BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM
AND THE LOWER
DES PLAINES
RIVER
:
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO
35 Ill. Adm
.
Code Parts 301, 302
,
303 and
304
R08-9
(Rulemaking
- Water)
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
CHICAGO'
S PRE
-
FILED QUESTIONS TO PETER ORRIS
1.
On page 1 of your testimony, the last sentence of paragraph 3 states:
"No single
epidemiological study - no matter how well designed and executed, and no matter what
the ultimate result - is sufficient basis to refuse to address waterborne pathogens in the
CAWS."
A.
What is the appropriate approach for consideration of epidemiological studies in
determining how to address waterborne pathogens in a waterbody?
B.
Would you recommend that environmental regulators make decisions without the
benefit of epidemiological studies?
C.
In your opinion, could an epidemiological study indicating that waterborne
pathogens do not pose a significant risk support a finding that further action to
address the presence of waterborne pathogens is not necessary?
D.
Please provide your thoughts on the sufficiency of the basis
for the
recreational
water quality regulations for traditional fecal indicators developed
by EPA in
1986, which are based on a single epidemiological study.
E.
Are you aware that on August 8, 2008, NRDC signed a settlement agreement
concerning the BEACH Act litigation that specifically requires EPA to conduct
appropriate epidemiological studies to provide data necessary to support water
quality criteria for recreational activities?
F.
Do you disagree with the outcome of this agreement, and if not, does it alter your
opinion of the role that the CHEERS study should play in establishing future
water quality requirements for the CAWS?
2.
Do you know of any study published in the peer-reviewed literature that estimated how
much water people swallow during various recreational activities, such as fishing,
boating and rowing?
THIS FILING
IS BEING SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
3.
On page 2 of your testimony, paragraphs 1-2 state:
"This precautionary rationale
suggests
,
for instance, that a community should not hesitate to install
a traffic
light on a
street corner because an epidemiological study indicated that only one child in the
neighborhood was likely to die at the corner each
decade if
everyone obeyed the speed
limit. This reality is reflected in the proposed regulations
of the
IEPA, as well as in
current practice in Illinois and throughout the nation."
A.
By use of this analogy, would you recommend that if a Department of Public
Works had information that suggested a child might die at every intersection
unless a traffic light was installed, the decision should be to install traffic lights at
every intersection?
B.
If so, how is a Department of Public Works or a municipality to decide how much
intervention is needed?
C.
Should it also lower the speed limit to 5mph everywhere or ban cars altogether in
an effort to protect more children?
D.
Would an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics,
population density of children in different areas, and physical characteristics at a
particular location be relevant and useful to determining whether a traffic light
should be installed at a particular location?
E.
If we don'
t trust research because all
studies have
limitations
, how should the
community decide how many stop
signs per
block would be excessive?
F.
Would you recommend that if the State believes even one child could become ill
due to exposure to the CAWS, we are obligated to make the waterways as clean
as possible to protect that child?
G.
If the possibility exists for children to drown in the CAWS should we prohibit
them from coming into contact with it?
H.
Shouldn't the precautionary public policy for sensitive populations here include
restricting opportunities for exposure
, as is
done for populations that might be
particularly sensitive to other discretionary or voluntary activities?
1.
Are you aware of the energy requirements necessary to implement disinfection a
proposed in this rulemaking?
J.
Unlike recreation in the CAWS, which is voluntary, everyone in the Chicago area
must breathe air. If disinfection of WRP effluents will require significant power
generation resulting in increased air emissions that would adversely affect air
quality, how should the precautionary principle be applied to protect the breathing
public?
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
4.
On page 3 of your testimony, line 5 of paragraph 2 states that "sensitive populations are
more likely to contract serious illness from contact with sewage-contaminated water and
any resulting infection is likely to be more severe and dangerous than it would be for a
healthy adult."
A.
Is this the basis for your opinion that the "Precautionary" policy is appropriate?
B.
Are you aware that in many of the waterborne disease outbreaks most of the
outbreaks are associated with "treated water" (swimming pools, spas, wading
pools, interactive fountains, etc.) (CDC', 2006, p. 6)?
C.
Would
you agree that even if the treatment technology is adequate
,
there is a
chance a person
,
particularly one in these sensitive populations
,
could become ill?
D.
In the greater Chicago area, do you think more people swim or are at risk for
ingesting water in public and private swimming pools (rather than the CAWS)?
E.
Are you aware that "employees ill with gastroenteritis at a California water park
continued working and swimming in the pools, resulting in a Cryptosporidium
outbreak involving 336 persons" in August 2004 (CDC, 2006, p. 8)?
F.
Should all water parks be closed to protect sensitive populations that might use
them?
G.
Are you aware the CDC has identified that "[F]or treated water venues ...no
federal regulatory agency or national guidelines for standards of operation,
disinfection, or filtration exist" (CDC, 2006, p. 2)?
H.
Should the Illinois Department of Public Health (which has regulations associated
with bathing beaches) start requiring that all public swimming pools upgrade to
microfiltration and ultra-violet disinfection?
1.
Could this protect more people in the greater Chicago area, including those in
sensitive populations?
J.
Are
you aware that the Wisconsin Division of Health and the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources reported that the Cryptosporidium outbreak in
Milwaukee was not associated with the treated effluent from the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewage District
,
but was a result of uncommonly heavy rains on
frozen and ice-covered ground
(
particularly where manure had been spread),
barnyard runoff
,
raw sewage overflows, slaughterhouse effluent, removal of a
Milwaukee River dam, and/or changes in filtration practices at the drinking water
plants?
'
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006). Surveillance for Waterborne Diseases and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational
Water - United States, 2003-2004 and Surveillance for Waterborne Diseases and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water Not
Intended for Drinking - United States, 2003-2004. December 22, 2006. MMWR 2006:55 (No. SS-12).
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
5.
While you have indicated in your testimony the risks of serious illness from contact with
sewage-contaminated water, have you compared the difference in health risks between
treated secondary effluents as opposed to raw or partially treated sewage?
6.
Are you aware that CDC has reported chlorine
-
resistant cryptosporidium is on the rise
and is one of the reasons for the high rates of waterborne disease outbreaks in treated
water venues
(
vs. untreated)?
7.
On page 4 of your
testimony
,
line 8 of paragraph 2 discusses
the "high" levels of fecal
bacteria that the District has measured
in the CAWS. You also
state
that
"the high levels
of indicator
bacteria
found in the CAWS are very likely correlated with the presence of
waterborne pathogens that threaten human health."
A.
What do you
consider to be
"
high" levels of indicator bacteria?
B.
What is the basis for your statement that these high levels are very likely
correlated with the presence of waterborne pathogens?
C.
Should primary contact recreational waters (like treated water venues
)
be more
highly treated than those that are used infrequently and for recreation that results
in minimal water contact?
8.
Do you agree with the conclusion
in the UAA (
and within the proposed standards) that
the waterways will not be safe for incidental contact recreation during and for some time
following wet weather discharges
(
e.g., combined sewer overflows and runoff)?
9.
On page
5 of your
testimony
,
lines
4-7 of
paragraph 1 state:
"Even assuming
the study
[Epidemiological
Study]
does
not identify
an increased
rate of
health problems amongst
the subjects, such a result would in no way provide a
sufficient
basis to conclude that
disinfection is unnecessary
,
because it would not
fully reflect the
potential
danger of
unintended ingestions and significant exposures to especially vulnerable individuals."
What evidence do you have to state that disinfection is necessary when the published
research (Blatchley et. al., 2007)2 strongly suggests that conventional disinfection
processes are not effective for control of the risks of disease transmission, particularly
those associated with viral pathogen?
10.
On page 5 of your testimony, lines 4-7 of paragraph 2 state:
"Epidemiological studies
are by nature blunt instruments
......
They require repetition
...... "
If the study showed an
increased
risk of
illness among
CAWS
recreators compared to the comparison groups,
does that mean we should not intervene until the results are replicated by another study?
11.
Are you
aware
that the CHEERS study
research plan has, been evaluated
by a panel of
recognized leaders
in the field
of water microbiology and health
(
including
US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), EPA and
universities
),
and the panel
determined
that the
study "has been designed to provide information that is valuable in
Z Blatchely, et al. (2007
).
Effects of
Wastewater Disinfection on Waterborne Bacteria and Viruses
.
Water Environment Research
,
Volume 79,
Number 1, pp 81-92.
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
the area of health risks associated with secondary contact recreation, and address
potential deficits in the current knowledge of the health risks associated with limited
contact water recreation and the measures required to protect the public?"
12.
On page 5 of your testimony, paragraph 4 states:
"The epi study won't enroll enough
people in high risk groups (small kids, people with compromised immunity, people who
capsize, etc.)"
A.
Are you aware that survey research - such as surveys of how the public feels
about the economy or the presidential race - generally samples less than 1/100 of
1% of the population?
B.
If the CHEERS research study enrolls 5 or 10% of CAWS users, isn't that
representative of the population of interest?
C.
If the percent of users enrolled in the research is very high compared to most
research studies, doesn't that make the results to be an unusually good reflection
of the risks of the actual population of CAWS recreators?
13.
On page 6 of your testimony, paragraph 2 states:
"However, I believe it would be a
serious mistake to place too much significance on a possible negative result of the study,
and an even more serious mistake to delay disinfection of the CAWS pending the results
of the study."
If considerable weight has been given to positive results of a study such
that it becomes the basis for water-quality criteria throughout this country, why would it
be a serious mistake to place any significance on any negative results produced by the
CHEERS study?
14.
On page 6 of your testimony
,
paragraph
2 states:
"Every year in which disinfection does
not occur
puts users of the CAWS
at risk
of infection..... "
A.
What scientific evidence do you have to support this statement?
B.
Has a local, state
,
or federal public health entity demonstrated this risk for illness
among people who enjoy recreational use of
the CAWS?
C.
What is
the current health risk to normal and sensitive
CAWS recreating
population due to bacteria levels
in the CAWS?
D.
Do you believe that, if disinfection of wastewater effluents is practiced, there will
be no risk to users of the CAWS?
15.
Are you aware that if the MWRD were to disinfect, it would take years before the
treatment plants would be built?
16.
In the interim
,
would you recommend banning all recreation
on the CAWS?
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
17.
Even if the wastewater treatment plant effluent was disinfected, would you still be
concerned about recreational exposure to the CAWS due to pathogen contributions from
stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows?
18.
Are there health risks associated with disinfection by-products?
19.
How should these risks be balanced with health risks associated with incidental contact
with waterborne pathogens?
Dated: August 25, 2008
By:
Fredric P. Andes
David T. Ballard
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Suite 4400
One North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
4821910
Respectfully submitted,
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT
-0-f
REATER CHICAGO
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
