United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-78-004g
April 1978
Research and Development
Source Assessment:
Rail Tank Car,
Tank Truck, and
Drum Cleaning,
State of the Art
Environmental Protection
Technology Series
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-004g
April 1978
SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
RAIL TANK CAR, TANK TRUCK, AND DRUM CLEANING
State of the Art
by
D. E. Earley, K. M. Tackett, and T. R. Blackwood
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
Project Officer
Ronald J. Turner
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both effici-
ently and economically.
This report contains an assessment of air emissions and water
pollutants from the rail tank car, tank truck, and drum cleaning
industry. This study was conducted to provide a better under-
standing of the distribution and characteristics of pollutants
from this industry. Further information on this subject may be
obtained from the Organic Chemicals and Products Branch, Indus-
trial Pollution Control Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology is available for
stationary sources to meet requirements of the Clean Air Act, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and solid waste legislation.
If control technology is unavailable, inadequate, or uneconomi-
cal, financial support is provided for the development of control
techniques needed for industrial and extractive process indus-
tries. Approaches considered include process modifications,
feedstock modifications, add-on control devices, and complete
process substitution. The scale of the control technology pro-
grams ranges from bench- to full-scale demonstration plants.
IERL has the responsibility for developing control technology for
a large number (>500) of operations in the chemical and related
industries. As in any technical program, identifying the un-
solved problems is the first step. Each industry is to be exa-
mined in detail to determine if there is sufficient potential
environmental risk to justify the development of control tech-
nology by IERL.
Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) has contracted with EPA to
investigate the environmental impact of various industries that
represent sources of pollutants in accordance with EPA's respon-
sibility, as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as
MRC Program Manager in this overall program, entitled "Source
Assessment," which includes investigating sources in each of four
categories: combustion, organic materials, inorganic materials,
and open sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of the Industrial Processes
Division at Research Triangle Park serves as EPA Project Officer
for this series. Reports prepared in this program are of two
types: Source Assessment Documents and State-of-the-Art Reports.
Source Assessment Documents contain data on pollutants from
specific industries. Such data are gathered from literature,
government agencies, and cooperating companies. Sampling and
analysis are also performed by the contractor when available
information does not adequately characterize the source pollu-
tants. These documents contain all the information necessary
for IERL to decide whether a need exists to develop additional
control technology for specific industries.
IV
-------
State-of-the-Art Reports include data on pollutants from specific
industries which are also gathered from literature, government
agencies, and cooperating companies. However, no extensive samp-
ling is conducted by the contractor for such industries. Results
from such studies are published as State-of-the-Art Reports for
potential utility by government, industry, and others having
specific needs and interests.
This study was undertaken to provide information on air emissions
and water pollutants from cleaning rail tank cars, tank trucks,
and drums. The work was performed for the Organic Chemicals and
Products Branch of the Industrial Pollution Control Division at
Cincinnati under Mr. David L. Becker. Mr. Ronald J. Turner of
IPCD served as EPA Project Leader.
v
-------
ABSTRACT
This document reviews the state of the art of air emissions and
water pollutants from cleaning rail tank cars, tank trucks, and
drums. The composition, quantity, and rate of emissions and
pollutants are described.
Rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums are used to transport a
wide variety of chemical and petroleum commodities from producer
to consumer. Steaming, washing and/or flushing of such units
result in air emissions and wastewater effluents. Air emissions
are predominantly organic chemical vapors. Water pollutants com-
mon to these operations are primarily oil and grease, COD, BOD,
suspended solids, and many other organic and inorganic materials.
Because of the latter, there is a high degree of variability in
the wastewater constituents. Representative sources were defined
for rail tank car cleaning, tank truck cleaning, and drum clean-
ing, the latter with washing and burning and with washing only.
To evaluate the hazard potential of the representative sources,
source severity was defined and evaluated for air emissions and
for wastewater effluents. Control methods used to reduce emis-
sions from rail tank car and tank truck cleaning are flaring,
absorption, or product recovery of flushed gases. All other
emissions are vented. No practical control methods exist for
drum washing. Emissions from drum burning furnaces are con-
trolled by maintaining proper operating conditions. Wastewater
treatments consist of a variety of physical, chemical, and bio-
logical processes. By EPA estimates, two-thirds of the tank
truck industry discharges to municipal systems with little or no
pretreatment. Where it has been provided, treatment has general-
ly been limited to sedimentation, neutralization, evaporation
ponds, and lagoons.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No.-
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers the period August 1976 to June 1977, and the work was
completed as of September 1977.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword . iii
Preface iv
Abstract vi
Tables viii
Abbreviations and Symbols x
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes xi
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Source Description 7
Cleaning operations description 7
Geographical distribution 16
4. Emissions 21
Selected pollutants and emissions 21
Definitions of representative sources 25
Environmental effects of air emissions 26
Environmental effects of water pollutants .... 29
5. Control Technology 38
Present technology 38
Future considerations 46
6. Growth Potential 47
References 48
Appendices
A. Estimates of drum burning emissions 51
B. Definition of source severity for water discharges and
calculation of river or end-of-pipe concentrations . 53
Glossary 55
vxi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
Water Pollutants from Rail Tank Cars, Tank Trucks,
and Drums
2 Source Severities for Air Emissions from a Represen-
tative Cleaning Source for Rail Tank Cars, Tank
Trucks, and Drums . . . 4
3 Source Severities for Water Pollutants from a Repre-
sentative Cleaning Source for Rail Tank Cars, Tank
Trucks, and Drums 5
4 Tank Car Cleaning Facilities Data 10
5 Products Handled and Percent of Total Haulage 12
6 Trailer Internal Cleaning Generation Rates for One
Terminal During One Month of Operation 12
7 Commodity/Tank Truck Data for One Terminal During
One Month of Operation 13
8 Production of Steel Drums 15
9 Rail Car Cleaning by State 17
10 Tank Truck Cleaning by State 19
11 NBADA Member Drum Cleaning and Burning by State .... 20
12 Measured Emissions from Tank Car and Tank Truck
Cleaning 22
13 Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Data, June 1973 .... 23
14 Treatment Plant Operating Results—Matlack, Inc.,
Swedesboro, New Jersey 24
15 Maximum Ground Level Concentrations and Severity
Factors for Different Emissions 28
Vlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
16 Mass of Emissions from Tank Truck and Rail Tank Car
Cleaning and Comparison with State and National
Hydrocarbon Emission Burdens 30
17 Mass of Emissions from Drum Burning and Comparisons
with State and National Particulate Emission Burdens 32
18 Effluent Concentrations and Hazard Factors for
Representative Soruces 34
19 Source Severities for Representative Sources 34
20 Rail Tank Car Cleaning Contributions to State Emission
Burdens 35
21 Tank Truck Cleaning Contributions to State Emission
Burdens 36
22 Drum Washing Contribution to State Emission Burdens . . 37
23 Lowest Effluent Concentrations Expected Using Various
Treatment Process Combinations for Petroleum
Refineries 45
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
AAQS — ambient air quality standard
BOD — biochemical oxygen demand
BODs — amount of dissolved oxygen 'consumed in five days by
biological processes breaking down organic matter
in an effluent
C — exposure level concentration
CD -- raw effluent concentration
CM — combustible material
COD — chemical oxygen demand
Cc — saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at 10°C
o
(DO)WQ_, — dissolved oxygen fresh water quality criteria
e -- 2.72
F — hazard factor
H -- emission height
LC50 — lethal concentration of a pollutant to 50% of an
aquatic life exposed to the pollutant
LD50 — lethal dose of a pollutant to 50% of a male rat
population
pH — measure of acidity or alkalinity of a material
Q -- mass emission rate
S — source severity
-- severity of total oxygen demand potential
TOD — total effluent oxygen demand
TSS — total suspended solids
TLV — threshold limit value
u~ -- average wind speed
Vn -- volumetric flow rate of discharge
Vn — volumetric flow rate of receiving waters
K
VSS — volatile suspended solids
Y — maximum ground level concentration of pollutant
Amax ^ ^
-- time-averaged maximum ground level concentration
of pollutant
— 3.14
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
Degree Celsius (°C)
Gr am/me te r 3 (g/m 3)
Gram/second (g/s)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilogram/meter 3
Meter (m)
Meter/second
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3/second (m3/s)
Metric ton
Milligram/liter (mg/£)
Pascal (Pa)
Pascal (Pa)
Second (s)
To
(kg/m3)
(m/s)
Degree Fahrenheit (°F)
Pound/gallon
Pound/hour
Pound-mass (pound mass
avoirdupois)
Pound/gallon
Foot
Foot/minute
Barrel (42 gallon)
Foot3
Gallon (U.S. liquid)
Liter (H)
GalIon/minute
Ton (short, 2,000 pound
mass)
Pound/gallon
Torr (mm Hg, 0°C)
Pounds-force/in.2 (psi)
Minute
Multiply by
t° = 1.8
t° + 32
8.344 x 10~6
7.936
2.205
8.344 x 10~3
3.281
1.181 x 10^
6.293
3.531 x 101
2.642 x 102
1.000 x 103
1.585 x lO-1*
1.102
8.344 x 10~6
7.501 x 10~3
1.450 x lO'1*
1.667 x 10~2
METRIC PREFIXES
Prefix Symbol Multiplication factor
Kilo
Milli
Micro
k
m
y
103
io-3
10~6
Example
1 kPa = 1 x 103 pascals
1 mg = 1 x 10~3 gram
1 ym = 1 x 10~6 meter
aStandard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation: E 380-76e,
IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976. 37 pp.
XI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Various chemical and petroleum products are transported by rail
tank cars, tank trucks, and drums. These shipping containers
must be cleaned before being used to ship a different material
in order to prevent contamination of the new material. Cleaning
prior to repair or testing is also necessary.
This report presents an assessment of the environmental impact
from the cleaning of rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums which
have carried organic chemicals and petroleum products (not in-
cluding gasoline, diesel oil, fuel oil, jet fuels, or motor
oils). Types of air emissions and wastewater effluents, pollu-
tant masses, ground level concentrations, source severities, and
affected population are discussed and analyzed. Control tech-
nology and the growth of this source are described.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
Rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums are used to transport a
wide variety of chemical and petroleum commodities from producer
to consumer. Industry officials estimate that as many as 700
different commodities are handled by these carriers. This report
does not address such commodities as gasoline, diesel oil, fuel
oil, jet fuels or motor oils. Rail tank cars, and most tank
trucks and drums, are in dedicated service (carrying one commod-
ity only) and, unless contaminated, are cleaned only prior to
repair or testing. Nondedicated tank trucks (approximately
20,000 or 22% of the total tank trucks in service) and drums
(approximately 5.6 million or 12.5% of the total) are cleaned
after every trip to prevent cross contamination. The approxi-
mate total number of units cleaned per year are 37,200 rail tank
cars, 5,010,000 tank trucks, and 24,680,000 drums.
Steaming, washing and/or flushing of rail tank cars, tank trucks,
and drums result in air emissions and wastewater effluents.
These cleaning operations are partially enclosed. Residual mate-
rial is washed to the wastewater stream and only small amounts of
material escape through the vents to the atmosphere. Burning of
drums (as an alternative cleaning operation) is a more economical
cleaning method for large companies but can result in increased
air emissions.
Air emissions from cleaning of rail tank cars and tank trucks are
predominantly organic chemical vapors. If these are all consid-
ered as hydrocarbon emissions, the total emissions from each of
these industries contribute less than 0.0022% of the national
emissions of hydrocarbons. Washing of drums falls into this
same class (very low emission of noncriteria pollutants), but
some drum burning can produce some criteria pollutants such as
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These contribute less
than 0.0001% and negligible amounts, respectively, to the
national emissions burdens of these pollutants. Water pollut-
ants from cleaning of rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums are
primarily oil and grease, total effluent oxygen demand (TOD),
suspended solids, and phenol.
-------
Since TOD values were not available, they were estimated from
the chemical oxygen demand. Quantities of water pollutants from
this source in the United States (shown for individual states in
Tables 20-22) are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. WATER POLLUTANTS FROM RAIL TANK
CARS, TANK TRUCKS, AND DRUMS
(metric tons/yr)
Source type
(basis) Oil and grease Suspended solids COD Phenol
Rail tank car cleaning
(37,220 cars/yr)
Tank truck cleaning
(5,010,000 trucks/yr)
Drum cleaning
(24,680,000 drums/yr)
830
1,745
101
4,100
6,070
353
8,300
48,500
2,824
31
986
57
For use in assessing the environmental impact of rail tank cars,
tank trucks, and drums used for transporting various chemical
and petroleum products, representative sources were defined for
each of the cleaning types. A representative rail tank car
cleaning station cleans 575 cars per year. The mix of commodi-
ties handled is: 35% petroleum products, 20% organic chemicals,
25% inorganic chemicals, 15% compressed gases, and 5% food
products. A representative large tank truck cleaning terminal
cleans 10,000 tank truck trailers per year. The commodity mix
hauled is: 15% petroleum products, 35% organic chemicals, 35%
inorganic chemicals, 5% food products, and 10% others (e.g.,
paints, inks, navel stores, etc.). A representative drum cleaner,
washing only, cleans 83,780 drums per year. A representative
drum cleaner, washing and burning, cleans 400,000 drums per year,
65% by burning and 35% by washing.
To evaluate the hazard potential of the representative sources,
the source severity was defined for air emissions and for waste-
water effluents. For air emissions, source severity was defined
as the ratio of the time-averaged maximum ground level concen-
tration of a pollutant emitted from a representative source to
a hazard factor, F. For criteria pollutants, the hazard factor
is the primary ambient air quality standard; for noncriteria
pollutants, it is a "corrected" threshold limit value. For
wastewater effluents, the source severity was defined as the
ratio of the exposure level concentration to a hazard factor.
For oil and grease, phenol, and suspended solids in each of the
representative sources, the hazard factor was the EPA fresh
water quality criteria for these pollutants. The exposure level
concentration was defined as the ratio of the product of the
volumetric discharge flow rate and the raw effluent concentra-
tion, to the volumetric flow rate of the receiving waters.
-------
The source severity of the total oxygen demand potential of a
discharge was defined as the ratio of the potential total oxygen
deficit to the permissible total oxygen deficit. Total oxygen
deficit was based on the discharge water volumetric flow rate,
the receiving water volumetric flow rate, and the chemical
oxygen demand; the permissible total oxygen deficit was the
difference between the saturated dissolved oxygen concentration
and the dissolved oxygen fresh water quality criteria. The
source severity values calculated for air emissions and waste-
water effluents from each type of representative cleaning source
are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
i
TABLE 2. SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR AIR EMISSIONS FROM A
REPRESENTATIVE CLEANING SOURCE FOR RAIL
TANK CARS, TANK TRUCKS, AND DRUMS
Air
Type of cleaning Emissions source severity
Rail tank car
Tank truck
Drum washing
Drum burning
Ethylene glycol
Creosote
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
Organics
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxide
0.00017a
•* U
3.6a'b
0.0061a
0.034a
0.045a
O.lla
0.0273
0.100a
0.00143
_C
0.28
P
V*
_
0.012
These source severities, due to the intermittent
nature of emissions, are for worst case conditions
since the maximum ground level concentration was not
time averaged.
The sample was taken during the first 45 minutes of
an 8-hr cleaning operation ; hence the severity value
is suspected of being artificially high.
Negligible.
Unlike most manufacturing industries, the tank truck industry
(which is service-oriented) produces wastewater whole volume and
characteristics may vary widely at each terminal. Therefore,
-------
extensive data would be required for meaningful definition of
the raw waste loads generated at truck terminals (1).
TABLE 3. SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR WATER POLLUTANTS FROM
A REPRESENTATIVE CLEANING SOURCE FOR RAIL
TANK CARS, TANK TRUCKS, AND DRUMS9
Type of cleaning
Pollutant
Water
source severity
Rail tank car
Tank truck
Drums (with burning
facilities)
Drums (washing only)
Oil and grease
TODb
Suspended solids
Phenol
Oil and grease
TOD
Suspended solids
Phenol
Oil and grease
TOD
Suspended solids
Phenol
Oil and grease
TOD
Suspended solids
Phenol
0.16
0.0034
0.00033
0.062
0.014
0.00081
0.00002
0.080
0.0094
0.00054
0.000013
0.053
0.0030
0.00017
0.000004
0.017
See Appendix B for detailed explanation of source
severity.
, Total oxygen demand.
The population affected by the average ground level concentra-
tion, x", for which x/F>l-0 was determined from the affected area
and a representative population density. For emissions from rail
tank car and tank'truck cleaning, the affected population is
zero. For drum cleaning (both washing and burning), the affected
population is also zero.
Control methods used to reduce ^emissions from rail tank car and
tank truck cleaning are flaring, absorption, or product recovery
of the gases flushed from cars or trucks that carry compressed,
combustible gases. There are also no practical control methods
(1) Analysis of Proposed EPA Effluent Limitations on the For-Hire
Tank Truck Industry. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., June 1974. 31 pp.
-------
for emission reduction from drum washing at the present time.
Emissions from drum burning furnaces can be controlled by main-
taining proper operating conditions. Control technology for the
treatment of wastewaters from these cleaning operations consists
of increasing use of a variety of physical, chemical, and bio-
logical processes.
Unless more stringent controls are placed on the cleaning of rail
tank cars, tank trucks, and drums, the increase in air emissions
from these operations should equal the 30% increase in chemical
production which is forecast through 1980. Increased implementa-
tion of wastewater treatment processes will lead to an estimated
50% decrease in discharged water pollutants by 1980.
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
CLEANING OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION
The transportation of organic chemicals from point of production
to point of consumption is accomplished in rail tank cars, tank
trucks, drums, barges, and pipelines. This report does not cover
barge or pipeline transport. Contamination of successive ship-
ments can be avoided only by careful cleaning of containers prior
to refilling with a different or fresh material.
All rail tank cars and most tank trucks and drums are used in
dedicated service, which means that they are used repeatedly to
transport one kind of material. In this service they are rarely
or never cleaned unless they become contaminated. Some materials
require periodic cleaning even with dedicated service. For exam-
ple, styrene cars and trucks must be cleaned after every fifth
trip because of slight polymerization of the styrene building up
on the sides of the container (personal communications with
F. Bonham, Monsanto Company).
Tank trucks and drums not in dedicated service must be cleaned
after each trip before another material can be put into them for
shipping. These shipping containers must also be cleaned prior
to repairs or testing.
Rail transportation is the principal mode for long-distance move-
ment of bulk chemicals. Truck transportation is used for moving
bulk chemicals for distances up to a few hundred miles. Drums
are used for transporting smaller quantities of chemicals and
are carried by either rail or truck, depending on distance.
Rail Tank Car Cleaning
There were 177,878 rail tank cars in use in 1972, of which 3,970
were owned by railroads and 173,908 were privately owned. Car
owners operating in private carriage of their own products or raw
materials (chemical intermediates) account for approximately 10%
of the private ownership. The rest are owned by car leasing and
operating companies and, along with the railroad-owned cars, are
operated on a for-hire basis (2).
(2) Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1973. Association of American
> Railroads, Washington, D.C., 1973.
-------
Tank car cleaning is conducted largely at shipping and receiving
terminals of manufacturers or producers where the wastes are com-
patible with and directed to the treatment systems of the indi-
vidual companies. However, a significant amount (30% to 40%)
of tank car cleaning is carried out at maintenance and service
stations operated or contracted by owner-lessors. These instal-
lations must clean out wastes derived from a wide variety of
commodities, many of which require specific cleaning methods.
Wastewaters from these installations are partly or wholly treated
on site. The extreme variety of commodities cleaned yields
wastewaters which are highly variable, complex, and difficult
to treat.
A typical tank car cleaning facility cleans from 4 to 10 cars
per day. The tank cars cleaned in such facilities are used to
haul liquid commodities such as petroleum products (excluding
gasoline, fuel oils, and lubricating oils), vegetable and animal
oils, organic and inorganic chemicals, beverages, and liquefied
gases. Capacity per car varies from 38 m3 to 129 m3 (10,000 gal
to 34,000 gal).
Cleaning agents used on tank cars are steam, water, detergents,
and solvents. These agents are applied using steam hoses, pres-
sure wands, or rotating spray heads placed through the opening
in the top of the car. Chipping and scraping of hardened or
crystallized products is frequently required. Cars carrying
gases and volatile materials and those that are being pressure
tested have to be filled or flushed out with water. The amount
of liquid used per car varies from 0.23 m3 (60 gal) for steam
cleaning to 129 m3 (34,000 gal) for total flushing of a large
tank car. Table 4 presents tank car cleaning facilities data
for several stations (3). The average amount of residual mate-
rial cleaned from each car is estimated to be 250 kg (3).
Vapors from cleaning cars used to haul volatile materials are
sent to flares at some cleaning facilities. Vapors of materials
such as anhydrous ammonia and chlorine are dissolved in water and
become wastewater constituents. Vapors not flared or dissolved
in water are dissipated to the atmosphere.
Tank Truck Cleaning
An estimated 90,000 tank trucks are in service in the United
States, of which 30,000 are used exclusively by the owners to
haul their own products and 60,000 are operated on a for-hire
basis.
(3) Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Railroad
Segment of the Transportation Industry Point Source Category.
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel, National Field
Investigations Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 1975.
8
-------
Approximately 20% of the for-hire trucks are used to haul bulk
dry freight and 80% are used to haul bulk liquids. Most com-
panies operate fleets of five trucks or less; these constitute
about 90% of the fleets in operation. The largest operating
company has 3,600 trucks in its fleet. Wherever possible, these
trucks are consigned to dedicated service, hauling one product
for long periods of time. The interiors of dedicated trucks are
cleaned infrequently, usually in connection with testing or
repair.
Interior washing of for-hire tank trucks is conducted at many
tank truck dispatch terminals. Each year trucks operating from
a single large terminal commonly haul 50 or more organic and
inorganic chemicals, salts, acids, bases, agricultural and food
products, petroleum products, paint, glue, plastics, soap, lique-
fied gas, and latex. Table 5 shows the mix of commodities hauled
at a midwest terminal (4). Cleaning tank trucks which have been
used for such a wide variety of materials requires great flexi-
bility in the selection of cleaning methods. Agents available
at most terminals include water, steam, detergents, caustic,
acid, and solvents. Tables 6 and 7 show cleaning methods, com-
modities and number of tank trucks cleaned at one terminal in
one month as supplied by the terminal manager (4). Cleaning
agents can be applied with hand-held pressure wands or by Turco
or Butterworth rotating spray nozzles. Detergent, caustic, and
acid solutions are usually recycled until spent and then sent
to the treatment facilities. Solvents are recycled in a closed
system, and sludges that accumulate are either incinerated or
landfilled. Quantities of liquid used per tank truck vary from
approximately 0.23 m3 (60 gal) for steam operations to 20.9 m3
(5,500 gal) for full flushing, with 2 m3 (500 gal) being con-
sidered the average. The average amount of material cleaned
from each trailer is estimated to be 100 kg (4).
*
Vapors from volatile materials are flared at a few terminals,
but the most common practice is to allow them to dissipate in
the atmosphere.
Drum Cleaning
Steel drums used in shipping organic and inorganic chemicals and
other products are manufactured in three categories: 0.2-m3
(55-gal) drums made with 18-gauge steel, 0.2-m3 (55-gal) drums
with 20-gauge bodies and 18-gauge heads, and 0.11-m3 (30-gal)
drums in 20-/18-gauge. Production of these drums for 1972-1975
is shown in Table 8.
(4) Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and Source Performance Standards for the Trucking
Segment of the Transportation Industry Point Source Category.
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel, National Field
Investigations Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
9
-------
TABLE 4. TANK CAR CLEANING FACILITIES DATA (3)
Cars
Site washed/
no . day
118 5.5
119 5.1
120 1.4
121 5.0
122 2.5
123 7
124 11
125 5
126 11
127 4
128 5
129 1.6
130 1.1
131 4.4
132 9
133 9
134 2
Hastewater flow
mVday gpd
61 16,000
19 5,000
53 7,000
+7 , 000
tank test
water
53 14,000
30 8,000
40 10,600
193 51,000
72 19,000
170 45,000
17 4,500
33 8,600
38 10,000
19 5,000
627 165,600
(includes
tank
test and
cooling
water)
95 25,000
{includes
sanitary
cooling
water)
57 15,000
Commodities cleaned
Type
Oils , greases
Acids, bases
Solids, foodstuffs
Organic liquids
Compressed gases
Approximately same as
above
Approximately same as
above
Approximately same as
above
Generally same, more
vegetable oils,
nitrogen fertilizer
Organic liquids
Inorganic liquids
Organic gases
Inorganic gases
Organic solids
Inorganic solids
Unknown
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Oil
Chemicals
Compressed gas
Food
Oil
Chemicals
Compressed gases
Food
UPG
Anhydrous ammonia
Acid and caustic
Volatile hydrocarbons
Fuel oil and asphalt
Food products
Unknown
Petroleum products
Acid and caustic
Anhydrous ammonia and LPG
Petroleum products
Gases
Percent
of total
29
10
31
13
17
45.5
19.5
4.S
15.5
9.5
0.5
5.0
20.5
38.5
31.2
9.8
32.0
21.3
38.5
8.2
34
19
19
5
11
3
9
60
3
37
90
Cleaning methods
Steam, detergent, solvent
Dilute with water
Hater , steam
Steam, water
Water purge
Same as above but less
water due to wanner
climate
Generally same but higher,
lower volume than above
Generally same with more
solvents (recycled)
Generally same as Site 118,
but more low pressure
high volume water
Manual removal of solids;
steam; caustic; kerosene;
detergent; purging
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Same as Site 123
Steam, caustic
Water , detergents , s team
Flaring, steam
Water, detergent, steam
Same as Site 129
Purge steam, water
Purge steam, water
Neutralise, purge
Steam, water, chemicals
Purge steam, water, solvent
Purge steam, water, solvent
Steam, fuel oil, detergent,
water
Venting, steaming, and
detergent
Steam , detergents
venting
Waste treatment
Segregation, primary settling;
skimming; batch treatment
for CK, phenol, CnpH adjust-
ment, pond settling
Primary settling; oil skimming
evaporation; no discharge
Collection of excess residual;
primary settling; gravity
oil separation; equalization
pond
Primary settling; oil separa-
tion in 3 ponds in series
Limited collection excess resi-
dual; primary settling;
gravity oil separation; 3
ponds in series
Gravity separation segregation;
chemical coagulation; clari-
fication
Same as Site 123 to city
Same as Site 123 to city
Pond, no outlet
Pond , spray , irrigation ; to
city
Gravity separation; chemical
coagulation; evaporation pond
Primary settling; oil separa-
tion; to Sanitary District
Oil separator; pH adjustment
Solvent recycled; landfill
fuel oil and asphalt; primary
settling skimmer; secondary
pond
API separatory and closed
system; to city
Containment and floating
skimmers ; evaporation
None for tank test water and
cooling water to city sewer;
closed system and incinera-
tion
NOTE: Blanks indicate no data reported.
(continued)
10
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
(g/m3, for columns listed below)
site Oil Suspended solids BODs COD Cyanide Chromium Phenols pH Units
no. fax Effluent Raw Effluent Haw Effluent Haw Effluent ten Effluent Haw Effluent Raw Effluent Raw Effluent
118 10-4,000 20-150 50-30,000 15-50
200-40,000 200-5,000 0-1 0-0.02 0-10 0-0.05 0-150 0 1.5-12.5 6.5-8.5
120
much less concentrated than Site 118 in all constituents
121
122
0.24
124
125
126 -»
127 10
128
129 " high
_a
252
510
_a _a
835
0.002
7.2
130
21
100 128
0.002 high
131 52.5 23 16 18 11 30
81 135
0.011 0.035 7.5
132 20-645 27-171 50-107 30-49
4.1-4.3 6.3-6.5
133
aito discharge. NOTE: Blanks indicate no data reported.
11
-------
TABLE 5. PRODUCTS HANDLED AND PERCENT OF TOTAL HAULAGE (4)
Percent of total hauled
Product
Rhoplex- latex
Glycols
Resin
Plastics (bulkers)
Poly glycols
Lacquer
Paint and enamel
MMA (aery late monomer)
Molasses
Unidentified
Acryloids
Toluene
Toluenediamine
Vinyl acetate
Wax
Formaldehyde
Plasticizers
Jet fuel
Lube oil
Tar
Whiskey
Miscellaneous
1971
32.5
10.9
10.4
8.1
3.1
1.3
1.2
2.5
5.3
24.5
1972
31.1
21.1
10.6
9.0
4.7
3.0
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
3.0
NOTE: Blanks indicate these commodities were
not cleaned in 1971.
TABLE 6. TRAILER INTERNAL CLEANING GENERATION RATES FOR
ONE TERMINAL DURING ONE MONTH OF OPERATION (4)
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TOTALS
Water use,
Cleaning method m3/trailer
Cold water flush
Cold water flush— caustic/acid tank
Cold water flush — steam — cold water
rinse
Cold water flush — spin/detergent —
cold water rinse
MEK, MIBK / or acetone solvent — cold
water rinse
Styrene solvent — cold water rinse
Cold water flush — steam — cold water
rinse — spin w/detergent — cold
water rinse
Cold water flush w/Butterworth for
dry bulk trailer
0.
8.
3.
1.
0.
0.
3.
5.
57
3
0
1
57
57
6
7
Number of Total water
trailers use, m
84
321
316
123
0
0
68
78
990
47.6
2,666.0
954.5
'
139.3
0
0
243.9
441.7
4,493.3
MEK - methyl ethyl ketone; MIBK - methyl isobutyl ketone.
12
-------
TABLE 7. COMMODITY/TANK TRUCK DATA FOR ONE TERMINAL
DURING ONE MONTH OF OPERATION (4)
Cleaning
method
number
Commodity
No. of
trailers
cleaned
Uran fertilizer
PAPI—isozylate
Ethyl chloride
Alum
Water for glue
Water softener
Caustic soda (50%)
Silicate soda
Acetic acid
Phosphoric acid
Spent acid
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Corrosive liquid
Solvent
Toluene
Xylene
IPA—isopropyl alcohol
Sodium MET
EDA—ethylene diamine
DTA—diethylene triamine
Poly amines
Vinyl acetate
Cyescal
Phenol
Alcohol
Petroleum chemicals
Peroxide
Biphenyl
Sodium bichromate
Sodium methylate
PA-phthalic anhydride
Acetone
Adaline
Ferric chloride
TTA—Amine 220
AN—acrylonitrile
Protein feed supplement
Calcium chloride
Styrene
Methyl acrylate
16
2
10
53
2
1
123
2
22
1
47
87
38
1
18
26
2
23
1
15
8
7
23
3
32
22
1
4
2
9
3
6
9
4
3
3
8
2
1
2
1
tcontinued)
13
-------
TABLE 7 (continued).
Cleaning
method
number
Commodity
No. of
trailers
cleaned
3 (cont.) Weed killer
Shell pan
DMK—dimethyl ketone
Benzene
Pentylamine
Ethylene glycol
MEK—methyl ethyl ketone
ITA
Mineral spirits
DAA—diacetone acrylonitrile
NBA—normal butyl alcohol
Methanol
Butyl cellosolve
Formaldehyde
Oxylene
Naphtha
MIBK—methyl isobutyl ketone
Demineralized water
Turpentine
Oxital—ethylene glycol mono-
ethane ether
TRI Clean D
4 Glue
Paint
Resin
Water treating compound
Coastal pale oil
Petroleum oil
Cotton oil
Script set
7 Diesel oil
Petrolatum
Ink oil
Strip oil
Hi Boiler Oil
Tall Oil
Insulator oil (new)
CPTIC—crude petroleum
8 Potash and fertilizers
Plastic pellets
4
1
4
1
1
3
14
2
3
4
1
3
1
24
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
72
2
30
5
7
3
2
2
21
16
2
13
2
5
1
8
78
aCleaning method numbers correspond to those tested in
Table 6.
14
-------
TABLE 8. PRODUCTION OF STEEL DRUMS9
Size
0.2-m3 (55-gal)
0.2-m3 (55-gal)
0.2-m3 (55-gal)
0.2-m3 (55-gal)
0.11-m3 (30-gal)
Drum
Gauge
18
18
20/18
20/18
20/18
Production, thousands
Type
Tight head
Open head
Tight head
Open head
Tight head and
open head
1972
10,851
3,231
9,359
2,044
2,757
1973
12,032
3,426
9,917
2,234
b
1974
12,357
3,083
12,349
2,484
b
1975
8,352
2,066
8,419
1,956
b
Personal communication from the National Barrel and Drum Association, 1976.
b
Not available.
Drums constructed of 18-gauge steel have an average life with
total cleaning of eight trips. Drums constructed with 20-gauge
bodies and 18-gauge heads have an average life of three trips
(private communication; estimated by M. Hershon, National Barrel
and Drum Association). Not all drums are cleaned, especially
those of thinner construction. If all 0.2-m3 (55-gal) drums were
cleaned for their average life, 121 million drums would be
cleaned each year.
Tight-head drums which have carried materials that are easy to
clean are steamed or washed with caustic. Drums used to carry
materials which are difficult to clean are burned out either in
a furnace or in the open. Tight-head drums have the head cut out
before burning and are reconditioned as open-head drums. Steam
cleaning is accomplished by inserting a steam nozzle into the
drum, with vapors going to the atmosphere and condensed water
going either to a sewer or onto the ground. Caustic washing is
done by tumbling the drum with a charge of hot caustic solution
and some pieces of chain. The caustic solution is recycled until
spent and then neutralized and sent to the sewer. Some cleaners
pond the spent caustic to allow sludge settling before sending
the liquid to the sewer. The sludge is periodically removed from
the pond and landfilled. There are few, if any, air emissions
from caustic cleaning.
Fiber drums are lined with disposable plastic bags.
are disposed of in an industrial trash container.
Old bags
Drum burning furnaces are of two basic types; batch and contin-
uous. A batch-type furnace is designed to hold one 0.2-m3
(55-gal) drum at a time. The same chamber is used to process
0.11-m3 (30-gal) drums. Several gas burners are arranged to
completely bathe the drum in flame. The contents, lining, and
outside paint of the drum are completely burned away within a
15
-------
nominal 4-minute period with the drum reaching a temperature of
at least 480°C (5).
Continuous-type furnaces accomplish the same combustion process
on each drum but are designed with a conveyor to pass a continu-
ous stream of drums through a preheat zone, a combustion zone,
and a postcombustion zone. The drums are given the same 4-minute
combustion period at a temperature of at least 480°C. The tem-
perature of the drums must not exceed 540°C since this would
cause excessive scale and warping (5).
After the combustibles are consumed, the drums are allowed to
cool. They are then shot-peened to remove ash and char. Dents
are removed, the drums are tested hydraulically, and protective
coatings are applied (5).
Emissions from the combustion process are vented to an after-
burner or secondary combustion chamber where" the gases are raised
to at least 760°C for a minimum of 0.5 second. These conditions
should ensure complete combustion of elemental carbon and organic
combustion contaminants in the primary effluent (5).
Open air burning is far less efficient than furnace burning be-
cause there is no way to control combustion air and temperatures.
Since there is no feasible way of controlling emissions from open
burning, incompletely burned combustion products can be released
to the atmosphere. The average amount of material removed from
each drum is approximately 2 kg (5).
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Rail Tank Cars
Information on rail tank car cleaning racks from the Railway
Progress Institute (personal communication with A. M. Skogsberg,
16 December 1976) and Railway Age Magazine (6) is shown by state
in Table 9.
Rail tank cars operated by chemical manufacturing companies to
haul their own products or raw materials account for about 10%
of car ownership (3). All such cars are in dedicated service
and are rarely cleaned. Therefore, the cleaning of tank cars by
these companies is estimated to represent less than 5% of the
total cleaning nationwide. The cleaning conducted by each of
these companies is governed by the waste treatment regulations
applicable to its industry.
(5) Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, J. A.
Danielson, ed. Publication No. AP-40, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
, May 1973. 987 pp.
(6) Railway Age Directory of Contract Car Repair Facilities.
Railway Age, 177(13):44-49, 1976.
16
-------
TABLE 9. RAIL CAR CLEANING BY STATE
NO. Of
cleaning
State racks
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTALS
2
3
5
1
3
2
2
1
5
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
12
1
3
1
65
No. of cars
cleaned/yr
500
3,000
2,000
100
2,000
2,000
4,750
100
5,000
200
2,500
500
750
600
500
200
1,000
75
1,750
500
375
1,850
75
5,500
75
1,300
20
37,220
Tank Trucks
Interior washing of tank trucks in conducted at tank truck dis-
patch terminals, which are distributed throughout the states, but
they are heavily concentrated in areas such as Chicago, Northern
New Jersey, the Kanawha and Ohio River Valleys, and the Louisi-
ana-Texas Gulf Coast area where large chemical manufacturing com-
plexes are located (7). There is no adequate data base on how
(7) Final Report on Cost of Implementation and Capabilities of
Available Technology to Comply with P.L. 92-500; Volume IV:
Industry Categories 29-38. Prepared for the National Com-
mission on Water Quality by Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio, July 3, 1975.
17
-------
many tank truck dispatch terminals actually perform cleaning
operations. Many truck fleets are too small to have their own
cleaning racks and must .have their cleaning done for them at
larger terminals. Even the National Tank Truck Carriers organi-
zation does not have data that they consider adequate. Based on
a limited study of the transportation segment, Battelle/Columbus
has estimated that there are about 500 terminals involved in tank
truck cleaning (7). Table 10 shows, by state, the distribution
of tank truck cleaning, based on Battelle's estimates and other
information obtained from conversations with industry members.
Drum Cleaning and Burning
The National Barrel and Drum Association (NBADA) is made up of
133 member companies, 35 of whom have burning facilities. NBADA
estimates that the membership comprises at least 90% of the total
business and approximately 33.3% of the total number of companies
involved in the industry (personal communication with Pamela
Terry, NBADA, September 24, 1976). Examination of manufacturing
indexes and the yellow pages for several cities indicates that
the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio holds fairly well for distribution of loca-
tions also. Table 11 shows NBADA member drum cleaning facilities
by state. From this information, it is estimated that there are
24,680,000 drums cleaned per year with 10,100,000 of these burned
clean. The total number of companies in the United States is
estimated at 399 with 39 having burning facilities.
18
-------
TABLE 10. TANK TRUCK CLEANING BY STATE (7)
NO. Of
cleaning
State terminals
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
10
3
10
23
5
10
3
5
6
2
30
25
7
19
20
25
1
15
15
15
11
3
10
5
5
1
3
25
2
20
3
2
20
15
2
15
2
5
3
8
30
2
1
15
No. of
tank trucks
cleaned/yr
81,000
25,000
90,000
240,000
55,000
82,000
35,000
50,000
45,000
20,000
290,000
220,000
70,000
172,000
195,000
250,000
6,500
110,000
150,000
160,000
120,000
30,000
125,000
45,000
40,000
6,900
15,000
300,000
19,000
190,000
35,000
19,000
200,000
150,000
21,000
155,000
10,000
50,000
29,000
90,000
400,000
20,000
8,800
125,000
(continued)
19
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
State
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
No- of
cleaning
terminals
10
18
10
5
500
No. of
tank trucks
cleaned/yr
91,000
200,000
121,000
48,000
5,010,000
TABLE 11. NBADA MEMBER DRUM CLEANING AND BURNING BY STATE
No. of
cleaning
State facilities
Alabama
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL NBADA members
TOTAL estimate, of
all drum cleaners
1
14
3
2
3
4
7
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
5
4
2
1
1
10
10
4
15
1
1
12
1
2
2
3
3
2
5
1
133
399
No. of
burning
facilities
0
5
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
3
3
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
35
39
10 3 Drums
washed
84
1,454
251
168
240
450
708
168
83
85
280
180
392
225
580
508
169
85
80
920
890
380
1,390
100
80
1,160
140
225
150
328
240
224
531
85
13,123
14,580
10 3 Drums
burned
0
1,300
0
0
0
500
530
0
0
0
525
0
265
250
785
750
0
0
0
525
500
260
700
0
0
720
230
250
0
300
0
220
480
0
9,090
10,100
20
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSIONS
SELECTED POLLUTANTS AND EMISSIONS
The great diversity of commodities (>700 chemicals) carried by
rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums makes it nearly impossi-
ble to sample and obtain emission factors for every possible
material. In the drum cleaning and burning industry, only com-
posite estimates are possible for a wide mixture of materials.
Sampling of emissions from the cleaning of representative indi-
viual commodities is practical with tank cars and tank trucks.
In order to achieve a practical, but representative, picture of
these emissions, the organic chemicals hauled by the carriers
were broken down into classes characterized by high, medium, and
low viscosities and by high, medium, and low vapor pressures.
Viscosity affects the quantity of material remaining in the tank;
low viscosity materials drain readily while high viscosity mate-
rials do not. Vapor pressure affects the air emissions since
high vapor-pressure materials volatilize more readily during
cleaning and tend to lead to higher emission rates.
After the classes of chemicals had been established, the selec-
tion of the particular chemical to be sampled for was dictated by
the specific materials which were being cleaned during the sam-
pling visits. Table 12 presents the chemicals sampled, the total
of each per truck or car, and the TLV® (8, 9) (threshold limit
value) of each.
Virtually all of the air and water pollutants are removed from
the tank during the first washing cycle. This takes 45 minutes
to 1 hour for tank trucks and 1 hour to 2 hours for rail tank
cars. Subsequent rinsing adds only small (<2% est.) quantities
of washing solution to the wastewaters.
(8) TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental Indus-
trial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
(9) Sax, N. I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials,
Third Edition. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, New
York, 1968. 1251 pp.
21
-------
TABLE 12. MEASURED EMISSIONS FROM TANK
CAR AND TANK TRUCK CLEANING
Compound
Chemical class
Vapor
pressure Viscosity
Measured
emission
Total concen-
emissions, tration,
mg/m3 mg/m3 Ref.
TLV
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
Chlorobenzene
O-Dichlorobenzene
Creosote
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
311/truck
2 15/ truck
32. 4/ truck
5 . 5/truck
1 . 07/truck
<0.32/car
15.7/car
75.4/car
2,350/car
(8-hr)
654
526
79.1
14.0
4.3
<0.2
8.8
94.3
118
2,400
670
410
19
260
260
350
300
22
8
8
8
8
_b
8
8
8
9
Total emissions = (emission rate) x (emission volume).
No TLV listed; assumed to be same as that for ethylene glycol based on
comments in Sax (9).
Wastewater is subject to great variability and, even with a good
treatment system, is difficult to treat to consistently accepta-
ble levels. Table 13 presents waste treatment plant effluent
data (API separator, pH adjustment, aeration basin, sedimenta-
tion) for one month of operation supplied by one tank truck
terminal official (4). This terminal is adding more treatment
process (equalization, air flotation, filtration, biological)
to improve their treatment capability.
Another tank truck terminal official reports the treatment plant
influent and effluent data shown in Table 14 which represent the
results of tests taken over a 6-month operating period (10).
This treatment facility (Figure 1) (10) is a 45-m3/day (12,000-
gal/day) demonstration plant funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Reported wastewater treatment data for several rail tank car
cleaning stations are shown in Table 4 in Section 3 (3).
Samples taken from the stack of a drum burning furnace were
analyzed for unburned organic materials and for organic prod-
ucts from incomplete combustion. Analysis showed no detectable
levels (<5 x 10~6 g/m3) of organic materials. This indicates
(10) O'Brien, J. E. A Demonstration Plant for the Treatment of
Waste Waters from Tank Truck Cleanings. Presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 1, 1976. 8 pp.
22
-------
TABLE 13. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT DATA, JUNE 1973 (4)
Total
residue , TSS ,
Date
6/1
6/4
6/5—2.9" rain
6/6
6/7
6/8
6/11
6/12
6/13
6/14
6/15
6/18
6/19
6/20
6/21
6/22
6/25
6/26
6/27
6/28
Monthly average
pH mg/
7.72 1,315
6.73 1,199
6.94 1,196
7.45 1,469
7.47 499
7.12 548
8.08 755
7.62 677
8.06 448
8.90 409
7.68 686
8.23 573
8.11 692
7.92 815
7.95 880
7.51 4,602
8.12 2,788
8.02 2,402
8.36 2,060
8.24 1,744
7.81 1,288
fc rng/g,
478
442
342
1,168
175
242
49.2
584
131
85.6
262
24
32.6
131
247
61.2
94
22
73.2
76
186
VSS , BOD ,
COD,
mg/& mg/£ mg/fc
120 1
148
122
238
36
42
14.8
90
20
16.4
49
12.8
12.4
33
44
21.2
29
26.8
26.8
20.8
56
,364
460
475
61
185
40
11.4
8.3
10.1
13.3
24
13.2
28
63
73
25
17.8
3,274
1,431
1,373
269
268
110
66
64
30
42
94
69
144
215
254
251
183
169
235
139
434
Settleable
Temperature , sol ids ,
°C
V«^— ^^^^^V~^M^^^ta^M«^^^H**^H«
25
21
27
.5 30
.8 23
.1
.2 24
.5 28
.3 28
28
28
26
25
25
23
31
26
26
mg/fc
96
30
24 .
548
9
12
0.4
70
10
15.6
12
9.2
12.4
112
13.6
8.4
5.6
4.4
11.2
53
TSS = total suspended solids,
COD = chemical
NOTE: Some of
oxygen demand.
the quantities
VSS = volatile
in Table 13 are
suspended
shown per
solids
liter
, BOD =
biochemical
(&) , which is the s\
oxygen demand,
rstem of units
used in Reference 4. These values can be converted to the SI metric system using the
equality, 1 I = 0.001 m3. Blanks indicate data not reported.
-------
TABLE 14. TREATMENT PLANT OPERATING RESULTS—
MATLACK, INC., SWEDESBORO, N.J. (10)
Parameter
PH
Color units
Turbidity, FTU
COD, g/m3
BOD5 , g/m3
Oil and grease, g/m
Phenols, g/m3
Suspended solids, g/m3
Raw feed
10.5
to
Over
Over
1,800
600
110
1
300
to
to
to
to
to
12.5
500
500
11,000
2,000
350
250
1,300
Effluent
6.5
10
125
20
0
to
to
_D
to
to
to
0,1
_b
8.5
50
300
100
1
Formazin turbidity units; a standard unit of turbidity
based upon a known chemical reaction.
'Data not reported.
RAW WASTE
SURFACE
SKIMOIL
I (RESALE)
FLOTATION
/•CELL
pH PRESSURE /
' CELL
ACTIVATED
CARBON
TRANSFER
TANK
SPENT CARBON
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
Figure 1. Wastewater treatment system, Matlack, Inc.,
Swedesboro, New Jersey (10).
24
-------
that a properly operated furnace is capable of essentially
total destruction of waste organic materials encountered in
drum burning.
The drum cleaning companies visited had closed drum washing sys-
tems with no discharge of wastewaters. It is reasonable to
assume that wastewaters from drum washing would present the same
treatment problems as those from tank truck and rail tank car
cleaning and would be treatable by use of the same basic treat-
ment technology.
DEFINITIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE SOURCES
Four representative sources are defined for use in determining
the source severity for each type of cleaning; i.e., rail tank
car, tank truck, drum burning and washing, and drum washing only.
Due to the lack of adequate published data, these definitions are
based on estimates made by several officials of companies in the
industry and by the industrial organizations (Railway Progress
Institute, and National Barrel and Drum Association).
Representative Rail Tank Car Cleaning
The representative rail tank car cleaner cleans 575 cars/yr
(5.5 cars/day). The commodities hauled and cleaned are 35% pe-
troleum products (excluding gasoline, fuel oils, and lubricating
oils.), 20% organic chemicals, 25% inorganic chemicals, 15% com-
pressed gases, and 5% food products. The emission height (height
of car) is 4 m.
Representative Tank Truck Cleaner
The representative tank truck cleaner cleans 10,000 tank truck
trailers per year. This is equivalent to 20,000 nondedicated
tank trucks cleaned 5 times per week, 50 weeks per year at the
500 cleaning sites (Section 3.). The commodities hauled and
cleaned are 15% petroleum products (excluding gasoline, fuel
oils and lubricating oils), 35% organic chemicals, 35% inorganic
chemicals, 5% food products, and 10% others (paints, inks, naval
stores, plastic pellets, etc.) The emission height ("height of
truck is 3.55 m.
Representative Drum Cleaners
Drum Cleaner with Burning Equipment (Type a)—
The representative drum cleaner with burning equipment cleans
approximately 400,000 drums/yr (assuming 260 days/yr, 1,540
drums/day), of which 65% are burned and 35% are washed. Emis-
sion heights are 10 m for burning and 1 m for washing.
Drum Cleaner with Washing Only (Type b)—
The representative drum cleaner, with washing only, cleans
83,800 drums per year. Emission height (top of drum) is 1 m.
25
-------
Both categories of drum cleaners clean drums used to carry a vast
variety of commodities, with organic chemicals (including sol-
vents) accounting for 50%. The remaining 50% includes inorganic
chemicals, asphaltic materials, elastomeric materials, printing
inks, paints, food additives, fuel oils, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF AIR EMISSIONS
Maximum Ground Level Concentrations
The maximum ground level concentration, Xmax, of each pollutant
resulting from rail tank car and tank truck cleaning and from
drum burning and washing was estimated by Gaussian plume disper-
sion meteorology. ^max values for each type of cleaning are
shown in Table 15. For comparison, the TLV's and ambient air
quality standards (AAQS) are also listed. Air emissions from
drum washing are negligible since each drum is washed by charging
with cleaning solution, putting in some chain, closing the drum,
and tumbling it. During this cycle, no vapors can escape except
during charging and dumping. Emission rates would therefore be
less than in rail car and tank truck cleaning, and these are
shown in Table 15 to be extremely low.
Sampling and analysis for organic materials in the stack gases
from drum furnaces show no detectable organics present (detec-
tion limit 5 x 10~6 g/m3). The primary combustion chamber
operates at less than 530°C with 200% excess air. Secondary com-
bustion is accomplished at approximately 700°C with 100% excess
air. These conditions are conducive to complete combustion of
the organic materials in the drums, but the temperatures are low
enough to prevent the formation of large quantities of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) . Also, the concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO)
and particulates would be small. Automobile body incinerators
operate at conditions analagous to drum furnace conditions but
with less excess air. Using emission factors for particulates
and N02 from auto body incinerators (11) , the emission factors
from drum burning are estimated (see Appendix A) . Maximum ground
level concentrations are not given for organics, carbon monoxide,
or hydrocarbons since the stack concentrations are below
detection.
The following equation was used for the calculation of X (12) :
X = 2 Q (1)
max 7TH2eu
(11) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edi-
tion. Publication No. AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1973.
p. 2.2.-1.
26
-------
where Q = mass emission rate, g/s
u = U.S. average wind speed, 4.47 m/s
H = emission height, m
e = 2.72
TT = 3.14
Environmental Effects
To obtain an indication of the hazard potential of the emission
source, the source severity, S, is defined as (12):
_ xmax
b ~ F
where ^max is the time-averaged maximum ground level concentra-
tion of each pollutant emitted from a representative source of
tank or for criteria pollutants and "a corrected" threshold
limit value (TLV • 8/24 • 1/100) for noncriteria pollutants.
The source severity represents the ratio of time-averaged maxi-
mum ground level exposure to the hazard level of exposure for a
particular pollutant.
x"max is the maximum ground level concentration (Xmax) averaged
over a given period of time. The averaging time is 24 hours for
noncriteria pollutants. For criteria pollutants, averaging
times are the same as those used in the primary ambient air
quality standards.
For the tank truck and rail tank car cleaning operations, the
time periods during which emissions occur are approximately 1 hr
for tank trucks and 2 hr for rail tank cars. These times cor-
respond to the initial wash cycle of each carrier. Since it is
rare for more than one truck or car containing a particular
material to be cleaned in any one day, time-averaging of Xmax for
that particular pollutant over a 24-hr period would result in an
extremely low Xmax and S. Using Xmax in place of Xmax in Eclua~
tion 1 gives a worst case source severity which represents the
maximum hazard level of exposure for a particular pollutant at
any time during a normal 24-hr period.
The values for Xmax and s for each pollutant from each type of
cleaning are given in Table 15. The worst case source severity
factors for the pollutants from tank truck cleaning are <0.1 for
(12) Serth, R. W., and T. W. Hughes. Source Assessment:
Phthalic Anhydride (Air Emissions). EPA-600/2-76-032d, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, December 1976. 154 pp.
27
-------
most classes of materials and just over 0.1 for the high vapor-
pressure, low viscosity class. For rail tank car cleaning, the
worst case source severity factors are <0.1 with the materials*
sampled except for one creosote car which was exceptionally
dirty.
TABLE 15. MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AND
SEVERITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT EMISSIONS
Type of
cleaning
Tank truck
Rail tank car
Drum burning
Emission
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Creosote
Particulates
NO
X
yS/$
359
248
37
6.35
1.24
<0.14
7.14
34.3
267
73
1.2
TLV,
g/m3
2.4
0.67
0.41
0.019
0.26
0.26
0.35
0.3
0.022
_b
_
AAQS, (13)
g/m3
a
~a
~a
~a
a
a
~a
a
0.00026°
0.0001"
Source
severity
0.045
0.11
0.027
0.100
0.0014
0.00017
0.0061
0.034
3.6
0.28
0.012
AAQS not defined for these materials.
Not applicable.
24-hr average.
d
Annual average.
For drum burning, the source severity factors are very low with
particulates accounting for the highest severity of 0-56. Sever-
ity distributions for air emissions are not presented since esti-
mates were used to define the representative source. A survey of
the industry would be required to define ranges or limits on
source size and this would necessitate an extensive effort.
Contribution to Total Air Emissions
i
The total air emissions from a particular source for each state
and the nation are determined by multiplying the emission factor
(13) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
28
-------
of a pollutant by the source production. For tank truck and rail
tank?car cleaning, since the exact distribution of the represen-
tative chemical classes in total cleaning is unavailable, the
emission factor for acetone (the highest measured) was used to
calculate state and national burdens for tank truck cleaning; the
emission factor for creosote was used for rail tank car cleaning.
The total organic emissions from tank truck and rail tank car
cleaning in each state were compared with the reported total
hydrocarbon emission burden for that state (14), and these are
shown in Table 16. Tank truck and rail tank car cleaning contri-
bute <0.02% to the organic pollutant burden of the states or
nation. Total hydrocarbon emissions from drum washing or burning
are negligible. Total particulate emissions from drum burning
contribute <0.023% of any state emission burden and 0.0007% of
national emissions burden (Table 17).
Affected Population
To obtain a quantitative evaluation of the population influenced
by a concentration of emissions from a source, the area exposed
to the time-averaged ground level concentration, x", for which
X/Fi^l.O is obtained by determining the area within the isopleth
for x" (15) , and the number of people within the exposed area is
then calculated by using a proper population density.
As shown in Table 15, the source severities (except for creosote)
from rail tank car and tank truck cleaning, and from drum wash-
ing and burning are below 1.0, even though these are worst case
calculations. When no area is exposed to a severity £1.0, the
affected population for these operations is zero. The creosote
emission was from an exceptionally dirty car and is not consid-
ered to be typical of the industry.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WATER POLLUTANTS
Effluent Concentration
The effluent concentrations, CD, are defined as the total mass of
suspended or dissolved material in a unit volume of effluent at
(14) Eimutis, E. C., and R. P. Quill. Source Assessment: State-
by-State Listing of Criteria Pollutant Emissions. EPA-600/
2-77-107b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1977. 146 pp.
(15) Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1969. 64 pp.
29
-------
TABLE 16. MASS OF EMISSIONS FROM TANK TRUCK AND RAIL TANK CAR CLEANING AND
COMPARISON WITH STATE AND NATIONAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION BURDENS
u>
o
Carriers
hauling organics,
no. cleaned
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Trucks
28,350
8,750
31,500
84,000
19,250
28,700
12,250
17,500
15,750
7,000
101,500
77,000
24,500
60,200
68,250
87,500
2,275
38,500
52,500
56,000
42,000
10,500
43,750
15,750
14,000
2,415
Rail cars
100
0
600
400
0
0
20
0
400
0
400
950
20
1,000
40
500
0
100
0
0
0
150
120
100
40
0
Total emissions,
metric tons/yr
Trucks
8.82
2.72
9.80
26.12
6.00
8.93
3.81
5.44
4.90
2.18
31.57
23.95
7.62
18.72
21.23
27.21
0.71
11.97
16.33
17.42
13.06
3.27
13.61
4.90
4.35
0.75
Rail cars
0.24
0
1.41
0.94
0
0
0.05
0
0.94
0
0.94
2.23
0.05
2.35
0.09
1.18
0
0.24
0
0
0
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.09
0
Percent of state (14)
hydrocarbon burden
Trucks
0.0014
0.0014
0.0050
0.0012
0.0031
0.0041
0.0060
0.0009
0.0011
0.0026
0.0017
0.0040
0.0024
0.0060
0.0065
0.0014
0.0006
0.0040
0.0037
0.0024
0.0032
0.0017
0.0033
0.0018
0.0034
0.0014
Rail cars
0.00004
0
0.00072
0.00004
0
0
0.00008
0
0.00021
0
0.00005
0.00037
0.00002
0.00076
0.00003
0.00006
0
0.00008
0
0
0
0.00018
0.00007
0.00009
0.00007
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
!—
Carriers
hauling organics,
no. cleaned
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Trucks
5,250
105,000
6,650
66,500
12,250
6,650
70,000
52,500
7,350
54,250
3,500
17,500
10,150
31,500
140,000
7,000
3,080
43,750
31,850
70,000
42,350
16,800
Rail cars
0
0
0
200
25
0
0
100
55
720
0
0
0
25
1,100
0
0
25
0
220
0
4
Total emissions,
metric tons/yr
Trucks
1.63
32.66
2.07
20.68
3.81
2.07
21.77
16.33
2.29
16.87
1.09
5.44
3.16
9.80
43.54
2.18
0.96
13.61
9.91
21.77
13.17
5.22
Rail cars
0
0
0
0.47
0.06
0
0
0.24
0.13
1.69
0
0
0
0.06
2.59
0
0
0.06
0
0.52
0
0.01
Percent of state (14)
hydrocarbon burden
Trucks
0.0018
0.0040
0.0014
0.0016
0.0009
0.0029
0.0019
0.0048
0.0010
0.0019
0.0017
0.0006
0.0035
0.0027
0.0020
0.0022
0.0023
0.0037
0.0029
0.0187
0.0025
0.0094
Rail cars
0
0
0
0.0004
0.0001
0
0
0.00007
0.00006
0.00019
0
0
0
0.00002
0.00012
0
0
0.00002
0
0.00045
0
0.00002
NATIONAL
1,730,000
7,440
538.05
87.47
0.0022
0.00037
-------
TABLE 17. MASS OF EMISSIONS FROM DRUM BURNING AND COMPARISONS
WITH STATE AND NATIONAL PARTICULATE EMISSION BURDENS
State
No. Of
barrels burned
Total
emissions,
metric ton/yr
TOTAL
10,100,000
119.6
Percent of
state
particulate
burden
California
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
1,400,000
550,000
590,000
580,000
290,000
280,000
870,000
830,000
580,000
550,000
290,000
780,000
800,000
260,000
280,000
330,000
240,000
530,000
16.8
6.6
7.0
7.0
3.5
3.3
10.3
9.9
7.0
6.6
3.5
9.2
9.5
3.0
3.3
4.0
2.9
6.4
0-0017
0.0017
0.0007
0.0013
0.0007
0.0034
0.0014
0.0037
0.0046
0.0041
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.023
0.0017
0.0008
0.0018
0.0015
0.0007
a given temperature and pressure. In the raw effluent from
representative cleaning operations, Cp was estimated on the
basis of available information. Concentrations for rail tank
car cleaning were taken as the average of the values shown for
the first site in Table 4. This site, except for cleaning more
cars, closely approximate the representative source. For tank
truck cleaning, the raw effluent averages shown in Table 14 were
used since this terminal's cleaning operation is similar to the
representative source (30 trucks/day versus 40/day for the rep-
resentative plant). No effluent concentration data were avail-
able for drum washing operations. The assumption was made,
therefore, that the total material cleaned from drums was dis-
tributed in the same percentage ratios as the effluents from
tank trucks with no allowance made for removal of settleable
solids (see Appendix A). The C^ values for all of these repre-
sentative cleaning operations along with effluent flow rates
are shown in Table 18.
Source Severity
Determination of the source severity for the representative
sources gives a measure of the effluent species concentration
32
-------
relative to a potentially hazardous or permissible concentration.
The source severity (defined in Appendix B) is calculated as
follows (16):
(3)
where C = exposure level concentration, g/m33
F = hazard factor (Table 18)
VD = volumetric flow rate of discharge, m3/s
VR = volumetric flow rate of receiving waters, m3/s
(national average river flow rate = 856 m3/s)
Cj-j — concentration in raw effluent, g/m3
Severity values were calculated using Equation 3 for oil and
grease, phenol, and suspended solids for each of the representa-
tive sources, and these are shown in Table 19. The severity of
the total oxygen demand potential (STOD) °f a discharge is the
ratio of the potential total oxygen deficit divided by a permis-
sible total oxygen deficit. Thus, Equation 3 was modified as
follows to permit calculation of the severity of the total
oxygen demand of a discharge (17):
V
~ (TOD)
q = R (A\
S(TOD) - Cs - (DO)WQC
where TOD = total effluent oxygen demand, g/m3
C,.. = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at
b 10°C (= 11.3 g/m3)
(DO) , = dissolved oxygen fresh water quality
criteria (=5.0 g/m3)
a
g/m3 is equivalent to mg/£, which is the normal nonmetric unit
used for concentration.
(16) Decision Criteria for Water Discharges. Draft prepared for
EPA review under Contract 68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, 1976. 4 pp.
(17) Eimutis, E. C., T. J. Hoogheem, and T. W. Hughes. Briefing
Document: Water Source Severity and Initial Water Prioriti-
zation Structures. Draft prepared under EPA Contract
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio,
September 21, 1976. 12 pp.
33
-------
TABLE 18. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (CD) AND HAZARD
FACTORS (F) FOR REPRESENTATIVE SOURCES
Effluent concentrations, g/m3
Source
Rail tank cars
Tank trucks
Drums, type a
Drums, type b
Hazard factor, F
Oil and
grease
2,005
230
148
148
0.01 (18)
. COD
20,100
6,400
4,130
4,130 fa
6.3
Phenol
75
130
84
89
0.001 (18)
Suspended
solids
10,025
800
517
517
25 (18)
Flow,
m3/day
61
45
25
15
a
EPA fresh water criteria or equivalent.
[C - (DO) ] factor in Equation 4, allowable dissolved oxygen depletion.
y
TABLE 19. SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR REPRESENTATIVE SOURCES
Source severity
Oil and Suspended
Source type grease TOD solids Phenol
Rail tank car 0.16 0.0034 0.00033 0.062
Tank truck 0.014 0.00081 0.000020 0.080
Drums, type a,b 0.0030 0.00017 0.000004 0.017
The representative sources have been defined in
Section 4.
Since TOD values are not available, Equation 4 was modified to
(17):
y?- 1.3 (COD)
• STOD = [Cs - (DO)WQ(J (
where COD = chemical oxygen demand, g/m3
Severity values for TOD are shown in Table 19 for each of the
representative sources. In all of the source severity deter-
minations, the assumption was made that the raw effluent was
(18) Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
34
-------
discharged with no treatment, thus giving a worst case determi-
nation. In practice, oil and grease separation and batch treat-
ment of phenol provide a lower actual impact than the calcula-
tions indicate. Reductions in oxygen demand and suspended solids
are also accomplished in the treatment processes used by the
different cleaning facilities so these impacts are in practice,
lower than the calculations indicate. Severities are low in all
cases with the highest value being 0.16. Severity distributions
for effluent species are not presented since estimates were used
to define the representative source. A survey of the industry
would be required to define ranges or limits on source size and
this would necessitate an extensive effort.
Contribution to State and National Burdens
The total discharge quantities of oil and grease, COD, phenol,
and suspended solids, assuming no treatment, were calculated by
dividing the production of the representative source into state
production totals and multiplying this by the discharge per
representative source. These quantities are shown, by state and
nation, for each type of cleaning operation in Tables 20, 21,
and 2 2.
TABLE 20. RAIL TANK CAR CLEANING CONTRIBUTIONS
TO STATE EMISSION BURDENS
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Cars/yr
500
3,000
2,000
100
2,000
2,000
4,750
100
5,000
200
2,500
500
750
600
500
200
1,000
75
1,750
500
375
1,850
75
5,500
75
1,300
20
Oil and
grease,
metric
tons/yr
11
67
44
2.2
44
44
106
2.2
110
4.4
56
11
17
13
11
4.4
22
1.7
39
11
8.3
41
1.7
120
1.7
29
0.4
COD,
metric
tons/yr
110
670
440
22
440
440
1,100
22
1,100
44
550
110
170
130
110
44
220
17
389
110
83
410
17
1,200
17
290
4.4
Suspended
solids,
metric
tons/yr
56
330
220
11
220
220
530
11
560
22
280
56
83
67
56
22
110
18.3
194
56
42
206
8.3
610
8.3
140
2.2
Phenol,
metric
tons/yr
0.42
2.5
1.7
0.083
1.7
1.7
3.9
0.083
4.2
0.17
2.1
0.42
0.62
0.50
0.42
0.17
0.83
0.062
1.5
0.42
0.31
1.5
0.062
4.6
0.062
1.1
0.017
TOTALS
37,220
830
8,300
4,100
31
35
-------
TABLE 21. TANK TRUCK CLEANING CONTRIBUTIONS
TO STATE EMISSION BURDENS
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
Cars/yr
81,000
25,000
90,000
240,000
55,000
82,000
35,000
50,000
45,000
20,000
290,000
220,000
70,000
172,000
195,000
250,000
6,500
110,000
150,000
160,000
120,000
30,000
125,000
45,000
40,000
6,900
15,000
300,000
19,000
190,000
35,000
19,000
200,000
150,000
21,000
155,000
10,000
50,000
29,000
90,000
400,000
20,000
8,800
125,000
91,000
200,000
121,000
48,000
5,010,000
Oil and
grease,
metric
tons/yr
28
8.7
31
84
19
29
12
17
16
7
101
77
24
60
68
87
2.3
38
52
56
42
10
44
16
14
2.4
5.2
104
6.6
66
12
6.6
70
52
7.3
54
3.5
17
10
31
139
7
3.1
44
32
70
42
17
1,745
COD
metric
tons/yr
785
242
872
2,326
533
794
339
484
436
194
2,810
2,131
678
1,667
1,890
2,422
63
1,066
1,453
1,550
1,163
291
1,211
436
388
67
145
2,907
184
1,841
339
184
1,938
1,453
204
1,502
97
484
281
872
3,876
194
85
1,211
882
1,938
1,172
465
48,545
Suspended
solids,
metric
tons/yr
98
30
109
291
67
99
42
61
54
24
351
266
85
208
236
303
7.9
133
182
194
145
36
151
54
48
8.4
18
363
23
230
42
23
242
182
25
188
12
61
35
109
484
24
11
151
110
- 242
147
58
6,068
Phenol ,
metric
tons/yr
16
4.9
18
47
11
16
6.9
9.8
8.9
3.9
57
43
14
34
38
49
1.3
22
30
'32
24
5.9
25
8.9
7.9
1.4
3
59
3.7
37
6.9
3.7
39
30
4
30
2
9.6
5.7
18
79
3.9
1.7
25
18
39
24
9.4
986
36
-------
TABLE 22. DRUM WASHING CONTRIBUTION TO STATE EMISSION BURDENS
1
State
Alabama
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
103 Drums/yr
93
1,616
279
187
267
500
787
187
92
94
311
200
436
250
644
564
188
94
89
1,022
989
422
1,544
111
89
1,289
156
250
167
361
267
249
590
94
14,580
Oil and
grease ,
metric
tons/yr
0.65
11.2
1.9
1.3
1.9
3.5
5.5
1.3
0.64
0.65
2.2
1.4
3.0
1.7
4.5
3.9
1.3
0.65
0.62
7.1
6.9
2.9
10.8
0.77
0.62
8.97
1.1
1.7
1.2
2.5
1.9
1.7
4.1
0.65
101
Suspended
solids,
metric
tons/yr
2.2
39.1
6.8
4.5
6.5
12
19
4.5
2.2
2.3
7.5
4.8
10
6.0
16
14
4.6
2.3
2.2
24.8
24
10
37.4
2.7
2.2
31.2
3.8
6.1
4.0
8.7
6.5
6.0
14
2.3
353
COD,
metric
tons/yr
18
313
54
36
52
97
152
36
18
18
60
39
84
48
125
109
36
18
17
198
192
82
299
21
17
250
30
48
32
70
52
48
114
18
2,824
Phenol ,
metric
tons/yr
0.37
6.36
1.1
0.74
1.0
2.0
3.1
0.74
0.36
0.37
1.2
0.79
1.7
0.98
2.5
2.2
0.74
0.37
0.35
4.02
3.9
1.7
6.08
0.44
0.35
5.07
0.61
0.98
0.66
1.4
1.1
0.98
2.3
0.37
57
37
-------
SECTION 5
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
PRESENT TECHNOLOGY
Practical and economically feasible control of air emissions from
the cleaning of rail tank cars and tank trucks does not exist at
present except for combustible gases and for water-soluble vapors
such as ammonia and chlorine. Tanks carrying combustible gases
are filled completely. The displaced gases from the tank are
sent to a flare and burned. Vapors of materials such as ammonia
and chlorine are absorbed in water and sent to the wastewater
stream.
Air emissions from drum burning furnaces are controlled by proper
operation of the afterburner or secondary combustion chamber of
the furnace. There is no feasible control for emissions from
open burning of drums. Solution washing of drums yields no air
emissions since the drum is closed during the wash cycle. There
is currently no control used for emissions from steaming of
drums. Most of the material from the drums is carried off with
the condensate water, and the air emission is dissipated to the
atmosphere.
Until the late 1960's little attention was given to wastewater
treatment in the rail tank car, tank truck, and drum reclaiming
industries. This inattention resulted because the wastewaters
were generally low in volume, installations were small, and en-
vironmental impacts were considered relatively small in compari-
son to those of other industrial pollution sources. Wastewater
from an estimated two-thirds of the installations was directed to
municipal treatment systems. The rest were discharged directly
to surface water streams with only some oil separation.
In recent years, both the rail and truck industries have been
making a serious effort to improve their wastewater treatment
capabilities. No installation is known to have a completely
satisfactory treatment system. State-of-the-art treatment tech-
nology applicable to rail and truck wastewaters is, for the most
part, well known and has been used by manufacturing industries
for several years. Wide diversity in the materials entering the
wastewaters prevents the use of a single specific treatment sys-
tem by all companies. For this reason, tank car and tank truck
cleaning companies are approaching their individual problems by
38
-------
using one or more combinations of the methods described below in
a building block approach to develop alternate treatment schemes.
Gravity Separation
Free oil enters the wastewaters from tank contents, exterior
washing of tanks, and from leaks or spills. This is removed by
gravity separation and incinerated or given to a contracting
waste scavenger. The American Petroleum Institute (API) separa-
tor design is the most widely used. This separator is a long,
rectangular basin which provides enough retention time for the
oil to float to the surface for removal. API separators are
divided into bays to maintain laminar flow and prevent short
circuiting. They are equipped with skimmers that move the oil to
the downstream end where it is collected in a slotted pipe or
drum. When returning to the upstream end, the skimmers travel
along the bottom and move settled solids into a collection
trough. The sludge is dewatered and then incinerated or disposed
of in a landfill, with the water going to the next treatment
step.
There are several other designs of gravity separators but the
differences only amount to different geometries.
Gravity separation is only effective for nonemulsified free oil;
emulsified oil is not removed. Other factors affecting the effi-
ciency of gravity separation are temperature, oil density, and
suspended solids content. Oil removal also takes out some
phenols, BOD, and COD since some organics are miscible with oil.
Equalization
For ease of operation and for a more constant quality of waste-
water, the flow and waste concentration to mixed chemical treat-
ment systems should be as uniform as possible. Large fluctuation
should be dampened in equalization facilities.
Equalization is provided in holding tanks or ponds with a reten-
tion capacity of 1 day or longer. Baffles and mixers are used to
improve equalization. Holding ponds are sometimes used to pro-
vide final treatment, relying on long retention times (several
days) for settling and biological oxidation. Removal efficien-
cies vary widely: 5% to 40% for BOD5, 5% to 30% for COD, 20% to
90% for oil, 10% to 80% for suspended solids, 0% to 70% for
phenol, and 30% to 70% for odor (19).
Wastewater is directed from the holding basin to an emulsion-
breaking and dissolved air-flotation chamber to remove emulsified
oils and suspended solids.
(19) Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1969.
39
-------
Emulsion Breaking
This operation can employ either chemical or physical methods.
Physical methods include electrolysis, coalescence, filtration,
centrifugation, distillation, and temperature change. Chemical
methods, aimed at breaking down the stabilizing agent in the
emulsion, are more satisfactory.
The most practical method of chemically breaking emulsions
involves the addition of an acid or acid salt such as sulfuric
acid, alum, ferrous sulfate, or ferric chloride. Soda ash may
then be used to neutralize the separated water. The resulting
free oil and alum or iron floe can be separated by sedimentation
or air flotation.
Dissolved Air Flotation
This process consists of saturating a portion of the wastewater
feed, or some of the recirculated effluent from the flotation
unit, with air at a gage pressure of 275 kPa to 415 kPa (40 psi
to 60 psi). The wastewater or recycled effluent is held at this
pressure for 1 minute to 5 minutes in a retention tank and then
released at atmospheric pressure to the flotation chamber. The
sudden reduction in pressure releases air bubbles less than
100 ym in diameter which attach themselves to the oil and sus-
pended particles in the wastewater. The resulting agglomerates
are then buoyed to the surface to form a froth layer which is
removed by skimming devices. The retention time in the flotation
chamber is usually 15 minutes to 40 minutes. The addition of
flocculating agents, such as polyelectrolytes, often improves the
effectiveness of the air flotation process and clarification.
Coagulation
Coagulation consists of adding chemicals to the wastewater to
create fast-settling agglomerates or floes from finely divided
and slow-settling particles. Chemical coagulation and sedimenta-
tion can be used to treat the effluent from a gravity separator
prior to biological treatment.
The chemical coagulation-sedimentation process has three essen-
tial steps. First, chemicals and/or polyelectrolytes are added
in a flash mix tank for 1 minute to 3 minutes. Next, the waste-
water is gently stirred in a flocculation basin for 10 minutes to
30 minutes so that floes grow large enough to settle readily.
Finally, the agglomerated sludge is separated in a clarifier or
settling basin. This process is capable of giving results com-
parable to those of dissolved air flotation in removing oils,
solids, BOD, and COD.
When operated properly, dissolved air flotation with chemical
coagulation can produce an effluent having an oil content of less
40
-------
than 10 g/m3. The reduction of organic pollutants may be inci-
dental to the removal of oil and suspended solids. BOD5 reduc-
tion can range from 20% to 70% (4).
The effluent from flotation-coagulation systems or from primary
settling may be further treated biologically in aerated lagoons,
or by trickling filters, or by activated sludge. Some tank truck
cleaners are trying biological treatment at the present time.
Activated carbon adsorption is being used as an alternative to
biological treatment.
Aerated Lagoon
Aerated biological treatment is achieved by mixing dilute concen-
trations of microorganisms with wastewater in a large basin. The
oxygen necessary to aerobically degrade the organic matter is
supplied by mechanical or diffused aeration units, or by induced
surface aeration. The turbulence normally maintained distributes
the oxygen and biological solids throughout the basin.
An aerated lagoon differs from an activated sludge unit in that
the effluent from the aerated lagoon may not be settled prior to
discharge, and the biological solids are not recirculated. The
low rate of organic removal resulting from the low concentration
of biological solids maintained in the lagoon requires a greater
retention time for an equivalent reduction in BOD than is the
case with activated sludge. An aerated lagoon is capable of
removing 50% to 95+% of BODs, depending on temperature and pol-
lutant treatability (4). The removal efficiencies may be
improved by further treating the lagoon effluent using chemical
coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, or an effluent polishing
pond.
Trickling Filter
In this process, wastewater is passed through a porous bed
(stones or plastic) that contains a fixed growth of microorgan-
isms. A microbial film develops on the surface of the filtering
medium and removes organic materials from the wastewater by
adsorption, bioflocculation, and sedimentation. Oxygen is very
important in this system (as it is in any aerobic biological
system) for rapid metabolism of the removed organic matter.
Since the filter medium has a large surface area, oxygen can move
readily by simple diffusion from the void spaces into the liquid
layer. Treatment rates of trickling filters are controlled by
both hydraulic and organic loading rates. Stone trickling
filters are limited, due to the low flow rates involved, to
depths between 1 m and 3 m. Those using plastic generally have
high hydraulic and organic loadings, and their bed depths range
from 5 m to 12 m. A modification of the trickling filter, used
at one treatment system visited, consists of a large, rotating,
cylindrical cage, mounted horizontally and partially submerged,
41
-------
carrying plastic rings. The rotation of the cage constantly
renews the oxygen and maintains a high trickle rate.
As the microbial film ages and dies on the medium, it drops off
and is washed away. With high organic and hydraulic loadings,
the film growth is more rapid. However, the lack of oxygen in
the medium interface coupled with greater hydraulic shearing
action causes the microbial film to wash from the media surface
continuously. A final clarifier is normally used to remove these
solids from the filter effluent to maintain minimum effluent BOD
and suspended solids concentration.
Activated Sludge
In this process, high concentrations (1.5 kg/m3 to 3 kg/m3) of
newly grown and recycled microorganisms are suspended uniformly
throughout a holding tank to which raw wastewaters are added.
Oxygen is introduced by mechanical aerators, diffused air
systems, or other means. The organic materials in the waste are
removed from the aqueous phase by the microbiological growths and
stabilized by biochemical synthesis and oxidation reactions. The
basic activated sludge process involves the use of an aeration
tank followed by a sedimentation tank. The flocculant microbial
growths removed in the sedimentation tank are recycled to the
aeration tank to maintain a high concentration of active micro-
organisms. Although the microorganisms remove almost all of the
organic matter from the waste being treated, much of the con-
verted organic matter remains in the system in the form of micro-
bial cells. These cells have a relatively high rate of oxygen
demand and must be removed from the treated wastewater before it
is discharged.
Activated Carbon Adsorption
This is one of the most effective methods for removing from
wastewaters countless dissolved organic materials (both biode-
gradable and refractory) which contribute to BOD, COD, and taste
and odor problems. In a few existing units, biologically treated
effluent is passed through vessels filled with granular, acti-
vated carbon. In another unit visited, powdered activated carbon
is added along with coagulation chemicals into a tank following
biological treatment. It has been demonstrated in pilot units
that raw wastes, which have been given chemical coagulation (with
sedimentation or filtration) to remove suspended solids, can be
processed by carbon adsorption to provide almost any level of
treatment (20) . The carbon gradually loses its adsorptive capac-
ity as it accumulates organic materials from the wastewater and
must be eventually replaced. To make the process more economi-
(20) Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Contract 14-12-933, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1971.
42
-------
cal the spent carbon is usually reactivated and the bed replen-
ished with new carbon. Frequently multiple adsorption colums are
utilized in series or in .parallel so that at least one unit may
be pulled out of service for replenishment. Moving bed carbon
filters are sometimes used to eliminate the spare colums required
for regeneration and to produce more consistent effluent, but
there seem to be problems involved in the countercurrent movement
of the carbon particles. Unlike biological treatment processes,
the efficiency of carbon treatment is not very sensitive to
seasonal temperature changes. In most cases, the combined use
of coagulation, filtration, and carbon adsorption is more reli-
able and controllable than biological treatment.
Granular Media Filtration
The media used in granular filters, either pressurized or grav-
ity, may consist of 1) sand, 2) sand and coal, or 3) sand,
coal, and a heavy fine material such as garnet. When the medium
is sand, a relatively uniform grade of sand rests on a layer of
coarser sand or fine gravel. When the medium is sand and coal, a
layer of fine sand rests on a layer of medium coal. These two
types of filters present the problem of keeping the fine sand
from moving through the coarse layer to the bottom. This problem
can usually be solved by placing a layer of garnet between the
fine and coarse layers. This comprises the third medium listed
above. Periodically, the top sand layer is removed for landfill-
ing and is replaced with fresh sand.
Granular media filters are capable of prodnr.tng an effluent which
consistently shows extremely low suspended solids and oil content
on the order of 5 g/m3 to 10 g/m3 for each (4).
Batch Treatment of Individual Waste Streams
Sometimes, wastes are encountered which are not effectively
treated by the above processes or even interfere with them.
Metals and cyanide wastes are examples. Normally they occur
intermittently and in relatively small quantities, making them
amenable to batch treatment prior to discharge to surface waters
or before mixing with other wastes for further treatment. Chro-
mium wastes, for example, can be treated with sulfuric acid and
sulfur dioxide to reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent, which
can then be discharged for precipitation in the coagulation-
sedimentation system described previously. Cyanides can be
subjected to alkaline chlorination destruction. At one facility,
phenol wastewaters are segregated and treated with ozone before
discharge to the regular wastewater treatment system. Phenol
concentrations are reduced from as high as 30 kg/m3 to less than
5 g/m3 (4).
Ponds or Lagoons
Wastewater treatment in ponds or lagoons is a common practice in
the railroad industry and, to some degree, in the trucking
43
-------
industry. It may be preceded by any one of the above described
methods although it most often follows gravity separation. Where
practiced, ponding is ordinarily the final step in treatment.
Ponds may be used for further gravity separation, for evapora-
tion, or for aerobic digestion. Ponds are also used simply for
equalization to eliminate slug discharges of pollutants to sur-
face waters or to treatment facilities. The relatively long
retention times provided assist in further oil separation and
sedimentation, both of which are time dependent. Oil-skimming
devices are used at the effluent outlet.
Evaporation ponds which have no discharge are used effectively
where the rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of precipitation
by an amount equal to or greater than the rate at which waste-
water is sent to the pond. Evaporation ponds are inadequate if
some of the wastewater dissipates through ground seepage and
contaminates groundwaters. Ponds have actually been designed to
leak where the soil is porous but, generally, this is not con-
sidered acceptable practice because of groundwater contamination
possibilities.
Ponds or lagoons may be used to provide for aerobic digestion of
oxygen-demanding wastes. Atmospheric aeration may be sufficient
if the pond has a large surface area and volume compared with
waste concentration. If atmospheric aeration is not adequate,
mechanical aeration may be used. Ponds may also be used for
anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes, but grossly unpleasant
odors and putrid conditions frequently result.
Adequately designed ponds are capable of removing up to 95% of
oil, suspended solids, BOD, and other constituents, depending on
retention time, temperature, and treatability. Under ideal
conditions, evaporation ponds can remove virtually 100% of all
waste materials, leaving just solids to be incinerated or land-
filled (4).
Neutralization
Neutralization, or pH adjustment to near the neutral value of
7.0, can be provided at any stage of treatment. Some microorgan-
isms and treatment chemicals are somewhat pH sensitiver in which
case pH control becomes mandatory. The adjustment of pH is
accomplished by the addition of either acidic or basic chemicals,
depending on the condition to be corrected. The hauling of acids
and caustics, and the use of caustic or acid wash solutions, fre-
quently necessitate pH control, even if only to meet regulatory
limits on effluents.
Table 23 summarizes reported effluent concentrations from various
combinations of the above described systems for petroleum
44
-------
TABLE 23. LOWEST EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS EXPECTED
USING VARIOUS TREATMENT PROCESS
COMBINATIONS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES (21)
Process
API separator
API separator and
clarifier
API separator and
dissolved air flotation
API separator and
granular media filter
API separator and
oxidation pond
BODs
250
45
45
40
10
Effluent concentration, g/m3
Suspended
COD solids Oil Phenol
260 50 20 6
130 25 5 10
130 25 5 10
100 563
50 20 2 0.01
API separator and
clarifier,
dissolved air flotation,
granular media filter,
aerated lagoon
API separator and
trickling filter
API separator and
clarifier,
dissolved air flotation,
granular media filter,
activated carbon
10
10
25 80 2,010
0.5
0.1
30
10
0.1
Note: Blanks indicate data not available.
refiners (21). Wastewater composition could affect the effluents
achieved. In general, a system which includes gravity separa-
tion, dissolved air flotation, granular media filtration, and
activated carbon adsorption is capable of producing a high
quality effluent. However, carbon treatment is relatively costly
and is not a cure-all for effluents.
The above treatment systems are available to the drum cleaning
industry, and some companies are attempting to use some of the
processes for wastewater treatment. Ponds are used by some com-
(21) Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for Petro-
leum Refineries. Office of Enforcement and General Counsel,
National Field Investigations Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973.
45
-------
panies for sedimentation before sending the effluent to a munici-
pal treatment system. Several companies have begun using closed
systems for their washing cycles. In such systems, suspended
solids are removed for landfilling, and the caustic liquor is
regenerated and reused for long periods. When necessary, the
liquid can be neutralized and discharged to the municipal system.
Solid waste materials are universally either incinerated or land-
filled. In some cases, it is possible for undesirable materials
to be landfilled in such a condition as to be hazardous because
of soil percolation. This should be prevented by careful control
of landfill operations involving these wastes.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Air
Closed, recycled washing systems for tank cars, tank trucks, and
drums have very low, if any, air emissions. Drum burning fur-
naces, when afterburners are operated properly, are capable of
being controlled to meet most standards. Vapors from complete
water flushing of tank cars and tank trucks used to haul vola-
tile, combustible materials can be, and often are, sent to flares.
Open cleaning operations, such as steaming of tank cars, tank
trucks, and drums, and open air burning of drums are sources of
uncontrolled air emissions. There are no feasible, or readily
available, control methods known for these operations at the
present time. Converting open cleaning operations to closed-
cycle cleaning, and eliminating open air drum burning, seem to be
the only alternatives for the immediate future.
Water
Existing control technology for wastewater treatment available to
all three types of cleaning operations appears to be capable of
providing adequate control of effluents (10). Further develop-
ment in the area of effective strains of microorganisms for
biological treatment of organic materials would be desirable.
Economic considerations are a key factor in future applications
of treatment technology. The development of standardized,
building-block process units could lead to greater economy in
capital costs for treatment facilities.
Solid
Incineration and landfilling of solid wastes are in fairly common
usage at the present time. When properly done, these methods may
be adequate for the future needs of tank car, tank truck, and
drum cleaning.
-------
SECTION 6
GROWTH POTENTIAL
At present there is no practical, economical method for effec-
tively reducing the emissions from rail tank car, tank truck, and
drum cleaning. It is expected that the volume of chemical mater-
ials transported will increase in parallel with the increase in
chemical production. It has been forecast that chemical produc-
tion will increase 9% in 1977, 7% in 1978, 5% in 1979, and 6% in
1980 for a total increase of 30% through 1980 (22). Therefore,
emissions from these cleaning operations will increase by 30%
also, unless some control methods are developed.
Continued efforts by the cleaning companies to install and/or
optimize wastewater treatment systems should result in a decrease
(estimated 50%) in the amount of discharged water pollutants
through 1980.
(22) Outlook is Optimistic for Chemicals in 1977. Chemical and
Engineering News, 54(48):6-7, 1976.
47
-------
REFERENCES
1. Analysis of Proposed EPA Effluent Limitations on the For-
Hire Tank Truck Industry. National Tank Truck Carriers,
Inc., Washington, B.C., June 1974. 31 pp.
2. Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1973. Association of American
Railroads, Washington, D.C., 1973.
3. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Railroad Segment of the Transportation Industry Point
Source Category. Office of Enforcement and General Counsel,
National Field Investigations Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,
February 1975.
4. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Source Performance Standards for the
Trucking Segment of the Transportation Industry Point
Source Category. Office of Enforcement and General Counsel,
National Field Investigations Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1975.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
J. A. Danielson, ed. Publication No. AP-40, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, May 1973. 987 pp.
6. Railway Age Directory of Contract Car Repair Facilities.
Railway Age, 177(13):44-49, 1976.
7. Final Report on Cost of Implementation and Capabilities of
Available Technology to Comply with P.L. 92-500; Volume IV:
Industry Categories 29-38. Prepared for the National
Commission on Water Quality by Battelle Columbus Labora-
tories, Columbus, Ohio, July 3, 1975.
8. TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
/
9. Sax, N. I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials,
Third Edition. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York,
New York, 1968. 1251 pp.
48
-------
10. O'Brien, J. E. A Demonstration Plant for the Treatment of
Waste Waters from Tank Truck Cleanings. Presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 1, 1976. 8 pp.
11. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. Publication No. AP-42, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
April 1973. p. 2.2-1.
12. Serth, R. W., and T. W. Hughes. Source Assessment:
Phthalic Anhydride (Air Emissions). EPA-600/2-76-032d,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, December 1976. 154 pp.
13. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
14. Eimutis, E. C., and R. P. Quill. Source Assessment: State-
by-State Listing of Criteria Pollutant Emissions, EPA-600/
2-77-107b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1977. 146 pp.
15. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969. 64 pp.
16. Decision Criteria for Water Discharges. Draft prepared for
EPA review under Contract 68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, 1976. 4 pp.
17. Eimutis, E. C., T. J. Hoogheem, and T. W. Hughes. Briefing
Document: Water Source Severity and Initial Water
Prioritization Structures. Draft prepared under EPA
Contract 68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, Ohio, September 21, 1976. 12 pp.
18. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
19. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1969.
20. Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Waste Water
Treatment Plants. Contract 14-12-933, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1971.
49
-------
21. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
Petroleum Refineries. Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, National Field Investigations Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973.
22. Outlook is Optimistic for Chemicals in 1977. Chemical and
Engineering News, 54(48) :6-7, 1976.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATES OF DRUM BURNING EMISSIONS
PARTICULATES
The particulate emission factor for auto incineration is
0.68 kg/car, based on 112 kg of combustible material (CM) on a
stripped car body (11) .
Assuming 2 kg of combustible material per drum gives:
E = 0-68 kg t car . 2 kg CM
p car * 112 kg CM * drum
= 0.012 kg/drum
A large representative plant cleans 400,000 drums/yr of which
65% are burned. Thus, 260,000 drums/yr are burned, and assuming
260 days/yr of operation, 24 hr/day gives:
Therefore,
Q = 0.012 -2- . 0.012
. -- .
p drum s
= 0.00014 kg/s or 0.14 g/s
where Q = mass particulate emission rate, g/s
NITROGEN OXIDES (NO )
X
Following the same logic as above:
= o 01 -. • , , 0 _ - 2kg_CM = 1Q-, k /drum
iNO car 112 kg CM drum y/
J^.
A large representative plant burns 0.012 drum/s; therefore
Q Q = 1.8 x I0~k kg/drum • 0.012 drum/s
= 2.2 x 10~6 kg/s or 2.2 x 10~3 g/
51
s
-------
DERIVATION OF REPRESENTATIVE DRUM CLEANING PLANTS
There are two types of plants: those which wash and burn drums
clean and those which only wash drums clean. Using NBADA data on
drums burned and washed (Table 11), the average size of the two
types of plants can be derived.
There are 9,090,000 drums burned clean at 35 facilities, for an
average of 2-60,000 drums per facility. Assuming that 65% of the
drums handled by these facilities require burning and that the
remaining 35% can be cleaned by washing, the average facility
handles 400,000 drums per year. The remaining 98 facilities wash
drums only and handle the remaining 8,200,000 drums per year.
The facilities which wash clean only are much smaller with an
average of 84,000 drums per year for NBADA members. A representa-
tive plant which washes only would be even smaller if the total
number of facilities were considered. For purposes of this
report, the larger size is chosen. Thus, the representative
plants are:
Burning and washing - 400,000 drums/yr
Washing only , - 84,000 drums/yr
ESTIMATION OF DRUM CLEANING EFFLUENTS
Using tank truck cleaning effluent data, drum cleaning was esti-
mated as follows. For 30 tank trucks per day, 45.4 m3/day
(12,000 gal/day) of effluent are produced when removing 100 kg of
material per truck. For oil and grease, this gives 230 g/m3 in
the effluent, or 10.4 kg/day. This is 3.48 g of oil and grease
per kilogram of material removed. Since each drum contains 2 kg
of waste, the oil and grease are estimated as 6.96 g per drum
washed. For the representative plants, this means:
35% of Type a plants - 0.97 metric tons/yr
100% of Type b plants - 0.585 metric tons/yr
Assuming 260 days of operation per year gives:
Type a plant - 3.75 kg/day
Type b plant - 2.25 kg/day
Estimated flow rates (from plant personnel) of 25 m3/day
(6,600 gal/day) and 15 m3/day (4,000 gal/day) for Type a and
Type b plants, respectively, gives effluent concentrations as
follows:
Type a plant - 148 g/m3
Type b plant - 148 g/m3
Other effluents are calculated in a similar manner.
52
-------
APPENDIX B
DEFINITION OF SOURCE SEVERITY FOR WATER DISCHARGES
AND CALCULATION OF RIVER OR END-OF-PIPE CONCENTRATIONS
Source severity is defined as the pollutant concentration to
which aquatic life is exposed divided by an acceptable concen-
tration. The "exposure" concentration is the fully diluted
receiving water concentration resulting from the effluent of
the specific discharge of concern. The "acceptable" concentra-
tion (F) is defined as that concentration at which it is assumed
that an incipient adverse environmental impact occurs. For most
pollutants, it is the water quality criteria. For pollutants
without water quality criteria, F is the lowest value of the
following concentrations:
0.01 LCso (LCso is the lethal concentration of a pollutant to
50% of an aquatic life exposed to the pollutant)
0.00225 LD50 (LD50 is the lethal dose of a pollutant to 50% of
a male rat population)
Mathematically, source severity (S) is:
s _(VVR CD)
b " F
where V^, V_, = volume of discharge and river flow, respectively
D R
C = concentration of discharge
F = acceptable concentration as defined above
The oxygen source severity is defined as the maximum mass of
oxygen that can potentially be consumed by a specific discharge
divided by the mass of oxygen in the receiving water that can
be consumed without exceeding the minimum "water quality criteria
for dissolved oxygen. The maximum mass of oxygen potentially
consumable by the discharge is defined as the total oxygen
demand (TOD) concentration multiplied by the discharge flow
rate. The "allowable" mass is defined as the receiving water
volumetric flow rate of mixing zone volume multiplied by the
difference between the saturation concentration (Cg) at 10 °C
and the minimum water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen
53
-------
Hence, the source severity can be defined mathematically as:
^ITOD
s =
CS - D°(WQC)
The receiving water is assumed to be initially at saturation and
the discharge is assumed to be fully diluted and mixed upon enter-
ing the receiving water. It is also assumed that all of the
total oxygen demand occurs instantaneously with no reaearation of
the receiving body of water.
If it is desired to evaluate the severity at any other river flow
rate, severity can be calculated as follows:
So = S
where Sj = standard source severity as shown in Table 19
82 = source severity at river flow rate, V^
VR VR = river flow rates corresponding to the 2
lf 2 source severities S\ and 82, respectively
In addition, the concentration expected in the river can be
determined by multiplying the source severity and the hazard
factor (Table 18). The concentration expected from the discharge,
CD (no dilution in the river, can be calculated using the follow-
ing set of equations:
CD = SD F
where
and S = severity from Table 19
V0 = river flow in Equation 3, 856 m3/s
R »
V = volumetric discharge, m3/s
F = hazard factor from Table 18
54
-------
GLOSSARY
affected population: Number of nonplant persons exposed to
concentrations of airborne materials which are present in
concentrations greater than a determined hazard potential
factor.
biochemical oxygen demand: A measure of the amount of oxygen
consumed in the biological processes that break down organic
matter in water.
chemical oxygen demand: A measure of the amount of oxygen
required to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic
compounds in water.
criteria pollutants: Emission species for which ambient air
quality standards have been established; these include
particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and nonmethane hydrocarbons.
dedicated: Type of car, truck or drum used for carrying one
commodity only and, unless contaminated, cleaned only prior
to repair or testing.
emulsion: A heterogeneous liquid mixture not normally miscible,
held in suspension by agitation or certain additives.
hazard factor: The ambient air quality standard of a criteria
pollutant or a "corrected" TLV for noncriteria pollutants.
national emissions burden: The total quantity of specific
pollutants generated in the U.S.
noncriteria pollutants: Emission species for which no ambient
air quality standards have been established.
nondedicated: Type of car, truck or drum which is cleaned after
every use to prevent cross contamination.
pollutant: Any introduced gas, liquid, or solid that makes a
resource unfit for a specific purpose.
representative source: A source whose performance characteris-
tics are representative of those of a large number of actual
sources of similar type and function.
55
-------
source severity: An indication of the hazard potential of a
pollution source.
i
state emission burden: The total quantity of specific pollutants
generated in a specific state.
threshold limit value: Airborne concentrations of substances
that represent conditions under which it is believed that
nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed day after day
without adverse effect.
total oxygen demand: A quantitative measure of all oxidizable
material in water or wastewater as determined by measuring
the depletion of oxygen in a known gas stream.
turbidity: A cloudy condition in water due to the suspension of
silt or finely divided organic matter.
water quality criteria: The level of pollutants that affect the
suitability of water for a given use.
water quality standard: A plan for water quality management
containing four major elements: the use to be made of the
water; criteria to protect those uses; implementation plans
and enforcement plans; and an antidegradation statement to
protect existing high quality waters.
-------
.„ , TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(flease read Instructions on the rtvtnt btfore completing)
. REPORT NO. f
EPA-600/2-78-004g
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOURCE ASSESSMENT: RAIL TANK CAR, TANK TRUCK,
AND DRUM CLEANING, State of the Art
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
6. REPORT DATE
.April 1978 issuing date
0. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS) ' ' —
D. E. Barley, K. M. Tackett and T. R. Blackwood
a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-713
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton., Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
13. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268 ;
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final 8/76-9/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCV CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IERL-Ci project leader for this report is R. J. Turner, 513-684-4481.
16. ABSTRACT _ __________________________________
This document reviews the state of the art of air emissions and water
pollutants from cleaning rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums. Compo-
sition, quantity, and rate of emissions and pollutants are described.
Rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums are used to transport chemical and
petroleum commodities from producer to consumer. Steaming, washing and/or
flushing of such units result in air emissions and wastewater effluents.
Air emissions are predominantly organic chemical vapors. Water pollut-
ants common to these operations are primarily oil and grease, COD, BOD,
suspended solids and many other organic and inorganic materials.
Representative sources were defined in order to evaluate the hazard poten-
tial. Source severity was defined and evaluated for air emissions and
for wastewater effluents. Control methods used to reduce emissions from
rail tank car and tank truck cleaning consist only of flaring flushed
gases. By EPA estimates, two-thirds of the tank truck industry dis-
charges into municipal systems with little or no pretreatment. This
treatment has generally been limited to sedimentation, neutralization,
evaporation ponds, and lagoons.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Assessments
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Water Pollution
Control
Source Assessment
COSATi Field/Group
68A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS IThti Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2*20-1 (t-73)
57
* U.S. MVEMMBIT PRINTING OFFICE 197»—260-880/38
------- |