0001
1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
) R08-09
3 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) (Rulemaking-
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM ) Water
4 AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES
)
RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
)
5 TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 301, )
302, 303 and 304
)
6
7
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS held in the
8 above entitled cause before Hearing Officer Marie
9 Tipsord, called by the Illinois Pollution Control
10 Board, taken by Steven Brickey, CSR, for the State
11 of Illinois, 100 West Randolph, Chicago, Illinois,
12 on the 23rd day of September, 2008, commencing at
13 the hour of 9:00 a.m.
14
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
MS. ALISA LIU, Environmental Scientist
3 MR. ANAND RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist
MR. TANNER GIRARD, Acting Chairman
4 MR. JOHNSON
MR. NICHOLAS MELAS
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
BY: MR. FREDRIC P. ANDES
12 One North Wacker Drive
Suite 4400
13 Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
14
Appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District
15
DR. ERNEST BLATCHLEY III
16
NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
17 MS. ANN ALEXANDER
18 THE CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC
BY: MR. KEITH HARLEY
19 2938 East 91st Street
Chicago, Illinois 606017
20 (773) 731-1762
21 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER
33 East Wacker Drive
22 Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
23 (312) 795-3707
BY: MR. ALBERT ETTINGER
24
MS. JESSICA DEXTER
0003
1 OPENLANDS
BY: MS. STACY MEYERS-GLEN
2 24 East Washington Street
Suite 1650
3 Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 863-6265
4
FRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER
5 BY: MS. MARGARET FRISBIE
28 East Jackson Boulevard
6 Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60604
7 (312) 939-0490
8 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF ILLINOIS
BY: MS. SUSAN HEDMAN
9 69 West Washington Street
Suite 1800
10 Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 814-4947
11
12
13 REPORTED BY:
14
Steven J. Brickey, CSR
CSR License No. 084-004675
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0004
1
MS. TIPSORD: Good morning. My name
2 is Marie Tipsord and I've been appointed by this
3 board to serve as hearing officer in this
4 proceeding entitled Water Quality Standards and
5 Effluent Limitations for the Chicago Area Waterway
6 System and Lower Des Plaines River proposed
7 amendment 35 IL Adm. Code 301, 302, 303 and 304.
8 The docket number is R08-9. To my immediate right
9 is Dr. Tanner Girard, the lead board member
10 assigned to this matter. Also present, to my far
11 left is board member Thomas Johnson. To my
12 immediate left Anand Rao and to his left Alisa Liu
13 from our technical staff.
14
This is fifth set of hearings to
15 be held in this proceeding and the purpose of
16 today's hearing is to continue hearing testaments
17 from the participants, other than the proponent,
18 the IEPA. At the close of the hearing on
19 September 10th, 2008, we had finished with six
20 witnesses from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
21 District of Greater Chicago, the District.
22
We will continue with the
23 District starting with Earnest Blatchley. Am I
24 pronouncing that correctly, Mr. Blatchley?
0005
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
2
MS. TIPSORD: And then we'll go to
3 Samuel Dorevitch, is that correct?
4
MR. ANDES: Yes.
5
MS. TIPSORD: And so on from there
6 according to the list, the amended list filed on
7 last Thursday, which whatever date that was. I'm
8 drawing a blank. Sorry. The testimony will be
9 marked as an exhibit and entered as if read. We
10 will then immediately proceed to questions for the
11 testifiers beginning with the Natural Resource
12 Defense Counsel, then the IEPA, then the people,
13 Openlands, and finally the Environmental Law and
14 Policy Center.
15
Anyone may ask a follow-up
16 question. You need not wait until your turn to
17 ask questions. I do ask that you raise your hand,
18 wait for me to knowledge you. After I have
19 acknowledged you, please state your name and whom
20 you represent before you begin your questioning.
21 Please speak one at a time. If you're speaking
22 over one another, the court reporter will not to
23 able to get your questions on the record. Also
24 note that any questions asked by a board member or
0006
1 staff are intended to build a complete record for
2 the boards' decision and not to address any
3 preconceived notion or bias. Same as last time.
4 We're going to go until about 5:00 today. We'll
5 take a lunch break, along with breaks throughout
6 the day. A reminder, tomorrow, we are in 2025.
7 That's good news and bad news. The good news is
8 you don't have to go through security. The bad
9 news is the rooms acoustics are even worse than
10 this room. And with that, Dr. Girard.
11
MR. GIRARD: Good morning. On
12 behalf of the board, I welcome everyone to hearing
13 day number 15 in this water rulemaking. We are
14 grateful for your time and contribution to this
15 activity. We look forward to the testimony and
16 questions today. Thank you.
17
MS. TIPSORD: And with that, we'll
18 go to Mr. Andes for the District.
19
MR. ANDES: Yes. Thank you. Before
20 we get into testimony, we do have some documents
21 to provide for the record responsive to the
22 requests that were made in the last round of
23 hearings. And I'll walk through each of them and
24 then I can provide copies.
0007
1
The first and I think this was
2 Environmental Law and Policy Centers request for
3 lease documents. We provided documents with
4 regard to one property that the District leases
5 where there are recreational uses. It's actually
6 a series of documents, an initial lease agreement
7 and subsequent amendments so we have that.
8
MR. ETTINGER: It was Openlands that
9 requested that. I hate reading contracts. That's
10 why I went into litigation.
11
MR. ANDES: Point taken. The second
12 document we have been asked for is information
13 about effluent levels at Hanover Park, Egan and
14 Kirie Treatment Plants and we've provided a table
15 summarizing effluent data during the recreational
16 season. Third, we were asked for copies of the
17 raw data sheets from Geosyntec from the risk
18 assessment and that is voluminous. We have
19 provide that on a disc.
20
Next, is we were asked for any
21 relevant citations in terms of the EPA's reliance
22 on studies in developing water quality criteria
23 for bacteria and for that we have a copy of the
24 EPA's ambient water quality criteria for bacteria,
0008
1 a 1986 document.
2
And then, finally, during
3 Dr. Tolson's (phonetic) testimony, he had
4 described particularly two person jet skis and I
5 was searching for the photos at the time that we
6 were referring to. I have located those photos
7 and we have copies for the record of the two
8 person jet ski that he was speaking of. So those
9 are the documents and we have multiple copies
10 here. I'll be glad to -- I can take one copy out
11 for the record.
12
MS. TIPSORD: Actually, if I could
13 get at least two.
14
MR. ANDES: Sure.
15
MS. TIPSORD: Three if you have
16 them. That would be great.
17
MR. ANDES: That's one, two, three.
18
MS. TIPSORD: Thank you.
19
MR. ANDES: This is a disc. One,
20 two, three. Three of the lease agreements.
21
MS. TIPSORD: Thanks.
22
MR. ANDES: And I'll provide those
23 to each and everybody that want copies of those.
24
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. With that, we
0009
1 will start with the lease agreement. It's
2 entitled Lease Amendment Agreement Ronan Park
3 Expansion. I will mark that as Exhibit 83 if
4 there's no objection, seeing none, it's Exhibit
5 83. Next, is a summary of the recreational season
6 chlorinated/dechlorinated effluent chloroform May
7 1 through October 21st. If there's no objection,
8 I'll mark that as Exhibit 84. Seeing none, that's
9 Exhibit 84.
10
Next, is the CD ROM raw data.
11 I'll mark that as Exhibit Number 85, if there's no
12 objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 85. And
13 then an USEPA document Ambient Water Quality
14 Criteria for Bacteria, 1986. I'll mark that as
15 Exhibit 86, if there's no objection.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: I would just like to
17 point out for the record it's already Attachment Q
18 to the statements of reasons. I mean it hasn't
19 been entered as an exhibit so I don't have an
20 objection as to making it an exhibit, but it is
21 already part of the record.
22
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Thank you.
23 We'll mark this as Exhibit 86. And, finally, the
24 picture of the two person jet ski we'll mark as
0010
1 Exhibit 87, if there's no objection. Seeing none,
2 it's Exhibit 87.
3
MR. ANDES: If I could add just to
4 complete the picture, a couple more things.
5
MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead.
6
MR. ANDES: A couple of issues arose
7 in terms of questions on the risk assessment.
8 First, the distance between various pumping
9 stations and sampling locations and we have a
10 letter from Geosyntec to the District clarifying
11 those locations -- those distances. And then
12 there were also some corrections that needed to be
13 made in terms of particular distances in the
14 report that were inconsistent between two pages
15 and those corrections have been sent to the
16 District and I have both a letter from Geosyntec
17 to the District with those corrections on page 13
18 of the risk assessment report and a cover letter
19 from the District to Illinois EPA enclosing those
20 corrections.
21
MS. TIPSORD: Okay.
22
MR. ANDES: There are three copies
23 of each.
24
MS. TIPSORD: We'll mark the
0011
1 Geosyntec consultants letter dated September 12th,
2 2008, corrected page 13 is the subject, as Exhibit
3 88, if there's no objection. Seeing none, it's
4 Exhibit 88.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just, again,
6 say for the record, Marie, this letter was dated
7 yesterday. So obviously it hasn't actually been
8 received.
9
MS. TIPSORD: You're speaking of the
10 next couple of letters, not the letter I'm marking
11 right now.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: Which letter did you
13 mark?
14
MS. TIPSORD: The September 12th
15 letter.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry.
17
MR. TIPSORD: That's okay. And it's
18 noted for the record on the next one, which is
19 September 22nd, but we'll do the Geosyntec first
20 marked September 22nd and we'll mark that as
21 Exhibit 89. If there's no objection, that's
22 Exhibit 89. And then, finally, the letter to
23 Marshal Wilhite from the District dated September
24 22nd, which the agency has obviously not yet seen,
0012
1 we'll mark as Exhibit 90, if there's no objection.
2 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 90. Speeding towards
3 100 exhibits. Okay. Mr. Andes, anything else?
4
MR. ANDES: One more. Rain gauge
5 data was requested for 2005 and 2006. I have that
6 here. I have two copies --
7
MS. TIPSORD: Okay.
8
MR. ANDES: -- of this assemblage.
9 And I don't remember who asked for this. It might
10 have been the state.
11
MS. TIPSORD: Then we'll mark this
12 whole group of rain gauge data as one exhibit and
13 that will be Exhibit 91. And I have one, two,
14 three, four, five, six paperclipped and then one
15 big clipped grouping here. If there's no
16 objection, we'll mark this as Exhibit 91. Seeing
17 none, it's marked as Exhibit 91.
18
MR. ANDES: Let me clarify. Does
19 the state possibly have the 2006 data only or
20 2005? I may have --
21
MS. TIPSORD: I have 2005 data here.
22
MR. ANDES: So you have six copies?
23
MS. WILLIAMS: We only have 2006
24 here.
0013
1
MR. ANDES: She has six copies of
2 2006.
3
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. So I only needs
4 one of these.
5
MR. ANDES: Right. And then one of
6 these.
7
MS. TIPSORD: Then let's clarify.
8 Exhibit 91 is rain gauge data from 2005, the
9 entire year. So there are 12 pages here and
10 that's Exhibit 91. Exhibit 92 will be rain gauge
11 data from 2006, also, for the entire year so it's
12 12 pages, approximately. And those are both
13 marked. And anything else, Mr. Andes?
14
MR. ANDES: I think that's it.
15
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. That would be
16 wonderful. In that case, would you like to
17 introduce your witness and we'll have him sworn
18 in.
19
MR. ANDES: Surely. I have a copy.
20
MS. TIPSORD: Yes. If I could have
21 a clean copy of his document.
22
MR. ANDES: This is voluminous so we
23 put it on a disk. We have testimony, an initial
24 copy of the testimony and then the rest is all on
0014
1 a disk.
2
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. In that case,
3 I'm trying to think. What I'm going to do is mark
4 both the disc and the testimony as one exhibit for
5 purposes of citation later in the record. It
6 could get quite difficult if we use two different
7 exhibit numbers. So the pre-file testimony --
8 Well, let's swear him in first.
9 WHEREUPON:
10
DR. ERNEST BLATCHLEY III
11 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
12 sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:
13
E X A M I N A T I O N
14
MS. TIPSORD: We will mark
15 Mr. Blatchley's pre-file testimony and attachment
16 on a CD ROM as Exhibit 93, if there's no
17 objection.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just ask a
19 question? I think we have everything. You said
20 it's voluminous, but this is all I have. Does
21 that seem right to you? When we're talking about
22 his testimony, there's his testimony, there's an
23 expanded testimony, there's an article. I just
24 want to make sure that I've got everything.
0015
1
MS. TIPSORD: I also have very --
2 this is it.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. But that's all
4 that's on that CD. Okay.
5
MR. ANDES: Yes. I just thought it
6 was easier that way.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think so, but
8 I understand.
9
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. We'll mark that
10 as Exhibit 93. Okay. And with that, I believe
11 the first questions then go to the Natural
12 Resource Defense Counsel. Ms. Alexander.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: Good morning,
14 Dr. Blatchley. My name Ann Alexander. I'm from
15 the Natural Resource Defense Counsel and I'll be
16 asking you questions this morning --
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: Good morning.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: -- based on the
19 pre-filed questions, which I think you have.
20 Let's turn to the first question that I have for
21 you, which is, do you have any formal training in
22 the field of microbiology?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: As a student, both
24 undergraduate and graduate, I took a few classes
0016
1 that relate to microbiology, but I am not a
2 microbiologist.
3
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Blatchley, you're
4 going to have to speak up.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Would you say that
6 you worked with microbiological data fairly
7 frequently in the context of your research
8 concerning disinfection engineering?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So would it
11 be fair to say that you have a working knowledge
12 of microbiology, but you're not a specialist in
13 it?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Did you participate
16 in any manner in the microbial risk assessment
17 that was conducted by Geosyntec for the Water
18 Reclamation District?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you reviewed
21 that?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Did you provide any
24 comments on it of any kind?
0017
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Do you mean to
2 Geosyntec in their preoperation of the report?
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Geosyntec or the
4 District.
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: With respect to
6 their preparation of the report or just comments
7 after I read it?
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Either one.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think we may have
10 had some discussion afterwards, but, honestly, I
11 don't recall.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you recall
13 at all the nature of the discussions that you had?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. I'm sorry. I
15 don't.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you performed
17 any research yourself specifically for the
18 District? I'm not referring to your testimony,
19 but research for the District.
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: When you say for the
21 District, what do you mean?
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you been
23 retained by the District to perform any research?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
0018
1
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I would
2 like to turn to your pre-filed testimony, which --
3 I'm sorry -- was Exhibit --
4
MR. TIPSORD: 93.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: -- 93 and I'd like
6 to turn to page three, please, under the large
7 heading Problems with Proposed Effluent Bacteria
8 Limit and then under the subheading, coliform
9 bacteria are poor indicators of disinfection
10 ethiticity. I just want to read a little language
11 into the record, but I would like to ask you some
12 questions about it.
13
MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. What page
14 are we on?
15
MS. ALEXANDER: We're on page three
16 under the subheading regarding coliform bacteria.
17
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander, are you
18 asking question number two?
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. I'm sorry.
20 This is question number two.
21
MS. TIPSORD: It might help if you
22 identify the question.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. Yes.
24 The language in your testimony is, for some common
0019
1 pathogens, analytical methods for measurement of
2 their concentration do not exist or are difficult
3 to perform. The large number of microbial species
4 that can be found in municipal waste water also
5 complicate quantification of potential microbial
6 pathogens. From a practical perspective, it is
7 impossible to measure the concentrations of all
8 pathogens in waste water.
9
As an alternative, it is common
10 to measure the concentration of available and/or
11 infected indicators organisms in water. So my
12 first question would be, does this basically
13 define the reason in your view that indicator
14 bacteria are commonly used to estimate or to
15 estimate the presence of pathogens? Pathogens
16 levels, I should say.
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: My view is that
18 indicator organisms are just that, an indicator of
19 the presence of pathogens. Coliform bacteria, are
20 you asking specifically about them?
21
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm asking, first,
22 more broadly about indicator organisms. I mean I
23 should ask the foundational question. What do you
24 consider to be in the category of indicator
0020
1 organisms?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: Coliform bacteria,
3 and/or cocci. There have been people who
4 suggested the use of a total bacterial count.
5 Some people have suggested the use coliphage.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Are either total
7 bacteria count or coliphage in use as in any
8 context that you're aware of?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. Not that I'm
10 aware of.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So the ones
12 that are in use would be the coliform and the
13 enterococcus?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe so, yes.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: So when you referred
16 to indicator bacteria in your testimony, are you
17 basically referring to coliform enterococci?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Coliforms.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Coliforms. Yes.
20 Okay. So my question, my initial question simply
21 is, would you consider the statement that I just
22 read into the record to essentially explain the
23 reason why indicator bacteria are commonly used to
24 estimate pathogen concentrations?
0021
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, I think that's
2 the idea.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Would you
4 agree then that indicator bacteria can be a good
5 indicator of the presence of at least some types
6 of pathogens?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. I would like
9 to turn to the third page of your extended
10 testimony, which unfortunately is unnumbered, but
11 the third page of it starts with the words "the
12 concept of an indicator organism," and then
13 there's some bullet points.
14
Going to the paragraph below
15 that, which begins although and I'll just read
16 that language into the record. Although, no
17 organism has been identified, but ideally or
18 completely satisfies these criteria, as referring
19 to the criteria listed for a good indicator
20 organism, a number of bacterial species have been
21 proposed to satisfy this function. Commonly used
22 indicators include coliform bacteria, e-coli and
23 enterococci. My question there is, would you say
24 that coliform and enterococci are essentially the
0022
1 best indicators available in use now?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: Those are two
3 questions.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: You're right.
5 That's two separate questions. Let me ask the one
6 about in use. Are they the best in use now?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: By default, they're
8 basically the only ones in use.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And would you
10 say that they're wildly used now?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: For what sorts of
13 purposes?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Monitoring of waste
15 water effluent microbial quality.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: And are they also
17 used to make other types of determinations such as
18 closure of beaches?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe so, yes.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
21
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up on
22 that. Dr. Blatchley, can you explain a little bit
23 more? Are we talking about indicators being an
24 indicator of presence or the levels of pathogens?
0023
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: The presence of
2 pathogens is what is indicated by indicator
3 bacteria or indicator organisms, more generally.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Let me follow
5 up on that. Is it your understanding that
6 indicator bacteria are usually used to signal in
7 some manner a threshold level above which some
8 action is required either closing a beach or
9 disinfection?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that is
11 the approach that is used for purposes of defining
12 beach closures, yes.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: So in other words,
14 would it be fair to say that in that regard
15 indicator bacteria are used to signify a level in
16 the sense that they set that threshold?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, I'm not
18 involved in those decisions myself so I have to
19 plead ignorance.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: I understand.
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: I assume that is the
22 basis on which they are proceeding.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
24
MR. ANDES: I'd like to follow up on
0024
1 that. From a scientific perspective, can you
2 explain what you think those indicators tell you?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, the
4 indicators indicate the presence or the possible
5 presence of microbial pathogens. They don't
6 necessarily indicate the absence of microbial
7 pathogens for reasons that I'm sure we'll get
8 into.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. And let me
10 just follow up to clarify that. Am I correct in
11 understanding that your fundamental concern as
12 expressed in the testimony with indicator bacteria
13 is that they are poor indicators in your view of
14 the effectiveness of the disinfection process
15 because they are more easily killed by
16 disinfection than certain types of pathogens, is
17 that correct?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, that is a
19 concern of mine.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Moving to
21 pre-file question three, is it possible to apply
22 levels of disinfection that kill both the
23 indicators and some or most of the microbial
24 pathogens?
0025
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm glad you added
2 that last phrase because, yes, it is possible to
3 apply disinfection to be effective against most
4 microorganisms, but disinfection is not the same
5 thing as sterilization. Sterilization is
6 effectively impractical to accomplish.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Looking at --
8 I'd like to turn to table two of your extended
9 testimony which is headed UV Doses Required For 99
10 Percent Inactivation.
11
MS. TIPSORD: Excuse me,
12 Ms. Alexander. And for the record, his extended
13 testimony is Attachment two to the pre-file
14 testimony.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So Attachment
16 Two to Exhibit 93. And --
17
MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Where were
18 we in that?
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Table two, which
20 should be on the sixth page of it. Am I correct
21 in understanding that this table lists doses of UV
22 radiation that can be applied to achieve 99
23 percent inactivation of water bourne
24 microorganisms?
0026
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Let me just clarify.
2 These values -- the general answer to your
3 question is yes. These values came from a
4 tabulation that was assembled basically for people
5 who are interested in UV disinfection and the
6 values that I pulled off of here for many
7 experiments that were conducted on -- Well, for
8 example, with e-coli, there were many experiments
9 that were conducted where values were reported.
10 So the values that I'm listing here are values
11 that were reported independently by many
12 investigators. Is that clear?
13
MS. ALEXANDER: I think so. So are
14 you saying that these are essentially the most
15 accurate numbers that you could come up with based
16 on the research for purposes of your extended
17 testimony?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. I would say
19 these are the available numbers that I came up
20 with. There was no attempt on my part to identify
21 the quality of the numbers associated. They were
22 just simply recording of values that they,
23 themselves, had previously been recorded.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: So are you saying
0027
1 then that you didn't review all of the underlying
2 research that resulted in the data that's
3 presented in table two?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: That's correct.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have
6 any reason to believe that the UV doses that are
7 identified here as necessary to achieve 99 percent
8 inactivation of water bourne pathogens are in any
9 way not technology feasible as a general matter?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: Just to clarify, are
11 you asking is it possible to develop UV systems
12 that will deliver this amount of radiation?
13
MS. ALEXANDER: That's correct.
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Are any such
16 UV systems in use that you're aware of?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, many.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any
19 reason to believe one way or the other that it
20 would not also be possible to use such a system at
21 the District, at the District's water treatment
22 plant?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe it would
24 possible, yes.
0028
1
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
2
MR. ANDES: I would like to follow
3 up on that. Can you compare the kinds of systems
4 that would be required to meet the proposed
5 standards?
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: What do you mean?
7
MR. ANDES: If we're talking about
8 UV doses required to meet these kind of numbers,
9 is that --
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: Where would we be
11 within this range, is that what you're talking
12 about?
13
MR. ANDES: Well, are we talking
14 about systems that are more expensive than what
15 would be required under this proposal?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm still confused
17 by your question. I'm sorry.
18
MR. ANDES: Let's keep going.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Pre-filed question
20 number four, what is the alternative to the use of
21 coliform bacteria and enterococci as an indicator
22 of disinfection effectiveness? I believe that's
23 partially been asked and answered, but I'll put it
24 out anyway because I'm not entirely sure.
0029
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay. You could use
2 other organisms and I've identified a few total
3 bacterial counts or coliphage as an example. You
4 could also accompany those requirements with
5 requirements on the characteristics of the
6 disinfection system, meaning if -- For example, UV
7 is used, how much UV is applied, what the
8 characteristics of the water are that come into
9 the UV system. All of those could be
10 incorporated.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Dr. Blatchley, can
12 you just explain to me quickly when we're talking
13 about coliform bacteria here, are you talking
14 about total when you're using that term, total
15 coliform?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: I didn't get that.
17
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Williams, you're
18 going to have to speak up.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: We've been using the
20 word coliform in Dr. Blatchley's testimony quite a
21 bit and I think I want to just understand whether
22 we're talking about coliform or fecal coliform.
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: The data, for
24 example, in table two that we just talked about,
0030
1 refers specifically to e-coli, which is a species
2 of coliform bacteria. The majority of the data in
3 the reports that I referred to refer to fecal
4 coliform bacteria, which is related, but not
5 identical. Does that answer your question?
6
MS. WILLIAMS: I think so.
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Getting back to your
9 testimony just now regarding the possibility of
10 using the UV level essentially as an indicator of
11 microbial destruction, is that method in use in
12 any municipal waste water treatment system in the
13 country that you're aware of? And I mean that --
14 I should clarify the question. I mean without
15 also use of indicator bacteria so solely using the
16 UV level.
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: Solely using that
18 level?
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not aware that
21 it is, no.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
23
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. I'm not
24 sure I understood Ms. Alexander's question. Can I
0031
1 just follow up slightly? As I understand what
2 your suggestion was is that the standard would be
3 written in with the technology level rather than a
4 fecal coliform level. Am I wrong?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, my suggestion
6 was both.
7
MR. ETTINGER: Was both?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
9
MR. ETTINGER: So you would be more
10 comfortable if you were trying to design a permit
11 if it would have both a technology requirement and
12 an, indicator requirement?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. Moving
16 to question five, again, I think that's been
17 partially answered, but perhaps not completely so
18 let's go there. Regarding the statement in your
19 testimony at three, that -- and I'll quote "use of
20 coliform as an indicator organism provides
21 potentially misleading information regarding the
22 performance of disinfection systems." Is what you
23 essentially mean by that that these indicators can
24 provide, as it were, a false reassurance of
0032
1 safety?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
4
MR. ANDES: Can you explain that
5 more fully?
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. The concern
7 is that coliform indicator bacteria are
8 insufficiently protective as a measure of the
9 presence of pathogens, is that correct, in
10 identifying your concerns?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MR. ANDES: Please --
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Do you want me to
14 expand?
15
MR. ANDES: Yes.
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: As we examined
17 before, coliform bacteria are very sensitive to
18 disinfect and exposure. So the conditions of
19 disinfect and exposure that are required to
20 accomplish irregulatory limits like 400 CFU's per
21 100 ML are really fairly mild and just because you
22 satisfy that constraint does not necessarily mean
23 that you've inactivated the microbial pathogens
24 that exist in the water.
0033
1
MR. ANDES: And what would be
2 required to actually inactivate those pathogens?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, as an example,
4 in water reuse applications where direct human
5 contact is likely to take place because the water
6 is going to be used for irrigation or whatever,
7 under those circumstances the extent of disinfect
8 and exposure is anywhere from five to ten times
9 greater than what would be required to meet these
10 regulations. So, I mean depending upon the
11 disinfectant I suppose, would be the --
12
MR. ANDES: And then the cost in
13 treating would be five to ten times higher, is
14 that correct?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: As a ball park
16 number, yes, it would be roughly five to ten times
17 higher.
18
MR. ETTINGER: If I can just ask
19 about the indicator again. Is your problem with
20 the 400 or the fecal? I mean if you made the
21 number 20 as opposed to 400 would that satisfy
22 your objection or would it not have any effect?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: There's several
24 issues. One problem is the 400 because it
0034
1 really -- that's not really very difficult to
2 accomplish and the conditions that are required to
3 accomplish that are really pretty mild in terms of
4 disinfection. So the number frankly to me seems
5 not very effective in terms of controlling
6 microbial pathogens. Another issue is that the
7 waste water effluents are not the only source of
8 pathogens to the waterways and no matter what you
9 do to the waste water effluents, if it were
10 theoretically possible to sterilize, that still
11 wouldn't solve the problem.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Leaving aside that
13 second problem, and we understand that that's
14 another issue here, let's assume we had a
15 situation here where the only source of pathogens
16 was the waste water. Is there a number less than
17 400 in which you would be comfortable that we did
18 have an adequate indicator of whether or not there
19 were pathogens in the water?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: It would depend on
21 what the intended use of the water is, but if the
22 intended use of the water is going to be something
23 like, you know, irrigation as is done in southern
24 California, the limits that are applied there are
0035
1 basically the limits of defection for the
2 analytical method for coliform bacteria. So it's
3 2.2 per hundred ML base on the MPN method, which
4 is essentially the limit of detection, but they
5 also need to validate that they're getting four
6 logs of inactivation of enterococcus viruses. And
7 that's done basically by assuring that the
8 conditions of disinfection are adequate to ensure
9 that that's accomplished reliably.
10
ME. ETTINGER: That's the
11 technology. How do you do that? Do you look at
12 the -- do you have a technology requirement or how
13 does that work?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, I believe so.
15 I don't think it's practical to monitor the
16 enteric viruses. That's not going to be done. It
17 can be done in a research setting, but to do it
18 every day I think is just not -- I'm not aware
19 that anybody does that, but I could be wrong.
20
MR. ETTINGER: So how do you monitor
21 to make sure you're getting the enteric viruses if
22 you're not counting the viruses themselves?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: The approach that's
24 used there is very similar to the approach that's
0036
1 used in drinking water where the concentration of
2 microbial pathogens is presumably low. So, again,
3 what you do is ensure the conditions of
4 disinfection and the water quality approaching the
5 disinfection are such that you would expect that
6 an acceptable water quality would result.
7
MR. ETTINGER: Just so we can go and
8 look at such a permit and see how it's done in a
9 regulatory manner, are you familiar with any
10 particular permit that has these sorts of
11 conditions that you're talking about that would
12 provide for the monitoring that you would think
13 was adequate to protect in this irrigation
14 situation?
15
MR. ANDES: We do have a copy of the
16 compilation of the California Reuse Requirements,
17 if that's helpful.
18
MR. ETTINGER: That would be
19 something we could look at then.
20
MR. ANDES: Yes. I have copies.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
22
MR. ANDES: Sure.
23
MS. TIPSORD: Are we going to enter
24 that as an exhibit then?
0037
1
MR. ANDES: I'm fine with that.
2
MR. ETTINGER: I have no objection.
3
MS. TIPSORD: We might get to 100
4 today.
5
MR. ANDES: I think we're going to
6 get there.
7
MS. TIPSORD: I will mark as Exhibit
8 94, California Health Laws Related to Recycled
9 Water. It's a June 2001 addition from the
10 California -- from the purple book. If there's no
11 objection, that's Exhibit 94. Seeing none, it's
12 Exhibit 94.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Could I just follow
14 up with one other thing? You suggested or said in
15 your testimony that part of your looking at the
16 level would depend on the use of the waste water
17 and then you pointed us to the irrigation
18 situation, are you familiar with California or
19 what others do in the swimming water situation
20 that you were talking about?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. Do you mean
22 beaches?
23
MR. ETTINGER: Yeah.
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I'm not.
0038
1
MR. ETTINGER: Leaving aside the
2 irrigation situation, again, I believe you
3 answered that you would not be comfortable using
4 400 fecal coliform and then we would look at the
5 use of the water and then we went to this
6 irrigation situation, how would your answer change
7 if we were look at swimming as opposed to
8 irrigation?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm sorry. I don't
10 know enough about what the numbers -- Presumably,
11 the approach that would be used would be some sort
12 of correlation between some monitoring organisms
13 and the pathogens that you're concerned about, but
14 I don't know the numbers that would be used under
15 those circumstances?
16
MR. ETTINGER: You don't know
17 whether you'd want to go to the detection level
18 under those circumstances or not?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm sorry. I don't.
20
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
21
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
22
MR. HARLEY: Keith Harley with the
23 Southeast Environmental Task Force. Dr.
24 Blatchley, you've talked about numeric limits that
0039
1 can appear in permits, for example, 400 coliform
2 forming units and you've talked about approaches
3 where you could obtain very, very low levels like
4 2.2. With the typical application of UV systems
5 that you've seen, what are the levels achieved in
6 terms of the level of colony forming units in
7 waste water?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think they
9 typically shoot to be reliably under the limit
10 that is imposed. So if the limit is 400, you can
11 expect it going to be somewhere under 400.
12
MR. HARLEY: Do facilities which are
13 subject to the 400 colony forming unit numeric
14 limit achieve better results?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sometimes, yes.
16
MR. HARLEY: And what would be the
17 best result that they would achieve using UV under
18 typical conditions?
19
MR. ANDES: Can I clarify what kind
20 of -- are you talking about conventional
21 disinfection? He's characterized conventional
22 disinfection versus sort of the California
23 example. Are you talking about conventional
24 disinfection?
0040
1
MR. HARLEY: I'm talking about
2 conventional disinfection.
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: I would guess there
4 would be days where you have non-detect.
5
MR. ANDES: Would that be on a
6 consistent basis?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. There's a
8 number of things that influence the concentration
9 of viable coliform bacteria or any other organism
10 that is going to leave a disinfecting system,
11 including water quality that comes in. And that
12 is not the same from day-to-day or even hour to
13 hour. So it depends on, you know, when you
14 collect your sample, what the characteristics of
15 the treatment system upstream of disinfection were
16 and a number of other things.
17
And, in fact, the analytical
18 methods that you use to quantify micro organisms
19 also are subject to quite a bit of error. There's
20 a fair amount of error in those analytical methods
21 just in the numbers that we report. So it's
22 common to see, you know, substantial variations in
23 those numbers. So I wouldn't be surprised to see
24 non-detects from time to time and also things that
0041
1 approach or even exceed the limit from time to
2 time in various facilities. I think that's pretty
3 common.
4
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: With respect to the
6 400 colony forming units standard that we're
7 discussing, were that imposed in a situation such
8 as the District, as has been proposed by IEPA,
9 would you expect that there would be at least some
10 reduction in the pathogen levels of the effluent?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: So the question that
13 we're addressing in your testimony is how to get a
14 greater reduction, not whether there's going to be
15 some reduction or no reduction, is that correct?
16 It's level of safety?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: That's one of the
18 questions, yes.
19
MR. ANDES: And what are the other
20 questions?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, the other
22 concerns I have relate to what are the sources of
23 pathogenic microorganisms that exist in the
24 waterways. That would be the respective of what
0042
1 you do with the effluent that's not going to be
2 effected by what's being proposed.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. We'll get to
4 that subject a little further down. Can you
5 explain if one had a chlorination system that was
6 essentially designed to meet the 400 colony
7 forming unit limit, what would have to be done to
8 that system in order to meet a more stringent
9 limit of the type that you discussed in your
10 testimony?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay. The example
12 that I gave in the testimony, I believe, referred
13 to Title 22 systems in California. These are
14 reuse systems where, again, the microbial
15 constraints are less than 2.2 per hundred ML,
16 which basically means non-detect and you need to
17 demonstrate, let's say, four log units of enteric
18 virus inactivation.
19
The conditions of chlorinations
20 that are required to accomplish that, I believe,
21 are on the order of four to five milligrams per
22 liter of free chlorine and 120 minutes of contact
23 time. So often times, we characterize that
24 cholerine exposure as the product nominally of the
0043
1 concentration of the disinfectant and the exposure
2 time or CT. So the CT value is going to be
3 somewhere in the vicinity of 500 milligram minutes
4 per liter.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: So in other words,
6 if one has a chlorination/dechlorination system in
7 operation and one wishes to meet a more stringent
8 limit, it's not a question of adding a lot of new
9 hardware, it's a question of increasing contact
10 time and chlorine levels, am I understanding
11 correctly?
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, I believe that
13 is a lot of new hardware, but, yes, you are
14 talking about by one means or another increasing
15 the chlorine exposure by a factor of ten roughly.
16 So that can be done by, at least in theory, that
17 can be done by increasing the contact time, by
18 increasing the concentration of disinfectant that
19 is maintained in the contact chamber or some
20 combination of those things.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: And what's the new
22 hardware that is involved in that?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: A larger contact
24 chamber. I would assume there may be new hardware
0044
1 associated with delivering more chlorine also.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Same question with
3 respect to ultra violet, if one had a system that
4 was meeting 400 colony forming unit standard and
5 one wanted to make that more -- wanted to meet a
6 more stringent limit, what would need to be done?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: You'll need to
8 increase the size of the facility. I don't think
9 it's quite as extreme as with chlorine. I would
10 guess on the order of five times bigger and that
11 basically means five times as many lamps or five
12 times as much power that you can deliver in the
13 form of germicidal UV radiation.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. If you're
15 adding more power, is it necessary to add
16 significant infrastructure other than that?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: It's not just a
18 question of electrical power, it's the lamp to
19 deliver the power. So imagine in this room that
20 you wanted to increase the visible light, the
21 power of visible light in the room. You would do
22 that by multiplying, let's say, by a factor of
23 five. You would increase by a factor of five the
24 number of lights that you had assuming that you
0045
1 were using the same lamp technology.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: So, essentially,
3 what we're talking about to intensify the kill
4 ratio as it were of ultra violet is a lot more
5 light bulbs?
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: And related
7 hardware, yes.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Now, is it
9 your view that there is some level of disinfection
10 between the level of 400 colony forming units and
11 the, essentially, reuse level in use in California
12 that would be appropriate in a recreational
13 waterway system such as the CAWS?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: I suppose there
15 could be one, but I'm not sure what it would be.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So is it your
17 view that this reuse level is appropriate for the
18 CAWS?
19
MR. ANDES: I don't think he's
20 opining on that issue.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry?
22
MR. ANDES: If you're asking from a
23 risk assessment standpoint because that's not his
24 area.
0046
1
MS. ALEXANDER: But he has presented
2 testimony all about why the current level is not
3 appropriate and it ought to be made more
4 stringent. So my question is --
5
MR. ANDES: I object to the
6 characterization of his testimony. It should be
7 made more stringent.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: I mean -- Hold on a
9 second.
10
MR. ANDES: Pointing out that more
11 stringent levels would be needed to kill most
12 pathogens is a different issue than saying it
13 should be made more stringent.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: I would point out
15 that in the article that is attached to or made a
16 part of Attachment two to Exhibit 93, highlighted
17 in the conclusions is a statement considering --
18 Well, I'll read the statement. "It is important
19 to consider the second central question of this
20 research, which is under circumstances where
21 disinfection is necessary, how should it be
22 accomplished," and hold on one second.
23
MR. ANDES: But he hasn't testified
24 that disinfection would be necessary here. We
0047
1 have to characterize his reports. They are what
2 they are.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm lost in the
4 language here. Just a moment.
5
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander, try
6 rephrasing your question. I think we're spending
7 a lot of time arguing a point that can be
8 accomplished if you just rephrase your question.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any
10 basis to believe that the reuse standard in use in
11 California is appropriate for use in a
12 recreational water body such as the CAWS?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: I don't know.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: You have no basis
15 one way or the other?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I'm sorry. I
17 don't.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
19
MR. HARLEY: Before we go on --
20
MR. TIPSORD: Yes, Mr. Harley.
21
MR. HARLEY: Then why did you
22 feature the California reuse standards so
23 prominently in your pre-file testimony?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: I wanted to
0048
1 illustrate that there's a range of disinfection.
2 When people say you're going to use disinfection,
3 what does that mean? In my mind, that means a
4 number of things. It can range from nothing,
5 which is applied many places, to fairly extensive
6 disinfectant exposure which is applied, for
7 example, in the case of reuse applications in the
8 southwest, including California. So my point was
9 to illustrate that disinfection is not a box that
10 fits everyone. There is a range of these
11 applications that exist all the way from zero to
12 very extensive.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Dr. Blatchley --
14
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Williams, you need
15 to project. They need to hear you back there too.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Dr. Blatchley,
17 if you don't have an opinion on what level of
18 treatment would be necessary for recreational
19 waters, why are you testifying that you think 400
20 is not sufficiently stringent?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: The research that
22 we've done on waste water disinfection was based
23 largely on systems that I labeled as conventional
24 disinfection and I would include one that is
0049
1 designed to satisfy that constraint as a
2 conventional disinfection system. Our
3 observations of what happens to the microbial
4 community as a result of that exposure and
5 following that exposure suggests that it's really
6 not very beneficial to do that and in some cases,
7 it's actually detrimental in terms of microbial
8 quality.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain
10 detrimental?
11
MR. ANDES: Do you want to use the
12 charts?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. This is going
14 to take a minute to walk through.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: You know, there might
16 be -- Do we want to save this? This might be
17 going out of order to go down this path now.
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: I had a series of
20 questions about this, but perhaps it will come up
21 in the context of those questions, however, people
22 want to do it.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: I asked the question,
24 but I can withdraw it at this time.
0050
1
MS. TIPSORD: Do you want to
2 withdraw it?
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
4
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander, we're
5 back to you.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. It
7 appears that pre-file question six and seven have
8 been basically asked and answered at this point.
9 So I am going to turn to pre-file question eight,
10 which concludes -- involves the second portion,
11 essentially, of conclusion number two on page nine
12 of your pre-file testimony, which I believe also
13 gets to the question that Ms. Williams asked and
14 the statement that I'm referencing there is the
15 response of the bacterial community to the
16 post-disinfection environment will be influenced
17 by bacterial repair, recovery and regrowth.
18 Collectively, these processes may yield diminished
19 water quality relative to a situation that
20 disinfection is not practiced. Is that,
21 essentially, the subject matter you were referring
22 to just now when you said that the effects could
23 be detrimental?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
0051
1
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. First off,
2 Subquestion A, do all pathogenic bacteria exhibit
3 the same response to chlorine disinfectants as
4 fecal coliform?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So in other
7 words, they don't all have the same capacity for
8 repair and regrowth, is that correct?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that's
10 correct, yes, but we have not investigated it.
11 Let me just further characterize. I'm assuming
12 that is the case.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So there's
14 been no research one way or the other that you're
15 aware of on that point?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. If you used a
18 higher level of chlorine disinfection at
19 increasingly higher levels, I should say, would
20 you expect that there could be a change in the
21 ability of the microorganisms to repair and
22 regrow?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, I would expect
24 that because generally it is assumed that the
0052
1 ability of an organism to repair and regrow
2 depends on the extent to which it has been
3 damaged.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: And same question
5 for UV.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes. Same response.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: Subquestion C under
8 question eight, do your findings regarding
9 regrowth in your study apply to viruses and
10 protozoa or just fecal chloroform bacteria?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: In fact, they apply
12 to fecal chloroform bacteria and the total
13 bacterial counts within the samples.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: Now, I'd like to
15 turn, please, to table three in your study that is
16 from Water Environment Research, which is attached
17 to Attachment two of Exhibit 93, which is the
18 table I will represent that purports to display
19 the numbers that reflect the regrowth of the
20 bacteria. My first question there is under
21 Subquestion D.
22
MS. TIPSORD: I'm sorry. I'm not
23 even sure where you're at.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: There is a study
0053
1 attached to Attachment Two entitled Effective
2 Water Bourne Disinfection on Water Bourne Bacteria
3 and Viruses by --
4
MR. TIPSORD: That's actually
5 Attachment Three.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. You're
7 right.
8
MR. TIPSORD: So Attachment Three,
9 table three, which is page 87 of that article.
10 Thank you. Sorry.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Are we there?
12
MR. ANDES: Yes.
13
MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Blatchley, my
15 first question there is -- I should clarify. T
16 equals 144 is the end of the study period, is that
17 correct, the point at which you measured regrowth?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. In fact, we
19 measured every day over a period of six days. So
20 that would be the last day in the incubation
21 period.
22
MS. ALEXANDER: So when I say T
23 equals 144 as here in this table I'm referring to
24 the last day of the incubation period and my
0054
1 question is were the levels at T equals 144, this
2 last day of measurement, ever higher than the
3 undisinfected levels that existed prior to T
4 equals zero?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: Repeat the question
6 one more time because I want to make sure I
7 understood it correctly.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Looking at
9 the table, I'm going to do this by example. Let's
10 take Facility B, the one at the top. You have at
11 the second column over from the right it states
12 fecal coliform T equals zero, which is the point
13 at which you began measurement, is that correct?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes. Actually, T
15 equals zero in this experiment was post
16 disinfection.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: So that's when
19 incubation started.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Let's go down.
21 Moving vertically, you have UV
22 chlorination/dechlorination and then according to
23 the table footnote, ORI width indicates the
24 control sample with acidic substrates and without
0055
1 indicates without the substrates, but that was
2 essentially without disinfection, is that correct?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Both of them were.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: So if we move across
5 the table to these two numbers, ORI with and
6 without, for Facility B you see what I would
7 characterize as fairly high numbers. You have
8 2.81 times 10 to the 5th and 2.16 times 10 to the
9 5th, which is the fecal coliform levels in the
10 undisinfected effluent, is that correct?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: So am I correct in
13 observing that regardless of any repair and
14 regrowth, the numbers, the level of fecal coliform
15 bacteria at the end of the study period at T
16 equals 144 were always lower than the
17 undisinfected levels, is that correct?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. There's an
19 example right here of where the opposite is true.
20 Let me just clarify because I'm not sure that I'm
21 understanding your question and actually let me
22 just clarify the point of the experiment. The
23 point of the experiment was to follow the dynamics
24 of the microbial population post disinfection and
0056
1 to compare that with an undisinfected sample. So
2 our interests were to evaluate how the microbial
3 population responded to either the application of
4 disinfection or the non-application of
5 disinfection. In some cases when we evaluate the
6 coliform concentration, for example, at the end of
7 that experiment, the concentration of coliform
8 bacteria in the undisinfected sample was actually
9 higher than in the disinfected sample, meaning
10 that after six days of incubation, the coliform
11 concentration in the disinfected sample was
12 actually higher than it was in the undisinfected
13 system. Would it be clearer to look at the data
14 just as an example?
15
MS. ALEXANDER: First, I'd like to
16 clarify what is on this table because that's where
17 I'm getting the understanding of your research
18 results and I'm not quite seeing what you're
19 saying here. What I do see is that T equal zero.
20 When you apply, for instance,
21 chlorination/dechlorination, you get a level of
22 715 and then there was some regrowth and then you
23 get 1133.
24
However, in the undisinfected
0057
1 effluent, you start out with a level of 2.81 or
2 2.16 times 10 to the 5th and you end up with
3 levels of 5825 and 7275 respectfully. So
4 regardless of the regrowth that appears to happen
5 between T equals zero from 715 to T equals 144,
6 you have higher levels in the undisinfected
7 samples after that amount of time and, of course,
8 they're vastly higher than the undisinfected
9 sample at T equals zero. Are those correct
10 observations?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Moving down
13 to the next one you've got for UV --
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Are you talking
15 about Facility D now?
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. For Facility D
17 for undisinfected you have a couple of numbers
18 times 10 to the 5th and then you move across if
19 you don't do anything to those you end with
20 numbers of 2718 and 1262, respectfully, correct?
21 That's at T equal 144 in the first column over to
22 the right. That's your -- the level of
23 undisinfected if you just leave it sitting in the
24 petri dish or whatever you use to come up with
0058
1 that. Here, if you disinfect with
2 chlorination/dechlorination, you appear to have
3 some regrowth from 61.5 which is, of course, a lot
4 lower than these undisinfected numbers and then it
5 regrows to 20/40.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: Which is higher than
7 the 1282.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Right. Which is
9 marginally higher than the 1282.
10
MR. ANDES: I'd object to
11 marginally.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Is that the one
13 example you were referring to?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, Facility A as
15 well.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Right. Okay.
17 Right. There's two examples. There's a Facility
18 A and a Facility D. So in other words, the
19 differences that you're referring to are
20 essentially of that order, correct, within the
21 same order of magnitude, but there are some
22 marginally higher numbers in these circumstances
23 at the end of the study period in the
24 undisinfected versus the disinfected, is that
0059
1 correct?
2
MR. ANDES: I'd object to the
3 marginally. I'd let him characterize it himself,
4 but he can also use the chart to talk about it.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Of the same
6 order of magnitude I would say.
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think that's a
8 fair characterization, yes.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And those are
10 the only two examples, in that correct, in this
11 table?
12
MR. ANDES: Two out of four.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: It not's two out of
14 four because it's specific types of disinfection.
15
MR. ANDES: There's four of them and
16 there's two.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: There's eight
18 examples because in both you use UV and
19 chlorination, correct, two different types of
20 experiments?
21
MR. ANDES: There's more than two
22 situations where they're low. The point he is
23 trying to make is in some cases the levels after
24 disinfection are higher than the undisinfected
0060
1 effluent and that point is made by the chart.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Can we talk
3 about the chart? Is this going to be an exhibit?
4
MR. ANDES: Yes.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: I thought it was a
6 blow up of something in here, but it's not, is it?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
8
MR. ANDES: Right. And I know I do
9 have copies of that for everyone if I can just
10 locate them.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I think
12 we're ready to go to the chart now.
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Can you see it? Do
14 you need me to move it?
15
MR. TIPSORD: You can tilt it this
16 way. Turn it a little bit. And we'll wait until
17 we get the paper.
18
MR. ANDES: I'm looking.
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Can you see it now?
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, I can see it.
21
MS. TIPSORD: We're going to wait
22 until we get a hard copy so everyone can see it.
23
MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. I am unable
24 to locate my copies, but I have copies made.
0061
1
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. It's probably
2 easier to turn it this way and we'll move down.
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Is that correct?
4 Whatever you want.
5
MS. TIPSORD: Just turn it this way.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay. So let me
7 explain the experiment and the data and how it's
8 being presented and then I'll kind of walk you
9 through it. The experiment involved the
10 collection of undisinfected samples from a number
11 of different waste water treatment facilities,
12 municipal waste water treatment facilities. We
13 would have them shipped to our lab and then we
14 would perform some form of treatment at the bench
15 involving those samples. Now, the treatment that
16 we would use in the case of UV or chlorine, these
17 were disinfectant exposures, that other
18 experiments that we had conducted, had suggested,
19 would allow us to comply with the relevant
20 discharge regulations. So usually it's going to
21 be a coliform standard that we needed to meet,
22 fecal coliform standard that we needed to meet.
23
So, again, what we wanted to do
24 in these experiments was to mimic what would have
0062
1 been done at full scale, but do it in our lab
2 under controlled conditions where we could then
3 take those samples and then evaluate what happens
4 to them chemically or microbiologically. In this
5 case, what we did was we took those samples and we
6 divided post disinfectant exposure, we incubated
7 them for a period of six days.
8
And every day we would collect a
9 sample, among the things we would do is collect a
10 sample from that incubated sample and measure the
11 total bacteria counts and the fecal coliform
12 concentration, viable fecal coliform
13 concentration. So for each one of these samples
14 that we would collect from a waste water treatment
15 facility, there would be a UV disinfected sample,
16 a sample that was subjected to chlorination and
17 dechlorination and both of those samples before we
18 started the incubation, we add a little bit of
19 acidic acid because we had determined that would
20 be representative of the partially reduced
21 substrates that these micro organisms might
22 encounter when they were released to a receiving
23 stream or something like that.
24
So we actually did two controls
0063
1 in these experiments. One control was the
2 undisinfected sample to which we added that same
3 substrates and that's labeled as original with and
4 another was the undisinfected sample to which we
5 added nothing. So that's original without. So
6 for each sample we collect then there are four
7 treatments that we evaluated, UV,
8 chlorination/dechlorination, the control with a
9 substrates and the control without the substrates.
10 Does that make sense? It's a lot, I think.
11
And in each experiment what we
12 would do, again, would be to follow the total
13 bacterial numbers up here and the viable coliform
14 concentration. Okay? So there's a couple of
15 patterns that show up in this data set and I
16 should say also that for each facility we
17 collected samples on four different dates and
18 subjected them to this essay. So these are
19 actually the averages of these four data sets.
20
MS. TIPSORD: Excuse me,
21 Dr. Blatchley. I remember you talking about the
22 transcript. People aren't going to have that. So
23 for the record, you're pointing to the chart
24 that's labeled Facility D St. Petersburg, which
0064
1 we'll enter as Exhibit 95 when we get a copy of
2 it. So when you talk about the things you're
3 discussing, you're pointing to that chart and
4 talking about the plotting on the chart.
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: Should I refer to it
6 as Exhibit 95?
7
MS. TIPSORD: That's fine. I just
8 wanted to be sure that we got that in there
9 because you started to refer to this and that and
10 I want to make sure that everyone knows that
11 you're referring to Exhibit 95. Go ahead. Thank
12 you.
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: So these data down
14 here that are illustrated represent the coliform
15 concentrations and I should point out the vertical
16 axis of Exhibit 95 there is a break and I did that
17 intentionally because there is a several orders of
18 magnitude difference between the concentration of
19 viable coliforms that we measure and the total
20 bacteria counts that we get. And that's evident
21 here roughly 10 to the 8th whereas down here we
22 might be 10 to the 3rd or 10 to the 4th.
23
So if we were to follow the
24 coliform counts, what we observe is that the
0065
1 samples without disinfection and actually they
2 show up above the scale over here, they tend to
3 show some die off following disinfection. I'm
4 sorry. Following not disinfection. So starting
5 at T equals zero. So it's unfortunate that the T
6 equals zero sample didn't show up with this axis
7 break, but I believe it's somewhere over here
8 about 10 to the 5th and following the initiation
9 of this incubation experiment, again, the
10 concentration of these things just gradually dies
11 and that's pretty commonly observed with coliform
12 bacteria.
13
The contrast to that would be
14 the UV disinfected sample, which is the blue dot
15 or triangles and, I guess, it's the pink hexagon,
16 which represents the sample that was subject to
17 chlorination/dechlorination. Their behavior is
18 somewhat erratic in the case of chlorine, but
19 generally we see a trend of increasing
20 concentration of those coliforms. And, actually,
21 the general trend -- I'm not sure how you account
22 or do this in your reporting, but the general
23 trend is to have those two things converge.
24
And in this case, in the case of
0066
1 chlorination/dechlorination the concentration
2 actually exceeded the controls at the end of the
3 experiment. Okay? It's also important to point
4 out what's happening with the total numbers up
5 here. This set of inverted red triangles
6 represent the response of the total bacterial
7 community post disinfection with chlorine being
8 the disinfectant and you see that after two days
9 we have roughly an order of magnitude more
10 bacteria than total bacteria than were present in
11 any of the other samples.
12
So to clarify there was no
13 effort that was made here to try to identify what
14 comprises that population of bacteria. It was
15 simply a body count with no species
16 identification, but clearly the concentration here
17 is higher than it is down here by roughly an order
18 of magnitude. Does that define or does that
19 clarify how we did those experiments and what they
20 suggest?
21
MS. ALEXANDER: It's helpful and
22 since this is the first time I have seen this
23 chart I may need to review it and ask some follow
24 ups, but I just want to be clear and I'm going to
0067
1 go to the chart myself looking at the fecal
2 concentration, which is what I believe was
3 discussed in your testimony, am I correct that
4 this line with the pink dots represents the effect
5 of chlorine disinfection, is that right?
6
MR. BLATCHLEY:
7 Chlorination/dechlorination.
8
MS. ALEXANDER:
9 Chlorination/dechlorination. And then this line
10 here the with the gray triangles is essentially
11 the undisinfected effluent, is that correct?
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: So what we have
14 going on here you have the undisinfected effluent
15 start off somewhere here off the chart .
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: It's not off the
17 chart. It's off the lower break.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Off the lower
19 break. And then you have the disinfected effluent
20 starting off down here and you have given this
21 erratic pattern, they gradually converge at a
22 point almost at the end of your study period here
23 right before the six on the timeline and then they
24 cross. So would it be fair to say that during all
0068
1 of the time frame prior to this convergence right
2 before the six, in fact, the level in the
3 undisinfected sample is higher than in the
4 disinfected sample?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, it is, but I
6 would say at three days you're pretty close.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: You're pretty close,
8 but then you get further apart again, right?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: By pretty close the
11 distance between these two, between the
12 disinfected pink dots and at approximately time
13 equals three days and the gray triangle at that
14 same point is somewhat further than the distance
15 at T equals 144, which is day six when they have
16 converged and crossed in the other direction, is
17 that correct?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: And would it be fair
20 to say -- can we summarize that for the vast
21 amount of this time except for toward the end of
22 day five leading to day six the undisinfected
23 numbers are substantially higher than the
24 disinfected numbers?
0069
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: The undisinfected
2 numbers are higher.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
4
MR. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
5
MR. HARLEY: Do you retain the
6 samples in containers in your lab, is that
7 correct?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, in an
9 incubator.
10
MR. HARLEY: How big were those
11 containers?
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe they were
13 one liter samples.
14
MR. HARLEY: And how did you account
15 for differences, for example, that would occur if
16 they had been discharged into a water which was
17 flowing or a water where the samples were heavily
18 diluted, did you account for those kinds of
19 discharge conditions at all?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, we collected
21 samples from a number of different facilities and
22 the idea was to come up with an index test that
23 would allow us to evaluate how does the microbial
24 community respond to all of them. So we made no
0070
1 attempt to try to characterize or mimic the
2 differences that exist in the actual receding
3 waters because I think that the idea there was it
4 would have complicated the subsequent analysis.
5 We wanted to set everyone on same playing field so
6 we could do a direct comparison on how these
7 things, how the microbial communities responded.
8
MR. HARLEY: So, for example, if you
9 were talking about a discharge which occurred at
10 the Calumet Waste Water Treatment Plant into the
11 Calumet River on the southeast side you don't know
12 six days later where that sample would be in
13 relationship to where it was discharged, that
14 would not be a factor in your evaluations, in your
15 experiment?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
17
MR. HARLEY: Is it more likely that
18 the lower numbers achieved in the disinfected
19 samples on day one would be found closer into the
20 facility than the samples found on day six?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: That seems
22 reasonable, yes.
23
MR. HARLEY: So if you want to
24 protect the Chicago area waterways, for example,
0071
1 at the point of outfall, then the most relevant
2 data that we would have from your experiment would
3 be the data from zero to one as opposed to from
4 five to six?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not sure that
6 I'll comfortable with that suggestion and I'm not
7 an expert on the Chicago area waterways themselves
8 in terms of their hydrodynamics, but my
9 understanding is that the water in the waterways
10 moves very slowly.
11
MR. HARLEY: Throughout the entire
12 70 plus --
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, I'm not an
14 expert on this, but the little bit of reading I've
15 done on this does suggests that it does move
16 pretty slowly.
17
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you know how far
19 downstream the water travels after six days?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I do not.
21
MR. HARLEY: Dr. Blatchley, are
22 there -- I'm sorry.
23
MR. TIPSORD: Go ahead.
24
MR. HARLEY: Dr. Blatchley, are
0072
1 there other factors in the receding water that may
2 effect the levels of -- the indicators that you
3 measured here?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, I would
5 imagine.
6
MR. HARLEY: And those were not
7 taken into account, either, in your experiment?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, the idea in
9 this experiment was to have a consistent index
10 test that could be used to compare the responses
11 of the microbial community from many different
12 waste water treatment facilities. So we wanted to
13 set that as a standard that all of these tests
14 were subjected to.
15
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Did you study or
17 consider what any of the causation elements would
18 be here that might lead to levels -- Did you look
19 at the causation that lead you to these numbers?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, again, these
21 were empirical observations.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So sitting
23 here you have no idea why the numbers went one way
24 or the another because of the various CAWS?
0073
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I guess I'm not
2 quite sure how to answer your question, but I
3 guess the general answer would be no.
4
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: One question to
6 clarify. Did the level in the sample disinfected
7 with ultraviolet ever regrow to a point that was
8 higher than the level in either of the
9 undisinfected samples?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: I guess in the data
11 that is present in table three, which is what I
12 guess you're referring to. I guess I don't see
13 any examples of where that is so, but, again, the
14 data that is presented in those tables represent
15 an average of four experiments that were conducted
16 in each facility. So I don't know, I don't recall
17 all the details of all the numbers that went into
18 this table.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any
20 reason to believe that there is data that's not
21 presented in this table that indicates that the
22 samples at T equals 144 for the effluent
23 disinfectant with UV were ever higher than the
24 samples of undisinfected effluent either with or
0074
1 without?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm going to give
3 you kind of a -- how would I characterize this
4 response? Part of the motivation for doing this
5 study was that there had been -- there is concern
6 that exists in the literature as to the potential
7 for a process called photoreactivation and another
8 process called dark repair that would follow UV
9 irradiation.
10
It's also clear in the
11 literature that microorganisms or microbial
12 communities can repair sub lethal damage to any
13 form of stress, at least, in theory. So our goal,
14 one of our goals in these experiments was to
15 evaluate to what extent was that repair going to
16 be important with respect to UV and with respect
17 to chlorine. In the literature, there does seem
18 to be for whatever reason, let's say, more concern
19 associated with photoreactivation and dark repair.
20 In other words, the repair and recovery process is
21 more associated with UV than it is with the
22 similar processes that would accompany
23 chlorination/dechlorination or virtually any other
24 disinfectant. So we wanted to explore whether
0075
1 that was really a valid concern. And my
2 interpretation of these data is that repair and
3 regrowth is important with all disinfection
4 processes.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. But I need to
6 refer back to my original question. You have
7 identified some concerns that you believe exists
8 in the literature, but I'm asking the question
9 specifically about the results of your study. And
10 I'd like to know, did you ever find in any
11 instance, whether it's reflected in this table or
12 not, that at T equals 144 the levels in the sample
13 disinfected with UV were higher than the levels in
14 the sample that was not disinfected?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'll give you I
16 think the same answer I did before. I don't think
17 there is any data in table two that would satisfy
18 that condition and I don't recall any data that
19 went into the table that would satisfy that
20 condition either. Does that answer your question?
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, that does
22 answer my question. Thank you.
23
MR. ETTINGER: What temperature did
24 you keep the bottles at during the six days?
0076
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I don't remember.
2 I'm going to guess it was nominally room
3 temperature, but I don't know. Hang on.
4
MR. ANDES: It should be in the
5 report somewhere.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: Each sample was --
7
MR. HARLEY: Can we please clarify
8 what he's reading from for the record.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. The research
10 that I'm referring to was sponsored by the Water
11 Environment Research Foundation and what I'm
12 looking at is the final report for that project
13 and it defines -- I brought it with me just
14 because I thought there might be questions that
15 come about about the details of the experiments.
16
MR. HARLEY: Is that an exhibit at
17 this point?
18
MR. ANDES: I don't believe that it
19 is. I think it was cited in his testimony and we
20 can certainly provide it, probably on a disc, for
21 the record. It's not a problem.
22
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: If you don't mind,
24 I'll just read the conditions of incubation. Is
0077
1 that okay?
2
MR. ETTINGER: Yes.
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Each sample was
4 placed in a water bath incubator at 25 degrees C
5 under dark conditions with magnetic stirring.
6 Does that answer your question?
7
MR. ETTINGER: Dark conditions, so
8 there was no light?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: One additional
11 question on table three, is it fair to say that in
12 every instance at T equal zero immediately post 7
13 disinfection the levels of bacteria or indicators
14 were very substantially reduced at the point of
15 disinfection?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: What do you mean by
17 very substantially reduced?
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Well, I'll use
19 examples and we can characterize it if you like,
20 but looking at Facility B pre-disinfection levels
21 2.81 times 10 to the 5th, 2.16 times 10 to the
22 5th, disinfection levels with UV and chlorine
23 respectfully were 495 and 715. So you go from the
24 tens of thousands to the hundreds.
0078
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Right. So that's
2 roughly three log units of inactivation.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Same thing
4 for Facility D. Some numbers in the tens of
5 thousands to a number in the hundreds and a number
6 in the tens.
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Then Facility A you
9 have numbers near 10,000 to 55 and 9 respectfully
10 for UV and chlorination/dechlorination and
11 Facility C, 2400 and 1900 versus .25 and 2, would
12 you characterize those as pretty substantial
13 reductions?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Three or four log
15 units of inactivation, yes.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
17
MR. ETTINGER: I have to ask one
18 really silly question. When you say inactivation
19 for us guys who don't have quite the same level of
20 education, does that mean kill or does it send
21 someone to retirement or vacation?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: What we measure in
23 the essay that we used to quantify, for example,
24 coliform bacteria is their ability to reproduce.
0079
1 If an organism is dead, it can't reproduce, but
2 the opposite is not necessarily true. In other
3 words, if an organism does not have the ability to
4 reproduce, it does not have to be dead. So what
5 we're measuring is it's ability to reproduce or
6 infect a host and the term used to describe that
7 is inactivation.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Inactivation means no
9 longer reproduces?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: No longer capable of
11 reproducing or in the case of a virus, capable of
12 infecting a host.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Thanks.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: All right. I'm
15 going to move on now to pre-file question nine,
16 which concerns conclusion number three on page
17 nine in which you state in many other developed
18 countries waste water disinfection is not
19 practiced. It appears the frequency of these
20 transmissions associated with water contact is not
21 substantially different from that in the US where
22 waste water disinfection is common. What's the
23 basis for that statement?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: Largely personal
0080
1 experience. Does that answer your question?
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. So do I
3 understand correctly then that you've conducted no
4 research to back you up that conclusion?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: I've never done a
6 survey myself if that's what you mean.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: Are you aware of any
8 surveys that others have done? I don't mean
9 personal, but published.
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: In this specific
12 question to recreation -- Well, hold on one
13 second. Are these studies concerning the
14 frequency of disease transmission associated with
15 recreational use?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. They're related
17 to -- is disinfection practiced and, if so, how?
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. So they're
19 related to the disinfection component of your
20 statement, but not to the frequency of disease
21 transmission component of your statement?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have
24 any information regarding the population of
0081
1 various water recreation activities in these
2 countries you referred to relative to the US?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Do you mean
4 popularity?
5
MS. ALEXANDER: In other words, jet
6 skiing. Do you have any information on how many
7 people in these countries referring to jet ski or
8 boat or engage in any other types of water
9 recreation their engaged on the CAWS?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: Empirical
11 observations, again, based on my own experience.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
13
MR. ANDES: Can you expand on that?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. I
15 participated in the sport of rowing for about 25
16 years and part of that experience involved a club
17 that I was a member of for a year when I lived in
18 France on the southwest side of Paris and I would
19 say that the popularity of or, let's say, fraction
20 of the population that participates in rowing in
21 France is similar to the fraction of the
22 population that participates in rowing in the
23 United States, perhaps even larger.
24
And, again, my own personal
0082
1 experience -- I don't recall ever after having
2 rowed for 25 years I don't recall ever getting
3 sick as a result of that, nor I do know anybody
4 who got sick as a result of those 25 years that I
5 would have rowed with them.
6
So my own personal experience
7 suggests that it's not an activity that leads to
8 people getting sick and water quality where the
9 bodies of water that I rowed on were not pristine
10 mountain lakes. Unfortunately, rowing clubs are
11 often times positioned in places where water
12 quality is not consistent with a pristine mountain
13 lake.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: So it would be fair
15 to say that your experience is essentially
16 personal of rowing, the personal experience that
17 you are referring to?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Largely, yes.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Did you have
20 occasion to take my measurements of the bacterial
21 quality or the bacteria content of the water in
22 which you were rowing on?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
0083
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you know if there
2 were undisinfected effluents being discharged in
3 the water you were rowing on?
4
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Williams, we can't
5 hear you.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Were there
7 undisinfected effluents being discharged directly
8 into the water where you were rowing in France?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, and elsewhere.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: And can you explain
11 what treatments, technologies were used.
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe the forms
13 of treatment that they used other than
14 disinfection are similar to what we would use in
15 the United States.
16
MR. ANDES: Secondary treatment.
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: Primary secondary
18 treatment, yes.
19
MS. TIPSORD: Can I ask you,
20 Dr. Blatchley, where have you rowed in France.
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: The club that I
22 rowed -- that I was a member of was on the
23 southwest side of Paris downstream of Paris along
24 the Seine. Do you want to know other than that?
0084
1
MS. TIPSORD: Yes, please.
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: We participated in
3 competition at several places in France on the
4 Seine and actually one time at Versailles at the
5 palace. I can assure you that the water quality
6 at the palace at Versailles is not very good.
7
MR. ETTINGER: It wasn't in the
8 1700's either.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
10
MR. ETTINGER: May I suggest we hold
11 our next hearing at that location.
12
MR. ANDES: No objection.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Let me ask a few
14 more. Are you familiar with waste water practices
15 in Germany?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Not in detail, no.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Are you familiar with
18 the Isar River Restoration Plant?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: I read a little bit
20 about it after last weeks hearing.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know if they
22 disinfect there?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe I read
24 about it in response to a question that you raised
0085
1 and I believe they do, yes.
2
MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on
3 that, what's your understanding of reasons why
4 they're doing that?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: The assertion that I
6 made in the report is that in general western
7 Europe when disinfection of waste water is
8 practiced, it's practiced when the waste water is
9 released to either a beach or a shell fish
10 breeding ground or some other area where direct
11 human contact is likely. And, I believe, that's
12 true at the facility that you're discussing.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Do you think the
14 entire Isar River is a beach?
15
MR. ANDES: Am I correct that the
16 plan is to have swimming areas on the Isar River?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: That's my
18 understanding, but the sum total of what I know
19 about that facility is what I read on the web.
20
MR. ETTINGER: What about Dublin,
21 Ireland?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Same thing. I
23 believe you raised that same thing about that the
24 facility. I believe the motivation for the use of
0086
1 the UV is the same. You're talking about the
2 Ringsend facility, I believe, it's called.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Have you ever seen
4 the Liffey?
5
MR. ANDES: We actually have
6 information about the Dublin and Munich situation,
7 which we can provided for the record.
8
MR. ETTINGER: How about Milan,
9 Italy?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I'm sorry.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: And just following
12 up on your statement --
13
MS. TIPSORD: Wait, Ms. Alexander.
14 Let's mark these exhibits first.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Before we mark them,
17 can we have the witness explain why, you know,
18 what if he reviews them or what the basis is?
19 Mr. Andes said we have this information, is it the
20 same information that you reviewed after the last
21 hearing?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Actually, during the
23 last hearing.
24
MR. TIPSORD: And you nodded yes?
0087
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, I'm sorry.
2
MS. TIPSORD: I've been handed
3 WEDECO once over in Munich, which we will mark as
4 Exhibit Number 96. If there's no objection,
5 seeing none, it's Exhibit 96.
6
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. Is there
7 a question on now or are we just passing out
8 exhibits at this point?
9
MR. TIPSORD: I'm marking exhibits
10 right now. Ringsend (SBR) Waste Water Treatment
11 Plant Overview. This is for Dublin. I will mark
12 this as Exhibit 97, if there's no objection,
13 seeing none, it's Exhibit 97. And Ms. William's
14 were you satisfied with the answer?
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
16
MS. TIPSORD: Then there is no
17 question pending.
18
MR. ETTINGER: Just to complete our
19 travel around the world, are you familiar with
20 Madrid, Spain, whether they disinfect there?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: I am not aware.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Tokyo, Japan?
23
MR. ANDES: Is someone planning to
24 produce evidence to all of this?
0088
1
MR. TIPSORD: His question is
2 whether he knows if they do disinfecting, not that
3 they do disinfect.
4
MR. ETTINGER: I have not presented
5 any information, though.
6
MR. ANDES: I'm always glad to do
7 research for you.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Exactly. So to
9 complete my question on this, Tokyo, Japan, have
10 you looked at Tokyo, Japan?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I have not.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you very much.
13
MS. DEXTER: Could I just ask one
14 question? When did you spend time in France?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: It was '95 and '96.
16 Just to clarify, that's when I was on sabbatical
17 there, but I've been back to France a number of
18 times since then.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: And just to follow
20 up on your statement earlier that you, if I
21 understood you correctly, that you are not aware
22 of anyone having gotten sick from that you knew
23 from the activity of rowing, do you have any
24 reason to believe one way or the other or to know
0089
1 whether your fellow rowers were incumono
2 (phonetic) compromised or in otherwise part of a
3 sensitive population?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: I was not aware of
5 anyone that I rowed with who would fit either one
6 of those categories, but I didn't ask either.
7
MS. ALEXANDER: I didn't expect that
8 you did either. Turning now to your summary of
9 conclusions, this is -- I'm sorry. Pre-file
10 question number 10, conclusion number four on page
11 nine, you make the statement, you're respective of
12 any measures that are used to control microbial
13 inputs to the CAWS for municipal waste water
14 treatment facilities input from other sources
15 EGCSO's and non-point sources will remain, would
16 you say that statement is true with respect to wet
17 weather condition?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have
20 any basis to believe that it is true also with
21 respect to dry weather conditions?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes. The influence
23 of wet weather events does not end when the rain
24 stops. So I would guess that, yes, that is true,
0090
1 but you need to define what dry weather conditions
2 are.
3
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Dry weather
4 conditions -- Well, I guess one could use a lot of
5 definitions. Let me ask you, is there a point at
6 which you believe the contribution of wet weather
7 is no longer significant to microbial
8 contamination?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not sure.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Would, and we're
11 just using this for purposes of discussion, you
12 use a time frame, approximately, you know, two
13 days would you believe that was -- do you have any
14 reason to believe that would not be an accurate
15 measure?
16
MR. ANDES: He just said he wasn't
17 sure.
18
MS. ALEXANDER: All right.
19
MR. TIPSORD: Excuse me,
20 Ms. Alexander, if I may. I believe Geosyntec, and
21 if I'm misstating this I apologize, defines dry
22 weather was no measurable precipitation two days
23 before or two days after. In that context, can
24 you answer the question?
0091
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I don't expect that
2 the inputs to the Chicago Area Waterway System
3 will cut off after a dry weather event completely
4 and let me just use as an example --
5
MR. TIPSORD: Do you mean after a
6 wet weather event?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, after a wet
8 weather event. I'm sorry. For example, the town
9 that I live in, there is a large river, the Wabash
10 River, that goes between Lafayette and West
11 Lafayette, if it hasn't rained for a week, does
12 the dry up? Of course, not. The flow rate in the
13 river diminishes, but it does not go away
14 completely. So clearly there are inputs to the
15 river that are there continuously.
16
MR. ETTINGER: The groundwater.
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: That would be one of
18 them, yes.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Are you aware that
20 approximately 70 percent of the flow to the CAWS
21 during dry weather comes through the waste water
22 treatment plants?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: I've read that, yes.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any
0092
1 reason to believe one way or the other that the
2 inputs that's you've identified -- I should say
3 the impacts of the inputs you identified, the
4 CSO's and non-point sources will be significant
5 two days or following, you know, after two days
6 following a rain event?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not sure I'd be
8 comfortable characterizing how long it would take.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: And I'm asking the
10 question now whether you have any reason to
11 believe that the effects of a rainfall event in
12 terms of CSO's and non-point sources would be
13 significant two days after that rain fall event in
14 the CAWS, do you have any reason to believe one
15 way or the other?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I don't have any
17 reason to believe one way or the other.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a follow up
19 because I think Ms. Alexander misspoke and you
20 answered it, but I'd like to ask a clarifying
21 question. I believe she asked you if you knew if
22 70 percent is the dry weather input from the
23 treatment plants in this case. Do you know
24 whether 70 percent is actually the average input
0093
1 from the effluent in this system, isn't the dry
2 weather closer to 100 percent?
3
MR. ANDES: It's been testified to
4 by other parties. He said he doesn't know one way
5 or the other.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Can we all stipulate
7 for the record that Ms. Alexander meant to say --
8
MS. TIPSORD: You're lowering your
9 voice. You have to speak up.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: So he doesn't have an
11 opinion about whether 70 percent or 100 percent --
12
MR. ANDES: His opinion doesn't
13 matter.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: But you agree with
15 that?
16
MR. ANDES: No, I'm not going to
17 agree. I'm not going to recharacterize what was
18 already testified to. What is in the record is in
19 the record.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: I think he just
21 testified that he read that 70 percent is a dry
22 weather flow, is that correct?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that was
24 the number that I read, yes.
0094
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. So you believe
2 70 percent is the dry weather flow for the
3 treatment. Would you agree with me if I were to
4 tell you that it was closer to 100 percent in dry
5 weather, would you believe that was accurate?
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes, it's going to
7 be closer, but I don't know how much closer.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine. Thank
9 you.
10
MR. ETTINGER: Let me clarify. You
11 have not studied the Chicago Area Waterway System?
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
13
MR. ETTINGER: You're familiar
14 because of your studies on disinfection and these
15 bottles in the lab?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Among other things,
17 yes.
18
MR. ETTINGER: But you're not here
19 as an expert on the flow or anything else that
20 specifically has to do with the Chicago Area
21 Waterway System?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
23
MR. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
24
MR. HARLEY: Two, I think very
0095
1 simpler questions, I hope.
2
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you need
3 to speak up.
4
MR. HARLEY: I'm sorry. Two simpler
5 questions, I hope. In terms of the microbial
6 inputs that you used in your experiments, are
7 Chicago area municipal waste water facilities
8 sources of those microbial inputs into the CAWS
9 during dry weather conditions?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
11
MR. HARLEY: Are Chicago area
12 municipal waste water facilities sources of those
13 microbial inputs during wet weather conditions?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
15
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
16
MS. ALEXANDER: I'd like to follow
17 up now referring to page seven of your pre-file
18 testimony. This is the second full paragraph that
19 begins with the words the system. It states the
20 system is defined by the Tunnel and Reservoir
21 Plan, TARP, has yielded substantial improvements
22 in water quality in the CAWS. It is likely that
23 additional water quality improvements will result
24 in the completeness of the TARP. However, this
0096
1 facility will not accomplish complete capture of
2 waste water from CSO's, therefore, CSO events will
3 continue to take place in the greater Chicago
4 area, moreover, non-point source contributions to
5 the CAWS will be largely uninfected by TARP?
6 First question, what is the basis for your
7 statement that CSO events will continue to take
8 place in the greater Chicago area post TARP.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think you had a
10 pretty graphic illustration about that a week and
11 a half ago.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Is TARP completed?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. I'm going to
14 guess that it would not matter what stage of
15 development TARP was in. The volume of water that
16 was imposed on Chicago during that storm event
17 would overwhelm any control system. And the point
18 that I'm trying to make is that you can't
19 design -- it's not practical to design any
20 hydrologic control facility that will deal with
21 all possible events. There's always a risk that
22 some event will exceed what you've designed for.
23 Look at New Orleans.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Not a particularly
0097
1 good example of a well designed system.
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: That's true. But
3 they were content with it for a long time.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Is it your belief
5 that when TARP is completed there will be fewer
6 CSO's than there are currently?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you taken any
9 steps to quantify how much less, how many fewer
10 CSO events there will be upon completion of TARP?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have
13 any basis other than events in the last couple of
14 weeks to believe one way or the other or to be
15 able to quantify one way or the other how many CSO
16 events there will be post TARP completion?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, but, again, the
18 point that it will never be zero.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Have you
20 taken any steps, yourself, to quantify other
21 non-point contributions to the CAWS?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: Are you aware one
24 way or the other of any quantification that's been
0098
1 done of non-point contributions?
2
MR. ANDES: We will have other
3 witnesses on that.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And I'm
5 asking Dr. Blatchley if he's aware of any.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
7
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander, if
8 you're done with that line of questioning we're
9 going to take about a ten-minute break.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
11
MR. TIPSORD: Let's take ten
12 minutes.
13
(Whereupon, a break was taken
14
after which the following
15
proceedings were had.)
16
MS. TIPSORD: I think we're ready to
17 go back on the record. Dr. Blatchley, are you
18 ready?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
20
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander?
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
22
MS. TIPSORD: Okay.
23
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. Just
24 give me one moment. I'll ask the question and we
0099
1 can locate the statement if we need to, but this
2 is pre-file question 11 and the question concerns
3 the January 2007 article. It's Attachment 3 to
4 Exhibit 93, the study that you co-authored and
5 published on that date in which you state at the
6 end in situations where direct human contact is
7 likely or suggestive of indigenous or
8 microorganisms that have near -- outfall area is
9 likely. It appears that the disinfection of
10 municipal waste water may yield some direct
11 benefits. That's the statement I am looking to
12 mark, but do you recognize that as a statement
13 that you made in that article?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Is this statement
16 referring to conventional disinfection as you have
17 defined it in your testimony?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: No. I'm referring
19 to disinfection that would be more extensive in
20 terms of the extent of disinfectant exposure.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Are you referring to
22 disinfection that would be as extensive as the
23 standards being applied in California that's
24 discussed in your testimony?
0100
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: The reuse standard?
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Potentially.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Are you referring to
5 a larger universe, a range of disinfection than
6 that or are you saying purely that the reuse
7 standard would be beneficial?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I'm not saying
9 that the reuse standard would be the standard to
10 use here. What I'm suggesting is that there is a
11 range of disinfection applications and I would
12 expect that a more appropriate standard to apply
13 here for effluent disinfection would be associated
14 with more extensive inactivation or more extensive
15 disinfectant exposure than would be required to
16 meet the proposed standard.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm referring now
18 specifically here to your statement in the
19 research where you stated it appears that
20 disinfection of municipal waste water may yield
21 some direct benefits. I believe you're testifying
22 now that as one example of that, the disinfection
23 to the reuse standard would yield some benefits,
24 is that correct?
0101
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Would disinfection
3 to a lesser standard than the reuse standard yield
4 some benefits?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: In the general
6 sense, yes, but I think you need to ask what is
7 the extent of that benefit and what is the cost of
8 that benefit.
9
MS. ALEXANDER: What I'm trying to
10 do, Dr. Blatchley, is just to make sure we
11 understand what you meant by that statement that
12 disinfection may yield some direct benefits. Are
13 you agreeing that disinfection that is less than
14 disinfection to the reuse standard is included in
15 that statement?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Potentially, yes.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Would
18 disinfection to the level proposed by IEPA also be
19 included in that statement that disinfection of
20 municipal waste water may also yield some direct
21 benefits?
22
MR. BLATCHLEY: In my view, the
23 disinfectant exposure that would be required to
24 satisfy that standard would yield a marginal
0102
1 improvement in microbial quality.
2
MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on
3 that? Dr. Blatchley, do you stand by your
4 statement immediately above that in the paragraph,
5 the conventional disinfection commonly practiced
6 in the US is probably not as effective in
7 preventing communicable disease transmission as is
8 generally assumed?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that's
10 true.
11
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
12
MS. ALEXANDER: But would you also
13 agree that disinfection to that level may yield
14 some direct benefit as opposed to no direct
15 benefits?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Ideal and absolute,
17 that's my nature and I would say the benefit would
18 be greater than zero, yes.
19
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
20
MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on
21 that? When you talk about the difference between
22 the reductions that conventional disinfection may
23 make with regard to fecal levels versus what it
24 will do to control other pathogens --
0103
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: The issue is how do
2 coliform bacteria in general, fecal coliform
3 bacteria compare to microbial pathogens and the
4 information that I've provided and that's
5 available widely in the literature make it very
6 clear that coliform bacteria is more sensitive to
7 most disinfectants including chlorine and UV and
8 ozone than are the vast majority of microbial
9 pathogens.
10
MR. ANDES: So is it fair to say
11 that treating for 400 using conventional
12 disinfection may not do much to remove pathogens
13 in the waterway?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that's
15 correct.
16
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
17
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you have a
18 follow up?
19
MR. HARLEY: In what time frame?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: Actually, the dose
21 response data referred to an immediate response.
22 In other words, if you were to perform this
23 experiment at the bench and we do that just
24 because we have much more controlled conditions
0104
1 there, then you would measure the viability or
2 infectivity immediately after exposure. Now,
3 that's going to require a day of incubation or
4 something like that, but the point is that you're
5 measuring immediately. It's not the same thing as
6 this incubation test as I referred to before.
7 Does that answer your question?
8
MR. HARLEY: If that's the case, why
9 six days?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: There were a number
11 of factors that went into six days. Among them,
12 how many experiments could we complete with the
13 financial resources that were made available to
14 us. We wanted to be able to evaluate several
15 different facilities that had different forms of
16 treatment that they were using. We wanted to be
17 able to replicate those samples and we wanted to
18 perform a period that we thought was meaningful.
19
MR. ANDES: Meaningful in the sense
20 of that the purpose of the test, if I'm correct,
21 was not to evaluate the immediate effects of
22 disinfection, but rather to evaluate repair and
23 regrowth?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: Right. And as you
0105
1 can see here what we observe is that after period
2 of roughly a week that there is not very much to
3 differentiate the disinfected and the
4 undisinfected sample. And in some cases it's less
5 than a week where we get to that case. So it's a
6 judgement call on our part that we felt if we
7 incubated for 144 hours or six days that that
8 would give us most of the information that we
9 needed.
10
MS. TIPSORD: And for the record,
11 Dr. Blatchley, when you say what we see here you
12 were pointing to what is Exhibit 95?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
14
MR. HARLEY: Just one more follow
15 up. In terms of Exhibit 95 in the context of the
16 quote in pre-file question 11 when you're
17 referring to the near outfall area, is it correct
18 that the most -- the results which would most
19 commonly replicate near outfall areas are the
20 results which are located from zero to one day?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: Those are some vague
22 terms. Clearly, you are going to be closer to the
23 outfall as you get closer to T equals zero. And,
24 you know, how close you are to the outfall depends
0106
1 on the average velocity in the stream and how long
2 you allow it to wait. So I'm not sure that I can
3 define it any more clearly than that. I'd be
4 guessing.
5
MR. HARLEY: And if you're looking
6 at that period, the zero to one day period, it
7 would still be your testimony that the reductions
8 would be nearly marginal?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Reductions --
10
MR. ANDES: In what?
11
MR. HARLEY: Microbial pathogens.
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: I belive that's
13 true, yes.
14
MR. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander.
15
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. And just to
16 follow up with sub question B from question 11, do
17 you have any reason to believe one way or the
18 other that people are not engaging in water
19 recreation near the outfalls?
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: No.
21
MR. ANDES: So, in other words, you
22 have no knowledge one way or the other?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: And you also have no
0107
1 knowledge one way or the other of whether anybody
2 who is recreating in those locations might ingest
3 water in the course of their activities?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: Actually, I would
5 guess that occasionally they do.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Now, turning
7 to pre-file question 12, this concerns a further
8 statement in your conclusions to the January 2000
9 study that is Attachment 3 that in applying any
10 disinfectant it is critical the strike a balance
11 between minimizing risks associated with microbial
12 pathogens and then associated with disinfection
13 bi-products and the latest and tocological issues.
14 And the question is, does UV disinfection create,
15 to your knowledge, a significant level of
16 disinfection bi-products?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: I can provide you a
18 generalization. UV disinfection generally is
19 regarded as providing fewer disinfection
20 bi-products than conventional chemical processes
21 such as chlorination/dechlorination or
22 ozonization. However, there are circumstances
23 where there are disinfection bi-products that are
24 generated by UV or radiation using germicidal UV
0108
1 radiation.
2
MS. ALEXANDER: Have you done any
3 work to quantify those levels?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
5
MS. ALEXANDER: So I would be
6 correct in understanding that that work has
7 indicated that those levels are lower than levels
8 of disinfection bi-product using chlorination?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Generally.
10
MS. ALEXANDER: Can you identify the
11 work that you have done, are though published peer
12 review studies?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes and no. So let
14 me clarify. Yes, we performed a study that was
15 published in '97 in the journal called Water
16 Research and I think we presented it at a
17 conference where we collected waste water effluent
18 samples, undisinfected waste water effluent
19 samples and, again, disinfected them at the bench
20 so we could control disinfectant exposure and then
21 we perform toxicity studies using an organism
22 called sariodapia nubia using a fairly standard
23 toxicity essay and we observed -- we basically did
24 empirical observations of how these organisms
0109
1 responded to the disinfected effluent samples. Is
2 that what you're asking about?
3
I'll just clarify the general
4 results. All disinfectants that we evaluate which
5 included chlorine, bromine, ozone and UV have the
6 ability to influence the toxicological response as
7 we measured it with the essay that we just
8 described. In some cases that toxicity response
9 goes up, meaning it's more toxic. In some cases,
10 it's goes down and there tends to be not only a
11 site specific, but also a time dependant
12 variability that is associated with that. In
13 other words, you don't get the same response every
14 day at a facility and if you compare facilities,
15 you get different responses there as well. But,
16 in general, we observed less -- there was less
17 likelihood that there would be an increase in
18 toxicity associated with UV than there was
19 associated with either chlorination/dechlorination
20 or ozone.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.
22
MR. ANDES: And we have copies of
23 that report.
24
MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have it now.
0110
1 Can we have that marked?
2
MR. ANDES: Surely. We also have
3 copies of the chart, which I believe is Exhibit
4 95.
5
MS. TIPSORD: Correct. Here's the
6 report and there's Exhibit 95. I've been handed a
7 handout dealing with waste water effluent toxicity
8 by Blatchley, et al. I'm looking for a date.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: The upper right.
10
MS. TIPSORD: 1997. And I will mark
11 this as Exhibit 98 if there's no objection.
12 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 98. And to be clear for
13 the record, the chart was admitted as Exhibit 95.
14
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm not obviously
15 going to take the whole time to read the study
16 while we sit here. If you'll give me a moment to
17 review the abstract and I will continue with my
18 questions.
19
MR. ANDES: It's pretty exciting.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: It is.
21
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Alexander, if
22 you'd like to finish with your questions and come
23 back to this after lunch after you've had a chance
24 to review it --
0111
1
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, that's what I
2 would like to do. Moving to pre-file question 13,
3 how prevalent would you say disinfection is in
4 waste water treatment, generally?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: In the United
6 States?
7
MS. ALEXANDER: In the United
8 States.
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'd say it's fairly
10 common.
11
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. What, if any,
12 major municipalities in the nation and we'll put a
13 number on that, population over about a million,
14 are you aware of in the nation besides Chicago
15 that are not currently disinfecting their effluent
16 or are under orders to begin doing so?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe there are
18 a number of facilities that practice seasonal
19 disinfection which means for roughly half the year
20 they don't disinfect.
21
MS. ALEXANDER: That's not my
22 question, though. I mean what municipalities in
23 that category are you aware of that do not
24 practice any disinfection and are not under any
0112
1 orders to do so?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not aware of
3 them.
4
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have
5 any knowledge of how many communities in Illinois
6 are practicing disinfection?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: I do not.
8
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. What method
9 of disinfection is currently most common in the
10 country?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: In the United
12 States.
13
MS. ALEXANDER: In the United
14 States.
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe it's
16 chlorination/dechlorination.
17
MS. ALEXANDER: Are there any
18 facilities that are using ultraviolet?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And other
21 than those you've mentioned,
22 chlorination/dechlorination and ozonization, are
23 there any other methods of disinfection currently
24 in use in the United States that you're aware of?
0113
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe there's a
2 small number of facilities that use bromine and
3 there are probably some other methods of
4 disinfections that are out there, but I think
5 they're just a small fraction.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. That is going
7 to conclude my questions for now. I'd like to
8 review the study over lunch as you've suggested,
9 but we can move on to the other questioners.
10
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. That takes us
11 to the IEPA.
12
MS. DIERS: Stephanie Diers from the
13 Illinois EPA and I'm going to begin with question
14 one of our pre-file questions. Why would the
15 conditions of disinfection that are required to
16 yield a low concentration of viability coliform
17 not guarantee a low concentration of microbial
18 pathogens?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: The reason really is
20 coliform bacteria are generally more sensitive to
21 disinfectants, meaning chlorine, ozone and UV are
22 commonly used disinfectants than are most
23 microbial pathogens -- so the conditions that are
24 required to accomplish effected inactivation of
0114
1 coliform bacteria do not necessarily guarantee
2 that the microbial pathogens will have been
3 inactivated effectively.
4
MS. DIERS: And, number two, is it
5 your testimony even if waters are disinfected,
6 those who come in contact with the disinfected
7 water can still get sick?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
9
MS. DIERS: Can you just further
10 explain that?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. There is the
12 potential for microbial pathogens to exist and
13 that potential will always be there. So if humans
14 are exposed to those pathogens, then they run the
15 risk of becoming ill. My understanding is that
16 the risk that exists right now is low.
17
MR. ANDES: With respect to the
18 CAWS?
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: With respect to the
20 recreational use of the CAWS, yes, I mean
21 canoeing, kayaking, that sort of thing.
22
MS. DEXTER: What's the basis for
23 that understanding?
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: Geosyntec did a risk
0115
1 assessment, my reading of that risk assessment
2 were that the risks were low.
3
MS. DEXTER: And that's the risks we
4 have before us?
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe so, yes.
6
MS. DIERS: What would a high risk
7 be in your opinion?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm sorry. I'm
9 reluctant to provide you with a number because I
10 just don't know the numbers well enough to know
11 what high and low would be.
12
MS. DIERS: I'll go to question
13 three. How might chlorination/dechlorination of
14 UV irradiation be detrimental to water quality in
15 terms of bacterial composition?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, that refers
17 to Exhibit 95 and the studies that would relate to
18 that where we evaluated the long-term response of
19 the microbial community post disinfection. And
20 under some circumstances, we observed that water
21 quality was actually worse post disinfection than
22 it was if we had done nothing at all.
23
MS. DIERS: And when you say some
24 circumstances, can you give me an example of those
0116
1 circumstances?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: We were not able to
3 establish a cause and effect relationship, again,
4 these were empirical observations, but, again,
5 they were empirical observations that were done
6 with effluent samples from several different waste
7 water treatment facilities and we observed that in
8 some cases, water quality, again, was worse post
9 disinfection than if we had done nothing at all.
10
MR. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you have a
11 follow up?
12
MR. HARLEY: To clarify, you're
13 talking about the water qualities in your one
14 liter samples in your lab, correct?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
16
MR. HARLEY: You're not talking
17 about ambient water quality, correct?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
19
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
20
MR. TIPSORD: Ms. Diers.
21
MS. DIERS: I'll go to question
22 number four. With respect to the conventional
23 disinfection, what recent research are you
24 referring to on page five of your pre-file
0117
1 testimony?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: That research,
3 again, is the work that we did that was sponsored
4 by the Water Environment Research Foundation.
5
MR. ANDES: If I can clarify,
6 reports based on that research are included. One
7 was Attachment 3 to your testimony, I believe.
8 There were several reports that were generated as
9 a result of that research.
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: There was three.
11 There was a journal article, an article that was
12 published in the Journal of Water and Environment
13 Research. There was a proceedings article where
14 there was a conference that was held in Arizona,
15 the conference was called Disinfection 2005,
16 because it was held in 2005, where those results
17 were presented and then there is the report that I
18 read from earlier, the full report.
19
MS. DIERS: And the report is going
20 to be provided to the group on CD, is that
21 correct?
22
MR. ANDES: Yes.
23
MS. DIERS: And are the other two
24 that you mentioned, are they already in the
0118
1 record?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think so.
3
MR. ANDES: The Water and
4 Environment Research article was Attachment 3 to
5 his testimony.
6
MS. DIERS: Right.
7
MR. ANDES: The other article I am
8 not sure whether we've provided yet. I know it
9 was cited, but I have copies of the other article
10 if that is -- if the people are interested in
11 that, too, we have copies of that as well.
12
MS. TIPSORD: We're interested in
13 everything and I want to personally thank you in
14 getting to 100.
15
MR. ANDES: I'd be glad to.
16
MR. TIPSORD: I've been handed
17 Effects of Waste Water Disinfection on Human
18 Health, again, Blatchley, et al.
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Just as a point of
20 clarification, you're certainly welcome to read
21 all three of them, but just so you know what
22 you're getting into. This report, the full
23 report, is fairly verbose I have to say because I
24 wrote it. Maybe that's not a cause and effect
0119
1 relationship. But, anyway, generally as you move
2 towards the proceedings article and the referee
3 journal article, the nature of those publications
4 is such that there's less room for verbosity, if
5 that's a word. There are severe restrictions on
6 what you can publish as you move up the line so
7 the referee journal article is an abridged version
8 of this where a lot of the information that is
9 presented here is simply omitted. There just
10 wasn't room for it.
11
MR. TIPSORD: We will mark Effects
12 of Waste Water Disinfection on Human Health as
13 Exhibit 99, if there is no objection. Seeing
14 none, it's Exhibit 99.
15
MS. DIERS: I'll move on to our
16 pre-file question number five. On page eight of
17 your pre-file testimony, you state that it is
18 unlikely that the disinfection process as applied
19 to CSO's or non-point sources will yield
20 substantial reductions in the risk of disease
21 transmission associated with water bourne
22 microbial pathogens, why is this unlikely?
23
MR. BLATCHLEY: The effectiveness of
24 a disinfection process is going to depend on a
0120
1 number of things, including the quality of the
2 water that you impose on that disinfection
3 process. In a general sense, the water that is
4 going to come from a CSO is likely to have poorer
5 water quality than the effluent that would go into
6 a disinfection system at a waste water treatment
7 facility and it's going to have poorer water
8 quality in terms of a couple general, let's say,
9 bulk parameters that we might use to characterize
10 that water quality. That would include the
11 concentration of particles that's present in the
12 water as well as the concentration of dissolved
13 chemicals that might be present in the water.
14 Irrespective of the disinfectant that you use,
15 those two things are both going to diminish the
16 effectiveness of a disinfection process.
17
The dissolved chemicals will
18 represent a source of demand for the disinfectant,
19 whether that disinfectant is a chemical or an
20 agent like UV radiation and the particulate matter
21 that is present is going to provide shelter for
22 those microorganisms against the disinfectant.
23
MS. DIERS: I'm going to go to
24 number nine. You state in your pre-file testimony
0121
1 that chloroform bacteria are poor indicators of
2 disinfection ethiticity. Is this because they are
3 easy to kill (or inactivate with chlorine)?
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
5
MS. DIERS: And what would be a good
6 indicator of disinfection ethiticity?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, as I stated
8 before, an alternative approach would be to use
9 perhaps more than one indicator and to use design
10 criteria that restricts or stipulates a minimum
11 standard that the actual disinfection must meet in
12 terms of it's physical characteristics.
13
MS. DIERS: I'm going to move on to
14 our pre-file question 12. Define minimal
15 improvements in viral composition in control of
16 protozoic pathogens may also be quite minimal as
17 you use these phrases on page five of your
18 pre-file testimony.
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay. Just for
20 reference, this study, the work study, was -- the
21 central questions that we addressed in that study
22 were, number one, should we be disinfecting
23 municipal waste water effluents and then under the
24 assumption that the answer to that question is
0122
1 going to be at least some times yes, then how?
2
Those are really kind of the
3 focal points and so the specific disinfectant that
4 we examined in that study were
5 chlorination/dechlorination and UV irradiation.
6 Chlorine is really not very effective at all for
7 controlling protozoan pathogens. It's almost
8 useless for controlling organisms like
9 criptosperidum parvan or geordialadia (phonetic).
10 So the effectiveness of chlorine against those
11 pathogens is really -- I mean it's an issue
12 because it's so ineffective. On the other hand,
13 UV is very effective against those specific
14 microorganisms and UV is a fairly broad spectrum
15 antimicrobial agent, but there are some
16 microorganisms, some microbial pathogens that do
17 not respond well to UV exposure, meaning that they
18 are not very sensitive to it. They are able to
19 withstand relatively large doses and still be
20 viable. And an example of that is adenovirus. So
21 there are some microbial pathogens and I think
22 most of them are viral that seem to be resistance
23 to UV exposure.
24
So in the study that we did,
0123
1 rather than evaluate human or viral pathogens,
2 what we did was evaluate the response of some
3 coliphage. These are bacterial viruses, meaning
4 that they're viruses that infect human bacterial
5 hosts rather than human tissues and what we
6 observed is that under the conditions of
7 conventional disinfection that correspond to
8 either chlorination/dechlorination or UV
9 irradiation that we really didn't accomplish
10 effective inactivation of those phage in those
11 experiments. So UV accomplished something on the
12 order of two log units or two orders of magnitude
13 inactivation and chlorine, the conditions of
14 chlorination/dechlorination accomplished something
15 like one order of magnitude change and when we
16 talk about control of microbial pathogens, we're
17 oftentimes interested in four or five log units of
18 change in the concentration of those pathogens.
19
MS. DIERS: I'll move on to 16. On
20 page five of your pre-file testimony, you state
21 the populations of microbes in disinfected water
22 will change with time. Many microbes have the
23 ability to repair sublethal damage and therefore
24 can repair post disinfection. What do you mean by
0124
1 populations?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: Okay. Just to
3 clarify, I think the issue is really the microbial
4 community and how it responds. Have I answered
5 your question? I'm not sure.
6
MS. ALEXANDER: I was going to ask
7 if you could further explain about what you just
8 said with the community?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, referring to
10 Exhibit 95, what we examined was how the microbial
11 community responded in general and we observed
12 that some times the microbial community appeared
13 to be worse post disinfection than if we had done
14 nothing at all.
15
MS. DIERS: Moving on to pre-file
16 question 17. Are prepared microbes as infectious
17 as pre-disinfected microbes?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: When I first read
19 that question, my first thought was great
20 question. So the general answer is I don't know,
21 but let me elaborate a little bit. The essay that
22 we performed to evaluate, for example, how
23 coliform bacteria responds is one where we look
24 for their ability to grow. In other words, to
0125
1 multiply, to reproduce. And we make no
2 distinction as to whether they're wounded and able
3 to reproduce or whether they're 100 percent
4 healthy, whatever that means.
5
We're simply looking for their
6 ability to reproduce. If we had done this essay
7 on bacterial pathogens, you could do the same
8 study. We chose not to. Largely because I didn't
9 want to be growing bacterial pathogens in my lab,
10 but if we had done that, then we would have used
11 very similar essays that looked only for the
12 ability to reproduce or not reproduce and so that
13 essay doesn't really tell you anything about the
14 ability of those organisms to infect, but I would
15 assume that if it has the ability to reproduce
16 under the conditions of this essay, then it does
17 have the ability to infect, but that's an
18 assumption on my part.
19
MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip down
20 to number 22 on the pre-file questions.
21
MR. HARLEY: I'm sorry. Could I ask
22 a really quick follow up to that? So in terms of
23 the disease causing potential post disinfection,
24 we really don't know the answer to that question?
0126
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: I don't.
2
MR. HARLEY: Okay.
3
MR. ANDES: Let me follow up on
4 that. You're using as a surrogate bourne
5 effectivity the ability to reproduce.
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: The ability of fecal
7 coliforms to reproduce.
8
MR. ANDES: Right. So the logic is
9 if they reproduce, they have the ability to
10 infect?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
12
MR. ANDES: And you don't know of
13 any reason why that would be untrue of repaired
14 fecal coliform versus unrepaired?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: Correct.
16
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
17
MR. HARLEY: I think the microbial
18 pathogens --
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Right. I think the
20 fecal coliforms are largely non-pathogenic. So I
21 think the question and maybe I'm reading too much
22 into this, but I think the question is that your
23 interest is with microbial pathogens that exist in
24 the water and how their responses might compare to
0127
1 those of fecal coliforms, for example. Is that
2 where you're going?
3
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
4
MR. BLATCHLEY: And the answer is, I
5 don't know. We did not investigate any microbial
6 pathogens and their ability to either repair
7 subject to this type of essay or their ability to
8 cause infection in humans which would obviously be
9 more complicated to investigate.
10
MR. HARLEY: So in this situation,
11 you use fecal coliform to --
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
13
MR. HARLEY: But in other
14 situations, you made a clear distinction between
15 fecal coliform and microbial pathogens?
16
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
17
MR. ANDES: With respect to the
18 ability to cause illness.
19
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
20
MS. DIERS: Going back to our
21 pre-file question 22. On page three and four of
22 your pre-file testimony you state, although
23 coliform bacteria are usually plentiful in
24 untreated municipal waste water, they are easily
0128
1 inactivated by waste water disinfectants such as
2 chlorine, ozone and ultraviolet UV radiation as
3 compared with many microbial pathogens. As a
4 result, the conditions of disinfection that are
5 required to yield a low concentration of viable
6 coliform bacteria will not guarantee a low
7 concentration of microbial pathogens. Is there an
8 indicator organism that if removed will guarantee
9 a low concentration of microbial pathogens?
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: I'm not aware of
11 one.
12
MS. DIERS: Pre-file question number
13 23. On page four of your pre-filed testimony, you
14 state disinfection systems used in municipal waste
15 water treatment applications range from no
16 infection at all to conditions that accomplished
17 inactivation of nearly all microbial pathogens.
18 For purpose of this testimony, the term
19 conventional disinfection will be used to describe
20 municipal disinfection systems that are designed
21 to limit viable coliform concentrations to several
22 hundred CFU 100 ML. On the spectrum of
23 disinfection systems use for treatment of
24 municipal waste water these systems deliver modest
0129
1 disinfection doses and accomplish modest microbial
2 inactivation. If one wants to reduce microbial
3 pathogens to make the water safer for recreation,
4 is conventional disinfection a sufficient way to
5 do those?
6
MR. BLATCHLEY: In my opinion, no.
7
MS. DIERS: And can you elaborate on
8 that?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: Again, the results
10 of the work that we did as well as the results
11 that have been reported in the literature by
12 others indicate that the conditions that are
13 required to accomplish that microbial standard,
14 for example, 400 CFU's per 100 ML requires fairly
15 modest exposure to disinfectants. The one result
16 of that is a fairly modest control of microbial
17 pathogens because they are less sensitive to the
18 disinfectants that we use than are the indicator
19 organisms that are the basis of the regulation.
20
MR. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
21
MR. HARLEY: So would this subject
22 in your mind that, in fact, a more stringent
23 numeric limit may be appropriate to control
24 microbial pathogens?
0130
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: In general, yes. It
2 depends where you are, what the water use is going
3 to be, what the water quality issues are. That
4 sort of thing. But in a general sense, yes.
5
MR. HARLEY: So it's possibly that
6 Illinois EPA proposal of 400 colony forming units
7 didn't go far enough?
8
MR. ANDES: Answer the question
9 specifically with respect to recreational use.
10
MR. BLATCHLEY: It doesn't go far
11 enough with recreational use, but it also doesn't
12 go far enough in the sense that it does nothing to
13 control other sources of microbial pathogens.
14
MR. ANDES: When you say it doesn't
15 go far enough, you're saying that it doesn't
16 reduce risk, it doesn't reduce pathogen levels?
17
MR. BLATCHLEY: It doesn't reduce
18 the pathogen concentrations as much as we would
19 like to for this type of exposure.
20
MR. ANDES: Let me clarify. The
21 disinfection requirements that you've talked about
22 in terms of, say, California are for other uses
23 such as irrigation.
24
MR. BLATCHLEY: Right.
0131
1
MR. ANDES: And they have extensive
2 disinfections?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes. Far more
4 extensive than would be required to meet these
5 standards.
6
MR. ANDES: So these standards, in
7 essence, will do nothing for pathogen reductions
8 in the CAWS or very little?
9
MR. BLATCHLEY: It's not they will
10 do nothing. It's that they will do very little.
11
MR. ANDES: And if you chose the
12 other level, like in California, it would cost
13 five to ten times as much?
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Objection.
15
MR. ANDES: Am I correct?
16
MS. WILLIAMS: I object to what he's
17 testifying.
18
MR. ANDES: I'm just asking if
19 that's your testimony.
20
MR. BLATCHLEY: I believe that's
21 correct. If you were to apply Title 22 standards
22 here to this sort of disinfection it would cost
23 five or ten times more.
24
MR. TIPSORD: More than --
0132
1
MR. BLATCHLEY: More than would be
2 required to meet the proposed standards.
3
MS. TIPSORD: Thank you.
4
MR. HARLEY: But isn't there
5 something, a standard between 400 colony forming
6 units and essentially detection limits that might
7 be appropriate to safeguard recreational users?
8
MR. BLATCHLEY: Can we clarify? The
9 questions is are you asking whether there is some
10 kind of treatment requirement in between
11 conventional and extensive inactivation that can
12 be applied here? You can always pick a number in
13 between. The question is there something
14 associated with it in terms of the treatment.
15
MR. HARLEY: In response to your
16 question for clarification, your witnesses
17 testimony had suggested 400 colony forming units
18 may not be appropriate because of the microbial
19 pathogen component of the effluent, but the only
20 alternative that he really explores in the
21 testimony is the California standard, which is not
22 recreational and which is set in a very, very low
23 level, which is non-detect. Isn't there any
24 standard in between that might be set as a numeric
0133
1 limit that might be appropriate for recreational
2 use.
3
MR. ANDES: It's a numeric limit
4 that people would treat to.
5
MR. BLATCHLEY: I think the way you
6 qualified that with the word might is how I would
7 state it. Yes, that's possible, but I don't know
8 what the number is.
9
MR. HARLEY: But 400 colony forming
10 units, it's your testimony is not enough and the
11 standard that would be appropriate would more
12 likely be lower.
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
14
MR. ANDES: So let me ask you this.
15 Since you laid out the California process as one
16 that would effectively treat most pathogens, is
17 there some technology out there that treats
18 pathogens some but not all the way or are we
19 talking about you kill them or you don't kill
20 them?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, there's never
22 going to be -- Again, disinfection is not the same
23 thing as sterilization. You're never going to get
24 to a situation where the risk is completely
0134
1 eliminated and a decision is going to be made at
2 some point as to what is an acceptable risk. Does
3 that answer your question?
4
MR. ANDES: Is there some technology
5 off the shelf that you would say "Well, here's
6 moderate disinfection," we've talked about
7 disinfection conventional and we've talked about
8 extreme disinfection in California. I think the
9 question is is there some moderate, medium
10 disinfection out there?
11
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. There is an
12 entire spectrum. It is a continuum effectively.
13 You can design anywhere in between what would be
14 conventional disinfection and Title 22
15 disinfection. You can do it anywhere in that
16 spectrum.
17
MR. ANDES: And the question is
18 where is that in terms of what would that do to
19 reduce your pathogen levels, you're still going to
20 have pathogen levels?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. And, in
22 general, as you move towards Title 22, there would
23 be less risk associated with microbial pathogens?
24
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
0135
1
MR. TIPSORD: Ms. Diers.
2
MS. DIERS: Moving on to pre-file
3 question 28. On page seven of your pre-file
4 testimony you state, moreover non-point source
5 contributions to the CAWS will be largely
6 uneffected by TARP. Therefore, irrespective of
7 the effluent disinfection constraints that are
8 imposed on the District's facilities, the
9 potential for inputs of microbial pathogens from
10 other sources will still remain. These inputs to
11 the system will limit the extent to which risk of
12 disease transmission for microbial pathogens can
13 be used in the CAWS. My first question is to what
14 non-point sources are you referring to?
15
MR. BLATCHLEY: Well, CSO's to start
16 with, but just runoff from, you know, whatever,
17 parking lots, roofs. I suppose there's some grass
18 areas around as well.
19
MS. DIERS: So you consider a CSO a
20 non-point source?
21
MR. BLATCHLEY: No, I'm sorry. I
22 would not. I would consider a CSO to be a point
23 source.
24
MR. ANDES: Here, when you're
0136
1 talking about other sources, you included CSO's?
2
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes. They are
3 certainly sources of microbial pathogens.
4
MS. DIERS: Do non-point source
5 contributions have the same risk associated with
6 bacteria as does non-disinfected effluent?
7
MR. BLATCHLEY: I don't know.
8
MS. DEXTER: Would you expect that
9 runoff that comes from a roof or a parking lot
10 would have bacterial or pathogenic composition of
11 undisinfected sewage effluent?
12
MR. BLATCHLEY: I wouldn't drink
13 either. That's a really difficult question to
14 answer. I don't have an answer. I'm sorry. I
15 would not expect, for example, run off from a roof
16 to be sterile. That's a great way to get sick.
17
MS. DEXTER: Comparatively.
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Right. And I don't
19 know.
20
MS. DIERS: Our question 28 and 19
21 kind of overlap. So I'm just going to ask the
22 last part of pre-file question 19. Do you believe
23 generally the presence of CSO's and non-point
24 sources is sufficient reason to conclude that
0137
1 disinfection of waste water treatment plant
2 effluent is ineffective or unnecessary?
3
MR. BLATCHLEY: That contributes to
4 it.
5
MS. DIERS: Okay. Our pre-file
6 question 29. On page seven of your pre-file
7 testimony you state, a related point that the
8 development of disinfection processes for CSO's
9 and non-point sources represent a difficult
10 engineering challenge. In your opinion, does the
11 Illinois EPA proposal require -- Strike that.
12 Does the Illinois EPA proposal require
13 disinfection of CSO's and non-point sources?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Not that I know of.
15
MS. DIERS: Would the effluent
16 disinfection proposal represent a difficult
17 engineering challenge?
18
MR. BLATCHLEY: Conceptually, I
19 don't think it's -- the extent of disinfectant
20 exposure that would be required is not an unusual
21 one, what is unusual is the scale. And my guess
22 is -- I mean I haven't done the engineering design
23 on this, but my guess is the complicating issues
24 associated with a system that would satisfy the
0138
1 proposed standard would be largely associated with
2 this scale and maybe the location and lack of
3 space and those sorts of issues, but, again, I
4 have not looked into the details of how it would
5 be implemented in Chicago.
6
MS. DIERS: Just a moment, please.
7 I think just one more question. I think it
8 relates back to when we were talking about Exhibit
9 95. And I'm not sure I was following what you
10 were saying about the acidic acid. Can you
11 explain how you were using that again in your
12 research?
13
MR. BLATCHLEY: Sure. The objective
14 of these experiments was to mimic what would
15 happen in a receding stream when the effluent is
16 discharged in a receding stream. So among the
17 things that the microorganisms that are discharged
18 to the receding stream are going to see are some
19 partially reduced substrates. In other words,
20 food. So what we wanted to do -- and that food is
21 going to be different in every receding stream,
22 but for the same reasons that I talked about
23 before we wanted to come up with a standard essay,
24 a standard test that we could with all of these
0139
1 things that would allow us to compare the results
2 directly.
3
So based on a review of the
4 literature, we decided that acidic acid at a
5 concentration of about 15 milligrams per liter
6 would be not only chemically representative of the
7 reduced -- partially reduced substrates that would
8 exist in a receding stream, but also would be
9 representative of the concentration that we might
10 expect to see those substrates in receding
11 streams.
12
MS. DIERS: So did you add the
13 acidic acid substrates to the disinfected samples?
14
MR. BLATCHLEY: Yes.
15
MS. DIERS: I have nothing further.
16
MS. TIPSORD: Are there any
17 additional questions for Dr. Blatchley?
18
MS. ALEXANDER: Not at this time. I
19 will have some after the lunch break.
20
MS. TIPSORD: I didn't want to
21 necessarily take lunch this early, but we'll take
22 an hour for lunch. We'll be back at 1:00 and
23 finish with Dr. Blatchley so we can move on to
24 Dr. Dorevitch.
0140
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS.)
2
) SS.
3 COUNTY OF COOK )
4
5
6
7
I, STEVEN BRICKEY, being a Certified
8 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of
9 Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I
10 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
11 foregoing hearing of the above-entitled cause.
12 And I certify that the foregoing is a true and
13 correct transcript of all my shorthand notes so
14 taken as aforesaid and contains all the
15 proceedings had at the said meeting of the
16 above-entitled cause.
17
18
19
20 ___________________________
21 STEVEN BRICKEY, CSR
CSR NO. 084-004675
22
23
24