Page 1 700 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000

 

Via CDX and Electronic Mail

January 20, 2015

Mr. Jeff Morris

Deputy Director for Programs

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

USEPA Headquarters

William Jefferson Clinton Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code: 7401M 

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Request for Schedule Modification – Change in Deadline to Submit Study Plan

Testing Consent Order for Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) CASRN: 556-67-2

40 C.F.R. 799.5000

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0209

Dear Mr. Morris:

The Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Center (SEHSC), in its role as Principal Test Sponsor for the 

Signatory Companies to the Enforceable Consent Agreement for Environmental Testing for 

Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) CASRN: 556-67-2 (ECA), is submitting this written request for modification in 

the schedule for delivery of the Study Plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) under the 

ECA. This submission follows on our prior communications with EPA regarding this matter and is being made 

pursuant to Section IX of the ECA and 40 C.F.R. 790.68. 

By this letter, SEHSC is formally requesting that the deadline for submission of the Study Plan specified in Section 

IX.A of the ECA be changed from “no more than one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of the ECA” 

to “no later than February 2, 2015.”1 As explained further below, we do not believe the requested modification 

would significantly change the overall schedule for completing the ECA Testing Program. 

Background

In June 2014, SEHSC notified EPA of the challenges it was experiencing in identifying and securing the 

cooperation of third party wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to participate in the Testing Program set out in the 

ECA. At that time, SEHSC formally requested that the deadline for submission of the draft Study Plan be extended 

to April 2, 2015.2 SEHSC and representatives of the Signatory Companies met with EPA on July 15, 2014 to 

discuss the extension request, SEHSC’s progress on completing ECA tasks, and opportunities for collaboration 

between SEHSC and EPA to facilitate completion of the Testing Program. During the meeting, SEHSC presented 

data and other information regarding the length of time it had been taking to secure qualified sites. Following the 

meeting, SEHSC submitted letters to EPA on July 23, 2014 and on August 1, 2014 which reiterated the extension 

 

1

February 1, 2015, which was the submission date referenced during the November 17, 2014 meeting and in our November 25, 

2014 letter falls on a Sunday; hence, this formal extension request references the submission date as Monday, February 2, 

2015. 

2

See June 27, 2014 Letter from Karluss Thomas (SEHSC) to Jim Jones (EPA). As noted in the letter, the proposed duration of 

the extension was based on the amount of time it had been taking to identify and secure written cooperation of third party 

WWTP locations meeting the criteria specified in Appendices 2 and 3 of the ECA.
Page 2 700 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000

request.3 And, in the interest of keeping the Testing Program moving forward, SEHSC submitted a partial Draft 

Study Plan to EPA on August 8, 2014 that addressed monitoring at the four direct discharge sites specified in the 

ECA which are locations controlled by the Signatory Companies. 

EPA notified SEHSC of the Agency’s denial of the extension request by letter dated August 18, 2014, which stated 

that from the Agency’s perspective, “SEHSC and the ECA Signatory Companies have had many months to secure 

WWTP cooperation and it is not clear that a six month delay will, by itself, result in obtaining such cooperation.” 4

Notwithstanding this denial, SEHSC continued its good faith efforts to secure the cooperation of WWTPs and to 

move the ECA Testing Program forward. On October 1, 2014, SEHSC submitted a timely draft Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) and 6-month Interim Progress Report to EPA. And, it continued to work on securing qualified 

WWTPs, preparing the pertinent portion of the Study Plan for those sites, and completing other tasks related to the 

ECA (e.g., laboratory certification, field training, etc.). 

On November 17, 2014, SEHSC and representatives of the ECA Signatory Companies met with EPA to discuss 

implementation of the ECA. During the meeting, SEHSC reported that it had been able to secure the cooperation 

of nine (of the required ten) third party WWTPs.5 Based on this progress, SEHSC indicated that it anticipated being 

able to provide a complete Study Plan and updated QAPP for all sites by February 1, 20156. In the meeting, EPA 

expressed a willingness to modify the ECA schedule to accommodate the proposed change in submission date for 

the complete Study Plan and QAPP.

As follow up to the November 17, 2014 meeting, SEHSC submitted a letter to EPA summarizing the discussions.7 

This letter reiterated SEHSC’s intent to submit a complete Study Plan and update QAPP for ECA sites by February 

1, 20158and noted that SEHSC would be submitting a formal request for a letter of approval from EPA for the

schedule change consistent with 40 C.F.R. 790.68. Importantly, in late December, SEHSC secured the 

cooperation of a tenth WWTP to meet the requirements of the Testing Program. This present letter constitutes 

SEHSC’s request for a schedule modification and is based on this progress and the proposed schedule discussed 

during our November 17 meeting with the Agency. 

Rationale

As detailed in our prior correspondence and meetings with the Agency, the process of identifying and securing the 

cooperation of third party WWTPs to participate in the ECA Testing Program has been challenging and has taken 

much longer than what was contemplated at the time the ECA was agreed upon.9 Many WWTP operators 

expressed a reluctance to participate and it has been a time-consuming and labor-intensive process to obtain 

sufficient data to validate that sites willing to participate potentially meet the criteria specified in the ECA. In the 

face of these challenges, the Signatory Companies through their Test Sponsor and contractor have worked 

diligently and expended significant resources to line up the required number of WWTPs. With the requisite number 

 

3

See July 23, 2014 and August 1, 2014 Letters from Karluss Thomas (SEHSC) to Jim Jones (EPA). The August 1st letter also 

referenced Section XVI of the ECA which provides that:

The Signatory Companies shall make a good faith effort to secure the cooperation of third parties (such as WWTP 

operators) as needed to complete the Testing Program under this ECA. However, the Signatory Companies are not 

responsible for the action of third parties and shall not be held liable for any inability to secure needed cooperation 

and/or permission to conduct the environmental testing specified under this ECA at locations owned, operated, and/or 

controlled by non-parties to this ECA.

4

See August 18, 2014 Letter from Wendy Cleland-Hamnett (EPA) to Karluss Thomas (SEHSC).

5

SEHSC also noted that based on feedback its contractor had been receiving from candidate sites, certain of those sites might 

be inclined to participate if they were to receive a letter of encouragement from the Agency.

6

See footnote 1 above.

7

See November 25, 2014 Letter from Karluss Thomas (SEHSC) to Paul Lewis (EPA).

8

See footnote 1 above.

9 That said, from the outset, EPA, SEHSC, and the Signatory Companies recognized that the willingness of third parties to 

participate in the Testing Program was beyond the control of the Signatory Companies, and, as reflected in Section XVI of the 

ECA, the Signatory Companies “are not responsible for the actions of third parties and shall not be held liable for any inability 

to secure needed cooperation and/or permission” from those parties to conduct the testing set out in the ECA.
Page 3 700 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000

of sites now in the fold, efforts are on-going to finalize the Study Plan (and update the QAPP, as appropriate) to 

address those sites so that the documents can be submitted to the Agency for review by February 2, 2015.10 

Importantly, based on our understanding of when targeted sampling conditions will likely exist at the WWTP 

locations (e.g., low flow, acceptable weather/access, etc.), the requested extension in the deadline for submission 

of the Study Plan for the ten WWTP locations should not prevent the overall Testing Program from being completed 

in approximately the same timeframe contemplated by the current ECA. As discussed during the November 17, 

2014 meeting, it is anticipated that all field sampling (i.e., both sampling events required by the ECA) should be 

completed by the end of Fall 2015 as sampling during winter months would likely not be realistic at many sites.11 

The approximate time windows for the two sampling events would be May – August and September – November. 

Because the deadline for submitting the QAPP was October 1, 2014 (and the ECA provides EPA with up to 60 days 

to review), as a practical matter, the first sampling event for the program would be the same (i.e., during the May –

August 2015 window) under either the original or revised schedule. It follows that the requested modification would 

not significantly impact the final reporting deadline of the Testing Program.12 Rather, it would assure that the ECA 

matches practical reality and reflect the significant effort the Signatory Companies have made to obtain third party 

WWTPs for the Program. 

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Agency grant this request and provide written 

acknowledgment of the same. Should you have any questions or desire further information, please do not hesitate 

to contact me.

Sincerely,

Karluss Thomas

Sr. Director

cc: Paul Lewis (EPA)

Heather Njo (EPA)

ECA Signatory Companies

SEHSC legal counsel

 

10 See footnote 1 above.

11 Actual timing will, of course, depend on numerous factors, such as weather, operating conditions and Agency approval of 

Study Plan and QAPP submissions, which are beyond the control of SEHSC or the Signatory Companies.

12 In its ECA regulations, EPA defines a significant change in schedule as one that would extend the reporting deadline by 

more than 12 months. The regulations provide that EPA may approve such changes without asking for public comment. 40 

C.F.R. 790.68(b)(2).