Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

1

 NWPPA WEBINAR

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 PCB ADVANCED NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING

 May 11, 2010

 Scott Lowry, Manager, NWPPA

 Barry Fuchs, Producer, NWPPA
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 SCOTT LOWRY: It looks like most of our

3 participants have joined so we'll go ahead and begin.

4 First off, I'm going to press a button and let you all

5 know that.

6 RECORDING: Just a reminder, today's

7 conference is being recorded.

8 SCOTT LOWRY: This conference, this webinar is

9 also part of the official public records surrounding

10 this ANPR and we'll talk about that a little bit more

11 perhaps later. So welcome to NWPPA's presentation.

12 The EPA will be talking about the PCB advanced notice

13 of public rulemaking today and hopefully you're on the

14 right call. My name is Scott Lowry, I'm a manager with

15 NWPPA and I'll be the moderator for today's program.

16 Barry Fuchs, also a manager here at NWPPA is producing

17 this webinar.

18 Wherever you are we appreciate your interest

19 in this topic and thank you for taking the time to join

20 us today. NWPPA is on the way to offering 35 A21 learning programs in 2010. If you learn something from

22 today's program, please check www.nwppa.org to see the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

3

1 many other webinars we have coming up later this fall.

2 That said, today's program is focused on the

3 April 7, 2010 EPA issued Advanced Notice of Public

4 Rulemaking on the Agency's Potential reassessment of

5 its current authorizations for PCB use and distribution

6 in commerce. We'll take a little bit of time up front

7 for an overview of the technology and to introduce you

8 to the presenter and to the Acrobat connect technology

9 that we're using. Following that we'll move to today's

10 presentation.

11 As you can see on the screen, there's our

12 welcome and introductions. On the screen you can see

13 it says the overview of Acrobat Connect Web

14 Conferencing -- that is what we're using.

15 Our presenter today is Dr. John Smith. Dr.

16 Smith has worked as a chemist at the US Environmental

17 Protection Agency in Washington, DC for 33 years, the

18 last 25 has been in the PCB program and the last 7 in

19 the Asbestos Analysis Program. In the PCB program, Dr.

20 Smith writes regulations, policies and interpretative

21 letters; he reviews and responds to PCB technical

22 applications and requests. He represents EPA in
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

4

1 administrative and judicial proceedings as a PCB

2 technical expert and presents EPA Toxic Substances

3 Control Act, also known as TSCA, SEAs, PCB policies and

4 regulations and domestic and international needs.

5 Prior to joining the PCB asbestos regulatory

6 programs, Dr. Smith worked in EPA as a technical

7 resource and contract manager in quality assurance,

8 field sampling and laboratory chemical analysis of

9 toxic substances.

10 So those of you who are not familiar with

11 Adobe Acrobat or have not participated in a webinar

12 before, here's this brief overview. In order to view

13 the presentation, you don't need to do anything at all.

14 Simply sit back and you'll see the presentation and

15 move from slide to slide as controlled by the

16 presenter. Right now I have two questions I am going

17 to ask each of you. In just a second you should see a

18 box pop up on your screen, there it is, please type the

19 name of your organization and the number of people who

20 are seated with you and you'll do that at the bottom,

21 there's a little small box at the bottom that you would

22 enter that. And I'll give you a couple of seconds to
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

5

1 do this. Again, we're looking for the name of the

2 organization and number of people who are seated with

3 you. And then click submit after you get that done,

4 that's denoted by the small arrow.

5 MICHAEL WOYWOOD: Hi, this is Michael

6 Woywood, that box is not showing up on my screen for

7 some reason.

8 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thank you, Michael. We'll

9 give it another few seconds for people to typing in

10 their utility or organization and the number of people.

11 And by the way if you could, please hit *6, I can hear

12 a little bit of background noise, *6 will mute your

13 phone and that will allow everyone to have a clear

14 connection.

15 JOHN GANDER: Scott, this is John Gander.

16 That box didn't show up on mine either.

17 SCOTT LOWRY: The box didn't show up, okay,

18 John, okay. If you would for now just press your *6

19 and we'll try to see if we can sort that out for you.

20 I'd like to take a moment and just jump back a

21 little bit and talk about the program sponsors. NWPPA

22 is proud to sponsor this webinar in order to foster the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

6

1 communications between Western Utilities and the EPA.

2 The registration fees that have been paid for this

3 program have been sponsored in part by the NWPPA

4 Environmental Task Force. I do want to mention that

5 this webinar will be recorded and it will become part

6 of the public records in this ANPR. So that wasn't

7 stated in the initial outline for this particular

8 webinar, but I do want to mention that now, that it

9 will become part of the public records so anything that

10 you have to say you want to get it out there for the

11 EPA to take back with them, and now is a great time to

12 bring up any questions or concerns. We'll have a time

13 for Q and A a little bit later on.

14 Okay, with that we'll go ahead and start the

15 presentation. We will have a time for questions and

16 you'll have both prepared questions that we have

17 received and there will be a time at the end where

18 you'll be able to ask live questions and for now I'd

19 just like to introduce Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith are you on

20 the phone?

21 DR. SMITH: I am. I am here.

22 SCOTT LOWRY: Hi John, okay. The show is
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

7

1 yours and if you could just take us through your

2 presentation.

3 DR. SMITH: Okay, I was going to tell you

4 that there are five people at the table here, two of my

5 co-workers, my supervisor and a contractor who's taping

6 the conference call.

7 I will start off, I apologize to those who

8 already know a lot of the information on the

9 presentation, it's one that we've been using at our

10 public meetings and it is a very, very basic

11 introduction to PCBs and what the ANPR is about.

12 So I'm trying to control this thing here,

13 let's see is it controlling for me? Okay.

14 The presentation talks about, what are PCBs,

15 what are they used for, what are the alpha effects,

16 what's the authority for the rulemaking, what's the

17 standard for removing a use authorization and what are

18 the objectives of the rulemaking, what information does

19 EPA seek in the rulemaking and what is the time period

20 for the rulemaking, so each of those will be a separate

21 slide as we proceed.

22 What are PCBs; a group of 209 chemical
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

8

1 compounds called congeners. The commercial formulation

2 of PCBs usually contain around 50 different congeners.

3 About one-and-a-half billion pounds were produced in

4 the United States between 1929 and 1977 and we assume

5 that about half of them were released to the

6 environment. There are important industrial

7 applications because they don't compose over time,

8 they're heat resistant, they provide elasticity to

9 plastics and have well electrical conductivity.

10 What are or were they used for, primarily for

11 dielectric fluids, hydraulic fluids, heat transfer

12 fluids, those are all authorized uses, carbonless copy

13 paper, another authorized use, but all the others were

14 uses that were not authorized in the regulations. So

15 cutting oils, lubricants, pump oils, plasticizers,

16 caulk sealants, paint coatings, rubber and inks and

17 pigments were not authorized in the regulations and are

18 not authorized today.

19 What are the human health effects from PCBs?

20 There are two kinds of health effects, acute or short21 term effects. The most common acute effects are

22 irritation or burning of the eyes, face and skin and
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

9

1 core acne which is very similar to regular acne. The

2 chronic effects or long-term effects are liver

3 disorders, reproductive effects, developmental effects

4 and probably cancer. PCBs also have numerous well

5 documented health effects including cancer for animals.

6 What is our authority for the rulemaking? The

7 authority for the rulemaking is Section 6E of the Toxic

8 Substances Control Act of 1976, we call that TSCA and

9 abbreviate it TSCA. It generally meant it bans the

10 manufacturer, processing, distribution and commerce and

11 use of PCBs after 1978 but provides for some exceptions

12 based on the EPA finding of no unreasonable risk of

13 injury to health or the environment. Most of the

14 exceptions take the form of authorizations which

15 include conditions such as location restrictions,

16 repair of restrictions and concentration limits.

17 In 1984 the EPA promised to review these

18 authorizations in five years at one point in the

19 regulations, but we haven't done that. So Section 6E

20 in TSCA permits it being authorized by rule,

21 manufacturing processing and distribution of commerce

22 in use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed manner. The
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

10

1 activities will not present an unreasonable risk of

2 injury to health or the environment. And that's what

3 we're doing with all these is that you enjoy having

4 with your electrical equipment were authorized in

5 accordance with this provision. We've also determined

6 that there are some non-totally enclosed PCBs

7 activities that will not present an unreasonable risk

8 and propose to authorize these activites for a period

9 of five years after the effective date of the final

10 rule that was set in 1984 and we really haven't had

11 that kind of examination of the regulations since.

12 We've made some changes but we've not gone back and

13 looked at the overall original PS authorizations. And

14 that's what we're doing now. So we're several years

15 late.

16 What's the standard for removing use

17 authorization? I wanted you folks to know that even

18 though we have an authorization the standard for

19 removing it is not the same as the standard for putting

20 it in. In order to remove an existing use

21 authorization, the EPA must be less than arbitrary and

22 capricious. So, this is from a court finding, a Fifth
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

11

1 Circuit Court finding in a challenge to the disposal

2 amendments of 1998, the Court says, you don't have to

3 make an unreasonable risk of finding to remove an

4 authorization, you just need one to put it in and you

5 don't need -- and the standard for removing it since

6 there was an original ban in the statute, the standard

7 is less than arbitrary and capricious.

8 What's the objective of the rulemaking? It's

9 to reassess the current authorizations for certain PCBs

10 as to determine whether they may now pose an

11 unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.

12 To meet this objective, the ANPR solicits information

13 from the public on several topics.

14 What information does the EPA seek in the

15 rulemaking? I think most of you have probably looked

16 it over already. There are on the order of about 200

17 questions about different sorts of topics, such as

18 population characteristics for equipment, equipment

19 management practices, equipment failure rates and

20 insurance costs, removal and replacement costs for

21 equipment, impact of severe spills, weather events and

22 vandalism, disposal of recycling costs, environmental
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

12

1 impacts and alternatives to PCBs, potential

2 authorization for some non-liquid PCBs.

3 And the last slide is what is a timetable for

4 the rulemaking? The comment period currently ends July

5 6, 2010; it was 90 days from the start. If you want to

6 look at comments or submit comments you can do that on

7 the website, www.regulations.gov. The docket number

8 for this rulemaking is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. And we

9 have some instructions here; I think we sent them out

10 to NWPPA on how to access the comment part where you

11 can actually submit the comments on

12 www.regulations.gov. It's fairly straightforward but I

13 prefer straightforward to instructions and to me these

14 slides aren't always user-friendly. But I'm from a

15 different generation than you are.

16 The EPA reviews the comments for the remainder

17 of 2010. There are several requests to extend the

18 comment period; we're submitting those requests up our

19 chain of command for a decision from the Assistant

20 Administrator. That request from us went yesterday. I

21 will advise NWPPA and everyone else when a decision has

22 been made on that extension. The extension request has
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

13

1 been from all the requestors except one for 90 days,

2 General Electric asked for 120 days. And if there is a

3 90 day extension that would make it I believe October 4

4 and it would be then, if that were the case, EPA would

5 be reviewing into 2011. And the normal, if we chose to

6 go with the proposed rule, the administrative part of

7 the rule itself takes at least a year. So we're

8 talking probably, I think, no sooner than late 2011 for

9 a proposed rule and I'll just leave it at that because

10 we don't know right now. That's why we're having an

11 ANPR.

12 Okay, that's it for the presentation. I have

13 -- NWPPA, do you want me to go through the first set of

14 questions you gave me?

15 SCOTT LOWRY: Yeah, John, this is Scott Lowry,

16 just real quickly. We know we do have some prepared

17 questions like what's on the screen right now, in fact

18 we received another set this morning, but we also want

19 to take some time at the end of this session to answer

20 any questions that people want to just type in and send

21 to us. We also have a short period of voice Q & A. So

22 yeah, John, why don't we just go ahead and start with
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

14

1 the questions that you received and you've got them up

2 on the screen right now.

3 DR. SMITH: Okay. The first one is, how

4 will the webinar differ from the public meetings held

5 in the eastern United States? They differ in the fact

6 that you are able to ask me questions and I can answer

7 your questions. If this were a public meeting I would

8 have thanked Scott for his comments and gone to the

9 next person.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: John, this is Scott.

11 DR. SMITH: Yes.

12 SCOTT LOWRY: What the people can see, what

13 the attendees can see right now are just the questions

14 below the intro questions.

15 DR. SMITH: Okay.

16 SCOTT LOWRY: They're actually starting on --

17 what they see is question 5, that's their question 1.

18 If you want to run through those first four kinds of

19 generic questions that would be great.

20 DR. SMITH: Sure. So that's the difference,

21 there's some questions that I can't answer because I

22 don't know the answer, there's some questions that are
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

15

1 procedural questions that I can't answer, so if I can't

2 answer them it's not because I'm trying to dodge your

3 question, it's we are in a rulemaking and we have rules

4 for ourselves for this rulemaking about how we can

5 respond or not respond.

6 And so I'm the only presenter we have, that's

7 the second question, how many presenters will be with

8 me. As I said, there are three of my colleagues here

9 and a contractor.

10 Is the webinar going to the official record,

11 you've already heard that it is.

12 Please provide significant, okay, so I'm ready

13 to go on to the first one now.

14 SCOTT LOWRY: Great.

15 DR. SMITH: And you want me to read these,

16 Scott or --

17 SCOTT LOWRY: I would read them, please.

18 DR. SMITH: Okay, sure. It says, extensive

19 work was completed on the VAR, Voluntary Accelerated

20 Removal of PCB program and the utility industry

21 believes that if VAR had been implemented and completed

22 then that the program would have addressed many of the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

16

1 issues and questions in the ANPR. What is its status?

2 I don't know. Answer, I don't know.

3 Could the VAR program be used to achieve EPA's

4 goals, PCB goals? I don't know the answer to that

5 either. I know that there was a program at one time,

6 but I think what EPA found was it didn't have the

7 resources to be able to continue the program. I should

8 tell you that the PCB program is not one of the best or

9 largest funded programs in EPA at the moment, it's very

10 low funded and to spend money on that was determined by

11 the officials in the Agency at the assistant

12 administrative level that there was a different way to

13 go and it was their choice to go with the advanced

14 notice of proposed rulemaking. So if there is

15 information from that program that you think is

16 important in the body of knowledge to be considered in

17 a reevaluation of the regulations, please submit it to

18 us.

19 SCOTT LOWRY: Excuse me, John. This is Scott

20 again, so that you don't wear yourself out or your

21 voice, how about if I read these questions and comments

22 and then if you like, please respond.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

17

1 DR. SMITH: Works for me.

2 SCOTT LOWRY: That may be easier.

3 DR. SMITH: It works for me, Scott.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: So number 3, number 2 is a

5 comment, the ETF, that is the Environmental Task Force,

6 reviewed the EPAs PCD transformer registration

7 database. The database is not current and has out of

8 date information. Given the inaccurate state of the

9 existing database expanding it with new data will make

10 it worse. Any talk on that?

11 DR. SMITH: No. Short answer, no. Lynn is

12 here and I think there has been talk of reevaluating

13 the transformer database, but the original issue from

14 the knowledge of the transformer database was it was

15 meant to be a one-time notification, there was no

16 provision in the regulations or in our budget to do

17 anything other than effectively load in submissions

18 that were given to us. So it was never meant to be an

19 interactive, updated version of anything. That doesn't

20 mean that a future one would not be.

21 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, item 3. What is the

22 validity of current non-detectable analytical results
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

18

1 in light of the discussed lowering of the detection

2 level?

3 DR. SMITH: I'm not sure I understand that

4 question. I think that the analytical capabilities

5 that we have today are not reflected in the regulations

6 and so we're asking questions about that and maybe this

7 question is asking another question. Let me just say

8 generally, Scott, that what we're trying to do here is

9 to get information to help us either make an

10 authorization based on no unreasonable risk at this

11 point in time or not. So if we have information that

12 will help us, that's what we're looking for. And if

13 someone says, well there's no way we can change the

14 detection limit to another number because we don't know

15 enough about the detection limit that we have now or

16 the detection limit we have now is not a reasonable

17 one, it's not an economically viable one, it's not an

18 instrumentally viable one, then what we're looking for

19 in the comments is, is why, not necessarily what, but

20 why. And comments like we don't like it, it's too

21 expensive or do you think it's too expensive don't

22 really help us make any evaluation or assessment. What
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

19

1 we need to know is how expensive is it, why is it

2 expensive, what can be changed to make it less

3 expensive, there are a lot of potential ways that we

4 can go with this rulemaking and it's depending on the

5 information, the best information that we have. So I'm

6 not sure I answered the question, that's the way I can

7 understand and read it.

8 SCOTT LOWRY: Well, maybe leading onto another

9 question about costs, let's look at number 4. Has the

10 EPA estimated the cost of implementing the additional

11 testing and lowering of detection limits?

12 DR. SMITH: A simple answer, no. Now we

13 haven't estimated that. Any thinking that we've been

14 doing and logic that we've considered is presented in

15 the rulemaking itself. I think I could pause and say

16 right now that the next potential step in the

17 rulemaking process is a notice of proposed rulemaking

18 and there may or may not be additional information

19 provided in that rulemaking about all or some of the

20 topics that we've talked about in the ANPR. So we'll

21 present our logic there and then you'll have another

22 chance in a notice of proposed rulemaking to make
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

20

1 comments on the logic and our thoughts and our thinking

2 process on our decisions at that point. Right now

3 there are no decisions that have been made.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Item 5, what is the

5 rationale and added value of labeling all PCB

6 contaminated and assumed contaminated equipment?

7 DR. SMITH: I think right to know of first

8 responders and people who live nearby this equipment.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Number 6 relates to

10 number 5, has the cost of labeling been considered?

11 DR. SMITH: No.

12 SCOTT LOWRY: And you're seeking input?

13 DR. SMITH: Yes. So that's exactly what I

14 was just talking about, this hasn't been considered.

15 That's essentially our question is, what do you

16 consider the impact of labeling and not just what, not

17 just it's too expensive, we can't do it, it would cost

18 this much because we have this many pieces of equipment

19 at this many localities, this is how far we have to go

20 to get to those localities, that kind of information.

21 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Number 7, does the EPA

22 realize the potential impossibility of identifying all
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

21

1 amounts greater than 2 fluid ounces. The ETF believes

2 there may be millions of capacitors in non-utility

3 equipment to the U.S. as a follow-up comment question.

4 DR. SMITH: Sure. I'm sure EPA realizes the

5 potential impossibility of identifying amounts greater

6 than 2 fluid ounces. What we would like for you to do

7 is to tell us more about that than do we realize that

8 it's an issue. What we would like for you to tell us

9 since you are a lot closer to it than we are is, tell

10 us what the issues are, what you've seen, what you

11 know, where it is, how much you've found, whether it's

12 anecdotally or it's been planned, that you have planned

13 phase-outs, planned reviews, planned inspections,

14 planned evaluations, what you found and what you � not

15 only that, but what you think that means for the

16 future. So not only what you found from the past, but

17 what that would lead you to believe about the future.

18 I'm not sure where capacitors are at this point, that

19 really depends on the age of capacitors in this

20 equipment. We're now dealing with equipment that's at

21 least what, 32 years old. The newest of PCB equipment,

22 domestic equipment, should be at least 32 years old, I
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

22

1 don't know what the life of a small capacitor is in

2 that kind of equipment, that's what we're looking for

3 information about that.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, good. Question 8 asks you

5 whether you believe EPA's evaluation of the dioxin

6 reassessment will be completed by the time the new

7 ruling will be implemented.

8 DR. SMITH: Short answer, no. I don't know.

9 I thought I had read somewhere that it was going to be

10 done in the fall of 2009. So I don't know when it's

11 going to be done. If it is done, we'll incorporate it,

12 if it's not done and we anticipate that it will be

13 coming down the pipe a little bit later, we will

14 probably provide language in the notice of proposed

15 rulemaking that says we expect this is going to be done

16 and what we're going to do about it when it is done. I

17 would say that my personal feeling is that when the

18 dioxin reassessment is completed the agency will have

19 to maybe at the 30,000 foot level decide okay, now so

20 what, how does this apply to all of the regulatory

21 programs that we have. And then once they make that

22 decision then we'll probably decide how we're going to
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

23

1 go about proposing a rule we're not. So I think that

2 that's, if it came into tomorrow, I'd say it's at least

3 a year away before we think about whether it's part a

4 notice of proposed rulemaking or not.

5 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, great. Thank you. And

6 the next question, number 9, it's referring to

7 reference number 11 that's part of the ANPR and the

8 question reads, the ANPR says the PCBs have been

9 measured in ambient air coming from PCB containing

10 equipment in storage for disposal. Is ANPR reference

11 number 11 the only source of the above statement. And

12 just to mention, that reference refers to I think a

13 graduate or a doctoral thesis or paper that was

14 written.

15 DR. SMITH: Yes, that's the only reference.

16 I didn't look for other references in the literature.

17 If we decide to lean heavily on that in notice of

18 proposed rulemaking we will look for more. And if you

19 have more you can tell us about it. And it may be that

20 other non-utility folks have more information that's

21 published or not published and they will submit that as

22 part of the rulemaking as well.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

24

1 SCOTT LOWRY: Great, thank you. The last

2 question on this set, how many of the 5,578 spills

3 reported to the NRC from 1990 to 2009 included

4 reportable quantities of PCBs and the reference is 19

5 and it refers only to personal communications -- any

6 idea about those spills and how many of them included

7 PCBs or reportable PCBs?

8 DR. SMITH: I went back to the reference

9 itself and went through, it is a chain of several e10 mail messages between me and the National Response

11 Center and I asked almost the same question that you

12 asked but a little bit differently. When I first

13 asked, I said well how many PCB spills have there been.

14 And they reported the number, I said well exactly what

15 does that mean. And what I didn't ask was it a

16 reportable quantity so I don't know the answer to that.

17 But I do know that all 5,578 were reported as spills of

18 PCBs. So I don't know whether folks who are affected

19 by PCB spills normally would report something when they

20 don't have to or whether they would. So I don't know

21 the answer to that. I went back just today and went

22 back into the NRC system to see if I could figure it
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

25

1 out and I couldn't which is why I did this the way that

2 I did because I didn't know how to navigate around that

3 system. It may be that once we think about using

4 something like this information that we'll go back in

5 and see if we can find about whether or not they were

6 all reportable quantity spills. I think regardless

7 that's not an issue for us. There's nothing magical

8 about the reportable quantity with respect to risk.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, well John we're going to

10 mix it up a little bit here. We would like people who

11 have questions to type those questions in. The

12 prepared questions, I was glad we were able to give you

13 a few days to look at those. I know I had others that

14 I just sent to you maybe an hour before this call, but

15 we would like to allow folks to type in their questions

16 and to do you should have a larger screen now and

17 you'll see some comments up there from Barry Fuchs who

18 is producing this webinar, and at the bottom of that

19 screen, you'll see a white box, a small white box, you

20 can type your questions in there and then right below

21 that you can click, submit questions. So if you'd like

22 Dr. Smith, if you're ready to take a few questions,
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

26

1 we'll open it up.

2 DR. SMITH: Sure, I'm ready.

3 SCOTT LOWRY: And of course if we don't we

4 have another set to go through so we can continue on,

5 but now is a great time if you have questions please.

6 And I need to correct myself, I think I said

7 click on, submit question, actually you need to click

8 on the little return arrow on the right of that box

9 once you type your questions in, click on the return

10 arrow on the right.

11 I see we have a couple of people typing

12 questions, we'll give them a minute. While we're

13 waiting for those questions to be typed on the left14 hand side of your screen you should have something that

15 talks about submitting additional questions or

16 submitting your comments or reading previously

17 submitted questions and comments, you can click on any

18 of those links and you should be able to take a look at

19 or go to what you need.

20 Okay, any questions for John? And again, the

21 large area in the middle of your screen there's a small

22 box at the bottom that runs the length of that and on
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

27

1 the right is a return arrow. Okay, we do have some

2 questions. Dan Duncan wrote in, what changes are

3 anticipated for the authorization or PCB use and

4 applied paint. So John I'll give you that question.

5 What changes are anticipated for the authorization of

6 PCB use in applied paints?

7 DR. SMITH: I can tell you the short answer

8 is if you don't see it in the ANPR we're not thinking

9 about it.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay.

11 DR. SMITH: Okay, so if you do see it in

12 there we're thinking about it. That doesn't mean that

13 we won't change our minds, but when we publish the ANPR

14 those were the issues that we were thinking about. You

15 can look, there is one part about caulk that I think

16 would apply to dried paints as well so I don't think

17 that it's totally out of our minds, but that was not

18 the focus of the rulemaking.

19 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, we have a question from

20 Transformer Technologies, one of the supporting vendors

21 of the industry, they're asking how old is too old when

22 it comes to analytical results.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

28

1 DR. SMITH: I'm not sure I understand what

2 the question is about, how old is old, for reporting,

3 for recordkeeping, for justifying a concentration, for

4 being considered reasonable if it's a non-detect, I

5 can't tell which of those potential situations they're

6 talking about.

7 SCOTT LOWRY: Well, I'll turn it back over to

8 Transformer Technologies --

9 DR. SMITH: Okay.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: -- if you'd like to rephrase

11 your question or provide John a bit more information so

12 he can answer your question, please go ahead and do

13 that.

14 And while we wait for that, if they chose to

15 do that, let's go to Carol Leiter's question which

16 asks, lowering detection levels to basically what, for

17 oils and soils? What are we lowering the detection

18 level to?

19 DR. SMITH: Okay, the answer is we haven't

20 lowered it to anything yet. But what we're doing is

21 we're considering the possibility of lowering it based

22 on risk so we're asking folks what, I guess,
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

29

1 measurement is one thing to talk about detection

2 limits. Just because it's detectable doesn't mean it's

3 not authorized for use or is prohibited from use. But

4 the issue of measurement to me is, can it be measured

5 reliable, reliably I'm sorry. Can it be measured

6 reliably and what is the technology for oils today. I

7 think we have a number of about 2 parts per million

8 now. Many folks within the EPA have said that's too

9 high, it should be lower than that just for detection.

10 Viable detection instrumentally in oils that are clean

11 or not clean should be lower than that so if we're

12 going to have a detection limit, that should be a

13 different number.

14 And for soils the same thing, I think that

15 there are some soil numbers in the Superfund Program

16 and the Ricker Program that are quite a bit lower than

17 one part per million that we generally talk about in

18 the regulations. But soils are really more of a

19 disposal matter and this rulemaking is focusing on use.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, I see Transformer

21 Technologies has typed in their question and Dan Duncan

22 also has typed in another question and we'll give
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

30

1 another minute or two for these and then we'll allow

2 people to continue think of questions and comments

3 they'd like to make and we can move to another set that

4 we have. So let's give a minute or so here for a few

5 more typed questions.

6 DR. SMITH: Do you want to go to the bullets

7 on the one's you sent me today Scott?

8 SCOTT LOWRY: Let's give a few more minutes --

9 DR. SMITH: You want to wait, okay.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: -- for people, I can see them

11 typing away, we have another question coming in from

12 Central Lincoln P.D. We just had Transformer

13 Technologies question come up, their question is, how

14 old is too old when it comes to analytical results to

15 be effective toward disposal; i.e., in other words, ND,

16 I'm not sure what ND stands for.

17 DR. SMITH: Let me see if I can get what I

18 think the question is.

19 PETER KENYON: I think the issue, my guess is

20 the issue, this Peter Kenyon, I'm guessing they've been

21 doing tests that's a type of 2 parts per million and

22 they've been doing that for years and that's how their
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

31

1 categories are transformed, then we set the regulatory

2 level. If we were to set it down to say, a half a part

3 per million, are those results still valid or do they

4 have to go out into the field and recast every

5 transformer that they previously had screened as being

6 non-detect below 2 because it might be in that say half

7 to 2 part per million range, this implementation issue

8 of what to do.

9 DR. SMITH: If that's the case --

10 PETER KENYON: I think that's what they're

11 getting at.

12 DR. SMITH: If that's the case then I would

13 propose if you have comments or questions about that

14 that you pose the issue rather than making it a

15 question. Pose the issue about what you see as an

16 issue and what you see impacts that issue and how it

17 would be possible to do something about that or not be

18 able to do something about that based on a lowering of

19 the detection limit. I would say that generally there

20 are provisions for assumptions present about use in the

21 regulations so you can sue those provisions without

22 measuring the concentration. I would say that what
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

32

1 we've always said outside of those assumptions for

2 disposal for example, our famous phrase is, it is what

3 it is. So when it's time for it to be disposed the

4 concentration is the concentration measured at

5 disposal, not so many years before that.

6 As far as use, as I said you can use the

7 assumptions and if your analysis contradicts those

8 assumptions then the assumptions aren't valid and you

9 have to use your analytical results. If it's for

10 reclassifications I consider those to be effectively

11 assumptions as well. And they don't have to be

12 revalidated. I'm still not sure we answered the

13 question but we're getting closer to the target.

14 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, if Transformer

15 Technologies wants to clarify further than they can do

16 that, let's move on to a question from Central Lincoln

17 Public Utilities District in Oregon. They are focused

18 on labeling. Currently we are finding that the labels

19 are fading over time. Many of our existing labels are

20 now illegible so label durability is a concern.

21 DR. SMITH: I would agree that label

22 durability might be a concern. My own cynical response
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

33

1 is that if the label is wearing out, what about the

2 transformer. But what I would say in honesty is that

3 the labels are there to give people warnings and if

4 they're fading then they need to be replaced. And one

5 of the reasons that I think that we didn't really look

6 at how long a label would last was I think the EPA

7 believed that a lot of this equipment would have been

8 replaced before the labels faded or reclassified.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, we have a question from

10 Carol Leiter. Dr. Smith, in your opinion, what is the

11 likely result to the use authorization once the dioxin

12 reassessment is issued?

13 DR. SMITH: This is a personal answer is I

14 don't know. I think there are two possible ways to

15 look at it. One is that a lot of risk information,

16 toxicity information has been done on Aroclor PCBs and

17 if that's the case then one way to look at it is the

18 risks are based on Aroclors and all this equipment

19 we're dealing with Aroclor PCBs then that risk should

20 be applicable to the Aroclor PCBs. If you don't look

21 at Aroclor PCBs and just look at PCBs in general then

22 it may be the dioxin reassessment findings would make
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

34

1 PCBs seem more toxic based on the individual PCBs

2 rather than the Aroclor mixture. But if someone is

3 testing on an animal, the actual mixture and that turns

4 out to be different, my personal feeling as a scientist

5 is that it seems to me that that test on the actual

6 mixture is more appropriate than drawing assumptions

7 from a set of congeners that are not necessarily

8 related to an actual use pattern. But that's my own

9 personal feeling and not the Agency's decisions.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, let's go to a question

11 from Michael Woywood, if it is lowered to 2 or 5 parts

12 per million , will there be a grandfathering period? I

13 wasn't around the last time we did this so I'm just

14 curious what the thinking might be.

15 DR. SMITH: There is no thinking. Right now

16 we haven't planned to do something or one thing or

17 another, but I would say is I would like to know from

18 you, if you know, and we had, I don't know if you know

19 that we had a meeting with USWAG up in Baltimore a

20 couple of weeks ago and they said we don't know

21 anything about our less than 50 population because we

22 didn't have to. And my feeling is well, it is possible
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

35

1 based on risk that we're going to have to go less than

2 50 so the time to start thinking about what you have in

3 less than 50 if you haven't already been doing it is

4 right now. So I would say anything that you're pulling

5 out and finding less than 50, if it were my utility,

6 I'd be slapping labels on it with how much PCBs within

7 a range and I would be keeping very good records of

8 what's less than 50 because even though EPA looks

9 generally at 50, some states don't and once it's out of

10 the equipment, if there are risks based issues and

11 they're associated with things like water and food and

12 feed, 50 parts per million is not going to mean

13 anything to anyone. So I think it's an important

14 concept for folks to start thinking about is if it's

15 not above 50 I'm just not going to even think about it.

16 So the answer to your question generally is, I don't

17 know how we're going to think about it, if you have a

18 preference or a concern or a way for us to deal with

19 that situation, I would make suggestions, that's what

20 comments are for. It's to say, well this is what would

21 happen if you did that and not I don't like it or it's

22 too expensive or we can't do it, but this is the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

36

1 consequence of that and in the long term how you would

2 expect that situation to change or not change.

3 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. We have a question from

4 Jeff Defenbach up in the State of Washington, if we

5 test our transformers while in service, would there be

6 a need to re-test them at the time of disposal?

7 DR. SMITH: I'm pausing because I don't know

8 a good answer to this question. What I would say based

9 on the information, Peter Gimlin was the one who

10 evaluated what we call the reclassification rulemaking

11 of 2001 and my understanding was for equipment that was

12 inherently contaminated, so in contaminated during

13 manufacture or maybe even during servicing, that that

14 concentration did not vary much over time. The short

15 answer is, its concentration at the time of the

16 disposal is the basis of the regulation. So if it

17 hasn't changed over time, then the earlier measurement

18 is appropriate.

19 What we have seen however is, in particular

20 for high concentration equipment, ancillary equipment

21 that's been reclassified or high concentration

22 equipment that's been reclassified is sometimes the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

37

1 concentration doesn't level out very quickly. And in

2 that case if I had had a high concentration

3 contaminated transformer, I think for my own safety

4 sake I would analyze it at disposal anyway if I didn't

5 already do that.

6 PETER GIMLIN: I guess my take would be you

7 dispose of the PCBs at the concentrations that they

8 are. There's no assumptions you can hang your hat on.

9 And TSCA's a strict rule liability statute and even if

10 you thought you were doing the right thing if you made

11 a mistake you're liable for it. So I guess the

12 question, I think we'd have to fare back on you is how

13 confident are you of those earlier test results. As

14 John mentioned there are issues with each back of units

15 have been reclassified, they've also sometimes the

16 possibility of internal components. You could have

17 like small capacitors, you could have switchings that

18 are PCBs that may be leaking too, it could have settle

19 tanks and things, a lot more details I'm sure you guys

20 are familiar with. So you're really � if you're going

21 to say we tested it once and we know what it is and

22 we're confident with that for disposal, I think you've
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

38

1 got to be pretty sure you're confident because if you

2 make a mistake it could come back and bite you.

3 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, we have a question from

4 Dan Duncan in the State of Washington also. Will the

5 APRN address the quantifiable limit of 2 parts per

6 million for PCBs and PCBs self-implementing clean-up

7 levels of 1 part per million ?

8 DR. SMITH: Yes to the first, no to the

9 second.

10 SCOTT LOWRY: That's straightforward. Any

11 thoughts on that?

12 DR. SMITH: I think we had talked earlier

13 about the quantifiable limit that's based on analysis

14 as well.

15 PETER GIMLIN: Again, quantifiable limit is not

16 necessarily a regulatory limit, that's just a limit

17 where as opposed to a detection limit, where you're

18 confident that it's different than nothing.

19 Quantifiable means you're confident that it is a

20 certain value. And normally the quantifiable limit is

21 2 or 3 times higher than the detection limit.

22 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, John at this time, why
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

39

1 don't we jump over to that second set of questions and

2 comments that we sent to you this morning, I apologize

3 for the short notice on that, those just came in like I

4 said. And what we can do, to the participants who are

5 listening, we can go through these comments and my

6 partner Barry is pulling those up right now, but if you

7 have questions please feel free to go to the bottom of

8 your screen and type them in, whether they're

9 specifically related to what we're looking at in terms

10 of these general comments and questions or not. So we

11 can stop and take questions as we go. I also want to

12 mention at the very end of this presentation we'll open

13 it up to voice, that is you'll be able to use your

14 phone and talk to Dr. Smith directly, but just for

15 efficiency sake we wanted to run through as many of the

16 questions as we could, either by typed or by written

17 format.

18 So, John, starting out with some general

19 comments, and I'll just read through these and if you'd

20 like to comment on the comments, that would be great.

21 The first one, the April 7 ANPR is a huge

22 proposed undertaking; non-liquid uses, reassessing the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

40

1 continued use in electrical equipment, distribution in

2 commerce and exempted products. These are far-reaching

3 and diverse concepts affecting a diverse audience.

4 Breaking these into separate rulemaking activities may

5 improve the EPA's opportunity to gather better

6 information and develop more effective rules.

7 DR. SMITH: Do you want me to comment on

8 that; there wasn't a question.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Yes, please.

10 DR. SMITH: Sure.

11 SCOTT LOWRY: It's not a question so much as

12 they're putting forth an idea.

13 DR. SMITH: No, I don't disagree with it at

14 all. What I would say is I think I said earlier that

15 this is not the best funded and staffed program in the

16 government. And I would say that generally the concept

17 and belief here is that these things are going away.

18 And you're probably thinking that too, so multiple

19 rulemakings over time to me is not a likelihood. I

20 think that we're going to be dealing with this to not

21 change the EPA uses its resources for PCBs and other

22 chemicals that the next rulemaking potentially could be
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

41

1 the last one for PCBs. So I'm not sure that � as much

2 as I agree with it, what I would suggest is if you

3 concerns over what you think are the highest priorities

4 that you let us know about those; our rulemaking and

5 our authorizations has to be based on no unreasonable

6 risk. We have to make that finding and if we can't

7 make that finding it will revert back to the ban. So

8 what we're looking for is information that will help us

9 to either make no unreasonable risk findings based on

10 today's information, what we know today about risk,

11 what we know today about toxicity, what we know today

12 about economics, what we know today about where

13 equipment is, what we know today about failure rates,

14 what we know today about the population and its trends,

15 the more we know about that, the better chance we'll

16 have of making our decisions. So I understand it's

17 complex and I understand that we only really touched

18 the surface here, but we listed general categories of

19 what we're concerned about and what we're looking for

20 is for folks to provide information to either affirm

21 what we've said or contradict what we've said, but not

22 that we don't like it, it's too hard or too big or �
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

42

1 because our choice is not based on that, it's based on

2 is there no unreasonable risk from the continued use of

3 this equipment under a specific set of conditions.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thanks John. We did a

5 question from Carol Leiter and maybe we could just jump

6 to that real quickly.

7 And John, you'll find this on your screen and

8 to the attendees I'm just going to read this, we're not

9 going to pull this up.

10 So, the question is, are changes to the

11 assumption rule being considered? Many pieces of

12 equipment are medically sealed and cannot be tested.

13 The question is, are changes to the assumption rule

14 being considered?

15 DR. SMITH: They aren't mentioned in the

16 rulemaking. That doesn't mean if we came up with an

17 NVR that it wouldn't be if someone said well, John,

18 okay, here's a story about the assumption rule, if you

19 do this and if you do that, or if we do this or if we

20 do that or one of the issues related to the risks and

21 the continued use of this equipment is the assumptions

22 rule, here's what would work better. That would be
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

43

1 very useful. Other than that, it may be that the

2 assumptions rule stays as it is or that we would

3 propose something different. We have a lot of data

4 from, what was it, or was that a reclassification,

5 wasn't it. We have a lot of reclassification data, but

6 we don't have a lot of information about assumptions,

7 that's one of the reasons we're asking you about

8 populations. Do you know about your populations of

9 pre-1978 equipment; about how many of those pieces of

10 equipment is � contains PCBs at varying levels, or

11 doesn't contain PCBs. That kind of information would

12 help us with our assumptions because that's what

13 they're supposed to be based on, what we know about

14 that equipment. And I believe in 30 years that

15 population characteristics for that equipment will have

16 changed. Certainly there shouldn't be any new ones and

17 there should be more new non-PCB equipment entering the

18 population. But to me the population of these things

19 proportionately should go down.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thanks John. Let's jump

21 back the prepared comments. There's a rather lengthy

22 one here, I'll read through it and if you would just
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

44

1 comment on what you see as important and should be

2 brought up here.

3 So the comment reads, when EPA came out with

4 the mega-rule, a major criticism was that the EPA

5 failed to properly do their homework to understand the

6 regulated industry and the impact of the rule. IN this

7 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, it appears as

8 if EPA has not consulted electrical equipment

9 manufacturers, the owners of the equipment or even the

10 EPA regional offices to better understand the regulated

11 universe. EPA continues to talk about PCB containing

12 rectifiers, but does not acknowledge the presence of

13 oil filled resistors, thermal replicators, coupling

14 capacitors, capacitively coupled voltage devices,

15 capacitively coupled potential transformers and a host

16 of other equipment that industry is left to manage and

17 dispose of with only regional guidance. Increased

18 consultation prior to an ANPR would lead to a more

19 efficient and effective regulatory process and

20 rulemaking.

21 It's rather long and lengthy John but if you

22 could take a moment to share your thoughts.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

45

1 DR. SMITH: Yeah, my thoughts are that I

2 don't disagree with this and that's exactly what this

3 ANPR is for. This ANPR is not a proposed rule, that's

4 an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and asking

5 for the very information that you're saying that you

6 have that we don't ask you about. Now again this

7 rulemaking, I think most of you know, that in 2007 we

8 split off disposal and sent it to another office in the

9 Agency. It's still a TSCA � based on TSCA, but it's

10 managed by the Office of Resource Conservation and

11 Recovery. So we're not going to, in this rulemaking,

12 discuss anything related to disposal. The only reason

13 we're looking at any disposal questions are how that

14 relates to use and how that impacts use and removal

15 from use prior to failure of equipment. So there's not

16 going to be anything about disposal, about people would

17 dispose of equipment in this particular rulemaking, but

18 it would be very useful for EPA to have that

19 information when it arises, especially if there are

20 gaps that we have missed. We certainly have gaps about

21 disposal of PCB articles in general so that's anything

22 filled with liquid, whether that's appropriate or not,
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

46

1 whether it's meaningful or not, whether it's based on

2 no unreasonable or not, I can't tell you. But there

3 are � we tried to put options in for things that we

4 didn't have listed in the rulemaking. And as I said,

5 we're happy to have comments from the industry at any

6 time, we're asking them for comments specifically now

7 related to this rulemaking but any time folks have

8 information that they believe impacts the risks from

9 PCBs, we're happy to have that, and impacts the

10 regulations that we have for use, we're happy to have

11 that information as well.

12 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thank you. One more

13 general comment and then we can move to specific

14 comment questions. And I just want to remind our

15 listeners that if you do have a question please go

16 ahead and type that in the box below and we'll get to

17 your questions as we move through these prepared

18 statements and questions.

19 So the last bullet I have here, let's see if I

20 can pull this up here, the information gathering

21 questions in Section XIV are so in-depth and far

22 reaching, 90 days is not enough time to even gather the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

47

1 necessary information to make an informed regulatory

2 decision. Also, for companies that chose to

3 proactively begin removing PCBs from the environment

4 many years ago, things like GPS didn't exist; so much

5 of the data asks for simply does not exist, nor is

6 there incentive to generate the data. How will the EPA

7 address this in the final rulemaking?

8 DR. SMITH: I can't tell you right now. I

9 would say that rather than making statements about it's

10 impossible, which is what I would generally classify

11 that statement, is that you find ways to make things

12 possible, provide information on how you maybe could

13 solve that problem because it's not necessarily going

14 to be a question of well, since you can't do it, we're

15 not going to fall back on the ban that's there. I

16 think I would provide ways to say, well this is what I

17 know, this is how much I can find out, maybe I can't

18 find it out next year, but maybe I can find it out in 5

19 years, maybe I can find it out in 10 years, but I think

20 the issue is more about finding out about where this

21 equipment is than not finding out about where the

22 equipment is.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

48

1 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. I want to remind our

2 listeners if you do have a question please go ahead and

3 type it in and John can take a stab at answering that

4 if it's something he can answer. Right now we'll

5 continue on with these prepared questions that the

6 NWPPA received this morning.

7 Under specific comments and questions on page

8 1749 of the ANPR, in the 2000 ATSDR (ref. 14), it is

9 stated that PCBs easily cycle between air, water and

10 soil. If this is the case, why haven't more

11 occupational studies been done to document the effect

12 on workers working on PCB contaminated equipment,

13 decontaminating equipment or disposing of equipment?

14 In light of this statement, why not a much harder

15 emphasis to eliminate PCB equipment, such as microwave

16 ovens and they refer to an EPA definition for PCB

17 equipment).

18 DR. SMITH: Was this on the prepared

19 questions, I didn't see that on the sheet here. I was

20 trying to follow along with since I'm a visual learner.

21 SCOTT LOWRY: Right.

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

49

1 DR. SMITH: Was that on the prepared

2 questions?

3 SCOTT LOWRY: It was on that second set that I

4 sent in this morning.

5 DR. SMITH: Oh, okay. Where is it, Daniel

6 is trying to point it to me. Okay.

7 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay.

8 DR. SMITH: It's on the screen here. That's

9 it? Okay. Well I can tell you why more occupational

10 studies haven't been done is nobody has any money,

11 that's short answer to the first one. As far as small,

12 equipment with small capacitors in it, for example, I

13 guess that's what the question is focusing on. We

14 don't have any concept right now of how much of that

15 equipment is still in use. I would assume that based

16 on my own personal experience that microwave ovens

17 don't last more than about 10 years and since we're

18 well passed 10 years of the use of PCBs in domestic

19 equipment, I would consider that's probably not a major

20 issue. If folks have more information on that, we

21 would be happy to consider it in our evaluation.

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

50

1 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, sure. Okay, the next item

2 is on Page 17650 of the ANPR. In at least two EPA

3 Regions, utilities and EPA teamed up with equipment

4 owners and initiated a Voluntary Accelerated Removal

5 Program, or VAR. I know you mentioned or discussed

6 this a bit earlier. Has Headquarters reviewed the

7 results of this program and considered implementing

8 this type of voluntary cooperative program to further

9 eliminate PCBs? So much very similar to an earlier

10 question you received today.

11 DR. SMITH: I would say that I'll try to

12 make the answer the same as I did for the other

13 question and that is the EPA found out � felt that the

14 cost for us having to implement such a program and the

15 results from that cost did not balance and proposed to

16 use another method to address this issue and that's the

17 method that we're using right now.

18 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. The following question is

19 on Page 17650 of the ANPR. EPA cites the PCB

20 transformer registration database as a measure of the

21 number of PCB Transformers still in use. So again,

22 we're talking about the database, I know you discussed
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

51

1 this before. However, the database information is 10

2 years old and only a best guess of the number of actual

3 PCB transformers in service, as owners were required to

4 make assumptions (usually far more conservative than

5 required) and register assumed PCB transformers as well

6 as PCB transformers. Despite requests from industry,

7 EPA has not allowed a mechanism for owners to remove

8 transformers from the database when they are tested,

9 serviced, or removed from service.

10 We have to look in here for the question that

11 they're asking which is, what's the best guess for the

12 number of actual PCB transformers in service.

13 DR. SMITH: I can't tell from the database

14 either and that's one of the reasons why I wrote the

15 regulation, not only I but others wrote the regulation,

16 but we want to know, we would like to know that because

17 it's confusing to us as well. I think I explained

18 earlier that the reason for the database and the

19 justification and the funding for the database was for

20 a one-time registration, it was not for maintenance of

21 the database, but a one-time registration. I would be

22 very happy to know where this equipment is now, how
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

52

1 much of it there is now, what folks' plans are for

2 eliminating that equipment because as you said, several

3 folks have said, well we found out about it and it's

4 gone now. I would be very happy to have an updated

5 registration database.

6 I can share with you what I shared with USWAG

7 as well as we can't and the government just

8 automatically asks everybody for everything we want all

9 the time in a rulemaking. We have a restriction on

10 that by the Office of Management and Budget and we call

11 it the information collection budget. So we're

12 limited, and it's not just for (a) rulemaking, it's for

13 an entire agency and an entire program. So if we were

14 to ask for a lot more for this PCB rulemaking we would

15 have to eliminate some of that from other rulemakings

16 and other policies. So it's � and that's one of the

17 reasons why it was only a one-time request because we

18 couldn't � our information collection budget limited

19 our ability to collect it.

20 So we want to make our assessments based on

21 the best information possible. False positives on that

22 list certainly didn't hurt the folks, the right-to-know
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

53

1 folks who we generated the database for. They could

2 call and find out that it's not there anymore and it's

3 over. False negative is more harmful we believe.

4 LYNN GOLDMAN: This is Lynn, I just want to add

5 something, we do have an active contract to support the

6 database and we have supplied the entire database to

7 USWAG and have on several occasions asked them for

8 corrections, but we as of yet not received any. So we

9 are open to making it a better instrument. We just

10 can't actively pursue that as John mentioned because of

11 our collection restraints, information collection

12 restraints.

13 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thanks Lynn. Let's take

14 two more of these comments/questions and we'll take a

15 break and we'll allow for some verbal questions to come

16 to you, John.

17 So let's take a look at the next one.

18 In reference 17, the transformers that leaked

19 were at least 22 to 25 years old, in extremely

20 corrosive conditions (California coastal salt air),

21 presumably not maintained very well (as they leaked 400

22 gallons, one leaking for two years before being
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

54

1 noticed), yet EPA feels that a life expectancy for a

2 transformer should be no more than 30 to 40 years? It

3 appears EPA needs to revisit the average and maximum

4 life expectancy of electrical equipment to better

5 understand the economic impacts of these proposals.

6 So I would like to get your comments on the

7 question and perhaps �

8 DR. SMITH: I didn't hear a question but I

9 will certainly comment on it and I would argue that EPA

10 has made no such assumptions about the lifetime of

11 equipment. Specifically I think I was looking for at

12 an earlier rulemaking where I believe somebody said 40

13 years for a transformer, but if you will read carefully

14 the questions that are asked in the early parts of the

15 section 14, you'll find that that's exactly what we're

16 trying to determine here, is how much equipment is out

17 there, how long does it last based on your records, and

18 what is the predicted lifetime for this equipment. I

19 think you can certainly say that � how would anybody be

20 able to say that the lifetime is x years when some of

21 that equipment has failed. We had examples of

22 equipment made in 2003 that failed in 2007. So that's
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

55

1 not 40 years either. The issue to us is we want to

2 make sure that when equipment is taken out of service

3 that it's still in the can that it came in. And one of

4 the ways we can do this � certainly the example that we

5 cited was something where it wasn't in the can that it

6 came in. And we could certainly make adjustments in

7 our risk and authorization to say, well you can't have

8 this equipment out over the ocean in a corrosive

9 atmosphere. But then corrosive areas might also

10 include areas within a mile or two of the coast on the

11 Pacific coast. So --

12 SCOTT LOWRY: John, as a follow up question,

13 we just had one typed in by a Mr. or Ms. Borman (sic)

14 and they're saying, let me see if I can find that here,

15 it just disappeared off my screen. Okay, here it is.

16 There are two lives for any piece of equipment

17 and John you should be able to see this on the left18 hand side of your screen as well as the attendees can

19 see it there as well. The first is a design life of

20 about 30 years for a transformer. The second is the

21 useful life which is significantly higher, often in the

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

56

1 40 to 60 year range. Why the focus on the design life

2 in the ANPRM?

3 DR. SMITH: Okay, I would say that the

4 focus, let me go back to the overall focus of the

5 rulemaking and the focus in the rulemaking is that when

6 we looked at equipment containing PCBs in 1978, it was

7 all fairly new equipment. And one could make those

8 kinds of assumptions about equipment 30 years ago, we

9 could do that and feel fairly confident in that. But

10 I'll ask the questioner, suppose the equipment was 30

11 years old in 1978, which I don't know if it could have

12 been but I think it maybe could have been 30 years old,

13 now it's at the 60 years it was quoted. I guess our

14 concern here is that the PCBs that are in the can are

15 disposed while they're in the can, not disposed in the

16 environment without control. And what we're trying to

17 do is to find some way to assure ourselves that the

18 continued use of this equipment will continue, that the

19 PCBs that are in the can are disposed while they're

20 still in the can.

21 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thank you John. Just to

22 kind of mix things up here and keep things moving
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

57

1 along, we want to open up the call to questions over

2 the phone and at the bottom of your screen, of the

3 participant's screen, you'll see a little icon, a

4 little person with their hand up in the air, if you

5 have a question you'd like to ask John or Lynn or the

6 EPA, just go ahead and press on that button, we'll call

7 on you as we see your name come up. So if you do have

8 questions just go ahead and click on that.

9 And nothing yet. And if we don't have any

10 questions right, any verbal questions you'd like to ask

11 over the phone, we can move back to the prepared

12 questions and continue on. So one last call for any

13 questions.

14 DR. SMITH: I have some statements to make

15 since people are thinking about questions. And those

16 are generally for this kind of equipment. One of the

17 things that we're trying � if it's not, and it's

18 probably not clear from the questions, what we're

19 trying to do is learn from your experiences of the past

20 from equipment that's come out of service, whether it's

21 come out of service voluntarily or involuntarily, what

22 do you know about that equipment; what do you know
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

58

1 about its place in the population; what do you know

2 about its use. For example, I'm seeing in this other

3 list of questions about frequency of inspections in

4 remote areas. What are the issues about loads on

5 equipment that's loaded, how heavily loaded or not

6 loaded. How about things that are in very, very cold

7 weather and very, very hot weather. What have you

8 learned from your experience over the years about how

9 well that equipment has survived use or well it hasn't

10 survived use and if we're in a position to address how

11 things are used in the future based on their use in the

12 past, what have we learned about that. And we have

13 very, very little information, I think on that sort of,

14 I call it failure rates of equipment.

15 One of the references that we used in the

16 regulations was from an insurance company where it was

17 pretty clearly based on failures because they had to

18 pay out for the failures. So we feel fairly confident

19 about that kind of information but we'd like to have it

20 for other situations that maybe were not catastrophic

21 and maybe did not have to require insurance claims.

22 And it's not only what happened, what happened, why it
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

59

1 happened, but how you would predict the future based on

2 this.

3 So I'll use an example � maybe you have 40

4 year old equipment that you've taken out of service, 1

5 percent of it has leaked and the rest of it hasn't

6 leaked, that kind of information. So you predict for

7 the future then maybe that's the kind of response we're

8 going to have in the near term.

9 But if it's not that, if it's the other

10 extreme, well everything that you pulled out of service

11 that was pre-'78 seems to have failed in some way,

12 that's really useful information and maybe we should

13 really do the phase-out because if it's failing safely

14 now the best thing to do is to do what we can to make

15 sure that there are no failures that are not safe.

16 Anyway, that's my thought.

17 SCOTT LOWRY: And I'll just remind our

18 participants if you could hit *6 to mute your phone, it

19 sounds like we have a little bit of static or

20 interference going on. If you have a question and

21 would like to ask John directly again, you can just ask

22 at any time by clicking on the little man or little
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

60

1 person down there that has their hand raised. Your

2 name will be raised up and we can get you on the line

3 to talk to John directly. John, anything else you'd

4 like to add?

5 DR. SMITH: I don't think so, I think that,

6 as I said, the issue is I think if something came up to

7 it at the USWAG meeting in Baltimore, that I wanted to

8 make folks aware of and that was it was sort of that

9 it's this or it's that and they're kind of mutually

10 exclusive. It was either we generate power or we

11 remove PCBs. And my hope is that it's not this or

12 that, my hope is that it's both and some way that we

13 can get both things done safely. And so we have

14 proposals not to say we can't do it, we can't generate

15 power and get rid of PCBs at the same time, it's what

16 are ways that we can do this. Maybe we can't do it

17 instantaneously, maybe we can't do it for every little

18 piece that's down to 2 ounces, but we can do something

19 and based on our experience in the past, this is how we

20 think it can be done.

21

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

61

1 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thank you. Let's move on

2 to those other questions that we have in the prepared

3 list.

4 The next one is, Pg 17650 of the ANPR, in

5 reference 18, now John you've answered this question,

6 or you received this question already concerning

7 spills, noting that 55, 5,600 reported spills. As I go

8 down into this question it reads, other useful

9 information includes whether there is any indication

10 that the annual spill rate is increasing or decreasing

11 and whether the concentration of the material spilled

12 falls within regulated quantities (i.e., were they

13 regulated under the PCB regulations)? So that's a

14 twist on that earlier question.

15 DR. SMITH: I don't know, I'm going to call

16 the National Response Center and see if there's a way

17 that I can get into their system or they can get into

18 the system and ask me those questions. If someone has

19 specific questions like that, send them to me and I

20 will do my best to ask them and see if they can answer

21 them. It is a computer system and I'm not sure how

22 searchable it is for things like nationwide searches on
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

62

1 amounts spilled or whether folks report the

2 concentration of the spills. I would say that

3 generally or at least our information here at

4 Headquarters is we don't have much of a sense of that

5 because a lot of them aren't reported to us.

6 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay.

7 DR. SMITH: Whether Dan can tell you about

8 it, I don't know.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Alright, we have a question --

10 DR. SMITH: Maybe Dan can tell you about

11 Region 10, I don't know how many spills are reported to

12 them. Out of the 5,000 I was very surprised at a

13 number that high.

14 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Thank you. John, we have

15 another question that came in from Carol Leiter. And

16 the questions reads, will the proposed rulemaking be

17 tied to the POPs treaty and maybe you can just mention

18 what the POPs treaty is.

19 DR. SMITH: Sure. The POPs treaty is called

20 the Stockholm Convention for Persistent Organic

21 Pollutants and in that treaty the United States is a

22 signatory which says we in substance agree with it but
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

63

1 we are not a ratifier which says we will follow the

2 principles. Now I've heard our government say that we

3 are following it in substance now and would not have

4 signed it if we didn't feel that we had but I

5 understand that there are discussions in Congress about

6 the United States effectively ratifying that convention

7 so the issue then would be very similar to the dioxin

8 reassessment. And that is now that we've made the

9 decision, now that we have a final report, what does

10 that mean to the EPA? Does that mean to Congress that

11 EPA needs to do (a), (b) or (c) or is Congress going to

12 say, EPA you do what you think is right. I don't know

13 what the answer to that question is. I would say that

14 clearly the deadlines that we talked about in the ANPR

15 are deadlines that are based on the Stockholm

16 Convention.

17 And the LRTAP protocol that the Agency is also

18 a signatory to, but not a ratifier of. In the LRTAP

19 convention that's a much shorter deadline, it's 10

20 years earlier than POPs. So it will not be timed for

21 that, I would think that if the United States does

22 ratify and Congress either says to EPA do this or says
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

64

1 to EPA, you decide what you're going to do then that

2 could potentially speed up the notice of proposed

3 rulemaking or a notice of proposed rulemaking. There

4 is no notice drafted at present.

5 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. John, now Carol followed

6 up with another question, a very short question that

7 says, maritime treaty? I assume she's asking whether

8 the rulemaking will be tied to the maritime treaty?

9 DR. SMITH: We don't know anything about a

10 maritime treaty that addresses PCBs that we administer

11 here in TSCA. We know that we have delegated to the

12 maritime MPRSA, I think it's called, there's a deep sea

13 dumping treaty that's managed by the water office and

14 we have delegated the regulation to PCBs to them for

15 that aspect of PCB disposal. But that's the only thing

16 I know about, about a maritime treaty.

17 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Thank you. Carol came

18 back with another question. What treaty were you

19 referring to, John, when you were referring to, other

20 than POPs? Is there another treaty you were referring

21 to?

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

65

1 DR. SMITH: Oh, it's called � its LRTAP,

2 Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants, and it is a

3 regional � it's called the Arhuus. Now, let me try to

4 spell Arhuus for you. I think it's A -- it's either

5 two A's or two U's, it's a city in Denmark. I think

6 its two U's and one A; A-R-H-U-U-S. And I believe if

7 you Google Arhuus protocol or send me an e-mail

8 message, I can send you a link to that convention and

9 it is a regional convention which is basically Europe,

10 Canada, United States, the Russian Federation and maybe

11 some of the former, the European former Russian states.

12 So it's an agreement with that body, so it's not what

13 we call a global agreement like the Stockholm

14 Convention, but it's a regional agreement.

15 And I believe that is what drove the Canadian

16 regulations more than the TSCA � the Stockholm

17 Convention.

18 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, let's jump back over to

19 our prepared comments and questions. And we'll pick up

20 where we left off on page 17652, the question: How many

21 documented cases are there of exceedences of the US

22 food and feed tolerance for PCBs in the past 10 years?
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

66

1 How many of documented cases are there for exceedences

2 of those rules in the past 10 years? And how many of

3 these were the result of illegal use of PCB equipment

4 versus releases from legal uses of PCB contaminated

5 equipment?

6 DR. SMITH: I don't know the answer to the

7 first one, if I had information like that it would have

8 been in the rulemaking. As far as the European

9 instances that we cited, they were from unauthorized

10 disposal as far as I know and not use because --

11 SCOTT LOWRY: Excuse me, John, we're picking

12 up some more static --

13 DR. SMITH: I'm getting it too.

14 SCOTT LOWRY: If folks could hit their *6

15 again just to make sure that they're muted, *6 will

16 mute you.

17 DR. SMITH: I'm going to *6 mine and see if

18 it's mine.

19 SCOTT LOWRY: I'm going to give it a minute to

20 kind of clear out. The reason why we're getting so many

21 of these beeps is there are a number of people on the

22 phone today, approximately 40 or 50 utilities and a
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

67

1 number of folks at each utility is listening in. So I

2 appreciate your patience. It sounds like it may be

3 clearing up.

4 DR. SMITH: I'm back in and each time I log

5 back in, I get the triple beep. So when I'm off I'm

6 still hearing the triple beep and then when I log back

7 in I still get it again.

8 SCOTT LOWRY: Let me check. Okay, we're going

9 to check on that on our end, John, and see if we can

10 kind of work around that.

11 DR. SMITH: I can't work around it.

12 SCOTT LOWRY: In the meantime, if we can just

13 keep on going with the questions and I apologize.

14 Any other comments on that one question about

15 the PCB and releases from legal uses?

16 DR. SMITH: The answer is, I don't know of

17 any instances in the United States from contamination,

18 food and feed stocks from equipment use and I'd be

19 happy to be able to say that 20 years from now too.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Let's jump on to the next

21 question, which starts out, Anecdotal accounts --

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

68

1 RECORDING: (The moderator has left the

2 conference to speak to the operator and will rejoin

3 shortly).

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, we're trying to get that

5 sorted out, the beeps, so please be patient with us.

6 The Anecdotal accounts of spills are tough to

7 refute and not the basis for good rule making. Please

8 clarify why EPA chose to stop requiring ballasts and

9 small capacitors manufactured after July 1, 1998 to be

10 marked non-PCB at the time of manufacture. This has

11 made the proper response to releases and proper

12 disposal very difficult. We recommend that EPA revisit

13 the requirement to mark non-PCB small capacitors and

14 ballasts to improve responses to releases.

15 Touching on that issue of apparently

16 fluorescent lights and then those small ballasts

17 capacitors.

18 DR. SMITH: Well I don't know why we stopped

19 the requirement. Peter, do you know?

20 PETER GIMLIN: Well the requirement was, when

21 it was issued one of the first requirements back from

22 1978 and they set a 20 year time limit on it I think
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

69

1 assuming that that would be adequate and after 20 years

2 it wouldn't be -- the problem would be gone. I'm

3 trying to remember the discussions we had back with the

4 mega rule, why we didn't extend it at that time. I

5 know the idea was tossed around. I think we also

6 considered at the time it wasn't necessary and that's

7 at least one requirement we could drop and that if it

8 were important to manufacturers we would just continue

9 to do it anyway without being mandated. And that you

10 would probably be able to tell by looking at a piece of

11 equipment if it were in the 1998 or later vintage or

12 the 70's or pre-vintage, I think that was the thinking

13 behind it. If this is turning into an issue, please

14 comment on it, please let us know. That's certainly

15 something we can revisit.

16 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, at least one utility has

17 certainly raised it up. Let's move to the next

18 question: The question is in Unit XIV appeared to be

19 aimed largely at electric utilities rather than owners

20 of non-liquid PCBs, such as paints, caulks and

21 plastics. Let's see if I can make sense to it; the EPA

22 should make a concerted effort to reach out to
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

70

1 industrial users, I guess it should be, should the EPA

2 make concerted effort to reach out to industrial users

3 of PCBs and groups outside of utilities to obtain more

4 comprehensive information?

5 So is there an effort going on that will reach

6 out to others besides just utilities?

7 DR. SMITH: I'll have to look at the wording

8 of the equipment that wasn't intended to be just for

9 utility owners of equipment, but any owners of

10 equipment and we know that at least in Region 3 that

11 the region has been reaching out to known owners of PCB

12 equipment. So I don't think the EPA is trying to

13 restrict its actions only on utility owners. Our

14 concerns are for all owners, private sector and

15 government owners as well.

16 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thanks John.

17 BARRY FUCHS: This is Barry, your producer,

18 I'm going to interrupt. Operator, I believe that our

19 tone problem has gone away so thank you for your help.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: And this is Scott. If we have

21 attendees that have any questions at all, please either

22 click the little hand on the left-hand bottom of your
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

71

1 screen and you can raise your hand to be heard, get a

2 question in or you can type your questions in, in the

3 small box and then click the return arrow. But we'll

4 continue with these questions, but we will interrupt

5 for questions that the audience has.

6 So, John there's a multi-part comment that

7 comes up, page 17653, it starts out reading: Many of

8 the proposed phase-out � perhaps we could take bullet

9 by bullet and go through those. And let me start with

10 the first introduction and then the first bullet.

11 Many of the proposed phase-out activities make

12 sense and have already been voluntarily implemented by

13 many equipment owners such as utilities. Other of the

14 potential activities appear to be impractical,

15 including the following:

16 Requiring assumed PCB contaminated equipment

17 to be marked. Much of utility equipment is suspended

18 in the air and virtually all is energized to high

19 voltages. To require workers to inspect, verify

20 nameplate information and test data and attach marks in

21 variable weather conditions is unsafe and unreasonably

22 expensive.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

72

1 Any thoughts on that? They're basically

2 saying this is a very difficult thing to do because

3 this equipment is energized.

4 DR. SMITH: I'm sorry, I'm reading over the

5 question again.

6 SCOTT LOWRY: Sure John.

7 DR. SMITH: Well I'll go back to what I said

8 earlier that I'm not sure that our issue is that we

9 don't want to � I'm sure our issue is we don't want

10 people to get hurt. But we also don't want people to

11 get contaminated, including the people who could get

12 hurt testing the equipment and who have this manage

13 this equipment for other reasons than to put a label on

14 it or to check its concentration. Now we did propose

15 steps that we understood that people were taking as

16 well, but as you pointed out it's some people, it's not

17 all people, it's some people are taking those steps and

18 it comes to that, that all people need to be doing

19 that, then it will be done by regulation and that will

20 give us, I think, a better hope that all people would

21 be doing that and not just some people. So I would say

22 that our intent is not for people to get hurt, our
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

73

1 intent is for the PCBs that are in the can to be

2 disposed while they're in the can. And there are way s

3 that that can be assured based on past experience, past

4 recordkeeping, past knowledge, and based on that past

5 knowledge that that can be projected toward the future,

6 then we can consider that. So let's provide

7 information, detailed information about those issues.

8 Not that it's dangerous because we know it's dangerous

9 to collect that information, but based on equipment

10 that's in those kinds of positions and remains

11 unlabeled and remains unverified as far as the content

12 of the nameplate, I guess it was our concern that there

13 may be other steps that could be taken other than

14 examining a nameplate and I'm not sure I'm totally

15 convinced that that's an impossible task for people to

16 examine the nameplate on every piece of equipment. But

17 assume that that is, there is equipment that can't be

18 examined for its nameplate, is it not possible for

19 someone to have some sense of when that equipment was

20 manufactured or when that equipment was installed at

21 that location. Or whether some sorts of logic could be

22 used to say, well there's no way that equipment could
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

74

1 be new because the substation was built in the 1960s,

2 new equipment has been put in there, it's easy to tell

3 by the paint color of what's new and what's old,

4 therefore we should assume that everything that's in

5 there is old and not necessarily marked, but maybe you

6 could mark it as being old, that would be useful to

7 someone who's a first responder. And as I think I said

8 earlier, maybe I didn't say it, I was thinking it, that

9 just because it's in the substation now doesn't mean

10 after a catastrophic event that it won't be in the

11 substation; it wasn't in Greensburg, Kansas. It wasn't

12 after Hurricane Katrina.

13 SCOTT LOWRY: Well John let me follow up with

14 another question that just came in and this is

15 referring to FERC, NERC and other regional reliability

16 organization requirements; that those reliability

17 requirements make it very difficult to get outages in

18 order to inspect or label equipment. I know that's a

19 concern of many utilities and lot of this is pole

20 mounted equipment, stuff that is in the air and perhaps

21 attached to or in use by critical assets in terms of

22 the liability. And there is some concern about taking
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

75

1 down systems. That then affects the reliability of the

2 overall grid. I wonder if that's been considered.

3 DR. SMITH: Certainly it has been considered

4 and what I would say is I don't anything, I'm not a

5 power generator, I'm not a power transmitter so I don't

6 know how often there is a planned outage. But if there

7 is a planned outage maybe that's something that could

8 be done during planned outages and I think there are

9 situations where there are outages that aren't planned

10 but those are times, those are times of opportunity to

11 take a look at this equipment. But I guess my personal

12 feeling was that there probably was some form of

13 institutional recordkeeping and some form of

14 institutional knowledge amongst field people that they

15 would have a pretty good idea about what was old and

16 what was new. And with that kind of information rather

17 than having every lineman, every utility climb up the

18 pole, reach � try to view the nameplate and say this is

19 a new one, or this is not a new one.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, moving on to the next

21 bullet, the second bullet underneath that heading. And

22 before I do that, I just want to let attendees as far
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

76

1 as our planned program, we'll continue to go through

2 questions and take questions that you send in until our

3 time is up. We've got roughly 20 minutes left in this

4 program. We can continue and will continue with this

5 list or again we would take questions, both verbal and

6 written.

7 All you need to do is type your question in or

8 click on the raised hand and that will pop up on our

9 screen. So I'll let people go ahead and do that. If

10 we can John, we'll just keep going.

11 On that second bullet, increasing inspection

12 frequency from quarterly to monthly � that bullet

13 reads: increasing inspections for PCB equipment is

14 impractical for remote locations or areas with extreme

15 weather. In mountainous or northern locations, sites

16 may be inaccessible for more than a month at a time.

17 And I guess we're just talking about harsh

18 conditions, powering down systems in general just

19 getting access to that equipment to inspect it or to

20 monitor.

21 DR. SMITH: I would say that I would use �

22 if I were in a position where this was something that I
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

77

1 had to deal with myself I'd say well, I can make a

2 proposal to the agency of a way that I can do something

3 like this. If I can't do this, here's what I can do

4 that's like this that will help me achieve the same

5 result. And so to me if that's the situation in my

6 utility and I can't get there most of the time, then

7 when I can get there I'm going to have a prioritized

8 list of what I need to do when the weather is right.

9 And I also need to provide EPA with my knowledge of

10 that equipment and its ability to stay in the can

11 during periods when I can't get to it. My history of

12 failure of that kind of equipment that can't be

13 inspected regularly and how I as a utility, it seems to

14 me, as a utility I'm required to keep the power on,

15 what steps do I need to take to keep the power on as

16 well. Is there something that I have to do to do that?

17 I think it's more interwoven than I'm hearing from

18 folks.

19 SCOTT LOWRY: Yeah, thanks John, thanks for

20 that. We do have a question from Portland General

21 Electric it looks like, they've raised their hand and

22 if they would like to hit *6 that will un-mute their
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

78

1 phone and you can ask your question. Portland General,

2 are you on the phone? Okay, we'll give a minute,

3 Portland General may have changed their mind on a

4 question or not.

5 Continuing on the list where they're talking

6 about inspection levels, 1.7 fluid ounces or more, it

7 says: As mentioned in the general comments, EPA needs

8 to determine the universe of equipment containing

9 greater than 1.7 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid

10 before considering changes to the definition of a PCB

11 rule. Also, EPA needs to clarify how an owner is to

12 verify if equipment contains greater than 1.7 fluid

13 ounces without destroying that equipment.

14 DR. SMITH: It doesn't appear to be a

15 question to me but I don't disagree with that. I guess

16 our issue is, if we're considering changing that level,

17 which is the level I think everybody understands, that

18 is the level from the Stockholm Convention for one of

19 the provisions. We need on information on not only why

20 you think that's an issue, but exact examples of why

21 that's an issue and what we've said here is, we're

22 assuming that a lot of the equipment that has this kind
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

79

1 of equipment in it. These kinds of PCB capacitors are

2 going to be old equipment and if you have in your

3 records, for example, well we have this kind of

4 equipment and it's been in use for 60 years and by the

5 way one of them has failed and we do know that there is

6 a PCB capacitor in that kind of equipment, then what's

7 your response as to how to keep the PCBs in the can for

8 the rest of it.

9 So not only that you have it or that you know

10 about it, not that you think you know about it that it

11 might be there, you assume it's there, it could be

12 there, somebody told you it was there, but that you

13 know it's there, you know it's been tested because

14 you've had one that's failed and you know the equipment

15 is made the same time, at the same place, it's failed

16 so you know it's contaminated, what's your sense of the

17 universe of that equipment is, and not just the

18 equipment but the proportionate of that equipment in

19 the rest of the universe. We have some anecdotal

20 information about equipment that we know contains PCB

21 capacitors, I think they're bigger than this that are

22 in demand I will say.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

80

1 So that wasn't a question, but that's my

2 response to the non-question.

3 SCOTT LOWRY: I apologize, I had my phone on

4 mute. Even the producer does that sometimes. The next

5 question is the final bullet in this series. What

6 does EPA mean by "eliminate the totally

7 enclosed determination for distribution in

8 commerce"?

9 DR. SMITH: The EPA made an assumption back

10 in the 1978 vintage era that all distribution and

11 commerce was totally enclosed for purposes of

12 rulemaking. Well totally enclosed enjoys a special

13 status and what we're saying now is, are we able to

14 make that same kind of assumption today with older

15 equipment, that there is no release whatsoever when

16 this equipment is transferred.

17 And I'll tell you one of the reasons that

18 we're concerned about distribution in commerce is that

19 a lot of provisions in the regulations, what I would

20 say in my mind tend to foster extending the life and

21 extending the commercial viability of this equipment.

22 And that may have been something very useful back in
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

81

1 1978, but we're not so sure that it's as useful today

2 and one of the practices that we're most concerned

3 about is the, I will call it the trade in equipment

4 where someone will send equipment that they haven't

5 registered as regulated for disposal or that they want

6 to dispose, they'll send equipment to someone and

7 someone will say well, it's okay we'll fix it, and

8 we'll buy it from you. And then we'll sell it someone

9 else. And that's the kind of issue that we're

10 concerned about because often the someone else tends to

11 be somebody in another country. And we just as soon

12 not have distribution and commerce of this equipment.

13 Once it's taken out of service that should be the end

14 of it, it should be reclassified.

15 And I think somebody mentioned earlier, well

16 most of us are doing this now anyway and I applaud

17 that, I'm very happy that most of you are doing that.

18 What I would be concerned at the ones who aren't doing

19 it we're concerned about.

20 SCOTT LOWRY: Thanks John. Moving on to the

21 next question and then we're going to stop and open

22 this up for more questions and callers can actually get
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

82

1 on the phone and talk to you for the last 10 or 15

2 minutes of this session, but let's just go through one

3 more of these that came up. We have so many questions

4 on here literally it could take much more time than we

5 have here and I would like to open this up to people

6 who have questions that they would just like to

7 verbalize. On Page 17653 of the ANPR, and it starts

8 out reading: In Unit VII, most utilities have been

9 testing dielectric fluids in equipment since the early

10 80s. At that time, EPA established a detection limit

11 of 2 parts per million PCB. However, many labs did

12 not report results less that 2 parts per million .

13 Now, EPA is seeking information on the population of

14 equipment containing 1 part per million or higher of

15 PCB. EPA needs to consider the difficulty and perhaps

16 impossibility of making that determination with test

17 results only reported as less than 2 parts per million

18 PCB.

19 So that's more of a comment about perhaps what

20 EPA should consider doing.

21 DR. SMITH: No, that's a very important

22 comment and we respect that. I'd like information that
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

83

1 you can send us about how often that occurs, what your

2 history has been, how many times you've had that

3 happen.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. And at this point I would

5 like to open up the phone lines to anyone who has a

6 question. To keep this somewhat organized again if you

7 could click on the raised hand at the left-hand bottom

8 of your screen you can open it up to ask a question and

9 then we'll give you some instructions. So at this time

10 I'd just like to open it up.

11 And not having any callers raise their hand at

12 this point, John we could go on for a few more minutes

13 and discuss some more of these points or I could open

14 it up just to yourself if things that you've before

15 mentioned that you just wanted to express to the

16 industry. We have roughly 40 to 50 utilities on the

17 line and if you have some things you'd like to share

18 with them; that perhaps even came up at some of the

19 other meetings that are occurring back east, that would

20 be helpful.

21 DR. SMITH: Well I wasn't at the meeting in

22 New York, so I don't know. I understand that the
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

84

1 predominant focus of that meeting was on caulk in

2 schools. I do know that there were two utility

3 speakers, both from USWAG, Jim Roher and Mary Davis

4 from AEP, so they were and I have their statements and

5 they'll be in the docket very shortly. But I think,

6 why don't I open it up, I'm the one who's doing all the

7 talking here, most of it, so why don't I see if my

8 colleagues --

9 SCOTT LOWRY: We would like to open it up to

10 all of you who have questions, please. If you have

11 questions, now is the time to ask John.

12 DR. SMITH: I can tell you we won't answer

13 questions at the public meetings. Public meetings are

14 to take comments, they're not to answer questions, they

15 are to clarify something. If you say well, I don't

16 understand what it says in section 3, question 4, I

17 don't understand what this says, then we can explain

18 what we believe it says and the information we're

19 trying to obtain.

20 But as far as, that's going to cost too much,

21 it's impossible to do, you can make those comments but

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

85

1 we aren't going to make any statements about them like

2 we're doing today.

3 SCOTT LOWRY: But you are allowing questions

4 to be asked and that's unique as you said. This is an

5 opportunity and I know it's only 2 hours whereas those

6 other meetings, I imagine went all day, is that right?

7 LYNN GOLDMAN: This is Lynn, they're generally

8 about 4 hours, each meeting.

9 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay.

10 LYNN GOLDMAN: And we are currently considering

11 adding some additional meetings, including one on the

12 west coast, we're looking for approval for that right

13 now. So I can't say definitively, but that is our

14 hope.

15 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay. Do you know which city

16 that --

17 LYNN GOLDMAN: Do I know which city? No, west

18 coast is about as close as I will say for now.

19 DR. SMITH: As soon as we know we'll let you

20 know.

21 LYNN GOLDMAN: As soon as we know. And it may

22 be, well, it may be as early as this week that we would
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

86

1 know but then we have to go through a federal register

2 notice and we have to give 30 days notice so we're

3 anticipating that if we get the okay that would sort of

4 go out probably the end of this month or early next

5 month and these additional meetings, because of the 30

6 day notice, wouldn't likely occur until July.

7 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, so now this is the time to

8 ask your questions. And we just did get a question

9 from Joe Flannery, this question, and John you should

10 be able to see this on the left hand side of your

11 screen and I'll just read this: the focus of the ANPR

12 regarding PCB containing equipment has been well

13 articulated. Can you address the general concerns or

14 focus looking forward to proposed rulemaking regarding

15 PCBs in building materials like caulk, plaster, dried

16 paint at Section X or in Section X.

17 DR. SMITH: I would say generally I think

18 EPA has for many years, since the disposal, the PCB

19 disposal amendments of 1998, been concerned about the

20 potential risks from PCBs in non-liquid formulations

21 for things like paint and caulk. We had no idea,

22 generally, where they were, what kinds of applications,
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

87

1 what proportions of their individual universes they

2 occupied; in other words, was all caulk made in 1972,

3 PCB caulk or was it mostly northeastern caulk or cold

4 weather caulk or was it high durability caulk or

5 industrial caulk, and we're still interested in that

6 because in measurements that we've taken in some of the

7 places where the caulk has been found has shown that

8 there is a potential risk to people who are working,

9 living, going to school in these buildings. And what

10 we're looking for is more information that people have

11 on the distribution of this material, any measurements

12 that have been made, so we still have an interest in

13 that. As I pointed out earlier, those are unauthorized

14 uses so the issue about whether they can or should stay

15 is not really an issue right now, they are unauthorized

16 regulations and there can be a penalty by the day for

17 the continued use of this material.

18 So our guess our issue is, should we continue

19 status quo for those use authorizations? In other

20 words, no use or should we be looking at potential

21 mitigated uses with some kind of long and short term

22 conditions. And the same could be for paint or any
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

88

1 non-liquid PCBs. Again, our concern is that this is

2 generally old material and is it still something that

3 needs to be used.

4 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, thanks John. We have 10

5 minutes left of this session and at this time I'd like

6 to open it up again to questions. We won't continue on

7 with the prepared statements because I would like to

8 make sure people have an opportunity to ask John

9 questions. If you feel you need to leave the webinar,

10 we want to thank you for attending and for those of you

11 who would like to stay and perhaps take an extra minute

12 or two to ask John some questions, now would be a good

13 time for that. So again, thank you to all those who

14 have come and participated in this. And again, for

15 those of you who would like to stay and just ask a few

16 questions of John, we'll go ahead and save the last 10

17 minutes of this session for that.

18 So thank you very much and John, if you can

19 just hang on, we'll see if we have any more questions

20 coming in.

21 And not seeing anything popping up, maybe

22 people are questioned out or you have given them so
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

89

1 much to think about, John, they're just going to go out

2 and think about this, they're going to have to sit on

3 it for a bit.

4 That's it. I would like to thank all the

5 folks who have attended today and again we appreciate

6 your time and effort and thought in putting some of

7 these questions together. I noticed several of you,

8 many of you have put effort out into doing that. And

9 you can see on your screen now that if you have any

10 additional questions for Dr. Smith you can reach him at

11 that e-mail address. And then if you have comments

12 regarding the ANPR, you can submit those; also there's

13 an e-mail address for that and you can also look at any

14 previously submitted comments by going to the website

15 shown there on the screen.

16 I want to also let you know that this webinar

17 has been recorded, so if you want to go back and you've

18 registered for this course and you want to go back and

19 listen to portions of it again or all of it again, that

20 is available to you. And then as John said earlier in

21 this call, this has become or it will become part of

22 the official record for this ANPR.
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

90

1 So John I want to thank you very much, Lynn

2 thank you very much and with that I'll just say, good3 bye.

4 DR. SMITH: Thanks.

5 SCOTT LOWRY: Any last comments John?

6 LYNN GOLDMAN: Thank you.

7 DR. SMITH: Last comments are that please

8 submit comments if you have useful information. And by

9 useful information I mean, not we don't like it, EPA

10 get out of here leave us alone, but information that

11 says hey, we understand where you're trying to go here,

12 there's a better way to do this or a good way to do

13 this and here's how we can get to this goal together

14 rather than for us not to get there together by having

15 EPA propose something that's really not the best way to

16 do something. And there is a good way to do it and we

17 have information that will help you understand why

18 that's the best way and here it is. So I'm happy to

19 answer questions.

20 I think the easiest way for us to do something

21 like this is in a session like this where it can be

22 taped, rather than for people to send me a question and
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

91

1 e-mail because it has to go to Lynn and maybe other

2 places to get approved and then it has to go into the

3 public record. I think from an administrative

4 standpoint, it's easier to do it this way and it's not

5 going to happen at the public meetings, but I'm willing

6 to do this any number of times if it will get better

7 comments for the rulemaking.

8 And that's truly my goal; two goals, one is

9 that it stays in the can and the other one is that we

10 make our decisions based on the best information that

11 we can.

12 SCOTT LOWRY: Okay, and this is the first time

13 you've used a webinar for this type of meeting; is that

14 correct?

15 DR. SMITH: Yes.

16 SCOTT LOWRY: Great, and this it the first

17 time I think NWPPA has held something like this which

18 is our actual official meeting, our official public

19 meeting. So thank you again for taking the time and

20 working with us. And I want to thank Dan Duncan in

21 Region X who helped get this going as well. So again,

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

92

1 with that I'll say good-bye to everyone and thank you

2 for your time. And that you for joining us.

3 DR. SMITH: Thanks.

4 * * * * * * * * * *

5 (Webinar concluded.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2010

93

1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER

2

3 I, TERRI DARDEN, do hereby certify that this

4 transcript was prepared from audio to the best of my

5 ability.

6

7 I am neither counsel nor party to this action nor

8 am I interested in the outcome of this action.

9

10

11 TERRI DARDEN

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 1

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

>

> 21:14 37:20

41:1,22 43:10

45:9 46:3 50:13

52:16,18 54:7,19

55:4 57:17 59:3

65:1,3,16 71:8

72:9 75:18

76:12,21

1

1 14:17 38:7 59:4

68:9 82:14

1.7 78:6,9,12

10 47:19 49:17,18

51:1 62:11 63:19

65:22 66:2 82:1

88:4,16

11 1:8 23:7,11

120 13:2

14 48:8 54:15

15 82:1

17 53:18

1749 48:8

17650 50:2,19 61:4

17652 65:20

17653 71:7 82:7

18 61:5

19 24:4

1929 8:4

1960s 74:1

1972 87:2

1976 9:8

1977 8:4

1978 9:11 56:6,11

68:22 80:10 81:1

1984 9:17 10:10

1990 24:3

1998 11:2 68:9

69:11 86:19

2

2 17:4 21:1,6 29:7

30:21 31:6,7

34:11 38:5,21

60:18

82:11,12,17 85:5

20 67:19 68:22

69:1 76:3

200 11:16

2000 48:8

2001 36:11

2003 54:22

2007 45:7 54:22

2009 22:10 24:3

2010 1:8 2:21 3:3

12:5,17

2011 13:5,8

209 7:22

22 53:19

25 3:18 53:19

3

3 17:4,21 38:21

70:10 84:16

30 43:14 54:2

55:20 56:8,10,12

86:2,5

30,000 22:19

32 21:21,22

33 3:17

35 2:20

4

4 13:3 19:9 84:16

85:8

40 54:2,12 55:1

56:1 59:3 66:22

83:16

400 53:21

5

5 14:17 20:4,10

34:11 47:18

5,000 62:12

5,578 24:2,17

5,600 61:7

50 8:2 34:21

35:2,3,5,8,9,12,1

5 66:22 83:16

55 61:7

6

6 5:11,12,18 12:5

20:9 59:18

66:14,15,17

77:22

60 56:1,13 79:4

6E 9:7,19

7

7 3:3,18 20:21

39:21

70's 69:12

8

8 22:4

80s 82:10

9

9 23:6

90 12:5 13:1,3

46:22

A

abbreviate 9:9

ability 52:19 77:10

93:5

able 6:18 14:6

16:7 25:12 26:18

31:18 39:13

54:20 55:17

67:19 69:10

80:13 86:10

Accelerated 15:19

50:4

access 12:10 76:19

accordance 10:5

accounts 67:21

68:6

achieve 16:3 77:4

acknowledge

44:12

acne 9:1

Acrobat 3:8,13

4:11

Act 4:3 9:8

action 93:7,8

actions 70:13

active 53:5

actively 53:10

activites 10:8

activities 10:1,7

40:4 71:11,14

actual 34:3,5,8

51:2,12 91:18
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

actually 12:11

14:16 26:7 81:22

acute 8:20,21

add 53:4 60:4

added 20:5

adding 85:11

additional

19:10,18 26:15

85:11 86:5 89:10

address 38:5 47:7

50:16 58:10

86:13 89:11,13

addressed 15:22

addresses 64:10

adequate 69:1

adjustments 55:6

administer 64:10

administrative 4:1

13:6 16:12 91:3

Administrator

12:20

Adobe 4:11

advanced 1:6 2:12

3:3 16:13 44:7

45:4

advise 12:21

AEP 84:4

affected 24:18

affecting 40:3

affects 75:1

affirm 41:20

age 21:19

agency 1:5 3:17

16:11 22:18 45:9

52:13 63:17 77:2

Agency's 3:4 34:9

ago 34:20 47:4

56:8

agreement

65:12,13,14

ahead 2:3 6:14

13:22 28:12

46:16 48:2

57:6,8 76:9

88:16

aimed 69:19

air 23:9 48:9 53:20

57:4 65:2 71:18

74:20

allow 5:13 25:15

30:1 53:15

allowed 51:7

allowing 85:3

alone 90:10

alpha 7:15

already 7:8 11:16

15:11 35:3 37:5

61:6 71:12

Alright 62:9

alternatives 12:1

am 4:16 6:21

93:7,8

ambient 23:9

amendments 11:2

86:19

amongst 75:14

amounts 21:1,5

62:1

analysis 3:19 4:8

32:7 38:13

analytical 17:22

18:4 27:22 30:14

32:9

analyze 37:4

ancillary 36:20

anecdotal 67:21

68:6 79:19

anecdotally 21:12

animal 34:3

animals 9:5

annual 61:10

ANPR 2:10 6:6

7:11 11:12 13:11

16:1 19:20

23:7,8,10

27:8,13 39:21

44:18 45:3 48:8

50:2,19 61:4

63:14 82:7 86:11

89:12,22

ANPRM 56:2

answer 13:19

14:6,21,22

15:1,2 16:2,4

17:11 19:12 22:8

24:16,21 27:7

28:12,19 33:13

35:16 36:8,15

48:4 49:11 50:12

61:20 63:13 66:6

67:16 84:12,14

90:19

answered 19:6

32:12 61:5

answering 48:3

anticipate 22:12

anticipated 27:3,5

anticipating 86:3

anybody 54:19

anymore 53:2

anyone 35:13 83:5

anything 4:13 6:9

17:17,19 28:20

34:21 35:4,13

45:12,16,21 60:3

64:9 75:4 88:21

anyway 37:4 59:16

69:9 81:16

apologize 7:7 39:2

67:13 80:3

apparently 68:15

appear 71:14

78:14

appeared 69:18

appears 44:7 54:3

applaud 81:16

applicable 33:20

applications 3:22

8:7 86:22

applied 27:4,6

apply 22:20 27:16

appreciate 2:18

67:2 89:5

appropriate 34:6

36:18 45:22

approval 85:12

approved 91:2

approximately

66:22

April 3:3 39:21

APRN 38:5

arbitrary 10:21

11:7

area 26:21

areas 55:9,10 58:4
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 3

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

76:14

aren't 12:14 32:8

42:15 62:5 75:9

81:18 85:1

argue 54:9

Arhuus 65:3,4,7

A-R-H-U-U-S

65:6

arises 45:19

Aroclor

33:16,19,20,21

34:2

Aroclors 33:18

arrow 5:4 26:8,10

27:1 71:3

articles 45:21

articulated 86:13

A's 65:5

asbestos 3:19 4:5

aspect 64:15

assessment 18:22

assessments 52:20

assets 74:21

assistant 12:19

16:11

associated 35:11

assume 8:4 49:15

64:7 73:17 74:4

79:11

assumed 20:6 51:5

71:16

assuming 69:1

78:22

assumption

42:11,13,18

80:9,14

assumptions 31:20

32:1,7,8,11 34:6

37:8 42:21

43:2,6,12 51:4

54:10 56:8

assurance 4:7

assure 56:17

assured 73:3

atmosphere 55:9

ATSDR 48:8

attach 71:20

attached 74:21

attended 89:5

attendees 14:13

42:8 55:18 70:21

75:22

attending 88:10

audience 40:3 71:5

audio 93:4

authority 7:16

9:6,7

authorization 7:17

10:17,18,21 11:4

12:2 18:10

27:3,5 33:11

55:7

authorizations 3:5

9:14,18 10:13

11:9 41:5 87:19

authorize 10:8

authorized

8:12,13,14,17,18

9:20 10:4 29:3

automatically 52:8

available 89:20

average 54:3

aware 60:8

away 23:3 30:11

40:17 70:19

B

background 5:12

balance 50:15

ballasts 68:8,14,16

Baltimore 34:19

60:7

ban 11:6 41:7

47:15

bans 9:9

Barry 1:11 2:16

25:17 39:6 70:17

based 9:12 18:10

28:21 31:18

33:18 34:1

35:1,10 36:8

38:13 41:5,9

42:1 43:13 45:9

46:1 49:15 52:20

54:17 58:11,17

59:1 60:19 63:15

73:3,4,9 91:10

basic 7:10

basically 28:16

65:9 72:1

basis 36:16 68:7

become 6:5,9

89:21

beep 67:5,6

beeps 66:21 68:5

begin 2:3 47:3

behind 69:13

belief 40:17

believe 13:3 21:17

22:5 43:14 46:8

53:3 54:12

65:6,15 70:18

84:18

believed 33:7

believes 15:21

21:1

besides 70:6

best 16:8 19:5

40:15 51:2,11

52:21 59:14

61:20 90:15,18

91:10 93:4

better 40:5 41:15

42:22 44:10 53:9

54:4 72:20 90:12

91:6

bigger 79:21

billion 8:3

bit 2:10 3:6

5:12,21 6:13

22:13 24:12

25:10 28:11

29:16 50:6 59:19

89:3

bite 38:2

body 16:16 65:12

Borman 55:13

bottom 4:20,21

25:18 26:22 39:7

57:2 70:22 83:7

box 4:18,21

5:6,16,17 25:19

26:8,22 46:16

71:3

break 53:15

Breaking 40:4

brief 4:12
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 4

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

bring 6:12

brought 44:2

budget 17:16

52:10,11,18

building 86:15

buildings 87:9

built 74:1

bullet 46:19

71:8,9,10 75:21

76:11,12 80:5

bullets 30:6

burning 8:22

button 2:4 57:6

buy 81:8

bye 90:3

C

California 53:20

callers 81:22 83:11

Canada 65:10

Canadian 65:15

cancer 9:4,5

capabilities 18:4

capacitively

44:14,15

capacitor 22:1

79:6

capacitors

21:2,18,19 37:17

44:14 49:12

68:9,13,17

79:1,21

capricious 10:22

11:7

carbonless 8:12

carefully 54:13

Carol 28:15 33:10

42:5 62:15

64:5,17

case 13:4 31:9,12

33:17 37:2 48:10

cases 65:21 66:1

catastrophic 58:20

74:10

categories 31:1

41:18

caulk 8:16 27:15

84:1 86:15,21

87:2,3,4,5,7

caulks 69:20

Center 24:11

61:16

Central 30:12

32:16

certain 11:9 38:20

certainly 43:16

45:20 52:22

54:9,19 55:4,6

69:14,17 75:3

CERTIFICATE

93:1

certify 93:3

chain 12:19 24:9

challenge 11:1

chance 19:22

41:15

change 18:13

27:13 36:2 40:21

changed 19:2

36:17 43:16 78:3

changes 10:12

27:2,5 42:10,13

78:10

changing 78:16

characteristics

11:18 43:15

check 2:22 67:8,9

72:14

chemical 4:8 7:22

chemicals 40:22

chemist 3:16

choice 16:13 42:1

chose 13:5 28:14

47:2 68:8

chronic 9:2

Circuit 11:1

cited 55:5 66:9

cites 50:19

city 65:5 85:15,17

claims 58:21

clarify 32:15 68:8

78:11 84:15

classify 47:10

clean 29:10,11

clean-up 38:6

clear 5:13 57:18

66:20

clearing 67:3

clearly 58:17

63:14

click 5:3 25:21

26:7,9,17 57:8

70:22 71:3 76:8

83:7

clicking 59:22

climb 75:17

close 85:18

closer 21:9 32:13

coast 55:10,11

85:12,18

coastal 53:20

coatings 8:16

cold 58:6 87:3

colleagues 15:8

84:8

collect 52:19 73:9

collection 52:11,18

53:11

color 74:3

comes 27:22 30:14

71:7 72:18

coming 3:1 22:13

23:9 30:11 88:20

command 12:19

comment

12:4,10,18 17:5

21:3 39:20 40:7

44:1,3 46:13,14

54:9 69:14 71:6

82:19,22

comments

12:6,11,16 14:8

16:21 18:19,20

20:1 25:17

26:16,17 30:2

31:13 35:20

39:2,5,10,19,20

43:21 46:5,6

48:7 54:6 65:19

67:14 78:7

84:14,21

89:11,14

90:5,7,8 91:7

comments/
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 5

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

questions 53:14

commerce 3:6

9:10,21 40:2

80:8,11,18 81:12

commercial 8:1

80:21

common 8:21

communications

6:1 24:5

companies 47:2

company 58:16

completed

15:19,21 22:6,18

complex 41:17

components 37:16

compose 8:7

compounds 8:1

comprehensive

70:4

computer 61:21

concentration

9:16 28:3 31:22

32:4

36:14,15,20,21

37:1,2 61:11

62:2 72:14

concentrations

37:7

concept 35:14

40:16 49:14

concepts 40:3

concern 32:20,22

35:18 56:14

73:12 74:19,22

88:1

concerned 41:19

80:18

81:2,10,18,19

86:19

concerning 61:6

concerns 6:12 41:3

70:14 86:13

concerted 69:22

70:2

concluded 92:5

conditions 9:15

42:3 53:20 71:21

76:18 87:22

conductivity 8:9

conference 2:7,8

7:6 68:2

Conferencing 3:14

confident 37:13,22

38:1,18,19 56:9

58:18

confusing 51:17

congeners 8:1,2

34:7

Congress

63:5,10,11,22

connect 3:8,13

connection 5:14

consequence 36:1

Conservation

45:10

conservative 51:4

consider 20:16

32:10 49:19,21

73:6 82:15,20

considered 16:16

19:14 20:10,14

28:4 42:11,14

50:7 69:6 75:2,3

considering 28:21

78:10,16 85:10

consultation 44:18

consulted 44:8

contain 8:2 43:11

containing 23:9

44:11 56:6 78:8

82:14 86:12

contains 43:10

78:12 79:20

contaminated

20:6 36:12 37:3

48:12 66:4 71:16

72:11 79:16

contamination

67:17

content 73:11

continue 16:7 26:4

30:2 48:5 56:18

57:12 69:8 71:4

76:1,4 87:18

88:6

continued 40:1

42:2,21 56:18

87:17

continues 44:11

Continuing 78:5

contract 4:7 53:5

contractor 7:5

15:9

contradict 41:21

contradicts 32:7

control 4:3 7:12

9:8 56:16

controlled 4:15

controlling 7:13

convention 62:20

63:6,16,19

65:8,9,14,17

78:18

convinced 73:15

cooperative 50:8

copy 8:12

core 9:1

correct 26:6 91:14

corrections 53:8

corrosive 53:20

55:8,9

cost 19:10

20:10,17

50:14,15 84:20

costs 11:20,22

19:9

counsel 93:7

country 81:11

couple 4:22 26:11

34:20

coupled 44:14,15

coupling 44:13

course 26:3 89:18

court 10:22 11:1,2

co-workers 7:5

critical 74:21

criticism 44:4

curious 34:14

current 3:5 11:9

17:7,22

currently 12:4

32:18 85:10

cutting 8:15

cycle 48:9

cynical 32:22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 6

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

D

Dan 27:2 29:21

38:4 62:7,10

91:20

dangerous 73:8

Daniel 49:5

DARDEN 93:3,11

data 17:9 43:3,5

47:5,6 71:20

database

17:7,9,13,14

50:20,22

51:1,8,13,18,19,

21 52:5 53:1,6

date 10:9 17:8

Davis 84:3

day 13:3 85:6 86:6

87:16

days 12:5 13:1,2

25:13 46:22 86:2

DC 3:17

deadline 63:19

deadlines 63:14,15

deal 35:18 77:1

dealing 21:20

33:19 40:20

decide 22:19,22

23:17 64:1

decision 12:19,21

22:22 47:2 63:9

decisions 20:2,3

34:9 41:16 91:10

decontaminating

48:13

decreasing 61:10

deep 64:12

Defenbach 36:4

definition 48:16

78:10

definitively 85:13

delegated 64:11,14

demand 79:22

Denmark 65:5

denoted 5:4

depending 19:4

depends 21:19

design 55:19 56:1

Despite 51:6

destroying 78:13

detailed 73:7

details 37:19

detectable 29:2

detection

18:1,14,15,16

19:11 28:16,17

29:1,9,10,12

31:19 38:17,21

82:10

determination

80:7 82:16

determine 11:10

54:16 78:8

determined 10:5

16:10

develop 40:6

developmental 9:3

devices 44:14

dielectric 8:11

78:9 82:9

differ 14:4,5

difference 14:20

different 8:2 11:17

12:15 16:12

29:13 34:4 38:18

43:3

differently 24:12

difficult 68:12

72:2 74:17

difficulty 82:15

dioxin 22:5,18

33:11,22 63:7

directly 39:14

59:21 60:3

disagree 40:13

45:2 78:15

disappeared 55:15

discuss 45:12

83:13

discussed 18:1

50:5,22

discussions 63:5

69:3

disorders 9:3

disposal 11:1,22

23:10 29:19

30:15 32:2,5

36:6,16 37:4,22

45:8,12,13,16,21

64:15 66:10

68:12 81:5

86:18,19

dispose 37:7 44:17

45:17 81:6

disposed 32:3

56:15,19 73:2

disposing 48:13

distribution 3:5

9:10,21 40:1

80:7,10,18 81:12

87:11

District 32:17

diverse 40:3

docket 12:7 84:5

doctoral 23:13

document 48:11

documented 9:5

65:21 66:1

dodge 15:2

domestic 4:4 21:22

49:18

done 5:3 9:19

22:10,11,12,15,1

6 33:16 48:11

49:10 60:13,20

72:19 75:8

Dr 3:15,19 4:6

6:19,21 7:3

14:3,11,15,20

15:15,18

17:1,3,11 18:3

19:12 20:7,11,13

21:4 22:8 23:15

24:8 25:22 26:2

27:7,11

28:1,9,19

30:6,9,17

31:9,12 32:21

33:10,13 34:15

36:7 38:8,12

39:14 40:7,10,13

42:15 45:1 47:8

48:18 49:1,5,8

50:11 51:13 54:8

56:3 57:14 60:5

61:15 62:7,10,19

64:9 65:1

66:6,13,17

67:4,11,16 68:18
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 7

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

70:7 72:4,7 75:3

76:21 78:14 80:9

82:21 83:21

84:12 85:19

86:17 89:10

90:4,7 91:15

92:3

drafted 64:4

drawing 34:6

dried 27:16 86:15

drop 69:7

drove 65:15

dumping 64:13

Duncan 27:2

29:21 38:4 91:20

durability

32:20,22 87:4

during 36:12,13

75:8 77:11

E

earlier 36:17 37:13

38:12 40:14

50:6,9 51:18

54:12 61:14

63:20 72:8 74:8

81:15 87:13

89:20

early 54:14 82:9

85:22 86:4

easier 17:2 91:4

easiest 90:20

easily 48:9

east 83:19

eastern 14:5

easy 74:2

economic 54:5

economically

18:17

economics 41:12

effect 48:11

effective 10:9

30:15 40:6 44:19

effectively 17:17

32:10 63:6

effects 7:15

8:19,20,21

9:2,3,5

efficiency 39:15

efficient 44:19

effort 69:22 70:2,5

89:6,8

either 5:16 16:5

18:9 39:16

41:9,20 51:14

55:1 60:10 63:22

65:4 70:21

elasticity 8:8

electric 13:2 69:19

77:21

electrical 8:9 10:4

40:1 44:8 54:4

eliminate 48:15

50:9 52:15 80:6

eliminating 52:2

else 12:21 60:3

81:9,10

e-mail 65:7

89:11,13 91:1

emphasis 48:15

enclosed 9:22 10:6

80:7,11,12

energized 71:18

72:3

enjoy 10:3

enjoys 80:12

enter 4:22

entering 43:17

entire 52:13 53:6

environment 8:6

9:13 10:2 11:11

47:3 56:16

environmental 1:5

3:16 6:4 11:22

17:5

EPA 2:12 3:3,22

4:2,6 6:1,11 7:19

9:12,17 10:21

11:14 12:16 13:4

16:6,9 19:10

20:21 21:4 29:8

33:6 35:8 40:21

44:3,4,8,10,11

45:18 47:6 48:16

50:2,3,13,19

51:7 54:1,3,9

57:6

63:10,11,12,22

64:1 68:8,12

69:21 70:1,12

77:9 78:7,11

80:6,9

82:10,13,15,20

86:18 90:9,15

EPA-HQOPPT-2009-075

7 12:8

EPAs 17:6

EPA's 16:3 22:5

40:5

equipment 10:4

11:18,19,21

20:6,8,18

21:3,20,21,22

22:2 23:10

33:7,18 35:10

36:11,20,22 40:1

41:13 42:3,12,21

43:9,10,14,15,17

44:8,9,16

45:15,17

47:21,22

48:12,13,15,17

49:12,15,19 50:3

51:22 52:2

54:4,11,16,18,21

,22 55:2,8,16

56:6,7,8,10,18

57:16,20,22

58:5,9,14 59:4

66:3,5 67:18

69:11

70:8,9,10,12

71:13,16,17

72:3,12,13

73:9,16,17,19,20

,22 74:2,18,20

75:11 76:13,19

77:10,12

78:8,12,13,22

79:1,2,4,6,14,17,

18,20

80:15,16,21

81:3,4,6,12

82:9,14 86:12

era 80:10

especially 45:19

essentially 20:15

established 82:10

estimated

19:10,13

ETF 17:5 21:1

Europe 65:9

European 65:11

66:8
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 8

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

evaluated 36:10

evaluation 18:22

22:5 49:21

evaluations 21:14

event 74:10

events 11:21

everybody 52:8

78:17

everyone 5:13

12:21 92:1

everything 52:8

59:10 74:4

exact 78:20

exactly 20:13

24:14 45:2 54:15

examination 10:11

examine 73:16

examined 73:18

examining 73:14

example 32:2

49:12 55:4 58:2

59:3 79:3

examples 54:21

78:20

exceedences 65:21

66:1

except 13:1

exceptions 9:11,14

exclusive 60:10

Excuse 16:19

66:11

exempted 40:2

exist 47:4,5

existing 10:20 17:9

32:19

expanding 17:9

expect 22:15 36:2

expectancy 54:1,4

expensive 18:21

19:1,2,3 20:17

35:22 71:22

experience 49:16

58:8 60:19 73:3

experiences 57:19

expert 4:2

explain 84:17

explained 51:17

express 83:15

extend 12:17 69:4

extending

80:20,21

extension 12:22

13:3

extensive 15:18

extra 88:11

extreme 59:10

76:14

extremely 53:19

eyes 8:22

F

face 8:22

fact 13:17 14:5

faded 33:8

fading 32:19 33:4

failed 44:5

54:21,22 59:11

79:5,14,15

failing 59:13

failure 11:19 41:13

45:15 58:14

77:12

failures 58:17,18

59:15

fairly 12:12 56:7,9

58:18

fall 3:1 22:10

47:15

falls 61:12

False 52:21 53:3

familiar 4:10

37:20

famous 32:2

fare 37:12

far-reaching 40:2

federal 86:1

Federation 65:10

feed 35:12 65:22

67:18

feel 39:7 56:9

58:18 63:4 88:9

feeling 22:17

34:4,9,22 75:12

feels 54:1

fees 6:2

felt 50:13

FERC 74:15

field 4:8 31:4

75:14

Fifth 10:22

figure 24:22

filled 44:13 45:22

final 10:9 47:7

63:9 80:5

finding 9:12 10:22

11:1,3 32:18

35:5 41:6,7

47:20,21

findings 33:22

41:9

first 2:4 13:13

14:3,18 15:13

20:7 24:12 38:8

39:21 49:11

55:19 66:7 68:21

71:10 74:7

91:12,16

five 7:4 9:18 10:9

fix 81:7

Flannery 86:9

fluid 21:1,6

78:6,9,12

fluids 8:11,12 82:9

fluorescent 68:16

focus 27:18

56:1,4,5 84:1

86:11,14

focused 3:2 32:17

focusing 29:19

49:13

folks 10:17 23:20

24:18 25:15

28:22 29:8 35:14

41:20 46:7 49:20

52:1,3,22 53:1

60:8 62:1 66:14

67:1 77:18 89:5

follow-up 21:3

food 35:11 65:22

67:18

foot 22:19

Force 6:4 17:5

form 9:14
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

75:12,13

format 39:17

former 65:11

formulation 8:1

formulations

86:20

forth 40:12

forward 86:14

foster 5:22 80:20

free 39:7

frequency 58:3

76:12

front 3:6

Fuchs 1:11 2:16

25:17 70:17

funded 16:9,10

40:15

funding 51:19

future 17:20

21:16,17 58:11

59:1,7 73:5

G

gallons 53:22

Gander 5:15

gaps 45:20

gather 40:5 46:22

gathering 46:20

general 13:2 33:21

39:10,18 41:18

45:21 46:13

76:18 77:20

78:1,3,7 86:13

generally 9:9 18:8

29:17 31:19

35:9,16 40:16

47:10 57:16 62:3

85:7 86:17,22

88:2

generate 47:6

60:10,14

generated 53:1

generation 12:15

generator 75:5

generic 14:19

getting 31:11

32:13 66:13,20

76:19

Gimlin 36:9 37:6

38:15 68:20

given 17:8,18

88:22

glad 25:12

global 65:13

goal 90:13 91:8

goals 16:4 91:8

GOLDMAN 53:4

85:7,10,17,21

90:6

gone 10:12 14:8

52:4 69:2 70:19

good-bye 92:1

Google 65:7

government 40:16

52:7 63:2 70:15

GPS 47:4

graduate 23:13

grandfathering

34:12

great 6:11 14:19

15:14 23:5 24:1

26:5 39:20 91:16

greater 21:1,5

78:9,12

Greensburg 74:11

grid 75:2

group 7:22

groups 70:3

guess 28:22 30:19

37:6,11 49:13

51:2,11 56:13

70:1 73:12 75:11

76:17 78:15

87:18

guessing 30:20

guidance 44:17

guys 37:19

H

half 8:5 31:2,6

hand 26:14 55:18

57:4 60:1 70:22

71:1 76:8 77:21

83:7,11 86:10

hang 37:8 88:19

happen 35:21 83:3

91:5

happened 58:22

59:1

happy 46:5,9,10

49:21 51:22 52:4

67:19 81:17

90:18

hard 41:22

harder 48:14

harmful 53:3

harsh 76:17

hat 37:8

haven't 9:19 10:10

19:13 28:19

34:16 35:3 48:10

49:10 81:4

having 10:3 13:10

50:14 75:17

83:11 90:14

heading 75:21

Headquarters

50:6 62:4

health 8:19,20

9:5,13 10:2

11:11

hear 5:11 54:8

heard 15:11 63:2

71:1

hearing 67:6 77:17

heat 8:8,11

heavily 23:17 58:5

held 14:4 91:17

help 18:9,12,22

41:8 43:12 70:19

77:4 90:17

helped 91:21

helpful 83:20

hereby 93:3

here's 4:12

42:18,22 77:3

90:13

hey 90:11

Hi 5:5 6:22

high 29:9 36:20,21

37:2 62:13 71:18

87:4

higher 38:21 55:21

82:14

highest 41:3
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 10

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

history 77:11 83:2

hit 5:11 59:18

66:14 77:22

homework 44:5

honesty 33:2

hope 60:11,12

72:20 85:14

hopefully 2:13

host 44:15

hot 58:7

hour 25:14

hours 85:5,8

huge 39:21

human 8:19 11:11

Hurricane 74:12

hurt 52:22

72:10,12,22

hydraulic 8:11

I

i.e 30:15 61:12

icon 57:3

I'd 5:20 6:18 23:2

35:6 67:18 77:1

82:22 83:10 88:5

idea 24:6 40:12

69:5 75:15 86:21

identifying 20:22

21:5

I'll 2:15 4:22 13:9

27:4 28:7 39:19

43:22 50:11

56:10 59:3,17

70:7 72:7 76:9

80:17 86:11 90:2

92:1

illegal 66:3

illegible 32:20

I'm 2:4,14 7:12

12:14 15:2,6,12

18:3 19:5

21:4,18 26:2

28:1 29:5

30:16,20 32:12

34:13 35:15 36:7

37:19 41:1 42:8

48:20 58:2

61:15,21

66:13,17,19

67:4,5 69:2

70:18 72:4,8,9

73:14 75:4,5

77:7,14,17 81:17

84:6 90:18 91:5

imagine 85:6

impact 11:21

20:16 44:6

impacts 12:1

31:16 45:14

46:8,9 54:5

implement 50:14

implementation

31:7

implemented

15:21 22:7 71:12

implementing

19:10 50:7

important 8:6

16:16 35:13 44:1

69:8 82:21

impossibility

20:22 21:5 82:16

impossible 47:10

73:15 84:21

impractical 71:14

76:14

improve 40:5

68:14

inaccessible 76:16

inaccurate 17:8

incentive 47:6

include 9:15 55:10

included 24:3,6

includes 61:9

including 9:5

71:15 72:11

85:11

incorporate 22:11

Increased 44:17

increasing 61:10

76:11,13

in-depth 46:21

indication 61:9

individual 34:1

87:1

industrial 8:6

70:1,2 87:5

industry 15:20

27:21 44:6,16

46:5 51:6 83:16

information

7:8,18 11:12,14

16:15 17:8

18:9,11 19:5,18

20:20 22:3 23:20

25:4 28:11

33:15,16 36:9

40:6 41:8,10,20

43:6,11 45:5,19

46:8,11,20

47:1,12 49:20

51:1 52:11,18,21

53:11 58:13,19

59:6,12 61:9

62:3 66:7 70:4

71:20 73:7,9

75:16 78:19

79:20 82:13,22

84:18 87:10

90:8,9,10,17

91:10

informed 47:1

inherently 36:12

initial 6:7

initiated 50:4

injury 9:13 10:2

inks 8:16

input 20:12

inspect 71:19

74:18 76:19

inspected 77:13

inspection 76:11

78:6

inspections 21:13

58:3 76:13

installed 73:20

instances 66:9

67:17

instantaneously

60:17

institutional

75:13,14

instructions

12:9,13 83:9

instrument 53:9

instrumentally

18:18 29:10

insurance 11:20

58:16,21
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 11

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

intended 70:8

intent 72:22 73:1

interactive 17:19

interest 2:18 87:12

interested 87:5

93:8

interference 59:20

internal 37:16

international 4:4

interpretative

3:20

interrupt 70:18

71:4

interwoven 77:17

intro 14:14

introduce 3:7 6:19

introduction 7:11

71:10

introductions 3:12

involuntarily

57:21

irritation 8:22

issue 17:13 21:8

25:7 29:4

30:19,20

31:7,14,15,16

47:20 49:20

50:16 55:1 60:6

63:7 68:15 69:13

72:8,9

78:16,20,21 81:9

87:14,15,18

issued 3:3 33:12

68:21

issues 16:1 21:10

27:14 35:10

37:14 42:20 58:4

73:7

item 17:21 20:4

50:1

it's 7:9 11:8 12:12

15:2,3 16:9

18:17,20,21 19:4

20:17 21:8,11,12

22:10,12

23:2,3,6 27:17

28:4 29:2 32:3,9

35:9,13,14,20,21

38:18 40:11

41:16,22 42:1

44:21 45:9 46:1

47:9,13 48:4

49:8 51:17

52:3,12,16 53:2

55:3 56:13

57:17,20 58:22

59:9,13

60:9,11,12,15

63:19 64:12

65:1,3,4,5,12,14

66:18 72:16,17

73:8 74:2,9

77:17

79:4,11,13,15,16

81:1,7,13 84:21

85:5 91:4

I've 63:2

J

Jeff 36:4

Jim 84:3

Joe 86:9

John 3:15 5:15,18

6:22 13:15,22

14:10 16:19 25:9

26:20 27:4 28:11

37:14 38:22

39:18 42:4,7,17

43:20 44:21 48:3

53:10,16

55:12,17 56:21

57:5 59:21 60:3

61:5 62:14

64:5,19 66:11

67:9 70:16 71:6

72:6 74:13 76:10

77:19 81:20

83:12 84:11 86:9

88:4,8,12,16,18

89:1,20 90:1,5

join 2:19

joined 2:3

joining 4:5 92:2

judicial 4:1

July 12:4 68:9

86:6

jump 5:20 39:1

42:5 43:20 65:18

67:20

justification 51:19

justifying 28:3

K

Kansas 74:11

Katrina 74:12

Kenyon 30:19,20

31:10

kinds 8:20 14:18

56:8 73:10 79:1

86:22

knowledge 16:16

17:14 73:4,5

75:14 77:9

known 4:3 70:11

L

label 32:20,21

33:1,6 72:13

74:18

labeling

20:5,10,16 32:18

labels 32:18,19

33:3,8 35:6

laboratory 4:8

labs 82:11

language 22:14

large 26:21

largely 69:19

larger 25:16

largest 16:9

last 3:18 12:3 24:1

33:6 34:13 41:1

46:19 49:17

54:17 57:12 82:1

88:16 90:5,7

late 10:15 13:8

later 2:11 3:1 6:13

22:13 69:11

lead 21:17 44:18

leading 19:8

leaked 53:18,21

59:5,6

leaking 37:18

53:22

lean 23:17

learn 2:21 57:19

learned 58:8,12

learner 48:20

learning 2:21

least 13:7 21:21,22

23:2 50:2 53:19

62:3 69:7,16
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 12

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

70:10

leave 13:9 88:9

90:10

left-hand 70:22

83:7

legal 66:4 67:15

Leiter 33:10 42:5

62:15

Leiter's 28:15

length 26:22

lengthy 43:21

44:21

less 10:21 11:7

19:2 34:21

35:1,3,5,8

82:12,17

let's 7:13 19:9

28:15 30:4,8

32:16 34:10

43:20 46:19

53:13,17 61:1

65:18 67:20

69:17,21 73:6

82:2

letters 3:21

level 16:12 18:2

22:19 28:18 31:2

37:1 78:16,17,18

levels 28:16 38:7

43:10 78:6

liability 37:9 74:22

liable 37:11

life 22:1 54:1,4

55:19,21 56:1

80:20

lifetime

54:10,18,20

light 18:1 48:14

lights 68:16

likelihood 40:19

likely 33:11 86:6

limit 18:14,15,16

29:12 31:19

38:5,13,15,16,17

,20,21 68:22

82:10

limited 52:12,18

limits 9:16 19:11

29:2

Lincoln 30:12

32:16

line 60:2 83:17

lineman 75:17

lines 83:5

link 65:8

links 26:18

liquid 45:22

list 52:22 58:3

61:3 76:5 77:8

78:5

listed 41:18 46:4

listen 89:19

listeners 46:15

48:2

listening 39:5 67:1

literally 82:4

literature 23:16

little 2:10 3:6 4:21

5:12,21 6:13

22:13 24:12

25:10 26:8

57:3,4 58:13

59:19,22 60:17

70:22

live 6:18 20:8

liver 9:2

lives 55:16

living 87:9

load 17:17

loaded 58:5,6

loads 58:4

localities 20:19,20

location 9:15

73:21

locations 76:14,15

log 67:4,6

logic 19:14,21 20:1

73:21

long 33:6 36:1

44:21 54:17 65:2

87:21

long-term 9:2

lot 7:8 19:3 21:9

33:7,15 37:19

43:3,5,6 52:14

62:5 74:19 78:22

80:19

low 16:10

lower 29:9,11,16

lowered 28:20

34:11

lowering 18:1

19:11

28:16,17,21

31:18

Lowry 1:10

2:2,8,14 5:8,17

6:22 13:15

14:10,12,16

15:14,17 16:19

17:2,4,21 19:8

20:4,9,12,21

22:4 23:5 24:1

25:9 26:3

27:10,19 28:7,10

29:20 30:8,10

32:14 33:9 34:10

36:3 38:3,10,22

40:9,11 42:4

43:20 46:12

48:1,21 49:3,7

50:1,18 53:13

55:12 56:21

59:17 61:1

62:6,9,14

64:5,17 65:18

66:11,14,19

67:8,12,20 68:4

69:16 70:16,20

72:6 74:13 75:20

77:19 80:3 81:20

83:4 84:9

85:3,9,15 86:7

88:4 90:5

91:12,16

LRTAP 63:17,18

65:1

lubricants 8:15

Lynn 17:11

53:4,13 57:5

85:7,10,17,21

90:1,6 91:1

M

magical 25:7

mail 24:10

maintained 53:21

maintenance

51:20

major 44:4 49:19
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 13

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

man 59:22

manage 44:16

72:12

managed 45:10

64:13

management

11:19 52:10

manager 1:10

2:14,16 4:7

mandated 69:9

manner 9:22

manufacture

36:13 68:10

manufactured

68:9 73:20

manufacturer

9:10

manufacturers

44:9 69:8

manufacturing

9:21

maritime

64:7,8,10,12,16

mark 68:13 74:6

marked 68:10

71:17 74:5

marks 71:20

Mary 84:3

material 61:11

87:11,17 88:2

materials 86:15

matter 29:19

maximum 54:3

may 1:8 11:10

17:2 19:18 21:2

23:19 25:3 33:22

37:18 40:4 43:1

67:2 73:13 76:16

78:3 80:22

85:21,22

maybe 18:6 19:8

22:19 25:14

36:13 42:5

47:12,17,18,19

56:12 58:20,21

59:3,7,12

60:16,17

62:10,17 65:10

74:5,8 75:7

88:21 91:1

mean 17:20 24:15

27:12 29:2 35:12

42:16 63:10 74:9

80:6 90:9

meaningful 46:1

means 21:15 38:19

meant 9:9

17:15,18

meantime 67:12

measure 50:20

measured 23:9

29:4,5 32:4

measurement

29:1,4 36:17

measurements

87:6,11

measuring 31:22

mechanism 51:7

medically 42:12

meet 11:12

meeting 14:7

34:19 60:7 83:21

84:1 85:8

91:13,18,19

meetings 7:10 14:4

83:19 84:13

85:6,11 86:5

91:5

mega 69:4

mega-rule 44:4

mention 6:4,8

23:12 39:12

62:17

mentioned 37:14

42:15 50:5 53:10

78:7 81:15 83:15

message 65:8

messages 24:10

method 50:16,17

Michael 5:5,8

34:11

microwave 48:15

49:16

middle 26:21

mile 55:10

million 29:7,17

30:21 31:3,7

34:12 35:12

38:6,7

82:11,12,14,17

millions 21:2

mind 78:3 80:20

minds 27:13,17

mine 5:16

66:17,18

minute 26:12

30:1,4 66:19

78:2 88:11

minutes 30:8 76:3

82:2 83:12

88:5,17

missed 45:20

mistake 37:11

38:2

mitigated 87:21

mix 25:10 56:22

mixture 34:2,3,6

moderator 2:15

68:1

moment 5:20 16:9

44:22

money 16:10

49:10

monitor 76:20

month 76:16

86:4,5

monthly 76:12

morning 13:18

39:2 48:6 49:4

mostly 87:3

mountainous

76:15

mounted 74:20

move 3:9 4:15

30:3 32:16

46:13,17 57:11

61:1 69:17

moving 56:22

75:20 81:20

MPRSA 64:12

multi-part 71:6

multiple 40:18

mute 5:12 59:18

66:16 80:4

muted 66:15

mutually 60:9
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

myself 26:6 77:1

N

nameplate 71:20

73:12,14,16,18

75:18

National 24:10

61:16

nationwide 61:22

navigate 25:2

ND 30:15,16

nearby 20:8

necessarily 18:19

34:7 38:16 47:13

74:5

necessary 47:1

69:6

negative 53:3

neither 93:7

NERC 74:15

newest 21:21

nobody 49:10

noise 5:12

non-detect 28:4

31:6

non-detectable

17:22

non-liquid 12:2

39:22 69:20

86:20 88:1

non-PCB 43:17

68:10,13

non-question 80:2

non-totally 9:22

10:6

non-utility 21:2

23:20

nor 47:5 93:7

normal 13:5

normally 24:19

38:20

northeastern 87:3

northern 76:15

nothing 25:7

38:18 57:9

notice 1:6 2:12 3:3

16:14 19:17,22

22:14 23:4,17

39:3 44:7 45:4

64:2,3,4 86:2,6

noticed 54:1 89:7

notification 17:15

noting 61:7

NRC 24:3,22

numerous 9:4

NVR 42:17

NWPPA 1:4,10,11

2:15,16,20 5:21

6:3 12:10,21

13:13 48:6 91:17

NWPPA's 2:11

O

objective 11:8,12

objectives 7:18

obtain 70:3 84:19

occasions 53:7

occupational

48:11 49:9

occupied 87:2

occur 86:6

occurring 83:19

occurs 83:1

ocean 55:8

October 13:3

offering 2:20

office 45:8,10

52:10 64:13

offices 44:10

official 2:9 15:10

89:22 91:18

officials 16:11

Oh 49:5 65:1

oil 44:13

oils 8:15 28:17

29:6,10

okay 5:8,17,18

6:14,22 7:3,13

13:12 14:3,15

15:12,18 17:21

20:4,9,21

22:4,19 23:5

25:9 26:20

27:1,10,11,19

28:9,19 29:20

30:9 32:14 33:9

34:10 36:3

38:3,22 42:4,18

43:20 46:12 48:1

49:5,6,7,9

50:1,18 53:13

55:15 56:3,21

61:1 62:6,14

64:5,17 65:18

67:8,20 68:4

69:16 70:16

75:20 78:2 81:7

83:4 85:9,15

86:3,7 88:4

91:12

old 21:21,22 27:21

28:2 30:14 51:2

53:19 56:11,12

59:4 74:3,5,6

75:15 79:2 88:2

older 80:14

one-and-a-half 8:3

ones 43:16 81:18

one's 30:7

one-time 17:15

51:20,21 52:17

onto 19:8

open 26:1 39:12

53:9 57:1 81:21

82:5

83:5,8,10,13

84:6,9 88:6

operator 68:2

70:18

opinion 33:10

opportunity 40:5

75:10 85:5 88:8

opposed 38:17

options 46:3

order 4:12 5:22

10:20 11:16

74:18

Oregon 32:17

Organic 62:20

organization 4:19

5:2,10 74:16

organized 83:6

original 10:13

11:6 17:13

others 8:13 25:13

51:15 70:6

ounces 21:1,6
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 15

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

60:18 78:6,9,13

ourselves 15:4

56:17

outage 75:6,7

outages 74:17

75:8,9

outcome 93:8

outline 6:7

outside 32:1 70:3

ovens 48:16 49:16

overall 10:13 56:4

75:2

overview 3:7,13

4:12

owner 78:11

owners 44:9 50:4

51:3,7 69:19

70:9,11,13,14,15

71:13

P

P.D 30:12

Pacific 55:11

page 48:7 50:2,19

65:20 71:7 82:7

paid 6:2

paint 8:16 27:4

74:3 86:16,21

87:22

paints 27:6,16

69:20

paper 8:13 23:13

participants 2:3

39:4 59:18

participant's 57:3

participated 4:11

88:14

particular 6:7

36:19 45:17

partner 39:6

party 93:7

passed 49:18

past 21:16 57:19

58:12 60:19

65:22 66:2

73:3,4

patience 67:2

patient 68:5

pattern 34:8

pause 19:15

pausing 36:7

pay 58:18

PCB 1:6 2:12

3:5,18,19,21

4:1,3,5 15:20

16:4,8 20:5

21:21 23:9

24:13,19 27:3,6

44:11 45:21

48:12,15,16

50:19,21

51:3,5,6,12

52:14 61:13

64:15 66:3,4

67:15 70:11

71:16 76:13

78:10 79:1,6,20

82:11,15,18

86:12,18 87:3

PCBs 7:11,14,22

8:2,19 9:4,11,22

10:6 11:9 12:1,2

23:8 24:4,7,18

33:16,19,20,21

34:1 35:6

37:7,18 38:6

40:21 41:1

43:10,11 46:9

47:3 48:9 49:18

50:9 56:6,14,19

60:11,15

64:10,14 65:22

69:20 70:3 73:1

79:7 86:15,20

88:1

PCD 17:6

penalty 87:16

people 4:19

5:2,9,10 7:4

13:20 14:12 20:8

25:10 26:11

30:2,10 33:3

45:16 57:15

66:21

72:10,11,15,16,1

7,18,20,21,22

73:15 75:14 76:9

82:5 87:8,10

88:8,22 90:22

per 29:7,17 30:21

31:3,7 34:12

35:12 38:5,7

82:11,12,14,17

percent 59:5

perhaps 2:11 54:7

71:8 74:20

82:15,19 83:18

88:11

period 7:19 10:8

12:4,18 13:21

34:12

periods 77:11

permits 9:20

Persistent 62:20

person 14:9 57:4

60:1

personal 22:17

24:5 33:13

34:4,9 49:16

75:11

Peter 30:19,20

31:10 36:9 37:6

38:15 68:19,20

Pg 61:4

phase-out 59:13

71:8,11

phase-outs 21:13

phone 5:13 6:20

39:14 57:2,11

59:18 66:22

78:1,2 80:3 82:1

83:5

phrase 32:2

pick 65:19

picking 66:11

piece 55:16 60:18

69:10 73:16

pieces 20:18 42:11

43:9

pigments 8:17

pipe 22:13

places 87:7 91:2

planned

21:12,13,14

34:16 75:6,7,8,9

76:1

plans 52:1

plaster 86:15

plasticizers 8:15

plastics 8:9 69:21

please 2:22 4:18

5:11 15:12,17
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 16

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

16:17,22 26:5

28:12 39:7 40:9

46:15 48:2

68:5,7 69:13,14

70:21 84:10 90:7

point 9:18 18:11

20:2 21:18 49:6

83:4,12

pointed 72:16

87:13

points 83:13

pole 74:19 75:18

policies 3:20 4:3

52:16

Pollutants 62:21

65:2

pop 4:18 76:8

popping 88:21

POPs 62:17,18,19

63:20 64:20

population 11:18

34:21 41:14

43:15,18 58:1

82:13

populations 43:8

portions 89:19

Portland 77:20

78:1,3

pose 11:10

31:14,15

position 58:10

76:22

positions 73:10

positives 52:21

possibility 28:21

37:16

possible 31:17

33:14 34:22

47:12 52:21

73:18

potential 3:4 12:1

19:3,16 20:22

21:5 28:5 44:15

71:14 86:20

87:8,20

potentially 40:22

64:2

pounds 8:3

power 60:10,15

75:5 77:14,15

powering 76:18

practices 11:19

81:2

pre-1978 43:9

pre-'78 59:11

predict 59:1,6

predicted 54:18

predominant 84:1

prefer 12:13

preference 35:18

prepared 6:16

13:16 25:12

43:21 46:17

48:5,18 49:1

57:11 61:2 65:19

88:7 93:4

presence 44:12

present 10:1,7

19:21 31:20 64:4

presentation 2:11

3:10 4:13,14

6:15 7:2,9,14

13:12 39:12

presented 19:14

presenter 3:8,15

4:16 15:6

presenters 15:7

presents 4:2

press 2:4 5:18 57:6

presumably 53:21

pretty 38:1 58:17

75:15

pre-vintage 69:12

previously 26:16

31:5 89:14

primarily 8:10

principles 63:2

prior 4:5 44:18

45:15

priorities 41:3

prioritized 77:7

private 70:14

proactively 47:3

probably 9:4

11:15 13:8

22:14,22 40:18

49:19 57:18

69:10 75:12 86:4

problem 47:13

69:2 70:19

procedural 15:1

proceed 7:21

proceedings 4:1

process 19:17 20:2

44:19

processing 9:10,21

produced 8:3

producer 1:11

70:17 80:4

producing 2:16

25:18

products 40:2

program 2:15,22

3:2,18,19 5:21

6:3 15:20,22

16:3,5,7,8,15

29:15,16 40:15

50:5,7,8,14

52:13 76:1,4

programs 2:21 4:6

16:9 22:21

prohibited 29:3

projected 73:5

promised 9:17

proper 68:11

properly 44:5

proportionate

79:18

proportionately

43:19

proportions 87:1

proposal 77:2

proposals 54:5

60:14

propose 10:8

31:13 43:3 72:14

90:15

proposed 13:6,9

16:14 19:17,22

22:14 23:4,18

39:22 44:7

45:3,4 50:15

62:16 64:2,3

71:8,11 86:14

proposing 23:1

Protection 1:5
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 17

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

3:17

protocol 63:17

65:7

proud 5:22

provide 8:8 15:12

22:14 28:11

41:20 47:12,16

73:6 77:9

provided 19:19

provides 9:11

provision 10:5

17:16

provisions

31:20,21 78:19

80:19

PS 10:13

public 1:6 2:9,13

3:3 6:6,9 7:10

11:13 14:4,7

32:17 84:13

91:3,5,18

publish 27:13

published 23:21

pull 42:9 46:20

pulled 59:10

pulling 35:4 39:6

pump 8:15

purposes 80:11

pursue 53:10

putting 10:19

40:12 89:6

Q

quality 4:7

quantifiable

38:5,13,15,19,20

quantities 24:4

61:12

quantity 24:16

25:6,8

quarterly 76:12

question 14:17

15:3,7 18:4,7

19:6,9 20:15

21:3 22:4 23:6,8

24:2,11 26:7

27:4,19

28:2,11,12,15

29:21,22

30:11,13,18

31:15 32:13,16

33:9 34:10 35:16

36:3,8 37:12

38:3 40:8,11

42:5,10,13 46:15

47:14 48:2 49:13

50:10,13,18

51:10 54:7,8

55:12 57:5 59:20

61:5,6,8,14

62:9,15 63:13

64:6,18 65:20

67:14,21 69:18

71:2 72:5 74:14

76:7 77:20

78:1,4,15 80:1,5

81:21 83:6,8

84:16 86:8,9

90:22

questioned 88:22

questioner 56:10

questions 4:16

6:12,15,16,18

11:17

13:14,17,20

14:1,6,7,13,14,1

9,21,22 15:1

16:1,21 18:6

25:11,12,15,20,2

1,22

26:5,9,12,13,15,

17,20 27:2

30:2,5 31:13

39:1,7,10,11,16

45:13

46:14,17,18,21

48:5,7,19 49:2

53:15 54:14

57:1,8,10,12,13,

15,18 58:3

61:2,18,19 62:16

65:19 67:13

70:21 71:2,4,5

76:2,5 81:22

82:3,6

84:10,11,13,14

85:3 86:8

88:6,9,12,16,19

89:7,10 90:19

quickly 13:16 37:1

42:6

quite 29:16

quo 87:19

quoted 56:13

R

raise 71:1 83:11

raised 60:1,2

69:17 76:8 77:21

83:7

range 31:7 35:7

56:1 65:2

rate 61:10

rates 11:19 41:13

58:14

rather 31:14 34:2

43:21 44:21 47:9

69:19 75:16

90:14,22

ratifier 63:1,18

ratify 63:22

ratifying 63:6

rationale 20:5

reach 69:22 70:2,5

75:18 89:10

reaching 46:22

70:11

reading 26:16 71:7

72:4 82:8

reads 23:8 44:3

61:8 62:16 76:13

ready 15:12 25:22

26:2

real 13:16 42:6

realize 20:22 21:7

realizes 21:4

really 10:10 18:22

21:19 29:18 33:5

37:20 41:17

59:12,13 87:15

90:15

reason 5:7 45:12

51:18 66:20

reasonable 18:16

28:4

reasons 33:5 43:7

51:14 52:17

72:13 80:17

reassess 11:9

reassessing 39:22

reassessment 3:4

22:6,18 33:12,22

63:8

recast 31:4
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

received 6:17

13:18 14:1 48:6

50:10 53:8 61:6

reclassification

36:10 43:4,5

reclassifications

32:10

reclassified 33:8

36:21,22 37:15

81:14

recommend 68:12

record 15:10 89:22

91:3

recorded 2:7 6:5

89:17

RECORDING 2:6

68:1

recordkeeping

28:3 73:4 75:13

records 2:9 6:6,9

35:7 54:17 79:3

Recovery 45:11

rectifiers 44:12

recycling 11:22

reevaluating 17:12

reevaluation 16:17

ref 48:8

refer 48:16

reference

23:7,10,12,15

24:4,8 53:18

61:5

references 23:16

58:15

referring 23:6

64:19,20 74:15

refers 23:12 24:5

reflected 18:5

refute 68:7

regarding

86:12,14 89:12

regardless 25:6

region 62:11

70:10,11 91:21

regional 44:10,17

65:3,9,14 74:15

Regions 50:3

register 51:5 86:1

registered 81:5

89:18

registration 6:2

17:6 50:20

51:20,21 52:5

regular 9:1

regularly 77:13

regulated 44:6,10

61:12,13 81:5

regulation 36:16

51:15 64:14

72:19

regulations 3:20

4:4 8:14,17 9:19

10:11 16:17

17:16 18:5 29:18

31:21 46:10

58:16 61:13

65:16 80:19

87:16

regulatory 4:5

22:20 31:1 38:16

44:19 47:1

rejoin 68:2

related 34:8 39:9

42:20 45:12 46:7

relates 20:9 45:14

release 80:15

released 8:5

releases 66:4 67:15

68:11,14

reliability

74:15,16 75:1

reliable 29:5

reliably 29:5,6

remainder 12:16

remains 73:10,11

remember 69:3

remind 46:14 48:1

59:17

reminder 2:6

remote 58:4 76:14

removal 11:20

15:20 45:14 50:4

remove 10:20 11:3

51:7 60:11

removed 51:9

removing 7:17

10:16,19 11:5

47:3

repair 9:16

rephrase 28:10

replaced 33:4,8

replacement 11:20

replicators 44:13

report 24:19 62:1

63:9 82:12

reportable

24:4,7,16 25:6,8

reported

24:3,14,17 61:7

62:5,11 82:17

reporting 28:2

represents 3:22

reproductive 9:3

request 12:20,22

52:17

requestors 13:1

requests 3:22

12:17,18 51:6

require 58:21

71:19

required 51:3,5

77:14

requirement

68:13,19,20 69:7

requirements

68:21 74:16,17

requiring 68:8

71:16

resistant 8:8

resistors 44:13

resource 4:7 45:10

resources 16:7

40:21

respect 25:8 82:22

respond 15:5

16:22

responder 74:7

responders 20:8

responds 3:21

response 24:10

32:22 59:7 61:16

68:11 79:7 80:2

responses 68:14
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 19

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

rest 59:5 79:8,19

restraints 53:11,12

restrict 70:13

restriction 52:9

restrictions

9:15,16

result 33:11 66:3

77:5

results 17:22 27:22

30:14 31:3 32:9

37:13 50:7,15

82:12,17

re-test 36:6

return 26:8,9 27:1

71:3

revalidated 32:12

revert 41:7

review 9:17

reviewed 17:6

50:6

reviewing 13:5

reviews 3:21 12:16

21:13

revisit 54:3 68:12

69:15

Ricker 29:16

rid 60:15

right-to-know

52:22

risk 9:12 10:1,7

11:3,11 18:10

25:8 28:22

33:15,19 35:1

41:6,9,10 42:2

55:7 87:8

risks 33:18 35:10

42:20 46:8 86:20

Roher 84:3

roughly 76:3

83:16

rubber 8:16

rule 9:20 10:10

13:6,7,9 23:1

37:9

42:11,13,18,22

43:2 44:6 45:3

68:7 69:4 78:11

rulemaking 1:6

2:13 3:4

7:16,18,19,20

9:6,7 11:8,15

12:4,8 15:3,4

16:14

19:4,15,17,19,22

22:15 23:4,18,22

27:18 29:19

36:10 40:4,22

41:4 42:16

44:7,20

45:4,7,11,17

46:4,7 47:7

52:9,12,14 54:12

56:5 62:16

64:3,8 66:8

80:12 86:14 91:7

rulemakings 40:19

52:15

rules 15:3 40:6

66:2

ruling 22:7

run 14:18 39:15

runs 26:22

Russian 65:10,11

S

safe 59:15

safely 59:13 60:13

safety 37:3

sake 37:4 39:15

salt 53:20

sampling 4:8

save 88:16

school 87:9

schools 84:2

scientist 34:4

Scott 1:10 2:2,8,14

5:8,15,17 6:22

13:15

14:8,10,12,16

15:14,16,17

16:19

17:2,3,4,21 18:8

19:8

20:4,9,12,21

22:4 23:5 24:1

25:9 26:3

27:10,19 28:7,10

29:20 30:7,8,10

32:14 33:9 34:10

36:3 38:3,10,22

40:9,11 42:4

43:20 46:12

48:1,21 49:3,7

50:1,18 53:13

55:12 56:21

59:17 61:1

62:6,9,14

64:5,17 65:18

66:11,14,19

67:8,12,20 68:4

69:16 70:16,20

72:6 74:13 75:20

77:19 80:3 81:20

83:4 84:9

85:3,9,15 86:7

88:4 90:5

91:12,16

screen 3:11,12

4:18 5:6 13:17

14:2 25:16,19

26:14,21 39:8

42:7 49:8

55:15,18 57:2,3

71:1 76:9 83:8

86:11 89:9,15

screened 31:5

sea 64:12

sealants 8:16

sealed 42:12

searchable 61:22

searches 61:22

SEAs 4:3

seated 4:20 5:2

second 4:17 15:7

38:9 39:1 49:3

55:20 75:21

76:11

seconds 4:22 5:9

section 9:7,19

46:21 54:15

84:16 86:16

sector 70:14

seeing 58:2 88:21

seek 7:19 11:14

seeking 20:12

82:13

seem 34:1

seems 34:5 59:11

77:13

seen 21:10 36:19

self-implementing
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 20

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

38:6

sell 81:8

send 13:20 61:19

65:7,8 76:2

81:4,6 83:1

90:22

sense 62:4 69:21

71:12 73:19

79:16

sent 12:9 25:14

30:7 39:2 45:8

49:4

separate 7:20 40:4

series 80:5

service 36:5

51:3,9,12 55:2

57:20,21 59:4,10

81:13

serviced 51:9

servicing 36:13

session 13:19 82:2

88:5,17 90:21

settle 37:18

several 10:14

11:13 12:17 24:9

52:2 53:7 89:7

severe 11:21

share 44:22 52:6

83:17

shared 52:6

sheet 48:19

she's 64:7

short 8:20 13:21

17:11 22:8 27:7

36:14 39:3 49:11

64:6 87:21

shorter 63:19

shortly 68:3 84:5

showing 5:6

shown 87:7 89:15

sic 55:13

signatory 62:22

63:18

signed 63:4

significant 15:12

significantly 55:21

similar 9:1 50:9

63:7

simple 19:12

simply 4:14 47:5

sit 4:14 89:2

sites 76:15

situation 35:19

36:2 77:5

situations 28:5

58:20 75:9

skin 8:22

slapping 35:6

slide 4:15 7:21

12:3

slides 12:14

small 4:21 5:4 22:1

25:19 26:21

37:17 49:11,12

68:9,13,16 71:3

Smith 3:15,16,20

4:6 6:19,21 7:3

14:3,11,15,20

15:15,18

17:1,3,11 18:3

19:12 20:7,11,13

21:4 22:8 23:15

24:8 25:22 26:2

27:7,11

28:1,9,19

30:6,9,17

31:9,12 32:21

33:10,13 34:15

36:7 38:8,12

39:14 40:7,10,13

42:15 45:1 47:8

48:18 49:1,5,8

50:11 51:13 54:8

56:3 57:14 60:5

61:15 62:7,10,19

64:9 65:1

66:6,13,17

67:4,11,16 68:18

70:7 72:4,7 75:3

76:21 78:14 80:9

82:21 83:21

84:12 85:19

86:17 89:10

90:4,7 91:15

92:3

soil 29:15 48:10

soils 28:17

29:14,18

solicits 11:12

solve 47:13

somebody 54:12

79:12 81:11,15

someone 18:13

34:2 42:17 61:18

73:19 74:7

81:4,6,7,8,10

somewhat 83:6

somewhere 22:9

sooner 13:8

sorry 29:5 72:4

sort 5:19 58:13

60:8 86:3

sorted 68:5

sorts 11:17 73:21

sounds 59:19 67:2

source 23:11

speak 68:2

speakers 84:3

special 80:12

specific 42:3 46:13

48:7 61:19

specifically 39:9

46:6 54:11

speed 64:2

spell 65:4

spend 16:10

spill 61:10

spilled 61:11 62:1

spills 11:21

24:2,6,13,17,19

25:6 61:7

62:2,11 68:6

split 45:8

sponsor 5:22

sponsored 6:3

sponsors 5:21

stab 48:3

staffed 40:15

standard 7:17

10:16,18,19

11:5,6

standpoint 91:4

stands 30:16

start 6:14 7:7 12:5

13:22 35:2,14

71:9

starting 14:16

39:18
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 21

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

starts 67:21 71:7

82:7

state 17:8 36:4

38:4

stated 6:7 48:9

statement 23:11

47:11 48:14

statements 46:18

47:9 57:14 84:4

85:1 88:7

states 8:4 14:5

35:9 62:21

63:6,21 65:10,11

67:17

static 59:19 66:12

status 16:1 80:13

87:19

statute 11:6 37:9

stay 77:10 87:14

88:11,15

stays 43:2 91:9

step 19:16

steps 72:15,17

73:13 77:15

Stockholm 62:20

63:15 65:13,16

78:18

stocks 67:18

stop 39:11 68:8

81:21

stopped 68:18

storage 23:10

story 42:18

straightforward

12:12,13 38:10

strict 37:9

studies 48:11

49:10

stuff 74:20

submissions 17:17

submit 5:3 12:6,11

16:17 23:21

25:21 26:7 89:12

90:8

submitted 26:17

89:14

submitting 12:18

26:15,16

substance 62:22

63:3

substances 4:2,9

9:8

substation

74:1,9,11

sue 31:21

suggest 41:2

suggestions 35:19

Superfund 29:15

supervisor 7:5

supplied 53:6

support 53:5

supporting 27:20

suppose 56:10

supposed 43:13

sure 14:20 15:18

18:3 19:6

21:4,18 26:2

28:1 30:16 32:12

37:19 38:1 40:10

41:1 50:1 55:2

59:15 61:21

62:19 66:15

72:6,8,9 73:14

81:1 88:8

surface 41:18

surprised 62:12

surrounding 2:9

survived 58:9,10

suspended 71:17

switchings 37:17

system 24:22 25:3

61:17,18,21

systems 75:1 76:18

T

table 7:4

taking 2:19

72:15,17 74:22

91:19

talk 2:10 5:21

17:10,12 29:1,17

39:14 44:11 60:3

82:1

talked 19:20 38:12

63:14

talking 2:12 13:8

20:14 28:6 50:22

76:17 78:5 84:7

talks 7:14 26:15

tanks 37:19

taped 90:22

taping 7:5

target 32:13

task 6:4 17:5

73:15

teamed 50:3

technical 3:21

4:2,6

Technologies

27:20 28:8 29:21

30:13 32:15

technology 3:7,8

29:6

tend 80:20

tends 81:10

term 8:21 36:1

59:8 87:21

terms 39:9 74:21

TERRI 93:3,11

test 34:5 36:5

37:13 71:20

82:16

tested 37:21 42:12

51:8 79:13

testing 19:11 34:3

72:12 82:9

tests 30:21

thank 2:19 5:8

23:5 24:1 46:12

56:21 61:1 62:14

64:17 70:19

88:10,13,18 89:4

90:1,2,6

91:19,20 92:1

thanked 14:8

thanks 42:4 43:20

53:13 70:16

77:19 81:20 88:4

90:4 92:3

that's 5:4 10:2,14

13:10,12

14:17,20 15:6

18:12 19:6

20:13,15 21:20

22:2

23:2,7,15,20

25:7 29:8

30:21,22
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 22

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

31:9,10,12 33:17

34:8 35:19

36:21,22

38:10,13,16

43:7,12

45:2,3,21,22

47:15

49:8,11,13,19

50:16 51:14

52:16 54:15,22

57:20 58:5

59:7,12,16 60:18

61:13 63:19

64:13,15 69:6,14

73:10,15 74:4,18

75:2,7 77:4,5

78:20,21 79:14

80:1 81:9

82:19,21 84:20

85:4 89:4

90:15,18 91:8

therefore 74:4

there's 3:11 4:21

14:21,22 18:13

25:7 26:21 37:8

43:21 45:15

61:16 64:12 71:6

73:22 89:12

90:12

thermal 44:13

thesis 23:13

they'd 30:3

they'll 81:6 84:5

they're 8:8 14:16

27:21 28:5 31:10

33:4 35:11 39:8

40:12 43:13

51:11 55:14

56:15,19 60:9

66:15 72:1 73:2

78:5 79:21 84:14

85:7 89:1,2

they've 30:20,22

37:15 77:21

thoughts 20:1

38:11 44:22 45:1

72:1

tied 62:17 64:8

timetable 12:3

today 2:13,20 3:15

8:18 18:5 24:21

29:6 30:7

41:10,11,12,13,1

4 50:10 66:22

80:14 81:1 85:2

89:5

today's 2:6,15,22

3:2,9 41:10

tolerance 65:22

tomorrow 23:2

tone 70:19

topic 2:19

topics 11:13,17

19:20

tossed 69:5

totally 27:17 73:14

80:6,11,12

touched 41:17

Touching 68:15

tough 68:6

toward 30:15 73:5

toxic 4:2,9 9:7

34:1

toxicity 33:16

41:11

trade 81:3

TRANSCRIBER

93:1

transcript 93:4

transfer 8:11

transferred 80:16

transformed 31:1

transformer

17:6,13,14 27:20

28:8 29:20 30:12

31:5 32:14 33:2

37:3 50:20

54:2,13 55:20

transformers 36:5

44:15 50:21

51:3,5,6,8,12

53:18

transmitter 75:5

Transport 65:2

treaty

62:17,18,19,21

64:7,8,10,13,16,

18,20

trends 41:14

tried 46:3

triple 67:5,6

truly 91:8

try 5:19 50:11

65:3 75:18

trying 7:12 15:2

18:8 48:20 49:6

54:16 56:16

57:17,19 68:4

69:3 70:12 84:19

90:11

TSCA 4:3 9:8,9,20

45:9 64:11 65:16

TSCA's 37:9

turn 28:7

turning 69:13

turns 34:3

twist 61:14

type 4:18 13:20

25:11,15,20 26:9

30:21 39:8 46:16

48:3 50:8 71:2

76:7 91:13

typed 26:13

29:21,22 30:5

39:16 55:13

typing 5:9 26:11

30:11

U

U.S 21:3

unauthorized 66:9

87:13,15

underneath 75:21

understand 18:3

19:7 28:1

41:16,17 44:5,10

54:5 63:5 83:22

84:16,17

90:11,17

understanding

36:11

understands 78:17

understood 72:15

undertaking 39:22

unique 85:4

Unit 69:18 82:8

United 8:4 14:5

62:21 63:6,21

65:10 67:17

units 37:14

universe 44:11
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 23

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

78:8 79:17,19

universes 87:1

unlabeled 73:11

un-mute 77:22

unreasonable 9:12

10:1,7 11:3,11

18:10 41:5,9

42:2 46:2

unreasonably

71:21

unsafe 71:21

unverified 73:11

updated 17:19

52:4

U's 65:5,6

useful 43:1 45:18

55:21 59:12 61:8

74:6 80:22 81:1

90:8,9

user-friendly

12:14

users 70:1,2

usually 8:2 51:4

USWAG 34:19

52:6 53:7 60:7

84:3

utilities 6:1 32:17

50:3 66:22 69:19

70:3,6 71:13

74:19 82:8 83:16

utility 5:10 15:20

35:5 67:1 69:16

70:9,13 71:17

75:17 77:6,13,14

84:2

V

valid 31:3 32:8

validity 17:22

value 20:5 38:20

vandalism 11:22

VAR 15:19,21

16:3 50:5

variable 71:21

vary 36:14

varying 43:10

vendors 27:20

verbal 53:15 57:10

76:5

verbalize 82:7

verify 71:19 78:12

version 17:19

versus 66:4

viability 80:21

viable 18:17,18

29:10

view 4:12 75:18

VII 82:8

vintage 69:11

80:10

virtually 71:18

visual 48:20

voice 13:21 16:21

39:13

voltage 44:14

voltages 71:19

voluntarily 57:21

71:12

voluntary 15:19

50:4,8

W

wait 28:14 30:9

waiting 26:13

warnings 33:3

Washington 3:17

36:4 38:4

wasn't 6:6 34:13

40:8 43:5 55:5

69:6 70:8 74:11

80:1 83:21

water 35:11 48:9

64:13

ways 19:3 33:14

47:11,16 55:4

60:16

wear 16:20

wearing 33:1

weather 11:21

58:7 71:21 76:15

77:8 87:4

Web 3:13

webinar 1:4 2:8,17

4:11 5:22 6:5,8

14:4 15:10 25:18

88:9 89:16 91:13

92:5

webinars 3:1

website 12:7 89:14

we'd 37:12 58:19

week 85:22

weeks 34:20

welcome 2:11 3:12

we'll 2:3,10 3:6,9

5:8,19 6:12,14

19:20 22:11,22

25:4 26:1,12

29:22 30:1 39:12

41:15 46:16 48:4

53:14,15 57:6

65:19 71:3

76:1,10 78:2

81:7,8 83:9

85:19 88:16,19

we're 3:9,14 5:1

10:3,14 12:18

13:7,10

18:6,8,12,18

21:20 22:2,16,22

23:1 25:9 26:12

27:8,12

28:20,21,22

29:11 32:13

33:19 35:1,17

37:22 39:9 40:20

41:8,19 42:8

43:7 45:11,13

46:5,6,9,10

47:14 49:17

50:17,22 52:11

54:15 56:16

57:17,18 58:10

59:7 66:11,20

67:8 68:4 76:17

78:16,21

80:13,18

81:1,2,9,19,21

84:18 85:2,12

86:2 87:5,10

west 85:12,17

Western 6:1

we've 7:9 10:5,12

19:13,14,20 32:1

41:21 63:8 76:3

78:21 87:6

whatsoever 80:15

whereas 85:5

Wherever 2:18

whether 11:10

21:11 22:5 23:3
Capital Reporting Company

EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 24

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

 © 2010

24:18,20 25:5

39:8 45:22 46:1

57:20 61:9,11

62:1,7 64:7

73:21 87:14

white 25:19

who's 7:5 74:7

84:6

willing 91:5

wonder 75:2

wording 70:7

work 15:19 42:22

67:10,11

worked 3:16 4:6

workers 48:12

71:19

working 48:12

87:8 91:20

works 17:1,3

worse 17:10

Woywood 5:5,6

34:11

writes 3:20

written 23:14

39:16 76:6

wrote 27:2

51:14,15

www.nwppa.org

2:22

www.regulations.

gov 12:7,12

X

XIV 46:21 69:18

Y

yesterday 12:20

yet 28:20 53:8

54:1 57:9

York 83:22

you'll 4:14,20

6:16,18 19:21

25:17,19 39:13

42:7 54:15 57:3

yours 7:1

yourself 16:20

83:14

you've 14:1 15:11

21:10,11 37:22

59:4 61:5 79:14

83:2,14 89:17

91:13