1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
3
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND )
4 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )(Rulemaking - Water)
5 AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES
)
RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO )
6 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 301, )
302, 303, and 304,
)
7
8
9
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the
10 above-entitled matter, taken before MARGARET R.
11 BEDDARD, a Notary Public within and for the County of
12 Kane, State of Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand
13 Reporter of said state, at Room 9-040, James R.
14 Thompson Building, Chicago, Illinois, on the 9th day
15 of September, A.D. 2008, at 9:08 a.m.
16
17 BEFORE: ARBITRATOR MARIE E. TIPSORD.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
1 PRESENT:
2
MS. MARIE TIPSORD, HEARING OFFICER,
MS. ALISA LIU, Environmental Scientist,
3
MR. ANAND RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist,
MR. G. TANNER GIRARD, Acting Chairman,
4
MR. NICHOLAS J. MELAS,
MS. ANDREA S. MOORE,
5
MR. THOMAS JOHNSON;
6
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
(1021 North Grand Avenue East,
7
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794),
8
BY: MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS,
MS. STEPHANIE DIERS,
9
MR. SCOTT TWAIT;
10
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP,
(One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400,
11
Chicago, Illinois 60606),
BY: MR. FREDERIC P. ANDES,
12
Appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan
13
Water Reclamation District;
14
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
(101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 609,
15
Chicago, Illinois 60606),
BY: MS. ANN ALEXANDER;
16
THE CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC,
17
(2938 East 91st Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60617),
18
BY: MR. KEITH HARLEY;
19
FRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER,
(28 East Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1800,
20
Chicago, Illinois 60606),
BY: MR. ALBERT ETTINGER.
21
22
23 REPORTED BY MARGARET R. BEDDARD, CSR.
24
3
1
E X H I B I T S
2 NUMBER
MARKED FOR ID
3 Deposition Exhibit
4
No. 66
4
5
No. 67
6
6
No. 68
7
7
No. 69
7
8
No. 70
8
9
No. 71
8
10
No. 72
61
11
No. 73
62
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
1
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Good morning, everyone.
2 Again, this is the rulemaking R08-9. I am Marie
3 Tipsord, the hearing officer assigned to the matter.
4 I'm not going to read the whole intro, but I will
5 reintroduce our panel. This is -- To my immediate
6 right is Dr. Tanner Girard, the board member assigned
7 to this matter; to his right is Nicholas J. Melas,
8 board member; and to his right is board member Andrea
9 Moore. To my far left is board member Thomas
10 Johnson. To my immediate left is Anand Rao from our
11 technical unit and to his left Alisa Liu from our
12 technical unit.
13
Before we begin, there's a couple of
14 housekeeping things. First of all, I received an
15 e-mail from Mr. Andes, which includes a link to the
16 budget books that we discussed yesterday. I'm going
17 to mark that as Exhibit 66, if there's no objection.
18 Seeing none, it is Exhibit 66. And there are copies
19 of that e-mail available on the table to the right.
20
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
21
Exhibit No. 66, for identification,
22
as of 9-9-08.)
23
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Also, Member Melas, you had
24 something you wanted to say this morning?
5
1
MR. MELAS: Yes.
2
Before we get started, in the interest of
3 full disclosure, I think I ought to make this
4 statement. Most of you already know this, but for
5 purposes of disclosure. From December of 1962
6 through December of 1992 I served as a commissioner
7 at the Water Reclamation District. It's been a long
8 time since I've been there, but I thought I would
9 mention that for the purposes of the record.
10
The other thing that I would just -- In
11 passing, a slight correction to the record. As I
12 mentioned to Ms. Meyers earlier, when she was
13 discussing the project along the river walk, she
14 mentioned me by name, Nicholas J. Melas. Instead of
15 saying the word "fountain," she said the word
16 "foundation." That should be corrected. I do not
17 have such a foundation. I'm in the water business.
18
MR. JOHNSON: At least she didn't say
19 "memorial."
20
MR. MELAS: That's coming.
21
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And, for purposes of the
22 record, I actually had marked yesterday a picture of
23 the barge on the Calumet-Sag River as Exhibit 66, so
24 the e-mail is Exhibit 67. That's what happens when I
6
1 don't write things down right away.
2
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
3
Exhibit No. 67, for identification,
4
as of 9-9-08.)
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: With that, I understand
6 we're going to actually let the three witnesses
7 present their testimony and do all the questioning at
8 once; is that correct, Mr. Andes?
9
MR. ANDES: That would be fine.
10
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: In that case -- And please
11 forgive me if I'm mispronouncing the names, but I'm
12 going to try. Chriso Petropoulou, Charles Gerba, and
13 Keith Tolson.
14
Can we have them sworn in, please.
15
(WHEREUPON, the witnesses were duly
16
sworn.)
17
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And do you have copies we
18 can mark as exhibits?
19
MR. ANDES: Yes, I do. The one thing I would
20 mention is that the Geosyntec report Dry and Wet
21 Weather Risk Assessment is an attachment to all three
22 testimonies. I've provided one copy of that.
23
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: That's fine.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: For the ease of the record,
7
1 would it make more sense to do each testimony and
2 then make the report a separate exhibit?
3
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I was just going to suggest
4 that. That's okay. Wonderful. Thank you.
5
MR. ANDES: That's fine.
6
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: For purposes of the record,
7 we will mark Petropoulou as Exhibit 68 with the
8 attachments except the report, which we'll mark as a
9 separate exhibit. So that's -- If there's no
10 objection, that's Exhibit 68. Seeing none, that's
11 Exhibit 68.
12
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
13
Exhibit No. 68, for identification,
14
as of 9-9-08.)
15
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Gerba's testimony with his
16 attachments, other than the report, will be marked as
17 Exhibit 69, if there's no objection. Seeing none,
18 it's Exhibit 69.
19
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
20
Exhibit No. 69, for identification,
21
as of 9-9-08.)
22
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And Tolson's testimony with
23 attachments, other than the report, will be
24 Exhibit 70, if there's no objection. Seeing none, it
8
1 is Exhibit 70.
2
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
3
Exhibit No. 70, for identification,
4
as of 9-9-08.)
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And then the report, which
6 is Dry and Wet Weather Risk Assessment of Human
7 Health, Impacts of Disinfection versus no
8 Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterway System
9 dated April 2008 will be marked as Exhibit 71, if
10 there's no objection. Seeing none, it is Exhibit 71.
11 And it's prepared by Geosyntec Consultants.
12
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
13
Exhibit No. 71, for identification,
14
as of 9-9-08.)
15
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: With that, whenever you're
16 ready.
17
MS. PETROPOULOU: My name is Chriso Petropoulou,
18 and I am a licensed professional environmental
19 engineer in the state of Illinois. I earned a
20 bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering
21 from the National Technical University in Athens,
22 Greece, and a doctor of philosophy degree in
23 environmental engineering from the Illinois Institute
24 of Technology in Chicago, Illinois. I am also a
9
1 board certified environmental engineer by the
2 American Academy of Environmental Engineers. I have
3 been employed with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
4 (Geosyntec) in Chicago, Illinois, for the last nine
5 years. Before that I was employed by Patterson
6 Associates, Inc., for about four years and PRC
7 Environmental Management, Inc., (now known as
8 TetraTech EMI) for about four-and-a-half years. I
9 have over 17 years of experience in the wide range of
10 environmental engineering projects, involving design,
11 schedule, and implementation components. I also have
12 experience in evaluating and interpreting laboratory
13 analytical results and other field data in order to
14 make critical project decisions. In addition, I have
15 extensive experience in environmental permitting and
16 compliance issues.
17
For the last three years I have been the
18 project manager for the Metropolitan Water
19 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Microbial
20 Risk Assessment (MRA) study. The District has
21 conducted the MRA study to determine health impacts
22 of the recreational use of the Chicago Area Waterway
23 System (CAWS). The main objective of the MRA study
24 was to evaluate the human health impact of continuing
10
1 the current practice of not disinfecting the
2 effluents from the District's North Side, Stickney,
3 and Calumet water reclamation plants versus
4 initiating disinfection of the effluent at these
5 three plants.
6
I have been intimately involved with every
7 aspect of the MRA study. The results of the MRA
8 study are summarized in the April 2008 Geosyntec
9 report, which is incorporated herein by reference.
10 The report is entitled Dry and Wet Weather Risk
11 Assessment of Human Health Impacts of Disinfection
12 versus Non-Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterway
13 System. I was responsible for the composition,
14 assembly, and production of the subject report.
15
My testimony today will provide a brief
16 description of the microbial sampling, analytical
17 testing, and results of the MRA study.
18
Microbial Risk Assessment Sampling. The
19 MRA study included collection of dry and wet weather
20 microbial samples from the surface water in the
21 Chicago area waterway system and the water
22 reclamation plant effluents. The dry weather
23 sampling was completed during the 2005 recreational
24 season when the climatic conditions were not suitable
11
1 for wet weather sampling. The wet weather sampling
2 took place during the 2006 recreational season. The
3 dry and wet weather microbial results were integrated
4 to enable an evaluation of the potential impacts of
5 disinfection and overall risks associated with the
6 recreational use of the waterway.
7
During dry weather, the District's North
8 Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants contribute the
9 majority of the flow in the Chicago Area Waterway
10 System. The specific objectives of the 2005 dry
11 weather sampling were as follows:
12
1. Evaluate the impact of the treated
13 effluent from the District's three major plants
14 (North Side, Stickney, and Calumet) on the microbial
15 quality of the Chicago Area Waterway System.
16
2. Estimate health risks to recreational
17 users of the Chicago Area Waterway System due to
18 incidental contact pathogen exposure under dry
19 weather conditions.
20
3. Quantify any reduction of risk that
21 would result from the disinfection of plant effluents
22 during dry weather.
23
During wet weather, in addition to the
24 reclamation plant effluents, several sources
12
1 contribute to the microbial load in the Chicago area
2 waterway system, including combined sewer overflows,
3 discharges from storm drains, overland runoff,
4 land-use activities such as agriculture and
5 construction, erosion, and habitat destruction. The
6 specific objectives of the 2006 wet weather sampling
7 were as follows:
8
1. Evaluate the impact of the reclamation
9 plant wet weather flow on the microbial quality of
10 the plant outfalls.
11
2. Evaluate the impact of combined sewer
12 overflows in the microbial quality of the Chicago
13 area waterway system.
14
3. Estimate health risks to recreational
15 users of the Chicago area waterway system due to
16 incidental contact pathogen exposure under wet
17 weather conditions.
18
4. Quantify any reduction of risk that
19 would result from disinfecting plant effluents during
20 wet weather.
21
A total of 75 dry weather samples and 50
22 wet weather samples were collected at the North Side,
23 Stickney, and Calumet waterway segments, including
24 upstream, downstream, and outfall samples. Exhibit 1
13
1 shows the dry and wet weather locations. The wet
2 weather locations were spaced at significantly longer
3 distances away from the reclamation plants compared
4 to the dry weather locations to account for the
5 contributions of storm water runoff, CSO outflows,
6 and pumping stations. At the North Side, wet weather
7 samples were also collected near the North Branch
8 Pumping Station (NBPS). At Stickney, wet weather
9 samples were collected near the Racine Avenue Pumping
10 Station (RAPS). At Calumet, wet weather samples were
11 collected downstream of the 125th Street Pumping
12 Station at Halsted Avenue.
13
Analytical Testing. The MRA study focused
14 on the detection of microorganisms typically present
15 in the feces of humans and other warm-blooded animals
16 as indicators of fecal pollution. Hence, a group of
17 US EPA-approved indicator microorganisms, such as
18 E. coli, Enterococci, and fecal coliform, was
19 selected for the MRA study. Indicator microorganisms
20 are used as an index of the microbial quality of
21 water, but are not pathogenic to humans. The
22 presence of indicator microorganisms may be
23 indicative of the presence of microbial pathogens,
24 while their absence is thought to be indicative of
14
1 the absence of microbial pathogens. In addition to
2 the indicator microorganisms, pathogens
3 representative of those present in the wastewater
4 that are also of public health concern were selected.
5 The rationale for selecting the pathogens for the MRA
6 study included the following criteria:
7
The pathogens selected are associated with
8 documented outbreaks of disease, including
9 gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases and
10 infections.
11
There are US EPA-approved methods or
12 laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP's)
13 available for the measurement of the selected
14 pathogens.
15
Based on the rationale and selection
16 criteria outlined above, the objective of the dry and
17 wet weather sampling was to determine the
18 concentrations of the three major groups of indicator
19 and pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria,
20 protozoa, and viruses. The bacteria samples were
21 analyzed for fecal coliforms, E. coli, Enterococci,
22 Salmonella spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The
23 protozoa samples were analyzed for infectious
24 Cryptosporidium parvum and viable Giardia lamblia.
15
1 The virus samples were analyzed for enteric viruses,
2 including total culturable viruses, viable
3 adenovirus, and Calicivirus, which refers to human
4 Caliciviruses, specifically the genus norovirus.
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Off the record.
6
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had
7
off the record.)
8
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Back on the record.
9
I apologize for the interruption.
10
MS. PETROPOULOU: Microbial Results. The
11 microbial analytical results generated during the MRA
12 study were evaluated and interpreted within the
13 framework of dry and wet weather conditions.
14 However, for the MRA estimates, the dry and wet
15 weather microbial results were integrated in a
16 comprehensive dataset representative of all weather
17 conditions in the waterway. In summary, the
18 microbial analytical results indicate that the
19 concentrations of bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in
20 the waterway increased during wet weather conditions.
21 The following sections discuss the dry and wet
22 weather analytical results of bacteria, protozoa, and
23 viruses.
24
Bacteria Results. Bacteria were the most
16
1 abundant microbial species detected in the waterway,
2 compared to viruses and protozoa, during both dry and
3 wet weather events. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
4 statistical tests were performed for the dry, wet,
5 and combined dry and wet weather bacteria results to
6 determine differences of bacteria concentrations by
7 site (i.e., North Side, Stickney, Calumet), by
8 location (i.e., upstream, downstream, outfall), by
9 depth (for dry weather only; i.e., surface and
10 1-meter depth), and by weather.
11
The dry weather results indicate that
12 there's significant -- there is a significant
13 difference between bacteria concentrations by site
14 (North Side, Stickney, Calumet) and by location
15 (upstream and downstream). Downstream concentrations
16 are consistently greater than upstream. Bacteria
17 concentrations in dry weather samples did not show a
18 statistically significant difference by depth. The
19 wet weather results indicate that E. coli and
20 Enterococcus data are significantly different by
21 site. Fecal coliform, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and
22 Salmonella spp. do not differ by site or any other
23 factor. The results indicated that during wet
24 weather there was no statistical difference between
17
1 bacteria concentrations upstream and downstream of
2 the three reclamation plants.
3
The wet weather bacteria concentrations are
4 significantly greater than the dry weather
5 concentrations in each reclamation plant waterway
6 segment. Also, the wet weather geometric means at
7 each sampling location (upstream, downstream,
8 outfall) at the North Side and Stickney waterway
9 segments indicate that most of the North Side and
10 Stickney geometric mean bacteria concentrations
11 upstream and downstream of the plants are higher than
12 the outfall concentrations. Fecal coliform and
13 E. coli wet weather concentrations are greater than
14 the other bacteria geometric means at each sampling
15 location for all the plants. The wet weather outfall
16 samples have lower levels of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
17 than the corresponding upstream and downstream wet
18 weather samples. This suggests that the major inputs
19 for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the waterways are
20 sources other than the reclamation plant effluents.
21
The results of the combined dry and wet
22 weather ANOVA analysis indicate the dry and wet
23 weather combined bacteria data for E. coli,
24 Enterococcus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are
18
1 significantly different by site and weather. Fecal
2 coliform data differ by weather only (not by site).
3 The fecal coliform dry weather concentrations
4 upstream of the North Side and Stickney plants were
5 greater than the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400
6 colony forming units (CFU)/100 mL. Also, the wet
7 weather fecal coliform concentrations upstream of the
8 North Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants were above
9 the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400 CFU/100 mL.
10
The bacteria analytical results were also
11 analyzed using correlation statistics. The results
12 indicate that there are no significant correlations
13 between dry weather fecal coliform indicator bacteria
14 and other indicator bacteria and pathogens. The wet
15 weather results indicate that there is a better
16 correlation between fecal coliform and other
17 indicator bacteria and pathogens.
18
Cryptosporidium and Giardia Results. The
19 concentrations and frequency of detection of
20 Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts were
21 greater in wet weather samples compared to dry
22 weather samples. For dry weather samples, no
23 infectious Cryptosporidium oocysts were detected in
24 the outfalls or the waterways. Similarly, for wet
19
1 weather samples, no infectious Cryptosporidium
2 oocysts were detected, with one exception. During
3 wet weather conditions, Cryptosporidium oocysts and
4 Giardia cysts were detected in some of the samples
5 collected upstream of the North Side and Stickney
6 plants.
7
During dry weather, most Giardia cysts were
8 non-viable. The average percentage of viable Giardia
9 cysts found in samples from the Stickney waterway
10 segment, including outfall and instream
11 concentrations, was 21 percent during dry weather and
12 increased to 47 percent during wet weather. The
13 average percentage of viable cysts found in samples
14 from the North Side waterway segment, including
15 outfall and instream concentrations, was 26 percent
16 during dry weather and increased to 49 percent during
17 wet weather. Under both dry and wet weather, samples
18 from the Calumet waterway contained the smallest
19 percentage (10 percent) of viable Giardia cysts
20 compared to Stickney and North Side waterways.
21
Outfall samples at the North Side and
22 Stickney plants contained higher levels of viable
23 cysts compared to the Calumet outfall. The
24 percentage of viable Giardia cysts in samples from
20
1 the Calumet outfall was 10 percent during both dry
2 and wet weather conditions. The percentage of viable
3 Giardia cysts in samples from the Stickney outfall
4 was 47 percent during dry weather and 50 percent
5 during wet weather. The percentage of viable Giardia
6 cysts in samples from the North Side outfall was
7 51 percent during dry weather and 42 percent during
8 wet weather.
9
Virus Results. The percentage of samples
10 with enteric virus detections at the North Side
11 waterway was only 29 percent during dry weather and
12 increased to 69 percent during wet weather. The
13 percentage of samples with enteric virus detections
14 at the Stickney waterway segment was only 24 percent
15 during dry weather and increased to 88 percent during
16 wet weather. The percentage of samples with enteric
17 virus detections in the Calumet waterway segment was
18 only 12 percent during dry weather and increased to
19 77 percent during wet weather. The concentrations
20 of total enteric viruses detected during wet weather
21 sampling are generally greater than the dry weather
22 concentrations. Also, some of the wet weather
23 samples collected upstream of the North Side,
24 Stickney, and Calumet plants had detectable
21
1 concentrations of total enteric viruses.
2
The adenovirus concentrations detected
3 during wet weather sampling are generally greater
4 than the dry weather concentrations. Also, some of
5 the wet weather samples collected upstream of the
6 North Side, Stickney, and Calumet plants had
7 detectable concentrations of adenoviruses. The
8 percentage of wet weather samples with adenovirus
9 detections were greater than the dry weather
10 detections. The percentage of samples with
11 adenovirus detections in the North Side waterway
12 segment was 48 percent during dry weather and
13 increased to 88 percent during wet weather. The
14 percentage of samples with adenovirus detections in
15 the Stickney waterway segment was 52 percent during
16 dry weather and increased to 94 percent during wet
17 weather. The percentage of samples with adenovirus
18 detections in the Calumet waterway segment was
19 24 percent during dry weather and increased to
20 72 percent during wet weather.
21
The Calicivirus (norovirus) concentrations
22 detected during wet weather sampling are generally
23 greater than the dry weather concentrations. Also,
24 the percentage of wet weather samples with norovirus
22
1 detections were greater than the dry weather
2 detections. The percentage of samples with norovirus
3 detections in the North Side waterway segment was
4 only 4 percent during dry weather and increased to
5 44 percent during wet weather. The percentage of
6 samples with norovirus detections in the Stickney
7 waterway segment was 12 percent during dry weather
8 and increased to 63 percent during wet weather. The
9 percentage of samples with norovirus detections in
10 the Calumet waterway segment was only 4 percent
11 during dry weather and increased to only 17 percent
12 during wet weather.
13
Conclusion. The microbial analytical
14 results indicate that the wet weather samples had a
15 higher frequency of detection and higher
16 concentrations of pathogens and indicators compared
17 to dry weather samples. The pathogen concentrations
18 within the waterway are largely a result of non-water
19 reclamation plant derived wet weather inputs. The
20 analytical results also indicate that, despite
21 elevated levels of fecal coliform indicator bacteria,
22 the concentrations of actual pathogenic
23 microorganisms in the waterway are low and many are
24 often not detectable.
23
1
Thank you.
2
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay. Let's continue.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Albert Ettinger. I represent
4 various environmental groups.
5
Was there a ruling that we're going to be
6 reading all the pre-filed testimony for the rest of
7 this hearing?
8
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: There was not necessarily a
9 ruling. I know we talked to them yesterday about
10 summaries. Mr. Andes explained that these were
11 summaries. But no one's actually objected to the
12 reading.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Well, I object to the readings.
14 The Agency was not allowed to read any.
15
MR. ANDES: I don't recall the issue coming up.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: The issue was raised. We
17 actually asked to read very brief, less than
18 two-page, summaries into the record, and the Hearing
19 Officer told us that we were not to read summaries.
20 We were to go directly into questions.
21
MR. ANDES: We wouldn't have objected to that.
22 And I think it's helpful to -- particularly because
23 we have charts and exhibits that we want to point
24 out. I think they're in the context of the
24
1 testimony. Based on a discussion yesterday, our
2 impression had been that this was going to be
3 allowed.
4
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Well, there was never an
5 objection made until now. I did tell the Agency that
6 we were going directly to the questions given the
7 need for timing. As I said yesterday, we've all read
8 this testimony. It has been pre-filed. I understand
9 it's a summary. I did ask if you would look to see
10 if you could summarize it more.
11
Let's go off the record.
12
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had
13
off the record.)
14
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: All right. Let's go back
15 on the record.
16
My inclination -- And we did talk a little
17 bit yesterday off the record about this. I think we
18 left -- You were going back to your office to talk
19 with your witnesses about summaries last night. And
20 I did suggest at that time that we could just go
21 directly to questions. I understand you have charts.
22 There's no problem with putting the charts up, and
23 they can certainly refer to them in answering
24 questions. But I do think that since the objection's
25
1 been raised and since I did rule that the Agency
2 would go directly to questions that we're going
3 to --
4
MR. ANDES: But I think -- I guess my objection
5 is that I thought it was pretty clear at the end that
6 we would be allowed to read these into the record
7 today, that we would look for opportunities to
8 shorten them. And it was specifically noted that the
9 total number of pages for these three witnesses is
10 only 20 pages. We do have other witnesses where I do
11 expect we'll have an opportunity to shorten and
12 summarize their testimony. But my understanding
13 going forward --
14
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Given that there was some
15 confusion yesterday at the end of the day off the
16 record, I will let these three witnesses read their
17 testimony in. That's it. From then on we're going
18 directly to questions. No summaries at all.
19
And I apologize to the Agency.
20
Mr. Gerba?
21
MR. GERBA: My name is Charles P. Gerba. I
22 earned a bachelor of science degree from Arizona
23 State University in 1969 and a Ph.D. from the
24 University of Miami, Florida, in 19 --
26
1
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Gerba, you need to
2 speak up.
3
MR. GERBA: Both of my degrees are in
4 microbiology. I was a postdoctoral fellow and
5 assistant professor of environmental virology at
6 Baylor College of Medicine in the Department of
7 Virology and Epidemiology from 1973 through 1981. I
8 am currently professor of environmental microbiology
9 in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology;
10 Soil, Water, and Environmental Science; and
11 Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of
12 Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. I have authored more
13 than 500 articles, including several books in
14 environmental microbiology and pollution science. I
15 actively conduct research on the development of new
16 disinfectants, new methods for the detection of
17 enteric pathogens in the environment, occurrence and
18 fate of pathogens in the environment, fate of
19 pathogens during wastewater reuse and land
20 application of biosolids, microbiology of domestic
21 environments and microbial risk assessment.
22
For the last three years, I have
23 participated in the District's microbial risk
24 assessment (MRA) study as a member of Geosyntec team
27
1 senior advisory committee. In that role, I've worked
2 closely with the project team providing direction and
3 peer review in all aspects of the MRA study, which
4 evaluated the human health impacts of disinfection
5 versus non-disinfection at the District's three
6 largest water reclamation plants, all of which
7 discharge into the Chicago Area Waterway System
8 (CAWS). In addition, at the onset of the study I
9 provided on-site training to the District personnel
10 on sample collection procedures.
11
The MRA study focused on microorganisms
12 typically present in the feces of humans and other
13 warm-blooded animals as indicators of fecal
14 pollution, including the following indicators and
15 pathogens:
16
Enteric viruses: i)total culturable
17 viruses, ii) viable adenoviruses, and (iii)
18 norovirus.
19
Infectious Cryptosporidium and viable
20 Giardia Lamblia.
21
Salmonella species.
22
Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
23
Fecal coliforms.
24
E. coli.
28
1
Enterococci.
2
This list was taken to be representative of
3 the largely -- Excuse me. Let me repeat that. This
4 list was taken to be representative of the likely
5 universe of disease-causing organisms and indicators
6 that are used to assess fecal contamination. The
7 indicators selected are those which have been
8 traditionally used and those recommended by the
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
10 World Health Organization for assessment of
11 recreational water quality. Salmonella was also
12 selected as it was one of the more hardy enteric
13 bacterial pathogens and can always be found in
14 wastewater and would be expected to be representative
15 of the risks from other enteric bacterial pathogens.
16 Pseudomonas aeruginosa was selected because it can be
17 commonly isolated from sewage and causes
18 recreationally associated eye, skin, and ear
19 infections. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci
20 were included in the list of organisms studied
21 because of its use as an indicator of recreational
22 water quality. The test did not detect pathogenic
23 E. coli. Non-pathogenic forms of E. coli occur in
24 much greater concentrations than pathogenic forms in
29
1 wastewater, and their behavior would be expected to
2 be similar to that of pathogenic strains of E. coli.
3 Cryptosporidium is the protozoan pathogen most
4 commonly associated with recreational waterborne
5 disease outbreaks in the United States today.
6 Giardia is also associated with recreational
7 waterborne disease outbreaks. Total culturable virus
8 assays have been used by the Environmental Protection
9 Agency in the information collection rule to assess
10 risks from enteric pathogens in water and will
11 largely detect the enteroviruses (Coxsackie virus,
12 echo virus) one of the most common groups of enteric
13 viruses found in wastewater. Norovirus and
14 adenovirus are the viruses most commonly associated
15 with recreational waterborne disease accounting for
16 more than 90 percent of all reported outbreaks of
17 viruses associated with recreational water.
18 Norovirus is the most common cause of viral diarrhea
19 in the United States. Adenoviruses are a cause of
20 ear, nose, throat, and respiratory infections
21 associated with recreational waters. They're also
22 the second leading cause of viral diarrhea in
23 children. Adenoviruses have been detected in greater
24 concentration in wastewater than any other enteric
30
1 virus. Thus, they may pose the greatest risk of
2 infection in recreational waters of any enteric
3 pathogen. Enteric viruses and protozoan parasites
4 were included in this study because they have a much
5 lower infectious dose than the bacteria. That is, it
6 takes fewer to cause infection. And they survive
7 much longer in surface waters than the enteric
8 bacteria pathogens.
9
I directed the operation of the Environmental
10 Virology Laboratory, Department of Soil, Water, and
11 Environmental Science at the University of Arizona
12 that performed the analysis of the adenovirus and
13 norovirus for this study using University of Arizona
14 standard operating procedures(SOP's). There are no
15 US EPA-approved methods for norovirus. The
16 University of Arizona method estimates the virus
17 concentration, but does not determine or confirm
18 viability or infectivity. Thus, this method is a
19 conservative estimate of the number of infectious
20 virus present in the water. That is, it detects both
21 non-infectious (dead) and infectious viruses (live.)
22 Adenoviruses are believed to be more common in sewage
23 than enteroviruses and have been a cause of
24 recreational waterborne illness. There are no
31
1 US EPA-approved methods for adenovirus. A University
2 of Arizona SOP was used for the analysis of
3 adenoviruses that includes cell culture and DNA
4 confirmation.
5
The occurrence and concentration of
6 protozoan parasites, total culturable viruses,
7 adenoviruses, and norovirus were generally equal to
8 or lower than observed in other studies by me and
9 others on wastewater discharges and surface waters in
10 general during dry weather conditions. These studies
11 involved both disinfected and non-disinfected treated
12 wastewater and streams into which they were
13 discharged. Some of these studies were conducted in
14 Europe where disinfection of treated wastewater
15 discharge is generally not practiced. The
16 concentration of Cryptosporidium was lower than
17 observed in studies in which I have been involved in
18 previously and other studies reported in the
19 scientific literature in which there are no known
20 sewage discharges. This is because cattle and other
21 animals can be a greater source of Cryptosporidium in
22 surface waters than sewage discharges. The Giardia
23 was also generally lower than that observed in
24 several other sewage discharges from previous studies
32
1 conducted by me and reported in the literature by
2 others. These studies were conducted in various
3 locations across the United States. The total
4 culturable viruses were also lower than observed in a
5 study of a recreational stream in Arizona conducted
6 by my laboratory in which bathers were the only
7 source.
8
It is my expert opinion that decisions
9 regarding the need for effluent disinfection must be
10 made on a site-specific basis. Disinfection is
11 warranted in situations where direct human contact in
12 the immediate vicinity of an outfall is possible or
13 where effluent is discharged to areas involving the
14 production of human food. Disinfection is warranted
15 in situations where its application leads to a
16 reduction in the risk of disease transmission. As
17 illustrated by post-disinfection regrowth of
18 bacteria, relatively poor virucidal behavior and
19 general persistence of disinfection by-products is
20 not clear that wastewater disinfection always yields
21 improved effluent or receiving water quality.
22
There is a great variability in the
23 performance and uncertainty in the efficiency of
24 disinfection. There are many unanswered questions
33
1 with respect to disinfection efficiency data for
2 microbial indicators and pathogens. The available
3 data for the evaluation of disinfection technologies
4 are bench-scale or pilot-scale experiments and not
5 full-scale operations. Therefore, it is uncertain if
6 disinfection designed to remove indicators can be
7 effective in the removal of pathogens and in the
8 reduction of pathogen risk. In applying any
9 disinfectant, it is important to strike a balance
10 between risks associated with microbial pathogens and
11 those associated with DBP's. DBP's are persistent
12 chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological
13 characteristics. The inventory of DBP's that have
14 the potential to cause adverse health effects is
15 largely and highly variable among publicly-owned
16 treatment works (POTW) effluents. The human health
17 effects associated with chemical contaminants that
18 are influenced or produced as a result of
19 disinfection operations tend to be chronic in nature.
20 Therefore, the development of a risk assessment for
21 exposure to chemical constituents, including DBP's,
22 is far more complex than the microbial risk
23 assessment. Risk assessments of wastewater
24 disinfection should consider microbial and chemical
34
1 quality.
2
Thank you.
3
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Tolson?
4
MR. TOLSON: Thank you.
5
My name is Keith Tolson. I'm a risk
6 assessment and statistical specialist working with
7 Geosyntec Consultants. My educational background
8 includes an honors in interdisciplinary science degree
9 in statistics and chemistry from the University of
10 Florida, a master's degree in food science and human
11 nutrition, and a doctorate degree from the College of
12 Medicine at the University of Florida. I hold an
13 adjunct faculty position and serve on the faculty at
14 the Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology
15 where I teach graduate courses in statistics,
16 toxicology, and risk assessment. Prior to joining
17 Geosyntec, I spent eight years working for the State
18 of Florida as a consultant to the Florida Department
19 of Environmental Protection and am co-author on the
20 Department's technical guidance for Brownfields,
21 Drycleaning, Petroleum, Soil & Groundwater Cleanup
22 Targets, and Surface Water Rules. I hold a
23 gubernatorial appointment to the Pesticide Review
24 Council, which is charged with advising the Governor
35
1 on the sale, use, and registration of pesticides in
2 the State of Florida. My professional practice
3 involves the quantification of human health and
4 ecological risks and quantitative cost-benefit
5 analysis as it relates to public policy and
6 regulatory action.
7
For the last three years, I served as the
8 risk assessment leader for the Metropolitan Water
9 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago microbial
10 risk assessment study. I was responsible for the
11 calculation and interpretation of risks summarized in
12 the April 2008 Geosyntec report entitled Dry and Wet
13 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impacts of
14 Disinfection versus Non-Disinfection of the Chicago
15 Area Waterway System April 2008.
16
Today I will provide you with a brief
17 description of the risk assessment inputs and methods
18 used in the study and a summary of the results
19 leading to our conclusions. Namely, that risks for
20 gastrointestinal illness associated with recreational
21 use of the Chicago area waterway are low and mainly
22 due to secondary loading of the waterway under wet
23 weather conditions from CSO's and other discharges,
24 which would not be improved by disinfection of the
36
1 effluent from the District's water reclamation
2 plants.
3
Microbial Risk Assessment Methodology. The
4 process used to reach our conclusions is called
5 quantitative microbial risk assessment. It starts
6 with an understanding that certain microbial
7 pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness. We know
8 this from outbreak and case reports along with
9 carefully controlled feeding studies where volunteers
10 ingest different concentrations of organisms and are
11 monitored for development of symptoms. The key
12 observation from these studies that allow us to make
13 predictions is the dose-response relationship. That
14 is, higher levels of pathogens correspond to a higher
15 incidence of illness. Because we have measured the
16 levels of pathogens in the waterway and can estimate
17 the dose based on the type of recreational activity,
18 we can use the mathematical relationship between dose
19 and response to calculate a probability that an
20 individual might develop illness.
21
In order to capture the range of different
22 exposure conditions, including weather, type of
23 recreation, and activity intensity, we utilized a
24 technique called probabilistic microbial risk
37
1 assessment. This technique involves performing a
2 large number of simulations using combinations of all
3 potential inputs derived from distributions that
4 reflect the true variability in exposure by
5 recreators. For example, we assume that incidental
6 ingestion by individuals canoeing on the waterway
7 will vary over a range and calculations that are
8 performed account for all users, even those that
9 might capsize.
10
The goal of the study was to determine the
11 expected number of illnesses associated with
12 designated usage of the waterways both with and
13 without disinfection of water reclamation plant
14 effluent. Risks were estimated for recreational
15 users participating in activities involving different
16 levels of exposure in dry, wet, or a combination of
17 weather events over the course of the recreational
18 year.
19
Risk assessment inputs were drawn
20 extensively from site-specific data and were
21 developed using state-of-the-science methodology to
22 accurately represent recreational user exposure
23 conditions and risks. Recreational survey studies
24 were used to provide insight on the type and
38
1 frequency of recreational exposure expected in the
2 waterway. For quantitative risk analysis, the UAA
3 study was the primary source for exposure use data
4 for the CAWS. As a part of the UAA, the CAWS was
5 divided into three major waterway segments each
6 associated were a single reclamation plant, Stickney,
7 North Side, and Calumet. Recreational use was
8 divided into high (canoeing), medium (fishing), and
9 low (pleasure boating) exposure activities. UAA
10 survey data were used to estimate the proportion of
11 recreational users participating in each receptor
12 scenario along each waterway segment.
13
Exposure parameters, such as the length of
14 time spent on the waterway and the amount of water
15 that is incidentally ingested per unit of time spent
16 on the waterway, were developed to reflect the
17 variability of each receptor scenario as inputs to
18 the exposure model. Selection of input distribution
19 relied on literature-derived sources, site-specific
20 use information, and professional judgment.
21
As stated previously, dose-response
22 parameters define the mathematical relationship
23 between the dose of a pathogenic organism and the
24 probability of infection or illness in exposed
39
1 persons. Dose-response data are typically derived
2 from either controlled human feeding studies or
3 reconstruction of doses from outbreak incidents. In
4 human feeding trials, volunteers are fed pathogens in
5 different doses, and the percentage of subjects
6 experiencing the effect (either illness or infection)
7 is calculated. While feeding trials can provide
8 useful dose-response analysis data, studies are
9 usually performed in healthy individuals given high
10 levels of a single strain. Epidemiological outbreak
11 studies provide response on a larger cross-section of
12 the population, but dose reconstruction is often
13 problematic. Does-response relationships for this
14 study were developed from regulatory documents,
15 industry-wide papers, and peer review literature.
16
Concentrations of pathogens in the waterway
17 were selected for each simulation from the entire
18 dataset of dry and wet weather samples collected.
19 The proportion of dry and wet weather samples
20 utilized were weighted to account for the proportion
21 of dry and wet weather days in a typical Chicago
22 recreational season.
23
The methodology used in conducting this
24 study and evaluating the risk of recreational illness
40
1 reflect the current state-of-the-science in
2 performing quantitative microbial risk assessment.
3 Similar techniques have been used by the US EPA and
4 other public entities to support decision making.
5 Components of the methodology and results of this
6 study have been presented at four national technical
7 conferences, and three manuscripts are currently in
8 preparation for submission to peer review journals.
9
Results of the risk assessment demonstrate
10 that risks to recreational users under various
11 weather and use scenarios is low and within the
12 US EPA recommended risk limits for primary contact
13 exposure. The highest rates of illness were
14 associated with recreational use on the Stickney and
15 North Side waterway segments and the lowest illness
16 rates on the Calumet waterway segment. Illness rates
17 were higher under wet weather conditions than under
18 dry weather conditions.
19
It is important to note that the US EPA has
20 not developed any secondary contact water quality
21 standards. However, the US EPA has proposed a range
22 of primary contact acceptable risk thresholds and
23 currently has primary contact water quality criteria
24 protective of immersion activities that is based on
41
1 an acceptable risk threshold of 8 illnesses per 1,000
2 swimmers. This is the lowest or more -- most
3 stringent of the acceptable risk thresholds used to
4 base water quality criteria currently adopted by EPA.
5 The results of this study demonstrate that the
6 expected illness rates for receptors were all below
7 the US EPA's most conservative acceptable risk
8 threshold illness rate of 8 illnesses per 1,000
9 swimmers in primary contact recreational waters.
10
Risks were also calculated individually for
11 each of the three different classes of recreational
12 use that span the range of exposures reported in the
13 UAA survey in proportion to the frequency of use for
14 each waterway segment. The recreational activity
15 that results in the greatest number of affected users
16 depends on both the proportion of users engaged in
17 that activity and the pathogen load in that waterway
18 segment. For example, in the North Side segment
19 33.7 percent of the gastrointestinal illnesses are
20 predicted to result from canoeing, but canoeing
21 accounts for only 20 percent of the users of the
22 North Side waterway. In the Stickney and Calumet
23 segments, the predicted illnesses were predominantly
24 from fishing and boating due to the low frequency of
42
1 canoeists in these waterway segments. To further
2 evaluate the risk stratified by the recreational use
3 activity, risk per 1,000 exposure events were
4 computed separately for canoeing, boating, and
5 fishing recreational uses. As expected, the highest
6 risks were associated with recreational use by the
7 highest exposure group (i.e. canoeing). However, for
8 each waterway the risks associated with the highest
9 exposure use are below US EPA's illness rate of 8 per
10 1,000 swimmers in primary contact recreational
11 waters.
12
For the North Side and Stickney waterway
13 segments, the majority of predicted illnesses were
14 the result of concentrations of viruses, E. coli, and
15 Giardia. For the Calumet waterway, the risks are
16 generally lower with multiple organisms contributing
17 to the overall risk.
18
Effect of Effluent Disinfection on Pathogen
19 Microbial Risks. The goal of the study was to
20 estimate the effect of disinfection of the effluent
21 from the water reclamation plants on microbial risk.
22 This was accomplished by evaluating risk under dry
23 weather conditions when the plant effluent is the
24 major microbial source to the waterway in addition to
43
1 wet weather conditions when non-plant inputs are a
2 significant source of microbial load to the waterway.
3 The plant effluent pathogen loads are similar in both
4 dry and wet weather conditions such that the dry
5 weather sampling data can be used to estimate the
6 waterway load that could be affected by disinfection.
7 Wet weather sampling data was assumed to encompass
8 both plant effluent loading (attenuated by
9 disinfection) and non-point discharges to the
10 waterway (e.g., CSO's, pumping stations, and
11 stormwater outfalls).
12
Disinfection of the effluent outfall was
13 predicted to result in a decrease in effluent
14 pathogen loads from the water reclamation plants, but
15 have little effect on pathogen -- overall pathogen
16 concentrations in the waterway. This is because the
17 sampling data shows that a large proportion of the
18 pathogen load results from sources other than the
19 plant effluent. Disinfection results in effluent
20 pathogen risk decreasing from a low level to
21 essentially zero from the water reclamation plant but
22 has little impact in waterway pathogen concentrations
23 affected by current or past wet weather conditions.
24 The results are presented in the table on Exhibit 1.
44
1
There are a lot of numbers here, so let me
2 walk up here to break this down a little bit more.
3
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Mr. Tolson, to be clear,
4 that's an exhibit to your testimony, correct?
5
MR. TOLSON: It is an attachment to my
6 testimony, yes.
7
This table here presents the numbers that
8 are the actually predicted risk estimates. So this
9 number, for example, for North Side for no
10 disinfection, 1.53, would be -- we would expect no
11 more than 1.53 people per 1,000 -- Obviously for
12 1,000 we'd have to go to a million or something in
13 order to get that many people. So it's less than two
14 people per 1,000 we would predict to develop illness
15 from recreational activity on the North Side segment.
16 It's higher, 1.74 in the Stickney and very low, 1.2,
17 in the Calumet. So this is the baseline, no
18 disinfection, overall risk of illness from
19 recreational users that are there in wet and dry
20 weather conditions.
21
If we evaluate this, again, by taking the
22 effluent discharge from the District and attenuating
23 that, but including the dry and wet weather inputs
24 that are still there, we can look at UV radiation and
45
1 see that the North Side number drops from 1.53 to
2 1.32. So there's still significant risk, and this
3 risk is not due to the effluent. It's due to the
4 other sources that are there because the effluent
5 went essentially to zero.
6
The same thing with ozonation and
7 chlorination. These numbers are different because
8 those different disinfection techniques affect
9 different organisms -- pathogenic organisms
10 differently. Again, for Stickney, you can see that,
11 although there was a decrease based on the
12 disinfection techniques, the decrease was not very
13 significant. Again, for Calumet there was a
14 decrease, and there it was not significant at all.
15
Therefore, these results suggest that
16 disinfection of effluent will have little impact on
17 the overall illness rates from recreational use of
18 the CAWS.
19
Conclusions. The results presented in my
20 testimony are based on weather and waterway sampling
21 representative of the entire recreational year.
22 Results demonstrate that, although indicator levels
23 are relatively high at the water reclamation plant
24 effluents and at locations downstream of the plants
46
1 and the North Branch Pumping Station and Racine
2 Avenue Pumping Station, pathogen levels are generally
3 low. Low pathogen levels correspond to a low
4 probability of developing gastrointestinal illness,
5 even for the most highly exposed recreational users
6 in areas of the CAWS in close proximity to
7 non-disinfected effluents from the Stickney, Calumet,
8 and North Side plants. For the designated
9 recreational uses evaluated, the risks of developing
10 illness were less than the US EPA's illness rate of
11 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in primary contact
12 recreational waters. Results further demonstrate
13 that disinfection of WRP effluent will have minimal
14 effects on overall recreational illness rates.
15
Respectful submitted.
16
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.
17
With that, we'll move to the questions, and
18 we'll start with Natural Resources. And we'll let
19 you ask all your questions for all three of the
20 witnesses before we move on.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Good morning. My name is Ann
22 Alexander. I'm Natural Resources defense counsel.
23
Just for clarity, given that your testimony
24 has been presented as a panel, I have changed
47
1 somewhat the order of the prefiled questions. I will
2 do my best to reference which question for each
3 witness I'm asking. In some cases I have had to
4 modify the questions given the format. If I do not
5 specify who I am asking the question to, I am asking
6 it to all of you and any of you may answer. In a few
7 cases where one of you have made a statement in your
8 prefiled testimony or a few other limited
9 circumstances, I may direct a question to one of you,
10 in which case I would like that one of you to answer
11 the question. Then, of course, any of the others of
12 you may chime in with additional information if you
13 see fit.
14
So let me start out with what was -- I've
15 heard your name about three times, and I hope I don't
16 butcher it. Petropoulou. Question number one, which
17 I am going to ask each of you to answer individually.
18 These go to various roles in the risk assessment
19 study. I'd like to ask each of you just to describe
20 briefly for me what specifically your role was in the
21 conduct of this risk assessment study.
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have been the project
23 manager for the microbial risk assessment study, and
24 in that role I had many responsibilities. I
48
1 assembled the project team -- the Geosyntec project
2 team. That includes Geosyntec, myself, Dr. Tolson,
3 and other -- and other staff from Geosyntec. Also, I
4 assembled the senior scientific advisor committee.
5 That includes Dr. Charles Gerba, Dr. Jim Patterson,
6 Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing. I also selected and retained
7 specialized laboratories to perform the work. And I
8 had overall responsibility for every aspect of the
9 work in terms of completing the work within schedule
10 and budget and providing the deliverables to the
11 District.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: When did you first commence
13 working on the risk assessment?
14
MS. PETROPOULOU: From the proposal stage. I
15 submitted the proposal to the District, and at that
16 stage I assembled the project team.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Next Mr. Tolson, please?
18
MR. TOLSON: Yes. I served as the lead risk
19 assessor on the project, calculations of the risks,
20 pulling together the information on exposure inputs.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: And when did you commence work
22 on this project?
23
MR. TOLSON: From the proposal stage.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And Dr. Gerba?
49
1
MR. GERBA: Yeah. I was on the senior advisory
2 committee, although I was the youngest member of that
3 committee. I had input on basically the types of
4 pathogens that we might be looking for for the risk
5 assessment, the analytical methods that might be
6 appropriate to look for these various pathogens, and
7 I also had input on the risk assessment. I did
8 perform -- My laboratory did perform the adenovirus
9 assays and the norovirus assays for the project.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: And when did you commence work
11 on this project?
12
MR. GERBA: In the proposal stage.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: And is it possible for you to
14 estimate for me about how many hours you have spent
15 working on this?
16
MR. GERBA: To this date? Up to right now?
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Up to right now from the
18 proposal stage. Just a general sense.
19
MR. GERBA: Over a hundred.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And now I just want to
21 get a little bit more specific about the tasks
22 involved in the risk assessment. I'm asking this to
23 all of you and each of you who was responsible for
24 each of the following tasks and responsibilities.
50
1
Who developed the sampling protocol?
2
MS. PETROPOULOU: We did not develop the
3 sampling protocol. We consulted with Dr. Gerba to
4 select EPA-approved protocols.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: And what about situations -- I
6 should ask you, were there EPA-approved protocols for
7 all types of sampling that you did?
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: There were. Yes, correct.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Who physically collected the
10 samples?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: The samples were collected by
12 staff from the District. The sampling staff were
13 people -- samplers that the District has that they
14 routinely do this type of sampling. For viruses and
15 protozoan, Dr. Gerba and his assistant trained the
16 District staff during the first week of sampling for
17 the collection of the samples.
18
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up for a second.
19
On neuroviruses, was there an EPA-approved
20 process, or do you need to use an SOP from the
21 university?
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: We used an SOP from the
23 university.
24
MR. GERBA: Can I add to that?
51
1
We followed the guidelines provided by EPA
2 on their web page for microbiology. EPA does have
3 guidelines for molecular methods based on PCR for
4 detecting viruses and --
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Dr. Gerba, you need to
6 speak up and speak this way.
7
MR. GERBA: I'm sorry.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: I just want to make sure I'm
9 understanding the topics. There was the cell culture
10 and PCR for which you pulled your SOP's from various
11 places. And my question actually had to do just with
12 the sampling and procedures followed for that. So
13 it's just to break that down a little bit. And
14 that's my next question.
15
In terms of establishing and selecting
16 protocols for analysis of the samples, I think you've
17 answered my question. Did that come from your lab,
18 Dr. Gerba, those protocols?
19
MR. GERBA: For the protocols for --
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Protocols for analysis of the
21 samples.
22
MR. GERBA: No. They came from various sources,
23 EPA-approved methods, methods for which EPA provided
24 guidance for the methods, and a protocol for the
52
1 adenoviruses -- for the laboratory analysis was SOP
2 from our laboratory, which we'd used in previous
3 studies.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Excuse me. Is that
6 included as a part of the -- The actual piece from
7 your laboratories, is that included or the website
8 included in the report?
9
MR. ANDES: Is it in the overall report?
10
MS. PETROPOULOU: It's in the sampling --
11
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm sorry. You have to
12 answer so we can hear.
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: It's in the sampling and
14 analysis plan, and that is referenced in the report.
15 I don't know if the District has posted that on their
16 web page.
17
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I guess what I'm asking is,
18 is there a direction either here in the report or
19 somewhere else in the record that tells us where we
20 can go look at the SOP that you used? If not, can we
21 get a copy of that?
22
MR. ANDES: We'll check on that. One way or
23 another we'll get a copy.
24
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.
53
1
MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up for Dr. Gerba?
2
I just wanted to clarify, for the record.
3 This University of Arizona method that you used, has
4 it been peer reviewed, or is it accepted in the field
5 as a method that can be routinely used for measuring
6 concentrations of viruses? Can you tell us a little
7 bit more about it?
8
MR. GERBA: This only referred to the adenovirus
9 part of the assay. The total culturable virus or we
10 also call it enteric virus, we used the EPA method
11 for that. The method that we used has appeared in
12 the peer review literature, and it has been used for
13 detection of adenoviruses in sewage in wastewater
14 discharges. And that has appeared in the peer review
15 journal. We only use -- Maybe I should leave it at
16 that.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Just to be complete, would I be
18 correct in saying that there is also no
19 US EPA-approved SOP for norovirus?
20
MR. GERBA: That's correct. US EPA only
21 provides guidance for molecular methods involving PCR
22 for virus detection in water. They have a guidance
23 document for that available, and we use that --
24 follow that guidance document.
54
1
MS. ALEXANDER: Who was responsible for
2 physically performing the analysis of the samples?
3 Who actually did the work with the test tubes?
4
MS. PETROPOULOU: The staff of the selected
5 labs. We had three labs that performed the analysis.
6 Hoosier Microbial Laboratory did the analysis for all
7 bacteria types and also total culturable viruses.
8 Clancy Environmental Consultants did the analysis for
9 protozoan. That includes both Cryptosporidium and
10 Giardia. And the University of Arizona laboratory
11 did the analysis for adenovirus and Calicivirus.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: And who actually performed the
13 risk calculations? Was that you, Dr. Tolson?
14
MR. TOLSON: Yes, that's correct.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: And who wrote up the initial
16 draft of the report?
17
MS. PETROPOULOU: I compiled the report with
18 contributions from every member of our team. I
19 utilized the laboratory reports and inputs from
20 Dr. Gerba and Dr. Tolson. And I co-authored sections
21 of the reports as well.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: After you wrote up the initial
23 draft, was that draft then reviewed by others
24 involved in the project?
55
1
MS. PETROPOULOU: The draft was reviewed
2 internally by our quality assurance manager and the
3 peer review panel in our senior advisor committee.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I didn't quite catch
5 that last question. It was reviewed by the QA and
6 by --
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: The senior advisor committee
8 within our group.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Of which Dr. Gerba is a member.
10
Okay. Who made the decisions overall as to
11 the scope of the study? What I'm including in that
12 by way mostly of example is the number and identity
13 of the pathogens studied and the types of illnesses
14 studied.
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: The Geosyntec team.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: And who are you including when
17 you say the Geosyntec team?
18
MS. PETROPOULOU: Geosyntec, our senior advisory
19 committee, and our subcontractor laboratories.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: In other words, the three of you,
21 among others, collaborated on those decisions?
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Gerba, in your role on the
24 advisory committee, did you at any point disagree
56
1 with decisions or proposals made concerning the study
2 methodology or its scope or any other significant
3 aspect of the risk assessment study?
4
MR. GERBA: No. We were always involved in
5 robust scientific discussions, but I don't think we
6 had any disagreement.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: Now, this is originally from
8 Tolson question number one, but I will direct it to
9 all of you.
10
I would like to know the role of the
11 following groups. The first is Patterson
12 Environmental Consultants. I don't believe they've
13 been mentioned yet. What did they do?
14
MS. PETROPOULOU: They have been mentioned.
15 Dr. Patterson was one of the members of the three
16 members of the senior advisory committee.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Cecil Lue-Hing & Associates?
18
MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct. He has been
19 mentioned as well. He was a member of the senior
20 advisory committee.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Are there any other members of
22 the senior advisory committee that you have not yet
23 mentioned? So far I have Dr. Gerba, Dr. Patterson,
24 Cecil Lue-Hing. Who am I missing on that list?
57
1
MS. PETROPOULOU: Originally during the proposal
2 stage we had Dr. Jack Colford. He informed me that
3 he was overcommitted and he wasn't able to serve on
4 the committee. So he is -- He did not serve in that
5 capacity.
6
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Could you spell that name
7 for the record?
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: C-o-l-f-o-r-d.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Did Dr. Colford perform any work
10 or provide any advice or input with respect to the
11 risk assessment?
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: During the proposal stage, he
13 was involved in the planning of the project. And
14 that was the extent of his involvement.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: During that proposal stage, did
16 Dr. Colford have any disagreements with the
17 methodology or any other aspect of the study as you
18 were developing it in the proposal?
19
MS. PETROPOULOU: He did not.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. A question directed to
21 Dr. Tolson and Petropoulou.
22
Do either of you have any formal training
23 in microbiology?
24
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have limited training in
58
1 microbiology as part of my environmental engineering
2 training, but I am not an environmental microbiologist.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: When you say limited training,
4 what does that include?
5
MS. PETROPOULOU: I took classes and I did
6 labwork in environmental microbiology as an integral
7 part of the curriculum to become an environmental
8 engineer.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Those classes were as an
10 undergraduate?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: No, they were not. They were
12 part of my Ph.D program.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: How many classes did you take in
14 environmental microbiology?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: I took two classes.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Tolson?
17
MR. TOLSON: Yes. I hold a graduate degree in
18 food science and nutrition. Microbiology and food
19 safety are obviously important components of that.
20 Within that curriculum, I took two
21 microbiology-focused classes. One of them was a food
22 safety class. I'm not sure how microbiology -- It
23 wasn't completely a microbiology class, but that was
24 at least half of the curriculum.
59
1
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. This question is derived
2 from what was originally Gerba question 12 and Tolson
3 question 3, but I'm directing it really to each of
4 you to answer, if you could.
5
Are you familiar with a review of the
6 interim version of the risk assessment that was
7 prepared by Tim Wade of US EPA?
8
MR. ANDES: Is there a particular document
9 you're referring to?
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. I am going to present a
11 document. Let me ask the question generally. If
12 they're not familiar, I can clarify it quickly.
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have never received a
14 document from Tim Wade.
15
MR. TOLSON: My answer is that I'm familiar with
16 some responses we got from EPA. I'm not sure that
17 Tim Wade was the lead author on this.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: I would like to have this
19 document marked as an exhibit. This is entitled Dry
20 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of
21 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago
22 Area Waterway System, Review Conducted for US
23 Region V, Office of Water, Review Conducted by US EPA
24 Office of Research and Development. Unfortunately, I
60
1 have limited copies.
2
MR. ANDES: What's the date of that document?
3
MS. ALEXANDER: This document I do not believe
4 has a date on it.
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm not seeing a date.
6
I've been handed the document Dry Weather
7 Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of
8 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago
9 Area Waterway System, Review Conducted for US EPA
10 Region V Office of Water, Review Conducted by US EPA
11 Office of Research and Development. As noted, there
12 is no date on this document. I'm going to mark this
13 as Exhibit 72.
14
Is there any objection?
15
MR. ANDES: No. I would only add that I believe
16 there are other questions concerning communications
17 between -- communications from EPA -- to EPA
18 regarding the risk assessment. There are a number of
19 other documents, all of which have specific dates.
20 In fact, I believe that this document is attached to
21 an EPA letter that we have and that we have copies
22 of. And we actually also have them burned on to a
23 disk.
24
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Which you're going to
61
1 present to the record?
2
MR. ANDES: Yes.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Would you like to present it to
4 the record now for clarity? That would be fine by
5 me.
6
MR. ANDES: Sure.
7
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Seeing no objection, this
8 is marked as Exhibit 72.
9
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
10
Exhibit No. 72, for identification,
11
as of 9-9-08.)
12
MR. ANDES: I have a disk which includes all the
13 documents.
14
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: All of which documents?
16
MR. ANDES: I will provide those in a moment.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
18
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I've been handed a disk
19 marked US EPA Correspondence.
20
MR. ANDES: I have four documents that are
21 included on the disk, and the first one is actually
22 attached to an MWRD e-mail of March 22, 2007, which
23 transmits a message from Linda Holst of EPA March 20,
24 2007. And I believe the attachment to that e-mail is
62
1 the document that Ms. Alexander is referring to.
2 There are two documents attached. That is one of
3 them.
4
Then there is a letter of May 31, 2007,
5 from Louis Kollias at MWRD to Allen Melcer,
6 M-e-l-c-e-r, at EPA with attachments. There is a
7 letter of July 12, 2007, from Allen Melcer at EPA to
8 Louis Kollias at MWRD. And there is a letter with
9 attachments July 31, 2008, from Andrew Tschampa,
10 T-s-c-h-a-m-p-a, of EPA to Louis Kollias at MWRD
11 with attachments. I'm just trying to make sure we
12 have everything that we -- I'm sorry. One more
13 document. This is May 28, 2008, and this is a letter
14 from Louis Kollias from MWRD to Allen Melcer at EPA
15 with attachments. All of those documents are on that
16 disk.
17
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If there's no objection,
18 we'll mark the disk as Exhibit 73.
19
Seeing none, it's Exhibit 73.
20
(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
21
Exhibit No. 73, for identification,
22
as of 9-9-08.)
23
MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to be clear. We're
24 just marking all the documents as one exhibit?
63
1
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I don't have all those
2 documents. I have the CD-ROM. So I would say that,
3 for purposes of the record, if you need to cite to
4 them, you would cite to Exhibit 73 letter and date.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: Do we have any copies?
6
MR. ANDES: I can provide paper copies as well.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Or electronic?
8
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Yeah. You need to either
9 give a CD or a paper copy at least to the Agency.
10
MR. ANDES: Okay. So, yeah. For purposes of
11 the record, any reference to these would have to be
12 to Exhibit 73 and then by date -- I would say letter
13 date.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I will point out
15 that this is essentially the first time I am having
16 the opportunity to review this correspondence which I
17 was not aware previously existed. I will -- It will
18 disorganize my testimony -- my questions slightly in
19 the sense that I may follow up with questions after
20 lunch concerning these documents. So I apologize in
21 advance if things sound a little bit spotty. But I
22 will review these when given the opportunity and
23 return to them.
24
For now I just want to clarify. The
64
1 document that I identified as being from Tim Wade is,
2 in fact, attached in the set of exhibits that I was
3 just handed from the disk to a cover e-mail which is
4 from Richard Lanyon to Kollias dated March 22, 2007,
5 essentially as a transmittal.
6
Returning to my question, are you -- I
7 mean -- I'm asking each of you -- familiar with this
8 document? Have you seen it before? I'm referring to
9 the one attached to the e-mail.
10
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Exhibit 72?
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Exhibit 72,
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have.
13
MR. TOLSON: Yes.
14
MR. GERBA: Yes.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. Now, did any or all
16 of you have any discussions specifically with
17 Mr. Wade regarding his concerns?
18
MR. TOLSON: Yes. We actually had a meeting
19 with EPA, and I believe Tim Wade was at that meeting
20 by phone. I don't recall a lot of his input into it
21 except for an acknowledgment by him that respiratory
22 risks were something that were not amenable to
23 evaluation within this risk assessment. And we came
24 to an agreement that we could not quantify
65
1 respiratory risks. That was really the only portion
2 of his conversation that strikes me.
3
I am looking at -- If this is the letter
4 from him, his initial comments here say that,
5 "Microbial sampling and characterization seems
6 thorough and adequate. World-renowned experts were
7 consulted and retained to conduct the analysis for
8 pathogenic microorganisms and details of the sampling
9 scheme, rationale, and methods are well described.
10 The general approach described in quantitative
11 microbial risk assessment also seems appropriate.
12 The authors do a thorough job of explaining and
13 justifying their selection of dose-response functions
14 and the parameters. Generally citations and peer
15 literature are provided to support their decisions."
16
Based on my conversations with him at that
17 meeting, he seemed to be okay with a number of sort
18 of the issues that we derived -- or inputs that we
19 derived for our risk assessment.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: You say that -- Okay. Actually
21 let me back up a little bit. I don't want to
22 overcharacterize this document because it says what
23 it says.
24
Would you generally agree that following
66
1 the language that you read the remainder of the
2 document includes criticisms and/or pointing out of
3 omissions that he perceived from the risk assessment?
4 Is that accurate?
5
MR. TOLSON: There were a number of points and a
6 number of good points that EPA brought up that we
7 tried. We responded to those, and we tried to
8 incorporate those within those responses. I think we
9 have the response letters that are attached. Yes,
10 following from that, there were a number of points
11 that he brought up that we could clarify.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So is it your position --
13 Is it your recollection that you resolved all of the
14 issues set forth in this document in that meeting
15 with Tim Wade and others?
16
MR. TOLSON: I would not characterize it during
17 the course of that meeting we resolved all the
18 issues. We certainly had a better understanding of
19 EPA's positions there. I believe we went back after
20 that and drafted responses and submitted them to EPA
21 for their consideration.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Following that, did US EPA tell
23 you that they were satisfied with your responses to
24 the concerns they raised?
67
1
MR. TOLSON: Unfortunately, I don't remember the
2 paper trail after that.
3
MR. ANDES: Well, I would refresh your
4 recollection. The letter of July 12, 2007, which
5 we've provided, if you can -- you can review that. I
6 believe the second paragraph discusses some of the
7 issues that were raised.
8
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And that's a part of
9 Exhibit 73?
10
MR. ANDES: Yes.
11
MR. TOLSON: Okay. So that second paragraph
12 says, "In your May 31, 2007, letter you described the
13 steps the District is taking to address our comments.
14 We appreciate the effort you are making to ensure
15 that our concerns are heard and addressed based on
16 descriptions and modifications you are making to the
17 report in response to our comments. Most of our
18 concerns will be addressed. However, we do have a
19 few comments on your plans to modify the report." So
20 it seems that EPA was -- liked our responses to those
21 comments and addressed those concerns.
22
Is that your question?
23
MS. ALEXANDER: My question is, as of today, is
24 it your understanding that EPA's concerns have been
68
1 resolved?
2
MR. ANDES: The concerns raised in this
3 memorandum?
4
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm asking the question more
5 generally. The concerns I would characterize as
6 including those raised in this memorandum, but, as
7 reflected in the other exhibits we'll get to, include
8 additional concerns as well.
9
Is it your belief or understanding -- and I
10 address this to all of you -- that EPA's concerns
11 have been resolved?
12
MR. TOLSON: Based on EPA's comments letter, I
13 would say that most of them have been resolved.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: And just to get specific, I'm
15 looking at the -- what I've characterized as the Tim
16 Wade document, which does not have page numbers, but
17 page 2. I highlight these as examples for purposes
18 of discussion. Mr. Wade said, "In nearly every case
19 where simplifications and assumptions were made in
20 such a way" -- I'm sorry. "In nearly every case when
21 simplifications and assumptions were made in such a
22 way to ultimately minimize the estimated risks." And
23 then he goes on to provide examples.
24
Did you address those specific examples and
69
1 essentially, I would say, fix the problem that he
2 identified?
3
MR. TOLSON: We actually responded to EPA. If I
4 can get that response letter.
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: One moment.
6
For the record, you were reading from
7 Exhibit 72?
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. This is the attachment
9 to --
10
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: It's Exhibit 72?
11
MS. ALEXANDER: It's Exhibit 72, yes.
12
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I'm, sorry, Dr. Tolson.
13
MR. TOLSON: I apologize. We actually have a
14 written response to that. I want to make sure that
15 we have the right ones for you.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Which one are you identifying as
17 the written response?
18
MR. TOLSON: It's in, I believe, Exhibit 73,
19 which is the package of the EPA response letters.
20 I'll get the date here in a second.
21
The District followed up with a letter back
22 to EPA on May 28, 2008. That would be Exhibit 73,
23 May 28, 2008, letter.
24
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And the letters from the
70
1 District -- Who at the District? The author of the
2 letter?
3
MR. TOLSON: Louis Kollias to Allen Melcer, EPA.
4 And attached to that is a May 23, 2008, letter from
5 Geosyntec Consultants, Dr. Petropoulou, to
6 Dr. Granato. In there we have responses to the EPA
7 comments.
8
Now that we're on the right page, you had a
9 question on the specific comment from Tim Wade?
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Let's see where you're
11 going with this. I'll cover specifics to the extent
12 necessary later. Let me just ask regarding the
13 meetings.
14
You described a meeting in which Mr. Wade
15 was present on the phone. When did that meeting take
16 place? Do you recall?
17
MR. TOLSON: April 2007.
18
Dr. Petropoulou, do you know the date?
19
MS. PETROPOULOU: April 10.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: And who was present at that
21 meeting besides Tim Wade?
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: In one of the letters from
23 Mr. Kollias to Linda Holst, I think he has a memo
24 like the minutes of the meeting and he has a listing
71
1 of all participants.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Can you perhaps point that out
3 to me, please?
4
MS. PETROPOULOU: Yes. It's the May 31, 2007,
5 letter from Mr. Kollias to Allen Melcer. And he has
6 attached the minutes of the meeting. And he --
7
MS. ALEXANDER: I found it. Thank you.
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: And then you can see the
9 meeting participants there.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Give me one second.
11
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Is that a lengthy list of
12 participants? Perhaps we can read it into the record
13 because you two are the only two that actually have
14 hard copies of the stuff you're looking at. If you
15 could read the participants into the record.
16
MS. PETROPOULOU: Okay. Meeting participants:
17 Mr. Allen Melcer, Ms. Linda Holst, Ms. Janet
18 Pellegrini, Dr. David Pfeifer, and Mr. Edward Hammer
19 from US EPA Region V, Mr. Lou Kollias, Dr. Thomas
20 Granato, Catherine O'Connor, and Geeta Rijal from the
21 District, and Drs. Chriso Petropoulou and Keith
22 Tolson from Geosyntec Consultants, Dr. Charles P.
23 Gerba from the University of Arizona, Dr. Cecil
24 Lue-Hing from Leu-Hing -- Cecil Leu-Hing &
72
1 Associates, Dr. James Patterson from Patterson
2 Environmental Consultants were present in the
3 meeting. Also, Ms. Cindy Roberts, Dr. Mary
4 Rothermich, and Timothy Wade from US EPA Office of
5 Research and Development, and Mr. John Ravenscroft
6 and Ms. Samantha Fontenelle from US EPA Office of
7 Science and Technology joined the meeting via
8 conference call.
9
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Thank you.
11
Were there any meetings held at which
12 US EPA was present and you were present to discuss
13 the risk assessment after this meeting?
14
MS. PETROPOULOU: No.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: I include phone meetings in
16 that.
17
MR. TOLSON: No, there was not.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Other than the correspondence,
19 which is included in Exhibit 72, is there any
20 additional correspondence you were aware of between
21 Geosyntec -- or contributed to by Geosyntec and
22 US EPA?
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you mean Exhibit 73?
24
MS. ALEXANDER: 73 is the disk?
73
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I meant 73.
3
MR. TOLSON: Just to clarify, that's in addition
4 to the responses to Exhibit 72 from Tim Wade?
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
6
MR. TOLSON: Okay.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: In addition to all the documents
8 in Exhibit 73 that we have before us now, is there
9 anything else out there that you know of?
10
MS. PETROPOULOU: Not that I'm aware of.
11
MR. TOLSON: No.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: So there are no other meetings
13 and no other correspondence other than this, to your
14 knowledge?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: Right.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: I'd like to turn now to the
17 letter dated July 31, 2008, from Kollias to -- I'm
18 sorry -- to Kollias from Andrew Tschampa, acting
19 chief of the US EPA water quality branch in Region V,
20 which attaches something entitled EPA Review of Dry
21 Weather -- I'm sorry -- EPA Review of Dry and Wet
22 Weather Risk Assessment of Human Health Impact of
23 Disinfection versus No Disinfection of the Chicago
24 Area Waterway System. And the first line of that
74
1 states, "This document provides EPA's comments on
2 MWRDGC's dry and wet weather risk assessment.
3
Do you have that?
4
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Excuse me. Let's go off
5 the record for just a second.
6
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had
7
off the record.)
8
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Let's take a break and get
9 some copies made.
10
(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
11
MR. ANDES: I thought the last substantive
12 question was concerning the March 27 document.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: Could the reporter read back my
14 last substantive question, please.
15
(WHEREUPON, the record was read
16
by the reporter as requested.)
17
MS. ALEXANDER: I'd like to turn first, if I
18 could, to the May 28, 2008, letter to Mr. Allen
19 Melcer of EPA from Kollias. And I just want to make
20 sure I understand what is attached to it first. I
21 see the EPA -- The first document attached is EPA
22 Review of Dry and Wet Weather Risk Assessment. That
23 does not appear to be the document that I initially
24 presented, but this is the document attached to --
75
1 Actually I take that back.
2
The document attached here is an EPA review
3 that does not appear to be the same document as the
4 one attached to the transmittal letter dated
5 March 27, 2007, from Lanyon to Kollias. It is a
6 different document. Am I right about that? It
7 appears to be a different document than the one that
8 is attached to the transmittal letter, which is part
9 of Exhibit 73, from Lanyon to Kollias dated March 27,
10 2007. Both of them are entitled Dry Weather Risk
11 Assessment of Human Health Impacts of Disinfection
12 versus No Disinfection. The first one, the one
13 attached to the transmittal letter, appears to be the
14 one I initially presented and characterized as the
15 Tim Wade letter or the Tim Wade memo. And the other
16 one is an additional assessment on EPA letterhead,
17 but I don't know its genesis. It's attached --
18
MR. ANDES: I think we're talking about a
19 copying error. I believe the first document attached
20 to the May 28 document is actually the attachment to
21 the July 31, 2008, EPA letter.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Let me just fix that.
23
MR. ANDES: If you take that off, then I think
24 the first thing you would find after the May 28,
76
1 2008, letter would be the Geosyntec letter of
2 May 23 --
3
MS. ALEXANDER: I see that.
4
MR. ANDES: -- to Dr. Granato.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I'm sorry to make you
6 repeat yourself. But this document that I just
7 pulled off with the attachment to --
8
MR. ANDES: It's a duplicate of the attachment
9 to the July 31 EPA letter, so I would just discard
10 it.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Oh, I get it.
12
MR. ANDES: It's attached to the wrong document.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: So I will set that aside. Now I
14 appear to have everything. Okay.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask that we fix this for
16 the official copy, or are we going to enter it with
17 the miscopying?
18
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: The exhibit is Exhibit 73.
19 What we're bringing downstairs is hard copies of what
20 we're talking about. To ease the record, I was not
21 going to reenter those into the record.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: It just sounds like there was a
23 copying error in his hard copy, right? Did I
24 understand, Fred, right? Not having the documents in
77
1 front of me, it's a little hard to follow. Is there
2 a mistake in the hard copy?
3
MS. ALEXANDER: The only mistake was a duplicate
4 of the attachment. The July 31, 2008, letter was
5 mistakenly included under cover of the May 23, 2008,
6 letter. When the duplicate is removed, you have --
7 The pieces of the document are a transmittal from
8 Melcer -- I'm sorry -- to Melcer from Kollias dated
9 May 28 transmitting a letter from Geosyntec to MWRD,
10 Thomas Granato, dated May 23. And then the
11 attachments to the May 23 letter enclosure says,
12 "Responses to EPA's technical review comments
13 regarding the interim phase one," et cetera,
14 et cetera.
15
MR. ANDES: If needed, we can submit a corrected
16 copy of the disk. But it's simply a duplicate copy
17 of an attachment that was put in the wrong place.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: The first question regarding --
19 I'm jumping now to the May 23, 2008, letter to
20 Granato from Petropoulou and the enclosures. I'm
21 trying to understand the enclosures.
22
There are two documents that are
23 essentially purporting to be -- appear to be
24 responses interspersed with the comments from
78
1 Geosyntec to the critiques from US EPA. As you'll
2 note on the document, there will be a summary --
3 correct me if I'm mischaracterizing any of this -- of
4 the US EPA critique in regular type followed by a
5 bold, italicized response from Geosyntec; is that
6 correct?
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: It's not a summary. It's
8 verbatim the comments that we see from EPA.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: In preparing this response
10 document, did you include every word that was in the
11 EPA critiques, or did you select out what you
12 considered to be the gist of that?
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: No. I took the document -- It
14 came in in Word via e-mail. So I took that document
15 in Word, and I inserted the responses below each of
16 the comments.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. My question then is,
18 there appear to be two different sets of responses,
19 which as far as I can tell are non-identical. And
20 they have the same title, so I can't differentiate
21 them. But the first one is a five-page document, and
22 then there is a -- they're clearly not duplicates --
23 a 15-page document.
24
Could you please explain to me which EPA
79
1 document each of these is responding to?
2
MS. PETROPOULOU: There are two EPA documents
3 that came through, and I responded to each one of
4 them. They are not identical.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Which are the two? Are those
6 contained in Exhibit 72, just so I can match the
7 documents with the responses?
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: It's --
9
MR. MELAS: Do you mean 73?
10
MS. ALEXANDER: 73. Sorry.
11
MR. MELAS: I'm paying attention.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm glad someone is.
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: Yes, they are part of that
14 exhibit.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Turning to this first
16 five-page document, which other document in
17 Exhibit 73 is that responding to?
18
MS. PETROPOULOU: There's an e-mail from
19 Mr. Lanyon to Mr. Kollias, and that e-mail has two
20 sets of comments -- two documents attached.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
22
MR. ANDES: And that reflected transmittal of
23 the message from Linda Holst of March 20, 2007, from
24 EPA which attached two EPA documents, which are the
80
1 ones that are being responded to.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So the first one under
3 that transmittal letter dated March 22, 2007, in
4 Exhibit 73 is an unnumbered document, but it appears
5 to be the same document that I initially presented to
6 you as the Tim Wade memo; is that correct?
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: It appears to be the same. I
8 haven't checked it word for word. And I don't know
9 if it's -- Our document doesn't say that it came from
10 Tim Wade.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So we will need to check
12 that at some point.
13
And then there is a second document which
14 also identifies itself as a review conducted by EPA
15 Office of Science and Technology. Can you tell me
16 which of these documents you saw first, or did you
17 see them together? I'm just trying to understand the
18 history of how these came to be in your possession.
19
MS. PETROPOULOU: I saw them together.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Why -- Do you have an
21 understanding as to why there are two separate
22 documents from essentially the same source, that
23 being EPA Office of Research and Development,
24 critiquing the same document in some similar and
81
1 overlapping ways, but not entirely identical ways? I
2 mean, why are there two documents of this nature is
3 my question?
4
MS. PETROPOULOU: I believe there are two
5 different branches of EPA. One of the documents
6 explains that actually in a note.
7
MR. ANDES: I would also note, for the record,
8 that the first one says the review is conducted by
9 the Office of Research and Development. The second
10 document says it is --
11
MS. ALEXANDER: I just saw that. Thank you.
12 They're two different branches.
13
Okay. Let's turn to the first one, the one
14 that states that it was prepared -- the review was
15 conducted by the Office of Research and Development.
16
Do any of you have any knowledge as to who
17 specifically at the Office of Research and
18 Development prepared this?
19
MS. PETROPOULOU: I don't.
20
MR. GERBA: No.
21
MR. TOLSON: Nor do I.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: With regard to the second one,
23 the same question. Do you know who at the Office of
24 Water, Science, and Technology prepared this?
82
1
MS. PETROPOULOU: I don't.
2
MR. TOLSON: Nor do I.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: In the meeting that you
4 described for which we read the participants in April
5 of 2007, were you at that time in possession of both
6 of these documents?
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: I was.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And you've discussed both
9 of these documents with persons from EPA who were
10 there?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Who prepared the
13 responses that are in bold, italicized text in the
14 attachments to the May 23, 2008, Geosyntec letter?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: I did.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Drs. Tolson and Gerba,
17 did either of you contribute to those responses?
18
MR. TOLSON: Yes. I contributed to those
19 responses.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: What was your role or
21 contribution in preparing those?
22
MR. TOLSON: I believe there were some specific
23 questions that Dr. Petropoulou had asked for me to
24 look at and respond to, and I responded to those
83
1 specific questions.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Gerba, did you have any
3 role?
4
MR. GERBA: Yeah. I responded verbally at the
5 meeting.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. You responded --
7
MR. GERBA: Verbally.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: But, Dr. Petropoulou, do I
9 understand correctly that you actually drafted these
10 responses?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.
12
A lot of the responses to EPA refer to
13 specific sections of the report where we explained
14 how and where we have addressed their comments to
15 make it easier for them to follow through the final
16 report, and those sections were not necessarily
17 prepared exclusively by me. So I refer back to the
18 final report. In that sense, I compiled the
19 document, but I relied on the report which we
20 prepared together collectively.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I understand.
22
Now, would it be fair to say, as a general
23 matter, in your responses to EPA's comments, you do
24 not in every instance make a change in response to
84
1 that comment, but in at least some instances you
2 explain to EPA why you decided to do what you did?
3
MR. TOLSON: That is correct. There are some
4 things that clearly it was a clarification or we
5 pointed out within the document where that
6 information existed.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And just to get to a few
8 specifics there, I'm looking at the first document.
9 Let me make sure I'm not confusing things before I go
10 citing page numbers. Yes. The first enclosure,
11 page 4, in toward -- about two-thirds of the way up
12 the page, there's a bullet point, "GI" -- meaning
13 gastrointestinal -- "illness is the sole end point of
14 risk." The statement is made -- or by US EPA. "This
15 is a major weakness in the risk assessment." And
16 then there's some text that follows that. And then
17 in your response essentially you provide a reason why
18 you only consider gastrointestinal illness
19 quantitatively; is that correct?
20
MR. TOLSON: That is correct.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: And then on page 4, again toward
22 the bottom, EPA has raised a concern concerning
23 exposure to water users through fish intake. In
24 other words, consumption of fish from these
85
1 potentially bacterially contaminated waters. And
2 your response is essentially to give a reason why you
3 did not include that specifically, that fish
4 consumption is typically regulated with fish
5 advisories, et cetera; is that correct?
6
MR. TOLSON: That is correct. And both of those
7 comments were addressed verbally in the meeting. The
8 fish consumption comment, I can't remember exact
9 resolution there. But the first point on the GI
10 illness as the end point is one where I specifically
11 remember conversations with Tim Wade at EPA. I mean,
12 we point blank asked him, "How would you recommend
13 that we would evaluate this quantitatively?" He
14 recognized that there was not a way in which we could
15 do that and agreed -- We came to an agreement that GI
16 illness was the most appropriate way to sort of
17 quantitatively evaluate risk for recreational users.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Now, just a point of
19 clarification. When you say, "We came to an
20 agreement," you're referring to your discussion with
21 Tim Wade. Was it your understanding that the
22 statements he made reflected the position of the
23 Agency or just him? Did you have an understanding at
24 the meeting? I guess the question would be, was it
86
1 sufficiently informal that it really was a
2 conversation between you and Mr. Wade trying to reach
3 agreement?
4
MR. TOLSON: Correct. There were a number of
5 EPA people on the phone. I'm not sure I could
6 characterize it one way or the other. I'm sorry.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: So on this particular point, for
8 instance, do you recall any discussions, agreement,
9 disagreement by anyone else at EPA concerning that
10 point?
11
MR. TOLSON: No. I do not recall anybody
12 objecting and saying that, you know, "You're right,"
13 and pointing out alternative methods that we could
14 have applied. I think it was pretty clear from the
15 participants in the room that we had kind of closed
16 the loop on respiratory illness as a quantitative end
17 point within the assessment. I think they were
18 satisfied with our response and our position on how
19 we conducted the risk assessment.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Moving on to page 5 of that same
21 document, the comment as summarized from US EPA,
22 "Overall this risk assessment does not do an
23 effective job at presenting the actual risk of
24 exposure to undisinfected sewage effluent present in
87
1 the CAWS. More transparency would aid the reader in
2 the confidence of the conclusions."
3
Am I correct in summarizing the response
4 here as, rather than indicating that additional data
5 was provided, essentially explaining why the data was
6 provided and the report was, in fact, adequate?
7 Would that be accurate.
8
MR. ANDES: Can you restate that question?
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Give me one second before
10 I restate it.
11
Would I be correct in summarizing your
12 response as not specifically identifying changes that
13 were made to fix the problem that I just embodied in
14 the text that I just read from EPA, but rather
15 explaining why you do not consider it to be a
16 problem?
17
MR. TOLSON: I see what your point is here now.
18
I wouldn't concur with that completely. In
19 fact, I, you know -- I appreciated EPA's input on
20 this, and we did make changes throughout the document
21 to enhance the transparency and presentation of our
22 risks. While the discussion as presented in this
23 response details points within the document as it
24 existed, I think there was additional changes that
88
1 were made in the document so that we could further
2 the transparency and presentation of those risks.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any knowledge one
4 way or the other as to whether those changes were
5 sufficient to satisfy EPA's concern reflected in that
6 text that I read initially?
7
MR. TOLSON: I believe, based on their response
8 July 12, 2007, that those were adequately addressed.
9 If you'd like, I can read that --
10
MS. ALEXANDER: July 12, 2007. Hold on one
11 second.
12
MR. TOLSON: That was an Exhibit 73 package of
13 correspondence between the Agency and the District.
14
MR. ANDES: You read that second paragraph into
15 the record earlier.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Hold on one second.
17
Is this a document that was attached to
18 the -- No. I'm sorry.
19
The July 12, 2007, letter, is that what
20 you're referring to?
21
MR. TOLSON: Yes, ma'am.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. That's the basis for your
23 conclusion they were satisfied with that -- that they
24 were satisfied with the response that you provided
89
1 here to their concern that the risk assessment does
2 not do an effective job presenting the actual risk of
3 exposure, et cetera?
4
MR. TOLSON: Yes, that is correct.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And then turning, by way
6 of additional example, to page 3 of the second
7 document that is attached to that May 23 letter,
8 about two-thirds of the way to the top there's a
9 bullet point stating, "Conservative assumptions were
10 not made in nearly every case when simplifications
11 and assumptions were made in such a way to ultimately
12 minimize the estimated risks," which is text I also
13 read earlier.
14
Would it be fair to characterize your
15 response as not so much responding to the specific
16 examples -- or changing, I should say, the specific
17 examples that were made by EPA, but pointing out ways
18 in which you consider yourself to have made other
19 conserve assumptions?
20
MR. TOLSON: My opinion is that the comment is
21 misdirected. Our response to this was really to
22 clarify it. It's my opinion that we made multiple
23 conservative assumptions here, not unconservative
24 assumptions. If anything, I believe our risk
90
1 estimates are biased high. Our evaluation of the
2 effectiveness of disinfection probably underestimates
3 that impact -- Sorry. It would underestimate the
4 impact of the total waterway. What we've listed here
5 are specific examples within the document that
6 demonstrate -- that employ conservative assumptions
7 throughout the entire assessment. If you'd like, I
8 can read through them. We've have listed eight
9 specific instances.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: That won't be necessary.
11
MR. TOLSON: Those are is pretty much the litany
12 of inputs that we could put in there. We were
13 conservative on almost every one of our selections.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: My point being though, with
15 respect to the specific assumptions that were
16 identified by US EPA as nonconservative, you did not,
17 in fact, change those assumptions in your final
18 report; is that correct?
19
MR. TOLSON: Within the comments that we got, we
20 did not get a specific assumption here that was
21 considered nonconservative.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Well, let me perhaps clarify
23 with what I'm referring to.
24
On page 4, for instance, I understand that
91
1 you responded to this, so I'm not, you know, seeking
2 a reiteration of your response. But they stated,
3 "High infectivity parameters for adenovirus were
4 dismissed because they usually cause respiratory
5 illness." And you provided a response which didn't,
6 in fact, change that method or that assumption. You
7 explained why you thought it was fair; is that
8 correct?
9
MR. TOLSON: I believe that their assumption is
10 incorrect. You know, we pointed out the
11 rationale why. I think Dr. Gerba can probably speak
12 to that further.
13
MR. GERBA: Yeah. We dealt with that in a
14 qualitative fashion because it was agreed there was
15 no exposure model available for assessing the risk
16 from aerosols. That was one big problem with
17 inability to do that. How much does -- How much do
18 you actually aerosolize from the waterway or any body
19 of water like that? So that already made it -- You
20 had to totally guess on that.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm actually going to cover
22 later the nature of the purported qualitative, as
23 opposed to quantitative, risk assessments. I'm more
24 trying to understand the nature of your responses to
92
1 US EPA's concerns and the trajectory of that and how
2 it ended up.
3
MR. ANDES: Let me follow up on that.
4
Dr. Gerba, if I can refer you to the
5 May 31, 2007, District letter, which included the
6 responses to issues raised in the April 2007 meeting.
7 If you can -- If you have that document.
8
MR. GERBA: I don't have it.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: What was the date of the letter?
10
MR. ANDES: The May 31, 2007, letter from
11 Kollias to Melcer.
12
And I believe on the -- in the attachment
13 the third bullet talks about the plan to conduct a
14 qualitative assessment; is that right?
15
MR. GERBA: Right. The reviewers were concerned
16 that a risk assessment did not consider
17 non-gastrointestinal -- non-GI illness. The non-GI
18 organism Pseudomonas and adenovirus were detected in
19 the Chicago waterway system, but the rate of illness
20 was not analyzed. To our knowledge, there are no
21 dose response data for these organisms to qualify the
22 risk of illness due to dermal and inhalation
23 exposures.
24
MR. ANDES: You might want to slow down for a
93
1 second for her.
2
DR. GERBA: I'm sorry.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: So, in other words, this was
4 your assessment of Pseudomonas as the qualitative
5 assessment of respiratory --
6
MR. ANDES: He's not done with the statement.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry.
8
MR. GERBA: The meeting participants also
9 recognize that non-GI illness can only be considered
10 for qualitative risk assessment. We plan to conduct
11 a qualitative risk assessment of non-GI illness with
12 special emphasis on dermal contact and inhalation
13 exposure. In our analysis, we will include
14 comparison of concentrations found in water
15 reclamation plant effluent and the CAWS to
16 concentrations found in other environmental matrixes.
17 The finding of those qualitative risk assessments
18 would be included in the final report. That's kind
19 of where we left it because of the lack of ability to
20 do that.
21
MR. ANDES: And then in the July 12, 2007,
22 letter from Melcer to Kollias, which responds to that
23 letter and says, "Most of our concerns will be
24 addressed," is it your understanding that this was
94
1 addressed and everybody was agreed?
2
MR. GERBA: Yeah.
3
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. Turn now to the
5 July 31, 2008, letter, part of Exhibit 73, to
6 Mr. Kollias from Mr. Tschampa of Region V. Do you
7 have that in front of you?
8
MR. TOLSON: Yes, we do.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Have any or each of you seen
10 this letter and the attachment previously to today?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: When did you see it?
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: Two weeks ago.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And who sent it to you?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: The District sent it to me.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have either of the other
17 of you two seen this letter -- this letter and the
18 attachment?
19
MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, yes.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: You have, you said?
21
MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, yes.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: When did you see it?
23
MR. TOLSON: You're pressing my memory. I don't
24 recall. If Dr. Petropoulou only got it two weeks
95
1 ago, it would be sometime after that.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have you read it,
3 Dr. Tolson?
4
MR. TOLSON: I believe I have, but I don't
5 recall the details of it right now.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: What about you, Dr. Gerba?
7
MR. GERBA: Not that I can recall.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you seen it before?
9
MR. GERBA: Not that I can recall.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Would it be fair, in your
11 view -- and I address this specifically to
12 Dr. Petropoulou because I believe that you have most
13 closely focused on it -- to characterize this
14 document as critical of the risk assessment?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: I haven't studied the
16 document. I plan to do that, and we plan to respond
17 to these comments.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. In your limited review --
19 and I understand it was limited -- would it be fair
20 to say that at least some of the issues addressed in
21 this document are close to or, in some cases, almost
22 identical to the issues raised in the earlier
23 critique submitted by US EPA?
24
MS. PETROPOULOU: I can't express an opinion on
96
1 that, no.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have you at any point
3 discussed with US EPA the initial concern raised,
4 which is -- and I'm looking at page 1 under the
5 heading Risk Assessment versus Risk Management and
6 Policy Setting -- the critique? And I'm going to
7 select out a few lines here. "This report confuses
8 the purposes of risk assessment with risk management
9 and policy setting. The lack of clear delineation
10 between these two various functions severely hampers
11 the importance of transparency of the risk assessment
12 process," et cetera, et cetera. "However, the main
13 stated objective of the MWRDGC dry and wet weather
14 risk assessment was to evaluate the human health
15 impact of continuing the current practice of not
16 disinfecting the effluents from the District's
17 wastewater treatment plants. The subjective is
18 clearly a policy and/or risk management decision that
19 should be informed by the risk assessment,"
20 et cetera.
21
Is that a topic of discussion that you have
22 ever had in your conversations with US EPA?
23
MS. PETROPOULOU: Not that I recall.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Moving on to page 2 under
97
1 the heading Need for Clear Problem Formulation. Just
2 to summarize, again, another major criticism of this
3 report is the lack of a coherent problem formulation
4 and development of a transparent conceptual model.
5 To get to the specifics --
6
Well, first I should ask you, is that a
7 general issue that you have ever discussed, any of
8 you, with US EPA at any point?
9
MR. GERBA: No.
10
MR. TOLSON: I don't recall those conversations
11 from the meetings.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Specifically, in the midst of
13 the second paragraph under that same heading, there's
14 a reference to, "The approximately 30 percent of the
15 annual flows in the waterways that are unspecific
16 EG urban runoff, CSO overflows, direct
17 precipitation." Then there's a statement, "The
18 significant component is mostly ignored by the risk
19 assessment other than to make a qualitative attempt
20 to discuss Cynomonads. The approximately 230 CSO's
21 on the waterways were not covered, nor sampled,
22 during wet weather events."
23
First of all, I'd like to ask, is that, in
24 fact, accurate that the 230 CSO's specifically were
98
1 not sampled?
2
MR. TOLSON: I haven't evaluated this to
3 formulate a response to the Agency. Just looking at
4 it here and giving my responses, that's inaccurate.
5 Our wet weather sampling was conducted within the
6 waterways sometimes during CSO -- immediately after
7 CSO events. I believe we've captured concentrations
8 in the waterway for which recreators would be exposed
9 that captured the effect of this 30 percent CSO
10 events.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: I understand that position.
12
However, the statement here is, I believe,
13 that specifically the CSOs, as in the CSO outfalls,
14 were not sampled; is that accurate?
15
MR. TOLSON: It is accurate that we do not have
16 samples at every CSO outfall through that.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have samples of any,
18 specifically of the outfall effluents from CSO's?
19
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up.
20
Was that ever the purpose of the risk
21 assessment?
22
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: He needs to answer. He
23 needs to answer the question.
24
MR. ANDES: I thought he did. I'm sorry.
99
1
Go ahead.
2
MR. TOLSON: We did take samples at the pumping
3 station outfall, which we believed to be the most
4 extreme or the highest risk of -- or highest pathogen
5 concentration flowing to the water.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: When you say at the outfall, do
7 you mean the outfall effluent or immediately
8 downstream?
9
MS. PETROPOULOU: The pumping station discharge
10 point, not the outfall of the District's plants.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a follow-up?
12
Which pumping station?
13
MS. PETROPOULOU: We sampled each one of them,
14 the 125th Street Pumping Station in Calumet, the
15 North Branch Pumping Station at the north side, and
16 the Racine Avenue Pumping Station for Stickney.
17
MR. TOLSON: So the implication is that we
18 haven't captured the CSO's. We believe we've
19 captured the worst case inputs into the waterway and
20 accounted for those within our analysis.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Just to correct that a little
22 bit, I don't believe the implication is so much that
23 you didn't capture the effect of CSO flows. Although
24 that may be encompassed. But I think that the
100
1 conclusion is the last sentence there, "This
2 component could have been identified and discussed
3 had a coherent problem formulation, including a
4 transparent and clear conceptual model, been employed
5 in the risk assessment process."
6
MR. ANDES: Is there a question?
7
MS. ALEXANDER: The question is, is that a topic
8 that you ever discussed with US EPA, the formulation
9 of, as they've put it, a transparent and clear
10 conceptual model that would encompass the 230 CSO's?
11
MR. TOSON: I believe on earlier correspondence
12 that we had concurrence with our model that we
13 developed for our approach. And, more generally,
14 these comments fit very well with EPA's philosophy of
15 how to conduct a surplus risk assessment where these
16 are the components. And what we were doing falls
17 outside the surplus risk assessment. And I believe
18 this is being reviewed in the context of the surplus
19 risk assessment. This risk assessment had very
20 different goals than typical risk assessments that
21 may have been reviewed by the Agency.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: What is the basis for your
23 statement that this is consistent with a surplus risk
24 assessment?
101
1
MR. TOLSON: I say that in terms of risk
2 management not being included within the risk
3 assessment with problem formulation as a component --
4 a conceptual site model as a component. Those come
5 from the surplus sort of arena. It would be -- Those
6 were comments that I would expect within this sort of
7 risk assessment. This risk assessment had very
8 specific purposes that were laid out within our
9 document, and they don't really fit within that mold.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Why would one include sampling
11 of the 230 CSO's in a problem formulation that
12 included that in a surplus-type risk assessment, but
13 not in the type of risk assessment you purported to
14 be conducting here?
15
MR. TOLSON: You're misinterpreting what I'm
16 saying. I'm saying the philosophy in isolation of
17 risk management with a problem formulation that
18 considered a lot of other pathways it might be
19 extraneous to what we were looking at within this
20 assessment, which was recreational use within the
21 waterway.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: So -- I'm sorry. I just need to
23 ask clarifying questions.
24
You're saying that the surplus risk
102
1 assessment would logically include more exposure
2 pathways than the risk assessment that you were
3 conducting here?
4
MR. TOLSON: There are transport components
5 within that that are just not considered within our
6 microbial risk assessments. It's a different arena
7 here. We have a very specific objective that we
8 stated within our document. We've laid out a problem
9 formulation because we were interested in -- laid out
10 specifically what we were interested in, all of our
11 inputs, and we've developed our model from there.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I believe I understand
13 that. However, the specific criticism here has to do
14 with failure to incorporate the 230 CSO's,
15 specifically their discharge, into the problem
16 formulation. Isn't it the case that the CSO
17 discharges were part and parcel -- or the impact of
18 the discharges were part and parcel of the risk that
19 you purported to be analyzing?
20
MR. TOLSON: In addition to those CSO outfalls,
21 there are hundreds of other outfalls that are
22 potential sources to the waterway. Every bird who
23 poops on the waterway is a potential source. You
24 can't evaluate everything. What you can evaluate is
103
1 finding out what the concentration is within the
2 waterway from which the receptors are going to be
3 exposed.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: And I'm not asking about
5 everything. I'm asking about the CSO's.
6
Isn't it the case that the impact of the
7 CSO's was part of the risk that you purported to be
8 assessing here?
9
MR. TOLSON: We are purporting to assess the
10 risk of microbial contamination within the waterway
11 during wet weather events, which includes CSO's. It
12 includes pumping stations. It includes storm water
13 discharges. It includes effluent discharges from the
14 District. In that case, yes.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any basis to
16 believe, with respect to this specific waterway, that
17 there are significant microbial contributions from
18 sources other than the plant effluent and the CSO's?
19
MR. TOLSON: I believe that's the case.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: That there are other significant
21 sources?
22
MR. TOLSON: That there are other sources to the
23 waterway, yes.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: The question I asked was other
104
1 significant sources. And I am asking you to
2 characterize whether you believe they're significant.
3
MR. TOLSON: I am -- I don't understand what
4 significant would be. If it's in terms of overall
5 risk, the concentrations within a waterway were below
6 the EPA risk threshold for recreators even under wet
7 weather conditions. So they were not significant
8 under any cases. Whether they were higher than
9 CSO's, that's not true. CSO's were probably higher
10 than the other ones for some pathogens, but not all.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Is it your position that -- I'm
12 going to have to use somewhat soft terms here because
13 I don't think we can talk about percentages. But you
14 mentioned a couple of other sources, such as, for
15 instance, bird excrement.
16
Do you have any basis to believe that that
17 even -- that that approaches the level of
18 contaminants that come from the CSO's? I mean,
19 microbial contaminants.
20
MR. TOLSON: I really wanted you to get poop on
21 the record.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: I have a 3-year-old. I was
23 tempted, but I refrained.
24
MR. TOLSON: There are some organisms for which
105
1 birds could be a significant contributor to the
2 waterway actually.
3
Actually, Dr. Gerba?
4
MR. GERBA: Campylobacter.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: My question really was more
6 specific than that though. It was whether you have
7 any reason to believe specifically in the case of
8 this waterbody that these non-CSO and non-effluent
9 sources of pathogens are significant. I mean, I
10 understand you have a general body of knowledge.
11
Do you know anything specific about this
12 waterway that would lead you to believe that there
13 are other significant sources?
14
MR. TOLSON: Dr. Gerba?
15
MR. GERBA: We're characterizing this as CSO's,
16 as combined sewer overflows?
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
18
MR. GERBA: Yeah. There could be runoff from
19 the sides of the banks, from animal fecal material,
20 or any other type of runoff from land surfaces,
21 residential areas that may flow in there. So it
22 doesn't have to be necessarily a sewer overflow, but
23 direct flow into the waterway.
24
MR. ANDES: We also have --
106
1
MR. GERBA: It could be stirred-up sediments,
2 too. That's a possibility.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: I understand these things that
4 it could be. My question was just -- The only thing
5 I really want to know at this stage is whether you
6 have any particular knowledge of the Chicago area
7 waterway system that's being addressed in this
8 hearing that would lead you to have -- that would
9 give you specific knowledge of the contribution to
10 that waterway system as distinguished from your
11 general knowledge of things that can sometimes
12 contribute to microbial contamination other than
13 CSO's and effluents.
14
MR. GERBA: Specifically, no.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. That's really what I
16 wanted to hear.
17
MR. ANDES: If I can add, we will have at least
18 one other witness who will talk about those other
19 sources.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I want to move on to
21 page 2, the heading Need for Peer Review. Just to
22 summarize it again, the statement is made, "For the
23 report and its conclusions to be scientifically
24 defensible, we strongly recommend that it be subject
107
1 to the same type of external peer review that you are
2 conducting for your secondary contact epidemiological
3 study," referring to Dr. Dorevitch's CHEERS study.
4
I take it from this question that the
5 microbial -- the risk assessment has not been peer
6 reviewed?
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: Internally it has been peer
8 reviewed. And the EPA -- It's the first time they
9 brought this issue up. Perhaps the District would
10 follow up with that.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: When you say it's been
12 internally peer reviewed, are you referring to the
13 review by this -- I'm sorry -- the advisory
14 committee, as you refer to it, Dr. Gerba and the
15 others?
16
MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Would I be correct in stating
18 that Dr. Gerba and the others on the advisory
19 committee are being paid for their work in the
20 review?
21
MS. PETROPOULOU: That is correct.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: And who are they being paid by?
23
MS. PETROPOULOU: From the District.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So other than this review
108
1 by the scientists under the employ -- or, I should
2 say, being paid by the District, there has been no
3 other peer review beyond that?
4
MS. PETROPOULOU: I believe the District has
5 submitted the report to Dr. Charles Hass from Drexel
6 University, and I am not sure on the process where we're
7 going to receive -- when we were going to receive
8 comments on that.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any understanding as
10 to whether Mr. -- Dr. Hass is being paid by the
11 District for his review?
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have not asked that question
13 to the District.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: Do any of the others of you
15 have any understanding on that point?
16
MR. GERBA: No.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Has Dr. Hass, in fact, provided
18 any comments on the risk assessment, to your
19 knowledge?
20
MS. PETROPOULOU: He has provided verbal
21 comments on the risk assessment.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: What was the nature of those
23 comments?
24
MS. PETROPOULOU: He was complimentary of our
109
1 study. He says this is a very well done study. He
2 plans to provide more specific comments.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So he only provided that
4 general reaction; is that correct?
5
MS. PETROPOULOU: Correct.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Moving on to the last item on
7 section 2, the Purpose of the Disinfection chapter.
8 The statement is made, "The disinfection section of
9 this report serves only to obfuscate the purpose of
10 this risk assessment." I don't believe I need to
11 read the rest.
12
Did you ever have any discussions with EPA
13 concerning the inclusion of this section or the
14 specifics that are included there regarding
15 disinfection byproduct, et cetera?
16
MR. TOLSON: Well, this gets to the point that
17 the goal of the study was really to determine the
18 effect of disinfection versus non-disinfection. So
19 that was the main goal of the study. Not including
20 disinfection within it doesn't seem reasonable.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: But you have not, in fact,
22 resolved this issue raised here with US EPA; is that
23 correct?
24
MR. TOLSON: To my knowledge, this is the first
110
1 time EPA has offered this up. You can see that
2 there's a pretty substantial paper trail of comments
3 back and forth.
4
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up on that.
5
Would you read the first clause of the
6 second sentence in that chapter?
7
MS. PETROPOULOU: "While the discussion of
8 disinfection efficacy indicator organisms and
9 pathogens was relatively accurate" --
10
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. What did you just
12 read from? I didn't follow.
13
MR. ANDES: The second sentence of that same
14 paragraph.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. That same --
16
MR. ANDES: Under Purpose of Disinfection
17 chapter notes that it was relatively accurate.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Can we read the whole sentence
19 into the record?
20
MR. ANDES: Sure.
21
Go ahead.
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: "While the discussion of
23 disinfection efficacy indicator organisms and
24 pathogens was relatively accurate, it seems
111
1 tangential to the actual purpose of estimating the
2 potential for human disease associated with exposure
3 to waterborne pathogens or a medium in which the
4 microbes occur."
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I'm going to cover the
6 subject matter of this later, so we'll move on.
7
Refer to page 3, General Issues, in
8 Chapter 5. Just reviewing the first part, Use of an
9 Outdated Risk Assessment Model; e.g., Chapter 5.
10 "Further hampers transparency and confidence in this
11 report's conclusions."
12
Do you have an understanding of what the
13 issue being raised here is? Which risk assessment
14 model was being recommended as opposed to what's been
15 characterized as outdated?
16
MR. TOLSON: I do not. I would be very
17 interested to hear from them on their comments on
18 which model they would consider not to be outdated
19 because I believe the one that we've presented is
20 pretty much the state of the science.
21
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up.
22
Did they ever raise this issue with you
23 before and say that you're whole risk assessment
24 model was outdated?
112
1
MR. TOLSON: No. As a matter of fact, within
2 the comment response letter we got from the Agency it
3 says that the model is a good model. I can read it
4 again. This says, "The general approach described in
5 the quantitative microbial risk assessment also seems
6 appreciative. The authors do a good job" -- "do a
7 thorough job of explaining and justifying their
8 selections of dose response functions." I won't read
9 the rest.
10
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And where were you reading
11 from?
12
MR. ANDES: The attachment to the March 20,
13 2007, Lanyon e-mail.
14
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Thank you.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I am going to
16 refrain from going through the entire document at
17 this point along these lines because I think that the
18 issues become gradually more technical and specific,
19 and I'm going to be reviewing this document and
20 asking more specific questions in the context of my
21 other questioning.
22
MR. ANDES: Can I have one follow-up?
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Sure.
24
MR. ANDES: Dr. Gerba, back to the July 31,
113
1 2008, letter and the discussion of the outdated risk
2 assessment model. I notice that there's a revised
3 framework for microbial risk assessment that's
4 enclosed. Are you familiar with that document?
5
MR. GERBA: Yeah. I attended that meeting and
6 helped write it.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: What are you reading from? I
8 missed that.
9
MR. ANDES: The paragraph that starts, "General
10 issues in chapter 5," the first sentence.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: What page?
12
MR. ANDES: Page 3. It references Revised
13 Framework for Microbial Risk Assessment, and I asked
14 Dr. Gerba if he's familiar with that document.
15
MR. GERBA: I was involved in helping put that
16 together. I was involved in some of the discussions
17 on that and the workshops related to that. This is
18 the model that was used here. Just the way you put
19 it on a flow chart I think is what the difference is,
20 and somebody probably didn't understand it, that it's
21 really the same thing. It just looks different when
22 you present it on a flow chart. That's all it is.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: So it's your position that there
24 is really -- just based on what's here, that there is
114
1 no substantive difference between what is in the ISLI
2 document referenced here and the risk assessment
3 model that was used in the risk assessment?
4
MR. GERBA: Oh, absolutely.
5
MR. ANDES: And I'll add -- I'm sorry. The
6 attachments to the EPA July 31, 2008, letter, we did
7 not have time to make copies of all of those. I do
8 have a set of those attachments, which we can
9 certainly provide for the record. We can make copies
10 and put them on another disk, but they were fairly
11 voluminous.
12
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: And they are not on
13 Exhibit 73?
14
MR. ANDES: They are not on Exhibit 73.
15
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: I think we need to have
16 them as part of the record.
17
MR. ANDES: We will get that accomplished.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: So I'll just ask one last
19 question before moving on.
20
Do you -- and I ask all or any of you --
21 believe it's fair to say that, in fact, not all
22 concerns of the US Environmental Protection Agency
23 with the risk assessment have been successfully
24 resolved at this stage?
115
1
MR. ANDES: Can -- Are you saying is it true
2 that not every -- that there's something left that
3 hasn't been addressed?
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Based on this July 31, 2008,
5 document and everything else that we've been
6 discussing, there remain outstanding concerns of
7 US EPA that have not yet been addressed?
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: I can't answer that question.
9 I haven't studied the comments.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: That's fair.
11
MR. JOHNSON: Not knowing what you're moving on
12 to, let me ask just a question of you, Dr. Tolson,
13 and correct me if I'm wrong.
14
You testified, did you not, that
15 disinfection -- it's your opinion that the
16 disinfection of effluent outfall would have little
17 overall effect on pathogen concentrations primarily
18 due to the pathogen load from sources other than the
19 plants?
20
MR. TOLSON: That is correct. Today is a sunny,
21 nice day, and you would think that it's a dry weather
22 day and it would be reasonable to go out there. But
23 we had a CSO yesterday and the pathogen levels are
24 high in the waterway. So the effect on the waterway
116
1 is not the plant today. It was the CSO events that
2 happened yesterday.
3
MR. JOHNSON: And you are going to have someone
4 else testify as to what those other sources are?
5
MR. ANDES: Yes. And I think also -- The other
6 ancillary point, I believe from Dr. Tolson, was that
7 even during the wet weather events the risk is still
8 low?
9
MR. TOLSON: That is correct.
10
MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.
11
Mr. ETTINGER: May I just ask a question along
12 that line? My name is Albert Ettinger,
13 E-t-t-i-n-g-e-r.
14
Is there someplace in this report in which
15 you actually define dry weather or wet weather for
16 purposes of your calculations?
17
MS. PETROPOULOU: There is, yes.
18
MR. ETTINGER: So, for instance, looking at
19 these charts, when I see something is dry weather,
20 how many days after the rain is it that you consider
21 dry weather?
22
MS. PETROPOULOU: All the dry weather events
23 that we did in 2005, they were days preceded with at
24 least three dry days. There was one exception to
117
1 that. It was, I think, the first sampling event that
2 we did. There was rain the day before, but it wasn't
3 what we define in the report as a significant rain
4 event. And that was defined as .5 inches of rain in
5 the rain gauges that the District has in the
6 waterway. It did rain twice during the dry weather,
7 but that was after we completed the sampling. So
8 there was no rain immediately before -- two or three
9 days before the sampling and there was no rain during
10 the actual sampling event.
11
MR. ETTINGER: And then wet weather is?
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: We had established the
13 protocol. It's reported in the report. We define
14 wet weather as -- a significant wet weather event as
15 an event that happens after three days of dry water.
16 There is an expectation or a forecast of at least .5
17 inches of rain. Also, we didn't initiate the
18 sampling until the alarms on the gates at the pumping
19 stations were activated. So we collectively
20 considered these three major factors, the days of dry
21 weather before, the expectation or the forecast of .5
22 inches of rain, and the high possibility to have
23 pumping station discharges in the waterway.
24
MR. ETTINGER: I'm confused. If you had been
118
1 doing this study today, would this be a dry day or a
2 wet day or neither?
3
MS. PETROPOULOU: It depends on the level of
4 rain last night. If it was greater than .5 and there
5 was a pumping station discharge.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Then this would be a wet day, and
7 it would continue for two more days?
8
MS. PETROPOULOU: All the wet days that we
9 conducted during the study took place when there was
10 actual rain in the waterway.
11
MR. TOLSON: If I can clarify, there's a
12 difference between when we sampled, whether it was a
13 wet or dry day, and how we conducted the simulations,
14 whether we expose a person to the waterway. We
15 wanted to capture the variability -- the high
16 variability between dry and wet. That's why we set
17 up this stratification, as Dr. Petropoulou has
18 described.
19
However, a person out in the waterway would
20 assume that this was a dry weather day. In fact,
21 there are pathogens that are lingering within the
22 waterway that we needed to consider. In the purposes
23 of the risk assessment, there was a numerical
24 calculation of an estimated pathogen concentration in
119
1 the waterway that considered the die-off from the wet
2 weather day attenuating down to a dry weather day.
3
Did that clarify?
4
MR. ETTINGER: It clarified. I'm still just --
5 I can only -- I can only do my calculations if I know
6 what a dry or a wet day is. Then I can make
7 estimates based on days after that, so to speak. I'm
8 still trying to figure out if yesterday was a wet
9 day. It was actually raining. We all agree on that,
10 I guess. Today is a sort of wet day in your studies,
11 or is it a wet day? What is it?
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: All the sampling events took
13 place when there was actually rain in the waterway.
14
MR. ANDES: You can refer to that figure.
15
MR. TOLSON: I'm going to refer to an attachment
16 in our testimony. It's figure 5.4.
17
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Is that in the report?
18
MR. TOLSON: Oh, I'm sorry. It's the report.
19
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: So it's Exhibit 71?
20
MR. TOLSON: 71.
21
If you look at 5-4, there is a --
22
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Tell us what page that's on
23 approximately.
24
MR. TOLSON: It's right at the end.
120
1
MR. ANDES: It's figure 5-4. Is there a page
2 number?
3
MR. TOLSON: The last page before the first
4 appendix, Attachment A. So it's, like, ten pages
5 from the end.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Where are we? Page what?
7
MR. ANDES: Figure 5-4. It's a the very end of
8 chapter 5 immediately before Appendix A. So about
9 ten pages from the end of the whole document.
10
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: It looks like this. If you
11 have a two-sided copy, Attachment A is on the other
12 side.
13
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Here. You can have this.
14
MR. ETTINGER: I'll work it out. That's good
15 for me.
16
MR. TOLSON: Dr. Ettinger, did that address your
17 question?
18
MR. ANDES: He's not a doctor.
19
MR. TOLSON: I'm sorry.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: And I just want to follow up to
21 Albert's follow-up.
22
MR. ANDES: Was there -- I'm not sure if he got
23 a chance to respond.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. I didn't realize
121
1 there was a question pending?
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a real basic --
3
MR. ANDES: I think there was. Frankly, I think
4 we've lost it, so why don't we just go on. I do
5 think there is a question pending, and some day we'll
6 discover what it was.
7
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Actually I believe the
8 question that was pending was whether this was a sort
9 of wet weather day.
10
MR. ETTINGER: As I understand this chart, this
11 is an attenuation day?
12
MR. TOLSON: That is correct. The
13 concentrations would not be as high as they were
14 yesterday during the CSO event, but they would not be
15 as low as they would be during the dry weather.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. When I look at your charts
17 at Tables 3(b)(a) and 3 -- I'm sorry -- 3.2(b), you
18 have two tables here of data on various critters in
19 the water. Is this the same concept or not? I was
20 afraid we were mixing -- I think wet means different
21 things for different purposes in the report.
22
MR. TOLSON: You've got it exactly right.
23
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
24
MR. TOLSON: Under the sampling analysis, we
122
1 captured the blue bars, if you had this color, on
2 figure 5.4, which are the actual measured
3 concentrations. And then on the intervening days
4 we've got the hatched bars, which are the estimated
5 concentrations.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Well, looking just at
7 Table 3.2(b), it says Wet Weather Geometric Mean. Do
8 you see where I am? You have sampling dates. I'm
9 just reading here. It's on the top. The North Side,
10 June 26, '06, 9-23-06. The weather's sometimes bad
11 in Chicago, but it normally doesn't rain for two
12 solid months. What does that mean? I don't
13 understand. Is that wet or dry, or what's going on
14 here?
15
MS. PETROPOULOU: No. What you see here is --
16 In order to calculate the geometric mean, we used the
17 data exclusively only of the wet weather days that we
18 sampled on. We sampled, for example, at North Side
19 between June 26 and September 23, '06. But we only
20 sampled wet days. So the average, the geometric
21 mean, was based on actual wet weather results. It's
22 not all days during that period.
23
MR. ETTINGER: And then to get back to our
24 concept though, wet weather days on this, are these
123
1 days on which it was actually raining or days -- or
2 does it include some of these attenuation days?
3
MR. TOLSON: Day zero is a wet weather day. The
4 24 or the 48 hours are days after the wet weather
5 event.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Would they be included in this
7 chart?
8
MR. TOLSON: The data that went to form that
9 first day zero comes from data collected within the
10 wet weather days in our analysis.
11
MR. ETTINGER: But I'm just saying, looking at
12 this chart, wet weather means the day it rained?
13
MR. TOLSON: Correct.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Or does it include the days
15 after?
16
MR. TOLSON: The day it rained.
17
MR. ETTINGER: I guess I understand.
18
MR. RAO: I just have a point of clarification.
19
You originally mentioned in your
20 simulations you used the dates after also?
21
MR. TOLSON: Correct. It's very important to
22 try to capture that also because today the pathogen
23 levels are higher than they will be in a couple of
24 days from now when there are no CSO events that may
124
1 be impacting the waterway.
2
MR. RAO: Now, looking at one of the charts that
3 you had pointed out earlier, it goes up to 72 hours
4 after that day zero.
5
MR. TOLSON: And the reason that the 72 hours is
6 there is because when we did the dry weather data
7 there was a 72-hour antecedent dry period prior to
8 our collection of data.
9
MR. RAO: In your simulation, you included three
10 days after?
11
MR. TOLSON: Well, we included the entire
12 recreational year. If you go through and look at the
13 meteorological data in Chicago, it rains for a couple
14 of days. Then you have a few days of dry weather.
15 It rains one day. Then you have a few days of dry
16 weather. We used the data from the wet weather on
17 the wet weather days, the dry days, which had three
18 days of antecedent dry weather, for the dry weather
19 days, and filled in the gaps with the other ones for
20 our simulations.
21
MR. RAO: Thank you.
22
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: Okay. We have several
23 people asking about follow-up.
24
Mr. Harley, you raised your hand. Do you
125
1 have a question?
2
MR. HARLEY: Yes. I would like to ask a
3 follow-up to Board Member Johnson's question.
4
He talked about the quantitative measures
5 which you took. Those are related, in your report,
6 to gastrointestinal illness?
7
MR. TOLSON: That is correct.
8
MR. HARLEY: But gastrointestinal illness is not
9 the only potential health end point that could result
10 from exposure to the pathogens in the water; is that
11 correct?
12
MR. TOLSON: That is correct.
13
MR. HARLEY: And we've spoken about respiratory
14 illness through exposure to aerosols. That would be
15 a potential health end point?
16
MR. TOLSON: That is one. But that one is
17 probably not as prominent as GI illness from
18 recreational exposure.
19
Dr. Gerba, you might want to --
20
MR. GERBA: I mean, you can also use death as an
21 end point. I was thinking of that, too. You could
22 calculate that.
23
But, yeah, I think you're talking about the
24 illness outcome. In these studies, the risks were
126
1 initially counted as infections because not everybody
2 who's infected goes on to be ill in actuality. That
3 depends, again, not only on the exposure, but also
4 preexisting immunity wasn't really considered here
5 either, which would be another factor that would
6 lower those results. But you could also -- Those are
7 really -- Illness is and potential symptoms
8 associated with the illness on it. So you have --
9 Different types of illnesses could be used,
10 respiratory, skin infections, ear infections. So
11 there's a range that could be used.
12
MR. HARLEY: Eye infections?
13
MR. GERBA: Eye infections, too.
14
But currently recreational water quality is
15 regulated basically on gastrointestinal illness rates
16 at least related to the indicators that are used.
17
MR. HARLEY: So gastrointestinal illness is not
18 the only potential indicator that we would have.
19 It's the one for which there's the most fully
20 developed protocol to assess; is that correct?
21
MR. GERBA: There's a relationship between the
22 numbers of certain indicators like Enterococci and
23 E. coli and risk of gastrointestinal illness. We
24 don't have that relationship for any type of other
127
1 illness or symptom associated with recreational use
2 currently.
3
MR. HARLEY: Even though those other health
4 indicators may actually occur for recreational users?
5
MR. GERBA: Yes.
6
MR. HARLEY: So we could have, in addition to
7 the gastrointestinal illness that you've quantified,
8 other health outcomes for users of the waterways who
9 are exposed to these pathogens?
10
MR. GERBA: Yes.
11
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
12
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up.
13
Is it accurate to say that the most
14 significant risk of illness or infection would be
15 with respect to gastrointestinal?
16
MR. GERBA: Yes.
17
MR. HARLEY: To follow up, when you say
18 significant, do you mean significant in terms of its
19 negative impact on the person who experiences that
20 illness?
21
MR. GERBA: The illness they're most likely to
22 develop over again. Unlike a lot of other
23 illnesses -- Let's say a respiratory illness.
24 Typically you'll -- You'll develop an immunity to it,
128
1 where gastrointestinal illnesses you don't. You
2 usually develop a long-life immunity. You can get
3 ill with the same norovirus, for example, again and
4 again as many times as you would like to get
5 diarrhea. You can become infected with norovirus.
6 Basically if I get a norovirus by swimming one year,
7 a year later I have the same risk of getting infected
8 by the norovirus again. Generally, for that reason,
9 gastroenteritis is the most likely illness you'll
10 probably get because other forms of illnesses you
11 probably develop a longer term immunity.
12
MR. HARLEY: On that point, if you have someone
13 who is using a waterbody where that particular
14 pathogen is present for which an immunity cannot be
15 developed, that individual every day that they would
16 use that waterway would be at risk of a recurrence of
17 an illness that they may have already experienced?
18
MR. GERBA: Yes.
19
MR. HARLEY: So if you have someone
20 participating in the rowing club or canoeing every
21 day on the river, then they would have every day an
22 equal risk of developing?
23
MR. GERBA: Can you explain that? It's not an
24 additive risk.
129
1
MR. HARLEY: It's not an additive risk, right.
2 It's frequency of use?
3
MR. GERBA: Yes.
4
MR. HARLEY: I have another question about this.
5 We've been talking about gastrointestinal illnesses
6 as if we all know exactly what that means. I assume
7 there are gastrointestinal illnesses and then there
8 are gastrointestinal illnesses in terms of their
9 severity on the human receptors.
10
What are the range of gastrointestinal
11 illnesses in terms of their actual impacts on people
12 who develop those illnesses?
13
MR. GERBA: Usually when we're referring to
14 that, it's diarrhea that we're referring to. It can
15 be mild or severe depending on the individual
16 organism.
17
MR. HARLEY: Could there be more severe outcomes
18 than diarrhea?
19
MR. GERBA: With different agent there could be,
20 for example.
21
MR. HARLEY: And people who have compromised
22 immune systems, I suspect, might be subject to a
23 greater severity of health outcome?
24
MR. GERBA: Yeah. The severity would be
130
1 greater, but not the risk necessarily of getting
2 infected.
3
MR. HARLEY: And did you take into account
4 susceptible sub-populations in assessing
5 gastrointestinal quantitative outcomes?
6
MR. GERBA: Of potential types of illnesses.
7 The risk of infection, of course, we would use is
8 conservative, so that would take that into account.
9 This group has never been shown. It takes fewer
10 organisms to infect. Just the severity of the
11 outcome is greater. Most of those outcomes are --
12 are small children, people over 65 generally fall
13 into that group, and generally immunocompromised
14 individuals to give you a rough group on that -- the
15 group that's involved.
16
MR. TOLSON: If I could follow up.
17
Within our -- Particularly in our secondary
18 attack rate dose response assessments, we did
19 consider sensitive individuals because those data
20 were mostly from nursing homes or daycare centers.
21 So we actually skewed the data and biased it to be a
22 little more conservative there because we used attack
23 rates that are intended to come from outbreaks that
24 were associated with those individuals.
131
1
MR. HARLEY: May I ask a couple more follow-up
2 questions, but I don't want to distract either from
3 Ann's line of questioning or from other questions
4 that people may have?
5
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If they're follow-ups, then
6 it wouldn't be a distraction, correct? Go ahead,
7 Mr. Harley.
8
MR. HARLEY: Did the total number of potentially
9 exposed individuals enter into your risk assessment,
10 or is that more of a risk management exercise?
11
MR. TOLSON: You hit it right on the nose. We
12 developed risks per 1,000 illnesses --1,000 events.
13 Excuse me.
14
MR. HARLEY: Gastrointestinal --
15
MR. TOLSON: Gastrointestinal illness per 1,000
16 events.
17
MR. HARLEY: So it's not the full range of
18 possible outcomes?
19
MR. TOLSON: That's correct.
20
MR. HARLEY: If you have a waterbody where you
21 have a very high level of pathogens but you have five
22 people a year using it by comparison to a waterbody
23 where you have maybe lower levels of pathogens but a
24 million people a year using it, did that type of
132
1 variable enter into the way you looked at the CAWS?
2
MR. TOLSON: Well, we didn't find a waterbody
3 with high levels of pathogens is really the first
4 point at least on the CAWS. But the only difference
5 that it would make there is that you might consider
6 population immunity if you had a large number of
7 people interacting with the waterbody. So having a
8 large population would actually tend to lower your
9 overall risk because you'd have more immunity within
10 the population. We considered that nobody had
11 immunity. Everybody was naive going to the waterway,
12 so our estimates are probably biased high in that
13 respect.
14
MR. HARLEY: I guess my question has a little
15 bit different emphasis.
16
In the sense that you were talking about 1
17 in 125 or 8 in 1,000 as being a threshold, if you
18 have 100,000 people using the water, that would mean
19 acceptable would be 8,000. Did you ever try to
20 estimate in terms of total numbers of users of the
21 CAWS how many people would likely be affected by
22 gastrointestinal illness as a result of exposure to
23 pathogens in the CAWS?
24
MR. ANDES: That math wasn't quite correct.
133
1
MR. GERBA: That's more of a dynamic risk
2 assessment or a community risk assessment.
3 Generally -- I'll just give you a professional
4 opinion. I don't like using those because then it
5 makes the risk seem insignificant. If you say 8,000
6 people get Salmonella from using the CAWS, I can tell
7 you there's 80,000 that are going to get ill from
8 eating food contaminated with Salmonella. So I think
9 we use the more conservative risk estimate of the
10 individuals using the CAWS rather than looking at the
11 community. I think that -- It mediates the risk of
12 what it truly is because you're comparing the
13 community risk. The amount of people who get
14 infected from the waterway is insignificant compared
15 to the amount that are going to get gastroenteritis
16 from the food supply, for example, or other exposures
17 in your environment. That's why I think the risk
18 aiming it for the individuals on the waterway was the
19 way to do it, to make it conservative.
20
MR. HARLEY: I just have one other follow-up
21 question. Then I will exit to give other people a
22 chance at least for now.
23
Dr. Gerba, on that point in your
24 testimony -- your prefiled testimony, you counsel a
134
1 site specific approach as opposed to a
2 one-size-fits-all approach to deal with pathogens in
3 a waterway like we find in the CAWS; is that correct?
4
MR. GERBA: Yes.
5
MR. HARLEY: One of the factors that you say
6 that's key in that site specific regulatory approach
7 would be is direct human contact in the immediate
8 vicinity of an outfall possible? Have I misstated
9 that, or is that correct?
10
MR. GERBA: I think that's generally the
11 statement in the immediate vicinity of an outfall.
12
MR. HARLEY: Do you know if direct human contact
13 in the immediate vicinity of the outfall from the
14 Calumet Wastewater Treatment Plant is possible?
15
MR. ANDES: Let me clarify first what "direct
16 human contact" is.
17
MR. HARLEY: Whatever his meaning was when he
18 made the statement in his prefiled testimony.
19
MR. GERBA: You mean at the outfall primary
20 contact is it possible?
21
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
22
MR. GERBA: At the Stickney facility I don't see
23 how it was because the land was --
24
MR. HARLEY: What facility?
135
1
MR. GERBA: At Stickney.
2
MR. HARLEY: I was asking about Calumet
3
MR. GERBA: Oh, Calumet.
4
MR. ANDES: Is the primary contact --
5
MR. GERBA: Could you restate the question?
6
MR. HARLEY: I don't think you used the word
7 "primary." I think you used the word "direct human
8 contact"
9
MR. GERBA: Was it possible?
10
MR. ANDES: Explain your term "direct human
11 contact."
12
MR. GERBA: Direct human contact means swimming
13 in it -- purposeful swimming.
14
The reason I was hesitating is I don't know
15 what the access was at that plant -- or I don't
16 recall. I remember at the Stickney plant that the
17 land was owned by the District and on the other side
18 there was an industrial facility. So I don't think
19 it was even possible from the shore. Maybe somebody
20 could go out in a boat and jump in it. Then it might
21 be possible.
22
MR. HARLEY: A capsized watercraft?
23
MR. GERBA: Yes.
24
MR. HARLEY: But capsized recreational --
136
1
MR. GERBA: Well, I won't consider that primary
2 because primary is purposeful swimming in the water
3 to me.
4
MR. HARLEY: Thank you for clarifying. I'm
5 sorry. Thank you.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Can I follow up on that?
7
What do you mean by "in the vicinity"?
8 Swimming in the outfall? Ten feet from the outfall?
9 What would you consider to begin the vicinity of the
10 outfall?
11
MR. GERBA: A particular outfall, you mean, or
12 any outfall?
13
MR. ETTINGER: Any outfall. Yours was a general
14 statement, I believe, in your testimony. I'm just
15 asking what generally.
16
MR. GERBA: It's so site specific. I couldn't
17 give you a specific answer on it. It depends a lot
18 on the hydrology of the situation. If you have an
19 outfall in the middle of the ocean -- a mile off the
20 ocean and it's 200 down feet, that's a different
21 situation than flowing into an area where there's a
22 recreational beach. So it's very site specific.
23
MR. ETTINGER: Are you basically saying that we
24 should not disinfect anywhere in the country except
137
1 with discharges that are immediately upstream of a
2 beach?
3
MR. GERBA: No. I said it's a site specific
4 issue in the situation of what is being discharged to
5 the waterway.
6
MR. ETTINGER: What would lead -- What would
7 lead you to decide to disinfect? Give me an example
8 of where you would disinfect from a discharge that
9 wasn't immediately upstream of the beach.
10
MR. GERBA: In the marine environments,
11 certainly trying to protect shell fish areas.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Shell fish?
13
MR. GERBA: Yeah.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Other than that -- Except for
15 protecting shell fish, we only have to disinfect
16 immediately upstream of a beach?
17
MR. ANDES: Are you asking his personal opinion?
18
MR. ETTINGER: I guess that's what I'm asking.
19
MR. GERBA: This is just personal opinion. It
20 depends on the hydrology of the situation, the level
21 of pathogens in the water, the types of disinfects
22 that might be utilized, and the use of the beach. Is
23 the beach really used? What are the management goals
24 for use of that beach?
138
1
MR. ETTINGER: So then we wouldn't even
2 disinfect immediately above all beaches if the beach
3 wasn't used enough?
4
MR. GERBA: Typically, for example, in Europe
5 they don't disinfect sewage discharges to rivers.
6 It's a management decision there that those waterways
7 are not going to be used for primary recreational
8 contact. In that situation, no.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know that?
10
MR. GERBA: Yeah. I actually have been to
11 Europe a lot, and I verified that in an e-mail with a
12 colleague just last week.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know about the sewage
14 treatment plant in Dublin?
15
MR. GERBA: Dublin I do not know.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know about the sewage
17 treatment plant in Munich?
18
MR. GERBA: No.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Thanks.
20
ARBITRATOR TIPSORD: If there's no other further
21 follow-up along that line, let's take lunch and come
22 back in about an hour.
23
(WHEREUPON, the matter was adjourned.)
24
139
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF K A N E )
3
4
I, MARGARET R. BEDDARD, a Certified Shorthand
5 Reporter of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify
6 that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at
7 the hearing aforesaid and that the foregoing is a
8 true, complete, and correct transcript of the
9 proceedings of said hearing as appears from my
10 stenographic notes so taken and transcribed by me.
11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my hand at
12 Chicago, Illinois, this _____ day of September, 2008.
13
14
15
16
____________________________
Certified Shorthand Reporter
17
CSR Certificate No. 84-3565.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24