1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CITY OF DEKALB, )
)
Petitioner, ) PCB NO. 96-246
)
v. )
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) DeKalb County
PROTECTION AGENCY, ) Municipal Building,
) DeKalb, Illinois
Respondent. ) August 5, 1996
Hearing commenced, pursuant to assignment,
at 1:00 p.m.
BEFORE:
DEBORAH L. FRANK, Hearing Officer,
608 South Prospect Avenue
Champaign, Illinois, 61820
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY RONALD G. MATEKAITIS,
DeKalb City Attorney,
200 South Fourth Street,
DeKalb, Illinois, 60115
Counsel for the Petitioner.
ATTORNEY STEPHEN C. EWART,
IEPA Deputy Counsel,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois, 62794
Counsel for the Respondent.
REPORTER:
Carrie L. Vaske
ITV
2
INDEX
Witness Page
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DEKALB:
Gerald Bever
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 13
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 27
Ronald Naylor
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 32
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 50
Redirect (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . 328
Recross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . 332
Lawrence Thomas
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 53
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 77
Redirect (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . 79
Kenneth Bowden
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 81
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 84
Mark Biernacki
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 90
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 97
Robert Rowland
Direct (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 98
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 117
Redirect (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . 119
Redirect (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . 333
ON BEHALF OF THE IEPA:
Tracey Virgin
Direct (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . 124
Cross (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 130
Redirect (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . 133
Recross (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . 134
ITV
3
INDEX (Continued)
Witness Page
ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC:
Bruce Rocheleau . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Judson Hite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Dory Burg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Cross (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 182
Jessica Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Linda Lahey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Cross (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 201
Terry Sandman . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Cross (Mr. Matekaitis) . . . . . . 235
Cross (Mr. Ewart) . . . . . . . . . 245
Mike Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Militsa Samardzija . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Diana Strauss . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Shawn Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Julie Dubicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Jeff Houghtby . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
John Hepperly . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
James Lahey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Marilyn Burille . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Miguel Checa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Jacque Suding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Ellen Partridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Steve Kapitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Jacque Suding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Symone Roscelli . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Miguel Checa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Dory Burg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Jeff Houghtby . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Steve Kapitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
ITV
4
INDEX (Continued)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 . . . . . . 14
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 . . . . . . 20
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 . . . . . . 22
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 . . . . . . 25
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 . . . . . . 33
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 . . . . . . 47
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 . . . . . . 67
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 . . . . . . 69
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 . . . . . . 69
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 . . . . . . 83
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 . . . . . . 93
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 . . . . . . 101
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 . . . . . . 115
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 . . . . . . 329
Public Comment Exhibit No. 1 . . . . . 11
Public Comment Exhibit No. 2 . . . . . 178
Public Comment Exhibit No. 3 . . . . . 179
Public Comment Exhibit No. 4 . . . . . 179
Public Comment Exhibit No. 5 . . . . . 180
Public Comment Exhibit No. 6 . . . . . 199
Public Comment Exhibit No. 7 . . . . . 246
Public Comment Exhibit No. 8 . . . . . 249
Public Comment Exhibit No. 9 . . . . . 261
Public Comment Exhibit No. 10 . . . . . 274
Public Comment Exhibit No. 11 . . . . . 277
Public Comment Exhibit No. 12 . . . . . 288
Public Comment Exhibit No. 13 . . . . . 288
Public Comment Exhibit No. 14 . . . . . 295
Public Comment Exhibit No. 15 . . . . . 302
Certificate of Shorthand Reporter . . . 354
ITV
5
MS. FRANK: Good afternoon and welcome
to the Pollution Control Board hearing in
PCB 96-247 (sic), City of DeKalb versus the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
My name is Deborah Frank and I am the
Hearing Officer for today. To my right is
Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, she is an attorney for
the Board. Out in the audience is Diane
Wells, she's a secretary to the Board, and
to my left is K.C. Poulos, she is the
attorney assistant to Board Member Ted Meyer
(phonetic), so that's Board introductions.
I just wanted to give you a little
bit of background about this proceeding
before we began. First you should know that
it is the Pollution Control Board and not me
that makes the decision on this matter. Our
job here today is to collect evidence on the
record which would be a written transcript
and then that transcript goes to the
Pollution Control Board for review and
decision, so it's very important that
ITV
6
whenever we're doing sort of visual things
and pointing at things that we give a very
clear verbal description of what's going on
so that when the Board members read the
transcript they can tell from the transcript
pages what it was that happened at the
hearing.
The Board's rules and the
Environmental Protection Act allow for
members of the public to make oral and
written statements on the record at
hearing. When it becomes time for public
participation we'll have you come forward.
There's a microphone stand here. I believe
you have to push the button to turn it on.
We'll ask for your name and probably have
you spell it for our court reporter. Then
we'll swear you in and then you'll have a
chance to make whatever statements that
you'd like to make on the record.
You are subject to cross
examination if either of the attorneys have
ITV
7
questions they want to ask you, but please
still feel free to come forward. It's not
as scary as it sort of sounds to be subject
to cross examination. They may have a
clarification question for you or they may
not, so I encourage you all to come forward
anyway.
The attorneys have sort of
informally agreed, and this includes the
attorneys for the citizens group, that
something that would be beneficial and
something that we do sometimes in radium
variances is to go off the record before we
actually begin and allow the members of the
public to ask the witnesses questions.
Because the way that things have turned out
with intervenor status being denied by the
Board, once the hearing formally begins the
members of the public will not be allowed to
ask the witnesses any questions. So this
sort of would be an opportunity for you to
maybe ask some questions and get some
ITV
8
background information.
The thing I want to make very
clear is that you still need to make
whatever statement it was that you came to
make on the record because anything we do
off the record will not be seen before the
Pollution Control Board. They won't know
what we did or what we talked about. It's
really just a chance for you guys to talk to
the scientific people and maybe answer some
questions, but it isn't the record of the
proceeding. So it's a time for questions
and to maybe get some information that will
help you make your statements, but you need
to remember that you still need to make your
statements on the record at hearing.
And if people who are asking
questions end up sort of making statements
I'll probably interrupt you and say no, no,
that's something you need to say when we go
back on the record. You'll get a chance to
say that. So you know, we'll see how it
ITV
9
goes. It's worked very well at some other
hearings that we've done, and we'll allow it
for as long as it kind of seems to be
working. I'm thinking probably in the half
hour range at this point. If we need to go
a little longer we can, and so I'll just --
you know, we'll take questions from the
audience.
But before we do that what I want
to do is have the City and IEPA introduce
the -- attorneys introduce themselves and
their witnesses and kind of give a little
bit of a background so that the members of
the public will know who it is that's
sitting up here. So if we could go ahead
and begin with the City.
MR. MATEKAITIS: My name is Ron
Matekaitis. I'm the City attorney for
DeKalb. Testifying in this matter on behalf
of the City will be, in order, Gerry Bever.
Why don't you go ahead and stand up so
people can associate a name with the face.
ITV
10
He's our water superintendent. Ronald
Naylor, who is our director of public works;
Larry Thomas, who is a consulting engineer
with the firm of Baxter and Woodman; Mark
Biernacki, who is our planning and
development director; Ken Bowden, who is a
citizen, former chairman of the citizens'
ad hoc committee; and Dr. Rowland, who will
be testifying as to the health risks
associated with radium.
MR. EWART: Yes, my name is Steve
Ewart. I'm Deputy Counsel for the Division
of Public Water Supplies for the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency. To my
right is my only witness today. Her name is
Tracey Virgin. She's a toxicologist with
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. Also in the audience I have with
the Agency, Connie Tonsor who is an attorney
for the IEPA, and Susan Councilman
(phonetic) who is legal assistant with the
Illinois EPA.
ITV
11
MS. FRANK: Are there any other
preliminary matters before we go off the
record? Do the attorneys have anything?
Okay. Then let's go ahead and go off the
record.
(A discussion was held off the
record.)
MS. FRANK: If we could go back on the
record. Sir, why don't you state your name.
MR. ROCHELEAU: Bruce Rocheleau.
MS. FRANK: And you had something that
you would like entered into the record?
MR. ROCHELEAU: Well, yes, this article
from the Chicago Tribune, July 25th, 1996.
MS. FRANK: It will be marked as Public
Comment No. 1 from the hearing. If you
would bring it forward.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 1 was
marked for identification.)
MS. FRANK: I saw one more hand. Who
else wants to speak? We'll take these last
two questions and then we are going to go
ITV
12
ahead and begin the hearing. Off the
record.
(A discussion was held off the
record.)
MS. FRANK: We're going to go ahead now
and go back on the record. What we will do
is proceed with the hearing, although if
there are any members of the public that
have to leave early and wish to make a
statement on the record before they have to
leave, you just need to let me know and we
will break between witnesses and give you a
chance to make statements.
I'd like to remind the members of
the public that the Board's rules disallow
repetitive testimony, so you need to be
careful about not just restating what
someone else has said. Additionally, the
Board's rules state that the information
must be relevant, and I remind everybody
that we're talking about the new variance at
this point and we're not here to argue the
ITV
13
grant of the past variance. So any
information you have to give us on whether
or not this new variance should be granted
will be information that we will happily
receive.
At this time I would ask the City
begin and go ahead and call the first
witness, and if our court reporter could
swear the witnesses.
MR. MATEKAITIS: First witness I would
call would be Gerald Bever.
GERALD BEVER,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Please state and spell your name for the
record.
A. Gerald Bever, B-e-v-e-r.
Q. And what is your occupation, Mr. Bever?
A. Water superintendent for the City of DeKalb.
Q. And how long have you been employed in that
ITV
14
capacity?
A. Since February of 1995 -- '85, excuse me.
Q. And would you describe your professional
qualifications as they pertain to that
position.
A. I became a certified water operator through
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
in 1975. I received my Class A
certification in 1976. I'm also a certified
director for the City's microbiological
laboratory since 1990.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Bever, I hand you what's been labeled at
this point Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and
ask you if you recognize that item.
A. Yes, I do, that's my certification.
Q. Is that, in fact, a copy of that
certification?
A. Correct, a copy.
Q. As a public water supply operator?
A. Correct.
ITV
15
Q. Mr. Bever, would you please describe the
City of DeKalb's potable water distribution
system.
A. We have nine wells within the community
spread out throughout the distribution
system. All nine wells pump directly into
the distribution piping. We have four
elevated storage tanks equaling 5 3/4
million gallons total.
Q. What is the approximate number of miles of
water mains utilized in the water
distribution system?
A. We have approximately 107 miles of water
mains ranging from 4 inch up to 24 inch in
diameter.
Q. Is the City of DeKalb part of any regional
public water supply?
A. No, we are not.
Q. Does the City of DeKalb have a deep well or
a shallow well water supply system?
A. We have a deep well water supply.
Q. Could you at least briefly describe the
ITV
16
differences between those supply systems.
A. Deep wells are extending beyond the thousand
feet typically, and anything less than that
would be classified as a shallow well or
surface well.
Q. And what is the estimated population served
by the City of DeKalb's water distribution
system?
A. Our 1990 census for DeKalb was 35,076.
Q. And do you have any number of approximate
residential, commercial and industrial
users?
A. We have approximately 8,300 service
connections, and we divide those up.
Residentially, approximately 7,500
customers, connections; 609 commercial
connections. We have 50 industrial
connections, and then we also -- since we
service Northern Illinois University we
count those individually, and that's 53
connections to supply water to the
University, and that leaves approximately
ITV
17
100 unaccounted for in what I've previously
named that are not counted in any one of
these others individually.
Q. Could you describe the methods of water
treatment currently utilized by the City of
DeKalb.
A. We chemically treat our water at each well
location in three manners. We add chlorine
for disinfection purposes in the
distribution system. We add a
hydrofluosilicic acid to maintain an optimum
level of fluoride for dental caries
prevention, and we add a polyphosphate
substance which acts in two manners. It
helps to reduce the amount of oxidation of
iron in the water so it reduces the amount
of rusty water complaints, and secondly it
has been found to help reduce the level of
leaching of lead and copper from a
customer's piping within their homes that
would dissolve back into the water.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not the City of
ITV
18
DeKalb currently exceeds the maximum
allowable concentration of combined radium
226 and 228?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you as water superintendent
first become aware that the City exceeded
those concentration levels?
A. A letter that we received from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency in January
4th of 1991.
Q. And are you aware of what the current
standard is for those levels?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that?
A. 5 picocuries combined, radium 226 and radium
228.
Q. To your knowledge is the City of DeKalb
currently on the restricted status list?
A. Yes, we are.
Q. And how did you become aware that the City
is currently on the restricted status list?
A. We previously had a variance from restricted
ITV
19
status which expired in June of this year,
and as of that date we were then placed back
on the restricted status list.
Q. Does the City of DeKalb's water supply
exceed the maximum allowable concentration
per gross alpha particle activity?
A. No, we do not.
Q. And how was that determined?
A. Quarterly samples are taken from each one of
the nine wells, and those samples are
analyzed by a laboratory for the
Environmental Protection Agency. Those
results are then passed along to the
Illinois EPA as well as back to the City of
DeKalb.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not the City of
DeKalb's water supply currently exceeds any
other maximum contaminant level?
A. No, we do not, not to our knowledge.
Q. And are you familiar with the variance
granted to the City of DeKalb by the
Illinois Pollution Control Board in 1991?
ITV
20
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the conditions
contained in that variance as they relate to
the testing and submission of water samples
to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Has the City of DeKalb complied with those
testing, sampling and reporting requirements
for water sampling?
A. Yes, we have.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Bever, I'll hand you what's currently
been identified at this point in time as
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 and ask you if
you recognize that document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you prepare that document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you obtain the information that
was utilized in preparing that document?
ITV
21
A. The document is a radium analysis from 1990
to 1995 for all nine of our City wells, and
it lists the wells individually, the
sampling year, the levels of radium 226, 228
that were analyzed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency laboratory
and the composited total for that year.
Q. Is the information contained on Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 2 true and accurate to the best
of your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What actions has the City of DeKalb taken
since 1991 to lessen the amount of combined
radium 226 and 228 contained in the City's
public water supply?
A. At the recommendation of our ad hoc water
quality group the City tried to reduce the
amount of pumpage from our two highest
radium producing wells. Well No. 4 and well
No. 6 were identified at that time as having
the highest levels of radium in their
composite analysis, and so by minimizing the
ITV
22
amount of usage from those two wells we felt
that we would minimize the introduction of
radium into the distribution system as well.
Q. Have you calculated a weighted average
consumption of combined radium 226 and 228
for the users of the City of DeKalb's public
water supply system?
A. Yes, I have.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Bever, I'll hand you what's been labeled
at this point in time Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 3 and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you prepare that document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did you obtain the information that's
contained in that document?
A. This document is a comparison using weighted
averages of the radium content in DeKalb's
water within the distribution system. The
ITV
23
reason I compared this document -- prepared
this document to begin with is that the City
of DeKalb is unique in that it pumps all of
its water during the evening hours, after
10 p.m. and we stop pumping before 9 a.m. in
the morning. By doing that the majority of
our water is then stored in the four
elevated storage tanks for use by the
community throughout the daytime hours.
And because of our wells being
tied into the distribution system throughout
the community, it also allows the water to
be blended, and by blending that water we
felt that we wanted to get a more accurate
analysis of what the radium content was
throughout the community. So the weighted
average was determined by taking the annual
pumpage from each individual well, dividing
that into the overall total pumpage of all
wells for that year to get the percentage of
water from that well, this was provided to
the community, taking that percentage and
ITV
24
multiplying it by the radium content from
that well's most recent composite analysis
for that same period of time to determine
the amount of radium that was actually
introduced into the distribution system from
that particular well for the annual period
of 1995.
Q. And did you determine a weighted average --
A. Yes, I did.
Q. -- for 1995?
A. For 1993, 1995, and 1995's was 7.3
picocuries per liter on the average, so the
water that a consumer would be receiving
would be on an average of 7.3.
Q. And did you determine what the average
calculated weight was for the period 1990
through 1995?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what is that figure?
A. 1990 was 7.6. The weighted average for the
time period of our last variance was 6.6, so
for the last five years our average
ITV
25
consumption of radium for our consumers was
6.6.
Q. And is the information contained in
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 true and accurate
to the best of your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Bever, I'll hand you what's been labeled
at this time Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 and
ask you if you recognize that document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you prepare that document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how'd you obtain the information that's
contained within that document?
A. This document is a weighted average
comparison of DeKalb and other Northern
Illinois communities based upon the 1995
consumption and pumpage. What I did was I
called or notified ten communities that I
had knowledge of their having received or in
ITV
26
the process of receiving a variance from
restricted status due to the radium content
in their water.
From those ten communities I've
indicated four communities that did respond
and give me their pumping totals for their
wells during the year 1995 as well as the
radium composite analysis for that same time
period. By gaining that information I then
calculated the weighted average for their
communities in 1995 for the radium content
and compared that with DeKalb's.
Q. With respect to each of the communities that
you received information from, how does
DeKalb's weighted average compare to those
other communities?
A. We are equal to the community of Ottawa in
that our weighted average and theirs was
7.3. Oswego was 8.5. Batavia was 9.6 and
Plainfield was 8.8, so the other three were
all higher and one was equal to.
Q. And Mr. Bever, is the information contained
ITV
27
in that document true and accurate to the
best of your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. MATEKAITIS: At this time, Madam
Hearing Officer, I'd move for the admission
of Exhibits City 1 through 4.
MS. FRANK: Is there any objection?
MR. EWART: I have no objection at this
time. I do want to ask some questions on
cross.
MS. FRANK: Then the Exhibits 1 through
4 are admitted into evidence.
MR. MATEKAITIS: That's all the
questions I have at this time.
MS. FRANK: Okay. Cross examination?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Mr. Bever, are you familiar with the
Pollution Control Board order in PCB 91-34
granting the --
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, you're going to
have to use your mike.
ITV
28
Q. -- with the Board that granted the variance
in this proceeding?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you also familiar with a provision in
there with regard to requiring DeKalb to
issue semiannual progress reports?
A. I am aware.
Q. Did you -- do you recall or do you have
information to know whether you completed
this information, this requirement?
A. That was not something that I was involved
with.
Q. Is there somebody else that I could ask that
question to?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then I will withdraw that at this time
and I'll ask this question. Who will that
be?
A. That would be our director of public works.
Q. Okay. With regard to Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 3, the weighted averages, would you once
again go over how you derived the weighted
ITV
29
average. Did you include the volume from
each one of these wells, 4 through 14?
A. Yes, I did. I did that individually. I
took each well's annual pumpage from 1995.
I divided that by the total pumpage of all
wells in 1995 to get a percentage. Then I
multiplied that percentage times the radium
content, the composite analysis for that
particular well during that same time period
and that gave me the amount of radium that
would have been introduced into the
distribution system for that particular
well. And then I did that for each of the
nine wells. Totaling the end result for
each nine wells gave me the -- for example,
1995, the 7.3 picocurie, that would be the
weighted average of the radium content
within the drinking water for that year.
Q. Now, you also stated in your testimony that
you -- that the nine wells filled four
distribution tanks.
A. Correct.
ITV
30
Q. Did you take -- did you analyze for radium
in the distribution tanks?
A. No, we did not recently. We did that
earlier during our initial studies in 1991.
We did take from the four elevated storage
tanks at different times of the day and we
also did from our nine well locations during
different times of the day even though they
were not pumping but they have distribution
taps coming back into those wells.
Q. Did you include the information, the radium
results, from the four storage tanks in your
calculation of the weighted average and the
average per year?
A. No, I did not. I simply figured that all
main wells were pumping into the
distribution system and took the weighted
average from each of those wells.
Q. Mr. Bever, with regard to Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 4 in which you received
information from Oswego, Ottawa, Batavia and
Plainfield, did any of them go to the extent
ITV
31
of providing with the information on radium
226 and 228 or combined radium -- strike
that, combined radium from each of the wells
as you did in developing this average --
annual average?
A. Yes, each community gave me the 1995 totals
pumpage from each individual well and then
their composited analysis for each of those
individual wells.
MR. EWART: Thank you. I have no
further questions.
MS. FRANK: Is there any redirect?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No redirect.
MS. FRANK: Then you may call your next
witness.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I would call Ronald
Naylor.
MS. FRANK: Please swear the witness.
ITV
32
RONALD NAYLOR,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Would you please state and spell your name
for the record.
A. Ronald Gene Naylor, R-o-n-a-l-d, G-e-n-e,
Naylor, N-a-y-l-o-r.
Q. And what is your current occupation,
Mr. Naylor?
A. Director of public works.
Q. And how long have you been employed in that
capacity?
A. Been employed since September of 1973.
Q. And do you have supervisory responsibilities
for the water division in the City of
DeKalb?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is one of the responsibilities in your
position to monitor compliance with the
conditions contained in the variance from
ITV
33
restricted status granted to the City of
DeKalb by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board in 1991?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please describe what the City has
done to comply with the conditions listed in
that variance.
A. If I may, may refer to our June 24th
communication.
MS. FRANK: You need to speak into your
microphone to make sure they can hear you.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Naylor, I'll show you at this time
what's been labeled as Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 5 and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And how is it that you recognize that
document?
A. It's a summer document that I've prepared on
June 24th, 1996.
ITV
34
Q. With respect to the actions the City has
taken to comply with conditions listed in
the variance, the variance set forth
specific conditions that the City should
observe in complying with that variance.
Would you please detail under each paragraph
as a condition what the City has done within
that area.
A. There were, I believe, 14 conditions set
forth, and citing from the variance petition
commencing with Paragraph B which is titled,
"Variance shall terminate on the earliest
of the following dates," and then it gives
three dates, number one being analysis
pursuant to 35 Illinois Admin. Code 611.731,
Subparagraph A or any compliance
demonstration method then in effect shows
compliance with any standards for radium in
drinking water then in effect; or 2, two
years following the date of the US EPA
action; or 3, June 20th, 1996.
Response was, "The earliest date
ITV
35
that is achievable remains in pursuit.
However, given the uncertain status of the
radium rules and the current position of the
Agency and the US EPA's position regarding
the compliance with the present standards,
the City's ad hoc waterfall advisory
committee report of November 16th, 1992
regarding radium compliance is prepared with
the assistance of Baxter and Woodman, the
environmental engineers of Crystal Lake,
provided directions to achieve the
compliance within the shortest practical
time, two years or less, upon the adoption
or the decision not to adopt the revised
radium standards by the US EPA."
MR. MATEKAITIS: Madam Hearing Officer,
can we go off the record for a moment?
MS. FRANK: Yes.
(A discussion was held off the
record.)
MR. MATEKAITIS: Okay, we can go back
on.
ITV
36
With respect to Paragraph C, the
condition contained therein.
A. Paragraph C is, compliance shall be achieved
with any standards for radium then in effect
no later than --
MS. FRANK: Sir, you need to really
speak into your mike.
A. I'll start again then. Paragraph C,
"Compliance shall be achieved with any
standards for radium then in effect no later
than the day on which the variance
terminates."
With regards to this article,
"Again, we as a part of our compliance
report being prepared and due to the
uncertain status of the radium rules and
regulations to be adopted by the US EPA,
again, our completion of this is dependent
upon the adoption or the decision not to
adopt the revised standards as set forth by
the US EPA."
Q. With respect to Paragraph D which requires a
ITV
37
sampling and a program sending those samples
to the IEPA, did the City comply with that
provision?
A. Yes, as submitted.
Q. With respect to Paragraph B which required
within three months of the grant of the
variance in 1991 that the City should secure
professional assistance in investigating
compliance options, did the City do that?
A. Yes, we did. We employed the services of
Baxter and Woodman, Inc., Environmental
Engineers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
Q. Condition in Paragraph F indicates that
within four months of the grant of the
variance that the name of that professional
assistance should be submitted to the
Agency, the IEPA. Did the City of DeKalb do
that?
A. Yes, we did. We submitted a notification on
October 1991.
Q. The condition in Paragraph G indicated that
within ten months of the grant of the
ITV
38
variance or three months after revision of
the US EPA's standard for combined radium or
publication that the standard would be
unchanged that the City shall complete
investigating compliance methods, prepare
detailed compliance report showing how
compliance will be achieved within the
shortest practical time but not later than
five years from the date of grant of this
variance, what has the City done with
respect to that item?
A. Again, we have commenced our preparation of
compliance report, and again, pending the
determination of the final standards to be
adopted or not to be adopted our compliance
report remains in pursuit.
Q. Condition contained in Paragraph H, that
within twelve months of the grant of the
variance, four months after revision of the
US EPA's standard for combined radium or
publication that the standard will be
unchanged Petitioner shall submit such
ITV
39
compliance report to the Agency if they
address or identify the Condition D, that
being the IEPA, what has the City done with
respect to that item?
A. Similar to the above responses we have
commenced and are in the process of
completing the compliance report. Again,
however, subject to the issuance of the
standard by the US EPA.
Q. With respect to conditions contained in
Paragraphs I, J and K, all dealt with
notifying the IEPA regarding permits that
would be taken out to construct the
necessary improvements to achieve
compliance, what has the City done with
respect to those items?
A. All three of those are not applicable at
this time due to the fact of our compliance
report determination, finalization being
incomplete at this time, and again,
depending upon the adoption of the new US
EPA standards.
ITV
40
Q. With respect to the conditions contained in
Paragraph L, that dealing with information
that should be contained within water bills
sent out on a quarterly basis, has the City
complied with that condition?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. With respect to Paragraph M, within the
first set of water bills or three months
after the date of the order, this being in
1991, and quarterly thereafter, we were to
send each user of our public water supply a
written notice to the effect that the
Petitioner is not in compliance with the
standard for radium, that notice further
indicating what the average content of
radium samples taken since the last notice
period appearing which samples were taken,
has the City achieved or complied with that
provision?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. With respect to Paragraph N, until full
compliance is achieved Petitioner shall take
ITV
41
all reasonable measures with existing
equipment to minimize the levels of combined
radium 226 and radium 228 in the drinking
water, what has the City done with respect
to that condition?
A. The City has previously testified or
testified to as attempted to minimize the
level of our combined radium, radium 226 and
228, through the reduction of utilization of
our highest producing wells, namely No. 4
and No. 6. We have also expended in excess
of $30,000 in exploring means to achieve
compliance through the use of consultants as
well as through the utilization of a
citizens ad hoc advisory water study
committee, and as a part of that study and
as a part of the committee's findings and
recommendations it's been determined that we
have mislaid two courses of possible
pursuit. The first and the most desirable
being that to develop well water supplies
from sand and gravel and/or limestone
ITV
42
aquifers that can be used to blend our
deeper well water and thereby reduce the
concentration of radium to the acceptable
levels.
The City has investigated this
course of action and the available data
indicates that at this time there is a
potential area for a source of such water
which is located on the western peripheral
boundaries of the City of DeKalb and is
known more locally as a Troy bedrock valley
aquifer, and as a part of our ongoing
studies we are continuing to pursue and
investigate the feasibility of developing in
this particular source of shallow water.
If that is found not to be or is
proven not to be feasible, then the City has
the alternative to pursue a secondary method
of ion exchange, softening of the water or
depot water to remove the radium. This
option, however, could be implemented in a
fairly short period of time by constructing
ITV
43
water treatment facilities at or near all of
the existing well sites.
In addition to those actions the
City has further explored the needs of the
water system and are currently in the
process of recommending the implementation
of an exploratory research of the available
water resources to the western boundary of
the City and then to continue upon after
that review to pursue the results if that
water is available and then hopefully pursue
the appropriate course of action to
ultimately reduce our radium in our water.
Along the line with our course of
study with our ad hoc water advisory
committee we also looked at some other
issues such as the insertion of liners and
plugs in our water wells for the purpose of
reducing radium concentration in the wells,
and also that precipitated some -- not that
particular item, but another course or
another issue that we did pursue is
ITV
44
investigate the disposal of radium
contaminated waste water that would result
from the water treatment plant should we
have to, you know, pursue that course of
correction of our radium in the water.
Q. Mr. Naylor, Paragraph O of the variance
granted in 1991 indicated that the City was
to submit written progress reports every six
months. Has the City complied with that
provision?
A. We complied through June of 1992.
Q. And were individual six month progress
reports submitted after 6/92?
A. No.
Q. When did you become aware that the City had
not filed those reports as required?
A. It was brought to my attention on
approximately the 24th of June.
Q. Upon being made aware of that what steps did
you take in response to that?
A. In a conference with Illinois EPA office it
was concurred that at that time most
ITV
45
appropriate to compile a summary report that
would summarize that time period that was
not initially reported.
MS. FRANK: I have a question. I'm
sorry. You said June. Did you mean June of
'96?
THE WITNESS: June -- when it was first
brought to my attention was June of '96,
June 24th.
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
Q. And referring to again what's been labeled
at this time Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, is
that the progress report summary for that
intervening period that you submitted at the
request of the IEPA?
A. Yes.
Q. And is all the information regarding the
activities that the City undertook in
response to Subparagraph O contained within
that summary report during that period of
time?
A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
ITV
46
Q. And did you prepare this document?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it true and accurate to the best of
your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all the action items contained in the
progress reports and progress report
summaries performed on a timely basis with
the exception of the semiannual reports?
A. Yes.
Q. And what steps did you take to ensure that
prospectively the semiannual reports will be
submitted on a timely basis as required?
A. We have reviewed our situation here and we
have today, this date, by letter and will
communicate to the Illinois EPA some action
that we will implement in making sure that
our checks and balances are expanded wherein
we are going to incorporate in our checks
and balances the offices of our water
superintendent, our City engineer and that
we will also expand upon our E-mail network
ITV
47
notebook system throughout our organization
a timed calendar adjustment that will notify
us in advance of the due date for this
particular report, and also to incorporate
and to utilize the services of our
consultant for assistance in assuring the
compliance.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Naylor, I'll show you what's been
labeled at this time Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 6 and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what does that document purport to be?
A. That's my letter so stating our efforts that
will be undertaken to ensure compliance in
this area.
Q. Other than the omission regarding the
semiannual progress reports, were all the
other conditions contained in the variance
observed and complied with to the best of
ITV
48
your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the City of DeKalb have any plans to
extend new water mains within the next five
years?
A. Yes, we do.
Q. And drawing your attention to Paragraph 35
of the City's petition, do the projects
listed in that paragraph include projects
for which new water main extensions are
planned in the near future?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And to the best of your knowledge are most
of the projects listed in Paragraph 35 in
the City's petition that include new water
main extensions engineered, designed, funded
and intend to be completed within the next
six months to three years?
A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Q. Does the City of DeKalb foresee extending
its water main to new users if the requested
variance is granted?
ITV
49
A. Yes.
Q. And do the projects listed in Paragraph 35
of the City's petition include locations
which new users are intended to be served by
the extensions of new water mains?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Would the construction of water main
extensions improve fire flow for fire
suppression activities for existing
residences as well as for new residences in
the areas served by such main extensions?
A. Yes, they do. They also improve through
normally the looping effect that normally
would occur. They can improve the
circulation of the water throughout the area
and the quality of the water as well.
Q. Mr. Naylor, with respect to the information
and statements contained within the City's
petition, are they true and accurate to the
best of your knowledge?
A. Yes, they are.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
ITV
50
questions of this witness at this time.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Mr. Naylor, with regard to your petition and
Paragraph 35, do you have any estimate as to
how much additional water demand will be on
your facility as a result of connecting all
these facilities? There's a page of
facilities here.
A. I don't believe we have that information
available at this time based upon these
projected developments.
Q. Well, then do you have the capacity to serve
all these new facilities?
A. At this time it is to the best of our
knowledge, we do, yes.
Q. With regard to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6,
your letter dated August 5th, 1996, did you
send that this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. So it's on the way to our offices --
ITV
51
A. Yes.
Q. -- at this point? In your opinion does this
meet or exceed the requirements for the past
Board order as far as semiannual progress
reports?
A. Our compliance would exceed.
Q. Do you also have provision noting of course
the public interest here in boasting
something like this?
A. Yes, we do.
Q. There's no requirement, of course, but I
would recommend that you also perhaps post
this in a place too so that people could
casually see how you're -- what kind of
progress you're making in regards to the
radium compliance with the radium sample.
A. We can do that, yes.
MR. EWART: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Is there any redirect?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No redirect. I would
ask for the admission of Petitioner's
ITV
52
Exhibits 5 and 6.
MS. FRANK: Is there any objection?
MR. EWART: No.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Petitioner's
Exhibits 5 and 6 are entered into evidence.
Before we start with the next witness, since
we have so many people from City here, is
there any way that we can get the air
conditioning on a little bit higher? It's
really hot in here.
I also need to note for the record
that I referred to this case as PCB 96-247
earlier. Its number is actually 96-246.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you. That saves
a lot of revisions.
MS. FRANK: Do we need to take a five-
minute break while they do that or can you
go ahead and go on? I don't know who just
left.
MR. MATEKAITIS: If you want to take a
five-minute break that would be fine. We
can do that.
ITV
53
MS. FRANK: Okay. Why don't we take a
five-minute break and come back.
(A recess was taken at 2:15 p.m.
and proceedings resumed at 2:27 p.m.)
MS. FRANK: I'd like to go ahead and
get started. Mr. Matekaitis, do you want to
go ahead and begin.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you. I'd call
City's next witness, Larry Thomas.
LAWRENCE THOMAS,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Would you please state and spell your last
name for the record.
A. My name is Lawrence Thomas, T-h-o-m-a-s.
Q. And what is your occupation Mr. Thomas?
A. I'm a civil engineer with the firm of Baxter
and Woodman Consulting Engineers in Crystal
Lake, Illinois.
Q. And how long have you been employed in that
ITV
54
capacity?
A. 19 years.
Q. Would you please describe your professional
occupation and training -- professional
occupational training.
A. I have a bachelor's of science in civil
engineering from the University of Illinois
in Champaign. I have a master's of science
in environmental engineering from the
University of Illinois. I am registered as
a professional engineer in the State of
Illinois and I am also registered as a
diplomate of the American Academy of
Environmental Engineers.
Q. Have you provided professional assistance to
any communities whose public water supply
systems have exceeded the standards for
combined radium 226 and 228?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what are the names of those communities?
A. West Chicago, Mission Brook sanitary
district, Plainfield, DeKalb, Round Lake and
ITV
55
Yorkville.
Q. What was the nature of the assistance that
you rendered in each instance?
A. On each of those cases we were doing general
planning work, shallow well exploration,
putting together the alternatives for each
of those communities to consider as far as
ways of reaching compliance with the radium
standard.
Q. Has your firm been retained by the City of
DeKalb to provide professional assistance in
exploring alternatives that would enable the
City to meet the current standards for
combined radium 226 and 228?
A. Yes, it has.
Q. Have you been primarily assigned by Baxter
and Woodman to provide that assistance to
the City of DeKalb?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. As part of your assistance to the City of
DeKalb have you determined what alternatives
are available to the City to meet the
ITV
56
current standards of Ra 226 and 228?
A. Yes, we're looking at primarily two means of
achieving compliance. One is through
blending with shallow well water, and the
second one is providing treatment for the
existing water supply wells for the actual
removal of the radium.
Q. Would you describe what is involved with
respect to the blending option.
A. With the blending what we're doing is we're
actually mixing water from a different
source that's low in radium or absent of
radium with the water from the sandstone
wells that do have the radium in them. To
achieve compliance we actually have to meet
the standard at the point where the water
enters the distribution system, so that
means that we have to bring the blending
water to each of the well sites or bring the
untreated water from each of the deep wells
to a point where we can blend it with the
shallow well water before it enters into the
ITV
57
distribution system.
Q. What are the pros and cons, if you will,
associated with the blending option?
A. The blending option has the advantage of
having lower cost for the production of the
water because we're not pumping it from so
deep a depth. The disadvantage of it is
that having taken a look at the geology of
the area we don't feel that under most of
DeKalb it's possible to generate very much
shallow well water. The formations that we
need just aren't present.
Taking a look at the geology over
a wider area we find that the Troy bedrock
valley is immediately to the west of the
community and that valley with the sands and
gravel formations that are supposed to be in
it looks to be our best opportunity for
developing shallow well supplies of large
quantity.
Q. With respect to the blending option, are
there any unresolved issues with respect to
ITV
58
that alternative?
A. Because the Troy valley is outside the City
limits we have the problem of gaining
accessibility to various properties. Many
times when we're drilling wells we use
properties that are supplied -- either
they're already owned by the City or they're
supplied by developers for that use.
Going outside the City we'll have
to obtain drilling rights from private
property owners, and we also have to look at
having to extend water mains and potentially
sanitary sewers out to those well sites in
order to be able to provide the treatment
and then disposal of the treatment waste.
Q. With respect to the treatment waste, what
by-product is realized through the blending
option?
A. The shallow wells generally have a high
amount of iron and manganese in them, and as
results you end up with a water that may
comply with water quality standards but
ITV
59
aesthetically it's not desirable because it
can stain laundry and it turns orange after
it stands for awhile. To prevent this, with
the shallow wells we generally have to
filter the iron out by oxidizing the iron
first to put it in a solid state and then
passing it through gravel medium, sand
medium or charcoal in order to be able to
remove that -- the solids and the iron.
That creates an iron sludge that
then has to be disposed of, and we will
probably have to have permission from the
DeKalb Sanitary District in order to be able
to connect to their system for the disposal
of that iron residue.
Q. With respect to the treatment options, would
you please describe what is involved with
the treatment option alternatives.
A. We looked at various options for treatment.
We considered ion exchange using
conventional resins such as people have in
their homes. We considered resins that were
ITV
60
weak acid and strong acid so that we
wouldn't have to add sodium to the water
supply.
We also considered reverse osmosis
and other more experimental processes. We
dropped back to using ion exchange for the
purposes of our study because it was the
least cost alternative for complying with
the standards. We also took a look at
different ways of trying to minimize the
cost. Because we have nine wells we end up
with it being very costly. We don't have
all our water coming from one location, so
we took a look at using centralized
treatment where we would bring all of the
raw water from all the wells to a central
point, treat the water and then redistribute
it throughout the system.
We looked at using regional water
treatment plants where we could tie three or
four of each of the wells together so that
we could try and minimize the number of
ITV
61
water treatment plants. But again, we had
to bring in raw water from each of the well
sites and then redistribute it back into the
system.
And then finally we looked at
individual treatment plants at each of the
well sites. That minimizes the feeder mains
that we have to run around town and try and
get the water back to where it belongs.
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages
with respect to each of the treatment
options you just outlined?
A. With the centralized treatment the main
problem is having the feed -- bring all the
water from the different wells. The wells
are scattered throughout the community, and
as a result our feeder main construction
gets very large. We have a great deal of
length to put in.
Then we also have to -- because we
brought all the water to one point we have
to bring it back out and be able to
ITV
62
distribute it into the system so then we
have to end up putting some reinforcing
mains in the community in order to properly
distribute the water, and that drives up our
costs.
With the regional treatment we ran
into similar but not as bad problems as far
as putting in the feeder mains. In the
individual, what we run in to there is the
fact that we would have nine water treatment
plants to have to maintain which is a fairly
substantial number and would require
additional staffing to do so.
Q. With respect to the treatment options you
outlined, are there any unresolved issues
with respect to any of those options?
A. We again will have to have permission from
the sanitary district in order to be able to
discharge the wastes into their sanitary
sewer system. With using ion exchange we'll
be discharging a salt brine to the sanitary
sewer just as the home softeners do. We
ITV
63
have discussed this issue with the sanitary
district and they on a preliminary basis
have said that they will consider allowing
us to make those discharges but that we also
will be charged as an industrial wastewater
discharger to be able to do so, and that
cost was about 60 cents per hundred cubic
feet of waste.
Q. Have you tendered what the estimated cost
would be if the blending option is selected?
A. Yes. Using reasonable assumptions as to the
number of wells that we would need for the
blending and the location of those wells, we
project that the cost for the shallow well
blending option is about $9 million.
Q. And length of time it would take to
construct the necessary improvements for
that option is what?
A. We project that it will take about a year to
do the exploratory work, to locate the best
locations for those wells, to purchase or
get options on the property that we need to
ITV
64
be able to build the treatment facilities
and construct the wells and likely another
two years in order to be able to go through
design, get IEPA permits and then actually
complete the construction of those
facilities and the water mains, bringing the
water back into town, so we're looking at
about a total of three years to achieve that
goal.
Q. Have you determined the estimated cost
associated with each individual treatment
option you outlined?
A. Yes. It was hoped that by bringing
everything to one location that we could cut
down our costs, but we found that the feeder
main construction really made this option
very expensive, and it was to provide a
centralized treatment plant we're looking at
a cost of $12.1 million.
To provide a regional facilities
-- three to four regional facilities and
feeding the wells to those locations, we're
ITV
65
looking at a cost of approximately $7.4
million, and for individual treatment plants
at each of the well sites we're projecting a
cost of approximately $6.8 million.
Q. Now, with respect to each cost that you
outlined for the various options, the
blending and the treatment options, in
addition to those estimates do we then have
to include the costs charged by the sanitary
district for the treatment of various
by-products under those options?
A. Yes. I have not included operational costs
in those numbers. Those are just straight
capital costs.
Q. What is the annual estimated cost associated
with the disposal of the by-product under
the blending option?
A. Brine disposal for this option we project
will be approximately $27,000 per year. We
also have the purchase of salt on an annual
basis which is expected to be in the
neighborhood of $75,000 per year.
ITV
66
Q. With respect to the treatment options and
the disposal of that by-product, what are
the estimated annual costs of that?
A. Excuse me? Oh, okay. The disposal of the
sludge -- the ion exchange creates about two
to four times as much residue as does iron
removal, so our costs for disposal of the
iron removal sludges should be in the range
of 10 to $15,000 per year. There would be
no salt costs in this case.
Q. In examining the length of time it would
take to construct the necessary improvements
for each treatment option, how much time
would be needed to reach the central,
regional and individual treatment options?
A. We're estimating that for the centralized
treatment we're probably looking at a three-
year time frame. For individualized
treatments we're probably in the range of at
least two years to achieve compliance and it
could possibly be three years because of the
number of facilities that we would be
ITV
67
attempting to construct.
Q. As part of your professional assistance to
the City of DeKalb, have you been involved
with preparing a report on the City of
DeKalb's potable water supply needs to the
year 2010?
A. Yes, I have.
(Petitioners Exhibit No. 7 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Thomas, I'll hand you what's been
labeled at the time Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 7 and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that document?
A. This is the July 24th, 1996 copy of the
water system planning and computer model
update for the City of DeKalb.
Q. Was that the study that I referenced of
DeKalb's water supply needs to the year
2010?
A. Yes, it is.
ITV
68
Q. And is it in a final or draft form?
A. It is still in a draft form subject to
review by the staff and by the City Council.
Q. And did you prepare this document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And is the information contained in that
document true and accurate to the best of
your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Within the document itself what information
is contained that relates to the City's
efforts to reach compliance with the
existing combined radium 226 and 228
standards?
A. This report focuses on meeting the quantity
requirements of the City but it also looks
at the impacts of the different options on
the radium levels in the water system. For
instance, we took a look at using some
existing deep wells that are owned by an
industry and took a look at the cost of
bringing those on-line and using them in the
ITV
69
system, but at the same time we point out
that those wells would not do anything to
reduce the radium concentration in the
City's water supply because they would be
anticipated to have the same amount of
radium as the existing wells that are
nearby.
Q. And are you familiar with the City's plan in
existing water main extensions and existing
and proposed well sites?
A. Yes, I am.
(Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 8 and 9
were marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Thomas, I'll show you what's been
labeled at this point in time Petitioner's
Exhibits No. 8 and 9 and ask you if you
recognize those.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And how is it that you recognize those
documents?
A. These documents were prepared under my
direction.
ITV
70
Q. And what's been labeled Petitioner's
Exhibits No. 8 and 9, are they also
pictorially represented in the same fashion
up here?
A. Yes, they are.
MR. MATEKAITIS: By here I'm indicating
to an easel.
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
Q. With respect to the proposed extension of
City water mains and specifically with
proposed well sites, tank and well sites,
would you please describe where they are and
why they are located as proposed on Exhibit
No. 9.
A. On this particular exhibit we're looking at
the extensions of mains beyond the current
limits of the water distribution system.
We've identified potential locations for
wells if it works out that way. One
location is over in the southeast corner of
the community where we're looking at a
commercial industrial area in the potential
ITV
71
that we would either place a ground level
reservoir or an elevated tank down in that
corner.
That site could potentially act as
a well supply site. If there is a well
located there it will very likely have to be
a deep well, and if we use a deep well there
and we are to comply with the 5 picocuries
per liter we would have to provide softening
at that site.
We are also showing another ground
level reservoir and well in the northeast
corner of the community near the airport.
Again, if there is to be a well located at
that location it would likely have to be a
deep well and subject to treatment to meet
the 5 picocuries per liter if that's
necessary.
Then we're also showing on this
exhibit the approximate boundaries of the
Troy bedrock aquifer. They're shown in
green on the exhibit. As you can see, the
ITV
72
centerline of the bedrock valley is west of
Nelson Road, and the eastern boundary of it
comes pretty much along the western boundary
of the community. It's in that area that
we're hoping to be able to explore and to be
able to develop some shallow well water
supplies.
And in that location we've shown a
proposed well and water tank, but I'd like
to point out that we anticipate that if that
area is productive that we would end up
having multiple wells throughout that area
and very likely having centralized or
regional treatment plants that would feed
two or three wells to each one.
Q. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ewart, Counsel for the IEPA,
had asked a previous witness for the City if
he was aware of whether or not the City has
existing capacity to service the extension
of proposed water mains to service the
proposed projects and new users contained
within Paragraph 35 of the City's petition.
ITV
73
Specifically then with respect to that, does
the City have sufficient capacity to meet
the needs of the intended new users and
water main extensions as contained within
Paragraph 35 of the City's petition?
A. Yes, it does. What we have right now and
it's shown on Exhibit 1 of the report is
that running the wells eleven hours per day
we can meet the average daily demand and
have excess capacity. On peak days,
however, the demand of the community exceeds
the production of the existing wells during
that eleven hours. So the community has the
option and has done so in the past when it
needed to, was operating the wells into the
electrical demand period or using the
generators to operate the wells so that the
production of water can continue beyond the
normal eleven-hour period and thereby
meeting the peak day demand.
So we have plenty of water, but
what we want to continue to do is to be able
ITV
74
to stay within the eleven hours, and that's
why we're looking at additional supply wells
in order to be able to maintain the use of
that lower electric rate.
Q. Mr. Thomas, one of the items of previous
witnesses for the City has testified to
related to the City's efforts in reducing
the amount of radium within its existing
water supply by reducing the pumping in
wells 4 and 6 where the highest
concentration of radium is found.
Do you have any information with
respect to the volume differential that was
used in reducing the number or the amount of
radium contained within the public water
supply by reducing the pumping in wells 4
and 6?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that information, please.
A. This is for well No. 4. In 1990 well No. 4
produced on an annual basis 123,501,000
gallons of water. In 1995 the production
ITV
75
from this well was 90,433,000 gallons.
Q. For a net reduction of?
A. About 33 million gallons per year.
Q. With respect to well No. 6, what are the
figures for that well?
A. In 1990 well No. 6 produced 123,800 --
excuse me, 123,813,000 gallons. In 1995
well No. 6 produced 111,398,000 gallons for
a reduction of approximately 22 million
gallons.
Q. With respect to the information contained in
Petitioner's Exhibit 8 and 9, is that
information true and accurate to the best of
your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And does the information presented on
Exhibits 8 and 9 fairly and accurately
portray the information contained therein?
A. Yes.
Q. Finally, Mr. Thomas, with respect to the
petition that the City has filed in this
instant matter, could you comment upon
ITV
76
whether or not the City is seeking a
variance from the radium standards
themselves or rather they're requesting a
variance from the standards for issuance and
from restricted status.
A. The City in its petition is not requesting a
variance from the radium standards. It is
requesting a variance from the 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 602.105 B, standards for
issuance, and 602.106 B, restrictive
status. These two provisions deal with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board placing the
City of DeKalb on restricted status and not
allowing the further extension of its water
mains until the community achieves
compliance.
Q. So regardless of whether or not the City's
petition is granted in this case before the
Pollution Control Board, will the City of
DeKalb still be subject to the standard of 5
picocuries per liter?
A. Yes.
ITV
77
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions of this witness at this time.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Mr. Thomas, have you had occasion to analyze
the water in the Troy bedrock valley?
A. We have not done any exploration in that
bedrock valley at this point. We have
researched all the available information
from the Illinois geological survey and from
the water survey.
Q. You've not taken any samples for radium
analysis?
A. No, not from the shallow wells. We have not
had the experience of ever finding radium in
shallow well water.
Q. How about for iron and manganese.
A. As I said earlier, I would fully anticipate
finding fairly high levels of iron and
manganese thereby requiring its removal. I
would be very surprised if we found it to be
ITV
78
low.
Q. Mr. Thomas, with regard to the information
you provided on well No. 4 and well No. 6 in
the DeKalb systems which are currently being
operated, are there plans to further reduce
the levels of pumpage from well No. 4 and
well No. 6?
A. They currently have the wells at the very
bottom of their matrix so that they are the
last two wells called for. I'm not aware of
any plans beyond that at this time to reduce
their usage below that.
Q. Is there any way that the system could be
operated by not using well No. 4 and well
No. 6?
A. I think that question would be better
directed at Mr. Bever.
MR. EWART: Fine. I will withdraw that
question and call Mr. Bever as my witness if
there's no objection.
MR. MATEKAITIS: No objection.
MR. EWART: At a later time, of
ITV
79
course. I have no further questions.
MS. FRANK: Is there any redirect?
MR. MATEKAITIS: Briefly, thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Mr. Thomas, have you calculated the
estimated costs to sink a test well to
determine capacity and water quality in the
Troy bedrock valley assuming the logistics
of securing a site are worked up?
A. Do you want the cost for one or do you want
the entire program?
Q. One.
A. For the construction of one test well in the
Troy valley we would be looking at a cost in
the neighborhood of 30 to $40,000.
Q. Is that the complete cost associated with
the determining capacity and water quality
for a single well?
A. We were anticipating doing an entire
analysis of the Troy valley or a thorough
one so that we could judge that it could
ITV
80
produce the amount of water that we're
looking for. To do a complete well site
evaluation of the Troy valley we're looking
at a cost in the neighborhood of $320,000.
Q. And in your opinion is that the type of
testing that should be done in order to
complete and determine whether or not that
source will satisfy the City of DeKalb's
needs both with respect to quantity and
quality of supply?
A. Yes. Because of the capital improvements
that are necessary and the commitment to
purchase the property it's important to know
that you're going to get the quantity of
water that you anticipated.
MR. MATEKAITIS: No further questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, is there
anything else?
MR. EWART: I have no further questions
of this witness.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Then at this time I
would ask for admission of Petitioner's
ITV
81
Exhibits 7, 8 and 9.
MS. FRANK: Is there any objection?
MR. EWART: No objection.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Petitioner's
Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 are admitted. Before
you call your next witness, I'd like to know
if there are any members of the public who
for any reason need to leave and would like
to make a statement on the record at this
time. Okay, then you may continue.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you. I would
call Ken Bowden, please.
KENNETH BOWDEN,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Would you please state your full name and
spell your last name for the record.
A. Kenneth L. Bowden, B-o-w-d-e-n.
Q. And what is your current occupation?
A. I teach at Northern Illinois University in
ITV
82
the department of geography.
Q. Did you have occasion to serve on an ad hoc
citizens committee regarding the City of
DeKalb's water supply system beginning in
November of 1991?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in what capacity did you serve on that
committee?
A. I was the chairman.
Q. What did you understand the charge of that
committee to be?
A. First of all we were advisory to the City
Council and the City Council sought -- was
seeking our advice and recommendations
concerning how to best meet the water
quality standards for our drinking water
supply.
Q. And did the committee in your estimation
carry out that charge?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And did the committee submit a final report
containing its findings and recommendations?
ITV
83
A. Yes, we did, in November of '92.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 was
marked for identification.)
Q. I'll show you what's been labeled as
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 at this point in
time and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that document?
A. This is the report that we submitted to the
City Council where I -- as chairman I had
written it up and submitted it on behalf of
the water quality committee.
Q. And to the best of your knowledge is that
report accepted and approved by the City
Council?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: Can we have a minute to
read the report?
ITV
84
MS. FRANK: Certainly. Do you want to
take a five-minute break?
MR. EWART: Yes, thank you.
MS. FRANK: Why don't we come back at
3:10, 3:15.
(A recess was taken at 3:00 p.m.
and proceedings resumed at 3:08 p.m.)
MS. FRANK: Let's go back on the
record.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Mr. Bowden, as chair of this committee you
had a fairly diverse group of
recommendations. Is it not true that you
had two that recommended 5 picocuries per
liter, four that recommended to go with the
federal standard if it became accepted and
three who recommended to treat to the level
of 10 picocuries per liter? Is that not
accurate?
A. That is an accurate representation. I tried
to represent in the report the difference in
ITV
85
opinion that existed there, and I think when
the City Council appointed the committee
they assured that there would be a diversity
of opinion.
Q. Now, did you -- later in your report you
talk about public notice or public
information, public education sessions.
What, if anything, has been done with regard
to those sessions?
A. I was reading this report over anticipating
coming here, and I thought that was one of
the areas where we obviously failed. We did
have a fact sheet that we handed out at
Earth Day celebration that included not only
a discussion of the committee's
recommendations but also if people were
still anxious about the safety of the water,
some alternatives that they could explore on
the individual basis. Even though we didn't
recommend them we felt that we should make
them aware of it.
We also handed out similar
ITV
86
information, I believe, at a City function
called the Barbed Wire Fest (phonetic), so
there were a couple activities like that,
plus I think two different appearances on a
local radio program called Party Line
discussing the recommended drinking water
after this report had been handed out.
Q. Mr. Bowden, with regard to incidence or your
recommendation of use of bottled water in
home treatment and/or home treatment for
people who personally feel that the level of
radium is too high, are you -- is your
committee -- are you or your committee aware
of the incidents in use of bottled water
and/or treatment in this community?
A. In this community some people do use bottled
water but I couldn't give you any particular
information about it.
Q. Is there -- I briefly read this, but is
there a reverse osmosis treatment system
that's available?
A. No. There were one or two members of the
ITV
87
committee that were advocating it. I
strongly feel the -- well, I'll back off and
say a majority of the committee, and I
concurred with them, felt that the City
probably should not get in the water
business of having reverse osmosis unit
available, but that was one of the things
that was discussed and we included it in the
report for the council to consider.
Q. Was this a small volume of reverse osmosis
for retail use or something?
A. I think there were several people who were
concerned of any radium in the water, much
less exceeding the 5 picocuries per liter,
and the intent was to have a centralized --
they were proposing having a centralized
small reverse osmosis unit where the people
could come and pick up the bottled water and
take it home. There was some feeling they
were already paying for their water supply,
the City should supply it. The committee --
ad hoc committee did not recommend that per
ITV
88
se.
Q. What, if anything, did this committee do
with regard to the recommendation on the
high radium wells that exist in this City?
A. We were the ones that recommended that the
use of the high radium wells be passed on
and that the lower radium wells be the prime
source of the water supply. We also looked
at the idea of going out to the Troy river
valley. These were a couple of the
recommendations.
I'm not sure. We may have gotten
the reduction in use of high radium wells
coming in as testimony to the committee, but
we were certainly sympathetic to it. We did
encourage the City to explore the shallow
aquifers out in the Troy river valley
recognizing some uncertainty there, plus
you're trading contamination, because with
the shallow aquifers you run a greater risk
of herbicide and fertilizer contamination
from surface sources.
ITV
89
MR. EWART: Thank you. I really don't
have any more questions of this witness.
MS. FRANK: Is there any redirect?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No redirect.
MS. FRANK: I have a question,
Mr. Bowden. In looking -- kind of glancing
through it in the time that we had, we
noticed that you talk about daughter, each
daughter of radium. Can you explain that
term.
THE WITNESS: There are two separate
radioactive isotopes. Basically the radium
is coming from uranium or thorium so they
often are referred to as daughters and sons.
MS. FRANK: That's fine, thank you.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I would simply ask at
this time the admission of Exhibit No. 10 of
the Petitioner's.
MR. EWART: I have no objection.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then it's admitted.
Please call your next witness.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Call Mark Biernacki.
ITV
90
MARK BIERNACKI,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Would you please state your full name and
spell your last name for the record.
A. Mark T. Biernacki, B-i-e-r-n-a-c-k-i.
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Biernacki?
A. I'm the director of the City's planning and
development department.
Q. And how long have you been employed in that
capacity?
A. Since April of 1989.
Q. As part of the responsibility of your
position, do you have occasion from time to
time to make estimations as to the
population that will result from new
residential development?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you make such an estimation as to
the population that will result from the
ITV
91
residential projects listed in Paragraph 35
in the City of DeKalb's petition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what parameters did you use in making
your estimations?
A. My department receives and processes all
development inquiries and proposals
including residential proposals. This
responsibility allows us to confidently
estimate the expected number of new dwelling
units to be constructed within the City of
DeKalb's city limits. In this instance
within the next five years we estimate
approximately 805 new dwellings to be
constructed. From this number then we can
estimate the expected populations to be
residing within these new dwellings.
Q. And what is the estimated number of persons
that would be served and therefore adversely
effected over the next five years if the
City's variance request is denied?
A. With these 805 new dwellings to be expected
ITV
92
to be constructed and using a population
coefficient of 2.8 persons per dwelling
unit, which is a coefficient I have drawn
from data following the 1990 census, using
this information it is our estimation that
the number of persons to be served by this
expected residential development to equal
2265 new persons.
Q. And as part of the responsibilities of your
position, do you have occasion from time to
time to make estimations as to the fiscal or
economic impact residential, commercial and
industrial development has on the City of
DeKalb?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you make such an estimation as to
the fiscal and economic impact on the City
that would result if the projects listed in
Paragraph 35 of the City's petition that
will be developed over the next five years
because water mains could not be extended to
serve such developments?
ITV
93
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what were the parameters for those
estimations?
A. Parameters I used are found in a variety of
nationally recognized publications in the
field of fiscal and economic impact analysis
and also in the locally prepared document
entitled Development Trends Under Fiscal
Impacts which I authored.
Q. And were the revenue estimations that you
came up with based upon any standard?
A. These standards were found in the documents
I just previously mentioned and in a variety
of local data which include construction
values, governmental budgets, tax rates,
employment figures and the like.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 was
marked for identification.)
Q. I'll show you at this time what's been
labeled Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 and ask
you if you recognize that document.
A. Yes, I do.
ITV
94
Q. And what is that document?
A. It is a memorandum to you, City attorney,
that outlines the fiscal and economic
impact.
Q. Associated with the City's variance request?
A. That is correct.
Q. And did you prepare that document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And is that document contained in your
population of revenue estimates that you
just testified regarding?
A. Yes, it does (sic).
Q. What would be the estimated financial impact
upon the City?
A. For purposes of classifying financial impact
I split it into two groupings; fiscal
impact, that being impacts to local
government agencies, and also economic
impact, obviously impacts to the local
economy.
With respect to fiscal impact, the
impact is a result of the EPA restricted
ITV
95
list, would prevent the construction of 805
new dwellings that I previously mentioned,
approximately 850,000 square feet of new
commercial development and approximately
990,000 square feet of new industrial
development.
If they make it to the development
it would result in the following fiscal
impact: Property tax to the area's local
governmental agencies would amount to $3.65
million annually, again, to all taxing
districts, of which 240,000 would accrue to
the City of DeKalb. Sales tax revenues
would amount to $3.2 million annually of
which 2.8 million would accrue to the City
of DeKalb, and the balance to the DeKalb
County Government. And then third, utility
tax would amount to $140,000 annually to the
City of DeKalb.
The second part of the financial
impact is the economic impact, again,
impacts the overall local economy, and it is
ITV
96
our estimation that this pending new
construction would see approximately $135
million of new construction value along with
hundreds of construction jobs, approximately
$160 million in gross annual retail sales
activity, and approximately 2200 permanent
jobs employed by the proposed new commercial
and industrial development.
Q. With respect to the projects listed in
Paragraph 35 of the City's petition, are
there projects listed within that paragraph
for which you are unable to calculate
population fiscal and economic impacts?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the reason for that would be what?
A. These are initial inquiries of those
proposing to perform these developments.
The specifics of their projects are not yet
known to the City of DeKalb; hence, specific
revenue impacts, fiscal impact analysis
cannot be performed.
Q. So if any of those developments were to come
ITV
97
in fruition, would that add to the
population and revenue impact and fiscal
impact which you have testified to?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. And is the information contained in
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 true and
accurate to the best of your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions of this witness at this time.
MR. EWART: I just have one question,
Mr. Biernacki.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. You mentioned that the construction of the
805 new dwelling units will create an
estimated 2200 permanent jobs.
A. No, 2265 new residents would reside in those
homes. The construction of the new
commercial and industrial development, which
is the 850,000 square feet commercial, the
990,000 square feet of industrial, those
ITV
98
figures combined we would estimate would
provide jobs to 2200 people.
MR. EWART: Okay, thank you. I have no
further questions.
MR. MATEKAITIS: No redirect. I'd ask
for admission of Petitioner's Exhibit No.
11.
MR. EWART: No objection.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 11 is entered into evidence.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I would call
Dr. Rowland.
ROBERT ROWLAND,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Would you please state your full name and
spell your last name for the record.
A. Robert E. Rowland, R-o-w-l-a-n-d.
Q. And in what capacity are you currently
employed, Dr. Rowland?
ITV
99
A. I retired from Argonne National Laboratory
in 1983. I still am called back to work at
Argonne so I am an employee on a part-time
basis there and I do private consulting
work.
Q. Would you describe your professional
education and your relevant work history.
A. Education, I have a Ph.D. in radiation
biology from the University of Rochester,
New York, and a master's in business
education from the University of Chicago.
I started work at Argonne in 1950,
and ever since that date I have been
involved with one aspect or another of the
radium problem, how to measure radium in
people, how to evaluate the effects, how to
find them, and how to bring them to the
laboratory and to be able to measure their
body content of radium.
Q. With respect to your work experience at
Argonne specifically, what positions did you
hold at that facility?
ITV
100
A. I entered as an associate physicist in
1950. I was ultimately promoted to a senior
physicist in, oh, I don't remember the
date. I left Argonne in 1962 for a two-year
period during which I obtained a Ph.D. in
radiation biology.
I returned to Argonne as associate
director of my division which was called the
radiological physics division. In 1967 I
became director of that division. In 1967 I
also was named director for the Center for
Human Radiobiology which was formed at that
time to encompass and take care of all the
people in the United States known to have
internally deposited radium.
I held the position of division
director and as director of the Center of
Human Radiobiology until 1981 when I was
promoted to associate laboratory director
for biology in medicine. I retired in
1983.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 was
ITV
101
marked for identification.)
Q. Doctor, I'll show you what's been labeled at
the current time as Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 12 and ask you if you recognize that
document.
A. This is a summary of my work and educational
experience which I prepared myself. Yes, I
recognize it.
Q. And is the information contained in that
professional resume and work history true
and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
A. To the best of my knowledge, it is.
Q. With respect to professional publications,
have you had occasion to submit and have
published professional publications as it
relates to radium and health risks
associated with radium?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And would you estimate the approximate
number of those publications.
A. I have somewhere between 50 and 60 refereed
publications that have appeared in the
ITV
102
scientific literature and I have published
one book on the effects of radium in
humans.
MR. MATEKAITIS: At this time I would
ask that Dr. Rowland be admitted and
acknowledged as an expert in the matters to
which he will testify today.
MR. EWART: I have no objection.
MS. FRANK: Do you want to ask any
questions?
MR. EWART: No, I don't.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Mr. Rowland is
admitted as an expert in the field.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you.
Dr. Rowland, obviously we're here
today because of one word that keeps
appearing over and over again. Could you
please describe what radium is.
A. There are a number of ways to tackle that
question. Let me simply say that radium, as
previously mentioned, is a daughter of
uranium 238. Uranium 238 is spread very
ITV
103
uniformly across the globe. One of its
daughter products that is born by subsequent
decays is radium 226 which is characterized
by a half-life of 1,600 years.
Radium is remarkably uniformly
distributed throughout our environment. Let
me illustrate that by saying that we can
look up in an encyclopedia and learn that
there's about a half to one type of curie of
radium per gram of soil, but put it in a
different unit, all soil, whether it be our
front yard, our garden, the farm fields or
what have you, contains radium and many
other radioactive materials naturally
occurring.
You can take a handful of your
garden soil. Let's take a quantity we're
all familiar with like an ounce, 16 ounces
to a pound. We can hold an ounce of soil in
our hand. In that ounce of soil there are
approximately 21 picocuries of radium 226.
Now, picocurie or any word using
ITV
104
curie is a measure of what we call activity,
and it's really a measure of the number of
decays of the isotope per unit time. And so
whenever I speak of picocurie or microcurie
or curie, I'm talking about an activity
which has to do with disintegrations per
unit time.
Now, in that handful of soil I
have 21 picocuries of radium 226. I have
approximately the same number of picocuries
of uranium 238, thorium 232, two more very
long lived natural radioactive materials.
There is -- are also an unfamiliar isotope
present called rubidium 87. There will be
about 56 picocuries of rubidium 87 in that
handful of soil.
But the most common, the most
prevalent material in my handful of garden
soil is an isotope of potassium identified
as potassium 40, and there is something
like -- I scratched this number out before
coming out here, 336 picocuries of potassium
ITV
105
40 in the soil as compared to the 21
picocuries of radium 226.
I think it answers your question
by saying that one radium and many other
isotopes are extremely uniformly distributed
throughout our world. As a consequence they
appear in our food stuffs because we grow
our food stuffs in soil. They occur in the
meat we eat because the cattle and sheep
graze on the grass that's grown on the soil,
so radium is truly with us at all times in
all ways, whether it be on the tabletop or
in my body. There is lots of radium
around.
Q. With respect to the presence of radium in
different foods, are you familiar with the
level of radium that would be present in,
say, different varieties of nuts?
A. I would say that if you go to a cocktail
party and eat one of my favorite nuts, a
Brazil nut, which normally has a
concentration of somewhere near a thousand
ITV
106
picocuries per gram, you'll be getting more
radium ingested from that one nut than you
will in drinking water all year long.
Q. With respect to radium's presence in water
supplies, what is the source of radium in
water supplies?
A. The source is the uniformly distributed
isotope radium 238 which is leached in the
deep aquifers that we're referring to from
the rocks down below, and it is present on a
fairly constant uniform basis; that is, the
samples taken year in and year out from the
deep aquifers seem to run at about the same
level of the daughter product radium per
liter of water.
Q. And are you familiar with the various risk
models that are employed to determine health
risks associated with radium in drinking
water?
A. I am familiar with a number of such models
and I have published other models myself.
Q. Specifically with respect to the model
ITV
107
employed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, are you familiar with
that model?
A. I'm familiar with the model that appeared in
the Federal Register dated July 18th, 1991
in which were proposed the new radium 226
and 228 maximum contaminant levels for the
radium isotopes.
Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to the
model employed by the US EPA as to any
strengths or weaknesses associated with that
approach?
A. As long as the Federal EPA is bound and
determined to stick to a linear nonthreshold
model, that model that I referred to
published in the Federal Register has at
least been modified so that it recognizes:
One, that radium does not induce leukemia in
populations that drink the water; two, it
has been modified so that the risk
approximates what is seen at very, very low
levels of intake. So yes, I'm familiar with
ITV
108
that, and I don't believe it's valid, but
it's perhaps the best that's available to
work with.
Q. Notwithstanding your questions regarding the
reliability of that model, have you
determined what the potential health risks
are associated with the City of DeKalb's
variance request utilizing the projected
population numbers of 2265 and the last
weighted average for the full year for
combined radium of 7.3?
A. If I take those two numbers, the population
and the concentration of radium in the
water, I apply the lifetime risks that I'm
referring to and then divide to find the
risks for a five-year period and I assume
two liters of water ingested per day, I have
calculated a risk of radium induced
malignancies in a five-year period.
Q. And what is that figure?
A. The figure is 0.006.
MS. BURG: In how many people? How
ITV
109
many people are you talking?
MS. FRANK: I'm sorry, but you're not
allowed to ask questions from the audience.
This is much like a court proceeding, so I'm
going to ask you to be quiet, please.
Q. So Doctor, could you put that in layman's,
laywoman's terms, if you will, what the
potential health risks then are associated
for the period of the variance.
A. For the period of the variance for five
years for the stated population of 2,265,
there is no such thing as .006
malignancies. Malignancies come in
integers. There will be either zero or one
or two radium induced malignancies. I
happen to believe that the best number is
zero.
Q. You indicated you're familiar with various
approaches in assessing the health risks
associated with radium and drinking water.
Have you devised your own approach to
determine health risks associated with
ITV
110
radium drinking water?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And would you please describe what that
approach is and the basis for that
approach.
A. I will present at a meeting to be held in
France next month my own analysis, perhaps
the final analysis, from the US Radium
Studies, and I will differ from previous
models in that I will not accept a linear
nonthreshold model, nor will I accept my
previous models which postulated the risks
equivalent or dependent upon the square of
the dose or the intake.
In fact, I have now come to a
position of believing that there actually
exists a threshold. Below this threshold I
do not believe radium can or will induce any
malignancies. Above this threshold the risk
increases very, very rapidly, and anyone
ingesting more than the threshold will
probably see a 30-percent chance of
ITV
111
developing a radiation induced malignancy.
Q. What is the professional and scientific
basis for your approach, if you would? What
forms the basis of this new approach?
A. We have studied at Argonne some 2,283 people
who have acquired radium and have come to
the laboratory and allow us to make a
measurement of how much remains in their
body.
Now, these people got their radium
in many different -- from many different
sources. Some were chemists working to
extract radium from basic raw materials.
Others were patients of physicians who in
the 1920s saw radium as a wonder drug and
would give series of intravenous injections
of radium for a number of illnesses. It
worked fairly well for high blood pressure.
It was used for arthritis. It was used for
a number of reasons, and obviously now
the -- that source has disappeared.
But our best group of patients
ITV
112
were those primarily young ladies who
entered what was considered to be an
excellent profession, that of painting the
dials and hands of radium dial watches and
clocks and other items that for one reason
or another would glow in the dark so you
could see them, whether it was a pull shade
on a curtain or something like that.
Now, we were able to obtain a
population of 1,530 such women, all of whom
painted and entered the industry, I'll say,
entered the industry before 1950. Many more
entered the industry after that date, but by
1950 if we cut there, then we have about 40
years of experience at least on all of
them. So we have 1530 young women average
age 20 who worked between the years 1913 and
19 -- started finally in 1949.
That's our ideal population
because they're all alike in terms of age.
They all happen to be white, and we know a
lot about the standard population of white
ITV
113
females in our country, so we know the
expected rate of malignancy and alike.
Now, from that population we have
found that if we consider the radium to have
been ingested, no one who ingested less than
500 microcuries of radium ever developed a
radium induced malignancy. Greater than 500
microcuries of radium ingested, many such
malignancies were observed.
To give you some relative numbers,
there were 126 of those ladies who ingested
more than 500 microcuries and they
experienced 46 bone sarcomas. The remainder
of the 1530 showed no bone sarcomas, so it's
a very sharp and distinct cutoff, and it's
very hard to put a linear relationship which
goes through zero and goes up all the way
through a set of data like that.
Q. How many picocuries equal a single
microcurie?
A. One million.
Q. Based upon the risk model that you've
ITV
114
described that you will present next month,
have you determined the health risks
associated with the City of DeKalb's
variance request for the period of variance
given the population numbers previously
stated as well as the weighted average of
7.3 for combined radium?
A. I have.
Q. And what is that number?
A. Zero.
Q. How long would someone have to consume --
for what period of time would someone have
to consume the level of radium contained in
DeKalb's water before they would exceed that
threshold?
A. The number is, I stated earlier, in the
thousands of years. It probably is in the
tens of thousands of years at two liters per
day.
Q. I don't want to oversimplify or
mischaracterize your testimony, but do I
understand you to say that based upon your
ITV
115
professional experience, education and
training that your opinion is that the City
of DeKalb's radium level for the period of
the variance poses a zero health risk to the
users that will be serviced by that
variance?
A. It is my opinion based on the model I am
presenting in France next month that that
risk was zero. You realize that's not far
different from the risk of 0.006 that has
been calculated from the EPA risk estimate,
but I'm coming flat out and saying I believe
it's zero.
Q. Is that risk you described applicable to all
users or only new users?
A. That's applicable only to the new users.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Dr. Rowland, I'll hand you what's been
labeled at the current time Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 13 and ask you if you recognize
that document.
ITV
116
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And how is it that you recognize that
document?
A. I received a copy of this document by
Federal Express this morning.
Q. And have you had time to review its
contents?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And are you familiar with the author of this
document?
A. I know Richard Toohey quite well. He worked
for me in the Center of Human Radiobiology
for a number of years and is now working at
Oak Ridge.
Q. And with respect to the document listed as
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, do you have a
professional opinion as to the remarks and
opinions contained therein by Dr. Toohey?
A. Yes, I do. I find he's prepared a well-
crafted document which I approve
wholeheartedly.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
ITV
117
questions of this witness at this time.
MS. FRANK: Before we continue, there
are copies of Mr. Toohey's written statement
that are sitting right here on the table for
members of the public if people are
interested. Maybe we could set it on that
empty chair back there and people can take
them. I'd ask that a couple people share
because I don't think we have enough for the
entire audience, but there are several. I
think we have at least 30 copies that are
available.
Mr. Ewart, you may continue.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Dr. Rowland, with regard to the over 2,000
people that you reviewed in Argonne who
acquired radium from various sources, what
level -- what was the lowest level of radium
in their blood for any of those people who
experienced a carcinoma?
A. Most, I think all but one, had at least
ITV
118
enough radium in their blood so that it was
greater than an ingestion of 500 microcuries
of radium. We had one case of a small boy
who when we calculated his intake gave a
much lower intake of -- than the number I
quoted.
Q. Do you recall what that was?
A. I don't recall what the intake level was.
Perhaps you can remind me.
Q. 60?
A. Sounds reasonable.
Q. With regard to the model used by US EPA, the
linear no threshold model, you stated that
you didn't consider it valid. My question
to you would be in terms of -- could you
define it in terms of stringency or
nonstringencies? The more stringent the
error or the validity or is it less
stringent?
A. Depends upon what we mean by stringent, but
I think what you're driving at is if we take
the EPA model it increases the risk of
ITV
119
radium, and in that sense it errors in the
direction of safety.
Q. So by using this model even with your -- in
your opinion with the errors and flaws in it
and using it on a national basis it would
error on the side of safety.
A. That is absolutely correct.
MR. EWART: Thank you very much. I
have no further questions.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Just brief redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. And again, Dr. Rowland, utilizing even the
US EPA's LNT model, what would be the
estimated health risks associated with the
stated population for the period of
variance?
A. 0.006 radium induced malignancies in five
years.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have nothing further
of this witness and would ask for admission
of Exhibit Nos. 12 and 13.
ITV
120
MS. FRANK: Is there an objection?
MR. EWART: I have no objection.
MS. FRANK: Okay. Exhibits 12 and 13
are admitted into evidence.
I do you have one question,
Dr. Rowland, as to the studies at Argonne.
Were any of the people within the study
people where the ingestion was by water?
THE WITNESS: Yes, but perhaps not the
kind of water you're talking about. Well,
give me a few minutes to expand on that.
Radium was sold as bottled water over the
counter in the 1920s and '30s, and you could
buy a bottle containing something like 60
milliliters, which is not a very large
quantity of water, containing two
microcuries or two million picocuries of
radium.
If one was to take a bottle a day
year in and year out for general good
health -- and let me also go on to say that
the EPA questioned directly regarding the
ITV
121
young boy who apparently had a very low
level of acquired radium and developed a
malignancy. He and his brother and his
mother were given a bottle of radium water
to drink at breakfast every day. We
calculate how much radium was taken in by
measuring the body burden. We don't get to
see these people until they've carried this
radium for 20, 30, 40, 50 years, but
eventually we get to see them. It's still
there in their body and we can measure it.
Then we use what's called a
retention curve to go back in time and say
if they have this much so many years after
they acquired it, how much did they get at
the time of acquisition? And we did this
for the seven-year-old boy and we got this
value I suggested was 60 microcuries.
Interestingly enough his brother
two years older when measured had twice that
quantity, and his mother had even more, and
what this represents we think but cannot
ITV
122
prove is that our model of retention in the
body works very well for people who are
close to being adult and haven't obtained
full size and musculature and weight of
their bones.
The children turnover their bones
very rapidly because they have to increase
their length, they have to increase their
diameter, and increasing the diameter they
enlarge the cavity inside of a long bone;
that is, they turnover their bones very
rapidly and we think the seven-year-old
subject eliminated much more radium than his
nine-year-old brother, and hence, our
estimate of what is erroneously low.
We've also found the same thing
when we've looked at the children born of
dial painters when they were conceived
in utero while the mother was still
painting. Most of them have no radium.
Now, we know full well that radium crosses
the placental barrier very, very easy,
ITV
123
almost as if it were placid, so that we know
that the child grew bones from his mother's
calcium and we assume he deposited radium at
the same rate.
But a newborn baby grows very
rapidly and the bones turnover so rapidly
that there's probably none left of the
original fetal bone by the time the child is
eight or ten years old. So we're not
surprised to find no radium in children born
or I should say conceived while the mother
was still ingesting radium as a dial
painter.
MS. FRANK: Are there any other
questions for this witness?
MR. EWART: No, not at this time.
MS. FRANK: Okay.
MR. MATEKAITIS: The Petitioner would
rest at this time.
MS. FRANK: Okay. Thank you,
Dr. Rowland. Mr. Ewart, you may call your
first witness.
ITV
124
MR. EWART: Thank you, Miss Hearing
Officer. At this time I would call my one
witness, and that is Tracey Virgin.
TRACEY VIRGIN,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Would you please state your name and spell
your last name for the record.
A. My name is Tracey Virgin, spelled
V-i-r-g-i-n.
Q. And what is your place of employment?
A. I am employed with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Q. At what location?
A. At 2200 Churchill Road in Springfield,
Illinois.
Q. And what length of time have you been
employed there?
A. I have been with the Agency for eight years.
Q. And what are your responsibilities?
ITV
125
A. I review and conduct risk assessment, human
risk assessment, environmental risk
assessment. I review toxicology data and I
review superfund documents.
Q. Are you familiar with the current literature
on the health effects of radium?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Could you briefly, very briefly, identify
one or two documents that you've reviewed in
the past week or so.
A. I have reviewed some studies, Canadian
studies, Philippian studies, toxicological
profiles. I have reviewed the Federal
Register documents on the proposed
lymphoceles for radium and the Agency for
Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
toxicological profile on radium and some
Canadian studies. Those are all that I can
recall at the time that I've reviewed the
last couple of weeks.
Q. Would you please state for the record what
your education as a toxicologist is.
ITV
126
A. I have a bachelor of science in biology from
Southern Illinois University and a master of
public health and environmental health from
Yale University.
Q. When did you do your master at Yale?
A. I graduated in 1986.
Q. What was the subject matter of your master's
thesis -- your master's program, rather?
A. It was environmental health.
MR. EWART: At this time, Miss Hearing
Officer, I offer this witness as an expert
in the field of radium.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions or
objections?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No questions or
objections.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Miss Virgin is
qualified as an expert.
Q. Miss Virgin, are you familiar with the
drinking water standards for radium that
have been promulgated by US EPA and also
those that have been proposed?
ITV
127
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you describe how these current
standards were derived.
A. Well, the current standard is set at 5
picocuries per liter for radium 228 and 226
combined, and how US EPA set that, they use
what's called a dosimetric approach which
means that they look at a lot of different
studies, both human studies and animal
studies, and combine them into one model
which is then used to predict risks from
several radionuclides.
And they have reanalyzed the data
that they used to set the 5 picocuries.
Most of the data that was used came from
radium dial painters, mainly from those
studies, and the original model that they
used had some flaws with it. It didn't
predict some things well. They found that
the observations didn't meet the
predictions. They went back and reanalyzed
this data and made some corrections to this
ITV
128
model, and their prediction or the new
standard now is set at 20 picocuries per
liter for radium 228 and 20 for radium 226.
Q. With regard to the new standard, first of
all, just state for the record what the new
proposed standard for radium is.
A. It's 20 picocuries per liter for radium 226
and 20 picocuries for radium 228.
Q. And how is this standard derived in a
fashion that was different from the 5
picocuries combined schedule?
A. Well, they reanalyzed the radium dial
painter studies. Mainly they found that the
previous model had underestimated the amount
of radium that was ingested by the radium
dial painters.
Q. Is that the only study that was looked at?
A. That was the main study.
Q. Miss Virgin, you were here during the
testimony of Dr. Rowland.
A. Yes, I was.
Q. In your review of your toxicological
ITV
129
research, what, if anything, would you find
regarding the lowest total intake level of
radium that was associated with a
malignancy?
A. Using Dr. Rowland's level of -- his level of
100 microcuries and making the assumption
that a person would drink two liters of
water per day for a 70-year lifetime here in
DeKalb and using the 13.7 picocuries per
liter as the maximum amount of radium that
was found in DeKalb's water supply, that is
equivalent to 0.7 microcuries lifetime
intake of radium. It's about 143 times
lower than Dr. Rowland's threshold of 100
microcuries.
And also I did a quick
calculation. Someone had asked a question
previously, how many liters of water in how
many years it would take to reach that
level. Well, that comes out to over 36
million liters of water or 49,995 years.
Q. So in summary it would take approximately
ITV
130
50,000 years to ingest that amount of water
at two liters per day to reach the level of
100 microcuries in the body.
A. Yes, correct.
MR. EWART: I don't have any further
questions of this witness.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Miss Virgin, are you familiar with the
standards that are being proposed by the US
EPA with respect to radium?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And do you have any information that would
suggest that the US EPA is considering or
would recommend a standard of lower than the
existing standard of 5 -- combined 5
picocuries per liter?
A. No, I do not. I've talked with a few people
at US EPA and they indicate that that
will -- the 20 will be the proposed
standard, and the time frame on that is more
ITV
131
a question rather than the number.
Q. Now, the current is a combined standard.
The total of each individual isotope cannot
exceed 5 picocuries per liter; is that
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the proposed standard, as you understand
it, will be 20 for each individual isotope.
A. Correct.
Q. Now, drawing your attention to Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 2 which has been admitted into
evidence, entitled radium analysis, 1990 and
1995, in reviewing the samples of each
isotope of each well in each year, is there
any sampling period from any well for either
isotope wherein the level would exceed the
proposed standard of 20 picocuries per liter
for the individual isotope?
A. No, all the sample results are below 20.
Q. In fact, all the sample results for the
individual isotopes are all below ten; is
that correct?
ITV
132
A. Yes, for the individual isotopes they're
below ten.
Q. Have you had occasion prior to today to
review the written testimony of Dr. Toohey
as submitted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And do you have a professional opinion as to
the remarks and conclusions contained
therein by Dr. Toohey as to their
reliability or accuracy in those opinions?
A. I think Dr. Toohey did an accurate job of
summarizing the information that's known
about radium and US EPA's position on the
proposed standard of 20 picocuries.
Q. And then hearing the testimony of
Dr. Rowland as presented before the Hearing
Officer today, do you have any professional
basis to disagree with the conclusions of
Dr. Rowland regarding the potential health
risks associated with the new users
population of 2265 for the period of
variance?
ITV
133
A. No, I do not disagree with Dr. Rowland.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: Just one quick question
with regard to the timing of the proposed
standard.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Have you had occasion recently to be in
contact with US EPA, particularly US EPA hot
line, to determine what the status of the
proposed regulation is for radium 226 and
228?
A. Yes, I have, and they indicated that they
will be coming out with a time frame for the
promulgation October -- I believe it's
October 21st of this year.
MR. EWART: Thank you very much.
MS. FRANK: Can we go off the record
for a second.
(A discussion was held off the
ITV
134
record.)
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, you may
continue.
MR. EWART: I have no further questions
of this witness nor do I have any other
witness to present before this proceeding.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Matekaitis?
MR. MATEKAITIS: Just one question on
recross.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Miss Virgin, do you have any -- strike
that.
In your professional opinion do
you believe that the US EPA will promulgate
and issue the standards that you referred to
as 20 per -- picocuries per liter for each
individual isotope within the period of the
requested variance?
A. Yes, I believe they will.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Nothing further.
MS. FRANK: Okay. Mr. Ewart, then do
ITV
135
you have any further witnesses?
MR. EWART: No, I do not.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Matekaitis?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No.
MS. FRANK: What I'd like to do now
then is break until about 4:20, that's ten
minutes. We will come back at that point
and begin statements from members of the
public. We'll turn it over first to the two
attorneys who are here representing the
citizens groups. I believe they have some
introductions they would like to make and
then we'll begin from there.
Again, if there are any members of
the public that need to leave for any
reason, you need to make that clear so you
can come forward in the first group and make
your statement on the record before you
leave. Thank you.
(A recess was taken at 4:08 p.m.
and proceedings resumed at 4:21 p.m.)
MS. FRANK: At this point both sides
ITV
136
have rested. The Board's procedural rules
require that I make a statement about
witness credibility, and I found all
witnesses to be credible.
We are going to begin the public
participation portion of the hearing as I
stated right before the break. We will
start with the attorneys for the citizens
group. I believe they had an introduction
that they would like to make, and from there
we will take interested members of the
public.
People will need to come forward,
be sworn and state your name and spell your
last name for the record and for our court
reporter. I ask that everybody speak slowly
and clearly if we -- we may have to remind
you of that, but our court reporter needs to
get all of what you have to say.
The other thing I'd like to remind
everyone of is that if you have a written
statement that written statements are
ITV
137
entered into the record as if read. There
is no reason to read word for word your
entire written statement. What you can do
is summarize your written statement and then
admit it into the record and the Pollution
Control Board will then review the document
as a whole.
So that said I invite the
attorneys to come forward and state their
names and make appearances on behalf of
their citizens groups.
MR. HITE: Again, this is going to
start maybe a firework show. I'm only going
to light the fuse. If there are people --
we have maybe an hour, hour and a half of
presentation we'd like to give straight
through. If anyone wants to make a
presentation that doesn't have an hour and a
half to wait around, please interrupt me
now.
MS. FRANK: And also, in between each
of the people you're going to have speak I
ITV
138
am willing to allow people who are not
members of the citizens group to come
forward if for any reason they need to
leave.
MR. HITE: I understand that too.
ATTORNEY JUDSON HITE,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: You need to state your name
and spell your last name for the record.
MR. HITE: My name is Judson Hite,
H-i-t-e. I'm a lawyer with Altheimer and
Gray in Chicago. I'm representing four
individuals on a pro bono basis that are
citizens of DeKalb.
MS. FRANK: Just a moment. Can
everyone in the back hear? No. You need to
speak into your microphone, please.
MR. HITE: Again, my name is Judson
Hite, H-i-t-e. I work for the law firm of
Altheimer and Gray from Chicago. I'm
representing on a pro bono basis four
ITV
139
individuals: Miguel Checa, we heard from
earlier; Jeff Houghtby, we also heard from
earlier; Linda Lahey and Margaret Zonca, and
on their behalf citizens called Citizens
Advocacy Network which is a nonpartisan
organization trying to increase public
awareness and participation of DeKalb
politics.
I along with another attorney,
Ellen Partridge, who you will also hear from
this afternoon on behalf of our clients
tried to intervene in these proceedings, and
the Board ruled that there was no such
status in a variance proceeding for citizens
to participate in this -- in this proceeding
as partisans.
We welcome the opportunity to make
our public statement, but I want to address
what our clients' concerns are. They
believe that there is a significant issue
with the safety of DeKalb's water supply.
They don't know if it's safe or it's
ITV
140
unsafe. They don't know what the
appropriate standard is. But more
importantly, they feel they've been denied
the opportunity to participate in the public
discourse of this product.
They did not deny their
intervention status in this proceeding which
may or may not be valuable, but moreover,
more importantly, they feel from the City's
perspective they've been cut off, uninformed
and not really given an opportunity to
understand what the issue is and help
participate and develop a practical
solution.
Ultimately what they are seeking
in these issues is a commitment from the
City that there will be a forum that they
can participate meaningfully in and that
this issue will be addressed as an issue.
It won't be something that's dealt with on a
committee basis where there's not full
disclosure, where there's not full
ITV
141
understanding, but all that want to be
informed of what the problem is. And
moreover, they want the City to dedicate
itself to implement a compliance schedule
with real practical results.
Briefly what I want to do is just
summarize what you're going to hear for the
next hour and a half. Basically the
overview of the presentation is going to
discuss the history of noncompliance with
DeKalb's water supply system, the health
effects or the concerns regarding health
effects with radium ingestion and the issue
of costs necessary to put the system into
compliance and other costs being expended by
the City and by citizens to deal with water
problems.
Briefly, the history of
noncompliance, it's our understanding that
from 1979 the City knew its alpha standards
were in such a level that it should have
conducted investigations into, you know,
ITV
142
specific radionuclides and started to inform
the public of what the problems were.
We know that in 1991 is the first
time that the City disclosed publicly,
that's 12 years after the City should have
known, that there was a radionuclide
problem.
Secondly, the nine wells that
DeKalb operates, five have consistently
failed to meet the current and enforceable
Illinois and Federal standard of 5
picocuries per liter. Two of the wells have
failed five of the last six years and the
other two wells have failed half of the
time, so overall for the last six years the
majority of the water supply, at least as
measured from the wells, nine different
wells have exceeded Federal and Illinois
enforcement standards by twice the regular
standard.
We have no information concerning
what the finished water supply might be to
ITV
143
people in their homes. It's possible, for
instance, that the sludge or accumulated
deposits in the piping system of which there
are over now 107 miles may also tend to
concentrate radium particles and possibly
release them. We have no information on
that.
Finally, with respect to
noncompliance, there was a 1991 variance
granted to the City that had 12 specific
requirements for the City to obtain. They
failed with respect to seven of them. There
is a compliance report that was required
within I believe 18 months showing how the
City would -- the City was to investigate
and then to prepare reports summarizing how
it obtained compliance in the shortest
practical time, but in no event later than
June 26th of 1995 with this 5 picocurie per
liter standard.
This report was not prepared.
Secondly, this report was not submitted to
ITV
144
IEPA. Thirdly, there were no permits
applied for with respect to construction of
the equipment to install the changes that
would be required to obtain compliance.
There were no bids solicited for performance
of this construction.
Finally and fifthly there was no
completion of construction by June 26th of
1995. Sixthly, under the variance there was
a requirement that users of the system be
notified that the City was granted a
variance in 1991. With respect to the
notices that we've reviewed there is no
indication that the users were ever given
that notification. They were notified that
the water system didn't comply. There was
no indication in the water bills that
indicates that the City was indeed granted
this variance in 1991.
And then finally, seventhly, there
was absolutely no compliance obtained with
the 5 picocurie per liter standard, so with
ITV
145
respect to the 12 different actual
requirements that the City was obligated to
meet in 1991, it didn't meet seven of them.
I don't see how this demonstrates compliance
or good faith efforts and therefore we
should then continue to grant its variance.
Secondly with respect to health
effects, great issue has been made of the
fact five years ago the US EPA proposed to
raise the standards for radium from 5 to 20
picocuries individually with the radium 228
and 226, but in point of fact, the last 20
years the 5 picocuries per liter has been
the standard. It remains the standard
today. There's no indication for sure that
this 20 picocuries per liter standard is, in
fact, ever going to be enacted. There's
just a lot of innuendo.
Secondly, well, possibly as a
reason thereof we've heard from a very
convincing expert that there is no risk
associated with the 5, possibly even the 20
ITV
146
picocurie per liter standard; however, there
are other experts who disagree who present
evidence that indeed there are issues
associated possibly with long-term exposure,
with childhood exposure, overexposure for
pregnant women. In fact, possibly some of
this material might be thought over-
persistent, that our people are going to
present more evidence on that than I am able
to summarize.
And then finally with respect to
costs, we've heard information that the City
estimates it would cost between 6 and $12
million to upgrade its system to obtain
compliance with this 5 picocurie per liter
standard, and then in turn in incurring this
cost it may be downright ridiculous in so
far as if the 20 standard were adopted such
expenses would be necessary.
It also -- the City also claims
it has spent $30,000 in the last five years
complying with the 1991 variance. That sum
ITV
147
doesn't appear to be a very significant sum
with respect to the possibility of whether a
life may be lost or that one cancer may have
been induced. $30,000 to the high of $12
million seems to be a relatively paltry
sum. Moreover, $30,000 is a small sum
compared to the fact that the City has
exposed itself to litigation for having not
complied over this five-year time period
with the actual enforceable standard.
And then finally under cost, the
City claims that to be denied this variance
would be an arbitrary unreasonable
hardship. However, we haven't really been
given any dollars or indication to show what
types of hardships the City's really going
to incur. We had some information
indicating that $376,800 in tax revenues
might be lost in the City; however, we don't
have associated -- we don't have a balance
against those potential costs of
approximately --
ITV
148
MS. FRANK: Mr. Hite, you're going too
fast. I don't think our court reporter got
the last thing you said. You need to slow
down a little bit.
MR. HITE: We had some evidence
presented that $376,800 of lost tax revenues
would be lost by the City if its variance
were denied; however, what we don't have
balancing those costs are the costs
associated with what the City expended in
increasing in the five years that the
variance has been in effect from, I believe
its 90 linear miles to 107 linear miles, the
size of its distribution system. I don't
know if that is a year, $12 million, what it
would cost to construct equipment that would
clearly meet the standard, but it's
something that should be addressed.
And then moreover, there are costs
associated with people. There was an
indication that people might drink bottled
water. Well, maybe more than just some
ITV
149
people drink bottled water. If you take as
an estimate there are 38,000 residents in
DeKalb and maybe half of them drink water or
maybe the cost associated with that water on
one matchbook, you know, is $728 per year.
Maybe it's 130. Take the low end, $130 per
year for somebody to drink bottled water.
If only half the residents of DeKalb drink
bottled water, that's $2 1/2 million per
year the people are already expending to get
better water.
And I guess finally what I want to
say now is I don't know if the City's ever
looked into finding alternative funding
mechanisms to help pay for these costs to
make a system that meets the current
enforceable standards. I'm done.
MS. FRANK: Thank you. I just remind
everyone it was very hard I think for Miss
Vaske to follow Mr. Hite. It's really
important that our court reporter get what
you're saying, so speaking slowly and
ITV
150
clearly into the microphone is important,
and I may have to interrupt people. I'm not
doing it out of disrespect. It's to make
sure we get everything on the record. Do
you guys now have an order of witnesses?
MR. HITE: Yeah, people will just come
up to the microphone if that's all right.
MS. FRANK: That's fine. Okay, thank
you.
DORY BURG,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
MS. FRANK: You need to state your name
and spell your last name.
MS. BURG: Dory Burg, B-u-r-g, and I
have the county statistics. I didn't bring
the book up here but I have the statistics
that I published out of the county
statistics to show that in our female
children age 5 to 14 we have a rate per
hundred thousand of nine bone cancers in
that population of children. And if you
ITV
151
take the model per hundred thousand of that
population for the state you will have .6.
Our female children in this county
in the grade school time up until seventh
grade from kindergarten have a 15 times
greater bone cancer rate in this county than
in the entire rest of the state.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, I need to remind
you to talk to our court reporter.
MS. BURG: Okay, thank you.
Now, what that means is that's for
one year. There are nine per 100,000 in
this county. The five years of the
variance, that's nine times five is 45. In
the 20 years of the law, that's times 20.
Nine times 20 is 180. 180 per this county
population of our children who are at the
three times to five times greater risk.
For the entire State of Illinois
the rate -- if you force that model as
Toohey has said before, Dr. Toohey has
forced a model on another model. If you
ITV
152
force the model of the 10 picocuries in our
county and you force that on the population
of the state, instead of the six and if you
have nine for -- it's .6 and if you have
nine the rate at our county that you would
find over the time of the variance there
would be 1440 female children. That is
quite a big number. That's almost the
number in our county of that population of
child.
Now, what I have here is a talk
but what I'm going to start with is
something that I mentioned before, the City
of DeKalb's water report. I found it on the
shelf of the library, and the reason I
looked for this was because at the last
hearing in 1991 Dr. Toohey spoke to the
public and he said that everybody was in
compliance, that Miss Bennett, the
compliance monitor for the Pollution Control
Board said that we were in total
compliance. Dr. Toohey spoke off the
ITV
153
record --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, the issues -- you
need to confine your remarks to the issues
in this variance.
MS. BURG: Yes, okay.
MS. FRANK: We are not revisiting the
prior granted variance, so Mr. Toohey's
remarks in the prior hearings are not really
relevant.
MS. BURG: I'm just saying that he told
us the reasons why -- he told us some
interesting things. He told us that our
City was not in compliance. He showed us in
his book. He showed the public here in this
courtroom off the record. In his book he
said, your City is not in compliance. I
said, why do you say that our City can have
more cancer when we already have a lot of
cancer, and he said -- I really don't
believe this either, but he said, somebody
has to write these reports. I'm not the
only one that writes things that I don't
ITV
154
believe.
And he showed me and the other
people in the room that were with him that
our City did not have the right dates to
meet compliance, and I went to look for
that, and I could not find it. We asked
him, where do we find this information? He
said, your City must have it. So I went to
the City of DeKalb water district and I went
and I looked among the books and I couldn't
find it.
I called Dorothy Bennett in
Springfield and she gave me the test dates
with her signature on it. I will present
that here. Dorothy Bennett has given us the
fact that -- and I found this report here
that we gave the wrong data to exempt us
from public notification in 1979. In 1980
the federal regulations stated very clearly
that we were to begin -- all states were to
be in compliance sampling of four quarterly
samples by 1979 in June.
ITV
155
We were to have four quarterly
samples by June of 1980. We did not have
those four quarterly samples. The state was
to take those samples. I have the -- the
state has shipped me. I have on the floor
there a huge amount of documents that they
xeroxed overnight for me and sent them
overnight mail so I could bring them to this
hearing. I have taken the two most
important ones out and I am going to submit
them. It's from the DeKalb water report. I
have xeroxed a page where it says, and I
will read it to you. They have a printout
of all of the wells and they state, and this
is signed by all the alder people and the
mayor.
It says in this report, "With
respect to radiation, DeKalb status is again
moderately uncertain as with barium. Gross
beta readings fall well below concentration,
but one gross alpha reading falls below the
stated maximum, but a secondary requirement
ITV
156
states that whenever gross alpha exceeds" --
this is in the law, the Federal Register.
It is current now. It has not changed.
"Whenever gross alpha exceeds 5 picocuries
per liter additional testing for specific
radionuclides is necessary," and that means
radium.
On that basis six of the nine
wells would require additional tests.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you need to slow
down a little bit and speak to our court
reporter. I don't think she's -- we want to
make sure she gets it all.
MS. BURG: "All of the above
requirements for radiation are imposed by
the federal government under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The State of Illinois
has not yet adopted any radiation standards
and is not equipped to make radiation
tests. We believe the state will not do so
until 1979 at the earliest. We believe" --
this is the last sentence. "We believe the
ITV
157
significance of the present radiation
criteria," that is the law, "should be
minimized for three reasons. The first,
No. 1, current standards might be changed."
This is dated February '79. The
standard has not changed in 20 years. The
document states that. The standard has not
changed. And when I did some research and I
called the US EPA, I have the documents they
have sent me. They have said that there
have been many rumors by our state to blow
off, I don't know a better word for it, but
to minimize the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Safe Air Act, the Clean Air Act.
And one of the ways in which they
do this is to hold hearings at which people
have no intervention status. That means as
a public you are dependent on the state's
recommendation to you. And when the state
does that through water reports and through
pressure, through peer pressure and through
all the different ways that the state makes
ITV
158
the pressure, it does not give you the right
information.
When I called this last time for
this last hearing, I got the information
that I was allowed to intervene. That means
I was allowed to come and represent my
children at this hearing.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, the information
you received was that you may file a motion
to intervene, not that you would be allowed
to intervene. There's a distinction there.
MS. BURG: Well, what I asked for is I
said I would like -- and I asked the state
EPA and the Pollution Control Board, Dorothy
Gunn, Marie Tipsord (phonetic), I asked Deb
Frank, and I said, I would like to represent
the interests of our four children at this
hearing that is coming up, their health
concerns. We have two grown children who
grew up on this water. I would like to
represent their interest because we were not
told from 1979 until 1991 that there was
ITV
159
radiation and radium in this water, and I
said I would like to make sure that at this
hearing I get to cross examine the people
that said it was okay to have that and find
out what is their expertise. Did they know
all about radiation when they told us that
we could have it for 12 more years at that
level of risk to our children? And I was
told that the only way I may represent my
children at this hearing is to hire a lawyer
or is to have a lawyer to intervene for me.
MS. FRANK: No, what you were told was
that you may file a motion for intervention,
and I specifically talked to you, and we had
a discussion that you could do that on your
own, that you did not have to be represented
by counsel.
MS. BURG: Yes, but I said I would like
to represent my children, and I was told
that I may represent nobody but myself
unless a lawyer files for me, and I said,
because I would like to represent my
ITV
160
children I would have to have a lawyer? And
so I hired a lawyer and I was walked through
the process of intervention. I was given
the books. I was told by Deb Frank, look at
page -- look at Page 30 and Page 3 where it
says intervention, and it was in
subsection -- I'm not sure, it's C or F, and
so I went through the process.
It took me a long time. There was
a paragraph this long on what kind of paper
I was to use, and Deb Frank was as kind as
to tell me it was okay if I just used, you
know, as recycled paper as I could find,
that they would waive all of these
requirements for me.
And the recommendation that came
back from the state after we went through
this process was signed by Mr. Ewart. It
said there is no -- the recommendation is
denied on the basis of that there is no
intervention status for citizens.
Now, what happens to that is I
ITV
161
called the Federal EPA and I asked them what
happened, and they said that our City and
the cities that have not met the federal
standard are currently in violation of
federal standards that are enforceable. Any
person in this state, any person in this
country may and often does sue a city that
is not in compliance for drinking water
standards for safety.
We are in jeopardy of paying more
money than we would like to, than we would
pay of the biggest treatment problem if
anybody sues for these problems. The EPA
has given me documents. I had intended
fully to present them all to the City. I
want the City to see what we have
collected. We have collected data from the
US EPA to say that the US EPA has told the
State of Illinois in the '70s and '80s, you
may not write the kind of variances you are
writing because you are only writing
construction variances when you must have
ITV
162
compliance, and you must have compliance by
certain date with federal requirements.
And the State of Illinois -- and I
was told by Charles Bell on the telephone
and many of you will recognize his name. I
was told by -- I have all the notes from
each person and when I spoke with them, that
I was told that the State of Illinois
decided that it would not follow the federal
guidelines. It would not have variances.
They would not give the proper variances.
The variance was for compliance with the
federal standard by a certain time. In that
time we must have all the compliance done.
What happens here in this hearing
is graphically described in the conversation
with Dr. Toohey and Mr. Matekaitis at the
last hearing. When Mr. Matekaitis asks, he
is so good as to ask the real questions to
Dr. Toohey.
MR. EWART: Excuse me, Miss Hearing
Officer. Could we refocus and could you
ITV
163
restate the issues that are to be addressed
at this hearing.
MS. BURG: I have comments that were
denied --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, please let
Mr. Ewart finish.
MR. EWART: The concern as you stated,
Miss Hearing Officer, is with regard to this
present proceeding that was filed in --
MS. BURG: Can --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg.
MR. EWART: These conversations that
she's had with Mr. Bell and Miss Bennett --
MS. BURG: This is from the hearing.
MR. EWART: -- are all in regard to the
past variance proceeding --
MS. BURG: They're in regard to now,
the present.
MR. EWART: -- and therefore are not
relevant. I would hope that the Hearing
Officer could remind the citizen witness
that the relevant material is in with regard
ITV
164
to the four corners of this current
proceeding.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, the testimony of
Dr. Toohey from the past variance proceeding
is not a part of this record. Any comments
you have about his past testimony are not
relevant to our proceeding.
MS. BURG: May I use the testimony for
his present one that you have given out?
MS. FRANK: Yes, you may.
MS. BURG: I will speak to that then.
In Dr. Toohey's testimony Dr. Toohey says
that we will force a model on a population
that already has significant extra cancers.
We have very significant extra cancers. He
is only granting us two kinds that we may
speak to. According to Dr. Toohey we may
only speak to cancers of the bone and
cancers of the head. Those include cancers
that make -- of all the soft tissue cancers,
the ones that make you blind, the ones that
cause deafness, the ones that cause breakage
ITV
165
of the jaws of the tooth at the gum line. I
will speak to those kind.
He has said that according to his
best information that what the Federal
Register has said about the aggregate dose
level is not so. He has said that we may
measure a population at a small risk for a
very rare cancer against itself in a
population. When they set the 5 standard
they set it because in order to find the
small amount of risk of the extra people you
must measure that population against another
population that does not include that
population so that the small -- really small
numbers don't get lost in the shuffle.
Those small numbers are our children.
Now, when we say that we have 15
times the bone cancer rate in this state,
that does not include the leukemia rate, it
does not include all the things that
according to the studies that I have here
from the IIEQ, it is a very most prestigious
ITV
166
organization in the world, it was the
environmental quality -- it has page after
page of all the government agencies, and
scientific organizations in the world that
were in its reference.
It says that in Argonne studies
they have found many different exposures of
low level radiations. I'll explain a few of
them, but what Toohey has done is he has
taken our population --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg.
MS. BURG: -- already at risk for bone
cancers at 15 times the rate and said that
we -- says that we may have more. Not only
more but we may have -- if the rate rises
from 5 picocuries per liter of combined
radium to 24 each, 20 times two is 40, we
may have 40 instead of five. And at his
linear, he used the linear equation to
calculate that we would get that much times
less. Well, the multiplication tables work
for us too. We may be denied many things,
ITV
167
but we may also -- we may not be denied the
multiplication tables, and we may know that
when we have cancer risks in our population,
bone or whatever, and our children are dying
and our population is -- has enough. We may
say to whoever says we may have more that
they can keep those.
Now, Baxter and Woodman, our City
did a wonderful job, I believe, with the
information that we had. We had very little
information. We were told standards were
going up. Well, to us in this community
standards going up is a very important
thing. We have high standards here so when
we hear that we think that standards are
really going up. Well, the standard that
was going up was the amount of picocuries
per liter for radium in our drinking water.
It was going up by possibly eight times.
The reason it was going up, this
is according to the US EPA, and I have the
documents here and I will bring them out and
ITV
168
I will show you. I may not read them I'm
told, but I will summarize them. The
documents are from Region 5. They tell us
that because our state took a head count of
cities that could not come into compliance,
with no one speaking up many people didn't
know for a long time they had the right to
speak up; that we were told that we may
not -- that we will be -- what's the word?
We were told that the -- Federal EPA was
told that the State of Illinois could not
possibly meet these levels and that we
needed the amount of radiation in general
raised, and the Federal EPA says, well, you
wrote a lot of variances that wouldn't --
this kind of variance hearing does not allow
people to speak up or bring their risks.
The federal government says, you must
consider the risk of this population.
Every single one of those variance
hearings that I have read, I have read the
little Village of Oswego. All the people
ITV
169
came out. The first person who spoke said
to Tracey -- well, the first person who
spoke said, my mother and father died of
bone cancer. I called his family. I spoke
with his children and his wife. He was at
work. He was a real person. His wife said
that he had -- his mother and father had
died of bone cancer. Many people spoke that
that was a population that did not want any
more bone cancer. They did not want the
variance. They wanted their City to do the
few things they could to clean up the
water. They were denied and we are denied
our right to intervene, but our officials
are so kind as to give us the time to speak,
and that says a lot for our officials.
The important thing to remember
here is that we have a problem. One of the
things Baxter and Woodman was so kind to do,
and Mr. Bowden, was to bring a man named
John Jensen who is from Northern
Environmental to come and speak about plugs
ITV
170
and casings. This is something that has
been used in cities. I talked to Brett
Hansen (phonetic) from the Illinois EPA in
Rockford, and he said that our City can use
plugs and casings. He said our City drilled
two extra wells into already contaminated
aquifers in violation of the federal
standard.
We apparently were confused about
that. He said he would send Bud Lindstrom
(phonetic) here to stop us, and our City
said no, do not come. We were confused
about what we were to do. At this point I
went and I called -- we contacted a lot of
people. One of the people we contacted was
the company of -- was the Northern
Environmentals. They were so kind as to
give me this. I'd like to give it to you,
the City. It is their proposal for $1,000.
This is the senior hydrologist
from this company. I spoke with him at
length. This man was understood that our
ITV
171
City would like to do the best that we
could, so he said that he would come
here -- here is his proposal. I'm going to
give you the whole thing -- for two to three
days, and he guaranteed that for $1,000 he
would look at the plugs and casings. He
would do the whole proposal for what we
needed and every single thing, and he would
guarantee his work.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, that document if
you want it entered into the record needs to
go to the Pollution Control Board and not to
the City.
MS. BURG: Okay. I don't want it
entered. I would like to give it to the
City later. Thank you. And I would like to
read the rest of my --
MS. FRANK: If you are not going to use
that document as part of the record you need
to move on then.
MS. BURG: Then I have my statement.
I'll just sort of skim it over.
ITV
172
MS. FRANK: If you could summarize your
written statement. You've been speaking for
almost a half an hour now and there are
other people in the audience who would like
a chance to speak, so if you could summarize
your statement for us and we will admit it
as read into the record.
MS. BURG: Thank you very much. I
appreciate everybody's helpfulness. What
I'd like to say about the difference between
the high radiation and the low radiation, I
was born in Yokohama, Japan. My parents
worked for the state department. In the
seven years -- my mother did the seven-year
research of the Hiroshima survivors, the
walking dead who died over a period of seven
years. They all died, every one, with an
exposure the size of a small sore. It was
called a searing sore. Anyone who had the
X-ray of -- anything X-rayed to them died.
My uncle is a famous psychiatrist
at Tokyo University. He worked for
ITV
173
McArthur's Secret Army. My parents, my
father, I have a picture of him. He's
standing at the epicenter of the Hiroshima
bomb. I want to say that what they did
there is they measured the population, and
what some folks are doing is they are taking
this secret information -- no scientist has
been able to get the first five years of
that study that my mother went around and
did with two doctors. Nobody is privy to
that. Only certain people may have that and
what is -- what few studies they have used,
the radium dial studies, the poor women
unsuspecting workers that got doses, high
doses.
What happened is -- and the few
mental patients who were injected possibly
against their will. If you're a mental
patient, it's hard to know if you have a
will at a certain point.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you need to
confine your statements to the record,
ITV
174
what's relevant.
MS. BURG: So the study that we are
getting from certain doctors who are paid by
the state are studies that use a population
who has died terrible deaths. The people in
Hiroshima died horrible deaths. That five
years they lived with exposures they puked
their guts out to die. It was a mercy for
them to die.
We have used their statistics to
force on a population that already has
enough cancer more cancer when it is really
easy. It is a very easy thing. The senior
hydrologist from the world renown -- this
man has been around the world for 20 years
and I spoke with him. I got the feeling
from him that he would never have sent me
that proposal had he thought it would be
part of a mudslinging or anything that was
not helpful.
And so I'd like to say the last
thing in closing is the difference between
ITV
175
the high radiation and the low radiation is
the particle activity that from alpha
particles are stopped by the thickness of a
piece of paper. But when they are ingested
they go to the organ that collects and
concentrates them. That is the bone
marrow. Then they are absorbed into the
blood. In each cell of bone marrow what
happens is they begin -- one particle
activity turns the cell liquid, the water of
the cell into hydrogen peroxide which breaks
down the health of the cell. It breaks down
the -- it breaks down the chromosomes and it
breaks down the organelles of the cell.
Then the nuclear disintegrations
which are stopped by a piece of paper
thickness are stopped by hitting and
breaking our DNA. This is going on at a
consumed rate. It is concentrating in the
cells. Our children are at the highest risk
according to the Department of Nuclear
Safety by three to five times.
ITV
176
We must remember when people come
and are paid, that is their job, to give us
more cancer. We must think for ourselves
and there are very good solutions to our
water problem. I hope we have given you a
few today. Thank you very much.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you referred to
several documents that you sort of waved
around during your statement and said that
you were going to enter into the record. If
we could -- if you could hand those to me so
we can state what they are and give a number
to them and get them entered into the
record, that would be very helpful.
MS. BURG: Okay, well, let's see. I
would like to submit the Environmental
Protection Act that is --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you don't need to
enter the Act, the Board can take notice of
that. They work with the Act every day and
you don't need to enter that into the
record.
ITV
177
MS. BURG: It's the first page where it
says, "To establish a unified statewide
program supplemented by private revenues to
restore, protect and enhance the quality of
the environment and to assure that adverse
effects upon the environment are fully
considered and" --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, the Board is well
aware of what the Environmental Protection
Act states.
MS. BURG: Okay. I would like to give
the -- okay, I would like to give a copy of
our current federal law into compliance --
MS. FRANK: Again, the Board will take
note of the current federal standards. The
Board is well aware of the current federal
standards.
MS. BURG: This is the '79. I got this
from the US EPA.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you may move on
to your next document.
MS. BURG: My next document, I would
ITV
178
like to give them -- oh, here is the county
statistics. I think these are very
relevant.
MS. FRANK: The county -- you're just
telling me what you're entering. You've
already described them for the record in
your statement. The county statistics will
be marked as Public Comment No. 2. The
first Public Comment was the Tribune article
we received earlier today.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 2 was
marked for identification.)
MS. BURG: I would like to give the
recommendation by Steven Neward (phonetic)
that we have no -- that we are supposed to
meet the compliance with the federal
standards.
MS. FRANK: That does not need to be
entered into the record. The Board has
copies of that.
MS. BURG: I would like to give a copy
of the advisory -- Illinois Institute for
ITV
179
Environmental Quality, their report on
radium 226 in drinking water. The
documentation --
MS. FRANK: The IIEQ report will be
marked as Public Comment No. 3.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 3 was
marked for identification.)
MS. FRANK: Did you have --
MS. BURG: I would like to give the
well -- the well data for our City. It is
the wrong data. It is signed by Dorothy
Bennett. Dorothy Bennett said about this
that it was a common practice --
MS. FRANK: You've already made your
comments about the document. You just need
to state what they are so that we can enter
them into the record. This will be Public
Comment No. 4.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 4 was
marked for identification.)
MS. BURG: I would like to save the
rest of the documents for our City. I would
ITV
180
like to commend Dr. Sam Baldwin's letter
from the DeKalb Clinic to our City to deny
the variance.
MS. FRANK: Okay, that will be Public
Comment No. 5.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 5 was
marked for identification.)
MS. FRANK: I want you to know though
any document that you give to the City is
not entered into the record and will not be
considered by the Pollution Control Board,
so it's your decision, but if you give the
documents to the City the Board has no way
of seeing them so they will not be
considered in this proceeding. I just want
you to be aware of that.
MS. BURG: Okay. Well, I think I'll
take that chance that our City will do the
best they can with what they have, and I
thank you very much. I intend to give the
rest of the documents to our City. I think
they would be more important to our City,
ITV
181
and I thank you very much. I think
everybody else knows all the other stuff,
so.
MS. FRANK: All right, thank you.
Again, I'd like to remind the next person
that information needs to be relevant to
this proceeding. You need to address your
comments to our court reporter. There's a
hand up in the back. Did you have a
question? Please come forward. Just a
moment, ma'am.
(A discussion was held off the
record.)
MS. FRANK: At this point -- I'm
sorry. I know we have two people up here.
Ms. Burg, I need to recall you. The City
has some cross examination, so you need to
be available for questions. We will ask the
next witnesses in just a second to come up.
Ms. Burg, come on up.
Mr. Matekaitis, please begin.
MS. BURG: Can I ask you why the City
ITV
182
gets to cross examine me and I don't get to
cross examine them.
MS. FRANK: Because that's how it's set
up and that's how the Environmental
Protection Act reads. If you don't want to
make a public statement and be subject to
cross examination you don't have to, but
once you make a public statement under oath
you are subject to cross examination.
That's a choice you need to make when you
come up.
MS. BURG: Okay, that's fine. Thank
you.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you.
MS. BURG: Please be fair to me.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I always am.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Ms. Burg, are you familiar with
communication -- a written communication
from Baxter and Woodman to the City's ad hoc
water quality advisory committee dated
ITV
183
August of 1992 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that specifically addressed --
A. Yes, plugs and casings.
MS. FRANK: We can't have both of you
talking at once. She can't transcribe
that.
Q. And are you aware that that written
communication put forth disadvantages
associated with the liner proposal that you
discussed?
A. Can you say that again.
Q. Are you aware that the written communication
from Baxter and Woodman that I referenced
dated August of 1992, which would be ad hoc
water quality advisory committee, listed the
disadvantages associated with installing
liners in City's wells?
A. I know that there was a difference in price
of nine -- of many thousands of dollars.
There was $100,000 per well for the Baxter,
Woodman and for the man that is in Wisconsin
ITV
184
from Northern Environmental, he has offered
us $10,000 if even one well needs to be
redrilled, and he does not feel that looking
at -- that the numbers in our wells would
mean that we would really have to do a whole
well.
Q. Are you specifically aware of two
disadvantages stated in that communication,
the first is that there is no assurance that
a liner will provide a meaningful reduction
in the concentration of radium in the water,
furthermore the reduction will be temporary,
and additionally there is a risk that the
production capacity of the wells would
significantly be reduced by the liner if it
blocks off a zone that produces a large
portion of the water that enters the well.
Are you aware that that written
communication contains those disadvantages?
A. I am aware that the disadvantages are some
and I am also aware that the amount of
plugging that you may do is per strata of
ITV
185
the well; that you may plug certain hot
spots. I have spoken with cities that have
done that. Many of the cities that were
suburban cities met their compliance by
putting plugs in their hot spots in the --
within the well, and what happens, the
Illinois EPA did a big report on this --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you need to just
confine your remarks to the question asked,
and that is were you aware of the
communications in the letter?
MS. BURG: I'm speaking to the
communications.
MS. FRANK: But the question was not
what was your reaction to the
communication. The question was, were you
aware of the communications in the letter?
MS. BURG: I was aware of some of
them. If you let me explain I can get to
that and maybe he can ask me another
question.
Q. My question specifically was were you aware
ITV
186
of those two stated disadvantages?
A. I'm aware of some disadvantages.
Q. Thank you. Are you aware of the
communication from Karen Grush, public
health administrator from the DeKalb County
Public Health Department, that she
communicated to Mr. Naylor, a copy of the
1987 to 1991 cancer incident statistics for
DeKalb County wherein she states, "Statical
tests show that DeKalb County's rates of
cancer are not elevated compared to
statewide level."
A. Okay, that --
Q. Are you aware of that?
A. I spoke with her at length and I also --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you need to
answer the question that is asked.
MS. BURG: If you're just going to use
your questions to get something that is
untrue, I cannot speak to them.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you may have a
chance at the end to say what --
ITV
187
MS. BURG: Just let me answer him,
okay? I will answer him this way, that the
incidents of cancer is insignificant when
the children get older, that --
MS. FRANK: I would ask -- Ms. Burg?
Ms. Burg?
A. -- is the most significant cancer by double
of the last time.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you had a chance
to speak on the record and say whatever it
was that you wanted to say.
MS. BURG: That's the answer.
MS. FRANK: The turn now is for the
City Attorney to ask you questions. If you
don't know the answer you need to just
simply say that you don't --
MS. BURG: I know the answer very well.
MS. FRANK: If you do then you --
Ms. Burg, only one person can talk at once
or the court reporter can't report it.
MS. BURG: Yes.
MS. FRANK: It's very important now
ITV
188
that you realize that you had your chance to
speak and it is now time for the attorney
for the City to ask you questions.
MS. BURG: And when I answer may I
answer his question?
MS. FRANK: You may only answer --
MS. BURG: Okay.
MS. FRANK: You may only answer the
question that is asked of you. You may not
expand upon that. You may not add your
commentary to it. That was what your chance
was earlier today. Now you need to answer
the questions that are asked of you and I am
directing you to do that.
MS. BURG: Okay. I will answer the
question.
Cancer is insignificant in an
older population. In the younger population
it is very significant according to Karen
Grush whom I spoke with at length on --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, that is
nonresponsive to the question that was
ITV
189
asked.
MS. BURG: That's the best I can do.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, do you have any
questions?
MR. EWART: No, I do not.
MS. FRANK: Thank you, Ms. Burg.
JESSICA BROWN,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: You need to state your name
for us and spell your last name.
MISS BROWN: Jessica Brown, B-r-o-w-n.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then you may go ahead
and make your statement.
MISS BROWN: God created us to be
healthy. We want to keep it that way, so we
want to keep the water good. People are
dying from bad water and we don't need more
people to die than have already died. We
need good water, and whoever wanted to do
ITV
190
this is going to drink this water and not
like it, so why even make it worse? So
please, make it better for us.
MS. FRANK: Thank you. Are there any
questions for Miss Brown? Okay, then the
next witness may come forward.
LINDA LAHEY,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
MS. FRANK: Please state your full name
and spell your last name.
MS. LAHEY: My name is Linda Lahey,
L-a-h-e-y. I don't have the stamina of Dory
Burg so my statement will be comparatively
short.
City officials state that DeKalb's
drinking water is safe, but a comparison of
the radium levels in our wells took federal
standard shows that this is not true. The
federal standards for combined radium 226
and 228 is 5 picocuries per liter. That has
been stated a number of times. This
ITV
191
standard has remained constant since June
1977. Protection of the public is the
primary aim of this standard.
The Federal Environmental
Protection Agency is aware that radium 226
replaces calcium in bone and that it can
lead to negative health problems. An
estimated relationship -- I'm sorry, an
established relationship of bone and head
cancers due to ingestion of radium is well
documented by Dr. Richard Toohey in his 1985
testimony before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board.
For the past five years the City
has acknowledged 5 picocuries per liter is a
dangerous level of radium in DeKalb's
water. This acknowledgment on the back of
your water bills states, "A dose of 5
picocuries per liter may result in the
development of bone cancer in a small
portion of the population."
DeKalb's nine deep wells have
ITV
192
radium levels that range from 5 to 14
picocuries per liter. Three wells have
levels of 10 or more picocuries per liter,
twice the federal standard. Four wells
range from 6 to 9. At no time were more
than two of the nine wells in line with the
federal standard.
I do have a transparency. Is it
all right if I read what's on it?
MS. FRANK: That's fine. Are you going
to enter the transparency then into the
record?
MS. LAHEY: Yes, I'll read it in.
MS. FRANK: Okay, but are you also
going to give us a hard copy?
MS. LAHEY: Yes.
MS. FRANK: Okay.
MS. LAHEY: The following is a general
description of what happens in the body once
radium is ingested. This information is
taken from the background documents on
radium and drinking water by the Illinois
ITV
193
Department of Nuclear Safety. As a DeKalb
child drinks his or her morning orange juice
reconstituted with tap water, the absorption
of radium begins in the intestines. In a
vested state where this is the first intake
of the day the gastrointestinal transfer may
be greater.
The ingested radium passes from
the gastrointestinal tract into the blood
and then to soft tissue bone surfaces,
compact or outside bone and calcium outside
bone. The unabsorbed radium is excreted.
This is just the beginning because the
acquired radium is absorbed to the blood and
either excreted or redistributed in
tissues. Roughly 20 to 30 percent is
transferred from the gut to the blood.
About 20 percent of the radium reaching the
blood is believed transferred to bone. As
much as 4 to 6 percent of radium intake from
the blood reaches the skeleton. The
remaining radium is distributed throughout
ITV
194
the soft tissue.
A long-term health study on the
effects of radium in our water has never
been done in DeKalb. The City could have
initiated a system to gather health
information five years ago relating to the
10 picocuries in our drinking water. There
are numerous health risks from radium other
than bone cancer which -- many of which are
not being monitored by federal regulatory
agencies.
In a report from the Childhood
Cancer Research Institute, Concord,
Massachusetts, Dr. Seth Tooler (phonetic)
finds that, "Besides bone cancer radium has
also been found to be associated with
anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth and
cancers of the paranasal sinuses and the
mastoid air cells. Both are cavities in the
head bones." These are the head cancers
referred to earlier.
Radium breaks down the radon gas
ITV
195
which exits the body from the lungs, mouth
and nose. This passage of radon gas
irradiates the sinuses rendering the person
susceptible to head cancer. Experts on
radon and radium 226 refer to these
activities.
In the Federal Register, September
1986, which I will attach, Dr. Tooler
further explains, "As a contributor to
radiation exposure radium is a particular
concern for its effects on children and
fetuses." Attached is a summary of studies
prepared by the Childhood Cancer Research
Institute along with Dr. Tooler's complete
statement.
World renown scientists and
biostatistician Dr. Rosalie Bertel
(phonetic), president of the International
Institute of Concern for Public Health in
Ontario, Canada has submitted a statement
attached along with her credentials.
Dr. Bertel comments, "Radium is stored in
ITV
196
the bone marrow. It is well documented to
cause bone cancer, leukemia and congenital
malformations. It can harm the placenta and
contaminate an embryo or fetus. Water is
also added to infant formula and is basic to
cooking most foods."
Dr. Bertel also states, "Radium is
also likely to cause blood abnormalities,
iron deficient anemia in children and mental
retardation. There is epilepsy, congenital
blindness and deafness and long bone
malformation in those exposed in utero."
Dr. Bertel believes that, "To relax the
permissible levels of radium will inevitably
and eventually raise the level of ill health
in the population. The increase will be
noticeable first in newborns."
Scientists have always agreed that
it is the children who are most vulnerable
to radium as they absorb it more quickly and
retain it for longer periods of time. This
is particularly true during the times of
ITV
197
rapid growth and bone formation, zero to one
year and 10 to 16 years. To illustrate, the
Illinois Health Department statistics for
1987 through 1991 states, DeKalb County
girls age 5 to 14 years have a 15 time
greater likelihood of developing bone cancer
than the state average. Bone cancer is the
most common primary malignancy in
childhood.
This is true for the 5 to 14 year
population in DeKalb County. The 21 types
of cancer listed for the state in the
Illinois Health Department statistics, only
three types showed a higher incidence than
bone cancer. Any reference to the
insignificance of bone cancers appears to
refer only to adults, and if this happens to
you as an adult it's not very
insignificant.
As I finish I will say DeKalb's
continuing rapid development is bound to be
reflected in a corresponding rapid
ITV
198
population growth of children. These
children will be drinking radium in water at
home and school each day. The Illinois
Parent Teachers Association is on record
opposing any variance allowing more radium
in water. Each child is special. Each year
should be special for them.
By removing radium from the
drinking water DeKalb's legacy to its
children will be a major contribution to
their good health in the future. Not to
protect our children as well as our
population as a whole from radionuclides in
our public water supply is a flagrant breach
of the public trust in its elected municipal
officials.
I feel that there's one more
article that I would like to enter as
evidence. This is a risk factor determined
by Dr. John Goffman (phonetic), and in it he
does take the risk factor for the population
at the time he did this, it was 5 years ago,
ITV
199
so we had a population of 33,000 people over
a five-year period ingesting almost -- well,
he's got 9.8 picocuries per liter, not two
liters, but one liter, and he did get a
result of 1.86 fatal cancers produced in
this population of 33,000 in the five-year
period, so roughly one cancer every two and
a half years, so I will enter this also.
MS. FRANK: Okay. If you want to
bring -- are you finished at this time?
MS. LAHEY: Yes.
MS. FRANK: If you want to bring
forward the documents you want entered we
will identify them for the record and get
them marked.
(Group Public Comment Exhibit
No. 6 was marked for identification.)
MS. FRANK: For the record so we can
identify things, Ms. Lahey has provided
everything in a group so it will be marked
as Group Public Comment No. 6, and it will
contain the written comments of Linda Lahey;
ITV
200
a copy of the City of DeKalb public notice
for radium; the Childhood Cancer Research
Institute statement to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board July 25th, 1996; a
copy of the Federal Register dated September
30th, 1986; a letter from the International
Institute of Concern for Public Health dated
July 19th, 1996; again, a copy of the County
Cancer Institute incidence from the Illinois
Department of Public Health, 1987 through
1991; an article -- a group of articles
actually on radiation effects; and then the
final page is information from John Goffman
and Rosalie Bertel regarding level of alpha
radiation in DeKalb drinking water. That
will all be marked as Public Comment No. 6.
Is a copy of what was in the transparency
part of your written comment?
MS. LAHEY: Part of my written comment.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then the Board will
have that. Were there any questions for
this witness? Ms. Lahey, I believe there's
ITV
201
some questions from the City.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Ms. Lahey, I believe your earliest remarks
in your testimony today indicated that you
had a concern that the City was not meeting
the existing standard of 5 picocuries per
liter; is that accurate?
A. Yes, yes, it is.
Q. And would it be fair to say that you place
some faith and credence in that level as set
by the US EPA?
A. It's what we have had for -- since 1977 so I
believe that is what I would consider --
MS. FRANK: You need to speak in the
microphone.
A. That is what I would consider the standard.
Q. And you are aware that that same agency that
established the 5 picocurie per liter
standard has now indicated that they are
likely and will propose a 20 picocurie per
liter individual standard for each isotope.
ITV
202
Are you aware of that?
A. I understand that's a possibility as it has
been for some time.
Q. If the US EPA issues that standard and that
is, in fact, adopted, will your opinion then
change that since the City of DeKalb would
then meet that standard?
A. No, I feel we should have more stringent
standards. Additional information will
follow soon and you will understand why I
feel that way.
Q. And you were present during Dr. Rowland's
testimony, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Where he indicated that his estimation using
the US EPA's LNT model for health risks
associated with the population to be served
during the period of variance at .006
cancers. Did you hear that?
A. I did. That's why I submitted Dr. Goffman's
equation there too.
Q. And Dr. Goffman's equation was based upon
ITV
203
the entire City of DeKalb's population; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And not in the limited population that would
be served by new water main extensions to
the limited period of variance; is that
correct?
A. That's correct, but the same water would be
going to all of us.
Q. But you understand the requested variance
does not affect existing water users. It is
only intended to affect new water users
served by the new water main section.
A. I don't believe the water will be divided.
MS. FRANK: At this point I need to
remind the members of the audience that it
is not appropriate to call out and speak
during these proceedings. Your chance to
speak is to come forward. Additional
outbursts may result in me asking people to
leave the hearing. We need to get through
this as quickly as possible and in a
ITV
204
professional and civil manner.
Q. Do you understand that the City is not
seeking a variance from the radium standards
themselves, only from the standards of
issuance on restricted status?
A. Yes.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Okay. Nothing
further.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: I have no questions of this
witness.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Lahey, do you have any
additional comments?
MS. LAHEY: I hope we all come to an
understanding on this very soon, the federal
level, the state level, very soon.
MS. FRANK: Okay, thank you. Will the
next person wishing to make a statement
please come forward. Sir, do you have to
leave early?
MR. MIKE BROWN: No, no.
MS. FRANK: Please continue. State
ITV
205
your name and spell it and also be sworn by
our court reporter.
MR. SANDMAN: My name is Dr. Terry D.
Sandman, S-a-n-d-m-a-n.
TERRY SANDMAN,
being first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
MS. FRANK: You need to speak into your
mike. I know it's hard for taller people.
MR. SANDMAN: I am a practicing board
certified radiologist in the State of
Illinois currently completing a master of
public health degree in community health
here at Northern Illinois University. I've
been asked to make some comments concerning
health effects in drinking water on humans
based on available information, including
current literature, and that's what I'll
do.
I'll be using some overheads which
essentially is a summary of what I will be
saying, so I'll essentially be entering it
ITV
206
into the record, and my written testimony I
will be submitting will be containing hard
copies of these overheads.
MS. FRANK: Is it possible to give us
hard copies now so that those of us who
can't see the projection can look at them or
do we need to get up and move?
MR. SANDMAN: It maybe not be
necessary. They're just sort of outlines of
what I'm saying so the people who are
following me -- I'm just making it easier to
follow. I'll essentially be reading just a
few lines from each.
MS. FRANK: Okay.
MR. SANDMAN: If you want to take a
look at them, feel free to do so. So if you
want to put the first one up. The approach
I'm taking is more from a clinical
approach. There's a lot of data available.
I've met different models that have been
thrown about, but I'm going to take a
different approach as to potential health
ITV
207
risks and how they may differ at low levels
as opposed to high levels.
I want to start off by just
talking about bone cancer. We tend to use
that word as if it was one particular
disease. Bone cancer, as this overhead
reads, and under it, top line says bone
cancer. Under it lists the three types,
primary, secondary and metastatic.
Primary bone cancer is -- and
let's talk about it for a second. We've
narrowed it down actually to primary
osteosarcoma. Bone cancer is basically a
general term and it encompasses many types
of malignant lesions. Primary bone tumors
are generally classified by a tissue of
origin and their cell type. These include
osteosarcomas, fibrosarcomas, et cetera.
Osteosarcomas by far are the most
common primary bone tumor in childhood.
It's the second most common primary
malignancy in the adult. It's also probably
ITV
208
the second most common primary malignancy of
bone overall no matter what the age group
is. Osteosarcomas are aggressive and
they're histologically varied which means
they're cell type different, they're not the
same lesion. An osteosarcoma has a subclass
depiction which I'll briefly describe.
If we talk just about osteo-
sarcomas now, realizing that there are more
than one type of bone tumor out there,
osteosarcomas being the most common one and
the one that happens to be associated with
radium and we're using that as the model, a
primary osteosarcoma is a lesion that
affects children, usually within the second
decade. There are cases of children below
the age of ten who have had osteosarcomas,
but the primary incidence is within the
first two decades. There is another peak
incidence at later life; however, that is
not really primary osteosarcoma as I
described.
ITV
209
The lesion is very characteristic
in its location. It tends to be metaphyseal
in location, the flared-out part of the bone
where the long bone begins to flare out and
tends to be localized to that area. They
tend to begin in bone that is otherwise
normal, doesn't have a preexisting condition
to it which is an important consideration.
Recent considerations on etiology or cause
of osteosarcomas include genetic factors in
development of osteosarcomas and the effect
of radiation on these genetic factors.
Patients with genetic
retinoblastomas who show a point mutation at
a particular chromosome, which more details
will be in my written testimony, demonstrate
a 500-fold increase of developing
osteosarcoma. There also is some evidence
that radiation destroys the remaining normal
copy of a particular gene. That was done by
a study by Fried, F-r-i-e-d, in 1988.
Other studies have also supported
ITV
210
a possible gene etiology and its possibility
that radiation can begin this particular
carcinogenic event. The prevalence of these
genes I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean
they don't exist, I'm just not aware of that
fact. That's primary osteosarcomas. That's
the lesion we're talking about in
childhood.
Secondary osteosarcomas are
similar in cell type but they develop in an
older age group. They develop secondary to
a previously diseased bone, such as Paget's
disease, boney infarct and after exposure to
a mutagenic event such as irradiation. So
we see these in people who have high doses
of radiation to the bone in a short period
of time. Secondary osteosarcomas also occur
in the diaphysis or the shaft of the long
bone as opposed to the flared-out portion,
so it is distinctly different.
Cell type, the similarity again is
in the cells, but they have different
ITV
211
characteristics. We can also then
subclassify these osteosarcomas by -- more
so by their cell type, each one having a
different radiographic appearance, again,
different location, also a different
clinical presentation. Some of the names of
these are -- maybe I'll just include this in
my written testimony, but some of the more
easy ones to pronounce would be sclerosing
or osteoblastic and chondroblastic
osteosarcomas.
In addition to that there's
another type referred to as juxtacortical
which means it's adjacent to the cortex. It
means that the periosteum, the lining of the
bone, and those arise essentially on the
surface of the bone. And these can also be
subdivided into periosteal, parosteal and
high-grade osteosarcomas.
So the point is is that basically
bone cancer is not just a disease. We've
been throwing around bone cancer and the
ITV
212
risks of cancer as if it was one particular
disease. It is not, and I will later
describe why I think this is important in
describing the risk of radium in the bone.
The literature, we've reviewed
that, so I'm not going to belabor that. If
you want to put on the second overhead which
lists the things I'll be referring to.
Previous literature has already been
discussed in some detail. It involves, of
course, the radium watch dial painters.
We're familiar now with how that happened.
The bottom line is that these people
received large amounts of radium in a
relatively short amount of time. I guess it
varied.
The incidence or the chance of
developing osteosarcoma was very
significant. It was a very strong
association between the amount of radium
they took in and the chance of these people
developing osteosarcoma. Other studies that
ITV
213
came from -- this was touched on too, that
radium was used for therapy for certain
diseases, arthritis, tuberculosis, et
cetera, as early actually or as close as the
1950s or until about the 1950s.
So again, these studies
demonstrate a very strong association
between ingestion of large amounts of radium
226 and the development of bone cancer,
particularly osteosarcomas.
The doses received by the dial
painters is estimated to be in the order of
thousands of rads. I don't know if
Dr. Rowland has described rads, but the
numbers he mentioned would correspondence to
thousands of rads, and some of this, in
fact, comes from his 1978 study.
The studies, particularly the --
particularly the radium dial painter studies
served as a base to the model that we
certainly use to extrapolate downwards to
the risk of levels on the order of magnitude
ITV
214
of one over a thousand rads, so we're
extrapolating from thousands of rads down to
one over a thousand rads or 5 million
millirads to 15 millirads, a long way to
go.
Several studies have attempted to
find an association between drinking water
and adverse health effects. The most
notable one was a 1966 study authored by
Peterson but is in cooperation with the US
Public Health Service and Argonne National
Laboratory. This study showed an
association between osteosarcoma or bone
cancer and levels of radium as low as 3
picocuries. Other studies have also
demonstrated association with other
diseases, but that's not the thrust of what
I'd like to talk about.
The major weakness of a study, and
to be clear, these studies or that
particular study are referred to as
ecological studies. They're observational.
ITV
215
We look at what happened. Then we try to
correlate it with something. There's a lot
of potential in accuracy; however, despite
that they have some inherent weaknesses in
establishing a specific cause or a specific
association, there's still an important
first step in establishing the etiology of a
disease or adverse health effects. These
type of studies are essentially scout
studies that prompt an astute observer to
continue and do other studies.
If it wasn't for observational
studies we wouldn't have much of a science.
That story of the apple falling on Newton's
head, that did happen, although it allegedly
didn't, who knows what really happened, so
he was an observer, and that's what these
studies show is they don't attempt to prove
anything. They just are looking for
association and they often start something,
so much of science research begins with
observations.
ITV
216
More recent studies published
in -- from Canada by Dr. Murray Finkelstein,
he used a different type of study design
called a case-control study. So instead of
looking at the levels of radium in a
particular town and looking at the levels of
bone cancer and then seeing if there's any
association between those two and then
compare it to a town that doesn't have those
same levels of radium, what a case-control
study design essentially does is it takes
people who already have osteosarcoma or in
this case he used people who died from
osteosarcoma, children in Ontario who died
of osteosarcoma, and then he measured their
birthplace level of exposure to radium.
He didn't just assume the town had
5 picocuries, therefore this person had
probably 5 picocuries out of their tap. He
measured individual birthplace exposure.
Then he took other group of youths in
Ontario who died from anything except bone
ITV
217
cancer, and from that method of design he
determined an odds ratio. What's the chance
of dying that that death in that child was
from osteosarcoma?
His study, as you can see this on
the overhead, and I'll be submitting this
again, the Canadian case-control study
basically stated there was a 58 percent
more -- let me say this again. That Ontario
youths exposed to levels of -- certain
levels of radium were 58 percent more likely
to die of bone cancer.
Now, the odds ratio is listed as
1.58. It's a ratio. It has no units to
it. And I will address some of the issues
that have also been addressed within the
article itself about some of the weakness in
the article. It's important to understand
that I'm not saying this is fact and we
should just go by this. There are some
things that do have to be addressed with
these issues.
ITV
218
The first thing I want to point
out though is that this 58 percent that were
more likely to die of bone cancer, that was
in association found with levels on the
order of magnitude of .2 picocuries per
liter, okay? Not 7, not 50, not 20 that
we've been throwing around. 20 picocuries
is not a big deal, but .2 picocuries. So I
think his article uses the more common and
more modern terminology called a becquerel.
And he measures the level in a million
becquerel. One million becquerel is -- or
rather 1 picocurie is equivalent to 37
million becquerel. If you feel like doing
the math, you can, but it comes out to .19
picocuries per liter for 7 million
becquerel.
The point is is that it's very low
exposure levels he found in association with
osteosarcoma. The association wasn't
incredibly strong. It wasn't a strong
association. 1.58 is not considered
ITV
219
statistically strong. The confidence level,
was measured in the 90 percent confidence
level. Most scientists will use 95 percent
as the confidence level, but that's
arbitrary. It's an arbitrary unit. It
doesn't necessarily have to do with
significance, especially clinical
significance. It has nothing to do with
clinical significance. It has to do with
statistical significance and what is
arbitrarily accepted as significant, but it
doesn't affect the clinical significance of
certain findings. Again, its another
suggestion that we have found an
association.
And just as an aside, 5 picocuries
per liter, that would be standard now, is
essentially 185 million becquerels. Again,
he found the association with 7. So it's
important again to realize some of the
weaknesses in that study, but it's also
important to realize that again it's another
ITV
220
association. And when dealing with a
childhood disease, especially bone cancer,
it's more important to realize the clinical
association or clinical significance.
The study also recorded that there
was a statistically significant exposure
response level which means the higher you
went up in your exposure the greater your
odds ratio or odds of developing or dying
from this case, from osteosarcoma. And that
was significant in what's called a .045
level which means it was only a less than 5
percent chance that those results occurred
by chance, 5 percent probability that those
results occurred by chance.
Dr. Finkelstein followed that
article in 1996 which will be a reference
that will be submitted as part of my
testimony. That study, what he did is
essentially measured lifetime ratios,
lifetime exposure levels, and again he found
an association between radium and
ITV
221
osteosarcomas; however, he had a difficult
time showing adult response relationship.
He states that the reason for that is --
this is true for those who know the
epidemiology, I'm sure some of us here do.
He believes that that was to do --
had to do more with the reflection of
inadequate statistical power, the low
numbers of cases he had to deal with, than
it had to do with what is really true. Of
course as a scientist you have to go with
what is written, not by what might be.
Another concern to address in the
study is the apparent lack of cases among
dial painters at lower doses, less than a
thousand rads. There didn't appear to be
any cases, especially that hypothesized the
absence of a threshold. The authors
contended that it may be because dial
painters were exposed as adults, not as
children, when the bony metabolism is
different, and the other thing is that it's
ITV
222
been suggested that exposure to alpha
radiation may be actually more hazardous at
lower doses.
I've been in contact verbally and
written with Dr. Finkelstein, and he holds
doctorates of both physics and medicine.
He's been in -- he has 18 years of
experience as an occupational physician and
epidemiologist on the Ontario Ministry of
Labor. Comments written by him will be
attached to my written testimony and a part
of my written testimony.
His basic comment is specifically
this: He comes up with a formula which I'll
just mention right now to describe the
estimated levels, and it seems to be
consistent with some of the things that have
been brought up already. His estimation was
it was 1.81 times the dose in rads. That
would be his formula for the numbers or
risks, rather, of sarcoma per 100,000 people
per year. That's based -- okay, basing
ITV
223
that -- I did some work.
If you use 5 picocuries, that
comes to a risk of .09 per hundred thousand
per year. That's the risk. So let's assume
it's 1 just to make things a little bit
simple. That means in a population of
DeKalb you're talking about .3333, et
cetera, per hundred thousand per year. If
we only include the 2,000 people, just to
save the question, and divide by 100 we come
up with an estimated risk per year of .02.
And you may have to check that. I was doing
that while I was standing on the side here,
so this is my basic conclusion and I'll -- I
think I have the next overhead.
MS. FRANK: You need to speak into the
microphone. Our court reporter's having
trouble.
MR. SANDMAN: The most troublesome
aspect of risk assessment especially with
radium and especially with radiation,
actually more so in this case in drinking
ITV
224
water, is the various option -- or opinions,
rather, as to the proper extrapolation
models to use. How do we go from such high
doses, like a million millirads down to 50
millirads and come up with some estimate of
it. It's all done mathematically, but as
has been spoken on before there are lots of
models that change as the data changes. We
fit the model to fit the data. It changes.
A lot of it's based on assumption. A lot of
it's based on speculation.
Acceptable exposure levels are
therefore based on just that, speculation,
not only as to the slope of the curve but
also the shape of the curve. There's a lot
of potential for error when we're dealing
with such large difference in numbers. It's
my understanding that the estimated intakes
of radium by dial painters, which was
mentioned, was underestimated. This might
support what's called a nonlinear
extrapolation model, such as a quadratic
ITV
225
type of model, but at the same time how
would we be certain that these new values
are any more valid than the ones we've
already used?
Second problem from extrapolation
from high to low is the observed or
potential health effects at each level, and
this is probably the main thrust of what I'm
trying to get across is that are the
osteosarcomas that we see in the radium dial
painters the same as the osteosarcomas we're
talking about in childhood? In my opinion
the answer is no. They have very little in
common except that they have histologic
stromal cells, they're called, that are part
of the histologic diagnosis of an
osteosarcoma.
Basic differences -- we can go to
the next overhead. The lesions that appear
on the radium dial workers appear to be
secondary osteosarcoma, not primary that we
see in children. There's several reasons
ITV
226
why I feel that this is the case. The
malignancy, first of all, begins in an
already abnormal bone. It's the people who
are exposed to large doses of radium who
have a normal bone one day, then develop an
osteosarcoma. There was an event in between
referred to as necrosis.
Large quantities -- and I'm
quoting this from an article. Large
quantities of radium are deposited in bone
over many years. Mostly dead osteoid tissue
remains. Normal physiology can be erratic
and large resorption cavities can form.
These errors of cortical resorption are
secondary to constant alpha particle
radiation. The osteosarcoma in childhood,
the primary osteosarcoma, originates in a
previously normal bone. There is no
intermediate.
Lesions seen in radium dial
workers are different in other ways as
well. The appearance of an osteosarcoma
ITV
227
seen in dial painters is different
radiographically from those in childhood. I
mentioned before that the lesions in
childhood begin in a metaphysis, the flared
part of a bone. Lesions that we tend to see
in the radium exposed workers were
diaphyseal, the long shaft of the bone.
Radiographically they look like secondary
osteosarcomas, especially ones that we
typically see after radiation therapy.
The lesions are often
multicentric, have more than one center of
tumor, as opposed to one area develops a
tumor and then it grows or just metastasizes
everywhere. In conventional osteosarcoma
the tumor is generally metaphyseal, again,
the flared portion of bone, and is rarely
multicentric.
Another point is the latency
period. The latency period of tumors seen
in the workers was somewhere near 20 years,
while in a childhood variety most lesions
ITV
228
are seen within the second decade. They're
not even 20 years old. They're 7, they're
5. We're talking about a different lesion.
Another thing that supports the
fact that this is a different lesion is the
fact that there's biologic plausibility.
There is a biological explanation as to why
there could be a difference in the type of
lesions that appear. With low-level
radiation as a cause of primary -- let me
scratch that if I can. I don't know if I'm
allowed to scratch things.
There is a biological plausibility
consistent with low-level radiation as a
cause of primary osteosarcoma in childhood.
Firstly, the metabolic activity of the
growing bone is much greater in a child than
it is in the adult, especially in the
metaphysis, the flared-out portion. This is
where all the bony growth is occurring.
There's so much activity going on in this
particular location.
ITV
229
That's why Dr. Rowland touched on
this. He talked about the fact that we
can't find the radium in these cases because
the bony turnover is so quick that maybe
even the radium that has already started the
carcinogenic effect is -- has already been
removed -- or excuse me, excreted. Also
another important point is that the rapidly
growing bone contains undifferentiated
cells, cells that are not sure what they're
going to be yet, and there's also a rapid
turnover of these immature cells.
It is well known that these types
of cells are much more sensitive to
radiation than are cells that are highly
differentiated, for example, the nervous
system. Another point is that since there
are no known causes of bone sarcoma, proven
causes anywhere other than ionizing
radiation and certain toxic drugs, it's
feasible that radium would account for the
bulk of primary lesions.
ITV
230
Other sources of radiation, like
background radiation -- as Dr. Rowland also
testified, we get radiation constantly.
Well, one of the problems possibly would be
that the ingestion of radium and the fact
that the radium serves -- is very similar to
calcium and interacts with the bone very
nicely is again the explanation as why the
radium causes bone cancer but other types of
radiation won't cause bone cancer. There's
no plausibility.
Lastly, a carcinogenic event is
possible at low doses, but again, because of
genetic predisposition. Predisposition has
already been described. An article in 1988,
Mays, M-a-y-s, suggested that a true
threshold might be as small as the energy
required to disrupt a single molecule of
DNA. In addition to previously cited
explanations, the reason that bone sarcomas
have not been observed in radium dial
workers who received less than a thousand
ITV
231
rads -- remember we mentioned that before,
maybe it's because they were adults.
Another reason is, and this is my feeling,
is that it may be because there is a
threshold for the development of the type of
osteosarcomas seen in radium dial painters
or the latent period is very long in some
cases, and these people exposed to radium
die before they ever got osteosarcomas.
Their offspring, I'm not sure how
old their offspring would be, but we need to
still follow them up. I'm not sure how old
they would be. I guess 20s and 30s.
MS. FRANK: You need to speak into the
microphone and speak clearly. You're kind
of mumbling and trailing off.
MR. SANDMAN: Basic summary then is
this: There's evidence that shows an
association between exposure to low level
radiation from radium and the development of
bone sarcoma. This was first observed in
ecological studies and again in more
ITV
232
rigorous case control studies. Further
study with larger number of cases will
improve the statistical power.
That's what we need to do. We
need to do more studies, not just try to
explain away. Every time there's an
association we try to explain it away. We
say, this can't be, it doesn't fit the
mathematical model. We can't look at bone
cancer that way. We have to look at why is
this occurring. Not it doesn't fit the
model, therefore there's no association. It
has to be done the opposite way.
What we need to do is do more case
study and studies of that type of design to
either prove or disprove an association.
Most risk assessment for exposure
to the low levels of radium is based on one
primary event, the radium watch dial
painters. We have a lot of information from
that. We have direct communication on
radium so it's a good study to use.
ITV
233
Extrapolations from the extremely
high doses received to low doses is
speculative and based on too many
assumptions. The observed health risk,
namely osteosarcoma, seen in the radium dial
workers might not be of the same type and of
the same etiology as those seen in
childhood.
The Canadian studies demonstrated
a positive association between radium and
bone sarcoma at levels as low as .2
picocuries, and although there are some
apparent weaknesses in the studies from a
statistical point of view, that cannot be
written off. The .2 picocuries level is 25
times higher than the current levels allowed
by the US EPA. A 20 picocurie level would
be 100 times higher. The focus on studying
the effects of radium in drinking water
needs to be on the development of more
careful clinical studies and not on the
inconsistent theoretical models. Under the
ITV
234
current situations I feel it is prudent to
maintain the current standard of 5
picocuries until further clinical and
epidemiological studies can be performed.
And just as a summary to give you
an idea, again, this overhead. I'll read it
into the record but I do attach a hard copy.
MS. FRANK: If we have a hard copy --
MR. SANDMAN: It's three lines.
MS. FRANK: Okay.
MR. SANDMAN: The current levels of
radium in drinking water in the City of
DeKalb are 50 times higher than the levels
that were shown to be associated with a 58
percent more likelihood of dying from bone
cancer, and I'll just leave you with that.
MS. FRANK: Are there questions for
this witness?
MR. MATEKAITIS: Yes.
MS. FRANK: Please begin.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Thank you. Is it
Sandman?
ITV
235
MR. SANDMAN: Sandman, S-a-n-d-m-a-n.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Mr. Sandman, have you previously testified
in a hearing before the Pollution Control
Board on this issue?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. You've obviously stated what amounts to an
opinion today regarding the health risks
associated with the ingestion of radium 226
and 228. Would that be fair to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Has that opinion that you've stated today
been submitted in a published form to be
reviewed and commented upon by professional
colleagues?
A. It -- currently it is not.
Q. Have you published any papers with respect
to the effects -- health effects of the
ingestion of radium?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. You're familiar with Dr. Rowland's testimony
ITV
236
with respect to the radium dial painters,
specifically as he indicated that following
these persons throughout this period of
time, that no cancers were observable
related to radium at the level below 100
microcuries.
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. Do you concur that that is an accurate
statement?
A. I would have to -- I would assume that it's
correct. I have read that in several
articles that refer to that threshold.
Q. And you understand that that threshold
obviously then is several times the amount
of the existing level of radium in DeKalb's
water.
A. Yes, but the health risk is -- we're talking
about a different lesion.
Q. You indicated that the lesion represented
and observed in the radium dial painters may
be different than that observed in
children. You also allowed to say may --
ITV
237
that it may not be or that there is no
correlation.
A. I don't understand that part.
Q. By making the statement that the lesions
experienced or observed in radium dial
painters may or may not -- may be different
than the lesions observed in children, did
you make that observation or statement?
A. Well, yes, and I listed why they are
different. There are definite differences,
yes. There are differences. It's not that
there may be differences. When I say may, I
have not -- I've not come across studies
that formally investigated the histology
involved in comparing two types of studies.
Q. You've also heard the testimony of
Dr. Rowland and Ms. Burg as it related to
the lowest levels of consumed radium wherein
a tie-in was made between the ingestion of
that radium and observable cancer being, I
believe 60, 65 picocuries. Did you hear
that testimony?
ITV
238
A. I don't recall that. I don't recall them
saying that.
Q. Are you aware that that's -- are you aware
that that has been the most amount of
consumed radium wherein -- and related to
cancer was observed?
A. Yes, and that was radium that was measured
in the bone of the person. Is that
correct? If I can ask a question to clarify
your question. Do you mean it was observed,
measured from the patient's own bone?
Q. Would your observations or opinion differ
then as to the lowest levels suggested and
found in other areas of the body other than
65 picocuries? What lower levels are you
familiar with where cancer has been
observed?
A. At .2 picocuries.
Q. And that's based on the Finkelstein study?
A. Based on the Finkelstein and other
associations. This is not an end-all study,
keep that in mind. It's an association.
ITV
239
It's something we just can't dismiss. It
keeps showing up. It has to be explained.
That's what a scientist does. Why did this
happen? Not it can't happen.
Q. You indicated that the stated confidence
level and the Finkelstein studies were the
90 percent level; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar that the level at which
scientific validity would be indicated?
A. It's not scientific. It's statistical
significance. That's not necessarily
scientific validity. The 90 percent and 95
percent are arbitrary values.
Q. So would you --
A. It's designed to contain a true population
parameter. That's arbitrary.
Q. Would your estimate be that a study
conducted at a 50 percent confidence level
is as valid as one conducted at a 95 percent
confidence level?
A. No. 50 percent is too low, but when you're
ITV
240
dealing with 90 and 95 percent you have to
take into account what they're measuring.
They're measuring bone cancer. Therefore
there is a greater tolerance for a wider
interval.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to review
Dr. Toohey's written testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. In your professional opinion do you disagree
with which parts of Dr. Toohey's testimony
if you disagree with any part of it?
A. Well, most of his reference seems to be
towards, again, using models, extrapolating
data from very high doses. It talks about
the linear threshold -- rather linear
nonthreshold models and fields based on
current data that it may not be linear and
is quadratic. That might be the case.
Q. Do you concur in his observations regarding
ecologic correlation studies?
A. Well, he uses the term notoriously
unreliable. That's inflammatory, not
ITV
241
notoriously unreliable. They're good basic
scout studies that are done in almost any
scientific evaluation. We have to observe
something first, and that's what these
studies did, and that's what started
everything else. Otherwise radium never
would have even been thought to be a
significant problem.
Q. With respect to his specific criticism that,
"The chief criticism of these studies is
that the types of cancer reported were
definitely not increased in the radium dial
workers cases; there is no biological reason
for supposing that radium could cause one
type of cancer at high levels of exposure
and completely different types at low
levels"?
A. Yeah, he's referring to the studies where
they tried to show an association between I
think leukemia -- or bladder cancer and
breast cancer and exposure to radium, and
I'm not addressing that.
ITV
242
Q. With respect to the EPA, US EPA's LNT model,
do you support or disagree with that model
to measure health risks?
A. It's really difficult for me to comment on
that. That I think requires a more
mathematical and physicist type of
background. I think it's a classical model
to use. It works well with a lot of high to
low extrapolations, but in this particular
case I really can't be of an opinion, a
personal opinion on that. I can tell you
that Dr. Finkelstein, however, does base
his -- which will be submitted, his formula
on a linear nonthreshold model.
Q. If you suggest that childhood sarcomas are
different from radium induced sarcomas in
adults, which will allow for the fact that
they might not be induced by radium at
all --
A. Yes, that's possible, but there's no other
association with osteosarcomas except with
ionizing radiation and a certain kind of
ITV
243
toxic drugs, so there's no reason to assume
there's an association with anything else.
I'd be more interested in finding out where
the radiation is coming from.
Q. You're familiar with Dr. Rowland's testimony
wherein he indicated that in studying
incidences of cancer in children who were
exposed while in utero to -- by women who
were working in the radium dial factory.
Are you familiar with the absence of any
detected cases of cancer in that group?
A. So far.
Q. And you're aware that that study has gone on
for 20, 30, 40 years?
A. There's a peak incidence of osteosarcoma
over the age of 50.
Q. And you also indicated that sarcomas in
children would be observed in the second
decade.
A. Most of them, yes, the incidence is most
common in the second decade.
Q. Do you have an explanation for why there's
ITV
244
been no incidence of cancer observable in
the second decade of children born in radium
dial painters?
A. Possibly because again we're dealing with
the higher levels. This is where it's total
speculation. We're dealing with a different
type of -- the high doses create a different
type of response in the bone. Possibly the
high doses are excreted at greater rates,
and that I don't know. Again, also
important point, I think, is the molecular
or genetic factors.
Q. You heard Dr. Rowland testify with respect
to the threshold approach that he's
indicating that he advances and will support
and will so publicly indicate in a paper to
be presented in France next month. In your
professional opinion is Dr. Rowland in error
with respect to that approach?
A. Well, I alluded to that in my statement,
that I felt that because they're different
lesions there was a threshold for the radium
ITV
245
in the radium dial workers induced
osteosarcoma but not in the childhood.
Q. And did the Finkelstein study detail the
differences in sarcomas?
A. No, he just measured low level. He was
measuring primary osteosarcoma levels. He
was measuring the type we're referring to as
primary or childhood osteosarcomas.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions at this time.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: Dr. Sandman, just one point
for point of clarification.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. When you were referring to Dr. Finkelstein's
studies, you were referring to not only his
1994 study but his 1996?
A. I made reference to both of those things.
Q. You did, okay.
A. And it will be referenced in my submitted
testimony.
ITV
246
Q. As a point of interest, what area of -- are
you getting into as far as your master's in
public health?
A. What area? Primarily environmental
epidemiology.
Q. And you're taking that here?
A. Yes.
MR. EWART: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Is there anything else?
MR. MATEKAITIS: (Shakes head.)
MS. FRANK: Okay. We will mark your
testimony and attachments as Public Comment
No. 7, and I believe our court reporter
needs to change paper so we're going to go
ahead and take another ten-minute break and
we'll come back after the break.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 7 was
marked for identification.)
(A recess was taken at 6:14 p.m.
and proceedings resumed at 6:30 p.m.)
MS. FRANK: We're going to go ahead and
ITV
247
go back on the record. Before we resume
with the public testimony, I would just like
to remind everybody that your written
testimony is entered into the record as if
read. What we'd like is for you to come up
and give a summary of your written testimony
but not to read word for word, page for page
all of your written testimony.
The goal is to allow everyone who
wishes to speak a chance to speak. By
reading every page and every word in your
written testimony, it's taking up more time
and we want to be able to allow as many
people to speak as possible, so a summary of
your written testimony hitting your
highlights and then submitting your written
testimony into the proceeding would be the
preferable way to go.
If someone has strong preferences
that they want to read the entire thing, I'm
not going to prevent that, but just remember
that that does take up additional time for
ITV
248
other people to have a chance to speak.
Along those lines, Ms. Burg, you
stated that you were going to submit written
testimony. You submitted lots of documents
but I don't have anything that is written
testimony from you, and I'm wondering if
that was something that you needed to
submit.
MS. BURG: I have a week; is that
right?
MS. FRANK: Yes.
MS. BURG: I'll write that out, most of
what I said and probably more. I'm planning
on submitting that. I do have one other
thing though.
MS. FRANK: Why don't you come
forward.
MS. BURG: This is the Illinois
Department of Public Health Cancer Incidence
in Illinois by County, '85 through '87. It
is the first highlight of this book, and it
describes DeKalb County was the highest --
ITV
249
in the highest of counties of all three
sites in males. That's the three sites of
cancer that they tested for, prostate, colon
and lung.
MS. FRANK: That will be marked Public
Comment No. 8.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 8 was
marked for identification.)
MS. BURG: And also the prostate cancer
in males was the highest in DeKalb County in
any county in the state.
MS. FRANK: For the record, Ms. Burg is
not submitting the entire document. She is
submitting Page 1 and Page 35 of the
document, so Page 1 and Page 35 of the
Illinois Department of Public Health Cancer
Incidence in Illinois by County 1985 through
1987 supplemental report will be entered as
Public Comment No. 8.
Okay. Sir, please come forward.
MIKE BROWN,
being first duly sworn, testified as
ITV
250
follows:
MR. MIKE BROWN: Yeah, my name is Mike
Brown, B-r-o-w-n, and I just -- I've been
sitting here most of the day, and I just
wanted to voice a few observations.
First of all, I think the whole
case is titled wrong because it says the
City of DeKalb versus the EPA, and I think
it should be the City of DeKalb and the EPA
versus the Citizens of DeKalb, because I
think they've done very well in supporting
each other's case, and that's enough.
And I'd also like to point out
something that I noticed of Dr. Rowland, is
it?
DR. ROWLAND: (Nods head.)
MR. MIKE BROWN: Yes, Dr. Rowland was
talking about the one case where there was a
case of bone cancer from ingestion of water,
and he was talking about radium water, and
he mentioned that three people were drinking
radium water, a bottle of it every day, and
ITV
251
that the mother had really high levels of
radium in her bloodstream and the older
brother had really high levels of radium in
his bloodstream, but the youngest of the
three of them didn't have high levels of
radium in his bloodstream, and he is the one
that came up with cancer. And it seems to
me that this is more than adequate proof
that children are more sensitive to it.
And just for the heck of it, I'd
like to know how many people on this side of
the fence -- on this side of the fence --
MS. FRANK: Sir, you can't ask the
witnesses questions. You can make
statements.
MR. MIKE BROWN: I can't?
MS. FRANK: No.
MR. MIKE BROWN: Then I'll make it this
way. I would imagine that there is a
majority of the people that are representing
the EPA or the City of DeKalb that live in
DeKalb that have bottled water. Thank you.
ITV
252
Any questions for me?
MS. FRANK: Mr. Matekaitis?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, do you have any
questions?
MR. EWART: I have no questions of this
witness.
MS. FRANK: Okay, thank you. Yes,
ma'am, please come forward.
MILITSA SAMARDZIJA,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: Please state your name and
spell your last name.
MS. SAMARDZIJA: My name is Militsa
Samardzija. That is spelled M-i-l-i-t-s-a,
and the last name is spelled
S-a-m-a-r-d-z-i-j-a, and I'm not an expert
on anything. I just wanted to make a
statement.
In this hearing today we've had an
overwhelming amount of data tossed about,
ITV
253
but the fact is most of us don't deal in
terms of picocuries or promulgations (sic).
We live day to day worrying about the health
and welfare of our children, our parents and
ourselves. We all know data can be
manipulated to suit anyone's agenda.
Today's hearing is no exception to that.
When you get right down to it,
however, this debate is more about politics
than it is about scientific studies. It's
more about power and money than it is about
the health and welfare of the people. This
is an election year as is the next year when
we will elect a new mayor and councilmen,
and in years like this no politician or
bureaucrat wants to rock the boat. No
politician or bureaucrat wants to spend the
money needed to correct this problem.
When you have to spend millions as
the City contends this might cost, you'll
have to raise taxes, and if you raise taxes,
you lose votes. You also might scare off
ITV
254
the wealthy developers who want to come here
and build their malls and their superstores
and their subdivisions.
The City of DeKalb and its leaders
are intent on making our town another clone
of Schaumburg or Naperville, but the people
of those suburbs are escaping those
congested areas for small towns like ours.
The problem is we're fast developing the
very problems they're trying to escape.
Besides worrying about drugs and gangs and
the rising cost of living, they now have to
worry about the water they drink.
When civilization gets down to
that bottom denominator it's pretty pathetic
and it should be shocking to us, but it's
not. What I'm hearing from the people
regarding the situation is that they're
deeply, deeply concerned. We need clear,
definite information. We need clear,
definite leadership and action. We don't
want to be patronized with witty retorts
ITV
255
about it taking a lifetime's worth of
drinking water to introduce a minuscule
amount of radium in our bodies.
We may not be scientists all of
us, but we are certainly not dolts and we
don't want our public servants to whittle
out of this problem by passing the blame to
the US EPA standards or by seeking yet
another variance. We people -- what I'm
seeing is that the people really want to
rock the boat because their health and their
welfare depend on it. What they see is a
boat that's sinking and hardly anyone who's
trying to do anything about it.
It used to be when a boat was
sinking that you would save the most
vulnerable among us, the women, the children
and the elderly, but instead what I see are
the bureaucrats and the politicians tossing
off those people in order to save their
political hides. These experts and
politicians are telling us that there's
ITV
256
nothing wrong, there's nothing to be
concerned about, the water is fine.
But if that's the case, then why
is it the City manager of DeKalb has bottled
water in his office? If it's fine, then
either the City and the EPA, state and the
government, whatever, should buy all of us
bottled water or they should pay the money
now to fix it. What's good enough for the
politicians and the bureaucrats should also
be good enough for the people. At least
that's how I thought it used to be. Thank
you.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions for
this witness?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MS. FRANK: Who else would like to
speak? Yes, ma'am, please come forward.
DIANA STRAUSS,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: State your name, please.
ITV
257
MS. STRAUSS: My name is Diana Strauss,
S-t-r-a-u-s-s. I am here to read the
comments to the Board written by Dr. Eugene
Perry, Professor of Geology at Northern
Illinois University. Dr. Perry cannot be
present but he is concerned about the
excessive radium in DeKalb's drinking water
and its effect on children. His concern is
great enough that he took time to write
these comments during a two-day stop in
DeKalb between a trip to Russia and to NASA
in Houston, Texas, where he is presently
working this summer.
Dr. Perry's letter follows:
"Thanks for sharing with me the latest
information on radium in DeKalb
groundwater. As you know, my expertise is
with the geologic association resulting in
high radium concentrations rather than in
health hazards associated with isotopes of
this element. I am disappointed that little
or no effort seems to have been directed at
ITV
258
ascertaining why some DeKalb wells have
higher levels of radium than others."
"As a citizen there are two
things that bother me about the way in which
the health risk aspect of the radium problem
is being addressed. One, not everybody is
at equal risk. The group we have the
greatest responsibility to protect, young
children, is the group likely to suffer most
greatly from long-term exposure, and this is
the group most likely to concentrate radium
because that element substitutes for calcium
in bones."
"The literature you sent contains
analogies of how many cigarettes are
equivalent to how many glasses of water.
These analogies are misleading because they
fail to distinguish who, child or adult, is
drinking that water and who is smoking the
cigarettes. I never encourage my children
to smoke any cigarettes."
"Two, I understand that developers
ITV
259
are impatient to turn our cornfields into
housing developments, but I hope we can
encourage them to be patient. If standards
are not valid they should first be changed.
Then we can follow the new standards."
"I am not happy with the
rationale that, A, the radium standards are
too stringent and will eventually be
relaxed; therefore, B, let's pretend they
have been relaxed. Until the standards are
changed they should be enforced."
"My dictionary has this to say
about the word standard, 'A rule or
principle that is used as a basis for
judgment; the authorized exemplar of a unit
of weight or measure.'"
"Surely rule, principle, judgment
and authorized are words recognized and
respected by those who espouse 'family
values.' Sincerely, Eugene Perry."
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions?
THE WITNESS: I have something
ITV
260
further. These are attached -- there are
attachments that I will not read but wish to
submit for Dr. Perry with his comments.
These attachments contain two groups of
Dr. Perry's papers on radium drinking
water. First, Dr. Perry's letter to DeKalb
city officials which expresses his concern
about radium during the first five years of
the original variance. Included for this
same time period are concerns by Dr. Perry's
department of geology colleague, Dr. Paul
LaBerry (phonetic).
These letters are important
because they contain suggestions for
correcting the radium contamination and
suggest offers to help from the NIU geology
department. These offers of help came at a
time when City officials were under orders
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board to
comply with the current federal standard of
5 picocuries per liter of combined radium.
Dr. Perry understands that the federal
ITV
261
standards and the IPCB order remains.
Second, Dr. Perry wrote extensive
comments to the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency in 1991 during the formal
period for public input on the radium
standard. Also mailed to the EPA during the
same time period is a critique of the
Federal EPA criteria documents on radium,
TR-1242-85, by Dr. Paul LaBerry. This is
also attached. I submit this statement and
these papers on behalf of Dr. Eugene Perry.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: I have no questions.
MS. STRAUSS: Thank you.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 9 was
marked for identification.)
MS. FRANK: The documents will be
marked Public Comment No. 9.
Yes, sir, please come forward.
ITV
262
SHAWN BROWN,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: Please state your name and
spell your last name.
MR. SHAWN BROWN: My name is Shawn
Brown, B-r-o-w-n, S-h-a-w-n. A couple of
things to say, I was kind of surprised
because I didn't really hear anything today
that I thought was conclusive as far as the
effects on children. If there hasn't been
any research done on the effects of children
or the effects of radium on children and the
health of infants, senior citizens, how do
you possibly come up with it's okay, it's
fine, 40 pics?
I've heard a lot of suspicion from
the citizenry, and I might tell you why.
The focus of this hearing is the safety and
well-being and the health of the citizens,
and I find it abhorrent that the structure
excludes citizens from asking questions of
ITV
263
the panelists, the purpose of which would be
to hold them accountable for the statements
that they have made here today and to
promote further understanding by the
citizenry of why so much time and money has
been spent on evading the federal laws that
protect us and not on solving the problem.
And I'm speaking not as an expert
but as a concerned member of the community.
By simply speaking before these panelists
I'm placing myself at the risk of being
discredited by carefully worded questions
designed by legal minds, and I as a citizen
am not even permitted to attempt to ask what
I deem to be pertinent questions of these
two panelists that are in agreement with
each other. There's not a lot of balance.
So, you know, if I was able to ask
those questions, maybe I could understand
the motivation of my government. In
addition to that, panelists do not represent
separate points of view, and I'm put in the
ITV
264
position, as are all of us, of listening
without questioning two panelists
representing my government of the people by
the people and for the people with no
recourse but to accept any contradictions,
misinformation and special interest.
Questions have been raised
regarding how long it was known that this
violation of federal water safety law was
going on before it was deemed necessary to
inform the citizenry. Experts from these
panels have been contradicted by experts
provided by the citizens group, and with so
much distance between what the citizen
experts and the government experts testify
to I might ask, if permitted to ask a
question, questions that would qualify for
me the honor or the motivation of these
panelists so that I might make a fully
informed decision about the problem for
myself.
However, this opportunity is not
ITV
265
afforded to me by this panel or Board or
whatever it is, and that only serves to fuel
my suspicion, and therefore these panelists
not being required to answer me might make
me ask what they're afraid of. Thank you.
MS. FRANK: Is there anything?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MR. EWART: No cross.
MS. FRANK: Yes, ma'am, please come
forward.
JULIE DUBICZ,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. DUBICZ: Hi, my name is Julie
Dubicz, spelled D-u-b-i-c-z. Good evening,
everyone. I moved into this community in
January of this year. I'm married and have
three young daughters. As a new member of
this community I'm truly sorry to say how
extremely disappointed and disgusted I am by
the contaminated water here. I would like
to move and perhaps will.
ITV
266
My husband brings home $27,000 a
year, 795 of it which goes back to rent
alone. As a mother of three gorgeous little
precious daughters I refuse to allow them, I
forbid my children to drink this poisoned
water from this community in DeKalb,
Illinois. Just to boil noodles for our
dinner I need nearly a gallon of bottled
water, using a minimum of two to three
gallons -- I'm really nervous, so excuse my
shaky voice.
MS. FRANK: That's okay.
MS. DUBICZ: -- of bottled water per
day costing about $3 per day. It's very
draining from our pocketbooks, and as it is,
we're barely getting by, and this added
expense of approximately 80 to $100 per
month is creating difficulty for us
financially. I just can't tell you how I
feel. I just think it's absolutely terrible
that all of these people that are here in
this audience are just going to be ignored,
ITV
267
and I think it's really sad.
MS. FRANK: Did you have something you
wanted to enter into the record?
MS. DUBICZ: I just handwrote this.
MS. FRANK: That's fine. I was just
asking. Are there any questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MR. EWART: No questions.
MS. FRANK: Thank you, ma'am. Yes,
sir.
JEFF HOUGHTBY,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MR. HOUGHTBY: My name is Jeff
Houghtby, H-o-u-g-h-t-b-y, a DeKalb
resident. I'll be brief. I know this
public hearing has almost turned into
something akin to Court TV with all the
detail and the cameras, and I like Court TV
but five hours is a lot.
Anyway, with so much detail I'm
afraid that in some ways we're looking at
ITV
268
all the trees and missing the forest. It
seems to me that despite some of the
conflicting studies that each side has put
forth, there seems to be one element of
agreement, and that is radium causes
cancer. Now, that bothers me because I want
to place this hearing today in a larger
context, in historical context.
I think it's a fact that we in the
United States and western Europe live in the
wealthiest societies ever in human history.
We have more finances than ever. We have
unsurpassed technical knowledge. We have
the unfettered ability to communicate almost
instantaneously, and I guess one would think
within that context we would be talking
about how to raise public health standards.
It seems to me that this discussion is just
the opposite.
What we're discussing here is
whether or not we can get away with
increasing the level of a known carcinogen
ITV
269
in our drinking water by eight times and
whether or not we can get by with it. That
really bothers me, and I'll tell you why it
bothers me. I am afraid that if we allow
ourselves to set low standards for ourselves
and we allow ourselves to erode those
standards over a period of time, we're not
doing anybody a service. We're doing a
disservice. So I want to make that point.
Radium is a carcinogen. Everybody
agrees with it. It seems to me it would be
prudent, especially when both sides make
conflicting studies, that we would error on
the side of caution and hopefully understand
it.
Now, I want to talk a little bit
more in detail about the City of DeKalb's
argument that it makes that fixing the
problem will present an undue economic
hardship on the City of DeKalb. I have been
active in the DeKalb community now for a
couple years as government affairs
ITV
270
coordinator for the Citizens Advocacy
Network, the group that requested and was
denied intervenor status in this hearing.
What I have found over the period of the
last couple of years, and I think merely
everybody agrees with, is that the City of
DeKalb has pursued a very aggressive
economic development policy, an economic
development policy that is -- that often
uses outright city grants to Fortune 500
companies.
I can give you a number of
examples. Wal-Mart corporation received
$500,000 to essentially move across the
street from its present location. That's a
grant that we will never see back. We're
told we're going to see it in higher sales
tax revenues, but I have to be honest, I'm
not entirely convinced. Walgreens
Corporation was granted subsidies, and
people in town are fighting over exactly how
much, but outright cash subsidies to bring
ITV
271
in a chain drug store on the side of what
was once a historic landmark.
We have granted over $2.4 million
in tax increment financing funds to a local
car dealership to move from Sycamore to
DeKalb. Now, it seems to me that when we
are spending that kind of money in outright
grants that this City does have the ability
to fix the problem. It has simply chosen
not to do that.
I think that Militsa Samardzija's
comments earlier hit the nail right on the
head that there are certain special
interests, mainly the developers, who will
be very adversely affected if the Illinois
Pollution Control Board does not grant a
variance and does not grant the City the
ability to extend its current service.
Think about all those developers out there
who aren't going to be able to build their
homes. That has to be taken into account.
I also know that the City has a
ITV
272
fairly high bond rate. We're not talking
about a City here that's strapped
financially. We're talking, in my mind
anyway, about a city administration that has
chosen to pass off this important public
health issue, one that affects every citizen
in this town, not just developers, not just
renters, not just workers. It has chosen to
pass off this important issue to the US
Environmental Protection Agency.
That bothers me, and I have to be
honest. I'm not asking you, the Board here,
to take care of our political problems here
in DeKalb. We have an election April 1997,
and I trust that we're going to take care of
it then, but I want to come back to this
issue we talked about earlier, and that is
radium is a known carcinogen.
I know it is the Illinois
Pollution Control Board's job to ensure that
the highest level of public safety are
ensured by combating any attempt to erode
ITV
273
current standards. That's about all I have
to say, but I'll be glad to answer
questions.
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MR. EWART: I have no questions.
MS. FRANK: Thank you, sir. Are there
other members of the audience who wish to
speak?
JOHN HEPPERLY,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: Please state your name.
MR. HEPPERLY: My name is John
Hepperly, J-o-h-n, H-e-p-p-e-r-l-y. I'd
just like to be on the record that I am
opposed to granting the variance to DeKalb
because I think that's the only way that the
rest of us can ever get our water up to
standards. And I have here two letters
written by neighbors of mine who wish them
to be aired at the hearing. They could not
be here.
ITV
274
The one is from Danca (phonetic)
Lovings who is concerned about the health of
her children, and her husband Tim Lovings
comments on the fact that his grandmother
died of bone cancer five years ago. She
lived her whole life in DeKalb, drank freely
the DeKalb water. She did not drink, she
did not smoke, and if she can get it, anyone
can. Any questions?
MS. FRANK: Is it one letter or two?
MR. HEPPERLY: Two letters on one page.
MS. FRANK: Okay. They will be marked
as Public Comment No. 10. Thank you. Do
you have anything further?
MR. HEPPERLY: No.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 10 was
marked for identification.)
MR. MATEKAITIS: No cross.
MR. EWART: No questions.
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
ITV
275
JAMES LAHEY,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MR. LAHEY: My name is James Lahey,
L-a-h-e-y. I am the spouse of the lady that
gave the brief presentation a little while
ago, Linda Lahey. I am a resident of
DeKalb. I'll be reading two short letters
of concern to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board. First letter I will read is from
Dr. Samuel Goldman, MD, who resided in
DeKalb for many years, and he was a
practicing physician in DeKalb whose
specialties were internal medicine and
oncology, which of course is the treatment
of cancer.
This letter by Dr. Goldman is
dated 7/29/96. "In June of 1991 I expressed
my concern regarding the relaxation of
acceptable levels of radium in DeKalb
drinking water. The avidity of radium or
incorporation into the skeleton of children
ITV
276
represents long-term radiation exposure and
known cancer risks. For this reason the
levels of radium in drinking water must be
kept at lowest possible concentrations."
Again, that's by Dr. Samuel Goldman.
The second letter I will read is
from Miss Gretchen Duguay, Chairman of
Environmental Concerns for the State of
Illinois PTA. I won't read the entire
thing, but there are two paragraphs that are
appropriate.
"The Environmental Protection
Agency is the federal agency with primary
responsibility for the safety of groundwater
and of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Standards set by this agency should be
strictly in force. The 200,000 members of
the Illinois PTA have by convention action
endorsed stricter standards of pollution
control to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the children of Illinois. The
Illinois PTA would therefore oppose any
ITV
277
variance allowing more radium in the
water."
MS. FRANK: Could you spell her last
name, please.
THE WITNESS: D-u-g-u-a-y. I don't
know really how you pronounce it.
MS. FRANK: The letter from Dr. Goldman
will be Public Comment 11 and Miss Duguay's
will be Public Comment 12. Are they all
part of one document?
THE WITNESS: They're stapled there but
they are --
MS. FRANK: Then they'll all be Public
Comment No. 11.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 11 was
marked for identification.)
MARILYN BURRILE,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. BURRILE: My name is Marilyn
Burrile, B-u-r-r-i-l-e. I'm against issuing
of another variance to DeKalb because they
ITV
278
didn't live up to what they were supposed to
in the first variance. By their own
admission they failed to turn in the reports
to the EPA for four years. That means they
followed the directions one year and four
years they decided it wasn't that
important. The EPA didn't even respond or
say you're not in compliance, so if you're
not going to follow our directive, then the
variance will be canceled. They did
nothing, so why should the City take the
conditions of a variance seriously? I don't
believe they will.
Secondly they're supposed to
educate the public onto what they're doing.
Well, they do send a statement with the
water bill. It's on the back of the water
bill, and it's on a -- I've never seen that
because I don't handle that part. I don't
look for the water bill, and I never read
it. When I heard that it was on there, I
went back and got old water bills to find
ITV
279
it, and what I found was when you pay your
water bill that card is ripped in half so
you'll have half of whatever was said which
makes no sense at all.
The students in DeKalb, which
there are about 22,000, I don't know if they
all live in DeKalb, but there is a good
number that live in DeKalb, never receive a
water bill while the ones that stay at the
University don't receive a water bill
because they don't have to pay it, so they
never know. So most of the users are not
really being made aware of what the City's
doing, and I think that's an important
factor.
If a new variance is granted I
will -- I feel like the stipulations have to
be met and that if they're not there's going
to be some penalty to pay. Not just, oh,
yes, I'm sorry and we won't do it again;
well, we'll really set up a new procedure so
that we can get this done like we're
ITV
280
supposed to.
Some of the arguments here you
heard were the water is safe and the water
is not safe. Well, because the findings are
so inconclusive, personally I would take no
radium in the water. 5, if they can get
away with that, I'll have to accept it, but
preferably I would say no radium in the
water.
And I think the City officials are
supposed to be doing what the public wants.
They're not supposed to decide, oh, this is
good for you or this isn't good for you.
They're supposed to be saying, I think it's
good for you, but if you don't like it, if
you don't think it's good, I better take
that into consideration. And I don't find
that the case either. That's all I have to
say.
MS. FRANK: Are there questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No questions.
MR. EWART: No questions.
ITV
281
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
MIGUEL CHECA,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. FRANK: State your name.
MR. CHECA: Miguel Checa, 608 Fairlane
Avenue in DeKalb.
MS. FRANK: Can you spell your last
name, please.
MR. CHECA: C-h-e-c-a. Please
interrupt me because my accent will
complicate your work. I'd like to preface
by -- well, besides being a resident since
'93 I'm a cofounder of the Citizens
Advocacy Network, a nonpartisan organization
whose mission it is to work for a more open
democracy, go back to the roots of this
great country.
In prefacing I would like to tell
the lady who said --
MS. FRANK: Sir, you need to talk
toward the court reporter.
ITV
282
MR. CHECA: The lady who said she was
going to leave DeKalb, please don't, stay
and let's work together to make this place
better. There's another thing that has
remained in my mind from reading the
Toohey's report -- Richard Toohey's report.
He states that it's a personal opinion. I
don't see any institute, research institute,
not Argonne, with which I am familiar, or
any of the other major physics research
institutes backing either one of two
scientists who are making such important
arguments about health.
I'm going to try to cut my
presentation as much as possible. A lot has
been covered. Among the things that we hear
from the National Institute of Health is
that we have avoidable risk factors and
nonavoidable risk factors. We know about
radium. Let's avoid it.
With respect to picocuries, to
have a mental picture in our minds, 1
ITV
283
picocurie, which signifies activity, the
activity while disintegrating in the nuclear
chain of reactions, 1 picocurie is
equivalent to 3.7 times 10 elevated to the
10th power, so even if we're talking about
pico levels we're talking a lot, about a
lot, considerable amount, of atomic
disintegration or decay, let's put it that
way, in those terms.
If we multiply that amount by five
for 5 picocuries we have 185 billion, with a
B, disintegrations per liter per second.
Frankly, I have some knowledge of biology.
I have a BS in biology, but even if I didn't
I wouldn't want that water close to any soft
tissue.
There's a very persuasive argument
that read recently in Paul Hawkins' The
Ecology of Commerce book of 1993. He was
referring to many toxins that we produce
annually in our industrial economy. Nature
has not developed all the biological
ITV
284
mechanisms to deal with them. In the case
of radioactivity I think nature has not come
up with any system to deal with it because
biology is about order. Think about the
genes and the sequence of molecules and the
bridges between the spirals. Radioactivity
is about disorder, disintegration. The
entity, chemical entity, is changing all the
time when there's disintegration.
As part of my testimony I will
attach something that I got from a source
that I mentioned in my testimony which is
the Uranium Series of Daughters or Progeny
and the Thorium Series of Daughters or
Progeny. We're not talking about only
radium 226, radium 228, we're talking about
a progeny of 14 radionuclides for uranium
and 11 for thorium. Let's relieve all the
radionuclides. In every step of
disintegration there is some kind of
particle or radiation amid it, be it alpha
particles, beta particles or gamma rays.
ITV
285
I would like Illinois Pollution
Control Board to review the language of the
current quarterly notice that we get. It
actually has bold faced two sentences which
are misleading. The first one is the short-
term risk being minimal and no special
precautions need to be taken at this time.
The second one is pursuit of
correcting the water system deficiency has
been initiated. The risk increases in time
and with persistent exposure. It is not a
short-term risk. The second statement is
actually false, as we have heard. We have
not done anything to move toward
compliance.
What kind of water treatment
should we use? I understand the City
playing out the water softening just in case
they are not granted the variance and need
to move toward compliance. Water softening
is less expensive. Reverse osmosis removes
the radionuclides. Water softening reduces
ITV
286
the amount of radionuclides. Let's do the
job right.
Reverse -- water softening would
need to be managed in a way that you get the
system to remove beyond the hardness, the
radionuclides, and it removes a lot of the
radionuclides from what I've read. Reverse
osmosis, especially as the technology
improves really does the job of eliminating
as much of the radionuclides as possible.
With respect to how much are we
spending on bottled water, in my house we
spend approximately $130 per person per
year, and we're four. I consider that a
hidden tax. We were renters until December
of '94, so for eleven years we never
received a notice. I wonder how many of the
renters in a university town aren't
receiving a notice. That's something we
should correct right away.
Who benefits from the threat to
school? The beneficiary is not a public or
ITV
287
existing community. By existing community I
mean the people now living in our
community. We have heard that the City is
implementing plans to bring 2,000 more
people within the next several years. What
are we doing about the quality of life of
the people who now live here? By granting
the variances the IEPA recommends, the
DeKalb beneficiaries are the real estate
people, not the community at large.
I'm going to submit two videos --
actually we have transferred two video
recordings into one tape with the
corresponding City Council agendas for the
May 28th public City Council meeting and the
July 8th, 1996 City Council meeting so that
the Pollution Control Board gets a flavor
for the kind of reflective comments or not
that we have experienced in these two
hearings.
MS. FRANK: Are you going to also
submit a written statement?
ITV
288
MR. CHECA: Yes.
MS. FRANK: The written statement will
be marked Public Comment No. 12 and the
videotape and agendas will be marked Public
Comment No. 13.
(Public Comment Exhibit Nos.
12 and 13 were marked for identification.)
MR. CHECA: Repeatedly the community
went on -- repeatedly the community has
provided -- I'm sorry. Repeatedly the
community has provided feedback to City Hall
to no avail while the City Hall's lack of
concern for an adequate source of education
towards real issues affect the existing
community. I don't want to know about
urbanization being a main economic
development mode. I want to see that our
economy is improving of the existing
community.
In reality, City Hall has erected
itself a supra real state promotional
entity. Its self-imposed mission is, 1, to
ITV
289
lay a velvet carpet for developers; and 2,
to guarantee developers will absorb as
little cost as possible in the urban
expansion projects. City Hall has not yet
implemented any impact fees, for example,
despite repeated clamor from the public to
immediately start imposing them to
developers.
In DeKalb now we are not
implementing a careful and intelligent
economic development strategy. What we see
is a mere suburban style scroll that brings
minimum or next to minimum wage jobs. The
contradiction is enormous when we consider
that DeKalb has the second largest
university in the state, Northern Illinois
University, and that the vigorous economic
development going on now in the country is
happening in great measure around university
centers.
With respect to renters and the
sick and the poor and the children, we could
ITV
290
consider it as a form of discrimination if
we don't protect them. And I'm just jumping
from one sheet to the next so that we all
can leave soon.
What have other cities done? I
receive a general accounting offices report
of testimonies every month or so. There's a
recent publication. The title is Water
Quality, a Catalog of Related Federal
Programs. GAO/RCED '96-173, June 19th, 64
pages. Following I quote the abstract:
"This catalog provides information on
federal programs and initiative to help
states, municipalities and individuals
protect and improve surface and groundwater
threatened by pollution. GAO identifies 72
federal programs and initiatives that either
directly or indirectly support water quality
protection and enhancement. According to
agency estimates, at least 4.6 billion, with
a B, was spent on these programs in fiscal
year '95."
ITV
291
With respect to -- these are the
last two pages. As a short term I think
there's a model of decision here, and the
model for the evolution to an adequate
response is a continuum of stages at one
end, and we have denial, and at the other
end a fully developed response to the
monetary and treatment needs of our public
water supply. The first step is for the
Illinois Pollution Control Board to persuade
the current City Hall officials to start
moving in the right direction, otherwise
it's not going to happen.
Early on our community will meet
an independent audit by reputable auditing
in the environmental area or water quality
area. The audit should carefully analyze
the past operation of the whole system of
water sampling, testing, reporting in
hydrographic management of the wells. If we
are overpumping, are we extracting more of
the things that we don't want? The audit
ITV
292
will provide us with hard answers and
information.
We cannot depend on the current
City management to provide this information
because first, it would be a conflict of
interest; second, the public cannot trust
the current municipal administration as we
know that they didn't comply with the first
variance.
Among the needed short-term
efforts, supplying top quality water to all
the schools in the City of DeKalb is of
paramount importance. Another short-term
project is to implement a point of supply of
radionuclide-free water to all the public
who now buy bottled water or will be
considering the purchase of a radionuclide
removal unit, like reverse osmosis. Instead
of paying what is equivalent to a hidden tax
to local vendors of bottled water, the
municipality should absorb that expense.
Perhaps the municipality can correct -- can
ITV
293
contract with one or all of the local
bottled water distributors to service the
public who are concerned about getting
radionuclide-free water.
With respect to the long-term
options, I have a concrete proposal for the
Illinois Pollution Control Board. After the
short-term projects are well under way our
community should plan, with the assistance
of the findings of the auditors, for the
adequate study of the long-term solution
options. I suggest that the residents who
submitted the objection letters to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board that
prompted this public hearing, and perhaps
the one in '91 in DeKalb, immediately form a
safe water citizens board that report to the
IEP -- Illinois Pollution Control Board.
Its mission would be to steer and oversee
the strategic direction of the long-term
planning efforts and to be the primary
authority to whom the proposed auditor will
ITV
294
report to. This is a way to guarantee our
community will implement a serious, honest
and thorough oversight and control system.
The costs involved in the long
term and complete remediation of the problem
can be gradually phased in and spread out
through the years. Utmost attention should
be given to the prioritization of projects
so that available funds are allocated in
order of increasing priority over time.
The safe water citizens board
should be foreign to local politics and
special economic interest groups. Currently
all the City Hall commissions are appointed
by the current mayor who has held office for
around 15 years. The result is that the
commission acts more as water standing
bodies than those entities that have first
the quality of our lives at heart.
The safe water citizens board
should establish effective communication
links with the IEPA, the US EPA, the Water
ITV
295
Pollution Association, the National
Sanitation Foundation and other entities
whose role it is to be vigilant about issues
concerning a healthy water supply. By
learning from what other community have done
to effectively remove the radionuclides from
the drinking water we can avoid reinventing
the wheel.
We would like to see City Hall
stop playing the regulation skirting game
and start taking action to remove, not only
reduce, the radionuclides from our drinking
water. I will enter now my 12-page report.
MS. FRANK: Okay. It will be Public
Comment No. 12 (sic). Are there any
questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No questions.
MR. EWART: No questions.
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 14 was
marked for identification.)
JACQUE SUDING,
being first duly sworn, testified as
ITV
296
follows:
MS. FRANK: Please state your name.
THE WITNESS: My name is Jacque Suding,
and it's J-a-c-q-u-e, S-u-d-i-n-g. I'd like
first to enter a correction to the record of
testimony by the earlier expert witnesses,
and this is from the health effects of
radium observed and assumed presented by
Richard Toohey on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency on July 30th
and August 2nd, 1985. This is just to
clarify your records. This is from Page 7
of that document.
The lowest intake causing cancer
in a dial worker was 40 microcuries. The
lowest intake causing cancer in anyone was 9
microcuries. A young boy seven years old
was given radium as a medical treatment, and
I thought since the number was so different
from the 60 to 65 as quoted earlier that we
should make that correction, so it's really
a reentry to your former record.
ITV
297
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
MS. SUDING: I know the hour is late.
I don't have a lot so I won't keep you
long. I have with me a letter to the Board
from Jacob D. Dumel (phonetic) with an
affidavit to enter into the record.
Mr. Dumel formerly served on the Illinois
Pollution Control Board for nearly eleven
years. He holds a BS degree in mechanical
engineering and an MS degree in public
administration both from the Illinois
Institute of Technology. He has been a
registered professional engineer in Illinois
since 1955.
I am also entering into the record
but will not read Mr. Dumel's two descending
opinions written earlier, and they are in
your records, but this will be a resubmittal
in my presentation.
Mr. Dumel's letter reads as of
July 28th, 1996: "During my service on the
Illinois Pollution Control Board from July
ITV
298
1970 through December 1991 I considered and
voted on many drinking water variances where
radium was the contaminant of concern. The
issues then and now remain the same."
"What is the risk of radium in the
drinking water? Is that risk too great? Is
there a threshold? The study by Dr. Murray
M. Finkelstein published in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal in September
1994 finds an association between bone
cancer and radium content down as low as
0.99 picocuries per liter. The 1995 data
for DeKalb shows wells pumping with radium
levels as high as 13.7 picocuries or 72
times higher."
"The risk of increased bone cancer
has thus been validated in this recent
study. There is no threshold that protects
children from bone cancer initiated by
radium in drinking water. DeKalb should
quickly reduce the radium levels in its
drinking water. It had five full years to
ITV
299
do so but elected to not solve its public
health problem."
"The bone cancer hazard is real
and can be reduced significantly. The IPCB
should see that this is done quickly.
Sincerely, Jacob D. Dumel."
I want to draw a careful
distinction and I must quote to do so.
There are only about five paragraphs. On
Page 15 of the recommendation for extension
of variance entered by IEPA counsel
regarding DeKalb, July 16th, 1996, it is
stated that, "The Agency observes that
granting the variance extension from
restricted status should affect only those
users who consume water drawn from any newly
extended water lines. This variance
extension should not affect the status of
the rest of Petitioner's population drawing
water from existing water lines except in so
far as the variance extension by its
conditions may change in compliance. In so
ITV
300
saying the Agency has decided that it
continues to place a high priority on
compliance with the standards."
It will be absolutely impossible
for the variance extension if granted not to
affect all users of water in the City of
DeKalb because the water system is all one
system. Creating an extension or extensions
of the system for new development does not
isolate the current population nor in any
way protect the potential new population.
We are, as they say, all in the same boat.
The radium is in the water supply, folks,
and has not been dealt with.
The order of the Board in this
matter issued on August 1st, 1996 was very
careful on Page 4 to exclude the proposed
intervenors as not living "in an area which
would be affected by the new water main
extension which is the subject of this
proceeding." The City in its objections to
intervenor status drew a very careful
ITV
301
distinction between the City's general
population as not being within the areas to
be served by the proposed new water main
extensions.
In addition, the order states in
the note on Page 1 that, "A grant of
variance from standards of issuance and
restricted status neither absolves the
public water supplier from compliance with
the drinking water standards at issue nor
insulates a public water supplier from
possible enforcement action for violation of
those standards." Again, the grant or
denial of a variance from standards of
issuance and restricted status controls
whether the Agency may issue the requisite
permits to extend water service. It does
not affect the applicability of the maximum
contaminant level of combined radium as set
forth in 35 Illinois Administrative Code
611.330 A.
As citizens of DeKalb we therefore
ITV
302
demand that the variance as requested be
granted only as it applies to any new water
main extensions but only if the water which
continues to be supplied to the current
users meet the standards currently in place
of 5 picocuries and further that a period of
not more than six months be allowed for an
acceptable plan to be put into place to
bring DeKalb into compliance with the
existing standard. If the City of DeKalb is
unwilling or unable to take prudent care of
its current population, then there is little
or no basis for providing for development in
the City through which many more people will
be affected by its radium contaminated water
supply. Thank you.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No questions.
MS. FRANK: Your statement and
attachments will be Public Comment No. 14
(sic).
(Public Comment Exhibit No. 15 was
ITV
303
marked for identification.)
ELLEN PARTRIDGE,
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. PARTRIDGE: My name is Ellen
Partridge. I'm an attorney from Chicago. I
filed a petition for intervention on behalf
of Dory Burg, John Hepperly, Marion Brown,
Clyde Brown, Jonathan Wright and Children of
DeKalb, and that petition was denied, and
many of the comments that you've heard today
express the kind of frustration there is
that this is a hearing where there is no
cross examination, where the hard questions
aren't asked.
And even without those hard
questions being asked there are two issues
that keep coming up over and over again, and
one is the dissatisfaction, dismay that
people have with the way that the government
has behaved in this whole variance
proceeding that the IEPA does not enforce;
ITV
304
that the Pollution Control Board issued an
order and that the City of DeKalb has not
complied with that order that very
specifically said that they had to do the
construction to come into terms with the
order within four years after the June 20th,
1991 order.
So one of the things that keeps
coming through is that there's a loss of
faith in the ability of the government to do
what it promises that it will do. The
second thing that I think keeps coming
through is people's dissatisfaction with
only the new users being considered, and the
fallacy at this point in time is that even
the people who are new users in the last
variance are now not considered to have any
health -- adverse health effects from the
noncompliance with the radium standard.
If people had been able to do any
sort of cross examination, these are some of
the questions that I think intervenors would
ITV
305
have asked and would like the Board to
consider: On what basis does the IEPA
consider only the effects on new users and
not on current users, including those
current users under the previous variance;
when does the IEPA plan to begin enforcement
of the legal standard with what enforcement
mechanism if not with use of the restricted
status designation; what other standards is
the IEPA declining to enforce; how many
standards does the US EPA propose but never
promulgate as final standards?
And the whole purpose of the
mechanism for having a proposed standard and
then a final standard is so the proposed
standard may not become the final one, and
we have the position here where we have this
15 year running rumor that the US EPA
standard was going to be changed, and we
have nothing really that backs that up
except, you know, the speculation of one
person or another and its related political
ITV
306
decision that no one has any greater ability
than anyone else to speculate about.
Other questions, I mean, how does
the Board choose between the various linear
and the nonlinear models and how does the
Board decide whether there's a threshold?
Other questions, has the Pollution Control
Board ever denied a variance for radium to
anyone? This is a process that's going to
go on and on and on. How does the IEPA
address the concerns that were raised by the
dissenters to the previous grant of a
variance?
There were questions raised about
that the radium standard and increased
radium standard would affect development,
but if there were impact keys that would
take care of the cost of meeting the radium
standard, would those impact fees deter
development? If we use some small part of
the additional taxes that come in with the
development, would that deter development?
ITV
307
The list I have of remedies that
citizens would like at this point is as
follows, and there are ten items, and many
of these are in response to the previous --
what's happened under the previous
variance. So the first one is that the
Board's order must include specific
penalties for noncompliance in light of its
history of noncompliance. The second is
that citizens must be permitted to monitor
the City's compliance with the Board's
order.
The third is that the City must
independently audit sampling testing and
well management procedures annually. No. 4,
immediately put measures into effect at all
schools to protect the drinking water of
children. If they need to drink bottled
water, then put bottled water in the
schools. No. 5, immediately prevent
overpumping and remove sediments in all
wells as an intermediate measure.
ITV
308
No. 6, immediately solicit
proposals for well liners and casings as a
less expensive method to take the radium out
than the ones that were discussed by the
City. No. 7, investigate mitigation
measures and funding mechanisms within 90
days, and that includes looking at things
like taxes, increment financing, any state
and federal funding that there might be
under the Safe Drinking Water Act and impact
fees.
No. 8, keep health statistics of
the cancer incidence in DeKalb City. No. 9,
begin construction of mitigation measures
within six months, and No. 10, achieve full
compliance with the US EPA standards of 5
PCLs within one year. Thank you very much.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions?
Sir, if you wanted to come up now, that's
fine.
STEVE KAPITAN,
being first duly sworn, testified as
ITV
309
follows:
MS. FRANK: You need to state your
name.
MR. KAPITAN: My name is Steve
Kapitan. I'm the third board alderman in
the City of DeKalb.
MS. FRANK: You need to spell your last
name, please.
MR. KAPITAN: K-a-p-i-t-a-n. To
provide some context for my comments, I
would like to state that my votes on the
City Council in favor of the variance is a
matter of record, but it should not be seen
as an acceptance of 20 picocurie per liter
standard that has been talked about. I find
myself on the horns of a dilemma. I have
the responsibility for the prudent
management of taxpayer money, and I have the
responsibility to look out for the public
health.
If the reasonably safe standard of
radium is truly 20 picocuries per liter,
ITV
310
then it would be an irresponsible use of
taxpayer money to spend millions of dollars
at remediation. If the reasonably safe
standard is truly 5 picocuries per liter
then it would be irresponsible management of
public health not to address the problem.
The Federal EPA's proposal of 20
picocuries per liter in combination with the
years of delay in establishing the new
standard leaves the community in limbo and
leaves the City officials in an untenable
position.
In a representative democracy
public participation is critical. That's
why I would like to compliment the citizens
who called for and organized this effort to
be heard today. I'd also like to thank the
Pollution Control Board for holding the
hearing and for giving people as much time
as they wish to be heard, but I would also
like to address the structure of hearing and
point out, as has been somewhat referenced,
ITV
311
the inadequacy of the structure.
It was pointed out that two
parties who cross examined each other were
basically in agreement. It did not allow
for the alternative position. And secondly,
it was illustrated in the cross examination
of Dory Burg that -- the limitations of
this, because the questions that were
addressed by the City attorney were not
allowed to be rebutted by her attorney
through a redirect and that --
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg does have the
right to come back up and make any
additional statements she wishes to make.
MR. KAPITAN: Sure, and that helps, but
it still creates a deficiency in the
structure of the system of the hearing. I
would urge everyone -- well, I would hope
that everyone would urge the federal
government to resolve the issue of what is a
safe standard. I know references were made
to politicians such as myself passing it off
ITV
312
to the federal government, but we have to
have some mechanism to decide which of the
experts we are going to embrace.
The issue of battling experts and
choosing statistics, you know, that's all
been mentioned already, using statistics to
manipulate the process or to prove your
point, but we have to have some resolution
of the issue. And if people feel through
their own research that 5 picocuries is the
appropriate level, then lobby the federal
government to maintain that standard and to
indicate that that will continue to be the
standard and then that gives me the position
where it gives me the political power to
make the case that we should expend the
funds to resolve the issue.
But when the federal government
continues to hold 5 picocuries as a standard
on the one hand and then hold out 20
picocuries on the other, there is not a
reasonable resolution that can be made from
ITV
313
this -- arrived at from this problem. If 20
picocuries turns out to be the standard,
then these hearings are a monumental waste
of time. If 5 picocuries turns out to be
the safe standard, then it's a fraud on the
public. Either one is not the way that we
should do things as a representative
democracy. Thank you.
MS. FRANK: Are there any questions?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No questions.
MR. EWART: No questions.
MS. SUDING: I'm Jacque Suding again,
just a short comment. It is possible to set
a standard within a municipality that is the
same or lower than a federal or state
standard. We can as a municipality set a
standard which we believe in to protect the
public health. I cannot give you a document
to support what I'm going to say next, but
it is our very considered understanding that
the State of Iowa decided that the wealth of
its citizens was served by setting its
ITV
314
standard at 3 picocuries, and we are working
at the moment to obtain documentation for
you on that issue.
The point being that you don't
always have to believe that a standard is
the best for you in a particular situation.
The whole country is not subject to radium
contaminated water as we are here.
MS. FRANK: Before we start taking
comments from people who have already
spoken, it's important that we make sure
that there are no new people who wish to
speak. So is there anyone who wishes to
make a statement on the record who hasn't
had a chance yet?
Yes, ma'am, please come forward.
Please state your name and spell your last
name.
MS. ROSCELLI: My name is Symone
Roscelli, R-o-s-c-e-l-l-i, and I have stayed
here for six very precious hours today.
SYMONE ROSCELLI,
ITV
315
being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MS. ROSCELLI: There is a ghost here
that worries me. I have been a resident of
DeKalb for 26 years, and I am out of the
country to many different places for
extended periods, so I have not been
involved in this controversy. However, I
find one ghost that worries me and afterward
I'd like to give you a very, very
complimentary comment.
It seems to me there is a lot of
talk of 20 picocuries but I have no -- or
maybe I missed where the substantiation for
this ghost lies. Is there a substantial
background or a documentation for the
supposition and the acceptance by the
gentleman who just spoke that there is such
an intention for the last 20 years of the
federal government to change these standards
to four times or how many times more than it
already is? I would like very much to know
ITV
316
that particular aspect of this discussion
because it is very vital and, in fact, as
was mentioned because it puts your City
government in a quandary as to what to do.
But 20 years of quandary is a little too
much for me to accept.
I've seen here an example of grass
roots democracy that really makes me very
happy. I have lived in many countries, both
dictatorships, putative democracies that are
dictatorships. I have been involved with
people who have abused, neglected and
murdered by dictatorships, and here we can
walk out of here and be free to feel that we
are not going to be shot on the street
because of our discussions and our views,
and I find that to be highly commendable.
However, when democracy is
watered-down by callus commercialism by the
saving of pennies against the community
good, then I find that democracy is lacking
and will go down without the care and the
ITV
317
devotion that people here seem to have given
of their time, their money, their
consideration. If it is not accepted in the
manner in which it is given and it is not
considered, then we have a very, very sad
future for our democracy, and I hope we will
not have that, because this has been
inspiring to me to live in countries where
nobody can get up and talk the way we have
talked here. Thank you very much.
MS. FRANK: Are there any other members
of the public that have not spoken yet who
wish to speak? Okay. At this time I'm
going to allow people who have already
spoken a chance to come back up if there is
something that they feel they need to
address.
I'm going to limit you to five
minutes apiece though so you need to collect
your thoughts and think about what you want
to say because we're not going to stay here
now for another four hours so everyone can
ITV
318
reiterate everything, but we will allow five
minutes apiece of any type of rebuttal or
redirect information that you feel needs to
come forward.
I remind you that you are still
under oath. Mr. Checa, you may come up.
MR. CHECA: I appreciate very much the
kind words that we have heard just before
me. I have been puzzled by the fact that I
don't see this process, something which is
very healthy and a natural part almost of
the sciences which is scientific peer
review. What if the Illinois Pollution
Control Board takes initiative, exercises
leadership and submits the different
scientific reports to the top -- the highest
level of independent scientific peer review
possible in North America since we have
quoted a Canadian and an American study.
Why don't we do that?
In science that is how we move
from hypothesis to thesis. We are not doing
ITV
319
that and our health is at stake. I really
encourage your taking initiative in that
directive. Thank you.
MS. FRANK: Is there anyone else who
has an additional comment?
MS. BURG: Okay, two comments. One is
that the Illinois Pollution Control Board
has a 1 picocurie limit for wildlife in any
waterways, rivers, streams, creeks.
Wherever water flows cannot be above 1
picocurie per liter of water because
wildlife must be protected at that level
because they are smaller than grown adults,
and I would like to ask protection for our
children under the Wildlife Act of the
Pollution Control Board.
And the other comment is that we
were denied -- I was denied -- I was denied
intervention on the fact that there was no
intervention but also on the fact that I was
not timely -- I was not timely filed; that
the filing date closed on the 24th starting
ITV
320
on the 3rd of June.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, that is not what
the Pollution Control Board's order said.
That was an argument from one of the
parties. You're misstating the order and
the Board knows what its own order says, so
you may move on to your next comment.
MS. BURG: I'd like to make the comment
without it being cross examined or
interrupted, okay? Do you mind if I make
that comment? If not, I will just move
away. I would like to say the comment
without argument because I am not allowed to
intervene, so let me just say my one
comment.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, I just think that
it's important that you not mischaracterize
the Board's order. What you're stating was
an argument from one of the parties. It was
not in the Pollution Control Board order.
You may continue.
MS. BURG: May I say what the party
ITV
321
argued in their variance to me?
MS. FRANK: Yes.
MS. BURG: Okay, thank you. The party
argued in their -- in my denial that the
comment period was from June 3rd until June
24th, one day before the -- one day after --
no, excuse me, one day before the public
notice appeared in the paper of June 25th.
My comment period ended according to the
Illinois EPA was -- Mr. Ewart signed it, I
believe, and it said that the comment period
closed on the 24th.
The notice began on the 25th to
the public to say, do you have any
objections, do you have any comments,
because there is a variance that will be
given by your City. And I think that that
kind of argument, and I've seen them on the
last variance, where every person who sent
in letters, the comment by Mr. Ewart was
there were no responses.
And I could have Ellen bring it up
ITV
322
here right now if you'd like to see it.
When I gave my variance recommendation all
the people -- Midsonca (phonetic), the dates
were stamped on her letter the 21st. She
sent all her letters in with all the names
of people. Petitions were sent, letters
were sent, protests were sent.
Mr. Ewart wrote in his comment in
the denial -- in the recommendation that he
wrote for the Pollution Control Board -- for
the Illinois EPA to the Pollution Control
Board that there were no comments to the
public notice, and I would like to say that
when you play with dates like that to
exclude the public and when you use those
kind of arguments to exclude their hard work
and their lives and their taxes and their
big feelings that you are playing with
something that's even more dangerous than a
few radionuclides. Thank you very much.
MS. FRANK: Are there any other
comments from the public? Yes, sir. I
ITV
323
remind you that you're still under oath.
MR. HOUGHTBY: When I came up here
before I forget to mention that I have lived
in DeKalb now for eleven years and I have
rented all eleven years. I've been a
college student for six. Throughout the
entire eleven years I never had to pay a
water bill as part of my lease, and
therefore I never saw any water bill, and
therefore I never saw any of the warnings
posted on the back.
Now, I know that that is the case
with thousands of college students who rent
in this town. Heat and water are almost
always paid by the landlord. We have to
find more ways, better ways of informing
people and I want to -- I want to make that
clear to you. We're not dealing here
necessarily with the public that entirely
knows what's going on. I can guarantee you
that we're dealing partially with a public
that has no concept, no idea what's going
ITV
324
on.
Regarding this issue of economic
development, last summer the City of DeKalb
had two -- actually the City Council of
DeKalb had two workshop meetings at which
economic development incentives, programs,
policies were reevaluated as was relocation
of businesses affected by developments, and
during the course of one of those meetings,
I don't remember which one, Mark Biernacki,
planning and economic development director,
mentioned something that really stuck in my
mind.
He made the point that about
two-thirds of DeKalb residents cannot afford
to buy the new homes; that according to
their study, according to their income
guidelines two-thirds of DeKalb citizens
could not afford to buy all the homes that
are being built and could not afford to buy
all the homes that are going to be affected
by the extension of water service.
ITV
325
It points to a certain
schizophrenia that this whole discussion
today is the distinction between current
residents who have lived here, some people
eight years, and potential residents who are
not yet here who are going to be affected by
this variance. It seems to me very, very
odd to be worried about people who aren't
even here yet. It seems to me to be very
odd to worry about economic development that
will supposedly be lost but it was never
gained to begin with when we're dealing with
thousands of citizens who live in this town,
live in this area from day to day to day for
years and years and years.
Somebody made the great
observation of that we're all in the same
boat. We're all floating on the same
water. We're all drinking the same water,
and that distinction, even though it has a
legal basis, I think practically is
worthless; that what we are dealing with
ITV
326
here is not with an extension of water
service and practice, we're dealing about
what me and all the other people here drink
on a day-to-day basis.
So thank you very much, and this
is one of the few opportunities that I've
ever had to be -- we come to the DeKalb City
Council and we have three minutes to speak
and that's it. There's not much you can
say, so thank you very, very much for
allowing us more than three minutes.
MS. FRANK: Is there anyone else in the
audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Kapitan;
is that right? I remind you you're still
under oath.
MR. KAPITAN: I will be very brief. I
just wanted to voice my support for
increased availability of notice for the
reasons that have been mentioned. This
community has a very high percentage of
rentals being a university community.
The issue of the delay by the
ITV
327
federal government, the structure of the
hearing and the issue of cross examination
among witnesses that are in basic agreement,
and thirdly the -- what was the other
point? Oh, the use of the numbers for the
risk factor applying to only the additional
people. Clearly the additional people
relate to the extensions. However, it is
more of an impact on the people who have
been drinking this particular water for all
of their lives obviously, and then that adds
to the suspicion as well that the structure
of the variance request is designed for --
to minimize the risk and engenders a
cynicism and a suspicion that it is being
made for economic reasons and not for health
reasons, and this at a time when cynicism
about government is indemnity to society.
MS. FRANK: Are there any other members
of the public that wish to make a
statement? Okay.
At this time we're going to return
ITV
328
to the attorneys then seeing that there are
no members of the public. Do you have any
rebuttal witnesses that you wish to call?
First the City.
MR. MATEKAITIS: Yes, thank you. I
would call first of all Ronald Naylor.
MS. FRANK: I remind you that you're
under oath.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Mr. Naylor, there were some questions raised
in the public portion of the testimony
before the Board today with respect to the
language that's on the water bills. Would
you please describe what the origin of that
language is that appears on the water
bills.
A. The language that we've used is per the
IEPA's approval and direction as to the
exact language.
MS. FRANK: Can you speak into the
microphone and speak up, please.
ITV
329
A. The language that we have used in our notice
to the public on the back of our water bills
is the direct -- per the direction and
approval of the IEPA and specifically to the
content therein and the exact verbiage that
has been used.
Q. So to the best of your knowledge the
language that's contained on the water bill
sent to the City of DeKalb water users is in
compliance with all the existing IEPA
regulations as to the content of that
language?
A. Yes.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Naylor, drawing your attention to what's
been labeled at this time Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 14, ask you if you recognize
that document.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How is it that you recognize that document?
A. This is a letter from the DeKalb County
ITV
330
Health Department that I received in -- I
believe just today dated August 2nd, 1996.
Q. That's authorized by who?
A. Karen Grush, public health administrator.
Q. Did you have any conversations with Karen
Grush that indicated that she, in fact, did
send you this letter?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did those take place?
A. Probably two plus weeks or so ago in
response to a newspaper article which
Mrs. Grush was quoted in the paper with
regards to the DeKalb County incidence rate
of cancer, and I called and spoke with her
and asked if she would submit her comments
in writing to us.
Q. And what's contained in Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 14, does that represent those comments?
A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I would move at this
time for admission of Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 14.
ITV
331
MS. BURG: I object.
MS. FRANK: Ms. Burg, you do not have
standing to object and --
MS. BURG: I still object.
MS. FRANK: -- as I stated earlier,
outbursts from the public are just not
acceptable. We have allowed you more than
adequate time, about four hours, to present
your side of the case. This is now the time
for rebuttal testimony. Continued outbursts
will require me to ask you to leave, and I
know that you want to be here to hear this,
so I ask that you please sit quietly.
MS. BURG: I can leave. I will leave.
MS. FRANK: I'm not asking that you
leave. I'm just requesting that you sit
quietly.
Mr. Ewart, do you have any
objection to the admission of Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 14?
MR. EWART: No, I do not.
MS. FRANK: Okay, then Petitioner's
ITV
332
Exhibit No. 14 is admitted into evidence.
MR. MATEKAITIS: City has no further
questions of this witness.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart, do you have any
questions of this witness?
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. EWART:
Q. Mr. Naylor, you asked -- you requested
Ms. Grush, Karen Grush, public health
administrator, to provide these numbers
which are adjusted cancer incidents per
hundred thousand by size and sex dated dates
1987 through 1991 including all races, and
what is this a comparison of?
A. What is this -- this is -- she had responded
to a newspaper article stating that the
incidence of cancer for DeKalb County during
this time period was not -- what's the
proper term -- unusual for DeKalb County.
Q. Are the columns labeled DeKalb and the
incidence of cancer per hundred thousand
projected?
ITV
333
A. These are based upon the statistics for the
five-year time period from 1987 to 1991
incident rate per hundred thousand.
Q. And in the right column listed for Illinois,
I assume that's the number of incidents of
cancer per hundred thousand during this time
period?
A. For the entire State of Illinois, yes.
Q. For the entire State of Illinois?
A. Yes.
MR. EWART: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Matekaitis, do you have
anything else?
MR. MATEKAITIS: Not of this witness.
I would recall Dr. Rowland.
MS. FRANK: Dr. Rowland, I remind you
that you're still under oath.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATEKAITIS:
Q. Dr. Rowland, one of the citizens had formed
some sort of calculation to try to modify
ITV
334
what 5 picocuries per liter represented.
Could you explain or try to put again in
layperson's language what that quantity of
radium would represent.
A. I'm not sure that I understand your
question. Could you tell me who made the
statement that you're referring to.
Q. I believe that was Mr. Checa that had made
that statement.
A. Oh, yes, Mr. Checa gave a definition of a
picocurie, and unfortunately he was wrong by
a factor of 10 to the 12th. He said, if I
heard him correctly, that 1 picocurie was
3.7 times 10 to the 10th disintegration per
second. That is a definition of a curie,
not a picocurie, and he went ahead and
calculated how many disintegrations per
second took place if you had 5 picocuries in
the water.
The truth of the matter is that 1
picocurie represents 2.22 disintegrations
per minute. It is a very low rate, and I
ITV
335
think this was an error on his part, if I
heard him correctly.
Q. Dr. Rowland, with respect to a number of
comments that were made with respect to
Dr. Finkelstein's study, both the '94 and
'96 studies, have you had an opportunity to
review the information associated with those
studies?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And in your professional opinion what are
the weaknesses associated with the
methodology employed in each of those
studies?
A. What I would like to suggest is the
following. He is implying with the
statistics that a very, very, very low
concentration of radium in drinking water,
many factors below what has been
represented, quite a few factors below 5
picocuries per liter, has been causing bone
cancer in young people.
I would like to go back to
ITV
336
Dr. Sandman's testimony because he quoted a
study by a man by the name of Peterson who
looked at the incidence of bone cancer in
the entire population for areas in Northern
Illinois. I'll remind you that DeKalb by
itself is not the only place that's
suffering from radium in the water. The
whole Northern Illinois that gets its water
from deep wells is.
A study was performed in which
high radium level communities were compared
with so-called low radium level communities,
and this was based on the raw water supply
presented to the citizens of the communities
in which the study was made. And
Dr. Sandman stated quite correctly that
there was a slight increase in bone cancer
in the high radium communities, something
like 6. -- a rate of 6.7 and I can't
remember the decimals, but per hundred
thousand people versus 5.3 in the low radium
communities.
ITV
337
If Dr. Finkelstein's findings are
correct we would have an epidemic of bone
cancer in Northern Illinois. We've been
drinking that water for 50 years, and if
levels as low as a tenth of picocurie per
liter of water are able to induce as many
cancers as he sees in these young people,
then you and all the other communities would
be in an uproar because you would have not a
scattering of bone cancer, you would have an
epidemic.
And so this I find as the largest
fault. He has done a very nice job in
looking at his data. He has carefully
qualified his findings. He is not saying
that this is what the situation is, he is
saying that is what we see here, maybe it
means there's a problem, and I respect
that. I think he's done a very nice job.
I also would like to say I respect
the report that Dr. Sandman gave as well,
but one comment that I made to Dr. Sandman
ITV
338
and I should make to you, in the report that
Peterson published he left out a very
interesting fact. The highest incidence of
cancer in the population studied was a
population of the City of Chicago which gets
its water from Lake Michigan which has 0.03
picocuries per liter. It had the highest
rate of bone cancer in the area studied.
This again points out that we must
look at all the facts that are available,
and Peterson deliberately left this out of
his paper. Some of us were privy to it
because we had a chance to review the
original manuscript before it was published,
and so even scientists, I beg to confess,
are not above leaving out pieces of data if
it doesn't fit their hypothesis.
And the Peterson study is a good
study. It does definitely prove that
Finkelstein's results are not applicable to
Northern Illinois, but it still leaves a
little impression that high radium
ITV
339
communities have more bone cancer than low
radium communities, and they did, but what
he didn't tell us is that Chicago with
almost no radium in its water had the
highest bone cancer rate of any.
Q. Doctor, you've been involved with a study,
the effects of radium in one form or another
it would appear to be the better part of 45
years, professional education and training
and work experience, professional
publications, your authorship of a book,
your stated research interests and indeed
your activities that you're going to present
in France next month regarding the health
risks associated with radium.
Given that wealth of background
and experience, do you have an opinion with
respect to whether or not the public water
supply of the City of DeKalb is safe with
respect to the existing level of radium in
its public water supply for not only
existing water users but for those many
ITV
340
users that will be served by the extensions
of water mains?
A. Let me answer that by saying that I live in
Batavia, Illinois. Our postcards say 14.7
picocuries per liter, although the
information that was recently gathered here
brings us down apparently only to 9 plus a
little more.
I raised my children in Northern
Illinois. I didn't buy bottled water, and I
would like to make a statement that I
sympathize very, very much with the citizens
of DeKalb and the other communities.
Putting water into bottles doesn't take out
the radium. You must verify from the
producer, 1, that it's either gone through a
reverse osmosis process or heaven forbid
it's distilled water.
MS. FRANK: Dr. Rowland, with all due
respect, if you could confine your comments
to answering the questions asked of you.
It's almost 8:30 in the evening and so if
ITV
341
you could try to do that I think it would
help to speed the process.
A. The question that was asked of me was do I
consider the current level of radium in the
water to be safe. I'm sorry I expanded
that. I certainly do think it is safe.
MS. FRANK: Thank you.
MR. MATEKAITIS: I have no further
questions.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: I have no questions of this
witness.
MR. MATEKAITIS: No further rebuttal by
the City.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: I have no rebuttal
witnesses.
MS. FRANK: Are there closing arguments
from either side?
MR. MATEKAITIS: Briefly. The burden
is on the Petitioner, the City of DeKalb, to
present adequate proof that immediate
ITV
342
compliance of the Board's regulations at
issue would compose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship and that such hardship
outweighs the public interest in obtaining
compliance with regulations designed to
protect the public.
The City acknowledges that the
requested variance will not change the
current standard for combined radium 226 and
228 that the Petitioner must meet; however,
it would grant the City additional time to
meet that standard. The City has presented
testimony indicating that compliance would
cost approximately 6 million to $12 million
and two to six years to achieve. That
represents monies that are not available for
additional fire and police personnel, monies
to improve the City's storm water system or
to improve and maintain the City streets.
The City has presented testimony
indicating that water service would be
denied to approximately 805 dwelling units
ITV
343
representing approximately 2,265 new
residents if the City's petition is denied.
Further, the City would stand to lose
approximately $3.2 million -- or strike
that, $2.8 million in annual sales tax
revenues, corresponding losses of $240,000
in annual property tax revenues and $140,000
in annual utility tax revenues with the
additional loss of 2,200 new jobs if the
petition is denied.
Additionally, fire flows and fire
suppression improvements resulting from the
looping of new water mains would negligibly
(sic) impact the existing residents of the
City of DeKalb if the petition is denied.
The men and women that make up the City's
government, live and work in this community,
they and their families consume the same
water as the residents they serve. They
indeed have nothing to gain from subjecting
themselves and their families to an
unnecessary health risk.
ITV
344
Still the City is taking steps to
move towards compliance with the existing
standards. The City has reduced the pumping
from wells that have the highest
concentration of radium and has reduced the
weighted average consumption of radium in
the levels of five years ago. It appointed
a citizen ad hoc advisory board to review
its existing water supply system to make
recommendations regarding the steps the City
should take with respect to lessening the
amount of radium in the water supply. The
City has adopted the report of the committee
and has implemented some of its
suggestions.
The City continues to review
methods for compliance and has retained the
services of Baxter and Woodman to assist in
that process. Baxter and Woodman has
identified potential alternatives for
compliance and the cost and length of time
it would take to construct such
ITV
345
improvements.
The fact remains that there will
be little or no adverse impact caused by the
granting of the requested variance. The
City believes that there will be little or
no benefit to the public or the environment
in complying with the current standard for
combined radium 226 and 228 for the limited
period of the variance. Even if the
petition is denied compliance with the
existing standard would take years to
accomplish.
The City has introduced evidence
indicating that the weighted average
consumption for radium 226 and 228 is less
than in other communities that have been
granted a variance from restricted status
and standards of issuance. The testimony of
Dr. Toohey, Dr. Rowland and the overwhelming
body of scientific research done to date
indicates that the existing level of radium
in DeKalb's water supply does not pose a
ITV
346
significant threat to the public and perhaps
poses less of a threat now than previously
thought.
The US EPA has previously
indicated that it believes a standard of 20
picocuries per liter for each individual
isotope is sufficient to protect the
public's health. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that the US EPA's
considering anything other than proposing
such a standard. Expending 6 to $12 million
to meet a standard set by the same Agency
that now acknowledges such standards as
inappropriate is an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship upon the residents and
taxpayers of this community.
We can potentially live in a
pollution-free environment, breathing pure
air, drinking pure water, driving pollution-
free vehicles, but at what cost? Most of us
can accept that there are undesirable
substances in the air we breathe, the water
ITV
347
we drink and the food we eat. Indeed there
are permissible levels of pollutants in our
air, water and food as determined by the US
EPA Food and Drug Administration and other
agencies. The debate is focused on what
those levels should be rather than the
absence of all the pollutants.
The US EPA, congress and president
have all indicated that the repeal of
legislation that prohibits the threat of any
pesticides in our foods is eminent. They
say it's a case of science catching up with
policy. We now have instruments that can
measure minute amounts of pesticides in our
food, and apparently it's been determined
that there can be levels of such substance
in our foods that do not pose a significant
threat to our health.
Scientific health research is not
a static activity. As additional studies
and research is conducted we have seen that
some substances have been determined to be
ITV
348
more harmful than previously thought, for
instance, lead and asbestos, while others
have determined to be less dangerous than
previously thought, for instance,
cyclamates.
The Petitioner believes a great
weight of scientific research and opinion
indicates that the level of radium in
DeKalb's water supply does not pose a threat
to the consumers of that water.
Given the proposed revisions to
the radium standards that would make the
expenditure of 6 to $12 million unnecessary,
the limited benefits to the public from
compliance with the existing standard during
the limited period of the variance, the loss
of tax revenues and negative impact on new
residents by being denied water service, the
negative impact on the fire protection
services, Petitioner City of DeKalb believes
it has met its burden of proof in this
matter and urges the Board to concur with
ITV
349
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's recommendation and approve the
requested variance.
MS. FRANK: Mr. Ewart?
MR. EWART: I just have a few
comments. As stated in our recommendation,
the Agency recommends grant of this variance
not to relieve the City of DeKalb of its
responsibility in meeting current radium
standards of 5 picocuries per liter
combined, but to permit the City of DeKalb
to extend water mains to bring in new
industry, residents and other measures that
would be connected to this.
As stated also in this variance,
we contend that there is -- would be an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship would
result in this matter if this variance were
denied. The Board through this hearing has
heard many comments of citizens. There's
been a great deal of effort that has gone
into the development of their statements.
ITV
350
The Board should consider the statements of
these witnesses in light of the testimony of
the parties that we've heard today. Thank
you.
MS. FRANK: Okay. At this time I would
like to thank everyone, the attorneys and
also the people who came forward to make
public comments and attended today.
Especially I would like to thank people who
made extra copies of their exhibits. That
saves the Board a considerable effort in
getting those exhibits out to the attorneys
which is something that we will do for the
other ones, but having the extra copies is
very helpful.
The record in this proceeding
needs to close by August 19th because the
Board's meeting before the decision due date
is September 19th, and the Board requires
that records close 30 days prior to their
decision so that they made deliberate.
Based on that and the fact that the City of
ITV
351
DeKalb has agreed to pay for expedited
transcripts, the public comment period to
allow for a written comment in this case
will go until August 12th, which means that
any written comment that you want viewed by
the Board pertaining to this case must be
placed in the mail by August 12th.
We do not accept faxed filings.
I'll be very clear about that. Anyone who
faxes something to the Board, it will not be
accepted, it will not be part of the
record. So if you want the Board to
consider it you need to place it in the
mailbox by August 12th.
Then on August 19th by 4:30 the
parties need to have any rebuttal comments
or simultaneous briefs, if you feel briefs
are necessary, in to the Pollution Control
Board. It is your choice as to whether or
not you Federal Express the filing to arrive
the next day or you hand walk it in, but in
no event should it not arrive at the Board
ITV
352
by August 20th. So if you placed it in
Federal Express the 19th they should get it
the next day. And if possible get it to
each other as quickly as possible. You
don't need to get my copy to me that
quickly, you can stick it in regular mail.
Are there any other procedural-
type questions? I have the address of the
Pollution Control Board, who the comments
need to be directed to and the Pollution
Control Board number which you should add to
your comments, and I have it written down
which I will bring out to the public so that
they can use to copy, and I also have put my
phone number on there in case there are any
procedural questions after today where
members of the public have questions, they
can call me. I also have some business
cards which you're welcome to take and you
are welcome to call me if you have any
questions between now and the 12th or the
19th.
ITV
353
Is there anything else that we
need to cover from any of the attorneys?
MR. MATEKAITIS: No.
MS. FRANK: Do any members of the
public have anything -- any questions about
the procedure? Mr. Checa?
MR. CHECA: Not about the procedure,
but I acknowledge the mistake that I made
about the numerical mistake, and I will be
submitting a correction. Thank you.
MS. FRANK: Okay, thank you. Is there
anything else at this time? Okay, then the
hearing proceeding is adjourned, any future
comments to be in written form directed to
the Pollution Control Board. Thank you all
for coming.
(The hearing was concluded at 8:34
p.m.)
ITV
354
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CITY OF DEKALB )
)
Petitioner, ) PCB NO. 96-246
)
v. )
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) DeKalb County
PROTECTION AGENCY, ) Municipal Bldg.,
) DeKalb, Illinois
Respondent. ) August 5, 1996
I, Carrie L. Vaske, hereby certify
that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of
the State of Illinois; that I am the one who
by order and at the direction of the Hearing
Officer, Deborah L. Frank, reported in
shorthand the proceedings had or required to
be kept in the above-entitled case; and that
the above and foregoing is a full, true and
complete transcript of my said shorthand
notes so taken.
Dated at Ashton, Illinois, this
10th day of August, 1996.
Carrie L. Vaske
Registered Professional Reporter
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Illinois License No. 084-003845
8991 South Prairie Road
Ashton, Illinois 61006
ITV