Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 1

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CASAC) LEAD REVIEW PANEL

PUBLIC MEETING

HILTON GARDEN INN RALEIGH-CARY CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27518

FEBRUARY 6, 2013

Court Reporter: Wanda L. Greenlee, CCR Missouri CCR #1188 Midwest Litigation Services 711 North Eleventh Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314) 644-2191Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 2 1 (WHEREIN, meeting convenes at 8:37 a.m.) 2 DR. FREY: All right. Good morning . We're 3 going to go ahead and end our recess from last night, and 4 this morning's agenda includes a few main things, some of 5 them on the agenda and some that I'd like to circl e back

6 to. 7 We will have -- if there's any needfor 8 more discussion on Chapter 4, we can include that. Our 9 main items as far as the policy assessment are to discuss 10 Chapters 5 and 6. We have an opportunity at the end of 11 the morning for clarifying comments from the publ ic, and 12 if anyone from the public would like to make clar ifying 13 comments, they should contact the designated fede ral 14 officer, Aaron Yeow, to get on the list. 15 We have a summary and wrap-up at t he end of 16 the morning, and then we're planning to adjourn n o later 17 than 12:30. In addition to discussing the charge 18 questions, I'm anticipating we'll get through tha t 19 probably before the morning's over. But I would like to

20 make use of our face-to-face time to circle back on the 21 consensus response to charge questions on both th e ISA and

22 the PA.

23 Just -- I know some of the lead di scussants 24 have prepared draft text on that, that at least h as been 25 copied to both me and Aaron, and perhaps others h ave beenMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 3 1 doing that that haven't shared it yet. But while we're 2 face-to-face is our best opportunity to have discu ssion 3 and clarification and deal with any complex issues . So

4 I'd like to take a few minutes to do that.

5 And also related to that is also to 6 identify research needs, whether it's reaffirming what's 7 in the policy assessment in Chapters 4 and 6 as re search 8 needs or adding to that because that is something at this 9 stage in the review process CASAC typically will want to

10 advise the administrator on research needs to move things 11 forward in anticipation of the next review cycle. 12 Any questions about the agenda? 13 (No response.) 14 DR. FREY: Okay. Let me ask Debor ah and 15 Sean and Susan, are there any additional issues o n Chapter 16 4 that you would like to discuss with the panel? And for 17 any members of the panel, are there any additiona l issues 18 on Chapter 4 to discuss right now? 19 (No response.) 20 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, if not, I would 21 like to then go to Chapter 5. And Chris Johnson is the 22 lead discussant, and Herb Allen and Roman Lanno a re 23 discussants. So I will yield the floor to Dr. Jo hnson. 24 DR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Chris. Goodmorning, 25 everybody. So those of you who are in academia k now theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 4 1 most annoying professor is the one who agrees withthe 2 conclusion but objects to the process. So I try n ot to be 3 that person, but I think I'm going to be that pers on this 4 morning. 5 So we have three charge questions f or 6 Chapter 5. The first is to what extent the information in 7 the first section of Chapter 5 captures and approp riately 8 characterizes the key aspects of the evidence asse ssed and 9 integrated in the ISA. 10 I think my colleagues will agree w ith me 11 that the -- this chapter, this section of the chapter, 12 does a very nice job of synthesizing a very largeamount 13 of information in the ISA in making it, you know, 14 understandable. It reads well and, you know, lea ds to the 15 conclusion that they make in that. 16 I had a couple -- you know, I havea couple 17 general issues and maybe I just need to be educat ed a 18 little bit. But two of the things that have comeup a 19 number of times in the discussion of the ecologic al

20 effects are that it's difficult to isolate the ef fects of 21 air lead, current modern air lead, from other sou rces, 22 including so-called legacy lead that's accumulate d from 23 past years in soils and sediments and also that i t's

24 difficult to isolate the effect of lead from othe r metals

25 and stressors.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 5 1 So you know, I think that to me, yo u know, 2 especially the issue of legacy lead from an ecolog ical 3 perspective, it seems like it -- you know, it does n't 4 matter to the organism whether that's new lead or legacy 5 lead if low levels of air lead now essentially mak e that 6 legacy lead more problematic than it seems you can

7 consider a standard for current air lead that acco unts for

8 that. 9 So this comes up in the next part a s well. 10 So the secondary -- so a secondary standard mightbe lower 11 than it would be otherwise because of the presenc e of this 12 legacy lead. 13 The second charge question asks wh ether -- 14 with regard to the exposure and risk information in the

15 second section whether the -- to what extent is t he 16 information drawn from the screening level risk a ssessment 17 in the last review sufficiently characterized and 18 communicated, to what extent is it appropriately 19 interpreted in the light of the currently availab le

20 information.

21 So the decision was made not to doanother 22 REA, and after reading this section and sort of 23 understanding it better, I was not part of the pr ocess 24 last time. I meant most of, I think, weren't. But it 25 left me scratching my head about whether that REAfourMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 6 1 years ago, five years ago was deemed to be appropr iate. 2 And again, I might just need to be educated a litt le bit

3 in terms of this. 4 So the interpretation of the result s is 5 appropriate in that it restates the conclusions fr om that 6 document, and it is -- it does appear that there's not a 7 lot of literature in the last five years to changeany of 8 the basic assumptions. 9 The -- after reading, though, the - - this 10 section of the PA, I really wonder whether the REA that 11 was done, at least for the ecological effects, la st time 12 was effective for the purpose for which it was do ne. 13 There were four case studies -- ifI 14 understand correctly, there were four case studie s that 15 were applied. One was a primary smelter situatio n, which

16 I assume was bottled after the Herculaneum site. One was 17 a roadside -- two roadside sites, one maybe in Co rpus 18 Christi and one in Virginia or Maryland. One was Hubbard 19 Brook and then the Naqua -- you know, the -- not Naqua, 20 but the water -- the aquatic site. 21 Sorry, no. There was a -- I'm sor ry, there 22 was a secondary smelter case. Yeah, for the terr estrial 23 effects, there were four. There were -- there wa s the 24 primary smelter, secondary smelter, roadside and Hubbard 25 Brook. So in looking at those four case studies, theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 7 1 results from two of them, the primary and secondar y 2 smelter cases, were judged to be not informative. And if 3 I understand the logic there for the primary smelt er site,

4 the conclusion was that the air concentrations andthe

5 concentrations of various media were above -- or t he air

6 concentrations were above the standard that was se t. So 7 you can't really learn whether the current level -

- 8 current standard is causing a negative effect. 9 The same for the secondary -- the r elevance 10 of the third case study, which was the roadside s tudy, was 11 deemed highly uncertain because of the presence o f legacy 12 lead in those roadside soils. So the only case s tudy of

13 the four that was deemed relevant was the HubbardBrook 14 case, and the ambient air concentrations in Hubba rd Brook, 15 although not measured are almost certainly very l ow, much

16 lower than the current standard.

17 So it's seems to me that at least on the 18 terrestrial side, it seems to me that the -- did the REA 19 really address anything that was relevant to this 20 particular question of what the effects would be at this 21 proposed standard. 22 So if I understand this correctly, the 23 ideal case to -- the ideal case you would look atwould be

24 a case where the ambient air concentrations are alittle

25 bit below the standard -- the standard value and a placeMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 8 1 where you had sufficient data that you could chara cterize 2 key populations and media in order to effectively

3 calibrate the model. Is that more or less correct ? 4 MS. TENNANT: Well, a couple things , the 5 original REA was done as a sort of pilot level scr eening 6 assessment using a hazard quotient to basically sa y there 7 was the potential or there wasn't the potential fo r 8 effect. So that's the framework that the originalREA was 9 done in. And ideally for this time, of course, wewould 10 have some type of critical loads information wher e we 11 could actually take into account legacy lead and determine 12 what the effects of the existing lead were and th en how 13 much more lead could be introduced into the system and 14 controlled for some effect, but we just don't have that

15 information.

16 DR. JOHNSON: But these four -- ok ay. I 17 get that, but these four cases -- I mean, with, l ike I 18 say, three of them basically being either non-inf ormative 19 or highly uncertain and one being for a site thathas -- 20 probably has air lead concentrations that are so far below 21 the standard that, you know, you're not going to see 22 effects anyway. I'm having a hard time envisioni ng the 23 EPA ever having data from a site that could inform this 24 process. And if that's the case, then why do thecharade? 25 MS. MURPHY: Well, I think there's a lot ofMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 9 1 interest in the critical loads process and whetheror not

2 the information available for lead will ever be su fficient 3 to inform a critical loads analysis. Because, as you 4 point out, it has -- there's this temporal aspect that 5 really you need to consider and the dynamics of le ad in

6 the environment. 7 One thing we face with other criter ia 8 pollutants, of course, is we don't have this multi media 9 and persistent characteristics that we have to dea l with. 10 And so in those cases we are looking for location s and

11 information where we are at and above and below t he 12 standard to look at those response analyses, et c etera. 13 But the data set for lead is not as easily used f or such 14 things. 15 DR. JOHNSON: Okay. So if a groupis here 16 in five or six years, I mean, is it going to be p ossible 17 to do this any better than it's already done? 18 (WHEREIN, unintelligible due to mu ltiple 19 people speaking at once.) 20 DR. JOHNSON: I mean, if not, why -- I 21 mean, if not, why even do it? I mean -- 22 MS. TENNANT: Well, I would hope t hat 23 sometime in the future we would develop the abili ty to

24 look at critical loads for lead because that real ly seems 25 to be the most promising path forward, similar tothe wayMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 10 1 that we look at deposition for NOx and SOx and aqu atic 2 acidification. It's the -- it's just that the dat a set 3 for lead just isn't there. It's not at the same l evel in 4 development as that. 5 DR. JOHNSON: Okay. So if you werecharged 6 to -- I mean, if you were charged to do another REA, at 7 least for the ecological side of things, I mean, would -- 8 what could you -- I mean, would you -- I don't kno w. I 9 don't want to revisit the whole thing that we talk ed about 10 at our last meeting, but the -- the data needs --the

11 sites that were selected were selected because th ey -- 12 largely because they were sites that have data. Is that 13 fair to say? 14 MS. TENNANT: Well, and they're si tes that 15 had a pretty good set of data for what it was, an d they're 16 sites that show different types of exposure lead and

17 sources --

18 DR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh.

19 MS. TENNANT: -- and then more of a 20 nonpoint source or ambient.

21 DR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. So with the 22 declining amount of research that's going on in l ead, like 23 I say, it's hard to envision that this situation is going 24 to get better, but it might. I mean, I don't kno w. 25 DR. MURPHY: I'll just offer one c ommentMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 11 1 recalling some of the discussions from the previou s panel 2 who also struggled with this, and I remember -- I can't 3 remember what panel member it was. He talked abou t the 4 importance of monitoring trends in the environmentat 5 critical sites to see if you at least had trends g oing in 6 the right direction, you know, with different sort s of

7 indicators because of the limitations in the avail able

8 database that we have.

9 DR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. 10 DR. MURPHY: But the previous pane l as well 11 struggled with the issue. 12 DR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. And I guess the 13 reason I spend at least a few minutes talking abo ut it 14 here today is that, you know, with the way that t his 15 process is set up is that, you know, there's beena 16 judgment and now the next -- like just in this ca se, our 17 focus has been what do we know from the last fiveyears 18 that -- you know, that's changed our understandin g. 19 So the previous judgment sort of b ecomes 20 the default, and if you can't -- if you don't kno w any 21 more that's going to change, then you just -- the n that 22 continues to be the interpretation or the underst anding. 23 So you know, it's now -- it's now -- we 24 have an REA from the last process, and that's in place. 25 And now the decision has been made, more or less, thatMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 12 1 there's not enough to justify redoing it. There's not 2 enough that indicates that we have a better unders tanding 3 of these processes. And you know, it's -- I just -- I 4 have some concerns that in five years it's going t o be the 5 same, and then the same, and the same. So we've 6 institutionalized a process that at least I don't see as 7 being -- having been effective from the beginning. 8 DR. MURPHY: I'll just make one mor e 9 comment. I think some of the things you're mentio ning go 10 toward the research needs discussion that you-allhave 11 alluded to having. The other thing I'll mention is that

12 the decision that we faced in the last review was

13 different than the decision that we face this rev iew. 14 I mean, we always say, you know, what does 15 the currently available evidence and risk informa tion tell 16 us? Does it call into question or support the cu rrent 17 standard? Well, in the last review, we had a sta ndard ten 18 times as high, and our conclusion with regard to the 19 secondary was that the evidence, while uncertain and 20 limited for a number of purposes, did seem to cal l into 21 question the adequacy of that standard. 22 It didn't give us what we needed t o set us 23 a distinct secondary standard, but it did do one step 24 there. In this review, now that we're looking ata much 25 lower standard, we find it hard to make the firstcase.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 13 1 So it is a different decision that we face under t he same 2 overarching question each time. 3 DR. JOHNSON: Yes. Okay. Well, an d then 4 in regard to the third -- the third question was b asically

5 on the limitations and uncertainties of characteri zed and 6 considered. And I think certainly the document is 7 forthcoming about, you know, many of the things we 've just 8 talked about, but the uncertainties and missing da ta that 9 there are in the database. So those are my commen ts, my 10 concerns. And you know, I yield the floor to my 11 colleagues. 12 DR. FREY: Okay. Thank you, Dr. J ohnson.

13 Dr. Allen? 14 DR. ALLEN: I really didn't find a ny real 15 significant problems with this section. I basica lly like 16 it. There are a couple of technical issues in it , and 17 they're in my write-up. And I think that's it. 18 DR. FREY: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Lanno? 19 DR. LANNO: Yeah, I don't know if I have 20 too much more to add to it than Herb, and I thinkthat 21 Chris sufficiently flogged the process horse, andthat's

22 the last we'll discuss of that. But I think thatthe 23 discussion of the uncertainties was good, and I 24 appreciated the fact that you also discussed the 25 uncertainties of the screening levels that were u sed toMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 14 1 make the hazard quotient assessments because we al ways 2 talk about our data limitations and stuff, but we forget 3 about the actual denominator in the quotients. 4 And that was important to point out 5 especially for Eco-SSLs where they're ultraconservative to 6 begin with, and so that really tends to indicate t hat 7 maybe we have more of a hazard than we really do. 8 Other than that, I don't think I have too

9 much more to add to that. I think the section was 10 well-written. And given its function, what it's supposed 11 to perform, I think it adequately does that and a ddresses

12 the issues. 13 DR. FREY: Okay. Great. Other pa nel

14 members? Dr. Kosnett? 15 DR. KOSNETT: I was pleased that t he second 16 draft of the ISA and continuing onto the third dr aft of 17 the ISA included in the discussion of the ecologi cal 18 effects of lead the implications of lead ammuniti on that 19 have been of increasing concern of their effect o n 20 raptors, for example, the California condor, and the bald 21 eagle, and other things. 22 And in the past few years, there h as been 23 petitions to EPA or increasing concerns about the 24 ecological effects of lead-related ammunition. And I'm 25 glad you mentioned it in the ISA. But what I not ice isMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 15 1 that in this particular PA, when you talk about so urces 2 and emissions and the impact on the ecological -- you 3 know, the ecosystems, I don't believe that ammunit ion 4 shows up as mentioned at all. 5 And there is even a chart on -- youknow, 6 on Table 2.2 -- well, no, 2.2 is not the right one

. 7 There's another chart on total number of emissions , 2.1, 8 by source categories. And I guess this is based i n part 9 on, you know, the toxic release inventory, the TRI . And 10 you -- there is no way to assess, you know, what the 11 implication has been.

12 But there are some studies on that , and 13 there is some literature on that. And especiallysince 14 we're talking about critical loads and our need t o 15 increase understanding about critical loads and h ow the 16 incremental effect of air will impact the critica l load of 17 lead, I think that the ecological discussion in t he policy 18 statement would benefit by a short but succinct d iscussion

19 of the fact that this is another stressor on cert ain 20 aspects of the biota, particularly the large bird s. 21 And that should be taken into cons ideration 22 on policy decisions about incremental effects of air 23 pollution to understand that as a base component because 24 they're one of the -- and maybe Roman, you would know it 25 or agree, but the large birds are some of the fewspeciesMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 16 1 that are actually dying of lead poisoning, right? 2 DR. LANNO: Yeah. I don't disagreewith 3 that. I think that in the document they actually exclude 4 lead shot from -- I mean, although it's accelerate d 5 atmospheric deposition as such --

6 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah. 7 DR. LANNO: It's not -- well, and i n terms 8 of critical loads, it's not what we're really thin king 9 about -- and I agree that it's a big -- it is an i ssue. 10 You know, obviously, it's been addressed by -- fo r water, 11 for the hunters changing from lead shot to steel shot and 12 tungsten shot, which probably has its own issues, but it's 13 been addressed. For the raptors, it's a differen t story 14 because, I guess, in terrestrial systems you can still use

15 lead shot so --

16 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah. 17 DR. LANNO: -- it'll wind up in ca rcasses 18 of animals that -- but I don't know. 19 DR. KOSNETT: There was a meeting that I 20 attended a few years ago by the Peregrine Fund, a nd they 21 produced a proceedings, a published book, about t he 22 implications of lead ammunition on ecological rec eptors 23 and to a limited extent on people who harvest -- eat game

24 meat harvested with ammunition.

25 But there was a lot of informationthereMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 17 1 that, frankly, opened my eyes because I hadn't -- I hadn't 2 realized that. So I just would encourage some ref erence 3 to that literature. I don't think you would haveto do a 4 ton of research. I think most of it's actually --if you 5 go to the Peregrine Fund site, a lot of the -- tha t 6 literature is pulled together by their team, and i t might 7 be mentioned because they are the bird -- they arethe 8 single receptor that is dying -- well, I don't kno w if 9 it's a single receptor, but that's clearly a recep tor that 10 is dying from lead poisoning. Okay. That's my -

- 11 DR. MURPHY: If I could just menti on along 12 the lines of what Dr. Lanno said, we certainly co uld 13 identify that as another source of lead to the 14 environment. It's not one likely to be affected by a 15 national ambient air quality standard. 16 DR. KOSNETT: Right. But consider ation, 17 you know, of any incremental standards should understand 18 other sources, and you do that. You know, you identify -- 19 you mention lead paint, and you mention other thi ngs in 20 these documents, so you mention that. And Chris, you said 21 earlier that we have the ability to be a little b it broad 22 in our understanding.

23 And since these documents are so valuable 24 above and beyond their utility just in the air st andard 25 but as a resource to the rest of the agency for a ll of itsMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 18 1 considering impacts, I think mentioning it is -- would -- 2 is helpful. 3 DR. FREY: Okay. Good. Yeah, I suppose if 4 we wanted to make headlines, we could say we were 5 considering airborne ammunition as a form of air 6 pollution, but I'm not recommending we do that.

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think the sampling

8 is rather difficult -- 9 DR. KOSNETT: High-volume sampling, right. 10 DR. FREY: Right. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We might have the 12 NRA visiting us. 13 DR. FREY: But -- okay. Other comments on 14 Chapter 5? 15 (No response.) 16 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, then let's move on 17 to Chapter 6. This is review of the secondary st andard. 18 So this is, you know, kind of the bottom line her e as far 19 as the advice to the Agency on whether to retain their

20 current standard.

21 So the lead discussant is Dr. Lann o, and

22 the other discussants are Dr. Allen and Dr. Johns on. 23 Dr. Lanno.

24 DR. LANNO: I think that a lot of what 25 Dr. Johnson discussed for Chapter 5 applies to Ch apter 6,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 19 1 but we could go through these charge questions qui ckly. 2 And I can give you the answers that we came up wit h or at

3 least break into discussions here. 4 So for the first charge question: Does the 5 panel agree with the preliminary staff conclusions about 6 the evidence in the previous risk assessment in li ght of 7 current standards as presented in Section 6.2. 8 Unequivocally, yes, I think so. 9 The assessment is good based upon available 10 evidence and the previous risk assessments, the d ocument, 11 the RAI document, that Chris discussed a second a go citing 12 a lack of general data within the (unintelligible ), the 13 appropriate level of lead, and the environmental media may

14 be associated with adverse effects. 15 We don't have any more informationon that, 16 so I don't see any reason that we should be chang ing it. 17 So I'll come back to that with a couple of points after we 18 go through the charge questions here. 19 Second, in the panel's view, does the 20 discussion in this chapter provide an appropriateand 21 sufficient rationale to support preliminary staff 22 conclusions that is appropriate. 23 I would say yes again. There's qu estions, 24 I guess, that remain. Dr. Allen and I discussed this 25 earlier this morning about relevance of the parametersMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 20 1 that are used for describing the lead exposure in humans. 2 So the indicator, the level, the averaging time an d the 3 form, whether or not they're exactly appropriate f or -- in 4 an ecological context, but I don't think that ther e's 5 enough information to change that. 6 I don't know what it would accompli sh, and

7 I think it would be a lot more work than it was wo rth 8 although the -- you know, the exact terminology ma y not be 9 exactly appropriate is probably good enough for wh at we

10 need. 11 A multimedia approach would certai nly be 12 useful to account for legacy lead and other contr ibutions 13 from different sources for the secondary standard . That 14 might be, again, a research need that we could ta lk about 15 later. But otherwise, I think that we would acce pt that, 16 you know, adequate information has been provided for 17 Charge Question 2. 18 And finally, Charge Question 3, dowe have 19 any recommendations? I think not really at this point. 20 Perhaps for research needs a critical load approa ch would 21 certainly be a -- if we could apply it to U.S. si tuations, 22 that would probably be useful in describing some of the 23 issues that occur. The one thing I went back to, and this 24 is more of a -- maybe a little bit of a process i ssue like

25 Chris talked about.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 21 1 Reading the evidence that was consi dered 2 for, I guess, reducing -- let's see, three -- thre e years 3 back, would that be, so the last one reduced -- sothe 4 last one reduced, and so reviewing the data for th e three 5 -- I guess the three ISAs ago -- not ours, but thethree 6 -- so 15 years ago, 10 years ago, when the decisio n was 7 made here that they basically said -- the panel su ggested 8 that citing lack of data that would indicate appropriate

9 levels of lead in the environment that we could as sociate 10 adverse effects with, and as well as the panel's 11 suggestion that if the standard was reduced that 12 significant changes to current air concentrations would 13 have significant benefits -- this is directly from Chapter 14 6 -- that there would be significant benefits on the 15 magnitude of lead exposures. 16 I guess they're saying that we don 't have 17 enough data, but reducing it would be good anyway . And 18 that was, I guess, for the previous panel discuss ion. And 19 for us, we're not changing anything. We're just

-- 20 obviously, as Dr. Murphy was saying, we're just a greeing 21 with what had been the reduction -- you know, kee ping the 22 secondary standard similar to the primary standar d is 23 going to be good. 24 It's not going to have any negative effect 25 and that's -- we haven't got enough data to change that orMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 22 1 develop another secondary standard for any reason, so just 2 keep it as it is. I just found that, I guess, I d on't 3 know, somewhat -- not distressing, but confoundingthat, 4 you know, we're just basing -- we're basing these upon 5 situations where we don't have enough data to makea real 6 decision, I guess. 7 But I really don't have much more t o say 8 after that. I mean, I think it's fine. I'm tryin g to 9 pick -- nitpick here to try to get more discussiongoing, 10 but I think that in overall, Chapter 6 is fine. And I 11 liked the way they address the uncertainties. 12 There is one uncertainty that I th ink might 13 need to be added, and that's when we're looking a t a data 14 for -- again, for our studies, the relevance of e xposures 15 in media other than soils or water. So hydroponi cs and 16 other media that you might culture organisms in t hat I 17 don't think have any relevance to any real world

18 situation. 19 I mean, they can give you causal 20 information, but that's about it. So that would certainly 21 be an uncertainty. I don't know how much they --that 22 much -- that type of data is considered in the de velopment 23 of the secondary standards or not. 24 DR. FREY: Yeah, I think with -- y ou know, 25 regard to the framing of this so, you know, whereone wayMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 23 1 of looking at it as a decision is the current stan dard 2 adequate. I mean, you could also ask the question , is 3 there evidence that there's need for a more stringent 4 standard -- frame it two different ways, and see i f you

5 have a robust consistent set of answers. 6 But I suspect -- from your comments , it

7 sounds like there isn't evidence that there's needfor a 8 more stringent standard. And based on what we cur rently 9 know or don't know, I think what I'm hearing is wi thout a 10 -- maybe not a high degree of confidence, but we could say 11 the current standard is adequate. Okay. Dr. All en?

12 DR. ALLEN: No comments. 13 DR. FREY: Okay. Dr. Johnson? 14 DR. JOHNSON: Pretty clearly, if y ou agree 15 with the approach and conclusions from Chapter 5, then 16 it's hard to object to what's going on in Chapter6. So I 17 made, obviously, some pretty lengthy comments on Chapter 18 5. And, you know, if -- so with that in mind, I don't 19 really have a lot more to say here about Chapter 6. 20 I do think that -- you know, we sa id this 21 before, but I do think that if we can get to -- i f we can 22 identify the key needs that are preventing us from taking 23 a critical loads approach to the ecological asses sment, 24 and I don't know if there's a way to encourage re search -- 25 the research community to collect the data that'sMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 24 1 necessary for such an approach to be implemented t he next 2 time this NOx process is undertaken, then that wou ld be a 3 -- I think a big step forward, so that's all. 4 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah. That's a g ood 5 segue because what I was thinking is I said we sho uld talk 6 about the research needs, and maybe since this is the 7 fresh discussion, maybe we should go right into th e 8 research needs related to ecological effects sincethat 9 actually is also mentioned in Chapter 6. 10 And I think -- so one issue is, yo u know, 11 we -- we can, as a panel, identify what -- you kn ow, EPA 12 has listed some things on Pages 6.12 and 6.13 of the draft 13 policy assessment. And, you know, one way to app roach 14 this is, is there a concordance that that list is 15 appropriate and inclusive. And, you know, if not , what 16 needs to be added, what needs to be deleted, whatneeds to 17 be changed? 18 I think to Chris's other point is, you 19 know, how do you move the research forward? You know, as 20 CASAC, we can certainly provide advice on the res earch 21 agenda. But obviously, we're not a funding agenc y, so we 22 can't fund the research. 23 But I think having a statement from CASAC 24 and also EPA's revised policy assessment -- and t here's 25 nothing that prevents us from sharing that with, you know,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 25 1 NCER, and the Star Grants Program, or NSF, or the Health 2 Effects Institute, or other organizations, that th is will 3 be public information. 4 So, you know, it's sort of an indir ect way 5 of influencing the research agenda. But at least having 6 a, you know, external scientific, you know, indepe ndent 7 review panel identifying research needs -- I know often 8 funding agencies are interested in seeing what 9 organizations like us have to say about research. So it 10 may be partly a communication issue and then part ly 11 whether they see that as -- as part of their prio rities. 12 And, you know, there may be other agencies 13 that I didn't mention. So, you know, that's not 14 necessarily going to lead to an opening of the fl oodgates 15 of research funding, but that's something that wecan at 16 least influence potentially. 17 So I guess having said that, I gue ss I'd 18 like to put Chris and Roman and Herb on the spot as far as 19 the -- the statements in Chapter 6 about key unce rtainties

20 and area for future research and data collection and if 21 you have comments about what's here or other inpu t that 22 you think should be considered in providing advic e on the 23 research agenda. And maybe, Chris, I'll start wi th you.

24 DR. JOHNSON: So the -- one of thethings 25 that's unclear to me when I read the ISA, in part icular,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 26 1 was from the EPA's perspective in drafting that do cument, 2 what are the key limitations that prevent us from adopting 3 a critical loads approach to U.S. ecosystems? 4 When I read the ISA, the impressionI get 5 -- and it's probably wrong, but the impression I get is, 6 Well, nobody's published any work applying critica l loads 7 to United States ecosystems. 8 So I mean, is that really what you' re 9 looking for? Are you looking for someone to show that it 10 can be done, or is it more of a data gap that the re are -- 11 that you -- in the ISA, you talk about European s tudies 12 where they have done this critical loads approach

. 13 You know, so is it -- is the issuethat 14 there haven't been authors -- you know, haven't b een 15 authors that have tried to apply this in the U.S. , or is 16 the issue that there are key data gaps that preve nt anyone 17 from doing it in the U.S.? Or do you -- 18 MS. TENNANT: Well, Meredith is si tting 19 back there, so if I get it wrong, she can fix it. So I 20 think there's a couple of issues. One is that th e 21 critical loads information that's available in Eu rope is 22 difficult to apply to U.S. systems for a lot of r easons, 23 and so it's difficult to figure out how to take t hat 24 information and apply it to ecosystems in a way t hat we

25 could use.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 27 1 And secondly, the ISA needs to have 2 peer-reviewed literature that they can then look t o to 3 establish critical loads. And then, of course, wh en you 4 get beyond that, you get to the point where we wer e with 5 NOx and SOx, which is having critical loads for en ough of

6 the U.S. to be able to consider it for a national

7 standard.

8 So I think there's sort of three le vels of 9 data that would be necessary to use critical loads . The 10 methodologies that they've used in Europe, I thin k, might 11 have some applicability, but no one has tried to use it on 12 U.S. soils with U.S. geology and U.S. ecosystems, as far 13 as I know. So those are sort of the data gaps th at I

14 think we would need to fill.

15 DR. JOHNSON: So the -- could a cr itical 16 loads modeling approach be part of an REA?

17 MS. TENNANT: I think it could be. I don't 18 think there's any reason it couldn't be if there' s enough 19 sort of peer support behind it to move it forwardto the 20 -- to be able to apply it. 21 DR. JOHNSON: And would this panel-- I 22 mean, obviously, reconstituted for a new process, but I 23 mean, would this panel be that peer support, or would it 24 require something else?

25 MS. TENNANT: I think to move it i nto anMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 28 1 REA -- and again, I'm going to talk about NOx and SOx for 2 just a second. There's such a huge amount of data 3 available for the effects of acidification on aqua tic 4 water -- aquatic ecosystems, that there's a lot ofwork 5 that has already gone into developing a critical l oads 6 model then that can be used using magic and some o ther 7 thing -- that can be used to look at critical load s for 8 different kinds of ecosystems. 9 And we still didn't necessarily have 10 universal coverage for the whole U.S. that reallytook 11 into account the different kinds of ecosystems an d their

12 interactions. 13 I think with lead it gets far more 14 complicated as -- obviously, because of the legac y effects 15 and because of the long lag times and our basic 16 understandings of how lead is or isn't bioavailab le or how 17 it moves through ecosystems. But in itself, if t here was

18 a model that used lead and allowed us to move it through 19 different ecological compartments, we could -- th ere's no

20 reason we couldn't look at it.

21 It would have to be an evaluated model, 22 something that we had some peer review and some s upport 23 behind. And I don't know that this panel would b e the 24 panel to give that type of peer review to the model 25 itself; but certainly, our interpretation of the model, ifMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 29 1 it got to that point. 2 DR. JOHNSON: Okay. So -- all righ t. So 3 it sounds like the -- to me, what I'm hearing is t hat the 4 ability to -- the ability to take -- so the models are out 5 there that can generate predictions of concentrati ons in 6 soils and water, but it sounds to me like what -- one of 7 key gaps for you is tying those to effects, to --

8 MS. TENNANT: Uh-huh. 9 DR. JOHNSON: -- on key receptor. So am I 10 hearing that correctly? So -- 11 MS. TENNANT: That's right. And I believe 12 that those models haven't been widely evaluated, but I 13 could be wrong there. So there -- it doesn't -- I don't 14 think that those models have been applied in the way that 15 we would need to apply them. 16 DR. JOHNSON: Well, I think they - - I think 17 they're -- I mean, I think in Europe, you know, t he 18 critical loads of models have been, you know, pre tty -- 19 gone through some reasonable peer review. The ex tent to 20 which they are appropriate for ecological toxicol ogical 21 impacts, that may not be. But in terms of the ba sic 22 workings of the models, I think they're pretty --been 23 pretty well-vetted, I think. I see Herb has his hand up 24 -- or had his hand up. 25 DR. ALLEN: If you want a descript iveMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 30 1 model, the critical loads models that exist today are 2 wonderful. They're the things that any of us can use in 3 the classroom, these are the processes that go on, and so 4 on. When you look at what is in the models, they' re 5 devoid of any mechanism whatsoever. 6 Perhaps the most important with res pect to 7 lead is the question of aging. You know, this is -- in 8 the models, and in fact, in all the aging literatu re, it's 9 a number. Gee, it goes down by a factor of 10 (unintelligible) in a certain period of time. 11 Sorry, that doesn't allow me to ex trapolate 12 to anything, even to the system that it was designed for 13 outside of the particular experiments that were c onducted. 14 There are no chemical reactions, there are no phy sical 15 transport. Diffusion limitation, not mentioned. I mean, 16 anything that we would think of that would actual ly 17 control that process isn't there. 18 When we look at migration of, let' s say, 19 lead through a soil column, you might think of 20 precipitation, you might think of complexation, 21 absorption. Those aren't in the critical loads models.

22 So I think the critical loads mode ls are 23 very pretty. They can be highly descriptive for one site. 24 To use them to make policy on, no. I'll object t o 25 anything that gets done with them, including in E urope. IMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 31 1 don't think they're worth anything more than a nic e 2 introductory environmental science lecture for thefirst 3 or second year. They do point to where research i s 4 needed.

5 DR. LANNO: I don't know if this is where 6 Herb is getting at, but I think what we need is tohave 7 some kind of mechanistic exposure models that, youknow -- 8 DR. ALLEN: Absolutely, yeah. Ther e's no

9 mechanism. 10 DR. LANNO: I mean, the critical l oads 11 models can describe loading rates, how much lead is 12 getting to the site through aerial deposition, bu t we have

13 to understand the interactions between the soil a nd the 14 water and the organisms. 15 I mean, so we need -- for risk ass essment, 16 we need exposure numbers that -- you know, critic al loads 17 won't solve it, but they'll get some -- get us th inking in 18 the right direction. The mechanistic models thatdescribe

19 the interaction between soil and lead and bioavai lability 20 in organisms is what we need. 21 DR. JOHNSON: Well, I -- you know, I think 22 the work that Ed Tipping has been working on in E ngland is 23 very mechanistic in nature. It doesn't connect t o the 24 ecological system well. He looks for specific 25 concentration targets, and that's really the endp oint, notMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 32 1 bio -- not biological processes. 2 But I -- I mean, I guess I disagree , not 3 totally, but to a large extent with what you're sa ying, 4 Herb, because I think they are -- I think at leastthat 5 group anyway is working on very mechanistic approa ches to 6 -- you know, to this problem in -- at least in soi ls and

7 water. 8 DR. ALLEN: Okay. So in WAM, we have hard 9 spheres. I mean, there are a series of problems i n WAM

10 that are not dealt with at all. It describes thi ngs 11 reasonably well. It's descriptive, but you know

-- 12 DR. JOHNSON: I mean, there's a ne w one 13 that just got published that hopefully addresses some of 14 those things, but anyway -- 15 DR. ALLEN: We've already recoded that one. 16 We had it almost a year ago. There are gaps. 17 DR. FREY: So I guess to summarizeit, it 18 sounds like if one goes with the critical loads approach 19 that there -- the model -- the existing models ar e 20 descriptive but not predictive. And as Herb indi cated, 21 they might help identify research needs. 22 I think Chris is indicating there is some 23 more mechanistic features to maybe some of their newer 24 models. Maybe that's the direction the models ar e moving 25 is to be a little bit more mechanistic. And I gu ess thereMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 33 1 would be an issue, you know, how far does that nee d to go 2 before it's adequate for EPA's purpose. 3 But I guess then does that translat e into a 4 research agenda? Can the three of you formulate maybe a 5 few bullet points on, you know, what would move th at --

6 the state of science forward with those -- with ei ther 7 those models, if you see that as a promising appro ach if 8 it was developed appropriately, or do you see some

9 alternative that would be better?

10 DR. ALLEN: No. I think the crit ical 11 loads approach is the way to go. It also gets yo u into 12 the multimedia thing directly.

13 DR. JOHNSON: Uh-huh. 14 DR. ALLEN: Not sort of, but it di rectly 15 attacks -- it directly deals with a multimedia type of 16 thing. It deals with legacy lead, it deals with all of 17 these issues that we've been struggling with. Th at's the 18 framework, but it's a framework. It needs to be flushed

19 out. 20 And of course, as with any other r esearch, 21 the question is what's the limiting thing -- what-- what 22 things are really most important, and how do you deal with

23 those? 24 DR. FREY: Right. So I guess mayb e related 25 to that is, is it possible to answer that questio n now, orMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 34 1 is it a research agenda to find out what is the an swer to 2 that question in terms of what are the limiting fa ctors

3 that most need attention?

4 DR. ALLEN: I think we know some ofthem. 5 Aging is very empirical. Absorption is exceedingl y 6 empirical. We have some idea what goes on, and 7 bioavailability issues follow from that. I would hate to 8 see us try to tackle the bioavailability before weknew 9 the supply terms. 10 DR. LANNO: I guess in terms of wh at the 11 EPA really is after here is -- you know, for risk 12 assessment, they need an exposure estimate? 13 DR. ALLEN: Yeah, the exposure est imate -- 14 DR. LANNO: Yeah, and that's -- so 15 ultimately, all the chemistry is not going to mak e much 16 difference unless we link it to the biology and get the 17 exposure as well. 18 DR. ALLEN: Right.

19 DR. LANNO: But it has to be linke d with a 20 multimedia effort to look at all ecosystem recept ors -- or 21 ecological receptors and all the different media. 22 DR. FREY: So Roman, since you're the 23 Chapter 6 lead, can we add sort of an implied for , which 24 is to, you know, comment on the --

25 DR. LANNO: Research.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 35 1 DR. FREY: -- the research needs, a nd could 2 you summarize?

3 DR. LANNO: Sure.

4 DR. FREY: Are there -- do the thre e of you 5 -- or actually anyone on the panel have comments o n what's 6 written by EPA on Pages 6.12 and 6.13 as far as ke y 7 uncertainties and future research needs? 8 DR. LANNO: Yeah, I was okay with t hat 9 except for the issue of both the uncertainty relat ed to 10 laboratory data that's generated for exposure in different

11 media than soils or water. 12 DR. ALLEN: Yeah, I think overall it's a -- 13 you know, it deals with most of the issues prettywell. 14 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah, because it-- 15 DR. LANNO: It's daunting.

16 DR. FREY: Yeah. 17 DR. LANNO: It basically covers th e entire 18 waterfront, yeah. 19 DR. FREY: Yeah, so I guess the qu estion 20 is, it may cover the waterfront, but is it -- wel l, is it 21 necessary to cover the full waterfront? Are ther e 22 priorities among it? I mean, if -- would you be able to 23 prioritize among the things listed either by EPA or that 24 are discussed here? I think it would be helpful to 25 indicate, if possible.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 36 1 DR. ALLEN: I think if you started to 2 develop a critical loads approach and did some sen sitivity 3 analysis within it, you would start to come out wi th what 4 was important. 5 DR. FREY: Okay. 6 DR. ALLEN: So I think as you devel op that 7 process that will as -- not just as a framework fo r making 8 policy decisions, but it works just as well for ma king

9 research decisions. 10 DR. JOHNSON: Yeah, my motivation for 11 bringing this up to begin with was that if I unde rstood 12 correctly the motive -- the reasons that one woul d 13 consider a new secondary standard or primary -- well, 14 primary is different -- but a secondary standard is -- 15 would be if there were new processes that weren't 16 understood before that call into question the rec eptors or 17 levels that -- you know, that cause problems, or if there

18 was evidence that at the current standard or lowe r there 19 were, you know, negative effects. 20 And my point in some of the commen ts that I 21 made before was that we're not monitoring enough systems 22 to see effects in places where the air concentrat ions are 23 around that level. I mean, we're studying lead i n the 24 environment in so few places in the United States that 25 we're just not going to catch that.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 37 1 So we've got to -- so if we can't - - if 2 we're not doing the work in the field to be able t o 3 observe the effects directly, we have to have someway of 4 doing that. And a modeling approach is probably t he only 5 reasonable way that we're going to do that. Herb' s got 6 his hand up. 7 DR. FREY: Yeah. Sure. Go ahead, Herb. 8 DR. ALLEN: If you start down a cri tical 9 loads pathway, I think that you don't want it for lead, 10 you want in general. There -- in fact, I don't t hink lead 11 is the most important of the issues for which youmight

12 need critical load. 13 If you look at nutrient loading, t hat is 14 even more empirical than what the lead stuff is. You 15 know, we don't have mechanistic models for how --for 16 phosphorus loadings to embankments, you know. An d so some 17 of the same processes that go on for one contamin ant or

18 one material will also be there for other ones. 19 Numbers will be different, relative 20 importance of processes will be different. But t he same 21 approach ought to work for a lot of different mat erials.

22 DR. FREY: So to tie that back to the 23 NAAQS, you know, other NAAQS pollutants where, I think, 24 there have been maybe somewhat similar discussion s or for 25 example, NO2 and nitrogen deposition generally, s ulfurMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 38 1 deposition, do you see, therefore, synergies poten tially 2 in a research agenda that might address multiple o f these 3 criteria pollutants? 4 DR. ALLEN: Yeah, but I would go mu ch 5 further than just the air quality ones.

6 DR. FREY: Sure. 7 DR. ALLEN: If you want to look at agency 8 needs in total, I think there are lots of other on es that 9 the same approach works for. So I think it's in - - I 10 think it is a much better way to look at contamin ants. It 11 might get us out of the background level of PCBs is one 12 where I say, you know, now, the background level is zero,

13 and one is a manmade addition. 14 That keeps EPA from being in troub le 15 because, boy, would they be in trouble if they pi cked zero 16 because everything would be contaminated. So -- but I 17 think that if you take a good solid scientific approach 18 towards this, you'll move our understanding and o ur 19 dealing with contaminants in a much better way.

20 DR. LANNO: Sure. It would seem t o me that 21 integration of, you know, NOx and SOx and metals would 22 make sense, you know.

23 DR. ALLEN: Yeah. 24 DR. LANNO: I mean, sure, any acid ification 25 issues and things like that that would affect met alMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 39 1 bioavailability and exposure. 2 DR. ALLEN: Uh-huh, yeah. 3 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, I guess I'mkind of 4 singling out the three of you or tripling out the three of 5 you since you're the eco effects experts. Do the three of 6 you feel comfortable as far as writing a paragraphor 7 either commenting on EPA or coming up with a list of 8 research needs and offering priorities among those

. 9 And I think pointing out that as I 10 understand, you know, the critical loads approachwould be 11 something worth looking at more broadly across po llutants 12 and also maybe accounting for nutrients, of cours e, as it 13 would affect the exposure pathway issues. 14 DR. JOHNSON: We can work togetheron that. 15 And given that we have very few comments on Chapt er 6, it 16 probably would be appropriate to put them in ther e. 17 DR. FREY: Yeah. I mean, it seems like a 18 lot of the crux of the comments is that, well, th e science 19 hasn't really moved forward. So helping to ident ify 20 what's needed to move it forward, I think, would be quite 21 helpful. 22 DR. ALLEN: Chris, you're right ab out the 23 science, but I would also point out that we -- atleast I 24 don't see that there's any pressing need to do an ything 25 different with regard to the secondary standard. I don'tMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 40 1 -- from what I see, I don't see organisms out ther e 2 massively dying -- 3 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah, fair enough

. 4 DR. ALLEN: -- because of lead. Soyou 5 know, if you made the standard more restrictive, would the 6 environment be happier? And I don't see that the answer 7 is yes. I don't see that there's anything pushingme 8 toward saying making it more restrictive. 9 DR. FREY: Okay. 10 DR. LANNO: I'm not sure that, youknow, 11 reducing that lead standard is going to make muchof a 12 difference. I think lead may not be the criticalelement 13 as such that we're interested in here for improvi ng 14 ecosystems. 15 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, then I thi nk that 16 the angle of the expanding to other pollutants is also a 17 valuable aspect of identifying a research agenda because I 18 think -- I don't know. Personally, I think if wecan help 19 EPA identify synergies across criteria pollutants or 20 across programs that that may also translate intomaybe 21 more practicality of getting resources to do some thing. 22 Maybe that's wishful thinking but -- Joel? 23 DR. POUNDS: I just have a questio n for the 24 ecosystem folks that kind of comes from my ignora nce. And 25 that is, do you need to anticipate anything aboutleadMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 41 1 poisoning on top of climate change in terms of

2 co-stressors? 3 DR. LANNO: My initial response wou ld be

4 that I think that there are more stressors that cl imate 5 change would affect that are much more important t han 6 lead. I mean, just temperature changes themselves are 7 going to be enough of a stressor to -- and -- thatwill 8 cause shifts in ranges and responses of organisms. 9 I think lead becomes a minor compon ent of 10 that. It's -- or irrelevant component even.

11 DR. FREY: Herb and then Chris. 12 DR. ALLEN: Probably the biggest e ffect is 13 going to be changes in pH. And changes in pH wil l affect 14 lead bioavailability, you know. In fact, if I ha d a 15 criticism that I haven't said with respect to the 16 documents in general, you point out, especially i n the 17 ISA, what form of lead was added, you know, lead nitrate,

18 lead chloride. The answer is I don't care.

19 I'm much more interested in what t he pH of 20 the system was. I mean, those are salts, they di ssolve, 21 but as a -- for climate change, I think pH change s in the 22 environment are going to be a very large issue wi th 23 respect to bioavailability, not just of lead but of lots

24 of materials. 25 DR. JOHNSON: Joel, in terrestrialsystems,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 42 1 the fate and transport of lead is so, so heavily t ied to 2 carbon, organic carbon, that the link there is if global 3 climate change or regional climate change for thatmatter 4 affects soil carbon pools and distribution of carb on in 5 the soil that that could have a big impact on the ability

6 of soils to continue to retain lead. 7 And also if decomposition is increa sed, 8 then lead that is currently bound to organic matte r could 9 become mobile again. So I think that's the connec t in 10 terrestrial systems, the big connect for climate change. 11 And it's really unclear right now whether 12 temperate soils are likely to be bigger sinks or sources 13 in a changing climate.

14 DR. FREY: Yes. I think that's a good 15 question from Joel and probably something worth - - I mean,

16 I think I've heard that -- it could matter in some ways, 17 and it might be -- I think, therefore, it would b e 18 appropriate to fold that into the panel response on the 19 charge question which would fall under 3 because 3 deals 20 with things beyond issues in the chapter, so you could put

21 it there. 22 Other panel discussion on Chapters 5 or 6 23 for the policy assessment on ecological effects? 24 DR. KOSNETT: Will they mention ab out

25 ammunition in the critical loads issue and the --Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 43 1 potential contribution?

2 DR. FREY: Let's see. That would f all 3 under Chapter 5; is that right? So Chris -- 4 DR. JOHNSON: I can put something i n there.

5 DR. FREY: Yeah. 6 DR. KOSNETT: That would be great. 7 DR. JOHNSON: I've got it in my not es. 8 DR. FREY: Okay. Okay. How about if we 9 circle back to the human side of the policy assess ment and 10 also talk about the research agenda? I -- maybe to kind 11 of warm us up for that, if we could ask the lead 12 discussants to maybe just briefly summarize what they saw 13 as like the top three most important points that they 14 envision being in the consensus response to charge 15 questions, that would probably tee up the discuss ion of

16 the research issues.

17 Which I know it's sort of a diffic ult thing 18 to do the day after a discussion to try to synthe sis that, 19 but I'm confident that this panel can do it. 20 So I'm going to put Cliff, Rich an d Rich on 21 the spot and then also Deborah. So I'll start wi th Cliff, 22 if you could offer, you know, what you see as thekey 23 message to EPA from the panel on Chapter 1, and t hen maybe 24 you could offer how you might see that segueing i nto 25 research needs, if you could.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 44 1 DR. DAVIDSON: Sure. Okay. Thanks , Chris. 2 I guess the discussion that we had yesterday reall y 3 started with looking at the uncertainties and the unknowns 4 with regard to the huge amount of lead that curren tly 5 exists as a result of the legacy use of leaded gas oline. 6 We know approximately what those numbers are in te rms of 7 how much lead was released, was emitted, from lead 8 gasoline as well as stationary sources. 9 The difficulty is that if we take alook at 10 the full body of lead concentrations in environme ntal 11 media, we cannot account for even a tiny fractionof that 12 lead that's emitted. We're talking about severalmillion

13 tons of lead emitted in the U.S. 14 And as a result, we don't know wha t that 15 distribution of lead is. But the concern that I, 16 personally, would have is that there are going tobe hot 17 spots in certain environmental media and at certa in 18 geographical locations as a result of that huge amount of

19 lead released.

20 Since we don't know where those ho t spots 21 are, it becomes very difficult to predict what human 22 exposure and ecosystem exposure might be to that enormous 23 amount of lead. So I guess in terms of a primaryresearch 24 need, I would say looking at where that lead is l ikely to 25 have gone, what environmental media that lead is likely toMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 45 1 be in, and where the exposed populations are of pe ople and 2 exposure of ecosystems to that huge amount of lead

. 3 DR. FREY: Okay. Great. Thanks, C liff. 4 Rich Poirot, can I -- 5 MR. POIROT: Well, I guess in terms of the 6 developing consensus recommendations we've been tr ying to 7 put together, several of them include things like just 8 asking for any kind of an update that the agency c ould 9 provide on some of the emissions controls that are 10 currently in place, which is not something that l ends

11 itself to a research need. 12 And also asking for them to give u s a look 13 to the extent possible at some of the new measurement 14 data, especially in the near airport data and so forth. 15 Again, not a research need. Although, we did tryto add 16 in a line inspired by Ian's persistent recommenda tion that 17 we consider what is the consequence of regulatingthe 18 successful regulation of various large industrialsources 19 in this country, what's the consequence for lead emissions 20 elsewhere, which I think may be an appropriate ki nd of a 21 research need category that could be emphasized. 22 You know, there was -- I remember back in 23 the ISA also a chart that indicated usage of leadwith 24 lead exports increasing, where are those going, a nd what 25 are they being used for and that sort of thing. So thatMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 46 1 was one area. 2 I think, you know, overall through the -- 3 there's kind of a nice story that's told in terms of the 4 fate of lead in other media that gets into the det ails of 5 fine particle and course particle lead and being deposited 6 in wet and dry forms and one being soluble and theother 7 being insoluble and then getting deposited on soil s and 8 working their way into soil pore water and ground water

9 and then surface waters and then sediments and so on. 10 But there's a part of that story, I think, 11 that has to do with what's the availability of th at 12 deposited lead for resuspension, and that -- I do n't think 13 we really are too clear about. Is all this roads ide lead 14 right there just like it was 20 years ago? Is itbeing 15 covered over by clean air stuff that's more lead free? Is

16 it less available? 17 You know, somebody mentioned the c limate 18 change implications. Well, we've had some severeflooding 19 in Vermont, for example, in the past year that ha s taken a 20 lot of roadside soil, put it on the roads where we then 21 kick it back up into the air. I don't know if th ere's 22 lead in it or not, but potentially, we certainly could be 23 disturbing a lot of historically deposited lead b oth in

24 sediments and roadsides and so on. That could be , I 25 think, a key research area.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 47 1 Also, as I've tried to emphasis in comments 2 earlier, the -- there's this distinction between l ead in 3 particles in the air and lead in dust, and they have -- 4 one obviously contributes to the other, but they'r e not 5 the same thing as each other. And they have diffe rent 6 particle size characteristics, and a little bit ofa 7 better understanding of how the lead in the air in 8 different particle sizes works its way into that available 9 dust, I think, would be another area I could ident ify. 10 And then our final topic that we h ave been 11 pushing for is this need, we think, for an improved coarse 12 particle sampler that collects PLT or whatever. It would 13 be useful for lead and could also be further just ified by 14 its application in a number of other uses.

15 There are other chemical contamina nts that 16 have significant coarse particle fractions and es pecially 17 a number of biological contaminants as well that, you 18 know, having a sampler that more consistently and 19 precisely measures particles larger than 10 micro ns would

20 be desirable. 21 So those were, I guess, the things I could 22 think of that came out of our Chapter 2. 23 DR. FREY: Okay. Good. I kind ofwould 24 like to go through the different chapters. Couldwe defer 25 discussion until -- yeah. So what I would like t o do thenMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 48 1 is ask Rich Canfield if he could summarize on the health 2 effects and exposure risk information. 3 DR. CANFIELD: So, yeah. I would l ike to 4 pick up on what Cliff said about hot spots in thatI'm not 5 sure that the average lead level in children acros s the 6 nation is the important metric at this historical time 7 period. And I guess I was talking with Debbie andSusan 8 yesterday that if you talk to county health depart ments 9 about how many lead poisoned kids they're seeing, in some 10 counties it's just really quite staggering. But how many 11 of those kids show up in the NHANES is unclear an d -- 12 unclear to me. Someone knows, but I don't. 13 So anyway, I think characterizing and 14 focusing more on hot spots will give us a better 15 representation of the exposure risks out there an d what 16 the significant exposures are. 17 So that's one, and that's -- so th ere's 18 child hot spots, and I'll leave it to others to t alk about 19 potential adult hot spots. I am curious about th e, you 20 know, remodelers, et cetera, doing paint abatemen t, how 21 well they're protecting themselves. 22 There's -- with respect to underst anding 23 its effects on children, I think there -- we -- i t's clear 24 that we don't know what the shape of the dose res ponse is 25 at what now seem like extremely low levels. I have notMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 49 1 been a lead researcher for as long as probably mos t anyone 2 here. But when I first got into this, it seemed l ike the 3 notion that anything below ten is worth talking ab out was 4 a little, you know, extreme. 5 And then we just keep going down. So when 6 we see some of these results with the averages, sa y, 7 around two and seemingly linked to some outcomes, we -- I 8 think we need to clarify what the past exposures a re for 9 these kids, what does two represent during, you kn ow, 10 primary school or preschool even. 11 And -- so that we can get a handleon what 12 the effects are because we simply don't know. An d one 13 approach would be that, Oh, my God, you know, youcan 14 hardly measure it. And, you know, it's not goingto be 15 something that's going to be measured in health 16 departments, but we can measure very low levels. And I 17 think it's worth knowing what's going on at the o rigin in 18 terms of lead -- say, a lead IQ or other outcome. 19 So that's obviously a gap in the d ata. We 20 are guessing down there. It's just that we're gu essing as 21 we were with the lower levels, you know, below te n, you 22 know, a little while ago. 23 The other issue, I think, is that we don't 24 know much about the effects of prenatal exposure. And so 25 if we're trying to understand the most sensitive receptor,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 50 1 I think that the theory goes that it should be dur ing 2 periods of rapid development and during prenatal l ife when 3 fundamental processes and structures are getting s et up. 4 But we don't have a lot of data on prenatal exposu re. And 5 so that's, I think, a need. 6 And I think potentially some of the 7 epigenetic effects is an interesting direction to go there 8 just because we don't know a lot. So I guess that 's where

9 I'm at. 10 DR. FREY: Okay. Great. What I - - I want 11 to try to go through the four chapters. I -- onething, I 12 guess, I will make an exception for is I know Phi l needs 13 to leave soon. So is there anything you want to say as 14 your parting remark? 15 DR. HOPKE: Just that the Chapter 4 16 discussion, I think, is the appropriate place tha t we 17 ought to be looking down the road at the potentia l for 18 eliminating the NAAQS or at least having a seriou s 19 discussion as to whether we can declare a victoryand move 20 on and that there are more pressing public healthissues 21 to be resolved and -- you know, are we really ben efiting 22 the public by continuing to push the NAAQS when, you know, 23 at this point we don't think airborne lead has a lot to do 24 with the exposure and disease in people or even 25 ecosystems.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 51 1 DR. FREY: Yeah, I think that's a 2 discussion that, I think, as we talked about yeste rday 3 goes beyond this review cycle and is not really ai med at 4 this review cycle but probably something to consider in 5 the next review cycle. 6 DR. HOPKE: Right. You know, again , we 7 have a couple of -- we still have a couple of broa dly 8 dispersed sources that we want to take care of, an d I'd 9 like to -- I'd love to see that happen, at least s tart 10 happening, over the next five years. But at thatpoint 11 then everything else is easily covered by Section109 12 regulations, and I don't really see the need for -- you 13 know, I think there -- as I said, there's better use of 14 the available funds to look at other things which 15 represent, I think, more serious threats to publi c health

16 than lead does now. 17 DR. FREY: Yeah. So I guess I'm j ust 18 trying to think operationally what -- so it's not , per se, 19 a research agenda item, but it is more like a pol icy 20 agenda item. 21 DR. HOPKE: Right. And that's whyit needs

22 to be in the PA section. 23 DR. FREY: Yeah, and maybe the mes sage for 24 EPA is to consider it. And, you know, maybe ther e's a 25 good reason to do it, maybe there's a good reasonnot toMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 52 1 do that. 2 DR. KOSNETT: Chris, I don't think we have 3 a consensus on that. Okay. I don't think we do. 4 DR. FREY: Okay.

5 DR. KOSNETT: And I don't think we' ve 6 actually spent a lot of time, you know, giving a l ot of 7 scientific thought to that. 8 DR. FREY: Okay. 9 DR. KOSNETT: And I'm very concerne d with 10 that being a part of the recommendations of this committee 11 without much more time to weigh in on that. 12 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah, that's fai r enough. 13 That's fair enough. Well, maybe we'll -- 14 DR. KOSNETT: I certainly think th at if 15 Dr. Hopke wants to include that as an -- individu al

16 comments that would be considered. 17 DR. FREY: Yeah, and I think it's there 18 already.

19 DR. KOSNETT: But I don't think th at's -- 20 DR. HOPKE: And we have in the pas t in 21 letters said, you know, there was -- there were members of 22 the panel or some reasonable fraction of the pane l who 23 felt that this was blah, blah, blah. I mean, youknow, 24 having been the chair and written those letters, we've 25 done that in the past where there was a discrepan cyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 53 1 between the -- at least bring to the attention thefact

2 that it was discussed. 3 I think it's important enough that it 4 belongs -- that the fact that we discussed it, at least 5 partially, belongs in the letter and not just in my 6 comments, and I think I would push hard for that. 7 DR. FREY: Well, okay. Let's see. We're

8 sort of at an awkward moment in that Phil's leavin g in a 9 few minutes, and we're kind of on a research agend a 10 discussion. So -- but I wanted to give Phil a ch ance to 11 say something before he left. 12 DR. HOPKE: I appreciate that.

13 DR. FREY: I kind of would like tofinish 14 the research agenda discussion, and maybe we can circle 15 back even though Phil won't be here. I think we have a 16 good idea of Phil's views, so that part's probabl y not

17 controversial.

18 So what I would like to do then is ask 19 Deborah on Chapter 4 if you can offer your reflec tion on 20 some of the key points and how that segues into t he 21 research agenda. 22 DR. CORY-SLECHTA: Well, I think s ort of 23 going back to what Phil said, but we had a lot of 24 discussion yesterday when we were discussing Char ge 25 Question 4 about what the apportionment -- what -

-Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 54 1 especially with respect to children's exposure andhow

2 much air lead influenced blood lead concentrations 3 currently. And there's some discomfort right now with the 4 NAAQS, but the bottom line was I think most peopleagreed 5 that we didn't really know at this point what that

6 influence was on blood lead concentration.

7 So I saw that as sort of a critical 8 component of the discussion that we had yesterday was 9 understanding that I think it would clearly influe nce the 10 discussion that we just had in terms of, you know , where 11 you want to go with the NAAQS. 12 So I think really understanding th ose 13 sources of exposure, how air influences blood lea d 14 concentration, increases or decreases in air lead , at this 15 point would be a significant contribution. 16 DR. FREY: Okay. So with that, I think we 17 can open up for broader discussion on the heath e ffects, 18 and I guess, focusing for now on the messages forthe 19 charge questions and the research agenda. Let's save the 20 issue of what to do with the NAAQS for -- well, l et's do 21 this first, and then we can come back to that top ic, if we

22 could.

23 I know Michael and Gail and then Michael 24 wanted to speak. 25 DR. WEITZMAN: So I have a couple of pointsMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 55 1 about research. The first speaks to what Cliff an d 2 Richard Poirot said. If you wanted to look at par ticular 3 hot spots, and you also wanted to listen seriouslyto what 4 Philip suggested, global warming is one of the maj or, 5 major environmental health problems that we confro nt. 6 And whether you frame it as such ornot, 7 we've had a number of catastrophic events that the 8 mechanism that you two proposed when you talked ab out soil 9 erosion as a possibility and whether or not there' s been 10 redeposition and whether or not that's bioavailab le to 11 children I think is a practical, doable sort of p roject 12 and would yield profoundly important information. 13 I can't picture how you would gene rically 14 try to figure out where those hundreds of million s of tons 15 are, and any number of people have spent decades looking 16 at whether or not soil movement or moving soil as a human 17 activity influences children's blood lead levels. So that 18 even if we found it around the country, it raises 19 questions about what you would do. 20 But if you're going to kick up tha t soil 21 and then make it available perhaps through an airroute 22 that ultimately becomes dust that becomes availab le for 23 children, I think that that a really important EPA, NIEHS

24 sort of issue. 25 The second thing I wanted to comme nt on isMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 56 1 what Rick Canfield said about prenatal exposure. I don't 2 know if people here know, but CDC has issued a pol icy 3 statement on the screening of pregnant women in th e United 4 States. And most of us don't know what to do if y ou find 5 an elevated blood lead in a pregnant woman. And t here is 6 a rudimentary literature on the origins of blood l ead in 7 the first six months of life, and it appears that much of 8 that is transplacental or breast milk, but it's 9 rudimentary.

10 And so that's difficult research t o do, not 11 so much in terms of looking at the association be tween 12 maternal leads, how those change during pregnancy , how

13 those relate to blood leads of children. But whe n you 14 talk about developmental or epigenetic changes, t hat means 15 a commitment to long-term prospective studies. S o that's 16 going to require -- that may be real science, butthat's 17 going to require a real funding stream to be ableto do

18 that. 19 And the third point is what Deborah pointed 20 out, which I could picture practical ways of look ing at 21 the air lead, blood lead relationship. If you lo ok at 22 what NHANES had contributed by adding dust lead l evels to 23 recent generations of NHANES, you could suggest t hat the

24 National Center for Health Statistics also did ai r 25 monitoring over several subsequent years when you 'reMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 57 1 collecting blood leads of kids and household dust leads, 2 and so you'd be able to look at the relationship 3 contemporaneously of air lead and dust lead. 4 And then you're still stuck with th e 5 problem with cross-sectional data of how those -- that 6 lead level across the population of kids relate toIQ. 7 And then I don't know that one could possibly -- a nd I'd

8 have to defer to Rick Canfield and Deborah and Gai l 9 whether or not one could ever add on to something like 10 NHANES more sophisticated neurocognitive testing other 11 than IQ. 12 It seems to me that that may be to o big an 13 undertaking. But I think that the three big thin gs that I

14 heard are doable in terms of research. 15 DR. FREY: Okay. Gail.

16 DR. WASSERMAN: If there is a conc ern about 17 early exposure and low level exposure, given the 18 difficulties in measurement of outcomes for very young 19 children and the instability that we can recogniz e, that 20 does mean concretely a commitment to a program ofresearch 21 that's going to go at least until age seven, I wo uld 22 imagine.

23 DR. WEITZMAN: At least.

24 DR. WASSERMAN: At least. So that 's 25 important to consider. I think that going forwar d,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 58 1 though, we shouldn't just restrict to the measures of IQ

2 because the outcomes that we have looked at are al l 3 inter-related, both the cognitive, and the behavio ral, and 4 the cognitive to the behavioral. So there needs t o be 5 some broader focus at looking at outcomes. 6 I do think that some of the neurops ych 7 things are doable in the context of something likeNHANES 8 if you can do the DiSC as an interview, you could do 9 things like the CANTAB. You can do them in a deli very 10 with a remote -- we're making great strides with sort of 11 electronic assessment, computerized assessments, for kids 12 that can be done with just an iPad at the source. 13 So there certainly are ways to loo k at 14 things that would be more drilled down to brain r egions, 15 perhaps, than something like the IQ which is a bl under bus

16 if ever there was one. 17 I would think that also in talkingabout 18 issues of flooding and movement that there's -- i f we are 19 going to undergo periods of great weather instabi lity, I 20 mean, living in New York, I can't imagine that th e storms 21 that we've had have not really perturbed exposurein some 22 way, not just because you've got really risky tar geted 23 focal sites but more global sites in urban areas. 24 So this -- I know there was just c all for 25 proposals regarding the sort of consequences of HurricaneMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 59 1 Sandy. I don't know if those things link up to th e 2 environmental or the exposure end. I know them fr om sort 3 of the trauma end. But that would be -- you know, that 4 would be a wonderful mechanism, if there are catac lysmic 5 events to try to have a mechanism for funding fromEPA or 6 some other agencies that would focus on what happe ns to 7 movement and what happens to the consequences of 8 exposures. 9 Multiple exposures have to, have to , have 10 to, have to, have to, have to be considered. Lea d, yes, 11 is a nasty, but there's lots of nasties out there

. 12 Certainly, the effects of manganese, which we kno w very 13 clear -- manganese even which seems to be so beni gn. It's 14 in baby food, but at very high levels, you have very 15 targeted impact on frontal circuitry that you cansee in 16 the magnet. 17 So if you -- if you're assuming ch anges in 18 executive functioning with lead exposure, and youhaven't 19 adjusted your manganese, I don't know what you'regetting. 20 So this is very complicated at the multiexposure and the

21 sort of multioutcome levels. 22 DR. WEITZMAN: I just wanted to add to

23 what -- 24 DR. FREY: Go ahead, sure.

25 DR. WEITZMAN: -- because I think it'sMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 60 1 really wonderful. But when Gail said up to age se ven, if 2 you remember, yesterday, we had a conversation abo ut 3 externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Those are not 4 likely to surface by the age of seven -- 5 DR. WASSERMAN: Oh, yes, they can. 6 DR. WEITZMAN: Externalizing, you t hink you

7 can --

8 DR. WASSERMAN: Yes. 9 DR. WEITZMAN: And you think they h ave a 10 trajectory?

11 DR. WASSERMAN: Yes. 12 DR. WEITZMAN: A predictable traje ctory? 13 DR. CANFIELD: I wouldn't say it's the 14 ideal age, but I think it's sensitive enough thatyou 15 would see -- you would start to see effects. 16 DR. WASSERMAN: You know, early on set of -- 17 DR. WEITZMAN: But things like dep ression 18 -- things that we have in the table that we thought were 19 likely or causally-related, do you think that -- 20 DR. CANFIELD: Well, externalizingin terms 21 of behavior problems, ADHD sorts of things, atten tion --

22 DR. WEITZMAN: But how about antis ocial

23 behavior?

24 DR. CANFIELD: -- for internalizin g -- you 25 know, kids have somatic complaints and --Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 61 1 DR. WASSERMAN: Anxiety problems. 2 DR. CANFIELD: Yeah, anxiety and it 's

3 not -- 4 DR. WEITZMAN: But it's really yoursense 5 that those predict across the lifespan, those type s of 6 mental health problems? 7 DR. CANFIELD: It depends on -- 8 (WHEREIN, unintelligible due to mul tiple 9 people speaking at once.) 10 DR. WEITZMAN: Hypothesis, I think

. 11 DR. CANFIELD: It depends on the r ange of, 12 say, child anxiety. Well, Gail, I don't mean -- I 13 shouldn't be talking. I think he's -- 14 DR. WASSERMAN: Well, there's a wh ole 15 construct of child behavioral externalizing condu ct 16 problems that's early onset, you know, where 5 pe rcent of 17 the population accounts for, you know, 80 percentof the 18 misbehavior in kids that's quite consistent into

19 adulthood. 20 In terms of anxiety and temperamen t issues, 21 yeah. I mean, it wouldn't be ideal, but if you c ould go 22 as far as seven, eight, early -- you know, early school 23 age. I don't think you've got to go to 20 to geta handle

24 on it.

25 DR. CANFIELD: I think it's often when theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 62 1 kids make the transition into school, and they have to 2 interface with a different social structure, you s tart -- 3 DR. WASSERMAN: Right.

4 DR. CANFIELD: -- both their development is 5 at the stage where they can do that, but there arethe 6 kids that can't adapt very well there and that -- so that 7 almost sort of brings out some significant behavio r. 8 DR. FREY: Well, I think it's an 9 interesting discussion, but maybe we're getting a little 10 too detailed at this point. 11 DR. WASSERMAN: Right, right.

12 DR. FREY: I know Michael was wait ing to

13 make some comments. 14 DR. KOSNETT: I had a few suggesti ons on -- 15 with regard to the research agenda, and maybe some of them 16 find support and could be part of the letter. Wetalked 17 -- it's already in the document now about lookingat 18 temporal trends in soil and -- of legacy lead, an d I 19 thought that was a key point because just like Cl iff was 20 saying, there's a lot of it. And the -- that wou ld be 21 important. 22 I think it's interesting to potent ially

23 find out more about the source of lead in diet an d how 24 much of that is a legacy issue and how much of itis 25 potentially amenable to current interventions bec ause itMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 63 1 constitutes the large -- the majority of lead in e xposure 2 to adults. And still, although not the majority f or 3 children, it's not an insignificant contribution t o 4 children. 5 And then with respect to certain he alth 6 endpoints, there -- you know, clearly the effects of lead 7 on cardiovascular mortality has emerged as a big c oncern 8 because, you know, of the fact that if you -- you know, if 9 you look at the NHANES data across the lowest terc iles to 10 the upper terciles -- or was it cortiles? You kn ow, there 11 was a 50 percent increase in some of these studie s in 12 mortality, you know, across the -- in the general 13 population when you looked at people who had expo sures 14 back in the range of the teens. 15 And that's -- you know, that's dea th. 16 That's a substantial endpoint. We talk a lot in 17 environmental health about, you know, effects of 18 substances on liver enzymes and you know, other s mall 19 biomarkers, but when you look at cardiovascular mortality, 20 it's significant. 21 Now, we don't have those levels pr esent in 22 the general population. We do in the occupationa l 23 population, but we don't have it in the general p opulation 24 today. But we don't really know the impact of li fetime 25 exposure to, say, blood leads less than ten onMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 64 1 cardiovascular function because we haven't had the 2 experience with cohorts that have lived long enough to get 3 into the range where they start having cardiovascu lar 4 mortality who have grown up in the post-leaded gas oline

5 era and have had low levels of lead. 6 So that would be an interesting anda 7 concerning endpoint because if there's -- if the 8 contribution is not just at the teens but that the re is an 9 effect below that on cardiovascular mortality and things 10 like hypertension, and even if the dose response is not 11 necessarily linear but even -- well, I don't knowthe dose 12 response.

13 But let's assume that there was re sponses, 14 that could have profound health implications, right, 15 because that's a -- you know, a small relative ri sk to a 16 very prevalent health condition translates into alot of 17 morbidity in mortality. So that's something we n eed to

18 look at.

19 I think there has been some intere sting 20 work done on the potential contribution of lead t o 21 age-related neurodegeneration, and Debbie knows alot 22 about this and some of the epigenetic effects tha t may 23 occur early in life. Again, that's something tha t we're 24 seeing now in our older population who have susta ined 25 exposure, and we still have to sort that out, theextentMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 65 1 to which lead contributes to that. But there's some 2 evidence for that. I think that should be an areaof 3 ongoing research and especially looking at the ext ent to 4 which it may occur at the lower levels more preval ent 5 today. 6 I think the -- you know, we've goneback

7 and forth about the issue of reverse causation on renal 8 endpoints, I concur with -- I think the only way we're 9 going to probably finally figure that out is to dosome 10 more research and perhaps to the extent we can lo ok for 11 early biomarkers in nephrotoxicity or something l ike that

12 and seek them out.

13 But I don't know that -- I don't k now how 14 productive that will be, but this new section on the ISA

15 that talks -- or the section in the ISA that talk s about 16 reverse causation and renal -- agrees that the ar ea -- 17 that it's an area of dispute. And so obviously, it's an 18 area that research can hope to answer. 19 In terms of the biokinetics, it's been 20 acknowledged in the document that we don't know much about

21 the fate of -- or the biokinetics of lead in adol escents. 22 You know, we have a child model, UBK, which is re ally only 23 calibrated up to about age five. It's not intended to be 24 used in older children. Is that correct, age five?

25 DR. MURPHY: Seven.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 66 1 DR. KOSNETT: Seven. I'm sorry. But it's

2 not intended to be used in older children? 3 DR. MURPHY: It doesn't predict forolder

4 children. 5 DR. KOSNETT: Okay. And then EPA was doing 6 some work on the all ages model, and that's sort o f limbo, 7 right? Is that moving forward?

8 DR. MURPHY: I'm not the one to ans wer that 9 question. I don't know, Ellen, if you know. Jame s Brown 10 knows. Go ahead, Ellen. 11 DR. KIRRANE: Yes, it's moving for ward. 12 DR. KOSNETT: Okay. 13 DR. FREY: So she said, yeah, it's moving 14 forward. We have to talk into the microphone to get stuff 15 on the transcript, so -- yeah. 16 DR. KOSNETT: Okay. Well, that's good 17 because that will -- you know, the all ages modelwill 18 have a large -- you know, will make a valuable 19 contribution to our understanding of the environmental

20 fate of lead in humans. And I think that that --I think 21 there is -- I think we can all agree that that's going to

22 be useful. 23 And then finally, one other point, and that

24 is in terms of research. One of the fundamental 25 approaches in occupational health to dealing withaMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 67 1 hazardous substance and mitigating its effects is to 2 consider sub -- product substitution and reduced u se, and 3 there have been efforts in recent years to look at-- not 4 just for lead, but for other things about, you kno w, 5 reduced use. 6 In the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 7 they have the toxic use reduction initiative. Youknow, 8 from Massachusetts is doing that. And Debbie -- I mean, 9 Susan knows about that. And in California, they h ave a 10 green chemistry initiative where they're looking at 11 potential alternatives to hazardous materials andways to

12 reduce their use.

13 And I think an area for considerat ion would 14 be how we could potentially mitigate some of the impacts 15 of lead on environmental health by looking at use 16 reduction and product substitution. And I think we 17 consider that a huge amount of lead is still bein g used in 18 storage batteries around the world. And in fact, cell 19 phone towers, you know, in third world countries which are 20 really not even putting in grids but are just put ting -- 21 you know, I mean, wired grids, but are mainly goi ng with

22 cellular service. 23 I mean, most of those are charged by lead 24 batteries, huge amount of lead batteries. So theglobal 25 use of lead -- and Ian, you probably know this --is notMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 68 1 decreasing, right?

2 DR. VON LINDERN: No. It's increas ing. 3 DR. KOSNETT: It's increasing? 4 DR. VON LINDERN: It's increasing. 5 DR. KOSNETT: So that being in mind , 6 perhaps we could encourage green chemist -- you kn ow, 7 further green chemistry initiatives that might loo k at 8 potential modification of that trajectory by the u se of

9 safer materials. 10 DR. FREY: Okay. Great. Thank yo u. Let's

11 see. So -- 12 DR. ALLEN: Quick question. 13 DR. FREY: Yeah, hold on one secon d. What 14 I should have done earlier is assigned some peopl e to 15 summarize the research agenda. I think this fits under 16 Chapter 4, so I was going to ask the Chapter 4 gr oup, 17 which is Deborah and Sean and Susan -- and if youneed 18 notes, I've taken a lot of notes and can try to h elp fill 19 in gaps if you need help with that. 20 But since it falls under Chapter 4anyway 21 -- and what I would like to do is talk a little b it about 22 what's on Page 433 to 435. But yeah, Herb, go ah ead, 23 please. 24 DR. ALLEN: Michael, I hope that by safer 25 materials, we aren't talking about lithium batter ies likeMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 69 1 used in the 787, are we? Not to be completely fac etious 2 on it, there's a long history of lead storage batt ery use. 3 We certainly do know an awful lot about them. We 4 certainly can build secondary lead refiners that a re very 5 low emitting. 6 I'm not sure that -- they're heavy. Charge 7 density is not as high as in some other materials, but I'm 8 not sure that other greener materials are overall better 9 in all applications. 10 DR. FREY: Yeah, I would suggest r ather 11 than get into details on this that the general po int, I 12 think, that Michael made was to look where approp riate for 13 alternatives. And lead batteries may actually bein some 14 sense a success story in some ways in terms of re cycling

15 of lead.

16 DR. ALLEN: Yeah. 17 DR. FREY: And I'm not an expert o n the 18 exposures associated with that. But clearly, we have a 19 pretty substantial infrastructure. In the last month, 20 I've taken several lead batteries back for recycl ing and 21 got new ones. And so, yeah, I think the details of that 22 probably need to be looked at more carefully. 23 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah, and some of th ose 24 batteries are going to Mexico now and not -- and the issue

25 isn't --Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 70 1 DR. FREY: Yeah, sure. Sure. 2 DR. KOSNETT: But, yeah, I don't th ink we 3 need to get down in the weeds about singling out b atteries

4 or not.

5 DR. FREY: Yeah. 6 DR. KOSNETT: And I recognize that that's

7 not a short-term solution. 8 DR. ALLEN: Right. 9 DR. KOSNETT: But that right now le ad 10 batteries have a fundamental role in so many uses in 11 commerce. We're not about to change that quickly

. 12 DR. ALLEN: Right. 13 DR. KOSNETT: But the whole concep t of -- 14 you know, of toxic use reduction and green chemis try and 15 thinking ahead of time when we develop materials about the 16 environmental health consequences of them is some thing 17 that we can -- that is starting to gain traction and that 18 -- why not encourage, in terms of research, that to be 19 applied to lead since it's such a -- a widespread 20 pollutant and it so many widespread health concer ns at 21 levels that are found in -- that are currently en countered 22 in many people in the environment. 23 DR. FREY: Okay. Susan, yeah. 24 DR. KORRICK: Well, just a brief c omment 25 that -- sort of compliment what Michael and Debbi e saidMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 71 1 and also to reiterate something from yesterday, wh ich is, 2 I think, another priority is to understand sources of lead 3 exposure in kids. That's all, that we just don't even 4 have basic understanding of where kids currently a re 5 getting exposed to lead and to appreciate that the re's -- 6 it's a moving target. So there are new exposure s ources 7 that come up periodically that contribute hot spotissues. 8 There's been some research recentlyon 9 spices as a source of exposure and spices being cu t with 10 lead. And so there's variation in sources, but 11 understanding that better and understanding how t o monitor 12 for new sources is an important area going forwar d, I 13 think, for research and for policy purposes.

14 DR. FREY: Yeah. Michael. 15 DR. WEITZMAN: I think it's a grea t idea. 16 I would just modify it that there is an older lit erature 17 on sources of exposure. But going back to the st atement 18 about the changing demography of American familie s, you 19 know, we have huge numbers of people who have beh aviors 20 that are brand new to our particular culture and country. 21 And so I really do think -- I'd second it that th at's a 22 really important agenda item that I had not thought of. 23 DR. FREY: Okay. Great. Yeah, I wanted to 24 just reference in Chapter 4 in the policy assessment. 25 Section 4.4 identifies some key uncertainties andareasMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 72 1 for future research, and I'm not going to go into all the 2 details of them. But just generally, there's, I d on't 3 know, roughly eight or ten bullets here. And you know, 4 one is additional epidemiologic research involving 5 substantially sized populations with mean blood le vels 6 closer to those common in today's population of yo ung 7 children, and I think we heard some discussion on that.

8 There are some statements of uncert ainty 9 which as written aren't clearly translated into a 10 research, but presumably, the statements about remaining 11 uncertainty and evidence about exposure circumsta nces 12 eliciting effects in older children would imply aneed for

13 research.

14 But that -- I think that kind of i s related 15 to Susan's point that just better understanding o f lead 16 exposure in children and maybe -- I don't know ifit's 17 worth subdividing into young children and older c hildren. 18 Perhaps that's a useful distinction. So that might be 19 flushed out maybe a little more clearly in the do cument. 20 There's something about Alzheimer' s like 21 pathology as a bullet point, and uncertainty rema ins with 22 regard to relationships of such pathology with al tered 23 function behavior. And this is a lab animal, I guess, 24 observed effect. Whether -- I don't know if that 's a key 25 research item. Next bullet is on epidemiologicalstudiesMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 73 1 on -- I guess, have been -- indicate detrimental e ffects 2 of lead on sperm production and quality in occupat ional 3 cohorts. I don't know if the panel has a view on that. 4 Then there's a long list of -- ther e's a 5 bullet with a long list of sub-bullets on quantita tive

6 estimation of blood lead levels in children would benefit 7 from research in areas such as factors affecting t he 8 relationship between lead in ambient air and lead in 9 blood. I think we've probably touched on that a number of 10 times and other sub-bullets here, just to call yo ur 11 attention to that. 12 The next major bullet is research on 13 relationship between lead in ambient air and indo or dust,

14 which we have talked about. Another research are a that's 15 identified is understanding the spatial gradient of

16 ambient air lead concentrations in urban areas as well as 17 near sources, and then there's a sub-bullet.

18 And then research -- the last bull et, 19 research to improve understanding of relationshipbetween 20 ambient air lead, outdoor dust, and surface soil lead, 21 including temporal dynamics. 22 So those are some things identifie d in the 23 document in the current draft. I guess what I wo uld ask 24 the Chapter 4 group is to consider the appropriat eness and 25 value of those recommendations and synthesis withtheMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 74 1 discussion we had this morning and if possible, of fer some 2 priorities. And I don't know if that's something that any 3 of you are ready to do on the fly right now. But to the 4 extent you might, reflecting on the discussion thi s 5 morning, want to offer what's the number one -- ormaybe 6 the top three things, and maybe we'll take a few minutes

7 to consider that. 8 I think that would be helpful inputto the 9 charge question group. Does anyone want to offer some 10 thoughts on that? Susan.

11 DR. KORRICK: That's hard. I -- I guess 12 there are sort of different ways to prioritize. It 13 depends if the priority has to do with facilitati ng 14 information that's relevant to regulation versus public 15 health. I mean, I know they're related, but the 16 priorities might be different. 17 DR. FREY: Well, I would view it - - yeah, I 18 would view it as, you know, five years from now when we're 19 -- we or some other group like us are reviewing t he policy 20 assessment, are we going to be more satisfied tha t 21 information has been developed that supports the decision. 22 So that would be kind of a very operational focus ed view. 23 I mean, yeah, certainly there's much broader impl ications 24 and a broader agenda related either to lead or toeither 25 of these endpoints. I would tend to think that t he --Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 75 1 this Chapter 4 is really talking about research th at would 2 inform, you know, the ISA, the REA, and the policy 3 assessment in the context of the lead NAAQS.

4 DR. KORRICK: Yeah. 5 DR. FREY: And that probably would be the 6 best way to prioritize for this purpose. 7 DR. KORRICK: Yeah, I mean -- then sort of 8 off the top of my head, and I'm just saying this t o 9 stimulate discussion. I would say the three top 10 priorities would be a better understanding of theair 11 lead, blood lead relationship; better understandi ng of 12 pathways of exposure to lead, particularly in vul nerable 13 groups like younger kids; and better understandin g of the 14 health effects of low level lead exposure in kids because 15 we've sort of all decided that's the highest riskgroup. 16 So those would be my three -- I th ink, you 17 know, I'm just saying that to get other people tochime 18 in. Those would be the three things that I thinkare most 19 lacking in being able to move forward and have in formation 20 that would be relevant to reviewing the standard in the

21 future. 22 DR. FREY: Okay. 23 DR. KOSNETT: Well, you know, I th ink, you 24 know, we know -- I think that we're pretty clear that the 25 neurocognitive effects of lead at low dose are pr obablyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 76 1 likely to remain the key concern. 2 DR. KORRICK: Right.

3 DR. KOSNETT: But as Rich mentioned , you 4 know, the dose response at the very low levels tha t we're 5 seeing today, you know, going from one to two, let 's say, 6 and things of that nature, you know, that obviousl y we 7 haven't had a lot of chance -- there's some resear ch on 8 that, but there's not a lot because -- and so you know, 9 because we're down at those levels, that's where we need

10 to look. 11 One of the points that -- and mayb e -- and 12 perhaps Phil Goodrum at some point could help us 13 understand this, but you know, where it says in o ne of the 14 bullets that you read, Enter individual variabili ty in

15 blood lead levels. When someone has a certain exposure, 16 you realize that a lot of the key ways that this whole 17 document is generated and -- I mean, in terms of the 18 policy assessment and in terms of the increment o f blood 19 lead is, you know, we look at the air to blood 20 relationship, and then we put that into the IEUBK , and we 21 say, Okay, this -- you know, I mean, this much ai r level, 22 this much exposure's going to create this increme nt in 23 blood lead, right? 24 DR. HAYS: Yeah, but not (unintell igible). 25 DR. KOSNETT: Not in the -- just u sing theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 77 1 slope. Okay. In the models that they did, they d idn't

2 look at -- 3 DR. HAYS: Well, Deirdre can answerthis, 4 but it depends upon the scenario. I think the sce narios 5 involved in using IEUBK and (unintelligible). 6 DR. MURPHY: Sure. So just to quic kly 7 recap, if you will. So we have looked at the -- t he way

8 we tend to do some of these reviews is evidence-ba sed 9 analyses and exposure risk-based analyses. And wi th 10 regard to the evidence-based analyses, we've focu sed on 11 reviewing the evidence within this evidence-based 12 framework in which we've collapsed that -- those pathways

13 of lead in the air to lead in blood into these 14 air-to-blood ratios and then we integrate that --those

15 estimates with estimates of the concentration res ponse 16 functions for IQ loss. That's a way of viewing t he 17 evidence-based information, the evidence. 18 Then in the exposure risk analyses we've 19 done, we used the IEUBK to predict blood concentr ations 20 based on different exposure circumstances in thes e 21 multiple case studies. 22 DR. KOSNETT: That's right, and itwas the 23 latter that I was referring to the use of the IEUBK. But 24 you know, the IEUBK comes in so often when we're talking 25 about lead risks, and so we've often seen differe ntMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 78 1 geometric standard deviations put into that model. You 2 know, Superfund recommends 1.6, I think, but othertimes 3 there's larger numbers put in there. 4 And anyway, to the -- that has suchan 5 implication often for risk assessment and risk man agement 6 in the modeling that -- to the extent to which we 7 understand that, I think, is going to have -- or i mprove 8 the research in that is going to be significant. 9 Would you agree with that in terms of your 10 approach in doing a lot of lead-related -- 11 DR. MURPHY: Well, that is importa nt to the 12 risk modeling work. So yes, to the extent you re ly on the 13 exposure risk information, that came into play. In this 14 bullet, it's talking about -- these sub-bullets a re all 15 talking about inputs to the REA that were importa nt. 16 DR. FREY: Okay. Any other though ts on any 17 key research needs? Sean, 18 DR. HAYES: I'll just second Susan 's

19 recommendations. 20 DR. FREY: Okay. Good. Other tho ughts on 21 research? Yeah, Joel.

22 DR. POUNDS: I think we could rais e this 23 discussion up just one level higher and say that we really 24 need to know a lot more about gene and the lead 25 environment for toxicity interactions and especia lly asMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 79 1 it's driving interindividual variability and 2 susceptibility. So there's a whole host of, you k now, 3 21st biology, you know, molecular epidemiology, yo u know, 4 non-coding RNAs, (unintelligible) technologies and 5 epigenetic processes and such that really have notbeen 6 incorporated into what most of us define as a pret ty 7 important, you know, public health problem. 8 And I think -- I would just think t hat we 9 need to ask the question of what drives interindiv idual 10 variability and susceptibility, and then think of-- you 11 know, outside the box about what data do we need in the 12 next few years to kind of address that for publichealth

13 and clinicians. 14 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah. Well, Sus an and

15 then Rich.

16 DR. KORRICK: Just so -- I think t he 17 principle of looking at differences in susceptibi lity is a 18 really key piece, but I'm a confessed skeptic abo ut a lot 19 of genetics research because it's incredibly reso urce 20 intensive, and I feel like it's oftentimes not ve ry 21 productive. 22 Even though in theory it sounds go od, there 23 are very few examples of how genetics research ha s really 24 elucidated, disease risk accepting in the case ofpretty 25 well-defined single gene diseases, and the outcomes we'reMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 80 1 looking at lead are very complicated. So I just want to 2 just put a comment in terms of skepticism about th e 3 specifics but not the principle of what you're say ing. 4 DR. FREY: Okay. Joel. 5 DR. POUNDS: So I agree with that. 6 Genome-wide association studies have pretty much been a 7 failure, and lead is a very hard case to design a good GWA 8 study. But the technology and the science is evol ving. 9 All right. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't think 10 about how we could possibly -- you know, the crea tive 11 folks somewhere could come up with a good approac h. 12 DR. KORRICK: Fair enough. 13 DR. FREY: Okay. Rich.

14 DR. CANFIELD: I think this last d iscussion 15 on the genetics is -- covers one of my points I was going 16 to bring up. The other is though that there does -- I

17 think there does need to be more work done on loo king at 18 more sensitive endpoints in the domain of emotionand 19 behavior regulation. And I think it intersects w ith the

20 stress issue as in Debbie's research and with thegenetics

21 issue. 22 So you know, I think many of us ar e quite 23 surprised that IQ has just been so reliable as a measure 24 because it's -- we don't really know what it is, and it 25 would be nice to have more specific measures.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 81 1 And I think most of us have thoughtthere's 2 more sensitive measures out there, but I -- you kn ow, part 3 of it might be the psychometrics that saves our ba con with 4 IQ tests, but it might be other issues as well.

5 But I think in the domain of emotio n, 6 there's, you know, interesting animal work, and th ere's, 7 you know, an endpoint in terms of the behavior con duct 8 problems. And if we could understand sort of the 9 emotional system and self-regulation, we might be able to, 10 I think, come up with a more sensitive endpoint. 11 DR. FREY: Anything else? 12 (No response.) 13 DR. FREY: Okay. Anything more ge nerally 14 on the policy assessment? 15 (No response.)

16 DR. FREY: So in terms of our advi ce to the 17 administrator, I think we pretty well discussed f or the 18 primary standard yesterday that we agreed, you kn ow, in 19 principle with EPA's -- OAQPS's recommendation toretain

20 the current standard. 21 I think we heard the same thing onthe 22 secondary standard, but we haven't actually, I th ink, 23 specifically talked about it as a panel. So I ju st want 24 to reach -- I guess to close the loop on that, ju st see 25 if, in fact, as a panel we're comfortable essenti allyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 82 1 providing support for staff's recommendation on re taining 2 the current secondary standard, and are there any concerns 3 with that advice? And I don't think I heard any i n the 4 earlier discussion this morning. 5 So what I would propose is in the l etter to

6 the administrator that CASAC would advise the 7 administrator in support of the staff conclusions on both 8 the primary and the secondary standard to retain t he 9 current standard. Are there any comments on that? 10 (No response.) 11 DR. FREY: Okay. All right. Good . So I 12 think in terms of our key business, that's kind o f the

13 bottom line. We did have some discussion which may be 14 incomplete as far as the issue about looking forward with 15 the lead NAAQS and whether we're at a point wherewe want 16 to advise EPA on considering alternative ways to address 17 lead that may not require a NAAQS. 18 Maybe it's too early to do that, maybe it's 19 not appropriate to do that. But it's just an iss ue that's 20 come up for discussion, so I did want to come bac k to that 21 just to see if there is any message from the pane l on 22 this. And it may be that there's no consensus onit, 23 maybe there is a consensus. So I guess I wanted to get a 24 little bit more input from the panel on that issu e. 25 MR. ALLEN: Yes.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 83 1 DR. FREY: Yes. 2 MR. ALLEN: I agree there's no cons ensus at 3 this time. One question I have absolutely no answer to is 4 if we were to come towards a consensus, what's the 5 process? I don't think we've done this before. Would it

6 be left in hibernation until the next time EPA sta rts the 7 process of a lead NAAQS review several years from now? 8 It's just really a process question even if we had 9 consensus, which we don't. 10 DR. FREY: Yeah, I suspect it woul d -- it 11 would have to involve EPA staff. I mean, I thinkit's not 12 something that we would want to just unilaterallyas CASAC 13 -- I mean, we could, but it would probably make more sense 14 that this be something where we get input from th e staff 15 on whether they see this as something they want t o 16 recommend to the administrator, and then we couldget 17 their input on the procedural aspects. And I don 't think 18 we're at that point right now. 19 So it would really be more an issu e for the 20 next review. Is that something that should come up in the

21 discussions? And either we could leave it to theagency's 22 discretion to initiate that if they choose to, an d that's 23 one way to handle it. Or if we want to say somet hing 24 proactive indicating interest in that, we could d o that. 25 Yeah, Rich.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 84 1 DR. CANFIELD: I may be more ignora nt than 2 the rest here, but I don't really know what it mea ns to, 3 like, get rid of the NAAQS. Does that mean we don 't care 4 about air lead anymore? 5 DR. FREY: Well, not exactly. 6 DR. CANFIELD: Okay. Well, if some one 7 could just kind of describe for -- unless I'm the only one

8 who's -- doesn't -- 9 DR. FREY: Yeah. Well, I'll descri be -- 10 and I'm not advocating actually one way or the ot her. I 11 think it's an issue that's worth discussing, whic h is why 12 I'm suggesting we discuss it, but I don't really have a 13 personal opinion. 14 So I think picking up on some of what Phil 15 said, there are other standards that affect lead 16 emissions. And there are things going on that ma ybe in, 17 you know, 5 or 10 or 15 years, we will see possib ly the 18 phase-out of lead from aviation gas, which right now is 19 the largest source of primary emissions, direct emissions. 20 So if those things came to fruitio n -- and

21 then there is a mechanism under the -- I don't remember 22 the section of the act, but basically under the N ational 23 Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, lead is 24 one of those pollutants. And there are stationar y source 25 standards for a large number of source categories . And soMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 85 1 that would, in principle, address or could address 2 stationary source emissions of lead. And those st andards 3 are a mix of a technology-based and a risk-based s tandard. 4 So they kind of started out under the 1990 Clean Air Act 5 Amendment as a technology-based standard, but thenthere's 6 a second step to that that is referred to, I think , 7 informally, as residual risk. And I think it has a more 8 formal name -- to look at given the implementationof the 9 first phase of those standards, is there still 10 unacceptable risk to exposed populations, and the refore, 11 should the standard be made more stringent. 12 So those are some mechanisms in pl ace that 13 are addressing sources. Now, of course, the NAAQ S is an 14 air quality standard, not a source standard, and the NAAQS 15 is explicitly to protect public health. And, youknow, I 16 think an argument we heard in favor of, you know, maybe 17 continued retention of a lead NAAQS is, well, it would 18 prevent things from getting worse in the future. It would 19 prevent new sources from coming into existence th at maybe 20 might lead to health impact. 21 And I guess the question, you kn ow -- it 22 may be a question more for EPA than for us is, we ll, would 23 those sources be caught by other standards, and what are 24 the resource issues of having a NAAQS versus thes e other 25 standards. I mean, one resource issue is, well, theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 86 1 process we've just undergone to do an ISA -- well, EPA, 2 you know, resources to do the ISA, the PA, and so on, and 3 could that be better spent elsewhere. And that as sumes, 4 of course, a resource limited world. 5 So that's sort of beyond our, I don 't know, 6 knowledge or domain. I think some people have the 7 opinion, for example, that, well, there are other 8 pollutants that are in the ambient air that maybe are more 9 important than lead, and that may not argue to removing 10 the lead standard. It may argue to adding other criteria 11 pollutants. And some of the common examples woul d be like 12 benzene or formaldehyde and a few others that I'mnot 13 remembering off the top of my head. 14 So I don't know if that answers yo ur 15 question. So Michael and then Rich. 16 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah, I would add tomy 17 comments yesterday, and you mentioned one of themthat the 18 standard has had great impact, I think, in reduci ng lead 19 emissions and in keeping the potential for elevat ed lead

20 emissions in check.

21 So I think that -- I think it's ve ry 22 important to retain the standard. And then you r aised the 23 point about the cost associated with going through this 24 whole process of integrated science assessment an d -- 25 DR. FREY: Well, and there's also theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 87 1 monitoring, and the designation of attainment, andso on, 2 and -- 3 DR. KOSNETT: Right. You know, oneof the 4 things that it's -- I think it's worth noting, andChris, 5 this gets to what -- one of the things you said ye sterday 6 about, you know, the broader picture of what these-- this 7 whole integrated science assessment produces. It' s a 8 tremendous -- it has a tremendous value and impactbeyond 9 just air emissions. 10 I mean, clearly there's a consider able 11 concern with lead in the environment, not necessa rily from 12 contemporary lead emissions. But, you know, I me an, it's 13 -- if you look at ATSDR's list of -- priority lis t of 14 substances based on their prevalence and impact o n health,

15 I think lead is 1 or 2. I think arsenic is Numbe r 1 and 16 lead is Number 2, or is it lead that's Number 1? It's 1 17 or 2, and it has been for a long time. 18 And, you know, there's still a lotof 19 considerable concern over the impacts of lead in 20 occupational settings, and there's concern about lead in 21 water. You know, the drinking water standard is not 22 really an MCL. All right. It's a drinking waterstandard 23 in the sense that it's 15 micrograms per liter, but that 24 only applies to water systems, right? Maybe I'm wrong, 25 but it's 90 -- 90 percent have to be less than th at, butMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 88 1 you know, there's -- it's a multimedia pollutant, and the 2 -- I think it's worth noting that the value of allthe 3 work and research that goes into collecting and re viewing 4 the science has implications beyond just the air emissions

5 concerns.

6 And it has tremendous value interna tionally 7 because people -- I think we're doing more about i t, 8 studying it, and categorizing it, and scientifical ly 9 reviewing it in this process than is being done el sewhere

10 in the world. And there's a tremendous amount oflead 11 still used in commerce, so the valuable informati on that's 12 learned here has global implications. 13 I'm -- I think that it's somethingthat we 14 shouldn't lose sight of. Certainly Ian's broughtthat up 15 multiple times, and I agree with him on that. 16 DR. FREY: Rich. Well, I thought one of 17 you had your hand up, but --

18 DR. CANFIELD: I didn't.

19 MR. POIROT: I did. 20 DR. FREY: Okay. 21 MR. POIROT: I guess a couple of p oints 22 that, to me, weigh in on the side of us not takin g a stand 23 on that in this current review process. One woul d be 24 that, I think, if -- what -- reflecting on the hi story of 25 the lead NAAQS, the predominant source category h asMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 89 1 changed so many times over the history of our cont rols, 2 and that's sort of a -- I think a really good fit for what 3 a NAAQS should be and how it should work. 4 So I think the evidence of the vary ing 5 dominant sources and the way in which we've contro lled 6 them over time is good evidence that it's an appropriate 7 pollutant to consider that way. 8 Along somewhat similar lines, I thi nk it's 9 in some ways only when we start to get lower, meas urable 10 blood lead levels that we can do the epiwork to u nderstand 11 effects that are occurring at lower and lower levels, and 12 I think the same is true for other criteria pollu tants as 13 well. As we reduce the concentrations, we see, a nd only 14 then can we easily see with some of those tools t he

15 effects at lower levels. 16 Another thing I remember from the last 17 review cycle, somebody just making the observatio n that, 18 you know, this has been this great success story. We have 19 reduced ambient air concentrations by more than a n order 20 of magnitude, you know, maybe a couple, but at th e same 21 time, the ambient concentration levels remain a c ouple of 22 orders of magnitude higher than those under whichlife 23 evolved, you know. So what do you mean low? I mean, 24 yeah, they're lower than they were, but they're h igher 25 than they used to be.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 90 1 So then the last reason, I guess, t o invoke 2 is that we just started and initiated a lot of newlead 3 monitoring, specifically looking at source impacts and

4 different kinds of sources. And I think it would be 5 completely premature to prejudge that and say we k now it's 6 not going to show anything. So those would be my reasons. 7 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah. Good. Yeah, Sean? 8 DR. HAYS: (Unintelligible.) 9 DR. FREY: Okay. Yeah. 10 DR. VON LINDERN: Occasionally, I find 11 myself an optimist, so I feel like I should speakup. I 12 agree with -- I thought Rich captured the technic al side 13 of this quite well, but I'm wondering if there's not 14 really a consensus developing here because Cliff talks 15 about a legacy problem. Herb really points out abig one, 16 I think, is that we have a changing environment t hat can 17 have a major impact on that legacy. 18 I could give a little side story. I won't 19 right now, but the change in bioavailability of l ead in

20 the natural environment is a real time bomb that' s coming. 21 Michael points out that we love le ad. He's 22 right about that. This society loves it because of the 23 chemical properties that it has and the uses it h as in 24 commerce. So we're going to continue to mine, we 're going 25 to continue to produce, and we're going to continue toMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 91 1 distribute more lead in the global environment. T hose 2 things we don't understand. Those things are the research 3 areas we need to move in, and we need to understan d more 4 about how the past regulatory actions that we've t aken 5 have influenced that distribution and recycling oflead in

6 our environment.

7 And we need to know more about thatbefore 8 we could consider changing the NAAQS, which has be en a 9 really key and important component in that, not ju st in 10 the U.S. but internationally as well. 11 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, let's see. Sean, I

12 think -- and then Michael. 13 DR. HAYS: Well, I feel like sinceI 14 mentioned it yesterday, I'm kind of one of the on es that 15 advocated for maybe lead not being appropriately 16 controlled through the NAAQS anymore, so I'll give my 17 arguments for it. 18 But I want to say that I totally a gree with 19 everything that's been said. There's no desire whatsoever 20 to stop regulating lead. I kind of feel like we' ve come 21 to a -- there was a time when the NAAQS made sens e for 22 lead because of the way it was being used and howthat was 23 the dominant source for our exposures. 24 My concern is that now we're, in e ssence, 25 bringing a knife to a gun fight. The NAAQS isn'ttheMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 92 1 right mechanism for controlling the exposures to l ead that 2 are of importance. It may be part of it, but it's not 3 necessarily the right tool anymore. 4 And so I don't advocate for doing away with 5 the NAAQS, but I advocate for a more holistic mult imedia 6 approach to addressing lead exposures, which stillare an 7 important source of public health concern for the

8 environment even in the U.S. 9 So that was my main point for sayin g that 10 -- and I would only do away with listing lead in the NAAQS 11 if there was some other program it could be kicke d into so 12 that it could be handled from a multimedia perspe ctive,

13 but I don't know what that is. I don't know how EPA could

14 tackle that. 15 You know, I know they've got the dust 16 committee, they've done the dust remodeling abatement 17 program that we had advised them on last cycle, a nd there 18 are several other initiatives that are ongoing th at, you 19 know, are starting to poke at some of the other i mportant

20 sources. But it would be nice to see EPA take an 21 integrated holistic approach to lead in a multime dia

22 basis. 23 Now, through the NAAQS review proc ess, 24 we're dealing with some of those -- we're dealingwith all 25 of the issues. But I feel like, you know, the pr imaryMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 93 1 focus is air, and we're trying to figure out how a ir 2 impacts indoor dust, and we're trying to figure ou t how 3 outdoor soil impacts air. You know, it's always t ied to

4 air. 5 Well, air isn't the main factor anymore, I 6 don't think, but that's part of the problem, you k now. We

7 need to know better how multimedia -- how the mult imedia 8 sources are impacting exposures, which ones are th e most 9 important, and then how do we tackle those from a societal 10 perspective in a holistic approach? That was my 11 discussion about how the NAAQS may not be appropr iate 12 anymore. 13 Now, the other concern I have is t hat, you 14 know, this process that we've been going through in these 15 NAAQS reviews seems a little predetermined, yet we're 16 spending a lot of time going through reviews. I mean, we 17 practically could have reviewed this policy asses sment 18 when we got the first draft of the ISA. I don't think 19 going through two review -- three reviews of the ISA made

20 it all of a sudden us -- all of a sudden now be able to 21 review the policy assessment. 22 So I guess one of my recommendatio ns is, 23 you know, I guess, talking myself into this that we don't 24 de-list lead from the NAAQS. We recommend the agency take 25 a more holistic, multimedia approach to regulatin g leadMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 94 1 exposures. And to that degree, we streamline the NAAQS 2 review process for lead. 3 It may not apply to other compounds , but 4 for lead, I'm not sure that we need to do this eve ry five 5 years or that we need to go through multiple revie w of the 6 ISA or REA or policy assessment. We can streamlin e this 7 quite a bit, but have a regular trigger so that ifsome 8 new research pops up that all of a sudden makes us 9 realize, holy crap, we -- sorry, we messed this up , and 10 now we've got this new science that suggests thatwe 11 really need to lower it, we do have the mechanismto then 12 go through that process and stay on top of airbor ne lead 13 exposures. 14 DR. FREY: Yeah, just a couple of comments. 15 I think actually there is a statutory mandate for 16 five-year review. 17 DR. HAYS: Right. 18 DR. FREY: I'm looking at Lydia an d Karen 19 and -- so I think -- and there is a requirement f or a 20 criteria document as was pointed out yesterday. So there 21 are some things that are required given the exist ence of 22 the NAAQS. 23 DR. HAYS: Yeah, I understand. 24 DR. FREY: And if those requiremen ts are 25 not met, then the agency is open to judicial revi ew is, IMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 95 1 guess, the polite way to say it, but -- so I don'tknow, 2 Lydia, if you want to say something about that. 3 MS. WEGMAN: Well, you're absolutel y right, 4 Chris. We have a statutory requirement for a five -year 5 review and revision, if appropriate, of the air qu ality 6 criteria and the -- yeah, what it says is review a nd 7 revise, if appropriate. 8 So I think, you know, the statute c ertainly 9 envisions the possibility that revision is not 10 appropriate, and we do have to review the air qua lity 11 criteria, which is what the ISA is. But that doe sn't mean

12 we can't do some more streamlined version of it. 13 But as Chris says, we do have this 14 obligation under the statute to review and revise , if 15 appropriate, both the air quality criteria and th e 16 standards, with CASAC advice, review and revise e very five 17 years. So that is something we have to do under the law 18 as it's structured right now. 19 And while I have the mic, I did ju st want 20 to observe that we do have a lead strategy across the 21 agency. I mean, we're obviously talking here abo ut the 22 lead NAAQS only, but almost every office within t he agency 23 has some lead activities ongoing to try to addres s the 24 multimedia aspects of it. The agency is very muc h aware 25 of the multimedia components of lead, and we've h ad aMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 96 1 strategy in place for a number of years to try to do that. 2 And in fact, we were talking yester day when 3 we issued the last lead NAAQS in the notice itself , we 4 talked about the agency's multiple strategies. An d we 5 will put that into the final policy assessment so it's 6 clear that we do have multimedia strategy in place . It 7 doesn't mean that we can't do more, but I did wantto 8 reassure you the agency does look at it in a multi media 9 way. 10 DR. HAYS: Thank you. 11 DR. FREY: Yeah, thank you, Lydia. And 12 yeah, I think the issue of -- you know, we kind o f went to 13 a big issue of, you know, should -- how long shou ld the 14 life be of the lead NAAQS to a more practical iss ue of 15 given the need for a five-year review cycle, are there 16 ways to streamline it.

17 And I think -- I don't know that t here's 18 any answer to that right now. You know, in some ways -- 19 you know, I've thought a little bit about this, a nd you 20 know, as Lydia points out, there has to be a five -year 21 review of the criteria and also to revise the sta ndard, if 22 appropriate. And operationally, that is now in t he form 23 of the ISA is essentially satisfying the requirement for a 24 criteria document, and the policy assessment -- well, 25 actually, if we reflect on this review process, i tMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 97 1 actually has been simplified in some ways, right?

2 MS. WEGMAN: Uh-huh.

3 DR. FREY: So we did not have a ris k and 4 exposure assessment document to review and other r eview 5 cycles for this pollutant and other criteria pollu tants 6 even -- like for ozone in the current review cycle , there

7 is a first and second draft of the REA that leads into a 8 first and -- you know, informs -- usually a first and 9 second draft of the policy assessment. 10 So in this case, we have not had a n REA. 11 We also -- or it's been included in the policy as sessment, 12 I think, is the more correct way to say it. So t here has 13 been an REA, but it's folded into the policy asse ssment. 14 And we have basically a proposal from the EPA tha t we 15 review just one draft of the policy assessment. So -- and

16 that's another issue we should circle back to is just to 17 confirm if we're comfortable with having only rev iewed one

18 draft. 19 I'm sure the agency would be delighted if 20 we are, and maybe we are. I -- since we also seem to be 21 supporting the policy recommendation of the agenc y, but 22 let's come back to that question in a few minutes

. 23 So in some sense, you know, with t he 24 current construct of this process, it has been st reamlined 25 probably as much as it can be. And then some of it is,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 98 1 you know, honestly, as scientists and engineers, when we 2 get a nice document to review like a first draft I SA, we 3 all want to see it improved in our areas of specia lty. 4 And then we get a revision, and second draft, maybe, it's 5 not quite there. Maybe there's new stuff that we see 6 that, oh, I didn't realize that. I want to reviewthis,

7 and it could be better. And then it's a third dra ft, and 8 you know -- so you know, how much can we restrain 9 ourselves from asking for a third draft ISA? 10 And so that's also -- you know, ho nestly, 11 we interact with EPA in this process. So some ofthe 12 demand on EPA is in response to what we're askingfor. 13 Yeah, Michael. 14 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah, but it ultimat ely has

15 tremendous benefit for the reasons that I said be fore. 16 DR. FREY: Oh, yeah, I'm not sayin g that it

17 doesn't. 18 DR. KOSNETT: And I agree -- you k now, I 19 agree with Sean that let's take a multimedia, youknow, 20 integrated approach. This ISA serves all the dif ferent 21 parts of EPA. I mean, it serves the water people , it 22 serves the Superfund people, it -- so it does -- you know, 23 we might say, well, the air component is shrinkin g, but 24 this whole process has a lot of impact. 25 And one other point I forgot to me ntionMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 99 1 earlier that I think we don't -- we shouldn't losesight 2 of it is the issue of margin of safety. You know , for 3 many of the things that EPA regulates, they set th eir 4 standards, you know, when they talk about a margin-- a 5 safety -- an order of magnitude, you know, they lo ok for a 6 no L or a low L, and they set levels, you know, be fore 7 that, or they look for benchmark doses.

8 And if we look at the fact that forlead 9 the -- there's -- we're not talking orders -- an o rder of 10 magnitude margin of safety between the types of e xposure 11 that are -- exist even under current regulations and 12 impacts on humans, which is not -- we're not talk ing about 13 cross-species extrapolation. We're talking abouthumans. 14 We're talking about margins of exposure where -- at the 15 regulations we're acknowledging that there may besome 16 effect. 17 So given the fact that lead is prominent in 18 the -- with respect to a very low margin of safet y, if 19 any, for non-cancer effect. It assumes a distinc tion 20 that's not shared by many other chemicals. 21 DR. FREY: Yeah. Well, I think th at opens 22 up some other issues that I don't know if we needor want 23 to get into a lot. But, you know, the statutory language

24 is that it needs to set a standard. I don't know , Lydia, 25 maybe I should let you quote it verbatim because youMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 100 1 probably know this better than I do. But it needs to 2 protect the public health with an adequate margin of 3 safety. 4 MS. WEGMAN: Yeah, it has to be requisite 5 to protect public health with an adequate margin o f 6 safety, that's right. 7 DR. FREY: Yeah. And those two phr ases 8 "protect public health and adequate margin of safe ty," and 9 also in the context of judicial review of many of these 10 NAAQS doesn't necessarily imply that the standardmust 11 have an order of magnitude of protection. 12 DR. KOSNETT: No, no. 13 DR. FREY: And it also doesn't imp ly that 14 the standard must protect every individual in the 15 population either. 16 DR. KOSNETT: No. And I'm glad yo u raise 17 that point. I'm not -- I think there was -- ther e were 18 aspects of the policy assessment, which indicatedhow the 19 assessment included some conservative assumptions

. 20 DR. FREY: Right. So it's ultimat ely -- 21 yeah.

22 DR. KOSNETT: And I'm not -- I was n't 23 trying to open that whole issue of -- 24 DR. FREY: Yeah, okay. 25 DR. KOSNETT: -- you know, that th eMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 101 1 standard wasn't meeting the margin of safety. Tha t's not 2 what I meant, Chris. What I meant is that just ina more 3 general sense, when we compare lead to other subst ances, 4 we are dealing with very low level -- with effects at very 5 low levels of exposure that exist in our contempor ary 6 environment. 7 DR. FREY: Right. Sure. Absolutel y. 8 Yeah, you're right. 9 DR. KOSNETT: And that being the ca se, we 10 should be -- keep our eyes on the ball and say th is is a 11 pollutant we need to look at because it's not lik e we've 12 set our exposures, you know, and regulated someth ing that 13 -- you know, an order of magnitude or more like f or a lot 14 of other substances way below it. 15 DR. FREY: Well, yeah. And actual ly, it's 16 -- it's actually not even necessarily unique to l ead. So 17 this issue -- you know, the way the statute was written, I 18 don't know if I'm oversimplifying, but it almost seemed to 19 presume there would be thresholds below which the re's no

20 adverse effect. 21 But operationally as well look -- get more 22 science on a lot of these pollutants, we're findi ng, well, 23 there are effects, and either we don't know if th ere's a 24 threshold, or there may not be a threshold. And the 25 statute maybe didn't envision that.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 102 1 DR. KOSNETT: Right. 2 DR. FREY: So -- anyway, that's kin d of a 3 big discussion.

4 DR. KOSNETT: Yeah. 5 DR. FREY: But I guess Cliff has be en 6 waiting patiently, so let me turn the mic to him. 7 DR. DAVIDSON: Just a quick comment , Chris. 8 Listening to what Dr. Kosnett was saying, Dr. Hays , I 9 think that when Lydia says that there's -- you've got 10 these words, if appropriate, it seems to me that there's a 11 little bit of wiggle room in here. 12 By the time this group, this panel , gets 13 involved in the process, the first ISA is alreadydone, 14 and that's already a huge effort. I'm just wonde ring if 15 there's a way that a group such as this panel canhave 16 some input into whether a full-fledged ISA is nee ded in

17 the future. 18 DR. FREY: Yeah, so -- 19 MS. WEGMAN: If I could just -- 20 DR. FREY: Go ahead, yeah. 21 MS. WEGMAN: I just wanted to notethat, in 22 fact, thanks to the advice of prior CASACs, we ac tually 23 put in place a process for CASAC to be involved e arlier. 24 There is what's called a kickoff workshop where we talk 25 with potential -- you know, people who are knowle dgeableMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 103 1 and also potential CASAC members about what the sc ope of 2 the review should be, what are the policy relevant 3 questions. And we take that, and we develop what' s called 4 an integrated review plan. 5 And we do a draft integrated reviewplan,

6 which comes to the CASAC and to the committee. No w, 7 perhaps you weren't involved in it this time, but -- and 8 that draft integrated review plan lays out our str ategy 9 for how we're going to move forward with the revie w. And 10 we see CASAC comment, and we revise based on CASACs

11 comments. 12 So there is an opportunity right i n the 13 beginning both at the workshop and then the plann ing 14 process to give us your advice on what level of r eview is

15 needed. 16 DR. FREY: Yeah, and just to elabo rate on 17 that, so as Lydia pointed out, the workshop is us ually 18 open to the public. And we don't specifically have a 19 CASAC meeting at that workshop. And I think whet her CASAC

20 members are there or not is either self-selectionor -- 21 it's not a formal CASAC event as a meeting like t his is. 22 But the integrated review plan, yo u may 23 recall, we did review -- our first meeting as thelead 24 review panel was a teleconference to consult on t he 25 integrated review plan. So it wasn't a review, but it wasMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 104 1 a consultation where we, you know, read the integr ated 2 review plan. We offered comments and suggestions back to

3 EPA. 4 So yeah, there is that opportunity. And so 5 it may be that for the next review cycle we would just 6 want to -- whoever the people are -- it may be non e of us, 7 or it may be most of us at that time -- encourage that 8 group to use that opportunity to weigh in on, you know, 9 how extensive does this next revision cycle need t o be.

10 I -- but I also tend to think thatjust 11 sort of a group dynamic with scientists and engin eers that 12 we're always going to ask for more rigorous scien ce in the 13 ISA. So are we going to restrain ourselves from asking 14 for a third draft. And, you know, that may also be a fact 15 of life in the way -- just the human dynamics. 16 Yes, Rich and then Rich. 17 DR. CANFIELD: Yeah, I just want t o stand 18 up in support of the third draft. I think a grea t deal 19 was accomplished. I mean, I just really -- a

20 transformation that turns this into a world class world 21 leading document. Maybe that only matters to sci entists 22 and engineers, but I actually think that people l ook at 23 this document, they're going to learn about lead. And I

24 think it was worth the effort. 25 DR. FREY: Yeah, and I don't mean to implyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 105 1 anything to the contrary. And, you know, as -- myrole in 2 this panel has been as a chair throughout, so I te nd not 3 to weigh in too much on the substance. But on oth er 4 panels where I've been a panelist, as folks in thefront 5 of the room know, I -- I mean, I've probably been 6 clamoring for third drafts as much as anybody else , so -- 7 Rich. 8 MR. POIROT: Well, I was thinking i n terms 9 of Sean's idea of this more of a holistic, multime dia 10 approach that wasn't that something that EPA kindof tried 11 about three or four cycles ago with the lead NAAQ S review? 12 And I think probably Ian was there on the -- you' ve been 13 on all of them, haven't you? 14 But it's my understanding that, ho wever, 15 this came following the whole nine yards of the p rocess, 16 the criteria document and all its revisions, and the staff 17 paper and all it's revisions. 18 And then at the end, EPA said, wel l, in 19 lieu of lowering the NAAQS, we're going to go wit h this 20 multimedia approach, and here are our -- and it may not 21 have been -- maybe it was a good idea, but it didn't sit 22 well with the people that had put all the work in to -- and 23 it's almost like we really did skip a cycle in th e NAAQS

24 review -- 25 MS. WEGMAN: Many cycles.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 106 1 MR. POIROT: -- and it probably wou ld have 2 been lower than had not that approach been applied . I 3 don't know, but I guess the point that I would lik e to 4 make is that what would the goal might be would becan we 5 get to a place where we could review the NAAQS in the next 6 required cycle without needing to go the full appr oach, or

7 how do we shorten that. 8 And, you know, one kind of a questi on that 9 could be helpful would be to lead the ISA development with 10 the question of have there been any -- I forget S ean's 11 term -- eureka papers that have really changed th e way 12 that we think about things because one of my kindof 13 general criticisms of the ISA is that maybe becau se now we 14 have this great hero tool, there's like a paragraph on 15 every new paper in there and -- regardless of its

16 relevance. 17 And at the end, you say something like, oh, 18 and this has greatly increased our understanding of -- I 19 don't know. No, it hasn't, you know. No, it has n't. 20 It's just another new paper, and you could have put that 21 in an appendix, and you could have had a grad stu dent 22 write the paragraph on each new paper. And that would be 23 a useful appendix all by itself. 24 But to lead -- to guide it with a -- have

25 there been new studies and in what areas that rea llyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 107 1 recommend revision to the NAAQS would be a way to kick off 2 those workshops and to maybe put -- 3 DR. FREY: Well, Rich, that's actua lly what 4 those workshops -- I mean, my understanding is tha t 5 actually is a goal of those workshops is to say wh at is

6 the new science since the last review? And I thin k that 7 maybe the disconnect is that we don't have the who le panel

8 either -- I don't know if it's a -- I don't remember if we 9 had the whole panel constituted. I think we may h ave, but 10 we certainly didn't have the whole panel present at that 11 workshop. And maybe that's something that would be 12 beneficial is to have the panel at the workshop. 13 Now, that's another day and a halfor 14 two-day meeting, but that would provide more of a n 15 opportunity for panel members to weigh in and als o to see 16 what's going on, right? 17 Because another thing is -- I mean , these 18 panels are typically you guys are the expert in, you know, 19 the pollutant of interest, and so I think also, y ou know, 20 at least as a chair, I'm also relying on the pane l to 21 weigh in early on in the ISA review process befor e the 22 deadline for literature is -- are there any studi es that

23 have been overlooked? 24 So I think it's a two-way thing, r ight? We 25 want to see what the agency is proposing as key s tudies,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 108 1 but what do we know are the key studies? And the workshop 2 is a good chance to do that. 3 MS. WEGMAN: And Chris, I'll just p oint out 4 that all the panel members may well not have been at the 5 workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to actua lly 6 bring together a variety of experts to try to iden tify 7 what the issues are, where there might be new scie nce, and 8 determine which expert -- which level of expertisewe need 9 on the CASAC panel. And then the panel is form. 10 DR. FREY: Yeah, that's true. You 're 11 right.

12 MS. WEGMAN: Yeah.

13 DR. FREY: So it's kind of before the 14 panel. 15 MS. WEGMAN: Yeah, so it's kind ofa 16 kickoff for everything. 17 DR. FREY: Chicken and egg, yeah.

18 MS. WEGMAN: And then the IRP is where the 19 panel really gets to offer its advice. 20 DR. FREY: Yeah, that's right. I thank you 21 for clarifying that. So you should all look for these 22 workshops and attend and -- well, I guess we needto make 23 sure that these panelists are on the mailing listfor the 24 next workshop.

25 MS. WEGMAN: Yes.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 109 1 DR. FREY: Yes, Rich.

2 DR. CANFIELD: Can those be -- 3 DR. FREY: Well, I mean, the next l ead 4 workshop, yeah.

5 DR. CANFIELD: Can those be webcast s? 6 MS. WEGMAN: You know, that's somet hing we 7 can look into. We have been doing -- 8 DR. FREY: Yeah, I'm sure. 9 DR. CANFIELD: I mean, that would be so 10 efficient for me. 11 MS. WEGMAN: Yeah, we're certainlystarting

12 to use them more in all of our activities. So I suspect 13 that by the time we get to the next lead review, we will 14 certainly be capable of a number of things. Mayb e we'll 15 even Skype with everybody. Who knows? 16 DR. FREY: Okay. So maybe just to 17 summarize what I think I heard, I -- so there's c ertainly 18 no consensus about a statement to the effect of phasing 19 out a lead NAAQS. I think I heard a lot of suppo rt, which 20 I think it's a good -- I think it's good to refle ct on it 21 and say, you know, what's the value of what we'vebeen 22 doing both as a panel and as a nation with lead. And so I 23 think we've heard a lot of good arguments in favo r of the 24 NAAQS for lead.

25 And I'm not sure that this has to translateMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 110 1 into any kind of statement unless -- one thought I had was 2 I think some of the ideas discussed might be usefu l to 3 fold into the policy assessment as far as the valu e of the 4 lead NAAQS, I think, as you deem appropriate. I d on't 5 know if as a panel we want to make a statement. We could, 6 or we could just not say anything.

7 DR. KOSNETT: But I think it would be -- I

8 think there -- there's a consensus of the value ofthe ISA 9 to the agency, to the EPA, and to the broader 10 international -- you know, national and internati onal 11 community given that it's a multimedia -- 12 DR. FREY: Okay. So we could -- 13 DR. KOSNETT: -- a multimedia poll utant 14 that we -- you know, is a major component.

15 DR. FREY: Yeah. So in the letterto the 16 administrator regarding the ISA, I think we couldmake 17 that point in the letter itself and just point ou t that 18 this is an excellent document and has value not j ust for 19 the NAAQS but well beyond that NAAQS, yeah. 20 DR. KOSNETT: Right.

21 DR. FREY: So I think that's a 22 noncontroversial statement. I don't think anyonewill 23 disagree with that. Rich. 24 DR. CANFIELD: So one of the thing s -- and 25 again, this is speaking from a lot of ignorance aboutMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 111 1 policy and government. I've been sort of surprise d at how 2 restrictive the law is and how it seems unquestion ed, 3 which is, can't we change laws? I mean, we're -- Okay. 4 (WHEREIN, unintelligible due to mul tiple 5 people speaking at once.) 6 DR. CANFIELD: So -- but the point that I 7 would make is, is there a way that EPA can make a 8 statement about what would be the most helpful formulation 9 of these laws so that they could take advantage of 10 efficiencies in -- you know, that are not availab le to 11 them because I'm thinking a seven-year review mak es a lot 12 more sense than a five-year review or a -- you kn ow. 13 DR. FREY: Yeah, if we could get c ongress 14 to narrow the scope to just change that, I agree with you. 15 DR. CANFIELD: Yeah. Oh, okay. I see. 16 DR. FREY: But it would open up th e entire

17 Clean Air Act is the risk. 18 DR. CANFIELD: Right, okay. Well, the 19 other thing that goes into that, which may be rel ated to 20 our feeling like nothing great has happened, you know, in 21 the last five years is that the funding for resea rch that 22 could change our views is declining and has been declining 23 so that, you know, okay, there's no money to study lead, 24 but every five years, you have to review it. I mean, 25 there's a little bit of a catch-22 there.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 112 1 DR. FREY: Yeah. Well, that is the-- 2 that's the general issue with the interface betwee n 3 science and public policy is the public policy dec isions

4 often are at a different time scale and different scope 5 than the science. 6 And so there's also language in theClean

7 Air Act that it's at the administrator's discretio n to set 8 the standard. So our role is really to advise the 9 administrator, but it at the administrator's discr etion. 10 So that kind of bridges that gap. But, yeah, tho se are 11 good points. 12 Well, let me -- I think there's on e more 13 practical decision we need to reach as a panel on-- are 14 we comfortable with having seen just a first draf t of the 15 policy assessment and -- you know, clearly, we'lldocument 16 the advice to the agency with the understanding t he agency 17 will make its best effort to incorporate our advi ce. Are

18 we comfortable that the next one will be the fina l

19 version? 20 DR. RABINOWITZ: Just an applicati on on 21 that.

22 DR. FREY: Yeah. 23 DR. RABINOWITZ: I'm sorry. Befor e the 24 teleconference, will we get the revised draft of the

25 document?Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 113 1 DR. FREY: No, no. 2 DR. RABINOWITZ: Okay. 3 DR. FREY: No. I was looking to se e how 4 many jaws dropped in the front of the room when yo u asked 5 that because our teleconference is April 1st, and that's 6 only, what, less than two months from now. 7 MS. WEGMAN: Sorry. No, we can't d o 8 that. 9 DR. RABINOWITZ: Okay. Thank you. 10 DR. FREY: So -- no, we will -- wewould -- 11 I think what EPA is proposing, the EPA staff is p roposing, 12 this was the first review draft. They proposed t his be 13 the only draft reviewed by CASAC. They would lik e to go 14 to a final version. And then from there, they wo uld 15 proceed with whatever rulemaking would come from that 16 process. 17 Of course, the administrator wouldreceive 18 our advice through the letters both on the ISA an d the 19 policy assessment, and that's where EPA would propose we 20 kind of wrap up CASAC's role on this review cycle

. 21 DR. RABINOWITZ: Help me understan d then. 22 So what would be the purpose or the agenda of tha t

23 teleconference? 24 DR. FREY: Well, that teleconferen ce is -- 25 we as CASAC have to prepare the final responses t o theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 114 1 charge questions that, you know, each of you have been 2 assigned or many of you are lead discussants on an d also

3 the letter from CASAC to the administrator. 4 So the letter plus our response to the 5 charge questions, and then we append to that all o f the

6 individual member comments constitutes the CASAC r eport to 7 the administrator. So we report directly to the 8 administrator. That conveys our advice on the ISAand on 9 the policy assessment. 10 And we'll do that in two separate reports. 11 So we'll have a report on the ISA, we'll have oneon the 12 policy assessment. So the purpose of the April 1 st 13 teleconferences is, as a panel, we will receive about, 14 what, three or four weeks before that a draft of the 15 letters, and a draft of the response to charge qu estions,

16 and also the final individual members comments.

17 You would review that. And in the 18 teleconference, we can have discussion of any remaining

19 issues that need to be discussed. After which th ose 20 reports will become final and delivered to the

21 administrator. 22 Well, I should say there's anotherstep 23 after that which is that the seven-member CASAC, the 24 chartered CASAC will review the report. We call that a 25 quality review, and usually that's just to clarif y issues.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 115 1 It usually doesn't substantively alter the reports

. 2 MS. WEGMAN: And I did just want tosay, 3 again, that if, for whatever reason, this panel wa nted to 4 comment on the final policy assessment, while we won't be 5 soliciting your advice, the panel certainly can al ways 6 offer us comments if they choose to. 7 DR. FREY: That's right, yeah. So if the 8 policy assessment comes out, and you know, there s eems to 9 be a lot of interest in providing more comment, wecan do 10 that maybe through a teleconference meeting, mostlikely. 11 DR. RABINOWITZ: But we'll get a c opy of 12 that to look at at some point? 13 DR. FREY: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Every thing 14 related to this review cycle you will get from th e DFO. 15 You will get -- so when the final policy assessme nt comes 16 out, that will -- we will know about that. 17 So I guess let me just -- I want t o reach 18 closure on this issue of -- let me say it this wa y that my 19 interpretation of the discussion is that the leadreview 20 panel is consenting or agreeing that the next ver sion of 21 the PA would be essentially the final draft. We would not 22 be asking for a second review draft. Is there an y 23 disagreement with that? 24 (No response.) 25 DR. FREY: Okay. So I think to summarizeMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 116 1 our bottom line advice to the administrator on thepolicy 2 assessment, it basically will be that we concur wi th EPA 3 staff on the recommendation on both the primary an d 4 secondary standards, and that's kind of our key advice to

5 the administrator. 6 And I think we've already agreed tothat, 7 so I think that covers the scope of what we reallyneed to

8 address. Are there other issues whether it's fromthe 9 DFO, or whether it's from members of the panel, orfrom 10 EPA that -- anything we've missed? 11 DR. YEOW: I just wanted to clarif y that, 12 you know, we did have the clarifying comments from the 13 public. We did not receive any requests to provi de any 14 clarifying comments on the PA. 15 DR. FREY: Okay. Anything anyone wants to 16 say? I -- oh, I'm sorry, Rich. 17 MR. POIROT: Well, this kind of re lates 18 back to our discussion on the ISA being this usef ul world 19 class document and so on and so forth, which I agree with. 20 But there was a point in time in the past when a decision

21 was made to transition a criteria document from b eing all 22 about lead, the state of the science for lead, tobeing 23 only what's new about lead. 24 And that was intended to be, you k now, a 25 shortening process so that the things would be le ss thick,Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 117 1 but it didn't really work. In fact, they got thic ker, you

2 know. 3 DR. FREY: And how do you know how thick it

4 would have been? 5 MR. POIROT: Well, I have an old copy of 6 the original PM criteria document that's this thic k, and 7 it was really good too. And it hasn't changed tha t much 8 since those days, but I guess the -- what I was go ing to 9 say is that you read these ISAs or whatever, and y ou know, 10 it's an awkward thing to write because you've kin d of got 11 to say here's what's new, but you can't really sa y it 12 without saying but here's what we used to think a nd then 13 either reference the previous version of it. 14 And so you're always in this sort of cycle 15 of referencing the -- so I don't know. I keep th inking 16 what if, in fact, you did have this be a standingdocument 17 of the state of the science of our understanding of lead 18 that wasn't trying to just play catch-up because of the 19 awkwardness in that, and because it's not compreh ensive 20 and because actually most of what we know about l ead is

21 what we used to know about it.

22 So what if it were back to this mo re 23 intentionally comprehensive thing where you had broad 24 statements that could be supported by many refere nces 25 rather than a paragraph on each new paper that's prettyMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 118 1 much not really very relevant. And then we could just see 2 the changes that were necessary in each review cyc le. 3 What is it that's really made us need to change ou r state 4 of the understanding and have those redlined, and that 5 would be really informative. Then we'd really kno w what's 6 moved things in a different way.

7 It would be a lot of work for EPA s taff to 8 do that the first time. But after that, maybe it would 9 become much easier. I don't know, just a thought. 10 DR. FREY: Yeah, I mean, this come s up in 11 every criteria pollutant review. I think we've h ad the 12 same discussion in the ozone panel, the PM panel, the CO 13 panel. So yeah, it is a common theme, and I thin k we're 14 kind of figuring this out as we go. I mean, on b oth the 15 agency and CASAC.

16 I think one model that -- I think this was 17 discussed maybe more in the ozone panel is to tryto 18 summarize the previous state of knowledge and the n 19 explicitly discuss what's been changed but not to 20 incorporate within the current ISA everything tha t was in 21 the previous criteria documents or the previous I SA for 22 those pollutants that have now gone through kind of this 23 more modern cycle already. 24 And actually, the group to talk toabout 25 that is the group that was here yesterday, NCEA, becauseMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 119 1 OAQPS is involved with the REA and the policy asse ssment, 2 but NCEA is responsible for the ISA. 3 Yeah, I -- maybe the general commen t is 4 just to look for opportunities to take a common approach 5 across criteria pollutants and kind of settle in o n a way 6 of handling that. 7 I think we may actually be getting close to 8 that because I think the panels, individual panels , tend 9 to give the same kind of comments. And so NCEA ha s heard 10 that in multiple pollutant contexts of ozone, PM, lead,

11 and so on. 12 So I think it's a good point, and it's a 13 general point. I'm not sure operationally what t o do with 14 that right at the moment, but you know, I think i t may be 15 worth some kind of -- maybe it's worth an adminis trative 16 discussion with NCEA as far as how they would lik e to 17 format these documents in the future, and maybe we have 18 enough experience to settle in on a consistent approach by

19 now. 20 Any other comments? 21 (No response.)

22 DR. FREY: I did want to -- as faras the 23 schedule going forward, we have a deadline of February 24 20th to receive the -- you know, the -- essential ly the 25 final draft response to charge questions from eac h of theMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 120 1 discussant groups. 2 So if you could use the time betwee n now 3 and that deadline to iterate within your group, an d also 4 if you, as a panel member, had material you wantedone of 5 those groups to consider, you know, please send itto the 6 group leader. I'm sure everyone did their best totake 7 notes, but it's real easy to miss something. And if you 8 want to make sure that your point is considered, make sure 9 to e-mail the group member. 10 But just remember the FACA rules f or 11 communication outside of these public meetings. It is 12 okay to exchange information among a limited numb er of 13 panelists, but you must copy Aaron Yeow who is th e DFO. 14 That's an essential requirement. I would be happ y if you 15 copy me also, but you must copy Aaron. That's ki nd of a 16 legal requirement. 17 Do not send e-mails to large numbe rs of the 18 panel. Like don't send an e-mail to the whole pa nel. 19 That would be considered deliberation. So, you k now, if 20 you're sending an e-mail to three or four people, that's 21 generally okay. Yes, Ian. 22 DR. VON LINDERN: You gave me an a ssignment 23 to come up with a few sentences.

24 DR. FREY: Yes. 25 DR. VON LINDERN: Do I have a group?Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 121 1 DR. FREY: Yes. Your group is the panel. 2 Would you like to make a comment about what you wo uld like 3 to get from the panel? 4 DR. VON LINDERN: Well, I don't wan t to 5 hold things up any more, but I wondered who -- howI could

6 share that in advance of the -- 7 DR. FREY: Why don't you share thatwith me 8 and Aaron, and maybe -- so this pertains to the is sue of 9 looking at kind of the -- sort of the adverse effe cts of a 10 U.S. based approach and commenting on that. 11 So are there any members of the pa nel that 12 would particularly like to provide Ian with some input or 13 review his drafts? Do we have any volunteers? S o -- 14 Michael? 15 DR. KOSNETT: I'll look at it, andI have a 16 colleague who has participated in some of the U.S

. 17 commerce department and state department issues about 18 export of lead. And I know he has a lot of repor ts and 19 stuff, so I can help Ian get those. 20 DR. FREY: Okay. Well, I don't kn ow, 21 Aaron, if you want to comment on that? 22 DR. YEOW: Yeah, just, you know, y ou're not 23 supposed to be consulting with outside for that i n that 24 respect, but if you have additional literature toshare 25 with Ian, then that would have to be made public toMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 122 1 everybody. So you would have to submit that kind of like 2 a public comment or something like that so that th e public

3 would have access to that -- to those references t hat you 4 provided to him. 5 DR. KOSNETT: Okay. I'll give themto you 6 then. I'll give them to you, and you can give them -- but 7 you know, there have been some recent meetings bet ween the 8 U.S. -- between U.S. government and representative s, let's 9 say, in Mexico about lead batteries and recycling. 10 DR. FREY: Okay. Sure. 11 DR. KOSNETT: And that could probably 12 inform what Ian's doing. I know -- you know abou t these, 13 Ian, but you know, I'm willing to help out. 14 DR. FREY: All right. Well, I thi nk the 15 key thing is, Ian -- and Michael can support you, and if 16 anyone else wants to volunteer. But I think Ian -- I'm 17 confident that the two of you -- yeah, go ahead.

18 DR. YEOW: So that once Ian develops that, 19 that will make its way into the final reports tha t -- I 20 mean, not final, but the draft reports that the e ntire 21 panel will then subsequently be able to have an 22 opportunity to review prior to the teleconference

. 23 DR. VON LINDERN: So I give them t o you, 24 and they'll go out to everybody?

25 DR. FREY: Yes.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 123 1 DR. VON LINDERN: Okay. 2 DR. FREY: So that will be due by F ebruary 3 20th. So we'll -- Aaron will collate, and Aaron a nd I 4 will review and do editorial revisions just to mak e the 5 thing stylistically consistent and also to draft t he

6 letters to the administrator on both the ISA and t he 7 policy assessment. You'll get that. It should bethe

8 week of March 11th. 9 And then on April 1st, we had previ ously 10 scheduled a teleconference. Hopefully, it's in y our 11 calendar from -- on Monday, April 1st from 1:00 p .m. to 12 4:00 p.m. So at that teleconference, we'll revie w the 13 letters and the response to charge questions. 14 DR. KOSNETT: April 1st? 15 DR. FREY: April 1st, and that has no other 16 significance. 17 DR. CANFIELD: 1:00 to 4:00, you s aid? 18 DR. FREY: 1:00 to 4:00, Eastern T ime, 19 yeah. I think we've conducted all of our busines s. 20 Anything we've missed? I would like to thank theagency 21 for, you know, this process that we've been throu gh and 22 the development of the policy assessment. And I think the 23 feedback you're getting is validation of what youbrought 24 to us is appropriate. And so I think that is a measure of 25 success for your endeavors. And so we really app reciateMidwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 124 1 all the effort of the EPA staff, both in NCEA and in 2 OAQPS, to inform our ability to review and provideadvice 3 to you as a staff and also our advice to the 4 administrator. So I greatly appreciate -- 5 MS. WEGMAN: And if I could just add my 6 thanks to the entire panel for all the work you'vedone, 7 speaking for both NCEA and for OAQPS for the agenc y. We 8 are very appreciative of all the time you've takento 9 review these documents and provide very thoughtfuland 10 helpful comments on them over multiple drafts of the ISA. 11 So thank you very, very much for a ll your 12 help and service to the agency. 13 DR. FREY: Oh, thank you. Yeah, a nd I'd

14 like to thank Aaron as the DFO and the SAB officefor 15 their support of CASAC, and they do a lot of 16 administrative stuff to make these meetings possi ble. And 17 so a lot of work goes on behind the scenes. Aaro n and the 18 SAB staff work incredibly hard to make this proce ss as 19 effective and possible as it is. 20 And I would like to thank all of y ou, 21 members of the panel, for your dedication. I thi nk this 22 has been, you know, a very collegial panel, and I 've 23 really enjoyed working with each of you on this. And I 24 think the depth of expertise and the exchanges we 've had 25 have been really high-level, and I've learned a l ot.Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 125 1 So I just -- I really appreciate th e 2 contributions you've made, and this is a true serv ice to 3 the nation. So I think this is kind of a high level of 4 public service that we're privileged to do as scie ntists 5 and engineers, so thank you very much. 6 And I think with that, I'm going toturn it 7 over to the DFO. I think the DFO officially adjou rns the 8 meeting, so -- 9 DR. YEOW: So I would just like to echo 10 Chris in thanking EPA for bringing these document s forward 11 and being responsive to the comments of the panel . Thank 12 you to the panel for all your hard work in review ing all 13 these documents. And thank you, Chris, for chair ing the 14 panel and leading us through efficiently and fini shing the 15 business at hand. So with that, we can be adjour ned. 16 Thank you. 17 (WHEREIN, meeting was adjourned at 18 11:36 a.m.)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling -va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 126 1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 3 ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 4 5 I, Wanda L. Greenlee, a Certified Court Rep orter, 6 CCR No. 1188, within and for the State of Missouri , do 7 hereby certify that the tape transcription in the 8 foregoing tape was transcribed to the best of my ability 9 and therefore reduced to typewriting under my dire ction; 10 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by 11 any of the parties to the action in which this tape was 12 taken, and further, that I am not a relative or employee 13 of any attorney or counsel employed by the partie s 14 thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the

15 outcome of the action.

16

17 18 _______________________

_______ Wanda L. Greenlee, CCR 19

20

21

22

23

24

25Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 1

A

a.m 2:1 125:18 Aaron 2:14,25 120:13,15 121:8 121:21 123:3,3 124:14,17 abatement 48:20

92:16 ability 9:23 17:21

29:4,4 42:5 124:2 126:8 able 27:6,20 35:22

37:2 56:17 57:2 75:19 81:9 93:20 122:21 absolutely 31:8

83:3 95:3 101:7 absorption 30:21

34:5 academia 3:25 accelerated 16:4 accept 20:15 accepting 79:24 access 122:3 accomplish 20:6 accomplished 104:19 account 8:11 20:12

28:11 44:11 accounting 39:12 accounts 5:7 61:17 accumulated 4:22 acidification 10:2

28:3 38:24 acknowledged

65:20 acknowledging

99:15 act 84:22 85:4 111:17 112:7 action 126:11,15 actions 91:4 activities 95:23 109:12 activity 55:17 actual 14:3 adapt 62:6 add 13:20 14:9 34:23 45:15 57:9 59:22 86:16 124:5 added 22:13 24:16

41:17 adding 3:8 56:22

86:10 addition 2:17 38:13 additional 3:15,17

72:4 121:24 address 7:19 22:11

38:2 79:12 82:16 85:1,1 95:23 116:8 addressed 16:10,13 addresses 14:11

32:13 addressing 85:13

92:6 adequacy 12:21 adequate 20:16

23:2,11 33:2 100:2,5,8 adequately 14:11 ADHD 60:21 adjourn 2:16 adjourned 125:15 125:17 adjourns 125:7 adjusted 59:19 administrative 119:15 124:16 administrator 3:10

81:17 82:6,7 83:16 110:16 112:9 113:17 114:3,7,8,21 116:1,5 123:6 124:4 administrator's 112:7,9 adolescents 65:21 adopting 26:2 adult 48:19 adulthood 61:19 adults 63:2 advance 121:6 advantage 111:9 adverse 19:14

21:10 101:20 121:9 advice 18:19 24:20

25:22 81:16 82:3 95:16 102:22 103:14 108:19 112:16,17 113:18 114:8 115:5 116:1 116:4 124:2,3 advise 3:10 82:6,16 112:8 advised 92:17 ADVISORY 1:8 advocate 92:4,5 advocated 91:15 advocating 84:10 aerial 31:12 affect 38:25 39:13

41:5,13 84:15 age 57:21 60:1,4,14

61:23 65:23,24 age-related 64:21 agencies 25:8,12

59:6 agency 1:7 17:25 18:19 24:21 38:7 45:8 93:24 94:25 95:21,22,24 96:8 97:19,21 107:25 110:9 112:16,16 118:15 123:20 124:7,12 agency's 83:21

96:4 agenda 2:4,5 3:12

24:21 25:5,23 33:4 34:1 38:2 40:17 43:10 51:19 51:20 53:9,14,21 54:19 62:15 68:15 71:22 74:24 113:22 ages 66:6,17 aging 30:7,8 34:5 ago 6:1,1 16:20 19:11 21:5,6,6 32:16 46:14 49:22 105:11 agree 4:10 15:25 16:9 19:5 23:14 66:21 78:9 80:5 83:2 88:15 90:12 91:18 98:18,19 111:14 116:19 agreed 54:4 81:18 116:6 agreeing 21:20 115:20 agrees 4:1 65:16 ahead 2:3 37:7

59:24 66:10 68:22 70:15 102:20 122:17 aimed 51:3 air 1:8 4:21,21 5:5

5:7 7:4,5,14,24 8:20 15:16,22 17:15,24 18:5 21:12 36:22 38:5 46:15,21 47:3,7 54:2,13,14 55:21 56:21,24 57:3 73:8,13,16,20 75:10 76:19,21 77:13 84:4,23 85:4,14 86:8 87:9 88:4 89:19 93:1,1 93:3,4,5 95:5,10 95:15 98:23 111:17 112:7 air-to-blood 77:14 airborne 18:5

50:23 94:12 airport 45:14 Allen 3:22 13:13,14 18:22 19:24 23:11 23:12 29:25 31:8 32:8,15 33:10,14 34:4,13,18 35:12 36:1,6 37:8 38:4,7 38:23 39:2,22 40:4 41:12 68:12 68:24 69:16 70:8 70:12 82:25 83:2 allow 30:11 allowed 28:18 alluded 12:11 alter 115:1 altered 72:22 alternative 33:9

82:16 alternatives 67:11

69:13 Alzheimer's 72:20 ambient 7:14,24 10:20 17:15 73:8 73:13,16,20 86:8 89:19,21 amenable 62:25 Amendment 85:5 American 71:18 ammunition 14:18 14:24 15:3 16:22 16:24 18:5 42:25 amount 4:12 10:22

28:2 44:4,18,23 45:2 67:17,24 88:10 analyses 9:12 77:9

77:9,10,18 analysis 9:3 36:3 angle 40:16 animal 72:23 81:6 animals 16:18 annoying 4:1 answer 33:25 34:1

40:6 41:18 65:18 66:8 77:3 83:3 96:18 answers 19:2 23:5

86:14 anticipate 40:25 anticipating 2:18 anticipation 3:11 antisocial 60:22 anxiety 61:1,2,12

61:20 anybody 105:6 anymore 84:4

91:16 92:3 93:5 93:12 anyway 8:22 21:17

32:5,14 48:13 68:20 78:4 102:2 appear 6:6 appears 56:7Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 2 append 114:5 appendix 106:21 106:23 applicability 27:11 application 47:14 112:20 applications 69:9 applied 6:15 29:14

70:19 106:2 applies 18:25 87:24 apply 20:21 26:15

26:22,24 27:20 29:15 94:3 applying 26:6 apportionment

53:25 appreciate 53:12

71:5 123:25 124:4 125:1 appreciated 13:24 appreciative 124:8 approach 20:11,20

23:15,23 24:1,13 26:3,12 27:16 32:18 33:7,11 36:2 37:4,21 38:9 38:17 39:10 49:13 78:10 80:11 92:6 92:21 93:10,25 98:20 105:10,20 106:2,6 119:4,18 121:10 approaches 32:5

66:25 appropriate 6:1,5 19:13,20,22 20:3 20:9 21:8 24:15 29:20 39:16 42:18 45:20 50:16 69:12 82:19 89:6 93:11 95:5,7,10,15 96:22 102:10 110:4 123:24 appropriately 4:7

5:18 33:8 91:15 appropriateness

73:24 approximately

44:6 April 113:5 114:12 123:9,11,14,15 aquatic 6:20 10:1

28:3,4 area 25:20 46:1,25

47:9 65:2,16,17 65:18 67:13 71:12 73:14 areas 58:23 71:25

73:7,16 91:3 98:3 106:25 argue 86:9,10 argument 85:16 arguments 91:17 109:23 arsenic 87:15 asked 113:4 asking 45:8,12 98:9

98:12 104:13 115:22 asks 5:13 aspect 9:4 40:17 aspects 4:8 15:20

83:17 95:24 100:18 assess 15:10 assessed 4:8 assessment 2:9 3:7

5:16 8:6 19:6,9 23:23 24:13,24 31:15 34:12 42:23 43:9 58:11 71:24 74:20 75:3 76:18 78:5 81:14 86:24 87:7 93:17,21 94:6 96:5,24 97:4 97:9,11,13,15 100:18,19 110:3 112:15 113:19 114:9,12 115:4,8 115:15 116:2 119:1 123:7,22 assessments 14:1 19:10 58:11 assigned 68:14 114:2 assignment 120:22 associate 21:9 associated 19:14 69:18 86:23 association 56:11

80:6 assume 6:16 64:13 assumes 86:3 99:19 assuming 59:17 assumptions 6:8 100:19 atmospheric 16:5 ATSDR's 87:13 attacks 33:15 attainment 87:1 attend 108:22 attended 16:20 attention 34:3 53:1

60:21 73:11 attorney 126:13 authors 26:14,15 availability 46:11 available 5:19 9:2 11:7 12:15 19:9 26:21 28:3 46:16 47:8 51:14 55:21 55:22 111:10 average 48:5 averages 49:6 averaging 20:2 aviation 84:18 aware 95:24 awful 69:3 awkward 53:8 117:10 awkwardness 117:19 B baby 59:14 back 2:5,20 19:17

20:23 21:3 26:19 37:22 43:9 45:22 46:21 53:15,23 54:21 63:14 65:6 69:20 71:17 82:20 97:16,22 104:2 116:18 117:22 background 38:11

38:12 bacon 81:3 bald 14:20 ball 101:10 base 15:23 based 15:8 19:9

23:8 77:20 87:14 103:10 121:10 basic 6:8 28:15

29:21 71:4 basically 8:6,18 13:4,15 21:7 35:17 84:22 97:14 116:2 basing 22:4,4 basis 92:22 batteries 67:18,24

67:24 68:25 69:13 69:20,24 70:3,10 122:9 battery 69:2 beginning 12:7 103:13 behavior 60:21,23

62:7 72:23 80:19 81:7 behavioral 58:3,4

61:15 behaviors 60:3

71:19 believe 15:3 29:11 belongs 53:4,5 benchmark 99:7 beneficial 107:12 benefit 15:18 73:6

98:15 benefiting 50:21 benefits 21:13,14 benign 59:13 benzene 86:12 best 3:2 75:6 112:17 120:6 126:8 better 5:23 9:17 10:24 12:2 33:9 38:10,19 47:7 48:14 51:13 69:8 71:11 72:15 75:10 75:11,13 86:3 93:7 98:7 100:1 beyond 17:24 27:4 42:20 51:3 86:5 87:8 88:4 110:19 big 16:9 24:3 42:5

42:10 57:12,13 63:7 90:15 96:13 102:3 bigger 42:12 biggest 41:12 bio 32:1 bioavailability

31:19 34:7,8 39:1 41:14,23 90:19 bioavailable 28:16

55:10 biokinetics 65:19

65:21 biological 32:1

47:17 biology 34:16 79:3 biomarkers 63:19

65:11 biota 15:20 bird 17:7 birds 15:20,25 bit 4:18 6:2 7:25 17:21 20:24 32:25 47:6 68:21 82:24 94:7 96:19 102:11 111:25 blah 52:23,23,23 blood 54:2,6,13

55:17 56:5,6,13 56:21 57:1 63:25 72:5 73:6,9 75:11 76:15,18,19,23 77:13,19 89:10 blunder 58:15 body 44:10 bomb 90:20 book 16:21 bottled 6:16 bottom 18:18 54:4

82:13 116:1 bound 42:8 box 79:11 boy 38:15 brain 58:14Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 3

brand 71:20 break 19:3 breast 56:8 bridges 112:10 brief 70:24 briefly 43:12 bring 53:1 80:16 108:6 bringing 36:11

91:25 125:10 brings 62:7 broad 17:21 117:23 broader 54:17 58:5

74:23,24 87:6 110:9 broadly 39:11 51:7 Brook 6:19,25 7:13

7:14 brought 88:14 123:23 Brown 66:9 build 69:4 bullet 33:5 72:21

72:25 73:5,12,18 78:14 bullets 72:3 76:14 bus 58:15 business 82:12 123:19 125:15 C C 126:1,1 calendar 123:11 calibrate 8:3 calibrated 65:23 California 14:20

67:9 call 12:16,20 36:16

58:24 73:10 114:24 called 102:24 103:3 Canfield 48:1,3

56:1 57:8 60:13 60:20,24 61:2,7 61:11,25 62:4 80:14 84:1,6 88:18 104:17 109:2,5,9 110:24 111:6,15,18 123:17 CANTAB 58:9 capable 109:14 captured 90:12 captures 4:7 carbon 42:2,2,4,4 carcasses 16:17 cardiovascular

63:7,19 64:1,3,9 care 41:18 51:8

84:3 carefully 69:22 CAROLINA 1:12 CARY 1:12 CASAC 1:9 3:9

24:20,23 82:6 83:12 95:16 102:23 103:1,6,10 103:19,19,21 108:9 113:13,25 114:3,6,23,24 118:15 124:15 CASAC's 113:20 CASACs 102:22

103:10 case 6:13,14,22,25

7:10,12,14,23,23 7:24 8:24 11:16 12:25 77:21 79:24 80:7 97:10 101:9 cases 7:2 8:17 9:10 cataclysmic 59:4 catastrophic 55:7 catch 36:25 catch-22 111:25 catch-up 117:18 categories 15:8

84:25 categorizing 88:8 category 45:21

88:25 caught 85:23 causal 22:19 causally-related

60:19 causation 65:7,16 cause 36:17 41:8 causing 7:8 CCR 1:21,22 126:6 126:18 CDC 56:2 cell 67:18 cellular 67:22 Center 56:24 certain 15:19 30:10

44:17,17 63:5 76:15 certainly 7:15 13:6 17:12 20:11,21 22:20 24:20 28:25 46:22 52:14 58:13 59:12 69:3,4 74:23 88:14 95:8 107:10 109:11,14 109:17 115:5 Certified 126:5 certify 126:7 cetera 9:12 48:20 chair 52:24 105:2 107:20 chairing 125:13 chance 53:10 76:7 108:2 change 6:7 11:21

20:5 21:25 41:1,5 41:21 42:3,3,10 46:18 56:12 70:11 90:19 111:3,14,22 118:3 changed 11:18

24:17 89:1 106:11 117:7 118:19 changes 21:12 41:6

41:13,13,21 56:14 59:17 118:2 changing 16:11 19:16 21:19 42:13 71:18 90:16 91:8 chapter 2:8 3:15,18

3:21 4:6,7,11,11 18:14,17,25,25 19:20 21:13 22:10 23:15,16,17,19 24:9 25:19 34:23 39:15 42:20 43:3 43:23 47:22 50:15 53:19 68:16,16,20 71:24 73:24 75:1 chapters 2:10 3:7

42:22 47:24 50:11 characteristics 9:9

47:6 characterize 8:1 characterized 5:17 13:5 characterizes 4:8 characterizing

48:13 charade 8:24 charge 2:17,21 4:5

5:13 19:1,4,18 20:17,18 42:19 43:14 53:24 54:19 69:6 74:9 114:1,5 114:15 119:25 123:13 charged 10:5,6

67:23 chart 15:5,7 45:23 chartered 114:24 check 86:20 chemical 30:14

47:15 90:23 chemicals 99:20 chemist 68:6 chemistry 34:15

67:10 68:7 70:14 Chicken 108:17 child 48:18 61:12

61:15 65:22 children 48:5,23

55:11,23 56:13 57:19 63:3,4 65:24 66:2,4 72:7 72:12,16,17,17 73:6 children's 54:1

55:17 chime 75:17 chloride 41:18 choose 83:22 115:6 Chris 3:21,24

13:21 17:20 19:11 20:25 25:18,23 32:22 39:22 41:11 43:3 44:1 52:2 87:4 95:4,13 101:2 102:7 108:3 125:10,13 Chris's 24:18 Christi 6:18 circle 2:5,20 43:9

53:14 97:16 circuitry 59:15 circumstances

72:11 77:20 citing 19:11 21:8 clamoring 105:6 clarification 3:3 clarify 49:8 114:25 116:11 clarifying 2:11,12 108:21 116:12,14 class 104:20 116:19 classroom 30:3 clean 1:8 46:15

85:4 111:17 112:6 clear 46:13 48:23

59:13 75:24 96:6 clearly 17:9 23:14

54:9 63:6 69:18 72:9,19 87:10 112:15 Cliff 43:20,21 45:3

48:4 55:1 62:19 90:14 102:5 climate 41:1,4,21

42:3,3,10,13 46:17 clinicians 79:13 close 81:24 119:7 closer 72:6 closure 115:18 co-stressors 41:2 coarse 47:11,16 cognitive 58:3,4 cohorts 64:2 73:3 collapsed 77:12 collate 123:3 colleague 121:16 colleagues 4:10 13:11 collect 23:25 collecting 57:1 88:3Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 4

collection 25:20 collects 47:12 collegial 124:22 column 30:19 come 4:18 19:17

36:3 54:21 71:7 80:11 81:10 82:20 82:20 83:4,20 91:20 97:22 113:15 120:23 comes 5:9 40:24

77:24 103:6 115:8 115:15 118:10 comfortable 39:6

81:25 97:17 112:14,18 coming 39:7 85:19

90:20 comment 10:25 12:9 34:24 55:25 70:24 80:2 102:7 103:10 115:4,9 119:3 121:2,21 122:2 commenting 39:7 121:10 comments 2:11,13 13:9 18:13 23:6 23:12,17 25:21 35:5 36:20 39:15 39:18 47:1 52:16 53:6 62:13 82:9 86:17 94:14 103:11 104:2 114:6,16 115:6 116:12,14 119:9 119:20 124:10 125:11 commerce 70:11

88:11 90:24 121:17 commitment 56:15

57:20 committee 1:9

52:10 92:16 103:6 common 72:6

86:11 118:13 119:4 communicated 5:18 communication

25:10 120:11 community 23:25 110:11 compare 101:3 compartments

28:19 complaints 60:25 completely 69:1

90:5 complex 3:3 complexation

30:20 complicated 28:14

59:20 80:1 compliment 70:25 component 15:23

41:9,10 54:8 91:9 98:23 110:14 components 95:25 compounds 94:3 comprehensive 117:19,23 computerized

58:11 concentration

31:25 54:6,14 77:15 89:21 concentrations 7:4

7:5,6,14,24 8:20 21:12 29:5 36:22 44:10 54:2 73:16 77:19 89:13,19 concept 70:13 concern 14:19

44:15 57:16 63:7 76:1 87:11,19,20 91:24 92:7 93:13 concerned 52:9 concerning 64:7 concerns 12:4 13:10 14:23 70:20 82:2 88:5 conclusion 4:2,15

7:4 12:18 conclusions 6:5 19:5,22 23:15 82:7 concordance 24:14 concretely 57:20 concur 65:8 116:2 condition 64:16 condor 14:20 conduct 61:15 81:7 conducted 30:13 123:19 confessed 79:18 confidence 23:10 confident 43:19 122:17 confirm 97:17 confounding 22:3 confront 55:5 congress 111:13 connect 31:23 42:9

42:10 consensus 2:21

43:14 45:6 52:3 82:22,23 83:2,4,9 90:14 109:18 110:8 consenting 115:20 consequence 45:17

45:19 consequences

58:25 59:7 70:16 conservative 100:19 consider 5:7 9:5

27:6 36:13 45:17 51:4,24 57:25 67:2,17 73:24 74:7 89:7 91:8 120:5 considerable 87:10

87:19 consideration 15:21 17:16 67:13 considered 13:6

21:1 22:22 25:22 52:16 59:10 120:8 120:19 considering 18:1,5

82:16 consistent 23:5

61:18 119:18 123:5 consistently 47:18 constituted 107:9 constitutes 63:1 114:6 construct 61:15

97:24 consult 103:24 consultation 104:1 consulting 121:23 contact 2:13 contaminant 37:17 contaminants

38:10,19 47:15,17 contaminated

38:16 contemporaneou...

57:3 contemporary

87:12 101:5 context 20:4 58:7

75:3 100:9 contexts 119:10 continue 42:6

90:24,25,25 continued 85:17 continues 11:22 continuing 14:16

50:22 contrary 105:1 contribute 71:7 contributed 56:22 contributes 47:4

65:1 contribution 43:1

54:15 63:3 64:8 64:20 66:19 contributions

20:12 125:2 control 30:17 controlled 8:14

89:5 91:16 controlling 92:1 controls 45:9 89:1 controversial 53:17 convenes 2:1 conversation 60:2 conveys 114:8 copied 2:25 copy 115:11 117:5 120:13,15,15 Corpus 6:17 correct 8:3 65:24

97:12 correctly 6:14 7:22

29:10 36:12 cortiles 63:10 CORY-SLECHTA

53:22 cost 86:23 counsel 126:10,13 counties 48:10 countries 67:19 country 45:19

55:18 71:20 county 48:8 126:3 couple 4:16,16 8:4 13:16 19:17 26:20 51:7,7 54:25 88:21 89:20,21 94:14 course 8:9 9:8 27:3

33:20 39:12 46:5 85:13 86:4 113:17 Court 1:21 126:5 cover 35:20,21 coverage 28:10 covered 46:15

51:11 covers 35:17 80:15 116:7 crap 94:9 create 76:22 creative 80:10 criteria 9:7 38:3

40:19 86:10 89:12 94:20 95:6,11,15 96:21,24 97:5 105:16 116:21 117:6 118:11,21 119:5 critical 8:10 9:1,3

9:24 11:5 15:14 15:15,16 16:8 20:20 23:23 26:3 26:6,12,21 27:3,5 27:9,15 28:5,7Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 5 29:18 30:1,21,22 31:10,16 32:18 33:10 36:2 37:8 37:12 39:10 40:12 42:25 54:7 criticism 41:15 criticisms 106:13 cross-sectional

57:5 cross-species 99:13 crux 39:18 culture 22:16 71:20 curious 48:19 current 4:21 5:7

7:7,8,16 12:16 18:20 19:7 21:12 23:1,11 36:18 62:25 73:23 81:20 82:2,9 88:23 97:6 97:24 99:11 118:20 currently 5:19 12:15 23:8 42:8 44:4 45:10 54:3 70:21 71:4 cut 71:9 cycle 3:11 51:3,4,5

89:17 92:17 96:15 97:6 104:5,9 105:23 106:6 113:20 115:14 117:14 118:2,23 cycles 97:5 105:11 105:25 D data 8:1,23 9:13 10:2,10,12,15 13:8 14:2 19:12 21:4,8,17,25 22:5 22:13,22 23:25 25:20 26:10,16 27:9,13 28:2 35:10 45:14,14 49:19 50:4 57:5 63:9 79:11 database 11:8 13:9 daunting 35:15 DAVIDSON 44:1 102:7 day 43:18 107:13 days 117:8 de-list 93:24 deadline 107:22 119:23 120:3 deal 3:3 9:9 33:22 104:18 dealing 38:19

66:25 92:24,24 101:4 deals 33:15,16,16

35:13 42:19 dealt 32:10 death 63:15 Debbie 48:7 64:21

67:8 70:25 Debbie's 80:20 Deborah 3:14

43:21 53:19 56:19 57:8 68:17 decades 55:15 decided 75:15 decision 5:21 11:25 12:12,13 13:1 21:6 22:6 23:1 74:21 112:13 116:20 decisions 15:22

36:8,9 112:3 declare 50:19 declining 10:22 111:22,22 decomposition

42:7 decreases 54:14 decreasing 68:1 dedication 124:21 deem 110:4 deemed 6:1 7:11,13 default 11:20 defer 47:24 57:8 define 79:6 degree 23:10 94:1 Deirdre 77:3 deleted 24:16 deliberation 120:19 delighted 97:19 delivered 114:20 delivery 58:9 demand 98:12 demography 71:18 denominator 14:3 density 69:7 department 121:17 121:17 departments 48:8

49:16 depends 61:7,11

74:13 77:4 deposited 46:5,7,12

46:23 deposition 10:1 16:5 31:12 37:25 38:1 depression 60:17 depth 124:24 describe 31:11,18

84:7,9 describes 32:10 describing 20:1,22 descriptive 29:25

30:23 32:11,20 design 80:7 designated 2:13 designation 87:1 designed 30:12 desirable 47:20 desire 91:19 detailed 62:10 details 46:4 69:11

69:21 72:2 determine 8:11 108:8 detrimental 73:1 develop 9:23 22:1

36:2,6 70:15 103:3 developed 33:8

74:21 developing 28:5

45:6 90:14 development 10:4

22:22 50:2 62:4 106:9 123:22 developmental 56:14 develops 122:18 deviations 78:1 devoid 30:5 DFO 115:14 116:9 120:13 124:14 125:7,7 diet 62:23 difference 34:16

40:12 differences 79:17 different 10:16 11:6 12:13 13:1 16:13 20:13 23:4 28:8,11,19 34:21 35:10 36:14 37:19 37:20,21 39:25 47:5,8,24 62:2 74:12,16 77:20,25 90:4 98:20 112:4 112:4 118:6 difficult 4:20,24 18:8 26:22,23 43:17 44:21 56:10 difficulties 57:18 difficulty 44:9 Diffusion 30:15 direct 84:19 direction 11:6

31:18 32:24 50:7 126:9 directly 21:13

33:12,14,15 37:3 114:7 disagree 16:2 32:2 110:23 disagreement 115:23 DiSC 58:8 discomfort 54:3 disconnect 107:7 discrepancy 52:25 discretion 83:22 112:7,9 discuss 2:9 3:16,18 13:22 84:12 118:19 discussant 3:22 18:21 120:1 discussants 2:23

3:23 18:22 43:12 114:2 discussed 13:24 18:25 19:11,24 35:24 53:2,4 81:17 110:2 114:19 118:17 discussing 2:17

53:24 84:11 discussion 2:8 3:2

4:19 12:10 13:23 14:17 15:17,18 19:20 21:18 22:9 24:7 42:22 43:15 43:18 44:2 47:25 50:16,19 51:2 53:10,14,24 54:8 54:10,17 62:9 72:7 74:1,4 75:9 78:23 80:14 82:4 82:13,20 93:11 102:3 114:18 115:19 116:18 118:12 119:16 discussions 11:1 19:3 37:24 83:21 disease 50:24 79:24 diseases 79:25 dispersed 51:8 dispute 65:17 dissolve 41:20 distinct 12:23 distinction 47:2

72:18 99:19 distressing 22:3 distribute 91:1 distribution 42:4

44:15 91:5 disturbing 46:23 doable 55:11 57:14

58:7 document 6:6 13:6 16:3 19:10,11 26:1 62:17 65:20 72:19 73:23 76:17 94:20 96:24 97:4Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 6 98:2 104:21,23 105:16 110:18 112:15,25 116:19 116:21 117:6,16 documents 17:20 17:23 41:16 118:21 119:17 124:9 125:10,13 doing 3:1 26:17

37:2,4 48:20 66:5 67:8 78:10 88:7 92:4 109:7,22 122:12 domain 80:18 81:5

86:6 dominant 89:5

91:23 dose 48:24 64:10

64:11 75:25 76:4 doses 99:7 Dr 2:2 3:14,20,23

3:24 8:16 9:15,20 10:5,18,21,25 11:9,10,12 12:8 13:3,12,12,13,14 13:18,18,19 14:13 14:14,15 16:2,6,7 16:16,17,19 17:11 17:12,16 18:3,9 18:10,13,16,21,22 18:22,23,24,25 19:24 21:20 22:24 23:11,12,13,13,14 24:4 25:24 27:15 27:21 29:2,9,16 29:25 31:5,8,10 31:21 32:8,12,15 32:17 33:10,13,14 33:24 34:4,10,13 34:14,18,19,22,25 35:1,3,4,8,12,14 35:15,16,17,19 36:1,5,6,10 37:7,8 37:22 38:4,6,7,20 38:23,24 39:2,3 39:14,17,22 40:3 40:4,9,10,15,23 41:3,11,12,25 42:14,24 43:2,4,5 43:6,7,8 44:1 45:3 47:23 48:3 50:10 50:15 51:1,6,17 51:21,23 52:2,4,5 52:8,9,12,14,15 52:17,19,20 53:7 53:12,13,22 54:16 54:25 57:15,16,23 57:24 59:22,24,25 60:5,6,8,9,11,12 60:13,16,17,20,22 60:24 61:1,2,4,7 61:10,11,14,25 62:3,4,8,11,12,14 65:25 66:1,3,5,8 66:11,12,13,16 68:2,3,4,5,10,12 68:13,24 69:10,16 69:17,23 70:1,2,5 70:6,8,9,12,13,23 70:24 71:14,15,23 74:11,17 75:4,5,7 75:22,23 76:2,3 76:24,25 77:3,6 77:22 78:11,16,18 78:20,22 79:14,16 80:4,5,12,13,14 81:11,13,16 82:11 83:1,10 84:1,5,6,9 86:16,25 87:3 88:16,18,20 90:7 90:8,9,10 91:11 91:13 94:14,17,18 94:23,24 96:10,11 97:3 98:14,16,18 99:21 100:7,12,13 100:16,20,22,24 100:25 101:7,9,15 102:1,2,4,5,7,8,8 102:18,20 103:16 104:17,25 107:3 108:10,13,17,20 109:1,2,3,5,8,9,16 110:7,12,13,15,20 110:21,24 111:6 111:13,15,16,18 112:1,20,22,23 113:1,2,3,9,10,21 113:24 115:7,11 115:13,25 116:11 116:15 117:3 118:10 119:22 120:22,24,25 121:1,4,7,15,20 121:22 122:5,10 122:11,14,18,23 122:25 123:1,2,14 123:15,17,18 124:13 125:9 draft 2:24 14:16,16

24:12 73:23 93:18 97:7,9,15,18 98:2 98:4,7,9 103:5,8 104:14,18 112:14 112:24 113:12,13 114:14,15 115:21 115:22 119:25 122:20 123:5 drafting 26:1 drafts 105:6 121:13 124:10 drawn 5:16 drilled 58:14 drinking 87:21,22 drives 79:9 driving 79:1 dropped 113:4 dry 46:6 due 9:18 61:8 111:4 123:2 dust 47:3,9 55:22

56:22 57:1,3 73:13,20 92:15,16 93:2 dying 16:1 17:8,10

40:2 dynamic 104:11 dynamics 9:5 73:21 104:15 E E 126:1,1 e-mail 120:9,18,20 e-mails 120:17 eagle 14:21 earlier 17:21 19:25

47:2 68:14 82:4 99:1 102:23 early 57:17 60:16 61:16,22,22 64:23 65:11 82:18 107:21 easier 118:9 easily 9:13 51:11

89:14 Eastern 123:18 easy 120:7 eat 16:23 echo 125:9 eco 39:5 Eco-SSLs 14:5 ecological 4:19 5:2

6:11 10:7 14:17 14:24 15:2,17 16:22 20:4 23:23 24:8 28:19 29:20 31:24 34:21 42:23 ecosystem 34:20

40:24 44:22 ecosystems 15:3

26:3,7,24 27:12 28:4,8,11,17 40:14 45:2 50:25 Ed 31:22 editorial 123:4 educated 4:17 6:2 effect 4:24 7:8 8:8

8:14 14:19 15:16 21:24 41:12 64:9 72:24 99:16,19 101:20 109:18 effective 6:12 12:7 124:19 effectively 8:2 effects 4:20,20 6:11

6:23 7:20 8:12,22 14:18,24 15:22 19:14 21:10 24:8 25:2 28:3,14 29:7 36:19,22 37:3 39:5 42:23 48:2 48:23 49:12,24 50:7 54:17 59:12 60:15 63:6,17 64:22 67:1 72:12 73:1 75:14,25 89:11,15 101:4,23 121:9 efficiencies 111:10 efficient 109:10 efficiently 125:14 effort 34:20 102:14 104:24 112:17 124:1 efforts 67:3 egg 108:17 eight 61:22 72:3 either 8:18 33:6

35:23 39:7 74:24 74:24 83:21 100:15 101:23 103:20 107:8 117:13 elaborate 103:16 electronic 58:11 element 40:12 elevated 56:5 86:19 Eleventh 1:23 eliciting 72:12 eliminating 50:18 Ellen 66:9,10 elucidated 79:24 embankments

37:16 emerged 63:7 emissions 15:2,7

45:9,19 84:16,19 84:19,23 85:2 86:19,20 87:9,12 88:4 emitted 44:7,12,13 emitting 69:5 emotion 80:18 81:5 emotional 81:9 emphasis 47:1 emphasized 45:21 empirical 34:5,6

37:14 employed 126:10 126:13 employee 126:12 encountered 70:21 encourage 17:2

23:24 68:6 70:18 104:7Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 7

endeavors 123:25 endpoint 31:25

63:16 64:7 81:7 81:10 endpoints 63:6

65:8 74:25 80:18 engineers 98:1 104:11,22 125:5 England 31:22 enjoyed 124:23 enormous 44:22 Enter 76:14 entire 35:17 111:16 122:20 124:6 environment 9:6 11:4 17:14 21:9 36:24 40:6 41:22 70:22 78:25 87:11 90:16,20 91:1,6 92:8 101:6 environmental 1:7 19:13 31:2 44:10 44:17,25 55:5 59:2 63:17 66:19 67:15 70:16 envision 10:23

43:14 101:25 envisioning 8:22 envisions 95:9 enzymes 63:18 EPA 8:23 14:23

24:11 34:11 35:6 35:23 38:14 39:7 40:19 43:23 51:24 55:23 59:5 66:5 82:16 83:6,11 85:22 86:1 92:13 92:20 97:14 98:11 98:12,21 99:3 104:3 105:10,18 110:9 111:7 113:11,11,19 116:2,10 118:7 124:1 125:10 EPA's 24:24 26:1

33:2 81:19 epidemiologic 72:4 epidemiological

72:25 epidemiology 79:3 epigenetic 50:7

56:14 64:22 79:5 epiwork 89:10 era 64:5 erosion 55:9 especially 5:2 14:5 15:13 41:16 45:14 47:16 54:1 65:3 78:25 essence 91:24 essential 120:14 essentially 5:5

81:25 96:23 115:21 119:24 establish 27:3 estimate 34:12,13 estimates 77:15,15 estimation 73:6 et 9:12 48:20 eureka 106:11 Europe 26:21

27:10 29:17 30:25 European 26:11 evaluated 28:21

29:12 event 103:21 events 55:7 59:5 everybody 3:25 109:15 122:1,24 evidence 4:8 12:15 12:19 19:6,10 21:1 23:3,7 36:18 65:2 72:11 77:11 77:17 89:4,6 evidence-based

77:8,10,11,17 evolved 89:23 evolving 80:8 exact 20:8 exactly 20:3,9 84:5 example 14:20

37:25 46:19 86:7 examples 79:23

86:11 exceedingly 34:5 excellent 110:18 exception 50:12 exchange 120:12 exchanges 124:24 exclude 16:3 executive 59:18 exist 30:1 99:11 101:5 existence 85:19

94:21 existing 8:12 32:19 exists 44:5 expanding 40:16 experience 64:2 119:18 experiments 30:13 expert 69:17 107:18 108:8 expertise 108:8 124:24 experts 39:5 108:6 explicitly 85:15 118:19 export 121:18 exports 45:24 exposed 45:1 71:5

85:10 exposure 5:14 10:16 20:1 31:7 31:16 34:12,13,17 35:10 39:1,13 44:22,22 45:2 48:2,15 49:24 50:4,24 54:1,13 56:1 57:17,17 58:21 59:2,18 63:1,25 64:25 71:3,6,9,17 72:11 72:16 75:12,14 76:15 77:9,18,20 78:13 97:4 99:10 99:14 101:5 exposure's 76:22 exposures 21:15

22:14 48:16 49:8 59:8,9 63:13 69:18 91:23 92:1 92:6 93:8 94:1,13 101:12 extensive 104:9 extent 4:6 5:15,18 16:23 29:19 32:3 45:13 64:25 65:3 65:10 74:4 78:6 78:12 external 25:6 externalizing 60:3

60:6,20 61:15 extrapolate 30:11 extrapolation

99:13 extreme 49:4 extremely 48:25 eyes 17:1 101:10 F F 126:1 FACA 120:10 face 9:7 12:13 13:1 face-to-face 2:20

3:2 faced 12:12 facetious 69:1 facilitating 74:13 fact 13:24 15:19

30:8 37:10 41:14 53:1,4 63:8 67:18 81:25 96:2 99:8 99:17 102:22 104:14 117:1,16 factor 30:9 93:5 factors 34:2 73:7 failure 80:7 fair 10:13 40:3

52:12,13 80:12 fall 42:19 43:2 falls 68:20 families 71:18 far 2:9 8:20 18:18

25:18 27:12 28:13 33:1 35:6 39:6 61:22 82:14 110:3 119:16,22 fate 42:1 46:4

65:21 66:20 favor 85:16 109:23 features 32:23 February 1:14 119:23 123:2 federal 2:13 feedback 123:23 feel 39:6 79:20

90:11 91:13,20 92:25 feeling 111:20 felt 52:23 field 37:2 fight 91:25 figure 26:23 55:14

65:9 93:1,2 figuring 118:14 fill 27:14 68:18 final 47:10 96:5 112:18 113:14,25 114:16,20 115:4 115:15,21 119:25 122:19,20 finally 20:18 65:9

66:23 financially 126:14 find 12:25 13:14

34:1 56:4 62:16 62:23 90:10 finding 101:22 fine 22:8,10 46:5 finish 53:13 finishing 125:14 first 4:6,7 12:25 19:4 31:2 49:2 54:21 55:1 56:7 85:9 93:18 97:7,8 97:8 98:2 102:13 103:23 112:14 113:12 118:8 fit 89:2 fits 68:15 five 6:1,7 9:16 11:17 12:4 51:10 65:23,24 74:18 94:4 95:16 111:21 111:24 five-year 94:16

95:4 96:15,20 111:12 fix 26:19 flogged 13:21 floodgates 25:14Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 8 flooding 46:18

58:18 floor 3:23 13:10 flushed 33:18

72:19 fly 74:3 focal 58:23 focus 11:17 58:5

59:6 93:1 focused 74:22

77:10 focusing 48:14

54:18 fold 42:18 110:3 folded 97:13 folks 40:24 80:11 105:4 follow 34:7 following 105:15 food 59:14 foregoing 126:8 forget 14:2 106:10 forgot 98:25 form 18:5 20:3

41:17 96:22 108:9 formal 85:8 103:21 formaldehyde

86:12 format 119:17 forms 46:6 formulate 33:4 formulation 111:8 forth 45:14 65:7 116:19 forthcoming 13:7 forward 3:11 9:25

24:3,19 27:19 33:6 39:19,20 57:25 66:7,11,14 71:12 75:19 82:14 103:9 119:23 125:10 found 22:2 55:18

70:21 four 5:25 6:13,14

6:23,25 7:13 8:16 8:17 50:11 105:11 114:14 120:20 fraction 44:11 52:22 fractions 47:16 frame 23:4 55:6 framework 8:8

33:18,18 36:7 77:12 framing 22:25 frankly 17:1 free 46:15 fresh 24:7 FREY 2:2 3:14,20 13:12,18 14:13 18:3,10,13,16 22:24 23:13 24:4 32:17 33:24 34:22 35:1,4,14,16,19 36:5 37:7,22 38:6 39:3,17 40:3,9,15 41:11 42:14 43:2 43:5,8 45:3 47:23 50:10 51:1,17,23 52:4,8,12,17 53:7 53:13 54:16 57:15 59:24 62:8,12 66:13 68:10,13 69:10,17 70:1,5 70:23 71:14,23 74:17 75:5,22 78:16,20 79:14 80:4,13 81:11,13 81:16 82:11 83:1 83:10 84:5,9 86:25 88:16,20 90:7,9 91:11 94:14,18,24 96:11 97:3 98:16 99:21 100:7,13,20,24 101:7,15 102:2,5 102:18,20 103:16 104:25 107:3 108:10,13,17,20 109:1,3,8,16 110:12,15,21 111:13,16 112:1 112:22 113:1,3,10 113:24 115:7,13 115:25 116:15 117:3 118:10 119:22 120:24 121:1,7,20 122:10 122:14,25 123:2 123:15,18 124:13 front 105:4 113:4 frontal 59:15 fruition 84:20 full 35:21 44:10 106:6 full-fledged 102:16 function 14:10 64:1

72:23 functioning 59:18 functions 77:16 fund 16:20 17:5

24:22 fundamental 50:3

66:24 70:10 funding 24:21 25:8

25:15 56:17 59:5 111:21 funds 51:14 further 38:5 47:13

68:7 126:12 future 9:23 25:20

35:7 72:1 75:21 85:18 102:17 119:17 G Gail 54:23 57:8,15

60:1 61:12 gain 70:17 game 16:23 gap 26:10 49:19

112:10 gaps 26:16 27:13

29:7 32:16 68:19 GARDEN 1:11 gas 84:18 gasoline 44:5,8

64:4 Gee 30:9 gene 78:24 79:25 general 4:17 19:12

37:10 41:16 63:12 63:22,23 69:11 101:3 106:13 112:2 119:3,13 generally 37:25 72:2 81:13 120:21 generate 29:5 generated 35:10

76:17 generations 56:23 generically 55:13 genetics 79:19,23

80:15,20 Genome-wide 80:6 geographical 44:18 geology 27:12 geometric 78:1 getting 31:6,12

40:21 46:7 50:3 59:19 62:9 71:5 85:18 119:7 123:23 give 12:22 19:2

22:19 28:24 45:12 48:14 53:10 90:18 91:16 103:14 119:9 122:5,6,6 122:23 given 14:10 39:15

57:17 85:8 94:21 96:15 99:17 110:11 giving 52:6 glad 14:25 100:16 global 42:2 55:4

58:23 67:24 88:12 91:1 go 2:3 3:21 12:9

17:5 19:1,18 24:7 30:3 33:1,11 37:7 37:17 38:4 47:24 50:7,11 54:11 57:21 59:24 61:21 61:23 66:10 68:22 72:1 94:5,12 102:20 105:19 106:6 113:13 118:14 122:17,24 goal 106:4 107:5 God 49:13 goes 30:9 32:18

34:6 50:1 51:3 88:3 111:19 124:17 going 2:3 4:3 8:21

9:16 10:22,23 11:5,21 12:4 21:23,24 22:9 23:16 25:14 28:1 34:15 36:25 37:5 40:11 41:7,13,22 43:20 44:16 45:24 49:5,14,15,17 53:23 55:20 56:16 56:17 57:21,25 58:19 65:9 66:21 67:21 68:16 69:24 71:12,17 72:1 74:20 76:5,22 78:7,8 80:15 84:16 86:23 90:6 90:24,24,25 93:14 93:16,19 103:9 104:12,13,23 105:19 107:16 117:8 119:23 125:6 good 2:2 3:24 10:15

13:23 18:3 19:9 20:9 21:17,23 24:4 38:17 42:14 47:23 51:25,25 53:16 66:16 78:20 79:22 80:7,11 82:11 89:2,6 90:7 105:21 108:2 109:20,20,23 112:11 117:7 119:12 Goodrum 76:12 government 111:1

122:8 grad 106:21 gradient 73:15 Grants 25:1 great 14:13 43:6

45:3 50:10 58:10 58:19 68:10 71:15 71:23 86:18 89:18 104:18 106:14 111:20Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 9 greatly 106:18

124:4 green 67:10 68:6,7

70:14 greener 69:8 Greenlee 1:21

126:5,18 grids 67:20,21 ground 46:8 group 9:15 32:5

68:16 73:24 74:9 74:19 75:15 102:12,15 104:8 104:11 118:24,25 120:3,6,9,25 121:1 groups 75:13 120:1

120:5 grown 64:4 guess 11:12 15:8

16:14 19:24 21:2 21:5,16,18 22:2,6 25:17,17 32:2,17 32:25 33:3,24 34:10 35:19 39:3 44:2,23 45:5 47:21 48:7 50:8 50:12 51:17 54:18 72:23 73:1,23 74:11 81:24 82:23 85:21 88:21 90:1 93:22,23 95:1 102:5 106:3 108:22 115:17 117:8 guessing 49:20,20 guide 106:24 gun 91:25 guys 107:18 GWA 80:7 H half 107:13 hand 29:23,24 37:6

88:17 125:15 handle 49:11 61:23

83:23 handled 92:12 handling 119:6 happen 51:9 happened 111:20 happening 51:10 happens 59:6,7 happier 40:6 happy 120:14 hard 8:22 10:23 12:25 23:16 32:8 53:6 74:11 80:7 124:18 125:12 harvest 16:23 harvested 16:24 hate 34:7 HAYES 78:18 Hays 76:24 77:3

90:8 91:13 94:17 94:23 96:10 102:8 hazard 8:6 14:1,7 hazardous 67:1,11

84:23 head 5:25 75:8

86:13 headlines 18:4 health 25:1 48:1,8

49:15 50:20 51:15 55:5 56:24 61:6 63:5,17 64:14,16 66:25 67:15 70:16 70:20 74:15 75:14 79:7,12 85:15,20 87:14 92:7 100:2 100:5,8 heard 42:16 57:14

72:7 81:21 82:3 85:16 109:17,19 109:23 119:9 hearing 23:9 29:3

29:10 heath 54:17 heavily 42:1 heavy 69:6 help 32:21 40:18

68:18,19 76:12 113:21 121:19 122:13 124:12 helpful 18:2 35:24

39:21 74:8 106:9 111:8 124:10 helping 39:19 Herb 3:22 13:20

25:18 29:23 31:6 32:4,20 37:7 41:11 68:22 90:15 Herb's 37:5 Herculaneum 6:16 hero 106:14 hibernation 83:6 high 12:18 23:10

59:14 69:7 125:3 high-level 124:25 High-volume 18:9 higher 78:23 89:22

89:24 highest 75:15 highly 7:11 8:19

30:23 HILTON 1:11 historical 48:6 historically 46:23 history 69:2 88:24

89:1 hold 68:13 121:5 holistic 92:5,21

93:10,25 105:9 holy 94:9 honestly 98:1,10 hope 9:22 65:18

68:24 hopefully 32:13 123:10 Hopke 50:15 51:6

51:21 52:15,20 53:12 horse 13:21 host 79:2 hot 44:16,20 48:4

48:14,18,19 55:3 71:7 household 57:1 Hubbard 6:18,24

7:13,14 huge 28:2 44:4,18

45:2 67:17,24 71:19 102:14 human 43:9 44:21

55:16 104:15 humans 20:1 66:20 99:12,13 hundreds 55:14 hunters 16:11 Hurricane 58:25 hydroponics 22:15 hypertension 64:10 Hypothesis 61:10 I Ian 67:25 105:12 120:21 121:12,19 121:25 122:13,15 122:16,18 Ian's 45:16 88:14 122:12 idea 34:6 53:16

71:15 105:9,21 ideal 7:23,23 60:14

61:21 ideally 8:9 ideas 110:2 identified 73:15,22 identifies 71:25 identify 3:6 17:13 17:18 23:22 24:11 32:21 39:19 40:19 47:9 108:6 identifying 25:7

40:17 IEUBK 76:20 77:5

77:19,23,24 ignorance 40:24 110:25 ignorant 84:1 imagine 57:22

58:20 impact 15:2,16

42:5 59:15 63:24 85:20 86:18 87:8 87:14 90:17 98:24 impacting 93:8 impacts 18:1 29:21

67:14 87:19 90:3 93:2,3 99:12 implementation

85:8 implemented 24:1 implication 15:11 78:5 implications 14:18 16:22 46:18 64:14 74:23 88:4,12 implied 34:23 imply 72:12 100:10 100:13 104:25 importance 11:4

37:20 92:2 important 14:4

30:6 33:22 36:4 37:11 41:5 43:13 48:6 53:3 55:12 55:23 57:25 62:21 71:12,22 78:11,15 79:7 86:9,22 91:9 92:7,19 93:9 impression 26:4,5 improve 73:19 78:7 improved 47:11

98:3 improving 40:13 include 2:8 45:7

52:15 included 14:17

97:11 100:19 includes 2:4 including 4:22

30:25 73:21 inclusive 24:15 incomplete 82:14 incorporate 112:17 118:20 incorporated 79:6 increase 15:15

63:11 increased 42:7 106:18 increases 54:14 increasing 14:19 14:23 45:24 68:2 68:3,4 incredibly 79:19 124:18 increment 76:18,22 incremental 15:16 15:22 17:17 independent 25:6Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 10

indicate 14:6 21:8

35:25 73:1 indicated 32:20

45:23 100:18 indicates 12:2 indicating 32:22

83:24 indicator 20:2 indicators 11:7 indirect 25:4 individual 52:15

76:14 100:14 114:6,16 119:8 indoor 73:13 93:2 industrial 45:18 influence 25:16

54:6,9 influenced 54:2

91:5 influences 54:13

55:17 influencing 25:5 inform 8:23 9:3

75:2 122:12 124:2 informally 85:7 information 4:6,13

5:14,16,20 8:10 8:15 9:2,11 12:15 16:25 19:15 20:5 20:16 22:20 25:3 26:21,24 48:2 55:12 74:14,21 75:19 77:17 78:13 88:11 120:12 informative 7:2 118:5 informs 97:8 infrastructure

69:19 initial 41:3 initiate 83:22 initiated 90:2 initiative 67:7,10 initiatives 68:7

92:18 INN 1:11 input 25:21 74:8

82:24 83:14,17 102:16 121:12 inputs 78:15 insignificant 63:3 insoluble 46:7 inspired 45:16 instability 57:19

58:19 Institute 25:2 institutionalized 12:6 integrate 77:14 integrated 4:9

86:24 87:7 92:21 98:20 103:4,5,8 103:22,25 104:1 integration 38:21 intended 65:23

66:2 116:24 intensive 79:20 intentionally 117:23 inter-related 58:3 interact 98:11 interaction 31:19 interactions 28:12

31:13 78:25 interest 9:1 83:24 107:19 115:9 interested 25:8

40:13 41:19 126:14 interesting 50:7

62:9,22 64:6,19 81:6 interface 62:2 112:2 interindividual

79:1,9 internalizing 60:3

60:24 international 110:10,10 internationally

88:6 91:10 interpretation 6:4 11:22 28:25 115:19 interpreted 5:19 intersects 80:19 interventions 62:25 interview 58:8 introduced 8:13 introductory 31:2 inventory 15:9 invoke 90:1 involve 83:11 involved 77:5 102:13,23 103:7 119:1 involving 72:4 iPad 58:12 IQ 49:18 57:6,11

58:1,15 77:16 80:23 81:4 IRP 108:18 irrelevant 41:10 ISA 2:21 4:9,13 14:16,17,25 25:25 26:4,11 27:1 41:17 45:23 65:14 65:15 75:2 86:1,2 93:18,19 94:6 95:11 96:23 98:2 98:9,20 102:13,16 104:13 106:9,13 107:21 110:8,16 113:18 114:8,11 116:18 118:20,21 119:2 123:6 124:10 ISAs 21:5 117:9 isolate 4:20,24 issue 5:2 11:11 16:9

20:24 24:10 25:10 26:13,16 33:1 35:9 41:22 42:25 49:23 54:20 55:24 62:24 65:7 69:24 80:20,21 82:14,19 82:24 83:19 84:11 85:25 96:12,13,14 97:16 99:2 100:23 101:17 112:2 115:18 121:8 issued 56:2 96:3 issues 3:3,15,17

4:17 13:16 14:12 16:12 20:23 26:20 33:17 34:7 35:13 37:11 38:25 39:13 42:20 43:16 50:20 58:18 61:20 71:7 81:4 85:24 92:25 99:22 108:7 114:19,25 116:8 121:17 it'll 16:17 item 51:19,20

71:22 72:25 items 2:9 iterate 120:3 J James 66:9 jaws 113:4 JEFFERSON 126:3 job 4:12 Joel 40:22 41:25

42:15 78:21 80:4 Johnson 3:21,23,24

8:16 9:15,20 10:5 10:18,21 11:9,12 13:3,12 18:22,25 23:13,14 25:24 27:15,21 29:2,9 29:16 31:21 32:12 33:13 36:10 39:14 41:25 43:4,7 judged 7:2 judgment 11:16,19 judicial 94:25 100:9 justified 47:13 justify 12:1 K Karen 94:18 keep 22:2 49:5 101:10 117:15 keeping 21:21

86:19 keeps 38:14 key 4:8 8:2 23:22

25:19 26:2,16 29:7,9 35:6 43:22 46:25 53:20 62:19 71:25 72:24 76:1 76:16 78:17 79:18 82:12 91:9 107:25 108:1 116:4 122:15 kick 46:21 55:20 107:1 kicked 92:11 kickoff 102:24 108:16 kids 48:9,11 49:9

57:1,6 58:11 60:25 61:18 62:1 62:6 71:3,4 75:13 75:14 kind 18:18 31:7

39:3 40:24 43:10 45:8,20 46:3 47:23 53:9,13 72:14 74:22 79:12 82:12 84:7 85:4 91:14,20 96:12 102:2 105:10 106:8,12 108:13 108:15 110:1 112:10 113:20 116:4,17 117:10 118:14,22 119:5,9 119:15 120:15 121:9 122:1 125:3 kinds 28:8,11 90:4 KIRRANE 66:11 knew 34:8 knife 91:25 know 2:23 3:25

4:13,14,16 5:1,1,3 6:19 8:21 10:8,24 11:6,14,15,17,18 11:20,23 12:3,14 13:7,10,19 15:3,5 15:9,10,24 16:10 16:18 17:8,17,18 18:18 20:6,8,16 21:21 22:3,4,21 22:24,25 23:9,9 23:18,20,24 24:10 24:11,13,15,19,19 24:25 25:4,6,6,7 25:12,13 26:13,14Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 11

27:13 28:23 29:17 29:18 30:7 31:5,7 31:16,21 32:6,11 33:1,5 34:4,11,24 35:13 36:17,19 37:15,16,23 38:12 38:21,22 39:10 40:5,10,18 41:14 41:17 43:17,22 44:6,14,20 45:22 46:2,17,21 47:18 48:20,24 49:4,9 49:12,13,14,21,22 49:24 50:8,12,21 50:22 51:6,13,24 52:6,21,23 54:5 54:10,23 56:2,2,4 57:7 58:24 59:1,2 59:3,12,19 60:16 60:25 61:16,17,22 62:12 63:6,8,8,10 63:12,15,17,18,24 64:11,15 65:6,13 65:13,20,22 66:9 66:9,17,18 67:4,7 67:19,21,25 68:6 69:3 70:14 71:19 72:3,3,16,24 73:3 74:2,15,18 75:2 75:17,23,24,24 76:4,5,6,8,13,19 76:21 77:24 78:2 78:24 79:2,3,3,7 79:11 80:10,22,24 81:2,6,7,18 84:2 84:17 85:15,16,21 86:2,5,14 87:3,6 87:12,18,21 88:1 89:18,20,23 90:5 91:7 92:13,13,15 92:15,19,25 93:3 93:6,7,14,23 95:1 95:8 96:12,13,17 96:18,19,20 97:8 97:23 98:1,8,8,10 98:18,19,22 99:2 99:4,5,6,22,23,24 100:1,25 101:12 101:13,17,18,23 102:25 104:1,8,14 105:1,5 106:3,8 106:19,19 107:8 107:18,19 108:1 109:6,21 110:5,10 110:14 111:10,12 111:20,23 112:15 114:1 115:8,16 116:12,24 117:2,3 117:9,15,20,21 118:5,9 119:14,24 120:5,19 121:18 121:20,22 122:7 122:12,12,13 123:21 124:22 knowing 49:17 knowledge 86:6 118:18 knowledgeable 102:25 knows 48:12 64:21

66:10 67:9 109:15 KORRICK 70:24

74:11 75:4,7 76:2 79:16 80:12 Kosnett 14:14,15

16:6,16,19 17:16 18:9 42:24 43:6 52:2,5,9,14,19 62:14 66:1,5,12 66:16 68:3,5 69:23 70:2,6,9,13 75:23 76:3,25 77:22 86:16 87:3 98:14,18 100:12 100:16,22,25 101:9 102:1,4,8 110:7,13,20 121:15 122:5,11 123:14 L L 1:21 99:6,6 126:5 126:18 lab 72:23 laboratory 35:10 lack 19:12 21:8 lacking 75:19 lag 28:15 language 99:23 112:6 Lanno 3:22 13:18 13:19 16:2,7,17 17:12 18:21,23,24 31:5,10 34:10,14 34:19,25 35:3,8 35:15,17 38:20,24 40:10 41:3 large 4:12 15:20,25

32:3 41:22 45:18 63:1 66:18 84:25 120:17 largely 10:12 larger 47:19 78:3 largest 84:19 law 95:17 111:2 laws 111:3,9 lays 103:8 lead 1:9 2:23 3:22

4:21,21,22,24 5:2 5:4,5,5,6,7,12 7:12 8:11,12,13 8:20 9:2,5,13,24 10:3,16,22 14:18 14:18 15:17 16:1 16:4,11,15,22 17:10,13,19 18:21 19:13 20:1,12 21:9,15 25:14 28:13,16,18 30:7 30:19 31:11,19 33:16 34:23 36:23 37:9,10,14 40:4 40:11,12,25 41:6 41:9,14,17,17,18 41:23 42:1,6,8 43:11 44:4,7,7,10 44:12,13,15,19,23 44:24,25 45:2,19 45:23,24 46:4,5 46:12,13,15,22,23 47:2,3,7,13 48:5,9 49:1,18,18 50:23 51:16 54:2,2,6,13 54:14 55:17 56:5 56:6,21,21,22 57:3,3,6 59:10,18 62:18,23 63:1,6 64:5,20 65:1,21 66:20 67:4,15,17 67:23,24,25 69:2 69:4,13,15,20 70:9,19 71:2,5,10 72:15 73:2,6,8,8 73:13,16,20,20 74:24 75:3,11,11 75:12,14,25 76:15 76:19,23 77:13,13 77:25 78:24 80:1 80:7 82:15,17 83:7 84:4,15,18 84:23 85:2,17,20 86:9,10,18,19 87:11,12,15,16,16 87:19,20 88:10,25 89:10 90:2,19,21 91:1,5,15,20,22 92:1,6,10,21 93:24,25 94:2,4 94:12 95:20,22,23 95:25 96:3,14 99:8,17 101:3,16 103:23 104:23 105:11 106:9,24 109:3,13,19,22,24 110:4 111:23 114:2 115:19 116:22,22,23 117:17,20 119:10 121:18 122:9 lead-related 14:24

78:10 leaded 44:5 leader 120:6 leading 104:21 125:14 leads 4:14 56:12,13

57:1,1 63:25 97:7 learn 7:7 104:23 learned 88:12 124:25 leave 48:18 50:13

83:21 leaving 53:8 lecture 31:2 left 5:25 53:11 83:6 legacy 4:22 5:2,4,6 5:12 7:11 8:11 20:12 28:14 33:16 44:5 62:18,24 90:15,17 legal 120:16 lends 45:10 lengthy 23:17 let's 18:16 21:2

30:18 43:2 53:7 54:19,20 64:13 68:10 76:5 91:11 97:22 98:19 122:8 letter 53:5 62:16

82:5 110:15,17 114:3,4 letters 52:21,24 113:18 114:15 123:6,13 level 5:16 7:7 8:5 10:3 19:13 20:2 36:23 38:11,12 48:5 57:6,17 75:14 76:21 78:23 101:4 103:14 108:8 125:3 levels 5:5 13:25

21:9 27:8 36:17 48:25 49:16,21 55:17 56:22 59:14 59:21 63:21 64:5 65:4 70:21 72:5 73:6 76:4,9,15 89:10,11,15,21 99:6 101:5 lieu 105:19 life 50:2 56:7 64:23

89:22 96:14 104:15 lifespan 61:5 lifetime 63:24 light 5:19 19:6 liked 22:11 limbo 66:6 limitation 30:15 limitations 11:7 13:5 14:2 26:2 limited 12:20 16:23

86:4 120:12Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 12 limiting 33:21 34:2 LINDERN 68:2,4

90:10 120:22,25 121:4 122:23 123:1 line 18:18 45:16

54:4 82:13 116:1 linear 64:11 lines 17:12 89:8 link 34:16 42:2

59:1 linked 34:19 49:7 list 2:14 24:14 39:7

73:4,5 87:13,13 108:23 listed 24:12 35:23 listen 55:3 Listening 102:8 listing 92:10 liter 87:23 literature 6:7 15:13 17:3,6 27:2 30:8 56:6 71:16 107:22 121:24 lithium 68:25 Litigation 1:22 little 4:18 6:2 7:24 17:21 20:24 32:25 47:6 49:4,22 62:9 68:21 72:19 82:24 90:18 93:15 96:19 102:11 111:25 lived 64:2 liver 63:18 living 58:20 load 15:16 20:20

37:12 loading 31:11

37:13 loadings 37:16 loads 8:10 9:1,3,24 15:14,15 16:8 23:23 26:3,6,12 26:21 27:3,5,9,16 28:5,7 29:18 30:1 30:21,22 31:10,16 32:18 33:11 36:2 37:9 39:10 42:25 locations 9:10 44:18 logic 7:3 long 28:15 49:1

64:2 69:2 73:4,5 87:17 96:13 long-term 56:15 look 7:23 9:12,24 10:1 27:2 28:7,20 30:4,18 34:20 37:13 38:7,10 44:9 45:12 51:14 55:2 56:21 57:2 58:13 63:9,19 64:18 65:10 67:3 68:7 69:12 76:10 76:19 77:2 85:8 87:13 96:8 99:5,7 99:8 101:11,21 104:22 108:21 109:7 115:12 119:4 121:15 looked 58:2 63:13

69:22 77:7 looking 6:25 9:10 12:24 22:13 23:1 26:9,9 39:11 44:3 44:24 50:17 55:15 56:11,20 58:5 62:17 65:3 67:10 67:15 79:17 80:1 80:17 82:14 90:3 94:18 113:3 121:9 looks 31:24 loop 81:24 lose 88:14 99:1 loss 77:16 lot 6:7 8:25 16:25 17:5 18:24 20:7 23:19 26:22 28:4 37:21 39:18 46:20 46:23 50:4,8,23 52:6,6 53:23 62:20 63:16 64:16 64:21 68:18 69:3 76:7,8,16 78:10 78:24 79:18 87:18 90:2 93:16 98:24 99:23 101:13,22 109:19,23 110:25 111:11 115:9 118:7 121:18 124:15,17,25 lots 38:8 41:23

59:11 Louis 1:23 love 51:9 90:21 loves 90:22 low 5:5 7:15 48:25

49:16 57:17 64:5 69:5 75:14,25 76:4 89:23 99:6 99:18 101:4,5 Lowell 67:6 lower 5:10 7:16 12:25 36:18 49:21 65:4 89:9,11,11 89:15,24 94:11 106:2 lowering 105:19 lowest 63:9 Lydia 94:18 95:2

96:11,20 99:24 102:9 103:17 M magic 28:6 magnet 59:16 magnitude 21:15

89:20,22 99:5,10 100:11 101:13 mailing 108:23 main 2:4,9 92:9

93:5 major 55:4,5 73:12

90:17 110:14 majority 63:1,2 making 4:13 36:7,8

40:8 58:10 89:17 management 78:5 mandate 94:15 manganese 59:12

59:13,19 manmade 38:13 March 123:8 margin 99:2,4,10

99:18 100:2,5,8 101:1 margins 99:14 Maryland 6:18 Massachusetts

67:6,8 massively 40:2 material 37:18 120:4 materials 37:21

41:24 67:11 68:9 68:25 69:7,8 70:15 maternal 56:12 matter 5:4 42:3,8

42:16 matters 104:21 MCL 87:22 mean 8:17 9:16,20

9:21,21 10:6,7,8 10:24 12:14 16:4 22:8,19 23:2 26:8 27:22,23 29:17 30:15 31:10,15 32:2,9,12 35:22 36:23 38:24 39:17 41:6,20 42:15 52:23 57:20 58:20 61:12,21 67:8,21 67:23 72:5 74:15 74:23 75:7 76:17 76:21 80:9 83:11 83:13 84:3 85:25 87:10,12 89:23,23 93:16 95:11,21 96:7 98:21 104:19 104:25 105:5 107:4,17 109:3,9 111:3,24 118:10 118:14 122:20 means 56:14 84:2 meant 5:24 101:2,2 measurable 89:9 measure 49:14,16

80:23 123:24 measured 7:15

49:15 measurement

45:13 57:18 measures 47:19

58:1 80:25 81:2 meat 16:24 mechanism 30:5

31:9 55:8 59:4,5 84:21 92:1 94:11 mechanisms 85:12 mechanistic 31:7

31:18,23 32:5,23 32:25 37:15 media 7:5 8:2 19:13 22:15,16 34:21 35:11 44:11 44:17,25 46:4 meeting 1:10 2:1 10:10 16:19 101:1 103:19,21,23 107:14 115:10 125:8,17 meetings 120:11 122:7 124:16 member 11:3 114:6 120:4,9 members 3:17 14:14 52:21 103:1 103:20 107:15 108:4 114:16 116:9 121:11 124:21 mental 61:6 mention 12:11 17:11,19,19,20 25:13 42:24 98:25 mentioned 14:25 15:4 17:7 24:9 30:15 46:17 76:3 86:17 91:14 mentioning 12:9 18:1 Meredith 26:18 message 43:23

51:23 82:21 messages 54:18 messed 94:9 met 94:25 metal 38:25 metals 4:24 38:21 methodologies

27:10 metric 48:6Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 13

Mexico 69:24 122:9 mic 95:19 102:6 Michael 54:23,23

62:12 68:24 69:12 70:25 71:14 86:15 90:21 91:12 98:13 121:14 122:15 micrograms 87:23 microns 47:19 microphone 66:14 Midwest 1:22 migration 30:18 milk 56:8 million 44:12 millions 55:14 mind 23:18 68:5 mine 90:24 minor 41:9 minutes 3:4 11:13

53:9 74:6 97:22 misbehavior 61:18 missed 116:10 123:20 missing 13:8 Missouri 1:22,23 126:2,6 mitigate 67:14 mitigating 67:1 mix 85:3 mobile 42:9 model 8:3 28:6,18

28:21,24,25 30:1 32:19 65:22 66:6 66:17 78:1 118:16 modeling 27:16

37:4 78:6,12 models 29:4,12,14

29:18,22 30:1,4,8 30:21,22 31:7,11 31:18 32:19,24,24 33:7 37:15 77:1 modern 4:21 118:23 modification 68:8 modify 71:16 molecular 79:3 moment 53:8 119:14 Monday 123:11 money 111:23 monitor 71:11 monitoring 11:4

36:21 56:25 87:1 90:3 month 69:19 months 56:7 113:6 morbidity 64:17 morning 2:2,11,16

3:24 4:4 19:25 74:1,5 82:4 morning's 2:4,19 mortality 63:7,12

63:19 64:4,9,17 motivation 36:10 motive 36:12 move 3:10 18:16

24:19 27:19,25 28:18 33:5 38:18 39:20 50:19 75:19 91:3 103:9 moved 39:19 118:6 movement 55:16

58:18 59:7 moves 28:17 moving 32:24

55:16 66:7,11,13 71:6 multiexposure

59:20 multimedia 9:8

20:11 33:12,15 34:20 88:1 92:5 92:12,21 93:7,7 93:25 95:24,25 96:6,8 98:19 105:9,20 110:11 110:13 multioutcome

59:21 multiple 9:18 38:2

59:9 61:8 77:21 88:15 94:5 96:4 111:4 119:10 124:10 Murphy 8:25 10:25 11:10 12:8 17:11 21:20 65:25 66:3 66:8 77:6 78:11 N NAAQS 37:23,23

50:18,22 54:4,11 54:20 75:3 82:15 82:17 83:7 84:3 85:13,14,17,24 88:25 89:3 91:8 91:16,21,25 92:5 92:10,23 93:11,15 93:24 94:1,22 95:22 96:3,14 100:10 105:11,19 105:23 106:5 107:1 109:19,24 110:4,19,19 name 85:8 Naqua 6:19,19 narrow 111:14 nasties 59:11 nasty 59:11 nation 48:6 109:22 125:3 national 17:15 27:6

56:24 84:22 110:10 natural 90:20 nature 31:23 76:6 NCEA 118:25 119:2,9,16 124:1 124:7 NCER 25:1 near 45:14 73:17 necessarily 25:14

28:9 64:11 87:11 92:3 100:10 101:16 necessary 24:1

27:9 35:21 118:2 need 2:7 4:17 6:2

9:5 15:14 20:10 20:14 22:13 23:3 23:7 27:14 29:15 31:6,15,16,20 33:1 34:3,12 37:12 39:24 40:25 44:24 45:11,15,21 47:11 49:8 50:5 51:12 64:17 68:17 68:19 69:22 70:3 72:12 76:9 78:24 79:9,11 80:17 91:3,3,7 93:7 94:4 94:5,11 96:15 99:22 101:11 104:9 108:8,22 112:13 114:19 116:7 118:3 needed 12:22 31:4

39:20 102:16 103:15 needing 106:6 needs 3:6,8,10 10:10 12:10 20:20 23:22 24:6,8,16 24:16,16 25:7 27:1 32:21 33:18 35:1,7 38:8 39:8 43:25 50:12 51:21 58:4 78:17 99:24 100:1 negative 7:8 21:24

36:19 neither 126:10 nephrotoxicity

65:11 neurocognitive

57:10 75:25 neurodegeneration

64:21 neuropsych 58:6 new 5:4 27:22

32:12 36:13,15 45:13 58:20 65:14 69:21 71:6,12,20 85:19 90:2 94:8 94:10 98:5 106:15 106:20,22,25 107:6 108:7 116:23 117:11,25 newer 32:23 NHANES 48:11

56:22,23 57:10 58:7 63:9 nice 4:12 31:1 46:3

80:25 92:20 98:2 NIEHS 55:23 night 2:3 nine 105:15 nitpick 22:9 nitrate 41:17 nitrogen 37:25 NO2 37:25 nobody's 26:6 non-cancer 99:19 non-coding 79:4 non-informative

8:18 noncontroversial 110:22 nonpoint 10:20 North 1:12,23 note 102:21 notes 43:7 68:18,18 120:7 notice 14:25 96:3 noting 87:4 88:2 notion 49:3 NOx 10:1 24:2 27:5

28:1 38:21 NRA 18:12 NSF 25:1 number 4:19 12:20 15:7 30:9 47:14 47:17 55:7,15 73:9 74:5 84:25 87:15,16,16 96:1 109:14 120:12 numbers 31:16

37:19 44:6 71:19 78:3 120:17 nutrient 37:13 nutrients 39:12 O OAQPS 119:1

124:2,7 OAQPS's 81:19 object 23:16 30:24 objects 4:2 obligation 95:14 observation 89:17 observe 37:3 95:20 observed 72:24 obviously 16:10Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 14

21:20 23:17 24:21 27:22 28:14 47:4 49:19 65:17 76:6 95:21 Occasionally 90:10 occupational 63:22

66:25 73:2 87:20 occur 20:23 64:23

65:4 occurring 89:11 offer 10:25 43:22

43:24 53:19 74:1 74:5,9 108:19 115:6 offered 104:2 offering 39:8 office 95:22 124:14 officer 2:14 officially 125:7 oftentimes 79:20 oh 49:13 60:5 98:6

98:16 106:17 111:15 115:13 116:16 124:13 okay 3:14,20 8:16

9:15 10:5 13:3,12 13:18 14:13 17:10 18:3,13,16 23:11 23:13 24:4 29:2 32:8 35:8,14 36:5 39:3 40:3,9,15 43:8,8 44:1 45:3 47:23 50:10 52:3 52:4,8,12 53:7 54:16 57:15 66:5 66:12,16 68:10 70:23 71:23 75:22 76:21 77:1 78:16 78:20 79:14 80:4 80:13 81:13 82:11 84:6 88:20 90:7,9 91:11 100:24 109:16 110:12 111:3,15,18,23 113:2,9 115:25 116:15 120:12,21 121:20 122:5,10 123:1 old 117:5 older 64:24 65:24

66:2,3 71:16 72:12,17 once 9:19 61:9 111:5 122:18 ones 37:18 38:5,8

69:21 91:14 93:8 ongoing 65:3 92:18

95:23 onset 60:16 61:16 open 54:17 94:25 100:23 103:18 111:16 opened 17:1 opening 25:14 opens 99:21 operational 74:22 operationally

51:18 96:22 101:21 119:13 opinion 84:13 86:7 opportunities 119:4 opportunity 2:10

3:2 103:12 104:4 104:8 107:15 122:22 optimist 90:11 order 8:2 89:19

99:5,9 100:11 101:13 orders 89:22 99:9 organic 42:2,8 organism 5:4 organisms 22:16

31:14,20 40:1 41:8 organizations 25:2

25:9 origin 49:17 original 8:5,8 117:6 origins 56:6 ought 37:21 50:17 outcome 49:18 126:15 outcomes 49:7

57:18 58:2,5 79:25 outdoor 73:20 93:3 outside 30:13 79:11 120:11 121:23 overall 22:10 35:12

46:2 69:8 overarching 13:2 overlooked 107:23 oversimplifying 101:18 ozone 97:6 118:12 118:17 119:10 P p.m 123:11,12 PA 2:22 6:10 15:1

51:22 86:2 115:21 116:14 Page 68:22 Pages 24:12 35:6 paint 17:19 48:20 panel 1:9 3:16,17 11:1,3,10 14:13 19:5 21:7,18 24:11 25:7 27:21 27:23 28:23,24 35:5 42:18,22 43:19,23 52:22,22 73:3 81:23,25 82:21,24 102:12 102:15 103:24 105:2 107:7,9,10 107:12,15,20 108:4,9,9,14,19 109:22 110:5 112:13 114:13 115:3,5,20 116:9 118:12,12,13,17 120:4,18,18 121:1 121:3,11 122:21 124:6,21,22 125:11,12,14 panel's 19:19 21:10 panelist 105:4 panelists 108:23 120:13 panels 105:4 107:18 119:8,8 paper 105:17 106:15,20,22 117:25 papers 106:11 paragraph 39:6 106:14,22 117:25 parameters 19:25 part 5:9,23 15:8

25:11 27:16 46:10 52:10 62:16 81:2 92:2 93:6 part's 53:16 partially 53:5 participated 121:16 particle 46:5,5 47:6

47:8,12,16 particles 47:3,19 particular 7:20 15:1 25:25 30:13 55:2 71:20 particularly 15:20

75:12 121:12 parties 126:11,13 parting 50:14 partly 25:10,10 parts 98:21 path 9:25 pathology 72:21,22 pathway 37:9

39:13 pathways 75:12

77:12 patiently 102:6 PCBs 38:11 peer 27:19,23

28:22,24 29:19 peer-reviewed 27:2 people 9:19 16:23

45:1 50:24 54:4 55:15 56:2 61:9 63:13 68:14 70:22 71:19 75:17 86:6 88:7 98:21,22 102:25 104:6,22 105:22 111:5 120:20 percent 61:16,17

63:11 87:25 Peregrine 16:20 17:5 perform 14:11 period 30:10 48:7 periodically 71:7 periods 50:2 58:19 persistent 9:9

45:16 person 4:3,3 personal 84:13 personally 40:18

44:16 perspective 5:3

26:1 92:12 93:10 pertains 121:8 perturbed 58:21 petitions 14:23 pH 41:13,13,19,21 phase 85:9 phase-out 84:18 phasing 109:18 Phil 50:12 53:10,15

53:23 76:12 84:14 Phil's 53:8,16 Philip 55:4 phone 67:19 phosphorus 37:16 phrases 100:7 physical 30:14 pick 22:9 48:4 picked 38:15 picking 84:14 picture 55:13 56:20

87:6 piece 79:18 pilot 8:5 place 7:25 11:24

45:10 50:16 85:12 96:1,6 102:23 106:5 places 36:22,24 plan 103:4,5,8,22 103:25 104:2 planning 2:16 103:13 play 78:13 117:18 please 68:23 120:5 pleased 14:15 PLT 47:12 plus 114:4Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 15

PM 117:6 118:12 119:10 point 9:4 14:4

20:19 24:18 27:4 29:1 31:3 36:20 39:23 41:16 50:23 51:10 54:5,15 56:19 62:10,19 66:23 69:11 72:15 72:21 76:12 82:15 83:18 86:23 92:9 98:25 100:17 106:3 108:3 110:17,17 111:6 115:12 116:20 119:12,13 120:8 pointed 56:19

94:20 103:17 pointing 39:9 points 19:17 33:5

43:13 53:20 54:25 76:11 80:15 88:21 90:15,21 96:20 112:11 Poirot 45:4,5 55:2

88:19,21 105:8 106:1 116:17 117:5 poisoned 48:9 poisoning 16:1 17:10 41:1 poke 92:19 policy 2:9 3:7 15:17 15:22 24:13,24 30:24 36:8 42:23 43:9 51:19 56:2 71:13,24 74:19 75:2 76:18 81:14 93:17,21 94:6 96:5,24 97:9,11 97:13,15,21 100:18 103:2 110:3 111:1 112:3 112:3,15 113:19 114:9,12 115:4,8 115:15 116:1 119:1 123:7,22 polite 95:1 pollutant 70:20 88:1 89:7 97:5 101:11 107:19 110:13 118:11 119:10 pollutants 9:8

37:23 38:3 39:11 40:16,19 84:23,24 86:8,11 89:12 97:5 101:22 118:22 119:5 pollution 15:23 18:6 pools 42:4 pops 94:8 population 57:6

61:17 63:13,22,23 63:23 64:24 72:6 100:15 populations 8:2

45:1 72:5 85:10 pore 46:8 possibility 55:9

95:9 possible 9:16 33:25

35:25 45:13 74:1 124:16,19 possibly 57:7 80:10

84:17 post-leaded 64:4 potential 8:7,7 43:1

48:19 50:17 64:20 67:11 68:8 86:19 102:25 103:1 potentially 25:16

38:1 46:22 50:6 62:22,25 67:14 POUNDS 40:23

78:22 80:5 practical 55:11

56:20 96:14 112:13 practicality 40:21 practically 93:17 precipitation 30:20 precisely 47:19 predetermined

93:15 predict 44:21 61:5 66:3 77:19 predictable 60:12 predictions 29:5 predictive 32:20 predominant 88:25 pregnancy 56:12 pregnant 56:3,5 prejudge 90:5 preliminary 19:5 19:21 premature 90:5 prenatal 49:24

50:2,4 56:1 prepare 113:25 prepared 2:24 preschool 49:10 presence 5:11 7:11 present 63:21 107:10 presented 19:7 pressing 39:24

50:20 presumably 72:10 presume 101:19 pretty 10:15 23:14

23:17 29:18,22,23 30:23 35:13 69:19 75:24 79:6,24 80:6 81:17 117:25 prevalence 87:14 prevalent 64:16

65:4 prevent 26:2,16

85:18,19 preventing 23:22 prevents 24:25 previous 11:1,10 11:19 19:6,10 21:18 117:13 118:18,21,21 previously 123:9 primary 6:15,24

7:1,3 21:22 36:13 36:14 44:23 49:10 81:18 82:8 84:19 92:25 116:3 principle 79:17

80:3 81:19 85:1 prior 102:22 122:22 priorities 25:11

35:22 39:8 74:2 74:16 75:10 prioritize 35:23

74:12 75:6 priority 71:2 74:13

87:13 privileged 125:4 proactive 83:24 probably 2:19 8:20 16:12 20:9,22 26:5 37:4 39:16 41:12 42:15 43:15 49:1 51:4 53:16 65:9 67:25 69:22 73:9 75:5,25 83:13 97:25 100:1 105:5,12 106:1 122:11 problem 32:6 57:5

79:7 90:15 93:6 problematic 5:6 problems 13:15

32:9 36:17 55:5 60:21 61:1,6,16 81:8 procedural 83:17 proceed 113:15 proceedings 16:21 process 3:9 4:2

5:23 8:24 9:1 11:15,24 12:6 13:21 20:24 24:2 27:22 30:17 36:7 83:5,7,8 86:1,24 88:9,23 92:23 93:14 94:2,12 96:25 97:24 98:11 98:24 102:13,23 103:14 105:15 107:21 113:16 116:25 123:21 124:18 processes 12:3 30:3

32:1 36:15 37:17 37:20 50:3 79:5 produce 90:25 produced 16:21 produces 87:7 product 67:2,16 production 73:2 productive 65:14

79:21 professor 4:1 profound 64:14 profoundly 55:12 program 25:1

57:20 92:11,17 programs 40:20 project 55:11 prominent 99:17 promising 9:25

33:7 properties 90:23 proposal 97:14 proposals 58:25 propose 82:5 113:19 proposed 7:21 55:8 113:12 proposing 107:25 113:11,11 prospective 56:15 protect 85:15 100:2 100:5,8,14 protecting 48:21 protection 1:7 100:11 provide 19:20

24:20 45:9 107:14 116:13 121:12 124:2,9 provided 20:16 122:4 providing 25:22

82:1 115:9 psychometrics 81:3 public 1:10 2:11,12

25:3 50:20,22 51:15 74:14 79:7 79:12 85:15 92:7 100:2,5,8 103:18 112:3,3 116:13 120:11 121:25 122:2,2 125:4Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 16 published 16:21

26:6 32:13 pulled 17:6 purpose 6:12 33:2

75:6 108:5 113:22 114:12 purposes 12:20

71:13 push 50:22 53:6 pushing 40:7 47:11 put 25:18 39:16

42:20 43:4,20 45:7 46:20 76:20 78:1,3 80:2 96:5 102:23 105:22 106:20 107:2 putting 67:20,20 Q quality 17:15 38:5

73:2 85:14 95:5 95:10,15 114:25 quantitative 73:5 question 5:13 7:20

12:16,21 13:2,4 19:4 20:17,18 23:2 30:7 33:21 33:25 34:2 35:19 36:16 40:23 42:15 42:19 53:25 66:9 68:12 74:9 79:9 83:3,8 85:21,22 86:15 97:22 106:8 106:10 questions 2:18,21

3:12 4:5 19:1,18 19:23 43:15 54:19 55:19 103:3 114:1 114:5,15 119:25 123:13 quick 68:12 102:7 quickly 19:1 70:11

77:6 quite 39:20 48:10

61:18 80:22 90:13 94:7 98:5 quote 99:25 quotient 8:6 14:1 quotients 14:3 R R 126:1 RABINOWITZ 112:20,23 113:2,9 113:21 115:11 RAI 19:11 raise 78:22 100:16 raised 86:22 raises 55:18 RALEIGH-CARY 1:11 range 61:11 63:14

64:3 ranges 41:8 rapid 50:2 raptors 14:20

16:13 rates 31:11 rationale 19:21 ratios 77:14 REA 5:22,25 6:10

7:18 8:5,8 10:6 11:24 27:16 28:1 75:2 78:15 94:6 97:7,10,13 119:1 reach 81:24 112:13

115:17 reactions 30:14 read 25:25 26:4

76:14 104:1 117:9 reading 5:22 6:9

21:1 reads 4:14 ready 74:3 reaffirming 3:6 real 13:14 22:5,17

56:16,17 90:20 120:7 realize 76:16 94:9

98:6 realized 17:2 really 6:10 7:7,19

9:5,24 13:14 14:6 14:7 16:8 20:19 22:7 23:19 26:8 28:10 31:25 33:22 34:11 39:19 42:11 44:2 46:13 48:10 50:21 51:3,12 54:5,12 55:23 58:21,22 60:1 61:4 63:24 65:22 67:20 71:21,22 75:1 78:23 79:5 79:18,23 80:24 83:8,19 84:2,12 87:22 89:2 90:14 90:15 91:9 94:11 104:19 105:23 106:11,25 108:19 112:8 116:7 117:1 117:7,11 118:1,3 118:5,5 123:25 124:23,25 125:1 reason 11:13 19:16

22:1 27:18 28:20 51:25,25 90:1 115:3 reasonable 29:19

37:5 52:22 reasonably 32:11 reasons 26:22

36:12 90:6 98:15 reassure 96:8 recall 103:23 recalling 11:1 recap 77:7 receive 113:17

114:13 116:13 119:24 receptor 17:8,9,9

29:9 49:25 receptors 16:22

34:20,21 36:16 recess 2:3 recoded 32:15 recognize 57:19

70:6 recommend 83:16

93:24 107:1 recommendation

45:16 81:19 82:1 97:21 116:3 recommendations

20:19 45:6 52:10 73:25 78:19 93:22 recommending 18:6 recommends 78:2 reconstituted 27:22 recycling 69:14,20

91:5 122:9 redeposition 55:10 redlined 118:4 redoing 12:1 reduce 67:12 89:13 reduced 21:3,4,11

67:2,5 89:19 126:9 reducing 21:2,17

40:11 86:18 reduction 21:21

67:7,16 70:14 reference 17:2

71:24 117:13 references 117:24

122:3 referencing 117:15 referred 85:6 referring 77:23 refiners 69:4 reflect 96:25

109:20 reflecting 74:4

88:24 reflection 53:19 regard 5:14 12:18

13:4 22:25 39:25 44:4 62:15 72:22 77:10 regarding 58:25

110:16 regardless 106:15 regional 42:3 regions 58:14 regular 94:7 regulated 101:12 regulates 99:3 regulating 45:17

91:20 93:25 regulation 45:18

74:14 80:19 regulations 51:12

99:11,15 regulatory 91:4 reiterate 71:1 relate 56:13 57:6 related 3:5 24:8

33:24 35:9 72:14 74:15,24 111:19 115:14 126:10 relates 116:17 relationship 56:21

57:2 73:8,13,19 75:11 76:20 relationships 72:22 relative 37:19

64:15 126:12 release 15:9 released 44:7,19 relevance 7:9 19:25

22:14,17 106:16 relevant 7:13,19

74:14 75:20 103:2 118:1 reliable 80:23 rely 78:12 relying 107:20 remain 19:24 76:1

89:21 remaining 72:10

114:18 remains 72:21 remark 50:14 remember 11:2,3

45:22 60:2 84:21 89:16 107:8 120:10 remembering

86:13 remodelers 48:20 remodeling 92:16 remote 58:10 removing 86:9 renal 65:7,16 report 114:6,7,11

114:24 Reporter 1:21 126:5 reports 114:10,20

115:1 121:18 122:19,20Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 17 represent 49:9

51:15 representation

48:15 representatives

122:8 requests 116:13 require 27:24

56:16,17 82:17 required 94:21

106:6 requirement 94:19

95:4 96:23 120:14 120:16 requirements

94:24 requisite 100:4 research 3:6,7,10

10:22 12:10 17:4 20:14,20 23:24,25 24:6,8,19,20,22 25:5,7,9,15,20,23 31:3 32:21 33:4 33:20 34:1,25 35:1,7 36:9 38:2 39:8 40:17 43:10 43:16,25 44:23 45:11,15,21 46:25 51:19 53:9,14,21 54:19 55:1 56:10 57:14,20 62:15 65:3,10,18 66:24 68:15 70:18 71:8 71:13 72:1,4,10 72:13,25 73:7,12 73:14,18,19 75:1 76:7 78:8,17,21 79:19,23 80:20 88:3 91:2 94:8 111:21 researcher 49:1 residual 85:7 resolved 50:21 resource 17:25

79:19 85:24,25 86:4 resources 40:21

86:2 respect 30:6 41:15 41:23 48:22 54:1 63:5 99:18 121:24 response 2:21 3:13

3:19 9:12 18:15 41:3 42:18 43:14 48:24 64:10,12 76:4 77:15 81:12 81:15 82:10 98:12 114:4,15 115:24 119:21,25 123:13 responses 41:8

64:13 113:25 responsible 119:2 responsive 125:11 rest 17:25 84:2 restates 6:5 restrain 98:8

104:13 restrict 58:1 restrictive 40:5,8

111:2 result 44:5,14,18 results 6:4 7:1 49:6 resuspension 46:12 retain 18:19 42:6

81:19 82:8 86:22 retaining 82:1 retention 85:17 reverse 65:7,16 review 1:9 3:9,11

5:17 12:12,13,17 12:24 18:17 25:7 28:22,24 29:19 51:3,4,5 83:7,20 88:23 89:17 92:23 93:19,21 94:2,5 94:16,25 95:5,6 95:10,14,16 96:15 96:21,25 97:4,4,6 97:15 98:2,6 100:9 103:2,4,5,8 103:9,14,22,23,24 103:25,25 104:2,5 105:11,24 106:5 107:6,21 109:13 111:11,12,24 113:12,20 114:17 114:24,25 115:14 115:19,22 118:2 118:11 121:13 122:22 123:4,12 124:2,9 reviewed 93:17

97:17 113:13 reviewing 21:4

74:19 75:20 77:11 88:3,9 125:12 reviews 77:8 93:15

93:16,19 revise 95:7,14,16

96:21 103:10 revised 24:24

112:24 revision 95:5,9

98:4 104:9 107:1 revisions 105:16,17

123:4 revisit 10:9 Rich 43:20,20 45:4

48:1 76:3 79:15 80:13 83:25 86:15 88:16 90:12 104:16,16 105:7 107:3 109:1 110:23 116:16 Richard 55:2 Rick 56:1 57:8 rid 84:3 right 2:2 3:18 11:6

15:6 16:1 17:16 18:9,10 24:7 29:2 29:11 31:18 33:24 34:18 39:22 42:11 43:3 46:14 51:6 51:21 54:3 62:3 62:11,11 64:14 66:7 68:1 70:8,9 70:12 74:3 76:2 76:23 77:22 80:9 82:11 83:18 84:18 87:3,22,24 90:19 90:22 92:1,3 94:17 95:3,18 96:18 97:1 100:6 100:20 101:7,8 102:1 103:12 107:16,24 108:11 108:20 110:20 111:18 115:7 119:14 122:14 rigorous 104:12 risk 5:14,16 12:15

19:6,10 31:15 34:11 48:2 64:15 75:15 77:18 78:5 78:5,12,13 79:24 85:7,10 97:3 111:17 risk-based 77:9

85:3 risks 48:15 77:25 risky 58:22 RNAs 79:4 road 50:17 roads 46:20 roadside 6:17,17

6:24 7:10,12 46:13,20 roadsides 46:24 robust 23:5 role 70:10 105:1

112:8 113:20 Roman 3:22 15:24

25:18 34:22 room 102:11 105:5

113:4 roughly 72:3 route 55:21 rudimentary 56:6

56:9 rulemaking 113:15 rules 120:10 S SAB 124:14,18 safer 68:9,24 safety 99:2,5,10,18 100:3,6,8 101:1 salts 41:20 sampler 47:12,18 sampling 18:7,9 Sandy 59:1 satisfied 74:20 satisfying 96:23 save 54:19 saves 81:3 saw 43:12 54:7 saying 21:16,20

32:3 40:8 62:20 75:8,17 80:3 92:9 98:16 102:8 117:12 says 76:13 95:6,13 102:9 scale 112:4 scenario 77:4 scenarios 77:4 scenes 124:17 schedule 119:23 scheduled 123:10 school 49:10 61:22

62:1 science 31:2 33:6

39:18,23 56:16 80:8 86:24 87:7 88:4 94:10 101:22 104:12 107:6 108:7 112:3,5 116:22 117:17 scientific 1:8 25:6

38:17 52:7 scientifically 88:8 scientists 98:1 104:11,21 125:4 scope 103:1 111:14 112:4 116:7 scratching 5:25 screening 5:16 8:5 13:25 56:3 se 51:18 Sean 3:15 68:17

78:17 90:7 91:11 98:19 Sean's 105:9

106:10 second 5:13,15 14:15 19:11,19 28:2 31:3 55:25 68:13 71:21 78:18 85:6 97:7,9 98:4 115:22 secondary 5:10,10

6:22,24 7:1,9 12:19,23 18:17 20:13 21:22 22:1Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 18 22:23 36:13,14 39:25 69:4 81:22 82:2,8 116:4 secondly 27:1 section 4:7,11 5:15

5:22 6:10 13:15 14:9 19:7 51:11 51:22 65:14,15 71:25 84:22 sediments 4:23

46:9,24 see 8:21 11:5 12:6 19:16 21:2 23:4 25:11 29:23 33:7 33:8 34:8 36:22 38:1 39:24 40:1,1 40:6,7 43:2,22,24 49:6 51:9,12 53:7 59:15 60:15,15 68:11 81:24 82:21 83:15 84:17 89:13 89:14 91:11 92:20 98:3,5 103:10 107:15,25 111:15 113:3 118:1 seeing 25:8 48:9

64:24 76:5 seek 65:12 seemingly 49:7 seen 77:25 112:14 segue 24:5 segueing 43:24 segues 53:20 selected 10:11,11 self-regulation

81:9 self-selection 103:20 send 120:5,17,18 sending 120:20 sense 38:22 61:4

69:14 83:13 87:23 91:21 97:23 101:3 111:12 sensitive 49:25

60:14 80:18 81:2 81:10 sensitivity 36:2 sentences 120:23 separate 114:10 series 32:9 serious 50:18 51:15 seriously 55:3 serves 98:20,21,22 service 67:22 124:12 125:2,4 Services 1:22 set 7:6 9:13 10:2,15 11:15 12:22 23:5 50:3 99:3,6,24 101:12 112:7 settings 87:20 settle 119:5,18 seven 57:21 60:1,4

61:22 65:25 66:1 seven-member 114:23 seven-year 111:11 severe 46:18 shape 48:24 share 121:6,7,24 shared 3:1 99:20 sharing 24:25 shifts 41:8 short 15:18 short-term 70:7 shorten 106:7 shortening 116:25 shot 16:4,11,11,12 16:15 show 10:16 26:9

48:11 90:6 shows 15:4 shrinking 98:23 side 7:18 10:7 43:9

88:22 90:12,18 sight 88:14 99:1 significance 123:16 significant 13:15

21:12,13,14 47:16 48:16 54:15 62:7 63:20 78:8 similar 9:25 21:22

37:24 89:8 simplified 97:1 simply 49:12 single 17:8,9 79:25 singling 39:4 70:3 sinks 42:12 sit 105:21 site 6:16,20 7:3

8:19,23 17:5 30:23 31:12 sites 6:17 10:11,12 10:14,16 11:5 58:23,23 sitting 26:18 situation 6:15 10:23 22:18 situations 20:21

22:5 six 9:16 56:7 size 47:6 sized 72:5 sizes 47:8 skeptic 79:18 skepticism 80:2 skip 105:23 Skype 109:15 slope 77:1 small 63:18 64:15 smelter 6:15,22,24

6:24 7:2,3 so-called 4:22 social 62:2 societal 93:9 society 90:22 soil 30:19 31:13,19

42:4,5 46:8,20 55:8,16,16,20 62:18 73:20 93:3 soils 4:23 7:12

22:15 27:12 29:6 32:6 35:11 42:6 42:12 46:7 soliciting 115:5 solid 38:17 soluble 46:6 solution 70:7 solve 31:17 somatic 60:25 somebody 46:17

89:17 somewhat 22:3

37:24 89:8 soon 50:13 sophisticated 57:10 sorry 6:21,21 30:11

66:1 94:9 112:23 113:7 116:16 sort 5:22 8:5 11:19

25:4 27:8,13,19 33:14 34:23 43:17 45:25 53:8,22 54:7 55:11,24 58:10,25 59:2,21 62:7 64:25 66:6 70:25 74:12 75:7 75:15 81:8 86:5 89:2 104:11 111:1 117:14 121:9 sorts 11:6 60:21 sounds 23:7 29:3,6

32:18 79:22 source 10:20 15:8 17:13 58:12 62:23 71:9 84:19,24,25 85:2,14 88:25 90:3 91:23 92:7 sources 4:21 10:17 15:1 17:18 20:13 42:12 44:8 45:18 51:8 54:13 71:2,6 71:10,12,17 73:17 85:13,19,23 89:5 90:4 92:20 93:8 SOx 10:1 27:5 28:1

38:21 spatial 73:15 speak 54:24 90:11 SPEAKER 18:7,11 speaking 9:19 61:9 110:25 111:5 124:7 speaks 55:1 specialty 98:3 species 15:25 specific 31:24

80:25 specifically 81:23

90:3 103:18 specifics 80:3 spend 11:13 spending 93:16 spent 52:6 55:15

86:3 sperm 73:2 spheres 32:9 spices 71:9,9 spot 25:18 43:21

71:7 spots 44:17,20 48:4

48:14,18,19 55:3 ss 126:3 St 1:23 staff 19:5,21 82:7

83:11,14 105:16 113:11 116:3 118:7 124:1,3,18 staff's 82:1 stage 3:9 62:5 staggering 48:10 stand 88:22 104:17 standard 5:7,10 7:6

7:8,16,21,25,25 8:21 9:12 12:17 12:17,21,23,25 17:15,24 18:17,20 20:13 21:11,22,22 22:1 23:1,4,8,11 27:7 36:13,14,18 39:25 40:5,11 75:20 78:1 81:18 81:20,22 82:2,8,9 85:3,5,11,14,14 86:10,18,22 87:21 87:22 96:21 99:24 100:10,14 101:1 112:8 standards 17:17 19:7 22:23 84:15 84:23,25 85:2,9 85:23,25 95:16 99:4 116:4 standing 117:16 Star 25:1 start 25:23 36:3

37:8 43:21 51:9 60:15 62:2 64:3 89:9 started 36:1 44:3

85:4 90:2Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 19 starting 70:17

92:19 109:11 starts 83:6 state 33:6 116:22 117:17 118:3,18 121:17 126:2,6 statement 15:18

24:23 56:3 71:17 109:18 110:1,5,22 111:8 statements 25:19

72:8,10 117:24 States 26:7 36:24

56:4 stationary 44:8

84:24 85:2 Statistics 56:24 statute 95:8,14 101:17,25 statutory 94:15

95:4 99:23 stay 94:12 steel 16:11 step 12:23 24:3

85:6 114:22 stimulate 75:9 stop 91:20 storage 67:18 69:2 storms 58:20 story 16:13 46:3,10

69:14 89:18 90:18 strategies 96:4 strategy 95:20 96:1

96:6 103:8 stream 56:17 streamline 94:1,6

96:16 streamlined 95:12

97:24 Street 1:23 stress 80:20 stressor 15:19 41:7 stressors 4:25 41:4 strides 58:10 stringent 23:3,8

85:11 structure 62:2 structured 95:18 structures 50:3 struggled 11:2,11 struggling 33:17 stuck 57:4 student 106:21 studies 6:13,14,25 15:12 22:14 26:11 56:15 63:11 72:25 77:21 80:6 106:25 107:22,25 108:1 study 7:10,10,12

80:8 111:23 studying 36:23

88:8 stuff 14:2 37:14

46:15 66:14 98:5 121:19 124:16 stylistically 123:5 sub 67:2 sub-bullet 73:17 sub-bullets 73:5,10

78:14 subdividing 72:17 submit 122:1 subsequent 56:25 subsequently 122:21 substance 67:1 105:3 substances 63:18

87:14 101:3,14 substantial 63:16

69:19 substantially 72:5 substantively 115:1 substitution 67:2

67:16 success 69:14 89:18 123:25 successful 45:18 succinct 15:18 sudden 93:20,20

94:8 sufficient 8:1 9:2 19:21 sufficiently 5:17 13:21 suggest 56:23

69:10 suggested 21:7 55:4 suggesting 84:12 suggestion 21:11 suggestions 62:14 104:2 suggests 94:10 sulfur 37:25 summarize 32:17

35:2 43:12 48:1 68:15 109:17 115:25 118:18 summary 2:15 Superfund 78:2

98:22 supply 34:9 support 12:16 19:21 27:19,23 28:22 62:16 82:1 82:7 104:18 109:19 122:15 124:15 supported 117:24 supporting 97:21 supports 74:21 suppose 18:3 supposed 14:10 121:23 sure 35:3 37:7 38:6

38:20,24 40:10 44:1 48:5 59:24 69:6,8 70:1,1 77:6 94:4 97:19 101:7 108:23 109:8,25 119:13 120:6,8,8 122:10 surface 46:9 60:4

73:20 surprised 80:23 111:1 Susan 3:15 48:7

67:9 68:17 70:23 74:10 79:14 Susan's 72:15

78:18 susceptibility 79:2

79:10,17 suspect 23:6 83:10 109:12 sustained 64:24 synergies 38:1

40:19 synthesis 43:18

73:25 synthesizing 4:12 system 8:13 30:12

31:24 41:20 81:9 systems 16:14

26:22 36:21 41:25 42:10 87:24 T T 126:1,1 table 15:6 60:18 tackle 34:8 92:14

93:9 take 3:4 8:11 26:23

29:4 38:17 44:9 51:8 74:6 92:20 93:24 98:19 103:3 111:9 119:4 120:6 taken 15:21 46:19

68:18 69:20 91:4 124:8 126:12 talk 14:2 15:1

20:14 24:5 26:11 28:1 43:10 48:8 48:18 56:14 63:16 66:14 68:21 99:4 102:24 118:24 talked 10:9 11:3 13:8 20:25 51:2 55:8 62:16 73:14 81:23 96:4 talking 11:13 15:14

44:12 48:7 49:3 58:17 61:13 68:25 75:1 77:24 78:14 78:15 93:23 95:21 96:2 99:9,12,13 99:14 talks 65:15,15

90:14 tape 126:7,8,11 target 71:6 targeted 58:22

59:15 targets 31:25 team 17:6 technical 13:16

90:12 technologies 79:4 technology 80:8 technology-based

85:3,5 tee 43:15 teens 63:14 64:8 teleconference 103:24 112:24 113:5,23,24 114:18 115:10 122:22 123:10,12 teleconferences 114:13 tell 12:15 temperament

61:20 temperate 42:12 temperature 41:6 temporal 9:4 62:18

73:21 ten 12:17 49:3,21

63:25 72:3 tend 74:25 77:8 104:10 105:2 119:8 tends 14:6 TENNANT 8:4

9:22 10:14,19 26:18 27:17,25 29:8,11 terciles 63:9,10 term 106:11 terminology 20:8 terms 6:3 16:7

29:21 34:2,9,10 41:1 44:6,23 45:5 46:3 49:18 54:10 56:11 57:14 60:20 61:20 65:19 66:24 69:14 70:18 76:17 76:18 78:9 80:2 81:7,16 82:12 105:8 terrestrial 6:22

7:18 16:14 41:25 42:10Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 20 testing 57:10 tests 81:4 text 2:24 thank 13:12,18

68:10 96:10,11 108:20 113:9 123:20 124:11,13 124:14,20 125:5 125:11,13,16 thanking 125:10 thanks 3:24 44:1

45:3 102:22 124:6 theme 118:13 theory 50:1 79:22 thereto 126:14 thick 116:25 117:3 117:6 thicker 117:1 thing 9:7 10:9 12:11 20:23 28:7 33:12,16,21 43:17 45:25 47:5 50:11 55:25 81:21 89:16 107:17,24 111:19 117:10,23 122:15 123:5 things 2:4 3:10

4:18 8:4 9:14 10:7 12:9 13:7 14:21 17:19 24:12 25:24 30:2 32:10 32:14 33:22 35:23 38:25 42:20 45:7 47:21 51:14 57:13 58:7,9,14 59:1 60:17,18,21 64:9 67:4 73:22 74:6 75:18 76:6 84:16 84:20 85:18 87:4 87:5 91:2,2 94:21 99:3 106:12 109:14 110:24 116:25 118:6 121:5 think 4:3,10 5:1,24

8:25 12:9 13:6,17 13:20,22 14:8,9 14:11 15:17 16:3 17:3,4 18:1,7,24 19:8 20:4,7,15,19 22:8,10,12,17,24 23:9,20,21 24:3 24:10,18,23 25:22 26:20 27:8,10,14 27:17,18,25 28:13 29:14,16,16,17,22 29:23 30:16,19,20 30:22 31:1,6,21 32:4,4,22 33:10 34:4 35:12,24 36:1,6 37:9,10,23 38:8,9,10,17 39:9 39:20 40:12,15,18 40:18 41:4,9,21 42:9,14,16,17 45:20 46:2,10,12 46:25 47:9,11,22 48:13,23 49:8,17 49:23 50:1,5,6,16 50:23 51:1,2,13 51:15,18 52:2,3,5 52:14,17,19 53:3 53:6,15,22 54:4,9 54:12,16 55:11,23 57:13,25 58:6,17 59:25 60:6,9,14 60:19 61:10,13,23 61:25 62:8,22 64:19 65:2,6,8 66:20,20,21 67:13 67:16 68:15 69:12 69:21 70:2 71:2 71:13,15,21 72:7 72:14 73:9 74:8 74:25 75:16,18,23 75:24 77:4 78:2,7 78:22 79:8,8,10 79:16 80:9,14,17 80:19,22 81:1,5 81:10,17,21,22 82:3,12 83:5,11 83:17 84:11,14 85:6,7,16 86:6,18 86:21,21 87:4,15 87:15 88:2,7,13 88:24 89:2,4,8,12 90:4,16 91:12 93:6,18 94:15,19 95:8 96:12,17 97:12 99:1,21 100:17 102:9 103:19 104:10,18 104:22,24 105:12 106:12 107:6,9,19 107:24 109:17,19 109:20,20,23 110:2,4,7,8,16,21 110:22 112:12 113:11 115:25 116:6,7 117:12 118:11,13,16,16 119:7,8,12,14 122:14,16 123:19 123:22,24 124:21 124:24 125:3,6,7 thinking 16:8 24:5

31:17 40:22 70:15 105:8 111:11 117:15 third 7:10 13:4,4 14:16 56:19 67:19 98:7,9 104:14,18 105:6 thought 52:7 60:18

62:19 71:22 81:1 88:16 90:12 96:19 110:1 118:9 thoughtful 124:9 thoughts 74:10

78:16,20 threats 51:15 three 4:5 8:18 21:2

21:2,4,5,5 27:8 33:4 35:4 39:4,4,5 43:13 57:13 74:6 75:9,16,18 93:19 105:11 114:14 120:20 threshold 101:24 101:24 thresholds 101:19 tie 37:22 tied 42:1 93:3 time 2:20 5:24 6:11

8:9,22 13:2 20:2 24:2 30:10 48:6 52:6,11 70:15 83:3,6 87:17 89:6 89:21 90:20 91:21 93:16 102:12 103:7 104:7 109:13 112:4 116:20 118:8 120:2 123:18 124:8 times 4:19 12:18

28:15 73:10 78:2 88:15 89:1 tiny 44:11 Tipping 31:22 today 11:14 30:1

63:24 65:5 76:5 today's 72:6 told 46:3 ton 17:4 tons 44:13 55:14 tool 92:3 106:14 tools 89:14 top 41:1 43:13 74:6

75:8,9 86:13 94:12 topic 47:10 54:21 total 15:7 38:8 totally 32:3 91:18 touched 73:9 towers 67:19 toxic 15:9 67:7

70:14 toxicity 78:25 toxicological 29:20 traction 70:17 trajectory 60:10,12

68:8 transcribed 126:8 transcript 66:15 transcription 126:7 transformation 104:20 transition 62:1 116:21 translate 33:3

40:20 109:25 translated 72:9 translates 64:16 transplacental 56:8 transport 30:15 42:1 trauma 59:3 tremendous 87:8,8

88:6,10 98:15 trends 11:4,5 62:18 TRI 15:9 tried 26:15 27:11

47:1 105:10 trigger 94:7 tripling 39:4 trouble 38:14,15 true 89:12 108:10 125:2 try 4:2 22:9 34:8

43:18 45:15 50:11 55:14 59:5 68:18 95:23 96:1 108:6 118:17 trying 22:8 45:6

49:25 51:18 93:1 93:2 100:23 117:18 tungsten 16:12 turn 102:6 125:6 turns 104:20 two 4:18 6:17 7:1

23:4 49:7,9 55:8 76:5 93:19 100:7 113:6 114:10 122:17 two-day 107:14 two-way 107:24 tying 29:7 type 8:10 22:22

28:24 33:15 types 10:16 61:5

99:10 typewriting 126:9 typically 3:9 107:18 U U.S 1:7 20:21 26:3

26:15,17,22 27:6 27:12,12,12 28:10 44:13 91:10 92:8 121:10,16 122:8,8 UBK 65:22Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 21

Uh-huh 10:18,21 11:9,12 29:8 33:13 39:2 97:2 ultimately 34:15

55:22 98:14 100:20 ultraconservative 14:5 unacceptable 85:10 uncertain 7:11

8:19 12:19 uncertainties 13:5 13:8,23,25 22:11 25:19 35:7 44:3 71:25 uncertainty 22:12

22:21 35:9 72:8 72:11,21 unclear 25:25

42:11 48:11,12 undergo 58:19 undergone 86:1 understand 6:14

7:3,22 15:23 17:17 31:13 39:10 49:25 71:2 76:13 78:7 81:8 89:10 91:2,3 94:23 113:21 understandable

4:14 understanding

5:23 11:18,22 12:2 15:15 17:22 38:18 47:7 48:22 54:9,12 66:19 71:4,11,11 72:15 73:15,19 75:10,11 75:13 105:14 106:18 107:4 112:16 117:17 118:4 understandings

28:16 understood 36:11

36:16 undertaken 24:2 undertaking 57:13 Unequivocally 19:8 UNIDENTIFIED 18:7,11 unilaterally 83:12 unintelligible 9:18 19:12 30:10 61:8 76:24 77:5 79:4 90:8 111:4 unique 101:16 United 26:7 36:24

56:3 universal 28:10 University 67:6 unknowns 44:3 unquestioned 111:2 update 45:8 upper 63:10 urban 58:23 73:16 usage 45:23 use 2:20 16:14

26:25 27:9,11 30:2,24 44:5 51:13 67:2,5,7,12 67:15,25 68:8 69:2 70:14 77:23 104:8 109:12 120:2 useful 20:12,22

47:13 66:22 72:18 106:23 110:2 116:18 uses 47:14 70:10

90:23 usually 97:8 103:17 114:25 115:1 utility 17:24 V validation 123:23 valuable 17:23

40:17 66:18 88:11 value 7:25 73:25

87:8 88:2,6 109:21 110:3,8,18 variability 76:14

79:1,10 variation 71:10 variety 108:6 various 7:5 45:18 varying 89:4 verbatim 99:25 Vermont 46:19 version 95:12 112:19 113:14 115:20 117:13 versus 74:14 85:24 victory 50:19 view 19:19 73:3

74:17,18,22 viewing 77:16 views 53:16 111:22 Virginia 6:18 visiting 18:12 volunteer 122:16 volunteers 121:13 VON 68:2,4 90:10 120:22,25 121:4 122:23 123:1 vulnerable 75:12 W waiting 62:12 102:6 WAM 32:8,9 Wanda 1:21 126:5 126:18 want 3:9 10:9

29:25 37:9,10 38:7 50:10,13 51:8 54:11 74:5,9 80:1 81:23 82:15 82:20 83:12,15,23 91:18 95:2,19 96:7 98:3,6 99:22 104:6,17 107:25 110:5 115:2,17 119:22 120:8 121:4,21 wanted 18:4 53:10

54:24 55:2,3,25 59:22 71:23 82:23 102:21 115:3 116:11 120:4 wants 52:15 116:15 122:16 warm 43:11 warming 55:4 wasn't 8:7 100:22 101:1 103:25 105:10 117:18 WASSERMAN

57:16,24 60:5,8 60:11,16 61:1,14 62:3,11 water 6:20 16:10

22:15 28:4 29:6 31:14 32:7 35:11 46:8,8 87:21,21 87:22,24 98:21 waterfront 35:18

35:20,21 waters 46:9 way 9:25 11:14 15:10 22:11,25 23:24 24:13 25:4 26:24 29:14 33:11 37:3,5 38:10,19 46:8 47:8 58:22 65:8 75:6 77:7,16 83:23 84:10 89:5 89:7 91:22 95:1 96:9 97:12 101:14 101:17 102:15 104:15 106:11 107:1 111:7 115:18 118:6 119:5 122:19 ways 23:4 42:16

56:20 58:13 67:11 69:14 74:12 76:16 82:16 89:9 96:16 96:18 97:1 we'll 2:18 13:22

52:13 74:6 109:14 112:15 114:10,11 114:11 115:11 123:3,12 we're 2:2,16 3:1 12:24 15:14 16:8 21:19,19,20 22:4 22:4,13 24:21 36:21,23,25 37:2 37:5 40:13 44:12 49:20,25 53:7,9 58:10 62:9 64:23 65:8 70:11 74:18 75:24 76:4,9 77:24 79:25 81:25 82:15 83:18 88:7 90:24,24,25 91:24 92:24,24 93:1,2 93:15 95:21 97:17 98:12 99:9,12,13 99:14,15 101:22 103:9 104:12 105:19 109:11 111:3 118:13 125:4 we've 12:5 13:7

32:15 33:17 37:1 45:6 46:18 52:5 52:24 55:7 58:21 65:6 73:9 75:15 77:10,12,18,25 83:5 86:1 89:5 91:4,20 93:14 94:10 95:25 101:11 109:21,23 116:6,10 118:11 123:19,20,21 124:24 weather 58:19 webcasts 109:5 weeds 70:3 week 123:8 weeks 114:14 WEGMAN 95:3

97:2 100:4 102:19 102:21 105:25 108:3,12,15,18,25 109:6,11 113:7 115:2 124:5 weigh 52:11 88:22 104:8 105:3 107:15,21 WEITZMAN

54:25 57:23 59:22 59:25 60:6,9,12 60:17,22 61:4,10 71:15 well-defined 79:25 well-vetted 29:23 well-written 14:10 went 20:23 96:12Midwest Litigation Services 1-800-280-3376 scheduling-va@midwestlitigation.com 

### Page 22

weren't 5:24 36:15 103:7 wet 46:6 whatsoever 30:5

91:19 widely 29:12 widespread 70:19

70:20 wiggle 102:11 willing 122:13 wind 16:17 wired 67:21 wishful 40:22 woman 56:5 women 56:3 wonder 6:10 wondered 121:5 wonderful 30:2

59:4 60:1 wondering 90:13 102:14 words 102:10 work 20:7 26:6

28:4 31:22 37:2 37:21 39:14 64:20 66:6 78:12 80:17 81:6 88:3 89:3 105:22 117:1 118:7 124:6,17,18 125:12 working 31:22 32:5

46:8 124:23 workings 29:22 works 36:8 38:9

47:8 workshop 102:24 103:13,17,19 107:11,12 108:1,5 108:5,24 109:4 workshops 107:2,4 107:5 108:22 world 22:17 67:18

67:19 86:4 88:10 104:20,20 116:18 worse 85:18 worth 20:7 31:1

39:11 42:15 49:3 49:17 72:17 84:11 87:4 88:2 104:24 119:15,15 wouldn't 60:13

61:21 wrap 113:20 wrap-up 2:15 write 106:22 117:10 write-up 13:17 writing 39:6 written 35:6 52:24

72:9 101:17 wrong 26:5,19

29:13 87:24 X

Y yards 105:15 yeah 6:22 13:19 16:2,6,16 18:3 22:24 24:4 31:8 34:13,14 35:8,12 35:14,16,18,19 36:10 37:7 38:4 38:23 39:2,17 40:3 43:5 47:25 48:3 51:1,17,23 52:12,17 61:2,21 66:13,15 68:13,22 69:10,16,21,23 70:1,2,5,23 71:14 71:23 74:17,23 75:4,7 76:24 78:21 79:14 83:10 83:25 84:9 86:16 89:24 90:7,7,9 94:14,23 95:6 96:11,12 98:13,14 98:16 99:21 100:4 100:7,21,24 101:8 101:15 102:4,18 102:20 103:16 104:4,17,25 108:10,12,15,17 108:20 109:4,8,11 110:15,19 111:13 111:15 112:1,10 112:22 115:7,13 115:13 118:10,13 119:3 121:22 122:17 123:19 124:13 year 31:3 32:16

46:19 years 4:23 6:1,1,7

9:16 11:17 12:4 14:22 16:20 21:2 21:6,6 46:14 51:10 56:25 67:3 74:18 79:12 83:7 84:17 94:5 95:17 96:1 111:21,24 Yeow 2:14 116:11 120:13 121:22 122:18 125:9 yesterday 44:2

48:8 51:2 53:24 54:8 60:2 71:1 81:18 86:17 87:5 91:14 94:20 96:2 118:25 yield 3:23 13:10

55:12 York 58:20 you-all 12:10 young 57:18 72:6

72:17 younger 75:13 Z

zero 38:12,15 0

1 1 43:23 87:15,15,16

87:16 1.6 78:2 1:00 123:11,17,18 10 21:6 47:19 84:17 109 51:11 11:36 125:18 1188 1:22 126:6 11th 123:8 12:30 2:17 15 21:6 84:17 87:23 1990 85:4 1st 113:5 114:12 123:9,11,14,15 2 2 20:17 47:22 87:15

87:16,17 2.1 15:7 2.2 15:6,6 20 46:14 61:23 2013 1:14 20th 119:24 123:3 21st 79:3 27518 1:12 3 3 20:18 42:19,19 314 1:24 4 4 2:8 3:7,16,18

50:15 53:19,25 68:16,16,20 71:24 73:24 75:1 4.4 71:25 4:00 123:12,17,18 433 68:22 435 68:22 5 5 2:10 3:21 4:6,7 18:14,25 23:15,18 42:22 43:3 61:16 84:17 50 63:11 6 6 1:14 2:10 3:7

18:17,25 21:14 22:10 23:16,19 24:9 25:19 34:23 39:15 42:22 6.12 24:12 35:6 6.13 24:12 35:6 6.2 19:7 63101 1:23 644-2191 1:24 7 711 1:23 787 69:1 8 8:37 2:1 80 61:17 9 90 87:25,25