July15, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Webinar Materials (6-9-2010) that cover the related air and waste proposed rules 

(pertaining to this docket) 

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

The presentation materials used in the 6-9-2010 webinar are attached and posted in the docket. 

These presentation materials describe the following rules proposed by EPA: 

• Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (Docket ID: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119); 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0790); 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Docket ID; EPA–HQ– OAR–

2002–0058); 

• Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste (Docket ID: 

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329) 

The recorded webinar (and the docketed presentation materials) are posted at this website: 

http://www.epa.gov/apti/broadcast.html#boilers060910 . 

The “Frequently Asked Questions” related to the webinar materials are also included in the 

docket and are also at this website: http://www.epa.gov/air/ej/pdfs/2010WebinarFAQfinal.pdf 

The basic information on the four proposed rules is located at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion . 

Attachments: 

- Presentation Materials, for the June 9, 2010 Webinar (PDF) 

- Combustion Webinar, June 9, 2010, Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) 

 
Laura McK

U.S. Environmental Protection A

June 
 To provide a summary of the proposed 

 Answer clarifying questions on the pro Highlight key issues we are particularly 

requesting comment on

 Highlight how to comment NOTE: this is not a forum to take comm
 EPA was directed by court order to propose 

by April 29, 2010 and take final action by December 16, 2010

◦ Requires new standards for both new and existi

sources of toxic air pollutants

◦ Legal requirements for boiler and waste combu

standards differ and may result in different pollcontrol requirements

◦ Whether a given facility is regulated as a boiler 

waste combustor depends on a final decision on nonhazardous solid waste definition

 We evaluated information from a large num

facilities to determine the bases for new sta

 We evaluated and reported on the combined impacts of the 4 rules on Environmental Jus
 Clean Air Act (CAA) created 2 different 

requirements for boilers (sec. 112) and CISW(sec. 129)

 When EPA set standards for waste combusto

excluded units that burn solid waste for enerecovery, treating them instead as boilers

 In June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals reje

EPA’s standards, citing CAA language that “facility burning any solid waste” is to be reg

as a waste combustor, not a boiler

 EPA is now on a court-ordered schedule to 

final rules by December 16, 2010 
 Both are national rules

 Both require limits based on “maximu

achievable control technology” (MACTlater evaluations of remaining risk anstricter standards if needed

 New source standards reflect what is 

achieved by the best controlled similasource

 Existing source standards reflect wha

achieved by the average of the best 1existing sources
 Boilers (sec. 112)

◦ Major sources (10 tons of any one toxic/25 tons of all t

annually)

 Standards must be set for all emitted toxic air pollutants

◦ Area sources

 Smaller sources may be regulated based on less stringent “g

achievable control technology” (GACT)

 Exception for certain pollutants (e.g., mercury, polycyclic or

matter)

 CISWI units (sec. 129)

◦ Standards must be set for 9 specific pollutants, not all o

are “air toxics”

◦ Additional siting and operator training requirements◦ No provision authorizing GACT for smaller sources

 Since the source populations and current levels 

control achieved by sources within each categoresulting standards may also differ
 Court decisions have narrowed the 

differences

◦ Sec. 112 standards must reflect what is ac

in practice, not what is achievable by all so“no-control” rules not permitted

◦ “Best performing” means for whatever reas

 Control technology only one factor

◦ No exemptions for startups, shutdowns, o

malfunctions
 EPA requested information from ~ 3,0

boilers and 500 suspected CISWI unitemissions testing at 200 boilers and CISWI units

 When contacted, some boilers have e

to cease burning secondary materials avoid being classified as solid waste combustors

 We evaluated the data to determine le

control for proposed standards
 Joint effort to evaluate the demographic 

distribution of the population around the soimpacted by the boiler MACT, CISWI rule, andefinition of solid waste

 For Boilers/CISWI units:

◦ Locate sources◦ Identify demographic characteristics near sou

determine the potential benefit or impact

◦ Maps are available at 

www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.
POPULATIONS WITHIN THREE-MILE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS AND CISWI UNITS

Overall 

population White Minorities African American Native America Other and multiracial Hispanic or Latino Below the poverty line 

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 UNITS)

36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,441 4,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 

67% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS (176 UNITS)

2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128 247,703 273,943 295,197 

71% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 

OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION

285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,515 33,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 

75% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 
CISWI:

Ketan PatelPatel.ketan@epa.gov(919) 541-9736Toni JonesJones.toni@epa.gov(919) 541-0316

Industrial Boilers:Major SourceBrian ShragerShrager.brian@epa(919) 541-7689Area SourceMary JohnsonJohnson.mary@epa(919) 541-5025

Definition of Nonhazardous Solid Waste:George FaisonFaison.george@epa.gov

(703) 305-7652
George Fais

U.S. Environmental Protection Agen

June 9, 20
 Overview

◦ What does the proposal do◦ Why is the proposal important 

 Proposed and Alternative Approaches  Environmental Justice  Issues to be Considered  Schedule
 Clarifies which secondary materials are soli

wastes when burned in combustion units

◦ “Secondary” refers to materials that are no

primary product of a manufacturing or commercial process 

◦ Includes consumer and industrial materia

are no longer used for their original purpo

◦ Ex: Scrap tires, off-spec used oil, wood, c

refuse, and construction & demolition deb
 Determines whether air requirements unde

Act section 112 or Clean Act section 129 athose units

 There are approximately 1.38 million boile

process heaters nationwide, which include boilers

 Approximately 196,000 of those boilers an

heaters are anticipated to be regulated und112 (as either major or area sources) or CA

◦ Subset of this universe thought to be burning sec

materials 
 Units that burn SOLID WASTE would be subj

requirements under CAA section 129

 Units that burn materials that are NOT A SO

WASTE would be subject to requirements unCAA section 112
BiomassConstruction debrisScrap tires Scrap plasticsSpent solventsUsed tires Coal RefuseFoundry SandSewage SludgeWood manufacturing 

material

FYI: “Secondary materials” are the byproducts 

of a manufacturing or commercial process. They also include both consumer and industrial materials that are no longer used for their original purpose. 

SECONDARY MATERIALSLike...

When Burned

As a solid 

waste

As a non-solid waste

CAA CAA 

The Combis regulate
 EPA published Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on January 2, 2009

 Identified 2 key factors for solid waste 

determination

◦ Whether secondary material has been disc

◦ If discarded, has it been sufficiently proce

produce a legitimate fuel 

 Discussed concept that secondary material 

legitimately used to be considered a non-w
 In general, non-hazardous secondary mate

solid wastes when burned in combustion un

◦ Examples include whole tires, off-spec us

contaminated construction and demolition material

 Non-hazardous secondary materials that ar

solid waste when combusted:

◦ Traditional fuels

 e.g. fuel oil, clean biomass, coal

◦ Materials which remain in the control of th

generator and meet legitimacy criteria
 Non-hazardous secondary materials that ar

solid waste when combusted (continued):

◦ Materials used as an ingredient in a comb

unit and that meet legitimacy criteria

◦ Materials and ingredients that have been 

discarded but are subsequently processed new legitimate product fuel

 e.g. tire derived fuel with metal removed

◦ Materials for which non-waste petition is 

 All non-hazardous secondary materials and 

ingredients combusted off-site are a solid w

 Materials combusted within control of the 

generator and traditional fuels are a non-w

 Major difference

◦ Discarded materials and ingredients proce

into new products are still considered sol

◦ Materials such as pulp and paper sludge, 

manufacturing residuals, tire-derived fueon-spec used oil managed outside the cothe generator would be solid wastes 
 Evaluating question of whether proposal will or will not ha

disproportionately high and adverse human health or enveffects on minority or low-income populations 

 We have completed preliminary demographic analyses in c

with the Boiler MACT and CISWI proposed rules 

 Since the rulemaking may result in secondary materials be

diverted from combustion units, we have also completed demographic analyses on the disposal and processing facmay receive these wastes: 

◦ For populations living near these facilities, results suggest tha

percentages of low-income and minority populations are slighthan national average 

◦ Also evaluated are the potential slowdown in abatement of scr

stockpiles, potential for increased accumulation of secondary stockpiles, and potential for dumping of used oil
 Impact the rule will have on states’ ability to 

implement their own solid waste managemeprograms

 Whether the rule could preferentially promo

combustion of secondary materials over trarecycling activities

 Whether the rule will have environmental ju

impacts 
 Public comment period ends August 3, 201

 Sign final rule by December 16, 2010 For more information 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/ind

◦ Website includes Fact Sheets, Qs and As, Material 

Characterization Papers, ANPRM, and a link to our (to comment on the rule) 
Brian Shrag

Mary Johns

U.S. Environmental Protection Agen

June 9, 20
 Rulemakings

◦ National Emission Standards for Hazardous A

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercand Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Boiler MACT - Maximum Achievable ControTechnology)

◦ NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, Comme

and Institutional Boilers

 Schedule

◦ Proposal signed on April 29, 2010, rule publ

on June 4, 2010

◦ Final – December 16, 2010 (Court-ordered)
Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT

 Cover about 13,555 boilers and process heaters at about 1

major source facilities

 11,500 of the major source units are gas-fired

 Major source facilities are mostly industrial but include uni

municipalities, and military installations

 About 9% of major source facilities are small entities

Boiler Area Source Rule Cover about 183,000 boilers at an estimated 92,000 area s

facilities

 There are 1.3 million gas-fired boilers located at area sources 

included in source category

 Area source facilities are mostly commercial (e.g., hotels, o

buildings, restaurants) and institutional (e.g., schools, hosprisons) but include industrial sources 

 About 85% of area sources are estimated to be small entiti

 Eleven subcategories based on design 

◦ Pulverized coal units◦ Coal-fired stokers◦ Coal-fired fluidized bed combustion uni◦ Biomass-fired stokers◦ Biomass-fired fluidized bed combustion ◦ Biomass-fired Dutch ovens/suspension 

burners

◦ Biomass-fired fuel cells◦ Liquid fuel-fired units◦ Gas 1 (natural gas/refinery gas)◦ Gas 2 (other gases)◦ Metal process furnaces (natural gas-fire
 Existing units

◦ Proposed limits for nine of the eleven subcategories for:

 Particulate Matter (PM) -as surrogate for non-mercury metals

 Mercury (Hg) Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) - as surrogate for acid gases

 Carbon Monoxide (CO) - as surrogate for non-dioxin organic Hazardo

Pollutant (HAP)

 Dioxin/Furan

◦ Technology basis

 Baghouse (metals/Hg) Carbon injection (Hg/dioxins) Scrubber (HCl) Good combustion practices (organic HAP)

◦ Emissions limits only applicable to units with heat input capacities 10 m

Btu/hour or greater

◦ Work practice standard (annual tune-up) proposed under section 112(h) 

 Units with heat input capacities less than 10 million Btu/hour Units in Gas 1 and Metal Process Furnaces subcategories

◦ Beyond-the-floor standard proposed for 

 All major source facilities – to conduct an energy assessment 
 New units

◦ Proposed numeric emissions limits for nine of the eleven subcategories 

 PM (as surrogate for non-mercury metals) Mercury HCl (as surrogate for acid gases) CO (as surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP) Dioxin/Furan

◦ Expected Technology

 Baghouse (metals/Hg) Carbon injection (Hg/dioxins) Scrubber (HCl) Good combustion practices (organic HAP)

◦ Emissions limits applicable to all units, regardless of size

 More stringent than limits for existing sources

◦ No work practice standards or beyond-the-floor standards proposed
 Testing

◦ Initial compliance tests (PM, HCl, Mercury, THC, and Dioxins)

◦ Annual performance tests◦ Annual tune-up for units less than 10 million Btu/hour in size and units 

Metal Process Furnaces subcategories

◦ Allows emission averaging among existing units in same subcategory

 Monitoring

◦ CO Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMS) for units with heat input capa

million Btu/hour or greater

◦ PM CEMS for units combusting coal, biomass, or residual oil and having 

capacity of 250 million Btu/hour or greater

◦ Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent injection rate, fuel, 

 Continuous Compliance

◦ Demonstrated by maintaining operating limits (process parameters)

◦ Demonstrated by maintaining CEMS values (30-day average) below emis
 Cost Impacts

◦ Total capital investment (TCI) = $9.5 billion◦ Total annualized cost (TAC) = $2.9 billion

 Testing/monitoring (TAC) = $140 million Energy Assessment (Audit) = $26 million (one

cost)

 Emission Reductions (tons/year)

Existing New

HCl = 37,000 9Mercury = 8 0.001Metals = 3,200 0.6PM = 50,000 130SO2 = 340,000 500VOC = 1,800 4

 Three subcategories based on des

type

◦ Coal-fired units

 3,700 units

◦ Biomass-fired units

 11,000 units

◦ Liquid fuel-fired units

 168,000 units
 Existing units

◦ Coal-fired boilers

 Proposed emission limits for:

 Mercury – based on MACT CO (as surrogate for Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) and othe

organic HAP) – based on MACT

 Technology basis - baghouse (metals/Hg)/good combustion 

practices (organic HAP)

◦ Biomass–fired boilers and oil-fired boilers

 Proposed emission limits only for CO (as surrogate for POM) 

based on MACT

◦ Emissions limits only applicable to units with heat input 

capacities 10 million Btu/hour or greater

◦ Work practice standard/management practice (biennial t

up) proposed under section 112(h) for units with heat incapacities less than 10 million Btu/hour

◦ Energy assessment proposed for area source facilities ha

boilers with heat input 10 million Btu/hour or greater as beyond-the-floor standard.
 New units

◦ Proposed emission limits

• For coal-fired boilers

 PM (as surrogate for urban metals) Mercury (only for coal-fired boilers) CO (as surrogate for POM and other urban organic HAP)

• For biomass-fired boilers and oil-fired boilers

 PM (as surrogate for urban metals) CO (as surrogate for POM and other urban organic HAP)

◦ Technology basis - baghouse (metals/Hg)/good 

combustion practices (organic HAP)

◦ Emissions limits applicable to all units, regardless ◦ No work practice standards proposed◦ No beyond-the-floor standard proposed
 Testing

◦ Initial compliance tests (PM, mercury, and CO)◦ Annual performance tests◦ Biennial tune-up for boilers less than 10 million Btu/hou

 Monitoring

◦ Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent inje

fuel, etc.) 

◦ CO CEMS for units with heat input capacity of 100 millio

Btu/hour or greater

 Continuous Compliance

◦ Demonstrated by maintaining operating limits (process 

parameters)

 Based on averages set during compliance test
 Cost Impacts

• Total capital investment (TCI) = $2.5 billion

 Existing units = $1.8 billion New units (6,779 estimated) = $0.7 billion

• Total annualized cost (TAC) = $1.0 billion

 Existing units = $0.7 billion New units = $0.3 billion Testing/monitoring TAC = $290 million Energy Assessment (Audit) = $52 million

 Emission Reductions (tons/year)

Existing New

Mercury = 0.63 0.10Metals = 210 40PM = 6,300 1,300SO2 = 1,400 150VOC = 890 290HCl = 120 8
 Social Costs = $0.5 billion 

 Consumer surplus loss of $0.3 billion Domestic producer surplus loss of $0.3 billion Other countries surplus gain $0.1 billion Fuel savings and other costs not included in market model net cos

billion

 Price and Quantity Changes

 Average National prices for industrial sectors less than 0.01% Domestic production may fall by less than 0.01%

 Employment Changes

 Near term job losses 1,000 Long-term effects range between 1,000 job losses to 3,000 job ga

 Small Business

 Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel

 Monetized Health Benefits

 $1.0 to $2.4 billion (3% discount) $0.9 to $2.2 billion (7% discount rate)

 All Estimates in 2008$

Subcategory PM HCl Hg CO (ppm @3% O2) D/F (TEQ)(

Coal Stoker 0.02 0.02 0.000003 50 0.0Coal Fluidized Bed

0.02 0.02 0.000003 30 0.0

Pulverized Coal

0.02 0.02 0.000003 90 0.0

Biomass Stoker 

0.02 0.006 0.0000009 560 0.0

Biomass Fluidized Bed 

0.02 0.006 0.0000009 250 0.0

Biomass Suspension Burner/Dutch Oven

0.02 0.006 0.0000009 1010 0.0

Biomass Fuel Cells

0.02 0.006 0.0000009 270 0.0

Liquid 0.004 0.0009 0.000004 1 0.0Gas (Other Process Gases)

0.05 0.000003 0.0000002 1 0.0
Subcategory PM HCl Hg

CO (ppm @3% 

O2)

D/F 

(TEQ)(ng/

Coal Stoker 0.001 0.00006 0.000002 7 0.00Coal Fluidized Bed

0.001 0.00006 0.000002 30 0.000

Pulverized Coal 0.001 0.00006 0.000002 90 0.00Biomass Stoker 0.008 0.004 0.0000002 560 0.000Biomass Fluidized Bed 

0.008 0.004 0.0000002 40 0.00

Biomass Suspension Burner/Dutch Oven

0.008 0.004 0.0000002 1010 0.03

Biomass Fuel Cells

0.008 0.004 0.0000002 270 0.000

Liquid 0.002 0.0004 0.0000003 1 0.00Gas (Other Process Gases)

0.003 0.000003 0.0000002 1 0.00
Source Subcategory PM Hg CO, ppm

New Boiler Coal 0.03 3.0E-06 310 (@ 7% O2)

Biomass 0.03 100 (@ 7% O2)Oil 0.03 1 (@ 3% O2)

Existing Boiler

Coal 3.0E-06 310 (@ 7% O2)

Biomass 160 (@ 7% O2)Oil 2 (@ 3% O2)
Toni Jo

U.S. Environmental Protection Age

June 9, 
 Under the Clea

unit burns any it is an inciner

■ The definition 

defined under Conservation Act (RCRA) – cmaking for denonhazardous 

■ Any unit that b

waste at a comindustrial facilto CISWI rule

■ Will cover app

176 incinerato(includes all s
 Five subcategories based on design typ

 Traditional incineration units Energy recovery units Waste burning kilns Burn-off ovens Small, remote incineration units
 Proposing limits for 9 pollutants under each subcateg

◦ Cadmium (Cd), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrogen C

(HCl), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), Particulate Matter (PMSulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (Nox), Dioxin

(D/F)

 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floo

◦ For existing sources: Based on average emission lim

achieved by the best performing 12% of existing so

◦ For new sources: Based on the best controlled simi

source

 No work practice standards Technology basis – baghouses (PM, Cd, Pb, Hg); carbo

injection (Hg, Dioxin); scrubber (HCl, SO2); selective no

catalytic reduction (NOx); afterburners (CO)





 Testing

◦ Initial and annual performance tests◦ Reduced testing incentives for good performance

◦ Method 22 for ash handling fugitive emissions

 Monitoring

◦ Process parameter monitoring based performance test results for most 

 Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMS) allowed as options

◦ Mandatory Continuous Monitoring System (CMS)

 CO CEMS required for all new subcategories CO CEMS and PM CEMS for Energy Recovery Units (ERUs) > 250 mmBtu/hour For kilns, Hg CEMS Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMS) for units without wet scrubbers

◦ Alternative for Sorbent traps when performance specs promulgated for 

◦ Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent injection rate, fuel

 Continuous Compliance

◦ Mercury based on monthly averages◦ CEMS based on daily averages◦ Parameters based on 3-hour rolling averages◦ Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMS) based on 6-minute averages◦ Annual inspections for all control devices

• Primary Approach

Number of units 176Total annual costs $216 millionTotal emissions reductions 29,770 tons per 

Cd – 5.4 tpyCO – 23,610 tpyHCl - 525 tpyPb – 5.9 tpyHg – 0.13 tpyNOx – 1,260 tpyPM/PM2.5 – 1,720/660 tpy

SO

2 – 2,640 tpy

Dioxin/furans - 0.0002 tpy
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (O

taking comment on an alternative approach for dsolid waste

 CISWI proposal presents emission limits based on 

alternative approach

◦ Results in 390 units moving from boilers to incinera

 Alternative approach doubles the cost of the CISW

proposed approach - $480M Total Annualized Co(TAC)

◦ Provides greater emission reductions compared to t

proposed approach nationwide due to larger affectesource population but less protective locally, due to stringent limits at the source level
• Alternative Approach

Number of units 582Total annual costs $480 millionTotal emissions reductions 148,330 tons per yr Cd – 4.2 tpyCO – 128,120 tpyHCl - 395 tpyPb – 3.4 tpyHg – 1.2 tpyNOx - 341 tpyPM/PM2.5 – 19,280/3,321 tpy

SO

2 – 184 tpy

Dioxin/furans - 0.0003 tpy
Laura Mc

U.S. Environmental Protection A

June 
 Proposal – April 29, 2010 (court-ordered) 

 Publication – June 4, 2010 Public Hearings – June 15 and June 22, 2010 Comment Period – until August 3, 2010 Final – December 16, 2010 (court-ordered)
 Regulations.gov makes it easy to subm

comments on these rules. 

◦ Non-Hazardous Waste Identification Rule –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329)

◦ Major Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058)

◦ Area Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790)

◦ Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incinerat

(CISWI) Rule Proposal – enter ID (EPA-HQ-O2003-0119)
 Fax Number – 202-566-9744 

 Non-Hazardous Waste Identification Ru

(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329)

 Major Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058)

 Area Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790)

 CISWI Rule Proposal –

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119) 
 For CISWI and the boiler rules:

◦ www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html◦ A-and-r-docket@epa.gov

 For definition of solid waste

◦ www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm

 Please identify the appropriate docket numbe

◦ Non-Hazardous Waste Identification Rule –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329)

◦ Major Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058)

◦ Area Industrial Boiler Rule Proposal –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790)

◦ CISWI Rule Proposal –

enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119)
 Proposed Rulemaking - Identification o

Hazardous Secondary Materials that arWaste 

 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. (Please include a tocopies).

 Please identify the appropriate docket 

number
 You can hand deliver 2 copies of your com

to:(specify the name of the rule) EPA/DC, EPA West, Ro1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 2046Attention Docket ID No. (e.g., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-

◦ Note: Deliveries are only accepted during the Doc

normal hours of operation and special arrangemen

be made for deliveries of boxed information.

 Participate in one of three Public Hearings

◦ Arlington, VA (June 15)◦ Houston, TX (June 22)◦ Los Angeles, CA (June 22)
 Website 

◦ www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/action◦ www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/definition.htm

 Conference call

◦ July 21, 2010 (1:00 pm to 3:00 pm)

 For other questions please call Laura 

McKelvey at (919) 541-5497