ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS FOR INCINERATORS

C.C. Lee and G.L. Huffman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ABSTRACl
An estimate o f an energy and mass balance wi thi n an incinerator i s a
very important part of designing and/or evaluating the incineration process.
This paper describes a simple computer model which i s used t o calculate an
energy and mass balance f or a rotary ki l n incinerator. The main purpose o f
the model i s to assist EPA permit wri ters i n evaluating the adequacy of the
data submitted by incinerator permit applicants.
the assumption that a thermodynamic equilibrium condition exists wi thi n the
combustion chamber. Key parameters which the'model can calculate include:
The calculation i s based on
Theoretical combustion ai r;
Excess ai r needs f or actual combustion cases;
Flue gas f l o w rate; and
E xi t temperature.
INTRODUCTION
technologies, current data indicate that no other treatment technology i s as
universally applicable as i nci nerati on to treat the many di fferent types of
hazardous waste. A recent survey showed that more than 80% of the
technologies used t o remediate Superfund si tes are incineration-related
technologies (Lee, 6/90). As a matter of fact, incineration has been
considered to be a proven technology i n many of the regulations developed
under the various environmental laws enacted to cover the treatment/disposal
of the di fferent types of sol i d wastes; f or example:
Although there are many potenti al hazardous waste treatment
(1) Hazardous, medical and municipal waste as regulated under the
( 2)
(3) Pesticide waste as regulated under the Federal I nsecticide,
(4)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ;
I ndustri al and municipal sludge waste as regulated under the Clean
Water Act;
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
Superfund waste as regulated by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA); and
( 5 )
Toxic substances as regulated under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).
990
I n addition, incineration f aci l i ti es are subject t o the regulations under the
Clean A i r Act and numerous State and local requirements.
various wastes i s f or a permit Writer to f ul l y understand the i nci nerati on
process and to adequately check or specify permit conditions at an
incineration f aci l i ty that has come under hi s or her scrutiny.
not an easy task f or the following reasons:
One of the key factors necessary to ensure the safe i nci nerati on of
However, thi s
I n many cases, the incineration f ac i l i ty i s si te- speci fi c and
process-specific. I n other words, di fferent incinerators use
di fferent destruction processes and di fferent pol l uti on controls.
I n reviewing a permit application, a permit wri ter often i s
confronted wi th the complex and highly uncertain task of determining
whether data submitted are adequate or accu,.ate. For example, i f an
applicant's data show that hi s incinerator can reach a certai n
temperature by burning certai n wastes at certain combustio? ai r
levels, the question is, Are the claimed data dependable?
I n issuing a permit, a permit wri ter needs to make decisions
regarding how t o approve or how t o specify permit conditions which,
f or obvious reasons, involve costs and the personnel needed f or that
industry t o comply wi th the f i nal permit.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) of EPA's Offi ce o f
Research and Development i n Cincinnati has been supporting EPA's RCRA permit
wri ters regarding how t o appropriately evaluate a permit application.
the products from thi s support ef f ort has been the development of the Enerqv
and Mass Balancg Model f or Inc-. The model was intended to assist a
permit wri ter i n quickly evaluating whether or not an incineration applicant's
claimed data are based on sound engineering principles and are dependable.
However, the model involved many complex submodels and are compiled i n a
computer diskette.
bui l t i nto the software i n order t o edi t the calculation procedures to serve
hi s own speci fi c calculational needs. To overcome thi s model disadvantage,
the authors used the model concept and wrote a program on Lotus 1, 2, 3 t o
compare the calculated resul ts wi th an actual case f or which measurement data
were available.
consistent wi th the actual t r i a l burn data.
One of
Presently, a user cannot see the detailed steps which are
The resul ts w i l l show that the calculated data are reasonably
991
I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A Ciba-Geigy rotary kiln incinerator was chosen as the basis for the
calculation.
(EPA 9/86).
The schematic of the Ciba-Geigy incinerator is shown in Figure 1
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram o f Ciba-Geigy Incinerator
Ciba-Geigy sponsored a trial burn on November 12-17, 1984. The measured data
was later summarized in an EPA report (EPA 9/86) and key aspects of i t appear
below.
Eaui oment Informat ion;
Type o f unit: Private incinerator-Rotary kiln with secondary chamber,
Capacity: 50 tpd (tons per day) with 10% excess capacity (30 x lo6 Btu/h
Vulcan Iron.
for each burner)
Pollution control system:
Waste feed system:
pressure drop), and packed
- Liquid: Hauck Model
- Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 5.05 s
Test Conditions;
burners)
Quench tower, Polygon venturi scrubber (25-in.
tower scrubber.
780 wide range burners (kiln and secondary
(kiln); 3. 09 s (secondary chamber)
Waste feed data: Hazardous llquld and nonhazardous solid wastes usually
burned; for this run, only, 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); 0 lb/h (solid)
992
POHCs (P rincipal Organic Hazardous Constituents) selected and concentration
i n waste feed:
Name Concentration. %
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachl oroethene
Chlorobenzene
To1 uene
4.07
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,200 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 20.8% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
O w r a t ins Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1750' - 1850' F (ki l n); 1950' - 2050' F (Secondary
chamber)
Average 1800'F (ki l n); 2000'F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
- Primary ki l n 1200 scfh natural gas; Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
- Primary a i r to ki l n: 2200 cfm
- Secondary ai r to ki l n:
Flue gas oxygen content: 10.3%
1400 cfm
ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS [For Primary Chamber (Ki l n) Only]
a. Given Conditions
al .
a2.
a3,
a4.
a5.
a6.
a?.
a8.
a9.
a10.
Waste feed rate (gpm):
Assume that 1 gal -
Waste feed rate i n lb/hr:
Fly ash (% o f waste feed):
% of ash due to unburned carbon:
Ash quench temperature: undefined
xi t temperature: unspecified
Reference temperature:
Excess a l r rate (EAR)[assumed]
4 gpm
5 l b
Radiation loss (assumed): ( 5%)
Humidity at 60% RH and 80F
Standard volume: 24.04 scm/
0.0132 kg H$/
kg -dry- ai r
1200 lb/h
0 (assumed)
0 (assumed)
70' F
0.05 (5%)
0.885 ( i . e. , 88.5%
0.0127 l b H,O/
386.9 scf/lb-mole
(where 8 = Btu)
XSair 1
l b- dry- ai r
kg-mole
a l l . Water l atent heat: 2460 kJ /kg 1057 8/lb
Heat capacity (speci fi c heat):
a12. Ash 0.83 kJ /kg-C 0.25 8/lb-F
a13. Flue gas: 1.09 kJ /kg-C 0.26 B/lb-F
a14 Water: 2.35 kJ -kg-C 0.49 B/lb-F
993
a15. l kcal /g-
a16. Natural gas (NG):
(heat o f combustion)
4187 kJ /kg 1799 B/lb
2. 33 kJ /kg 1 B/lb
1 kJ /kg 0. 43 B/lb
1. 06 kJ 1 8
l m 3. 20 f t
13.3 kcal/g 23932 B/lb
POHC waste AHC Mi xture
rati o lb/h kcal /g B/lb B/h
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hexachloroethane, C C1 0. 0487
Tetrachl oroethene, E C?, 0. 0503
Chlorobenzene, C,H,Cf 0. 2952
Toluene, C,H, 0. 6058
Water, H,O
Waste
Fuel
- - - - - - - _
1 .oooo
58. 44
60. 36
354. 24
726. 96
0
0
0
0
1200. 00
- - - - - - - -
0. 46 828 4. 84Et 04
1. 19 2141 1. 29Et 05
6. 60 11876 4. 21Et 06
10.14 18246 1. 33Et 07
0
0
0
0
- - - - - - - - -
1.76Et 07
Therefore, the heat val ue o f the POHC mi xture = 14,667 B/lb
a17. Natural gas (NG): 13.3 kcal /g
a18. Total waste heat i nput:
(heat of combustion)
1. 76Et 07 8/h
994
a19. Chemi cal anal y s i s :
X Mol ec ul ar
Wei aht , M
237.00
x s y + p - . p
C2C1, 24.00
Cs/M 0.1013
Hs/M 0.0000
C1 s/M 0.8987
Os/M 0.0000
1.0000
5.92
0.00
52.52
0.00
I = 58.44
- - - - - -
C2C1, 24.00 0 142 0
Cs/M 0.1446
H c / M 0. 0000
166.00
8.73
0.00
Cl s/M 0.8554 51.63
O s / M 0.0000 0.00
.. - I . - - - - - -
C,H,Cl 72.00 5 35.5 0 112.50
Os/M 0.0000 0.00
C s / M 0.6400 226.72
H s/M 0.0444 15.74
Cl s/M 0.3156 111.78
1 .oooo I - 354.24
84.00 8 0 0 92.00
_ _ - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - -
Cs/M 0.9130 663.72
Hs/M 0.0870 63.24
Cl s/M 0.0000 0.00
O s / M 0.0000 0.00
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - -
1.0000 I - 726.96
Fuel ( n at u r al gas, CH ) t o k i l n : 1200 scf / h
Fuel d en s i t y =A l e c u t a r Wt / t t d volume ( al 0) : 0.04135 l b / s c f
Fuel wei ght flow r a t e = f u el dens i t y x f u el volume f l o w r a t e
12.00 4 0 0 16.00
- 49.62 l b/h
Cs/M 0.7500 37.22
Hs/M 0.2500 12.40
1 : 0000 49.62
CH
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - -
H,O i n f u el : 0
995
a19. Fuel heat input =weight rate x HHV:
a2O. Total Heat I n - Waste I nput (al8) t Fuel I nput (a19): 1.88Et07 Btu/h
Total average heating value - a20/(waste t fuel): 15,045 Btu/lb
*****Test data was 15,200 Btu/lb*****
a21. Chemical analysis summary ( i n lbs/hr):
1.188t06 Btu/h
W: total Fraction of
W & F F: unburned waste combustible combustible
analysis fuel carbon feed feed feed
C: 37.2 905 942.2 0.7540
H: 12.4 79 91.4 0.0731
c1: 216 216 0.1729
0,:
0 0 0.0000
N, :
0
S: 0
0
0
H,O
Ash:
Fly ash: (unburned carbon 0
becomes ash) :
-_ -_ _ _ _ _ _ -----_ _ _ --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------------
49.6 1200 1249.6 I .oooo
b. Theoretfcal Combustion A i r
bl . Calculation o f oxygen needs
cto -->co
H l e f t over af ter Cl's reaction (HLO)
O:-C*32f12=2.67*C- 2.67(942 .2)= 2516 l b/hr
HLO-H-C1/35.5- 85.32 l b/hr
o,-HL~*o. ~*J z/z= 602
H2t0.50 -->H 0
90,--->so O,=S*3 2/3 2 0
- Bound b, 0
b2. Theoretical oxygen (Th. 0 ) 3198 99.94 mole/h
b3. Th. nitrogen, N,=(Th.O,)*f. 76*28/32 10521 375.77 mole/h
b4. Theoretical dry a i r = Theor. 02+N,: 13719 475.71 mole/h
b5. Humidity: 0.0127
b6. Water due t o humidlty = b4*b5 174
- - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _
b7. Actual theor. airxdry theor. ai r t i t s H,O 13893
b8. Theor. reactants-actual theor. ai rtfeed 15143 l b/hr
b9. Theoretical ai r combustion products:
CO2-C*44/12: 3455 l b/hr 78.52 mole/h
SO,=S*64/32 0 0.00
996
b10. H2O-HL0*18/2:
N -(Th . O )*3.76*28/32
He 141 *36.5/35.5
bl l . H 0 i n feed:
Ffy ash:
Ash:
bl2. H,O due to humidity:
N, wi th waste:
b13. Theor. combustion products:
b14. Check (b8-bl3):
bl5. Combustion dry gas=CO,tSO,tHCltN,:
b16. Combustion gas H,O:
(blOtbl ltb12)
768 42.66
10521 375.77
222 6.08
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
174 9.67
0 0.00
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15140 lb/hr 513 mole/h
15143 l b/hr
14198 lb-dry-gas/hr
942 l b H,O/hr
15140 l b/hr
_ _ _ - - _
c. Actual Combustion Ai r :
Excess a i r rate, EAR (a8): 0.885 (assumed)
cl . 0, , additional=EAR*(Th.02): 2830
c2. N,, additional =EAR*(Th . N, ) : 931 1
_ _ _ _ - _
c3. Actual Excess dry ai r: 12141
c4. Excess H,O (b5xc3):
c5. Actual dry ai r-
theor. airtAddltiona1 0, and N,
c6. H 0 associated with actual ai r -
fb5xc5 or b12tc4):
c7. Actual air-dry airtH,O i n ai r: 26188 lb-air/h-908 lb-mole/h
(c5tc6)
c8. A i r flow rate = std. volume (al0) x lb-mole/h-351305 scf/h
=(a10 x c7): -5855 scf/min
154 lb/h
25860 l b- dry ai r/h
328 l b H,O
*****Test data was 3600 cfm*****
Total water vapor i n f l ue gas
With waste (a21):
Due t o combustion (b10): 768
Humidity (c4tb12): 3 28
Quenching water: 0
0 lb/h
_ _ _ _ _ -
c9. Total water vapor i n f l ue gas = 1096 lb/hr
c10. Actual reactants=actual dry ai rtfeed 27438 1 b reactant/hr
t H, O i n combustion ai r (a21tc7)-
Actual Combustion Products (i . e. ,
Flue Gas):
-27438 l b product/hr
991
cl l . 0 l eftover i n products =
Aaditional 0, - c l :
c12. 0, content i n f l he gas =
C l l f c10:
**** Test data was 10.3% ****
2830 lb/hr
0.1031 = 10.31%
d.
dl . Total heat in-Waste Heat I nput (ala) t Fuel Heat I nput (a19)-a20:
d2. Overall heat loss (assumed as 5%, see a7): 0.0940Et07
d3. Unreleased heat (due t o unburned carbon): 0.0000Et00
Calculation of E xi t TemDerature from K i l n
1.88Et07 B/h
Unburned carbon:
T r i a l #1
Assumed exi t temp.:
Reference temp.:
1500'F
70'F
d4. Temp. difference (AT): 1430'F
d5. Heat i n dry f l ue gas=mCpaT
-[clO-c9)xa13xd4]
d6. Heat i n water - mcpaT
-(c9xa14xd4) :
d7. Total l atent heat = (c9xall):
d8. Heat i n ash = mCp~T=(a2xal2xd4):
d9. Total heat accounted for-
(d2+d3tdStd6+d7td8) :
0.9794Et07B/h
0.0768Et07
0.1158Et07
0.0000Et00
1.2660Et07
d10. Net heat balance -
Tri al #z
(aZO-d9)-(dl-d9) :
Assumed exi t temp.: 2500F
Reference temp. : 70'F
dl l . Temp. di fference (AT') 2430'F
d12. Heat i n dry f l ue gas=mCpAT' 1.6643Et07
d13. Heat i n Water-mCpaT' 0.1305Et07
d14. Total l atent heat=(c9xall): 0.1158Et07
d15. Heat i n ash-dpAT'=(a2xal2xdll): 0.0000Et07
d16. Total heat accounted for=(d2td12td13td14tdd15):
-[ (clO-c9)xal3xdll]:
-c9xal4xdll) :
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
2.0046Et07b/h
d17. Net heat balance=(a2O-d16): -0.1246Et07b/h
998
d18. Using the i nterpol ati on method to estimate ki l n temperature, we have:
xl 1500'F 0.6140Et07 B/Hr yl
x 0.00Et00 Y Y-0
x2 2500 -0.1246Et07 Y2
-------
(x-xl)/( 0- yl ) =(x2-x1)/ (y2 -Y 1 )
x=xl - yl (X2-Xl)/(Y2-Y1)
d19. X= 2331'F
*****Test data was 1800'F (average ki l n exi t temperature)*****
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED RESULTS AND MEASURED RESULTS
the t r i al burn results, a summary o f key data are provided i n the following
Table:
Based on the calculations contained herein and information provided by
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED AND TRIAL BURN RESULTS
--
0, content i n Flue Gas 10.31% 10.3%
Heating Value 15,045 Btu/lb 15,200 Btu/lb
E xi t K i l n Temperature 233l'f 1800.F (average)
A i r Flow Rate 5855 scfia 3600 cfm
CONCLUSIONS
The above Table shows that the differences between the calculated and
the measured resul ts are small wi th the exception o f the ki l n exi t temperature
and the ai r flow rate. The calculated value o f the a i r fl ow rate i s about 63%
greater than the t r i a l burn (measured) value. The difference i s due to the
fact that the measured a i r rate values neglected t o account f or the amount of
ai r i n- leakage which t o occur i n any actual (negative pressure) ki l n
combustlon operation. The measured data rel ati ve t o oxygen content shows that
the cal cul atd a i r i n the systfdn (the 5855 scfm amount) reasonable because
the oxygen coatrnt measured downstream of the ki l n matches the calculated
oxygen concentrtl on (the 10.3%). The calculation, therefore, confirms that
the a i r nerdrd I s much mom Urn thr 3600 cfm measured value (which, o f
course, prows that a i r in-le&!ge phenolDena Pper occur). The fact that the
measured ki l n exi t temperature i s also much lower (about 53OoF lower) than
the calculated ki l n exi t temperature indicates that the assumed amount of
heat loss ( the 5% fi gure) i s probably too low.
It i s hoped that these example calculations w i l l assi st those who ms t
design incinerators or those who must know how to evaluate thei r performance
(such as governmental permit writers, consultants and publ i c i nterest groups).
999
REFERENCES
( EPA, 9/ 86) , : Per mi t Wr i t er s Gui de Test Burn Oat a: Hazar dous Waste
I n c i n er at i o n , EPA/625/6-86/012, Sept ember 1986.
(Lee, 6/ 90) , # Revi ew o f Mobi l e Thermal Technol ogi es f o r So l i d Waste
Des t r uc t i on, C. C. Lee, G.L.Huf f man and D.A. Ober acker . Pr esent ed a t t he 83r d
Nat i onal Meet i ng o f t h e Air and Waste Management Associ at i on, Pi t t s bur gh,
Pennsyl vani a, June 24-29, 1990.
1000