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)

Hazardous, medical and municipal waste as regulated under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ;

(2)

I n d u s t r i a l and municipal sludge waste as regulated under the Clean

Water Act;

(3)

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);

(4)

Superfund waste as regulated by the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA); and

(5)

Toxic substances as regulated under t h e Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA).

990

I n addition, 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.

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 . However, 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, 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 - s p e c i f i c and
process-specific. I n other words, 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 .
I n reviewing a permit application, 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,.ate. For example, 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, 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 needs t o make decisions
regarding how t o approve o r how t o specify permit conditions which,
f o r obvious reasons, 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.
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. 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-.
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.
However, the model involved many complex submodels and are compiled i n a
computer d i s k e t t e . Presently, 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. To overcome t h i s model disadvantage,
the authors used the model concept and wrote a program on Lotus 1,2,3 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. 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.

991

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A Ciba-Geigy rotary kiln incinerator was chosen as the basis for the
calculation. The schematic of the Ciba-Geigy incinerator is shown in Figure 1
(EPA 9/86).

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,
Vulcan Iron.
Capacity: 50 tpd (tons per day) with 10% excess capacity (30 x lo6 Btu/h
for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polygon venturi scrubber (25-in.
pressure drop), and packed tower scrubber.
Waste feed system:
- Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners (kiln and secondary
burners)
- Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 5.05 s (kiln); 3.09 s (secondary chamber)
Test Conditions;
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 r i n c i p a l 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 i n s Conditions:

Temperature: Range 1750' - 1850'F ( k i l n ) ; 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
- Primary k i l n 1200 scfh natural gas; Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
- Primary a i r t o k i l n : 2200 cfm
- Secondary a i r t o k i l n : 1400 cfm
Flue gas oxygen content: 10.3%

ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS [For Primary Chamber ( K i l n ) Only]

a.

Given Conditions

a2.
a3,
a4.
a5.
a6.
a?.
a8.

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]

a9.

Humidity a t 60% RH and 80F

al.

a10. Standard volume:

a l l . Water l a t e n t heat:

Heat
a12.
a13.
a14

capacity ( s p e c i f i c heat):
Ash
Flue gas:
Water:

4 gpm
5 lb

undefined
unspecified

( 5%)

1200 l b / h
0 (assumed)
0 (assumed)

70'F
0.05 (5%)
0.885 ( i . e . ,

88.5%

XSair 1
0.0132 kg H$/
0.0127 l b H,O/
kg -dry- a i r
lb-dry-air
24.04 scm/
386.9 scf/lb-mole
kg-mole
2460 kJ/kg
1057 8/lb
(where 8 = Btu)
0.83 kJ/kg-C
0.25 8/lb-F
1.09 kJ/kg-C
0.26 B/lb-F
2.35 kJ-kg-C
0.49 B/lb-F
993

4187 kJ/kg
2.33 kJ/kg

a15. lkcal/g-

1 kJ/kg

1.06 kJ
l m
13.3 kcal/g

a16. Natural gas (NG):

( h e a t o f combustion)

POHC
ratio

1799
1
0.43
1
3.20
23932

B/lb
B/lb
B/lb
8

ft
B/lb

waste
lb/h

AHC
kcal/g

58.44
60.36
354.24
726.96

828
0.46
1.19
2141
6 . 6 0 11876
10.14 18246
0
0
0

4.84Et04
1.29Et05
4.21Et06
1.33Et07

---------

B/lb

Mixture
B/h

...........................................
Hexachloroethane, C C1
Tetrachloroethene, C?,
Chlorobenzene, C,H,Cf
Toluene, C,H,
Water, H,O
Waste
Fuel

0.0487
0.0503
0.2952
0.6058

0
0

0
0

- - - - - - - _- - - - - - - 1 .oooo

1200.00

Therefore, t h e heat v a l u e o f the POHC mixture = 14,667 B/lb

a17. Natural g a s (NG):
( h e a t o f combustion)
a18. Total waste heat i n p u t :

13.3 kcal/g
1.76Et07 8/h

994

1.76Et07

a19. Chemical analysis:

X
x

24.00

C2C1,

Cs/M
Hs/M
C1 s/M
Os/M

Molecular
Weiaht, M
237.00

5.92
0.00
52.52
0.00

0.1013
0.0000
0.8987
0.0000

-----I

1.0000
24.00
Cs/M
Hc/M
..
Cls/M
Os/M

C2C1,

- I .

C,H,Cl

72.00
Cs/M
Hs/M
Cls/M

Os/M

0
0.1446

142

166.00

0
8.73
0.00
51.63

0.0000
------

0.8554
0.0000

5
0.6400
0.0444
0.3156
0.0000

0.00

35.5

__-_--_-1.oooo

84.00
Cs/M
Hs/M
Cls/M
Os/M

= 58.44

8
0.9130
0.0870
0.0000

112.50
226.72
15.74
111.78
0.00

____--

354.24

92.00
663.72
63.24
0.00

_0.0000
_______I

1.0000

_0.00
__--726.96

Fuel ( n a t u r a l gas, 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 ) : 0.04135 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
49.62 lb/h

CH

12.00
4
Cs/M
0.7500
Hs/M
0.2500

______-_

___---

1:0000
H,O i n f u e l :

16.00
37.22
12.40
49.62

995

Fuel heat i n p u t = weight r a t e x HHV:

1.188t06 Btu/h
Total Heat I n Waste Input ( a l 8 ) t Fuel Input (a19): 1.88Et07 Btu/h
a20/(waste t f u e l ) : 15,045 Btu/lb
Total average heating value

a19.
a2O.

*****Test
a21.

data was 15,200 Btu/lb*****

Chemical analysis summary ( i n l b s / h r ) :

W & F
analysis

F:
fuel

W:
unburned waste
carbon
feed

37.2
12.4

C:

H:

total
combustible
feed

905
79

c1:

216

0,:
N, :
S:

0
0

H,O

0
0
0

Fraction o f
combustible
feed

942.2
91.4
216
0

0.7540
0.0731
0.1729

0.0000

Ash:
Fly ash: (unburned carbon
becomes ash) :

-_-______-----___--_____________________-----------1200

49.6

1249.6

I .oooo

b. Theoretfcal Combustion A i r
bl.

Calculation o f oxygen needs

c t o -->co
O:-C*32f12=2.67*C2.67(942 .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-C1/35.5- 85.32 l b / h r
H2t0.50 -->H 0
o,-HL~*o. ~ * J z / z =
90,--->so
O,=S*3 2/3 2
- Bound

b,

2516 l b / h r

602
0
0

b2.
b3.

Theoretical oxygen (Th. 0 )

Th. nitrogen, N,=(Th.O,)*f.
76*28/32

3198

b4.

Theoretical d r y a i r = Theor. 02+N,:

b5.

Humidity:

b6.

Water due t o humidlty = b4*b5

b7.

Actual theor. a i r x d r y theor. a i r t i t s H,O

13893

b8.

Theor. reactants-actual theor. a i r t f e e d

15143 l b / h r

b9.

Theoretical a i r combustion products:

CO2-C*44/12:
SO,=S*64/32

3455 l b / h r
0

- -10521
-----13719

99.94 mole/h
375.77 mole/h

_-____

475.71 mole/h

0.0127

996

174

78.52 mole/h
0.00

768
10521

b10. H2O-HL0*18/2:
N -(Th .O )*3.76*28/32
He 1 4 1*36.5/35.5
b l l . H 0 i n feed:
Ffy ash:
Ash:

222

42.66
375.77
6.08

0
0
0

0.00
0.00
0.00

174
0

bl2. H,O due t o humidity:

N, w i t h waste:

__-____
15140 l b / h r
15143 l b / h r

b13. Theor. combustion products:

b14. Check (b8-bl3):

9.67
0.00

_____
513 mole/h

14198 lb-dry-gas/hr
942 l b H,O/hr

bl5. Combustion dry gas=CO,tSO,tHCltN,:

b16. Combustion gas H,O:
( b l O t b ll t b 1 2 )

___--_

15140 l b / h r
Actual Combustion A i r :

c.

Excess a i r rate, EAR (a8):

c l . 0,
c2. N,

additional=EAR*(Th.02):
a d d i t i o n a l =EAR*(Th N), :

0.885 (assumed)

2830

_931_ _1 _ - _

c3. Actual Excess d r y a i r :

12141
154 l b / h
c4. Excess H,O (b5xc3):
c5. Actual d r y a i r theor. a i r t A d d l t i o n a 1 0, and N,
c6.

H 0 associated with actual a i r

fb5xc5 or b12tc4):

25860 l b - d r y a i r / h
328 l b H,O

c7. Actual a i r - d r y airtH,O i n a i r : 26188 lb-air/h-908 lb-mole/h

(c5tc6)
c8. A i r f l o w r a t e = std. 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_ _ _ -

c9. Total water vapor i n f l u e gas = 1096 l b / h r

c10. Actual reactants=actual d r y a i r t f e e d
t HO
,
i n combustion a i r (a21tc7).e.,
Actual Combustion Products (i
Flue Gas):

991

27438 1b reactant/hr
-27438 l b product/hr

c l l . 0 l e f t o v e r i n products =

2830 l b / h r

A a d i t i o n a l 0, - c l :
c12. 0, content i n f l h e gas =
C l l f c10:
**** Test data was 10.3% ****
d.

0.1031 = 10.31%

Calculation o f E x i t TemDerature from K i l n

dl.

Total heat in-Waste Heat Input ( a l a )

d2.

Fuel Heat Input (a19)-a20:

1.88Et07 B/h
0.0940Et07
Overall heat l o s s (assumed as 5%, see a7):

d3.

Unburned carbon:
Unreleased heat (due t o unburned carbon):

T r i a l #1
Assumed e x i t temp.:
Reference temp.:

0.0000Et00

1500'F
70'F

d4. Temp. d i f f e r e n c e (AT):

d5. Heat i n d r y f l u e gas=mCpaT
-[clO-c9)xa13xd4]
mcpaT
d6. Heat i n water
-(c9xa14xd4) :
d7. Total l a t e n t heat = ( c 9 x a l l ) :
d8. Heat i n ash = mCp~T=(a2xal2xd4):
d9. Total heat accounted f o r (d2+d3tdStd6+d7td8) :

1430'F
0.9794Et07B/h

0.0768Et07
0.1158Et07
0.0000Et00
1.2660Et07

d10. Net heat balance

(aZO-d9)-(dl-d9) :
Trial

#z

Assumed e x i t temp.:
Reference temp. :

2500F
70'F

d l l . Temp. d i f f e r e n c e (AT')
d12. Heat i n d r y f l u e gas=mCpAT'
-[ (clO-c9)xal3xdll]:
d13. Heat i n Water-mCpaT'
-c9xal4xdll) :
d14. Total l a t e n t heat=(c9xall):
d15. Heat i n ash-dpAT'=(a2xal2xdll):

2430'F

d16. Total heat accounted for=(d2td12td13td14tdd15):

d17. N e t heat balance=(a2O-d16):

998

1.6643Et07
0.1305Et07
0.1158Et07

_ _0.0000Et07
_-______-_____
2.0046Et07b/h
-0.1246Et07b/h

d18. Using the i n t e r p o l a t i o n method t o estimate k i l n temperature, we have:

xl
x2

1500'F
x
2500

-------

0.6140Et07 B/Hr
0.00Et00
-0.1246Et07

yl
Y
Y2

Y-0

( x - x l ) / ( 0 - y l ) = (x2-x1)/ (y2 -Y 1)
x=xl - y l (X2-Xl)/(Y2-Y1)
d19.

X=

*****Test

2331'F

data was 1800'F (average k i l n e x i t temperature)*****

SUMMARY OF 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, content i n Flue Gas

Heating Value
E x i t K i l n Temperature
A i r Flow Rate

10.31%
15,045 Btu/lb
233l'f
5855 scfia

10.3%
15,200 Btu/lb
1800.F (average)
3600 cfm

CONCLUSIONS
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. 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. 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 - leakage which
t o occur i n any actual (negative pressure) k i l n
combustlon operation. 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 10.3%). The calculation, therefore, confirms t h a t
t h e a i r nerdrd I s much mom Urn thr 3600 cfm measured value (which, o f
course, p r o w s that a i r in-le&!ge
phenolDena Pper occur). 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.

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 , consultants and p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups).

999

REFERENCES
(EPA, 9/86), :Permit W r i t e r s Guide Test Burn Oata:
I n c i n e r a t i o n , EPA/625/6-86/012, September 1986.

Hazardous Waste

(Lee, 6 / 9 0 ) , # Review o f Mobile Thermal Technologies f o r S o l i d Waste

Destruction, C.C. Lee, G.L.Huffman and D.A. Oberacker. Presented a t the 83rd
National Meeting o f t h e Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, June 24-29, 1990.

1000