HWF NOTES ©
Submittal of Data in Lieu of Trial Burn
by David L. Constans
§270.22(a)(6) (Data in lieu of trial burn) allows the owner or operator of a Boiler or Industrial Furnace (BIF) to seek an exemption from the trial burn requirements - "...by providing the information required by §270.66 from previous compliance testing of the device in conformance with §266.103 ...or from compliance testing or trial or operational burns of similar boilers or industrial furnaces..."(emphasis added).
Owner or operators that wish to submit "data in lieu of trial burn" based on a "similar device" must submit the design and operating information required by §270.66 for both devices.
To receive consideration for a waiver from a trial burn the owner or operator must submit: (1) A description and analysis of the hazardous waste to be burned in the facility proposed for permitting compared with the hazardous waste consumed during the compliance testing. (2) The design and operating conditions of the facility proposed for permitting compared with the design and operating conditions for the compliance testing which supplied the "data in lieu of trial burn." and (3) Any supplemental information needed by the Director.
To receive consideration for a waiver from the DRE trial the Owner or Operator must submit additional information regarding POHC selection. §270.22(a)(6)(ii) delineates the required information. Unfortunately this paragraph is very poorly written, and is quoted here for your critique.
"For a waiver of the DRE trial burn, the basis for the selection of POHCs used in the other trial or operational burns which demonstrate compliance with the DRE performance standard in §266.104(a) of this chapter. This analysis should specify the constituents in appendix VIII, part 261 of this chapter, that the applicant has identified in the hazardous waste for which the permit is sought, and any differences from the POHCs in the hazardous waste for which burn data are provided."
Given that the first sentence is not even complete, one is left to speculate what the EPA intended. However based on our experience and a discussion with a Region V permit writer, GCI believes that the submittal of the following information would demonstrate compliance with this paragraph. (1) Demonstration that the previously conducted testing was in compliance with the provisions of §266.104(a). (2) Statement of the basis for the selection of the POHCs used in this previously conducted testing. (i.e. demonstrate that the POHC(s) were as difficult to destroy as the Appendix VIII, Part 261, constituents that were present in the HWF.) (3) Demonstration that the selection of the POHC(s) is valid for the HWF to be fed to the facility proposed for permitting. (i.e. A comparison of the Appendix VIII, Part 261, constituents that may be present in the HWF used in the previous compliance test versus the HWF to be fed to the facility proposed for permitting.) Any differences in the list of constituents would have to be discussed with respect to the selection of the POHC(s). Also note that the wording in §270.66(c)(2)(i) regarding analysis for Appendix VIII, Part 261, constituents is different than has been previously used.
§270.66(c)(2)(i) An identification of any hazardous organic constituents listed in appendix VIII, part 261, of this chapter that are present in the feed stream, except that the applicant need not analyze for constituents listed in appendix VIII that would reasonably not be expected to be found in the hazardous waste. The constituents excluded from analysis must be identified and the basis for this exclusion explained. ....." (Emphasis added.)
The Regional EPA Director has considerable latitude in whether or not he/she approves a permit without a trial burn. The hazardous wastes burned during the previous compliance testing must be "sufficiently similar" to the wastes proposed for use in the device proposed for permitting. The device and the operating conditions of the tested facility and the facility being proposed for permitting must be "sufficiently similar". Additionally the submitted data must be "adequate to specify operating conditions that will ensure conformance to §266.102(c)."
The difficulty with the "data in lieu of trial burn" provision is the phrase "sufficiently similar". Similar is defined in Webster's Dictionary as: "nearly but not exactly the same or alike". Taken to its extreme a permit writer could request a detailed GCMS comparison of the compliance test HWF and the HWF to be fed to the facility proposed for permitting. At the least it can be expected that the facility will have to demonstrate that the HWF consumed during the compliance testing and the HWF for the facility to be permitted are very similar. Any change in the Part A waste code lists will have to be addressed with respect to theappropriateness of the POHC(s) selection if a DRE test waiver is requested. It can also be expected that the permit writer will request a comparison of the composition of the raw feed to the kiln for the proposed facility versus that fed to the kiln during the compliance testing, with a similar request for comparison of the primary fuel. For BIFs with scrubbers, the composition of the scrubber media may be subjected to a similar review. Of course any changes proposed in the physical facility or the operating conditions compared to what was in place during the previous compliance testing will require justification.
The "data in lieu of trial burn" provision in §270.22(a)(6) specifically references §270.66 (i.e. ".....providing the information required by §270.66...") §270.66 specifies such things as the trial burn plan, trial burn procedures, DRE trial burns, trial burn reporting and specific rules for interim status facilities. Even for those BIFs submitting "data in lieu of trial burn" it can be expected that the permit writer, at a minimum, will expect the applicant to submit the data specified in this section. That is, the data may have been generated during a compliance test but it will have to be presented in accordance with §270.66 and §266.102.
There is one interesting provision in §270.66 that is worth noting. In §270.66(d)(2) it states: "The Director shall approve a trial burn plan if he/she finds that:" (iv) "The information sought in the trial burn cannot reasonably be developed through other means." This provision reenforces the use of "data in lieu of trial burn."
The EPA Regions have begun requesting that an "indirect risk assessment" be performed. COC Test data can supply sufficient information for the bulk of what is needed for this assessment. However there are specific requirements for stack emission PIC analysis for which no data collection was required during the COC Testing. Consequently a partial trial burn may be necessary to acquire this PIC emission data.