BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND )

4 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) R08-9

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )(Rulemaking - Water)

5 AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES

)

RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO )

6 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 301, )

302, 303, and 304,

)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the

10 above-entitled matter, taken before MARGARET R.

11 BEDDARD, a Notary Public within and for the County of

12 Kane, State of Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand

13 Reporter of said state, at Room 9-040, James R.

14 Thompson Building, Chicago, Illinois, on the 9th day

15 of September, A.D. 2008, at 9:08 a.m.

17 BEFORE: ARBITRATOR MARIE E. TIPSORD.

1 PRESENT:

MS. MARIE TIPSORD, HEARING OFFICER,

MS. ALISA LIU, Environmental Scientist,

MR. ANAND RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist,

MR. G. TANNER GIRARD, Acting Chairman,

MR. NICHOLAS J. MELAS,

MS. ANDREA S. MOORE,

MR. THOMAS JOHNSON;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

(1021 North Grand Avenue East,

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794),

BY: MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS,

MS. STEPHANIE DIERS,

MR. SCOTT TWAIT;

BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP,

(One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400,

Chicago, Illinois 60606),

BY: MR. FREDERIC P. ANDES,

Appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District;

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,

(101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 609,

Chicago, Illinois 60606),

BY: MS. ANN ALEXANDER;

THE CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC,

(2938 East 91st Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60617),

BY: MR. KEITH HARLEY;

FRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER,

(28 East Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1800,

Chicago, Illinois 60606),

BY: MR. ALBERT ETTINGER.

23 REPORTED BY MARGARET R. BEDDARD, CSR.

E X H I B I T S

2 NUMBER

MARKED FOR ID

3 Deposition Exhibit

No. 66

No. 67

No. 68

No. 69

No. 70

No. 71

No. 72

No. 73

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Good morning, everyone.

2 Again, this is the rulemaking R08-9. I am Marie

3 Tipsord, the hearing officer assigned to the matter.

4 I'm not going to read the whole intro, but I will

5 reintroduce our panel. This is -- To my immediate

6 right is Dr. Tanner Girard, the board member assigned

7 to this matter; to his right is Nicholas J. Melas,

8 board member; and to his right is board member Andrea

9 Moore. To my far left is board member Thomas

10 Johnson. To my immediate left is Anand Rao from our

11 technical unit and to his left Alisa Liu from our

12 technical unit.

Before we begin, there's a couple of

14 housekeeping things. First of all, I received an

15 e-mail from Mr. Andes, which includes a link to the

16 budget books that we discussed yesterday. I'm going

17 to mark that as Exhibit 66, if there's no objection.

18 Seeing none, it is Exhibit 66. And there are copies

19 of that e-mail available on the table to the right.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 66, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Also, Member Melas, you had

24 something you wanted to say this morning?

MR. MELAS: Yes.

Before we get started, in the interest of

3 full disclosure, I think I ought to make this

4 statement. Most of you already know this, but for

5 purposes of disclosure. From December of 1962

6 through December of 1992 I served as a commissioner

7 at the Water Reclamation District. It's been a long

8 time since I've been there, but I thought I would

9 mention that for the purposes of the record.

The other thing that I would just -- In

11 passing, a slight correction to the record. As I

12 mentioned to Ms. Meyers earlier, when she was

13 discussing the project along the river walk, she

14 mentioned me by name, Nicholas J. Melas. Instead of

15 saying the word "fountain," she said the word

16 "foundation." That should be corrected. I do not

17 have such a foundation. I'm in the water business.

MR. JOHNSON: At least she didn't say

19 "memorial."

MR. MELAS: That's coming.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And, for purposes of the

22 record, I actually had marked yesterday a picture of

23 the barge on the Calumet-Sag River as Exhibit 66, so

24 the e-mail is Exhibit 67. That's what happens when I

1 don't write things down right away.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 67, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: With that, I understand

6 we're going to actually let the three witnesses

7 present their testimony and do all the questioning at

8 once; is that correct, Mr. Andes?

MR. ANDES: That would be fine.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: In that case -- And please

11 forgive me if I'm mispronouncing the names, but I'm

12 going to try. Chriso Petropoulou, Charles Gerba, and

13 Keith Tolson.

Can we have them sworn in, please.

(WHEREUPON, the witnesses were duly

sworn.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And do you have copies we

18 can mark as exhibits?

MR. ANDES: Yes, I do. The one thing I would

20 mention is that the Geosyntec report Dry and Wet

21 Weather Risk Assessment is an attachment to all three

22 testimonies. I've provided one copy of that.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: That's fine.

MS. ALEXANDER: For the ease of the record,

1 would it make more sense to do each testimony and

2 then make the report a separate exhibit?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I was just going to suggest

4 that. That's okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

MR. ANDES: That's fine.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: For purposes of the record,

7 we will mark Petropoulou as Exhibit 68 with the

8 attachments except the report, which we'll mark as a

9 separate exhibit. So that's -- If there's no

10 objection, that's Exhibit 68. Seeing none, that's

11 Exhibit 68.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 68, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Gerba's testimony with his

16 attachments, other than the report, will be marked as

17 Exhibit 69, if there's no objection. Seeing none,

18 it's Exhibit 69.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 69, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And Tolson's testimony with

23 attachments, other than the report, will be

24 Exhibit 70, if there's no objection. Seeing none, it

1 is Exhibit 70.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 70, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And then the report, which

6 is Dry and Wet Weather Risk Assessment of Human

7 Health, Impacts of Disinfection versus no

8 Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterway System

9 dated April 2008 will be marked as Exhibit 71, if

10 there's no objection. Seeing none, it is Exhibit 71.

11 And it's prepared by Geosyntec Consultants.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 71, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: With that, whenever you're

16 ready.

MS. PETROPOULOU: My name is Chriso Petropoulou,

18 and I am a licensed professional environmental

19 engineer in the state of Illinois. I earned a

20 bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering

21 from the National Technical University in Athens,

22 Greece, and a doctor of philosophy degree in

23 environmental engineering from the Illinois Institute

24 of Technology in Chicago, Illinois. I am also a

1 board certified environmental engineer by the

2 American Academy of Environmental Engineers. I have

3 been employed with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

4 (Geosyntec) in Chicago, Illinois, for the last nine

5 years. Before that I was employed by Patterson

6 Associates, Inc., for about four years and PRC

7 Environmental Management, Inc., (now known as

8 TetraTech EMI) for about four-and-a-half years. I

9 have over 17 years of experience in the wide range of

10 environmental engineering projects, involving design,

11 schedule, and implementation components. I also have

12 experience in evaluating and interpreting laboratory

13 analytical results and other field data in order to

14 make critical project decisions. In addition, I have

15 extensive experience in environmental permitting and

16 compliance issues.

For the last three years I have been the

18 project manager for the Metropolitan Water

19 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Microbial

20 Risk Assessment (MRA) study. The District has

21 conducted the MRA study to determine health impacts

22 of the recreational use of the Chicago Area Waterway

23 System (CAWS). The main objective of the MRA study

24 was to evaluate the human health impact of continuing

1 the current practice of not disinfecting the

2 effluents from the District's North Side, Stickney,

3 and Calumet water reclamation plants versus

4 initiating disinfection of the effluent at these

5 three plants.

I have been intimately involved with every

7 aspect of the MRA study. The results of the MRA

8 study are summarized in the April 2008 Geosyntec

9 report, which is incorporated herein by reference.

10 The report is entitled Dry and Wet Weather Risk

11 Assessment of Human Health Impacts of Disinfection

12 versus Non-Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterway

13 System. I was responsible for the composition,

14 assembly, and production of the subject report.

My testimony today will provide a brief

16 description of the microbial sampling, analytical

17 testing, and results of the MRA study.

Microbial Risk Assessment Sampling. The

19 MRA study included collection of dry and wet weather

20 microbial samples from the surface water in the

21 Chicago area waterway system and the water

22 reclamation plant effluents. The dry weather

23 sampling was completed during the 2005 recreational

24 season when the climatic conditions were not suitable

1 for wet weather sampling. The wet weather sampling

2 took place during the 2006 recreational season. The

3 dry and wet weather microbial results were integrated

4 to enable an evaluation of the potential impacts of

5 disinfection and overall risks associated with the

6 recreational use of the waterway.

During dry weather, the District's North

8 Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants contribute the

9 majority of the flow in the Chicago Area Waterway

10 System. The specific objectives of the 2005 dry

11 weather sampling were as follows:

1. Evaluate the impact of the treated

13 effluent from the District's three major plants

14 (North Side, Stickney, and Calumet) on the microbial

15 quality of the Chicago Area Waterway System.

2. Estimate health risks to recreational

17 users of the Chicago Area Waterway System due to

18 incidental contact pathogen exposure under dry

19 weather conditions.

3. Quantify any reduction of risk that

21 would result from the disinfection of plant effluents

22 during dry weather.

During wet weather, in addition to the

24 reclamation plant effluents, several sources

1 contribute to the microbial load in the Chicago area

2 waterway system, including combined sewer overflows,

3 discharges from storm drains, overland runoff,

4 land-use activities such as agriculture and

5 construction, erosion, and habitat destruction. The

6 specific objectives of the 2006 wet weather sampling

7 were as follows:

1. Evaluate the impact of the reclamation

9 plant wet weather flow on the microbial quality of

10 the plant outfalls.

2. Evaluate the impact of combined sewer

12 overflows in the microbial quality of the Chicago

13 area waterway system.

3. Estimate health risks to recreational

15 users of the Chicago area waterway system due to

16 incidental contact pathogen exposure under wet

17 weather conditions.

4. Quantify any reduction of risk that

19 would result from disinfecting plant effluents during

20 wet weather.

A total of 75 dry weather samples and 50

22 wet weather samples were collected at the North Side,

23 Stickney, and Calumet waterway segments, including

24 upstream, downstream, and outfall samples. Exhibit 1

1 shows the dry and wet weather locations. The wet

2 weather locations were spaced at significantly longer

3 distances away from the reclamation plants compared

4 to the dry weather locations to account for the

5 contributions of storm water runoff, CSO outflows,

6 and pumping stations. At the North Side, wet weather

7 samples were also collected near the North Branch

8 Pumping Station (NBPS). At Stickney, wet weather

9 samples were collected near the Racine Avenue Pumping

10 Station (RAPS). At Calumet, wet weather samples were

11 collected downstream of the 125th Street Pumping

12 Station at Halsted Avenue.

Analytical Testing. The MRA study focused

14 on the detection of microorganisms typically present

15 in the feces of humans and other warm-blooded animals

16 as indicators of fecal pollution. Hence, a group of

17 US EPA-approved indicator microorganisms, such as

18 E. coli, Enterococci, and fecal coliform, was

19 selected for the MRA study. Indicator microorganisms

20 are used as an index of the microbial quality of

21 water, but are not pathogenic to humans. The

22 presence of indicator microorganisms may be

23 indicative of the presence of microbial pathogens,

24 while their absence is thought to be indicative of

1 the absence of microbial pathogens. In addition to

2 the indicator microorganisms, pathogens

3 representative of those present in the wastewater

4 that are also of public health concern were selected.

5 The rationale for selecting the pathogens for the MRA

6 study included the following criteria:

The pathogens selected are associated with

8 documented outbreaks of disease, including

9 gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases and

10 infections.

There are US EPA-approved methods or

12 laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP's)

13 available for the measurement of the selected

14 pathogens.

Based on the rationale and selection

16 criteria outlined above, the objective of the dry and

17 wet weather sampling was to determine the

18 concentrations of the three major groups of indicator

19 and pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria,

20 protozoa, and viruses. The bacteria samples were

21 analyzed for fecal coliforms, E. coli, Enterococci,

22 Salmonella spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The

23 protozoa samples were analyzed for infectious

24 Cryptosporidium parvum and viable Giardia lamblia.

1 The virus samples were analyzed for enteric viruses,

2 including total culturable viruses, viable

3 adenovirus, and Calicivirus, which refers to human

4 Caliciviruses, specifically the genus norovirus.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Back on the record.

I apologize for the interruption.

MS. PETROPOULOU: Microbial Results. The

11 microbial analytical results generated during the MRA

12 study were evaluated and interpreted within the

13 framework of dry and wet weather conditions.

14 However, for the MRA estimates, the dry and wet

15 weather microbial results were integrated in a

16 comprehensive dataset representative of all weather

17 conditions in the waterway. In summary, the

18 microbial analytical results indicate that the

19 concentrations of bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in

20 the waterway increased during wet weather conditions.

21 The following sections discuss the dry and wet

22 weather analytical results of bacteria, protozoa, and

23 viruses.

Bacteria Results. Bacteria were the most

1 abundant microbial species detected in the waterway,

2 compared to viruses and protozoa, during both dry and

3 wet weather events. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

4 statistical tests were performed for the dry, wet,

5 and combined dry and wet weather bacteria results to

6 determine differences of bacteria concentrations by

7 site (i.e., North Side, Stickney, Calumet), by

8 location (i.e., upstream, downstream, outfall), by

9 depth (for dry weather only; i.e., surface and

10 1-meter depth), and by weather.

The dry weather results indicate that

12 there's significant -- there is a significant

13 difference between bacteria concentrations by site

14 (North Side, Stickney, Calumet) and by location

15 (upstream and downstream). Downstream concentrations

16 are consistently greater than upstream. Bacteria

17 concentrations in dry weather samples did not show a

18 statistically significant difference by depth. The

19 wet weather results indicate that E. coli and

20 Enterococcus data are significantly different by

21 site. Fecal coliform, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and

22 Salmonella spp. do not differ by site or any other

23 factor. The results indicated that during wet

24 weather there was no statistical difference between

1 bacteria concentrations upstream and downstream of

2 the three reclamation plants.

The wet weather bacteria concentrations are

4 significantly greater than the dry weather

5 concentrations in each reclamation plant waterway

6 segment. Also, the wet weather geometric means at

7 each sampling location (upstream, downstream,

8 outfall) at the North Side and Stickney waterway

9 segments indicate that most of the North Side and

10 Stickney geometric mean bacteria concentrations

11 upstream and downstream of the plants are higher than

12 the outfall concentrations. Fecal coliform and

13 E. coli wet weather concentrations are greater than

14 the other bacteria geometric means at each sampling

15 location for all the plants. The wet weather outfall

16 samples have lower levels of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

17 than the corresponding upstream and downstream wet

18 weather samples. This suggests that the major inputs

19 for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the waterways are

20 sources other than the reclamation plant effluents.

The results of the combined dry and wet

22 weather ANOVA analysis indicate the dry and wet

23 weather combined bacteria data for E. coli,

24 Enterococcus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are

1 significantly different by site and weather. Fecal

2 coliform data differ by weather only (not by site).

3 The fecal coliform dry weather concentrations

4 upstream of the North Side and Stickney plants were

5 greater than the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400

6 colony forming units (CFU)/100 mL. Also, the wet

7 weather fecal coliform concentrations upstream of the

8 North Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants were above

9 the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400 CFU/100 mL.

The bacteria analytical results were also

11 analyzed using correlation statistics. The results

12 indicate that there are no significant correlations

13 between dry weather fecal coliform indicator bacteria

14 and other indicator bacteria and pathogens. The wet

15 weather results indicate that there is a better

16 correlation between fecal coliform and other

17 indicator bacteria and pathogens.

Cryptosporidium and Giardia Results. The

19 concentrations and frequency of detection of

20 Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts were

21 greater in wet weather samples compared to dry

22 weather samples. For dry weather samples, no

23 infectious Cryptosporidium oocysts were detected in

24 the outfalls or the waterways. Similarly, for wet

1 weather samples, no infectious Cryptosporidium

2 oocysts were detected, with one exception. During

3 wet weather conditions, Cryptosporidium oocysts and

4 Giardia cysts were detected in some of the samples

5 collected upstream of the North Side and Stickney

6 plants.

During dry weather, most Giardia cysts were

8 non-viable. The average percentage of viable Giardia

9 cysts found in samples from the Stickney waterway

10 segment, including outfall and instream

11 concentrations, was 21 percent during dry weather and

12 increased to 47 percent during wet weather. The

13 average percentage of viable cysts found in samples

14 from the North Side waterway segment, including

15 outfall and instream concentrations, was 26 percent

16 during dry weather and increased to 49 percent during

17 wet weather. Under both dry and wet weather, samples

18 from the Calumet waterway contained the smallest

19 percentage (10 percent) of viable Giardia cysts

20 compared to Stickney and North Side waterways.

Outfall samples at the North Side and

22 Stickney plants contained higher levels of viable

23 cysts compared to the Calumet outfall. The

24 percentage of viable Giardia cysts in samples from

1 the Calumet outfall was 10 percent during both dry

2 and wet weather conditions. The percentage of viable

3 Giardia cysts in samples from the Stickney outfall

4 was 47 percent during dry weather and 50 percent

5 during wet weather. The percentage of viable Giardia

6 cysts in samples from the North Side outfall was

7 51 percent during dry weather and 42 percent during

8 wet weather.

Virus Results. The percentage of samples

10 with enteric virus detections at the North Side

11 waterway was only 29 percent during dry weather and

12 increased to 69 percent during wet weather. The

13 percentage of samples with enteric virus detections

14 at the Stickney waterway segment was only 24 percent

15 during dry weather and increased to 88 percent during

16 wet weather. The percentage of samples with enteric

17 virus detections in the Calumet waterway segment was

18 only 12 percent during dry weather and increased to

19 77 percent during wet weather. The concentrations

20 of total enteric viruses detected during wet weather

21 sampling are generally greater than the dry weather

22 concentrations. Also, some of the wet weather

23 samples collected upstream of the North Side,

24 Stickney, and Calumet plants had detectable

1 concentrations of total enteric viruses.

The adenovirus concentrations detected

3 during wet weather sampling are generally greater

4 than the dry weather concentrations. Also, some of

5 the wet weather samples collected upstream of the

6 North Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants had

7 detectable concentrations of adenoviruses. The

8 percentage of wet weather samples with adenovirus

9 detections were greater than the dry weather

10 detections. The percentage of samples with

11 adenovirus detections in the North Side waterway

12 segment was 48 percent during dry weather and

13 increased to 88 percent during wet weather. The

14 percentage of samples with adenovirus detections in

15 the Stickney waterway segment was 52 percent during

16 dry weather and increased to 94 percent during wet

17 weather. The percentage of samples with adenovirus

18 detections in the Calumet waterway segment was

19 24 percent during dry weather and increased to

20 72 percent during wet weather.

The Calicivirus (norovirus) concentrations

22 detected during wet weather sampling are generally

23 greater than the dry weather concentrations. Also,

24 the percentage of wet weather samples with norovirus

1 detections were greater than the dry weather

2 detections. The percentage of samples with norovirus

3 detections in the North Side waterway segment was

4 only 4 percent during dry weather and increased to

5 44 percent during wet weather. The percentage of

6 samples with norovirus detections in the Stickney

7 waterway segment was 12 percent during dry weather

8 and increased to 63 percent during wet weather. The

9 percentage of samples with norovirus detections in

10 the Calumet waterway segment was only 4 percent

11 during dry weather and increased to only 17 percent

12 during wet weather.

Conclusion. The microbial analytical

14 results indicate that the wet weather samples had a

15 higher frequency of detection and higher

16 concentrations of pathogens and indicators compared

17 to dry weather samples. The pathogen concentrations

18 within the waterway are largely a result of non-water

19 reclamation plant derived wet weather inputs. The

20 analytical results also indicate that, despite

21 elevated levels of fecal coliform indicator bacteria,

22 the concentrations of actual pathogenic

23 microorganisms in the waterway are low and many are

24 often not detectable.

Thank you.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay. Let's continue.

MR. ETTINGER: Albert Ettinger. I represent

4 various environmental groups.

Was there a ruling that we're going to be

6 reading all the pre-filed testimony for the rest of

7 this hearing?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: There was not necessarily a

9 ruling. I know we talked to them yesterday about

10 summaries. Mr. Andes explained that these were

11 summaries. But no one's actually objected to the

12 reading.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, I object to the readings.

14 The Agency was not allowed to read any.

MR. ANDES: I don't recall the issue coming up.

MS. WILLIAMS: The issue was raised. We

17 actually asked to read very brief, less than

18 two-page, summaries into the record, and the Hearing

19 Officer told us that we were not to read summaries.

20 We were to go directly into questions.

MR. ANDES: We wouldn't have objected to that.

22 And I think it's helpful to -- particularly because

23 we have charts and exhibits that we want to point

24 out. I think they're in the context of the

1 testimony. Based on a discussion yesterday, our

2 impression had been that this was going to be

3 allowed.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Well, there was never an

5 objection made until now. I did tell the Agency that

6 we were going directly to the questions given the

7 need for timing. As I said yesterday, we've all read

8 this testimony. It has been pre-filed. I understand

9 it's a summary. I did ask if you would look to see

10 if you could summarize it more.

Let's go off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: All right. Let's go back

15 on the record.

My inclination -- And we did talk a little

17 bit yesterday off the record about this. I think we

18 left -- You were going back to your office to talk

19 with your witnesses about summaries last night. And

20 I did suggest at that time that we could just go

21 directly to questions. I understand you have charts.

22 There's no problem with putting the charts up, and

23 they can certainly refer to them in answering

24 questions. But I do think that since the objection's

1 been raised and since I did rule that the Agency

2 would go directly to questions that we're going

3 to --

MR. ANDES: But I think -- I guess my objection

5 is that I thought it was pretty clear at the end that

6 we would be allowed to read these into the record

7 today, that we would look for opportunities to

8 shorten them. And it was specifically noted that the

9 total number of pages for these three witnesses is

10 only 20 pages. We do have other witnesses where I do

11 expect we'll have an opportunity to shorten and

12 summarize their testimony. But my understanding

13 going forward --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Given that there was some

15 confusion yesterday at the end of the day off the

16 record, I will let these three witnesses read their

17 testimony in. That's it. From then on we're going

18 directly to questions. No summaries at all.

And I apologize to the Agency.

Mr. Gerba?

MR. GERBA: My name is Charles P. Gerba. I

22 earned a bachelor of science degree from Arizona

23 State University in 1969 and a Ph.D. from the

24 University of Miami, Florida, in 19 --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Gerba, you need to

2 speak up.

MR. GERBA: Both of my degrees are in

4 microbiology. I was a postdoctoral fellow and

5 assistant professor of environmental virology at

6 Baylor College of Medicine in the Department of

7 Virology and Epidemiology from 1973 through 1981. I

8 am currently professor of environmental microbiology

9 in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology;

10 Soil, Water, and Environmental Science; and

11 Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of

12 Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. I have authored more

13 than 500 articles, including several books in

14 environmental microbiology and pollution science. I

15 actively conduct research on the development of new

16 disinfectants, new methods for the detection of

17 enteric pathogens in the environment, occurrence and

18 fate of pathogens in the environment, fate of

19 pathogens during wastewater reuse and land

20 application of biosolids, microbiology of domestic

21 environments and microbial risk assessment.

For the last three years, I have

23 participated in the District's microbial risk

24 assessment (MRA) study as a member of Geosyntec team

1 senior advisory committee. In that role, I've worked

2 closely with the project team providing direction and

3 peer review in all aspects of the MRA study, which

4 evaluated the human health impacts of disinfection

5 versus non-disinfection at the District's three

6 largest water reclamation plants, all of which

7 discharge into the Chicago Area Waterway System

8 (CAWS). In addition, at the onset of the study I

9 provided on-site training to the District personnel

10 on sample collection procedures.

The MRA study focused on microorganisms

12 typically present in the feces of humans and other

13 warm-blooded animals as indicators of fecal

14 pollution, including the following indicators and

15 pathogens:

Enteric viruses: i)total culturable

17 viruses, ii) viable adenoviruses, and (iii)

18 norovirus.

Infectious Cryptosporidium and viable

20 Giardia Lamblia.

Salmonella species.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Fecal coliforms.

E. coli.

Enterococci.

This list was taken to be representative of

3 the largely -- Excuse me. Let me repeat that. This

4 list was taken to be representative of the likely

5 universe of disease-causing organisms and indicators

6 that are used to assess fecal contamination. The

7 indicators selected are those which have been

8 traditionally used and those recommended by the

9 United States Environmental Protection Agency and the

10 World Health Organization for assessment of

11 recreational water quality. Salmonella was also

12 selected as it was one of the more hardy enteric

13 bacterial pathogens and can always be found in

14 wastewater and would be expected to be representative

15 of the risks from other enteric bacterial pathogens.

16 Pseudomonas aeruginosa was selected because it can be

17 commonly isolated from sewage and causes

18 recreationally associated eye, skin, and ear

19 infections. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci

20 were included in the list of organisms studied

21 because of its use as an indicator of recreational

22 water quality. The test did not detect pathogenic

23 E. coli. Non-pathogenic forms of E. coli occur in

24 much greater concentrations than pathogenic forms in

1 wastewater, and their behavior would be expected to

2 be similar to that of pathogenic strains of E. coli.

3 Cryptosporidium is the protozoan pathogen most

4 commonly associated with recreational waterborne

5 disease outbreaks in the United States today.

6 Giardia is also associated with recreational

7 waterborne disease outbreaks. Total culturable virus

8 assays have been used by the Environmental Protection

9 Agency in the information collection rule to assess

10 risks from enteric pathogens in water and will

11 largely detect the enteroviruses (Coxsackie virus,

12 echo virus) one of the most common groups of enteric

13 viruses found in wastewater. Norovirus and

14 adenovirus are the viruses most commonly associated

15 with recreational waterborne disease accounting for

16 more than 90 percent of all reported outbreaks of

17 viruses associated with recreational water.

18 Norovirus is the most common cause of viral diarrhea

19 in the United States. Adenoviruses are a cause of

20 ear, nose, throat, and respiratory infections

21 associated with recreational waters. They're also

22 the second leading cause of viral diarrhea in

23 children. Adenoviruses have been detected in greater

24 concentration in wastewater than any other enteric

1 virus. Thus, they may pose the greatest risk of

2 infection in recreational waters of any enteric

3 pathogen. Enteric viruses and protozoan parasites

4 were included in this study because they have a much

5 lower infectious dose than the bacteria. That is, it

6 takes fewer to cause infection. And they survive

7 much longer in surface waters than the enteric

8 bacteria pathogens.

I directed the operation of the Environmental

10 Virology Laboratory, Department of Soil, Water, and

11 Environmental Science at the University of Arizona

12 that performed the analysis of the adenovirus and

13 norovirus for this study using University of Arizona

14 standard operating procedures(SOP's). There are no

15 US EPA-approved methods for norovirus. The

16 University of Arizona method estimates the virus

17 concentration, but does not determine or confirm

18 viability or infectivity. Thus, this method is a

19 conservative estimate of the number of infectious

20 virus present in the water. That is, it detects both

21 non-infectious (dead) and infectious viruses (live.)

22 Adenoviruses are believed to be more common in sewage

23 than enteroviruses and have been a cause of

24 recreational waterborne illness. There are no

1 US EPA-approved methods for adenovirus. A University

2 of Arizona SOP was used for the analysis of

3 adenoviruses that includes cell culture and DNA

4 confirmation.

The occurrence and concentration of

6 protozoan parasites, total culturable viruses,

7 adenoviruses, and norovirus were generally equal to

8 or lower than observed in other studies by me and

9 others on wastewater discharges and surface waters in

10 general during dry weather conditions. These studies

11 involved both disinfected and non-disinfected treated

12 wastewater and streams into which they were

13 discharged. Some of these studies were conducted in

14 Europe where disinfection of treated wastewater

15 discharge is generally not practiced. The

16 concentration of Cryptosporidium was lower than

17 observed in studies in which I have been involved in

18 previously and other studies reported in the

19 scientific literature in which there are no known

20 sewage discharges. This is because cattle and other

21 animals can be a greater source of Cryptosporidium in

22 surface waters than sewage discharges. The Giardia

23 was also generally lower than that observed in

24 several other sewage discharges from previous studies

1 conducted by me and reported in the literature by

2 others. These studies were conducted in various

3 locations across the United States. The total

4 culturable viruses were also lower than observed in a

5 study of a recreational stream in Arizona conducted

6 by my laboratory in which bathers were the only

7 source.

It is my expert opinion that decisions

9 regarding the need for effluent disinfection must be

10 made on a site-specific basis. Disinfection is

11 warranted in situations where direct human contact in

12 the immediate vicinity of an outfall is possible or

13 where effluent is discharged to areas involving the

14 production of human food. Disinfection is warranted

15 in situations where its application leads to a

16 reduction in the risk of disease transmission. As

17 illustrated by post-disinfection regrowth of

18 bacteria, relatively poor virucidal behavior and

19 general persistence of disinfection by-products is

20 not clear that wastewater disinfection always yields

21 improved effluent or receiving water quality.

There is a great variability in the

23 performance and uncertainty in the efficiency of

24 disinfection. There are many unanswered questions

1 with respect to disinfection efficiency data for

2 microbial indicators and pathogens. The available

3 data for the evaluation of disinfection technologies

4 are bench-scale or pilot-scale experiments and not

5 full-scale operations. Therefore, it is uncertain if

6 disinfection designed to remove indicators can be

7 effective in the removal of pathogens and in the

8 reduction of pathogen risk. In applying any

9 disinfectant, it is important to strike a balance

10 between risks associated with microbial pathogens and

11 those associated with DBP's. DBP's are persistent

12 chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological

13 characteristics. The inventory of DBP's that have

14 the potential to cause adverse health effects is

15 largely and highly variable among publicly-owned

16 treatment works (POTW) effluents. The human health

17 effects associated with chemical contaminants that

18 are influenced or produced as a result of

19 disinfection operations tend to be chronic in nature.

20 Therefore, the development of a risk assessment for

21 exposure to chemical constituents, including DBP's,

22 is far more complex than the microbial risk

23 assessment. Risk assessments of wastewater

24 disinfection should consider microbial and chemical

1 quality.

Thank you.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Tolson?

MR. TOLSON: Thank you.

My name is Keith Tolson. I'm a risk

6 assessment and statistical specialist working with

7 Geosyntec Consultants. My educational background

8 includes an honors in interdisciplinary science degree

9 in statistics and chemistry from the University of

10 Florida, a master's degree in food science and human

11 nutrition, and a doctorate degree from the College of

12 Medicine at the University of Florida. I hold an

13 adjunct faculty position and serve on the faculty at

14 the Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology

15 where I teach graduate courses in statistics,

16 toxicology, and risk assessment. Prior to joining

17 Geosyntec, I spent eight years working for the State

18 of Florida as a consultant to the Florida Department

19 of Environmental Protection and am co-author on the

20 Department's technical guidance for Brownfields,

21 Drycleaning, Petroleum, Soil & Groundwater Cleanup

22 Targets, and Surface Water Rules. I hold a

23 gubernatorial appointment to the Pesticide Review

24 Council, which is charged with advising the Governor

1 on the sale, use, and registration of pesticides in

2 the State of Florida. My professional practice

3 involves the quantification of human health and

4 ecological risks and quantitative cost-benefit

5 analysis as it relates to public policy and

6 regulatory action.

For the last three years, I served as the

8 risk assessment leader for the Metropolitan Water

9 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago microbial

10 risk assessment study. I was responsible for the

11 calculation and interpretation of risks summarized in

12 the April 2008 Geosyntec report entitled Dry and Wet

13 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impacts of

14 Disinfection versus Non-Disinfection of the Chicago

15 Area Waterway System April 2008.

Today I will provide you with a brief

17 description of the risk assessment inputs and methods

18 used in the study and a summary of the results

19 leading to our conclusions. Namely, that risks for

20 gastrointestinal illness associated with recreational

21 use of the Chicago area waterway are low and mainly

22 due to secondary loading of the waterway under wet

23 weather conditions from CSO's and other discharges,

24 which would not be improved by disinfection of the

1 effluent from the District's water reclamation

2 plants.

Microbial Risk Assessment Methodology. The

4 process used to reach our conclusions is called

5 quantitative microbial risk assessment. It starts

6 with an understanding that certain microbial

7 pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness. We know

8 this from outbreak and case reports along with

9 carefully controlled feeding studies where volunteers

10 ingest different concentrations of organisms and are

11 monitored for development of symptoms. The key

12 observation from these studies that allow us to make

13 predictions is the dose-response relationship. That

14 is, higher levels of pathogens correspond to a higher

15 incidence of illness. Because we have measured the

16 levels of pathogens in the waterway and can estimate

17 the dose based on the type of recreational activity,

18 we can use the mathematical relationship between dose

19 and response to calculate a probability that an

20 individual might develop illness.

In order to capture the range of different

22 exposure conditions, including weather, type of

23 recreation, and activity intensity, we utilized a

24 technique called probabilistic microbial risk

1 assessment. This technique involves performing a

2 large number of simulations using combinations of all

3 potential inputs derived from distributions that

4 reflect the true variability in exposure by

5 recreators. For example, we assume that incidental

6 ingestion by individuals canoeing on the waterway

7 will vary over a range and calculations that are

8 performed account for all users, even those that

9 might capsize.

The goal of the study was to determine the

11 expected number of illnesses associated with

12 designated usage of the waterways both with and

13 without disinfection of water reclamation plant

14 effluent. Risks were estimated for recreational

15 users participating in activities involving different

16 levels of exposure in dry, wet, or a combination of

17 weather events over the course of the recreational

18 year.

Risk assessment inputs were drawn

20 extensively from site-specific data and were

21 developed using state-of-the-science methodology to

22 accurately represent recreational user exposure

23 conditions and risks. Recreational survey studies

24 were used to provide insight on the type and

1 frequency of recreational exposure expected in the

2 waterway. For quantitative risk analysis, the UAA

3 study was the primary source for exposure use data

4 for the CAWS. As a part of the UAA, the CAWS was

5 divided into three major waterway segments each

6 associated were a single reclamation plant, Stickney,

7 North Side, and Calumet. Recreational use was

8 divided into high (canoeing), medium (fishing), and

9 low (pleasure boating) exposure activities. UAA

10 survey data were used to estimate the proportion of

11 recreational users participating in each receptor

12 scenario along each waterway segment.

Exposure parameters, such as the length of

14 time spent on the waterway and the amount of water

15 that is incidentally ingested per unit of time spent

16 on the waterway, were developed to reflect the

17 variability of each receptor scenario as inputs to

18 the exposure model. Selection of input distribution

19 relied on literature-derived sources, site-specific

20 use information, and professional judgment.

As stated previously, dose-response

22 parameters define the mathematical relationship

23 between the dose of a pathogenic organism and the

24 probability of infection or illness in exposed

1 persons. Dose-response data are typically derived

2 from either controlled human feeding studies or

3 reconstruction of doses from outbreak incidents. In

4 human feeding trials, volunteers are fed pathogens in

5 different doses, and the percentage of subjects

6 experiencing the effect (either illness or infection)

7 is calculated. While feeding trials can provide

8 useful dose-response analysis data, studies are

9 usually performed in healthy individuals given high

10 levels of a single strain. Epidemiological outbreak

11 studies provide response on a larger cross-section of

12 the population, but dose reconstruction is often

13 problematic. Does-response relationships for this

14 study were developed from regulatory documents,

15 industry-wide papers, and peer review literature.

Concentrations of pathogens in the waterway

17 were selected for each simulation from the entire

18 dataset of dry and wet weather samples collected.

19 The proportion of dry and wet weather samples

20 utilized were weighted to account for the proportion

21 of dry and wet weather days in a typical Chicago

22 recreational season.

The methodology used in conducting this

24 study and evaluating the risk of recreational illness

1 reflect the current state-of-the-science in

2 performing quantitative microbial risk assessment.

3 Similar techniques have been used by the US EPA and

4 other public entities to support decision making.

5 Components of the methodology and results of this

6 study have been presented at four national technical

7 conferences, and three manuscripts are currently in

8 preparation for submission to peer review journals.

Results of the risk assessment demonstrate

10 that risks to recreational users under various

11 weather and use scenarios is low and within the

12 US EPA recommended risk limits for primary contact

13 exposure. The highest rates of illness were

14 associated with recreational use on the Stickney and

15 North Side waterway segments and the lowest illness

16 rates on the Calumet waterway segment. Illness rates

17 were higher under wet weather conditions than under

18 dry weather conditions.

It is important to note that the US EPA has

20 not developed any secondary contact water quality

21 standards. However, the US EPA has proposed a range

22 of primary contact acceptable risk thresholds and

23 currently has primary contact water quality criteria

24 protective of immersion activities that is based on

1 an acceptable risk threshold of 8 illnesses per 1,000

2 swimmers. This is the lowest or more -- most

3 stringent of the acceptable risk thresholds used to

4 base water quality criteria currently adopted by EPA.

5 The results of this study demonstrate that the

6 expected illness rates for receptors were all below

7 the US EPA's most conservative acceptable risk

8 threshold illness rate of 8 illnesses per 1,000

9 swimmers in primary contact recreational waters.

Risks were also calculated individually for

11 each of the three different classes of recreational

12 use that span the range of exposures reported in the

13 UAA survey in proportion to the frequency of use for

14 each waterway segment. The recreational activity

15 that results in the greatest number of affected users

16 depends on both the proportion of users engaged in

17 that activity and the pathogen load in that waterway

18 segment. For example, in the North Side segment

19 33.7 percent of the gastrointestinal illnesses are

20 predicted to result from canoeing, but canoeing

21 accounts for only 20 percent of the users of the

22 North Side waterway. In the Stickney and Calumet

23 segments, the predicted illnesses were predominantly

24 from fishing and boating due to the low frequency of

1 canoeists in these waterway segments. To further

2 evaluate the risk stratified by the recreational use

3 activity, risk per 1,000 exposure events were

4 computed separately for canoeing, boating, and

5 fishing recreational uses. As expected, the highest

6 risks were associated with recreational use by the

7 highest exposure group (i.e. canoeing). However, for

8 each waterway the risks associated with the highest

9 exposure use are below US EPA's illness rate of 8 per

10 1,000 swimmers in primary contact recreational

11 waters.

For the North Side and Stickney waterway

13 segments, the majority of predicted illnesses were

14 the result of concentrations of viruses, E. coli, and

15 Giardia. For the Calumet waterway, the risks are

16 generally lower with multiple organisms contributing

17 to the overall risk.

Effect of Effluent Disinfection on Pathogen

19 Microbial Risks. The goal of the study was to

20 estimate the effect of disinfection of the effluent

21 from the water reclamation plants on microbial risk.

22 This was accomplished by evaluating risk under dry

23 weather conditions when the plant effluent is the

24 major microbial source to the waterway in addition to

1 wet weather conditions when non-plant inputs are a

2 significant source of microbial load to the waterway.

3 The plant effluent pathogen loads are similar in both

4 dry and wet weather conditions such that the dry

5 weather sampling data can be used to estimate the

6 waterway load that could be affected by disinfection.

7 Wet weather sampling data was assumed to encompass

8 both plant effluent loading (attenuated by

9 disinfection) and non-point discharges to the

10 waterway (e.g., CSO's, pumping stations, and

11 stormwater outfalls).

Disinfection of the effluent outfall was

13 predicted to result in a decrease in effluent

14 pathogen loads from the water reclamation plants, but

15 have little effect on pathogen -- overall pathogen

16 concentrations in the waterway. This is because the

17 sampling data shows that a large proportion of the

18 pathogen load results from sources other than the

19 plant effluent. Disinfection results in effluent

20 pathogen risk decreasing from a low level to

21 essentially zero from the water reclamation plant but

22 has little impact in waterway pathogen concentrations

23 affected by current or past wet weather conditions.

24 The results are presented in the table on Exhibit 1.

There are a lot of numbers here, so let me

2 walk up here to break this down a little bit more.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Tolson, to be clear,

4 that's an exhibit to your testimony, correct?

MR. TOLSON: It is an attachment to my

6 testimony, yes.

This table here presents the numbers that

8 are the actually predicted risk estimates. So this

9 number, for example, for North Side for no

10 disinfection, 1.53, would be -- we would expect no

11 more than 1.53 people per 1,000 -- Obviously for

12 1,000 we'd have to go to a million or something in

13 order to get that many people. So it's less than two

14 people per 1,000 we would predict to develop illness

15 from recreational activity on the North Side segment.

16 It's higher, 1.74 in the Stickney and very low, 1.2,

17 in the Calumet. So this is the baseline, no

18 disinfection, overall risk of illness from

19 recreational users that are there in wet and dry

20 weather conditions.

If we evaluate this, again, by taking the

22 effluent discharge from the District and attenuating

23 that, but including the dry and wet weather inputs

24 that are still there, we can look at UV radiation and

1 see that the North Side number drops from 1.53 to

2 1.32. So there's still significant risk, and this

3 risk is not due to the effluent. It's due to the

4 other sources that are there because the effluent

5 went essentially to zero.

The same thing with ozonation and

7 chlorination. These numbers are different because

8 those different disinfection techniques affect

9 different organisms -- pathogenic organisms

10 differently. Again, for Stickney, you can see that,

11 although there was a decrease based on the

12 disinfection techniques, the decrease was not very

13 significant. Again, for Calumet there was a

14 decrease, and there it was not significant at all.

Therefore, these results suggest that

16 disinfection of effluent will have little impact on

17 the overall illness rates from recreational use of

18 the CAWS.

Conclusions. The results presented in my

20 testimony are based on weather and waterway sampling

21 representative of the entire recreational year.

22 Results demonstrate that, although indicator levels

23 are relatively high at the water reclamation plant

24 effluents and at locations downstream of the plants

1 and the North Branch Pumping Station and Racine

2 Avenue Pumping Station, pathogen levels are generally

3 low. Low pathogen levels correspond to a low

4 probability of developing gastrointestinal illness,

5 even for the most highly exposed recreational users

6 in areas of the CAWS in close proximity to

7 non-disinfected effluents from the Stickney, Calumet,

8 and North Side plants. For the designated

9 recreational uses evaluated, the risks of developing

10 illness were less than the US EPA's illness rate of

11 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in primary contact

12 recreational waters. Results further demonstrate

13 that disinfection of WRP effluent will have minimal

14 effects on overall recreational illness rates.

Respectful submitted.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.

With that, we'll move to the questions, and

18 we'll start with Natural Resources. And we'll let

19 you ask all your questions for all three of the

20 witnesses before we move on.

MS. ALEXANDER: Good morning. My name is Ann

22 Alexander. I'm Natural Resources defense counsel.

Just for clarity, given that your testimony

24 has been presented as a panel, I have changed

1 somewhat the order of the prefiled questions. I will

2 do my best to reference which question for each

3 witness I'm asking. In some cases I have had to

4 modify the questions given the format. If I do not

5 specify who I am asking the question to, I am asking

6 it to all of you and any of you may answer. In a few

7 cases where one of you have made a statement in your

8 prefiled testimony or a few other limited

9 circumstances, I may direct a question to one of you,

10 in which case I would like that one of you to answer

11 the question. Then, of course, any of the others of

12 you may chime in with additional information if you

13 see fit.

So let me start out with what was -- I've

15 heard your name about three times, and I hope I don't

16 butcher it. Petropoulou. Question number one, which

17 I am going to ask each of you to answer individually.

18 These go to various roles in the risk assessment

19 study. I'd like to ask each of you just to describe

20 briefly for me what specifically your role was in the

21 conduct of this risk assessment study.

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have been the project

23 manager for the microbial risk assessment study, and

24 in that role I had many responsibilities. I

1 assembled the project team -- the Geosyntec project

2 team. That includes Geosyntec, myself, Dr. Tolson,

3 and other -- and other staff from Geosyntec. Also, I

4 assembled the senior scientific advisor committee.

5 That includes Dr. Charles Gerba, Dr. Jim Patterson,

6 Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing. I also selected and retained

7 specialized laboratories to perform the work. And I

8 had overall responsibility for every aspect of the

9 work in terms of completing the work within schedule

10 and budget and providing the deliverables to the

11 District.

MS. ALEXANDER: When did you first commence

13 working on the risk assessment?

MS. PETROPOULOU: From the proposal stage. I

15 submitted the proposal to the District, and at that

16 stage I assembled the project team.

MS. ALEXANDER: Next Mr. Tolson, please?

MR. TOLSON: Yes. I served as the lead risk

19 assessor on the project, calculations of the risks,

20 pulling together the information on exposure inputs.

MS. ALEXANDER: And when did you commence work

22 on this project?

MR. TOLSON: From the proposal stage.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And Dr. Gerba?

MR. GERBA: Yeah. I was on the senior advisory

2 committee, although I was the youngest member of that

3 committee. I had input on basically the types of

4 pathogens that we might be looking for for the risk

5 assessment, the analytical methods that might be

6 appropriate to look for these various pathogens, and

7 I also had input on the risk assessment. I did

8 perform -- My laboratory did perform the adenovirus

9 assays and the norovirus assays for the project.

MS. ALEXANDER: And when did you commence work

11 on this project?

MR. GERBA: In the proposal stage.

MS. ALEXANDER: And is it possible for you to

14 estimate for me about how many hours you have spent

15 working on this?

MR. GERBA: To this date? Up to right now?

MS. ALEXANDER: Up to right now from the

18 proposal stage. Just a general sense.

MR. GERBA: Over a hundred.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And now I just want to

21 get a little bit more specific about the tasks

22 involved in the risk assessment. I'm asking this to

23 all of you and each of you who was responsible for

24 each of the following tasks and responsibilities.

Who developed the sampling protocol?

MS. PETROPOULOU: We did not develop the

3 sampling protocol. We consulted with Dr. Gerba to

4 select EPA-approved protocols.

MS. ALEXANDER: And what about situations -- I

6 should ask you, were there EPA-approved protocols for

7 all types of sampling that you did?

MS. PETROPOULOU: There were. Yes, correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Who physically collected the

10 samples?

MS. PETROPOULOU: The samples were collected by

12 staff from the District. The sampling staff were

13 people -- samplers that the District has that they

14 routinely do this type of sampling. For viruses and

15 protozoan, Dr. Gerba and his assistant trained the

16 District staff during the first week of sampling for

17 the collection of the samples.

MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up for a second.

On neuroviruses, was there an EPA-approved

20 process, or do you need to use an SOP from the

21 university?

MS. PETROPOULOU: We used an SOP from the

23 university.

MR. GERBA: Can I add to that?

We followed the guidelines provided by EPA

2 on their web page for microbiology. EPA does have

3 guidelines for molecular methods based on PCR for

4 detecting viruses and --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Dr. Gerba, you need to

6 speak up and speak this way.

MR. GERBA: I'm sorry.

MS. ALEXANDER: I just want to make sure I'm

9 understanding the topics. There was the cell culture

10 and PCR for which you pulled your SOP's from various

11 places. And my question actually had to do just with

12 the sampling and procedures followed for that. So

13 it's just to break that down a little bit. And

14 that's my next question.

In terms of establishing and selecting

16 protocols for analysis of the samples, I think you've

17 answered my question. Did that come from your lab,

18 Dr. Gerba, those protocols?

MR. GERBA: For the protocols for --

MS. ALEXANDER: Protocols for analysis of the

21 samples.

MR. GERBA: No. They came from various sources,

23 EPA-approved methods, methods for which EPA provided

24 guidance for the methods, and a protocol for the

1 adenoviruses -- for the laboratory analysis was SOP

2 from our laboratory, which we'd used in previous

3 studies.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Excuse me. Is that

6 included as a part of the -- The actual piece from

7 your laboratories, is that included or the website

8 included in the report?

MR. ANDES: Is it in the overall report?

MS. PETROPOULOU: It's in the sampling --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm sorry. You have to

12 answer so we can hear.

MS. PETROPOULOU: It's in the sampling and

14 analysis plan, and that is referenced in the report.

15 I don't know if the District has posted that on their

16 web page.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I guess what I'm asking is,

18 is there a direction either here in the report or

19 somewhere else in the record that tells us where we

20 can go look at the SOP that you used? If not, can we

21 get a copy of that?

MR. ANDES: We'll check on that. One way or

23 another we'll get a copy.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.

MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up for Dr. Gerba?

I just wanted to clarify, for the record.

3 This University of Arizona method that you used, has

4 it been peer reviewed, or is it accepted in the field

5 as a method that can be routinely used for measuring

6 concentrations of viruses? Can you tell us a little

7 bit more about it?

MR. GERBA: This only referred to the adenovirus

9 part of the assay. The total culturable virus or we

10 also call it enteric virus, we used the EPA method

11 for that. The method that we used has appeared in

12 the peer review literature, and it has been used for

13 detection of adenoviruses in sewage in wastewater

14 discharges. And that has appeared in the peer review

15 journal. We only use -- Maybe I should leave it at

16 that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Just to be complete, would I be

18 correct in saying that there is also no

19 US EPA-approved SOP for norovirus?

MR. GERBA: That's correct. US EPA only

21 provides guidance for molecular methods involving PCR

22 for virus detection in water. They have a guidance

23 document for that available, and we use that --

24 follow that guidance document.

MS. ALEXANDER: Who was responsible for

2 physically performing the analysis of the samples?

3 Who actually did the work with the test tubes?

MS. PETROPOULOU: The staff of the selected

5 labs. We had three labs that performed the analysis.

6 Hoosier Microbial Laboratory did the analysis for all

7 bacteria types and also total culturable viruses.

8 Clancy Environmental Consultants did the analysis for

9 protozoan. That includes both Cryptosporidium and

10 Giardia. And the University of Arizona laboratory

11 did the analysis for adenovirus and Calicivirus.

MS. ALEXANDER: And who actually performed the

13 risk calculations? Was that you, Dr. Tolson?

MR. TOLSON: Yes, that's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: And who wrote up the initial

16 draft of the report?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I compiled the report with

18 contributions from every member of our team. I

19 utilized the laboratory reports and inputs from

20 Dr. Gerba and Dr. Tolson. And I co-authored sections

21 of the reports as well.

MS. ALEXANDER: After you wrote up the initial

23 draft, was that draft then reviewed by others

24 involved in the project?

MS. PETROPOULOU: The draft was reviewed

2 internally by our quality assurance manager and the

3 peer review panel in our senior advisor committee.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I didn't quite catch

5 that last question. It was reviewed by the QA and

6 by --

MS. PETROPOULOU: The senior advisor committee

8 within our group.

MS. ALEXANDER: Of which Dr. Gerba is a member.

Okay. Who made the decisions overall as to

11 the scope of the study? What I'm including in that

12 by way mostly of example is the number and identity

13 of the pathogens studied and the types of illnesses

14 studied.

MS. PETROPOULOU: The Geosyntec team.

MS. ALEXANDER: And who are you including when

17 you say the Geosyntec team?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Geosyntec, our senior advisory

19 committee, and our subcontractor laboratories.

MS. ALEXANDER: In other words, the three of you,

21 among others, collaborated on those decisions?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Gerba, in your role on the

24 advisory committee, did you at any point disagree

1 with decisions or proposals made concerning the study

2 methodology or its scope or any other significant

3 aspect of the risk assessment study?

MR. GERBA: No. We were always involved in

5 robust scientific discussions, but I don't think we

6 had any disagreement.

MS. ALEXANDER: Now, this is originally from

8 Tolson question number one, but I will direct it to

9 all of you.

I would like to know the role of the

11 following groups. The first is Patterson

12 Environmental Consultants. I don't believe they've

13 been mentioned yet. What did they do?

MS. PETROPOULOU: They have been mentioned.

15 Dr. Patterson was one of the members of the three

16 members of the senior advisory committee.

MS. ALEXANDER: Cecil Lue-Hing & Associates?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct. He has been

19 mentioned as well. He was a member of the senior

20 advisory committee.

MS. ALEXANDER: Are there any other members of

22 the senior advisory committee that you have not yet

23 mentioned? So far I have Dr. Gerba, Dr. Patterson,

24 Cecil Lue-Hing. Who am I missing on that list?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Originally during the proposal

2 stage we had Dr. Jack Colford. He informed me that

3 he was overcommitted and he wasn't able to serve on

4 the committee. So he is -- He did not serve in that

5 capacity.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Could you spell that name

7 for the record?

MS. PETROPOULOU: C-o-l-f-o-r-d.

MS. ALEXANDER: Did Dr. Colford perform any work

10 or provide any advice or input with respect to the

11 risk assessment?

MS. PETROPOULOU: During the proposal stage, he

13 was involved in the planning of the project. And

14 that was the extent of his involvement.

MS. ALEXANDER: During that proposal stage, did

16 Dr. Colford have any disagreements with the

17 methodology or any other aspect of the study as you

18 were developing it in the proposal?

MS. PETROPOULOU: He did not.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. A question directed to

21 Dr. Tolson and Petropoulou.

Do either of you have any formal training

23 in microbiology?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have limited training in

1 microbiology as part of my environmental engineering

2 training, but I am not an environmental microbiologist.

MS. ALEXANDER: When you say limited training,

4 what does that include?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I took classes and I did

6 labwork in environmental microbiology as an integral

7 part of the curriculum to become an environmental

8 engineer.

MS. ALEXANDER: Those classes were as an

10 undergraduate?

MS. PETROPOULOU: No, they were not. They were

12 part of my Ph.D program.

MS. ALEXANDER: How many classes did you take in

14 environmental microbiology?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I took two classes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Tolson?

MR. TOLSON: Yes. I hold a graduate degree in

18 food science and nutrition. Microbiology and food

19 safety are obviously important components of that.

20 Within that curriculum, I took two

21 microbiology-focused classes. One of them was a food

22 safety class. I'm not sure how microbiology -- It

23 wasn't completely a microbiology class, but that was

24 at least half of the curriculum.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. This question is derived

2 from what was originally Gerba question 12 and Tolson

3 question 3, but I'm directing it really to each of

4 you to answer, if you could.

Are you familiar with a review of the

6 interim version of the risk assessment that was

7 prepared by Tim Wade of US EPA?

MR. ANDES: Is there a particular document

9 you're referring to?

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. I am going to present a

11 document. Let me ask the question generally. If

12 they're not familiar, I can clarify it quickly.

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have never received a

14 document from Tim Wade.

MR. TOLSON: My answer is that I'm familiar with

16 some responses we got from EPA. I'm not sure that

17 Tim Wade was the lead author on this.

MS. ALEXANDER: I would like to have this

19 document marked as an exhibit. This is entitled Dry

20 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of

21 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago

22 Area Waterway System, Review Conducted for US

23 Region V, Office of Water, Review Conducted by US EPA

24 Office of Research and Development. Unfortunately, I

1 have limited copies.

MR. ANDES: What's the date of that document?

MS. ALEXANDER: This document I do not believe

4 has a date on it.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm not seeing a date.

I've been handed the document Dry Weather

7 Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of

8 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago

9 Area Waterway System, Review Conducted for US EPA

10 Region V Office of Water, Review Conducted by US EPA

11 Office of Research and Development. As noted, there

12 is no date on this document. I'm going to mark this

13 as Exhibit 72.

Is there any objection?

MR. ANDES: No. I would only add that I believe

16 there are other questions concerning communications

17 between -- communications from EPA -- to EPA

18 regarding the risk assessment. There are a number of

19 other documents, all of which have specific dates.

20 In fact, I believe that this document is attached to

21 an EPA letter that we have and that we have copies

22 of. And we actually also have them burned on to a

23 disk.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Which you're going to

1 present to the record?

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Would you like to present it to

4 the record now for clarity? That would be fine by

5 me.

MR. ANDES: Sure.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Seeing no objection, this

8 is marked as Exhibit 72.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 72, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

MR. ANDES: I have a disk which includes all the

13 documents.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay.

MS. ALEXANDER: All of which documents?

MR. ANDES: I will provide those in a moment.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I've been handed a disk

19 marked US EPA Correspondence.

MR. ANDES: I have four documents that are

21 included on the disk, and the first one is actually

22 attached to an MWRD e-mail of March 22, 2007, which

23 transmits a message from Linda Holst of EPA March 20,

24 2007. And I believe the attachment to that e-mail is

1 the document that Ms. Alexander is referring to.

2 There are two documents attached. That is one of

3 them.

Then there is a letter of May 31, 2007,

5 from Louis Kollias at MWRD to Allen Melcer,

6 M-e-l-c-e-r, at EPA with attachments. There is a

7 letter of July 12, 2007, from Allen Melcer at EPA to

8 Louis Kollias at MWRD. And there is a letter with

9 attachments July 31, 2008, from Andrew Tschampa,

10 T-s-c-h-a-m-p-a, of EPA to Louis Kollias at MWRD

11 with attachments. I'm just trying to make sure we

12 have everything that we -- I'm sorry. One more

13 document. This is May 28, 2008, and this is a letter

14 from Louis Kollias from MWRD to Allen Melcer at EPA

15 with attachments. All of those documents are on that

16 disk.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

18 we'll mark the disk as Exhibit 73.

Seeing none, it's Exhibit 73.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked

Exhibit No. 73, for identification,

as of 9-9-08.)

MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to be clear. We're

24 just marking all the documents as one exhibit?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I don't have all those

2 documents. I have the CD-ROM. So I would say that,

3 for purposes of the record, if you need to cite to

4 them, you would cite to Exhibit 73 letter and date.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do we have any copies?

MR. ANDES: I can provide paper copies as well.

MS. WILLIAMS: Or electronic?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Yeah. You need to either

9 give a CD or a paper copy at least to the Agency.

MR. ANDES: Okay. So, yeah. For purposes of

11 the record, any reference to these would have to be

12 to Exhibit 73 and then by date -- I would say letter

13 date.

MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I will point out

15 that this is essentially the first time I am having

16 the opportunity to review this correspondence which I

17 was not aware previously existed. I will -- It will

18 disorganize my testimony -- my questions slightly in

19 the sense that I may follow up with questions after

20 lunch concerning these documents. So I apologize in

21 advance if things sound a little bit spotty. But I

22 will review these when given the opportunity and

23 return to them.

For now I just want to clarify. The

1 document that I identified as being from Tim Wade is,

2 in fact, attached in the set of exhibits that I was

3 just handed from the disk to a cover e-mail which is

4 from Richard Lanyon to Kollias dated March 22, 2007,

5 essentially as a transmittal.

Returning to my question, are you -- I

7 mean -- I'm asking each of you -- familiar with this

8 document? Have you seen it before? I'm referring to

9 the one attached to the e-mail.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Exhibit 72?

MS. ALEXANDER: Exhibit 72,

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have.

MR. TOLSON: Yes.

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: All right. Now, did any or all

16 of you have any discussions specifically with

17 Mr. Wade regarding his concerns?

MR. TOLSON: Yes. We actually had a meeting

19 with EPA, and I believe Tim Wade was at that meeting

20 by phone. I don't recall a lot of his input into it

21 except for an acknowledgment by him that respiratory

22 risks were something that were not amenable to

23 evaluation within this risk assessment. And we came

24 to an agreement that we could not quantify

1 respiratory risks. That was really the only portion

2 of his conversation that strikes me.

I am looking at -- If this is the letter

4 from him, his initial comments here say that,

5 "Microbial sampling and characterization seems

6 thorough and adequate. World-renowned experts were

7 consulted and retained to conduct the analysis for

8 pathogenic microorganisms and details of the sampling

9 scheme, rationale, and methods are well described.

10 The general approach described in quantitative

11 microbial risk assessment also seems appropriate.

12 The authors do a thorough job of explaining and

13 justifying their selection of dose-response functions

14 and the parameters. Generally citations and peer

15 literature are provided to support their decisions."

Based on my conversations with him at that

17 meeting, he seemed to be okay with a number of sort

18 of the issues that we derived -- or inputs that we

19 derived for our risk assessment.

MS. ALEXANDER: You say that -- Okay. Actually

21 let me back up a little bit. I don't want to

22 overcharacterize this document because it says what

23 it says.

Would you generally agree that following

1 the language that you read the remainder of the

2 document includes criticisms and/or pointing out of

3 omissions that he perceived from the risk assessment?

4 Is that accurate?

MR. TOLSON: There were a number of points and a

6 number of good points that EPA brought up that we

7 tried. We responded to those, and we tried to

8 incorporate those within those responses. I think we

9 have the response letters that are attached. Yes,

10 following from that, there were a number of points

11 that he brought up that we could clarify.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So is it your position --

13 Is it your recollection that you resolved all of the

14 issues set forth in this document in that meeting

15 with Tim Wade and others?

MR. TOLSON: I would not characterize it during

17 the course of that meeting we resolved all the

18 issues. We certainly had a better understanding of

19 EPA's positions there. I believe we went back after

20 that and drafted responses and submitted them to EPA

21 for their consideration.

MS. ALEXANDER: Following that, did US EPA tell

23 you that they were satisfied with your responses to

24 the concerns they raised?

MR. TOLSON: Unfortunately, I don't remember the

2 paper trail after that.

MR. ANDES: Well, I would refresh your

4 recollection. The letter of July 12, 2007, which

5 we've provided, if you can -- you can review that. I

6 believe the second paragraph discusses some of the

7 issues that were raised.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And that's a part of

9 Exhibit 73?

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MR. TOLSON: Okay. So that second paragraph

12 says, "In your May 31, 2007, letter you described the

13 steps the District is taking to address our comments.

14 We appreciate the effort you are making to ensure

15 that our concerns are heard and addressed based on

16 descriptions and modifications you are making to the

17 report in response to our comments. Most of our

18 concerns will be addressed. However, we do have a

19 few comments on your plans to modify the report." So

20 it seems that EPA was -- liked our responses to those

21 comments and addressed those concerns.

Is that your question?

MS. ALEXANDER: My question is, as of today, is

24 it your understanding that EPA's concerns have been

1 resolved?

MR. ANDES: The concerns raised in this

3 memorandum?

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm asking the question more

5 generally. The concerns I would characterize as

6 including those raised in this memorandum, but, as

7 reflected in the other exhibits we'll get to, include

8 additional concerns as well.

Is it your belief or understanding -- and I

10 address this to all of you -- that EPA's concerns

11 have been resolved?

MR. TOLSON: Based on EPA's comments letter, I

13 would say that most of them have been resolved.

MS. ALEXANDER: And just to get specific, I'm

15 looking at the -- what I've characterized as the Tim

16 Wade document, which does not have page numbers, but

17 page 2. I highlight these as examples for purposes

18 of discussion. Mr. Wade said, "In nearly every case

19 where simplifications and assumptions were made in

20 such a way" -- I'm sorry. "In nearly every case when

21 simplifications and assumptions were made in such a

22 way to ultimately minimize the estimated risks." And

23 then he goes on to provide examples.

Did you address those specific examples and

1 essentially, I would say, fix the problem that he

2 identified?

MR. TOLSON: We actually responded to EPA. If I

4 can get that response letter.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: One moment.

For the record, you were reading from

7 Exhibit 72?

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. This is the attachment

9 to --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: It's Exhibit 72?

MS. ALEXANDER: It's Exhibit 72, yes.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm, sorry, Dr. Tolson.

MR. TOLSON: I apologize. We actually have a

14 written response to that. I want to make sure that

15 we have the right ones for you.

MS. ALEXANDER: Which one are you identifying as

17 the written response?

MR. TOLSON: It's in, I believe, Exhibit 73,

19 which is the package of the EPA response letters.

20 I'll get the date here in a second.

The District followed up with a letter back

22 to EPA on May 28, 2008. That would be Exhibit 73,

23 May 28, 2008, letter.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And the letters from the

1 District -- Who at the District? The author of the

2 letter?

MR. TOLSON: Louis Kollias to Allen Melcer, EPA.

4 And attached to that is a May 23, 2008, letter from

5 Geosyntec Consultants, Dr. Petropoulou, to

6 Dr. Granato. In there we have responses to the EPA

7 comments.

Now that we're on the right page, you had a

9 question on the specific comment from Tim Wade?

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Let's see where you're

11 going with this. I'll cover specifics to the extent

12 necessary later. Let me just ask regarding the

13 meetings.

You described a meeting in which Mr. Wade

15 was present on the phone. When did that meeting take

16 place? Do you recall?

MR. TOLSON: April 2007.

Dr. Petropoulou, do you know the date?

MS. PETROPOULOU: April 10.

MS. ALEXANDER: And who was present at that

21 meeting besides Tim Wade?

MS. PETROPOULOU: In one of the letters from

23 Mr. Kollias to Linda Holst, I think he has a memo

24 like the minutes of the meeting and he has a listing

1 of all participants.

MS. ALEXANDER: Can you perhaps point that out

3 to me, please?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Yes. It's the May 31, 2007,

5 letter from Mr. Kollias to Allen Melcer. And he has

6 attached the minutes of the meeting. And he --

MS. ALEXANDER: I found it. Thank you.

MS. PETROPOULOU: And then you can see the

9 meeting participants there.

MS. ALEXANDER: Give me one second.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Is that a lengthy list of

12 participants? Perhaps we can read it into the record

13 because you two are the only two that actually have

14 hard copies of the stuff you're looking at. If you

15 could read the participants into the record.

MS. PETROPOULOU: Okay. Meeting participants:

17 Mr. Allen Melcer, Ms. Linda Holst, Ms. Janet

18 Pellegrini, Dr. David Pfeifer, and Mr. Edward Hammer

19 from US EPA Region V, Mr. Lou Kollias, Dr. Thomas

20 Granato, Catherine O'Connor, and Geeta Rijal from the

21 District, and Drs. Chriso Petropoulou and Keith

22 Tolson from Geosyntec Consultants, Dr. Charles P.

23 Gerba from the University of Arizona, Dr. Cecil

24 Lue-Hing from Leu-Hing -- Cecil Leu-Hing &

1 Associates, Dr. James Patterson from Patterson

2 Environmental Consultants were present in the

3 meeting. Also, Ms. Cindy Roberts, Dr. Mary

4 Rothermich, and Timothy Wade from US EPA Office of

5 Research and Development, and Mr. John Ravenscroft

6 and Ms. Samantha Fontenelle from US EPA Office of

7 Science and Technology joined the meeting via

8 conference call.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. ALEXANDER: Thank you.

Were there any meetings held at which

12 US EPA was present and you were present to discuss

13 the risk assessment after this meeting?

MS. PETROPOULOU: No.

MS. ALEXANDER: I include phone meetings in

16 that.

MR. TOLSON: No, there was not.

MS. ALEXANDER: Other than the correspondence,

19 which is included in Exhibit 72, is there any

20 additional correspondence you were aware of between

21 Geosyntec -- or contributed to by Geosyntec and

22 US EPA?

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you mean Exhibit 73?

MS. ALEXANDER: 73 is the disk?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I meant 73.

MR. TOLSON: Just to clarify, that's in addition

4 to the responses to Exhibit 72 from Tim Wade?

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.

MR. TOLSON: Okay.

MS. ALEXANDER: In addition to all the documents

8 in Exhibit 73 that we have before us now, is there

9 anything else out there that you know of?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Not that I'm aware of.

MR. TOLSON: No.

MS. ALEXANDER: So there are no other meetings

13 and no other correspondence other than this, to your

14 knowledge?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Right.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'd like to turn now to the

17 letter dated July 31, 2008, from Kollias to -- I'm

18 sorry -- to Kollias from Andrew Tschampa, acting

19 chief of the US EPA water quality branch in Region V,

20 which attaches something entitled EPA Review of Dry

21 Weather -- I'm sorry -- EPA Review of Dry and Wet

22 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of

23 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago

24 Area Waterway System. And the first line of that

1 states, "This document provides EPA's comments on

2 MWRDGC's dry and wet weather risk assessment.

Do you have that?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Excuse me. Let's go off

5 the record for just a second.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Let's take a break and get

9 some copies made.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

MR. ANDES: I thought the last substantive

12 question was concerning the March 27 document.

MS. ALEXANDER: Could the reporter read back my

14 last substantive question, please.

(WHEREUPON, the record was read

by the reporter as requested.)

MS. ALEXANDER: I'd like to turn first, if I

18 could, to the May 28, 2008, letter to Mr. Allen

19 Melcer of EPA from Kollias. And I just want to make

20 sure I understand what is attached to it first. I

21 see the EPA -- The first document attached is EPA

22 Review of Dry and Wet Weather Risk Assessment. That

23 does not appear to be the document that I initially

24 presented, but this is the document attached to --

1 Actually I take that back.

The document attached here is an EPA review

3 that does not appear to be the same document as the

4 one attached to the transmittal letter dated

5 March 27, 2007, from Lanyon to Kollias. It is a

6 different document. Am I right about that? It

7 appears to be a different document than the one that

8 is attached to the transmittal letter, which is part

9 of Exhibit 73, from Lanyon to Kollias dated March 27,

10 2007. Both of them are entitled Dry Weather Risk

11 Assessment of Human Health Impacts of Disinfection

12 versus No Disinfection. The first one, the one

13 attached to the transmittal letter, appears to be the

14 one I initially presented and characterized as the

15 Tim Wade letter or the Tim Wade memo. And the other

16 one is an additional assessment on EPA letterhead,

17 but I don't know its genesis. It's attached --

MR. ANDES: I think we're talking about a

19 copying error. I believe the first document attached

20 to the May 28 document is actually the attachment to

21 the July 31, 2008, EPA letter.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Let me just fix that.

MR. ANDES: If you take that off, then I think

24 the first thing you would find after the May 28,

1 2008, letter would be the Geosyntec letter of

2 May 23 --

MS. ALEXANDER: I see that.

MR. ANDES: -- to Dr. Granato.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I'm sorry to make you

6 repeat yourself. But this document that I just

7 pulled off with the attachment to --

MR. ANDES: It's a duplicate of the attachment

9 to the July 31 EPA letter, so I would just discard

10 it.

MS. ALEXANDER: Oh, I get it.

MR. ANDES: It's attached to the wrong document.

MS. ALEXANDER: So I will set that aside. Now I

14 appear to have everything. Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask that we fix this for

16 the official copy, or are we going to enter it with

17 the miscopying?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: The exhibit is Exhibit 73.

19 What we're bringing downstairs is hard copies of what

20 we're talking about. To ease the record, I was not

21 going to reenter those into the record.

MS. WILLIAMS: It just sounds like there was a

23 copying error in his hard copy, right? Did I

24 understand, Fred, right? Not having the documents in

1 front of me, it's a little hard to follow. Is there

2 a mistake in the hard copy?

MS. ALEXANDER: The only mistake was a duplicate

4 of the attachment. The July 31, 2008, letter was

5 mistakenly included under cover of the May 23, 2008,

6 letter. When the duplicate is removed, you have --

7 The pieces of the document are a transmittal from

8 Melcer -- I'm sorry -- to Melcer from Kollias dated

9 May 28 transmitting a letter from Geosyntec to MWRD,

10 Thomas Granato, dated May 23. And then the

11 attachments to the May 23 letter enclosure says,

12 "Responses to EPA's technical review comments

13 regarding the interim phase one," et cetera,

14 et cetera.

MR. ANDES: If needed, we can submit a corrected

16 copy of the disk. But it's simply a duplicate copy

17 of an attachment that was put in the wrong place.

MS. ALEXANDER: The first question regarding --

19 I'm jumping now to the May 23, 2008, letter to

20 Granato from Petropoulou and the enclosures. I'm

21 trying to understand the enclosures.

There are two documents that are

23 essentially purporting to be -- appear to be

24 responses interspersed with the comments from

1 Geosyntec to the critiques from US EPA. As you'll

2 note on the document, there will be a summary --

3 correct me if I'm mischaracterizing any of this -- of

4 the US EPA critique in regular type followed by a

5 bold, italicized response from Geosyntec; is that

6 correct?

MS. PETROPOULOU: It's not a summary. It's

8 verbatim the comments that we see from EPA.

MS. ALEXANDER: In preparing this response

10 document, did you include every word that was in the

11 EPA critiques, or did you select out what you

12 considered to be the gist of that?

MS. PETROPOULOU: No. I took the document -- It

14 came in in Word via e-mail. So I took that document

15 in Word, and I inserted the responses below each of

16 the comments.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. My question then is,

18 there appear to be two different sets of responses,

19 which as far as I can tell are non-identical. And

20 they have the same title, so I can't differentiate

21 them. But the first one is a five-page document, and

22 then there is a -- they're clearly not duplicates --

23 a 15-page document.

Could you please explain to me which EPA

1 document each of these is responding to?

MS. PETROPOULOU: There are two EPA documents

3 that came through, and I responded to each one of

4 them. They are not identical.

MS. ALEXANDER: Which are the two? Are those

6 contained in Exhibit 72, just so I can match the

7 documents with the responses?

MS. PETROPOULOU: It's --

MR. MELAS: Do you mean 73?

MS. ALEXANDER: 73. Sorry.

MR. MELAS: I'm paying attention.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm glad someone is.

MS. PETROPOULOU: Yes, they are part of that

14 exhibit.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Turning to this first

16 five-page document, which other document in

17 Exhibit 73 is that responding to?

MS. PETROPOULOU: There's an e-mail from

19 Mr. Lanyon to Mr. Kollias, and that e-mail has two

20 sets of comments -- two documents attached.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

MR. ANDES: And that reflected transmittal of

23 the message from Linda Holst of March 20, 2007, from

24 EPA which attached two EPA documents, which are the

1 ones that are being responded to.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So the first one under

3 that transmittal letter dated March 22, 2007, in

4 Exhibit 73 is an unnumbered document, but it appears

5 to be the same document that I initially presented to

6 you as the Tim Wade memo; is that correct?

MS. PETROPOULOU: It appears to be the same. I

8 haven't checked it word for word. And I don't know

9 if it's -- Our document doesn't say that it came from

10 Tim Wade.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So we will need to check

12 that at some point.

And then there is a second document which

14 also identifies itself as a review conducted by EPA

15 Office of Science and Technology. Can you tell me

16 which of these documents you saw first, or did you

17 see them together? I'm just trying to understand the

18 history of how these came to be in your possession.

MS. PETROPOULOU: I saw them together.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Why -- Do you have an

21 understanding as to why there are two separate

22 documents from essentially the same source, that

23 being EPA Office of Research and Development,

24 critiquing the same document in some similar and

1 overlapping ways, but not entirely identical ways? I

2 mean, why are there two documents of this nature is

3 my question?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I believe there are two

5 different branches of EPA. One of the documents

6 explains that actually in a note.

MR. ANDES: I would also note, for the record,

8 that the first one says the review is conducted by

9 the Office of Research and Development. The second

10 document says it is --

MS. ALEXANDER: I just saw that. Thank you.

12 They're two different branches.

Okay. Let's turn to the first one, the one

14 that states that it was prepared -- the review was

15 conducted by the Office of Research and Development.

Do any of you have any knowledge as to who

17 specifically at the Office of Research and

18 Development prepared this?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I don't.

MR. GERBA: No.

MR. TOLSON: Nor do I.

MS. ALEXANDER: With regard to the second one,

23 the same question. Do you know who at the Office of

24 Water, Science, and Technology prepared this?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I don't.

MR. TOLSON: Nor do I.

MS. ALEXANDER: In the meeting that you

4 described for which we read the participants in April

5 of 2007, were you at that time in possession of both

6 of these documents?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I was.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And you've discussed both

9 of these documents with persons from EPA who were

10 there?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Who prepared the

13 responses that are in bold, italicized text in the

14 attachments to the May 23, 2008, Geosyntec letter?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I did.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Drs. Tolson and Gerba,

17 did either of you contribute to those responses?

MR. TOLSON: Yes. I contributed to those

19 responses.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was your role or

21 contribution in preparing those?

MR. TOLSON: I believe there were some specific

23 questions that Dr. Petropoulou had asked for me to

24 look at and respond to, and I responded to those

1 specific questions.

MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Gerba, did you have any

3 role?

MR. GERBA: Yeah. I responded verbally at the

5 meeting.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. You responded --

MR. GERBA: Verbally.

MS. ALEXANDER: But, Dr. Petropoulou, do I

9 understand correctly that you actually drafted these

10 responses?

MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.

A lot of the responses to EPA refer to

13 specific sections of the report where we explained

14 how and where we have addressed their comments to

15 make it easier for them to follow through the final

16 report, and those sections were not necessarily

17 prepared exclusively by me. So I refer back to the

18 final report. In that sense, I compiled the

19 document, but I relied on the report which we

20 prepared together collectively.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I understand.

Now, would it be fair to say, as a general

23 matter, in your responses to EPA's comments, you do

24 not in every instance make a change in response to

1 that comment, but in at least some instances you

2 explain to EPA why you decided to do what you did?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct. There are some

4 things that clearly it was a clarification or we

5 pointed out within the document where that

6 information existed.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And just to get to a few

8 specifics there, I'm looking at the first document.

9 Let me make sure I'm not confusing things before I go

10 citing page numbers. Yes. The first enclosure,

11 page 4, in toward -- about two-thirds of the way up

12 the page, there's a bullet point, "GI" -- meaning

13 gastrointestinal -- "illness is the sole end point of

14 risk." The statement is made -- or by US EPA. "This

15 is a major weakness in the risk assessment." And

16 then there's some text that follows that. And then

17 in your response essentially you provide a reason why

18 you only consider gastrointestinal illness

19 quantitatively; is that correct?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: And then on page 4, again toward

22 the bottom, EPA has raised a concern concerning

23 exposure to water users through fish intake. In

24 other words, consumption of fish from these

1 potentially bacterially contaminated waters. And

2 your response is essentially to give a reason why you

3 did not include that specifically, that fish

4 consumption is typically regulated with fish

5 advisories, et cetera; is that correct?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct. And both of those

7 comments were addressed verbally in the meeting. The

8 fish consumption comment, I can't remember exact

9 resolution there. But the first point on the GI

10 illness as the end point is one where I specifically

11 remember conversations with Tim Wade at EPA. I mean,

12 we point blank asked him, "How would you recommend

13 that we would evaluate this quantitatively?" He

14 recognized that there was not a way in which we could

15 do that and agreed -- We came to an agreement that GI

16 illness was the most appropriate way to sort of

17 quantitatively evaluate risk for recreational users.

MS. ALEXANDER: Now, just a point of

19 clarification. When you say, "We came to an

20 agreement," you're referring to your discussion with

21 Tim Wade. Was it your understanding that the

22 statements he made reflected the position of the

23 Agency or just him? Did you have an understanding at

24 the meeting? I guess the question would be, was it

1 sufficiently informal that it really was a

2 conversation between you and Mr. Wade trying to reach

3 agreement?

MR. TOLSON: Correct. There were a number of

5 EPA people on the phone. I'm not sure I could

6 characterize it one way or the other. I'm sorry.

MS. ALEXANDER: So on this particular point, for

8 instance, do you recall any discussions, agreement,

9 disagreement by anyone else at EPA concerning that

10 point?

MR. TOLSON: No. I do not recall anybody

12 objecting and saying that, you know, "You're right,"

13 and pointing out alternative methods that we could

14 have applied. I think it was pretty clear from the

15 participants in the room that we had kind of closed

16 the loop on respiratory illness as a quantitative end

17 point within the assessment. I think they were

18 satisfied with our response and our position on how

19 we conducted the risk assessment.

MS. ALEXANDER: Moving on to page 5 of that same

21 document, the comment as summarized from US EPA,

22 "Overall this risk assessment does not do an

23 effective job at presenting the actual risk of

24 exposure to undisinfected sewage effluent present in

1 the CAWS. More transparency would aid the reader in

2 the confidence of the conclusions."

Am I correct in summarizing the response

4 here as, rather than indicating that additional data

5 was provided, essentially explaining why the data was

6 provided and the report was, in fact, adequate?

7 Would that be accurate.

MR. ANDES: Can you restate that question?

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Give me one second before

10 I restate it.

Would I be correct in summarizing your

12 response as not specifically identifying changes that

13 were made to fix the problem that I just embodied in

14 the text that I just read from EPA, but rather

15 explaining why you do not consider it to be a

16 problem?

MR. TOLSON: I see what your point is here now.

I wouldn't concur with that completely. In

19 fact, I, you know -- I appreciated EPA's input on

20 this, and we did make changes throughout the document

21 to enhance the transparency and presentation of our

22 risks. While the discussion as presented in this

23 response details points within the document as it

24 existed, I think there was additional changes that

1 were made in the document so that we could further

2 the transparency and presentation of those risks.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any knowledge one

4 way or the other as to whether those changes were

5 sufficient to satisfy EPA's concern reflected in that

6 text that I read initially?

MR. TOLSON: I believe, based on their response

8 July 12, 2007, that those were adequately addressed.

9 If you'd like, I can read that --

MS. ALEXANDER: July 12, 2007. Hold on one

11 second.

MR. TOLSON: That was an Exhibit 73 package of

13 correspondence between the Agency and the District.

MR. ANDES: You read that second paragraph into

15 the record earlier.

MS. ALEXANDER: Hold on one second.

Is this a document that was attached to

18 the -- No. I'm sorry.

The July 12, 2007, letter, is that what

20 you're referring to?

MR. TOLSON: Yes, ma'am.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. That's the basis for your

23 conclusion they were satisfied with that -- that they

24 were satisfied with the response that you provided

1 here to their concern that the risk assessment does

2 not do an effective job presenting the actual risk of

3 exposure, et cetera?

MR. TOLSON: Yes, that is correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And then turning, by way

6 of additional example, to page 3 of the second

7 document that is attached to that May 23 letter,

8 about two-thirds of the way to the top there's a

9 bullet point stating, "Conservative assumptions were

10 not made in nearly every case when simplifications

11 and assumptions were made in such a way to ultimately

12 minimize the estimated risks," which is text I also

13 read earlier.

Would it be fair to characterize your

15 response as not so much responding to the specific

16 examples -- or changing, I should say, the specific

17 examples that were made by EPA, but pointing out ways

18 in which you consider yourself to have made other

19 conserve assumptions?

MR. TOLSON: My opinion is that the comment is

21 misdirected. Our response to this was really to

22 clarify it. It's my opinion that we made multiple

23 conservative assumptions here, not unconservative

24 assumptions. If anything, I believe our risk

1 estimates are biased high. Our evaluation of the

2 effectiveness of disinfection probably underestimates

3 that impact -- Sorry. It would underestimate the

4 impact of the total waterway. What we've listed here

5 are specific examples within the document that

6 demonstrate -- that employ conservative assumptions

7 throughout the entire assessment. If you'd like, I

8 can read through them. We've have listed eight

9 specific instances.

MS. ALEXANDER: That won't be necessary.

MR. TOLSON: Those are is pretty much the litany

12 of inputs that we could put in there. We were

13 conservative on almost every one of our selections.

MS. ALEXANDER: My point being though, with

15 respect to the specific assumptions that were

16 identified by US EPA as nonconservative, you did not,

17 in fact, change those assumptions in your final

18 report; is that correct?

MR. TOLSON: Within the comments that we got, we

20 did not get a specific assumption here that was

21 considered nonconservative.

MS. ALEXANDER: Well, let me perhaps clarify

23 with what I'm referring to.

On page 4, for instance, I understand that

1 you responded to this, so I'm not, you know, seeking

2 a reiteration of your response. But they stated,

3 "High infectivity parameters for adenovirus were

4 dismissed because they usually cause respiratory

5 illness." And you provided a response which didn't,

6 in fact, change that method or that assumption. You

7 explained why you thought it was fair; is that

8 correct?

MR. TOLSON: I believe that their assumption is

10 incorrect. You know, we pointed out the

11 rationale why. I think Dr. Gerba can probably speak

12 to that further.

MR. GERBA: Yeah. We dealt with that in a

14 qualitative fashion because it was agreed there was

15 no exposure model available for assessing the risk

16 from aerosols. That was one big problem with

17 inability to do that. How much does -- How much do

18 you actually aerosolize from the waterway or any body

19 of water like that? So that already made it -- You

20 had to totally guess on that.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm actually going to cover

22 later the nature of the purported qualitative, as

23 opposed to quantitative, risk assessments. I'm more

24 trying to understand the nature of your responses to

1 US EPA's concerns and the trajectory of that and how

2 it ended up.

MR. ANDES: Let me follow up on that.

Dr. Gerba, if I can refer you to the

5 May 31, 2007, District letter, which included the

6 responses to issues raised in the April 2007 meeting.

7 If you can -- If you have that document.

MR. GERBA: I don't have it.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was the date of the letter?

MR. ANDES: The May 31, 2007, letter from

11 Kollias to Melcer.

And I believe on the -- in the attachment

13 the third bullet talks about the plan to conduct a

14 qualitative assessment; is that right?

MR. GERBA: Right. The reviewers were concerned

16 that a risk assessment did not consider

17 non-gastrointestinal -- non-GI illness. The non-GI

18 organism Pseudomonas and adenovirus were detected in

19 the Chicago waterway system, but the rate of illness

20 was not analyzed. To our knowledge, there are no

21 dose response data for these organisms to qualify the

22 risk of illness due to dermal and inhalation

23 exposures.

MR. ANDES: You might want to slow down for a

1 second for her.

DR. GERBA: I'm sorry.

MS. ALEXANDER: So, in other words, this was

4 your assessment of Pseudomonas as the qualitative

5 assessment of respiratory --

MR. ANDES: He's not done with the statement.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry.

MR. GERBA: The meeting participants also

9 recognize that non-GI illness can only be considered

10 for qualitative risk assessment. We plan to conduct

11 a qualitative risk assessment of non-GI illness with

12 special emphasis on dermal contact and inhalation

13 exposure. In our analysis, we will include

14 comparison of concentrations found in water

15 reclamation plant effluent and the CAWS to

16 concentrations found in other environmental matrixes.

17 The finding of those qualitative risk assessments

18 would be included in the final report. That's kind

19 of where we left it because of the lack of ability to

20 do that.

MR. ANDES: And then in the July 12, 2007,

22 letter from Melcer to Kollias, which responds to that

23 letter and says, "Most of our concerns will be

24 addressed," is it your understanding that this was

1 addressed and everybody was agreed?

MR. GERBA: Yeah.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. ALEXANDER: All right. Turn now to the

5 July 31, 2008, letter, part of Exhibit 73, to

6 Mr. Kollias from Mr. Tschampa of Region V. Do you

7 have that in front of you?

MR. TOLSON: Yes, we do.

MS. ALEXANDER: Have any or each of you seen

10 this letter and the attachment previously to today?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have.

MS. ALEXANDER: When did you see it?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Two weeks ago.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And who sent it to you?

MS. PETROPOULOU: The District sent it to me.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have either of the other

17 of you two seen this letter -- this letter and the

18 attachment?

MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: You have, you said?

MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: When did you see it?

MR. TOLSON: You're pressing my memory. I don't

24 recall. If Dr. Petropoulou only got it two weeks

1 ago, it would be sometime after that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have you read it,

3 Dr. Tolson?

MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, but I don't

5 recall the details of it right now.

MS. ALEXANDER: What about you, Dr. Gerba?

MR. GERBA: Not that I can recall.

MS. ALEXANDER: Have you seen it before?

MR. GERBA: Not that I can recall.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Would it be fair, in your

11 view -- and I address this specifically to

12 Dr. Petropoulou because I believe that you have most

13 closely focused on it -- to characterize this

14 document as critical of the risk assessment?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I haven't studied the

16 document. I plan to do that, and we plan to respond

17 to these comments.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. In your limited review --

19 and I understand it was limited -- would it be fair

20 to say that at least some of the issues addressed in

21 this document are close to or, in some cases, almost

22 identical to the issues raised in the earlier

23 critique submitted by US EPA?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I can't express an opinion on

1 that, no.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have you at any point

3 discussed with US EPA the initial concern raised,

4 which is -- and I'm looking at page 1 under the

5 heading Risk Assessment versus Risk Management and

6 Policy Setting -- the critique? And I'm going to

7 select out a few lines here. "This report confuses

8 the purposes of risk assessment with risk management

9 and policy setting. The lack of clear delineation

10 between these two various functions severely hampers

11 the importance of transparency of the risk assessment

12 process," et cetera, et cetera. "However, the main

13 stated objective of the MWRDGC dry and wet weather

14 risk assessment was to evaluate the human health

15 impact of continuing the current practice of not

16 disinfecting the effluents from the District's

17 wastewater treatment plants. The subjective is

18 clearly a policy and/or risk management decision that

19 should be informed by the risk assessment,"

20 et cetera.

Is that a topic of discussion that you have

22 ever had in your conversations with US EPA?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Not that I recall.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Moving on to page 2 under

1 the heading Need for Clear Problem Formulation. Just

2 to summarize, again, another major criticism of this

3 report is the lack of a coherent problem formulation

4 and development of a transparent conceptual model.

5 To get to the specifics --

Well, first I should ask you, is that a

7 general issue that you have ever discussed, any of

8 you, with US EPA at any point?

MR. GERBA: No.

MR. TOLSON: I don't recall those conversations

11 from the meetings.

MS. ALEXANDER: Specifically, in the midst of

13 the second paragraph under that same heading, there's

14 a reference to, "The approximately 30 percent of the

15 annual flows in the waterways that are unspecific

16 EG urban runoff, CSO overflows, direct

17 precipitation." Then there's a statement, "The

18 significant component is mostly ignored by the risk

19 assessment other than to make a qualitative attempt

20 to discuss Cynomonads. The approximately 230 CSO's

21 on the waterways were not covered, nor sampled,

22 during wet weather events."

First of all, I'd like to ask, is that, in

24 fact, accurate that the 230 CSO's specifically were

1 not sampled?

MR. TOLSON: I haven't evaluated this to

3 formulate a response to the Agency. Just looking at

4 it here and giving my responses, that's inaccurate.

5 Our wet weather sampling was conducted within the

6 waterways sometimes during CSO -- immediately after

7 CSO events. I believe we've captured concentrations

8 in the waterway for which recreators would be exposed

9 that captured the effect of this 30 percent CSO

10 events.

MS. ALEXANDER: I understand that position.

However, the statement here is, I believe,

13 that specifically the CSOs, as in the CSO outfalls,

14 were not sampled; is that accurate?

MR. TOLSON: It is accurate that we do not have

16 samples at every CSO outfall through that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have samples of any,

18 specifically of the outfall effluents from CSO's?

MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up.

Was that ever the purpose of the risk

21 assessment?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: He needs to answer. He

23 needs to answer the question.

MR. ANDES: I thought he did. I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

MR. TOLSON: We did take samples at the pumping

3 station outfall, which we believed to be the most

4 extreme or the highest risk of -- or highest pathogen

5 concentration flowing to the water.

MS. ALEXANDER: When you say at the outfall, do

7 you mean the outfall effluent or immediately

8 downstream?

MS. PETROPOULOU: The pumping station discharge

10 point, not the outfall of the District's plants.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a follow-up?

Which pumping station?

MS. PETROPOULOU: We sampled each one of them,

14 the 125th Street Pumping Station in Calumet, the

15 North Branch Pumping Station at the north side, and

16 the Racine Avenue Pumping Station for Stickney.

MR. TOLSON: So the implication is that we

18 haven't captured the CSO's. We believe we've

19 captured the worst case inputs into the waterway and

20 accounted for those within our analysis.

MS. ALEXANDER: Just to correct that a little

22 bit, I don't believe the implication is so much that

23 you didn't capture the effect of CSO flows. Although

24 that may be encompassed. But I think that the

100

1 conclusion is the last sentence there, "This

2 component could have been identified and discussed

3 had a coherent problem formulation, including a

4 transparent and clear conceptual model, been employed

5 in the risk assessment process."

MR. ANDES: Is there a question?

MS. ALEXANDER: The question is, is that a topic

8 that you ever discussed with US EPA, the formulation

9 of, as they've put it, a transparent and clear

10 conceptual model that would encompass the 230 CSO's?

MR. TOSON: I believe on earlier correspondence

12 that we had concurrence with our model that we

13 developed for our approach. And, more generally,

14 these comments fit very well with EPA's philosophy of

15 how to conduct a surplus risk assessment where these

16 are the components. And what we were doing falls

17 outside the surplus risk assessment. And I believe

18 this is being reviewed in the context of the surplus

19 risk assessment. This risk assessment had very

20 different goals than typical risk assessments that

21 may have been reviewed by the Agency.

MS. ALEXANDER: What is the basis for your

23 statement that this is consistent with a surplus risk

24 assessment?

101

MR. TOLSON: I say that in terms of risk

2 management not being included within the risk

3 assessment with problem formulation as a component --

4 a conceptual site model as a component. Those come

5 from the surplus sort of arena. It would be -- Those

6 were comments that I would expect within this sort of

7 risk assessment. This risk assessment had very

8 specific purposes that were laid out within our

9 document, and they don't really fit within that mold.

MS. ALEXANDER: Why would one include sampling

11 of the 230 CSO's in a problem formulation that

12 included that in a surplus-type risk assessment, but

13 not in the type of risk assessment you purported to

14 be conducting here?

MR. TOLSON: You're misinterpreting what I'm

16 saying. I'm saying the philosophy in isolation of

17 risk management with a problem formulation that

18 considered a lot of other pathways it might be

19 extraneous to what we were looking at within this

20 assessment, which was recreational use within the

21 waterway.

MS. ALEXANDER: So -- I'm sorry. I just need to

23 ask clarifying questions.

You're saying that the surplus risk

102

1 assessment would logically include more exposure

2 pathways than the risk assessment that you were

3 conducting here?

MR. TOLSON: There are transport components

5 within that that are just not considered within our

6 microbial risk assessments. It's a different arena

7 here. We have a very specific objective that we

8 stated within our document. We've laid out a problem

9 formulation because we were interested in -- laid out

10 specifically what we were interested in, all of our

11 inputs, and we've developed our model from there.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I believe I understand

13 that. However, the specific criticism here has to do

14 with failure to incorporate the 230 CSO's,

15 specifically their discharge, into the problem

16 formulation. Isn't it the case that the CSO

17 discharges were part and parcel -- or the impact of

18 the discharges were part and parcel of the risk that

19 you purported to be analyzing?

MR. TOLSON: In addition to those CSO outfalls,

21 there are hundreds of other outfalls that are

22 potential sources to the waterway. Every bird who

23 poops on the waterway is a potential source. You

24 can't evaluate everything. What you can evaluate is

103

1 finding out what the concentration is within the

2 waterway from which the receptors are going to be

3 exposed.

MS. ALEXANDER: And I'm not asking about

5 everything. I'm asking about the CSO's.

Isn't it the case that the impact of the

7 CSO's was part of the risk that you purported to be

8 assessing here?

MR. TOLSON: We are purporting to assess the

10 risk of microbial contamination within the waterway

11 during wet weather events, which includes CSO's. It

12 includes pumping stations. It includes storm water

13 discharges. It includes effluent discharges from the

14 District. In that case, yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any basis to

16 believe, with respect to this specific waterway, that

17 there are significant microbial contributions from

18 sources other than the plant effluent and the CSO's?

MR. TOLSON: I believe that's the case.

MS. ALEXANDER: That there are other significant

21 sources?

MR. TOLSON: That there are other sources to the

23 waterway, yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: The question I asked was other

104

1 significant sources. And I am asking you to

2 characterize whether you believe they're significant.

MR. TOLSON: I am -- I don't understand what

4 significant would be. If it's in terms of overall

5 risk, the concentrations within a waterway were below

6 the EPA risk threshold for recreators even under wet

7 weather conditions. So they were not significant

8 under any cases. Whether they were higher than

9 CSO's, that's not true. CSO's were probably higher

10 than the other ones for some pathogens, but not all.

MS. ALEXANDER: Is it your position that -- I'm

12 going to have to use somewhat soft terms here because

13 I don't think we can talk about percentages. But you

14 mentioned a couple of other sources, such as, for

15 instance, bird excrement.

Do you have any basis to believe that that

17 even -- that that approaches the level of

18 contaminants that come from the CSO's? I mean,

19 microbial contaminants.

MR. TOLSON: I really wanted you to get poop on

21 the record.

MS. ALEXANDER: I have a 3-year-old. I was

23 tempted, but I refrained.

MR. TOLSON: There are some organisms for which

105

1 birds could be a significant contributor to the

2 waterway actually.

Actually, Dr. Gerba?

MR. GERBA: Campylobacter.

MS. ALEXANDER: My question really was more

6 specific than that though. It was whether you have

7 any reason to believe specifically in the case of

8 this waterbody that these non-CSO and non-effluent

9 sources of pathogens are significant. I mean, I

10 understand you have a general body of knowledge.

Do you know anything specific about this

12 waterway that would lead you to believe that there

13 are other significant sources?

MR. TOLSON: Dr. Gerba?

MR. GERBA: We're characterizing this as CSO's,

16 as combined sewer overflows?

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.

MR. GERBA: Yeah. There could be runoff from

19 the sides of the banks, from animal fecal material,

20 or any other type of runoff from land surfaces,

21 residential areas that may flow in there. So it

22 doesn't have to be necessarily a sewer overflow, but

23 direct flow into the waterway.

MR. ANDES: We also have --

106

MR. GERBA: It could be stirred-up sediments,

2 too. That's a possibility.

MS. ALEXANDER: I understand these things that

4 it could be. My question was just -- The only thing

5 I really want to know at this stage is whether you

6 have any particular knowledge of the Chicago area

7 waterway system that's being addressed in this

8 hearing that would lead you to have -- that would

9 give you specific knowledge of the contribution to

10 that waterway system as distinguished from your

11 general knowledge of things that can sometimes

12 contribute to microbial contamination other than

13 CSO's and effluents.

MR. GERBA: Specifically, no.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. That's really what I

16 wanted to hear.

MR. ANDES: If I can add, we will have at least

18 one other witness who will talk about those other

19 sources.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I want to move on to

21 page 2, the heading Need for Peer Review. Just to

22 summarize it again, the statement is made, "For the

23 report and its conclusions to be scientifically

24 defensible, we strongly recommend that it be subject

107

1 to the same type of external peer review that you are

2 conducting for your secondary contact epidemiological

3 study," referring to Dr. Dorevitch's CHEERS study.

I take it from this question that the

5 microbial -- the risk assessment has not been peer

6 reviewed?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Internally it has been peer

8 reviewed. And the EPA -- It's the first time they

9 brought this issue up. Perhaps the District would

10 follow up with that.

MS. ALEXANDER: When you say it's been

12 internally peer reviewed, are you referring to the

13 review by this -- I'm sorry -- the advisory

14 committee, as you refer to it, Dr. Gerba and the

15 others?

MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Would I be correct in stating

18 that Dr. Gerba and the others on the advisory

19 committee are being paid for their work in the

20 review?

MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: And who are they being paid by?

MS. PETROPOULOU: From the District.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So other than this review

108

1 by the scientists under the employ -- or, I should

2 say, being paid by the District, there has been no

3 other peer review beyond that?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I believe the District has

5 submitted the report to Dr. Charles Hass from Drexel

6 University, and I am not sure on the process where we're

7 going to receive -- when we were going to receive

8 comments on that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any understanding as

10 to whether Mr. -- Dr. Hass is being paid by the

11 District for his review?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I have not asked that question

13 to the District.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do any of the others of you

15 have any understanding on that point?

MR. GERBA: No.

MS. ALEXANDER: Has Dr. Hass, in fact, provided

18 any comments on the risk assessment, to your

19 knowledge?

MS. PETROPOULOU: He has provided verbal

21 comments on the risk assessment.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was the nature of those

23 comments?

MS. PETROPOULOU: He was complimentary of our

109

1 study. He says this is a very well done study. He

2 plans to provide more specific comments.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So he only provided that

4 general reaction; is that correct?

MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Moving on to the last item on

7 section 2, the Purpose of the Disinfection chapter.

8 The statement is made, "The disinfection section of

9 this report serves only to obfuscate the purpose of

10 this risk assessment." I don't believe I need to

11 read the rest.

Did you ever have any discussions with EPA

13 concerning the inclusion of this section or the

14 specifics that are included there regarding

15 disinfection byproduct, et cetera?

MR. TOLSON: Well, this gets to the point that

17 the goal of the study was really to determine the

18 effect of disinfection versus non-disinfection. So

19 that was the main goal of the study. Not including

20 disinfection within it doesn't seem reasonable.

MS. ALEXANDER: But you have not, in fact,

22 resolved this issue raised here with US EPA; is that

23 correct?

MR. TOLSON: To my knowledge, this is the first

110

1 time EPA has offered this up. You can see that

2 there's a pretty substantial paper trail of comments

3 back and forth.

MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up on that.

Would you read the first clause of the

6 second sentence in that chapter?

MS. PETROPOULOU: "While the discussion of

8 disinfection efficacy indicator organisms and

9 pathogens was relatively accurate" --

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. What did you just

12 read from? I didn't follow.

MR. ANDES: The second sentence of that same

14 paragraph.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. That same --

MR. ANDES: Under Purpose of Disinfection

17 chapter notes that it was relatively accurate.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can we read the whole sentence

19 into the record?

MR. ANDES: Sure.

Go ahead.

MS. PETROPOULOU: "While the discussion of

23 disinfection efficacy indicator organisms and

24 pathogens was relatively accurate, it seems

111

1 tangential to the actual purpose of estimating the

2 potential for human disease associated with exposure

3 to waterborne pathogens or a medium in which the

4 microbes occur."

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I'm going to cover the

6 subject matter of this later, so we'll move on.

Refer to page 3, General Issues, in

8 Chapter 5. Just reviewing the first part, Use of an

9 Outdated Risk Assessment Model; e.g., Chapter 5.

10 "Further hampers transparency and confidence in this

11 report's conclusions."

Do you have an understanding of what the

13 issue being raised here is? Which risk assessment

14 model was being recommended as opposed to what's been

15 characterized as outdated?

MR. TOLSON: I do not. I would be very

17 interested to hear from them on their comments on

18 which model they would consider not to be outdated

19 because I believe the one that we've presented is

20 pretty much the state of the science.

MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up.

Did they ever raise this issue with you

23 before and say that you're whole risk assessment

24 model was outdated?

112

MR. TOLSON: No. As a matter of fact, within

2 the comment response letter we got from the Agency it

3 says that the model is a good model. I can read it

4 again. This says, "The general approach described in

5 the quantitative microbial risk assessment also seems

6 appreciative. The authors do a good job" -- "do a

7 thorough job of explaining and justifying their

8 selections of dose response functions." I won't read

9 the rest.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And where were you reading

11 from?

MR. ANDES: The attachment to the March 20,

13 2007, Lanyon e-mail.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I am going to

16 refrain from going through the entire document at

17 this point along these lines because I think that the

18 issues become gradually more technical and specific,

19 and I'm going to be reviewing this document and

20 asking more specific questions in the context of my

21 other questioning.

MR. ANDES: Can I have one follow-up?

MS. ALEXANDER: Sure.

MR. ANDES: Dr. Gerba, back to the July 31,

113

1 2008, letter and the discussion of the outdated risk

2 assessment model. I notice that there's a revised

3 framework for microbial risk assessment that's

4 enclosed. Are you familiar with that document?

MR. GERBA: Yeah. I attended that meeting and

6 helped write it.

MS. ALEXANDER: What are you reading from? I

8 missed that.

MR. ANDES: The paragraph that starts, "General

10 issues in chapter 5," the first sentence.

MS. ALEXANDER: What page?

MR. ANDES: Page 3. It references Revised

13 Framework for Microbial Risk Assessment, and I asked

14 Dr. Gerba if he's familiar with that document.

MR. GERBA: I was involved in helping put that

16 together. I was involved in some of the discussions

17 on that and the workshops related to that. This is

18 the model that was used here. Just the way you put

19 it on a flow chart I think is what the difference is,

20 and somebody probably didn't understand it, that it's

21 really the same thing. It just looks different when

22 you present it on a flow chart. That's all it is.

MS. ALEXANDER: So it's your position that there

24 is really -- just based on what's here, that there is

114

1 no substantive difference between what is in the ISLI

2 document referenced here and the risk assessment

3 model that was used in the risk assessment?

MR. GERBA: Oh, absolutely.

MR. ANDES: And I'll add -- I'm sorry. The

6 attachments to the EPA July 31, 2008, letter, we did

7 not have time to make copies of all of those. I do

8 have a set of those attachments, which we can

9 certainly provide for the record. We can make copies

10 and put them on another disk, but they were fairly

11 voluminous.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And they are not on

13 Exhibit 73?

MR. ANDES: They are not on Exhibit 73.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I think we need to have

16 them as part of the record.

MR. ANDES: We will get that accomplished.

MS. ALEXANDER: So I'll just ask one last

19 question before moving on.

Do you -- and I ask all or any of you --

21 believe it's fair to say that, in fact, not all

22 concerns of the US Environmental Protection Agency

23 with the risk assessment have been successfully

24 resolved at this stage?

115

MR. ANDES: Can -- Are you saying is it true

2 that not every -- that there's something left that

3 hasn't been addressed?

MS. ALEXANDER: Based on this July 31, 2008,

5 document and everything else that we've been

6 discussing, there remain outstanding concerns of

7 US EPA that have not yet been addressed?

MS. PETROPOULOU: I can't answer that question.

9 I haven't studied the comments.

MS. ALEXANDER: That's fair.

MR. JOHNSON: Not knowing what you're moving on

12 to, let me ask just a question of you, Dr. Tolson,

13 and correct me if I'm wrong.

You testified, did you not, that

15 disinfection -- it's your opinion that the

16 disinfection of effluent outfall would have little

17 overall effect on pathogen concentrations primarily

18 due to the pathogen load from sources other than the

19 plants?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct. Today is a sunny,

21 nice day, and you would think that it's a dry weather

22 day and it would be reasonable to go out there. But

23 we had a CSO yesterday and the pathogen levels are

24 high in the waterway. So the effect on the waterway

116

1 is not the plant today. It was the CSO events that

2 happened yesterday.

MR. JOHNSON: And you are going to have someone

4 else testify as to what those other sources are?

MR. ANDES: Yes. And I think also -- The other

6 ancillary point, I believe from Dr. Tolson, was that

7 even during the wet weather events the risk is still

8 low?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

Mr. ETTINGER: May I just ask a question along

12 that line? My name is Albert Ettinger,

13 E-t-t-i-n-g-e-r.

Is there someplace in this report in which

15 you actually define dry weather or wet weather for

16 purposes of your calculations?

MS. PETROPOULOU: There is, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: So, for instance, looking at

19 these charts, when I see something is dry weather,

20 how many days after the rain is it that you consider

21 dry weather?

MS. PETROPOULOU: All the dry weather events

23 that we did in 2005, they were days preceded with at

24 least three dry days. There was one exception to

117

1 that. It was, I think, the first sampling event that

2 we did. There was rain the day before, but it wasn't

3 what we define in the report as a significant rain

4 event. And that was defined as .5 inches of rain in

5 the rain gauges that the District has in the

6 waterway. It did rain twice during the dry weather,

7 but that was after we completed the sampling. So

8 there was no rain immediately before -- two or three

9 days before the sampling and there was no rain during

10 the actual sampling event.

MR. ETTINGER: And then wet weather is?

MS. PETROPOULOU: We had established the

13 protocol. It's reported in the report. We define

14 wet weather as -- a significant wet weather event as

15 an event that happens after three days of dry water.

16 There is an expectation or a forecast of at least .5

17 inches of rain. Also, we didn't initiate the

18 sampling until the alarms on the gates at the pumping

19 stations were activated. So we collectively

20 considered these three major factors, the days of dry

21 weather before, the expectation or the forecast of .5

22 inches of rain, and the high possibility to have

23 pumping station discharges in the waterway.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm confused. If you had been

118

1 doing this study today, would this be a dry day or a

2 wet day or neither?

MS. PETROPOULOU: It depends on the level of

4 rain last night. If it was greater than .5 and there

5 was a pumping station discharge.

MR. ETTINGER: Then this would be a wet day, and

7 it would continue for two more days?

MS. PETROPOULOU: All the wet days that we

9 conducted during the study took place when there was

10 actual rain in the waterway.

MR. TOLSON: If I can clarify, there's a

12 difference between when we sampled, whether it was a

13 wet or dry day, and how we conducted the simulations,

14 whether we expose a person to the waterway. We

15 wanted to capture the variability -- the high

16 variability between dry and wet. That's why we set

17 up this stratification, as Dr. Petropoulou has

18 described.

However, a person out in the waterway would

20 assume that this was a dry weather day. In fact,

21 there are pathogens that are lingering within the

22 waterway that we needed to consider. In the purposes

23 of the risk assessment, there was a numerical

24 calculation of an estimated pathogen concentration in

119

1 the waterway that considered the die-off from the wet

2 weather day attenuating down to a dry weather day.

Did that clarify?

MR. ETTINGER: It clarified. I'm still just --

5 I can only -- I can only do my calculations if I know

6 what a dry or a wet day is. Then I can make

7 estimates based on days after that, so to speak. I'm

8 still trying to figure out if yesterday was a wet

9 day. It was actually raining. We all agree on that,

10 I guess. Today is a sort of wet day in your studies,

11 or is it a wet day? What is it?

MS. PETROPOULOU: All the sampling events took

13 place when there was actually rain in the waterway.

MR. ANDES: You can refer to that figure.

MR. TOLSON: I'm going to refer to an attachment

16 in our testimony. It's figure 5.4.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Is that in the report?

MR. TOLSON: Oh, I'm sorry. It's the report.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: So it's Exhibit 71?

MR. TOLSON: 71.

If you look at 5-4, there is a --

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Tell us what page that's on

23 approximately.

MR. TOLSON: It's right at the end.

120

MR. ANDES: It's figure 5-4. Is there a page

2 number?

MR. TOLSON: The last page before the first

4 appendix, Attachment A. So it's, like, ten pages

5 from the end.

MR. ETTINGER: Where are we? Page what?

MR. ANDES: Figure 5-4. It's a the very end of

8 chapter 5 immediately before Appendix A. So about

9 ten pages from the end of the whole document.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: It looks like this. If you

11 have a two-sided copy, Attachment A is on the other

12 side.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Here. You can have this.

MR. ETTINGER: I'll work it out. That's good

15 for me.

MR. TOLSON: Dr. Ettinger, did that address your

17 question?

MR. ANDES: He's not a doctor.

MR. TOLSON: I'm sorry.

MS. ALEXANDER: And I just want to follow up to

21 Albert's follow-up.

MR. ANDES: Was there -- I'm not sure if he got

23 a chance to respond.

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I didn't realize

121

1 there was a question pending?

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a real basic --

MR. ANDES: I think there was. Frankly, I think

4 we've lost it, so why don't we just go on. I do

5 think there is a question pending, and some day we'll

6 discover what it was.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Actually I believe the

8 question that was pending was whether this was a sort

9 of wet weather day.

MR. ETTINGER: As I understand this chart, this

11 is an attenuation day?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct. The

13 concentrations would not be as high as they were

14 yesterday during the CSO event, but they would not be

15 as low as they would be during the dry weather.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. When I look at your charts

17 at Tables 3(b)(a) and 3 -- I'm sorry -- 3.2(b), you

18 have two tables here of data on various critters in

19 the water. Is this the same concept or not? I was

20 afraid we were mixing -- I think wet means different

21 things for different purposes in the report.

MR. TOLSON: You've got it exactly right.

MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.

MR. TOLSON: Under the sampling analysis, we

122

1 captured the blue bars, if you had this color, on

2 figure 5.4, which are the actual measured

3 concentrations. And then on the intervening days

4 we've got the hatched bars, which are the estimated

5 concentrations.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, looking just at

7 Table 3.2(b), it says Wet Weather Geometric Mean. Do

8 you see where I am? You have sampling dates. I'm

9 just reading here. It's on the top. The North Side,

10 June 26, '06, 9-23-06. The weather's sometimes bad

11 in Chicago, but it normally doesn't rain for two

12 solid months. What does that mean? I don't

13 understand. Is that wet or dry, or what's going on

14 here?

MS. PETROPOULOU: No. What you see here is --

16 In order to calculate the geometric mean, we used the

17 data exclusively only of the wet weather days that we

18 sampled on. We sampled, for example, at North Side

19 between June 26 and September 23, '06. But we only

20 sampled wet days. So the average, the geometric

21 mean, was based on actual wet weather results. It's

22 not all days during that period.

MR. ETTINGER: And then to get back to our

24 concept though, wet weather days on this, are these

123

1 days on which it was actually raining or days -- or

2 does it include some of these attenuation days?

MR. TOLSON: Day zero is a wet weather day. The

4 24 or the 48 hours are days after the wet weather

5 event.

MR. ETTINGER: Would they be included in this

7 chart?

MR. TOLSON: The data that went to form that

9 first day zero comes from data collected within the

10 wet weather days in our analysis.

MR. ETTINGER: But I'm just saying, looking at

12 this chart, wet weather means the day it rained?

MR. TOLSON: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: Or does it include the days

15 after?

MR. TOLSON: The day it rained.

MR. ETTINGER: I guess I understand.

MR. RAO: I just have a point of clarification.

You originally mentioned in your

20 simulations you used the dates after also?

MR. TOLSON: Correct. It's very important to

22 try to capture that also because today the pathogen

23 levels are higher than they will be in a couple of

24 days from now when there are no CSO events that may

124

1 be impacting the waterway.

MR. RAO: Now, looking at one of the charts that

3 you had pointed out earlier, it goes up to 72 hours

4 after that day zero.

MR. TOLSON: And the reason that the 72 hours is

6 there is because when we did the dry weather data

7 there was a 72-hour antecedent dry period prior to

8 our collection of data.

MR. RAO: In your simulation, you included three

10 days after?

MR. TOLSON: Well, we included the entire

12 recreational year. If you go through and look at the

13 meteorological data in Chicago, it rains for a couple

14 of days. Then you have a few days of dry weather.

15 It rains one day. Then you have a few days of dry

16 weather. We used the data from the wet weather on

17 the wet weather days, the dry days, which had three

18 days of antecedent dry weather, for the dry weather

19 days, and filled in the gaps with the other ones for

20 our simulations.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay. We have several

23 people asking about follow-up.

Mr. Harley, you raised your hand. Do you

125

1 have a question?

MR. HARLEY: Yes. I would like to ask a

3 follow-up to Board Member Johnson's question.

He talked about the quantitative measures

5 which you took. Those are related, in your report,

6 to gastrointestinal illness?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct.

MR. HARLEY: But gastrointestinal illness is not

9 the only potential health end point that could result

10 from exposure to the pathogens in the water; is that

11 correct?

MR. TOLSON: That is correct.

MR. HARLEY: And we've spoken about respiratory

14 illness through exposure to aerosols. That would be

15 a potential health end point?

MR. TOLSON: That is one. But that one is

17 probably not as prominent as GI illness from

18 recreational exposure.

Dr. Gerba, you might want to --

MR. GERBA: I mean, you can also use death as an

21 end point. I was thinking of that, too. You could

22 calculate that.

But, yeah, I think you're talking about the

24 illness outcome. In these studies, the risks were

126

1 initially counted as infections because not everybody

2 who's infected goes on to be ill in actuality. That

3 depends, again, not only on the exposure, but also

4 preexisting immunity wasn't really considered here

5 either, which would be another factor that would

6 lower those results. But you could also -- Those are

7 really -- Illness is and potential symptoms

8 associated with the illness on it. So you have --

9 Different types of illnesses could be used,

10 respiratory, skin infections, ear infections. So

11 there's a range that could be used.

MR. HARLEY: Eye infections?

MR. GERBA: Eye infections, too.

But currently recreational water quality is

15 regulated basically on gastrointestinal illness rates

16 at least related to the indicators that are used.

MR. HARLEY: So gastrointestinal illness is not

18 the only potential indicator that we would have.

19 It's the one for which there's the most fully

20 developed protocol to assess; is that correct?

MR. GERBA: There's a relationship between the

22 numbers of certain indicators like Enterococci and

23 E. coli and risk of gastrointestinal illness. We

24 don't have that relationship for any type of other

127

1 illness or symptom associated with recreational use

2 currently.

MR. HARLEY: Even though those other health

4 indicators may actually occur for recreational users?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: So we could have, in addition to

7 the gastrointestinal illness that you've quantified,

8 other health outcomes for users of the waterways who

9 are exposed to these pathogens?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up.

Is it accurate to say that the most

14 significant risk of illness or infection would be

15 with respect to gastrointestinal?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: To follow up, when you say

18 significant, do you mean significant in terms of its

19 negative impact on the person who experiences that

20 illness?

MR. GERBA: The illness they're most likely to

22 develop over again. Unlike a lot of other

23 illnesses -- Let's say a respiratory illness.

24 Typically you'll -- You'll develop an immunity to it,

128

1 where gastrointestinal illnesses you don't. You

2 usually develop a long-life immunity. You can get

3 ill with the same norovirus, for example, again and

4 again as many times as you would like to get

5 diarrhea. You can become infected with norovirus.

6 Basically if I get a norovirus by swimming one year,

7 a year later I have the same risk of getting infected

8 by the norovirus again. Generally, for that reason,

9 gastroenteritis is the most likely illness you'll

10 probably get because other forms of illnesses you

11 probably develop a longer term immunity.

MR. HARLEY: On that point, if you have someone

13 who is using a waterbody where that particular

14 pathogen is present for which an immunity cannot be

15 developed, that individual every day that they would

16 use that waterway would be at risk of a recurrence of

17 an illness that they may have already experienced?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: So if you have someone

20 participating in the rowing club or canoeing every

21 day on the river, then they would have every day an

22 equal risk of developing?

MR. GERBA: Can you explain that? It's not an

24 additive risk.

129

MR. HARLEY: It's not an additive risk, right.

2 It's frequency of use?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: I have another question about this.

5 We've been talking about gastrointestinal illnesses

6 as if we all know exactly what that means. I assume

7 there are gastrointestinal illnesses and then there

8 are gastrointestinal illnesses in terms of their

9 severity on the human receptors.

What are the range of gastrointestinal

11 illnesses in terms of their actual impacts on people

12 who develop those illnesses?

MR. GERBA: Usually when we're referring to

14 that, it's diarrhea that we're referring to. It can

15 be mild or severe depending on the individual

16 organism.

MR. HARLEY: Could there be more severe outcomes

18 than diarrhea?

MR. GERBA: With different agent there could be,

20 for example.

MR. HARLEY: And people who have compromised

22 immune systems, I suspect, might be subject to a

23 greater severity of health outcome?

MR. GERBA: Yeah. The severity would be

130

1 greater, but not the risk necessarily of getting

2 infected.

MR. HARLEY: And did you take into account

4 susceptible sub-populations in assessing

5 gastrointestinal quantitative outcomes?

MR. GERBA: Of potential types of illnesses.

7 The risk of infection, of course, we would use is

8 conservative, so that would take that into account.

9 This group has never been shown. It takes fewer

10 organisms to infect. Just the severity of the

11 outcome is greater. Most of those outcomes are --

12 are small children, people over 65 generally fall

13 into that group, and generally immunocompromised

14 individuals to give you a rough group on that -- the

15 group that's involved.

MR. TOLSON: If I could follow up.

Within our -- Particularly in our secondary

18 attack rate dose response assessments, we did

19 consider sensitive individuals because those data

20 were mostly from nursing homes or daycare centers.

21 So we actually skewed the data and biased it to be a

22 little more conservative there because we used attack

23 rates that are intended to come from outbreaks that

24 were associated with those individuals.

131

MR. HARLEY: May I ask a couple more follow-up

2 questions, but I don't want to distract either from

3 Ann's line of questioning or from other questions

4 that people may have?

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If they're follow-ups, then

6 it wouldn't be a distraction, correct? Go ahead,

7 Mr. Harley.

MR. HARLEY: Did the total number of potentially

9 exposed individuals enter into your risk assessment,

10 or is that more of a risk management exercise?

MR. TOLSON: You hit it right on the nose. We

12 developed risks per 1,000 illnesses --1,000 events.

13 Excuse me.

MR. HARLEY: Gastrointestinal --

MR. TOLSON: Gastrointestinal illness per 1,000

16 events.

MR. HARLEY: So it's not the full range of

18 possible outcomes?

MR. TOLSON: That's correct.

MR. HARLEY: If you have a waterbody where you

21 have a very high level of pathogens but you have five

22 people a year using it by comparison to a waterbody

23 where you have maybe lower levels of pathogens but a

24 million people a year using it, did that type of

132

1 variable enter into the way you looked at the CAWS?

MR. TOLSON: Well, we didn't find a waterbody

3 with high levels of pathogens is really the first

4 point at least on the CAWS. But the only difference

5 that it would make there is that you might consider

6 population immunity if you had a large number of

7 people interacting with the waterbody. So having a

8 large population would actually tend to lower your

9 overall risk because you'd have more immunity within

10 the population. We considered that nobody had

11 immunity. Everybody was naive going to the waterway,

12 so our estimates are probably biased high in that

13 respect.

MR. HARLEY: I guess my question has a little

15 bit different emphasis.

In the sense that you were talking about 1

17 in 125 or 8 in 1,000 as being a threshold, if you

18 have 100,000 people using the water, that would mean

19 acceptable would be 8,000. Did you ever try to

20 estimate in terms of total numbers of users of the

21 CAWS how many people would likely be affected by

22 gastrointestinal illness as a result of exposure to

23 pathogens in the CAWS?

MR. ANDES: That math wasn't quite correct.

133

MR. GERBA: That's more of a dynamic risk

2 assessment or a community risk assessment.

3 Generally -- I'll just give you a professional

4 opinion. I don't like using those because then it

5 makes the risk seem insignificant. If you say 8,000

6 people get Salmonella from using the CAWS, I can tell

7 you there's 80,000 that are going to get ill from

8 eating food contaminated with Salmonella. So I think

9 we use the more conservative risk estimate of the

10 individuals using the CAWS rather than looking at the

11 community. I think that -- It mediates the risk of

12 what it truly is because you're comparing the

13 community risk. The amount of people who get

14 infected from the waterway is insignificant compared

15 to the amount that are going to get gastroenteritis

16 from the food supply, for example, or other exposures

17 in your environment. That's why I think the risk

18 aiming it for the individuals on the waterway was the

19 way to do it, to make it conservative.

MR. HARLEY: I just have one other follow-up

21 question. Then I will exit to give other people a

22 chance at least for now.

Dr. Gerba, on that point in your

24 testimony -- your prefiled testimony, you counsel a

134

1 site specific approach as opposed to a

2 one-size-fits-all approach to deal with pathogens in

3 a waterway like we find in the CAWS; is that correct?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: One of the factors that you say

6 that's key in that site specific regulatory approach

7 would be is direct human contact in the immediate

8 vicinity of an outfall possible? Have I misstated

9 that, or is that correct?

MR. GERBA: I think that's generally the

11 statement in the immediate vicinity of an outfall.

MR. HARLEY: Do you know if direct human contact

13 in the immediate vicinity of the outfall from the

14 Calumet Wastewater Treatment Plant is possible?

MR. ANDES: Let me clarify first what "direct

16 human contact" is.

MR. HARLEY: Whatever his meaning was when he

18 made the statement in his prefiled testimony.

MR. GERBA: You mean at the outfall primary

20 contact is it possible?

MR. HARLEY: Yes.

MR. GERBA: At the Stickney facility I don't see

23 how it was because the land was --

MR. HARLEY: What facility?

135

MR. GERBA: At Stickney.

MR. HARLEY: I was asking about Calumet

MR. GERBA: Oh, Calumet.

MR. ANDES: Is the primary contact --

MR. GERBA: Could you restate the question?

MR. HARLEY: I don't think you used the word

7 "primary." I think you used the word "direct human

8 contact"

MR. GERBA: Was it possible?

MR. ANDES: Explain your term "direct human

11 contact."

MR. GERBA: Direct human contact means swimming

13 in it -- purposeful swimming.

The reason I was hesitating is I don't know

15 what the access was at that plant -- or I don't

16 recall. I remember at the Stickney plant that the

17 land was owned by the District and on the other side

18 there was an industrial facility. So I don't think

19 it was even possible from the shore. Maybe somebody

20 could go out in a boat and jump in it. Then it might

21 be possible.

MR. HARLEY: A capsized watercraft?

MR. GERBA: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: But capsized recreational --

136

MR. GERBA: Well, I won't consider that primary

2 because primary is purposeful swimming in the water

3 to me.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you for clarifying. I'm

5 sorry. Thank you.

MR. ETTINGER: Can I follow up on that?

What do you mean by "in the vicinity"?

8 Swimming in the outfall? Ten feet from the outfall?

9 What would you consider to begin the vicinity of the

10 outfall?

MR. GERBA: A particular outfall, you mean, or

12 any outfall?

MR. ETTINGER: Any outfall. Yours was a general

14 statement, I believe, in your testimony. I'm just

15 asking what generally.

MR. GERBA: It's so site specific. I couldn't

17 give you a specific answer on it. It depends a lot

18 on the hydrology of the situation. If you have an

19 outfall in the middle of the ocean -- a mile off the

20 ocean and it's 200 down feet, that's a different

21 situation than flowing into an area where there's a

22 recreational beach. So it's very site specific.

MR. ETTINGER: Are you basically saying that we

24 should not disinfect anywhere in the country except

137

1 with discharges that are immediately upstream of a

2 beach?

MR. GERBA: No. I said it's a site specific

4 issue in the situation of what is being discharged to

5 the waterway.

MR. ETTINGER: What would lead -- What would

7 lead you to decide to disinfect? Give me an example

8 of where you would disinfect from a discharge that

9 wasn't immediately upstream of the beach.

MR. GERBA: In the marine environments,

11 certainly trying to protect shell fish areas.

MR. ETTINGER: Shell fish?

MR. GERBA: Yeah.

MR. ETTINGER: Other than that -- Except for

15 protecting shell fish, we only have to disinfect

16 immediately upstream of a beach?

MR. ANDES: Are you asking his personal opinion?

MR. ETTINGER: I guess that's what I'm asking.

MR. GERBA: This is just personal opinion. It

20 depends on the hydrology of the situation, the level

21 of pathogens in the water, the types of disinfects

22 that might be utilized, and the use of the beach. Is

23 the beach really used? What are the management goals

24 for use of that beach?

138

MR. ETTINGER: So then we wouldn't even

2 disinfect immediately above all beaches if the beach

3 wasn't used enough?

MR. GERBA: Typically, for example, in Europe

5 they don't disinfect sewage discharges to rivers.

6 It's a management decision there that those waterways

7 are not going to be used for primary recreational

8 contact. In that situation, no.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you know that?

MR. GERBA: Yeah. I actually have been to

11 Europe a lot, and I verified that in an e-mail with a

12 colleague just last week.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you know about the sewage

14 treatment plant in Dublin?

MR. GERBA: Dublin I do not know.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you know about the sewage

17 treatment plant in Munich?

MR. GERBA: No.

MR. ETTINGER: Thanks.

ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If there's no other further

21 follow-up along that line, let's take lunch and come

22 back in about an hour.

(WHEREUPON, the matter was adjourned.)

139

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS:

2 COUNTY OF K A N E )

I, MARGARET R. BEDDARD, a Certified Shorthand

5 Reporter of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify

6 that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at

7 the hearing aforesaid and that the foregoing is a

8 true, complete, and correct transcript of the

9 proceedings of said hearing as appears from my

10 stenographic notes so taken and transcribed by me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my hand at

12 Chicago, Illinois, this _____ day of September, 2008.

____________________________

Certified Shorthand Reporter

CSR Certificate No. 84-3565.