SILOXANES ECA NEGOTIATIONS MEETING

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 1:00 P.M.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 2

1 APPEARANCES 2 WARD PENBERTHY 3 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 PAUL LEWIS 5 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6 JENNIFER SEED 7 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 8 STAN BARONE 9 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 10 CATHY FEHRENBACHER 11 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 12 DAVID TOBIAS 13 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 14 STEVE ANDERSON 15 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 16 JENNY HOPKINSON 17 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 18 JOE AVCIN 19 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 20 NHAN NGUYEN 21 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 22 TODD STEDEFORD 23 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 24 KAREN EISENREICH 25 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 3

1 ANNE KIM 2 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 DAVID WIDAWSKY 4 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/OCSPP 5 MARK SELTZER 6 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/OCSPP 7 CHARLES STAPLES - SETBC 8 TRENT DOYLE - SEHSC/KELLER & HECKMAN 9 LISA DUMARS - MOMENTIVE 10 GENE BROWNING - SHINETSU SILICONES 11 HUGH FLACK - WACKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION 12 KATHY PLOTZKE - DOW CORNING 13 KARLUSS THOMAS - SEHSC 14 PAUL DELEO - AMERICAN CLEANING INSTITUTE 15 RAY LUDWISZEWSKI - GIBSON DONN 16 KRISTEN SMITH - MOMENTIVE 17 BETSY CARLTON - BLUESTAR SILICONES 18 NORIKO SHIBWYA - SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION 19 ANDY COULOURIS - DOW CORNING 20 LIZ BOWMAN - SEHSC 21 ELLEN MIHAICH - BLUESTAR SILICONES 22 KAREN VAIL - SEHSC 23 WENDY KOCH - EPONZ 24 TRACY GUERRERO - SEHSC 25 CYNTHIA FINLEY - NACWASiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 4

1 SILOXANES ECA MEETING 2 THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 3 1:00 P.M. 4 PAUL LEWIS: Let's get started. Good 5 afternoon my name is Paul Lewis. I'm with the EPA 6 Office of Toxics and this is our ongoing discussion 7 dealing with siloxanes, of course with a consent of 8 agreement. Just in terms of logistics, we're passing 9 out a sign out sheet, sign in sheet. Please list your 10 name here and affiliation and that way we can record 11 the meeting. 12 We also have a transcriber. We'll be 13 having a transcript available for this meeting like 14 we've had for all other meetings. They'll be 15 available in the public docket. The meeting is 16 scheduled from 1:00 to 4:00. We have several agenda 17 items, SEHSC providing a presentation they revised 18 around a modeling plan. An EPA presentation on our 19 outline for risk assessment plan. We'll also be 20 discussing a peer consultation and then in terms of 21 next steps. 22 Let's first go around the room and then 23 we'll identify people on the phone. Ward? 24 WARD PENBERTHY: Ward Penberthy, EPA. 25 JENNIFER SEED: Jennifer Seed, EPA.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 5

1 STAN BARONE: Stan Barone, EPA. 2 CHARLES STAPLES: Charles Staples for 3 SEHSC. 4 TRENT DOYLE: Trent Doyle with Keller & 5 Heckman for SEHSC. 6 LISA DUMARS: Lisa Dumars, Momentive. 7 GENE BROWNING: Gene Browning, Shinetsu 8 Silicones of America. 9 HUGH FLECK: Hugh Fleck with Wacker. 10 KATHY PLOTZKE: Kathy Plotzke with Dow 11 Corning. 12 KARLUSS THOMAS: Karluss Thomas, SEHSC. 13 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Kathy Fhrenbacher, 14 EPA. 15 MARK SELTZER: Mark Seltzer, EPA. 16 PAUL LEWIS: Around the back. 17 STEVE ANDERSON: Steve Anderson, EPA's 18 Office of General Counsel. 19 PAUL DELEO: Paul Deleo, American 20 Cleaning Institute. 21 RAY LUDWISZEWSKI: Ray Ludwiszewski for 22 Dow Corning. 23 KRISTEN SMITH: Kristen Smith, 24 Momentive. 25 BETSY CARLTON: Betsy Carlton, BluestarSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 6

1 Silicones. 2 NORIKO SHIBUYA: Noriko Shibuya, 3 Shiseido Americas Corporation. 4 ANDY COULOURIS: Andy Coulouris with 5 Dow Corning. 6 LIZ BOWMAN: Liz Bowman with SEHSC. 7 KAREN VAIL: Karen Vail with SEHSC. 8 WENDY KOCH: Wendy Koch for Eubonic. 9 TRACY GUERRERO: Tracy Guerrero, SEHSC. 10 ELLEN MIHAICH: Ellen Mihaich for 11 Bluestar. 12 JOE AVCIN: Joe Avcin from EPA. 13 NHAN NGUYEN: Nhan Nguyen with EPA. 14 TODD STEDEFORD: Todd Stedeford, EPA. 15 KAREN EISENREICH: Karen Eisenreich, 16 EPA. 17 ANNE KIM: Anne Kim, EPA. 18 PAUL LEWIS: Now on the phone. 19 RUSSEL MAIT: Russell Mait from Evonik. 20 EVE DEVIS: Eve Devis, PCPC 21 FAMIR DESETAN: Famir Desetan, Shiseido 22 Americas Corporation. 23 PAUL LEWIS: Any one else on the phone? 24 Okay thank you and also joining us today is David 25 Tobias from EPA. Before I turn the meeting over toSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 7

1 Ward and his many additional opening remarks, does 2 anyone have any questions in terms of the format for 3 today's meeting? Any other issues of logistics? 4 Okay seeing none, Ward I'll pass it on 5 to you. 6 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay I hope everyone 7 got a copy of our agenda. We'll have a presentation 8 on the current status of the SEHSC's monitoring 9 proposal and then Kathy Fehrenbacher will go over our 10 risk assessment plan. You should have also received 11 an outline of that. 12 Stan Barone here is also available for 13 an agenda item on what this peer consultation meaning 14 and how it's run and then we'll have some wrap up at 15 the end. Karluss are you ready for your presentation? 16 KARLUSS THOMAS: I am. 17 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay are there any 18 comments on the agenda or anything? 19 MARK SELTZER: Do you like to run the 20 show on this end or do you want me to do that? 21 KARLUSS THOMAS: You can do this. 22 MARK SELTZER: I'm sitting next to it. 23 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes. All right 24 excellent. Well on behalf of SEHSC I'd like to thank 25 the agency again for this opportunity to continue theSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 8

1 discussions and also share with you some more of the 2 details associated with our revised proposal for 3 environmental monitoring for D4. You can go to the 4 next slide. 5 I'm just going to go right into the 6 details associated with the two primary components of 7 the monitoring programs. So, this is both the POTW 8 portion and also the direct discharge portion. What 9 we're looking at now on the screen is a summary of the 10 municipal waste water treatment POTW portion of the 11 monitoring program, and as we indicated in the letter 12 we submitted to the agency back in early February, we 13 have increased the number of POTWs from five to ten 14 sites. 15 What you see on the screen is in terms 16 of the first five is just the types of treatments that 17 we would focus on for the first five that's identical 18 to what was presented in our earlier proposal. What's 19 been added is this piece on sites six through ten, 20 which we have suggested could be associated with 21 indirect industrial discharge, but certainly that's 22 open for discussion. 23 We'd like to hear the agency's thoughts 24 on how we might identify appropriate sites to 25 constitute those additional five sites with respect toSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 9

1 the monitoring parameters those are unchanged from our 2 earlier proposal where we would focus on influent, 3 effluent surface water, bio-solids, sediment and again 4 there would be two monitoring events. 5 So I'll stop there and see if there are 6 any questions or comments on that piece before we move 7 on to the direct discharge piece. 8 WARD PENBERTHY: So just to fully 9 understand this. All the activated sludge facilities 10 are targeted at the high population with low dilution 11 is that right? Yeah. 12 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes. 13 WARD PENBERTHY: So that means 14 essentially the effluent stream would be a fairly, 15 would be fairly high compared to the receiving body. 16 I mean there'd be a little, okay. So those would be, 17 I guess from our past discussions on almost our worst 18 case-- 19 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes. 20 WARD PENBERTHY: Scenario? Okay. You 21 have one lagoon there? 22 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes. 23 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay and then, okay 24 then you have by the four indirect discharge sites-- 25 KARLUSS THOMAS: Five.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 10

1 WARD PENBERTHY: Five okay good. And 2 before we talked about influent, effluent, bio-solids, 3 sediment and-- Let's see, the surface water. Okay? 4 KARLUSS THOMAS: All right. 5 WARD PENBERTHY: So that's pretty much 6 what we talked about in terms of the monitoring 7 parameters. Were biota considered here? I mean in 8 previous, maybe you'll have a slide on this, but in a 9 previous proposal you had five POTWS for biota? 10 KATHY PLOTZKE: We modified this based 11 on the feedback we got from the last time where you 12 said you were interested in the biota near the 13 industrial discharge sites and not near the waste 14 water treatment plants because we're doing that in our 15 other proposal. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: All right-- 17 KATHY PLOTZKE: But, we did previously 18 have biota there. 19 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah I think you might 20 have misinterpreted it or maybe we misstated that. 21 Obviously we're interested in the biota at the direct 22 discharge sites, but it was also the indirect 23 industrial sites were important to us too. 24 KARLUSS THOMAS: So you are indeed 25 interested in biota around--Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 11

1 WARD PENBERTHY: Certainly at the sites 2 six through ten. 3 KARLUSS THOMAS: Okay. Okay, and the 4 reason that was taken out as Kathy indicated, it was 5 our impression from the last meeting that the agency 6 wasn't interested in that but we certainly had that in 7 our initial proposal. 8 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, maybe Kathy can 9 clarify if it's your understanding as the same as 10 mine. 11 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Yes. 12 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. All right any 13 other questions? 14 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Well, have you 15 given thought to how you would select the POTWs 16 associated with the indirect discharge? 17 KARLUSS THOMAS: We haven't given, we 18 haven't made firm decisions on that. That's something 19 we would certainly be interested in the agency's 20 thoughts around what would be the best way to identify 21 those sites, but we have not made what I would see as 22 firm decisions on that. 23 WARD PENBERTHY: As I recall during the 24 work you all did on conceptual site modeling, did get 25 individuals, so someone got it, was it you Karluss,Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 12

1 got individual site data that could be informative of 2 the loading of those sites that were part of that? 3 KARLUSS THOMAS: Well, we developed the 4 facility release estimates for all of the reworked 5 facilities-- 6 WARD PENBERTHY: Right the scenario-- 7 KARLUSS THOMAS: Right and those were 8 used to develop a conceptual site models for 9 manufacturers, for processors, and then for the POTWs. 10 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, but you had 11 information on individual loadings from individual 12 plants right? Or individual discharges to come up 13 with that generic piece? 14 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes, we do have that 15 information. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: So, maybe there would 17 be some way that, well since they're going to a, 18 incorporated into a population's waste water discharge 19 and dilution would also be a factor. Then when we 20 factor in loading, we figure out some way to use site 21 specific data to pick higher loading POTWs. 22 KARLUSS THOMAS: My understanding is 23 that POTWs have a full understanding of where they 24 receive their influents so certainly if a POTW was 25 receiving influent from one or more industrialSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 13

1 facilities you would be able to use that information 2 to target those facilities that had industrial 3 influent. 4 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, but, I was 5 thinking of targeting industrial POTWs that had D4 6 influent and using data that you had, got in your 7 conceptual site modeling development to select what 8 POTWs of those would be best to monitor at. Do you 9 follow? 10 KARLUSS THOMAS: No, I'm not sure our 11 information would allow you to do that. Those 12 facility release estimates were intended more as mass 13 balance exercises. 14 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 15 KARLUSS THOMAS: To develop the 16 conceptual site models. I don't know that they would 17 allow you to understand releases to specific D4 18 releases to a POTW. 19 WARD PENBERTHY: But, didn't you use 20 that to calculate a generic model? Right? You 21 basically developed an omissions factor based on 22 individual site data correct? Of releases of D4 to 23 wastewater? 24 KATHY PLOTZKE: It's part of the mass 25 balance you do look at what is going throughSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 14

1 treatment. 2 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct. So do you 3 follow? 4 KARLUSS THOMAS: No, I'm not sure 5 exactly what you're getting at here. 6 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, obviously we 7 want to pick indirect discharge sites that have D4 8 going to them and from our perspective if you've got 9 everything else here on developed, sort of around a 10 worst case hypothesis. Wouldn't you want to pick the 11 indirect discharge POTW sites based on sort of maximum 12 D4 going to them in the effluent? 13 KARLUSS THOMAS: Well I guess what I 14 would say is to the extent that we have information 15 that allows the agency to select those sites, those 16 POTWs that the agency is most interested in and if the 17 agency has an explicit interest in sites that are 18 receiving influent from industrial facilities. I mean 19 certainly if we have information that would allow you 20 to do that but would it help you to that. We'd be 21 more than willing to work with you on that. I'm not 22 sure I would have access to the details of the data at 23 that point to figure, at this point to figure out 24 exactly how to do it but I know that we would be 25 willing to work with you on doing it.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 15

1 WARD PENBERTHY: All right, well, let's 2 try it a different way. As I recall there were nine 3 indirect discharge sites from SEHSC facilities? Three 4 or four of them dropped out so the remaining five 5 would be those five, correct? Would that make sense? 6 TRENT DOYLE: So, Ward just to clarify. 7 What you're suggesting is on our POTW monitoring 8 portion of the program these additional new sites, the 9 sites six through ten that we proposed that the POTWs 10 would all be servicing essentially SEHSC member 11 indirect discharge-- 12 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct. 13 TRENT DOYLE: Indirect dischargers. 14 Hence you want to make certain that the, that the 15 sites that are being picked are those indirect 16 dischargers that purportedly would have the greatest 17 loading? 18 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 19 TRENT DOYLE: I mean that's, I think 20 that's what you're saying. So, your basically making 21 the assumption that those six through ten would all be 22 sites that are linked directly to SEHSC member company 23 sites and that those sites would in fact be 24 representative of the world of potential indirect 25 dischargers that would have D4 or D5 loading?Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 16

1 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct. 2 KARLUSS THOMAS: That wasn't the intent 3 in selecting or in proposing five additional sites. 4 Again, I'll say we would absolutely be willing to work 5 with you to identify the five sites that are going to 6 best suit your needs but we didn't say five sites 7 because we had five indirect dischargers. That wasn't 8 the logic we just thought we would propose additional 9 sites to allow the generation of a more robust data 10 set to be responsive to the agency's concerns when we 11 last talked about this but you know I can commit to 12 working with you to figure out how to select those 13 five sites. 14 WARD PENBERTHY: Do you have any better 15 ideas right now? 16 KARLUSS THOMAS: I don't, not right now 17 but after we look at the data and after further 18 discussions we might have a better idea but I don't 19 right now. 20 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 21 RUSSEL MAIT: Hey Karluss, Russell. 22 I'd like to add something if I may. 23 KARLUSS THOMAS: Sure. 24 RUSSEL MAIT: This is Russell Mait from 25 Evonik. What I'd like to offer is that we certainlySiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 17

1 are understanding of the values gained of how D4 moves 2 through so one of the things that I might suggest we 3 look at is industrial facilities that fit the profile 4 for the value chain for D4. We know what industry 5 they might be and I think that would probably be a 6 good place to start. I just don't think selecting it 7 based on membership is appropriate as a driving 8 criteria. 9 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 10 RUSSEL MAIT: So these facilities would 11 either be processes or formulators that would fit into 12 that profile. 13 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, it's a 14 processes or formulators yeah we would definitely 15 understand that. So what do you mean by in the value 16 chain? Is that all you mean processes or formulators 17 or is there other-- 18 RUSSEL MAIT: But I think, what I'm 19 saying, Ward, is that there are certainly as I looked 20 at what our industry is doing there's something on the 21 order of eleven different industrial categories that 22 we fell into. You might call it by SAP codes, that 23 would certainly be an opportunity to screen in and 24 screen out facilities to fit what you're trying to 25 drive at.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 18

1 Since we've already established that a 2 processor of D4 and a formulator of D4 regardless of 3 whether they're a member of the club or not would fit 4 in the category of processor or formulator. 5 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct, and I'm 6 trying to recall from a conceptual site models that 7 you had, I think the processors had a bigger release 8 factor then formulators. That's almost what you were 9 doing isn't it? 10 KARLUSS THOMAS: I don't remember. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 12 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: And what 13 information will you be providing on the industrial, 14 the indirect facilities themselves so that we can 15 understand releases to the POTW to put the monitoring 16 data there into context? 17 KARLUSS THOMAS: I guess our proposal 18 has not changed from the standpoint of the indirect 19 dischargers. Again, and I know we've talked about 20 this in the past I mean our view is that with respect 21 to the need to do a risk assessment and the idea being 22 that what is discharged to the environment being the 23 most relevant to that. I mean our view is not that 24 indirect dischargers would be necessary to get a 25 estimate of environmental releases and bear those toSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 19

1 levels that would elicit an effect on an organism. So 2 I know we're going to talk about that a little bit 3 later when we get into the risk assessment. 4 WARD PENBERTHY: And I think a past 5 sticking point and I'm glad to see this has changed 6 because what the influent to the indirect dischargers, 7 you had a problem with that at previous meetings so 8 I'm taking that as now, you can do that. 9 KARLUSS THOMAS: This is influent into 10 a POTW. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct. 12 KARLUSS THOMAS: Not an indirect 13 discharger. 14 WARD PENBERTHY: All right, good. 15 KATHY PLOTZKE: It's the influent that 16 would represent the industrial input and the general 17 population input. 18 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. Okay. 19 KATHY PLOTZKE: It's not separated-- 20 TRENT DOYLE: It's just not apportioned 21 back. 22 KATHY PLOTZKE: We'd be measuring the 23 influent coming into the POTW. 24 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 25 KATHY PLOTZKE: Which would haveSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 20

1 multiple contradictions. 2 WARD PENBERTHY: Right we'd have to 3 think about that. I know before you said that 4 measuring the influent was there, was a CVI concern 5 associated with that. 6 KARLUSS THOMAS: For the direct 7 dischargers. We're going to talk about that in second 8 but you're right we have not proposed influent 9 measurements for the direct dischargers. 10 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 11 KARLUSS THOMAS: Okay. 12 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: So do you, I'm 13 sorry one more question. Do you understand enough 14 about the indirect dischargers to identify facilities 15 and POTWs that would be representative of the indirect 16 dischargers and their associated POTWs? 17 KARLUSS THOMAS: I think there is 18 information available that would allow you to make a, 19 some pretty reasonable determinations of that. I know 20 EPA has a database of POTWs, we've got the folks at 21 NACWA around the table who I think certainly would be 22 willing to work with us on that so I think there is 23 information available that would allow you to get at 24 that type of information. 25 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Okay.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 21

1 WARD PENBERTHY: Any other questions? 2 KARLUSS THOMAS: All right next slide. 3 So, now this is a, again a proposal for direct 4 discharge monitoring and this has not changed from the 5 previous version of our proposal that we've discussed. 6 So there are four member company facilities that have 7 direct releases to surface waters so our proposal is 8 that there would be monitoring at all of those 9 facilities. 10 The parameters that would be monitored 11 here are effluent, so that's what goes to the 12 environment. Surface water, sediment, fish, benthic 13 species, and two monitoring events. And again this 14 portion of the proposal remains unchanged from the 15 previous version. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay, and you were 17 saying this is where you have CVI concerns about the 18 influent? 19 KARLUSS THOMAS: Yes. 20 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, we can 21 accommodate the CVI in this enterprise so that doesn't 22 have to be a concern. 23 KARLUSS THOMAS: Well, but in addition 24 to that I guess there's also some I guess lack of 25 clarity on our part with respect to how that informs aSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 22

1 risk assessment if what you're concerned about is what 2 gets into the environment. We're going to be 3 measuring the effluent so what goes to surface waters 4 so from the standpoint of the influent how does that 5 help inform the risk assessment? 6 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, I think it does 7 give a sense of, that a treatment efficiency and also 8 magnitude of releases. 9 KARLUSS THOMAS: Right, that's 10 certainly possible but again-- 11 WARD PENBERTHY: So, basically you're 12 going to benchmark on what are the current releases 13 and if there were a problem and shown in a risk 14 assessment then you would theoretically have a better 15 concept of what, what would need to be done. 16 KARLUSS THOMAS: And I think from the 17 standpoint of a risk assessment if you, after 18 completion of a risk assessment and you did identify 19 that there's a problem I think that would be 20 consistent with my understanding of the way the agency 21 has typically done risk assessments where you do a 22 screening assessments, a screening assessment if there 23 is a problem then you move on to doing those types of 24 evaluations but if there is no problem identified in 25 the screening assessment then it's not our view thatSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 23

1 that type of thing would be pursued. 2 I think certainly from the standpoint 3 of doing the screening assessment you wouldn't 4 ordinarily look for that type of information or at 5 least certainly that's not my understanding. 6 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, if we were doing 7 monitoring we'd be looking for it so yes. 8 KATHY PLOTZKE: One thing to maybe 9 clarify is the effluent is really what is released to 10 the environment so you're going to get that, you're 11 going to understand that potential release for these 12 facilities to the environment. 13 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 14 KATHY PLOTZKE: So, that would be there 15 in the outline. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 17 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: But, we wouldn't 18 have that for the indirect is what I'm hearing? 19 KATHY PLOTZKE: Right, that is correct 20 because the indirect does not release to the 21 environment. The indirect only releases through a 22 pipe to either a private or municipal-- 23 WARD PENBERTHY: So, I think what we 24 want to know is this stuff just going straight through 25 or is it getting treated?Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 24

1 KATHY PLOTZKE: I think the part of it 2 we tried to address with the previous, with the 3 municipal waste water treatment plants. The variety 4 of treatments that you would see, that would allow you 5 to do that because in that case if you go back a 6 slide, we are doing the influent into the POTW and the 7 effluent which will, and actually even the bio-solids. 8 So that's going to give you that 9 information across those different types and one of 10 the reasons you know, we can structure the six to ten 11 as well with the industrial input but other factors as 12 well if there's additional treatment types or-- That's 13 why we left it kind of six to ten additional with 14 industrial, you could play with those other factors if 15 there's something more that you want to understand 16 around treatment pipes. 17 MARK SELTZER: Should we go forward? 18 KATHY PLOTZKE: Yeah but I think 19 that's, this is the part I think that will give you 20 the information around different treatment types. 21 That's why we tried to structure it across the various 22 treatments that you have within the United States so 23 that we would get that main route. 24 WARD PENBERTHY: And the presumption is 25 that the, this data would be representative of theSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 25

1 industrial treatment? 2 KATHY PLOTZKE: Yeah I mean, yeah 3 you've got the whole variety there of different types 4 of treatments. 5 WARD PENBERTHY: Let's go back to the 6 other slide now. 7 PAUL LEWIS: When you talk about the 8 fish, how many fish specifically are we talking about? 9 KATHY PLOTZKE: That basically would be 10 what we would call like a marker fish or you know, a 11 particular fish that would be representative. One of 12 the things that is critical is to look at the specific 13 environment, identify the appropriate species that 14 would be considered a marker fish of that area. 15 PAUL LEWIS: Okay. 16 KATHY PLOTZKE: Same thing the benthic 17 species could differ from one site to the other and 18 that one particular one because it may be, it's what's 19 natural to that area. 20 WARD PENBERTHY: So, are all these 21 activated sludge? Facilities? 22 KATHY PLOTZKE: We'd have to look that 23 up. 24 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, I mean that's a 25 basic question to know if the other data would beSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 26

1 representative. 2 KATHY PLOTZKE: Yeah I just don't have 3 that. We do have that information but we just don't 4 have it in front of us. 5 KARLUSS THOMAS: Would having that 6 information satisfy the agency that the information on 7 influent would not be necessary to assess what's going 8 to the environment? 9 WARD PENBERTHY: I don't know, I don't 10 think so but-- I mean I think there's a way to hand 11 the agency ideas but I don't understand the concern. 12 So if you're worried about competitive advantage or 13 whatever that doesn't have to be an issue. 14 KARLUSS THOMAS: Well, that's not the 15 only part of it. Again the other is the need for that 16 information for a risk assessment. I think Kathy 17 articulated it much better than I did with respect to 18 getting a variety of information on treatment 19 efficiencies. You'll get that with the indirect, the 20 POTW portion but with respect to the direct 21 dischargers, what's most relevant I think in terms of 22 a risk assessment is what gets into the environment, 23 how we're going to monitor that development. 24 WARD PENBERTHY: We just want to have 25 an understanding of the effectiveness of the wasteSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 27

1 water treatment being included. 2 GENE BROWNING: Well, each one of those 3 do have NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act so we 4 do have performance criteria that we have to meet all 5 the time. Now it might not list D4 which in our 6 permits it does not. 7 WARD PENBERTHY: What's it going to be 8 total organic carbon or something like that? 9 GENE BROWNING: Yeah suspended solid, 10 PH, there's a variety you know-- 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah but those aren't12 - 13 GENE BROWNING: There's a handful of 14 things that-- 15 WARD PENBERTHY: Those aren't 16 representative of the efficiency that we're looking 17 at. 18 GENE BROWNING: But nor does the Clean 19 Water Act ask for my efficiency. It just bases the 20 permit on discharge limit. 21 WARD PENBERTHY: No, I understand that 22 but we're interested in D4 not just the total 23 discharge. 24 KARLUSS THOMAS: Ward, has the agency 25 expressed an interest in treatment efficiencies forSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 28

1 other materials that are being assessed as part of the 2 work plan? 3 WARD PENBERTHY: You know, I don't know 4 if there's a, Kathy probably has a better idea. 5 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Well, I mean we 6 typically consider it an act when we're conducting a 7 risk assessment. We typically have information or 8 develop information. In this case we would be looking 9 for information from industry on the releases from an 10 industrial, manufacturing, processing, formulating 11 facility. 12 We have information on streams and 13 stream flows. We have to know or have data bases that 14 we can search to identify where a facility discharges 15 and then we generally track those releases down 16 stream. We also have information or can estimate in 17 this case we would like to have measured information 18 that would enable us to understand treatment 19 efficiency but that's a very important part of 20 constructing an exposure assessment that feeds into a 21 risk assessment and all of that information is 22 important to us not only in developing a risk 23 assessment but in considering any follow up risk 24 management actions that might need to be taken. 25 WARD PENBERTHY: I think where you seeSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 29

1 this the most is in TRI where they, you have releases 2 to a POTW and then the treatment type, the efficiency 3 and that would in this case if D4 was a TRI chemical 4 you would get all that data for both indirect and 5 direct sites. So, I mean I think our interest here 6 would be consistent with those kind of information 7 needs. 8 KARLUSS THOMAS: And as you know, our 9 proposal was developed with the understanding that the 10 information would be used to inform an exposure 11 evaluation that would be used for a risk assessment. 12 So certainly while those other things might be of 13 interest those weren't considerations when we 14 developed the proposal because what we were being 15 responsive to was the agency's expressed desire to 16 develop a risk assessment. 17 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, okay. Right, 18 well I think we both expressed our interest. Do you 19 have any other questions Kathy? 20 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Yes, I was also 21 going to ask about the two monitoring events because 22 we've not talked much about that. What is your 23 thinking and what's your plan for the two monitoring 24 events? 25 KATHY PLOTZKE: We haven't had a strictSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 30

1 sort of structure to them. We wanted to have some 2 flexibility. They could be together or apart. They 3 could be at different seasons so it's just dependent 4 upon some of the ultimate goals that you wanted. So 5 we can be flexible and when those are set up. 6 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: And, could you 7 tell us a little bit more about the benthic species 8 that you are considering here? 9 KATHY PLOTZKE: Yeah, we haven't 10 specifically looked at the specific species but that's 11 one of the things even in our voluntary program called 12 the Product Stewardship Initiative, we go into the 13 site, basically do research on the site. The species 14 that are there, the food chain so that we understand 15 the dynamics and then select the appropriate species 16 based on that information. So we would need to that 17 pre-work at each one of those sites to understand that 18 food web that's there so that we would select then the 19 appropriate benthic species and marker fish. That's 20 the way we've managed it in our other current sites 21 like in Lake Pepin and we should now have some program 22 in Lake Champlain in Vermont as well. 23 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: And, how many 24 species are looking at for, I've heard you talk about 25 a marker fish which I am interpreting as one speciesSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 31

1 and how about for the benthic species? 2 KATHY PLOTZKE: It would be one species 3 for each one of those. 4 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Okay. 5 JENNIFER SEED: But, not noting if they 6 are the same? 7 KATHY PLOTZKE: Right, site dependent 8 yeah. 9 WARD PENBERTHY: So, when you get down 10 to it then we would have biota at these four sites and 11 did we agree to biota at the other indirect sites? 12 The six through ten sites? 13 KATHY PLOTZKE: And just to be clear so 14 that biota would come from, not from the indirect 15 sites it would come from municipal waste water, after 16 municipal waste water treatment plant sites because 17 there is no biota, it's through a pipe so-- 18 WARD PENBERTHY: Around the POTW that 19 would be serving indirect discharge sites. 20 KATHY PLOTZKE: Okay, just wanted to 21 make sure. 22 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah okay, great. 23 Well that would be nine sites total essentially for 24 biota. If they're there I guess. Okay. 25 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: May I, I'm sorry ISiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 32

1 keep coming back to the indirect discharge sites 2 because the influent into the municipal POTW is going 3 to include the industrial indirect discharge as well 4 as all of the consumer so would we be able to 5 apportion the discharge or the influent that pertains 6 to the indirect dischargers as you're proposing to 7 collect that data? 8 KARLUSS THOMAS: Our proposal was not 9 designed to do that. I mean I think that would be 10 what we would consider more associated with risk 11 management than risk assessment. Again our proposal 12 was designed to allow an exposure evaluation for a 13 risk assessment. That's not my understanding that you 14 typically try to apportion environmental loadings to 15 do a risk assessment. 16 Certainly if a risk assessment found a 17 potential problem that's something that you would 18 likely undertake but at this point that's not 19 necessary and I don't think, and certainly our 20 proposal wasn't designed to do that. 21 KATHY PLOTZKE: And if you go back one 22 more slide, let's go back there, I mean one of the 23 things we're trying to do is put some flexibility so 24 we have with a total number of ten sites you could 25 structure it so that some of them don't have theSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 33

1 industrial load coming in. So you could do a 2 comparison at the municipal with ones that have the 3 industrial, ones that don't. That's really actually 4 getting into the environment. 5 So if you're monitoring the POTW and 6 you're monitoring the effluent that's coming out, you 7 know you could look at one that has industrial feed 8 into it and general population versus one that just 9 has general population. So we could try to structure 10 with the ten number, you know across those variables. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 12 TRENT DOYLE: Ward just to clarify, I 13 think it's something I heard you say, I want to make 14 sure we're on the same page here but you were talking 15 about the number of sites that we'd be doing benthic 16 species at, biota monitoring at our, and under our 17 current proposal we're just proposing that at the four 18 direct discharge sites. 19 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 20 TRENT DOYLE: Okay. 21 WARD PENBERTHY: Before your proposal 22 was the four plus five additional and so we want to 23 take you up on your previous offer. 24 TRENT DOYLE: Okay I'm saying you can 25 want that and we can decide if you know, that's goingSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 34

1 to be-- But I just want to make sure you're clear on 2 our current proposal. 3 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, but if you 4 offered it before why wouldn't you be willing to do it 5 now? 6 KARLUSS THOMAS: I'm not saying we're 7 not I think I just said-- 8 TRENT DOYLE: Yeah, I just said we're 9 just not committing to that right now. I just wanted 10 to make sure we were clear. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. All right, 12 gotcha. I'm sorry. 13 KARLUSS THOMAS: Any more questions on 14 this before we go to the next slide? Which is my last 15 I think. So I guess just to sum up I just want to 16 again reiterate that the SEHSC members are committed 17 to this revised proposal. We think as expressed in 18 the letter that we sent the agency last month that the 19 proposal demonstrates the willingness to compromise. 20 We've increased the POTW sites that would be monitored 21 from five to ten. 22 From the standpoint of our goal for 23 this meeting we have certainly prepared at this point 24 to conclude the ECA negotiations and initiate 25 monitoring. That would certainly be our preference inSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 35

1 terms of an outcome at this meeting and we also thing 2 concluding the ECA negotiations would allow the D4 3 work plan assessment to proceed according to the EPA 4 schedule. 5 We think to continue a protracted 6 negotiation or to add other elements to the process 7 that weren't initially envisioned in the ECA rules 8 would not only delay the process but delay the 9 agency's ability to do the work plan assessment for 10 D4. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah. You know 12 obviously we have about a month left in this 13 negotiating period so we're, been instructed to get as 14 far along as we can to try to make that happen. So 15 we're just set on doing that but let me review just 16 what the differences are between our two proposals 17 just so they're totally clear. 18 It would appear that we've agreed that 19 monitoring at the direct discharge sites is not going 20 to be an issue and biota monitoring is not going to be 21 an issue there. Our interests were to have the five 22 indirect discharge sites, the best SEHSC monitored it 23 appears that that could be accommodated in your POTW 24 proposal. 25 We are interested in having biota doneSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 36

1 there and it seemed to me that you previously agreed 2 to that. So that would be our interest. The big 3 difference then is, after that is taking care of, we 4 were looking at sixteen POTWs, twelve of which would 5 be aggregated sludge and four lagoons. Those would 6 have been selected based on population and receiving 7 stream flow which are, they're two variables. 8 We also had considerations to include 9 in those selection was geography and the organic 10 content of the receiving stream. I have to believe 11 those two additional components can be accommodated in 12 the POTW selection procedure. I think we were looking 13 at multiple fish species that the, in terms of the 14 biota sampling. So that's a little bit different 15 there. 16 KARLUSS THOMAS: When you say multiple 17 did you have a specific number in mind? 18 WARD PENBERTHY: Two or more was where 19 we were. Is that what we are? 20 KAREN EISENREICH: Two fish species 21 representing a lower and higher probative level. 22 WARD PENBERTHY: So those are the 23 essential differences, I mean from my take on it, it 24 seems like we're about 60 to 70 percent in agreement 25 on how things could work. And based on your, justSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 37

1 recent conversations there seems to be a lack of 2 closure on ability of, to understand the contribution 3 of D4 from indirect sites to the POTWs that serve 4 them. 5 Well there's influent but the component 6 deal and then there, I described our differences in 7 biota monitoring. Those don't seem enormous 8 differences but they are differences and the five 9 indirect sites, that's a key interest of ours. 10 KARLUSS THOMAS: When you say the five 11 indirect sites, you mentioned earlier that you thought 12 the addition of the five POTWs might allow you to get 13 the information that would satisfy your needs with 14 respect to the indirect. So now you're saying you 15 still, I just want to be clear on where the agency is 16 on the indirects. 17 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, we think you 18 know, indirect sites can be handled in the POTW mode 19 and suggest it. 20 KARLUSS THOMAS: Okay. 21 WARD PENBERTHY: I guess you're going 22 to think about the biota component of those five sites 23 or I forgot what they were right? And then so, we 24 also need to know the treatment types of the direct 25 discharge sites to really understand it. The POTWs areSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 38

1 going to be representative of that treatment type. 2 GENE BROWNING: Also, on those directs, 3 you know we're similar to a municipal POTW. We do not 4 just treat D4 we are treating sanitary because of our 5 population some might have cafeterias and in some 6 cases you might be treating storm water. 7 WARD PENBERTHY: Right. 8 GENE BROWNING: So, there's a lot of 9 equalization that goes on prior to so I'll just throw 10 that out. 11 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, but there can 12 be differences to. I mean hopefully if they're both 13 there we'd be more acclimated right for D4? So, there 14 is a number of differences that we need to work 15 through. I just want to highlight them. Are there any 16 others? We need to solve? Okay. 17 DAVID TOBIAS: Have you had a thought 18 about what a lot of that means in the overview sense? 19 Do you have one fish out of the river, do you want to 20 talk about that all what your thinking is on the-- 21 KATHY PLOTZKE: Yeah, I think that's 22 the project charters that we've incorporated in the 23 original submission is reflective of what we're 24 currently doing it's way beyond one fish. 25 DAVID TOBIAS: No, I wouldn't suggest--Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 39

1 KATHY PLOTZKE: We do, we do, we 2 actually you know, look at it from a statistical 3 perspective and we can certainly share our current 4 monitoring, our voluntary Product Stewardship is into 5 it's third year. So, we've been doing this for three 6 years and then those programs actually are adjusted on 7 a year to year basis based on the previous year 8 information and I think we have a pretty good handle 9 on numbers, numbers of samples, how we collect the 10 sediment. 11 We've worked that out through the 12 voluntary Product Stewardship Initiative so those are 13 pretty robust plans for a, from a monitoring 14 perspective. So, it would be very similar to that. 15 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay, so while there 16 are differences in our monitoring hopes and 17 commitments we are getting closer. That's good. Any 18 other questions from our EPA folks on the-- Are you 19 okay? All right well maybe we should go on to the, 20 thanks for the clarification that helps I know exactly 21 or almost exactly where you guys stand. 22 I guess the next item on the agenda and 23 this might help us further on down the agenda in the 24 next steps was that Kathy was going to discuss and run 25 through our outline for risk assessment plan. And, asSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 40

1 you all know we are planning to do a risk assessment 2 for D4 and clearly it's bearing forth that any 3 monitoring that we develop in enforceable consent 4 agreement contribute meaningfully to the scope and the 5 objectives of that risk assessment. 6 And, obviously the complexity of the 7 issues associated with developing representative D4 8 environmental data are substantial and so if we want 9 to use that data to put into an exposure assessment 10 and then to our risk assessment, obviously we want to 11 be very careful how that monitoring is developed. 12 That's why we hoped to put together a 13 risk assessment plan for D4 and have it peer reviewed, 14 I'm sorry not peer reviewed, have it go through a peer 15 consultation which is more of a feed back type 16 mechanism and we hope that process informs our ECA 17 process but we view it as a separate activity and 18 distinct from our negotiation here. 19 So Kathy why don't you go ahead and-- 20 MARK SELTZER: We have extra copies of 21 the outline if folks have not already not come around. 22 Do you need one? 23 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Okay, I'm not 24 going to go through all of the details, but we thought 25 it would be helpful for you to have an appreciationSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 41

1 for what would be included within a risk assessment 2 that we would deem for, for D4. 3 So we have prepared an outline and a 4 draft of chapter one so the first statement really 5 describes what Ward has been discussing which is our 6 need to perform a nationally representative 7 assessment. The environmental risks associated with 8 D4 and so the assessment should be sufficiently robust 9 and the uncertainties in the risk estimates of 10 sufficiently characterized to support risk management 11 decisions should we identify potential risks of 12 concern. 13 So the assessment is designed to 14 include a quantitative assessment of the probable 15 release pathways of D4 that could contribute to a 16 better understanding of the distribution of 17 concentrations including the high end concentrations 18 in the environmental media. 19 We have developed a number of release 20 pathways that we intend to include within the risk 21 assessment. As you know we are interested in both the 22 direct as well as the indirect discharge including 23 down the drain releases. 24 We believe that the monitoring data is 25 needed on the releases from the industrial sites andSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 42

1 wastewater treatment plants and measured 2 concentrations in environmental media and biota in 3 order to construct that exposure assessment and risk 4 assessment. 5 So, that is really the purpose of the 6 risk assessment that we intend to develop. So moving 7 on to the outline, the first section will be the 8 background and scope. There will be an introduction 9 which describes the release sources and pathways that 10 feed the hazard then we will discuss the scope of the 11 assessment and we're all quite familiar with what that 12 scope is. 13 We will develop a conceptual model and 14 I'll cover that briefly. The next chapter is chapter 15 two which will cover the physical, chemical, and 16 environmental properties. And then chapter three is 17 the environmental assessment. There is one correction 18 under section A, I on life cycle description, we say 19 include peer reviewed literature and that should be 20 non- confidential industries submissions. That was 21 just a typo. 22 Of course, we have access to 23 confidential business information but of course that's 24 protected and is not released so we would not include 25 any confidential information in the risk assessment.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 43

1 The next section is the environmental 2 release assessment and we've talked a lot about the 3 importance of understanding environmental releases 4 from industrial facilities. We for all of these 5 sections would be identifying data gaps and release 6 estimation approaches. 7 The environmental exposure assessment 8 would review the currently available monitoring data. 9 And because we're intending to utilize peer 10 consultation process here we will in the next section 11 on the monitoring strategies proposed, provide the 12 peer consultation panel members with information on 13 the SEHSC proposal and the EPA proposal for the public 14 meetings and our colleges from the risk assessment 15 division will be talking more about that peer 16 consultation process so I'm not going to get into 17 details but-- 18 KARLUSS THOMAS: There's just a 19 question on that though not to get into the details 20 associated with peer consultation but just kind of 21 more, a clarification I guess. Ward you'd mentioned 22 that the agency plans to sort of decouple the peer 23 consultation process from the ECA negotiations and my 24 reading of this suggests that the whole risk 25 assessment plan will be provided to the peerSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 44

1 consultation for review. And if that's going to 2 include SEHSC proposal, the EPA proposal how do you 3 decouple it when you're essentially inviting feedback 4 on the, both proposals and I'm just wondering what you 5 do with the feedback if the agreement has already been 6 reached at that point since this is going to be a six 7 to eight month process? 8 WARD PENBERTHY: Right, and you know, 9 obviously, we have heard some concerns about the 10 extension of the ECA process now it's meant to be 11 driven to conclusion so we want to address that so 12 obviously to do that we would need to close on the 13 agreement and, by the end of April theoretically. 14 That's the current deadline. 15 If, if we did have agreement at that 16 time our hope would be that the monitoring strategy 17 that would be in this document as it's provided to a 18 peer consultation plan would be the content of the 19 ECA. 20 That would be the ideal okay? You 21 know, in the event and since they're starting to be 22 rumblings about multiple extensions to the timeline, 23 there are concerns about that. We don't want to have 24 to get a, it would be preferable not to get into a 25 situation where we have, now here's EPA's proposal,Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 45

1 here's SEHSC what do you think is best? Right. 2 So, we prefer not to do that if at all 3 possible so that's why we think this end of April 4 timeframe is very important to put closure on these 5 items that we were just talking about. So that's how 6 it would fit together. 7 LISA DUMARS: So, you're saying if we 8 have a signed agreement that's what feeds this not to, 9 take it's place. 10 WARD PENBERTHY: Correct, if we don't 11 we still have to do a risk assessment we've told 12 everyone in the world we're going to do a risk 13 assessment so we have to have some way to proceed and 14 we'll have to tell people about, this is what we're 15 going to do. 16 TRENT DOYLE: And so if you just kind 17 of play it off that, if in fact we have an ECA and the 18 ECA monitoring program, is what gets put forth in the 19 risk assessment plan so we're going to go out and now 20 ask for, go through a peer consultation and sort of 21 after the fact ask for input from the peer 22 consultation on whether what the agency and industry 23 has agreed to is sufficient in a risk assessment? 24 WARD PENBERTHY: That's correct. 25 That's what we're trying to address the concerns thatSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 46

1 you all had about this ECA negotiation right now. So, 2 that's the only way we could, I got to address that. 3 Now maybe I'm getting ahead of myself 4 but there's always a way and a procedure to modify an 5 ECA so in the event peer consultation pointed out some 6 gross deficiencies and whatever monitoring plan was 7 adopted those could be addressed in the modification 8 procedure and if people wanted to. Again, it's a 9 consensus process. 10 TRENT DOYLE: So, basically the process 11 would work such that effectively we have this 12 agreement which is subject to change as it always is, 13 but we're setting forth a distinct process for the 14 purpose of after the fact to evaluate, getting input 15 on whether it's sufficient. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: That's essentially-- 17 TRENT DOYLE: No, I just want to make 18 sure that's-- 19 WARD PENBERTHY: That would be 20 essentially what would21 TRENT DOYLE: What we're proposing to 22 do. 23 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, I mean we're 24 committed to doing a risk assessment that would be in 25 effect what would happen. And so obviously then bothSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 47

1 would have a lot at stake and getting the ECA right 2 because obviously you don't want to spend a lot of 3 money and work real hard at developing data to have a 4 number of expert reviewers say, well that's not quite 5 enough. 6 And we'd almost put a whole lot of 7 energy in developing a risk assessment based on data 8 that's not sufficient so-- Or it could be that this 9 is great, you're doing a fine job and then we're all 10 happy so-- 11 TRENT DOYLE: So, if the peer 12 consultation comes back and says, why do you need all 13 of this data period? Then we're going to have a 14 provisional where we can strike the ECA and cut the 15 monitoring? 16 WARD PENBERTHY: Well, I mean it's a, 17 there is in the ECA regs, there is a new data come 18 available, new information that would make 19 modification of the ECA make sense in that, that's the 20 scenario. 21 TRENT DOYLE: Okay. 22 BETSY CARLTON: Ward I have one other 23 related questions, Betsy Carlton Bluestar Silicone. 24 At what point would the information be submitted to 25 the peer, I mean we assume that we, with the sameSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 48

1 scenario you're assuming EPA and industry can come to 2 an agreement on the monitoring program? You said 3 that's what would be submitted to the peer group. If 4 we assume we could conclude that might helpful. At 5 what point does it hold sway? 6 WARD PENBERTHY: The study was going to 7 be done-- 8 STAN BARONE: We're going to talk about 9 that process-- 10 BESTY CARLTON: I'll wait. 11 STAN BARONE: That's relevant. 12 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Okay, so, the next 13 section, 3C, is the environmental hazard assessment, 14 and we will summarize the hazard of D4 including 15 available eco-toxicity studies. The next section is 16 the environmental risk characterization. We would 17 describe the approach that we would use to 18 characterize, that we would propose to use to 19 characterize the potential risks to applied organisms. 20 The next section would describe 21 uncertainties, data gaps, and other related issues 22 associated with risk assessment approach. Then we 23 will have of course a section on references that we've 24 used in the document as well as appendices that will 25 have supplemental information.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 49

1 And we included a draft of chapter one 2 just so that you would get a sense of the information 3 that we typically include within the risk assessment. 4 This outline is actually, comes from the HHCV work 5 plan that we posted on the existing chemicals website. 6 If you're interested in taking a look at that. 7 So, the first section again is the 8 introduction that describes D4 including you know, 9 relative information on uses etcetera, production 10 volume, regulatory information, whether it's listed, 11 well listing on the TOSCA inventory. We would really 12 highlight available tox data and monitoring data as 13 well as biota monitoring. 14 The next section covers-- 15 KARLUSS THOMAS: Just one comment, can 16 I make one quick comment on the introduction of the 17 summary of the regulatory activity on D4? I mean to 18 the extent that is going to be put in the document I 19 just thought it would be helpful if they were 20 inaccuracies here, it'd be helpful if they were 21 clarified. 22 I think with respect to the D4 23 regulatory activity in Canada and Norway, the second 24 sentence says Canada placed limits on the percentage 25 of D4 that can occur in consumer products andSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 50

1 introduced a mandatory pollution prevention program. 2 There are no concentration based 3 regulatory restrictions for D4 in Canada and indeed 4 there is a requirement that facilities that use D4 5 prepare a pollution prevention plan but at this point 6 there are no regulatory restrictions on the use of D4 7 anywhere in the world. 8 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay, well we'll 9 clarify that. You must have been looking at a 10 different document but anyway that's okay we'll take 11 care of it. So, we're going to scope the assessment 12 then? 13 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Yes, so the scope 14 of the assessment would describe the breath and depth 15 of the assessment. We have developed a conceptual 16 plan for D4 which you see on page six. We found that 17 in developing the work plan and risk assessments, it's 18 helpful for us to conceptualize not only the flow of 19 in this case D4 but also information on releases for 20 instance going from manufacturing to either on site 21 industrial or to down stream processing through 22 indirect discharge to municipal POTWs or through 23 commercial and residential use to municipal and then 24 releases to surface waters, sediment, biota, and we've 25 shown here both the product flow and the effluentSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 51

1 flow. 2 Again, just highlighting the importance 3 of that information. We've also included some 4 assessment questions on page five to give you a sense 5 of the types of questions that we're looking too 6 address in the risk assessment including the source of 7 pathways through which D4 enters the environment from 8 manufacturing down stream processing and formulation 9 and end use. 10 How do levels of D4 measured in surface 11 water compare to levels that produce adverse effects 12 in aquatic organisms. How do the levels of D4 measure 13 in sediments in the U.S. compared to levels that 14 produced adverse effects in sediment dwelling 15 invertebrates and how do the biota concentrations near 16 the release sources such as the formulator sites 17 compare to the previously collected biota 18 concentration data. 19 And again this section helps us to 20 characterize the overall assessment and really focus 21 our work on the exposure pathways of interest, the 22 sources feeding into the risk assessment so that's a 23 very important section for us. 24 And then we, for your information 25 included some of the references that we've used inSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 52

1 preparing this draft, chapter one of the document. 2 But, again the outline is a draft outline at this 3 point, we have drafted chapter one again to give you a 4 flavor of what we would develop which would then be 5 submitted to the peer consultation panel for review. 6 Yes, so with that all started I'd ask 7 if there are questions? 8 KARLUSS THOMAS: A comment I think the 9 scope of the assessment and brief I think we would 10 agree is extremely important. I think to the extent 11 that the key questions that are going to be addressed 12 are not articulated here and we'd certainly like to 13 see the rest of those because they include but are not 14 limited to. 15 I think number two and number three 16 form the crux of what we would see as the critical 17 items for a risk assessment and again our proposal was 18 generated to allow the development of information that 19 allows you to make that determination. 20 We did have our facility folks take a 21 real close look at the diagram and have made some 22 really important changes that I think will help 23 crystallize those two things that are going to be most 24 critical from the standpoint of a risk assessment. 25 We don't have to go through that now,Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 53

1 we're happy to go through that now if you'd guys would 2 like to do that. We can provide that for you later in 3 written comments on this but I just wanted you to be 4 aware that we do think this is important and we've 5 made some changes to this that we think better reflect 6 production reality. 7 We think that's going to feed into what 8 you've laid out under the scope in terms of the 9 critical questions. So I just wanted to note that and 10 back to the earlier comment on D4, not to belabor that 11 but you are right Canada did at one time consider a 12 range of concentration based on the limitations for D4 13 and a variety of products. 14 They did have a stakeholder process 15 back in the fall of 2010 where they brought in 16 stakeholders to provide comments on that and the 17 ultimate outcome of that was that they decided to go 18 with a pollution prevention plan as the only risk 19 management instrument for dealing with D4. 20 So, while those concentration 21 limitations were considered, they ultimately 22 determined they weren't necessary. 23 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay that's great. We 24 would appreciate your written comments that would be 25 particularly on the conceptual plan, that would be aSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 54

1 great help because if we got it wrong that's not good 2 so yeah. 3 PAUL DELEO: Question Kathy, I have a 4 question. 5 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Yes. 6 PAUL DELEO: With your, it's Paul 7 Deleo, American Cleaning Institute. With your risk 8 assessment conceptual plan do you think we'd try to 9 instruct a material balance around, you have the 10 diagram of another plan? 11 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: No this is, this 12 particular diagram is really focused on the assessment 13 because the plan that we would use for building out 14 the assessment. We would however when, when 15 evaluating the releases certainly a material balance 16 is the general approach that we use there. 17 So that would be an important component 18 for that section of the document but this diagram is 19 really intended to present a graphic of a conceptual 20 graphic of the assessment and the sources and pathways 21 that we intend to address within the disclosure and 22 risk assessment. 23 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah I don't think 24 we're trying to track every pound of D4 through the 25 American economy that's not our--Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 55

1 PAUL DELEO: Well, you know the reason 2 I made that, asked that question is um, my 3 understanding is there is a pretty significant loss 4 during the consumer release phase so what goes down 5 the drain might be a small portion of what's actually 6 a consumer products and it's not reflected in the plan 7 right now, I'm not sure if you're-- 8 WARD PENBERTHY: Can you say that 9 again? 10 PAUL DELEO: That a significant portion 11 of the material in consumer products doesn't go down 12 the drain so if you're using deodorant that's what 13 qualifies as a decoded ingredient. It doesn't go down 14 the drain when you take a shower I'd say. 15 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 16 PAUL DELEO: And so, if you try to do 17 material balance by virtue of this you might over, 18 over state what's going down the drain, if you're 19 going to run I'd say EFAST or something like that to 20 look at that. 21 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. 22 PAUL DELEO: This would get us enough 23 material balance to make a decision. 24 KATHY FEHRENBACHER: Yeah thank you. 25 WARD PENBERTHY: Any other questions?Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 56

1 All right Stan do you want to talk a little bit about 2 plans for a peer consultation? 3 STAN BARONE: Sure as many of you know 4 there's a distinction between a peer consultation and 5 a peer review and we're taking the approach of a peer 6 consultation for a number of significant reasons. One 7 this is a draft assessment plan. We're getting input 8 from a broad range of folks with different expertise. 9 This is not going to be a consensus 10 report. I think there are some questions about that 11 so, let's be clear about that. There's not, consensus 12 is not the objective of this particular approach. EPA 13 will arrange for this independent contractor to man an 14 independent contractor to manage this peer 15 consultation. 16 The contractor will select the peer 17 consultants based upon technical expertise and perform 18 a conflict of interest and bias evaluation of those 19 potential peer consultants. The EPA will develop the 20 risk assessment plan given some of the information 21 we've discussed today and additional information that 22 we receive. 23 The list of expertise needed to 24 evaluate the risk assessment plan and the science 25 questions and charge questions will be developed bySiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 57

1 EPA. We'll make all of this information available 2 through a federal register notice so it will be 3 publicly released to everyone including stakeholders, 4 so that's the public. 5 GENE BROWNING: And will there be an 6 opportunity to comment? 7 STAN BARONE: That's my next point 8 actually. So there will be a public comment period, 9 very definitely, prior to the meeting to the peer 10 consultation meeting. We're shooting right now just 11 to give you a ball park that would be early August for 12 that federal register notice, that release. 13 And a meeting would probably be 14 September, potentially. There are some uncertainties 15 that are in play right now so we're working with that, 16 those assumptions. 17 ELLEN MIHAICH: That's this year right? 18 STAN BARONE: That is this year. Yes I 19 am talking this year, this calendar year. 20 ELLEN MIHAICH: Okay. 21 STAN BARONE: So, following, let's 22 follow my notes here. Following the peer consultation 23 meeting there would be a recording by the contractor 24 of the comments, the collection of the comments as per 25 the science questions. There would be a report weSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 58

1 hope from the science consultation within 30 to 45 2 days that would be made publically available. EPA 3 would use that report in evaluating it's assessment 4 plan, revising it's assessment plan and moving 5 forward. 6 At the peer consultation there would 7 also be the opportunity for public comment as well as 8 the previous public comments that were provided during 9 the comment period. And the public comments that are 10 received would be of course communicated to the peer 11 consultations through the contractor prior to the 12 science consultation meeting. 13 Are there questions? 14 HUGH FLACK: Yeah, what are the source 15 of the data that these consultants will be looking at? 16 Where are they going to get their information from? 17 STAN BARONE: So, primarily the 18 information that's available will be the report that 19 the science plan, the risk assessment plan that's 20 provided to them. That's going to be the core source 21 material that they'll be evaluating. Any other public 22 comments or data that's received during the public 23 comment period would also be made available to them 24 and they'll have all of that in the public record as 25 well.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 59

1 KARLUSS THOMAS: Will assessments done 2 under other jurisdictions be provided to the 3 consultation for review? So for example the 4 assessments that's already been done by Canada, will 5 that be made available? 6 STAN BARONE: We're not asking them to 7 comment on other organization's assessments. Those 8 kinds of materials would be made available to them if 9 they were made available during the public comment 10 period. They will be cited more than likely in our 11 plan as they are outlined as they are now. 12 But that's not the subject of their, 13 that's not the subject of the consultation. The 14 subject of the consultation is on the proposal that 15 EPA is presenting. 16 KARLUSS THOMAS: Right, I know the idea 17 was that since they are going to be reviewing a plan 18 that the agency intends to pursue with respect to the 19 risk assessment. It might be helpful for them to see 20 assessments that have already been done by other 21 public officials. 22 JENNIFER SEED: If they request that 23 and it's representative, I guess they can have access 24 to it. 25 KARLUSS THOMAS: Okay.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 60

1 STAN BARONE: But again focuses on the 2 risk assessment plan that EPA is putting forward. 3 KARLUSS THOMAS: Sure. 4 STAN BARONE: Okay. 5 TRENT DOYLE: Stan taking a step back 6 in terms of the outside contracts they use as a, to 7 manage the process in terms of you know, scheduling 8 the meeting, compiling the reports, etcetera. You 9 also said they would be selecting the participants. 10 Will there be an opportunity for interested parties to 11 provide comments to the agency on a recommendations 12 for the peer consultees? I mean if they are the 13 people that they are going to be picking? 14 STAN BARONE: So, that is a 15 possibility. We haven't ruled that out. We will be 16 giving in our performance work statement, the 17 expertise. We're, EPA is not picking the peer 18 consultants. We provide the expertise that we think 19 is required for this endeavor and the contractor 20 actually picks based upon the criteria and the 21 expertise that we've listed. 22 TRENT DOYLE: Yeah I'm just aware, I 23 know that sometimes in the past there's been an 24 opportunity for-- 25 STAN BARONE: For nomination.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 61

1 TRENT DOYLE: Folks for EPA as well as 2 any other interested party to submit nominees that 3 would be you know, then up to the, this outside 4 contractor to sift through those and pick those at 5 least there's an opportunity to give nominations. 6 STAN BARONE: We are talking about 7 actually when we release the federal register notice 8 for the meeting also listing the draft list of the 9 consultants so that'll be available to everybody with 10 the information on when the meeting is going to be and 11 who's going to be the consultants. 12 KATHY PLOTZKE: Is there a possibility 13 for collaborating on as you put together the list of 14 expertise in the charge questions for us to provide 15 feedback? 16 STAN BARONE: The public comment period 17 is really the opportunity for you to comment on the 18 charge questions and the expertise that we have 19 listed. If you think there's some expertise that's 20 missing we would very much appreciate your comments. 21 We have to also, this is the agency's 22 process and you also have to bear in mind that other 23 outside parties might also be submitting comments into 24 the same subject matter. 25 TRENT DOYLE: With respect to the workSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 62

1 product from the peer consultation meeting as I 2 understand it. What would come out of that is 3 essentially a report that summarizes the various, I 4 guess viewpoints if you will of the peer consultation 5 group and that's really what the outside contractor 6 would put together. The agency would then take that 7 under advisement and then use that to presumably 8 inform its final risk management plan? 9 STAN BARONE: Risk assessment plan. 10 TRENT DOYLE: Risk assessment, I'm 11 sorry risk assessment plan. 12 STAN BARONE: Let's be clear. 13 TRENT DOYLE: I don't want to race 14 ahead of myself. So the risk assessment plan and then 15 that would be, that would be what, would there be an 16 opportunity then for commenting on that sort of final, 17 or you know, revised plan etcetera? Or is that 18 essentially going to just go final once you receive 19 the comments back from the-- 20 STAN BARONE: Well, what we have done 21 with the other work plan chemicals and I think the 22 intention is this to follow after that report. Follow 23 the process that we've done with the other work plan 24 chemicals is we go on and develop a draft risk 25 assessment.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 63

1 We would release that draft risk 2 assessment for public comment and peer review when it 3 has gone through the entire agency process and then 4 you would have an opportunity to again comment on that 5 draft risk assessment and provide any additional data 6 that might have come in or any additional information 7 to inform that assessment product during the peer 8 review, not consultation. Peer review. 9 TRENT DOYLE: So, as far as, just 10 taking a step back, is this whole risk assessment plan 11 is new to the work plans in terms if you haven't 12 really done this process in terms of the front end 13 process. I know how you do on the back end but as far 14 as once the EPA has finalized its risk assessment 15 plan, after taking it under advisement, the report 16 that comes from the peer consultation. Will that plan 17 be then published to the federal register? That risk 18 assessment plan, or is that going to be just, I mean 19 what I'm trying to get at is how do we know what the 20 agency decided to do until we see the actual draft 21 risk assessment? Will there be an opportunity 22 beforehand? 23 STAN BARONE: You're talking about 24 would you see the finalized risk assessment plan? 25 TRENT DOYLE: Yes.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 64

1 STAN BARONE: I think what we're 2 talking about is we take the comments from the peer 3 consultation report. We would take our draft risk 4 assessment plan. We move forward to our risk 5 assessment process. We'd move forward to a risk 6 assessment. We're not going to publish another 7 interim product, I mean again we want to move forward. 8 TRENT DOYLE: No, I understand, I just 9 want to make sure that comes out so we're all very 10 clear on that. So essentially what the proof will be 11 in whatever the plan, whatever the risk assessment, 12 the draft risk assessment was the next time we'll be 13 able to see, oh this what, this is how the agency 14 incorporated the feedback from the peer consultation. 15 STAN BARONE: Yeah, there's no 16 intention to have a response to comments or in, for 17 the peer consultation. This is unlike a peer review 18 where for an influential product or highly influential 19 product that in the peer review that we would have a 20 response to comments document and a revised assessment 21 so, note we're putting some, that's a different 22 process, different steps. 23 TRENT DOYLE: Sure. 24 STAN BARONE: Other questions? 25 PAUL DELEO: Comments, not the specificSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 65

1 peer consultation but the process in general. I think 2 the document that the outline was prepared is really 3 valuable. It's sort of a roadmap of where you're 4 going on D4 and this kind of approach I think would 5 have been valuable for the five risk assessments that 6 came out recently and yesterday a number of chemicals 7 were announced for risk assessment. 8 I think it would be valuable to have 9 something like this. I don't think they all need a 10 peer consultation process but some kind of roadmap 11 just talking about you know what the general plan is 12 for the individual chemicals that are going to be 13 assessed. I think that would be valuable for 14 especially industries that are effected potentially or 15 who might have information with respect to those 16 chemicals and be unaware of exactly where the agency's 17 planning to go. 18 KATHY PLOTZKE: I guess that kind of 19 leads to, so was this the first time you've done it 20 this way or is this something you're seeing to maybe 21 incorporate into the work plan process or? 22 JENNIFER SEED: If you recall years 23 back we had a voluntary children's campaign evaluation 24 process. The whole thing was peer consultation. So 25 it's sort of modeled after that appeal. So I don'tSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 66

1 think there's, this is just a unique situation because 2 of the issues over the monitoring so that's why we're 3 seeking comment. 4 If others have other unique questions 5 we would pursue the same thing. We've gone through 6 this with other kinds of assessments that have gone to 7 our Science Advisory Board and so in that case we'll 8 have an advisory group and we might go to them way too 9 many times, several times for consolation on specific 10 science issues and then once we have the document 11 we'll go for a formal approval. So it's a fairly 12 common practice in the agency. 13 STAN BARONE: Across programs including 14 ORD. So other examples include the Thalight 15 Cumulative Assessment scoping for that. The dioxin 16 reassessment also went through a peer consultation 17 process. 18 BETSY CARLTON: But never associated 19 with an ECA before? This is the first ECA that does 20 that? 21 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah people shouldn't 22 expect that this would every happen again in the ECA 23 process. You know I think there are unique attributes 24 of this effort to monitoring which is particularly 25 complex to deal with and I think the ECA process isSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 67

1 really designed around, testing around the health 2 effect around the known guideline. 3 You know and this sort of a custom 4 build situation so yeah don't anticipate that this 5 will be a standard feature of future ECA activity. 6 Any other questions? 7 BETSY CARLTON: Yeah this is Betsy 8 Carlton from Bluestar Silicones again. So now that we 9 have the approximate estimated time frame, so assume 10 that we can agree on monitoring proposal by the end of 11 April. It doesn't go to peer until August. 12 STAN BARONE: It doesn't go out for 13 public comment. 14 BETSY CARLTON: It doesn't go out for 15 public comment. Okay I'm trying to figure out how the 16 comments from the peer consultation if they were to 17 come back and say we need a revision to an ECA that's 18 already been agreed to. 19 WARD PENBERTHY: How does that work? 20 BETSY CARLTON: Yeah. 21 WARD PENBERTHY: There are modification 22 procedures in our regulations governing ECAs and 23 they're very specific. They're essentially, basically 24 opening up another round of these type of meetings. 25 And so I think what you would get is, you'd have theSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 68

1 peer consultation report, people would have a sense is 2 a modification necessary? And then we would start 3 these discussions with interested parties, consensus, 4 modifying the ECA. 5 TRENT DOYLE: What's novel about it 6 appears is the fact that I'm not sure if a situation 7 where we've gone through an ECA negotiation and the 8 next step after that is to evoke a peer consultation 9 process, or a process where it essentially get's 10 opened up and subject to review all that before 11 anything's really transpired. I mean it's clearly, 12 pretty unprecedented and sort of a-- 13 WARD PENBERTHY: It's different. 14 TRENT DOYLE: Interesting approach 15 given that everybody was invited at the beginning of 16 this to you know, it's just they said stakeholders 17 were invited to participate, have comments etcetera. 18 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah I mean I think 19 part of problems associated with the whole ECA 20 discussion were the novel science issues that we're 21 having to deal with. This is one way to help us deal 22 with those. 23 So are we at the next agenda item? 24 Okay so in terms of next steps, you know through our 25 discussions we identified a number of issues that weSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 69

1 need to work on towards the end of April. There's 2 some issues around biota monitoring, how many sites. 3 The contribution of D4 from indirect sites to POTW 4 influent versus from consumer sources. 5 Contribution, or the amount of D4 in 6 influented waste water treatment at direct discharge 7 sites is another issue we talked about. And then the 8 general issue around you know is ten POTWs enough 9 versus our sixteen and that kind of thing. 10 One concept that we've been talking to 11 around our senior management is that we do our best to 12 come to an agreement on these remaining issues 13 understanding that your current proposal would be 14 basically the foundation of an ECA agreement. 15 Hopefully we'll be able to resolve 16 these outstanding issues in the interim period till 17 the end of April and then we get to an ECA agreement 18 that, an ECA agreement would be part of the risk 19 assessment plan and then there would be a commitment 20 included in the ECA agreement that all the interested 21 parties would consider the results of the peer 22 consultation and assess whether modification is 23 necessary. 24 And I think the thinking about this is 25 that when you stand back and look at, you know we'reSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 70

1 about 70% in agreement. It's hard to resolve those 2 differences. It doesn't appear that we're going to 3 resolve those issues quickly anyway. So that would be 4 an approach that we can sort of get things moving, 5 come to some conclusion to this effort and these 6 negotiations that have been going on since, well about 7 this time last year. 8 So I think it's time to bring it back 9 in and this would be one approach to do that. I think 10 for instance if we were able to come to an agreement 11 on the components of an ECA obviously one would have 12 to be a drafted, that draft gets sent to all 13 interested parties for a 30 day review so you know, we 14 might have to do another extension past April to 15 ensure that that capability could be done. 16 You know I think all during that 17 drafting period we'll have a clear sense of what a 18 monitoring program could look like to be able to 19 include in the developing risk assessment plan, concur 20 so that would be the proposal that I would make to you 21 and obviously we've heard some new stuff on your plans 22 so I need to go back and talk with our science people 23 and figure out, you know what are must haves and what 24 we could live without and then we've got to the test 25 the, by sort of an agreement and concept that is aSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 71

1 good approach at the senior management level. 2 You know they didn't know the details 3 of your commitment in terms of the monitoring plan 4 either so we would have to go through that with them. 5 I think that would take us about a couple weeks and so 6 I think probably what we might be able to do is have a 7 conference call of this group in about two weeks. 8 I understand if you're willing to 9 proceed on that level then we ought to. So that's 10 what I would offer at this point. Are there any 11 comments that you have on that concept? 12 KARLUSS THOMAS: Well I guess, yeah I 13 guess my one comment is with respect to the proposal. 14 I think certainly the proposal that was articulated in 15 the letter that we submitted in February represents, 16 represent an agreement from all of the member 17 company's senior management and I'll note that that's 18 on a number of continents so that was a really heavy 19 lift. It might not be evident in, you might not think 20 it's evident in this proposal but I think it was quite 21 substantial that we were able to pull together this 22 type of an agreement. 23 I think from the standpoint of that 24 proposal that's what I can absolutely stand behind at 25 this point and say that the members are behind. IfSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 72

1 there are going to be substantive changes to that that 2 would require a fair number of discussions which would 3 obviously extend well beyond April. 4 So my hope is that we can get at least 5 a formal response from the agency on the proposal that 6 was submitted in February. Certainly we are going to 7 take all of the comments we've received today under 8 advisement but it would be helpful to get sort of a 9 formal response on that proposal because I think again 10 that's where we are. 11 If there are some changes around the 12 margins that we might come to agreement on, I think 13 we'll try to do that. But I think in terms of the 14 substantive elements of the proposal, those were 15 articulated in the letter, I've tried to highlight 16 them again here today and it's certainly our hope that 17 that could be used as the basis for moving forward 18 with the monitoring. 19 The other thing I'll mention is that we 20 in the past, the versions of the proposal that we 21 talked about we had sought input from the other 22 stakeholders around the table. We haven't done that 23 with this particular proposal so if you think it's 24 helpful we would certainly be interested in thoughts 25 from other stakeholders with respect the revisedSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 73

1 proposal that we've talked about today and that we 2 obviously described in more detail in the letter back 3 in February. 4 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah, that's a good 5 point because it is important because in the end it is 6 a consensus determination. So do any of the other 7 interested parties have concerns about the approach 8 and, or concerns about the proposal? 9 We have one? I'm sorry. 10 CYNTHIA FINLEY: That's all right. 11 This is Cynthia Finley with NACWA. We're really 12 pleased to see the increase in the number of POTWs 13 that were purposed for monitoring. We feel like ten 14 is enough, I know you're still concerned about the 15 discrepancy between the sixteen recommended by EPA 16 versus the ten that's proposed but we feel that with 17 ten you could get a real cross section of treatment 18 types and POTW configurations. So you would get a very 19 good set of data from ten. 20 Also I've heard you mention again today 21 using population served as one of the criteria to look 22 at in POTW selection. We still feel like that really 23 doesn't matter. That that's not one of the best 24 criteria to use in the selection because if you're 25 increasing your population I'm sure you're probablySiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 74

1 increasing your use of products that contain siloxanes 2 but then you're also increasing your flow to the 3 treatment plant. 4 We have no evidence to show that a 5 greater population uses more of these products and it 6 just doesn't seem like the best way to choose a POTW. 7 WARD PENBERTHY: So, what's the better 8 way? 9 CYNTHIA FINLEY: I think your other 10 criteria are fine looking at treatment type. I like 11 the comparison of POTWs that have direct dischargers 12 versus those that don't. To go to your question about 13 if you can sort of I think, look at the proportion of 14 discharge from an industrial facility. 15 I think that would be highly dependent 16 on the POTW. If it's in a very large area that's 17 taking you know, from a huge population and lots of 18 different industries, you know the industrial 19 facilities are not discharging at a constant rate most 20 likely and I don't think you'd ever be able to come to 21 any conclusion there. 22 If was a very small POTW and that was 23 the only industry in town, you might be able to figure 24 that out but I think in most situations you wouldn't 25 be able to.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 75

1 Karluss mentioned that NACWA could help 2 out in POTW selection and we do have members and even 3 non-members that are keeping track of this issue and 4 some of them are very eager to be part of ECA 5 actually. So if you're looking for volunteers we'd 6 probably be able to find some and again they'd 7 probably represent a good cross section POTW site 8 you're looking for. 9 WARD PENBERTHY: Well hopefully we'll 10 take you up on that offer. 11 CYNTHIA FINLEY: Yeah. The one other 12 thing, you know our concern is really with siloxanes 13 and bio-gas and the impact that has on the energy, 14 renewable energy production at POTWs. So I know that's 15 not your concern, you know that's not part of this 16 risk assessment but we still feel like if you were to 17 sample the bio-gas you would have a more complete set 18 of data and you could look at a mass balance, a 19 complete mass balance of how these things are working 20 their way through the treatment plant and being 21 discharged into the environment. So I'd just like 22 that to be considered as part of this process-- 23 WARD PENBERTHY: Does influent 24 concentrations help you with that? 25 CYNTHIA FINLEY: It does yeah.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 76

1 Influent, I think that's good again I'm not quite sure 2 how that goes to the risk assessment as far as you 3 know, what's happening in the environment with the 4 discharge but I do think to get a complete picture of 5 what's happening you should sample the influent at the 6 POTW and the effluent, the bio-solids, bio-gas. 7 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. All right thank 8 you. All right so I guess we have to go back and talk 9 to our appropriate groups and try to figure out how 10 close we are to an agreement here. I guess we'll plan 11 on a conference call in a couple weeks to give each 12 other some feedback on where we are and we'll give you 13 a direct response on exactly what we feel we need to 14 inform, you know in two weeks. 15 KARLUSS THOMAS: Okay, if we could have 16 that before the call that would be very helpful. 17 WARD PENBERTHY: Okay. Is there 18 anything else we need? 19 PAUL LEWIS: No, that's it again, a 20 transcript of this meeting will be made available in 21 the docket. We'll work with interested parties in 22 terms of scheduling the next teleconference in the 23 next two weeks. Obviously we have something in 24 advance in terms of laying our role and obviously the 25 circle back about issue and we can do the same.Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 77

1 WARD PENBERTHY: You know, in the event 2 that we can get on a glide path that gets us towards 3 going through an ECA. Usually, or typically I don't 4 know if you guys are new to it, what would happen is 5 the EPA and the primary interested parties would, have 6 found maybe one or two people to start drafting the 7 ECA working together and interested parties could also 8 provide a person if they wanted to. 9 They would work closely together to try 10 to put together an agreeable draft to share with 11 broader group so that, that usually is the next step 12 after you know, we start working on the specifics. 13 TRENT DOYLE: Today, and Ward to we did 14 include a draft ECA in our original proposal back last 15 April. 16 WARD PENBERTHY: Yeah April or March. 17 I know that. 18 TRENT DOYLE: So, it just says-- 19 WARD PENBERTHY: We could, you know, 20 start working off that draft and I will tell you that 21 the timeline on some of that stuff, like I think for 22 instance it had a 270 day for, what do they call it? 23 Not a sampling plan, a test plan. Usually in ECAs 24 they're 60 days so we have some, we're going to have 25 some work around the schedule I know. So the 270 daysSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 78

1 isn't going to be, isn't going to work. So, we're 2 going to have some issues like that to deal with. 3 Okay any thing else? All right, we'll 4 talk again in two weeks. 5 KARLUSS THOMAS: All right, thank you 6 very much. 7 (WHEREUPON, the meeting concluded at 2:40 P.M.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 79

1 STIPULATION 2 3 The foregoing matter was taken on the date, and 4 at the time and place set out on the title page 5 hereof. 6 7 It was requested that the matter be taken by the 8 reporter and that the same be reduced to typewritten 9 form. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 80

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER AND SECURE ENCRYPTED 2 SIGNATURE AND DELIVERY OF CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT 3 I, JASON ALAN LEES , Notary Public, do hereby 4 certify that the forgoing matter was reported by 5 stenographic and/or mechanical means, that same was 6 reduced to written form, that the transcript prepared 7 by me or under my direction, is a true and accurate 8 record of same to the best of my knowledge and 9 ability; that there is no relation nor employment by 10 any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 11 hereto, nor financial or otherwise interest in the 12 action filed or its outcome. 13 This transcript and certificate have been 14 digitally signed and securely delivered through our 15 encryption server. 16 IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have here unto set my hand 17 this 3rd day of April, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 /s/JASON ALAN LEES 24 COURT REPORTER / NOTARY 25 My Commission Expires: October 2, 2016Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 81

1 1:00 4:3 4:16

2 2:40 78:7 2010 53:15 2013 4:2 270 77:22 77:25 28 4:2

3 30 58:1 70:13 3C 48:13

4 4:00 4:16 45 58:1

6 60 36:24 77:24

7 70 36:24 70% 70:1

A ability 35:9 37:2 able 13:1 32:4 64:13 69:15 70:10 70:18 71:6 71:21 74:20 74:23 74:25 75:6 absolutely 16:4 71:24 access 14:22 42:22 59:23 acclimated 38:13 accommodate 21:21 accommodated 35:23 36:11 according 35:3 across 24:9 24:21 33:10 66:13 act27:3 27:19 28:6 actions 28:24 activated

9:9 25:21 activity 40:17 49:17 49:23 67:5 actual 63:20 actually 24:7 33:3 39:2 39:6 49:4 55:5 57:8 60:20 61:7 75:5 add16:22 35:6 added 8:19 addition 21:23 37:12 additional 7:1 8:25 15:8 16:3 16:8 24:12 24:13 33:22 36:11 56:21 63:5 63:6 address 24:2 44:11 45:25 46:2 51:6 54:21 addressed 46:7 52:11 adjusted39:6 adopted46:7 advance 76:24 advantage 26:12 adverse 51:11 51:14 advisement 62:7 63:15 72:8 advisory 66:7 66:8 affiliation 4:10 afternoon4:5 agency7:25 8:12 11:5 14:15 14:16 14:17 22:20 26:6 26:11 27:24 34:18 37:15 43:22 45:22 59:18 60:11 62:6 63:3 63:20 64:13 66:12 72:5 agency's 8:23 11:19 16:10 29:15 35:9 61:21 65:16 agenda4:16 7:7 7:13 7:18 39:22 39:23 68:23 aggregated 36:5 agreeable 77:10 agreed 35:18 36:1 45:23 67:18 agreement4:8 36:24 40:4 44:5 44:13 44:15 45:8 46:12 48:2 69:12 69:14 69:17 69:18 69:20 70:1 70:10 70:25 71:16 71:22 72:12 76:10 ahead 40:19 46:3 62:14 allow13:11 13:17 14:19Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 82

16:9 20:18 20:23 24:4 32:12 35:2 37:12 52:18 allows 14:15 52:19 already 18:1 40:21 44:5 59:4 59:20 67:18 am 7:16 30:25 57:19 America 5:8 American 5:19 54:7 54:25 Americas 6:3 6:22 amount69:5 Anderson 5:17 5:17 Andy6:4 6:4 Anne 6:17 6:17 announced 65:7 anticipate 67:4 anyone 7:2 anything7:18 76:18 anything's 68:11 anyway 50:10 70:3 anywhere 50:7 apart30:2 appeal 65:25 appear 35:18 70:2 appears 35:23 68:6 appendices 48:24 applied48:19 apportion 32:5 32:14 apportioned 19:20 appreciate 53:24 61:20 appreciation 40:25 approach 48:17 48:22 54:16 56:5 56:12 65:4 68:14 70:4 70:9 71:1 73:7 approaches 43:6 appropriate 8:24 17:7 25:13 30:15 30:19 76:9 approval 66:11 approximate 67:9 April 44:13 45:3 67:11 69:1 69:17 70:14 72:3 77:15 77:16 aquatic 51:12 area 25:14 25:19 74:16 aren't 27:11 27:15 arrange 56:13 articulated 26:17 52:12 71:14 72:15 assess 26:7 69:22 assessed28:1 65:13 assessment 4:19 7:10 18:21 19:3 22:1 22:5 22:14 22:17 22:18 22:22 22:25 23:3 26:16 26:22 28:7 28:20 28:21 28:23 29:11 29:16 32:11 32:13 32:15 32:16 35:3 35:9 39:25 40:1 40:5 40:9 40:10 40:13 41:1 41:7 41:8 41:13 41:14 41:21 42:3 42:4 42:6 42:11 42:17 42:25 43:2 43:7 43:14 43:25 45:11 45:13 45:19 45:23 46:24 47:7 48:13 48:22 49:3 50:11 50:14 50:15 51:4 51:6 51:20 51:22 52:9 52:17 52:24 54:8 54:12 54:14 54:20 54:22 56:7 56:20 56:24 58:3 58:4 58:19 59:19 60:2 62:9 62:10 62:11 62:14 62:25 63:2 63:5 63:7 63:10 63:14 63:18 63:21 63:24 64:4 64:5 64:6Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 83

64:11 64:12 64:20 65:7 66:15 69:19 70:19 75:16 76:2 assessments 22:21 22:22 50:17 59:1 59:4 59:7 59:20 65:5 66:6 associated 8:2 8:6 8:20 11:16 20:5 20:16 32:10 40:7 41:7 43:20 48:22 66:18 68:19 assume 47:25 48:4 67:9 assuming48:1 assumption 15:21 assumptions 57:16 attributes 66:23 August 57:11 67:11 available 4:13 4:15 7:12 20:18 20:23 43:8 47:18 48:15 49:12 57:1 58:2 58:18 58:23 59:5 59:8 59:9 61:9 76:20 Avcin6:12 6:12 aware 53:4 60:22

B background 42:8 balance 13:13 13:25 54:9 54:15 55:17 55:23 75:18 75:19 ball 57:11 Barone 5:1 5:1 7:12 48:8 48:11 56:3 57:7 57:18 57:21 58:17 59:6 60:1 60:4 60:14 60:25 61:6 61:16 62:9 62:12 62:20 63:23 64:1 64:15 64:24 66:13 67:12 based 10:10 13:21 14:11 17:7 30:16 36:6 36:25 39:7 47:7 50:2 53:12 56:17 60:20 bases 27:19 28:13 basic25:25 basically 13:21 15:20 22:11 25:9 30:13 46:10 67:23 69:14 basis 39:7 72:17 bear 18:25 61:22 bearing40:2 beforehand 63:22 beginning 68:15 behalf7:24 behind 71:24 71:25 belabor 53:10 believe 36:10 41:24 benchmark 22:12 benthic 21:12 25:16 30:7 30:19 31:1 33:15 best11:20 13:8 16:6 35:22 45:1 69:11 73:23 74:6 BESTY48:10 Betsy5:25 5:25 47:22 47:23 66:18 67:7 67:7 67:14 67:20 better 16:14 16:18 22:14 26:17 28:4 41:16 53:5 74:7 beyond 38:24 72:3 bias 56:18 bigger18:7 bio-gas 75:13 75:17 76:6 bio-solids 9:3 10:2 24:7 76:6 biota10:7 10:9 10:12 10:18 10:21 10:25 31:10 31:11 31:14 31:17 31:24 33:16Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 84

35:20 35:25 36:14 37:7 37:22 42:2 49:13 50:24 51:15 51:17 69:2 bit19:2 30:7 36:14 56:1 Bluestar 5:25 6:11 47:23 67:8 Board 66:7 body9:15 Bowman6:6 6:6 breath50:14 brief52:9 briefly42:14 bring70:8 broad 56:8 broader 77:11 brought53:15 Browning 5:7 5:7 27:2 27:9 27:13 27:18 38:2 38:8 57:5 build 67:4 building 54:13 business 42:23 C

cafeterias 38:5 calculate 13:20 calendar 57:19 campaign 65:23 Canada 49:23 49:24 50:3 53:11 59:4 capability 70:15 carbon27:8 care 36:3 50:11 careful 40:11 Carlton 5:25 5:25 47:22 47:23 48:10 66:18 67:7 67:8 67:14 67:20 case 9:18 14:10 24:5 28:8 28:17 29:3 50:19 66:7 cases 38:6 categories 17:21 category 18:4 certain 15:14 certainly 8:21 11:1 11:6 11:19 12:24 14:19 16:25 17:19 17:23 20:21 22:10 23:2 23:5 29:12 32:16 32:19 34:23 34:25 39:3 52:12 54:15 71:14 72:6 72:16 72:24 chain17:4 17:16 30:14 Champlain 30:22 change 46:12 changed18:18 19:5 21:4 changes 52:22 53:5 72:1 72:11 chapter 41:4 42:14 42:14 42:16 49:1 52:1 52:3 characterizat ion 48:16 characterize 48:18 48:19 51:20 characterized 41:10 charge 56:25 61:14 61:18 Charles 5:2 5:2 charters 38:22 chemical 29:3 42:15 chemicals 49:5 62:21 62:24 65:6 65:12 65:16 children's 65:23 choose 74:6 circle 76:25 cited 59:10 clarification 39:20 43:21 clarified 49:21 clarify 11:9 15:6 23:9 33:12 50:9 clarity21:25 Clean27:3 27:18 Cleaning5:20 54:7 clear31:13 34:1 34:10 35:17 37:15 56:11 62:12 64:10Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 85

70:17 clearly 40:2 68:11 close 44:12 52:21 76:10 closely77:9 closer39:17 closure 37:2 45:4 club 18:3 codes 17:22 collaborating 61:13 collect 32:7 39:9 collected 51:17 collection 57:24 colleges 43:14 comes 47:12 49:4 63:16 64:9 coming 19:23 32:1 33:1 33:6 comment49:15 49:16 52:8 53:10 57:6 57:8 58:7 58:9 58:23 59:7 59:9 61:16 61:17 63:2 63:4 66:3 67:13 67:15 71:13 commenting 62:16 comments 7:18 9:6 53:3 53:16 53:24 57:24 57:24 58:8 58:9 58:22 60:11 61:20 61:23 62:19 64:2 64:16 64:20 64:25 67:16 68:17 71:11 72:7 commercial 50:23 commit16:11 commitment 69:19 71:3 commitments 39:17 committed 34:16 46:24 committing 34:9 common66:12 communicated 58:10 company15:22 21:6 company's 71:17 compare 51:11 51:17 compared9:15 51:13 comparison 33:2 74:11 competitive 26:12 compiling 60:8 complete 75:17 75:19 76:4 completion 22:18 complex66:25 complexity 40:6 component 37:5 37:22 54:17 components 8:6 36:11 70:11 compromise 34:19 concentration 50:2 51:18 53:12 53:20 concentration s 41:17 41:17 42:2 51:15 75:24 concept22:15 69:10 70:25 71:11 conceptual 11:24 12:8 13:7 13:16 18:6 42:13 50:15 53:25 54:8 54:19 conceptualize 50:18 concern 20:4 21:22 26:11 41:12 75:12 75:15 concerned 22:1 73:14 concerns 16:10 21:17 44:9 44:23 45:25 73:7 73:8 conclude 34:24 48:4 concluded 78:7 concluding 35:2 conclusion 44:11 70:5 74:21 concur70:19 conducting 28:6 conference 71:7 76:11 confidential 42:20 42:23Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 86

42:25 configuration s 73:18 conflict 56:18 consensus 46:9 56:9 56:11 68:3 73:6 consent4:7 40:3 consider 28:6 32:10 53:11 69:21 consideration s 29:13 36:8 considered 10:7 25:14 53:21 75:22 considering 28:23 30:8 consistent 22:20 29:6 consolation 66:9 constant 74:19 constitute 8:25 construct 42:3 constructing 28:20 consultants 56:17 56:19 58:15 60:18 61:9 61:11 consultation 4:20 7:13 40:15 43:10 43:12 43:16 43:20 43:23 44:1 44:18 45:20 45:22 46:5 47:12 52:5 56:2 56:4 56:6 56:15 57:10 57:22 58:1 58:6 58:12 59:3 59:13 59:14 62:1 62:4 63:8 63:16 64:3 64:14 64:17 65:1 65:10 65:24 66:16 67:16 68:1 68:8 69:22 consultations 58:11 consultees 60:12 consumer 32:4 49:25 55:4 55:6 55:11 69:4 contain 74:1 content36:10 44:18 context18:16 continents 71:18 continue 7:25 35:5 contractor 56:13 56:14 56:16 57:23 58:11 60:19 61:4 62:5 contracts 60:6 contradiction s 20:1 contribute 40:4 41:15 contribution 37:2 69:3 69:5 conversations 37:1 copies 40:20 copy7:7 core 58:20 Corning 5:11 5:22 6:5 Corporation 6:3 6:22 correct13:22 14:2 15:5 15:12 16:1 18:5 19:11 23:19 45:10 45:24 correction 42:17 Coulouris 6:4 6:4 Counsel 5:18 couple 71:5 76:11 course 4:7 42:22 42:23 48:23 58:10 cover42:14 42:15 covers 49:14 criteria 17:8 27:4 60:20 73:21 73:24 74:10 critical 25:12 52:16 52:24 53:9 cross 73:17 75:7 crux52:16 crystallize 52:23 Cumulative 66:15 current7:8 22:12 30:20 33:17 34:2 39:3 44:14 69:13 currently 38:24 43:8 custom 67:3 cut47:14 CVI 20:4Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 87

21:17 21:21 cycle 42:18 Cynthia 73:10 73:11 74:9 75:11 75:25

D D4 8:3 13:5 13:17 13:22 14:7 14:12 15:25 17:1 17:4 18:2 18:2 27:5 27:22 29:3 35:2 35:10 37:3 38:4 38:13 40:2 40:7 40:13 41:2 41:8 41:15 48:14 49:8 49:17 49:22 49:25 50:3 50:4 50:6 50:16 50:19 51:7 51:10 51:12 53:10 53:12 53:19 54:24 65:4 69:3 69:5 D5 15:25 data 12:1 12:21 13:6 13:22 14:22 16:9 16:17 18:16 24:25 25:25 28:13 29:4 32:7 40:8 40:9 41:24 43:5 43:8 47:3 47:7 47:13 47:17 48:21 49:12 49:12 51:18 58:15 58:22 63:5 73:19 75:18 database 20:20 David 6:24 38:17 38:25 day70:13 77:22 days 58:2 77:24 77:25 deadline 44:14 deal 37:6 66:25 68:21 68:21 78:2 dealing4:7 53:19 decide 33:25 decided53:17 63:20 decision 55:23 decisions 11:18 11:22 41:11 decoded55:13

decouple 43:22 44:3 deem 41:2 deficiencies 46:6 definitely 17:14 57:9 delay35:8 35:8 Deleo 5:19 5:19 54:3 54:6 54:7 55:1 55:10 55:16 55:22 64:25 demonstrates 34:19 deodorant 55:12 dependent 30:3 31:7 74:15 depth50:14 describe 48:17 48:20 50:14 described 37:6 73:2 describes 41:5 42:9 49:8 description 42:18 Desetan 6:21 6:21 designed32:9 32:12 32:20 41:13 67:1 desire 29:15 detail 73:2 details 8:2 8:6 14:22 40:24 43:17 43:19 71:2 determination 52:19 73:6 determination s 20:19 determined 53:22 develop 12:8 13:15 28:8 29:16 40:3 42:6 42:13 52:4 56:19 62:24 developed 12:3 13:21 14:9 29:9 29:14 40:11 41:19 50:15 56:25 developing 28:22 40:7 47:3 47:7 50:17 70:19 development 13:7 26:23 52:18Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 88

Devis 6:20 6:20 diagram

52:21 54:10 54:12 54:18 differ25:17 difference 36:3 differences 35:16 36:23 37:6 37:8 37:8 38:12 38:14 39:16 70:2 different 15:2 17:21 24:9 24:20 25:3 30:3 36:14 50:10 56:8 64:21 64:22 68:13 74:18 dilution 9:10 12:19 dioxin66:15 direct8:8 9:7 10:21 20:6 20:9 21:3 21:7 26:20 29:5 33:18 35:19 37:24 41:22 69:6 74:11 76:13 directly 15:22 directs 38:2

discharge 8:8 8:21 9:7 9:24 10:13 10:22 11:16 12:18 14:7 14:11 15:3 15:11 21:4 27:20 27:23 31:19 32:1 32:3 32:5 33:18 35:19 35:22 37:25 41:22 50:22 69:6 74:14 76:4 discharged 18:22 75:21 discharger 19:13 dischargers 15:13 15:16 15:25 16:7 18:19 18:24 19:6 20:7 20:9 20:14 20:16 26:21 32:6 74:11 discharges 12:12 28:14 discharging 74:19 disclosure 54:21 discrepancy 73:15 discuss 39:24 42:10 discussed 21:5 56:21 discussing 4:20 41:5 discussion 4:6 8:22 68:20 discussions 8:1 9:17 16:18 68:3 68:25 72:2 distinct 40:18 46:13 distinction 56:4 distribution 41:16 division 43:15 docket4:15 76:21 document 44:17 48:24 49:18 50:10 52:1 54:18 64:20 65:2 66:10 done 22:15 22:21 35:25 48:7 59:1 59:4 59:20 62:20 62:23 63:12 65:19 70:15 72:22 Dow5:10 5:22 6:5 Doyle 5:4 5:4 15:6 15:13 15:19 19:20 33:12 33:20 33:24 34:8 45:16 46:10 46:17 46:21 47:11 47:21 60:5 60:22 61:1 61:25 62:10 62:13 63:9 63:25 64:8 64:23 68:5 68:14 77:13 77:18 draft41:4 49:1 52:1 52:2 56:7 61:8 62:24 63:1 63:5 63:20 64:3 64:12 70:12 77:10 77:14 77:20 drafted 52:3 70:12 draftingSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 89

70:17 77:6 drain41:23 55:5 55:12 55:14 55:18 drive 17:25 driven44:11 driving17:7 dropped15:4 Dumars 5:6 5:6 45:7 during 11:23 55:4 58:8 58:22 59:9 63:7 70:16 dwelling 51:14 dynamics 30:15

E eager75:4 earlier 8:18 9:2 37:11 53:10 early8:12 57:11 ECA 4:1 34:24 35:2 35:7 40:16 43:23 44:10 44:19 45:17 45:18 46:1 46:5 47:1 47:14 47:17 47:19 66:19 66:19 66:22 66:25 67:5 67:17 68:4 68:7 68:19 69:14 69:17 69:18 69:20 70:11 75:4 77:3 77:7 77:14 ECAs 67:22 77:23 economy54:25ecotoxicity 48:15 EFAST 55:19 effect19:1 46:25 67:2 effected 65:14 effectively 46:11 effectiveness 26:25 effects 51:11 51:14 efficiencies 26:19 27:25 efficiency 22:7 27:16 27:19 28:19 29:2 effluent 9:3 9:14 10:2 14:12 21:11 22:3 23:9 24:7 33:6 50:25 76:6 effort 66:24 70:5 eight44:7 Eisenreich 6:15 6:15 36:20 either 17:11 23:22 50:20 71:4 elements 35:6 72:14 eleven17:21 elicit19:1 Ellen6:10 6:10 57:17 57:20 else 6:23 14:9 76:18 78:3 enable 28:18 endeavor 60:19 energy47:7 75:13 75:14 enforceable 40:3 enormous 37:7 ensure 70:15 enterprise 21:21 enters 51:7 entire 63:3 environment 18:22 21:12 22:2 23:10 23:12 23:21 25:13 26:8 26:22 33:4 51:7 75:21 76:3 environmental 8:3 18:25 32:14 40:8 41:7 41:18 42:2 42:16 42:17 43:1 43:3 43:7 48:13 48:16 envisioned 35:7 EPA 4:5 4:18 4:24 4:25 5:1 5:14 5:15 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:16 6:17 6:25 20:20 35:3 39:18 43:13 44:2 48:1 56:12 56:19 57:1 58:2 59:15 60:2 60:17 61:1 63:14 73:15 77:5 EPA's 5:17 44:25Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 90

equalization 38:9 especially 65:14 essential 36:23 essentially 9:14 15:10 31:23 44:3 46:16 46:20 62:3 62:18 64:10 67:23 68:9 established 18:1 estimate 18:25 28:16 estimated 67:9 estimates 12:4 13:12 41:9 estimation 43:6 etcetera 49:9 60:8 62:17 68:17 Eubonic 6:8 evaluate 46:14 56:24 evaluating 54:15 58:3 58:21 evaluation 29:11 32:12 56:18 65:23 evaluations 22:24 Eve 6:20 6:20 event44:21 46:5 77:1 events 9:4 21:13 29:21 29:24 everybody 61:9 68:15 everyone 7:6 45:12 57:3 everything 14:9 evidence 74:4 evident71:19 71:20 evoke 68:8 Evonik6:19 16:25 exactly 14:5 14:24 39:20 39:21 65:16 76:13 example 59:3 examples 66:14 excellent 7:24 exercises 13:13 existing49:5 expect66:22 expert47:4 expertise 56:8 56:17 56:23 60:17 60:18 60:21 61:14 61:18 61:19 explicit 14:17 exposure 28:20 29:10 32:12 40:9 42:3 43:7 51:21 expressed 27:25 29:15 29:18 34:17 extend 72:3 extension 44:10 70:14 extensions 44:22 extent 14:14 49:18 52:10 extra40:20 extremely 52:10

F facilities 9:9 12:5 13:1 13:2 14:18 15:3 17:3 17:10 17:24 18:14 20:14 21:6 21:9 23:12 25:21 43:4 50:4 74:19

facility 12:4 13:12 28:11 28:14 52:20 74:14 fact15:23 45:17 45:21 46:14 68:6 factor 12:19 12:20 13:21 18:8 factors 24:11 24:14 fair 72:2 fairly9:14 9:15 66:11 fall 53:15 familiar 42:11 Famir6:21 6:21 feature 67:5 February 8:12 71:15 72:6 73:3 federal 57:2 57:12 61:7 63:17 feed33:7 40:15 42:10 53:7 feedback 10:11 44:3 44:5 61:15 64:14 76:12Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 91

feeding51:22 feeds 28:20 45:8 feel 73:13 73:16 73:22 75:16 76:13 Fehrenbacher 5:13 7:9 11:11 11:14 18:12 20:12 20:25 23:17 28:5 29:20 30:6 30:23 31:4 31:25 40:23 48:12 50:13 54:5 54:11 55:24 fell 17:22 Fhrenbacher 5:13 figure 12:20 14:23 14:23 16:12 67:15 70:23 74:23 76:9 final 62:8 62:16 62:18 finalized 63:14 63:24 fine 47:9 74:10 Finley 73:10 73:11 74:9 75:11 75:25 firm 11:18 11:22 first4:22 8:16 8:17 41:4 42:7 49:7 65:19 66:19 fish21:12 25:8 25:8 25:10 25:11 25:14 30:19 30:25 36:13 36:20 38:19 38:24 fit17:3 17:11 17:24 18:3 45:6 five 8:13 8:16 8:17 8:25 9:25 10:1 10:9 15:4 15:5 16:3 16:5 16:6 16:7 16:13 33:22 34:21 35:21 37:8 37:10 37:12 37:22 51:4 65:5 FLACK58:14 flavor52:4 Fleck5:9 5:9 flexibility 30:2 32:23 flexible 30:5 flow36:7 50:18 50:25 51:1 74:2

flows 28:13 focus 8:17 9:2 51:20 focused54:12 focuses 60:1 folks 20:20 39:18 40:21 52:20 56:8 61:1 food30:14 30:18 forgot37:23 form 52:16 formal 66:11 72:5 72:9 format7:2 formulating 28:10 formulation 51:8 formulator 18:2 18:4 51:16 formulators 17:11 17:14 17:16 18:8 forth40:2 45:18 46:13 forward24:17 58:5 60:2 64:4 64:5 64:7 72:17 foundation 69:14 frame 67:9

front26:4 63:12 full 12:23 fully9:8 future 67:5

G gained 17:1 gaps 43:5 48:21 Gene 5:7 5:7 27:2 27:9 27:13 27:18 38:2 38:8 57:5 general 5:18 19:16 33:8 33:9 54:16 65:1 65:11 69:8 generally 28:15 generated 52:18 generation 16:9 generic 12:13 13:20 geography 36:9 gets 22:2 26:22 45:18 70:12 77:2Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 92

get's 68:9 getting 14:5 23:25 26:18 33:4 39:17 46:3 46:14 47:1 56:7 given11:15 11:17 56:20 68:15 giving60:16 glad19:5 glide 77:2 goal 34:22 goals 30:4 gone 63:3 66:5 66:6 68:7 gotcha34:12 governing 67:22 graphic 54:19 54:20 great31:22 47:9 53:23 54:1 greater 74:5 greatest 15:16 gross 46:6 group48:3 62:5 66:8 71:7 77:11 groups 76:9 Guerrero 6:9 6:9 guess 9:17 14:13 18:17 21:24 21:24 31:24 34:15 37:21 39:22 43:21 59:23 62:4 65:18 71:12 71:13 76:8 76:10 guideline 67:2 guys 39:21 53:1 77:4

H hand26:10 handful 27:13 handle 39:8 handled37:18 happen 35:14 46:25 66:22 77:4 happy47:10 53:1 hard47:3 70:1 haven't11:17 11:18 29:25 30:9 60:15 63:11 72:22 haves 70:23 having4:13 26:5 35:25 68:21

hazard 42:10 48:13 48:14 health67:1 hear 8:23 heard 30:24 33:13 44:9 70:21 73:20 hearing23:18 heavy71:18 Heckman 5:5 help 14:20 22:5 39:23 52:22 54:1 68:21 75:1 75:24 helpful 40:25 48:4 49:19 49:20 50:18 59:19 72:8 72:24 76:16 helps 39:20 51:19 Hence 15:14 here's 44:25 45:1 Hey16:21 HHCV 49:4 high9:10 9:15 41:17 higher 12:21 36:21 highlight 38:15 49:12 72:15 highlighting 51:2 highly 64:18 74:15 hold48:5 hope 7:6 40:16 44:16 58:1 72:4 72:16 hoped 40:12 hopefully 38:12 69:15 75:9 hopes 39:16 huge 74:17 Hugh5:9 5:9 58:14 hypothesis 14:10

I I'd7:24 16:22 16:25 52:6 55:14 55:19 75:21 idea 16:18 18:21 28:4 59:16 ideal 44:20 ideas 16:15 26:11 identical 8:17Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 93

identified 22:24 68:25 identify 4:23 8:24 11:20 16:5 20:14 22:18 25:13 28:14 41:11 identifying 43:5 I'll 7:4 9:5 16:4 38:9 42:14 48:10 71:17 72:19 I'm 4:5 7:22 8:5 13:10 14:4 14:21 17:18 18:5 19:5 19:8 20:12 23:18 31:25 33:24 34:6 34:12 40:14 40:23 43:16 44:4 46:3 55:7 60:22 62:10 63:19 67:15 68:6 73:9 73:25 76:1 impact75:13 importance 43:3 51:2 important 10:23 28:19 28:22 45:4 51:23 52:10 52:22 53:4 54:17 73:5 impression 11:5 inaccuracies 49:20 include 32:3 36:8 41:14 41:20 42:19 42:24 44:2 49:3 52:13 66:14 70:19 77:14 included27:1 41:1 49:1 51:3 51:25 69:20 including 41:17 41:22 48:14 49:8 51:6 57:3 66:13 incorporate 65:21 incorporated 12:18 38:22 64:14 increase 73:12 increased 8:13 34:20 increasing 73:25 74:1 74:2 indeed 10:24 50:3 independent 56:13 56:14 indicated 8:11 11:4 indirect8:21 9:24 10:22 11:16 14:7 14:11 15:3 15:11 15:13 15:15 15:24 16:7 18:14 18:18 18:24 19:6 19:12 20:14 20:15 23:18 23:20 23:21 26:19 29:4 31:11 31:14 31:19 32:1 32:3 32:6 35:22 37:3 37:9 37:11 37:14 37:18 41:22 50:22 69:3 indirects 37:16 individual 12:1 12:11 12:11 12:12 13:22 65:12 individuals 11:25 industrial 8:21 10:13 10:23 12:25 13:2 13:5 14:18 17:3 17:21 18:13 19:16 24:11 24:14 25:1 28:10 32:3 33:1 33:3 33:7 41:25 43:4 50:21 74:14 74:18 industries 42:20 65:14 74:18 industry 17:4 17:20 28:9 45:22 48:1 74:23 influent 9:2 10:2 12:25 13:3 13:6 14:18 19:6 19:9 19:15 19:23 20:4 20:8 21:18 22:4 24:6 26:7 32:2 32:5 37:5 69:4 75:23 76:1 76:5Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 94

influented 69:6 influential 64:18 64:18 influents 12:24 inform 22:5 29:10 62:8 63:7 76:14 information 12:11 12:15 13:1 13:11 14:14 14:19 18:13 20:18 20:23 20:24 23:4 24:9 24:20 26:3 26:6 26:6 26:16 26:18 28:7 28:8 28:9 28:12 28:16 28:17 28:21 29:6 29:10 30:16 37:13 39:8 42:23 42:25 43:12 47:18 47:24 48:25 49:2 49:9 49:10 50:19 51:3 51:24 52:18 56:20 56:21 57:1 58:16 58:18 61:10 63:6 65:15

informative 12:1 informs 21:25 40:16 ingredient 55:13 initial 11:7 initially 35:7 initiate 34:24 Initiative 30:12 39:12 input19:16 19:17 24:11 45:21 46:14 56:7 72:21 instance 50:20 70:10 77:22 Institute 5:20 54:7 instruct54:9 instructed 35:13 instrument 53:19 intend 41:20 42:6 54:21 intended 13:12 54:19 intending 43:9 intends 59:18 intent16:2 intention 62:22 64:16 interest 14:17 27:25 29:5 29:13 29:18 36:2 37:9 51:21 56:18 interested 10:12 10:21 10:25 11:6 11:19 14:16 27:22 35:25 41:21 49:6 60:10 61:2 68:3 69:20 70:13 72:24 73:7 76:21 77:5 77:7 Interesting 68:14 interests 35:21 interim 64:7 69:16 interpreting 30:25 introduced 50:1 introduction 42:8 49:8 49:16 inventory 49:11 invertebrates 51:15 invited68:15 68:17 inviting44:3 isn't18:9 78:1 78:1 issue 26:13 35:20 35:21 69:7 69:8 75:3 76:25 issues 7:3 40:7 48:21 66:2 66:10 68:20 68:25 69:2 69:12 69:16 70:3 78:2 it'd49:20 item 7:13 39:22 68:23 items 4:17 45:5 52:17 I've 30:24 72:15 73:20

J Jennifer 4:25 4:25 31:5 59:22 65:22 job 47:9 Joe 6:12 6:12 joining6:24 jurisdictionsSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 95

59:2

K Karen6:7 6:7 6:15 6:15 36:20 Karluss 5:12 5:12 7:15 7:16 7:21 7:23 9:12 9:19 9:22 9:25 10:4 10:24 11:3 11:17 11:25 12:3 12:7 12:14 12:22 13:10 13:15 14:4 14:13 16:2 16:16 16:21 16:23 18:10 18:17 19:9 19:12 20:6 20:11 20:17 21:2 21:19 21:23 22:9 22:16 26:5 26:14 27:24 29:8 32:8 34:6 34:13 36:16 37:10 37:20 43:18 49:15 52:8 59:1 59:16 59:25 60:3 71:12 75:1 76:15 78:5 Kathy5:10 5:10 5:13 5:13 7:9 10:10 10:17 11:4 11:8 11:11 11:14 13:24 18:12 19:15 19:19 19:22 19:25 20:12 20:25 23:8 23:14 23:17 23:19 24:1 24:18 25:2 25:9 25:16 25:22 26:2 26:16 28:4 28:5 29:19 29:20 29:25 30:6 30:9 30:23 31:2 31:4 31:7 31:13 31:20 31:25 32:21 38:21 39:1 39:24 40:19 40:23 48:12 50:13 54:3 54:5 54:11 55:24 61:12 65:18 Keller5:4 key37:9 52:11 Kim 6:17 6:17 kinds 59:8 66:6 known67:2 Koch6:8 6:8 Kristen 5:23 5:23

L lack 21:24 37:1 lagoon9:21 lagoons 36:5 laid53:8 Lake 30:21 30:22 large 74:16 last10:11 11:5 16:11 34:14 34:18 70:7 77:14 later19:3 53:2 laying76:24 leads 65:19 least23:5 61:5 72:4 let's 4:4 4:22 10:3 15:1 25:5 32:22 56:11 57:21 62:12 letter8:11 34:18 71:15 72:15 73:2 level 36:21 71:1 71:9 levels 19:1 51:10 51:11 51:12 51:13 Lewis 4:4 4:5 5:16 6:18 6:23 25:7 25:15 76:19 life 42:18 lift71:19 likely 32:18 59:10 74:20 limit27:20 limitations 53:12 53:21 limited52:14 limits 49:24 linked 15:22 Lisa 5:6 5:6 45:7 list4:9 27:5 56:23 61:8 61:13 listed 49:10 60:21 61:19 listing49:11 61:8 literature 42:19 little 9:16 19:2 30:7Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 96

36:14 56:1 live 70:24 Liz 6:6 6:6 load33:1 loading 12:2 12:20 12:21 15:17 15:25 loadings 12:11 32:14 logic16:8 logistics 4:8 7:3 loss 55:3 lot38:8 38:18 43:2 47:1 47:2 47:6 lots 74:17 low9:10 lower36:21 Ludwiszewski 5:21 5:21

M magnitude 22:8 main 24:23 Mait6:19 6:19 16:21 16:24 16:24 17:10 17:18 man 56:13 manage 56:14 60:7 managed30:20

management 28:24 32:11 41:10 53:19 62:8 69:11 71:1 71:17 mandatory 50:1 manufacturers 12:9 manufacturing 28:10 50:20 51:8 March4:2 77:16 margins 72:12 Mark 5:15 5:15 7:19 7:22 24:17 40:20 marker 25:10 25:14 30:19 30:25 mass 13:12 13:24 75:18 75:19 material 54:9 54:15 55:11 55:17 55:23 58:21 materials 28:1 59:8 matter 61:24 73:23 maximum

14:11 may16:22 25:18 31:25 maybe 10:8 10:20 11:8 12:16 23:8 39:19 46:3 65:20 77:6 mean 9:16 10:7 14:18 15:19 17:15 17:16 18:20 18:23 25:2 25:24 26:10 28:5 29:5 32:9 32:22 36:23 38:12 46:23 47:16 47:25 49:17 60:12 63:18 64:7 68:11 68:18 meaning7:13 meaningfully 40:4 means 9:13 38:18 meant44:10 measure 51:12 measured 28:17 42:1 51:10 measurements 20:9 measuring 19:22 20:4 22:3

mechanism 40:16 media41:18 42:2 meet27:4 meeting4:1 4:11 4:13 4:15 6:25 7:3 11:5 34:23 35:1 57:9 57:10 57:13 57:23 58:12 60:8 61:8 61:10 62:1 76:20 78:7 meetings 4:14 19:7 43:14 67:24 member 15:10 15:22 18:3 21:6 71:16 members 34:16 43:12 71:25 75:2 membership 17:7 mention 72:19 73:20 mentioned 37:11 43:21 75:1 Mihaich 6:10 6:10 57:17 57:20Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 97

mind36:17 61:22 mine 11:10 misinterprete d 10:20 missing61:20 misstated 10:20 mode 37:18 model 13:20 42:13 modeled65:25 modeling4:18 11:24 13:7 models 12:8 13:16 18:6 modification 46:7 47:19 67:21 68:2 69:22 modified 10:10 modify46:4 modifying 68:4 Momentive 5:6 5:24 money47:3 monitor 13:8 26:23 monitored 21:10 34:20 35:22 monitoring 7:8 8:3 8:7 8:11 9:1 9:4 10:6 15:7 18:15 21:4 21:8 21:13 23:7 29:21 29:23 33:5 33:6 33:16 34:25 35:19 35:20 37:7 39:4 39:13 39:16 40:3 40:11 41:24 43:8 43:11 44:16 45:18 46:6 47:15 48:2 49:12 49:13 66:2 66:24 67:10 69:2 70:18 71:3 72:18 73:13 month34:18 35:12 44:7 move 9:6 22:23 64:4 64:5 64:7 moves 17:1 moving42:6 58:4 70:4 72:17 multiple 20:1 36:13 36:16 44:22 municipal 8:10 23:22 24:3 31:15 31:16 32:2 33:2 38:3 50:22 50:23 myself46:3 62:14

N NACWA 20:21 73:11 75:1 nationally 41:6 natural 25:19 necessary 18:24 26:7 32:19 53:22 68:2 69:23 negotiating 35:13 negotiation 35:6 40:18 46:1 68:7 negotiations 34:24 35:2 43:23 70:6 Nguyen6:13 6:13 Nhan 6:13 6:13 nine 15:2 31:23 nomination 60:25 nominations 61:5 nominees 61:2 non 42:20 none 7:4 non-members 75:3 nor 27:18 Noriko 6:2 6:2 Norway49:23 note 53:9 64:21 71:17 notes 57:22 notice 57:2 57:12 61:7 noting31:5 novel 68:5 68:20 NPDES 27:3

O objective 56:12 objectives 40:5 obviously 10:21 14:6 35:12 40:6 40:10 44:9 44:12 46:25Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 98

47:2 70:11 70:21 72:3 73:2 76:23 76:24 occur49:25 offer16:25 33:23 71:10 75:10 offered34:4 Office 4:6 5:18 officials 59:21 oh64:13 okay6:24 7:4 7:6 7:17 9:16 9:20 9:23 9:23 10:1 10:3 11:3 11:3 11:12 16:20 17:9 18:11 19:18 20:10 20:11 20:25 21:16 25:15 29:17 31:4 31:20 31:22 31:24 33:11 33:20 33:24 34:11 37:20 38:16 39:15 39:19 40:23 44:20 47:21 48:12 50:8 50:10 53:23 55:15 55:21 57:20 59:25 60:4 67:15 68:24 76:7 76:15 76:17 78:3 omissions 13:21 ones 33:2 33:3 ongoing4:6 open 8:22 opened 68:10 opening7:1 67:24 opportunity 7:25 17:23 57:6 58:7 60:10 60:24 61:5 61:17 62:16 63:4 63:21 ORD 66:14 order17:21 42:3 ordinarily 23:4 organic 27:8 36:9 organism

19:1 organisms 48:19 51:12 organization' s 59:7 original 38:23 77:14 others 38:16 66:4 ought71:9 ours 37:9 outcome 35:1 53:17 outline 4:19 7:11 23:15 39:25 40:21 41:3 42:7 49:4 52:2 52:2 65:2 outlined 59:11 outside 60:6 61:3 61:23 62:5 outstanding 69:16 overall 51:20 overview 38:18

P P.M 4:3 78:7 page 33:14 50:16 51:4 panel 43:12 52:5 parameters 9:1 10:7 21:10 park 57:11 participants 60:9 participate 68:17 particular 25:11 25:18 54:12 56:12 72:23 particularly 53:25 66:24 parties 60:10 61:23 68:3 69:21 70:13 73:7 76:21 77:5 77:7 party61:2 pass 7:4 passing4:8 past9:17 18:20 19:4 60:23 70:14 72:20 path77:2 pathways 41:15 41:20 42:9 51:7 51:21 54:20 Paul 4:4 4:5 5:16 5:19 5:19 6:18 6:23 25:7 25:15 54:3 54:6 54:6 55:1 55:10 55:16 55:22 64:25 76:19Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 99

PCPC 6:20 peer 4:20 7:13 40:13 40:14 40:14 42:19 43:9 43:12 43:15 43:20 43:22 43:25 44:18 45:20 45:21 46:5 47:11 47:25 48:3 52:5 56:2 56:4 56:5 56:5 56:14 56:16 56:19 57:9 57:22 58:6 58:10 60:12 60:17 62:1 62:4 63:2 63:7 63:8 63:16 64:2 64:14 64:17 64:17 64:19 65:1 65:10 65:24 66:16 67:11 67:16 68:1 68:8 69:21 Penberthy 4:24 4:24 7:6 7:17 9:8 9:13 9:20 9:23 10:1 10:5 10:16 10:19 11:1 11:8 11:12 11:23 12:6 12:10 12:16 13:4 13:14 13:19 14:2 14:6 15:1 15:12 15:18 16:1 16:14 16:20 17:9 17:13 18:5 18:11 19:4 19:11 19:14 19:18 19:24 20:2 20:10 21:1 21:16 21:20 22:6 22:11 23:6 23:13 23:16 23:23 24:24 25:5 25:20 25:24 26:9 26:24 27:7 27:11 27:15 27:21 28:3 28:25 29:17 31:9 31:18 31:22 33:11 33:19 33:21 34:3 34:11 35:11 36:18 36:22 37:17 37:21 38:7 38:11 39:15 44:8 45:10 45:24 46:16 46:19 46:23 47:16 48:6 50:8 53:23 54:23 55:8 55:15 55:21 55:25 66:21 67:19 67:21 68:13 68:18 73:4 74:7 75:9 75:23 76:7 76:17 77:1 77:16 77:19 people 4:23 45:14 46:8 60:13 66:21 68:1 70:22 77:6 Pepin30:21 per 57:24 percent36:24 percentage 49:24 perform 41:6 56:17 performance 27:4 60:16 period 35:13 47:13 57:8 58:9 58:23 59:10 61:16 69:16 70:17 permit27:3 27:20 permits 27:6 person77:8 perspective 14:8 39:3 39:14 pertains 32:5 PH27:10 phase 55:4 phone 4:23 6:18 6:23 physical 42:15 pick 12:21 14:7 14:10 61:4 picked 15:15 picking60:13 60:17 picks 60:20 picture 76:4 piece 8:19 9:6 9:7 12:13 pipe 23:22 31:17 pipes 24:16 placed 49:24 plan 4:18 4:19 7:10Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 100

28:2 29:23 35:3 35:9 39:25 40:13 43:25 44:18 45:19 46:6 49:5 50:5 50:16 50:17 53:18 53:25 54:8 54:10 54:13 55:6 56:7 56:20 56:24 58:4 58:4 58:19 58:19 59:11 59:17 60:2 62:8 62:9 62:11 62:14 62:17 62:21 62:23 63:10 63:15 63:16 63:18 63:24 64:4 64:11 65:11 65:21 69:19 70:19 71:3 76:10 77:23 77:23 planning40:1 65:17 plans 39:13 43:22 56:2 63:11 70:21 plant31:16 74:3 75:20 plants 10:14 12:12 24:3 42:1

play24:14 45:17 57:15 Please 4:9 pleased73:12 Plotzke 5:10 5:10 10:10 10:17 13:24 19:15 19:19 19:22 19:25 23:8 23:14 23:19 24:1 24:18 25:2 25:9 25:16 25:22 26:2 29:25 30:9 31:2 31:7 31:13 31:20 32:21 38:21 39:1 61:12 65:18 plus 33:22 point14:23 14:23 19:5 32:18 34:23 44:6 47:24 48:5 50:5 52:3 57:7 71:10 71:25 73:5 pointed46:5 pollution 50:1 50:5 53:18

population 9:10 19:17 33:8 33:9 36:6 38:5 73:21 73:25 74:5 74:17 population's 12:18 portion 8:8 8:8 8:10 15:8 21:14 26:20 55:5 55:10 possibility 60:15 61:12 possible 22:10 45:3 posted 49:5 potential 15:24 23:11 32:17 41:11 48:19 56:19 potentially 57:14 65:14 POTW8:7 8:10 12:24 13:18 14:11 15:7 18:15 19:10 19:23 24:6 26:20 29:2 31:18 32:2 33:5 34:20 35:23 36:12 37:18 38:3 69:3 73:18 73:22 74:6 74:16 74:22 75:2 75:7 76:6 POTWs 8:13 10:9 11:15 12:9 12:21 12:23 13:5 13:8 14:16 15:9 20:15 20:16 20:20 36:4 37:3 37:12 37:25 50:22 69:8 73:12 74:11 75:14 pound 54:24 practice 66:12 prefer45:2 preferable 44:24 preference 34:25 prepare 50:5 prepared 34:23 41:3 65:2 preparing 52:1 present54:19 presentationSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 101

4:17 4:18 7:7 7:15 presented 8:18 presenting 59:15 presumably 62:7 presumption 24:24 pretty10:5 20:19 39:8 39:13 55:3 68:12 prevention 50:1 50:5 53:18 previous 10:8 10:9 19:7 21:5 21:15 24:2 33:23 39:7 58:8 previously 10:17 36:1 51:17 pre-work 30:17 primarily 58:17 primary8:6 77:5 prior38:9 57:9 58:11 private 23:22 probable 41:14 probably 17:5 28:4 57:13 71:6 73:25 75:6 75:7 probative 36:21 problem 19:7 22:13 22:19 22:23 22:24 32:17 problems 68:19 procedure 36:12 46:4 46:8 procedures 67:22 proceed 35:3 45:13 71:9 process 35:6 35:8 40:16 40:17 43:10 43:16 43:23 44:7 44:10 46:9 46:10 46:13 48:9 53:14 60:7 61:22 62:23 63:3 63:12 63:13 64:5 64:22 65:1 65:10 65:21 65:24 66:17 66:23 66:25 68:9 68:9 75:22 processes 17:11 17:14 17:16 processing 28:10 50:21 51:8 processor 18:2 18:4 processors 12:9 18:7 produce 51:11 produced 51:14 product30:12 39:4 39:12 50:25 62:1 63:7 64:7 64:18 64:19 production 49:9 53:6 75:14 products 49:25 53:13 55:6 55:11 74:1 74:5 profile 17:3 17:12 program 8:11 15:8 30:11 30:21 45:18 48:2 50:1 70:18 programs 8:7 39:6 66:13 project38:22 proof64:10 properties 42:16 proportion 74:13 proposal 7:9 8:2 8:18 9:2 10:9 10:15 11:7 18:17 21:3 21:5 21:7 21:14 29:9 29:14 32:8 32:11 32:20 33:17 33:21 34:2 34:17 34:19 35:24 43:13 43:13 44:2 44:2 44:25 52:17 59:14 67:10 69:13 70:20 71:13 71:14 71:20 71:24Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 102

72:5 72:9 72:14 72:20 72:23 73:1 73:8 77:14 proposals 35:16 44:4 propose 16:8 48:18 proposed15:9 20:8 43:11 73:16 proposing 16:3 32:6 33:17 46:21 protected 42:24 protracted 35:5 provide 43:11 53:2 53:16 60:11 60:18 61:14 63:5 77:8 provided 43:25 44:17 58:8 58:20 59:2 providing 4:17 18:13 provisional 47:14 public 4:15 43:13 57:4 57:8 58:7 58:8 58:9 58:21 58:22 58:24 59:9 59:21 61:16 63:2 67:13 67:15 publically 58:2 publicly 57:3 publish64:6 published 63:17 pull 71:21 purportedly 15:16 purpose 42:5 46:14 purposed 73:13 pursue 59:18 66:5 pursued23:1 putting 60:2 64:21 Q qualifies 55:13 quantitative 41:14 question 20:13 25:25 43:19 54:3 54:4 55:2 74:12 questions 7:2 9:6 11:13 21:1 29:19 34:13 39:18 47:23 51:4 51:5 52:7 52:11 53:9 55:25 56:10 56:25 56:25 57:25 58:13 61:14 61:18 64:24 66:4 67:6 quick49:16 quickly70:3 quite 42:11 47:4 71:20 76:1

R race 62:13 range 53:12 56:8 rate 74:19 Ray5:21 5:21 reached44:6 reading43:24 ready7:15 real 47:3 52:21 73:17 reality53:6 really23:9 33:3 37:25 41:4 42:5 49:11 51:20 52:22 54:12 54:19 61:17 62:5 63:12 65:2 67:1 68:11 71:18 73:11 73:22 75:12 reason11:4 55:1 reasonable 20:19 reasons 24:10 56:6 reassessment 66:16 recall 11:23 15:2 18:6 65:22 receive 12:24 56:22 62:18 received7:10 58:10 58:22 72:7 receiving 9:15 12:25 14:18 36:6 36:10 recent37:1 recently 65:6 recommendatio ns 60:11 recommended 73:15 record 4:10 58:24 recording 57:23 referencesSiloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 103

48:23 51:25 reflect53:5 reflected 55:6 reflective 38:23 regardless 18:2 register 57:2 57:12 61:7 63:17 regs 47:17 regulations 67:22 regulatory 49:10 49:17 49:23 50:3 50:6 reiterate 34:16 related47:23 48:21 relative 49:9 release 12:4 13:12 18:7 23:11 23:20 41:15 41:19 42:9 43:2 43:5 51:16 55:4 57:12 61:7 63:1 released23:9 42:24 57:3 releases 13:17 13:18 13:22 18:15 18:25 21:7 22:8 22:12 23:21 28:9 28:15 29:1 41:23 41:25 43:3 50:19 50:24 54:15 relevant 18:23 26:21 48:11 remaining 15:4 69:12 remains 21:14 remarks 7:1 remember 18:10 renewable 75:14 report 56:10 57:25 58:3 58:18 62:3 62:22 63:15 64:3 68:1 reports 60:8 represent 19:16 71:16 75:7 representativ e 15:24 20:15 24:25 25:11 26:1 27:16 38:1 40:7 41:6 59:23 representing 36:21 represents 71:15 request59:22 require 72:2 required 60:19 requirement 50:4 research 30:13 residential 50:23 resolve 69:15 70:1 70:3 respect 8:25 18:20 21:25 26:17 26:20 37:14 49:22 59:18 61:25 65:15 71:13 72:25 response 64:16 64:20 72:5 72:9 76:13 responsive 16:10 29:15 rest52:13 restrictions 50:3 50:6 results 69:21

review 35:15 43:8 44:1 52:5 56:5 59:3 63:2 63:8 63:8 64:17 64:19 68:10 70:13 reviewed 40:13 40:14 42:19 reviewers 47:4 reviewing 59:17 revised 4:17 8:2 34:17 62:17 64:20 72:25 revising58:4 revision 67:17 reworked12:4 risk 4:19 7:10 18:21 19:3 22:1 22:5 22:13 22:17 22:18 22:21 26:16 26:22 28:7 28:21 28:22 28:23 29:11 29:16 32:10 32:11 32:13 32:15 32:16 39:25Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 104

40:1 40:5 40:10 40:13 41:1 41:9 41:10 41:20 42:3 42:6 42:25 43:14 43:24 45:11 45:12 45:19 45:23 46:24 47:7 48:16 48:22 49:3 50:17 51:6 51:22 52:17 52:24 53:18 54:7 54:22 56:20 56:24 58:19 59:19 60:2 62:8 62:9 62:10 62:11 62:14 62:24 63:1 63:5 63:10 63:14 63:17 63:21 63:24 64:3 64:4 64:5 64:11 64:12 65:5 65:7 69:18 70:19 75:16 76:2 risks 41:7 41:11 48:19 river38:19 roadmap 65:3 65:10 robust16:9 39:13 41:8 role 76:24

room 4:22 round 67:24 route 24:23 ruled 60:15 rules 35:7 rumblings 44:22 run 7:14 7:19 39:24 55:19 RUSSEL6:19 16:21 16:24 17:10 17:18 Russell 6:19 16:21 16:24

S sample 75:17 76:5 samples 39:9 sampling 36:14 77:23 sanitary 38:4 SAP17:22 satisfy 26:6 37:13 scenario 9:20 12:6 47:20 48:1 schedule 35:4 77:25 scheduled 4:16 scheduling 60:7 76:22 science 56:24 57:25 58:1 58:12 58:19 66:7 66:10 68:20 70:22 scope 40:4 42:8 42:10 42:12 50:11 50:13 52:9 53:8 scoping66:15 screen8:9 8:15 17:23 17:24 screening 22:22 22:22 22:25 23:3 search28:14 seasons 30:3 second 20:7 49:23 section 42:7 42:18 43:1 43:10 48:13 48:15 48:20 48:23 49:7 49:14 51:19 51:23 54:18 73:17 75:7 sections 43:5 sediment 9:3 10:3 21:12 39:10 50:24 51:14 sediments 51:13 Seed4:25 4:25 31:5 59:22 65:22 seeing7:4 65:20 seeking66:3 seem 37:7 74:6 seemed 36:1 seems 36:24 37:1 SEHSC 4:17 5:3 5:5 5:12 6:6 6:7 6:9 7:24 15:3 15:10 15:22 34:16 35:22 43:13 44:2 45:1 SEHSC's 7:8 select 11:15 13:7 14:15 16:12 30:15 30:18 56:16 selected36:6 selecting 16:3 17:6 60:9 selection 36:9 36:12 73:22Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 105

73:24 75:2 Seltzer 5:15 5:15 7:19 7:22 24:17 40:20 senior 69:11 71:1 71:17 sense 15:5 22:7 38:18 47:19 49:2 51:4 68:1 70:17 sent34:18 70:12 sentence 49:24 separate 40:17 separated 19:19 September 57:14 serve 37:3 served 73:21 servicing 15:10 serving31:19 setting46:13 several 4:16 66:9 share 8:1 39:3 77:10 sheet4:9 4:9 Shibuya 6:2 6:2 Shinetsu 5:7

Shiseido 6:3 6:21 shooting 57:10 shower55:14 shown22:13 50:25 sift61:4 sign 4:9 4:9 signed 45:8 significant 55:3 55:10 56:6 Silicone 47:23 Silicones 5:8 6:1 67:8 siloxanes 4:1 4:7 74:1 75:12 similar 38:3 39:14 site 11:24 12:1 12:8 12:20 13:7 13:16 13:22 18:6 25:17 30:13 30:13 31:7 50:20 75:7 sites 8:14 8:19 8:24 8:25 9:24 10:13 10:22 10:23 11:1 11:21 12:2 14:7 14:11 14:15 14:17 15:3 15:8 15:9 15:15 15:22 15:23 15:23 16:3 16:5 16:6 16:9 16:13 29:5 30:17 30:20 31:10 31:11 31:12 31:15 31:16 31:19 31:23 32:1 32:24 33:15 33:18 34:20 35:19 35:22 37:3 37:9 37:11 37:18 37:22 37:25 41:25 51:16 69:2 69:3 69:7 sitting7:22 situation 44:25 66:1 67:4 68:6 situations 74:24 six8:19 11:2 15:9 15:21 24:10 24:13 31:12 44:6 50:16 sixteen 36:4 69:9 73:15 slide 8:4 10:8 21:2 24:6 25:6 32:22 34:14 sludge 9:9 25:21 36:5 small 55:5 74:22 Smith5:23 5:23 solid 27:9 solve 38:16 someone 11:25 sorry20:13 31:25 34:12 40:14 62:11 73:9 sort14:9 14:11 30:1 43:22 45:20 62:16 65:3 65:25 67:3 68:12 70:4 70:25 72:8 74:13 sought72:21 source 51:6 58:14 58:20 sources 42:9 51:16 51:22Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 106

54:20 69:4 species 21:13 25:13 25:17 30:7 30:10 30:13 30:15 30:19 30:24 30:25 31:1 31:2 33:16 36:13 36:20 specific 12:21 13:17 25:12 30:10 36:17 64:25 66:9 67:23 specifically 25:8 30:10 specifics 77:12 spend 47:2 stake 47:1 stakeholder 53:14 stakeholders 53:16 57:3 68:16 72:22 72:25 Stan 5:1 5:1 7:12 48:8 48:11 56:1 56:3 57:7 57:18 57:21 58:17 59:6 60:1 60:4 60:5 60:14 60:25 61:6 61:16 62:9 62:12 62:20 63:23 64:1 64:15 64:24 66:13 67:12 stand 39:21 69:25 71:24 standard67:5 standpoint 18:18 22:4 22:17 23:2 34:22 52:24 71:23 Staples 5:2 5:2 start17:6 68:2 77:6 77:12 77:20 started4:4 52:6 starting 44:21 state 55:18 statement 41:4 60:16 States 24:22 statistical 39:2 status 7:8 Stedeford 6:14 6:14 step 60:5 63:10 68:8 77:11 steps 4:21 39:24 64:22 68:24 Steve 5:17 5:17 Stewardship 30:12 39:4 39:12 sticking19:5 stop 9:5 storm 38:6 straight 23:24 strategies 43:11 strategy 44:16 stream 9:14 28:13 28:16 36:7 36:10 50:21 51:8 streams 28:12 strict29:25 strike 47:14 structure 24:10 24:21 30:1 32:25 33:9 studies 48:15 stuff23:24 70:21 77:21 subject46:12 59:12 59:13 59:14 61:24 68:10 submission 38:23 submissions 42:20 submit61:2 submitted 8:12 47:24 48:3 52:5 71:15 72:6 submitting 61:23 substantial 40:8 71:21 substantive 72:1 72:14 sufficient 45:23 46:15 47:8 sufficiently 41:8 41:10 suggest 17:2 37:19 38:25 suggested 8:20 suggesting 15:7 suggests 43:24 suit16:6 sum 34:15 summarize 48:14Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 107

summarizes 62:3 summary8:9 49:17 supplemental 48:25 support41:10 sure 13:10 14:4 14:22 16:23 31:21 33:14 34:1 34:10 46:18 55:7 56:3 60:3 64:9 64:23 68:6 73:25 76:1 surface 9:3 10:3 21:7 21:12 22:3 50:24 51:10 suspended 27:9 sway48:5

T table 20:21 72:22 taking19:8 36:3 49:6 56:5 60:5 63:10 63:15 74:17 talk 19:2 20:7 25:7 30:24 38:20 48:8 56:1 70:22 76:8 78:4 talked 10:2 10:6 16:11 18:19 29:22 43:2 69:7 72:21 73:1 talking 25:8 33:14 43:15 45:5 57:19 61:6 63:23 64:2 65:11 69:10 target13:2 targeted9:10 targeting 13:5 technical 56:17 teleconferenc e 76:22 ten 8:13 8:19 11:2 15:9 15:21 24:10 24:13 31:12 32:24 33:10 34:21 69:8 73:13 73:16 73:17 73:19 terms 4:8 4:20 7:2 8:15 10:6 26:21 35:1 36:13 53:8 60:6 60:7 63:11 63:12 68:24 71:3 72:13 76:22 76:24 test70:24 77:23 testing67:1 Thalight 66:14 thank6:24 7:24 55:24 76:7 78:5 thanks 39:20 that'll 61:9 themselves 18:14 theoretically 22:14 44:13 there'd9:16 there's 17:20 21:24 22:19 24:12 24:15 26:10 27:10 27:13 28:4 37:5 38:8 43:18 46:4 56:4 56:11 60:23 61:5 61:19 64:15 66:1 69:1 they'd 75:6 they'll

4:14 58:21 58:24 they're 12:17 18:3 31:24 35:17 36:7 38:12 44:21 67:23 67:23 77:24 third 39:5 Thomas 5:12 5:12 7:16 7:21 7:23 9:12 9:19 9:22 9:25 10:4 10:24 11:3 11:17 12:3 12:7 12:14 12:22 13:10 13:15 14:4 14:13 16:2 16:16 16:23 18:10 18:17 19:9 19:12 20:6 20:11 20:17 21:2 21:19 21:23 22:9 22:16 26:5 26:14 27:24 29:8 32:8 34:6 34:13 36:16Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 108

37:10 37:20 43:18 49:15 52:8 59:1 59:16 59:25 60:3 71:12 76:15 78:5 thoughts 8:23 11:20 72:24 throw38:9 THURSDAY 4:2 till 69:16 timeframe 45:4 timeline 44:22 77:21 Tobias 6:25 38:17 38:25 today6:24 56:21 72:7 72:16 73:1 73:20 77:13 today's 7:3 Todd6:14 6:14 TOSCA 49:11 total 27:8 27:22 31:23 32:24 totally35:17 towards 69:1 77:2 town 74:23 tox49:12 Toxics 4:6 track28:15 54:24 75:3 Tracy6:9 6:9 transcriber 4:12 transcript 4:13 76:20 transpired 68:11 treat38:4 treated23:25 treating38:4 38:6 treatment 8:10 10:14 14:1 22:7 24:3 24:12 24:16 24:20 25:1 26:18 27:1 27:25 28:18 29:2 31:16 37:24 38:1 42:1 69:6 73:17 74:3 74:10 75:20 treatments 8:16 24:4 24:22 25:4 Trent5:4 5:4 15:6 15:13 15:19 19:20 33:12 33:20 33:24 34:8 45:16 46:10 46:17 46:21 47:11 47:21 60:5 60:22 61:1 61:25 62:10 62:13 63:9 63:25 64:8 64:23 68:5 68:14 77:13 77:18 TRI 29:1 29:3 tried 24:2 24:21 72:15 try15:2 32:14 33:9 35:14 54:8 55:16 72:13 76:9 77:9 trying 17:24 18:6 32:23 45:25 54:24 63:19 67:15 turn 6:25 twelve 36:4 type 20:24 23:1 23:4 29:2 38:1 40:15 67:24 71:22 74:10

types 8:16 22:23 24:9 24:12 24:20 25:3 37:24 51:5 73:18 typically 22:21 28:6 28:7 32:14 49:3 77:3 typo 42:21

U U.S 51:13 ultimate 30:4 53:17 ultimately 53:21 um 55:2 unaware 65:16 uncertainties 41:9 48:21 57:14 unchanged

9:1 21:14 understand 9:9 13:17 17:15 18:15 20:13 23:11 24:15 26:11 27:21 28:18 30:14 30:17 37:2 37:25 62:2 64:8 71:8Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 109

understanding 11:9 12:22 12:23 17:1 22:20 23:5 26:25 29:9 32:13 41:16 43:3 55:3 69:13 undertake 32:18 unique 66:1 66:4 66:23 United 24:22 unlike 64:17 unprecedented 68:12 upon 30:4 56:17 60:20 usually 77:3 77:11 77:23 utilize 43:9

V Vail 6:7 6:7 valuable 65:3 65:5 65:8 65:13 value 17:4 17:15 values 17:1 variables 33:10 36:7 variety 24:3 25:3 26:18 27:10 53:13 various 24:21 62:3 Vermont30:22 version 21:5 21:15 versions 72:20 versus 33:8 69:4 69:9 73:16 74:12 view18:20 18:23 22:25 40:17 viewpoints 62:4 virtue 55:17 volume 49:10 voluntary 30:11 39:4 39:12 65:23 volunteers 75:5

W Wacker5:9 wait48:10 Ward4:23 4:24 4:24 7:1 7:4 7:6 7:17 9:8 9:13 9:20 9:23 10:1 10:5 10:16 10:19 11:1 11:8 11:12 11:23 12:6 12:10 12:16 13:4 13:14 13:19 14:2 14:6 15:1 15:6 15:12 15:18 16:1 16:14 16:20 17:9 17:13 17:19 18:5 18:11 19:4 19:11 19:14 19:18 19:24 20:2 20:10 21:1 21:16 21:20 22:6 22:11 23:6 23:13 23:16 23:23 24:24 25:5 25:20 25:24 26:9 26:24 27:7 27:11 27:15 27:21 27:24 28:3 28:25 29:17 31:9 31:18 31:22 33:11 33:12 33:19 33:21 34:3 34:11 35:11 36:18 36:22 37:17 37:21 38:7 38:11 39:15 41:5 43:21 44:8 45:10 45:24 46:16 46:19 46:23 47:16 47:22 48:6 50:8 53:23 54:23 55:8 55:15 55:21 55:25 66:21 67:19 67:21 68:13 68:18 73:4 74:7 75:9 75:23 76:7 76:17 77:1 77:13 77:16 77:19 wasn't11:6 16:2 16:7 32:20 waste 8:10 10:13 12:18 24:3 26:25 31:15 31:16 69:6 wastewater 13:23 42:1 water8:10 9:3 10:3 10:14 12:18 21:12Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 110

24:3 27:1 27:3 27:19 31:15 31:16 38:6 51:11 69:6 waters 21:7 22:3 50:24 web 30:18 website 49:5 we'd8:23 14:20 19:22 20:2 23:7 25:22 33:15 38:13 47:6 52:12 54:8 64:5 75:5 weeks 71:5 71:7 76:11 76:14 76:23 78:4 we'll 4:12 4:19 4:23 7:7 7:14 45:14 50:8 50:10 57:1 64:12 66:7 66:11 69:15 70:17 72:13 75:9 76:10 76:12 76:21 78:3 Wendy6:8 6:8 we're 4:8 8:9 10:14 10:21 19:2 20:7 22:2 26:23 27:16 27:22 28:6 32:23 33:14 33:17 34:6 34:8 35:13 35:15 36:24 38:3 38:23 42:11 43:9 45:12 45:14 45:19 45:25 46:13 46:21 46:23 47:9 47:13 48:8 50:11 51:5 53:1 54:24 56:5 56:7 57:10 57:15 59:6 60:17 64:1 64:6 64:9 64:21 66:2 68:20 69:25 70:2 73:11 77:24 78:1 we've 4:14 18:1 18:19 20:20 21:5 29:22 30:20 34:20 35:18 38:22 39:5 39:11 43:2 45:11 48:23 50:24 51:3 51:25 53:4 56:21 60:21 62:23 66:5 68:7 69:10 70:21 70:24 72:7 73:1 whatever 26:13 46:6 64:11 64:11 WHEREUPON 78:7 whether 18:3 45:22 46:15 49:10 69:22 whole 25:3 43:24 47:6 63:10 65:24 68:19 who's 61:11 willing14:21 14:25 16:4 20:22 34:4 71:8 willingness 34:19 wondering 44:4 work 11:24 14:21 14:25 16:4 20:22 28:2 35:3 35:9 36:25 38:14 46:11 47:3 49:4 50:17 51:21 60:16 61:25 62:21 62:23 63:11 65:21 67:19 69:1 76:21 77:9 77:25 78:1 worked 39:11 working16:12 57:15 75:19 77:7 77:12 77:20 world 15:24 45:12 50:7 worried26:12 worst9:17 14:10 wrap 7:14 written 53:3 53:24 wrong54:1

Y yesterday 65:6 you'll 10:8 26:19Siloxanes ECA Negotiations Meeting March 28, 2013 VR # 115-1 Page 111

you've 14:8 25:3 53:8 65:19