202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 + + + + +

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 + + + + +

 SILOXANES MEETING

 + + + + +

 WEDNESDAY

 AUGUST 21, 2013

 + + + + +

 The meeting came to order in Room

4225, 1201 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington,

D.C. at 10:00 a.m., Ward Penberthy presiding.

EPA STAFF PRESENT

WARD PENBERTHY, EPA

STEVE ANDERSON, EPA, OGC

JOE AVCIN, EPA

STAN BARONE, EPA, OPPT

KAREN EISENREICH, EPA, OPPT

CATHY FEHRENBACHER, EPA

PAUL LEWIS, EPA, OPPT

NHAN NGUYEN, EPA

WARD PENBERTHY, EPA

SARA POLLACK, EPA, OPPT

MARK SELTZER, EPA

TODD STEDEFORD, EPA, OPPT

DAVID TOBIAS, EPA
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

NON-EPA STAFF PRESENT

BRYAN ALEXANDER, Wacker*

GENE BROWNING, ShinEtsu Silicones of America*

TRENT DOYLE, SEHSC

LISA DUMARS, Momentive MPM Silicones*

HUGH FLACK, SEHSC

TRACY GUERRERO, SEHSC

JENNY HOPKINSON, Inside EPA*

WENDY KOCH, Epona

RAY LUDWISZEWSKI, Dow Corning

RUSSELL MAIT, Evonik

DEBRA MCNETT, Dow Corning*

KATHY PLOTZKE, Dow Corning

KRISTEN SMITH, Momentive

CHARLES STAPLES, SEHSC

ALLISON STARMANN, SEHSC

KARLOSS THOMAS, SEHSC

* Present via Telephone
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 A-G-E-N-D-A

Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Review of Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Test Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Influent/effluent Sampling Location . . . . . 82

Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

Biosolids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152

Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

2 10:06 a.m.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: All right, why

4 don't we go around the room here to get a roll

5 call here. We'll go this way. My name's Ward

6 Penberthy at EPA. 

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Cathy

8 Fehrenbacher, EPA.

9 MR. LEWIS: Paul Lewis, EPA.

10 MR. SELTZER: Mark Seltzer, EPA.

11 MR. ANDERSON: Steve Anderson,

12 EPA.

13 MR. STEDEFORD: Todd Stedeford,

14 EPA.

15 MR. BARONE: Stan Barone, EPA.

16 MS. POLLACK: Sara Pollack, EPA.

17 MS. EISENREICH: Karen Eisenreich,

18 EPA.

19 MR. MAIT: Russell Mait, Evonik.

20 MR. THOMAS: Karloss Thomas,

21 SEHSC.

22 MS. PLOTZKE: Kathy Plotzke, Dow
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 Corning.

2 MR. STAPLES: Charles Staples for

3 SEHSC.

4 MR. FLACK: Hugh Flack from Wacker

5 Chemical Corporation.

6 MR. DOYLE: Trent Doyle for SEHSC.

7 MR. AVCIN: Joe Avcin, EPA.

8 MR. NGUYEN: Nhan Nguyen, EPA.

9 MR. ANDERSON: Steve Anderson,

10 EPA.

11 MS. KOCH: Wendy Koch, Epona.

12 MS. GUERRERO: Tracy Guerrero,

13 SEHSC.

14 MS. SMITH: Kristen Smith,

15 Momentive.

16 MS. STARMANN: Allison Starmann

17 for SEHSC.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Well,

19 thanks for coming today. We have a busy

20 agenda. Thanks for all your submissions. 

21 There's a lot there. So we got it on Friday. 

22 We've done our best to go through it all. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 Obviously that review hasn't been as complete

2 as we want. 

3 But I think we can go through this

4 stuff and give you some feedback. And we hope

5 to get your overview of what you did and why.

6 So, we have the agenda. What I'd

7 like to do is just go through the current

8 draft of that. I think there's a few things

9 that are of a technical nature that could be

10 resolved here very quickly. 

11 And then --

12 MR. BROWNING: Ward?

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes?

14 MR. BROWNING: This is Gene

15 Browning representing ShinEtsu Silicones of

16 America. Can we also find out who else is on

17 the phone?

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, sure. Go

19 ahead.

20 MR. SELTZER: Folks who are on the

21 phone, please announce yourself. I heard Gene

22 Browning and Debra. And one other name. Can
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 you announce yourself, please?

2 MS. HOPKINSON: Yes, this is Jenny

3 Hopkinson of InsideEPA.

4 MR. SELTZER: Thank you, Jenny. 

5 Who else on the phone?

6 MS. MCNETT: This is Debra McNett

7 from Dow Corning but I also have Jason Kim,

8 Laney Rantham and Gary Siderki from Dow

9 Corning.

10 MR. SELTZER: Anyone else on the

11 phone? 

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So getting

13 back to where we were. So hopefully we'll get

14 through the current draft very quickly and

15 resolve some of those minor issues.

16 If it was all right with all you

17 I'd like to reverse 3 and 4. We have a couple

18 of -- at least one key technical person that's

19 going to have to disappear later in the day. 

20 So if we could go over the testing first. 

21 This is the POTW that would help us a lot. 

22 And then I guess we would hope to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 take a break for lunch in the 12 to 1 time

2 frame. And we can go down to the Ronald

3 Reagan Building. We'll show you how that will

4 work.

5 But so anyway, can we start with

6 just going through the ECA document as it

7 stands and then maybe we can set aside some of

8 these issues?

9 The first one is on page 5. Just

10 a requirement of the ECA that it specifies the

11 chemical that's being tested. And we had

12 language in here that's saying testing for D4

13 in any form found in the environment relevant

14 to the medium of the example. I don't know if

15 you have alternative language or preferences

16 there but we're just trying to say hey, we're

17 just looking for D4. 

18 MR. DOYLE: What we had thought

19 there was to try to just make it as simple and

20 straightforward as possible. Really just say

21 the testing of -- this ECA requires testing of

22 specified environmental media for the presence
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 of D4 and you could put RN, CAS number and

2 this and that.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Fair enough. So

4 if you could -- okay. That's not a problem. 

5 On page 7 there's a comment on the

6 precise percentage of wastewater from

7 industrial sources in the POTW. I think we

8 should probably defer that to the later -- to

9 the POTW discussion. Because then that --

10 when we come to an arrangement on that that

11 language can be read back.

12 The test standards, we're going to

13 have discussion on that. So again we can work

14 on that.

15 At the bottom it appears to me

16 that all the GLPs are included in all the test

17 standards. So I don't know -- is there

18 further discussion warranted here or not?

19 MR. DOYLE: Well, maybe when we go

20 through the test standards -- we'll go through

21 the test standards and you can just --

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 MR. DOYLE: -- language.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Fair enough. On

3 page 8 there's detection limits. I think the

4 way this should read is that detection limits

5 that are specified in the test standards would

6 be a better way. So we can change language

7 there. Because again that rolls back from

8 those.

9 The force majeure language is not

10 necessarily a technical issue but I think we

11 can work something out there. I don't see

12 that as --

13 MR. DOYLE: We've had some minor

14 edits to that that I'll provide to you and

15 follow-up progress.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Fair

17 enough. The names and addresses on 13 and 14,

18 we can add those at the end. That's not a

19 problem.

20 I think when you get to the

21 Appendices 1, 2 and 3, again I think things

22 will roll back from the test standards.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 I will point out though I think in

2 Appendix 2, you know, how it's drafted wasn't

3 -- in the first paragraph and those bullet

4 points really doesn't necessarily look like

5 exactly what we were after. So we might --

6 there might even be some changes there. But

7 again that will roll out of the POTW

8 discussion I think as well will all those

9 other items. So we resolved several issues

10 there.

11 On Appendix 4 we have the listing

12 of the test standards. Actually, how they're

13 titled here is how yours are titled. So we'll

14 need to change that.

15 I think probably each test

16 standard needs a separate appendix. That just

17 would make sense to me. So we'll go ahead and

18 do that. And so, okay. So I think we made

19 some progress on at least a couple of simple

20 issues there.

21 MR. DOYLE: And what we were

22 thinking to is the follow-up we would provide. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 Some of the specific comments on one of those,

2 sort of the reconciling if you will of the

3 various aspects.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

5 MR. DOYLE: The polishing things.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. So, when

7 were you going to pass that along to me?

8 MR. DOYLE: Well, we can maybe get

9 to it at the end in terms of the timing. But

10 yes.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Fair

12 enough. So now we're onto agenda item number

13 4. We skipped number 3 and go through the

14 test standards. I think David, you might want

15 to come up and sit at the table here.

16 I think what we want to go through

17 is the surface water. Which one do you want

18 to start with? The surface water and the fish

19 one?

20 MR. TOBIAS: There are -- I think

21 there are sort of similar issues in

22 understanding all of them. So we could --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 unless --

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Which one do you

3 want to take first?

4 MR. TOBIAS: Pick one. Which one

5 have you got on top there? Surface water

6 sample, let's take that one.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 

8 MR. TOBIAS: It's the same -- sort

9 of the same issue as well as the sediment.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So maybe to

11 start off with if you all want to give the

12 overview of the surface water and then we can

13 start there and go through it. And identify

14 any issues we may have or things we need to

15 work on.

16 MR. STAPLES: Okay. On behalf of

17 SEHSC this is Charles Staples. And I with

18 quite a number of technical colleagues put

19 together the draft standards for this.

20 With regard to surface water

21 reading the draft ECA it specified that

22 surface water shall be collected from the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 receiving water as close as possible to the

2 release point of the facility. So this in our

3 view means as close to the outfall as

4 practical given the other text providing

5 adequate mixing of the discharge from the site

6 and the receiving water has occurred.

7 In a practical sense to us to

8 identify a location in the stream where the

9 outfall and the receiving water are mixed is

10 the end of the mixing zone. So we proposed

11 that the sampling location for surface water

12 be at the end of the mixing zone. 

13 That would also be the location --

14 this is moving ahead a bit but it's pertinent. 

15 That would also be the location where the fish

16 would be collected for the -- as part of the

17 biosample.

18 In terms of the standard laid out,

19 first of all, how that mixing zone is

20 established. There are technologies, a

21 variety of technologies that occurs. At each

22 site it would be unique, probably be unique. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 So that would be information that would be

2 gathered and figured out as part of the

3 preparation of the study plans. In terms of -

4 - so that's the location. 

5 Then the actual collection, there

6 is considerable guidance within various EPA

7 documents that provide guidance. In addition,

8 for all of these matrices we have some

9 methodologies for collection of samples worked

10 out. 

11 And again the exact details will

12 be a part of the study plan development. But

13 in essence we will be collecting samples for

14 the analysis of D4. We will also be

15 collecting samples that would be in some cases

16 pertinent for surface water, collecting

17 samples for QA samples, field blanks, field

18 spikes, et cetera, would be prepared. So

19 samples for measurement of D4 and then quality

20 assurance samples.

21 This would happen at two different

22 sampling events that would be developed. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 Again, site-specific basis exactly when those

2 would be collected, but those would be

3 collected at two specified sampling events.

4 The samples then after collection

5 will be sent to an analytical laboratory. As

6 part of the preparation for all of this work

7 of course we will have to engage a commercial

8 testing laboratory that -- with whom we will

9 then teach these methods. They'll all be

10 brought in house. All the analytical methods

11 for all the samples brought in house and

12 they'll have to go through a method validation

13 process. And then we needed to have the

14 samples after the sampling event be analyzed

15 in this analytical laboratory which would be

16 a GLP-certified facility. 

17 The specific methods for surface

18 water would be based upon the Knoerr 2013

19 document that I believe we provided to you. 

20 If not we'll have it referenced. 

21 But it has developed a matrix22 specific average method detection limit upon
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 which we will use to calculate the practical

2 quantitation limit which is the quantitation

3 limit that a laboratory can routinely achieve. 

4 The math and the numbers are here

5 in the text. For surface water this will be

6 then a practical quantitation limit in aqueous

7 matrices of 0.2 micrograms per liter. That's

8 the essence of the surface water standard. 

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Well,

10 thanks for putting this together. You

11 obviously put in quite a bit when you look at

12 all five or six of these. We did have a

13 number of questions and concerns. 

14 I think there's three major issues

15 I think we need to deal with. Oftentimes some

16 of these -- there's times when a reference is

17 referred to and sometimes we have to hunt

18 around in the reference to figure out exactly

19 what you're trying to say. So I think in some

20 instances, maybe not so much in this

21 particular standard, but there's a need for

22 more specificity and detail that you pull out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 of the reference and bring it forward.

2 And the reason for that is, you

3 know, if we're going to agree to something we

4 need to know exactly what we want to agree to. 

5 And I think there were another two

6 major issues I think is the level of the

7 detection limits. Level of detection, and

8 then the number of samples is going to be very

9 important to us. So those are sort of the

10 higher-level things. 

11 So maybe, Cathy and David, if you

12 have other stuff to add to that? Or do you

13 just want to go through all the paragraph by

14 paragraph basis? How do you prefer to go

15 about this?

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: You know, I

17 think we could walk as we were -- again I'll

18 stress that we've only had a couple of days to

19 look at these. So you're getting our high20 level comments. But these are based on our

21 preliminary reviews the high-level comments

22 that we have.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 So it might be helpful to maybe

2 walk through the document and we could point

3 to some of the areas where we had questions

4 and suggestions. 

5 So on the mixing zone issue, and I

6 see that there's a USEPA document. Would that

7 be the document that we would use for

8 determining where the mixing zone is and where

9 you would sample?

10 MR. STAPLES: Well, the sections

11 of the documents that we've cited will guide

12 us in figuring out how to discern the mixing

13 zone at each of the receiving waters. 

14 Again, the specifics of that will

15 be dependent on the specifics of the receiving

16 waters. Some will be small, some will be

17 large, et cetera. But these sections of these

18 guidance documents provide us a basis for

19 developing methods to figure out where the

20 mixing zone is.

21 MR. MAIT: Charles, could I ask

22 you a question? For all of these POTWs
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 they're already permitted, are they not? They

2 already have a permit from the EPA or from the

3 state authority, correct? So wouldn't the

4 mixing zone already be defined by the POTW? 

5 MR. MAIT: We certainly hope so. 

6 I don't know that in every case. But if it's

7 already worked out as part of the permit then

8 that work is finished. But it is I think

9 important to establish that for each of the

10 receiving waters. It is the end of the mixing

11 zone that is the appropriate location for

12 collecting the samples.

13 MR. LEWIS: Let me just add that

14 in terms of referring to this document here,

15 identification of publicly owned treatment

16 works, the tables you have here identify with

17 the EPA's permit. So identifying the other

18 ones that you identify so I think they all --

19 they all have permits identifying them.

20 MR. MAIT: Yes. And they all do

21 have mixing zones defined. There's no way for

22 them to have a permit without -- because it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 goes into federal waters or waters of the

2 state. Therefore there must be a mixing zone

3 defined. Otherwise they wouldn't have a

4 permit.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So this, I

6 think the mixing zone document is actually one

7 of the documents that you provided to us. And

8 it actually looks like it's a compilation of

9 documents. So it's hard for us to discern of

10 this compilation of documents how are you

11 going to -- which procedures are you going to

12 utilize. 

13 So I think what we'd like to do is

14 to have these test standards more or less be

15 high level stand-alone documents so that as

16 Ward said we will all, the interested parties

17 will all have an understanding of the tests

18 that are going to be conducted when we sign

19 off on the ECA. And at this point in time we

20 don't have that. 

21 And I understand that there are

22 certain aspects associated with field sampling
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 that you really won't know until you get out

2 in the field. And certainly the site-specific

3 sampling plan will have more detail. But I

4 think at this point in time you probably have

5 a high-level understanding of how you're going

6 to determine the mixing zone. And so I think

7 what we'd like to do is to have more of that

8 understanding summarized in the test standard.

9 MR. DOYLE: So, Cathy, just so I'm

10 clear. So if we've established -- we have a

11 pretty good idea that for each one of these

12 locations the mixing zone will have already

13 been established as part of the permitting

14 process. 

15 So really then what we're going to

16 do is when we select the facility contact the

17 facility and say inform us based on the

18 permitting process where is the mixing zone. 

19 They'll tell us. And then in our study plan

20 or sampling plan that we submit for your

21 review it will say facility A, we would do

22 samples here. Here's the mixing zone as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 established through the permitting process.

2 I think that's sort of what we

3 described and really the EPA reference which

4 is the compilation of different methods. We

5 kind of hope we don't get there because in

6 theory it should have been already

7 established. 

8 MR. TOBIAS: Does it say that in

9 here?

10 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

11 MR. STAPLES: "For cases in which

12 the mixing zone is not known, it should be

13 determined" --

14 MR. DOYLE: Yes, yes. So that's

15 the intent there. Now, maybe we can clarify

16 the language to make it more explicit that

17 that's the step-wise process. It really is to

18 go through the permit. Because we don't want

19 to reinvent the wheel here, you know, in terms

20 of if it's already been established,

21 particularly for regulatory purposes.

22 MR. MAIT: I think with the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 inquiry that we have made with the facilities

2 that are in that list that wasn't one of the

3 queries that we did to sort of say what is

4 your -- define the mixing zone for us a

5 priori. 

6 But if I understand how this

7 typically looks that's already been done for

8 them because that's part of how they get their

9 limits for their effluent limitations. They

10 have to have a mixing zone defined for TMDLs

11 and other things. They have to understand

12 that ahead of time. 

13 It doesn't make any sense to

14 create a new mixing zone that's already been

15 established between the permitted facility and

16 the state and the federal folks to reinvent

17 that. 

18 So obviously this could be worded

19 a little different. If that is a

20 misunderstanding that could be worded a little

21 different.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I think the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 phrase "as appropriate" is -- it says "the

2 facility operating the permitting authority be

3 consulted as appropriate." I think what

4 "appropriate" means, do you even need that

5 phrase.

6 MR. TOBIAS: "Shall be consulted."

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Because that gives

8 -- that puts some ambiguity into it that then

9 -- you follow?

10 MR. MAIT: That's what I said. I

11 agree.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Right. And so

13 my suggestion for this issue on the mixing

14 zones. And we're having a detailed discussion

15 here but this comment is also relevant to the

16 other standards. So keep that in mind.

17 So you're really talking about a

18 hierarchy of approaches, that the best

19 approach is that it's been defined as part of

20 a permit. And so if that's the case then you

21 plan to use that mixing zone. 

22 MR. MAIT: And not redefine it. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 That's correct. 

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Right, and not

3 redefining.

4 MR. MAIT: No.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And then if

6 it's not defined in the permit then what's

7 your next step?

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Because there

9 seems to be in the bibliography they've given

10 you have a choice of multiple approaches. And

11 so we don't know what exactly we're agreeing

12 to.

13 MR. STAPLES: Well, we don't know

14 which approach we would use until we define

15 the facility, go to the facility and study the

16 receiving area. These methods discuss various

17 modeling methods and types of field work like

18 die studies and so forth that can be used. 

19 Each of the facilities would be unique with

20 receiving water so we wouldn't be able to tell

21 you how we're going to do it until we get to

22 the facility.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay, so going

2 back to the mixing zone compilation of

3 documents. Some of the documents in here

4 pertain to modeling. So obviously you're not

5 going to use those documents for identifying

6 the mixing zone. It looks like there are

7 other technical documents here that would

8 perhaps pertain to mixing zones. 

9 So I think what we're looking for

10 is more -- at a high level more detail in the

11 test standards on the overall approach that

12 you plan to use. 

13 And then as we said the details

14 will be in the site-specific sampling plans. 

15 But at this point we know what you plan to do

16 if the mixing zone is defined in the permit,

17 but then we don't really know what your

18 approach is after that.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 

20 MR. DOYLE: Okay, so just so we're

21 clear. You want more specificity about what

22 part of the EPA guidance document are we going
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 to follow or implement?

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: What I'd like

3 is in the test standard a high-level summary

4 of the overall approach you plan to use. And

5 again it seems as though you're planning a

6 hierarchical approach with the preferred

7 option is that the mixing zone is defined in

8 the permit. And if that's not the case then

9 we need to have some high-level understanding

10 of what approach you're going to use.

11 And we don't need to have the

12 details of that approach, but we need to have

13 a high-level understanding so that the test

14 standard is -- has sufficient detail that we

15 all as the interested parties understand how

16 the mixing zone is going to be determined. 

17 Because that's a very important parameter for

18 the monitoring.

19 MR. MAIT: However, if we could

20 establish for -- and I assume we're going to

21 talk about which sites. We can easily

22 determine a factual basis whether it exists or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 not. Which leads us out of having to describe

2 a hypothetical situation that may never take

3 place.

4 MR. LEWIS: Right, so on the back

5 in terms of language here is that instances

6 that does not occur it sounds like we may not

7 be having that.

8 MR. MAIT: Yes.

9 MR. LEWIS: Correct? So it sounds

10 like in every scenario what you're defining is

11 that the mixing zone should be defined.

12 MR. MAIT: Yes.

13 MR. LEWIS: This fallback of using

14 other references may not be appropriate to

15 base the same -- you've already identified. 

16 MR. MAIT: Right. And I would

17 imagine that the POTW operator is probably not

18 going to be interested in some third party

19 coming in, redefining a mixing zone for them

20 in this process. Because they have a legal

21 responsibility for monitoring already. So the

22 idea of creating a secondary mixing zone only
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 confuses it.

2 I don't want to get in trouble

3 with the Water Division. Okay?

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. PENBERTHY: All right, so the

6 way we might resolve the specific issue is

7 when the POTWs are specifically identified and

8 established if mixing zones have been

9 established, and if they have then we can

10 strip out the "if none else" language here. 

11 And then you have the specific thing.

12 Now, if that isn't the case then

13 we have to look at this.

14 MR. LEWIS: Right. And that may

15 be a case where those may not be one of the

16 facilities we want to deal with because

17 creating that process isn't going to work with

18 the timing that you've provided. 

19 Creating existing -- from an

20 existing facility not having one to creating

21 a facility that does have one is not an easy

22 process. That is an additional step that is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 sort of outside the boundaries of what we're

2 trying to do here. I'm not trying to permit

3 a POTW, I'm sorry.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: So what I'm

5 inferring from your comment is that you might

6 want to pick your POTWs that have --

7 MR. LEWIS: Well-defined mixing

8 zones.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I

10 understand that.

11 MR. LEWIS: Okay, good. Should we

12 keep going?

13 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And then we had

14 questions on the number of samples. It looks

15 like your -- for all of the toxic standards. 

16 And again, now we're focusing on surface

17 water. It looks like you're proposing to

18 collect two samples for analysis of D4. 

19 And two seems like a very small

20 number of samples. We wanted to better

21 understand your justification for only

22 analyzing two samples for D4. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 MR. STAPLES: The requirements as

2 specified in the ECA are that surface waters

3 are to be collected from the receiving water

4 as close to the release point from the

5 treatment facility. So we are reading that

6 and establishing that that point, closest

7 point would be at the end of the mixing zone. 

8 The point doesn't have -- doesn't

9 represent space. The geometry of a point

10 doesn't have dimensions. So we're looking at

11 the closest point that can get to the facility

12 -- to the outfall that is at the end of the

13 mixing zone. 

14 In our view that's represented --

15 on the day of sampling. This is occurring

16 during normal operations without -- of the

17 facility and without having heavy rainfall, et

18 cetera, as also specified in the ECA text. 

19 Two samples at that point closest to the

20 outfall would be representative of that point

21 at that point in time.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: I think that's --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 I guess that's the issue in itself is is it

2 truly representative. And there's a QA/QC

3 type issue here because obviously this is a

4 difficult chemical to sample for given its

5 volatility. And so we need some confirmation

6 that the sampling you're taking is actually

7 claimed to be accurate.

8 And then on a statistical basis,

9 you know, you can't do anything with two. So

10 we're going to need significantly more number

11 of samples just to confirm that the actual

12 sample that's being taken is representative. 

13 MR. STAPLES: Well, it's not

14 intended to be representative of anything

15 other than the point that's specified that you

16 take the sample.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: But we don't --

18 just with two samples you probably can't

19 understand whether that in fact is an accurate

20 result.

21 MR. STAPLES: Well, in addition to

22 the two samples we're -- for sampling we'll
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 have field blanks and field spikes which allow

2 us to have confidence in the samples that are

3 collected and analyzed for D4 from the

4 standpoint of the collection handling and

5 analysis. 

6 MR. PENBERTHY: You know, surface

7 water sampling is -- you just -- it's a point

8 in time. Okay? The medium has no, unlike

9 maybe sediment or biosolids, doesn't have any

10 time averaging effect. So you need more

11 samples, particularly given the difficulty of

12 the analytics here to ensure that the

13 measurements that are being taken actually are

14 real. 

15 So I think what we would want

16 would be on the order of six samples just to

17 improve that. And maybe six samples should be

18 spread over time.

19 MR. DOYLE: When you say spread

20 over time what kind of time are you talking

21 about?

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean, I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 don't know. I mean they're going to be there

2 for a sampling event, you know. Whether

3 you're talking about over hours, minutes,

4 days, weeks, you know, while you're there.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: One outing.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

7 MR. MAIT: In order to do that

8 you're physically going to have to be out in

9 the water body. So during that period if we

10 took, to your discussion, six samples that

11 bounded -- because the mixing zone is a two12 dimensional space. 

13 So if we're taking six samples

14 around that boundary is that what you're

15 trying to get at, Ward? Because you're not

16 going to be able to take it instantaneously at

17 six different points all at the same time.

18 So if I'm over here, I've got to

19 take the boat over here to get point 2 and so

20 on. So --

21 MR. PENBERTHY: I don't think

22 we're trying to get at variability across the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 mixing zone. I don't think that's what we're

2 --

3 MR. MAIT: But it's at the

4 boundary.

5 MS. PLOTZKE: They're looking for

6 repeatability of result.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: That's the issue.

9 MS. PLOTZKE: So actually closer

10 in time would be better.

11 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.

12 MR. MAIT: But I guess

13 conceptually what I'm trying to get, you want

14 to have more samples to find the boundary, to

15 look at that boundary.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: We just want to

17 make sure we have a real number. 

18 MR. DOYLE: Essentially one where

19 it replicates --

20 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: There you go.

22 MR. MAIT: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Do you have

2 anything to add to that? Did we get that

3 right?

4 MR. TOBIAS: Well, like we said,

5 we just started looking at this recently. 

6 We've also been thinking about whether the

7 timing matters. Do you want to go ahead and

8 comment on that?

9 MR. SELTZER: Can you come closer

10 to the phone? 

11 MR. NGUYEN: We want to see the

12 variability over time as well. So probably

13 over -- you know, depends on how operations

14 run whether it's continuous or whether it's

15 over a few hours. But I think we want to see

16 the variability of the measurement over time

17 as well.

18 MR. THOMAS: But now the two

19 sampling events is intended to give you that,

20 right? 

21 MR. NGUYEN: Two sampling?

22 MR. MAIT: No, there's two events.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 MR. TOBIAS: I guess it depends

2 what we're talking about, what kind of

3 facility in general. But I think it's already

4 known that D4 has strong time dependence

5 throughout the day for a normal POTW. So I

6 think you'd have to be talking about -- that's

7 why I was confused by normal operating hours. 

8 The general POTW is always operating. So it

9 depends on which category we're --

10 MR. MAIT: I would take issue with

11 the variability in the effluent because these

12 are -- the concentration in your final

13 effluent, the material has been in there for

14 days already. So it's homogenized and mixed.

15 MR. TOBIAS: I think the Canadians

16 already have data for that output, actually. 

17 That's -- I'm just referring to their work. 

18 They discussed that at the conference that we

19 were at, their data.

20 MS. PLOTZKE: So let's keep to the

21 surface water for a second. So you get back

22 to your variability. The intent here is with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 sampling within the mixing zone you're going

2 to reach an equilibrium. You can have

3 differences in output throughout the course of

4 the day but when you get to the mixing zone

5 you've got a number of processes that are

6 going on -- you're going to always achieve

7 equilibrium. 

8 MR. NGUYEN: Yes, that's true.

9 MS. PLOTZKE: So I think, you

10 know, having a certain number of samples and

11 making sure you have confidence in the

12 replicates that you're taking, I understand

13 that. But over time I'm not sure that there's

14 -- I mean you're going to achieve an

15 equilibrium all the time because you're going

16 to have these competing processes.

17 MR. NGUYEN: Right, and the mixing

18 zone will allow you to achieve it clearly. But

19 also there may be variability during the day,

20 operations. I mean in any process it has

21 variability in the process. 

22 But you talk about confidence in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 the data. And two samples, again, is --

2 MR. THOMAS: We can go back and

3 take the six under advisement. There may not

4 be a real issue there. 

5 But I think, if I understood Ward,

6 the point here wasn't to get at variability

7 during the day. The point was to ensure that

8 the number was representative. So as Kristen

9 mentioned we're talking about replicates. We

10 are going to do two sampling events. That's

11 probably your best opportunity to get some

12 sense for variability, seasonal variability. 

13 But I'm not sure the changes during the day,

14 I don't think this design was intended --

15 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we're

16 going to have to evaluate whether in fact the

17 mixing zone does achieve equilibrium for D4. 

18 Because what's the resonance line in the

19 mixing zone? You can't --

20 MS. PLOTZKE: But that's always

21 going to be the same. I mean the same --

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. When you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 get the slug of D4 in there and then what

2 happens.

3 MS. PLOTZKE: It's going to go to

4 equilibrium right away. That's -- you're

5 going to drive, those kinetics are going to

6 drive it to its equilibrium. You've got the

7 solubility limits there, you've got the

8 volatility.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: We'll have to look

10 at that. I'm not sure that we're convinced on

11 that. Because --

12 MR. TOBIAS: We'll have to -- yes. 

13 We'll think more about it and we'll have to

14 get back.

15 MR. MAIT: Consider this. If

16 you're looking for that level of variability -

17 - we still have to do influent and effluent. 

18 So. So I'm looking at it from a safety and

19 logistics standpoint, having people floating

20 around in a river all the time to sort of get

21 this variability is not -- I don't want to

22 lose anybody.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 

2 MR. MAIT: So the easier path if

3 you're looking for variability is if you're

4 doing it on the effluent that's what's going

5 into the mixing zone. 

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

7 MR. MAIT: If you're looking for

8 ups and downs that's the most relevant time to

9 catch it, isn't it? Because you would be

10 timing it with your influent sampling as well.

11 MS. PLOTZKE: But keep in mind the

12 surface water, there isn't -- D4 is not

13 detected in surface water. So I mean, if you

14 look at all the monitoring that's out there,

15 what's the reality? You're going to find it. 

16 So let's, you know, from a focus perspective

17 I'm not sure this is the place where we want

18 to --

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, so we have

20 some homework there. Obviously we want

21 replicates just to ensure the quality of the

22 data. And then we have to understand -- we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 have to convince ourselves on the variability

2 issue to understand exactly what we think is

3 needed here. So we'll just leave those as

4 markers for further discussion.

5 MR. STAPLES: And if I could make

6 one final point on that. In the ECA it does

7 also say that these concentration data are to

8 be used to assess the risks to the sediment9 acquired organisms. So if we have the two

10 samples collected at the point that you have

11 specified and you get a measure of

12 concentration. You can conduct the risk

13 assessment with the measure of concentration. 

14 And adding data at other times of

15 day are only going to take that up and down. 

16 So you can accomplish what you suggested you

17 want to do with the sampling plan.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: All I would say is

19 the more samples you have, the less

20 uncertainty. And so it's a matter of

21 balancing out how much uncertainty do you want

22 to deal with. And we know that two samples
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 aren't going to be enough.

2 MR. THOMAS: I think we understand

3 that well. But I would say that when you go

4 back and you said you wanted to look more into

5 the issue of variability. I would encourage

6 you to take a second look at the Canadian data

7 and in particular look at the concentrations

8 of D4 that were found in surface waters. And

9 I think Cathy is right, it's -- you're not --

10 they weren't able to find it.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, we'll do

12 that. Let's keep going.

13 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So then on page

14 2 it has language under special

15 considerations. You talk about the importance

16 of avoiding sample contamination and

17 appropriate requirements for collecting and

18 handling. And then the next section talks

19 about the collection of surface water samples. 

20 Under the first paragraph you talk

21 about specific requirements for sample

22 preparation, whether these things should be in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 storage. And then you refer to the Knoerr

2 method. So it would be helpful to include

3 additional -- a high-level summary there as

4 well. Instead of just citing to Knoerr,

5 include more information on what you're

6 proposing to do. 

7 I think this is your -- perhaps on

8 page 8 I see storage stability, extraction

9 recovery, limit and detection, and

10 conclusions. So if you could include some

11 high-level summary information with better

12 describing what you're thinking of using

13 there.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: So does this also

15 apply, the detail to the sample collection

16 aspects of this?

17 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. Yes.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: So basically from

19 -- the point being from what's written here we

20 don't know precisely what we're agreeing to

21 here. Do you follow?

22 MR. STAPLES: Well, many of those
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 details will be worked out as part of the

2 site-specific sampling plan and the study plan

3 overall. Many of all the QA things will be in

4 the quality assurance project plan. 

5 MS. PLOTZKE: I think in this

6 case, Charles, I think what they're looking

7 for is a little bit more reference. And I

8 mean, a lot of work has gone into this

9 methodology to really ensure that you don't

10 lose it. So the method has been really

11 specifically developed. There's probably a

12 high-level overview.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: I mean I our

14 objective here is let's work out as much as we

15 can now so we don't have problems when the

16 study plan comes in. You know, there's a

17 dispute over exactly what was agreed to and

18 what was appropriate. 

19 So particularly some of these

20 references have multiple techniques in them. 

21 So we want to know what technique are you

22 talking about. I understand in some cases you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 won't be able to, you know, there's some

2 choices that have to be made on -- in the

3 field. But to the extent that you can work

4 those out that would be helpful. 

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And again,

6 we're not asking for details. We're looking

7 for just high-level summary in the test

8 standard. 

9 And then on the QA/QC requirement

10 that you specified we'll have to take a closer

11 look at those and get back to you.

12 In terms of the total organic

13 carbon analysis, was there a specific purpose

14 that you were going to use that information

15 for? 

16 MR. STAPLES: You asked for it.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: We asked for that.

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Oh, we asked

19 for that.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: That's basically

21 the --

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Oh, that's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 right.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: -- we're trying to

3 get an understanding of the carbon load.

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: The carbon

5 content. Okay. Okay.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Is there an EPA

7 test guideline for this?

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Well, that's

9 probably -- I think they referred to the big

10 APHA document. 

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And that's the

13 500 or so page document. 

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, so we need

15 to evaluate whether that's --

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Right.

17 MR. STAPLES: Part B and Part C.

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. 

19 MR. MAIT: That tends to be the

20 standard for wastewater treatment, is it not? 

21 MR. STAPLES: Yes.

22 MR. MAIT: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 MS. FEHRENBACHER: For wastewater

2 treatment?

3 MR. MAIT: Right. So the POTW

4 would be using that method. Currently they

5 have to run their own TOC. So it would be

6 comparative.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

8 MR. LEWIS: Can we go back one?

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Sure.

10 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. For the

11 collection of surface water samples the second

12 paragraph talked about -- and this is

13 something that -- when the surface water

14 samples shall be split --

15 MR. SELTZER: Folks on the phone,

16 can you mute the line, please?

17 MR. LEWIS: When the surface water

18 samples shall be split into different samples. 

19 If you could explain why you want to be doing

20 that, why you want to split those samples?

21 MR. STAPLES: The split sample

22 serves as -- it gives a QC sample basically. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 So by splitting it we get the assessment of --

2 and my analytical people, yell out, correct me

3 if I'm wrong, but it is for looking at

4 precision between two methods.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay, and then

6 page 3, analysis of surface water samples for

7 D4. You say you're going to use that

8 commercial testing laboratory. And I thought

9 I heard you say earlier that you were going to

10 teach the methods to the laboratory. 

11 Are there specific qualifications

12 for the laboratory that you'll be looking for

13 given the special requirements that need to be

14 implemented in order to avoid contamination

15 and those sorts of issues? It would be

16 helpful to include more specificity with

17 respect to the qualifications for the

18 laboratories that you'll be using.

19 So what are your thoughts in terms

20 of the qualifications for the laboratory and

21 selection, and then teaching them the methods? 

22 How is all that going to work?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 MS. PLOTZKE: I can take that one. 

2 So what we're going to do is obviously

3 solicit, put out an RFP and solicit responses

4 back from the various laboratories. We've

5 indicated on the analytical part GLP, so there

6 will be -- part of what we'll evaluate is

7 their GLP certification and their experience

8 under GLP. 

9 In addition then on the technical

10 aspects and the challenges obviously if we

11 have some experience with a laboratory that we

12 know has done some work like this that would

13 be one of the considerations that we would

14 look at. 

15 But also their willingness to be

16 trained. Sometimes it's a matter of the

17 laboratory says, you know, I know how to do

18 this, we can do this. We really need someone

19 that will listen and understand the

20 challenges. Because they are rather unique

21 that sometimes people don't see right off the

22 bat. So their willingness to be trained. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 we will be the ones doing the training. And

2 we will also do some assessment up front to

3 ensure they can handle things properly,

4 potentially giving them some unknown samples

5 to analyze, that kind of thing.

6 But I think the first part is that

7 it needs to be a good working relationship. 

8 Labs that we know we can have a back-and-forth

9 with to ensure that they are following the

10 strict procedures that we need and the

11 challenges that we have. So the GLP will be

12 a given as well.

13 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So it

14 would be helpful to have more explanation of

15 that in here. And it sounds like you've

16 thought through that whole process which is

17 good. 

18 Do you have a sense of how long

19 that whole process is going to take?

20 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, we actually --

21 what we're trying to do is obviously it's

22 going to be somewhat dependent upon the timing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 of everything. But you know, we were hoping

2 to get started on that as soon as we probably

3 walk out of here today as far as beginning to

4 look at the laboratories and evaluate them.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: But how long do

6 you think it will take before you have a

7 laboratory up and running and ready to go? 

8 Based on your experience in getting your own

9 labs up to speed. How long does that take?

10 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean, it could

11 take anywhere from a couple of months to 6

12 months. It just depends on the timing of what

13 you need and their schedule. That's the other

14 part of it. There's when they're available. 

15 MR. MAIT: Obviously right now

16 we're trying to deal with the overall schedule

17 of the ECA with all the timing that's in it. 

18 So currently even though the clock has not

19 started the development of an RFP for this

20 purpose is started. And so the identification

21 of not only just the labs but the services

22 that will be necessary to do the sampling and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 collection and overall project management is

2 going on right now. So to give you a specific

3 time frame or date is highly speculative.

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Well, just

5 trying to understand if it's a multi-month

6 process, multi-year.

7 MR. MAIT: We would love more time

8 but I don't think we're going to get it.

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: You know, what

10 we're talking about here in terms of that part

11 of the process.

12 MR. MAIT: We're working under the

13 assumption that the timing that's in the ECA

14 is the timing we have. And we will use that

15 time to achieve that performance out of those

16 laboratories. 

17 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

18 MR. LEWIS: And that will stick in

19 terms of validation.

20 MR. MAIT: Yes.

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And then

22 our next high-level comment is the practical
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 quantitation limit which is not something that

2 we're used to using. And we're used to using

3 a method detection limit which is quite a bit

4 lower than what you're proposing for these

5 test standards. 

6 And we wanted to better understand

7 why you need that additional increase in

8 detection limit when it appears that you've

9 used much lower detection limits in your other

10 studies. It just doesn't seem reasonable. 

11 MR. STAPLES: The practical

12 quantitation limit is specified as the minimum

13 concentration level constituent to the sample

14 that can be measured among laboratories within

15 specified limits during routine laboratory

16 operations.

17 It's our understanding of PQLs

18 that the USEPA adopted this concept back in

19 1985 because we're talking about analyses of

20 samples like we're talking here today that

21 would be done at a commercial laboratory that

22 probably, possibly never analyzed for this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 material before.

2 So working with them to build the

3 facility, if necessary, to develop the

4 analytical method capabilities within house

5 for this will provide some challenges. And in

6 our view the practical quantitation limit for

7 achieving appropriate levels of -- I think

8 your term is limits of detection during

9 routine laboratory operations is the PQL, is

10 the proper quantity. 

11 MS. PLOTZKE: Just to give some

12 perspective to it. So if you look at what we

13 have done in the past in our lab as well as

14 others that do some of these analysis. We

15 have dedicated often rooms, dedicated hoods,

16 dedicated instruments that you can -- you

17 basically are segregated from the rest of the

18 laboratory to prevent any of the

19 contamination. There are requirements about

20 what you can and cannot wear to shower. Those

21 kind of things. That's not practical for a

22 commercial laboratory. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 So that's what we're trying to do. 

2 We're trying to set it up so that it can be

3 practical. Because these are going to be

4 large numbers of samples that this laboratory

5 is going to have to handle. And most of them

6 are not going to be outfitted the way we've

7 outfitted our labs or the few handful of labs

8 that have done it.

9 MR. DOYLE: And it's over a period

10 of time too which is --

11 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. Just

12 consistency in people. One person just not

13 following the rules that morning can ruin an

14 entire batch of samples.

15 MR. TOBIAS: I was wondering about

16 your decision to use multiple different labs

17 within one media. Is that necessary for this

18 plan? Because I know in that in -- I think

19 they used one facility to do their analytics

20 for the different site state shows.

21 And I thought that one of your

22 scientists had given a talk about developing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 techniques for ensuring sample stability and

2 issues like that. I think he was from Dow

3 Corning, wasn't he? 

4 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, yes. What I'm

5 a little confused on is the multiple labs.

6 MR. TOBIAS: I thought you said --

7 I thought -- why are you so confused about

8 what's in the document. You seemed to mention

9 multiple and the PQL was across different

10 labs, wasn't it?

11 MS. PLOTZKE: That's just talking

12 about the definition, yes.

13 MR. TOBIAS: So you'll be using

14 one lab.

15 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. So I mean

16 that's our intent if we can find somebody. 

17 MR. MAIT: There's a desire to use

18 one facility to do it. However, as this sort

19 of develops there's 14 sites with multiple

20 types of samples over a very brief period of

21 time. It may be necessary that we contract

22 with one firm but they have physical
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 facilities regionally located to facilitate

2 actually getting this done within that 360 --

3 MS. EISENREICH: So, assuming that

4 you have to use -- that whoever you contract

5 with, they have different facilities across

6 the country. Would you send, for example,

7 your surface water samples to one particular

8 facility while your sediment samples might go

9 across the country to another of their

10 facilities? Or are you wanting to -- do you

11 see a potential for splitting those groups of

12 samples?

13 MR. TOBIAS: Or do you want them

14 all to go to one?

15 MS. EISENREICH: Yes.

16 MR. MAIT: At this level, the

17 detail of that at this point, we're not there

18 yet. I mean we have to sit down with the

19 folks who we're going to contract with and

20 actually work through the same question. So

21 I don't know that we can speculate. I think -

22 -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 MR. TOBIAS: I was just reading

2 from the PQL definition and it says different

3 laboratories. And then I went to -- I thought

4 that meant that you had already envisioned

5 there would definitely be different

6 laboratories. And it's not necessarily clear. 

7 So I was wondering if that's the origin of the

8 use of a PQL and it sounds like maybe you'll

9 be able to do it all at one laboratory.

10 MS. PLOTZKE: Well, we have no

11 idea until we find the lab. And again, what

12 their capabilities are. 

13 The other challenge sometimes is

14 shipping materials, moving them from one

15 location to another location. So even in our

16 own program. 

17 So for example, in our voluntary

18 product stewardship initiative we have a lab

19 in Europe that does the analysis on the

20 European samples in one year because trying to

21 ship them back and forth is very difficult. 

22 MR. TOBIAS: Sure.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 MS. PLOTZKE: So all those things

2 will be factored when we're looking at the

3 laboratory and what their capabilities are.

4 MR. MAIT: We're just anticipating

5 that there is a possibility and probably a

6 good probability because even with the current

7 program there's only two labs within our

8 industry that does this. One is in Germany

9 and one is in Midland. 

10 So the idea that we would have

11 multiple laboratories, physical facilities, it

12 might be run by the same company but it still

13 presents the same thing, whether it's a

14 different legal entity or not. We still have

15 the same challenge here, trying to get these

16 labs all to be on the same playing field with

17 analytics.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Why don't we just

19 cut to the chase. Is the method detection

20 limit adequate for our purposes. And then

21 once we're back from that what do we need in

22 terms of -- what level do you have to measure
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 at?

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Well, I think

3 we're looking for these data to be collected

4 using detection limits that are comparable

5 with other studies that have been conducted.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: And that's been I

7 think in the parts per billion. There's low -

8 - 1 part per billion, less than 1 part per

9 billion.

10 MR. TOBIAS: Well, it depends on

11 which media.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. It just

13 seems very unrealistic for us to accept 5

14 times -- 5 to 10 times a method detection

15 limit that has been used in other studies that

16 your companies have conducted.

17 MS. PLOTZKE: I don't think from a

18 surface water perspective that we have sampled

19 surface water. So I'm not sure what you're

20 referring to. 

21 We don't log surface water in our

22 program because we know it's probably -- it's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 not going to be there and there are a lot of

2 challenges associated with it. So that's not

3 been the focus of the program.

4 MR. TOBIAS: That was already

5 influent and effluent then would be --

6 MR. PENBERTHY: What did Canada

7 get down to? Do we remember? 

8 MR. TOBIAS: I've got the paper

9 here. Canada's --

10 MR. THOMAS: I think a lot of the

11 surface water were pretty close to the

12 detection limit.

13 MR. TOBIAS: They cite 9 parts per

14 trillion and then they cite their high measure

15 as 22 that they found in receiving water.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Parts per

17 trillion.

18 MR. TOBIAS: I think that's -- I'm

19 just scanning the document.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: So we're a little

21 bit off there, right?

22 MR. STAPLES: I'm not an
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 analytical chemist, but the analytical

2 chemists tell me that the detection limit that

3 the Canadians developed for surface water was

4 based on instrument noise, not procedural

5 blindness. Not done in the appropriate way

6 for developing limits of detection upon which

7 you calculate limits of quantitation and so

8 forth. 

9 In other words developed for a

10 specific matrix, in other words a sample. 

11 Instrument noise only. So that's not an

12 appropriate basis for setting a detection

13 limit for this type of sampling program which

14 is going to go to a commercial lab that's

15 possibly never analyzed for these before.

16 The method detection limit of

17 Knoerr was based upon -- as an average of

18 several samples that he prepared and analyzed. 

19 And again, this is in the Dow Corning

20 laboratory with all of the years and years of

21 training and methodology development, and so

22 forth. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 In a practical sense what we're

2 trying to do is take this to a commercial

3 laboratory and let them adopt the best they

4 can the methods that we've worked out. 

5 Practical quantitation limit is, I think, the

6 right vehicle for setting the levels of

7 detection returned for this material in the

8 surface water. 

9 MS. PLOTZKE: We have not been

10 able to reproduce the Canadian --

11 MR. TOBIAS: And this ties over to

12 all the media though. You have the same

13 framework between MDL and PQL for each of

14 them.

15 MS. PLOTZKE: Right.

16 MR. TOBIAS: So I don't want to

17 get too hung up on surface water. I know

18 we're looking at this and then want the other

19 ones to look at. It's just -- it's actually

20 an across-the-board issue to consider.

21 MS. PLOTZKE: yes.

22 MR. STAPLES: That's correct. But
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 it's the same issue in that the Dow Corning

2 methods were developed over long periods of

3 time with lots and lots of history and

4 expertise going in it.

5 Now, taking this to a new

6 laboratory and getting them and all the media

7 to develop the capabilities of analysis --

8 MR. TOBIAS: I just previously --

9 I don't know. Maybe this is naive and outside

10 the box of an ECA, but the work can't be done

11 at Midland, is that correct?

12 MS. PLOTZKE: That's correct. 

13 MR. MAIT: And not at Evonik?

14 MR. TOBIAS: No, none of the

15 companies could use their own labs to do this.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: This is --

17 MR. MAIT: Well, we would --

18 MR. TOBIAS: What?

19 MS. PLOTZKE: This is a huge

20 program.

21 MR. TOBIAS: Okay.

22 MS. PLOTZKE: The number of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 samples.

2 MR. TOBIAS: Okay. I didn't know

3 what your exactly -- process was.

4 MR. DOYLE: Independence. 

5 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, independence.

6 MR. MAIT: For other reasons as

7 well.

8 MR. TOBIAS: Okay. I mean, the

9 same technical summary. I don't know. But

10 okay. 

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I think

12 what we're going to have to do -- I mean,

13 obviously we're approaching this from

14 different directions. 

15 We need a detection limit that is

16 appropriate for the kind of risk assessment we

17 want to do. And you're working at it from,

18 okay, this is what we think a lab can do. So

19 we're going to have to huddle on this and give

20 you -- basically let you know what we think

21 our requirements are with respect to the

22 detection limits. So we'll have to get back
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 to you on that.

2 MS. EISENREICH: And again, we're

3 kind of talking across all of the test

4 guidelines here, not just specific on surface

5 water. We understand the difficulties with

6 the surface water in particular, you know,

7 where D4 is going to be. But this is kind of

8 goes across all the test standards. 

9 MR. PENBERTHY: I mean, because

10 ultimately the data has to meet our assessment

11 needs. And if it doesn't -- obviously we

12 won't be able to get anybody to agree to a

13 testing regime that doesn't give them the data

14 they need to do the assessment that they need

15 to do.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, and to that,

17 and I understand that completely. In respect

18 to that too, I guess what we look across it is

19 to consider the different matrices that you

20 really want in the design. Sediment is a

21 different situation than surface water. 

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Do we have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 more on this one? 

2 MR. LEWIS: I have a question on

3 the GLP.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: Go ahead.

5 MR. LEWIS: In your -- your

6 statement of the GLP, this is for each one of

7 them, solar collection handling, GLP

8 requirements as applicable. Can you explain

9 what you mean by as applicable? This language

10 is occurring for each one of your submissions.

11 MR. TOBIAS: So you anticipate

12 areas where it won't apply or you're just

13 using in case?

14 MS. PLOTZKE: Do you want to

15 answer that?

16 MR. DOYLE: Sure. I mean, I think

17 part of it's looking at the GLP regulations

18 and seeing what specific requirements are

19 really applicable to the particular activities

20 that are being talked about in each case.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I understand

22 that some part of the GLPs deal with animal
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 handling and stuff that obviously wouldn't.

2 But is there anything that's relevant to this

3 monitoring that you have in mind?

4 MR. DOYLE: Not that we've

5 predetermined yet. But I know that there's,

6 you know, we identified for this sample

7 collection, sampling transfer activities that

8 those should be conducted in accordance with

9 the GLP requirements. But those details are

10 going to be -- when we deal with our vendors,

11 the people that are actually going to be doing

12 the work and finding a company that can do the

13 work in accordance with GLP requirements that

14 are applicable to these activities. That's

15 really what we're going to -- we have to

16 identify those folks that can do that. And we

17 want to make certain that there's -- that

18 they're not -- we have to be realistic about

19 what they can do.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: Do you have a

21 specific concern or is it just you haven't

22 thought this through?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 MR. DOYLE: No, I think we've

2 thought through it in terms of we've done some

3 due diligence I think in talking with vendors

4 about what people can do when it comes to the

5 field sampling portion of the program. And we

6 have some -- we want to make sure there's some

7 flexibility there and deal with it.

8 Because by and large much of

9 what's in the GLP regulations is not -- a lot

10 of it's not particularly pertinent to the

11 actual --

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Understand that.

13 MR. DOYLE: So that's really --

14 it's just the kind of, you know.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: On the other hand

16 they're fairly broad.

17 MS. PLOTZKE: But there are some

18 very specific requirements that have to be met

19 by an institution or a facility. If they

20 don't have those in place it's going to take

21 them to make --

22 MR. PENBERTHY: But those -- I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 mean you're not talking about how the -- a lot

2 of GLPs is how the facility is run and the

3 documentation requirements and all that kind

4 of stuff. Are you talking about that kind of

5 stuff? Or is it --

6 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. Yes. I mean,

7 if you --

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, then that

9 would have to be applicable. Why couldn't

10 they do that?

11 MS. PLOTZKE: Well, they would

12 have certain things on how the facility is

13 run. But how they are -- whether or not

14 they're a GLP-compliant facility. There are

15 certain specific requirements that they would

16 have to meet with an independent state

17 auditor. 

18 And that could be very different

19 between a firm that does the collection versus

20 a laboratory. Because their lab is the field. 

21 So it's, you know, with the -- the analytical

22 part of the samples go to a laboratory and the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 structure of that laboratory is very well

2 defined. And instruments are all certified

3 and calibrated and all nicely documented.

4 But the field for the collection

5 part is the building, the lab. And that

6 becomes very difficult to achieve that same

7 type of structure. 

8 MR. PENBERTHY: I think for us to

9 retain that "as applicable" phrase there we'd

10 have to know exactly what you're talking

11 about. What is the specific concern. Because

12 we're supposed to have this done in GLPs and

13 that's it. If it can't be done by GLPs I'm

14 not sure we -- that's what our regulations

15 require. So if "as applicable" introduces any

16 uncertainty about the requirement to perform

17 to GLPs then I don't know what we do.

18 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean, one comment,

19 and correct me about doing the due diligence. 

20 We've done a survey. And most of the firms

21 are not going to have that capability. They

22 can do it in accordance, you know, so they can
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 do it GLP-like, in accordance with GLP, but

2 they're not certified GLP facilities like a

3 laboratory would be. 

4 MR. FLACK: So what we're saying

5 is the analytical laboratory, we certainly

6 feel comfortable we can get GLP-certified

7 laboratories to do the analysis. But the

8 consulting firm going out in the boat and

9 taking the sample? You don't find them. The

10 actual consultant going out to pull the

11 sample, take the sample physically would not

12 be GLP-certified. The lab they send it to

13 would. Right?

14 MR. MAIT: That's life. That's

15 the way it is.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean that's what

17 we're -- we're trying to be practical and

18 realistic.

19 MR. MAIT: When you look at other

20 programs where a lot of field sampling and so

21 on, like a CERCLA issue or a RCRA issue, it is

22 in accordance with GLP. They are not GLP-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 certified.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: I'm starting to

3 hone in a little bit on the issue. So we're

4 going to have to look at that.

5 MR. MAIT: And I know what the

6 regulation says. And unfortunately I'm

7 assuming when it was contemplated originally

8 this aspect of doing field sampling was not

9 considered. However, when you think about

10 RCRA or you think about CERCLA that's exactly

11 what was contemplated and that's probably why

12 it never made itself into the regulation. 

13 Because they're not.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

15 MR. STAPLES: And of course the

16 ECA does specify just the study plan, the

17 site-specific sampling plans and the quality

18 assurance project plans all of which very

19 tightly control what's to be done. Those of

20 course have to be developed. 

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Well, we're

22 going to look into this. I just don't know
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 what our mobility is here. And I'm not sure

2 I fully understand the precise issues except

3 the companies are -- 

4 MR. MAIT: They don't have the GLP

5 certification. And they don't necessarily

6 desire to do it for the sheer, I mean, they've

7 got to make money. It's an economic issue.

8 MR. FLACK: They could meet, say,

9 a RCRA or CERCLA requirement, quality

10 requirement, which would be per the EPA

11 regulations, but it might not meet the GLP.

12 MR. MAIT: No. They normally say

13 in accordance with. 

14 MR. FLACK: Right.

15 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Have you

16 selected or identified a consultant to do the

17 sampling? Or is that another RFP that will

18 need to go out?

19 MS. PLOTZKE: That's another RFP.

20 MR. MAIT: We have several

21 companies under consideration right now for

22 field work as well as general overall project
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 management. And then the secondary part that

2 we already covered was the analytical side. 

3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: We're going to

5 have to look into this because I know the EPA

6 has had a number of monitoring programs and

7 somehow this gets dealt with.

8 MR. MAIT: And we would be

9 interested to find out what the answer is.

10 MR. STAPLES: Monitoring programs

11 with ECAs?

12 MR. PENBERTHY: No, just in

13 general monitoring programs. Because in

14 general we perform work to GLPs. So I have to

15 believe people have faced this before.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: It's probably in

17 accordance. There is a difference between in

18 accordance and --

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Do we have

20 any other on this specific guideline? 

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Those are the

22 high-level comments. So overall we would like
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 more information, more high-level summary for

2 the details that we've been discussing here. 

3 And that also applies to the other test

4 standards as well.

5 David, did you have other comments

6 on this one?

7 MR. TOBIAS: On this one? No. I

8 mean, and really, I mean I don't know, I guess

9 we should look at the other ones. But I mean,

10 a lot of those issues cut across what we just

11 described.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.

13 MR. TOBIAS: And obviously we need

14 to go discuss more and figure out what our

15 complete viewpoint is.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: So, what's your

17 preference for moving forward on these

18 specific ones that we've identified?

19 MR. THOMAS: I think we've been

20 able to capture most of the -- or all of the

21 comments. I think we can re-draft it based on

22 your feedback. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 MR. DOYLE: Take it under

2 advisement and go back and see if we can --

3 MR. PENBERTHY: And --

4 MR. MAIT: I think the

5 amplification is pretty simple.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: What's the time

7 frame we would be talking about on that?

8 MR. THOMAS: Probably talking the

9 week of September 9.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I think

11 that would give us some much-needed time to

12 look at the other aspects of the references

13 and stuff as well to get more detail. Is that

14 going to be in the range of your guys' needs? 

15 September 9? Are we going to be able to --

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Sure. For the

17 others, you know, terms like "as applicable"

18 or "appropriate requirements" or "special

19 considerations" and then where you just cite

20 references in addition to the other more

21 specific comments that --

22 MR. TOBIAS: We can go through
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 each of them. I didn't want to cut that off. 

2 Do you want to go through them?

3 MR. DOYLE: Just to be clear

4 though. So what would be helpful for us is

5 the stuff that you have to go back and

6 consider too. When can we get that feedback

7 from you? Because we'd like to be able to

8 account for that in whatever we provide you so

9 that we don't just have -- talk past each

10 other.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: You know, I think

12 we'll be working towards that time frame too. 

13 And then I've got to check in with everyone

14 here and see what they can do and what's their

15 availability. We have the holiday and the

16 free day off, unpaid day off. But I think the

17 3-week time frame, I think that's what we're

18 talking about.

19 MR. MAIT: Yes.

20 MR. DOYLE: Because it would be

21 nice to have that in full. We don't want to

22 just keep giving you --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Well, I

2 mean there's a certain number of things like

3 what our needs are in terms of the detection

4 limit and the GLP issue, what's our mobility

5 there. I mean those are the main issues as I

6 see them. So we'll try to get those to you as

7 soon as we can obviously. 

8 MR. MAIT: Particularly on the --

9 those two particularly because that definitely

10 affects how the test standards are written. 

11 Also what we have -- if I'm trying

12 to move forward with an RFP I really need to

13 be able to specify to these companies what the

14 expectation is going to be.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. Okay. I

16 mean obviously we'll be working on this.

17 MR. TOBIAS: Did you want to go

18 through another?

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. Which one --

20 we've got a few minutes here on your time,

21 right? So which one do you want to?

22 MR. TOBIAS: I don't know, Cathy. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 Did you have one you wanted to look at in

2 particular? Or anyone else? Cathy had a set

3 of comments I'm trying to --

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes, sure. We

5 can go -- do you guys want to lead that

6 discussion? 

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we can work

8 through it and try to figure out where we --

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. 

10 MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry, which one?

11 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Influent/

12 effluent. So, the sampling location, and it

13 may be comparable to the discussion that we

14 just had where that would be defined in the

15 permit. If so, we would like more information

16 on that. If it's not defined then a high17 level summary.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Do the permits

19 actually specify the influent sampling as

20 well? Okay.

21 MR. MAIT: It should. It's

22 probably an XY definition exactly where it is.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

2 MS. SMITH: If I could just make

3 one slight comment. That's probably true for

4 POTWs but not necessarily for the industry.

5 MR. MAIT: Your effluent

6 definitely is.

7 MS. SMITH: Effluent, absolutely

8 is. But the question was with regard to

9 influent, right?

10 MR. MAIT: On the POTWs. We're

11 not doing influent on the -- you're right. We

12 already got through that, didn't we?

13 (Laughter.)

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: On this one,

15 and I don't know if this language is in the

16 others but I noted it's in the middle of the

17 paragraph on the special considerations that

18 you say appropriate quality control measures

19 should be implemented to the extent possible. 

20 And I'm wondering are there specific

21 requirements that you believe will not be

22 implemented for this?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 MS. PLOTZKE: This is one of those

2 practical things where we know there's only so

3 much we can control. It's kind of getting

4 onsite, who's there and what they can do in

5 reality. So we've kind of listed what the --

6 we should be doing, like the people who are

7 going to be in that vicinity, that area,

8 should they be wearing certain things, you

9 know, product sampling. But we also realize

10 this is a business of operation and it's going

11 to be challenging. So we're just trying to

12 build in some practicality here. We will

13 provide those things, those shared dues.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Now, that's all

15 detail. The sampling necessary. Now this,

16 there is -- on the effluent though this would

17 apply to the direct discharge sites, right? 

18 That's not how this is written. It's all

19 about POTWs, right? Do you follow what I'm

20 saying?

21 MR. DOYLE: We do parenthetically

22 note here that it could be imputed to the --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 you're right. Yes, but you're right. As

2 applicable in terms of the effluent samples.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: All right. Let me

4 double-check that language just to make sure. 

5 Okay.

6 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So we'll need

7 to have more discussion about that. We've

8 already discussed the special considerations. 

9 We discussed the fact that two samples we

10 believe is not sufficient.

11 There are references here where

12 again we'd like you to pull a more high-level

13 summary information into the test standard and

14 then refer to specific sections. 

15 MR. STAPLES: Well, again, we're

16 not going to be able to give much specifics of

17 how exactly the samples get collected until we

18 get to the site and the contractor decides how

19 the samples will -- exactly what apparatus and

20 equipment and how it's cleaned ahead of time

21 and all that. This is to be determined. And

22 what we set out in the site-specific sampling
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 plan is part of the study plan, not here.

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I understand

3 the details will be in the site-specific

4 sampling plan, but we would like as much as

5 possible for these to be stand-alone documents

6 that include high-level summary information. 

7 MR. PENBERTHY: So, I mean here

8 you've got three separate references. And so,

9 you know, we don't know what we're agreeing to

10 at this level.

11 MR. STAPLES: Each of these

12 references in the sections and pages that are

13 referenced there give some guidance on how to

14 take samples of influents and effluents.

15 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So --

16 MR. STAPLES: And the exact plan

17 for collecting influents and effluents at each

18 of the 10 or 14 facilities may be worked out

19 in the site-specific plan.

20 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

21 MR. STAPLES: We can't go into any

22 more detail than that at this point.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 MR. DOYLE: No. Are what you

2 saying, Cathy would like us, for each one of

3 these references and pages that we've cited in

4 there to extract from that and do like an

5 executive summary of what those pages say and

6 then put that in this document?

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: No, what I'm

8 saying is if there are four types of sampling

9 apparatus that are usually used for collecting

10 these sorts of samples then I would like you

11 to include a high-level summary in this

12 document so that we know that you are going to

13 be looking at those four types of sampling

14 apparatus and you'll be applying them in

15 accordance with the reference that you've

16 identified. It's --

17 MR. THOMAS: We can do that. We

18 can do that.

19 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes, thank you. 

20 That would be very helpful. 

21 MR. FLACK: In other words it's

22 just -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 MR. MAIT: Right.

2 MR. FLACK: But how do they know

3 that --

4 MR. MAIT: But back to --

5 MR. FLACK: -- which one was

6 ludicrous --

7 MR. MAIT: Right, understood. But

8 back to Trent's point. The specificity about

9 those devices, some do come out of these

10 references. So if, rather than rewrite the

11 reference if we could take the salient piece

12 and insert it in here and give that to you. 

13 Rather than -- I don't want to rewrite

14 somebody else's document. 

15 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I'm not asking

16 you to --

17 MR. MAIT: Okay.

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: -- rewrite the

19 reference. What I'm asking for is a high20 level summary, the salient piece as you --

21 MR. MAIT: Right.

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 MR. MAIT: Okay. But if I pull

2 that in and then say and this is what I mean

3 and here's the reference specifically, rather

4 than asking you to go look in that annex,

5 would that satisfy?

6 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes.

7 MR. MAIT: Okay. Fair enough.

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. That's

9 all we're asking.

10 MR. MAIT: I've got it.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: So I'm

12 understanding, what is the agreement? 

13 MR. MAIT: I've got it. Cathy,

14 could you go back just for a moment? You

15 mentioned something about the sampling and the

16 number of samples here. Could you elaborate

17 a little more? Because this is a little bit

18 different than surface water. This is

19 influent/effluent sampling. 

20 So you have a continuous flow of

21 material coming in and you have a continuous

22 flow going out. So could you explain your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 expectation of when you said we didn't have

2 enough samples here as to what you really

3 meant?

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Do you want to?

5 MR. NGUYEN: I think this is the

6 same issue that we talked about in the other

7 standard. In addition to having more

8 confidence in the data we would also look at

9 the process better. If you look at this, we

10 have process variability in any process. In

11 either continuous or batch. And if you just

12 take one or two samples that's just the

13 measurement for that specific time, point in

14 time.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: So the way we left

16 this last time, we said we definitely need

17 more replicates to confirm the result.

18 MR. MAIT: I understand the

19 replicate part.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: And we need to get

21 back to you on --

22 MR. MAIT: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 MR. PENBERTHY: -- the variability

2 issue. 

3 MR. MAIT: And that's what I'm

4 trying to get at. Because my understanding is

5 this is a 24-hour --

6 MR. STAPLES: No. With lots of

7 reflection on what's possible with this

8 material we went to grab samples rather than

9 trying to composite samples. So that's why --

10 grab samples.

11 But let's back up a step. The

12 purpose of this ECA according to the text is

13 to be able to understand exposure and risk to

14 sediment-acquired organisms.

15 So in our view this is not the

16 study to get at treatment efficiencies and

17 treatment variability within the treatment

18 plans and so forth. It is to demonstrate the

19 occurrence of D4 in the influent and effluent

20 of the facilities on the day that we sample

21 them. And not to get at treatment

22 efficiencies and treatment variability and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 variations within influents and effluents. 

2 Document the occurrence of D4 on the day we

3 sampled to get the daily sample of the surface

4 water. 

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: But I think

6 that we're looking at an exposure and risk

7 assessment that would address POTWs and

8 manufacturing processing and formulating sites

9 in the U.S. 

10 MR. STAPLES: So that exposure and

11 risk of sediment-acquired organisms can be

12 assessed on both.

13 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. In other

14 words, our assessment goes beyond what

15 happened the day that you were sampling at

16 that one facility. It's intended to address

17 the U.S.

18 MR. THOMAS: But for that

19 particular facility though you're just talking

20 about the environmental exposure. So if

21 you're talking about a continuous flow the

22 process variability of that flow is less
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 important to the overall consequence to the

2 environment, right? That's especially true in

3 this case where you're talking about a

4 continuous process. 

5 MS. PLOTZKE: And I think to the

6 point of the risk assessment, so let's just

7 get to the risk assessment which is your

8 ultimate goal. And it's product in sediment

9 organisms, right?

10 So in the sediment you're not

11 going to have some of the same challenges that

12 you have with detection limits in the water,

13 but that's fine. We're going to, you know,

14 we're going to basically be able to do the

15 best you can to do a water analysis and look

16 at those concentrations.

17 The reality is it's going to be

18 non-detectable. So that's going to affect you

19 when you do your risk assessment. 

20 The next priority is probably the

21 top priority of sediment and that's where

22 you're going to have the less of these kind of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 issues around the time dependence component of

2 it. Because you're going to be able to see

3 the concentrations that have been built up

4 over time. And that's really what you're

5 going to factor in the risk assessment. 

6 MR. PENBERTHY: And I think part

7 of this is -- these operations don't

8 necessarily run in a steady state when it

9 comes to D4 going through them and coming out

10 of them. So that's -- we talked about

11 variability, that we have to convey exactly

12 what our objective is there.

13 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. But that

14 variability is related to the operation of it

15 which is not something we're trying to

16 address. What we're trying to address is

17 what's that continuous exposure to the

18 organisms you're concerned about.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. We might

20 actually have interest in restraining at least

21 the variability from that source.

22 MR. DOYLE: We just need to get
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 this feedback. 

2 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Right --

4 MR. DOYLE: -- objectives.

5 MS. PLOTZKE: -- inform the risk

6 assessment.

7 MR. MAIT: Independent of all of

8 that it's difficult for us to structure a

9 sampling plan if I don't understand what I'm

10 trying to hit at. I understand you're going

11 to get it back to me but I need to know that

12 soon so we can craft. 

13 Because obviously we've had long,

14 internal debates as to whether we take a 24-

15 hour composite sample which I was told don't,

16 you can't because of the volatility issues. 

17 Then you have to take a continuous grab sample

18 over a period of time. That will give you

19 variability over a 24-hour period. You will

20 take a grab sample at X and take a grab sample

21 at Y and so on. That gives you variability. 

22 Right?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 MS. PLOTZKE: But again, but that

2 won't inform risk assessment. 

3 MR. MAIT: I'm just --

4 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, you can debate

5 these but the point --

6 MR. MAIT: I just need to get

7 direction. I need -- for where we are right

8 now, in order to write a test standard I need

9 direction as to what I'm trying to hit. And

10 right now it's unclear.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Fair

12 enough.

13 MR. MAIT: I completely understand

14 the risk assessment.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: If we were to

16 follow your logic to its final conclusion why

17 would be sampling effluent at all, you know. 

18 It would just be going straight to the

19 sediment.

20 MS. PLOTZKE: But I think, but

21 that's gets back to what Charles said is you

22 want, I'm assuming, you want some assurance
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 that there is actually release of this

2 material coming out of those wastewater

3 treatment plants. So that we're studying --

4 MR. PENBERTHY: But it doesn't

5 come out at concentrations all the time. And

6 we know that there can be variability within

7 that. So we have to understand what are our

8 objectives. And we'll have to get back to you

9 on this about how important it is for our

10 assessment to understand what is -- are those

11 systems running at steady state or not. And

12 then --

13 MS. PLOTZKE: And will it really

14 affect the risk assessment. I think when you

15 think about the sediment concentrations you

16 might have a spike in the pour coming out in

17 the morning, or the evening, or whatever it

18 is, the period is. But is it really going to

19 impact that continuous exposure and that

20 exposure in the sediment compartments of those

21 organisms? That's what I think the

22 fundamental --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 MR. MAIT: Okay.

2 MR. STAPLES: And again, you've

3 got to use the word "occurrence" not

4 "concentration." So to show the occurrence of

5 D4 in the influent and effluent is a useful

6 piece of a risk assessment because that's

7 where the material is coming from that gets

8 into the surface water and sediments. 

9 MR. MAIT: Okay. 

10 MR. PENBERTHY: We're just going

11 to have to get back to you on that. I think

12 we have to formulate our opinion in more

13 detail.

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So on

15 the bottom of page 2, more of the same. If

16 you could include some of the salient points

17 from the references. 

18 And then on the next page, top of

19 page 3 we're not sure if this is in the

20 surface water but you talk about the field

21 blanks having very low or non-detectable

22 concentrations. And do you have an
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 understanding, a better understanding of what

2 you mean by very low?

3 MR. MAIT: Well, I believe that --

4 and maybe the panel of chemists, Dr. McNett

5 can respond to this. But laboratory-grade

6 water can have some. So it's intended to be

7 a standard practice of using laboratory-grade

8 water. It may have a measurable background in

9 it. We don't know.

10 MS. PLOTZKE: Particularly how

11 they process their water, store their water,

12 you know, depending on any systems they have

13 in place. So again we're trying to say we

14 need to ensure that we're not taking your

15 laboratory water that may already be

16 contaminated from something that's coming

17 through the system.

18 MS. PLOTZKE: So, is there like an

19 SOP that you have in your labs where you would

20 analyze the laboratory water and if it's above

21 a certain concentration then it's okay -- it's

22 not okay, if it's below then it is okay?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. Debbie, if you

2 want to answer that? Did you hear the

3 question? 

4 DR. MCNETT: I was having a hard

5 time hearing Cathy Fehrenbacher. I believe

6 the question is around the -- is it around the

7 trip and blank samples?

8 MS. PLOTZKE: It's specifically --

9 can you hear me, Debbie?

10 DR. MCNETT: Yes, I can hear you.

11 MS. PLOTZKE: Okay. So it's

12 specifically -- we have an SOP in place to how

13 do we establish the laboratory-grade water

14 that we're going to use as a blank, that it

15 has low or non-detectable levels. How do we

16 establish that?

17 DR. MCNETT: Those are done. Yes,

18 and it is within our SOP for the levels that

19 we run. We run procedures with laboratory20 grade water and assess to make sure that the

21 levels in that water is all at a certain

22 level. Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So if

2 you could just better define what you mean

3 there. 

4 More of the same comments under

5 collection of the effluent samples on the

6 analysis of two samples. And then including

7 more information on the salient points. 

8 Again, the practical quantitation limit, I

9 think we've already had that discussion as

10 well. And then the GLP, we've had that

11 discussion. 

12 You should probably -- where you

13 refer to the EPA guidance you should probably

14 include the citation for that, the reference,

15 in all of these.

16 MR. STAPLES: There's a reference

17 list at the end of each standard. 

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I didn't see

19 the USEPA grab reference there.

20 MR. STAPLES: That's correct, it's

21 not there.

22 MR. MAIT: We'll get -- the ECA
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 document so yes, we can put it there again

2 too.

3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And did

4 you have other comments that you wanted to? 

5 Anything else?

6 MR. LEWIS: One comment that we

7 addressed before, and this is both in the

8 collection of influent samples and effluent

9 samples. Greater description in terms of

10 normal operation conditions, in terms of what

11 you mean by that. We had discussion, normal

12 operations, is it 9 to 5 and these plants are

13 operated 24 hours a day, so how would you want

14 to characterize? What do you mean by normal

15 operation and conditions? 

16 MR. STAPLES: That's your term. 

17 That's straight out of the ECA. It says

18 during normal operations and not when high

19 rainfall events, wait a day for the rainfall

20 events. There's some terminology like that. 

21 So normal operations is subjective but it

22 would be on the not subject to upsets in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 plan or whatever else is specified here about

2 rainy days and that sort of thing. 

3 MR. PENBERTHY: You know, on page

4 3, second-to-last paragraph there's a

5 reference to composite samples. And then

6 above that you talk about grab samples. 

7 MR. STAPLES: If it says composite

8 -- it does say composite. I believe that's an

9 accident of error. It should say the sample,

10 not composite.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Gotcha. Okay, so

12 I just wanted to be clear that we're not

13 compositing samples. 

14 Okay. Do you want to switch gears

15 a little bit and do biota? Again, I guess

16 we're going to have to give you some feedback

17 on the variability on the sample numbers, the

18 requirement for detection limits as we see

19 them. I think -- what else? And similar

20 stuff. As before. We have to look at the TOC

21 method.

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 MR. PENBERTHY: So, biota?

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Do you want to

3 lead that discussion, Karen, or would you like

4 me to?

5 MS. EISENREICH: Why don't you

6 just continue because a lot of it's the same.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. 

8 MS. EISENREICH: We'll jump in.

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: All right. So,

10 the deposition zone, is that one of those

11 zones that is defined, or?

12 MR. STAPLES: With regards to the

13 biota sampling for benthic organisms we would

14 be collecting these samples at the same

15 locations that we would collect the sediment. 

16 And that would be at the deposition zone

17 closest to the location where the surface

18 water samples would be taken. 

19 We cannot guarantee that there

20 will be mud at the bottom of the end of the

21 mixing zone but it would be the closest

22 deposition zone to it as sufficient sediment
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 that we can collect for sediment and benthic.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: So the surface

3 water, the sediment and the benthic organisms

4 would be roughly in the same.

5 MR. STAPLES: And the fish.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: And the fish. 

7 Does that make sense?

8 MS. EISENREICH: How are you

9 determining -- are you -- how are you going to

10 determine whether there's sediment there to

11 sample? I mean, are you just going to -- is

12 it a visual detection type situation at the

13 mixing zone? Is that how that deposition zone

14 is being determined? 

15 MR. STAPLES: I prefer the bigger

16 word being field reconnaissance.

17 MS. EISENREICH: And what are you

18 considering sediment? I mean, I'm assuming

19 you're considering not just mud but sand or

20 silt. I know that obviously populations of

21 invertebrates changes based on the type of

22 sediment that's there, but you had referred to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 mud. So I just want to make sure that if

2 there's like sand there you would --

3 MR. STAPLES: Oh yes.

4 MS. EISENREICH: -- sample that as

5 well.

6 MR. STAPLES: Yes. Sediment.

7 MS. EISENREICH: Yes. Any kind

8 of.

9 MR. STAPLES: Our suggestion is

10 that it be the zone of deposition. So not

11 rocks and gravel, but where stuff settles out

12 of the water. That's how the D4 would get to

13 the sediment anyway is through particulates

14 that come out of the effluent and settle on

15 the bottom. So we're looking for these

16 deposition areas. In some cases it might be

17 more near the shoreline. It might be in a

18 different location. Again, it's field

19 reconnaissance to find it.

20 MS. EISENREICH: But as closest to

21 the mixing zone as possible?

22 MR. STAPLES: Correct. Because
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 you want exposure to D4 from the effluent.

2 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, correct. I

3 think that needs to be a little bit clearer in

4 how -- what that deposition zone. I mean not

5 what it is because we know what it is, but how

6 you're determining where it is.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes, again at a

8 high level.

9 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, exactly. 

10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Salient points.

11 MS. EISENREICH: We understand

12 that until you're there you don't know what's

13 there.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: So I guess, is

15 this written as -- we were talking about how

16 water through sediment and we're basically in

17 the same rough location. But it seems to me

18 that there could be a circumstance where the

19 sediment and the benthic organisms are at a

20 different location than the water.

21 MS. EISENREICH: I think this is

22 kind of what we were talking about. If it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 happens to be a sandy, silt area you're going

2 to find probably not so many sediment

3 organisms. So they're not going to have a

4 high enough number to actually quantify. So

5 you have to go to a place where there's

6 actually going to be organisms. 

7 And they would -- I'm assuming

8 that I'm correct, that you would sample the

9 sediment wherever you're taking the

10 invertebrates from. So that there's sediment

11 and invertebrates from the same site.

12 MR. STAPLES: That seems to me the

13 most common consensus.

14 MS. EISENREICH: Okay.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Does this have to

16 have some language about the mixing zone in

17 it? And then --

18 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, I think

19 that's --

20 MR. PENBERTHY: -- deposition?

21 MS. EISENREICH: That's what I was

22 asking for, a little bit of clarification.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 MS. PLOTZKE: -- criteria. So

2 it's, like Charles says, it's field

3 reconnaissance. So you're going to be

4 looking. And there's certain criteria you're

5 going to use to go we're in the right spot. 

6 MS. EISENREICH: So what happens,

7 you know, if you're in -- close to the mixing

8 zone and you take a grab sample, or the

9 sediment and you get a few invertebrates, but

10 not enough to meet analysis? Would you

11 continue to take grab samples around that area

12 until you come up with enough biomass for

13 quantification? 

14 Or is this -- because kind of how

15 I read it is then you would -- if you didn't

16 have enough you would go down, further

17 downstream --

18 MS. PLOTZKE: Right.

19 MS. EISENREICH: -- and then take

20 some from there. And that could get a little

21 troublesome because you're potentially

22 compositing organisms that are from very
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 different, potentially very different

2 exposures. And so you're kind of muting out

3 that original site, or even the other site

4 potentially. 

5 So I was wondering if you got

6 some, whatever that some is, would you just

7 continuously sample until you came up with

8 enough biomass to quantify?

9 MR. PENBERTHY: I mean, what does

10 insufficient mean here.

11 MS. EISENREICH: Yes.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Is that obvious or

13 not?

14 MR. STAPLES: That is a sufficient

15 number of samples of biomass would be -- set

16 would be analytical method. When the

17 analytical chemists and the analytical method

18 is validated we will end up with a -- we need

19 this amount of mass so we can extract the

20 sample and measure D4. So we want to make

21 sure we have much more than that. And that's

22 exactly the practice you said --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 MR. PENBERTHY: So the test plan

2 would say something like go to a spot where

3 you can get so many grams of --

4 MR. STAPLES: Ten grams or

5 whatever it is, something like that. I don't

6 know what the numbers are but that's the

7 practice we have done with the other types of

8 studies that we have done.

9 MS. EISENREICH: I guess my

10 question is let's say, just hypothetically say

11 you need 3 grams for quantification. And so

12 you're at one site and you, with one grab or

13 two samples you could get 1 gram. Are you

14 going to continuously sample at that site

15 until you make it up to the 3 grams? Or --

16 MR. STAPLES: Yes. 

17 MS. EISENREICH: Okay.

18 MR. STAPLES: Right. So, a couple

19 of things there. First of all, the mixing

20 zone discussion is in this standard with the

21 location of deciding where to collect fish.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 MR. STAPLES: It is at that point

2 then you would start looking for the nearest

3 deposition zone from that point downstream. 

4 Once we find -- and it does say in here now

5 that the sediment, the specific sampling

6 location must be within a deposition zone of

7 sufficient area to collect both sediment and

8 benthic samples. 

9 So we would collect using whatever

10 device it is, we would collect samples for

11 analysis of D4 and for bio -- the benthic

12 organisms at the same location. And we'll

13 keep sampling till we get sufficient biomass.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Now, is it common

15 for the deposition zones to be established in

16 a similar fashion as the --

17 MR. MAIT: It depends. It depends

18 on the operator. Because if they've never

19 been asked to do this kind of work under a

20 water program they may not actually know. 

21 This is not something a POTW typically does

22 themselves going out. The mixing zone is well
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 defined. They do effluent sampling. 

2 But the idea of in-stream sampling

3 would have to be driven by some other program

4 by the state or by the EPA to get that done. 

5 That's been my experience. So it may be well

6 defined. It may be speculated or it may be

7 unknown. It just depends.

8 MS. PLOTZKE: And again, so I

9 think that's why in this case we put the field

10 reconnaissance because the mixing zone would

11 be the starting point. And even if there's

12 some definition around it it still is going to

13 be very dependent on that field

14 reconnaissance.

15 MR. MAIT: Right. And the other

16 thing is they may have done it 5 years ago and

17 you've had hurricanes and floods and other

18 things and as you well know that changes

19 everything, particularly in these shallow

20 areas.

21 MS. EISENREICH: Do you have

22 caught up on potentially how far downstream is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 acceptable for sampling? I mean, if you end

2 up in a situation where it's -- I'll just

3 choose a large number, you know, rather far

4 downstream, that may not be as representative

5 for -- it might not be the best site to choose

6 in general for sampling then. So I could see

7 a potential conflict of what we need for

8 sediments and invertebrate sampling compared

9 to like the influent/effluent. 

10 So you might have a site -- I

11 guess I'm not very clear, but you might have

12 a site that's great for influent/effluent and

13 surface water sampling but might be terrible

14 for the sediment and invertebrate sampling if

15 you end up really far downstream.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean, I guess the

17 point is we'd start at the mixing zone. So,

18 you're right, you don't know how far you're

19 going to end up having to go. But

20 realistically you should be able to get to

21 that point where you'll have sufficient

22 sediment. I can't tell you --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 MS. EISENREICH: Right.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: -- or not.

3 MR. MAIT: But what you're looking

4 for it sounds like is that is there some sort

5 of cutoff where when you get beyond a certain

6 distance that bags the whole set.

7 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, exactly. I

8 guess that's the --

9 MR. STAPLES: I guess we have an

10 example of really a facility that addresses

11 that with the Lake Pepin work. Lake Pepin is

12 a depositional area, and this is upper

13 Mississippi River that receives wastewater

14 from the St. Paul-Minneapolis treatment

15 plants. We find B4, -5 and -6 in those

16 sediments. So I believe that's 50 or 100

17 miles downstream. So we'll cut it off at 50

18 or 100 miles.

19 MR. MAIT: We're going to need a

20 bigger boat, Charles.

21 MR. STAPLES: I'm not sure that

22 that's really a concern because it makes it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 downstream. We have no interest --

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, at what

3 point does it become just not meaningful. Is

4 that the issue?

5 MS. EISENREICH: Fifty to one

6 hundred miles downstream you have a lot of

7 processes that are in the works that makes it

8 -- makes analysis very difficult when looking

9 at what's in those -- 

10 MR. PENBERTHY: It's hard to

11 attribute it to that --

12 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, exactly.

13 MR. THOMAS: Would you have a

14 recommendation with respect to how far would

15 be too far?

16 MS. EISENREICH: I don't at this

17 time. I mean this is something that we have

18 to discuss. I was just -- I'm trying to get

19 a handle on kind of your specific criteria

20 that you've thought about in this description.

21 MR. STAPLES: Yes, I really -- we

22 don't have a sense and won't until we get in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 the field. I will say though that in the

2 field your selection process, we have targeted

3 very low flow -- low dilution systems. And

4 there are photographs in that report that look

5 at it. And my chances at most of these would

6 be very small receiving streams. And then

7 within a short period of time --

8 MS. EISENREICH: We're not talking

9 the Mississippi River.

10 MR. STAPLES: -- they go into a

11 much bigger stream, and then a much bigger

12 stream.

13 MS. EISENREICH: Right.

14 MR. STAPLES: So I'm hoping that

15 that will become a moot issue but those are

16 the types of facilities we're -- those are the

17 receiving waters we've had so far.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: How would you

19 normally do this? Would it be a multiple --

20 the length of the mixing zone or something?

21 MS. EISENREICH: I don't -- that's

22 what we -- I mean, you know, we're crossing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 expertise here since we just got these

2 documents not that long ago. We have to talk

3 with everybody in our group. So I'm coming at

4 it from the biology standpoint but I have to

5 talk to the physical experts to understand

6 stream flowing things and things like that.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. But I

8 think again from our perspective we've had a

9 lot of really good discussion. It would be

10 helpful to have some of those salient points

11 brought out in here. And then we can perhaps

12 both go back and talk to our experts about the

13 issue of how far downstream would we want to

14 go.

15 MS. EISENREICH: And it will take

16 us to look at the proposed sites, to the list

17 of sites that were suggested as well and

18 getting to that in depth as well which we just

19 haven't had the chance to talk across our

20 expertise . 

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I think the

22 next thing -- are we past benthic organisms?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 MS. EISENREICH: You know, there's

2 the sample size, the replicates again. We

3 would like more than two replicates.

4 I did have a question about your

5 potentially identifying the species that are

6 being collected at the highest species level. 

7 It's been done in some of the other studies,

8 just saying whether the chironomid midges --

9 what's going into the composite so we have an

10 idea of what critters were collected and put

11 as part of the composite.

12 MR. STAPLES: So, something more

13 than subject matter? I mean we don't have any

14 idea what that's going to be.

15 MS. EISENREICH: So it wasn't the

16 plan to identify at any level what is going

17 into the composite?

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: It will be once

19 we understand the site and --

20 MS. EISENREICH: Right, once we

21 understand --

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 MS. EISENREICH: Could you maybe

2 put that in here that you will be identifying

3 what's going into the composite?

4 MR. PENBERTHY: So basically what

5 are the species that make up the composite to

6 the extent they're known?

7 MS. EISENREICH: Yes. Yes, I mean

8 that's essentially where it would be

9 documented would be in the field. But

10 typically when you sieve out sediment, you

11 know, you're pulling out the invertebrates and

12 speciating them.

13 MR. STAPLES: Well, that's not

14 something we've done before in the other

15 studies. It's been done on macroinvertebrates

16 as a group. I mean, I think that there is

17 some -- like the level that you just spoke of

18 there's some crustaceans and there's some

19 annelids and there's some midges, but --

20 MS. EISENREICH: That would be

21 important. I think that's important to

22 understand, like what level. Because these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 organisms are at very different levels and it

2 might help explain the concentrations that are

3 being seen compared to other studies that have

4 been done and when they say their makeup was

5 mostly annelids. You know, there's

6 differences in the biology that could

7 potentially change concentrations just based

8 on feeding habits.

9 MR. STAPLES: Well, we can make

10 some general qualitative assessment of what's

11 in the samples.

12 MS. EISENREICH: And that's what

13 I'm asking for. I'm not saying to say there's

14 five chironomids in this sample, there's four

15 annelids, just in general what is in there so

16 we have an idea of what makes up the

17 composite.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: So it's a

19 qualitative speciation of the sample. 

20 MR. STAPLES: I don't know if

21 speciation is possible.

22 MS. EISENREICH: Well, it's not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 specie, it's to the -- the family, yes.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: All right, do we

3 have more here?

4 MS. EISENREICH: I think that's --

5 Sara, do you have anything else for the

6 invertebrates?

7 MR. PENBERTHY: One thing I had

8 about -- I know we're putting the fish and the

9 benthic organisms in the one standard. Does

10 that make sense? Because there are certain

11 different aspects of them. Should they be in

12 separate ones? Or does it matter?

13 MS. EISENREICH: I'm not sure that

14 it matters so much. I mean, I think they're -

15 -

16 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean from a

17 processing standpoint it doesn't matter. If

18 that's what you're worried about.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: I'm just -- in my

20 organizational mind I just wondered if it just

21 makes sense to split them up. I don't have a

22 preference per se, it's just I'm asking a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 question.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: You mean from --

3 typically handling biological samples it's

4 very similar. So you go from a handling,

5 processing, analytical so that's why we put

6 them together.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. On the fish

8 I did know, though, right up front. We've

9 been talking about, you know, we were talking

10 about different trophic levels and that hasn't

11 been -- I mean that was an issue in the body

12 of the ECA but that was unresolved. I mean,

13 is that something that can be accommodated? 

14 MS. PLOTZKE: That would be very

15 challenging. I don't know if you -- you guys

16 have been working together. But in this kind

17 of design it's really not designed and does

18 not have the robustness to really address

19 that.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: So you're going to

21 sample for two species of fish. Say there's

22 four there and you can't pick among the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 species to figure out.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: I mean the real key

3 is understanding -- what comes from our

4 studies that we have done is specific

5 locations, that there are a number of factors

6 that will really impact that from an exposure

7 standpoint. Concentration gradients. So if

8 you're doing a biomagnification, a trophic

9 magnification study at a specific site. There

10 is a lot more reconnaissance in sampling that

11 you do to understand those factors that would

12 go into that kind of determination that are

13 not built into this program.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: But we're just

15 trying to figure out can you sample two

16 different kinds of fish at different trophic

17 levels and measure them.

18 MS. PLOTZKE: Well, I wouldn't

19 give you the information like a bio

20 modification.

21 MS. EISENREICH: We understand

22 that this is not a trophic magnification
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 study, that it is not designed for that. But

2 it would be helpful to -- I mean because for

3 fish you have greater a lot biomass if you're

4 electroshocking you kind of get everything

5 there. Or even if you're seine netting you

6 get everything that's there. 

7 So to the extent possible it would

8 be really nice to have the low trophic level

9 feeder organism that's feeding off of sediment

10 organisms versus the higher trophic level

11 fish. Which they will exist in the same --

12 exist in the same area, especially if you're

13 doing electroshocking or seining you can

14 collect multiple different trophic level of

15 fish.

16 And so if you, like Ward was

17 saying, if you collect four species and two

18 happen to be low trophic level feeders and two

19 happen to be high trophic level feeders you

20 could take one of each and that would be two

21 different samples. And it just helps give an

22 idea of potential variability in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 concentrations in those species.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: And we do indicate

3 two species.

4 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, you did.

5 MS. PLOTZKE: So the challenge

6 will be is you get what you get kind of thing. 

7 You know, unless you're really designing the

8 study for looking for specific species. So,

9 you know, if -- you're right, we're going to

10 collect them and we're going to make sure we

11 have two different species. The challenge

12 will be do we have two different species of

13 different trophic levels or not.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, given the

15 choice obviously we're -- it would be helpful

16 if we could get the different trophic levels.

17 MR. STAPLES: Then the question

18 becomes what do you do with those data that

19 are from two different species. And although

20 you've made an assurance that you're not going

21 to do the biomagnification calculation,

22 anybody could with the data.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 The problem with collecting those

2 types of samples with a focus on a forager

3 fish and a top predator is that we don't know,

4 won't know where those fish spent most of

5 their time. Was it upstream of the facility? 

6 Downstream? Way downstream of the facility? 

7 They just happen to be at our location at the

8 moment caught. Now that's the real world

9 among fish and so they're going to integrate

10 upstream and downstream exposures. 

11 And what we have found with our

12 trophic magnification studies and the reason

13 why we do transects across broad areas is to

14 understand the variability of these broad

15 areas that these species inhabit so that we

16 can then understand the cumulative exposure at

17 each of the trophic levels. So it is not a

18 trivial exercise and we don't think it's part

19 of this ECA plan to go after truly usable

20 biomagnification data.

21 MR. DOYLE: We're just wary of

22 generating data that could be misconstrued.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 MS. PLOTZKE: We have seen other

2 people do that with just two species

3 difference. And it's really not appropriate

4 to do. So even though that's not your intent

5 the information will be there and available.

6 MS. EISENREICH: Are you going to

7 speciate the fish and provide the information

8 on what fish were analyzed? Because there's

9 also the other side of it where you can self10 select, you know, the algae-eating fish, the

11 more herbivorous fish. And that presents

12 problems in and of itself too. That's why we

13 said two different species, to try and, as

14 much as we can try and get around the

15 different feeding styles of fish. Because

16 they vary from herbivorous fish all the way up

17 to carnivorous. And I know there's variation

18 in the --

19 MS. PLOTZKE: And the species

20 will, I mean once we have them we will

21 identify what those two species are. And they

22 will be -- they're not being composited
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 together. They will be separate.

2 MS. EISENREICH: All right. And

3 that's actually another issue that I --

4 there's two sentences together that kind of

5 could be read differently. So just, I would

6 like that clarified a little bit too, that

7 they're not -- the composites are not of

8 separate fish but together. 

9 MR. STAPLES: Many of these fish

10 are rather small so they'd have to be -- we'd

11 have to have a bunch of them in order to get

12 past the --

13 MR. PENBERTHY: So how are you

14 going to pick the species of fish that you

15 sample? Or if you're going to pick two, how

16 are you going to pick them?

17 MR. STAPLES: Probably --

18 MS. PLOTZKE: Biomass.

19 MR. STAPLES: -- the two most

20 common ones.

21 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, the two most

22 common that you are able to get.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 MR. STAPLES: The two most

2 abundant ones that can be --

3 MR. PENBERTHY: How do we know

4 that that's not -- I mean we're trying to get

5 bias out of the system. 

6 MR. STAPLES: That's a way to get

7 bias out of the system.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean you

9 could pick fish you know that it's not going

10 to be there, right? That's what we're trying

11 to avoid. Where you strategically select a

12 species of fish that you test to slant the

13 results. I mean that's the concern.

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Well, they're

15 going to do some field reconnaissance to

16 identify the species that are there. And then

17 they'll go out and collect. And what they're

18 saying is that they'll look for two species

19 that are the most common fish there. But they

20 may not necessarily meet our needs for trophic

21 level.

22 MS. EISENREICH: So, when you go
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 out and assess the site and then provide us

2 the site-specific plan are you going to

3 provide the information on the numbers of

4 fish, what species they were and which -- I'm

5 just trying to get a handle on like what we're

6 going to have a say in for what species are

7 collected I guess is the question. 

8 MS. PLOTZKE: So, I mean, you'll

9 have some idea of what you should expect. But

10 I can tell you in our current sampling plan

11 you don't always get what you expect. So you

12 may think that this is the common fish you're

13 going to find, and you go out there and it's

14 not the most abundant one that you pull up. 

15 And so you may have to adjust and change. 

16 So yes, usually you have some idea

17 this area, we'll take a fish, whatever the

18 common ones, the two most common ones, that's

19 the direction that the contractor will have. 

20 But they're going to have to make some

21 decision when they're onsite collecting. If

22 they only get one and it's not enough biomass
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 of what we thought would be the most common

2 they may have to adjust that.

3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So are you,

4 Cathy -- and I'm not a fish biologist. When

5 you go out to do the site survey are you going

6 to at that point identify what fish are there?

7 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, go ahead.

8 MR. STAPLES: Let me take a step

9 back. The general process that we follow for

10 the trophic magnification studies and the

11 other monitoring programs is first we start

12 with the local department of natural resources

13 or whatever the term is for each state that

14 controls the waterways.

15 And they have knowledge of what

16 the fishery is in those waters. And so we

17 work with them basically all along the way of

18 where to sample, how to sample. They often do

19 the sampling for us. They had a laboratory

20 bring the samples back and process them. So

21 there is -- each one will be unique, each site

22 will be unique. And that will be worked out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 as we go forward. So it is from them that we

2 gain an understanding of what fish to expect.

3 Now, as Cathy said nature has a

4 way of interfering with the best-laid plans,

5 and sometimes their expectation, meaning the

6 state experts, a particular top predator

7 species, for instance, won't be there. Or

8 what has also happened is it was there one

9 year and the next year we go back and it's not

10 there anymore. So there has to be some

11 flexibility in that. 

12 That's why my suggestion is focus

13 on what's abundant on the day of sampling. 

14 And take the two species that are most

15 abundant at each location.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: So you can get some

17 pre information. And we always do as a guide. 

18 It's just that we need to ensure we have that

19 flexibility that on that day of collection we

20 have options if you're not getting what you

21 thought you were going to get when you were

22 collecting.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 MR. STAPLES: And I would say too

2 that we would try on the second sampling event

3 to get the same species.

4 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

5 MR. STAPLES: But nature may have

6 a way of interfering with that.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: This is another

8 one of those instances I guess where we just

9 don't understand, at least I don't understand

10 it, exactly how this is going to work. 

11 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So let me ask a

12 more pointed question going back to our need

13 for the two trophic levels. And I heard you

14 say that you're wary of collecting species

15 from two trophic levels because you're

16 concerned that the data may be misused not by

17 us but by others. Does that mean that you're

18 not going to collect samples from two trophic

19 levels even if they happen to be there?

20 MR. STAPLES: Well, I think that

21 we would not make an assessment of what

22 they're trophic status is. We're not going to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 study what their different trophic status --

2 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess that's

3 what we're asking for. Because, I mean, the

4 most common -- I mean really the most common

5 fish doesn't necessarily have to be the

6 driver, it's do you have fish of two different

7 trophic levels of sufficient biomass where you

8 can actually take a sample. Right?

9 MS. PLOTZKE: The other thing that

10 I think that's fair to say that we've learned

11 over time is that you may think that you have

12 two fish of two different trophic levels, but

13 when you do the appropriate markers which

14 we're not doing here you find out you don't. 

15 There's not enough separation. That is the

16 challenge.

17 MS. EISENREICH: I think one of

18 the things that we tried to clarify in the ECA

19 was that we went to more of the feeding guild,

20 like their -- what they feed on versus true

21 trophic level because of those measurements

22 that have be done to define the trophic level. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 So here we have, you know, each

2 species has -- and it's typical. It's what

3 they feed on typically. And we all know that

4 that doesn't -- it varies. So we know we

5 can't take this data and say this is -- this

6 fish belongs to this trophic level and this

7 fish belongs to this trophic level. 

8 But you can make generalities, you

9 can make general statements that typically a

10 fish feeds on -- this particular species of

11 fish feeds on the sediment layer

12 invertebrates, emerging insects coming off

13 that sediment layer. Or this species of fish

14 typically feeds on other -- it's carnivorous. 

15 It feeds on other fish. 

16 Those are the types of statements

17 that you can make. You can't make the

18 specific -- you keep referring to the trophic

19 level. And we realize the data that is

20 involved in defining a true trophic level.

21 MS. PLOTZKE: And again, I mean

22 you can do that, you can make some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 generalities of what you would expect. And

2 you're right, sometimes it turns out that way

3 -- that it's not that way. So, but you can

4 make the generalities around it.

5 And I think what's critical, back

6 to your question, is we won't -- what will

7 drive us in selecting is really the biomass 

8 piece of it. And getting enough sample

9 versus, you know, so whether they end up being

10 something that there's no one to feed on, one

11 or the other. 

12 That's not going to drive us in

13 the decision in the field. The decision in

14 the field is we need adequate samples.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Right, I

16 understand that. The issue is you have four

17 fish. You have adequate biomass with all four

18 fish. How do you pick what fish to sample? 

19 I mean, I think the one fish, two fish, red

20 fish, blue fish, you know, what is the most --

21 do I have five fish of this, or four fish of

22 that. I mean, I don't think that makes sense
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 to me. So, I mean I think that's -- how are

2 you going to pick the fish?

3 MS. EISENREICH: And I think

4 that's the problem we're having right now, you

5 know, in this conversation is how we're

6 picking the fish is not clear for either of

7 us. 

8 MR. PENBERTHY: And we're saying

9 if you have multiple species of fish and you

10 have adequate biomass of all the species can

11 you pick them basically on their feeding zone,

12 or is that -- or the feeding guild. I just

13 think that's pretty simple.

14 MR. STAPLES: And I'm not sure

15 we're going to know that even in the field. 

16 I guess we can get a fish biologist out in the

17 field working on that question. 

18 But then it comes back to how do

19 we know the details of the feeding guild. And

20 we have an excellent example that's hampered

21 us in that -- a top predator fish in a

22 reasonably well-defined food web. Okay, the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 top predator fish is known to eat two or three

2 species of other fish. Well, on the month or

3 the season in which mayflies emerge everything

4 eats mayflies, top predators to the lowest

5 predator. And so if you look at their gut

6 contents the top predator is eating the same

7 thing as a forager fish. 

8 It depends upon the situation

9 that's happening in the fishery at the time of

10 collection. It can vary. We can make

11 attempts to predict it but it changes.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we

13 understand there's uncertainties here. 

14 MR. STAPLES: So, because of those

15 uncertainties there's got to be some

16 flexibility in how we go about things in the

17 field. 

18 I think what we're proposing is we

19 take the two most abundant species, whatever

20 they are. Those will be what we go after. We

21 can commit to trying to get the same species

22 the second sample event if we can even if they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 might not be the most abundant at that time,

2 or we can just take the two most abundant the

3 second time.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we've said

5 multiple times that the most abundant, that

6 might not be the right choice from our

7 perspective. 

8 MS. EISENREICH: I think at any

9 rate that type of, you know, that language

10 needs to go in here, that --

11 MR. STAPLES: Leverage.

12 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, on how the

13 fish are being selected. And we may have to

14 have a more in-depth conversation.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

16 MR. STAPLES: I think it would be

17 helpful for us to clarify how that would be

18 applied or used in the risk assessment.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Probably don't

20 need a test to get to persistence in

21 bioaccumulation. And those are concerns we

22 have on this.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 MS. EISENREICH: It also gets at

2 variability. It helps us understand the

3 variability in the system as well. And in our

4 risk assessment we try and eliminate

5 uncertainties and variability for obvious

6 reasons. I see that as also a big -- probably

7 the main contributor to having the two

8 different feeding guilds if possible. Because

9 it helps us get at some of that uncertainty.

10 MS. PLOTZKE: We can put some

11 criteria. I hope you're right, I hope this is

12 a situation where we get an abundance --

13 MR. STAPLES: We get all these --

14 MS. PLOTZKE: -- but you just

15 never know.

16 MS. EISENREICH: I know we're

17 talking ideally here, and I know that we're

18 all aware of the environmental variabilities. 

19 And I think we agree that there has to be

20 flexibility otherwise we'll end up with

21 nothing.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: It all gets down
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 to given the choice what you would do.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. We can put

3 some criteria around that.

4 MR. THOMAS: And part of it is

5 practicality too. I mean the folks that might

6 be collecting the samples may not be as

7 knowledgeable about fish and what they eat. 

8 You know, they may not be Ph.D. scientists in

9 all cases. So I think it's a practical

10 consideration.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. If you're

12 going to talk to the natural resource guys who

13 says these four species are likely to be

14 there, and the guy says given a choice which

15 ones are you going to take. I mean, not that

16 complicated.

17 MR. MAIT: We can offer I think

18 general guidance. But I do agree with

19 Karloss. If we're sending people out in the

20 field they need to be told what they can do.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: That's the whole

22 point of the test standards is they know what
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 --

2 MR. MAIT: Well, no, the test

3 standards is just a guide. It's the study

4 plan that tells them what to do.

5 MR. PENBERTHY: Right, but that --

6 MR. MAIT: I don't want him off

7 going somewhere over here and we have to come

8 back in this room and discuss why we had the

9 deviation.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

11 MR. MAIT: Okay?

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Absolutely. 

13 Definitely. That's a good goal. All right,

14 where are we?

15 MS. EISENREICH: I think we're on

16 the analysis of the biota samples. But here

17 it's the same look at the conversation of the

18 PQL. 

19 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Right. And may

20 I go back for a moment? There was one other

21 question I had on the collection of fish

22 samples. It's the top of the second paragraph
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 where you talk about reference fish samples

2 with very low or non-detectable. 

3 And it's the same question that I

4 had before, is there a specific criteria that

5 you use for the very low detectable

6 concentrations. If you can clarify that. 

7 Okay. Right. And then under analysis the PQL

8 issue.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: And we did clarify

10 the composite survey, right?

11 MS. EISENREICH: Yes, right.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Right.

13 MS. EISENREICH: I do have a

14 question on composites. If you had a fish

15 that was big enough to meet your biomass would

16 you do a composite then? Or would you just

17 take a one fish?

18 MR. STAPLES: Well, we might have

19 to throw it back if it's that big.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MS. PLOTZKE: There are some

22 limitations on how to process. I'm trying to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 think how big. 

2 MS. EISENREICH: Well, I guess I

3 just to go back to like some of the sampling

4 that I've done in the past. I just use it as

5 sort of a benchmark. We typically use it

6 regarding a sample. And I know it's going to

7 be different -- obviously this is chemical

8 dependent. 

9 You know, we're oftentimes in the

10 monitoring program that I was part of would

11 get fish that were greater than 3 grams where

12 we wouldn't composite samples. We would take

13 a single fish.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Is there a

15 preferred approach?

16 MS. EISENREICH: I just wanted

17 clarification. I didn't get that in there.

18 MS. PLOTZKE: Okay, we can clarify

19 that. 

20 MS. EISENREICH: It's more of a

21 case of we should know what's being composited

22 and what's not.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 MS. PLOTZKE: Right.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I

3 understand.

4 MS. EISENREICH: But I don't want

5 species composited across -- I don't want

6 composites across species.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct. Okay,

8 where are we here?

9 MS. EISENREICH: The GLP is the

10 same. Same issue with the GLPs.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Is the number of

12 samples a similar issue?

13 MS. EISENREICH: Yes.

14 MR. STAPLES: I know you're

15 sensitive to the number of samples but this is

16 particularly important with the benthic

17 invertebrates in terms of how many grab

18 samples you need to get a lot of replicates. 

19 And there may be some practical limitations to

20 that capability. 

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 

22 MS. EISENREICH: But in the end
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 two is still not sufficient. I mean, three is

2 your absolute minimum requirement for

3 statistical variability and just calculating

4 general means in general basic statistics. So

5 three is your absolute minimum requirement

6 which is why we say two is not adequate. And

7 a sample size of three barely gets at

8 variability. That's just what's minimally

9 statistically required.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: I noticed in this

11 detection level there was a wet -- there's a

12 wet basis, expressed as a wet basis. Is that

13 warm?

14 MS. EISENREICH: For the fish. Or

15 actually for both. It should be --

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Wet?

17 MS. EISENREICH: Wet weight, yes.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, and again

19 we'll have to -- at some point we're going to

20 have to specify what we believe is necessary

21 for the detection level for our risk

22 assessment. So we're going to be working on
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 that. 

2 Okay. Anything else on this?

3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: That's all I

4 had.

5 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, it's 12:30. 

6 Do you all want to keep going or do you want

7 to break for lunch?

8 MR. STAPLES: Maybe go through and

9 just finish the standards? 

10 MS. PLOTZKE: Are we done with the

11 standards? 

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we have

13 sediment and we have biosolids. 

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Just take a quick

15 break?

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay with me. All

17 right, that would be a good breaking point I

18 think. And then we can do the POTWs after

19 lunch. Very good. 

20 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter

21 went off the record at 12:28 p.m. and went

22 back on the record at 12:42 p.m.)
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 MR. SELTZER: Folks on the phone,

2 we're starting to get in the room. I heard

3 one beep on the phone earlier, someone didn't

4 announce their name.

5 MS. DUMARS: Yes, hi, it's Lisa

6 Dumars from Momentive. I wanted to not

7 interrupt you. I was late, I apologize.

8 MR. SELTZER: Thanks a lot, Lisa.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we have

10 similar -- 

11 MR. SELTZER: Can everyone on the

12 phone hear all right? Or should we move

13 microphones down slightly? If everybody

14 sounds all right.

15 MS. DUMARS: We can hear everybody

16 fairly well. Cathy -- I believe it's Cathy

17 Fehrenbacher --

18 MR. SELTZER: I'm going to move my

19 mike a little bit closer to her when she

20 talks.

21 MS. DUMARS: That would be great,

22 thank you.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 MR. SELTZER: All right, no

2 problem.

3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So I think our

4 comments for sediments are very similar to

5 what we had for the other test standards. So

6 I'll go through them quickly for you.

7 So we talked about the deposition

8 zone and the field reconnaissance and adding

9 some more information there on the salient

10 points. We talked about the number of

11 samples, two, being insufficient for our

12 purposes. 

13 We talked about -- this is under

14 collection of sediment samples on page 2. We

15 talked about adding more high-level salient

16 points for the references that you've

17 included. 

18 In the second paragraph there's

19 another statement about the referenced

20 sediment samples. So if you have a criteria

21 that you utilize in your lab if you could

22 include that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 And let's see. On the next page,

2 top of page 3 again you have the Powell and

3 Woodburne citation. 

4 And then moving onto the next

5 paragraph on the analysis I think we discussed

6 some of the qualifications for the commercial

7 testing laboratories and the concern about the

8 practical quantitation limit and the method

9 detection limit. And as Ward has said, we'll

10 get back to you on that.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Is sediment, is

12 that a wet weight standard? The detection

13 limit. 

14 MR. STAPLES: It is a wet weight

15 concentration unit. The reason for that is

16 the sediment samples, that's not actually

17 dried during the extraction procedure. We are

18 going to measure water content anyway so that

19 we can convert the units to dry weight which

20 is more conventional.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 was a very high-level, quick overview of our

2 comments. But there's some more to the

3 comments on the other test standards. I don't

4 know if folks have other comments. Karen? 

5 Sara? 

6 MS. EISENREICH: Pretty much the

7 same.

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. 

9 MR. PENBERTHY: They should

10 parallel the biota.

11 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. Should

12 we move on to biosolids?

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Sure. That would

14 be great.

15 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So,

16 moving onto biosolids. On the first page

17 additional clarity under establishment of the

18 location. Additional clarity on the point of

19 release and where you plan to take the samples

20 would be helpful there. It wasn't really

21 clear.

22 MR. STAPLES: On which page and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 paragraph?

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Page 1, the

3 paragraph titled establishment of the location

4 for biosolid sample collection. 

5 MR. STAPLES: We cannot give you

6 specificity until we go with a facility and

7 see what they have on the biosolids.

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I know, but --

9 but you're talking about the biosolids release

10 point. And it's not clear to me what you mean

11 by that.

12 MR. STAPLES: The biosolids

13 release point is they can find an ECA text

14 that you put in there. So you can tell us

15 what you mean by the release point. If it's

16 something not understandable. 

17 To us it meant the -- I think in

18 standard practice it means right when the

19 biosolid is ready to leave the facility. It

20 might be trucks, it might be in some other

21 fashion, but it's as it's leaving. So that's

22 our understanding of it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 Within some of the guidance that

2 were cited later it talks about figuring out

3 what that is. But it's unique to the

4 facility. We don't know if that's going to be

5 a truck a day, a truck an hour or some other

6 process. 

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. We

8 should -- we'll go back and look at that and

9 get back to you.

10 MR. STAPLES: And I do want to

11 emphasize that we did not think that it meant

12 sampling within the biosolid processing stage

13 within the facility. It is whatever is

14 leaving the facility to go be landfilled or

15 incinerated or put on land or soil.

16 MR. MAIT: Normally it's a hopper. 

17 There's some kind of a hopper of some kind. 

18 Whether it's theirs and then they process it

19 through their incinerator, or it's a

20 contractor's 40-yard box that sits there and

21 the truck comes and picks it up and takes it

22 away. It's a rolling box. We did not think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 it was the final centrifuge prior to de-water

2 or something like that.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: So it comes out of

4 the centrifuge into the hopper and then it can

5 sit there.

6 MR. MAIT: Could be a centrifuge. 

7 Could be a belt filter. Could be a DAF unit. 

8 Could be a variety of different things.

9 MR. STAPLES: Some are composted

10 at a water well. So they sit in piles and

11 every so often you turn the pile over and one

12 day fill up trucks and drive it away. So it's

13 as the material leaves the facility and goes

14 out away from their control.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, so why don't

16 we leave the -- why don't we work on that to

17 make sure that that's what we require.

18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And we

19 can clarify that in the ECAs as well.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And then

22 at the top of page 2 we have language, again
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 we talked about this in the other standards,

2 the special considerations and having

3 additional information, the salient points of

4 what some of those special considerations

5 would be.

6 The number of samples. We've

7 discussed that adding -- under collection and

8 biosolid samples. So these would be

9 composited samples and I think that makes

10 sense.

11 And then including the salient

12 points from some of the references and any

13 qualifications for the analytical

14 laboratories. You have another statement in

15 the next paragraph about the reference and

16 here it says sediment samples. But are you

17 going to use sediment for the reference for

18 biosolids?

19 MR. STAPLES: Yes, that is

20 correct. We do not feel that -- we have no

21 experience with spiking biosolids. And the

22 relevance of that particular matrix, how you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 mix it and so forth. 

2 But we do have experience with

3 reference sediment samples. And because the

4 analytical minds were biosolids are very

5 similar to the sediment we thought the true

6 and useful quality assurance steps.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: What does two

8 composited samples mean?

9 MR. STAPLES: For the biosolids it

10 is not a time composite. What this means is

11 that, for instance, we describe a 40-ton box. 

12 It may be dump trucks or however it's removed

13 from facilities. The samples would be taken

14 at multiple locations within that box and

15 composited into one sample. 

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

17 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And

18 then, so we were talking about the reference

19 sediment samples and the very low or non20 detectable. So if you could clarify that.

21 DR. MCNETT: This is Debbie

22 McNett. The reason for using sediment in this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 case is anticipating the difficulty in finding

2 low or very low biosolid samples to use as a

3 reference field collection. 

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And then

5 under the analysis of biosolids, the

6 qualifications of the commercial laboratory. 

7 And then any additional

8 information that you have regarding the

9 adaptation of the analytical method. I don't

10 know if you've given that any thought. Are

11 there --

12 MR. STAPLES: I'm sorry, I don't

13 understand.

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Are there

15 specific adaptations that you believe will

16 need to be made from the analytical method for

17 biosolids?

18 MR. STAPLES: Well, we already

19 have a method that's been worked out for

20 biosolids. This is your --

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

22 MR. STAPLES: It was adapted from
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 the sediment method but it has worked with

2 actual biosolid samples from a facility local

3 to the laboratory.

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. I was

5 just I guess reacting to the language here

6 that says the laboratory, the commercial lab

7 will validate a method that shall be adapted

8 from the Knoerr method.

9 MS. PLOTZKE: I think when we go

10 back with the references and pull up some of

11 the high-level we'll specify that.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

13 MR. STAPLES: Yes, in all cases

14 what the commercial lab would do with this is

15 adapt the existing methods into their facility

16 using their implements and their method.

17 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

18 MR. STAPLES: Their personnel.

19 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And then

20 on page 3 we have the same sorts of questions

21 on the PQL and the limit of detection. We'll

22 go back and look at the limit of detection. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 And then the GLPs. 

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Everybody

3 is tuckered out. So, do we have anything else

4 to discuss here? So you guys, it's almost 1

5 o'clock. What time do you -- how much time do

6 you need? There's a food court right down in

7 the Reagan Building, in the basement of the

8 Reagan Building. Forty-five minutes? Is that

9 -- it shouldn't take much longer than that. 

10 MS. PLOTZKE: Probably coming back

11 around 1:30?

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, sure, 1:30. 

13 Let's try it for 1:30.

14 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter

15 went off the record at 12:57 p.m. and went

16 back on the record at 1:49 p.m.)

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, how do you

18 want to proceed? I mean you have two

19 documents I think related to this. One is the

20 -- I guess your member company accounting and

21 then there's a document. 

22 MR. THOMAS: Why don't we start
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 with just the work done by ERM to identify the

2 candidate POTWs. 

3 And I just want to start with just

4 a brief overview of how we developed this

5 document. We essentially asked ERM to develop

6 a list of candidate POTWs that met the

7 criteria that we had previously agreed to

8 using publicly available information. I think

9 that's going to be part of the key here

10 because they had to use publicly available

11 information to kind of use those criteria that

12 were established to identify the candidate

13 POTWs.

14 I do want to emphasize that these

15 are intended to be candidate recommendations. 

16 So to the extent that there are suggestions or

17 possibilities of adding other sites we're

18 certainly welcome to consider those.

19 In addition, based on the

20 discussion we had this morning it sounds like

21 we have potentially two other criteria that

22 we're going to be thinking about in terms of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 identifying the final list. The one thing we

2 talked about is identifying POTWs where the

3 mixing zone is already well established as

4 part of the operating permit for the facility. 

5 The other thing that we talked about a little

6 bit was potentially identifying sites to

7 minimize to the extent that we can the

8 distance between the mixing zone and the

9 deposition zone. 

10 So I think those are two things

11 that were discussed this morning. And again

12 we don't have any real hard and fast -- we're

13 not wedded to this in any way. Again, this

14 was just some methodology that was used to

15 identify candidate sites.

16 The other document, Ward, that you

17 mentioned is a separate listing of those POTWs

18 associated with our member indirect

19 facilities. We had a lot of discussion about

20 that previously so we just wanted to be

21 transparent about those sites and why they

22 either weren't included or were included. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 Those that were not were primarily excluded on

2 the basis of criteria that were established by

3 the agency. Again, we're not opposed to

4 having additional discussions about the

5 appropriateness of adding those back in or

6 not. Does that make sense?

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes.

8 MR. THOMAS: Okay. So, I don't

9 want to go through this document in detail. 

10 I think the most relevant parts of it with

11 respect to how the sites were identified. And

12 I'll start with those sites that are intended

13 to be representative of industrial sites. 

14 On page 3, section 2.3 walks

15 through that methodology. It essentially

16 involves using EPA databases. The ECHO

17 database was used in this case to identify

18 those sites that were --

19 MR. TOBIAS: Sorry. Are we

20 talking about the --

21 MR. THOMAS: This is the ERM

22 report, page 3, section 2.3. List of POTWs
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 that received discharges from the identified

2 users. So these are going to be the

3 industrial POTWs. And they kind of walk

4 through how they identified those sites. And

5 I'm not going to read through that.

6 I think the table on page 14 has a

7 graphical representation of how the sites were

8 identified. They start with the two

9 databases, the EPA Reach database and the

10 iSTREEM database and use those to identify

11 those sites that are activated sludge sites,

12 roughly 5,000. 

13 And then from there there's a

14 separate effort to identify those that have a

15 dilution factor less than 3. And then there

16 they try to by individual state identify those

17 sites that met the criteria of having a

18 dilution factor of less than 3 and had a

19 population that was larger than the criteria

20 that we identified.

21 And then from there they contacted

22 POTWs and based on discussions with the POTW
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 operators they came to a final candidate list

2 of both residential POTWs and industrial

3 POTWs. And it's those discussions with the

4 POTW operators that allowed them to get at a

5 number of those factors that you can't get an

6 understanding of using publicly available

7 information. 

8 So I'll stop there briefly and see

9 if there are any questions on the criteria and

10 so forth before we delve into the specific

11 sites.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess we don't

13 know for sure from the methodology whether

14 there in fact is a site that's actually

15 discharging D4 from the selection methods. I

16 mean, so how do we know that there's actually

17 a D4 source in any of the POTWs selected? 

18 MR. THOMAS: Well, we can -- I

19 think there are certainly things we can talk

20 about from the standpoint of confirming

21 whether those sites receive effluent from an

22 industrial site that uses D4. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 But the whole basis of the

2 methodology for the industrial uses was based

3 on use of D4. So they identified a number of

4 uses of D4 and I think they are identified on

5 the basis of NAICS codes. 

6 And then they identified specific

7 facilities that used those codes. And that

8 was the basis for the -- all of the industrial

9 sites.

10 Now we can separately talk about

11 ways that we can confirm that. Some of those

12 we're going to have difficulty from a trade

13 association standpoint because of antitrust.

14 I think one of the options might

15 be to work with the specific POTWs to try to

16 get confirmation of that. And I think that's

17 something that they can help us with. 

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, that would be

19 helpful. Because the categories, the use

20 categories in the exposed air broad and

21 there's no guarantee that there's D4 there to

22 be measured. Somehow there has to be --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 MR. THOMAS: For each of the sites

2 --

3 MR. PENBERTHY: -- a known source.

4 MR. THOMAS: -- if you look at

5 Table 2 I think lists the specific industries

6 discharging to the non-POTWs. I think we can

7 make a reasonable assumption about many of

8 those with respect to whether they use D4.

9 MR. MAIT: From this basis, Ward,

10 the idea would be, as Karloss was mentioning,

11 there needs to be an additional refinement

12 when you vet the final POTW where we would be

13 encouraging the POTW operator to basically

14 survey their permitted indirect dischargers

15 with some sort of, let's say a survey form, to

16 affirm or not affirm that they have D4 as part

17 of their processing formulating or otherwise

18 used. So something along those lines to

19 basically -- because we figured this would be

20 a topic. 

21 But at this point we're not at

22 that level. There's no way to do this without
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 us sort of -- you know, I can sit here and go

2 through this just from my own knowledge of

3 manufacturing and the use of the product and

4 surmise that it's likely to be there. But I

5 can't guarantee it. And I'm not in a position

6 to affirm that a company in this list does in

7 fact procure D4 in some way from somebody. 

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Was there a

9 list of questions that you asked POTWs? 

10 MR. MAIT: Well, that's how this

11 Table 1 was created. There was a series of

12 queries.

13 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I was just

14 wondering if it would be helpful for you to

15 share that list of questions with us. It

16 might give us insight into how we will, you

17 know, the process that you used for narrowing

18 the list down.

19 MR. THOMAS: Now, some of that is

20 mentioned in the methodology. On page 4 the

21 last few bullets, the last one in particular,

22 they note that the POTWs were contacted to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 determine if it was an activated sludge plan,

2 if there was access points to the receiving

3 water, if the plant would be willing to

4 participate in the monitoring program. So I

5 think most of that is already here.

6 In addition, on the -- for the

7 residential POTWs another one of the questions

8 that was asked was whether they received less

9 than 15 percent of their influent from

10 industrial sources or users of D4. So I think

11 all of that is here.

12 Now, certainly when we go through

13 the next step of further refinement I think

14 there are going to need to be some additional

15 questions. 

16 Again, this morning we talked

17 about whether there is a mixing zone that's

18 well established. That's probably a

19 reasonable question we want to ask. 

20 There's also some -- we talked a

21 little bit about how far the deposition zone

22 was from the mixing zone. That's something
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 else we can get a sense for. 

2 But I think once we go through the

3 next step of refinement something we certainly

4 want to do with good input from EPA and also

5 NACWA but there are several other questions we

6 want to get specific answers back from the

7 operators of the POTWS.

8 MR. AVCIN: Karloss, do you know,

9 going back to Table 2 for just a second, why

10 four POTWs were left from discharger columns?

11 MR. THOMAS: I suspect they

12 weren't able to get that information. 

13 MR. AVCIN: They didn't ask. 

14 MR. THOMAS: They didn't get the

15 details yet.

16 MR. AVCIN: Okay. But there's

17 still -- despite that, you're asserting that

18 there's still some belief that they would

19 receive D4 materials from process

20 reformulators?

21 MR. THOMAS: Right. I mean, they

22 walked through their methodology to identify
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 those sites that they thought would likely

2 process D4. And all of those are listed here

3 as the nine.

4 And then they contacted each of

5 those POTWs to try to get a sense for who they

6 were receiving effluent from.

7 MR. AVCIN: Okay.

8 MR. THOMAS: And those that

9 provided that information, it's all listed

10 here. Apparently for a couple of them they

11 were not able to get that information by the

12 time they developed this report.

13 MR. DOYLE: So they were sites

14 that met the NAIC criteria. 

15 MR. AVCIN: Okay. Because I was

16 just wondering how did they get to the point

17 of being contacted if that information was

18 apparently absent initially.

19 MR. MAIT: It was because of the -

20 - yes, it was because of the basic -- the

21 industry codes that were associated with those

22 POTWs. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 Because as what we're doing here,

2 we're going from we don't know anything to a

3 list of likely facilities that with a certain

4 level of confidence we feel that they would be

5 receiving from industrial sources materials

6 associated with a processing reformulator of

7 D4. 

8 Now, the certainly factor is not

9 here yet. And I think that's the only point

10 we're making is that we can't tell you for

11 certain that if I go in here and I pick one of

12 these guys and say do I know that they in fact

13 do that, I can't tell you yes or no. 

14 I can tell you by virtue of what

15 they do for a living the likelihood that they

16 don't do it is kind of remote. But again,

17 that will have to be sort of facts developed

18 on the ground. So I mean that's part of the

19 vetting process to the next level.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: Can we go back to

21 maybe review some of our past discussions? We

22 might have contributed to some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 misunderstanding here based on how we added

2 some language to Appendix 2 of the ECA which

3 describes how you get the indirect sites.

4 When we first started it you all

5 had direct discharge sites and those seemed to

6 be relatively established. And then you had

7 a list of indirect discharge sites and we were

8 interested in monitoring the indirect

9 discharge sites. 

10 And then the question came up,

11 well, are there other sites that are indirect

12 dischargers to substitute those. And then we

13 didn't have a problem with that.

14 But I think what's happened in the

15 Appendix 2, we sort of overlap some of the

16 population stuff in there that was probably

17 not intentional. Probably an error on our

18 part.

19 And I think -- I think there is

20 some good value in getting at the monitoring

21 at the indirect sites from which we absolutely

22 know that there is a D4 discharge at some of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 the companies you have on your other list. 

2 Because there's certainly there, right? 

3 Because there is a wastewater discharge. 

4 And so that might be something we need to talk

5 about. And then --

6 MR. MAIT: So, are you suggesting

7 that you would be modifying Appendix 2 to make

8 that clear?

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean I

10 think Appendix 2 is a little bit misleading

11 from what our conversations were.

12 MR. MAIT: Because it's the issue

13 of weighting criteria. 

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

15 MR. MAIT: So the problem is is we

16 have to be methodical about this.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct.

18 MR. MAIT: Because we don't want

19 to be just picking and choosing winners and

20 losers.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: I understand. 

22 We're not winners and losers. We're all
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 winners here.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. MAIT: I didn't say which way

4 you meant. 

5 MR. PENBERTHY: If you look at

6 Appendix 2 all sites monitored shall use

7 activated sludge. Okay, we're certainly in

8 agreement with this.

9 And then consideration again of

10 whether POTW treats other industrial sources

11 of wastewater. You know, apart from the D4. 

12 And then that's fair enough.

13 I think where we might have been

14 not as accurate as we should have is in the

15 next one where we sort of overlay this

16 population type thing which I think is a

17 remnant from Appendix 3. And then also

18 geography was an issue. And then we wanted

19 river systems.

20 You know, I think for purposes of

21 the direct sites what we wanted to be sure to

22 have was activated sludge POTWs that are on a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 river with a certain release of D4. And we're

2 less concerned about those other factors.

3 And so there may be sites on the

4 list that have been -- that we could just put

5 in, drop in, irrespective of the selection

6 procedure. But, so I'm just bringing that up.

7 MR. THOMAS: So, would your

8 expectation be that those sites that would be

9 dropped back in, would they meet the criteria

10 that we talked about for having activated

11 sludge and also having --

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Activated sludge

13 be on a river and then maybe geography is a

14 piece of that.

15 MR. THOMAS: Dilution not so

16 important? 

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, I don't think

18 so. Because with their known source. There's

19 no doubt about that.

20 MR. MAIT: Okay. I guess from my

21 point of view I would like that section of

22 Appendix 2 to sort of reflect the weighting of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 factors in that way. Otherwise, it does

2 appear that you're introducing a particular

3 bias to this where someone is going to ask you

4 how did you pick that one and you said I just

5 decided to. Right?

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Fair enough.

7 MR. MAIT: All we did is follow

8 the logic of the criteria that was proposed. 

9 And that's explicitly why you got the list of

10 our indirect sites, why they were screened in

11 or screened out, because the criteria was

12 driving the selection.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. And the

14 problem we had was in that third criteria. We

15 probably overemphasized that, or maybe

16 shouldn't have even included it.

17 MR. MAIT: Because I can't speak

18 for everybody here, I know I can speak for

19 Evonik, I have no problem if you sample the

20 POTW in Hopewell.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So, anyway. 

22 I mean -- I guess you know the answer.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 MR. MAIT: Yes. And I can offer

2 that the agency has been there many times

3 before. So it wouldn't be the first time.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: All right. Fair

5 enough. I mean, so anyway, I guess how do we

6 understand from the list of candidates how are

7 we going to get to -- is there a D4 source,

8 and is it really -- is there going to be a

9 discerning of how big that source has to be?

10 MR. THOMAS: Well, now that was

11 never considered. The size of the source was

12 never a consideration.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Right, but it has

14 to be -- there has to be a source that you're

15 measuring, right? Because that's the intent,

16 right?

17 MR. THOMAS: Well, I thought what

18 we were measuring were sites that receive

19 influent from a facility that uses D4. How

20 much D4 they were using I didn't --

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct. But if

22 they use a kilogram that's a lot different. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 You know, that's not meaningful. If they use,

2 you know, a very much larger volume, that's

3 different. You know, we want an industrial

4 source, not a trivial source.

5 MR. THOMAS: Sure. But that kind

6 of information would be difficult for us to

7 try and get. I hear Trent about to speak up.

8 MR. DOYLE: We can know our

9 sources or our facilities. But to get at that

10 information from all these other facilities.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

12 MR. DOYLE: So, I guess then

13 maybe, just to follow up on that. So I guess

14 then if we want to sort of re-craft or

15 redefine the criteria so that they end up with

16 just five sites that coincide with our five

17 sites, I guess we need to sort of engineer

18 what the criteria are to get us there.

19 MS. PLOTZKE: I don't even think

20 we can get there.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: We don't five

22 sites.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 MR. DOYLE: That's --

2 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: I know there's

4 maybe one or two in your list that are

5 indirect discharges that would be useful. And

6 then the other three --

7 MR. MAIT: And I would just offer

8 to you, Ward, that even though there may be

9 member sites that you're interested in, when

10 you suggest the criteria, well, they have to

11 be a big user, take care. We're all different

12 sizes. Okay? So.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: But do you -- I

14 mean, I think the fact that you actually are

15 known to process D4 --

16 MR. MAIT: But that's the same

17 contention if I go to somebody who uses a

18 defoamer and he uses 1 ton a year. Okay? And

19 his effluent is 1 million gallons a day. The

20 expectation is he's probably used it in a way

21 that he doesn't really want to lose that much. 

22 So frankly you're still back in the same
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 quandary of you have to have a level of

2 criteria that we can pick.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: But you've got to

4 be objective in monitoring. We still

5 understand the wastewater concentrations of D4

6 for processors and reformulators. So we need

7 to know are there -- is there --

8 MR. MAIT: But what you're only

9 going to get is you're only going to get

10 what's going into the wastewater treatment

11 plant. You're not going to get a volume basis

12 on what that individual manufacturer in this

13 list is doing. All you're going to get is an

14 --

15 MR. PENBERTHY: If you want some

16 number of -- something of D4 to be in the

17 influent there has to be a concentration of D4

18 in the influent. Right?

19 MR. MAIT: I hate to go all the

20 way back but there was a proposal almost 2

21 years ago where that was what we were planning

22 on doing, to screen in and screen out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 facilities that would fit the criteria. 

2 That's not where we are today.

3 The only way you know that -- I

4 don't know it a priori. I don't think anybody

5 in this room could predict.

6 What you can find out is do you

7 use it. And these sort of surveys go from

8 POTW operators to their permittees and say do

9 you use this material. And they say yes or

10 no. 

11 I don't think any of them have a

12 quantification that they're going to offer in

13 terms of -- they probably don't even know

14 what's in the wastewater. That's sort of what

15 our project is.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: How do we

17 establish that there's actually D4 being

18 treated?

19 MR. THOMAS: We can confirm

20 whether the facilities that are discharging to

21 the POTWs use D4. 

22 MR. MAIT: I mean, the point I'm
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 making is we would do the same thing that

2 under any water program. If they're

3 attempting to look at a new regulation they go

4 out and they survey the folks that discharge

5 to that facility and they make an affirmative

6 yes or no, do you use or not use. And there's

7 a definition in terms of what "use" means. 

8 And you get an affirmative yes or no.

9 But part of the program is to

10 quantify that. That's the objective. You're

11 not going to have the quantification a priori. 

12 You're going to have an affirmative yes, it is

13 there in some form.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So we need

15 to work out what that --

16 MR. MAIT: I mean that was the

17 suggestion we just made was that would be part

18 of the next step here is to go back to these

19 folks and ask through NACWA as well as the

20 POTW operators to take care of this survey. 

21 So we do in fact -- I don't think

22 we want to start the program and do it and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 find out -- some of these guys may have closed

2 up shop. 

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. Fair enough.

4 MR. THOMAS: And if you guys have

5 specific suggestions in addition to what we've

6 mentioned. Because again our next vetting

7 phase essentially is going to attempt to

8 confirm whether these facilities use D4. And

9 probably the best instrument that we could

10 offer to do that would be some form of a

11 survey. 

12 If there are other suggestions

13 that you have with respect to how we might

14 better do that I think we'd be happy to hear

15 about it. Short of us trying to quantify it.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

17 MR. AVCIN: Can I ask a question

18 with respect to one of your sites? The Dow

19 site at Auburn. The excluding factor there

20 was a combined sewer. 

21 What does that mean? I mean

22 aren't all sewers, you know, at some point
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 combined before they lead to a POTW?

2 MS. PLOTZKE: No.

3 MR. MAIT: Combined sewer means

4 industrial with sanitary.

5 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

6 MR. MAIT: So you've now mixed

7 residential with industrial. That's what a

8 combined sewer is.

9 MR. TOBIAS: I mean that was true

10 for some of the direct releases too. They

11 would have -- their facility sanitary waste

12 continued, their total waste treatment --

13 isn't that's correct?

14 MS. PLOTZKE: Well, not if they're

15 direct.

16 MR. TOBIAS: No, from the facility

17 where the direct operator was. If that whole

18 facility's waste went in their treatment so

19 the toilets in the manufacturing plant, I mean

20 the whole thing went to their remote permit

21 release site. That's what I thought the

22 emphasis on the direct was.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 MR. MAIT: An indirect site has a

2 combined onsite. An indirect site where your

3 sanitary and industrial are commingled before

4 they're discharged in the POTW. 

5 So it's not a pure -- normally --

6 it can be done different ways. But if you

7 combine sanitary with your industrial there

8 are requirements for disinfection and so on

9 that apply that requires a plant to do

10 treatment prior to release. 

11 So, with that being said the sites

12 we're suggesting are purely industrial

13 effluent from manufacturing, not combined with

14 the showers and the bathrooms and so on. That

15 was also part of what we understood the

16 criteria to be. 

17 MR. PENBERTHY: So, maybe I'm

18 still not getting this. Okay, you have POTWs. 

19 Some of them are -- the indirect sites are

20 receiving in the industrial a D4 wastewater

21 stream. And they're also receiving streams

22 from residential sources, right? So how is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 that different? How is that different than

2 this combined sewer scenario? 

3 MR. AVCIN: Yes. I mean you're

4 saying that all of the nine potential

5 candidates on Table 2, none of those -- not in

6 that situation? 

7 MR. PENBERTHY: But they must have

8 residential components --

9 MS. PLOTZKE: There is one that is

10 on the list. So the TGI one is on the list.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: But, isn't the

12 nature of any POTW that treats industrial

13 wastewater, isn't that automatically a

14 combined sewer? It comes down in a stream,

15 right?

16 MS. PLOTZKE: Not necessarily. I

17 mean, so -- and then the other thing too is it

18 depends on what's on the site. So, whether

19 it's a pure manufacturing site versus

20 basically combined with either other sites or

21 residential areas. 

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, but going
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 back to the other plan -- it's a combined

2 source. It has an industrial component in its

3 wastewater it treats and it has a sanitary

4 sewer.

5 MS. PLOTZKE: Right.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Combined in the

7 wastewater it treats. But isn't that the same

8 circumstances any POTW -- that it treats in a

9 direct discharge? That they have an

10 industrial component and a sanitary component?

11 MS. PLOTZKE: That's going into

12 them, yes.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: All right, I'm

14 still not getting something.

15 MR. AVCIN: I know. Because I was

16 thinking that all of those sites in Table 2,

17 you know, with these multiple industries that

18 are discharging into the -- there's

19 uncertainty there that you would naturally

20 think they're going to be non-industrial

21 contributions to the levels.

22 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, we can go back
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 and take a look at it and see.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: I'm trying to

3 figure out if it's just a misunderstanding on

4 my part. I just don't understand. Isn't any

5 POTW that treats industrial wastewater and

6 residential wastewater basically treating a

7 combined sewer?

8 MR. MAIT: Well, normally your

9 sanitary is handled separately. You don't

10 normally mix -- if you have an industrial

11 effluent they usually have two sewer systems. 

12 You know, I have an industrial sewer system

13 that manages the industrial waste. You don't

14 typically want to combine that with domestic

15 waste because then you're essentially having

16 to go through a disinfection process on

17 industrial waste that's unnecessary. 

18 MR. FLACK: But then they will get

19 combined to be a common outflow.

20 MR. MAIT: Common outflow.

21 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

22 MR. MAIT: So influent to the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 site, you typically have the sanitary

2 wastewater plant here, the industrial bypasses

3 that. Then there's a combined process

4 someplace later. So you now have them mixed.

5 MR. PENBERTHY: And the combined

6 sewer systems, that's when --

7 MR. MAIT: It's combined

8 beforehand.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

10 MR. FLACK: And don't forget

11 storm. That's also --

12 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, that part of

14 the combined?

15 MR. MAIT: Yes.

16 MS. PLOTZKE: And your various --

17 MR. MAIT: But we can go back and

18 look at their criteria that they used in that. 

19 That's not a problem. 

20 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. And then

21 the other one, the Midland plant that

22 discharged to private treatment plant.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 MS. PLOTZKE: That's correct.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: So what does that

3 precisely mean?

4 MS. PLOTZKE: Privately owned

5 wastewater treatment plant.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: So, but it's not a

7 Dow-owned wastewater?

8 MS. PLOTZKE: No.

9 MR. LEWIS: And what does the

10 discharge look like?

11 MS. PLOTZKE: Not very sure where

12 it goes into -- not sure which one of the

13 municipal it goes to -- oh, you mean also

14 where --

15 MR. LEWIS: Discharge to a

16 processing plant so where they take their --

17 

18 MR. PENBERTHY: So, I guess my question would

19 be is it -- well, privately owned.

20 MR. MAIT: It's not a POTW.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

22 MR. MAIT: It's not publicly
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 owned.

2 MS. PLOTZKE: It's not a publicly

3 owned.

4 MR. MAIT: That's a privately

5 owned.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: But is it in its

7 operation operated similarly.

8 MR. MAIT: Technologies are

9 probably not --

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Are they similar?

11 MR. MAIT: -- standard. They're

12 not doing anything special.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: In other words, is

14 it equivalent to a POTW treatment method? Do

15 you follow?

16 MS. PLOTZKE: I don't know. 

17 Randy, are you -- is Randy on the line,

18 Debbie, with you?

19 DR. MCNETT: Yes, he is.

20 MS. PLOTZKE: Okay. Do you know

21 what the treatment process is at the

22 privately owned?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 RANDY: I believe there's some

2 activated sludge, but there are probably

3 other methods too, so I couldn't say for

4 certain.

5 MR. MAIT: The contractor could

6 have just as easily got it from a -- on the

7 issue of public versus private.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: I appreciate that. 

9 I've got a little private word on it. So,

10 from this list, you know, you have -- I mean

11 irrespective of dilution factor, the Evonik

12 site would be fine. And I guess we have to

13 figure out if a combined sewer is an issue or

14 not. 

15 And then if the Midland plant

16 wastewater treatment is operated similar to a

17 POTW I don't think that's necessarily an

18 issue. And so the value of those sites would

19 be --

20 MS. SMITH: Well, just for a

21 moment -- there are going to be access

22 issues.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, there's --

2 MS. SMITH: -- privately owned.

3 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes. There's not

4 going to be --

5 MS. SMITH: You would have to get

6 --

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. I

8 appreciate that.

9 MS. PLOTZKE: Completely different

10 situation on access.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I can

12 understand that. And then, but the value of

13 including those would be is there's a known

14 source. I mean, there's confidence. Okay. 

15 MR. AVCIN: Do you all have a

16 diluting factor -- was for your plant,

17 Russell?

18 MR. MAIT: Well, actually I

19 should. Off the top of my head I don't know. 

20 I thought the cutoff -- I don't believe we're

21 off the table.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Aren't they in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 table?

2 MR. MAIT: It was not something I

3 --

4 MR. PENBERTHY: Because I thought

5 I saw it in the table. How much was it?

6 MS. PLOTZKE: 125.

7 MR. MAIT: Yes, I couldn't

8 remember. I knew it was a double digit but I

9 couldn't remember what it was. I mean, James

10 River is a big river.

11 MR. NGUYEN: Could you walk us

12 through this flow diagram? Especially

13 focusing on the lower portion.

14 MR. THOMAS: What's that again?

15 MR. NGUYEN: The D4 flow chart.

16 MR. THOMAS: And you said

17 specifically focusing on the --

18 MR. NGUYEN: After the POTW is

19 contacted. 

20 MR. THOMAS: Right, right. Well,

21 that's where it got from less systematic

22 because, you know, at that point they're
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 relying on responses they got from the POTWs

2 that they contacted and whether or not they

3 got a response. 

4 So right after the POTWs contacted

5 you got qualified -- a number of qualified

6 POTWS. Essentially eight of those are the

7 industrial POTWs and six would be the POTWs

8 with greater than 15 percent. So I guess the

9 ones on the left here, these are intended to

10 be what I'll call the residential POTWs

11 because they had less than 15 percent

12 industrial influent. And then these on the

13 right would be the industrial POTWs. 

14 It's a little confusing here

15 because of this 14 here, 8 of them go to the

16 residential and there are essentially 6 left

17 that go to the industrial. But the number

18 here you see is 18 because they got an

19 additional 12 from that box over on the

20 right. And that's based on the conversations

21 they had with the POTW operators. 

22 So before in the text they mention
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 that after the NAICS where they tried to

2 figure out all of those, then they tried to

3 select them separately by a search that they

4 did by company. There was a search by those

5 with pre-treatment permits. Then they also

6 had a number of selection POTWs. So that's

7 from those discussions and those separate

8 surveys that they did to try to figure out on

9 the industrial side to make sure they got a

10 representative sampling.

11 So this 14 number is actually 6

12 plus 12. It's 6 plus the 12 that were

13 identified in this box over here on the

14 right.

15 MR. NGUYEN: Going back to the

16 combined sewer. What was the thinking for

17 excluding due to that reason? 

18 MR. DOYLE: Well, I think we're

19 going to have to go back and do a further

20 verification on that. I think the main point

21 there would probably be that the other

22 indirect discharge facility they were talking
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 about, the effluent flow was thought to be

2 just a process wastewater effluent flow to be

3 monitored. By contrast that facility because

4 it has all the other flows combined with it,

5 if you think of the different natures -- 

6 You're right, ultimately when you

7 get to the POTW, realistically there's lots

8 of different flows coming in. There's going

9 to be different streams. But in terms of

10 looking at how that effluent nature of it

11 compares to the other ones, mixing apples and

12 oranges. So that's -- I think that was --

13 MS. PLOTZKE: And it will all come

14 in together from storm, from the residential. 

15 It's not separate. It's not a separate

16 discharge going to that wastewater treatment

17 plant.

18 MR. MAIT: But we can clarify

19 that.

20 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Could you

21 explain your thinking about the 15 percent? 

22 Where that comes from and why you used that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 for distinguishing between the residential

2 and industrial. 

3 MR. THOMAS: I thought we got that

4 from EPA. I mean I thought for the

5 residential POTWs you guys had asked us to

6 try to make sure we choose sites that would

7 see less than 15 percent of their influent

8 from industrial sources or industrial users

9 of D4. Did we get that wrong?

10 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we might

11 have said 10. Effluent POTW shows as being

12 less than 10 percent for the industrial

13 facility. 

14 MR. MAIT: I think at this point

15 one of the problems that ERM was having was

16 to refine it down to, you know, without

17 getting fully engaged with the sites to get

18 it down, is it really 10 percent. That was

19 the problem. 

20 MR. FLACK: I think that was a

21 number that people felt comfortable they

22 could make a representation that it was less
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 than that.

2 MR. MAIT: It was more or less

3 when they interviewed the POTW operators they

4 weren't really willing to commit on record

5 that it was less than 10. Fifteen they were

6 comfortable with.

7 MR. LEWIS: And is there a

8 threshold in terms of population served of

9 how they made it up?

10 MR. MAIT: That was up at the -- I

11 think they made it at greater than 60,000.

12 MR. LEWIS: Right. And what was

13 the rationale for that? Because in our ECA

14 we didn't -- we didn't -- spoke qualitatively

15 about that, not qualitatively. 

16 MR. MAIT: Right.

17 MR. LEWIS: So I'm just curious

18 how that --

19 MR. MAIT: I actually don't recall

20 how they picked that. I think --

21 MR. LEWIS: No, no, because I know

22 we discussed this before with Russell when we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 talked about a certain population.

2 MR. MAIT: Right.

3 MR. LEWIS: Looking at a

4 threshold. I was curious how you picked

5 60,000.

6 MR. FLACK: Well, it says larger

7 population. So they picked --

8 MR. MAIT: I guess they figured 60

9 is big. 

10 MR. FLACK: If you've got a number

11 you'd like to use.

12 MR. LEWIS: No. I'm curious of

13 how they selected that.

14 MS. PLOTZKE: I thought there was

15 some classification in one of the databases.

16 MR. MAIT: Was there? There may

17 actually --

18 MS. PLOTZKE: That may be --

19 MR. MAIT: I just don't know.

20 MS. PLOTZKE: I thought there was. 

21 I thought there were some categories they're

22 defining in the databases.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 MR. LEWIS: We did specify in

2 terms of industrial waste but we didn't do

3 that in terms of populations.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: And then we had

5 the NACWA sites which are potential

6 candidates. That didn't trip out in your

7 Table 3, is that how that works?

8 MR. THOMAS: They weren't able to

9 get a hold of any of those sites to confirm

10 those things that you can't get in the

11 publicly available information. 

12 MR. PENBERTHY: So when you look

13 at the POTWs not treating -- that aren't

14 indirect sites, you look at Table 3 and Table

15 4 as potential candidates, right?

16 MR. THOMAS: Right.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: So that possibly

18 maybe would just be -- because that's not a

19 very -- okay. 

20 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So I think

21 going back to the 15 percent. So that was

22 really just a verbal estimate from the POTW.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 MR. THOMAS: And during the

2 further refinement we can certainly get a

3 sense for how close we can get to that 10

4 percent. Because that's something we have to

5 get confirmation from the POTW operators. 

6 There may be some that actually have that.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: So it sounds like

8 we have to do some confirmation step to make

9 sure that Table 1, there is a D4 source being

10 treated. And then Table 3 and 4 that there

11 isn't as far as anybody knows a D4 source.

12 MR. THOMAS: Right.

13 MR. MAIT: I think this was sort

14 of a suggestion list of facilities for the

15 purposes of discussion. It wasn't these are

16 the ones we selected. So the idea would be

17 have enough flexibility that we have a

18 candidate list as they drop out for whatever

19 criteria, that we're not stuck having to

20 start the process all over again. So these

21 are good candidate sites. 

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 MR. MAIT: They're not absolutes.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes.

3 MR. MAIT: And I wouldn't even

4 characterize them as the best sites because

5 obviously we didn't have infinite time to

6 contact all of these facilities. It was

7 those that were responsive.

8 MR. FLACK: And back to the

9 percentages. We said 15 percent or less. Do

10 you have scientific data really saying why

11 you wanted 10 percent? Or was that sort of a

12 sway too and at the end of the day where do

13 we go, 13? Or something?

14 MR. MAIT: I think the academic

15 discussion was can we really find sites with

16 such a low threshold of industrial influents.

17 MR. FLACK: Right. You can see

18 how much they got screened out just with --

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. That's my

20 major uncertainty here is how do you find a

21 right -- how do you identify the right

22 candidates out of Table 1. And then Table 2.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 MR. MAIT: What do you mean by

2 right though?

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, how do you

4 ensure that there is a D4. You have to have

5 that qualifying --

6 MR. MAIT: Well, if I -- if we

7 give our contractor the charge to go talk

8 with the POTWs and then with the cooperation

9 of NACWA because most of these folks are

10 members of. With that level of cooperation

11 then we should get cooperation through the

12 operator who can make that solicitation under

13 their current authority to ask. Because the

14 POTW operator has the authority to ask that

15 question. We don't necessarily have that

16 authority. 

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

18 MR. MAIT: So if we get an

19 affirmative and with the adjustments in the

20 additional criteria we've talked about here I

21 think we can get down to a more confirmatory

22 list of places. Because I think we'd want to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 start from the standpoint of this being --

2 we've identified the sites.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

4 MR. MAIT: Because that will

5 influence, again, how we develop our plan of

6 execution for the study plans and so on. 

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So, what we

8 need to do is take a look at -- clean up the

9 Appendix 2 language. 

10 How do we want -- we have to

11 figure out how we would do the qualification

12 on the industrial influent ones on Table --

13 well, the Table 1 sites. How do we -- what

14 are the questions? 

15 It seems to me those are similar

16 questions you'd want to ask of the Table 3

17 and Table 4.

18 MR. MAIT: Well, I think, Cathy,

19 you already asked for what questions we were

20 going to -- what we asked already. So, we

21 could certainly amend that to add the

22 additional questions that would be answered. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 Whether it's done by survey or not. That's a

2 question that you have and those would be the

3 questions we'd have to answer.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Do we have

5 other? We're getting -- we're just adjusting

6 for this so we're going to have to talk

7 internally here about how to respond.

8 MR. MAIT: And also, if there's

9 information internally within the agency that

10 gives more insight into this specifically,

11 because all these sites are permitted, that

12 would be helpful. 

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Yes. It

14 seems like the Table 3 sites, you know, all

15 that is making sense to me. I'm more

16 uncertain about the Table 1 process. 

17 And then, oh, the other thing

18 we've got to figure out is from your member

19 company list are there ones that we would

20 want to include just irrespective of Table 1.

21 MR. MAIT: Well, I would go on the

22 basis that Appendix 2 would reflect the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 criteria for selection. And that would allow

2 the screening in or screening out of members,

3 of those facilities that were excluded from

4 Table 1 to begin with, right? Because

5 otherwise you sort of --

6 MR. PENBERTHY: You know, I

7 understand the sentiment, but I attach a lot

8 of value to the certainty that there's a

9 wastewater release.

10 MR. MAIT: Well, if I give you an

11 answer from a POTW that affirms that that

12 site has a facility that processes, how is it

13 any different?

14 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess it's not.

15 MR. MAIT: To me it's consistently

16 the same. I mean.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

18 MR. DOYLE: I think the key is

19 just establishing those criteria that are in

20 the Appendix 2.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

22 MR. DOYLE: So we can have a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 principal plan to go about identifying. And

2 once we have that we can find it, screen it.

3 MR. MAIT: Because my POTW would

4 ask me the same question. I'd have to affirm

5 it. Just like the other people who discharge

6 to that facility, because I'm not the only

7 guy.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Okay. Do

9 we have other comments? For now, I think we

10 understand what you do. We've got to look at

11 Appendix 2, make sure that language -- we've

12 got to further evaluate this. There may be

13 other sources of information we can help you

14 with. I'm not certain of that.

15 MR. MAIT: Right. So my

16 understanding, if we change Appendix 2 we

17 rerun the criteria.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

19 MR. FLACK: If you've got a short

20 list of candidates that you want to put out

21 there, if we could find out that would be

22 great. Then we don't spend the time
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 guessing.

2 MR. MAIT: Because, I mean, there

3 are 16 plus thousand sites to pick from. So

4 it's not a matter of picking the best sites,

5 you just have to pick sites that meet the

6 criteria.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess where I

8 started from and have changed my mind-set a

9 little bit is that we started off with your

10 direct sites and your indirect sites and then

11 it turned -- evolved into can we substitute

12 in other indirect sites. And I didn't really

13 see a problem with that, you know,

14 necessarily. 

15 MR. MAIT: But nevertheless the

16 criteria were still the same. Those sites

17 would have been dropped out due to the fact

18 that they don't meet the criteria that's

19 listed in Appendix 2.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: So we're going to

21 have to talk through this on our side just to

22 make sure we're all onboard.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 MR. MAIT: Okay. 

2 MR. PENBERTHY: You guys have any

3 other questions you need to have clarity on? 

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Could I just

5 ask -- and I apologize. I haven't had time

6 to look through this report in detail. But

7 could you tell us a little bit about the

8 iSTREEM POTWs? Did you just look at the list

9 of the POTWs in iSTREEM or did you do some

10 cuts using the iSTREEM modeling approach?

11 MR. THOMAS: I think the iSTREEM

12 was more relevant for the residential POTWs. 

13 So if you look at page 8, section 3.0 where

14 it talks about POTWs that received less than

15 15 percent as their influents. So we're

16 talking about the residential sites. 

17 They developed an initial list by

18 searching the EPA Needs survey that had

19 activated sludge. And then they narrowed the

20 list. And then they used iSTREEM somewhere

21 further down here. Yes, under 3.2, the

22 second bullet they used that to target the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 population and the dilution factor.

2 MR. DOYLE: I think the point

3 being is that the iSTREEM list which is what

4 we -- the iSTREEM model we used later in

5 terms of -- it was used to do the refinement. 

6 That presented a subset of that initial

7 16,000. Because I don't think that was

8 necessarily in the iSTREEM database. I think

9 that's the essence of it.

10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So you

11 used it to really narrow based on population

12 and the low flow dilution factor.

13 MR. DOYLE: Yes, I think that was

14 the main point of it was because it provided

15 a vehicle for getting at that data.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay, thank

17 you. 

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Do you guys have

19 any other inquiries?

20 MR. THOMAS: So we have some

21 homework to do for you.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: You know, it looks
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 like you spent a lot of time on this and it

2 seems a pretty valid, thoughtful approach. 

3 So we've at least got to look at it. 

4 MR. THOMAS: So do you have

5 clarifying next steps?

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, those would

7 be to -- so on my notes we are trying for the

8 week of September 9. And my understanding

9 was we were going to get second drafts of the

10 test standards for addressing some of the

11 discussion of the points.

12 MR. DOYLE: I think the important

13 thing for those is that we really do need

14 that feedback from the agency on some of

15 these other points. The detection limits and

16 the samples -- or we're going to just shoot

17 past each other.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: And I have -- we

19 owe you for each test standard the detection

20 limits that we're searching for. We have to

21 -- to look into the GLP issue to see how do

22 we handle that. Because I've got to believe
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 we've dealt with that before.

2 We had an outstanding issue about

3 variability and how we're going to do that,

4 and whether -- I guess you had questions

5 about its relevance. And so we're going to

6 have to express ourselves on that.

7 We're going to have to look at the

8 TOC test method that's referenced. I think

9 that's pretty straightforward. And I think

10 that was -- did you all have anything else?

11 MR. MAIT: Appendix 2.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, Appendix 2,

13 right. Of course. I'm thinking of from this

14 morning.

15 MR. MAIT: I'm sorry.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Appendix 2. And

17 then we'll also have to do some further

18 analysis of your report and search for maybe

19 other potential data sources for you all to

20 use.

21 And then I think we were also

22 going to do a little bit of research on the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 deposition zone, how far downstream does the

2 deposition --

3 MR. DOYLE: How far is too far.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: How far is too

5 far.

6 MR. DOYLE: And then I think also,

7 too, you had the thing about the release

8 point for biosolids.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Right, right. 

10 MR. LEWIS: I think in that case

11 how do you use it in the sediment approach. 

12 You said that document was looking at

13 biosolids.

14 MR. PENBERTHY: So, we have --

15 obviously we'll be working on those. We'll

16 have to get together. And we'll give you all

17 some timing on that, but hopefully as quick

18 as we can. 

19 MR. MAIT: Because we'd like to

20 have that input to go with all the other --

21 because what we'd like to get is essentially

22 a final version that we're all -- all the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 companies have vetted through and can say

2 that they're good with and it has some

3 polishing to do in terms of making sure that

4 the test standards are reconciled and with

5 the appendices which are reconciled with the

6 body of the text and all that kind of good

7 stuff.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

9 MR. LEWIS: One of the overarching

10 issues also were the number of samples. I'm

11 not sure we addressed that.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we know

13 how much we --

14 (Laughter.)

15 MR. MAIT: We understand. And the

16 issue was under replicates.

17 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, the

19 variability issue I think we have to weigh in

20 on. Anybody else from EPA that noticed any

21 outstanding issues other than this? Well,

22 I'm just trying to figure out what the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 follow-up is for everybody. Okay.

2 So we're going to be targeting for

3 the week of September 9.

4 MR. LEWIS: Do you want to also

5 mention the one about the extension?

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh yes.

7 MR. LEWIS: Yes. You want to talk

8 about that.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, the

10 negotiating period officially ends, I think

11 it's either the 26th -- so we'll be extending

12 that if you have any doubts. Hopefully we

13 won't be needing many more of these

14 extensions.

15 MR. MAIT: Is that 60?

16 MR. PENBERTHY: It's a 60-day

17 increment.

18 MR. MAIT: Okay, 60.

19 MR. DOYLE: Ward, just to be

20 clear, for the week of September 9, what's

21 going to happen that week? In terms of --

22 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we're going
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 to do our best to get back to you on all

2 these items. I have to check with these guys

3 in terms of their other workloads and stuff,

4 but yes. That's the target for now.

5 MR. DOYLE: And then -- because

6 then we're going to need to take that and

7 fold it into ours.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. 

9 MR. DOYLE: It's not going to be

10 instantaneous.

11 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. I know.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And some of

13 these issues might take us longer than

14 others. So it might be helpful to prioritize

15 a bit. I would think that the detection

16 limit would be maybe the highest priority in

17 terms of us getting new input.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, I think we'll

19 try to get it to you piece by piece.

20 MR. MAIT: Yes. I mean, certainly

21 as soon as you get it.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we're also
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 going to want to look at all those appendices

2 that, you know, there's a lot of work -- an

3 investment of time and knowledge acquisition

4 that has to take place there. I don't know

5 how fast -- because there's thousands of

6 pages.

7 Any other questions? Well, thank

8 you. Thank you for all the hard work too,

9 particularly on the test standards. We're

10 making progress. 

11 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter

12 went off the record at 2:45 p.m.)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

A

able 26:20 35:16

44:10 47:1 60:9

65:10 68:12 78:20

79:15 80:7 81:13

85:16 91:13 93:14

94:2 114:20

129:22 170:12

171:11 202:8

absent 171:18

absolute 147:2,5

absolutely 83:7

143:12 173:21

absolutes 204:1

abundance 141:12

abundant 130:2

131:14 133:13,15

139:19 140:1,2,5

academic 204:14

accept 62:13

acceptable 114:1

access 169:2

193:21 194:10

accident 103:9

accommodated

123:13

accomplish 43:16

account 80:8

accounting 160:20

accurate 33:7,19

175:14

achieve 17:3 39:6

39:14,18 40:17

54:15 73:6

achieving 56:7

acquired 43:9

acquisition 219:3

across-the-board

65:20

activated 164:11

169:1 175:7,22

176:10,12 193:2

211:19

activities 69:19

70:7,14

actual 15:5 33:11

71:11 74:10 159:2

adapt 159:15

adaptation 158:9

adaptations 158:15

adapted 158:22

159:7

add 10:18 18:12

20:13 37:2 206:21

added 173:1

adding 43:14 150:8

150:15 156:7

161:17 163:5

addition 15:7 33:21

51:9 79:20 90:7

161:19 169:6

184:5

additional 30:22

45:3 55:7 152:17

152:18 156:3

158:7 163:4

167:11 169:14

196:19 205:20

206:22

address 92:7,16

94:16,16 123:18

addressed 102:7

216:11

addresses 10:17

115:10

addressing 213:10

adequate 14:5

61:20 137:14,17

138:10 147:6

adjust 131:15

132:2

adjusting 207:5

adjustments

205:19

adopt 65:3

adopted 55:18

advisement 40:3

79:2

affect 93:18 97:14

affirm 167:16,16

168:6 209:4

affirmative 183:5,8

183:12 205:19

affirms 208:11

agency 1:3 163:3

178:2 207:9

213:14

agenda 3:11 5:20

6:6 12:12

ago 113:16 118:2

181:21

agree 18:3,4 25:11

68:12 141:19

142:18

agreed 46:17 161:7

agreeing 26:11

45:20 86:9

agreement 89:12

175:8

ahead 6:19 11:17

14:14 24:12 37:7

69:4 85:20 132:7

air 166:20

ALEXANDER 2:2

algae-eating

128:10

Allison 2:18 5:16

allow 34:1 39:18

208:1

allowed 165:4

alternative 8:15

ambiguity 25:8

amend 206:21

America 1:1 2:3

6:16

amount 110:19

amplification 79:5

analyses 55:19

analysis 15:14

31:18 34:5 47:13

50:6 56:14 60:19

66:7 74:7 93:15

101:6 109:10

112:11 116:8

143:16 144:7

151:5 158:5

214:18

analytical 16:5,10

16:15 50:2 51:5

56:4 64:1,1 72:21

74:5 77:2 110:16

110:17,17 123:5

156:13 157:4

158:9,16

analytics 34:12

57:19 61:17

analyze 52:5 99:20

analyzed 16:14

34:3 55:22 64:15

64:18 128:8

analyzing 31:22

Anderson 1:15

4:11,11 5:9,9

animal 69:22

annelids 120:19

121:5,15

annex 89:4

announce 6:21 7:1

149:4

answer 69:15 77:9

100:2 177:22

207:3 208:11

answered 206:22

answers 170:6

anticipate 69:11

anticipating 61:4

158:1

antitrust 166:13

anybody 41:22

68:12 126:22

182:4 203:11

216:20

anymore 133:10

anyway 8:5 106:13

151:18 177:21

178:5

apart 175:11

APHA 48:10

apologize 149:7

211:5

apparatus 85:19

87:9,14

apparently 171:10

171:18

appear 177:2

appears 9:15 55:8

appendices 10:21

216:5 219:1

appendix 11:2,11

11:16 173:2,15

174:7,10 175:6,17

176:22 206:9

207:22 208:20

209:11,16 210:19

214:11,12,16

apples 198:11

applicable 69:8,9

69:19 70:14 72:9

73:9,15 79:17

85:2

applied 140:18

applies 78:3

apply 45:15 69:12

84:17 186:9

applying 87:14

appreciate 193:8

194:8

approach 25:19

26:14 27:11,18

28:4,6,10,12

145:15 211:10

213:2 215:11

approaches 25:18

26:10

approaching 67:13

appropriate 20:11

25:1,3,4 29:14

44:17 46:18 56:7

64:5,12 67:16

79:18 83:18 128:3

135:13

appropriateness

163:5

aqueous 17:6

area 26:16 84:7

108:1 109:11

112:7 115:12

125:12 131:17

areas 19:3 69:12

106:16 113:20

127:13,15 187:21

arrangement 9:10

aside 8:7

asked 47:16,17,18

112:19 161:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

168:9 169:8 199:5

206:19,20

asking 47:6 88:15

88:19 89:4,9

108:22 121:13

122:22 135:3

aspect 75:8

aspects 12:3 21:22

45:16 51:10 79:12

122:11

asserting 170:17

assess 43:8 100:20

131:1

assessed 92:12

assessment 43:13

50:1 52:2 67:16

68:10,14 92:7,14

93:6,7,19 94:5

95:6 96:2,14

97:10,14 98:6

121:10 134:21

140:18 141:4

147:22

associated 21:22

63:2 162:18

171:21 172:6

association 166:13

assume 28:20

assuming 59:3 75:7

96:22 105:18

108:7

assumption 54:13

167:7

assurance 15:20

46:4 75:18 96:22

126:20 157:6

attach 208:7

attempt 184:7

attempting 183:3

attempts 139:11

attribute 116:11

Auburn 184:19

auditor 72:17

AUGUST 1:8

authority 20:3 25:2

205:13,14,16

automatically

187:13

availability 80:15

available 53:14

128:5 161:8,10

165:6 202:11

Avcin 1:15 5:7,7

170:8,13,16 171:7

171:15 184:17

187:3 188:15

194:15

Ave 1:12

average 16:22

64:17

averaging 34:10

avoid 50:14 130:11

avoiding 44:16

aware 141:18

A-G-E-N-D-A 3:7

a.m 1:12 4:2

B

B 48:17

back 7:13 9:11 10:7

10:22 27:2 29:4

38:21 40:2 41:14

44:4 47:11 49:8

51:4 55:18 60:21

61:21 67:22 79:2

80:5 88:4,8 89:14

90:21 91:11 95:11

96:21 97:8 98:11

118:12 132:9,20

133:9 134:12

137:5 138:18

143:8,20 144:19

145:3 148:22

151:10 154:8,9

159:10,22 160:10

160:16 163:5

170:6,9 172:20

176:9 180:22

181:20 183:18

188:1,22 190:17

197:15,19 202:21

204:8 218:1

background 99:8

back-and-forth

52:8

bags 115:6

balancing 43:21

barely 147:7

Barone 1:16 4:15

4:15

base 29:15

based 16:18 18:20

22:17 53:8 64:4

64:17 78:21

105:21 121:7

161:19 164:22

166:2 173:1

196:20 212:11

basement 160:7

basic 147:4 171:20

basically 45:18

47:20 49:22 56:17

67:20 93:14

107:16 120:4

132:17 138:11

167:13,19 187:20

189:6

basis 16:1 18:14

19:18 28:22 33:8

64:12 147:12,12

163:2 166:1,5,8

167:9 181:11

207:22

bat 51:22

batch 57:14 90:11

bathrooms 186:14

beep 149:3

beginning 53:3

behalf 13:16

belief 170:18

believe 16:19 77:15

83:21 85:10 99:3

100:5 103:8

115:16 147:20

149:16 158:15

193:1 194:20

213:22

belongs 136:6,7

belt 155:7

benchmark 145:5

benthic 104:13

105:1,3 107:19

112:8,11 118:22

122:9 146:16

best 5:22 25:18

40:11 65:3 93:15

114:5 184:9 204:4

210:4 218:1

best-laid 133:4

better 10:6 31:20

36:10 45:11 55:6

90:9 99:1 101:2

184:14

beyond 92:14

115:5

bias 130:5,7 177:3

bibliography 26:9

big 48:9 141:6

144:15,19 145:1

178:9 180:11

195:10 201:9

bigger 105:15

115:20 117:11,11

billion 62:7,8,9

bio 112:11 124:19

bioaccumulation

140:21

biological 123:3

biologist 132:4

138:16

biology 118:4

121:6

biomagnification

124:8 126:21

127:20

biomass 109:12

110:8,15 112:13

125:3 129:18

131:22 135:7

137:7,17 138:10

144:15

biosample 14:17

biosolid 153:4,19

154:12 156:8

158:2 159:2

biosolids 3:19 34:9

148:13 152:12,16

153:7,9,12 156:18

156:21 157:4,9

158:5,17,20 215:8

215:13

biota 3:17 103:15

104:1,13 143:16

152:10

bit 14:14 17:11

46:7 55:3 63:21

75:3 89:17 103:15

107:3 108:22

129:6 149:19

162:6 169:21

174:10 210:9

211:7 214:22

218:15

blank 100:7,14

blanks 15:17 34:1

98:21

blindness 64:5

blue 137:20

boat 35:19 74:8

115:20

body 35:9 123:11

216:6

bottom 9:15 98:15

104:20 106:15

boundaries 31:1

boundary 35:14

36:4,14,15

bounded 35:11

box 66:10 154:20

154:22 157:11,14

196:19 197:13

break 8:1 148:7,15

breaking 148:17

brief 58:20 161:4

briefly 165:8

bring 18:1 132:20

bringing 176:6

broad 71:16 127:13

127:14 166:20

brought 16:10,11

118:11

Browning 2:3 6:12

6:14,15,22

BRYAN 2:2

build 56:2 84:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

building 8:3 73:5

160:7,8

built 94:3 124:13

bullet 11:3 211:22

bullets 168:21

bunch 129:11

business 84:10

busy 5:19

bypasses 190:2

B4 115:15

C

C 48:17

calculate 17:1 64:7

calculating 147:3

calculation 126:21

calibrated 73:3

call 4:5 196:10

Canada 63:6

Canada's 63:9

Canadian 44:6

65:10

Canadians 38:15

64:3

candidate 161:2,6

161:12,15 162:15

165:1 203:18,21

candidates 178:6

187:5 202:6,15

204:22 209:20

capabilities 56:4

60:12 61:3 66:7

capability 73:21

146:20

capture 78:20

carbon 47:13 48:3

48:4

care 180:11 183:20

carnivorous 128:17

136:14

CAS 9:1

case 20:6 25:20

28:8 30:12,15

46:6 69:13,20

93:3 113:9 145:21

158:1 163:17

215:10

cases 15:15 23:11

46:22 106:16

142:9 159:13

catch 42:9

categories 166:19

166:20 201:21

category 38:9

Cathy 1:17 4:7

18:11 22:9 44:9

81:22 82:2 87:2

89:13 100:5 132:4

133:3 149:16,16

206:18

caught 113:22

127:8

centrifuge 155:1,4

155:6

CERCLA 74:21

75:10 76:9

certain 21:22 39:10

70:17 72:12,15

81:2 84:8 99:21

100:21 109:4

115:5 122:10

172:3,11 176:1

193:4 201:1

209:14

certainly 20:5 22:2

74:5 161:18

165:19 169:12

170:3 172:8 174:2

175:7 203:2

206:21 218:20

certainty 208:8

certification 51:7

76:5

certified 73:2 74:2

75:1

cetera 15:18 19:17

32:18

challenge 60:13

61:15 126:5,11

135:16

challenges 51:10

51:20 52:11 56:5

63:2 93:11

challenging 84:11

123:15

chance 118:19

chances 117:5

change 10:6 11:14

121:7 131:15

209:16

changed 210:8

changes 11:6 40:13

105:21 113:18

139:11

characterize

102:14 204:4

charge 205:7

Charles 2:17 5:2

13:17 19:21 46:6

96:21 109:2

115:20

chart 195:15

chase 61:19

check 80:13 218:2

chemical 5:5 8:11

33:4 145:7

chemist 64:1

chemists 64:2 99:4

110:17

chironomid 119:8

chironomids

121:14

choice 26:10

126:15 140:6

142:1,14

choices 47:2

choose 114:3,5

199:6

choosing 174:19

circumstance

107:18

circumstances

188:8

citation 101:14

151:3

cite 63:13,14 79:19

cited 19:11 87:3

154:2

citing 45:4

claimed 33:7

clarification

108:22 145:17

clarified 129:6

clarify 23:15

135:18 140:17

144:6,9 145:18

155:19 157:20

198:18

clarifying 213:5

clarity 152:17,18

211:3

classification

201:15

clean 206:8

cleaned 85:20

clear 22:10 27:21

60:6 80:3 103:12

114:11 138:6

152:21 153:10

174:8 217:20

clearer 107:3

clearly 39:18

clock 53:18

close 14:1,3 32:4

63:11 109:7 203:3

closed 184:1

closer 36:9 37:9

47:10 149:19

closest 32:6,11,19

104:17,21 106:20

codes 166:5,7

171:21

coincide 179:16

colleagues 13:18

collect 31:18

104:15 105:1

111:21 112:7,9,10

125:14,17 126:10

130:17 134:18

collected 13:22

14:16 16:2,3 32:3

34:3 43:10 62:3

85:17 119:6,10

131:7

collecting 15:13,15

15:16 20:12 44:17

86:17 87:9 104:14

127:1 131:21

133:22 134:14

142:6

collection 15:5,9

16:4 34:4 44:19

45:15 49:11 54:1

69:7 70:7 72:19

73:4 101:5 102:8

133:19 139:10

143:21 150:14

153:4 156:7 158:3

columns 170:10

combine 186:7

189:14

combined 184:20

185:1,3,8 186:2

186:13 187:2,14

187:20 188:1,6

189:7,19 190:3,5

190:7,14 193:13

197:16 198:4

come 9:10 12:15

37:9 88:9 97:5

106:14 109:12

143:7 198:13

comes 46:16 71:4

94:9 124:3 138:18

154:21 155:3

187:14 198:22

comfortable 74:6

199:21 200:6

coming 5:19 29:19

89:21 94:9 97:2

97:16 98:7 99:16

118:3 136:12

160:10 198:8

comment 9:5 25:15

31:5 37:8 54:22

73:18 83:3 102:6

comments 12:1

18:20,21 77:22

78:5,21 79:21

82:3 101:4 102:4

150:4 152:2,3,4

209:9

commercial 16:7

50:8 55:21 56:22

64:14 65:2 151:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

158:6 159:6,14

commingled 186:3

commit 139:21

200:4

common 108:13

112:14 129:20,22

130:19 131:12,18

131:18 132:1

135:4,4 189:19,20

companies 62:16

66:15 76:3,21

81:13 174:1 216:1

company 61:12

70:12 160:20

168:6 197:4

207:19

comparable 62:4

82:13

comparative 49:6

compared 114:8

121:3

compares 198:11

compartments

97:20

competing 39:16

compilation 21:8

21:10 23:4 27:2

complete 6:1 78:15

completely 68:17

96:13 194:9

complicated

142:16

component 94:1

188:2,10,10

components 187:8

composite 91:9

95:15 103:5,7,8

103:10 119:9,11

119:17 120:3,5

121:17 144:10,16

145:12 157:10

composited 128:22

145:21 146:5

156:9 157:8,15

composites 129:7

144:14 146:6

compositing

103:13 109:22

composted 155:9

concentration

38:12 43:7,12,13

55:13 98:4 99:21

124:7 151:15

181:17

concentrations

44:7 93:16 94:3

97:5,15 98:22

121:2,7 126:1

144:6 181:5

concept 55:18

conceptually 36:13

concern 70:21

73:11 115:22

130:13 151:7

concerned 94:18

134:16 176:2

concerns 17:13

140:21

conclusion 96:16

conclusions 45:10

conditions 102:10

102:15

conduct 43:12

conducted 21:18

62:5,16 70:8

conference 38:18

confidence 34:2

39:11,22 90:8

172:4 194:14

confirm 33:11

90:17 166:11

182:19 184:8

202:9

confirmation 33:5

166:16 203:5,8

confirmatory

205:21

confirming 165:20

conflict 114:7

confused 38:7 58:5

58:7

confuses 30:1

confusing 196:14

consensus 108:13

consequence 93:1

consider 41:15

65:20 68:19 80:6

161:18

considerable 15:6

consideration

76:21 142:10

175:9 178:12

considerations

44:15 51:13 79:19

83:17 85:8 156:2

156:4

considered 75:9

178:11

considering 105:18

105:19

consistency 57:12

consistently 208:15

constituent 55:13

Constitution 1:12

consultant 74:10

76:16

consulted 25:3,6

consulting 74:8

contact 22:16

204:6

contacted 164:21

168:22 171:4,17

195:19 196:2,4

contaminated

99:16

contamination

44:16 50:14 56:19

contemplated 75:7

75:11

content 48:5

151:18

contention 180:17

contents 139:6

continue 104:6

109:11

continued 185:12

continuous 37:14

89:20,21 90:11

92:21 93:4 94:17

95:17 97:19

continuously 110:7

111:14

contract 58:21 59:4

59:19

contractor 85:18

131:19 193:5

205:7

contractor's

154:20

contrast 198:3

contributed 172:22

contributions

188:21

contributor 141:7

control 75:19 83:18

84:3 155:14

controls 132:14

conventional

151:20

conversation 138:5

140:14 143:17

conversations

174:11 196:20

convert 151:19

convey 94:11

convince 43:1

convinced 41:10

cooperation 205:8

205:10,11

Corning 2:11,14,15

5:1 7:7,9 58:3

64:19 66:1

Corporation 5:5

correct 20:3 26:1

29:9 50:2 65:22

66:11,12 73:19

101:20 106:22

107:2 108:8 146:7

156:20 174:17

178:21 185:13

191:1

country 59:6,9

couple 7:17 11:19

18:18 53:11

111:18 171:10

course 16:7 39:3

75:15,20 214:13

court 160:6

covered 77:2

craft 95:12

create 24:14

created 168:11

creating 29:22

30:17,19,20

criteria 109:1,4

116:19 141:11

142:3 144:4

150:20 161:7,11

161:21 163:2

164:17,19 165:9

171:14 174:13

176:9 177:8,11,14

179:15,18 180:10

181:2 182:1

186:16 190:18

203:19 205:20

208:1,19 209:17

210:6,16,18

critical 137:5

critters 119:10

crossing 117:22

crustaceans 120:18

cumulative 127:16

curious 200:17

201:4,12

current 6:7 7:14

61:6 131:10

205:13

currently 49:4

53:18

cut 61:19 78:10

80:1 115:17

cutoff 115:5 194:20

cuts 211:10

D

DAF 155:7

daily 92:3

data 38:16,19 40:1

42:22 43:7,14

44:6 62:3 68:10

68:13 90:8 126:18

126:22 127:20,22

134:16 136:5,19

204:10 212:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

214:19

database 163:17

164:9,10 212:8

databases 163:16

164:9 201:15,22

date 54:3

David 1:22 12:14

18:11 78:5

day 7:19 32:15 38:5

39:4,19 40:7,13

43:15 80:16,16

91:20 92:2,15

102:13,19 133:13

133:19 154:5

155:12 180:19

204:12

days 18:18 35:4

38:14 103:2

deal 17:15 30:16

43:22 53:16 69:22

70:10 71:7

dealt 77:7 214:1

debate 96:4

debates 95:14

Debbie 100:1,9

157:21 192:18

Debra 2:14 6:22

7:6

decided 177:5

decides 85:18

deciding 111:21

decision 57:16

131:21 137:13,13

dedicated 56:15,15

56:16

defer 9:8

define 24:4 26:14

101:2 135:22

defined 20:4,21

21:3 24:10 25:19

26:6 27:16 28:7

29:11 73:2 82:14

82:16 104:11

113:1,6

defining 29:10

136:20 201:22

definitely 60:5 81:9

83:6 90:16 143:13

definition 58:12

60:2 82:22 113:12

183:7

defoamer 180:18

delve 165:10

demonstrate 91:18

department 132:12

dependence 38:4

94:1

dependent 19:15

52:22 113:13

145:8

depending 99:12

depends 37:13 38:1

38:9 53:12 62:10

112:17,17 113:7

139:8 187:18

deposition 104:10

104:16,22 105:13

106:10,16 107:4

108:20 112:3,6,15

150:7 162:9

169:21 215:1,2

depositional

115:12

depth 118:18

describe 29:1

157:11

described 23:3

78:11

describes 173:3

describing 45:12

description 102:9

116:20

design 40:14 68:20

123:17

designed 123:17

125:1

designing 126:7

desire 58:17 76:6

despite 170:17

detail 17:22 22:3

27:10 28:14 45:15

59:17 79:13 84:15

86:22 98:13 163:9

211:6

detailed 25:14

details 15:11 27:13

28:12 46:1 47:6

70:9 78:2 86:3

138:19 170:15

detectable 144:5

157:20

detected 42:13

detection 10:3,4

16:22 18:7,7 45:9

55:3,8,9 56:8

61:19 62:4,14

63:12 64:2,6,12

64:16 65:7 67:15

67:22 81:3 93:12

103:18 105:12

147:11,21 151:9

151:12 159:21,22

213:15,19 218:15

determination

124:12

determine 22:6

28:22 105:10

169:1

determined 23:13

28:16 85:21

105:14

determining 19:8

105:9 107:6

develop 56:3 66:7

161:5 206:5

developed 15:22

16:21 46:11 64:3

64:9 66:2 75:20

161:4 171:12

172:17 211:17

developing 19:19

57:22 64:6

development 15:12

53:19 64:21

develops 58:19

deviation 143:9

device 112:10

devices 88:9

de-water 155:1

diagram 195:12

die 26:18

difference 77:17

128:3

differences 39:3

121:6

different 15:21

23:4 24:19,21

35:17 49:18 57:16

57:20 58:9 59:5

60:2,5 61:14

67:14 68:19,21

72:18 89:18

106:18 107:20

110:1,1 121:1

122:11 123:10

124:16,16 125:14

125:21 126:11,12

126:13,16,19

128:13,15 135:1,6

135:12 141:8

145:7 155:8

178:22 179:3

180:11 186:6

187:1,1 194:9

198:5,8,9 208:13

differently 129:5

difficult 33:4 60:21

73:6 95:8 116:8

179:6

difficulties 68:5

difficulty 34:11

158:1 166:12

digit 195:8

diligence 71:3

73:19

diluting 194:16

dilution 117:3

164:15,18 176:15

193:11 212:1,12

dimensional 35:12

dimensions 32:10

direct 84:17 173:5

175:21 185:10,15

185:17,22 188:9

210:10

direction 96:7,9

131:19

directions 67:14

disappear 7:19

discern 19:12 21:9

discerning 178:9

discharge 14:5

84:17 173:5,7,9

173:22 174:3

183:4 188:9

191:10,15 197:22

198:16 209:5

discharged 186:4

190:22

discharger 170:10

dischargers 167:14

173:12

discharges 164:1

180:5

discharging 165:15

167:6 182:20

188:18

discuss 26:16 78:14

116:18 143:8

160:4

discussed 38:18

85:8,9 151:5

156:7 162:11

200:22

discussing 78:2

discussion 9:9,13

9:18 11:8 25:14

35:10 43:4 82:6

82:13 85:7 101:9

101:11 102:11

104:3 111:20

118:9 161:20

162:19 203:15

204:15 213:11

discussions 163:4

164:22 165:3

172:21 197:7

disinfection 186:8

189:16

dispute 46:17

distance 115:6

162:8

distinguishing

199:1

Division 30:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

document 8:6

16:19 19:2,6,7

20:14 21:6 27:22

48:10,13 58:8

63:19 87:6,12

88:14 92:2 102:1

160:21 161:5

162:16 163:9

215:12

documentation

72:3

documented 73:3

120:9

documents 15:7

19:11,18 21:7,9

21:10,15 27:3,3,5

27:7 86:5 118:2

160:19

doing 42:4 49:19

52:1 70:11 73:19

75:8 83:11 84:6

124:8 125:13

135:14 172:1

181:13,22 192:12

domestic 189:14

double 195:8

double-check 85:4

doubt 176:19

doubts 217:12

Dow 2:11,14,15

4:22 7:7,8 58:2

64:19 66:1 184:18

downs 42:8

downstream

109:17 112:3

113:22 114:4,15

115:17 116:1,6

118:13 127:6,6,10

215:1

Dow-owned 191:7

Doyle 2:4 5:6,6

8:18 9:19 10:1,13

11:21 12:5,8 22:9

23:10,14 27:20

34:19 36:18 57:9

67:4 69:16 70:4

71:1,13 79:1 80:3

80:20 82:10 84:21

87:1 94:22 95:4

127:21 171:13

179:8,12 180:1

197:18 208:18,22

212:2,13 213:12

215:3,6 217:19

218:5,9

Dr 99:4 100:4,10

100:17 157:21

192:19

draft 6:8 7:14

13:19,21

drafted 11:2

drafts 213:9

dried 151:17

drive 41:5,6 137:7

137:12 155:12

driven 113:3

driver 135:6

driving 177:12

drop 176:5 203:18

dropped 176:9

210:17

dry 151:19

due 71:3 73:19

197:17 210:17

dues 84:13

Dumars 2:6 149:5

149:6,15,21

dump 157:12

D.C 1:12

D4 8:12,17 9:1

15:14,19 31:18,22

34:3 38:4 40:17

41:1 42:12 44:8

50:7 68:7 91:19

92:2 94:9 98:5

106:12 107:1

110:20 112:11

165:15,17,22

166:3,4,21 167:8

167:16 168:7

169:10 170:19

171:2 172:7

173:22 175:11

176:1 178:7,19,20

180:15 181:5,16

181:17 182:17,21

184:8 186:20

195:15 199:9

203:9,11 205:4

E

earlier 50:9 149:3

easier 42:2

easily 28:21 193:6

easy 30:21

eat 139:1 142:7

eating 139:6

eats 139:4

ECA 8:6,10,21

13:21 21:19 32:2

32:18 43:6 53:17

54:13 66:10 75:16

91:12 101:22

102:17 123:12

127:19 135:18

153:13 173:2

200:13

ECAs 77:11 155:19

ECHO 163:16

economic 76:7

edits 10:14

effect 34:10

efficiencies 91:16

91:22

effluent 24:9 38:11

38:13 41:17 42:4

63:5 82:12 83:5,7

84:16 85:2 91:19

96:17 98:5 101:5

102:8 106:14

107:1 113:1

165:21 171:6

180:19 186:13

189:11 198:1,2,10

199:11

effluents 86:14,17

92:1

effort 164:14

eight 196:6

Eisenreich 1:17

4:17,17 59:3,15

68:2 104:5,8

105:8,17 106:4,7

106:20 107:2,9,11

107:21 108:14,18

108:21 109:6,19

110:11 111:9,17

113:21 115:1,7

116:5,12,16 117:8

117:13,21 118:15

119:1,15,20 120:1

120:7,20 121:12

121:22 122:4,13

124:21 126:4

128:6 129:2

130:22 135:17

138:3 140:8,12

141:1,16 143:15

144:11,13 145:2

145:16,20 146:4,9

146:13,22 147:14

147:17 152:6

either 90:11 138:6

162:22 187:20

217:11

elaborate 89:16

electroshocking

125:4,13

eliminate 141:4

else's 88:14

emerge 139:3

emerging 136:12

emphasis 185:22

emphasize 154:11

161:14

encourage 44:5

encouraging

167:13

ends 217:10

engage 16:7

engaged 199:17

engineer 179:17

ensure 34:12 40:7

42:21 46:9 52:3,9

99:14 133:18

205:4

ensuring 58:1

entire 57:14

entity 61:14

environment 8:13

93:2

environmental 1:3

8:22 92:20 141:18

envisioned 60:4

EPA 1:13,14,15,15

1:16,17,17,18,18

1:19,19,20,21,22

2:9 4:6,8,9,10,12

4:14,15,16,18 5:7

5:8,10 15:6 20:2

23:3 27:22 48:6

76:10 77:5 101:13

113:4 163:16

164:9 170:4 199:4

211:18 216:20

EPA's 20:17

Epona 2:10 5:11

equilibrium 39:2,7

39:15 40:17 41:4

41:6

equipment 85:20

equivalent 192:14

ERM 161:1,5

163:21 199:15

error 103:9 173:17

especially 93:2

125:12 195:12

essence 15:13 17:8

212:9

essentially 36:18

120:8 161:5

163:15 184:7

189:15 196:6,16

215:21

establish 20:9

28:20 100:13,16

182:17

established 14:20

22:10,13 23:1,7

23:20 24:15 30:8

30:9 112:15

161:12 162:3

163:2 169:18

173:6

establishing 32:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

208:19

establishment

152:17 153:3

estimate 202:22

et 15:18 19:17

32:17

Europe 60:19

European 60:20

evaluate 40:16

48:15 51:6 53:4

209:12

evening 97:17

event 16:14 35:2

134:2 139:22

events 15:22 16:3

37:19,22 40:10

102:19,20

everybody 118:3

149:13,15 160:2

177:18 217:1

evolved 210:11

Evonik 2:12 4:19

66:13 177:19

193:11

exact 15:11 86:16

exactly 11:5 16:1

17:18 18:4 26:11

43:2 46:17 67:3

73:10 75:10 82:22

85:17,19 94:11

107:9 110:22

115:7 116:12

134:10

example 8:14 59:6

60:17 115:10

138:20

excellent 138:20

excluded 163:1

208:3

excluding 184:19

197:17

execution 206:6

executive 87:5

exercise 127:18

exist 125:11,12

existing 30:19,20

159:15

exists 28:22

expect 131:9,11

133:2 137:1

expectation 81:14

90:1 133:5 176:8

180:20

experience 51:7,11

53:8 113:5 156:21

157:2

expertise 66:4

118:1,20

experts 118:5,12

133:6

explain 49:19 69:8

89:22 121:2

198:21

explanation 52:14

explicit 23:16

explicitly 177:9

exposed 166:20

exposure 91:13

92:6,10,20 94:17

97:19,20 107:1

124:6 127:16

exposures 110:2

127:10

express 214:6

expressed 147:12

extending 217:11

extension 217:5

extensions 217:14

extent 47:3 83:19

120:6 125:7

161:16 162:7

extract 87:4 110:19

extraction 45:8

151:17

F

faced 77:15

facilitate 59:1

facilities 24:1 26:19

30:16 59:1,5,10

61:11 74:2 86:18

91:20 117:16

157:13 162:19

166:7 172:3 179:9

179:10 182:1,20

184:8 203:14

204:6 208:3

facility 14:2 16:16

22:16,17,21 24:15

25:2 26:15,15,22

30:20,21 32:5,11

32:17 38:3 56:3

57:19 58:18 59:8

71:19 72:2,12,14

92:16,19 115:10

127:5,6 153:6,19

154:4,13,14

155:13 159:2,15

162:4 178:19

183:5 185:11,16

197:22 198:3

199:13 208:12

209:6

facility's 185:18

fact 33:19 40:16

85:9 165:14 168:7

172:12 180:14

183:21 210:17

factor 94:5 164:15

164:18 172:8

184:19 193:11

194:16 212:1,12

factored 61:2

factors 124:5,11

165:5 176:2 177:1

facts 172:17

factual 28:22

fair 9:3 10:2,16

12:11 89:7 96:11

135:10 175:12

177:6 178:4 184:3

fairly 71:16 149:16

fallback 29:13

family 122:1

far 53:3 113:22

114:3,15,18

116:14,15 117:17

118:13 169:21

203:11 215:1,3,3

215:4,5

fashion 112:16

153:21

fast 162:12 219:5

federal 21:1 24:16

feed 135:20 136:3

137:10

feedback 6:4 78:22

80:6 95:1 103:16

213:14

feeder 125:9

feeders 125:18,19

feeding 121:8

125:9 128:15

135:19 138:11,12

138:19 141:8

feeds 136:10,11,14

136:15

feel 74:6 156:20

172:4

Fehrenbacher 1:17

4:7,8 18:16 21:5

25:12 26:2,5 27:1

28:2 31:13 35:5

36:7,11,20 44:13

45:17 47:5,18,22

48:4,8,12,16,18

49:1,7,9 50:5

52:13 53:5 54:4,9

54:17,21 62:2,12

76:15 77:3,21

78:12 79:16 82:4

82:9,11 83:14

85:6 86:2,15,20

87:7,19 88:15,18

88:22 89:6,8 90:4

92:5,13 98:14

100:5 101:1,18

102:3 103:22

104:2,7,9 107:7

107:10 118:7

119:18,22 130:14

132:3 134:11

143:19 144:12

148:3 149:17

150:3 151:22

152:8,11,15 153:2

153:8 154:7

155:18,21 157:17

158:4,14,21 159:4

159:12,17,19

168:8,13 198:20

202:20 211:4

212:10,16 218:12

felt 199:21

field 15:17,17

21:22 22:2 26:17

34:1,1 47:3 61:16

71:5 72:20 73:4

74:20 75:8 76:22

98:20 105:16

106:18 109:2

113:9,13 117:1,2

120:9 130:15

137:13,14 138:15

138:17 139:17

142:20 150:8

158:3

Fifteen 200:5

Fifty 116:5

figure 17:18 19:19

78:14 82:8 124:1

124:15 189:3

193:13 197:2,8

206:11 207:18

216:22

figured 15:2

167:19 201:8

figuring 19:12

154:2

fill 155:12

filter 155:7

final 38:12 43:6

96:16 155:1 162:1

165:1 167:12

215:22

find 6:16 36:14

42:15 44:10 58:16

60:11 74:9 77:9

106:19 108:2

112:4 115:15

131:13 135:14

153:13 182:6

184:1 204:15,20

209:2,21

finding 70:12 158:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

fine 93:13 193:12

finish 148:9

finished 20:8

firm 58:22 72:19

74:8

firms 73:20

first 7:20 8:9 11:3

13:3 14:19 44:20

52:6 111:19

132:11 152:16

173:4 178:3

fish 12:18 14:15

105:5,6 111:21

122:8 123:7,21

124:16 125:3,11

125:15 127:3,4,9

128:7,8,10,11,15

128:16 129:8,9,14

130:9,12,19 131:4

131:12,17 132:4,6

133:2 135:5,6,12

136:6,7,10,11,13

136:15 137:17,18

137:18,19,19,20

137:20,21,21

138:2,6,9,16,21

139:1,2,7 140:13

142:7 143:21

144:1,14,17

145:11,13 147:14

fishery 132:16

139:9

fit 182:1

five 17:12 121:14

137:21 179:16,16

179:21

Flack 2:7 5:4,4

74:4 76:8,14

87:21 88:2,5

189:18 190:10

199:20 201:6,10

204:8,17 209:19

flexibility 71:7

133:11,19 139:16

141:20 203:17

floating 41:19

floods 113:17

flow 89:20,22 92:21

92:22 117:3

195:12,15 198:1,2

212:12

flowing 118:6

flows 198:4,8

focus 42:16 63:3

127:2 133:12

focusing 31:16

195:13,17

fold 218:7

folks 6:20 24:16

49:15 59:19 70:16

142:5 149:1 152:4

183:4,19 205:9

follow 25:9 28:1

45:21 84:19 96:16

132:9 177:7

179:13 192:15

following 52:9

57:13

follow-up 10:15

11:22 217:1

food 138:22 160:6

forager 127:2

139:7

force 10:9

foregoing 148:20

160:14 219:11

forget 190:10

form 8:13 167:15

183:13 184:10

formulate 98:12

formulating 92:8

167:17

forth 26:18 60:21

64:8,22 91:18

157:1 165:10

Forty-five 160:8

forward 18:1 78:17

81:12 133:1

found 8:13 44:8

63:15 127:11

four 87:8,13 121:14

123:22 125:17

137:16,17,21

142:13 170:10

frame 8:2 54:3 79:7

80:12,17

framework 65:13

frankly 180:22

free 80:16

Friday 5:21

front 52:2 123:8

full 80:21

fully 76:2 199:17

fundamental 97:22

further 9:18 43:4

109:16 169:13

197:19 203:2

209:12 211:21

214:17

G

gain 133:2

gallons 180:19

Gary 7:8

gathered 15:2

gears 103:14

Gene 2:3 6:14,21

general 38:3,8

76:22 77:13,14

114:6 121:10,15

132:9 136:9

142:18 147:4,4

generalities 136:8

137:1,4

generating 127:22

geography 175:18

176:13

geometry 32:9

Germany 61:8

getting 7:12 18:19

53:8 59:2 66:6

84:3 118:18

133:20 137:8

173:20 186:18

188:14 199:17

207:5 212:15

218:17

give 6:4 13:11

37:19 54:2 56:11

67:19 68:13 79:11

85:16 86:13 88:12

95:18 103:16

124:19 125:21

153:5 168:16

205:7 208:10

215:16

given 14:4 26:9

33:4 34:11 50:13

52:12 57:22

126:14 142:1,14

158:10

gives 25:7 49:22

95:21 207:10

giving 52:4 80:22

GLP 51:5,7,8 52:11

69:3,6,7,17 70:9

70:13 71:9 74:1,2

74:22,22 76:4,11

81:4 101:10 146:9

213:21

GLPs 9:16 69:22

72:2 73:12,13,17

77:14 146:10

160:1

GLP-certified

16:16 74:6,12

GLP-compliant

72:14

GLP-like 74:1

go 4:4,5 5:22 6:3,7

6:18 7:20 8:2

9:19,20 11:17

12:13,16 13:13

16:12 18:13,14

23:18 26:15 36:21

37:7 40:2 41:3

44:3 49:8 53:7

59:8,14 64:14

69:4 72:22 76:18

78:14 79:2,22

80:2,5 81:17 82:5

86:21 89:4,14

108:5 109:5,16

111:2 114:19

117:10 118:12,14

123:4 124:12

127:19 130:17,22

131:13 132:5,7

133:1,9 139:16,20

140:10 143:20

145:3 148:8 150:6

153:6 154:8,14

159:9,22 163:9

168:1 169:12

170:2 172:11,20

180:17 181:19

182:7 183:3,18

188:22 189:16

190:17 196:15,17

197:19 204:13

205:7 207:21

209:1 215:20

goal 93:8 143:13

goes 21:1 68:8

92:14 155:13

191:12,13

going 7:19 8:6 9:12

12:7 18:3,8 21:11

21:11,18 22:5,15

26:21 27:1,5,22

28:10,16,20 29:18

30:17 31:12 33:10

35:1,8,16 39:1,6,6

39:14,15 40:10,16

40:21 41:3,5,5

42:4,15 43:15

44:1,12 47:14

50:7,9,22 51:2

52:19,22 54:2,8

57:3,5,6 59:19

63:1 64:14 66:4

67:12,19 68:7

70:10,11,15 71:20

73:21 74:8,10

75:4,22 77:4

79:14,15 81:14

84:7,10 85:16

87:12 89:22 93:11

93:13,14,17,18,22

94:2,5,9 95:10

96:18 97:18 98:10

100:14 103:16

105:9,11 108:1,3

108:6 109:3,5

111:14 112:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

113:12 114:19

115:19 119:9,14

119:16 120:3

123:20 126:9,10

126:20 127:9

128:6 129:14,15

129:16 130:9,15

131:2,6,13,20

132:5 133:21

134:10,12,18,22

137:12 138:2,15

142:12,15 143:7

145:6 147:19,22

148:6 149:18

151:18 154:4

156:17 161:9,22

164:2,5 166:12

169:14 170:9

172:2 177:3 178:7

178:8 181:9,9,10

181:11,13 182:12

183:11,12 184:7

187:22 188:11,20

193:21 194:4

197:15,19 198:8

198:16 202:21

206:20 207:6

210:20 213:9,16

214:3,5,7,22

217:2,21,22 218:6

218:9 219:1

good 22:11 31:11

52:7,17 61:6

118:9 143:13

148:17,19 170:4

173:20 203:21

216:2,6

Gotcha 103:11

grab 91:8,10 95:17

95:20,20 101:19

103:6 109:8,11

111:12 146:17

grade 100:20

gradients 124:7

gram 111:13

grams 111:3,4,11

111:15 145:11

graphical 164:7

gravel 106:11

great 114:12

149:21 152:14

209:22

greater 102:9

125:3 145:11

196:8 200:11

ground 172:18

group 118:3 120:16

groups 59:11

guarantee 104:19

166:21 168:5

Guerrero 2:8 5:12

5:12

guess 7:22 33:1

36:12 38:1 68:18

78:8 103:15

107:14 111:9

114:11,16 115:8,9

131:7 134:8 135:2

138:16 145:2

159:5 160:20

165:12 176:20

177:22 178:5

179:12,13,17

191:18 193:12

196:8 201:8

208:14 210:7

214:4

guessing 210:1

guidance 15:6,7

19:18 27:22 86:13

101:13 142:18

154:1

guide 19:11 133:17

143:3

guideline 48:7

77:20

guidelines 68:4

guild 135:19

138:12,19

guilds 141:8

gut 139:5

guy 142:14 209:7

guys 79:14 82:5

123:15 142:12

160:4 172:12

184:1,4 199:5

211:2 212:18

218:2

H

habits 121:8

hampered 138:20

hand 71:15

handful 57:7

handle 52:3 57:5

116:19 131:5

213:22

handled 189:9

handling 34:4

44:18 69:7 70:1

123:3,4

happen 15:21

125:18,19 127:7

134:19 217:21

happened 92:15

133:8 173:14

happening 139:9

happens 41:2 108:1

109:6

happy 184:14

hard 21:9 100:4

116:10 162:12

219:8

hate 181:19

head 194:19

hear 100:2,9,10

149:12,15 179:7

184:14

heard 6:21 50:9

134:13 149:2

hearing 100:5

heavy 32:17

help 7:21 121:2

166:17 209:13

helpful 19:1 45:2

47:4 50:16 52:14

80:4 87:20 118:10

125:2 126:15

140:17 152:20

166:19 168:14

207:12 218:14

helps 125:21 141:2

141:9

herbivorous

128:11,16

hey 8:16

hi 149:5

hierarchical 28:6

hierarchy 25:18

high 18:19 21:15

27:10 63:14 82:16

88:19 102:18

107:8 108:4

125:19

higher 125:10

higher-level 18:10

highest 119:6

218:16

highly 54:3

high-level 18:21

22:5 28:3,9,13

45:3,11 46:12

47:7 54:22 77:22

78:1 85:12 86:6

87:11 150:15

152:1 159:11

history 66:3

hit 95:10 96:9

hold 202:9

holiday 80:15

homework 42:20

212:21

homogenized 38:14

hone 75:3

hoods 56:15

hope 6:4 7:22 20:5

23:5 141:11,11

hopefully 7:13

215:17 217:12

Hopewell 177:20

hoping 53:1 117:14

Hopkinson 2:9 7:2

7:3

hopper 154:16,17

155:4

hour 95:15 154:5

hours 35:3 37:15

38:7 102:13

house 16:10,11

56:4

huddle 67:19

huge 66:19

Hugh 2:7 5:4

hundred 116:6

hung 65:17

hunt 17:17

hurricanes 113:17

hypothetical 29:2

hypothetically

111:10

I

idea 22:11 29:22

60:11 61:10 113:2

119:10,14 121:16

125:22 131:9,16

167:10 203:16

ideally 141:17

identification

20:15 53:20

identified 29:15

30:7 70:6 76:16

78:18 87:16

163:11 164:1,4,8

164:20 166:3,4,6

197:13 206:2

identify 13:13 14:8

20:16,18 70:16

119:16 128:21

130:16 132:6

161:1,12 162:15

163:17 164:10,14

164:16 170:22

204:21

identifying 20:17

20:19 27:5 119:5

120:2 162:1,2,6

209:1

imagine 29:17

impact 97:19 124:6

implement 28:1

implemented 50:14

83:19,22

implements 159:16

importance 44:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

important 18:9

20:9 28:17 93:1

97:9 120:21,21

146:16 176:16

213:12

improve 34:17

imputed 84:22

incinerated 154:15

incinerator 154:19

include 45:2,5,10

50:16 86:6 87:11

98:16 101:14

150:22 207:20

included 9:16

150:17 162:22,22

177:16

including 101:6

156:11 194:13

increase 55:7

increment 217:17

independence 67:4

67:5

independent 72:16

95:7

indicate 126:2

indicated 51:5

indirect 162:18

167:14 173:3,7,8

173:11,21 177:10

180:5 186:1,2,19

197:22 202:14

210:10,12

individual 164:16

181:12

industrial 9:7

163:13 164:3

165:2,22 166:2,8

169:10 172:5

175:10 179:3

185:4,7 186:3,7

186:12,20 187:12

188:2,10 189:5,10

189:12,13,17

190:2 196:7,12,13

196:17 197:9

199:2,8,8,12

202:2 204:16

206:12

industries 167:5

188:17

industry 61:8 83:4

171:21

inferring 31:5

infinite 204:5

influence 206:5

influent 41:17

42:10 63:5 82:11

82:19 83:9,11

91:19 98:5 102:8

169:9 178:19

181:17,18 189:22

196:12 199:7

206:12

influents 86:14,17

92:1 204:16

211:15

influent/effluent

3:16 89:19 114:9

114:12

inform 22:17 95:5

96:2

information 15:1

45:5,11 47:14

78:1 82:15 85:13

86:6 101:7 124:19

128:5,7 131:3

133:17 150:9

156:3 158:8 161:8

161:11 165:7

170:12 171:9,11

171:17 179:6,10

202:11 207:9

209:13

inhabit 127:15

initial 211:17 212:6

initially 171:18

initiative 60:18

input 170:4 215:20

218:17

inquiries 212:19

inquiry 24:1

insects 136:12

insert 88:12

Inside 2:9

InsideEPA 7:3

insight 168:16

207:10

instance 133:7

157:11

instances 17:20

29:5 134:8

instantaneous

218:10

instantaneously

35:16

institution 71:19

instrument 64:4,11

184:9

instruments 56:16

73:2

insufficient 110:10

150:11

integrate 127:9

intended 33:14

37:19 40:14 92:16

99:6 161:15

163:12 196:9

intent 23:15 38:22

58:16 128:4

178:15

intentional 173:17

interest 94:20

116:1

interested 21:16

28:15 29:18 77:9

173:8 180:9

interfering 133:4

134:6

internal 95:14

internally 207:7,9

interrupt 149:7

interviewed 200:3

introduces 73:15

introducing 177:2

Introductions 3:9

invertebrate 114:8

114:14

invertebrates

105:21 108:10,11

109:9 120:11

122:6 136:12

146:17

investment 219:3

involved 136:20

involves 163:16

in-depth 140:14

in-stream 113:2

irrespective 176:5

193:11 207:20

issue 10:10 13:9

19:5 25:13 30:6

33:1,3 36:8 38:10

40:4 43:2 44:5

65:20 66:1 74:21

74:21 75:3 76:7

81:4 90:6 91:2

116:4 117:15

118:13 123:11

129:3 137:16

144:8 146:10,12

174:12 175:18

193:7,13,18

213:21 214:2

216:16,19

issues 7:15 8:8 11:9

11:20 12:21 13:14

17:14 18:6 50:15

58:2 76:2 78:10

81:5 94:1 95:16

193:22 216:10,21

218:13

iSTREEM 164:10

211:8,9,10,11,20

212:3,4,8

item 12:12

items 11:9 218:2

J

James 195:9

Jason 7:7

Jenny 2:9 7:2,4

Joe 1:15 5:7

jump 104:8

justification 31:21

K

Karen 1:17 4:17

104:3 152:4

Karloss 2:19 4:20

142:19 167:10

170:8

Kathy 2:15 4:22

keep 25:16 31:12

38:20 42:11 44:12

80:22 112:13

136:18 148:6

key 7:18 124:2

161:9 208:18

kilogram 178:22

Kim 7:7

kind 23:5 34:20

38:2 52:5 56:21

67:16 68:3,7

71:14 72:3,4 84:3

84:5 93:22 106:7

107:22 109:14

110:2 112:19

116:19 123:16

124:12 125:4

126:6 129:4

154:17,17 161:11

164:3 172:16

179:5 216:6

kinds 124:16

kinetics 41:5

knew 195:8

Knoerr 16:18 45:1

45:4 64:17 159:8

know 8:14 9:17

11:2 18:3,4,16

20:6 22:1 23:19

26:11,13 27:15,17

33:9 34:6 35:1,2,4

37:13 39:10 42:16

43:22 45:20 46:16

46:21 47:1 51:12

51:17,17 52:8

53:1 54:9 57:18

59:21 62:22 65:17

66:9 67:2,9,20

68:6 70:5,6 71:14

72:21 73:10,17,22

75:5,22 77:5 78:8

79:17 80:11 81:22

83:15 84:2,9 86:9

86:9 87:12 88:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

93:13 95:11 96:17

97:6 99:9,12

103:3 105:20

107:5,12 109:7

111:6 112:20

113:18 114:3,18

117:22 119:1

120:11 121:5,20

122:8 123:8,9,15

126:7,9 127:3,4

128:10,17 130:3,9

136:1,3,4 137:9

137:20 138:5,15

138:19 140:9

141:15,16,17

142:8,22 145:6,9

145:21 146:14

152:4 153:8 154:4

158:10 165:13,16

168:1,17 170:8

172:2,12 173:22

175:11,20 177:18

177:22 179:1,2,3

179:8 180:3 181:7

182:3,4,13 184:22

188:15,17 189:12

192:16,20 193:10

194:19 195:22

199:16 200:21

201:19 207:14

208:6 210:13

212:22 216:12

218:11 219:2,4

knowledge 132:15

168:2 219:3

knowledgeable

142:7

known 23:12 38:4

120:6 139:1 167:3

176:18 180:15

194:13

knows 203:11

Koch 2:10 5:11,11

Kristen 2:16 5:14

40:8

L

lab 56:13 58:14

60:11,18 64:14

67:18 72:20 73:5

74:12 150:21

159:6,14

laboratories 50:18

51:4 53:4 54:16

55:14 60:3,6

61:11 74:7 151:7

156:14

laboratory 16:5,8

16:15 17:3 50:8

50:10,12,20 51:11

51:17 53:7 55:15

55:21 56:9,18,22

57:4 60:9 61:3

64:20 65:3 66:6

72:20,22 73:1

74:3,5 99:15,20

100:19 132:19

158:6 159:3,6

laboratory-grade

99:5,7 100:13

labs 52:8 53:9,21

57:7,7,16 58:5,10

61:7,16 66:15

99:19

laid 14:18

Lake 115:11,11

land 154:15

landfilled 154:14

Laney 7:8

language 8:12,15

9:11 10:1,6,9

23:16 29:5 30:10

44:14 69:9 83:15

85:4 108:16 140:9

155:22 159:5

173:2 206:9

209:11

large 19:17 57:4

71:8 114:3

larger 164:19

179:2 201:6

late 149:7

Laughter 30:4

83:13 144:20

175:2 216:14

layer 136:11,13

lead 82:5 104:3

185:1

leads 29:1

learned 135:10

leave 43:3 153:19

155:16

leaves 155:13

leaving 153:21

154:14

left 90:15 170:10

196:9,16

legal 29:20 61:14

length 117:20

let's 13:6 38:20

42:16 44:12 46:14

91:11 93:6 111:10

151:1 160:13

167:15

level 18:6,7,20

21:15 27:10 41:16

55:13 59:16 61:22

82:17 86:10 88:20

100:22 107:8

119:6,16 120:17

120:22 125:8,10

125:14,18,19

130:21 135:21,22

136:6,7,19,20

147:11,21 167:22

172:4,19 181:1

205:10

levels 56:7 65:6

100:15,18,21

121:1 123:10

124:17 126:13,16

127:17 134:13,15

134:19 135:7,12

188:21

Leverage 140:11

Lewis 1:18 4:9,9

20:13 29:4,9,13

30:14 31:7,11

49:8,10,17 54:18

69:2,5 102:6

191:9,15 200:7,12

200:17,21 201:3

201:12 202:1

215:10 216:9,17

217:4,7

life 74:14

likelihood 172:15

limit 16:22 17:2,3,6

45:9 55:1,3,8,12

56:6 61:20 62:15

63:12 64:2,13,16

65:5 67:15 81:4

101:8 151:8,9,13

159:21,22 218:16

limitations 24:9

144:22 146:19

limits 10:3,4 18:7

24:9 41:7 55:9,15

56:8 62:4 64:6,7

67:22 93:12

103:18 213:15,20

line 40:18 49:16

192:17

lines 167:18

Lisa 2:6 149:5,8

list 24:2 101:17

118:16 161:6

162:1 163:22

165:1 168:6,9,15

168:18 172:3

173:7 174:1 176:4

177:9 178:6 180:4

181:13 187:10,10

193:10 203:14,18

205:22 207:19

209:20 211:8,17

211:20 212:3

listed 84:5 171:2,9

210:19

listen 51:19

listing 11:11

162:17

lists 167:5

liter 17:7

little 24:19,20 46:7

58:5 63:20 75:3

89:17,17 103:15

107:3 108:22

109:20 129:6

149:19 162:5

169:21 174:10

193:9 196:14

210:9 211:7

214:22

living 172:15

load 48:3

local 132:12 159:2

located 59:1

location 3:16 14:8

14:11,13,15 15:4

20:11 60:15,15

82:12 104:17

106:18 107:17,20

111:21 112:6,12

127:7 133:15

152:18 153:3

locations 22:12

104:15 124:5

157:14

log 62:21

logic 96:16 177:8

logistics 41:19

long 52:18 53:5,9

66:2 95:13 118:2

longer 160:9

218:13

look 11:4 17:11

18:19 30:13 36:15

41:9 42:14 44:4,6

44:7 47:11 51:14

53:4 56:12 65:19

68:18 74:19 75:4

75:22 77:5 78:9

79:12 82:1 89:4

90:8,9 93:15

103:20 117:4

118:16 130:18

139:5 143:17

154:8 159:22

167:4 175:5 183:3

189:1 190:18

191:10 202:12,14

206:8 209:10

211:6,8,13 213:3

213:21 214:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

219:1

looking 8:17 27:9

32:10 36:5 37:5

41:16,18 42:3,7

46:6 47:6 50:3,12

61:2 62:3 65:18

69:17 87:13 92:6

106:15 109:4

112:2 115:3 116:8

126:8 198:10

201:3 215:12

looks 21:8 24:7

27:6 31:14,17

212:22

lose 41:22 46:10

180:21

losers 174:20,22

lot 5:21 7:21 46:8

63:1,10 71:9 72:1

74:20 78:10 104:6

116:6 118:9

124:10 125:3

146:18 149:8

162:19 178:22

208:7 213:1 219:2

lots 66:3,3 91:6

198:7

love 54:7

low 62:7 98:21 99:2

100:15 117:3,3

125:8,18 144:2,5

157:19 158:2,2

204:16 212:12

lower 55:4,9

195:13

lowest 139:4

ludicrous 88:6

LUDWISZEWSKI

2:11

lunch 8:1 148:7,19

M

macroinvertebra...

120:15

magnification

124:9,22 127:12

132:10

main 81:5 141:7

197:20 212:14

Mait 2:12 4:19,19

19:21 20:5,20

23:22 25:10,22

26:4 28:19 29:8

29:12,16 35:7

36:3,12,22 37:22

38:10 41:15 42:2

42:7 48:19,22

49:3 53:15 54:7

54:12,20 58:17

59:16 61:4 66:13

66:17 67:6 74:14

74:19 75:5 76:4

76:12,20 77:8

79:4 80:19 81:8

82:21 83:5,10

88:1,4,7,17,21

89:1,7,10,13

90:18,22 91:3

95:7 96:3,6,13

98:1,9 99:3

101:22 112:17

113:15 115:3,19

142:17 143:2,6,11

154:16 155:6

167:9 168:10

171:19 174:6,12

174:15,18 175:3

176:20 177:7,17

178:1 180:7,16

181:8,19 182:22

183:16 185:3,6

186:1 189:8,20,22

190:7,15,17

191:20,22 192:4,8

192:11 193:5

194:18 195:2,7

198:18 199:14

200:2,10,16,19

201:2,8,16,19

203:13 204:1,3,14

205:1,6,18 206:4

206:18 207:8,21

208:10,15 209:3

209:15 210:2,15

211:1 214:11,15

215:19 216:15

217:15,18 218:20

majeure 10:9

major 17:14 18:6

204:20

makeup 121:4

making 39:11

172:10 183:1

207:15 216:3

219:10

management 54:1

77:1

manages 189:13

manufacturer

181:12

manufacturing

92:8 168:3 185:19

186:13 187:19

Mark 1:20 4:10

markers 43:4

135:13

mass 110:19

material 38:13

56:1 65:7 89:21

91:8 97:2 98:7

155:13 182:9

materials 60:14

170:19 172:5

math 17:4

matrices 15:8 17:7

68:19

matrix 16:21 64:10

156:22

matter 43:20 51:16

119:13 122:12,17

148:20 160:14

210:4 219:11

matters 37:7

122:14

mayflies 139:3,4

McNett 2:14 7:6,6

99:4 100:4,10,17

157:21,22 192:19

MDL 65:13

mean 34:22 35:1

39:14,20 40:21

42:13 46:8,13

53:10 58:15 59:18

67:8,12 68:9 69:9

69:16 72:1,6

73:18 74:16 76:6

78:8,8,9 81:2,5,16

86:7 89:2 99:2

101:2 102:11,14

105:11,18 107:4

110:9,10 114:1,16

116:17 117:22

119:13 120:7,16

122:14,16 123:2

123:11,12 124:2

125:2 128:20

130:4,8,13 131:8

134:17 135:3,4

136:21 137:19,22

138:1 142:5,15

147:1 153:10,15

157:8 160:18

165:16 170:21

172:18 174:9

177:22 178:5

180:14 182:22

183:16 184:21,21

185:9,19 187:3,17

191:3,13 193:10

194:14 195:9

199:4 205:1

208:16 210:2

218:20

meaning 133:5

meaningful 116:3

179:1

means 14:3 25:4

147:4 153:18

157:10 183:7

185:3

meant 60:4 90:3

153:17 154:11

175:4

measurable 99:8

measure 43:11,13

61:22 63:14

110:20 124:17

151:18

measured 55:14

166:22

measurement

15:19 37:16 90:13

measurements

34:13 135:21

measures 83:18

measuring 178:15

178:18

media 8:22 57:17

62:11 65:12 66:6

medium 8:14 34:8

meet 68:10 72:16

76:8,11 109:10

130:20 144:15

176:9 210:5,18

meeting 1:5,11

member 160:20

162:18 180:9

207:18

members 205:10

208:2

mention 58:8

196:22 217:5

mentioned 40:9

89:15 162:17

168:20 184:6

mentioning 167:10

met 71:18 161:6

164:17 171:14

method 16:12,22

45:2 46:10 49:4

55:3 56:4 61:19

62:14 64:16

103:21 110:16,17

151:8 158:9,16,19

159:1,7,8,16

192:14 214:8

methodical 174:16

methodologies 15:9

methodology 46:9

64:21 162:14

163:15 165:13

166:2 168:20

170:22

methods 16:9,10,17

19:19 23:4 26:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

26:17 50:4,10,21

65:4 66:2 159:15

165:15 193:3

micrograms 17:7

microphones

149:13

middle 83:16

midges 119:8

120:19

Midland 61:9

66:11 190:21

193:15

mike 149:19

miles 115:17,18

116:6

million 180:19

mind 25:16 42:11

70:3 122:20

minds 157:4

mind-set 210:8

minimally 147:8

minimize 162:7

minimum 55:12

147:2,5

minor 7:15 10:13

minutes 35:3 81:20

160:8

misconstrued

127:22

misleading 174:10

Mississippi 115:13

117:9

misunderstanding

24:20 173:1 189:3

misused 134:16

mix 157:1 189:10

mixed 14:9 38:14

185:6 190:4

mixing 14:5,10,12

14:19 19:5,8,12

19:20 20:4,10,21

21:2,6 22:6,12,18

22:22 23:12 24:4

24:10,14 25:13,21

27:2,6,8,16 28:7

28:16 29:11,19,22

30:8 31:7 32:7,13

35:11 36:1 39:1,4

39:17 40:17,19

42:5 104:21

105:13 106:21

108:16 109:7

111:19 112:22

113:10 114:17

117:20 162:3,8

169:17,22 198:11

mobility 76:1 81:4

model 212:4

modeling 26:17

27:4 211:10

modification

124:20

modifying 174:7

moment 89:14

127:8 143:20

193:21

Momentive 2:6,16

5:15 149:6

money 76:7

monitored 175:6

198:3

monitoring 28:18

29:21 42:14 70:3

77:6,10,13 132:11

145:10 169:4

173:8,20 181:4

month 139:2

months 53:11,12

moot 117:15

morning 57:13

97:17 161:20

162:11 169:16

214:14

move 81:12 149:12

149:18 152:12

moving 14:14

60:14 78:17 151:4

152:16

MPM 2:6

much-needed

79:11

mud 104:20 105:19

106:1

multiple 26:10

46:20 57:16 58:5

58:9,19 61:11

117:19 125:14

138:9 140:5

157:14 188:17

multi-month 54:5

multi-year 54:6

municipal 191:13

mute 49:16

muting 110:2

N

NACWA 170:5

183:19 202:5

205:9

NAIC 171:14

NAICS 166:5 197:1

naive 66:9

name 6:22 149:4

names 10:17

name's 4:5

narrow 212:11

narrowed 211:19

narrowing 168:17

natural 132:12

142:12

naturally 188:19

nature 6:9 133:3

134:5 187:12

198:10

natures 198:5

near 106:17

nearest 112:2

necessarily 10:10

11:4 60:6 76:5

83:4 94:8 130:20

135:5 187:16

193:17 205:15

210:14 212:8

necessary 53:22

56:3 57:17 58:21

84:15 147:20

need 11:14 13:14

17:15,21 18:4

25:4 28:9,11,12

33:5,10 34:10

48:14 50:13 51:18

52:10 53:13 55:7

61:21 67:15 68:14

68:14 76:18 78:13

81:12 85:6 90:16

90:20 94:22 95:11

96:6,7,8 99:14

110:18 111:11

114:7 115:19

133:18 134:12

137:14 140:20

142:20 146:18

158:16 160:6

169:14 174:4

179:17 181:6

183:14 206:8

211:3 213:13

218:6

needed 16:13 43:3

needing 217:13

needs 11:16 52:7

68:11 79:14 81:3

107:3 130:20

140:10 167:11

211:18

negotiating 217:10

netting 125:5

never 29:2 55:22

64:15 75:12

112:18 141:15

178:11,12

nevertheless

210:15

new 24:14 66:5

183:3 218:17

Nguyen 1:18 5:8,8

37:11,21 39:8,17

90:5 195:11,15,18

197:15

Nhan 1:18 5:8

nice 80:21 125:8

nicely 73:3

nine 171:3 187:4

noise 64:4,11

non 157:19

non-detectable

93:18 98:21

100:15 144:2

NON-EPA 2:1

non-industrial

188:20

non-POTWs 167:6

normal 32:16 38:5

38:7 102:10,11,14

102:18,21

normally 76:12

117:19 154:16

186:5 189:8,10

note 84:22 168:22

noted 83:16

notes 213:7

noticed 147:10

216:20

number 9:1 12:12

12:13 13:18 17:13

18:8 31:14,20

33:10 36:17 39:5

39:10 40:8 66:22

77:6 81:2 89:16

108:4 110:15

114:3 124:5

146:11,15 150:10

156:6 165:5 166:3

181:16 196:5,17

197:6,11 199:21

201:10 216:10

numbers 17:4 57:4

103:17 111:6

131:3

NW 1:12

O

objective 46:14

94:12 181:4

183:10

objectives 95:4

97:8

obvious 110:12

141:5

obviously 6:1 17:11

24:18 27:4 33:3

42:20 51:2,10

52:21 53:15 67:13

68:11 70:1 78:13

81:7,16 95:13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

105:20 126:15

145:7 204:5

215:15

occur 29:6

occurred 14:6

occurrence 91:19

92:2 98:3,4

occurring 32:15

69:10

occurs 14:21

offer 142:17 178:1

180:7 182:12

184:10

officially 217:10

oftentimes 17:15

145:9

OGC 1:15

oh 47:18,22 106:3

148:5 190:13

191:13 207:17

214:12 217:6

okay 5:18 7:12 9:4

9:22 10:16 11:18

12:4,11 13:7,10

13:16 17:9 27:1

27:19,20 30:3

31:9,11 34:8

36:22 42:1,6,19

44:11 48:5,5,11

48:14,18,22 49:7

50:5 52:13 54:17

54:21 66:21 67:2

67:8,10,11,18

68:22 75:14,21

77:3,19 79:10

81:15 82:9,20

83:1 85:5 86:15

86:20 88:17 89:1

89:7 96:11 98:1,9

98:14 99:21,22,22

100:11 101:1

102:3 103:11,14

103:22 104:7

108:14 111:17,22

118:21 123:7

138:22 143:11

144:7 145:18

146:2,7,21 147:18

148:2,16 151:21

151:22 152:8,11

152:15 154:7

155:15,18,20,21

157:16,17 158:4

158:21 159:4,12

159:17,19 160:2

160:17 163:8

170:16 171:7,15

175:7 176:20

177:21 180:12,18

183:14 186:18

187:22 190:9,20

192:20 194:11,14

202:19 205:17

206:7 207:4,13

208:17 209:8,18

211:1 212:10,16

216:8 217:1,18

onboard 210:22

once 61:21 112:4

119:18,20 128:20

170:2 209:2

ones 20:18 52:1

65:19 78:9,18

122:12 129:20

130:2 131:18,18

142:15 196:9

198:11 203:16

206:12 207:19

onsite 84:4 131:21

186:2

operated 102:13

192:7 193:16

operating 25:2

38:7,8 162:4

operation 84:10

94:14 102:10,15

192:7

operations 32:16

37:13 39:20 55:16

56:9 94:7 102:12

102:18,21

operator 29:17

112:18 167:13

185:17 205:12,14

operators 165:1,4

170:7 182:8

183:20 196:21

200:3 203:5

opinion 98:12

opportunity 40:11

opposed 163:3

OPPT 1:16,17,18

1:19,21

option 28:7

options 133:20

166:14

oranges 198:12

order 1:11 34:16

35:7 50:14 96:8

129:11

organic 47:12

organism 125:9

organisms 43:9

91:14 92:11 93:9

94:18 97:21

104:13 105:3

107:19 108:3,6

109:22 112:12

118:22 121:1

122:9 125:10

organizational

122:20

origin 60:7

original 110:3

originally 75:7

outfall 14:3,9 32:12

32:20

outfitted 57:6,7

outflow 189:19,20

outing 35:5

output 38:16 39:3

outside 31:1 66:9

outstanding 214:2

216:21

overall 27:11 28:4

46:3 53:16 54:1

76:22 77:22 93:1

overarching 216:9

overemphasized

177:15

overlap 173:15

overlay 175:15

overview 6:5 13:12

46:12 152:1 161:4

owe 213:19

owned 20:15 191:4

191:19 192:1,3,5

192:22 194:2

o'clock 160:5

P

page 8:9 9:5 10:3

44:13 45:8 48:13

50:6 98:15,18,19

103:3 150:14

151:1,2 152:16,22

153:2 155:22

159:20 163:14,22

164:6 168:20

211:13

pages 86:12 87:3,5

219:6

panel 99:4

paper 63:8

paragraph 11:3

18:13,14 44:20

49:12 83:17 103:4

143:22 150:18

151:5 153:1,3

156:15

parallel 152:10

parameter 28:17

parenthetically

84:21

part 14:16 15:2,12

16:6 20:7 22:13

24:8 25:19 27:22

46:1 48:17,17

51:5,6 52:6 53:14

54:10 62:8,8

69:17,22 72:22

73:5 77:1 86:1

90:19 94:6 119:11

127:18 142:4

145:10 161:9

162:4 167:16

172:18 173:18

183:9,17 186:15

189:4 190:13

participate 169:4

particular 17:21

44:7 59:7 68:6

69:19 82:2 92:19

133:6 136:10

156:22 168:21

177:2

particularly 23:21

34:11 46:19 71:10

81:8,9 99:10

113:19 146:16

219:9

particulates 106:13

parties 21:16 28:15

parts 62:7 63:13,16

163:10

party 29:18

pass 12:7

path 42:2

Paul 1:18 4:9

Paul-Minneapolis

115:14

Penberthy 1:12,14

1:19 4:3,6 5:18

6:13,18 7:12 9:3

9:22 10:2,16 12:4

12:6,11 13:2,7,10

17:9 24:22 25:7

26:8 27:19 30:5

31:4,9 32:22

33:17 34:6,22

35:6,21 36:8,16

36:21 37:1 40:15

40:22 41:9 42:1,6

42:19 43:18 44:11

45:14,18 46:13

47:17,20 48:2,6

48:11,14 61:18

62:6 63:6,16,20

67:11 68:9,22

69:4,21 70:20

71:12,15,22 72:8

73:8 75:2,14,21

77:4,12,19 78:16

79:3,6,10 80:11

81:1,15,19 82:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

82:18 83:1 84:14

85:3 86:7 89:11

90:15,20 91:1

94:6,19 95:3

96:11,15 97:4

98:10 103:3,11

104:1 105:2,6

107:14 108:15,20

110:9,12 111:1,22

112:14 116:2,10

117:18 118:21

120:4 121:18

122:2,7,19 123:7

123:20 124:14

126:14 129:13

130:3,8 134:7

135:2 137:15

138:8 139:12

140:4,15,19

141:22 142:11,21

143:5,10,12 144:9

145:14 146:2,7,11

146:21 147:10,16

147:18 148:5,12

148:14,16 149:9

151:11,21 152:9

152:13 155:3,15

155:20 157:7,16

160:2,12,17 163:7

165:12 166:18

167:3 172:20

174:9,14,17,21

175:5 176:12,17

177:6,13,21 178:4

178:13,21 179:11

179:21 180:3,13

181:3,15 182:16

183:14 184:3,16

186:17 187:7,11

187:22 188:6,13

189:2 190:5,9,13

190:20 191:2,6,18

191:21 192:6,10

192:13 193:8

194:7,11,22 195:4

199:10 202:4,12

202:17 203:7,22

204:2,19 205:3,17

206:3,7 207:4,13

208:6,14,17,21

209:8,18 210:7,20

211:2 212:18,22

213:6,18 214:12

214:16 215:4,9,14

216:8,12,18 217:6

217:9,16,22 218:8

218:11,18,22

people 41:19 50:2

51:21 57:12 70:11

71:4 77:15 84:6

128:2 142:19

199:21 209:5

Pepin 115:11,11

percent 169:9

196:8,11 198:21

199:7,12,18

202:21 203:4

204:9,11 211:15

percentage 9:6

percentages 204:9

perform 73:16

77:14

performance 54:15

period 35:9 57:9

58:20 95:18,19

97:18 117:7

217:10

periods 66:2

permit 20:2,7,17

20:22 21:4 23:18

25:20 26:6 27:16

28:8 31:2 82:15

162:4 185:20

permits 20:19

82:18 197:5

permitted 20:1

24:15 167:14

207:11

permittees 182:8

permitting 22:13

22:18 23:1 25:2

persistence 140:20

person 7:18 57:12

personnel 159:18

perspective 42:16

56:12 62:18 118:8

140:7

pertain 27:4,8

pertinent 14:14

15:16 71:10

phase 184:7

phone 6:17,21 7:5

7:11 37:10 49:15

149:1,3,12

photographs 117:4

phrase 25:1,5 73:9

physical 58:22

61:11 118:5

physically 35:8

74:11

Ph.D 142:8

pick 13:4 31:6

123:22 129:14,15

129:16 130:9

137:18 138:2,11

172:11 177:4

181:2 210:3,5

picked 200:20

201:4,7

picking 138:6

174:19 210:4

picks 154:21

piece 88:11,20 98:6

137:8 176:14

218:19,19

pile 155:11

piles 155:10

place 29:3 42:17

71:20 99:13

100:12 108:5

219:4

places 205:22

plan 15:12 22:3,19

22:20 25:21 27:12

27:15 28:4 43:17

46:2,2,4,16 57:18

75:16 86:1,1,4,16

86:19 95:9 103:1

111:1 119:16

127:19 131:2,10

143:4 152:19

169:1 188:1 206:5

209:1

planning 28:5

181:21

plans 15:3 27:14

75:17,18 91:18

133:4 206:6

plant 169:3 181:11

185:19 186:9

190:2,21,22 191:5

191:16 193:15

194:16 198:17

plants 97:3 102:12

115:15

playing 61:16

please 6:21 7:1

49:16

Plotzke 2:15 4:22

4:22 36:5,9 38:20

39:9 40:20 41:3

42:11 46:5 51:1

52:20 53:10 56:11

57:11 58:4,11,15

60:10 61:1 62:17

65:9,15,21 66:12

66:16,19,22 67:5

68:16 69:14 71:17

72:6,11 73:18

74:16 76:19 77:16

84:1 93:5 94:13

95:2,5 96:1,4,20

97:13 99:10,18

100:1,8,11 109:1

109:18 113:8

114:16 115:2

122:16 123:2,14

124:2,18 126:2,5

128:1,19 129:18

129:21 131:8

132:7 133:16

134:4 135:9

136:21 141:10,14

142:2 144:21

145:18 146:1

148:10 159:9

160:10 179:19

180:2 185:2,5,14

187:9,16 188:5,11

188:22 189:21

190:12,16 191:1,4

191:8,11 192:2,16

192:20 194:1,3,9

195:6 198:13

201:14,18,20

plus 197:12,12

210:3

point 11:1 14:2

19:2 21:19 22:4

27:15 32:4,6,7,8,9

32:11,19,20,21

33:15 34:7 35:19

40:6,7 43:6,10

45:19 59:17 86:22

88:8 90:13 93:6

96:5 112:1,3

113:11 114:17,21

116:3 132:6

142:22 147:19

148:17 152:18

153:10,13,15

167:21 171:16

172:9 176:21

182:22 184:22

195:22 197:20

199:14 212:2,14

215:8

pointed 134:12

points 11:4 35:17

98:16 101:7

107:10 118:10

150:10,16 156:3

156:12 169:2

213:11,15

polishing 12:5

216:3

Pollack 1:19 4:16

4:16

population 164:19

173:16 175:16

200:8 201:1,7

212:1,11

populations 105:20

202:3

portion 71:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

195:13

position 168:5

possibilities 161:17

possibility 61:5

possible 8:20 14:1

83:19 86:5 91:7

106:21 121:21

125:7 141:8

possibly 55:22

64:15 202:17

potential 59:11

114:7 125:22

187:4 202:5,15

214:19

potentially 52:4

109:21 110:1,4

113:22 119:5

121:7 161:21

162:6

POTW 7:21 9:7,9

11:7 20:4 29:17

31:3 38:5,8 49:3

112:21 164:22

165:4 167:12,13

175:10 177:20

182:8 183:20

185:1 186:4

187:12 188:8

189:5 191:20

192:14 193:17

195:18 196:21

198:7 199:11

200:3 202:22

203:5 205:14

208:11 209:3

POTWs 19:22 30:7

31:6 83:4,10

84:19 92:7 148:18

161:2,6,13 162:2

162:17 163:22

164:3,22 165:2,3

165:17 166:15

168:9,22 169:7

170:7,10 171:5,22

175:22 182:21

186:18 196:1,4,6

196:7,7,10,13

197:6 199:5

202:13 205:8

211:8,9,12,14

pour 97:16

Powell 151:2

PQL 56:9 58:9 60:2

60:8 65:13 143:18

144:7 159:21

PQLs 55:17

practical 14:4,7

17:1,6 54:22

55:11 56:6,21

57:3 65:1,5 74:17

84:2 101:8 142:9

146:19 151:8

practicality 84:12

142:5

practice 99:7

110:22 111:7

153:18

pre 133:17

precise 9:6 76:2

precisely 45:20

191:3

precision 50:4

predator 127:3

133:6 138:21

139:1,5,6

predators 139:4

predetermined

70:5

predict 139:11

182:5

prefer 18:14

105:15

preference 78:17

122:22

preferences 8:15

preferred 28:6

145:15

preliminary 18:21

preparation 15:3

16:6 44:22

prepared 15:18

64:18

presence 8:22

Present 1:13 2:1,22

presented 212:6

presents 61:13

128:11

presiding 1:12

pretty 22:11 63:11

79:5 138:13 152:6

213:2 214:9

prevent 56:18

previously 66:8

161:7 162:20

pre-treatment

197:5

primarily 163:1

principal 209:1

prior 155:1 186:10

priori 24:5 182:4

183:11

prioritize 218:14

priority 93:20,21

218:16

private 190:22

193:7,9

privately 191:4,19

192:4,22 194:2

probability 61:6

probably 9:8 11:15

14:22 22:4 29:17

33:18 37:12 40:11

46:11 48:9 53:2

55:22 61:5 62:22

75:11 77:16 79:8

82:22 83:3 93:20

101:12,13 108:2

129:17 140:19

141:6 160:10

169:18 173:16,17

177:15 180:20

182:13 184:9

192:9 193:2

197:21

problem 9:4 10:19

127:1 138:4 150:2

173:13 174:15

177:14,19 190:19

199:19 210:13

problems 46:15

128:12 199:15

procedural 64:4

procedure 151:17

176:6

procedures 21:11

52:10 100:19

proceed 160:18

process 16:13

22:14,18 23:1,17

29:20 30:17,22

39:20,21 52:16,19

54:6,11 67:3 90:9

90:10,10 92:22

93:4 99:11 117:2

132:9,20 144:22

154:6,18 168:17

170:19 171:2

172:19 180:15

189:16 190:3

192:21 198:2

203:20 207:16

processes 39:5,16

116:7 208:12

processing 92:8

122:17 123:5

154:12 167:17

172:6 191:16

processors 181:6

procure 168:7

product 60:18 84:9

93:8 168:3

program 60:16

61:7 62:22 63:3

64:13 66:20 71:5

112:20 113:3

124:13 145:10

169:4 183:2,9,22

programs 74:20

77:6,10,13 132:11

progress 10:15

11:19 219:10

project 46:4 54:1

75:18 76:22

182:15

proper 56:10

properly 52:3

proposal 181:20

proposed 14:10

118:16 177:8

proposing 31:17

45:6 55:4 139:18

PROTECTION

1:3

provide 10:14

11:22 15:7 19:18

56:5 80:8 84:13

128:7 131:1,3

provided 16:19

21:7 30:18 171:9

212:14

providing 14:4

public 193:7

publicly 20:15

161:8,10 165:6

191:22 192:2

202:11

pull 17:22 74:10

85:12 89:1 131:14

159:10

pulling 120:11

pure 186:5 187:19

purely 186:12

purpose 47:13

53:20 91:12

purposes 23:21

61:20 150:12

175:20 203:15

put 9:1 13:18 17:11

51:3 87:6 102:1

113:9 119:10

120:2 123:5

141:10 142:2

153:14 154:15

176:4 209:20

puts 25:8

putting 17:10

122:8

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

4:1

p.m 148:21,22

160:15,16 219:12

Q

QA 15:17 46:3

QA/QC 33:2 47:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

QC 49:22

qualification

206:11

qualifications

50:11,17,20 151:6

156:13 158:6

qualified 196:5,5

qualifying 205:5

qualitative 121:10

121:19

qualitatively

200:14,15

quality 15:19 42:21

46:4 75:17 76:9

83:18 157:6

quandary 181:1

quantification

109:13 111:11

182:12 183:11

quantify 108:4

110:8 183:10

184:15

quantitation 17:2,2

17:6 55:1,12 56:6

64:7 65:5 101:8

151:8

quantity 56:10

queries 24:3

168:12

question 19:22

59:20 69:2 83:8

100:3,6 111:10

119:4 123:1

126:17 131:7

134:12 137:6

138:17 143:21

144:3,14 169:19

173:10 184:17

191:18 205:15

207:2 209:4

questions 17:13

19:3 31:14 159:20

165:9 168:9,15

169:7,15 170:5

206:14,16,19,22

207:3 211:3 214:4

219:7

quick 148:14 152:1

215:17

quickly 6:10 7:14

150:6

quite 13:18 17:11

55:3

R

rainfall 32:17

102:19,19

rainy 103:2

Randy 192:17,17

193:1

range 79:14

Rantham 7:8

rate 140:9

rationale 200:13

RAY 2:11

RCRA 74:21 75:10

76:9

reach 39:2 164:9

reacting 159:5

read 9:11 10:4

109:15 129:5

164:5

reading 13:21 32:5

60:1

ready 53:7 153:19

Reagan 8:3 160:7,8

real 34:14 36:17

40:4 124:2 127:8

162:12

realistic 70:18

74:18

realistically 114:20

198:7

reality 42:15 84:5

93:17

realize 84:9 136:19

really 8:20 11:4

22:1,15 23:3,17

25:17 27:17 46:9

46:10 51:18 68:20

69:19 70:15 71:13

78:8 81:12 90:2

94:4 97:13,18

114:15 115:10,22

116:21 118:9

123:17,18 124:6

125:8 126:7 128:3

135:4 137:7

152:20 178:8

180:21 199:18

200:4 202:22

204:10,15 210:12

212:11 213:13

reason 18:2 127:12

151:15 157:22

197:17

reasonable 55:10

167:7 169:19

reasonably 138:22

reasons 67:6 141:6

recall 200:19

receive 165:21

170:19 178:18

received 164:1

169:8 211:14

receives 115:13

receiving 14:1,6,9

19:13,15 20:10

26:16,20 32:3

63:15 117:6,17

169:2 171:6 172:5

186:20,21

recommendation

116:14

recommendations

161:15

reconciled 216:4,5

reconciling 12:2

reconnaissance

105:16 106:19

109:3 113:10,14

124:10 130:15

150:8

record 148:21,22

160:15,16 200:4

219:12

recovery 45:9

red 137:19

redefine 25:22

179:15

redefining 26:3

29:19

refer 45:1 85:14

101:13

reference 17:16,18

18:1 23:3 46:7

87:15 88:11,19

89:3 101:14,16,19

103:5 144:1

156:15,17 157:3

157:18 158:3

referenced 16:20

86:13 150:19

214:8

references 29:14

46:20 79:12,20

85:11 86:8,12

87:3 88:10 98:17

150:16 156:12

159:10

referred 17:17 48:9

105:22

referring 20:14

38:17 62:20

136:18

refine 199:16

refinement 167:11

169:13 170:3

203:2 212:5

reflect 176:22

207:22

reflection 91:7

reformulator 172:6

reformulators

170:20 181:6

regard 13:20 83:8

regarding 145:6

158:8

regards 104:12

regime 68:13

regionally 59:1

regulation 75:6,12

183:3

regulations 69:17

71:9 73:14 76:11

regulatory 23:21

reinvent 23:19

24:16

related 94:14

160:19

relationship 52:7

relatively 173:6

release 14:2 32:4

97:1 152:19 153:9

153:13,15 176:1

185:21 186:10

208:9 215:7

releases 185:10

relevance 156:22

214:5

relevant 8:13 25:15

42:8 70:2 163:10

211:12

relying 196:1

remember 63:7

195:8,9

remnant 175:17

remote 172:16

185:20

removed 157:12

repeatability 36:6

replicate 90:19

replicates 36:19

39:12 40:9 42:21

90:17 119:2,3

146:18 216:16

report 117:4

163:22 171:12

211:6 214:18

represent 32:9

representation

164:7 199:22

representative

32:20 33:2,12,14

40:8 114:4 163:13

197:10

represented 32:14

representing 6:15

reproduce 65:10

require 73:15

155:17

required 147:9

requirement 8:10

47:9 73:16 76:9

76:10 103:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

147:2,5

requirements 32:1

44:17,21 50:13

56:19 67:21 69:8

69:18 70:9,13

71:18 72:3,15

79:18 83:21 186:8

requires 8:21 186:9

rerun 209:17

research 214:22

residential 165:2

169:7 185:7

186:22 187:8,21

189:6 196:10,16

198:14 199:1,5

211:12,16

resolve 7:15 30:6

resolved 6:10 11:9

resonance 40:18

resource 142:12

resources 132:12

respect 50:17 67:21

68:17 116:14

163:11 167:8

184:13,18

respond 99:5 207:7

response 196:3

responses 51:3

196:1

responsibility

29:21

responsive 204:7

rest 56:17

restraining 94:20

result 33:20 36:6

90:17

results 130:13

retain 73:9

returned 65:7

reverse 7:17

review 3:11 6:1

22:21 172:21

reviews 18:21

rewrite 88:10,13,18

re-craft 179:14

re-draft 78:21

RFP 51:3 53:19

76:17,19 81:12

right 4:3 7:16 12:6

25:12 26:2 29:4

29:16 30:5,14

35:6 37:3,20

39:17 40:22 41:4

44:9 48:1,16 49:3

51:21 53:15 54:2

63:21 65:6,15

74:13 76:14,21

81:1,21 83:9,11

84:17,19 85:1,1,3

88:1,7,21 90:22

93:2,9 94:19 95:3

95:22 96:7,10

104:9 109:5,18

111:18 113:15

114:18 115:1

117:13 119:20,22

122:2 123:8 126:9

129:2 130:10

135:8 137:2,15

138:4 140:6,15

141:11 142:11

143:5,10,13,19

144:7,10,11,12

146:1 148:17

149:12,14 150:1

153:18 160:6

170:21 174:2,14

177:5,13 178:4,13

178:15,16 179:11

181:18 184:16

186:22 187:15

188:5,13 191:21

194:7 195:20,20

196:4,13,20

197:14 198:6

200:12,16 201:2

202:15,16 203:12

203:22 204:17,21

204:21 205:2

206:3 208:4,21

209:8,15 214:13

215:9,9 218:8,11

risk 43:12 67:16

91:13 92:6,11

93:6,7,19 94:5

95:5 96:2,14

97:14 98:6 140:18

141:4 147:21

risks 43:8

river 41:20 115:13

117:9 175:19

176:1,13 195:10

195:10

RN 9:1

robustness 123:18

rocks 106:11

roll 4:4 10:22 11:7

rolling 154:22

rolls 10:7

Ronald 8:2

room 1:11 4:4

143:8 149:2 182:5

rooms 56:15

rough 107:17

roughly 105:4

164:12

routine 55:15 56:9

routinely 17:3

ruin 57:13

rules 57:13

run 37:14 49:5

61:12 72:2,13

94:8 100:19,19

running 53:7 97:11

Russell 2:12 4:19

194:17 200:22

S

safety 41:18

salient 88:11,20

98:16 101:7

107:10 118:10

150:9,15 156:3,11

sample 13:6 19:9

33:4,12,16 44:16

44:21 45:15 49:21

49:22 55:13 58:1

64:10 70:6 74:9

74:11,11 91:20

92:3 95:15,17,20

95:20 103:9,17

105:11 106:4

108:8 109:8 110:7

110:20 111:14

119:2 121:14,19

123:21 124:15

129:15 132:18,18

135:8 137:8,18

139:22 145:6

147:7 153:4

157:15 177:19

sampled 62:18 92:3

samples 15:9,13,15

15:17,17,19,20

16:4,11,14 18:8

20:12 22:22 31:14

31:18,20,22 32:19

33:11,18,22 34:2

34:11,16,17 35:10

35:13 36:14 39:10

40:1 43:10,19,22

44:19 49:11,14,18

49:18,20 50:6

52:4 55:20 57:4

57:14 58:20 59:7

59:8,12 60:20

64:18 67:1 72:22

85:2,9,17,19

86:14 87:10 89:16

90:2,12 91:8,9,10

100:7 101:5,6

102:8,9 103:5,6

103:13 104:14,18

109:11 110:15

111:13 112:8,10

121:11 123:3

125:21 127:2

132:20 134:18

137:14 142:6

143:16,22 144:1

145:12 146:12,15

146:18 150:11,14

150:20 151:16

152:19 156:6,8,9

156:16 157:3,8,13

157:19 158:2

159:2 213:16

216:10

sampling 3:16

14:11 15:22 16:3

16:14 21:22 22:3

22:20 27:14 32:15

33:6,22 34:7 35:2

37:19,21 39:1

40:10 42:10 43:17

46:2 53:22 64:13

70:7 71:5 74:20

75:8,17 76:17

82:12,19 84:9,15

85:22 86:4 87:8

87:13 89:15,19

92:15 95:9 96:17

104:13 112:5,13

113:1,2 114:1,6,8

114:13,14 124:10

131:10 132:19

133:13 134:2

145:3 154:12

197:10

sand 105:19 106:2

sandy 108:1

sanitary 185:4,11

186:3,7 188:3,10

189:9 190:1

Sara 1:19 4:16

122:5 152:5

satisfy 89:5

saw 195:5

saying 8:12 74:4

84:20 87:2,8

119:8 121:13

125:17 130:18

138:8 187:4

204:10

says 25:1 51:17

60:2 75:6 102:17

103:7 109:2

142:13,14 156:16

159:6 201:6

scanning 63:19

scenario 29:10

187:2

schedule 53:13,16

scientific 204:10

scientists 57:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

142:8

screen 181:22,22

209:2

screened 177:10,11

204:18

screening 208:2,2

se 122:22

search 197:3,4

214:18

searching 211:18

213:20

season 139:3

seasonal 40:12

second 38:21 44:6

49:11 134:2

139:22 140:3

143:22 150:18

170:9 211:22

213:9

secondary 29:22

77:1

second-to-last

103:4

section 44:18

163:14,22 176:21

211:13

sections 19:10,17

85:14 86:12

sediment 13:9 34:9

43:8 59:8 68:20

93:8,10,21 96:19

97:15,20 104:15

104:22 105:1,3,10

105:18,22 106:6

106:13 107:16,19

108:2,9,10 109:9

112:5,7 114:14,22

120:10 125:9

136:11,13 148:13

150:14,20 151:11

151:16 156:16,17

157:3,5,19,22

159:1 215:11

sediments 3:18

98:8 114:8 115:16

150:4

sediment-acquired

91:14 92:11

see 10:11 19:6

37:11,15 45:8

51:21 59:11 79:2

80:14 81:6 94:2

101:18 103:18

114:6 141:6 151:1

153:7 165:8 189:1

196:18 199:7

204:17 210:13

213:21

seeing 69:18

seen 121:3 128:1

segregated 56:17

SEHSC 2:4,7,8,17

2:18,19 4:21 5:3,6

5:13,17 13:17

seine 125:5

seining 125:13

select 22:16 128:10

130:11 197:3

selected 76:16

140:13 165:17

201:13 203:16

selecting 137:7

selection 50:21

117:2 165:15

176:5 177:12

197:6 208:1

self 128:9

Seltzer 1:20 4:10

4:10 6:20 7:4,10

37:9 49:15 149:1

149:8,11,18 150:1

send 59:6 74:12

sending 142:19

sense 11:17 14:7

24:13 40:12 52:18

65:1 105:7 116:22

122:10,21 137:22

156:10 163:6

170:1 171:5 203:3

207:15

sensitive 146:15

sent 16:5

sentences 129:4

sentiment 208:7

separate 11:16

86:8 122:12 129:1

129:8 162:17

164:14 197:7

198:15,15

separately 166:10

189:9 197:3

separation 135:15

September 79:9,15

213:8 217:3,20

series 168:11

served 200:8

serves 49:22

services 53:21

set 8:7 57:2 82:2

85:22 110:15

115:6

setting 64:12 65:6

settle 106:14

settles 106:11

sewer 184:20 185:3

185:8 187:2,14

188:4 189:7,11,12

190:6 193:13

197:16

sewers 184:22

shallow 113:19

share 168:15

shared 84:13

sheer 76:6

ShinEtsu 2:3 6:15

ship 60:21

shipping 60:14

shoot 213:16

shop 184:2

shoreline 106:17

short 117:7 184:15

209:19

show 8:3 98:4

shower 56:20

showers 186:14

shows 57:20 199:11

side 77:2 128:9

197:9 210:21

Siderki 7:8

sieve 120:10

sign 21:18

significantly 33:10

Silicones 2:3,6 6:15

SILOXANES 1:5

silt 105:20 108:1

similar 12:21

103:19 112:16

123:4 146:12

149:10 150:4

157:5 192:10

193:16 206:15

similarly 192:7

simple 8:19 11:19

79:5 138:13

single 145:13

sit 12:15 59:18

155:5,10 168:1

site 14:5,22 57:20

85:18 108:11

110:3,3 111:12,14

114:5,10,12

119:19 124:9

131:1 132:5,21

165:14,22 184:19

185:21 186:1,2

187:18,19 190:1

193:12 208:12

sites 28:21 58:19

84:17 92:8 118:16

118:17 161:17

162:6,15,21

163:11,12,13,18

164:4,7,11,11,17

165:11,21 166:9

167:1 171:1,13

173:3,5,7,9,11,21

175:6,21 176:3,8

177:10 178:18

179:16,17,22

180:9 184:18

186:11,19 187:20

188:16 193:18

199:6,17 202:5,9

202:14 203:21

204:4,15 206:2,13

207:11,14 210:3,4

210:5,10,10,12,16

211:16

site-specific 16:1

22:2 27:14 46:2

75:17 85:22 86:3

86:19 131:2

sits 154:20

situation 29:2

68:21 105:12

114:2 139:8

141:12 187:6

194:10

six 17:12 34:16,17

35:10,13,17 40:3

196:7

size 119:2 147:7

178:11

sizes 180:12

skipped 12:13

slant 130:12

slight 83:3

slightly 149:13

sludge 164:11

169:1 175:7,22

176:11,12 193:2

211:19

slug 41:1

small 19:16 31:19

117:6 129:10

Smith 2:16 5:14,14

83:2,7 193:20

194:2,5

soil 154:15

solar 69:7

solicit 51:3,3

solicitation 205:12

solubility 41:7

somebody 58:16

88:14 168:7

180:17

someplace 190:4

somewhat 52:22

soon 53:2 81:7

95:12 218:21

SOP 99:19 100:12

100:18

sorry 31:3 82:10

158:12 163:19

214:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

sort 12:2,21 13:8

18:9 23:2 24:3

31:1 41:20 58:18

103:2 115:4 145:5

167:15 168:1

172:17 173:15

175:15 176:22

179:14,17 182:7

182:14 203:13

204:11 208:5

sorts 50:15 87:10

159:20

sounds 29:6,9

52:15 60:8 115:4

149:14 161:20

203:7

source 94:21

165:17 167:3

176:18 178:7,9,11

178:14 179:4,4

188:2 194:14

203:9,11

sources 9:7 169:10

172:5 175:10

179:9 186:22

199:8 209:13

214:19

space 32:9 35:12

speak 177:17,18

179:7

special 44:14 50:13

79:18 83:17 85:8

156:2,4 192:12

speciate 128:7

speciating 120:12

speciation 121:19

121:21

specie 122:1

species 119:5,6

120:5 123:21

124:1 125:17

126:1,3,8,11,12

126:19 127:15

128:2,13,19,21

129:14 130:12,16

130:18 131:4,6

133:7,14 134:3,14

136:2,10,13 138:9

138:10 139:2,19

139:21 142:13

146:5,6

specific 12:1 16:17

16:22 30:6,11

44:21 47:13 50:11

54:2 64:10 68:4

69:18 70:21 71:18

72:15 73:11 77:20

78:18 79:21 83:20

85:14 90:13 112:5

116:19 124:4,9

126:8 136:18

144:4 158:15

165:10 166:6,15

167:5 170:6 184:5

specifically 30:7

46:11 89:3 100:8

100:12 195:17

207:10

specificity 17:22

27:21 50:16 88:8

153:6

specifics 19:14,15

85:16

specified 8:22 10:5

13:21 16:3 32:2

32:18 33:15 43:11

47:10 55:12,15

103:1

specifies 8:10

specify 75:16 81:13

82:19 147:20

159:11 202:1

speculate 59:21

speculated 113:6

speculative 54:3

speed 53:9

spend 209:22

spent 127:4 213:1

spike 97:16

spikes 15:18 34:1

spiking 156:21

split 49:14,18,20,21

122:21

splitting 50:1 59:11

spoke 120:17

200:14

spot 109:5 111:2

spread 34:18,19

St 115:14

stability 45:8 58:1

STAFF 1:13 2:1

stage 154:12

Stan 1:16 4:15

standard 11:16

14:18 17:8,21

22:8 28:3,14 47:8

48:20 85:13 90:7

96:8 99:7 101:17

111:20 122:9

151:12 153:18

192:11 213:19

standards 3:14

9:12,17,20,21

10:5,22 11:12

12:14 13:19 21:14

25:16 27:11 31:15

55:5 68:8 78:4

81:10 142:22

143:3 148:9,11

150:5 152:3 156:1

213:10 216:4

219:9

standpoint 34:4

41:19 118:4

122:17 124:7

165:20 166:13

206:1

stands 8:7

stand-alone 21:15

86:5

Staples 2:17 5:2,2

13:16,17 19:10

23:11 26:13 32:1

33:13,21 43:5

45:22 47:16 48:17

48:21 49:21 55:11

63:22 65:22 75:15

77:10 85:15 86:11

86:16,21 91:6

92:10 98:2 101:16

101:20 102:16

103:7 104:12

105:5,15 106:3,6

106:9,22 108:12

110:14 111:4,16

111:18 112:1

115:9,21 116:21

117:10,14 119:12

120:13 121:9,20

126:17 129:9,17

129:19 130:1,6

132:8 134:1,5,20

138:14 139:14

140:11,16 141:13

144:18 146:14

148:8 151:14

152:22 153:5,12

154:10 155:9

156:19 157:9

158:12,18,22

159:13,18

Starmann 2:18

5:16,16

start 8:5 12:18

13:11,13 112:2

114:17 132:11

160:22 161:3

163:12 164:8

183:22 203:20

206:1

started 37:5 53:2

53:19,20 173:4

210:8,9

starting 75:2

113:11 149:2

state 20:3 21:2

24:16 57:20 72:16

94:8 97:11 113:4

132:13 133:6

164:16

statement 69:6

150:19 156:14

statements 136:9

136:16

STATES 1:1

statistical 33:8

147:3

statistically 147:9

statistics 147:4

status 134:22 135:1

steady 94:8 97:11

Stedeford 1:21

4:13,13

step 26:7 30:22

91:11 132:8

169:13 170:3

183:18 203:8

steps 3:22 157:6

213:5

step-wise 23:17

Steve 1:15 4:11 5:9

stewardship 60:18

stick 54:18

stop 165:8

storage 45:1,8

store 99:11

storm 190:11

198:14

straight 96:18

102:17

straightforward

8:20 214:9

strategically

130:11

stream 14:8 117:11

117:12 118:6

186:21 187:14

streams 117:6

186:21 198:9

stress 18:18

strict 52:10

strip 30:10

strong 38:4

structure 73:1,7

95:8

stuck 203:19

studies 26:18 55:10

62:5,15 111:8

119:7 120:15

121:3 124:4

127:12 132:10

study 15:3,12 22:19

26:15 46:2,16

75:16 86:1 91:16

124:9 125:1 126:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

135:1 143:3 206:6

studying 97:3

stuff 6:4 18:12 70:1

72:4,5 79:13 80:5

103:20 106:11

173:16 216:7

218:3

styles 128:15

subject 102:22

119:13

subjective 102:21

submissions 5:20

69:10

submit 22:20

subset 212:6

substitute 173:12

210:11

sufficient 28:14

85:10 104:22

110:14 112:7,13

114:21 135:7

147:1

suggest 180:10

suggested 43:16

118:17

suggesting 174:6

186:12

suggestion 25:13

106:9 133:12

183:17 203:14

suggestions 19:4

161:16 184:5,12

summarized 22:8

summary 28:3 45:3

45:11 47:7 67:9

78:1 82:17 85:13

86:6 87:5,11

88:20

supposed 73:12

sure 6:18 36:17

39:11,13 40:13

41:10 42:17 49:9

60:22 62:19 69:16

71:6 73:14 76:1

79:16 82:4 85:4

98:19 100:20

106:1 110:21

115:21 122:13

126:10 138:14

152:13 155:17

160:12 165:13

175:21 179:5

191:11,12 197:9

199:6 203:9

209:11 210:22

216:3,11

surface 12:17,18

13:5,12,20,22

14:11 15:16 16:17

17:5,8 31:16 32:2

34:6 38:21 42:12

42:13 44:8,19

49:11,13,17 50:6

59:7 62:18,19,21

63:11 64:3 65:8

65:17 68:4,6,21

89:18 92:3 98:8

98:20 104:17

105:2 114:13

surmise 168:4

survey 73:20 132:5

144:10 167:14,15

183:4,20 184:11

207:1 211:18

surveys 182:7

197:8

suspect 170:11

sway 204:12

switch 103:14

system 99:17 130:5

130:7 141:3

189:12

systematic 195:21

systems 97:11

99:12 117:3

175:19 189:11

190:6

T

table 12:15 164:6

167:5 168:11

170:9 187:5

188:16 194:21

195:1,5 202:7,14

202:14 203:9,10

204:22,22 206:12

206:13,16,17

207:14,16,20

208:4

tables 20:16

take 8:1 13:3,6

29:2 33:16 35:16

35:19 38:10 40:3

43:15 44:6 47:10

51:1 52:19 53:6,9

53:11 65:2 71:20

74:11 79:1 86:14

88:11 90:12 95:14

95:17,20,20 109:8

109:11,19 118:15

125:20 131:17

132:8 133:14

135:8 136:5

139:19 140:2

142:15 144:17

145:12 148:14

152:19 160:9

180:11 183:20

189:1 191:16

206:8 218:6,13

219:4

taken 33:12 34:13

104:18 157:13

takes 154:21

talk 28:21 39:22

44:15,20 57:22

80:9 98:20 103:6

118:2,5,12,19

142:12 144:1

165:19 166:10

174:4 205:7 207:6

210:21 217:7

talked 49:12 69:20

90:6 94:10 150:7

150:10,13,15

156:1 162:2,5

169:16,20 176:10

201:1 205:20

talking 25:17 34:20

35:3 38:2,6 40:9

46:22 54:10 55:19

55:20 58:11 68:3

71:3 72:1,4 73:10

79:7,8 80:18

92:19,21 93:3

107:15,22 117:8

123:9,9 141:17

153:9 157:18

163:20 197:22

211:16

talks 44:18 149:20

154:2 211:14

target 211:22 218:4

targeted 117:2

targeting 217:2

teach 16:9 50:10

teaching 50:21

technical 6:9 7:18

10:10 13:18 27:7

51:9 67:9

technique 46:21

techniques 46:20

58:1

technologies 14:20

14:21 192:8

Telephone 2:22

tell 22:19 26:20

64:2 114:22

131:10 153:14

172:10,13,14

211:7

tells 143:4

Ten 111:4

tends 48:19

term 56:8 102:16

132:13

terminology

102:20

terms 12:9 14:18

15:3 20:14 23:19

29:5 47:12 50:19

54:10,19 61:22

71:2 79:17 81:3

85:2 102:9,10

146:17 161:22

182:13 183:7

198:9 200:8 202:2

202:3 212:5 216:3

217:21 218:3,17

terrible 114:13

test 3:14 9:12,16,20

9:21 10:5,22

11:12,15 12:14

21:14 22:8 27:11

28:3,13 47:7 48:7

55:5 68:3,8 78:3

81:10 85:13 96:8

111:1 130:12

140:20 142:22

143:2 150:5 152:3

213:10,19 214:8

216:4 219:9

tested 8:11

testing 7:20 8:12,21

8:21 16:8 50:8

68:13 151:7

tests 21:17

text 14:4 17:5

32:18 91:12

153:13 196:22

216:6

TGI 187:10

thank 7:4 49:10

87:19 149:22

212:16 219:7,8

thanks 5:19,20

17:10 149:8

theirs 154:18

theory 23:6

they'd 129:10

thing 30:11 52:5

61:13 103:2

113:16 118:22

122:7 126:6 135:9

139:7 162:1,5

175:16 183:1

185:20 187:17

207:17 213:13

215:7

things 6:8 10:21

12:5 13:14 18:10

24:11 44:22 46:3

52:3 56:21 61:1

72:12 81:2 84:2,8

84:13 111:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

113:18 118:6,6

135:18 139:16

155:8 162:10

165:19 202:10

think 6:3,8 9:7 10:3

10:10,20,21 11:1

11:8,15,18 12:14

12:16,20 17:14,15

17:19 18:5,6,17

20:8,18 21:6,13

22:4,6 23:2,22

24:22 25:3 27:9

32:22 34:15 35:21

36:1 37:15 38:3,6

38:15 39:9 40:5

40:14,15 41:13

43:2 44:2,9 45:7

46:5,6 48:9 52:6

53:6 54:8 56:7

57:18 58:2 59:21

62:2,7,17 63:10

63:18 65:5 67:11

67:18,20 69:16

71:1,3 73:8 75:9

75:10 78:19,21

79:4,10 80:11,16

80:17 90:5 92:5

93:5 94:6 96:20

97:14,15,21 98:11

101:9 103:19

107:3,21 108:18

113:9 118:8,21

120:16,21 122:4

122:14 127:18

131:12 134:20

135:10,11,17

137:5,19,22 138:1

138:3,13 139:12

139:18 140:4,8,16

141:19 142:9,17

143:15 145:1

148:18 149:9

150:3 151:5

153:17 154:11,22

156:9 159:9

160:19 161:8

162:10 163:10

164:6 165:19

166:4,14,16 167:5

167:6 169:5,10,13

170:2 172:9

173:14,19,19

174:10 175:13,16

175:20 176:17

179:19 180:14

182:4,11 183:21

184:14 188:20

193:17 197:18,20

198:5,12 199:10

199:14,20 200:11

200:20 202:20

203:13 204:14

205:21,22 206:18

208:18 209:9

211:11 212:2,7,8

212:13 213:12

214:8,9,21 215:6

215:10 216:12,19

217:10 218:15,18

218:22

thinking 11:22

37:6 45:12 161:22

188:16 197:16

198:21 214:13

third 29:18 177:14

Thomas 2:19 4:20

4:20 37:18 40:2

44:2 63:10 78:19

79:8 87:17 92:18

116:13 142:4

160:22 163:8,21

165:18 167:1,4

168:19 170:11,14

170:21 171:8

176:7,15 178:10

178:17 179:5

182:19 184:4

195:14,16,20

199:3 202:8,16

203:1,12 211:11

212:20 213:4

thought 8:18 50:8

52:16 57:21 58:6

58:7 60:3 70:22

71:2 116:20 132:1

133:21 157:5

158:10 171:1

178:17 185:21

194:20 195:4

198:1 199:3,4

201:14,20,21

thoughtful 213:2

thoughts 50:19

thousand 210:3

thousands 219:5

three 17:14 86:8

139:1 147:1,5,7

180:6

threshold 200:8

201:4 204:16

throw 144:19

ties 65:11

tightly 75:19

till 112:13

time 8:1 21:19 22:4

24:12 32:21 34:8

34:10,18,20,20

35:17 36:10 37:12

37:16 38:4 39:13

39:15 41:20 42:8

54:3,7,15 57:10

58:21 66:3 79:6

79:11 80:12,17

81:20 85:20 90:13

90:14,16 94:1,4

95:18 97:5 100:5

116:17 117:7

127:5 135:11

139:9 140:1,3

157:10 160:5,5

171:12 178:3

204:5 209:22

211:5 213:1 219:3

times 17:16 43:14

62:14,14 140:5

178:2

timing 12:9 30:18

37:7 42:10 52:22

53:12,17 54:13,14

215:17

titled 11:13,13

153:3

TMDLs 24:10

TOBIAS 1:22

12:20 13:4,8 23:8

25:6 37:4 38:1,15

41:12 57:15 58:6

58:13 59:13 60:1

60:22 62:10 63:4

63:8,13,18 65:11

65:16 66:8,14,18

66:21 67:2,8

69:11 78:7,13

79:22 81:17,22

163:19 185:9,16

TOC 49:5 103:20

214:8

today 5:19 53:3

55:20 182:2

Todd 1:21 4:13

toilets 185:19

told 95:15 142:20

ton 180:18

top 13:5 93:21

98:18 127:3 133:6

138:21 139:1,4,6

143:22 151:2

155:22 194:19

topic 167:20

total 47:12 185:12

toxic 31:15

Tracy 2:8 5:12

trade 166:12

trained 51:16,22

training 52:1 64:21

transects 127:13

transfer 70:7

transparent 162:21

treated 182:18

203:10

treating 189:6

202:13

treatment 20:15

32:5 48:20 49:2

91:16,17,17,21,22

97:3 115:14

181:10 185:12,18

186:10 190:22

191:5 192:14,21

193:16 198:16

treats 175:10

187:12 188:3,7,8

189:5

Trent 2:4 5:6 179:7

Trent's 88:8

tried 135:18 197:1

197:2

trillion 63:14,17

trip 100:7 202:6

trivial 127:18

179:4

trophic 123:10

124:8,16,22 125:8

125:10,14,18,19

126:13,16 127:12

127:17 130:20

132:10 134:13,15

134:18,22 135:1,7

135:12,21,22

136:6,7,18,20

trouble 30:2

troublesome

109:21

truck 154:5,5,21

trucks 153:20

155:12 157:12

true 39:8 83:3 93:2

135:20 136:20

157:5 185:9

truly 33:2 127:19

try 8:19 81:6 82:8

128:13,14 134:2

141:4 160:13

164:16 166:15

171:5 179:7 197:8

199:6 218:19

trying 8:16 17:19

31:2,2 35:15,22

36:13 48:2 52:21

53:16 54:5 57:1,2

60:20 61:15 65:2

74:17 81:11 82:3

84:11 91:4,9

94:15,16 95:10

96:9 99:13 116:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

124:15 130:4,10

131:5 139:21

144:22 184:15

189:2 213:7

216:22

tuckered 160:3

turn 155:11

turned 210:11

turns 137:2

two 15:21 16:3 18:5

31:18,19,22 32:19

33:9,18,22 35:11

37:18,21,22 40:1

40:10 43:9,22

50:4 61:7 81:9

85:9 90:12 101:6

111:13 119:3

123:21 124:15

125:17,18,20

126:3,11,12,19

128:2,13,21 129:4

129:15,19,21

130:1,18 131:18

133:14 134:13,15

134:18 135:6,12

135:12 137:19

139:1,19 140:2

141:7 147:1,6

150:11 157:7

160:18 161:21

162:10 164:8

180:4 189:11

type 33:3 64:13

73:7 105:12,21

140:9 175:16

types 26:17 58:20

87:8,13 111:7

117:16 127:2

136:16

typical 136:2

typically 24:7

112:21 120:10

123:3 136:3,9,14

145:5 189:14

190:1

U

ultimate 93:8

ultimately 68:10

198:6

uncertain 207:16

uncertainties

139:13,15 141:5

uncertainty 43:20

43:21 73:16 141:9

188:19 204:20

unclear 96:10

understand 21:21

24:6,11 28:15

31:10,21 33:19

39:12 42:22 43:2

44:2 46:22 51:19

54:5 55:6 68:5,17

69:21 71:12 76:2

86:2 90:18 91:13

95:9,10 96:13

97:7,10 107:11

118:5 119:19,21

120:22 124:11,21

127:14,16 134:9,9

137:16 139:13

141:2 146:3

158:13 174:21

178:6 181:5 189:4

194:12 208:7

209:10 216:15

understandable

153:16

understanding

12:22 21:17 22:5

22:8 28:9,13 48:3

55:17 89:12 91:4

99:1,1 124:3

133:2 153:22

165:6 209:16

213:8

understood 40:5

88:7 186:15

unfortunately 75:6

unique 14:22,22

26:19 51:20

132:21,22 154:3

unit 151:15 155:7

UNITED 1:1

units 151:19

unknown 52:4

113:7

unnecessary

189:17

unpaid 80:16

unrealistic 62:13

unresolved 123:12

upper 115:12

ups 42:8

upsets 102:22

upstream 127:5,10

usable 127:19

use 17:1 19:7 25:21

26:14 27:5,12

28:4,10 47:14

50:7 54:14 57:16

58:17 59:4 60:8

66:15 98:3 100:14

109:5 144:5 145:4

145:5 156:17

158:2 161:10,11

164:10 166:3,19

167:8 168:3 175:6

178:22 179:1

182:7,9,21 183:6

183:6,7 184:8

201:11 214:20

215:11

useful 98:5 157:6

180:5

USEPA 19:6 55:18

101:19

user 180:11

users 164:2 169:10

199:8

uses 165:22 166:2,4

178:19 180:17,18

usually 87:9 131:16

189:11

utilize 21:12

150:21

U.S 92:9,17

V

valid 213:2

validate 159:7

validated 110:18

validation 16:12

54:19

value 173:20

193:18 194:12

208:8

variabilities 141:18

variability 35:22

37:12,16 38:11,22

39:19,21 40:6,12

40:12 41:16,21

42:3 43:1 44:5

90:10 91:1,17,22

92:22 94:11,14,21

95:19,21 97:6

103:17 125:22

127:14 141:2,3,5

147:3,8 214:3

216:19

variation 128:17

variations 92:1

varies 136:4

variety 14:21 155:8

various 12:3 15:6

26:16 51:4 190:16

vary 128:16 139:10

vehicle 65:6 212:15

vendors 70:10 71:3

verbal 202:22

verification 197:20

version 215:22

versus 72:19

125:10 135:20

137:9 187:19

193:7

vet 167:12

vetted 216:1

vetting 172:19

184:6

vicinity 84:7

view 14:3 32:14

56:6 91:15 176:21

viewpoint 78:15

virtue 172:14

visual 105:12

volatility 33:5 41:8

95:16

volume 179:2

181:11

voluntary 60:17

W

Wacker 2:2 5:4

wait 102:19

walk 18:17 19:2

53:3 164:3 195:11

walked 170:22

walks 163:14

want 6:2 12:14,16

12:17 13:3,11

18:4,13 23:18

27:21 30:2,16

31:6 34:15 36:13

36:16 37:7,11,15

41:21 42:17,20

43:17,21 46:21

49:19,20 59:13

65:16,18 67:17

68:20 69:14 70:17

71:6 80:1,2,21

81:17,21 82:5

88:13 90:4 96:22

96:22 100:2

102:13 103:14

104:2 106:1 107:1

110:20 118:13

143:6 146:4,5

148:6,6 154:10

160:18 161:3,14

163:9 169:19

170:4,6 174:18

179:3,14 180:21

181:15 183:22

189:14 205:22

206:10,16 207:20

209:20 217:4,7

219:1

wanted 31:20 44:4

55:6 82:1 102:4

103:12 145:16

149:6 162:20

175:18,21 204:11

wanting 59:10

Ward 1:12,14,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

4:5 6:12 21:16

35:15 40:5 125:16

151:9 162:16

167:9 180:8

217:19

warm 147:13

warranted 9:18

wary 127:21

134:14

Washington 1:12

wasn't 11:2 24:2

40:6 58:3,10

119:15 152:20

203:15

waste 185:11,12,18

189:13,15,17

202:2

wastewater 9:6

48:20 49:1 97:2

115:13 174:3

175:11 181:5,10

182:14 186:20

187:13 188:3,7

189:5,6 190:2

191:5,7 193:16

198:2,16 208:9

water 12:17,18

13:5,12,20,22

14:1,6,9,11 15:16

16:18 17:5,8

26:20 30:3 31:17

32:3 34:7 35:9

38:21 42:12,13

44:19 49:11,13,17

50:6 59:7 62:18

62:19,21 63:11,15

64:3 65:8,17 68:5

68:6,21 89:18

92:4 93:12,15

98:8,20 99:6,8,11

99:11,15,20

100:13,20,21

104:18 105:3

106:12 107:16,20

112:20 114:13

151:18 155:10

169:3 183:2

waters 19:13,16

20:10 21:1,1 32:2

44:8 117:17

132:16

waterways 132:14

way 4:5 10:4,6

20:21 30:6 57:6

64:5 74:15 90:15

127:6 128:16

130:6 132:17

133:4 134:6 137:2

137:3 162:13

167:22 168:7

175:3 177:1

180:20 181:20

182:3

ways 166:11 186:6

wear 56:20

wearing 84:8

web 138:22

wedded 162:13

WEDNESDAY 1:8

week 79:9 213:8

217:3,20,21

weeks 35:4

weigh 216:19

weight 147:17

151:12,14,19

weighting 174:13

176:22

welcome 161:18

well-defined 31:7

138:22

Wendy 2:10 5:11

went 60:3 91:8

135:19 148:21,21

160:15,15 185:18

185:20 219:12

weren't 44:10

162:22 170:12

200:4 202:8

wet 147:11,12,12

147:16,17 151:12

151:14

we'll 4:5 7:13 8:3

9:20 11:13,17

16:20 33:22 41:9

41:12,13,13 43:3

44:11 47:10 51:6

67:22 80:12 81:6

81:16 85:6 97:8

101:22 104:8

112:12 115:17

131:17 141:20

147:19 151:9

154:8 159:11,21

214:17 215:15,15

215:16 217:11

218:18

we're 8:16,16 9:12

12:12 18:3 22:15

25:14 26:11,21

27:9,20 28:20

31:1,16 32:10

33:10,22 35:13,22

36:1 38:2,9 40:9

40:15 41:10 45:20

47:6,6 48:2 51:2

52:21 53:16 54:8

54:10,12 55:2,2

55:19,20 57:1,2

59:17,19 61:2,4

61:21 62:3 63:20

65:1,18 67:12,13

67:19 68:2 70:15

73:12 74:4,17,17

75:3,21 77:4

80:17 83:10 84:11

85:15 86:9 89:9

92:6 93:13,14

94:15,16 97:3

98:10,19 99:13,14

100:14 103:12,16

106:15 107:16

109:5 115:19

117:8,16,22 122:8

124:14 126:9,10

126:15 127:21

130:4,10 131:5

134:22 135:3,14

138:4,5,8,15

139:18 141:16,17

142:19 143:15

145:9 147:19,22

149:2 161:17,22

162:12 163:3

166:12 167:21

172:1,2,10 174:22

174:22 175:7

176:1 180:11

186:12 194:20

197:18 203:19

207:5,5,6 210:20

210:22 211:15

213:16,20 214:3,5

214:7 215:22

217:2,22 218:6,22

219:9

we've 5:22 10:13

18:18 19:11 22:10

37:6 51:4 57:6

65:4 70:4 71:1,2

73:20 78:2,18,19

81:20 84:5 85:7

87:3 95:13 101:9

101:10 117:17

118:8 120:14

123:8 135:10

140:4 156:6 184:5

205:20 206:2

207:18 209:10,11

213:3 214:1

wheel 23:19

willing 169:3 200:4

willingness 51:15

51:22

winners 174:19,22

175:1

wondered 122:20

wondering 57:15

60:7 83:20 110:5

168:14 171:16

Woodburne 151:3

word 98:3 105:16

193:9

worded 24:18,20

words 64:9,10

87:21 92:14

192:13

work 8:4 9:13

10:11 13:15 16:6

20:8 26:17 30:17

38:17 46:8,14

47:3 50:22 51:12

59:20 66:10 70:12

70:13 76:22 77:14

82:7 112:19

115:11 132:17

134:10 155:16

161:1 166:15

183:15 219:2,8

worked 15:9 20:7

46:1 65:4 86:18

132:22 158:19

159:1

working 52:7 54:12

56:2 67:17 80:12

81:16 123:16

138:17 147:22

215:15

workloads 218:3

works 20:16 116:7

202:7

world 127:8

worried 122:18

wouldn't 20:3 21:3

26:20 70:1 124:18

145:12 178:3

204:3

write 96:8

written 45:19

81:10 84:18

107:15

wrong 50:3 199:9

X

X 95:20

XY 82:22

Y

Y 95:21

year 60:20 133:9,9

180:18

years 64:20,20

113:16 181:21

yell 50:2

Z

zone 14:10,12,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

19:5,8,13,20 20:4

20:11 21:2,6 22:6

22:12,18,22 23:12

24:4,10,14 25:21

27:2,6,16 28:7,16

29:11,19,22 32:7

32:13 35:11 36:1

39:1,4,18 40:17

40:19 42:5 104:10

104:16,21,22

105:13,13 106:10

106:21 107:4

108:16 109:8

111:20 112:3,6,22

113:10 114:17

117:20 138:11

150:8 162:3,8,9

169:17,21,22

215:1

zones 20:21 25:14

27:8 30:8 31:8

104:11 112:15 0

0.2 17:7

1

1 8:1 10:21 62:8,8

111:13 153:2

160:4 168:11

180:18,19 203:9

204:22 206:13

207:16,20 208:4

1:30 160:11,12,13

1:49 160:16

10 62:14 86:18

199:11,12,18

200:5 203:3

204:11

10:00 1:12

10:06 4:2

100 115:16,18

103 3:17

12 3:14 8:1 196:19

197:12,12

12:28 148:21

12:30 148:5

12:42 148:22

12:57 160:15

1201 1:12

125 195:6

13 10:17 204:13

14 10:17 58:19

86:18 164:6

196:15 197:11

15 169:9 196:8,11

198:21 199:7

202:21 204:9

211:15

150 3:18

152 3:19

16 210:3

16,000 212:7

18 196:18

1985 55:192 2 10:21 11:2 35:19

44:14 98:15

150:14 155:22

167:5 170:9 173:2

173:15 174:7,10

175:6 176:22

181:20 187:5

188:16 204:22

206:9 207:22

208:20 209:11,16

210:19 214:11,12

214:16

2.3 163:14,22

2:45 219:12

2013 1:8 16:18

21 1:8

213 3:22

22 63:15

24 95:14 102:13

24-hour 91:5 95:19

26th 217:113 3 7:17 10:21 12:13

50:6 98:19 103:4

111:11,15 145:11

151:2 159:20

163:14,22 164:15

164:18 175:17

202:7,14 203:10

206:16 207:14

3-week 80:17

3.0 211:13

3.2 211:21

360 59:2

4

4 3:9 7:17 11:11

12:13 168:20

202:15 203:10

206:17

40-ton 157:11

40-yard 154:20

4225 1:125 5 8:9 62:13,14

102:12 113:16

115:15

5,000 164:12

50 115:16,17

500 48:136 6 3:11 53:11 115:15

196:16 197:11,12

60 201:8 217:15,18

60,000 200:11

201:5

60-day 217:16 7 7 9:5 8 8 10:3 45:8 196:15

211:13

82 3:16

9

9 63:13 79:9,15

102:12 213:8

217:3,20
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

245

Siloxanes Meeting

US EPA

08-21-13

Washington, DC