United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305)
EPA530-F-94-023
July 1994
vvEPA
Memorandum on
Trial Burns
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on recycled paper that contains at
least 10% post-consumer recycled fiber
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL -5 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Trial Burn Failures
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director/^'
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify EPA's policy on
trial burns for incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), ;
and to address issues that have recently been raised regarding
trial burn failures. These issues include: 1) what constitutes a
successful trial burn; 2) how to handle invalid data; 3) what
constitutes an unsuccessful trial burn; 4) how to handle a
request for a trial burn retest; and 5) how to restrict
operations after an unsuccessful trial burn.
The policies set out in this memorandum are not final agency
action, but are intended solely as guidance. They are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
EPA officials may decide to follow .the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an
analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also
reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without
public notice.
Purpose of a Trial Burn
A trial burn serves several purposes. It is used to
determine whether a facility can meet the required performance
standards for either hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR
264.343) or BIFs (40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H), and to determine
the operating conditions that should be. set in the permit. A
trial burn is also used by the permit writer to determine the
need for and establish other limits or requirements on a site-
specific basis under the "omnibus" authority of RCRA Section
3005(c)(3). This guidance will consider the term "performance
R«cycl*d/R0cyclabl«
Printed wtth Soy/dnol* Ink on piper that
contain* MlMtt SO* recycled fiber
-------
standards" to include both regulatory performance standards and
such site-specific standards imposed through the omnibus
authority. Until continuous emission monitors (CEMs) are
available, setting permit operating conditions based on the
results of trial burns is the best method of assuring compliance
with the regulations.
A trial burn typically consists of a. series of "tests". A
trial burn test (or combination of tests) should be done for each
set of operating conditions for which the facility desires to be
permitted. Three "runs" should be performed for each test. Each
run of a test should be conducted at the same nominal operating
conditions. In general, each run of a test should be passed for
the test to be considered successful and for the facility to be
permitted to operate at that set of conditions.
Facilities will often perform multiple tests during the
trial burn in order to develop all applicable permit operating
conditions. For example, facilities will usually perform a
minimum and a maximum temperature test, since decreasing
temperatures tend to decrease organics destruction, and
increasing temperatures tend to increase metals emissions due to
an increase in volatility. These tests, if successful, will
determine the temperature boundaries between which the facility
can operate in compliance with the destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) and metal emissions standards.
During a trial burn, a facility's general strategy is
typically to operate at conditions that will give it a broad
range of permit operating conditions. The permit writer should
take great care in reviewing the trial burn plan to assure that
the test conditions meet the regulatory requirements. According
to 40 CFR 270.62(b)(5) for incinerators and 40 CFR 270.66(d)(2)
for BIFs, the trial burn plan can only be approved if 1) it is
likely to determine if the performance standards can be met, 2)
it does not present an imminent hazard to human health or the
environment, and 3) it will help to determine the necessary
operating requirements. In determining if the performance
standards can be met in the trial burn, permit writers should use
their experience and best engineering judgement to make sure that
the trial burn represents "good operating practices". EPA
believes that a trial burn plan that allows or incorporates sub-
standard operating practices is less likely to demonstrate
compliance with required performance standards than a plan based
on a well-operated unit. The Combustion Emissions Technical
Resource Document (CETRED), which helps to define best operating
practices for various categories of hazardous waste combustors,
can assist in determining good operating practices. Engineering
judgement and generally accepted industry' practices for achieving
good mixing, adequate temperatures and residence times, adequate
oxygen, steady-state operation, and minimization of fugitive
emissions can also be used in this- evaluation. Additionally, in
-------
reviewing and approving a trial burn plan, the permit writer may
find it useful to examine the facility's compliance history and
past operating history when applicable.
What Constitutes a Successful Trial Burn
A trial burn is successful only if enough tests are passed
so that the permit writer can establish a complete set of
operating conditions in the permit to assure compliance with
applicable performance standards. A successful trial burn test
generally consists of passing three separate runs at the same
nominal operating conditions. If a test is successful, the
facility would be allowed to operate under the tested conditions.
In general, failing any performance standard in any one of the
three runs constitutes a failure of that test. If a test fails,
the facility should not be permitted to operate under the failed
conditions.
A facility may fail an individual test (or several tests) at
particular operating conditions during the trial burn; however,
if sufficient tests are passed such that applicable permit
operating conditions can be established from the successful
tests, then the trial burn is still considered successful. For
example, for a facility where maximum and minimum temperature
limits are necessary, the facility would typically have to pass
both a minimum temperature test and a maximum temperature test,
along with any other necessary tests, for the trial burn to be
successful.
Facilities can receive final permit conditions,for only
those conditions that they passed in the trial burn or that'are
set independent of the trial burn (e.g., Tier I metal limits/
which are discussed later in this document). Thus, in a case .
where a facility passed some tests and failed others, it is
important to be able to distinguish the difference between the '
successful and unsuccessful conditions. Final permit conditions
should be written to allow the facility to operate at the
successful conditions while excluding the unsuccessful ones.
Additionally, the permit writer should be sure to set monitoring
and recording requirements in the permit to assure that operating
conditions are being met.
Final permit conditions will directly reflect the successful
operating conditions from the trial burn. Due to unforeseen
circumstances that may arise during trial burns, the trial burn
conditions may deviate somewhat from the conditions specified in
the trial burn plan. If this situation occurs, and the trial
burn was successful, the operating conditions in the permit
should be the conditions demonstrated during the trial burn, not
the conditions from the trial burn plan. In other words, for
conditions that are set based on the trial burn, a facility will
-------
be permitted to operate only at those conditions that have been
demonstrated successfully during the trial burn.
Facilities may perform'several tests during a trial burn in
an attempt to have different sets of operating conditions for
different sets of wastes (i.e., "campaign burning"). If a
facility fails a particular test, it may still be permitted to
operate on those waste streams and at those conditions that were
successfully demonstrated, provided that sufficient data are
available from the passed tests to set all necessary permit
operating conditions. If trial burn results do not provide
Suf icient data to enable the Agency to set permit conditions
which assure compliance with the performance standards, then the
trial burn would not be considered successful.
How to Handle Invalid Dafca .
In limited situations, the Agency believes it may be
appropriate to use data from two successful runs as the basis to
determine that a trial burn test was successful when
circumstances beyond the owner/operator's control caused the
invalidation of a
-------
d)
e)
There should be no reason to believe (based on
operating data, observation of stack emissions, etc )
that the invalid run was less likely to be in
compliance than the other two runs. Immediate
reporting by the facility of an incident which might
invalidate a run (e.g., QA/QC outside of control
limits) lends more credence to the claim of invalidity
than_if the facility waits until all analytical results
are in and emission calculations have been made.
A detailed written description of the circumstances
resulting in the invalidation of data related to any
test should be submitted to, and reviewed by, the
Agency.
Generally, two valid runs should not be accepted as a
successful trial burn test when the owner/operator had direct
control over the situation that caused the third run to be
invalidated. The trial burn test should be considered
unsuccessful if neglect and/or carelessness of either the
owner/operator or those conducting the testing/analysis caused
the invalidation of a run.
What Constitutes an Unsuccessful Trial Burn
A trial burn is unsuccessful either because it showed a
failure to. meet the performance standards, or it was
inconclusive. A trial burn is considered a failure when enough
tests have; failed (i.e., show a failure to meet performance
standards) such that a .full set of operating conditions
representing compliance cannot be set in the permit.
A trial burn failure is different from failure of a trial
burn test. A test failure shows nonconformance with the
standards at one set of operating conditions; however, a facility
may still be permitted to operate if it passes one or more trial
burn tests at other operating conditions. A trial burn failure
occurs when enough tests have failed such that a full set of
operating conditions representing compliance cannot be set in the
permit. The results of a failed trial burn should not be used to
establish final permit operating conditions. Following a failed
trial burn, the permitting authority should take one or more of
the following actions, as appropriate: 1) take steps to restrict
operations (as discussed later in this document); 2) begin
processing a denial of the facility's permit application (for an *
interim status facility); 3) initiate proceedings to terminate
the facility's permit (for a new facility); 4) authorize a trial
burn retest -(also discussed later in this document).
An entire trial burn (like a trial burn test) may be
considered inconclusive. An inconclusive trial burn occurs when
-------
data problems have arisen such that neither conformance nor
nonconformance with the performance standards can be shown. The
results of an inconclusive trial burn may not be used to
establish final permit operating conditions. Following an
inconclusive trial burn, the permitting authority should take one
or more of the following actions, as appropriate: 1) take steps
to restrict operations (as discussed later in this document); 2)
begin processing a denial of the facility's permit application
(for an interim status facility); 3) initiate proceedings to
terminate the facility's permit (for a new facility); 4)
authorize a trial burn retest (also discussed later in this
document).
Facilities may choose not to test for certain parameters and
be permitted at the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits established in the BIF rule (56 FR 7134, February 21,
1991), if appropriate. These parameters include metal emissions
(40 CFR 266.106), and hydrogen chloride (HC1) and chlorine gas
(C12) emissions (40 CFR 266.107). The Tier I and Adjusted Tier I
feed rate screening limits are based on the assumption that all
metals, HC1, or C12 (depending on the parameter) fed into the
system are emitted (i.e., no partitioning into the bottom ash,
and no removal by any air pollution control device). This case
is the most conservative scenario possible and produces the most:
stringent feed limits in the permit. The Adjusted Tier I feed
rate screening limits also allow for site-specific dispersion
modeling. Although directly applicable only to BIFs, these
provisions are generally applied to incinerators as well through
the Agency's omnibus permitting authority, where necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
Facilities that test for these parameters and fail, or show
inconclusive results, should not be permitted to operate under
the tested conditions. Instead, a permit for the facility (if
one is issued) should limit the facility to the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limits., For example, a
permit for a facility that does not meet the HC1 or Cl, standard
when tested under higher chlorine feed rates should limit the
chlorine and chloride input to the equivalent of 4 Ibs HCl/hr,
the Tier I limit, or the Adjusted Tier I limit, as applicable.
Similarly, a permit for a facility thstt does not meet the
metals emissions standards during high temperature testing should
limit the metals input into the system to the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I feed rate screening limits (see 56 FR 7171, February 21,
1991). .
It should also be noted that, where the trial burn did not
demonstrate compliance with the HC1, C12, or metal emissions
standards, the permit may specify allowable chlorine or metals
feed rates that are more restrictive than the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I limits, based on a site-specific risk assessment which
-------
considers both direct and indirect exposure pathways to a wide
range of pollutants.• In this case, the same assumption
concerning stack emissions should be applied (that is, the
assumption of no partitioning,or removal).
How to Handle a Request For a Trial Burn Retest
Facilities that fail or conduct an inconclusive trial burn
test or tests may request a retest and submit a revised trial
burn plan. The permitting authority would review and approve or
deny such a request. For a permitted incinerator or BIF (new or
renewal), this request would be processed through the permit
modification procedures in accordance with 40 CFR 270.42. The
revised trial burn plan can only be approved if 1) it is likely
to determine if the performance standards can be met, 2) it does
not present an imminent hazard to human health or the
environment, and 3) it will help to determine the necessary
operating requirements (see 40 CFR 270.62(b)(5) for incinerators
and 40 CFR 270.66(d)(2) for BIFs). In the case of a request for
a trial burn retest following a trial burn test failure, the'
applicant should conduct an investigation into the reason for the
failure, and make substantive changes in its proposed trial burn
plan which would be expected to prevent failure from reoccurring..
A facility should not be allowed to retest unless it has made
changes to its process (i.e., design and/or operating
conditions), that are likely to correct the problems encountered
in the failed trial burn test. A facility should not be allowed
just to "take its chances" on passing a retest under the same
conditions. The first failed test indicates that, at best, the
unit would not be in compliance some of the time when operated at
those conditions, and that those conditions should therefore not
be incorporated into a permit.
As opposed to a trial burn test failure, an inconclusive
test would not necessarily require changes to be made to the
process prior to allowing a retest. The test could be repeated,
under the same conditions as the previous test, but with special
attention paid to the situation that caused the original test to
be inconclusive. During the retest, all attempts should be made
to prevent that situation from reoccurring.
There is no set limit on the number of retests allowed under
EPA regulations, so long as after each unsuccessful test the
above criteria are met and the trial burn plan is revised and
approved (through a permit modification for a new incinerator or
BIF) prior to any retesting. The same criteria recommended for
the design and conduct of initial trial burns are also
recommended for all retests (i.e., three runs for each trial burn
test, etc.).
-------
Facilities that wish to conduct a trial burn retest after an
unsuccessful test should expeditiously submit a comprehensive
request consistent with the guidance discussed above. If a
complete request is not promptly submitted, it is appropriate for
the_Agency to_start permit denial proceedings. The Agency's
decision to discontinue or delay permit denial proceedings will
be highly dependent on the adequacy of any retest request and the
Agency's ability assure compliance with applicable regulations
during the interim period.
For facilities that fail a trial burn test for only the HC1,
C12/ particulate, or metal emissions standards, EPA believes it
may be appropriate in some cases to authorize a retest for these
failed performance standards without simultaneous ORE testing.
This decision would depend on the nature of the design or
operating modifications made for the retest. If the
modifications would not adversely impact DRE (e.g., addition of
pollution control equipment), then HC1, particulate, and/or metal
tests are sufficient. In this case, operating conditions should
be identical to those of the original trial burn test for all
parameters other than those related to the modifications which
were made. In contrast, if the design or operating modifications
madefy the facility in order to retest for the HC1, C12,
particulate, or metals emissions standards have the potential to
affect DRE, then DRE should be retested along with the standards'
that were not demonstrated.
The permit writer should ensure that operating conditions
during a trial burn retest are consistent with the overall scheme
of the trial burn plan so that all successful tests can be used
in conjunction to establish final operating conditions.
How to Restrict Operations After an Unsuccessful Trial Burn
Permitting authorities should move expeditiously, in
appropriate cases, to restrict operations (to the extent that
regulatory and statutory authorities allow) after receiving
information that a facility conducted an unsuccessful trial burn
(i.e., a trial burn failure or an inconclusive trial burn).
Permits for new incinerators and BIFs should be written with
a provision that would restrict post-trial burn operations if a
facility conducts an unsuccessful trial burn. The Agency
recommends that such permits contain the following conditions- l)
the permittee must notify the Regional Administrator within 24
hours of making a determination that the incinerator or BIF
failed to achieve any of the performance standards in any run of
any test, and 2) upon the request of the Regional Administrator,
the permittee shall feed waste and operate the incinerator or BIF
only under restricted conditions as specified by the Regional
Administrator. (A similar condition is recommended in the
8
-------
incinerator module of the model permit, except the second portion
of the condition provides that, upon the request of the Regional
Administrator, the permittee shall cease feeding hazardous waste
to the incinerator. The new recommended language covers the case
where a complete shutdown is required, while providing clearer
authority in cases where some, but not all, tests were
successful.) The permittee then has the option of applying for a
permit modification pursuant to 40 CFR 270.42 to conduct a new
trial burn pursuant to 40 CFR 270.62(b) for incinerators or 40
CFR 270.66 for BlFs. If an already-issued permit does not have
such a provision in it, and the trial burn is unsuccessful, then
EPA may still be able to modify the permit to restrict operations
based on 40 CFR 270.41(a)(2) or 40 CFR 270.41(b)(1), or terminate
the permit based on 40 CFR 270.43(a)(3). The appropriate
authorities should be invoked to assure that operations during
the post-trial burn period will achieve compliance with the
performance standards.
With respect to interim status; BIFs, EPA regulations
establish certain performance standards that must be met at all
times when there is hazardous waste in, the unit (40 CER
266.103(c)(l)). Standards for carbon monoxide, total
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, metals emissions, and hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas emissions are included in the "
regulations. If trial burn data from an interim status BIF
indicate failure to comply with any of these standards, then
under -appropriate circumstances the permitting agency may be able
to restrict operations under RCRA Section 3008 or Section 7003.
With respect to interim status incinerators that fail their
trial burns, regulatory agencies should either move as quickly as
possible to cause the incinerators to cease operations by denying
their permits (or, if appropriate, through RCRA Section 7003
actions), or, if appropriate, authorize trial burn retests. This
guidance also applies to interim status BIFs that fail their DRE
standard during the trial burn, since the DRE standard generally
does not apply to BIFs during interim status.
EPA has recently proposed a rule which would provide
explicit authority to restrict operations at interim status
facilities after a failed or inconclusive trial burn (59 FR
28680, June 2, 1994). During the post-trial burn period, interim
status facilities would only be able to operate under conditions
that passed and were demonstrated to meet the applicable
performance standards, and only if the successful trial burn data
are sufficient to set all applicable operating conditions. If
finalized as proposed, this regulation would provide additional
authority to restrict operations at interim status facilities
following a failed or inconclusive trial burn.
-------
For more background on issues such as permit conditions,
trial burn measurements, and validity of data, permit writers may
consult the following guidance documents.
Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial
Burn Results; January 1989.
Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance Manual;
June 1989.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Procedures for
Hazardous Waste Incineration, January 1990.
If your staff have any questions on this trial burn failure
guidance or how to obtain other guidance materials, they may call
Andy O'Palko at (703) 308-8646, or Sonya Sasseville at (703) 308-
8648.
cc: Waste Combustion Permit Writers Workgroup
Dev Barnes
Matt Hale
Matt Straus
Fred Chanania
Susan Bromm
Susan O'Keefe
Office of Regional Council RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Brian Grant, OGC
10
------- |