SW-89?
USED OIL BURNED AS A FUEL
Volume I
This publication (SW-892) was prepared ty Recon Systems, Inc.
aid ETA Engineering, Inc. for the Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management
Division and the Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1980
: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency •
! Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
'77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Fiooi
-------
publication (SW-892) was prepared, under contract. Mention of
conmercial products does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Government. Editing and technical content of this report were the
responsibility of the Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Sources of Used Oil 1-1
tr2~mrspos 1C ion~of UsecT Oil t-1
1.3 Types of Facilities Burning Used Oil 1-1
1.4 Assessment of the Impacts of
Burning Used Oil 1-2
1.5 The Effects of Environmental
Regulations on Used Oil Burning 1-6
1.6 Specifications for Used Oil Fuels 1-7
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Sources of Used Oil 2-1
2.2 Disposition of Used Oil 2-2
2.3 Properties of Used Oil 2-3
2.4 Used Oil Collection 2-4
2.5 Used Oil Processing 2-5
2.6 Used Oil Blending 2-7
3.0 FACILITIES BURNING USED OIL 3-1
3.1 Oil- and Coal-Fired Boilers 3-1
3.1.1 Water-Tube Boilers 3-2
3.1.2 Fire-Tube Boilers 3-3
3.2 Small Waste Oil Heaters 3-7
3.3 Cement Kilns 3-7
3.4 Incinerators 3-8
3.5 Diesel Engines 3-8
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF USED OIL
BURNING EMISSIONS 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Combustion Tests 4-2
4.3 Discussion of Used Oil
Combustion Emissions 4-4
4.3.1 Lead 4-4
4.3.2 Other Metals 4-5
4.3.3 Other Inorganic Elements 4-5
4.3.4 PNA's (and POM's) 4-6
4.3.5 PCB's 4-7
4.3.6 Halide Solvents 4-/
<+.3.7 Other Organics 4-7
-------
4.4 Emission Factors 4-7
4.5 Impact on Ambient Air Quality 4-7
4.6 Reduction of Emissions by
Used Oil Purification 4-10
4.6.1 General 4-10
4.6.2 Lead and Ash 4-11
4^6.JL Other Inorganics _ 4-ll_
4.6.4 PCB's 4-11
4.6.5 Solvents 4-12
4.6.6 PNA's 4-12
4.6.7 Other Organics 4-12
4.7 Reduction of Emissions by
Combustion Controls 4-12
4.7.1 Lead and Ash 4-12
4.7.2 Other Inorganics 4-13
4.7.3 Hydrocarbon and PCB Emissions 4-13
5.0 LEAD AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF
BURNING USED OIL 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Technical Approach . 5-1
5.2.1 Emission Data 5-1
5.2.2 Meteorological Data 5-3
5.2.3 Modeling Analysis 5-6
5.3 Results 5-6
5.3.1 Generic Source Analysis 5-6
5.3.2 Extrapolation of Results
for Other Assumptions 5-18
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis 5-18
5.4.1 Results 5-22
5.5 Other Considerations 5-22
5.5.1 Multiple Point Sources 5-24
5.5.2 Decreased Lead Content
in Crankcase Drainings 5-24
5.5.3 Pollution Control Devices 5-24
5.5.4 Building Downwash 5-25
5.5.5 Background Concentrations
and Monitoring Data 5-25
5.6 Conclusions 5-25
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3-1 Potential Boiler Market
for Used Oil Combustion 3-4
4-1 Uncontrolled Emission Factors
for Combustion 4-8
4-2 Air Quality Impact for Various
Pollutants Emitted from Steam Boilers 4-9
5-1 Generic Source Operating Parameters
for Computer Dispersion Modeling 5-4
5-2 Assumptions Used in Emission
Rate Calculations 5-5
5-3 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact
Generic Group I (Very Small Boilers) 5-7
5-4 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact
Generic Group 2 (Small Boilers) 5-8
5-5 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact
Generic Group 3 (Medium Boilers) 5-9
5-6 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact
Generic Group 4 (Large Boilers) 5-10
5-7 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact
Generic Group 5 (Power Plant Boilers) 5-11
5-8 Summary of Maximum Lead
Air Quality Impacts 5-12
5-9 Ratioing Example 5-19
5-10 Maximum Quarterly Lead Impact Revised
to Reflect New Assumptions
Generic Group 3 (Medium Boilers) 5-20
5-11 Select Sources for Sensitivity Analysis 5-21
5-12 Results of Sensitivity Analysis 5-23
7-1 Previous Estimates on Lubricating and
Industrial Oil Sales in the U.S. 7-3
7-2 Previous Used Oil Generation
and Collection Estimates 7-4
-------
6.0 THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS ON USED OIL BURNING 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 The Clean Air Act (CAA) 6-1
6.2.1 Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) 6-2
6.2.2 Prevention of Significant
Derer torarion"tPSt)) 6-2
6.2.3 Nonattainment Region
Provisions 6-4
6.2.4 New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) 6-5
6.2.5 Emission Regulation for
Diesel Engine Vehicles 6-6
6.2.6 National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) 6-6
6.2.7 State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 6-7
6.3 The Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) 6-7
7.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA • 7-1
VOLUME II
APPENDIX A DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS OF THE LEAD
AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF BURNING USED OIL
APPENDIX B RECON EMISSION SOURCE TESTS
APPENDIX C LEAD EMISSIONS DURING DOWNWASH
-------
7-3 Summary ot Studies on Used Oil
Generation and Collection 7-5
7-4 Used Oil Generation Projections From
Lube and Other Industrial Oils 7-6
7-5 The Ultimate Disposal of Used Oils 7-7
-7-6- -Physical-Properties-of Used-Motor-Girts —T--8--
7-7 Chemical Properties of Used Motor Oils 7-9
7-8 Industrial Used Oil Analyses 7-10
7-9 A Profile of Used Oil Businesses
Based on a 1979 Survey 7-12
7-10 Size Distribution of U.S. Boilers 7-20
7-11 An Order of Magnitude Estimate
of Boilers.Burning Used Oil 7-21
7-12 Combustion Process Retention Times 7-22
7-13 Used Oil Combustion Tests 7-23
7-14 S0? and NO Emissions During
RECON tests 7-26
7-15 Particulate Emissions - RECON Tests 7-27
7-16 Benzo(a)Pyrene Concentrations
in Various Oils - Data Summary 7-28
7-17 Data on Benzo(a)Pyrene Concentrations
in Unused and Used Motor Oils and
Blended Oils 7-29
7-18 Data on Benzo(a)Pyrene Concentrations
in Fuel Oils 7-30
7-19 Hydrocarbon Emissions 7-31
7-20 Hydrocarbon Emissions 7-32
7-21 National Ambient AirQuality Standards 7-33
7-22 National Standards for the Prevention
of Signifiacnt Deterioration of
Air Quality 7-34
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
5-1 Receptor Grid 5-2
-5-2--Generic--Source--1 5-13--
5-3 Generic Source 2 5-14
5-4 Generic Source 3 5-15
5-5 Generic Source 4 5-16
5-6 Generic Source 5 5-17
7-1 Lead Emitted as a Percent of
Lead Introduced with Fuel 7-35
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Sources of Used Oil
The estimated used oil generated in the U.S. is 2.2 billion
gallons per year, consisting of
billion gal/yr
automotive —0^46- - - - —
industrial 0.38
"other" 1.36
T7T
Automotive and industrial used oils generally arise from use in
lubricating and hydraulic service. "Other" used or waste oils
arise from a wide variety of sources, including spills, tank
cleaning, recovery from water treatment processes, etc. These
"other" used oils may be suitable for the preparation of fuels,
but are seldom useful for re-refining to lubricating oils.
1.2 Disposition of Used Oil
Estimated ultimate fate of used oil is as follows:
billion gal/yr
To Fuel T7TJ9
To Road Oil, Dust
Control, Other Uses 0.22
To Lube Products 0.05
TT35"
1.3 Types of Facilities Burning Used Oil
There has been no comprehensive survey of U.S. facilities
burning used oil. However, it is almost certain that most of the
used oil is burned in steam boilers, usually blended with virgin
fuels. Some used oil may be burned in cement kilns, asphalt
plants, incinerators, and as a fuel component in diesel engines.
Used oil burning may be taking place in over 50,000 steam
boilers, of which 35,000 are boilers rated at 5 MM (million) BTU
per hour or greater.
There appears to be a growing market for small "waste oil
heaters" of up to about 0.6 million BTU/hr (4.3 gal/hr) capacity
for home and small commercial use, including service stations.
Even though these units are small, if large numbers are sold
they could consume a very significant portion of the available
used oil. For example, using an average of 2000 gallons per
year, 10,000 units would consume 20 million gallons of used oil,
while 100,000 units would consume 200 million gallons.
1-1
-------
1.4 Assessment of the Impacts of Burning Used Oil
UNRESTRICTED BURNING
1. Unrestricted burning of automotive crankcase used oils will
result both in significant total lead emissions (2,300 tons
per yeaL _jLn 1585j arud in _snme_.LQ.calLze.d_J. ead ambient._ air
quality standard violations.
2. Unrestricted burning will also lead to undesirable emissions
of total particulates, including significant quantities of
barium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and zinc compounds.
Halide acid emissions (primarily hydrochloric) would be much
higher than for virgin fuels.
3. Unrestricted burning would allow used oils containing less
than 50 ppm PCB's to be burned, since these low concentra-
tions are not controlled by EPA's TSCA regulations. Since
some of these PCB contaminated used oils would be burned in
boilers and furnaces not suitable for a high destruction
efficiency, some PCB's would be emitted to the atmosphere,
but no estimate can be made at this time of the quantity
emitted.
4. Unrestricted burning in onsite boilers and furnaces of used
lubricating oils collected at industrial sites would most
likely result in co-burning of other organic chemical wastes
found at those sites. Other used oils collected from service
stations and elsewhere could also be contaminated with
organic chemical wastes. Inasmuch as many or most boilers and
furnaces are not suitable for high destruction efficiency,
some of these organic wastes or partially combusted wastes
would be emitted to the atmosphere, but no estimate can be
made at this time of the quantity. Although such contamina-
tion and burning could be in violation of RCRA regulations
governing waste generation, transportation, and disposal, one
could assume that such practices would occur.
5. The varied and widespread sources of used oils and the
difficulty in detecting oil contaminants would make it very
difficult to prevent contamination with hazardous wastes and
co-burning of the mixtures.
-------
RESTRICTED BURNING
1. Modest restrictions on used oil burning, such as requiring
lead concentration to be reduced" to fixed maxima, e.g. 50 or
500 ppm (compared to about 2000-8000 typical in unprocessed
used oil), but allowing blending to reach this level, would
have little effect on total emissions, but would almost
eliminate used oil burning itself as a source of ambient air
quality—standard—vioLations^.—However-,—where—ambient—lead
levels are high because of other sources, used oil burning
could still be significant under some circumstances.
2. Similarly, total emissions of other contaminants would remain
almost unchanged, but localized emission and ambient air
quality problems would be abated.
3. Requiring testing, e.g. for lead and PCB's, on tank truck
quantities of used oil is very expensive. Requiring such
testing on large storage tank quantities is feasible, but
detecting unknown contaminants, if possible, would require
method development.
REPROCESSING REQUIRED TO MEET FUEL SPECIFICATIONS
1. Reprocessing to meet fixed maxima, e.g. 50 or 500 ppm lead
content would avoid almost all potential lead emission
problems resulting from burning, but overall environmental
impact is dependent upon the means of disposal of
lead-containing residues from processing.
2. Metals and other nonvolatile substances comprising the ash
content of used oils would also be reduced by reprocessing
methods available for reducing lead content.
3. Thermal dehydration as an adjunct to or replacement for
demulsification removes not only water but also light ends,
eliminating the possibility of light halogenated and other
solvent emissions. However, provisions governing the fate of
these light organics and contaminated water would determine
overall environmental impact.
4. Vacuum distillation, not normally practiced, reduces sulfur,
nitrogen, and PNA's in used oils, but these materials concen-
trate in the heavy residues. Overall environmental impact is
dependent upon the means for residue disposal.
5. Contaminants boiling in the lube distillate range, e.g.
PCB's, would be unaffected by most reprocessing steps.
1-3
-------
6. The following steps are available for reprocessing:
a. Settling in tanks at ambient temperatures to 200°F, with
or without caustic/silicate, acid, or polymer demulsifier
treatment, to remove water and particulates, including
lead and polymers. Widely used, but not very efficient.
b. Centrifugation at ambient temperatures to 200°F, with or
without caustic/silicate, acid, or polymer treatment to
remove water and particulates, including lead and
polymers. Used in a few reprocessing plants with
efficiencies comparable to careful settling.
c. Mechanical filtration and/or fine screening to remove par-
ticulates and solid polymers. Used in some reprocessing
plants for gross separation of large suspended solids.
d. Thermal dehydration to remove water and light organics by
vaporization, in either one or two steps. Used in some
reprocessing plants.
e. Chemical treatment with, e.g. 937o sulfuric acid,
oxygenated solvents, and diammonium phosphate, to remove
various impurities. Not now in use to meet fuel
specifications.
f. Solvent extraction, e.g. high pressure propane extraction,
to separate lubricating oil type cuts from impurities. Not
now in use to meet fuel specifications.
g. Separation of a distillate cut by fractionation, thus
removing a bottoms product containing lead and other
inorganics, polymeric impurities, polycyclic aromatics,
and many sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen-containing
compounds. Not now in use to meet fuel specifications.
h. Clay treatment at any stage of processing to remove a
variety of impurities. Some commercial use.
i. Finishing, e.g. clay treatment or hydrotreating, to
improve odor, color, and stability after other processing
is complete. Not normally required to meet fuel specifica-
tions.
1-4
-------
FractionaCion and/or solvent treatment, which would be required
for more severe restrictions on lead and ash content, add
considerable expense to fuel preparation, reducing the value of
the feedstock and making significant quantities available for
re-refining. From another perspective, one could conclude that
if extensive reprocessing were required for fuel preparation,
the funishing steps necessary to prepare lubricants instead
would Jbe economicallyjustified.
STRINGENT RESTRICTIONS
1. Placing sufficiently stringent restrictions on used oil
burning to insure environmental impact essentially equivalent
to virgin oil combustion, including equipment and performance
specifications and licensing and testing requirements, would
have a major effect on the cost of burning. Thus use of used
oils as fuels would be expensive, making feedstock available
for re-refining.
2. If stringent restrictions on burning were put into place too
quickly, most used oils could not be marketed, resulting in
environmental and waste disposal problems. However, gradual
restrictions with simultaneous modernization and expansion of
the re-refining industry would help to alleviate this problem
for used lubricating oils. Marketing other used oils would
still be a problem under this scenario.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Funneling 500 million gallons per year of used oils into
lubes instead of fuels could conserve more than 3 million
barrels per year of petroleum because the energy requirement
for re-refining is- less than for preparing lube oils from
virgin crude oils.
2. Re-refining and reprocessing technologies all. result in the
concentration of hazardous materials into byproduct or waste
streams, e.g. lead, other metal and phosphorous compounds,
polycyclic aromatics, etc. Wastes from processing of
hazardous wastes, such as used oils that are so classified,
are presumed to be hazardous unless demonstrated not to be.
Environmentally sound disposal of these residues, which is
under study by the U. S. Department of Energy Bartlesville
Energy Technology Center and others, is vital to the future
viability of re-refining and reprocessing.
3. Stack height and stack temperature are critical variables
with respect to the effect of lead and other combustion
emissions on ambient air quality.
1-5
-------
1.5 The Effects of Environmental Regulations on Used Oil Burning
Federal environmental regulations which may affect used oil
burning find their basis primarily in the following legislation:
- The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) (as amended in 1974 and 1977)
~ The "Toxic"Substances~Cont rolr Actr of~1976(TSCAi
- The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
The responsibility for regulations under these acts lies
primarily with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Only
CAA and TSCA will be further discussed in this Section since
regulations relating to used oils under RCRA are still under
study and are the primary subject of this report.
Regulations under CAA which may affect used oil burning are:
" National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for total
suspended particles, SO^, NO,,, and lead. The NAAQS for lead is
particularlyimportant because high lead emissions are
virtually unique to automotive used oil burning and not
normally a problem with virgin fuels. The NAAQS for total
suspended particles is also important because used oils are
often higher in ash content than normal virgin fuels, leading
to potentially high particulate emissions. S02 emissions for
used oils are similar to those for virgin fuels with the same
sulfur content. NO emissions for used oils are comparable to
those for virgin oiis.
- Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The PSD program
wasdevelopedto preserveairqualityin those areas where the
air is better than NAAQS. It may apply to new fossil fuel
boilers with more than 250 million BTU/hr heat input, smaller
or larger boilers modified for used oil firing, and other new
or modified facilities burning used oil. However, there is a
strong possibility that sources switching from virgin to used
oils may not always undergo the required permit process. Only
relatively small sources, sources burning low concentrations
of used oil, or sources already permitted for used oil burning
would be exempt from PSD rules.
1-6
-------
- Nonattainment Region Provisions. If new or modified major
sources 1 ie in or have an impact on a nonattainment area, they
will be subject to preconstruction review. Sources with a
potential emission for any applicable pollutant greater than
100 tons/yr would be governed by these provisions. Depending
upon particulate and sulfur concentration, and dilution with
virgin fuels, new steam boilers with a capacity as low as 20
million BTU/hr could be affected, as could similar size
holiers_ conver tedL to__.used_Qll_fir:ing_t
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Federal NSPS apply to
new and modifiedfossil-fuelfiredsteam generators which have
a heat input greater than 250 million BTU/hr and to certain
other types of facilities. Smaller sources and existing
sources are governed by state and local regulations for
particulates,
including lead.
SO,
N0x,
and other pollutants—sometimes
Of primary concern under TSCA is the relationship of PCB
disposal regulations to used oil burning practices. Under these
regulations:
- For PCB liquids containing 500 ppm PCB or greater, disposal is
permitted only in EPA-approved incinerators.
- For PCB liquids containing 50-500 ppm, disposal is permitted
in EPA-approved incinerators, in high efficiency boilers rated
at a minimum of 50 million BTU/hr (under rigidly controlled
combustion conditions), and in EPA-approved chemical waste
landfills (approved for PCB's).
containing less than 50 ppm are not considered PCB's
- Liquids
(unless dilution
regulated.
was involved) and their burning is not
1.6 Specifications for Used Oil Fuels
It is possible to use various air
criteria to characterize used oils
relatively little environmental risk.
specifications and criteria:
pollution and composition
which can be burned with
The following are possible
1-7
-------
total ash content of less than 0..3 weight 7o, which results in
less than 0.12 grains/dry SCF emission (at zero percent excess
air) meeting many, but not all,, state and local regulations
for particulate emissions when burning 100% used oil.
lead content of less than 50 ppm, which would eliminate almost
-a4i— local — ambient—aLr quality—violations ^ even _when_ _burning_
1007o used oil.
chlorine content of less than 0.4 weight 70, which is in the
normal range for used crankcase oils, indicating that no gross
contamination has occurred with chlorinated solvents.
PCB content of less than 50 ppm, which is the upper limit
specified by EPA regulations under TSCA, allowing burning
without Federal regulation.
BS&W of less than 17<>, which indicates an absence of
substantial water or sediment which might contribute to
emission or burning problems.
flash point of greater . than 140°F, corresponding to the
hazardous waste classification under RCRA.
various sulfur levels might be used, for example, less than
0.2 weight 7«, which would probably meet all state air emission
regulations; or. 0.570, which would meet most state regulations.
1-8
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The rapidly increasing value of petroleum has been the principal
factor in abating large scale dumping of used oils. With a few
exceptions, used oils have become products of commerce or are
used by the generator for fuel or other purposes. One major
-exception^ is environmentally unsound disposal by individual
automobile owners who perform their own oil changes.
On the other hand, the methods of use are often questionable by
reasonable environmental standards. For example, road oiling may
result in contamination of surface waters and other ecological
systems. Burning used oils as fuels can contribute to air
pollution problems because of the emission of lead and other
impurities present in the oil .
The purpose of this report is to assess the environmental impact
of used oil combustion preparatory to possible promulgation of
rules affecting such combustion under Subtitle C of RCRA (1).
'The assessment includes data available in the literature,
analysis of combustion tests on steam boilers performed by RECON
SYSTEMS, INC. and air dispersion modelling performed by ETA
Engineering, Inc.
This report is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains the
main body of the report including Section 7.0, "Supplementary
Data." Many of the tables referred to in the text can be found
in Section 7.0. Volume II, containing Appendices A-C, provides
test and modelling details.
2.1 Sources of Used Oil
Projections of used oil generation in 1980, 1985, and 1990 have
been prepared from lubricating oil sales projections (2) and
previous used oil studies (3, 4, 5). Breakdowns and bases for
these projections are presented in Tables 7-1 to 7-4. Assuming
no major changes in regulations or collection practices, the
following used oil quantities may be expected:
Millions of Gal/Yr
Automotive lubricants
Industrial lubricants
Subtotal - Lubricants
"Other"
1981)
464
380
1983
458
396
1990
437
420
1365
1365
1365
TITl
2-1
-------
The "other" used or waste oils are derived from a variety of
sources including production losses at the wellhead, recovered
refinery and spill losses, tank cleaning, barge and ship
cleaning, etc. These represent less than 0.57o of all virgin
petroleum uses.
If regulations were promulgated to minimize wasteful disposal
practices, e.g. to maximize recycling by individuals who change
their -own- automotive crankease oil , — it — might be possible— to
increase collectable used oil substantially.
2.2 Disposition of Used Oil
Used oil disposition estimates have not been updated since
RECON's studies in 1974 (3). However, using the projections in
Section 2.1 and recent intelligence on disposal practices, an
attempt has been to revise the 1974 study to 1980 conditions.
The details of this revision are shown in Table 7-5.
Ultimate disposition estimates may be summarized as follows:
1980 USED OIL DISPOSITION ESTIMATES
Millions of Gal/Yr
TOTAL OILS ENTERING SYSTEM
Automotive Lube Sales 1396
Industrial Lube Sales 1243
"Other" Used Oils 1365
3U05
USED OIL GENERATION
Automotive 464
Industrial 380
"Other" 1365
22~U9~
ULTIMATE DISPOSITION
Directly to Fuel 439
To Fuel from Proc. /Re-Ref . 652
TU9T
Directly to other uses
(road oil, form oil, dust
control, etc.) 146
To other uses from
Proc. /Re-Ref . 78
Lube Products 45
Subtotal - Products 1360
Engine Consumption, Process
Losses, Environmental Losses 2644
2-2
-------
Under present conditions, regulations designed to increase the
collection of used oil would substantially increase all of the
present uses, but especially fuel use because of the lack of
re-refining capacity and the environmental restraints toward
road oiling, dust control and the like.
2.3 Properties of Used Oil
Extensive studies of the properties of thirty used motor oils
have been conducted by the Bartlesville Energy Technology Center
(6). The oils analyzed were composites collected in twenty
states within the continental United States. Most of the
physical and chemical properties measured are summarized in
Tables 7-6 and 7-7 (excluding data on compound types). The
following chemical properties are of major environmental
importance:
Contaminant Weight %
IlaH0.14-1.39 (1,362-13,885 ppm)
Ash . 0.94-2.20
Sulfur 0.33-0.54
Chlorine 0.26-0.41
Significant but lower concentrations of barium, calcium
magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorous, and zinc are also found in
used motor oils, as well as trace quantities of other elements.
As will be shown, lead, ash, and sulfur concentrations can be
related directly to emissions resulting from used oil burning,
and to some extent are regulated under Federal law. Hydrochloric
acid emissions which result from the chlorine content of the oil
are not so regulated.
EPA regulation of fuel additives can have a major effect on
automotive used oil composition. These additives may contaminate
lubricating oils on cylinder walls during engine operation. Used
oil lead. contamination, of course, results from this process.
Another antiknock agent, methylcyclopentadiene manganese
tricarbonyl (MMT), was widely used during the period 1974-1979
but has now been discontinued by EPA (8). Although manganese
content of used oils may have increased during this period, it
should rapidly disappear as a contaminant.
2-3
-------
Estimates by EPA (9) would predict an average lead content in
used automotive lubricating oil of less than 1000 ppm by 1985,
perhaps as low as 800 ppm, based . on gradual elimination of
vehicles burning leaded fuels. If lead-tolerant emissions
control technology were developed, lead concentrations could
remain as high as 2500 ppm in 1985 and beyond, holding leaded
_present regulated J.eyel( 10, 11 )_. ___
Fewer data are available for industrial used oils. However,
characterization of a variety of such oils, performed by ETA for
the State of Illinois (7), is reported in Table 7-8. Some of the
significant contaminants which appear in this particular set of
data are ash (up to 0.6470), sulfur (up to 1.47»), lead (up to
1,400 ppm), zinc (up to 1,100 ppm), copper (up to 1,160 ppm),
barium (up to 240 ppm), calcium (up to 1,900 ppm), phosphorous
(up to 1,080 ppm), and magnesium (up to 1,000 ppm).
2.4 Used Oil Collection
The most recent comprehensive survey of used oil collection was
performed by RECON in 1973 (3) and included in EPA's 1974 Report
to Congress (12). Since that time additional but fragmented
information has been gathered by Maltezou (13), Mascetti and
White (4), and by RECON (14).
Based on these studies, used oil collection can be characterized
as follows:
1. Nationwide, various sources have estimated from 500 to 2000
firms operating in the used oil industry. Of these, approxi-
mately 607<> or more are collectors only, while 40% or less
also practice processing or re-refining.
2. Business turnover is high.
3. Most collectors tend to search for used oil on an informal
basis,- without contracts or a specific callback system.
However, some industrial oil is collected on written or
verbal contract bases.
4. Much of the collected oil is immediately disposed of
untreated, e.g. to road oiling and fuel users.
5. Collection firms keep either poor records or no records,
unless required to do so by state licensing or registration
procedures .
2-4
-------
6. The average small collector owns one Co two trucks with
capacities of between 1500 and 1800 gallons. He operates
alone or with the help of one or two employees and prefers to
operate within a small radius, usually 30-50 miles. Plans are
to fill collection trucks at least twice a day. The average
small collector recovers 400,000 to 600,000 gallons per year.
7. Collection in rural areas usually involves somewhat larger
trucks-,-—e-.-g-.-r--1-5QQ-2000^ gallons, and-eovers larger ctreas.
8. In recent years, more re-refiners and processors have moved
to control their used oil sources by owning trucks and either
hiring drivers or leasing to operators, and by setting up
collection terminals remote, e.g., up to 500 miles, from
their processing facilities. In the case of remote terminals,
used oil is delivered to the terminal by small collection
trucks and moved from the terminal to the processing
facilities in trucks carrying up to 8000 gallons'. The
terminals may be either manned, or unmanned .but well secured.
9. The street price of oil, even for the same quality oil in the
same area, can fluctuate widely depending on bargaining
between seller and buyer .•
10. The delivered price of used oil tends to reflect its end use
and especially the price of virgin fuel oil, since the most
common use widely available is as a fuel. The difference
between virgin fuel oil and used oil street prices reflects
collection costs, processing and blending costs where
practiced, and the increased cost of burning used oils. Each
of these costs normally includes a profit to an intermediary.
2.5 Used Oil Processing
Some used oils are recycled for fuel use, road oiling and other
applications with little or no treatment. However, substantial
quantities of used oil undergo chemical and/or physical
treatment preparatory to recycling. A series of physical and
chemical treatment steps designed to prepare lubricating oil
base stocks from used lubricating oils is usually designated as
re-refining. Physical treatment steps, with or without chemical
treatment, to prepare fuels from used oils is usually designated
as used oil processing or reclaiming.
2-5
-------
Technology available for re-refining has been extensively
discussed in the literature (3, 4, 15) and will not be discussed
further here. However, it should be noted that recent work by
RECON (14) has confirmed previous studies showing that
re-refining to produce lubes from used oil, as compared to
burning used oils in boilers, could result in an overall saving
of-about 3^ million barrels per year of petroleum, — - —
Used oil to be burned as a fuel may sometimes be used directly
with no reprocessing necessary, e.g., recovered hydraulic oils
with relatively little moisture or other contamination. Used
oils more heavily contaminated are sometimes burned alone or in
mixtures with virgin fuels without further processing, but these
usually have some detrimental effect on the combustion process,
e.g., steam tube fouling, particulate emissions, or stack
corrosion. Therefore, it is desirable to reprocess used oils
prior to combustion.
, Reprocessing is widely practiced, but reprocessing facilities
differ widely in complexity and effectiveness. They range from
simple storage tanks in which settling occurs to reduce BS&W
(bottom sediment and water) to much more complex chemical and
physical treatment steps. As shown in Table 7-9, there are more
than 100 re-refining and reprocessing facilities in the U.S.,
most producing at least some fuels.
Some of the methods in wide use by reprocessors are:
- Screening to remove large foreign substances and sediment.
- Settling to remove water and sediment aided by high temper-
atures, silicate, acid, and polymeric demulsifiers, and
solvent dilution.
*
- Centrifugation to remove water and sediment instead of
settling.
- Filtration to remove fine particles.
- Atmospheric or vacuum distillation to remove water, gasoline,
and other volatile contaminants.
- Chemical treatments for special purposes using sulfuric acid,
caustic, acid activated clay and other agents.
2-6
-------
SeCCling for water and sediment removal is the most common
method of reprocessing. Although not completely effective or
universally applicable, this simple form of reprocessing does
often substantially reduce the contaminant level which must be
handled in combustion equipment. It is not possible to
efficiently remove lead by this or similar approaches, although
some lead removal does occur.
Used t)t ^Blending-
As noted before, dilution of used oils, whether or not
reprocessed, with clean virgin oils apparently makes them more
acceptable to the user. This approach may range from sufficient
dilution to completely hide the used oil, e.g., using a very
high ratio of No. 6 fuel as the diluent, to minimal blending
designed to barely meet local particulate codes.
Many small users do not routinely analyze their fuel oils and
may unknowingly accept a fuel with used oil contamination at
normal fuel prices. A high degree of dilution tends to minimize
required frequency of filter and furnace cleaning and is thus
difficult to detect.
On the other hand, it is believed that most used oil fuels are
sold as such with the user, whether large or small, willing to
accept problems which may be inherent in the combustion of used
oil and used oil/virgin oil mixtures in return for a lower price.
Blending requirements to meet particulate emission regulations
vary with local regulations and with the ash contents of the
used and virgin oils. Some examples of barely acceptable blends
follow:
Basis: 1. 0.12 grains/dry SCF emission limit (corrected to 07»
excess air)
2. Zero ash in virgin fuel
Ash in Weight Ratio of Used
Used Oil, wt % Oil to Virgin Oil Allowable
0.3 1:0
0.6 1:1
1.2 1:3
1.8 1:5
2-7
-------
1 c
Basis: 1. 0.1 Ibs of particulate emission per 10 BTU Heat
Input. (18,000 BTU/lb fuel)
2. Zero ash in virgin fuel
Ash in Weight Ratio of Used
Used Oil, wt 7. Oil to Virgin Oil Allowable
1 :t)
0.3 1:0.67
0.6 1:2.33
1.2 1:5.67
1.8 1:9
It should be noted that other considerations may further
restrict the amount of used oil allowable. These include lead
content, as limited by the Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard,
and sulfur content, often restricted by local regulations. The
lead problem is discussed further in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.
2-8
-------
REFERENCES
1. FR 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980, page 33118.
2. Stewart, R. G. and J. L. Helm. The Lubricant Market in the
1980's - U.S. and Free World. Presented at the 1980 NPRA
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. March 23-25, 1980.
T.~~Wernstein~y"N~."J7~Was~te"~ Oil" Re eye ring" arid Disposal. EPA-670-
/2-74-052. August 1974. 328 pages.
4. Mascetti, G. J. and H. M. White. Utilization of Used Oil.
Aerospace Report No. ATR-78(7834)-l. DOE. August 1978.
5. Bidga, Richard J. and Associates. Review of All Lubricants
Used in the U.S. and Their Re-Refining Potential. DOE/BC/-
30227-1. June 1980. 84 pages.
.6. Cotton. F. 0., M. L. Whisman, J. W. Goetzinger and J. W.
Reynolds. Analysis of 30 Used Motor Oils. Hydrocarbon Proces-
sing, September 1977.
7. Yates, J. J. et al. Used Oil Recycling in Illinois: Data
Book. Document No. 78/34.- State of Illinois Institute of
Natural Resources. Chicago. October 1978. 135 pages.
8. FR 44, No. 199, pages 58952-58965, Friday, October 12, 1979.
9. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions. Vol. I. Chapters
1-3. EPA-450/2-77-012. December 1977. 181 pages.
10. 40 CFR Part 80.
11. Anderson, E. V. Phasing Lead Out of Gasoline. Chem. & Eng.
News. February 6, 1978. pages 12-16.
12. U.S. EPA. Waste Oil Study. Report to the Congress. April
1974. 402 pages.
13. Maltezou, S. P. Waste Oil Recycling: The New York
Metropolitan Area Case. Council on the Environment of New
York City. March 1976. 206 pages.
14. Weinstein, N. J. Unpublished work by RECON SYSTEMS, INC. for
U.S. DOE (Contract No. DE-AC19-79BC10044) and U.S. EPA
(Contract No. 68-01-4729). 1980.
15. Liroff, S. D. Management of Environmental Risk: A Limited
Integrated Assessment of the Waste Oil Refining Industry.
Final Report for the National Science Foundation. March
1978. 282 pages.
2-9
-------
3.0 FACILITIES BURNING USED OIL
Used oil can be burned in virtually any facility that is
designed for No. 6 fuel oil, and in most facilities designed for
No. 4 and No. 5 fuel oils, although some modifications may be
necessary in the systems designed for the lighter fuels. Used
lubricating oils have also been used as a fuel for diesel
engines. Descriptions of various types of facilities which can
accept" used oils" follow.
3.1 Oil- and Coal-Fired Boilers
A recent study of the "Population and Characteristics of
Industrial/Commercial Boilers in the U.S." (1) concluded that:
- the total number of industrial and commercial boilers in place
in 1977 was about 1.800,000 with a total firing capacity of
about 4.5 x lO1^ BTU/hr (equivalent to 1,300,000 MW thermal in
the International system of Units).
- Less than one percent of the boilers exceed the existing New
Source Performance Standard limiting size of 250 x 10 BTU/hr
(73.3 MW thermal), but they represent 17 percent of the
installed capacity.
- About 72 percent of these boilers are classified as commercial
and are used primarily for space heating in commercial and
institutional buildings.
- The other 28 percent are classified as industrial boilers and
are used primarily for process steam and space heating.
However, because industrial boilers are generally larger, they
represent 69 percent of the total firing capacity.
- The three major types of boilers are water-tube, steel
fire-tube, and cast iron fire-tube. Cast iron boilers are
small; steel fire-tube boilers have the greatest range of
capacity; and water- tube boilers are generally the largest.
- Water-tube boilers constitute the majority of the thermal
capacity.
- By fuel type, natural-gas-fired boilers comprise 45 percent of
the total number; oil-fired, 37 percent; and coal-fired, 18
percent.
3-1
-------
A summary of the distribution of various type boilers is found
in Table 7-10. Various burner types used in boilers have been
discussed by Mascetti (2); and possible particulate control
systems by Chansky (3), but these are seldom used on oil-fired
boilers.
There are no comprehensive data available to show what types of
boi lers_,aj^e—ajCLtualAy_burni.rt8_ used oils? a 1 though_the technical,
economic, and environmental feasibility of auto"motive~~was"te~"6Tr"
reuse as a fuel has been studied (3). However, it is possible to
pinpoint those types of boilers most amenable to used oil combus-
tion, and also those boiler types where used oil combustion is
not likely. On this basis, the following comments can be made
with reference to the boiler population summarized in Table 7-10.
3.1.1 Water-Tube Boilers
Coal-Fired - Although many of these coal units are uniquely
suitable for firing used oil because they have air pollution
control equipment, it is doubtful that appreciable used oil
combustion is actually practiced at present. This conclusion is
predicated on the fact that coal prices are generally more
attractive than virgin oil or even used oil prices in areas
where ,coal combustion is practiced. However, as Federal
regulations require future conversion of some oil-fired units to
coal transported from distant fields, the incentive for used oil
as an auxiliary fuel will grow. It is not known whether DOE
regulations will allow such use.
Residual Oil-Fired - The availability of fuel filters, air and
steamassisted burners, "dirty" tanks, soot blowers on larger
units, and occasionally air pollution control equipment eases
conversion to used oil. On the other hand, potential tube and
furnace fouling discourages most water-tube boiler owners. It is
believed, however, that used oil/residual oil mixtures are
burned in many "medium" size and larger water-tube units.
Distillate' Oil-Fired - Few of these boilers have all of the
advantages ol:residual oil-fired boilers for used oil
combustion. Therefore, it is believed that few such boilers are
fired with used oil.
Natural Gas-Fired - Boilers designed originally for natural gas
are not readily converted to oil firing.
3-2
-------
3.1.2 Fire-Tube Boilers (Steel and Cast Iron)
Coal-Fired - Coal-fired fire-tube boilers are generally small
and it is believed that few are equipped with oil burners.
Residual-Oil Fired - Fire-tube boilers lend themselves more
readilyto"dirty" oil firing than do water-tube boilers. For
this reason, and the reasons mentioned in the discussion of
residual oil-f iredr^water-tube boilers, itr is believed thar used
oil is fired in many boilers of this type, most of which are
"small" or "very small."
Distillate Oil-Fired - Some "small" No. 4 and No. 5 fuel
fire-tubeboilersare probably fired with distillate oil/ used
oil mixtures, but it is doubtful that many No. 2 fuel/used oil
mixtures are in use.
Natural Gas-Fired - Boilers designed originally for natural gas
are not readily converted to oil firing.
In summary, it is believed that most used oil combustion takes
place in boilers selected from the population summarized in
Table 3-1. From Section 2.2, using 1091 million gallons per year
of used oil burned at 140,000 BTU/gal (0.153 x lO10 BTU), a
maximum of 5.770 of this market is provided by used oils,
neglecting used oil burned in cement plants, asphalt plants and
other applications. If all size segments of the market were
proportionately penetrated and the average blend contained 25%
used oil, the total number of boilers operating on used oil and
used oil/virgin oil blends would be about 58,000, based on the
following calculation:
Yearly used oil consumption = 0.153 x 10 BTU
Total population of boilers with
a potential for used oil combustion = 253,650 (Table 3-1)
Yearly fuel consumption in , c
above boiler population = 2.696 x 10i3 (Table 3-1)
0.153 x 1015 x 253?650 = ^
0.25 x 2.696 x 1015
3-3
-------
z
o
1— t
H
cn
«
JP
6
u
1-4
O
Q
W
C/3
3
O
H
W
*
OS
£
OS
w
K^
o
en
J
i— t
H
1
•
»— t
1
0)
r— <
£
m
J O
U — i
3
Z
>• 0
^•3 ^^
oi!H CN •* 00 O «* m co
<; a* \o-^<— < •— < in CM co
us: CMOO cnoo -» r*
cn ooo oo oo
z
o
u
.jt
OS
^^ *«O ^0 ^D i"O i• X OOO OO OO
H ••». o ^ CM •— i O m m
•- •-» o
Qtf ^^ ^3 ^3 ^^ ^D ^5
^J tij ^^ ^^ ^3 00 ^D
< pa . . . . .
Sa -^ in m m oo
3 ^o r^
HZ -^
u
C •—"•-•
<-» (0 <8
ex S E
E in M
tn 3 o) u »-< ^
u -Hooei) -<>» — i >
C^J *O V4 ^ CO V4 CO W
M 41 <0 O ECU E4I
to E -— i a. in > in >
sO
^^
vO
CM
^~>
cy^
CM
O
CM
cjT
o
^
o
m
\o
»«
CO '
m
CM
O « S5
4J • ON
00 CM
UJ •
H %
4) u
>« .. ^4
4) tJ O
u a) td
N a
»•« -i-i «
O •-! O
4J -H
5i " -
« 3 ^
2 "-1 «
«
I
CM
-
3
a.
H
01
J3
fl
3:
m
D
"O
•r4
I/I
41
Ct
H
01
•*4
U*
3
•O
in
at
OI
H
•H
U.
««H
1-1
o
01
cd
in
i-t
Q
O
H
t^
01
o
c
0)
M
0)
14-1
OI
as
c
0
•a
01
n
— i
CO
4-1
0
4J
41
x:
^
IM
O
e
o
•^
u
CO
U-l
4)
^2
in
u
0)
1—4
•H
0
,0
OI
0
J3
cd
0)
•^
OI
00
u
41
CB
C
Co
in
OI
6
S
OI
.C
4~>
U-i
3-4
-------
This estimated total is surprisingly high, but is possible based
on estimates of about 500 to 2000 collection and processing
firms operating in the used oil business. If market penetration
were higher in the larger and residual oil boilers and lower in
the smaller and distillate oil boilers, e.g., in accord with
calculations in Table 7-11, there would still be about 52,000
boilers operating on used oil or used oil/virgin oil blends.
This is about 2.8% of the total boiler population of 1,800,000.
One important aspect of the possible regulation of used oil
combustion is the choice of a size cutoff. The cumulative number
of boilers burning used oil and the cumulative yearly used oil
consumption can be summarized from the estimates in Table 7-11:
Cumulative
No. ofUsed Oil
MM BTU/hr Boilers 1015 BTU/yr
1500+ 1 0.0006
Large 500-1500 16 0.0032
Medium 100-500 631 0.0294
Small 10-100 3,920 0.0859
Very
Small 5-10 35,000 0.145
Very
Small 0.4-5 52,239 0.153
Reasonable cutoff choices based on these data and the work in
Section 5,0 (based on air quality predictions) appear to be:
Boilers to be
Permitted . "L of used
Cutoff \_No. oil burned
5 MM
BTU/hr 67.0 35,000 94.8
10 MM
BTU/hr 7.5 3,920 56
Cutoff values between 5 and 10 MM BTU/hr would be reasonable,
but the data is too imprecise to reasonably establish the number
of boilers and the amount of used oil involved between these
values.
3-5
-------
The ownership of boilers burning used oil appears to be widely
distributed among institutions (including schools and
hospitals), industrial facilities, commercial facilities, and
electric power plants. Many industrial facilities burn
self-generated used oils from both industrial and transportation
sources, usually lower in lead and ash content than collected
autpmotive used oils, but contaminated in some instances with
"industrial wastes," e.g., spent soTvents.
One concern about used oil burning is whether combustion
conditions are sufficiently severe to destroy potential used oil
contaminants such as spent solvents (including chlorinated
solvents) and PCB's. The prediction of destruction efficiencies
is dependent upon such factors as the nature of the waste; the
manner in which the oil and/or waste are introduced; oxidation
gas composition; and time, temperature, and turbulence
variations through the combustion chamber. The complexity of
relationships governing destruction efficiency is convincingly
discussed in a report by Manson and linger covering design
criteria for various types of incinerators (4).
In the interest of simplifying this problem under RCRA, EPA
proposed retention times of two seconds or more at a combustion
temperature of at least 1000°C (1832°F) with an excess oxygen of
at least 27. for all hazardous wastes, except those containing
halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons. They were required to be
burned at least 1200°C (2192°F) and 37. excess oxygen (5). These
proposed conditions were not included by EPA in the final rules
published in May 1980. (
It is doubtful that many boilers would meet the guidelines
originally proposed by EPA for destruction of hazardous wastes.
Oil-fired steam boilers and combustion processes can reach
temperatures greater than 1000 C (1832 F) or even 1200°C, but
retention time at these temperatures may not reach two seconds.
As shown in Table 7-12, flue gas retention times in combustion
chambers are dependent primarily on: the type of fuel used; the
amount of excess air used; actual flame temperature; and
construction details, the most important of which is the
combustion chamber volume. For oil-fired boilers, two second
retention time is attained for volumetric heat releases of less
than 28,300 BTU per hour per cubic foot for about 107. excess air
and 2500 F average flue gas temperature; and for volumetric heat
releases of less than 21,000 for about 507. excess air and 2500 F
average flue gas temperature. Some steam boilers may be designed
for those conditions which result in two seconds retention time
in the combustion chamber, but many are not. Reduced firing load
on any boiler or furnace can increase retention time,
particularly when air flow is decreased proportionaly to fuel
flow. However, reduced load decreases combustion temperature due
to the greater significance of heat loss.
3-6
-------
It cannot be assumed, therefore, that the combustion of used oil
in existing steam boilers and other combustion furnaces could
produce high efficiency destruction of hazardous wastes in used
oils. Each combustion system must be treated on an individual
basis, perhaps taking advantage Ln some cases of the possibility
of meeting combustion efficiency and destruction efficiency
requirements by higher temperature at lower retention time.
"3T2~Sma 1 i Waste~OIT"Heaters
There appears to be a growing market for small "waste oil
heaters" of up to 0.6 million BTU/hr (4.3 gal/hr) capacity for
home and small commercial use, including service stations. The
units can be used to heat either air or water for space heating
or other purposes.
Some of these units use conventional liquid injection burners,
while other use vaporizing cup burners to minimize carryover of
.ash and lead. Very few data are available, but the claims tor
low lead emissions for the vaporizing cup burner appear to be
reasonable, with lead residue remaining in the cup and requiring
periodic cleaning. It is possible that the liquid injection
burner also may result in low lead emission, but periodic
cleaning of the combustion- chamber to remove deposits is
necessary.
One manufacturer claims 60,000 units sold in Europe. No reliable
information is available on the number of units in the U.S. Even
though these waste oil heaters are small, if large numbers are
sold they could consume a very significant portion of the
available used oil. For example, using an average of 2000
gallons per year, 10,000 units would consume 20 million gallons
of used oil, while 100,000 units would consume 200 million
gallons.
3.3 Cement Kilns
Extensive test work in Canada has shown that used oil can be
burned as a fuel in cement kilns (6). It is believed that this
practice is in use today in the U.S., but data are not available
on the extent of such applications. Cement kilns are normally
equipped with baghouses or electrostatic precipitators for
particulate control, which should be effective in minimizing
used oil particulate emissions. According to Chansky, et al (3)
about 2.6 million barrels of fuel oil was used to manufacture
hydraulic cement in 1967, a market large enough to accommodate
about 1070 of the used oil estimated by RECON to be available
today for fuel.
3-7
-------
3.4 Incinerators
A hypothetical study of burning used oil in municipal
incinerators was conducted by Chansky, et al in 1973 (7).
However, there is no known application of this approach at this
time. Burning used oil in steam generating municipal
incinerators ~is ^titl:~^rscTis~s^d~f^r^^ecTfTc^)roe^tsV as is the
application of used oil as a supplementary fuel for wastewater
sludge incinerators. Therefore, some limited use may be found
for such applications.
Liquid and gaseous incinerators with and without heat recovery
are widely used in industry for waste disposal. Some used oils
may be burned in these, either as a supplementary fuel or as a
method for disposal of highly contaminated oils. Most recently
built incinerators are equipped with scrubbers or other
pollution control devices, but many of the older incinerators
may not be so equipped.
3.5 Diesel Engines
There have been many verbal reports of used lubricating oils
being used as a diesel engine fuel, but only limited data are
available. One published report (8) briefly describes tests
conducted on 50 to 100% light distillate from a 670°F, 27 in. Hg
vacuum distillation of 23.4 API used crankcase oil.
The light distillate performed satisfactorily as a diesel fuel,
but the following detrimental effects were noted:
- occasional black smoke
- a very objectionable odor
- some tar deposition in the engines.
It was concluded that light distillate recovered from used
crankcase oil can be used as a diesel fuel, but that further
treatment of the distillate is necessary.
Other tests on 1-5% used oil/diesel fuel blends were more
promising, but deposit formation was also noted (2). According
to this source, a one percent blend of used lubricating oil is
being used in Coors ' brewery trucks, representing the total
in-house supply of available used crankcase oil.
3-8
-------
REFERENCES
1. Devitt et al. Population and Characteristics of Industrial/
Commercial Boilers in the U.S. EPA-600/7-79-178a. August
1979. 462 pages.
2. Mascetti, G. J. and H. M. White. Utilization of Used Oil.
Aerospace Report" No~. ATR-78( 73847-1, Prepared for U. S. DOE.
August 1978. 294 pages.
3. Chansky, S. et al. Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse As
A Fuel. EPA-600/5-74-032. September 1974. 215 pages.
4. Manson, L. and S. Unger. Hazardous Material Incinerator
Design Criteria. EPA-600/2-79-198. October 1979. 110 pages.
5. FR 43, No. 243, pages 59008-59009. Monday, December 18, 1978.
6. Berry, E. E. et al. Experimental Burning of Waste Oil as a
Fuel in Cement Manufacture. Technology Development Report
EPA 4-WP-75-1, Environment Canada. June 1975. 187 pages.
7. Chansky, S. et al. Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil as a
Municipal Incinerator Fuel. EPA-R2-73-293. September 1973.
8. Maizus, S. Recycling of Waste Oils. PB-243 222/7WP. NTIS,
Springfield, VA. June 1975. 271 pages.
3-9
-------
-------
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF USED OIL BURNING EMISSIONS
4.1 Introduction
The increasing value of petroleum has heightened interest in
used oils for steam boilers and other fuel applications in spite
of the problems sometimes encountered with burning these used
oils and used oil/virgin oil mixtures. All of the problems can
~ire~overconre~^frutr the—cost~of—the ^atutriorrs~reduces~~the^-valure~afr
used oil relative to virgin fuels. Some examples are special
facilities required for storage and blending, fuel filter and
burner modifications, tube and refractory deposits which may
reduce combustion efficiency and require frequent cleaning, and
increased air emissions which may require special controls
depending upon the level of emissions and regulations.
Of special concern are undesirable emissions which may arise
from the following sources:
'- Lead and other metals commonly found in used oils as an ash
constituent, with possibly some oil soluble lead compounds.
- Other inorganic elements, commonly found in used oils, e.g.
sulfur, nitrogen, chlorine,.and bromine. These may be expected
to be found in both the ash and organic fractions.
- Polynuclear aromatics (PNA's) found in all heavy fossil fuels
and polycyclic organic matter (POM's) which may be emitted
from combustion of fossil fuels.
- Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) not normally present in used
oils. The extent of contamination is unknown.
- Other organics which may be present in used oils, ranging from
gasoline dilution always found in gasoline engine crankcase
oils and glycol antifreeze contamination which sometimes
occurs at service stations, to pesticides, halides and other
solvents, and other hazardous wastes which may occasionally
contaminate industrial and other used oils.
4-1
-------
As with other fuels, emissions could also arise from incomplete
combustion (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, carbonaceous
particles, and possibly other chemical species such as dioxins).
Only a very limited number of stack tests have been conducted to
detect emissions from combustion of used oils. None of the tests
reported have dealt with all of the above sources; in fact, it
appears— that no comprehensive _ work _has been .done on the
postulated prevalence of PCB's and other organics in used oil
and their fate in the combustion process.
4.2 Combustion Tests
A summary of test work on boilers burning used oils has been
compiled in Table 7-13. Nine tests performed as part of this
study are included. Test details are provided in Appendix B
(Volume II).
Conclusions and observations which can be drawn from this work
include:
1. Used oil can be burned in mixtures with fuel oils of various
types (including No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6), as 1007. used oil,
or as a fuel supplement in a coal-fired boiler.
2. Used oil can be burned in a variety of burner and boiler
types.
3. Combustion problems can be expected with used oil, e.g.
ignition, stability, burner fouling, higher particulate
emissions, and furnace deposits, but these can be overcome.
4. Increased maintenance time and cost can be expected when
burning used oils, e.g. requirements for cleaning filters,
burners and furnace tubes. (However, these may not be a
significant problem- when burning low concentrations of oil,
e.g. Hawaiian Electric Company has reported that they have
burned waste lubricating oils in concentrations averaging
about 1 percent by volume, but ranging up to 7 percent by
volume, for several years with no boiler deterioration or
unusual maintenance problems.)
4-2
-------
5. Anywhere from about 207o to 1007,, of the lead entering a steam
boiler with the fuel can be expected to be emitted from the
stack. Most of the remainder of the lead is deposited on
tubes and elsewhere in the combustion furnace. It is
possible that some lead emissions are of a form other than
particulate, e.g. aerosol or vapor. In the two instances
where it was possible to account for furnace deposits
(Northern States; Exxon/Mass, test) lead balances exceeded
U0%\ Furnace deposits may be emitted during sootblowing,
where this is practiced, or they may eventually be removed
during furnace and boiler cleaning to ultimate destinations
varying with local practice and hazardous waste regulations.
6. In one test, over 9070 of the lead was associated with
particles smaller than one micron, with about 75% of these
fine particles recovered from the tubes and 25% emitted
directly to the atmosphere (Exxon/Mass, test).
7. Lead emissions from used oil combustion can be controlled,
e.g. less than 0.2% of the lead in used oil fired with coal
in a boiler equipped with an electrostatic precipitator
(Northern States Power test) was emitted to the atmosphere;
only about 0.03-0.05% of the lead in a waste oil fired
suspension preheater cement kiln equiped with electrostatic
precipitators was emitted (lead "scrubbed" by cement); and
partially replacing No. 2 fuel oil with used crankcase oil
bottoms in a lead smelting reverberatory furnace equipped
with a baghouse did not increase lead emissions.
8. Other trace metals and elements in used oil may be expected
to behave similarly to lead with regard to stack emissions,
but very limited data are available.
9. Total particulate emissions in all RECON tests were less
than the 0.12 grains/dry SCF called for in the 12/18/78
proposed hazardous waste incinerator standards but not
included in the May 19, 1980 regulations. But tests with
blended oils containing 0.487e ash and 0.9170 ash approached
the proposed standard (0.074 and 0.118, respectively).
4-3
-------
10. In one RECON stack test with used industrial oil (Site A),
polynuclear aromatic (PNA) emission was estimated to be 0.02
mg/m , compared to the OSHA limit, of 0.2 mg/m for coal tar
pitch volatiles (1). In a second test, with used crankcase
oil (Site Ji), only naphthalene was detected at a olevel of
0.005 mg/nT compared to the OSHA limit of 50 mg/m. No PNA
emissJLo.ns_.were _ de tecj^d__in__three__a_d_d_i_tionaj. tests. Total PNA
and total hydrocarbon emissions were generalTyin" "the "range""
previously measured by the Public Health Service for No. 2
and No. 6 fuel oils.
11. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) concentrations measured in various
fuels generally agreed with earlier National Bureau of
Standards data. No. 2 fuel oils and virgin lubricating oils
tend to be low in BaP while heavier fuel oils and used oils
tend to be higher. However, none of the RECON combustion
tests resulted in measureable BaP emissions.
4.3 Discussion of Used Oil Combustion Emissions
Emissions from each of the sources noted in Section 4.1 are
discussed below. Included in this discussion are comparison of
actual combustion test results to potential emissions predicated
upon material balance, and some comparisons of used oil
combustion with virgin oil combustion.
4.3.1 Lead
Lead emissions are of primary concern because of potential
health effects and the existence of both a National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and an OSHA standard. The NAAQS can be
exceeded, as shown by modeling studies reported in Section 5.0,
and it may even be possible to exceed the OSHA standard in the
vicinity of a short stack boiler during downwash, as shown in
Appendix C.
Stack test, data summarized in Table 7-13 show lead emissions
during combustion of used oil and used oil mixtures ranged from
about 207, to 10070 of the lead entering with the oil. As shown in
Figure 7-1, there appears to be an inverse correlation between
emissions, as a percent of the lead introduced with the oil, and
the lead concentration in the oil. Increased lead concentration
does increase the total weight of lead emitted, but the lead
emitted as a percent of lead input appears to decrease.
4-4
-------
However, it should be noted that lead not emitted during normal
combustion will be emitted during soot blowing and other boiler
cleaning operations, either in flue gas leaving the stack, or in
recovered residues. The Hawaiian Electric tests clearly show
high lead emissions during soot blowing. However, soot blowing
is generally limited to large boilers and alternative cleaning
methods are used in smaller units.
Gther—Metrals
Compounds of many metals other than lead are found in used oils
in concentrations ranging from traces up to a few tenths of one
percent. From the available data, it is reasonable to assume
that emitted metals, other than lead, will be equal to the total
in the oil fed. Some of the metals which can be expected from
used motor oils are Ba, Ca, Mg, Zn, Na, Al, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Si,
and Sn. These same metals can be emitted from industrial oils,
but the composition of used industrial oils vary much more from
source to source than do used automotive oils. Therefore, metals
emitted when burning industrial oils depend upon the composition
of the particular oil being burned.
4.3.3 Other Inorganic Elements
Inorganic elements other than metals which are found in used
oils are sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorous, chlorine, and bromine.
These elements may be present in both organic and inorganic
compounds. E.g., sulfur may be found as organic sulfides,
mercaptans, ring members in aromatic structures, or as inorganic
sulfates or sulfites. Emission forms resulting from combustion
will vary with the source.
Some examples of inorganic emissions expected from steam boilers
are as follows:
- sulfur
Most of the sulfur in the fuel emitted as gases, primarily S02
and some SO^ and H-SO^, with some sulfur in particulate
emissions and^ boiler aeposits as sulfate and possibly sulfite
compounds. Approximately 0.35-0.58 Ibs S02/MM BTU in the used
oil (50-81 lbs/10 gal) would be the expected emission based
on 0.33-0.54% S (from Section 2.3), but fuel sulfur is
expected to increase in the future. State standards limiting
fuel sulfur to 0.5% are common, with some regulations limiting
residual oils -to as low as 0.3% and distillate fuels to as low
as 0.2%.
4-5
-------
- nitrogen
Primarily NO and some N^ and other oxides as gaseous
emissions. Particulate emissions and boiler deposits may
include nitrate and nitrite compounds with the possibility of
some ammonia compounds. Most of NO emissions from oxidation
j3_f_..nXtr_Q^ejT_JLn__air> with total cjuantity primarily related to
boiler and burner characteristicsratherthanfuel
composition. RECON data are presented in Table 7-14.
- phosphorous
Would be expected to be emitted primarily as part of
particulate compounds, e.g. phosphates. Only data available
show phosphorous split between particles emitted and tube
deposits (Exxon/Mass, study).
- chlorine and bromine
Organic halides, which may also include fluorides, are
converted primarily to hydrochloric and hydrobromic acids
during combustion. Metal halide salts may also be emitted,
either unchanged from those present in the used oil or formed
by reaction of cations with halide acids. The authors are not
aware of any regulations pertaining to halide emissions.
- particulate emissions
Particulate emissions are primarily a function of the total
ash in the fuel, including metals and other inorganics
discussed above. Assuming no chemical changes and no soot from
incomplete combustion, 0.370 ash in a blended oil being fired
would correspond to 0.12 grain/ dry SCF (zero excess air)
emission. 0.5-1.2 Ibs particulate emission/MM BTU in the used
oil are estimated based on 0.9-2.27. ash (from Section 2.3).
Actual test data are reported in Appendix B and summarized in
Table 7-15. Relatively stringent state regulations limit fuel
combustion particulates to 0.1 Ibs/MM BTU.
4.3.4 PNA's (and POM's)
There are no data available to indicate that PNA emissions from
used oil combustion differ from similar emissions during virgin
oil combustion. As shown in Tables 7-16 to 7-18, BaP
[benzo(a)pyrene] concentrations in used oil are similar to
unused motor oils and fuel oils. BaP was not detected during
emission tests by RECON (Table 7-19). Other PNA emissions ranged
from non-detectable to concentrations similar to those observed
in previous experiments by the Public Health Service (Table
7-20) for combustion of No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oils.
4-6
-------
4.3.5 PCB's
PCB's are not normally present in used oils, but contamination
is possible. PCB destruction should occur in very efficient
boilers based on limited data from incinerator (2) and boiler
tests (3). Of the products of efficient combustion, only HC1 is
believed to be significant.
4.3.6 Halide Solvents
Halide solvents also are not normally present in used oils, but
contamination is believed to be widespread. Destruction should
occur in efficient boilers with HC1 as an expected product.
However, unlike PCB's, most halide solvents are volatile and, if
necessary, can be removed from used oils by distillation steps,
as will be explained later in this section.
4.3.7. Other Organics
Other organics such as non-halide solvents, glycols and gasoline
which contaminate used oils are normally readily combustible.
Some organics such as gasoline contribute to used oil
volatility, sometimes raising vapor pressure and flash point so
as to require special storage facilities.
4.4 Emission Factors
Emission factors for used oils are suggested in Table 4-1,
supported by data tabulated in Section 7.0. These suggested
emission factors are compared and made consistent with EPA
published factors for lead, particulate, S02, N02, CO, and
hydrocarbons (4). Preliminary emission factors have also been
suggested for other metals, phosphorous, HC1, HBr, and PNA's.
4.5 Impact on Ambient Air Quality
The impact of lead emissions on ambient air quality is covered
in depth in Section 5.0, showing that under certain conditions,
e.g. short stack height, lead concentrations in the vicinity of
used oil combustion sources can exceed Federal Standards.
Using the suggested emission factors in Table 4-1, the modeling
results in Section 5.0 can be scaled to calculate ambient air
quality impact for other pollutants. This is done in Table 4-2
for the worst location, calendar quarter, and generic boiler
determined by the modeling results (Southern California, 2nd
Quarter, medium size boiler).
4-7
-------
Table 4-1
UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR COMBUSTION
Emission Factors, lb/10 gal
Pollutant
Pb
EPA AP-42 (3)
Waste Oil 0.0075(L)
Suggested
for Used Oil
0.0075(L)
Pb
Partlculate
Partlculate
Virgin Oils 0.0042(L)
(Residual, Distillate)
Coal 1.6(L) lb/10J ton
(Bituminous, Anthracite)
Waste Oil 75(A)
Virgin Oils
#6 10(S) -t- 3
#5 10
#4 7
Ind./Comm. Dist. 2
Domestic Dist. 2.5
Other Metals Not included
in Particulate)
so2
Residual Oil - 157(S)
Distillate Oil - 142(S)
S03 All virgin oils - 2S
NO (total Residual Oils
as TOT)Power plant
tangential - 50
Power plant
other - 105
Ind./Comm. - 22+400(N
Ind./Comm. Dist. - 22
Domestic Dist. - 18
Hydrocarbons All virgin oils - 1
(total, as CHA)
PNA's
HC1
HBr
P (in
particulate)
CO
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
75(A)
0.0075(L)
150(S)
2S
22
0.0075
77(C) max.
76(B) max.
75(P) max.
Comments
L = ppm Pb in oil. Based on
1007. emission at 7.5 Ibs/gal
oil density.
Based on substantially less
than 100% emissions. Avg L
1.0
And for used oil/virgin oil mixtures.
for residual oils, and 0.1 for
distillate oils.
Based on 80% emissions.
A = 7. ash in oil. Based on
1007. equivalent emission
at 7.5 Ibs/gal oil density.
S = % sulfur in oil.
Note that used oil with approx.
0.13% ash would be equivalent
to #5 fuel oil.
L - ppm metal in oil.
S = 7. sulfur in oil. Suggested
factor for used oil based on
100% conversion of S to SO,
for 7.5 Ib/gal oil densityT
See Table 7-17 for test results.
S = % sulfur in oil.
N » 7. nitrogen in oil.
See AP-42 1.3 for further
discussion of NO emissions.
See Table 7-17 f3r test results.
See Table 7-19. RECON measurements
ranged from 14 to 165x*tg/g fuel.,
(113 avg) as compared to 1 lb/10
fal (approx. 133xM.g/g) emission
actor.
Corresponds to lx**g/g« See
Table 7-19. Insufficient data to
determine how PNA emissions for
used oils compare to virgin oils.
C = % chlorine in oil.
B = 7. bromine in oil.
P = 7. phosphorous in oil.
CO emissions vary with combustion
control on all fuels. No CO
emission detected by Orsat analyses
in RECON tests 1-4. Determinations
by Kitagawa detector tube in runs 5-9
snowed 10 to 100 ppm in the flue gas
or an average of about 5 lb/10 gal.
-------
m
a
3
O
O 5"£ "O
m (-«• u
r-l ^ AJ
r-l .i-l
(A
AJ
C
E
O
0
1 CM E
in -l (X
JO 3
eo oy-i
H to o
TO
CO
\
f*v •
sO O
0)
CA CA
> — •
CO
Cf
CO
D
00
CO
CO 1-4
Cf <0
en
c
CO
E •
— O
oo
— E
I
m
O •
AO .g.
f-4 -r-l
V4
u a.
to
Z
g
D
CM
I
^
f_4
CO
C
<
9)
(ft
CO
o
AJ
CA
J-l
O
3
V4 £
Q) 00
AJ f4
* £
CO
3 S
a
vO
•o .
C CM
CM CS
^
CO
*C E
rl CO
O 1-1
V4-I -O
f-l
•* E
CO
U *^
•
Ci-»
^
CO
•a
^^
"
CO
•o
CA
O V*
O £
•^J
l^ ^J
f-l CM
AJ "
cgx-.
r-l
O fl
•o < >-•
0) -rl
AJ >S<
COr-4
f-l VJ AJ
3 <1) C
(J AJ CU
f^H f^ *^4
efl efl jQ
0 3 E
a<
c
o
•I-l
CA
CA
T-1
E
bJ
j-5
C
O
u
CO
jj
AJ
C
0)
o
c
0
o
en
E
^^
00
^
'
o
*
m
o
CU
CA
"•^
cjfi
en
sO
•
0
f-4
O
1-1
AJ
C
o
o
o
1— 1
•I-l
o
c
—I
E
a
a
m
CM
so
m
•
en
r-l \O
• •
r-4 \O
O
vO
*
m
CA
*r4
CA
CO
ffl
AJ
C
CO
o
04
00
*
o
CM
en •
AJ
CO
3
0
AJ
t-i
CO
CM
CM
O
CO
CM
O
Z
CA
O
CO
O
O
CA
4-9
-------
The actual case used for scaling resulted in a maximum ambient
air concentration for lead of, 5.0 ^«g/m (quarterly average),
well in excess of the 1.5^/g/m Federal Standard. For this case,
using reasonable ash and sulfur concentrations, ambient air
concentrations for particulates and S02 were very significant
when emissions were not controlled.
Control of particulates, e.g. by an electrostatic precipitator
or baghouse, reduces the impact to almost negligible
proportions. SC^ emissions could also be controlled, but the
high cost makes this less likely. Expected increases in used oil
sulfur concentration make it likely that S0« emissions will be a
significant problem, possibly requiring dilution with low sulfur
oils prior to burning in areas where emission standards are very
stringent. In the past, used oil was sometimes used in blends to
reduce sulfur level in high sulfur fuels.
It must be emphasized that the data in Table 4-2 represent a
"reasonable worst case analysis". Based on the information
developed in Section 5.0 for various size boilers and five
locations (with appropriate meteorological data), the impact in
most instances will be localized and less than indicated in the
table. On the other hand, individual situations could be even
worse, e.g. a Pb concentration of 6250 ppm when burning 1007o
used oil in the case given in Table 4-2 could increase the
calculated impact by a factor of ten.
4.6 Reduction of Emissions by Used Oil Purification
4.6.1 General
Re-refining processes, excluding clay treat or hydrotreat
finishing steps, could be used to produce relatively clean
fuels. These would include, for example, acid, solvent, or
diammonium phosphate treatment or vacuum distillation, but this
approach is expensive. If practiced, the finishing steps to
produce higher-than-fuel-value lubes become justified.
4-10
-------
4.7.2 Other Inorganics
Sulfur oxide emissions can be reduced by scrubbing and other
processes developed for Chat purpose. However, this technology
is expensive and could not be readily justified. If sulfur oxide
removal became necessary for burning fuel oils containing on the
order of 0.570 sulfur, the value of used oil relative to low
sulfur fuels such as No. 2 oil would decrease drastically,
making used oils more readily available for re-refining.
Nitrogen oxide emissions from used oil combustion appear to be
similar to emissions from other fuel oils. At this time, only
combustion modifications appear to be warranted, providing the
potential for moderate reduction in nitrogen oxides (4).
Hydrogen chloride and hydrogen bromide formed from the
corresponding halides during used oil combustion can be removed
by water or preferably alkaline water scrubbing. Scrubbing is
not normally practiced and under present circumstances would be
considered only as an adjunct to sulfur oxide and/or particulate
removal.
4.7.3 Hydrocarbon and PCB Emissions
Hydrocarbon emissions which may result from poor combustion of
any fossil fuel, or because of the presence of refractory
organics, can be reduced by combustion modifications or the
addition of an afterburner. Combustion modifications which may
be used include: changes in burner and furnace design to
increase turbulence and/or temperature; changes in excess air,
especially an increase when air used is too close to
stoichiometric; downrating to increase residence time; and
others. One would seldom resort to an afterburner to reduce
emissions in a combustion system, but this possibility exists,
especially to avoid downrating.
The same actions which reduce hydrocarbon emissions would also
be expected to reduce PCB emissions. Although few data on PCB
contaminated used oils in boilers are available, incineration
results can be used as a guideline. These have been reviewed by
Fuller et al (2), showing that temperatures in excess of 2000°F
with 1.5 to 2 seconds residence time and 2-37o excess oxygen are
effective.
One test program by Osag et al (3) for two steam boilers showed
PCB destruction efficiencies in excess of 99?0 over a range of
steam loads (fuel rates) when burning used oils containing from
5 to 95 ppm PCB's. During the tests, combustion zone
temperatures ranged from 2480-2760 F, dwell times from 2-6
seconds, and excess oxygen from 2-870.
4-13
-------
REFERENCES
1. 29 CFR 1910 Subpart 2.
2. Fuller, B. et al. Environmental Assessment of PCB's in the
Atmosphere^ EPA-450/3-77-045. November 1977. 266 pages.
3. Osag, T. R., J. J. Slovinski and L. R. Walz. The Measurement
of PCB Emissions From an Industrial Boiler. For presentation
at the 71st Annual Meeting of APCA, June 25-30, 1978. 15
pages.
4. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Third
Edition. Part A and B with Suplement Nos. 8-10. February
1980.
5. Anon. Goodyear Develops PCB Removal Method. Chem. & Eng.
News. September 1, 1980. page 9.
6. Anon. Another Route to Detoxify PCB-Contaminated Fluids Has
Been Announced. Chem. Eng. September 22, 1980. page 35.
7. Chansky, S. et al. Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse as
a Fuel. EPA-600/6-74-032. September 1974. 215 p*ges.
4-14
-------
5.0 LEAD AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF BURNING USED OIL
5.1 Introduction
Interest in burning used oil as a fuel has been generated by
the high cost of fuel oil and the need to extend oil resources.
However, hazardous materials contained in used oil may be
emitted to the atmosphere and widely dispersed. One pollutant
_of particular—concern which is commonly contained in used
crankcase oil is lead. To quantify the air quality impact of
burning used oil, atmospheric dispersion modeling was performed
to assess the impact of lead emissions resulting from used
crankcase oil combustion. Comparisons were made with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead. The analysis
required detailed information on source physical and operating
parameters, emission rates, the character and lead content of
used oil, and meteorological data. A general discussion of the
analysis and results follows. Additional details are presented
in Appendix A.
5.2 ' Technical Approach
The technical approach employed an atmospheric dispersion model
to determine quarterly ambient lead concentrations resulting
from the combustion of a virgin oil/used oil mixture. These
concentrations were compared to the National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standard for lead. Concentrations were calculated at 176
receptor points centered around each emission source analyzed.
This receptor grid is shown in Figure 5-1.
5.2.1 Emission Data
For modeling purposes, a list of sources capable of burning
used oil was developed. Much of this information was derived
from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' statewide
inventory of emission sources burning oil.1 Some of the in-
formation was also taken from the Minnesota point source in-
ventory..2 The stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature,
and volumetric flow were recorded for each of these sources.
This list of sources was then separated into five groups based
on estimated hourly fuel usage, and these five source groups
served as the base for the development of five individual
generic sources.
The first four groups represent various sizes of industrial and
commercial boilers. For each of these groups, the mean values
of the pertinent stack parameters in the Wisconsin boiler
survey, except temperature, were determined. The temperatures
used for the four groups were derived from a compilation of
operating parameters for oil-fired industrial and commercial
boilers in the U.S.3 These mean operating values were then
used in the analyses for the definition of generic emissions
sources.
5-1
-------
*.;:*'-
••••;;$;•••
• • • • • ©•« • • • •
.• •.:-;.••.
« • . ••• • • •
•
•
N
Receptor (point where concentration* were calculated)
Emission Source Is at center of grid
i II
0 I 2km
FIGURE 5-1 RECEPTOR GRID
5-2
-------
The final generic source was defined by operating parameters
for a modern utility boiler. Plant size rating was established
using Minnesota point source emissions inventory data, while
generic operating parameters were those developed in a recent
EPA report.4 These data were then used by Continental Heine, a
division of Peabody Incorporated, to determine a range of
typical stack dimensions based upon estimated flue gas exit
velocity of 60 feet per seconds. Table 5-1 presents the re-
-sultant-plant parameters.
Computation of lead emission rates for the generic sources
required that numerous assumptions be made about fuel and
usage. These assumptions are listed in Table 5-2. A 25% used
oil to 75% virgin fuel oil mix by volume was used because this
is generally the maximum used oil mixture that can be suc-
cessfully burned without prior treatment before excessive
operating and maintenance problems occur. Based on a con-
versation with the U.S. Department of Energy's Used Oil Lab-
oratory,6 an average lead content of 2500 ppm in used oil was
assumed. Lead emission rates were thus calculated for each
generic source based on the burning of 25% used crankcase oil.
A stack emission rate of 75% of the lead content in the input
fuel was used for all computer runs. Since RECON's stack test
results and other published empirical evidence indicate that
the average lead emission rate is approximately 50%, the es-
timated emissions are conservative, i.e., they provide maximum
emission rate values. As discussed in a later section, ambient
concentrations resulting from operating conditions or assump-
tions significantly different from those listed in Table 5-2
can be directly determined. This allows an investigation of an
unlimited number of scenarios based on the one modeling anal-
ysis for these assumptions. For example, the ambient levels
could be directly examined for used oil with a lead content of
1250 ppm instead of 2500 ppm.
5.2.2 Meteorological Data
To allow assessment of air quality impact under various me-
teorological conditions, the generic sources were analyzed
using meteorological data from several regions of the country.
Analyses were performed for Chicago, Illinois; Paducah, Ken-
tucky; Denver, Colorado; Helena, Montana; and Southern Cali-
fornia (near Santa Barbara). The meteorological data required
for dispersion modeling includes the joint frequency function
of wind speed, wind direction, and stability class; Clima-
tological mixing heights; and average ambient temperature. The
joint frequency function data were obtained in program-com-
patible STAR format from the National Climatic Center located
in Asheville, North Carolina. Climatological mixing height
values were obtained from Holzworth's report (AP-101).7 Aver-
'age temperatures were obtained from local Climatological sum-
mary sheets.
5-3
-------
IS
~
LU
O
i
Z
o
HH
V)
os
III
UJ
o.
(/)
t-H
0
J£
LU
' fe
O
o
T1 cc
* £
9) ,/j
-° LU
1
fH
Z
(_
Q£
LU
0.
O
LU
U
or
o
t ^
I-H
o:
LU
z
LU
13
i
re
•p
re
o
u
re
^^
in
O)
•r- ^J
S re
LU C£
d
E
0)
r™™ ^^
u
•P 0
4) >^^
3
O
Ip
rH O VjO ro in
O rH O VD iH
• * • • •
o o o CM r-
«d- «d- «^- 0)
in
•r- E
X ^
LU
r» cn co CM in
«H rH O cn r^
rH CM rH rH
J_
^j
re ^-^
Q
co cn ^* in cn
O C3 rH cn <•
OJ^"
31
•a '-s
(U J-
S- J=
•*•• ^v
u. =>
(—
r— Q3
V SI
3 s:
U_ >
m co cn cn CM
co m in cn us
rH rH . CM cn r-
^- m
in' O rH O CO
m m i** T
CM rH O
rH CM
•o
(. S-
u. • —
i^ re
flj rji
— • ^ ^.
u.
in in o o o
CO CM O O O
cn in 10 cn
rH r*. cn
rH
S
.p. >,
3l/) CU(/) 5-
>, E r— 3 ••- 3 O13 CU :
S-E re^o'O'o J-'o ?
ajo EC a*c rec o ;
> {_) OO i— i S <— ' — J l~l C^
u
tl u
1
,
^H C\j
ro ^- in
-------
Table 5-2
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN EMISSION RATE CALCULATIONS
1. A 2,500 ppm lead concentration in the used oil.
2. Fuel mixture consists of 25% used/75% virgin fuel oil.
3. A total of 75% of the lead in the fuel is actually emitted
out the stack.
4. Boilers operate 24 hours per day 7 days a week each quarter.
5. Pollution control devices - none
5-5
-------
5.2.3 Modeling Analysis
Atmospheric dispersion modeling was performed to assess the
impact on quarterly average lead ambient air quality due to the
combustion of used oil. A quarterly assessment was chosen to
correspond with the quarterly National Ambient Air Quality
-Standard foir lead of 1.5 jjg/m3. The model employed for cal-
culating quarterly ambient lead concentrations is the U.S. EPA
Climatological Dispersion Model (CDMQC), available on Version 3
of the User's Network for the Applied Modeling of Air Pollution
(UNAMAP) system. The CDMQC program determines long term quasi-
stable pollutant concentrations at any ground level receptor
point using the previously discussed emission and meteoro-
logical data. The model is applicable to urban areas, simulat-
ing urban roughness and mixing by providing an initial value of
z for stacks shorter than 50 meters. Further details of the
model may be found in the User's Guide.8 The model is recom-
mended for lead dispersion analyses.9
Using this model, each generic emission source was analyzed
using four quarters of meteorological data for the five cities
previously discussed. This resulted in 100 computer analyses
(5 generic sources x 4 quarters x 5 cities). For each anal-
ysis, quarterly lead concentrations were determined at each
receptor point shown in Figure 5-1 for each generic source.
These results were then summarized, worst case impacts were
identified, and isopleth maps developed.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Generic Source Analysis
The results of the dispersion modeling analysis for each ge-
neric source is presented in Tables 5-3 to 5-7 with a summary
in Table 5-8. It should be noted that these results are based
on the assumptions listed in Table 5-2. As will be explained
in Section 5.3.2, these ambient concentrations may be directly
proportioned to reflect alternative assumptions such as 8-hour
per day operation instead of the 24-hour per day operation
assumption used. The concentrations presented in these tables
are the maximum values from among the concentrations calculated
for each of the 176 receptors for each quarter analyzed. From
these data it is clear that generic sources 2 and 3 may violate
the standard and that generic sources 4 and 5 have a minimal
air quality impact. The maximum impact of generic source 1 is
also below the standard.
Isopleth maps of ambient lead concentrations were prepared for
each generic source's maximum quarterly impact. These are
depicted in Figures 5-2 through 5-6. Again, these isopleths
are directly dependent on the assumptions affecting emission
rate. Decreasing emissions would decrease the size of the
isopleths. Additional isopleth maps are included in Appendix A.
5-6
-------
Table 5-3
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD IMPACT GENERIC 'GROUP 1
(VERY SMALL BOILERS)
City
Chicago
Paducah
Helena
-
Denver
So. Cali
Quarter
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
form' a first
second
third
fourth
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(MQ/m3)
0.1*
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5**
0.3
Distance
Maximum
360°
360°
360°
360°
23°
23°
45°
360°
90°
90°
90°
90°
360°
360°
360°
360°
293°
135°
135°
293°
and Direction of
From Source
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 .KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
* Lowest concentration
** Minhoct rnnront rat 1 nn
5-7
-------
Table 5-4
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD IMPACT
GENERIC GROUP 2 (SMALL BOILERS)
City Quarter
Chicago first
second
third
fourth
Paducah first
second
third
fourth
Helena first
second
third
fourth
Denver first
second
third
fourth
So. California first
second
third
fourth
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.0*
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.3
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.2
2.5**
2.5
1.3
Distance and Direction of
Maximum
360°
360°
360°
360°
23°
23°
45°
23°
90°
90°
90°
90°
360°
360°
360°
360°
158°
135°
135°
293°
From Source
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0. 125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
* Lowest concentration
** Winhoct r nn^ont r-at i r\n
5-3
-------
Table 5-5
MAXIf!1" QlAi.itRLY LEAD IMPACT
GENERIC GROUP 2 (MEDIUM BOILERS)
City
Chicago
Paducah
Helena
Denver
t
So. California
Quarter
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.8
3.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.5
3.1**
2.5
1.1*
Distance and Direction of
Maximum From Source
360°
360°
360°
360°
23°
23°
45°
23°
90°
90°
90°
90°
360°
360°
360°
360°
158°
135°
135°
135°
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
0.125 KM
* Lowest concentration
* * Winhoct i-nnrontratinn
5-9
-------
Table 5-6
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD IMPACT
GENERIC GROUP 4 (LARGE BOILERS)
City
Chicago
Paducah
Helena
Denver
So. California
Quarter
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1*
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1**
0.1
Distance and Direction of
Maximum From Source
360°
360°
360°
23°
45°
90°
90°
90°
90°
360°
360°
360°
135°
135°
135°
2.0 KM
1.5 KM
4.0 KM
1.5 KM
1.5 KM
4.0 KM
1.5 KM
4.0 KM
4.0 KM
4.0 KM
2.0 KM
2.0 KM
2.0 KM
0.25 KM
0.5 KM
**
Lowest concentration
Highest concentration
5-10
-------
Table 5-7
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD IMPACT
GENERIC GROUP 5 (POWER PLANT BOILERS)
City
Chicago
Paducah
Helena
Denver
So. California
Quarter
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
f i rst
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1*
O.'l
0.1
0.1**
0.1
Distance and Direction of
Maximum From Source
360° 6.0 KM
360° 4.0 KM
360° 8.0 KM
23°
45°
90°
90°
90°
135°
135°
135°
4.0 KM
4.0 KM
4.0 KM
6.0 KM
6.0 KM
360° 4.0 KM
6.0 KM
1.5 KM
1.5 KM
Lowest concentration
Highest concentration
5-11
-------
Table 5-8
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM LEAD AIR QUALITY IMPACTS*
Generic-Group—
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5-
Maximum
Quarterly Tead Impact
0.5 ug/m3
2.5 ug/m3
3.1 ug/m3
0.1 ug/m3
0.1 ug/m3
Quarter of
Maximum
Impact
3rd Quarter
2nd Quarter
2nd Quarter
2nd Quarter
2nd Quarter
City_of_
Impact
So. California
So. California
So. California
So. California
So. California
*
*The National Ambient Air Quality Standard is 1.5 ug/m3
average per calendar quarter.
-------
N
Emission Source
l/2km
FIGURE 5-2 GENERIC SOURCE I
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
5-13
-------
N
t/2km
Emission Source
FIGURE 5-3
GENERIC SOURCE 2
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
5-14
-------
Emission Source
FIGURE 5-4
N
1 ~_L
t/2km
0.1
GENERIC SOURCE 3
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/nV
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
5-15
-------
I I
1 2km
O.I
Emission Source
FIGURE 5-5
GENERIC SOURCE 4
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/rrT
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
5-16
-------
N
t i j
0 I 2km
Emission Source
O.I
\
FIGURE 5-6
GENERIC SOURCE 5
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
5-17
-------
The most important feature of these maps is the depiction of
the area impacted. For generic sources 2 and 3, although the
maximum impact is above the standard, the area impacted is
exceedingly small and is located only in the immediate vicinity
of the source. In many cases the area above the standard may
be completely contained on plant property. In the case of
generic sources 1, 2j_ and_ _3,_ the^ambient..concentration, drops-
-rapidly "with^distance fromi the~plant. The impact from generic
sources 4 and 5 occurs at some distance from the plant because
of increased stack height and plume rise; however, the impacts
are well below the standard and encompass a relatively small
area.
5.3.2 Extrapolation of Results for Other Assumptions
In drawing conclusions from this analysis, it may be desirable
to determine ambient concentrations for assumptions different
from those listed in Table 5-2. The dispersion model employed
in this analysis calculates concentrations based on the
Gaussian formula, which describes a direct proportion between
emission rate and relative concentration. Thus, it is possible
to determine new receptor concentrations based on alternative
assumptions (i.e., changing those listed in Table 5-2) by
ratioing the values. A detailed explanation of this metho-
dology is presented in Appendix A. An example demonstrating
the use of the technique follows. Table 5-9 lists new as-
sumptions for which it is desired to determine the maximum
ambient lead concentrations for the group 3 generic source. To
determine the air quality impact of this source based on these
new assumptions, it is necessary to multiply the concentrations
by 0.044. The results of this calculation are presented in
Table 5-10. It should be noted that this scaling technique is
only applicable for factors affecting emission rate; alterna-
tive stack parameters such as a different stack height cannot
be assessed. As is evident from this table, the assumptions
employed that change the emission rate significantly affect the
resultant maximum concentration. The effect these assumptions
have on maximum concentrations should be considered when draw-
ing conclusions from this report.
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis
An additional modeling analysis was performed on select source
group members to assess the ability of the generic sources to
represent the group they were derived from. From each group
several sources were selected that characterized both the range
and extremes of the emission sources contained in that group.
The operating parameters for these sources are listed by ge-
neric group in Table 5-11. Emissions for these sources were
calculated based on the assumptions listed in Table 5-2 so that
the results could be compared with the generic analysis.
5-18
-------
Table 5-9
RATIOING EXAMPLE
-parameter
Fuel Lead Content
Fuel Mixture
Emissions
Operation
Pollution Control
Original
Assumption
2500 ppm
25% used
75% emitted
24 hrs/7days
Device None
New
Assumption
1250 ppm
10% used
50% emitted
8hrs/7days
None
Multiplying
factor
0.50
0.40
0.67
0.33*
1.0
To reflect these new assumptions, concentrations should be multiplied by
0.044-(0.5 x 0.4 x 0.67 x 0.33 x 1.0).
*Care should be taken in interpreting the results obtained by proportioning
hours of operation since the meteorological conditions will vary with the
time of day. These variations will have some effect on the resulting pollutant
concentrations.
5-19
-------
Table 5-10
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD IMPACT
REVISED TO REFLECT NEW ASSUMPTIONS
GENERIC GROUP 3 (MEDIUM BOILERS)
City
Chicago
Paducah
Helena
Denver
So. California
Quarter
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
first
second
third
fourth
Maximum tead~Concen
Based on Table 5-2
Assumptions
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.9
3.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.5
3.1**
2.5
1.1*
trations (jjg/m3)
Based on Table 5-9
Alternate Assumptions
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.06
0. 08
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.14**
0.11
0.05*
Lowest concentration
Highest concentration
-------
Table 5-11
SELECT SOURC-S ,r-,K SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Generic Source
Group Number
— .
1 1
2
3
' 4
5
2 1
2
3
4
3 • 1
2
3
4
5
4 1
2
3
5 1
2
3
Height
— frn) ---
7.-9
18.6
19.8
45.7
12.2
20.7
12.2
50.3
23.8
7.6
22.6
38.1
50.6
53.9
33.5
95.1
91.4
89.0
43.3
100.9
Diameter
— tm)
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
2.7
3.4
2.4
2.7
3.4
2.4
4.3
Stack
Vol. Flow
(mVs7~
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
6.1
10.9
11.3
20.0
22.2
25.8
18.9
27.4
23.6
109.0
47.2
75.0
82.1
125.3
132.1
Parameters
Exit Temp.
c°cy —
79
177
121
250
316
204
316
260
329
79
154
132
302
260
143
204
235
218
140
182
Emissions*
(q/s)
0.033
0.025
0.026
0.024
0.018
0.14
0.19
0.10
0.16
0.70
0.63
0.48
0.49
0.46
2.75
1.01
1.53
1.65
2.98
2.86
'Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-2.
5-21
-------
Each of these sources was evaluated using the meteorological
data that resulted in the maximum quarterly lead concentration
for their generic derivative. The results of this analysis
were then compared to the generic concentrations.
5.4.1 Results
-The-results—of--thw-analysis—are-T5rnnmarize"d~ln' TabTe~5-TZ.^ The
results indicate that a wide range of ambient concentrations
result from boilers of comparable sizes. However, the ex-
tremely high concentrations from boilers that deviate sig-
nificantly from the generic source value is partially due to
their very short stacks. These sources are noted in Table
5-12. The effect of short stacks is to allow the plume to
reach the ground quickly after release, before significant
dispersion occurs. This results in high pollutant concen-
trations close to the source. It is thus apparent that stack
height is a significant parameter affecting ambient concen-
trations. Although sources with very short stacks are not
typical, they are not uncommon. Therefore, some consideration
should, be given to the concentrations obtained from boilers
with short stacks.
Another very important parameter is stack gas exit temperature.
The results (Tables 5-11 and 5-12) of the dispersion modeling
analysis for several actual boilers listed in the Wisconsin
inventory, show that ambient concentrations may exceed the lead
standard for stacks with exit temperatures of about 150°C. Of
course the effective stack height, which is the sum of the
physical stack height plus the plume rise, is influenced by
several variables including ambient temperature, stack gas exit
temperature and wind speed. As the stack gas exit temperature
approaches the ambient temperature, the plume buoyancy drops
dramatically, which reduces plume rise and, hence, effective
stack height.
To help ensure adequate dispersion, stack gas exit temperatures
should not fall below 90°C. Under normal operating conditions
for most common types of boilers, stack gas exit temperatures
should exceed this value. Even with a good heat recovery
system most stack exit temperatures will be above 90° C. The
operation of a stack gas wet scrubbing unit could, however,
reduce the exit temperature below 90° C.
5.5 Other Considerations
In drawing conclusions from this modeling analysis, there are
certain other considerations that need to be addressed beyond
those already discussed in the text. These points may sig-
nificantly affect ambient lead concentrations and thus should
be considered when reviewing the modeling results.
5-22
-------
Table 5-12
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Range of Maximum
Generic Maximum Lead Concentration Concentrations
Group Due to Source (ug/m3) (pg/m3)
1 JL _3_ JL 5
1 1.6* 0.8 0.8 <0.1 0.7* <0.1 - 1.6
2 1.9 2.8+ <0.1 1.0 <0.1 - 2.8
3 13.0* 5.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 13.0
4 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 1.5
5 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.2
Generic
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.5
2.5
3.1
0.1
0.1
*Stack height less than 10 meters
Stack height between 10 and 15 meters
5-23
-------
5.5.1 Multiple Point Source
The modeling analysis in this study only addressed the air
quality impact of lead emissions from a single source. Fa-
cilities often burn used oil in more than one boiler, causing
lead-containing emissions to emanate from two or more stacks in
close proximity to each other. The impact on air quality in
this.._ situatipn_. is _a_di_rec.tly_ additive function.. This__jcase,
could be addressed by considering a maximum facility lead
emission rate and merging emission points so they could be
analyzed as a single emission point source.
Adjacent lead-emitting point sources that are not part of the
same facility may also be encountered. Here, as in the case of
multiple point sources within a single facility, interaction
among dispersing stack plumes can cause locally high lead
concentrations under certain conditions. This type of mul-
tiple-stack situation could become very complicated, and it can
probably be addressed only by modeling the specific area to
determine the air quality impact of burning used oil containing
lead.
5.5.2 Decreased Lead Content In Crankcase Drainings
Used automotive oil from crankcase drainings has been the
principal source of lead-containing used oil. This is because
residual amounts of lead additives (used to raise the octane in
gasoline) are deposited on the engine cylinder walls, valves
and pistons during the combustion process and washed away by
circulating oil. As the use of lead in automotive fuels. de-
creases, the average lead content of used crankcase oil will
drop significantly, paralleling the mobile source impact level
decrease. Thus, by 1985, the average lead content in used oil
is expected to be about 10% of the 1975 average.10
5.5.3 Pollution Control Devices
The majority of lead emissions from combustion processes are
particulates in the sub-micron size range. Many pollution
control devices do not efficiently collect this size particle.
Furthermore, it is not known how many boilers presently burning
used oil have any pollution control devices. The modeling
analysis assumed no use of pollution control devices on any
sources. However, with control devices that are effective on
sub-micron size particles, lead emissions would be decreased
dramatically, significantly reducing the impact on ambient lead
concentrations. These souces could burn substantial amounts of
untreated used oil with virtually no impact on lead ambient air
quality.
5-24
-------
5.5.4 Building :, y- ,' ^
The aerodynamic downv. - ) _•' stack plumes due to building ef-
fects should be avoided "v _- sources burning used oils, since
this phenomenon causes hi-r ^r ambient lead concentrations than
those __in^J.c_at:e_d_j._r__this_. r_ep_3rt_. A__jmethqd to determine if_
downwash will occt: is outlined in Guidelines for Air~~Quality"
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10 (EPA-450.
4-77-001). Plume downwash could present serious air quality
problems for sources emitting lead a: other pollutants. The
technique presented in this document c..n be used to assess the
likelihood of this problem. Minimum , c.-^ptable stack char-
acteristics (i.e., those in conformance wi+h good engineering
practice, or G.E.P.*) may be a necessary .requirement in the
burning of used oil. Requiring stacks to conform to G.E.P.
would also help to avoid plume impaction a" short distances
downwind that could result in elevated lead concentrations.
5.5.5 Background Concentrations and Monitoring Data
Current background ambient lead concentrations would be of
concern where sources burning used oil are under consideration.
Monitoring data from the vicinity of the proposed used oil
combustion source would give an accurate indication of the
background ambient lead concentrations and of the maximum
existing lead pollution levels encountered from other sources.
However, in many cases it is likely that the monitor will not
be sited to monitor the impact of the plant under study.
Therefore, monitoring data may be of only marginal usefulness
for this purpose, although they would show if an air quality
problem does exist in the region.
5.6 Conclusions
The computerized dispersion modeling performed in this study
has shown that some sources burning used oil may violate the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead. The magnitude
of the ambient concentrations varies significantly, however,
depending upon several factors: fuel lead content, percent of
used oil burned, hours of operation, and amount of lead ac-
tually emitted out of the stack. Stack height was also found
to be an important parameter. In drawing conclusions from this
report, these factors, and the other considerations previously
discussed, require careful attention.
Because of the high pollutant concentrations in some used oil,
the large scale indiscriminate burning of used oil could pre-
sent a health hazard in certain areas. This analysis has only
addressed the impact of burning used oil with respect to lead
^Federal Register, Vo. 44, No. 9 Friday, January 12, 1979.
5-25
-------
emissions. Based on this analysis, there appears to be a need
for some regulation or control of used oil combustion. Some
sources, such as isolated power plants and sources with
sub-micron particulate control devices,' can burn used oil with
virtually no lead air quality impact, but some smaller sources
may have a significant impact.
5-26
-------
REFERENCES
1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Statewide In-
ventory of Emission Sources Burning Oil.
2^. ETA_^gineer_ing;,__I_nc:_., TechnicaJL Sjipport_ Document for the
Lead Emission Inventory of the State of Minnesota. August
1979.
3. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Population and Characteristics
of Industrial/Commercial Boilers .in the U.S., EPA-600/
7-79-178a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 1979.
4. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Flue Gas Desulfurization Process
Cost Assessment, prepared for Office of Planning and
Evaluation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-01-3150, Technical Series, Area 4, Task
No. 2. 1975.
5. Discussion with Brian Cooley, Peabody Continental-Heine.
July 18, 1980.
6. Discussion with Dennis Brinkman, Department of Energy's
Used Oil Laboratory. July 17, 1980.
7. Holzworth, G.C. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds,and Potential
for Urban Air Pollution throughout the Contiguous United
States. AP-101. January 1972.
8. Brubaker, K.L., P. Brown, and R. R. Cirillo. Addendum to
User's Guide for Climatological Dispersion Model.
EPA-450/3-77-015. May 1977.
9. U.S. EPA. Development of an Example Control Strategy for
Lead. EPA-450/ 2-79-002. April 1979.
10. U.S. EPA. Control Technique for Lead Air Emissions,
Volume 1 Chapter 1-3. EPA-450/2-77-012. December 1977.
5-27
-------
6.0 THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
OK L'SED OIL Ii URN ING
6.1 Introduction
"Fexterai—environmental:—regul arirons which "may a'ffe'ct ""used" oil
burning find their basis primarily in the following legislation:
- The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) (as amended in 1974 and 1977)
- The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)
- The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
The responsibility for regulations under these acts lies
primarily with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Only
CAA and TSCA will be further discussed in this section since
regulations relating to used oils under RCRA are still under
study and are the primary subject of this report.
6.2 The Clean Air Act (CAA)
The Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970 and amended in 1974 and
1977 to protect public health and welfare from any actual or
potential adverse air pollution effects. Regulations under CAA
which may affect used oil burning are divided into the following
categories:
- Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS')
- Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
- "Nonattainment region" provisions, including offset policy
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
- Emission Regulations for Diesel Engine Vehicles
- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
- State Implementation Plans (SIP)
Each of the categories is discussed further below.
6-1
-------
6.2.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Existing NAAQS limit ground level concentrations for sulfur
dioxide (802), j^ptaj._sjosp^nd^d__^article_s_USE.!-, ni-1rogen- diox ide
"fls*0;p ,car&oTTlnonbxide (CO), photochemical oxidants, non-methane
hydrocarbons, and lead (Pb) (1). Primary NAAQS were instituted
to protect the public health while secondary NAAQS are designed
to protect the public welfare. Established standards are
provided in Table 7-21.
Calculations in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 have already shown that
NAAQS for lead, TSP, and SO* can sometimes be approached or even
exceeded in the immediate area of used oil burning facilities.
NO emissions may also be significant but ordinarily will not
approach NAAQS.
Although significant, S02 and NO emissions for used oil
combustion are comparable to those from virgin oils. Ambient air
concentrations of CO, photochemical oxidants, and non-methane
hydrocarbons should also not be affected by replacement of
virgin oils with used oils. However, particulate emissions may
tend to be higher depending upon the quality of the oil and
dilution with virgin oils.
In summary, NAAQS for Pb and TSP are of most concern when
considering used oil burning. But attention should also be
directed to SO, and N02 NAAQS, especially to SO- emissions if
used oil sulfur concentrations increase in Che future as
expected.
6.2.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The PSD program was developed to preserve air quality in those
areas where the air is better than NAAQS and to insure that
future growth is consistent with the preservation of clean air.
As shown in Table 7-22, the PSD regulations set forth the
maximum allowable incremental changes in existing ambient levels
of S02 and TSP. Increments in Class I areas restrict severely
any industrial growth; increments in Class II areas allow
moderate growth; and increments in Class III areas permit the
most industrial growth.
6-2
-------
PSD regulations provide in general Chat new major stationary
sources or major modifications must obtain a permit before
construction may begin. Existing facilities are not subject to
PSD regulations unless major modifications are made to a major
"source' Chatr woulcl resultr in a "trsignif icant "netr"IncreaseI! in that
source's "potential to emit." Conversion from virgin fuels to
used oils in major sources would be so regulated if "net"
potential emissions exceeded EPA specified significant emission
rates ("de minimis" exemption)(2). PSD rules allow the "bubble
approach," use of offsetting emission reductions within a
source, to avoid a new source review.
Twenty-eight major sources with the "potential to emit" 100
tons/yr or more of any air pollutant are required to undergo a
preconstruction review and permit process under PSD. Included
are fossil fuel-fired boilers (or combinations thereof) which
have a heat input of greater than 250 million BTU/hr, municipal
incinerators which are capable of charging more than 250
tons/yr, and portland cement plants. Also required to undergo
the review and permit process are sources not listed but having
the "potential to emit" 250 tons/yr or more of any pollutant
regulated by the CAA.
The meaning of "potential to emit" has been the subject of
litigation, finally resolved in EPA rulemaking published August
7, 1980(2). "Potential to emit" now refers to the maximum rate
at which a source or modification would emit a pollutant with
control equipment. For most oil-fired steam boilers, lacking
controlequipment, the "potential to emit" is in fact based on
uncontrolled emissions and can be estimated from emission
factors provided in Table 4-1.
The various size boilers considered in Section 5 would have the
following "potential" emissions based on 100% used oil
utilization with 2.2% ash and 0.5% sulfur (from Section 2.3,
worst case):
Total Potential to Emit, Tons/yr (uncontrolled)
Fuel
Size
Very
Small
Small
Medium
Large
Power
Plant 1500+ 7743+ 3520+ 1032+
6-3
Fuel
MM BTU/hr
5-10
10-100
100-500
500-1500
Particulate
26-52
52-516
516-2581
2581-7743
S00
12-23
23-235
235-1173
1173-3520
N0_ (as N00)
3-7
7-69
69-344
344-1032
-------
Therefore, new or modified (by conversion Co used oil) small to
medium size boilers could be required to undergo the review and
permit process to burn used oil in areas governed by PSD,
depending upon ash and sulfur content of the blend.
6.2.3 Nonattainment Region Provisions
If proposed new or modified major sources lie in or impact on a
nonattaiment area (one which does not comply with a NAAQS) they
will be subject to preconstruction review provisions of the
applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP), or to a prohibition
on construction if the SIP does not meet applicable requirements
(3,_ 4). Major sources are defined as those which will have
"potential" emissions greater than 100 tons/yr for any
applicable pollutant.
For such new sources, EPA's emission offset policy requires that::
1. All existing major sources in the nonattainment area owned by
the owner of the proposed source are in compliance with
applicable emission standards.
2. Proposed emissions from the new sources are more than
"offset" by a reduction of emissions from other sources in
the nonattainment area.
3. The emissions offset must represent a net air quality benefit.
4. The proposed source will be subject to the lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER). LAER is defined as the more stringent
of either: a) the most stringent emission limitation for this
type of source in any SIP in the country, or b) the lowest
emission rate that can be achieved for this type of source
with current technology.
Based on the "potential to emit" table in Section 6.2.2, it is
anticipated that most conversions to used oil would be governed
by the offset policy, depending upon ash and sulfur content and
boiler size.
-------
Presumably cases where substitution of used oils for virgin oils
tend to increase particulate or other emissions would cause
imposition of NSPS for all pollutants. Therefore, strict
adherence to NSPS might tend to inhibit substitution of used
_oils for virgin oils in steam generators larger than 250 million
~~BTu7firY~"~0~nthe dtTfier" ~1iand7 rf no~emission-"increase-"could- be
expected, emissions would be governed by state and local
regulations.
While the Federal Standards above apply to new and modified
sources (e.g. new "medium," "large," and "power plant" boilers),
state standards usually apply to all boilers down to sizes
classified as "very small" in this work. Some of the more
stringent particulate and sulfur standards were cited in Section
4.0.
Although no NSPS now exist for steam generators firing less than
250 million BTU/hr, such standards may be expected in the future
to govern industrial boilers (6), and poss.ibly commercial
boilers. The fact that there is now a NAAQS for lead suggests
the possiblity of future NSPS for this pollutant.
6.2.5 Emission Regulations for Diesel Engine Vehicles
As discussed previously, used oils can be used as a fuel in
diesel engines. Emissions from diesel engines regulated by EPA
include opacity, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon
monoxide (7).
No data are available for used oil as a diesel fuel component
for comparison with the promulgated standards, but, as reported
in Section 3.0 there have been reports of increased smoke
emissions.
6.2.6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
NESHAP have been prepared for asbestos, beryllium, mercury, and
vinyl chloride (8). Since these substances are not ordinarily
constituents of used oils, they will not ordinarily be
considered in used oil combustion processes unless contamination
occurs.
6-6
-------
6.2.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
NSPS applies Co new sources or to existing sources modified in a
_w ay tiiat alters p r oc_es_SL cap acjLt^L s igm_f i c. antJLy_, i tier e as e s_
emissions, or are reconstructed at a cost equal to 50 percent of
a new facility cost (5). Although existing sources need not meet
NSPS, state standards are required in order to meet NAAQS. These
are often less stringent than NSPS, sometimes more stringent,
but in many instances are essentially equivalent to NSPS.
NSPS have been applied to many types of plants which could
affect used oil combustion practices including:
- fossil-fuel fired steam generators which have a heat input
greater than 250 million BTU/hr
- solid waste incinerators with a charging rate greater than 50
tons/day
-'kilns and other facilities in portland cement plants
- asphalt concrete plants
- storage vessels for petroleum liquids with a storage capacity
greater than 40,000 gallons
- secondary lead smelter pot furnaces of more than 550 Ib
capacity, blast (cupola) furnaces, and reverberatory furnaces
- incinerators that combust wastes containing more than 1070
sewage sludge (dry basis) produced by municipal sewage
treatment plants, or incinerators that charge more than 2205
Ib/day municipal sewage sludge (dry basis)
- other chemical, metallurgical, and miscellaneous operations.
Pollutants controlled vary, but include particulates, SO-, and
NO for steam generators; particulates for incinerators,
portland cement plants, asphalt concrete plants, secondary lead
smelters, and sludge incinerators; and hydrocarbons for storage
vessels. Other pollutants covered by NSPS for some plants
include fluorides, visible emissions, and CO. NSPS also include
test methods and procedures, and may also include monitoring
provisions.
6-5
-------
6.2.7 State Implementation Plans (SIP's)
Each state must prepare a SIP for attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS (9). The SIP includes control strategies, evidence of
"legal" "author!ty,compltance schedules ,~ contingency ~plans to
prevent air pollution emergency episodes, provisions for an air
quality surveillance system, procedures for review of new
sources and modifications, procedures for source surveillance,
copies of state rules and regulations, provisions for PSD, and
analysis and plans for air quality maintenance areas (AQMA's)
where NAAQS are exceeded.
Thus, the SIP provides the framework through which state
regulations are used to insure meeting and maintaining NAAQS.
The SIP must address all pollutants governed by NAAQS, including
lead.
Since used oil burning contributes only a minor portion of the
total pollutants in any state, this process is not dealt with
directly, but rather through general restrictions on combustion
processes, for example particulate and opacity requirements for
steam boilers. Even total lead emissions from used oil burning
are likely to be small compared to mobile sources and lead smelt-
ing operations. However, as shown in Sections 4.0 and 5.0, lead,
particulate, and SO^ emissions can sometimes result . in
approaching or exceeding NAAQS in localized areas.
6.3 The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Of primary concern under TSCA is the relationship of PCS
disposal regulations (10) to used oil burning practices. Under
these regulations:
- For PCB liquids containing 500 ppm PCB or greater, disposal is
permitted only in EPA-approved incinerators.
- For PCB liquids containing 50-500 ppm, disposal is permitted
in EPA-approved incinerators, in high efficiency boilers rated
at a minimum of 50 million BTU/hr (under rigidly controlled
combustion conditions), and in EPA-approved chemical waste
landfills (approved for PCB's).
- Liquids containing less than 50 ppm are not considered PCB's
(unless dilution was involved) and their burning is not
regulated.
6-7
-------
REFERENCES ;
i
1. 40 CFR Part 50. !
2^ FR 4_5A 52676j_August 7_,_1980. _ \
3. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S.
4. FR 44, 3274, January 16, 1979.
5. 40 CFR Part 60.
6. Greenwood, D. R. et al. A Handbook of Key Federal Regula-
tions and Criteria for Multimedia Environmental Control,
EPA-660/7-79-175. August 1979. 288 pages.
7. 40 CFR Part 86.
8. 40 CFR Part 61.
9. 40 CFR Part 51.
10. FR 44, 31514, May 31, 1979.
6-8
-------
7.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supporting data for the main body of the report is found in this
section. The following information is included:
Table
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
Title
Comments
Previous Estimates of Summarizes lubricating
Lubricating and Industrial oil sales estimates used
Oil Sales in the U.S.
Previous Used Oil
Generation and Collection
Estimates
Summary of Studies on
Used Oil Generation
and Collection
Used Oil Generation
as a basis by various
sources to estimate used
oil quantities
Projections From Lube and projections
Other Industrial Oils
The Ultimate Disposal
of Used Oils
Physical Properties of
Used Motor Oils
Chemical Properties of
Used Motor Oils
Industrial Used Oil
Analyses
A Profile of Used Oil
Businesses Based on a
1979 Survey
Size Distribution of
U. S. Boilers
An Order of Magnitude
Estimate of Boilers
Burning Used Oil
Breakdown of "other"
used or waste oil
generation and collection
1980, 1985, 1990
7-1
-------
Table
Title
Comments
Combustion Process
-Times
7-12
7-13 Used Oil Combustion
Tests
7-14 SO* and NO Emissions
During REC^N Tests
7-15
7-16
7-17
7-18
7-19
7-20
7-21
7-22
Figure
Particulate Emissions-
RECON Tests
Benzo(a)Pyrene Concen-
trations in Various Oils
- Data Summary
Data on Benzo(a)Pyrene
Concentrations in Unused
and Used Motor Oils
and Blended Oils
Data on Benzo(a)Pyrene
Concentrations in Fuel
Oils
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Hydrocarbon Emissions
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
National Standards for
the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality
Lead Emitted as a Percent
of Lead introduced
with Fuel
Includes both tests
described in literature
and recent RECON tests
Tables 7-16 through
7-18 contain summary
of both RECON and
earlier analyses
Compares RECON data to
early PHS data on PNAs
Shows inverse relationship
of lead emissions with
lead concentration in
oil
7-2
-------
Table 7-1
PREVIOUS ESTIMATES OF LUBRICATING AND
INDUSTRIAL OIL SALES IN THE U.S.
Millions of Gal/Yr
REGON
1 £7 0-71
AEROSPACE
1975
BIDGA
1978
SUN
19 7 a
Automotive Lubricating Oils
Commercial engine oils -
fleet sales
Commercial engine oils -
retail sales
Factory fills, automotive
and farm ^
Private automobiles,
automobile fleets, other
Aviation Lubricating Oils
Industrial Lubricating Oils
Hydraulic and circulating
system oils
Metalworking oils
Railroad engine oils
Gas engine oils
Other
Other Industrial Oils
Process oils
Electrical oils
Refrigeration oils
Federal Government
GRAND TOTAL
200
90
60
736
1086
8
325
150
60
62
129
726
310
57
10
377
37.
2234
1251
1091
616
92
701
1409
11
2836
2144
290
230
73
52
268
913
268
85
10
363
16
2712
"ncluding automotive hydraulic fluids and qear oils
7-3
-------
D oo
co r-
cr,
en
o
O O ro CN in ro
CN CN in
m CN
O rH
m r- i
rH CN
oo
m
en
CTi
m
o r^
CT> CN
ro
co
CTi
O
•^ 00 rH CN 00 O
m en m ^r en m
CN in
CN so
m «a*
m H
\
rH
03
u
SM
0
to
c
0
•H
rH
rH
•H
^
1
O
t^-
cn
rH
1
2
O
U
w
OS
•
rH
rH
O
u
cn
•q<
^"
o
JJ .
• c
4J O W
o •
1 i 1 1
.Q O «-H
D CU CU
CO ^J 3
•H CM
Q
5
rH
cn
rH
• *
O C
. cu
^
• 0
O 4J
• u
S 03
o oo p» so m
r~- m ro •<* CN
rH rH
VO
en
m
vo
m
CO
co
m
o
oo
CN
10
•H
0
cu
.Q
3
b-il
O
>
• H
JJ
O
e
c
jj
3
to
c
o
•H
JJ
03
-U
CO
CJ
U
•H
>
U
CU
!
rH
a
a
3
CO
CO
cu
V-I
0
JJ
co
JJ
c
3
0
U
to
•H
a
>£
to
u
cu
rH
03
CU
Q
u
03
CJ
to
rH
rH
•-H
En
rH
|CJ
U
O
JJ
U
03
CM
<^>
jj
cu
cu
1— I
CM
to
cu
rH
03
CO
i-S
cu
J3
3
J
U
CU
jC
JJ
o
to
rH
•H
O
rH
03
•H
lM
JJ
to
3
TJ
C
r- 1
1
3
U
u
•H
CJ
id
u
•iH
rH
D
03
Xj
T3
>
(-1-1
CN
T
m
CN
ro
to
rH
•H
O
E-
Cu
jj
to
^x,
CO
cr>
c
•rH
JJ
03
rH
O
r~
o
m
rH
to
rH
o"
cn
C
•H
^
U
0
3
rH
03
JJ
CU
f>
m
o
so
to
rH
•H
O
cu
c
• H
cn
c
CJ
Tj
03
0
u
rH
•H
03
OS
O
cn
CN
so
to
rH
•H
O
CU
C
• H
cn
c
C4
to
03
O
cn
r*"* ^3* oo *
in cn ^* c
tf r-4 C
rH C
to
rH
•H
O
i-H
03
U '
•H
^M *
4-1 iJ
U CU
CU -C
1— 1 JJ
cq O t
^
•o
N I
N
to
rH
•H
O
cu
JJ
to
H 03
03 2
4J
O >M
JJ CU
o .c
3 JJ
A O
j
<£
EH
O
EH
Q
2
rtj
OS
C3
-------
Table 7-3
SUMMARY OF STUDIES ON USED OIL
._-J&ENEBATTON AND r.m.LFCTTON
Millions of Gal/Yr
AEROSPACE BIGDA
RECON 1970-71 (1) 1975 (2) 1978 (3)
Generated Collected Generated Collected
Lube and Other
Industrial Oils 1115 668 1394 669
"Other"
- Oil Spills - Marine 22
(from Coast Guard
reports in 1972
assuming only 75% of
spills reported)
- Oil Losses - Marine 187
(from marine oily
wastewater survey,
including bilge,
cargo ballast,
cargo washings,
tanker ballast,
tanker washings)
- Oil Losses -
Production,
Refining,
Transportation,
Use - includes
oil in wastewaters
(estimated as 0.57<>
of petroleum
liquids produced
and imported) 1156
1365 476* NA NA
2480 1144
*
Collected "other" oils = 1365 - 690 Uosses on land, water, etc.)
199 (directly to fuel use) = 476
7-5
-------
Table 7-4
Automotive Engine Oils
Discount Store Sales
Other Passenger
Car Sales
Truck & Bus Sales
Factory Fill
Off-Road Engine Oils
Aviation
Federal Government
Farm
Construction
Mining
Miscellaneous
Automotive Hydraulic
Fluids _
Automotive Gear Oils
Subtotal - Automotive
Industrial Lubricants
Hydraulic & Circ.
Fluids
Compressor, Turbine,
Bearing
Gear
Refrigeration
Marine, RR, Other
Engines
Electrical
Process Oils
Metalworking Oils
Other
Subtotal - Industrial
USED OIL GENERATION PROJECTIONS
LUBE AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL OILS
Millions of Gal/Yr
Sales
295
285
1980
1985
1990
Factor
0.2
Gen. Sales
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0
0.1
0.24
0.3
59
327
Gen.
65
274
278
22*
869
10
16
98
59
39
25*
247
*
225
*
55
*
.396
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
137
139
15
350
5
8
20
30
8
3
74
23
17
464
240
276
22*
865
11
17
103
62
47
32*
272
*
241
*
57
*
1435
120
138
15
338
6
9
21
31
. 9
3
79
24
17
458
182
270
21*
804"*
11
18
107
68
56
40*
300
*
260
*
62
*
1426
91
135
15
307
6
9
21
34
11
4
85
26
19
437
114
54
36
5
79
0
27
54
11
380
290
92
92
10
160*
90
317,
230
-52,
1333
116
55
37
5
80
0
32
55
16
396
GRAND TOTAL
844
2768
854
2885
857
Sales projections based on Sun Data (4). Other projections by RECON.
Under present used oil industry conditions—no changes in regulations.
Based on previous estimates by RECON (1) and Bidga (3). Same factors used
for 1980, 1985, and 1990.
7-5
-------
•H
*
O (*l -»|O ^j
01
">
^
^
0)
<^ ^^
vO CM CM r» m o "*
1 r» -< — .» o
^** —
01
JS
• o
u :
4J
O
y-S * **<
rt . * 9 ^ . ° - 01
jn I r^-g en 1 v 2
S-' Lu B
>n
I
Q
U
V)
b.
O
I
a.
ui
H
• fa
• 01 01
O 3 JS
u -a u
n so -o ol-j
38
PMI-J
in M
•a «
-< rt OI-* oloo
i
•o ^
C £>
u) e
u •*
O O O|>0
l -• O
O|m
Uo
•a co >o r-i|n
O O -» CMIOO
CM _ _ L»
mlm
—> Ko
u
*j
u
01
01
« c
oi O
o —
fa 01 01
O C -* _4 u 01 O
« -p* •- a. « 3
ol **j O ^ E tfl t3
4J V OJ 3 Ol O
UQti'O— *J OlfaO fa
fa 01 O 3 fa O .C
Qwoeaeu- 01 ou* o>
C O > JO
O O O O 01 O C 3
HHHf- U (-+U J
-------
Taolc 7-6
PHYSICAL PUOPErt'm.S
OF USED XOTOR OILS (5)
Viscosity, SUS 100UF
Viscosity, SUS 210°F
Viscosity Index
Specific Gravity, 60/60°F
BS&W, %
Water , 7«,
Pentane Insolubles, %
Benzene Insolubles, %
.Fuel Dilution, %
Ant ifreeze
Carbon Residue, %
Flash Point, °F
Pour Point, F
Saponification No.
Total Base No.
Range of Measured Values
220-1261
52.5-128.6
96-175
0.891-0.938
0.4-42
0.4-33.8
0.74-5.02
0.49-1.86
0.4-9.7
Positive (26 samples)
Negative (3 samples)
Trace (1 sample)
1.82-4.43
204-440
(_20)-(-45)
6.07-20.95
1 .10-2.55
7-8
-------
to
o
a; —
u z
I <
H U
. - - O eg
•^
to
u ?5
H >
O
u to
OH
— Z
t/3 — 3 Ci3
•J O
O O
c/5
O
H
~
Q
to
^ ^ in
I £ k.
< c <
2 $ «" *
2 3 S
c; to £
^ ^3
UJ
0.
5 in
Q,
ca
M- 1 CJ
< a.
o
2
U!
(_^
to
u
*— t
z
Od ^
Id O
I C£
c z
—
O
<
1
tU
• a. o>
in x x i x i i- u '
U C u JJ tfl CD — r3 3 C C
Ml- O C" «-4£"O— 4C4-I10O
41 4) 41 1 —> 10 l/l 60"O 15 to 4) <9 C ~4
0) .c .o c jj caicc-4 - u 3 a. c ~< u
Wu O 3-— 4-o~ttoi.ui3intii Sto
u-4 O X O «™4 *~* E •"* *-> iJT3-G3^30Jtflki
•*-i to «4intouto*«in"4 .c *-> -u
4J T3 E m '-a— U~JUB)33iJB» -iJCC
cc tfl in c 4-> -4 — Tjcrc—iiJ O4)
njiaui utuf^ouiv.— ic-44) — c u o
CJi-iCCr^OOJJ2o-4— «C3O C
r-i tfl — < C tfl •- 1 • O.3 4) O U Q. 4) O
__U_ C tfl tfl «4 O 1 4) • 1 JJ 4) JJ Q. JJ IM U
X4ib04iEintNi.caoctn.cTin otwec^o
r** &0 Vrf l>* (fl CO * AJ * O Q L* CQ U 0) *^ C ^^ C-
CJ 10 O O.JJ fJ-4O4)C3O3^3iJ'O—'OtO
JZ • •
t) « o "O C E C *-4
Ul O 4) E to O
to in £ «~4 o C
3 AJ O m ••4 o **4 "O
C 0 4) 4) E 41
»-4>— i C Xi 0) eg in
41 > to o ja u 3
uOintuuooc
C T3 X
X4-1 O tO "3 -C lJ 10
— 3-4O4I C 60 4) E E4I
*-t £> u u U to 00--I 1 -O 1 1 O O
to to o. d 4icc: vi vi u
£ • C "O « X OO— i 4IV43MV) O.» O t) *— * 4J L>
1 • C
J_l — 1 -O 60-4
U C 41 O -4 1 • 60
10 «4>3N4lu>C4)h< O CO 4) 1
y -4 a. w x^ wocwi *IBICO^
3u O.C X COOC«CM3 l>-
C s • to • • O.— » u • ^ m »-«
X E ^ *^ Em Q- "O to ^fc in •*> in
~< OZ'Z. -4^100)00- "-4 E — E
O WiCUO C>*-4 tOCQ V4 — 4 tQ<^»4 Q,— 4 O.
^u to *™* ft* **4 O *"^ ^^ 4) "^ CO 3fe O O- O O*
X
T-l
*^l
10
E
14 U
0 C
C 4)
w
ij 4)
O V.
z a
«
--i ki
E E to E E O
Q. E Q. " O. O.
O. E O. O^-S 41 — « H D-'-Q-OO U
E O.Q.OE <^ •* — cowl —
Q.vD O. OCMO£ S^OC>inr~l6C C
Q.CM coo -inu " " -tf -J i^ — ' r» -4 > tfl
^* t7^ O*1 m CM **4 to Q} in • c^i • to 60 *
co >cr> co>ie03Z(Li • o oo 41 «J o V4kiu
o> ro o> *>CNI to
ON vD vD c-J CNI O 3>-i Q-O coO3tamaQN JJ o£
ino^^^r*-^ — c. ••I.^IACSI *^ U
vO JTUEO" OCO T3EUXO
tfltosc c « c 10 — i- c x -o — c a. toe
ccuz:ft'CN)<-4in utocnzmixutao.) E —i
4)
me C
co o • o
ao in —
""Q 4} 6C 4j in
co 4) — C co —
— in C.--4
1 to E T5 4) E
CN J3 1C 3 — Q.
vD t/1 — C- Q.
co e u E
" CLO x to ey*
•.^ Q.CO o> in i— i
C
O
»4 *-4
U -4
10 O
V.
xj 13
C 4J
41 «
U 3
C
O C
u —
0)c
>
•H C
u O
Cfl —1
U --J-I
.^~ 3
-H CS -4 -~
tfl 00 -4 «N
3 a* TJCM
CTCM CO
1 1 4) 1
in a CQ
i—l —4
O^" • ^«
2L — — 2^
OH OH
— xto TB-tn
-H < 10 <
o— oo>-
O
o u
C 1 -4
O X XC C 4) U
•-4 oi J3 to -4 in o
U 60 H
<3i4C-3V4in.eu
— i (U O 4) O — i O.O
«H u —i 3 to H
•-4 ctj iJ O 1- X U
U 3 y — O -t 4) •
10 10 -J tO iJ 60
~4 V4 u o o c tfl •
QO4JU-iOC93a)
c~ •
C 4) -4 .
O X-QUJ 1 CO 14
-IZ).-100S^O
u ^ co H 1 3
to *o to in u» to O ^
-4 01 -C -411-1 < U-l
^ 3 in ^- -
-4 O >- XU 00 X
4J-4 O^4£ CO tfl*~'
in— 13 00 O 00 V- <
•-4 O O C -4 -4 1 1 <
Q 14-1 O 10— u Q XZ
*—*
r~*
*w
(J
J
ft.
1
a.
o
-4 < tO
in 4) a. ca
•o > uz
O 41
.C-O XT3
u £> Z.
4) i- ca
E 4) u
•o c-~
U C 4) vD
o 3 e~-
1
tO -4 -4
tz3 OI 3 V* O -~*
00 in O •« 00
V« ^ ^^ X ^^ •^^M'
O IE 1 J3 *~* 00 — 4
H Osr cr> — jr <
O H 1 ••'O* in -4
x Xt-i en O — CM m £ x
J2 J2 — < COM^OIX)
2; — i i •«->
in a. — XH — • Q a b^ v.
—i CT^ 1 Ul Vi to C/< t/3 C
2~-Ci< O*u<
-------
(U
CO
u
CO
w
to
& o
— (M CM
So
<"»
8 o f
oa £ *
rv t/t ta o «A
• »•> • . +•
tA . *- in
do
(O ^ P-.
*S"°Z — IC8'". "I""°""S2'>S
Sd00**'0. 5g-°° "
M Ot lrf»
g 2
a:
H
CO
a
Q
Z
»- «M «*>
* . . • . . . •
O O lsjc*ifibK.oOOO ^
m p *~
o
I O O
d
i 5 S
7-10
-------
CD
in
CO
ca
i
i—i
i— i CD
>_* CM
CO
— CO
-o >>
0) J
c z -
C J
O 1-1
U 0
"" Q
00 U <
1 CO
i^* r™^
i>
U
^B ^^
t S v. a.
°£
•0 0)
01 4J !••
X »/> 1-
Z 3B
•n
•a oi
01 **•—
9 +-> -o
•«- a. ui a>
-C • E 3 Q.
O ^™" 5 ^3 CX
ig f- Q o
SCO h-
u
r~
•O 3 r-
dj
T3 Ifl O "*-
0) C t- E t-
1/1 - -o TJ a. s
j- oi o»t- => •«-> ui
Uu VJ
T3 O)
*» fc. 01 C
f la ui •«-
en 01=) e 4->
•r- O ••- «l
•^ ^j
O
^01 &-
O 4«* W
^3 |Q fBB g
X W «OH-
j- UI CX .*
1 =*
u
•f- i— 01
•o •— a ui
01 3 S- O
m o> c c
eo
« o-
OI ^3
f- 3!
a. -4J
§c
0)
u >
01
S CX
01 T3
a f- f- la. c
* Ǥj.i i s
*0si ^ |
oi u
U 01
14- •*->
3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
w
&
i
w
O
X
Table 7-9
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
CAPACITY & ^
•
Lv,
ttf
c£
1
W
c*
ex:
w
X
H
O
X
X
X
» T
u o
o o
04 fti
Cu CM
• od
H W
CO 5C
h-« H
Q O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u o o
0 SM {-, H
-<- ">• Cfa >• CO CO -Vr-TkC
DS a, o cu >< FEEDS
O U O PM c4 >-J
H ^ g _, 0 < <
cogggoo oi
•*+. s s s H
CNJ S s g to ctf
J m i o 2SOS3W
J • m r-4 o H O X
O O -IrH ^-Ir-l C3SBH
o o co
O co
<-3 2; HH
co 1-1 w S
co o erf
• M M-l
W fti 0 nJ Q HO
CQ Q O W < CO
=3 {w ffj & O <
iJ K CU b ci i-J W
X
X
X
XX X
X
X X
X
SD
X
X
X X
X
XX X 60 X
X
XX X 64 X
X
X X
SD
X 78
CO
CO
t-H
S
U-l
O
5
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
RES!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7/1
-
-
9/5
-
-
7/3
9/1
_
SI) = Shut down
7-12
-------
Table 1-<•) (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
^Araui i i
w
t< CJ5 >*
• |"T^ • • ^* ^4 ^4 S-l
d-iQiOCJ^ P-i O PH >""
W I O O O O OP*
pi w pi pi H _S o
1 Pi Oi PH CO g S §
w -*- 2 g S
Pi Pi • Pi CN g
W H W J m i O
CJSCCOX-J .tAr-IO
-*- H M H O O • i I-H
< O O O CJ O CM
X
XX X
XX X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X XX
XXX
X
X
XX X
X
X X
X X
pi pi
O O
H H
OT " FEEDS PRODUCTS > oo
H-J »-l |kj fv* ^^ ^> ^* «
r^ r^ ^.j ^< ^^ ^j ^>^ (j^ IHW* v^ ^4*
*^C ^* CD * j^ |!y^ p^i fr i Qf^ ^J |jj
X
XXX X X X
X
X X X X X
X
X
XXX XXX 50 X
X X
SD
XXX 79
X
XX X 62 X
XXX XX X
X X
X
X X X SD X
XX XXX
X X SD X
X X
XX X
XXX XX
CO
CO
H-l
^?"i
M-l
O
&
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RESPONSE
-
8/10/79
-
8/3/79
-
-
8/30/79
-
-
-
-
8/29/79
-
8/24/79
-
8/9/79
7/31/79
-
-
-
8/3/79
9/5/79
-
8/30/79
8/29/79
/-13
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
L-ArAUiii f£ eg
W 0 O
&u CJ >< H t-1
•W • *^3 >•! Cb >< COCO *___..,•.
fcSouod £ o £ :H FEEDS
W i O O O O _ O PL, .-4 ,J
pi tJ pi pi E— i 2 O^3<<5 •
I pi f^ fLi CO S § 2 O O (Yi
W **" § § § fc-1
fy* Qt • p^ • fsj ^f\ ^^ Hpl f^ rv^
W H W J into § S O 3 W
USBCOECi-J • in i— i O B-" O K
•*~.HMHO O • IrH r-Hr-4 9 SS H
co' c/i
O CO CO
h— 1 ^Z HH HH
co t-n w s s
CO 0 Pi
• LfcJ M^ ^^
Wp^Oi-JO HOO
»^ ^ rK f~^ o *£ • •
JKC^fepi JWS
XX X 63 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SD X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
XXX
X
X 79 X
X
RESPONSE
8/14/79
-
-
-
-
-
8/2/79
-
.
-
--
8/22/79
-
-
8/9/79
8/31/79
-
8/22/79
-
-
-
8/7/79
-
8/7/79
_
7-14
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
fn
w
c£
1
w
&
o
<
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83 X
84
85
86
87 X
88
89
90
91
92
93
94 X
95
96
97
98
99 X
100
C.Ar Alj III
w
fK O SH
u • • -< _P-L _>^
Bi CJ O fti (l, b CL," X
1 O O O O CJ) P-i
w erf erf H S o
a; p* p* co sgg
oi • a* cs S
U H W J iA I O
3G CO SC J . m r-i O
H M H O O • 1 r-4
O O O O O c^
•
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Pd Pi
O O
H H
_ia__M_ FEEDS PRODUCTS >'- uT -co
»-) J O CO CO
< < • lJ !Z HH H-(
oo oi w M w s S
H to O ci
s s co pi • w UH iw
gg ODW WpdOJO HOO
HOX PQOOW< CO
r-i iH E3!2H SXOiSO <
< t-i O J X 0- fc Oi _1 W 2=
X
X X
XX X X
X X
X
X
X
XX X 57 X
X
X
XXX XX X
X XX XX X 61 X
X
X X
XXX X X
X
X
XXX X 50 X
XXX X
X
X
X
X
X X' X X X
X
RESPONSE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8/3/79
-
-
8/9/79
7/31/79
-
-
-
8/29/79
-
8/6/79
8/29/79
8/9/79
8/29/79
-
-
9/12/79
-
7-15
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
CAPACITY & ^
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
W O O
tu U >H H H
• W • • l eW >H CO CO TTT"T\C
tt,crfooerfetiOpL(>-' r tt-Ub
wioooo oeujj
odwerferfH § o<<
i erf (x, &< co s § s oo erf
w -- 2 g g H
ttJcrf-crf- CM 2 s S in erf
UHW.J mio SS osw
cjfficosCJ -mi-no HOX
"^H»-"HO O -ii-i rHr-i 3SBH
co to
o to to
_) » M h-1
to t-i W JS S
to o erf
. W 14-1 14-4
WcrfOJQ HOO
PQ O O W < CO
& >< erf 3 o <
i-JXeutincrf J W 2:
X
X
X
X 73 X
X 56 X
X 72 X
X X 78 X
X
X
X X
XX 76 X
XX SD X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X 80 X
X
X 46 X
X
X
X
X X
X X
RESPONSE
-
-
-
8/7/79
8/8/79
8/30/79
9/18/79
-
-
8/29/79
8/6/79
8/13/79
-
8/29/79
-
87 779'
-
-
8/7/79
8/29/79
-
-
-
-
-
7-16
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12^
tu
W
i
W
a
<
126
127
128
129 X
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142 X
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
oArnuiii ^ ^
W O O
Lui O >* fr> (r*
f*f~ "^1 ^" H*4~ tr- WV" VJ OOO CJ) U O-* »-J t-J
j»(^jp>^-( yj O^C^I •
CSpHCUCOgggOO P^
os • oS • cs S S S cops
W f— c LU >— J m i o § 2 O & W
fficoJE-a • in t-i o HOX
OPOO OCS <»-iO
XX X X X X X
X
X XXX
X
XXX X X XX
X
XX XXX
X
X
X
X
XXX X XXXX
X
PRODUCTS >
o
CO l-t W
CO O OS
• W
W P£ O 1— ] P f-H
pa p o w < co
3 >H Oi 3 O <
X 77
XX 54
X X 71
X
SD
X X 80
CO CO
CO CO
I-* I-*
S S
M-t U-l
O O
w &
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RESPONSE
8/16/79
-
-
7/30/79
-
8/31/79
-
8/30/79
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8/6/79
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
7-17
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY (12)
UAfAOJ. II
W
PL, O >>
• TrT • • rf<* *^_i f\ IK—I
s — LU J • — ^j ?* — PH — ?-i
fn Pi O O pi PH O P* >H
W i O O O O OP*
pi w pi (xi H § o
i erf p^ ex, en § g g
w "^^ s ^ s
p£ Crf • pi CM g
W H W J m i o
OSSCOJCJ -mi-io
— • H M H O O • i r-i
< O Q O U O «>4
151
152 X X
153
154
155 X
156 X X
157 X
158
159 X
160
161
162
163
164 X
165
166
167
168
169
170
171 X
172 XXX X
173
174
175
erf erf
O O
E- H
^ ^ FEEDS PRODUCTS > en" w
•-J i-4 O CO CO
< J Z l-H h-l
OO pi COi-iWSS
H CO O Pi
g g CO pi • W 1*4 U-i
SS OSW WpiOnJO HOO
HOK PQOOW< CO
rHi— I I3S5H ED^PiSO <3
<»-tO iJEP^bHpi JWS
X
X X X 78 X
X
X X
X X
X X X X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
SD X
X
X
SD X
X
X X
X X X X X X X
X
X
X
RESPONSE
-
8/13/79
9/19/79
-
-
8/30/79
-
-
8/29/79
-
-
—
-
8/31/79
-
8/30/79
-
8/30/79
-
-
8/29/79
10/26/79
-
-
_
7-18
-------
Table 7-9 (continued)
A PROFILE OF USED OIL BUSINESSES
BASED ON A 1979 SURVEY -(12)
CAPACITY J J
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
fe
&r~oT
W I
pi W
1 pjj
w
Pi pi
W
0 SC
< g
X
X
X
w
o o P§
O O O
p4 PM en
•»•».
• pi •
H W M-
en ac j
MHO
O O 0
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
!H
>r £4 >*
P* 0 PL, >H
O O P*
§ C5
§ S S
S S S
fSJ §
in 1 O
• m I-H o
O • 1 rH
O w en
O en en
• i-4 £5 1—4 M
pi en i-i w s jg
H en o Pi
en pi • w 4-1 MH
O»W WpiOi-JO HOO
HOK PQPOW< en
EDS5H C3>-ipiE3O <
-------
O
CM
m o
r—4 r—4
ro CO
0" O
f ro
*• 4H
in •—i
ro O
CM ro
in o
O :>
-O CM
ro xO
CP> as
E-
z
Oi +
o
OS O
r/"i Ci3 in
UJ s^ 1
as 3 f>
w O
3 CM
O
03
to o
0
• m
3 i—4
LU I
U. cj O
O OS O
< in
Z J s-'
0
HH
H
03
£ o
CO 0
M Z m
Q => 1
MO
M Q 0
N W ^
( , • 22 ^-^
to
*
O
1
O
0) O
O 1 i
•U ^H 1
flj ^4 O
H X —
to ^
J
J
< ^
S 0
1
OS .
W o
> ^
-it
z
o
t— *
H
^
"~£.
CJ
^-t Q£
i/3 =
Uj ^i-.
C— H..}
H
ft 1 CQ
N!
i-1 ~
CO T.
0 O
\OO OOO — ' O -^ O
-i O O O 30
... CM
r-* O°> CM i —
CO — ' ft
f* O CM O r-O coO
00 O 0 O O O O
-J ^ CM i—4 f>
....
*— i p-» in p^
\o -^ r™^
cj^o i""*O coO ino
r»o coO -tfO CMO
moo moo CMC~- a* ft
•I * MM M 4fk *l
^4 Q ^-4 ^4 ^ ^D C^ *
— 4 ,— 4 .— 4 Q
NM>
X" •
*^-
•
O
v
05
*
o
z
o
02 z oi la: OB:
s s s z sc
"^*» | — — *-4 "^-»- -N'*».
rj rs •-< =3 is
H — ' H Of- H
CO -^ CC CC CT, 33
W • O 4) cc
O3OS! 3T — 5" O7" UJdi
= zz: — • s cos s: car;
H co —1 f 3 --,
1 3 ft co H 3
o: -c — i >-. H
UJ -< -r* 4J 3 U B3
t— cc u^ ui 4j ofi
<^ G ci; -rn to i— ' 21
3 cj a: cz z u. j;
I I I
I I 1
1 I I
^^ O f^ O ^^ O
Ov O O O O O
OQ O4 ^^ *™* 00 ^D
^-^ O *o O en 00
^ CNJ r^
i— ^
^^ O ^*** O "^ O
r- O r^ O O O
o\ in \o r^ m in
O vO ro \o co O
_l —4 CM ft fl
r~ o O^ O co O
00 O vO O ro O
CM m m co oo CM
. . . . . .
co o co ft r~ CM
< — I CM O m CM CO
ft CM i-<
•
O
cc z Q: i a:
""^ | "v^. 1—4 ""^
^"1 113 'H f?
f- — ' H O r-
CQ -^ 03 C!3
O CM
CO v£5
-" O
G* O
CM — <
. .
vO CM
CM CO
in — i
•
0 CC
Z I
1 3
H
in CQ
CO
o 5
—4
CO
l-l
3
4J
CO
•
Ul
c
o
.^
4J
cfl
C
00
•H
Ul
0)
•a
0)
N
<)Hj
Ul
U-4
O
C
O
•l-l
Ul
Ul
3
U
Ul
•H
~o
J^
CU
J=
4J
|^
3
i-i
0
•4-1
o
•
m
C
o
•rH
4_|
U
O
tO
01
HI
CO
-J;
-
*
CO
I—.
MJ
CU
^
4-1
c
•r4
Ul
a!
f— i
•i-i
O
OQ
t
CO
•H
O
l-l
1
g
O
0 •
f> CO
•1-1 -^
t4
4-1 x-^
ui r--
3 1
t3 CM
C
l-l •>
vaO
U-l |
O CM
Ul .
o m
•** 1
4-1 CM
Ul
••-1 Ul
U 0)
4) ,— i
4-J *"*
cj co
CO E-4
Vu ^^
CO ^""^
J"| (Q
U oo
r-
•O — i
C 1
(Q O^
r-
C 1
0 r-
4J 0
CO O
r*^ V^
3 1
a <
o a,
0- W
T ^—^
*•
OJ
u
l_l
o
o
u^
^3
j_)
(^
a
-------
z
^-4
z
OS
O3
to
OS
w
1— 1
o
CO
fcu
o
u
H
^4
z
H
^0
u
u
a
3
•H
^_4
z
<
o
05
U
O
OS
O
Z
•
f— 1
.—1
1
-3U OOO OO OO
z
o
h"4
J H g
f-H CJ O O^ CO O O^ O O
(^ [J ^( ^2 tO OO ^^ ^D ^D ^^
WZbu -^OO --O OOO OO OO
j-i
c •— < ~^
(8 ^< i— '
—> eg ra
Q. s e
E w in
•H oo 01 — • >% •-< >>
•o 1-1 3 w i* m >-i
o m o E sj E 01
E i— i o. in > in >
*
H
• • •
H H fc-
3 til .-i
— .-1 O
•H -^
C CO)
.u
•^ f— • fZ
i ra — '
2 3—i
-a TJ --i
•r^ •!-* 4J
i/l u; IT
Qj QJ -^—
^ ^ O
O*
en
CM
M
CM
m
O
10
O
ui
O
. *
0 e
w
0)
XI
(•^
"^
o
^ .5
s °°
CM ^
ui
r— 1
•f-l
O
•o
01
(A
3
"•J*
O^
m
CM
00
CS
u
01
m
c
m
oc
c
.,-1
E
3
IT.
in
^
-;:
/-21
-------
£
H
Z
Q
l-«
g
H
PS
CO
CO
Cd
0
O
«
0-
0
H
3
s
0
O
O
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
M
o
0
o
•s*
£
n
s
I
n
M
n
0
in
n
r>
vO
n
n
a
o
00
0
o
L
m
-*
5
r-l
00
0
r-4
vO
vO
CM
n
CM
f— t
00
o
00
fl
r-.
S
0
00
vO
O
o
in
O
00
vO
O
,-4
CM
vO
CM
CM
00
vO
r-
00
vO
vO
o
n
o
o
00
ri
CM
f-l
O
CM
CM
O
CM
vO
in
sO
m
vO
CM
vO
O
in
0
CM
O
co
CM
m
i— 1
00
o
CM
O
CM
00
00
r-l
0
CM
vO
vO
m
£
o
00
O
vO
0
vO
0
r.
0
CM
O
^
1— 1
vO
f-4
O
CM
CO
m
00
<»
VI
ofi
Cb
o
CM
CO
00
«— 1
vS^
01
E
JJ
C
o
•H
4j
C
0)
jjl
01
06
U.
0
0
o
0
CM
©^
01
E
JJ
C
O
^J
c
01
JJ
01
C6
b.
O
CM
Q>
r-4
CM
v§^
01
E
JJ
C
0
JJ
c
01
JJ
01
oc
U,
o
o
0
m
CM
Qj
0)
E
JJ
C-
o
•*-!
JJ
c
01
JJ
01
ttt
U.
0
o
o
ro
<§;
QJ
E
jj
C
o
•*4
JJ
c
01
U
01
ot
w 3
X u-i
0)
s-s tn
o 3
00 C
cu
o
Q.
U> C
X
-------
Table 7-13. USED OIL COMBUSTION TESTS
Test ' Blend*
Mobri 5%r WO/95% No^ 6
April 1969 (additional
(14)
Humble
1968-69
(15)
Shell
1969
(16)
Amoco
Sept 1969
(17)
Gulf
1969
(18)
Northern
States
Power Co.
1973
(19)
tests up to
100% WO)
5 GPH WO
481 ppm Pb
100% WO
100 GPH WO
Elemental
*
Balances
Pb-
-55%-
75% WO
225 GPH WO
Pb in fuel
10,000 ppm Pb
8,000 ppm Pb
5,000 ppm Pb
40% WO/60%
Bunker C; 7.5
GPH WO
25% WO/75% No. 2
1 GPH WO
2800 ppm Pb
155 GPH WO (6%
of BTU input)/
18 T/hr coal
187 ppm Pb equiv
Pb
IF-34%
20-26%
42-49%
Ambient Air
Concentration
Pb - up to
28%
-Pb— *•- Ov5/«cg/in — maxv
monthly mean ground
level for 100 ft.
disch. ht stack calc.;
max. monthly for 35 ft.
disch. ht. stack calc..,
to be approx. l
Pb - 0.06x«g/m at all
sampling points for ^
35 ft stack; 0.67^g/m
measured during 10 min.
soot blow
Pb - l.l-2
measured during WO firing
at one station for 130-jft.
stack; 0.02-0.22^yg/m
avg. monthly geom. mean
(24 hr sample period)
for 310 ft. eff. stack.,
ht, or 0.85-8.
30 min. max. cone.
Pb - max. ground level
for 15 ft. stack
Pb - 95.2%
in hopper
flyash; 3.3%
in bottom ash
% in flyash unless otherwise indicated,
WO = used oil; FO = fuel oil.
7-23
-------
Table 7-13. (Continued] USED OIL COMBUSTION TESTS
Test _
Hawai ian
Electric
Co.
1974
(20)
St.
Lawrence
Cement
1972
(21, 22))
1972
Test
(23)
Exxon tests
for Mass.
1972
(24)
Blend"1"
6.07-14.87% WO/
LSFO; 255-290
GPH WO
Pb In fuel
7 ppm Pb
492 ppm Pb
418 ppm Pb
1490 ppm Pb
4 ppm Pb
Up to 1000 GPH
WO (% unknown)/
No. 6 FO
1-15% WO/No. 6
FO; 3.9-62.3
GPH WO
Pb in fuel
1300 ppm Pb
1000 ppm Pb
500 ppm Pb
300 ppm Pb
100 ppm Pb
*Approx. 245 GPH
total fuel
100% WO
7.5 GPH WO
4200 ppm Pb
Ambient Air
Concentration
Pb - 0.015/^g/m3 max.
calc. for 2 m/sec wind
speed, 1 m from source,
53.35 m (175 ft) cff.
stack ht.
Elemental
.u
Balances
Zn - 60%
S - 95%
Pb
TUO%
39, 47%
51,52,50%
36,31%
100%
Pb - 89.2%* No increase in Pb, Zn,
Zn - 100%* P emissions during WO
Br - 72.2% burning
*in recovered
clinker and
dust
Pb
T9"%
24%
36%
44%
54%
Calc. Max. Avg
seasonal Pb^
cone,
0.54
0.46
0.34
0.25
0.11
25 ft. stack - max. 10 min,
ground level cone, approx.
10 times seasonal cone.
Stack
Wt %
Pb 29
Ca 44
P 50
Zn 38
Fe 35
Ba 50
Tubes
we %
62
25
40
38
50
50
7-24
-------
Table 7-13. (Continued) USED OIL COMBUSTION TESTS
#
Test
-RECON- L97.8
Site A,
Test #1
RECON 1978
Site A,
Test #2
Blend*
Elemental
*
Balances
Ambient Air
Concentration
RECON 1978
Site B,
Test #3
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #4
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #5
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #6
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #7
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #8
RECON 1978
Site C,
Test #9
3 3_ GPH
No. 2 Oil
3 ppm Pb
15-257o WO
(Industrial)
4.6-7.7 GPH
WO
13 ppm Pb
8% WO
1 GPH WO
157 ppm Pb
140 GPH
No. 6 Oil
2 ppm Pb
9.727. WO
13 GPH WO
227 ppm Pb
60.47o WO
86 GPH WO
1398 ppm Pb
20.87» WO
(Reprocessed)
28 GPH WO
132 ppm Pb
1007o WO
(Reprocessed)
131 GPH WO
627 ppm Pb
20.67o WO
(Industrial)
27 GPH WO
3 ppm Pb
Pb - 807o
Pb - 447.
Cu - 497.
S - 877.
Ni, Na, Fe,
Al, Cr, Zn,
Mg 1007.
S - 917.
Ni, Na, Fe,
Pb, Cu, Al,
Cr, Zn, Mg
1007,
Pb - 1007.
Pb - 427.
S - 847.
Pb
S
Pb
S
357.
897.
237.
1147.
Pb - 977.
S - 1217.
Pb - 1007.
S - 1117.
See Appendix B, Volume II for RECON test details
7-25
-------
z
CO
H
CO
W
H
Z
o
0
bJ
0$
O
Z
OS
Q
.A
CO
Z
<* o
1 CO
r-l
_4 u f~\
CO X O
H O co
z
o
z
CM
O
CO
rJ
u
p"i
f-
CN r-t
O CO
^P_ »»A
r*-r Ou
W^rt
v i
XI O
r-l r-4
J2
••^
*n c-
r-4 Z
M
E Z
CO
r4 VJ
oo x:
*
«— -
CO
>_>
o
m
i-i
CM r-4
O co
IO OC
(/) CO
X) O
r-t i-t
S-.
£
!W 0
/"N /*^i
-u O
-M cn
^N^
tfi
E co
CO
oo x:
CO
s^
-rj
p ,
O
o
z
z
D
o:
<^
r-4
r-4
\o
•J CO
o
CM
m
»^
CM
ON
O
CO
i— 1
CM
J O
r-4
CM
CO
CM
vO
i-4
0
o
CO
CO
-^
r— 1
• r-l
O
CM
4t
i— 1 — •
CO
CM
i-l
^O
r^
CO
o
CM
m
m
•
m
CM
CO
r-4
CM
r-4
m
sO
O
00
,^-
r-4
f^
r-l
O
sO
,
O
CO
CM
00
ON
r-4
CO
in
CM
o
m
CO
m
•
r^
CO
f*
CM
CO
00
I— 1
.
00
r-4
r-4
r-t
co
O
^
co
r-4
in
ON
r>.
i— i
O
»^
m
CM
r-l
m
CO
m
•
CM
m
o
r^
^^i
i^^
r^
so
sO
r-
r-l
m
i— t
m
CO
O
CM
>^
r-l
SO
^J
^D
r-t
sO
CO
CM
CM
ON
O
CO
m
•
sO
•^
0
CO
m
jy
co
m
00
ON
CO
ON
r-4
sO
CO
0
r-4
CO
r-l
00
ON
O
CM
sO
00
f^
CM
m
oo
CO
m
•
o
^
CM
^
**
O
00
00
m
sO
co
co
1—1
f^
CM
0
co
co
r-4
ON
.
r-4
1
>3"
0)
r-l
x>
CO
H
E
O
V-i
U-l
)j
o
XJ
o
CO
14-1
c
o
'in
tf)
• r4
E
CxJ
-X
7-26
-------
en
H
in
bl
H
Z
O
o
u
OS
1
co
z
o
M
CO
1
bl
H
^
o
H
ai
^
a,
*
m
r-4
ti
01
£>
.^
U E
< u e
yj . 2
O O Ui
O <8 ui
•-IOC
u O
« 0 -4
3fi H w
a*
U »4
01 — 4+
V4 U
Q Ul_(fl
Ul O «)
C V4 C
O 01 ~4
•r4 N CB
Ul VJ
ui o oc
E
Ul <4-l
C U
O (A
. -IT3
ofl tfl ***-»
> to ai
< -4 C
E-4
M
O
U *
• )a
f-4 C *r4
O O 0)
> ~4
U (0
MO
>
Q
O > 0
•^ O
0)
ojs-s
u
C"
X O
V4 O
a
01
"0.0
sz
«
c •
3 O
B!Z
Ul
<
**
r-4
OJ
3
U.
r-l
/\
A
r**
^
O
•
o
o^
PS.
r-4
O
•
0
CM
r^
00
CO
•
o
4 O
CO
"*
o *^
• •
J OO»
001*-
mm
J CMCO
r* r-4
mo
i • •
r^r*.
^ CM
—i
CM
0
0
.«•,
o
u.
•*_*
»—4
i>r4
o
r-4
01
3
CM
^
r-4
A
A
^
vO
0
•
o
o*
CM
CO
o
•
o
^
sO
>^
• •
o
o
r-4
r-l
0 O
* •
G\ 1 »^
r» 00
O O
^ 1 00
r^
O O
• •
f*. 1 r-4
r-l
r-l CM CO
CM
CO
r-l
O
0
Cb
c
•t-4
O
3
•
•o
C
r-4
g>S
in
CM
i
in
r-l
,_,
A
A
o>
m
O
•
O
0
r-4
co
O
0*
0
CM
m
•
0
o
o
-4
o
•
•-I 1 1
00
o
0 1 1
r-4
0
•
a* i i
r-4 CM CO
CO
-3-
O
o
o
b.
C
•H
1-4
~4
O
01
Ul
CB
U
V
C
CO
r4
U
j-s
00
^
A
A
CM
r-l
O
•
0
CM
vO
O
0
o'
m
co
co
m
•
O
00
o*
0 0
vO 1 -1
0 m
CM 1 r^.
r-l
O m
• •
CM 1 f-4
r-4 — 1
r-l CM CO
^
r-4
O
o
J~*
o
b.
— '
,_(
.^
o
r-4
01
3
b,
<£>
3£
CM
CO
I—I
0
CM
O
O
Q\
m
r—l
o
0*
00
m
00
•
O
vO
vO
oo m
• •
r-4 1 CM
00 00
CM 0
f | ^
o m
• •
r-l 1 r-l
-J r-l
r-4 CM CO
m
^
O
0
1— 1
-4
0
0)
Ul
09
O
V
C
03
O
3*5 O
CM bi
r-^
• C
cr\ .-4
co
vO
O
*^
r^
O
•
O
^o
p*fc
^J
0
o'
0
CO
^
vO
•
0
t.n
•
fN»
ooo
• • •
cM3 i
00 00
m m
in \o i
m o
• •
oo a* i
r-l CM CO
00
r-l
O1*
o
r-4
•*4
O
"O
01
Ul
Ul
01
u
o
la
a.
01
ag
5^
O
O
r— *
in
O
CM
O
CM
O
•
o
m
^
r-l
0
o
o*
CO
CM
•
0
00
in
sO
•
CM
00
0
vO
^
•
r^
r_4
r-4
O*
m
O
d
o
u,
c
o
3
•
o
c
p-4
3*^
^O
•
O
I>J
m
•
i f*^
00
m
l m
0
•
1 r~-
CM CO
O
o
~ -a
vO O
• ^j
•* 41
,_, ^
CM <
O Q-
Sj bJ
~~~ I
o >,
O r-4
r-4 C
1 O
C
o
u
u
01
u
0
a
CO
o
u
01
u
-------
Table 7-16. BENZO(a) PYRENE CONCENTRATIONS
IN VARIOUS OILS - DATA SUMMARY*
_Virgin_#2_oil.s_ 0 _.0 3-CL6
Virgin #4 oil 2.1
Virgin #5 oils 2.8-3.3
Virgin #6 oils 2.9-44
Unused motor oil basestocks 0.03-0.28
Used motor oils and waste oils 3.2-28
Used diesel motor oil <0.15
Used synthetic motor oil 16
Used oil (new car dealer) 0.7
Unused re-refined motor oil basestock 2.1
Used industrial oil 5.9
Reprocessed used oil 10.5
Used oil/fuel oil blends 1.6-3.0
*See Tables 7-17 and 7-18 for details.
7-7.S
-------
lat
Sample No.
228
203
222
226
231
212
230
224
223
78-168
78-25
78-28
7-8-27
78-1 70
ale 7-17. DATA 0;> BhiXZCM a ) PYRENf
UNUSED AND USED MOTOR 0
Descript ion
Unused (virgin) motor oil
barsestock
Unused (virgin) motor oil
basestock
Unused re-refined motor
oil basestock
Used motor oil (1,400 miles)
Used motor oil (3,000 miles)
Used motor oil (composite)
Re-refiner's feedstock waste
oil (sampling period A)
Re-refiner's feedstock waste
oil (sampling period B)
Service station (station A)
waste oil
Service station (station B)
waste oil
Used motor oil (unleaded,
4,145 miles)
Used diesel motor oil
(3,000 miles)
Used synthetic motor oil.
(23,000 miles)
Used crankcase oil
15-25% used industrial oi-1
in #2 fuel oil
Used crankcase oil (new
car dealer)
H?o used crankcase oil (new
car dealer) in #2 fuel oil
Used industrial oil
-I CONCENTRATIONS
ILS AND BLENDED
B(a)P Cone.
0.28
0.03
2.1 + 1.2
5.8
28.
12. + 3
12. + 2
8.8 + 1.2
5.2 + 0.4
3.2 + 0.6
14. + 2
0.15
16. + 1
5.7 + 0.5
3.0 + 0.4
0.7 + 0.1
1.6 + 0.1
5.9 ± 0.2
IN
OILS
Refer*
25
26
7
27
28
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
RECON
(Site
RECON
(Site
RECON
(Site
RECON
(Site
KECON
(Site
mce
Test*
C)
Test*
A)
Test*
B)
Test*
B)
Test*
C)
Annlvsisbv NKS
-------
Table 7-18. DATA ON BENZO(a)PYRENE CONCENTRATIONS IN FUEL OILS
B(a)P Cone.
Sample No.
78-26
220
214
229
225
227
201
213
78-167
78-169
Description
No. 2 virgin distillate
No. 2 fuel oil
Virgin distillate heating oil
No. 2 virgin distillate
diesel oil
No. 4 virgin residual fuel
oil (source A)
No. 5 virgin residual fuel
oil (source B)
No. 5 virgin residual fuel
oil. (duplicate of source B)
No. 5 recycled fuel oil
(source A)
No. 5 recycled fuel oil
(source B)
No. 6 virgin residual fuel
oil (Bunker C)
No. 6 virgin residual fuel
oil (Bunker C, source A)
No. 6 virgin residual fuel
oil (Bunker C, source B)
No. 6 fuel oil
Reprocessed used oil
^*tg/g Reference
0.6
0.5
0.03
0.03
2.1
2.8
3.3"
8.4
3.7
44.0
27
35.
2.86
10.5
29
+0.1 RECON
(Site
26
26
+ 0.3 7
+ 0.1 7
+ 0.6 7
+ 0.8 7
+ 0.4 7
29
+ 3 7
+ 2 7
+0.06 RECON
(Site
+1.0 RECON
(Site
Test
A)
Test
C)
Test
C)
* Analysis by NBS
7-30
-------
z
o
o
u
1
*fc
CO
z
o
t-t
CO
CO
t-4
u
z
i
^
u
^5
04
a
^t
X
•
ON
f_^
1
1^
4)
2
eo
H
,«
•g
w u
3
O in
41 ca
in
ca in
0 C
0
-4.0
CO )-
4J CO
o o
H 0
"53-
>»
z
1-4
01
3
U4
oc
1
«
m
u
-4
U
CO
Q
14
<
^4
eQ
0)
1-4
U
3
C
>
r-4
O
eu
01
• efl
^4
41
3
U4
oc
^^
&c
^
+
a
a
a
r-4
CO
u
O
H
•rj
41
-•4
U4
..4
U
C
4)
•o
—4
C
01
c
01
u
.£
c
(Q
c
41
PS
en
4N
CM
0)
C
01
u
)4
u
c
CO
e
01
£
eu
01
c
01
1-4
eg
u
a
eo
Z
4c
f4
01
3
bu
C
3
as
01
u
CO
J
1 en >o r4
- ^ -1 v
\
1 OO ON r-t
V
O en
en 1-4
1 I
1-4 0
^
en
CM
Q • a
Z 1 -4 Z
^
co
^^
Q - Q
Z 1 0 Z
^
en
o
a • a
Z 1 O Z
en
•-4
a a
Z 1 Z O
CM
^5
-»^
O CM
^^
P* O
m ej
1 CM O
l l
l CM m s-*
1 % r4 00
*s
c
CO
i-4 i-4 CM en
ca
1
1
1
1 < < 03
m en m en CM o
o ON ^ P*» in %£
l
,-4
r4 i-4
r*% •• in 1-4 ^
i-4 •» O •* ** * 1
~* ^ ^ "" ^ ^
O
a i a i a i
z z z ON
i— i
p^
a a a
Z l Z l Z i eo
1-4
Q a a
Z I Z 1 Z 1 Z
en
Q a Q
Z 1 Z 1 Z I O
a a a o
Z 1 Z 1 Z 1 Z
<-lk
4J
vO NO >i4
^t 3fc o ^ in
-^ ^^ :4fc :?fe O
O O ->• ^-. Q.
U O O O U
U U OS 3 tnT3
4-1
5s? 5"S S^ B^S — * 00
CM *^ oo ^o in ""*^
r^ 0 00
vO O O O O CL *
^fe CJS \c CM Otf CM 0* *-^
Q ^
01
^ in so r*» oo ON 3
H
1
1
-
O U U 0 0 CJ <
-— »
r-4
1
s^
0)
1-4
CO
H
00
••*•»,
oo
\
en
"~4
n
i-4
CO
00
en
O
1-4
^^
JO
r4
r-4
II
ca
1-4
-,4
O
i-4
4)
3
41
a
r4
p4
•r4
in
•r4
•o
•a
c
CO
r4
CO
3
•o
in
01
u
c
'eo
},4
wH
^
V.
0
U4
V4
0
u
CO
U,
C
0
01
in
•-4
E
Id
4J
C
eg
u
3
1-4
r4
0
Ou
^1
—4
<
r4
O
•o
V
in
3
•a
4)
in
in
eu
u
O
|4
a.
01
)4
"
O
eti
• M
^-*
*f(
0
eu
in
eg
O
C
eg
^4
u
•o
01
M
3
II
O
o
CJ
1-4
— 1
o
TJ
41
in
3
1-4
eg
-r4
^4
4J
in
3
T3
C
-4
II
0
3
• M
r4
-*4
O
1-4
01
3
U4
vO
~^t
II
vO
=0:
• #»
-* r4
X -4
0 0
in 1-4
eg 0)
3
4) U4
E
3 CM
O
> II
>s CM
.£ %
+ *
in
01
in
eg
O
r-4
rW
eg
e
.-4
a
z
in
*
03
O
a,
M
4)
C
01
^
a.
eg
"o
N
0)
oa
*
0)
eu
^4
X
cu
M
01
c
01
(A
X
^
f*
O
M
41
C
CU
4_|
e
eg
V4
O
3
1-4
U,
*
01
c
41
U
eg
j2
^j
c
<
M
^1
>^
c
41
X
a
-^4
03
%
•a
0)
4J
u
41
4J
V
u
0
c
II
a
z
-------
'flO
|3»
s-
Z ***
* s
(8
3E .^
09 °°
06 "M
2 u
3 5?
£2
o
o e
*Y
r»
41
J3
to
H
seous Total
to
•o
to
o
H
Z
3.
10
O
o
3
0
03
.
"
•a
w
~u
01
01
2
M
=
03
U
CU
<;
03
o
03
U
O
3
~*
bu
C
01
Si
cu
<
u
0
CJ
cu
.c
01
a.
cu
10
03
•z.
X
00
.*
30
3
L*.
C
3
X
1
CO >-T
>/l -3-
1
1
-*T
O SO
0 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
ft
o •*
O rsi
0 0
CO
en
O
Q
Z
a
z
a
z
i
so i—
85
o o
a
z
i
^^
o
—
cu
.„
0
_M
41
3
(jL,
rsi
*t
1
PI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
O
u
Ul
at
.^
O
.—41
01
3
U.
rs
%
«H
1
-»
sO
£>
3fc
j-
i
o>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
u
X.
vO
^_
o
u
j-£
r>i
.
0
in
1 1 1 1
i/> en CM O
a a
Z 1 Z 1
Q Q
Z 1 Z 1
a a
Z 1 Z 1
a o
Z 1 Z 1
Q 0
Z 1 Z 1
Q a
Z 1 Z 1
a a
Z 1 Z 1
Q a
Z 1 Z
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
a a
Z 1 Z 1
a Q
Z 1 Z 1
a a
Z 1 Z 1
z z z z
o o o o
cj u u cj
a. ce a: at
=£ so
— 3k ^s
O — . -^
CJ O O
cj a: 3
e-s 5-» H
-^ CO sO
o o o o
so rsi on eM
sO r^ CO 0s
•a
X C
J3 td -^
in 41 u
-" 10 »J t»
x o :o m
c — — c
41 m Ul C 3 41
.C J£ U 11 O "O —
a. to -~ oo •« c —
91 "^OJWUuO^^O
c aa a. m o k- u —
0) 41 E tg O "O
_ CTJOO4IO.— i.
0>X 4I4IUI.— OOI^I
C U 41 WtJ<.OsM.C in 3
41 4) OIC ^CQ^3 3OO*OtQ
(Ub O« C4t kJC4IU^-< UO>(J "3
CX ^- COIU C-— toOC— UJt i,
ojcu •** cujz tebsM4iinotQoc-^in
— -^ jseycy-Cw^^wcsio— '— * — • 1 41 to — vn
^^^4ls^^coCtoC4l4IJ=C3CUU4IU s>
uOCOCUifOU4iina3U4tC3;to-M"O 4*0
.CNOIMO.CCO.CX X-OXtslk. -a »j 1.
Q.CbCUwai3O.ur-\— •--(—. CwXiJU'Jl
to4>X4IOCJ=^-*-^J: -OCOsUXUCX-flSJ
Z03Cu03CJ.
03
-------
Table 7-21
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Maximum Allowable Concentration**
Air Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Total Suspended
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
AveraRinR Period
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
24-hour
3-hour
Annual Geometric
Mean
24-hour
8 -hour
1-hour
(UR/
80
365
-
75
260
10000
40000
Primary
Standard
W*) (ppm)
0.03
0.14
-
.
•
9.0
35.0
Secondary
Standard
(uR/m3) (ppm)
— —
.
1300 0.50
60
150
10000 9.0
40000 35.0
Photochemical
Oxidants
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Nonmethane
Hydrocarbons
Lead and its
compounds
1-hour
160
0.08
160
Annual Arithmetic 100
Mean
3-hour
(6 to 9 a
160
1 calendar quarter 1.5
0.05 100
0.2* 160
1.5
0.08
0.05
••'• Other th.in annual prriods, minimum allowable concentrations miy be exce- .led
nj mori' thin onci- PIT r.ili-nd.ir ye;ir.
7-33
-------
II
SO 1-4 O
»~i r*. r»
O O «N
• « •
o o o
«N O
00 O
r- «n
M
<
H
Z
td
>
U
CM
^
a)
m
u
c
¥
V
M
y
c
1-4
4)
*«4
|JO
4
O
1-4
••4
\<
E
12
00
8
m o
o
H
,2
O
11—i
as
a
u
n
09
4
WJ
o
H
(O
51
•o
o
•*4
W
V
OU
$
o *•»«">!
CM O» ••*
i-« no
o o ^
O 0 O
odd
oo »
o>
at
M
4
41
0)
J3
4
g
4 e
^ o
go)
•^ M
XU
Se
4)
U
o> c
jco
u o
at v
M JO
M M
4J V
e >
g °
c: •
M e
u o
4t
v
O
JJ JJ O
*4 4JJ
-H ^ C
4 E 9
9 41 00
, g»
e JQ e 4
0) 4 4 J=
y 1-4
c -^ E u
M
O
M
4
T3
O
y
4)
4
O
4
4)
u
V
O.
w>
41 41
JC
4
y
M
v
a.
41
u
o
•o
at
4t
u
X
ft)
§c «
o o
f4 -H
U U ^
-185-
•> V M
^ N «g
O 41 M
•HMO?
2 a -•
4 4 u .
5o n S
o) o 5 o)
4J 5 M
P ." TS 4
^ C
Q. <0
O
x
w TJ u
M
y
c
« 4
4 41
41 W
U M
OC
-ri o
*
e
41 M
a M
4 T4
A E
-rt «
« U JJ
-HOJU
E
- 14
M? 41
U
>» 4)
8"°
eg
4 -H
u y 4
O 1-1 S
e 4= 5
> ~«
1-4 i—I
«-» T9 4
C g I
O u M
« «U
'-" WJK-H
g
4
E
U-r4
O ^4 O
•H Cl. M
u a o.
4 4
M P-l
JJ JJ >M
e •* 4
41 e
y C , JJ 4
O M ft)
u g u 5s
B 0)
4 E U
C « a)
aO>-4 41 «
tn 4 M *
w C u .3
41 O 4 u
•O i* jj
«J O ca
X 4 O c
<-• C O S)
rH * ,,_!
s-s* s
iJ • S -°
5 S5^
« 2 M 3
V. 4 4) O
4 «J ^
• 4 >
» •) 4) «
4 4) U L,
41 C 60 D.
MM
"^JS S
7-34
-------
O O ;_<
C- o O
.J " .^
V
. .V.
LEAD EMISSIONS FROR
USED OIL COMBUSTION
• MOBIL 1969
A SHELL 1969
Q GULF 1969
A NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. 1973
O HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC CO. 1974
• 1972 TEST
O EXXON 1972
X RECON 1978
Data from Table 7-13
«
o
'0 o.o
Lr,.\D rMIITK!)
-------
1. ..oinste in. N. J. .Juste Oil '\ccycliri:; and Disposal. EPA-670/2
-74-052. August 1974 . 323 pa-es .
2. Mascetti, C. J. and H. !!. White. Utilization of Used Oil.
—lieport—'ttcrr-A'dr R--7-8-H- 8 34 -h-lr r- 00E-—- Arttgtts t~i -9-7-8-v
3. iiidga, Richard J. and Associates. Review of All Lubricants
Used in the U. S. and Their Re-Refining Potential. DOE/BC/
30227-1. June 1980. 84 pages.
4. Stewart, R. G. and J. L. Helm. The Lubricant Market in the
1980' s - U. S. and Free World. Presented at the 1980 NPRA
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. March 23-25, L980.
5. Cotton, F. 0., M. L. Whisman, J. W. Goetzinger and J. W.
Reynolds. Analysis of 30 Used Motor Oils. Hydrocarbon
Processing, September 1977.
6. FR 44, 31514-31568, May 31, 1979.
7. May, W. E. and J. M. Brown. The Analysis of Some Residual
Fuel Oil and Some Waste Lubricating Oils by a High
Performance Liquid Chromatographic Procedure. Measurements
and Standards for Recycled Oil - II. NBS Special Publication
556. D. A. Becker, Editor. September 1979.
8. Becker, D. A. and J. J. Comeford. Recycled Oil Program:
Phase I - Test Procedures for Recycled Oil Used as Burner
Fuel. XBSIR 78-1453. February 1979.
9. Whisman, M. L. , J. 'W. Goetzinger, and F. 0. Cotton. Waste
Lubricating Oil Research: An Investigation of Several Re-
refining Methods. RI-7S84. U. S. Bureau of Mines. 1974.
10. Cotton, F. 0., D. W. Brinkman, J. W. Reynolds, J. W.
Goetzinger, and M. L. Whisman. Pilot-Scale Used Oil
Re-Refining Using a Solvent Treatment/Distillation Process.
iit:rC/.
-------
13. Devitt et al . Population and Characteristics of Industrial/
Commercial Boilers in the U. S. EPA-600/7-79-178a. August
1979. 282 pages.
14. API Publication No^ ^4036. Mobil Tests. Final _Repprt of the
Task Force on Used Oil Disposal. August 1970. 44 pages.
15. API. Humble Tests. Op. Cit.
16. API. Shell Tests. Op. Cit.
17. API. Amoco Tests. Op. Cit.
18. API. Gulf Tests. Op. Cit.
19. API. Northern States Tests. Waste Oil Roundup—No. 3.
Committee on Disposal of Waste Products. September 1974.
20. API Publication No. 1588. Hawaiian Electric Tests. Energy
From Used Lubricating Oils. Task force on Utilization of
Waste Lubricating Oils. October 1975. 135 pages.
21. Berry. E. E., MacDonald, L. P. and Skinner, D. J.
Experimental Burning of Waste Oil as a Fuel in Cement
Manufacture. Technology Development Report EPS 4-WP-75-1.
Environment Canada. June 1975. 187 pages.
22. Berry, E. E. and MacDonald, L. P. Experimental Burning of
Used Automotive Crankcase Oil in a Dry-Process Cement Kiln.
Journal of Hazardous Mterials 1_, 137-156. 1875/76.
23. Confidential source.
24. Chappell , G. A. Waste Oil Reprocessing. Project No. 72-5.
Prepared for Division of Water Pollution Control.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. January 1973.
25. Gross, G. P. Gasoline Composition and Vehicle Exhaust Gas
Polynuclear Aromatic Content. Final Report No. CRC- APRAC,
Project No. CAPE-6-68, 1974.
26. Graf, W. and Winter, C. Archiv. fur Hygiene und Bakterio-
logie, 152, 289, 1968.
7-35
-------
27. Sullivan, J. B. Marine Pollution Monitoring (Petroleum).
Proceedings of a Workshop, NBS Special Publication 409,
1974. 261 pages.
28. Brown, R. A. et al. Rapid Methods of Analysis for Trace
Quantities of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Phenols
~~ ~" in—Automobile Exhaust,~ "Gasoline and "Crankcase Gil". Final
Report No. CRC-APRAC, Project No. CAPE-12-68. 1971.
29. Pancirov, R. J. and R. A. Brown. Proceedings, Conference on
Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. San Francisco, CA.
1975. Pages 103-113.
30. Hangebrauck,R. P. et al. Sources of Polynuclear Aromtics in
the Atmosphere. NAPCA Publication No. 999-AP-33. Public
Health Service, Durham, NC. 1967. 43 pages.
7-36
-------
USED OIL BURNED AS A FUEL
Volume II
Appendices
This publication (SW-892) was prepared by Recon Systems, Inc.
and ETA Engineering, Inc. for the Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management
Division and the Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1980
-------
this publication (SW-892) was prepared under contract. Mention of
comiercial products does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Government. Editing and technical content of this report were the
responsibility of the Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
J. .Q.
2.0
3.0
4.0
SUMMARY
1.1 Sources of Used Oil
1.2 Disposition of Used Oil
1.3 Types of Facilities Burning Used Oil
1.4 Assessment of the Impacts of
Burning Used Oil
1.5 The Effects of Environmental
Regulations on Used Oil Burning
1.6 Specifications for Used Oil Fuels
INTRODUCTION
2.1 Sources of Used Oil
2.2 Disposition of Used Oil
2.3 Properties of Used Oil
2.4 Used Oil Collection
2.5 Used Oil Processing
2.6 Used Oil Blending
FACILITIES BURNING USED OIL
3.1 Oil- and Coal-Fired Boilers
3.1.1 Water-Tube Boilers
3.1.2 Fire-Tube Boilers
3.2 Small Waste Oil Heaters
3.3 Cement Kilns
3.4 Incinerators
3.5 Diesel Engines
ASSESSMENT OF USED OIL
BURNING EMISSIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Combustion Tests
4.3 Discussion of Used Oil
Combustion Emissions
4.3.1 Lead
4.3.2 Other Metals
4.3.3 Other Inorganic Elements
4.3.4 PNA's (and POM ' s )
4.3.5 PCB's
4.3.6 Halide Solvents
-+.3.7 Other Organics
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-6
1-7
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-7
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-7
3-7
3-8
3-8
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-/
4-7
-------
4.4 Emission Factors 4-7
4.5 Impact on Ambient Air Quality 4-7
4.6 Reduction of Emissions by
Used Oil Purification 4-10
4.6.1 General 4-10
4.6.2 Lead and Ash 4-11
4^&-^3---QC-he-r--Iflorgan ies 4-11
4.6.4 PCB's 4-11
4.6.5 Solvents 4-12
4.6.6 PNA's 4-12
4.6.7 Other Organics 4-12
4.7 Reduction of Emissions by
Combustion Controls 4-12
4.7.1 Lead and Ash 4-12
4.7.2 Other Inorganics 4-13
4.7.3 Hydrocarbon and PCB Emissions 4-13
5.0 LEAD AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF
BURNING USED OIL 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Technical.Approach 5-1
5.2.1 Emission Data 5-1
5.2.2 Meteorological Data 5-6
5.2.3 Modeling Analysis 5-6
5.3 Results 5-7
5.3.1 Generic Source Analysis 5-7
5.3.2 Extrapolation of Results
for Other Assumptions 5-7
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis 5-19
5.4.1 Results 5-23
5.5 Other Considerations 5-23
5.5.1 Multiple Point Sources 5-23
5.5.2 Decreased Lead Content
in Crankcase Drainings 5-25
5.5.3 Pollution Control Devices 5-25
5.5.4 Building Downwash 5-25
5.5.5 Background Concentrations
and Monitoring Data 5-26
5.6 Conclusions 5-26
-------
o.i; Tin- i.rYrCITi Hf ilXV I KONM.-INTAL
.IKG'JLATKNS PN USED OIL I'.UrtMXG b-l
6.1 Introduction 6-1
__________ ___...____ __ __________ _
6.2.1 Amh i en t Air Qua 1 1 1 y
Standards ( NAAQS ) ' 6-2
6.2.2 Prevention of Signiticn'it
Deterioration (PSD) 6-2
6.2.3 Nonattainment Region
Provi s i ons 6-4
6.2.4 New Source Performance
Standards (N'SPS) 6-5
6.2.5 Emission Regulation for
Diesel Engine Vehicles 6-6
6.2.6 National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) 6-6
6.2.7 State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 6-7
6.3 The Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) 6-7
7.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA 7-1
VOLUME II
APPENDIX A DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS OF THE LEAD
AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF BURNING USED OIL
APPENDIX B RECON EMISSION SOURCE TESTS
APPENDIX C LEAD EMISSIONS DURING DOWNWASH
-------
APPENDIX A
DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS OF THE LEAD AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF BURNING USED OIL
SOURCE DATA
The average volumetric flue gas flow rate and the stack gas
_exit__temperature__were. used _ta calculate- an average—mass -flow—o-f--
flue gas for each boiler size category. A conservative rate of
fuel flow was then determined by assuming that the flue gas
mass flow was equivalent to the theoretical air requirement,
based on the heating value of the fuel. This assumption leads
to a calculated fuel firing rate slightly higher than the
actual firing rate and thus to a maximum estimate of emissions.
Finally, it was assumed that 25% by volume of the fuel would be
replaced by used oil with a heating value of 150,000 Btu/
gallon; the mean value from data in the Used Oil Recycling in
Illinois Data Book.* The theoretical air plus 12% excess air
required for combustion of this oil would be 128.6 Ib of air/
gallon of fuel fired (Chapter 13, Table 15, ASHRAE 1972
Handbook of Fundamentals).
DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSES
Atmospheric dispersion modeling was performed to assess the
impact on quarterly average lead air quality due to the com-
bustion of used oil. A quarterly assessment was chosen because
of its consistency with the averaging time for the U.S. EPA
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead.
Isopleth Maps
Upon the completion of these analyses with the various me-
teorological data, the quarterly concentrations for each ge-
neric point source were examined. The overall maximum at-
mospheric lead concentration was identified for each point
source modeled. For each city or region analyzed, isopleth
maps were developed for each generic source's maximum quarter.
These are presented in Figures 1 through 25. The figures are
ordered such that the first five depict isopleths for the
maximum quarterly impact of generic source 1 for each of the
four cities and one region analyzed, the second five are for
generic source 2, etc. Besides indicating the point of maximum
concentration, the figures depict both the area impacted and
the variability of these impacts under various meteorological
conditions. It should be noted, however, that these isopleths
are based on concentrations resulting from the assumptions
listed in Table 5-2. As in the case of maximum concentrations,
*John J. Yates et al, Used Oil Recycling in Illinois Data Book.
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources. October 1978.
A-l
-------
0.1
N
Emission Source I . i
O 1/2 km
FIGURE I GENERIC SOURCE I
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
CHICAGO
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-2
-------
N
Emission Source __
0 1/2 km
FIGURE 2 GENERIC SOURCE I
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
PADUCAH
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-3
-------
Emission Source
_J
l/2km
FIGURE 3
GENERIC SOURCE I
4th QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
HELENA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-4
-------
Emission Source
N
FIGURE 4 GENERIC SOURCE I
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m
DENVER
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-5
-------
Emission Source
i
l/2km
FIGURE 5 GENERIC SOURCE I
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-6
-------
Emission Source
FIGURE 6
N
1/2 km
GENERIC SOURCE 2
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
CHICAGO
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-7
-------
I
N
Emission Source
_J
l/2km
•FIGURE 7
GENERIC SOURCE 2
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m:
PADUCAH
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-8
-------
Emission Source
N
_
0 l/2km
FIGURE 8
GENERIC SOURCE 2
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
HELENA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-9
-------
Emission Source
N
1/2 km
FIGURE 9
GENERIC SOURCE 2
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
DENVER
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-10
-------
N
I/2km
Emission Source
FIGURE 10
GENERIC SOURCE 2
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-ll
-------
•A* Emission Source
N
!/2km
FIGURE II
GENERIC SOURCE 3
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m:
CHICAGO
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-12
-------
Emission Source
j
I/2km
FIGURE 12
GENERIC SOURCE 3
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
PADUCAH
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-13
-------
Emission Source
FIGURE 13
N
0 l/2km
GENERIC SOURCE 3
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
HELENA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-14
-------
i
Emission Source
1/2 km
FIGURE 14
GENERIC SOURCE 3
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
DENVER
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-15
-------
1
I I I
0 l/2km
Emission Source
FIGURE 15
GENERIC SOURCE 3
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m'
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-16
-------
Emission Source
,0.1
1 t
2km
FIGURE 16
GENERIC SOURCE 4
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
CHICAGO
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-17
-------
N
•&• Emission Source
I I
I 2km
FIGURE 17
GENERIC SOURCE 4
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m:
*
PADUCAH
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-18
-------
Emission Source
N
FIGURE 18
GENERIC SOURCE 4
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
HELENA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
2km
A-19
-------
N
if Emission Source
FIGURE 19
0 I 2km
GENERIC SOURCE 4
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
DENVER
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-20
-------
N
; i i
0 I 2km
Emission Source
O.I
FIGURE 20
GENERIC SOURCE 4
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/rrf
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-21
-------
N
Emission Source
I 2km
FIGURE 21
GENERIC SOURCE 5
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
CHICAGO
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-22
-------
N
Emission Source
O I 2km
FIGURE 22
GENERIC SOURCE 5
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
PADUCAH
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-23
-------
Emission Source
i
I t
I 2km
F.IGURE 23 GENERIC SOURCE 5
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
HELENA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-24
-------
Emission Source
N
I I
I 2km
FIGURE 24
GENERIC SOURCE 5
3rd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
DENVER
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-25
-------
N
I I j
0 I 2km
Emission Source
O.I
^
FIGURE 25
GENERIC SOURCE 5
2nd QUARTER AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
SO. CALIFORNIA
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
A-26
-------
the isopleths will change, possibly significantly, depending on
the assumptions employed. Assumptions that lower emissions
[i.e. fewer hours of operation, lower percent of used oil
burned, etc.] will result in smaller isopleths located closer
to the source. Assumptions that increase emissions will tend
to expand the isopleths.
TDATA" TRANSFORMATION FOR OTHER OPERATING -CONDITIONS OR ASSUMP-
TIONS
The CDMQC computer program calculates concentrations at each
receptor using the Gaussian formula. The Gaussian formula
describes a directly proportional relationship between emission
rate and resultant ambient concentrations. Thus, it is possible
to determine the concentration at any receptor point for a
different lead emission rate by multiplying the original re-
ceptor concentrations by the ratio of the lead emission rates.
Expressed algebraically, this becomes:
X =
pb2
where :
QDb
F 1 = original lead emission rate (g/s)
^pb2 = new lead emission rate (g/s)
X , ! = given receptor lead concentration
X , 2 = new receptor lead concentration pg/m3
The overall scaling factor is the product of all individual
factors that affect the emission rate. In other words, the
ratio Qpb2/Qpb1 is the product of the ratios of the five as-
sumptions listed in Table 5-2. Thus, Equation 1 becomes:
y = y v new hours operation new fuel lead content
pb2 pb-L 24 hrs x 7 days 2500 ppm
new % used oil burned new % lead emitted out stack
25% x 75%
1-new control device efficiency
1
The impact of changing these five assumptions that directly
affect emission rate can thus be analyzed for their individual
and/or overall effects on receptor concentrations without
additional computer analyses. This results in the ability to
A-27
-------
analyze the air quality impact of various operating scenarios
based on a single computer modeling analysis.
Scaling Methodology
In the modeling analyses, five assumptions were used^ that
-directly- af-fected—emission- 'rates. These ~are ^listed' ihTTable
5-2 in the main body of the text. To determine the effects of
other assumptions upon calculated concentrations, the method-
ology depicted in Equation 2 has been used in Table A-l to
determine a ratioing factor to revise receptor concentrations
to reflect new assumptions. Table A-l provides an example of
how Equation 2 is employed to find the ratioing factor neces-
sary to revise the data presented in this report for other
operating conditions. Obviously, not all factors need be
changed, and not all factors must be less than one; these will
be functions of the situation being analyzed. The final scaling
factor is the product of the individual proportioning factors.
This product (0.044 in Table A-l) is then used as the mul-
tiplier to scale the existing modeled concentrations to reflect
new conditions. This scaling procedure will correctly estimate
the effects of any change(s) in assumptions or operating para-
meters upon the calculated ambient lead concentrations pre-
sented in this report.
A-28
-------
OJ
o
! S-
' -p
; C
O
' C_> Q)
' U
' C -r-
o >
! T- O)
OL
O
1 —
et
U.
^•p
*—
O
^p
D:
o
i— i
2;
21
LU
LiJ
Q
a:
o
Q
C
1— ;
«:Z
t '
C
LU
— 1
CL.
^-
^^
X
LU
-P Q
3
•—
O
O_
^
^^
O
O) 0)
C C r— 1 i— 1 O
o o
~z. -z. li-
es
X X
0" ~~
QJ -a
in a)
=3 C
j—
•P 3
C CO
a>
u j—
OJ O
a.
_ - — - —
o
0
o in o m ^-
rH CM r-l CM
O
X X
E
a.
•a a
Q) ~
V • _J 4->
C
r- CJ
0) -P
3 C
U. 0
O
-O 0 O 0 O
in o in o o
CM m CM m m
rH CM r-l CM
o
X X
-Q
2 ^
—I «
•o
r—
3 -P
•P -r-
U E
> 0
X T3 ^S
i— C Q
O O S-
•r- J_ 0
ifl -P a> a.
S- T3 Q.
3 S- LO
o ai . >,
:E Q. m fo
O 1- Q
7?^
I X
X X
r^- r*^
o co ro
x x in vo ro
r-\ CO
CO «•
CM O
"
/"•^N X~>
i CM — '
^ *"^
' Q. C.
cx o-
(C C
(J (U
•r- 4->
Ol 3
O —
r— f—
o o
5- a.
o
«u m
+-> c
^J *r™
S -P
u
O 03
£ -C
o^^™~
C r—
•r- »r»
C 35
o
•r- W
4J C
J- 0
O •!-
O 15
o. t!
(0
J3
O)
^J l/l
ai a)
C J=
•r- t—
fO
•p
0 >>
in "O
r"~» ^-"
3 O
in
(U 0)
'- E
OJ -P
|f~
+-> o;
f~
CT-P
c
•— c
4-> O
ai a.
S_ 3
Q.
1- O)
0) C
c -5
•r- C
a>
c a.
•r- O)
T3
C
4J >
T3
O
C
C_J
O
u
••- c
•o f. o
3
O C
fO
^z o s-
QC
TJ
O) ••- O
'- -a u
fC C C
<_> o o
* u u
-------
-------
APPEND EX B
JJSED_QI L_CpMBUSTION_ TESTS
PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR
RECON performed nine combustion tests at three locations. A
summary description of the used and virgin oils burned is
provided in Table 1 . Further details are provided in Tables
2 and 3. Additional, data on emissions are found in Section
4.0, Volume I.
-------
(U
dP
X!
< -P*
^
*"
2 -P
^
dP
tt\ •
OJ *
-P
JJ
g
.0 ft
^
£
W 0) H
w -P
H Cd
c2 "< s
W Q.
CM W O
CJ H
CM CO
Hi H
3 %
o
-p •
CO O
CD 2
EH
dP
o^ *
> rH
< 0
CN m
0 rH
0 O
CN O~
CN CN
O O
vo r»
rH H
O O
en en
rH
VO CN
en CN
CN CN
o o
in rH
m in
• •
O 0
VO rH
en rH
en en
rH CM
in
CN
1
o in
0 rH
rH
O
fa
G
•H
rH
•H
O
^ CD
0 -P
fa CO
•— ft)
£g
rH
•H rH
O ffl
••H
rH M
CD -P
3 CO
fa ^
CN C
=«= M
in
*!)* ^3 ro rH o^
0 O 0 O O
o o o o o
CN CN 0 O
O O 1 O O
V V
in ^ VD O H
CN CN CN en en
o o o o o
r- H m CN r-
m v •» CN
H en CN
en
•
rH en in
ON <3* O
II 0 O
rH rH
-i en N
cq H tj en «*
CN en CN
W • W * *
E-t O 1 1 H CN CN
H H
cn w
r~ ** in
en CN J vo l
en m CN
en l i ^< in
CN
r-
•
OOl O O O CTv
00 0
rH rH rH
0 0
E&4 t^
C ~ — C
•HO O -H
rH -^ H ^ rH
•H -H -H
O J O rH O
M -H
CD O 0 O CD
CO CO CO
(0 rH ffj rH -t CN M VO M
O =«= CJ =«= U
CO
"»
0
1
^1
o
o
V
in
en
o
CO
o\
en
rH
H
VO
O
H
r^
en
•
CN
1
VO
**
•
o
vo
0
C
•H
rH
•H
O
CD
CO
(t)
U
y
(tj
V_l
U
O
CN
O
___!
r*"i
0
o
V
H
en
0
CN
en
rH
o
rH
0
rH
VO
CN
•
CN
1
r^
00
»
o
CN
O
G
•H
rH
-H
O
T3
CD
CO
CO
O>
Cft CN
rH CN
• •
CN CN
r^
vo* 1
CN
00 ON
VO
•
O O
O CN
rH
O
G
•H
rH
-H
O
CD
rH 4*
•H CO
O «J
2»
T3
0) rH
CO "3
CO -H
CD >-f
U -P
O CO
H 3
D< T3
CU C
C< H
to -
C rH
w •
5-4 rH
MH CO -H
CD O
G 3
O H iH
1 1 -H ed ecj
-P >-H
-l
H •* 3 0 W
VO r«- rH <4H 'O
CN CN CCJ C
0 G -H
o
^j-rH dP
1 1 X3 -P o
it) o
'O rH rH
CD 3
•P U "O
<0 rH C
g ro r3
•H O
00 -P -
00 CO >i«H
rH rH (11 r> -iH
0
CO CO
CD CD 13
3 3 CD
rH rH CO
rrj (0 co
> > CD
O
rH t3 T) O
•H CD CD M
O G G ft
•H -H CD
CD rH rH >-l
1 1 li li
CO CD CD dP
i— i ($ "^3 'O o
•H S CCO
O ^ D rH
rH
CD rrj • •
CO -H rH CN
(0 >H
U -P ••
^ CO CO
C 3 CD
co T3 -P
^ C O
CJ M 2
-------
Fuel Analyses for Site
Sample No.
Description
Test No.
Gravity, API (§60
COG
Flash Point, COC
Vise., SU @100°
Vise., SF @122°F
Pour Point, ASTM
Carbon Res., Con.
Sulfur, ASTM
Water & Sediment
B.T.U. per pound
B.T.U. per gallon
Acid number,
MGKOH/GRAM
Nitrogen
Chloride
Ash
Vanadium
Sodium
Iron
Lead
Copper
Chromium
Aluminium
Nickel
Silver
Tin
Silica
Boron
Sodium
Phosphorous
Zinc
Calcium
Barium
Magnesium
78-133
78-134
78-135
Crankcase Reprocessed
#6 Fuel Oi
4
60°F 26.5
3 10 ^F
C 285°F
F 189 sec.
F
M minus 30°F
n. 1.05%
0.30%
t 0.1%
d 19312
on 144012
[ 0.11
less 0.01%
none found
0.01%
18 ppm
21 ppm
2 ppm
2 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
4 ppm
4 ppm
1 ppm
4 ppm
less 1 ppm
11 ppm
2 ppm
40 ppm
6 ppm
5 ppm
less 50 ppm
4 ppm
1 Oil
*
2d.l
**
18.7 sec.
minus 30°F minus
1.70%
0.39%
8.0%
17541
131139
2.44
less 0 .01% less
0.34%
0.79%
less 1 ppm less
84 ppm
91 ppm
2310 ppm
63 ppm
4 ppm
13 ppm
1 ppm
nil
5 ppm
2 ppm
3 ppm
100 ppm
466 ppm
171 ppm
620 ppm
80 ppm
14 3 ppm
Oil
8+
26.7
32-0 °F
300°F
214 sec.
78-136
Industrial
Waste Oil
¥
27.4
470°F
435°F
Drips
21.1 sec
30 °F minus 25°F
1.61%
0.36%
0.5%
19140
142555
2.02
0.01%
trace
0.91%
1 ppm
297 ppm
152 ppm
627 ppm
55 ppm
11 ppm
27 ppm
4 ppm
nil
10 ppm
32 ppm
37 ppm
300 ppm
520 ppm
252 ppm
960 ppm
16 0 ppm
356 ppm
0.19%
0.14%
8.0%
18269
135468
0.93
less 0.01%
2.01%
0.22%
less 1 ppm
11 ppm
12 ppm
less 5 ppm
10 ppm
less 1 ppm
less 1 ppm
less 1 ppm
nil
less 5 ppm
4 ppm
9 ppm
3 ppm
16 ppm
140 ppm
30 ppm
less 50 ppm
6 ppm
** Starts to boil at 200 F.
* Used in mixture with #6 fuel oil in test nos. 5 and 6.
+ Also used in mixture with #6 fuel oil in test no. 7.
^ Used in mixture with #S fuel oil in test no. 9.
-------
ro
0)
H
•a
*
-P
W
10 <0
•5
o
CM •
\rr"t
'U
0 C
fa H
rH
•H
O
dp
O •
O H
rH CU
&
dP
•H
rH -H
>°
K^
*
00 O
• 0
0 M
(N A
\ (3
O
•# X
• c
o >o
V0 M
\r \
w
o
fa
dP
•
H 0)
O CQ
> g
w
CM .X
r- C
• 5J
<* M
x. r i
^ w
o
fa
•HO"
SSi
fa*"
r-t
V0 -H
=*=O
Z
O
H
EH
O<
H
«
O
CO
W
Q
. 1
1— 1
B
fa
CO
r*
in
CM
*
o
_1. -
CO
CM
<0
CM
•
O
O
CO
m
•
•H
O
00
o
rH
•
O
O
i-H
•iH
0
rH
3
*J
IM
•
x)
H
\
r-\
•iH
0
'Q
V
CO
3
•
X>
rH
CO ^J«
• •
ocMoo^trorocMininrHincNrHrHinrooo<«i<
COr^OfM V VVV VVrH COrOrHin
in VD rH rH V
CM v *r
OOO CMr^inrHf^M1 OCMf^OOCMOOVO
OOO inCNinrHcM IrHCOrOOfMinv0»,Din
H VD H ) H Vfl O UVtM OV-rH-Cn
m ro v
oi/>o oocMCMcocn^'rHinoovo'*or»coor*-
r~cMo coco v vrHvo^«inoc^r~-
O> rH i-H I rH rH CM V
rH CO V
CO CM VO
* • •
r^^«OV0VOOOOOCMO\fMrH«-ooo
OOinrHOf^ CMHoOrH
Tf CO V CM rH V
CO r- rH
• • •
O OO O rH rH r^ P^ rH in CO rH ^* CM O CM fM CM in O 00
lOCOOfOHCM V VrHrHCOCMv0v0rH
00 O rH n CM V
ro v
O.,M. fin f\t f\i —^ —.4 ^S* ^** *^ v4( ^^ r^ /*\l f^ Ln m j*™% ^^*
r^ ^j ^>i %>| r^ ^i ^j" "sj" r^ ^^* i^n i^n \>| ^j >0 u i c ^ ^*i
O O O Q VrH1"*1 in
H 0 rH 2 V
ro v
—
CO
W "3
H 0
EH -H
M K ^
05co rH(U^23>-irH-HCnC-H fl CtflnJCi
D«rmt^riCi_.n riri^f^^rnrrim^CljtoCim!?*
rH^ UJ X-l '^rf' MH t-M ^' '*-' '"N ^* "N »*J u^ kM ^^ ^^ u>* ^* MH *-H
g
H
CO
a
o
•H
•P
•rH
s
I
o
o
rH
•H
O
•H
-H
O
Tl
(U
CO
3
O
M
*4H
q
o
•H
-P
o
rH
«
o
CQ
•K
-------
^
<
tn
o
z
H
in
u
H
1
tn
u
u
z
J
^
^
z
u tn
J J C
< B, l-i
H in tn
-
I
ICO
°.
^^
Q
•
o
00
o
o
o>
CO
o
o
m
o
z
o
d
0s
»
CM
00
E
*
a.
u
(-
_a
i— i
b.
Z
O
1
^ 0s
o o
d d
o
z
1
r" CO
O O
o o
Q
Z
a
z
i
— <0
0 0
d d
i
in >£
O —
d d
1 in
CO O>
0 0
o o
^1.
CO
0
d
i
-< m
-3
o
f-l
to
u
oc
(
!
i
t
CM -tf
_ « ^*
• •
o o
i
i
i
co m
O O
d d
1
o> o
CO -tf
{
-» —
O -i
o o
^
•-I
0
1
m »n
m oo
1
in so
I
CM -J
O O
o o
w^ C>
,
8 S
+
U
C.
V
u
oc •>
E a
3
J w
f- u
O <
H C
4
3 C
r ^
IT
+
2
U
t.
(/
> 3
: C
u
j
3 t/
H •<
: c.
c
5 _
<
5 t-
c c
J t-
3 o
3 W
^ vf
• r>
\ k
) S.
3 -^
s
- (_
y
>
1
3
5
3
E
0.
a
ao m f
3 CM r
4
• 6i
in — v
: ~- « j
) OC E -
i E re «
i- J
•n oo -
*
tn u
Z f-
0 <
tn
tn
CH tl
r =
u u
0 co
CM CM
CM
O —
O r-
— O
"
"t
— O
^M
•
— O
V
•
— o
V
— d
**
— 0
r^
•
— ' O
v
r-i
—1 Q
\
(N
m
*n o
~*
— O
^rt
*•* o
v
.-^
^ O
V
•
— o
v
: +
. +
1 O —«
•i O CM
4 CM
E
' O.
: ex.
t . f
i -J —
^ u in
=> E
u. re
z oo
s-
3 U E
1 Z -J
3 0 Z
U 1-4
1
CO
^
*
1
»•*
^
1
|
*-^
/^
.— 1
ij
(^
A
A
00
O
^4
V
•^
^
i
i
•A
H
*J
Z
2
0
to
V5
2!
UJ
JC
u
4J
o
u
3
o
Jj
o
+
•o
en
u
f
in
a
3
x>
O
u
Q.
u O
O
It
in
in u
~* ^i
re c
re 3
a-
c
O £
in
•o a
a 3
;n
n v
^ .fl
o
41 b
V- 0.
a
00
,*** C
J -<
a. E
3
u tn
a. «
4) re
u
X V
V 9t
re
in ^-
u 3
C u
41 "*
4) O
41 ><
4J
Irf -^
O *-> X—
T3 3 18
41 C-
-a —•
~* in
^ f4 *
0 U.
u, EO
ago
6 r~
41 X ^
u 1 i
*j — X
C t) U
« 41 in
3 U
O" 3 II
in
• O r~
J= 4) •
o e —
4_>
re >> x
U u
41 C u
3 re re
3
j: in -
IT — li-
re o
3 E 0
41 § D
o c r
b •-• U.
0.1:0
in
•ti * ^
-
4>
>
O
.a
re
c
>
00
41
00
re
o
41
00
.C 41
U >
u re
re
u c
o
4> "O
3 0
in
c re
^ in x
^-- c in
oc o re
E •"
U) --
— • in re
d ^ o
UJ (— '
t * +
* *
-------
z
1
•
..
r
I
j3
1
5
c
N
~< e
U
co M
:
d
z u
H
CO
Ul
H
1 _
^
U
O
Z
^
-J
< 3
« t>
H
Z
Z DM
U
•J
u
*^ 4)
., u.
W
J3
H
Q
Z
Z
u cn
J _J Q
.« 0. i-
O 5 C
H W (£
1
m
— '
m
^
•7
o
*o
cn
O
•a
0
d
Q
Z
0
d
•c
00
QX
*O
•
o
_
CM
O
f^
r*
•a
in
cn
a
z
Icn
0
d
CM
•
O
CO
E
OS
u
*-*
u.
z
o
1
1
1
m cj*
0 -•
d d
a
z
i
cn CM
O —
o d
o
z
Q
Z
1
SS
d d
i
^ »o
O «*•»
d d
i
m CM
, (
0 0
:<^J
o
o
1
m m
CM r^
CM 03
1
S-O
in
d -*
a
z
CO
-* CM
d d
m
CM
O
I
*a o*
ao -a
i
-a m
i
i
trt ^
O 0
d d
i
B
m
-0
+
oo
6
_J
|
n
n
-• (
a (
«
*
i
i
j.
j :
a <
- i
a
J c
i.
i '
a
n< \
J
D (
5 e
D r
-t C
C +
u
J .
n •
•
X
3
J
b
n
<
j
<
N
cn CM
cn in
|
a
— CO
-a -a
— _ j
in
-a CM
»*
i i
i^
cn o
d -*
I i
I i
o —
d d
CO CM
o -a
CM m
d d
— ^
CM m
O O
0
d r~
•- CM
<0
CM Z
3 O
•. o
(N
O
CM
f*
*M
—
d
M-4
o
«B^
O
_
O
d
o
in
O
^
«
«>N
—
«n
••^
r»
N
m
o
*— •
*
o
n
o
1-^
m
*-4
J:
"««^
in
a
u
CO
H
W
Z
M
1
r*
00
d
_
^
i
^^
^
i
7
mM
^1
O*
v
0
*»
o
f+.
<^
•—4
^^
1
^-1
~*
ts
O. n
V 01
o
x -o
01 tl
a
4J 3
e u
€ c4
01 U
V X
4J
b* •*<
O *J *-»
£ c e
.a ij
•0 3 «
01 0-
•o -^
••^ (0
0 U.
b eo
O. 3 O
E r-
01 X
•*> m u
u 1 J=
u •» Z
e -o u
a 01 co
3 >*
cr s it
• n r-
u E —
to x x
ii ^-»
01 C W
» n c
3
X u> •
01 ^ tb
a o
3t 6 0
3 r~
* 5 **
a* Z U
CO
* + ^
w
o
eg
c
01
oo
OJ
00
c
a
14-1
O
01
oo
a
X 01
u >
U 10
u c
o
tl -0
t tl
in
C «
-J .0
•" » X
•» c n
00 O «
M -•
^^ Ifl CO
O E 0
W H
fc * +
* -f
-------
CO
Ul
*-«
N/V
**^
CO
0
UJ
ul
H
1
CO
Ul
o
z
^J
J
CO
_J
H
z
01
s:
Ul
UJ
NO
(V
^
•fl
H
1
V3
1
CN
SI i~
'
p«^
m CM
m •
O
Q
z
ON!
-< o
z •
o
Ul N/5 NO
_1 J Q •
< O- l-l ON
H r j ^
o 3 o
00
E
A
06
Ul
i
1—4
U.
z
o
1
1
1
o 2
d d
a
z
i
IN NO
0 0
d d
a
z
a
z
i
0 0
d d
i
o ***
d d
i
O 0
d d
ON
-I
d
i
00 OO
. •
CM r-
t
NO in
^ *3
O ->
a
z
i
r— PNI
O IN
0 0
d d
NO
^
r**N-
t^
00
E
*
Ul
a
u
as
i
"
i
i
NO m
~* CNl
r-- r!
1
1
CN*" NO
• •
00 CO
1
1
1
O
>
s ~
a.
a.
CN in
00 O>
in
rt CO
«s|
lA lA
o d
ON J-
0 0
NO 00
-J- fM
r- -^
• •
-3 ^
ON O
NO NO
1 1
CN| CNl
O 0
o o
in r-
f~* P*I
N. -«t CNl
3 -- —
i !£
: — «
t g (0
* 00
*
VI
z
o
1— I
CO
en
Z
o
§
CM
O
O
-4
OH
•
-J N
Ul 4-1
^-4 4j
c n
a 3
o-
c
O 4=
Ul
11 3
ft 0)
43 43
0
u a.
Ml
a. g
44 Ul
a. ui
u
x -a
^ U
Ul — '
44 3
C U
01 —4
£ (ij
*4
O 44 ^N
<4- C E
U) 44
•a 3 ca
•*- Ul
o uT
u go
a. 3 o
e r~
oi X
N X 44
cj 44 m
•-4 ^~ (J
44 44 E
01 C 44 44
4t
o
JO
c
>
00
01
00
c
(0
u
14-4
o
01
00
u
01
>
c
0
^2
a*
V}
i/l -C
C X
o «
-------
=*fc -t-
pi
X
n
>-—
C
o.
ft)
(/I
o
^
00
--QJ-
3
(-*.
n
«i
CO
o
•n
3
'•v
•^j
O
o
""1
*•
t— • - — -
•1)
r*
3
^~x
X
Z CO
>~N y-^
H»- ^-$
3 3
Z CO
O O
X N)
s_*« '••*•'
*• !•
00-00-
'"t ^
ft, ft,
3 3
Wl U)
**x. ^*.
3" 3"
"1 i-l
z co
O O
{ NJ
•• «*
•o -a
T> -0
3 3
n
^
c/3 "O
P) CT
O -
c:
CO 00
n
pr] QJ
3 3
p-l O)
CO —
CO 3-
o
z
CO
H 13
o cr
H -
C* 3
- 00
00 CO
i n
to 3
3
-w-- —
~^
3"
•B
^
"H 50
O H
H >-
> o
r c
- r
3 H
oo pi
-«^
co PI
-os:
3 M
CO
CO
1— 1
p
CO
0
CO
•n
r-
o
^
CO CO
o n
^ 3
O H
> O
CO H
co r
3 13
•T3 C7*
f
M
CO
o-
H
O
H
r1
o
H
O
^0 ^^
CT O
- H
3 r
00 -
3
oo
- —
i£
P5
H
n
H
n
- - -
XD
G
Z
H
h-H
H
i— i
PI
CO
V
3" -I-TJ »—
^
+
^.
3
00
3 O
> H
K =C
09 50
PJ
n
TJ r1
PJ 2
co PI
prz
Z H
H CO
1— * ^
Z 31
h-4
n
a
50
"0 H -<
cr o
-HO
3 r H
00 - O
3 *
oo
-- -
,-3
P)
CO
H
Z
o
—
en
O
OJ
£~ OJ
~J O NJ
• •
(— •
O
on
J>
O
NJ
O ON on
O O O on
' OJ
o oj
z o
M- 0)
< z
0)
I*
T1
w
3
00
>
0
•
ho
•
O On
On i—
O CO 00 00
ON -*J OJ on
OJ
•
oo
•£>
>- O
ON NJ
O ON
NJ >£>
OJ O
CO
o
NJ
o
CO >— O CO
O 3
0) 00
fl> Z en
„ tu
on
^ «* QN ^3
03 ^ • •
- >— CO OJ
H
0)
cr
O3 O CB
Q) flj *
- - - 3
OJ on H-
On i-> on O
i— ~J P- NJ
i-^
i*
OJ ON >—
O OJ On NJ
NO *O ^^ 0/1
^"
OJ \O *•"*
^- OJ on OJ
OJ vO OJ i—
h-*
>«
OJ OJ i—
CO OJ ON O
On ON ON O
NJ .C- I— • NJ On NJ
OJ On NJ NJ O NO ON NJ
NO On r- 'NO OOONJOJvO
• • • ^j •
OJ \O 4> • On
NO On
*• >«
NO OO CO «— •
0000 xO --J t— • on ^^ On
vO-jNO>O «JO*>OJOJ
On O NO NJ vX? -t*
ON
^
NJ >— ON
N3 O 1—1 f-' on OO
~J i— ' NJ CO OnONONJ>NJ
l^vO^>p-' NJ O NJ OJ >— *
OJ r-^ ^*| ^^ on
O On
!• ^
^ O NO
NJ sO -P- ON NJ On ^J
COONJCo £-O-P-.p~on
O ^J ~J ON OJ OJ
Co O
< 13
O oj o en
• • C H-»
0 4>
N T)
3 -
"*1
A ON ro
O NJ
O OJ
^*
*D W
n> a>
O 03
'N ,_ C •
O NJ nd
O •>
N Tl
3 (0
^
2
A NJ >-•
O NJ »
O NJ C
•C~ •
Z
*
N]
3
O
BJ
w
Z
0)
03
>•
O
01
z
0)
**
3
O
<*
Z
0)
"
»
00 OJ >—
- -J CO
^> • ON
r— • *^J •
•« l~^
*?
TO
v
CO ^- NO
!-"• OJ >-^
3> NO i— •
(7^
3
oo
CO OJ
H. 4> 0
•• OJ vO
H- •- _
09
3
00
- on
5* -t^ OJ
- OJ i—
PI
ON 3
t—t
CO
CO
p
CO
1
i— 3
flj
C/)
^j H
•— s
o
CO
•
-C-
1
~o
,-,
CO
H
Oo PJ
NO
-------
LT, C/^
ro o
r-o
H
n z c/5 s
— 00
ai 3
C/} C/} ^
f 3 00
^—
I-1-
O
0)
*
i in v,
z>nn-o-ntD3:3:
>-. — • >-t e cr ro 2 - -
rn
zoo -o
H -I -0
C/5 SU 3
- 3
•ji <->•
00 ^ 3
-i 3-
a> "i
3
,t—
C7!
r*
33
^
H
tn
^
hw
O"
V)
z
z
o
CO
oo
o
z
z
"O
/v
ro
H- N>
oo
vO
ro ro O O O O
sji w1 *^ ^
OJ
OJ
£• O £•
~j O <-J
Oo
CD
r-
z
o
m
O ro
co oo -j
»— NJ O
LJ 00 O
^o ^^ c^
NJ O ^
z
"0
c:
H
O
00
O
ro
Z
O
m
-i
0)
T
h—»
re
oo
J> O C- -t- 00 U1 f» NJ A ^ r->
ooooroooroH~.P*\oroh-iroO>—i-C^*-*00
vO ui ro >ji i—i i*> w
00
vD
ro £> i—
UJ 00 O
ro f— cj^
ro ~o >—
Z
C
co
n
z
o
m
•a
i .p- w u> *•
cr> ^ u> >—
a-
OO i—
NO ^O O
O -J —
J> O O
z
z
o
co
r
o
ro
oo oo i—
£• oo v£>
O
v£>
O
vO
*- vO
O i— vD
•P" O ~-J
o o ^o
o
o
CO
z
r.
m
z
c:
CD
c-
z
o
m
CO
m
oo
00
H
r-
i
-£)
C/l
H
m
00
Ui
.p-
NJ
t- o
ro
*
O
/
ro
ro o *- i-1 >—
lyt vO
OJ \O
O ro
Z
13
ro
O
co
t-
o
m
-------
TKSTS AT SUES A AND B
Used oil combustion tests were conducted at two si (.<••-
(A and B) in the Midwest during the week of March 27 f 1978. Cc.-.oi-
tions were as follows:
Test0- Site
1 A Kewanoe 200 hp No. 2 oil
Fire Tube
(1975, retubed
2 A 1977) No. 2 oil/
industrial used
oil mixture
3 B Cleaver-Brooks No. 2 oil/
100 hp Fire Tube crankcase oil
(1976) mixture
The data obtained follows.
-------
-Stack Sampling Reports
For Site A
EPA Test No. 1
- Particulates
- S02
- N°x
-------
Fuel Analyses For Site A
Sample No.
78-33
Test No, 1 Fuel
#2 Fuel Oil
78-34
Test No. 2 Fuel
#2 Fuel/Industrial
Used Oil
GRAVITY, API @6o°F
FLASH POINT, COC
FIRE POINT, CX
POUR POINT, ASTM
CARBON Res., CON.
SuuruR, ASTM
WATER & SEDIMENT
B.T.U. PER POUND
B.T.U. PER GALLON
NICKEL
ACID NUMBER
NITROGEN
CHLORINE
ASH
VANADIUM
SODiUM
Vise., SU @100°F
IRON
LEAD
COPPER
CHROMIUM
ALUMINIUM
NICKEL
SILVER
TIN
SILICA
BORON
SODiUM
PMOPBHOROUS
ZINC
CALCIUM
BARIUM
MAGNESIUM
33-6
164°F
182*F
MINUS 10°F
0.05#
0.16#
NIL
10662
140308
1 PPM
31.1
188°F
202° F
MINUS 40°F
0.50*
0.17*
1.0*
10764
143209
1 PPM
0.0^ MGKO/GR. 0.35 MGKOH/GR
0.22J*
NIL
O.Q2JC
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
34. ^ SEC.
LESS 1 PPM
3 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
Lrss 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
0.20J*
NIL
0.13*
LESS 1 PPM
5 PPM
47.3 SEC.
227 PPM
13 PPM
11 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
5 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
29 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
5 PPM
90 PPM
Less 1 PPM
140 PPM
Less 1 PPM
I.L5S 1 PPM
78-44
Untreated
Industrial
Used Oil
TOO WET
TOO WET
OVER 1000 PPM
67 PPM
64 PPM
6 PPM
22 PPM
3 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
11 PPM
145 PPM
3 PPM
287 PPM
360 PPM
150 PPM
1350 PPM
10 PPM
10 PPM
B-12
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA
Sample No.
Date
Time
Stack Diameter (inches)
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.)
Barometric (MHg)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Pressure ("H^O-gage)
Moisture (% Vol.)
Average Velocity (Pt./sec.)
Average Velocity (Ft./rain.)
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM)
t
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM)
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM)
I
O /O O /*7 O
J/28/78 —
1040-
1130
ID 1 /*5
t\ 1 O "7
OQ on
(°F) 240
) 0.0
6.5
.) 18.8
.) 1130
2110
1560
SCFM) 1460
2
1233-
1255
256
0.0
6.2
20.3
1220
2280
1650
1550
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92MHg
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
•) /OO /•? O
o/ Zo/ / o — "
1040-
1130
6+
35.75
37.6
99
0.0130
0.16
0.0000
0.00
0.0280
0.35
0.0410
0.51
2
1233-
1255
4
20.5
22.3
93
0.0227
0.30
0.0000
0.00
0.0424
0.56
0.0651
0.86
B-14
-------
SOX EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture*
% Isokinetic
Emissions
S03/ H2S04 (as H2S04)
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
so
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
H2SO4
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
1 ,
3/28/"8
1045-
1105
1 —
,20
18.4
6.5
1230
1250
20
21.5
6.2
11.2(10~6) 12.6(10-6)
62 70
*Taken from particulate tests
-------
NOX EMISSIONS
Sample No. I
Date 3/28/78
Time T(R5
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F 56
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg 8.3
Final Temperature, °F 56
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 29.27
Sample Volume, std. mis 1415
NOX Emissions
NOx as N02
Ibs/dscf 8.74(10~6)
ppmv 34
B-16
-------
-EPAr Te«trNo.- 2
B-17
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA
Sample No.
Date
Time
Stack Diameter (inches)
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.)
Barometric (MHg)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Pressure ("H2O-gage)
Moisture (% Vol.)
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.)
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM)
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM)
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM)
1
3/27/78
1641-
1810
18-1/2
1.87 •
29.31 •
246
0.0
6.3
17.1
1846-
1928
246
0.0
6.4
19.4
2037-
2129
233
0.0
6.2
19.2
1920
1410
1320
2180
1600
1500
2160
1620
1520
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-18
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Campling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains /dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
•J /O1? /*7 Q _-
J/Z // / O —
1641-
1810
3/8
8
80
49.0
113
0.0466
0.53
0.0010
0.01
0.0190
0.22
0.0666
0.76
2 3
_..
1846- 2037-
1928 2129
1/2 1/2
8 8
37.73 .48
38.69 45.7
94 86
0.0304 0.0218
0.39 0.28
0.0000 *
0.00 *
0.0353 0.0216
0.45 0.28
0.0657 *
0.84 *
*Part of aqueous catch not evaporated—used for
POM analysis not yet completed.
IJ-19
-------
SOX EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture*
% Isokinetic
Emissions
S03, H2S04
so
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
SO. + SO, + H-SO. (as SO,)
Z J 24 4
Ibs/dscf
PPMV
1
3/27/78
1640-
1717
1/4
1 -
37
27.1
6.3
1900-
1924
19
13.8
6.4
2035-
2112
32
32.9
6.2
7.0K10"6) 7.61(10~6) 7.51(10~6)
39 42 42
*Taken from particulate tests
B-20
-------
NOX EMISSIONS
Sample No. 1
Date 3/27/78-
Time 1703 2140
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F 59 54
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg 8.16 8.17
Final Temperature, °P 51 55
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg -1.0 -1.0
Sample Volume, std. mis 1447 1426
NOX Emissions
NOX as NO2
Ibs/dscf 9.41(10~6; 7.53(10~6)
ppmv 36 29
B-21
-------
Stadc Sampling Report
For Site B
- Participates
- S02
- N0x
EPA Test No. 3
b-22
-------
Fuel Analyses For Site B
Sample No.
78-37
78-38
TestNo. 3 Fuel
78-42
GRAVITY, API §60°F
FLASH POINT, COC
FIRE POINT, COC
POUR POINT, ASTM
CARBON RES., CON.
SULFUR, ASTM
WATER & SCOIMCNT
B.T.U. PER POUND
B.T.U. PER GALLON
NICKEL
ACID NUMBER
NITROGEN
CHLORINE
ASH
VANADIUM
SODIUM
Vise., 5U eiOO'F
IRON
LEAD
COPPER
CHROMIUM
ALUMINIUM
NICKEL
SILVER
TIN
SILICA
BORON
SODIUM
PHO»*HOROUS
ZINC
CALCIUM
BARIUM
MAGNESIUM
#2
#2 Fuel Oil
32.H
168°F
190°F
MINUS 20*F
0.05*
0.24*
NIL
19253
138410
LESS 1 PPM
Fuel/Automotive
Used Oil
i8i*F
198°F
MINUS 20°F
0.11*
0.25*
O.f*
1937^
138175
LESS 1 PP«
Automotive
Used Oil*
—
-
-
0.26*
0.1*
—
—
—
0.07 MGKOH/GR. 0.2k MGWOH/GJ _
0.26* 0.20*
NIL
0.005*
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
3*.3 «c.
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
LESS PPM
Lcr.r, PPM
l.r*3 PPM
Lr.ss PPM
l.r.x.s PPM
Lrrs PPM
Lr<; PPM
l.t.T, PPM
NIL
O.Qlt*
LESS 1 PPM
2 PPM
36.2 SEC.
11 PPM
157 PPM
5 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
Less 1 PPM
2 PPM
to PPM
s
60 PHM
LESS 1 PFM
LESS 1 PPM
10 PPM
—
0.03*
—
—
—
121 PPM
3^5 PPM
126 PPM
1 PPM
11 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
LESS 1 PPM
6 PPM
IJ PPM
21 PPM
25 PPM
530 PPM
550 PPM
1oO PPM
30 PPM
130 PPM
*New car dealer
U-23
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA
i
Sample No. 1
Date. 3/29/78,
Time 1215- 1415- 1555-
1359 1556 1627
Stack Diameter (inches) 12 '
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.) 0.785
Barometric ("Hg) 30.27
Average Stack Temperature (°F) 278 275 325
Stack Pressure (MH2O-gage) 0
Moisture (% Vol.) 7.3 7.6 - 10.3
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.) 15.0 15.0 22.3
Average Velocity (Ft./min.) 898 897 1340
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 705 704 1050
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 5i2 5i4 717
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 475 475 643
Note - Sample No. 3 based on one port—boiler in serious
unsteady state condition.
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
A-24
B-24
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
3/29/78
1215-
1359
8
64
52.8
100
2
1415-
1556
8
64
54.0
103
3
1555-
1627
4
32
36.5
102
0.0314 0.0306 0.1801
0.13 0.13 0.99
0.0000 0.0000
0.00 0.00
0.0362 0.0124
0.15 0.07
0.0668 0.1925
0.28 1.06
Note - Sample No. 3 based on one port—boiler in serious
unsteady state condition.
B-25
-------
SO2 EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
SOX Emissions Data
SO2
Xbs/dscf
ppmv
1
3/29/78
1216-
1245
1 /A --- _
29
31.0
5.1
2
1420-
1448
28
29.7
6.3
3
1556-
1622
27
30.3
13.9
14.9(10"6) 14.3(10~6) 1.27(10~6)
84 79 6.5
Note - Sample No. 3 based on one port—boiler in serious
unsteady state condition.
B-26
-------
NOX EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg
Final Temperature, °P
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg
Sample Volume, std. mis
NOX Emissions
NOX as NO2
Ibs/dscf
ppmv
1
3/29/78
1320
4125
1605
51
9.23
70
28.92
1273
55
9.27
70
29.39
1307
56
9.27
70
29.39
1307
15.4(10~6) 21.K10'6) 6.3(10~6)
58 80 23
Note - Sample No. 3 based on one port—boiler in serious
unsteady state condition.
B-27
-------
OBSERVATIONS
Red emissions were observed at beginning of sample No. 3.
The test was terminated halfway through because the boiler had
gotten into a serious unsteady state condition. Atamization
-was- reportedly- los-t-r
li-28
-------
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION TEST REPORT
EPA Contract No.: 68-01-4739
Site: C Test Nos.: 4-9
INTRODUCTION
The site chosen for tests 4-9 included a nominal
18,000 #/hr steam boiler fired on #6 fuel. The purpose
of this report is to document the physical and logistic
aspects of the tests.
BOILER DESCRIPTION
Of several boilers in the power plant, the boiler
selected was a Titusville water-tube type with-superheater.
The output is a nominal 18,000 #/hr of superheated steam
@ 450 PSI @ ,545°to 550 P. It includes a Ljungstrom rotary
preheater. The burner is a Peabody (S/N 347241) with an
Enco nozzle assembly #410 (steam atomizing type) normally
operating at 24 PSI fuel oil pressure and 50 PSI steam
pressure. The temperature of the feed water was approx-
imately 380°F.
For the purposes of this test, this boiler was manually
controlled at 17,500 #/hr steam @ 460 PSI, which represented
approximately 15% of the plant's total output.
Waste Fuel Oil—Source and Description
Approximately 1000 gallons of recently collected service
station oil was purchased. The loading of the waste oil
into the leased tank truck was witnessed and supervised
by RECON. A perusal of the dealers' collection records
showed 5500 gallons total pickup for the previous day
with 5100 gallons coming from service stations (16 pick-
ups—primarily crankcase oil) , and 400 gallons coming
from automatic transmission fluid) . (This results in an
estimated 90% crankcase oil, 5% ATC and 5% solvents, etc.)
In addition, approximately 1500 gallons of reprocessed
waste oil was purchased. Their raw feed oil is 80-90%
crankcase oil with some hydraulics and some spillage. They
reprocess this oil by heating to 240°F and then pass it
through hich efficiency filters.
B-29
-------
For test run #9 , several drums~~of~ waste "lubricant and:
hydraulic oils were collected from the plant site and trans-
ferred into a 300 gallon tank. The oils were dirty, with
high water content. Analyses for all of the waste oils are
included in this report.
Fuel Handling/ Storage, Piping
It was decided to use a leased tank truck (3 compart-
ment) both for delivery and temporary storage on the site.
The tank truck first picked up the 1500 gallons of repro-
cessed oil, storing this oil in the first compartment. It
then proceeded to pick up 1000 gallons of crankcase oil
under RECON supervision, storing this oil in compartment
12. The truck then proceeded to the site where the test
fusl lines were connected. This was accomplished on the
first day of the tests (May 16, 1978) . See attached sketch
for piping schematic.
Before each test the boiler was fired on 100% virgin fuel
oil (#6) overnight. Each morning the test fuel oil was
introduced into the blender to the approximate desired ratio
and the entire fuel oil system balanced out to provide 17,500
f/hr steam output. During the test the ratio of the fuels was
checked and adjusted to the desired value.
li-30
-------
' - ' /
" ' f •
7
AY OQ
?
/
(,) (7
/
f/) <£; ^b
9
>-^0
77? '<
_
x
© /},v- rr -. -^r
xa
w} 1
.i-31
-------
The fuel line equipment included:
1. A double bowl strainer.
2. A Viking model FH-32 internal gear rotary pump
(1725 RPM) with internal bypass valve.
3. A Fisher 1/2" model 95H-40 pressure regulator.
4. Two Kent Metron 1/2" BPC fuel meters (high
temperature). One measured test fuel flow
and the other total fuel flow.
5. A Ross motionless mixer model LLPD 1" x 6"
element (static blender).
METER CALIBRATION
During Test #8 (100% reprocessed oil) the opportunity was
available to evaluate the relative accuracy of the fuel
meters, since they were in series. The total fuel meter showed
550.27 gallons, while the test meter showed 551.31 gallons
over the same period of time. The test fuel meter read
0.19% high and the total meter 0.19% low as compared to the
average of these readings.
At the conclusion of Test #6, a calibration sample
resulted in the total meter indicating 2.16 gallons and the
test meter 2J3 gallons.
For this evaluation, the total meter was +0.7% above
the average, while the test meter was 0.7% below the average.
The volume of the calibration sample was measured as
approximately 5.5% higher than the indicated average. How-
ever, it was noted that the sample taken was aerated and
this probably contributed to the high volume. The meters
are reported by the manufacturer to be accurate to ± 2%.
13-32
-------
fri
EH
Q
H
•P H
•H It
W X!
JO _o
Qj ^«^
0
^^
s: &
1C fO
1 *•• '
>
a
•H
rH
\
in
vo
o
vo
CM
CM
VO
in
CM
00
•
o
CM
o
CM
H
•H
O
TJ
0)
03
03
8
o
pt
0)
cr>
\
m
f».
in
-
Q\
rH
CM
1
t
O
O
rH
O
O
H
rH
•H
O
"0
0)
03
03
0)
U
O
O<
<0
CM
\
in
00
o
CM
CM
CM
H
CM
CM
VO
•
O
CM
O
CM
H
<0
•r!
M
4J
§
•OH
HO
x n
•H <0
S^
m
\
in
,0 3 0) 0
r-|rH O H
g) H 6 O g
R) (7> M 0)
E vV O 4J
^OXj «H 03
Q 00 d) M
0,^5 "S "s.
0( JH -H 6 =tt
rtl vl) ^
& OJ o
M ifl o
• •O -H ^ • in
rH W (0 V) *
O C 03 C 03 H
0 co a) i
O 03 *O "O T3 U H
3 tt) C <0 QrH
H.Q Kl 0) OJ H (0
H E-H rH »H jQ 3
(fl O 3 .Q C
O O1 4J 4J H O 6
T-l ^" M -H (0 O
CM X! 03 03
r-HQ rH 0) O <0
OJt^ -H 03 O >
3 0 «J TJ C
3 0) jQ
6 X! W H
£ 3 X! -H ^> Xi XI
^-«. ^-s.^«.
P CM ro
-------
STACK SAMPLING
RESULTS FOR SITE C
B-34
-------
STACK SAMPLING REPORT FOR SITE C
EPA Test No. 4 (100% No. 6 Oil)
- Particulates
- S0
ii-35
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA — EPA Test No. 4 (±00% No. 6 Oil)
Sample No. 123
Date 5/16/78
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-36
Time 0944- 1151- 1445-
1103 1333 1600
Stack Diameter (inches) 33
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.) 5,94
Barometric ("Hg) 29.83 29.83 29.83
Average Stack Temperature (°F) 595 593 594
Stack Pressure ("H20-gage) -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
Moisture (% Vol.) 7.0 7.7 - 8.0
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.) 34.5 33.0 34.7
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 12,300 11,800 12,400
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 6,160 5,900 6,200
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 5,730 5,450 5,700
-------
PARTICIPATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 4
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Si^e (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
1
5/16/78-
0944-
1103
3/8
24
72
54.6
103
(100% No.
2
1151-
1333
3/8
24
72
52.6
104
6 Oil)
3
1445-
1600
3/8
24
72
55.2
104
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
0.0057 0.0067 0.0063
0.28 0.31 0.31
0.0012 0.0038
0.06 0.18
0.0025
0.12
0.0094
0.46
0.0140
0.65
0.0245
1.14
0.0003
0.01
0.0093
0.45
0.0159
0.77
B-37
-------
SOX EMISSIONS -
Sample No.
Date
- EPA Test No. 4 (100% No. 6 Oil)
1 2
O/ JLD/ / 0-
1030-
1100
1210-
1240
1355-
1425
Sampling Data
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
i.
30
21.5
8.4
30
19.9
9.8
30
21.1
9.4
SOX Emissions
SO-
Ibs/dscf
ppmv
16.8(10-6) 18.5(10-6) 21.2(10-6)
91 99 114
B-3S
-------
NOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 4 (100% No. 6 Oil)
Sample No. 12
Date 5/16/78
Time 1120 1315 1547
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F 60 60 60
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg9.83 9.53 8.53
Final Temperature, °F 78 72 84
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 30.01 29.74 29.32
Sample Volume, std. mis 1286 1310 1307
N0y Emissions (as NO2)
Ibs/dscf 17.2(10-6)17.7(10-6) 19.0(10"6)
ppmv 66 67 72
B-39
-------
STACK SAMPLING REPORT FOR SITE C
EPA Test No. 5 (10% Raw Crankcase Oil)
- S02
- N0x
B-40
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA <— EPA Test No. 5 (10% Raw
Crankcase Oil)
Sample No.
Date
Time 1025- 1207- 1559
1145 1322 1713
Stack Diameter (inches) 33 _____________________
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.) 5.94 _____________________
Barometric ("Hg) 29.93 29.95 29.95
Average Stack Temperature (°F) 597 595 572
Stack Pressure ("H2O-gage) -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
Moisture (% vol.) 7%2 7>3. 7%3
Average Velocity (Ft. /sec.) 34.7 34.6 34.3
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 12,400 12,300 12,200
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 6,200 6 190 6,270
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 5,780 5,740 5,810
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-41
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLK EMISSIONS ~ EPA Test No, 5
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
'Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
/
1
5/17/78:
1025-
1145
3/8
24
72
55.3
104
0.0138
0.68
(10% Raw C
2
1207-
1322
3/8
24
72
53.5
100
0.0145
0.71
rankcase
3
1559-
1713
3/8
24
72
54.6
101
0.0135
0.67
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
0.0009 0.0014 0.0033
0.04 0.07 0.16
0.0100 0.0086
0.50 0.42
0.0247
1.22
0.0245
1.20
0.0082
0.41
0.0250
1.24
B-42
-------
SOX EMISSIONS ~ EPA Test No. 5 (10% Raw Crankcase Oil)
Sample No.
Date
Time
S amp1ing Dat a
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
1
5/17/78-
1035-
1107
1
32
22.4
11.2
2
1205-
1240
35
21.4
8.3
3
1352-
1427
35
24.8
5.2
SOX Emissions
SO,
"ibs/dscf
ppmv
23.4(10-6) 15.7(10-6) 9.94(10-6)
123 85 56
B-43
-------
NOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 5 (.10% Raw Crankcase Oil)
Sample No.
Date
_Time
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F
1
5/17/78
1.115
65
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg8.93
Fo.nal Temperature, °F 84
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 29.33
Sample Volume, std. mis 1287
125Q
68
9.95
89
30.33
1270
— 1440-
65
9.15
82
29.92
1318
NOY Emissions (as NO 2)
Ibs/dscf
ppmv
19.1C10-6) 21.7UO-6) 18.6(10-6)
73 83 71
ti-44
-------
Stack Sampling Report for Site C
EPA Test No. 6 (60% Raw Crankcase Oil)
- Particulates
- S02
B-45
-------
VELOCITY AND_£LQW_RATEJ>ATA — EPA Test No. 6 (60% Raw Crankcase Oil)
Sample No.
Date
Time
Stack Diameter (inches)
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.)
Barometric ("Hg)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Pressure ("H^O-gage)
Moisture (% Vol.)
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.)
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
J/ XO/ / C
0944-
1106
•3-3 .
30.04
648
-0.35
7.4
1143-
1258
30.02
653
-0.35
7.1
1351-
1516
30.00
658
-0.35
7.4
37.9
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 13,500
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 6,490
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 6,010
39.0
38.9
13,900
6,630
6,150
13,900
6,590
6,100
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.9^"ilg
B-46
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE hMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 6
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% I akinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
C /I O /"7 Q
-3/J. O/ 1-O.T
0944-
1106
3/8"
24
72
56.3
101
0.0480
2.47
0.0053
0.27
(60% Raw
2
._ — — —
1143-
1258
3/8"
24
72
58.7
102
0.0452
2.38
0.0036
0.19
Crankcase
3
— _ . —
1351-
1516
3/8"
24
72
57.8
102
0.0496
2.59
0.0031
0.16
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
0.0094 0.0095 0.0116
0.48 0.50 0.61
0.0627 0.0583 0.0643
3.22 3.07 3.36
B-47
-------
SOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 6 (60% Raw Crankcase Oil)
Sample No. 123
Date
Time
Sampling Data
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
/1H//8
0945-
1027
30
22.9
7.8
1138-
1203
25
17.9
10.3
1415-
1442
27
11.2
9.6
SO Emissions
so.
"Ibs/dscf
ppmv
18.9(10"6) 24.7(10~6) 19.K10"6)
103 131 102
-------
NOX EMISSIONS — EPA Tsst No. 6 (60% Raw Crankcase Oil)
Sample No. 123
Date 5/18/78
Time i055^1250- ~"-
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F
Ov 72 75 75
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg12*34 9•85 9*°°
Final Temperature, °F 82 89 92
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 28*86 29*66 30'13
Sample Volume, std. mis. 1054 1241 1316
Emissions (as_NO2_)
Ibs/dscf 13.5(10"6) 16.5UO-6) 14.2(1Q-6)
PPmv 52 63 54
B-49
-------
STACK SAMPLING REPORT FOR SITE c
EPA Test No. 7 (20% Reprocessed Oil)
- Barticulates
- so
B-50
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA __ EPA Test No. 7 (20% Reprocessed Oil)
Sample No. 123
Date
Time 0910- 1112- 1313-
1026 1227 1428
Stack Diameter (inches) 33 ,—
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.) 5.94 —<—
Barometric ("Hg) 30.04 30.04 30.02
Average Stack Temperature (°F) 648 648 658
Stack Pressure ("H2O-gage) _o.3 -0.3 -0.3
Moisture (% Vol.) 6.9 7.3 6.3
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.) 34.4 33.9 35.1
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 12,300 12,100 12,500
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 5,890 5,810 5,950
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 5,460 5,360 5,570
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-51
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS -
*- EPA Test No. 7
Sample No.
Pi a 4-a
uate
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
(
1
C/l Q /7fl_.
0910-
1026
3/8
24
71
51.1
102
120% Reproi
2
1112-
1227
3/8
24
72
50.2
102
"
cessed Oi!
3
1313-
1428
3/8
24
72
49.3
95
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
0.0272 0.0279 0.0297
1.27 1.28 1.42
0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
0.03 0.00 0.00
0.0009 0.0191 0.0067
0.04 0.88 0.32
0.0288 0.0470 0.0364
1.34 2.16 1.74
B-52
-------
SOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 7 C20% Reprocessed Oil)
Sample No.
Date
time
Sampling Data
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
5/19/78-
"0905"^
0932
1045-
1112
1405-
1432
1
27
19.7
9.3
1
27
19.6
4.5
1
27
19.0
7.1
SOX Emissions
SO,
"Ibs/dscf
ppmv
21.8C10*"6) 22.1(10-6) 21.5(10~6)
117 125 118
B-53
-------
NOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 7 (20% Reprocessed Oil)
Sample No. 1 2
Date 5/19/78-
T '\~3 —1600
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F 81
Initial Absolute Pres^re, "Hg 9.54
Final Temperature, °F 70
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 28.56
Sample Volume, std. mis 1264
.^00
85
9.87
70
30.05
1345
1430
90
9.75
85
30.29
1319
NOY Emissions (as N02)
Ibs/dscf
ppmv
17.3(10"6) 14.2(10-6) 17.8(10-6)
66 54 69
B-54
-------
Stack Sampling Report for Site C
EPA TestIto. 8 "(100% Reprocessed^ Oil)
- Particulates
- S02
- NOX
B-55
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA
Sample No.
Date
Time
Stack Diameter (inches)
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.)
Barometric ("Hg)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Pressure ("H2O-gage)
Moisture (% Vol.)
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.)
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
EPA Test No. 8 (100% Reprocessed Oil)
123
J/ £.£./ 1 O —
0944-
1101
0 -i____,
5.94
30.13
622
-0.3
5.7
1131-
1246
30.13
626
-0.3
6.3 -
1346-
1501
30.09
626
-0.3
7.2
33.6
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 12,000
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 5,890
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 5,550
35.9
37.5
12,800 13,400
6,280 6,560
5,860 6,090
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-56
-------
PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 8
(100% Reprocessed Oil
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains /dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
c 795 /7P_
•Jf^&tif 1 O —
0944-
1101
3/8
24
72
49.3
97
0.0842
4.01
0.0018
0.09
0.0045
0.21
0.0905
4.31
2
1131-
1246
3/8
24
72
52.4
96
0.0864
4.34
0.0001
0.01
0.0027
0.14
0.0892
4.49
3
1346-
1501
3/8
24
72
58.2
103
0.0818
4.27
0.0012
0.06
0.0124
0.65
0.0818
4.98
B-57
-------
SOX EMISSIONS— EPA Test No. 8 (100% Reprocessed Oil)
123
5/22/78
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
icm-
1108
1215--
1245
1355-
1422
1
30
19.3
10.5
1
30
21.8
7.0
1
27
19.4
4.7
SO Emissions
SO-
"Ibs/dscf
ppmv
20.5(10-6) 25.2(10-6) 23.3(10-6)
108 139 131
B-58
-------
NOX EMISSIONS -
Sample No.
Date
- EPA Test No. 8 C100% Reprocessed Oil)
123
5/22/78-
S amp ling Data
Initial Temperature, °F
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg
Final Temperature, °F
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg
Sample Volume, std. mis
80
68
29»55
1349
- — 1260
82
9.13
77
30.32
1381
~1400
78
9.49
85
29.02
1241
NOY Emissions (as NO2)
Ibs/dscf
ppmv
11.9(10-6) 13.0(10-6) 13.7(10-6)
46 50 53
B-59
-------
STACK SAMPLING REPORT FOR SITE C
EPA Test No. 9 C20% Industrial Oil)
^ Parti culates
- SO2
- NO,,
ii-60
-------
VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA ~ EPA Test No. 9 (20% Industrial Oil)
Sample No. 123
5/23/78—----_--_— -™.-=-_^ —
0935- 1116- 1348-
1049 1232 1501
Stack Diameter (inches) 33 •
Stack Cross Section (Sq.ft.) 5.94 • •
Barometric ("Hg) 30.12 30.12 30.11
Average Stack Temperature (°F) 637 651 654
Stack Pressure ("H20-gage) -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
Moisture (% vol.) 7.2 6.7 7.4
Average Velocity (Ft./sec.) 34.2 36.7 37.6
Average Velocity (Ft./min.)
Actual Flow Rate (ACFM) 12,200 13,100 13,400
Standard Flow Rate (SCFM) 5,920 6,270 6,400
Dry Standard Flow Rate (DSCFM) 5,490 5,850 5,930
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92"Hg
B-61
-------
PARTICIPATE AND CONDONS in LFi EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 9
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
Nozzle Size (inches)
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Isokinetic
Emissions Data
Front Half Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Organic Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Aqueous Impinger Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
Total Catch
Grains/dscf
Pound/hour
1
5/23/78
0935-
1049
3/8
24
72
50.7
99
0.0161
0.76
0.0013
0.06
0.0067
0.32
0.0241
1.13
(20% Indus
2
1116-
1232
3/8
24
72
55.0
104
0.0132
0.66
0.0013
0.07
0.0044
0.15
0.0189
0.88
trial Oil)
3
1348-
1501
3/8
24
72
50.3
91
0.0142
0.72
0.0004
0.02
0.0012
0.06
0.0158
0.80
B-62
-------
SOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 9 (20% Industrial Oil)
1 2
5/23/78
Sample No.
Date
Time
Sampling Data
No. of Sampling Points
Sampling Time (minutes)
Sample Volume (dscf)
% Moisture
0935-
1005
1
30
23.0
9.7
"1105-
1130
1
25
18.9
5.2
1429-
1459
1
30
21.0
13.0
SOX Emissions
SO
"Ibs/dscf
ppmv
18.7(10-6) 19.9(10-6) 20.1(10-6)
100 112 103
B-63
-------
NOX EMISSIONS — EPA Test No. 9 (20% Industrial Oil)
Sample No. 123
Date 5/23/78
Time ^TlOOTO 13 35 -14 00"
Sampling Data
Initial Temperature, °F 82 84 82
Initial Absolute Pressure, "Hg 9.82 10.12 9.51
Final Temperature, °F 72 72 72
Final Absolute Pressure, "Hg 28.54 30.03 28.38
Sample Volume, std. mis. 1238 1319 1248
NOY Emissions (as NO2)
lbs/dscf 17.3(10-6) 15.0(10-6) 17.5(10-6)
ppmv 66 58 67
B-64
-------
APPENDIX C
LEAD EMISSIONS DURING DOWNWASH
Lead emissions should meet two criteria: 1.) The ambient air
_quality_sCandard o_f_ L. 5zfg7m averagejl_ay_e.r_.a JiaJLendBr^ quarter
(FR 43, October 5, 1978)1 and 2.) the OSHA standard of 50^-g/m
based"" on an eight hour time weighted average (FR 43, November
14, 1978).
Problems in meeting the ambient air quality standard are
discussed in Section 5.6.
As shown in the following analysis, it may be possible to
approach or even exceed the OSHA lead standard when burning in a
furnace with a short stack during a condition known as down-
wash. This phenomenon occurs when aerodynamic turbulence induced
by a building causes a pollutant emitted from an elevated source
to be mixed rapidly toward the ground, resulting in higher
ground-level concentrations immediately to the lee of the build-
ing than would otherwise occur. This problem is analyzed in
"Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis.
Vol. 10 (Revised): Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact
of New Stationary Sources," EPA 450/4-77-001, Oct. 1977.* The
EPA analysts of downwash, combined with the OSHA standard, has
been used to calculate lead concentration in used oils and used
oil blends which could result in greater than 50 >4g/m lead
concentration. '
Downwash may occur when
hs = hb + 1.5 a (1)
where h = stack height, meters
o
h, = building heighc, meters
a = lesser of either building height or maximum building
width, meters
^Available from NTIS as PB-274 087
C-l
-------
Under this condition, tne iiuix: mu;u 1-hour .;round-level concentra-
L i on of lead may be estimates MS
x = Q (2)
where
o
x.. = maxLinuiii 1-hour ground-level concentrat ion, g/m
Q = maxiniuni emission rate for Che time of concern, g/sec.
A = cross sectional area of the building normal to the
wind , in
U = wind velocity, m/sec.
For the worst case, assume
U = 3 m/sec (EPA recommendation)
A = 3m high x 3m wide (building cross section seldom
smaller—note that with 7.5m stack height there is no
downdraft for 3x3x3m building)
Then x1 = Q Q
(1.5)(9H3) - 5073 (3)
Q = (FP) 454 (10~6)
""
Where F = fuel rate, Ibs/hr
P = pollutant in oil, ppm by weight
Subsitituting (3) into (2)
X1 = (FP)(454)10~6 _ n nn,11A in-6irp (4)
1 (40.5) (3600) ~ u-wujii«*xiu tr
_£ "J
For lead, assume x.. = 50 x 10 g/m (OSHA standard for 8 hr.
average).
Then FP = 50xiO~6 ,, ni--, , c.
. = ibjOD/ (5)
0.003114 x l()"°
C-2
-------
For example:
Allowable 7. Used
Oil For 0 ppm Ph
,:In_J/irgip -Oi-1.
Total Allowable tor 10,000 for 1UUO
Oil Rate, Ibs/hr Pb In Blend ppm in ppm in
(virgin + used) ppm used oil used oil
100
16
1.6
home, small
commercial
"very small
boiler"
"small
boiler"
"medium
boiler"
"power
plant"
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1605
161
16
1.6
0.2
16
1.6
0.16
-
Clearly, under downwash conditions it is possible to exceed
50 s*(%/m ground-level concentration, e.g. in a boiler burning
1000 Ibs/hr (about 133 GPH) of oil containing greater than 1.6%
used oil with a lead concentration of only 1000 ppm. However.
the OSHA standard would be exceeded only if the downwash condi-
tion persisted, e.g. for eight hours. Stack heights insufficient
to overcome terrain interception could lead to similar problems
at some distance from the combustion source.
pa 2002
SW-892
C-3
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Waste Management Branch
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Hazardous Materials Branch
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19106
215-597-7370
U.S. EPA. Region 4
Residuals Management Br.
345 Courtland St., N.E."
Altanta, GA 30365
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Waste Management Branch
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Branch
1201 Elm St.
Dallas. TX 75270
214-767-2645
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Hazardous Materials Branch
324 East 11th St.
Kansas City. MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Regions
Waste Management Branch
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA. Region 9
Hazardous Materials Branch
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Reg.on 10
Waste Management Branch
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle. WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
------- |