EPA-R2-73-293
September 1973
                        Environmental Protection Technology Series
Waste  Automotive Lubricating Oil

As A Municipal  Incinerator Fuel

                                 Office of Research and Development

                                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                 Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
            RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the  Office  of  Research  and
Monitoring,  Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series.  These  five  broad
categories  were established to facilitate further
development  and  application   of   environmental
technology.   Elimination  of traditional grouping
was  consciously  planned  to  foster   technology
transfer   and  a  maximum  interface  in  related
fields.  The five series are:

   1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
   2.  Environmental Protection Technology
   3.  Ecological Research
   4.  Environmental Monitoring
   5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION   TECHNOLOGY   series.    This   series
describes   research   performed  to  develop  and
demonstrate   instrumentation,    equipment    and
methodology  to  repair  or  prevent environmental
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.

-------
                                                   EPA-R2-73-293
                                                   September 1973
     WASTE AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICATING OIL AS A

           MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR FUEL
                       By

                 Steven Chansky
                   Billy McCoy
                Norman Surprenant
             Contract No.  68-01-0186
                Project  15080 HBO


                 Project Officer

                 Richard Keppler
         Environmental Protection Agency
        John F. Kennedy  Federal Building
           Boston, Massachusetts 02203
                  Prepared  for

       OFFICE OF RESEARCH  AND MONITORING
     U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.06

-------
                        EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication.  Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
                                  ii

-------
                               ABSTRACT
The technical, economic and environmental impact of utilizing waste
automotive lubricating oils to improve the municipal incineration
combustion process was examined.  Utilization of the heating value of
waste oil in a municipal incinerator can help to alleviate the high
level of combustible air pollutants and poor residue quality resulting
from the firing of wet and/or low BTU-value refuse.  Laboratory
analyses of selected physical properties of waste oil and a waste oil
burner testing program were conducted to complement an information
search program.  The information search consisted of a review of pub-
lished literature and contacts with waste oil reprocessors and
burner manufacturers.

The physical and chemical properties of waste oil were reviewed in
relation to its suitability as a fuel oil.  The auxiliary fuel heat
flux requirements to offset the adverse effects of wet refuse were
estimated utilizing a combustion model of a refuse bed.  Various
methods were evaluated for transferring this required heat flux to
the refuse bed.  Suggested designs for monitoring and control; and
waste oil storage and feed systems were presented.

The impact on air quality from the combustion of waste oil in a
municipal incinerator was estimated.  Three-month average ground
level concentrations for lead were calculated and presented as con-
centration isopleths.

Capital Investment and Operating costs were developed for auxiliary
waste oil systems in conjunction with municipal incinerators.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-0186
under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
                               111

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
                Title
Page
I

II

III

IV



V

VI


VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII
ABSTRACT                                         iii

CONCLUSIONS                                       1

RECOMMENDATIONS                                   3

INTRODUCTION                                      7

TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE PHYSICAL AND         11
COMBUSTION PROPERTIES OF WASTE AUTOMOTIVE
LUBRICATING OIL

HEATING REQUIREMENTS OF WASTE OIL                23

METHODS OF TRANSFERRING REQUIRED HEAT FLUX       31
INTO REFUSE BED UTILIZING WASTE OIL

MONITORING AND CONTROL                           41

STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS                         45

IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY                            49

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY                             57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                 65

REFERENCES                                       67

APPENDICES                                       71

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
                Title
                                                                 Page
1


2


3

4
7

8
PHYSICAL AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES OF           12
WASTE LUBRICATING OILS

LIST OF COMMERCIAL RE-REFINERS IN THE           13
UNITED STATES

ORIGINS OF WASTE OIL SAMPLES                    17

VISCOSITY OF WASTE OIL AT VARIOUS               19
TEMPERATURES

RESULTS OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL USED TO CAL-      29
CULATE THE THEORETICAL HEAT FLUX Qg NEEDED
TO DRY WET REFUSE CONTAINING 40% MOISTURE

IMPURITIES IN WAST OIL (Wt.70 OF ELEMENT OR      51
MATERIAL AS LISTED)

INCINERATOR INPUT DATA                          54

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF A WASTE OIL AUX-       58
ILIARY FUEL SYSTEM FOR A MUNICIPAL INCIN-
ERATOR

ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A WASTE OIL         61
AUXILIARY FUEL SYSTEM FOR A MUNICIPAL INCIN-
ERATOR
Figures

1
Viscosity of Automotive Waste Oil and Virgin
Fuel Oils vs. Temperature.

Schematic of Cross-Feed Bed Burning Process
(Assuming Combustion Process Raw* Dry* Volat-
ilizc-*Char-*Ash).

Schematic of a Municipal Incinerator Showing
Ignition Plane when Firing Wet Refuse and
Normal Refuse.
                                                Page
20
                                                                 24
                                                                 25
                                    vi

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Cont.)


Figures                          Title


4                Side View of Incinerator Primary Chamber         34

5                Photographs of the Waste Oil Burner Test         37
                 Apparatus.

6                7 CQj amd 7 Excess Air vs. Observed Flame        39
                 Temperature (measured with Optical Pyrometer)

7                Schematic of Waste Oil Storage and Feed          47
                 System.

8                Isopleths of Average Ground-Level Concentration  55
                 of Pb for Winter Season.  Units are |j.g/m .

9                Investment and Operating Costs of Waste Oil Aux- 64
                 iliary Fuel System as a Function of Incinerat-
                 ion Plant Capacity.
                                   VII

-------
                             SECTION I
                            CONCLUSIONS
1.   The physical and combustion properties of automotive waste oils
     as described in Section IV make such oils extremely suitable as
     an auxiliary fuel in a municipal incinerator.

2.   The estimated theoretical energy requirement for alleviation of
     the adverse affects of wet refuse (40% moisture) in municipal
     incinerator is:

                     550 - 625 BTU per pound of normal refuse
                     (28% moisture, 23% inerts)

3.   Mixing waste oil directly into the wet refuse to supply this
     additional energy requirement has in the past resulted in
     smoke.

4.   Preheating underfire air cannot supply the necessary quantity of
     additional energy to wet refuse because of the following con -
     straints:

                  Significant increases in underfire air
                  rates will result in air channeling
                  through the refuse bed and increase par-
                  ticulate emissions.

                  Temperatures in excess of 400 F may cause
                  structural damage to grates and duct
                  systems.

                  Heat transfer rafee befeween appraised
                  underfire air and refuse is limited.

5.   Auxiliary burners with the following design and operating
     criteria are estimated to be capable of providing a significant
     quantity of the required energy to the refuse bed:

                  Burners should be located above the drying
                  zone and as close to refuse bed surface as
                  possible.

               .  High flame temperatures  2000f

                  Highly  luminous flame to enhance radiative
                  heat transfer mechanism.

-------
                  Long flame lengths so that the
                  entire width of the refuse bed can
                  be covered by two burners (one at
                  each end).

                  High burner gas velocities so that
                  hot burner gases can penetrate the
                  bed and enhance convective and
                  radiative  heat transfer mechanisms.

               .   Minimal plugging and maintenance.

                  High degree of safety.

 6.   Based on inputs from burner manufacturers and the results  of a
     5 day burner testing program, air atomizing burner systems meet
     the above criteria very effectively.

7.    Utilization of automotive waste oil as an auxiliary fuel
     in a municipal incinerator can significantly reduce air
     pollution emissions.

                  Combustible gaseous and particulate
                  emissions  will be significantly
                  reduced during the firing of wet
                  and/or low BTU value refuse and dur-
                  ing cold startups.

               .   Waste oil  has a sulfur content
                  equivalent to a low sulfur fuel,
                  and will therefore not signifi-
                  cantly contribute to SO 2 emissions.

                  Maximum 3-month average ground-level
                  lead concentration from a waste oil
                  auxiliary  fuel system in conjunction
                  with a 400 ton per day municipal     ~
                  incinerator are estimated at 0.05ug/m .

 8.   The capital investment  cost for a waste oil auxiliary fuel
     system in conjunction with a 400 TPD municipal incinerator is
     estimated at $106,400.

 9.   The annual operating cost associated with a waste oil auxiliary
     fuel system in conjunction with a 400 TPD municipal incinerator
     is estimated at $27,800.

10.   The capital investment  and annual operating costs associated
     with waste oil auxiliary fuel systems of various  capacities can
     be estimated from the data presented in Figure 9  of this report.

-------
                           SECTION II
                         RECOMMENDATIONS
1.  Based on the projected technical and economic feasibility of
    utilizing waste oil as an auxiliary fuel in conjunction with
    municipal incineration, we recommend that Phase II of this study
    be implemented.  The following outlines the scope of such a pro-
    gram as currently envisioned :

            Demonstrate the effectiveness of burning
            waste automotive crankcase^gil in a
            municipal incinerator.

            The effectiveness of burning waste oil
            should be evaluated for the alternative
            designs, locations, and numbers of waste
            oil burners recommended in the Phase I
            program.  Flexibility in the burner
            installation is therefore essential to
            effectively evaluate the alternative burner
            systems proposed in Phase I.

            The criteria for judging effectiveness will
            include:

                  Stack emissions levels;

                  Residue quality; and

                  Burner and incineration maintenance
                  problems.

            Based on these criteria, an important aspect
            of the test program is the monitoring of
            both stack effluents and organics and
            putrescibles in the incinerator residue.

            Quantify the waste oil needed in relation to
            refuse composition and moisture level.

            In demonstrating the effectiveness of waste
            oil in alleviating the air pollution and
            residue quality problems stemming from low
            BTU and high moisture refuse, the data
            generated will verify the quantities of
            waste oil needed.  In this manner more

-------
        accurate estimates of annual incin-
        erator waste oil consumption can be
        made.

      .  Demonstration and evaluation of mon-
        itoring and control systems for firing
        waste oil burners.

         The system recommended in Phase I
         should be demonstrated and
        evaluated.  Again the evaluation
        criteria will be their effectiveness
        in minimizing stack emissions and
        poor residue quality during the firing
        of "wet" and low BTU value refuse.

        Demonstration and evaluation of the
        waste oil storage and feed system
        recommended in the Phase I study.

        Based on the performance of the
        storage, pretreatment and feed
        systems utilized in the demonstration
        phase, modifications in the design
        should be made where necessary and
        evaluated in order to optimize the
        design for future installations.

        Verification of economic studies

        Data on the investment and operating costs
        associated with the demonstration of this
        concept should be collected and cor-
        related to verify and update past economic
        estimates.  Included in this program
        should be the generation of cost data
        associated with the collection and
        delivery of waste oil to the incinerator
        site by waste oil collectors.

In addition to the application of waste oil in conjunction with
municipal incineration, we recommend that other fuel oil
applications for waste oils be investigated.  These investiga-
tions should include the influence of various levels and types
of waste oil pretreatment on such considerations as:

        The physical and combustion properties of
        waste oil

-------
Markets for waste oil and associated demand

Waste oil selling price and cost of goods
sold

Impact of waste oil impurities on the
environment and on combustion and
associated equipment.

-------
                             SECTION III
                            INTRODUCTION


This report addresses two problems of increasing concern to many
municipalities throughout the country:

        the recovery of growing quantities of waste auto-
        motive lubricating oils economically and without
        contributing to environmental insult;

        the significant levels of air contaminants and
        organic and putrescible residue materials generated
        from municipal incinerators as a result of poor
        combustion.

GCA Technology Division has investigated the feasibility of
alleviating these two problems by utilizing the available waste oil
in a community to reduce the variability of the refuse heat release
rate in a municipal incinerator which is a primary reason for poor
combustion.  The utilization of virgin fuel oil in a municipal
incinerator is not a new concept.  Auxiliary fuel has been used in
the past to start up and stabilize ignition as well as with after-
burners to achieve more complete burnout of combustible emissions.
In this study, however, the feasibility of recovering the heating
value of spent automotive waste oil to improve combustion in a
municipal incinerator is examined.

                            Background

The Waste Oil Problem

It is currently estimated that as much as 500 million gallons of
waste automotive lubricating oils are generated annually in the
United States.  In this report, waste oil is defined as:

        Automotive and other vehicular waste crankcase oils
        from service stations, garages, car dealers, fleet
        operators, agricultural and marine applications and
        individuals changing their own oil.

Although a portion of this oil is currently being collected, profit
incentives appear marginal at best.  Reprocessing of this oil back to
a lube oil, once the primary use for the collected oils, is
becoming less competitive and economically viable due to such
factors as:'  '

        more rigid specifications for oils used
        during longer drain intervals,

-------
        increased complexity of reprocessing newer
        oils with higher additive content,

        disadvantageous tax situations in many locali-
        ties as compared with virgin oils,

        labeling requirements to indicate that the oil
        was "previously used".

As a result of such factors, total capacity of reprocessing plants in
the United States has declined by an estimated 50 percent during the
past 7 years.  In 1970 capacity was at about 100,000,000 - 125,000,000
gallons per year.(l)

With waste oil reprocessing to a lube oil on the decline in the U.S.,
and the demand for other uses such as a road oil and for agricultural
purposes also on the decline, many concerned organizations are con-
sidering its potential as a fuel oil.  Preprocessing to a fuel oil,
however, also is faced with economic constraints.  To illustrate, GCA
estimates that current costs of collection, distribution and
reprocessing to a No. 4 heating fuel are approximately 10 cents/gallon
(3.0 cents collection, 4.0 cents treatment, and 3.0 cents distribu-
tion). In comparison, low sulfur No. 4 virgin fuel oil is currently
selling for about 12 cents/gallon to apartment houses and commercial
establishments in New England.  No. 5 fuel oil is selling for about
half that price.  Consequently, significant financial incentives to
use waste oil as a fuel oil are limited if not nonexistent in some
areas.

In addition costs for reprocessing to a fuel oil are expected to
increase due to new additives.  Insufficient separation of these sus-
pended impurities results in ash deposits on boiler tubes during com-
bustion.  The increased maintenance costs, relative to virgin oils,
in removing such makes as the economics of reprocessing to a fuel oil
even more marginal.

It seems clear, then, that unless new approaches and incentives are
developed, waste oil generation may become an increasingly serious
problem to our environment.

The Incineration Problem

Unlike the burning of relatively homogeneous fuels such as natural
gas, oil and coal, variability in the chemical and physical properties
of refuse can cause significant fluctuations in the rate of heat
released during the combustion process.  This variation poses a
serious problem to the designer of municipal incinerators as the heat
release rate is a primary design parameter.  The design engineer, out
of necessity usually sizes his induced draft, overfire and underfire
                                 8

-------
air fans based on an "average heat release rate".  Variations from
this average value, however, often result in poor incinerator per-
formance as characterized by such symptoms as:

        fluctuating temperatures in the primary chamber
        resulting in increased refractory maintenance
        costs

        increased concentrations of combustible gaseous
        and particulate stack emissions

        increased organics and putrescibles in the
        residue.

The use of auxiliary fuel in a municipal incinerator is of primary
benefit when the actual heating value of refuse drops below the
incinerator "design" value such as during the firing of refuse with
an abnormally high moisture content.  Wet refuse constitutes a sig-
nificant and widespread problem to incinerator operators, particularly
during start-up of a cold furnace.  Grass clippings and yard trimmings
are especially difficult to handle even when no heavy rain has
occurred, in the fall, wet leaves can become almost unmanageable and
have been known to extinguish an operating furnace.  The difficulty
appears to result primarily from low furnace temperatures, and if the
furnace temperature can be maintained at a sufficient level,
approximately 1400 F or higher, adequate burnout of wet refuse can be
achieved.

When faced with wet or low-BTU value refuse, common incinerator
practice is to adjust the percent excess air, overfire to underfire
air ratio, and/or grate speed.  Unfortunately, altering these vari-
ables may often compound existing problems.  A reduction in grate
speed inherently limits incinerator capacity.  Increasing the quan-
tity of underfire air to dry wet refuse also may lower the flame
temperature of the bed and increase particulate stack emissions.  A
reduction in the percent excess (overfire) air may well raise the
temperature of the gases in the primary combustion chamber but will
decrease the turbulence and mixing characteristics of the flue gases.
The study examines the feasibility of alleviating these operating
and environmental problems by proper utilization of the heating
value of automotive waste oil.

                         Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study is to examine the technical and economic
feasibility, including impact on air quality, of utilizing waste
automotive lubricating oils to improve the municipal incineration
combustion process.  The ultimate goal is to demonstrate the

-------
viability of this concept at a municipal incineration site.   This
study, however, lays the groundwork for such a demonstration program
by supplying the following necessary information:

        The physical and chemical properties of waste oil in
        relation to its suitability as a fuel oil.

        The estimation of the necessary quantities of waste
        oil needed in relation to the amount of refuse
        fired.

        Evaluation of alternative techniques for injection
        of the waste oil into the incinerator.

        Evaluation of monitoring and control techniques.

        Evaluation of Alternative Waste Oil Storage and
        Feed Systems.

        The impact of Firing Waste Oil on Air Quality.

        The economic feasibility including capital and
        operating costs for the proposed system.

The conclusions of this program in conjunction with the recommend-
ations made, will serve as major inputs for specifying the design as
well as the testing and evaluation phases of a demonstration system
at a municipal incinerator.
                                10

-------
                               SECTION IV
     TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE PHYSICAL AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES
                   OF WASTE AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICATING OIL
A detailed information search augmented by a laboratory analytical pro-
gram was performed to determine the physical and combustion properties
of waste oil.  Each phase of the information search will be summarized
below together with a discussion of the resulting data.  A discussion
of the chemical properties  (inpurities) of waste oil is found later in
this section under Impact on Air Quality.
                            Information Search

Literature Review
An extensive literature review was performed and the list of references
obtained and examined are included in the Reference Section (Section XII)
of this report.  Table 1 summarizes the data obtained from this literature
review.  Examination of Table 1 indicates that two references supplied
most of the published data and these were:
                Ref. 1 - Final Report of the API Task Force on
                         Used Oil Disposal, May, 1970.

                Ref. 2 - Final Progress Report on Water Pollution
                         Control Demonstration Grant
                         No.  WPD-174-01-67 to WPCA by Villanova
                         University, 1968.
Questionnaire Program

The information search also included sending questionnaires to all the
known rerefiners of automotive waste lubricating oils in the United
States.

Table 2 lists these rerefiners and Appendix A presents a copy of the
mailed letter and accompanying questionnaire.  Of the 50 questionnaires
mailed, 7 were returned for a rather poor response of 14 percent.  Of
these, 6 contained useful data and the pertinent information on physical
and combustion properties from these questionnaires is also summarized
in Table 1.
                                   11

-------
                                               TABLE  1


                        PHYSICAL AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES  OF WASTE  LUBRICATING OILS
Data
Source
API Gravity Viscosity-SUS
(60F) 100F 210F
Ref. 1 24.6
Ref. 1 26.0
Ref. 1 27.3
Ref. 1 25.6
Ref. 1 24.8
Ref. 1 27.5
Ref. 1 25.0
Ref. 1 27.9
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 12
Ref. 12
GCA Analyses:
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Quest. 1
Quest. 3
Quest. 5
Quest. 6

24.7
23.9
23.1
26.1
24.2
22.0
23.6
30.8
25.4
27.2
28.5
29-30
24.8
2f>.0-30.8
248
268
148.3
197.1
262.6
13,7,4
256
161
--
--
130
210
--
--
130-268
56.4
60.1
47.2
51.0
49.1
--
--
--
--
50-33,
58.0
33-60.1
Flash Point Pour Heat of
F Point(F) Comb.(Btu/#)
215 COC
350-400
175
185+
190
170
218
265
-35
-35
-35
-40
below -40
-30
-30
below -40
__
170
200 COC*
180-230
330 COC*
170-400 < -30
**
19,000
19,132
19,200**
19,100**
19,100**
19,200**
19,100**
19,200**
--
--
19,200**
19,300**
19,300**
19,100**
19,000-19,300
Water
(Vol %)
4.4
2.8
10.0
8.2
5.0
.06
.60
2.2
nil
11.0
5.9
0.30
0.10
0.08
0.09
4.8
0.17
0.15
10.0
4.0
5-10
4.0
4.0
0-11%
Water &
Sed.(Vol
 ,***
0.6
3.8
14.0
12.0
8.0
2.4
***
Ash Solids
7o) CWt.%) CWt. %)
1.61
1.10
5.64
1.55
7.03
6.40
3.30
1.8
1.6
5.2
1.7
1.8
7.2
3.2
0.15***
5 .2***
7.1
5-15
6
18.0
0.6-187.
--

.025
.75
2.16
0.025-2.16
--
--
--
--
-J
1.55 -7.. 03
   Cleveland Open Cup:   others are Pensky-Martens  Closed  Cup.
 **
***
 Estimate  utilizing  standard  procedures  for hydrocarbon fuels,
*
 Poor  separation observed.

-------
                                  TABLE  2
              LIST OF COMMERCIAL  RE-REFINERS  IN THE UNITED STATES
                                                                             (1)
ARIZONA

Gerdon Jackson
1019 West Prince Road
Tucson, Arizona 85704

AldousV.Steen
Kaibab Industries, Inc.
2600 South 20th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona  85009

ARKANSAS

Henley Oil Company
Norfleet, Ark.

CALIFORNIA

A. Ray Banks
Palmer Odegard
Bayside Oil Corp.
977 Bransten Road
San Carlos, Cal. 94070

George Leach
Leach Oil Co. Inc.
625 E. Compton Blvd.
Compton.Cal. 90220

H.  B. Millard
Motor Guard Lubricants Co.
4334 E. Washington Blvd.
Los Angeles, Cal. 90023

Charles R. Nelson
Pacific Petroleum Co.
Michael D. Marcus
 Economy Refining & Service Co.
7929 San Leandro St.
 Oakland, Cal. 94621

 A. W. & Roy Talley
 Talley Bros. Inc.
 2007 Laura Ave.
 Huntington Pk., Cal. 90255
Otis F. Humphrey
Nelco Oil Refining Co.
!211 McKinley Ave.
National City, Cal.  92050
COLORADO

Lloyd Cunningham
Williams Refining Co.
5901 N. Federal
Denver, Colorado 80221


FLORIDA

George Davis
Davis Oil Company
Box 1303
Tallhassee, Fla. 32302

Sol Blase
Petroleum Products Co.
Box 336
Hallendale, Fla.

John Schroter
Peak Oil Company
Rt. 3, Box 24
Tampa, Fla.  33619


GEORGIA

Jack & Bernard Blase
Seaboard Chemical Co., Inc.
Box 333
Doraville.Ga.  30040


ILLINOIS

 R. E. Poindexter
Motor Oils Refining Co.
7601 W. 47th Street
 Lyons, Illinois 60534
                                         13

-------
                                   TABLE  2     (Cont.)
 Jim L. Pierce
 Sorco Oil & Refining Co.
 Div. of Westville Oil & Mfg. Inc.
 192S E. Madison
 Springfield, Illinois 62702


 INDIANA

 Charles Bates
 Bates Oil & Refining Co.
 Box 267
 Chandler, Ind. 47610

 Andrew Carson
 Westville Oil & Mfg., Inc.
 Box 104
 Westville, Ind. 46391

 John W. Swain Jr.
 Alvord Oil Company
 1509 S. Senate Ave.
 Indianapolis, Ind.  46225


 IOWA

 Norman R. Schlott
 U, S. Oil Works
 116-29th Avenue
 Council Bluffs, Iowa
 Mail: 727 So. 13 St.
 Omaha, Nebi. 68102
KANSAS

Robert O'Blasny
Coral Refining Company
765 Pawnee Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66105

M. C. McDonald
McDonald Oil Company
1603 S. Walnut
Coffeyville, Kansas

Ava Johns
Super-Refined Oil Co.
915 East 21st St.
Wichita, Kansas 67214
 MICHIGAN

 Jack W. Epstein
 Dearborn Refining Co.
 3901 Wyoming Avenue
 Dearborn, Michigan 48120

 MINNESOTA

 C. H. Romness
 Gopher State Oil Co.
 2500 Delaware SE
 Minneapolis, Minn.  55414

 A. L. Warden
 Warden Oil Company
 187 Humboldt Ave. N.
 Minneapolis, Minn.  55405

 MISSISSIPPI

 H. K. Robertson
 Jackson Oil Products Co.
 Box 5686
 Jackson, Miss.  39208

 MISSOURI

 F. A. Gettinger
 Glen Gettinger
 Midwest Oil Refining Co.
 1900 Walton Road
 St. Louis, Mo. 63114

 NEBRASKA

 Marvin Walenz
 Monarch Oil Co.
 Box 1257
 E. Omaha, Nebr.

 NEW JERSEY

C. Kenneth Johnes
Mohawk Refining Corp.
472 Frelinghuysen Avenue
Newark, N. J. 07114

Martin Morrison
Diamond Head Oil Refining Co.
 1427 Harrison Tpke.
Kearney, N. J.
                                               14

-------
                              TABLE  2     (Cont.)
So!fred Maizus
National Oil Recovery Corporation
Box 338
Bayonne, N. J.
NEW YORK
Geo. T. Booth & Son Inc.
76 Robinson St.
No. Tonawanda, N. Y. 14120

R. W. Mahler
327 Edwards Drive
Fayetteville, New York
William Krause
Triplex Oil Co.
37-80 Review Avenue
Long Island City, N. Y.  11101
NORTH CAROLINA
Jerry Blair
South Oil Company
Box 106
Greensboro, N. C. 27402
OHIO
Jac Fallenberg
Alan Gressel
Research Oil Refining Co.
3680 Valley Road
Cleveland 9, Ohio

S. R. Passell
Keenan Oil Company
No. 1 Parkway Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45212
OKLAHOMA
Frank A. Kerran
Cameron L. Kerran
Double Eagle Refining Co.
Box 11257
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73111
Edward Kitchen
Kitchen Oil Co.
Stroud, Okla.
OREGON
A. L. Geary
Nu-Way Oil Company
7039 NE 46th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97218
T. M. Davis
Harold W. Ager, Jr.
Ager & Davis Refining Co.
9901 NE 33rd St.
Portland, Oregon
PENNSYLVANIA
R. H. Schurr
Berks Associates, Inc.
Box 617
Pottstown, Pa.  19464

TENNESSEE
William M. Gurley
Gurley Oil Company
Box 2326
Memphis, Tenn. 38102
TEXAS
R. A. Swasey
S & R Oil Company
Box 35516
Houston, Texas 77035

UTAH
J. R. Mastelotto
Also Refining Co.
133 No. First West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113

VIRGINIA
V. T. Worthington
A C Oil Company, Inc.
1500 North Quincy St.
Arlington, Virginia
(Also D. C.  & Maryland)

WASHINGTON
Virginia & Gunnar Forsmo
Superior Refineries, Inc.
Box 68
Woodinville, Wash.  98072
Time Oil Company
Tacoma, Washington

WISCONSIN
M. A. Warden
Warden Refining Co.
1910S. 73rd
W. Allis, Wisconsin  53214
                                              15

-------
Laboratory Studies

During the information search, it became evident that more waste oil
physical data were needed in some areas.  Consequently, the following
tests were performed at GCA's laboratories:
                .  Pour Point by ASTM D-97

                .  Water Content by ASTM D-95

                .  API Gravity by ASTM D-287

                .  Water and Sediment by ASTM D-1796

                   Viscosities using a Brookfield viscometer

Saybolt viscosity tests were also planned using ASTM-88, but problems in
equipment delivery prevented the tests from being performed.

     Waste  Oil Samples

Samples of waste automotive oil were collected from nine sources includ-
ing two large waste oil collection companies, several service stations
and an individual automobile.  The origin of each sample is shown in
Table 3.  Samples 1 and 9 are believed to be excellent composite samples
because they were taken from large filled tanks of about 100,000 gallons
at the collection companies.

     Analytical Results

The test data are included in Table 1, and brief summaries of these
results follow:

Water content - Because all but one of the samples from individual ser-
vice stations and automobiles showed only trace amounts of water, it
appears that the high water content generally found in waste oil from
collectors may result from handling after the oil leaves the service
stations.  The presence of water influences combustion efficiency and
proper selection of burners is essential for successful combustion of
oil containing high percentages of water.

Pour point - This test defines the lowest temperature at which an oil can
be stored and still be capable of flowing under low forces.  In conjunc-
tion with viscosity data, pour point data enables one to make a judgment
as to the need for heating waste oil prior to handling and/or the need
for preheating of the oil before firing.  The measured pour points vere
very low in all cases, the highest value being -30F.  In comparison,
No. 4 fuel oil, which does not normally require either heated storage
or preheating, has an ASTM maximum pour point specification of 20F.
                                  16

-------
                    TABLE 3
          ORIGINS OF WASTE OIL SAMPLES
Sample No.                     Source
    1               Pierce Bros. Oil Co., Waltham,  Ma.

    2               Bedford Amoco Sta., Bedford, Ma.

    3               Burlington Sunoco Sta., Burlington,
                       Ma.

    4               Rte. 62 Mobil Sta., Burlington, Ma.

    5               Rte. 62 Texaco Sta., Burlington,  Ma.

    6               Burlington Shell Serv., Burlington, Ma.

    7               Parson's Shell Sta., Bedford, Ma.

    8               Crankcase of High Specific Output
                       Foreign Automobile (Alfa-Romeo)

    9               State Oil Service, Norwalk, Conn.
                          17

-------
API gravity  (60F) - The gravity determinations agreed well with the
literature values reported in Table 1 with the exception of sample No.8.
The latter sample was known to be a light lubricating oil diluted with
gasoline by  cold weather operation.

Sediment and Water - Fair-to-good separation of the sediment and water
from the oil was observed for all samples except numbers 1, 8 and 9.  In
samples 1 and 9 the water formed an emulsion, while sample 8 had very
little water, making separation more difficult.

            Viscosity

A Brookfield viscometer was utilized to determine the effect of temperature
on the viscosity of waste oil and the resulting data are presented in Table
4.  Figure 1 is a plot of this data which compares the viscosity of waste
oil to No.'s 4 and 5 fuel oils.

           Discussion of Physical and Combustion Properties of Waste

                         Physical Properties


From the data presented in Table 1, it appears that the API Gravity of
waste oil is relatively constant compared to the variability in the other
parameters.  The API gravity is important to this program as it will
influence the design of the storage and feed system.  In addition, when
used in conjunction with other properties, it is of value in determining
weight-volume relationships and in estimating the heating value of oil.

The requirement for preheating the waste oil will be influenced primarily
by its viscosity and pour point.  The pour point is a primary indication
of the lowest temperature at which it can be stored and still be capable
of flowing under very low forces.  The viscosity also is an indication of
the relative ease of flow but in addition, indicates the ease of atomiz-
ation.  Therefore, viscosity will also be a significant burner nozzle
design parameter.  The data collected thus far as shown in Figure 1, indic-
ates that the viscosity of waste oil is similar to that of a light No.5
fuel oil.  Consequently, preheating may be required depending on climate
and the type of burner and feed equipment utilized.

Although the viscosity of waste oil may correspond most closely with a
light No. 5 heating oil, itspour point may be more representative of a
lighter heating oil.  For example, the  pour point of No.'s 2 and 4 heating
oil (requiring no pre-heating) is about 19 F (7C).  The data in Table 1
shows pour points  <30 F.

The flash point of a fuel oil is an indication of the maximum tempera-
ture at which it can be stored and handled without serious fire hazard.
The range reported in Table 1 is 170-400F, whereas the ASTM specification
shows 130F  (55C) as the minimum allowable value for No.'s 4 and 5 fuel
oils.  Consequently the flash point of waste oils fall well above the min-
imum specified ASTM values.
                                  18

-------
                        TABLE 4

        VISCOSITY OF WASTE OIL AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES



                                      Viscosity
                  o                                 *
      Temperature  F           CP                SSU

          30F                420               2150
                              730               3750
                              810               4200
                              570               2900
                              680               3500
                              450               2300
                              620               3200

          40F                175                900
                              360               1845
                              470               2400
                              350               1800
                              445               2300
                              380               1950
                              435               2200

          73F                 95                490
                              145                735
                              175                900
                              120                620
                              155                800
                              130                660
                              140                720
Calculated from viscosity measurements in CP (SSU = CP x 4.62/p;
where p = 0.9 gm/cs).
                           19

-------
100,000
                                                                    Range of viscosities
                                                                    measured by GCA

                                                                 A
                                                                    Range of published
                                                                    viscosity data (see
                                                                    Table 1)
                                                                                           100
                     Figure 1.   Viscosity of Automotive Waste Oil and Virgin Fuel
                                Oils  vs. Temperature.
                                               20

-------
The quantity  of  ash  is  indicative of  the  level  of noncombustible  mater-
ial in a  fuel oil.   Table  1  shows a range of  from 0.025%  to 2.16% ash
in waste  oil  whereas the ASTM specifications  for No.'s  4  and 5 fuel oil
is 0.1%.  Excessively high ash contents may suggest  the presence of
materials which  cause high wear on burner pumps and  valves and plugging
of burner nozzles.   These  considerations, therefore, should be accounted
for in the  design of the burner and feed  systems.

The presence  of  water and  sediment in a fuel  oil can cause fouling of
burner nozzles and  feed systems if not properly designed.  In addition,
materials of  construction  for storage and handling equipment should be
selected  to alleviate corrosion from  the  water  present.  The ranges of
water and sediment  (by  volume) shown  in Table 1 are  0.6 - 18%.

Heading Value of Waste  Oil

The heating value or heat  of combustion of waste oil is of importance
because it  directly  affects  the amount of oil required  to evaporate the
excess moisture  from wet refuse. However, in spite  of  the importance of
this variable, only  one value for the heat of combustion  was obtained
from the  literature. This value, 19,132  BTU  per Ib  (about 143,300 BTO
per gal.)  was obtained from the API  Study  (Ref. 1).


Fortunately,  standard methods  are available for deriving reasonable
estimates of  the heating value  of liquid  hydrocarbon fuels from the API
gravity.   (For a more detailed  description of the method, see such standard
references as Hougen, 0. A., et  al. ,  Chemical Process PrijicjLples and Mobil's
Technical Bulletin,  fuel oil Properties   Determined  from Inspection Tests).
This technique was utilized  to  obtain most of the heat  of combustion data
tabulated in Table 1.  These data indicate that waste oil has a heating
value equivalent to  that of  a conventional Noe  2 fuel oil.
                                  21

-------
                                   SECTION V
                       HEATING REQUIREMENTS OF WASTE OIL


               Discussion of Phenomena Occurring in a Refuse Bed

      When the heating value of municipal refuse drops below the inciner-
      ator's "design" value, several combustion phenomena occur within the
      refuse bed which result in poor residue quality and an increase in
      combustible pollutant emissions into the atmosphere.  Although these
      phenomena are difficult to describe quantitatively, a recently
      developed combustion model of a refuse bed(29) Was utilized for the
      purposes of this study.  Figure 2 presents a schematic diagram des-
      cribing the various zones in a municipal incineration refuse bed as
      defined by this model.  Although this is certainly a simplified view,
      it  highlights the major zones and their interrelationships.

      The raw refuse is first dried in the drying zone after which it
      ignites and burns either with excess oxygen present (region of active
      burning) or under reducing conditions (pyrolysis).  The angle of the
      plane separating the drying zone and region of active burning is
      very much influenced by the extent of moisture in the refuse bed as
      seen schematically in Figure 3.  With increasing quantities of
      moisture present in refuse, the drying zone becomes larger,
      essentially because it takes more time to dry the refuse.  This
      shifts the ignition plane to the right, delaying refuse ignition.
      The additional energy now required to vaporize and heat this
      increased quantity of moisture results in lower temperature both
      within and above the refuse bed.  Lower temperatures above the bed
      also serve to lower the drying rate, resulting in an expansion of
      the drying zone.  In addition, the increased moisture and lower
      temperatures will have a pronounced effect on the kinetics and
      equilibria of the reactions in the bed.  The end results associated
      with these phenomena are a higher percent of both unburned refuse  in
      the residue and increased gaseous and particulate combustible
      emissions being generated.


       Utilization of Mathematical Model to Calculate Heat Flux

            Needed to Dry Wet Refuse (40 Percent Moisture)


Although the term "wet refuse" covers a wide variety of moisture contents,
we will consider for this discussion wet refuse as refuse with a moisture
content of 40 percent (0.2 Ib of additional moisture per Ib of normal re-
fuse containing 28% moisture).  Uo will be representing the organic com-
ponent of refuse as: cellulose,l_C6^H20^5Jn'  Therefore, the organic content
plus any moisture present can be expressed as:
                                     23

-------
  BED
HEIGHT
  Si
                                STOICHIOMETRIC
                     TOP OF REFUSE BED
                           REGION OF
                            THERMAL
                     V     PYROLYSIS
                       \  (VOLATILIZATION)
                                       REGION OF NON-BURNING CHAR
                                                                   REGION OF COOLING
                                                                         ASH
                               BURNING
                  GRATE LINE
                     t	1
AIR
       I
AIR
       t
AIR	'
                                                  DISTANCE
                                                  ALONG
                                                  GRATE
                                                  (EQUIVALENT
                                                  TO TIME )
                     (29)
              Figure 2.     Schematic of Cross-Feed Bed Burning Process  (Assuming Combustion
                          Process Raw*Dry-Volatilize-Char-*Ash).

-------
IS)
Ui
\

w*
1
1
(
>^s
IGNITION PLANE FOR WET REFUSE
    (40% MOISTURE)
                                          IGNITION PLANE FOR NORMAL REFUSE
                                                   (28% MOISTURE)
           Figure 3.   Schematic of a Municipal Incinerator Showing Ignition Plane when
                     Firing Wet Refuse and Normal Refuse.

-------
                                 6
                          dry organic        moisture

Typical municipal refuse has an inert content  ranging from 20-257,.
For this model we are assuming an inert content  of  23%.  Based on
these assumptions, the "n" values for dry refuse (0% moisture), 28%
(normal refuse) moisture and 40% (wet refuse)  moisture are presented
below.

    Percent
    Moisture                Calculation               "n" value


                      0 = !&<>"                 5/6


      28              -28-OT*-"
      *              -4o-ii5g*0-"             2-46

                                      (29)
The mathematical model we have utilized^  '  is  based on the following
equations:
    Generalized equation for refuse combustion:
                    - aCO + pC02 + iH2 -WH20 + eC + 3.76N     (1)
    Water gas shift reaction:


         H 0 + CO - CO  + H2                                   (2)



    Energy Balance around refuse bed;


         QR - % + QL                                          (3)
          IX    IT   Li


    Q   = The quantity of energy release within refuse bed

    Q   = The quantity of energy convected out of refuse bed
     *    by gasification products

    Q,  = Heat loss out of refuse bed
                              26

-------
      Energy Released  ajaove the refuse bed;


                                                L                   (4)
From equation  (1), material balances can be generated for carbon,
hydrogen  and oxygen  as  presented below:
      Carbon balance:


           . + p + e , J                                          <5>


      Hydrogen balance:


            i + d = nj



      Oxygen  balance:

             ,  (a4d)    ,  ,  nj.
           p  + ^ =  1  + -f                                     (7)


Data from the Oceanside Incinerator recently generated by
Elmer Kaiser^29) indicate  that the water gas shift reaction is in Q
equilibrium directly above the refuse bed at a temperature of 2000 F.
Consequently, the equilibrium equation for the water gas shift
reaction can be used.

                     pi/da  = keq                                   (8)



 This model represented by the above equations was used by GCA to
 estimate the auxiliary energy Qg(g=gain) needed to "counteract" the
 "adverse effects" of the  12% excess moisture (40% - 28% = 12% excess
 moisture)  in the  refuse.  One of the most pronounced adverse affects
 that the model clearly shows is the decrease in the amount of energy
 released above the refuse bed, QE, with increasing levels of
 moisture in refuse.  This energy level is calculated using equation
 (4) presented above and is a result of the exothermic combustion
 reactions of hydrogen and carbon monoxide above the refuse bed.  GCA
 after examining the assumptions and limitations of the model, chose
 to use this parameter, QE, as the primary criteria for estimating
 the energy gain Qg needed to compensate for the adverse affects of
                                27

-------
wet  refuse.  We can therefore restate  the  criteria as  follows:

      The quantity of waste oil required to compensate
      for the adverse effects  of wet  refuse is
      estimated as that quantity which  provides  the
      auxiliary heat input, Qg, needed  to obtain the
      same level of energy released above the refuse
      bed (QE)  while firing 40% refuse  as is
      achieved without auxiliary heat while burning
      normal  refuse (containing 28% moisture).

A detailed presentation of the assumptions and  limitations of  this
mathematical model is presented in a report by  Arthur  D.  Little,  Inc.
 to EPA's Office of Air Programs, dated February 1972,  entitled
 Incinerator  Overfire Mixing Study -  Contract No. EHSD  71-6.(29)   The
 reader is referred to this reference for further information related
 to this model.

           Results of Application of Mathematical Model

 Table 5 presents the results  of the  mathematical model presented
 above used to calculate the theoretical heat flux needed  to dry wet
 refuse.  As  seen from this table, six  cases were examined.  In the
 first two, a moisture content of 28%,  the  average moisture content  of
 "normal" refuse, was assumed.  Cases 3 and 4 represent wet refuse
 (40% moisture) with no auxiliary fuel  being fired.  Two values, 0.5
 and  1.0, were chosen for the  fraction  of carbon gasified.  The lower
 value is representative of an intermediate underfire air flow  rate
 which results in a char residue (e moles of C  - see equation 1).  At
 higher flow rates, essentially all the carbon  is gasified and  the
 char residue is eliminated.  The bed was assumed to be adiabatic  so
 heat losses  were considered to be zero. A flue gas temperature
 directly above the bed of 2000F was assumed based on Kaiser's work
 at Oceanside.(29)  The corresponding equilibrium constant for  the
 water-gas shift reaction is 0.4 at 2000F.(4/0

 Comparison of case 1 with case 3 and case  2 with case 4 in Table  5
 shows the effects of increased moistures in refuse.  Note that while
 the  moles of C02 remain relatively constant, the moles of CO and  I^-
 significantly decrease with increasing moisture content of refuse.
 Also it is interesting to note that  while  the  energy released  from
 the  bed via convection, Qp, remains  relatively constant,* the
 energy released above the bed, QE, de-creases sharply as a result  of
 the  increased refuse moisture content.
*This model assumes a refuse bed temperature of 2000 F.   In
actuality the temperature within and above the refuse bed will be
affected by refuse moisture content.  This in turn, will affect the
quantity of sensible heat transferred from the bed via convection.
                                28

-------
                                                     TABLE 5

                 RESULTS OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL USED TO CALCULATE THE THEORETICAL HEAT FLUX Qg NEEDED TO
                                   DRY WET REFUSE CONTAINING 40% MOISTURE
NJ
SO

Assumed Conditions (Basis: 1 mole of 02)
n

Fraction of Carbon gasified (1-e/j)
Heat loss, QL (BTU)
Temp, of gases above refuse bed (F)
Equil. constant for water gas shift
reaction (teq)
Energy released above refuse bed, 0^
(BTU)
Calculated Values (Bases: 1 mole of 00)
a - moles CO
p - moles CO/>
i - moles H2
d - moles HoO
j - moles refuse C(H20)
Gas Composition
7. CO
7, C02
7, H2
7<, H 0
% N2
Energy released above refuse bed, QE (BTU)
Q = energy released from bed via convec-
tion
Required heat gain, Qg(BTU) (Q = -Q,)
o L
Case No.
1

1.69
@87o mois.)
0.5
0
2000
0.4

-


0.349
1.100
0.549
4.349
2.898

3.4
10.9
5.4
43.1
37.2
99,712
242,150


2

1.69

1.0
0
2000
0.4

-


0.779
0.970
0.719
2.237
1.749

9.2
11.5
8.5
26.4
44.4
169,776
184,622


3

2.46
(407o mois.)
0.5
0
2000
0.4

-


~ 0
0.970
~ 0
4.830
1.940

~ 0
10.1
~ 0
50.6
39.3
~ 0
247,718


4

2.46

1.0
0
2000
0.4

-


0.271
1.017
0.305
2.863
1.288

3.3
12.4
3.7
34.8
45.8
64 , 782
196,116


5

2.46

0.5
0
2000
0.4

99,712


0.279
1.175
0.629
6.525
2.908

2.3
9.5
5.1
52.7
30.4
-
332,678

99,564
6

2.46

1.0
0
2000
0.4

169,776


0.667
1.091
0.849
3.476
1.758

6.8
11.1
8.6
35.3
38.2
-
239,883

53,395

-------
Based on the results obtained from cases 1 through 4, the energy
levels released above the refuse bed, Qg, in cases 5 and 6 were fixed
to correspond with the levels experienced when firing normal refuse.
The heat gain Qg, required to accomplish this was then calculated and
the results as shown in Table 5 are summarized here:

                               Qg                   Theoretical
                         BTU/lb of nor-        Waste Oil Requirements
            Qg           mal refuse  (28%       in gal/hr per ton/day
Case    BTU/mole 02    moisture 23%  inert)     of Incinerator Capacity

 5        99,564             625                        0.37
 6        53,395             550                        0.32
Consequently, the theoretical heat flux needed to offset the adverse
effects of wet  refuse  (40% moisture is estimated to be between 550
and  625 BTU  per pound  of normal refuse (257o moisture - 237 inerts as
fired).  The following discussion indicates, however, that the
amount of waste oil needed to supply this heat flux may be signifi-
cantly greater  than the theoretical quantities of waste oil
presented above.
                                30

-------
                            SECTION VI


      METHODS OF TRANSFERRING REQUIRED HEAT FLUX INTO REFUSE

                      BED UTILIZING WASTE OIL


GCA examined three techniques which were felt to have potential for
transferring the required energy from waste oil combustion into the
refuse bed:

     .  Mixing waste oil directly into the refuse

        Preheating underfire air with waste oil

        Utilizing auxiliary burners above the refuse bed

Each of these techniques is discussed below.

               Mixing Waste Oil Directly into Refuse

This technique although simple in concept, could prove to be a
problem because of the possibility that the oil will "burn with a
smoky flame".  Theoretically, about 0.37 gallons of waste oil would
be required per hour for each ton per day (TPD) of incinerator
capacity based on the results of the model.  This oil could be dis-
tributed onto the refuse either prior to feeding or else via nozzles
located directly above the drying zone of the refuse bed.  Previous
experience using waste oils mixed with refuse has resulted in smoke,
but in such cases the oil was applied just by pouring the oil onto
the refuse.  By utilizing nozzles to spread droplets of waste oil
uniformly onto the refuse bed, such smoking could possibly be avoided
During the Phase II demonstration program, we will determine the
effectiveness of such a technique.

                     Preheating Underfire Air
                                                              /O Q\
The technique of preheating underfire air has been recommended^
as a means of alleviating the detrimental affects of wet refuse.
Calculations by GCA support this conclusion but show that this
technique alone may not be completely satisfactory.  Consider a con-
tinuous 200 ton per day incinerator chamber unit.  Based on the
information from the model, an estimated additional 10,400,000
BTU/hr. would be required when firing wet refuse (40% moisture).
Assuming that underfire air is being provided at 60F and at
stochiometric conditions (3.21 Ibs. air/lb.  refuse).  The air pre-
heat temperature would have to be about 830 F to provide the
necessary heat input.  The calculations are presented below:
                               31

-------
                 g = n  .  c   - (T  - 60)
                            P      P
     10,400,000 j   =  53,500 Ib. air  x 0.25    OT,  x(T,-60)F
                                r             ib F
                                hr.

                      AT = (T0-60) = 770F
                            T0 = 830F
The maximum safe preheat temperature which willdwoid structural
damage to grates is estimated at below 400 F.  Consequently, the
preheated underfire air rate would have to be increased by more than
a factor of two in order to provide the estimated BTU's to the
refuse bed.  This does not consider the possibility of air channeling
or the degree of heat transfer obtainable from the preheated air to
the refuse.  Assuming however, that the normal underfire air rate is
increased about 1.5 times (higher underfire air rates would likely
cause significant channeling and "stir up bed" so as to increase the
quantity of particulate emissions),^2) we estimate that preheated
underfire air could provide up to 2/3 the necessary heat input to the
refuse bed.


 ,. 1.3 x 53,500  x 0.25 fOF  * (400-60)*


 q = 6,830,000 BTU/hr.

                                     q	 6.800.000 ~
 Percent  of heat input  supplied =  io,400,000 "10,400,000 ~


In reality however,  only a portion of this heat input would be
"absorbed" by the refuse due to heat transfer limitations and
channeling effects.   Consequently,  if preheating underfire air was
utilized,  it would best be applied in conjunction with one of the
other specified techniques.

           Utilizing Auxiliary Burners  Above Refuse Bed

Burner Location

In order to provide the necessary heat  flux into the refuse bed via
auxiliary burners so as to satisfactorily compensate for wet refuse,
the location of these burners is critical.  Their function is
primarily to dry the refuse and so the  burners should be located up
above the drying section which generally comprises about the first
10 feet or so of the bed on a continuous grate system.  In addition,
                               32

-------
the flame should cover the entire width of the refuse bed.  If the
burners are positioned too far from the bed so that conduction
becomes the primary mechanism for heat transfer within the bed, only
a small percentage of the required theoretical heat flux is obtain-
able.  Consequently, the burners should be located as close to the
bed as possible so that the hot burner gases actually penetrate the
refuse bed.  Typical velocities of gases leaving the burner jet are
estimated at approximately 1000 feet per second which is almost 200
times the estimated 6 feet per second velocity of gases emanating
from the refuse bed.  This would enhance the convective and
radiative heat transfer mechanisms within the bed which is necessary
to achieve the required heat flux.

Figure 4 presents two schematics of a continuous incinerator chamber,
one viewing the chamber from the end of the grate where the ash is
"dropped off" and the second viewed from the side wall.  Notice that
by locating the auxiliary burners in the side walls directly above
the drying zone of the bed, the burner flame will have less
difficulty covering the width of the bed than if it were firing
directly into the bed flame where a great deal of turbulence exists.
We are suggesting placement of burners in the side walls because in
most incineration systems this location is where the burners can be
closest to the refuse bed surface.  With each specific incinerator
design, however, the optimum burner location must be selected on an
individual basis.

Burner Design

GCA in the conduct of this study mailed letters to over 40 oil burner
manufacturers requesting information on oil burners and components
which can burn waste oil in an incineration environment with
minimal plugging and maintenance. Twelve responses  were received and
of these, ten indicated that one or more of their burner systems
were satisfactory.  The types of burners recommended and the number of
responses associated with each are presented below:

           Burner Type                      No. of Responses

     Atomizing (air or steam)                     8
              Vortex                              3
              Rotary                              1


These burners were next evaluated in relation to the six basic burner
operating criteria selected by the GCA staff.

         .  High degree of safety
         .  Minimal plugging and maintenance
         .  High flame temperatures  (  2000F)
         .  Highly luminous flame
                               33

-------
 SCHEMATIC OF A CONTINUOUS  INCINERATOR PRIMARY CHAMBER
 AUXILIARY
 BURNER
             VIEW  FROM END OF GRATE
                                          REFUSE
                                          BED FLAME
AUXILIARY
BURNER

REFUSE BED
GRATE
REFUSE FEED]
             ir
 AUXILIARY
 BURNER
                                   REFUSE BED FLAME
REFUSE BED
GRATE
          SIDE VIEW OF INCINERATOR PRIMARY  CHAMBER
                        Figure 4
                           34

-------
           Long flame length (> 5 feet)
           High burner gas velocity

Of the three burner types listed above, only the atomizing burners
met all of these operating criteria.  The use of rotary burners for
waste oils is not recommended by Underwriters Laboratories so that
this burner type did not meet the safety criteria.  The Vortex
burners examined, although highly efficient, produced only a short
stubby flame which was not long enough to cover 5 feet or about half
the width of a typical incinerator continuous grate.  The atomizing
burner, however, produces a highly luminous flame with flame
lengths adjustable to well over 5 feet and with high gas velocities.
The high degree of luminosity is desirable so as to increase the
degree radiative heat transfer from the flame to and within the
refuse bed.  High velocities are desirable so that the hot burner
gases can penetrate the refuse bed and therefore enhance the convective
and radiative heat transfer mechanisms.

GCA feels that a significant portion of the required theoretical heat
flux can be transferred to the refuse bed with the use of atomizing
burners in conjunction with the recommended operating methods and
burner locations mentioned above.  The question that currently remains
unanswered is what waste oil firing rate is needed to achieve this
theoretical heat flux?  The required firing rate can be minimized by
operating the burners so as to maximize the penetration of the hot
luminous gases into the refuse bed, thus enhancing the radiative and
convective heat transfer mechanisms.  The complex nature of the
geometry and the tremendous variation in refuse bed characteristics,
however, prohibited within the scope of this program, the develop-
ment of a heat transfer model with which to estimate the required
waste oil firing rate.  However, based on heat transfer calculations
performed by the GCA staff as well as on work done by others,(45,46)
we are estimating the required firing rate as twice that needed to
supply theoretical heat flux requirements.  This is equivalent to
approximately 0.74 gallons per hour of waste oil per ton/day of
incinerator capacity.  It is only through actual testing of this
concept, however, that a more accurate determination can be made.
Consequently, in the Phase II demonstration program, we recommend
that waste oil burners be utilized over a wide range of firing rates
and that the demonstration facility have the necessary design flex-
ibility to accomplish this.

Waste Oil Burner Testing Program

In order to further determine the viability of atomizing burners for
the combustion of automotive waste oil, a five day waste oil burner
testing program was conducted.  The testing was performed at the
facilities of Combustion Equipment Associates in Stamford,
Connecticut during the period from September 18 - September 27, 1972.
Approximately 800 gallons of untreated waste oil were burned over
                                35

-------
five 8-hour periods at flow rates ranging from 9 to 25 gallons per
hour.  A Power Flame Gas-Oil Air Atmoizing Burner #PGA02-B4 was
utilized to fire the waste oil.  The combustion chamber consisted of a
refractory-lined cylindrical chamber about 1.5 feet in inside
diameter and 5 feet in length.  Figure 5 presents some photographs of
the test apparatus.

The testing program was witnessed by GCA, CEA and EPA personnel and
all agreed that from visual inspection the fuel appeared to burn
extremely clean.  In fact it was felt that it burned significantly
"cleaner" than comparable residual fuel oils.  No particulate
analyses were performed on the resulting flue gases.  All estimates
of trace metal concentrations were based on the waste oil impurity
data in Table 6 presented in Section VIII and by assuming that 100
percent of all these impurities enter the combustion chamber with the
flue gases.

During the test program, flame temperatures were estimated using an
optical pyrometer.  Temperatures up to 2,650 F were observed.  In
order to determine the relationship between flue gas temperature and
burner operating parameters, orsat analysis was used to estimate the
percent excess air (by measuring the percent C02 in the flue gases).
Figure 6 is a plot of this data showing the relationship between
percent excess air and flame temperature.  This figure indicates that
for a chamber geometry similar to that utilized during the test pro-
gram, the percent excess air should be kept below 20 percent in
order to achieve flame temperatures above 2500 F.

Flame luminosity and flame length were also continuously observed.
The flame luminosity could best be described as a bright yellow
which remained so under varying conditions of waste oil flow rate
and percent excess air.  Flame lengths of 5 feet or longer were
obtained at oil firing rates in excess of 12 gallons per hour and at
excess air levels less than 50 percent.

In regard to burner plugging, there was no problem observed during
the 40 hours of operation.  After each 8 hours of operation, the
burner nozzle together with the suction (1/32" perforations) and dis-
charge (1/16" perforations) strainers were dismantled and examined.
Very little buildup occurred in the strainers (
-------
Ul
vj
                                    Figure 5.  Photographs of the Waste Oil  Burner  Test Apparatus.

-------
Figure 5 (continued)
  38

-------
   120
   100
   80

 CSJ
o
o

3?

o  60
en
o
X
LU
   40
   20
                                                                 i    r
                             PERCENT EXCESS  AIR
PERCENT  C02
    1400
1600
1800
2000     2200     2400


 FLAME TEMPERATURE (F)
26OO
2800
3OOO

-------
                            SECTION VII
                      MONITORING AND CONTROL
To derive maximum benefit from the proposed Phase II demonstration
installation, accurate measurements and good control of those
factors affecting the overall combustion process are necessary.  Such
measurements as the important refuse characteristics, incinerator
operating conditions and performance, and the parameters affecting
auxiliary fuel burning are needed to provide the means of evaluating
the effectiveness of the proposed system.  Good control of the com-
bustion system is required to reduce the possibility of spurious
responses and to provide the experimental flexibility necessary for a
demonstration facility.

In the following sub-sections the monitoring, control and safety
equipment considered essential for the successful accomplishment of
the Phase II program will be discussed.  The equipment includes
devices for measurement of temperature and pressure; mass flow rates
of air, fuel oil, flue gases, refuse, and residue; for measurement of
particulate emissions; and for analyzing the flue gases.  In general,
most incinerators will not be instrumented to this extent, and
supplementary instrumentation may have to be provided to support the
experimental program.

The design, selection, and installation of the monitoring, control
and safety equipment associated with this system will be carried out
in conformance with recognized standards for such equipment.  To the
extent possible, all gauges, control switches, warning lights, etc.,
will be mounted on an integral control panel for easy visibility and
access.

                Incinerator Monitoring and Control

Refuse Characteristics

Basic to our evaluation of the auxiliary fuel burning system is an
understanding of pertinent refuse  characteristics.   Important refuse
parameters include the refuse feed rate, heating value, and moisture
content.  While the average  feed rate is normally obtainable from
incinerator operating data,  other  information is not generally
available due to difficulties in obtaining representative samples.
Consequently, during the Phase II  program, indirect measurements
associated with  incinerator  performance  such as flue gas temperature
and composition, and residue quality should be monitored as
indicators of refuse characteristics and auxiliary burner enhance-
ment of the  combustion process.
                               41

-------
Tempe rature

The performance of an incinerator is strongly dependent on temper-
ature, and accurate monitoring of flue gas temperature is of utmost
importance.  Flue gas temperature is a major indicator of such per-
formance factors as the extent of combustion, combustible particulate
emission levels, and residue quality.  Thermocouples are normally
used as the measurement devices because of their low cost, rapid
response, and ease of signal processing.  It is anticipated that
adequate monitoring of flue gas temperature (and temperature at
other incinerator locations) will exist as an integral part of any
operating incinerator and additional monitoring of temperature should
not be required.

Pressure

As with temperature, instrumentation should exist within the incin-
erator facility for measurement of pressures at various locations.
No further instrumentation should be required.

Combustion Products

The products of combustion will include flue gases, particulate
matter in the flue gases, and the residue.  All of these factors
should be monitored to determine the extent and quality of combustion
and to provide information relating to the character of the refuse
fed to the incinerator.

A flue gas analysis should include techniques for measurement of
oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water, and combustibles.
From this data, and measurements of temperature, pressure, and stack
velocity (pitot tube), gas flow rates can be calculated.  Reasonably
accurate estimates of factors such as excess air flow and refuse
moisture content can also be obtained.

The amount of particulate matter in the flue gases should also be
monitored since a reduction in solids emission is a major benefit to
be derived from improvements in the combustion process.  Residue
quality will also provide information concerning the combustion pro-
cess and the effectiveness of auxiliary fuel burning.

               Auxiliary Fuel Monitoring and Control

The auxiliary fuel system will be equipped with devices for measure-
ment of fuel and air pressure, and flow at various locations through-
out the system.  Power requirements of the various components can
also be determined.  These measurements are necessary to evaluate
overall burner system performance and cost of operation.
                               42

-------
Measurement techniques will be straightforward and standard.
Thermocouples will be used for temperature determinations of flue
gases in the incinerator primary chamber and will serve as an
indicator of auxiliary fuel needs.  Fuel and air pressure will be
measured by diaphragm gauges and draft gauges.  An orifice type flow
meter will be used for air flow measurements and oil flow will be
determined by a positive displacement device such as a rotating vane
(velocity) meter.

Because of the highly experimental nature of the Phase II program,
automatic control of burner operation to maintain constant furnace
temperature is not being recommended.  Such a control system may be
desirable in future installations and could be installed for under
$5,000.

Burner combustion rates can be normally controlled within certain
limits which depend to some extent on the types of burner used.
Reduced combustion rates will be obtained by a lowering of the com-
bustion air flow.  Fuel flow will be proportionately and auto-
matically reduced by an oil-air ratio regulator.

A number of safety control mechanisms will be provided.  As an
integral part of the recommended burner system MH Flame Safeguard
controls with an HV UV detector and appropriate safety switches will
be used with a shutoff valve to stop the flow of oil in cases of
ignition failure.  This safety  shutoff valve will be sensitive to
any  possible failure in the burner and its control system.

In addition, the pumping set will be equipped with relief valves
which act as short circuits around the pumps  if values in excess of
a preset pressure are obtained.  Provision for stopping  flow  in the
event of a leak will also be provided.

Other elements of the feed system, particulary the oil preheaters,
must be equipped with control  and safety devices.  In the case of
the  oil heaters, thermostatic  controls should be provided to  prevent
excessive heating.  Relief valves and  associated piping will  also be
provided to prevent damage to  the units due to overpressure.
                                43

-------
                           SECTION VIII
                     STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS
The storage tank selected for the proposed installation is an above
ground, carbon steel tank mounted on a reinforced concrete founda-
tion.  Sizing will be based on projected waste oil feed rates in
conjunction with the selected municipal incinerator.  Storage cap-
acity should be sufficient for at least an estimated four days oper-
ation.  For example, a 10,000 gallon tank can provide four days of
continuous operation for an auxiliary fuel oil system in conjunction
with a 400 ton per day municipal incinerator.  With regard to such
tank safety considerations as location, construction, venting, and
fire prevention, recognized standards will be followed - e.g.,
National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) Standards No. 30 and 31.
The tank will be provided with adequate corrosion protection, gaging,
and means for removal of sediment.

Although a significant amount of sediment is not anticipated, any
potential plugging of fill and suction lines will be avoided by
locating them at least six inches from the tank bottom.  Periodic
removal of sediment by a tank cleaning company can be accomplished
by a portable pump which will draw oil and sediment through a pipe
extending to within one inch of the bottom of the tank.  An access
manhole also will be provided to permit entrance for manual clean-
ing if required.
At the present time we are not recommending the installation of an
oil heater within the tank since the pour point of waste oil  (-35 F)
is well below typical minimum temperatures  in the U.S. Tank oil
heaters, however, can be added if needed.

The design and installation of the oil feed system will be performed
in accordance with recognized safety standards such as the afore-
mentioned NFPA Standard No. 31.  In general, the piping circuit will
contain strainers, valves, relief valves, flow paths,  instruments,
and controls consistent with good operating practice.  The selection
of pipe size, since  it is dependent upon the equivalent length of
the fuel  line, cannot be made until an incinerator  site is chosen.
However,  the actual  pipe size will be selected on the  basis of a
flow  twice that of the anticipated burner flow for  an  oil with a
viscosity of 10,000  SSU.  This viscosity was estimated to be  that of
the average waste oil at 0F based on the viscosity data  presented
in Figure 1.
                               45

-------
A schematic of the proposed oil handling system including storage
tank is shown in Figure 7.  Oil will flow from the storage tank
through a shutoff valve, check valve (if needed), and strainer to
heavy duty positive displacement pumps.  These pumps can operate
under a wide range of temperature viscosity conditions such as:

                 Temperature: - 40F ~-> 225F
                 Viscosity:   0.1 cp -> 10,000 SSU

Preheating of the oil for purposes of pumping, therefore, will not be
necessary.  The oil flows from the pump through a second strainer and
then divides into two streams, one going to the burners, the other
returning to the tank.  At the present time it is planned to install
electric heaters in the lines leading to the burners to insure good
atomization of the waste oil.  These 40 kw heaters are each capable
of heating 300 gph of waste oil through a 100 F temperature rise and
should provide good burner atomization for all anticipated flow and
temperature conditions.  They are low watt density units designed to
minimize carbonization and cracking of the oil.  Appropriate flow
paths, controls, contactors, insulation, and strainers will be pro-
vided for these units.

This storage and feed system has been designed to provide the
reliability, control, and flexibility necessary for an experimental
installation.  Subsequent installations, resulting from a study of
this type, will be simpler and less costly.
                               46

-------
BY-PASSy
VALVE  ^
                  PRESSURE
                DIAPHRAM
  p RELIEF
y   VALVE
                VENT PIPE
                WITH FLAME
                ARRESTER -^
             X       X
CHECK
VALVE
SHUTOFF
VALVE
                                 TO BURNER  SYSTEM

                                 OIL HEATER

                    SHUT OFF
                      VALVE
                 STORAGE
                  TANK
                (above
                 ground)
                 b
                           ^f
                                    STRAIN?*?
                                    STRAINER

                                             \/
                                          w
                                          A
                                     SHUTOFF
                                     VALVE
                                    CHECK
                                    VALVE
                                                           PRESSURE
                                                           GAUGE
                                                           SHUT OFF
                                                           VALVES
                                                               PUMPS
                                               SHUT  OFF
                                               VALVES
                                                           SUCTION
                                                           STRAINER
           Figure 7.  Schematic of Waste Oil Storage and Feed System.

-------
                            SECTION IX
                        IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY
Before waste oils can be utilized in municipal incinerators for
improvement of the incineration process and the alleviation of waste
oil as a potential water pollutant, assurance must be provided that
the waste oil combustion does not have any adverse effects on
ambient air quality.  The waste oil firing is intended to increase
the temperature in the incinerator and reduce smoke and particulate
emissions while firing wet or low-BTU value refuse.  However, the
presence of impurities in the emissions such as lead may themselves
contribute to unacceptable ground level concentrations of air
pollutant .   The following presents a theoretical estimation of
ground level lead concentrations which should be verified during the
Phase II Program.
                        a
The levels of the principles' pollutants present in waste oil
expressed as a weight percent are tabulated in Table 6.  These data
indicate that the most significant impurities, from an emissions
stand point, are lead and sulfur.  The sulfur content, however,
corresponds to that of a low sulfur fuel oil.  Lead, on the other
hand, is considered as a hazardous material by EPA and consequently
warrants further investigation.

Although national ambient air quality standards for lead have not
yet been set, EPA has indicated'  ' that a 3-month average concen-
tration of 2 ng/m  is associated with a sufficient risk of adverse
physiologic effects to constitute endangerment of public health.
Accordingly, GCA has made preliminary estimates of average ground-
level concentrations in the vicinity of a municipal incinerator
using waste oil as an auxiliary fuel over a 3-month period.

The input data for these calculations are shown in Table 7 and are
based on a waste oil auxiliary fuel burner system in conjunction
with a 400 ton per day municipal incinerator.  Exhaust gas temper-
atures are typically about 500F.  Actual volumetric flow rates
were estimated to be 166,000 ACFM based on a typical incinerator
excess air level of 200 percent.  Using the estimated quantities
of waste oil needed per ton of refuse fired (0.74 gallons /hour per
ton/day of incinerator capacity) as discussed earlier in this
report, an estimated 2,250 Ibs per hour of waste oil would be fired.
Based on the fact that precipitation occurs on approximately 35 to
40 percent of the days in the Northeast, we are assuming that waste
oil firing would occur during approximately one-third of the oper-
ating time of the incinerator.  Table 6 shows that the lead content
of measured waste oil samples vary from approximately 0.1 to 1 per-
cent.  The larger value of 1 percent was utilized for GCA's
                              49

-------
                       TABLE 6                               ~--.



IMPURITIES IN WASTE OIL  (Bt .7, OF  ELEMENT  OR MATERIAL AS LISTED)
Data ^*""="~s
Source .-Lead 'Sulfur
Ref. 1 \ 1.11 0.34
Ref. 1 \ 0.90
Ref. 1 1 0.72 0.29
Ref. 1 I 0.68 0.32
Ref. 1 10.75 0.31
Ref. 1 0.67 0.30
Ref 1 1 1 12 0 21

Ref. 30 0.82
Ref. 30 0.82
Ref. 30 0.50
Ref. 30 0.71
Ref. 30 0.60
Ref. 30 0.90
Ref. 30 0.82
Ref. 30 0.71
Ref. 30 0.82
Quest. 1 0.63 0.3
Quest. 3 0.14
Quest. 5 0.30 0.4
Quest. 6 JO. 79 : 0.32
Range .08-1.1 .21-. 34
Sul fated
Ash
1.81
1.80
1.02
1.43
1.60
1.13
2 41


--
--
__
__
__

--
--
.-
--
--

1.0-2.4

Aluminum
__
--
--
--
__
--

.003
.004
.002
.004
.003
.003
.003
.003
.005
..
--
--

.002-. 005

Barium
.06
.10
.01
.02
.01
.03

.05
.03
.07
.02
.04
.01
.04
.05
.05
,.
--
--
Trace
.01-. 07
	 -K-.
Boron
..
--
--
--
_-
--

.002
.002
.001
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
--

--

.001-. 002

Calcium
. 17
.10
.15
.09
.11
.07

.13
.21
.16
.13
.21
.14
.12
.16
.16
--

--
.12
.07-. 21

Chromium


-.
_-
_.
--

.002
.003
.004
.001
.004
.002
.002
.003
.001
--
--
--

.001 -.004

Copper Iron
,036
.020
.010
.013
.013
.005

.001 .04
.001 .03
.002 .02
.001 .03
.002 .03
.002 .04
.001 .03
.002 .03
.002 .04
._
_-
__
Trace
.XI- ..005-
.002 .04

Magnesium

--
__
__
__
--

.02
.01
.02
.03
.02
.03
.02
.05
.02
--
--
--

.01-
.05
Phos-,
Nickel phorjjus
.09
.11
.06
.08
.07
.06

.0002 .13
.0003 .13
.0003 .15
.0030 .12
.0005 .10
.0006 .16
.0003 .11
.0010 .11
.0007 .10

--
--
Trace
.0002- .06-
.003 .16

Silicon

--
__
__
__
--

.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.04
.01
.02
--
--
--

01-
04
Vana-
Tin dium Zinc
-- Trace .08
07
.035
-.
__
.042

.0007 -- .04
.0007 -- .05
,0007 -- .06
.0010 -- .04
.0010 -- .06
.0010 -- .05
.0010 -- .03
.0020 -- .03
.0010 -- .05
_-
--
--
Trace
.0007- Trace .03-
.002 .08

-------
 assessment of air quality impact.  A lead collection efficiency of
 50 percent was utilized based on data presented on waste oil burning
 studies by Mobil Oil Corporation. C1)  A stack height of 100 feet was
 assumed although stack heights on many facilities greatly exceed this
 value.

 The ground level concentration calculations are based on the usual
 Gaussian diffusion model for an elevated source, and plume expansion
 rates specified in Turner's Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
 Estimates.'53)  Wind data for the model calculations were taken from
 climatological records obtained over an 18-year period at Falmouth,
 Massachusetts.  The 3-month period used for the calculations was
 comprised of the three winter months of December, January, and
 February.  The wind data were restricted to the daytime period- from
 0900-1700 EST, conforming approximately to the daytime period of
 incineration.  For the model calculations, the wind data were
 expressed as frequency of occurrence of 16 wind direction and 5 wind
 speed categories.  Daytime stability classes from A to D were
 assigned on the basis of the observed wind speed categories and
 estimated solar radiation categories.  For simplicity, only two
 effective plume heights were used.  The first assumed a plume rise
 from heat and momentum forces of 75 meters, and was used when the
 surface wind was equal to or less than 6.5 knots.  The second assumed
 a plume rise of 35 meters and was used when the surface wind speed
 was greater than 6.5 knots.  These values were selected as conservative
 estimates on the basis of trial calculations, using Briggs plume
 rise formula.
 The results of the calculations of 3-month average lead ground-
 level concentrations in ug/m3 are presented as concentration isopleths
 in Figure 8.  The calculations assume that waste oil is burned
 continuously for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week.  For shorter operating
 periods, the ground-level concentrations should be reduced propor-
 tionately.  For example, the concentrations should be multiplied by
 0.7 for a five-day week.  An additional multiplier of 0.33 should be
 utilized to account for the ratio of waste oil on-time and incinera-
 tor on- time as presented in Table 7.  Consequently, for an incinera-
 tor operating at:

                   1 8-hour shift per day
                   5 days /week
                   ratio of waste oil burner on-time
                   and incinerator on- time = 33%

 the values of the concentration isopleths presented in Figure 8
 should be multiplied bj
r
 Figure 8 shows that the estimated maximum, 3-month average, ground-
 level concentration attributable to an incinerator when operating as
 described above is approximately 0.05 ug/m3, and occurs about

                                 53

-------
                    TABLE  7
              INCINERATOR INPUT DATA
Incinerator Capacity

Exhaust Gas Temperature

Gas Flow Rate at 500F

Waste Oil Burning Rate

Ratio of Waste Oil on
 Time to Incinerator on time

Lead Content

Lead Collection Efficiency

Stack Height
400 Tons/day
500F
166,000 ACFM

2250 Ibs/hr.


33%

1% by weight
100 feet.
                         54

-------
I Figure 8.
K
Isopleths of average ground-level concentration
of Pb for winter season.  Units are
                              55

-------
one-half mile from the incinerator.  This is approximately one-
fourtieth of the level suggested by EPA as injurious to public
health.
                                56

-------
                            SECTION  X
                       ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
Sections IV through IX illustrate that from a technical viewpoint,
automotive waste oil appears to be extremely suitable as an auxiliary
fuel to improve the municipal incineration combustion process.   The
costs associated with installing and operating such a typical system
are presented in this section.  The installation and operating costs
of the Phase II demonstration facility, however, would be somewhat
higher than those presented here since the demonstration unit would be
expected to have more operational flexibility and instrumentation to
facilitate the experimental program.
     Economics of a 'Typical' Waste Oil Auxiliary Fuel System

The capital investment and operating costs presented below will be
based on an auxiliary waste oil system in conjunction with a 400 ton
per day (TPD) continuous municipal incinerator facility.  Such a
facility is comprised of 2- 200 TPD units each operated 8 hours/day,
6 days per week.  Waste oil will be fired through four air-atomizing
burners located in the walls of the primary combustion chamber
(2 burners per unit).  The firing rate will be set at twice the
estimated theoretical heat requirements or 300 gallons per hour.  The
burner on-time is estimated at approximately one-third of the incin-
erator operating time (100 days/year; 8 hours/day) which is equiva-
lent to 240,000 galIons/year.  These assumptions are summarized
below:

     Incinerator Capacity:          400 Tons/day; 2-200 TPD units
     Waste Oil Burner Capacity:     4 units; 90 gph each
     Waste Oil Firing Rate:         300 gph; 75 gph each
     Waste Oil Annual Consumption:  240,000 gallons/yr

Capital Investment

The capital  investment costs for a "typical" facility are sum-
marized in Table 8.  These costs were compiled during December 1972
for the location of Boston, Massachusetts.  The Engineering New
Record Construction Cost Index can be utilized to obtain complete
costs for other locations.

       Waste Oil Burner and Feed System

Table 8 indicates that the estimated installed cost of a Waste Oil
Burner system comprised of 4-90 gph units and including all Safety
and Control  systems is $73,600.  This cost  is based on a detailed
                                57

-------
                                TABLE 8

            CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF A WASTE OIL AUXILIARY FUEL SYSTEM
                      FOR A MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR
Incinerator Location:
Incinerator Capacity:
Waste Oil Burner Capacity:
Waste Oil Firing Rate;
Waste Oil Annual Consumption:

Installed Equipment Costs
   Waste Liquid Burner System

     4 - PAOfi - DB Burners including:
           atomizing air compressor
        .  oil piping train
           forced draft combustion air fan
        .  MH flame safeguard controls
           air piping train
           safety switches, controls & control panel

     2 - Viking HL 195 pumps
     1 - Kraissl 3" duplex section strainer
     1 - Kraissl 3/4" duplex discharge strainer
     1 - Cash 123 1" pressure regulating valve
     2 - pressure relief valves

     Piping and mechanical work as required

     Electrical work as required
     Furnace front plate modifications and burner
       attachment
Boston, Mass., December 1972
400 Tons/day; 2-200 TPD units
4 units; 90 gph each
300 gph; 75 gph each
240,000 galIons/yr
        $73,600.00
     Furnace refractory work

Waste Oil. Storage System
     1 - 10,000 gallon carbon steel tank
         Reinforced concrete foundation

Oil Preheaters
     2 - in-line electric resistance heaters
         (40 KW each)
Total Installed Equipment Cost

Engineering Services, Installation and
   start-up
                     TOTAL INVESTMENT
          $12,000.00
           $4,000.00
          $89,600.00
           16.800.00


         $106,400.00
                                   58

-------
quotation obtained from Combustion Equipment Associates^  ^ and is in
reasonable agreement with the costs of a similar system installed in
the Hartford, Connecticut area about one and one-half years ago

To determine the cost of a similar burner system of a different
capacity, the normal procedure is to apply a scale factor of the
form

                                                      S.F.
             Cost of New Unit  _   /Size of New Unit
             Cost of Old Unit  ~   I Size of Old Unity

The choice of scale factor is an empirical one and wide variations
may occur.  A study of the literature and discussions with burner
manufacturers indicate that for installations of this type a scale
factor of 0.6 may be applied.

        Fuel Storage Tank

A 10,000 gallon carbon steel tank, costing $12,000 including piping,
installed outside the incinerator on a reinforced concrete foundation
has been recommended for this system.  This is sufficient  for four
days of continuous operation.  Again, any scaling of tank  size may be
accomplished, if required, by applying the six-tenths factors.  This
factor is recommended based on data for vertical tanks given in
"Modern Cost Engineering Techniques".(49)

        Oil Preheaters

Fuel oils with the exception of No.'s 1 and 2 are preheated in vary-
ing degrees to provide good atomization and clean, efficient combus-
tion.  The viscosity of the waste oil is similar to that of a number
5 fuel oil and it is anticipated that some degree of preheat will be
required.


For the proposed system, we are recommending the use of two in-line,
electric resistance heaters with appropriate controls and  safety
interlocks.  Under extreme environmental conditions, the heat
requirement will be significant.  In the Boston area, it  is not incon-
cievable that a temperature increase of 100F would be required to
lower the viscosity of the waste oil to the desired range  of 100-250
SSU.  The preheat kilowatt requirement for our proposed installation
would then be:

        600 galIons/hr. x 4 BTU/Gallon    x 100F  _  ?Q
                     3414 BTU/KW hr

This calculation assumes that an oil recycle rate equal to the fir-
ing rate is utilized.  To. achieve this kind of input, we  are
                               59

-------
recommending that two 40 fcw units, such as Chromalox NWHO-840F1, be
used in the lines between the fuel burners and tanks.  The cost per
unit including controls will be approximately $2,000.

Because of the low pour point (-35 F) of the waste oil, no provision
has been made for storage tank heating.  If necessary, this could be
provided for an additional cost of about $1,000.

     Engineering Services

The cost of $16,800 for engineering services associated with the
design, installation and start up of such a facility have been
estimated based on GCA cost files as well as discussions with engineer-
ing consultants experienced in such activities.  This cost is con-
sistent with the 15 percent figure generally utilized as the median
value for such services.  A scale factor of 0.6 should be applied to
determine the cost of engineering services for installations different
in size from the proposed system.

Annual Operating Costs

The annual operating costs for the waste oil facility described above
are presented in Table 9 and are discussed below.

     Fixed Costs

(1) Amortization of Capital Investment - The capital investment for
this system has been amortized over a period of 20 years.  The
expected lifetime of 20 years is based on GCA staff experience with
equipment of this type and on discussions with burner manufacturers
and consulting engineers.

A straight-line method, which distributes the capital investment cost
uniformly over the 20-year period, was used for this cost estimate.
Size scaling of this and all other fixed cost items should be pro-
portional to the scale factor used for determining capital invest-
ment costs.  In this case the factor is 0.6.

(2) Interest or Loan - The interest of 3.1 percent of the total
capital investment was selected  on the basis of discussions with
banks  in the local area who offer financial aid to municipalities.
The interest is to be paid after one year, but  is capitalized uni-
formly over the estimated 20-year lifetime of the equipment.

(3) Insurance  - The cost of insurance was estimated to be 0.5 percent
of the equipment cost.  This figure is suggested by PerryC51) as a
maximum for similar facilities.
                                60

-------
                                TABLE 9
         ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF A WASTE OIL AUXILIARY FUEL SYSTEM
                      FOR A MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR
Incinerator Location:
Incinerator Capacity:
Waste Oil Burner Capacity:
Waste Oil Firing Rate:
Waste Oil Load Factor:
Waste Oil Annual Consumption
Capital Investment:
Fixed Costs
     Amortization at 570 of CI annually
     Interest on loan  (3.1% of CI)*
     Insurance (0.57c of equipment cost)
               TOTAL Fixed Cost per Year

Variable and Semi-Variable Costs
     Waste Oil (5 cents/gallon)
     Power (2.75 cents/KW hr)
     Labor (200 hours  - $10.50/hour)
     Maintenance (77, of equipment cost)
          TOTAL Operating Cost per year
          TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Boston, Mass., December 1972
400 Tons/day; 2-200 TPD units
4 units; 90 gphr each
300 gallons/hr; 75 gal/hr each
100 days/year; 8 hours/day
240,000. gallons/year
$106,400.00
     ANNUAL COST
     $5,320
        165
        450
     $5,935


    $12,000
       1,450
       2,100
       6,300
    $21,850
    $27,785
   u
   Paid  in one year;  amortized  over  a 20-year  period.
                                     61

-------
     Variable and Semi-Variable Costs

 (1) Waste Oil - An average cost of 5 cents per gallon was assigned to
 the waste oil following discussions with a number of waste oil
 dealers in the New England area.  This price includes delivery to the
 incinerator.  The cost of 5 cents per gallon represents the higher
 end of the cost spectrum but even at this level is significantly
 cheaper than conventional fuels.  Our best estimate of the cost of
 competitive virgin fuel in the Boston area for the volume required
 are as shown below.

           Fuel                      Cost/10  BTU
        Natural Gas                     $1.70
        Oil
           #2                         0.94-1.48
           #6                         0.76-1.08
         Waste Oil                       0.34

 Since the cost of waste oil is roughly 55 percent of the total annual
 non-fixed costs, its use represents a significant savings relative to
 other potential fuels.

 The cost of waste oil for systems of different size will vary directly
with the size (scale factor equals 1.0) provided the storage tank
 volume is adequate to accept the waste oil delivered.

 (2) Power - The electrical requirements of this system are based on
 stated requirements for the total burner system plus the oil preheat
 requirements.  For purposes of estimating, a temperature differential
 of 50F was assumed to be the average daily preheat requirement.  At
 this level of preheat, approximately 26,400 kilowatt hours are
 required annually, which is equal to the power required to operate
 the burner system.  The cost of electricity as supplied by Boston
Edison should be about 2.75 cents/kw hr for this load and demand.

Size scaling is difficult because of the complexity of the rate
 schedule.  For purposes of this study, we have assumed that the cost
 per kw is independent of the amount of electricity used.  The cost of
 power will then be directly proportional to the size of the instal-
 lation.

 (3) Labor Costs - The annual labor cost associated with the operation
of the waste oil system was obtained by assuming that a total of two
hours per operating day would be required at an hourly rate of $10.50.
This is probably a conservative estimate.  As the new system becomes
more familiar to the operating personnel, the time requirement should
decrease.  Automatic operation, if instituted, would also decrease
 labor costs.
                               62

-------
For purposes of this study, a scale factor of 0.25 has been used for
determining labor costs as a function of size.  This factor is taken
from an article by P.P. O'Connell in "Modern Cost-Engineering
Techniques"C 9^ and is based on data gathered for 52 chemical pro-
cesses .

(4) Maintenance Costs - An annual maintenance cost of 7 percent of
the capital equipment cost was selected for this analysis.  This is a
high figure, representative of that normally found for corrosive
processes or those associated with extensive instrumentation.  How-
ever, in view of the fact that waste oil combustion is not a well-
established operation, the choice of a higher than normal maintenance
cost appears justifiable for estimation purposes.

Since maintenance costs have been estimated as a percentage of the
initial cost, the same 0.6 scale factor should be applied to
determine the cost of other installations.
       g
       Affect of Capacity of Waste Oil Auxiliary Fuel System

                           On Economics

Figure 9 provides a means of estimating the capital investment and
operating costs of a waste oil auxiliary fuel system for those
systems associated with incinerator capacities other than 400 TPB.
These curves are based on the scale factors associated with each of
the costs as discussed above.  For example, the costs associated with
a waste oil system to be utilized in conjunction with a 600 TPD
incineration system are:

     Capital Investment (1.27 x $106,400)            $136,000
     Operating Costs
       Fixed Costs (1.27 x $5,935)                      7,580
       Operating Costs
         Fuel & Power (1.5 x $13,450)                  20,200
         Labor (1.11 x $2,100)                          2,330
         Maintenance (1.27 x $6,300)                    8,030
                             Total Operating Costs   $ 38,140
                                63

-------
   1.5
    1.0
u
   0.5
                                   Fuel and power
                                               Capital Inv.,  Fixed costs and
                                               maintenance.
                                           _  Cost for new installation

                                              Cost for old installation
                100       200       300      400      500      600      700
                            INCINERATOR  CAPACITY   TPD
            Figure 9.
Investment and operating costs  of waste oil auxiliary
fuel system as a function of 'incineration plant capacity.
                                         64

-------
                            SECTION XI
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of this program by the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency, and the help provided by
Mr. Kurt Jacobson and Mr. Richard Keppler, the Project Officer, is
acknowledged with sincere thanks.
                                65

-------
                                  SECTION XII

                                   REFERENCES
 1.  Anonymous,  "Final  Report  of the API Task Force on Used Oil Disposal",
 American Petroleum Institute,  New York,  N.Y.,  May 1970.

 2.  Anonymous,  "Final  Progress Report  on Water Pollution Control  Demon-
 stration Grant  No. WPD-174-01-67," to  Federal  Water Pollution  Control
 Administration, by Villanova  University, Villanova, Pa., 1968.

 3.  Snook, Willett, A.,  "Used  Engine Oil Analysis", Lubrication 54, No.  9,  97-116,
 (1968).                                                         '

 4.  Gallopoulos, N. E.,  "Engine  Oil Thickening in High-Speed Passenger Car
 Service", Paper No. 700506, Presented  at Mid-Year Meeting of Society of
 Automotive Engineers,  18-22 May  1970.

 5.  Paggi, R. E., and  Andrus,  R.  E., "Measurement of Engine Oil Thickening,"
 Paper No. 700511, Presented at Mid-Year  Meeting of SAE,  18-22 May  1970.

 6.  Allman, T. J., Brehn, A.E.,  and Colyer,  C.C.,  "The ABC's of Motor Oil
 Oxidation", Paper No.  700510,  Presented  at Mid-Year Meeting of  SAE, 18-22
 May 1970.

 7.  Maizus, Solfred, "Conversion  of Crankcase  Waste Oil  into Useful Products",
 Final Report on Project #15080 DBO;  to Water Quality Office, Environmental
 Protection Agency; National Oil  Recovery  Corporation; March 1971.

 8.  Grouse, W. W., and Wilkins, G. W., "The Measurement  of the Viscosity
 Stability of Multigrade Engine Oils and  Its Effect  on Performance," Paper No.
 700668,  Presented at National West  Coast Meeting of SAE,  24-27 August 1970.

 9.  Crittenden, A.M.,  "Re-refined Lubricating  Oils  for Railroads", Lubrication
 Engineering .17, (7), 330-3 (1961).

 10.   Lantos, F.E., and Lantos, J.,  "Method for Determining'Free Carbon and
'Oxidized Matter* in Used Lubricating Oils," Lubrication Engineering 2:7,  (6),
 184-9 (1971).

 11.   Janssen,  0.,  "Significance of Used Motor Oil Analysis Results",  Erdoel
 und  Kohle -Erdgas-Petrochemie 23_, (4),  216-21  (1970).

 12.   Heithaus,  J.  J.,  "Clarification of Used Motor Oils by Capillary  Action",
 Lubrication Engineering 24,  (3), 128-30 (1968).

 13.  Wills,  J.  G.,  "Don"t Throw Waste Oil Away - Use It for Heating",  Plant
 EngineeringZS,  (10),  58-60,  (1971).
                                     67

-------
 14.   Vrakos,  Paul,  "We're Helping Industry Protect the Environment", The
 American City 87,  (5),  88-91 (1972).

 IS.   Stenburg, R.L.,  Horsley,  R.R.,  Herrick,  R.A., and Rose, A.H., Jr.,
 "Effects of Design  and  Fuel Moisture on Incinerator Effluents," J. Air
 Poll.  Contr.  Assoc.  10, (2), 114-20  (1960).

 16.   Engel, W.,  and von Weihe, A., "Experimental Refuse Incineration Plant
 of the Duesseldorf Municipal Works'  Flingern  Power Plant",  Brennstoff-Waerme-
 Kraft  14,  (5), 234-6  (1962-German).

 17.  Kammerer, H. F., "Waste Incineration Plant with Heat Utilization in
 Stuttgart," Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft  14,  (10), 476-8 (1962-German).

 18.  Knoll, H.,  "Refuse Incinerating Plant of the City of Nuremberg,"
 Brennstof f-Waerme-Kraft 17_,  (12),  595 (1965-Genaan) .

 19.  Eberhardt,  H., "European  Practice in Refuse and Sevage Sludge Disposal
 by Incineration", Proceedings  of  1966 National Incinerator  Conference,  ASME,
 New York,  pp.  124-43.

 20.  Stabenov,  Georg, "Survey  of  European Experience with High  Pressure Boiler
 Operation  Burning Wastes  and Fuel,"  Proceedings of 1966 National Incinerator
 Conference, ASME, New York,  NY, pp.  144-60.

 21.  Haedike,  E.W., Zavodny, A.,  and  Mowbray, K.D., "Auxiliary  Gas Burners for
 Commercial and Industrial Incinerators",  Proceedings  of 1966 National  Incin-
 erator  Conference, ASME,  New York, NY, pp. 235-40.

 22.  Hileheiner, H., "Experience After 20,000 Operating Hours - The Mannheim
 Incinerator",  Proceedings  of 1970  National Incinerator Conference,  ASME, New
York, NY,  pp.  93-106.

 23.  Regan, J.W., "Generating  Steam from  Prepared  Refuse",  Proceedings  of
 1970 Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York,  NY, pp.  216-23.

 24.  Malin, H.M., Jr.,  "Plants Bum Garbage,  Produce  Steam," Environ. Sci.
Tech. 5, (3), 207-9 (1971).

 25.  Deming, L.F., and Connell, J.M.,  "The Steam Generating Incinerator Plant",
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Volume  28, pp.  652-60 (1966).

26.  Anonymous, "Let Residue Disposal Pay for  Itself",  Power 115.  (2), 60-1,
 (1971).
                                  68

-------
27.  "Disposal of Oily Wastes"; from Industrial Oily Waste Control; Mann,
W. K., and Shortly, N. B., ed. ; published  jointly by American Petroleum
Institute and American Society of Lubricating Engineers,  1969.

28.  Eaedike, E. W., "Building a Better Incinerator," Industrial Gas 51,
(11), 15-7 (1971).

29.  Niessen, W.R., Sarofim, A.F. et al.;  "Incinerator Overfire Air Mixing
Study"; Report to Office of Air Programs,  Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract EHSD 71-6, from Arthur D. Little,  Inc.; February 1972.

30.  Bowen, D.H.M., "Waste Lube Oils Pose  Disposal Dilemma," Env. Sci.
Techn. 6, (1), 25-6 (1972).

31.  Palm, R., "Addition of Oil in Refuse  Incineration," Aufberitungs -
Technik 10,  (5), 233-6 (1969).

32.  Gripp, V.E., "Treatment and Disposal  of Spent Lubricants," Proceed-
ings - Industrial Lubrication Symposium 8  March 1965, pp. 41-51 (1965).

33.  Haith, H., "Analyzation of Used Lubricating Oils," The Plant Engineer
K),  (5), 113-7 (1966).

34.  Bridge, D.P.,  and Hummell, J.D., "Incinerators Designed Specifically
to Burn Waste Liquids and Sludges," Proceedings of 1972 National Incinerator
Conference,  New York, N.Y., 4-7 June 1972,  pp. 55-60.

35.  Blanc, H. , and Maulaz, M., "Recuperation and Destruction of Waste
Oils and Other Combustible Liquid Wastes of All Kinds," ibid, pp. 61-5.

36.  Santoleri, J.J., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Waste Recovery and Pollu-
tion Abatement,"  ibid, pp. 66-74.

37.  Rogers,  J.E.L., Sarofim, A.F., and Howard, J.B., "Effect of Under-
fire Air Rate on  a  Burning Simulated Refuse Bed," ibid, pp. 135-44.

38.  Stephenson,  J.W., "Burning Wet Refuse,"  ibid, pp. 260-4.

39.  Niessen, Walter R., Sarofim, Adel F., et al., "An Approach to Incin-
erator Combustible  Pollutant Control," ibid,  pp.  245-259.

40.  Personal Communication with Mr. James Fife, Metcalf  and Eddy, Inc.,
June 16, 1972.
                                 69

-------
41.  Personnal Communication with Mr. Thomas Lamb, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
June 21, 1972.

42.  Niessen, Chansky, et al., "Systems Study of Air Pollution from Muni-
cipal Incineration," Report to NAPCA (March 1970).

43.  "Study of Waste Oil Disposal Practices in Massachusetts," Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Report to Commonwealth of Massachusetts (January 1969).

44.  Smith, J.M., Van Ness, H.C., "Introduction to Chemical Engineering
Thermodynamics," McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 423 (1959).

45.  Essenhigh, R.H., "Burning Rates in Incinerators," Proceedings of 1968
National Incineration Conference, ASME, 94-100 (1968).

46.  Haedike, E.W., et al., "Auxiliary Gas Burners for Commercial and
Industrial Incinerators," Proceedings of 1966 National Incineration Con-
ference, ASHE, 235-240 (1966).

47.  Letter Quotation from Mr. A.J. Craig, Combustion Equipment Associates
(November 14, 1972).

48.  Letter from Mr. James A. Fife, Vice President, Medcalf and Eddy (Nov-
ember 16, 1972).

49.  Popper, H,, "Modern Cost Engineering Techniques," McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
(1970).

50.  Personal communication with Mrs. Richardson, First National Bank of
Boston  (October 26, 1972).

51.  Perry, J.H., "Chemical Engineers Handbook," 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
N.Y. (1963).

52.  Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 6 - Wed., January 10, 1973, p. 1258-1261,

53.  Turner, B.D., Workbook of Atmospheric Diffusion Estimates, U.S. HEW,
PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-26 (1969).

54.  Briggs, G.A., "Plume Rise," Air Resources Atmospheric Turbulence and
Diffusion Laboratory, Environmental Science Services Administration, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, p. 47 (1969).
                                70

-------
                              SECTION XIII




                              APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO WASTE OIL REFINERIES
                                 71

-------
            APPENDIX A - LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO REREFINERS


                   GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
                             A Division of GCA Corporation
                    Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 Telephone: 617-275-9000
          Gentlemen:

          GCA Technology Division is performing work for the Environmental
          Protection Agency (EPA) which could expand the current market
          for recovered waste lubricating oils.   Part of this program re-
          quires the collection of data which define typical properties  of
          these oils prior to re-refining.   Both physical parameters,  such
          as specific gravity and viscosity, and chemical characteristics,
          such as percent sulfur and percent lead, are needed to complete
          the work.  The attached Questionnaire lists the data which  will
          be useful to this program.

          GCA requests your help in securing the needed data by providing
          the information listed on the questionnaire for the vasre oil
          as you receive it.   It is realized that some of the characteristics
          listed might not be available in  all instances; in other cases,
          you may feel that a range of values for a specific characteristic
          is most representative.  In either case, please fill in what-
          ever information is at your disposal.   A stamped pre-addressed
          envelope is enclosed for your convenience.   Your cooperation in
          this task is greatly appreciated.

                                                Sincerely,
                                                Steven H.  Chansky
                                                Project Manager
          SHC/lhr

                                          72
OTON

-------
                              APPENDIX A (Continued)
                         QUESTIONNAIRE FOR

                    WASTE OIL CHARACTERIZATION
Return  to:  Steven  H.  Chansky/Project Manager
           GCA Technology Division
           Bedford, Massachusetts   01730
I.  GENERAL  INFORMATION
    A.  Company Name_
        Company Address	
        City	State	Zip Code_
     B.  Person Filling  Out  Fonn_
        Position  (Title)       	Tel.  No
II.  WASTE OIL CHARACTERISTICS


    A.  General  Information
        Principal  Source(s)  of Oil  (Service Stations,  etc.).
        Do you collect  the  waste  oil  yourself?   ves	 No_

        If not,  from whom do you  receive the oil?	
        What are your  chief products?

               Lubricating Oils	

               Fuel  Oils	
               Other  Products  (specify).
                                       73

-------
                        APPENDIX A (Continued)
 B.   Waste Oil  Characteristics
     Specific  Gravity:_
          Fahrenheit)
     Viscosity:	
                                   API  at
F (degrees
                            _SUS  (Sdybolt  Universal  Seconds)  ar
                             o.
                                   F.
Flash Point  (Closed cup or Open Cup,  Specify):_
    	F.
Corrosiveness:  Equivalent to ASTM No.	
Water:          % by volume.
    Sediment and Water:,
    Ash Content:
    Sulfur Content:_
    Lead Content
                                % by volume
                             ? by weight.
                                 TL by veight.
                              % by weight.
                                                       Corrosion Standard
C.  Additional Comments:
                                74

-------
 SELECTED WATER
 RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
 INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
                     I. ReprrtNo.
                                         w
 4. Title
   Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil As A Municipal
   Incinerator Fuel
                                          5, Report Dai?

                                          6. . "'!. ',
 7. Author(s)

   Chansky,  Steven, McCoy, Billy, Surprenant,  Norman
 9. Organization
   GCA Corporation
   GCA Technology Division
   Bedford,  Mass.
                                                                  8. PeffoTOiitt? OF g
                                                                    Report No.
                                         W.
                                                                   15080 HBO
                                         II.  Contract/Grant Lo.

                                           68-01-0186
                                         13.  Type o ( Report and
                                             Period Coveted
 12-  Sponsoring Or
 IS.  Supplementary Wotes

     Environmental Protection Agency report number,
	 EPA-R2-73-293, September 1973.
 16.  Abstract
   The  technical,  economic and environmental  impact of utilizing waste automotive
   lubricating oils to Improve the municipal  incineration combustion process was
   examined.   Laboratory analyses of selected physical properties of waste oil and
   a waste  oil burner testing program were conducted to complement an information
   search program.
   The  physical and chemical properties of waste  oil were reviewed in relation to  its
   suitability as  a fuel oil.  The auxiliary  fuel heat flux requirements to offset
   the  adverse effects of wet refuse were estimated utilizing a combustion model of
   a refuse bed.  Various methods were evaluated  for transferring this required heat
   flux to  the refuse bed.  Suggested designs for monitoring and control; and waste
   oil  storage and feed systems were presented.
   The  Impact  on air quality from the combustion  of waste oil in a municipal incin-
   erator was  estimated.  Three-month average ground level concentrations for lead
   were calculated and presented as concentration isopleths.
   Capital  Investment and operating costs were developed for auxiliary waste oil
   systems  in  conjunction with municipal Incinerators.
 17a. Descriptors

   Automotive Waste Oil Combustion, Municipal Incineration,  Refuse Combustion,
   Incinerator Air  Pollutants
17b. Identifiers

   waste oil, incineration, waste oil combustion, refuse combustion,
   incineration air pollutants
I7e- COWRR Field & Group
IS.  Availability
19. S  urityC uss.
   (heport)

20. Secun .j Class.
21. r .. of
   Pages

22. Price
                                                     Send To:
                                                     WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                     WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O24O
  '^tractor
           Steven Chanakv
            I  Institution
                nlnv THvlfHi
  -: 1O2 (REV JUNt l'7l)

-------