical power industry's fuel demand.
The rapidly expanding energy requirements of the electrical power in-
dustry and other consuming sectors is placing increasingly greater de-
mands on domestic and foreign fuel supplies, particularly petroleum-
based fuels. One effect of this expanded demand is increased reliance
on imported fuels, demonstrated by the fact that in 1972 the United
States imported 28 percent of the petroleum consumed: up from 18 per-
cent in 1960. The U.S. Department of Interior reports that domestic
natural gas and petroleum will require increasing supplementation to
meet demands from electrical power plants and other consumers. The
acuteness of the problem for petroleum fuels is illustrated in Table 5,
which outlines the domestic petroleum supply as a percentage of
total demand, and the required supplemental supplies to meet rising
demand.
25
-------
Table 5. PETROLEUM ENERGY DOMESTIC SUPPLY ENVISAGED AND
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTATIONS TO MEET RISING DEMAND
PROJECTIONS3
Supply components to meet
total U.S . demand
Domestic supply as percentage
of total U.S. consumption
Supplemental supply percentage
of total U.S. consumption
Year
1971
74.0
26.0
1975
63.1
36.9
1980
56.3
43.7
1985
46.6
53.4
2000
29.7
70.3
SSource: Dupree, W.G.,Jr., and J.A. West, United States Energy
Through the Year 2000, U.S. Department of the Interior, Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1972
Due to recent export policy changes of Middle Eastern oil supplying
nations, the United States has announced a new energy goal of revers-
ing the trend of increased fuel oil imports and attaining an internal
self-sufficiency to balance demand and supply of fuels. This will re-
quire expanded domestic production, energy conservation, and develop-
ment of new energy and fuel supply forms. Reuse of waste oils as fuels
in electrical power generation and other uses, therefore, is consistent
with previously established environmental pollution control objectives
and promotes energy conservation, now under critical national concern.
In addition to assessing the total capacity and therefore aggregative
demand potential of steam-electric power plants for waste oil fuel, the
existing and changing spatial distribution of fossil fueled power plants
has important implications toward the regional pattern of waste oil
fuel reuse feasibility. Figures 1 and 2 provide a present and projected
spatial mapping of major steam-electric power production centers in the
continental United States. Both fossil fueled and nuclear powered fa-
cilities are included in this mapping of major steam centers, but the
distribution of fossil fueled plants is rather uniformly spread over
the steam generating centers. One general conclusion from the projected
spatial mapping at major steam generating centers is that potential waste
oil fuel users appear to exist in most major metropolitan regions of the
nation, where vehicle crankcase oil supplies are concentrated. This may
be deduced by comparing the estimated waste lubricating oil annual supply
(Appendix A) to the distribution of power plants shown in Figures 1 and
2. The total number of fossil fueled electric generating units in 1970
was 3400, consisting of 1265 coal-fired units, 1045 oil-fired units, and
990 gas-fired units.13
26
-------
• 0.5 -1 GW
• 1 - 3 GW
• 3 - 9 GW
9 - 20 GW
Figure 1. Major steam generating electrical power production centers in the continental
United States, 1970, including both fossil fueled and nuclear powered facilities.
-------
ho
oo
• 0.5 - 1 GW
• 1 - 3 GW
• 3-9 GW
9 - 20 GW
Figure 2 . Major steam generating electrical power production centers in the continental
United States, projected to 1990, including both fossil fueled and nuclear
powered facilities.
-------
The spatial distribution of fossil fuel consumption by major class of
fuels utilized in steam-electric power plants is graphically exhibited
in Figure 3 . While each fossil fuel type has some market in most
regions of the nation, individual fuels usually have a competitive ad-
vantage in any one region, with each region tending to have one dominant
fuel. From a more careful analysis of these regional fuel consumption
trends, those regions in which coal and fuel oil use are significant
cover the Eastern and Western seaboards, and therefore imply potential
waste oil marketability in large metropolitan sectors of the nation.
In recent years, the trends in fuel consumption have been particularly
influenced by environmental pollution control regulations governing
ash and sulfur contents in fuels combusted; and by dramatic shifts in
domestic and foreign fossil fuel supplies and resultant market price
changes. These factors have produced major structural changes in the
steam-electric utility industry in certain regions, resulting in con-
version of existing plant facilities and construction of new power
generating centers. These trends demonstrate the flexibility and fuel
switching and modifying capabilities, and therefore potential adapt-
ability of the steam-electric industry to use waste oil fuel blends.
Potential Industrial Demand for Waste Oil Fuels
The industrial sector of the economy is presently the largest annual
consumer of energy in the United States, using about 30 percent of the
nation's energy input.^ Most industrial installations require fuel for
energy generation, space heating, and/or process steam. These fuel in-
put requirements vary widely between industry categories and among firms
within one industry. Table 6 provides a cross sectional breakdown of
coal and oil consumption by major industry groups in 1972. The indus-
trial group breakdown utilized is the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Appendix B of
this report contains a more detailed and regional accounting of coal
and oil fuel consumption by major industrial group (SIC category).
Relative to steam-electric power plants, private industrial firms are
more heterogeneous in character, requiring a greater latitude in fuel
logistical and utilization considerations. Although the total poten-
tial supply of waste oil fuel is small compared to total industrial fuel
demand, a wide variety of waste oil fuel use options exist for any one
industrial firm location based on fuel availability and cost alterna-
tives, process input requirements, environmental pollution control regu-
lations, and related factors.
Beyond the data base on gross fuel consumption patterns, several indus-
trial plant operating factors have been analyzed as further criteria in
identifying potential industrial users of waste oil fuels. These criteria
include: (1) particulate matter emission control technology employed by
alternate industrial processes, and (2) empirical information concerning
industrial firms presently combusting waste oil derived fuels, and firms
conducting waste oil combustion testing for potential routine usage of
these fuels.
29
-------
MI DULL AI LAN"; 1C
OJ
o
40
30
20
10
6
60
40
20
10
6
4
3
2C
1C
-
-
•^
„••*
/>
*X
S
^
2 64 66 68 70 7
LAS SOITI' ChVIRAL
S
*•
.••••
2
D
3
3
-^
^—
*"**
^
_— • — -
• •»• <
^
• •
1
20
10
2 6
u
40
30
20
10
S
.**•*«
s~
•*
i^—
x
..«•
•
,
•
70
50
30
15
-
tff*
t
S
^»»
%5
••
64 66 68 70 72 62 64 66 68 70 72 62 64 66 68 70 72 62 64 66 68 70 72
PACIF1C TOTAL .S.
-
.••
•
-------
Table 6. QUANTITY AND COST OF PURCHASED FOSSIL FUELS BY MAJOR U.S.
INDUSTRY GROUP (SIC CODES) IN 1972a
u>
SIC
code
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Major industrial group
Food and kindred products
Tobacco manufacturers
Textile mill products
Apparel and related products
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Printing and publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastics products
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Primary metal industries
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electrical machinery
Transportation equipment
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
All industries total
Total cost
$ million
- 464.7
9.5
159.7
33.3
154.7
30.2
562.4
46.0
894.0
447.6
89.8
16.6
572.3
1,151.4
178.2
172.5
116.4
178.3
33.9
49.1
5,360.6
Fossil fuel quantity
Coal
(short tons)
4,456.1
173.3
1,545.8
146.7
184.3
225.1
9,439.0
17.6
18,323.6
358.4
1,243.9
115.6
9 , 708 . 7
9,462.4
649.6
1,214.9
685.9
2,609.7
696.9
135.1
61,392.6
Oil
(1,000 bbls)
20,763.1
704.0
11,202.4
1,159.8
6,371.6
940.2
64,588.6
1,323.6
33,861.9
13,945.0
5,279.3
1,271.9
19,540.9
36,935.1
4,854.6
5,934.7
5,251.0
6,760.7
1,771.6
3,207.5
245,667.2
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of
Manufacturers: Fuels and Electricity Energy Consumed, Special Report Series,
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1973.
-------
Industrial demand for waste oil derived fuels will be influenced by both
technical and environmental impact considerations upon combustion. En-
vironmental impacts are of central concern due to the possibility of
high ash and metallic constituents in vehicular waste oil, resulting in
fine particle emissions of materials potentially harmful to human health
upon combustion. A range of waste oil pretreatment and fuel use options
exist to mitigate these undesirable impacts, including (1) pretreatment
of waste oil to attain certain quality specifications, (2) blending of
untreated waste oil with virgin oils to dilute undesirable constituents,
(3) process modifications and stack gas emission control techniques to
reduce air pollution emissions, and (4) combination of these alternate
fuel product and use alternatives.
Following sections of this report focus on technical and environmental
impacts of vehicle waste oil combustion and alternate means of miti-
gating these impacts. The primary objective of the analysis is to iden-
tify the range of fuel use methods requiring minimal pretreatment and
handling of waste oil to meet environmental and technical constraints
with minimal costs and residue disposal problems. The criterion of in-
stalled emission control technology employed by industrial processes
serves to identify selected industrial firm categories as prime poten-
tial users of minimally pretreated waste oil fuel products. Since
waste oil demand will be principally in the form of a supplemental fuel,
installed particulate matter control technology enhances the feasibility
of waste oil fuel usage and removal of undesirable particle emission
without a large additional outlay of capital for control hardware instal-
lation.
A third criterion useful in identifying potential industrial firm demand
for waste oil fuels is present or past combustion experience with waste
oil. Literature survey and information collection on waste oil reveals
that a number of firms have first-hand experience at waste oil fuel usage.
One report, for example, identified an industrial firm, Allied Chemical
Corporation, as a waste oil fuel consumer, combusting over 8 million
gallons of waste automotive lubricants per year at one plant site.-^
These reports of waste oil combustion provide tangible evidence on the
fuel use feasibility and potential demand of waste oil fuels, and served
to guide the direction of empirical investigations undertaken in this
s tudy.
Direct Monitoring of Potential Demand; Questionnaire Survey and Case
Study Analyses
Empirical investigations were conducted at various stages in this study
to provide a primary data base of information relating to potential
waste oil fuel marketability, and underlying technical, environmental,
and economic factors associated with vehicle waste oil reuse as a fuel.
This direct monitoring of potential waste oil fuel users served to
32
-------
verify and expand literature and statistical analyses of waste oil fuel
marketability, and gauge use feasibility from the viewpoint of actual
and potential fuel users.
Several primary data collection techniques and empirical analysis ap-
proaches were employed to include: (1) questionnaire distribution to
potential electric utility and industrial firm users of waste oil fuels,
(2) field site visits and personal interviewing at selected electric
power plants and industrial firms, and (3) information interchanges
through various communications media.
Mail questionnaire development and distribution to potential waste oil
fuel users was undertaken to evaluate current views on the feasibility
and methods of waste fuel usage, fuel product requirements, demand
price and demand quantity at the user level: steam-electric utilities
and selected industrial process users. Two questionnaire formats were
prepared to survey these potential waste oil fuel consumers. One
questionnaire, distributed to 205 electric utility companies covering
all 50 states, sought information pertaining only to usage of waste oil
fuels, with supplemental information for each firm on existing fuel use
and installed air pollution emission equipment being obtained from the
Federal Power Commission.*
A second, more extensive questionnaire format was developed to monitor
waste oil fuel use feasibility as viewed by a cross-section of indus-
trial firm categories. Information was also solicited concerning exis-
ting fuel use and combustion equipment characteristics, air pollution
emission control capabilities and government regulations on process
operations. Survey distribution totaled 562 firms covering seven of
the 20 major industrial groups listed in Table 6 to include:
(1) lumber and wood products, (2) paper and allied products, (3) chemi-
cals and allied products, (4) petroleum and coal products, (5) rubber
and plastics products, (6) stone, clay and glass products, and
(7) primary metal industries. Rationale for selecting industrial firm
types for monitoring involved synthesizing the criteria previously
outlined in identifying potential demand sources, namely: (1) existing
fuel energy consumption requirements, (2) installed air pollution
emission control technology, and (3) present or existing waste oil
combustion experience.
Questionnaire responses received show a favorable attitude toward waste
oil fuel usage by electric power plants, and mixed responses from
alternate industries, as reported in Table 7. Those responding affir-
matively to use feasibility generally qualified their response by
citing a range of pretreatment or property changes required before a
*
Data obtained from Federal Power Commission questionnaire Form 67,
titled "Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data for
the Year Ended December 31, 1972."
33
-------
Table 7. WASTE OIL FUEL USE QUESTIONNAIRE: SELECTED RESPONSES MONITORING POTENTIAL DEMAND BY
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES AND VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL FIRMS3
Questionnaire
distribution
user categories
Steam-
electric
utilities
Mixed
industrial
firms
Response
Number
responding
Response
Number
responding
Waste oil
fuel use
feasibility
assessment
Yes
49
Yes
17
No
19
No
14
Form of
waste oil
fuel usage
Blended
with
oil
39
Blended
with
oil
7
Mixed
with
coal
14
Mixed
with
coal
2
Price willing to pay
Untreated
Average
cents /gal
7.1
19
5.3
9
Range
cents /gal
0-15
19
0-10
9
Pretreated
Average
cents /gal
8.3
20
13
5
Range
cents /gal
0-15
20
2-20
5
Quantity demanded
for potential use
Average
gal /day
19,000
34
32,900
34
Range
gal/day
250-
100,000
34
250-
200,000
34
*See Appendix C for questionnaire formats and summarized tabulation of responses.
bThe size of the power plants was not discernable from the questionnaires. In some cases respondents were
electrical utility company representatives expressing potential demand for several power plant locations
under their control.
-------
final waste oil fuel product would be used. Waste oil fuel would be
used as a supplemental fuel to be blended with fuel oil or mixed with
coal, with oil blending being the most frequent response. Potential
demand price ranged widely, averaging 5-7 cents for untreated waste
oil fuel, and 8-13 cents for various pretreated waste oil fuel products
as specified by the responding firms. Likewise, quantity demand on a
daily basis ranged widely, averaging around 19,000 gallons/day for
steam-electric power plants and 32,000 gallons/day for industrial firm
respondents. A copy of the questionnaire distributed and a complete
summary of responses appear in Appendix C for electric utilities and
Appendix D for potential industrial firm users.
In overview, potential demand for waste oil fuels by electric power
plant operations was identified in all census regions of the nation.
The distribution of survey response by census region is graphically
illustrated in Figure 4. A rather irregular distribution of demand was
revealed in the small fraction of questionnaires returned by various in-
dustrial firms (11 percent response). Combining the response pattern
from electrical power plants and various industrial firms, a large po-
tential demand for waste oil derived fuels was indicated, covering many
regions of the country. Explicit concern by questionnaire respondents,
however, mandated a more comprehensive analysis of technical, environ-
mental impacts of alternative usage patterns, and regulations affecting
this mode of waste oil reuse.
Complementing this potential waste oil fuel questionnaire survey, a se-
lected number of electric utility and industrial firm field-site visits
and/or operator interviewing was conducted. These investigations pro-
duced information used at various stages in this report concerning waste
oil fueld combustion alternatives, technical and environmental impacts,
and requirements for achieving acceptable fuel products. Information
and data obtained through consultation with the following organizations
are integrated into this report:
• Electric Utilities
• Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.: presently combusting
vehicular waste oil fuel on a routine basis with vir-
gin oil at their Waiau Power Plant.
• Northern States Power Company: presently evaluating
waste oil fuel combustion along with coal through
extensive combustion testing at their High Bridge
Generating Plant in St. Paul.
• New England Power Systems: a potential user of waste
oil fuels.
• General Electric Corporation, Lynn, Massachusetts,
Electrical Power System: a potential user of waste
oil fuels.
35
-------
u>
NO - 1
COND - 2
YES - 3
NO - 0
YES - 3
NO - 1
COND - 2
YES - 9
NO - 1
COND - 1
YES - 5
NO - 2
COOT - 2
YES - 7
NO - 1
COND - 1
NO - 2 \ YES - 6
YES - 2
NO - 1
COND - 1
YES - 9
if NO - 0
•xCOND - 1
/YES - 3
KEY;
NO: Cannot use waste oil fuels
COND: Conditional yes if composition change made
YES: Can use waste oil derived fuels
Figure 4. Steam-electric utility questionnaire response by census region on potential use of waste
oil fuel (see Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire distributed to 205 electric
utility firms, and detailed responses).
-------
• Industrial Firms
• Allied Chemical Corporation: presently combusting
vehicular waste oil at their Solvary, New York,
plant.
• Bethlehem Steel Company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania:
a potential steel plant user of waste oil fuels.
• Trimount Bituminous Products Company, Everett,
Massachusetts: a potential asphalt batch plant
user of waste oil fuels.
• Keystone Portland Cement Company, Allentown,
Pennsylvania: a potential Portland cement plant
user of waste oil fuels.
In addition, comprehensive combustion and air pollution emission
testing results and analysis from vehicular waste oil-virgin fuel
blends was obtained through information exchange with the following
organization:
U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and
Development Center, Coating and Chemical
Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
This Aberdeen Proving Grounds testing is being conducted to evaluate
the feasibility of waste oil fuel combustion for reuse of waste oil
derived from large scale vehicle fleet operations of the federal
government.
INSTITUTIONAL/LEGAL FACTORS INFLUENCING WASTE OIL FUEL REUSE
The ultimate sale and use of waste oil fuels will be affected by a
range of non-market constraints imposed at the local, state and/or
national levels. These constraints are the institutional factors
through which society and the private market operate: laws, regula-
tions and standard procedures established primarily through govern-
mental legislation; court decisions; public agency actions; and private
organization regulations. For purposes of discussions these institu-
tional factors may be divided into several categories: (1) laws and
regulations uniquely applicable to waste oils, (2) environmental,
management and pollution control activities directly influencing waste
oil fuel use, (3) environmental controls indirectly affecting the
relative merits of waste oil fuel use, and (4) laws and constraints
governing facility operating features of potential vehicle waste oil
fuel users.
37
-------
These institutional factors are numerous and may vary greatly for
different regions of the nation. In this discussion the general types
of potentially influential factors are enumerated to serve as a guide-
line in evaluating the potential for waste oil fuel utilization in
specified regions. It should be recognized that there is no one form
of waste oil fuel product or use alternative which is equally accept-
able in every potential use circumstance.
Laws Uniquely Applicable to Waste Oils
An increasing number of laws, particularly at the state level, exist
or are proposed to control and manage waste oil at various stages in
its lifecycle: storage, collection and transporting, sale of derived
waste oil products, and reuse of these products. The basic require-
ments for storage and blending of waste lubricating oils are similar
to those for storing heavy fuel oils,-*-' and are evaluated in more
detail in Section VIII of this report. Location, construction, and
piping of waste oil storage tanks will in most cases be subject to
local codes, safety requirements and insurance regulations as appli-
cable for other competitive fuel oils. Similarly, state and local
safety regulations governing the transportation of flammable liquids
by tank trucks, pipe lines and other mechanisms also apply, but these
regulations are applicable to all petroleum products, and are not unique
to waste oil products.
Of more concern from a competitive market viewpoint are specific waste
oil management programs initiated by several states. States with com-
prehensive waste oil management programs include Maryland, Massachu-
setts and Vermont- and several other states are in the planning stages
of such programs.1^ In general, these management plans incorporate
storage, transit and land disposal controls into the overall management
and pollution control plan. One state, Nebraska, was found to have a
law specifically regulating the use of waste oil fuels by stipulating
certain quality standards that must be achieved prior to sale of
vehicle waste oil derived fuels. The Nebraska law states:
66-312.01. Drain oil; definition; sale or use unlawful;
violation; penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person to
sell or offer for sale or to use drain oil, or a mixture of
drain oil and standard commercial fuels, for heating or
power fuel purposes unless such drain oil has been repro-
cessed so as to reduce the combined water and solids content
*An example of these types of regulation may be seen in The Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Safety, Board of Fire
Protection Regulations titled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the
Keeping, Storage, Manufacture or Sale in Limited Quantities of
Flammable Fluids, Solids or Gases."18
38
-------
to a maximum of one per cent by weight and completely remove
highly flammable aromatic hydrocarbons having a flash point
of sixty degrees Fahrenheit or less, such as gasolines,
toluol, benzol, methyl and ethyl alcohols, acetone, and
methyl ethyl ketone.
For the purposes of this section, drain oil shall mean
used lubricating oil which has been drained from any in-
ternal combustion engine. Any person violating the pro-
visions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine
of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars.
Source: Laws 1963,c. 370, § 1, p. 1191.
Other states and localities may have similar laws or may institute them
in the future, thereby constraining the quality of waste oil fuels sold
and requiring more reprocessing of untreated waste lubricating oil.
At the Federal level, several regulatory actions relating to waste oil
and other waste products act to constrain the marketability of certain
waste oil derived products such as re-refined lubricating oils. Prod-
uct labeling regulations, excise tax requirements, and freight rate-
scales for recycled waste products discourage the use of recycled oil.
These regulations, for the most part, act to restrict the production of
waste oil derived lube oils, and not waste oil fuel sales. Indirectly,
therefore, these controls act to restrict the range of economically
viable reuse options, enhancing the concept of local and regional reuse
of waste vehicle oil as a supplemental fuel.
Air Pollution Control Actions Directly Affecting Waste Oil Fuel
Combustion
From a total environmental system viewpoint alternate waste oil reuse
approaches pose impacts involving interpollutant and intermedia
tradeoffs. Waste oil reuse as a fuel for combustion eliminates poten-
tial water and land pollution impacts, but potential air pollution
problems may result. Since the air resource is the primary media
through which pollution impacts will be transmitted from waste oil
fuel combusting, air resource management and pollution control actions
represent important constraints in the performance evaluation of
alternate waste oil fuels.
Two categories of air resource management and pollution control actions
require analysis in viewing the regional marketability of waste oil
fuels: (1) air pollution controls directly governing the combustion of
fuels, and (2) air quality control actions that indirectly influence
the competitive position of waste oil fuels relative to alternate fuel
sources. The principal air pollutants for which current and antici-
pated air quality controls measures have direct bearing on waste oil
39
-------
fuel combustion include: (1) particulate matter, (2) lead particles
and other potentially hazardous constituents found in lubricating oil
additives such as calcium, zinc, barium, magnesium, phosphorus and
others, and (3) sulfur oxides.
These air pollution control measures may take several forms at the
federal, state, and local governmental levels. At the Federal level,
under the Clean Air Act of 1970,^0 control of air pollution from
stationary sources generally takes one of three forms: (1) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), (2) new source performance
standards (NSPS), or (3) hazardous emission standards. At the state
and local levels, stationary source emission standards for existing
and new sources have been developed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS.
In addition, emission standards for other materials have been estab-
lished in selected regions. Thus several possible layers of air
pollution control regulations may constrain the combustion of waste
oil based on the quality levels of the fuel product derived. Based
on the typical chemical composition of waste vehicle oil,21 relatively
high in percent ash composed of lead or other metallic constituents,
and low in percent sulfur, the emission of particulate matter contain-
ing metallic impurities represents the most critical air pollution
hazard. Based on the preceding .discussion of air pollution control
regulations, the following existing or anticipated air quality stand-
ards will govern the acceptable quality of waste oil fuel and potential
users at the regional level:
• Particulate matter standards:
1. Federal level: New source performance standards
2. State and local levels: Emission standards governing
the use at both existing and new sources
• Lead and other metallic and inorganic impurities:
1. Federal level: Hazardous pollutant emission stand-
ards governing all sources
2. State and local levels: Emission standards for both
existing and new sources.
*If the effect on health and welfare is "adverse" or the possibility
of their endangerment exists, and the pollution is due to numerous or
diverse sources, national ambient standards and/or new source stand-
ards should be considered. If the possibility of endangerment of
health or welfare exists but sources are not numerous or diverse, new
source standards may be the proper option. If the possibility of
mortality or serious or incapacitating illness exists, hazardous
emission standards may be as appropriate as, or more so than, the
other two options.
40
-------
With these direct environmental constraints in view, Section VII (page 75)
addresses the question of potential emissions from untreated vehicular
waste oil combustion. This analysis is supported by the detailed
chemicai and physical characterization of vehicle waste oils reported
in Section V (page 46). Waste oil combustion emissions are a function of
process size and time. Comparing potential emissions with applicable
standards thereby identifies the degree of waste oil fuel pretreatment,
stack gas emission control or combined operating changes required to
attain acceptable combustion. These fuel product or use changes imply
higher waste oil fuel user costs, a restricted range of user applica-
tions and a decrease in overall demand of waste oil fuels.
Environmental Control Actions Indirectly Affecting Waste Oil Fuel
Marketability
Several air pollution control regulations governing emissions from
stationary combustion sources may d irectly constrain waste oil fuel use
as previously outlined. A series of other recent environmental con-
trol actions, however, indirectly influence the marketability of waste
oil fuel through their impact on fuel users and fuel products. To
begin, air pollution emission control requirements have resulted in the
installation of stack gas emission control devices at fossil-fueled
steam electric power plants and numerous industrial processes involving
fuel combustion. Second, concern over sulfur oxide emissions has been
translated into both emission standards and fuel-sulfur regulations
governing the maximum permissible level or weight percent of sulfur in
coal and fuel oils. These two indirect impacts of environmental con-
trols: installation of air pollution emission control technology and
fuel sulfur regulations; bear important implications on the demand for
waste oil fuels.
Due to air pollution emission control regulations, a wide range of
process and stack gas emission control devices is currently being em-
ployed by various industries, and this enhances the feasibility of waste
oil fuel usage and removal of harmful particle emissions without a large
additional outlay of capital for control hardware installation. In
general, there are two major categories of air pollution emission con-
trol devices presently employed: 1) physical (mechanical and static),
and 2) chemical. The total installed cost of emission control devices
for electric power plants alone, for example, was inventoried by the
Federal Power Commission" and reported as of January 1969 to be:
Installed Cost of Equipment Cost in Millions of Dollars
Mechanical collectors - ' ' 42.3
Electrostatic precipitators 229.5
Combination of Above 120.7
Thus, there appears to be a large existing particulate matter control
potential at power plants, particularly at coal burning units, that may
reduce emissions from waste oil fuel combustion thereby reducing
41
-------
Table 8. RESIDUAL FUEL OIL SULFUR CONTENT LIMITS AS
REQUIRED IN SELECTED CITIES AND REGIONS IN
THE UNITED STATES
City/region
Chicago
Los Angeles and vicinity
New York
New Jersey
Boston and vicinity
Massachusetts, except
Boston
Effective
date
1972
1965
1969
1970-75
1971
1970
1970
Sulfur limit
percentage
by weight
1.0
0.5
0.37
1.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
Comments
Applicable to space
heating industry and
all power generation.
Some utilities re-
quired to burn gas
when available.
All users except
power plants.
Power plants.
All users.
All users.
All users .
42
-------
pretreatment requirements for waste oil and enhancing the fuel use demand
potential. It must be recognized that the control efficiency potential
is variable for this installed capacity, dependent upon original equip-
ment design, operational performance factors and related variables. A
more detailed evaluation of the control efficiency of alternative equip-
ment designs and operational conditions appears in Section VIII (page 89).
Other industrial processes also have installed control capacities of
these and other more efficient collection systems such as fabric filter
baghouse units, with an ability to control fine particle emissions
including potentially hazardous metallic constituents of waste oil
combustion.
The second category of indirect effects of environmental controls on
waste oil fuel use result from sulfur oxide emission regulations and
related limitations established on fuel sulfur content in many regions.
These controls affect the fuel market in general, and tend to enhance
the market demand for recovered waste oils low in sulfur for use as a
blended fuel. In many regions of the nation, state and local air pol-
lution regulations and related environmental laws govern the maximum
quantity of sulfur (percentage by weight) permitted in various classes
of fuel oils and coal. Regulations on fuel sulfur content already exert
a significant effect on fossil fuel supply logistics, quality of fuels
marketed, and research into alternative methods to attain continuing
supplies of fossil fuels. Table 8 provides a synoptic view of selected
residual fuel oil sulfur content regulations that have been enacted in
recent years by various regional and state environmental quality control
agencies in the United States.
Concurrent to implementation of stricter air pollution emission controls
governing fuel combustion has been a shift in the demand and consump-
tion patterns of large fuel users toward cleaner fuel products. One
result, for example, has been an unprecedented demand increase for
residual fuel oil, particularly by electrical utilities to replace coal
fueled systems.^ Another impact has been the conversion of combus-
tion processes to accommodate alternate fuel types. In the New England
region, for example, almost twice as much oil as coal was used by
electrical power plants in 1968, but as recently as two years earlier,
in 1966, more coal than oil was used."
To meet the growing demand for low sulfur residual fuel and alternate
low sulfur oil and coal fuels, several options exist to include:
1) use of naturally occurring low sulfur fuels, 2) blending of low
and high sulfur oils to attain acceptable quality specifications,
3) desulfurization of high sulfur fuels, and 4) use of flue gas de-
sulfurization systems. A comprehensive analysis of the future supply
and demand of low sulfur fuel oil, conducted for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency,26 concluded that all these routes are being
pursued, and efforts should be made to reduce the detrimental blending
of domestic oils which is reducing the availability and increasing the
43
-------
cost of distillate oils for residential usage. From a cost viewpoint,
usage of "clean" or lower sulfur fuel is more desirable than installa-
tion of costly and experimental stack gas desulfurization systems.
Since waste automotive lubricating oils are low in sulfur, use of
waste oil fuel blending with higher sulfur fuels appears to be an
increasingly attractive procedure. Since a great deal of fuel oil
blending has occurred in recent years, the science of fuel blending
and methods for implementation are well developed.
As an aid in identifying the regions where sulfur oxide problems are
most intense, and therefore where the demand for low sulfur fuel most
critical, Figure 5 illustrates the spatial distribution of Priority
region classifications established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency with regard to sulfur oxides.^ The annual arithematic mean
sulfur oxide secondary ambient air quality standard established by EPA
is 60 micrograms per cubic meter (p.g/m3). Priority I and II regions
have air quality in excess of the ambient standards. The spatial dis-
tribution of Priority I regions corresponds closely with the spatial
distribution of steam-electric power generating centers identified in
Figures 1 and 2.
Laws and Constraints Influencing the Operating Characteristics of
Potential Waste Oil Fuel Users
A final level of institutional factors that may play a role in waste oil
fuel use decisions applies to the operation and management procedures
of alternate industrial firms and electric utilities. Private firm
operating and production procedures may be governed by a set of stan-
dard operating procedures developed by the firm's management or imposed
by government regulatory agencies. These factors may influence fuel
imput decisions of individual firms or category of potential waste oil
fuel users. The case of electric power plants and the influence of
public utility commissions on power plant operations in many regions
will be reviewed here as an example of how these operating factors
might influence waste oil fuel marketability.
44
-------
-39
-------
An examination of the cost structure of the regulated electrical util-
ity industry reveals that three basic inputs are required to produce
electric power: 1) fixed equipment investments, 2) fuel, and 3) opera-
tion and maintenance. The mix of these inputs differs for alternate
types of generating facilities; and for fossiled fuel steam electric
plants fuel is a major operating cost, including procurement, trans-
portation, storage and handling.2° Fuel input and cost decisions are
therefore critical factors in efficient production of electricity.
In every state except Texas, there is a public agency authority to
regulate utilities, including electrical utilities, but the scope of
their jurisdictions vary from state to state.9 For the electrical
utility industry, public utility commissions generally attempt to elimi-
nate supernormal profits and encourage firms to be efficient in serving
customers. Since regulatory commissions in most areas of the nation
control the service charge or electricity rate, the affect of increased
production costs in electricity are highly indeterminate, " and one
must examine the method of rate control and how production input costs
are considered by the regulatory commission.
Utility companies desiring to increase their electric rates based on
higher input costs such as capital investment and labor expenses, must
receive approval by public utility commissions and/or rate hearing
boards in most states. In many regions, however, public utility regu-
latory agencies have established fuel adjustment clauses which permit
firms to pass added fuel costs on to their customers directly, without
rate hearings or approval. Order 12096 of the Massachusetts Department
of Public Utilities, for example, concerning rate schedules of electric
companies, states:
"Where conditions require a change in the base cost
or fuel adjustment factor, we consider it good reg-
ulation unless circumstances indicate otherwise to
permit a utility to make such change in its base
rate as will result in the same revenue as before
the change, without formal rate proceedings..."-^
In order to determine the specific number of utility commissions em-
ploying such fuel adjustment clauses, 51 commissions having jurisdic-
tions over electric utilities, covering all states except Texas, were
surveyed.* Of the 24 commissions responding to this survey, the
following results were obtained:
• 17 Commissions had some form of fuel-adjustment clause
• 3 Commissions had no fuel adjustment provisions
• 4 Commissions did not state their position.
Identification of these commissions may be found in the following
reference: Electric World, Directory of Electric Utilities, 1971-72,
80th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.
46
-------
Upon examining various fuel adjustment clauses, it was found that they
are variable, governing the electricity charge rates for alternate
classes of service including industrial, commercial, residential, and
others. In general, regarding air pollution considerations, these fuel
adjustment clauses tend to provide incentives to electric utility com-
panies to be less capital intensive and use higher cost, cleaner fuels,
which can be passed directly on to consumers, rather than use add-on
control equipment required to meet air pollution emission regulations,
thus by-passing formal rate hearing board review. This operating con-
straint, therefore, may influence both the magnitude of demand for
waste oil fuels, and the quality of fuel product desired by electric
utilities. The relatively low sulfur content of waste oils enhances
their magnitude of demand for use as blended fuels requiring no addi-
tional stack gas control equipment to meet sulfur emission regulations.
In terms of quality of waste oil fuel products demanded, regulated-
utilities may favor treated waste oil fuels, free of undesirable air
pollution combustion products requiring additional particle emission
controls, and free of constituents affecting equipment maintenance.
47
-------
SECTION V
CHARACTERIZATION OF UNTREATED WASTE OIL
In this study, GCA is considering two major waste oil fuel use options;
(1) blending waste oil with other fuel oils prior to combustion and (2)
combusting waste oil in conjunction with coal. This section compares
the chemical and physical properties of waste oils to those of virgin
fuels (oil and coal)„ These comparisons will serve as essential inputs
for evaluating the technical feasibility (Section VI) and environmental
acceptability (Section VII) of burning waste oil/virgin fuel blends.
Waste oil lubricants are composed of a heterogeneous group of oils,
including waste crankcase oil, transmission fluids, differential gear
lubricants, hydraulic oils, and small quantities of solvents. Waste
crankcase oils usually constitute the major portion of waste oil lub-
ricants. These waste crankcase oils contain some or all of the follow-
ing substances; (1) a moderate amount of sulfur which is inherently
present in lubricating oils, (2) many different functional additives,
(3) iron "fines" which result from engine fretting and wear, (4) gaso-
line components, oxidized materials, atmospheric dust and combustion
products (i.e., water) which are transferred via "piston blowby", (5)
sedimentary materials which were formerly internal engine deposits,
and (6) water and other contaminants which are introduced into waste
oil storage tanks.
A detailed characterization of waste oil lubricants, virgin fuel oils
and virgin coals are presented in Appendix E. Figure 6 summarizes the
findings in Appendix E and serves as the basis for the following dis-
cussion. If a particular fuel is not mentioned below in a property
comparison, it is either because values for that property were not
reported in the information sources utilized or because the property
being considered is not relevant to that particular fuel (i.e. specific
gravity for coal).
GRAVITY (°API AT 60°F)
Gravity expressed as API is a commonly employed inverse measure of oil
density. The °API gravity range found for waste oil lubricants lies
between the values of 20.0 and 27.9. As shown by Figure 6(a), this
range lies within the gravity ranges found for both number 4 (15.0-
30.0 °API) and low sulfur residual (13.0-33.0 °API) fuel oils. Waste
oil lubricants are generally less dense than residual oils (0.3-26.0
°API) and more dense than distillate oils (30.2-45.3 °API).
48
-------
(b)
(c)
PROPERTY
Gravity, °API
60°F
Viscosity,
Centistoke*
Pour Point, °F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value,
Btu/lb.
RANGE VALUES
0 10 20 . 30 _ 40 . 5,0
> « Waste Oil Lubricants
1 < No, * p«>— t No. 4 Fuel Oil
-50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125
> < Waste Oil Lubricants
> «.,...,< jfo 2 Dist 11 late Oil
Residual Oil
100 200 300 400 500
», , , ,; Waste Oil Lub
)_ _ < uo 2 Distillate Oil
^.,. ... t fjo. /, Fuel Oil
Residual Oil
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
> < No. 2 Distillate Oil
> < No. 4 Fuel Oil
> .< No. 6 Low S. Res. Oil
> < Sub-Bituminous
(d)
(e)
Figure 6. Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property ranges
49
-------
(f)
(10
PROPKRTY
Neutral izat ion
Number ,
m^ KOH/gm
R.S.& W,
vol.
Sultur ,
w t . "••
Ash,
wt . "/
S ilicon,
ppm
RANU VAI.l I,S
0 5 10 15 20
i , i_
0 5 10 IT 20 25
X No. 2 Distil late Oi 1
•>— c No. 4 Fuel Oil
> c No. 6 Residual Oil
>— < No. 6 Low Sulfur Residual Oil
012345
> (Waste Oil Lubricants
> C No. 2 Distillate Oil
> < N o 6 P c ~ 0 i 1
> < Lignite
0 6 12 18 24 30
1.1. . ' • — »
> < Waste Oil Lubricants
X No. 2 Disti llate Oil
X No. 4 Fuel Oil
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X No. 6 Low Sulfur Residual Oil
s. cAnthrariff
^ , ._ _^ R i fiimi non is
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
X Waste Oil Lubricants
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X Sub-Bituminous
(1)
Figure 6 (continued).
Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property
ranges
50
-------
(1)
(m)
(n)
PROPERTY
Calcium,
ppm
Sodium,
ppm
Iron,
ppm
Magnesium,
ppm
Lead,
ppm
Vanadium,
ppm
RANGE VALUES
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
> < Waste Oil Lubricants
X No. 6 Residual Oil
>-< Anthracite
X Sub-Bituminous
25,000
us
Lignite
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000
L iii ii iiii
> '-— •< No 6 Res idual Oil
X Sub-Bituminous
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
•> c Waste Oil Lubricant
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X Sub-Bituminous
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
X No. 6 Residual Oil
>- < Anthracite
X Sub-Bituminous
0 4,000 8,000 12.000
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X Anthracite
>< Bituminous
X Lignite
0 100 200 300 400
^_ 1 » • • » • ^^^*
•> < Waste Oil Lubricants
X No. 6 Low Sulfur Residual Oil
> — -< Anthracite
>— - < Bituminous
^ C Sub-Bituminous
^__ — _< Lignite
25,000 27,500
mln-
ous
5,000 5,500
Lubricant
Residual Oil
(o)
(p)
Figure 6 (continued).
Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property
ranges
51
-------
(r)
(t)
PROPERTY
Copper,
ppm
Barium,
ppm
Zinc,
ppm
Phoaphorua,
ppm
Tin,
ppm
Chromium,
ppm
RANGE VALUES
0 100 200 300 400
* '<• Waste Q
X No. 6 Residual Oil
> < Sub -Bituminous
* ^ Lignite
0 600 1200 1800 2400
> < Bituminous
X Lignite
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
>—< Bituminous
> C Sub-Bituminous
X Lignite
0 600 1200 1800 2400
^' " % Waste OIL
X Bituminous
X Lignite
0 200 400 600 - 800
>• < Waste Oil Lubricants
X Sub-Bituminous
0 25 50 75
X No. 6 Residual Oil
> < Bituminous
il Lubricants
Lubricants
bricants
Lubricants
ricant
(u)
(v)
Figure 6 (continued).
Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property
ranges
52
-------
(y)
PROPERTY
Nickel,
ppm
ppn
Manganese,
ppm
ppm
ppm
RANGE VALUES
0 _ 25 _ 50 100 150 200
0 5 10 20 30 40
L. * • ' i |
X Waste Oil Lubricant
0 25 50 100 150 200
X Waste Oil Lubricant
X Anthracite
X Lignite
024 6 8 10
X Waste Oil Lubricant
01 2345 6
X Waste Oil Lubricant
X No. 6 Residual Oil
(*)
(•a)
Figure 6 (continued).
Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property
ranges
53
-------
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
PROPERTY
Strontium,
ppm
Aluminum,
ppm
Titanium,
ppm
Boron,
ppm
Molybdenum,
ppm
RANGE VALUES
0 125 250
1 1 *
500 750 1000
X Waste Oil Lubricant
0 5,000
10,000 15,000 25,000
>— < Waste Oil Lubricant
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X Sub-Bituminous minous
X Lignite
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,250
X Waste Oil Lubricant
X No. 6 Residual Oil
X Sub-Bituminous
X Lignite
0 25 50
Anthra-
> < cite
100 150 200
i i 1
> < Waste Oil Lubricant
0 5 10
X Lignite
20 30
i -"
>-< Waste Oil Lubricant
X No. 6 Residual Oil
Figure 6 (continued).
Comparison of waste oil and virgin fuel property
ranges
54
-------
VISCOSITY (CENTISTOKES)
Viscosity is a measure of a fluid's internal resistance to flow. It
expresses the proportionality between the shear stress and shear rate
in a flowing fluid. The viscosity of oil decreases with increasing
temperature. Many crankcase lubricants contain viscosity index im-
provers which inhibit this reduction of viscosity with increasing tem-
perature. As shown by Figure 6(b), the viscosity of waste oil lubri-
cants ranges from 17.3 to 180.6 CS. This range lies within the lower
end of the viscosity ranges for residual (7.0-750 CS) and low sulfur
residual (1.8-362.0 CS) fuel oils. Number 2 (1.8-4.1 CS) and Number 4
(2.6-64.6) oils are generally less viscous than waste oil lubricants.
POUR POINT (°F)
Pour point can be described as the lowest temperature at which oil
flows. Crankcase lubricants often contain pour depressants which lower
the pour points of these oils. The pour point range of waste oil lub-
ricants [(-40) -> (-30) °F] is lower than those of number 4 [(-25) -*
75 °F], number 6 [(-10) -*(95)°F] and low sulfur number 6 (5 - 115 °F)
fuel oils. The pour point of distillate oils [(-50) -* 25 °F] is either
comparable to or greater than that of waste oil lubricants.
FLASH POINT (°F)
Flash point will be defined as the lowest temperature at which the
vapor above an oil will ignite. The flash point range for waste oil
lubricants lies between 175 and 415 °F. As shown by Figure 6(d), the
lower end of this range is comparable to the upper end of the ranges
for distillate (126-204 °F), number 4 (142-240 °F) , residual (150-
270 °F), and low sulfur residual (150-370 °F) fuel oils.
HEATING VALUE (BTU/lb)
Due to its high water content, the heating value range of waste oil
lubricants (13,571-19,300 BTU/lb) is comparable to or slightly lower
than the heating value ranges for distillate (18,145-19,895 BTU/lb),
number 4 (18,280-19,400 BTU/lb), residual (17,410-20,480 BTU/lb), and
low sulfur residual (18,720-19,700 BTU/lb) fuel oils. With respect to
coal, the heating value of waste oil lubricants is generally comparable
to or greater than that of anthracite (9,620-17,500 BTU/lb), bituminous
(9,171-15,800 BTU/lb), sub-bituminous (8,300-11,500 BTU/lb), and lig-
nite (6,300-14,300 BTU/lb) coals.
NEUTRALIZATION NUMBER (mg KOH/g)
Neutralization number is a measure of the acidity or basicity of an
oil. This number represents either milligrams of 0.1 N potassium
hydroxide (KOH) required to neutralize one gram of acidic oil or the
milligrams of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid (HCl), expressed as milligrams
55
-------
KOH, required to neutralize one gram of basic oil. The neutralization
number for waste oil lubricants ranges from 4.0 to 14.3 mg KOH/gram.
BOTTOM SEDIMENT AND WATER (VOLUME %)
Bottom sediment and water (BS&W) is material which is insoluble in oil
and can usually be removed by adding a solvent and centrifuging (ASTM
D96). As outlined previously, waste oil lubricants derive their BS&W
content from "Piston Blowby" and engine deposits as well as other
materials added to the oil during storage and handling. Detergent
additives present in many waste oils keep much of this sediment and
water emulsified.
Figure 6(g) shows that the BS&W content of waste oils can be as high as
22.0 volume 7OJ whereas the virgin fuels are generally comprised of
less than 2,0 volume 7> BS&W.
SULFUR CONTENT (WEIGHT %)
The sulfur content of fuels occurs naturally and is sometimes reduced
by desulfurization as is often the case for low sulfur residual fuel
oils. As shown by Figure 6(h), the sulfur content of waste oil lubri-
cants (0.21-0.65 wt. %) is generally comparable to or slightly greater
than the ranges for distillate (0,,02-0.59 wt. 70) , and low sulfur
residual (0.15-0.60 wt. %) fuel oils. The waste oil lubricant range is
enclosed within the lower end of both the ranges for number 4 (0.2-2.0
wt. 7>) and residual (0.3-4.0 wt. 7») fuel oils. For the most part, the
sulfur content of waste oil is lower than that of anthracite (0.5 wt. 7o),
bituminous (0.5-5.0 wt. 7») , sub-bituminous (0.4-2.1 wt. 7o), and lignite
(0.7-1.1 wt. 7o) coals.
ASH CONTENT (WEIGHT ?„)
Ash content is a measure of the residue remaining after a fuel has
undergone complete combustion and when further heating in the presence
of oxygen produces no further change in weight. Waste oil ash constit-
uents can be derived from "piston blowby" engine fretting and wear,
and the presence of functional additives.
The ash content range of waste oil lubricants (0.03-3.78 wt. 70) is
higher than the ranges for distillate (0.002-0.005 wt. %), and low sul-
fur residual (0.001-0.10 wt. 7=). Number 4 (0-0.1 wt. %) and number 6
(0.00-0.50 wt. 7o) fuel oils have ash contents that are sometimes compa-
rable to but generally lower than the ash content range for waste oils.
All four grades of coal; anthracite (6.9-28.3 wt. 7o), bituminous (3.0-
18.0 wt. 7o), sub-bituminous (3.8-11.2 wt. %), and lignite (5.0-12.8 wt.
7o) have higher ash contents than do waste oil lubricants.
56
-------
SILICON CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Silicon compounds in waste oils usually occur as anti-foamant additives
whose function is to prevent excessive oxidation. The silicon con-
tent of waste oil lubricants (10-875 ppm) is sometimes comparable to
but generally greater than that of residual (8.2-164.0 ppm) fuel oil.
Bituminous (9,818-38,500 ppm), sub-bituminous (7,390 ppm), and lignite
(4,180-25,000 ppm) coals all have silicon contents larger than those of
waste oil lubricants.
CALCIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Waste oil lubricants contain calcium in concentrations ranging from
700 to 3,000 ppm. As illustrated by Figure 6 (k), this value range
runs considerably higher than the range for residual oils (0.7-95.0
ppm). The calcium concentration range of waste oil lubricants lie with-
in the lower end of the range for bituminous coals (527-15,009 ppm).
Sub-bituminous (12,300 ppm), and lignite (16,100-21,300 ppm) coals
have calcium contents above and anthracite (252-503 ppm) coal has cal-
cium contents below those of waste oil lubricants.
SODIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The sodium concentration range for waste oil lubricants varies from 16
to 300 ppm. This range is comparable to and lies within the range for
residual oils (1-480 ppm). As shown by Figure 6 (1), the sodium con-
centration ranges for bituminous (293-645 ppm), sub-bituminous (98 ppm),
and lignite (75-1,921 ppm) coals are within or above the sodium con-
centration range for waste oil lubricants.
IRON CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The iron content of waste oil lubricants occurs as a result, of engine
wear and ranges from 50 to 2,000 ppm. This range is subsequently
higher than for residual oil (10.5-230 ppm). The values for bituminous
(3,230-23,103 ppm), sub-bituminous (5,080 ppm), and lignite (2,100-
5,910 ppm) are all significantly higher than the range for waste oil
lubricantso
MAGNESIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The magnesium concentration in waste oil lubricants ranges from 10 to
1,108 ppm as shown in Figure 6 (n). This range is significantly higher
than the range for residual fuel oil (0.4-27.9 ppm). The, magnesium
concentrations for most coals range within or above the values for
waste oils as follows: (435-1,590 ppm) for bituminous, (1,590 ppm) for
sub-bituminous, and (603-4, 590 ppm) for lignite. The only exception.
anthracite coal (425-955 ppm), has a range which lies within that of
waste oil.
57
-------
LEAD CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The lead concentration in waste oil is derived from "piston blowby"
and ranges from 800 to 11,200 ppm. As illustrated by Figure 6 (o),
this value range is considerably larger than the values for residual
oils (1.7-4.1 ppm), as well as anthracite (1.8-17.6 ppm), bituminous
(4.5-137 ppm), and lignite (8.9-89 ppm) coals.
VANADIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Waste oil lubricants have vanadium concentrations from 3 to 39 ppm.
This range is comparable to or less than that of residual (1-380 ppm)
and encompasses that of low sulfur residual (15 ppm) fuel oils. The
ranges for anthracite (17.6-176 ppm), bituminous (19-41 ppm), and
lignite (8.9-89 ppm) coals are within or greater than the range for
waste oil. The range for sub-bituminous coal (0.8-44 ppm) encompasses
the range of vanadium content values for waste oil lubricants.
COPPER CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
As illustrated in Figure 6 (q), the copper content of waste oil lubri-
cants range from 5 to 348 ppm. The value found for residual oils
(0.5 ppm) is below this range. The ranges for anthracite (1.8-123 ppm)
and sub-bituminous (1.5-53 ppm) coals are within or below the waste
oil range while the ranges for bituminous (23-105 ppm) and lignite
(8.9-89 ppm) are completely within the waste oil range.
BARIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Barium compounds in waste oil lubricants usually occur as detergent
additives that function as sludge dispersants and water emulsifiers.
The barium concentration in waste oil lubricants was found to range
from 10 to 2,000 ppm. The barium concentration ranges for bituminous
(53-462 ppm) and lignite (132-134) coals lie within the range for
waste oil lubricants.
ZINC CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Zinc compounds occur in waste oil as detergents and metal deactivating
antioxidants. As illustrated by Figure 6 (s), the zinc concentration
in waste oil ranges from 300 to 3,000 ppm. This range value is greater
than the ranges for bituminous (45-200 ppm) and lignite (8=9-35.8 ppm)
coals while it overlaps that of sub-bituminous (< 525 ppm) coal.
PHOSPHORUS CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Phosphorus compounds in waste oil function as antioxidants, antiwear
agents, rust preventers, metal deactivators, and detergents. The
phosphorus content of waste oil ranges from 500 to 2,000 ppm. This
58
-------
value range is greater than the ranges for bituminous (20-40 ppm) and
lignite (50 pptn) coals while it is greater than or equal to the range
for anthracite (70-1,220 ppm) coals.
TIN CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The tin content of waste oil ranges from 5-112 ppm. This range is
higher than the tin content of sub-bituminous coal (1.5-7.5 ppm) but
lower than the range of tin contents in bituminous (0.4-550 ppm) and
anthracite coals (17.6-158 ppm).
CHROMIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
As illustrated by Figure 6(v), the chromium content of waste oil lubri-
cants ranges from 8 to 50 ppm. This range is comparable to or greater
than the range for anthracite coal (1.8-17.6 ppm) while it encompasses
residual oil (13.7 ppm) and bituminous coal (20-28 ppm) ranges.
NICKEL CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The nickel content of waste oil lies between the values of 3 and 30 ppm.
This range lies on the lower end of the range for residual oils (3-118
ppm) and is less than or equal to the nickel in bituminous coals (13-
189 ppm).
BERYLLIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The beryllium content of waste oil lubricants lies around the value of
6 ppm. As shown by Figure 6(x), this value is within the lower end of
the bituminous coal (0.1-31 ppm) beryllium content range.
MANGANESE CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The manganese content of waste oil ranges from 5 to 10 ppm. This range
is either less than or within the range for anthracite coal (8.2-10.9
ppm. As shown by Figure 6(y), the content values for both bituminous
(13-189 ppm) and lignite (13 ppm) coals are above the waste oil range
values.
CADMIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The cadmium content of waste oil lubricants was found to be 4 ppm.
SILVER CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The silver content of waste oil lubricants lies around a value of 1 ppm.
As shown by Figure 6 (aa), this value is greater than that of residual
oil (0.3 ppm) while it lies within the silver content range of bitumi-
nous coal (0.5-2.9 ppm).
59
-------
STRONTIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Waste oil lubricants were found to have a strontium content ranging
from 10 to 30 ppm. This range is below that of bituminous coal (95-
935 ppm).
ALUMINUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
As shown by Figure 6 (cc) , the aluminum content range of waste oil
lubricants (10-800 ppm) is comparable to or greater than the range for
residual oil (0.5-219 ppm). Bituminous (5,557-19,448 ppm), sub-bituminous
(6,935 ppm), and lignite (3,468-9,146 ppm) coals all have aluminum con-
tent ranges greater than that of waste oils.
TITANIUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
The titanium content of waste oil lubricants (5-30 ppm) encompasses
the value found for residual oils (5.5 ppm). As shown by Figure 6 (dd),
anthracite (1,583-2,110 ppm), bituminous (315-1,574 ppm), sub-bituminous
(188 ppm) and lignite (102-782 ppm) all have titanium content ranges
above that found for waste oil lubricants.
BORON CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Boron compounds function in lubricating oils as multipurpose detergent
additives. The boron content of waste oils was found to range from
3 to 20 ppm. As illustrated by Figure 6 (ee), this range lies within
or below the range for bituminous coal (8.4-101 ppm). Lignite coal
(185 ppm) contains considerably more boron than waste oils.
MOLYBDENUM CONTENT (ppm AS THE ELEMENT)
Molybdenum is a solid lubricant which is often added to lubricating
oils. The molybdenum content of waste oils (2-3 ppm) encompasses the
content value found for residual oils (2.3 ppm). As shown by Figure
6 (ff), bituminous coal has a molybdenum content range slightly higher
than that of waste oil lubricants.
60
-------
SECTION VI
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF UNTREATED WASTE OIL AS A FUEL
The feasibility of utilizing waste oil lubricants as a virgin fuel
(coal and oil) blending component is dependent upon various technical
and environmental considerations. These technical factors will be
assessed in this section; the environmental considerations are presented
in Section VII.
The technical feasibility of utilizing waste oil as a blending com-
ponent with virgin fuels is a function of: (1) any additional storage
or handling considerations that might result from such a utilization,
(2) the blending compatability of waste oil with the virgin fuels being
considered, (3) any combustion impacts that might be created by such a
utilization, and (4) any other impacts that might result from the in-
troduction of any foreign materials into a system via waste oil utili-
zation. The forthcoming development reviews the properties presented
in the preceding section and discusses how they affect the technical
feasibility of utilizing waste oil as a fuel blending component.
Tables 9, 10, and 11 compliment this discussion by respectively charac-
terizing waste oil/distillate oil, waste oil/residual oil, and waste
oil/bituminous coal blends.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
As illustrated in Tables 9 and 10, the specific gravity of well~mixed
waste oil/distillate oil and waste oil/residual oil blends in concen-
trations as high as 25 percent does not vary appreciably from the
specific gravity of the virgin fuels prior to the addition of waste
oil. The combustion testing conducted at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
revealed that waste oil/distillate oil blends being stored for any
reasonable length of time should be subjected to some form of mixing
in order to prevent the formation of concentration gradients. Since a
specific gravity differential also exists between waste oils and re-
sidual oils, it is reasonable to assume that this same phenomena would
occur during prolonged periods of joint storage. If the combined stor-
age of waste oil and fuel oils is to be practiced, it seems advisable
to employ steam heating coils in the storage tanks. These coils, com-
monly used to prevent the solidification of high pour point oils, will
accomplish mixing and heating through convective heat transfer. The
specific gravity of water and sedimentary solids present in waste oil
61
-------
Table 9. CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE OIL/DISTILLATE OIL BLENDS'
Property
Gravity, °API a 60 F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, °F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value, BTU/lb.
BS&W, vol. %
Sulfur, wt. 7o
Ash, wt. ?„
Value
0%
waste oil
37.8
3.0
-12.5
165
19,020
0.05
0.310
0.0025
17,
waste oil
37.7
3.0
-12.7
166.3
18,994
0.16
0.311
0.022
5%
waste oil
37.1
4.0
-13.6
171.5
18,891
0.60
0.316
0.098
10%
waste oil
36.4
5.0
-14.8
178.0
18,762
1.15
0.322
0.193
25%
waste oil
34.4
11.0
-18.1
197.5
18,374
2.79
0.340
0.479
100%
waste oil
24.0
99.0
-35
295
16,436
11.0
0.430
1.91
The properties of these blends are assumed to be linearly related to their constituents'
properties except for viscosity which was calculated using the Kendall-Monroe equation.
Median values from the composite property ranges presented in Appendix E were used in
order to obtain property values for blends.
-------
Table 10. CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE OIL/RESIDUAL OIL BLENDS'
Property
Gravity, °API a 60°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, °F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Values, BTU/lb.
BS&W, vol.%
Sulfur, wt.7o
Ash, wt.7o
Silicon, ppm
Calcium, ppm
Sodium, ppm
Iron, ppm
Magne s ium , p pm
Lead, ppm
Vanadium, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
Valueb
0%
waste oil
13.2
379
52.5
210
18,945
1.00
2.15
0.25
86.1
47.9
240.5
120.3
14.2
2.9
190.5
0.5
13.7
60.5
1%
waste oil
13.3
365
51.6
211
18,920
1.10
2.13
0.27
89.7
65.9
239.7
129
19.6
63
188.8
2.3
13.9
60.1
5%
waste oil
13.7
345
48.1
214
18,820
1.50
2.06
0.33
104
138.0
236
166
41.4
303
182
9.3
14.5
58.3
10%
waste oil
14.3
338
43.8
219
18,694
2.00
1.98
0.42
122
228
232
211
68.7
603
171.5
18.2
15.2
56.1
25%
waste oil
15.9
288
30.6
231
18,318
3.50
1.72
0.67
175
498
220
346
150.4
1,502
148.1
44.6
17.5
49.5
100%
waste oil
24.0
99.0
-35
295
16,436
11.0
0.43
1.91
443
1,850
158.0
1,025
559
6,000
21
177
29
16.5
-------
Table 10. (continued) CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE OIL/RESIDUAL OIL BLENDS*
Property
Silver, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
Titanium
Molybdenum, ppm
Value
0%
waste oil
0.3
109.8
5.5
2,3
1%
waste oil
.31
113
5.6
2.30
5%
waste oil
.34
125
6.1
2.31
107o
waste oil
.37
139
6.7
2.32
25%
waste oil
.48
184
8.5
2.35
1007.
waste oil
1
405
17.5
2.5
The properties of these blends are assumed to be linearly related to their constituents' properties
except for viscosity which was calculated using the Kendall-Monroe equation.
Median values from the composite property ranges presented in Appendix E were used in order
to obtain property values for blends.
-------
Table 11. CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE OIL/BITUMINOUS COAL BLENDS2
Property
Heating Value, BTU/lb.
Sulfur, wt.%
Ash, wt.%
Silicon, ppm
Calcium, ppm
Sodium, ppm
Iron, ppm
Magnesium, ppm
Lead, ppm
Vanadium, ppm
Copper, ppm
Barium, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Phosphorus, ppm
Tin, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
Beryllium, ppm
Value
0%
waste oil
12,486
2.75
10.5
26,650
7,768
469
14,467
1,362
78.5
30
64
258
123
30
225.2
24
101
15.6
n
waste oil
12,526
2.73
10.4
26,388
7,709
466
14,333
1,354
138
29.9
65.1
265
138
42
223.5
24.1
100
15.5
5%
waste oil
12,684
2.63
10.1
25,340
7,472
453
13,795
1,322
375
29.6
69.7
295
199
91
216.9
24.3
97
15.1
10%
waste oil
12,881
2.52
9.64
24,029
7,176
438
13,123
1,282
671
29.1
75.3
333
276
152
208,5
24.5
93
14.6
25%
waste oil
13,474
2.17
8.35
20,098
6,289
391
11,106
1,161
1,559
27.8
92.3
445
505
335
183.5
25.3
80
13.2
100%
waste oil
16,436
0.43
1.91
443
1,850
158.0
1,025
559
6,000
21
177
1,005
1,650
1,250
58.5
29
16.5
6
-------
Table 11. (continued) CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE OIL/BITUMINOUS COAL BLENDS*
Property
Manganese, ppm
Silver, ppm
Strontium, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
Titanium, ppm
Boron, ppm
Molybdenum, ppm
Value
0%
waste oil
101
1.7
515
12,503
945
54.7
15.6
1%
waste oil
100
1.69
510
12,382
936
54.3
15.5
5%
waste oil
96
1.67
490
11,898
899
52.5
14.9
10%
waste oil
92
1.63
466
11,293
852
50.4
14.3
257,
waste oil
78
1.53
391
9,479
713
43.9
12.3
100%
waste oil
7.5
1
20
405
17.5
11.5
2.5
The properties of these blends are assumed to be linearly related to their constituents' properties,
Median values from the composite property ranges presented in Appendix E were used in order
to obtain property values for blends.
-------
lubricants is greater than that of the three oils being considered.
This means that allowed sufficient time, free BS&W would settle to the
bottom of a storage tank. Emulsifiers which are present in most waste
oils inhibit the settling of these undesirable materials while heating
these oils enhances settling via the reduction of oil viscosity. Some
type of drain valve or suction line should be present in the bottom of
combined storage tanks in order to facilitate the removal of BS&W be-
fore these materials reach the level of oil drawoff.
VISCOSITY
The viscosity of a 10-percent waste oil/distillate oil blend is over
three times that of distillate oil while the viscosity of 10 percent
waste oil/residual oil blends is only slightly less than the viscosity
of residual oil. GCA noted from both its field study and questionnaires
that possible pumping restrictions due to waste oil viscosity was an
area of concern.
Classically, two general categories of pumps are employed for fuel oil
transport; centrifugal and positive displacement pumps. Centrifugal
pumps are recommended for fuel oils with viscosities below 450 centi-
stokes. Above this viscosity, the pumps run inefficiently and it is
likely that cavitation may occur.4' Centrifugal pumps are almost al-
ways used for distillate oils. As far as viscosity is concerned, these
pumps seem quite suitable for waste oil/distillate oil blends. Posi-
tive displacement pumps are recommended for fuel oils with viscosities
above 450 centistokes. These pumps are quite capable of operating be-
low this viscosity with the incurrance of some efficiency losses. Posi-
tive displacement pumps are commonly employed for residual oils and in
terms of viscosity, could also be employed for waste oil/residual oil
blends.48
POUR POINT
As illustrated in Tables 9 and 10 respectively, the pour points of 10
percent waste oil/distillate oil and waste oil/residual oil blends are
slightly less than the pour points of the virgin fuel oils prior to
the addition of waste oil. As a lubricant, waste oils contain pour
point depressants in order to prevent their solidification at cold
temperatures. On the other hand, residual oils, especially those with
low sulfur content, have relatively high pour points which require that
they be heated in order to keep them fluid. By blending these oils with
waste oils, heating requirements and solidification problems could be
lessened. The linear relationship or pour point (and flash point)
assumed in the tables wss chosen for convenience of calculation and is
not a rigorous assumption. Some variation from the values depicted
will be noted in PRACTICE.
67
-------
FLASH POINT
Tables 9 and 10 show that 100 percent waste oil has a higher median
flash point than either distillate or residual oils. Consequently,
the use ot waste oil/virgin fuel oil blends would not require any safety
measures other than those normally observed during virgin fuel oil use.
In a few questionnaire responses, some mention was made of the poten-
tial danger of spontaneous combustion of waste oil in coal pulverizers
and in hot air feeders. Through GCA"S field research it has been shown
that: when blending pulverized coal, waste oil should be introduced in
the furnace by a separate burner system rather than blending with coal
prior to pulverization. This utilization technique reduces mainte-
nance problems as well as safety hazards.
HEATING VALUE
The heating value of waste oil/distil]a te oil, waste oil/residual oil,
and waste oil/bituminous coal blends in concentrations as high as 25
percent does not greatly differ from the heating values of the virgin
fuels prior to their blending with waste oil lubricants. The heating
value of untreated waste oils fluctuate due to their relatively high
water content. The variability of waste oils' heat content was of
concern to Portland cement manufacturers since their process requires
constant heat in order to produce a high quality product.
BS&W
The sediment and water content of both waste oil/distillate and waste
oil/residual oil blends is noticeably greater than that of the virgin
fuel oils prior to the addition of waste oil. This difference is ap-
preciable at even low blending ratios, especially for distillate fuel
oils.
When storing waste oil which is reasonably high in BS&W, a fraction of
this material will usually settle to the bottom of the fuel storage
tank. Eventually the level of these settled materials will reach the
point of fuel drawoff. Dispersant emulsifiers have been successfully
used in storage tanks with waste oil/residual oil blends to prevent the
water and solids from settling. 2'->4
Increased strainer plugging is a problem that has been experienced dur-
ing the use of waste oils.31 Through field research, GCA has noted
that this is an area of concern to the many potential users of waste
oil.34
Due to the water in waste oils, freezing of unheated fuel lines is a
problem that has sometimes been encountered during cold weather. As
in the case of strainer fouling, the questionnaires also revealed con-
cern by potential users with this problem area.
68
-------
The sedimentary material in waste oil is characteristically an abrasive
grit. This erosive sludge does damage to the seals in positive dis-
placement pumps. Centrifugal pumps have, however, been successfully
employed to transport waste oil. This is due to the fact that posi-
tive displacement pumps generally have closer clearances than centri-
fugal pumps and are therefore more susceptible to erosion. On the
other hand, given the same operating conditions, centrifugal pumps often
operate less efficiently than positive displacement pumps and subse-
quently have higher power requirements. In terms of waste oil use
with coal, GCA's questionnaire survey revealed concern by potential
users over the erosion of coal feeder belts due to the BS&W in waste
oil.34
Erosion of the nozzle tips in burners has been experienced due to the
abrasive materials in waste oil. This problem has been avoided by
employing wide orifice nozzles. For this particular case, steam was
successfully used to atomize the waste oil/residual oil blends. It
was felt that steam is better than air for breaking up sludge deposits.
Fear of increased maintenance and the corresponding costs as a result
of burner erosion was frequently mentioned by potential waste oil
users.
Burner flameout due to the high water content in waste oil has been ex-
perienced during use. Flame sustaining torches have been employed to
prevent this problem. As well as causing flameout, the water contained
in waste oil causes its heating value to fluctuate. Potential users
who require a constant heat source were very concerned about this incon-
sistency, ^^j 55
For many potential applications, the BS&W in untreated waste oil blends
could create problems. Two options that would reduce these problems
are (1) modify the system and (2) reduce the BS&W content of the oil
via pretreatment.
Sulfur
The sulfur content of waste oil/distillate oil blends does not vary
appreciably from 0 to 25 percent. Waste oil/residual oil and waste
oil/bituminous coal blends decrease in sulfur content with increasing
blending ratio. Above a blending ratio of 10 percent, the decrease is
worth noting, especially when the technical impact of sulfur is con-
sidered. As well as polluting the air, the sulfur contained in fuels
can cause corrosion. In a furnace, approximately 95 percent of the
sulfur contained in the fuel being combusted is oxidized to become sul-
fur dioxide (862)> while the balance becomes sulfur trioxide (SO^).
This 803 combines with water vapor in the flue gas to form a corrosive
sulfuric acid (H2S04) vapor. The acid dew point is the temperature at
which this acid vapor condenses to become a mist. This sulfuric acid
mist can then come into contact with internal boiler or control equip-
ment surfaces and cause corrosion. Use of waste oil in place of virgin
fuels would decrease the overall sulfur content of the fuel blend and
help to alleviate these sulfur-related problems.
69
-------
Ash -"-
The ash content of waste oil/distillate oil and waste oil/residual oil
blends increases with increasing blend ratios while the ash content of
waste oil/bituminous coal blends decrease with increasing blend ratios.
At ratios of 5 percent for waste oil/distillate oil and 10 percent for
waste oil/residual oil and waste oil/bituminous coal blends, these
changes are worth noting, especially since ash in fuels can be respon-
sible for notable technical impacts.
Even though the individual ash constituents in distillate, Number 4 and
low sulfur residual oils are not reported, it may be reasonably assumed
that most of these constituents are present in considerably lower con-
centrations than are found in residual and waste oils. This assumption
is supported by a comparison of the total ash content values of these
fuels.
Part of the sediment in waste oils is comprised of ash-forming material.
This ash is a major contributor to waste oils abrasiveness and is par-
tially responsible for the previously discussed maintenance problems.
Upon combustion, ash constituents become oxides that may either remain
within the boiler and stack or be emitted to the atmosphere. Some of
this ash may form deposits of slag on the furnace walls (slagging), and
a portion of the ash that is carried from the furnace by flue gases may
form deposits on the tubular heat transfer surfaces (fouling). Under
some conditions, these deposits may lead to inefficient heat transfer
as well as corrosion, Sootblowing, water washing and manual cleaning
are the three most commonly employed ash removal techniques.-^"
It has been reported that in indirect heating, steam generating furnaces
firing waste oil as a replacement fuel for coal, there was no increase
in deposits or need for more frequent cleaning.31 There has, however,
been considerable concern shown by potential users over the possibility
of increased ash deposition and corrosion in boilers when using waste
T 9 s 1
oil in place of or blended with fuel oils. 'Ji
In direct heating furnaces, the flame and hot flue gas directly contact
the mass being heated; therefore, ash deposition on heat transfer sur-
faces is not a problem. Since the mass being heated comes into inti-
mate contact with fuel ash, potential product contamination must be con-
sidered .
Silicon
As shown in Tables 10 and 11 respectively, the silicon content of waste
oil/residual oil blends increases slightly with increasing blend ratios
while the content of waste oil/bituminous coal blends decreases appre-
ciably with increasing blend ratios. Silicon oxide (SiC^) is a very
common acid coal ash constituent.
The manufacture of Portland cement employs direct-fired drying kilns.
Since Portland cement inherently contains silicon, product contamina-
tion is not a problem.56 The technical impact created by silicon from
70
-------
blend ratios of 5 percent or less in residual oil or bituminous coal
appears to be minimal.
Calcium
The calcium content of waste oil/residual oil blends increases while the
content of waste oil/bituminous coal decreases with increasing blend
ratios." Calcium oxide (CaO) is a common basic coal ash constituent.
When coal contains a large amount of calcium, calcium sulfate (CaSCy,.)
will be created upon combustion. This substance forms very hard deposits
that are difficult to remove by water washing. On the other hand, cal-
cium compounds prevent oil ash corrosion by forming high melting point
complexes. -*
One reference^? indicates that based on 100 percent waste oil combustion,
25 percent of the calcium oxidized remains in indirect heating boilers
while the balance is emitted to the atmosphere. As previously mentioned,
the manufacture of Portland cement employs direct fired drying kilns.
Since calcium makes up roughly 66 percent of the cement, the calcium in
waste oil would be of no consequence.-*"
The technical impact created by calcium from blend ratios of 5 percent
or less appears to be minimal. For bituminous coal, the effect of waste
oil on calcium content could actually be beneficial.
S od ium
As shown by Tables 10 and 11 respectively, the sodium content of both
waste oil/residual oil and waste oil/bituminous coal blends decreases
slightly with increasing blend ratios.+ Sodium oxide (Na20) is a basic
coal ash constituent. This constituent increases coal fly ash strength
and therefore makes deposits more difficult to remove by sootblowing.
Sodium-iron and sodium-aluminum complexes, which are also coal ash con-
stituents, appear in the molten state and cause the corrosion of boiler
heat exchange surfaces. The sodium in fuel oil combines with vanadium
after combustion to form sodium vanadates. These sodium vanadium com-
plexes also appear in the molten state and cause the corrosion of heat
exchange surfaces by a fluxing act ion.36 Methods for water washing
residual oil to remove sodium are presently being employed.37
For both bituminous coal and residual oil blends, the effect of waste
oil on the sodium content appears to be minimal in blends of 5 percent
or less.
*
The results of GCA s questionnaire indicated that some potential waste
oil users desired that the calcium be removed from waste oil prior to
its use as a fuel.34
The results of GCA's questionnaire indicated that some potential waste
oil users desired that the sodium be removed from waste oil prior to
its use as a fuel.34
71
-------
Iron
The iron content of waste oil/residual oil blends increases with in-
creasing blend ratios while the iron content of waste oil/bituminous
coal decreases with increasing blend ratios. The results of the
questionnaire again indicated that some potential users desire the
removal of iron from waste oil prior to its use as a fuel.34
Iron oxide (Fe2C>3) is a very common basic coal ash constituent. It
has a dominating influence on the behavior of the ash in a furnace, as
indicated by its effect on the ash softening temperature. In the com-
pletely oxidized form (Fe2C>3) iron tends to raise the ash fusion temper-
ature while in the lesser oxidized form (FeO) it tends to lower it.
Iron may combine with sodium sulfates and potassium sulfates to form
molten complexes that cause the corrosion of heat exchange surfaces.36
Since Portland cement contains iron, the use of waste oil in direct dry-
ing kilns would not cause product contamination.56 Based on 100%
boiler combustion tests, 68 percent of the iron in waste oil remains in
the boiler while the balance is emitted to the atmosphere.57
Magnesium
As illustrated by Tables 10 and 11 respectively, the magnesium content
in waste oil/residual oil blends increases with increasing blend ratios
while the magnesium content in waste oil/bituminous coal blends
decreases with increasing blend ratios. Magnesium oxide (MgO) is a
basic coal ash constituent. It lessens coal fly ash strength and makes
boiler cleaning by sootblowing easier. Magnesium in fuel oil also forms
a high melting point ash and prevents corrosion. It complexes with
corrosive 863 gas^o and for this reason, is often used as a corrosion
inhibiting additive.
For bituminous coal blends, the technical impact of magnesium in waste
oil is negligible while for residual oil blends it appears to be
beneficial.
Lead
The lead content of both waste oil/residual oil and waste oil/bituminous
coal blends appreciably increases with increasing blend ratios. The
results of GCA's questionnaires indicated that many potential users
were concerned with the high lead content of waste oil and that they
desired the removal of this metal prior to the use of waste oil as a
fuel. Many potential users are concerned about a health hazard and
increased maintenance cost due to lead deposition on heat exchange sur-
faces. 51,34 Conflicting observations concerning lead in waste oil and
increased boiler tube deposition have been reported. When used in
O-I
place of coal, deposition has remained constant-31 while when used with
oil, increased deposition is reported. '»^
72
-------
Due to high lead content of waste oil, General Portland Cement Company
was reluctant about considering the use of waste oil as a fuel in their
direct fired drying kilns since soluble lead oxide in concentrations as
low as 0.001 percent stops cement from setting up.56 This information
was contrasted with data from Northern States Power.32 NSP conducted
tests in which they utilized a waste oil/coal blend (< 5 with waste oil)
in a 50 mw boiler equipped with an electrostatic precipitator. NSP nor-
mally sells their flyash collected by their precipitator to a Portland
cement company as aggregate makeup. The flyash resulting from waste oil
combustion contained 230 ppm of lead (normal lead content is 30 ppm
when waste oil is not fired). Solubility tests conducted by NSP indi-
cated that only 0.1 ppm of this increased lead content in the flyash was
soluble in hot water. It was therefore concluded that this additional
lead content would not interfere with the acceptability of this by-
product flyash as a makeup material in cement manufacture.
In addition to the above considerations, lead in the ash may also con-
tribute to inefficient boiler operation due to fouling of heat exchange
surfaces. From 40 to 97% of the lead entering with the waste oil has
been reported to remain in the boiler system, either as deposits on heat
transfer surfaces or as part of bottom ash.
Vanadium
The vanadium content of both waste oil/residual oil and waste oil/
bituminous coal blends decreases with increasing blend ratio. The
results of GCA1s questionnaires indicated that some potential waste oil
users desired that the vanadium be removed from waste oil prior to use
as a fuel. Many residual oils contain vanadium. Upon combustion,
much of this vanadium forms vanadium pentoxide (7205) which in turn
reacts with sodium compounds to form low melting point, corrosive sodium
vanadate complexes. Sulfur trioxide (803) is formed as a result of
this reaction. This sulfurous gas will combine with water vapor to
form sulfuric acid gas which will condense corrosive sulfuric acid mist
if the temperature is low enough. Magnesium compounds are often employed
to inhibit the corrosive mechanisms of vanadium.37,58
In terms of technical impacts, the effect of waste oil on the vanadium
content of residual oil and bituminous coal blends will usually be
beneficial.
Copper
The copper content for a 5 percent waste oil/residual oil blend
increases twentyfold over what the content is in the fuel prior to the
addition of waste oil. For waste oil/bituminous coal blends, the
copper content does not change greatly with increasing blend ratios up
to 5 percent. No technical impacts associated with increased copper
content of the fuel was determined.
73
-------
Barium
As shown by Table 11, the barium content of waste oil/bituminous coal
blends increases slightly with increasing blend ratios. The difference
between the barium content of virgin bituminous coals and waste oil/
bituminous coal blends up to 5 percent is small. It was noted in our
questionnaire results that some potential waste oil users desired that
barium be removed from waste oil prior to its use as a fuel. Barium
causes deposition on boiler heat transfer surfaces.59 Based on 100
percent waste oil combustion testing, 73 percent of the barium in waste
oil remains in the boiler while the balance is emitted.->'
The technical impacts of barium in waste oil on waste oil/virgin fuel
blends is somewhat detrimental in terms of boiler efficiency as a
result of deposit formation on heat transfer surfaces.
Zinc
The zinc content of waste oil/bituminous coal blends appreciably
increases with increasing blend ratios. Questionnaire results again
showed that some of the potential waste oil users desired that the zinc
be removed from waste oil prior to use. Through GCA's primary data col-
lection effort it was found that Portland cement manufacturers were
concerned about water soluble zinc oxides in their product. This
metallic oxide stops the cement from setting.55,56 The water solubility
of the zinc oxide generated upon the combustion of waste oil has
not been established in this study. Based on 100 percent waste oil
combustion testing, 38 percent of the zinc in waste oil remains in the
boiler while the balance is emitted to the atmosphere.57
Phosphorus
The phosphorus content of waste oil/bituminous coal blends notably
increases with increasing waste oil concentration. Again, the question-
naire results reflected a desire that this constituent be removed prior
to combustion. As in the case of zinc, Portland cement manufacturers
fear that this element will also inhibit cement solidification.55
Based on combustion data, 35 percent of the phosphorus is retained in
the boiler when firing 100 percent waste oil."
Other Trace Elements
Regarding the other elements shown in Tables 10 and 11 but not dis-
cussed above, no information was found to indicate any direct technical
impacts created by these elements during waste oil combustion. In fact
waste oil contains significantly less of these materials than is present
in bituminous coal.
-------
SECTION VII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF UNTREATED WASTE OIL FUEL COMBUSTION
Examination of the characteristics of waste oil and its comparison to
virgin fuels (Section V) indicates that the use of waste oil in place
of or in conjunction with virgin fuels may create both beneficial and
adverse impacts to the environment. Figure 6, for example, indicates
that use of waste oil in place of residual oil would reduce such air
pollution contaminants as:
• sulfur
• silicon
• sodium
• vanadium
• nickel
Waste oil is also a considerably cleaner burning fuel than coal, gen-
erating significantly less particulate emissions. Substituting waste
oil for coal would also result in a sharp reduction in the emissions of
the contaminants listed above as well as calcium, iron, magnesium, beryl-
lium, manganese, silver , strontium, aluminum, titanium, boron, and molyb-
denum.
In this study, however, primary consideration is focused on the poten-
tially adverse environmental impacts of waste oil combustion. Such
potential impacts result from significant concentrations of waste oil
contaminants (i.e., as much as 1 percent lead in waste oil), which may
be emitted in part to the atmosphere with the flue gas. In addition,
these contaminants would be partially deposited out as ash on wall and
boiler tube surfaces in commercial, industrial and utility boilers, cur-
rently the most common waste oil fuel applications, resulting in par-
ticulate emissions during soot blowing operations, and potentially higher
occupational hazards during cleaning of these boiler facilities.
Figure 6 in Section V shows that automotive waste oils contain a higher
concentration of the following trace elements than are found in virgin
fuels: . .
• magnesium*
• calcium*
• iron*
• lead
*Waste oil contains more of this contaminant than fuel oils but signi-
ficantly less than coal.
75
-------
copper
barium
zinc
phosphorus
silver*
tin
chromium
Tables 10 and 11 show, however, that the presence of some of these ele-
ments would not be significantly increased if small quantities of waste
oil were blended in with residual oil and coal. Table 12 summarizes
some of the information presented earlier in Section VI to highlight
this point.
Table 12 presents the estimated trace element content of 1 and 5 wt. %
blends of waste oil and virgin fuels (residual oil and coal). The trace
element content of 100 percent waste oil and unblended virgin fuels are
also presented for comparison. The circled numbers indicate those trace
element contents in the blended fuels which differ significantly (> 100
percent) from the respective unblended virgin fuels. Since this table
presents only the median values of trace element concentration, and the
range of values for each element in a fuel may be wide (see Figure 6,
Section V), we are assuming that a contaminant concentration difference
of greater than 100 percent between the virgin fuel and the blend is a
significant change.
Examination of this table indicates that blending 1 wt. % of waste oil
with coal will not result in any substantial difference in trace element
content when compared with unblended coal. A 5 wt. % blend of waste
oil and coal does, however, have significantly higher lead concentra-
tion and, to a less degree, higher phosphorus content than the pure coal.
This table also shows that several of the trace elements in waste oil
residual/fuel oil blends have a significantly high concentration than
for the unblended residual oil. However, in comparing these higher con-
centrations with the trace metal content of pure coal, these waste oil/
fuel oil blends are dramatically cleaner except, again for lead and
phosphorus.
Because of the widespread concern of lead as a hazardous pollutant, the
remaining discussion will focus on lead emissions and resulting ground-
level concentrations resulting from these emissions. The reader is re-
ferred to such references as EPA's Position on the Health Effects of
Airborne Lead^O for a discussion of the health effects of lead.
*Waste oil contains more of this contaminant than fuel oils but signi-
ficantly less than coal.
76
-------
Table 12. INFLUENCE OF DILUTION OF WASTE OIL WITH VIRGIN FUELS
ON TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF RESULTING BLEND
\v Fuel
Trace ^s.
e lement >v
Magnesium (ppm)
Calcium (ppm)
Iron (ppm)
Lead (ppm)
Copper (ppm)
Barium (ppm)
Zinc (ppm)
Phosphorus (ppm)
Silver (ppm)
Tin (ppm) .
Chromium (ppm)
100%
waste
oil
559
1,850
1,025
6,000
177
1,005
1,650
1,250
1
58
29
Virgin fuels
100%
residual
oil
14
48
120
3
1
*
*
*
0.3
*
13.7
100%
coal
1,362
7,768
14,467
71
64
258
123
30
1.7
225
24
Waste oil
.residual oil blend
1 wt %
waste oil
20
66
129
(63)
2
CyD
-------
LEAD EMISSIONS FROM UNCONTROLLED SOURCES
Parameters Influencing Lead Emissions
In estimating lead emissions from a combustion source which fires waste
oil, three basic pieces of information are required:
• The firing rate of waste oil (gallons/hour)
• The average lead content of the waste oil
• The ratio of lead ejected with the flue gas to
the quantity entering with the oil
The firing rate of waste oil is obviously a function of the capacity and
operating conditions of a particular combustion source. For example,
a large 600-megawatt steam generating power plant, consumes about 30,000
gallons per hour of No. 6 residual oil. Based on waste oil supplies, it
would be unreasonable to assume that such a plant could fire in excess
of 5 wt. % of waste oil for extended durations. A 5 wt. 7» waste oil/
fuel oil blend would result in a waste oil firing rate of 1500 gallons/
hour for a 600-MW facility. Other proposed and currently practiced ap-
plications such as direct firing waste oil in rotary cement kilns, and
as a supplementary fuel in smaller boilers generating steam for space
heating and process use, may consume from a few gallons to several hun-
dred gallons of waste oil per hour.
The lead content of automotive waste oil varies widely, ranging from
about 0.1 -*• 1.0 percent based on the data presented in Figure 6. Waste
oil, during the process of handling and storage, may be diluted with
other oils and/or solvents but this would only tend to further dilute
the lead content. Consequently, an estimate of 1.0 wt. % lead in waste
oil is a good conservative value for estimating environmental impacts,
as this will represent the worst case situation. The current trend
towards low lead gasoline may even eliminate lead as a significant auto-
motive waste oil contaminant in the future.
The estimation of the ratio of lead ejected from the combustion source
with the flue gas to the quantity entering with the oil is difficult
to predict as it again is very dependent on the combustion system and
operating characteristics. For example, the nature and extent of soot
blowing operations in a boiler will have a significant impact on lead
emissions when firing waste oil. Also the size of the combustion
chamber, combustion efficiency, operating temperatures, and chamber
geometry will influence the quantity of ash emissions. A summary of
available information on lead emissions from a variety of sources has
been compiled and is presented in Table 13.
As seen from this table, the majority of data indicate that the amount
of lead emitted with the flue gas during normal operation is less than
or equal to 50 percent of the lead entering the system. It is impor-
tant to note here that these are emissions estimates upstream of any
collection or control system that may be present. Only one source,
78
-------
Table 13. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA ON QUANTITIES OF LEAD EMITTED WITH FLUE GAS AS A PER-
CENTAGE OF LEAD ENTERING WITH WASTE OIL FUEL
Company
Mobil Oil
Shell Oil
Gulf Oil
Northern States Power
Company
Hawaiian Electric Co.
Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Edgewood Arsenal
Esso Research and
Engineering
Description of
combustion source
Steam boiler
(18,000 Ib steam/hr)
Steam boiler
(60,000 Ib steam/hr)
Small home oil burner
Utility boiler
(~500,000 Ib steam/hr)
Utility boiler
(~200,000 Ib steam/hr)
Steam boiler
(5,000 Ib steam/hr)
Steam boiler
(~1,000 Ib steam/hr)
Type of
virgin fuel
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
None
Total fuel
feed rate
147 gal/hr
374-476
gal/hr
3 gal/hr
59,360 Ib/hr
1,900 gal/hr
~40 gal/hi
7.5 gal/hr
Percentage
of
waste oil
in feed
5 wt 7.
75 wt 7.
25 wt 7.
3.1 wt '/,
7 . 57.
30%
100%
Lead content
of waste oil
17.
0.5-17.
1.17.
0.657.
0.457.
0.677.
0.4->0.67.
Soot
blowing
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Lead emitted
with flue gas
during normal operation
as a percentage
of lead feed rate
507.
317.
287.
24-» 617.3
25-» 297.
-37.
<50%
Reference
number
42
42
42
61
62
63
57
Based on analyses of collected precipltator flyash which contains ash from soot blowing operations.
-------
Northern State Power Co., in their burning of a blend of 3 parts waste
oil to 97 parts coal indicated a higher percentage emitted than 50 per-
cent. Their estimate was based on an examination of the fly ash col-
lected by their electrostatic precipitator as well as evaluation of
the lead content of the flue gas down stream of the precipitator. Their
flue gas analysis down stream of the precipitator showed no increase in
lead content with the use of waste oil, as essentially all the lead-
containing ash emitted from the boiler was collected as fly ash in the
precipitator. A portion of this collected lead-containing fly ash,
however, was generated during the short soot blowing operation (lasting
approximately 5 minutes and performed twice per 8-hour shift), and not
during normal operation. Section VIII, "Reduction of Impacts From Waste
Oil Combustion," further examines the effectiveness of high efficiency
particulate control systems for reducing emissions of lead and other
trace contaminants found in waste oil.
The above information indicates that when waste oil is used as a fuel in
systems with extensive heat transfer surfaces such as boilers, the
quantity of lead emitted with the flue gas during normal operation (no
perturbations experienced in the system such as during soot blowing
startup and shutdown) should not exceed 50 percent of the lead entering
the system.
For applications where heat transfer surfaces are not present such as
firing waste oil in a rotary kiln or in incinerators, a higher percent-
age of lead emitted is possible. These cases would have to be evaluated
on an individual basis to effectively estimate lead emissions. A recent
study, for example, shows that waste oil can be utilized as an auxil-
iary fuel in municipal incinerators without creating an adverse level of
lead emissions. Many applications in which direct firing is used, such
as rotary kilns, are inherently significant generators of particulate
emissions. These processes would therefore require high efficiency con-
trol systems such as scrubbers and baghouses to meet emission regula-
tions with or without the use of waste oil. Such processes which
generally utilize high efficiency collectors potentially provide a good
match for waste oil combustion. Section VIII discusses the impact re-
ductions of lead and other trace waste oil contaminants obtainable with
these high efficiency control systems and indicates those industries
which utilize such control equipment and which therefore represent at-
tractive potential users of waste oil as a fuel.
Particle Size Distribution of Pb and Other Waste Oil Contaminants
Emissions
Tests were recently performed by Esso Research and Engineering5' which
included the combustion of 100 percent waste oil in a small (50 hp)
boiler. The chemical composition and particle size distribution of the
resulting particulate emissions were examined and these results,
reported below, will serve as inputs to the discussion of control effi-
ciencies of particulate collection systems discussed in Section VIII.
80
-------
Table 14 shows the composition of the predominant trace contaminants
present in the particulate emissions resulting from the combustion of
waste oil.
Table 14. WT. PERCENT OF TRACE CONTAMINANTS IN PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM THE COMBUSTION OF WASTE OIL
range
average
Contaminants
Pb
14 - 19
16
Ca
18 - 13
10
P
6.1 - 7.7
6.9
Zn
3.7 - 5.0
4.3
Fe
0.9 - 1.3
1.1
Ba
1.2 - 2.6
1.9
The particle size distribution of these trace components in the emis-
sions was also determined by Esso and their results are summarized in
Table 15.
Table 15. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD AND OTHER MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS IN EMISSIONS FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
(units: Wt. percent of the contaminant falling
within the indicated particle size range)
< 1 micron
1-10 micron
> 10 micron
Pb
76-79
16-21
2.7-4.4
Ca
10-19
71-74
10-15
P
23-42
49-66
8.9-10
Zn
56-73
23-39
3.4-5.0
Fe
2.7-36
51-80
13-18
Ba
3.3-51
40-79
8.9-18
Table 15 clearly indicates the submicron nature of the lead emissions.
Zinc emissions are also significantly submicron in size. This informa-
tion will serve as useful inputs to the discussion of control equipment
examined in detail in Section VIII.
LEAD GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
Before waste oil can gain widespread acceptance as a suitable auxiliary
fuel for use in industrial and utility boilers as well as other appli-
cations, the issue of its contribution to air quality degradation must
81
-------
be resolved. Because lead is both the most abundant trace element gen-
erally found in waste oil (800 -* 11,000 ppm, see Section V) and the con-
stituent considered most hazardous to public health, this discussion
focuses on lead. Ground-level concentrations of other constituents can,
however, be estimated from the lead concentrations presented in the en-
suing discussion by scaling the lead concentration by the ratio of the
emissions of constituent "X" to the emissions of lead as seen by equa-
tion (1).
Emissions
Concv = Cone.. , x —: : (1)
X lead Emissions.. ,
lead
where:
Cone = ground-level concentration of constituent "X"
X
Cone.. .. = ground-level lead concentration
lead
Emissions = emissions in gms/sec (or equivalent units)
.A.
Emissions, , = lead emissions in gms/sec (or equivalent units)
lead
At present national ambient air quality standards for lead have not been
set and EPA has indicated that a previously proposed standard of 2 |_ig/m
— 3-month average may no longer be sufficient. Consequently, contri-
butions of ambient lead concentrations from sources burning waste oil
need to be significantly less than 2 |j.g/m3, averaged over 90 days, be-
fore a proposed application can be readily acceptable.
The information available on ground-level lead concentrations from cur-
rent and projected applications of waste oil combustion, is summarized
below in Table 16. Four applications are presented, for utilizing waste
oil as a fuel, namely:
• In a domestic oil burner
• In industrial steam boilers
• In utility steam boilers
• As an auxiliary fuel in a municipal incinerator
In all the cases presented, particulate control equipment was not util-
ized. The estimated ambient air quality could, therefore, in theory be
substantially reduced, if control equipment were employed. Section
VIII presents a discussion of the effectiveness of control equipment in
reducing lead emissions and indicates those industries which are current-
ly utilizing such control systems.
In Test No. 4, waste oil is utilized as an auxiliary fuel in a domestic
oil burner. Emissions from this test were used to estimate a maximum
1-hour average ground-level concentrations of 4 i_ig/m . This concentra-
tion is high relative to proposed levels of 2 p.g/m (average over 3
months or longer). Further testing is recommended to verify this ambient
82
-------
Table 16. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE ESTIMATES AND MEASUREMENTS OF AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS RESULTING
FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
1
Test
No.
1
2
3
i
5
6
Company
Mobil Oil
Humble Oil
Shell Oil
Gulf Research
& Development
GCA/Technology
Divis ion
Hawaiian
Electric
Locat ion
Port Mobil, N.Y.
Sevell's Point,
Virginia
Wood River
Refinery
Not referenced
Northeast U.S.
Hauaix
Application
Auxiliary fuel
In
steam boiler
Auxiliary fuel
in
steam boiler
Auxiliary fuel
in
steam boiler
Domestic oil
burner
Auxiliary fuel
in municipal
incinerator
Auxiliary fuel
In
utility boiler
Virgin
fuel
type
No. 6
fuel
oil
None
No. 6
fuel
oil
No. 2
fuel
oil
No.v
No. 6
fuel
oil
Total fuel
firing rate
(gal/hr)
100
100
374-476
3
300
1,900
Waste oil
firing rate
(gal/hr)
5
100
280-476
0.8
300
140
Lead
content
in
waste oil
(wt 7.)
1.0
Unknown
0.5-1.0
1.1
1.0
0.45
Stack
height
(ft)
60
35
130
15
100
137
Control
device
utilized
None
None
None
None
None
None
Soot
blower
utilized
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Measured or
calculated
max imum
ground-level
cone entrat ion
(ug/m3)
1.0
0.05
0.65a
0.2
4
0.05b
0.11
Concentration
measurement
class if ication
Calculated
30-day
average
Measured
short term
sample
Calculated
30-day
average
Calculated
1-hour
average
Calculated
30-day
average
Calculated
1-hour
average
Reference
number
42
42
42
42
3
62
00
Based on ambient sampling during soot blowing.
Concentration based on a specific set of operating conditions discussed in reference
-------
concentration for the range of applicable burner designs and operational
conditions. Assuming, however, that 4 jig/m-^ is representative, we feel
that domestic heating and similar area source applications (low ground
level, densely dispersed) is not desirable unless the lead content in
waste oil is dramatically reduced. If for example, 0.1 p.g/nH were an
acceptable contribution to lead ambient concentration, the lead content
in waste oil would have to be reduced by 97.5 percent [(1 - 0.1/4) lOOj.
The tests numbered 1, 2, and 3 are all examples applying waste oil as
an auxiliary fuel in industrial steam boilers. Emissions from tests
1 and 3 were utilized to estimate 30-day average ground-level concen-
trations, and in test No. 2, a short-term ambient sample was collected
and its lead content measured. Although the resulting ambient concen-
trations differed significantly (0.05 -* 1 y-g/m^), the data does illus-
trate that maximum ambient lead concentrations of less than or equal to
0.2 i_tg/m can be achieved in industrial boilers when firing waste oil
up to 360 gallons/hour.
Test No. 5 represents a theoretical estimate of ambient lead concentra-
tions from the use of waste oil as an auxiliary fuel in a municipal in-
cinerator. The maximum ground-level lead concentrations were estimated
at 0.05 (j.g/nr*; the reader is referred to Reference 3 for further dis-
cussion of this application.
Test No. 6 is based on the firing of a 7.5 percent waste oil, 92.5 per-
cent No. 6 residual oil blend in a 56-MW steam-electric utility boiler
operating at 36 percent of capacity (20 MW). The 1-hour average maximum
ground-level lead concentration was estimated at 0.11 p.g/m . This re-
sult indicates that the impact from such an application is minimal (20
times smaller than the 2 (j.g/m^ ambient level — 30-day average, being
considered as the lead standard). The question remains, however, as to
the potential impact of utilizing waste oil in a large utility boiler
(> 500 MW) which services heavily populated urban areas. The modeling
work discussed below which was performed as part of this study, addresses
this specific and important application.
GCA has made preliminary estimates of ground-level lead concentrations
averaged for two 1-month periods for a large New England power plant
(560 megawatts) theoretically firing a 5 percent waste oil, 95 percent
No. 6 fuel oil blend. The characteristics of this plant and the fuel
oil blend being fired is summarized in Table 17.
The parameters in Table 17 were selected so as to approximate the "worst
case" situation for generating adverse lead ambient concentrations. A
5 wt. % waste oil — 95 percent No. 6 residual oil blend — was chosen as
it represents a firing rate of 1500 gallons/hour, which is the approxi-
mate maximum rate at which waste oil could be supplied for extended dura-
tions (see Page 78). A waste oil lead content of 1.0 percent was selected
since previous discussions in this section indicated that this value was
at the highest end of the spectrum for lead concentrations in waste oil.
In addition, Table 13 presented earlier in this section showed that the
84
-------
Table 17. ASSUMED PHYSICAL AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
OF 560 MEGAWATT POWER PLANT FIRING WASTE OIL
Physical Characteristics
• plant capacity: 560 MW
• number of stacks: 1
• stack height: 300 feet
• stack diameter: 18 feet
Operating Characteristics
• continuous operator - 7 days per week
• type of fuel: 95 wt. percent No. 6 residual oil
5 wt. percent - waste automotive oil
• waste oil lead content; 1.0 wt. percent
• lead emitted with flue gas as a percentage of lead entering
with oil: 50%
• average fuel feed rate: 17,600 barrels/day = 31,000
galIons/hour
average heat content of fuel blend: 146,000 BTU/gallon
gas exit temperature: 149° C
gas exit velocity: 84.0 feet/second
85
-------
highest ratio of lead out of the stack to lead entering with the waste
oil approximated 50 percent, this value was utilized here. And finally,
we choose to estimate average lead concentrations over a 1-month period
rather than a 3-month average (the 3-month average has been advocated
most recently as the time frame associated with proposed lead ambient
standards), since shorter time periods result in higher average concen-
trations.
Average ground-level concentrations expected over a 1-month period in
the vicinity of a selected New England power plant were calculated by
means of a Gaussian diffusion model for an elevated point source. Esti-
mates of effective stack height for use in the model were made using an
expression developed by Briggs. Hourly wind speeds and directions
for the calculations were measured at the plant site.
Results of the calculations for 2 months (September and December 1970),
presented in Figures 7 and 8, show maximum ground-level concentrations
of slightly more than 0.10 and 0.15 p.g/nP. These maximum values are
in good agreement with the value presented in Table 16 for a smaller
utility boiler. More important, they are an order of magnitude smaller
than the concentrations proposed as the ambient standards for lead.
Consequently, this preliminary environmental impact assessment supports
the use of untreated waste oil in large utility boilers as a fuel-
blending component. GCA recommends, however, that ambient monitoring
of lead concentrations from such an application be performed to verify
the diffusion model and associated assumptions made in this analysis.
86
-------
Figure 7. Isopleths of average ground-level concentration
of Pb for December 1970. Units are /m .
87
-------
Figure 8. Isopleths of average ground-level concentration
of Pb for September 1970. Units are ug/tn.
88
-------
SECTION VIII
REDUCTION OF WASTE OIL FUEL COMBUSTION IMPACTS
WASTE OIL IMPUTITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS
Before reviewing some of the possible waste oil fuel impact reduction
alternatives, a brief re-examination of the contaminants that occur in
waste oil and their effects on its use as a fuel will be made. These
contaminants can be broken down into three categories:
1. Volatile contaminants
2. Soluble contaminants
3. Insoluble contaminants
Volatile contaminants are primarily gasoline, water, and chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Gasoline can be present in amounts up to 10 percent.
Water similarly ranges from 1 to 10 percent. The water is present as
either free water, emulsified water, or oil-soluble water. Both free
and emulsified water, when present in sufficient quantities, can freeze
and cause blockages of unheated fuel lines.31 Burner flameout and var-
iable heating value are also attributable to the presence of this water
in waste oil. Soluble water is present in trace amounts and therefore
is not an important factor when considering waste oil as a fuel. On
the other hand, the soluble chlorinated hydrocarbons found in waste oil
form combustion products that are capable of producing adverse visibil-
ity and health effects.
Soluble contaminants also include metal-organic additives and polymeric
viscosity index additives. Elements such as zinc, phosphorus and sul-
fur are present to a significant extent as soluble contaminants. Lead,
zinc, iron, barium, calcium, and magnesium compounds are present to a
lesser extent as soluble metal organic additives. The aforementioned
soluble compounds do not seriously affect the storage, handling, and
combustion of waste oil. Upon combustion, combustion products may be
formed that are capable of producing adverse visibility and health
effects and the fouling and corrosion of boiler heat transfer surfaces.
Insoluble compounds are primarily atmospheric dust, carbon, and finely
dispersed metal or metallic oxide particles. Suspension of these par-
ticles in oil is generally aided by the presence of the still active
detergents in waste oil. These particles are derived from fuel combus-
tion, corrosion or abrasion of engine parts and from the degradation
89
-------
of metallic organic additives in either gasoline or the lubricating oil
itself. The principal metallic contaminant is lead which may be present
to the extent of 1 percent. Other metals that are present in concentra-
tions higher than those of other conventional liquid fuels are zinc,
iron, barium, calcium, and magnesium. Coarse solids in waste oil con-
tribute to the abrasive wear of nozzles, pumps, and valves, can plug
lines and burner strainers and lead to excessive sludge buildup in stor-
age tanks. Fine metallic solids can cause fouling and corrosion of
boiler heat transfer surfaces. Most of the harmful metallic constitu-
ents in waste oil exist as submicron size particles. Lead is the pri-
mary constituent of the waste crankcase oil ash, accounting for approx-
imately 35 percent of the total ash content.-*? These fine metallic
particles would be the principal source of adverse environmental emis-
sions as a result of the uncontrolled utilization of waste oil as a
fuel.
WASTE OIL FUEL COMBUSTION IMPACT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES
The potential impacts of untreated waste oil utilization as a fuel and
several impact reduction alternatives are presented in Table 18. This
table classifies the properties affecting waste oil fuel utilization as:
1. Specific gravity
2. Water
3. Coarse solids
4. Ash forming materials
Impact reduction as a result of blending has already been discussed in
Section VI. The three impact reduction alternatives that will be con-
sidered in this section are low-level pretreatment processes, high-
level pretreatment processes, and particulate emission control equip-
ment. A detailed discussion of the capital and operating costs of these
impact reduction systems will be presented in Section IX.
As illustrated by Table 18, the combustion of untreated waste oil can
lead to added maintenance, fouling, and corrosion of boiler heat ex-
change surfaces and environmental contamination. The primary function
of low-level pretreatment operations is to remove volatile materials
and coarse solids in order to minimize the abrasive wear of nozzles
and valves as well as to produce a fuel of consistent heating valve.
Low-level pretreatment will keep operating and maintenance costs associ-
ated with feed and burner systems comparable to those incurred with
conventional fuels. However, low-level pretreatment does little to re-
move the metallic constituents in waste oil and subsequently does not
significantly reduce the fouling and corrosion of boiler heat exchange
surfaces or emission of metallic contaminants that would result from
waste oil combustion. In order to obtain significant metallic contami-
nant removal, high-level pretreatment techniques must be utilized.
90
-------
Table 18. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES OF
UNTREATED WASTE OIL UTILIZATION AS A FUEL
Property
Specific
gravity
Water
Coarse
solids
Potential impacts
Formation of concentration gradients in com-
bined storage tanks with distillate oils
Fuel line freezing
Burner flameout
Inconsistent heating value
Sludge buildup in storage tank to point of
drawoff
Line strainer fouling
Impact reduction alternatives
• Storage in tanks that accomplish mixing
via convectional heating coils.
• Separate storage with blending just
prior to combusion.
• Use with heated fuel lines.
• Removal of water prior to use (low-level
pretreatment) .
• Use with auxiliary torch to sustain
burner flame.
• Use for temperature insensitive applica-
tion.
• Removal of water prior to use (low-level
pretreatment) .
• Storage in tanks with bottom sludge re-
moval drains.
• Use with dispersant etnulsifiers to keep
sludge in suspension.
r Removal of sludge prior to use (low-
level pretreatment).
• Removal of sludge prior to use (low-
level pretreatment) .
-------
Table 18 (continued).
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES OF
UNTREATED WASTE OIL UTILIZATION AS A FUEL
Property
Coarse
solids
(cont)
Ash
forming
materials
Potential impacts
Abrasion of positive displacement pump seals
Abrasion of burner nozzles
Health hazard to boiler cleaning crew
Scaling and corrosion of heat transfer sur-
faces
Hazardous emissions
Ash disposal problems
Impact reduction alternatives
• Separate waste oil storage plus trans-
port prior to blending with hardened im-
peller centrifugal pumps.
• Removal of sludge prior to use (low-
level pretreatment) .
• Use with wide orifice hardened nozzles.
• Removal of sludge prior to use (low-
level pretreatment) .
• Use of respirators during cleaning.
• Removal of ash forming materials prior
to use (high-level pretreatment).
• Use in direct-fired furnaces.
• Removal of ash forming materials prior
to use (high-level pretreatment) .
• Use with efficient particulate emission
control equipment.
• Removal of ash forming materials prior
to use (high-level pretreatment).
• Removal of ash forming materials prior
to use (high-level pretreatment).
-------
Low-Level Pretreatment
Filtration is perhaps the most common method of achieving liquid-solid
separations. All petroleum fuel oil handling factilities utilize this
unit operation if only in the form of simple strainers. Self-cleaning
edge type filters are often used but are ineffective for particles
smaller than 40 microns. They remove abrasive grit but do not affect
the metal content to any great extent. Effective filtration of micron-
sized particulates can only be achieved by fine pore structure media
which are expensive and costly to operate. In general, the cost of
filtration varies inversely with the size of the particles to be fil-
tered.
Filtration can be effective if the particle size of the suspended par-
ticles can be altered by chemical treatment. It is frequently used
following acid/clay treatments to contain the high metal sludges for
subsequent treatment.
Settling is the simplest means of removing that portion of the BS&W
not held in suspension by the oil and its dispersants. Separation is
by gravity. The rate of settling can be increased by heating the oil,
thus lowering its viscosity. Since most of the particulates, carbon,
metallic and atmospheric dust particles in waste oil are less than 1
micron in diameter this procedure is not an effective means of lower-
ing contaminant levels. The effectiveness of settling is illustrated
by Table 19 which gives calculated settling rates of particles (3.0
g/cc, Sp. Gr.) in a typical waste oil at 100°F.
Table 19. SETTLING OF PARTICLES IN 100°F WASTE OIL
Particle
diameter
(um)
0.1
1.0
5.0
10
100
Time to settle
through 1 ft
40 years
160 days
6.5 days
1.6 days
25 minutes
At 200 F the settling rates would be 5 to 10 times greater but still too
low to be effective for all but the largest particulates. Although
settling is largely ineffective in removing fine contaminant, it does
remove coarse grit and free water, and is usually the first method em-
ployed in any treatment process. In the transfer of oil from storage
tanks provision should always be made for withdrawal of oil from a
level well above the BS6W level in the tank and for withdrawal of
BS64J at periodic intervals from the bottom of the tank. This is
93
-------
standard operating procedure and is the simplest form of contaminant
removal by settling. More rigorous treatments would involve controlled
settling at high temperatures or with a diluent added to reduce oil
viscosity.
Rates of settling can be greatly enhanced by centrifugation. Commer-
cial units can produce forces many thousands of times that of gravity,
reducing settling times accordingly. For a separating force of 10,000
times that of gravity a 1-micron particle such as that listed in the
above table will settle 1 foot in about 25 minutes. Although commer-
cial units are not considered effective for 1 micron and smaller par-
ticles, they can completely remove particulates and water droplets 3
to 5 microns in diameter. The oil is usually heated prior to centri-
fugation to lower the viscosity as much as possible. Another technique,
used in ASTM procedures,is to further lower viscosity by dilution of
the oil with an oil soluble solvent such as naptha or toluene. De-
mulsif iers are sometimes used to allow coagulation of suspended par-
ticles and water droplets to occur and increase separation in the
centrifuge. In summation, centrifuging is technically feasible for
processing large volumes of oil but cannot be expected to lower ash
and metallic contaminant levels appreciably because of their fine par-
ticle size.
Demulsification, followed by one of the aforementioned solid-liquid
separation methods, is a technique used by some processors of wate oil.
One such waste oil reprocessor has reported lowering the BS&W content
to a maximum of 1.5 percent by using a demulsifier followed by a
centrifuge. Demulsifiers are mixed with oil to counteract the effect
of the still active emulsifiers present in waste oil which keep water
and solids in suspension. Demulsification is most successful in re-
moving suspended water. Solids are more difficult to remove, although
surfactants that wet the surfaces of these solids are reportedly use-
ful. This treatment, usually carried out at elevated temperatures
(~200°F), does not remove small particles and therefore is categorized
as a low-level pretreatment.
The removal of the volatile components of waste oil can be effectively
achieved by thermal processes which drive off the low boiling contami-
nants. Flash distillation at atmospheric or reduced pressures is a
common technique. Some re-refiners, however, depend upon the thermal
inputs used for operations such as settling or centrifugation to drive
off most of the water and low boiling fuels. Volatiles are condensed
and water is separated from immiscible organic liquids by decantation
operations.
Two low-level pretreatment systems are discussed in detail below. An
economic analysis of these systems is presented in Section IX.
94
-------
Settling System - As indicated by Figure 9, this process is a batch
operation. Initially, the untreated waste oil is put into a tank fitted
with a drain to facilitate the removal of any sediment and water that
settles out during storage. After storage, a portion of the solids re-
maining in the raw oil is removed by coarse and fine strainers. Cen-
trifugal pumps are employed to transport raw waste oil due to abrasion
and viscosity considerations. Pumping rates should be sufficiently
high to ensure that solid materials do not settle out in transport
lines. After straining, caustic soda is metered into the process stream
in order to neutralize or make basic the previously acidic waste oil. A
demulsifier is then metered into the oil stream to enhance the settling
of solids remaining in the oil. After the addition of these chemicals,
the oil is then heated to 300°F in a plate heat exchanger. Due to the
roughness of the heat exchange surfaces, turbulent flow is achieved,
even at low flow rates. As a result, the carbonization of waste oil on
heat exchange surfaces is minimized. Once heated, the oil is agitated
to ensure adequate demulsifier-oil contact as well as enhance the vapor-
ization and removal of low boiling point solvents and water. These
vapors are condensed and the solvent phase is separated from the water
phase and stored. After agitation, solid materials are allowed to
settle out of the hot oil. When sufficient settling has taken place,
the finished oil product is removed and stored while the settled sludge
is removed and centrifuged. The oil reclaimed by this centrifugation
is returned to the original raw oil storage tank while the thickened
sludge is stored for eventual incineration.
Centrifugation System - As shown in Figure 10, this process is a con-
tinuous operation. Storage, straining, pumping, and chemical additive
accommodations for the untreated waste oil are the same as they were
for the settling process. After the addition of caustic soda and de-
mulsifier, the oil is heated to 200°F in a plate heat exchanger. Once
heated, the oil passes through a self-cleaning centrifuge where a good
portion of the solids and water is removed. Ninety percent of the
effluent stream is stored as finished product while 10 percent is re-
cycled back into the process stream just prior to the heat exchanger.
The sludge and water resulting from the centrifugation operation is
stored for eventual incineration.
High-Level Pretreatment
Techniques such as ultrafiltration and membrane dialysis are theoret-
ically capable of obtaining fine particle separations but are impracti-
cal because of the high solids content of waste oil. Other methods or
combination of methods such as demulsification, electrolytic deposition,
flocculation, and coagulation could also be used. None of these latter
methods or combination of methods appear commercially suitable at this
time for the separation of the many metallic constituents from a pro-
duct as variable as waste crankcase oil. Metals separation by such
treatments or combination of treatments does appear possible, but would
require extensive laboratory and pilot plant development to establish
95
-------
I
UNTREATED
WASTE OIL
METERING
PUMPS
THICKENED
SLUDGE
STORAGE
Figure 9. Settling pretreatment
96
-------
I
UNTREATED
WASTE OIL
METERING
PUMPS
r-
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
STEAM
TO INCINERATOR
IO% RECYCLE
90% TO PRODUCT
PRODUCT
STORAGE
Figure 10« Centrifugation pretreatment
97
-------
feasibility. There are, however, three treatments that are presently
used to effect the removal of metallic contaminants. These are acid/
clay treatments, solvent extraction and vacuum distillation. The re-
mainder of this discussion will be concerned with these three methods.
Acid/clay treatment was at one time the principal method of refining
waste oil. When using this technique, waste oil is contacted with
sulfuric acid to remove the metals and oxidized products followed by
clay treatment to remove trace materials including those contributing
to color and odor. A number of variations on this process exist in-
cluding the combination of acid/clay treatment with distillation, but
all yield large quantities of acid and clay wastes. A flow diagram of
a continuous acid/clay operation followed by vacuum fractionation is
shown in Figure 11. '
In the conventional acid/clay process, large amounts of concentrated
sulfuric acid and clay are used. In a typical process, 9 percent
of a concentration (98 percent) sulfuric acid solution and 7 percent
of the clay utilized ends up as a waste product. The disposal
of these oil contaminated acid wastes and sludges poses extremely dif-
ficult problems and accounts for the decline in the use of this approach
by oil processors. Although clay incineration is desirable, extremely
efficient control devices would be necessary to prevent escape of metal-
lic constituents into the atmosphere. The disposal of large volumes of
corrosive acid wastes is even more troublesome. Since detrimental
ecological impacts are likely to be incurred as a result of the dis-
posal of these wastes, we do not consider acid/clay treatment of waste
oil an ecologically sound technique.
Solvent extraction is a reportedly effective means of separating metal-
lic constituents and other solvent insoluble contaminants from waste
oil. Unfortunately, it has not been extensively utilized in this
country for the re-refining of waste oils. However, a commercial pro-
cess involving solvent extraction of waste oil is being operated in
Italy, under a license to the Institut Francais Du Petrole. This plant
uses propane to extract the desirable oil fraction in a manner similar
to that used in a propane deasphalting process in the petroleum indus-
try (see Figure 12). Some acid clay treatment is reportedly required,
presumably to obtain good quality lube oil. The amounts of acid and
clay needed are only 10 to 20 percent of that normally used in an acid/
clay treatment. This treatment would probably not be necessary in a
plant concerned solely with fuel oil production.
Solvent extraction processes have been considered by several other
waste oil investigators. Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., in a
study for the State of Maryland, has proposed solvent extraction as a
primary technique for waste oil recovery. A flow diagram of their pro-
posed system is shown in Figure 13. Unfortunately, design details and
cost estimates have not yet been presented in any detail.
98
-------
Water
VO
Fig-ire 11. Flow diagram of continuous acid/clay unit for the reclamation
of used motor oils with capacity of 15,000 tons per annum
-------
o
o
FEED
COOLER
LIGHT (XL TO FUEL
WATER TD SUMP
PROPANE
COOLER
CONTACTOR
FUEL OIL
COOLER
PROPANE MAKE-UP
FLASH
DRUMS
FUE-L
$>
RE6IDWE
FURNACE
Figure 12. Re-refining by a propane extraction process
68
-------
tOOGPO
AODITIVfS
24.000 CPO
WASTE Olt
REACTOR/
SETTLER TAMK
PROCESS HEATER
1.400
dPO
til.*
1.00 CPD
WATER*
LIGHT ENDS
21.WO CPD
OVERHEADS
SOLVENT EXTRACTOR
PLASH TOVE*
\
PROCESt HEATER
z r
1,100 CPO
•OTTOMS
I.OM CPD
>LVENT
J
\
Y
FRACTIONATOft
U.500 CPD
PRODUCT OIL
Figure 13. Solvent treatment subsection
-------
Recon Systems, Inc., also has considered the economics of solvent ex-
traction techniques to be used in conjunction with vacuum distilla-
tion and hydrofining operations. They have concluded that the use of
solvent treatment may improve the operability of subsequent vacuum dis-
tillation steps but question the direct applicability of solvent treat-
ment without subsequent operations such as distillation and hydrofining
to upgrade the product. Their concern is largely based on the desir-
ability of maximizing production of the more costly lube oils relative
to fuel oils.
The above studies have been seriously restricted by the lack of experi-
mental evidence which would define the effectiveness of solvent treat-
ment and characterize the resultant product. A limited laboratory
study of a solvent treatment process has been carried out by Esso Re-
search & Engineering Company in a study for the State of Massachusetts.
In this study metal removal ranges from 70 to 97 percent with the vari-
ability due to variations in the oil samples and in the choice of sol-
vent used. Some elements, notably zinc, phosphorus and sulfur, were
not effectively removed, probably because of the greater solubility of
their compounds in the oil phase. The results of some tests are shown
in Tables 20 and 2I.57
In this study the waste oil samples were mixed with five times their
volume of solvent (e.g., one part n-hexane, nine parts n-propyl alcohol),
and centrifuged. The oil containing the solvent was then decanted from
the sludge and distilled to effect a separation of solvent and oil.
Norco has also conducted small scale studies of solvent extraction
(naphtha solvent) followed by distillation. Their proposed system
is shown in Figure 14. The final distilled product was free of par-
ticulates and metals. However, this process should be further evalu-
ated on a larger scale to determine if this high quality product can
be achieved in a commercial facility.
The volume ratio of solvent to oil used in the Esso study was five.
This ratio was needed for effective separation of liquid and sludge
in the centrifuge. This ratio is appreciably greater than the 1:1
ratio proposed by Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., and used by
Norco in their studies. High solvent ratios would adversely affect
the economics of the process because of the need to separate solvent
and oil by distillation of the solvent.
Although this method of treatment is attractive from the standpoint of
trouble-free operation and low sludge disposal requirements, not enough
is now known about the process and its effectiveness for variable waste
oil feedstocks to design and cost such a system with a high degree of
confidence. We recommend further laboratory and design studies be in-
stituted as soon as possible.
Re-refiners of waste oil commonly use vacuum distillation techniques
to recover waste oil. This process is used generally with some sort
102
-------
Table 20. MAJOR ELEMENT ANALYSIS ON ENGINE LAB OIL
57
o
CO
Sample
Original oil (wt %)
Recovered oil (wt %)
?0 removal
Sludge (wt %)
Material balance (%)
Ash
1000°F
5.22
0.27
95.
25.
99.
Ba
0.22
<0.02
>91.
1.20
110.
Ca
0.28
0.02
93.
1.40
105.
Pb
2.00
<0.05
>97.
12.
*120.
Fe
0.08
0.01
88.
0.40
109.
Zn
0.09
0.04
56.
0.40
124.
P
0.18
0.05
69.
0.44
80.
S
0.31
0.22
29.
--
>57.
NOTES
Hexane and n-propyl alcohol were utilized as the solvent for precipita-
tion and excellent phase separation was obtained.
Table 21. REMOVAL OF MAJOR ELEMENTS FROM USED OIL
57
Waste oil samples
Stripped DePalma oil
Engine lab oil
Engine lab oil
Service station oil
Service station oil
Ash
1000°F
71. a
95.
98
72.
83.
Ba
--
>91.
>91.
61.
83.
Ca
63.
93.
>96.
63.
81.
Pb
88.
>97
>98.
75.
90.
Fe
>50.
88.
>88.
60.
>80.
Zn
50.
56.
67.
55.
64.
P
40.
69.
81.
44.
56.
S
9.
29.
42.
29.
34.
Run
No.
27
31
33
40
42
The number represents the percentage decrease in weight of the element
or ash in going from the original to the treated oil.
-------
TO DISTILLATION
(FRACTIONATION)
CENTRIFUGE
(OPTIONAL)
WATER
OtEMULSIFIERS
COAGULANTS
ULTRASONIC
MOMOGENIZER
ADDITIVE SEDIMENT
AND WATER
Figure 14. Norco solvent extraction system
70
104
-------
of pretreatment operation to remove at a minimum most of the free
water and sediment. It can be used, of course, in combination with
a variety of pretreatment operations, including the acid/clay and
solvent precipitation process discussed above. The Norco vacuum dis-
tillation system is shown in Figure 15.
Most refineries, such as Norco, are interested in the separation of
the waste oil into lube oil and other fractions that have offered in
the past greater cost return due to their higher market value. How-
ever, for processes designed solely for fuel oil production, such
fractionation is not necessary and adds to the cost of equipment and
its operation. For fuel oil grade product it is only necessary that
the process be relatively free of operational problems and that the
fuel oil is relatively free of volatiles, metallic constituents, and
tarry sediment which could either present safety problems, foul equip-
ment, or provide unfavorable environmental impact in subsequent com-
bustion operations.
Bottoms disposal is still a problem since the bottom fraction contains
a high percentage of the metallic constituents that were left behind
in the distillation. The bottoms, depending upon the operating condi-
tions of distillation, can vary from possibly 10 percent to a much
greater percentage of the total feed, with the metals content varying
inversely. The Norco process as shown in Figure 15, produces 22 per-
cent bottoms product. A 20-percent bottoms residue will contain ap-
proximately 10 percent ash, mostly metallic compounds. This residue
can be further processed to remove usable fuel oil by techniques that
are usually based on solvent extraction processes. One such technique
is that developed by Universal Oil Products and Petrolios Mexicano for
the separation of high-metal content vacuum residues. This technique
requires the effective segregation of metals in the solvent phase.
Such a technique does not appear to be economically justifiable here.
Recon Systems, Inc. has proposed that bottoms disposal can be accom-
plished by the sale of this material to lead processors. At present
the economic feasibility of such a disposal practice has not been es-
tablished. Bottoms incineration can be considered but the predominantly
submicron-sized particles in the exhaust gases will require utilization
of high-efficiency filter baghouses or electrostatic precipitators to
avoid excessive lead and other metal particulate emissions.
For purposes of fuel oil production, vacuum distillation appears satis-
factory provided fouling of surfaces can be minimized by effective pre-
treatment or through the use of anti-fouling additives. This fouling
is due to not only metallic constituents, but to tarry substances that
result from the reaction of gasoline blowby products with the oil to
form carbonyls and nitrated compounds. Anti-foulants originally in the
oil are apparently decomposed and rendered ineffective at distillation
temperatures. High temperature anti-fouling agents added to the waste
oil prior to distillation have apparently proved to be effective in
tests at Norco, reducing both equipment fouling and tar deposits.
105
-------
100 PSIG STEAM
BAR. COO.
we
FRACTIONATOR
7T HG-«0«F
CHARGE BOOGPH
CO.. OT7QPH
HZObCGPH
FRACTONAJOR
OVERHEAD
WGPH
Figure 15. Norco re-refining facility
70
106
-------
A waste oil distillation system should be as simple as possible without
fractionation into multiple phases. By operating at the lowest practi-
cal temperature, fouling and coking are minimized. Maximization of the
distillation product can be achieved by operating at reduced pressure
or in the presence of an inert gas such as steam.
Two high-level pretreatment systems are discussed in detail below. As
was the case for low-level pretreatment, the economic analysis of these
systems is presented in Section IX.
Solvent Extraction System - Perhaps the primary advantage of a solvent
extraction system is the relatively small quantities of high metal con-
tent sludge produced. It is also a low temperature process and should
be relatively free of maintenance and fouling problems. A major disad-
vantage appears to be the failure to achieve complete separation of the
metallic constituents.
The process, as shown in Figure 16, has not been worked out in detail.
Its applicability will depend upon the effectiveness of the solvent
used to precipitate metallic constituents. We have arbitrarily chosen
naphtha as the solvent although other solvents such as those used in
the Esso study-"' could be used. A naphtha-oil ratio of 1 was used.
The choice of naphtha (end point 310°F) is conservative from the stand-
point of thermal requirements since other suggested solvents are for the
most part lower boiling solvents.
Separation of precipitated contaminants is accomplished by continuous
centrifugation in a manner related in the Esso study and various ASTM
standards for the determination of sediment. An extraction column such
as is used in the French process was not used because of the lack of
design details. Contact times required for precipitation of contami-
nants can be adjusted by variations in mixing tank size and design
prior to centrifugation. Following centrifugation the high metals con-
tent sludge is concentrated in a second centrifuge to reduce solvent
and oil losses. The sludge may be further processed to recover solvent
in a vacuum system that utilizes surface condensers and a mechanical
vacuum pump to avoid water contamination and additional separation
operations. Other sludge disposal alternatives are controlled sludge
incineration or sale to a secondary metal processor. Sludge incinera-
tion is questionable in terms of the environmental impacts that might
be created while sludge mining by a metal processor is economically un-
proven.
Vacuum Distillation System - The vacuum distillation process is used
today by a number of refiners who process waste oil to recover lube oil
products. A process for the production of fuel oil would be very simi-
lar. The major difference is in the design of the fractionating tower.
A process for the production of fuel oil would not require the frac-
tionation of the distillate into multiple cuts and would not require
multiple condensation and storage facilities for the various distillate
107
-------
EJECTOR
UNTREATED WASTE OIL
as aw
—fr
Mi?U.
FLASH
TOWER
CON
DENSER
VACUUM
PUMP
Vtt
WATER
SOg.p.hr.
OVERHEAD
90 9. p. hr.
—-fr
T
^—
o
HgO
TOWER
FUEL OIL TO STORAGE
Figure 16. Solvent extraction process
108
-------
products. Although fuel oil production involving separation of essen-
tially one distillate from the bottoms is simpler and less costly than
lube oil production, its market value is less than that of lube oil.
The vacuum distillation process does appear to be technically feasible
providing a solution can be found to two major problem areas noted pre-
viously. The first problem results from the fouling of boiler tubes
by the contaminants in the waste oil. The second problem concerns the
disposal of the high metals content bottom fraction. A bottoms content
of 17 percent is obtained from the process shown schematically in Figure
17. Although the bottoms fraction could be reduced by a change in oper-
ating conditions (i.e., vacuum and temperature), the changes are likely
to be costly in terms of both capital equipment and operating costs. A
lower limit of bottoms content is probably about 10 percent in any event.
The disposal of this material can be carried out in well-controlled in-
cineration equipment. However, it may be possible to sell these bottoms
to secondary metals processors for lead recovery as suggested by Recon
Systems, Inc.
The plant, as shown in Figure 17, is essentially that now in operation
at the National Oil Recovery Corporation. To reduce fouling and sedi-
ment, a centrifuge has been added between the flash unit and the vacuum
unit heater. Fouling can also be reduced by close attention to tubes
and furnace design and by the injection into the oil of anti-foulants.
These have been used with some success at Norco.
Comparison of Pretreatment Systems
In the section of a waste oil pretreatment system to reduce the techni-
cal and environmental impacts associated with combustion, several alter-
natives are possible. If blending and/or the use of particulate emis-
sion control equipment acceptably reduces the maintenance, operational,
and environmental penalties of waste oil combustion, no pretreatment is
necessary. Oftentimes, however, added maintenance costs and/or poten-
tially harmful lead emissions will make waste oil pretreatment necessary.
The quality of fuel oil that would be produced by the two low-level pre-
treatment processes considered is adequate for trouble-free combustion
in conventional fuel burning equipment. However, low-level pretreatment
does little to reduce hazardous emissions and boiler fouling and corro-
sion which result from the high metallic content of waste oil. In order
to reduce this metallic content and subsequently alleviate this problem,
high level pretreatment must be used.
It is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of the low-level pretreat-
ment systems considered because of such factors as the variability of
feed stock, the effectiveness of demulsification, etc. However, in
Table 22, GCA has attempted to estimate the effectiveness of low-level
pretreatment systems in removing various classes of contaminants from a
typical waste oil product. These estimates were based on manufacturers
109
-------
EJECTOR
UNTREATED WASTE OIL
FUEL OIL
TO STORAGE
1510 g. p. hr.
TO STORAGE
Figure 17. Vacuum distillation treatment
110
-------
Table 22. WASTE OIL CONTAMINANT REMOVAL BY TREATMENT PROCESSES
Treatment process
No treatment
(untreated waste oil)
Settling pretreatment
Centrifugation pretreatment
Solvent extraction
Vacuum distillation
Approximate waste oil concentration after pretreatment
BS&W
(vol. 70
10
1.0
1.5
0.3
0
H20
(vol. %)
8
0
1
0
0
Ash
(wt. %)
3
2.3
1.5
0.3
0
Pb
(wt. 7.)
1
0.9
0.75
0.1
0
Sediment
(wt. 7.)
5
2.5
1.7
0.3
0
-------
performance claims and present understanding of contaminant distribu-
tions in waste oil. They are given here to indicate the general level
of contaminant removal that may be expected by pretreattnent processes
and are contrasted with removal levels anticipated with high-level
treatment systems.
With regard to low- and high-level pretreatment, one must be aware of
the residues that result. Low-level pretreatment yield a fuel of high
metal content and a waste residue of low metal content while the re-
verse is true for high-level pretreatment. Disposal of high metal con-
tent residues is a problem that should not be discounted. If improper
disposal techniques are employed, high-level pretreatment will have
only shifted rather than alleviated the environmental impact of waste
oil utilization as a fuel.
Particulate Emission Control
The emission of lead and other contaminants resulting from the combus-
tion of waste oil can be significantly reduced by the employment of high
efficiency pollution control equipment. This method of environmental
impact reduction is a particularly viable one for those indus trial sec-
tors that combine high fuel consumption with a high incidence of high
efficiency particulate control device utilization. These areas are
likely potential users of waste oil since they can combust waste oil
without significantly increasing air contaminant levels and without in-
curring cost penalties for extensive pretreatments and the installation
of control devices.
The following discussion will examine the control equipment suitable for
the efficient collection of waste oil combustion particulate matter and
the fuel oil combustion and control practices of electric utilities and
the industrial sector of the economy.
High Efficiency Emission Control Equipment - There are only three methods
of particulate control which are applicable to the reduction of environ-
mental impacts resulting from waste oil combustion. Fabric filtration,
electrostatic precipitation, and the high energy venturi scrubber are
the only control methods which will provide efficient removal of the pre-
dominantly submicron-sized particles that constitute the bulk of the lead
and zinc emissions. The particle size distribution of combusted waste
oil was depicted previously in Table 15.~ Through combustion testing it
has been shown that greater than 75 (wt) percent of the lead particles
generated by the combustion of waste oil are submicron in size.
Although fractional efficiency measurements for submicron particles are
not readily available in the literature, it is recognized that the fab-
ric filter baghouse is the most efficient device for submicron-sized
particles. A properly operated and maintained baghouse is capable of
achieving efficiences greater than 99.99 percent for 0.5 micron diameter
particulates. Electrostatic precipitators are somewhat less efficient
but have been used for fine, submicron-sized dusts such as those from
112
-------
open hearth and for basic oxygen furnaces in the steel industry at effi-
ciencies of 95 to 99 percent.'^ Particle sizes are comparable to those
emitted during waste oil combustion. Electrostatic precipitators have
the advantage of low pressure drop and are preferred for many applica-
tions such as combustion flue gas cleaning because of this. They also
are capable of operation at temperatures which are somewhat higher than
high temperature baghouses. Both control devices, however, must be care-
fully designed, operated, and maintained to ensure a high level of con-
trol for specific effluent gas and particle conditions. If this
is done, efficient collection of 0.3 to 1.0 micron-sized particles is
possible and at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude reduction
of emissions are obtainable.
As illustrated by Figure 18, high energy venturi scrubbers are only mar-
ginally suitable for submicron particle collection. The low efficiency
and high energy requirements of these scrubbers, when applied to fine
particle emissions, are disadvantages.
Electric Utility and Industrial Fuel Consumption Patterns - The consump-
tion of fossil fuels by electric utilities and industry has been dis-
cussed in some detail in Section IV. In that section coal and oil con-
sumption data were presented as a function of the various two-digit SIC
industrial classifications. Additional information concerning the fuel
oil consumption patterns of utilities and selected industrial categories
is given below in Table 23. The industrial categories listed are pri-
marily in the metals and minerals industries. These industries were con-
sidered to be the most likely users of waste oil fuels, based upon their
high rate of fuel consumption and their employment of particle control
devices. As will be discussed in detail later in this section, not all
of the industries listed in the table are logical users of waste oil,
since in some cases processing considerations will not tolerate the con-
taminant levels associated with waste oil combustion. Illustrative of
this is the concern of the cement industry about possible deleterious
effects associated with the presence of soluble lead, zinc, and phosphor-
ous compounds in the cement product. A similar concern would apply to
the sale of fly ash for use by cement manufacturers when obtained from
collection devices installed at power plants utilizing waste oil.
Electric Utility and Industrial Particulate Control Equipment Utiliza-
tion - The major air pollutants emitted from combustion of coals and
petroleum fuels in steam-electric power plants and other industrial pro-
cesses are: (1) particulate matter, (2) sulfur oxides, and (3) nitro-
gen oxides. Due to increasingly stringent environmental control regula-
tions, a wide range of process and stack gas emission control devices is
currently being employed. This enhances the feasibility of waste oil
fuel usage and removal of hazardous particulate emissions without a large
additional outlay of capital for control hardware installation.
The electric utility industry, as discussed above and in Section IV, is
by far the largest consumer of fuel oil in the United States. Although
control equipment, primarily electrostatic precipitators, is used by
113
-------
1.0
9
0.1
C 9
O 8
0)
C
o.o i
9
•3 » £ t 3 t 3 1-t 2 3 it 5676910 20 JO
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter, dpa> (ym/g/cm3)
Figure 18. Venturi scrubber penetration vs. aerodynamic
particle diameter with gas velocity as
parameter.
114
-------
Table 23. FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION PRACTICES OF POTENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL WASTE OIL USERS14
Potential waste oil using industry
Turbo electric power plants
Paper mills
Steel mills
Primary copper
Primary lead
Primary zinc
Primary aluminum
Primary non-ferrous metals
Secondary non-ferrous metals
Hydraulic cement (i.e. , Portland)
Mineral wool
Clay refractories
Lime
Brick and structural tile
Gypsum products
Concrete block and brick
SIC No.
4911
2621
3312
3331
3332
3333
3334
3339
3341
3241
3296
3255
3274
3251
3275
3271
Total fuel oil
consumed in 1967
(103 bbl)
137,500
16,620
30,859
1,575
34
N/A
143
104
575
2,611
N/A
N/A
401
694
828
319
115
-------
this industry, they have been applied almost exclusively to coal burning
facilities. Coal burning operations in 1969 accounted for over 99 per-
cent of particulate emissions from all utilities. The particulate emis-
sions from oil and gas burning operations are well below those required
by federal or state ambient air quality standards. Consequently, elec-
trostatic precipitators are not normally installed by plants burning only
fuel oil. Precipitators existing on oil-fired units were usually in-
stalled prior to conversion of the unit from coal to oil operations.
The efficiency of these units, designed for coal combustion, will prob-
ably be low. Hazardous emissions resulting from waste oil combustion
will increase accordingly. Waste oil usage should be considered only
in those situations where efficient particulate collection is realized
if environmental impacts are to be mitigated by control devices.
In addition to electric utilities, many industrial boilers and processes
are equipped with precipitators, fabric filter baghouses, and high energy
venturi scrubbers. Table 24 summarizes the electrostatic precipitator
installations in major fields of application through 1957. Although
this information is badly dated, the areas of usage are still applicable.
Sales figures of control devices in 1967 are shown in Table 25 for various
industrial sectors. An indication of the growing rate of installation of
air pollution control devices is given in Figure 19.
As a first order approximation, those end users that combine high fuel
consumption patterns with the employment of high efficiency collection-'"*
devices would appear to be the best suited for use of waste oil fuel.
Table 26 qualitatively depicts the industrial usage of such collection
devices. Although the classifications are somewhat different, there
is a high degree of correlation between the users of collection equip-
ment and industrial consumers ,of fuel oil as previously shown in Table
23. However, not all industrial processes using control devices are
combustion operations. Many, for example, involve purely physical oper-
ations such as crushing or grinding. As mentioned previously, where pro-
cess fuel is used, contamination factors must also be considered for
specific cases such as cement manufacture, black liquor recovery in the
Kraft industry and in many segments of the metals industry. While there
are no such constraints applicable to industrial heating and steam
generating facilities, they are not likely to be equipped with control
devices when oil is used as the primary fuel. As with electric power
plants, industrial power plants are large potential users of waste oil
fuel, but except for coal-fired units, they do meet the criterion of
combining high fuel consumption with efficient particulate control.
An examination of the process and pollution control literature and the
questionnaire survey results (see Appendix D) does indicate some poten-
tial for waste oil usage in operations involving control devices. Posi-
tive indication of interest were obtained from firms engaged in the
following controlled operations and industries:
Cement kilns
Metallurgical coke ovens
116
-------
Table 24. SUMMARY OF UNITED STATES PRECIPITATOR INSTALLATIONS
IN MAJOR FIELDS OF APPLICATION, 1907 TO 195772
Application
Electrical power industry
(fly ash)
Metallurgical:
Copper, lead, and zinc
Steel industry
Aluminum smelters
Cement industry
Paper mills
Chemical industry
Deterring of fuel gases
Carbon black
Total
First
installation
1923
1910
1919
1949
1911
1916
1907
1915
1926
Number of
precipitators
730
200
312
88
215
160
500
600
50
2,855
Gas flow,
million cfm
157
43.4
15
22.5
5.9
29
18
9
4.5
3.3
264.2
117
-------
Table 25. INDUSTRIAL GAS CLEANING EQUIPMENT--MANUFACTURERS ' SHIPMENTS
BY END USE, 1967 (thousands of dollars)71
00
End use
Iron and steel
Utilities
Chemicals
Rock products
Paper and pulp
Mining and metallurgical
Refinery
All otherb
Exports
Total shipments
Electrostatic
precipitators
5,783
15,506
1,207
2,760
--
--
687
--
36,509
Scrubbers ,
particulate
7,423
--
3,709
1,142
989
825
3,901
651
19,229
Mechanical
collectors
2,300
2,476
3,130
1,038
802
389
8,408
—
22,381
Fabric
filters
4,536
--
5,344
3,602
122
1,855
4,959
1,081
21,730
"Rock products" includes cement and asbestos plants.
"All other" includes shipments to distributors where end use cannot be
identified.
Ref: Business and Defense Services Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Industrial Gas Cleaning Equipment Shipments and End Use -
1967.
-------
20
10
I
/
•
ELECTROSTATIC
MECHANICAL
1962 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
YEAR
Figure 19. Control equipment sales in United States and Canada
71
119
-------
Table 26. USE OF PARTICULATE COLLECTORS BY INDUSTRY
72
Material classification
Utilities and industrial
power plants
Pulp and paper
Rock products
Steel
Mining and metallurgical
Miscellaneous
Process
Coal
Oil
Natural gas
Lignite
Wood and bark
Bagasse
Fluid coke
Kraft
Soda
Lime kiln
Chemical
Dissolver tank vents
Cement
Phosphate
Gypsum
Alumina
Lime
Bauxite
Magnesium oxide
Blast furnace
Open hearth
Basic oxygen furnace
Electric furnace
Sintering
Coke ovens
Ore roasters
Cupola
Pyrites roaster
Taconite
Hot scarfing
Zinc roaster
Zinc smelter
Copper roaster
Copper reverb
Copper converter
Lead furnace
Aluminum
Elemental Phos.
Ilmenite
Titanium dioxide
Molybdenum
Municipal incineration
EP
0
0
--
0
+
--
0
0
0
--
--
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
0
0
0
+
+
+
FF
_ «
--
--
--
--
--
--
_ _
--
—
--
--
0
0
0
0
+
-_
--
__
--
--
0
--
--
-_
+
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
--
--
—
0
--
__
WS
_.
-_
--
--
+
—
--
0
0
0
0
--
+
0
0
+
—
_-.
--
0
+
0
0
--
--
+
0
0
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
0
0
--
—
--
--
__
0 Most common EP Electrostatic precipitator
+ Not normally used FF Fabric filter
WS Wet scrubber
120
-------
Zinc smelting
Lime kilns
Asphalt plant dryers
Aluminum remelt furnaces
Metallurgical operations involving
oil and pulverized coal blends
Steel mills
Lime reburners
Brick manufacture
Some of those reporting firms have already had experience with waste
oil combustion primarily in uncontrolled industrial boilers. While
some have been satisfied with the results, others expressed reserva-
tions concerning maintenance, reliability of heating value and pollu-
tion, and indicated an interest only in treated and preblended fuels.
Blends with No. 6 residual were generally more successful than blends
with No. 2 distillate. Use of untreated waste oil fuel in equipment
designed for atomization and combustion of distillate fuels generally
led to increased maintenance problems. Firms expressing an interest
in process fuels such as those used to fire kilns, expressed most con-
cern about constant heating values and possible contamination.
In summation, the efficient control of effluent emissions from utili-
ties, industrial boilers, and certain processing operations will allow
waste oil fuels to be utilized even in high blend ratios without ex-
ceeding proposed and existing ambient air quality levels for lead and
particulate emissions. Control equipment is now used in many indus-
tries, and waste oil fuel blends could be utilized with low-level pre-
treatment and investment. The installation of control equipment for
the specific purpose of reducing waste oil combustion impacts is prob-
ably not warranted except for large users such as electric utilities
and large industrial boilers. However, as new source standards are
promulgated, the use of control equipment will increase and extend the
potential for waste oil utilization. The installation and operating
costs of high efficiency control equipment is given in Section IX.
121
-------
SECTION IX
ECONOMICS OF IMPACT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES
This section presents the economics associated with the waste oil treat-
ment and particulate control systems discussed in the previous section.
The presentation will include the development of capital investment and
operating costs for each impact reduction alternative. Factors will
then be presented to permit the calculation of these costs for alterna-
tive capacities. The presentation of these costs, however, will be
preceded by a discussion of the assumptions utilized in their development.
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
Capital Equipment Costs
The data utilized to obtain purchased equipment costs were obtained
both through personal communications with equipment manufacturers^' and
the use of latest published information. In all cases the capital in-
vestments are on the common basis of construction and equipment costs
for the Northeastern United States, in 1973 dollars. Table 27 presents
the assumptions utilized in the development of capital investment costs.
The following explains the categories listed in Table 27:
1. Equipment Installation
The installation of equipment includes costs for labor,
foundation, supports, platform, construction expenses,
and other factors related to the erection of purchased
equipment.
2. Piping
The costs for piping cover labor, valves, fittings, pipe,
supports, and other items involved in the complete erec-
tion of all piping used directly in the process.
3. Electrical
The cost for electrical installation consists primarily
of installation labor and materials for power and light-
ing, with building service lighting included under the
heading of building costs.
122
-------
4. Instrumentation and Controls
Instrumentation costs, installation labor costs, and
expenses for auxiliary equipment and materials consti-
tute the major portion of the capital investment re-
quired for instrumentation.
5. Buildings
The cost for buildings consists of expenses for labor,
materials, and supplies involved in the erection of
all buildings connected with the plant.
6. Yard Improvements
Costs for fencing, grading, roads, sidewalks, land-
scaping and similar items constitute the portion of
capital investment included in yard improvements.
7. Service Facilities
This category includes utilities for supply steam,
water, power, and fuel to the industrial process.
8. Land
The costs included under this category are the cost of
the land itself and the accompanying surveys and fees.
9. Engineering and Supervision
The costs for construction design and engineering,
drafting, purchasing, accounting, construction and
cost engineering, travel, reproduction, communications,
and home office expenses including overhead constitute
the capital investment for engineering and supervision.
10. Construction Expenses
This item includes temporary construction and opera-
tion, construction tools and rentals, home office
personnel located at the construction site, construc-
tion payroll, travel and living, taxes and insurance,
and other construction overhead.
11. Contractor's Fee
Contractor's fee is simply the remuneration to the
contractor.
123
-------
12. Contingency
This category compensates for unpredictable events such
as storms, floods, strikes, price changes, small design
changes, error in estimation, and other unforeseen ex-
penses.
Table 27. ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS
74
Category
1 . Equipment
installation
2. Piping
3. Electrical
4. Instrumentation
and controls
5. Buildings
6 . Yard improve-
ments
7. Service facili-
ties
8 . Land
9 . Engineering and
s upervision
10. Construction
expense
11. Contractor's
fee
12. Contingency
Assumed percentage of purchased
equipment costs
Treatment
plants
36
32
20
28
20
8
Particulate control
systems
Capital Cost
Derived From
Literature
Review
— ~ —
Personal communication with
equipment manufacturer
4
40
48
8
32
Working capital is included under capital investiment for financing
(1) raw materials and supplies carried in stock, (2) accounts
receivable, (3) cash on hand for monthly operating expenses, (4) ac-
counts payable, and (5) taxes payable. The ratio of working capital
to total capital investment ranges from 10 to 20 percent of the total
capital investment. For purposes of this study, the midrange value
of 157o was utilized.
124
-------
The scale factor for determining capital investment costs for varying
plant capacities is 0.6
CI = CI , , [ Cap /Cap ,,
new old \ new old
r
6
This was
developed from primary cost data developed by GCA for plants of three
capacities (1 million, 7 million, and 15 million gallons per year). The
empirical data used for this calculation is found in Appendix F.
Annual Operating Costs
The annual operating costs include the following fixed, variable, and
semi-variable costs:
Fixed Costs -
1. Amortization of capital investment - The capital invest-
ments have been amortized over a period of 20 years.
This reflects the expected lifetime of the equipment ,7 ,„
based upon discussions with the equipment manufacturer. '
A straight line method, which distributes the capital in-
vestment cost uniformly over the 20-year period, has been
used. Size scaling for this and all other fixed cost items
should be proportional to the scale factor used for capital
investment costs.
2. Interest on loan - An interest rate of 8 percent of the
total capital investment was used. It was further assumed
that the interest is to be paid after 1 year, but is capi-
talized uniformly over the estimated 20-year lifetime of
the equipment. It is recognized that the necessary initial
capital requirements could be raised through a variety of
methods (e.g., borrowing, bond issue, etc.) at a range of
finance costs. The 8 percent figure represents a reason-
able estimate which can be varied according to existing
money market conditions.
3. Insurance - The cost of insurance was estimated to be 0.5
percent of total capital investment. This figure is
suggested by Peters and Timmerhaus'^ as a lower limit for
such facilities. The range is from 0.5 to 1.0 percent.
Variable and Semi-Variable Costs -
1. Waste oil - For treatment processes, an average wholesale
cost of 5 cents per gallon was assigned to waste oil.
This reflects examination of the recent literature^>-> and
discussions with waste oil users. ' The term wholesale
applies to waste oil delivered directly to the treatment
facility from the generating source, without intermediate
storage and handling.
125
-------
The cost of waste oil for systems of different sizes
will vary directly with the size. The scale factor
is therefore equal to 1.0.
2. Labor costs - The annual labor costs associated with
the operation of the treatment and control facilities
was obtained by taking the number of manhours required
during the year and applying a wage rate of $10/man-
hour.
For purposes of this study, a scale factor of 0.25 has
been used for determining labor costs as a function of
size. This factor is taken from an article by P.P.
O'Connell in "Modern Cost-Engineering Techniques"
and is based on data gathered for 52 chemical processes.
3. Maintenance costs - An annual maintenance cost of 7
percent of the capital equipment cost was selected for
this analysis. This is a high figure representative of
that normally found for corrosive processes. Since
maintenance costs have been estimated as a percentage
of equipment cost, the equipment cost scale factor
should be applied to determine the cost of other size
installations.
4. General and administrative costs - The costs of over-
head were estimated at 40 percent of labor and super-
vision. This is the lower end of the 40 to 70 percent
due to lack of administration staff needed.
5. Electrical costs - Electrical costs were estimated at
$0.015 per kWh . Since electrical requirements will
vary directly with plant capacity, it has a scale
factor of 1.0. The range of electricity costs is from
$0.015 to $0.030 per kWh.81
6. Caustic soda costs - The cost of the requisite caustic
soda necessary for these treatment processes is based
upon communication with producers. Scale factor
equals 1.0.
7. Demulsifier surfactant - The cost of the required de-
mulsifier surfactant is based upon communication with
producers.'" Scale factor equals 1.0.
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Treatment Alternatives
The following tables present the initial capital investment and annual
operating costs associated with the various treatment alternatives.
The yield factors cited are based upon GCA engineering estimates of
the processes.
126
-------
The costs given in these tables are order of magnitude estimates.
Actual costs may vary by as much as plus or minus 50 percent. Rather
than give ranges for the costs discussed, the aforementioned assump-
tions are used. In Section X, range values are given which reflect
variations in electric costs, waste oil feed prices, and the like.
Settling - As shown in Tables 28 and 29, treatment by settling involves
an initial capital outlay of $1.44 million. This facility would oper-
ate 24 hours per day, 313 days per year, as would the other systems
discussed below. It is estimated that this system would yield 12.75
million gallons of waste oil fuel product (85 percent of feed input).
Given the annual cost, the product would cost approximately 11 cents
per gallon to produce.
Table 28. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: SETTLING
Processing capacity: 15 million gallons/ year
Plant operation: 24 hours/day - 313 days/year
Process yield: 85 percent
Fixed capital investment
Direct costs
Installed equipment costs
Purchased equipment
Installation
Piping
Electrical
Instrumentation & controls
Land and improvements
• Buildings
• Yard improvements
• Service facilities
• Land
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Working capital
Total capital investment
$673,730
311,910
112,290
99,810
62,380
87,340
156,510
62,380
24,950
56,700
12,480
124,765
149,715
24,950
99,810
$830,240
399,240
$1,229,480
216,920
$1,446,400
127
-------
Table 29. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: SETTLING
Total capital investment (see Table 28) $1,446,400
Fixed costs
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I.
Interest on loan (8 percent of total C.I.)'
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable costs
Residual oil (20 cents per gallon)
Waste oil feed (5 cents per gallon)
Labor (30,048 manhours at $10/manhour)
General and administrative (40 percent
of labor)
Caustic soda
Demulsifier surfactant
Maintenance (7 percent of fixed C.I.)
Electric power ($0.015/kWh)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
Annual cost
$72,320
5,785
7,230
$ 42,700
750,000
300,480
120,190
115
56,250
80,060
1,090
$ 85,335
1.356,885
$1,442,220
Paid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Centrifugation - As shown in Tables 30 and 31, the initial capital out-
lay for a facility of this nature would be $1.35 million with an annual
operating cost of $1.33 million. The amount of waste oil fuel product
would be 12.75 million gallons (85 percent yield) at a processing cost
of 10 cents per gallon.
128
-------
Table 30. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: CENTRIFUGATION
Processing capacity: 15 million gallons/year
Plant operation: 24 hours/day -313 days/year
Process yield: 85 percent
Fixed capital investment
Direct costs
Installed equipment costs
Purchased equipment
Installation
Piping
Electrical
Instrumentation & controls
Land and improvements
• Buildings
• Yard improvements
• Service facilities
• Land
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Working capital
Total capital investment
$627,950
290,715
104,660
93,030
58,145
81,400
149,735
58,145
23,260
56,700
11,630
116,285
139,545
23,260
93,030
$777,685
372,120
$1,149,805
202,905
$1,352,710
129
-------
Table 31. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: CENTRIFUGATION
Total capital investment (see Table 30) $1,352,710
Annual cost
Fixed costs
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I. $67,635
Interest on loan (8 percent of total C.L) 5,410
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.) 6,765
Total fixed cost per year $ 79,810
Variable and semi-variable costs
Residual oil (20 cents per gallon) 42,700
Waste oil feed (5 cents per gallon) 750,000
Labor(22,536 manhours at $10/manhour) 225,360
General and administrative (40 percent
of labor) 90,145
Caustic soda 115
Demulsifier surfactant 56,250
Maintenance (7 percent of fixed C.I.) 80,485
Electric power ($0.015/kWh) 3.820
Total variable cost per year 1,248.875
Total annual cost $1,328,685
aPaid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Distillation - Table 32 shows a total capital investment of approximate-
ly $1.79 million for a vacuum distillation treatment facility. This
technique yields an annual output of 10.5 million gallons (70 percent
of feed input). As shown in Table 33, the annual operating cost asso-
ciated with this technique is $1.28 million. The processing cost is 12
cents per gallon of waste oil product.
130
-------
Table 32. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: VACUUM DISTILLATION
Processing capacity: 15 million gallons/year
Plant operation: 24 hours/day - 313 days/year
Process yield: 70 percent
Fixed capital investment
Direct costs
Installed equipment costs
Purchased equipment
Installation
P ip ing
Electrical
Instrumentation & controls
Land and improvements
• Buildings
• Yard improvements
• Service facilities
• Land
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Working capital
Total capital investment
$747,855
346,230
124,640
110,795
69,245
96,945
333,290
69,240
27,700
222,500
13,850
138,492
166,190
27,698
110,795
$1,081,145
443,175
$1,524,320
269,000
$1,793,320
131
-------
Table 33. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: VACUUM DISTILLATION
Total capital investment (see Table 32) $1,793
Fixed costs
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I.
Interest on loan (8 percent of total C.I.)3
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable costs
Residual oil (20 cents per gallon)
Waste oil feed (5 cents per gallon)
Labor (22,536 manhours at $10/manhour)
General and administrative (40 percent
of labor)
Maintenance (7 percent of fixed C.I.)
Electric power ($0.015/kWh)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
,320
Annual cost
$89,665
7,175
8,965
39,000
750,000
225,360
56,340 '
106,700
1,965
$ 105,805
1,179,365
$1,285,170
Paid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Solvent Extraction - Tables 34 and 35 present, respectively, the initial
capital investment and annual operating cost associated with solvent ex-
traction. This process requires an outlay of $1.76 million with a $1.56
million annual operating cost. The waste oil fuel product produced by
this technique is 85 percent of the feed input, or 12.75 million gallons.
The process cost is 12 cents per gallon.
132
-------
Table 34. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Processing capacity: 15 million gallons/year
Plant operation: 24 hours/day - 313 days/year
Process yield; 85 percent
Fixed capital investment
Direct costs
Installed equipment costs
Purchased equipment
Installation
Piping
Electrical
Instrumentation &
controls
Land and improvements
• Buildings
• Yard improvements
• Service facilities
• Land
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Working capital
Total capital investment
$775,110
358,850
129,185
114,830
71,770
100,475
262,230
71,770
28,705
147,400
14,355
143,540
172,250
28,700
114,830
$1,037,340
459,320
$1,496,660
264,115
$1,760,775
133
-------
Table 35. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A TREATMENT
FACILITY: SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Total capital investment (see Table 34) $7,760
Fixed costs
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I.
Interest on loan (8 percent of total C.I.)
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable costs
Residual oil (20 cents per gallon)
Waste oil feed (5 cents per gallon)
Labor (22,536 manhours at $10/manhour)
General and administrative (40 percent
of labor)
Maintenance (7 percent of fixed C.I.)
Naphtha (750,000 gallons at 38 cents
per gallon)
Electric power ($0.015/kWh)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
,775
Annual cost
$ 88,040
7,045
8,805
30,000
750,000
225,360
56,340
104,765
285,000
12,635
$ 103,890
1,464,100
$1,567,990
o
Paid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Emission Control Devices
The following gives capital investment and annual operating costs associ-
ated with three different types of emission control devices. These
costs are not intended to serve as a detailed cost guide to such devices,
but are instead presented only for relative comparisons. It is
impossible to provide any more specific data, as costs depend upon a
myriad of variables which change with the given situation.
Electrostatic Precipitators - Tables 36 and 37 present the cost consider-
ations involved in the erection and operation of precipitators. As with
the other emission control devices discussed in this section, it is
assumed that the stack flow is 1 million cubic feet per minute (cfm).
This is the approximate stack flow of a large scale facility which could
potentially utilize the output quantity from the pretreatment options
discussed above. A precipitator of this size would cost $3.06 million
with an annual operating cost of $333,020.
134
-------
Table 36. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF PRECIPITATORS
77
cfm: 1,000,000
Total capital investment
Direct costs
• Purchased equipment
• Erection
Indirect costs
• Engineering and supervision
• Ductwork
• Air flow regulators
$3,062,700
$1,862,250
$1,200,450
Table 37. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF PRECIPITATORS
77
Total capital investment (see Table 36)
Fixed cost
Amortization at 5 percent of total C
Interest on loan (8 percent of total
Insurance (1 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable costs
Labor (675 manhours at $10/manhour)
Maintenance (2 percent of C.I.)
Electric power ($0.030/kWh)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
$3,062,700
Annual cost
.1. $153,135
C.I.)3 12,250
30,630
6,750
61,255
69,000
$196,015
137,005
$333,020
Paid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Fabric Filtration - Table 38 shows the capital cost to be $2.88 million
for a fabric filtration facility. This estimate is based upon an average
cost of $2.88 per cfm suggested in the GCA study, Handbook of Fabric
Filter Technology. •*• The operating cost is $1,080,910 annually/J- as seen
in Table 39.
135
-------
Table 38. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF FABRIC FILTRATION
cfm: 1,000,000
Total capital investment
Direct costs
• Purchased equipment
• Erection
Indirect costs
• Engineering and supervision
• Ductwork
$2,879,800
$1,331,000
$1,548,800
Table 39. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST FOR FABRIC FILTRATION
Total capital investment (see Table 38) $2,879,800
Fixed cost
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I.
Interest on loa (8 percent of total C.I.)'
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable costs
Labor ($0.30 per cfm)
Electric power (0.030/kWh)
Plant overheat ($0.25/cfm)
Cloth purchases ($0.10/cfm)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
Annual cost
$143,990
11,520
14,400
$169,610
300,000
240,000
250,000
121,000
911,000
$1,080,910
aPaid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
High Energy Venturi Scrubber - As shown in Table 40, the estimated capi-
tal expenditure for a high energy venturi scrubber is $2.45 million.
Table 41 shows the annual operating cost to be $1,356,940. Both of
these estimates are based upon information presented in APT, Scrubber
Handbook.73
136
-------
Table 40. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF HIGH ENERGY VENTURI SCRUBBER
73
cfm: 1,000,000
Total capital investment
Direct costs
• Purchased equipment
• Erection
Indirect costs
• Engineering and supervision
• Startup
$2,457,490
$1,228,745
$1,228,745
Table 41. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF HIGH ENERGY
VENTURI SCRUBBER73
Total capital investment (see Table 40) $2,457,490
Fixed cost
Amortization at 5 percent of total C.I.
Interest on loan (8 percent of total C.I.]
Insurance (0.5 percent of C.I.)
Total fixed cost per year
Variable and semi-variable cost
Labor and maintenance (1 percent of C.I.)
Electric power ($0.030/kWh)
Water ($0.50/100 cubic feet)
Total variable cost per year
Total annual cost
Annual cost
$122,875
9,830
12,290
24,575
987,370
200,000
$ 144,995
1,211,945
$1,356,940
aPaid in 1 year; amortized over a 20-year period.
Summary of Impact Reduction Alternatives
Table 42 presents in summary fashion the capital cost and annual operat-
ing cost associated with each impact reduction alternative.
137
-------
Table 42. SUMMARY TABLE ON THE ECONOMICS OF IMPACT
REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Impact reduction alternatives
Settling
Centrifugation
Vacuum distillation
Solvent extraction
Precipitators
Fabric filtration
High energy scrubbers
Initial capital
investment
(millions of $)
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8
3.1
2.9
2.5
Annual operating
cost
(millions of $)
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
0.3
1.1
1.4
EFFECT OF CAPACITY ON ECONOMICS OF IMPACT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Facilities
Figure 20 provides a means of estimating the capital investment and
operating cost associated with pretreatment capacities other than 15
million gallons per year. These curves are based upon the scale fac-
tor associated with each of the costs as discussed above. This table
can be applied to any of the processes discussed. For example, the
costs associated with a treatment facility processing 22.5 million
gallons per year by settling are:
Capital investment (1.27 x $1,229,480) $1,561,440
Operating costs
Fixed costs (1.27 x $85,335) $ 108,375
Waste oil feed (1.5 x $750,000) 1,125,000
Labor (1.11 x 300,480) 333,530
Overhead (1.11 x 120,190) 133,410
Raw materials
Caustic soda (1.5 x 115) 175
Demulsifier surfactant (1.5 x
56,250) 84,375
Maintenance (1.27 x $86,060) 109,300
Total operating cost $1,894,165
There appear to be significant economies of scale in the operation of
treatment facilities. Table 43 provides the processing cost in cents
per gallon for different capacities. As shown by the data, lower
138
-------
1.5
1.0
0.5
Wo«t« Oil F«*d;row motcrlolt
Lobor a Ovtrhtod
Copltal InvMtmtnt; Fixed Cott* and
Mainttnanct
Co»t for Now ln«tollotlon
r Cost for 15 x 106gollon»/y«or
Plont
9 12 15
PROCESSING CAPACITY
(millions gollons per year)
18
21 24 27
Figure 20. Investment and operating cost of pretreatment as a function of
treatment facility capacity
139
-------
average costs are arrived at through large scale operation.* This is
one factor which would support the construction of centralized rather
than decentralized facilities. Centralized facilities could achieve
lower costs compared to the situation where the same aggregate amount
of waste oil is processed by a number of small (< 15 millions gallons/
year) treatment facilities.
Table 43. EFFECT OF CAPACITY ON PROCESSING COST
(cents per gallon)
Treatment option
Settling
Centrifugation
Vacuum distillation
Solvent extraction
Capacity (million/gallon)
15 gallons
11
10
12
12
7 gallons
14
13
15
15
1 gallon
23
19
23
23
Emission Control Devices
Figure 21 provides a means of estimating the capital cost and operating
cost associated with control capacities other than 1,000,000 cfm.
These curves are based upon the scale factor associated with each of the
costs as discussed above. The use of this figure parallels that of
Figure 20.
TREATMENT VERSUS EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES
It is important to note that while both treatment and emission control
devices are forms of impact reduction alternatives, a simple capital
cost or operating cost comparison between any specific treatment alterna-
tive and a given emission control device is not desirable. The treat-
ment alternatives discussed are evaluated from an entrepreneurial stand-
point. The data presented serves as an indicator of the processing cost
involved in producing a fuel product, specifically a waste oil fuel
product. The costs are those of setting up and operating a business
enterprise. Emission control devices, however, represent an added ex-
pense, of both a capital cost and operating cost nature, to an ongoing
business establishment unless control devices are already there. To
the extent a user of waste oil would have to bear these emission con-
trol costs, the additional expense would represent a deterent to waste
*Average processing costs are derived by dividing annual operating costs
by annual throughput.
T (Annual operating costs) "I
[(Capacity) Yield fraction) J
140
-------
1.5
Eltctrlc Powtr a Wottr
Capitol Invt stmtnt; Flaw Cost* ond
Malnttnanct
Cost for New Installation
Cr*
Cost for 106cfm
250,000 500,000 750,000 I.OOO.OOO 1,250,000 I.5OO.OOO 2.0OO.OOO
CONTROL CAPACITY IN TERMS OF CFM
Figure 21. Investment and operating cost of particulate collection equip-
ment as a function of control capacity
141
-------
oil utilization unless these added costs are offset by fuel cost savings
which arise from the lower selling price of waste oil as compared to
that of virgin fuel products.
142
-------
SECTION X
MARKET ANALYSES OF WASTE OIL FUELS
Section X analyzes the primary market characteristics of the waste oil
fuel product and blended fuel products. The selling price of waste oil
is first discussed, followed by a comparison of waste oil fuel prices
with the prices of other energy sources. A qualitative discussion of
supply and demand factors affecting waste oil marketability is then
carried out. This analysis is based on a waste oil plant treating
15,000,000 gallons of waste oil per year.
SELLING PRICE OF TREATED WASTE OIL
The first market consideration is the selling price of waste oil. It
may be safely assumed that a high selling price for the waste oil pro-
duct would deter from its widespread use of an energy source. Thus far
only the processing cost of waste oil has been mentioned. The addition-
al determinants of market price are profit and distribution charges.
These are discussed below.
Profit
The treatment facilities discussed in previous sections were viewed as
an entrepreneurial enterprise. As such, it is imperative to include
a profit margin in the selling price of the product as a return for
entrepreneurial talent and effort. For purposes of this analysis,
profit is assumed to be a 10-percent return on capital investment be-
fore taxes. This is consistent with both the return used in other
studies68 as well as the return experienced in similar establishments.
Table 44 presents the additions to selling price that reflect such a
return.
78
Table 44. EFFECT OF PROFIT ON MARKET PRICE OF TREATED WASTE OIL
Treatment process
Settling
Centrifugation
Vacuum distillation
Solvent extraction
Annual profit
(10% of capital
investment)
$144,600
135,300
177,300
176,100
Profit in
cents /gal
of product
01
01
02
01
143
-------
Distribution Costs
The distribution of waste oil product will increase the selling price
by the expense associated with transporting the product to either final
user or to blend facilities. Transportation costs will be the same
whether the treatment facility entrepreneur owns the trucks and pays
the drivers' salaries or employs the services of a trucking firm.**
It is estimated that the distribution of the product would add 4.5 cents
per gallon to the selling price. This figure was derived by assuming
that three trucks carrying 6,800 gallons each made two round trips per
day. Each round trip was assumed to be 200 miles. This is enough to
distribute on a daily basis the amount of product produced in a 24-hour
period. A cost of $1.46 per intercity vehicle mile traveled was applied
based upon an updating of recent figures on motor vehicle expense.'§
The transportation charge is simply the total vehicle expense divided
by the number of gallons transported. The 4.5 cents per gallon figure
appears to be compatible with other estimates of trucking costs.*>
Price to User
The market price of the waste oil fuel product is a summation of the
processing cost, profit markup, and distribution costs. A range is
given for process cost. This reflects the cost of electricity going
from $0.015 to $0.030 per kilowatt hour and the price of the waste oil
feed varying from $0.05 to $0.08 per gallon. Table 45 presents the sell-
ing price of the waste oil product according to the treatment process
employed.
Table 45. SELLING PRICE OF TREATED WASTE OIL (cents/gallon)
Treatment option
Low level of treatment
Settling
Centrifugation
High level of treatment
Vacuum distillation
Solvent extraction
Process cost
10.86-19.01
10.37-18.30
12.35-21.98
12.56-20.57
Profit
0.96
0.90
1.45
1.00
Transport
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Selling Price
16.32-24.47
15.76-23.70
18.30-27.93
18.06-26.07
144
-------
COMPARATIVE FUEL PRICES
Table 46 compares the prices of various energy sources to those of the
waste oil product. While the data given are the most recent available,80
any long run projection based upon them involves a high degree of uncer-
tainty given the current chaos in the energy market. It does appear,
however, that all levels of waste oil (high trested, low treated, and no
treatment) compare favorably with other fuel oil prices. This is not
true with coal prices, however. The prices given for both low treated
waste oil and high treated waste oil are derived by taking the midpoint
of their respective ranges, as given in Table 45 (e.g., low treated prices
range from 15.76-24.47; the midpoint of this range is 20.12).
Table 46. SELLING PRICE COMPARISONS OF VIRGIN FOSSIL FUELS
AND WASTE OIL FUELS
Fuel type
Untreated waste oil
Low treated waste oil
High treated waste oil
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Coal (greater than 3
percent sulfur)
Gal /mil lion BTU
7.19
6.90
6.67
6.58
7.30
76.92/lb
Cents per
gallon
9.0
20.12
22.99
20.0
26.25
0.51/lb
Cents per
million BTU
64.71
138.83
153.34
131.60
191.63
39.23
Since the potential supply of the waste oil product is a small percent-
age of total energy demands, and given technical and environmental con-
sideration, it may be advisable to combust a blended product. Table 47
lists the prices of various blended fuels. The blend percentages given
refer to the percentage, by weight, of waste oil used. As shown by
this table, as the blend percentage increases, the cost per million BTU
declines with fuel oil blends while it increases with waste oil-coal
blends. The blended product prices increase as the level of waste oil
treatment increases.
DEMAND FACTORS AFFECTING MARKETABILITY
The selling price serves as a first indicator of successful marketabil-
ity. Those factors, other than price which influence demand, will now be
discussedo The most significant of these are any additional expenses
that may arise from waste oil combustion. These added costs take the
form of additional labor, maintenance, and equipment costs. Labor,
maintenance, and equipment costs may be viewed as dependent variables
with the blend percentage, blend product, treatment level, nature of
uses, and volume of uses representing independent variables. The
nature of the changes in these costs as they relate to the independent
variables follows.
145
-------
Table 47. SELLING PRICE OF BLENDED WASTE OIL PRODUCTS (cents/million BTU)'
Blend ratio
(70 waste oil
by weight)
0
5
50
100
Untreated waste oil
blended with
#2
191.63
184.33
132.00
64.71
#6
131.60
124.50
87.00
74.71
Coal
39.23
40.71
52.32
64.71
Low treated waste oil
blended with
#2
191.63
186.55
163.15
138.83
#6
131.60
133.05
136.40
138.83
Coal
39.23
46.27
96.29
138.83
High treated waste oil
blended with
#2
191.63
187.30
173.97
153.34
#6
131.60
133.90
140.47
153.34
Coal
39.23
47.71
107.26
153.34
Calculation derived in Appendix F.
-------
Labor Costs
* Increase as the blend percentage increases due to added equip-
ment and maintenance requirements
• Decrease as treatment level increases
• Remain constant over different user range
• Increase as use volume increases
Maintenance (Annual Operating Cost)
• Increases as blend percentage increases
• Decrease as blend product improves
• Decreases as level of treatment increases
• Vary according to industry
• Increases as the amount used of untreated or low treated waste
oil increases
Equipment (Additional Capital Investment)
• Increases as blend percentage increases based on where blend-
ing is done
• Decreases as blend product improves
• Decreases as level of treatment increases
• Varies from industry to industry depending upon existing par-
ticulate control equipment
• Increases as the amount used of untreated or low treated waste
oil increases
While the nature of these cost changes can be discussed, their exact
magnitude is still uncertain. User firms interviewed, as well as those
responding to GCA questionnaires, mentioned added pump wear, nozzle clog-
ging, and strainer clogging as examples of added maintenance and labor
costs associated with waste oil combustion. Table 48 provides a quanti-
fication of these costs. The data given is derived from interviews with
present users of waste oil as well as information obtained from question-
naires sent to past and present users. These users were combusting a
waste oil product that had received only a minimum amount of pretreat-
ment in the form of gravity settling to remove some of the bottom sedi-
ments and water. The costs given for each impact area are costs of
maintenance over and above what the normal equipment maintenance costs
would be.
147
-------
Table 48. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH COMBUSTION OF
UNTREATED WASTE OIL3
Equipment maintenance
Overhaul of pumps
Replacement of nozzle
Cleaning of strainers
Total annual cost of
added maintenance
Annual cost
$ 1,800
233
12,000
$14,033
Only partial removal of bottom sediments and water
It is safe to assume that all of the additional maintenance costs associ-
ated with the use of waste oil have yet to be identified. As such, the
above table represents only a partial listing. It reflects those areas
which were common to most user cases and were quantifiable.
1. Overhaul of pumps - Untreated waste oil is extremely abra-
sive and tends to cause very heavy pump wear. A cost of
$1,000 was assigned as the cost of a pump overhaul. It
was further assumed that a pump must be overhauled every
6 months, as opposed to once every 5 years were waste oil
not used. Both of these assumptions resulted from dis-
cussions with users.
2. Replacement of nozzels - Nozzels tend to wear more rapidly
when waste oil is used, again due to the abrasiveness of
the oil. They must be replaced on the average of every 6
months as compared to several years (average 3 years)
under other fuel use conditions. Given a cost of $130 for
each nozzel plus a labor fee of $10 for installation,
nozzel wear involves $233 of additional cost per year for
each nozzel.
3. Cleaning of strainers - Waste oil leaves significant
amounts of sediment on the strainers, necessitating clean-
ing once each shift. This involves $20 of labor cost per
shift. As a point of comparison, strainers are usually
changed once a week when other sources of fuel are used.
The treatment systems discussed in Section IX (settling, centrifugation,
vacuum distillation, and solvent extraction) would virtually eliminate
these technical impacts. In situations where untreated waste oil is
combusted, it appears desirable to blend it in small percentages (1 to
5 percent) with other energy sources. This would give rise to signifi-
cantly lower maintenance and labor costs relative to higher blends.
148
-------
Where untreated waste oil is combusted in high blends (25 percent or
larger), any fuel cost savings might be offset by the added labor and
maintenance required to overhaul pumps, unclog nozzles, and clean strain-
ers. Such maintenance involves not only the direct costs of labor and
parts, but also involves the implicit costs of equipment shutdowns and
of allocation of valuable labor time to something other than that for
which it was intended.
The additional capital investment or equipment costs which arise from
waste oil combustion are mainly in the form of installation and opera-
tion of emission control devices. The magnitude of such costs is dis-
cussed in Section IX. The need for control equipment is eliminated
when high treated waste oil is used and is significantly lessened where
low treated or untreated waste oils are blended in small percentages
(less than 5 percent). However, low treated or untreated waste oil in
higher blend percentages would necessitate the installation of such
equipment to avoid fine metal particulate emissions significantly af-
fecting air quality. In this situation it becomes a matter of comparing
the fuel cost savings (difference between waste oil price and that of
other fuels) to the added equipment operating expenses.
Figure 22 shows the annual operating costs (including amortized invest-
ment) for an electrostatic precipitator of 1,000,000 actual cubic feet
per minute, presumably installed at a large utility boiler or industrial
facility. These costs in cents per gallon of waste oil combusted, pre-
sented in line A as a function of the annual quantities of waste oil
used, are derived by dividing the annual operating cost of $333,020
(generated in Table 37 in Section IX) by the annual quantity of waste
oil fired. This figure illustrates the expected phenomenon of decreas-
ing control equipment operating costs per gallon of waste oil fired as
the annual total volume of fired waste oil increases.
Also, the fuel savings per gallon of waste oil used relative to the
costs of residual oil are presented for untreated waste oil (line B).
The intersection of lines A and B shows that more than 3 million gal-
lons of untreated waste oil would have to be combusted annually in
order for fuel savings to offset control equipment operating costs.
For untreated waste oil, however, there are additional maintenance
costs as discussed above which have to be considered in an overall
economic analysis.
149
-------
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT
t
•u
01
4-J
CD
O
-------
SUPPLY FACTOR AFFECTING MARKETABILITY
The supply factors which affect marketability include location of the
treatment facility, the organization of the treatment facility, and the
services which the pretreater provides to the user firms.
The location of treatment facilities is of prime importance. They should
be near areas where there is a high degree of waste oil generation, high
density population centers. At the same time, the distance between the
facility and the purchasers of the product must also be taken into
consideration given transportation costs.
Another consideration is how the treatment facilities are to be estab-
lished. As shown, centralized facilities represent the superior option
given the economies of scale present in the treatment operation. De-
centralized treatment at the plant level appear feasible only in situa-
tions of extremely high use volume.
Finally, the service to be provided by the treater will also affect
the marketability. Many of the respondents to the GCA questionnaires
sent to potential users, cited the desirability of blending the waste
oil at the supply source, and not at the user plant. Given the fact
that small amounts of waste oil would be blended with large amounts of
waste oil, or used with coal, it appears desirable for the waste oil
product to be transported to the virgin fuel distributor, blended at these
facilities, and then trucked to the user. Such a pre-blended product
would add to the range of potential users.
CONCLUSION: FAVORED USE OPTIONS
The purpose of treating waste oil is to reduce environmental damage and
technical impacts while at the same time adding to energy sources.
Certain alternatives represent a path of least resistance in the
achievement of these two goals.
1. Large users, especially utilities, could blend small per-
centages of a low treated or untreated waste oil with
their existing energy source without necessarily adding
emission control equipment.
2. Medium size users with existing emission control equip-
ment could blend higher amounts of high treated or low
treated waste oil with their other fuel sources.
3. High treated waste oil combusted by itself by a number of
relatively small users.
151
-------
Obviously, numerous other alternatives could present themselves given
certain specific conditions. As long as a given situation involves
either (1) low-blend levels or emission control equipment or (2) use
of a highly treated waste oil, waste oil could be successfully used
from an economic, technical, and environmental standpoint.
152
-------
SECTION XI
REFERENCES
1. Sargent, J. K. and R. D. Ross. Disposal of Oily Wastes. American
Petroleum Institute and American Society of Lubricating Engineers.
1969.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Oil Study Preliminary
Report to Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. April 1973.
3. Chansky, S., B. McCoy and N. Surprenant. Waste Automotive
Lubricating Oil as a Municipal Incinerator Fuel. Office of Research
and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office. September 1973.
4. Mobil Research and Development Corporation. Disposal of Unusable
Petroleum Products. Mobil Technical Bulletin. 1968.
5. Environmental Quality Systems, Inc. Waste Oil Recovery Practices,
State of the Art (1972). Maryland Environmental Service and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1972.
6. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Study of Waste Oil Disposal Practices in
Massachusetts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Division of Water
Pollution Control. January 1969.
7. U.S. Department of Interior. United States Energy Fact Sheets by
State and Region, 1971. February 1973.
8. Junersen, R. M. The Future Demand for Electrical Power and Various
Fuels. 66th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association.
June 1973.
9. Federal Power Commission. The 1970 National Power Survey, Part 1.
U.S. Government Printing Office. December 1971.
10. Darmstadter, J. Energy Consumption: Trends and Patterns. Energy,
Economic Growth and the Environment, pp. 155-159. 1971.
11. Anonymous. Enough Energy if Resources are Allocated Right.
Business Week. pp. 50-60. April 12, 1973.
12. Dupree, W. G., Jr» and J. A. West. United States Energy through
the Year 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Government
Printing Office. December 1972.
13. Jimerson, R. Remarks by Robert Jimerson Proceedings: Sulfur in
Utility Fuels: The Growing Dilemma. Technical Conference Sponsored
by Electrical World, pp. 331-346. October 1972.
153
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
14. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1972 Census
of Manufactures: Fuel and Electricity Energy Consumed. Special
Report Services. U.S. Government Printing Office. July 1973.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollu-
tant Emission Factors. Second Edition. April 1973.
16. American Petroleum Institute. Waste Oil Roundup...No. 2. Committee
on Disposal of Waste Products. Publication No. 1582. April 1973.
17. Mobil Oil Corporation. Heating with Waste Oils. Mobil Technical
Bulletin.
18. Massachusetts Department of Public Safety. Rules and Regulations
Governing the Keeping, Storage, Manufacture or Sale in Limited
Quantities of Flammable Fluids, Solids or Gases. June 1971.
19. Personal Communication. Environmental Law Institute concerning
their Study on State Waste Oil Programs and on Tax Code Treatment
of the Waste Oil Refining Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. January 1974.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act. U.S.
Government Printing Office. December 1970.
21. Environmental Quality Systems, Inc. Waste Oil Recovery Practices,
State of the Art (1972). State of Maryland, Maryland Environmental
Services, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December
1972.
22. National Coal Association. Steam-Electric Plant Factors. 1970
Edition. November 1970.
23. Federal Power Commission. Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water
Quality Control Data. U.S. Government Printing Office. February
1973.
24. Hittman Associates, Inc. Electrical Power Supply and Demand
Forecasts for the United States Through 2050. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Programs. February 1972.
25. Zinder, H. and Associates, Inc., et. al. A Study of the Electric
Power Situation in New England for the New England Regional
Commission, p. 109. September 1970.
26. Hittman Associates, Inc. Study of the Future of Low Sulfur Oil
for Electric Utilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
February 1972.
154
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Requirements for Prepara-
tion, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office. Vol. 36. No. 158. August 1971.
28. Olson, Charles E. Cost Considerations for Efficient Electricity
Supply. Michigan State University. Institute of Public Utilities.
1970.
29. National Economic Research Associates, Inc. Electric Power Genera-
tors. The Economic Impact of Pollution Control, A Summary of Recent
Studies. U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 91-103. March 1972.
30. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Public Utilities.
D.P.U. Order 12096. pp. 45. November 1957.
31. Personal Communication. Daniel Hartong. Allied Chemical Corporation.
Analysis Report. October 1973.
32. Personal Communication. James Delano. Northern States Power Company.
Testing Laboratory Report. November 1973.
33. Personal Communication. Gerald DeBono. Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
December 1973.
34. GCA Corporation. Questionnaire on Potential Waste Oil Fuel Use.
O.M.B. Clearance Number 158-S73013, Contract Number 68-01-1859.
1973.
35. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines. Burner Fuel Oils.
Petroleum Products Survey No. 81. 1973.
36. Babcock & Wilcox. Steam, Its Generation and Use. 1972.
37. Personal Communication. Harols Hawkes. General Electric Co. Lynn,
Mass. Oil Analysis Data. October 1973.
38. Clayton, W.H., J.G. Singer. Design for Oil Firing. Combustion
Engineering, Inc. 1971.
39. Personal Communication. White Fuel Oil Co. Boston, Mass. Metropolitan
Boston Fuel Oil Characteristics. 1973.
40. Francis, Wilfred. Fuels and Fuel Technology. Vol. 1. 1965.
41. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
Chapter 9. 1973.
155
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
42. Final Report of the A.P.I. Task Force on Used Oil Disposal.
American Petroleum Institute. May 1970.
43. Perry, John H. Chemical Engineers Handbook. Chapter 9.
Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill. 1969.
44. Abernethy, R.F. and F.H. Gibson. Rare Elements In Coal.
Information Circular 8163. Bureau of Mines. 1963.
45. Miller, Nathan H. How Lubricants Work. Chemical Engineering.
February 26, 1968.
46. Personal Communications. Elmer Baumgardner. Baumgardner Oil
Company. December 1973.
47. Personal Communications. Arthur Evans. Goulds Pumps, Inc.
December 1973.
48. Personal Communications. I.T.T. Marlowe. December 1973.
49. Personal Communication. William J. Horst. Keystone Portland
Cement Company. December 1973.
50. Tankha, A. Try Fabric Dust Collectors on Small Boilers Power.
August 1973.
51. Personal Communications. Dale Davis. Baltimore Gas and
Electric. December 1973.
52. Personal Communications. T.J. Law. Bethlehem Steel.
December 1973.
53. Personal Communications. D.J. Carney. United States Steel.
December 1973.
54. Personal Communications. Richard L. Bidwell. Reynolds
Aluminum. November 1973.
55. Personal Communications. K.J. Schatzlein. Lehigh Portland
Cement Company. November 1973.
56. Personal Communications. E.B. Thome, Jr. General Portland
Cement Company. November 1973.
57. Chappell, G.A. Waste Oil Reprocessing. Esso Research and
Engineering Company. 1973.
156
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
58. Reese, J.T., J. Jonakin, V.Z. Caracristi. Prevention of Residual
Oil Combustion Problems by Use of Low Excess Air and Magnesium
Additive. 1964.
59. Personal Communications. Albert Warden. Warden Oil Company.
November 1973.
60. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Position On The Health
Effects of Airborne Lead. November 1972.
61. Internal Correspondence from Mr. C.R. Russel. Test Burning Used
Crankcase Drain Oil. Northern States Power Company. September
1973.
62. Inter-Office Correspondence from Mr. Norman H. Okemoto. Effect
of Waste Oil Burning on Stack Lead Emission. Hawaiian Electric.
December 1972.
63. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Waste Oil Utilization Program. Air
Pollution Study No. 21-015-73/74. April and September 1973.
64. Briggs, G.A. Plume Rise. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Division of Technical Information. 1969.
65. Recon Systems Inc. Economic Evaluation of Processing Crankcase
Oil at Norco Refinery. Report to Norco. January 1973.
66. Personal Communication. Robert A. Hall. Edgington Oil Company.
November 1973.
67. Schilling, A. Motor Oils And Engine Lubrication. Scientific
Publications Ltd. 1968.
68. Weinstein, N. The Economics of Rerefining. Paper Presented at
International Conference On Waste Oil Recovery And Reuse.
February 1973.
69. State of Maryland Waste Oil Recovery And Reuse Program. Report
from Environmental Quality Systems, Inc. November 1973.
70. Conversion of Crankcase Waste Oil Into Useful Products. Norco
Report to Environmental Protection Agency. March 1971.
71. GCA/Technology Division. Fabric Filter Systems Study. Report
to National Air Pollution Control Administration. December 1970.
157
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
72. Air Pollution. Vol III. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Con-
trol. 357. Ed. A. Stern. Academic Press. 1968.
73. Scrubber Handbook. Ambient Purification Technology. Report to
Environmental Protection Agency. July 1972.
74. Peters, S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers. Second Edition. 1968.
75. O'Connel, F.P. Article in Modern Cost Engineering Techniques.
Ed. H. Popper. 1970.
76. Personal Communication. R.D. Myers and J. Robertson. Exxon
Corporation. December 1973.
77. Southern Research Institute. A Manual of Electrostatic Precipi-
tator Technology. August 1970.
78. U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1973. 1973.
79. American Trucking Association. American Trucking Trends.
80. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail Prices and Indexes of
Fuels and Utilities. September 1973.
81. Boston Edison Co. General Service Rate Schedule. April 1973.
158
-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATED WASTE LUBRICATING OIL ANNUAL SUPPLY BY STATE AND REGION (1971)
Automotive Industrial
(gallons) (gallons)
New England
Maine 3,339,070 822,170
New Hampshire 1,680,430 257,769
Vermont 1,330,400 190,565
Massachusetts 13,404,420 6,129,556
Rhode Island 1,912,560 770,858
Connecticut 6.743,770 3,652,711
28,410,650 11,823,629
Middle Atlantic
New York 32,016,880 15,546,678
New Jersey 18,071,960 18,459,034
Pennsylvania 35,728,740 27,823,461
85,817,580 61,829,173
East North Central
Ohio 36,627,970 29,795,774
Indiana 17,722,970 12,991,233
Illinois 37,263,020 26,383,747
Michigan 37,488,000 19,571,150
Wisconsin 17,262,010 5,073,985
146,363,970 93,815,889
West North Central
Minnesota 14,533,400 3,213,530
Iowa 11,103,710 2,400,122
Missouri 19,701,790 4,283,712
North Dakota 4,046,060 271,254
South Dakota 4,400,210 203,592
Nebraska 8,846,970 1,633,035
Kansas 14,381,400 2,979,826
77,013,540 14,985,071
A-l
-------
Automotive Industrial
(gallons) (gallons)
South Atlantic
Delaware 1,624,870 435,653
Maryland 7,286,110 3,102,488
Washington, B.C. 1,638,780 NA
Virginia 10,839,43- 3,017,776
West Virginia 6,530,830 7,432,560
North Carolina 13,832,020 4,585,158
South Carolina 6,432,670 1,678,776
Georgia 14,495,260 6,442,547
Florida 14,445,970 5,056,982
77,125,940 31,751,940
East South Central
Kentucky 14,075,660 639,301
Tennessee 12,665,700 10,442,178
Alabama 12,182,640 4,719,116
Mississippi 9,185,500 2,707,690
48,109,500 18,508,285
West.jiouth Central
Arkansas 8,008,590 3,085,107
Louisana 15,163,310 12,070,643
Oklahoma 12,295,480 4,249,737
Texas 47.222,230 32,778,546
82,689,610 52,183,669
Mountain
Montana 4,191,070 503,289
Idaho 3,435,230 392,549
Wyoming 2,563,700 470,723
Colorado 8,229,900 1,920,620
New Mexico 4,760,980 1,548,790
Arizona 6,358,600 1,279,087
Utah 4,647,950 1,062,643
Nevada 2,381,820 257,644
36,569,250 7,435,345
A-2
-------
Automotive Industrial
(gallons) (gallons)
Pacific
Washington 11,047,210 2,845,560
Oregon 12,020,320 2,977,082
California 72,034,320 20,021,638
Alaska 1,395,900 190,920
Hawaii 1.857,600 NA
98,355,350 26,035,678
Total Waste Oil 998,824,069
Automotive 680,455,390
Industrial 318,368,679
Sources of Input Data in Calculation:
1. Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., Waste Oil Recovery
Practices, State of the Art (1972). prepared for the
Maryland Environmental Service and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., December 1972.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Census of Population, 1970, Vol. I, Washington,
D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
3. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Study of Waste Oil Disposal
Practices in Massachusetts, report to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control,
January 1969.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
FOSSIL COAL AND OIL FUELS CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES BY
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IN 1971: DEMAND BY STATE AND CENSUS REGION
14
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)3
Region:
New England
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
1,957.9
3,081.1
40.1
92.7
107.6
13,464.4
248.7
3,114.9
855.9
679.1
1,952.9
2,076.9
1,302.8
1,364.5
1,369.6
1,374.7
526.5
1,185.6
Distillate
754.9
909.3
30.4
61.4
33.1
1,767.8
105.8
548.8
231.6
212.9
730.6
782.8
773.8
656.7
472.5
315.0
220.2
379.4
Residual
1,203.1
2,172.1
9.7
31.3
74.5
11,696.5
143.0
2,566.1
624.4
466.1
1,222.2
1,294.2
529.0
708.0
897.0
1,059.8
306.4
806.3
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
3.9
6.3
11.0
27.0
1.5
0.8
1.1
3.9
5.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
Definition of SIC code by Major Industrial Group appear at the end
of this appendix.
B-l
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
Middle Atlantic
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
East North Central
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
6,857.4
2,603.9
599.4
57.7
267.4
12,439.1
509.6
14,137.5
5,993.4
1,575.8
313.7
3,448.5
12,274.5
1,974.6
2,301.7
2,459.8
2,072.2
955.6
989.9
2,697.0
45.5
33.1
26.5
192.7
2,198.0
314.3
Distillate
3,969.1
1,111.8
507.2
45.2
189.6
5,064.7
370.7
7,120.4
1,129.5
1,028.9
269.6
1,744.4
4,355.6
1,121.9
1,103.8
1,410.8
1,179.5
140.8
582.1
1,372.5
16.9
16.0
71.1
88.8
1,092.2
246.9
Residual
2,888.2
1,492.2
92.2
12.6
77.7
7,374.3
138.9
7,017.1
4,863.9
546.9
44.2
1,704.1
7,918.7
843.6
1,197.9
1,049.2
892.7
814.8
407.9
1,324.5
28.6
17.0
5.4
103.9
1,106.7
67.2
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
323.7
44.4
9.7
0.7
25.5
1,229.7
0.8
2,419.1
210.5
115.0
37.2
2,284.5
2,186.7
48.8
115.7
123.1
265.3
671.9
35.4
2,084.6
15.3
20.7
88.0
72.6
4,619.6
16.4
B-2
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
East North Central
(cont)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
West North Central
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
2,741.3
2,698.4
724.9
120.8
1,359.8
12,276.5
996.5
2,063.0
962.2
1,605.0
137.2
463.6
2,118.9
17.2
28.1
48.0
0.4
504.2
50.0
466.4
111.8
81.6
467.5
775.6
130.7
180.6
Distillate
1,250.9
304,0
412.0
68.1
882.3
7,201.1
602.3
1,024.9
639.9
3,224.6
113.9
403.9
1,234.9
16.3
21.8
37.7
0.4
75.9
49.5
380.1
101.1
186.0
167.4
157.6
102.6
125.9
Residual
1,460.3
2,394.2
312.8
52.5
425.5
5,075.4
364.3
494.6
322.3
639.3
23.3
59.7
884.1
0.9
6.3
7.9
428.3
0.5
86.3
10.8
58.8
300.1
618.0
28.0
54.7
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
5,256.5
37.5
1,075.0
11.6
4,081.9
4,474.1
543.7
884.3
465.3
2,222.1
23.0
56.2
1,243.1
0.4
1.5
15.2
0.1
175.0
0.4
314.4
1.6
1,137.7
10.2
0.8
134.9
B-3
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
West North Central
(cont)
36
37
38
39
South Atlantic
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
101.5
136.5
49.1
289.9
3,368.0
538.3
4,920.0
187.7
506.7
182.4
23,333.8
68.0
9,394.3
122.5
775.3
67.3
4,620.4
4,823.6
166.7
255.1
303.4
802.2
77.4
42.6
Distillate
99.3
38.9
39.5
170.7 .
1,733.2
105.2
2,274.0
159.8
376.3
133.6
6,658.8
33.0
4,244.2
55.6
575.7
62.0
2,652.3
1,197.6
132.0
109.6
177.2
215.6
70.1
40.1
Residual
2.3
97.6
9.7
119.2
1,997.4
433.1
2,646.1
28.9
130.4
48.8
16,675.1
35.1
5,150.1
66.9
199.7
5.3
1,968.2
3,626.2
34.6
145.7
126.2
586.5
7.3
2.5
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
58.1
5.1
130.8
154.3
1,414.6
109.8
1.8
109.3
2,234.1
6,524.3
22.7
13.9
2.3
960.1
1,057.2
1.7
0.3
0.2
39.1
1.7
6.7
B-4
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
East South Central
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
West South Central
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
356.4
28.7
305.1
32.8
112.0
22.3
2,823.7
5.3
685.6
30.9
247.9
0.2
538.9
1,020.5
61.4
37.0
109.1
54.3
0.9
13.6
193.7
4.6
95.7
0.5
1,832.3
Distillate
221.2
3.6
243.2
11.8
100.7
22.3
1,147.0
0.5
404.3
10.9
243.9
0.2
401.3
246.5
47.8
27.9
83.9
39.2
0.2
2.3
136.7
0.5
92.4
0.5
477.3
Residual
135.2
25.1
61.7
21.1
11.3
1,676.7
4.8
281.2
20.0
4.0
—
137.6
773.9
13.6
9.1
25.2
15.1
0.7
11.3
56.9
4.1
3.3
1,354.9
—
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
315.3
10.5
61.0
1.7
2.9
3.2
1,079.8
3,640.9
32.6
7.7
732.9
212.1
47.0
75.1
96.8
22.2
0.6
...
B-5
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
West South Central
(cont)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
. a
Mountain
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
520.6
2,512.3
1.4
1,092.3
380.0
7.6
8.6
7.8
41.7
26.3
437.2
171.0
1.8
133.6
38.6
182.1
97.0
3.1
)istillate
5.5
1,069.0
1.4
392.3
264.0
7.6
7.5
7.8
31.7
26.3
333.7
150.2
0.1
59.7
12.8
79.9
93.0
3.1
Residual
515.2
1,443.3
700.1
116.0
—
1.1
10.0
—
—
103.5
20.8
1.6
73.9
25.8
103.1
4.0
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
1,172.3
292.7
8.7
49.6
—
—
New Mexico excluded
are:
as no SIU breakdown given. Totals for New Mexico
33.0 17.2 15.9
B-6
-------
Region and
Industrial
Group (SIC)
Mountain
(cont)
35
36
37
38
39
Pacific
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Fossil Fuel Consumption 1971
Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Total
16.9
1.0
105.1
2,061.5
0.2
123.3
2,167.7
0.1
5,611.2
0.3
721.0
234.8
34.0
1,015.8
1,373.5
96.3
107.7
45.7
256.3
0.7
0.9
Distillate
16.9
1.0
105.1
1,014.2
0.2
123.3
1,829.7
0.1
1,157.7
0.3
340.3
91.4
28.5
435.9
1,032.5
46.2
33.7
10.8
215.9
0.7
0.9
Residual
—
1,047.3
—
338.1
4,453.7
380.7
143.4
5.5
579.9
341.0
50.1
74.0
34.9
40.4
Coal
(Thousand Short Tons)
2.9
46.4
4.4
6.5
30.8
0.8
0.8
3.6
1.7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of
Manufacturers; Fuels and Electrical Energy Consumed, Special
Report Series, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
July 1973.
B-7
-------
SIC Code Definitions
SIC
Code Major Industrial Group (SIC)
20 Food and kindred products
21 Tobacco manufacturers
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and related products
24 Lumber and wood products
25 Furniture and Fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing and publishing
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum and coal products
30 Rubber and plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay, and glass products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products
35 Machinery, except electrical
36 Electrical machinery
37 Transportation equipment
38 Instruments and related products
39 Miscellaneous manufacturing
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
WASTE OIL FUEL USE QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED
TO COAL AND OIL FUELED STEAM-ELECTRIC UTILITIES
IN THE UNITED STATES
The following information outline reports on the distribution and
response data of a waste oil fuel use questionnaire distributed to a
cross-section of steam-electric utilities in the United States. A
copy of the questionnaire and cover letter distributed are included at
the end of this Appendix.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
• Universe of coal and oil fueled steam-electric utilities in
the United States: approximately 600 (each utility may have
multiple power plant locations)
Reference sources for utility identification:
• Electrical World, Directory of Electrical Utilities,
1971-72, 80th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
• National Coal Association, Steam-Electric Plant Factors,
1970.
• Questionnaire Distribution: 205 distributed to utilities
covering all 50 states
• Questionnaire Responses: Total returns: 74 returns (35.1%,)
Valid returns; 68 returns (33.2%)
II. FEASIBILITY OF WASTE OIL USE AS A BLENDED FUEL; QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSES
A. Believe vehicle waste oil may be combusted at their facility:
49 YES 19 NO
B. Form waste oil would be combusted:
1. Blended with fuel oil: 39 responses
2. Sprayed or mixed with coal: 15 responses
3. Other: 3-alternate applications with coal
C-l
-------
C. Suggested pretreatment or composition/property changes listed
as required to make untreated waste oil reusable as a fuel:
• filtering (7 responses)
• reduce BSSeW (22 responses)
• reduce lead content (12 responses)
• reduce percent ash (7 responses)
• reduce metallic and other constituents: vanadium (3),
calcium (3), iron (3), zinc (4), barium (2), phosphorous (1)
D. Maximum price firm willing to pay for:
1. Untreated waste crankcase oil: (20 responses)
• Range values: 0-15 cents/gallon
• Average value; 7.1 cents/gallon
2. Pretreated waste oil to specifications provided by
respondent: (20 responses)
• Range values; 0-15 cents/gallon
• Average value: 8.3 cents/gallon
E. Quantity of waste oil fuel utility might use on a daily basis:
(34 responses)
• Range values; 250-100,000 gallons/day
• Average value: 19,000 gallons/day
III. GENERAL COMMENTS
Summary of major comment:
• Power plant is presently, or has in the past, combusted waste
oil as a fuel (both industrial and vehicular waste oil) —
6 responses
• Recommended mixing ratios for waste oil with virgin coal and
oil fuels:
• 1 part in 1,000 parts virgin oil — 1 response
C-2
-------
• 1 part in 100 parts virgin oil or slightly greater --
3 responses
• 1 pound waste oil to 1 ton of coal -- 1 response
• Cost comments
• Need large quantities of untreated waste oil to justify
handling.... it is therefore better for independent supplies
to do pretreatment -- 4 responses
• Handling and testing expenses reduce the value of waste
oil fuels -- 1 response
• Cost of waste oil would have to be 10-20 percent lower
than alternatives to cover increased capital and operating
costs -- 1 response
• Magnitude of additional maintenance cost very important
and requires careful analysis -- 4 responses
• Willing to pay 90-95% of market price for residual oil —
2 responses
• Other comments
• Waste oil may damage rubber coal feeding belts in combustion
chamber — 1 response
• Need to investigate possibility of spontaneous combustion
if oil is added in coal bunkers or pulverizers -- 2 responses
• Recommend using waste oil fuels at utilities presently
burning solid wastes -- 1 response
In order to analysis operating characteristics of the steam-electric
utilities responding to the questionnaire, detailed information was
obtained from the Federal Power Commission files in Washington, D.C.
Electric power plant questionnaire data was analyzed from Federal
Power Commission Form 67, titled "Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water
Quality Control Data for the Year Ended December 31, 1972." This
information was examined for 38 of the 68 utilities returning valid
waste oil fuel use questionnaires, representing 69 fossil-fueled power
plant locations. This cross-sectional sample was analyzed to determine
whether any trends in operating characteristics existed for the respon-
dents. Selected operating data from the Federal Power Commission
revealed the following:
C-3
-------
• Fossil fuel type presently used:
• Coal -- 36 power plants
• Oil (all grades) -- 51 power plants
• Air pollution emission control equipment employed at power plants
1. Mechanical Separators -- 19 power plants
Emission reduction efficiency:
• Range: 65-94%
• Average: 81.4%
2. Electrostatic or Combination Mechanical-Electrical Pre-
cipitators -- 30 power plants
• Range: 85-99.9%
• Average: 93.7%
Thus the operating characteristics of the steam-electric utilities
responding to the waste oil questionnaire show that both coal and oil
burning operators feel that waste oil may serve as a supplemental fuel.
In addition, power plants appear to have air pollution emission control
equipment to reduce potential particulate matter emission, thereby
influencing the possible degree of pretreatment of waste oil required
prior to combustion in order to attain an environmentally acceptable
fuel.
C-4
-------
GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
A Division of GCA Corporation
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 Telephone: 617-275-9000
12 October 1973
Gentlemen:
GCA Technology Division, under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contract,
is investigating the potential reuse of waste oil as a blended fuel oil. Emphasi$
is being placed on evaluating the technical, economic and environmental factors
affecting waste oil reuse by steam-electric power facilities, but the potential
use in other industrial processes is also being investigated.
At the present time several industrial firms, including electric utilities,
are using, or testing for use, waste oil as a blended fuel oil, mixing it with
heavy petroleum fuel oil or spraying it over coal. In the electrical power in-
dustry, for example, Hawaiian Electric is burning used crankcase and other waste
oils on a routine basis, blending it from 3 to 10 parts untreated waste oil to
100 parts fuel oil. Northern States Power (NSP), in Minnesota, recently completed
testing of crankcase oil as a fuel, burning it with coal in power plant operations.
Test results are presently being evaluated for final decision on whether waste
oil will be used on a regular basis at NSP.
These two examples serve to illustrate why optimism exists on using waste
oil fuels as a means of conserving fuel resources and reducing an environmental
hazard. Principal concern, however, about burning waste oil fuel blends arise
from two major sources: 1) combustion equipment effects and thus maintenance
costs, and 2) air pollution potentials from ash, lead and other waste oil con-
stituents.
GCA requests your assistance in evaluating the potential use of waste oil
as a blended fuel oil by providing information sought on the enclosed question-
naire. To assist in your evaluation of waste oil use, a brief description of
waste crankcase oil is attached to the enclosed questionnaire.
Your timely assistance in this waste oil study is greatly appreciated and
strict confidentiality will be maintained. We believe that a united effort in
evaluating waste lubricating oil will enhance efforts to reduce environmental
impacts of disposal, and may provide an additional fuel resource to meet energy
demands. Study results will be provided to personnel of the Edison Electric
Institute, who have been consulted on the questionnaire development and program
approach.
Sincerely,
Enc losure :
J»C:jed Jaes W. Carroll
Senior Economist
GCA c-5
CORPORATION
-------
STEAM-ELECTRIC UTILITIES' QUESTIONNAIRE ON POTENTIAL WASTE OIL FUEL USE
Return to: James W. Carroll
GCA Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Company Name
Company Address r
City State Zip Code
B. Person Completing Form
Position (Title) Telephone
II. FEASIBILITY OF WASTE OIL USE AS A BLENDED FUEL OIL
A. Based on the attached waste crankcase oil description, do you believe
this type of oil may be combusted at your facilities?
(YES or NO)
B. If you feel waste crankcase oil can be used, in what form would you
use it? (Check the appropriate categories)
1. Blended with fuel oil
2. Sprayed or mixed with coal_
3. Other (Specify)
Co If waste oil could not be used in its present or untreated form, what
pretreatment or composition/property changes would be required to make
it usable? (See attached waste oil characterization)
Changes necessary:_
D. What would be the maximum price your firm would be willing to pay for:
1. Untreated waste crankcase oil? CENTS/GALLON
2. Pretreated to the above listed specifications
(Part C above) CENTS/GALLON
E. What quantity of waste oil fuels (approximate) might your firm use on a
daily basis, to be blended with existing fuel oils, or burned with coal
fuels?
GALLONS/day
OMB
Clearance Number 158-S73013
-------
III. GENERAL COMMENTS; Please answer this question within the following
framework: 1) Other uses of waste oil within your firm which may have
been overlooked by this questionnaire (including amounts of waste oil
that could be used in each instance); 2) difficulties that might be
encountered in the use of waste oil which might make it too costly
(increase maintenance cost, for example), or impossible to use in your
firm; and 3) any other comments which you think may be of use to us.
OMB Clearance Number 158-S73013
C-7
-------
WASTE CRANKCASE LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION
Variable
Gravity, *API
Viscosity, 100*F, SUS
Viscosity, 210°F, SUS
Flash Point 9F
Pour Point
Water, Volume 7,
BS & W, Volume 7»
(Bottom sediments and water)
Ash, Weight 7,
Heating Value, BTU/lb.
Sulfur, Weight 70
Lead, Weight 70
Calcium, Weight 7,
Zinc, Weight 7,
Phosphorous, Weight 7o
Barium, ppm
Iron
Vanadium
Range of values found in literature
22.0 - 30.8
130 - 753 (Average 260)
33 - 61
170 - 400 9F
^ -30
1 - 11 %
2.4-18 7,
1.57 - 3.58 7o
15,000 - 20,000 BTU/lb.
.21 - .48 7,
.50 - 1.12 7o
.09 - .17 7,
.08 7. (560-1610 ppm)
.05 .09 7,
10 - 900 ppm
95 - 800 ppm
< 5 ppm
* Waste crankcase oil, untreated
** ppm = parts per million
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D
WASTE OIL FUEL USE QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED
TO SELECTED INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES IN THE UNITED STATES
The following information outline reports on the distribution and
response data of a waste oil fuel use questionnaire distributed to
selected industrial firms in the United States. A copy of the question-
naire and cover letter distributed are included at the end of this
Append ix.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
• Criteria for selecting potential industrial users of waste oil,
as outlined in Section IV, was based on the following:
• Present fossil fuel energy consumption levels
• Air pollution emission control technology employed by
various industries, focusing on control of fine particles
• Present trends in waste oil fuel usages and combustion
testing at selected industries.
Table D-l provides a summary of the industrial process categories
selected for surveying, the universe of firms in each category located
in the United States and the number selected for questionnaire survey.
From Table D-l, it can be seen that from a total industrial firm
universe of 2668, 562 were selected for questionnaire survey. From
this survey distribution, 53 questionnaire responses were received.
The universe of firms and distribution list for survey were obtained
from the following references:
1. Dun and Bradstreet, Million Dollar Directory, 1973, New York
City, New York, 1972.
2. Dun and Bradstreet, Middle Market Directory, 1973, New York
City, New York, 1972.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l: POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL FIRM USERS
OF WASTE OIL FUELS SELECTED FOR
SURVEY
Industrial Type
Saw and Planing Mills
Pulp Mills
Paper Mills
Paperboard Mills
Alkalis and Chlorine
Cyclic Intermediates and Crudes
Inorganic Pigments
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Plastic Materials and Resins
Cellulose Manmade Fibers
Organic Fibers, non-cellulose
Medicinals and Botanicals
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Asphalt Batching
Flat Glass
Cement (hydraulic)
Brick and Structural Clay
Concrete Block and Brick
Ready-mined Concrete
Lime
Gypsum Products
Blast Furnace and Steelworks
Primary Copper Smelting & Refining
Primary Lead Smelting & Refining
Primary Zinc Smelting & Refining
Primary Aluminum Smelting &
Refining
Primary Non-Ferrous Smelting &
Refining
Secondary Non-Ferrous Smelting &
Refining
TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRMS
SIC Number
Number of
F irms in
the U.S.
2421
2611
2621
2631
2812
2815
2816
2818
2819
2812
2823
2824
2833
2834
2951
3211
3241
3251
3271
3273
3274
3275
3312
3331
3332
3333
3334
3339
3341
416
29
126
71
10
38
36
145
188
207
12
16
52
183
142
17
49
106
171
346
26
13
129
12
12
11
15
36
64
2668
Number
of Firms
surveyed
20
15
25
20
10
11
13
22
17
19
8
5
9
11
20
5
47
10
10
15
24
10
120
12
10
10
10
10
41
562
D-2
-------
II. PRESENT FUEL USE AND COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
A. Types of fuels presently used:
• Oil (residual and distillate)-- 22 responses
• Coal (all types) — 9 responses
• Natural gas -- 26 responses
B. Fuel oil characteristics
1. Grade of fuel oil used
• Distillate (#2): 6 responses
• Residual (#6): 14 responses
2. Specific gravity: Distillate; 32.0-35.0°API
Residual: 12.7-26.0°API
3. Viscosity: Distillate; 34.0-35.0 SUS at 120°F
Residual: 52.0-254.0 SUS at 122°F
4. Flash point: Distillate: 130-180°F
Residual; 150-230°F
5. Ash content, weight 7,: Distillate: .002-.005%
Residual: .05-. 097,
6. Sulfur content, weight 7,: Distillate: .03-.36%,
Residual: 1.0-2.87,
C. Coal fuel characteristics
1. Ranking of coal: bituminous -- 9 responses
2. Ash content, weight 7,: 6.2-18.07,
3. Sulfur content, weight 7,: 2.0-5.07,
4. Heating value (average BTU/lb.): 12.200-13,400 BTU/lb.
D. Combustion equipment/process characteristics
1. Fuel oil combustion: Atomizing burner description:
a. Steam used to atomize fuel: Yes -- 12 responses
b. Air used to atomize fuel: Yes -- 13 responses
D-3
-------
c. Oil viscosity range equipment can accommodate: 35-200
SUS at varying °F
d. Particle size sensitivity of equipment: .008-.052 inches
e. Use of fuel additives to prevent slag formation on
combustion equipment: Yes: 4 responses
No: 21 responses
2. Coal combustion:
a. Coal burned with a supplementary liquid fuel:
Yes: 1 response
No; 11 responses
b. Liquid fuel used: Residual (#6)
c. Combustion equipment processes can be modified to burn
liquid fuel supplement with coal: Yes: 8 responses
No; 1 response
3. Air pollution control devices presently employed on process(es):
a. Electrostatic precipitators: 11 responses
b. Cyclones: 14 responses
c. Scrubbers: 6 responses
d. Fabric filter baghouses: 9 responses
e. Other: Afterburners - 1 •*• qponse
III. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS ON PROCESS OPERATIONS
A. Fuel input regulations
1. Regulations exist on fuel specifications: Yes; 16 responses
No; 9 responses
2. Regulations specified for:
a. Sulfur limitations in fuel: . 5%, - 2.9%
b. Ash content limitations: .02 grains/SCF
c. Flash point limits: 200-235°F
D-4
-------
B. Process emission standards governing firm's operation:
1. Particulate matter: Range: . 1-.4 Ib/mi11ion BTU
2. Sulfur oxides: Range: .55-3.0 Ib/million BTU
3 3
3. Lead: Range: .5 mg/m - 1.0 mg/m
C. Ambient air quality standards governing firm's operation:
3
1. Particulate matter: Range: 550-600 ug/m
o
2. Sulfur oxides: Range; 57-80 ug/nr
3
3. Lead: 5 ug/m
IV. FEASIBILITY OF WASTE OIL USE AS A BLENDED FUEL
A. Believe vehicle waste oil may be combusted at their facility:
Yes; 17 responses
No; 14 responses
B. Form waste oil would be combusted:
1. Blended with fuel oil: 7 responses
2. Sprayed or mixed with coal: 2 responses
3. Other: Use unblended: 1 response
C. Suggested pretreatment or composition/property changes listed
as required to make untreated waste oil reusable as a fuel:
• Remove BS&W (7 responses)
• Remove lead (3 responses)
• Improve viscosity (2 responses)
• Remove vanadium (1 response)
• Blend at supply source (1 response)
D. Maximum price firm willing to pay for:
1. Untreated waste crankcase: 9 responses
• Range values: 0-10 cents/gallon
• Average value: 5.3 cents/gallon
D-5
-------
2. Pretreated waste oil to specifications provided by
respondent: 5 responses
• Range values: 2-20 cents/gallon
• Average value: 13 cents/gallon
E. Quantity of waste oil fuel firm might use on a daily basis:
11 responses
• Range values: 250-200.000 gallons/day
• Average value: 32,900 gallons/day
V. GENERAL COMMENTS
Summary of major comments:
• Previous users of waste oil complained about: 1) added mainten-
ance costs, and 2) consistency of supply
• Several respondents felt waste oil would be used only if supplies
of alternatives were absent
• Those who expressed interest in waste oil fuel use expressed
concern about: 1) added capital expenditures, 2) added main-
tenance costs, 3) consistency of supply, and 4) quality of fuel
product.
• Several firms suggested that waste oil fuel be blended at fuel
supply dealer level.
D-6
-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
15 October 1973
Gentlemen:
GCA Technology Division, under U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency contract, is investigating the potential reuse of waste oil
as a blended fuel. Emphasis is being placed on the economic, technical,
and environmental factors affecting waste oil reuse in industrial
combustion processes.
One example of industrial utilization of waste oil is the Allied
Chemical Company. Their Solvay, New York plant consumes over 1 million
gallons of waste automotive lubricants a year. The corporation buys
its waste oil from independent dealers who collect it from gas stations
and garages. The oil is mixed with pulverized coal and burned to
produce the heat the firm needs or sprayed on the coal piles to keep the
dust down.
Waste oil utilization as a blended fuel is a means of conserving
fuel resources and reducing any enironmental hazards that are created by
alternate means of disposal. Principal concern, however, about burning
waste oil arise from two major sources: 1) combustion equipment effects
and thus maintenance costs, and 2) air pollution potentials from ash,
lead and other waste oil constituents.
GCA requests your assistance in evaluating the potential use of
waste oil as a blended fuel by providing information on the following
factors related to your firm's operation, as listed on the enclosed
questionnaire: present fuel use characteristics and equipment specific-
ations; relevant regulations/restrictions on your plant operation; and
an overall assessment of waste oil use potential. To assist you in your
evaluation of waste oil use, a brief description of waste crankcase oil
is attached to the enclosed questionnaire.
Your timely assistance in this waste oil study is greatly appreciated
and strict confidentiality will be maintained. We believe that a united
effort in evaluating waste lubricating oil will enhance efforts to reduce
environmental impacts of disposal, and may provide an additional fuel
resource to meet energy demands. If you have any questions, please contact :re.
Sincerely,
James Sahagian
JS/ck
Encl.
D-7
BURLINGTON ROAD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE. 617-275-9000
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE ON POTENTIAL WASTE OIL FUEL USE
Return to: James Sahagian
GCA Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Company Name
Company Address
City State Zip Code_
B. Person Completing Form
Position (Title) Telephone_
INSTRUCTIONS; Please answer those questions that apply to your firm's
operation, and for which data are available.
II. PRESENT FUEL USE AMD COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
A. Type of fuel(s) presently used by your firm:
Type Check if used Quantity per day used
Oil(rftsidual and
distillate)
Coal (all types)
Natural Gas
B. Fuel Oil Characteristics (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Grade of fuel oil used (eg. #2,4,5, or 6)
2. Specific gravity _ API at
3. Viscosity _ SUS at _ °F
4. Flash point (Closed cup) _ °F
5. Ash content, Weight 7, _ %
6. Sulfur content, Weight %
7. Other specifications
D-8
-------
C. Coal Fuel Characteristics
1. Rank of coal (eg. anthracite, bituminous)_
2. Ash content, weight %
3. Sulfur content, weight % 7'
4. Heating value (average) BTU/lb. BTU/lb.
D. Combustion equipment/process characteristics
1. Fuel oil combustion: Atomizing burner description:
a. Is steam used to atomize the fuel?
b. Is air used to atomize the fuel oil? __
c. Oil viscosity range
equipment can accomodate SUS at
d. Particle size sensitivity'of equipment (nozzles, atomizers),
i.e., what size or diameter of particles in the oil will
cause fouling?
e. Are fuel additives used to prevent slag formation and deposition
on tubes and hearths of heating furnances or boilers?(YES/NO)
, if yes, what additives are used
2. Coal combustion:
a. Is coal burned with a supplementary liquid fuel?
If so, what is the liquid fual used?_
b. Can the combustion process(es) be modified to burn liquid
fuel supplement with the coal?
3. Air Pollution control devices: Docs your process (es) employ any of
the following emission control devices on combustion equipment
stack gases.
Equipment Check if applicable
a. Electrostatic precipitators _
b. Cyclones ______
c . Scrubbers
d. Fabric }• liter bughouses
c. Other (Specify) ________ .....
D-9
-------
4. Process plant stack information: Briefly describe the approximate
stack information relating to your process:
Stack number (number them
!l, 2, 3, etc.)
i
Stack
! Height
| ft.
!
1 " "' "'
Exit Gas characteristics s
Terap. (»F)
i
!
Velocity Flow rate .
FPS: CFM '
>
.
1
I
,. , .„.!
I
|
III. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS ON PRQCE_S_S OPERATIONS
A. Fuel Input Regul?tions
1. Do regulations exist on fuel specifications for your process
facilities? , if so, what do these regulations
govern ?
2. What regulations hold for:
a. Sulfur limitations in fuel oil?
b. Ash content limitations in fuel?_
c. Flash point limits? _
d. Other restrictions?(Specify)_
B. Process emission standards: What are the current emission standards
for the following pollutants applicable to your operations?
1. Particluate matter
2. Sulfur oxides
3. Lead
4. Others (Specify)
C. Ambient air quality standards: What are the current standards applicable
to your firm's geographic region?
1. Particulate mattier
2. Sulfur oxides
3. Lead
4. Others (Specify)
D-10
-------
D. Other process operating restrictions and environmental control
regulations affecting l:ur.l usage: Describe briefly
IV• FEASIBILITY OF WASTZ_ OIL USE AS A BLENDED FUEL
A. Based on the attached waste crankcase oil description, do you believe
this type of oil may be combusted at you facilities?
(YES or NO)
B. If you feel waste crankcase oil can be used, in what form would
you use it? (Check the appropriate categories)
1. Blended with fuel oil
2. Sprayed or mixed with coal
3. Other (Specify)
C. If waste oil could not be used in its present or untreated form,
what pretreatment or composition/property changes would be required
to make it usable? (See attached waste oil characterization)
Changes necessary:
D. What would be the maximum price your firm would be willing to pay fort
1. Untreated waste crankcase oil? CENTS/GALLON
2. Pretreated to the above, listed specifications
(Part C above) CENTS/GALLON
E. What quantity of waste oil fuels (approximate) might your firm
use on a daily basis, to be blended with existing fuel oils, or
burned with coal fuels?
GALLONS /d ay
D-ll
-------
V. GENERAL COMMENTS; Please answer this question within the following
framework: 1) Other uses of waste oil within your firm which may have
been overlooked by this questionnaire (including amounts of waste oil
that could be used in each instance); 2) difficulties that might be
encountered in the use of waste oil which might make it too costly
(increase maintenance cost, for example), or impossible to use in your
firm; and 3) any other comments which you think may be of use to us.
OMB Clearance Number 158-S73013
D-12
-------
WASTE CRANKCASE LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION
Variable
Gravity, °API
Viscosity, 100*F, SUS
Viscosity, 210°F, SUS
Flash Point 3F
Pour Point
Water, Volume 7,
BS & W, Volume 7,
(Bottom sediments and water)
Ash, Weight %
Heating Value, BTU/lb.
Sulfur, Weight 70
Lead, Weight 7,
Calcium, Weight 7,
Zinc, Weight 7»
Phosphorous, Weight %
Barium, ppm
Iron
Vanadium
Range of values found in literature
22.0 - 30.8
130 - 753 (Average 260)
33 - 61
170 - 400 9F
- -30
1 - 11 %
2.4-18 7,
1.57 - 3.58 %
15,000 - 20,000 BTU/lb.
.21 - .48 7o
.50 - 1.12 7o
.09 - .17 %
.08 % (560-1610 ppm)
.05 .09 7.
10 - 900 ppm
95 - 800 ppm
< 5 ppm
* Waste crankcase oil, untreated
** ppm = parts per million
D-13
-------
APPENDIX E
CHARACTERIZATION DATA OF WASTE OILS AND VIRGIN FUELS
E-l
-------
Table E-l. PROPERTIES OF WASTE OIL LUBRICANTS
Property
Gravity, °API at 60°F
Specific Gravity
Density, Ib/gal
Viscosity, SSU at 100°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, °F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value, BTU/gal
Heating Value, BTU/lb
Neutralization Number, mg KOH/gm
BS&W, vol %
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
Silicon, ppm
Calcium, ppm
a
Sodium, ppm
_ a
Iron, ppm
a
Magnesium, ppm
Lead, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 31
20.0-24.0
0.910-0.934
7.58-7.78
136
28.8
105,555-129,110
13,571-16,928
5.0-22.0
0.30-0.59
0.90
200-800
800-3,000
80-300
80-500
300-1,000
800-6,600
Ref. 32
24.6-27.1
0.896-0.905
7.46
234-837
50.3-180.6
< (-40)- (-30)
194-415
139,250-143,360
18,990-19,300
0.3-0.7
0.30-0.65
1.30-1.70
875
1690
16-19
562
214
2,180-6,800
Ref. 33
24.9
0.906
87
17.3
—
—
—
—
—
0.1
1.60
—
1109
1108
6655
Ref. 3, 5, 42
24.6-27.9
0.887-0.904
7.40-7.54
148-753
31.5-162.6
< -30
175-400
142,820-143,260
19,000-19,300
4.0-14.3
0.6-18.0
0.21-0.52
0.03-3.78
10-400
700-2,690
20-110
50-2,000
10-500
960-11,200
Composite
Range
Values
20.0-27.9
0.887-0.934
7.40-7.78
87-837
17.3-180.6
< (-40)- (-30)
175-415
105,555-143,360
13,571-19,300
4.0-14.3
0.1-22.0
0.21-0.65
0.03-3.78
10-875
700-3,000
16-300
50-2,000
10-1,108
800-11,200
W
I
-------
Table E-l (continued). PROPERTIES OF WASTE OIL LUBRICANTS
Property
g
Vanadium, ppm
Q
Copper , ppm
Q
Barium, ppm
Zinc , ppm
Phosphorus, ppm
Tin, ppma
Chromium, ppm
•a
Nickel, ppm
Beryllium, ppm
a
Manganese, ppm
Cadinium, ppm
Silver, ppm
a
Strontium, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
Titanium, ppm
a
Boron, ppm
~
Molybdenum, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 31
3-10
20-100
500-2,000
500-3,000
500-2,000
5-30
8-50
3-8
5-10
10-30
100-800
5-30
3-10
2-3
Ref. 32
39
348
316
831
831
112
6
4
6
5
4
1
Ref. 33
1331
Ref. 3, 5, 42
5
5-120
10-1,000
300- 1,610
550-1600
7-30
10-40
2-30
10-50
10-20
Composite
Range
Values
3-39
5-348
10-2,000
300-3,000
500-2,000
5-112
8-50
3-30
6
5-10
4
1
10-30
10-800
5-30
3-20
2-3
M
I
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt % or 10 ppm = 1 wt %
-------
Table E-2a. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN FUEL OILS - NO. 2 DISTILLATE
Property
Gravity, °API at 60°F
Specific Gravity
Density, Ib/gal
Viscosity, SUS at 100°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
o
Pour Point, F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value, BTU/gal
Heating Value, BTU/lb
BS&W, vol 7o
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
Range Values
Ref. 32
31.8
0.868
7.24
34.
2.3
< -40
152
130,920
18,145
< 0.1
0.53
0.00
Ref. 34
32.0-35.0
0.848-0.865
7.08-7.22
34-35
2.4-2.7
(-5)-25
130-180
137,000
18,975-19,350
0.03-0.36
0,002-0.005
Ref. 35
30.2-45.3
0.800-0.875
6.68-7.30
32-40
1.8-4.1
(-50)-25
126-204
132,900-141,800
19,424-19,895
0.0-(< 0.1)
0.02-0.59
Composite
Range
Values
30.2-45.3
0.800-0.875
6.68-7.30
32-40
1.8-4.1
(-50)-25
126-204
130,920-141,800
18,145-19,895
0.0-(< 0.1)
0.02-0.59
0.00-0.005
i
w
I
-p-
-------
Table E-2b. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN FUEL OILS - NO. 4
Property
Gravity, °API at 60°F
Specific Gravity
Density, Ib/gal
Viscosity, SUS at 100°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value, BTU/gal
Heating Value, BTU/lb
BS&W, vol %
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
Range Values
Ref. 35
16.2-29,4
0.878-0.958
7.33-7.99
35-137
2.7-28.7
<-25)-75
142-240
142,200-150,700
18,861-19,400
0.05-0.20
0.24-1.23
0.005-0.017
Ref. 36
15.0-30.0
0.876-0.965
7.30-8.04
60-300
10.3-64.6
(-10)- 50
141,620-146,971
18,280-19,400
0.00-1.00
0.20-2.00
0.00-0.10
Composite
Range
Values
15.0-30.0
0.876-0.965
7.30-8.04
35-300
2.7-64.6
(-25)-75
142-240
141,620-150,700
18,280-19,400
0.00-1.00
0.20-2.00
0.00-0.10
-------
Table E-2c. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN FUEL OILS - NO. 6 RESIDUAL
Property
Gravity, °API at 60°F
Specific Gravity
Density, Ib/gal
Viscosity, SFS at 122°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, °F
Flash Point, °F
Heating Value, BTU/gal
Heating Value, BTU/lb
BS&W, vol %
Sulfur, wt 7»
Ash, wt %
Silicon, ppm
Q
Calcium, ppm
Sodium, ppm
a
Iron, ppm
Magnesium, ppm
Lead, ppm
Vanadium, ppm
a *
Copper, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 34
12.7-26.0
0.898-0.981
7.5-8.2
50-254
103-538
150-230
138,450-151,370
18,460
0.43-2.00
1.0-2.8
0.05-0.09
250.0
Ref. 35
0.3-22.2
0.917
7.7
24-350
48-741
(-10)-95
150-270
146,800-(> 157,700)
19,060-(> 20,480)
0.00-0.97
0.3-4.0
0.00-0.20
Ref. 37
11.7-24.4
0.907-0.988
7.6-8.2
52
108
65
> 200
146,100
17,820-19,220
0.9
0.03
6.9-28.7
9.3-368.0
0.4-1.5
3.0-4.1
11.1-182.0
Ref. 36,38,41
7.0-22,0
0.922-1.022
7.7-8.5
7-750
15-90
> 150
149,000
17,410-18,990
0.05-2.00
0.7-3.5
0.01-0.50
8.2-164.0
0.7-95.0
1-480
10.5-230.0
11.5-27.9
1.7
1-380
0.5
Composite
Range
Values
0.3-26.0
0.898-1.022
7.5-8.5
24-350
7-750
(-10)-95
150-270
146, 100- (> 157,700)
17,410-(> 20,480)
0.00-2.00
0.3-4.0
0.00-0.50
8.2-164.0
0.7-95.0
1-480
10.5-230.0
0.4-27.9
1.7-4.1
1-380
0.5
-------
Table E-2c (continued). PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN FUEL OILS - NO. 6 RESIDUAL
g
Chromium, ppm
Nickel , ppm
Aluminum, ppm
a
Silver, ppm
a
Titanium, ppm
Molybdenum, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 34
Ref. 35
Ref. 37
Ref. 36,38,41
13.7
3-118
0.5-219
0.3
5.5
2.3
Composite
Range
Values
13.7
3-118
0.5-219
0.3
5.5
2.3
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt % or 1 wt % = 10 ppm
-------
Table E-2d. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN FUEL OILS - NO. 6 LOW SULFUR RESIDUAL
I
CO
Property
Gravity, °API at 60°F
Specific Gravity
Density, Ib/gal
Viscosity, SSF at 122°F
Viscosity, SSU at 100°F
Viscosity, Centistokes
Pour Point, F
Flash Point, F
Heating Value, BTU/gal
Heating Value, BTU/lb
BS&W, vol %
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
a
Vanadium, ppm
Range Values
Ref . 34
13.0-27.0
0.892-0.979
7.4
36.3-171.0
72.5-362.0
200-240
< 0.60
0.002-0.10
Ref. 38, 39
13.2-33.0
0.860-0.978
7.3-8.1
94.0-1148.6
20-600
< 1.8-198.5
5-115
150-370
140,000-146,000
18,720-19,700
0.01-0.70
0.15-0.36
0.001-0.040
15
Composite
Range
Values
13.0-33.0
0.860-0.979
7.3-8.1
36.3-1148.6
20-600
< 1.8-362.0
5-115
150-370
140,000-146,000
18,720-19,700
0.01-0.70
0.15-0.60
0.001-0.100
15
ppm (as the element) « 0.0001 wt 7. or 1 wt % « 10 ppm.
-------
Table E-3a. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN COALS - ANTHRACITE
M
I
VD
Property
Fined Carbon, wt %
Volatile Matter, wt %
Moisture
Heating Value, BTU/lb
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
a
Calcium, ppm
Magnesium, ppm
a
Lead, ppm
Q
Vanadium, ppm
a
Copper, ppm
o
Phosphorus, ppm
Tin, ppm
«a
Chromium, ppm
a
Manganese, ppm
a
Titanium, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 36, 40
86-98
2-14
15,400-17,500
Ref. 43
67-87
3-12
1.0-2.3
9,620-13,500
0.5
6.9-28.3
Ref. 44b
252-503
425-955
1.8-17.6
17.6-176
1.8-123
70-1220
17.6-158
1.8-17.6
8.2-10.9
1583-2110
Composite
Range
Values
67-98
2-14
1.0-2.3
9,620-17,500
0.5
6.9-28.3
252-503
425-955
1.8-17.6
17.6-176
1.8-123
70-1220
17.6-158
1.8-17.6
8.2-10.9
1583-2110
a 4
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt % or 10 ppm = 1 wt %
Reference 44 presents coal components as % (wt) of the total ash with-
out specifying the total ash content of the coal. GCA estimates the
total ash content of each coal type by averaging their composite ash
content range values. Multiplying average ash content by the composi-
tion values obtained from Reference 16 yields elemental compositions
as a % (wt) of the coal. These elemental compositions are then con-
verted from % (wt) to ppm.
-------
Table E-3b. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN COALS - BITUMINOUS
Property
Fined Carbon, wt %
Volatile Matter, wt %
Moisture, wt %
Heating Value, BTU/lb
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt %
Silicon, ppm
a
Calcium, ppm
a
Sodium, ppm
a
Iron , ppm
a
Magnesium, ppm
, a
Lead , ppm
o
Vanadium, ppm
a
Copper , ppm
a
Barium, ppm
a
Zinc , ppm
o
Phosphorus, ppm
~. a
Tin, ppm
a
Chromium, ppm
Nickel
o
Beryllium, ppm
a
Manganese, ppm
Range Values
Ref.32
20.6
9171.
1.6
11.2
4.5
Ref. 34
12,200-13,400
2.0-5.0
6.2-18.0
Ref. 36, 40
69-86
14-36
10,500-15,800
0.5-4.2
6.6-17.4
14,800-38,500
527-11,800
293-645
3,230-24,400
435-1,590
Ref. 43, 44b
39-74
18-40
2.6-12.4
11,420-14,550
0.6-4.3
3.0-9.1
9,818-35,343
750-15,009
3,672-25,703
190-2,533
20-137
19-41
23-105
53-462
45-200
20-40
0.4-550
20-28
13-189
0.1-31
13-189
Composite
Range
Values
39-86
14-40
2.6-20.6
9,171-15,800
0.5-5.0
3.0-18.0
9,818-38,500
527-15,009
293-645
3,230-25,703
190-2,533
4.5-137
19-41
23-105
53-462
45-200
20-40
0.4-550
20-28
13-189
0.1-31
13-189
-------
Table E-3b (continued). PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN COALS - BITUMINOUS
Property
Silver, ppm
a
Strontium, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
*j
Titanium, ppm
a
Boron , ppm
g,
Molybdenum, ppm
Range Values
Ref. 32
Ref. 34
Ref. 36, 40
Ref. 43, 44b
0.5-2.9
95-935
5,557-19,448
315-1,574
8.4-101
3.2-28
Composite
Range
Values
0.5-2.9
95-935
5,557-19,448
315-1,574
8.4-101
3.2-28
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt % or 10 ppm = 1 wt %
Reference 44 presents coal components as 70 (wt) of the total ash without specifying the
total ash content of the coal. GCA estimates the total ash content of each coal type
by averaging their composite ash content range values. Multiplying average ash content
by the composition values obtained from Reference 16 yields elemental compositions as a
% (wt) of the coal. These elemental compositions are then converted from % (wt) to ppm.
-------
Table E-3c. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN COALS - SUB-BITUMINOUS
M
I—'
to
Property
Fixed Carbon, wt %
Volatile Matter, wt %
Moisture, wt %
Heating Value, BTU/lb
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt 7»
Silicon, ppm
Calcium, ppm
a
Sodium, ppm
Iron , ppm
Magnesium, ppm
Vanadium, ppm
a
Copper, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Tin, ppm
a
Aluminum, ppm
a
Titanium, ppm
Range Values
Ref . 36
8,300-11,500
1.0
6.6
7,390
12,300
98
5,080
1,590
Ref. 43
38-40
28-34
16.5-24.6
8,610-9,740
0.4-2.1
3.8-11.2
Ref. 44b
0.8-44
1.5-53
< 525
1.5-7.5
6,935
188
Composite
Range
Values
38-40
28-34
16.5-24.6
8,300-11,500
0.4-2.1
3.8-11.2
7,390
12,300
98
5,080
1,590
0.8-44
1.5-53
< 525
1.5-7.5
6,935
188
a 4
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt % or 10 ppm = 1 wt %
Reference^ presents coal components as 7» (wt) of the total ash without
specifying the total ash content of the coal. GCA estimates the total
ash content of each coal type by averaging their composite ash content
range values. Multiplying average ash content by the composition values
obtained from Reference 16 yields elemental compositions as a % (wt) of
the coal. These elemental compositions are then converted from % (wt)
to ppm.
-------
Table E-3d. PROPERTIES OF VIRGIN VOALS - LIGNITE
Property
Fixed Carbon, wt 7«
Volatile Matter, wt %
Moisture, wt %
Heating Value, BTU/lb
Sulfur, wt %
Ash, wt 7=,
f%
Silicon, ppm
a
Calcium, ppm
a
Sodium, ppm
Iron, ppm
a
Magnesium, ppm
Q
Lead , ppm
a
Vanad i urn , ppm
a
Copper, ppm
a
Barium, ppm
Zinc
Phosphorus , ppm
a
Mang ane s e , ppm
a
Aluminum, ppm
a
Titanium, ppm
Boron
Range Values
Ref.
35-69
6,300-14,300
1.0-1.1
5.0-12.8
4,180-25,000
16,100-21,300
74-570
2,100-5,910
603-4,590
Ref.
31
28
34.8
7,210
0.7
6.2
Ref.
8,617
16,284
1,921
3,368
5,271
8.9-89
8.9-89
8.9-89
132-134
8.9-35.8
50
131
4,691
102-782
185
Composite
Range
Values
31
28-59
34.8
6,300-14,300
0.7-l.T
5.0-12.8
4,180-25,000
16,100-21,300
74-1,921
2,100-5,910
603-5,271
8.9-89
8.9-89
8.9-89
132-134
8.9-35.8
50
131
4,691
102-782
185
ppm (as the element) = 0.0001 wt 7» or 10 ppm = 1 wt %
'Reference 44 presents coal components as 7» (wt) of the total ash with-
out specifying the total ash content of the coal. GCA estimates the
total ash content of each coal type by averaging their composite ash
content range values. Multiplying average ash content by the com-
position values obtained from Reference 16 yields elemental composi-
tions as a % (wt) of the coal. These elemental compositions are
then converted from 70 (wt) to ppm.
E-13
-------
APPENDIX F
METHOD USED TO GET BLEND PRICES
ASSUMPTIONS
Fuel type BTU/gal Ib/gal BTU/lb
Untreated waste oil 139,000 7.5 18,533
Low treated waste oil 145,000 7.3 19,863
High treated waste oil 150,000 7.5 20,000
#2 distillate 137,000 7.2 19,028
#6 residual 152,000 8.0 19,000
Coal N/A N/A 13,000
The following gives the amount of fuel (by type) needed to generate 10
BTU.
I. Untreated Waste Oil Blends
A. With #2
1. 5-percent blend
6.94 gal of #2
0.40 gal of untreated
2. 50-percent blend
3.61 gal of #2
3.47 gal of untreated
B. With #6
1. 5-percent blend
6.25 gal of residual
0.40 gal of untreated
F-l
-------
2. 50-percent blend
3.25 gal of #6
3.47 gal of untreated
C. With coal
1. 5-percent blend
71 Ib of coal
0.53 gal of untreated
2. 50-percent blend
32 Ib of coal
4.27 gal of waste oil
II. Low treated waste oil blends
A. With #2
1. 5-percent blend
6.8 gal of #2
0.41 gal of low treated
2. 50-percent blend
3.54 gal of #2
3.49 gal of low treated
B. With #6
1. 5-percent blend
6.25 gal of residual
0.41 gal of low treated
2. 50-percent blend
3.31 gal of residual
3.63 gal of low treated
C. With coal
1. 5-percent blend
71 Ib of coal
0.58 gal of low treated
F-2
-------
2. 50-percent blend
31 Ib of coal
4.25 gal of low treated
III. High treated waste oil blends
A. With #2
1. 5-percent blend
6.8 gal of n
0.40 gal of high treated
2. 50-percent blend
3.54 gal of #2
3.40 gal of high treated
B. With #6
1. 5-percent blend
6.13 gal of #6
0.40 gal of high treated
2. 50-percent blend
3.19 gal of #6
3.40 gal of high treated
C. With coal
1. 5-percent blend
71 Ib of coal
0.53 gal of high treated
2. 50-percent blend
30 Ib of coal
4.0 gal of high treated
IV. No blending
The following gives the amount of various fuel types that
must be combusted to generate 10 BTU.
F-3
-------
Fuel type gal/10 BTU
Untreated waste oil 7.19
Low treated waste oil 6.90
High treated waste oil 6.67
#2 distillate 7.30
#6 residual 6.58
Coal 76.92 lb/106 BTU
V. Blend prices
(amount of fuel., x P.) + (amount of fuel- x P_) = blend price
Example: 50% blend of high treated and coal
(30 x 0.51) + (4 x 22.9) = 15.30 + 91.96 = 107.26
lb/106 BTU
F-4
-------
. 1 itlc and Subtitle
Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse as a Fuel
i. Report Date
September 1974
6.
'S.utC°hasnsky, J. Carroll, B. Kincannon, J. Sahagian, N. Surprenan
8- Performing Organization Kept.
No.
Performing Organization Name and Address
GCA Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
nit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-1859
2. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Washington Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
Approximately 2.2 billion gallons of new lubricating oils were sold in the
United States during 1972. While figures vary wide^on the subject, it is estimated
that 50 percent of these oils are consumed in their various uses. The remaining
1.0 to 1.3 billion gallons of waste oil are potentially available for recycling
and reuse. Of this amount, it is estimated that approximately 400 to 600 million
gallons are disposed of into the environment each year in the United States. One
alternative which has been discussed, but not adequately researched, as a means of
beneficially disposing of the waste oil is to use it as a blended fuel oil. Given
the current energy crisis, and environmental policies, this disposal alternative
has become increasingly more important. This report examines the potential
marketability of waste oil fuels and the characterization of untreated waste oil.
The report then analyzes the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of
using untreated and treated waste oil a^ a hi ended fnpi nil. The report, contains a
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
bibliography.
* Economic justification, decision making, economic feasibility
* Economics, costs, economic justification
* Environment, air environment, aquatic environment, environmental control
* Oil, oil pollution, oil wastes
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17e. COSAT1 Fie Id /Group
18. Availability Statement
Unlimited
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED^
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
215
22. Price
FORM NTIS-aS IREV. 1-7JI
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974—582.414:169
UiCOMM-OC I49SJ-P7Z
------- |