References

[1] Whisman, M. L., Goetzinger, J. W., and Cotton, F. O., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: An Investigation of Several Re-refining Methods, BuMines RI 7884 (1971).

[2] Whisman, M. L., Cotton, F. O., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: Characterization of Basestocks From Used Lubricating Oils, Part 1, BERC/RI-75/3 (1975).

[3] Whisman, J. L., Cotton, F. O., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: Geographical and Seasonal Variations in Used Lubricating Oil Basestock Composition, Part 2, BERC/RI-75/11 (1975).

[4] Whisman, M. L., Cotton, F. 0., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: Characterization of Base stocks From Used Lubricating Oils, Part 3, BERC/RI-76/3 (1976).

[5] Whisman, M. L., Cotton, F. O., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: A Summary of Compositional Variations Among 30 Used Lubricating Oils Selected for Seasonal and Geographical Significance, Part 4, BERC/RI-76/4 (1976).

[6] Cotton, F. O., Whisman, M. L., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: A Comprehensive Characterization of Five Typical Re-refinery Feedstocks, Part 5, BERC/RI-77/3 (1977).

[7] Cotton, F. O., Whisman, M. L., Goetzinger, J. W., and Reynolds, J. W., Analysis of 30 used motor oils, Hydrocarbon Processing 56, No. 9 (1977).

[8] Whisman, M. L., Goetzinger, J. W., and Cotton, F. O., Waste Lubricating Oil Research: Some Innovative Approaches to Reclaiming Used Crankcase Oil, BuMines RI 7925 (1974).

[9] Whisman, M. L., Goetzinger, J. W., and Cotton, F. O., Method for Reclaiming Waste Lubricating Oils, U.S. Patent Application No. S-46,037 (1977).

[10] Whisman, M. L., Reynolds, J. W., Goetzinger, J. W., and Cotton, F. 0., Process for Preparing Lubricating Oil From Used Waste Lubricating Oil, U.S. Patent Application No. S-48,107 (1977).

[11] Reynolds, J. W., Whisman, M. L., and Thompson, C. J., Engine Sequence Testing of Re-refined Lubricating Oils, Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 770431 (1977).

[12] Reynolds, J. W., Whisman, M. L., and Thompson, C. J., Re-refined lubes pass engine test, Hydrocarbon Processing 56, No. 9 (1977).

[13] Richard J. Bigda & Associates, Predesign Cost Estimate for Re-refined Lube Oil Plant, prepared for ERDA under Contract No. BE-60-P-2688, BERC/RI-77/11 (1977).

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 556. Proceedings of
a Workshop on Measurements and Standards for Recycled Oil - II held
at NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland, November 29 and 30, 1977. (Issued
September 1979)

API ACTIVITIES IN USED OIL

B. W. Hutchings

Exxon Company, U.S.A.
P. O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001

the

In preparing for this meeting, I took the logical step of looking back at what I said at the first National Bureau of Standards workshop just about one year ago. And, quite frankly, I was amazed at how little things have changed since then: pattern of used oil reuse probably has not varied substantially; the "do-it-yourself" problem is still with us; and, finally, many of the issues are unchanged.

One of my reasons for being here today is to discuss what we in the American Petroleum Institute (API) are trying to do in the do-it-yourself area, and the other reason is to consider in some detail the issue of used oil burning and why the petroleum industry is so vitally concerned about this matter.

First of all, let me say that I do not believe anyone has any truly accurate data on the volume of do-it-yourself drainings; I know that I do not. But, based on recent surveys, the number would appear to be in the vicinity of 150 million gallons per year. This is a large number in itself; but what is worse, it is dispersed throughout the U.S. in place and time and is available only in parcels of about one gallon.

Despite the difficulties, many attempts are being made to recover this oil and many people are deeply involved, including the API. The Used Oil Management Task Force, which I represent today, is hard at work on the do-it-yourself problem; but it is a tough one. Some of the ideas that we are looking at involve the following.

1.

An advertising program to educate people through mass media communication. 2. Finding a way of getting greater participation of over 150,000 independent businessmen who operate service stations in the U.S. We want them to willingly accept drainings from the do-it-yourselfers, but we cannot coerce them.

3. An API-sponsored and funded test program to evaluate some ideas we have to create incentives for the do-it-yourselfers to bring their drainings to a collection point.

area.

Our task is extremely difficult, but we are hopeful of having some impact in this

My major points deal with the very serious concern that the API and its marketing members have regarding the future disposition of used oil, specifically used motor oil, commercial crankcase oil, and other used oils that are difficult to reclaim or re-refine. But, first, let me present a few statistics (or should I say educated guesses).

1. Total domestic purchases of lube oil are currently about 2.4 billion gallons per year.

2. About half of this oil eventually becomes used oil looking for a home; say 1.2 billion gallons.

3.

About 25 percent of this used oil is being reclaimed or re-refined for

reuse as lubes.

4. About 10 to 15 percent is generated by do-it-yourselfers and is essentially lost from recycling.

5. It is likely that another 10 percent of used oil is lost from recycling by illegal dumping and through junking of oil-containing equipment, such as filters.

6. The remaining 50 to 55 percent, something over 600 million gallons per year, is used predominantly as fuel or in various means of dust control, such as road oiling. Please keep the 600-million-gallon figure in mind, because I will refer to it shortly.

Several arguments against burning have been raised, and I would like to comment on each one to a limited extent.

1. The major objection to burning used motor oil is that it causes the emission of metals into the atmosphere, particularly lead. This is true, but only about 50 percent is so emitted, even in the absence of stack control equipment. Furthermore, very extensive testing has shown that concentrations of lead in air at ground level can be less than 2 micrograms per cubic meter if normal averaging periods and wind direction statistics are considered. Finally, to be even-handed, one must recognize that recycling to lubes also involves a lead problem, although in that case the concern is primarily real or potential water pollution.

2. The second argument is that burning used oil is inefficient in terms of energy conservation. I have personally spent many hours in studying this proposition, and I must say that analysis is extremely difficult because of the variability of input data on virgin lube processing and re-refining energy consumption. My best evaluation is that there may be a slight, almost insignificant, energy advantage for lube recycling over burning.

3.

The third argument concerns the unfortunate conclusion that the U.S. is running out of potential lubricating oil feedstocks. This is just not true. If the demand existed and if refining capacity were available, feedstocks, or molecules, would be available to produce lubes at a rate several times what they are now. There is no doubt that they would cost more because the yields would be less. But they could be produced, and this situation will not change in the future. Just to put this matter in perspective, the U.S. consumes about 16 million barrels per day of crude for all purposes, but only 1 percent goes into lubes.

4. The fourth argument that I have heard mentioned is that used oils, particularly used motor oils, contain polynuclear aromatics (PNA's) and that they could be emitted to the atmosphere during burning. In looking into this matter, I found very few available data; in fact, only four for used motor oil. At drain intervals of 4,000 to 8,000 miles, analysis indicated the presence of active PNA's at concentrations varying from 30 to 65 ppm. By active PNA's, I am referring to compounds such as benz (a) anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene. However, a single data point available on a Bunker C fuel oil showed 330 ppm of active PNA's to be present. More data are being obtained, but the indication so far is that used motor oil is "cleaner" than heavy fuel oil. Therefore, substituting used oil for fuel actually appears to reduce the potential PNA problem.

You will recall that I suggested a figure of about 600 million gallons per year of used lube oil being consumed today in dust control applications and fuel. If we can ever solve the do-it-yourself problem and also recover the oil lost by illegal dumping and junking of oil-containing equipment, we will add another 250 million gallons to the used oil pipeline, making a total of about 850 million gallons per year to be recycled in some way.

Re-refining has been proposed as a viable and effective alternative to burning and, presumably, dust control uses. But according to a study recently completed for the Environmental Protection Agency, the current re-refining capacity is less than 100 million gallons per year of production. With an average yield of 65 percent, this capacity reflects a used oil containment of 150 million gallons per year. is a relatively small number compared to the 850 million gallons that must be contained if burning and road oiling were prohibited.

This

Worse yet, this same study forecasts a 1983 re-refined lube production of 183 million gallons, if several factors will be conducive to greatly expanded re-refining capacity. One of the factors affecting the growth of re-refining is the matter of by-product disposal. In used oil burning, some metals are emitted with the flue gas; but in re-refining, the same metals are concentrated in acid or caustic sludge or in still bottoms. According to the recent Environmental Protection Agency study, about 80 percent of re-refiners dispose of sludge in landfills or on roads without any form of treatment. Although improved technology is being developed, recycling of these materials is not economically attractive at the present time. Perhaps this problem can be overcome. But, the projected optimistic volume of 183 million gallons relfects

a used oil feed of 280 million gallons per year in 1983. This capability is a lot better than the 150 million today, but it is seriously deficient.

Burning used oil to recover the inherent fuel value is a very useful recycling method that has not yet been proven to be a significant environmental hazard and can substitute for the lack of re-refining capacity. No new investment is required now or in the future, and fuel-consuming equipment is available in every part of the country. It would be disastrous to stop burning; and yet we see an apparent desire on the part of many in government to do just that. As I have tried on numerous occasions to communicate, this matter is of the utmost concern to the API and its members. We see no significant environmental problem with burning, and no viable alternative seems to be in sight.