P. 1



# RCRA Box 1883 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 94 ) ll-B-25 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/3/200810:42:16

AM Sheet 94 of 171P. 2 

# RADIA N CORPORATIO N MEMORANDU

M
DATE : Novembe r18 , 199 1 TO : Le s Evans , EPA/CPB FROM : Bar tFerrero , Radia n 

## A-90-1 9 I I B 25 6 

# Jtll J

EPAAIRDorK r SUBJECT : HO

N Contro l Technolog

y fo r HO N Proces s Vent s
Th e purpos e of thi s memorandu m i s t o documen t th e contro l technolog

y use d fo r th e contro l o f proces s vent emissions . Th e emission s fro

m proces s vent stream s wer e controlle

d b y either a flare , incinerator , or incinerator an d scrubber , base

d o ncos t effectivenes s o f th e contro l an

d haloge

ncontent o f th

e stream . Fo r th e purpose s o f contro l an d regulator

y tes t metho

d requirements , i t wa s assume d tha t HA

P reduction/contro l efficienc

y corresponde

d t o documente

d VO C reduction/contro l efficiency . Therma l incinerator performanc e documentatio n provide d b y EP A i s presente

d i nAttachmen t A . Proces s vent stream s wer e considere

d t o b e eithe r haiogenate

d or nonhalogenate

d base d o nth e strea m components . A haiogenated strea

m wa s define

d a s a vent strea

m fro m a proces s i

n whichan

y constituent , suc

ha s feed , intermediate , o r product , contain s on

e or mor e haloge

natoms . Likewise , a nonhalogenate d strea m wa s define

d a s a strea

m fro m a proces s tha t contain s n o halogenatom

s i nan y o f it s feeds , intermediates , or products . For nonhalogenate

d streams , a choic e wa s made betwee non e of fou r incinerator s an

d a flare , base

d o ncos t effectiveness . Th e mos t cost-effectiv e incinerator wa s chose nfro m amon g th e option s o f 0 percent , 3 5 percent , 5 0 percent , an d 7 0 percent hea t recovery . Th

e cos t effectivenes s o f thi s incinerator syste m wa s the ncompare

d t o tha t o f a flare syste m t o identify

th e optima l contro l syste

m fo r th e nonhalogenate

d stream . Desig

nan d costin

g o f device s followe

d th e procedure s describe d i nth e Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin

g an d Standar

d Contro l Cos t Manual .

confchmemo.r.tiw0 1

Progres s Center/320 0 E
. Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O
. Bo x 13000/Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C
. 27709/(919)541-910 0P. 3

I nth e cas e o f a haiogenated stream , th e onl y optio n considere

d wa s a nincinerator wit h0 percen t hea t recover y an d a n aci d ga s scrubbe r (packe d bed absorber ) t o trea t the incinerator wast e gas . The wast e ga s mus t be treate d becaus e incineratio n o f haiogenated molecule s result s i nhydrogenhalide s (HCl , HBr , etc. ) i nth e wast e gas . Bothth e incinerator an

d scrubbe r wer e designed an

d coste d a s describe

d i nth e Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin g an d Standard s Contro l Cos t Manual . N o hea t recover

y wa s allowe

d inthi s cas e due t o the possibility o f corrosio

nin the hea t exchanger . A flar e wa s no t considere d due t o desig

n problem s incapturin

g th e exhaus t strea

m fro m the flare . The calculatio

no f tota l annua l cos t wa s base d o nth e followin

g assumptions :
• The proces s operate s yea r roun d continuousl y

or 876 0 hour s pe r year ;
• 10 0 ft . o f duc t fro m incinerator t o scrubber ; an d
• Electricity

cost s ma

y no t be les s tha

n$l/year . Thi s assumptio

nwa s made sinc e th e incrementa l chang e in controllin

g a ven t strea

m t o 9 8 percen t fro

m a contro l a t les s tha

n9 8 percen t might resul t ina nelectricity cos t les s tha

non e an d appear t o b e equa l t o zero . The assumptio

nwa s made t o indicat e som e leve l o f cos t increas e associate

d wit hthe incrementa l change .

cc : Projec t Fil e 6. 1 (M . Haley )

contechmemo.htmO lP. 4

REFERENCE S

1 . U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin

g an d Standard s Contro l Cos t Manua l (Fourt h Edition) . EP

A 450/3-90-006 . Januar y 1990 . 2 . Memorandum . Pandullo , Richar d F. , Radia

nCorporation , t o Wile y Barbour , Radia

nCorporation , Le s Evans , EPA/CPB , e t al . "Summar

y o f Apri l Meetin

g t o Discus s Therma l Incinerato r Cos t Issues. " Apri l 27 , 1990 .

contechmemo.htm0 1P. 5

ATTACHMEN

T A DOCUMENTATIO

N O F THERMA

L INCINERATO RPERFORMANC E

contechmemo.htmO 1P. 6



# ISSS / V « c «»0 ' ^ v TJNITE

O STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an d Standards Research Triangl e Park

. North Carolin a 2771 1 

## cc ri • 

## rj ;

MgMORAWDU

M SUBJECT : Therma l Incinerato r Performanc e fo r NSP S H A li e cofi"^ r : froosrll fler.*e-H" Kin * "To* * Oli^ A
6«r* f Ftrczro

FROM : Lesli e Evan s (MD-13 ) TO : Al l CP B Engineer s

JohnCrenshaw , Radia n Roy Neulicht , MR I Bo bZirbonia , RT I Susa nWyat t aske d m e t o remind al l branc hengineer s tha t ou r referenc e fo r therma l incinerato r remova l efficienc y i s stil l th e memo : Memo an

d attachment s fro

m Farmer , J.R. , EPA , t o distribution . Augus t 22 , 1980 . 2 9 p . Therma l Incinerato r an d Flares . Attache d yo u wil l fin d a nexampl e o f languag e use d i nth e BI D t o justif y

th e 9 8 percen t reductio n(Fro m th e Reacto r Processe s Draf t EIS ) an d a cop

y o f th e memo itsel f (for th e docket) .P. 7



### y***~

corrosio n «Wt o contac t wit h ad d gase s forme d durin g th t combustio n o f thes e strtetm V *.2.2. 2 Therma l Incinerato r Remova l Efficiency
. Th t VO C dtstructlo n efficienc y o f a therma l oxidize r ca n o t affecte d b y variation s 1 n chambe r teaperature , residenc e time
. Inle t VO C concentration , compoun d type , and flo wregim e (mixing)
. Tes t result s sho wtha t therma l oxidizer s ca n achltv t 98 percan t dtstructlo n tffldenc y fo r mos t VO C compound

s a t combustio n charte r temperature s rangin g fro m 70 0 t o 1,300* C (1,30 0 t o 2.370'F ) an d residenc e tint s o f O. S t o 1. 5 seconds. 1 *2 Thes e dat a indicat e tha t signifi can t variation s 1 n destructio n tffldtnc y occurre d fo r C t t o C 8 alkane s an d olefins , aromatic s (benzene,.toluene , and xylene) , oxygenated compound s (methy l ethy l keton e an d Isopropanol) , chlorinate d organic s (viny l chloride) , an d nitrogen-containin g specie s (acrylonitril e an d ethylamlnes ) a t chambe

r temperature s belo

w760*C (1,400*F)
. Thi s Information , ust d 1 n conjunctio n wit h kinetic s calculations
. Indicate s th t combustio n chatte r parameter

s fo r achievin g a t leas t a 98 percen t VO C destructio n tffldtnc y ar t a combustio n tamperature o f 870* C (1,600*F ) an d a residenc e tin e o f 0.7 5 seconds (base d upo n residenc e I n th t chambe r volum e a t combustio n temperature)
. A therma l oxidize r designed t o produc t thes e condition s 1 n th t combustio n chambe r shoul d b

e capabl e o f hig h dtstructlo n efficienc y fo r almost an

y nonhalogenated VOC
. A t temperature s ove r 760*C (1,400*F) , th t oxidatio n reactio n rate s ar t muc h fastt r tha n th t rat e o f ga s diffusio n mixing
. Th t dtstructlo n effi cienc y o f th e VO

C the n become

s dtptndtn t upo

n th e flui d Mechanic

s withi n th e oxidatio n chamber
. Th t fle wrtglm t mus t assur e rapid , thoroug h mixin g o f th t VO C stream , combustio n air , an d ho t combustio n products fro m th e burner
. Thi s tnable s th t VO

C t o attai n th t combustio n tamperature 1 n th e presenc e o f enoug h oxygen fo r a sufficien t tim e perio d fo r th t oxidatio n reactio n t o reac h completion
. Base d upo n studie s o f therma l oxldlzt r efficiency , 1 t ha s bee n concludt d tha t 98-percen t VO C dtstructlo n o r a 2 0 ppm vcompoun

d axl t concentratio n 1 s achievabl e b y al l ne wIncinerator s considerin g curren t ttchnology." * Becaus e o f muc

h slowe r combustio n reactio n ratt s a t lowe r Inle t VO C concentrations , th t maximu m achievabl e VO

C destructio n effldtnc y decreases as Inle t concentratio n dtcrtasts
. Therefore , a VO C weigh t percentag e reductio n eased o n th e mas s rat e o f VO

C txltln g th e contro l devic e versu s th t mas s rat a o f VO

C enterin g th t dtvlct , woul d b t approprlat t fo r vtn t stream s wit h VO C concentration s abov e approximatel y 2,00 0 ppm v (correspondin g t o 1,00 0 ppm vVO C 1 n th t incinerato r Inle t strea m slnc t ai r dilutio n 1 s typicall y 1:1)
. Fo r vtn t stream s wit h VO C concentratio n btlow approximatel y 2,00 0 ppmv , 1 t ha s btt n determine d tha t a n Incinerato r outle t concentratio n o f 2 0 ppm v(b y compound) , o r lower , 1 s achltvabl t b y al l ne w therma l oxidizers. k i

Th t 9 8 percan t efficienc y estimat e I s predicate d upo n therma l Incinerator s operate d a t 870* C (1,600*F ) wit h 0.7 5 second s residenc e time
. Study result s sho wtha t thes e condition s yiel d conservativ e estimate s o f cost s an d energ y us e fo r thes e typ e units
.

4-2 2e» « UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY

_Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g andStandard s

- Rtstarc hTriangl t Park , Nort hCarolin a 2771 1
OATI : AU & suajacT: . Therma l Incinerator s andFlare s

FftOM : jac k Chem i

n i Se e Below R

. Farmer , Chie f ; ical s an d PetroleunTJr^hc h (MO-13) 

# A__J.9.-3 2
II-B-3 1

Th e attache dmaterial s provid e guidanc e onth t performanc e o f therma l incinerators , an d shoul db e considere dwhe nthes e contro l device s ar e evaluate dfo r a NSP S o r NESHAP . Cav e Mascone' s two memorand a o ntherma l Incinerato r performanc e presen t a goo dsummar y o f al l th e informatio nw e currentl y hav t o n therma l incinerators . Mos t question s tha t ma y ntt danswerin g fo r a NSP S o r NESHA P shoul db e addresse d1 nthes t tw o memoranda . Thes e two memorand a shoul db e adde dt o th e docke t o f any standar dwher e therma l incinerator s ar e include da s a contro l devic e i na regulator y alternative . A repor t i s bein g prepare dby EEA whic hi s anassessmtn t o f a Germa n stud y o nflareS T Th e EEA

repor t wil l als o b e distribute da s soona s i t become s available . Attachment s Addressees : C? B Sectio nChief s andLea dEngineer s SD B Sectio nChief s an

dLea dEngineer s BobAja x Ji m Bai n DonGoodwi n Fre dPorte r Gtorg t Wals h New Sourc e Standard s Contractor s To m Bib b

£ • * P«M > 1)30 4 <*•«.».?« »P. 9

«f ~ UNITE O STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

" " # suajtcT : Therma l Incinerato r Performanc e fo r NSP S

MOM : Davi dC . MasconeJC? ) Chemica l Manufacturin g Section , CP B TO : Jac k R . Farmer , Chie f Chemical s and Petroleu m Branc h Ove r th e pas t fe

w months , CM S ha s investigate dincinerato r efficiency , cos t andfue l use . Th e purpos e o f thi s stud y ha s bee nt o pic k a n efficienc y

tha t represent s th e highes t contro l leve l acMevabl t b y al l new incinerators , considerin g available technology , cos t an denergy use . Conclusion s Base do nou r study , w e conclud e tha t 9 8 percen t VO C reduction,?o r 2 0 ppm v b y compoundexi t concentration , whicheve r 1 s les s stringent , 1 s th e highes t contro l leve l achievabl e b y al l new Incinerators , considerin g availabl e technology , cos t an denerg y use . Thi s level . 1 s expresse din bot hpercen t reductio nan dppm v t o accoun t fo r th e levelin g of f o f exi t concentration s a s inle t concentration s drop . Thi s leve l 1 s base do n incinerato r operatio na t a maximu m o f 1600* F an

d.7 5 secon

dresidenc e time . Th e cost s andenerg y us e o f achievin g thi s leve l ar t base do n recuperativ e hea t recover y capabl e o f lowerin g th e flu e ga s temperatur e t o 510"F . Fro m ou r study , w t als o conclud e tha t mixin g 1 s a critica l facto r i nefficiency , a facto r o f equa l o r greate r importanc e tha nothe r factor s suc ha s temperature . Afte r surveyin g availabl e mean s o f improvin g mixing , w e conclud e tha t Incinerato r adjustmen t afte r start-u p1 s th e mos t feasibl e andefficient . Th t contro l level s 1nth t previou s paragraph ar e base do nsuc ha nadjustment . From ou r study , w t als o conclud e that , wit hprope r us e o f recuperativ e hea t recover y

(RHR) , n o significan t energy penaltie s occu r wit hchange s 1ncombustio ntemperature . Th e reaso n1 s that , base do nth e technica l limit s o f hea t recover y andpresen t fue l costs , th t optimu m Incinerato r exi t ga s temperatur e i s slightl y abov e 500*F , regardles s o f combustio n temperature . Sinc e incinerato r fue l us t dtptnd s o nexi t ga s an d no t combustio ntemperature , RHRca nessentiall y eliminate th e fue l penalt y o f increasin g combustio ntemperature .

• a . •

_U.0- 4 (»•» . ].?< )P.1 0



### -:.^t " •

01scuss1ow

— ' •**& 

### T M s saanp k discusse s ou r dat a andfinding s onIncinerato r efficiency , cos t an dfueaSe * andpresent s th e logi c behindthe choic e o f th e abov e contro l 1evtfl?r£Th1 s sectio nha s thre e parts , on e onefficiency , on e o n cos t an dfue l use , andon e o

ncontro l levels . Table s cite d1nthi s sectio nar e a t th e endo f th e memo . I nusin g th t conclusion s an ddat a fro

m thi s discussion , th e reade r shoul db e awar e o f severa l qualifications . First , thi s discussio npick s a contro l leve l applicabl e t o al l new incinerators , evt nth t wors t casts . Inreality , thtr t wil l b e a distributio no f cast s fro m wors t t o best . Thus , 1 nmany

situations , incinerator s wil l achiev e greate r tha n 9 8 ptrctnt , o r les s tha n2 0 ppmv , contro l a t les s tha n1600* F an d .7 5 second s residenc e time . Second , thi s discussio nlist s specifi c incinerato r condition s (temperature , residenc e time , hea t recovery ) fo r analysi s purpose s only , i.e . t o calculat e cost , fue l an demissio nimpacts . Thi s mem o doe s no t recommendtha t thes e condition s be specifie di nregulations . A s jus t noted , thi s se t o f condition s represent s onl y onfo f man y

wit hwhic h t o achiev e 9 8 ptrctn t reductio no r 2 0 ppmv . Thus , th e contro l Itvti s i n. th t abov t conclusions , no t th t incinerato r conditions , shoul db t th t basi s fo r regulations . Third , thi s discussio nfocust s ontherma l incineratio nsinc e thi s contro l metho dha s th t wides t applicabilit y t o contro l o f ductt dVO C emissions . Thi s mem o dot s no t conclud e tha t Incineratio n1 s applicabl e t o al l situation s o r that , wht napplicable , incineratio n1 s th t onl y feasibl e contro l method . Fourth , thi s discussio ncover s incinerator s operatin g wit hrelativel y constan t inlet s an dflow s an dwit hwast e ga s flow s greate r thanS0 0 scfm . Thi s i ngenera l include s incinerator s onsolven t dryin g operations , polyme r productio nplants , an dai r oxidatio nunits . Fo r Incinerator s wit hvaryin g inle t condition s o r smal l flows , suc ha s thos e onorgani c liqui dstorag e tanks , th t fut l andcapita l cos t calculation s i nthi s memo ma y no t hold . Sinc e thes e calculation s ar e a critica l basi s fo r th e abov e conclusion s o nefficiency , thts t tffldtnc y conclusion s ar t no t appllcabl t t o suc hInclntrators . Finally , thi s discussio ncover s ne w Incinerator s applie dfo r contro l o f VO C fo r oxidan t reductio npurposts . Existin g inclntrator s ma y no t b t physicall y

capabl e o f achievin g th t temperature , residenc e tim e an dhea t recovery condition s liste d1 nthi s memo . Thus , thes e incinerator s ma y not-b e abl e t o reac h9 8 percen t o r 2 0 ppmv . O nth e othe r hand , incinerator s fo r contro l o f toxi c o r hazardou s VO C ntt dno t b e limite dt o 9 8 ptrcen t o r 2 0 ppmv . A s discusse dbelow , highe r efficienc y incinerator s ar e possibl e fo r al l compound s wit hsom e developmen t an

ddesig ncost .N^ 

### -3 - Efficienc y

- Th t availabl e dit i o nIncinerato r efficienc y 1 s dtscrlbt d i nTabl e l-andsummarize d1 nTablt s 2-4 . Th e dat a Includ e result s fros t labscaleiftlnerato r test s conducte dby Unio nCarbid e andfro

m fiel d test s run-MtfPA , Lo t Angele s Count y andchemica l companies . These^dit a wer e analyze dt o detennin e th e impac t o f incinerato r variable s onefficiency . Si xvariable s wer e studied , namel y temperature , residenc e time , mixing , inle t concentration , flo w regime , an

dtyp e o f compound , inthre e analyses . Thes e analyse s ar e describe dbelow . Mixin g andflow

regime ar e define di nAppendi xA . Th e firs t analysi s wa s designe dt o remov e th e influenc e o f mixing . Thi s wa s desire dsinc e mixin g canno t b e measure dandthu s it s impac t o n efficienc y

canno t b e readil y

separate dwhe nstudyin g th e effec t o f othe r variables . Th e Unio nCarbid e labwor kwa s chose nfo r thi s analysi s sinc e it s smal l siz e andcarefu l desig nbes t assure dconsisten t an d prope r mixing . Th e result s o f th e Unio nCaribd e wor kar e show ni nTabl e 2 . Thes e result s show

moderat e increase s 1 nefficienc y wit htemperature , residenc e time andtyp e o f compound . Thes e result s als o show th e impac t o f flow regime onefficiency . Thi s subjec t i s discusse dfurthe r 1 nAppendi xA onmixin g andflow

regime . Finally , th e result s show tha t a give n} temperatur e doe s no t correspon dt o a give nefficiency . Rather , Increasin g temperatur e increase s efficienc y b y narrowin g th e rang e ove r whic h efficiencie s fal l andIncreasin g th e averag e o f th e range . Th e nex t analysi s focuse donmixing . T o accomplis hthis* , case s wer e picke dwher e al l variable s excep t mixin g wer e hel dconstan t o r accounte dfo r i nothe r ways . I t wa s the nassume dan y change s inefficienc y woul db e du e t o change s i nmixing . Th e cas e mos t directl y

showin g th e effec t o f mixin g onefficienc y i s presente d1 nTabl e 3 . Th e Petro-te xdat a sho w th e efficienc y

change s du e t o tw o modification s o f th e Incinerato r afte r start-up . Thes e modification s increase defficienc y fro m 7 0 percen t t o ove r 9 9 percent , wit hn o chang e i ntemperature . Th e modification s includ e repositionin g baffle s andburners , andreroutin g Inle t combustio nair . A cas e indirectl y

showin g th e effec t o f mixin g 1 s presente di n Tabl e 5 . Thes e dat a compar t th t efficienc y o f th e Roh

m andHaa s (R&H ) incinerato r i ncombustin g fou r specifi c compound s wit htha t o f th e Unio n Carbid e la bunit . Th t la buni t clearl y outperform s th t R& H unit . Th e dat a from bot hunit s ar e base donth t sam e temperature , residenc e tim e andinle t stream

conditions . Th e mor e complet e mixin g o f th e la buni t i s judge dth e caus e o f th e differin g efficiencies . Anothe r cas e Indirectl y showin g th e effec t o f mixin g 1 s presente d i nTabl e 6 . Thes e dat a ar e a partia l 1.1s t o f L.A . Count y

test s wher e efficienc y

droppe do r remaine dth e same wit hIncreasin g temperature . I n tota l thi s resul t occurre di n2 1 o f th e 5 0 L.A . Count y test s 1nwhic hP.12 ,

v f/r


### th e same Incinerato r wa s teste da t differen t temperatures . A s above , al l factorv|»cep t mixin g remaine dth e same o r ca nb e accounte dfo r i n othe r weyslftJnus, . change s i nth e completenes s o f mixin g ar e judge dt o b e th e caiwd f th e results . Th e fina l analysi s wa s designe dt o stud y th e effec t o f al l variable s i t once . Th e L.A . dat a wer e chose nfo r thi s analysi s sinc e th e L.A . unit s operate dove r a wid e rang e o f eac ho f th e variable s o f Interest . I naddition , th e L.A . result s represente dth e larges t body o f availabl e efficienc y

dat a andthu s wer e the mos t amenabl e t o statistica l analysis . Th e result s o f th e analysi s o f th e L.A . dat a ar e show ni nTabl e 4 . Thes e result s sho

w a wea k relatio nbetwee nefficienc y an dinle t concentratio n an dn o relatio nbetwee nefficienc y an dtemperature . Th e temperatur e vs . efficienc y result s ar e surprising . Kineti c theor y andth e labscal e result s sho w larg e increase s i nefficienc y ove r th e 300* F rang e i nTabl e 4 , bu t infac t n o suc hincreas e occurre di nth e L.A . data . Detaile danalysi s o f thi s dat a point s t o poo r mixin g a s th e caus e o f thes e results . Thi s analysi s 1 s describe d1 nAppendi xA t o thi s memo . Th e conclusio nfro

m thes e thre e analysi s 1 s tha t mixin g 1 s th e mos t importan t variabl e 1 nincinerato r efficiency . Thi s 1 s base do nth t larg e change s i nefficienc y i nthe R& H andPetro-te xresult s an dth t abilit y o f mixin g t o mas k th t Impac t o f temperatur e i nth t L.A . data . Thi s 1 s no t t o conclud e tha t temperature , residenc e time andothe r variable s hav e n o Influenc e o nefficiency . Thes e variable s d o hav e a n important , thoug hsmaller , influence . Cos t an dFue l Us e - Th e dat a use dt o stud y Incinerato r cos t an

d energy us e ar e containe dinthe Hydrosdenc e repor t ontherma l incineration . Selecte dpart s o f thes e dat a ar e show ni nTabl e 7 an

d8 . Thes e dat a wer e use dt o analyz e th e relation s betwee ncapita l cost , energy us e an d hea t recovery . Inaddition , th e cost s o f effort s t o improv e mixin g wer e als o analyzed . Thes e analyze s ar e discusse dbelow . Th e firs t analysi s studie dth e cos t trade-off s betwee nhea t recover y andenergy

use . Th e result s o f thi s analysi s ar e show ni nTabl e 7 . Thi s tabl e list s th t Incrementa l capita l cost s an denergy saving s wit h increasin g recuperativ e hea t recovery (RHR) . Th e 7 0 percen t RHRcase , whic hcorrespond s t o a flu e ga s temperatur e slightl y abov e 500*F , represent s th e maximu

m feasibl e leve l o f recovery . Beyond7 0 percen t RHR , problem s aris e wit hprecombustlo ni nth e hea t exchange r andwit hcondensatio no f wate r i nth e flu e ga s andpossibl e corrosion . Th e result s onTabl e 7 indicat e tha t th e maximu m feasibl e RH

R shoul db e used . Upt o thi s maximum , excep t fo r th e 100 0 scf m case , th e capita l cos t o f eac hIncremen t o f RH Ri s mor e tha noffse t b y th e incrementa l energ y savings . Th e basi s fo r thes e saving s i s th e increasin g cos t o fP.1 3

fin 

### .5 - * 

### energy . In . olde r designs , base do ncheepe r fuel , cos t saving s fro m hea t recovery wer e no t larg e enoug ht o justify maximu m RHR . However , wit h escalating/fue l costs , extr a capita l equipmen t ha s becom e cheape r tha n energy . Th e result s o ntabl e als o indicat e that , wit hth e prope r us e o f hea t recovery , negligibl e energy penaltie s occu r wit hincreasing combustion temperature . Th e reaso ni s tha t th e energy us e o f a nincinerato r depend s o nexi t ga s temperature , no t combustio ntemperature . Anda s note d above , th e optimu

m exi t ga s temperatur e i s slightl y abov e 500'F , regardles s o f combustio ntemperature . Highe r exi t ga s temperature s ar e no t warrante d sinc e additiona l hea t recover y produce s a ne t savings . Lowe r exi t ga s temperature s ar e prevente db y technica l limits . Thus , wit hoptimu m RHR , increasin g combustio ntemperature s wil l lea dt o negligibl e Increase s in energy use . Th e secon danalysi s conceme dth e capita l cos t difference s betwee n incinerator s designe da t 1400* F an d1600 # 

### F . Th e result s o f thi s analysi s ar e show ni nTabl e 8 . Thes e result s sho w moderat e Increase s i ncapita l cost s an dsmal l t o moderat e increase s 1 nannualize dcost s betwee nth e 1400* F and1600* F incinerators . Th e majo r factor s i nth e Increas e ar e th e large r recuperativ e hea t exchange r andlarge r combustio nchambe r neede dfo r th e 1600* F degre e unit . Th e fina l analysi s concerne dth e cos t andfeasibilit y o f variou s method s t o improv e mixing . Fou r method s wer e studied : pilo t plants , labwork , engineerin g desig nandadjustmen t afte r start-up ; Pilo t plan t wor k1 s judge dto o expensive . Th e cost s involve din constructin g andoperatin g th e pilo t plan t unit , providin g a wast e ga s stream , andcollectin g an danalyzin g th e dat a coul dwel l excee dth e capita l cos t o f th e ful l scal e unit . A quarte r t o a hal f millio ndollar s coul db e require dfo r suc hwor kfo r smal l incinerators , andu pt o a millio ndollar s fo r large r units . Pilo t plan t wor kappear s mor e appropriat e a s a nEP A o r vendo r researc hproject . Two o f th e alternatives , la bwor kandengineerin g design , appea r affordabl e bu t ar e no t feasible . La bwor kprovide s goo ddat a onkinetics , bu t n o useabl e dat a o nmixing . Engineerin g equation s ar e usefu l inman y situations , bu t fe w

suc hequation s exis t fo r mixing . Th e numbe r o f tray s 1 na distillatio ncolum ncanb e reasonabl y

calculated ; th e numbe r o f baffle s i na nincinerato r canno t be . Th e fina l alternative , adjustin g th e Incinerato r afte r start-up , doe s appea r bot haffordabl e andfeasible . Suc ha nadjustmen t woul d involv e repositionin g baffles , adjustin g duct s andperformin g simila r task s whil e measurin g efficiency , temperatur e andsimila r variables . Suc ha procedur e applie s t o Incinerator s th e same adjustmen t tha t proces s equipmen t receive s afte r start-upandwoul dInvolv e th e same , moderat e time , expertise , andcosts . Finally , th e succes s o f suc ha procedur e ha s bee ndemonstrate db y Petro-tex .contro l Leve l - Base d o n th e abov

e findings , a serie s o f conclusion * wer : mad e "Mc h lea d t o th e choice o f 9 8 percen t reduction , o r 2 0 ppew , (98/20 1 asr^avhighes t contro l leve l achievabl e fo r al l ne wincinerators , conslderin«TM!j.ilabl e technology , cos t an d energ y use . Thes

e conclusion s are discusX^elow
.

. First , Incinerato r combustion temperatur e ha s littl e Impac

t o n cos t an d energ y effectivenes s ratios
. Thi s conclusio n I s base d on th e smal l change s wit h temperatur

e tha t occu r i n th e thre e items , namel y annualize d cost , energ

y us e an d VO C contro l efficiency , tha t mak e u p thes e ratios
. A s discussed above , these thre e item s al l increas e les s tha n 1 5 percen t wit h temperatur

e ove r a 1300° F t o 1600* F range . Simpl e mat h show s tha t suc h smal l change

s 1 n th e numerator

s an d denominator

s o f th e cost an

d energy effectivenes s ratio s lea d t o almos t negligibl e change

s i n th t ratios
. Calculation s wit h th e actua l number s confir m this
. Base d o n a 5 percen t increas e i n VO C control , a 1 2 percen t increas e i n annualize d costs and essentiall y n o chang e i n energ

y us e (se e Tabl e 2 an

d 8 an d previou s discussion) , a 1400* F t o 1600' F chang e i n temperatur

e increases cost pe r poun

d VO C controlle d onl y 5 t o 1 0 percen t an d actuall y decrease

s energy use

s pe r poun

d VO C controlled
. Second , th e highest contro l limi t shoul d b e base d on Incinerato r operatio n a t 1600°F
. .Thi s conclusio n i s base d directl y on th e first , | I.e
. tha t ove r th e rang e o f interes t temperatur e doe s no t adversel y affec t cost o r energ

y effectiveness
. Give n this , highe r temperatures , . wit h highe r contro l efficiencies , are preferred
. Thi s conclusio n o

n operatin g temperatur e 1 s als o base

d o n th e practica l limit s o

n meta l recuperativ e hea t exchangers
. Base

d o n th e logi c i n th e precedin g paragraph , ther e 1 s n o upper limi t t o th e combustion temperatur

e whic h shoul d b

e used
. However

, abov e 160Q*F , cerami c recuperative hea t exchanger

s are required
. Sinc e these exchanger

s ar e mor

e comple x and costly , and les s typical , tha n meta l designs , th e decisio n wa s mad e not t o rel y o

n the m i n considerin g th e achievabl e contro l levels
. Thus , 1600* F wa

s chose n fo r th e incinerato r operatin g temperature
. Thi s conclusio n wa

s furthe r supporte

d b y th e hig h contro l level s foun d achievabl e a t thi s temperature , a s discusse

d below
. Third , an

d finally , 98 percen t VO C reduction , o r 20 ppm vb y compound, whicheve r 1 s les s stringent , represent s th e highest achievabl e contro l leve l fo r al l ne

wIncinerators , considerin g availabl e technology , cos t an d energ y use . Thi s 1 s base d o n incinerato r operatio n a t 1600'F , a s discussed 1 n th e precedin g paragraph , an d o n adjustmen t o f th e Incinerato r afte r start-up , a

s discussed i n th e sectio n o n cost
. Th

e dua l statemen t o f th e conclusion
. I.e
. i% percen t reductio n o r ppmv , account s fo r th t observe d fall-of f o f efficienc y a t lowe r Inle t concentrations
. Th e 98/2 0 number

s themselve

s wer e picke d b

y analyzin g thre e differen t contro l levels , 9

9 percen t o r 1 0 ppmv

, 9 8 percen t o r 2 0 ppmv

, an d 95 percen t o r 3 0 ppmv .P.1 5

m 7
~ . ••: ; * Th e 99/1 0 leve l i s judge dto o stringent . Tw o o f th e si xnon-L.A . test s an d5 5 percen t o f th e L.A . test s fal l thi s criteria . Consideratio n wa s g1vej£ & th e fac t tha t many o f th e unit s teste dwer e below 160 0 an d d i dnotfK * 900 dmixing . However , du e t o th e larg e percen t tha t failed , i t i s 44P f tha t eve nwit hhighe r temperature s an dmoderat e adjustment , a larg e mawe r o f unit s woul dstil l no t mee t th e 99/1 0 level. Th e 98/2 0 pp

m leve l i s judge dattainable . Al l o f th e non-L.A . an d th e majorit y

o f th e L.A . unit s mee t thi s criteria . Ther e i s concer n ove r th e larg e numoe r c f L.A . test s tha t failed , i.e . 4 3 percent . However , two factor s outweig hthi s concern . First , al l th e non-L.A . unit s mee t th e criteria . Thi s i s significan t since , thoug hth e L.A . unit s represen t man y tests , the y

represen t the same basi c design . They al l ar e smal l unit s designe dove r a decad e ago t o mee t a rul e fo r 9 0 percen t reduction . The y ar e fo r simila r application s fo r th e same geographi c regio ndesigne di nman y case s b y the same vendor . Thus , thoug hmany

failed , the y

likel y di ds o du e t o commo nfactor s an d d o no t represen t a wid e sprea dinabilit y t o mee t 9 8 percen t reductio no r 2 0 ppmv. . Second , th e differenc e betwee n6 5 percen t failin g 99/1 0 an d4 3 percen t failin g 98/2 0 i s large r tha na direc t compariso no f th e percentage s woul dreveal . A t 98/20 , no t onl y di dfewe r unit s fall , bu t thos e tha t di dmis s th e criteri a di ds o b y a smalle r margi nandwoul drequir e les s adjustment . Droppin g th e criteri a from 99/1 0 t o 98/2 0 drop s th e failur e rat e b y 2 0 percent , bu t 1 s judge dt o dro pthe overal l time an dcos t fo r adjustmen t b

y ove r 5 0 percent . Th e differenc e betwee nth e tw o level s i s eve ngreate r whe nthe adjustmen t effor t fo r th e wors t cas e i s considered . Th e crucia l poin t i s ho w clos e a 99/1 0 leve l pushe s actua l fiel duni t efficiencie s t o thos e o f th e labunit . Labuni t result s fo r complet e backmlxin g rang e throughou t th e 9 9 rang e a t 1600 # F , meanin g a 99/1 0 leve l woul dforc e fiel dunit s t o almos t matc hlabuni t mixing . Appendi xA describe s th e reason s th e complet e backmi xresult s wer e used . Backin g of f t o 98/2 0 increase s th e margin , especiall y fo r th e wors t cases . Give ntha t exponentia l increase s ma y

occu r i ncost s t o improv e mixin g a s fiel dunit s approac h la buni t efficiencies , a dro pfro m 99/1 0 t o 98/2 0 ma y

decreas e cost s t o improv e mixin g i nth e wors t case s b y anorde r o f magnitude . Th e 95/3 0 leve l wa s judge dto o lenient . Th e onl y dat a indicatin g suc ha lo w

efficienc y

wa s fro m L.A . Al l othe r dat a showe d98/20 . Th e non-L.A . dat a andlabdat a mee t 98/2 0 andth e Petro-te xexperienc e showe dtha t moderat e adjustmen t canincreas e efficienc y abov e 98 . I

n addition , i nth e previou s discussio no nefficiency , th e L.A . unit s wer e judge dt o hav e poo r mixing . Th e mixin g deficiencie s wer e larg e enoughto mas k th e effec t o f increasin g temperature. Thus , i t 1 s judge dtha t 98/2 0 coul db e reache dwit hmoderat e adjustmen t an dtha t a 95/3 0 leve l woul drepresen t a criteri a no t base do nth e bes t availabl e units , considerin g cost , energy , andenvironmenta l impact .P.1 6
Tabl e 1

" T * Descriptio n- AveUabl e Incinerato r Tes t Dat e
Belo w arapBscrlbe dth e availabl e incinerato r tes t data . Fou r set s o f suc hdat a are'jtrtsent . Thes e set s ar e la bscal e incinerato r dat a fro m test s b y Unio nCarbidVen dfiel duni t dat a fro m test s conducte db

y EPA , chemica l companie s an

dL.A . County . Unio nCarbid e Tes t Dat a - Thes e dat a sho w th e combustio nefficiencie s achieve d o n1 5 organi c compound s ina la bscal e incinerato r operatin g betwee nSC O an d1533° F an d. 1 t o 2 secondresidenc e time . Th e incinerato r consiste do f a 13 0 centimete r thi nbor e tub e i na benc hsiz e tub e furnace . Outle t analyze s wer e don e b y direc t routin g o f th e incinerato r outle t t o a FI D an dGC . Al l Inle t gase s wer e se t a t 100 0 ppmv . 2.3, 4 EP A Tes t Dat a - Thes e dat a sho w th e combustio nefficiencie s fo r ful l scal e incinerator s o

nai r oxidatio nvent s a t thre e chemica l plants . Thes e thre e plant s ar e th e Unito nCaribde , Taft , Louisiana , an dRoh m & Haas , Oee r Park, . Texas , acryli c aci dunit s an dth e Denka , Houston , Texa s unit . Th e dat a fo r Unio nCarbid e includ e tes t result s base do ntwo differen t incinerato r temperature s andth e dat a fro

m Roh m & Haas , result s fro

m thre e temperatures . Inal l test s integrate dii: s wer e use dfo r sar.plin g an da GC/FI O wa s use dfo r organi c analysis . 5,6.7. 8 Chemica l Company

Tes t Dat a - Thes e dat a ar e from test s performe dby chemica l companie s o nincinerator s a t thre e ai r oxidatio nunits . Th e companie s andunit s are , Monsant o a t thei r acrylonitril e uni t a t Alvin , Texas , Petro-te xa t thei r oxidativ e butadien e uni t a t Houston , Texas , an dKopper s at thei r malei c anhydrid e uni t a t Sridgeville , Pennsylvania . Th e Monsant o incinerato r burn s bot hliaui dan dcaseou s waste s from th e acrylonitril e uni t enuLhe supper s incinerato r i s actuall y a boile r adapte dt o bur ngaseuu s wai-.es . I nal l tests , analysi s wa s performe db y GC/FID . Th e samplin g wa s performe d a s follows : Monsant o - Col dwate r scrubbin g - AN , Act-! , HCN ; meta l sampl e bomb s -

remainin g compound s Petro-tex - Integrate dba g - inlet ; glas s syring e - outle t Kopper s - Glas s sampl e bomb s an dcharcoa l tube s g L.A . Count y

Tes t Dat a - Thes e dat a ar e fro m ove r 20 0 test s b

y L.A . Count y onvariou s wast e ga s Incinerators , mos t o f whic har e oncoatin g operations . Dat a fro m 14 7 test s wer e used , wit hth e regainin g test s bein g discarde dsinc e back-up dat a wer e missing , th e incinerator s wer e catalyti c unit s o r simila r reasons . In th e L.A . data , onl y

flow , temperature , an dinle t andoutle t VO C concentratio n ar e reported ; dat a o ncompound s and ; residenc e time ar e no t present . . Evacuate d4 0 lite r ga s cylinder s wer e use dfo r samplin g andoxidatio nt o C0 2 an dNDI Rwer e use dfo r analysis .P.1 7


### Tabl e 2

• - - Result s - Unio n Cirbld e Tests * Destructio n Efficienc y Unde r State d Condition s

Fl0 

### .. . ^mperatur e . Residenc e Time/Compoun d •

(F ) .7 5 second s -±12. Resine* * thy ! Viry ! Acryiat e Ethano l Ethylen e Chlorid e Ethylen e
l v 

### . r o o c 94. 6 52. 6 78. 5 S7.2/57. 5 Two-Stag e 130 0 -.. * 3ackmixin S uo o 

### 99. 9 99. 6 99. 3 99. C 96.6/9..
. 150 0 gc. g 99. 9 99. 9 99. 9 99.9/93. S 1SQ 0 09. 9 99. 9 99. 9 99. 9 99.9/95. = C a - olet e 130 0 93. 9 85. 8 84. 4 69. 9 78.2/91. 5 

### SecS&n g 140 0 

### 99. 7 95. 3 95. 6 93. 1 93.7/97. S
1 5 

### ~ 99. 9 99. 0 98. 7 98. 4 98.0/9S. C , 1 Mo 3 

### . 9 

### . . 99. 7 99. 6 99. 6 99.4/93. 3

, - 3 09. 9 99. 9 99. 5 90. 2 .97.3/95. 5 piu » F l w u
- ° ••;,; ; 9 9 . 9 99. 9 99. 9 99.9/5:-.:
- r> « r * 

### ;.0° 3 

### . S3. 9 95. 9 99. 9 "99. 9 99.9/59
. , 0 0 99- 5 »• » »• » "' 9



### . S3 

### ' 5/ 

### "- i


### *Th e result s c f th e Un t io n Carbid e wor k ar e presente d a s a serie s o f equations

. T'.- s equation s relat e destructio n efficienc yt o temperature , residenc e tim e an d flo. ; rar , fo r eac ho f 1 5 compounds , "h e efficiencie s 1 n thi s tabl e wer e calculate d from thes e equations

. Thre e flo wregi-s s ar e presented , two-stag e backmixing , complet e backmixin g an d
r 

### u o flow
. Tw o stag e backmixin g i s considere d a reasonabl e approximatio n o f actus " fiel d units , wit hcomplet e backmixin g and plu g flo wrepresentin g th e extremes , "r.z subjec t o f fle wregim e i s furthe r discusse d i n Appendi x A
. p iP.1 8

r/ v Tabl e 3

Result s - EP Aan d Compan y Incinerato r Test s

-Orrpcn y Reside n Time/I n Flo w( S Temperatur e (FO ) Numbe r o f

Tes t Run s Inle t

VO C (ppmv ) Outle t

VO C (ppmv ) %V0C T

Contro l
Ur
. i c n Cirbid e 2 t o 3 sec /

20,50 0 116 0 147 5 6 *

3 * 1190 0

1190 0 24 3

1 0 95. 1

99. 9

Haa s 1 sec /

Tan k Far mVent , (TFVi-12,500

. Oxidize r Vent , \ (OXVj-iO.OO O 142 5
151 0
134 3 3 *

4 *
1 * TFV

258 0 OX V 1160 0 TF V 260 0 OX V 1280 0 TF V 241 0 OX V 1220 0 1.33 0

15 0
2 5 82. 5

•S3. 3
99. 7

Denk a •'.or.sant o

Koppers' ' . 6 sec;13,00 0

(Uni t s--:i ) - 18 ' Oil

. X 35 ' (Outla t ?"••:•*• ) 75,00 0

. 6 sec/30,00 0

f..Kn«x "
. 6 sec/14,40 0 140 0 Confidentia l 95 0 1 3 93. 5

180 0

140 0 Uni t 1-6* *

Uni t 2-3* *

Inlet-4* * Outlet-6 * N/ ASe t 1 Se t 2 Se t 3 Conf
.

Conf
.

85 0

1030 0 1065 0 1030 0 2 5

4 7

Se t 1 7 Se t 2 1 1
100 0 21 5 1 0 >9 9 >9 9

99. 0 97. 2
70. 3 94. 1 99. 6 'Si-ipiin g conducte d wit h integrate d bags
. •^SsMpUn g conducte d wit h gra b sampl e bomb s o r syringes

. '•VO C doe s no t includ e nethan e of ethane
. Thi s definitio n o f VO C i s differen t use d i n earlie r mesa s o n EP Atests , and thu s result s reporte d her e ma ydiffe r i n th e earlie r mesa . TVO C ','. destructio n 1 s b yweigh t percent
. '-TH*dit a i n Se t 1 and 2 fo r Kopper s wer e take n durin g differen t tim e periods

. ""Inle t an d outle t VO C fo r Petro-te x reporte d a s ppm vmethane
. Th e dat a i n se t take n prio r t o adjustmen t of th e incinerator ; th e dat a i n set s tw o and three , \ adjustment

. Th e specifi c alteration s mad e byPetro-te x ar e describe d i n ref e rre - tha t fro

- resu V

cn e wer e afte r rence s 3 a

rP.1 9



# _w

. * • •' " 

### Tabl e 4

Result s - L.A

. Incinerato r Test s Destructio n Efficiency * Unde r State dCondition s
'ostruct'o n Efficienc y vs.-"em-aratur e 1s t Media

n 3r

d . , rfl , , tlir , RaP - aNumbe rO f IS tneuio n jr u 

### ,e^ e atur e Rar. s 

### - . ^ Quartile* * Quartil e -,-> 93 ft 96. 4 98. 0 130 0 - 138 0 - 2 " , u



### _. - 9

4 0 96. 0 98. 6 138 5 - 142

0 *

- 94, 

### ° * „ _ 9 1 5 95. 0 97. 4 142 5 - 147 5 * s 91



### - 5



### _?*91. 5 96. 5 98. 6 1480 an dgreats * - - " s 

### Destructio n •--•c'iar.z y vs . Ir.'Te t Concentratio n

0 - 39 9 

### 40 0 - 79 9 2 1

700 0 o r mor e 1r ;



### •v-s« r ef 1s t

Media

n 3r

d Inle t Concentra-::

- n 

### ^Vt° Qua 

### ;!i l e

### . . Quartil e (VO C a s ppm v car::r. ; -eSw S wusrw.i *

" 1 6 85. 1 90. 8 96. 0

91. 0 93. 3 97, 2 

### i i 90. 0 ' 92. 5 94. 7 SO D - 1199 U ft 

### , Q Q 7 

### o 1600-199 9 5 53. 0 4 9. 0 n 91. 0 95.5
. 57. 3 ?r,n n - 2"O c' '

, , 9 5 9 98. 4 53. S


### " ° ° - 3 

### " » . 0 ". 8 99. 0 320 0 

### " 393 9 

### , 9

. 98. 4 99. 2 ^°- 499 9 

### ' j 97. 5 98. 1 501 0 

### - 5 

### " ! 96. 0 97. 5 63! 5 

### - 6 9 

### " 8 

### 3. 2 98. 7

....•ructio n efficienc y s s weigh , oercan t certon

. ,,_,,, . du e t o th e manne

r i n whic n --r. e o-t a\.-r e du eP.20

_



### Tabl e S Resul t Compariso n - Incinerato r vs . Roh m& Haa s Incinerator *

Compoun d

propan e propylen e ethan e ethylen e Roh m& Haa s Incinerato r Inle t (lbs/hr )
90 0 1800* * 1 0

• . 3 0 Outle t

(lbs/hr )
15 0 150* * 37 5 19 0 

### La b Incinerato r Inle t Outle t (grans/sec ) (grams/sec )

'.74 0 85 5 9. 0 18. 0

. 1

. 3 27. 4 .0 8

.7 0 .5 0 .4 3 1.7 1 

### 'I, VO C Oe s tru e tier

. 63.4 % 93. 8

•Tabl e show s th a testruttio n efficienc yo n th e fou r Uste d compound s fo r th e Rohr : I Haa s (R£H ) fiel d an d Unio n Carbid e (UC ) la b incinerators

. Th e R& H result s ar e measured ; th e L C resultVar e calculated
. Bot hset s o f result s ar e base d o n 1425* F combustio n temperatur e en d 1 secon d residenc e tine

. I n addition , th e U C result s ar e base ? o n complet e backmixin g an d a fou r ste p combustio n sequenc e consistin g o f prccan e t o propylen e t o ethm c t c ethylen e t o CC 2 

### «"-- : 

### rvv . Tl-.vi u " • ._.- f.. c itc.. * ar c v.ors t cas e assumptions

. **Ar e no t actua l values
. Actua l value s ar e confidential

. Calculation s wit hactua l var . civ e simila r results
.P.2 1

" >

» c »

Tes t No
. 5? : *
.

115 8

121 4

121 5

132 9

174 6

184 2

213 0

223 5

225 9

2624 A

2624 8 Tabl e 6

Result s - Selecte dL.A . Incinerato r Tests *

Temperatur e (•F )
130 0 140 0 140 0 151 C 140 0 150 0 130 0 122 5 137 5

l - » w 132 0 141 C 15C 3 114 0 123 5 142 b 130 0 137 5 149 5 140 0 145 0 143 0 145 0 120 0 145 0 120 0 142 0 Inlet* *

Concentratio n
230 0 160 0 120 0 120 0 150 0 150 0 310 0 370 0 330 0 270 0 743 0 624 7 737 0 126 0 irv j l-. J 80 1 77 7 89 0 1106 5

• " 1073 1 87 1 87 1 411 0 309 0 140 5 116 4 Outlet* *

Concentratio n
6 0 8 3 2 3 8 9 9 4 17 0 2 7 7 0 

### 12 0 

### 7 8 3 8 8 

### 10 4 8 3 6 0 10 9 3 4 6 6 6 3 9 7 25 4 9 0 13 1 6 0 6 5 2 3 1 3

.Partia l listin g o f test s wher e incinerato r l«ape.4.u. i ^ - . 

## % 

## vo : Destructio n
57
. £ S4. 5 53. 2 92. 7 52. 5 89. 1 99. 2 98. 1 95. 9 99. 7 93. 9 .98. 5 98. 5 93. 5 Si

. 5 S3. 0 53. 9 85. 4 92. 7 59. 1

' 57. 5 £5. 1 72. 2 52. 1 -'3- 4 S3
. - 52
. E

rease d v;... . ••

- carbon
.f « 

### Tabl e 7

«y r ; v 

### Cos t Compariso n- Incrementa l Capita l Cos t andFue l Saving s wit hhea t Recovery *
Incinerator s no t Requirin g SupplementalA i r* * Recuperativ e Hsat Recover

y 

### •(s) 30 50 70

30 50 7 0
Incinera t

?.;_.-..:•.-.*•.•
. : 1 — Hea t R-acover

y (S ) 3 0 50 7 0 Inle t Flo

w (SCFM )

or s Reciirir. g ISCFM) " Incr

.

Capita l S I 5,50 0 $6,50 0 $10,30 0

Incr

. Capita l $22,50 0 S I 2,00 0 $18,00 0 Supplementa l Ai r

Incr

. Capita l $13,00 0 $5,00 0 $2,00 0 100

0 Incr

. Fue l $11,50 0 $7,50 0 $7,50 0
3C0 0 Incr

. Fue l $34,50 0 $22,50 0 $22,50 0

700 Incr

. Fue l $27,00 0 $10,00 0 $9,00 0 200 0 Incr

. i,. c r . Capita l Fue l $18,50 0 $23,CO

O $9,90 0 $15,00 0 $13,50 0 $15,00 0
1000 0 Incr

. Incr

. Capita l Fue l $36,00 0 $115,000 ; $29,00 0 $75,00 0 $59,00 0 $75,00 0

• «A« I

* * V * Incr

. Incr

. Capita l Fue l $27,00 0 $178,00 0 $12,00 0 $84,00 0 $13,00 0 $77,00 0



### * Oclla r figure s ar e th e incrementa l annualize dcapita l cost s andincrementa l annua l fue l cos t saving s fo r increasin g the hea t recovery fro m the previou s leve l t o th e liste dlevel . Fo r example , th e figure s o nth e 50 * lin e ar e the cost s andsaving s o f goin g fro m 30 S t o SO S hea t recovery , an donthe 30! ; line , c f goin g fror

s no hea t recover y

t o 30 S recovery . Cost s ar e base do na n incinerato r operatin g a t 1500° F an d.7 5 second s residenc e time . 70 S recuperativ ; hea t recover y

correspond s t o a

nexi t ga s temperatur e o f approximatel y £50^? . * * Cost s base donReferenc e 10 .Hi

incinerator s ? Tabl e 8
Cos t Compariso n• Incrementa l Cost s o f Combustio n Temperatur e Increas e
rin a Sucolsrer.ta l Air *

Flow (scfn )



### 70 0 500 0 2500 0 5000 0 Capita l

Cos t - U00 c F* *



### 323 59 3 17= i Incr .

Capita l t c 1500° *



### 3 3 9 7 43 S 85 5 Percen t

Increas e



### 11 » 17 % 24 % 28 % Annualize d

Cos t - HOG 3 ? '

13 7 28 8

174 1

Incinerator s -r t s.esuirin c S - .:~elementa l Ai r 100 0 1000 0 2500 0 35 2

7C- 5 131 0 3 6

12 5 33 0 11 *

IS S 25 % 13 9

36 3 72 8 P.2 3

Incr . Annua l t o 1600° ? Percen t

Intrea s

1 1 2 8 12 7 24 8 

## s r 

## ;

1 . 4 I2 S

I - m

1 0 4 0 9 6 ict ;

12? :

r Al l n.ons

y ncu-e s i nthousand s o f oollar s i.i f wu » i » U i U>
. wvi «•• " : j.iw O »'1 S kva d llilka l i« » ,-.: • *..-..'..'.: ~ t ,v - ;cccr.c ; reside s 1'ii.is, recuperativ e o f 510°F , an dtn e liste dflov; . Th e nex t columnsho ' incinerato r operatin g a t 1600 5 F . Th e fourt hcolumn capita l cos t fro m

1400° F t o 1600 C F . ***Th e annualize dcos t columnshew s th e tota l annua l utilitie s an dmaintenance ) fo r 1400°r,'.7 5 seconds , liste dflow . Th e nex t columnshow s th e Incremental * incinerato r a t 1500'F . Th e sevent hcolumnshow s t h cos t fro m

140CP F t o 160C°F . capita l fo r a nincinerato r c recover y wit na nexi t ga s t w s th e extr a capita l fo r a s show s th e percen t increas e
cos t (depreciation , interes t 510° F exi t temperatur e ~;.i
• annualize dcos t fo r a siir i 1 e percen t increas e i nannua l expe r i rr. i 1 a | i n

a r i:e cP.2 4

*"• » Appendix* -
M1x1n*fira i ^ concep t 1 n Incinerato r efficiency
. Thus , a discussio n o f incinere1_BpffIcienc y wil l likel y rel y heavil y o n thi s concept
. However , nlflfils-als o a comple x concept
. Thus , discussion s o f efficienc y ca n beccc e HfWfne d wit h technica l explanation s o f mixing
. T o handl e thi s difficulty , thi s mem o onl y cite s mixin g i n th e mai n discussio n and leaves detaile d explanatio n c f thi s concep t t o thi s appendix
. Thi s appendix discusse s mixin g i n thre e parts
. Th e firs t describes th e actua l physica l event s involve d i n mixin g an d contrast s prope r an

d imprope r mixing
. Th

e secon d discusse

s a relate d item , flo wregime , an d explain s th e importanc e o f thi s idea i n interpretin g th e la b scal e data
. Th e thir d analyzes th e lac k o f a relationship betwee n temperatur

e an d efficienc y i n th e L.A
. data an d conclude

s tha t poor mixin g wa s th e cause . Mixin g 

### Mixin g ca nb e understoo di nterm s o f th e tw o item s require dfo r combustio no f organi c compounds , hig htemperatur e an dsufficien t oxygen . InIncineration , thes e ar e provide db y combustio ngase s an dsupplementa l air . Th e combustio ngase s fro m burnin g supplementa l fue l provid e th e hea t t o achiev e hig htemperatures . Supplementa l air , whe nneeded , ' provide s oxyge nt o combus t th e supplementa l fue l an dVOCs . Mixin g concern s thes e tw o streams , i.e . combustio ngase s andsupplementa l air . Mixin g involve s th e spee dan dcompletenes s wit hwhic hthes e tw o stream s ar e disperse dint o th e wast e gas . Inprope r mixing , thes e tw o stream s ar e broke napar t an dIntermingle dwit hth e wast e ga s o na molecula r level . Inaddition , thi s proces s occur s withi nonl y a smal l fractio no f th e incinerato r residenc e time. . Incontrast , i nimprope r mixing , packet s o f wast e ga s pas s throug h th e incinerato r intact . Th e turbulenc e 1 nth e incinerato r fail s t o brea k th e wast e ga s int o sufficientl y smal l unit s fo r interminglin g o na molecula r leve l t o occur . Poo r mixin g als o result s i f thi s interminglin g occur s to o late . I f th e wast e ga s i s mixe djus t prio r t o exiting th t incinerator , the nth e actua l residenc e time (R.T. ) i s muc hshorte r tha nth t nomina l R.T. , an dcomplet e combustio nma y no t occur . Finall y

poo r mixin g result s i f onl y on e o f th e two require dstreams . I.e . combustio nge s o r supplementa l air , i s properl y

dispersed . Fo r example , the wast e ga s ma y b e properl y intermingle dwit hcombustio ngases , bu t th e supplementa l ai r flow may b e stratified . Th e resul t woul db e Incomplet e combustion . Flo w Regime Flo w regime involve s th e larg e scal e ga s current s i na nincinerator . Ina diagram

o f th e ga s flow s 1 na

nincinerator , flo

w regim e correspond s t o broa darrow s representin g th e macroscopi c currents .P.2 5

- • «•?» • 

## -e- .

Certafn-flow

regime s hav e bee nlabelled . I nplu g flow , Inle t gase s remai nwittf j fixed - vertica l "slices " tha t trave l directl y from inle t t o outle t wiW » backflow . i ncomplet e backmixing , th e opposit e occurs . Inle t gaseifcir e rapidl y

sprea dthroughou t th e incinerato r andsignifican t backflow occurs . Othe r flo

w regime s ar e composite s o f these , lntw o stag e backmixing , th e incinerato r operate s lik e two unit s 1nseries , wit heac nundergoin g complet e backmixing . Clearly, - actua l flo w pattem s rarel y correspon dt o thes e idealize dtypes , bu t thes e type s ca nserve a s approximations . Flow regime i s relate dt o pot hmixin g an defficiency . Specifically , th e flow regime s mos t favorabl e t o hig hefficienc y ar e th e leas t favorabl e t o mixing , andvic e versa . Base do nengineerin g kinetics , plu g flo w achieve s th e highes t efficiencie s a t a give ntemperature . However , t o achiev e goo dmixin g an

dstil l maintai nplu g flow, th e gase s i neac h vertica l "slice " mus t completel y mi xwit heac hothe r whil e remaining separat e fro

m th e adjoinin g "slices. " Suc ha phenomen a i s difficul t t o create . A s th e gase s mi xverticall y they als o tendt o mi xhorizontally , resultin g i na flo

w patter nclose r t o complet e backmixing . Thus , providin g goo dmixin g inherentl y

create s flo

w pattern s les s advantageou s t o hig h efficiencies . Flo w regime i s importan t i ninterpretin g th e Unio nCarbid e (UC ) la b uni t results . Thes e result s ar e significan t sinc e th e U C uni t wa s designe dfo r optimu

m mixin g an

dthu s th e U C result s represen t th e uppe r limi t o f incinerato r efficiency . Thi s uppe r limi t i s use d1 nevaluatin g th e cost s involve di nadjustin g an ddesignin g a nincinerato r t o reac ha give nefficiency . Th e close r thi s give nefficienc y 1 s t o th e uppe r limit , th e highe r th e cost s wil l be . A nunderstandin g o f flo

w regime i s require dt o choos e whic hpar t o f • th e U C result s represent s th e uppe r limit . A s see ni nTabl e 2 , th e U C result s vary

b y flo w regime . Base donth e above discussion , th e result s unde r complet e backmixin g wer e chose na s th e uppe r limi t fo r th e discussio n i nthi s memo . Thoug hsom e incinerator s ma y

achiev e goo dmixin g an

dplug flow , th e wors t case s wil l likel y requir e flo

w pattern s simila r t o complet e backmixin g t o achiev e complet e mixing . Thus , sinc e thi s mem o i s considerin g efficiencie s applicabl e t o a UIncinerators , a conservativ e assumptio no f complet e backmixin g wa s require dwhe nconsiderin g th e uppe r limi t o f efficiency . L.A . Oat a Th e L.A . dat a surprisingl y showe dh o relatio nbetwee ntemperatur e andefficiency . Variou s factor s wer e analyze dt o determin e th e caus e for.thi s result . 

# J

### -3 -

1 - _._ , *•.,_
. _.»..«_

_«««l1n # erro r and th t Indntreto r S * ^Snc e tf m i ^ *" « typ t o f compoun d variable s o f rtsljtnc
. «•• •'"'J L t o b t th e ciuse
. th t samplin g woul d wir t ruled-ou ^ Fo r samplin g error^ wEfficienc y i n hig h temperatur e hav e ha d t*JBl*2! ! ?*^ n 1 ^ tlweratur e tests
. Wit h ove r 15 0 test s an d ov»mimateJVIMSIIDU
. For th e thre e Incinerato r variable s tests , thi s l** 1 **!* 1 1 * I?;! ! 1 Jilt s would nee d t o mas k th e effec t o f 

# sr>
. ssss « ly 

# i C 

# SJissiS- ,fftet o f laBP,mur 

# '
stil l see

n i n th e increasin g average efficiency
. Th e refinin g variabl e i s fixin g A plausibl e explanatio n of ^ result s i s possibl e I f t h s variabi t i s " n *;°TM ; o f ttmpt ratur e an d tw o factor s whic h allowmixin g t o £* * TM TM 4 „ n dro p wit h temperature , efficiency
. First , th e completenes s of mixin g ^ temperature
. Thus
. *^w r •ixln j c. n of f e t ^effec t ^ncrea s g^ ^ c I n contrast , th e othe r variable s r ^£7 n a c £ aJt $ ^temperatur e onl y and thu s offsettin g canno t °«ur
. secona , ^ %u increas e th e efficienc y o f th e wel l mixe o po r * ° t d Y0 C an d l1kt i y Sinc e thi s portio n contain ! onl y par t o f Jnjjjco^ u ^ y^ fn%ortrlrt,nh^ 0 rh:rTarrablIs 1n c C ar t "?solaT. " part s o f th
. wast , ga s . 

### fro m th e affec t o f temperature .P.2 7

*.. ' •v ' M * • 

### REFERENCE S

1 . Prediegg t Mode l o f Time-Temperatur e requirement s fo r Therma l Destructio n
o f 0 1 #BOrgani c Vapors , Kun-chie hLee , Jame s L . Hansen , Oennl s C . KcCauley , Unio nCarbide , Sout hCharleston , Wes t Virginia . 2 . Emissio nTes t o f Acryli c Aci dan dEste r Manufacturin g Plant , UnionCarbide , Taft , Louisiana , Draf t Reoor t b y Midwes t Research , Ma y 1979 . 3 . Emissio nTes t o f Acryli c Aci dan dEste r Manufacturin g Plant , Roh m an dHaas , Dee r Park , Texas , Draf t Fina l Repor t b y Midwes t Researc hInstitute , Ma y 1979 . 4 . Stationar y

Sourc e Testin g o f a Malei c Anhydrid e Plan t a t th e Oenk a Chemica l Corporation , Houston , Texas , Fina l Repor t b y Midwes t Researc hInstitute . 5 . Novembe r 8 , 1979 , Letter , Michae l F . Weishaar , Monsanto , St . Louis. * Missouri , t o Jac k R . "imtr t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 27711 . 6 . Augus t 15 , 1979 , Letter , Roge r Towe , Petro-Tex , Houston , Texas , t o Jac k R . Farmer , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 27711 . 7 . Marc h20 , 1930 , Letter , Georg e F . Martin , Petro-Tex . Houston , Texas , t o Davi dC . Mascone , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C . 27711 . 8 . Januar y

17 , 1979 , Letter , Allonz o Wm . Lawrence , Koppers , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , t o Do nR . Goodwin , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 27711 . 9 . Se t o f summarie s o f emissio ntest s performe db y Lo s Angele s Count y

personn e

• from 197 0 t o 1979 . 10 . Contro l Devic e Evaluatio n- Therma l Oxidation , Ji m Blackburn , I T Envirosci e Knoxville , Tennessee , Decembe r 1979 .••'' <
.... ' U\ P.2 8

-UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

OATI : 

### sumcT- . Therma l Incinerato r Performanc e fo r NSPS , Addendu m

PROM : 

### Davi dC . Mesconeylv ^ Chemica l Manufacturin g Sectio n TO- . Jac kR . Farmer , Chie f Chemical s an

dPetroleu m Branc h Afte r reviewin g th e recen t memo o nincinerato r performance , (Therma l Incinerato r Performanc e fo r NSPS . Jun e 11 , 1930 , DC M t o Jac xFarmer) , yo uindicate dseverFParea s wher e furthe r discussio nwa s desired . Thes e area s wer e a s follows :

- continuou s complianc e o f therma l Incinerator s

- th e impac t o f compoundonefficienc y • th e impac t o f inle t concentratio noncos t effectivesnes s andj . eff1c i enc y Thes e thre e area s ar e discusse dbelow proceede dby

a summary o f th e conclusions . Conclusion s I nth e absenc e o f a demonstrate dcontinuou s VO C monito r fo r therma l incinerators , CP B i s investigatin g alternat e methods . Afte r stud y of . th e cos t andeffectivenes s o f severa l suc hmethods , th e followin g shoul d be considered : continuou s temperatur e andflo w monitorin g an

dbi-annua l complianc e testin g andinspection/maintenance . Fo r example , i nmonitorin g temperatur e andflow , a compan y coul db e require dt o ru

nth e Incinerato r betwee n+50° F o f th e temperature , an dbetwee n+2 0 percen t an

d-5 0 percen t o f th e flow , measure ddurin g th e performanc e test . Detaile danalysi s show s tha t typ e o f compounddoe s affec t Incinerato r efficiency . However , du e t o th e complexit y o f th e relationship , n o attempt s wer e mad e i nthe Jun e 1 1 memo t o dra w fine-tune defficienc y conclusion s relatin g differen t efficiencie s t o differen t compound s a t differen t temperatures . Rather , a mor e conversatlv e approac hwa s taken i nwhic hth e efficienc y

conclusion s wer e base donth e mos t difficul t compound s t o combust . Thes e conclusions , base do nsuc ha wors t cas e analysis , woul dthe nappl y

regardles s o f compound .

# -a . 

# i Detaile danalysi s als o show s tha t inle t concentratio naffect * Incinerato r efficiency . However , unlik e type o f compound , statistica l study o f th»siJfct1onsh1 pbetwee ninle t concentratio nan defficienc y

wa s possible. - Be^Bro nthi s study , th e conclusion s i nth e Jun e 1 1 Incinerato r memo ar e explHnd-1 nbot hppm v an dpercen t reduction . Thi s dua l forma t account s fo r fKe > effec t o f inle t concentration . Inle t concentratio nals o affect s cos t effectiveness . On e effec t i s tha t a s inle t concentratio ndrop s th e energy conten t o f th e wast e ga s drops , increasin g supplementa l fue l use . However , thi s i s no t th e majo r effect . By

fa r th e larges t effec t o f inle t concentratio no ncos t effectivenes s 1 s t o chang e th e amoun t o f VO C controlled . Ove r a typica l rang e o f inle t concentration s (i.e . 10,00 0 t o 50 0 ppm ) andfo r an incinerato r wit h7 0 percen t recuperativ e hea t recovery , increasin g fue l us e ca nincreas e cos t effectivenes s 5 t o 5 0 percen t whil e decreasin g VO C ca nincreas e cos t effectivenes s 5 t o 200 0 percent . Discussio n Monitorin g - On e CP S goa l i s continuou s monitorin g o f ai r pollutio n contro l equipment . A t present, w e ar e limite di nachievin g thi s goa l fo r incinerator s by

th e lac k o f a demonstrate dcontinuou s VO C monitor . * Give nthi s limitation , CP B i s studyin g alternat e monitorin g methods , f suc ha s measurin g firebo xtemperature , t o indicat e Incinerato r performance s T o develo palternat e monitorin g methods , tw o goal s wer e considered . First , thes e alternate.method s shoul ddetec t al l o r mos t case s o f poo r incinerato r performance . Second , th e method s shoul dhav e reasonabl e cost s andimpos e reasonabl e recordkeepin g requirements . T o mee t thes e goals , th e variable s tha t affecte dincinerato r performanc e wer e analyzed . Thes e variable s ar e temperature , mixing , typ e o f compound , inle t concentration , residenc e time , andflow regime . O f thes e variables , th e las t thre e wer e judge do f littl e concer nwhe nconsiderin g continuou s monitoring . Thes e thre e variable s ar e essentiall y se t afte r incinerato r constructio nan

dadjustmen t and/o r hav e onl y smal l impac t o nincinerato r performance . Th e thre e remainin g variable s wer e the nanalyze di nmor e detai l t o defin e thei r Impac t o nperformanc e an dth e abilit y

t o monito r them . Temperatur e wa s analyze dfirst . Thi s analysi s wa s base dondat a i n th e previou s incinerato r memo . Eve nwit hgoo dmixing , th e Unio nCarbid e la bdat a andkineti c theor y show tha t lowe r temperature s caus e significan t decrease s i nefficiency . Inaddition , th e L.A . dat a Indicat e tha t increasin g temperatur e ca nals o adversel y affec t efficiency , apparentl y b y changin g mixing . Interm s o f cost , temperatur e monitor s ar e inexpensive , costin g les s tha nS500 0 installe dwit hstri pcharts , andar e easily , an d cheapl y operated . Give nth e larg e effec t o f temperatur e o nefficienc y andth e low

cos t o f temperatur e monitors , thi s variabl e 1 s clearl y an effectiv e paramete r t o monitor .P_3 0 

## **^C - ,-- * .,:^-.. ^ §£ * "•;•-;-.-;, • A s an exjmplt , a specifi c requiremen t coul d b t tha t ti t Incinerato r canno t b t oomtteVto r mor

e tha n thrt ; hour

s a t a n average firebo x temperatur e abov e 50*MMl___o r unde

r 50* F below , th e average temperatur e recorde

d durin g per^Rnc e testing
. I f a n operatin g rang

e greate r tha n 100' F i s desired , a^fiajen y coul d perfor m performanc e test s a t mor

e tha n on

e temperature
. Th e thre e hou r tim e perio d would correspon d t o th e perio d require d fo r integrate d ba

g samplin g i n a typica l performanc e test
. Thi s woul d mak e th e averagin g perio d fo r temperatur e monitorin g simila r t o tha t o f th e performanc e test
. Finally , th e compan y coul d b

e require d t o install , operate , an d calibrat e th e monito r accordin g t o manufacturer' s specifications
. Thes e specification s generall y cove r prope r placemen t of th e monitor
. Th e nex t variabl e studie d wa

s mixing
. Th

e mos t likel y ite m t o affec t mixing , give n a constan t temperatur e an d a n alread y constructe d incinerator , woul d b

e flow
. N

o direc t fiel d data 1 s availabl e o n th e effec t o f flo wo

n mixin g efficiency
. However , base d o n engineerin g judgement , increasin g flo wma y lea d t o "shortclrcuiting, " wher e th e increase d kineti c energ y o f highe r flowstreams cause s wast e ga s t o je t throug h the.incinerato r unmixed
. Decrease d flowma

y lea d t o th e opposite
. wher e lowe r flowrate s resul t i n insufficien t kineti c energ y fo r complet

e mixing
. A

s wit h temperature , flowmonitor s are Inexpensiv

e an d easil y operated
. Give n th e potentia l impac t o f flowo

n efficiency , an

d th e Iow

a cos t o f flo wmonitors , flowrat e i s als o a n effectiv e paramete r t o Z monitor
. A s a n example , a specifi c requiremen t coul d b e tha t an Incinerato r canno t b e operated fo r mor

e tha n thre e hour

s a t a n average flo wles s tha n 5 0 percen t o r greate r tha n 12 0 percen t o f th e average wast e ga s flowrecorded durin g a performanc e test
. Th

e permissibl e range woul d b e intentionall y broa

d du e t o th e lac k

o f fiel d data o

n th e impac

t o f flow o n mixin g an

d efficiency
. Th

e uppe r restrictio n would b

e Lighte r tha n th e lowe r since increas e flownot onl y ma y adversel y affec t mixin g bu t decrease s residence time
. An y advers e effect s o f decrease

d flo wma

y b e offse t b y th e increase d residence time
. Th e abov e discussio n fo r temperatur e o n widenin g th e operatin g range , th e thre e hou r tim e limit , an d installation , operatio n ar. i calibratio n o f th e monito r woul d hol d fo r thi s flo wmonitorin g example
. Th e fina l variabl e analyzed wa s type o f compound

. Fc r mos

t incinerato r applications , th e compound s i n th e wast

e ga s ar e set b y th e proces

s t o whic h the*-incinerato r i s attached
. Thus , type o f compoun d i s o f n

o concern . However

, certai n application s ma y hav e differin g compound

s i n th e wast e gas . A coatin g operatio n ma y hav e a t on e tim e a solven t wit h a n ME K base , an

d the n switc h t o a solven t wit h a toluen e base
. ME K1 s oxidize d easie r tha n toluene , an d thu s a n incinerato r whic h achieve s complianc

e o n a n ME Kstrea m ma

y b e inadequat

e fo r th e toluen e stream
.

### n

n Th e judgemen

to n thi s Ite

m 1 s the* * ne

tgeneral monitoring, requiremen t o n typ e o f compoun d ca n b tspecified . Mos

tcase s wil l hav

e th twaste ga s compound*^ , b y th e process . I n thos e tha' . d

o not , considerabl e difficult y 1*iMa1one d 1 n defining , i n agenera l way , whe n th e wast

e ge s compoundpSev

e change d enoug h t o requir e additiona l complianc e tests . Fo

rexample , differentiatin g betwee n solven tformulations woul d be difficult . Th

e sam e generi c nam

e o f solven tma

y sho w greate rvariation s i n composition tha

n tw o differen tnam

e specialize d solvents . However , thoug h ageneral requiremen

to n typ e o f compoun d canno tb e set , specifi c requirement

s ma y be desire d fo rcertai n standards . Temperatur

e an d flo w monitoring d

o no tmeasur

e Incinerato rperformanc e directly . Thus , concer n exist s overth e long ter m stabilit y o f

Incinerato r performance, eve

n wit h temperature , flow an

d typ e o f compoun d hel d constant . Dat

ao n thi s issu e i s show

n i n Tabl

e 1 . Th e to p parto f

th e tabl e show

s dat afro m L.A. Count

y wher e th e sam e Incinerato rwa

s teste d 1 n differen tyears . Th

e botto m partlist s possibl e Incinerato rmalfunctions tha tcoul d affec tperformance, withoutchangin g temperatur

e an d flow . Base d o n Table 1 , incinerators , 1 f properl y designe d an

d adjusted , are judge d t o hav e fairl y stabl e performanc e ove rtime . Th

tI.A . unit s showe d onl y small change

s i n efficienc y ove rtime . Th e efficiencie s o f these unit s change

d les s tha

n tw o percentage point s oversevtrr l years , i excep ton e case . I

n addition , th e liste d malfunctions ar e judge d t o ? occurinfrequently . This 1 s base d o n several factors . First , thes e ; 

### ! malfunctions involv e non-movin g part s subjec tt o littl e wear . Also , th e typica l wast

e gase s are no thighl y corrosiv e an d th e typica l Incinerato r fuels , natura

l gas an d fue l oil , hav

e lo w sulfu ran

d as h content . Finally , eve

n thoug h Incinerator s underg

o wid e temperatur

e swings , incinerato rcomponent

s ar e designed t o withstan d these changes , give n prope rcoolin g an

d heatin g o f

th e unit . Th e abov e conclusio n should notb e overstated . Thoug

h fairl y stable , al l fou rL.A . date set s sho w som e dro p i n performanc

e ove rtime . An d thoug h improbable . Incinerato rmalfunctions are no timpossible . Thus, th e conclusio n fro m th e dat

a1 s nottha tn

o additiona l requirement s ar e neede d ove rtemperatur

e an d flow monitoring . ' Rather, th e conclusio n i s tha tth e cost s an

d recordkeeping o f

additiona l monitoring requirement s mus tbe carefull y balanced agains temission s potentiall y prevented b y them . Afte rthi s balanc e wa

s studied , tw

o additiona l requirement s wer e considered . Thes

e are bi-annua

l performanc

e testin g an

d bi-annua

l inspectio n an

d maintenanc

e (I&M ) fo rincinerators . Th e performanc

e testin g woul

d follo w th e metho

d specifie d 1

n th e standard . Th

e I aM woul d involv e visua l Inspectio n fo ritem s suc h a s corrosio n an

d firebo x deterioration , calibratio n an d testin g o f

contro l Instrumentation,.an d s o on . Suc

h I& M coul d mos

tlikel y be performe

d a tth e sam

e tim e as a proces s turnaround .Thes e t« e additiona l monitorin g method s woul d effectivel y dtttc t drop s i n infitoerato r performanc e not detecte d b

y temptr»turt and flo w monitorinf^JSgrformenc e testin g 1 s th wmos t direc t mec.s o f detectin g ooor efflcjffej.
. Th t I & M wil l catc h drop s i n performanc

e b y spottin g equipmen t failure s o r impendin g failure s tha t coul d lea d t o poor performance
. Th e I & M hd

s th e adde

d advantage tha t impendin g failure s whic h coul d lea d t o incinerato r shutdow n would als o b

e spotted
. Th

e tw o yea r perio d fo r complianc

e testin g an

d I & M 1 s base

d o n th e rat e a t whic h incinerato r performanc

e i s likel y t o deteriorate
. Th e tw o yea r perio d fo r I & M als o corresponds t o th e typica l tim e betwee n proces s turnarounds
. Thus , wit h a bi-annua l I & M th e incinerato r I & M coul d b e performe

d a t th e sam

e tim e a s proces s equipmen

t I & M , an

d i t woul d no

t b e necessar

y t o shu t dow n th e proces

s jus t t o check

th e incinerator
. Finally , th e timin g of th e performanc

e tes t an

d th e I & M are no

t linked
. The

y can b e don e togethe r i n an y orde r o r apart
. Typ e o f Compoun

d - On e facto r which affect s incinerato r efficienc y i s type of compound

. Th e June-1 1 mem

o o n incinerato r efficienc y exclude s thi s facto r fro m it s conclusions , bu t discusse s onl y briefl y .th

e reason s fo r thi s exclusion
. Thi s sectio n discusse s th e Impac

t o f thi s facto r o

n efficienc y an

d explain s i n mor

e detai l th e reason s fo r it s exclusion
. I n term s c f th e impac t o f compoun

d o n efficiency , th e availabl e ; incinerato r data doe

s sho wa moderat

e Impact
. Th

e Unio n Carbid e la b data demonstrate

s thi s mos

t clearly
. I n case

s wher e differen t compound

s wer e incinerate d a t th e sam e temperature , residence time , an d flow regime , variation s i n efficienc y o f u p t o 5 percen t point s occurre d fo r temperatures abov

e U00*F
. A

t lowe r temperatures , th e efficienc y variation s increase d u p t o 2 0 an

d 3 0 percentag e points. However , a s a practica l matter , includin g compoun d a s a faeto r i n a

n efficienc y conclusio n would b e difficult
. First , a precis e quantitative relatio n betwee

n compoun

d an d efficienc y coul d not b e determined
. A

s wit h mixing , n

o singl e valu e coul d b e assigne

d t o a n Individua l compoun

d t o represen t eas

e o f combustion
. Thus , analysi s o f th e relatio n betwee n efficienc y an

d compoun

d wa s limited
. Second , eve n i f a relationship coul d b e devised , i t woul d b e comple x an d difficul t t o apply
. Th e relationshi p woul d likel y involve kineti c rat e constants , autoignitio n temperatures , factor s fo r molecula r configuratio n an d structura l group

s an d simila r variables
. T o avoi d thes e difficulties , a n alternativ e approac h wa s taken
. N

o initia l attempts wer

e mad e a t drawin g a fine-tune d efficienc y conclusio n showing differin g efficiencie s a t differin g temperatures fo r differen t compounds

. Rather , a conservativ e approach o f choosin g a simpl e se t of incinerato r condition s an d efficiencie s base

d o n th e mos

t difficul t compound s t o combus

t wa s pursued
. Thi s approach prove d successful
.

### Severa l factor s aide d1 nth t succes s o f thi s approach . First , th e

avai l ablav

te s whic htes* . aromatic*^ , suc ha s ME K an dethy l ami Qjyere da wid e rang e o f compounds . Th t compound s o n availabl e Include dC , t o C - alkane s an dolefins . benzene , toluene , an dxylene , oxygenate dcompound s ropenol , nitroge ncontainin g specie s suc ha s acrylonitril e chlorinate dcompound s suc ha s viny l chloride , wit h suc ha rang e o f compound s an dth e consideratio no f kinetics , i t wa s conclude d tha t wors t cas e compound s ha dbee ntake nint o account . Th e secon d facto r wa s th e discover y tha t increasin g combustio ntemperatur e resulte d i nonl y negligibl e energy

penaltie s an

dmoderat e cos t increases . Thus , choosin g a highe r temperatur e t o cove r th e wors t case s di dno t mak e Incinerator s unaffordabl e o r to o energy intensive . Inle t Concentratio n- A secondfacto r whic haffect s efficienc y 1 s Inle t concentraton . Unlik e typ e o f compound , anallowanc e fo r thi s facto r wa s Include di nth e efficienc y conclusions . Specifically , thes e conclusion s include dno t onl y anefficienc y

o f 9 8 percen t bu t a minimu m exi t concentratio no f 2 0 ppm v b y compound . Thus , a s Inle t concentratio n drops , th e minimu

m ppm v lower s th e efficienc y

required . Fo r example , witha 50 0 ppm

v Inle t concentratio nfo r a wast e ga s containin g oxygen , th e 2 0 ppm

v minimu m translate s t o a 9 6 percen t efficiency ; wit ha 25 0 ppm v Inlet , a 9 2 percen t efficiency . Thi s sectio nexplain s 1 nmor e detai l t 

### th e reason s fo r thi s allowanc e fo r inle t concentration . I Th e tes t result s fro

m L.A . Count y

for m th e majo r basi s fo r this - ? allowance . Thes e result s sho w a strong trendwher e lowe r inle t concentratio n result s i nlowe r efficiency . Fo r example , fo r Inle t concentration s les s tha n160 0 ppm

v a s carbon , th e media nL.A . efficienc y wa s approximatel y 9 2 percent . Fo r inle t concentration s betwee n160 0 and2400 , th e media n L.A . efficienc y

wa s approximatel y

9 4 percent . Fo r Inle t concentration s abov e 2400 , th e media nefficienc y wa s approximatel y

9 7 percent . Kineti c consideration s als o suppor t th e allowanc e fo r Inle t concentration . Th e mos t likel y

kineti c mode l wher e inle t concentratio ndoe s no t affec t efficienc y

i s a firs t orde r model . However , available-literatur e Indicate s tha t combustio nfollow s comple xreactio nmechanisms . ' I ncases , thes e r.echan.sm

s ca nb e fi t t o a firs t orde r model . However , a s a genera l rule , thes e mechanisms , whic hInvolv e chai nreactions , fre e radical s an d multipl e pathways , canno t b e reduce dt o firs t orde r models . Th e Jun e 11 , 1980 , Incinerato r memo conclude dtha t th e L.A . Incinerator s di dno t al l achiev e prope r mixing . Thi s Imprope r mixin g ma y hav e cause d o r influence dth e relatio nbetwee nefficienc y an dInle t concentratio ni n th e L.A . data . I f thi s i s th e case , the na nallowanc e fo r Inle t concentratio n ma y permi t lowe r efficiencie s tha nar e actuall y achievabl e inincinerator s wit hprope r mixing . However , th e possibl e effec t o f poo r mixin g o nth e relatio no f efficienc y

andinle t concentratio nremain s jus t that , possible ; n o conclusiv e statemen t ca nb e made . Give nthis , a mor e conservativ e approac hwa s take nand.lower efficiencie s fo r lowe r inle t concentration s wer e allowed .: 

### -y*& ' * w
Inle t concentratio n als o impact s cos t effectiveness * 1.e > cost * pt * uni t wtigMflHL toatrp * 1,d * The precise.impac t depend s on molecula r weighti - tfle^Hfeo f th t Incinerato r an d th t rati o o f wast e ga s energ y content-t o «B f Figure 1 sho wthese impacts
. A surprisin g conclusio n i n th e analysi s o f inle t concentratio n vs . cost effectivenes s i s th e rol e o f supplementa l fuel
. The increasin g cos t fo r supplementa l fue l a s inle t pp

m drop s 1 s not , a majo r facto r i n cost effectiveness
. Incinerato r siz e an d th e amoun

r o f VO C bein g destroyed are muc h mor e importan t factors
. A n Illustrativ e exampl

e i s a 500

0 SCF M incinerato r burnin g benzen e i n nitrogen
. Th

e extr a fue l require d whe n droppin g th e inle t contritio n fro m 500 0 t o 50 0 ppm vincreases th e cos

t effectivenes s onl y 2 0 pereent
. Th e fac t tha t onl y one-tent h th e benzen e i s bein g destroye d fo r abou t th e sam

e cost increases th e cost effectivenes s 100 0 percent
. An

d decreasin g th e strea m siz e t o 100 0 SCF M Increases th e cost effectivenes s about 30 0 percent
. Clearly , Increasin g fue l cost s a t lowe r ppm

vi s onl y a minor factor
.
1 Rolke , R.W. , et . al . Afterburne r System Study , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Repor t S-14121 , Shel l Developmen t Company , 1971 , i 2 Barnes , R.H. , et . a l Chemica l Aspect s o f Afterburne r Systems , IER L Repof t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , EPA-600/7-79-096 . Betell e Columbu * Laboratories , Apri l 1979 . • *P.3 5 

### lon g Ter m Incinerato r Performance "

• J . ^

. . • • •_,-•__
_ , * • *

_.*_

. - . . - » -.'
- .___!•_____•___ . (.;-'- J

Compan y A
. L.A
. Tes t Oata *

Oate ? • •:. W •.-•••' ' 

### Inlet . Outle t (ppm v carbon ) XVO C

Destructio n Flow(SCFM) /

Temp . (OF )

•a y & Nigh t "anufacturing ;
Hasteel , Inc . Nationa l Ca n nationa l Ca n 175 4

244 2 244 3 223 6 240 2 143 0 174 6 145 1 174 6 10-30-7 3

7 - 7-7 6 " 8-10-7 8 5-12-7 5 2-17-7 6 6-10-7 0 3-21-7 4 6-10-7 0 3-21-7 4 44 3

103 0 " " 71 6 602 0 586 0 490 0 737 0 350 0 624 7 737 0 3 3

" 9 1 9 4 5 2 7 1 3 1 10 4 2 2 8 2 7 9 92. 5

91. 4 87. 3 99. 0 98.9 - 99" . 4 98. 6 99. 4 98. 0 98. 0 3270/130 0

2020/130 0 2050 / - 1210/126 0 4150/137 5 2520/150 0 1590/150 0 4620/146 0 4660/142 0 .4650/152 5



### Par t 3 - Possibl e Incinerato r Malfunctions* * 'alfunctionCaus e Possibl e Effec t onVOCContro l Firebric kDeterioratio n

Insulatio nLos s from Incinerato r Exterio r

Corrosio no f ducts , baffle s t othe r expose dmeta l Pluggin g o f Burner s ;;?. .

breakin g o f Recuperativ e Hea t Exchange r Seal s Imprope r heatin g & coolin g o f incinerato r durin g start-u p& shutdown ; firebo xtemperatur e to o hig h Genera l weatherin g t corrosio nfro

m rain , cold , Incinerato r start-up& shutdow nt s o o n Ash , adds , salts , etc . i nfue l o r wast e ga s Deteriorate dwal l allow s loca l hea t los s resultin g i

ncoo l sp

c 1 nfirebox , an

dthu s potential ! lowe r destructio nefficienc y i r thos e spot s Same a s previous ; insulatio nT lead s t o loca l hea t los s & co o i nth e Incinerato r

As h& carbo nbuUd-u p Sever e corrosio no f meta l par t affect s th e ga s flo

w pattern s throug han

daroundthem , poten affectin g mixin g & thu s effic i A plugge do r partiall y

plugge c affect s th e flo

w pattern s & temperatur e profile s inth e f potentiall y

lowering destruc V efficienc y Genera l corrosion ; tamper - Inle t wast e ga s leak s int o t h atur e warpin g fro

m ho t spot s flu e ga s withou t passing tnro inth e exchanger , imprope r th e firebox , heatin g & cooling durin g start-u p& shutdow

n *7ne iiste o oat a ar e fro m incinerator s wnic nwtr t teste o inmor e tha non e year . -The liste dmalfunction s includ e onl y thos e whic hwoul dlikel y no t affec t temperatur e a t a sinel e poin t firebo xtemperatur e ronito r o r inlet/outle t flow ._E_3 6

4»*
.

. i-'^-^i'Ji—
. »3taR__!_^aj__aDap.r\j^5vii^_.^ii3 i

sjaexi " aac^T

X _*r J ^^ ,_^_^^ , r:.:^i-~ ,
5_3 ^ ' r 4v'. . i
'iffP ^



## 8

o

100 0 200 0 PPM V 3 Y C0MP0UN0 , MW • 8 0 Figur e i - Cos t Effectivenes s fo r Therma l Incinerator s by

Inle t Concentratio n an d Waste Ga s Flo w 300 Q

_

### j P.3 7

>.«r w < 

### rfgur f f> c, ^w?-* ' 

### Explanation 

# f. *•*«
. ••cr ,

• - Figure-tjUptthecps t effectivenes s o f therma l Incinerator s b y Inle t concsntratletflflKiste>.aj M flow . Th t cos t effectivenes s 1 s i nhundre ddollar s ptr200 0 pwiS^Bp?Inle t concentratio ni s ppm v by compound ; andth e flow rat e i s i nSCFM . T|_pjpst i i nth e figur e assume a wast e ga s deficien t 1nair , an d a compoundwitfT a molecula r weigh t o f 8 0 ari da hea t o f combustio no f .15,00 0 BTU/l bVO C Th e therma l incinerato r ooerate s a t 1600° F an d .7 5 second s an

d achieve s 7 0 percen t recuperativ e hea t recovery . Th e figur e ca nb e use dt o approximat e cos t effectivenes s fo r situation s othe r tha ntha t describe di nth e abov e paragraph . Fo r compound s wit hdifferen t molecula r weights , th e x-axi s scal e shoul db e increase db y 8 0 ove r the,molecula r weigh t o f th e compound . Fo r example , fo r a compoun dwit hmolecula r weigh t o f 40 , th e x-axi s scal e woul drea d2000 , 4000 , an d 6000 . Fo r case s wher e th e wast e ga s contain s sufficien t oxyge nfo r combustion , th e cos t effectivenes s shoul db e decrease db y th e followin g percentages : 100 0 SCFM 250 0 SCF M 500 0 SCF M 1000 0 SCFM 2500 0 SCFM 7 X

14 X 21 % 26 X 30 * 

# J Thi s adjustmen t account s fo r th e smalle r siz e an d lowe r fue l requirement s o t thes e cases . Finally , fo r case s wher e th e combustio nvalu e o f th e strea m pe r poundo f VO C i s higher , th e below liste ddecrease s approximat e th e costs . Thes e adjustment s **____.* ___.___.___. AV* . •««_ . _._mm assume 30,00 0 BTU/l bVOC , fo r ppm v <50 0 fo r ppm v betwee n 50 0 & 300 0

fo r ppm v >300 0 No adjustmen t

100 0 SCFM

5 X 250 0 SCFM

10 X 500 0 SCF M

15 X 1000 0 SCF M

20 X 2500 0 SCF M

25 5 No adjustmen t
Thi s adjustmen t account s fo r th e lowe r fue l us e a t highe r BTU/l blevels.

_