0001
1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ) R08-09
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) (Rulemaking-
4 CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM ) Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES )
5 RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS )
TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts )
6 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
7
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the
8 above-entitled cause before Hearing Officer Marie
9 Tipsord, called by the Illinois Pollution Control
10 Board, taken before Laura Mukahirn, CSR, a notary
11 public within and for the County of Cook and State
12 of Illinois, at the Thompson Building, 100 West
13 Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, on the 10th day of
14 September, 2008, commencing at the hour of 1:00 p.m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0002
1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2
MS. MARIE TIPSORD, Hearing Officer
MR. TANNER GIRARD, Acting Chairman
3
MR. ANAND RAO
MR. NICHOLS MELAS
4
Appearing on behalf of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board
5
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
7
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217)782-5544
8
BY: MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS
MS. STEPHANIE DIERS
9
MR. ROBERT SULSKI
MR. SCOTT TWAIT
10
MR. HOWARD ESSIG
11
BARNES & THORNBURG
One North Wacker Drive
12
Suite 4400
Chicago, Illinois 6606-2833
13
(312)357-1313
BY: MR. FREDRIC P. ANDES
14
Appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0003
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good
2
afternoon. I hope everyone had a nice lunch.
3
And I believe we are ready to turn to the
4
IEPA's questions. There are prefiled
5
questions for -- we finished with
6
Dr. Petropoulou, so we're ready for Dr. Gerba
7
or Dr. Tolson.
8
MS. DIERS: Dr. Gerba, I'm going to
9
start with Question 3 of our prefiled
10
questions. On Page 2 of your prefiled
11
testimony you state, the indicators selected
12
are those which have been traditionally used
13
and those recommended by the United States
14
Environmental Protection Agency and the World
15
Health Organization for assessment of
16
recreational water quality, NRC 2004.
17
First, could you please
18
explain which organisms were chosen because
19
they were traditionally used?
20
DR. GERBA: Okay. On our list
21
judicial ones would be fecal coliforms, E.
22
Coli, enterococci. Some European countries
23
actually have used salmonella as an indicator
24
in recreational water quality and viruss.
0004
1
MS. DIERS: And the next question,
2
which organisms were chosen because they were
3
recommended by U.S. EPA for assessment of
4
recreational water qualities?
5
DR. GERBA: Basically enterococci and
6
E. Coli, although fecal coliforms have been
7
used, of course.
8
MS. DIERS: And which organisms were
9
chosen because they were recommended by WHO
10
for assessment of recreational water quality?
11
DR. GERBA: The World Health
12
Organization recommends a number of organisms
13
and criteria and for potentially selection of
14
different organisms. But fecal coliforms,
15
E. Coli, and enterococci are also on that
16
list.
17
MS. DIERS: I'm going to jump down to
18
No. 6.
19
MR. ETTINGER: May I ask one question
20
about that? Do you like any of those
21
indicators?
22
DR. GERBA: Do I like them?
23
MR. ETTINGER: Yeah. Do you think any
24
of them are -- indicate whether pathogens are
0005
1
present or not?
2
DR. GERBA: No. There's no -- I mean
3
many studies have shown there's really no
4
direct correlation between the various
5
pathogens, particularly the viruss, I should
6
say, and the protozoa and parasites and the
7
indicators. That's -- the traditional ones I
8
mentioned, the fecal coliform, the E. Coli
9
and enterococci. It's one of the reasons
10
pathogens were actually done as part of this
11
study.
12
MR. ETTINGER: So are you aware of any
13
indicator that you would use?
14
DR. GERBA: There's pluses and minuses
15
to use of any indicator, but one of the big
16
problems with any of the indicators currently
17
in common use is they don't necessarily
18
relate to the occurrence of various pathogens
19
in the water. For example, if I chlorinated
20
sewage effluence, cryptosporidium or Giardia
21
are fairly resistant to chlorination. These
22
indicators are not. So it's hard to
23
establish a correlation with it. If I used
24
UV light -- adenovirus, they're resistant to
0006
1
UV light where the bacterial indicators are
2
very susceptible. So you can have situation
3
with hardly any indicators with a lot of
4
pathogens.
5
MR. ETTINGER: And I think you said
6
none of the traditional indicators, they all
7
have problems -- are there any -- I'm
8
sorry -- untraditional indicators that you
9
like better, or is there anything you would
10
use other than correctly measuring pathogens?
11
DR. GERBA: I think in the future a
12
combination of actually looking for certain
13
pathogens which might create the greatest
14
risk that some of my colleagues propose using
15
adenoviruses because they're in greater
16
abundance than a lot of the other water-born
17
pathogens, particularly the enteric viruss.
18
Other people in the past have even suggested
19
enteroviruses as better indicator of the
20
risk. To give you -- bacteroides has been
21
suggested, another bacterial group, anaerobic
22
bacteria that occurred in the human gut, for
23
example, and other types of anaerobic
24
bacteria have been suggested as potential
0007
1
better indicators because they're more
2
associated with fecal pollution; and some of
3
them, more specifically, with human
4
intestinal tract, an indicator of human fecal
5
pollution. And they've also been suggested
6
and studied a lot. But, unfortunately,
7
they're anaerobic organisms and are more
8
difficult to work with. Bacteriophages have
9
been suggested and coliphages which are
10
bacterial viruses have also been suggested as
11
indicators of the recreational water quality.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Independent of what has
13
been suggested, is there any of them that you
14
like? If you were stuck with some sort of
15
indicators, are there any of them that you
16
like?
17
DR. GERBA: You know, not that I can
18
really pick out without -- you know, not
19
offhand I couldn't really say, pick one.
20
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
21
MS. DIERS: As I said, I'm going to go
22
to Question 6 on the prefiled questions. On
23
Page 4 of your prefiled testimony, you state
24
that levels of pathogens found in the CAWS
0008
1
were equal to or lower than values you have
2
observed in other places with both
3
disinfected and undisinfected effluents. Is
4
it your professional opinion that the common
5
practice of effluent disinfection at
6
wastewater treatment plants in the United
7
States is unwarranted based on the science?
8
DR. GERBA: I think that's really a
9
policy and management question rather than a
10
science question.
11
MS. DIERS: Okay. Question 7: On
12
Page 5 of your prefiled testimony, you state
13
that disinfection is warranted in situations
14
where direct human contact in the immediate
15
vicinity of an outfall is possible or where
16
effluent is discharged to areas involving the
17
production of human food. And I believe you
18
answered our first one. So I'm going to ask,
19
what do you mean by areas involving the
20
production of human food?
21
DR. GERBA: I think I covered that. I
22
was talking about shellfish in the marine
23
environment.
24
MS. DIERS: Is that all, just the
0009
1
shellfish?
2
DR. GERBA: Yeah. Because shellfish
3
concentrate viruses, and particularly viruses
4
from the -- maybe 1,000 times above levels
5
you find in the ambient environment. So they
6
are a particular issue.
7
Other types of seafood
8
could -- and also consumed raw by a lot of
9
people. That's the other consumer -- other
10
types of seafoods are usually cooked.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If I may,
12
Dr. Gerba, what about water that might then
13
be used for irrigation, would that be --
14
DR. GERBA: Do I think it should be
15
disinfected?
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
17
DR. GERBA: If it's food crops,
18
definitely. And that's a decision in the
19
United States by the individual states. In
20
California, I believe it -- or maybe not.
21
You don't disinfect -- you don't have to
22
disinfect the sewage effluent if it's
23
nonhuman food crops that are being irrigated.
24
And that's done in practice in California.
0010
1
But if it's human food crops, not only should
2
it be disinfected, but it also should be
3
given tertiary treatment and filtered. There
4
are a lot of steps before -- The situations
5
where I've seen that done, usually it's
6
advanced tertiary treatment using -- going
7
through ultrafiltration membranes and that.
8
The assurance here is because it's going to
9
be used for human consumption has to be very
10
high that there's no pathogens. And
11
oftentimes pathogen levels are monitored in
12
the at least the initial phases of those
13
types of situations.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And, to your
15
knowledge, there's no shellfish or use of
16
CAWS waterway system for irrigation; is that
17
correct?
18
DR. GERBA: No, not that I'm aware of.
19
MS. DIERS: Question 8: You state
20
that it is not clear that wastewater
21
disinfection always yields improved effluent
22
or receiving water quality. Is it your
23
testimony that disinfection should only be
24
required when it is demonstrated to yield
0011
1
water quality improvements?
2
DR. GERDA: It depends on the
3
objectives on what the water is going to be
4
used for and the impact. That's really, I
5
think, more management decisions, because it
6
depends on how the water is going to be used
7
in discharge or what impact might be to the
8
users of that water and how that impact takes
9
place.
10
MS. DIERS: Based on your -- this is
11
Question 9. Based on your experience, do you
12
have an opinion one way or another what
13
indicator organism or organisms would you
14
recommend to U.S. EPA to use in the
15
establishment of water quality criteria for
16
the protection of primary and secondary
17
contact recreational activities?
18
DR. GERBA: I really don't have an
19
opinion on that right now which one might be
20
better than another.
21
MS. DIERS: And my last one is
22
Question 11: Page 5 of your prefiled
23
testimony you state, therefore, it is
24
uncertain if disinfection designed to remove
0012
1
indicators can be effective in the removal of
2
pathogens and in the reduction of pathogen
3
risk. Could you please explain what you mean
4
by this statement?
5
DR. GERBA: Yes. One example would be
6
cryptosporidium, and the levels of chlorine
7
usually apply in a lot of wastewater
8
treatment plants I've seen. It would have no
9
effect on the cryptosporidium because it's so
10
resistant to chlorine. In fact, a lot of the
11
outbreaks we see in swimming pools today are
12
due to cryptosporidium because it can
13
tolerate the one, three and four milligrams
14
per liter of chlorine that are in swimming
15
pools. So that would be one example. If we
16
go to ultraviolet light, certainly in our own
17
research and others, using UV light systems
18
for disinfection wastewater, you'll find a
19
lot more adenoviruses being released into the
20
environment than would be if you were using
21
chlorine. So, yeah, you'd have a situation
22
where you would almost -- you certainly could
23
meet standards, and other people have shown
24
this, and still have a lot of adenoviruses
0013
1
being present in the water because they're so
2
resistant to ultraviolet light.
3
MS. DIERS: I think that's all I have
4
for Dr. Gerba.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's move
6
to your questions for Dr. Tolson.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Dr. Tolson, I
8
think it might have been Mr. Gerba who said
9
earlier that low is a relative term. So I'm
10
going to ask you a couple of questions about
11
your use of the word low. You conclude -- in
12
Question No. 2 for you it says you conclude
13
that risk for gastrointestinal illness
14
associated with recreational use of the
15
Chicago area waterway are low. So can you
16
tell us what would be a high rate, high risk
17
of illness, high rate of risk of illness?
18
Sorry.
19
DR. TOLSON: Dr. Gerba is right. It
20
is a relevant term. And the benchmark we use
21
to sort of set that is the acceptable risk
22
for primary contact recreation of eight per
23
1,000.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: So you rely on the
0014
1
eight per 1,000 in the U.S. EPA 1986 National
2
Criteria Document as a dividing line between
3
low and high or acceptable and unacceptable?
4
DR. TOLSON: No. We're not saying
5
anything about that particular standard.
6
What we're just saying is that here is a
7
number, and you put that number in
8
perspective. We're comparing it to this
9
screening standard, this number that's out
10
there just to give the reader a sense for
11
where that would fall within risks that are
12
otherwise reported.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: So it's low relative to
14
eight, the numbers you counted --
15
DR. TOLSON: And four and, yeah, and
16
six.
17
MS. WILHITE: So it's low -- I guess
18
that's my question. Would six be low?
19
DR. TOLSON: In order to -- either I
20
could report the number as two, or I could
21
put it in context of it's a high or low. And
22
to put in context of high or low, you need to
23
come up with a threshold, and there's not
24
many out there. One of them is the
0015
1
U.S. EPA primary which is the lowest that EPA
2
has come out with of 8 per thousand. So it's
3
low relative to that number.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: I have some other
5
questions related to that, but I guess I'll
6
go in order for now.
7
No. 3, you also conclude that the
8
risks associated with recreational use of the
9
CAWS are mainly due to secondarily loading of
10
the waterway under wet weather conditions
11
from CSOs and other dischargers, unquote.
12
What do you base this conclusion mainly on?
13
MR. ANDES: Can I clarify something?
14
On that -- That's a conclusion for the whole
15
report, so.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: But it's quoted from
17
his testimony. That's where the quote is
18
from.
19
MR. ANDES: I'm just trying to figure
20
out. You could say he bases it on everything
21
in the report --
22
MS. WILLIAMS: What in the report does
23
he base it on?
24
DR. TOLSON: We've covered a lot of
0016
1
this previously. But I think if you look at
2
Exhibit 71, Table 5.9 as a summary result
3
table, and I believe this was actually in my
4
prefiled testimony also as Exhibit 1. I'm
5
sorry. It was not. But it's in the report.
6
And this shows risk from dry weather and
7
combined dry/wet weather.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: 5-9? Am I looking at
9
the wrong thing?
10
DR. TOLSON: Let me change that. I'm
11
sorry. I had the wrong one. Let's go with
12
5-14. Because that shows disinfection versus
13
nondisinfection. So Exhibit 71, Table 5-14.
14
And there it shows, for example, North Side
15
we have a 1.53 illnesses per 1,000 or 15 per
16
10,000 or 153 per 100,000. And compare that
17
to including disinfection by, for example, UV
18
which was the most efficacious in this case
19
was 1.32 per 1,000.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: So it was the
21
difference between the risks that you
22
calculate for undisinfected versus
23
disinfected that you base the statement on
24
primarily?
0017
1
DR. TOLSON: That was the whole goal
2
of the study, and that's the essence of the
3
results are there is a decrease, but the
4
decrease is minor because of major
5
contributors to the waterway are other
6
sources other than the effluent from the
7
wastewater treatment plants.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Off the
9
record for a second.
10
(Off the record.)
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Back on the
12
record.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Let me ask one
14
question. Did you calculate what the risk
15
would be to swimmers?
16
DR. TOLSON: No. Swimmers was not an
17
intake and ingestion rate scenario for which
18
we developed any risk numbers.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Is it safe to swim
20
there?
21
DR. TOLSON: We have no basis to make
22
any assumption.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Could you calculate
24
what the risk to swimmers would be?
0018
1
DR. TOLSON: I can calculate a lot of
2
things, yes. There are going to be inherent
3
uncertainties associated with that that will
4
probably be greater than the uncertainties
5
associated with the recreational use for
6
which we have a considerable amount of
7
background data on.
8
MR. ANDES: My objection is swimming
9
isn't even part of the proposed uses here,
10
so.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Well, we might want to
12
reform the proposal since it seems so safe to
13
go in there, you know. In fact, we may want
14
to move that maybe next week.
15
MR. ANDES: Can't wait.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Can we take our
17
canoeing numbers that are on 5-4 and use an
18
exposure based on swimming and come out with
19
numbers?
20
DR. TOLSON: We have not performed any
21
of those calculations, and I can't really
22
even speculate on what the result would be.
23
MR. ETTINGER: If I wanted to do that,
24
could I just basically take this table of 5.4
0019
1
and use the exposures that are for swimming
2
as opposed to the ones for canoeing and come
3
out with that number?
4
DR. TOLSON: It's not quite that
5
simple. You would have to actually go
6
through the Monte Carlo simulations with
7
different input assumptions for not only the
8
ingestion rates for swimming, but also how
9
long someone swims and --
10
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I think this sort
11
of goes to my next question. I ask in the
12
next question how did we come up with the
13
estimated doses for each activity in this
14
table -- I mean they're listed in the table
15
that Albert is referring to, right, 5-4? And
16
you have them in terms of milliliter per
17
hour.
18
DR. TOLSON: Yes. We've gone over --
19
MS. WILLIAMS: I understand, and you
20
may have answered some of these. I think my
21
questions are very general, so don't feel
22
that you have to give a lot of specifics.
23
But I would like to -- you to answer
24
generally where these came from the
0020
1
literature or did you make them up? Can you
2
tell me where these came from? Maybe I
3
should understand that from having listened
4
to your testimony already, but I don't, so.
5
DR. TOLSON: We did actually spend
6
quite a lot of time going through how we
7
derived these ingestion rates.
8
MR. ANDES: They weren't made up. I
9
think we can --
10
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you think this has
11
been asked and answered? I don't feel that I
12
understand the answer, so.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you
14
give us just a --
15
DR. TOLSON: Okay. I'll give you
16
another summary. For example, for canoeing,
17
there are assumptions that one needs to make
18
on the ingestion rate. What we're looking at
19
what that range would be for those ingestion
20
rate numbers, we have to say, well, what's --
21
what is -- let me back up.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
23
Dr. Tolson. I don't mean to interrupt you,
24
but I think perhaps you just started with
0021
1
what Miss Williams is getting at. You said
2
there are assumptions that have to be made.
3
Are those assumptions from -- how did those
4
assumptions, how were those assumptions made?
5
DR. TOLSON: Right. So it's the
6
assumptions are that the range of the inputs
7
there. And then once --
8
MS. WILLIAMS: So you made them up?
9
DR. TOLSON: One assumption is that --
10
Let me say this. One assumption is the
11
ingestion rates vary over a range, and that
12
they probably don't vary with the symmetrical
13
distribution. In other words, the center,
14
the most likely ingestion rate is probably
15
not the center of that. There's probably
16
some people that get much more, and those
17
would happen less frequently. So you'd get a
18
nonnormally distributed distribution of
19
ingestion rates. So we have a lognormal
20
distribution there. Then we have to sort of
21
ground truth that to what we understand about
22
literature citations for ingestion. So you
23
look at things like, well, on those high end
24
exposures, how bad can they be? We looked at
0022
1
the U.S. EPA's swimming data or ingestion
2
rates under that activity and said, you're
3
probably not going to canoe down the river by
4
holding onto the canoe and swimming down. So
5
that's actually the concentration, the
6
ingestion rates that we assumed for those
7
high-end exposures. They were way out there
8
on the tail.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: So if we wanted to see
10
another line in your table that said
11
swimming, milliliters per hour, could we find
12
that directly from U.S. EPA?
13
DR. TOLSON: U.S. EPA has actually got
14
a number of very good studies on swimming and
15
ingestion rates. They come from pool
16
exposures where we've got a great tracer,
17
cyuranic acid, which is the chlorine
18
stabilizer. And they put a bunch of kids in
19
the pool and then you can measure their pee.
20
And you can find out how much they drank by
21
how much cyuranic acid comes out on the other
22
end. And we find that EPA sort of uses a
23
15 mls per event as a swimming exposure.
24
There are other literature that
0023
1
cites some other numbers, but that's pretty
2
typical is 15 mls per event. Now we derived
3
ours as per hour. So if you look at a
4
high-end exposure of, say, 20, and you assume
5
that there's going to be there for three
6
hours, that gives about 60 mls per event
7
which is actually higher than the swimming
8
ingestion assumed by EPA as a point estimate.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: But event means to them
10
an event of ingesting water or no? It
11
doesn't mean a time of going swimming. It
12
means a time of --
13
DR. TOLSON: Right, right.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: -- accidentally --
15
DR. TOLSON: Typically it's event
16
driven. So if you were out there for eight
17
hours, you may have gotten that entire 50 mls
18
on five minutes within that, or it could have
19
been disbursed out along -- they don't care
20
about that. They just do it per event. Here
21
we're doing it per hour, and we're also
22
incorporating a time aspect because we
23
realize that the different recreational
24
activities are different in the amount of
0024
1
time that people spend with the water.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you want to follow
3
up, Albert, or were you just clearing your
4
throat?
5
MR. ETTINGER: I was just clearing my
6
throat. I'm writing the new petition.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: So in deriving these
8
numbers in Table 5-4, what assumptions were
9
made regarding how frequently canoers or
10
hand-powered boaters would capsize? I mean
11
how did --
12
DR. TOLSON: So we didn't really
13
corporate any of that. This is a
14
distribution of exposures that goes to
15
high-end activities. Those people that we
16
categorize from the UAA as having higher
17
contacts, which includes the canoers, which
18
is our representative sort of perceptor. The
19
distribution is a continuum. There are some
20
people that, on their event, they consume 30,
21
there are some that are going to consume 32,
22
some 50, some 20, and some 1. There's a
23
whole continuum of what's going to happen out
24
there. We don't say that we've got a
0025
1
capsized person or a noncapsized person and
2
then define them in one group or another.
3
Somebody may capsize and actually ingest very
4
little. Others may not capsize and ingest
5
much more.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Are there --
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm just trying
8
to understand then is if the person who
9
capsized and ingested quite a bit, you would
10
assume that would be somewhere in the 50
11
milliliter per event range, correct?
12
DR. TOLSON: I would not assume that.
13
I -- actually, we have no data on how much
14
people ingest when they capsize. My
15
speculation is that when you capsize, you're
16
probably going to ingest some water. And we
17
wanted to try to capture that within the
18
continuum, the full distribution of what's
19
out there. The way that we did that is we
20
said here is some data on swimming, an
21
activity where people are immersed. Let's
22
use that as sort of our high end of our range
23
for distribution.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: And I do understand
0026
1
that. I guess, looking, though, at your
2
numbers, they seem quite low.
3
MR. ANDES: On what basis?
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Compared to -- well,
5
I'm looking at, for a canoer, the range you
6
give is 5.21 milliliters, per hour, right,
7
234. But is the highlighted line 50
8
percentile, what you're relying on?
9
DR. TOLSON: Yes.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: So 7.52 milliliters per
11
hour. And based on your distribution of the
12
number of hours, I understand you use
13
statistics and include a lot of things, but a
14
typical canoer we'd be looking at something
15
quite a bit less than an event, as U.S. EPA
16
looks at it for a swimmer, right?
17
DR. TOLSON: Correct. So we're
18
getting in a ballpark estimate of 19 mls per
19
event which is -- compare that to 50 mls from
20
swimming. I think we're actually being very
21
conservative. I don't think many would argue
22
that canoers get less. You would argue.
23
Okay.
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: If I may have a
0027
1
quick follow-up. So you're equating the
2
experience of someone swimming, that
3
activity, with someone either falling out of
4
a canoe and being submerged or flipping in a
5
kayak upside down and then needing to right
6
themself? That's the same kind of activity
7
and less of a dose? Is that what -- is that
8
what you're -- I'm trying to understand --
9
Please answer.
10
DR. TOLSON: We didn't specifically
11
look at capsizing and immersion from any
12
particular activity. We just tried to define
13
a continuum, a range, a full range that might
14
incorporate all the possibilities that would
15
happen from canoeing. Within that we needed
16
to debound it somehow. It's not as much as
17
you would have for drinking water. There's
18
got to be some sort of reality check on that.
19
So our high end, our reality check on that
20
was to say, well, if somebody was swimming
21
their entire time that they were out on the
22
river, how much ingestion would you get
23
there? And we used that to sort of frame our
24
distribution of ingestion rates.
0028
1
MS. WILLIAMS: And by frame, do you
2
mean that we would just make sure it was less
3
than that? I guess I'm still trying to
4
understand when you say frame.
5
DR. TOLSON: That's a reasonable
6
characterization of it. I mean swimming, do
7
you ingest more when you swim or when you
8
canoe?
9
MS. WILLIAMS: And that's -- the
10
assumption is you ingest more when you swim
11
than when you canoe?
12
DR. TOLSON: Correct. And I'm saying
13
that we've got a distribution here that
14
extends beyond what you would have for
15
swimming.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: And I -- sorry.
17
DR. TOLSON: Go ahead.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: We have a distribution
19
that goes beyond because why?
20
DR. TOLSON: If swimming is 50 mls per
21
event, we have a distribution that can give
22
values up to five hours at 34 mls per hour,
23
150 mls. So the highest end of this range
24
here is three times what EPA recommends for
0029
1
ingestion rate for swimming.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Dr. Girard?
3
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Dr. Tolson, in the
4
Geosyntec report which is Exhibit 71. Do you
5
have your copy there? Could you look at
6
Page 100 and take a look at the last
7
paragraph on Page 100 and tell us if that
8
sort of summarizes some of the answers you've
9
been giving to these questions?
10
DR. TOLSON: And I hope it does.
11
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: I hope so too.
12
DR. TOLSON: It's written in
13
mathematicalese here, so excuse that. But
14
for canoes, a lognormal distribution of a
15
mean of five and a standard deviation of
16
five.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If you're
18
reading, you need to -- the court reporter.
19
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: You can summarize
20
it.
21
DR. TOLSON: So remember this is a
22
lognormal distribution, so what that mean of
23
a log of five gets you a distribution that
24
looks like the figure in 5 point -- 5-2 of
0030
1
Exhibit 71.
2
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Go to like the third
3
sentence which starts on Line 4 where you're
4
talking about ingestion rates for your upper
5
end.
6
DR. TOLSON: Got it. It says for the
7
90th to 100th percentile ingestion rates
8
range from 14 to 34 mls per hour which
9
implies that 10 percent of the population may
10
be exposed to water ingestion rates
11
approaching those observed in swimming or
12
accidental gulping.
13
CHAIRMAN TANNER: Maybe the next one.
14
DR. TOLSON: The next one is this is
15
consistent with the observation in Fewtrell
16
1994 study in which 8 percent of canoeists
17
report capsizing, an event what that may
18
result in ingestion rates similar to swimming
19
or gulping.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Miss Dexter?
21
MS. DEXTER: In the ingestion rate
22
studies that you cited, were any of the
23
subjects under duress? Was that -- I mean --
24
I'm not -- no. I'm saying did they study
0031
1
what happens, how much water is ingested when
2
somebody is drowning?
3
DR. TOLSON: If you're drowning on the
4
CAWS, you've got a lot more issues than
5
micro --
6
MS. DEXTER: I'm just saying in an
7
instance when somebody capsizes a canoe -- or
8
a kayak and is inexperienced, that's a panic
9
situation. I'm wondering if there's a
10
correlation between the swimming studies
11
where people are playing and when somebody is
12
actually in a stressful emergency situation.
13
MR. ANDES: Just a moment.
14
DR. TOLSON: Actually, I think we may
15
have the Fewtrell paper here that might
16
address some of those comments. The Fewtrell
17
study did not come up with ingestion rates
18
associated with their 8 percent capsizing,
19
but it did come up with a conclusion. Let me
20
read this. Has this been admitted to the
21
record yet?
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I don't
23
think so.
24
MR. ANDES: I believe a partial copy
0032
1
was introduced by Ms. Alexander.
2
DR. TOLSON: There are two Fewtrell
3
papers: One, a 1992 study which has been
4
admitted to the record, and this one would be
5
a separate study, a 1994, which is quoted
6
within the paragraph that I just read out of
7
the report.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Yes,
9
Exhibit 74 is the other Fewtrell study from
10
the effects of white water canoeing.
11
DR. TOLSON: That one is a 1992 study
12
on white water canoeing. This one is 1994
13
study on marathon canoeing. And I would like
14
to point out within the conclusions of the
15
study, Conclusion 2 says the apparent lack of
16
identifiable health effects in these studies
17
suggest that it may be appropriate to use a
18
relatively polluted water for low contact
19
recreational activities.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And do we
21
have a copy of that we can enter into the
22
record?
23
MR. ANDES: We do.
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Can I ask a
0033
1
follow-up question to that, because it
2
dovetails something else I was going to ask
3
on that report anyway.
4
THE COURT: Go ahead.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thanks.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But you need
7
to speak up and ask one question at a time.
8
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you. In
9
quantifying the amount of water ingested by
10
canoeists Geosyntec relies on a report, I'm
11
assuming it's that one, that in studies of
12
rowing and marathon canoeists, approximately
13
8 percent of the canoeists at fresh water
14
sites reported capsizing, and 16 percent of
15
rowers reported ingesting some water. And
16
that's actually in your Attachment 3 in the
17
microbial risk assessment report, Pages 99 to
18
100.
19
DR. TOLSON: I agree.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: My question to you
21
is do you know the mean level of experience
22
for the marathon canoeists and rowers
23
questioned about capsizing in this study?
24
DR. TOLSON: Clearly no.
0034
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And what is the
2
spectrum of experience for the people that
3
canoe and kayak on -- or jet ski on the CAWS?
4
DR. TOLSON: I have no knowledge of
5
that either.
6
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you.
7
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Wait a
9
minute. Before we get too far away. I am
10
marking as Exhibit 79 the health effects of
11
low contact water activities in fresh and
12
estuarine waters, E-S-T-U-A-R-I-N-E, by L.
13
Fewtrell, et al. as Exhibit 79, if there is
14
no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 79.
15
Mr. Ettinger, go right ahead.
16
MR. ETTINGER: I'm just trying to
17
follow-up on Tanner Girard's question
18
regarding this paragraph on Page 100 of the
19
report. I understand you had the swimming
20
figure, and then there's some sort of
21
mathematical formula. I'm not as well
22
educated as journalists, so I don't
23
understand all the math here. But how do
24
you -- You just shape the bell curve?
0035
1
What's -- How do you shape that?
2
DR. TOLSON: It's a lognormal
3
distribution. I teach a problemistic risk
4
assessment class. And one of the activities
5
I do is a couple of days where we work on
6
this, is I have all the students record the
7
time that they shower and the time that their
8
spouse or significant other showers in the
9
morning and bring it into class next day.
10
And every year we get the same results; when
11
you plot all those out, they're not normally
12
distributed. There are a few people that
13
have the 20 minute shower, and it's almost
14
always a lognormal distribution that comes
15
out of that. Natural processes tend to
16
produce a lognormal distribution. It's a
17
multiplicative process associated with a lot
18
of natural events. If you look at a lot of
19
indicator data, historically from the
20
district they tend to follow a lognormal
21
distribution. So a lognormal distribution is
22
what we've assigned as sort of the underlying
23
mathematical expression for how different
24
people may ingest water. We don't have data
0036
1
on every one of those to develop those
2
probabilities, but that fits what we
3
understand for a lot of natural processes.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Do you have any data
5
other than this Fewtrell study and the
6
swimming data?
7
DR. TOLSON: Mm-hmm.
8
MR. ETTINGER: What other data is
9
there?
10
DR. TOLSON: Well, if you have the two
11
points, if you have a point within that
12
distribution and you have an assumption of
13
what the distribution is, you can fill the
14
rest of the distribution in.
15
MR. ETTINGER: I only see one point.
16
The one point is the swimming. Where is the
17
other point?
18
DR. TOLSON: Zero. We know that
19
everybody is going to have some ingestion,
20
incidental ingestion or otherwise. So we
21
know it doesn't go any lower than that. So
22
we bounded that -- we've bounded that intake
23
and then we fit a distribution between those
24
points.
0037
1
MR. ETTINGER: So I've been canoeing
2
for 20 years. I've never capsized a canoe.
3
Would you say that I had a same chance as
4
someone who --
5
DR. TOLSON: I'd say you have a better
6
canoe record than I do, for one.
7
MR. ETTINGER: I'm just very cautious.
8
DR. TOLSON: I would say our estimates
9
are probably over -- an overestimate for you.
10
So you are on the left half of the bell
11
curve, I'm sorry to say, left half of the
12
distribution.
13
MR. ETTINGER: So let me get this
14
right then. You've just got the swimming
15
point, and then you just put a bell curve on
16
that with no other data other than this
17
Fewtrell study that says 8 percent of the
18
guys capsize.
19
DR. TOLSON: It's not quite that
20
simple. I mean you've got -- we can bound
21
what the numbers are. We know it goes
22
between zero and something high approaching
23
swimming. So if you just have that data and
24
you put a lognormal distribution in, you will
0038
1
get a picture that looks like the figure
2
that's in Exhibit 71 of incidental ingestion
3
rate while for canoeists which is figure 5-2.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Did U.S. EPA use a
5
similar process, or did they use actual data
6
in correlating their swimming figure?
7
MR. ANDES: In correlating the
8
swimming? I'm not sure -- in taking what
9
action?
10
MS. WILLIAMS: So, for example, Albert
11
gave the example of his canoeing. Well, I do
12
not like to put my head under the water when
13
I swim. I like to swim with my head out of
14
the water. I suspect I have less events of
15
ingesting water than the typical swimmer.
16
How is the estimate of 50 milliliter per
17
event translated into the 8 in 10 illnesses
18
risk of swimming by U.S. EPA? Do you know?
19
DR. TOLSON: They did not consider
20
that at all within their 8 per 1,000. But
21
the way that -- the value that they were
22
looking at there was a point estimate, their
23
50. They also add considerable conservatism
24
with most of their ingestion inputs. And
0039
1
this is one where I'm sure they did the same.
2
But it comes from empirical data where
3
they've got 20 kids, they put them in the
4
pool, they measure the cyuranic acid, back
5
calculate how much pool water they ingested,
6
took the average of that or took the 95th
7
percentile of that, and that was the number
8
that they're using for their ingested rate
9
point estimate of 50 mls per hour.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: So they did not have to
11
perform the statistical analysis like you
12
did?
13
DR. TOLSON: I don't know how they did
14
that. My guess is that they would have used
15
an upper percentile of the range of the data
16
that they had. So a little bit different of
17
a statistical one, but a conservative one for
18
their estimates also.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Did you do fishing and
20
boating the same way?
21
DR. TOLSON: Fishing and boating are
22
also input distributions that will follow
23
some sort of lognormal pattern. For fishing
24
we took the canoeing median of -- and we
0040
1
essentially halved it. We said for fishing
2
you would get maybe half of the intake that
3
you would get for canoeing.
4
MR. ETTINGER: How do you figure that?
5
DR. TOLSON: There is like no data out
6
there to calculate this. So this is a
7
professional judgment. We think it's a
8
conservative judgment based on my experience
9
with fishing.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: Your personal
11
experience as a fisherman?
12
DR. TOLSON: I won't say we're basing
13
it completely on my personal experience as a
14
fisherman, but from what I've seen on TV,
15
that's --
16
MR. ETTINGER: My personal experience
17
is I get my hands all over the fish trying to
18
get the hook out. But I've never capsized a
19
canoe, so I guess I would have doubled the
20
other way, right? Oh, well.
21
DR. TOLSON: Again, there are some
22
professional judgment evaluations that go
23
into here. We're using the fishing and the
24
canoeing and the boating as sort of
0041
1
representative of groups of high, medium, and
2
low exposure. So your fishing is more of a
3
high exposure, I guess, and your canoeing is
4
a low. I think what we're we've done here,
5
we've tried to capture in a conservative
6
fashion the potential for ingestion from
7
these three exposure events.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: So in Question 14 I
9
ask, and I may jump around a bit here. I'm
10
trying to be chronological, but I don't think
11
it's working. You testified that select --
12
quote, selection of input distributions
13
relied on literature derived sources,
14
site-specific use information, and
15
professional judgment. So which of these
16
sources was used to estimate how long a
17
canoeist or kayaker will be out in the water?
18
And so I'm referring to, I guess, now to one
19
of the tables. Do you have a table?
20
DR. TOLSON: It might be helpful go to
21
Figure 5.3. It's a pictorial sort of
22
representation to it as opposed to the
23
tabular form of Exhibit 71. That's a
24
probability density -- you have it? That's a
0042
1
probability density function for exposure
2
duration for canoeists. Again, we need to
3
sort of bound the range of what's possible
4
out here, somebody is there for probably more
5
than zero and less than twelve all day,
6
probably make a better guess than that. If
7
you're going to go out and go canoeing, we
8
assume that you're out for at least an hour
9
and we assume that you're out there for no
10
more than five hours. That seemed like a
11
reasonable range.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: So that answer to the
13
question would be -- would it be it's not
14
literature derived.
15
DR. TOLSON: No. I'm getting to some
16
more specific data, I think, that will inform
17
the --
18
MR. ANDES: I do have copies of that
19
figure if anyone needs that. Do you have
20
that?
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Actually,
22
we --
23
DR. TOLSON: For this particular input
24
there actually is survey data. This is much
0043
1
easier to conduct. So there is survey data.
2
And I believe EPA exposure factors handbook,
3
the activity factors handbook which is one of
4
the chapters in this huge volume of survey
5
information that EPA has collected, has data
6
on use statistics for parks and recreations
7
around lakes, streams, and rivers. And the
8
distribution that you see here which is a
9
triangular distribution fits fairly nicely
10
with the 10th and 90th percentiles of the
11
recreational use for rivers and lakes. So
12
there we have the exposure factors handbook
13
data to sort of inform our decision. The
14
problem with that data is we don't know if
15
they were actually out there canoeing or not.
16
So they were just used, they were recreating
17
in parks that had streams and lakes. So it
18
may have included the time that they were in
19
the parking lot before they got on the water.
20
There was a lot of other uncertainties
21
associated with that.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: So you're saying only
23
10 percent of the people would have been
24
recreating for more than five hours?
0044
1
DR. TOLSON: Correct. That's their
2
total recreation there based on that survey.
3
There were -- I think there was some in the
4
survey there that had 24 hours for their
5
recreation time. So they may have included
6
homeless and such that were in the parks.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Campers are not
8
homeless.
9
DR. TOLSON: I'm sorry. It may have
10
included campers in there, but probably not
11
people that are out on canoes. So I'm not
12
sure how -- It's not directly relevant to
13
fitting this distribution or we would have
14
used that direct information. So what we've
15
got here fits within the 90 -- 10th to 90th
16
percentile. Because of the uncertainties
17
associated with time that was not canoeing
18
but also in the park, this probably
19
overestimates the time that one would be in
20
canoes based on that data. It's also
21
interesting to note that the mean that we've
22
got, 2.67, which is the mean of that
23
triangular distribution, is also greater than
24
the mean of the data from that survey
0045
1
information which is like two and a half
2
hours or something like that.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: How did you get your
4
mean?
5
DR. TOLSON: How did we generate our
6
mean?
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
8
DR. TOLSON: It's a triangular
9
distribution. You can analytically calculate
10
what the mean is or you can probabilistically
11
do it by just doing simulations and averaging
12
up what the simulations are and dividing by
13
the number of simulations.
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Can I ask a
15
follow-up?
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Question No. 12 for
18
you, this is right in line with that.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Stacy, we
20
cannot hear you at all.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: On Page 101 of the
22
microbial risk assessment report, that's your
23
Attachment 3 to Dr. Tolson's testimony, I
24
would ask Dr. Tolson my question 12 for him,
0046
1
since it seems kind of relevant: According
2
to the report, that would be the microbial
3
risk assessment, Geosyntec set exposure
4
duration based on time for the Flat Water
5
Classic, a canoe and kayak race in the
6
Chicago River. And the report states that
7
according to friends of the Chicago River,
8
race times in 2005 range from approximately
9
1 to 3.5 hours with majority times between
10
1.5 and 2.5 hours.
11
DR. TOLSON: Correct. I'm sorry. I
12
should have also included that in your
13
answer. We used other sources besides the
14
EPA.
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, the report
16
concluded, though, that based on this
17
information and professional judgment, again,
18
triangular distribution was assigned to this
19
input with a minimum time the canoeists must
20
be in the water one hour, and the likeliest
21
time in water for two hours. And my
22
questions to you are, first one: If
23
Geosyntec was aware that the average time of
24
a race, and this is where people are trying
0047
1
to paddle as quickly as possible to reach the
2
finish line, is between 1.5 and 2.5 hours,
3
why did the team select an even faster range
4
between 1 and 2 hours as the time a person
5
would normally spend in a canoe and kayak on
6
the CAWS?
7
DR. TOLSON: I think you might have a
8
little bit of misinterpretation of the ranges
9
there. If you go back to Figure 5-3 of the
10
report, and if you look, the majority of the
11
Flat Water Classic canoe racers were between,
12
what did we say, one and a half and two and a
13
half hours.
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right.
15
DR. TOLSON: One and a half and two
16
and a half hours. And you can see we
17
actually estimated that exposure to the river
18
is much longer, out to five hours. So if we
19
were using that as a basis, then we've
20
certainly overestimated, probably
21
overestimated by a factor of two.
22
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm a little
23
confused, though. Because the next statement
24
says here, "The training and distribution
0048
1
that signed this input was a minimum time the
2
canoeist would be in the water of one hour."
3
And I'm confused as to why that one hour was
4
chosen when during a race the average time --
5
the quick time for that average was 1.5, and
6
the fastest time that anyone could even
7
paddle would have been an hour, when you're
8
talking about a regular occurrence on the
9
CAWS.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You keep
11
asking compound questions. You need to stop
12
after a question.
13
DR. TOLSON: Can we back up. And the
14
first question then again was?
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Yes. The minimum
16
time a canoeist would be in the water chosen
17
here on Page 101 of your report is an hour,
18
right?
19
DR. TOLSON: Yes. That is correct.
20
And it's obviously the shorter the exposure,
21
the lower the ingestion, potential ingestion,
22
so yes.
23
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right. And you
24
chose that from the Flat Water Classic; is
0049
1
that correct?
2
DR. TOLSON: We did not chose our
3
input distribution on ingestion based solely
4
on the Flat Water Classic. I think we
5
informed our choice based on information from
6
EPA surveys on recreational use around lakes
7
and parks, and we also looked at the Flat
8
Water Classic which is clearly people
9
canoeing on the waterway, something we should
10
look at. When we look at it in context of
11
the Flat Water Classic, we find that our
12
distribution that we're using here certainly
13
incorporates those people and actually
14
overestimates through the entire range the
15
length of time people are there compared to
16
the length of time people were on the Flat
17
Water Classic.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, did you use
19
any other information about recreation on the
20
CAWS other than the race, the Flat Water
21
Classic, to determine the average amount of
22
time that recreators are normally out on that
23
water -- on those waters?
24
DR. TOLSON: Yes, we did. I'm trying
0050
1
to recall the specifics on this. But we
2
actually contacted some boat rental
3
facilities on renting boats, and I believe we
4
got information that they had half-day boat
5
rentals and one-hour boat rentals, and that
6
was just sort of ancillary information that
7
we put into our potential for recreating.
8
Somebody was going to rent a boat for an
9
hour, they're going to be out there for
10
probably an hour.
11
MR. ANDES: Can I follow up?
12
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Sure.
13
MR. ANDES: First, Dr. Tolson, let me
14
ask: By using one hour's lower bound, if you
15
had included smaller time periods of
16
exposure, would those have shown less risk?
17
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. By
18
truncating it at the one hour, we've
19
increased our -- the exposure time and
20
increased the ingestion rate and potentially
21
overestimated risk for those recreators who
22
were out there for less than one hour.
23
MR. ANDES: And then in terms of the
24
first question here which says that the team
0051
1
selected a range of between one and two
2
hours, is that right, or -- in fact, can you
3
explain what the two hours -- when you say
4
the likeliest time in the water is two hours,
5
can you explain what that represents and then
6
explain to us what the range really is that
7
you're using?
8
DR. TOLSON: Sure. The likeliest time
9
is just the mid point on that, the one is the
10
beginning point. But we don't talk
11
specifically there in that sentence about the
12
high end, which is five hours. So I think
13
the misinterpretation is that you're taking
14
the minimum and the mean, median, or the most
15
likely number, and comparing that to the
16
range of the median for the race.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: You want your
18
minimum, though, to reflect what truly is a
19
minimum out in the water, though, correct?
20
You don't want it to be --
21
DR. TOLSON: The minimum amount in the
22
water may be five minutes. We did not
23
reflect that. So in that respect we probably
24
overestimated the risk for those people.
0052
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Based on the
2
information, though, that you've collected,
3
based on the Flat Water Classic, the EPA
4
study, as well as rental locations, that's --
5
what was the minimum that you found from
6
those three sources out in the water?
7
DR. TOLSON: We don't have any
8
specific -- We do not have any specific data
9
on the rental times exactly how long people
10
were on canoes. For the Flat Water Classic,
11
I do not recall who the winner, what the
12
winner got as far as time. You may know. Is
13
it less than one hour? And, if so, then his
14
risk would be even that one person would be
15
overestimated with the evaluation as we've
16
done it here.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Dr. Tolson,
18
did you testify also that there are rental
19
places that rent boats for merely an hour?
20
DR. TOLSON: I believe there are, yes.
21
At least in 2005 when we --
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
23
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, did you
24
consider, and I guess I don't know if you
0053
1
would, because I didn't realize that you had
2
this other information, but did you consider
3
other tour events such as Windy City Kayak
4
Symposium, which offers numerous kayak
5
trips --
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Slow down,
7
slow down, slow down.
8
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: -- that take from
9
three to six hours. And actually the range
10
from Friends of the Chicago River, who was
11
instrumental in the Flat Water Classic where
12
you got your other information, and all of
13
their kayak trips last at least from three
14
hours and mostly between three and six hours.
15
MR. ANDES: And I assume at some point
16
that would be offered as evidence, because we
17
don't have that to date.
18
DR. TOLSON: I do not have any survey
19
data from them, any published reports or
20
anything from them.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So you're not aware
22
of any of that and that wasn't taken into
23
account?
24
DR. TOLSON: That's correct. Long
0054
1
time periods were taken into account within
2
our distribution up to five hours. There may
3
have been people that can canoe out there all
4
day. I can't hold my bladder that long.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Those sources were
6
not taken into account, correct?
7
DR. TOLSON: I have not looked at any
8
data, any survey data from alternative sort
9
of races or events that have been on the
10
waterway. However, I believe our
11
distribution that we've included for our
12
ingestion rate takes into account a wide
13
range of potential exposures on the waterway
14
that, in my opinion, are a conservative
15
estimate of time that people spend on the
16
waterway in canoes.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you, by any chance,
19
review the testimony from the June 16 hearing
20
yet in this matter?
21
DR. TOLSON: I'm sorry. I did not.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes or no is fine.
23
That's fine.
24
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Could I ask a quick
0055
1
follow-up?
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
3
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Dr. Tolson, looking
4
at your Figure 5-3, you say you've -- you
5
have a mean duration of two -- well, 2.67 or
6
two hours and 40 minutes. Just eyeballing
7
your graph there, what do you think the
8
median would be in terms of half the people
9
spend less time and half above? Would it --
10
would the median be somewhere around three
11
hours?
12
DR. TOLSON: The median would be lower
13
than that.
14
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Okay. So it would
15
be -- but somewhere between two and
16
two-thirds?
17
DR. TOLSON: Yes.
18
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: So still you're
19
saying that even though your range is one to
20
five hours, you've got a lot of individuals
21
there in the mid range in terms of two to
22
three hours' time in water?
23
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. There
24
are more people that are in the two to three
0056
1
hour than there are between the three and the
2
four and the four and the five. And as in
3
most of these skewed distributions, the
4
tails -- less and less frequency in the upper
5
tails.
6
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
8
Miss Williams, I think we're back to you.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: I guess I'm looking at
10
question ten now. On Page 3 of your
11
testimony you state that recreational survey
12
studies were used to provide insight on the
13
types and frequency of recreational exposure
14
expected in the waterway. Now, this is
15
referring to something different than what
16
we've been talking about previously, correct?
17
What surveys are you talking about here?
18
DR. TOLSON: We relied solely on the
19
UAA as the survey for that.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: And did those surveys
21
consider the length of time or how -- or the
22
frequency of recreation or anything?
23
DR. TOLSON: To my knowledge the UAA
24
did not contain that information.
0057
1
MS. WILLIAMS: And do you know who
2
conducted those surveys that were in the UAA?
3
MR. ANDES: It's in an Agency
4
document. You're asking him --
5
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm asking him if he
6
knows who conducted those surveys.
7
DR. TOLSON: There were notes on the
8
observation pages, but I don't remember,
9
recall the names of those that were involved
10
with that.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And, for the
13
record, the UAA we're talking about is the
14
one that is Exhibit B to the Agency's
15
proposal.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Attachment
17
B?
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Attachment
19
B. Sorry. Only because there are two of
20
them in the record, I thought we should
21
specify.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. And you
23
haven't -- you weren't able to look at any of
24
the work that's being done by Dr. Dorovich
0058
1
(ph.) regarding recreation in the CAWS. That
2
wasn't -- there's nothing available from his
3
work about frequency or types of recreation,
4
correct?
5
DR. TOLSON: This study was concluded,
6
I think, before we had sufficient data to
7
even consider that.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Have you had
9
a chance to review his findings?
10
DR. TOLSON: We were not privy to -- I
11
haven't seen it, so.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: So when you were
13
testifying yesterday, Ms. Alexander, I think,
14
understood better than I do, about -- I think
15
one of the witnesses referred to the fact
16
that's like gambling; going out more often to
17
recreate your risk, it's not additive, but
18
it's more like gambling. Can you explain
19
what that means?
20
DR. TOLSON: You leave with less
21
money. Yeah. It's important to understand
22
that the cumulative risk or the risk from
23
repeated exposures, there's a lot of other
24
caveats that had to be considered in here.
0059
1
One is there's immunity, and immunity may
2
influence the probability of getting infected
3
on repeated exposures. And we didn't take
4
that into account. That's an uncertainty
5
that I think we've discussed to some extent
6
within here. The other is how one would take
7
five exposure events that may have a
8
1 percent chance of risk of illness and
9
figuring out at the end of that one what was
10
the probability that I would have gotten sick
11
somewhere along that time. And there it's
12
not just 5 percent which would be 5 times 1
13
percent. If you can think about it in terms
14
of -- let's talk about in gambling. Say that
15
you had a deck of cards and you wanted to get
16
hearts. That was your outcome that you
17
were -- you were wanting to get a red card.
18
That was your outcome that you were
19
interested in. If you were to be dealt one
20
card out, there's a 50 percent chance it
21
would be a red card and 50 percent chance it
22
would be a black card. So if you were to be
23
dealt two cards face down, if it's 50 percent
24
chance on the first one and a 50 percent
0060
1
chance on the second one. Then you would
2
conclude that I'm going to get a red card out
3
of those two, and that's not the case. So
4
it's not just strictly additive. Does that
5
address it?
6
MS. WILLIAMS: It's not strictly
7
additive.
8
DR. TOLSON: It's not additive at all.
9
It's independent events.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can I just
11
try to --
12
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you have a good way
13
of asking it?
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let me try
15
this. So, in other words, if I go out every
16
single day and swallow a milliliter of water
17
from the CAWS, my chances of getting sick are
18
the same every single day, but they don't
19
increase every day?
20
DR. TOLSON: Yeah. It's a little bit
21
more complicated than even that, because
22
actually your chances of getting sick are
23
actually less after each day.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Because you
0061
1
begin to build an immunity?
2
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: But still somehow if I
4
just go out and take a milliliter one day, my
5
risk must be lower than Marie's over the
6
whole summer, right?
7
DR. TOLSON: I'll agree with that,
8
yes.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: But your report doesn't
10
account for --
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But that's
12
because if I'm going out every day, my
13
exposure is more often; not because the
14
increased quantity of water.
15
DR. TOLSON: Absolutely.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: But when you are giving
17
a risk level --
18
DR. GERBA: Basically that's what the
19
EPA does in setting -- based on their
20
epidemiological data. Your risk of getting
21
ill is an independent event. When they set
22
those enterococci or E. Coli standards based
23
upon the number of days they get ill, that's
24
every time they go out. That's the event.
0062
1
They don't consider it's a cumulative process
2
because it's not additive. That's based on
3
one time swimming event each time.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We have
5
another follow-up back there.
6
MS. HEDMAN: Susan Hedman from the
7
office of the Attorney General on Behalf of
8
the People of the State of Illinois. I'd
9
like to follow up with Dr. Gerba on this
10
exchange about risk. Isn't it true that from
11
the perspective of the recreational user of
12
the CAWS this is much like a game of Russian
13
roulette only with pathogens instead of
14
bullets?
15
DR. GERBA: Right. It gives it -- The
16
events are independent of each other every
17
time you play Russian roulette, right?
18
MS. HEDMAN: And you've over the years
19
I think frequently invoked that analogy; is
20
that right?
21
DR. GERBA: That's right.
22
MS. HEDMAN: Is it true that you said
23
that every time you go to the bathroom you're
24
playing Russian roulette?
0063
1
DR. GERBA: It depends whose bathroom
2
you use.
3
MR. ANDES: Can we cite where he said
4
that?
5
DR. GERBA: I'm sure I have.
6
MS. HEDMAN: I mean if I can enter the
7
article into evidence as an exhibit.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Absolutely.
9
MS. HEDMAN: It's a 1997 article from
10
the Arizona Daily Wildcat, and I believe it
11
is about a study that Dr. Gerba did relating
12
to use of bacterial infections from use of --
13
and pathogenic infections from use of public
14
bathrooms.
15
DR. GERBA: That's sort of the analogy
16
we're using here, actually.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm going to
18
mark this as Exhibit 80 if there's no
19
objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 80.
20
MS. HEDMAN: And I also would like for
21
you to tell me if you recognize the following
22
statement, this is from a transcript of an
23
interview you did on the Today Show in 2005,
24
and you were talking about --
0064
1
MR. ANDES: Can I ask why these
2
couldn't have been provided earlier so we
3
could see them before he has to answer
4
questions?
5
MS. WILLIAMS: Are these articles
6
cited in his --
7
MR. ANDES: No.
8
MS. HEDMAN: This morning when he was
9
testifying he used the phrase the right spot
10
at the wrong time, and I recalled him using
11
that same phrase in a discussion of risk
12
assessment in a Today Show interview I read
13
about him. And I would just like to -- we're
14
trying to clarify what is this risk
15
assessment model. And we talked a lot about
16
Monte Carlo models. We talk about all kinds
17
of simulations. We've talked about all kinds
18
of sophisticated risk assessment models. And
19
we're trying to pin down this question of
20
what is the risk to the recreational user.
21
And --
22
MR. ANDES: And I don't think that
23
addresses my question of why these materials
24
couldn't have been provided earlier.
0065
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Because she
2
found them as a result of his testimony this
3
morning as a follow-up.
4
MR. ANDES: You only found those
5
today?
6
MS. HEDMAN: Yes, I did. In fact, you
7
can see that I printed them out today. I
8
have -- when I saw his testimony, as with all
9
the witnesses, I did a fair amount of reading
10
of other statements that they made.
11
MR. ANDES: So his prefiled testimony?
12
MS. HEDMAN: Yes.
13
MR. ANDES: That was certainly
14
available before yesterday.
15
MS. HEDMAN: That's true. I didn't
16
know that it would come up.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can go
18
ahead. He can certainly answer them to the
19
best of his ability without being
20
reacquainted with them.
21
MR. ANDES: Fine. Okay.
22
MS. HEDMAN: Well, I just have one
23
more question, and that is whether you recall
24
saying in that Today Show interview, and I
0066
1
will enter this into evidence as well,
2
talking about exposure to pathogens in the
3
workplace.
4
DR. GERBA: Right.
5
MS. HEDMAN: Quote, it's sort of like
6
germ roulette. You know, you touch the right
7
spot at the wrong time and you bring your
8
fingers to your nose, mouth, or your eyes,
9
you can pick up colds that way. Eighty
10
percent of the infections you get you're
11
going to pick up from your environment.
12
DR. GERBA: Right.
13
MS. HEDMAN: I thank you. That's it.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's enter
15
that as an exhibit as well.
16
DR. GERBA: It's a lot more dangerous
17
to go to your office than to go canoeing on
18
the CAWS.
19
MS. HEDMAN: But from the perspective
20
of the recreational user of the CAWS?
21
DR. GERBA: Right. It's a matter of
22
your exposure and how much you're exposed to
23
the concentration. So that's a good -- in
24
fact, we use that -- I use that as a classic
0067
1
example in teaching about risk and risk
2
assessment about how it's all -- how it's a
3
gamble and how you calculate what your odds
4
are. The whole thing with any type of
5
exposure is always to keep your odds in your
6
favor and not in the organism's favor.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's
8
no objection, I will mark that as Exhibit 81.
9
Seeing none, it's marked as Exhibit 81. I
10
would, however, note that both Exhibit 80 and
11
81 contain markings in both a yellow
12
highlight and also asterisks in black pen
13
that were on the documents when I received
14
them.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. So, Dr. Tolson,
16
the risk in the three segments you studied
17
was significantly lower in the -- I believe
18
the Calumet. That was the lowest.
19
MR. ANDES: Which particular risk are
20
you referring to?
21
MS. WILLIAMS: I guess we can look at
22
Question 17. You conclude that the Calumet
23
Waterway was the lowest illness rate compared
24
to North Side and Stickney?
0068
1
DR. TOLSON: Yes. I'm with you.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: And the question is
3
why, but I guess to refine it more is that
4
because there are fewer recreators primarily
5
or because the pathogen levels are lower.
6
DR. TOLSON: The number of recreators
7
is not important here. It's what kind of
8
recreational activity they were doing. If
9
they were doing recreational activities with
10
somebody who is in the category of high
11
exposure group, then they would ingest more
12
water; couple that with the fact that the
13
Calumet tended to have lower levels of
14
pathogens, including viruses which are mostly
15
responsible for the secondary illness, that's
16
why you get both low incidents of primary --
17
when I say primary, I mean the actual
18
recreators getting ill from the Calumet, and
19
you get lower incidents of secondary illness
20
from Calumet exposure.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: Did one of those
22
factors have more influence over the other,
23
the type of recreation versus the pathogen
24
level?
0069
1
DR. TOLSON: Give me a second. I
2
might be able to give you an exact answer.
3
Yes. Actually, we did a quantitative
4
evaluation of that. The receptor type input
5
was responsible for 38 percent of the
6
variance in the distribution of the
7
exposures.
8
MR. ANDES: What table is that?
9
DR. TOLSON: This is Table 5-16 in
10
Exhibit 71. So here it kind of ranks the
11
sensitivity of the model to the various
12
inputs. You can see for Calumet we have .38
13
for receptor type, .05 for weather type, .02
14
for fishing ingestion rate, how that
15
distribution affects it. And you had asked
16
about what was it, duration.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: Pathogen levels. I
18
don't think that's on here.
19
DR. TOLSON: Well, pathogen levels are
20
not included within this sort of sensitivity
21
analysis because they were handled in a
22
bootstrapping scenario. So the pathogen
23
levels are what they are.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you know why they're
0070
1
lower in Calumet?
2
DR. TOLSON: Why pathogen levels are
3
lower?
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
5
DR. TOLSON: We base that on our
6
analytical data which is probably the most
7
robust pathogen analytical data --
8
MR. ANDES: So your answer is --
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you say the most
10
robust what?
11
DR. TOLSON: Pathogen recreation --
12
recreational water pathogen microbiological
13
survey that, you know, I can think of based
14
on that data.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Robust in terms of the
16
number of samples or the variety of pathogen
17
sampled for?
18
DR. TOLSON: We have a number of
19
pathogens, we have a number of sampling
20
locations, we have wet and dry weather
21
events. All of those really signify that
22
this is a study that has taken into account a
23
number of the different factors that have
24
been missed in other surveys of pathogens.
0071
1
MS. WILLIAMS: So other surveys have
2
fewer numbers of samples?
3
DR. TOLSON: There are some literature
4
citations out there of pathogens and
5
waterways that were single events. I think
6
if Fewtrell's study was pathogens on a single
7
day, so, yes.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. But going
9
back -- so Calumet had by far the lowest
10
percentage of canoers, right, in table 5-11
11
of the three samples?
12
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: So presumably if there
14
were more canoers in Calumet, their risk
15
would have been higher, correct?
16
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. In
17
fact, if you go to Table 5-12 and we were to
18
put everybody in a canoe on the Calumet, the
19
risk there is .52. So even including
20
everybody in the highest exposure group, you
21
can see that the risks are still fairly low
22
compared to either North Side or Stickney
23
which had higher pathogen levels. Mind you,
24
they're all much lower than the 8 per 1,000
0072
1
that we have been talking about as kind of
2
our benchmark.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: So you're saying the
4
point -- wait. I didn't understand what you
5
meant by if we put everyone in a canoe.
6
DR. TOLSON: On Table 5-2 we've
7
stratified the risk. We've assumed that
8
every recreational event out of 1,000 there
9
was a canoeing event in the Calumet. The
10
risks for that would be .52 illnesses per
11
1,000 recreational users.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: So this table reflects
13
the difference in pathogen levels across.
14
Would this table be --
15
DR. TOLSON: Yes, it does.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Just to be clear, you
18
have no idea why the pathogen levels varied
19
from one site to another?
20
DR. TOLSON: I do not.
21
DR. GERBA: Why it varies from one
22
sampling point to the other?
23
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. Do you have any
24
idea?
0073
1
DR. GERBA: It would be speculation.
2
It's based on flow rates, how much water --
3
what the per capita water consumption is in
4
the various wastewater plants. Some plants
5
may have more industry that uses more water
6
than another, so that would affect the final
7
dilution in the pathogens that might be
8
present, efficiency of the plant. That's a
9
good one. Those are among a lot of other
10
factors.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Efficiency of what
12
plant?
13
DR. GERBA: How well the sewage
14
treatment processes are being operated by the
15
plant.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Do we think the
17
pathogens are coming from sewage treatment
18
plants?
19
DR. GERBA: Some of them could be,
20
yes. That's what the outfall data suggests.
21
MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on
22
that. And there is some reduction of
23
pathogen levels --
24
DR. GERBA: Just in sewage treatment
0074
1
itself you get significant reductions of
2
pathogens than most of them in it. An
3
example, helmet worms (sic.) would be a
4
classic example. You'd probably remove
5
almost all of them in the sewage --
6
MR. ANDES: Can you repeat that and
7
speak up a little bit.
8
DR. GERBA: Helmet worms would be a
9
classic example of that. You probably remove
10
almost 100 percent of them in the sewage
11
treatment process. It varies with the
12
individual pathogens. Some you remove more
13
and some you remove less.
14
MR. ETTINGER: That's with secondary
15
treatment you would remove 100 percent of
16
that particular pathogen?
17
DR. GERBA: That particular one, yeah.
18
But it varies with other pathogens. Some you
19
might remove only 90 percent.
20
MR. ANDES: You're not talking about
21
with disinfection specifically? You're
22
talking about --
23
DR. GERBA: No. This is without
24
disinfection.
0075
1
MR. ETTINGER: I understood that.
2
MR. ANDES: I want to make sure
3
everyone did.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. And when we have
5
these high pathogen levels or higher pathogen
6
levels during wet weather events, that could
7
be or I guess -- well I'll ask you. Do you
8
think that is because we're then seeing raw
9
sewage going in from the CSOs?
10
DR. GERBA: That's what I presume
11
since there are CSOs present that discharge
12
into the waterway during the wet water
13
events, yeah.
14
MR. ANDES: Are there other sources as
15
well?
16
DR. GERBA: There could be other
17
sources, too. Animals could contribute,
18
birds can contribute, large numbers of
19
pathogens, for example, like kafla bacter
20
(ph.).
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley,
22
follow-up?
23
MR. HARLEY: Keith Harley. I
24
apologize I had to be in and out today, and I
0076
1
know that Mr. Andes will interrupt me if
2
you've already answered this question. I was
3
trying to understand some differences in
4
testimony between General Superintendent
5
Lanyon and what we heard yesterday on this
6
very point. General Superintendent Lanyon
7
indicated that he believed that there were
8
pathogen levels 10 to 200,000 colony forming
9
units at the point of discharge. Yesterday
10
you testified that that did not correspond
11
with the levels that you saw and you used, as
12
an example, the North Side plant. Am I
13
correct so far?
14
MS. PETROPOULOU: I think he was
15
referring to fecal coliform concentrations.
16
MR. HARLEY: My point is still this:
17
You testified that there were 42,000 and
18
56,000 colony forming units during dry
19
weather at the North Side plant; is that
20
correct?
21
MS. PETROPOULOU: I can verify that
22
for you. I think I was reading from the
23
report, right?
24
MR. HARLEY: You were reading from the
0077
1
report.
2
MS. PETROPOULOU: And I think I was
3
reading fecal coliform concentrations, not
4
pathogens.
5
MR. HARLEY: Oh, okay. My question is
6
this: Were your subsequent risk assessments
7
based on a particular level of pathogens
8
being in effluent at the point of outflow?
9
MS. PETROPOULOU: Pathogens you said?
10
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
11
DR. TOLSON: I don't -- we discussed
12
in some -- we discussed quite a bit about how
13
we developed pathogen concentrations in the
14
waterway. The concentrations that
15
Mr. Lanyon -- Dr. Lanyon discussed were not
16
pathogenic fecal coliform. If you want to
17
characterize the range that he gave compared
18
to the range that we found in our study. Is
19
that the question?
20
MR. HARLEY: It's part of the
21
question, yes.
22
DR. TOLSON: Well, if I were to look
23
at people's heights, that would be my thing
24
that I'm looking at, and if I were to take a
0078
1
sample by looking at this room and developing
2
a range for U.S. citizen heights, I would get
3
some numbers that would balance between
4
something. This is a representation of
5
potentially the U.S. population. But if I
6
were to go out and look at everybody in the
7
Thompson Center here, I'd probably find
8
people that were on the extreme. So what you
9
see is you see records from the district that
10
are 20 years, I don't know how long they've
11
been measuring there, but probably quite a
12
long time --
13
MR. ANDES: And I think -- if I can
14
stop you there. We could read back
15
Mr. Lanyon's statement, but I think it was a
16
general statement in terms of what's in
17
effluent. It wasn't specific to a facility.
18
MR. HARLEY: I guess my question then
19
is this: In the absence of a numeric permit
20
limit -- in the absence of a numeric permit
21
limit on either pathogens or indicators, what
22
is to prevent any plant from discharging an
23
amount of pathogens or indicators far in
24
excess of what's contained as your assumption
0079
1
and your risk assessment?
2
MR. ANDES: That's a legal question.
3
I'll object. He's asking what's to
4
prevent -- in the absence of a numeric limit.
5
They're scientists. They're not lawyers.
6
MR. HARLEY: Would your risk
7
assessment change if the level of pathogens
8
from an unregulated search --
9
MR. ANDES: I'll object to the
10
characterization. They have a permit.
11
They're not unregulated.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Why don't
13
you try it this way -- or let me, Mr. Harley,
14
if I might.
15
MR. HARLEY: I think you know exactly
16
where I'm going.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Would your
18
assumptions change if there was a discharge
19
of pathogens in excess of what you've seen in
20
the sampling? Is that close enough?
21
MR. HARLEY: That's -- it's a
22
hypothetical.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: What if the
24
pathogens -- what if somebody discharged
0080
1
double the amount of pathogens you saw in
2
your sample?
3
DR. TOLSON: Yes. Clearly that's the
4
case. If you change the numbers, you change
5
the risks. I mean our risks are based on our
6
measured pathogen concentrations in the
7
waterway which, as I stated before, is a very
8
robust sample. It has a number of samples
9
along the waterway, it includes dry and wet
10
weather. So, yes, if our representation of
11
the waterway is different than a different
12
representation, the outcome risk will change.
13
MR. HARLEY: To your knowledge, in the
14
absence of a numeric permit limit, could such
15
an elevated level of pathogens discharge
16
occur at one of these sewage treatment
17
plants?
18
MR. ANDES: Objection again. They're
19
not qualified to opine on what happens in the
20
absence of numeric permit limit.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'll sustain
22
that.
23
MR. HARLEY: Another question I have
24
is you mentioned disparity between very high
0081
1
levels and low levels. Is it possible that
2
you could have an extreme event that is
3
outside the range of what you observed in
4
your risk assessment in terms of pathogen or
5
indicator loading from a sewage treatment
6
plant?
7
DR. TOLSON: We tried to capture that,
8
to some degree, qualitatively by actually
9
sampling the outfalls. While it's possible
10
that we could have a drinking water epidemic
11
within the city that may cause effluent
12
levels to change for some of the pathogens,
13
there are lots of things that are possible.
14
So yes.
15
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask, you
18
have said this a couple times about the
19
robust sampling, so let me go to Question 22.
20
On Page 7 you testified that the weather and
21
waterway sampling relied on a representative
22
of the entire recreational year. And my
23
question was how was the representativeness
24
of the data determined? And I guess what I'm
0082
1
asking at this point, Mr. Tolson, is did you
2
rely on Miss Petropoulou for the
3
representedness of data? Did you make your
4
own conclusion about this data?
5
MR. ANDES: Can you address weather
6
and then waterway separately?
7
MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine.
8
DR. TOLSON: Tell me which question
9
you're on.
10
MR. ANDES: Twenty-two.
11
DR. TOLSON: So the weather as we
12
discussed yesterday is representative because
13
we actually used meteorological data from
14
that year. So are we good with that?
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Let's talk about
16
the pathogen sampling.
17
DR. TOLSON: The pathogen sampling, we
18
constructed a sampling program that would
19
capture both dry and wet weather events.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: And you were involved
21
in that as well?
22
DR. TOLSON: I was involved in the
23
discussions leading to that sampling event.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm sorry.
0083
1
That was the protocol we discussed with
2
Dr. --
3
MS. WILLIAMS: So you agree then that
4
just two years' worth of data is sufficient
5
to be representative?
6
MR. ANDES: Representative of what?
7
All recorded time?
8
MS. WILLIAMS: Of all years.
9
DR. TOLSON: I'm going to punt to
10
Dr. Gerba, because he probably has more
11
experience in looking at other waterway
12
sampling data.
13
DR. GERBA: Without the data, I can't
14
say that. I mean I don't know what the
15
pathogens were ten years ago or are going to
16
be ten -- in the future probably.
17
MR. ANDES: Let me follow up on that.
18
You looked at wet weather events and you
19
looked at dry weather events. And reasonably
20
is there anything else you should have looked
21
at?
22
DR. GERBA: Those would have the --
23
wet weather events would have the biggest
24
impact on water quality within the waterway.
0084
1
MS. WILLIAMS: I think the question is
2
whether the wet weather data and the dry
3
weather data you looked at were
4
representative of all wet weather and dry
5
weather data?
6
DR. TOLSON: From a purely statistical
7
standpoint, it's a representative sample from
8
the 2006 waterway concentration. So, yes, it
9
is representative samples.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If I may, I
11
think -- So when you state in your testimony,
12
Dr. Tolson, that it's representative of the
13
entire recreational year, you mean for the
14
years of the study?
15
DR. TOLSON: Correct. For the years
16
in the study and the weather types within the
17
study; the dry weather days, the wet weather
18
days.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But not
20
necessarily for --
21
DR. TOLSON: I can't for the things
22
for which we have no data.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Not for the
24
entire 2000s. Just for those two years.
0085
1
MS. WILLIAMS: We've -- I think we've
2
already established 2005 wasn't a typical
3
year, correct?
4
DR. TOLSON: It was a dry year,
5
correct.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Would you say 2006 was
7
a typical year?
8
DR. TOLSON: I don't have the data to
9
characterize 2006. However, whether it was
10
atypical or not, I don't think it would have
11
made a big difference in our assessment
12
because we selectively went for wet weather
13
days whether it was a wet weather day that
14
happened as a one-time event in a year where
15
it didn't rain, or whether it had rained the
16
week before I don't think would make much of
17
a difference in our assessment.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you, in making this
19
statement in your testimony that this
20
sampling is representative, did you consider
21
the actual methodology that was used to
22
collect the samples? Or I mean did you --
23
are you --
24
MR. ANDES: You mean the sampling
0086
1
methodology?
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Are you speaking
3
to the sampling methodology as well?
4
DR. TOLSON: I'm not speaking to that.
5
The data is what the data is.
6
MR. ANDES: I may be able to clarify
7
it with a follow-up. To the extent that your
8
waterway sampling was focussed near the
9
sewage treatment plant, it would actually be
10
conservative in terms of the levels that you
11
would have seen; is that right?
12
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: But if it was closer,
14
it would have been higher, right? I mean I
15
don't understand why that --
16
MR. ANDES: They were -- As I
17
understand it, you focussed particularly on
18
areas close to the plants?
19
DR. TOLSON: Under dry water
20
conditions they were within 10 to 15 waterway
21
widths from the outfalls the Stickney, North
22
Side, and Calumet.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: And when you stick the
24
dry weather samples you sampled in three
0087
1
locations in the stream and put them together
2
as a composite, correct?
3
MS. PETROPOULOU: No. We sampled
4
actually at one upstream location at two
5
depths, one meter and the surface. And then
6
one downstream location.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: So at your upstream and
8
downstream locations, you did not take
9
samples both at the each bank and in the
10
center?
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: What we did, we
12
actually composed it across the width of the
13
channel. With one on the left side, we
14
collected one-third of the volume, then both
15
moved to the center of the channel, they
16
collected a third of the volume there, and
17
then on the right side of the channel.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you do the same
19
thing with the wet weather samples?
20
MS. PETROPOULOU: No. We didn't do
21
that during the wet weather sampling because
22
Dr. Gerba surveyed the waterway. And based
23
on his experience with sampling, he didn't
24
think that the channels were wide enough to
0088
1
provide information.
2
MR. ANDES: You can have him
3
perhaps --
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain,
5
Dr. Gerba, why you recommended they sample
6
differently during wet weather than they did
7
during dry weather?
8
DR. GERBA: You mean the number of
9
samples? I'm not sure differently, what --
10
MS. WILLIAMS: The methodology --
11
MS. PETROPOULOU: The sampling that we
12
did during the dry weather that included the
13
sides of the channel. And then the center,
14
during wet weather, we did it in the center
15
of the channel.
16
DR. GERBA: Because there wasn't
17
really -- I think maybe you should answer
18
that. There wasn't any difference in data
19
statistically.
20
MS. PETROPOULOU: Well, we looked at
21
the difference -- yeah. We looked at the
22
difference at one meter and the surface.
23
During wet weather we went to the center of
24
the channel.
0089
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Because?
2
MS. PETROPOULOU: Because the width of
3
the channel, it wasn't a very wide -- the
4
width of the channel, based on the
5
discussions with Dr. Gerba, was not wide
6
enough to -- worth the extra effort to
7
composite from the sides and the center. So
8
what we captured during wet weather, it was
9
what we measured in the center of the
10
channel.
11
MR. ANDES: Would that logically be
12
the maximum for a higher --
13
DR. GERBA: We have a high flow in
14
there, yeah. It's going to be flowing in
15
there rapidly.
16
MR. ANDES: In the middle in
17
particular?
18
DR. GERBA: That's right.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: Isn't it possible you'd
20
have more input of pathogens at the sides?
21
DR. GERBA: That's a small channel. I
22
mean relative mixing and flow rates and boat
23
traffic, the large barge traffic, that water
24
gets stirred up a lot. So --
0090
1
MS. WILLIAMS: So you concluded it
2
was --
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let him
4
finish.
5
DR. GERBA: In the large inflow of
6
water in there. I have based also on the
7
data sampling, you know, at different depths
8
in the channel it seems to be fairly well
9
mixed of what we can see, at least relative
10
to pathogen levels.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: So you extrapolated the
12
degree of mixing from dry weather to conclude
13
that in wet weather it would be well mixed as
14
well?
15
DR. GERBA: It would probably be more
16
mixed because there is so much flow of water
17
in there. Water is flowing in there, there's
18
mixing taking place all the time.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: Does that conclusion
20
reflect temperature differences when you have
21
an influx of wet weather flow?
22
DR. GERBA: I don't believe this
23
channel is stratified, to my knowledge.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: In wet weather do we
0091
1
know? I mean we don't know, do we? How do
2
we know?
3
MR. ANDES: Do you have any basis for
4
believing that?
5
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm trying to
6
understand his basis for believing it's not.
7
And it sounds like it's -- there isn't one.
8
DR. GERBA: I don't believe, based on
9
my experience in the last 30 years of doing
10
field work on sampling, it should be any
11
different. And the data in the dry weather
12
events seemed to certainly confirm that, and
13
previous studies I've done on different
14
locations and depths of small channels
15
doesn't seem to be a big difference.
16
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Could I ask just a
17
clarifying question or summarizing it then?
18
So do you believe that in the wet
19
weather, based on measurements and other
20
information the District might have, there's
21
a higher flow rate in those streams?
22
DR. GERBA: Well, if there's more
23
water input, I would expect that during the
24
wet weather event I would think that would
0092
1
increase the flow rate in those channels.
2
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: How does the flow
3
rate then impact mixing?
4
DR. GERBA: There might be more
5
mixing. There's probably being sediment
6
material thrown in there, water is being
7
dumped on the top of the -- or on the bottom,
8
and so there's going to be a lot of mixing.
9
And also the boat traffic that goes there
10
creates mixing events, too.
11
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: So basically you
12
assumed faster flow rate, more mixing, so you
13
only needed one sample point. Is that --
14
DR. GERBA: Well, based on the
15
previous data and my experience, too. I
16
didn't necessarily say that you might have
17
different levels of pathogens and different
18
levels -- but I thought that was
19
representative of the risk, let me put it
20
that way. I don't think you can have 1,000
21
times difference in pathogen loading at one
22
location versus another. Certainly in the
23
dry weather event there wasn't much
24
difference between the top water and one
0093
1
meter depth. You would expect less mixing in
2
those dry weather conditions. We didn't
3
really see a difference on that. So I didn't
4
really actually expect there to be a
5
difference. I was one of the people who
6
questioned whether we should be sampling at
7
one meter depths, because I didn't think
8
there would be as much difference. And it
9
turned out there wasn't.
10
MR. ANDES: There was not?
11
DR. GERBA: Was not, no.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: I think you've
13
answered -- Do you have anything else?
14
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: That's it. Thank
15
you.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: I think you've answered
17
it pretty well. There's just one piece that
18
I'd like to make sure I understand. By
19
choosing to sample only in the center and
20
also sampling quite a bit downstream from the
21
actual com stations themselves -- I mean I
22
understand you sampled as close as you
23
thought you could, but they were certainly
24
not right there. There was a distance.
0094
1
MS. PETROPOULOU: It wasn't where I
2
thought we could. It's, as mentioned, it was
3
the captain of the boat that decided that --
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. What I guess I'm
5
getting at is are you -- Were you concerned
6
at all that by not also taking some volume
7
from the banks that there was input from
8
gravity CSOs that we missed by going just
9
into the center that would have been captured
10
by taking a composite sample from the banks
11
and the center? Do you understand?
12
MS. PETROPOULOU: Yes. I don't have
13
any reason to believe that we overestimated
14
or underestimated the concentrations of
15
pathogens. What you are implying is that
16
during wet weather the concentrations at the
17
sides could be even higher than what we
18
measured in the center of the channel. I
19
mean --
20
MS. WILLIAMS: It's possible, right?
21
MS. PETROPOULOU: I have no reason to
22
believe one way or the other.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I think
24
that's --
0095
1
DR. TOLSON: Let me add one thing to
2
that. If that were the case, then our risk
3
estimates would be biased high. So if we
4
find a -- I'm sorry -- risk estimates in
5
terms of the effect of disinfection on
6
decreasing risk to recreators would be biased
7
high.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: But the actual risk to
9
recreators in wet weather would be low,
10
correct?
11
MR. ANDES: I think what he's trying
12
to say is if he didn't capture enough of the
13
wet weather --
14
MS. WILLIAM: I understand what he's
15
trying to say. So I'm asking the risk to wet
16
weather recreators, though, would be higher
17
if that were the case, right?
18
DR. TOLSON: That would be correct.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm almost done, I
20
think.
21
MR. ANDES: I have a follow-up. And
22
the risk to dry water recreators would be
23
lower?
24
DR. TOLSON: It would be unchanged,
0096
1
but relatively it would be lower, yeah.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm going to ask
3
Question 11. I know we sort of touched on
4
this yesterday, but I'd like to try again.
5
On Page 6, Paragraph 4 of your
6
testimony it states, quote, "Disinfection
7
results in effluent pathogen risk decreasing
8
from a low level to essentially zero from the
9
water reclamation plants but has little
10
impact in waterway pathogen concentrations
11
affected by current or past wet weather
12
conditions."
13
And my question is as TARP is
14
contemplated and CSO events happen
15
infrequently, will disinfection have more of
16
an impact on the waterway pathogen
17
concentration?
18
MR. ANDES: I think we've already
19
objected to other questions about TARP.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Actually,
21
they asked and answered this yesterday.
22
They're not familiar with TARP, so they
23
couldn't answer the questions.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Can I try to
0097
1
rephrase it?
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe Mr. Lanyon
4
testified that TARP was expected or hoped to
5
reduce CSO events to one to two per year.
6
MR. ANDES: I don't think that's -- he
7
mentioned one to two, but I don't think your
8
characterization is complete.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you correct it for
10
me? That would be fine. Would you like to
11
characterize --
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I think his
13
comment was in his highest hopes it would be
14
one to two.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: No. Highest hope was
16
relation to my once in every five years. I
17
thought he expected --
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's
19
just -- How about we do it this way. Why
20
don't you say what if they were reduced to
21
four years.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Four? That sounds
23
good. What if the CSO events are reduced
24
from, I think 43 is what we have now, to
0098
1
four. How would that --
2
MR. ANDES: How would that do what?
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Will disinfection have
4
more of an impact on the waterway pathogen
5
concentrations?
6
DR. TOLSON: The effect of dry weather
7
in disinfection and overall risk of the
8
waterway are low under dry weather
9
conditions. It's below the 8 per 1,000, and
10
it would stay there. It's very difficult to
11
try to interpret what the overall effects of
12
CSOs and of other potential inputs that might
13
be affected by the completion of the TARP
14
would be. So I really can't speculate on
15
that.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Let's move on to
17
No. 18. You state on Page 5 of your
18
testimony, quote, "It is important to note
19
that the U.S. EPA has not developed any
20
secondary contact water quality criteria.
21
However, the U.S. EPA has proposed a range of
22
primary contact acceptable risk thresholds,
23
and currently has primary contact water
24
quality criteria protective of emersion
0099
1
activities, that is based on an acceptable
2
risk threshold of 8 illnesses per 1,000
3
swimmers."
4
Do you agree that this 8 in 1,000
5
risk levels expressed is a water quality
6
criteria E. Coli value of 126 CFU per 100
7
milliliters?
8
MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Does he agree
9
with what?
10
MS. WILLIAMS: Does he agree that that
11
8 in 1,000 risk level is expressed as a water
12
quality criteria E. Coli value of 126 CFU per
13
100 milliliters in the criteria document?
14
DR. TOLSON: I didn't participate in
15
that formulation of that, so I'm --
16
MS. WILLIAMS: So you don't know? Why
17
don't you take a look at --
18
MR. ANDES: That's, in part, a legal
19
question in terms of whether it's a water
20
quality criterion.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: It's a legal question
22
to ask a technical expert what the number is
23
in a U.S. EPA criteria document? Is that
24
what you're saying?
0100
1
MR. ANDES: You didn't refer
2
specifically to the EPA document. You're
3
asking about whether it's a water quality
4
criteria, which is a legal term.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: Let's just take a look
6
at Table 5-10. Maybe this will -- from
7
Exhibit 71. I'm sorry. This is what I'm
8
referring to when I'm asking. So I'm just
9
asking if this number here where your table
10
says 8, and then next to it under E. Coli, 8,
11
and then 126.
12
DR. TOLSON: We pulled this out of the
13
EPA guidance. And I believe it is what it --
14
it is represented correctly from there, I
15
believe.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you tell us what
17
would be a corresponding ambient standard
18
that would be protective of incidental
19
recreational uses that occur in the CAWS as
20
to 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers risk level?
21
MR. ANDES: Let me first clarify
22
something, because it's very clear in the
23
testimony, that the EPA 8 illnesses per 1,000
24
is not for incidental or noncontact
0101
1
recreational uses; it's rather a primary
2
contact number. EPA hasn't developed a
3
secondary contact number. And you're talking
4
about swimmers in that statement. So I think
5
you're mixing apples and oranges. And you're
6
asking him about, again, an ambient standard.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Is that an objection or
8
a clarification?
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let him
10
finish, please, Miss Williams. Go ahead,
11
Mr. Andes.
12
MR. ANDES: I think you're also asking
13
him something that's a legal issue and is
14
well beyond the scope of their testimony.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's
16
legal. That's for sure. If he doesn't know
17
the answer, that's a different question.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I was going
19
to say if -- Since he's already stated he's
20
not familiar with 126 CFU per 100 milliliter,
21
if he's unable to answer the next question, I
22
disagree that it's a legal question also.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: What I would like to
24
know, Dr. Tolson, is this: You are telling
0102
1
us that the risk of recreating this these
2
waters is well below the risk level that U.S.
3
EPA utilizes to develop criteria. I would
4
like to know if we were going to protect
5
recreators in these waters at that risk
6
level, what ambient criteria would we have to
7
establish?
8
DR. TOLSON: Using an indicator
9
organism, I don't think we have any data here
10
to support an indicator organism as being
11
very related to pathogen and risk. I mean
12
that's the whole --
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. So is it the
14
testimony in this panel that at this current
15
time there's no good science to use to
16
establish an ambient standard for protection
17
of the recreation that's occurring in the
18
CAWS?
19
DR. GERBA: Well, it was based on
20
epidemiological studies that were done by the
21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to come
22
up with those levels. And they had -- and
23
that's the basis of -- the scientific basis
24
for those primary contact recreational water
0103
1
standards.
2
DR. TOLSON: So in that respect it
3
doesn't -- it wasn't produced in quantitative
4
microbial risk assessment.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: What wasn't? You mean
6
U.S. EPA criteria was not?
7
DR. GERBA: None of those studies, to
8
my knowledge, or most of them did they look
9
at pathogens. They only looked at
10
gastroenteritis illness related to full body
11
contact swimming.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: You understand, I'm not
13
trying to be combative. I really wanted to
14
know. I mean we are -- this is a state
15
regulator. We're here to try to figure
16
out --
17
MR. ANDES: And I guess to be helpful,
18
I would say that we definitely have other
19
witnesses who will help fill in the details
20
in terms of how we think that such water
21
quality standard could be developed and will
22
provide some recommendations in terms of the
23
path forward that will include Dr. Dorovich,
24
that will include Dr. Grenado, and others.
0104
1
MS. WILLIAMS: But they're not talking
2
about the risk levels, or are they?
3
MR. ANDES: They'll be talking
4
about -- actually, Dr. Dorovich will be
5
talking about risk levels, and Dr. Grenado
6
will be talking about relations as to what
7
the regulations should be.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Just to be clear,
9
though, looking at 5-10, you've already said
10
you don't like any of these indicators. So
11
you don't really agree with the EPA E. Coli
12
and enterococci numbers anyway?
13
DR. GERBA: I didn't say I didn't like
14
them. I said that's what's used right now.
15
I said in the future, I think, my
16
professional opinion is that some pathogen
17
like adenoviruses might be included in there,
18
but the standards are what they are.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Well, I'm not asking
20
you a legal question. I'm just saying as a
21
scientist, you don't think these numbers are
22
correct. You think EPA's numbers here are --
23
that their correlators are not useful?
24
DR. GERBA: I think their data is
0105
1
correct. I think they did epidemiological
2
studies on it. I'm not questioning their
3
data or their -- I'm just saying in the
4
future, additional parameters may be added,
5
though, to assess the water quality in the
6
future. That's all I'm saying.
7
MR. ANDES: If I can clarify.
8
DR. GERBA: That's my opinion.
9
MR. ETTINGER: If you want to clarify
10
it, please do. Because I thought we went
11
over this somewhat. And I took away from
12
that that you didn't think that there was any
13
particular relation between pathogens and
14
E. Coli or pathogens and enterococci, and now
15
I'm hearing something else.
16
MR. ANDES: I think the first issue is
17
is that the EPA numbers that have been
18
discussed are with reference to primary
19
contact.
20
DR. GERBA: Right. That's correct.
21
MR. ANDES: Okay. In terms of the
22
questions that have been asked of you
23
regarding secondary contact regarding the
24
types of recreation that are being proposed
0106
1
here, the first question is do you see a
2
clear link between any of these indicators
3
and actual pathogen levels that would cause
4
illness?
5
DR. GERBA: No. Because there's --
6
can't find a relationship between the
7
indicators and the pathogen levels in the
8
water.
9
MR. ETTINGER: That was my point. As
10
far as you're concerned, these numbers aren't
11
even good for swimming.
12
DR. GERBA: I didn't say that.
13
MR. ANDES: He's speaking particularly
14
about secondary contact uses with regard to
15
the study at issue here.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Why would the
17
correlation or lack of correlation between
18
enterococci and pathogens differ whether you
19
were considering it for secondary use or
20
primary use? I mean the bugs are there or
21
they aren't. So I guess I'm just not
22
following.
23
DR. GERBA: It's related to the degree
24
of exposure. Exposure is a lot less than a
0107
1
secondary contact.
2
MR. ANDES: I don't think, Albert, I
3
don't think that this group is here to defend
4
EPA science behind their criteria.
5
MR. ETTINGER: I'm not asking them to
6
defend it. I'm asking them to say whether
7
they agree with it or not as scientists.
8
MR. ANDES: But are you talking about
9
the levels or are you talking about the
10
specific parameters? I think there are two
11
different issues.
12
MR. ETTINGER: If I had a higher
13
number of E. coli, would you say that I have
14
a higher level of pathogens or not?
15
DR. GERBA: No, not necessarily.
16
MR. ETTINGER: And if I have a higher
17
level of enterococci, do I have a higher
18
level of pathogens or not?
19
DR. GERBA: No, not necessarily.
20
MR. ETTINGER: So you would conclude,
21
I would think, that this chart, which assumes
22
there is some relationship between these
23
indicators and pathogens in the water, is
24
misguided.
0108
1
DR. GERBA: That does not assume that.
2
What that -- that standard is based on
3
epidemiological data related to
4
gastroenteritis among the swimmers, not the
5
pathogen levels.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask -- I don't
7
want to interrupt, but I just -- you left out
8
fecal. Can I just ask the same -- if you
9
have a higher level of fecal coliform in the
10
water, do you have a higher level of
11
pathogens, just to complete the --
12
DR. GERBA: Not necessarily.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry, Albert.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Let's go back, just
15
talk about swimmers here. Pathogens are
16
making the swimmers sick, right?
17
DR. GERBA: We don't know that for a
18
fact. It could be nonpathogens that make the
19
swimmers sick because they didn't do any
20
follow-up on whether it was illness. It
21
could be they ate too many hot dogs on the
22
beaches, it could be on some of the beaches
23
and that; or it could be the air was
24
different. Perhaps there are allergens or
0109
1
other substances people might inhale and
2
react to on the beach. It's been brought up
3
before that it could be made toxins from blue
4
green algae aerosolized and inhaled. Because
5
in this type of research they did not
6
actually identify the agents causing
7
gastrointestinal illness. So all of it may
8
not be due to pathogens. The assumption here
9
is that it is due to pathogens. What's
10
regulated here is the probability -- the
11
probability based on that 126. If you get
12
gastroenteritis, it's not necessarily by
13
swimming in these waters, not necessarily
14
related to a pathogen; regulating swimming
15
and diarrhea.
16
MR. ANDES: Let me take another shot.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Let me just -- It's my
18
turn. There is some sort of statistically
19
significant relationship between enterococci
20
and how many swimmers get sick. Is that true
21
or false?
22
DR. GERBA: In terms of
23
gastroenteritis, yes.
24
MR. ETTINGER: There is, okay. Unless
0110
1
the -- maybe I'm confused. But unless there
2
is some relationship between enterococci and
3
the number -- in the water and the number of
4
hot dogs they ate on the beach, that's
5
probably not a factor that's driving that.
6
DR. GERBA: I wouldn't presume so.
7
But, again, they did not identify that a
8
pathogen actually caused that illness or
9
which pathogen did, so that's still an
10
unknown.
11
MR. ETTINGER: So your objection is
12
really that this is a black box model. You
13
go from enterococci to illnesses and you're
14
not tracing the causation.
15
DR. GERBA: Right. At least in my
16
professional opinion in the future people
17
need to do studies on characterizing what
18
caused the illness and what pathogens were in
19
the water that bathers were exposed to.
20
MR. ANDES: I believe, correct me if
21
I'm wrong, but I believe the reasons these
22
numbers were used in this study simply as a
23
point of reference that was available, a
24
conservative point of reference, the lowest
0111
1
risk threshold identified by the EPA to be
2
used as sort of a screening level to identify
3
where risks were low. Am I correct?
4
DR. GERBA: That's right.
5
DR. TOLSON: That's correct.
6
MR. ANDES: So there was nothing
7
intended in terms of the report indicating
8
the technical validity of those numbers,
9
particularly with reference to secondary
10
contact.
11
DR. GERBA: That's correct.
12
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.
14
This is probably a good point to take a
15
break. It is my intention to stay this
16
evening until we finish with this panel so
17
that they don't have to come back in
18
September. So you may want to get a snack
19
depending upon how many questions we have.
20
(Short break taken.)
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can go
22
ahead. And, Miss Williams, you wanted to
23
make a motion on the record?
24
MS. WILLIAMS: I wanted to briefly
0112
1
make a motion on the record to request an
2
additional two-week extension to submit
3
prefiled questions for the Midwest Generation
4
witnesses, and I have spoken to Midwest
5
Generation. They're agreeable to that.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
7
Mr. Ettinger, you wanted to join in that? I
8
would be inclined to grant that and give that
9
to everyone. So just so you all know, I will
10
do that in a hearing officer order. When I
11
do the separate hearing order for the
12
remaining five hearings we have scheduled;
13
for now, the five hearings.
14
And with that, Miss Williams,
15
you had one more question, I think you said,
16
one or two?
17
MS. WILLIAMS: So when we left off we
18
were talking about the different indicators
19
and whether they are correlated to pathogens.
20
So, Mr. Gerba, can you tell us whether
21
pathogen concentrations are correlated to
22
risk of illness?
23
DR. GERBA: That's what the dose
24
response curve say that they generated in
0113
1
human beings.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Is that what you used
3
to develop your risk assessment?
4
DR. GERBA: That's part of the
5
process, but I didn't do the risk assessment.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Is that what you
7
used, Mr. Tolson, to develop the risk
8
assessment?
9
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. We
10
used established dose response curves for
11
pathogens under this study.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: You were --
13
DR. TOLSON: Want me to repeat that?
14
MS. WILLIAMS: It was kind of hard to
15
hear.
16
DR. TOLSON: We used established dose
17
response parameters for the pathogens under
18
investigation in the study. Mostly people
19
tell me not to talk so loud.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: And you, in your
21
testimony, say that you're a risk assessment
22
specialist. Does that sound right?
23
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. That's
24
one of the major components of my practice.
0114
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you agree that an 8
2
in 1,000 risk of illness is a good target for
3
recreational activity?
4
DR. TOLSON: I really can't evaluate
5
how or why EPA selected that. I just took
6
the EPA promulgated established number of
7
eight and used that to sort of characterize
8
our risk within our report.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: If they change the risk
10
assessment level they relied on, would you
11
have an opinion on that?
12
MR. ANDES: Up or down?
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Either.
14
DR. TOLSON: We could characterize it
15
compared to that new number.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: If they changed it to
17
one illness per 1,000 recreators, would you
18
have an opinion on that?
19
DR. TOLSON: If we use that as our
20
benchmark, then we would compare our numbers
21
to that number. Yeah, sure. It's just a
22
benchmark number out there.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I
24
have.
0115
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
2
Miss Williams. Before we continue, I would
3
note that these are prefiled questions that
4
are mainly for Dr. Tolson.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That is correct.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: As we
7
discussed off the record, Dr. Gerba has a
8
flight and must leave no later than 5:30. So
9
basically what I'm trying to get at is there
10
shouldn't be a problem with him going ahead
11
if we're not through, do you think?
12
MR. ANDES: Depends on, I guess, some
13
of those questions are being answered by the
14
panel.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's start
16
and we'll see where we're at.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I have no problem
18
with that. Because my questions are
19
predominantly --
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: My name is Stacy
22
Meyers, and I'm with Openlands.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Keep your
24
voice up, please.
0116
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Dr. Tolson, we were
2
discussing different literature that you
3
combined with UAA survey data on existing
4
recreational uses. You named two of them,
5
one being Flat Water Classic and then the
6
other reference to some rental facility. And
7
in Question No. 1, I was wondering if you
8
could please cite to the literature that you
9
combined with the UAA survey including those
10
and in addition to those in formulating your
11
parameters for recreational uses.
12
DR. TOLSON: The UAA was the principal
13
study for which all the analytical or
14
quantitative evaluation was performed. It
15
was ground truthed with some other data that
16
we pulled in including the data that you
17
cited there.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: What is that other
19
data?
20
DR. TOLSON: That would be Flat Water
21
Classic, boat rental receipts that IEPA were
22
able to provide us to show that, you know,
23
these are all the activities that were
24
ongoing within the waterway.
0117
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Did that UAA data hold
2
up to this ground truthing?
3
DR. TOLSON: Yes, it did. We had
4
information that said that there was
5
additional canoeists, and we've had data that
6
said there were additional boating. And the
7
UAA data said that there was canoeing and
8
boating going on. It seemed consistent with
9
that.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: What boat rental
11
facility was that?
12
DR. TOLSON: I do not recall the boat
13
rental facility, but we actually received
14
that information from someone at IEPA, and I
15
believe we cited that as a communication or
16
something to that sent in the report.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Is there any way I
18
can find that out, the name?
19
DR. TOLSON: I'll find it out in a
20
second.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.
22
Off the record for just a second.
23
(Off the record.)
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Back on the
0118
1
record.
2
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I don't need it now.
3
If you could just provide us with the name,
4
that would be great, just to for expediency
5
just to keep going.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: I think -- I mean do we
7
think it was Rob Sulski? Is that it?
8
DR. TOLSON: I believe.
9
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Can you just -- as
10
long as I get the information that --
11
MR. SULSKI: It's one of the exhibits.
12
It's the additional data beyond the UAA,
13
Additional and Extra Recreational Data,
14
Sulski IEPA, something like that.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And it's
16
attached to the?
17
MR. SULSKI: It's attached to --
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: To Exhibit
19
71?
20
MR. SULSKI: No. It's an earlier
21
exhibit that is besides the UAA report. And
22
it was a compilation of e-mails and
23
correspondence between various users, and it
24
was a compilation of additional data.
0119
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Is that the IEPA
2
Attachment No. K, Recreational Data --
3
MR. SULSKI: That is it.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Attachment K
5
to the proposal.
6
DR. TOLSON: I don't know if that's
7
exactly the one or not, but I'll get the
8
information on the data that I was referring
9
to. I suspect that we're talking about the
10
same thing, but you may have a larger data
11
set than that was supplied to me. So I just
12
want to make that clear that I don't know
13
exactly that that's the right one, but I
14
think is.
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you. Question
16
No. 2, on Pages 2 and 3 of your testimony you
17
state that, quote, "We assume that incidental
18
ingestion by an individualist canoeing on the
19
waterway will vary over a range and
20
calculations that are performed account for
21
all users even those that might capsize."
22
Did you determine what risks were
23
specifically attributable to the percentage
24
of the people who capsized when canoeing or
0120
1
kayaking on the CAWS?
2
DR. TOLSON: I believe we covered
3
this, but we developed an ingestion range
4
that included the potential for high exposure
5
and low exposure. But we did not develop
6
specific risk estimates for a capsizing
7
canoeist within the waterway.
8
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you. No. 3
9
was partially answered. I know that you gave
10
a breakdown yesterday of what stretches of
11
the CAWS were included in each of the three
12
segments in your study. Do all the waterways
13
in each segment have identical
14
characteristics?
15
DR. TOLSON: I would say that there's
16
differences that are either continuous
17
difference along every foot of the CAWS way,
18
yeah. There are some differences, physical
19
or otherwise.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And I believe it was
21
your testimony as well that there were
22
certain waterways that were combined into
23
segments closer to outfalls?
24
DR. TOLSON: There are some areas that
0121
1
are closer than others, sure.
2
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Did you average in
3
waterways that are not proposed for
4
incidental contact recreational use when
5
calculating risk for canoeing?
6
DR. TOLSON: No. To my knowledge all
7
of the data that was collected as far as
8
analytical data of pathogens within the
9
waterway and all the exposure data that we
10
developed from the UAA was all within the
11
waterway segments that we identified
12
yesterday.
13
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So you only assessed
14
incidental contact waterways?
15
MR. ANDES: Want to specify which
16
waterways you're talking about?
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, what I'm
18
asking is that did you break down all of the
19
CAWS into three segments in the study, all
20
the CAWS being all of the stretches of the
21
Chicago area waterways at issue in this
22
study?
23
MR. ANDES: Specifically you're asking
24
whether he would include the few areas that
0122
1
were not proposed for incidental contact
2
recreational use?
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm saying did you
4
include everything from the Wilmette pumping
5
station on the North Shore Channel all the
6
way down the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal down
7
to the Brandon Street Lock and Dam as well as
8
the Cal-Sag Channel all the way out to the
9
Calumet River extending out to the Lake
10
Michigan? Did you include all of those
11
waterways that are considered to be the CAWS
12
total in the UAA?
13
DR. TOLSON: I don't think so. So we
14
did not include the Grand Calumet, which I
15
think would be included within what you're
16
looking at there. We just included the
17
little Calumet. There may have been some
18
other branches in there that we did not
19
include, but we based our use information and
20
our sampling points, as we've shown, within
21
the waterways that we're representing the
22
risks that are presented in Exhibit 71. If
23
there's a specific segment that you have
24
there which is noncontact that you'd like me
0123
1
to address, just say it and I'll let you
2
know.
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Sorry. I was just
4
looking at exactly where this starts and
5
where this ends. Did you include the Chicago
6
Sanitary and Ship Canal from the confluence
7
of the Calumet Sag channel down to the
8
Brandon Street Lock and Dam?
9
DR. TOLSON: We do not have any
10
analytical data, any microbiological data
11
from the confluence south. So, no, it does
12
not represent that. My speculation is that
13
the pathogen loads are actually lower there
14
than they are in other places just because
15
they're further away from the city CSO
16
outfalls, pumping stations, other things.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So it wasn't
18
included in your study?
19
DR. TOLSON: No.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: On Page 8 of the
21
executive summary in the microbial risk
22
assessment study -- this is Question 4. The
23
Geosyntec consultants performed for the
24
district, it states that the Chicago area
0124
1
waterways are used for recreational boating,
2
canoeing, fishing, and other streamside
3
activities. Can you tell us what other
4
streamside recreational activities occur in
5
the CAWS? What does that mean?
6
DR. TOLSON: Which question are you
7
reading here?
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 4
9
on Page 2.
10
DR. TOLSON: So the other streamside
11
activities, there were identifications within
12
the UAA of passive recreation and other
13
things, I imagine, that those would be other
14
streamside activities; walking along the
15
waterway would be one. But these are
16
activities that one was not associated with
17
actually contact of the water into the
18
exposure groups that we identified as the
19
high exposure characteristic of canoeing, the
20
medium exposure, characteristic of fishing,
21
the low exposure, characteristic of boating.
22
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And you said earlier
23
that you used the UAA study as the basis for
24
recreational uses, what recreation uses you
0125
1
chose, correct? That was the foundation?
2
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And so in the UAA
4
you would agree that would include canoeing,
5
sculling, hand-powered boating, fishing,
6
wading, skiing, tubing, swimming, diving, and
7
jumping, correct?
8
MR. ANDES: Are you saying did they
9
assess all of those?
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That is what the UAA
11
study reported as recreational uses along the
12
CAWS. And since that is the foundation of
13
the study as far as what recreational uses
14
they determined were out there, I just wanted
15
to verify that looking at the universe of the
16
recreational uses.
17
DR. TOLSON: Right. We identified the
18
secondary contact recreational -- incidental
19
contact recreational uses that were in the
20
UAA. So we did not include swimming within
21
our groupings that we assessed.
22
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. But it did
23
include canoeing, sculling, hand-powered
24
boating, fishing, wading, skiing, and tubing,
0126
1
correct?
2
MR. ANDES: Tubing.
3
DR. TOLSON: Tubing is not included in
4
there. There is another one, jumping and
5
something else. Skiing was in there, that
6
was one that we didn't include within our
7
grouping. Those are primary contact
8
activities. We would associate those with
9
primary contact activities.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm going to come
11
back to that particular point.
12
So in your opinion, the
13
activities listed in the UAA study are
14
occurring on the CAWS then, correct? That's
15
really not --
16
DR. TOLSON: We're not going to have
17
any basis for that.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Now, the Geosyntec
19
study refers to worse premise and I know that
20
we covered this in some part, worse premise
21
that disinfection is warranted in situations
22
where direct human contact in the immediate
23
vicinity of an outfall is possible. And I
24
just wanted to be clear: People can canoe,
0127
1
kayak, jet ski, or tube past these wastewater
2
treatment plant outfalls to your knowledge,
3
correct?
4
DR. TOLSON: I think we covered that
5
quite a bit with Dr. Gerba's explanation of
6
it.
7
MR. ANDES: I believe this issue of
8
what the direct contact is has already been
9
covered by Dr. Gerba.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I didn't say direct
11
contact at all. I just wanted to know if
12
they could kayak, canoe, or jet ski past on
13
these waterways the wastewater treatment
14
plant outfalls.
15
DR. TOLSON: There is no physical
16
limitations to people going down the
17
waterway, to my knowledge.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And then on Page 96
19
of the Geosyntec study it states that it is
20
unlikely that users engage in nonemersion
21
activities -- that users engage in
22
nonemersion activities would be subject to
23
levels of inhaled mists or sprays that will
24
lead to a substantial increased ingestive
0128
1
dose. And I know that we covered that with
2
Ann Alexander as far as how you all assessed
3
ingestion. I believe your Attachment 3, the
4
risk study, Page 96, is where that quote
5
lies. My questions to you are that did you
6
consider how spray could increase the
7
ingested dose for jet skiers?
8
DR. TOLSON: We did not attempt to
9
calculate ingestion for jet skiing and
10
inhalation and subsequent swallowing of
11
sprays.
12
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And you also didn't
13
consider that for people that tube on the
14
CAWS, correct?
15
DR. TOLSON: Say that again?
16
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And you also didn't
17
consider that for people that are engaged in
18
tubing on the CAWS either, correct?
19
DR. TOLSON: Tubing was not one of
20
the --
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right.
22
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up.
23
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So, no, that wasn't
24
considered, correct?
0129
1
DR. TOLSON: Tubing was not considered
2
as one of the activities that was one of the
3
exposure groups that we looked at.
4
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right. But yet it
5
was listed in the UAA as one of the
6
recreational uses out on the CAWS, correct?
7
DR. TOLSON: I believe it was listed
8
in the UAA. It was not grouped in one of our
9
exposure groups.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right.
11
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow-up on
12
those two questions, and this could be either
13
Dr. Gerba or Dr. Tolson. If you can give us
14
your judgment as far as you believe that the
15
dose the jet skiers or tubers spray would be
16
at all significant?
17
DR. TOLSON: I do not believe so. We
18
actually tried to estimate what that could
19
be. And if you look at a cloud, which is a
20
pretty high mist-containing environment, you
21
get about a half a mil per cubic meter in the
22
air. So if someone were to breathe about a
23
cubic meter per hour, that would give you
24
about half a mil per hour ingestion rate. So
0130
1
that is not nearly as high as some of the
2
numbers we have as ingestion rates per hour
3
for our exposures, and we felt that that was
4
not really significant. We also don't think
5
that there's mists out there to the level
6
that would rise to a cloud.
7
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
8
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm just going to
9
ask one simple question. Jet skiing, though,
10
can kick up spray, correct?
11
DR. TOLSON: Yes, it can.
12
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm just going to
13
introduce what has already been attached as
14
Openland's attachment number -- may I?
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We're going
16
to mark this as Exhibit 82, if there's no
17
objection. It's the attachment one to
18
Openland's questions. Seeing none, it's
19
Exhibit 82.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That's the one that
21
was attached to my prefiled testimony, too.
22
That's just showing the amount of spray
23
actually kicked up by a jet ski. And that
24
wasn't accounted for, correct, in the study?
0131
1
DR. TOLSON: There was -- We did not
2
estimate dose for jet skiers within our
3
analysis, nor did we estimate dose from
4
sprays for any of our exposure scenarios.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. So then it
6
wouldn't -- You wouldn't know then the
7
increased risk -- you didn't study the
8
increased risk for respiratory infection from
9
an activity like that?
10
DR. TOLSON: I think we've been over
11
this. We did not evaluate respiratory
12
infection within the context of our risk
13
assessment. That was not one of our stated
14
objectives here.
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And I'm turning
16
specifically to your Attachment 3, the risk
17
study, Page 133 --
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
19
record, when you are talking about
20
Attachment 3, Attachment 3 to Tolson's
21
testimony?
22
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That is correct.
23
Thank you. Why did not did you not account
24
for intimate exposure of your areas that
0132
1
might produce considerable mist such as
2
aeration stations? It's Page 133.
3
DR. TOLSON: Okay. This is for
4
respiratory illness associated with exposure
5
to aeration stations. Is that what you're
6
referring to?
7
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That is correct.
8
DR. TOLSON: The study did not
9
evaluate respiratory risks. The focus was on
10
GI illness. In addition, the data on
11
exposure associated with those aerosols that
12
might arrive from the aeration stations is
13
unknown. We do not have a way of quantifying
14
a dose. So even to do the GI component of
15
that, it proves problematic. We believe
16
based on our assessment of what you could
17
potentially contain in a mist that you could
18
inhale that a dose would be low even if you
19
were immersed in it.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm going to, just
21
second part of D, yet there is incidental
22
contact activity such as jet skiing,
23
kayaking, canoeing, tubing, and sculling in
24
the stretches of the CAWS that could occur
0133
1
near the aeration standards, correct -- or
2
the aeration stations. Sorry. Correct?
3
DR. TOLSON: Yes. I do not know.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
5
record, Attachment 3 is Exhibit 71. It is
6
the report that we've been discussing, and we
7
should be clear on that. Because I, frankly,
8
was a little lost.
9
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. Going with my
10
prefiled questions and I --
11
MR. ANDES: To follow-up on the
12
aeration station issue, and whether these are
13
within your knowledge. If not, we may ask
14
this question later of district witnesses.
15
First, are you aware of safety issues in
16
terms of use of canoes, kayaks, and other
17
boats near the aeration stations in terms of
18
the bubbling water in those areas?
19
DR. TOLSON: Actually, I do not know
20
that. I've been told that, but I'm not the
21
best witness for that. Sorry.
22
MR. ANDES: Okay.
23
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: No. 7, the report
24
also -- the microbial risk assessment
0134
1
Exhibit 71 also states that jet ski use is
2
typically thought to involve immersion, and,
3
thereby, would not be allowed under the
4
conditions of the waterway. However, large
5
jet ski boats would be allowed, and I believe
6
that is Exhibit 71 at Page 97. My questions
7
to you are this: Are you aware that the IEPA
8
did not list jet skiing in the UAA as a
9
primary contact activity; and although
10
borderline distinguished it from water skiing
11
in its statements of reasons as having a
12
lower likelihood of ingesting appreciable
13
amounts of water?
14
MR. ANDES: Are you asking him to
15
characterize the IEPA document?
16
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Are you aware of
17
that? No. That's actually out of the IEPA
18
statement of reasons. And I was wondering,
19
since he's stating that in calling jet skiing
20
primary contact and relied on the UAA,
21
whether or not he was aware that it lists jet
22
skiing as a primary contact -- it does not
23
list jet skiing as a primary contact
24
activity, and although borderline,
0135
1
distinguishes it from water skiing as having
2
a lower likelihood of ingesting appreciable
3
amounts of water.
4
MR. ANDES: I can read that, too. But
5
I would disagree with your characterization
6
of the statement from the statement of
7
reasons. If we want to read him the
8
statement from the statement of reasons
9
verbatim, that would be fine. I think it
10
says something very different.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Sure. Absolutely.
12
I can read you both segments, if you can hold
13
on one second.
14
MR. ANDES: While we're waiting, if I
15
can follow up on one question. Is it your
16
understanding primary contact activities are
17
not included in the proposed uses as
18
designated by Illinois EPA?
19
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
20
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. And to follow
22
that, if we can actually start on Page 42 of
23
the statement of reasons. I'm going to read
24
you the definition of primary contact from
0136
1
this, okay? Primary contact recreation is
2
typically defined by states to encompass
3
activities that could be expected to result
4
in the --
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You need to
6
slow down.
7
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Absolutely.
8
Ingestion of or immersion in water such as
9
swimming, water skiing, surfing, or any other
10
activity where immersion in the water is
11
likely. Now, we can agree that jet skiing is
12
not included in that statement, correct?
13
MR. ANDES: I think you're --
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But the
15
Footnote 3 --
16
MR. ANDES: -- characterizing the
17
testimony.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm about to get
19
there. But in that list of primary contact
20
they do not include jet skiing, correct?
21
DR. TOLSON: I'm not sure I -- I'm not
22
sure I believe that. I think there's a
23
footnote that's associated with that.
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: There absolutely is.
0137
1
But I want to take one step at a time. They
2
list out primary contact uses; is that
3
correct?
4
DR. TOLSON: There are probably a
5
number of other primary contact uses that are
6
not listed on there.
7
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. But in this
8
list it does not include water skiing,
9
correct?
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Jet skiing.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Jet skiing. Thank
12
you.
13
MR. ANDES: It includes a general
14
statement at the end.
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Yes. But we're
16
going to get there one step at a time. It
17
does not include -- It includes water skiing,
18
though, right?
19
DR. TOLSON: I believe so. I don't
20
have it in front of me, but, yeah, I take
21
your word on it.
22
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: But it doesn't
23
include -- even though it includes water
24
skiing, it doesn't include jet skiing,
0138
1
correct?
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's the
3
third time you've asked that and the third
4
time he's answered it.
5
MS. MEYERS GLEN: I haven't gotten an
6
answer yet.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes. He
8
said that's correct.
9
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you. I didn't
10
hear. Now, there is a footnote on Page 43
11
that says kayaking and jet skiing may be
12
borderline recreational activities that many
13
lump into primary contact but likely do not
14
involve its high likelihood of ingestion of
15
appreciable amounts of water as swimming,
16
water skiing, and surfing. Okay. Can we
17
agree that that's what this says?
18
DR. TOLSON: I believe that this is,
19
in fact, what that says, yes.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So is it your belief
21
then that IEPA, after hearing this, that IEPA
22
considers jet skiing to be a primary contact
23
activity?
24
DR. TOLSON: Based on the footnote
0139
1
where it says many believe, I guess I would
2
include myself in the group of many.
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Okay. So -- all
4
right. So then why do you choose to restrict
5
the study to use of larger jet ski boats when
6
the IEPA did not place such a distinction on
7
jet skiing?
8
DR. TOLSON: I've actually toured the
9
waterway, and my one occurrence with a jet
10
boat out there did not look like the picture
11
that you have here. And I'm --
12
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That's not my
13
question, though. My question is why did
14
you --
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Would you
16
let him finish his answer before you
17
interrupt him, please.
18
DR. TOLSON: My observations of jet
19
boats in the one occurrence that I did see
20
one was a two-man boat. The guys were in
21
collared shirts, I believe, and straw hats
22
kind of stuff. And it made me think maybe we
23
could be misinterpreting the UAA study. I'm
24
not sure if they included these guys as jet
0140
1
skiers or not. So kind of to be conservative
2
to make sure we captured all the uses we
3
could out there, we just lumped the few
4
observations of jet skis that we saw in the
5
UAA, we put them under the boating so it
6
would be included in there. Because we were
7
really unsure whether they were this guy jet
8
skiing or the guys that we'd observed on the
9
waterway that were jet skiing in really kind
10
of bigger boats.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: The jet ski in front
12
of you, would you consider that to be primary
13
or secondary contact? I'm referring, just
14
for the record, to the attachment that I --
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Exhibit 82.
16
DR. TOLSON: Primary contact, because
17
the guy doesn't look very sure of himself. I
18
think he may fall off at any moment.
19
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So it's not the
20
activity, but the fact that that particular
21
jet skier would fall off that's making that
22
distinction?
23
DR. TOLSON: I think the distinction
24
is that the person on this boat is having --
0141
1
likely to have a high contact with water.
2
We've grouped our exposures into those that
3
have primary contact water that we've
4
excluded from our analysis. This would be an
5
activity I think that he has a life preserver
6
on there, somebody who would have full body
7
emersion, and it would not be one of the
8
receptor scenarios that we've developed risk
9
numbers for within our report.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: If somebody is
11
wearing a life preserver on a two-seater,
12
then that would be included as secondary
13
contact?
14
DR. TOLSON: I think, you know, I'm
15
trying to characterize within our receptors
16
to include those jet skiers. Because my one
17
observation of a jet boat on the waterway was
18
one where the occupants certainly didn't look
19
like they were going to have full body
20
emersion. If you would like, I can provide
21
you a picture of that. I actually took a
22
picture of them as we went by them on the
23
waterway.
24
MR. ANDES: I thought we had them.
0142
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm just trying to
2
understand where your line is as far as which
3
jet skiers are included in secondary contact
4
and which jet skiers are included in primary
5
contact. That's all. Because it seems like
6
there is some in one category and some in the
7
other.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there --
9
DR. TOLSON: We did not try to
10
characterize the specific activity where
11
anybody was occurring. We developed these
12
risk ranges that had ingestion rates that
13
were kind of a big range. That being said,
14
there were very few jet skis that were
15
identified within the UAA. We included them
16
in boating because there was a potential that
17
if we didn't include them in boating, perhaps
18
these -- we're talking about these two-man
19
boats or larger boats that we didn't want to
20
underrepresent within the study. I would
21
characterize this particular activity that
22
this gentleman is engaged in as a primary
23
contact activity. But this is really outside
24
of my realm of identifying primary contact
0143
1
activities and secondary contact activities.
2
It's not what I do.
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: You guys made a
4
call, though, as to whether or not to include
5
that activity?
6
DR. TOLSON: We had to take that
7
handful of receptors and try to characterize
8
them within the categories which we laid out
9
within Exhibit 71, our risk assessment. We
10
made the call that the boats -- that the jet
11
skis could possibly be boats. We wanted to
12
make sure we included anything that was
13
potentially a recognized activity in the
14
waterway, we included them within that group.
15
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Yet if you're saying
16
that you included it as a recognized
17
activity, you also did not include swimming,
18
correct, and that was a recognized activity?
19
DR. TOLSON: A recognized activity is
20
more of a legal term that I probably
21
shouldn't be invoking or else -- that's true.
22
It was primary contact. We felt swimming was
23
one that ought to be included.
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: But it was a
0144
1
recognized activity. It was something in the
2
UAA as listed as occurring, correct?
3
MR. ANDES: I'm going to really object
4
to this argumentative line of question. He's
5
answered the questions. He told you what he
6
included and why.
7
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, I'm confused
8
in that he stated that he included it because
9
it was a recognized activity on --
10
MR. ANDES: That's not what he said.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That's exactly what
12
he said. So I'm curious then as to why he
13
then did not include other recognized
14
activities such as swimming.
15
DR. TOLSON: Another reason is the RFB
16
for which we were responding to developing
17
this clearly stated and listed those
18
activities and how we would categorize them.
19
Jet skiing was not included within that list.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you.
21
DR. TOLSON: Swimming was not
22
including with that list. I'm not sure if it
23
said anything about jet ski.
24
MR. ANDES: Did it say that primary
0145
1
contact activities were not to be included?
2
DR. TOLSON: That's correct. Primary
3
contact activities was not included.
4
MR. ANDES: Swimming is clearly
5
primary contact. You decided not to include
6
it?
7
DR. TOLSON: That's correct. Swimming
8
is primary contact. It was not included.
9
MR. ANDES: Because the two-person
10
boats were unclear, you decided to include
11
them as boats?
12
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
13
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I follow-up,
15
please? Just since I wrote Footnote 3, I'd
16
like to follow up by making sure I understand
17
what you said here. You are saying you
18
consider yourself someone who generally
19
considers jet skiing, at least as conducted
20
in this exhibit, primary contact activity
21
generally?
22
DR. TOLSON: That's my opinion.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: One more question
0146
1
along those lines. Although the resulting
2
risk estimates do not account for such, did
3
you seem to calculate how much more jet
4
skiers likely to ingest appreciable
5
quantities of water than a person canoeing?
6
DR. TOLSON: We did not include
7
primary contact jet skiing as an activity
8
that we developed, no.
9
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Did Geosyntec
10
analyze exposure rates for kayaking, tubing,
11
or sculling in comparison to tubing?
12
MR. ANDES: What kind of --
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's D.
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: 7D.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
16
record, I think we've -- he's repeatedly
17
stated that he did not consider tubing.
18
DR. TOLSON: That is correct. We did
19
not consider tubing.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Then kayaking or
21
sculling in comparison to canoeing.
22
DR. TOLSON: We didn't calculate an
23
exposure rate for each individual activity.
24
We developed a range of exposure rates for
0147
1
which canoeing could be kind of the
2
representative activity, and that was a
3
distribution that ranged from high
4
potentially capsizing events to low.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Do you know whether
6
or not the exposure, the risk of exposure is
7
higher for kayaking or sculling than
8
canoeing?
9
DR. TOLSON: We don't have any data to
10
support that. So, no, I don't know.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Could somebody in a
12
kayak have a higher risk than someone in a
13
canoe of exposure?
14
DR. TOLSON: They think could have a
15
risk for a number or reasons. That's
16
correct. Somebody in a canoe could have a
17
higher risk than somebody in a kayak.
18
MS. DEXTER: Why did you choose
19
canoeing as the representative activity?
20
DR. TOLSON: I believe it was -- It
21
seemed like a reasonable thing to call that
22
high contact activity. I believe the UAA has
23
canoeing and kayaking as one group there, so
24
to eliminate a lot of dashes within the
0148
1
report, we called it canoeing.
2
MS. DEXTER: Did you have data on the
3
canoeing? Was there -- Was there data to
4
support the canoeing?
5
MR. ANDES: I think he already
6
answered that question. It was ingestion
7
rates; high, medium, and low ingestion rates.
8
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Was there a
9
difference in ingestion rates when looking to
10
choose a representative for high contact in
11
your study? Was there a difference in
12
ingestion rates for canoeing and kayaking?
13
DR. TOLSON: Again, I think that
14
misrepresents what we're doing. We're just
15
coming up with three sort of exposure groups.
16
We've called that high exposure group
17
canoeing which is sort of a representative
18
recreational activity associated with the
19
high. We didn't develop kayaking as, you
20
know, 12.2 and canoeing as 12.3. There's no
21
number that's associated with each individual
22
thing and some together. We developed a
23
distribution, a range, that incorporated all
24
these sort of higher exposure activities.
0149
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So you treat the
2
risk as the same?
3
MR. ANDES: Same as what?
4
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: For canoeing,
5
kayaking, and sculling; all of those
6
activities, the risk is treated as the same,
7
correct? It's all considered to be high
8
contact of the same risk?
9
DR. TOLSON: The category of higher
10
exposure activities along the waterway. And
11
had we not looked -- I don't think sculling
12
was specifically called out within the UAA,
13
so there would have been no way for us to
14
tease out sculling versus the canoeing or
15
kayaking. So there's a necessity for sort of
16
grouping activities together.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Do you know whether
18
sculling occurs on the CAWS?
19
DR. TOLSON: I have not seen it. I
20
understand it does.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And 8 is asked and
22
answered.
23
Nine, in quantifying the
24
amount of water ingested -- Wait a minute.
0150
1
Sorry. I'm going to stop. Nine is asked and
2
answered. Withdraw.
3
Ten. I just need a second. I
4
want to see if this is asked and answered.
5
Ten is partially asked and answered.
6
You stated earlier that the
7
ingestion rates for fishing and boating were
8
adjusted downwards using professional
9
judgment, is that right, from canoeing?
10
DR. TOLSON: That is correct.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And was that your
12
professional judgment used to set the rate?
13
DR. TOLSON: We met collectively as
14
the Geosyntec team and our expert panel and
15
discussed these matters. I think it was
16
arrived to by consensus.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: 11, when discussing
18
how the risk assessment accounted for
19
exposure duration, the report states that
20
assumptions regarding length of time an
21
individual might be on the waterway are
22
required; activity based assumptions were
23
developed for this exposure input based on
24
waterway specific information where available
0151
1
and professional judgment guided by literary
2
references. This is Exhibit 71, No. 101,
3
Page No. 101.
4
DR. TOLSON: Okay.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Actually, I
6
apologize. This was asked and answered.
7
Well, no, it was asked and answered for
8
fishing and boating. How did Geosyntec
9
exercise professional judgment in setting
10
exposure duration for canoeing? We just
11
talked about fishing and --
12
DR. TOLSON: I'm pretty sure we
13
answered that, because we had the triangular
14
shaped figure up that had the one to five
15
hours, the two --
16
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Right. But that's
17
off of data. Where did your professional
18
judgment come into play?
19
DR. TOLSON: It's not completely off
20
of data. We had data to sort of inform that,
21
but we had to make some professional judgment
22
decisions here.
23
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And what were those?
24
DR. TOLSON: Well, we didn't go from
0152
1
zero hours. We truncated that distribution
2
so it went from one to five hours. You know,
3
selecting two hours as the median, it wasn't
4
directly out of the data. We just picked two
5
hours as a reasonable. It happened to fit
6
pretty nicely. So the mean of that fit the
7
EPA's exposure factor's handbook distribution
8
of data for people that recreate around lakes
9
and rivers.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: But ultimately you
11
used your professional judgment to arrive at
12
that figure.
13
MR. ANDES: With data.
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Excuse me. That's
15
not his testimony. Please allow the witness
16
to testify.
17
Is that ultimately how you
18
arrived with --
19
DR. TOLSON: With data. Sorry.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That's all. I have
21
no further questions at this time.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just ask one
23
follow-up?
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Absolutely.
0153
1
You can ask two.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: No. I hope not. Do
3
you have a copy of Mr. Stuba's testimony?
4
DR. TOLSON: I do not. I don't think
5
I've seen that either.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you have one that
7
you can show him, or do you want me to show
8
him?
9
MR. ANDES: I don't think I have that
10
handy.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Stuba's testimony
12
is Exhibit 62, and I'm handing you a copy.
13
And I'd like you to take a look at the back
14
where he has charts.
15
DR. TOLSON: Okay.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Where they list types
17
of recreational activity. Did you look at
18
those in developing your risk assessment, the
19
data from the district on recreation from the
20
boats that go out to --
21
DR. TOLSON: We looked at this and we
22
had some interviews with them, but we did not
23
rely on this for any numerical computations
24
for activities.
0154
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you understand where
2
jet skiing is logged on those logs as a
3
recreational activity?
4
DR. TOLSON: Don't see a jet skiing in
5
a column that's on the top of this. I don't
6
know whether they hadn't seen one and that's
7
the reason that they didn't start to log that
8
and put it on here or not. But we relied on
9
the UAA which was designed specifically to
10
evaluate recreational use. And we felt that
11
the strongest sort of data set to use to take
12
proportions of recreational users in each of
13
the modifications we were looking at.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: And obviously this is a
15
question I should have asked of Mr. Stuba, I
16
just didn't really realize it was an issue
17
until today. So if none of you know, then
18
that's fine. But what I would like to know
19
is he does say in his testimony that there
20
were six jet skiers observed?
21
MR. ANDES: If I can take a look.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to know
23
from the District, and if these witnesses
24
can't answer, we'll try to bring it up next
0155
1
week.
2
MR. ANDES: I'm sure they can't.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Which category would
4
the six jet skiers have been logged under?
5
MR. ANDES: Skiing and tubing.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: So jet skiing was
7
considered a type of skiing and tubing?
8
MR. ANDES: Yes.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's all
10
I have.
11
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: May I ask one
12
question that I forgot to ask?
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Thank you. Your
15
risk assessment -- I think this will be
16
pretty clear, but it doesn't account for the
17
highest areas of recreational use in the
18
waterway, correct?
19
DR. TOLSON: I did not say that.
20
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Well, does your
21
study account for -- Does it take into
22
account where recreational use most commonly
23
occurs in setting risk?
24
DR. TOLSON: We may have -- we did not
0156
1
tease out use within any particular point
2
within the waterway. We assumed that risk --
3
we assumed that exposure could happen
4
anywhere along the waterway. We did take
5
data at specific points. Those points tended
6
to be in the dry weather, at least, close to
7
the District's outfalls. So they may have
8
actually biased high the potential influence
9
of the District's outfalls through the
10
waterway, pathogen concentrations within the
11
waterway.
12
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Wasn't that averaged
13
out, though, with other data that was also
14
along the waterway farther downstream?
15
DR. TOLSON: Or actually within 10 to
16
15 both lengths upstream, but yes.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: So what I'm
18
asking -- Withdraw the question. I'm done.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
20
further? Dr. Gerba, Dr. Tolson,
21
Ms. Petropoulou, it has been a privilege and
22
an honor. Thank you very much. And I will
23
see all of us again on September 23, 9:00
24
a.m. here in this room where we will start
0157
1
with Dr. Divorich. Thank you very much.
2
We're adjourned.
3
(At which time the hearing was
4
continued to September 23,
5
2008, at 9:00 a.m.)
6
* * * * * *
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0158
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF COOK )
3
4
I, LAURA MUKAHIRN, being a Certified
5 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of
6 Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I
7 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
8 foregoing hearing of the above-entitled cause. And
9 I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of all my shorthand notes so taken as
11 aforesaid and contains all the proceedings had at
12 the said meeting of the above-entitled cause.
13
14
15
___________________________
16
LAURA MUKAHIRN, CSR
CSR NO. 084-003592
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24