### 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 ability52:19 77:10 93:5 able6:18 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 access12:10 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 Act4:3 9:8 action 93:7,8 actions 70:13 active 53:5 actively53:10 activites 10:8 activities 10:1,7 40:4 71:11,14 actual34:3,5,8 51:2,12 91:18

### Capital Reporting Company EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

© 2010 actually12:11 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 AEP84:4 affected 24:18 affecting 40:3 affects 75:1 affirm 41:20 age 21:19 agency1:5 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 allow5:13 25:15 30:1 53:15 allowed 51:7 allowing 85:3 alone90:10 alpha7:15 already7:8 11:16 15:11 35:3 37:5 61:6 71:12 Alright 62:9 alternatives 12:1 am4:16 6:21 93:7,8 ambient 23:9 amendments 11:2 86:19 amongst75:14 amounts 21:1,5 62:1 analysis3:19 4:8 32:7 38:13 analytical

17:22 18:4 27:22 30:14 32:9

analyze 37:4 ancillary36:20 anecdotal67:21 68:6 79:19 anecdotally

21:12 animal 34:3 animals9:5 annual61:10 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 appear71:14 78:14 appeared69:18 appears44:7 54:3 applaud 81:16 applicable33:20 applications 3:22 8:7 86:22 applied 27:4,6 apply22:20 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 APRN38:5 arbitrary10:21 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 arrow5:4 26:8,10 27:1 71:3 articles 45:21 articulated 86:13 A's 65:5 asbestos 3:19 4:5 aspect64:15 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

away23:3 30:11 40:17 70:19 B background 5:12 balance50:15 ballasts 68:8,14,16 Baltimore 34:19 60:7 ban 11:6 41:7 47:15 bans 9:9 Barry1:11 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 basically28:16 65:9 72:1 basis 36:16 68:7 become6:5,9 89:21 beep 67:5,6 beeps 66:21 68:5 begin 2:3 47:3 behind 69:13 belief 40:17 believe13:3 21:17 22:5 43:14 46:8 53:3 54:12 65:6,15 70:18 84:18 believed33:7 believes15:21 21:1 besides 70:6 best16:8 19:5 40:15 51:2,11 52:21 59:14 61:20 90:15,18 91:10 93:4 better40:5 41:15 42:22 44:10 53:9 54:4 72:20 90:12 91:6 bigger79:21 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 box4:18,21 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 bring6:12 brought44:2 budget 17:16 52:10,11,18 building 86:15 buildings 87:9 built74:1 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 capacitor22:1 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 carbonless8:12 carefully 54:13 Carol 28:15 33:10 42:5 62:15 64:5,17 case13:4 31:9,12 33:17 37:2 48:10 cases65:21 66:1 catastrophic 58:20 74:10 categories31:1 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 certainly43:16 45:20 52:22 54:9,19 55:4,6 69:14,17 75:3 CERTIFICATE 93:1 certify93:3 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 chemist3:16 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 clarify32:15 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 coast55:10,11 85:12,18 coastal 53:20 coatings 8:16 cold58:6 87:3 colleagues 15:8 84:8 collect52:19 73:9 collection 52:11,18 53:11 color 74:3 comes27:22 30:14 71:7 72:18 coming3:1 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 company58:16 completed 15:19,21 22:6,18 complex 41:17 components 37:16 compose8:7 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 congeners8:1,2 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 contract4:7 53:5 contractor

7:5 15:9 contradict41:21 contradicts 32:7 control 4:3 7:12 9:8 56:16 controlled4:15 controlling7:13 convention 62:20 63:6,16,19 65:8,9,14,17 78:18 convinced 73:15 cooperative 50:8 copy8:12 core 9:1 correct26:6 91:14 corrections 53:8 corrosive 53:20 55:8,9 cost19:10 20:10,17 50:14,15 84:20 costs 11:20,22 19:9 counsel 93:7 country81:11 couple4:22 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 critical74:21 criticism 44:4 curious 34:14 current 3:5 11:9 17:7,22 currently12:4 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 DARDEN93:3,11 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 dealing21:20 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 definitively85:13 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 detectable29:2 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 developmental9:3 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 differently24:12 difficult 68:12 72:2 74:17 difficulty 82:15 dioxin 22:5,18 33:11,22 63:7 directly39:14 59:21 60:3 disagree 40:13 45:2 78:15 disappeared55:15 discuss 45:12 83:13 discussed18:1 50:5,22 discussions 63:5 69:3 disorders9:3 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 docket12:7 84:5 doctoral 23:13 document 48:11 documented 9:5 65:21 66:1 dodge 15:2 domestic4:4 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 drawing34:6 dried27:16 86:15 drop 69:7 drove65:15 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 easiest90:20 easily48:9 east83:19 eastern 14:5 easy74:2 economic54:5 economically 18:17 economics 41:12 effect48:11 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 either5:16 16:5 18:9 39:16 41:9,20 51:14 55:1 60:10 63:22 65:4 70:21 elasticity8:8 electric13:2 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 energized71:18 72:3 enjoy 10:3

enjoys 80:12 enter4:22 entering43:17 entire52:13 53:6 environment 8:6 9:13 10:2 11:11 47:3 56:16 environmental1:5 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 90:9,15EPA-HQOPPT-2009-075 7 12:8 EPAs17:6 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 established82:10 estimated 19:10,13 ETF17:5 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 exactly20:13 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 exist47:4,5 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 experience49:16 58:8 60:19 73:3 experiences57:19 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 extra88:11 extreme 59:10 76:14 extremely

53:19 eyes 8:22 F face8:22 fact13:17 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 failure11:19 41:13 45:15 58:14 77:12 failures58:17,18 59:15 fairly 12:12 56:7,9 58:18 fall 3:1 22:10 47:15 falls61:12 False52:21 53:3 familiar 4:10 37:20 famous 32:2 fare 37:12 far-reaching40:2 federal 86:1 Federation 65:10 feed35:12 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 fees6:2 felt 50:13 FERC 74:15 field 4:8 31:4 75:14 Fifth 10:22 figure 24:22 filled44:13 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 first2:4 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 five7:4 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 focused3:2 32:17 focusing29:19 49:13 folks10:17 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 foot22:19 Force 6:4 17:5 form9:14

### Capital Reporting Company EPA Meeting 05-11-2010

Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

© 2010 75:12,13 format39:17 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 future17:20 21:16,17 58:11 59:1,7 73:5 G gallons 53:22 Gander5:15 gaps 45:20 gather40:5 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 generally9:9 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 generator75:5 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 glad25:12 global 65:13 goal 90:13 91:8 goals16:4 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 Google65:7 government40:16 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 Greensburg74:11 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 guessing30:20 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 hard41:22 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 heard15:11 63:2 71:1 hearing67:6 77:17 heat 8:8,11 heavily23:17 58:5 held14:4 91:17 help 18:9,12,22 41:8 43:12 70:19 77:4 90:17 helped 91:21 helpful 83:20 hereby93:3 here's 4:12 42:18,22 77:3 90:13 hey90:11 Hi 5:5 6:22 high 29:9 36:20,21 37:2 62:13 71:18 87:4 higher38:21 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 hopefully2:13 host44:15 hot 58:7 hour25:14 hours 85:5,8 huge 39:21 human 8:19 11:11 Hurricane 74:12 hurt52:22 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 illegible32:20 I'm2:4,14 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 impact11:21 20:16 44:6 impacts 12:1 31:16 45:14 46:8,9 54:5 implement50:14 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 impractical71:14 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 individual34:1 87:1 industrial

8:6 70:1,2 87:5 industry15:20 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 informed47:1 inherently

36:12 initial 6:7 initiated 50:4 injury9:13 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 insurance11:20 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 interested87:5 93:8 interference 59:20 internal 37:16 international4:4 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 issue17:13 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 Katrina74:12 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 largest16:9 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 late10:15 13:8 later 2:11 3:1 6:13 22:13 69:11 lead21:17 44:18 leading19:8 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 leave13:9 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 lengthy43:21 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 levels28:16 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 light18:1 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 line60:2 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 listeners46:15 48:2 listening 39:5 67:1 literally82:4 literature23:16 little2:10 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

live6:18 20:8 liver 9:2 lives55:16 living87:9 load17:17 loaded58:5,6 loads 58:4 localities 20:19,20 location 9:15 73:21 locations 76:14,15 log67:4,6 logic19:14,21 20:1 73:21 long33:6 36:1 44:21 54:17 65:2 87:21 long-term

9:2 lot7:8 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 Lowry1:10 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 LRTAP63:17,18 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 marked68:10 71:17 74:5 marks71:20 Mary84:3 material 61:11 87:11,17 88:2 materials86:15 matter 29:19 maximum54:3 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 meant9:9 17:15,18 meantime67:12 measure50:20 measured23:9 29:4,5 32:4 measurement 29:1,4 36:17 measurements 87:6,11 measuring31:22 mechanism51:7 medically

42:12 meet11:12 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 mega69:4 mega-rule44:4 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 message65:8 messages 24:10 method 50:16,17 Michael 5:5,8 34:11 microwave 48:15 49:16 middle26:21 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 mixture34:2,3,6 moderator2:15 68:1 moment 5:20 16:9 44:22 money16:10 49:10 monitor 76:20 month 76:16 86:4,5 monthly76:12 morning 13:18 39:2 48:6 49:4 mostly87:3 mountainous 76:15 mounted 74:20 move3:9 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 mutually60:9

### Capital Reporting Company EPA Meeting 05-11-2010 Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

© 2010 myself 26:6 77:1 N nameplate71:20 73:12,14,16,18 75:18 National24:10 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 necessary47:1 69:6 negative 53:3 neither93:7 NERC 74:15 newest21:21 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-totally9:22 10:6 non-utility 21:2 23:20 nor 47:5 93:7 normal 13:5 normally24:19 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's2:11 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 October13:3 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 oils8:15 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 old21:21,22 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-time17:15 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 Organic62:20 organization 4:19 5:2,10 74:16 organized83:6 original10:13 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 ourselves15:4 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 overview3:7,13 4:12 owner 78:11 owners44:9 50:4 51:3,7 69:19 70:9,11,13,14,15 71:13 P P.D 30:12 Pacific55:11 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 paper8:13 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 party93:7 passed49:18 past21:16 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 penalty87:16 people4:19 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 Pg61:4 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 places87:7 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 pole74:19 75:18 policies 3:20 4:3 52:16 Pollutants 62:21 65:2 pop 4:18 76:8 popping 88:21 POPs62:17,18,19 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 possibility28:21 37:16 possible31:17 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 potentially40:22 64:2 pounds 8:3 power 60:10,15 75:5 77:14,15 powering76:18 practices11:19 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 prepared6:16 13:16 25:12 43:21 46:17 48:5,18 49:1 57:11 61:2 65:19 88:7 93:4 presence44:12 present10:1,7 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 presumably53:21 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 proactively47:3 probably9:4 11:15 13:8 22:14,22 40:18 49:19 57:18 69:10 75:12 86:4 problem47:13 69:2 70:19 procedural

15:1 proceed 7:21 proceedings 4:1 process 19:17 20:2 44:19 processing9:10,21 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 propose10:8 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 proposing23:1 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 provide8:8 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 purposes80:11 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 questioner56:10 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 quickly13:16 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 rather31:14 34:2 43:21 44:21 47:9 69:19 75:16 90:14,22

ratifier 63:1,18 ratify63:22 ratifying 63:6 rationale20:5 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 ready15:12 25:22 26:2 real 13:16 42:6 realize 20:22 21:7 realizes 21:4 really10:10 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 reasonable18:16 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 recast31:4

### 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 RECORDING2:6 68:1 recordkeeping 28:3 73:4 75:13 records 2:9 6:6,9 35:7 54:17 79:3 Recovery45:11 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 regional44:10,17 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 regulatory4:5 22:20 31:1 38:16 44:19 47:1 rejoin 68:2 related 34:8 39:9 42:20 45:12 46:7

relates20:9 45:14 release80:15 released 8:5 releases 66:4 67:15 68:11,14 reliability 74:15,16 75:1 reliable 29:5 reliably29:5,6 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 remove10:20 11:3 51:7 60:11 removed51:9 removing 7:17 10:16,19 11:5 47:3 repair9:16 rephrase 28:10 replaced33:4,8 replacement 11:20 replicators 44:13 report24:19 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 requestors13:1 requests 3:22 12:17,18 51:6 require58:21 71:19 required51:3,5 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 respect25:8 82:22 respond 15:5 16:22 responder

74:7 responders20:8 responds 3:21 response24:10 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 rest59:5 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 review9:17 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 risks33:18 35:10 42:20 46:8 86:20 Roher 84:3 roughly76:3 83:16 rubber8:16 rule9:20 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 rulemaking1:6 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 rules15:3 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 save88:16 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 sea64:12 sealants 8:16 sealed 42:12 searchable61:22 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 seeing58:2 88:21 seek 7:19 11:14 seeking 20:12 82:13 seem34:1 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 sense62:4 69:21 71:12 73:19 79:16 sent12:9 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 settle37:18 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 sheet48:19 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 shortly68:3 84:5

showing 5:6 shown 87:7 89:15 sic55:13 signatory 62:22 63:18 signed 63:4 significant 15:12 significantly55:21 similar 9:1 50:9 63:7 simple 19:12 simply4:14 47:5 sit4:14 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 sorry29:5 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 specific42:3 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 statement23:11 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 stay77:10 87:14 88:11,15 stays 43:2 91:9 step 19:16 steps 72:15,17 73:13 77:15 Stockholm62:20 63:15 65:13,16 78:18 stocks67:18 stop 39:11 68:8 81:21 stopped 68:18 storage 23:10 story42:18 straightforward 12:12,13 38:10 strict 37:9 studies 48:11 49:10 stuff 74:20 submissions 17:17 submit5:3 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 suggest41:2 suggestions 35:19 Superfund 29:15 supervisor

7:5 supplied 53:6 support53:5 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

surface41:18 surprised 62:12 surrounding 2:9 survived 58:9,10 suspended 71:17 switchings 37:17 system24:22 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 target32:13 task 6:4 17:5 73:15 teamed 50:3 technical3:21 4:2,6 Technologies 27:20 28:8 29:21 30:13 32:15 technology3:7,8 29:6 tend 80:20 tends 81:10 term 8:21 36:1 59:8 87:21 terms 39:9 74:21 TERRI93:3,11 test34:5 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're8:8 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 tomorrow23:2 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 toward30:15 73:5 toxic4:2,9 9:7 34:1 toxicity33:16 41:11 trade81:3 TRANSCRIBER 93:1

transcript 93:4 transfer 8:11 transferred 80:16 transformed31:1 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 transmitter75:5 Transport

65:2 treaty 62:17,18,19,21 64:7,8,10,13,16, 18,20 trends 41:14 tried46:3 triple 67:5,6 truly91:8 try 5:19 50:11 65:3 75:18 trying7:12 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 TSCA4:3 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 undertaking39:22 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 universe44:11

### 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 unsafe71:21 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 usually8:2 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

validity17:22 value20:5 38:20 vandalism11:22 VAR 15:19,21 16:3 50:5 variable71:21 vary36:14 varying 43:10 vendors27:20 verbal 53:15 57:10 76:5 verbalize 82:7 verify71:19 78:12 version 17:19 versus 66:4 viability 80:21 viable18:17,18 29:10 view4:12 75:18 VII82:8 vintage 69:11 80:10 virtually 71:18 visual 48:20 voice 13:21 16:21 39:13 voltage 44:14 voltages 71:19 voluntarily57:21 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 weather11:21 58:7 71:21 76:15 77:8 87:4 Web 3:13 webinar1:4 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 welcome2:11 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 west85:12,17 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 whether11:10 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 wonder75:2 wording 70:7 work 15:19 42:22 67:10,11 worked3:16 4:6 workers 48:12 71:19 working48:12 87:8 91:20 works17:1,3 worse17:10 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. gov12:7,12 X XIV46:21 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 yours7:1 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