ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS FOR INCINERATORS

C.C. Lee and G.L. Huffman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory C i n c i n n a t i , Ohio 45268
ABSTRACl

An estimate o f an energy and mass balance w i t h i n an i n c i n e r a t o r i s a very important p a r t o f designing and/or evaluating the i n c i n e r a t i o n process. This paper describes a simple computer model which i s used t o c a l c u l a t e an energy and mass balance f o r a r o t a r y k i l n i n c i n e r a t o r . The main purpose o f the model i s t o a s s i s t EPA permit w r i t e r s i n evaluating the adequacy o f the data submitted by i n c i n e r a t o r permit applicants. The c a l c u l a t i o n i s based on the assumption t h a t a thermodynamic e q u i l i b r i u m c o n d i t i o n e x i s t s w i t h i n the combustion chamber. Key parameters which the'model can c a l c u l a t e include: Theoretical combustion a i r ; Excess a i r needs f o r actual combustion cases; Flue gas f l o w r a t e ; and E x i t temperature. INTRODUCTION Although there are many p o t e n t i a l hazardous waste treatment technologies, current data i n d i c a t e t h a t no other treatment technology i s as u n i v e r s a l l y applicable as i n c i n e r a t i o n t o t r e a t t h e many d i f f e r e n t types o f hazardous waste. A recent survey showed t h a t more than 80% of the technologies used t o remediate Superfund s i t e s are i n c i n e r a t i o n - r e l a t e d technologies (Lee, 6/90). As a matter o f f a c t , i n c i n e r a t i o n has been considered t o be a proven technology i n many o f t h e regulations developed under the various environmental laws enacted t o cover the treatment/disposal o f the d i f f e r e n t types o f s o l i d wastes; f o r example:

(1) (2)
(3)
(4)

Hazardous, medical and municipal waste as regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ; I n d u s t r i a l and municipal sludge waste as regulated under the Clean Water Act; Pesticide waste as regulated under t h e Federal I n s e c t i c i d e , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Superfund waste as regulated by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA); and Toxic substances as regulated under t h e Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

(5)

990

I n reviewing a permit application.. I n other words. The r e s u l t s w i l l show t h a t the calculated data are reasonably consistent w i t h the actual t r i a l burn data.3 t o compare the c a l c u l a t e d r e s u l t s w i t h an actual case f o r which measurement data were available. involve costs and the personnel needed f o r t h a t industry t o comply w i t h the f i n a l permit. One o f the key factors necessary t o ensure the safe i n c i n e r a t i o n of various wastes i s f o r a permit Writer t o f u l l y understand the i n c i n e r a t i o n process and t o adequately check o r specify permit conditions a t an i n c i n e r a t i o n f a c i l i t y t h a t has come under h i s o r her s c r u t i n y . The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) o f EPA's O f f i c e o f Research and Development i n Cincinnati has been supporting EPA's RCRA permit w r i t e r s regarding how t o appropriately evaluate a permit application. Presently. However. i f an applicant's data show t h a t h i s i n c i n e r a t o r can reach a c e r t a i n temperature by burning c e r t a i n wastes a t c e r t a i n combustio? a i r levels. i n c i n e r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s are subject t o the regulations under the Clean A i r Act and numerous State and l o c a l requirements. However. To overcome t h i s model disadvantage. the question i s . Are the claimed data dependable? I n i s s u i n g a permit. a permit w r i t e r often i s confronted w i t h the complex and h i g h l y uncertain task o f determining whether data submitted are adequate o r accu.2. f o r obvious reasons. a permit w r i t e r needs t o make decisions regarding how t o approve o r how t o specify permit conditions which. For example. a user cannot see the d e t a i l e d steps which are b u i l t i n t o the software i n order t o e d i t the c a l c u l a t i o n procedures t o serve h i s own s p e c i f i c c a l c u l a t i o n a l needs. d i f f e r e n t i n c i n e r a t o r s use d i f f e r e n t destruction processes and d i f f e r e n t p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l s . The model was intended t o a s s i s t a permit w r i t e r i n q u i c k l y evaluating whether o r not an i n c i n e r a t i o n applicant's claimed data are based on sound engineering p r i n c i p l e s and are dependable. 991 . t h i s not an easy task f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: I n many cases.s p e c i f i c and process-specific.ate. One o f the products from t h i s support e f f o r t has been the development o f the Enerqv and Mass Balancg Model f o r Inc-.I n addition. the i n c i n e r a t i o n f a c i l i t y i s s i t e . the authors used the model concept and wrote a program on Lotus 1. the model involved many complex submodels and are compiled i n a computer d i s k e t t e .

Capacity: 50 tpd (tons per day) with 10% excess capacity (30 x lo6 Btu/h for each burner) Pollution control system: Quench tower.Solid: Ram feed Residence time: 5. Waste feed system: . The measured data was later summarized in an EPA report (EPA 9/86) and key aspects of i t appear below. and packed tower scrubber. Vulcan Iron. Polygon venturi scrubber (25-in. 1984.I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A Ciba-Geigy rotary kiln incinerator was chosen as the basis for the calculation. pressure drop). Figure 1. synthetic hazardous liquid waste was tested Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time) Tota1.amount of waste burned: 480 gal (liquid) and 0 lb (solid) Waste feed rate: 4 gpm (liquid). 3.Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners (kiln and secondary burners) . 0 lb/h (solid) 992 . Eaui oment Informat ion. The schematic of the Ciba-Geigy incinerator is shown in Figure 1 (EPA 9/86). Type o f unit: Private incinerator-Rotary kiln with secondary chamber. for this run.09 s (secondary chamber) Test Conditions. only. Process Flow Diagram o f Ciba-Geigy Incinerator Ciba-Geigy sponsored a trial burn on November 12-17. Waste feed data: Hazardous llquld and nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned.05 s (kiln).

Given Conditions Waste feed r a t e (gpm): Assume t h a t 1 gal Waste feed r a t e i n l b / h r : F l y ash (% o f waste feed): % of ash due t o unburned carbon: Ash quench temperature: € x i t temperature: Reference temperature: Radiation l o s s (assumed): Excess a l r r a t e (EAR)[assumed] Humidity a t 60% RH and 80°F - 4 gpm 5 lb 1200 l b / h 0 (assumed) 0 (assumed) undefined unspecified ( 5%) a10.Primary a i r t o k i l n : 2200 cfm . al.25 8/lb-F 1. a5.04 scm/ 386.9 scf/lb-mole kg-mole 2460 kJ/kg 1057 8/lb (where 8 = Btu) 0. a?. Standard volume: Heat a12.3% - ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS [For Primary Chamber ( K i l n ) Only] a. O / kg -dry.0127 l b H . a8.05 (5%) 0.a i r lb-dry-air 24.0132 kg H$/ 0. 88.83 kJ/kg-C 0.26 B/lb-F 2. Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh Airflow: .5% . a4. a2.8% (calculated) Moisture content: Not measured O w r a t i n s Conditions: Temperature: Range 1750' . a9.200 Btu/lb Ash content: Not measured Chlorine content: 20.35 kJ-kg-C 0.885 ( i . a3. e . % 4.09 kJ/kg-C 0.49 B/lb-F 993 70'F 0. 1950' 2050'F (Secondary chamber) Average 1800'F ( k i l n ) . 2000'F (Secondary chamber) A u x i l i a r y f u e l used: Natural gas .52 60. a13. .Primary k i l n 1200 scfh natural gas. a14 a l l . Water l a t e n t heat: capacity ( s p e c i f i c heat): Ash Flue gas: Water: XSair 1 0.Secondary a i r t o k i l n : 1400 cfm Flue gas oxygen content: 10.03 29. a6.1850'F ( k i l n ) .07 5.POHCs ( P r i n c i p a l Organic Hazardous Constituents) selected and concentration i n waste feed: Name Hexachloroethane Tetrachl oroethene Chlorobenzene To1 uene Concentration.58 Btu content: 15.

2952 0....0487 0.. C..oooo 1200....00 0 0 828 0.... Chlorobenzene.. 6 0 11876 10....3 kcal/g 1.3 kcal/g 1 kJ/kg a16. H._..24 726. C.......H.......43 1 3.a15..667 B/lb a17.76Et07 Therefore...33Et07 E 0. Water.76Et07 8/h 994 .96 0 0 ..33 kJ/kg 1... Total waste heat i n p u t : 13.....6058 58.29Et05 4.46 1. lkcal/g- 4187 kJ/kg 2.Cf Toluene...20 23932 B/lb B/lb B/lb 8 ft B/lb POHC ratio . t h e heat v a l u e o f the POHC mixture = 14. Natural g a s (NG): ( h e a t o f combustion) a18. C?.06 kJ l m 13.36 354..... Hexachloroethane..21Et06 1..H.14 18246 0 0 0 0 --------1.0503 0.19 2141 6 .. C C1 Tetrachloroethene.......O Waste Fuel waste lb/h AHC kcal/g B/lb Mixture B/h 4.44 60. Natural gas (NG): ( h e a t o f combustion) 1799 1 0.1 .84Et04 1..

0000 0 _0.00 C‘s/M H’s/M Cl’s/M O‘s/M __-_--_-1.00 ______-_ 1:0000 ___--0 H.00 ____-- 354.5 0 I 0 - 112.00 __--726. 24.00 52.00 0.00 -----I 142 0 8.O i n f u e l : 995 .24 0.6400 0.00 C‘s/M H’c/M .0000 1.8554 0.00 C’s/M H’s/M C1 ‘s/M O‘s/M 0.Cl 72.00 8 0.00 51.73 0.04135 l b / s c f Fuel weight flow r a t e = f u e l density x f u e l volume f l o w r a t e 49.I .0444 0.44 C2C1.24 92.7500 H’s/M 0. p Molecular Weiaht.74 111.63 0.oooo 5 0.8987 0.62 lb/h - CH‘ 12.9130 0.00 = 58. Cl‘s/M O’s/M .3156 0. M 237.00 663.0000 C.72 15.H.. CH ) t o k i l n : 1200 scf/h Fuel d e n s i t y = A l e c u t a r Wt/ttd volume ( a l 0 ) : 0.0000 _______1.0000 0.96 I Fuel ( n a t u r a l gas.1013 0.50 226.22 12.00 C‘s/M H’s/M Cl’s/M O’s/M 84. Chemical analysis: X C2C1.92 0.2500 0 0 37.0000 ------ 166.0000 5.72 63.0870 0.0000 35.00 4 C‘s/M 0.a19.00 x s y + p - .1446 0.0000 _0.62 16.78 0.52 0. 24.40 49. ’ 0 0.

reactants-actual theor. b3.00 996 .85.0731 0.=(Th. 76*28/32 Theoretical d r y a i r = Theor.O. b7. Theoretfcal Combustion A i r bl. a2O. Calculation o f oxygen needs c t o -->co O:-C*32f12=2. nitrogen.O -_-______-----___--_____________________-----------1200 1249.--->so O. a i r t f e e d Theoretical a i r combustion products: CO2-C*44/12: SO. : S: 216 0 0 0.188t06 Btu/h Total Heat I n Waste Input ( a l 8 ) t Fuel Input (a19): 1.4 W: unburned waste carbon feed 905 79 total combustible feed 942.32 l b / h r H2t0.2)= H l e f t over a f t e r Cl's r e a c t i o n (HLO) HLO-H-C1/35. ~ * J z / z = 90.94 mole/h 375.6 H.)*f.: Humidity: 0. a i r t i t s H. data was 15. b2. N.045 Btu/lb Total average heating value - - *****Test a21.O Theor.7540 0. b6.67*C2.200 Btu/lb***** Chemical analysis summary ( i n l b s / h r ) : W & F analysis F: fuel 37.6 I .50 -->H 0 o.=S*3 2/3 2 . b8.=S*64/32 174 13893 15143 l b / h r 3455 l b / h r 0 78.2 12. Fuel heat i n p u t = weight r a t e x HHV: 1.a19.2 91.71 mole/h Water due t o humidlty = b4*b5 Actual theor.: N.-10521 -----13719 99. Theoretical oxygen (Th.0000 0 0 0 0 Ash: Fly ash: (unburned carbon becomes ash) : 49.88Et07 Btu/h a20/(waste t f u e l ) : 15. b4.Bound 2516 l b / h r 602 0 0 3198 b. 0 ) Th. b9.oooo b.4 216 0 Fraction o f combustible feed 0.0127 . 02+N.67(942 .52 mole/h 0.-HL~*o.77 mole/h _-____ 475.5. a i r x d r y theor. b5.1729 C: H: c1: 0.

N . Actual Combustion Products (i Flue Gas): 991 .5 b l l . a i r t A d d l t i o n a 1 0. c6.O (b5xc3): c5. Combustion gas H. EAR (a8): cl. volume (al0) x lb-mole/h-351305 scf/h -5855 scf/min =(a10 x c7): *****Test data was 3600 cfm***** Total water vapor i n f l u e gas With waste (a21): Due t o combustion (b10): Humidity (c4tb12): Quenching water: 0 lb/h 768 328 _ _0_ _ _ 27438 1b reactant/hr -27438 l b product/hr c9.67 0.O/hr _____ 513 mole/h ___--_ “15140 l b / h r 0.00 0. 0 . : 768 10521 222 42. Actual d r y a i r theor. Combustion dry gas=CO.: b16. w i t h waste: b13. H 0 associated with actual a i r fb5xc5 or b12tc4): - 25860 l b .00 __-____ 15140 l b / h r 15143 l b / h r 14198 lb-dry-gas/hr 942 l b H. H 0 i n feed: Ffy ash: Ash: bl2.08 0 0 0 174 0 0.b10. combustion products: b14. H2O-HL0*18/2: N -(Th .d r y a i r / h 328 l b H. A i r f l o w r a t e = std. Actual a i r .O )*3. H.00 9.00 0. 2830 9311 _ ___-_ c3. Check (b8-bl3): bl5. Total water vapor i n f l u e gas = 1096 l b / h r c10.O due t o humidity: N. additional=EAR*(Th.O c7. Actual reactants=actual d r y a i r t f e e d t H O . Actual Combustion A i r : Excess a i r rate.76*28/32 He 1 4 1*3’6.O i n a i r : 26188 lb-air/h-908 lb-mole/h (c5tc6) c8.66 375.tHCltN.tSO.5/35. i n combustion a i r (a21tc7). c2. Actual Excess d r y a i r : 12141 154 l b / h c4.e. and N.O: ( b l O t b ll t b 1 2 ) c.77 6. Theor.885 (assumed) . Excess H..d r y airtH.02): a d d i t i o n a l =EAR*(Th N ) .

1246Et07b/h d16. Total l a t e n t heat = ( c 9 x a l l ) : d8. Heat i n Water-mCpaT' -c9xal4xdll) : d14. : d l l .1158Et07 0. 2830 l b / h r 0. Heat i n ash-dpAT'=(a2xal2xdll): #z 2500°F 70'F 2430'F 1.0046Et07b/h -0. d3.0000Et00 T r i a l #1 Assumed e x i t temp. Heat i n d r y f l u e gas=mCpAT' -[ (clO-c9)xal3xdll]: d13. content i n f l h e gas = C l l f c10: **** Test data was 10. 0 . Total heat accounted for=(d2td12td13td14tdd15): d17. d2. Net heat balance (aZO-d9)-(dl-d9) : Trial - Assumed e x i t temp. Temp. Total heat accounted f o r (d2+d3tdStd6+d7td8) : - 0. N e t heat balance=(a2O-d16): 998 .0000Et00 1. -cl: c12.3% **** d.0000Et07 _-______-_____ 2. Heat i n water -(c9xa14xd4) : d7.9794Et07B/h 0.1158Et07 _ _0.: Reference temp. see a7): t Total heat in-Waste Heat Input ( a l a ) Unburned carbon: Unreleased heat (due t o unburned carbon): 1500'F 70'F 1430'F 0. Heat i n d r y f l u e gas=mCpaT -[clO-c9)xa13xd4] mcpaT d6. Total l a t e n t heat=(c9xall): d15.: Reference temp.: d4.2660Et07 d10. d i f f e r e n c e (AT): d5.0768Et07 0.c l l . Temp.0940Et07 Overall heat l o s s (assumed as 5%.6643Et07 0. dl.31% Calculation o f E x i t TemDerature from K i l n Fuel Heat Input (a19)-a20: 1.1305Et07 0. d i f f e r e n c e (AT') d12. 0 l e f t o v e r i n products = Aaditional 0 .88Et07 B/h 0. Heat i n ash = mCp~T=(a2xal2xd4): d9.1031 = 10.

The measured data r e l a t i v e t o oxygen content shows t h a t reasonable because the c a l c u l a t d a i r i n t h e systfdn (the 5855 scfm amount) the oxygen c o a t r n t measured downstream of the k i l n matches t h e calculated oxygen c o n c e n t r t l o n (the 10.6140Et07 B/Hr 0.y l ) = (x2-x1)/ (y2 -Y 1) x=xl . The f a c t t h a t the measured k i l n e x i t temperature i s a l s o much lower (about 53OoF lower) than the calculated k i l n e x i t temperature indicates t h a t the assumed amount o f heat loss ( the 5% f i g u r e ) i s probably too low. The calculated value o f the a i r f l o w r a t e i s about 63% greater than the t r i a l burn (measured) value. 999 .F (average) 3600 cfm The above Table shows t h a t the differences between t h e calculated and the measured r e s u l t s are small w i t h the exception o f the k i l n e x i t temperature and the a i r flow rate.00Et00 -0. confirms t h a t o mU r n thr 3600 cfm measured value (which.200 Btu/lb 1800. *****Test 2331'F data was 1800'F (average k i l n e x i t temperature)***** SUMMARY O F CALCULATED RESULTS AND MEASURED RESULTS Based on the c a l c u l a t i o n s contained herein and information provided by the t r i a l burn results. a summary o f key data are provided i n the f o l l o w i n g Table: SUMMARY OF CALCULATED AND TRIAL BURN RESULTS 0 .045 Btu/lb 233l'f 5855 scfia 10.y l (X2-Xl)/(Y2-Y1) d19.x l ) / ( 0 . p r o w s that a i r in-le&!ge phenolDena Pper occur). we have: xl x2 1500'F x 2500 0. consultants and p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups).3% 15. The d i f f e r e n c e i s due t o the f a c t t h a t the measured a i r r a t e values neglected t o account f o r the amount o f a i r i n .3%). content i n Flue Gas Heating Value E x i t K i l n Temperature A i r Flow Rate CONCLUSIONS -10. o f t h e a i r nerdrd I s much m course. I t i s hoped t h a t these example c a l c u l a t i o n s w i l l a s s i s t those who m s t design i n c i n e r a t o r s o r those who must know how t o evaluate t h e i r performance (such as governmental permit w r i t e r s .31% 15.1246Et07 yl Y Y2 Y-0 ------X= ( x . therefore. The calculation.d18.leakage which t o occur i n any actual (negative pressure) k i l n combustlon operation. Using the i n t e r p o l a t i o n method t o estimate k i l n temperature.

C.C. Pennsylvania. 1000 . # “Review o f Mobile Thermal Technologies f o r S o l i d Waste Destruction. EPA/625/6-86/012.REFERENCES (EPA. Oberacker. September 1986. G.A. Pittsburgh. June 24-29. 9/86).L. 1990. Presented a t the 83rd National Meeting o f t h e Air and Waste Management Association. Lee. 6 / 9 0 ) . :Permit W r i t e r ‘ s Guide Test Burn Oata: I n c i n e r a t i o n . Hazardous Waste (Lee.Huffman and D.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful