202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

+ + + + +

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(EPA)

+ + + + +

SILOXANE ECA NEGOTIATION

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

JUNE 27, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Siloxane Negotiation

commenced, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1117A, EPA

East, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C., Paul Lewis of the EPA,

moderating.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

EPA PARTICIPANTS:

PAUL LEWIS, Moderator

JOE AVCIN

JESSICA BARKAS

JESSICA BELL

KAREN EISENREICH

CATHY FEHRENBACHER

CORY JENSEN

ROBERT JONES

ANNE KIM 

NGAN NGUYEN

WARD PENBERTHY

MARK SELTZER

TODD STEDEFORD

DAVID TOBIAS

INTERESTED PARTIES:

AMERICAN CLEANING INSTITUTE

 Paul DeLeo

BLUESTAR SILICONES USA CORP

 Betsy Carlton

 Jim Blum

 Ellen Mihaich

DOW CORNING CORPORATION

 Kathleen Plotzke

EVONIK GOLDSCHMIDT CORPORATION

 Russell Mait

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES

 Cynthia Finley

MOMENTIVE MPM SILICONES, LLC.

 Lisa DuMars

PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL

 Thomas Myers

SHIN-ETSU SILICONES OF AMERICA INC.

 Gene Browning

SILICONE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COUNCIL OF NORTH AMERICA (SEHSC)

 Karluss Thomas

WACKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION

 Hugh Flack

 Elaine Boyd
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

OBSERVERS:

SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION

 Akihiro Kinoshita

 Noriko Shibuya

ALSO PRESENT:

TRENT DOYLE, Keller Heckman

TRACY GUERRERO, SEHSC

RAY HILEY, Momentive

JENNY HOPKINSON, Inside EPA

WENDY KOCH, Consultant to Evonik Goldschmidt

GARY KOZERSKI, Dow Corning Corporation

RAYMOND B. LUDWISZEWSKI, Gibson, Dunn &

 Crutcher

GEORGE MISKO, Keller Heckman

PAT RIZZUTO, Chemicals Reporter BNA

CHARLES STAPLES, Consultant for SEHSC

KEVIN WESS, Momentive
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Call to Order 5

 Paul Lewis

 EPA

Introductions, Purpose, Goals, and 5, 12

Objectives

 Paul Lewis

 EPA 

 Ward Penberthy 16

 EPA

Identification of Interested Parties 8

Industry Presentation 18, 76

 Karluss Thomas

 SEHSC

Opportunity for Interested Party 29, 60, 67

Comments 78

EPA's Response 30

 Ward Penberthy

 EPA

 Questions and Responses 31, 61, 72

Next Steps 78

 Ward Penberthy

 EPA

 Questions and Comments 80
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

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

2 10:06 a.m.

3 MR. LEWIS: I would like to

4 welcome everyone today to our public meeting

5 discussing an enforceable consent agreement

6 for two siloxanes.

7 I am Paul Lewis with the Office of

8 Pollution Prevention and Toxics, and I am

9 joined by my colleagues Ward Penberthy and

10 Cathy Fehrenbacher, in addition to several EPA

11 colleagues here who have helped us today

12 preparing for this meeting. I want to thank

13 them all in terms of their contributions in

14 preparing for our discussion.

15 I want to provide some background

16 in terms of topic today before we go into the

17 substantive part of the agenda.

18 On May 24th, 2012, the EPA

19 announced in The Federal Register holding a

20 public meeting today to negotiate an

21 Enforceable Consent Agreement, commonly called

22 an ECA, to collect certain environmental
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 monitoring data on D4 and D5.

2 As background, EPA has concerns

3 about the environmental effects of D4 and D5,

4 two high-production volume chemicals with a

5 wide variety of industrial, commercial, and

6 consumer uses, including cleaning agents and

7 products, adhesives, personal care products,

8 paints, textiles, and manufacturing processes. 

9 In addition, on June 1st, 2012, EPA identified

10 D4 as one of 18 additional work plan chemicals

11 for assessment during 2013-2014.

12 EPA has an evaluate poll submitted

13 by the Silicons Environmental, Health and

14 Safety Council, commonly known and we will be

15 discussing as SEHSC. And the agency believes

16 that proceeding with a negotiation of an ECA

17 is an efficient means for obtaining data to

18 help develop a better understanding of the

19 potential for environmental effects of these

20 chemicals.

21 The Federal Register notice

22 indicated that those interested in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 negotiations today will be given the status of

2 an interested party and were told to notify

3 the agency in The Federal Register by June

4 25th of this year.

5 The interested parties committed

6 to participate in the negotiation process. 

7 That is going to be here today in the

8 substantive negotiation process. And other

9 members of the public may attend the

10 negotiation meetings as observers, but then

11 identify themselves, as the parties will not

12 be permitted to participate in the

13 negotiations. Eleven organizations have

14 notified the agency as interested parties in

15 the ECA negotiation.

16 I would like to request at this

17 time that each interested party identify

18 themselves and briefly explain their interest

19 in the ECA. I will be listing the interested

20 parties in alphabetical order, beginning with

21 the American Cleaning Institute.

22 Are you present?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 DR. DeLEO: Paul DeLeo of the

2 American Cleaning Institute.

3 MR. LEWIS: Could you speak into

4 the microphone?

5 DR. DeLEO: Sure.

6 MR. LEWIS: And while the American

7 Institute is coming to the table, let me just

8 remind everyone that this meeting is being

9 recorded and to please identify yourself and

10 speak into the microphone.

11 DR. DeLEO: Good morning.

12 I am Paul DeLeo with the American

13 Cleaning Institute. As part of our

14 membership, we have companies that are

15 suppliers of a variety of siloxane

16 ingredients, well, a number of industries. 

17 And also, we have companies that formulate

18 cleaning products, and siloxanes are used, a

19 variety of siloxane materials used in cleaning

20 products. So, that is the nature of our

21 interest in being an interested party as part

22 of this process.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

2 The next is Bluestar Silicones.

3 MS. CARLTON: Yes, I'm --

4 MR. LEWIS: Bluestar Silicones,

5 please come to the table. Thank you.

6 MS. CARLTON: I'm Betsy Carlton. 

7 I am with Bluestar Silicones. With me today,

8 also, is Ellen Mihaich and Jim Blum. Bluestar

9 Silicons is a member of SEHSC, and we have

10 actively participated in the development of

11 the proposal for the ECA.

12 MR. LEWIS: Next is Dow Corning

13 Corporation.

14 DR. PLOTZKE: Hi. This is

15 Kathleen Plotzke. I am the Director of our

16 Health and Environmental Sciences Group at Dow

17 Corning, and we are also a member of SEHSC.

18 MR. LEWIS: Evonik Goldschmidt?

19 MR. MAIT: Right here.

20 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

21 MR. MAIT: I am Russell Mait,

22 Director for Environmental Health, Safety, and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 Quality for Evonik Goldschmidt. Evonik

2 Goldschmidt is a processor of siloxanes. We

3 are also a member of SEHSC.

4 MR. LEWIS: Next is the National

5 Association of Clean Water Agencies. Please

6 come to the table.

7 MS. FINLEY: I am Cynthia Finley. 

8 I am Director of Regulatory Affairs for NACWA,

9 the National Association of Clean Water

10 Agencies. We represent municipal waste water

11 treatment agencies.

12 MR. LEWIS: Momentive MPM

13 Silicones?

14 MS. DuMARS: Lisa DuMars,

15 Momentive Performance Materials. We are also

16 members of SEHSC and have sites in the U.S. as

17 manufacturers and processors.

18 MR. LEWIS: Next is the Personal

19 Care Products Council.

20 MR. MYERS: Hi. My name is Tom

21 Myers. I am the Associate General Counsel

22 with the Personal Care Products Council. Most
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 of our members utilize siloxane in some form

2 or fashion, particularly the cosmetic

3 companies, which is why we have an interest in

4 the proceedings today.

5 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

6 Next is Shin-Etsu Silicones.

7 MR. BROWNING: I am Gene Browning. 

8 I am an independent consultant and I represent

9 Shin-Etsu Silicones of America, who are

10 importers, processors, and formulators of

11 these two chemicals.

12 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

13 SEHSC? Please identify yourself.

14 MR. THOMAS: Yes. Hello. I am

15 Karluss Thomas, the Executive Director for the

16 Silicones Environmental Health and Safety

17 Council of North America. As you know, SEHSC

18 developed the proposal on behalf of its member

19 companies.

20 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

21 Two more. Unilever? Is Unilever

22 here?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 (No response.)

2 Oh, Unilever is not here. Okay.

3 Wacker Chemical Company?

4 MR. FLACK: My name is Hugh Flack. 

5 I am Director of Environmental Regulatory

6 Affairs for the Wacker Chemical Corporation. 

7 Along with me is Elaine Boyd, who is serving

8 as Chair, as member of the SEHSC.

9 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

10 Before I discuss the terms of the

11 ECA procedures, can we just go around the

12 table, now that we have interested parties

13 identified, and if you have not identified

14 yourself, please identify yourself and your

15 affiliation.

16 (Off mic introductions.)

17 I will use this microphone since I

18 have better clarity here.

19 I want to continue in terms of

20 discussing the ECA procedures. The ECA

21 procedure, it follows 40 CFR 790.22, which is

22 procedures for development of a consent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 agreement. It contains provisions to ensure

2 the public is accorded a chance to participate

3 in ECA negotiations and that the views of

4 interested parties are taken into account

5 during the negotiation process.

6 All negotiation materials for the

7 development of the ECA will be open to the

8 public, and minutes of today's and any

9 subsequent meetings that are needed will be

10 placed in the docket. In addition, as you

11 walked in today, you received several pieces

12 of information, the agenda, The Federal

13 Register notice announcing today's meeting. 

14 Again, all this material will be placed in the

15 docket for public review and inspection.

16 The EPA will advise interested

17 parties and the public of meeting dates and

18 available meeting minutes, proposed consent

19 agreement, background documents, and other

20 materials distributed at negotiation meetings.

21 A negotiation schedule can be

22 established at today's meeting, but it cannot
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 exceed a period of six months from today's

2 meeting. In other words, we need to complete

3 this ECA negotiation by December 27th, 2012.

4 If an ECA is not final within six

5 months and EPA does not choose to extend the

6 negotiation time period, negotiations will be

7 terminated and any unmet data needs may be

8 pursued via a test rule promulgated under TSCA

9 Section 4.

10 EPA will circulate a draft of the

11 ECA to all interested parties if the EPA

12 concludes that such a draft is likely to

13 achieve final agreement. EPA will enter into

14 consent agreements only where there is a

15 consensus among the agency, manufacturers and

16 processors agree to conduct responsible

17 testing, and all interested parties have

18 identified themselves.

19 Thirty days will be provided for

20 submitting comments or written objections to

21 the ECA. But, again, I want to emphasize that

22 this ECA must be completed within six months
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 from today's meeting, again, December 27th,

2 2012.

3 Before I move on to the next phase

4 of the agenda, I just want to again review the

5 agenda that we have today. There will be a

6 presentation by SEHSC. We will provide an

7 opportunity for comments from interested

8 parties that are present here today. And

9 then, there will be an opportunity for EPA to

10 provide a response to both the presentation by

11 SEHSC and interested parties. Then, we will

12 have a general discussion here at this meeting

13 in terms of what we heard from the ECA and in

14 terms of means to develop consensus and, then,

15 in terms of next steps as part of our process,

16 as part of this negotiation over the next six

17 months.

18 I want to again remind everyone

19 that this meeting is recorded, to please

20 identify yourself when you speak and speak

21 into the microphone.

22 Thank you.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 Ward, do you have any comments?

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. First of

3 all, I would like to thank SEHSC for their

4 proposal. I think that is a great step

5 forward. Obviously, we wouldn't have entered

6 into this whole process if we didn't think

7 there was a good possibility of a favorable

8 outcome.

9 So, I am looking forward to the

10 discussions. I hope we can wrap this up

11 fairly quickly in a couple of hours, right?

12 (Laughter.)

13 But, anyway, I guess Karluss,

14 SEHSC, is next on the agenda. You have

15 prepared a presentation, and so please go

16 ahead.

17 MR. THOMAS: All right. Thanks,

18 Ward.

19 On behalf of SEHSC, I would really

20 like to thank EPA for the opportunity to

21 provide this overview of the proposal. We

22 certainly would like to hope that, based on
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 all of the hard work that has gone into this

2 effort, we certainly hope that we can come up

3 with a proposal that is mutually-acceptable

4 for both our members and EPA.

5 Can everybody hear me? No? Is

6 this better? Okay, is this better? No? The

7 green light is on. I will just talk really

8 loud. Can people hear me now? Okay.

9 What I am going to do is provide a

10 really brief overview of the proposal. I

11 think the detailed proposal was provided to

12 the EPA docket. In addition, there was a

13 written copy of the proposal on the table

14 outside. So, what I would like to do is just

15 sort of run through the high-level components

16 of the program. And it sounds like subsequent

17 to this, we are going to have a more full

18 discussion of all the details.

19 All right. Well, consistent with

20 EPA's stated goal for the program, and also

21 with Paul's remarks earlier, the real purpose

22 of the proposal was to provide additional
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 information on the presence and the

2 concentrations of both D4 and D5 in the

3 environment, and on the sources of and

4 pathways to releases of environmental

5 concentrations of D4 and D5.

6 As the basis for the proposal, we

7 used a variety of different inputs. Firstly,

8 we used some generic conceptual site models

9 that were developed for D4 and D5. And I will

10 talk a little bit more about those in a few

11 moments. We also utilized existing monitoring

12 data for the materials, available science on

13 the environmental properties, the

14 physical/chemical parameters of D4 and D5,

15 also feedback that we received from the

16 agency. We also used some of the results of

17 consultations with an environmental consulting

18 firm, and we also used the existing

19 international monitoring program for D4 and D5

20 that industry has voluntarily entered into.

21 With respect to the conceptual

22 site models that I mentioned earlier, SEHSC
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 contracted with an environmental consultant to

2 actually develop these conceptual site models. 

3 The real basis for the conceptual site models

4 was facility release data that was generated

5 by SEHSC members for their facilities here in

6 the U.S. These estimates were prepared by

7 each member company, at their own expense I

8 might add. And those specific data,

9 aggregated by manufacturer, processor, and

10 formulator, were provided to the environmental

11 consultant to develop the conceptual site

12 models.

13 So, the consultant further

14 reviewed the data, and then they were

15 aggregated by facility type. This aggregation

16 was really important to be able to protect

17 proprietary facility process data and, also,

18 intellectual property.

19 One of the comments that we had

20 received earlier with respect to some of the

21 information was that the agency might be

22 interested in more specific facility release
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 data from some of the specific facilities. I

2 just wanted to point out here that it would be

3 difficult, if not impossible, to provide those

4 data because of the proprietary nature of that

5 information.

6 With respect to the ultimate

7 results of what the conceptual site models

8 showed, essentially, we found that inhalation

9 exposure resulting from dispersion in air was

10 the primary pathway and primary release for

11 these materials. We also wanted to point out

12 that, because this pathway applies to only

13 human receptors, ecological receptors are

14 typically not evaluated for their inhalation

15 exposure risk. So, this particular pathway is

16 not a significant component of the proposal we

17 are going to talk about here today.

18 Also, it is important to note that

19 exposures via sediment, including direct

20 exposure for bottom-dwelling biota and

21 indirect exposure via the food chain to

22 ecological receptors represents the most
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 important pathway to the environment for these

2 materials.

3 And I will just stop with this for

4 a real brief moment. I know this is almost

5 impossible for you guys to see at the back of

6 the room. But this is just the result of the

7 generic CSM4 industrial facilities.

8 I want to talk a little bit now

9 about some of the monitoring results that I

10 mentioned earlier that helped provide some of

11 the information that was used to develop the

12 proposal. I think it is really important to

13 point out that detectable in terms of the non14 U.S.-based studies for which there is a fair

15 amount of data, detectable concentrations of

16 D4 and D5 are predominantly found in air,

17 wastewater treatment influents, sludge to a

18 lesser extent, sediments impacted by

19 wastewater effluents. There have also been

20 detectable concentrations of both D4 and D5 in

21 sediments that were variable and typically

22 associated with high-population areas.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 There are also some detectable

2 concentrations in the Arctic, but they were

3 generally very low and non-detect and only in

4 areas where there has been some human impact. 

5 Both the Austrian wastewater treatment

6 monitoring results and the wastewater

7 treatment monitoring results from Oregon

8 generally show that these materials are non9 detects and you don't find them.

10 In Japan, there were detectable

11 amounts of materials found in sediments, but

12 consistent with the data we have seen in

13 Canada and other areas, it is typically

14 associated with areas that are impacted by

15 industrial and municipal wastewater treatment.

16 And the Canadian influent and

17 effluent monitoring report, detectable

18 concentrations in effluent, but the scientific

19 review indicates that all D4 concentrations

20 and most D5 are below the limit of detection.

21 I think it is also worth pointing

22 out here that all of these data are very
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 consistent with the ultimate results of the D5

2 water review in Canada, which concluded that

3 D5 did not pose a risk to the environment.

4 Here I think what we really wanted

5 to point out was that, with respect to all of

6 the manufacturing, processing, and formulation

7 facilities that are under SEHSC's control, the

8 focus of the proposal is really on direct

9 discharge sites for which SEHSC members have

10 control. There were four of those sites, all

11 four of which will be monitored as part of

12 this proposal.

13 Here I just wanted to briefly

14 summarize all of the MPF sites that are going

15 to be included in the monitoring program. We

16 have got one facility in Sisterville, West

17 Virginia, that is a Momentive facility that is

18 involved in D4 and D5 processing. There is a

19 Dow Corning facility in Kentucky that is

20 involved in manufacturing and formulation. 

21 There is a Wacker facility in Adrian,

22 Michigan, that is involved in processing and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 formulation for both D4 and D5, and there is

2 an additional Momentive facility in Waterford,

3 New York, that is involved in manufacturing,

4 processing, and formulation.

5 With respect to the monitoring

6 parameters, the proposal is to monitor

7 effluent, surface water, sediment, fish,

8 benthic species, and there would be two

9 monitoring events for each facility.

10 And again, the basis for these

11 monitoring parameters was the fact that,

12 because the proposal was focused on

13 environmental releases, the thought is that

14 these parameters gave the most useful

15 information for that purpose.

16 Now I want to move to the

17 wastewater treatment plant, the municipal

18 wastewater treatment plant conceptual site

19 model. I won't spend a lot of time here. 

20 What I will focus on is the thinking that went

21 into the development of the proposal for the

22 municipal wastewater treatment sites.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 So, the design considerations for

2 the wastewater treatment plant monitoring

3 proposal, initially, we developed and gained

4 agreement on a set of parameters that would be

5 used as the basis for site selection. I will

6 talk a little bit more about those parameters

7 in a few minutes. We ran EPA's EFAST model to

8 predict surface water concentration

9 distributions for municipal facilities.

10 We also ran the ISTREEM model to

11 predict the geographic distribution of those

12 surface water concentrations. We looked more

13 closely into the detailed ISTREEM datasets,

14 and this was from the EPA Needs Survey, to

15 begin the monitoring site selection process. 

16 From that, we developed a preliminary list of

17 potential monitoring sites and, then, reviewed

18 a number of the recent monitoring studies,

19 which I alluded to earlier, to provide some

20 additional insight.

21 Following that, we looked at

22 approximately 14,000 sewage treatment plants
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 in the U.S., and these were from the EPA 2004

2 Needs Survey. We examined data onsite to

3 produce a smaller list of sites that could be

4 evaluated in more detail. And then, that list

5 was sorted by treatment type.

6 We targeted sites in high7 population areas with low dilution. There was

8 also consideration given to sites that covered

9 a geographic range with an emphasis on

10 watersheds with high-population density. We

11 used that to predict influent and effluent

12 concentrations and examined those with the

13 higher concentrations in effluent. Those were

14 given the highest priority.

15 So, the specific factors that we

16 agreed would be the focus of the proposal, and

17 the proposal includes monitoring for five

18 sites. The first site would be an activated

19 sludge site with high population/low dilution

20 that was capped. And that would allow some

21 monitoring of air at that particular site. 

22 The second site would be an activated sludge
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 site with high population/low dilution. The

2 third site would be an oxidated ditch, high

3 population/low dilution. The fourth site

4 would be a trickling-filter site with high

5 population/low dilution. And then, the final

6 site would be a lagoon, high population/low

7 dilution. Again, the focus on high population

8 and low dilution for many of these sites is,

9 again, to target environmental releases.

10 With respect to the monitoring

11 parameters for each site, the proposal

12 includes monitoring for influent, effluent,

13 surface water, biosolids, sediment, fish,

14 benthic species, air, again, at the first

15 site, and then, also, there would be two

16 monitoring events consistent with the number

17 of monitoring events for the manufacturing,

18 processing, and formulation sites.

19 So, again, we haven't identified

20 the specific sites that would correspond to

21 all of those five site characteristics. So,

22 the final steps for this particular part of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 the proposal would include reviewing municipal

2 wastewater treatment plant NPDES permits,

3 looking at industrial inputs, compliance

4 issues, changes in facility structure, and so

5 forth, to get a better sense for specific

6 facilities that meet those characteristics

7 that I talked about a little while ago.

8 We would also, obviously,

9 determine which sites are capped/covered, do

10 things like checking Google Earth and

11 contacting the plant operators; also, look at

12 additional information like historical

13 effluent concentrations, annual flow,

14 temperature, pH, and so forth. And then,

15 finally, conduct the site visits and, then,

16 obtain letter-of-cooperation access for the

17 specific sites that we would envision

18 monitoring.

19 So, that is sort of the high-level

20 summary of the proposal. Again, the details

21 were in the information that was in the

22 docket; also, provided outside in a written
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 format.

2 And with that, I would be happy to

3 take any questions.

4 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Karluss. 

5 We appreciate the steps forward that you and

6 your organization have done in terms of

7 presenting this ECA.

8 Before we go into the questions, I

9 want to at least -- and we will have that

10 opportunity in general discussion -- I want to

11 give an opportunity for the interested parties

12 to have any comments about the presentation

13 that we heard this morning.

14 And again, thank you for your

15 discussion.

16 Are there any comments from

17 interested parties based on what we heard this

18 morning? If so, please identify yourself, the

19 organization you are with.

20 (No response.)

21 Just checking, any interested

22 party comments?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 (No response.)

2 Okay. Hearing none, now are there

3 any questions in terms of the presentation? 

4 In terms of questions, let's start with

5 questions of clarification.

6 (No response.)

7 Okay. Hearing none on that, also,

8 very clear presentation. Thank you, Karluss.

9 Ward, I am going to give the

10 microphone over to you now in terms of moving

11 forward in terms of our EPA response and

12 discussion in terms of our negotiation.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Just as some

14 background, just continuing with what we have

15 already mentioned, D4 is one of our 2013-2014

16 work plan chemicals. When it is designated

17 like that, what that means is we plan to do or

18 develop a risk assessment for D4 in that

19 particular time period.

20 Obviously, what we want is a risk

21 assessment that has some high-quality data

22 that supports a robust assessment. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 clearly, if we can be assured that the data

2 developed in this ECA was representative of

3 sort of a national picture of D4 releases,

4 that would be very important to us. So, that

5 is basically our major objective in this ECA

6 discussion, is to develop the dataset to help

7 that.

8 As Paul mentioned, our concerns

9 are largely ecological in nature. And so,

10 that is clearly the focus of your proposal and

11 what we are interested in.

12 I guess I did have a few questions

13 about the presentation. In the summary of

14 past monitoring data, when you mentioned non15 detects, was there a detection -- it wasn't

16 clear what the detection levels were in those

17 data. And so, I guess that is one basic

18 question.

19 MR. THOMAS: Yes, I would invite

20 our technical experts to answer that question. 

21 I think Kathy, in particular, could answer

22 that much better than I could.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 DR. PLOTZKE: It actually depends

2 upon the site and who was doing it. So, what

3 Karluss summarized is really an overview of

4 everything that is available from our

5 environmental monitoring program as well as

6 others. There has been a number of other

7 individuals and organizations doing

8 monitoring. So, I would say maybe the lowest

9 sort of detection limit that we have been able

10 to achieve in sediment, for example, low

11 nanogram per gram in sediment.

12 And sediment has been primarily

13 the focus. Typically, when you are collecting

14 water and analyzing it, you are not finding

15 it. There's a lot of challenges really with

16 the water analysis. So, sediment has been the

17 primary focus.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I guess,

19 broadly speaking, when you get down to just

20 the number of sites tested, I think we want to

21 develop an understanding of, again, how those

22 data would be representative of a national
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 picture. I am not sure that, while I

2 understand the four direct discharge sites --

3 so, those are sites, manufacturing sites, and

4 may be also processing and formulating sites

5 that have their own water treatment. Is that

6 how that is supposed to be?

7 MR. THOMAS: Well, we didn't

8 really get into whether each of those sites

9 had their own treatment or not. Again, that

10 would be sort of proprietary information. 

11 That is why we developed the conceptual site

12 models. But, again, I think what we would

13 focus on is we are essentially monitoring all

14 of the direct discharge sites over which SEHSC

15 has some control.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: So, what does

17 direct discharge precisely mean, I guess is

18 what I am --

19 DR. PLOTZKE: Maybe I can add. I

20 think we can say that these have waste onsite

21 or offsite, even wastewater treatment plant

22 facilities associated with these sites. The
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 direct aspect of it is really that it is being

2 released to surface water versus going through

3 any other municipal wastewater treatment

4 plant.

5 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Okay. So,

6 is that all the SEHSC sites that are direct

7 releases?

8 DR. PLOTZKE: That is correct,

9 yes.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Okay. Now

11 I am also unclear -- I think you mentioned

12 before previously there are 13 SEHSC sites. 

13 Are some of those sites covered in the POTWs

14 that are being sampled?

15 MR. THOMAS: The specific POTW

16 sites have not been identified yet. But I

17 think even in that range of parameters that we

18 identified, there is certainly the possibility

19 that some of those specific sites could have

20 releases from manufacturing facilities or

21 processing facilities, including SEHSC member

22 facilities. But, again, those specific sites
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 have not been identified yet. What we have

2 laid out here are the considerations or the

3 characteristics for the sites that we would be

4 looking for.

5 DR. PLOTZKE: And one of the

6 criteria that we did provide to the consultant

7 to look at, identifying the specific sites, is

8 to look at the location of those other sites

9 beyond the direct discharge. So, we are

10 including in that identification of the five

11 municipal wastewater treatment plant sites. 

12 So, we don't know what that looks like yet

13 because we haven't done that part of it yet,

14 but that will be one of the criteria to look

15 for our indirect discharge sites and where

16 they discharge to. It is actually in the

17 proposal, but that is how we will do that.

18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. And for the

19 remaining nine sites, SEHSC sites, is there a

20 rationale for why they wouldn't be monitored

21 as well?

22 MR. THOMAS: Well, again, the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 focus was on environmental releases. So, the

2 thought was that those sites have releases to

3 municipal wastewater treatment plants. So,

4 they wouldn't likely have significant

5 environmental releases.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: So, how do you

7 know that?

8 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, maybe I can add

9 to that. So, if you look at the additional

10 sites, you either have some that just have no

11 release, particularly to the water

12 environment, which is really the focus here

13 when you look at the conceptual site models --

14 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

15 DR. PLOTZKE: -- of the

16 facilities.

17 What it identified as the one

18 complete pathway for ecological receptors was

19 release to water.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: Right.

21 DR. PLOTZKE: So, what we looked

22 at is that we have some sites there that don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 even have release to water. Or, if they are

2 released to water, it is through/into a

3 municipal wastewater treatment, which

4 obviously we have seen significant removal of

5 these materials before; then, it is discharged

6 into surface water.

7 So, what we tried to focus on is

8 really the areas for the direct sites,

9 obviously, that would have direct release to

10 surface water. And then, we have the

11 municipal wastewater treatment as part of the

12 program to cover what is beyond that.

13 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Well, I

14 understand why you wouldn't sample sites that

15 have no release of water to a POTW, but I am

16 not sure I understand why you wouldn't sample

17 the site, the influent to a POTW, and then,

18 possibly, the effluent and the sediment

19 associated with those POTWs.

20 DR. PLOTZKE: And again, once we

21 define those five sites there, that is one of

22 our criteria that we have outlined, that we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 will look for the location of our other sites

2 that have that indirect discharge, which,

3 then, in the municipal wastewater treatment

4 plant we have proposed we would sample the

5 influent. So, it would really capture that.

6 MR. THOMAS: So, the influent to

7 municipal wastewater treatment plants from

8 sites that aren't covered in this program

9 would not have any environmental release. So,

10 I think what Kathy is --

11 MR. PENBERTHY: I don't understand

12 that because a POTW has a certain efficiency,

13 right? So, it will have a release.

14 MR. THOMAS: Well, what goes into

15 the wastewater treatment plant won't have any

16 releases. Once it gets there, it is going to

17 get treated. So, the part of the program that

18 is designed to look at municipal wastewater

19 treatment plants, you are going to get

20 influent to those treatment plants; you are

21 going to get effluent; you are going to get

22 biosolids, surface water, and all those other
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 things.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Well, I

3 think I made my point, but --

4 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, it won't have a

5 direct release because it goes through the

6 municipal wastewater treatment plant.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: All right.

8 MR. DOYLE: Trent Doyle with

9 Keller Heckman.

10 To your point, in the proposal we

11 did put in our wastewater treatment plan, we

12 did say that the site where we plan to do the

13 air monitoring, that that would be a site that

14 receives processed wastewater from one of the

15 indirect discharges. So, that was a way to

16 assure that one of those five sites at least

17 would be covered from one of the main effluent

18 processing locations.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess my concern

20 with that is that we don't know that that

21 would be necessarily representative of the

22 other sites. So, that is just another concern
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 that we will have.

2 Now, moving on, and maybe we will

3 just do the sites that the program is first

4 addressing. You know, there are over 20,000

5 POTWs in the United States. And so, we are

6 just awfully concerned that sampling of five

7 of them won't really give us data that is

8 robust enough to do a risk assessment as we

9 plan to do.

10 So, we are concerned with just, do

11 you have a representative of sorts? Does it

12 cover the various treatment methods, the

13 various sizes, the various flow rates? Is the

14 sample pool going to be big enough to make a

15 reasoned evaluation in terms of reasons and,

16 then, hence, risks from basically five sites,

17 five POTWs?

18 Particularly, setting aside that

19 the manufacturing and processing and

20 formulating sites that are straight to the

21 POTW, I mean, those are almost a special case

22 in our view. And then, you just have the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 regular discharge through municipal effluent

2 or flow of POTW that we are also concerned

3 with. So, that is another issue.

4 I am not sure if five sites is --

5 I mean, I guess the question would be, how do

6 you think we could or you could argue that

7 that data would be representative and cover

8 the circumstance we find ourselves in at EPA?

9 MR. THOMAS: Well, I guess I would

10 point to two things. One, the focus, again,

11 is on environmental releases. We do have some

12 other data that helps give us a basis for sort

13 of refining this proposal.

14 I would point to the wastewater

15 treatment plant studies that have already been

16 done, the one in the U.S., the one that was

17 run in Oregon. There was also one that I

18 mentioned earlier that was done in Austria. 

19 We also have some results from monitoring

20 activities in Canada. And all of those have

21 shown pretty consistently that it is very

22 difficult to find these materials at the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 technical levels.

2 So, what we have focused the

3 proposal on is those characteristics that are

4 most likely to allow you to be able to find

5 the materials in detectable concentrations. 

6 Those specific considerations are those that

7 have high population and low dilution. So,

8 the proposal is almost disproportionately

9 oriented to those sites with those

10 characteristics because we believe that is

11 where you most likely are going to be able to

12 find it.

13 And again, where those studies

14 have been done, it has been virtually

15 impossible to find it. If you look at the

16 data in Oregon, those results are available. 

17 Certain of the data in Canada, that

18 information has been published. I can give

19 you copies of that, if you are interested. 

20 And I am not sure about the Austrian results.

21 But, again, they have all

22 consistently shown that it is very difficult
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 to find these materials. So, again, what we

2 focused on are those considerations that give

3 you the greatest possibility of finding it in

4 measurable concentrations. And we do believe

5 five sites allows you to do that.

6 DR. PLOTZKE: I can comment on the

7 treatment type as well and how we looked at

8 that. As Karluss indicated, a lot of this is

9 also based on all of the data that we have to

10 date, which is quite extensive on these

11 materials from a monitoring perspective.

12 So, in addition to this program

13 here, we have a Voluntary Product Stewardship

14 Initiative that includes one other site in the

15 United States as well as a site in Canada,

16 that it would be very similar to other sites

17 in the U.S.

18 In looking at the distribution of

19 wastewater treatment plants in the U.S.,

20 predominantly, over 80 percent are activated

21 sludge. So, that is why we weighted it

22 heavier to the activated sludge between our
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 Voluntary Product Stewardship Initiative and

2 this, and then looked at the other ones, which

3 are much smaller from a representative of the

4 United States.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Cathy

6 Fehrenbacher with the Exposure Assessment

7 Branch at EPA.

8 Is there an analysis that you have

9 prepared that looks at the over 20,000 POTWs

10 and your determination that five sites would

11 be appropriate to represent? It sounds like

12 you are looking to represent the upper end of

13 those POTWs. Is there an analysis that you

14 have done that you could provide to us?

15 DR. PLOTZKE: What we have really

16 is the EPA database, is really the breakdown

17 of the different types of treatment plants

18 across the United States. So, basically, that

19 is what we did. The consultant pulled that

20 out for us, showed us that breakdown over the

21 different types. And you can clearly see the

22 activated sludge is really over 80 percent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 representing that. And so, that is why we

2 focused on the activated sludge within our

3 Voluntary Product Stewardship Initiative as

4 well as this program.

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So, is there an

6 analysis that you have prepared?

7 MR. THOMAS: You mean an analysis

8 of treatment type for municipal wastewater

9 treatment plants?

10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: An analysis

11 that you have developed that is the basis for

12 selecting five sites as being representative

13 of the high-end POTW treatment plants. We

14 know that there are over 20,000 facilities in

15 the U.S., and five seems to be a very small

16 number, based on other studies that the agency

17 has done.

18 DR. PLOTZKE: And if you look at

19 the report that was prepared for us by the

20 consultant, which we did supply, basically,

21 they came up with a sampling of five

22 representative sites from the different
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 treatment types.

2 In addition, again, what we have

3 done, combined with our monitoring program, is

4 developed models that model the different

5 wastewater treatment plant sites. What the

6 modeling really does show is you are not going

7 to get a lot of variation really in what you

8 are going to see. It is dependent upon the

9 removal rates, which you can factor in. So,

10 we have even taken some of the models, for

11 example, and added lagoons into those models. 

12 We revised them ourselves. So, in addition to

13 the monitoring, we are also using the models,

14 then, to validate and cross-check what we are

15 finding.

16 MR. LEWIS: As part of this

17 conversation in terms of number of sites, do

18 interested parties have any comments about the

19 discussion that we are hearing so far?

20 Yes, please identify yourself.

21 MS. FINLEY: This is Cynthia

22 Finley with NACWA.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 I won't state any opinion right

2 now about whether five POTWs is a good number

3 to sample or not. But I just wanted to

4 explain a little bit about the number of POTWs

5 in the U.S.

6 The number we usually cite is

7 about 16,000 POTWs, but the vast majority of

8 those are very, very small. So, it is kind of

9 important to understand the distribution there

10 when you are looking at that overall number of

11 POTWs. So, I will be interested in taking a

12 closer look at the analysis that was done in

13 coming up with the five, but I just wanted to

14 put that in perspective a little bit when you

15 are looking at that, that most of these are

16 very small treatment plants.

17 MR. LEWIS: Could you provide that

18 information to us in terms of what you have

19 available?

20 MS. FINLEY: I'm sorry? I

21 couldn't hear.

22 MR. LEWIS: An analysis in terms
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 of 15,000 and how you characterized that most

2 of them are very small? Do you have anything

3 that you can provide to us that could provide

4 some --

5 MS. FINLEY: All of the data is in

6 the Clean Watershed Needs Survey --

7 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

8 MS. FINLEY: -- that EPA produces. 

9 I could do an analysis, come up with the

10 numbers. I don't have any numbers offhand

11 right now.

12 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Great. Thank

13 you.

14 Other comments from other

15 interested parties?

16 (No response.)

17 No?

18 Ward, you want to continue?

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Sure. Okay.

20 So, I guess we have discussed the

21 manufacturing, processing, formulating sites,

22 the POTW sites. I guess in your proposal, the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 way I understand it, you are basically testing

2 the effluent and the sediment and the

3 receiving water; is that correct?

4 MR. THOMAS: For the wastewater

5 treatment plant portion?

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct.

7 MR. THOMAS: Yes, we are testing

8 the influent, effluent, surface water,

9 biosolids, sediment, fish, benthic species,

10 air at the first site, and, then, also, there

11 are two monitoring events.

12 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So,

13 influent, surface water. So, effluent is not

14 there?

15 MR. THOMAS: Yes, effluent we had.

16 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, okay. Sorry,

17 sorry. All right.

18 I guess, why did you exclude the

19 testing of the sludge from the --

20 DR. PLOTZKE: Biosolids.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, you have

22 biosolids?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes.

2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, okay. I

3 didn't see that. Okay.

4 All right. So, that seems fairly

5 complete by our reckoning.

6 Now that is for the POTWs. Is it

7 the same for the four SEHSC sites? There is

8 no influent to your treatment facility, right?

9 MR. THOMAS: Correct.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: And there are no

11 biosolids there?

12 MR. THOMAS: Well, again, the

13 focus here was to prioritize those that would

14 have environmental releases. So, the

15 biosolids and the influent would not have

16 environmental releases.

17 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, if they are 

18 in the biosolids and, then, you have got land

19 applied, you don't see that as a release

20 possibility?

21 DR. PLOTZKE: Not from the

22 manufacturing, processing, and formulator, but
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 that is why we did include the biosolids from

2 the municipal.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Now, if you

4 do the biosolids from the municipal facility,

5 you know, the logical next step would be to do

6 the soil at the application site.

7 DR. PLOTZKE: And if you go to the

8 conceptual site model -- and I know this is

9 really hard to see -- but, again, what we

10 focused on really was the complete pathway. 

11 So, if you could see this diagram, what you

12 would see is that, once you do the sludge

13 amendment of the soil, you get degradation in

14 the soil or volatilization to the air. So, it

15 becomes an incomplete pathway. So, that is

16 what the consultant determined based on the

17 dataset that we have available on these

18 materials, that that ends up being an

19 incomplete pathway to ecological receptors.

20 MR. PENBERTHY: So, there is an

21 analysis that supports that?

22 DR. PLOTZKE: There is quite a bit
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 of data out there, yes. It is published,

2 peer-review published, on the degradation in

3 soil.

4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

5 DR. PLOTZKE: On the behavior of

6 these materials, then, in soil.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. We will be

8 interested in that, I'm sure.

9 On the SEHSC sites, there is no

10 air monitoring, right? Is that because it is

11 not a capped wastewater treatment? Or what is

12 the rationale there?

13 MR. THOMAS: That, and, also, the

14 point that we made earlier, that those would

15 not be important for ecological receptors, and

16 the degradation pathways, similar to what

17 Kathy described for soil, would also be the

18 case for air.

19 MR. PENBERTHY: Thank you.

20 MR. LEWIS: Cathy, anything to

21 add?

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: You have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 mentioned both times analyses that the

2 environmental consultant has conducted for

3 you. Have you submitted those to the agency?

4 MR. THOMAS: Yes. That was

5 submitted back in, I think it was, the end of

6 January. Yes, it was January 31st there was

7 a submission to the agency that included the

8 detailed report from the environmental

9 consultant. I think it was almost 80 pages,

10 but it includes a lot of the information that

11 you are mentioning, Cathy.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: We would like

13 to further explore the benthic species and any

14 proposed biota sampling. Could you provide

15 additional information on what you are

16 proposing there and how that might be

17 representative to support a national risk

18 assessment?

19 DR. PLOTZKE: And the actual

20 specifics haven't been identified yet because

21 that will be site-dependent. So, what we have

22 learned from monitoring with these materials
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 and going to different sites already is that

2 it is very site-dependent conditions, whether

3 those type of things, as to what type of

4 species. So, it would be a representative

5 species of the site that we identify. We

6 would do that research ahead of time and

7 understand what the most appropriate benthic

8 species would be.

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And is there a

10 specific number of species that you are

11 proposing to monitor for?

12 DR. PLOTZKE: It would be a

13 representative benthic species like per site,

14 and, then, say, a top predator, forage type of

15 fish at the site as well. But the details

16 really would be developed per site, once we

17 identify those sites.

18 But, as an example as to what we

19 included in our submission, it is a sampling

20 plan that we are doing under the Voluntary

21 Product Stewardship Initiative that gives

22 quite a bit of detail on numbers and how that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 is determined.

2 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So, it is one

3 benthic species and one top predator, is what

4 you are proposing? And was that also included

5 in the January 31st deliverable? Or is

6 that --

7 DR. PLOTZKE: That was included in

8 our proposal.

9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: In the

10 proposal?

11 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, in the ECA and

12 in the appendix there is the sampling plans

13 and protocols that we used with the Voluntary

14 Product Stewardship Initiative, and it would

15 be modeled after that.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And how

17 many sites are you proposing to conduct the

18 sampling at?

19 DR. PLOTZKE: It would be

20 associated with the five municipal wastewater

21 treatment plant sites, in addition to what we

22 are doing under the Voluntary Product
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 Stewardship Initiative, which includes one

2 additional site in the United States, plus,

3 again, Canada, which would be very similar to

4 sites in the U.S. as well, and the direct

5 sites as well. It would be focused on -- the

6 direct sites would be per each direct site.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So, that

8 would be a total of nine sites that you are

9 proposing with the indirect and the five

10 POTWs?

11 DR. PLOTZKE: Combined. And plus,

12 in addition to our Voluntary Product

13 Stewardship, which has four sites total.

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And have

15 you also provided the details of the Voluntary

16 Product Stewardship Program to us?

17 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, that is in the

18 appendix as well of our submission.

19 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. Okay. 

20 We will take a look at that.

21 And you think that that

22 combination of sites would be representative?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, and combined

2 with the dataset that we already have. So, we

3 already have pretty extensive monitoring on

4 biota with some of our programs as well that

5 is being prepared for peer-review publication

6 and has been presented around the world.

7 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And in

8 terms of the trophic levels that you are

9 proposing, could you provide some additional

10 rationale on why you think a single benthic

11 and a single higher trophic level is

12 sufficient to understand the bioaccumulation

13 for these compounds?

14 DR. PLOTZKE: And again, that

15 builds on the program that we have done

16 previously. So, we have done pretty extensive

17 biomagnification/trophic magnification

18 studies, Lake Pepin in Minnesota as well as

19 Oslo Fjord in Norway, to look at the behavior

20 within the tropic levels. We have that

21 understanding already. So, this would be,

22 basically, representing what we found in those
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 trophic-level studies.

2 And the benthic organism really is

3 the focus because we know the highest

4 concentrations that you might find out there

5 in the environment really would be found in

6 the sediment. As well as, even if you look at

7 what we have done in Canada, we have completed

8 a risk assessment on sediment organisms and

9 have shown that there is no risk associated

10 with the concentrations that are being found

11 in environments that are probably very similar

12 to the United States.

13 MR. THOMAS: And, Cathy, the other

14 thing I would point out with bioaccumulation,

15 in particular, that was looked at in detail

16 and very comprehensively as part of the D5

17 water review, those three independent

18 scientists who are widely considered experts

19 on the top have concluded that D5 is not

20 bioaccumulative.

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. So, you

22 think that the biota that you are proposing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 will provide a sufficient understanding of the

2 distribution within the food web?

3 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes.

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And you are

5 planning to build from the Lake Pepin and the

6 other work that was done in Canada?

7 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes.

8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And are

9 you proposing -- you mentioned that the

10 sampling would be site-dependent. So, would

11 there be an initial characterization to

12 identify the representative species that would

13 be subject to monitoring?

14 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes, that is what we

15 have done with every one of our sites.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. I think

17 that --

18 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess in the

19 proposals there is mentioned two sampling

20 events per site, I guess. What does that

21 exactly mean, and how do you time and choose

22 the events, and all that?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 DR. PLOTZKE: And we call it two

2 monitoring events. They could be spaced a

3 year apart, but they might not be. We will

4 also factor that in as we look at the

5 selection sites.

6 So, depending upon the geographic

7 locations, if we were to want to take one site

8 and sample during one season versus another,

9 then we might incorporate it that way. Or we

10 could space it just a year apart. So, that

11 will be factored into the design of the

12 selection of the sites.

13 And we do know right now from the

14 work that has been done in Canada already

15 looking at seasonality that there is not much

16 of an impact. But that would allow us to have

17 some flexibility if we wanted to incorporate

18 that.

19 MR. LEWIS: Interested parties at

20 this time, do you have any comments on what

21 you have heard so far as part of the

22 discussions this morning?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 (No response.)

2 Seeing none, Cathy, anything you

3 want to add?

4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. For the

5 biota monitoring that has been done, do you

6 recall the concentrations that have been

7 measured in those samples?

8 DR. PLOTZKE: I probably would

9 have to look that up, the specific

10 concentrations. But we selected sites like,

11 for example, Lake Pepin and Oslo Fjord because

12 we knew we would have detectable

13 concentrations. So, we wanted to ensure that

14 we had measurable concentration in biota, so

15 that we could look across the food web.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And in

17 terms of characterization of the Lake Pepin

18 site, how do you characterize that in terms of

19 looking at the U.S. overall? Is it

20 representative? Is it a high-end kind of an

21 environment in terms of other environments

22 where you might find biota present in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 U.S.?

2 DR. PLOTZKE: Yes. If you look at

3 sort of what feeds into Lake Pepin -- and we

4 have done quite a bit of characterization of

5 it because we had additional monitoring there

6 previously. But the City of Minneapolis,

7 really, and a number of wastewater treatment

8 plants feed into that portion into Lake Pepin,

9 which is really a part of the Mississippi. 

10 So, it is pretty representative of the United

11 States.

12 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. Thanks

13 for those clarifications on your proposal.

14 MR. LEWIS: Ward, other comments

15 you might have?

16 MR. PENBERTHY: You know,

17 obviously, when you get to the manufacturing,

18 processing, and formulating sites, we are

19 concerned that the gamut is not covered. I

20 guess, are there, of the 13 sites, specific

21 sites, there are specific sites, as I

22 understand it, that don't have releases to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 water or releases to other factors that would

2 basically mean their releases would be of

3 lesser interest. I mean, I am just trying to

4 understand how many of those, how many sites

5 are there that fit that kind of criteria.

6 MR. THOMAS: Which criteria now?

7 MR. PENBERTHY: That don't have

8 any releases to water or, you know, there are

9 circumstances of their releases that make them

10 not necessarily pertinent to the analysis that

11 we are trying to do.

12 MR. MAIT: Russell Mait with

13 Evonik.

14 Ward, I want to clarify, you are

15 asking are these facilities discharge

16 facilities?

17 MR. PENBERTHY: To water.

18 MR. MAIT: To water? My

19 recollection, there may be one or two, but not

20 the majority.

21 MR. PENBERTHY: (Off mic comment)

22 MR. MAIT: Well, these facilities
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 that are not included in the four, they all

2 discharge to a POTW. So, the industrial

3 effluent from those facilities is going to a

4 POTW. So, as we explained before, those could

5 be captured in the five municipal sites

6 because those are obviously POTWs that are

7 true for effluent.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: In some of our

9 previous discussions, there were, I think, at

10 least my notes here said we talked about or

11 there was a suggestion that 39 sites might be

12 appropriate in previous discussions. Is that

13 still -- why was there such a dropoff, I

14 guess?

15 DR. PLOTZKE: Well, what we had

16 proposed originally was that we would use a

17 screening approach to identifying probably

18 five sites, coming down to five sites, but

19 that we would screen only sediment, to then

20 look at the concentration and then identify

21 the top five sites.

22 MR. PENBERTHY: So, you would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 screen the sediment of --

2 DR. PLOTZKE: Thirty-nine sites.

3 MR. PENBERTHY: And then, from

4 that, pick your five?

5 DR. PLOTZKE: Five.

6 MR. PENBERTHY: Is that still the

7 plan or is that --

8 DR. PLOTZKE: No. No, because we

9 were told that wasn't acceptable.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay.

11 DR. PLOTZKE: And I think, too,

12 when you look at the dataset that we do have

13 from both our monitoring and the modeling that

14 we have done, and modeling really even for the

15 wastewater treatment plant, I think the five

16 really are representative of what you find. 

17 And then, it will show you from the mass18 balance kind of perspective, with the

19 different media that you are going to monitor,

20 that will be very similar to what we found

21 elsewhere in the world.

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

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 I think we have made pretty clear that all the

2 13 sites that have either a direct release to

3 water or a release to POTW we are interested

4 in having those monitored. Okay.

5 And also, we still have to figure

6 out between us and work out what the right

7 number of POTW sites is because I don't think

8 -- well, I will defer to our exposure

9 assessors, but I don't think that we would be

10 -- well, I think we would have a hard time

11 defending a risk assessment just based on five

12 POTWs. That is my thinking right now, not

13 examining sort of the more detailed rationale

14 of why that might work or not.

15 MR. THOMAS: So, Ward, just to

16 clarify so that I am clear, what we have

17 included in the proposal is monitoring for

18 those four of our member sites that have

19 direct discharges to surface waters. So, what

20 you are suggesting is you would want to have

21 all member facilities included in the

22 monitoring proposal regardless of whether they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 are water direct discharges or not? Even if

2 they are discharges to a municipal wastewater

3 treatment facility, you would like to see

4 those monitored as well?

5 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct.

6 MR. LEWIS: At this time,

7 interested parties, any comments about what we

8 have heard so far?

9 Yes, please identify yourself.

10 MS. FINLEY: Hi. This is Cynthia

11 Finley with NACWA again.

12 I can provide just some other

13 comments about POTWs that I think might be

14 useful, if that is all right. And again, no

15 opinion right now about the number of POTWs

16 that are included.

17 The manufacturing facilities that

18 discharge POTWs, they can be regulated by

19 POTWs themselves through the pretreatment

20 program. All POTWs of a certain size must

21 have a pretreatment program in place, and

22 there are certain priority pollutants that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 they must consider in the pretreatment

2 program. And then, they are also able to

3 establish local limits for anything that they

4 need to.

5 So, in effect, industrial

6 dischargers can be controlled by POTWs,

7 discharges into the POTW itself. The problem

8 that POTWs have is that they can't control

9 discharges from domestic sources. So,

10 siloxanes or other chemicals that are heavily

11 used in consumer products make their way into

12 the sewer system and to the treatment plant.

13 So, concern for POTWs is not just

14 from industrial or manufacturing facilities. 

15 It is what comes from people's homes and

16 businesses as well.

17 So, just in considering what POTWs

18 should be sampled or how many should be

19 sampled, it is something to consider. It is

20 not just industrial. It is consumer product

21 use also.

22 And going back to my previous
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 comment about numbers of POTWs, one number I

2 do have off the top of my head is that NACWA

3 represents almost 300 municipal wastewater

4 treatment agencies. The populations served

5 range from very small, 1700 people, all the

6 way up to the very largest in the country,

7 which is 8.5 million people. So, that kind of

8 gives you a feel for how big the range can be

9 of the size of POTWs.

10 And our 300 members do cover the

11 majority of the sewered population in the U.S. 

12 So, if you consider that 300 is covering most

13 of the sewage that goes to POTWs versus 16,000

14 or 20,000, whatever number you are using, that

15 gives you some perspective.

16 MR. LEWIS: So, at least the

17 comments that you have made now and previously

18 in terms of the number of POTWs, and what you

19 have heard in discussions at EPA and industry,

20 do you have any reaction as an interested

21 party about what the number of POTWs should

22 be?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 MS. FINLEY: I am not prepared at

2 this point to make any kind of statement on

3 the number. Those are just things to

4 consider, I think, when looking at that

5 number. So, again, I would like to look more

6 at the analysis that has been done to date and

7 give it some more consideration.

8 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. PENBERTHY: Do you have any

10 insight into what specific design features of

11 POTWs should be considered when establishing

12 a sampling plan or selection plan for

13 monitoring?

14 MS. FINLEY: That is something

15 that I would like to get some input from our

16 members about. Because there are so many

17 different configurations of POTWs, it is hard

18 to generalize overall. So, that is something

19 else that should be considered in the number,

20 is the different types of treatment. And that

21 is listed a bit in what is considered right

22 now in the five. But determining if that is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 representative or not will be important, I

2 think.

3 MR. LEWIS: Cathy, anything else

4 you have?

5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: In terms of the

6 biota monitoring, we have looked at the

7 previous work. We do believe that more

8 substantial biota monitoring would be needed

9 for a nationally-representative assessment. 

10 And so, I think we would definitely be looking

11 at more substantial biota monitoring to

12 understand that situation within the U.S.

13 MR. THOMAS: Could you provide a

14 few more details with respect to specifically

15 what you would like to see?

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. Yes. We

17 would like to include the direct and indirect

18 sites as well as the POTW sites.

19 MR. THOMAS: Well, with respect to

20 the biota monitoring in particular.

21 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yes. Yes. 

22 Benthic and aquatic.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 DR. PLOTZKE: Let me just clarify. 

2 So, you are suggesting that, in addition to

3 the direct sites, that we do biota monitoring

4 at the indirect sites? Yet, they are not

5 discharging to a surface water. So, we are

6 going to be doing biota monitoring at the

7 municipal wastewater treatment plant. But

8 there would be really no location to do biota

9 monitoring with the indirect.

10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: So, there

11 aren't any releases to water at the indirect

12 sites?

13 DR. PLOTZKE: Not to surface

14 water. The only release to surface water is

15 at our direct discharge sites.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay.

17 DR. PLOTZKE: The rest of them

18 will go through municipal wastewater

19 treatment.

20 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. And in

21 terms of the biota that we are interested in,

22 we are looking at benthic invertebrates,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 algae, aquatic invertebrates, and both high

2 and low trophic fish.

3 DR. PLOTZKE: And that is pretty

4 much what we have done in our other programs. 

5 To do, basically, a food-web type of study,

6 you need to have pretty good understanding of

7 the environment, which we will do that looking

8 at the benthic and the top-level fish in these

9 different sites, but you also need to have

10 access to the different types of species.

11 Like, for example, with Lake

12 Pepin, we had to work with the DNR. It

13 becomes a much more complicated program, and

14 we do feel that what we have done in Lake

15 Pepin and Oslo Fjord really represent that.

16 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Okay. Well,

17 thanks for sharing that. I appreciate the

18 additional clarification.

19 MR. LEWIS: So, what we have

20 accomplished so far is in terms of we have

21 heard the presentation from SEHSC, and thank

22 you for that, and some comments from
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 interested parties, and in terms of dialog

2 with EPA.

3 What I would like to do now is to

4 take a break. It is now 11:20. And I would

5 like to reconvene at 11:35, to give people

6 time in terms of digesting what we have heard

7 right now. And let's reconvene at 11:35.

8 Thank you.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

10 matter went off the record at 11:20 a.m. and

11 resumed at 11:39 a.m.)

12 MR. LEWIS: I would like to

13 reconvene.

14 During the recess, we had an

15 opportunity in terms of digesting what we

16 heard today. Before EPA has a response,

17 Karluss, do you have anything else you want to

18 add? Or, interested parties, anything else to

19 add?

20 MR. THOMAS: Yes. Thank you.

21 Before we get started again, I

22 just wanted to circle back to, if I could, the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 original purpose of the exercise, at least as

2 we envisioned it.

3 I think, Paul, you made some

4 remarks at the beginning of the meeting to

5 kind of review what the proposal intended to

6 provide. And I think what we developed was

7 consistent with what the agency had originally

8 provided us in terms of guidance on what you

9 guys were attempting to accomplish. I just

10 wanted to revisit that, just to make sure that

11 it is still, indeed, the goal before we have

12 further discussion.

13 So, what we thought we were

14 attempting to develop was a proposal that

15 would provide additional information on the

16 presence and concentration of D4 and D5 in the

17 environment and on resources of and pathways

18 to the environmental concentrations of D4 and

19 D5.

20 So, if that is, indeed, still the

21 goal of this effort, I really just wanted to

22 highlight again that, when we developed the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 conceptual site models, the idea was to have

2 models that you could use to simulate

3 representative facilities in the country with

4 respect to environmental releases of D4 and

5 D5. Because, again, if what we are attempting

6 to do is to provide exposure data,

7 environmental exposure data, to support a risk

8 assessment, we believe these models were

9 developed for that purpose.

10 So, our intent was never to

11 monitor every individual facility. The goal

12 was to monitor a representative sampling of

13 the facilities that allows you to validate, if

14 you will, the conceptual site models that were

15 generated to support aggregating facilities.

16 So, again, I go back to the MPF

17 sites. We focused on those with direct

18 discharges to surface waters because those,

19 again, were the focus for environmental

20 releases.

21 Now those facilities that are

22 releasing to the POTWs, those are going to be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 picked up, or facilities that are similar to

2 those are going to be picked up, with the

3 wastewater treatment plant monitoring because

4 those would not likely be any different from

5 any other facility that released processed

6 wastewater to a POTW.

7 So, I just wanted to kind of go

8 back to that, to just reconfirm that what we

9 are trying to do is generate data that would

10 be useful for a risk assessment, and a part of

11 that is going to be validating these

12 conceptual site models around the

13 environmental pathways that are going to be

14 important for that assessment.

15 Is that still the case?

16 MR. LEWIS: Yes, it is, and I

17 think EPA will provide more clarification in

18 terms of what they heard today. And I like

19 your point in terms of how we are going to be

20 using the data in terms of for risk

21 assessment, and the model concept per se. We

22 could have further discussion about that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 Before I turn to EPA, interested

2 parties, do you have anything else to add

3 based on what you heard this morning?

4 (No response.)

5 Seeing none, I will turn to EPA in

6 terms of your thoughts in terms of next steps

7 on what you heard for the past hour.

8 MR. PENBERTHY: I think,

9 obviously, we have difficulties with the POTW

10 issue. I am not sure we can just talk through

11 that here.

12 So, one thing that I would like to

13 propose, and see if the group is interested in

14 this, is to put together a technical group to

15 develop a sampling plan for POTWs that would

16 have a basis in a science that is acceptable

17 to all the participants because this is a

18 consensus process. So, we need to be sure

19 that anything that we pursue satisfies the

20 needs of everyone participating.

21 You know, I think I have made

22 pretty clear that we are concerned that five
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 is not enough. And I understand you have a

2 rationale for that which you laid out in a

3 document in January. We have got to go back

4 and look at that in more detail.

5 But I think it would help if we

6 could get some of our scientists at EPA and

7 SEHSC and from the POTW groups, in particular,

8 to work on that issue about what is the right

9 number of POTWs to sample, why, what are the

10 factors, and how they should be selected. And

11 so, that would be a proposal I would make as

12 a next step.

13 I am not so sure our differences

14 on biota to be monitored are so much different

15 at this point. Maybe we can hold that. Maybe

16 a similar approach for that might be

17 necessary, but I think that is a little bit

18 more of a simpler issue to deal with. And

19 maybe we can do that subsequently.

20 I guess, Karluss, getting back to

21 your purpose, I think the purpose reads right

22 as long as you recognize where you are going
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 to use that data for risk assessment. And so,

2 when we do that, I think that adds a layer of

3 robustness. So, it is more than our worst4 case analysis. It is more than an anecdotal

5 collection of data. It is something that is

6 meaningful and representative that meets our

7 needs for risk assessment.

8 And I think when we talk about the

9 direct dischargers and the dischargers to

10 POTWs from your facilities, I think as long as

11 the POTWs selected for monitoring include

12 those facilities, I think that should take

13 care of itself.

14 So, I guess that would be my idea

15 for a next step, is really work on the POTW

16 issue because I think that is the most

17 significant difference that we have.

18 MR. MAIT: Russell Mait. I do

19 have a question for you.

20 When you talk about the indirect

21 discharges to POTWs, my question to you is,

22 the formulators and processors, must they only
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 be from our member group to be representative?

2 MR. PENBERTHY: No. No, not at

3 all.

4 MR. MAIT: So, if we could

5 identify other facilities that are processors

6 and formulators of siloxanes, that would

7 validate, that would be sufficient as well?

8 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct.

9 MR. MAIT: Okay.

10 MR. PENBERTHY: That is sort of

11 the vector that we want to address, is the

12 formulators and processors and what their

13 contributions typically are to a POTW and what

14 is their influent and effluent and sediment

15 levels that they potentially contribute to

16 near those.

17 MR. MAIT: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. LEWIS: What we would like to

19 have is, if you will, a work group that would

20 convene relatively quickly with interested

21 parties. Cynthia, we would like to have you

22 as part of this or a person from your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 organization to be part of this, since you

2 provided some helpful comments; from SEHSC,

3 and also, obviously, EPA.

4 We want to convene quickly; let's

5 say in the next two weeks to have this work

6 group to meet, but to come to the meeting

7 being prepared for a discussion to bring

8 information to have a discussion based on what

9 Ward just said right now. And then, from

10 there, for the working group, if you will, to

11 present to this entire body here in another

12 subsequent public meeting.

13 Does that seem acceptable to

14 everyone here? Interested parties? SEHSC?

15 MR. THOMAS: And just to clarify,

16 the purpose of the smaller team is essentially

17 to develop an acceptable proposal for the

18 POTW-monitoring portion of the program?

19 MR. LEWIS: Right. It is not in

20 terms of developing an acceptable ECA. It is

21 basically to tee the issue up for this entire

22 body to discuss and develop consensus on.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 MR. THOMAS: Okay.

2 MR. LEWIS: Microphone, please.

3 MR. DOYLE: The work product, if

4 you will, from this work group would be what

5 exactly?

6 MR. LEWIS: So, in terms of non7 POTWs, the sampling strategy, basically, where

8 we have differences now in this room. But I

9 think it will be best if we get this group

10 together and the technical experts to actually

11 talk about the issues and to develop, if you

12 will, an approach that this work group would

13 find acceptable, and then to present it to

14 this entire body here.

15 MR. DOYLE: So, the work group

16 would be essentially developing a mini17 proposal, so to speak, that would be

18 substituted for the original proposal we have? 

19 So, it would be a proposal, and then it would

20 be brought back to the wider group?

21 MR. LEWIS: That is correct.

22 MR. DOYLE: And from there, set up
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 a strawman, if you will, to try to or --

2 MR. LEWIS: Right. Because I

3 think what we are having here is a very

4 helpful discussion with this interested party,

5 but I think it is best -- let's take a sidebar

6 conversation, if you will, a working group

7 discussion with technical experts to sort this

8 issue out, and then return to this entire

9 group here.

10 DR. PLOTZKE: What might be

11 helpful maybe is if we identify, what are the

12 key elements do you want this subgroup to work

13 on?

14 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

15 DR. PLOTZKE: So, I think that is

16 what Trent was kind of getting at. Is it a

17 replacement of what we have already proposed

18 or is it really more detail, specifics around

19 it?

20 MR. LEWIS: I think it is probably

21 a combination of both.

22 Ward, do you want to add?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. I mean, I

2 think what we need is a science-based

3 rationale that covers what is a correct number

4 of sites, POTWs to sample. What are the

5 factors that should be considered in selecting

6 the sites? Does it cover the range of

7 different treatment configurations and

8 influent circumstances? And so, basically,

9 work out a plan that could be more generally

10 and comfortably agreed to.

11 MR. THOMAS: And if I understand

12 you correctly, what you are asking the subteam

13 to do is to go back and look at the scientific

14 rationale for the wastewater treatment

15 component of the program, but also to

16 potentially develop a modified version that

17 might be more acceptable. And if that is,

18 indeed, the case, we are certainly willing to

19 participate in those discussions, but I guess

20 I would have to say, on behalf of SEHSC, we

21 wouldn't be able to commit our members to that

22 until there was a full vetting of that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 proposal among the upper management of our

2 member companies.

3 I am sure you guys will understand

4 that all of our members are multinational

5 corporations. And some of the folks that need

6 to ultimately sign off on the proposal aren't

7 in this room.

8 So, we are happy to participate in

9 those discussions. And if that ultimately

10 results in a revised version of what we have

11 already presented, then that is something that

12 would have to get further agreement and buy13 off on from the upper management levels of our

14 member companies.

15 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Exactly. 

16 We have the same circumstance here, that we

17 would have to vet anything that we would agree

18 to in this room first.

19 But, yes. No, it is just a

20 smaller group to really get down to the

21 details on the why's and how's.

22 MR. LEWIS: Right. I think what
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 Ward is saying is true, in that in terms of

2 what the work group would present, and how we

3 would modify the ECA, it would have to be

4 vetted in terms of respective organizations.

5 But I think what we are trying to

6 accomplish here in the next few weeks is, now

7 that we understand some of the issues, let's

8 bring the scientific experts from respective

9 organizations to look at the correct number of

10 sites, the factors to consider, and have a

11 substantive discussion to present back here.

12 MR. DOYLE: Procedurally, Paul,

13 then, as far as how that fits into the

14 framework of the ECA negotiation process,

15 given the constraints that are in the EPA

16 regulations on negotiating meetings being open

17 to the public, and so forth, that would be,

18 essentially, then, official, if you will,

19 negotiation meetings with minutes and

20 interested parties, you know, and ultimately

21 published?

22 MR. LEWIS: It will be more of a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 working group meeting. And then, from there,

2 that type of discussion would be presented at

3 a full public meeting. So, you could look at

4 this more as a work group discussion. It

5 won't be in terms of a public setting per se.

6 But what will be decided or deliberated on and

7 agreed on at the work group meeting, the

8 entire public will have opportunity here.

9 Does that answer your question?

10 Other questions, comments? Yes,

11 please.

12 MS. BOYD: I figure I had better

13 ask this question right now because I am

14 thinking about timing and about your initial

15 statements, that you want everything completed

16 by a certain date, and that we know how long

17 it takes for things to come back with

18 comments.

19 So, if we are talking about a

20 working group meeting in two weeks, and then

21 coming back for a public meeting to discuss

22 the results of that working group, in between
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 the working group and the public meeting there

2 has to be discussion among the members'

3 leadership as to whether that revision is

4 acceptable. And there could be two weeks'

5 timeframe in there. So, we could be talking,

6 adding the numbers up, six weeks.

7 So, is the clock starting or being

8 extended?

9 MR. LEWIS: I will go to your

10 first question directly. The clock has

11 started. So, where we are right now, we want

12 to be, to be complete within six months.

13 And in terms of knowing what a

14 schedule is, we want to have this work group

15 discussion and to complete the discussion in

16 two weeks. So, the clock has begun, and we

17 need to complete this. We are not

18 anticipating an extension at this time.

19 Another question?

20 MS. CARLTON: This is Betsy

21 Carlton from Bluestar Silicons.

22 I am one of those international
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 companies.

2 MR. LEWIS: Can anyone pass the

3 microphone down?

4 MS. CARLTON: Is this one not

5 working?

6 MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

7 MS. CARLTON: Okay. Thank you.

8 This is Betsy Carlton from

9 Bluestar Silicons.

10 And I am one of those vastly11 international companies. I am not convinced

12 that two weeks is sufficient time to run

13 through what we need to do before we get to

14 that meeting. I just wondered why you picked

15 two weeks as the potential meeting time. This

16 is sort of a difficult challenge.

17 MR. LEWIS: Why we chose two

18 weeks, again, in terms of what many people

19 have said, we are aware in terms of the

20 timeline. It is a compressed timeline. And

21 we feel, at least in terms of getting the

22 subgroup of scientists to at least talk about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 it in two weeks could be accomplished.

2 Again, it is not for an issue to

3 be vetted and approved at that time by the

4 entire audience here. It is to have a

5 substantive scientific deliberation on the

6 issues to eventually bring back to the entire

7 group. You will have an opportunity, when you

8 hear the working group presentation, to react,

9 comment, respond to that.

10 So, we want to be conscious in

11 terms of trying to complete this within six

12 months, and we feel that two weeks is enough

13 time to get people together and start thinking

14 about these issues that have been available in

15 the public docket for some time. So, these

16 people are at least aware in terms of what the

17 issues are right now.

18 DR. PLOTZKE: Can I ask a

19 clarifying question, too?

20 MR. LEWIS: Sure.

21 DR. PLOTZKE: So, are you thinking

22 for this work group a face-to-face?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 MR. LEWIS: A conference call

2 could work also. Since it sounds like we have

3 international people or not all are here in

4 D.C., we can have a teleconference in terms of

5 working that out.

6 Again, it will be a relatively

7 small group, but a group that would have the

8 proper technical expertise to have this type

9 of discussion.

10 MR. THOMAS: Would it be possible,

11 I think, to help us identify the most

12 appropriate folks to join that discussion? 

13 Would it be possible for us to ask the agency

14 to provide a brief agenda for this meeting and

15 some statement for what the expectation is in

16 terms of what we would like to accomplish? I

17 think that would really help us identify the

18 right folks to participate, if we know what we

19 are going to talk about and what we are hoping

20 to accomplish.

21 MR. LEWIS: Okay. I think that is

22 fine.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 In terms of having more structure,

2 I think it will be helpful for all us in terms

3 of what we want to accomplish here in kind of

4 laying out the questions that we want to have

5 the work group to react to. I think that will

6 be very helpful. Good.

7 Ward or Cathy, anything you want

8 to add in terms of what was just presented

9 now?

10 (No response.)

11 So, we will get the agenda out in

12 the next few days in terms of questions about

13 the structure. I think everyone is in

14 agreement here it is a tight timeline, and the

15 more focused that we can be, the greater sense

16 of accomplishment and output.

17 MR. THOMAS: And in terms of steps

18 following that smaller work group meeting, are

19 there any thoughts around when the next face20 to-face meeting would be of the larger group

21 or what the potential timing for that might

22 be?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 MR. LEWIS: I think probably two

2 weeks after that would be appropriate to have

3 the next meeting with all the participants

4 that are noted here.

5 MR. THOMAS: So, end of July?

6 MR. LEWIS: End of July, right. 

7 Because, again, we are all conscious in terms

8 of that six-month time period. I can't stress

9 it enough, that we want to have a sense of

10 accomplishment. We made great strides here

11 today. There is more work that has to be

12 done. We appreciate in terms of what your

13 team has presented and in terms of interested

14 party comments, but we need to make sure we

15 get this done by the end of December.

16 I would deal with you directly in

17 terms of who your person you want to have

18 represented.

19 Cynthia, I would contact you

20 directly in terms of that area.

21 And are there other interested

22 parties that might want to participate?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 MS. CARLTON: I really hate to be

2 a pain. This is Betsy Carlton again from

3 Bluestar Silicons.

4 Expecting me to get input back

5 from Europe two weeks after that meeting is a

6 dream, a total dream.

7 MR. PENBERTHY: I think we all

8 realize this is a difficult proposition, but

9 I think by the end of July we should have a

10 better idea of where we stand, right, and if

11 things are achievable or not. And then, we

12 want to make progress towards reaching an

13 agreement. And so, I am not prepared to give

14 up on it right now, and I don't think

15 stretching out the timeline is going to help. 

16 So, I think we need to have the press of a

17 deadline to make progress here.

18 MR. THOMAS: And I think, just to

19 kind of further amplify Betsy's point, I mean,

20 again, I think we would certainly be willing

21 to participate in discussions. But as long as

22 there is no explicit expectation that any of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 our members are going to absolutely agree to

2 specific elements of changes beyond what has

3 already been proposed, we couldn't commit to

4 that in two weeks and maybe not in four weeks,

5 but certainly we will participate in the

6 discussions. We will make a point to try to

7 take back all the feedback from these calls to

8 the companies in a timely manner.

9 But, again, there can't be any

10 expectation that we are going to necessarily

11 be able to commit to anything specifically

12 that results from these discussions until

13 after we get full buy-in from all of our

14 members. At this point, unfortunately, we

15 won't be able to put a timing on that. I

16 think that is what Betsy is trying to

17 communicate.

18 MR. LEWIS: Right. And, Betsy, I

19 appreciate, in terms of being from an

20 international company, how do you basically

21 reach out to your members.

22 You know, what we want to try to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 have is some clear expectations and clear

2 outcomes. So, I think we all agree upon that. 

3 And knowing that there may be some

4 complications that may not be able to be

5 fulfilled by mid-July, but let's try, at least

6 try, in terms of making success in that area.

7 MR. FLACK: Hugh Flack from

8 Wacker.

9 You are going to be generating an

10 agenda for this meeting. Would it be possible

11 for you to list the participants you would

12 propose, so that we can properly man and staff

13 our own -- you know, so that we can address

14 all the appropriate issues?

15 MS. FEHRENBACHER: But I think it

16 would be helpful, at least from the agency's

17 perspective, to know if Wacker and any of the

18 other interested parties would be interested

19 in working on this technical work group.

20 So, could we ask who might be

21 interested among the interested parties?

22 MR. MAIT: Russell Mait from
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 Evonik.

2 We are one of the interested

3 parties, but we are also a member of SEHSC. 

4 So, in the interest to sort of tee-off of what

5 Betsy was saying, to move this along -- I work

6 for a German company. So, it would be better

7 for me to have somebody in this meeting in two

8 weeks as a participant.

9 So, if you want to advance this

10 faster, it would be better for me to have a

11 rep in the meeting. Therefore, I have a

12 better conduit back to my folks back in

13 Europe.

14 So, from my standpoint, Evonik

15 would like to participate.

16 MR. LEWIS: Are there other

17 interested parties that would like to

18 participate?

19 DR. PLOTZKE: Well, this is Kathy

20 Plotzke from Dow Corning.

21 And, yes, we would like to

22 participate.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Other

2 interested parties?

3 MS. CARLTON: Bluestar will be

4 doing our best to participate.

5 MR. LEWIS: Good.

6 MR. FLACK: Wacker Chemical

7 Corporation would like to participate.

8 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Great.

9 DR. DeLEO: American Cleaning

10 Institute.

11 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

12 MS. DuMARS: Momentive will also

13 send someone.

14 MR. LEWIS: So, based on hearing

15 from the interested parties when we went

16 around, it sounds like all of the parties, if

17 we kind of go one-by-one, would be interested.

18 So, we can work on an agenda. We

19 will work in terms of scheduling. We will

20 have it be a teleconference. So, that way,

21 people don't need to travel back to D.C. And

22 we will scope out in terms of what we want to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 accomplish.

2 So, it sounds like what we are

3 going to have is SEHSC, interested party

4 representative, and also EPA representative.

5 And again, the focus here is

6 having a scientific discussion as a work group

7 to address these issues, knowing full well

8 that this type of discussion from a working

9 group perspective will be brought back to this

10 entire core here for discussion and

11 deliberation.

12 Any questions?

13 (No response.)

14 Seeing none, Ward, do you want to

15 continue?

16 MR. PENBERTHY: No.

17 MR. LEWIS: Before we adjourn, are

18 there any additional comments, questions about

19 next steps?

20 Yes?

21 Pass the microphone down.

22 MS. MIHAICH: Hi. This is Ellen
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 Mihaich with Bluestar Silicons.

2 It is probably a naive question,

3 and I should know the answer to this, but we

4 were talking about the January 31st submission

5 that has a lot of the detail on what the

6 consultant -- and I am looking at Kathy right

7 now -- the consultant did. Wouldn't that be

8 very important for everyone on this work group

9 to make sure that they have read and provided

10 to others? I don't believe that made it into

11 The Federal Register, or did it?

12 MR. PENBERTHY: I believe it did. 

13 This is January 31st.

14 MS. FEHRENBACHER: It was the

15 January 31st submission, yes.

16 MR. LEWIS: Great. So, we will

17 make it available not only to the group here,

18 but also make it available in the docket.

19 Other questions, comments before

20 we adjourn?

21 (No response.)

22 So, our next step is in terms of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 having a work group meeting. We will have a

2 representative from each interested party. We

3 are looking at having that in about two weeks,

4 and we will be communicating with you in terms

5 of optimal time. It will be a teleconference. 

6 And like what we said, we will be having a

7 focused agenda in terms of what the

8 expectations are of the questions and issues

9 that we want to have resolved.

10 MR. DOYLE: What is the timeline

11 for the minutes?

12 MR. LEWIS: The minutes, our

13 contractor would have the transcripts

14 available in about two weeks and, then, from

15 there, it requires some editing. So, I would

16 say in about three weeks.

17 Right. So, the minutes will be

18 available. Actually, it is a transcript that

19 will be available publicly. So, we will make

20 that available.

21 Cathy, anything else to add?

22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I don't think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 so.

2 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Ward, anything

3 else to add?

4 MR. PENBERTHY: No.

5 MR. LEWIS: Well, again, I want to

6 thank everyone for joining us today. I think

7 we had a very engaging and fruitful

8 discussion.

9 I want to again thank industry and

10 your team, EPA, interested parties, for being

11 here. And we are looking forward to our next

12 discussion as a working group in terms of

13 addressing some of the issues we were

14 discussing this morning.

15 Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

17 matter went off the record at 12:07 p.m.)

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

A

able 19:16 32:9

42:4,11 68:2

85:21 96:11,15

97:4

above-entitled 74:9

103:16

absolutely 96:1

acceptable 65:9

78:16 82:13,17,20

83:13 85:17 89:4

access 28:16 73:10

accomplish 75:9

87:6 92:16,20

93:3 100:1

accomplished

73:20 91:1

accomplishment

93:16 94:10

accorded 13:2

account 13:4

achievable 95:11

achieve 14:13

32:10

activated 26:18,22

43:20,22 44:22

45:2

actively 9:10

activities 41:20

actual 53:19

add 19:8 33:19

36:8 52:21 61:3

74:18,19 78:2

84:22 93:8 102:21

103:3

added 46:11

adding 89:6

addition 5:10 6:9

13:10 17:12 43:12

46:2,12 55:21

56:12 72:2

additional 6:10

17:22 24:2 25:20

28:12 36:9 53:15

56:2 57:9 62:5

73:18 75:15

100:18

address 81:11

97:13 100:7

addressing 40:4

103:13

adds 80:2

adhesives 6:7

adjourn 100:17

101:20

Adrian 23:21

advance 98:9

advise 13:16

Affairs 10:8 12:6

affiliation 12:15

agencies 2:17 10:5

10:10,11 69:4

agency 1:3 6:15 7:3

7:14 14:15 18:16

19:21 45:16 53:3

53:7 75:7 92:13

agency's 97:16

agenda 5:17 13:12

15:4,5 16:14

92:14 93:11 97:10

99:18 102:7

agents 6:6

aggregated 19:9,15

aggregating 76:15

aggregation 19:15

ago 28:7

agree 14:16 86:17

96:1 97:2

agreed 26:16 85:10

88:7

agreement 5:5,21

13:1,19 14:13

25:4 86:12 93:14

95:13

agreements 14:14

ahead 16:16 54:6

air 20:9 21:16

26:21 27:14 39:13

49:10 51:14 52:10

52:18

Akihiro 3:3

algae 73:1

allow 26:20 42:4

60:16

allows 43:5 76:13

alluded 25:19

alphabetical 7:20

amendment 51:13

America 1:1 2:21

2:22 11:9,17

American 2:12

7:21 8:2,6,12 99:9

AMERICAS 3:2

amount 21:15

amounts 22:11

amplify 95:19

analyses 53:1

analysis 32:16 44:8

44:13 45:6,7,10

47:12,22 48:9

51:21 63:10 70:6

80:4

analyzing 32:14

anecdotal 80:4

ANNE 2:6

announced 5:19

announcing 13:13

annual 28:13

answer 31:20,21

88:9 101:3

anticipating 89:18

anyway 16:13

apart 60:3,10

appendix 55:12

56:18

application 51:6

applied 50:19

applies 20:12

appreciate 29:5

73:17 94:12 96:19

approach 64:17

79:16 83:12

appropriate 44:11

54:7 64:12 92:12

94:2 97:14

approved 91:3

approximately

25:22

aquatic 71:22 73:1

Arctic 22:2

area 94:20 97:6

areas 21:22 22:4,13

22:14 26:7 37:8

argue 41:6

aside 40:18

asking 63:15 85:12

aspect 34:1

assessment 6:11

30:18,21,22 40:8

44:6 53:18 58:8

66:11 71:9 76:8

77:10,14,21 80:1

80:7

assessors 66:9

Associate 10:21

associated 21:22

22:14 33:22 37:19

55:20 58:9

Association 2:17

10:5,9

assure 39:16

assured 31:1

attempting 75:9,14

76:5

attend 7:9

audience 91:4

Austria 41:18

Austrian 22:5

42:20

available 13:18

18:12 32:4 42:16

47:19 51:17 91:14

101:17,18 102:14

102:18,19,20

AVCIN 2:2

Avenue 1:20

aware 90:19 91:16

awfully 40:6

a.m 1:19 5:2 74:10

74:11

B

B 3:16

back 21:5 53:5

68:22 74:22 76:16

77:8 79:3,20

83:20 85:13 87:11

88:17,21 91:6

95:4 96:7 98:12

98:12 99:21 100:9

background 5:15

6:2 13:19 30:14

balance 65:18

BARKAS 2:3

based 16:22 21:14

29:17 43:9 45:16

51:16 66:11 78:3

82:8 99:14

basic 31:17

basically 31:5

40:16 44:18 45:20

49:1 57:22 63:2

73:5 82:21 83:7

85:8 96:20

basis 18:6 19:3

24:10 25:5 41:12

45:11 78:16

beginning 7:20

75:4

begun 89:16

behalf 11:18 16:19

85:20

behavior 52:5

57:19

believe 42:10 43:4

71:7 76:8 101:10

101:12

believes 6:15

BELL 2:4

benthic 24:8 27:14

49:9 53:13 54:7

54:13 55:3 57:10

58:2 71:22 72:22

73:8

best 83:9 84:5 99:4

Betsy 2:13 9:6

89:20 90:8 95:2

96:16,18 98:5

Betsy's 95:19

better 6:18 12:18

17:6,6 28:5 31:22

88:12 95:10 98:6

98:10,12

beyond 35:9 37:12

96:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

big 40:14 69:8

bioaccumulation

57:12 58:14

bioaccumulative

58:20

biomagnification...

57:17

biosolids 27:13

38:22 49:9,20,22

50:11,15,18 51:1

51:4

biota 20:20 53:14

57:4 58:22 61:5

61:14,22 71:6,8

71:11,20 72:3,6,8

72:21 79:14

bit 18:10 21:8 25:6

47:4,14 51:22

54:22 62:4 70:21

79:17

Bluestar 2:13 9:2,4

9:7,8 89:21 90:9

95:3 99:3 101:1

Blum 2:14 9:8

BNA 3:19

body 82:11,22

83:14

bottom-dwelling

20:20

Boyd 2:25 12:7

88:12

Branch 44:7

break 74:4

breakdown 44:16

44:20

brief 17:10 21:4

92:14

briefly 7:18 23:13

bring 82:7 87:8

91:6

broadly 32:19

brought 83:20

100:9

Browning 2:21

11:7,7

build 59:5

builds 57:15

businesses 68:16

buy 86:12

buy-in 96:13

C

call 4:2 60:1 92:1

called 5:21

calls 96:7

Canada 22:13 23:2

41:20 42:17 43:15

56:3 58:7 59:6

60:14

Canadian 22:16

capped 26:20 52:11

capped/covered

28:9

capture 38:5

captured 64:5

care 2:19 6:7 10:19

10:22 80:13

Carlton 2:13 9:3,6

9:6 89:20,21 90:4

90:7,8 95:1,2 99:3

case 40:21 52:18

77:15 80:4 85:18

Cathy 2:5 5:10

44:5 52:20 53:11

58:13 61:2 71:3

93:7 102:21

certain 5:22 38:12

42:17 67:20,22

88:16

certainly 16:22

17:2 34:18 85:18

95:20 96:5

CFR 12:21

chain 20:21

Chair 12:8

challenge 90:16

challenges 32:15

chance 13:2

changes 28:4 96:2

characteristics

27:21 28:6 35:3

42:3,10

characterization

59:11 61:17 62:4

characterize 61:18

characterized 48:1

CHARLES 3:20

checking 28:10

29:21

Chemical 2:23 12:3

12:6 99:6

chemicals 3:19 6:4

6:10,20 11:11

30:16 68:10

choose 14:5 59:21

chose 90:17

circle 74:22

circulate 14:10

circumstance 41:8

86:16

circumstances 63:9

85:8

cite 47:6

City 62:6

clarification 30:5

73:18 77:17

clarifications 62:13

clarify 63:14 66:16

72:1 82:15

clarifying 91:19

clarity 12:18

Clean 2:17 10:5,9

48:6

cleaning 2:12 6:6

7:21 8:2,13,18,19

99:9

clear 30:8 31:16

66:1,16 78:22

97:1,1

clearly 31:1,10

44:21

clock 89:7,10,16

closely 25:13

closer 47:12

colleagues 5:9,11

collect 5:22

collecting 32:13

collection 80:5

combination 56:22

84:21

combined 46:3

56:11 57:1

come 9:5 10:6 17:2

48:9 82:6 88:17

comes 68:15

comfortably 85:10

coming 8:7 47:13

64:18 88:21

commenced 1:19

comment 43:6

63:21 69:1 91:9

comments 4:13,22

14:20 15:7 16:1

19:19 29:12,16,22

46:18 48:14 60:20

62:14 67:7,13

69:17 73:22 82:2

88:10,18 94:14

100:18 101:19

commercial 6:5

commit 85:21 96:3

96:11

committed 7:5

commonly 5:21

6:14

communicate

96:17

communicating

102:4

companies 8:14,17

11:3,19 86:2,14

90:1,11 96:8

company 12:3 19:7

96:20 98:6

complete 14:2

36:18 50:5 51:10

89:12,15,17 91:11

completed 14:22

58:7 88:15

compliance 28:3

complicated 73:13

complications 97:4

component 20:16

85:15

components 17:15

compounds 57:13

comprehensively

58:16

compressed 90:20

concentration 25:8

61:14 64:20 75:16

concentrations

18:2,5 21:15,20

22:2,18,19 25:12

26:12,13 28:13

42:5 43:4 58:4,10

61:6,10,13 75:18

concept 77:21

conceptual 18:8,21

19:2,3,11 20:7

24:18 33:11 36:13

51:8 76:1,14

77:12

concern 39:19,22

68:13

concerned 40:6,10

41:2 62:19 78:22

concerns 6:2 31:8

concluded 23:2

58:19

concludes 14:12

conditions 54:2

conduct 14:16

28:15 55:17

conducted 53:2

conduit 98:12

conference 92:1

configurations

70:17 85:7

conscious 91:10

94:7

consensus 14:15

15:14 78:18 82:22

consent 5:5,21

12:22 13:18 14:14

consider 68:1,19

69:12 70:4 87:10

consideration 26:8

70:7

considerations

25:1 35:2 42:6

43:2

considered 58:18

70:11,19,21 85:5

considering 68:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

consistent 17:19

22:12 23:1 27:16

75:7

consistently 41:21

42:22

Constitution 1:20

constraints 87:15

consultant 3:14,20

11:8 19:1,11,13

35:6 44:19 45:20

51:16 53:2,9

101:6,7

consultations 18:17

consulting 18:17

consumer 6:6

68:11,20

contact 94:19

contacting 28:11

contains 13:1

continue 12:19

48:18 100:15

continuing 30:14

contracted 19:1

contractor 102:13

contribute 81:15

contributions 5:13

81:13

control 23:7,10

33:15 68:8

controlled 68:6

convene 81:20 82:4

conversation 46:17

84:6

convinced 90:11

copies 42:19

copy 17:13

core 100:10

Corning 2:15 3:15

9:12,17 23:19

98:20

CORP 2:13

Corporation 2:15

2:16,23 3:2,15

9:13 12:6 99:7

corporations 86:5

correct 34:8 49:3,6

50:9 67:5 81:8

83:21 85:3 87:9

correctly 85:12

correspond 27:20

CORY 2:5

cosmetic 11:2

Council 2:19,22

6:14 10:19,22

11:17

Counsel 10:21

country 69:6 76:3

couple 16:11

cover 37:12 40:12

41:7 69:10 85:6

covered 26:8 34:13

38:8 39:17 62:19

covering 69:12

covers 85:3

criteria 35:6,14

37:22 63:5,6

cross-check 46:14

Crutcher 3:17

CSM4 21:7

Cynthia 2:18 10:7

46:21 67:10 81:21

94:19

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

4:1

D

data 6:1,17 14:7

18:12 19:4,8,14

19:17 20:1,4

21:15 22:12,22

26:2 30:21 31:1

31:14,17 32:22

40:7 41:7,12

42:16,17 43:9

48:5 52:1 76:6,7

77:9,20 80:1,5

database 44:16

dataset 31:6 51:17

57:2 65:12

datasets 25:13

date 43:10 70:6

88:16

dates 13:17

DAVID 2:9

days 14:19 93:12

deadline 95:17

deal 79:18 94:16

December 14:3

15:1 94:15

decided 88:6

defending 66:11

defer 66:8

define 37:21

definitely 71:10

degradation 51:13

52:2,16

DeLeo 2:12 8:1,1,5

8:11,12 99:9

deliberated 88:6

deliberation 91:5

100:11

deliverable 55:5

density 26:10

dependent 46:8

depending 60:6

depends 32:1

described 52:17

design 25:1 60:11

70:10

designated 30:16

designed 38:18

detail 26:4 54:22

58:15 79:4 84:18

101:5

detailed 17:11

25:13 53:8 66:13

details 17:18 28:20

54:15 56:15 71:14

86:21

detectable 21:13,15

21:20 22:1,10,17

42:5 61:12

detection 22:20

31:15,16 32:9

detects 22:9 31:15

determination

44:10

determine 28:9

determined 51:16

55:1

determining 70:22

develop 6:18 15:14

19:2,11 21:11

30:18 31:6 32:21

75:14 78:15 82:17

82:22 83:11 85:16

developed 11:18

18:9 25:3,16 31:2

33:11 45:11 46:4

54:16 75:6,22

76:9

developing 82:20

83:16

development 9:10

12:22 13:7 24:21

diagram 51:11

dialog 74:1

difference 80:17

differences 79:13

83:8

different 18:7

44:17,21 45:22

46:4 54:1 65:19

70:17,20 73:9,10

77:4 79:14 85:7

difficult 20:3 41:22

42:22 90:16 95:8

difficulties 78:9

digesting 74:6,15

dilution 26:7,19

27:1,3,5,7,8 42:7

direct 20:19 23:8

33:2,14,17 34:1,6

35:9 37:8,9 39:5

56:4,6,6 66:2,19

67:1 71:17 72:3

72:15 76:17 80:9

directly 89:10

94:16,20

Director 9:15,22

10:8 11:15 12:5

discharge 23:9

33:2,14,17 35:9

35:15,16 38:2

41:1 63:15 64:2

67:18 72:15

discharged 37:5

dischargers 68:6

80:9,9

discharges 39:15

66:19 67:1,2 68:7

68:9 76:18 80:21

discharging 72:5

discuss 12:10 82:22

88:21

discussed 48:20

discussing 5:5 6:15

12:20 103:14

discussion 5:14

15:12 17:18 29:10

29:15 30:12 31:6

46:19 75:12 77:22

82:7,8 84:4,7

87:11 88:2,4 89:2

89:15,15 92:9,12

100:6,8,10 103:8

103:12

discussions 16:10

60:22 64:9,12

69:19 85:19 86:9

95:21 96:6,12

dispersion 20:9

disproportionately

42:8

distributed 13:20

distribution 25:11

43:18 47:9 59:2

distributions 25:9

ditch 27:2

DNR 73:12

docket 13:10,15

17:12 28:22 91:15

101:18

document 79:3

documents 13:19

doing 32:2,7 54:20

55:22 72:6 99:4

domestic 68:9

Dow 2:15 3:15 9:12

9:16 23:19 98:20

Doyle 3:9 39:8,8

83:3,15,22 87:12

102:10

DR 8:1,5,11 9:14

32:1 33:19 34:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

35:5 36:8,15,21

37:20 39:4 43:6

44:15 45:18 49:20

50:1,21 51:7,22

52:5 53:19 54:12

55:7,11,19 56:11

56:17 57:1,14

59:3,7,14 60:1

61:8 62:2 64:15

65:2,5,8,11 72:1

72:13,17 73:3

84:10,15 91:18,21

98:19 99:9

draft 14:10,12

dream 95:6,6

dropoff 64:13

DuMars 2:19 10:14

10:14 99:12

Dunn 3:16

D.C 1:21 92:4

99:21

D4 6:1,3,10 18:2,5

18:9,14,19 21:16

21:20 22:19 23:18

24:1 30:15,18

31:3 75:16,18

76:4

D5 6:1,3 18:2,5,9

18:14,19 21:16,20

22:20 23:1,3,18

24:1 58:16,19

75:16,19 76:5

E

earlier 17:21 18:22

19:20 21:10 25:19

41:18 52:14

Earth 28:10

East 1:20

ECA 1:6 5:22 6:16

7:15,19 9:11

12:11,20,20 13:3

13:7 14:3,4,11,21

14:22 15:13 29:7

31:2,5 55:11

82:20 87:3,14

ecological 20:13,22

31:9 36:18 51:19

52:15

editing 102:15

EFAST 25:7

effect 68:5

effects 6:3,19

efficiency 38:12

efficient 6:17

effluent 22:17,18

24:7 26:11,13

27:12 28:13 37:18

38:21 39:17 41:1

49:2,8,13,15 64:3

64:7 81:14

effluents 21:19

effort 17:2 75:21

EISENREICH 2:4

either 36:10 66:2

Elaine 2:25 12:7

elements 84:12

96:2

Eleven 7:13

Ellen 2:14 9:8

100:22

emphasis 26:9

emphasize 14:21

ends 51:18

enforceable 5:5,21

engaging 103:7

ensure 13:1 61:13

enter 14:13

entered 16:5 18:20

entire 82:11,21

83:14 84:8 88:8

91:4,6 100:10

environment 18:3

21:1 23:3 36:12

58:5 61:21 73:7

75:17

environmental 1:3

2:22 5:22 6:3,13

6:19 9:16,22

11:16 12:5 18:4

18:13,17 19:1,10

24:13 27:9 32:5

36:1,5 38:9 41:11

50:14,16 53:2,8

75:18 76:4,7,19

77:13

environments

58:11 61:21

envision 28:17

envisioned 75:2

EPA 1:4,19,21 2:1

3:12 4:4,6,8,15,19

5:10,18 6:2,9,12

13:16 14:5,10,11

14:13 15:9 16:20

17:4,12 25:14

26:1 30:11 41:8

44:7,16 48:8

69:19 74:2,16

77:17 78:1,5 79:6

82:3 87:15 100:4

103:10

EPA's 4:14 17:20

25:7

essentially 20:8

33:13 82:16 83:16

87:18

establish 68:3

established 13:22

establishing 70:11

estimates 19:6

Europe 95:5 98:13

evaluate 6:12

evaluated 20:14

26:4

evaluation 40:15

events 24:9 27:16

27:17 49:11 59:20

59:22 60:2

eventually 91:6

everybody 17:5

Evonik 2:16 3:14

9:18 10:1,1 63:13

98:1,14

exactly 59:21 83:5

86:15

examined 26:2,12

examining 66:13

example 32:10

46:11 54:18 61:11

73:11

exceed 14:1

exclude 49:18

Executive 11:15

exercise 75:1

existing 18:11,18

expectation 92:15

95:22 96:10

expectations 97:1

102:8

Expecting 95:4

expense 19:7

expertise 92:8

experts 31:20

58:18 83:10 84:7

87:8

explain 7:18 47:4

explained 64:4

explicit 95:22

explore 53:13

exposure 20:9,15

20:20,21 44:6

66:8 76:6,7

exposures 20:19

extend 14:5

extended 89:8

extension 89:18

extensive 43:10

57:3,16

extent 21:18

F

face 93:19

face-to-face 91:22

facilities 19:5 20:1

21:7 23:7 25:9

28:6 33:22 34:20

34:21,22 36:16

45:14 63:15,16,22

64:3 66:21 67:17

68:14 76:3,13,15

76:21 77:1 80:10

80:12 81:5

facility 19:4,15,17

19:22 23:16,17,19

23:21 24:2,9 28:4

50:8 51:4 67:3

76:11 77:5

fact 24:11

factor 46:9 60:4

factored 60:11

factors 26:15 63:1

79:10 85:5 87:10

fair 21:14

fairly 16:11 50:4

far 46:19 60:21

67:8 73:20 87:13

fashion 11:2

faster 98:10

favorable 16:7

features 70:10

Federal 5:19 6:21

7:3 13:12 101:11

feed 62:8

feedback 18:15

96:7

feeds 62:3

feel 69:8 73:14

90:21 91:12

Fehrenbacher 2:5

5:10 44:5,6 45:5

45:10 52:22 53:12

54:9 55:2,9,16

56:7,14,19 57:7

58:21 59:4,8,16

61:4,16 62:12

71:5,16,21 72:10

72:16,20 73:16

97:15 101:14

102:22

figure 66:5 88:12

final 14:4,13 27:5

27:22

finally 28:15

find 22:9 41:8,22

42:4,12,15 43:1

58:4 61:22 65:16

83:13

finding 32:14 43:3

46:15

fine 92:22

Finley 2:18 10:7,7

46:21,22 47:20

48:5,8 67:10,11

70:1,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

firm 18:18

first 16:2 26:18

27:14 40:3 49:10

86:18 89:10

Firstly 18:7

fish 24:7 27:13 49:9

54:15 73:2,8

fit 63:5

fits 87:13

five 26:17 27:21

35:10 37:21 39:16

40:6,16,17 41:4

43:5 44:10 45:12

45:15,21 47:2,13

55:20 56:9 64:5

64:18,18,21 65:4

65:5,15 66:11

70:22 78:22

Fjord 57:19 61:11

73:15

Flack 2:24 12:4,4

97:7,7 99:6

flexibility 60:17

flow 28:13 40:13

41:2

focus 23:8 24:20

26:16 27:7 31:10

32:13,17 33:13

36:1,12 37:7

41:10 50:13 58:3

76:19 100:5

focused 24:12 42:2

43:2 45:2 51:10

56:5 76:17 93:15

102:7

folks 86:5 92:12,18

98:12

following 25:21

93:18

follows 12:21

food 20:21 59:2

61:15

food-web 73:5

forage 54:14

form 11:1

format 29:1

formulate 8:17

formulating 33:4

40:20 48:21 62:18

formulation 23:6

23:20 24:1,4

27:18

formulator 19:10

50:22

formulators 11:10

80:22 81:6,12

forth 28:5,14 87:17

forward 16:5,9

29:5 30:11 103:11

found 20:8 21:16

22:11 57:22 58:5

58:10 65:20

four 23:10,11 33:2

50:7 56:13 64:1

66:18 96:4

fourth 27:3

framework 87:14

fruitful 103:7

fulfilled 97:5

full 17:17 85:22

88:3 96:13 100:7

further 19:13

53:13 75:12 77:22

86:12 95:19

G

gained 25:3

gamut 62:19

GARY 3:15

Gene 2:21 11:7

general 10:21

15:12 29:10

generalize 70:18

generally 22:3,8

85:9

generate 77:9

generated 19:4

76:15

generating 97:9

generic 18:8 21:7

geographic 25:11

26:9 60:6

GEORGE 3:18

German 98:6

getting 79:20 84:16

90:21

Gibson 3:16

give 29:11 30:9

40:7 41:12 42:18

43:2 70:7 74:5

95:13

given 7:1 26:8,14

87:15

gives 54:21 69:8,15

go 5:16 12:11 16:15

29:8 51:7 72:18

76:16 77:7 79:3

85:13 89:9 99:17

goal 17:20 75:11,21

76:11

Goals 4:5

goes 38:14 39:5

69:13

going 7:7 17:9,17

20:17 23:14 30:9

34:2 38:16,19,21

38:21 40:14 42:11

46:6,8 54:1 64:3

65:19 68:22 72:6

76:22 77:2,11,13

77:19 79:22 92:19

95:15 96:1,10

97:9 100:3

Goldschmidt 2:16

3:14 9:18 10:1,2

good 8:11 16:7 47:2

73:6 93:6 99:5

Google 28:10

gram 32:11

great 16:4 48:12

94:10 99:8 101:16

greater 93:15

greatest 43:3

green 17:7

group 9:16 78:13

78:14 81:1,19

82:6,10 83:4,9,12

83:15,20 84:6,9

86:20 87:2 88:1,4

88:7,20,22 89:1

89:14 91:7,8,22

92:7,7 93:5,18,20

97:19 100:6,9

101:8,17 102:1

103:12

groups 79:7

GUERRERO 3:10

guess 16:13 31:12

31:17 32:18 33:17

39:19 41:5,9

48:20,22 49:18

59:18,20 62:20

64:14 79:20 80:14

85:19

guidance 75:8

guys 21:5 75:9 86:3

H

happy 29:2 86:8

hard 17:1 51:9

66:10 70:17

hate 95:1

head 69:2

Health 2:22 6:13

9:16,22 11:16

hear 17:5,8 47:21

91:8

heard 15:13 29:13

29:17 60:21 67:8

69:19 73:21 74:6

74:16 77:18 78:3

78:7

hearing 30:2,7

46:19 99:14

heavier 43:22

heavily 68:10

Heckman 3:9,18

39:9

Hello 11:14

help 6:18 31:6 79:5

92:11,17 95:15

helped 5:11 21:10

helpful 82:2 84:4

84:11 93:2,6

97:16

helps 41:12

Hi 9:14 10:20 67:10

100:22

high 26:6,19 27:1,2

27:4,6,7 42:7 73:1

higher 26:13 57:11

highest 26:14 58:3

highlight 75:22

high-end 45:13

61:20

high-level 17:15

28:19

high-population

21:22 26:10

high-production

6:4

high-quality 30:21

HILEY 3:11

historical 28:12

hold 79:15

holding 5:19

homes 68:15

hope 16:10,22 17:2

hoping 92:19

HOPKINSON 3:12

hour 78:7

hours 16:11

how's 86:21

Hugh 2:24 12:4

97:7

human 20:13 22:4

I

idea 76:1 80:14

95:10

identification 4:9

35:10

identified 6:9 12:13

12:13 14:18 27:19

34:16,18 35:1

36:17 53:20

identify 7:11,17 8:9

11:13 12:14 15:20

29:18 46:20 54:5

54:17 59:12 64:20

67:9 81:5 84:11

92:11,17

identifying 35:7

64:17

impact 22:4 60:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

impacted 21:18

22:14

important 19:16

20:18 21:1,12

31:4 47:9 52:15

71:1 77:14 101:8

importers 11:10

impossible 20:3

21:5 42:15

include 28:1 51:1

71:17 80:11

included 23:15

53:7 54:19 55:4,7

64:1 66:17,21

67:16

includes 26:17

27:12 43:14 53:10

56:1

including 6:6 20:19

34:21 35:10

incomplete 51:15

51:19

incorporate 60:9

60:17

independent 11:8

58:17

indicated 6:22 43:8

indicates 22:19

indirect 20:21

35:15 38:2 39:15

56:9 71:17 72:4,9

72:11 80:20

individual 76:11

individuals 32:7

industrial 6:5 21:7

22:15 28:3 64:2

68:5,14,20

industries 8:16

industry 4:10

18:20 69:19 103:9

influent 22:16

26:11 27:12 37:17

38:5,6,20 49:8,13

50:8,15 81:14

85:8

influents 21:17

information 13:12

18:1 19:21 20:5

21:11 24:15 28:12

28:21 33:10 42:18

47:18 53:10,15

75:15 82:8

ingredients 8:16

inhalation 20:8,14

initial 59:11 88:14

initially 25:3

Initiative 43:14

44:1 45:3 54:21

55:14 56:1

input 70:15 95:4

inputs 18:7 28:3

Inside 3:12

insight 25:20 70:10

inspection 13:15

Institute 2:12 7:21

8:2,7,13 99:10

intellectual 19:18

intended 75:5

intent 76:10

interest 7:18 8:21

11:3 63:3 98:4

interested 2:10 4:9

4:13 6:22 7:2,5,14

7:17,19 8:21

12:12 13:4,16

14:11,17 15:7,11

19:22 29:11,17,21

31:11 42:19 46:18

47:11 48:15 52:8

60:19 66:3 67:7

69:20 72:21 74:1

74:18 78:1,13

81:20 82:14 84:4

87:20 94:13,21

97:18,18,21,21

98:2,17 99:2,15

99:17 100:3 102:2

103:10

international 18:19

89:22 90:11 92:3

96:20

introductions 4:5

12:16

invertebrates

72:22 73:1

invite 31:19

involved 23:18,20

23:22 24:3

issue 41:3 78:10

79:8,18 80:16

82:21 84:8 91:2

issues 28:4 83:11

87:7 91:6,14,17

97:14 100:7 102:8

103:13

ISTREEM 25:10

25:13

J

January 53:6,6

55:5 79:3 101:4

101:13,15

Japan 22:10

JENNY 3:12

JENSEN 2:5

JESSICA 2:3,4

Jim 2:14 9:8

JOE 2:2

join 92:12

joined 5:9

joining 103:6

JONES 2:6

July 94:5,6 95:9

June 1:11 6:9 7:3

K

KAREN 2:4

Karluss 2:23 4:11

11:15 16:13 29:4

30:8 32:3 43:8

74:17 79:20

Kathleen 2:15 9:15

Kathy 31:21 38:10

52:17 98:19 101:6

Keller 3:9,18 39:9

Kentucky 23:19

KEVIN 3:22

key 84:12

KIM 2:6

kind 47:8 61:20

63:5 65:18 69:7

70:2 75:5 77:7

84:16 93:3 95:19

99:17

Kinoshita 3:3

knew 61:12

know 11:17 21:4

35:12 36:7 39:20

40:4 45:14 51:5,8

58:3 60:13 62:16

63:8 78:21 87:20

88:16 92:18 96:22

97:13,17 101:3

knowing 89:13

97:3 100:7

known 6:14

KOCH 3:14

KOZERSKI 3:15

L

lagoon 27:6

lagoons 46:11

laid 35:2 79:2

Lake 57:18 59:5

61:11,17 62:3,8

73:11,14

land 50:18

largely 31:9

larger 93:20

largest 69:6

Laughter 16:12

layer 80:2

laying 93:4

leadership 89:3

learned 53:22

lesser 21:18 63:3

letter-of-coopera...

28:16

let's 30:4 74:7 82:4

84:5 87:7 97:5

level 57:11

levels 31:16 42:1

57:8,20 81:15

86:13

Lewis 1:21 2:2 4:3

4:6 5:3,7 8:3,6

9:1,4,12,18,20

10:4,12,18 11:5

11:12,20 12:9

29:4 46:16 47:17

47:22 48:7,12

52:20 60:19 62:14

67:6 69:16 70:8

71:3 73:19 74:12

77:16 81:18 82:19

83:2,6,21 84:2,14

84:20 86:22 87:22

89:9 90:2,6,17

91:20 92:1,21

94:1,6 96:18

98:16 99:1,5,8,11

99:14 100:17

101:16 102:12

103:2,5

light 17:7

limit 22:20 32:9

limits 68:3

Lisa 2:19 10:14

list 25:16 26:3,4

97:11

listed 70:21

listing 7:19

little 18:10 21:8

25:6 28:7 47:4,14

79:17

LLC 2:18

local 68:3

location 35:8 38:1

72:8

locations 39:18

60:7

logical 51:5

long 79:22 80:10

88:16 95:21

look 28:11 35:7,8

35:14 36:9,13

38:1,18 42:15

45:18 47:12 56:20

57:19 58:6 60:4

61:9,15 62:2

64:20 65:12 70:5

79:4 85:13 87:9

88:3

looked 25:12,21

36:21 43:7 44:2

58:15 71:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

looking 16:9 28:3

35:4 43:18 44:12

47:10,15 60:15

61:19 70:4 71:10

72:22 73:7 101:6

102:3 103:11

looks 35:12 44:9

lot 24:19 32:15

43:8 46:7 53:10

101:5

loud 17:8

low 22:3 26:7 27:8

32:10 42:7 73:2

lowest 32:8

LUDWISZEWSKI

3:16

M

magnification

57:17

main 39:17

Mait 2:17 9:19,21

9:21 63:12,12,18

63:22 80:18,18

81:4,9,17 97:22

97:22

major 31:5

majority 47:7

63:20 69:11

making 97:6

man 97:12

management 86:1

86:13

manner 96:8

manufacturer 19:9

manufacturers

10:17 14:15

manufacturing 6:8

23:6,20 24:3

27:17 33:3 34:20

40:19 48:21 50:22

62:17 67:17 68:14

MARK 2:8

mass 65:17

material 13:14

materials 8:19

10:15 13:6,20

18:12 20:11 21:2

22:8,11 37:5

41:22 42:5 43:1

43:11 51:18 52:6

53:22

matter 74:10

103:17

mean 33:17 40:21

41:5 45:7 59:21

63:2,3 65:22 85:1

95:19

meaningful 80:6

means 6:17 15:14

30:17

measurable 43:4

61:14

measured 61:7

media 65:19

meet 28:6 82:6

meeting 5:4,12,20

8:8 13:13,17,18

13:22 14:2 15:1

15:12,19 75:4

82:6,12 88:1,3,7

88:20,21 89:1

90:14,15 92:14

93:18,20 94:3

95:5 97:10 98:7

98:11 102:1

meetings 7:10 13:9

13:20 87:16,19

meets 80:6

member 9:9,17

10:3 11:18 12:8

19:7 34:21 66:18

66:21 81:1 86:2

86:14 98:3

members 7:9 10:16

11:1 17:4 19:5

23:9 69:10 70:16

85:21 86:4 89:2

96:1,14,21

membership 8:14

mentioned 18:22

21:10 30:15 31:8

31:14 34:11 41:18

53:1 59:9,19

mentioning 53:11

methods 40:12

mic 12:16 63:21

Michigan 23:22

microphone 8:4,10

12:17 15:21 30:10

83:2 90:3 100:21

mid-July 97:5

Mihaich 2:14 9:8

100:22 101:1

million 69:7

mini 83:16

Minneapolis 62:6

Minnesota 57:18

minutes 13:8,18

25:7 87:19 102:11

102:12,17

MISKO 3:18

Mississippi 62:9

model 24:19 25:7

25:10 46:4 51:8

77:21

modeled 55:15

modeling 46:6

65:13,14

models 18:8,22

19:2,3,12 20:7

33:12 36:13 46:4

46:10,11,13 76:1

76:2,8,14 77:12

moderating 1:22

Moderator 2:2

modified 85:16

modify 87:3

moment 21:4

Momentive 2:18

3:11,22 10:12,15

23:17 24:2 99:12

moments 18:11

monitor 24:6 54:11

65:19 76:11,12

monitored 23:11

35:20 66:4 67:4

79:14

monitoring 6:1

18:11,19 21:9

22:6,7,17 23:15

24:5,9,11 25:2,15

25:17,18 26:17,21

27:10,12,16,17

28:18 31:14 32:5

32:8 33:13 39:13

41:19 43:11 46:3

46:13 49:11 52:10

53:22 57:3 59:13

60:2 61:5 62:5

65:13 66:17,22

70:13 71:6,8,11

71:20 72:3,6,9

77:3 80:11

months 14:1,5,22

15:17 89:12 91:12

morning 8:11

29:13,18 60:22

78:3 103:14

move 15:3 24:16

98:5

moving 30:10 40:2

MPF 23:14 76:16

MPM 2:18 10:12

multinational 86:4

municipal 10:10

22:15 24:17,22

25:9 28:1 34:3

35:11 36:3 37:3

37:11 38:3,7,18

39:6 41:1 45:8

51:2,4 55:20 64:5

67:2 69:3 72:7,18

mutually-accept...

17:3

Myers 2:20 10:20

10:21

N

NACWA 10:8

46:22 67:11 69:2

naive 101:2

name 10:20 12:4

nanogram 32:11

national 2:17 10:4

10:9 31:3 32:22

53:17

nationally-repres...

71:9

nature 8:20 20:4

31:9

near 81:16

necessarily 39:21

63:10 96:10

necessary 79:17

need 14:2 68:4 73:6

73:9 78:18 85:2

86:5 89:17 90:13

94:14 95:16 99:21

needed 13:9 71:8

needs 14:7 25:14

26:2 48:6 78:20

80:7

negotiate 5:20

negotiating 87:16

negotiation 1:6,18

6:16 7:6,8,10,15

13:5,6,20,21 14:3

14:6 15:16 30:12

87:14,19

negotiations 7:1,13

13:3 14:6

never 76:10

New 24:3

NGAN 2:7

NGUYEN 2:7

nine 35:19 56:8

non 21:13 22:8

31:14 83:6

non-detect 22:3

Noriko 3:4

North 2:22 11:17

Norway 57:19

note 20:18

noted 94:4

notes 64:10

notice 6:21 13:13

notified 7:14

notify 7:2

NPDES 28:2

number 8:16 25:18

27:16 32:6,20

45:16 46:17 47:2

47:4,6,10 54:10

62:7 66:7 67:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

69:1,14,18,21

70:3,5,19 79:9

85:3 87:9

numbers 48:10,10

54:22 69:1 89:6

NW 1:20

O

objections 14:20

objective 31:5

Objectives 4:5

observers 3:1 7:10

obtain 28:16

obtaining 6:17

obviously 16:5 28:8

30:20 37:4,9

62:17 64:6 78:9

82:3

offhand 48:10

Office 5:7

official 87:18

offsite 33:21

Oh 12:2 49:16,21

okay 9:20 12:2 17:6

17:8 30:2,7 32:18

34:5,5,10,10

35:18 37:13 39:2

48:7,12,19 49:12

49:16 50:2,2,3

51:3 52:4,7 55:16

56:7,14,19,19

57:7 58:21 59:8

59:16 61:16 62:12

65:10,22 66:4

70:8 72:16,20

73:16 81:9,17

83:1 84:14 90:7

92:21 99:1,8,11

103:2

once 37:20 38:16

51:12 54:16

ones 44:2

one-by-one 99:17

onsite 26:2 33:20

open 13:7 87:16

operators 28:11

opinion 47:1 67:15

opportunity 4:13

15:7,9 16:20

29:10,11 74:15

88:8 91:7

optimal 102:5

order 4:2 7:20

Oregon 22:7 41:17

42:16

organism 58:2

organisms 58:8

organization 29:6

29:19 82:1

organizations 7:13

32:7 87:4,9

oriented 42:9

original 75:1 83:18

originally 64:16

75:7

Oslo 57:19 61:11

73:15

outcome 16:8

outcomes 97:2

outlined 37:22

output 93:16

outside 17:14 28:22

overall 47:10 61:19

70:18

overview 16:21

17:10 32:3

oxidated 27:2

P

pages 53:9

pain 95:2

paints 6:8

parameters 18:14

24:6,11,14 25:4,6

27:11 34:17

part 5:17 8:13,21

15:15,16 23:11

27:22 35:13 37:11

38:17 46:16 58:16

60:21 62:9 77:10

81:22 82:1

participant 98:8

participants 2:1

78:17 94:3 97:11

participate 7:6,12

13:2 85:19 86:8

92:18 94:22 95:21

96:5 98:15,18,22

99:4,7

participated 9:10

participating 78:20

particular 20:15

26:21 27:22 30:19

31:21 58:15 71:20

79:7

particularly 11:2

36:11 40:18

parties 2:10 4:9 7:5

7:11,14,20 12:12

13:4,17 14:11,17

15:8,11 29:11,17

46:18 48:15 60:19

67:7 74:1,18 78:2

81:21 82:14 87:20

94:22 97:18,21

98:3,17 99:2,15

99:16 103:10

party 4:13 7:2,17

8:21 29:22 69:21

84:4 94:14 100:3

102:2

pass 90:2 100:21

PAT 3:19

pathway 20:10,12

20:15 21:1 36:18

51:10,15,19

pathways 18:4

52:16 75:17 77:13

Paul 1:21 2:2,12

4:3,6 5:7 8:1,12

31:8 75:3 87:12

Paul's 17:21

peer-review 52:2

57:5

Penberthy 2:8 4:8

4:15,18 5:9 16:2

30:13 32:18 33:16

34:5,10 35:18

36:6,14,20 37:13

38:11 39:2,7,19

48:19 49:6,12,16

49:21 50:2,10,17

51:3,20 52:4,7,19

59:18 62:16 63:7

63:17,21 64:8,22

65:3,6,10,22 67:5

70:9 78:8 81:2,8

81:10 85:1 86:15

95:7 100:16

101:12 103:4

people 17:8 69:5,7

74:5 90:18 91:13

91:16 92:3 99:21

people's 68:15

Pepin 57:18 59:5

61:11,17 62:3,8

73:12,15

percent 43:20

44:22

Performance 10:15

period 14:1,6 30:19

94:8

permits 28:2

permitted 7:12

person 81:22 94:17

personal 2:19 6:7

10:18,22

perspective 43:11

47:14 65:18 69:15

97:17 100:9

pertinent 63:10

pH 28:14

phase 15:3

physical/chemical

18:14

pick 65:4

picked 77:1,2 90:14

picture 31:3 33:1

pieces 13:11

place 67:21

placed 13:10,14

plan 6:10 30:16,17

39:11,12 40:9

54:20 65:7 70:12

70:12 78:15 85:9

planning 59:5

plans 55:12

plant 24:17,18 25:2

28:2,11 33:21

34:4 35:11 38:4

38:15 39:6 41:15

46:5 49:5 55:21

65:15 68:12 72:7

77:3

plants 25:22 36:3

38:7,19,20 43:19

44:17 45:9,13

47:16 62:8

please 8:9 9:5 10:5

11:13 12:14 15:19

16:15 29:18 46:20

67:9 83:2 88:11

Plotzke 2:15 9:14

9:15 32:1 33:19

34:8 35:5 36:8,15

36:21 37:20 39:4

43:6 44:15 45:18

49:20 50:1,21

51:7,22 52:5

53:19 54:12 55:7

55:11,19 56:11,17

57:1,14 59:3,7,14

60:1 61:8 62:2

64:15 65:2,5,8,11

72:1,13,17 73:3

84:10,15 91:18,21

98:19,20

plus 56:2,11

point 20:2,11 21:13

23:5 39:3,10

41:10,14 52:14

58:14 70:2 77:19

79:15 95:19 96:6

96:14

pointing 22:21

poll 6:12

pollutants 67:22

Pollution 5:8

pool 40:14

population 26:7

27:7 42:7 69:11

populations 69:4

population/low

26:19 27:1,3,5,6

portion 49:5 62:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

82:18

pose 23:3

possibility 16:7

34:18 43:3 50:20

possible 92:10,13

97:10

possibly 37:18

potential 6:19

25:17 90:15 93:21

potentially 81:15

85:16

POTW 34:15 37:15

37:17 38:12 40:21

41:2 45:13 48:22

64:2,4 66:3,7 68:7

71:18 77:6 78:9

79:7 80:15 81:13

POTWs 34:13

37:19 40:5,17

44:9,13 47:2,4,7

47:11 50:6 56:10

64:6 66:12 67:13

67:15,18,19,20

68:6,8,13,17 69:1

69:9,13,18,21

70:11,17 76:22

78:15 79:9 80:10

80:11,21 83:7

85:4

POTW-monitori...

82:18

precisely 33:17

predator 54:14

55:3

predict 25:8,11

26:11

predominantly

21:16 43:20

preliminary 25:16

prepared 16:15

19:6 44:9 45:6,19

57:5 70:1 82:7

95:13

preparing 5:12,14

presence 18:1

75:16

present 3:7 7:22

15:8 61:22 82:11

83:13 87:2,11

presentation 4:10

15:6,10 16:15

29:12 30:3,8

31:13 73:21 91:8

presented 57:6

86:11 88:2 93:8

94:13

presenting 29:7

press 95:16

pretreatment

67:19,21 68:1

pretty 41:21 57:3

57:16 62:10 66:1

73:3,6 78:22

Prevention 5:8

previous 64:9,12

68:22 71:7

previously 34:12

57:16 62:6 69:17

primarily 32:12

primary 20:10,10

32:17

prioritize 50:13

priority 26:14

67:22

probably 58:11

61:8 64:17 84:20

94:1 101:2

problem 68:7

Procedurally 87:12

procedure 12:21

procedures 12:11

12:20,22

proceeding 6:16

proceedings 11:4

process 7:6,8 8:22

13:5 15:15 16:6

19:17 25:15 78:18

87:14

processed 39:14

77:5

processes 6:8

processing 23:6,18

23:22 24:4 27:18

33:4 34:21 39:18

40:19 48:21 50:22

62:18

processor 10:2

19:9

processors 10:17

11:10 14:16 80:22

81:5,12

produce 26:3

produces 48:8

product 43:13 44:1

45:3 54:21 55:14

55:22 56:12,16

68:20 83:3

products 2:19 6:7,7

8:18,20 10:19,22

68:11

program 17:16,20

18:19 23:15 32:5

37:12 38:8,17

40:3 43:12 45:4

46:3 56:16 57:15

67:20,21 68:2

73:13 82:18 85:15

programs 57:4

73:4

progress 95:12,17

promulgated 14:8

proper 92:8

properly 97:12

properties 18:13

property 19:18

proposal 9:11

11:18 16:4,21

17:3,10,11,13,22

18:6 20:16 21:12

23:8,12 24:6,12

24:21 25:3 26:16

26:17 27:11 28:1

28:20 31:10 35:17

39:10 41:13 42:3

42:8 48:22 55:8

55:10 62:13 66:17

66:22 75:5,14

79:11 82:17 83:17

83:18,19 86:1,6

proposals 59:19

propose 78:13

97:12

proposed 13:18

38:4 53:14 64:16

84:17 96:3

proposing 53:16

54:11 55:4,17

56:9 57:9 58:22

59:9

proposition 95:8

proprietary 19:17

20:4 33:10

protect 19:16

PROTECTION

1:3

protocols 55:13

provide 5:15 15:6

15:10 16:21 17:9

17:22 20:3 21:10

25:19 35:6 44:14

47:17 48:3,3

53:14 57:9 59:1

67:12 71:13 75:6

75:15 76:6 77:17

92:14

provided 14:19

17:11 19:10 28:22

56:15 75:8 82:2

101:9

provisions 13:1

public 5:4,20 7:9

13:2,8,15,17

82:12 87:17 88:3

88:5,8,21 89:1

91:15

publication 57:5

publicly 102:19

published 42:18

52:1,2 87:21

pulled 44:19

purpose 4:5 17:21

24:15 75:1 76:9

79:21,21 82:16

pursue 78:19

pursued 14:8

put 39:11 47:14

78:14 96:15

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

5:1

p.m 103:17

Q

Quality 10:1

question 31:18,20

41:5 80:19,21

88:9,13 89:10,19

91:19 101:2

questions 4:17,22

29:3,8 30:3,4,5

31:12 88:10 93:4

93:12 100:12,18

101:19 102:8

quickly 16:11

81:20 82:4

quite 43:10 51:22

54:22 62:4

R

ran 25:7,10

range 26:9 34:17

69:5,8 85:6

rates 40:13 46:9

rationale 35:20

52:12 57:10 66:13

79:2 85:3,14

RAY 3:11

RAYMOND 3:16

reach 96:21

reaching 95:12

react 91:8 93:5

reaction 69:20

read 101:9

reads 79:21

real 17:21 19:3

21:4

realize 95:8

really 16:19 17:7

17:10 19:16 21:12

23:4,8 32:3,15

33:8 34:1 36:12

37:8 38:5 40:7

44:15,16,22 46:6

46:7 51:9,10

54:16 58:2,5 62:7

62:9 65:14,16

72:8 73:15 75:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

80:15 84:18 86:20

92:17 95:1

reasoned 40:15

reasons 40:15

recall 61:6

received 13:11

18:15 19:20

receives 39:14

receiving 49:3

receptors 20:13,13

20:22 36:18 51:19

52:15

recess 74:14

reckoning 50:5

recognize 79:22

recollection 63:19

reconfirm 77:8

reconvene 74:5,7

74:13

record 74:10

103:17

recorded 8:9 15:19

refining 41:13

regardless 66:22

Register 5:19 6:21

7:3 13:13 101:11

regular 41:1

regulated 67:18

regulations 87:16

Regulatory 10:8

12:5

relatively 81:20

92:6

release 19:4,22

20:10 36:11,19

37:1,9,15 38:9,13

39:5 50:19 66:2,3

72:14

released 34:2 37:2

77:5

releases 18:4 24:13

27:9 31:3 34:7,20

36:1,2,5 38:16

41:11 50:14,16

62:22 63:1,2,8,9

72:11 76:4,20

releasing 76:22

remaining 35:19

remarks 17:21

75:4

remind 8:8 15:18

removal 37:4 46:9

rep 98:11

replacement 84:17

report 22:17 45:19

53:8

Reporter 3:19

represent 10:10

11:8 44:11,12

73:15

representative 31:2

32:22 39:21 40:11

41:7 44:3 45:12

45:22 53:17 54:4

54:13 56:22 59:12

61:20 62:10 65:16

71:1 76:3,12 80:6

81:1 100:4,4

102:2

represented 94:18

representing 45:1

57:22

represents 20:22

69:3

request 7:16

requires 102:15

research 54:6

resolved 102:9

resources 75:17

respect 18:21 19:20

20:6 23:5 24:5

27:10 71:14,19

76:4

respective 87:4,8

respond 91:9

response 4:14 12:1

15:10 29:20 30:1

30:6,11 48:16

61:1 74:16 78:4

93:10 100:13

101:21

Responses 4:17

responsible 14:16

rest 72:17

result 21:6

resulting 20:9

results 18:16 20:7

21:9 22:6,7 23:1

41:19 42:16,20

86:10 88:22 96:12

resumed 74:11

return 84:8

review 13:15 15:4

22:19 23:2 58:17

75:5

reviewed 19:14

25:17

reviewing 28:1

revised 46:12 86:10

revision 89:3

revisit 75:10

right 9:19 16:11,17

17:19 36:14,20

38:13 39:7 47:1

48:11 49:17 50:4

50:8 52:10 60:13

66:6,12 67:14,15

70:21 74:7 79:8

79:21 82:9,19

84:2 86:15,22

88:13 89:11 91:17

92:18 94:6 95:10

95:14 96:18 101:6

102:17

risk 20:15 23:3

30:18,20 40:8

53:17 58:8,9

66:11 76:7 77:10

77:20 80:1,7

risks 40:16

RIZZUTO 3:19

ROBERT 2:6

robust 30:22 40:8

robustness 80:3

room 1:19 21:6

83:8 86:7,18

rule 14:8

run 17:15 41:17

90:12

Russell 2:17 9:21

63:12 80:18 97:22

S

Safety 2:22 6:14

9:22 11:16

sample 37:14,16

38:4 40:14 47:3

60:8 79:9 85:4

sampled 34:14

68:18,19

samples 61:7

sampling 40:6

45:21 53:14 54:19

55:12,18 59:10,19

70:12 76:12 78:15

83:7

satisfies 78:19

saying 87:1 98:5

schedule 13:21

89:14

scheduling 99:19

science 18:12 78:16

Sciences 9:16

science-based 85:2

scientific 22:18

85:13 87:8 91:5

100:6

scientists 58:18

79:6 90:22

scope 99:22

screen 64:19 65:1

screening 64:17

se 77:21 88:5

season 60:8

seasonality 60:15

second 26:22

Section 14:9

sediment 20:19

24:7 27:13 32:10

32:11,12,16 37:18

49:2,9 58:6,8

64:19 65:1 81:14

sediments 21:18,21

22:11

see 21:5 44:21 46:8

50:3,19 51:9,11

51:12 67:3 71:15

78:13

Seeing 61:2 78:5

100:14

seen 22:12 37:4

SEHSC 2:22 3:10

3:20 4:12 6:15

9:9,17 10:3,16

11:13,17 12:8

15:6,11 16:3,14

16:19 18:22 19:5

23:9 33:14 34:6

34:12,21 35:19

50:7 52:9 73:21

79:7 82:2,14

85:20 98:3 100:3

SEHSC's 23:7

selected 61:10

79:10 80:11

selecting 45:12

85:5

selection 25:5,15

60:5,12 70:12

SELTZER 2:8

send 99:13

sense 28:5 93:15

94:9

served 69:4

serving 12:7

set 25:4 83:22

setting 40:18 88:5

sewage 25:22 69:13

sewer 68:12

sewered 69:11

sharing 73:17

Shibuya 3:4

Shin-Etsu 2:21

11:6,9

SHISEIDO 3:2

show 22:8 46:6

65:17

showed 20:8 44:20

shown 41:21 42:22

58:9

sidebar 84:5

sign 86:6

significant 20:16

36:4 37:4 80:17

SILICONE 2:22

Silicones 2:13,18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

2:21 9:2,4,7 10:13

11:6,9,16

Silicons 6:13 9:9

89:21 90:9 95:3

101:1

siloxane 1:6,18

8:15,19 11:1

siloxanes 5:6 8:18

10:2 68:10 81:6

similar 43:16 52:16

56:3 58:11 65:20

77:1 79:16

simpler 79:18

simulate 76:2

single 57:10,11

Sisterville 23:16

site 18:8,22 19:2,3

19:11 20:7 24:18

25:5,15 26:18,19

26:21,22 27:1,2,3

27:4,6,11,15,21

28:15 32:2 33:11

36:13 37:17 39:12

39:13 43:14,15

49:10 51:6,8 54:5

54:13,15,16 56:2

56:6 59:20 60:7

61:18 76:1,14

77:12

sites 10:16 23:9,10

23:14 24:22 25:17

26:3,6,8,18 27:8

27:18,20 28:9,17

32:20 33:2,3,3,4,8

33:14,22 34:6,12

34:13,16,19,22

35:3,7,8,11,15,19

35:19 36:2,10,22

37:8,14,21 38:1,8

39:16,22 40:3,16

40:20 41:4 42:9

43:5,16 44:10

45:12,22 46:5,17

48:21,22 50:7

52:9 54:1,17

55:17,21 56:4,5,6

56:8,13,22 59:15

60:5,12 61:10

62:18,20,21,21

63:4 64:5,11,18

64:18,21 65:2

66:2,7,18 71:18

71:18 72:3,4,12

72:15 73:9 76:17

85:4,6 87:10

site-dependent

53:21 54:2 59:10

situation 71:12

six 14:1,4,22 15:16

89:6,12 91:11

six-month 94:8

size 67:20 69:9

sizes 40:13

sludge 21:17 26:19

26:22 43:21,22

44:22 45:2 49:19

51:12

small 45:15 47:8,16

48:2 69:5 92:7

smaller 26:3 44:3

82:16 86:20 93:18

soil 51:6,13,14 52:3

52:6,17

somebody 98:7

sorry 47:20 49:16

49:17

sort 17:15 28:19

31:3 32:9 33:10

41:12 62:3 66:13

81:10 84:7 90:16

98:4

sorted 26:5

sorts 40:11

sounds 17:16 44:11

92:2 99:16 100:2

sources 18:3 68:9

space 60:10

spaced 60:2

speak 8:3,10 15:20

15:20 83:17

speaking 32:19

special 40:21

species 24:8 27:14

49:9 53:13 54:4,5

54:8,10,13 55:3

59:12 73:10

specific 19:8,22

20:1 26:15 27:20

28:5,17 34:15,19

34:22 35:7 42:6

54:10 61:9 62:20

62:21 70:10 96:2

specifically 71:14

96:11

specifics 53:20

84:18

spend 24:19

staff 97:12

stand 95:10

standpoint 98:14

STAPLES 3:20

start 30:4 91:13

started 74:21 89:11

starting 89:7

state 47:1

stated 17:20

statement 70:2

92:15

statements 88:15

States 1:1 40:5

43:15 44:4,18

56:2 58:12 62:11

status 7:1

STEDEFORD 2:9

step 16:4 51:5

79:12 80:15

101:22

steps 4:18 15:15

27:22 29:5 78:6

93:17 100:19

Stewardship 43:13

44:1 45:3 54:21

55:14 56:1,13,16

stop 21:3

straight 40:20

strategy 83:7

strawman 84:1

stress 94:8

stretching 95:15

strides 94:10

structure 28:4 93:1

93:13

studies 21:14 25:18

41:15 42:13 45:16

57:18 58:1

study 73:5

subgroup 84:12

90:22

subject 59:13

submission 53:7

54:19 56:18 101:4

101:15

submitted 6:12

53:3,5

submitting 14:20

subsequent 13:9

17:16 82:12

subsequently 79:19

substantial 71:8,11

substantive 5:17

7:8 87:11 91:5

substituted 83:18

subteam 85:12

success 97:6

sufficient 57:12

59:1 81:7 90:12

suggesting 66:20

72:2

suggestion 64:11

summarize 23:14

summarized 32:3

summary 28:20

31:13

suppliers 8:15

supply 45:20

support 53:17 76:7

76:15

supports 30:22

51:21

supposed 33:6

sure 8:5 33:1 37:16

41:4 42:20 48:19

52:8 75:10 78:10

78:18 79:13 86:3

91:20 94:14 101:9

surface 24:7 25:8

25:12 27:13 34:2

37:6,10 38:22

49:8,13 66:19

72:5,13,14 76:18

Survey 25:14 26:2

48:6

system 68:12

T

table 8:7 9:5 10:6

12:12 17:13

take 29:3 56:20

60:7 74:4 80:12

84:5 96:7

taken 13:4 46:10

takes 88:17

talk 17:7 18:10

20:17 21:8 25:6

78:10 80:8,20

83:11 90:22 92:19

talked 28:7 64:10

talking 88:19 89:5

101:4

target 27:9

targeted 26:6

team 82:16 94:13

103:10

technical 31:20

42:1 78:14 83:10

84:7 92:8 97:19

tee 82:21

tee-off 98:4

teleconference 92:4

99:20 102:5

temperature 28:14

terminated 14:7

terms 5:13,16

12:10,19 15:13,14

15:15 21:13 29:6

30:3,4,10,11,12

40:15 46:17 47:18

47:22 57:8 61:17

61:18,21 69:18

71:5 72:21 73:20

74:1,6,15 75:8

77:18,19,20 78:6

78:6 82:20 83:6

87:1,4 88:5 89:13

90:18,19,21 91:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

91:16 92:4,16

93:1,2,8,12,17

94:7,12,13,17,20

96:19 97:6 99:19

99:22 101:22

102:4,7 103:12

test 14:8

tested 32:20

testing 14:17 49:1,7

49:19

textiles 6:8

thank 5:12 9:1,5

11:5,12,20 12:9

15:22 16:3,20

29:4,14 30:8

48:12 52:19 70:8

73:21 74:8,20

81:17 90:6,7

103:6,9,15

thanks 16:17 62:12

73:17

thing 58:14 78:12

things 28:10 39:1

41:10 54:3 70:3

88:17 95:11

think 16:4,6 17:11

21:12 22:21 23:4

31:21 32:20 33:12

33:20 34:11,17

38:10 39:3 41:6

53:5,9 56:21

57:10 58:22 59:16

64:9 65:11,15

66:1,7,9,10 67:13

70:4 71:2,10 75:3

75:6 77:17 78:8

78:21 79:5,17,21

80:2,8,10,12,16

83:9 84:3,5,15,20

85:2 86:22 87:5

92:11,17,21 93:2

93:5,13 94:1 95:7

95:9,14,16,18,20

96:16 97:2,15

102:22 103:6

thinking 24:20

66:12 88:14 91:13

91:21

third 27:2

Thirty 14:19

Thirty-nine 65:2

Thomas 2:20,23

4:11 11:14,15

16:17 31:19 33:7

34:15 35:22 38:6

38:14 41:9 45:7

49:4,7,15 50:9,12

52:13 53:4 58:13

63:6 66:15 71:13

71:19 74:20 82:15

83:1 85:11 92:10

93:17 94:5 95:18

thought 24:13 36:2

75:13

thoughts 78:6

93:19

three 58:17 102:16

through/into 37:2

tight 93:14

time 7:17 14:6

24:19 30:19 54:6

59:21 60:20 66:10

67:6 74:6 89:18

90:12,15 91:3,13

91:15 94:8 102:5

timeframe 89:5

timeline 90:20,20

93:14 95:15

102:10

timely 96:8

times 53:1

timing 88:14 93:21

96:15

TOBIAS 2:9

today 5:4,11,16,20

7:1,7 9:7 11:4

13:11 15:5,8

20:17 74:16 77:18

94:11 103:6

today's 13:8,13,22

14:1 15:1

TODD 2:9

told 7:2 65:9

Tom 10:20

top 54:14 55:3

58:19 64:21 69:2

topic 5:16

top-level 73:8

total 56:8,13 95:6

Toxics 5:8

to-face 93:20

TRACY 3:10

transcript 102:18

transcripts 102:13

travel 99:21

treated 38:17

treatment 10:11

21:17 22:5,7,15

24:17,18,22 25:2

25:22 26:5 28:2

33:5,9,21 34:3

35:11 36:3 37:3

37:11 38:3,7,15

38:19,20 39:6,11

40:12 41:15 43:7

43:19 44:17 45:8

45:9,13 46:1,5

47:16 49:5 50:8

52:11 55:21 62:7

65:15 67:3 68:12

69:4 70:20 72:7

72:19 77:3 85:7

85:14

Trent 3:9 39:8

84:16

trickling-filter 27:4

tried 37:7

trophic 57:8,11

73:2

trophic-level 58:1

tropic 57:20

true 64:7 87:1

try 84:1 96:6,22

97:5,6

trying 63:3,11 77:9

87:5 91:11 96:16

TSCA 14:8

turn 78:1,5

two 5:6 6:4 11:11

11:21 24:8 27:15

41:10 49:11 59:19

60:1 63:19 82:5

88:20 89:4,16

90:12,15,17 91:1

91:12 94:1 95:5

96:4 98:7 102:3

102:14

type 19:15 26:5

43:7 45:8 54:3,3

54:14 73:5 88:2

92:8 100:8

types 44:17,21 46:1

70:20 73:10

typically 20:14

21:21 22:13 32:13

81:13

U

ultimate 20:6 23:1

ultimately 86:6,9

87:20

unclear 34:11

understand 33:2

37:14,16 38:11

47:9 49:1 54:7

57:12 62:22 63:4

71:12 79:1 85:11

86:3 87:7

understanding

6:18 32:21 57:21

59:1 73:6

unfortunately

96:14

Unilever 11:21,21

12:2

United 1:1 40:5

43:15 44:4,18

56:2 58:12 62:10

unmet 14:7

upper 44:12 86:1

86:13

USA 2:13

use 12:17 64:16

68:21 76:2 80:1

useful 24:14 67:14

77:10

uses 6:6

usually 47:6

utilize 11:1

utilized 18:11

U.S 10:16 19:6

21:14 26:1 41:16

43:17,19 45:15

47:5 56:4 61:19

62:1 69:11 71:12

V

validate 46:14

76:13 81:7

validating 77:11

variable 21:21

variation 46:7

variety 6:5 8:15,19

18:7

various 40:12,13

40:13

vast 47:7

vastly 90:10

vector 81:11

version 85:16

86:10

versus 34:2 60:8

69:13

vet 86:17

vetted 87:4 91:3

vetting 85:22

view 40:22

views 13:3

Virginia 23:17

virtually 42:14

visits 28:15

volatilization 51:14

volume 6:4

voluntarily 18:20

Voluntary 43:13

44:1 45:3 54:20

55:13,22 56:12,15

W

Wacker 2:23 12:3

12:6 23:21 97:8

97:17 99:6

walked 13:11

want 5:12,15 12:19

14:21 15:4,18

21:8 24:16 29:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

29:10 30:20 32:20

48:18 60:7 61:3

63:14 66:20 74:17

81:11 82:4 84:12

84:22 88:15 89:11

89:14 91:10 93:3

93:4,7 94:9,17,22

95:12 96:22 98:9

99:22 100:14

102:9 103:5,9

wanted 20:2,11

23:4,13 47:3,13

60:17 61:13 74:22

75:10,21 77:7

Ward 2:8 4:8,15,18

5:9 16:1,18 30:9

48:18 62:14 63:14

66:15 82:9 84:22

87:1 93:7 100:14

103:2

Washington 1:21

wasn't 31:15 65:9

waste 10:10 33:20

wastewater 21:17

21:19 22:5,6,15

24:17,18,22 25:2

28:2 33:21 34:3

35:11 36:3 37:3

37:11 38:3,7,15

38:18 39:6,11,14

41:14 43:19 45:8

46:5 49:4 52:11

55:20 62:7 65:15

67:2 69:3 72:7,18

77:3,6 85:14

water 2:17 10:5,9

10:10 23:2 24:7

25:8,12 27:13

32:14,16 33:5

34:2 36:11,19

37:1,2,6,10,15

38:22 49:3,8,13

58:17 63:1,8,17

63:18 66:3 67:1

72:5,11,14,14

Waterford 24:2

waters 66:19 76:18

Watershed 48:6

watersheds 26:10

way 39:15 49:1

60:9 68:11 69:6

99:20

web 59:2 61:15

WEDNESDAY

1:10

weeks 82:5 87:6

88:20 89:4,6,16

90:12,15,18 91:1

91:12 94:2 95:5

96:4,4 98:8 102:3

102:14,16

weighted 43:21

welcome 5:4

WENDY 3:14

went 24:20 74:10

99:15 103:17

WESS 3:22

West 23:16

why's 86:21

wide 6:5

widely 58:18

wider 83:20

willing 85:18 95:20

wondered 90:14

words 14:2

work 6:10 17:1

30:16 59:6 60:14

66:6,14 71:7

73:12 79:8 80:15

81:19 82:5 83:3,4

83:12,15 84:12

85:9 87:2 88:4,7

89:14 91:22 92:2

93:5,18 94:11

97:19 98:5 99:18

99:19 100:6 101:8

102:1

working 82:10 84:6

88:1,20,22 89:1

90:5 91:8 92:5

97:19 100:8

103:12

world 57:6 65:21

worst 80:3

worth 22:21

wouldn't 16:5

35:20 36:4 37:14

37:16 85:21 101:7

wrap 16:10

written 14:20

17:13 28:22

Y

year 7:4 60:3,10

York 24:3

1

1st 6:9

10:00 1:19

10:06 5:2

11:20 74:4,10

11:35 74:5,7

11:39 74:11

1117A 1:19

12 4:5

12:07 103:17

1201 1:20

13 34:12 62:20 66:2

14,000 25:22

15,000 48:1

16 4:8

16,000 47:7 69:13

1700 69:5

18 4:10 6:10

2

20,000 40:4 44:9

45:14 69:14

2004 26:1

2012 1:11 5:18 6:9

14:3 15:2

2013-2014 6:11

30:15

24th 5:18

25th 7:4

27 1:11

27th 14:3 15:1

29 4:13

3

30 4:14

300 69:3,10,12

31 4:17

31st 53:6 55:5

101:4,13,15

39 64:11

4

4 14:9

40 12:21

5

5 4:2,5

6

60 4:13

61 4:17

67 4:13

7

72 4:17

76 4:10

78 4:13,18

790.22 12:21

8

8 4:9

8.5 69:7

80 4:22 43:20 44:22

53:9
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

117

Siloxane ECA Negotiation

EPA

06-27-12

Washington, DC