Memorandum of Meeting Date: August 24, 2010 Participants:

EPA : Steven Bradbury and Bill Jordan (OPP), Phil Ross (OGC), Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, Dennis Ed wards and Melba Morrow (AD)

NALCO: Cynthia Taub and Seth Goldberg (Ste ptoe and Johnson), Steve Landsman and E. Stuart Passantino (NALCO), Rick Ho lt (Holt Regulatory Consultants, Inc.)

Following introductions and statements that a summa ry of the meeting and the handout material would be placed in the docket for ammonia and urea, NALCO provided opening statements. NALCO emphasized that their request for a meeti ng with the Agency was not to advocate their position on the registration of ammonia or urea, but to provide the Agency with an understanding of the impact that a decision could have on NAL CO’s customers. NALCO passed out copies of three documents at the meeting: a slide-pres entation prepared for the meeting; a 2005 email from EPA to an employee of Steptoe and Johns on (the law firm repr esenting NALCO); and a 2008 letter from EPA to NALCO’s counsel. Copi es of these documents are attached.

Steve Landsman presented a historical review of how NALCO began marketing their OxiPro system which includes the use of ammonia and/ or urea as what NALCO describes as “halogen stabilizers”. The following was stated by Mr. Landsman in his presentation:

• In 2004-2005 the OxiPro System was developed by NALCO

• A staff member in the Antimicrobial s Division (AD) was contacted in

2005 and then sent a 2005 email to an employee of Steptoe and Johnson stating that the ammonia, when used as a “stabilizer” to extend the residual of free chlorine in the syst em did not require registration as a pesticide.

• Based on advice from AD, the OxiPro System was distributed. This was prior to Buckman’s regist ration of ammonia in 2007.

• NALCO was informed in 2008 in a letter sent to its counsel by the Agency that their ammonia product c ould be marketed as long as no pesticidal claims were made.

• Sales of the NALCO product continued based on the letter that was sent from the Agency in 2008 and the fe edback that an AD staff member provided on promotional material that NALCO’s counsel submitted to the

AD staff member for revi ew. Again the Agency advised NALCO that they could market their product without regi stration. No paper trail exists for this exchange between the AD staff member and NALCO.

• In conclusion, NALCO has built the OxiPro System based on advice

received from AD.

Stuart Passantino of NALCO provided an ove rview of the marketi ng challenges facing NALCO’s customers in the pulp and paper industr y and the importance to them of having the OxiPro system. The following was stated by Mr. Passantino in his presentation:• NALCO’s customers in the pulp and paper industry are receiving pressure

from several sources. There is not enough capital to re-invest back into research on process improvements for the paper industry, there is foreign competition to the paper industry, and there is decreased paper consumption due to the digital and co mputerized advances that compete with the use of paper products.

• The customers can not afford to be “off-line” or to experience a down time

which would have an adverse impact on the paper industry.

• OxiPro helps the paper industry by improving the efficiency of the machinery that is used in paper production. The OxiPro system is currently used on some 100 machines in the paper industry and the use of the OxiPro System aids customers in remaining more competitive and

sustainable.

• The OxiPro System involves three components: 1) the chemistry which includes sodium hypochlorite, a pH stabi lizer and a halogen stabilizer that has been identified as being either ammonia or urea; 2) pro-active monitoring tools which check for micr obial activity and provide feedback on chemical activity within the system which monitors fouling of the machinery; and 3) on-site expertis e which includes approximately 12,000 member personnel force who possess knowledge of the industry and are able to perform sophisticated analys es using the data obtained from the monitoring devices.

• In conclusion, any disruption in NALCO’s ability to deliver this service to

their clients would have an advers e impact on their customers and the paper industry.

Seth Goldberg, counsel for NALCO said they were looking for ways to resolve the issues. He said they brought in Rick Holt, to be a go-betwee n and “honest broker” for all parties. However, Mr. Goldberg said the effort was re-buffed by the other two parties. NALCO said they would like to resolve the issue as soon as possible wi thout consequences. NALCO said they would be interested in any other approaches EPA had to offer.

Representatives for NALCO stated that they would like to continue to be able to provide their services and products to their customers in an uninterrupted manner. Any decision made by the Agency with regard to the registration of ammo nia and urea should provide an adequate period for affected persons to comply with whatever decision is made. NALCO would not want to be subjected to enforcement if the decision on ammonia is not in th eir favor and they emphasized that they have acted in good fa ith based on the guidance that wa s given to them in 2005. They requested that the Agency offer an approach that will resolve this issue and take into

consideration NALCO’s customers and th eir concerns regarding compliance.

The Agency informed NALCO that the Agency is in the middle of a comment period relating to the petitions that have been filed for ammonia a nd urea. The Agency will look at all comments and exercise efficiency and transparency in a ddressing comments and in a rriving at a decision.There will be consideration given to the registration status of a mmonia/urea and, if needed, to the timing and implementation of any changes in the re gistration status of th e products in question. Comments from customers should be submitted to the docket and should address any concerns regarding the impact of any changes in registration on the paper industry.