00001 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA JOINT COMMITTEES ON: PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES THE ENVIRONMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, April 14, 2008, 10:40 p.m. - - - Resolution 080288 - Authorizing the Council Committees on Public Health and Human Services and the Environment to hold hearings regarding the safety of the City's drinking water. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Marian B. Tasco, Chair, Health and Human Services James F. Kenney, Chair, The Environment Blondell Reynolds-Brown Curtis Jones, Jr. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 00002 I N D E X WITNESS Water Department Bernard Brunwasser, Commissioner....... 5 Debra McCarty, Deputy Commissioner..... 33 6 Dr. Christopher Crockett............... 39 Director, Planning and Research John Muldowny, Water Treatment Chief... 74 ActionPA Mike Ewal.............................. 56 Clean Water Action Robert Wendelgass...................... 76 National Deputy Director EPW Associates Roberta Perry, Principal............... 98 Dr. William Miller..................... 102 Temple University College of Engineering Marcella Stokes........................ 114 Mechanical Engineering Consultant 00003
Good morning. The Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services and the Environmental Committee will come to order. I'm Marian Tasco, Chair of the Public Health and Human Services Committee, and Councilman Jim Kenney is Chair of the environmental -- the Committee on the Environment. We will have the clerk read the resolution.
Resolution 080288, authorizing the Council Committees on Public Health and Human Services and the Environment to hold hearings regarding the safety of the City's drinking water.
Thank you. As we move through the hearing, we will -- certainly more Councilmembers will join us, but we will begin. This is a resolution and does not require a quorum. Water is the elixir of life. 00004 We depend on a healthy source of water for so many things that are vital to our lives: To nourish our bodies, to feed our plants, to maintain or animals. For these and various other reasons, we depend on a health source of water. Philadelphia, like many of the world's great cities, was founded near major sources of water. From the Nile River in Cairo, Egypt, to the Mississippi River in St. Louis, Missouri, these waterways have nurtured and sustained our towns, neighborhoods and communities for hundreds of years. For Philadelphia's America's birthplace, we have relied upon the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers to become a true metropolis. Considering reliance, it was troubling to learn from a March 11th article in the Philadelphia Inquirer and a March 10th in the Associated Press that traces of 00005 pharmaceuticals or their by-products were detected in the City's drinking water. We receive our water from two treatment plants located on the Delaware River and the Schuylkill Rivers, and these plants treat the water that eventually end up in the City's kitchen taps and drinking water. Our concern stems from the fact that the Water Department did not inform City residents regarding these items in our water. Accordingly, this committee is holding this hearing to hear testimony regarding any impact that pharmaceuticals or their by-products may have in our water. So we now call the Water Department to begin the testimony. Thank you for your time. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Would you state your name for 00006 the record, please, and begin your testimony. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good morning, Chairwoman Tasco and Chairman Kenney. Thank you for this opportunity -- oh, my name is Bernard Brunwasser. I am the Water Commissioner. To my right is Debra McCarty. And also inside the bullpen here are three of our experts on drinking water quality: Dr. Christopher Crockett,who's head of our planning and research division; Dr. Alexa Obolenski, Supervisor of Research; and Mr. John Muldowney, who's Manager of Water Treatment. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify the Philadelphia Water Department's role in the issue of trace levels of pharmaceutical compounds being found in drinking water. I'd like to begin with a little background on the Water 00007 Department's drinking water appropriations and our well-earned reputation for top-quality water to our citizens. This should place into context the department's mission and our related response to recent media attention regarding pharmaceuticals in the water supply. 7 million people each day. Our drinking water is tested continually each day to ensure that our treatment facilities remove or treat a long list of strictly regulated contaminants, as required by state and federal authorities. Philadelphia's drinking water consistently meets or surpasses national standards. Not only is our record in this regard unblemished, but the Water Department has always set internal performance criteria well 00008 above established water-quality standards. The Water Department is a nationally recognizes utility as a result of its commitment to continuous improvement through research and innovative pilot studies designed to better understand and meet potential challenges to our water supplies and our tap water. The Water Department's research programs address the occurrence of, source control of, and treatment of emerging contaminants where national standards do not yet exist because of the absence of science or evidence of human health impacts. "Research" is a broad term for the many different ways that the Water Department embodies continuous improvement. Most of the Water Department's research is very practical, finding better ways to conduct daily operations. Some 00009 research is future-oriented; that is, gathering data to better forecast decisions that the Water Department will have to make in the future such as optimizing its treatment processes or seeking controls for contamination at the source. Research is just one of the many ways that the Water Department fulfills its mission to provide safe, high-quality drink water. Our work, and the work of other utilities and national research foundations, is being conducted voluntarily, at our own cost, in our quest to understand the emerging issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. The Water Department has been keeping abreast of the issue of pharmaceuticals in water for a decade now. This issue arose outside the United States at first but, in time, became an issue for this nation to address. S. geological study conducted in 1999 through 2000 that detected these substances in a sampling of the nation's waterways. We have been working actively with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP), and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation to participate voluntarily in regional and national monitoring studies; and have, in addition, designed and implemented our own monitoring programs, utilizing specialized contract analytical services. What we have -- what have we and our research partners found? That these pharmaceutical compounds occur 00011 at such low concentrations -- in nanograms per liter or less -- in rivers and treated drinking water that they cannot be detected unless the most advanced analytical methods are used. Only a few specialized laboratories in the United States have the ability to perform these tests. S.
water utilities have available. Researchers, using the appropriate methods, have found these contaminants virtually everywhere they have looked in river water supplies. S. cities' water supplies are largely driven by differences in the 00012 lists of compounds tested for and in the methodologies used for testing, rather than differences in the water supplies themselves. This is not a Philadelphia issue or even a United States issue; it's an issue that affects all societies that benefit from the use of pharmaceutical products. The majority of pharmaceutical compounds that have been detected in Philadelphia's drinking water, as a result of the department's extensive monitoring efforts, were found very rarely and/or at concentration levels near the very low thresholds of method capabilities. When it comes to our drinking water, the Water Department adopts an extremely conservative approach: If any level of detection is ever achieved, even this level could not be validated in a subsequent test, our policy has been to note it as a 00013 possible presence. For example, a compound that was not detected in nine out of ten samples over a number of years of testing, but was detected in one sample at one time, is included in the list of substances that we have found in the water. No results in excess of parts per trillion concentration levels -- that's a nanogram per liter is -- have ever been observed. To provide some tangible sense of how low these observed concentrations are, I will use caffeine and acetaminophen -- that's Tylenol's active ingredient -- as examples. Assuming the highest-ever observed Water Department concentration levels, a person would need to drink eight glasses a day for more than 1200 years to obtain the amount of caffeine in a single cup of coffee, which is 100 milligrams; or, 00014 they would have to do the same, drink eight glasses a day for 40,000 years, to obtain the equivalent of a single infant dose, which is 80 milligrams, of Tylenol. This kind of gives you a way to look at these infinitesimally small, trace-amounts in our water. These are the types of levels we are finding. There is currently no 11 indication that such infinitesimal concentrations pose any public-health risk. Now, how they get into our system: First to note is that many compounds -- many of these compounds are, of course, used by humans. The largest portion of what is taken -- of what is taken in by human beings is excreted by the human body unused. So wherever medications and others products are used and excreted or otherwise drained into the waterway systems by humans or animals such as pets and livestock, these medications 00015 will eventually pass through the waste-water treatment processes, as they do the human body, processes designed to significantly reduce bacteria and other pollutants before the treated water is returned to our waterways. According to a recent on pharmaceutical use in the United States, the average person in the year 2004 obtained 12 prescriptions, and nearly 50 percent of the population was on at least one prescription a day. In addition, unused medications are often flushed down the toilet. Not all compounds of concern come through the waste-water treatment plants. Medications that are given to livestock and found in agricultural applications can be washed into our waterways following a storm. Currently, there is little information about human health effects at these trace-levels in water. 00016 Concern over human exposure has been raised, though, based on possible effects observed in aquatic life such as fish and amphibians. Ecological impacts on fish and other organisms that live in the water and come into contact with water in very different ways than humans are also the focus of ongoing scientific studies. The Water Department is going to continue to be a player in these research areas until conclusive results are available.
We will also continue to participate in studies that evaluate alternate treatment technologies that can address these and other emerging compounds of interest as they become available. Now I'm going to address what the department and what citizens can do. First of all, what the department is doing is participating with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of 00017 Environmental Protection, and other partners on the development of pharmaceutical take-back programs which provide a means for pharmacies, health-care centers, senior centers, and others to collect and return unused medications. We are continuing to participate in and fund ongoing research to build a sound, scientific understanding of this issue. We're continuing our watershed base protection and preservation efforts, working on a regional basis, to improve our waterways for all users. The Water Department, you may remember, received the 2003 Source Water Protection Award from the Environmental Protection Agency for its model watershed protection program. We will continue to provide information to the media, organizations, partners, City 00018 administration, and other customers when we have substantive information to share. Engaging the public to better understand these concerns and to properly direct our education strategies is a challenge that the department embraces. We want to participate with our national organizations, such as the American Water Works Association, in discussions with the United States EPA over how to protect water from contamination, how to develop sound, scientific background on new compounds of concern, and whether national regulations are needed to address the issues that are raised today. The public has its role as well. We would ask the public not to flush unused medicines down the toilet but to dispose of them in the trash by mixing them with either cat litter or coffee grounds in a secure bag to discourages reuse. 00019 We are telling the public as well that do not -- do not used bottled water as a surrogate or a replacement for tap water because tap water is much more stringently regulated than the bottled water. In fact, I would say that nothing that we consume, food or beverage, has probably gone through the kinds of tests that our tap water in this country has gone through. Also, the filters that are available in the marketplace do not -- are not set up or are not geared up to remove pharmaceuticals from drinking water. We want the public to support state and national efforts to develop pharmaceutical take-back programs, and we also support state and national funding efforts for environmental and public-health research. So in summary, these trace amounts of pharmaceuticals that we 00020 have found in our water supply, and what we did is, we found 32 of these pharmaceuticals in our source water and we specifically looked for 75 pharmaceutical compounds in our source water, and we did find 32. In our finished water, we also looked for those 75 compounds and found 17. Those are the correct number of times; there was a clerical error in the original list given to the Associated Press, which wrote the article back in March. So what we've discovered in these infinitesimally small amounts and the scientific -- the majority of the scientific community does not believe that these amounts pose any health risk at this time for human beings. And our role is to continue to be out there looking. I think we probably tested as thoroughly as any water municipality in the country or 00021 any water utility in the country, perhaps more so, and I think we may have looked for the most compounds. And our idea is, we want to know what's in the water regardless of the quantity and regardless of what the scientific community feels is a risk or not a risk at this particular time. At this point, I'd be glad to take your questions.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. And the Chair would like to recognize that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown has joined us. What made you begin to test for pharmaceuticals? Have you always tested for pharmaceuticals? And -- because you stated you had to go to a specialized research center to have the tests, the water tested for pharmaceuticals, what gave you that -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I 00022 think that this harkens back to a study performed by the United States Geological Survey back in 1999 and the year 2000, when the ability to measure quantities in this minute level of parts-per-trillion came about. And I think what the USGS did was, go around and survey waterways throughout the country, many parts of country, and pharmaceuticals were showing up in their studies. Again, I think, over the years, we were also improving our tests. And we test at parts-per- billion; and at parts-per-billion, none of these pharmaceuticals show up, not even today, they do not show up at parts-per-billion. And when we had heard that there may be pharmaceuticals in the waterways in the country, we determined that when we had the opportunity to do so, we would test for those also. 00023 And we began testing officially in 2004, when we joined a group in Nevada and a research project. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation was beginning to do research in this emerging area. You should note that the Philadelphia Water Department is considered one of the leaders in the country for water quality, water treatment, waste-water quality, environmental quality, and all of these things. We have experts that sit on the top committees in the country, both on the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, and other major organizations. And we are looked upon as leaders in -- within these organizations. And, naturally, when we had the opportunity to join them in 00024 testing for pharmaceuticals, we jumped at the chance to take a look and see what we have. We are not afraid to look, and, you know, we want to know what's out there.
Prior to the article that appeared in the paper relative to the fact that pharmaceuticals are in the water, what discussion had taken place in your environment amongst peers relative to this? And why do you believe that -- why do you think that this story created sort of like the firestorm that it did? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Mm-hmm. Well, it's understandable that people are quite concerned with their drinking water; they come into contact with it all the time, their children, their friends and relations. Clearly one thing that, you know, we do here in Philadelphia, you know, I know that my family is consuming this water, all of 00025 my neighborhoods are consuming this water, and my friends are consuming this water. And so, it's understandable if there's a concern. I think that the article that came out in March was useful in directing attention at this emerging science. And because of the nature of drinking water, people want it to be as pure as it can humanly be possible. We have the finest water product in Philadelphia that we have ever had, and it's, in great part, due to some of the people that are sitting behind me today, and they work very hard every day. So it's not surprising when people begin to question the quality of their drinking water there's major concern, but I think that the AP article has focused this concern, and I know there are hearings in Washington, D.C. -- I think it's Senate hearings tomorrow on this exact 00026 topic, because what we do know is that this is a national and international problem. What Philadelphia ultimately found in its source water and in its drinking water is very, very similar to what we have found all over the country. And that's simply because many of us take drugs, both over-the- counter drugs and prescription drugs. And when you measure these quantities where you have to drink 40,000 years' worth of water to get one dose of a child Tylenol, you can see that now our -- the science of discovery, the science of finding these things, has outstripped our ability to deal with it. Yet we are -- we have to study it. It's analogous -- to me, it's analogous to the Hubbell telescope. I don't know, ten, twelve years ago, the country put the Hubbell telescope out in outer space, and we were able 00027 beyond earth to see so much further than we had -- than the scientists had seen in the past. And what they had seen -- what they began to see for the very first time were things that were not easily explained at first, so it led to much more research. And this is kind of -- you know, when you scroll down to looking at your water in such incredibly small quantities, you -- your ability to do that outstrips your understanding of exactly what this does to you, what does this mean. And that's why we're still in the research phase here. And we are in the forefront of trying to understand what these minute quantities mean for human health.
I guess the other question along with that was, had there ever been any publications or reports on the studies that have been made by any -- by your association or any of your colleagues and any of the 00028 major trade publications about this issue? Was this -- the AP story the first time that the whole issue of pharmaceuticals in water was made public? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Actually, we -- when we began our study in 2004, you know, through the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and a group out in Nevada, which had a very sophisticated lab and was able to measure in parts-per- trillion, the story made the Inquirer in 2004, and we had discussed that with them.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: So it had been out to some extent, but there was -- it was so early in the research -- and it's still relative early in the research today because we know many water utilities have yet to do this testing, and they will have to get in line because there are very few 00029 places that can help them with that testing, and there are thousands, literally thousands, of water utilities in the country.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Could you define "nanogram" for me? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Nanogram?
Could you give me some description -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I -- I think it's --
-- or a comparison to what it actually is? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It's part-per-trillion, which means 1,000 nanograms per billion, one million nanograms per million. It's just a measurement, I guess, of size, but I do have the staff here. 00030
It's kind of like Carl Sagan -- "millions and billions and millions"? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
And I'm not making light of it. In the terminology of it, I'm not clear on what it is and have difficulty in conceptualizing it. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. These are difficult.
I mean, how small is "small"? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. Approximately, I'm told, a teaspoon in an Olympics-size swimming pool.
Okay. Do you have the technological capacity now to remove even the trace elements that you're in your testing? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I think what we discovered was that -- we didn't find -- almost half of the 00031 compounds we found in our source water did not appear in our finished water. Some of the most common ones were caffeine and, not surprisingly, you know, the Tylenol.
So the caffeine and the Tylenol appeared in the source water but not in the finished water? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No, I think in both.
In both. But in the finished -- do we have the ability or capacity either technologically or -- to remove the 17 elements in the finished? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We do not -- there's -- the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has yet to figure this out themselves. I mean, it's going to take -- that's why we're in a research situation. 00032 The cost of -- I don't think we have -- it may take more filtering; we're not sure. Certainly, the reason we're tied in with these research foundations and all of these other things is to try to get our arms around this ourselves. First of all, we don't believe at this time that this is a- public health situation; we do not believe that at these incredibly small levels. But what we will begin to do, I'm sure, at the national level is, look at this further and then look at, are there treatment methodologies that we don't know yet that can eliminate some of these.
But your answer today is, we don't have the capacity to do it. Or is it? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: There are certain -- some of the research shows promise versus certain compounds.
And -- 00033 COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: But, you know, there are different ways to -- you know, some things -- we use another element or another, you know, water-treatment chemical may dissipate them or -- and then in other cases, it's more filtering as opposed to treatment.
Sure. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: And we -- again, we're just in the early stages, Councilman. I don't think we -- we don't have -- we have a lot more questions than answers right now.
I'm sorry. Did you want to add something? MS. McCARTY: Yes.
Just identify yourself first. MS. McCARTY: Yes. I'm Debra McCarty, Deputy Commissioner for the Water Department. I mean, as the Commissioner said, you know, there are some 00034 emerging technologies that show promise, but at this time, you know, there's no human health concern that leads us to really jump on this without knowing the big picture. You don't want to have any unintended consequences.
So what you're telling us is that you test more than anybody else does, or at least deeper. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I don't think anyone has tested any more than we have. I don't want to say that no one else has looked for 75 compounds, but some of the -- I believe the water companies, water utilities have tested but perhaps not to the extent of Philadelphia.
But we test beyond what we're required to test. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Absolutely, absolutely.
And what 00035 you found, you believe, is not a public health hazard. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's true.
Go ahead. I'm sorry. MS. McCARTY: If I may add, we tested for everything that you can test for.
Yeah. So we -- MS. McCARTY: I mean, so there are other -- we know there are other pharmaceuticals, there are more than 75. But, you know, right now, this is -- this testing is all -- these methods aren't the research methods.
But we're testing probably more than anybody else. MS. McCARTY: Or as much as. 00036
Or more than most -- MS. McCARTY: We're trying to be aggressive --
Okay. MS. McCARTY: -- and know what's out there so we can address what we need to address.
I'm trying to craft this for you so we can have some definitive statement about what it is we do here. We test more than we're required to test, correct? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
And at this point in time, you view no public health hazard. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
And even 00037 wanted to take out the in the finished water, we don't have the capacity or technology to do it right now. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. There are certain technologies that are already being looked at, but it's very, very early in the stage research.
And 12 we'll -- continue to stay plugged into 13 the process -- 14 COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: 15 Absolutely. 16
And to the 17 research advancement. And at some point in time, we get to a point where we could take the 17 out. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
Right now, we are where we are. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
And the 00038 water's safe. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes, sir.
Good morning and thank you for your testimony. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good morning.
The first comment is really an FYI. I introduced a bill calling for the establishment -- not the establishment, but the installation of amalgam separators for dentists, and we haven't acted on that yet because we wanted -- we're still doing our homework to find out what other cities are doing in the handling of the installation of amalgam separators so that mercury does not travel down the same tube that our drinking water does when we're sitting 00039 in dentists' offices. So you should simply be aware of that, and we'll be looking forward to your testimony on that when we bring that up probably this fall. Secondly, give me just a few specifics on this pharmacy take-back program: How old is it? what's the status of it? You say -- or maybe we say in the resolution introduced that we should be or could be -- it could be the expansion of the City's prescription drug take-back program. So just update us, if you will, on the status of that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure. I'll let Dr. Chris Crockett, who's head of our Planning and Research Unit, describe what he knows.
Good morning. 00040 I'll state my name: Dr. Christopher Crockett. I'm Director of Planning and Research for the Water Department. And actually, back in 2004, when we talked to the Inquirer about this, finding the pharmaceuticals, we had actually initiated a regional committee with the regional EPA, the State of Pennsylvania Environmental Protection, and other environmental stakeholders. And we worked at how to get at the flushing of the pharmaceuticals down the toilet issue. At that time, there were no 17 federal policies. And, actually, we found that doing a pharmaceutical take-back program in 2004 was considered illegal.
Illegal, because you required a DEA agent, a pharmacist, and a police officer because these are controlled substances. 00041 And so we went through and spent several years working with this regional working group to look at the different types of take-back programs that were going out in the West and in California and in other places. And just -- we found a couple of partners, including the Women's Health Environmental Network, who sere spearheading a pilot take-back program that we're hoping to start any day here in the next couple of months; hopefully in May. And we're going to pilot this program to look at three elderly-care facilities; two of those are upstream of our water supply, and --
So what does that mean? That's professional terminology. What does that mean?
Two of those 00042 facilities, actually, if you flush down the unused medication, it would go to a waste-water plant that discharges into a stream upstream of where take in the City's water.
So through that and a grant with EPA, we were able to start this take-back program, and it took a while to get off the ground, but we're looking to start that this spring or summer. We're doing this for a three-month period. We're going to evaluate the costs and the results and the findings and figure out how to expand that. And part of this regional group also includes the pharmaceutical companies, including Merck and SmithKline.
And so we're hoping to then see if these results can 00043 be expanded to more of these elderly-care facilities or on a more regional basis.
Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that 'cause I did -- there -- my subsequent was going to be: What partnerships do you have in place with the Philadelphia Corporation of Aging or the Philadelphia Department of Health? So your response indicates that you're starting with the elderly community, with the expectation, hopefully, depending upon your findings, that you will expand that.
Okay. If I heard your testimony correctly, you stated, Commissioner, that there's some question on whether or not national regs are essential. If I misunderstood you, forgive me, but I would think there's 00044 no question that we probably need to have national regulations that speak to this issue that's been raised by way of this resolution. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. What I'm saying is I'm not sure how regulated this has to be, but it is a national -- it would be a national concern. It's certainly not -- what we've discovered and I know what the reporters of the AP discovered was that pretty much, when you look for these compounds at these very, very minute amounts, generally, you're going to find them. And that's no 18 matter where you look in the United States.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Because, you know, virtually every -- so many of us take medication and we excrete most of the medication, most of the parts of medication actually get 00045 excreted. And it shows up in the water cycle, so to speak.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: And it's in such minute quantities that they will show up. Now, if you subjected bottled water or soda or food to the same strict level of criteria as you do tap water, I would be shocked if you didn't find at least as much.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Or more. But, you know, that's not -- that's not required. This is not yet required of water utilities. But, again, we pride ourselves in being in the forefront of water treatment and waste-water treatment and all of the things surrounding both of these industries. So we want to be topnotch. We have an excellent laboratory in-house and -- but we do not have the 00046 parts-per-trillion, that capability at this point in time. We have an EPA-approved laboratory here in Philadelphia, which is very powerful, and we test our water, I think something, like 300,000 tests per year.
I see. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: So we're constantly looking at it. And we have an early warning system in place now along our rivers and streams. And we are constantly improving our security.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: And we're constantly improving the quality of our water. I think right now, it's -- for those who haven't tried tap water in Philadelphia because of bad memories from days of old, they should try it, because it's really an excellent product, and we know that it's good to 00047 drink and healthful to drink. And it's tested more so than anything else we consume, so --
Okay. And, finally, on of your testimony, you speak to what you're currently doing, and you mention providing information to organizations, partners, et cetera, on all that you're doing, 'cause, I mean, if you go with the educational premise that folks got to hear something seven times before it even begins to stick let alone understand it. So in the partners, who -- just share with us who some of them are with regards to getting the information out about this and other programs by the Water Department. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, certainly we have a lot of partners for a lot of programs, but this particular facet, the pharmaceuticals, the reason that it wasn't out in force -- I mean, 00048 we didn't really put a blanket on it because it's been -- you know, the Inquirer knew about it in 2004. But since we're sort of in the middle of research on it, we're not quite ready to take off all of the wraps on this particular facet. But we have partners all over the place as far as water quality in general, but we can certainly tell you who we've been working with as far as pharmaceuticals are concerned.
We have a citizens advisory committee made up of stakeholders throughout, environmental groups throughout the City. We're going to be communicating with them in our upcoming quarterly citizens advisory committee for the Water Department. 00049
Again, that regional work group that we've been involved with through the Schuylkill Action Network includes state and federal regulators as well as other environmental organizations.
And we also are planning on putting this information out in our annual water quality report that goes out to everybody that has water.
Do you ever get the little newspaper-looking thing in your mailbox?
That is also 00050 going to have information about it as well. And we also already have information on our website about this. So if you check our website, it will have information about the pharmaceuticals there as well.
And we'll continue to improve upon that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I should also add that the Community Advisory Committee on Water Quality will have a staff member of City Council on it from now on, so she would be able to update the Council after each meeting.
Okay. Well, I would only suggest -- but thank you for that it's an excellent beginning. Thinking in the non-traditional way outside of the box, meaning entities that are no way at all connected with the professional work 00051 that you do like the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, like the School District. I mean, there are some schools in the School District that actually focus on environmental curriculum, if you will. So to think in a non-traditional sense as well as you seek to educate citizens across the board. Thank you for your testimony. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Thank you.
Thank you I just have one other question. Now that the EPA is focusing in on this issue and having hearings, at the end of the day, what are your expectations from them? what action do you think they might take? And if they take any action, do you think they'll provide funding to the states -- the utilities to further -- to do further research? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I 00052 think -- my first reaction to that question -- it's a very good question -- is the logical thing for them to do at this stage of the game is research, research, and more research, because what they will have is information on Philadelphia, of course. They will have information on, I guess, the 40 -- I mean, the utilities that have tested already. And I think -- I think the AP article said that about 41 million people are affected in those particular areas, and I think it's time for more and more of the large water utilities in particular to begin testing for this, and they have to work in cooperation with municipalities such as ourselves to try to get their arms around all of this, and, first of all, to assure people that this does not pose a public-health risk at this time. And, you know, for us, we plan 00053 to keep monitoring. We plan to make sure that it stays that way, if not gets better. If there are ways to remove this in a reasonable fashion, we certainly shall do it. And, again, sometimes it's hard to be in the forefront because, you know, there's nobody in front of you, and you're not gaining all of that experience that someone else went through. But we are looked to for leadership in these areas, and we're very happy to provide it. We have the leaders here in this department.
Does the testing cost very much? I mean, is that a part of your budget requests, or is this part of the normal -- how much does it cost you to get this especially testing?
Well, when we did the special testing through a research project, we were able to pool 00054 our money together with other water utilities in the water industry to get a reduced cost on the sample, but this could cost upwards of a thousand dollars a sample, depending on the specialized nature and the array of emerging trace chemicals that you're looking for. So this is not inexpensive testing because it has to go to special laboratories, and that's just for the analysis. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I think some of the pharmaceutical manufacturers have to start looking at ways to take, you know, take their compounds and see that they break down in some way perhaps to -- in their material after a certain period of time so that they don't hang in the environment for long periods of time. So I think, you know, they're certainly listening because they don't want -- you know, they want to be 00055 ahead of curve as well so that they don't get more and more regulated than they already are. So there's -- it's so -- this is emerging science.
How do the pharmaceutical companies dispose of their outdated medicine?
I think that's a good question to ask the pharmaceutical companies.
Okay. Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Would you just stick around a little bit? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure.
This should not be an all-day-event hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure.
Because we might want to call you back for some questions once we hear other testimony. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure. 00056 And we're interested in listening to your other witnesses today.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Mike Ewal, ActionPA. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Thank you for having me today. So, yes, my name is Mike Ewal and I'm with ActionPA. We're a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia. And what I'm here to talk to you about is the single most dangerous drug that is in the water and the one that's most preventible. Others here are talking about pharmaceuticals that are found in the drinking water in parts-per-trillion, and the debate is whether, at parts-per-trillion, these chemicals and combinations of them can cause 00057 health effects, and I think it's a serious concern that the science is still trying to figure out the conclusions about that, whether there are health effects at that level. However, Philadelphia pays about $1 million a year now to intentionally put fluoridation chemicals in the drinking water at one-part-per-million, a million times higher than the levels that we're talking about with these other drugs. And they do so with the intention of creating a pharmaceutical effect. The chemicals that are purchased, however, is called hydrofluosilicic acid. It's not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, it's not the stuff that they put in toothpaste; it's a hazardous-waste byproduct of the phosphate mining industry mostly based in Florida. Literally if they took the same chemicals and dumped it directly 00058 into a river or a stream or an ocean or a lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. Yet putting it in the drinking water is considered a medicine. It's treated as if it's a pharmaceutical and it's not regulated as such, though. It's not FDA- approved in a pharmaceutical sense at all. Now, the purpose of putting it in at one-part-per-million is to create a pharmaceutical effect of reducing tooth decay; that's the stated purpose of this. And so it's put in in a concentration where it's intended to create effects. However, the data that the Pennsylvania Department of Health has from its own dental survey just about a few years ago shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh; the second-worst is here, in Philadelphia. Both of these cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. 00059 So it's not doing any real benefit in terms of tooth decay, and that's been backed up by national data and international data, of which I have colored charts over there on the table: one showing tooth decay trends in countries throughout the world, and you'll see that the trends are that tooth decay is dropping in countries that use fluoride and countries that don't. It's dropping regardless of fluoridation. The national data shows that regardless of whether a state is fluoridated or not -- and some are at zero-percent fluoridation, some are at 100 percent, and Pennsylvania is right in the middle, and you'll see that it has no effect on tooth decay. What does have an effect is whether people have enough money to afford dental care. And so, in the cities, we have the worst tooth decay because there are more people that 00060 cannot afford dental care, not because fluoride is in the water making a difference on that. Yet, what the Pennsylvania Department of Health data does show is that the worst dental fluorosis, which is the white, brown, or yellow pitting or modeling of tooth enamel, the funky teeth that you see in some people, that dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride exposure; it's named after the chemical that causes it. And the worst dental fluorosis that they see in this state, according to our own state's data, is in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where they're been fluoridated since the 1950s. Now, that dental fluorosis effect has been enough of an issue to cause concern even among the agencies that have been so vigorous in promoting fluoridation. Groups like the Centers for Disease Control and 00061 the American Dental Association both issued warnings in late 2006 saying that parents of infants should not mix infant formula with fluoridated water because that water can actually cause dental fluorosis and damage that child's teeth.
They issued press releases on, but there was no requirement for water companies or for the promoters of fluoridation in these agencies to notify people through water bills or any other means so that mothers or fathers of small children would know not to mix infant formula with tap water. Now, there are many other health problems associated with using these fluoridation chemicals in the drinking-water supply. The Scientific American Journal just put out a big article on it a couple months ago, but a couple years ago, the National Research Council, which is a part of 00062 the National Academy of Sciences, did a very exhaustive study of over 1,080 reports and scientific papers on this topic -- it's the most exhaustive scientific review of water fluoridation -- and they found that the level that is considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency is actually not safe, is not protective of public health, and needs to be lowered, that level that they said is four-parts-per-million, yet what they put in drinking water is one-part-per- million. And since you can't control the dose, you have diabetics -- like my brother is diabetic and drinks a lot more water because of it, you have athletes and others who are drinking a lot more. Since the dose cannot be controlled, there are some people who are already exposing themselves to more than what's considered safe, and that officially-safe level is going to 00063 have to drop at some point once the EPA follows the National Research Council's advice on lowering that level. The union that represents eleven different -- actually, eleven different unions that represent EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, staff scientists, including the one in the office here in Philadelphia, have come out and called for a national ban on water fluoridation in part because of the studies that have been coming out on bone cancer in young boys, studies that were initially covered up at Harvard University, when they came out a couple of years ago. There are other studies showing increases in lead exposure when fluoride is in the drinking water -- some of it from causing lead to leech from pipes more, some because of differences in calcium absorption. And some people -- particularly 00064 African-Americans and Latinos -- have more of an affinity for absorbing the lead, having lead absorbed into the brain, because of the fluoride that's in the drink water, than other folks do. And the cause of that -- the social implications of having some of that go on is increases in learning disabilities; we know very well that lead causes decreased IQ in children. We also see that it affects the serotonin levels in the brain, which is tied to an increased affinity for violence and an increased affinity for cocaine addiction. So some of the same issues socially that we're dealing with in the city are tied to some of the chemical exposures from the fluoridation chemicals that are being added to our water, and that means that that increases that exposure. Now, fluoridation chemicals, 00065 since they come from the phosphate fertilizer industry, it would not be affordable at all if we tried to buy pharmaceutical grade, and that's why buy it from the industry. Phosphate mining is actually on decline, and so the hazardous-waste byproducts that are being used for fluoridation programs are on the decline as well. And because of that -- and I spoke with the Philadelphia Water Department just a few weeks ago to get the updated numbers on this -- the amount of money that's being paid to purchase the fluoridation chemicals has gone up and up. It's about half a million dollars this past year. And when I spoke to them a few weeks ago, they said they're putting it out to bid again for this next year's purchase of chemicals, and they're expecting the bids to be about double.
So we're talking about $1 million a year just to buy chemicals 00066 that are being put in the water that are not even shown to be creating the healthful effects that are intended, but which are showing to be creating a number of health problems. Now, there's statewide legislation being promoted right now, House Bill 49, that would mandate water fluoridation in the State, and doing so will roughly double the amount of chemical purchases of these fluoridation chemicals, which won't affect Philadelphia in the sense that Philadelphia is already fluoridating, however, doubling the demands for these chemicals when the American Water Works Association and the State DEP are already issuing warnings just late last year that there are national shortages of these chemicals and that some water companies can't even secure buying the stuff because there's not enough. And if we double demand in the 00067 state and create a mandate, that's just going to increase the prices already increasing a lot for Philadelphia to keep buying these chemicals to put in the water. And so from a medical perspective, there's the tenet called "First do no harm," and if we're worried about pharmaceuticals in the drinking water, the first thing we should do is stop paying a million dollars a year to intentionally put them into the drinking water. It's part of the precautionary principle. Basically if there's evidence of harm and there's not a compelling reason to be doing this, it's not mandated, then the prudent thing to be doing would be to save the money and take it out of the water. There's a 1955 ordinance that requires it at the City level to be in the water. Philadelphia passed that ordinance in 1955, and the only reason 00068 that the Philadelphia Water Department can't their make own decision to file 4 for a permit with DEP and take it out of the water is because City Council would first need to repeal that 1955 ordinance. And so I would suggest adding fluoridation and the issues around it to the hearings that will come up if this resolution is passed. And I also just wants to support (indiscernible) in their comments about other pharmaceutical agents in the water and what can be done out about them. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Could we ask the Water Department to come back and respond, please. (Water Department representatives return to the witness table.) 00069
Can we have the doctor talk about fluoride? And make it brief, please. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well --
You heard his testimony. Could you respond to it? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. Well, clearly, if the gentleman is correct in what he is saying -- I think there's some controversy in the health community about that, but if he's correct, it -- the Water Department does put fluoride in the water and, I guess, has done so since 1955 because of the ordinance and because the Health Department, I believe, sponsored that ordinance back in that day. And it's not a requirement of water treatment nationally, but we have basically just complied with the regulations -- the ordinance and the desire of, I think, the Health 00070 Department to have fluoride in our drinking-water supply. Now, I've heard people -- I've heard stories from dentists who have said that they've seen more -- they've seen more cavities in some of the kids, and when they got -- scrolled down a little deeper and found out why, they found that the parents had given their kids bottled water in place of fluoride water, and perhaps that was the cause of more cavities. And I know there's some bottled waters that have now come out and said that they are fluoridated so that you will not miss the fluoride in your tap water. But, again, we stand ready to do whatever the Health Department deems appropriate.
Let me just ask you another question now that you're back. Why are the standards different for bottled water than for 00071 water that's provided by a municipality? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I think you can't avoid your municipal water to some extent, so it has to be stricter in a sense. The Food and Drug Administration oversees bottled water, and their standards are not quite as stringent. As you may know, the department began bottling its own tap water about months ago. We've now 14 run into a problem with the contractor 15 for that water. The cost of plastic 16 has been skyrocketing also, and they 17 cannot deliver our bottled water 18 product, called "Philly Tap," for the price that was negotiated, you know, by the Procurement Department. But in any event, our tap water was taken to the bottler, which was a woman-owned firm in Bristol, Pennsylvania, and in order to give it a two-year shelf life, they have to 00072 put it through other processes, which may be reverse osmosis so that it gives the tap water a two-year shelf life in the bottle, and that is regulated by the FDA.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Now, that particular bottled water has both our imprimatur -- it's gone through the most stringent testing, which is required by the EPA and the DEP, and then it's gone on to get FDA approval sale, but most bottled waters just require FDA approval, and it just is not -- it does not require the kind -- the quantity and kinds of testing that we do to our tap water.
Thank you. You say that you stand ready to do what the Health Department would request relative to the fluoridation. 00073 Have we asked them? I mean, what -- I mean, I don't know the answer to the question, and yet people who come to testify, who apparently are prepared and have some data to show you, and I don't know what the other side has to say. I mean, if it's not helping and is not a requirement, I mean, do you think that the Health Department feels strongly that it should stay in? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'm not certain about the, you know, the latest research. Apparently, there's been some recent research that has at least raised the questions that we heard here from the gentleman just now. And, again, I don't think -- I know that we are familiar with fluoride and the way we use it and believe that it's safe, but if new research has shown that it's not required any longer, we would take our cue from the Health Department. 00074
An assertion was made in the prior testimony that somehow the grade of fluoride we use is not dental-grade fluoride, that it's some byproduct of some phosphate mining operation or something. Do you know whether that's true or what's that all about? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'll let Mr. John Muldowny answer that. He's the Chief of Water Treatment.
John Muldowny, Manager of Water Treatment. It is true that it is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, but the level of the -- the cleanliness of the product, by the time it's added to the water, doesn't add anything to the water, which would be detrimental to our customers. Once again, trace levels of other chemicals in the fluoride product added to our drinking water 00075 would result in very, very, very low concentrations.
Do you know the difference between dental-grade fluoride and what we use? I mean, what makes --
Madam Chair, what I would suggest is that maybe we jointly, as chairs of the committee, write a letter to the Health Department and ask them for some type of an update on where they are right now. I mean, it's not the biggest issue, but it's something I'd really rather just get an answer to one way or another from where their perspective is, okay? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Thank you.
Thank you 00076 very much. Don't go away. We want to get the witnesses, who have been sitting here for a few minutes, to come and testify, and then we'll call you back to -- the Water Department back to answer a question or two from Councilman Jones. Robert Wendelgass? (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chairperson, Councilman Kenney, and Councilwoman Brown. My name is Robert Wendelgass, and I'm the National Deputy Director for Clean Water Action. I served as Pennsylvania State Director of Clean Water Action for 16 years before I took the national position. And I've been a resident of 00077 Philadelphia for almost 30 years now. Clean Water Action is a national environmental organization with over 100,000 members in Pennsylvania and roughly 10,000 members in Philadelphia. We have a long history of working for safe and affordable drinking water, both locally and at the state and national levels; and, in fact, have been talking with the Pennsylvania DEP about the pharmaceuticals issue since 2005. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with Council today. The presence of hundreds of unregulated pharmaceuticals and other manmade chemicals in the nation's rivers, streams, and drinking waters is becoming increasingly well- documented due to increased monitoring, better testing techniques, and greater use. 00078 While the data to date reveals concentrations at relatively low levels, current conventional treatment does not effectively remove them. This is cause for certain, although not panic, and for timely action. More research and other commonsense measures are needed. In terms of occurrence, the AP investigation that was published in March brought to light what the scientific literature has been documenting for a decade or more: A potential toxic stew of organic pollutants, human and veterinary medicines, personal-care products, and various industrial and commercial products are in our waterways. The primary sources of these pollutants include waste-water due to pharmaceuticals excreted by the body, industrial discharge, disposal of unused drugs, biosolids and manure used as fertilizer, and agricultural 00079 runoff. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and streams throughout world. S. Geological Survey conducted sampling of streams in 30 states and found pharmaceuticals in 80 percent of the streams, with the majority of the streams having at least five different pharmaceuticals. Closer to home, researchers at Villanova University sampled 15 streams in Chester County in 2004 16 finding pharmaceuticals in all of the 17 streams they tested, including 18 hormones, antibiotics, and 19 antidepressants. And you've heard 20 from the Philadelphia Water Department 21 about there own findings now with 32 pharmaceuticals in our watersheds and 17 in the finished tap water. In addition to knowing that pharmaceuticals are in our rivers and 00080 streams, we also know that they're having an impact on aquatic species. Species of fish in the Allegheny River in the Pittsburgh area and in the Potomac watershed have found intersex fish -- feminized male fish -- along with evidence of exposure to estrogenic hormones in the water. Estrogen compounds are one of the more frequently found pharmaceuticals in water sampling and represent a potential threat to the ability of fish and other aquatic species to reproduce. In terms of human health risks, common sense suggests that it's not a good idea to drink somebody else's medicine. Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and Environment at State University of New York at Albany, said, quote: We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and 00081 that can't be good. The ecological and public impacts of low doses are largely unknown, but they can't be dismissed. Pharmaceuticals, by their very nature, are designed to be biologically active. So while there is little data on human health effects from exposure to pharmaceuticals at these low levels, we can't assume that this means there are no human health effects from these contaminants.
Finding harm to other species in the environment, like fish, has often been the first step for researchers in understanding how contaminants affect humans. Just because the levels of the pharmaceuticals are low at part-per- trillion levels, we should not assume that the consequences are also low. Further, there are some specific concerns about human health effects, especially from estrogenic 00082 compounds being detected. Some cancers, including breast cancer, have been clearly linked to estrogen exposures, and there are legitimate concerns that increasing estrogen exposures through our water supply has the potential to cause harm. Weaknesses in our current regulatory scheme. As the folks from PWD have noted, there are currently no 12 federal or state standards or even monitoring requirements for most of these pharmaceuticals in our drinking water or in waste-water. Furthermore, we would argue that the nation's current regulatory framework is too slow, too narrowly focused, and too costly that it probably isn't a good fit to address this problem. Traditional waste-water regulations and waste-water systems are designed to create microorganisms and nutrients, not pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. 00083 Advanced treatment techniques like ozonation, granulated activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and nano filtration membranes have been shown to remove significant amounts of pharmaceuticals, but they're expensive. There are some states and engineering firms and water utilities working together on pilot projects to explore treatment options. Clearly, more research is needed along with leadership from the US EPA to build on this and other projects and on information base that USGS has begun to develop. While we clearly need to learn more, we believe that we know enough to be concerned and to take some precautionary actions. That includes more research on health and ecological impacts and occurrence, upgraded treatment for waste-water and drinking-water systems, and, most 00084 importantly, pollution prevention through pharmaceutical, agricultural, and water industry reforms. Monitoring of pharmaceuticals needs to be increased. We need more data on the presence and concentrations of pharmaceuticals in our rivers and streams and in our tap water, and this data should be provided to the public. We applaud the Water Department for having taken the initiative in doing the research that they've done. We believe that they should continue and that other water systems should also do the same. We would also suggest that monitoring should be required from potential waste-water sources of pharmaceuticals as well such as sewage- treatment outfalls. Secondly, we need more information on proper treatment techniques for removing 00085 pharmaceuticals from both waste water and drinking water. As I noted above, some early studies on ozonation, for example, which a number of drinking-water utilities around the country use, have show some benefits in reducing pharmaceuticals in tap water. We hope the Philadelphia Water Department will lead the way in research initiatives to expand our understanding of these treatments. We also encourage PWD to incorporate any findings from this sort of research into its planning for future system improvements both on the drinking- water side and on its waste-water side. PWD will likely need to update its treatment systems on both sides in coming years as new federal requirements come on line. As we modernize our treatment facilities, we should look at the full range of 00086 threats to both human health and the health of aquatic species. Thirdly, we need to look for ways to prevent pollution of our waterways with pharmaceuticals. I'm glad to hear that the Philadelphia Water Department is establishing a pilot take-back program. We encourage expansion of programs like that and programs to discourages disposal of unused pharmaceuticals.
I'd note that that is only going to be a partial solution to the problem because disposal of unused pharmaceuticals is only a partial source of the problem. The largest source of the problem is what we excrete after we've taken pharmaceuticals. And a take-back program isn't going to address that issue. But to the degree to which we can eliminate unnecessary disposal of waste pharmaceuticals and the flushing 00087 of them down toilets, that's an important thing to do. We also have been encouraging the State to target monitoring efforts at waterways downstream not just from publicly-owned treatment works, which it has been doing, but also pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, to just make sure that there are no 11 excess quantities of these chemicals in their discharges. And, finally, the federal government needs to explore options for better design of pharmaceuticals so that there's less impact on the environment and less excretion of the drugs or their metabolites. Fourth, we should support efforts at the state level to improve protection of the rivers and streams that supply our drinking water. Out of over 80,000 chemicals registered with EPA, our federal drinking-water rules require testing for less than 00088 one hundred. Like pharmaceutical contaminants, many chemicals are allowed to be discharged into our rivers, relying on drinking-water treatment systems to hopefully remove them. New legislation that has been introduced in Pennsylvania's General Assembly in the form of House Bill 12 2157 and Senate Bill 1109 would amend the state's Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that discharges into drinking- water sources do not degrade our water quality. We encourage the Water Department and City Council to review these bills and to support them. And, finally, we should ask our federal representatives to support better federal support for research into pharmaceutical contamination. President Bush's Fiscal Year '09 budget contains a $10 million cut in funding for the national water-quality 00089 assessment program that has been a major source of research and monitoring data on this issue. While Philadelphia can't solve this problem alone, there are some actions that the City can take to make progress on this issue. We appreciate City Council's interest and look forward to working with City Council to help promote safer drinking water and cleaner rivers for all Philadelphians. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Kenney has a question.
Yes. Since we're the Council of the City of Philadelphia, our main responsibility, obviously, is our own department, our own drinking water. And while I recognize and agree with you on the macro picture that you're paying as it 00090 relates to more research and what we're finding the more we test, how would you rank the Philadelphia Water Department both in leadership and in the actual work that they do to keep the water as clean as possible?
Well, I -- certainly, I give lots of credit to the Water Department for doing the testing for pharmaceuticals; it's not required, and so they've gone above and beyond the law and the requirements in that regard. So I certainly give the Water Department lots of credit on that. I haven't seen all of the detailed numbers on which contaminants were found at which level and would love to see that, and I think that the Water Department probably could do a little bit better job of getting the information out. I'm happy to hear they're going to put in their water- quality report or their consumer confidence report. 00091
How would you rank the quality of our water, it's drinkability, its safety?
Well, I would answer in two different ways. In terms of what the Philadelphia Water Department does to the water, I think they do an excellent job of treating our water, so, you know, they have a good record of meeting state and federal standards, and so I think the department does a good job with the water that they get. On the negative side, I would say that the water get isn't the cleanest water in the world by any means whatsoever. I mean, the Delaware and Schuylkill water, by the time it gets down to us, has, frankly, cycled through a number of other cities. A lot of the water we drink comes from upstream sewage discharges. So the water that they get isn't 00092 extraordinarily clean, and it does require them to pay a lot of attention to improving that.
But the question I have is: The water that they get you may not be the happy with the quality, and maybe we shouldn't be either, but the water that comes out of our tap, how would you rank that?
I mean, I have a water filter on it 'cause I don't necessarily like the taste of chlorine and 'cause I have a person in my home who's been immune-compromised, and we want to make sure that we're not getting any microorganisms in our tap water. But certainly -- I mean, in the debate that you had earlier about tap versus bottled water, I would 00093 encourage people to drink Philly tap water over most bottled water any day.
So I agree that I think that the Water Department does a good job and produces a good product. I think there are -- particularly with pharmaceuticals and some of the compounds where we don't -- there are no regulations, then I think there is lot more research that needs to happen to figure out, is this a safe level for pharmaceuticals chemicals? One thing I would disagree slightly with some of what I think I heard from the Water Department, I would not necessarily characterize the levels that we're finding of pharmaceuticals as safe. I don't think we know enough to say they are either safe or not safe. And that's the point that I would make today, that we don't have information enough to make that 00094 characterization and that parts-per- trillion is not automatically a safe level. Parts-per-trillion of some chemicals can be unsafe.
Thank you so much. Any other questions? Councilwoman Brown.
On of your testimony, you address the issue of educating the electorate and you say that we need more information on proper treatment techniques. Did you have an opportunity to hear from the Water Commissioner about the number of ways where they're already seeking to educating the electorate? 00095
And what recommendations or additional suggestions would you offer to add and enhance what they do already?
Well, I think putting the data in their consumer confidence report or their water- quality report that they send out to all of their customers is an important step, and so I would encourage them to do that. I think there are a number of stakeholders within the environment and public-health communities that they could more aggressively reach out to and provide information on this topic.
Well, for example, my organization, I mean, we first knew that the department had test results that -- and the levels that 00096 they were finding when we saw it in the AP story as well. So having worked with the DEP on this issue for a couple of years, we thought we were reasonably current on the state of DEP, of state and federal research on it. We had not heard from the Water Department about their data. So, I mean, there's always more groups and organizations the department could talk to on this. My guess is that they were not looking to get information out too widely until they completed more years of study on it. But I think there are groups within the environmental community and the public-health community where this information would be helpful to know at this stage as well.
I mean, I understand that they're not looking to alarm people. 00097
But for the professionals in the industry who live and breathe the same issue that you do, that that certainly is of value.
We may recall some of the witnesses. I certainly want the ActionPA to come back. I didn't ask you a question. But I do want to have this last group up to testify because people have schedules, and I don't 00098 want to hold them up, so we'll have Roberta Perry from EPW Associates and her panel to come forward -- Dr. William C. Miller and Marcella Stokes -- to give their testimony. And then I wanted to call you back just for a question. (EPW Associates witnesses come forward.)
Doctor, you may pull a chair up from there, a side chair. Good morning.
And you'll have to speak into the microphone so we can hear you.
My name is Roberta Perry and I'm an environmental engineer with a master's in civil and environmental engineering. And I am the principal of EPW Associates. We do technical-training development and EMS 00099 management program for EPA and OSHA compliance. My area of expertise is in the area of environmental engineering. I have 30 years of experience working with a quasi-government agency and was responsible for complete development of the Mid-Atlantic, monitoring water qualities and processing and detecting (indiscernible) for contaminants filtering and evaluation. One of the key areas to get this task completed was educating the public and the employees there. On my left is Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller is a Ph.D. and an expert. He has extensive professional experience working as an environmental engineer professional working for the Department the Public Health, research activities that involve filtration devices and modeling, and quality assurance for EPA. And he's also a faculty member at Temple University in 00100 civil and environmental engineering. In the middle is Marcella Stokes, a mechanical engineering consultant that works with engineering firms and has experience with green-building analysis. Her professional activities involve analyzing environmental impacts on construction practices, methods to be analyzed, countermeasures, clean- energy resources, machinery, non-polluting construction material. Research activities involve material research, nanotechnology device. She sits on the Board of Students at Drexel University. They do sustainability building systems and engineering. She also assisted in sanitation with a military unit while serving in Kuwait, which involved tracking and safeguarding hazardous waste and sanitary planning. What we feel -- and Dr. Miller's going to be the first 00101 person to talk about it. These are some talking points: We wanted to know: How the pharmaceuticals get into the Philadelphia drinking water? Where are the pharmaceuticals found? What are the risks involved to the general public? Are the concentrations harmful? How long have the pharmaceuticals been in the water? How can they be removed and what process will be used? How pharmaceuticals are being monitored? And what are the effects on human, fish, and wildlife? I also want to say that I have officially visited Baxter Water Plant, doing research for Temple. I visited the water plant at Belmont Avenue. I visited the waste-water processing 00102 plant at the airport. And I do drink Philadelphia drinking water, and I know that they have one of the best waters in the United States, or quality of water. So with the problem with the pharmaceuticals being in the water, Dr. Miller's got some discussion that he wants to talk about on that.
" I'm here today to talk basically -- first of all, I'm William Miller, Temple University College of Engineering. And prior to doing that, I was with the Philadelphia Department of Public Health for several decades, let's say, working in the air pollution agency. Much of that time later in my tenure there, was with the 00103 laboratory operations involving air monitoring, laboratory, computer operations and so forth. During that period of time, I was also doing quite a lot of teaching at Drexel and Penn State in the areas of the environmental engineering, civil engineering and public health. " Generally, the purpose of engineering in this case is to support public health, security, and safety as 00104 a general, overarching process. And the communication of scientific information is in the purview of scientists, and once the information has been communicated and then goes into the public-policy area, where decisions are made regarding the information, the scientific information, then the policy is made, regulations are created and passed, and you move forward from there. And those are under the conditions where it's determined by the scientific and the technical communities that such moving forward is necessary based on effects, the evaluation of effects. A couple of the issues is that -- I'd like to say that a scientist can't say no because in the world of science you can never say for absolutely, positively sure that the answer is yes or no. 25 Scientists are trained, and 00105 from properly so, to speak in terms of probabilities. And that's why, when we start dealing with concentrations, which are in the areas of parts-per- trillion, parts-per-billion. And so forth, that the certainty of the knowledge of that molecule or compound being there is very low, but you can't say for sure that there is not one of those molecules anywhere on the planet, to take it to the extreme So when you talk to scientists, you have to understand that you're talking about levels that are detectable, levels that are quantifiable. Even though they may be detectable, they also have to be quantifiable, and the quantifiable levels are then what's used to take it into the scientific and policy-making area in terms of decisions about making regulations in public health, for example. One of the areas in risk 00106 communication which is problematic is the concept of voluntary versus involuntary risk. Some people feel that when you are walking around outside and an airplane flies over, that's an involuntary risk; you have no control over that. However, when a person gets into an automobile and chooses to drive without a seat belt, that's a voluntary risk The issue that has to be understood is that people are much more willing to take voluntary risks than involuntary risks. When individuals are presented with an involuntary risk, such as drinking water, which is felt to be a public right and a public utility, and they find or hear something that's problematic or potentially problematic about that water, it becomes much more of a serious, you know, psychological or emotional issue because they have no control over that. It's that loss 00107 or sense of loss of control which creates, you know, a reaction, which may actually be much too large compared with the seriousness of the problem. And it's the responsibility of the scientific and engineering communities to properly communicate when. They're going to release information to the public, they also have to be prepared to support and provide information that the public can understand in terms of how serious is this problem. And I believe certainly that's what the purpose of your hearing is, is to deal with how serious is the problem. Another way to put that: Just because you identify a problem doesn't automatically make it serious. There are -- there's a gradient or a level of seriousness has to be discovered and communicated to the public. An example of that would be 00108 plutonium, okay?
Plutonium is very highly toxic material, one of the most toxic materials on the planet. It's not a natural material; it can only be formed through nuclear reactions. But at the same time, since the 1970s and maybe a little before that, plutonium has been used in a number of satellite applications for the power source. And as you may know, these satellites eventually enter the atmosphere and burn up. So anyone who was born or lived since the middle '60s and forward, we also have some plutonium in our body because the plutonium was spread out all over the planet. But the existence of the most hazardous -- or one of the most hazardous materials on the planet in everybody's body is not necessarily a cause for concern, because the concentration that's there, even though it's detectable, is much too 00109 low to cause any problems. So that's an example. You know, when you communicate that risk and if you published a headline tomorrow saying that everybody is contaminated with plutonium, you would want to be prepared to make it clear that it's the level of seriousness or the level of the problem which makes it not a problem, even though it's a very hazardous material. The other issue is that there's a concept called "a risk matrix," which means that we can discuss one particular type of risk or one particular type of contaminant, but everybody is subjected to a whole spectrum of contaminants, and it's the level and the exposure to each one of those which adds up to the burden that we each bear in terms of exposure to these contaminants So, again, the reaction to a particular contaminant must be taken 00110 into consideration with respect to all of the other contaminants that we're being exposed to in terms of what is serious, what do you attack first from, let's say, a public health or an economic point of view, because in the end, all of these processes that are necessary to address these issues at some level will start costing money, And in terms of funding for public health for water treatment and for other issues, the funding has to be done and the decisions about funding have to be done on a judicious method so that we're not putting money into a process which may have little or no effect, such as removing plutonium from our bodies, because that funding and the public-health problems in other areas must be compared to that, So there's a comparative risk aspect. And so comparing the risk of pharmaceuticals in water to other 00111 types of public-health and environmental risk must be a part of the overall decision-making processes. I also want to comment on Philadelphia's leadership in public health and in environmental protection. In the late 19th century, the Water Department was among the first cities to install at that time advanced filtration systems because the effect of pathogens became well understood during that period of time. And in post World War II -- when I first came to the City, I was recruited by the Water Department, although I never worked for them, but they were recruiting engineers nationwide. And I knew, as an undergraduate coming out of school, that Samuel Baxter was the national leader in water-treatment systems, so I had a lot of respect for that, and I came here because the Philadelphia Water Department at that time was 00112 recruiting all over the country. Highly respected and recruited all kinds of engineers Also, in the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, in that period, since the Air Management Services was formed in 1969, in that period, that agency, along with, in some regards, the City of New York, cooperated on issues such as asbestos-bearing materials in buildings. Now, that was banned back in the '70s. There was a tremendous problem of apartment house incinerators as a general problem.
Cooperation between Philadelphia and New York addressed those issues and allowed for the establishment of nationwide standards for regulating and looking at those particular industries The community right to know in terms of hazardous air pollutants being admitted, which came out of the 00113 right to know of employees within companies to know what was being stored, used, and manufactured, this also came out as part of the research done by the City of Philadelphia and some of the -- and the State of New Jersey, which is where it actually started. So these agencies have long been in their years of establishment -- the Water Department for over hundreds of years and the Air Management Services and the General Air Pollution Agency in Philadelphia, which actually began around 1948, both of these agencies are well respected in terms of -- certainly in terms of their technical ability and their technical interest in dealing with public-health and environmental problems. Thank you.
Thank you for 00114 allowing me the opportunity for my voice to be heard. I want to speak first as a --
Oh, I'm Marcella Stokes and I'm here with EPW Associate. I feel as though I'm qualified due to my experience doing sanitation control in Kuwait, where we did deal with a lot of contaminants, both airborne and also in our water supply. And also through my nano technological research, working with machinery, nano machinery. And the way I want to relate that is to possible nano filtration device that could possibly be used to address this issue. My third qualified, I think, is the fact that I drink the Philadelphia drinking water and have been for quite some time. So as a consumer, my first question would be: Even though some 00115 of the contaminant levels may be considered acceptable by scientific means, is it still acceptable for them to be present? And do we know enough? My answer, as an individual here, is: No. 8 And also reading the Philadelphia -- not to throw stones at the Philadelphia Water Department because we have all heard here today a testament of what a fine organization it is and the great work that they have done over time. However, it does clearly state that those with compromised immune systems and also the elderly shouldn't drink the water. So if I had to emphatically say if it is safe for all people to drink the water, I would say, I guess, in that case, it wouldn't. But stepping that aside, my personal views, I bluntly feel that though we have had the best -- while 00116 we have employed the best techniques over time to filter the water, perhaps it's time to step up to modern technology and improve the techniques that we do use. I'm not arguing the fact that perhaps the levels that's being found are not harmful to humans that consume them. What I am questioning is our ability to remove contaminants from the water. And I would be interested in learning more about the techniques that the Philadelphia Water Department have used to actually test the water. When they say "nanograms," it's my understanding that a nano is one one-billionth of something. It's kind of difficult for me to quantify exactly what is meant by testing a nanogram or using some nanogram-type measurement when testing. And that's my only question today. I feel that I'm honored to sit amongst experts in the field, you 00117 know, my aunt having done extensive sanitation activities, you know, with a quasi-government agency. And I feel that working alongside of both governmental and private and also academic institutions would be the key to addressing this issue and making sure it's an answer -- I mean, we come up with solutions that's viable for everyone. Because as a scientist, I could appreciate the scientific jargon that says okay, one-part-per-million or one-part-per-billion is not harmful, but if I have a small child at home, if I have a family member who fits into the category that perhaps they shouldn't drink the water, that leaves -- I would need more reassurance.
Thank you very much. I think that certainly we appreciate you're coming forth. The safety issue was raised by 00118 Mike Ewal from the ActionPA relative to the fluorides in the water, so we -- we're going to ask him to come back. So I think, you know, the fluoride issue is an issue that we can address at another time, but I have a couple of questions, but certainly the Philadelphia water, like you said, is pretty good water, but -- and they're doing everything they can to make sure. This is a new development around this whole pharmaceutical issue, and it's good that we're having this discussion 'cause they'll know the seriousness that people feel about it and want to go further in trying to fine some resolution to it. Yes, the Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
First of all, thank you for coming here today. And my question actually doesn't come 00119 from me as a Councilperson; it comes from my granny, who is a superstitious, paranoid person at times, so there's always a conspiracy around everything. But she asked that -- the question is -- and I heard from everyone who testified that they still, irrespective of anything, have a confidence level in drinking our water, correct? I mean, that's what I pretty much heard to a person.
The second thing is the paranoia that sometimes happens when we start to leak scientific information but don't have a apples-to-apples comparison as to what the danger level of the acceptable risks are. And I thought that was very important to have on the report. A couple of wives' tales, I guess they tell them. Does boiling water make it safer? And that's what my granny want to know. I mean, with 00120 all of these chemicals that can be found in it, does it even make sense to do that?
We're going to have the Water Department come back, so if you will just let this panel go --
-- I'm going to call the Water Department back. Be patient. Thank you so much for taking time out to come down to testify. These ladies are certainly unique in the environmental field, and we're real proud to see that you come forth to share with us information. Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Miller. You're right about the risk communications; it's very important that we communicate before the question is, What did you know and when did you know it and when were you 00121 going to tell it? Mr. Ewal, would you come back, please. I just have a couple of questions to ask you. And then we're going to ask our Water Commissioner to come back for a couple of questions from Councilman Jones. (Mr. Ewal returns to the witness table.)
You had talked about Philadelphia and Pittsburgh having the worst fluoridation -- I can't say that -- fluorides in our water. Now, tell me about the cities in between. I mean, what's happening? Are they not using fluoride or they're not using it to the levels or they're using a different kind? So Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are the worst -- certainly, they're the most populated cities, but we have hundreds of cities between Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. 00122
Okay. Let me explain that. First of all, it's not that the fluoride levels in the drinking water in these two cities are higher. In all systems that are fluoridating, they intend to put in one-part-per- million, and it's actually a range on, say, 0.08 to 0.12. So they'll try to get within a certain range, but basically we're talking the same levels. As far as the chemicals, though, about 92 percent of drinking water systems that fluoridate use those chemicals that I described, those hydrofluosilicic acids, the waste product from that phosphate industry, and that 92 percent figure is from the Centers for Disease Control; you can find it on the website. Now, in Pennsylvania, we have about 9 to 10 percent of our drinking 00123 water systems in the state are fluoridated. Those are primarily the urban ones. And so, like, Harrisburg, Erie and Allentown now and a number of other cities are fluoridating, but most of the rural areas are not. Some of them, like if they're bigger like towns in the rural areas, they will be more likely to fluoridate, but a lot of the other systems are not. The largest unfluoridated water system in the state is Aqua, PA, which used to be known as Philadelphia Suburban Water. So the suburbs, for the most part, are not fluoridated. Like, if you look at Delaware County, for example, the City of Chester is fluoridated, but all of the suburban areas around it are not fluoridated. So you have that dynamic going on. Now, what the studies that I mentioned show -- and this is the Department of Health data that was collected by the University of 00124 Pittsburgh for the Department of Health in 2002, that data shows that the worst dental fluorosis, which is that modeling of tooth enamel, is in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh first, which has very high levels, and then Philadelphia is second to that.
Well, you know, Councilman Kenney and I are going to communicate with the Health Department, and so we'll probably be in touch with you to further discuss this because that effort does come under the Health Department. But I would say to the Water Department, there ought to be some collaboration between the Health Department and the Water Department around this issue. And so we'll be following up on that. And I thank you for coming down.
Okay. Well, let me 00125 add one more thing to clarify something I said that I just realize I left out. That to percent of the 5 water in the State that are 6 fluoridating, that's affecting about 7 55 percent of the State's water 8 customers. So it's about half of the 9 State's water customers that are 10 getting fluoride but it's only through a minority of the systems, which are those in the urban areas.
I need to underscore Chairwoman's Tasco's comment that coordination, discussion, dialogue in a formal way needs to happen with those two departments, because anytime you talk about fluoridation -- and I'm trying to connect the dots there -- is it the lack thereof or too much of it? 00126
Which is to reduce tooth decay. And all of the evidence really points to the fact that it does not. And whether it's actually causing harm, and there's a growing, large body of evidence showing that there is harm. And the Health Department is -- it shouldn't be any surprise, but they have a longstanding history of promoting this, as do the federal health agencies, even though they've admitted to some cautions about it, like I mentioned earlier, about the recommendations for infant formula. So I would encourage, if you're going to seek the truth on this, not just to go to the Health Department, but to go to the scientists out there like the EPA union that has come out strongly 00127 opposed to this and other scientists who are leaders in this field who have actually looked at the literature, unlike the Health Department, which tends not to, and have them be a part of this dialogue well. And I'll be glad to help bring some of the expert voices to the table.
Okay. We look forward to that because ultimately, what affects adults is not a good thing, and then it's compounded to the extent that it affects children and young people.
Thank you. We do have to begin, though, with our health commissioner; he is new. So the dialogue has to begin there. And certainly we'll be in touch with you to have further 00128 discussion about it.
Thank you. Now we'll have the Water Department come back. Councilman Jones has a couple of questions that he would like to ask. (Water Department reps return to the table.) COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good afternoon, Councilman Jones. I am Bernard Brunwasser, Water Commissioner. And to my right is Debra McCarty, Deputy Water Commissioner.
Good afternoon. And I just want to say again for the record, I think you getting out front on this issue is important. I think that as we start to look at alarmism, that we have to caution that with what scientific facts and comparing to apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Now, having said that, there 00129 are hundreds of thousands of people out there that really want to know: Fundamentally, is our water safe? And that's the first question. And then you have folks like my granny who want to know, Well, should I be boiling my water? now that this has come out. And I'm hearing that the answer is probably no. I want to hear you say that, though. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: You do not need to boil the water.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It's dangerous. You could get burned. (Laughter.)
There's more risk to boiling it by getting burned. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
The other thing is that there were a couple of other wives' tales that I would like to dispel. Someone said that leaving your water out a half hour deals with the 00130 chlorine smell and it dissipates quickly. Is that true? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Go ahead. MS. McCARTY: I'm Debra McCarty, Deputy Commissioner of the Water Department. Councilman, for a lot of folks that don't like the taste, you can put the water in a pitcher and put it in your refrigerator, and, you know, sometimes the chlorine taste will disappear. And people are really bothered by that. And though we don't necessarily recommend it, folks do use what they call "the point of source devices," but the problem with those is, you have to keep up with their maintenance and changing them out, because if don't, you can make yourself sick essentially.
The second thing that I heard that was a little 00131 disturbing is that based on us being downstream, the water that you get to clean and prepare for drinking is a little bit -- or we're at a disadvantage being downstream, and can you elaborate on that? And is there anything in the world that we can do about that? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, yes, we are downstream. I believe we are the last draw on both rivers, the Delaware and the Schuylkill, which has presented Philadelphia with monumental challenges over decades and decades and going back well into the 19th industry primarily. The positive spin on that, of course, is that we know an awful lot about cleaning up river water that has been much worse than it is today. The Clean Water Act of 1972 forced everyone in the country to improve the rivers and streams. One of the -- we're worried 00132 about, you know, fish and wildlife in our rivers and streams, and certainly the pharmaceutical question that we have in front of us today would certainly affect small wildlife and perhaps fish in these rivers and streams. The good news is: When I started with the Water Department back in 1970 we had about four species of fish along the Fairmount Dam on the Schuylkill. We now have about 45 or 46 species of fish that we see regularly on the fish ladder at the Fairmount Dam, and what we have seen is life coming back to these rejuvenated rivers and, in part, due to what we are doing, but also in part to what others above us, you know, upstream from us have had to do over the past 30 years or so. So the water quality has been getting better and better. And we believe that the rivers now are -- the 00133 river environment, the rivers and streams in Philadelphia, is probably cleaner than it has been for about 150 years, pre-Civil War, because there were no rules in those days, and everything went into the river. And whether it was from Reading or Pottstown or Trenton, you know, it would come past us. And -- but we learned very quickly, we had to learn very quickly how to treat surface water and make it good enough to drink. And the City of Philadelphia water has, I think, with Samuel Baxter and the passage of the new City Charter of 1951 has just been in continuous improvement. And that's what we try to do, that's what these folks behind me try to do on a daily basis, which is really deal with everything from taste and odor. And I think we've gotten now to the point where on blind taste 00134 tests we fare pretty well now.
I heard. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: So we're very proud of our product, we believe that it's safe. As one gentleman said, parts-per-trillion, we -- I can say we believe that that is not an issue right now. I don't think most scientists believe it's an issue. But, again, this is a new world. We are not -- can we be one hundred percent sure? No one is one hundred percent sure. The research has to go on.
Commissioner, I would only encourage you to keep in mind what has been said here today about different strokes for different folks by way of impacts of chemicals, whether it's someone's immune system being impacted, whether it is a propensity for people to have addictions based on those kinds of 00135 chemicals being used or being in our water so that -- let's stay ahead of the curve. If we need to do studies to see what impacts there are on people, let's continue what you've already started by being proactive as opposed to reactive. And that would be my own comment. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, we certainly agree.
Thank you, councilman. We appreciate your coming in. And we appreciate the Water Department for coming in too. Now, is there anyone else here to testify on this resolution? (No response.)
Well, what we'll do is, we'll just recess in case 00136 we might want to come back and have an update later on, and that leaves the record open, and we won't have to adjourn. If we adjourn, well, then we have to start all over again. So we'll just recess this hearing until the call of the chairs. Thank you all very much. It's been very informative and learned an awful lot here this morning. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time out to come and testify. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Thank you, Councilwoman Tasco. (Proceedings end at 12:32 p.m.) * * * 00137 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Joint Committee on Public Health and Human Services and the Environment are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, April 14, 2008, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)