# 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 we binar are attached and posted in the docket.

These presentation materials describe the following rules proposed by EPA:

• Standards of Performance for New Stationa ry Sources and Emission Guidelines for

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

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119);

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants for Area S ources: Industrial,

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

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

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

2002–0058);

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

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329)

The recorded webinar (and the docketed presenta tion materials) are post ed at this website:

http://www.epa.gov/apti/bro adcast.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, fo r the June 9, 2010 Webinar (PDF)

- Combustion Webinar, June 9, 2010, Fr equently Asked Questions (PDF)Laura McKelveyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune 9, 2010To provide a summary of the proposed rulesAnswer clarifying questions on the proposalsHighlight key issues we are particularlyrequesting comment onHighlight how to commentNOTE: this isnota forum to take comment2EPA was directed by court order to propose rulesby April 29, 2010 and take final action byDecember 16, 2010◦Requires new standards for both new and existingsources of toxic air pollutants◦Legal requirements for boiler and waste combustorstandards differ and may result in different pollutioncontrol requirements◦Whether a given facility is regulated as a boiler or awaste combustor depends on a final decision on thenonhazardous solid waste definitionWe evaluated information from a large number offacilities to determine the bases for new standardsWe evaluated and reported on the combinedimpacts of the 4 rules on Environmental Justice3Clean Air Act (CAA) created 2 differentrequirements for boilers (sec. 112) and CISWI units(sec. 129)When EPA set standards for waste combustors, itexcluded units that burn solid waste for energyrecovery, treating them instead as boilersIn June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejectedEPA’s standards, citing CAA language that “anyfacility burning anysolid waste” is to be regulatedas a waste combustor, not a boilerEPA is now on a court-ordered schedule to adoptfinal rules by December 16, 20104Both are national rulesBoth require limits based on “maximumachievable control technology” (MACT) withlater evaluations of remaining risk andstricter standards if neededNew source standards reflect what isachieved by the best controlled similarsourceExisting source standards reflect what isachieved by the average of the best 12% ofexisting sources5Boilers (sec. 112)◦Major sources (10 tons of any one toxic/25 tons of all toxicsannually)Standards must be set for all emitted toxic air pollutants◦Area sourcesSmaller sources may be regulated based on less stringent “generallyachievable control technology” (GACT)Exception for certain pollutants (e.g., mercury, polycyclic organicmatter)CISWI units (sec. 129)◦Standards must be set for 9 specific pollutants, not all of whichare “air toxics”◦Additional siting and operator training requirements◦No provision authorizingGACT for smaller sourcesSince the source populations and current levels ofcontrol achieved by sources within each category differ,resulting standards may also differ6Court decisions have narrowed thedifferences◦Sec. 112 standards must reflect what is achievedin practice, not what is achievable by all sources;“no-control” rules not permitted◦“Best performing” means for whatever reasonControl technology only one factor◦No exemptions for startups, shutdowns, ormalfunctions7EPA requested information from ~ 3,000boilers and 500 suspected CISWI units, withemissions testing at 200 boilers and 50CISWI unitsWhen contacted, some boilers have electedto cease burning secondary materials toavoid being classified as solid wastecombustorsWe evaluated the data to determine level ofcontrol for proposed standards8Joint effort to evaluate the demographicdistribution of the population around the sourcesimpacted by the boiler MACT, CISWI rule, anddefinition of solid wasteFor Boilers/CISWI units:◦Locate sources◦Identify demographic characteristics near sources todetermine the potential benefit or impact◦Maps are available atwww.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.html9POPULATIONS WITHIN THREE-MILE PROXIMITYTO MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS AND CISWI UNITSOverallpopulationWhiteMinoritiesAfricanAmericanNativeAmericaOther andmultiracialHispanic orLatinoBelow the povertylineUnder age18Age 65 andOverPOPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 UNITS)36,868,95224,828,55312,040,3997,296,123207,4414,536,8354,682,8615,997,7099,735,9984,614,67267%33%20%1%12%13%16%26%13%POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS (176 UNITS)2,095,5611,480,539615,022346,19121,128247,703273,943295,197569,708260,92971%29%17%1%12%13%14%27%12%OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION285,339,128214,539,70670,799,42235,043,8732,489,51533,265,93739,083,76037,161,95077,245,36435,491,27475%25%12%1%12%14%13%27%12%1010CISWI:Ketan PatelPatel.ketan@epa.gov(919) 541-9736Toni JonesJones.toni@epa.gov(919) 541-031611Industrial Boilers: 

# Major SourceBrian ShragerShrager.brian@epa.gov(919) 541-7689 

# Area SourceMary JohnsonJohnson.mary@epa.gov(919) 541-5025Definition of NonhazardousSolid Waste:George FaisonFaison.george@epa.gov(703) 305-7652George FaisonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune 9, 201012Overview◦What does the proposal do◦Why is the proposal importantProposed and Alternative ApproachesEnvironmental JusticeIssues to be ConsideredSchedule13Clarifies which secondary materials are solidwastes when burned in combustion units◦“Secondary” refers to materials that are not theprimary product of a manufacturing orcommercial process◦Includes consumer and industrial materials thatare no longer used for their original purpose◦Ex: Scrap tires, off-spec used oil, wood, coalrefuse, and construction & demolition debris14Determines whether air requirements under CleanAct section 112 or Clean Act section 129 apply tothose unitsThere are approximately 1.38 million boilers andprocess heaters nationwide, which include gas-firedboilersApproximately 196,000 of those boilers and processheaters are anticipated to be regulated under CAA112 (as either major or area sources) or CAA 129◦Subset of this universe thought to be burning secondarymaterials15Units that burn SOLID WASTE would be subject torequirements under CAA section 129Units that burn materials that are NOT A SOLIDWASTE would be subject to requirements underCAA section 1121617BiomassConstruction debrisScrap tiresScrap plasticsSpent solventsUsed tiresCoal RefuseFoundry SandSewage SludgeWood manufacturingmaterialFYI:“Secondary materials” are the byproductsof a manufacturing or commercial process. Theyalso include both consumer and industrialmaterials that are no longer used for their originalpurpose.SECONDARY MATERIALSLike...When Burned A s a s o l i d

w a s t e



# A s

a

n

on - s o l i d

w

a

s teCAA 129CAA 112The Combustion Unitis regulated under...EPA published Advanced Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPRM) on January 2, 2009Identified 2 key factors for solid wastedetermination◦Whether secondary material has been discarded◦If discarded, has it been sufficiently processed toproduce a legitimate fuelDiscussed concept that secondary material must belegitimately used to be considered a non-waste18In general, non-hazardous secondary materials aresolid wastes when burned in combustion units◦Examples include whole tires, off-spec used oil,contaminated construction and demolitionmaterialNon-hazardous secondary materials that are not asolid waste when combusted:◦Traditional fuelse.g. fuel oil, clean biomass, coal◦Materials which remain in the control of thegenerator and meet legitimacy criteria19Non-hazardous secondary materials that are not asolid waste when combusted (continued):◦Materials used as an ingredient in a combustionunit and that meet legitimacy criteria◦Materials and ingredients that have beendiscarded but are subsequently processed into anew legitimate product fuele.g. tire derived fuel with metal removed◦Materials for which non-waste petition is granted2021All non-hazardous secondary materials andingredients combusted off-site are a solid wasteMaterials combusted within control of thegenerator and traditional fuels are a non-wasteMajor difference◦Discarded materials and ingredients processedinto new products are still considered solid waste◦Materials such as pulp and paper sludge, woodmanufacturing residuals, tire-derived fuel andon-spec used oil managed outside the control ofthe generator would be solid wastes22Evaluating question of whether proposal will or will not havedisproportionately high and adverse human health or environmentaleffects on minority or low-income populationsWe have completed preliminary demographic analyses in conjunctionwith the Boiler MACT and CISWI proposed rulesSince the rulemaking may result in secondary materials beingdiverted from combustion units, we have also completeddemographic analyses on the disposaland processing facilities thatmay receive these wastes:◦For populations living near these facilities, results suggest thatpercentages of low-income and minority populations are slightly higherthan national average◦Also evaluated are the potential slowdown in abatement of scrap tirestockpiles, potential for increased accumulation of secondary materials instockpiles, and potential for dumping of used oil23Impact the rule will have on states’ ability toimplement their own solid waste managementprogramsWhether the rule could preferentially promotecombustion of secondary materials over traditionalrecycling activitiesWhether the rule will have environmental justiceimpacts24Public comment period ends August 3, 2010Sign final rule by December 16, 2010For more informationwww.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm◦Website includes Fact Sheets, Qs and As, MaterialCharacterization Papers, ANPRM, and a link to our docket(to comment on the rule)25Brian Shrager,Mary JohnsonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune 9, 201026Rulemakings◦National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercial,and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters(Boiler MACT - Maximum Achievable ControlTechnology)◦NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial,and Institutional BoilersSchedule◦Proposal signed on April 29, 2010, rule publishedon June 4, 2010◦Final – December 16, 2010 (Court-ordered)27Boiler Maximum AchievableControl Technology (MACT)Cover about 13,555 boilers and process heaters at about 1,600major source facilities11,500 of the major source units are gas-firedMajor source facilities are mostlyindustrial but include universities,municipalities, and military installationsAbout 9% of major source facilities are small entitiesBoiler Area Source RuleCover about 183,000 boilers at anestimated 92,000 area sourcefacilitiesThere are 1.3 million gas-fired boilers located at area sources that are notincluded in source categoryArea source facilities are mostlycommercial (e.g., hotels, officebuildings, restaurants) and institutional (e.g., schools, hospitals,prisons) but include industrial sourcesAbout 85% of area sources areestimated to be small entities2829Eleven subcategories based on design type◦Pulverized coal units◦Coal-fired stokers◦Coal-fired fluidized bed combustion units◦Biomass-fired stokers◦Biomass-fired fluidized bed combustion units◦Biomass-fired Dutch ovens/suspensionburners◦Biomass-fired fuel cells◦Liquid fuel-fired units◦Gas 1 (natural gas/refinery gas)◦Gas 2 (other gases)◦Metal process furnaces (natural gas-fired)30Existing units◦Proposed limits for nine ofthe 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 surrogatefor non-dioxin organic Hazardous AirPollutant (HAP)Dioxin/Furan◦Technology basisBaghouse (metals/Hg)Carbon injection (Hg/dioxins)Scrubber (HCl)Good combustion practices (organic HAP)◦Emissions limits onlyapplicable to units with heatinput capacities 10 millionBtu/hour or greater◦Work practice standard (annual tune-up) proposed undersection 112(h) for: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Allmajor source facilities – to conduct an energy assessment31New units◦Proposed numeric emissions limits for nine of the eleven subcategories for: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 allunits, regardless of sizeMore stringent than limits for existing sources◦No work practice standards or beyond-the-floor standards proposed32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 in Gas 1 andMetal Process Furnaces subcategories◦Allows emission averaging among existing units in same subcategoryMonitoring◦CO Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMS) for units with heat input capacity of 100million Btu/hour or greater◦PM CEMS for units combusting coal, biomass,or residual oil and having a heat inputcapacity of 250 million Btu/hour or greater◦Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent injection rate, fuel, etc.)Continuous Compliance◦Demonstrated by maintaining operating limits (process parameters)◦Demonstrated by maintaining CEMS values(30-day average) below emission limits33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-timecost)Emission Reductions (tons/year)ExistingNewHCl = 37,000 9Mercury = 8 0.001Metals = 3,200 0.6PM = 50,000 130SO2 = 340,000 500VOC = 1,800 43435Three subcategories based on designtype◦Coal-fired units3,700 units◦Biomass-fired units11,000 units◦Liquid fuel-fired units168,000 units36Existing units◦Coal-fired boilersProposed emission limits for:Mercury – based on MACTCO (as surrogate for Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) and other urbanorganic HAP) – based on MACTTechnology basis - baghouse (metals/Hg)/good combustionpractices (organic HAP)◦Biomass–fired boilers and oil-fired boilersProposed emission limits only for CO (as surrogate for POM) –based on MACT◦Emissions limits onlyapplicable to units with heat inputcapacities 10 million Btu/hour or greater◦Work practice standard/management practice (biennial tuneup) proposed under section 112(h) for units with heat inputcapacities less than 10 million Btu/hour◦Energy assessment proposed for area source facilities havingboilers with heat input 10 million Btu/hour or greater as abeyond-the-floor standard.37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)/goodcombustion practices (organic HAP)◦Emissions limits applicable to all units, regardless of size◦No work practice standards proposed◦No beyond-the-floor standard proposed38Testing◦Initial compliance tests (PM, mercury, and CO)◦Annual performance tests◦Biennial tune-up for boilers lessthan 10 million Btu/hour in sizeMonitoring◦Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent injection rate,fuel, etc.)◦CO CEMS for units with heatinput capacity of 100 millionBtu/hour or greaterContinuous Compliance◦Demonstrated by maintaining operating limits (processparameters)Based on averages set during compliance test39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)ExistingNewMercury = 0.63 0.10Metals = 210 40PM = 6,300 1,300SO2 = 1,400 150VOC = 890 290HCl = 120 840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 includedin market model net cost of $0.1billion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 gains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$4142SubcategoryPMHClHgCO (ppm @3% O2)D/F (TEQ)(ng/dscm)Coal Stoker0.02 0.02 0.000003 50 0.003Coal FluidizedBed0.02 0.02 0.000003 30 0.002PulverizedCoal0.02 0.02 0.000003 90 0.004BiomassStoker0.02 0.006 0.0000009 560 0.004BiomassFluidized Bed0.02 0.006 0.0000009 250 0.02BiomassSuspensionBurner/DutchOven0.02 0.006 0.0000009 1010 0.03Biomass FuelCells0.02 0.006 0.0000009 270 0.02Liquid0.004 0.0009 0.000004 1 0.002Gas (OtherProcess Gases)0.05 0.000003 0.0000002 1 0.00943SubcategoryPMHClHgCO (ppm @3%O2)D/F(TEQ)(ng/dscm)Coal Stoker0.001 0.00006 0.000002 7 0.003Coal FluidizedBed0.001 0.00006 0.000002 30 0.00003Pulverized Coal0.001 0.00006 0.000002 90 0.002Biomass Stoker0.008 0.004 0.0000002 560 0.00005BiomassFluidized Bed0.008 0.004 0.0000002 40 0.007BiomassSuspensionBurner/DutchOven0.008 0.004 0.0000002 1010 0.03Biomass FuelCells0.008 0.004 0.0000002 270 0.0005Liquid0.002 0.0004 0.0000003 1 0.002Gas (OtherProcess Gases)0.003 0.000003 0.0000002 1 0.00944SourceSubcategoryPMHgCO, ppmNew Boiler Coal0.03 3.0E-06 310 (@ 7% O2)Biomass0.03 100 (@ 7% O2)Oil0.03 1 (@ 3% O2)ExistingBoilerCoal3.0E-06 310 (@ 7% O2)Biomass160 (@ 7% O2)Oil2 (@ 3% O2)45Toni JonesU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune 9, 201047Under the Clean Air Act, if aunit burns any solid waste,it is an incinerator■The definition of solid wastedefined under The ResourceConservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) – concurrent rulemaking for definition ofnonhazardous solid waste■Any unit that burns solidwaste at a commercial orindustrial facility is subjectto CISWI rule■Will cover approximately176 incinerator units(includes all size sources)48Five subcategories based on design typeTraditional incineration unitsEnergy recovery unitsWaste burning kilnsBurn-off ovensSmall, remote incineration units49Proposing limits for 9 pollutants under each subcategory◦Cadmium (Cd), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrogen Chloride(HCl), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), Particulate Matter (PM),Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (Nox), Dioxin/Furans(D/F)Maximum Achievable ControlTechnology (MACT) Floors◦For existing sources: Based on average emission limitationachieved by the best performing 12% of existing sources◦For new sources: Based on the best controlled similarsourceNo work practice standardsTechnology basis – baghouses(PM, Cd, Pb, Hg); carboninjection (Hg, Dioxin); scrubber (HCl, SO2); selective noncatalytic reduction (NOx); afterburners (CO)Testing◦Initial and annual performance tests◦Reduced testing incentivesfor good performance◦Method 22 for ash handling fugitive emissionsMonitoring◦Process parameter monitoring based performance test results for most CISWI units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 Hg and D/F◦Process parameters (opacity, pressure drop, sorbent injection rate, fuel, etc.)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 devices5557•Primary ApproachNumber of units 176Total annual costs $216 millionTotal emissions reductions29,770 tons per yr (tpy)Cd– 5.4 tpyCO– 23,610 tpyHCl- 525 tpyPb– 5.9 tpyHg– 0.13 tpyNOx– 1,260 tpyPM/PM2.5– 1,720/660 tpySO2– 2,640 tpyDioxin/furans- 0.0002 tpy58Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)taking comment on an alternative approach for definingsolid wasteCISWI proposal presents emission limits based onalternative approach◦Results in 390 units movingfrom boilers to incineratorsAlternative approach doubles the cost of the CISWIproposed approach - $480M Total Annualized Cost(TAC)◦Provides greater emission reductions compared to theproposed approach nationwide due to larger affectedsource population but less protective locally, due to lessstringent limits at the source level59•Alternative ApproachNumber of units 582Total annual costs $480 millionTotal emissions reductions 148,330 tons per yr (tpy)Cd– 4.2 tpyCO– 128,120 tpyHCl- 395 tpyPb– 3.4 tpyHg– 1.2 tpyNOx- 341 tpyPM/PM2.5– 19,280/3,321 tpySO2– 184 tpyDioxin/furans- 0.0003 tpy60Laura McKelveyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune 9, 2010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)61Regulations.gov makes it easy to submitcomments 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 Incinerator(CISWI) Rule Proposal – enter ID (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0119)62Fax Number – 202-566-9744Non-Hazardous Waste Identification Rule –(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)63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 number◦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)64Proposed Rulemaking - Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials that are SolidWasteEnvironmental Protection Agency,Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460. (Please include a total of 2copies).Please identify the appropriate docketnumber65You can hand deliver 2 copies of your commentsto:(specify the name of the rule) EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460.Attention Docket ID No. (e.g., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329).◦Note: Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’snormal hours of operation andspecial arrangements shouldbe 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)66Website◦www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.html◦www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/definition.htmConference call◦July 21, 2010 (1:00 pm to 3:00 pm)For other questions please call LauraMcKelvey at (919) 541-549767