UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SILOXANE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP/POTW MONITORING

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1201 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

AUGUST 7, 2012 2:03 P.M.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 2

1 ATTENDEES: 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE EPA: 4 MARCUS AGUILAR 5 BOB JONES 6 BRADLEY GRAMS 7 CATHY FEHRENBACHER 8 DAVID TOBIAS 9 JESSICA BARKAS 10 JESSICA BELL 11 JOE AVCIN 12 MARCUS AGUILAR 13 NHAN NGUYEN 14 PAUL LEWIS 15 TODD STEDEFORD 16 WARD PENBERTHY 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 3

1 INTERESTED PARTIES: 2 BETSY CARLTON, BLUESTAR SILICONES 3 CYNTHIA A FINLEY, (NACWA) 4 DAVID POWELL, DOW CORNING 5 DEBRA MCNETT, DOW CORNING 6 ELLEN MIHAICH, BLUESTAR SILICONES 7 GARY KOZERSKI, DOW CORNING 8 HUGH FLACK, WACKER CHEMICAL CORP. 9 JAESHIN KIM, DOW CORNING 10 KARLUSS THOMAS, (SEHSC) 11 KATHLEEN P. PLOTZKE, DOW CORNING 12 KEVIN WEST, MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS 13 LISA DUMAR, MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS 14 LISA PERRICASE, WACKER CHEMICAL CORP. 15 PATRICK GRIFFITH, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION 16 PAUL DELEO, AMERICAN CLEANING INSTITUTE 17 RAY HILEY, MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS 18 SCOTT DYER, PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL 19 TRACY GUERRERO, (SEHSC) 20 TRENT DOYLE, (SEHSC) 21 WENDY KOCH, CONSULTANT TO EVONIK 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 4

1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES PRESENT WITHOUT COMPLETE 2 NAMES/COMPANIES RECORDED: 3 KEN WOODBURN 4 DAVE ROBISON, PROCTOR AND GAMBLE 5 GEORGE LISCOE 6 JOHN KROGER 7 REBECCA GRAY 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 5

1 U.S. EPA 2 SILOXANE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP/POTW MONITORING 3 AUGUST 7, 2012 4 MR. PENBERTHY: I'll let you know who's on 5 the other end of the line. This is Ward Penberthy. 6 MR. JONES: I'm Bob Jones. 7 MR. NGUYEN: Nhan Nguyen. 8 MR. AVCIN: Joe Avcin. 9 MR. TOBIAS: David Tobias. 10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Cathy Fehrenbacher. 11 MR. AGUILAR: Marcus Aguilar. 12 MS. BELL: Jessica Bell. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess could we start, I 14 guess Marcus, why don't you call off the the names off 15 the list and if you're here, please respond with here. 16 MR. AGUILAR: Okay. All right, so I have 17 these are in no particular order, so if you can just 18 speak up when you hear your name. Betsy Carlton from 19 Bluestar? 20 MS. CARLTON: Yep. 21 MR. AGUILAR: Cynthia Finley from NACWA? 22 MS. FINLEY: Yes. 23 MR. AGUILAR: David Powell from Dow? 24 MR. POWELL: Yes. 25 MR. AGUILAR: Debra McNett from Dow?MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 6

1 MS. MCNETT: Yeah. 2 MR. AGUILAR: Ellen Mihaich from Bluestar? 3 MS. MIHAICH: Mihaich, yes. 4 MR. AGUILAR: Okay, sorry. 5 MS. MIHAICH: That's okay. 6 MR. AGUILAR: Gary Kozerski from Dow? 7 MR. KOZERSKI: Here. 8 MR. AGUILAR: Hugh Flack? 9 MR. FLACK: Here. 10 MR. AGUILAR: Okay. Jaeshin Kim from Dow? 11 MR. KIM: Here. 12 MR. AGUILAR: Karluss Thomas? 13 MR. THOMAS: I I'm here. 14 MR. AGUILAR: Okay. Kathleen Plotzke? 15 MS. PLOTZKE: Here. 16 MR. AGUILAR: Okay. Kevin West? 17 MR. WEST: Here. 18 MR. AGUILAR: Patrick Griffith? 19 MR. GRIFFITH: Here. 20 MR. AGUILAR: Paul DeLeo? 21 MR. DeLEO: Right. 22 MR. AGUILAR: Ray Hiley? 23 MR. HILEY: Here. 24 MR. AGUILAR: Scott Belanger? 25 MR. BELANGER: Here.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 7

1 MR. AGUILAR: Scott Dyer? 2 MALE SPEAKER: He is not here. 3 MR. AGUILAR: Okay. Tracy Guerrero? 4 MS. GUERRERO: Here. 5 MR. AGUILAR: Wendy Koch? 6 MS. KOCH: Here. 7 MR. AGUILAR: All right. If you if I haven't 8 said your name, if you could please just go off one at 9 a time and state your name and, the party that you're 10 representing? 11 MR. ROBISON: Dave Robison. Proctor and 12 Gamble. 13 MR. GOLDSMITH: Mike Goldsmith. 14 MR. LEWIS: Paul Lewis, EPA. 15 MR. GRAMS: Brad Grams, EPA. 16 MS. DUMAR: Lisa Dumar, Momentive. 17 MR. STEDEFORD: Todd Stedeford, EPA. 18 MS. PERRICASE: Lisa Perricase, Walker. 19 MR. STAPLES: Carl Staples, MDHSC. 20 MR. LISCOE: George Liscoe at Trent Doyle 21 Keller & Heckman. 22 MR. KROGER: John Kroger, Personal Care 23 Product counsel. 24 MS. GRAY: Rebecca Gray, Dirst & Dunn 25 (phonetic).MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 8

1 MS. BARKAS: Jessica Barkas, EPA. 2 MR. AGUILAR: All right. Is there anyone 3 else that hasn't said their name? Okay. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, you all should have 5 received a an agenda from Marcus as well as some copies 6 of, several documents, the SEHSC communication, from 7 last week. Also, you should have gotten a testing 8 proposal from EPA on ma- on the manufacturing 9 processing and formulation component of this. I guess 10 on the agenda, our first, portion of the meeting would 11 be trying to, discuss further the POTW monitoring 12 issues, specifically going through the SEHSC 13 communication, and also their feedback on our ideas 14 about testing around POTWs and then we'd follow that up 15 with the discussion of SEHSC's ideas around the 16 manufacturing and processing of formulating sites and 17 then, then our, perspectives on that from the EPA. As 18 I understand it, this working group is supposed to, try 19 to work together to, bring back, some kind of 20 recommendation or proposal to the formal negotiating 21 group, to consider, so ultimately, that's, the 22 intended, outcome of this meeting. So, we'll be 23 testing for that at the end of the meeting or at the 24 end of the different, discussions, agenda items, so, 25 before we go on to talking about the POTWs, is thereMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 9

1 any questions about the agenda or any or anything else 2 of that, nature? 3 MR. BELANGER: Yes, this is Scott, Scott 4 Belanger. There should have been an additional 5 document that was distributed a bit late, but coming 6 from PCPC regarding it it it's basically a build to the 7 SEHSC, responses. 8 MR. PENBERTHY: I'm not sure that we have 9 received that. 10 MR. BELANGER: All right. We sent it over 11 there today. 12 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 13 MR. BELANGER: So, our apologies if it was it 14 was late. 15 MR. PENBERTHY: Who did you send it to at 16 EPA? 17 MR. BELANGER: Itlucky COP Chubbs, II 18 (phonetic), it it went to oh, yeah, it was my mistake. 19 I I thought I had it on Marcus on here but I didn't. 20 So, I it's something that you did not receive. 21 Apologies for that. 22 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, because of that, we 23 won't be able to discuss it today. 24 MR. BELANGER: Yeah. 25 MR. PENBERTHY: Sorry about that.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 10

1 MR. BELANGER: Understand. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, anything else besides 3 that or should we proceed to, SEHC, document and, their 4 justification and rationale for the choices they've 5 proposed for POTW monitoring. Okay, Carlos, I guess, 6 the floor is yours for now. Or the line anyway. 7 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, 8 Ward. thanks again to the EPA for organizing this 9 call. I, hopefully you guys did get the, the 10 officer's submission from SEHSC in that we provide a 11 pretty detailed summary and a technical review of the 12 rationale for the number of sites that we're selecting 13 for the POTW portion of the proposal. We also provided 14 some some feedback on the agency's what I'm calling the 15 factors document, but that's the document that was 16 circulated last week that was called Major Factors 17 Relevant to the Environmental Presence of Siloxanes, 18 and in addition to that, we provided some additional 19 perspectives on the on the EPA process so far, I'll 20 invite Kathy and her team to kind of walk through the 21 whole document sort of starting with the ERM Report and 22 then also the feedback on, the factors document. So, 23 sorry to put you on the, spot, Kathy. I think we can 24 do that quickly and then following that, we're we're 25 very eager to hear EPA's feedback on the on theMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 11

1 submission. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, Karluss, we did get 3 your document and we did spread it around. We've done 4 our best to evaluate it as quickly as we can in the, in 5 the three or two or three working days we've had, uh. 6 There's some aspects of it we've been able to, plunge 7 into more detail than others, but, I guess given the 8 extent of the the detail you provided, we haven't been 9 able to do what I would call a complete assessment of 10 what you sent, but we're going to do our best today. 11 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Fair enough. 12 MS. FINLEY: This is Cynthia Finley at NACWA. 13 I don't believe I've received that document. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, we can go ahead and 15 forward that to you, Cynthia. 16 MS. FINLEY: That would be great. Thank you. 17 MR. PENBERTHY: Do you want me to do it right 18 now? 19 MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, go ahead. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: I can do it now. 21 MS. PLOTZKE: Okay. Well, and what I was 22 gonna do is just kind of walk through so each one of 23 the attachments and maybe, give an overview of it and 24 then see if there are questions. I realize you maybe 25 haven't gotten into, great detail in looking at them,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 12

1 but then really kind of open it up for discussion. So, 2 the first document as Karluss indicated was a report 3 from ERN (phonetic) the consultant that have been 4 working with and really, their rationale and 5 justification for the selection of five wastewater 6 treatment sites. Thereagain, not identifying the 7 specific sites, but really just doing a power analysis 8 to assess what type of the reality as far as the number 9 of sites needed to really further validate the 10 conceptual site models that ERN had had done for us. 11 So, their their explanation they have walked through 12 that as far as how they've done their power analysis, 13 so I'll stop and pause here and see if there were any 14 specific questions around that and then build on the 15 rest of the pieces. 16 MR. PENBERTHY: This is comments on what 17 portion of the document? The the first the first 18 document? 19 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, the yes, the report from 20 ERN was ERN, which is Recommendation of Number of Sites 21 to Sample for Validation of Z45 POTW Conceptual Site 22 Model. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, I guess, just to 24 start, you know, obviously, the conceptual site models 25 were an important component to develop for establishingMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 13

1 what media need to be sampled in in in the monitoring 2 program. It's I don't think, and this is a theme that 3 runs through the document, I don't think the intended 4 effort of the monitoring program is to necessarily 5 validate the conceptual site model, but for our 6 purposes, it's the monitoring is meant to us to provide 7 information from which we could develop a risk 8 assessment. So, I think, the document sort of 9 basically, identifies a conceptual difference in the 10 goals between SEHSC and EPA and so, we'd initially want 11 to point that out right away. 12 MR. THOMAS: Ward, I think that the document, 13 in addition to noting that one of the goals was to 14 validate the conceptual site models, I think it's also 15 clear that the document points out that in addition to 16 that, the point is to also, provide additional 17 information on sources and pathways of D4 and D5 to the 18 environment, which could be used to support the risk 19 assessment. So, I don't think the agency's goals for 20 this effort are lost. 21 MR. PENBERTHY. I guess in that sense, not 22 completely lost, but, I guess it doesn't what, clearly, 23 and we've said this before several times, is that it 24 would be very ha- difficult for us to base a risk 25 assessment on such a limited sample size and, I mean,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 14

1 that's just an ongoing, difference that we have, and I 2 you know, you'll have to admit the statistical anal3 analysis is somewhat, is interesting but, you know, I'm 4 not sure that it would stand the test of, you know, are 5 we is this an appropriate design for a, a risk 6 assessment that's trying to give a national perspective 7 on siloxane environmental concentrations. 8 Cathy, you might do you have anything to add 9 to that? 10 MS. FEHRENBACHER: No. 11 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, no. Okay. 12 MR. THOMAS: Ward, just to Ward, just to help 13 us out a little bit, are you are you able to provide a 14 little bit more detail with respect to specifically 15 what elements of the rationale don't allow you to 16 accomplish your goal of a risk assessment? What is 17 there something missing? Is there something I mean 18 beyond just not being able to use the number of sites. 19 Are there specific elements of the rationale that lead 20 you to the conclusion that something different might be 21 needed, because that's sort of what I'm struggling 22 with. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Well, in page eight 24 on the conclusions, it clearly states that that design 25 is, trying to establish a worst-case scenario andMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 15

1 that's not our objective. 2 MS. PLOTZKE: I guess just one of the 3 questions that that I had concerning obviously, that 4 that is one of the the questions that that are 5 different than they should say that we have in from an 6 approach standpoint is the worst case scenario and they 7 way we look at it is, if you do a worst case scenario, 8 in particular with the data set, that's one of the 9 things we tried to demonstrate in the other attachment 10 on the benthic risk assessment, looking at this where 11 we have monitoring data data from around the globe, so 12 global monitoring data that was already done basically 13 looking at, a risk assessment approach in the data and 14 actual real data that you have which shows there is no 15 risk associated with the concentrations that we're 16 finding in the multiple places around the globe, 17 including some here in the United States or others that 18 will be similar to the United States, that the usable 19 worst case approach, then may be appropriate to 20 identify and verify here within the United States that 21 you're not going to have any situation that's really 22 different than what we've already done. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, you do mention that 24 the monitoring data that you presented, specifically in 25 Table One of, let me see, that's Attachment, is thatMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 16

1 Attachment Three? 2 MR. AGUILAR: Yeah, Attachment Three. 3 MR. PENBERTHY: you know, many of these data 4 are from different countries. A great or a majority of 5 them are from, sea water samples. I think the Lake 6 Pepin data is, well, we don't fully understand the 7 circumstances of the monitoring, but, from what we 8 understand are very remote from any source of 9 siloxanes. I mean, the only data that looks like it 10 might, have some relevance to this exercise would be, 11 and I might maybe I'm over-sighting. Maybe it's not 12 the only data. All of the data is relevant, I suppose, 13 but the most interesting data would be from what's the 14 Wang, et al. data and that's eleven different sites, 15 but So, I don't think the data that's been presented is 16 is, sufficient for us to develop the kind of 17 conclusions that you you suggest. 18 MS. PLOTSKE: I I think that I I think, you 19 know, we can talk a little bit more if you'd like to 20 understand the specifics around some of the sites. 21 Dave Powell is here, as well, to talk about that, 22 particularly Lake Pepin, but I guess one one aspect of 23 it, and I understand that this is not this is not data 24 that is going to replaceor is in, you know, basically 25 we're suggesting that you look at not any otherMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 17

1 monitoring data, but what we are suggesting is that 2 when you take a look at this data set and you apply 3 certain factors. Yes, some of it is sea water, but not 4 all of it. Some of it is fresh water. Some of it is 5 area by park, if not exactly in the United States but 6 similar to the United States and that combined with our 7 extensive knowledge around these materials and how they 8 behave, we really feel confident you can go out and 9 predict this kind of behavior with these materials and 10 so by having these five additional worst case sites in 11 the United States, it really verifies and validates 12 that approach. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, I'm sorry. We just 14 can't agree with that. 15 MS. PLOTSKE: So, I guess, can you help us 16 understand why you don't agree with that? 17 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I think I just said 18 that they don't they're from different countries. 19 They're from mostly or many of the majority of the data 20 is from sea water, you know, would it how close is the 21 nearest source to Lake Pepin is? I think it's over 22 sixty miles, I mean, so, you know, 23 MR. THOMAS: Eight kilometers. That's 24 straight. 25 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, whatever. It's still,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 18

1 we don't believe it's representative data for us to 2 develop any kind of conclusions along the lines you 3 suggest. 4 MR. THOMAS: Well, if if I may just add here, 5 I think what you're touching upon is the whole issue 6 with concentrations in sediments are going to be a 7 function of distance away from the waste water 8 treatment plant. Is that correct? 9 MR. PENBERTHY: I think that's a logical 10 connection that most people would come to, don't you 11 think? 12 MR. THOMAS: I would hope so, yes. So, from 13 that perspective alone, why could they why could you 14 not go to a well-selected worst case area and sample 15 the sediments in that area confined study area such as 16 was done for Tokyo Bay, and that way you you will find 17 a bracket the range of concentrations that will exist 18 in sediments across the nation? 19 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we're just not 20 interested in a worst-case assessment. We'd rather 21 have 22 MR. THOMAS: That's not what I'm saying. 23 I'm not saying a worst-case assessment, but you can go 24 to a worst-case area and sample that area and you will 25 get concentrations that range from the low detection,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 19

1 up to the highest concentrations possible. That by 2 definition will bracket every concentration you can 3 find across the U.S. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: I just don't see the data in 5 that table as representative of U.S. situation. 6 MR. THOMAS: Well, would you would you say 7 that Tokyo Bay is similar to, San Francisco Bay? 8 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, I think on that 9 MR. THOMAS: On that isthey both have salt 10 wedges. 11 MR. PENBERTHY: on the 12 MR. THOMAS: They both get significant 13 amounts of treatment. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, I think on your sites 15 that have been proposed for monitoring, I don't think I 16 saw a single site that was to sea well, there's one 17 site to sea waters, I believe. So, the sea water 18 sites, you know, while they're I mean, it it's 19 interesting data but it's not the circumstances that 20 we, seem to be trying to obtain monitoring data for. 21 MR. THOMAS: So, your only focus is on fresh 22 water environment. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, that's our primary 24 focus because that's the primary location of your 25 facilities, the primary location of most, the greatMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 20

1 fraction of the POTWs in the United States, and if 2 we're trying to establish a range of concentrations in 3 the environment in the United States, that would be, 4 you know, a logical thought, I would think. 5 MR. WEST: Ward, this is, Kevin West from 6 Momentive. I'll readily admit I'm not as 7 scientifically inclined as some of my colleagues, and I 8 don't want to beat a dead horse here, but we're 9 mentioned a couple of times worst-case scenario on 10 range of, distribution, etc. and I have to try to 11 explain to my management who's less scientifically 12 inclined than I am why have if the risk is zero in a 13 worst-case scenario, why would we want to go out and 14 spend, you know, 10x number of dollars to show that the 15 risk is somewhat less than zero. 16 So, maybe if we could at some point in 17 today's conversation try to put that in three syllable 18 words or less so I can explain it to my management why 19 we would want to quantify a risk less than zero and why 20 a worst-case scenario wouldn't be the screening 21 assessment that we would do first, before we do a deep 22 dive and what value a range of, concentration, gives to 23 you what what, what value does it give to you and 24 whatever use it is up for you because I guess I could 25 have a hard time trying to explain that to myMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 21

1 management, so if you could help me out there, I could 2 apprec I would appreciate it. 3 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Well, I guess the 4 major concern that we would have is how would we know 5 beyond a theoretical basis that in fact the sites 6 selected are the worst case, so there's no guarantee, 7 despite the fact that I think the factors that we think 8 are important to use to select, facilities or sites to 9 monitor would would probably encompass worst cases. 10 There's there's no guarantee until you do take the data 11 and in fact what you've done is is actually captures 12 it. So, so, basically, you know, designing a program 13 about what people intuitively think would be the worst 14 case, you know, doesn't necessarily give us enough 15 confidence that the data is representative or, even, 16 relevant to, a risk assessment. 17 MR. THOMAS: Ward, this is Karluss, and just 18 to kind of continue with that with that point, you 19 mentioned that the Wang, et al. data was probably the 20 most interesting, and I'm just wondering if the Wang, 21 et al. data coupled with the Oregon data, which I think 22 there you had fifty plus sites. I realize all of them 23 were non-detects but I'm just wondering with the fifty 24 plus sites from Oregon, coupled with the eleven sites 25 from the Wang, et al. study in Canada, that gives youMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 22

1 greater than sixty sites. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Do we have the 3 MR. THOMAS: So, is it your view that sixty 4 sites wouldn't be sufficient to allow you to determine 5 what the worst case scenarios might be? 6 MR. PENBERTHY: It's only the (parties 7 speaking over each other) 8 MR. THOMAS: That's certainly more than the 9 forty-two that you just 10 MALE SPEAKER: levels and the detection level 11 was higher than we would like it to be. I explained 12 that. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, I don't I don't well, 14 first of all, I don't know that or I don't know if we 15 certainly don't know enough about the details of the 16 circumstances in which the Canadian data were were 17 gathered. For instance, what the POTW configuration, 18 what were the flow rates, what were the conditions of 19 sampling the the standard stuff that you would have in 20 a in a rigorous monitoring program, and there are 21 certain problems with the the Oregon data and David, 22 maybe you can further explain. 23 MR. TOBIAS: Well, for the Oregon data, the 24 only the F1 level is given, I think, from the paper 25 and, the limit of detection for that paper is over whatMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 23

1 the agency's concern level is, and there are no 2 sediment levels given for that paper, which I think 3 SEHSC has also verified as being the media where it's 4 persistent. So, of one sample grab, I think, at fifty5 two sites, where the purpose of the monitoring program 6 was definitely not to go out and evaluate siloxane. 7 The the program started from a different direction than 8 that, and that seems a big jump to take when the the 9 data that even you, agree is the is persistent in the 10 sediment. 11 MR. THOMAS: Right, no, agreed, but I I 12 thought we were talking about determining what the 13 worst case scenarios were. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, we're not interested in 15 16 MR. THOMAS: and I wasn't 17 MR. PENBERTHY: determining the worst case. 18 We want to establish what the range is and and what the 19 variability is and what the relative contributions are 20 of different factors to Siloxane's coming out of POTWs. 21 MR. TOBIAS: The the other point is that in 22 the Oregon paper, they they point out that Oregon has 23 no history of the chemical industry present in their 24 state, which is is another point against that data 25 being too heavily weighed. So, that is not a factorMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 24

1 that would be true across the rest of the country, and 2 our our problem with the Canadian data, as Ward started 3 to indicate, is that they had to grant confident- or 4 anonymity to all of the sites, so to some degree, you 5 can learn some about how to connect these to what what 6 would create risk and how to select worst case, but but 7 it's not clear because they had to grant con- anonymity 8 or confidentiality to these sites. 9 MS. PLOTSKE: But I guess the other question 10 that I have about getting looking at the getting a 11 range and understanding that range, is how how do you 12 plan how why you think it's the right way to get that 13 range, even with forty-two sites? How do you define a 14 sampling program to really understand that range? 15 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I think what we tried 16 to do is, develop a sampling program that would logic 17 that tries to base on a scientific logic, what would be 18 the likely biggest contributors to Siloxane releases in 19 at from various POTWs, and then test each of those 20 factors using that design tool in in which is tries to 21 make it as efficient as possible, you know, obviously 22 we've asked for feedback, and I I would like to get to 23 your feedback on some of our factors, which I think is 24 very helpful, and some of your comments tend to, 25 resonate with the proposal that we make, quite frankly.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 25

1 So, but, you know, that was our approach, so. 2 MS. PLOTSKE: I, so I guess, I mean, I think 3 the biggest the question and from our experience and 4 knowledge and it it really looking at the how you do it 5 sampling program, and understanding the range of 6 materials, the the towns you're going to pick, so if 7 we're in agreement that the farther you get away from 8 the source, the impact it's going to have an impact on 9 the condensation, but you could look across that whole 10 range for one site. That range won't be different for 11 one site across the whole nation. So, you you could 12 spend time monitoring forty-two sites and you will 13 encompass the range with one site. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: I I don't think I understand. 15 MS. PLOTSKE: Well, I just want what I'm 16 trying to understand is, what more information does 17 that really give you to do a risk assessment if you 18 don't understand that range overall by just giving one 19 site. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, clearly the more sites, 21 the less uncertainty in your analysis. Would you agree 22 to that? 23 MALE SPEAKER: It depends on the number of 24 samples taken at each site. 25 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean, if youMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 26

1 MALE SPEAKER: If you if you were to monitor 2 just sediment, would you monitor in the zone of initial 3 dilution? Would you monitor a hundred meters 4 downstream from that zone? Two hundred meters? A 5 kilometer? 6 MR. PENBERTHY: I don't think we've even 7 begun to talk about this issues. We're just trying to 8 MALE SPEAKER: Well 9 MR. PENBERTHY: talk about how many sites. 10 MALE SPEAKER: That's a consideration, 11 though. 12 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I definitely agree. 13 MALE SPEAKER: I could tell you I can tell 14 you based on how you've expressed concerns about Lake 15 Pepin. I understand that. I can also tell you that if 16 you go look at published monitoring data on other 17 materials, PCBs, metals, organic chlorines, what you 18 find is that in the Mississippi River, the greater 19 concentrations of those materials are current in Lake 20 Pipin, which is eighty kilometers downstream from the 21 source. That's a function of deposition. It's a 22 function of the rate of flow from, the Mississippi 23 River. Basically what you have in the upper part of 24 the river is along the scour, not much in the way of 25 deposition zones, and Lake Pepin is serving as a trap.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 27

1 MALE SPEAKER: Okay, directly, go ahead. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: David has a point. 3 MR. TOBIAS: Well, I'd I'd just like to make 4 a I I I don't actually have detailed knowledge of the 5 the range of contaminants along the Mississippi River, 6 but the Mississippi River is a very large river, 7 obviously, with many, many inputs, but we're concerned 8 about all kinds of different watersheds in the United 9 States at the EPA, not just the largest one in the 10 country. So, I don't I don't understand just comparing 11 it to the Mississippi River. 12 MALE SPEAKER: I I understand that. My point 13 is, if you go to a site, where you going to where where 14 you going to sample? If you go to biggest Minneapolis, 15 St. Paul happens to be one of the recommended areas to 16 go to, where would you sample? 17 MR. PENBERTHY: Adjacent to a POTW 18 (MULTIPLE PERSONS SPEAKING OVER EACH OTHER) 19 MR. TOBIAS: You you'd want to you'd want to 20 sample near the outfall. 21 MR. PENBERTHY: Near the outfall. 22 MALE SPEAKER: Why? 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Because 24 MALE SPEAKER: The highest concentrations are 25 eight tall or seven straight.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 28

1 MR. TOBIAS: You you're 2 MALE SPEAKER: and sevens. 3 MR. TOBIAS: You you're saying you also have 4 monitoring data in Minneapolis, St. Paul for these 5 chemicals? Is that what I thought there wasn't 6 monitoring data. You're just saying in general. 7 MALE SPEAKER: Not for the Siloxane but for 8 classes of other materials. 9 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean, but you propose 10 a hypothetical and there's no way that we can argue 11 that because you don't have data. We don't have data. 12 So, 13 MR. TOBIAS: But just initially from the 14 Canadian data, they found higher levels than at Lake 15 Pepin, so that means higher levels are possible for 16 sure and there's where the monitoring was done at the 17 outfall. 18 MALE SPEAKER: I'm not disputing that. 19 MR. TOBIAS: Okay. 20 MALE SPEAKER: I'm not disputing that aspect 21 of it. What I'm saying is, Lake Pepin does not 22 represent a worst case scenario. You said you're not 23 interested in the worst case scenario, and Lake Pepin 24 appears not a worst case scenario. 25 MR. TOBIAS: Yeah, itMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 29

1 MALE SPEAKER: What it does represent is it 2 shows you the variability associated with the sediment 3 and the function of the the flow regime of the 4 receiving waters and the distance, and I can tell you 5 that based on other sediment or contaminants, the 6 higher concentrations occur at Lake Pepin. They do not 7 occur at the point of discharge. 8 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, well 9 MALE SPEAKER: Those are too high. 10 MR. PENBERTHY: Maybe your dat- maybe the 11 Lake Pepin data deserved to be included in evaluating 12 within a risk assessment, but clearly, we need data, as 13 we said, near the outfall of the POTWs. 14 MR. THOMAS: Well, Ward, would it be 15 worthwhile now to just kind of go into the feedback on 16 your factors documents. You mentioned you guys were 17 interested in hearing that feedback. You thought it, 18 helped with some of your considerations. Would it be 19 worthwhile now to kind of start to walk through that? 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, please, go ahead. 21 Attachment two. 22 MR. THOMAS: Okay. 23 MR. AGUILAR: I think I'd pick up many 24 places, actually, that were (Inaudible). 25 MR. THOMAS: Kathy, I'll let you walkMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 30

1 through that one, as well. 2 MS. PLOTZKE: Okay, I'm going to turn that 3 over to Jaeshin Kim. 4 MR. KIM: Would you give out the section 5 five. Hi, this is Jaeshin Kim. Okay, so I would like 6 to I discuss the major factors that might be used for 7 the, the optimal approach for the D-optimal design 8 [Inaudible] and well, obviously we all agree that we 9 need to way to find a a very good reason to select why 10 we are focused important criteria, and so I select 11 three criteria to select the major factors and then I 12 give you the six factors proposed by Jay and then I 13 really consider or look at factor and then I propose 14 the right ones again. 15 The first criteria is the detector should be 16 influence the output, obviously, and then second one is 17 selective detector should be independent of each other 18 and then the third criterion would be the quantitative 19 detector should be long and prior to the monitoring 20 program. 21 MR. TOBIAS: Excuse me, Jaeshin, sorry. Just 22 a, a point of procedure here. I think you're actually 23 talking about Attachment Five, right? What is it? 24 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, that is Attachment 25 Five.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 31

1 MR. TOBIAS: Yeah. 2 MR. KIM: [Inaudible]. 3 MR. TOBIAS: No, that's fine. He can go 4 ahead. 5 MR. KIM: I sent you a text with the 6 Attachment, Attachment Five. 7 MR. TOBIAS: Yeah, I just so everyone knows 8 where 9 MR. KIM: Okay. 10 MR. PENBERTHY: So, can can just to summarize 11 the three criteria that you're looking at is the the 12 input of siloxanes to the POTW, the treatment method 13 and then the the dilution factor into the receiving 14 stream? 15 MR. KIM: Right, right, so, you know, well 16 overall the population is, does not influence the, 17 concentration of the D4 and D5 in the effluent and the 18 temperature does not dictate that much, and also the 19 receiving water flow does not correlate the contents 20 used in but, instead of these factors, we propose to 21 use the dilution factor, okay, and then and then we 22 found that based on the physical properties, that the 23 the efficiency of the Siloxane removal and and those 24 the different concentration is very related to the 25 treatment type, so every every load that siloxanes isMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 32

1 very volatile and is very absorptive to the suspended 2 particles and when at the time the wastewater enter the 3 the POTW, it's already equlibrated thoroughly, and 4 thenso the additional removal will be done by the 5 aeration or volatization during the treatment, and we 6 also know that the activated sludge system used a lot 7 of aeration so it, remove the siloxanes from the third 8 phase eventually to the air compartment and also the, 9 the concentration, compared to the lagoons or the 10 activated sludge system produce less total solids 11 concentration, compared to the lagoons or the pond, so 12 overall, the different concentration is very related to 13 the treatment type. So, we better suggest that the 14 three levels of treatment type might be a better one. 15 Each represent the older treatment and and then, okay, 16 this additional factor with two lagoons, which 17 represents the receiving environment, and and then, I 18 also know database about the organic contents of the 19 receiving body nationwide, so it's very hard to include 20 the [Inaudible] data in the input, so I think overall 21 treatment type with the three levels and dillution 22 factor with three levels might be better important 23 factor to accept the D4, D5 siloxanes monitoring. 24 So, overall, I think that this combination 25 might be a proper way for the monitoring plan. AnyMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 33

1 questions? 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, just a just a few. 3 Obviously, we agree that the a logical way to, 4 understand that the the amount of input of siloxanes to 5 the POTW's important. That was the intent of our 6 population size, so I guess, you're in your concept, 7 again, you're going at it a little bit from the worst 8 case again where you're trying to pick, as I understand 9 it, you know, pick pick only POTWs with high siloxane 10 concentrations in their feed to test in that six 11 component matrix. Is that correct? 12 MR. KIM: Yes. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: Now, how would you determine 14 which POTW is a high concentration in the feed? I 15 mean, we we, thought that, and this was on the advice 16 of people in our office of water who deal with POTWs 17 that population was a big factor in that. How would 18 you est- identify, the high input POTWs? 19 MR. KIM: I think from the NPDS database, we 20 know population served to each POTW and also we know 21 the incoming flow rate. So, I would consider the low 22 in incoming flow rate for the population. It takes 23 would be the logical high load important thing to POTW. 24 MR. PENBERTHY: So, let let me just 25 understand it. You would basically pick POTWs, servingMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 34

1 high populations that receive a low flow to establish 2 your high input POTW? 3 MR. KIM: Yes. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 5 MR. BELANGER: This is Scott Belanger. I I'm 6 gonna add a point in here that it is it is not trivial 7 and this is actually a a substantial well-known 8 analysis and factor in in how consumer product 9 chemicals are evaluated for their environmental risk, 10 and this goes directly to historical pre-manufacturing 11 notification assessments, or, existing assessments of 12 typical, typical consumer product chemicals, whether 13 they be triclosan or or surfactants or telators, D4, D5 14 falls in here, but the fact is with population size, 15 that it's relatively independent of the influent 16 concentration, and and the reason is quite simple. 17 With increasing population size, one has, an increased, 18 ingoing dilution volume from people using water in 19 their homes. 20 So, as a result, influent concentrations, to, 21 a particular treatment facility, are are very simply 22 scaled by those off-site factors that are they you may 23 have now differences of, you know, a factor of twenty24 five or thirty percent here or there, but that is more 25 likely, associated with other things like overflows orMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 35

1 or other factors. So, these are typically handled as 2 pretty easily, scalable and predicted influent 3 measurement, 4 (Multiple people talking) 5 MR. BELANGER: that's why population served 6 MR. PENBERTHY: And then you [Inaudible] the 7 low population. I thought we had 8 (Multiple people talking) 9 MR. BELANGER: doesn't necessarily translate. 10 Our largest concentrations aren't necessarily in the 11 largest city. 12 FEMALE SPEAKER: How do you know [Inaudible]. 13 MR. KIM: I agree. It's my bottom point, but 14 15 (Multiple people talking). 16 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, well, as I understand 17 your proposal. I guess we had population just by 18 itself and you're saying that the combination of 19 population and flow rate might be a better way to 20 establish the input of siloxanes. 21 MR. KIM: Yes. 22 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So, I understand that 23 that, you know, we're going to need to discuss that. I 24 think if we were trying to establish the range of 25 concentrations, then logically speaking, if we followMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 36

1 your proposal here, a low population high flow would 2 get the low low number, right? 3 MR. KIM: Right. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Let's keep going. 5 MR. KIM: Okay, then. So, from the 6 monitoring results, we assume that the removal is 7 relatively the same then, we can predict the lower 8 effluent concentration from the lower input. 9 MR. PENBERTHY: The one thing question I had 10 was I know your comment is all organized around 11 concentration, but you know, if you have a a very high 12 flow at a low concentration, you still get a high 13 loading in terms of pounds, in terms of mass, and and 14 and then there's as larger mass goes through say the 15 POTW is so you know, ninety-five percent efficient in 16 extraction, you know, the five percent of the large 17 number could be still be a large number. So, the 18 concentration's not really the only factor you have to 19 consider. 20 MR. KIM: Could you please elaborate again? 21 I couldn't hear the last part. 22 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean, the commentary 23 that you make is very focused on concentration 24 discussions, saying that, you know, the concentration 25 in is an important factor in the feed, but you know, IMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 37

1 think also the total mass going to the POTW is 2 important, too, because say you have a very large flow 3 rate and a relatively small concentration in terms of 4 mass going through the POTW, of Siloxane. It still 5 could be a very, very large number that that eventually 6 doesn't get treated and goes out the effluent. 7 MR. KIM: But I I don't think the total mass 8 is not our primary concern, although it it we are we 9 are aware of that factor, but the environmental level 10 is our primary concern, is my understanding. 11 MR. PENBERTHY: What's our primary concern? 12 MR. TOBIAS: Concentration that the parts per 13 million and parts per billion. 14 FEMALE SPEAKER: That that's that's what 15 we've been focusing on where you've indicated the 16 concentration of these materials. 17 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, but how do you but what 18 happens if you get, you know, a large mass going out 19 the effluent, large mass gets absorbed to the sediment 20 and concentration builds? 21 FEMALE SPEAKER: You're not going to be able 22 to build, I mean, from a I mean, you've got some other 23 factors that play into the the fate and distribution of 24 these materials that you're not going to get like this 25 level of concentration greater than what you canMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 38

1 achieve from a solubility standpoint. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, well, I think maybe we 3 should move on to discussing the treatment types. I 4 guess from what I understand in your commentary, you 5 like the activated sludge, the trickling filter, and 6 the lagoons as the treatment types that you would need 7 to monitor. 8 MR. KIM: Yes. 9 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I guess I need to 10 understand your concept of the dilution which is, well, 11 that's the ratio of the F1 flow rate to the flow rate 12 of the receiving river? 13 MR. KIM: Yes, that's correct. 14 MALE SPEAKER: It's not rate if well, I I 15 guess it it's it's it's rated if you're considering 16 that in terms of volume per minute, yeah. Probably 17 should digress away from changing it. 18 MR. PENBERTHY: How is that different than - 19 hold on a second. We need to discuss here for a 20 second. How is that different than is that a better 21 (Multiple people talking). 22 MR. KIM: that the siloxane concentration in 23 the receiving water body will be higher than the other 24 case, and and then also based on the NPDS data, and 25 there are very wide range of distribution and myMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 39

1 unde rstanding is the median value is around two with a 2 dilu tion factor of 200. So, then I assume for the 3 stre am water environment, it should factor in terms of 4 the dilution factor. So, I think this factor is very 5 impo rtant to represent the environment of the receiving 6 wate r body. 7 MR. P ENBERTHY: Okay, so I understand then as 8 a re sult of that analysis, then you would have a 9 assu ming that you would pick monitoring only for a high 10 inpu t POTWs, you would test activated sludge trickling 11 filt er at lagoons both at high dilution rates and low 12 dilu tion rates. Well, that would basically be a raft 13 of s ix POTWs monitored. 14 MR. K IM: Yes. 15 MR. P ENBERTHY: Okay, well, I understand your 16 comm ent, and do you all have any anybody else have any 17 EPA have questions about that? 18 MR. T OBIAS: I, yes, I'll make a couple 19 comm ents. This is David Tobias. The point about 20 popu lation that that is I think something we need to 21 look at a bit more, because I think when they look at 22 slud ge levels, they do see a difference connected to 23 popu lation for commandment levels. So, that would 24 indi cate that there is a component that's determined by 25 the total mass input. So, we'll have to do some moreMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 40

1 looking into that, so so to completely see how to 2 evaluate what the relative merit of these different 3 parameters is. 4 But for the second point when on geography on 5 Jaeshin's here, is that by the time you get to the end 6 of your criteria, you've you've removed any impact you 7 think from the local environment at all whether that be 8 geography, temperature, the organic content of the 9 receiving body, what watershed it is, whatever that 10 that seems to be difficult to assume that you can wipe 11 all of that away and still say that you could, either 12 understand the range or the worst case independent upon 13 which one you think you're going out to to measure when 14 you've as Dave Powell just pointed out, there are local 15 affects that come into play when you when you get rid 16 of all of those factors, you've got no back up to think 17 about how any local local variability will go on. 18 It so it it it seems it seems like it's it's 19 it's making the environment seem a lot more near than 20 than the reality, how messy the environment is, and the 21 so I I I see the points for the the total suspended 22 solids and the organic content you've made, but I I 23 think you you wipe away the organic content because you 24 say that they're not a good database for it but the I 25 it it seems hard to me to accept that there thereMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 41

1 should be no no no information about the local 2 environment in terms of determining how many sites or 3 what kind of sites you're going to measure. 4 MS. FEHRENBACHER: I I think that the 5 challenge is that there's no there's no information in 6 databases that allow you to pull that information out. 7 It's like on organic carbon content in the sediment of 8 the receiving body, you would measure that, and factor 9 that into the results that you have, but there's no way 10 to go in and say what that organic carbon content is 11 and the water, the surface water area in the United 12 States and then use that as a parameters, so it's not 13 that it won't factor into your end result. You can't 14 use it as a parameter for selecting a site. 15 MR. TOBIAS: I think that there might not be 16 exact information for what organic content would be, 17 but I think that if you wanted to think about a range 18 of organic content would be, as you pointed out, I 19 mean, the Hudson River would be very different than a 20 water body in the southwest. You can't know exactly 21 for sure before you design the program what that 22 measured value would be. I agree, but to say that you 23 have no ability to even put it into different scales 24 for different rivers, that sounds extreme. 25 MALE SPEAKER: Well, in my sense of this andMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 42

1 this kind of unfortunately circles back to some of the 2 earlier discussion about what it takes, then, to really 3 factor that in properly. Of course, we know that 4 organic carbon has a high seasonal dependence. Water 5 bodies that are large, may have different levels of 6 variability than water bodies that are smaller and have 7 a more like variance zone associated with them, and it 8 gets into very much this idea that what the goal of, 9 of, of a monitoring effort would be and in the end, 10 those annual or local variations are so large, our 11 experience is exactly what Kathy just indicated that 12 you factor it in by understanding what organic carbon 13 is like in the site or sites that you eventually choose 14 so that you can appropriately account for it in the 15 evaluation of the physical chemical properties and 16 measurements in biota. 17 So, I think it's not that the fact that the 18 we think it's unimportant. It is important. It's that 19 there are other ways to factor that in. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Exactly what would those 21 other ways be, do you think? How would be the best 22 way? 23 MR. TOBIAS: It would be a parameters just 24 like any other that you would need to monitor, 25 especially in SITU that would allow you to have aMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 43

1 sense for what variability actually is at a given site. 2 To do that top priority, you know, perhaps 3 you might, you might try, but the fact is that the 4 information simply is not out there to allow you to do 5 that well. 6 MR. PENBERTHY: Now if that's the case and I 7 sort of understand your comment, does that mean if 8 that's not a factor for selecting a specific site, does 9 that mean you would have to monitor more sites to make 10 sure that you had data points that covered that 11 variability? 12 MR. TOBIAS: I think this probably goes back 13 to that concept, my understanding, you'd add a site 14 that you do choose to monitor allows you to address it 15 and it is a ... because this is a physical property 16 driven thing, our sense has always been that you could 17 always adequately account for it that way. 18 MR. PENBERTHY: But the straight-up ... 19 MR. TOBIAS: Knowing that a discharge is in a 20 region of high organic carbon is useful in 21 understanding the context at that site, but it's going 22 to be very difficult to extrapolate beyond that. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, so to get a straight-up 24 comparison, you would need, say, say you were taking a 25 high population, low flow POTW on activated sludge at aMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 44

1 specific effluent rate as our dilution ratio, then 2 you'd want data with roughly the same values for those 3 factors, but different only how much suspended solids 4 in the receiving stream? Is that how you would do 5 that? 6 MR. TOBIAS: I'm not sure I exactly follow, 7 except I return to the big, big factor here, factors, 8 will always turn out to be treatment type and local 9 dilution. 10 Another thing to consider in this is whether 11 we really believe that competitive interactions between 12 effluent solids because the compounds are not going to 13 be in the aqueous phase, so for organic carbon to 14 become a very important factor, important enough to 15 raise up to the level of designing a study around, we 16 would have to have, we would be adopting the view that 17 organic carbon is going to be more competitive for D4 18 D5, than effluent solids would and I would actually, 19 would have a hard time believing that. 20 Equivalent, yes. If there was more D4 D5 in 21 the aqueous phase, I could imagine that if we go that 22 way, but this would be ignoring a lot of the physical 23 property information that exists. 24 (WHEREUPON, there is background discussion 25 while phone is muted. The following segment is spokenMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 45

1 over the phone discussion.) 2 MR. PENBERTHY: No, I understand what they're 3 saying, it's just ... 4 MALE SPEAKER: There's more to it than just 5 (Inaudible). 6 MR. PENBERTHY: There's a competition between 7 sludge and suspended solids. Lined-up as the sludge, I 8 guess. 9 MALE SPEAKER: We've determined that that 10 wasn't a killer, killer factor for us, right? 11 MR. PENBERTHY: I was just pointing out that 12 they've gotten rid of the nickname that, that's a site. 13 I mean, like the total suspended solids that are in the 14 carbon geography, those, they talked about where, and 15 they just like blowed us off. 16 MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, but I think the way you 17 handle the solids is that you get enough samples that 18 you have a facility that has high solids. 19 I can understand why they can't figure that 20 out. 21 MR. PENBERTHY: But they want to do whatever 22 they can to point to five, so. 23 MALE SPEAKER: One. 24 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 25 FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, I mean they just hadMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 46

1 this long discussion about all the variables and they, 2 as he said, they just dismissed all that because that 3

... 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean they agreed with 5 three of them. 6 (WHEREUPON, the background discussion ceased 7 and the phone discussion was heard.) 8 MS. FEHRENBACHER: The other thing that's 9 important is when you allow your monitoring and 10 concentrations of sediment, you can normalize as to 11 your, too, your carbon content which is what really 12 causes the problem anyway. 13 That's the important thing. When you're 14 doing that and you're understanding at the site that 15 you're monitoring and you're looking at that and 16 normalizing for that. 17 MR. KIM: And also there is one component 18 that we need to consider is, is that the siloxane is 19 not biodegradable, so if you, when you consider these 20 normal organic compounds, then the temperature, the 21 other factors are important because the biodegradation 22 rate depends on many parameters, but for siloxane, for 23 siloxane, we don't consider biodegradation, so local 24 tests are not the most important other than the 25 sorption and aeration.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 47

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Thank you. 2 Does our EPA folks have any other questions 3 about the comments that were made? Any clarifications 4 needed? 5 Okay. I mean, I think, I think what we're 6 going to need to do here at EPA, obviously we really 7 didn't have enough time to fully digest your 8 commentary, but understanding the comments you've made 9 on our proposal, I think we need to go back and 10 consider them in more depth and to see how many of the 11 proposed changes in focus that you make in your 12 comments we can accommodate in a, possibly an updated 13 proposal and so we're going to have to get back to you 14 on that. 15 Is that all right with you all? 16 MR. THOMAS: That's fine, Ward. 17 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 18 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And one other thing on 19 that, Ward, too, because I didn't add Kent Woodburn, 20 but obviously you have a document in your hands that is 21 from Kent Woodburn and he has stepped into the room. I 22 just wanted to document that he is here as well because 23 he did provide that copy of the risk assessment. 24 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, yeah, I do, we do have 25 that. Unfortunately, our risk assessors haven't beenMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 48

1 available for us to look at that yet, so we're going to 2 need to apologize about that. Summertime is sometimes 3 tough. 4 MR. TOBIAS: Can I ask Cathy a question? 5 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Kent, do you want to just 6 add something about the sediment concentrations? 7 MR. TOBIAS: Cathy? Cathy? Are you there? 8 Can I ask you a question, actually about the 9

... 10 MR. WOODBURN: I heard the comments about the 11 sediment concentrations and just wanted to give you the 12 perspective of how the data were collected and shown in 13 the document. 14 In any sort of probabilistic assessment, you 15 want to get a range of concentrations and the nice 16 thing about the APRA style approach is that you can 17 then examine worst-case scenarios, you can examine 18 median scenarios, you can examine low-case scenarios, 19 low-risk scenarios, and so it gives you a range of 20 concentrations. 21 And if you look at the data for both D4 and 22 D5, the settlement data in the diagram, you can see 23 that we have a range of concentrations that went from 24 three orders of magnitude to four orders of magnitude. 25 Now, admittedly, that we did sway to fit, in that weMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 49

1 did not include the non-detectable concentrations. We 2 can certainly go back and put those in. We can say 3 that they're 50 percent of the detection limit or 4 something like that, but that would just further expand 5 the range of concentrations that we have. It would 6 take it four, even five orders of magnitude. 7 So if we were to throw on the proposed 42 8 more sites, I dare say that they're going to likely 9 fall on the same distribution lines that are shown here 10 from D4 and D5 and if we go back and look at the Wang, 11 et. al. data, there's a couple of caveats that you 12 should be aware of for that. And that is that these 13 data were collected by Environ in Canada. They were 14 using a megaflush model, they're model, for waste water 15 treatment plant discharge to try to find locations that 16 would have a high concentration of siloxane. And so 17 they identified nine municipal waste water treatment 18 plants and one industrial waste water treatment plant 19 and they collected data from those locations. If you 20 put those data with regard to the distribution lines, 21 you'll find that they span the entire spectrum of the 22 concentrations on the distribution lines both from low 23 concentrations to the highest concentrations from the 24 industrial side. 25 So I think that this is a really useful toolMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 50

1 because it allows us to look at the data. We have some 2 60 some odd data for D4 and 90 some odd data for D5 3 because it's the full spectrum of what the likely 4 concentrations are for sediment to be really the big 5 kahuna with regard to the exposure for these materials 6 given their lipoglycopeptide and so it's really the 7 impact on densest organisms, so I think it's really 8 pertinent data with regard to this whole scenario 9 because we need to look at some. We have a range of 10 concentrations shown here for both materials and we put 11 it in the context of how does that compare to benthic 12 invertebrate species which could potentially be 13 impacted. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Thank you. 15 To be honest, we just haven't had time to get 16 our feedback together on what was prepared, but David 17 has a question. 18 MR. TOBIAS: A question for Kent. 19 MR. WOODBURN: I hope you are going to 20 comment just on the concentrations because I heard some 21 of the discussion with regard to the concentrations and 22 again, they were not collected with any sort of 23 censoring with regard to worst-case, best-case 24 scenarios. It's really to try and gather all of the 25 data that we have on siloxane, what's the distribution,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 51

1 because once you gather, roughly, over 30 data points, 2 the distributions are not going to change likely in a 3 dramatic effect when you're trying to collect a variety 4 of different conditions and so that's what we've done 5 here. 6 And so again, we did not include the non7 detectable concentrations in sediment. That would just 8 further extend the distribution, obviously on the low 9 end, for both D4 and D5. So we certainly could do 10 that, but we did not so that. So this is, again, just 11 to ... all the scenarios for D4 and D5 are likely to, 12 whatever 42 sites you select in your proposal, are 13 likely to fall on these distribution lines with regard 14 to sediment concentrations for both compounds. 15 MR. TOBIAS: Just a couple of questions, 16 Kent. 17 Have you submitted this for publication 18 anywhere? Is this in the literature? 19 MR. WOODBURN: No, but we're preparing to 20 submit it. We discussed it at some of the CTAC 21 meetings, just, in fact, the most recent CTAC meetings, 22 well, the year before in Milan over in Italy, and then 23 we also presented here at CTAC in North America. 24 MR. TOBIAS: Okay. 25 MS. FEHRENBACHER: And also this one wasMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 52

1 done, the Tokyo Bay data is new information that's just 2 hot off the presses, but this approach was also used 3 for the D5 Board of Review and accepted by the D5 Board 4 of Review experts. And they probably concluded that 5 there was no risk associated with D5. 6 MR. WOODBURN: Right. This was a key part of 7 that, too, because obviously that makes these species 8 are the organisms of high concern with these materials. 9 MR. TOBIAS: The second question ... I heard 10 something confusing, you said, about how Canada 11 selected their sites. When I talked to Mayron, he said 12 their sites, they basically, they had already been 13 participating in monitoring programs and they just used 14 the ones that had already been participating for their 15 programs and then they added two more sites or 16 something like that. And when you described their 17 program, you confused me there. You sounded like you 18 think they did it a different way? 19 MR. WOODBURN: It was our understanding that 20 they were using megaflush to try to identify the high21 end concentrations and site locations. 22 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yeah, I think the current 23 monitoring, because we've been in touch with Mayron as 24 well, the current monitoring now that they're 25 continuing, is based on their previous site selections.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 53

1 MR. TOBIAS: So this is in addition to what 2 they've done before? 3 MS. FEHRENBACHER: Yeah. So if their initial 4 select site selections was done based using the 5 megaflush model. 6 MR. TOBIAS: Their initial? I'll have to 7 talk to Mayron again because that's different than what 8 I got from him. Okay. 9 MS. FEHRENBACHER: That's our understanding 10 from the Board of Review. That was what was reported 11 during the Board of Review. 12 MR. WOODBURN: That's why there was the 13 inclusion of an industrial site which, obviously, is 14 the highest concentration. 15 MR. TOBIAS: Well, I think they did more 16 industrial sites than just one, actually, but they had 17 to claim all of that data CDI, so ... from the other 18 study done on industrial sites, but yeah, I mean I, I 19 talked him more. You know, I talked to him since we 20 were all at the meeting in Canada, so I'll talk to him 21 again about how site selection was done. 22 MR. PENBERTHY: So on the plot, is there ... 23 for say D4, figure one, where do those Wang, et. al. 24 data points end up on that plot? 25 MR. WOODBURN: Pretty much the full spectrum.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 54

1 You can go back to table one and pull whatever data 2 points you want off of there and compare, but they go 3 all the way from the lowest end of the plot to the 4 highest end of the plot. 5 That's the whole thing about gathering data 6 for, I mean, once you have enough data points for a 7 distribution, that's how, obviously, once you have a 8 bell ... if they behave as a bell shaped curve, that's 9 how they, that's how they're going to act and that's 10 pretty much the case for the Wang, et. al. data. 11 MALE SPEAKER: If I could also point out one 12 thing on those plots, is that those were not based on 13 random sampling. They're based on sampling at 14 locations where it was expected. That CMBS 15 concentrations would be detected, therefore they are 16 biased high and if you do a random selection, that will 17 lower the percentile concentrations. 18 MR. WOODBURN: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. 19 MR. TOBIAS: So on the D4, the conclusion is 20 that 94th percentile exposure is at 70 nanograms per 21 gram dry weight? Is that right? 22 MR. WOODBURN: Right. 23 MR. TOBIAS: So that means you can spend 95 24 percent of the samples that are going to be at 25 concentrations and some that are less than that, right?MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 55

1 Is that how that works? 2 MR. WOODBURN: Right. Exactly. 3 And that's my thing about doing a PRA. You 4 can use whatever sort of target numbers you want to and 5 calculate what is the collective risk. I mean, you 6 combine the exposure percentile and combine that with 7 the toxicity percentile that you want to examine and 8 then the intersection of the two probabilities is the 9 product of those two, so by using ... and this is 10 fairly common, this has been done in ecofram and other 11 types of work groups. A 90 percentile concentration 12 compared to a 5th centile toxicity distribution, the 13 probability of those two events simultaneously 14 occurring is .25 percent or looked at with glass half15 full, that's 99.75 percent probability that the events 16 will not occur and for both D4 and D5, we never had an 17 intersection of the 90th percentile and the 5th centile 18 toxicity. 19 MALE SPEAKER: I encourage you to keep in 20 mind that that is biased high because of the way the 21 sampling was done. 22 MR. WOODBURN: And then the last thing that 23 we did was that we took the data for some of the 24 organism that Dave collected, both in Lake Pepin and in 25 Oslo fjord, and we basically estimated theMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 56

1 concentrations on a lipid normalized basis using some 2 of the worst-case BFAF values that Dave was able to 3 collect from Lake Pepin for benthic invertebrates. So 4 that was D4, we used a value of 20 and for D5 we used a 5 value of five and we were able to estimate biota 6 concentrations that, for the tox-triggers that would 7 correspond. So then we could compare the toxicity 8 distribution on a lipid normalized basis to the 9 organisms that had been collected in the field and 10 compare those two. And again, asking the basic 11 question, is there an overlap and those are the last 12 two figures in the document and you can see the results 13 are the same. 14 So we tried to use different techniques to 15 compare the exposure to the toxicity NOEC distribution, 16 but for each one of the scenarios, we found basically 17 the same conclusion. 18 And we mentioned in the document, there's a 19 paper out there that may be informative to, to the EPA, 20 and that is there's a paper by Redman, et. al., Aaron 21 Redman, Dave and I were fortunate enough to be co22 authors on it, comparing, looking at tissue-based 23 issues with respect to the siloxanes and looking at 24 motive action, presumptive motive action of siloxanes, 25 comparing them. We used the target lipid model,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 57

1 Domenic Di Toro's target lipid model, for our scenario 2 and so we compared the findings with the siloxanes we 3 used, D4, D5, and D6 as a matter of fact, and compared 4 those to data collected on lots of other materials, 5 most of which are actually the target motive action. 6 We also (Inaudible) which are obviously, you know, 7 specific modes of action and the siloxanes were 8 consisted with the target motive action issue 9 concentration and so it was just published. It's 10 online in the Environmental (Inaudible) and Chemistry 11 Journal, The CTAC Journal. So the citation is 12 mentioned in the documents and I can send you guys a 13 PDF. I don't think I'm breaking too many copyright 14 laws. We're co-authors. 15 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I'm anxious to see 16 what our ecotoxicologists will think of the data. I 17 just haven't had the chance to talk with them. 18 Todd Stedeford, are you on the line? 19 MR. TOBIAS: He's not there. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 21 MR. GRIFFITH: Ward? Ward? 22 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes? 23 MR. GRIFFITH: This is Patrick Griffith from 24 LA County Sanitary District, NACWA, I guess. I have to 25 step out for another meeting, so I just wanted to weighMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 58

1 in on the factors to consider discussion. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. That's good. 3 MR. GRIFFITH: Before you guys move on, I 4 think we're just, I guess we're just covering the same 5 comments we had before. We didn't really feel that 6 lagoons were going to be very critical, but you may 7 want to look at septic tanks, considering that the 8 population weighting, that there's more population 9 shared by big tanks, than lagoons and lagoons may be on 10 the way out because I think from the last discussion, 11 they may be self-selecting for some of the other 12 factors you're considering. 13 And another concern that you may have and I'm 14 not sure how EPA was going to approach this, but was it 15 your intent to have the various PHWs volunteer to 16 participate in this program? 17 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess that would ultimately 18 be the case. Right. 19 MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah, because, I mean just in 20 terms of the sampling efforts that I'm aware of which 21 are not very many, but there are a few, it can be kind 22 of difficult to get, to corral 42 treatment plants, 23 especially, you know, having the 42 be ones that will 24 fit all of your factors. So that may be kind of a 25 hurdle for you. So that's something to consider.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 59

1 And I think some of these factors may be 2 dropping off, so maybe you might want to review that 3 analysis. 4 And my one final thing was and I think 5 Cynthia mentioned this at the very beginning, if we can 6 be included on some of these emails where some of these 7 reports are being sent around, that would be very 8 helpful. 9 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, that was an unfortunate 10 oversight and our problem and it shouldn't have 11 happened. 12 MR. GRIFFITH: That's fine. That happens. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: I'm interested in your 14 thoughts on the high population, low flow scenario. 15 MR. GRIFFITH: Right. Yeah, our initial 16 comment was that perhaps instead of population size, 17 period, to look at the percent domestic contribution 18 because you might have certain communities that are 19 served or certain PHWs that are serving a domestic 20 community, but they also have industrial non-siloxane 21 dischargers and that could affect it. 22 I think that, I can't remember, was it Jason 23 who was commenting? He brought in that some of the 24 sewer systems are combine systems where you might have 25 storm water being brought in as well, so I think thatMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 60

1 was very useful contribution there. Then I would do 2 population weighted against the total flow and not just 3 total population. I think that's very useful to look 4 at. 5 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Great. 6 MR. GRIFFITH: All right. Thank you, guys. 7 MS. FINLEY: This is Cynthia, NACWA. 8 I think when you have a chance to look 9 through the document that was sent out this morning and 10 the one that we just received as well during the call, 11 we can put together some written comments, you know, to 12 expand a little bit on what Patrick said here on the 13 phone and comment on some of the other factors as well, 14 if that would be helpful. 15 MR. PENBERTHY: That would be extremely 16 helpful. Obviously, that would be ... 17 MS. FINLEY: Okay. Yeah. We need a little 18 time to do it, of course. You know, I have to get 19 through what I review today, but we'll need some time. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Again, I apologize for not 21 getting that document to you. 22 MS. FINLEY: Yeah, that's okay. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So maybe we should 24 move on to the manufacturing, processing, and 25 formulating sites unless anyone else on the call hasMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 61

1 some additional commentary? 2 Okay. 3 So Karluss, on the agenda it has, had time 4 for you to outline the rationale for your proposal on 5 manufacturing and processing and formulating sites, so 6 please go ahead. 7 MR. THOMAS: Sure and I can make this 8 relatively quick and I'll invite other members to add 9 on, but I think the primary rationale for our proposal 10 with respect to the manufacturer and processor and 11 formulator site is that the indirect dischargers 12 presumably or at least facilities that are likely to be 13 very similar are going to be picked-up by the POTW 14 portion of the proposal. So our thought was that we 15 would focus the SEHSD manufacturer, processor, 16 formulator sites who would have those focused only on 17 those sites that would have direct discharges and we've 18 essentially proposed that all four of the SEHSD sites 19 that are under our members' control be included in the 20 monitoring program. So that's essentially the 21 rationale. 22 Cathy, I'll invite you and others to add in 23 as needed. 24 MS. FEHRENBACHER: No, that's pretty good. 25 That's the basics, really, rationale.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 62

1 MR. PERBERTHY: Okay, I think I understand 2 that rationale. 3 I guess what was unclear to us in your 4 proposal was whether so much indirect discharge sites 5 were also going to be captured in the POTW monitoring, 6 site selected or not. In your ... 7 MR. THOMAS: They certainly could be or it 8 could be other MPF facilities that might be similar. I 9 mean, based on your comment as well during that initial 10 negotiating meeting, I think the thought was that, you 11 know, our MPF facilities aren't necessarily any 12 different from other facilities that use materials, so 13 I guess the thought is that as long as some of the 14 POTWs that are selected do have some MPF input, that 15 would be sufficient to make whatever conclusions that 16 you would need from that kind of a sample set. 17 MR. PENBERTHY: And I think our thinking in 18 this is definitely want the four facilities that are 19 the direct discharge and then we also wanted, 20 separately, to do the POTW with less sites with less of 21 an industrial, well, siloxane component. And then our 22 interest in an indirect discharge site was to help us 23 understand the relative contribution of the formulating 24 and processing sites versus the manufacturing sites to 25 environmental concentrations. So, I guess, based onMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 63

1 when you look at what we sent around is, you know, how 2 would we pick ... we don't have really enough 3 information based on what you provided on the indirect 4 discharge to be able to figure out which ones would 5 make sense to monitor from. 6 MR. THOMAS: And on what basis do you 7 determine which ones would make sense? What 8 information would you need to make that determination? 9 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean it would be 10 along the ... well, obviously there's a differentiation 11 between the sites that have on-site pre-treatment 12 before they go to a POTW. Then there could be 13 differences on the POTW configuration. For instance, 14 what is their treatment technique and what is their 15 receiving water body? 16 So if we knew those, we might be able to 17 select from all of those indirect discharge sites, the 18 most relevant ones that could help us with that 19 understanding of the relative contributions to the 20 various kinds of industrial sites. 21 MR. MAY: Hey, Ward, this is Russell May from 22 Avonics. 23 I took the liberty of sort of evaluating all 24 the different types of processors and formulators out 25 there outside the membership of SEHSD and I identifiedMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 64

1 at least 12 different other industrial categories. So 2 I guess that's sort of Karluss' question. 3 So which of those industries are you planning 4 to evaluate? 5 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, maybe we need to know 6 more, then, about what kind of processing is actually 7 going on. Is it processing to make a ... 8 MR. MAY: Well, that's my problem. We can 9 only speak to what our silicone industry does. We 10 cannot speak to the other industries that get, that are 11 part of the value chain. 12 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, but maybe we need to 13 know what's going on at your facilities to figure out 14 which ones are most relevant. 15 MR. MAY: Why does that make that 16 representative? I'm having difficulty with that. 17 If you want to be informed about all 18 processing and formulating, do you not need to consider 19 the full range of the universe? 20 How do you know which is high and which is 21 low? 22 MR. TOBIAS: I guess what you're suggesting 23 is ... 24 MR. PENBERTHY: I think what you're saying, 25 it would seem to me then, since I think all of theMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 65

1 large manufacturers in SEHSD, you would have to tell us 2 about your value chain, then, and where your material 3 is going so that we could know how to answer that 4 question you're asking us. 5 MR. MAY: Well, actually we did that back 6 when we filed our CDR just a couple weeks ago. 7 MR. PENBERTHY: But that only included the 8 ... I thought that only included the members in SEHSD? 9 MR. TOBIAS: That's CDR. 10 MR. PENBERTHY: Oh, CDR is what you're 11 talking about. 12 MR. MAY: Right, but that part of the value 13 chain that expresses where the materials go. 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we do understand, for 15 instance, on D4 that, you know, a significant portion 16 goes to, as a reactant to make other polymers, so to 17 the extent that those facilities would be identified 18 from your indirect discharge sites, maybe we could at 19 least get better insights into those, how those kind of 20 facilities differentiate themselves from facilities 21 that just ... 22 MR. MAY: I don't understand why are you only 23 looking at, I mean, we just spent the last hour and a 24 half talking about you need to know the range with 25 respect to POTWs. I don't understand the point hereMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 66

1 where we're only looking at a very narrow window. 2 You're looking at seven facilities, potentially, out of 3 tens of thousands. 4 MR. NGUYEN: You know, I stated ... this is 5 Nahn Nguyen. 6 I stated in your charge, part of the charge 7 is to understand the sources on the pathways of 8 environmental concentrations and ... 9 MR. MAY: I couldn't hear what you were 10 saying. 11 MR. NGUYEN: Sorry. 12 Part of the charge is to have an 13 understanding of the sources on the pathways to 14 environmental concentrations on D4, D5. We don't have 15 any information on the configuration of the on-site 16 treatment system, no information on concentrations 17 loading, so there's no way you could really develop 18 that understanding. 19 MR. THOMAS: I think part of the difficulty 20 is, you know, our members, our seven companies, their 21 sites only represent a very small fraction of the total 22 universe of facilities that are using D4, D5. It's not 23 clear that all of those would necessarily be 24 representative of the thousands of facilities that use 25 D4, D5. So if you're truly interested in the range,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 67

1 then our membership is only going to give you an 2 extremely narrow portion of that range. 3 MR. NGUYEN: It seems the advocates for, for 4 sampling of the additional sites, the more information 5 you have, the better. 6 MR. TOBIAS: The other question, I wanted a 7 quick question for Karluss, in his opening statement 8 there, since you said that the indirect would be 9 similar to what was in the POTW, that seems to assume 10 that all that indirect sites are releasing POTWs. Is 11 that correct or is some of them going to industry, 12 industrial waste water treatment plants? You would 13 have to know that to make that comparison. The two 14 processes would be different. 15 MR. THOMAS: I'm not sure I understand the 16 question. Could you say it one more time? 17 MR. TOBIAS: Well, it seemed to me like you 18 were implying that the indirect dischargers all send 19 their waste to a POTW, a municipal POTW that's 20 receiving waste also from residential and the spectrum, 21 but ... 22 MR. THOMAS: Correct. 23 MR. TOBIAS: ... if some of these indirect 24 sites are sending their waste to their, I don't know, 25 to an industrial facility, then that would be aMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 68

1 different set-up, an industrial waste water treatment 2 plant. So it ... 3 MR. MAY: So we're already offering you the 4 four direct sites already. 5 MR. TOBIAS: That is true, but the ... just 6 from looking at the list here, there are three Dow 7 sites very close to each other in Michigan. If their 8 waste flows are combined, it's all sent to the same 9 treatment plant, then that becomes a new scenario, I 10 think, and we can't tell one way or the other. 11 MR. THOMAS: It becomes a new scenario for 12 what? Because they're all, they're send it to the 13 POTWs, so they're indirect dischargers, right? 14 MR. TOBIAS: Are you sure they're sending it 15 to a POTW? Is that what you're saying? That's a ... 16 MR. PENBERTHY: That's what they mean by 17 indirect discharge. 18 MR. TOBIAS: Well, yeah. 19 MR. MAY: That's what an indirect discharger 20 is. 21 MR. PENBERTHY: But is it the same POTW is 22 the question. 23 MR. TOBIAS: Yeah. I mean ... 24 MR. BROWNING: Well, first (Inaudible), 25 Michigan is pretty far away from Midland, I think.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 69

1 MR. MAY: But they are sending it to a POTW. 2 MR. TOBIAS: They all send it to a POTW? 3 MR. BROWNING: Right. 4 MR. THOMAS: Correct. 5 MR. PENBERTHY: Are all the POTWs activated 6 sludge facilities? 7 MS. PLOTZKE: This is Kathy Plotzke from Dow 8 Corning. 9 They all don't go to the same POTWs. They 10 all go to a waste water treatment plant. 11 MR. MAY: But Kathy, they're POTWs, though. 12 You don't own them. The indirect discharge types won't 13 discharge to a publically owned treatment works. 14 MS. PLOTZKE: No, that's not correct, 15 Russell. 16 MR. PENBERTHY: So then what do they go to 17 then? 18 MR. MAY: What do they go to? I guess that's 19 my confusion. 20 MS. PLOTZKE: A private. One goes to a 21 private. One goes to a private. 22 MR. TOBIAS: A private. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Also on the list, there's two 24 sites with no discharge? What does that mean? 25 MR. TOBIAS: Does that mean they have ... IMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 70

1 guess the question for the no discharge one is they 2 have no solid waste at all from their plants? 3 MR. MAY: I think they're warehouses. 4 MR. BROWNING: No, this is Gene Browning with 5 Shin-Etsu Silicone Group of America. 6 Those two sites are ours. We collect all of 7 our waste by processes within the plant here. They're 8 made of, they're processing plants and manufacturing 9 plants and, for instance, where many of the other 10 plants use outside sources of coolant water, we have an 11 internal cooling system that uses ... that doesn't, 12 it's non-content for cooling processes. 13 If we have any waste, we collect the waste, 14 we put them in drums, and then go to a treatment 15 facility where I think they go to an incinerator. So 16 we essentially have no waste water flows out of these 17 plants except for rain water. 18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, so there's no waste 19 water from the Shin-Etsu plants, okay. 20 MR. BROWNING: Right. 21 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, the other plant that's 22 not a POTW, what's the treatment, what kind of 23 treatment facility is that? 24 MR. TOBIAS: It's a private industrial, 25 whatever, a private waste water plant that's ... all ofMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 71

1 them are municipally owned. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: How does that work? Is the 3 waste water trucked to a private plant? 4 MS. PLOTZKE: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I know 5 which one. Are you referring to one of ours? 6 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, you said there was one 7 site, one facility that didn't go to a POTW and I'm 8 trying to ... well, if it didn't go to a POTW, where 9 does it go and how does it get there? 10 MR. BROWNING: The two sites that are listed 11 under Shin-Etsu Silicone of America are the same 12 scenario. We have no waste water leaving the plant. 13 MR. PENBERTHY: Right, but I understood 14 there's another facility that doesn't go to a POTW 15 besides those two sites. 16 MR. TOBIAS: That was Dow Corning, she was 17 talking about that. 18 MS. PLOTZKE: That is correct. There is one 19 that goes to a private waste water treatment plant. 20 MR. PENBERTHY: Do we know which one that is? 21 MS. PLOTZKE: Tertiary. 22 MR. PENBERTHY: Do we know which one that is? 23 MS. PLOTZKE: Yes, the Tertiary Plant. 24 MR. TOBIAS: Not interested in tertiary. 25 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay, we're not interested,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 72

1 you know, our focus is on secondary treatment, not 2 tertiary. I think we'd be less interested in 3 monitoring at that facility, so if that was identified, 4 that might help us. 5 Do you see how the logic works? We're trying 6 to figure out which of these sites would make sense to 7 monitor at? 8 MR. THOMAS: So, Ward, are you agreeing that 9 those that do discharge to a POTW don't warrant 10 monitoring as we believe? 11 MR. PENBERTHY: No, I don't think that's the 12 case. I mean, we're still very much interested in 13 understanding how the source of, potential source, of 14 siloxane into the environment being either a processor 15 or formulator differs from the potential of a 16 manufacturer to be a source to the environment, so a 17 selection of the ... well, since there's not, well, I 18 guess on the direct discharge there's, well, they say 19 there's two processors-only sites, but we don't have 20 any formulation-only sites in the mix. 21 I do have a question about the Wacker Site, 22 though, on the direct discharge site, because on that 23 2006 IUR they were reported as manufacturing before, so 24 I was, I was trying to understand is our information 25 correct.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 73

1 MR. BROWNING: No, we do processing. 2 MR. PENBERTHY: No manufacturing? 3 MR. BROWNING: No. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 5 MR. BROWNING: So I guess with the, the IUR 6 would be capturing importers, too, you know, not just 7 ... 8 MR. PENBERTHY: I fully understand that, but 9 they, Wacker, did report being a manufacturer before in 10 2005, 2006. 11 MR. BROWNING: Right, because we import. 12 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, that's not how it was 13 recorded in our database. Maybe our input was wrong or 14 maybe the form was filled out wrong, but anyway, that's 15 not ... just as long as I know what the circumstances 16 are. 17 You're currently just a processor? 18 MR. BROWNING: Yep. 19 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 20 MR. TOBIAS: So is our request to maybe ask 21 them to fill-in some of this to be determined 22 information with that, then, guiding? 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. I mean, if we 24 understood some of the information, that would help us 25 understand whether, I mean clearly, we're interested inMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 74

1 monitoring a sampling of these indirect discharge 2 sites. 3 MR. THOMAS: Well I guess, Ward, in terms of 4 a goal that you mentioned in terms of being able to 5 differentiate relative contributions between processors 6 and manufacturers and formulators, again, I'll go back 7 to the original point that, you know, the SEHSC 8 initiative does not provide sufficient data sets to do 9 that. The universal processors and formulators, in 10 particular, is far greater than the number of 11 facilities. I mean thousands, tens of thousands, 12 probably greater than the seven companies that are on 13 today and, I guess, in addition to that, it's not clear 14 to me why that would be needed to do a risk assessment. 15 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, I mean I guess on a 16 risk assessment, if we do monitoring around the four 17 direct discharge sites, we certainly have a sense of 18 what is the manufacturing contribution to environment 19 load, so we can probably get a sense of what processing 20 does because there's at least two processing sites 21 solely. 22 MR. MAY: But Ward, I'd be careful about 23 that. It only represents processing that is focused on 24 our industry. There are many other different types of 25 technologies that processes this material.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 75

1 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes, I understand that. So 2 that introduces a ... 3 MR. MAY: What I'm getting at, what my 4 problem is, I don't understand how the idea that you're 5 going to be more informed on your objective identifying 6 seven sites. 7 MR. PENBERTHY: I guess if we have very few 8 sites, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty in 9 our risk assessment. If we have more sites, there 10 would be less uncertainty about, say for instance, how 11 relatively speaking, should we be more concerned about 12 the releases from a formulator or a processor? 13 MR. MAY: I think it would depend on what 14 industry you're in. 15 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, clearly. 16 MR. MAY: Again, I'm trying to understand, 17 just like Karluss, how this is going to help you be 18 more informed from a risk assessment, particularly when 19 you're already monitoring the POTWs anyway? 20 More than likely, when you evaluate the POTW, 21 you will know the SIC codes of the industries that are 22 discharging to that facility. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, the beauty of doing 24 monitoring around the indirect discharge sites is we 25 have more information, potentially, about the actualMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 76

1 industrial activities going on. 2 MR. MAY: Well, how is that germane to your 3 risk assessment? 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Because it will give us an 5 indication whether, on a relative basis, formulators 6 are a greater contributor to environment loading than 7 manufacturers or not. Generally speaking. And there 8 would be uncertainty around that evaluation. 9 MR. THOMAS: And Ward, just to back up one 10 second because you kind of hit on this button a couple 11 of times even though we were talking about the POTW 12 portion of the monitoring proposal. 13 I think, at least my impression is that EPA 14 seems to be operating under the assumption that there 15 is a risk associated with D4 and D5 to the environment 16 and that you're trying to focus the data collection to 17 insure that you can have some relative portion of 18 exposure among the sources to inform your risk 19 management and I guess from our standpoint, we're 20 operating under the assumption that there are not any 21 sufficient risks to warrant restrictive risk 22 management. 23 As a corollary, I would say you colleagues, 24 Environ in Canada, share that view for D5 now and in 25 the future, and even for D4, they've only required theMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 77

1 preparation of a solution prevention plan which is in 2 no way restrictive. 3 And I'll add to that, the concentration of 4 the D4 that you find relative to D5 are generally a lot 5 lower. 6 So I guess I'll just say on that, just say 7 that we've been totally transparent with the agency in 8 sharing all of the data that we believe confirms the 9 safety of D4 and D5. All of the analysis we've done, 10 all of the assessments, all of the monitoring 11 activities, and it's not clear that we have, you know, 12 gotten that same level of cooperation. 13 I just kind of harken back to earlier in the 14 call, I heard a comment that the Oregon data, the 15 trigger levels that EPA have are lower than the levels 16 that, you know, Oregon would have. 17 So I'm just curious what the scientific basis 18 is for EPA's determination that a lower level needs to 19 be looked at? So if there aren't data that EPA has 20 that confirms, at least in your mind, that there's a 21 risk associated with those materials, with the 22 materials, then I think EPA really has an obligation to 23 share those and subject them to peer review as your 24 colleagues in Canada did. 25 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, I'm sure we'll get downMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 78

1 the level of detection if we can actually get to the 2 point where we can agree on what sites to monitor. So 3 yeah, we'll get to that I'm sure. 4 Okay, is there any other input on this topic 5 from the other participants? 6 Okay, I'm hearing none. I guess, I guess, 7 Karluss, can we expect more direct feedback on our 8 monitoring proposal from you from what we sent you from 9 SEHSC? 10 MR. THOMAS: On the MPF sites? 11 MR. PENBERTHY: Yes. 12 MR. THOMAS: I guess we can certainly do 13 that, Ward, but I guess it would be instructive to hear 14 a little bit more specifically from the agency why what 15 was proposed does not allow you to do a risk 16 assessment, because again, I know we keep going back to 17 the point that you're going to pick-up the indirect 18 dischargers or certainly facilities that are similar to 19 those MPFs when you do the POTW portion, so we've 20 essentially offered all of the, our member sites, that 21 have direct dischargers. So from a risk standpoint, 22 it's unclear what more we can do. 23 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. I mean, I think what 24 we're going to have to do is, you know, formulate our 25 proposal based on the feedback we've gotten so far,MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 79

1 both on the POTWs and on the MPF sites, and then get 2 back to you with some modifications based on the 3 feedback you've given and then I think what we would do 4 is need to, we'll probably need a couple weeks to put 5 that together. 6 We also need to review the risk assessment 7 that you all provided us. 8 I think at that point we would send out a 9 revised proposal in, I'd say, a couple weeks and then 10 we want to meet on a formal basis with the full 11 negotiating group and then we would hopefully present 12 our proposal, our modified proposal and then basically 13 at that meeting understand is it worth proceeding 14 further in the discussions. 15 I think there's been some good progress, good 16 feedback, and I appreciate all of the work that you've 17 put in. I think the document explaining the logic that 18 you had used to pick sites and develop your monitoring 19 program was, you know, it really helped us understand 20 your perspectives better. 21 I'm still pretty sure there's differences, 22 however, so we'll see if we can bridge those in the 23 next couple weeks, and to the extent that we can. 24 So I guess looking at the calendar, I mean, I 25 would think that we would want to organize the moreMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 80

1 formal meeting, maybe an in-person meeting, either the 2 last week in August or the first week in September. 3 Do you all have a preference for that? 4 MS. PLOTZKE: This is Kathy Plotzke. I am 5 out of the country the first week in September. So my 6 preference would be the last week in August. 7 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So Tuesday has worked 8 fairly well, so is the 28th a good day? 9 We'll have to confirm this with all of our 10 folks, but let's ... 11 MS. CARLTON: Ward, this is Betsy Carlton. 12 Can I just ask a question? 13 Just to be clear, is this to schedule another 14 technical working group but a face-to-face? 15 MR. PENBERTHY: No, this wouldn't be a 16 technical working group meeting. It's pretty clear we 17 have different perspectives here, so I don't know if 18 we're going to be able to use the working group to 19 actually develop a proposal for consideration of the 20 group, but I think we would, at EPA, like to take 21 another look at our previous proposals, maybe try and 22 clarify some of the points in them and are some of the 23 rationales for some of the pieces and then offer that 24 to a negotiating session, not a working group session, 25 in the last week of August.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 81

1 MS. CARLTON: So another telephone 2 conference? 3 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, we could arrange for 4 both. It could either be in-person or by phone. 5 Either way. 6 MR. MAY: Ward, but for clarity, you're 7 proposing the last week in August, the 28th ... 8 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct. 9 MR. MAY: ... for negotiating meeting? 10 MR. PENBERTHY: Right. Correct. 11 MR. THOMAS: And, and I think in terms of the 12 timing of you guys getting us some additional feedback, 13 we talked about two weeks. That would be sometime the 14 week of the 20th, so that's essentially a week before 15 the face-to-face negotiating sessions. I'm just 16 wondering, I know we do want to give ourselves enough 17 time to review all of the information. There's always 18 challenges for us as well for getting things circulated 19 and allowing enough time for folks to review materials. 20 Do we think a week is going to be enough time 21 for you to give us the feedback and for us to 22 sufficiently digest it and have that face-to-fact 23 meeting or do we want to give ourselves a little bit 24 more time to take everything in and potentially give 25 the agency more time to pull its thoughts together on aMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 82

1 revised proposal? 2 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, what are your thoughts 3 on that? Obviously, you think that we might need more 4 time? 5 MR. THOMAS: Well, I just, I just know we all 6 have, you know, challenges for time and particularly in 7 the summer in getting everybody to look at things we 8 need to have on it. 9 I know a lot of things we talked about you 10 wanted your eco folks to kind of provide feedback on. 11 I don't believe so any of them are on-call, so like, 12 I'll leave it to you to let me know what you think is 13 enough time, but I just want to make sure we consider 14 giving enough time for folks to pull things together 15 and giving us enough time to take a look at it. 16 MR. PENBERTHY: Well, why don't we do it this 17 way. Let's tentatively schedule for the 28th and if 18 things aren't ... timing is breaking down, maybe we'll 19 have to postpone it, but we'll try to stick with our 20 schedule the best we can. 21 MS. CARLTON: So then it would have to be by 22 phone? Because these days, they won't let you cancel 23 your reservation for a plane. They charge you anyway. 24 MR. PENBERTHY: Yeah, we'll keep that in 25 mind.MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 83

1 MS. CARLTON: It's a short time frame and 2 then if we get that close and say no, we can't, and 3 reschedule, it makes things really hard. 4 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. So maybe it will have 5 to be by phone if ... I think we'll have some better 6 idea of the timing here in the next week or so. 7 MR. THOMAS: And you think you'll be able to 8 give us the feedback you talked about, Ward, on the ... 9 on an updated version of your POTW proposal based on 10 our comments and also potentially a revised version of 11 the MPF proposal based on the discussion today? You 12 still think all of that is possible the week of the 13 20th? So in two weeks? 14 MR. PENBERTHY: Correct. 15 MR. THOMAS: Okay. 16 MR. PENBERTHY: Is that fair enough? 17 MR. THOMAS: Fair enough. 18 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. Are there any other 19 points? 20 I should have mentioned this at the front, at 21 the front of the meeting, but we have, we'll have a 22 transcript. We'll have the agenda and all of the 23 documents that we've discussed in the docket just so 24 you're aware of that. 25 MR. BROWNING: Are we proposing a specificMEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 84

1 time for the 28th? 2 MR. PENBERTHY: I think the afternoon if 3 that's okay. Probably one or two. 4 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Either works for me. 5 MR. PENBERTHY: Okay. 6 All right. Anything else to discuss? 7 MR. THOMAS: Nothing from me. 8 MR. PENBERTHY: All right. Well thanks again 9 for all your help, all your input, all your 10 explanations on the science that sometimes we don't 11 have a full grasp of like you all do, but thanks again. 12 GROUP: Thank you. Good-bye. 13 (WHEREUPON, the meeting concluded.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 85

1 CAPTION 2 3 The foregoing matter was taken on the date, and at the 4 and place set out on the Title page hereof. 5 6 It was requested that the matter be taken by the 7 and that the same be reduced to typewritten form. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 87 1 10x 20:14 12 64:1

2 20 56:4 200 39:2 2005 73:10 2006 72:23 73:10 2012 5:3 20th 81:14 83:13 25 55:14 28th 80:8 81:7 82:17 84:1

3 30 51:1

4 42 49:7 51:12 58:22 58:23

5 50 49:3 5th 55:12 55:17

6 60 50:2

7 7 5:3 70 54:20

9 90 50:2 55:11 90th 55:17 94th 54:20 95 54:23 99.75 55:15

A Aaron 56:20 ability41:23 able 9:23 11:6 11:9 14:13 14:18 37:21 56:2 56:5 63:4 63:16 74:4 80:18 83:7 Absolutely54:18 absorbed37:19 absorptive 32:1 accept32:23 40:25 accepted52:3 accommodate 47:12 accomplish14:16 account42:14 43:17 achieve 38:1 across 18:18 19:3 24:1 25:9 25:11 act54:9 action 56:24 56:24 57:5 57:7 57:8 activated32:6 32:10 38:5 39:10 43:25 69:5 activities 76:1 77:11 actual 15:14 75:25 actually 21:11 27:4 29:24 30:22 34:7 43:1 44:18 48:8 53:16 57:5 64:6 65:5 78:1 80:19 add14:8 18:4 34:6 43:13 47:19 48:6 61:8 61:22 77:3 added52:15 addition 10:18 13:13 13:15 53:1 74:13 additional 9:4 10:18 13:16 17:10 32:4 32:16 61:1 67:4 81:12 address 43:14 adequately43:17 Adjacent27:17 admit 14:2 20:6 admittedly48:25 adopting44:16 advice 33:15 advocates 67:3 aeration 32:5 32:7 46:25 affect59:21 affects 40:15 afternoon 84:2 against23:24MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 88

60:2 agency77:7 78:14 81:25 agency's 10:14 13:19 23:1 agenda 8:5 8:10 8:24 9:1 61:3 83:22 ago 65:6 agreed 23:11 46:4 agreeing72:8 agreement25:7 Aguilar 5:11 5:11 5:16 5:21 5:23 5:25 6:2 6:4 6:6 6:8 6:10 6:12 6:14 6:16 6:18 6:20 6:22 6:24 7:1 7:3 7:5 7:7 8:2 16:2 29:23 ahead11:14 11:19 27:1 29:20 31:4 61:6 air 32:8 al 16:14 21:19 21:21 21:25 49:11 53:23 54:10 56:20 allow14:15 22:4 41:6 42:25 43:4 46:9 78:15 allowing81:19 allows 43:14 50:1 alone 18:13 already15:12 15:22 32:3 52:12 52:14 68:3 68:4 75:19 am 20:12 80:4 America 51:23 70:5 71:11 among 76:18 amount33:4 75:8 amounts 19:13 anal 14:2 analysis 12:7 12:12 14:3 25:21 34:8 39:8 59:3 77:9 annual 42:10 anonymity 24:4 24:7 answer 65:3 anxious 57:15 anybody39:16 anyone 8:2 60:25 anything9:1 10:2 14:8 84:6 anyway10:6 46:12 73:14 75:19 82:23 anywhere 51:18 apologies 9:13 9:21 apologize 48:2 60:20 appears 28:24 apply 17:2 apprec 21:2 appreciate 21:2 79:16 approach 15:6 15:13 15:19 17:12 25:1 30:7 48:16 52:2 58:14 appropriate 14:5 15:19 appropriately 42:14 APRA 48:16 aqueous 44:13 44:21 area 17:5 18:14 18:15 18:15 18:24 18:24 41:11 areas 27:15 aren't35:10 62:11 77:19 82:18 argue 28:10 arrange 81:3 aspect16:22 28:20 aspects 11:6 assess 12:8 assessment11:9 13:8 13:19 13:25 14:6 14:16 15:10 15:13 18:20 18:23 20:21 21:16 25:17 29:12 47:23MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 89

48:14 74:14 74:16 75:9 75:18 76:3 78:16 79:6 assessments 34:11 34:11 77:10 assessors 47:25 associated 15:15 29:2 34:25 42:7 52:5 76:15 77:21 assume 36:6 39:2 40:10 67:9 assuming39:9 assumption 76:14 76:20 attachment15:9 15:25 16:1 16:2 29:21 30:23 30:24 31:6 31:6 attachments 11:23 August5:3 80:2 80:6 80:25 81:7 authors 56:22 available 48:1 Avcin 5:8 5:8 Avonics 63:22 aware 37:9 49:12 58:20 83:24 away 13:11 18:7 25:7 38:17 40:11 40:23 68:25

B background 44:24 46:6 Barkas 8:1 8:1 base 13:24 24:17 based26:14 29:5 31:22 38:24 52:25 53:4 54:12 54:13 62:9 62:25 63:3 78:25 79:2 83:9 83:11 basic 56:10 basically 9:6 13:9 15:12 16:24 21:12 26:23 33:25 39:12 52:12 55:25 56:16 79:12 basics 61:25 basis 21:5 56:1 56:8 63:6 76:5 77:17 79:10 Bay 18:16 19:7 19:7 52:1 beat20:8 beauty75:23 become 44:14 becomes 68:9 68:11 beginning59:5 begun 26:7 behave 17:8 54:8 behavior 17:9 Belanger 6:24 6:25 9:3 9:4 9:10 9:13 9:17 9:24 10:1 34:5 34:5 35:5 35:9 believe 11:13 18:1 19:17 44:11 72:10 77:8 82:11 believing44:19 bell 5:12 5:12 54:8 54:8 benthic 15:10 50:11 56:3 besides 10:2 71:15 best11:4 11:10 42:21 82:20 best-case 50:23 Betsy 5:18 80:11 better 32:13 32:14 32:22 35:19 38:20 65:19 67:5 79:20 83:5 beyond 14:18 21:5 43:22 BFAF 56:2 biased 54:16 55:20 biggest24:18 25:3 27:14 billion 37:13 biodegradable 46:19 biodegradation 46:21 46:23 biota 42:16 56:5 bit9:5 14:13 14:14 16:19 33:7 39:21 60:12MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 90

78:14 81:23 blowed 45:15 Bluestar 5:19 6:2 Board52:3 52:3 53:10 53:11 Bob 5:6 bodies 42:5 42:6 body 32:19 38:23 39:6 40:9 41:8 41:20 63:15 bottom 35:13 bracket18:17 19:2 Brad7:15 breaking57:13 82:18 bridge 79:22 bring 8:19 brought59:23 59:25 Browning68:24 69:3 70:4 70:4 70:20 71:10 73:1 73:3 73:5 73:11 73:18 83:25 build9:6 12:14 37:22 builds 37:20 button 76:10

C calculate 55:5 calendar 79:24 Canada 21:25 49:13 52:10 53:20 76:24 77:24 Canadian 22:16 24:2 28:14 cancel 82:22 captured62:5 captures 21:11 capturing73:6 carbon 41:7 41:10 42:4 42:12 43:20 44:13 44:17 45:14 46:11 Care 7:22 careful 74:22 Carl 7:19 Carlos 10:5 Carlton 5:18 5:20 80:11 80:11 81:1 82:21 83:1 case 15:6 15:7 15:19 17:10 18:14 21:6 21:14 22:5 23:13 23:17 24:6 28:22 28:23 28:24 33:8 38:24 40:12 43:6 54:10 58:18 72:12 cases 21:9 categories 64:1 Cathy 5:10 14:8 48:4 48:7 48:7 61:22 causes 46:12 caveats 49:11 CDI 53:17 CDR 65:6 65:9 65:10 ceased 46:6 censoring50:23 centile 55:12 55:17 certain 17:3 22:21 59:18 59:19 certainly 22:8 22:15 49:2 51:9 62:7 74:17 78:12 78:18 chain 64:11 65:2 65:13 challenge 41:5 challenges 81:18 82:6 chance 57:17 60:8 change 51:2 changes 47:11 changing38:17 charge 66:6 66:6 66:12 82:23 chemical 23:23 42:15 chemicals 28:5 34:9 34:12 Chemistry 57:10 chlorines 26:17 choices 10:4MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 91

choose 42:13 43:14 Chubbs 9:17 circles 42:1 circulated 10:16 81:18 circumstances 16:7 19:19 22:16 73:15 citation 57:11 city 35:11 claim 53:17 clarifications 47:3 clarify80:22 clarity81:6 classes 28:8 clear 13:15 24:7 66:23 74:13 77:11 80:13 80:16 clearly13:22 14:24 25:20 29:12 73:25 75:15 close 17:20 68:7 83:2 CMBS 54:14 co 56:21 co-authors 57:14 codes 75:21 colleagues 20:7 76:23 77:24 collect51:3 56:3 70:6 70:13 collected48:12 49:13 49:19 50:22 55:24 56:9 57:4 collection 76:16 collective 55:5 combination 32:24 35:18 combine 55:6 55:6 59:24 combined17:6 68:8 coming9:5 23:20 commandment39:23 comment36:10 39:16 43:7 50:20 59:16 60:13 62:9 77:14 commentary 36:22 38:4 47:8 61:1 commenting59:23 comments 12:16 24:24 39:19 47:3 47:8 47:12 48:10 58:5 60:11 83:10 common 55:10 communication 8:6 8:13 communities 59:18 community 59:20 companies 66:20 74:12 compare 50:11 54:2 56:7 56:10 56:15 compared32:9 32:11 55:12 57:2 57:3 comparing27:10 56:22 56:25 comparison 43:24 67:13 compartment32:8 competition 45:6 competitive 44:11 44:17 complete 11:9 completely 13:22 40:1 component 8:9 12:25 33:11 39:24 46:17 62:21 compounds 44:12 46:20 51:14 con 24:7 concentration 19:2 20:22 31:17 31:24 32:9 32:11 32:12 33:14 34:16 36:8 36:11 36:12 36:23 36:24 37:3 37:12 37:16 37:20 37:25 38:22 49:16 53:14 55:11 57:9 77:3 concentrations 14:7 15:15 18:6 18:17 18:25MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 92

19:1 20:2 26:19 27:24 29:6 33:10 34:20 35:10 35:25 46:10 48:6 48:11 48:15 48:20 48:23 49:1 49:5 49:22 49:23 49:23 50:4 50:10 50:20 50:21 51:7 51:14 52:21 54:15 54:17 54:25 56:1 56:6 62:25 66:8 66:14 66:16 concentration's 36:18 concept33:6 38:10 43:13 conceptual 12:10 12:21 12:24 13:5 13:9 13:14 concern 21:4 23:1 37:8 37:10 37:11 52:8 58:13 concerned27:7 75:11 concerning15:3 concerns 26:14 concluded52:4 84:13 conclusion 14:20 54:19 56:17 conclusions 14:24 16:17 18:2 62:15 condensation 25:9 conditions 22:18 51:4 conference 81:2 confidence 21:15 confident17:8 24:3 confidentiality 24:8 configuration 22:17 63:13 66:15 confined18:15 confirm

80:9 confirms 77:8 77:20 confused52:17 confusing52:10 confusion 69:19 connect24:5 connected39:22 connection 18:10 consider 8:21 30:13 33:21 36:19 44:10 46:18 46:19 46:23 47:10 58:1 58:25 64:18 82:13 consideration 26:10 80:19 considerations 29:18 considering38:15 58:7 58:12 consisted57:8 consultant12:3 consumer 34:8 34:12 contaminants 27:5 29:5 content40:8 40:22 40:23 41:7 41:10 41:16 41:18 46:11 contents 31:19 32:18 context43:21 50:11 continue 21:18 continuing52:25 contribution 59:17 60:1 62:23 74:18 contributions 23:19 63:19 74:5 contributor 76:6 contributors 24:18 control 61:19 conversation 20:17 coolant70:10 cooling70:11 70:12 cooperation 77:12 COP 9:17 copies 8:5MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 93

copy 47:23 copyright57:13 Corning69:8 71:16 corollary 76:23 corral 58:22 correct18:8 33:11 38:13 67:11 67:22 69:4 69:14 71:18 72:25 81:8 81:10 83:14 correlate 31:19 correspond

56:7 counsel 7:23 countries 16:4 17:18 country24:1 27:10 80:5 County57:24 couple 20:9 39:18 49:11 51:15 65:6 76:10 79:4 79:9 79:23 coupled

21:21 21:24 course 42:3 60:18 covered

43:10 covering58:4 create 24:6 criteria 30:10 30:11 30:15 31:11 40:6 criterion 30:18 critical 58:6 CTAC 51:20 51:21 51:23 57:11 curious 77:17 current26:19 52:22 52:24 currently 73:17 curve 54:8 Cynthia 5:21 11:12 11:15 59:5 60:7

D D4 13:17 31:17 32:23 34:13 44:17 44:20 48:21 49:10 50:2 51:9 51:11 53:23 54:19 55:16 56:4 57:3 65:15 66:14 66:22 66:25 76:15 76:25 77:4 77:9 D5 13:17 31:17 32:23 34:13 44:18 44:20 48:22 49:10 50:2 51:9 51:11 52:3 52:3 52:5 55:16 56:4 57:3 66:14 66:22 66:25 76:15 76:24 77:4 77:9 D6 57:3 dare 49:8 dat29:10 data 15:8 15:11 15:11 15:12 15:13 15:14 15:24 16:3 16:6 16:9 16:12 16:12 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:23 17:1 17:2 17:19 18:1 19:4 19:19 19:20 21:10 21:15 21:19 21:21 21:21 22:16 22:21 22:23 23:9 23:24 24:2 26:16 28:4 28:6 28:11 28:11 28:14 29:11 29:12 32:20 38:24 43:10 44:2 48:12 48:21 48:22 49:11 49:13 49:19 49:20 50:1 50:2 50:2 50:8 50:25 51:1 52:1 53:17 53:24 54:1 54:5 54:6 54:10 55:23 57:4 57:16 74:8 76:16 77:8 77:14 77:19 database 32:18 33:19 40:24 73:13 databases 41:6 Dave 7:11 16:21 40:14 55:24 56:2 56:21 David5:9 5:23MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 94

22:21 27:2 39:19 50:16 day 80:8 days 11:5 82:22 dead20:8 deal 33:16 Debra 5:25 deep 20:21 define 24:13 definitely23:6 26:12 62:18 definition 19:2 degree 24:4 deleo 6:21 DeLeo 6:20 demonstrate 15:9 densest50:7 depend 75:13 dependence 42:4 depends 25:23 46:22 deposition 26:21 26:25 depth 47:10 described52:16 deserved29:11 design 14:5 14:24 24:20 30:7 41:21 designing21:12 44:15 despite 21:7 detail 11:7 11:8 11:25 14:14 detailed10:11 27:4 details 22:15 detectable 51:7 detected54:15 detection 18:25 22:10 22:25 49:3 78:1 detector 30:15 30:17 30:19 determination 63:8 77:18 determine 22:4 33:13 63:7 determined 39:24 45:9 73:21 determining23:12 23:17 41:2 develop 12:25 13:7 16:16 18:2 24:16 66:17 79:18 80:19 Di 57:1 diagram

48:22 dictate 31:18 difference 13:9 14:1 39:22 differences 34:23 63:13 79:21 different8:24 14:20 15:5 15:22 16:4 16:14 17:18 23:7 23:20 25:10 27:8 31:24 32:12 38:18 38:20 40:2 41:19 41:23 41:24 42:5 44:3 51:4 52:18 53:7 56:14 62:12 63:24 64:1 67:14 68:1 74:24 80:17 differentiate 65:20 74:5 differentiation 63:10 differs 72:15 difficult 13:24 40:10 43:22 58:22 difficulty 64:16 66:19 digest47:7 81:22 digress 38:17 dillution 32:21 dilution 26:3 31:13 31:21 34:18 38:10 39:2 39:4 39:11 39:12 44:1 44:9 direct61:17 62:19 68:4 72:18 72:22 74:17 78:7 78:21 direction 23:7 directly 27:1 34:10 Dirst 7:24 discharge 29:7 43:19 49:15 62:4MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 95

62:19 62:22 63:4 63:17 65:18 68:17 69:12 69:13 69:24 70:1 72:9 72:18 72:22 74:1 74:17 75:24 discharger 68:19 dischargers 59:21 61:11 67:18 68:13 78:18 78:21 discharges 61:17 discharging75:22 discuss 8:11 9:23 30:6 35:23 38:19 84:6 discussed51:20 83:23 discussing38:3 discussion 8:15 12:1 42:2 44:24 45:1 46:1 46:6 46:7 50:21 58:1 58:10 83:11 discussions 8:24 36:24 79:14 dismissed46:2 disputing28:18 28:20 distance 18:7 29:4 distributed

9:5 distribution 20:10 37:23 38:25 49:9 49:20 49:22 50:25 51:8 51:13 54:7 55:12 56:8 56:15 distributions 51:2 District57:24 dive 20:22 docket83:23 document9:5 10:3 10:15 10:15 10:21 10:22 11:3 11:13 12:2 12:17 12:18 13:3 13:8 13:12 13:15 47:20 47:22 48:13 56:12 56:18 60:9 60:21 79:17 documents 8:6 29:16 57:12 83:23 dollars 20:14 Domenic 57:1 domestic 59:17 59:19 done 11:3 12:10 12:12 15:12 15:22 18:16 21:11 28:16 32:4 51:4 52:1 53:2 53:4 53:18 53:21 55:10 55:21 77:9 D-optimal 30:7 Dow5:23 5:25 6:6 6:10 68:6 69:7 71:16 downstream

26:4 26:20

Doyle 7:20 dramatic 51:3 driven 43:16 dropping59:2 drums 70:14 dry 54:21 Dumar 7:16 7:16 Dunn 7:24 during32:5 53:11 60:10 62:9 Dyer 7:1

E eager 10:25 earlier 42:2 77:13 easily35:2 eco 82:10 ecofram

55:10 ecotoxicologists 57:16 effect51:3 efficiency31:23 efficient 24:21 36:15 effluent31:17 36:8 37:6 37:19 44:1 44:12 44:18 effort13:4 13:20 42:9 efforts 58:20MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 96

eight 14:23 17:23 27:25 eighty26:20 either 40:11 72:14 80:1 81:4 81:5 84:4 elaborate 36:20 elements 14:15 14:19 eleven 16:14 21:24 Ellen 6:2 else 8:3 9:1 10:2 39:16 60:25 84:6 emails 59:6 encompass 21:9 25:13 encourage 55:19 enter 32:2 entire 49:21 Environ 49:13 76:24 environment13:18 19:22 20:3 32:17 39:3 39:5 40:7 40:19 40:20 41:2 72:14 72:16 74:18 76:6 76:15 environmental 10:17 14:7 34:9 37:9 57:10 62:25 66:8 66:14 EPA 5:1 7:14 7:15 7:17 8:1 8:8 8:17 9:16 10:8 10:19 13:10 27:9 39:17 47:2 47:6 56:19 58:14 76:13 77:15 77:19 77:22 80:20 EPA's 10:25 77:18 Equivalent44:20 equlibrated

32:3 ERM 10:21 ERN12:3 12:10 12:20 12:20 especially 42:25 58:23 essentially61:18 61:20 70:16 78:20 81:14 est33:18 establish 14:25 20:2 23:18 34:1 35:20 35:24 establishing 12:25 estimate 56:5 estimated55:25 et16:14 21:19 21:21 21:25 49:11 53:23 54:10 56:20 evaluate 11:4 23:6 40:2 64:4 75:20 evaluated34:9 evaluating 29:11 63:23 evaluation 42:15 76:8 events 55:13 55:15 eventually32:8 37:5 42:13 everybody 82:7 everyone 31:7 everything81:24 exact 41:16 exactly17:5 41:20 42:11 42:20 44:6 55:2 examine 48:17 48:17 48:18 55:7 except44:7 70:17 Excuse 30:21 exercise 16:10 exist 18:17 existing34:11 exists 44:23 expand 49:4 60:12 expect78:7 expected54:14 experience 25:3 42:11 experts 52:4 explain 20:11 20:18 20:25 22:22 explained22:11 explaining79:17 explanation 12:11MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 97

explanations 84:10 exposure 50:5 54:20 55:6 56:15 76:18 expressed26:14 expresses 65:13 extend 51:8 extensive 17:7 extent11:8 65:17 79:23 extraction 36:16 extrapolate 43:22 extreme 41:24 extremely 60:15 67:2

F F1 22:24 38:11 face-to-face 80:14 81:15 face-to-fact 81:22 facilities 19:25 21:8 61:12 62:8 62:11 62:12 62:18 64:13 65:17 65:20 65:20 66:2 66:22 66:24 69:6 74:11 78:18 facility 34:21 45:18 67:25 70:15 70:23 71:7 71:14 72:3 75:22 fact21:5 21:7 21:11 34:14 42:17 43:3 51:21 57:3 factor 23:25 30:13 31:13 31:21 32:16 32:22 32:23 33:17 34:8 34:23 36:18 36:25 37:9 39:2 39:3 39:4 39:4 41:8 41:13 42:3 42:12 42:19 43:8 44:7 44:14 45:10 factors 10:15 10:16 10:22 17:3 21:7 23:20 24:20 24:23 29:16 30:6 30:11 30:12 31:20 34:22 35:1 37:23 40:16 44:3 44:7 46:21 58:1 58:12 58:24 59:1 60:13 fair 11:11 83:16 83:17 fairly55:10 80:8 fall 49:9 51:13 falls 34:14 farther 25:7 fate 37:23 feed33:10 33:14 36:25 feedback 8:13 10:14 10:22 10:25 24:22 24:23 29:15 29:17 50:16 78:7 78:25 79:3 79:16 81:12 81:21 82:10 83:8 feel 17:8 58:5 Fehrenbacher 5:10 5:10 14:10 41:4 46:8 47:18 48:5 51:25 52:22 53:3 53:9 61:24 FEMALE 35:12 37:14 37:21 45:25 field56:9 fifty 21:22 21:23 23:4 figure 45:19 53:23 63:4 64:13 72:6 figures 56:12 filed65:6 filled 73:14 fill-in 73:21 filter 38:5 39:11 final 59:4 finding15:16 findings 57:2 fine 31:3 47:16 59:12 Finley5:21 5:22 11:12 11:12 11:16 60:7 60:17 60:22 first 8:10 12:2 12:17 12:17MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 98

20:21 22:14 30:15 68:24 80:2 80:5 fit48:25 58:24 five 12:5 17:10 30:5 30:23 30:25 31:6 34:24 36:16 45:22 49:6 56:5 fjord55:25 Flack 6:8 6:9 floor 10:6 flow22:18 26:22 29:3 31:19 33:21 33:22 34:1 35:19 36:1 36:12 37:2 38:11 38:11 43:25 59:14 60:2 flows 68:8 70:16 focus 19:21 19:24 47:11 61:15 72:1 76:16 focused

30:10 36:23 61:16 74:23 focusing37:15 folks 47:2 80:10 81:19 82:10 82:14 form 73:14 formal 8:20 79:10 80:1 formulate 78:24 formulating 8:16 60:25 61:5 62:23 64:18 formulation 8:9formulationonly 72:20 formulator 61:11 61:16 72:15 75:12 formulators 63:24 74:6 74:9 76:5 fortunate 56:21 forty-two 22:9 24:13 25:12 forward

11:15 fraction 20:1 66:21 frame 83:1 Francisco 19:7 frankly24:25 fresh 17:4 19:21 front 83:20 83:21 full 50:3 53:25 55:15 64:19 79:10 84:11 fully 16:6 47:7 73:8 function 18:7 26:21 26:22 29:3 future 76:25

G Gamble 7:12 Gary 6:6 gather 50:24 51:1 gathered22:17 gathering54:5 Gene 70:4 general 28:6 generally 76:7 77:4 geography 40:4 40:8 45:14 George 7:20 germane 76:2 gets 37:19 42:8 getting24:10 24:10 60:21 75:3 81:12 81:18 82:7 given 11:7 22:24 23:2 43:1 50:6 79:3 gives 20:22 21:25 48:19 giving25:18 82:14 82:15 glass 55:14 global 15:12 globe 15:11 15:16 goal 14:16 42:8 74:4 goals 13:10 13:13 13:19 Goldsmith 7:13 7:13 gonna 11:22 34:6 Good-bye 84:12 gotten 8:7 11:25 45:12 77:12 78:25 grab 23:4MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 99

gram 54:21 Grams 7:15 7:15 grant 24:3 24:7 grasp 84:11 Gray 7:24 7:24 great 11:16 11:25 16:4 19:25 60:5 greater 22:1 26:18 37:25 74:10 74:12 76:6 Griffith 6:18 6:19 57:21 57:23 57:23 58:3 58:19 59:12 59:15 60:6 group 8:18 8:21 70:5 79:11 80:14 80:16 80:18 80:20 80:24 84:12 GROUP/POTW

5:2 groups 55:11 guarantee 21:6 21:10 Guerrero 7:3 7:4 guess 5:13 5:14 8:9 10:5 11:7 12:23 13:21 13:22 15:2 16:22 17:15 20:24 21:3 24:9 25:2 33:6 35:17 38:4 38:9 38:15 45:8 57:24 58:4 58:17 62:3 62:13 62:25 64:2 64:22 69:18 70:1 72:18 73:5 74:3 74:13 74:15 75:7 76:19 77:6 78:6 78:6 78:12 78:13 79:24 guiding73:22 guys 10:9 29:16 57:12 58:3 60:6 81:12

H ha 13:24 half 55:14 65:24 handle 45:17 handled

35:1 hands 47:20 happened59:11 happens 27:15 37:18 59:12 hard20:25 32:19 40:25 44:19 83:3 harken 77:13 haven't7:7 11:8 11:25 47:25 50:15 57:17 having17:10 58:23 64:16 hear 5:18 10:25 36:21 66:9 78:13 heard46:7 48:10 50:20 52:9 77:14 hearing29:17 78:6 heavily23:25 Heckman 7:21 help 14:12 17:15 21:1 62:22 63:18 72:4 73:24 75:17 84:9 helped 29:18 79:19 helpful 24:24 59:8 60:14 60:16 He's 57:19 Hey 63:21 Hi 30:5 high 29:9 33:9 33:14 33:18 33:23 34:1 34:2 36:1 36:11 36:12 39:9 39:11 42:4 43:20 43:25 45:18 49:16 52:8 52:20 54:16 55:20 59:14 64:20 higher 22:11 28:14 28:15 29:6 38:23 highest19:1 27:24 49:23 53:14 54:4 Hiley 6:22 6:23 historical 34:10 history23:23 hit76:10 hold38:19 homes 34:19MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 100

honest50:15 hope 18:12 50:19 hopefully 10:9 79:11 horse 20:8 hot52:2 hour 65:23 Hudson 41:19 Hugh 6:8 hundred

26:3 26:4 hurdle 58:25 hypothetical 28:10

I I'd27:3 27:3 29:23 74:22 79:9 idea 42:8 75:4 83:6 ideas 8:13 8:15 identified 49:17 63:25 65:17 72:3 identifies 13:9 identify 15:20 33:18 52:20 identifying 12:6 75:5 ignoring44:22 II 9:17 I'll 5:4 10:19 12:13 20:6 29:25 39:18 53:6 53:20 61:8 61:22 74:6 77:3 77:6 82:12 I'm 5:6 6:13 9:8 10:14 14:3 14:21 16:11 17:13 18:22 18:23 20:6 21:20 21:23 25:15 28:18 28:20 28:21 30:2 34:5 44:6 57:13 57:15 58:13 58:20 59:13 64:16 67:15 71:4 71:4 71:7 75:3 75:16 77:17 77:25 78:3 78:6 79:21 81:15 imagine 44:21 impact25:8 25:8 40:6 50:7 impacted50:13 implying67:18 import73:11 important12:25 21:8 30:10 32:22 33:5 33:23 36:25 37:2 39:5 42:18 44:14 44:14 46:9 46:13 46:21 46:24 importers 73:6 impression 76:13 Inaudible 29:24 30:8 31:2 32:20 35:6 35:12 45:5 57:6 57:10 68:24 incinerator 70:15 inclined20:7 20:12 include 32:19 49:1 51:6 included29:11 59:6 61:19 65:7 65:8 including15:17 inclusion 53:13 incoming33:21 33:22 increased34:17 increasing34:17 independent30:17 34:15 40:12 indicate 24:3 39:24 indicated12:2 37:15 42:11 indication 76:5 indirect61:11 62:4 62:22 63:3 63:17 65:18 67:8 67:10 67:18 67:23 68:13 68:17 68:19 69:12 74:1 75:24 78:17 industrial 49:18 49:24 53:13 53:16 53:18 59:20 62:21 63:20 64:1 67:12 67:25 68:1MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 101

70:24 76:1 industries 64:3 64:10 75:21 industry 23:23 64:9 67:11 74:24 75:14 influence 30:16 31:16 influent34:15 34:20 35:2 inform 76:18 information 13:7 13:17 25:16 41:1 41:5 41:6 41:16 43:4 44:23 52:1 63:3 63:8 66:15 66:16 67:4 72:24 73:22 73:24 75:25 81:17 informative 56:19 informed64:17 75:5 75:18 ingoing34:18 initial 26:2 53:3 53:6 59:15 62:9 initially 13:10 28:13 initiative 74:8 in-person 80:1 81:4 input 31:12 32:20 33:4 33:18 34:2 35:20 36:8 39:10 39:25 62:14 73:13 78:4 84:9 inputs 27:7 insights 65:19 instance 22:17 63:13 65:15 70:9 75:10 instead

31:20 59:16 instructive 78:13 insure 76:17 intended8:22 13:3 intent33:5 58:15 interactions 44:11 interest62:22 interested 18:20 23:14 28:23 29:17 59:13 66:25 71:24 71:25 72:2 72:12 73:25 interesting 14:3 16:13 19:19 21:20 internal 70:11 intersection 55:8 55:17 introduces 75:2 intuitively21:13 invertebrate 50:12 invertebrates 56:3 invite 10:20 61:8 61:22 issue 18:5 57:8 issues 8:12 26:7 56:23 isthey19:9 Italy 51:22 items 8:24 Itlucky9:17 it's 9:6 9:20 13:2 13:6 13:14 16:11 17:21 17:25 18:1 19:18 19:19 22:6 23:3 24:7 24:12 25:8 26:21 32:3 32:19 34:15 35:13 38:14 38:15 38:15 38:15 40:18 40:18 40:19 41:7 41:12 42:17 42:18 42:18 43:21 45:3 50:3 50:6 50:7 50:24 57:9 66:22 68:8 70:12 70:24 74:13 77:11 78:22 80:16 83:1 IUR 72:23 73:5 I've 11:13

J Jaeshin 6:10 30:3 30:5 30:21 Jaeshin's 40:5 Jason 59:22 Jay 30:12MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 102

Jessica 5:12 8:1 Joe 5:8 John 7:22 Jones 5:6 5:6 Journal 57:11 57:11 jump 23:8 justification 10:4 12:5

K kahuna 50:5 Karluss 6:12 11:2 12:2 21:17 61:3 64:2 67:7 75:17 78:7 Kathleen 6:14 Kathy 10:20 10:23 29:25 42:11 69:7 69:11 80:4 Keller 7:21 Kent47:19 47:21 48:5 50:18 51:16 Kevin 6:16 20:5 key 52:6 killer 45:10 45:10 kilometer 26:5 kilometers 17:23 26:20 Kim 6:10 6:11 30:3 30:4 30:5 31:2 31:5 31:9 31:15 33:12 33:19 34:3 35:13 35:21 36:3 36:5 36:20 37:7 38:8 38:13 38:22 39:14 46:17 kinds 27:8 63:20 knew63:16 knowledge 17:7 25:4 27:4 Koch 7:5 7:6 Kozerski 6:6 6:7 Kroger 7:22 7:22

L LA 57:24 lagoons 32:9 32:11 32:16 38:6 39:11 58:6 58:9 58:9 Lake 16:5 16:22 17:21 26:14 26:19 26:25 28:14 28:21 28:23 29:6 29:11 55:24 56:3 large 27:6 36:16 36:17 37:2 37:5 37:18 37:19 42:5 42:10 65:1 larger 36:14 largest27:9 35:10 35:11 last8:7 10:16 36:21 55:22 56:11 58:10 65:23 80:2 80:6 80:25 81:7 late 9:5 9:14 laws 57:14 lead14:19 learn 24:5 least 61:12 64:1 65:19 74:20 76:13 77:20 leave 82:12 leaving71:12 less 20:11 20:15 20:18 20:19 25:21 32:10 54:25 62:20 62:20 72:2 75:10 let's 36:4 80:10 82:17 level 22:10 22:24 23:1 37:9 37:25 44:15 77:12 77:18 78:1 levels 22:10 23:2 28:14 28:15 32:14 32:21 32:22 39:22 39:23 42:5 77:15 77:15 Lewis 7:14 7:14 liberty63:23 likely24:18 34:25 49:8 50:3 51:2 51:11 51:13 61:12 75:20 limit 22:25 49:3MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 103

limited

13:25 line 5:5 10:6 57:18 Lined-up 45:7 lines 18:2 49:9 49:20 49:22 51:13 lipid56:1 56:8 56:25 57:1 lipoglycopeptide 50:6 Lisa 7:16 7:18 Liscoe 7:20 7:20 list5:15 68:6 69:23 listed 71:10 literature 51:18 little 14:13 14:14 16:19 33:7 60:12 60:17 78:14 81:23 load31:25 33:23 74:19 loading36:13 66:17 76:6 local 40:7 40:14 40:17 40:17 41:1 42:10 44:8 46:23 location 19:24 19:25 locations 49:15 49:19 52:21 54:14 logic 24:16 24:17 72:5 79:17 logical 18:9 20:4 33:3 33:23 logically 35:25 long30:19 46:1 62:13 73:15 lost13:20 13:22 lot32:6 40:19 44:22 77:4 82:9 lots 57:4 low18:25 33:21 34:1 35:7 36:1 36:2 36:2 36:12 39:11 43:25 49:22 51:8 59:14 64:21 low-case 48:18 lower 36:7 36:8 54:17 77:5 77:15 77:18 lowest54:3 low-risk 48:19

M ma 8:8 magnitude 48:24 48:24 49:6 major 10:16 21:4 30:6 30:11 majority 16:4 17:19 MALE 7:2 11:19 22:10 25:23 26:1 26:8 26:10 26:13 27:1 27:12 27:22 27:24 28:2 28:7 28:18 28:20 29:1 29:9 38:14 41:25 45:4 45:9 45:16 45:23 54:11 55:19 management 20:11 20:18 21:1 76:19 76:22 manufacturer 61:10 61:15 72:16 73:9 manufacturers 65:1 74:6 76:7 manufacturing8:8 8:16 60:24 61:5 62:24 70:8 72:23 73:2 74:18 Marcus 5:11 5:14 8:5 9:19 mass 36:13 36:14 37:1 37:4 37:7 37:18 37:19 39:25 material 65:2 74:25 materials 17:7 17:9 25:6 26:17 26:19 28:8 37:16 37:24 50:5 50:10 52:8 57:4 62:12 65:13 77:21 77:22 81:19 matrix33:11 matter 57:3MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 104

may 15:19 18:4 34:22 42:5 56:19 58:6 58:9 58:11 58:13 58:24 59:1 63:21 63:21 64:8 64:15 65:5 65:12 65:22 66:9 68:3 68:19 69:1 69:11 69:18 70:3 74:22 75:3 75:13 75:16 76:2 81:6 81:9 maybe 11:23 11:24 16:11 16:11 20:16 22:22 29:10 29:10 38:2 59:2 60:23 64:5 64:12 65:18 73:13 73:14 73:20 80:1 80:21 82:18 83:4 Mayron 52:11 52:23 53:7 McNett5:25 6:1 MDHSC 7:19 mean 13:25 14:17 16:9 17:22 19:18 25:2 25:25 28:9 33:15 36:22 37:22 37:22 41:19 43:7 43:9 45:13 45:25 46:4 47:5 53:18 54:6 55:5 58:19 62:9 63:9 65:23 68:16 68:23 69:24 69:25 72:12 73:23 73:25 74:11 74:15 78:23 79:24 means 28:15 54:23 meant 13:6 measure 40:13 41:3 41:8 measured41:22 measurement35:3 measurements 42:16 media 13:1 23:3 median 39:1 48:18 meet79:10 meeting8:10 8:22 8:23 53:20 57:25 62:10 79:13 80:1 80:1 80:16 81:9 81:23 83:21 84:13 meetings 51:21 51:21 megaflush 49:14 52:20 53:5 member 78:20 members 61:8 61:19 65:8 66:20 membership 63:25 67:1 mention 15:23 mentioned20:9 21:19 29:16 56:18 57:12 59:5 74:4 83:20 merit 40:2 messy 40:20 metals 26:17 meters 26:3 26:4 method 31:12 Michigan 68:7 68:25 Midland

68:25 Mihaich6:2 6:3 6:3 6:5 Mike 7:13 Milan 51:22 miles 17:22 million 37:13 mind55:20 77:20 82:25 Minneapolis 27:14 28:4 minute 38:16 missing14:17 Mississippi 26:18 26:22 27:5 27:6 27:11 mistake 9:18 mix 72:20 model 12:22 13:5 49:14 49:14 53:5 56:25 57:1 models 12:10 12:24 13:14 modes 57:7 modifications 79:2 modified79:12MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 105

Momentive 7:16 20:6 monitor 21:9 26:1 26:2 26:3 38:7 42:24 43:9 43:14 63:5 72:7 78:2 monitored39:13 monitoring5:2 8:11 10:5 13:1 13:4 13:6 15:11 15:12 15:24 16:7 17:1 19:15 19:20 22:20 23:5 25:12 26:16 28:4 28:6 28:16 30:19 32:23 32:25 36:6 39:9 42:9 46:9 46:15 52:13 52:23 52:24 61:20 62:5 72:3 72:10 74:1 74:16 75:19 75:24 76:12 77:10 78:8 79:18 morning60:9 mostly17:19 motive 56:24 56:24 57:5 57:8 move 38:3 58:3 60:24 MPF62:8 62:11 62:14 78:10 79:1 83:11 MPFs 78:19 multiple 15:16 27:18 35:4 35:8 35:15 38:21 municipal 49:17 67:19 municipally71:1 muted44:25

N NACWA5:21 11:12 57:24 60:7 Nahn 66:5 nanograms 54:20 narrow66:1 67:2 nation 18:18 25:11 national 14:6 nationwide 32:19 nature 9:2 nearest17:21 necessarily 13:4 21:14 35:9 35:10 62:11 66:23 negotiating 8:20 62:10 79:11 80:24 81:9 81:15 Nguyen 5:7 5:7 66:4 66:5 66:11 67:3 Nhan 5:7 nice 48:15 nickname 45:12 nine 49:17 ninety-five 36:15 NOEC 56:15 non 51:6 non-content70:12 non-detectable 49:1 non-detects 21:23 none 78:6 non-siloxane 59:20 normal 46:20 normalize 46:10 normalized

56:1 56:8 normalizing46:16 North 51:23 Nothing84:7 notification 34:11 noting13:13 NPDS 33:19 38:24

O objective 15:1 75:5 obligation 77:22 obtain 19:20 obviously 12:24 15:3 24:21 27:7 30:8 30:16 33:3 47:6 47:20 51:8 52:7 53:13 54:7 57:6 60:16 63:10 82:3 occur 29:6 29:7MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 106

55:16 occurring55:14 odd50:2 50:2 offer 80:23 offered

78:20 offering68:3 office 33:16 officer's 10:10 off-site 34:22 oh9:18 47:24 54:18 65:10 okay 5:16 6:4 6:5 6:10 6:14 6:16 7:3 8:3 8:4 9:12 10:2 10:5 10:7 11:11 11:14 11:21 12:23 14:11 14:11 19:8 19:14 27:1 28:19 29:8 29:22 30:2 30:5 31:9 31:21 32:15 34:4 35:16 35:22 36:4 36:5 37:17 38:2 38:9 39:7 39:15 43:23 45:24 47:1 47:5 47:17 50:14 51:24 53:8 57:15 57:20 58:2 60:5 60:17 60:22 60:23 61:2 62:1 64:12 70:18 70:19 70:21 71:25 73:4 73:19 78:4 78:6 78:23 80:7 83:4 83:15 83:18 84:3 84:4 84:5 older 32:15 on-call 82:11 ones 30:14 52:14 58:23 63:4 63:7 63:18 64:14 ongoing14:1 online 57:10 on-site 63:11 66:15 open 12:1 opening67:7 operating76:14 76:20 optimal 30:7 order 5:17 orders 48:24 48:24 49:6 Oregon 21:21 21:24 22:21 22:23 23:22 23:22 77:14 77:16 organic 26:17 32:18 40:8 40:22 40:23 41:7 41:10 41:16 41:18 42:4 42:12 43:20 44:13 44:17 46:20 organism

55:24 organisms 50:7 52:8 56:9 organize 79:25 organized36:10 organizing10:8 original 74:7 Oslo 55:25 others 11:7 15:17 61:22 ours 70:6 71:5 ourselves 81:16 81:23 outcome 8:22 outfall 27:20 27:21 28:17 29:13 outline 61:4 output30:16 outside 63:25 70:10 overall 25:18 31:16 32:12 32:20 32:24 overflows 34:25 overlap 56:11 oversight 59:10 over-sighting 16:11 overview11:23 owned69:13 71:1

P page 14:23 paper 22:24 22:25 23:2 23:22 56:19 56:20 parameter 41:14 parameters 40:3MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 107

41:12 42:23 46:22 park 17:5 participants 78:5 participate 58:16 participating 52:13 52:14 particles 32:2 particular 5:17 15:8 34:21 74:10 particularly 16:22 75:18 82:6 parties 22:6 party 7:9 pathways 13:17 66:7 66:13 Patrick 6:18 57:23 60:12 Paul 6:20 7:14 27:15 28:4 pause 12:13 PCBs 26:17 PCPC 9:6 PDF57:13 peer 77:23 Penberthy 5:4 5:5 5:13 8:4 9:8 9:12 9:15 9:22 9:25 10:2 11:2 11:14 11:17 11:20 12:16 12:23 13:21 14:11 14:23 15:23 16:3 17:13 17:17 17:25 18:9 18:19 19:4 19:8 19:11 19:14 19:23 21:3 22:2 22:6 22:13 23:14 23:17 24:15 25:14 25:20 25:25 26:6 26:9 26:12 27:2 27:17 27:21 27:23 28:9 29:8 29:10 29:20 30:24 31:10 33:2 33:13 33:24 34:4 35:6 35:16 35:22 36:4 36:9 36:22 37:11 37:17 38:2 38:9 38:18 39:7 39:15 42:20 43:6 43:18 43:23 45:2 45:6 45:11 45:21 45:24 46:4 47:1 47:17 47:24 50:14 53:22 57:15 57:20 57:22 58:2 58:17 59:9 59:13 60:5 60:15 60:20 60:23 62:17 63:9 64:5 64:12 64:24 65:7 65:10 65:14 68:16 68:21 69:5 69:16 69:23 70:18 70:21 71:2 71:6 71:13 71:20 71:22 71:25 72:11 73:2 73:4 73:8 73:12 73:19 73:23 74:15 75:1 75:7 75:15 75:23 76:4 77:25 78:11 78:23 80:7 80:15 81:3 81:8 81:10 82:2 82:16 82:24 83:4 83:14 83:16 83:18 84:2 84:5 84:8 people 18:10 21:13 33:16 34:18 35:4 35:8 35:15 38:21 Pepin 16:6 16:22 17:21 26:15 26:25 28:15 28:21 28:23 29:6 29:11 55:24 56:3 per 37:12 37:13 38:16 54:20 PERBERTHY 62:1 percent34:24 36:15 36:16 49:3 54:24 55:14 55:15 59:17 percentile 54:17 54:20 55:6 55:7 55:11 55:17 perhaps 43:2 59:16 period 59:17 Perricase 7:18 7:18 persistent23:4 23:9 Personal 7:22MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 108

PERSONS 27:18 perspective 14:6 18:13 48:12 perspectives 8:17 10:19 79:20 80:17 pertinent50:8 phase 32:8 44:13 44:21 phone 44:25 45:1 46:7 60:13 81:4 82:22 83:5 phonetic 7:25 9:18 12:3 PHWs 58:15 59:19 physical 31:22 42:15 43:15 44:22 pick 25:6 29:23 33:8 33:9 33:9 33:25 39:9 63:2 79:18 picked-up 61:13 pick-up 78:17 pieces 12:15 80:23 Pipin 26:20 places 15:16 29:24 plan 24:12 32:25 77:1 plane 82:23 planning64:3 plant 18:8 49:15 49:18 68:2 68:9 69:10 70:7 70:21 70:25 71:3 71:12 71:19 71:23 plants 49:18 58:22 67:12 70:2 70:8 70:9 70:10 70:17 70:19 play 37:23 40:15 please 5:15 7:8 29:20 36:20 61:6 plot53:22 53:24 54:3 54:4 plots 54:12 PLOTSKE 16:18 17:15 24:9 25:2 25:15 Plotzke 6:14 6:15 11:21 12:19 15:2 30:2 69:7 69:7 69:14 69:20 71:4 71:18 71:21 71:23 80:4 80:4 plunge 11:6 plus 21:22 21:24 point 13:11 13:16 20:16 21:18 23:21 23:22 23:24 27:2 27:12 29:7 30:22 34:6 35:13 39:19 40:4 45:22 54:11 65:25 74:7 78:2 78:17 79:8 pointed

40:14 41:18

pointing45:11 points 13:15 40:21 43:10 51:1 53:24 54:2 54:6 80:22 83:19 polymers 65:16 pond32:11 population 31:16 33:6 33:17 33:20 33:22 34:14 34:17 35:5 35:7 35:17 35:19 36:1 39:20 39:23 43:25 58:8 58:8 59:14 59:16 60:2 60:3 populations 34:1 portion 8:10 10:13 12:17 61:14 65:15 67:2 76:12 76:17 78:19 possible 19:1 24:21 28:15 83:12 possibly 47:12 postpone 82:19 potential 72:13 72:15 potentially50:12 66:2 75:25 81:24 83:10 POTW8:11 10:5 10:13 12:21 22:17 27:17 31:12 32:3 33:14MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 109

33:20 33:23 34:2 36:15 37:1 37:4 43:25 61:13 62:5 62:20 63:12 63:13 67:9 67:19 67:19 68:15 68:21 69:1 69:2 70:22 71:7 71:8 71:14 72:9 75:20 76:11 78:19 83:9 POTWs 8:14 8:25 20:1 23:20 24:19 29:13 33:9 33:16 33:18 33:25 39:10 39:13 62:14 65:25 67:10 68:13 69:5 69:9 69:11 75:19 79:1 POTW's 33:5 pounds 36:13 Powell 5:23 5:24 16:21 40:14 power 12:7 12:12 PRA 55:3 predict17:9 36:7 predicted35:2 preference 80:3 80:6 pre-manufacturing 34:10 preparation 77:1 prepared50:16 preparing51:19 Presence 10:17 present23:23 79:11 presented15:24 16:15 51:23 presses 52:2 presumably61:12 presumptive 56:24 pre-treatment 63:11 pretty10:11 35:2 53:25 54:10 61:24 68:25 79:21 80:16 prevention 77:1 previous 52:25 80:21 primary19:23 19:24 19:25 37:8 37:10 37:11 61:9 prior 30:19 priority 43:2 private 69:20 69:21 69:21 69:22 70:24 70:25 71:3 71:19 probabilistic 48:14 probabilities 55:8 probability55:13 55:15 probably 21:9 21:19 38:16 43:12 52:4 74:12 74:19 79:4 84:3 problem 24:2 46:12 59:10 64:8 75:4 problems 22:21 procedure 30:22 proceed

10:3 proceeding79:13 process 10:19 processes 67:14 70:7 70:12 74:25 processing8:9 8:16 60:24 61:5 62:24 64:6 64:7 64:18 70:8 73:1 74:19 74:20 74:23 processor 61:10 61:15 72:14 73:17 75:12 processors 63:24 74:5 74:9 processors-only 72:19 Proctor 7:11 produce 32:10 product7:23 34:8 34:12 55:9 program

13:2 13:4 21:12 22:20 23:5 23:7 24:14 24:16 25:5 30:20 41:21 52:17 58:16 61:20 79:19 programs 52:13 52:15MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 110

progress 79:15 proper 32:25 properly 42:3 properties 31:22 42:15 property 43:15 44:23 proposal 8:8 8:20 10:13 24:25 35:17 36:1 47:9 47:13 51:12 61:4 61:9 61:14 62:4 76:12 78:8 78:25 79:9 79:12 79:12 80:19 82:1 83:9 83:11 proposals 80:21 propose 28:9 30:13 31:20 proposed10:5 19:15 30:12 47:11 49:7 61:18 78:15 proposing81:7 83:25 provide 10:10 13:6 13:16 14:13 47:23 74:8 82:10 provided10:13 10:18 11:8 63:3 79:7 publically69:13 publication 51:17 published26:16 57:9 pull 41:6 54:1 81:25 82:14 purpose 23:5 purposes 13:6

Q quantify 20:19 quantitative 30:18 question 24:9 25:3 36:9 48:4 48:8 50:17 50:18 52:9 56:11 64:2 65:4 67:6 67:7 67:16 68:22 70:1 72:21 80:12 questions 9:1 11:24 12:14 15:3 15:4 33:1 39:17 47:2 51:15 quick 61:8 67:7 quickly10:24 11:4 quite 24:25 34:16

R raft39:12 rain 70:17 raise 44:15 random 54:13 54:16 range 18:17 18:25 20:2 20:10 20:22 23:18 24:11 24:11 24:13 24:14 25:5 25:10 25:10 25:13 25:18 27:5 35:24 38:25 40:12 41:17 48:15 48:19 48:23 49:5 50:9 64:19 65:24 66:25 67:2 rate 26:22 33:21 33:22 35:19 37:3 38:11 38:11 38:14 44:1 46:22 rated38:15 rates 22:18 39:11 39:12 rather 18:20 ratio 38:11 44:1 rationale 10:4 10:12 12:4 14:15 14:19 61:4 61:9 61:21 61:25 62:2 rationales 80:23 Ray 6:22 reactant65:16 readily20:6 real 15:14 reality12:8 40:20 realize 11:24 21:22 really12:1 12:4 12:7 12:9 15:21 17:8 17:11 24:14 25:4 25:17 30:13 36:18 42:2 44:11 46:11 47:6MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 111

49:25 50:4 50:6 50:7 50:24 58:5 61:25 63:2 66:17 77:22 79:19 83:3 reason 30:9 34:16 Rebecca 7:24 receive 9:20 34:1 received8:5 9:9 11:13 60:10 receiving29:4 31:13 31:19 32:17 32:19 38:12 38:23 39:5 40:9 41:8 44:4 63:15 67:20 recent51:21 recommendation 8:20 12:20 recommended

27:15 recorded73:13 Redman 56:20 56:21 referring71:5 regard 49:20 50:5 50:8 50:21 50:23 51:13 regarding9:6 regime 29:3 region 43:20 related

31:24 32:12 relative 23:19 40:2 62:23 63:19 74:5 76:5 76:17 77:4 relatively 34:15 36:7 37:3 61:8 75:11 releases 24:18 75:12 releasing67:10 relevance 16:10 relevant10:17 16:12 21:16 63:18 64:14 remember 59:22 remote 16:8 removal 31:23 32:4 36:6 remove 32:7 removed

40:6 replaceor 16:24 report10:21 12:2 12:19 73:9 reported53:10 72:23 reports 59:7 represent28:22 29:1 32:15 39:5 66:21 representative 18:1 19:5 21:15 64:16 66:24 representing7:10 represents 32:17 74:23 request73:20 required76:25 reschedule 83:3 reservation 82:23 residential 67:20 resonate 24:25 respect14:14 56:23 61:10 65:25 respond

5:15 responses 9:7 rest12:15 24:1 restrictive 76:21 77:2 result34:20 39:8 41:13 results 36:6 41:9 56:12 return 44:7 review10:11 52:3 52:4 53:10 53:11 59:2 60:19 77:23 79:6 81:17 81:19 revised

79:9 82:1 83:10 rid40:15 45:12 rigorous 22:20 risk 13:7 13:18 13:24 14:5 14:16 15:10 15:13 15:15 20:12 20:15 20:19 21:16 24:6 25:17 29:12 34:9 47:23 47:25 52:5 55:5 74:14 74:16MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 112

75:9 75:18 76:3 76:15 76:18 76:21 77:21 78:15 78:21 79:6 risks 76:21 river 26:18 26:23 26:24 27:5 27:6 27:6 27:11 38:12 41:19 rivers 41:24 Robison 7:11 7:11 room 47:21 roughly44:2 51:1 runs 13:3 Russell 63:21 69:15

S safety77:9 salt19:9 sample 12:21 13:25 18:14 18:24 23:4 27:14 27:16 27:20 62:16 sampled

13:1 samples 16:5 25:24 45:17 54:24 sampling22:19 24:14 24:16 25:5 54:13 54:13 55:21 58:20 67:4 74:1 San 19:7 Sanitary 57:24 saw19:16 scalable 35:2 scaled 34:22 scales 41:23 scenario 14:25 15:6 15:7 20:9 20:13 20:20 28:22 28:23 28:24 50:8 57:1 59:14 68:9 68:11 71:12 scenarios 22:5 23:13 48:17 48:18 48:18 48:19 50:24 51:11 56:16 schedule 80:13 82:17 82:20 science 84:10 scientific 24:17 77:17 scientifically 20:7 20:11 Scott 6:24 7:1 9:3 9:3 34:5 scour 26:24 screening20:20 sea 16:5 17:3 17:20 19:16 19:17 19:17 seasonal 42:4 second 30:16 38:19 38:20 40:4 52:9 76:10 secondary 72:1 section 30:4 sediment23:2 23:10 26:2 29:2 29:5 37:19 41:7 46:10 48:6 48:11 50:4 51:7 51:14 sediments 18:6 18:15 18:18 seem 19:20 40:19 64:25 seemed 67:17 seems 23:8 40:10 40:18 40:18 40:25 67:3 67:9 76:14 segment44:25 SEHC 10:3 SEHSC 8:6 8:12 9:7 10:10 13:10 23:3 74:7 78:9 SEHSC's 8:15 SEHSD 61:15 61:18 63:25 65:1 65:8 select21:8 24:6 30:9 30:10 30:11 51:12 53:4 63:17 selected21:6 52:11 62:6 62:14 selecting10:12 41:14 43:8 selection 12:5 53:21 54:16MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 113

72:17 selections 52:25 53:4 selective 30:17 self-selecting 58:11 send9:15 57:12 67:18 68:12 69:2 79:8 sending67:24 68:14 69:1 sense 13:21 41:25 43:1 43:16 63:5 63:7 72:6 74:17 74:19 sent9:10 11:10 31:5 59:7 60:9 63:1 68:8 78:8 separately62:20 September 80:2 80:5 septic 58:7 served 33:20 35:5 59:19 serving26:25 33:25 59:19 session 80:24 80:24 sessions 81:15 sets 74:8 settlement48:22 set-up 68:1 seven 27:25 66:2 66:20 74:12 75:6 sevens 28:2 several 8:6 13:23 sewer 59:24 shaped 54:8 share 76:24 77:23 shared 58:9 sharing77:8 Shin-Etsu 70:5 70:19 71:11 short 83:1 shown 48:12 49:9 50:10 shows 15:14 29:2 SIC 75:21 significant19:12 65:15 silicone 64:9 70:5 71:11 siloxane 5:2 14:7 23:6 24:18 28:7 31:23 33:9 37:4 38:22 46:18 46:22 46:23 49:16 50:25 62:21 72:14 siloxanes 10:17 16:9 31:12 31:25 32:7 32:23 33:4 35:20 56:23 56:24 57:2 57:7 Siloxane's 23:20 similar 15:18 17:6 19:7 61:13 62:8 67:9 78:18 simple 34:16 simply34:21 43:4 simultaneously 55:13 single 19:16 site 12:10 12:21 12:24 13:5 13:14 19:16 19:17 25:10 25:11 25:13 25:19 25:24 27:13 41:14 42:13 43:1 43:8 43:13 43:21 45:12 46:14 52:21 52:25 53:4 53:13 53:21 61:11 62:6 62:22 71:7 72:21 72:22 sites 8:16 10:12 12:6 12:7 12:9 12:20 14:18 16:14 16:20 17:10 19:14 19:18 21:5 21:8 21:22 21:24 21:24 22:1 22:4 23:5 24:4 24:8 24:13 25:12 25:20 26:9 41:2 41:3 42:13 43:9 49:8 51:12 52:11 52:12 52:15 53:16 53:18 60:25 61:5 61:16 61:17 61:18 62:4MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 114

62:20 62:24 62:24 63:11 63:17 63:20 65:18 66:21 67:4 67:10 67:24 68:4 68:7 69:24 70:6 71:10 71:15 72:6 72:19 72:20 74:2 74:17 74:20 75:6 75:8 75:9 75:24 78:2 78:10 78:20 79:1 79:18 SITU42:25 situation 15:21 19:5 six 30:12 33:10 39:13 sixty 17:22 22:1 22:3 size 13:25 33:6 34:14 34:17 59:16 sludge 32:6 32:10 38:5 39:10 39:22 43:25 45:7 45:7 69:6 small 37:3 66:21 smaller 42:6 solely74:21 solid70:2 solids 32:10 40:22 44:3 44:12 44:18 45:7 45:13 45:17 45:18 solubility38:1 solution 77:1 sometime 81:13 somewhat14:3 20:15 sorption 46:25 sorry 6:4 9:25 10:23 17:13 30:21 66:11 71:4 sort10:21 13:8 14:21 43:7 48:14 50:22 55:4 63:23 64:2 sounded

52:17 sounds 41:24 source 16:8 17:21 25:8 26:21 72:13 72:13 72:16 sources 13:17 66:7 66:13 70:10 76:18 southwest41:20 span 49:21 speak 5:18 64:9 64:10 SPEAKER

7:2 11:19 22:10 25:23 26:1 26:8 26:10 26:13 27:1 27:12 27:22 27:24 28:2 28:7 28:18 28:20 29:1 29:9 35:12 37:14 37:21 38:14 41:25 45:4 45:9 45:16 45:23 45:25 54:11 55:19 speaking22:7 27:18 35:25 75:11 76:7 species 50:12 52:7 specific 12:7 12:14 14:19 43:8 44:1 57:7 83:25 specifically 8:12 14:14 15:24 78:14 specifics 16:20 spectrum

49:21 50:3 53:25 67:20 spend20:14 25:12 54:23 spent 65:23 spoken 44:25 spot10:23 spread 11:3 St27:15 28:4 stand14:4 standard22:19 standpoint15:6 38:1 76:19 78:21 Staples 7:19 7:19 start 5:13 12:24 29:19 started

23:7 24:2 starting10:21 state 7:9 23:24 stated 66:4 66:6 statement 67:7 states 14:24 15:17 15:18MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 115

15:20 17:5 17:6 17:11 20:1 20:3 27:9 41:12 statistical 14:2 Stedeford7:17 7:17 57:18 step 57:25 stepped

47:21 stick 82:19 stop 12:13 storm 59:25 straight17:24 27:25 straight-up 43:18 43:23 stream 31:14 39:3 44:4 struggling14:21 stuff 22:19 style 48:16 subject77:23 submission 10:10 11:1 submit51:20 submitted51:17 substantial 34:7 sufficient 16:16 22:4 62:15 74:8 76:21 sufficiently 81:22 suggest16:17 18:3 32:13 suggesting 16:25 17:1 64:22 summarize 31:10 summary10:11 summer 82:7 Summertime 48:2 support13:18 suppose 16:12 supposed8:18 sure 9:8 14:4 28:16 41:21 43:10 44:6 58:14 61:7 67:15 68:14 71:4 77:25 78:3 79:21 82:13 surface 41:11 surfactants 34:13 suspended32:1 40:21 44:3 45:7 45:13 sway 48:25 syllable 20:17 system 32:6 32:10 66:16 70:11 systems 59:24 59:24

T table 15:25 19:5 54:1 taking43:24 talk 16:19 16:21 26:7 26:9 53:7 53:20 57:17 talked 45:14 52:11 53:19 53:19 81:13 82:9 83:8 talking8:25 23:12 30:23 35:4 35:8 35:15 38:21 65:11 65:24 71:17 76:11 tall 27:25 tanks 58:7 58:9 target55:4 56:25 57:1 57:5 57:8 team 10:20 technical 5:2 10:11 80:14 80:16 technique 63:14 techniques 56:14 technologies 74:25 telators 34:13 telephone 81:1 temperature 31:18 40:8 46:20 tend24:24 tens 66:3 74:11 tentatively82:17 terms 36:13 36:13 37:3 38:16 39:3 41:2 58:20 74:3 74:4 81:11 tertiary 71:21 71:23 71:24 72:2MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 116

test14:4 24:19 33:10 39:10 testing8:7 8:14 8:23 tests 46:24 text31:5 Thank 10:7 10:7 11:16 47:1 50:14 60:6 84:12 thanks 10:8 84:8 84:11 that's 6:5 8:21 10:15 14:1 14:6 14:21 15:1 15:8 15:21 15:25 16:14 16:15 17:23 18:9 18:22 19:23 19:24 22:8 26:10 26:21 31:3 35:5 37:14 37:14 38:11 38:13 39:24 43:6 43:8 45:12 46:8 46:13 47:16 51:4 52:1 53:7 53:9 53:12 54:5 54:7 54:8 54:9 54:9 55:3 55:15 58:2 58:25 59:12 60:3 60:22 61:20 61:24 61:25 64:2 64:8 65:9 67:19 68:15 68:16 68:19 69:14 69:18 70:21 70:25 72:11 73:12 73:14 81:14 84:3 theme 13:2 themselves 65:20 thenso 32:4 theoretical 21:5 Thereagain 12:6 therefore 54:15 there's 11:6 19:16 21:6 21:10 21:10 28:10 28:16 36:14 41:5 41:5 41:9 45:4 45:6 49:11 56:18 56:20 58:8 63:10 66:17 69:23 70:18 71:14 72:17 72:18 72:19 74:20 75:8 77:20 79:15 79:21 81:17 they're 17:18 17:19 19:18 40:24 45:2 49:3 49:8 49:14 52:24 54:9 54:13 68:12 68:12 68:13 68:14 69:11 70:3 70:7 70:8 they've 10:4 12:12 45:12 53:2 76:25 third30:18 32:7 thirty34:24 Thomas 6:12 6:13 10:7 11:11 13:12 14:12 17:23 18:4 18:12 18:22 19:6 19:9 19:12 19:21 21:17 22:3 22:8 23:11 23:16 29:14 29:22 29:25 47:16 61:7 62:7 63:6 66:19 67:15 67:22 68:11 69:4 72:8 74:3 76:9 78:10 78:12 81:11 82:5 83:7 83:15 83:17 84:4 84:7 thoroughly32:3 thoughts 59:14 81:25 82:2 thousands 66:3 66:24 74:11 74:11 throw49:7 tissue-based 56:22 Tobias 5:9 5:9 22:23 23:21 27:3 27:19 28:1 28:3 28:13 28:19 28:25 30:21 31:1 31:3 31:7 37:12 39:18 39:19 41:15 42:23 43:12 43:19 44:6 48:4 48:7 50:18 51:15 51:24 52:9 53:1 53:6 53:15 54:19MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 117

54:23 57:19 64:22 65:9 67:6 67:17 67:23 68:5 68:14 68:18 68:23 69:2 69:22 69:25 70:24 71:16 71:24 73:20 today 9:11 9:23 11:10 60:19 74:13 83:11 today's 20:17 Todd7:17 57:18 Tokyo 18:16 19:7 52:1 tool 24:20 49:25 top 43:2 topic 78:4 Toro's 57:1 total 32:10 37:1 37:7 39:25 40:21 45:13 60:2 60:3 66:21 totally77:7 touch 52:23 touching18:5 tough 48:3 towns 25:6 toxicity 55:7 55:12 55:18 56:7 56:15 tox-triggers 56:6 Tracy 7:3 transcript83:22 translate 35:9 transparent77:7 trap 26:25 treated

37:6 treatment12:6 18:8 19:13 31:12 31:25 32:5 32:13 32:14 32:15 32:21 34:21 38:3 38:6 44:8 49:15 49:17 49:18 58:22 63:14 66:16 67:12 68:1 68:9 69:10 69:13 70:14 70:22 70:23 71:19 72:1 tremendous 75:8 Trent 7:20 trickling38:5 39:10 triclosan 34:13 tried15:9 24:15 56:14 tries 24:17 24:20 trigger 77:15 trivial 34:6 trucked

71:3 true 24:1 68:5 truly 66:25 try 8:18 20:10 20:17 43:3 49:15 50:24 52:20 80:21 82:19 trying8:11 14:6 14:25 19:20 20:2 20:25 25:16 26:7 33:8 35:24 51:3 71:8 72:5 72:24 75:16 76:16 Tuesday80:7 turn 30:2 44:8 twenty34:23 type 12:8 31:25 32:13 32:14 32:21 44:8 types 38:3 38:6 55:11 63:24 69:12 74:24 typical 34:12 34:12 typically 35:1

U U.S 5:1 19:3 19:5 uh11:5 ultimately8:21 58:17 uncertainty25:21 75:8 75:10 76:8 unclear 62:3 78:22 understand

8:18 10:1 16:6 16:8 16:20 16:23 17:16 24:14 25:14 25:16 25:18 26:15 27:10 27:12 33:4 33:8 33:25 35:16MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 118

35:22 38:4 38:10 39:7 39:15 40:12 43:7 45:2 45:19 62:1 62:23 65:14 65:22 65:25 66:7 67:15 72:24 73:8 73:25 75:1 75:4 75:16 79:13 79:19 understanding 24:11 25:5 37:10 39:1 42:12 43:13 43:21 46:14 47:8 52:19 53:9 63:19 66:13 66:18 72:13 understood 71:13 73:24 unfortunate 59:9 unfortunately 42:1 47:25 unimportant42:18 United 15:17 15:18 15:20 17:5 17:6 17:11 20:1 20:3 27:8 41:11 universal 74:9 universe 64:19 66:22 unless 60:25 updated

47:12 83:9 upon 18:5 40:12 upper 26:23 usable 15:18 useful 43:20 49:25 60:1 60:3

V validate 12:9 13:5 13:14 validates 17:11 Validation 12:21 value 20:22 20:23 39:1 41:22 56:4 56:5 64:11 65:2 65:12 values 44:2 56:2 variability23:19 29:2 40:17 42:6 43:1 43:11 variables 46:1 variance 42:7 variations 42:10 variety51:3 various 24:19 58:15 63:20 verified23:3 verifies 17:11 verify15:20 version 83:9 83:10 versus 62:24 view22:3 44:16 76:24 volatile 32:1 volatization 32:5 volume 34:18 38:16 volunteer 58:15

W Wacker 72:21 73:9 walk 10:20 11:22 29:19 29:25 walked 12:11 Walker 7:18 Wang16:14 21:19 21:20 21:25 49:10 53:23 54:10 Ward5:5 10:8 13:12 14:12 14:12 20:5 21:17 24:2 29:14 47:16 47:19 57:21 57:21 63:21 72:8 74:3 74:22 76:9 78:13 80:11 81:6 83:8 warehouses 70:3 warrant72:9 76:21 wasn't23:16 28:5 45:10 waste 18:7 49:14 49:17 49:18 67:12 67:19 67:20 67:24 68:1 68:8 69:10 70:2 70:7 70:13 70:13 70:16 70:18 70:25 71:3 71:12MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 119

71:19 wastewater 12:5 32:2 water 16:5 17:3 17:4 17:20 18:7 19:17 19:22 31:19 33:16 34:18 38:23 39:3 39:6 41:11 41:11 41:20 42:4 42:6 49:14 49:17 49:18 59:25 63:15 67:12 68:1 69:10 70:10 70:16 70:17 70:19 70:25 71:3 71:12 71:19 waters 19:17 29:4 watershed40:9 watersheds 27:8 ways 42:19 42:21 we'd8:14 13:10 18:20 72:2 wedges 19:10 week 8:7 10:16 80:2 80:2 80:5 80:6 80:25 81:7 81:14 81:14 81:20 83:6 83:12 weeks 65:6 79:4 79:9 79:23 81:13 83:13 weigh 57:25 weighed

23:25 weight54:21 weighted60:2 weighting58:8 we'll 8:22 39:25 60:19 77:25 78:3 79:4 79:22 80:9 82:18 82:19 82:24 83:5 83:21 83:22 well-known 34:7 well-selected 18:14 Wendy 7:5 we're 10:12 10:24 10:24 11:10 15:15 16:25 18:19 20:2 20:8 23:14 25:7 26:7 27:7 35:23 47:5 47:13 48:1 51:19 57:14 58:4 58:4 66:1 68:3 71:25 72:5 72:12 73:25 76:19 78:24 80:18 West6:16 6:17 20:5 20:5 we've 11:3 11:5 11:6 13:23 15:22 24:22 26:6 37:15 45:9 51:4 52:23 61:17 77:7 77:9 78:19 78:25 83:23 whatever 17:25 20:24 40:9 45:21 51:12 54:1 55:4 62:15 70:25 WHEREUPON44:24 46:6 84:13 whether 34:12 40:7 44:10 62:4 73:25 76:5 whole 10:21 18:5 25:9 25:11 50:8 54:5 who's 5:4 20:11 wide 38:25 window66:1 wipe 40:10 40:23 wondering21:20 21:23 81:16 Woodburn 47:19 47:21 48:10 50:19 51:19 52:6 52:19 53:12 53:25 54:18 54:22 55:2 55:22 work 8:19 55:11 71:2 79:16 worked 80:7 working5:2 8:18 11:5 12:4 80:14 80:16 80:18 80:24 works 55:1 69:13 72:5 84:4 worst 15:6 15:7 15:19 17:10 18:14 21:6 21:9 21:13 22:5 23:13 23:17 24:6 28:22 28:23 28:24 33:7 40:12MEETING Case Ref # 16194-6 Page 120

worst-case 14:25 18:20 18:23 18:24 20:9 20:13 20:20 48:17 50:23 56:2 worth 79:13 worthwhile 29:15 29:19 written 60:11 wrong 73:13 73:14

Y Yep 5:20 73:18 yet48:1 you'll 14:2 49:21 83:7 yours 10:6 you've 21:11 26:14 37:15 37:22 40:6 40:6 40:14 40:16 40:22 47:8 79:3 79:16

Z Z45 12:21 zero 20:12 20:15 20:19 zone 26:2 26:4 42:7 zones 26:25