1 2 3 4 THE NORTH BATTLEFORD WATER INQUIRY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * * * * * 13 14 BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Robert D. Laing 15 16 17 HELD AT: Tropical Inn, 18 North Battleford, Saskatchewan 19 20 * * * * * 21 22 23 24 October 12, 2001 25


1 APPEARANCES: 2 JAMES RUSSELL, Esq. ) 3 CHRISTOPHER BOYCHUK, Esq.(np) ) Commission Counsel 4 BLAIR BLEAKNEY, Esq. ) 5 6 WARREN E. BICKFORD ) Executive Director 7 NORM DOELL ) Registrar 8 9 L. TED PRIEL, Q.C., Esq. ) The City of North 10 KEN A. STEVENSON, Q.C., Esq. ) Battleford 11 GARY D. YOUNG, Q.C., Esq. (np) ) The Battlefords 12 MARK VANSTONE, Esq. District Health 13 ROBERT McDONALD, Esq. ) Association of 14 Professional Engineers 15 & Geoscientists of 16 Saskatchewan 17 MICHAEL TOCHOR ) Department of Justice 18 L. M. SCHWANN ) Saskatchewan 19 M. McDONALD (np) ) Environment and 20 Resource Management 21 R. G. HISCHEBETT (np) ) Saskatchewan Health 22 R. E. PETRICH (np) ) Saskatchewan Municipal 23 Affairs and Housing 24 T. MICHAEL McDOUGALL (np) ) Saskatchewan Water 25 Corporation


1 SCOTT HOPLEY, Esq. ) Saskatchewan 2 MS. LESLIE BELLOC-PINDER (np) Environment Society and 3 Nature Saskatchewan 4 N.G. GABRIELSON, Q.C., Esq. (np)) Dr. L. Gerharde Benade 5 ROCHELLE MASLIN, Ms. ) Dr. David Butler-Jones 6 and Dr. Eric Young 7 R.W. MITCHELL, Q.C., Esq. ) Canadian Union of 8 SANDRA G. MITCHELL, Ms. (np) ) Public Employees, 9 Local 287 10 G.J. SCHARFSTEIN, Esq. ) On behalf of 427 11 individuals and 12 corporations affected 13 by the contaminated 14 potable water in North 15 Battleford 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25




1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 C-15 Turbidity measurements for various dates 195 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:30 a.m. 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, good morning, 4 everyone. Perhaps we'll have the Hearings get underway at 5 this time. 6 And, Mr. Russell, I suppose we'll turn the 7 floor over to you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Commissioner. We'd like to call our next witness this 13 morning, Mr. Peter Allen. 14 15 (PETER ALLEN, Sworn:) 16 17 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: Good morning, Mr. Allen. 19 A: Good morning. 20 Q: You are Peter Richard Allen? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: I understand that you are a plants 23 operator for the City of North Battleford; is that correct? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: I understand that you were first of all


1 employed on a part-time seasonal basis between May and 2 September of 1997 and that you began as a full-time plants 3 operator in October of '97; is that correct? 4 A: Okay, full-time seasonal rather than 5 part-time seasonal, but the rest is correct. 6 Q: Okay, so you became full-time seasonal in 7 October of '97? 8 A: Full-time -- 9 Q: Full-time? 10 A: -- full-time, yeah, probation was a three 11 (3) month period after that. 12 Q: I see, and then you -- you went through 13 your three (3) month probationary period and then you became 14 a -- 15 A: Full-time. 16 Q: -- full-time operator. 17 A: Permanent employee. 18 Q: And I understand that you have completed 19 a fairly lengthy education in water and wastewater 20 operations, and I believe that between 1986 and 1988 you 21 completed a diploma in Environmental and Water Resources 22 engineering at SIAST; is that correct? 23 A: I believe it was '85 to '87. 24 Q: '85 to '87, okay. I understand that in 25 March of 1999 you completed the Western Canada Water and


1 Wastewater Association correspondence course for surface 2 water treatment; is that correct? 3 A: I did complete that course, yes, sir. 4 Q: I also understand that in June of 1999 5 you obtained a certificate of qualification for operator of 6 water and/or waste water, class 1, issued by the SERM 7 Operator Certification Board; is that correct? 8 A: I believe that was a voluntary -- 9 Q: It was a voluntary certificate? 10 A: -- right, sir, yes, sir. 11 Q: And then in June of 2000 you obtained 12 your class 2 certificate for water and wastewater from the 13 same Board? 14 A: I wrote my exams and passed the water and 15 wastewater level 2. There hasn't been an application to the 16 OCB for full certification, but I have passed the exams for 17 level 2. 18 Q: Okay, so you have the equivalent of a -- 19 of a level 2 operator standing? 20 A: I'm unsure of that -- 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: -- my standing on that. 23 Q: Okay. I also understand that in addition 24 to that you have completed a range of educational units in 25 such things as chlorine training, transportation of dangerous


1 goods, confined space entry, how to conduct an accident 2 investigation and how to make a workplace inspection; is that 3 correct? 4 A: That'd be correct, sir. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: First of all, Mr. Allen, I'd like to have 9 you take a look at a document in Mr. Fluney's binder, Exhibit 10 C-10, tab 19, if that could be placed before you. 11 A: Thank you very much, sir. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: You'll see there, Mr. Allen, what appear 16 to be minutes of an Occupational Health and Safety Committee 17 meeting -- Committee meeting, held on the 7th of June 2000. 18 And your name appears as an operator who was 19 present at that meeting. Is that in fact the case, were you 20 present -- 21 A: Yes, sir -- 22 Q: -- at that meeting? 23 A: -- I was at the meeting. 24 Q: The minutes also indicate that Mr. Ivan 25 Katzell and Mr. Randy Strelioff were present in that meeting.


1 To your recollection, were they present? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Now these minutes don't appear to follow 4 the usual occupational health and safety format; do you 5 agree? 6 A: I'd agree, sir. 7 Q: Was this then a meeting called for a 8 special purpose? 9 A: It appears by the minutes that there 10 wasn't any regular business or the format of an occupational 11 health and safety meeting. 12 Q: Right, so do you remember the -- the 13 purpose for which the meeting was called? 14 A: There was a discussion based on not 15 wanting to repeat what had happened in Walkerton, that we 16 were going to pay more close attention to our chlorination 17 cycle, our reservoirs use, put in fresh water. 18 Q: So this was a special meeting called in 19 response to what had occurred in Walkerton? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And the issue being discussed was the -- 22 the chlorine issue? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: What can you recall, if anything, of the 25 actual discussion that took place?


1 A: There was concern to meet the minimum 2 requirement of point one (.1) free residual leaving the 3 plant. When you start up it's very hard to chlorinate water 4 that's already in the clear wells and there was a concern 5 that -- that residuals from the night before should be left 6 higher in order that some -- that chlorine would dissipate, 7 wouldn't leave the plant -- the water leaving the plant -- 8 the effluent would still meet the point one (0.1) residual so 9 there was a group discussion on how high we needed to get it 10 in order to maintain the minimum levels. 11 Q: Okay. And, at that point, one (1) 12 residual you're referring to, who -- who was responsible for 13 setting that point one (0.1) residual? 14 A: That's a SERM guideline. 15 Q: Okay. And, until this time, you had been 16 following the SERM guideline in establishing your chlorine 17 residuals? 18 A: The guideline was -- Ivan had given -- 19 Ivan Katzell had -- statement saying that, in order to get 20 some chlorine at the end of the system, we were having to 21 basically give Javex to the people at the beginning of the 22 line and there had to be a happy medium so to speak between 23 too much and too little. 24 Q: I see. So perhaps you can help me then. 25 In the first paragraph of these minutes, the second line


1 where it was -- where it says, "It was agreed that we set our 2 own minimum standard for chlorine residuals in the water that 3 is ready to be pumped out to consumers," and then the 4 decision is made to establish a point two five (0.25) 5 milligram per litre of free chlorine. 6 You established your own standard, I think 7 you're telling me rather than following the SERM standard of 8 point one (0.1)? 9 A: Well, to my understanding, point two five 10 (0.25) is a greater residual than point one (0.1) and so we 11 were -- because of our system being rather old and never 12 having been swabbed, the -- in order to get point one (0.1) 13 at the end of the system, we were going to have to increase 14 the chlorine residuals leaving the plant in order to maintain 15 having some at the end. 16 So, it was decided that the minimum standard, 17 because of the infrastructure problems in the -- that we were 18 going to have to -- to have a higher residual than what SERM 19 had -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- set as the the residual. 22 Q: So, if you wanted to maintain a residual 23 of point one (0.1) at the end of the system, it was going to 24 have to be higher than point one (0.1) when it left the 25 plant?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: Were any other decisions taken at this 3 meeting of July 7th, 2000 on water safety that you can 4 recollect? 5 A: Kevin O'Neill was adamant that the 6 reservoirs be turned over more often. He was correct in 7 saying that the number of times that the reservoirs were 8 actually used concerned him and he was concerned that the 9 chlorine would dissipate over the time period that it had 10 been left stagnant and that an effort should be made to 11 change over in the reservoirs more often. 12 Q: So that was an aspect of the chlorine 13 issue you were looking at in this meeting? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: So this meeting was basically about 16 chlorine levels? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Okay. And do you recall what 19 contribution Mr. Strelioff made to the meeting? 20 A: He was part of the steep learning curve, 21 sir, he was -- understood that Walkerton was a problem and 22 didn't want to repeat the same situation. 23 Q: Do you recall him, though, giving any 24 directions about what should be done in certain 25 circumstances, did he instruct the operators in any way that


1 you can recall? 2 A: No, sir, 3 Q: Sorry? 4 A: No, sir -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- not at all. 7 Q: I mean, did he -- he raise the idea of -- 8 did he raise the idea of a risk and advise you that you 9 shouldn't be taking risks down at the plants? 10 A: I don't recall that, sir. 11 Q: Sir, prior to the events of March of 12 2001, did you have any -- any knowledge of cryptosporidium, 13 giardia or other parasites? 14 A: I had some. 15 Q: And what did you know about those 16 creatures? 17 A: I'd heard the name before. My father 18 taught veterinary microbiology and I can remember him going 19 to Banff about Beaver Fever. My interest was piqued -- we 20 went to -- Frank and I went to a -- 21 Q: Mr. Hollmann? 22 A: Correct, sir -- went to a -- April 7th 23 and 8th in '98 -- went to Saskatoon. We were talking to a 24 councillor from Vanscoy who had had a crypto outbreak and she 25 said, all we did was chlorinate, we didn't realize that that


1 was a problem and I knew that we only chlorinated out of 2 Number 1 plant. 3 Q: So the -- the officer from Vanscoy said 4 that they only chlorinated there? 5 A: Yup. And that wasn't gonna kill these 6 cryptos. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: So I had my father do some research to 9 find out if there was contamination from wells and he came 10 back with some documentation saying that there was a 11 possibility and I raised that with my foreman. 12 Q: Your father came back with some 13 information for you on contamination, where? 14 A: Indicating that there had been some 15 crypto contamination from wells. 16 Q: But not in the City of North Battleford, 17 I would assume? 18 A: No, no. Other -- other -- 19 Q: Other areas -- 20 A: Other areas -- 21 Q: -- of this community? 22 A: -- other communities. 23 Q: And so did you learn anything else about 24 cryptosporidium? 25 A: In reviewing those documents best way to


1 remove crypto would have been the coagulation, flocculation 2 method. 3 Q: These would be documents prepared by your 4 father? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: Okay. Anything else you learnt? 7 A: No. Can't say. 8 Q: Did you have any idea about what effect 9 cryptosporidium could have upon human health? 10 A: Other than it was stated as a pathogen, 11 something that would -- an organism that would cause disease, 12 no. Gastrointestinal but, no, the short answer. 13 Q: Besides the information you acquired from 14 your father and I'm assuming at -- at the meeting that you 15 attended with Mr. Hollmann, did you pick up information about 16 cryptosporidium anywhere else? 17 A: No, not cryptosporidium, but there is a 18 mention in the surface water correspondence course that not 19 all pathogens are killed by chlorine. 20 Q: Which -- which course is that? 21 A: The Western Canada Water and Wastewater 22 Surface Water correspondence course, we were required to 23 complete within three (3) years of starting at the Plants 24 Department. 25 Q: And which year did you complete that


1 course? 2 A: It'd been just after my first year of -- 3 so '98. 4 Q: '98 -- ? 5 A: '98 -- 6 Q: -- roughly? 7 A: '98, '99, I'm hazy on that one (1). 8 Q: So at -- at that time, what aspects of 9 cryptosporidium or parasite knowledge was appearing in the 10 materials you were given? 11 A: None. 12 Q: None? 13 A: Other than to mention that some pathogens 14 are not killed by chlorine. 15 Q: Okay. Had you -- had you come across 16 any -- any literature on cryptosporidium? 17 A: There was a National Geographic article 18 on parasites, but the short answer is, no, sir. 19 Q: We have been referring, if you turn to 20 tab 9 in the same binder -- sorry, it isn't tab 9, I believe 21 it's tab 6 in Mr. Fluney's binder. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 To a -- an edition of the Pipeline, dated May


1 of 1999, which as you can see if you turn to it, deals with 2 giardia and cryptosporidium in surface waters. 3 Have you ever come across that article? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: When did you come across it? 6 A: It says May 1999. 7 Q: So are you -- were you a recipient of the 8 Pipeline at that time? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: And do you recall receiving this 11 particular edition? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: Do you recall reading the article? 14 A: I skimmed through it and again pointed it 15 out to Ivan, because this came out just after the vari drive 16 was pulled in Feb -- February 10th to April 1st, there -- 17 thereabouts. 18 Q: Of '99? 19 A: Yeah. And I remember pointing out on the 20 second page, the second bullet with respects to the 21 coagulation/flocculation. 22 Q: You -- you read this article and you 23 brought that to Mr. Katzell's attention? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: Did you bring it to anyone else's


1 attention? 2 A: I -- in looking through documents for 3 this Inquiry, I found that Bob Berry, the engineer, had 4 initialled his copy and put it on file at the sewage plant, 5 so I assume that it had been read by Mr. Berry. 6 Q: But you did -- you did not provide Mr. 7 Berry with a copy of it, did you? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: When you provided a copy of this to 10 Mr. -- to Mr. Katzell and pointed out the -- the bullet that 11 you've just indicated, did he have any response? 12 A: None, sir. 13 Q: Do you know if he -- if he read the 14 article? 15 A: No, I do not. 16 Q: You've said that you had a knowledge of 17 cryptosporidium, which -- what was your understanding of -- 18 of how cryptosporidium was dealt with in the water treatment 19 process? 20 A: It wasn't killed by the chlorine, 21 therefore it had to be filtered out. 22 Q: And which parts of the process achieved 23 that end? 24 A: The solids contact unit would be the 25 primary removal for crypto.


1 Q: And the -- and the processes which take 2 place within that unit? 3 A: Yes, sir, coagulation/flocculation. 4 Q: And sedimentation? 5 A: Sedimentation would be there. 6 Q: And the filters might have a role too? 7 A: They do have a role. 8 Q: Okay. And from your earlier meeting, was 9 it your feeling at that time then that chlorine played no 10 role in dealing with cryptosporidium? 11 A: Can you repeat that question? 12 Q: Sorry, I think -- I think you'd indicated 13 earlier that you had been to a meeting where someone from 14 Vanscoy had mentioned that they used chlorine, and that you 15 didn't feel that that had been effective or appropriate to 16 deal with crypto? 17 A: They had told me that because they only 18 chlorinated the crypto it kept on -- passed through. 19 Q: So what was your understanding then of 20 the role that chlorine played in the -- in -- as any kind of 21 barrier against cryptosporidium? 22 A: In research I've done since this March 23 incident, there -- if chlorine residuals are high enough and 24 pHs are low enough, there is some killing. But basically for 25 all intents and purposes you can say chlorine has no effect


1 on -- 2 Q: Okay, that's -- that's research you've 3 done. What about back before March of 2001, what was your 4 understanding about chlorine then, and it's role in this 5 context? 6 A: That it would have a very limited affect 7 on cryptosporidium. 8 Q: Prior to March of 2001, did you have -- 9 you discussed -- you'd read some literature on 10 cryptosporidium, you'd -- you'd had some contact with your 11 father you've told us. 12 Did you have any concerns about possible 13 cryptosporidium contamination at water treatment plants in 14 North Battleford? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: Why would you have such concerns? 17 A: I didn't feel that the management 18 necessarily understood that not all pathogens were killed by 19 chlorine. 20 Q: What gave you that impression? 21 A: A phone call I was making to Dr. Fayote 22 Koyota of Occupational Health and Safety, he's the 23 toxicologist. During that phone call, Ivan walked in and 24 heard me on the phone and laughed at what I was doing and 25 said, you know, all organisms are killed by chlorine.


1 Q: He overheard your conversation with 2 this -- with the doctor? 3 A: Yeah, and he interjected that all 4 organisms were killed by chlorine, was his understanding. 5 Q: Okay. And is -- is that the only reason 6 why you feel there was no understanding? 7 A: Help me out here -- 8 Q: Oh, are there any other instances of you 9 interacting with -- with management, Mr. Katzell or anyone 10 else who had supervisory control over you, to indicate that 11 these concerns were not fully understood? 12 A: Well -- okay. In that Mr. Katzell is -- 13 when brought to his attention that we were going to run out 14 of chlorine, just after I'd come back from a chlorine course 15 requiring two (2) people to change chlorine, he indicated to 16 me that leave it, let the water keep pumping to the city 17 without chlorine and we would get someone to change chlorine 18 when we had staff. So, he wasn't even concerned at some 19 times whether there was chlorination at all. 20 Q: You say you had returned from a 21 chlorination course? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And the chlorine had run out where? 24 A: Number 1 Water Plant. 25 Q: And Mr. Katzell was there?


1 A: No, sir. I was working a 3:00 to 11:00 2 shift, evening shift, and I noticed that it was going to run 3 out overnight and I phoned my supervisor requesting someone 4 to help me change chlorine, as to the standard that we had 5 been taught, and he told me that it would be changed in the 6 morning. 7 Q: And -- and what happened to the chlorine 8 during the course of that night? 9 A: It ran out. 10 Q: Do you know when it -- do you know when 11 it was changed, when it was put back on? 12 A: The next morning. 13 Q: Did you put it back online? 14 A: No, sir, I was working a 3:00 to 11:00 15 shift. 16 Q: Do you -- do you -- why do you know it 17 was put back online at that time? 18 A: Well, when I came back for my afternoon 19 shift, it was documented that there was a change and there 20 was chlorine when I got there for my next shift. 21 Q: But did that change show when the 22 chlorine had been put back online? 23 A: Not the time, sir, but definitely during 24 that next eight (8) hour period. 25 Q: So it could have been at any time during


1 the course of that night? 2 A: Excuse me, sir? 3 Q: It could have been at any time then 4 during the course of that particular night, it could have -- 5 A: Not -- 6 Q: -- been put back in? 7 A: Well, it would run out sometime during 8 the night and it would have been replaced sometime between 9 8:00 and 5:00. 10 Q: Right. But you have no knowledge then of 11 how long the period of time there was between it running out 12 and it being replaced? 13 A: No, sir. 14 Q: Besides Mr. Katzell, was there anyone 15 else -- anyone else that you discussed these matters with? 16 Your concern -- I'm just talking at this stage about -- 17 you -- you've told us that you had a concern about crypto -- 18 possible crypto contamination -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- you've mentioned you discussed that 21 with Mr. Katzell; did you discuss your concerns about 22 possible contamination with anyone else? 23 A: The documents that my father prepared in 24 '98 were shown to a number of other people, including Jack 25 Hillson, MLA, the union and the...


1 Q: Well, let's -- let's step one (1) back 2 here then. Was your only concern about possible crypto 3 contamination the one (1) you've stated, i.e., to the effect 4 that you felt your management didn't understand how to treat 5 it? I mean -- or, was there any -- was there any problem 6 with any of the treatment plants or treatment processes that 7 you felt might cause a problem? 8 A: Well, we get back to the chlorination 9 after coming back from that chlorine course in '99, we were 10 requested -- a chlorine switch-over valve which would 11 basically, when the tank ran out, it would automatically 12 switch-over to ensure that chlorination would continue. 13 And that got back burnered. We eventually did 14 get a chlorine switch-over valve for Water Plant Number 1 and 15 there has been talk that we may get one (1) for the rest of 16 the plants. 17 Q: But I -- I think you -- I think you 18 testified earlier that you felt that chlorine was not really 19 an effective barrier against cryptosporidium. Is that 20 correct? 21 A: That is correct, sir. 22 Q: So in terms of your concerns over 23 cryptosporidium, what were you worried about other than what 24 you've already told us, that possibly management didn't 25 understand how to treat it?


1 Was there anything in the plants that you felt 2 was a problem in the way that crypto could be treated? 3 A: Okay. Water Plant Number 1, there is no 4 coagulation, flocculation method. There is -- but -- 5 Q: Right? 6 A: Okay. You're referring to Water Plant 7 Number 2? 8 Q: No, I was -- well, let's take the plants 9 in turn. Why -- why would there be a concern over 10 cryptosporidium at Water Plant Number 1? 11 A: There is a small potential for crypto 12 from wells -- the new wells that are placed in, now, are 13 thirty (30) metres back from the water's edge -- the river's 14 edge, which is considered an adequate barrier by Mike Famulak 15 from Beckie Hydrogeology. 16 The wells number 11 and 16 -- 11 maybe three 17 (3) metres at the best and 16, under ten (10) metres from the 18 bank. So the question was whether there was an adequate 19 barrier and based on water analysis, I -- the water that was 20 coming out of 16 was -- and 11, was highly recharged by the 21 river. 22 So it's a question of whether there was enough 23 of a barrier to keep out the crypto before it was pumped 24 because there was no further barriers in Water Plant Number 25 1. There is some removal of iron and not much more.


1 Q: So -- so why did you feel there was 2 cryptosporidium in the river water? 3 A: That would be from '98, it piqued my 4 interest that they had problems in the South Saskatchewan and 5 made the jump to assume that it was also in the North 6 Saskatchewan. 7 Q: All right. But you have no direct 8 knowledge of that at that time? 9 A: None. 10 Q: Okay. So you -- I think, is this fair to 11 say, you -- you're saying you had a -- a general concern 12 about Plant Number 1 because of the proximity of those two 13 (2) wells you've mentioned, to the river? 14 A: That would be correct, sir. 15 Q: Do you have any knowledge of any 16 cryptosporidium contamination that has ever entered those 17 wells? 18 A: There's never been a test -- 19 Q: Do you have any -- but do you have 20 knowledge? 21 A: None. 22 Q: So you're concern was then somewhat 23 speculative in relation to Plant Number 1? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: What about in relation to Plant Number 2?


1 Did you have any concerns there? 2 A: In '99 the vari drive was removed and at 3 that time there was no stirring in the solids contact unit 4 and I asked what we were going to do for an interim stirring 5 unit to keep the solids contact unit operating at an optimal. 6 And I was told to be quiet. 7 Q: What -- what was your concern, in that 8 case? Why did you -- this was a stirring unit issue, why are 9 you concerned there? 10 A: In the documents that my father prepared, 11 coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation was the primary 12 removal for crypto and it seemed that it wasn't going to be 13 recognized by my superior, my -- 14 Q: So did you raise that concern at the 15 time? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: You -- you -- you verbally voiced that 18 concern? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: Who did you speak with? 21 A: Ivan Katzell. 22 Q: And what did you say? 23 A: Basically that I wondered what we were 24 going to do for an interim stirring unit. 25 Q: Is that all you said to him?


1 A: That's what I recall right now. 2 Q: You recall merely referring to the 3 stirring unit process itself, the technology? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: Did you -- did you raise any concerns 6 about the cryptosporidium issues you said you had in your 7 mind? 8 A: I -- I know I pointed this Pipeline 9 article out afterwards, but I can't recall whether I actually 10 said the word cryptosporidium during that time period. 11 Q: But if you didn't use the word 12 cryptosporidium did you voice a concern in any way, did you 13 make it clear to Mr. Katzell that you were worried about the 14 safety of the water in any way? 15 A: He made it clear to me to be quiet. 16 Q: But you did not voice to him a concern 17 about the safety of the water? 18 A: I did try. 19 Q: And what did you say to him? 20 A: That we should have an interim stirring 21 unit, that we shouldn't compromise the coagulation/ 22 flocculation. 23 Q: But that's as far as it went, that's what 24 you said? 25 A: Yeah, he pretty much cut me off.


1 Q: Okay. Also apart from that incident in 2 relation to Surface Plant Number 2, any -- any other concerns 3 as regards cryptosporidium contamination at that point? 4 A: At that point, no, sir. 5 Q: Mr. Allen, I think you -- you've told us 6 that you have some knowledge of cryptosporidium and the -- 7 and the way it was treated. You had some concerns about 8 possible contamination at the plants, and I think you've also 9 given us some instances of the way you raised those concerns. 10 But what I'd like you to do now is to let us 11 know if you raised those issues with anyone else, or with -- 12 even with Mr. Katzell in any other context, other than the 13 ones you've already pointed out. Have you communicated those 14 concerns to anyone else? 15 A: I believe on preparation for an 16 occupational health and safety meeting for November I had 17 given a memo to Ivan, which was forwarded to Randy Strelioff 18 and it was not necessarily an occupational health and safety 19 issue. I believe it's in my binder and you can refer to it. 20 It -- I had some concerns about the solids 21 contact unit and tried to bring them up at an operational 22 meeting in November, what would that be, '99? 23 Q: Of '99. You -- you raised concerns at 24 that meeting? Did you bring them up at that meeting? 25 A: I cannot recall, but I usually go through


1 my lists and try and, you know, check off as I go through. 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: But now that I think about it, it 4 probably -- whether it was '99 or 2000, I'm hazy. I'd have 5 to check the date on the document. 6 Q: But -- well we can try and look for the 7 document in -- at the moment, but I'm just trying to get at 8 your recollection of if the issue came up at a meeting, how 9 was it -- how was it characterized? Did you stand up and 10 speak to this? 11 A: I would -- no, say no, to that, sir. 12 Q: You would not stand up and speak to it. 13 So how would the issue get discussed or how would it become 14 known to the other participants in the meeting? 15 A: I didn't keep minutes of that -- where'd 16 it go, operational meeting. 17 Q: Hmm hmm. 18 A: And I don't recall what was said. 19 Q: Okay, do you -- well do you remember any 20 discussion at all on that issue at that meeting? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Are there any other contexts or 23 meetings -- 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Are you going to refer to 25 the memo that the witness just referred to, Mr. --


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: There were a series of 5 memos, Mr. Commissioner. I was going to go through them 6 generally before I referred to the specifics, but I think 7 it -- 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think it's preferable to 9 deal with them -- 10 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- preferable -- 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- specifically because 12 they can assist on recollection, et cetera, if they're 13 brought to the attention of the witness. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 16 Q: Mr. Allen, if you could perhaps turn in 17 your own binder -- I think what you may be referring to -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Referring to C-13, the 19 binder C-13, yes. 20 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: C-13, Mr. Commissioner, 21 yes. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 24 Q: If you could turn to tab 27. 25 A: Excuse me, which one?


1 Q: Oh, you do not have a binder there? 2 A: No, sir. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: The witness doesn't 4 have... 5 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 THE WITNESS: Is this the one (1)? 10 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yeah, that's the one (1). 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 14 Q: I apologize. I don't know if this is 15 the -- the document or the note you're referring to, Mr. 16 Allen. 17 A: It is. 18 Q: This is a -- this is a memo, I take it, 19 it has your name on it, Peter Allen, and it's dated October 20 17th and it says that it's addressed to Ivan and Randy, I'm 21 assuming that's Mr. Katzell and Mr. Strelioff. So, how did 22 this memo come to be composed, I take it that you put it 23 together? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: And for what purpose?


1 A: Dual purpose, one (1) for occupational 2 health and safety issues to be brought forward and lunchbox 3 questions, operation relations. 4 Q: So this would have been a memo you put 5 together as a possible agenda for a future occupational 6 health and safety meeting? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And it would have been delivered to Mr. 9 Katzell and Mr. Strelioff? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: But, to your knowledge, did this -- did 12 this -- and I see the -- is the issue you're referring to the 13 one (1) designated I think it's SCU vari drive removal? 14 A: That would be correct, sir. 15 Q: To your knowledge, did this issue ever 16 make it to the agenda of an occupational health and safety 17 meeting? 18 A: It wouldn't have been in the occupational 19 health and safety meeting and, no, I can't say it made the 20 agenda. 21 Q: It didn't make the agenda in any other 22 meeting you may have had with Mr. Strelioff and Mr. Katzell? 23 A: Not that I can recall. 24 Q: So your concern is here that you raise 25 this, but you don't feel it was ever given any kind of


1 airing? 2 A: That would be fair, sir. 3 Q: I see. Are there any other persons or 4 meetings, contacts where you may have raised these concerns? 5 A: Not that I can recall. 6 Q: In relation to, for instance we've -- I 7 think we've -- we've discussed Mr. Katzell, have you 8 mentioned all of the times, so far, when you raised them with 9 Mr. Katzell, no other instances in his case when you brought 10 the concerns about cryptosporidium contamination to his 11 attention? 12 A: Not that I can recall. 13 Q: What about in relation to other 14 operators, did you ever mention those concerns to your fellow 15 operators? 16 A: Yeah, that's -- a problem was created by 17 Ivan and his method of management. There are two (2) members 18 that have water resources engineering technology and senior 19 operators designated senior by Ivan. The junior operators, 20 myself and Frank Hollmann, this -- we were played off on each 21 other. Ivan told the senior operators that we were going to 22 take their jobs, that we were the future and that the 23 educated people were going to come up and it was a management 24 technique to divide and conquer. 25 Now, when I brought up the crypto with other


1 operators, the -- I was not necessarily received well. I -- 2 Q: But did you -- did you bring it up with 3 other operators? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: Which other operators did you bring it up 6 with? 7 A: It was -- the original '98, that I can 8 remember, Pat -- you know, when I said, I'm not going to -- 9 I'm not sure about the water -- he said, well, you know, I 10 still trust it and drank from it basically. 11 The big one (1) was in '99, I attempted to -- 12 when the vari drive was removed it -- the union went to Len 13 Holliday who informed the union that they could run the plant 14 without chlorine, without chemicals. And, you know -- 15 anyway, so -- 16 Q: But -- but who were you talking to in 17 terms of -- of voicing your concerns? 18 A: Well, I was, again, bringing it up to the 19 union and trying to get -- because Ivan wasn't listening, 20 trying to get someone to listen and it was decided that I was 21 the wing nut in the operation and that I didn't know what I 22 was talking about. 23 Q: You were bringing up issues concerning 24 cryptosporidium? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: To the union? 2 A: Well, I was trying to get more backing 3 because the -- Ivan had basically told me to be quiet. 4 Q: And which -- which -- you're talking -- 5 which union officer would you have discussed this with? 6 A: I was taking it as high as the president, 7 Barb Plews. 8 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, your -- 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: I don't know that we have 10 to name names in each case because these people are not going 11 to be called at the Inquiry and whether -- chance to defend 12 themselves, if you wish, so if he says he talked to a number 13 of other operators or other union people, that's -- 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: That's sufficient? 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- until somebody 16 contradicts that, that's fair enough. The names aren't 17 important. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 20 Q: Did you -- let's move to another 21 category, did you mention this to -- besides you've mentioned 22 your foreman, Mr. Katzell, did you -- did you mention your 23 concerns to anyone else in management or city hall? 24 A: I had mentioned my concerns about water 25 safety in a interview. I tried to get to a -- a nine (9) to


1 five (5) type job. Basically it was looking after the waste 2 management facility -- required the same credentials that I 3 have and Randy Strelioff, at that point, denied me the job 4 based on my -- one (1) of the reasons he denied me the job 5 was my concerns -- my negative attitude to the city and my 6 concerns for the water safety. 7 Q: And did you -- had you raised those 8 concerns with Mr. Strelioff? 9 A: In hindsight, sir, you don't raise those 10 at an interview. 11 Q: So that you did not bring -- you did not 12 bring that concern up with Mr. Strelioff either at that 13 interview -- what about in any -- any other meeting with Mr. 14 Strelioff? 15 A: After that I got kind of gun shy talking 16 to Mr. Strelioff. 17 Q: Okay, so you've never mentioned then 18 directly to Mr. Strelioff your concerns over water safety or 19 cryptosporidium? 20 A: Well, I -- there's a problem there where 21 you have to educate the man first and then he feels inferior 22 and there -- it's not a -- 23 Q: So, you haven't done that, then? 24 A: I had attempted to and it's got me no 25 where.


1 Q: But have you actually used the word, 2 cryptosporidium, in his presence? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Okay. What about -- what about any -- 5 someone who -- what about Mr. Strelioff's predecessor, is the 6 Director of Public Works and Utilities? Did you discuss 7 those issues with him? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Did you discuss those issues with anyone 10 else at city hall? 11 A: I believe I tried talking to Nestor 12 Francoo, a councillor, city councillor. 13 Q: Have you -- have you mentioned these 14 matters to other councillors? 15 A: In that Don Salie read the letter that I 16 had prepared and in that four (4) page letter there is a 17 mention of crypto, I would have to say, yes, to your 18 question. 19 Q: But have you -- have you directly -- have 20 you directly gone to any city council or city officer and 21 said, I am concerned about cryptosporidium contamination? 22 A: The former city councillor Jack Hillson, 23 and he gave me a nice pat on the head and told me to go 24 fluoridate the water. 25 Q: What about people outside of city hall,


1 have you raised it there? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: Where have you raised it? 4 A: I believe when I called -- e-mailed on 5 CTV, Dale Goldhawk. 6 Q: And who is Mr. Goldhawk, do you know? 7 A: As far as I know he's an Ombudsman -- 8 C -- CTV type person. 9 Q: You say you e-mailed him? 10 A: Yes, sir, carbon copied the City 11 Commissioner and nothing was heard back from that. 12 Q: What did you -- what did you tell Mr. 13 Goldhawk in that communication? 14 A: My recollection was that there was a 15 plethora of problems at the Plants Department. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: Did you mention cryptosporidium? 18 A: I believe I did, sir. 19 Q: Could you turn to tab 17 in your binder? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: And once again I may have 24 this tab wrong, Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry -- 25 Oh it is -- it is tab 17 I'm referring to,


1 sorry. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 4 Q: Mr. Allen, do you see here a -- what 5 purports to be a written communication addressed to Goldhawk 6 at CTV.ca. It's dated Thursday, the 23rd of September, 1999 7 and it purports to be from Peter and Nancy Allen. 8 Do you recognize that communication? 9 A: I do, sir. 10 Q: Is this the communication you're 11 referring to when you've -- 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: -- just spoken about, Mr. Goldhawk. Can 14 you show us in this communication where you feel you talk 15 about cryptosporidium? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: I'm incorrect in saying that I mentioned 20 crypto. 21 Q: Right, I don't see any mention of 22 cryptosporidium here. It seems to me you talk in a general 23 way about a plethora of problems that have got you labelled. 24 And you're expressing your frustration having been labelled, 25 of trying to correct unsafe working conditions.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think the witness has 2 indicated that he was in error in suggesting that he 3 mentioned crypto. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 6 Q: Besides Mr. Goldhawk, anywhere else that 7 you may have communicated these concerns? 8 A: No. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Mr. Allen, perhaps would you please turn 13 to -- in Mr. Fluney's binder, tab 7 please. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-10? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 19 Q: Do you have that before you, Mr. Allen? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: We have here an unsigned and unaddressed 22 document, which purports to be about -- and undated as well, 23 which purports to be about water safety measures at the water 24 plants. 25 It seems to be addressed to the City


1 Councillors for North Battleford. And in the first paragraph 2 the -- the writer merely refers to himself or herself as an 3 I, I feel, but there seems to be no identification as to who 4 the composer of this -- 5 A: May I have a look there? 6 Q: I was going to ask you -- are you -- do 7 you know who that might be? 8 A: I know who typed it, I know who prepared 9 it for the typer and, if you care to -- 10 Q: Okay. So, first of all then, who typed 11 the document? 12 A: My father. 13 Q: Your father did. Who prepared it for 14 typing? 15 A: Me. I -- after the meeting, occupational 16 health and safety meeting in November, Frank Hollmann, Brian 17 Wicks and myself took Randy Strelioff down to Well Number 14 18 and indicated basically 80 percent of these problems and at 19 that point he kind of nodded his head and nothing was getting 20 done. 21 And so it seemed that, after Ivan left, and if 22 you read that, as to no date issue, you can see that plants 23 foreman is just left -- 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: -- that would be indicating that the


1 letter was composed in January. Anyway -- 2 Q: January of which year, 2001? 3 A: That would be correct, sir. I, after 4 that meeting in November, continued to compile concerns I had 5 and reviewed these concerns with other operators. 6 Q: So at what time then was this memo 7 completed? 8 A: I would say early January 2001. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: It was in time for the retreat for the 11 city councillors who were going to talk on water and 12 wastewater issues because I did show it to Don Salie in the 13 Bank of Montreal on my way to Tae Kwon Do. 14 Q: Mr. Salie is a city councillor? 15 A: That is correct, sir. 16 Q: You -- you provided a copy of this 17 document to Mr. Salie? 18 A: Yes, sir -- well, okay, I let him read 19 it, I did not provide it to him. 20 Q: And did he read it -- 21 A: Yes, sir, in my presence. 22 Q: Did he discuss it with you? 23 A: No, sir. 24 Q: Did he say anything about it? 25 A: Nothing.


1 Q: So did you prepare this document then for 2 that meeting, retreat of city council, was that your purpose? 3 A: It -- there's a -- I didn't arrange the 4 retreat, the letter was -- started to be composed months 5 before so, to say it was for the retreat, would be incorrect. 6 The timing of its presentation to both Don Salie and I read 7 it to Nestor Francoo over the phone and, before that, Randy 8 Strelioff read up to page, I believe, 3 where it indicates 9 that we were concerned about the selective sampling 10 techniques and then he threw out the balance of it so he 11 never did read, you know, the last line. 12 Q: You say you provided a copy of this to 13 Mr. Strelioff? 14 A: I let him read it in my presence. 15 Q: When would that be? 16 A: That would have been prior to Don Salie 17 reading it. 18 Q: And where were you at the time? 19 A: Sewage plant, sir. 20 Q: And had you gone down there to meet Mr. 21 Strelioff? 22 A: No, he'd come down to see us. 23 Q: Now, in putting this letter together, I 24 notice that, as I said in the paragraph, you refer to "I" and 25 you -- throughout it's as though a single person is writing


1 this; is this very much your own letter? 2 A: No, it is not. All -- there were 3 approximately three (3) drafts that went through various 4 members of the Plants Department, not all the -- the concerns 5 are mine, but, you know, it doesn't -- just because I 6 recognize that there's a problem, it can be corroborated by 7 the rest of the plants members too; I didn't catch all the 8 problems, they were -- it was a group effort. 9 Q: So you're saying that this -- this memo 10 was representative of the position of the other plants 11 operators as well? 12 A: I believe so. 13 Q: You've mentioned to the people who at 14 least you discussed it with or allowed to -- who were allowed 15 to read it; was there anyone else who you either sent this to 16 or? 17 A: I believe another operator had been given 18 portions or read portions of this to another councillor. 19 Q: This operator has told you that? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: Mr. Allen, this document seems to contain 22 a -- a litany of complaints in relation to the treatment 23 plants and various procedures in individuals. Now many of 24 these issues have already been mentioned by other witnesses. 25 But there are just one (1) or two (2) points that I'd like to


1 have your opinion on. 2 I notice for instance that in the second 3 paragraph on the first page, you do mention cryptosporidium. 4 Do you see that? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And you point out that chlorination does 7 not kill cryptosporidium oocysts which can cause 8 gastrointestinal disease in humans. You point that out? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: But it seems to me in that paragraph, you 11 only mention cryptosporidium as a problem in relation to the 12 number 11 and the number 16 wells of the groundwater plant 13 as -- would that be fair? 14 A: That would be fair. 15 Q: In other words, I see no mention here of 16 cryptosporidium or any other parasite as being a problem in 17 relation to the Surface Water Treatment Plant Number 2. 18 Would that be fair? 19 A: That would be fair, sir. But on that 20 note, in that this letter was ignored, even if I had had it 21 in there, nothing would have been done anyway. 22 Q: But you will agree with me that when you 23 mention cryptosporidium here, your attention seems to be 24 focussed upon the groundwater plant? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: I'm not clear. Did this 2 letter go anywhere -- or memo, go anywhere apart from the 3 persons that the witnesses indicated he let read the article? 4 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I understood him to say 5 that, apart from the people he's already mentioned that it 6 didn't. If that's not correct, Mr. Allen, perhaps you 7 could -- 8 THE WITNESS: I gave a copy to the union but 9 other than the people I have told you about? 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes? 11 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Then that's -- that's the 13 extent of it's circulation? Fine -- 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- I just want to be clear 17 on that. Thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 20 Q: Perhaps if you could look under the -- 21 the heading on page -- the pages in my copy are not numbered 22 but it's the penultimate page, next to the page that's next 23 to the last with the heading, "Inadequacies in the 24 Performance of Water System Tests and in the Reporting of 25 These Tests."


1 Where you say: 2 "I have reason to believe that the Director 3 of Public Works and Utilities has failed to 4 act upon results showing failing chlorine 5 level results in water samples. And he has 6 refrained from sending aliquats of such 7 samples for microbiological testing." 8 What are you referring to there? 9 A: September 20th or 23rd, after the boil 10 water incident, the -- 11 Q: Is this of 2000? 12 A: Yes, sir. And Pat Fluney and myself were 13 sent up to Grondin RV to send in a bacti sample, which is the 14 microbiological sample. We took the chlorine residuals and 15 they were -- there wasn't any chlorine, or if there was, it 16 was minimal in total and zero (0) in -- I'd have to refer 17 to -- anyway. 18 Q: It was inadequate, as far as you -- 19 A: Inadequate chlorine residuals. We took 20 it down to Water Plant Number 2 to do a turbidity test as we 21 weren't given a portable turbidimeter. Anyway, on -- we -- 22 Pat decided to phone up Randy and inform him that the 23 chlorine residuals were not adequate. And Pat was informed 24 that we were not to send in that sample. 25 And later that day, after flushing, Lloyd was


1 sent up -- Lloyd Serol (phonetic) was sent up to do a similar 2 test. The chlorine residuals were, again, low and Mr. Randy 3 Strelioff insisted that he didn't send in that sample until 4 they get an adequate chlorine residual. 5 After that time period that the Plants 6 Department basically stopped doing selective sampling rather 7 than compromise our integrity. We had someone else do it. 8 Q: Okay. So, in the light of what you've 9 told us then, if we turn to your final paragraph of the 10 letter, where you say: 11 "The city might be wise to note what has 12 happened in Walkerton, Ontario recently." 13 Et cetera. My understanding of this is that 14 your concern is with chlorine sampling; is that correct? 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: It's a bacteriological concern you have? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Mr. Allen, I understand that you played a 22 significant role in the cleaning and repair of the solids 23 contact unit in March of 2001; is that correct? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And prior to engaging in that activity of 4 taking the unit down, cleaning it and repairing it, did you 5 have any concerns about what might happen once you put the 6 water back on line? 7 A: No, in hindsight it was the wrong -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: On March the 20th, were you the main 13 operator at the -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- Number 2 Surface Water Plant? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: My understanding of the main operator is 18 the one (1) in charge of the plant; is that correct? 19 A: The guy pumping is the main operator. 20 Q: Isn't the main operator the one (1) who 21 makes the decisions? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: And from looking at the records, Mr. 24 Allen, it appears to me that you were the main operator at 25 that plant for a considerable period of time between March


1 20th of 2001 and April 25th of 2001, by my count it's 2 somewhere in the region of about seventeen (17) days. Does 3 that fit with your understanding too? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: And whilst you were the main operator 6 during that period of time, were you aware of any problems 7 taking place at the Number 2 Plant? 8 A: I was aware of the low settling and on 9 the 20th I believe I brought that to the attention of Randy 10 Strelioff when he came down to do a post solids contact unit 11 inspection. 12 Q: You were aware of the low settling, and 13 was that a concern to you? 14 A: While I was concerned of that, I still 15 noted that final turbidity was low, lower than one (1) NTU. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: And the standard operating procedure 18 would be to let the solids contact unit reseed itself from 19 the river. In hindsight, sir, it was a bad decision. 20 Q: Hmm hmm, but at the time. I'm not 21 talking about in hindsight, at the time when you were the 22 principal operator down at that plant and you realize there 23 was a settling problem, did you have any concerns then? 24 A: I didn't make my standard jump up and 25 down and make noise this time, and I regret that. But I did


1 bring the low settling to the attention of Randy Strelioff. 2 Q: But first of all before we talk about who 3 you may have told, was that a concern to you? 4 A: The low settling was. 5 Q: And why was that a concern to you? 6 A: The solids contact unit would be 7 operating in a sub-optimal. 8 Q: Yes, and that could lead to what? 9 A: There was a higher potential for crypto 10 to pass through. 11 Q: Now, as this problem was going on, were 12 you -- did you make any attempts to rectify it? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: Did you make any -- let's talk about 15 inside the plant. What did you -- what did you try and do to 16 put the problem right? 17 A: Initially, before bringing the solids 18 contact unit back in service, I had gone around the skirt and 19 attempted to dislodge particulate matter that wasn't washed 20 down so initially seeding the solids contact unit. 21 I then increased the dosage of chemical in 22 order to try and make a chemical floc to substitute for the 23 absence of particulate matter. 24 Q: So you -- you adjusted the chemicals? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: In what way, what did you adjust? 2 A: Bump up the alum, bump up the poly. 3 Q: I wonder if you could show him Exhibit C- 4 7, tab 4. This is the daily plant log and, if we could turn 5 to March 29th of 2001. 6 A: March 29th, 2001. 7 Q: I believe on that date the record shows 8 you as the principal operator; is that correct? 9 A: That is correct, sir. 10 Q: And, if I look a the alum column on that 11 date, I see there is a change, but it's from five (5) down to 12 three (3); do you recall making that change? 13 A: I don't recall making that change. My 14 confidence in this computer program, as noted by other 15 personnel, it doesn't necessarily mean that the dosage was 16 changed or that -- okay, I -- I'm assuming -- 17 Q: Is there something about the way that 18 this computer functions that would make these records 19 unreliable perhaps? 20 A: I don't have -- it was put together by 21 the lowest bidder, it's -- it is -- for example, the comment 22 section, sometimes they worked when I initially started 23 working here and haven't worked -- or at least we couldn't 24 retrieve the comments. 25 Conversely, I can change the chemical dosage


1 and, you know, not have time to enter it in the computer and 2 so, to say that -- that were not chemical changes and -- 3 Q: Okay. So are you saying that, as far as 4 you're concerned, that this daily plant log is not 5 necessarily an accurate record of what takes place within 6 that plant? 7 A: That would be fair. 8 Q: Did you do anything else -- note anything 9 else within the plant, any other efforts you made? 10 A: Well, in discussions with other 11 operators, we were trying to get -- the original discussion 12 with Frank and myself was bentonite or ferri floc and then we 13 attempted to get some of this stuff. 14 The problem being, although we didn't have 15 someone to go to who could be convinced that it was essential 16 that we have this and attempts that were made to higher-ups 17 in the chain of command seemed to fall on deaf ears, not 18 unlike our letters to city hall. 19 Q: Did you -- did you attempt to contact 20 someone outside the plant? 21 A: I did make a phone call to Fred Hauk, 22 Billy Edmund (phonetic) took a message for my request for 23 ferri floc. 24 Q: Hm-hmm? 25 A: April 9th, I first received a call from


1 Randy Strelioff indicating to me that he didn't understand 2 what bentonite or ferri floc was and that I should talk with 3 Moe (phonetic) from ClearTec and arrange to have something -- 4 Q: Hm-hmm? 5 A: -- brought up. There were attempts made, 6 sir. 7 Q: Why -- why was Mr. Strelioff phoning you? 8 Were you down at the plant at that time? 9 A: I was covering a shift for Pat. 10 Q: And what was the purpose in his phoning 11 you? Why would he -- why would he telephone you on that 12 occasion? 13 A: I don't believe he knew what he was 14 talking about in requesting an agent for the solids contact 15 unit to assist in forming sludge blanket or -- 16 Q: He was looking for your assistance in -- 17 in doing that? 18 A: Apparently. 19 Q: And what -- what did he say to you, on 20 that occasion? 21 A: He asked me to contact Moe from ClearTec 22 and explain to him what our needs were. 23 Q: Okay. So he was looking for your 24 assistance in contacting someone else to acquire what you 25 felt was necessary to deal with the problem?


1 A: That would be fair, sir. 2 Q: So did you -- did you have any discussion 3 with Mr. Strelioff on the nature of the problem you were 4 dealing with, in that discussion? 5 A: No, sir. 6 Q: Did you have any discussion with him at 7 any other time on the nature of the problem you were dealing 8 with? 9 A: Minimal. Other than to tell him that the 10 settling was low, I didn't. At the time I was about to apply 11 for an open position higher up in the chain of command and 12 based on previous pointing out to Randy Strelioff that his 13 knowledge levels weren't adequate, it wasn't a career move to 14 point out that your boss is less educated than you. 15 Q: So you were interested in the foreman's 16 job, is that what you're saying? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: You had applied for the job at that time? 19 A: Yes, sir. Well, okay, it -- it was -- 20 the second posting was coming out and we knew that and as to 21 the exact time and date that I applied, I'd have to check 22 my -- 23 Q: So are you saying that as a result of 24 that, you didn't voice your full concerns to Mr. Strelioff, 25 whatever they may have been?


1 A: That would be fair, sir. 2 Q: Did you communicate any sense or urgency 3 to him about the nature of that problem? 4 A: I believe I did, sir. 5 Q: And what did you communicate, do you 6 feel? 7 A: I believe I informed that the settling 8 was a part of the process that was required. 9 Q: Part of the treatment process? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: Is that as far as you went? 12 A: Probably. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Other than the people you've mentioned, 17 did you contact anyone else with this problem? 18 A: I was having problems convincing all 19 other operators that my concerns were valid. I did mention 20 it to Kevin O'Neill who was a former plants employee, also 21 educated through Water Resources and informed him that the 22 settling process was low. And I hoped that with his position 23 in city hall that he would be able to communicate the sense 24 of urgency required. 25 Q: Did you explain anything more than that?


1 A: I didn't explain enough, obviously. 2 Q: Okay. Mr. -- Mr. Allen, how did you 3 become aware that -- of -- of a contamination issue having 4 arisen? 5 A: There was a rumour, sir. I had heard 6 that there was a doctor saying that there's a bug in the 7 water. And I again mentioned it to technologists at city 8 hall that the window was open, that this solids contact unit 9 wasn't operating to full capacity -- full -- optimal -- 10 Q: So you -- you were at city hall talking 11 with whom? 12 A: Judy Szuch and Kevin O'Neill. And 13 what -- what had taken you to city hall? 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: I'm not -- that wasn't -- it -- it -- the 16 reason for being at city hall wasn't that. I had heard the 17 rumour -- 18 Q: Hmm hmm. 19 A: -- I only was there photocopying or what, 20 I was at city hall and that's where I heard it. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: I don't recall why I went there. 23 Q: Did you play any role though, whilst you 24 were there in identifying what the problem might be? 25 A: Are you referring to the Thursday


1 meeting? Yes, sir, I did. 2 Q: Can you tell us what role you played? 3 A: Randy Strelioff had instructed the two 4 (2) technologists to try and find a correlation between 5 turbidity, chlorine levels, to try and find out if there was 6 a possibility of the crypto coming in through the water 7 plant. 8 And they had all the records spread out on the 9 desk and I said, well there's your problem, like I told you 10 before, and after that we put together a spreadsheet and 11 graphs to indicate that you know, the low settling was 12 probably the potential for the crypto to come in. 13 Randy took those graphs and data into the 14 meeting with SERM and we went to a full Boil Water, up from 15 the Advisory. 16 Q: So are you saying that you -- you 17 explained to Mr. Strelioff what the significance of those 18 graphs was? 19 A: I explained to the two (2) technologists 20 and Mr. Strelioff came in and said you don't know that it's 21 the solids contact unit, and I informed him, I'm pretty sure. 22 Q: And he -- he then took the materials and 23 went off to a meeting? 24 A: No, he repeated the question and he said, 25 you don't know. And I said I'm 99 percent sure.


1 Q: Okay. Mr. Allen, whilst you've been an 2 operator at the treatment plants, what contact have you had 3 with officials from SERM? 4 A: I called Mr. Meekma to a meeting early 5 January of 2001 to discuss a problem that we were having with 6 our sewage plant. 7 Q: Did you telephone Mr. Meekma? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: And did you do this on your own behalf, 10 or as a spokesman for the operators? 11 A: I had noticed that we were having a 12 problem with our digester and I had taken the problem to my 13 Professor, Seepe (phonetic) Wang from Saskatoon, an engineer. 14 He had informed me that my suspicions were 15 probably correct, that we shouldn't be chlorinating in the 16 final clarifier, because we recycle those bugs back into the 17 system and we were killing the bugs that are doing our 18 anaerobic digestion and causing our digester to go sour or 19 smelly. 20 And previous attempts to tell Randy that this 21 was the problem and that we should change our process had 22 fallen on deaf ears, so I wanted a little more clout and I 23 hoped that bringing Mr. Meekma in would help us with the 24 situation. 25 Q: And did a meeting in fact take place?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: And who was present? 3 A: Myself, Randy Strelioff, Mr. Meekma, I 4 believe there were other operators there. I'd be guessing if 5 I told you who they were. 6 Q: And what happened at that meeting? This 7 was on January 12th? 8 A: Thereabouts. 9 Q: Thereabouts. 10 A: I'm not going to pin myself down to that 11 date -- 12 Q: At the sewage treatment plant? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: And what -- what took place at that 15 meeting? 16 A: Mr. Meekma was informed of where we were 17 chlorinating our effluent. The problem -- Ivan had decided 18 to cut 33 percent of our chlorine contact chamber off to 19 avoid it being called a confined space, therefore he wouldn't 20 have to train us. 21 And in doing so he reduced the chlorine 22 contact time and so the effluent was more contaminated with 23 biological matter -- material. And in an attempt to try and 24 bring that back down, he had initiated a chlorination one (1) 25 step back in the process, forgetting that we actually recycle


1 our bugs off the bottom of the final clarifier back into the 2 headworks of the system and thereby sending our whole 3 system -- making it not work properly. 4 Q: So, in calling Mr. Meekma to this 5 meeting, you wanted to discuss that chlorine issue? 6 A: I hoped that we could cut down the wall 7 and stop chlorinating in the final clarifier. 8 Q: But your purpose in calling him to that 9 meeting was just discuss -- to discuss that one (1) problem? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: Okay. And did you discuss it with him? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And did he respond in any way? 14 A: Yes, sir, he decided that we were to 15 clean out the chlorine contact chamber and do evaluations 16 prior to and after that. 17 Q: So he suggested a solution? 18 A: He suggested a very cheap solution, yes. 19 Q: And was there any follow-up to this that 20 you're aware of? 21 A: There were three (3) tests done before 22 and there were two (2) tests done afterwards. There is still 23 one (1) test tag left remaining at the sewage plant so, in my 24 mind, the process hasn't been completed yet. 25 Q: Other than that particular meeting, any


1 other contact you've had with SERM officials? 2 A: None. 3 Q: What about Mr. Meekma's predecessor? 4 A: Before my time, sir. 5 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, I have 6 no further questions of this witness. Thank you, Mr. Allen. 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Well, I see 8 it's 11:00 a.m. and we'll take the fifteen (15) minute 9 morning break. 10 You're free to step down. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 10:52 a.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 11:12 a.m. 14 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, perhaps we'll 16 get underway again if we may. 17 Just a housekeeping item. We had overlooked 18 the fact that November the 11th is a holiday for most people 19 in one (1) form or another and hadn't taken that into account 20 when we published our Hearing schedule. 21 In discussing with a number of counsel, it 22 seems that that holiday would be welcome so, to that extent, 23 we will not sit on Monday, November the 12th, so we'll resume 24 on November the 5th, the end -- I mean, we're sitting all of 25 next week, of course. We'll resume on November the 5th for


1 the full week and then start again on Tuesday morning, 2 November the 13th for the four (4) days remaining in that 3 week. 4 Mr. Scharfstein, you're looking puzzled or... 5 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Are we able to leave, 6 do you know, our supplies and books and stuff in this room on 7 the weekend or do we have to take everything out? 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: This weekend you may leave 9 everything here or anything you want to leave here. There 10 will be a commissionaire on the premises throughout the 11 weekend and the sound equipment and the like is -- in other 12 words, there's no competing event this weekend so we can do 13 that this weekend, it won't necessarily be the case in the 14 future. 15 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Thank you. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thanks. All right. Have 17 counsel decided the order in which cross-examination of Mr. 18 Allen is going to take place? 19 I take it, Mr. Priel or Stevenson, you wish to 20 go last? 21 MR. TED PRIEL: We would like to go second 22 last. 23 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Second last. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Mitchell will be last 25 so I guess we're down -- I'm sorry, you're filling in for Mr.


1 Young and I'm -- 2 MR. MARK VANSTONE: Mr. Vanstone, sir. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Do you have 4 questions you'd like to ask of Mr. Allen? 5 MR. MARK VANSTONE: Perhaps just a few. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well please come up 7 to the podium please. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK VANSTONE: 10 Q: Mr. Allen, I'll ask you to forgive me if 11 I cover anything that -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Vanstone, as you have 13 not appeared on the record, your first name is again? 14 MR. MARK VANSTONE: Mark. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mark Vanstone, thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK VANSTONE: 18 Q: I'll ask you to forgive me if I go over 19 anything that was clearly set out already. 20 I think you had mentioned that, with respect 21 to cryptosporidium, you had asked your father to do some 22 research for you? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: And that you had attended a meeting where 25 a cryptosporidium incident in Vanscoy had been discussed?


1 A: I wouldn't call it a meeting, it was a 2 basic wastewater course. 3 Q: And so, in conversation or -- or in some 4 other fashion, you -- 5 A: In conversation, sir, not in the class. 6 Q: Informally became aware of -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- cryptosporidium as a waterborne 9 pathogen? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And it was at that time that the 12 importance of filtration, generally speaking, as a barrier 13 to -- 14 A: I wouldn't say the filtration was, it was 15 more that the chlorine didn't work. 16 Q: So you might have understood that, if -- 17 if chlorine was less effective, that it might be the other 18 aspects of water treatment, including filtration, 19 coagulation, et cetera, that might be -- 20 A: More important. 21 Q: -- more important, with respect to 22 cryptosporidium? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: Did -- did you make mention that you had 25 a feeling that, in general, you weren't well received by the


1 other operators when attempting to bring forward a concern 2 about cryptosporidium? 3 A: That would be correct, sir. 4 Q: Can you give an example perhaps? 5 A: Back in '99, when -- 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Could you speak up a 7 little bit please. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 9 In '99, when we pulled the vari drive. I had 10 mentioned there was a potential for compromising coagulation, 11 flocculation. And the person who knew most was another 12 operator, Len Holliday, a senior operator, was seen as more 13 credible and his insistence that it wasn't going to be a 14 problem was taken as gospel. 15 Q: But would it be fair to say that, to your 16 recollection, you were making some attempt to bring forward 17 cryptosporidium, in particular, as a -- an issue to be aware 18 of? 19 A: I was making an attempt in a system that 20 I was a junior operator and treated as such. 21 Q: And am I correct in understanding that, 22 moving forward to, I believe, January of 2001 or thereabouts, 23 in the undated memo that was mentioned earlier, you did 24 actually make some mention of cryptosporidium specifically? 25 A: Yes, sir. It was in relationship to


1 Water Plant Number 1 and specifically number 11 and 16 wells, 2 I believe. 3 Q: And I understand that you, in some 4 fashion, shared the contents of that memo with at least two 5 (2) city councillors? 6 A: That would be correct, sir. 7 Q: Mr. Allen, I think you made a comment 8 that, at this point, looking back, you -- you felt a -- a 9 measure of regret at not having, in your words, jumped up and 10 down in terms of reacting to the problem you perceived 11 with -- with the lack of flocculation, March 21st and 12 thereafter. Looking back to that time, and I'm not asking 13 you to assist yourself with hindsight, looking back to that 14 time, did you -- did you feel that way, then? 15 A: I had placed my ambitions to get ahead 16 over my concerns. 17 Q: How -- how do you feel you might have 18 done that? How -- how is it that you feel you might have 19 done that? 20 A: My -- 21 Q: Specifically, I guess. 22 A: My ambition to try and get the foreman's 23 position was higher in my -- you know, my agenda -- 24 Q: If -- if, for the sake of example, that 25 ambition had not been a -- a driving force, what -- what


1 might have you done differently? Or is -- 2 A: I would have more than likely spent 3 longer explaining to my Director of Public Works and 4 Utilities the consequences of the low settling. 5 Q: And by consequences, are you -- are you 6 referring to a parasite contamination? 7 A: I believe -- 8 Q: Or the possibility of it? 9 A: -- that would have been the possible -- 10 Q: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Those are my 11 questions. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sorry? 13 MS. ROCHELLE MASLIN: I have no questions, 14 sir. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Mr. 16 Hopley? 17 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: No questions. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: No questions. Mr. Tochor? 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 21 Q: Mr. Allen, I don't want to deal -- deal 22 with it in any great detail but you had an experience with 23 the solids contact unit going down in April of '99 as well, 24 didn't you? With the vari drive being taken out? 25 A: You say, going down, sir. It remained


1 full of water, it just -- the stirrer was removed. 2 Q: Not operating properly? 3 A: Operating suboptimally. 4 Q: Suboptimally? That's your phrase? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Sure, okay. It was not operating 7 properly? 8 A: I -- in my mind the stirring unit was an 9 integral part of that process. 10 Q: And because that integral process was 11 taken out for repairs, it was not operating properly? 12 A: Not operating in its full capacity. 13 Q: And you've of course have already 14 indicated that the solids contact unit had a primary role in 15 removing parasites? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And you felt -- I won't deal with it, but 18 you felt even at that time that there was some concern or 19 risk of contamination when the vari drive was out; is that 20 fair? 21 A: I felt that and was ridiculed for it, 22 so -- 23 Q: Okay, no, I understand. I wanted to 24 confirm though that you in fact felt some concern of 25 contamination in April of 1999 when the vari drive was out?


1 A: I did, sir. 2 Q: And you in fact were -- well you've 3 indicated ridiculed and some course language was used to 4 rebuff you; is that fair? 5 A: That would be fair, sir. 6 Q: I want to place before you, Exhibit C-5. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 That's the daily plant record, and you'll -- 11 if I can just -- I'll start you off looking at tab 29. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Do you have those before you? 16 A: I do, sir. 17 Q: And you see those as the handwritten logs 18 that the operators fill out at various points in the day; is 19 that right? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: I'd like you to turn to March 16th, 1999. 22 I believe that's the third last page on -- on tab 29. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 A: I have a March 17th, 18th, 19th, and 2 21st, and a March -- 3 Q: Okay -- 4 A: -- March 16th. 5 Q: -- go to the next page. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now the vari drive was out I believe 8 February 10th, 1999, that's your recollection? 9 A: Thereabouts. 10 Q: Okay. And would have been not repaired 11 until some time in April of 1999; is that right? 12 A: The very beginning of April, sir. 13 Q: The beginning of April? Okay. I realize 14 we don't have a specific date, but roughly February some time 15 1999, until some time in April 1999; is that right? 16 A: That's my best recollection. 17 Q: Sure, that's close enough. So it's your 18 understanding the vari drive would have been out on March 19 16th of 1999? 20 A: I assume so, sir. 21 Q: If you look to the bottom half of the 22 page you'll see turbidity on March 16th at one point four 23 three (1.43) NTUs? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: Perhaps you could help me with that, sir. 2 Q: If you've got the page that starts at the 3 top March 14th, 1999. 4 A: I do, sir. 5 Q: Then over to the right would be the 15th. 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Then down in the middle of the page is 8 the 16th. 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And then over on the left hand side, 11 turbidity measured on March 16th, 1999 -- 12 A: I would make that a continuation from 13 March 15th, but -- 14 Q: Okay, that could be fair. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: That's fine. But you see, whether it's 17 March 15th or 14th, you see the column there -- 18 A: Yes, sir -- 19 Q: -- where turbidity is -- 20 A: -- one point four three (1.43) -- 21 Q: -- one point four three (1.43). And 22 that's one point four three (1.43) NTUs? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: Now if I could get you to turn to the 25 entry for April 1st, 1999.


1 Actually I'll -- I'm sorry, I'll just get you 2 to stay on that particular point. You'll notice that 3 settling is not recorded? 4 A: I would agree with you there, sir. 5 Q: Does that mean settling is zero (0)? 6 A: It does not, sir. 7 Q: It just means it's not recorded? 8 A: That is correct. 9 Q: Okay. There was a settling problem 10 during that particular point in time was there not? 11 A: I don't recall, sir. 12 Q: You don't recall that? 13 A: I didn't pump. 14 Q: The very first page of tab 29, I believe 15 relates to April 1st. Now it could also be -- 16 A: I see April 1st, yeah -- 17 Q: -- March 30th. And again in the same 18 spot, the turbidity measurement, whether it's March 30th or 19 April 1st, is one point three seven four (1.374). Again 20 it'll be in the same spot as the last one (1). 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: Okay, I -- I believe that would be the 25 continuation of the end of March, not the beginning of April.


1 Q: All right, so it's March 30th? 2 A: I see the number one point three seven 3 four (1.374). 4 Q: That's what the turbidity is measured at? 5 A: One would assume. 6 Q: I'll get you to go into tab 28, and if I 7 could get you to look at April 5th. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 You have April 5th, '99 before you? I think 12 this is the second-last page of -- of tab 28. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: April 13th, but I'm not -- 14 at least the first column -- oh, no -- 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 17 Q: I believe it's not. 18 A: Okay, April 5th, I have it. 19 Q: And do you see some turbidity 20 measurements on that particular document, do you not? 21 A: I do, sir. 22 Q: There's one (1) here that's eight point 23 six five (8.65), that's likely the pH, isn't it? 24 A: I would say so, sir. 25 Q: Likely entered in error?


1 A: Likely entered in the wrong column, yes, 2 sir. 3 Q: If you move around -- or move over four 4 (4) more columns, though, you'll see that on April 5th 5 turbidity is measured at one point one four three (1.143)? 6 A: Yes, sir, I see that. 7 Q: Also measured apparently on the same date 8 at one point one three nine (1.139)? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Again, exceeding the one (1) NTU 11 guideline. 12 A: May I make a comment, sir? 13 Q: Certainly. 14 A: Number 1 Water Plant, since May, hasn't 15 made the one (1) NTU, there isn't one (1) reading since May 16 that has been under one (1) NTU and I've seen readings 17 pushing the five (5) NTU and I wonder why we are -- have a 18 double standard for groundwater and for surface water. 19 Q: These records, though, are from the 20 surface water treatment plant? 21 A: Correct, sir. 22 Q: And they indicate that, at the time vari 23 drive was down or thereabouts, turbidities exceeded one (1) 24 NTU; that's what they indicate? 25 A: I'm seeing that on April 1st, my -- my


1 best recollection that the stirring unit was back in 2 operation and this is April 5th. 3 Q: Look at settling on that same page; 4 settling is not recorded for April 5th? 5 A: I don't see a number there that is. 6 Q: If you continue flipping backwards, I 7 guess, you'll see an entry for April 9th -- I'm sorry, this 8 will be April 11th, it would be on the lower right-hand 9 corner of the page. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Turbidity measured from Water Treatment 12 Plant Number 2 on April 11th was one point zero two four 13 (1.024)? 14 A: I see the number, sir. 15 Q: That's what it -- that's what it's 16 measuring? 17 A: That's the column, that's the number 18 that's written there, I assume that would be correct. 19 Q: If you turn over to the next page, entry 20 on April 14th, 1999. 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: And, if you look to turbidity and that's 23 roughly in the middle portion of the right-hand side -- 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: -- you see turbidity of two point zero


1 (2.0), one point nine (1.9) and three point one two (3.12). 2 A: I see those numbers, sir. 3 Q: And that -- and those numbers represent 4 the apparent measurement of turbidity? 5 A: I can't dispute. 6 Q: I'll just get you to do one (1) more, 7 April 14th -- 8 A: I'm on that page, sir. 9 Q: If I could get you to turn back to the 10 previous -- or turn back one (1) more page and there's 11 various listings for turbidity measured on April 14th and 12 15th; you can see that there? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: Turbidity on April 14th is measured at 15 two point nine (2.96) and three point one four (3.14)? 16 A: Three point zero eight (3.08), two point 17 three eight eight (2.388) -- 18 Q: You're looking at April 15th, but, if you 19 look down from April 14th -- 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: -- two point nine six (2.96) and three 22 point one four (3.14). 23 A: I see those numbers. 24 Q: And you agree that they're measurements 25 of turbidities on those dates?


1 A: That's the column they're listed under. 2 Q: April 15th has three point zero eight 3 (3.08), three point -- I'm not sure if that's -- that may be 4 two point eight three (2.83), two point six zero (2.60) and 5 two point two six seven (2.267); that's correct? 6 A: I agree with what you're reading. 7 Q: And that's what the documents indicate, 8 that turbidities from the Surface Water Treatment Plant 9 Number 2, during those dates, was over one (1) NTU? 10 A: I have to agree with you, sir. 11 Q: I'm just going to turn to a different 12 area now. Very briefly, I believe Mr. Vanstone has touched 13 on this, in November of 2000, there was a discussion about 14 the solid contact unit at a meeting, an occupational health 15 and safety meeting? 16 A: To be fair, sir, I mentioned that I had 17 it on my handwritten agenda that I wanted to bring up. 18 Whether it was brought up is -- I didn't say that it was. 19 Q: Do you -- 20 A: I don't remember that it was. 21 Q: Do you have your SAE in front of you, 22 sir? 23 A: No, sir. Or, do I? 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well it's -- 25 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I'd like just to point


1 this out to him, if I may, Mr. Commissioner? 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. It's in one (1) of 3 the tabs, is it not? 4 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: It was taken out. My 5 understand is that the SAE's were taken out of the exhibits 6 in that respect. 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh SAE, I'm sorry. Okay, 8 I didn't realize that's what your giving him. All right. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 11 Q: If you could just refer to paragraph 109, 12 Mr. Allen? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 It appears from 106 to 109 there was an 17 occupational health and safety meeting November of 2000? Is 18 that right? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: And that one (1) of the things you did is 21 you attended the meeting, discussed the problem of the crack 22 in the solids contact unit? Is that right? 23 A: In discussions with counsel, I had 24 brought forward my memo and discussed that I usually carry 25 through my list of agenda. So when I said this, I was saying


1 that this was on the agenda of the things that I hoped to 2 cover. 3 What I am saying now is I don't remember at 4 that meeting and I do not have minutes for that meeting 5 saying that it was covered. 6 Q: You certainly remember telling this to 7 Mr. Russell, don't you? 8 A: Yes, sir. And I have shown Mr. Russell 9 that I hoped to have brought it up at the meeting. Now 10 whether I did, which I hope I did because my minutes were 11 there, you know. What I'm saying, I did not -- do not, at 12 this point, and I say that I educated Randy Strelioff enough 13 that he remembered. 14 Q: Okay. Reading paragraph 109, you have 15 that before you? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And you -- you agree that that's what you 18 told Mr. Russell? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: That's what I was hoping to discuss on my 23 notes that I was to bring to that meeting. What I'm saying 24 now is I can't remember bringing that to Mr. Strelioff's 25 attention enough that he would have remembered and brought


1 that information forward to March, 2001. 2 Q: That's not exactly what paragraph 109 3 says -- 4 A: That's correct, sir. 5 Q: Paragraph 109 indicates that you 6 discussed -- I'm sorry, you also discussed the process for 7 reestablishing the floc barrier. Now -- now you're saying 8 you don't recall if you brought that up or not? 9 A: Okay. I'm suggesting that I went through 10 my list of notes and covered the solids contact vari drive 11 removal and how in depth, I'm not going to -- I regret that 12 it is in there saying that it was a cryptosporidium -- the 13 term cryptosporidium was covered. 14 I was going off my notes when I was talking to 15 Mr. Russell and suggesting heavily that I did and I'm backing 16 up from that now, under oath, saying that, how much I covered 17 with Randy Strelioff, obviously wasn't enough because it 18 didn't sink in. 19 Q: You'll agree you told Mr. Russell you 20 mentioned cryptosporidium? 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think, Mr. Tochor, the 22 witness has indicated that he doesn't disagree with the fact 23 that he spoke to Mr. Russell of it, and he doesn't -- but he 24 does say that perhaps he's not as certain today as he was 25 when he spoke to Mr. Russell, that that was in fact


1 discussed. So, you've pursued it from a number of points and 2 fair enough, hmm hmm. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 5 Q: Were you trying to give a warning in that 6 meeting of November 2000? Did you have to be careful when 7 you were taking out the SCU or cleaning the solids contact 8 unit? 9 A: Maybe more educational than warning. 10 Q: But you were trying to let these other 11 people at the meeting know that you were aware that there was 12 a risk of a problem in taking the SCU out; is that right? 13 A: Okay, in the absence of further education 14 on -- yeah, I was trying to prove I had some information 15 about potentials. 16 Q: But you've indicate you were the junior 17 operator and the opinions of senior operators took 18 precedence? 19 A: That would be correct, sir. 20 Q: So it turns out and we now know of course 21 that the junior operator was right, don't we? 22 A: Do I get a raise? 23 Q: If it was up to me, yes. You were 24 present on March 20th when the SCU was drained and cleaned? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: Then you returned to work the next day 2 March 21st at approximately 8:00 a.m.? 3 A: That would be correct, sir. 4 Q: And you did a settling test immediately; 5 is that right? 6 A: I did a settling test I believe that the 7 time was not 8:00 a.m., I believe it was closer to 8:30 and 8 there were trace -- at the bottom of the graduated cylinder, 9 barely enough to measure. 10 Q: You realized there was no floc forming? 11 A: You can't say no, there was a chemical 12 floc. There was -- it wasn't the proper adequate floc. No, 13 is an absolute and there was an attempt to have something 14 there. 15 Q: Upon seeing that small amount of floc 16 after doing your settling test, you realized immediately 17 there was a risk of contamination, did you not? 18 A: Contamination wasn't first and foremost 19 in my head. I think the first thought was how are we going 20 to get the settling back up. The standard operating 21 procedure would be to have it take a certain time period to 22 come back up, like in 2000 when it was drained on July 4th, 23 it didn't immediately reform. 24 My concern was that it apparently had come 25 back as fast as I would have liked it to and in discussions


1 we were going to attempt to assist it reforming. 2 Q: Could you read paragraphs 167 to 169 3 please, sir. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 You indicated in your SAE or at least in your 8 discussions with Mr. Russell, that you went to work on March 9 21st, 2001 at 8:00 a.m. 10 A: That's what it says here. 11 Q: And it also says you immediately did a 12 settling test; is that right? That's what it says? 13 A: Okay, it does say immediately. The fact 14 that we're a one (1) man operation, settling is not the first 15 thing you do when you walk in. 16 Now okay -- 17 Q: It does say immediately? 18 A: It does say immediate. 19 Q: It does say there was no floc forming? 20 A: Hmm hmm, yes. 21 Q: Okay. And it does say you knew 22 immediately that the system was compromised and that there 23 was a risk of contamination? That's what it says? 24 A: That's what it says. 25 Q: That's what you told Mr. Russell?


1 A: I believe he wouldn't miswrite what I had 2 said. 3 Q: That's what you told Mr. Russell? 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: Thank you. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr. McDonald, 10 do you have any questions: 11 MR. ROBERT McDONALD: No, questions for this 12 witness, sir. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Scharfstein...? 14 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have a few 15 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 16 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 18 Q: Good morning, Mr. Allen. 19 A: Good morning. 20 Q: In response to one (1) of the questions 21 asked about turbidity levels recently, did I understand you 22 to say that since the outbreak in March of 2001, water is 23 leaving -- is -- is being distributed with turbidity levels 24 between one (1) and five (5) into the distribution system 25 from the ground well -- Plant Number 1?


1 A: That would be correct, sir, I quickly 2 looked over from May until present and didn't find any that 3 met the one (1) NTU requirement and there is no way that I 4 can remove that turbidity at a number one (1), although we 5 have requested for that to be looked at and Rodger McDonald 6 has been there and seen that those and I assume SERM has seen 7 those and -- but -- 8 Q: That was one (1) of the questions I'm 9 going to ask you. Is SERM aware -- to your knowledge, is 10 SERM aware that the water being pumped currently out of Water 11 Treatment Plant Number 1 has turbidity levels in excess of 12 one (1)? 13 A: I don't know that for a fact, sir, so all 14 I know is MR-2 has seen it and I would assume that he has 15 brought that attention to the powers that be. 16 Q: Have anyone from SERM contacted you or, 17 to your knowledge, anyone at the plant to discuss that issue? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Now, Mr. Allen, I wouldn't beat myself up 20 too much, as you appear to be, about not having done 21 everything you could do to prevent this outbreak in March of 22 2001. By my review of your SAE and by my listening to your 23 evidence, I have calculated that you have talked to no fewer 24 than fourteen (14) people about this, excluding the operators 25 that you've talked to and I don't think I need to go through


1 the list of who they are, but would it be fair to say that 2 perhaps the culminating point in this was your letter to Mr. 3 Goldhawk over which you almost got fired; is that correct? 4 A: Fired, they asked me -- or told me that 5 my services were no longer required. 6 Q: Who told you that? 7 A: The then-Commissioner, Doug McEwan. 8 Q: And, in fact, do you recall -- and you 9 had copied Mr. McEwan with your letter to Mr. Goldhawk; is 10 that correct? 11 A: A carbon copy, sir -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- that's how they managed to... 14 Q: And was it shortly after that that you 15 were called into Mr. McEwan's office and -- and talked to 16 about that issue? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Could you tell me, in as much detail as 19 you can remember, what you were told at that time? 20 A: I was told that I wasn't happy at the 21 City of North Battleford and my services are no longer 22 required and there was to be a buy-out and I was given a week 23 to think about the original one (1) and I came back in a week 24 and they had written up an eight thousand dollar ($8,000) 25 offer to leave my employ at the City of North Battleford and


1 not to talk about any of my experiences at the Plants 2 Department. 3 Q: And was it your view that that was an 4 eight thousand dollar ($8,000) offer to you for you to keep 5 quiet, is that the way you saw it? 6 A: Gag order, sir? 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: I would say that that would be a fair. 9 Q: That would be your assessment? 10 A: I'm not allowed to say what I think it 11 is. 12 Q: I'd like to hear what you think it was? 13 A: Bribe. 14 Q: Okay. Did it work, did you accept that? 15 A: No, sir. 16 Q: And you stayed on at the city; is that 17 correct? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: Were there any conditions or rules put on 20 you -- 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: -- for you to stay there? And what were 23 those rules and conditions? 24 A: I was not to break the chain of command, 25 I was to go through a process in which I told my supervisor


1 and he was to tell the Director of Public Works and Utilities 2 and then to city commissioner and then to council before I 3 took anything outside the city. 4 Q: And that was several months prior to the 5 outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in North Battleford in March of 6 2001; correct? 7 A: That would be fair, sir. 8 Q: And, since the time you were told how to 9 conduct yourself by your superiors, did you follow that chain 10 of command? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: And so, even though you may have been 13 aware of other problems, you still followed the chain of 14 command and did not go outside that chain; is that correct? 15 A: I want to keep my job. 16 Q: And that's why you did that; correct? 17 A: That is correct. 18 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have no further 19 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. I guess we're over 21 to Mr. Stevenson or Mr. Priel. 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 24 Q: Peter, you -- during the course of your 25 employment, have experienced a number of employment


1 management related issues. Is that fair to say? 2 A: It's fair to say, sir. 3 Q: And the relationship between yourself and 4 Ivan Katzell was not a very good relationship? 5 A: I don't want to characterize it totally 6 that way. 7 Q: It was a very strained relationship? 8 A: On occasion. 9 Q: You were at times very confrontational 10 with Mr. Katzell? Katzell? 11 A: I stood my ground. 12 Q: Right. And the issue concerning the 13 termination of your employment and the offer of eight 14 thousand ($8,000) dollars by way of a severance in lieu of 15 any notice of the termination of your employment, was brought 16 about as a result of the difficulties which had arisen, and 17 secondly, your going outside of the city on issues related to 18 safety within the city -- issues in the city. Is that 19 correct? 20 A: I believe that the city's inaction on an 21 order provided to them, ANOR30399, requiring that they train 22 me for, amongst other things, H2S training, which 23 incidentally has not, to date, been done. And the 24 frustration because the city's budgetary constraints took 25 precedent over the safety of the personnel --


1 Q: This matter you're referring to is an 2 occupational health and safety issue? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: Has to do with worker safety, worker 5 safety in the workplace? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Okay. And it's not to do with water 8 quality safety? 9 A: To be fair, sir, I believe water quality 10 was one (1) of the issues that I had brought up as a health 11 and safety concern. Incidentally, the city is required by 12 the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide safe water 13 for their employees and currently the Culligan people are 14 putting the water in at Water Plant Number 2. 15 Q: Yes, and the -- the matter you were 16 talking about was an OH&S issue? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: And that's what you took to Goldhawk? 19 A: I took a plethora of problems to 20 Goldhawk. 21 Q: And you had taken it earlier to the OH&S 22 people in the province? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: The OS&H people had been involved in the 25 investigation?


1 A: And they had ordered the city to do these 2 items that I had requested further action on. 3 Q: And I don't want to go into all of the 4 details of that, I just want to lay the groundwork. It was 5 an OH&S issue, it had been investigated by provincial OH&S 6 people, at your request and a report had been made? That's 7 correct? 8 A: That'd be correct. 9 Q: And because you weren't satisfied with 10 what was happening by the provincial people and -- and the 11 city, you went to Mr. Goldhawk? 12 A: He wasn't the first person I went to. 13 Q: And to Mr. Hillson? 14 A: That would be correct, sir. 15 Q: Yes. And later, after a time, you became 16 a co-chair of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee, 17 is that correct? 18 A: I believe in November of 2000 I became 19 the co-chair. 20 Q: Right. And in that capacity, you were 21 now in a position to advance what you saw as the agenda of 22 OH&S issues? 23 A: Attempt to advance. We still are running 24 into budgetary constraints and stonewalling. 25 Q: Nonetheless, you were now in a position


1 to put forth the agenda of your concerns? 2 A: I don't think I was not in a position 3 before I was a member of the co -- and this one (1) just 4 allows me to put my name on the bottom. 5 Q: Okay. And -- and perhaps in a little 6 better position to influence agenda? 7 A: That -- that's fair. 8 Q: Right. And as part of the agenda item 9 you had made a number of notes of things that you thought you 10 were going to discuss at a meeting in November of 2000? Is 11 that correct? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And that meeting was held, and as I 14 understand it, your evidence today is, you cannot say that 15 the agenda item, and particularly the one (1) talking about 16 SCU and redeveloping floc and cryptosporidium ever met the 17 floor at that meeting? 18 A: I believe I said that it didn't make 19 enough of an impact that we changed our standard operating 20 procedure for tearing down the -- 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: -- solids contact unit, for example. 23 Q: Well did it at any time get discussed at 24 the meeting -- 25 A: I hope it did.


1 Q: -- on the 22 -- on -- on November? 2 A: I -- I'm not saying it did or didn't, I'm 3 saying I didn't remember. 4 Q: Okay, well the minutes of the meeting 5 would record what was discussed; is that not -- 6 A: No, sir, that is the minutes of the 7 meeting of the Occupational Health and Safety. The -- there 8 were no minutes taken at an operational meeting. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: In hindsight -- 11 Q: Well I'm -- I'm sorry, I understood that 12 this was to be discussed at an OH&S meeting -- 13 A: There's two (2) -- 14 Q: -- on -- on -- 15 A: -- different issues there, and would -- 16 although the fact that we have operators gathered and -- and 17 it's a good time, doesn't necessarily mean. 18 Q: All right, well let's -- let's talk about 19 the Occupational Health and Safety Committee meeting, which 20 was held on November 8th, 2000. Do you recall that meeting? 21 A: I would -- can I look at your -- 22 Q: Well it's at C-10, and I'm sorry, I 23 haven't got mine separated into tabs, so I can't tell you 24 which particular tab within there it is. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: November 28th, 2000? 4 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Yes, Mr. Commissioner. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 THE WITNESS: I believe it's tab 23. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 11 Q: Thank you. 12 A: I have that in front of me. 13 Q: It shows that you were the worker co- 14 chairperson at that particular meeting? 15 A: That's -- yes. 16 Q: Okay. And at the end it shows that the 17 minutes were signed by yourself as worker co-chairperson? 18 A: That'd be correct, sir. 19 Q: Okay. And the purpose of the minutes 20 would be to record those matters which were raised and 21 discussed -- 22 A: Occupational health and safety issues 23 that were discussed? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: Yes. Now when in relation to this OH&S 2 meeting do you say this operational meeting occurred? 3 A: More than likely at the end of the 4 standard operating -- 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: It's interesting, Mr. 6 Stevenson, because we went through this with Mr. Tochor, this 7 witness says he doesn't remember if it was ever discussed. 8 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Okay. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: And I don't know how you 10 can -- 11 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Well I apologize, Mr. 12 Commissioner. I was under the impression that he -- he 13 wasn't quite sure of exactly what was discussed, but 14 generally I'd understood him to be saying they discussed it. 15 But if the evidence is, and if your 16 understanding is that this didn't necessarily come up and 17 wasn't discussed, then I -- I will leave it. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well am I correct, 19 witness, that what you indicated to Mr. Tochor was that it 20 could have been discussed or it could not have been 21 discussed, but in either event today you don't recall if it 22 was or was not discussed? 23 THE WITNESS: That would be fair, sir. 24 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Thank you very much, Mr. 25 Commissioner, and I -- I won't rework that.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 5 Q: To come to a point that's been raised 6 here and you've raised it as what seems to be an alarm, Mr. 7 Allen, an alarm that water exceeding one point zero (1.0) 8 NTUs are being -- is being pumped from Water Treatment Plant 9 Number 1, and has been continuously since May of 2001. 10 I understand you to be concerned at that? 11 A: I wonder why no one else is concerned. 12 Q: All right. Well it's my understanding, 13 and I believe Mr. McDonald touched upon this in his evidence, 14 that the limitation of one point zero (1.0) NTUs on turbidity 15 for water going into the distribution system, relates to 16 water from Water Treatment Plant Number 2 Surface Water; is 17 that your understanding? 18 A: Must be -- 19 Q: All right. 20 A: -- otherwise something would have done -- 21 been done -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- you would hope. 24 Q: Right. And the guidelines, the Municipal 25 Drinking Water Quality Objectives, and the Canada Water


1 Guidelines both recognize that the aesthetic objective for 2 water is five (5) NTUs; do you understand that? 3 A: I understand that, sir, but I hadn't seen 4 the distinction between the surface and the groundwater. 5 Q: Right, and that's my understanding. 6 Again, I'm not a plant operator or an expert in water, but, 7 in my reading of this, that's what I understand is permitted, 8 that the water from Number 1 may be up to five (5) NTUs and 9 that's an aesthetic objective. 10 A: Sounds good to me. 11 Q: Okay. And the concern primarily on the 12 ground water wells has to do with minerals and other items 13 that are being removed that might effect the turbidity? 14 A: To be fair, sir, I have a concern about 15 crypto from 16 and 11 and the proximity thereof to the river, 16 obviously backed up by the new wells put in being thirty (30) 17 metres back. 18 Q: Right, and I understand, you've expressed 19 those concerns and I wasn't talking just you not having the 20 concern, it was I understand the -- the Water Quality 21 Objectives have that in mind. 22 A: Okay. So we're relating turbidity to the 23 potential for crypto throughout this and yet it's been 24 excluded as a possibility. 25 Q: Sure. And on -- on that point, of


1 course, you raised crypto only in your memo in the context of 2 the water wells? 3 A: That would be correct, sir. 4 Q: Right. It's my understanding that, in 5 the -- after the contamination, testing was done for 6 cryptosporidium at the water wells and the Number 1 Water 7 Treatment Plant. 8 A: To my knowledge, it was done at 9 individual wells, it was done on a composite sample based on 10 the effluent off of Number 1 and nothing was found at that 11 time. 12 Q: Right, that's right. And -- and the 13 water from the wells flows collectively through the plant and 14 produces one (1) effluent? 15 A: That is correct, sir. 16 Q: Yeah. But you are aware that testing for 17 cryptosporidium was done following the contamination? 18 A: I believe it was either a one (1) or a 19 two (2) time and, yes, sir, 20 Q: And the SERM people, as I understand it, 21 in the -- 22 A: Were satisfied, sir. 23 Q: -- and health people have been very much 24 concerned and they have addressed that issue? 25 A: I believe that they're satisfied,


1 otherwise we would be still testing. 2 Q: Sure. And the Boil Water Order was 3 removed? 4 A: It was removed. 5 Q: What is your operator number, Mr. Allen? 6 A: Four (4), sir. 7 Q: Okay. And who is operator number nine 8 (9)? 9 A: Not absolutely certain, but I'm going to 10 guess at Grant Hipkiss. 11 Q: And operator number ten (10)? 12 A: Brian Wicks. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: You were asked a number of questions by 17 Mr. Tochor concerning various dates and varying turbidity 18 levels; do you recall being asked those questions? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: Okay. On any of those dates were you the 21 operator? 22 A: Not that I recall, sir. 23 Q: Perhaps if we might just look at the -- 24 the records that cover that period, if we -- if we could, the 25 operator's notes.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: It starts C-5, tab 29. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Should I just page 3 through April? 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 6 Q: Yeah, just the dates I believe that were 7 touched upon was March 30 was one (1) and then April 5. 8 March 30, who was the -- 9 A: I have only one(1) entry here on April 10 27th at sixteen twenty-one (16:21), where I've done an entry. 11 Q: But let -- let's go, if you would, go 12 back to March 30, let's just start on that one (1). 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: Say again, the date, please, sir? 17 Q: March 30, 1999. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's the first sheet in 19 tab 29. 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I -- it's -- I believe I 21 have it. I've got March 29th at the beginning and -- 22 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: -- yes. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON:


1 Q: And then it's believed that the next 2 entry would be March 30, is that -- ? 3 A: I haven't found my number here yet and 4 I'm paging through. 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: I believe the one point 6 three seven four (1.374) you're looking for is in -- it could 7 be under March 29th, the way the sheet is set up or it could 8 be under April 1st. Look on the lefthand column under March 9 29th, down below. I think that's the one (1) he's looking 10 at. 11 THE WITNESS: Right. 12 THE COMMISSIONER: One point three seven four 13 (1.374) turbidity? 14 MR. KEN STEVENSON: In the lower lefthand 15 corner. 16 THE WITNESS: Okay, I've got one point three 17 seven four (1.374) turbidity. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 19 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Yes. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: We're not sure what date 21 it is, it's one (1) of those dates anyway. 22 THE WITNESS: I would guess that it is the 23 30th, sir. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 25 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Okay.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 3 Q: That would be operator number nine (9)? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: Is there any record as to what the raw 6 water turbidity was at that time? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And what was it? 9 A: I would have to go -- my best guess is to 10 where it would be -- 11 Q: Well looking at that document, it seems 12 to say ten point four (10.4) -- 13 A: Yes, I would estimate that was the river 14 turbidity at -- on that day. 15 Q: Okay. Now it's my understanding that the 16 vari drive was reinstalled, and I believe started up March 29 17 -30, 1999? Is that your recollection? 18 A: You're within a three (3) day period. 19 I'm not gonna comment when I don't know. 20 Q: Okay. So you can't help us by telling us 21 whether or not the date that these entries, which were 22 referred to, occurred after the vari drive was back in and 23 operating? 24 A: I can't comment on something I don't know 25 about.


1 Q: Okay. But you knew it was around that 2 time? 3 A: Yeah, I would have put it more on the 1st 4 but -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- you know, I'm -- 7 Q: Well, let's look forward then because 8 you'll refer to some other turbidity's in that same entry -- 9 the same book. If you go to April 11? And would April 11 be 10 a time after the vari drive was installed and working again? 11 A: To the best of my knowledge, sir, yes. 12 Q: Yes, okay. 13 A: April 11th. 14 Q: And we're down in the lower right hand 15 corner of that document? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And the -- what would the river water 18 turbidity be on that date? 19 A: Twenty-eight point seven (28.7). 20 Q: Okay. And would this be indicative of 21 a -- the breakup of the river? Or higher flows coming from 22 spring runoff? 23 A: It's the beginning of the change. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: I've seen it higher and seen it lower.


1 Q: Sure. And the turbidity which was 2 achieved was one point zero two (1.02)? 3 A: Zero two four (024), sir. 4 Q: Yes. And point nine four two (.942)? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And another one (1) of eight -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- point eight one (.81). 9 A: Yes, correct. 10 Q: Again, the operator on that date? 11 A: Appears to be number ten (10), sir. 12 Q: Okay. And let's go ahead then to April 13 14. Have you got that entry, Peter? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Okay. Thank you. And it -- what was the 16 river water turbidity at that time? 17 A: Unless it was rewritten, I have two 18 hundred and thirty-one (231). 19 Q: Okay, there appears to be a number of 20 entries, I'm wondering one twenty-nine (129), one fifteen 21 (115) and two twenty-six (226) and would those be river water 22 turbidities maybe on the wrong line? 23 A: I don't know, sir. 24 Q: Okay. Would those numbers be consistent 25 with the kind of things that happen at that time of the year?


1 A: There's a possibility. 2 Q: Yeah. And does the increase in river 3 water turbidity create more problems in the removal of it and 4 achieve low -- achieving lower turbidities? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: Okay. And it can change, as I understand 7 it, very quickly during that time of year when breakup's 8 coming, runoff's occurring? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: And is that your experience that you 11 can -- what kind of variations have you seen in -- in water 12 in that period? 13 A: I've seen twenty-four hundred (2400) come 14 down, which was basically driller's mud. And at that point 15 the Commissioner had issued a radio announcement suggesting 16 that people curtail their water use. 17 And we were actually shut down when it was up, 18 because the plant can't remove that kind of dirt and even at 19 low flows. 20 Q: That was in July of this year, I believe, 21 is that correct? The end of July? 22 A: No, sir, that would have been in the 23 realm of two (2) -- two (2) years ago, Doug was still the 24 Commissioner. 25 Q: Okay. But there are wide variations that


1 can occur in very short spaces of time? 2 A: That would be fair, sir. 3 Q: And what problems do they create for 4 operators in dealing with those fluctuations? 5 A: An evaluation of raw water and the 6 chemical dosages required to remove it to maintain the one 7 (1) NTU is -- and readjusting the plant and make -- making 8 those evaluations, because the process takes time to settle 9 down and you're playing catch up. 10 Q: Right. And the Commissioner touched upon 11 it yesterday with Frank Hollmann, you may have been here. I 12 take it there's no formula in that you can just say this will 13 happen, this raw water turbidity, this pH, this is what you 14 have to put in and -- to get the results? 15 A: No formula, no procedure. There are 16 records of events of similar turbidities that one can refer 17 to, to start and estimate what the requirement's going to be. 18 Q: Right. It's been said that dealing with 19 water is a site or plant specific operation; would you agree 20 with that? 21 A: Yes, because each source is different. 22 Q: And each day the water itself is 23 different? 24 A: It can be, sir. 25 Q: Right. And it's also been said that


1 treating water is as much an art as a science; would you 2 agree with that? 3 A: The term's vague enough to be adequate, 4 yes. 5 Q: Right, well it's a science in the sense 6 there are certain chemicals that will help do things and it's 7 an art in the sense that you have to make judgments and tweak 8 it at individual times to get production? 9 A: I like your term tweak. 10 Q: Right, okay. Is that one (1) that you've 11 used yourself on -- 12 A: I'll use it now. 13 Q: Okay. Well I'm glad I can be helpful 14 here, so -- 15 And tweaking is what I understood, you have to 16 modify it, you have to make adjustments as it's going along? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: And you referred to that in fact 19 following March 20, 01 when you went to the plant on the 20 21st. You operated it and you made -- well let's go back. 21 You made settling measurements, you saw what was happening, 22 you made evaluations of what chemicals should be added at 23 the -- during the process, alum, polymer, lime, all of the 24 various chemicals. 25 You had to make those judgments; is that fair


1 to say? 2 A: That'd be fair to say. 3 Q: And you made that judgment having regard 4 as to a turbidity of two (2) or three (3) which was occurring 5 at that time in raw water? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And the idea was to achieve a turbidity 8 as low as you could get in the finished water in the clear 9 well? 10 A: That would be fair, sir. 11 Q: And on that date, if you go to the 12 records for March 21, if you would please, to it, Peter. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 And have you found the page within -- 17 A: Not yet, sir. 18 Q: -- C-7 and it's under tab 5 or you could 19 go to the computer plant operator notes there; I believe 20 they're also in front of you. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: You'll have to give him 22 the number, Mr. Stevenson. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 25 Q: Okay. Well, let's go to C-7, tab 5, at


1 the -- four (4), five (5) pages from the tab in the 2 handwritten operator notes right in front of -- that you have 3 in front of you. 4 A: Tab 5, March 28th, March 24th, March 5 15th, March 12th. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-7, tab 5 is a computer 7 printout of the -- is that what we're referring to? 8 MR. KEN STEVENSON: These -- these may be -- 9 no, I was going to the operator notes and perhaps there was 10 one (1) page missing, I believe, and -- 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: You're in C-5? 12 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Yes, Mr. Commissioner -- 13 C-7, which is -- you know, C-7 is what -- I'm wrong on that? 14 Is that C-5? 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: This is C-5 -- 16 MR. KEN STEVENSON: I'm sorry. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- and tab 5 relates to -- 18 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Okay. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- '01, yes, you're right, 20 fine. C-5, tab 5. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 23 Q: Do you have -- 24 A: I'm missing that page, I have seen -- Mr. 25 Priel had given me a copy of that handwritten -- but it's not


1 in this binder, sir. 2 Q: Right. I believe they were written on 3 reverse side and they got missed in the original 4 reproduction, but. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: That can simply be added, 9 Mr. Doell, to the exhibit after. 10 All right. What is your question, Mr. 11 Stevenson? 12 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Right. Yeah, and just on 13 that, if we -- remember when Mr. Young was questioning some 14 time ago, the last time we were here, we went looking after 15 and we found these entries were made on the reverse side of a 16 page and hadn't got copied in the original reproduction and 17 they've now been given to Commission Counsel and we'd like 18 them be included as part of this exhibit if we could. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, they will be. 20 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Thank you. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 23 Q: So, if you look at the entry on March 21, 24 operator number 4, that's yourself? 25 A: That is correct.


1 Q: And what was the raw water turbidity on 2 that date? 3 A: I'm assuming it's three point three nine 4 (3.39). 5 Q: Right. And what final turbidity did you 6 achieve in the water in the clear well? 7 A: Point two one eight (0.218). 8 Q: And at 11:30 that day? 9 A: Point one nine six (0.196). 10 Q: Okay. And, if we go across to operator 11 number 8, handwritten that same date, right beside yours, 12 again, we see final turbidity of point two zero four (0.204), 13 point two one zero (0.210), point two one one (0.211). 14 A: That's correct, sir. 15 Q: So, on the first day that the SCU is back 16 in operation, you're operating the plant, you've adjusted 17 your chemicals and you're achieving about point two (0.2) 18 final water turbidity? 19 A: That's fair, sir. 20 Q: And would that be fair to say that that 21 was fairly close to the range that -- within which that plant 22 often operated when you were operating it and other 23 operators? 24 A: That would be fair, sir. 25 Q: Sure. So, notwithstanding that there was


1 no settling, you were achieving the final turbidity within 2 the range of what you normally were getting? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: Okay. And, as part of that, you had 5 noticed, I believe you said, there was some chemical floc in 6 the -- in the water? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And that chemical floc would be observed 9 by you when you did testing from the launders; is that 10 correct? 11 A: Not from the launders, sir, but from the 12 centre of the solids contact unit. 13 Q: Okay. You would also test the turbidity 14 at the launderers, would you not? 15 A: That would be standard operating 16 procedure, sir. 17 Q: So on that date, would there also then be 18 chemical floc coming out in the launderer water? 19 A: Okay. I'm trying to confirm your 20 suspicious by looking in the notes. The problem being, these 21 are on the reverse side of the page and I have a launder 22 turbidity of four point nine two (4.92) which would indicate 23 that that is higher than the river turbidity of three point 24 three nine (3.39) so I would have to agree with your 25 suspicion that something was coming over.


1 Q: Yup. And that something had to be 2 something added in the process? 3 A: That would be correct, sir. 4 Q: So that probably was the chemical floc? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: Okay. But it's apparent that whatever 7 was coming out of the launder's, whatever level turbidity 8 was, you were successfully filtering out to get to the 9 satisfactory and the close to normal range, final water 10 turbidity? 11 A: Yes, sir. The last step of the process 12 would have removed enough particulate to bring it down to 13 the, what you said, average of point two (.2) turbidity. 14 Q: Sure. And in the plant, it's a multi 15 barrier system, as I understand it, Peter? 16 A: That'd be fair, sir. 17 Q: Okay. And after the solids contact unit 18 was cleaned, you continued to add chemicals, the same 19 chemicals as you had added previously? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And you continued to have the filters run 22 as they would normally run? 23 A: Yes, sir. There was a problem has been 24 alluded to that this particulate matter that was going over 25 was prematurely plugging up these filters. But in -- in the


1 extent is we did modifications to the plant, the same system 2 was -- 3 Q: And the floc -- and is this sometimes 4 referred to as pin floc? 5 A: It is sometimes referred to as that, yes, 6 sir. 7 Q: Or chemical floc -- and it was going 8 through and going to the filter? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: And do you understand that pin floc can 11 enhance filtration and anthrocyte and sand media filters? 12 A: It can enhance for the duration until the 13 loss of head becomes enough that you have to backwash. And 14 the problem being, voids created when we backwash and not 15 pumping to waste which is a standard operating procedure 16 today, would have created holes in the barrier, so to speak, 17 for the -- 18 Q: Well, you're -- you're going someplace a 19 little ahead of where I want to go, Peter, but -- 20 A: Well, I'll back up then, sir. 21 Q: Okay. The floc can, in fact, enhance 22 filtration during normal operations? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: And because of the floc coming over, 25 you've said, you were losing head on the filters perhaps more


1 quickly than you were when the solids contact unit was 2 working properly? 3 A: Or -- 4 Q: To full capacity? 5 A: Or when we weren't pushing over as much 6 floc, yes, I would have to agree with what you said, sir. 7 Q: Sure. And because of that it became 8 necessary to backwash perhaps more frequently than you would 9 have otherwise have done? 10 A: That would be fair, sir. 11 Q: And you were one (1) of the operators for 12 a number of days, as Mr. Russell's referred to, after March 13 20 through to April 25? 14 A: That would be correct, sir. 15 Q: Yeah. And you would have, on many 16 occasions, during that period of time, had to backwash the 17 filters? 18 A: That would have been part of my job, sir. 19 Q: And -- and you recall having done that? 20 A: I must have done it a few times. To be 21 fair, the records for backwashing could be referred to at 22 this point and tell you how many times and when more 23 accurately than just remembering off the top of my head. 24 Q: Well I -- I don't know if have to go to 25 the detail, I want to just talk about the process that was


1 followed. And you were required to backwash and you would 2 have followed standard procedures in backwashing the filters? 3 A: There is a standard procedure now but 4 there was more flexibility given to each operator than 5 previous, to March, 2001. 6 Q: Sure. Well let's talk about what you did 7 during the time you were in charge of the plant. How would 8 you conduct the backwash? 9 A: Which filters would you like me to -- 10 Q: Let's do 3 and 4 first. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: Is this going to assist us 12 in this Inquiry, Mr. Stevenson? It might be interesting, 13 but -- 14 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Well I -- I -- I think it 15 might, and because I -- I'm concerned allegations are being 16 made about inadequate filtration that has occurred. And 17 filtration occurs in many places, sedimentation, coagulation 18 and -- 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: But there's eight (8) 20 other operators and I mean how this -- I mean if it's 21 important, fine -- 22 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Well -- 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- but I'm just saying at 24 the moment it's not obvious to me that it's going to assist 25 very much.


1 MR. KEN STEVENSON: -- well perhaps I'll -- 2 I'll jump through it. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 5 Q: Mr. Allen, you referred to you might 6 be -- when you backwash there might be a space or a hole, or 7 what did you put it for the filter? 8 A: The easiest way to describe this would be 9 the spike in turbidity that occurs in the final effluent 10 when -- just after you backwashed, because the voids that you 11 created you -- alluded to the pin floc making the filters 12 more apt at catching particulate matter. 13 Those aren't -- that pin floc is being washed 14 off. So during the first say twenty (20) minutes of a filter 15 run, there is a -- a spike in turbidity on the pie chart. So, 16 the voids haven't been filled by your pin floc. 17 Q: And -- and that might have happened. Do 18 you know if that actually happened during your time? 19 A: Well I -- without reviewing the charts 20 I'm not going to comment. 21 Q: Okay, but it's a potential is all that 22 you're saying? 23 A: It's a potential, yes, sir. 24 Q: Sure. And we don't know whether it 25 actually occurred or not?


1 A: Without reviewing -- 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: -- I'm reluctant to comment. 4 Q: In any event, Peter, and I'll try to move 5 through this quickly. During the time you operated the plant 6 from March 20, 2001 through until the time of the Boil Water 7 Advisory and Boil Water Order, and you operated a number of 8 days? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Did you during that period of time, at 11 any time have a turbidity, final turbidity in the clear well 12 in excess of one point zero (1.0) NTUs? 13 A: Not that I recall, but I'm unsure without 14 reviewing the records. To -- to my knowledge, sir, I didn't. 15 It got -- it did raise up, looking at the slides, it did come 16 up towards the end of my shift. 17 Q: Sure, it went up a little higher, but it 18 never went over the one point zero (1.0)? 19 A: I'm going to take your word on that, sir. 20 Q: Well and you of course looked at this and 21 you've got -- in focussing on giving your evidence -- 22 A: I can review it if you wish? 23 Q: No, I -- I'm not going to ask you because 24 I think the records will speak for themselves, but you don't 25 recall it in your memory?


1 A: I don't recall it, sir. 2 Q: Okay. And during all of that time you 3 pumped water into the clear well and water would go through 4 to the distribution system to the residents of North 5 Battleford; is that correct? 6 A: That'd be correct, sir. 7 Q: Right. And you live here in Saskatoon -- 8 or in North Battleford? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Okay. And you have family living here in 11 North Battleford? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And you have a child or children who live 14 here in North Battleford? 15 A: I have a child here. 16 Q: Right. And you love your child? 17 A: Certainly. 18 Q: And you coach soccer and you like kids? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: And you wouldn't have knowingly ever 21 pumped water that wasn't safe through the system? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: The water wasn't safe when it was pumped


1 through the system. I obviously didn't do enough -- 2 Q: Well -- 3 A: -- to -- I regret -- 4 Q: -- that's hindsight though isn't it, 5 Peter? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Yeah. So what I was looking for -- was 8 looking for, back then when you pumped the water you were 9 satisfied that you had produced quality water, it was safe? 10 A: I -- it did meet standards. 11 Q: Sure. And that's another side of this 12 Inquiry of course, as to whether or not the standards might 13 be adequate, and that's another issue. 14 But it did meet the standards, and the 15 standards for your -- for the Minister's Permit, takes into 16 account the production of health and safety of the people who 17 get the water? 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's a legal argument -- 19 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Well, yeah -- 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- Mr. Stevenson. 21 MR. KEN STEVENSON: -- it is actually -- it's 22 in the -- it's in the Order itself -- 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: For the purposes -- 24 MR. KEN STEVENSON: -- having regard to 25 health and safety, so --


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 5 Q: Peter, to your knowledge had the raw 6 water supply in the North Saskatchewan River, prior to March 7 '01, ever been tested for cryptosporidium? 8 A: No, sir. Can I check that? In my 9 research for this Inquiry, there was an entry in the logbook 10 for September '94, apparently Sask Health did do a crypto 11 test according to the operator that had noted it. 12 Q: Right. In -- in the treated water? 13 A: I don't know -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- whether it was raw or treated. 16 Q: Right. But, to your knowledge, leading 17 up to March of '01, it had never been tested? 18 A: That would be fair, sir. 19 Q: And did you at any time go to SERM and 20 suggest that -- or Sask Water or anybody and suggest they 21 should be monitoring the river water? 22 A: No, are you suggesting I should have? 23 Q: No, I'm just asking if you did. 24 A: I didn't. 25 Q: Okay, thank you. In your state of


1 knowledge prior to March '01, were you aware that UV and 2 ozone are barriers that are used for treatment and removal of 3 crypto, giardia? 4 A: Ozone is fairly effective at removal, but 5 UV, if you can get your water clean enough, is another 6 barrier so to speak. 7 Q: And, even with water quality systems that 8 work fully, the multi-barrier systems, the trend now is to go 9 to UV and ozone barriers in addition? 10 A: There's also a redundancy so that some -- 11 for example, the plant in Mwaakaa (phonetic) has two (2) 12 solids contact units so you're never completely out. 13 Q: Sure. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 I wasn't quite clear when you were answering 18 questions -- 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Are you going to go into 20 another area, Mr. Stevenson? I note it's 12:30. 21 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Briefly, yeah, I was 22 going to. I've got a few more areas to cover so perhaps it's 23 appropriate to -- to adjourn. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Then we'll 25 adjourn for the lunch break resuming at 2:00 p.m.


1 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Thank you. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: I guess you'll be asked to 3 come back at that time. 4 5 --- Upon recessing at 12:28 p.m. 6 --- Upon resuming at 1:56 p.m. 7 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we'll get underway 9 then at this time, if everyone could take their seats please. 10 All right, Mr. Stevenson, I guess. 11 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Mr. Mitchell's not here 12 yet and it's his client that's on, perhaps we should... 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, here he is. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Perhaps Mr. Mitchell 18 thought he was still in the House and could come in at his 19 leisure. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: No comment. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 23 Q: Peter, I only have a few more questions. 24 You were asked by Mr. Russell this morning and you gave some 25 evidence about talking to Kevin O'Neill. I wasn't clear if


1 you ever testified as to what date that conversation with 2 Kevin took place. 3 A: I'm unsure of the date, sir, it would 4 have been after the 20th and before the Boil Water move from 5 precautionary to the full Boiled Water. 6 Q: Okay. And you referred to documents 7 being spread out around at City Hall and Kevin and Judy were 8 there; was that -- you'd heard rumours, you said, and that 9 was after the Boil Water Advisory was issued? 10 A: No, sir, it was actually before the Boil 11 Water came in that I had heard rumours, some doctor in town 12 had -- 13 Q: Well, let's distinguish two (2) points 14 then. You heard rumours, that occurred on one (1) day? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: And, at a subsequent date, you were at 17 city hall when documents were handed out -- 18 A: That would be correct, sir. 19 Q: Okay, just so I'm clear on that. And the 20 time when the documents were out and it was being looked at 21 was at a time -- the day of the Boil Water Advisory -- 22 A: That was the day when it moved from an 23 Advisory to the full Boil Water, it was -- I could check my 24 records -- 25 Q: Right, thank you.


1 A: -- Thursday. 2 Q: Yeah -- no, that -- we don't need an 3 exact date, but that's -- chronology is what I needed. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 It's my recollection from your evidence that 8 you testified that, when you take the solids contact unit 9 down to clean, it normally takes some time for the slurry 10 pool to develop? 11 A: Re-establish -- 12 Q: Re-establish. 13 A: -- yes, that would be -- that would be 14 correct. 15 Q: And, typically in your experience, what 16 time frame are we talking about? 17 A: Very dependent on the river turbidity 18 to -- so, without first knowing what the river turbidity was, 19 an estimation of time would be -- 20 Q: Okay. Well, let's -- let's take 21 parameters, just if we have low turbidity, three (3) or four 22 (4), what's your experience in that -- for it to be 23 established? 24 A: Well, based on the -- the incident, March 25 20th, that's when it takes five (5) weeks.


1 Q: Well, were there any times prior to that 2 when it was taken down in that low turbidity? 3 A: I wasn't a participating member, I'm -- 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: So -- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: -- unfair to comment on times when I 8 haven't. 9 Q: What was your experience then as to in 10 what circumstances the SCU was taken out of service to be 11 cleaned or inspected? 12 A: I can recall the incident on July 4th, 13 2000. And that period was less than a day to get it up to 14 above 10 percent. And there was another instance in my -- 15 earlier on -- I can't -- I was working at three (3) to eleven 16 (11) shift and all I remember is being down the hole cleaning 17 it out and not necessarily putting it back in service. 18 Q: So on March 21, then, you weren't 19 particularly surprised that there was almost no settling 20 occurring? 21 A: I had hoped there'd be more. They were 22 pumping to waste on the night previous and I'd hoped that 23 usually over a four (4) hour period of pumping, that you have 24 some. 25 Q: Right. And when you left on the night of


1 the 20th they were pumping to waste? 2 A: That is correct, sir. 3 Q: And Robert Borne was still there, was he, 4 as the operator -- assistant operator? 5 A: That would be correct, sir. 6 Q: Okay. Did you leave him any instructions 7 as to how long to pump to waste? 8 A: I mentioned that the minimum launder 9 turbidity would be five (5), assuming that if he made five 10 (5) that the filters would be able to polish it, finish it, 11 clean it better than that. And the big one (1) was the 12 chlorine to a free chlorine residual of two (2) or more. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: The next day he had met or exceeded the 15 chlorine. 16 Q: And he had met or exceeded the launder 17 turbidity also, is that correct? 18 A: As far as I know, I would have to check 19 his written records to see. 20 Q: You might just do that then. If you 21 could go to the plant operator logs, the computer ones, for 22 March 20? 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-5, is that what we're 24 talking about or you're saying C-7? 25 MR. KEN STEVENSON: The computer generated --


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, the computer generated 2 C-7. And at tab 4? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 6 Q: Can we just find the date for March 20, 7 have you -- ? 8 A: I have March 20th, a couple of entries. 9 Nineteen twenty-five (19:25) and 20:23. 10 Q: Right. And it's shows your name, Peter, 11 as the operator? 12 A: That would be a default problem, another 13 glitch of that computer program. 14 Q: Right. And this is the time when Robert 15 Borne was actually -- ? 16 A: That would be correct, sir. 17 Q: So you had left at about four o'clock,, 18 at the end of your shift? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: And left Robert with instructions, two 21 (2) things, one (1) to get the launder turbidity under five 22 (5) and the chlorine residuals at point two (.2). Is that 23 correct? 24 A: Point two (.2), sir? 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: At two point zero (2.0) or better, free 2 chlorine. 3 Q: Okay. And if we look at the records, 4 what was the launder turbidity which is recorded there? 5 A: It's on a repeating two point two nine 6 (2.29). 7 Q: Okay. And the total chlorines is two 8 point one five (2.15), is that correct? 9 A: That's the last reading of the day. 10 Q: All right. Thank you. And would you 11 have checked those records when you came back in on the 21st? 12 A: I didn't, sir. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Okay, another glitch in the program would 15 be that these things don't print out, they print out whenever 16 they -- there isn't a set time. 17 Q: But you could go in and access that 18 information? 19 A: No, sir, I could not. 20 Q: Okay. Did you talk to Robert Borne about 21 it? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: Okay. So you did or did not know that he 24 had pumped water to the distribution system? 25 A: The way that I could tell that he had


1 pumped water was by looking at the tower chart and seeing 2 that there was an increase over a two (2) hour period. 3 Q: And you didn't follow up to see what 4 turbidity he had, what free chlor -- or what chlorine there 5 was? 6 A: I knew the state at which he had left it 7 by looking at -- 8 Q: Sure. 9 A: -- the turbidity of -- at the time that I 10 started up. 11 Q: In your evidence today, as I understand 12 it, you were saying that you -- you mentioned something to 13 Randy Strelioff that there was some settling problem or 14 something on -- 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: When was that? 17 A: I believe Randy came down to do a follow 18 up post solids contact cleaning and at that time when he was 19 there I mentioned it to him at that time? 20 Q: And what date would that be? 21 A: The 21st, sir. 22 Q: Okay, and would that be in the morning of 23 the 21st? 24 A: To my best recollection it would have 25 been.


1 Q: Okay. And what -- 2 A: Excuse me, I was away in the afternoon, 3 it would have had to have been in the morning. 4 Q: And you had simply said what, we're not 5 getting any settling, or what -- what did you tell him? 6 A: The settling was low. 7 Q: Okay, and that's all you said? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: If you refer to your statement of 13 anticipated evidence at paragraphs 173. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 And you indicated that -- you say there: 18 "Peter did not phone Randy at any time, 19 because he felt it would do no good." 20 But you -- you are now telling us that you did 21 mention the settling problem to Randy? 22 A: I believe, sir, in interviews I had with 23 both you and Mr. Priel I had felt that he was made aware that 24 settling was low, and I did not phone him, as it says in 25 there.


1 Q: Okay. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Did you also tell Mr. Priel and Mike Robinson 6 in the course of the investigation in taking a statement from 7 you, that you had asked Frank Hollmann to contact Mr. 8 Strelioff? 9 A: Being that I knew that I didn't call Mr. 10 Strelioff by phone, and yet I knew that I was comfortable 11 that Randy was made aware that the settling was low, my 12 initial thought was that Frank had made that call. 13 And in subsequent -- after Mr. Priel pointed 14 out the handwritten documents indicating that Frank had 15 actually pumped on that second day, I went back and looked at 16 my daytimer and found out I was away in the afternoon, and I 17 believe that both Frank and I were there, and our -- were 18 satisfied that Randy was aware that the solids contact unit 19 settling was low. 20 Q: So it wasn't that you asked Frank to do 21 something, you just assumed he was aware? 22 A: I didn't ask him to make the phone call, 23 but -- 24 Q: Okay. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: You were asked a number of questions 4 today by Mr. Scharfstein? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And in the course of your questioning you 7 were, to my observations, substantially in agreement with 8 most suggestions he made to you? 9 A: I'll request you to be more clear please? 10 Q: Well, in terms of questions, maybe I'm 11 just having the perception, but you knew Mr. Scharfstein 12 before today? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: In fact, you had met with Mr. 15 Scharfstein -- 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: -- much earlier in the circumstances; is 18 that fair? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: When was that? 21 A: That was after the mayor had mentioned 22 that the credentials of Mr. Randy Strelioff were that of an 23 engineer and Mr. Strelioff had indicated, in one (1) of the 24 scrums -- media scrums, that he was pointing the finger at 25 the operators --


1 Q: And you had arranged to meet with Mr. 2 Scharfstein? 3 A: The way that went when -- there was a 4 mutual friend of Frank and I's whose daughter was infected 5 with crypto and was mad enough to make contact with Mr. 6 Scharfstein and he at that time knew that there were 7 operators who were getting screwed over by city hall and I 8 was mad enough to make contact with him. 9 Q: Sure. And to arrange to meet to give him 10 information? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: Okay. And you knew at the time he was 13 suing your employer? 14 A: I knew that my employer was doing the 15 same to me. 16 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Those are the only 17 questions I have, thank you. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 19 Mr. Mitchell...? 20 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: I have no questions. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, no questions. 22 Well, I guess you're free to step down. Thank you. 23 24 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 25


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. Russell, anytime. 2 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, I would 3 like to call our next witness to the stand, Ms. Judy Szuch, 4 and ask that she be sworn. 5 6 (JUDITH ANN SZUCH, Sworn:) 7 8 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 9 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Szuch. 10 A: Good afternoon. 11 Q: Ma'am, I understand that you're presently 12 employed as an engineering technologist in the public work 13 and engineering department at the City of North Battleford; 14 is that correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And that you've occupied that position 17 since August of 2000; is that -- is that correct? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: I also understand that you have a diploma 20 in environmental engineering technology from SIAST, which you 21 completed in 1999; is that true? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Ms. Szuch, the reason I've invited you 24 here today is to assist the Commissioner with the 25 interpretation of some of the -- the documentation,


1 particularly the figures that have been compiled and provided 2 to us as part of the disclosure process. 3 Since you joined the city in August of 2000, 4 can you tell us what you have been doing? 5 A: Well, I basically started out doing a lot 6 of work at the landfill -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- of managing it and as the -- at -- 9 when Ivan retired, some of his jobs fell on me, as in 10 sampling the distribution system. 11 Q: Right. 12 A: So I've been mainly working with water 13 since -- since -- especially since the boil water -- 14 Q: Right. 15 A: -- and that. 16 Q: My understanding, as you say, my 17 understanding is you've been doing some distribution system 18 sampling? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: You've been doing some sample analysis at 21 the sewage plant? 22 A: Sample analysis, as in what? I do very 23 little at the sewage plant. 24 Q: Have you been assembling data and 25 documentation at the sewage plant?


1 A: I -- I don't assemble anything at the 2 sewage plant. I do enter data into the computer -- 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: -- in my -- at my office. 5 Q: With the view to producing historical 6 record? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: Okay. And in addition to the sewage 9 plant, my understanding is you've also been assembling data 10 in the same way for both of the -- the -- the water treatment 11 facilities? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Okay. And you've also, I believe, been 14 assis -- assisting in the system control and data acquisition 15 system, the SCADA system, is that -- is that correct? 16 A: I did do the RFP for the SCADA system. 17 Q: Okay. Could you explain to the 18 Commission what that is, SCADA? 19 A: SCADA system is? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: It's -- it's a control system where we 22 can, from a central location, we can have control and access 23 to the different plants and the lift stations, the 24 reservoirs, all from a central location. 25 And so this is what the city is working


1 towards. 2 Q: Right. So that system is not yet 3 installed, you're working -- 4 A: No. 5 Q: -- towards it? 6 A: No, no, we're just looking at it. 7 Q: Okay. Have you been doing anything else 8 in relation to the water treatment or the sewage treatment 9 plants, other than we've already mentioned? 10 A: Well, as if right now, I do a sample -- a 11 take a -- a raw river sample, water sample, and we do this 12 still once a month, and send to Hiperian (phonetic) for 13 crypto and giardia tests, on the river. 14 Q: So you've -- you've instituted crypto and 15 giardia testing in the city, have you? 16 A: Of the raw -- 17 Q: Of the raw water? 18 A: Yes. At two (2) locations in the river 19 and sewage effluent. 20 Q: Okay. When -- when did that begin? When 21 did that testing begin? 22 A: Well, when all this happened is when we 23 started doing it. 24 Q: Can you be a little more precise? 25 A: Well, okay, when did this all -- it's --


1 when did we start testing? We started testing for crypto in 2 probably April was our first time. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: And giardia, of course. 5 Q: But was -- was it following the -- the 6 contamination -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- of -- 9 A: Of course. 10 Q: -- the announcement of it? Okay. 11 A: Hm-hmm. 12 Q: Let's just -- you -- you mentioned that 13 you took over some of the sampling that Mr. Katzell had been 14 doing. Did you do some of the bacteriological sampling? 15 A: Yes. That's part of the distribution -- 16 Q: Right. In the distribution system? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: Can you tell -- can you tell us how those 19 sampling sites were chosen? 20 A: Well, see we -- when Ivan was sampling, 21 we had six (6) sample sites. And then after the boil water 22 in September -- 23 Q: Yes? 24 A: -- it was decided that we would have 25 fifteen (15) sampling sites in town. So it was Ivan and I


1 sitting at my desk going through and saying, these look like 2 fifteen (15) sites that are appropriate to cover the entire 3 city. 4 So that's how those got chosen. 5 Q: Right. I wonder if you'd turn to tabs 1 6 and 2 in your -- in your binder of materials? If you look at 7 tab 1 to begin with -- 8 A: Hm-hmm. 9 Q: -- it says, water sampling sites? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Are these the sites we're talking about? 12 A: I do fifteen (15) sites. 13 Q: And there are eighteen (18) here. That's 14 what was concerning me -- 15 A: Right. 16 Q: -- I wondered if you could clarify that 17 for us. 18 A: These sample sites, right after the boil 19 water, we did the eighteen (18) -- the first boil water. 20 Q: Yes? 21 A: And then we cut it back to fifteen (15) 22 sites as a permanent thing. 23 Q: Yes. And when you say the first boil 24 water, you -- are you referring back to September of -- 25 A: Right.


1 Q: --2000? 2 A: Yes, yes. 3 Q: So it's now been cut back to fifteen 4 (15) -- 5 A: Hm-hmm. 6 Q: -- from the eighteen (18)? Then if you 7 turn to the next tab, number 2, there is a map of the city 8 there -- 9 A: Hm-hmm. 10 Q: -- and I think there are various sites 11 identifed? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: And are those the sites that you 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think you're referring 15 to C-13, sorry. 16 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Under sub C, -- 18 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Tab 1 and 2? 20 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, sorry about that. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, okay. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 24 Q: Sorry, Ms. Szuch. Tab number -- tab 25 number 2, that -- that map of the city. Does it -- does that


1 identify the sites that you presently test at? 2 A: Yes, it does. 3 Q: And those test sites have been -- as you 4 say, there were -- there were once five (5) or six (6), 5 but -- 6 A: There were six (6). 7 Q: There were six (6), and they were -- they 8 were -- they were changed to the eighteen (18), and then when 9 did they become fifteen (15)? 10 A: I -- I believe the eighteen (18) was just 11 maybe for a week or two (2), and then we went right to the 12 fifteen (15). 13 Q: Okay, were these -- were these sites 14 identified in conjunction with SERM personnel as appropriate 15 places to test? 16 A: Not to my knowledge. 17 Q: Okay. Could you just give us a brief 18 overview of your -- of the testing procedure in relation to 19 the -- the bacteriological sampling and what you actually do 20 or did when you took over that -- that role? 21 A: You mean the procedure I would use if I 22 go into a -- a place of business, is this what you want? 23 A: If you go and -- if you go and do a test, 24 what do you do? 25 A: Well I walk in and turn on the water and


1 let it -- the cold water, and let it run for maybe two/three 2 (2/3) minutes in there and -- 3 Q: This is at each of the sites? 4 A: -- each of the sites. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: And I'll take -- I have a -- because I 7 don't have a turbidimeter on me I take a sample to take back 8 to Number 2 Plant for my turbidity. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: And I just take it in a little bottle, 11 and then I take a sample for my sample cell for my total 12 chlorine and read that and the same for the free chlorine, 13 and then I take the bacti bottle that's supplied by SERM and 14 fill that. 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: And send that off to SERM and that goes 17 off in the mail to Regina. 18 Q: When you -- when you say to SERM you mean 19 the -- the laboratory -- the provincial laboratory -- 20 A: Yes, yes. 21 Q: -- in Regina? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: Right, that's what happens to the 24 bacteriol -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: -- ogical sample. And then is there -- 2 is there any reporting back to you on that sample? 3 A: Yes, well I fill out a form and this form 4 has free and total chlorine turbidity on it and of course the 5 location site and then the date, and this form is sent -- is 6 put in the bacti sampling bottle -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- and sent off. And then it's probably 9 a week or so -- it's addressed to Randy, so Randy gets the -- 10 the results back. 11 Q: Now what -- what are the results, the 12 results of what? 13 A: The results of the water for coliform 14 testing. And it will have -- they'll have written on it 15 either nil or greater than two hundred (200), less than two 16 hundred (200), and that's background coliforms. 17 Q: Yes. So I wonder if you would look at, 18 for instance, tab 4 in your binder. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: Is that the form that you would get back? 21 A: No. This is strictly -- this is a Sask 22 Health form. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: This was for the tankers that we had in 25 place during the boil water.


1 Q: Oh I see, so this is -- 2 A: This is not the form. 3 Q: -- that's not the regular format -- 4 A: No. 5 Q: -- for this particular situation? 6 A: This is just for Sask Health. 7 Q: Now what about -- what about the forms 8 that we have under tab 3? 9 A: Yes, those are my forms that go off to 10 SERM. 11 Q: This is what you send to SERM, is this 12 also what you receive back? 13 A: Right. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: It's a duplicate cop -- like a -- two (2) 16 copies, I'm presuming they keep one (1) and we get the other 17 one (1) back. 18 Q: Okay and I see that it now comes -- it 19 come -- with this particular form it comes back to Mr. 20 Strelioff -- 21 A: Right -- 22 Q: -- does it? 23 A: -- yes. 24 Q: And then do you yourself see the results 25 at any point?


1 A: Yes, yes, then after Randy's seen them he 2 gives them to me and I enter all the results in the computer. 3 Q: Okay, so that this is part of your -- the 4 compilation work that you're doing? 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Okay. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: So this form would -- if the form we're 11 looking at here, if the -- if there were positive testing, 12 positive bacteriological testing, is this the format that 13 would show that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: It would be on there, but they would also 17 call us. 18 Q: They would also call you, okay. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you say you were also doing some 21 turbidity testing at the same sites? 22 A: Yes, you can see that there's the two (2) 23 sites. 24 Q: I take it that all of these -- all of 25 these tests either for bacteria or for chlorine and


1 turbidity, it's the same sites we've been referring to; 2 right? 3 A: Yes, all fifteen (15) -- 4 Q: The fifteen (15) sites? 5 A: -- sites, yes. 6 Q: Okay. And how do -- how do you -- how do 7 you handle the turbidity testing and record-keeping; you say 8 you took -- you took a sample? 9 A: I'd take a bottle down to Number 2 10 Plant -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- and they have a turbidimeter and I 13 take the turbidity, enter it on this sheet -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- and I also enter it down at Number 2 16 Plant, there's a book that I enter in chlorine and turbidity 17 and then I mail this off -- or take it up to the mail room 18 and it's mailed off to SERM. 19 Q: The turbidity results are mailed off to 20 SERM? 21 A: Well, they're right here on the form. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. So that goes to SERM too. 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: Do you get any report back on that? 2 A: Well, just -- 3 Q: Just the form? 4 A: Just the form. 5 Q: The duplicate form, okay. 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: So let me, just to see if I understand 8 this, if we could look at tab 5 in your binder in relation to 9 3022 - 99 Street, Ulmers. Is this the kind of compilation 10 that you have been working on? 11 A: That's my spreadsheet. 12 Q: This is your spreadsheet. So you have 13 been working on spreadsheets containing the data we've been 14 referring to, the testing we've been referring to; would it 15 be one (1) for each of the sites? Do you have a spreadsheet 16 for each of the sites? 17 A: Oh, yes. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, this particular one (1), at -- at 21 Ulmers, I believe it begins in January of 2000 and I notice, 22 for instance, that under the -- under the turbidity column 23 there seem to be no entries there; is there any -- until 24 November 1st, is there any particular reason for that that 25 you're aware of?


1 A: I didn't do the sampling then so I have 2 no idea why there is no turbidity readings. 3 Q: Okay. So is that just information you 4 haven't been able to access yet? 5 A: There would be -- when I started entering 6 this data, I got the original sheets that are at the sewage 7 treatment plant and entered all the information on the sheet 8 into here -- 9 Q: Right. 10 A: -- so, if there's no recording of 11 turbidity on the pink sheet, I can't enter it because there 12 isn't one (1). 13 Q: There isn't one (1) there for that time. 14 So, as far as you -- you know, there -- there is no record 15 for that period of time? 16 A: That's right. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, in relation to the sewage treatment 21 plant, if you could take a look at -- in your binder here at 22 tabs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, we've separated them out. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Is this documentation something you recognize? 2 A: No, I don't do these spreadsheets. 3 Q: So this is not part of the work that you 4 have been doing? 5 A: 10, provincial lab -- oh, these -- oh, 6 okay, I see. Okay, tab 8 you said? 7 Q: Yes, it begins -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- it begins at tab 8. It's got BOD at 10 the top. 11 A: Yes, this is -- 12 Q: Goes back to '95, I see. 13 A: Hmm hmm. No, I do not enter these 14 numbers. This -- 15 Q: This looks like a historical record that 16 has been assembled; I was wondering if either -- 17 A: No, I didn't assemble this one (1). 18 Q: Do you know who did? 19 A: I guess probably Ivan. 20 Q: Would you know, for instance, if you -- 21 if you turn to the -- the final page in tab 8 -- I'm sorry, 22 the next to the final page, there are -- under these BOD 23 charts there are -- there are comments written in the -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: -- right-hand margin --


1 A: Right. 2 Q: -- would you have any idea who -- who 3 writes those comments or, once again, you just suspect though 4 that was Mr. Katzell who did it -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- as he compiled the data? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: The witness didn't prepare 10 this but to the extent that we have the document before us, 11 is there any explanation of what the document is? 12 THE WITNESS: It's a BOD removal. It's -- 13 basically what it's telling you is -- 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: BOD meaning? 15 THE WITNESS: Oh, BOD. 16 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Oxygen demand. 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's oxygen -- is it 18 biochemical? 19 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Biodegradable oxy -- 20 THE WITNESS: Bio -- bio -- sorry. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS: It's the removal rate. 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: It's the removal rate 24 of -- 25 THE WITNESS: And that's basically what it's


1 showing, at the every end one (1) you'll see that it's 2 removal. Biochemical? 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 5 Q: And my understanding is that these 6 figures all relate to that particular -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- issue? 9 A: I -- I believe that this is the plant's 10 operator's -- 11 Q: Okay we can -- 12 A: -- do BOD's once a week, yes. 13 Q: I'm sure Mr. Katzell will be able to 14 explain that in due course. I just -- 15 A: Yes. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, that's fine. 17 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I just felt you might 18 have been working on that? 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 22 Q: If you could take a look at tab 14. 23 A: Oh, I have to clarify that these other -- 24 these -- these other labs results -- like, you said you 25 wanted to look through number nine (9), eight (8) --


1 Q: Oh, yes? 2 A: Okay. The provincial -- in tab 10 3 Q: Tab 10, yes? 4 A: These are results that are sent in -- 5 samples that are sent into the government or are permits to 6 operate. And these are then the results sent back and they 7 are entered into the computer. So I do do that. 8 Q: You do that part of it? Okay. 9 A: Yes, I do enter those. 10 Q: Are you involved with any of those other 11 tabs as we move through, before we get to 14? 12 A: Eleven (11), conductivity, eleven (11) -- 13 yes, those I enter also. These are all part of our -- our 14 permit to operate. 15 Q: Okay. What does eleven (11) measure? 16 A: Eleven (11)? 17 Q: Conductivity? 18 A: Hm-hmm. These are general chemical that 19 are sent away and it's called genchem and -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- we send samples away and they do this 22 testing for us -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- and send us back the results. 25 Q: That's part of the chemical testing --


1 A: Hm-hmm. 2 Q: -- on the license? 3 A: Hm-hmm. 4 Q: Okay. And the next tab, 12? 5 A: Yes. That's another part, same thing. 6 Q: Well it looks to me as though this -- 7 this is bacteriological testing? 8 A: Yes, it is. 9 Q: Was that -- 10 A: But it is part of the -- 11 Q: Is this part of what you were -- you do 12 or is this part of Mr. Katzell's record? 13 A: This -- I have done this since -- since 14 Ivan has retired. 15 Q: Right. But it goes back to '95 -- 16 A: Right. 17 Q: -- so I'm assuming this is one (1) of the 18 things you took over from him? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: So he could speak to that. Okay. And 21 13? 22 A: Thirteen (13). Oh, THM's, even with my 23 glasses on I can hardly read that one (1). 24 Q: So I'm assuming that this is also part of 25 the licence requirement?


1 A: Yes, yes. Well -- yes, we're sent sample 2 cells to do trihalomethane testing. 3 Q: Right. And that's a very infrequent test 4 so I'm assuming that's why we have such a -- a long period of 5 time entered on that chart, right? 6 A: There's -- I believe they're every three 7 (3) months. 8 Q: Something like that, yes. Okay. Now if 9 we get to -- if we get to 14 -- 10 A: Hm-hmm. 11 Q: -- we seem to have a record in relation 12 to Water Treatment Plant Number 1? 13 A: Right. 14 Q: Is that part of the information you've 15 been compiling? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now what is the -- what's the purpose of 18 compiling that information, do you know? 19 A: That all came about after the boil water. 20 It was information -- now I've done so much work for so many 21 people, I don't know who requested it, whether it was Jeff 22 Aramini, from Canada Health or if I was -- or who exactly I 23 was doing it for but -- 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: -- it was for some --


1 Q: So you compiled it following the -- the 2 contamination event? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: It was a way of gathering documentation 5 for people who might be working on that event? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. And you were requested by your 8 employer to do that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: To assist -- to assist other people? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. And I'm assuming that these 13 figures are assembled from original records -- 14 A: From -- 15 Q: -- kept down at the plant? 16 A: -- plant logs, yes. 17 Q: Yes. And then tab number 15, Water 18 Treatment Plant Number 2, we've got a slightly different 19 format here. 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: And this is where I think it may be 22 helpful for the Commissioner to sort of summarize some of the 23 information he has been receiving on turbidity levels, free 24 chlorines and settling. 25 Do you recognize these figures?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Can you -- can you give us the con -- did 3 you assist in their compilation? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Can you give us the context in which they 6 were compiled and the purpose? 7 A: Again it was for the Boil Water. It was 8 for -- it -- I had made a spreadsheet and charts for Randy. 9 Q: All right, Mr. Strelioff, yes. 10 A: Yes. And this was just before the 11 meeting with Sask Health and the Boil Water Order was issued. 12 Q: Okay. These -- 13 A: This is the settling -- was -- well there 14 was a chart for each one (1) actually -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- raw, final, free and percent settling. 17 Q: Yes, my understanding is that -- and 18 we'll disclose this later, that each of these columns has 19 its -- has its own chart -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- and it's own graph, but that this is 22 intended to be a summary, so that comparisons can be made -- 23 A: Right. 24 Q: -- with each of these important criteria. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. And I see for instance, and once 2 again if you could identify this for the benefit of the 3 Commissioner, if you look on the first page we -- we see 4 beginning in February 10th, 1999 that in the settling figures 5 for instance, it says in the -- 6 "The SCU out of service." 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Now who made that entry there; do you 9 know? 10 A: That would have been probably on the 11 daily sheets. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: So I would have entered it in here. 14 Q: All right, and is it your understanding 15 that that is the period of time when the -- the vari drive 16 incident -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- occurred? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And so it shows how the -- the settling - 21 - settling figures go and comp -- comparisons can be made 22 with the turbidities in chlorine? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And then if you turn to the -- the 25 third page, sorry, I think we have to flip on, three (3)...


1 They're not numbered, but I'm looking for 2 instance at the -- the -- the figures for July 4th of 2000. 3 Once again there -- on July 4th and July 5th there are two 4 (2) low settling figures there -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- the two (2) and the nine (9), and once 7 again it says: 8 "Cleaned out CU in a.m., crack on line 9 producing at fifteen hundred (1500)." 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Is that another occasion when the -- to 12 your knowledge, the solids contact unit was taken down and 13 cleaned? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: So that would show the -- what happened 16 to the settling and the turbidity during that cleaning 17 process? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: Okay. And then if we turn to the page -- 20 two (2) pages on if we'll go for instance to the -- just 21 beginning in January of 2001, and we can trace what 22 happened -- what happens to the settling there. 23 And I suppose the important date there for us 24 I would assume is, of course would be March. But there's no 25 March 20th date there, but March 21st is on there, where


1 we -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Yes, where we -- we from the -- from the 4 previous day we got a -- a change in the settling figures 5 from twelve (12) down to zero point one (0.1). 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And that's the -- my understanding is 8 that that is the beginning of the period of time that we're 9 talk -- been talking about in this Inquiry when the solids 10 contact unit was taken down in March -- in March of 2001? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now the chlorine -- the total chlorine 13 column there, can you just explain why -- why that's missing 14 for that period? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: Total chlorine for March? No, I can't 19 explain why it's missing. 20 Q: Okay, we'll have to answer that. 21 A: Okay. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Have you any -- have you ever been party


1 to any discussions regarding the -- the inter -- the -- 2 sorry, the interpretation of these figures? 3 A: Party to them? 4 Q: You say they were -- they were -- they 5 were prepared on behalf of -- of Mr. Strelioff when he was 6 about to go into a meeting? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Which -- can you remember the date of 9 that meeting and what the purpose of the meeting was? 10 A: I can't remember the exact date, I just 11 remember -- he came -- he had to have a -- he had a meeting 12 with Sask Health and he wanted some information to take with 13 him and so he asked Kevin O'Neill and I to compile this 14 information so that he could have some -- something to go to 15 Sask Health; he was predominantly talking about the 16 turbidities. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: Yes. And he wanted that information 19 Q: Okay. And did you provide him -- I'm 20 assuming this would be, of course, following the -- following 21 the contamination -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: -- identification -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- and it would be when the other parties


1 have -- become involved, i.e., Sask Health, SERM, personnel 2 and so forth. So would it be, what, around about the 24th or 3 the 25th of April? 4 A: I -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- couldn't say for sure what day that 7 was. 8 Q: Now, in interpreting these figures, did 9 you -- did anybody else assist in interpreting for you or for 10 Mr. Strelioff what the significance of these figures might 11 have been at that time? 12 A: Well, while Kevin and I were working on 13 it, Pete called me. 14 Q: Pete is -- 15 A: Peter Allen. 16 Q: Okay, Mr. -- Mr. Allen, yes. 17 A: Called and so I was explaining what I was 18 doing and I was saying that we were looking at the 19 turbidities and so he said don't look at the turbidities, 20 look at the settling so, it was his day off, so I said why 21 don't you come in. So he came in and, while we were talking, 22 Kevin, Peter and I were talking, Randy came to the back and 23 that's when Pete mentioned the -- the settling -- we should 24 be looking at the settling he said. 25 Q: And did he say that to you and Mr.


1 O'Neill? 2 A: And to Randy. 3 Q: He said that to Mr. Strelioff. What -- 4 what did he say to Mr. Strelioff? 5 A: Just the fact of -- that we had no 6 settling -- we had zero (0) settling at that time and that we 7 should be looking at that more than at the turbidities. 8 Q: Okay. I see you're having a problem with 9 bifocals. And did -- did Mr. Strelioff respond? 10 A: He just said you're not sure and Pete 11 said I'm 99 percent sure and, again, it went but you're not 12 sure and Pete said I'm 99 percent sure. So there was a 13 little -- yeah. 14 Q: Yes, okay. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And then after that, Mr. Strelioff left 17 for his meeting? 18 A: We had the -- the graphs ready for him 19 and, yes, Pete and I worked on them then and he took the 20 graphs up and -- yes. 21 Q: So -- so he would have taken this 22 compilation here, together with the graphs? 23 A: The graphs, yes. 24 Q: Okay. And -- and we'll come to those 25 with another witness. Okay. So, apart from that occasion at


1 your office sometime in April of 2000 when Peter Allen 2 attended and assisted with the identification of the settling 3 problem, have you had any other discussions with Mr. Allen 4 about the cryptosporidium contamination? 5 A: When? 6 Q: Well, in -- in the -- in the immediate 7 aftermath of the -- of the discovery; I'm sure that there's 8 been a lot of discussion since. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: But as -- as part of the -- of the sort 11 of remedial process, were -- were you and he involved in 12 anything after that? 13 A: Not that I can remember. 14 Q: Okay. Did Mr. Allen ever express an 15 interest in applying for the foreman's job in your presence 16 after Mr. Katzell left? 17 A: Yes. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Allen? 19 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Allen -- I'm sorry. 20 Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 24 Q: Can you give me the context in which that 25 occurred?


1 A: Oh, the exact -- it was discussed 2 probably a few times and he just showed an interest in it and 3 I said I thought that he was -- he would be good and he 4 should apply for it. 5 Q: Did you give him any other advice? 6 A: I said -- yes, I said tone down your shit 7 disturbing. 8 Q: I see. And when did that discussion take 9 place? 10 A: I'm not exactly sure, it's more on the 11 lines of, you know, he pushes for his OH&S -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- and -- 14 Q: But do you remember whether that was 15 discussed before the contamination arose or was that later? 16 A: That would have been later, I believe. 17 It would have been after March, yes, definitely after March. 18 Q: But sometime in March? 19 A: No, probably -- no, maybe it would have 20 been April, May? 21 Q: Okay. But you just remember some kind of 22 discussion along those lines? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. Prior to March of 2001, has 25 Mr. Strelioff or anyone else at city hall ever raised


1 concerns with you regarding the safety of the water at the 2 treatment plants? 3 A: Nobody's ever said anything. 4 Q: I wonder if you could give us a little 5 enlightenment on this document? If you'll turn to tab 7 in 6 your exhibit binder. 7 A: Is this the same binder I'm in right now? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: Tab 7? 10 Q: I believe it's your -- it'll be under 11 your C section. 12 A: Hm-hmm. 13 Q: Tab 7. There's a document here which has 14 handwritten on there a date of March 27th -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: It's signed by someone called Judy? 17 A: Hm-hmm. 18 Q: Do you recognize this document? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Is this -- is this a document that was 21 created by you? 22 A: Yes, it is. 23 Q: And the date of March 27th, is that March 24 27th of 2001? 25 A: Yes, it is.


1 Q: Okay. Now for what purpose did you 2 create this document? 3 A: There have been -- I wonder if it's 4 included in here, no -- in my in basket I found a letter that 5 had been wridd -- written to Ivan from Zenon, a membrane 6 filtration company. 7 Q: Yes? 8 A: And it -- something about, here is the 9 information that I was going to supply to you, or whatever -- 10 something along these lines, the letter said. And it was 11 just information on Zenon. 12 And at the top Randy had written, please 13 comment, or something these lines. 14 Q: Right? 15 A: So I started digging into information on 16 membrane filtration and then I just took it on to -- to go 17 further into EUV and -- and ozone. 18 Q: And then, is this your report back to Mr. 19 Strelioff - 20 A: Yes, it is. 21 Q: -- on those -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- filtration issues? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you say here:


1 "In my opinion, the filtration system may 2 become an necessity at Water Plant Number 1 3 due to the fact that the river recharges 4 it. Because of the solids contact unit at 5 Water Plant Number 2, a filtration system 6 may not be as pressing but would probably 7 mean less use of chemicals and better 8 control against giardia and 9 cryptosporidium." 10 So, this letter -- this memo, I understand, 11 was created in March of -- March 27th of 2001? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Is this prior to the identification -- 14 A: Oh, yes. 15 Q: -- of the contamination? 16 A: Hm-hmm. 17 Q: So that's why I'm wondering if you can 18 put in -- place it in context for us because it mentions 19 concerns about giardia and cryptosporidium. When you were 20 reporting back on those issues, why -- why are they a concern 21 to you, that you feel the necessity to report to Mr. 22 Strelioff on them? 23 A: Well as I was checking -- March 20th, I 24 had a visit from friends from Revelstoke and because 25 Revelstoke had just had a problem, and we were talking about


1 it. And so then when I started reading about Zenon and -- 2 and membrane filtration and what it does and it filters, I 3 also went to the Revelstoke -- this is what made me look more 4 into it was the fact that Revelstoke had had this problem. 5 My friends had just been here. 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: And so then I went and e-mailed City of 8 Revelstoke and got information on what they had done after 9 they'd had their outbreak. And so this is all that it came 10 about, it was -- I just took the -- looking at Zenon one (1) 11 step further. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: So, I guess what I'm trying to clarify 15 here is that you were reporting back on giardia and 16 cryptosporidium -- 17 A: Hm-hmm. 18 Q: -- was not something that Mr. Strelioff 19 had asked you to do? This was something that you had -- 20 A: Yes, he asked me to look into the Zenon 21 or comment on it. 22 Q: Hm-hmm? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: So, his concerns seemed to be about 25 filtration generally. He didn't -- he didn't specifically


1 mention giardia or cryptosporidium? 2 A: He didn't say anything, no. It was just 3 a little note on the top, J. comment please. 4 Q: Right. And following this -- this memo, 5 has he -- has he ever reported back to you on your memo? 6 A: No, I actually -- I gave it to him and it 7 could have been a month later or even longer, I received it 8 back on my desk. 9 Q: Okay, so he -- he hasn't discussed it any 10 further with you? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Okay. It's -- it's been my understand 13 that -- and you may or may not know this, that Mr. Katzell, 14 since his retirement, has also been doing some work for the 15 city has he not? 16 A: I believe they brought him in to check on 17 some -- I'm not exactly sure what. 18 Q: Okay. So do you know what period of time 19 that would cover, since his retirement of course. I mean 20 after his retirement? 21 A: At what time they called him back in? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: I'm -- no, I shouldn't say. I just 24 remember him being there -- 25 Q: Okay. Do you know what he was working


1 on? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. In the -- in the final quest -- 4 the final area, in relation to your chlorine testing 5 procedure, could you once again describe in some detail how 6 you go about that. I think when you first initially 7 discussed it you were -- you kind of ran all of the tests 8 together for turbidity, the chlorine and the bacteriological 9 testing. 10 You say -- how long do you run the water for? 11 A: I run it probably -- it can be anywhere 12 two (2) to five (5) minutes probably in that -- 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: -- range. 15 Q: What's the reason for running the water? 16 A: My reason? Because I've never seen any 17 written protocol on run the water for ten (10) minutes, run 18 the water for twenty (20) minutes or whatever. 19 I feel that -- and this is my opinion again, 20 is that we're looking at people drinking water, when you go 21 to get a glass of water out of your tap, do you run it for 22 ten (10) minutes before you get a drink. 23 Q: Right. 24 A: Or do you run it until it's cold. So 25 this is where I base this on.


1 Q: Right. 2 A: Is that I run it until it's cold. 3 Q: So there's no specific protocol of which 4 you're aware for how long -- 5 A: I have never seen any. 6 Q: -- okay. 7 A: And I have talked to other people and 8 they have not seen any either. 9 Q: Is there -- is there no -- is there no 10 practice established by the city for the length of time one 11 (1) runs the water? 12 A: I believe I've heard -- and -- and I 13 think it -- for the city, no, maybe Ivan maybe told me three 14 (3) to five (5) minutes -- 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: -- yeah, something like that. He'd go in 17 and flush the toilet, turn on the tap, you know, get the 18 water running to get the water from the distribution system 19 up into the -- to the building. 20 Q: Right. Did you ever accompany Mr. 21 Katzell when he was doing any of his chlorine tests? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you observed him doing those tests? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Did he teach you how to do them?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: In the manner in which he conducted those 3 tests did he -- did he always do it the same way in the way 4 you've described? 5 A: For the most part. 6 Q: Were there any occasions when he deviated 7 from that practice, to your knowledge? 8 A: I was with him at Grondins R.V. up in the 9 north end when the sample -- we couldn't get any chlorine 10 residual, so we ran the water for probably three quarters of 11 an hour, came back and we still had no chlorine residual, so 12 we left it running over lunch, came back after lunch and 13 tried again. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: So that was probably two (2) hours or 16 longer. 17 Q: Did you have any reservations about 18 approaching the matter in that way? 19 A: Running the -- 20 Q: Running the water -- 21 A: -- water for two (2) hours to see -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- if we can get chlorine? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Did you express those concerns to Mr. -- 2 A: Not at that time, no. 3 Q: -- but did you on another occasion? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Did you mention it to anyone else? 6 A: We were standing at the desk at city hall 7 and I don't remember, it was Ivan, Randy and I, and there 8 was -- and I don't remember if we were talking about anything 9 specific, if it was Grondins or some place specific, but it 10 was under the -- they have no qualms about not sending in a 11 sample with -- with no chlorine. 12 And one (1) of them, I'm just not going to say 13 which one (1), because I can't remember which one (1) said, I 14 know -- or do you disagree with this? Or on the lines of, 15 and I said, yes, I do disagree with this, I would send it in. 16 Q: Okay, and when you say which one (1), you 17 mean between Mr. -- 18 A: Yes, between the two (2) -- 19 Q: -- Mr. Strelioff -- 20 A: -- of them, I don't remember which one 21 (1) exactly said something about not sending them -- sending 22 the sample in. 23 Q: But they were both -- but they were both 24 present -- 25 A: They were both present --


1 Q: -- when it was said. Mr. Commissioner, I 2 have no further questions of this witness, thank you very 3 much, Ms. Szuch. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Counsel, have 5 you decided on an order, are you going second-to-last, Mr. 6 Priel or Stevenson? 7 MR. TED PRIEL: I'd like to, sir. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. So I 9 suppose -- Mr. Vanstone, do you have any questions? 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK VANSTONE: 12 Q: Ms. Szuch, just to clarify. You 13 described the sampling procedure involving turbidity and 14 bacteriological testing. I'm just curious, would -- would a 15 single individual sample support both aspects of analysis, 16 are we -- are we talking about two (2) different samples 17 taken at the same time? 18 A: For turbidity and for bacti, are you 19 talking? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: Yes, I take -- I just have a little 22 bottle that I put a sample in for turbidity and -- and take 23 that down to Number 2. And, once I open the bottle for -- 24 because the bottle is sealed and the bottle it gets sent to 25 the government -- the provincial lab, is sealed. Once I open


1 that seal, pour the water in, tighten it up and it's never 2 opened again, that bottle does not get opened -- 3 Q: So then the sample that's sent down to 4 the provincial lab would -- would not have itself had a 5 turbidity test performed on it? 6 A: No, no, that's -- once it's sealed, you 7 don't want anything in there so you put the water in, close 8 it up as quick as you can because touching it can give you an 9 off sample, yes. 10 MR. MARK VANSTONE: Well, thank you very 11 much. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 13 MS. ROCHELLE MASLIN: No questions, sir. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: No questions. Mr. 15 Hopley...? 16 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: I have no questions. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr. Tochor...? 18 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Mr. Commissioner, I 19 propose to put some exhibits to this witness. I was going to 20 speak to Mr. Bleakney about getting the exhibits up in quick 21 order so I wonder if we could take our break now and then I 22 should be able to proceed a lot more quickly than trying to 23 do it by getting the exhibits up while I'm en route to cross- 24 examination? 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, I guess we'll


1 take a fifteen (15) minute break at this point. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 3:00 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 3:13 p.m. 5 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, perhaps we'll 7 get underway if we could. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Just waiting for this conversation to be over 12 with here. 13 All right, Mr. Tochor. 14 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Mr. Commissioner, I'm 15 having distributed a summary that we have prepared. I 16 propose to show Ms. Szuch a number of reports that she had 17 prepared, just to get one (1) item out. 18 For the convenience of counsel and -- and the 19 Commissioner, I've got a summary prepared, I'd let the 20 witness follow this, I'll provide a copy to you as well, just 21 for ease of reference when we're taking them through these 22 documents because I have a number I want to take the witness 23 through, but I want to do it fairly quickly. 24 At the end, I'm going to ask that this either 25 be entered as an exhibit or used by the Commission as -- as


1 it chooses as simply an aid or -- or however, but I will be 2 making that request at the conclusion. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, proceed. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 6 Q: Ms. Szuch, I'll just get you to turn to 7 tab 6 of your binder please. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Which is C-13. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHER: 11 Q: C-13, sub-tab 'C'. 12 A: Is this C-13? 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, that's -- you've got 14 the right one (1). 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. And it's -- which is it? 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 18 Q: Sub 'C' -- 19 A: hm. 20 Q: -- tab 6. 21 A: Tab 6, okay. hmm. 22 Q: I believe, when Mr. Russell took you 23 through that, you identified that as a -- as an example of 24 the spreadsheet you prepare; is that right? 25 A: Right, hmm.


1 Q: And you've indicated part of your job is 2 to take turbidity samples from without -- or from within the 3 distribution system in North Battleford? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And that sheet that you have before you 6 is an example of a spread sheet that would record the results 7 of such a test, is that right? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: I just have up on the screen, I believe 10 it's document 103929. And you can see, that again would be 11 an example of a spread sheet you would prepare? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And the turbidity on March 19th, 2001, 14 over on the far right hand column is point six (.6), is that 15 right? 16 A: Where are you looking? March -- 17 Q: March 19th? 18 A: Hm-hmm. 19 Q: And over to the far right hand column? 20 A: The turbidity is point six (.6). 21 Q: Point six (.6), and that's March 19th, 22 2001? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: And That'd be an example of a sample you 25 took on March 19th?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: From the location that's listed on the 3 top of the form, looks like 10001 D Thatcher Avenue? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: I also put in front of you a summary, if 6 you have that typed sheet? 7 A: Hm-hmm. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Is that Thatcher Avenue 9 example that you have on the screen right now, in the 10 tabbed -- 11 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: It is not in the tabs it 12 is only in the Commission documents. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. Thank 14 you. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 17 Q: If I could now ask number 227 to be 18 brought up? There, March 20th, 2001, over in the far right 19 hand side, turbidity is listed as one point one eight (1.18). 20 Is that correct? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Okay. I'm not sure if you need to do 23 this but you can make reference to that as well in the 24 summary of the second item on the summary that you've seen, 25 you see that noted there?


1 A: Hm-hmm. Yes. 2 Q: Okay. I notice that when you have 3 turbidity's there of, and just looking at that particular 4 sheet, one point one eight (1.18), on April 17th, it's one 5 point zero one (1.01) and on May 1st it's one point one two 6 (1.12). 7 You note the turbidity's there? 8 A: On this sheet? 9 Q: No, I'm sorry, on the screen in front of 10 you? 11 A: On the screen? Okay. 12 Q: I just notice that any turbidity over one 13 point zero (1.0) looks like it's in bolder print? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: That's something you deliberately did? 16 A: I do that myself. 17 Q: If I could get you -- if I could ask for 18 3 7 to be brought up, please? And 3 7 is also an indication 19 from March 20th, and the turbidity there listed as one point 20 one six (1.16), is that correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And that's from a different 23 location than the previous screen, you -- you realize that? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: If I could have number 3 5 brought up,


1 please? March 21st, 2001 has a turbidity listed of one point 2 (1) -- 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I think for the 4 record it would be helpful to identify what this site is, 5 apart from the document number, would it not? 6 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I can if you wish, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yeah, I think -- I 9 appreciate you're trying to go quickly but in order to make 10 some sense out of it if you're reading it, just knowing the 11 number won't make a lot of -- 12 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: That's right. I'm also 13 identifying it by document but only giving the last two (2) 14 digits so perhaps I will -- 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's right. 16 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: -- I will do that. For 17 the record would you prefer ir I went through and listed the 18 specific document into the record? 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well what I think what 20 would be helpful is if your putting up a document, you say, 21 all right, this is document number whatever it is, 1299, 1291 22 101st Street, City Hall location, from January 10th, '01 to 23 June 27th, '01. Something like that. 24 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: All right, I'll try 25 that.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sure. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 4 Q: Okay, for the record, Ms. Szuch, this is 5 document 103935. It's from 1291 - 101st Street, indicating 6 City Hall, listing dates from January 10th to June 27th, 7 2001? You see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: You see the turbidity for March 21st, 10 2001 as one point five nine (1.59)? Is that correct? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: If I could ask for document 103931. This 13 is a similar form for 1711 - 91st Street? Is that correct? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: For the time period, January 15, 2001 to 16 June 18th, 2001? 17 A: Hm-hmm. 18 Q: And there's an entry there for March 19 26th, 2001 and a turbidity of one point four six (1.46), is 20 that correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. It looks like all of the 23 turbidity's measured on that particular document exceed one 24 (1) NTU, is that right? 25 A: That's right.


1 Q: If I could have referred to 103938, 2 please? And that's document relating to 1602 - 96th Street. 3 Is that right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: From the date, January 2nd to June 19th, 6 2001? 7 A: Hm-hmm. 8 Q: And the turbidity on March 27th, 2001 is 9 one point one nine (1.19), is that correct? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: If I could then make reference to 103930. 12 And that's in relation to -- looks like 11102 - 6th Avenue? 13 Is that correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: January 2nd to June 19th, 2001? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And there's an entry for March 27th, 2001 18 and a turbidity of one point zero six (1.06)? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Next document, Mr. Commissioner, is 21 103921. That's 10503 South Railway Avenue; is that right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: For the period January 3rd, 2001 to June 24 20th, 2001; is that right? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: For March 28th the turbidity is one point 2 one two (1.12); is that right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: The next document is 103933, that's 5 relating to 2502-99th Street; is that right? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Dealing with the time period January 3rd 8 to June 20th, 2001; is that correct? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And March 28th, 2001 turbidity is one 11 point zero four (1.04)? 12 A: Yes. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Do you want to educate me, 14 there's obviously other torpidities that are equal or greater 15 to the one o four (1.04) on that sheet, and is there some 16 rhyme or reason so that I can understand why you're asking 17 for this specific date in each case? 18 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Yes. I have listed in 19 the summary sheet that I hope you have before you, these are 20 chronological dates. 21 And so what I have attempted to do is have 22 them listed -- 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: I see -- 24 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: -- in a chronological -- 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- all right.


1 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: -- listing there. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, so I understand 3 what you're trying to do now, thank you. 4 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I -- I have no other 5 way, Mr. Commissioner, to try and -- 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: No -- 7 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: -- prove our summary, so 8 I have to take her through each and every one (1), and I'll 9 try and do that as quickly as I can. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: So what you're -- the 11 point of the exercise is that on -- in each chronological 12 date in the summary, somewhere in the system there was an 13 over one (1) point -- over a one (1) reading on turbidity -- 14 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Correct. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- somewhere? 16 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Yes. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Or water in the 19 distribution system? 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right, go ahead 21 please. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 24 Q: Can I next have reference to 103939 25 please.


1 That's 9801 Territorial Drive, dealing with 2 January 8th to May 14th, 2001? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And turbidity on April 3rd, 2001 at that 5 particular distribution point was one point zero nine (1.09)? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: The next document is 103935, that's 1291- 8 101st Street, dealing with time period January 20th to June 9 27th, 2001? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And turbidity measured on April 4th from 12 that particular point is one point one six (1.16)? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Next is 103922, that's 1951 St. Laurent 15 Drive, dealing with January 15th to June 18th, 2001; is that 16 correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And turbidity measured on April 9th is 19 one point three six (1.36)? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: The next is document 103931, I'm sorry, 22 1711-91st Street, dealing with the time period January 15th 23 to June 18th, 2001? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: That's also a sample from April 9th, 2001


1 and turbidity is one point five one (1.51)? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Next is document 103921, this is dealing 4 with 10503 South Railway Avenue for the period January 3rd to 5 June 20th, 2001; is that correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And the turbidity for April 11th is one 8 point zero five (1.05)-- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- is that correct? Next is document 11 103933, dealing with 2502-99th Street for January 3rd to June 12 20th, 2001; is that correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Turbidity is measured at that particular 15 point on April 11th is one point zero six (1.06)? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Next is document 103937, dealing with 18 2622 Clements, and for the time period January 9th to June 19 26th, 2001; is that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Turbidity on April 7th, 2001 from that 22 point is one point four nine (1.49); is that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Next document is 103927, and that is 1702 25 Thompson Crescent for January 9th to June 26th, 2001; is that


1 correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Turbidity measured on April 17th from 4 that point is one point zero one (1.01)? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Next is 103935 and that's dealing with 7 the City Hall location, 1291-101st Street for January 10th to 8 June 27th, 2001; is that correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And the turbidity measured on April 18th 11 is two point one six (2.16); is that correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Next is 103923 dealing with the time 14 period January 10th to June 27th of 2001, that looks like 15 Grodins (sic) is indicated on the document; is that correct? 16 A: Grondins. 17 Q: Oh, I take it that's a typo then, it 18 should be Grondins? 19 A: That's my typing, yes. 20 Q: No problem, April 19th turbidity is one 21 point two one (1.21); is that correct? 22 A: Which day? 23 Q: I'm sorry, April 19. 24 A: Yes, one point two one (1.21). 25 Q: Back to document 103925, dealing with


1 3022 - 99th Street from January 11th to June 14th, 2001; is 2 that correct? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: Turbidity measured at that location on 5 April 19th, 2001 was one point one two (1.12); is that right? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: Next is document 103931, dealing with 8 1711 - 91st Street for the time period January 15th to June 9 18th, 2001; is that correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And the turbidity measured on April 23rd 12 is one point seven four (1.74)? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Next is document 103938, dealing with 15 1602 - 96th Street for January 2nd to June 19th, 2001; do you 16 see that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And the turbidity measured for April 19 24th, 2001 is two point one (2.11)? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: There's only a few more. 103921, please, 22 that's 10503 South Railway Avenue for January 3rd to June 23 20th, 2001; do you see that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: April 25th, 2001, turbidity measured at


1 that point is one point four (1.4)? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Next is the document 103933, 2502 - 99th 4 Street from January 3rd to June 20th, 2001? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And the turbidity measured from that 7 point on April 25th of 2001 is one point zero two (1.02)? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Document 103926, that's 10022 Thatcher 10 Avenue for January 4th to June 21st, 2001; that's correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And the turbidity measured on April 26th 13 is one point three one (1.31)? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Next document 103934, that's for 2501 - 16 99th Street for January 4th, 2001 to June 21st, 2001; is that 17 correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: The turbidity measured at that point on 20 April 26th is two point three (2.3)? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: This is the last one (1), 103929 for 23 10001B Thatcher Avenue for the period January 8th to June 24 25th, 2001; that's correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And on April 30th, the turbidity measured 2 from that point is one point zero seven (1.07)? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And these are all of the records that you 5 would have prepared? 6 A: Yes. 7 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: Those are the questions 8 I had, Mr. Commissioner. On that basis, I would like to ask 9 that this -- whether it's a summary or not, it needn't be a 10 particular piece of evidence, but I thought it's certainly 11 going to be an aid for the Commission, something we'd want to 12 make reference to subsequently as well. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Right, I imagine we can 14 give it a number. I don't imagine there are any objections 15 to that? All right, then it will be C-15. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-15: Turbidity measurements for 18 various dates 19 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: I take it all other 21 counsel have a copy as well? 22 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: They've been provided a 23 copy. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 25 MR. MICHAEL TOCHER: Thank you, Ms. Szuch.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. McDonald, do you have 2 any questions? 3 MR. ROBERT McDonald: No questions. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: No questions. 5 Mr. Scharfstein...? 6 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Just briefly. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 9 Q: Maybe just for the record and to ease the 10 mind of Messrs. Priel and Stevenson, you and I have never met 11 before, have we? 12 A: No. 13 Q: I think there was a guilt by association 14 inferred there so I wanted to make sure that was clear. 15 You got sick from this cryptosporidium 16 outbreak, didn't you? 17 A: Well, I got sick. 18 Q: Yeah, you had the symptoms? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: How long did they last? 21 A: I couldn't take time, I took one (1) day 22 off work -- 23 Q: Is that right? 24 A: -- out of necessity. 25 Q: Do you know about the time that you got


1 sick approximately? 2 A: Sometime when I was too busy to be sick. 3 Q: Yeah, that's when it always happens. 4 A: I couldn't tell you. 5 Q: Okay, that's fine. I want to turn to the 6 Exhibit 3 in your binder, that's Exhibit C-13, tab 3 under 7 Section 'C'. 8 A: Section 'C'; what was it again? 9 Q: Tab 3, that's the water analysis 10 waterworks licence by SERM form. 11 A: hmm. 12 Q: Now, you indicated that at some point in 13 time you started taking water samples. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Approximately -- was that when Mr. 16 Katzell left? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So that was around December of -- 19 A: Right. 20 Q: -- 2000? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Prior to that, Mr. Katzell had been doing 23 this testing; correct? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. Just so I know how to read this,


1 if we look at the first one (1), it indicates that you took a 2 sample on June 29th, 2001; correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And that was at 1711 - 91st Street? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And you're requesting a coliform bacteria 7 test, correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Now you would have recorded at that time 10 the turbidity and free chlorine and total chlorine and 11 recorded them so that when that was sent it, SERM would see 12 that -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- correct? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: Okay. And the result was to be mailed 17 back to Mr. Strelioff, correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: On this other side of that page, it 20 indicates a stamped date received, July 3rd, 2001. So that's 21 when you expect the provincial would have received it? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And it says, date reported, July 4th 24 which is when they reported back, I assume. Is that correct? 25 A: I would presume that's what they mean.


1 Q: Okay. Now what it says about this sample 2 is, there's a stamp and it reads: 3 "Sample too old when received. Bacteria 4 may have died in the long interval between 5 collection and examination of the sample." 6 That's what it says, correct? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: In your experience, would many of them 9 come back with this stamp? 10 A: No, very few. Most times what you'll 11 find, if you would go through all my samples is that we mail 12 it one (1) day, they have it the following day. 13 Q: Okay. So if it's -- 14 A: It's a one (1) day. 15 Q: Okay. This one (1) happened to stretch 16 from June 29th to July 3rd and -- and the indication there is 17 that was too long a time period? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: And that would be the long weekend, is my 21 guess on why this is too old -- 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: -- by the time they finally did it. 24 Q: And that's not a common experience? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: No. 3 Q: Just a couple of quick questions. You 4 had indicated in your statement of anticipated evidence, at 5 one (1) point -- do you have that with you? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Just to refresh your memory? Now if you 8 look at paragraph 37 and onto about 41, it talks about 9 certain testing that was to be done under the SERM licence, 10 correct? 11 A: Hm-hmm. 12 Q: And is that the licence under which the 13 waterworks plant was allowed to operate? 14 A: Water and sewage -- 15 Q: I refer -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Yeah, and I refer to that as a Minister's 18 Order. Would that -- that's what -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- you know it to be? 21 A: A permit to operate, yes. 22 Q: And it requires certain testing to done? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: To be done? And you indicate in 25 paragraph 41 that since Mr. Katzell left, the testing hasn't


1 been done. Is that correct? 2 A: Hm-hmm. Well, I have to clarify that. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: It has since been done but for -- he 5 retired in December and I believe the first tests I did, then 6 were in June, if I'm not mistaken. So I have done them since 7 but for that -- 8 Q: For that period between -- 9 A: -- period -- 10 Q: -- December of 2000 and perhaps June 11 of -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- 2001 when you started, to your 14 knowledge, those tests weren't being done -- 15 A: No. 16 Q: -- and weren't being sent into SERM, is 17 that correct? 18 A: Those are the tests that are done every 19 three (3) months so there would have been probably one (1) 20 sample in there that wasn't sent in. 21 Q: Okay. Were some of those tests three (3) 22 months, some had to be more regular? 23 A: Genchem is every three (3) months. There 24 are toxicity -- health and toxicity that are once a year, 25 there's pesticides that's once every two (2) years. But in


1 that respect, the genchem and there's a couple of others that 2 are done every three (3) months, samples from the river. 3 Q: And -- and those hadn't been sent in, to 4 your knowledge. Did you or anyone, to your knowledge, hear 5 from SERM about that, inquiring as to why they hadn't been 6 sent in? 7 A: I believe there was a letter from -- no, 8 I shouldn't say SERM, it could be SERM or Sask Health, I'm 9 not sure, in the middle of June, it was sometime after I had 10 completed the tests and sent them in. 11 But I -- they maybe didn't have the results 12 yet. Or hadn't seen the results yet. But, yes, they did get 13 in touch with us sometime after I had done them. 14 Q: Okay, but not immediately after they were 15 due and not sent in? It was -- 16 A: No, no. 17 Q: Okay. Now if you turn to paragraph 53 of 18 your statement of anticipated evidence, dealing with the 19 heading, Interaction with SERM. It indicates you phoned the 20 provincial lab in -- in paragraph 52. 21 And 53 says, you spoke to a person you know as 22 Sean and you mention to him that the tests required by the 23 permits were not being done and asked why someone from SERM 24 hadn't raised it. And you said his response was, we are not 25 here to police you.


1 Is that -- is that correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: So you initiated a call to this 4 individual from SERM? 5 A: Hm-hmm. 6 Q: And -- 7 A: I call -- yes, I talked to him quite a 8 bit. It's not just like I just called him for this reason 9 though -- 10 Q: And then -- 11 A: -- and just in conversation I didn't 12 mention this. 13 Q: And so in the course of that conversation 14 you were inquiring as to, gee, why hasn't SERM said anything 15 about these test results being -- not being sent in; correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And his response -- and -- and that's 18 accurate, you -- it's in quotation marks here: 19 "We are not here to police you." 20 Is that what -- 21 A: Yes, I believe that's just about a direct 22 quote. 23 Q: Okay, did you comment on that or it was 24 just left there? 25 A: I don't remember if I said anything after


1 that. 2 Q: Now finally I think you indicated in 3 your -- your statement here that from time to time the 4 chlorine readings that were sent in were below what you 5 thought was the acceptable standard? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And I think you had raised a question 8 about why SERM had never contacted the city to your knowledge 9 about that. Was that what happened, that results would get 10 sent into SERM showing a low chlorine value, but you had 11 never heard from SERM about any concerns in that regard; is 12 that correct? 13 A: No, I've never heard -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- from anybody. 16 Q: I have no further questions, Mr. 17 Commissioner. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: I guess Mr. Priel or Mr. 22 Stevenson...? 23 MR. TED PRIEL: Yes, sir. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TED PRIEL: 2 Q: Judy, Mr. Tochor spent a good deal of 3 time speaking with you about turbidity levels from various 4 locations about the city, and, Judy, my understanding is that 5 the -- the city's water supply comes not only from the 6 surface water treatment plant but from the groundwater plant? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And that the -- the -- the water that one 9 (1) -- when one turns on the tap here in the hotel, what you 10 get is a combination of water from the surface water 11 treatment plant and the groundwater plant. Is that a fair 12 assessment? 13 A: Yes, I suppose. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: We're not exactly sure -- I -- well we're 16 not -- I'm not exactly sure -- 17 Q: We're not sure exactly -- 18 A: -- of the -- of where everything goes in 19 the distribution system. 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: But in any event, in the distribution 23 system we have a combined water from the surface water plant 24 and the groundwater plant? 25 A: Right.


1 Q: And, Judy, my understanding again is that 2 the -- the -- the policy that has been followed by the city, 3 that as I understand it is approved by SERM, is that they 4 must produce water at the surface water plant that has a 5 turbidity level as it enters the clear well of one (1) -- of 6 point -- or one point o (1.0) or less -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- that's your understanding? 9 A: That's my understanding. 10 Q: And is it your understanding also that 11 when combined with water from the groundwater plant, there 12 may on occasion be turbidity levels that may exceed one point 13 zero (1.0)? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. And that of course is because from 16 the groundwater plant we have such things as iron in the 17 water? 18 A: Iron and manganese, yes. 19 Q: Right. And that will serve to increase 20 the turbidity in the water? 21 A: I would think so, yes. 22 Q: That's your understanding of it anyway -- 23 A: Yes -- 24 Q: -- isn't it? 25 A: -- yes, yes.


1 Q: Okay. And, Judy, I'm -- when I -- when I 2 look at -- 3 MR. TED PRIEL: And, Mr. Commissioner, I'm 4 not sure whether as yet -- 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 6 MR. TED PRIEL: I'm not sure, sir, whether as 7 yet the summary of guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water 8 Quality, the March 2001 edition is -- is before you. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Priel, I believe it is 10 an exhibit, at least one (1) was put in this morning at P-14 11 or C-14. Municipal Drinking Water Quality Monitoring 12 Guidelines; is that the one (1)? 13 MR. TED PRIEL: No, sir, these -- these -- 14 it's a Summary of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water 15 Quality, March 2001. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: I didn't keep a list, I 17 guess Mr. Priel, do we -- it would be one (1) of the earlier 18 exhibits if we have it. 19 MR. TED PRIEL: I believe that's -- that was 20 disclosed in one (1) of the city's binders that were sent to 21 the -- to the Commission. 22 MR. COMMISSIONER: Now, not all of which have 23 been -- well, Mr. Russell, can you help us out here. 24 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: We're trying -- we're 25 trying to locate the document, Mr. Commissioner, so we can


1 bring it up. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: And the current exhibit 3 list doesn't reflect it, I gather, so. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 In any event, Mr. Priel, it seems that we do 8 not have it. 9 MR. TED PRIEL: Well, Mr. Commissioner, at 10 the -- at the close of -- of my questions to the witness, 11 I'll make a copy of this and leave it with Commission Counsel 12 with the request that it be filed perhaps on -- on Monday and 13 I'm sure it can go in by consent. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sure. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 17 Q: Judy, the -- the reason I want to raise 18 this with you is I -- when I look at this, I -- I read that 19 the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines show a turbidity 20 maximum acceptable concentration for turbidity is less than 21 five (5) NTUs at the point of consumption; is that your 22 understanding of what the -- the guidelines show? 23 A: I can't say that without reading that, 24 but I was under the impression it's one (1) NTU, 25 aesthetically it's five (5) NTUs.


1 Q: Okay. Well, what we'll do is -- I'll 2 bring both of these documents to you, Judy, in a moment, 3 okay? 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: I was reading to you from the Canadian 6 one (1) -- 7 A: hmm. 8 Q: -- now I'm going to read to you the -- 9 the Municipal Drinking Water Quality Objectives of 10 Saskatchewan. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And in relation to turbidity, what I read 13 is: 14 "The maximum acceptable concentration of 15 one (1) NTU applies to water in the 16 distribution system. A maximum of five (5) 17 NTUs may be permitted if it can be 18 demonstrated that disinfection is not 19 compromised by the less stringent value." 20 Is that your understanding of the Saskatchewan 21 situation, Judy? 22 A: Well, I have to believe you because you 23 just read it to me. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well certainly those 25 documents will speak for themselves, Mr. Priel.


1 MR. TED PRIEL: Well, I -- the reason I 2 raised them, sir, is that -- that counsel for the government, 3 who produced at least the -- the Saskatchewan Drinking Water 4 Objectives, seems to be saying that my clients are off-side 5 when their water in the distribution system exceeds one (1) 6 NTU and I just -- I'm curious about why that's being done, 7 but, in any event, I'll move on. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. You've asked the 9 witness if that was her understanding and she said, well, if 10 you read it to me, I'll accept it and that's basically where 11 we're at. 12 MR. TED PRIEL: And that's good enough for 13 me. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 16 Q: Now, Judy, could I get you to -- to turn 17 to tab 2 in the -- the binder, Exhibit C-13, 'C' tab 2, 18 that's your evidence in tab 2. 19 A: Is this the map of the city? 20 Q: In my -- in my binder, Judy, it is the -- 21 A: Oh, SERM? 22 Q: -- the water analysis document. Does 23 that appear under tab 3 in your document? 24 A: Tab 3. 25 Q: Okay. We'll make it tab 3. Is this --


1 is this a document, Judy, that you got back from SERM? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. And the document, at the top, 4 do you know what -- what location that would have been from? 5 A: 1711 - 91st Street. 6 Q: Okay. And the date? 7 A: June 29th, 2001. 8 Q: And what was the turbidity level? 9 A: Two point one zero (2.10). 10 Q: And, when you look at that, it's -- it's 11 clear that -- that SERM isn't saying to the city you're off- 12 side with a two point one (2.1) turbidity level; right? 13 A: Because there's no note there or what? 14 Q: Right. 15 A: What -- okay. 16 Q: They haven't said anything. 17 A: They haven't said anything. 18 Q: Did you -- have you ever had SERM suggest 19 to -- to you, to your knowledge -- or to the city, to your 20 knowledge, that a turbidity level greater than one point zero 21 (1.0) in the distribution system puts the city off-side? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Judy, you -- you spoke of some chlorine 24 tests that were done in the -- in -- in the months following 25 the September Boil Water Order?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And is it your understanding that what 3 the city tries to do is to send to SERM and to do -- to do 4 turbidity and chlorine tests on a representative sample of 5 water? A sample that represents what's in the distribution 6 system? 7 A: Right, yes. 8 Q: And are you aware of any discussions that 9 Ivan Katzell may have had with Scott Meekma with respect to 10 how best to obtain a representative sample? 11 A: No. Ivan never told me. 12 Q: Judy, could I get you to turn to tab 6 in 13 the -- in the binder? Section C, tab 6. That's the -- the 14 memo that you -- you sent to -- 15 A: Oh, okay. Tab 7. 16 Q: Tab 7? 17 A: Hm-hmm. 18 Q: This was put togs -- mine was put 19 together by Mr. Stevenson and he's always a step behind, you 20 see. That was after the shot that he gave Ms. Mitchell, I 21 had to -- 22 Now, Judy, I -- I notice on -- on that 23 document, at the top is written the word, date. 24 A: Hm-hmm. 25 Q: Did you right that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. Why did you write that? 3 A: Because David Kerr (phonetic ) -- 4 Q: I beg your pardon? 5 A: Dave Kerr -- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: -- who was here -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- for the city. 10 Q: Yes? 11 A: He had seen this and he said, so what 12 date is it, can you find out? 13 Q: All right. 14 A: Now, I've to two (2). Okay. But -- and 15 he said, what date was it written? And I said, I'd have to 16 go back into my computer -- 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: -- and find out so that's why it's 19 handwritten and that's why March 27th is handwritten. 20 Q: Okay. And I -- I notice that above the 21 date of March 27th is written the date April 26th? 22 A: Hm-hmm. 23 Q: Did you write that, also? 24 A: Yes, I did. 25 Q: So there was a point in time, I gather,


1 where you were of the view that the correct date might have 2 been April 26th? 3 A: When I was scrolling through, I saw a 4 title for something I'd written for Randy and it said April 5 26th was the day it was written. And then when I opened up I 6 realized that's the wrong document. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: So that's why it was. 9 Q: All right. That's fair enough. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 Judy, could I get you to turn to, I believe 13 it's tab 14, it -- it might be -- 14 A: Fifteen (15)? 15 Q: -- 15. And that is your -- the -- the 16 summary of the raw turbidity, final turbidity, free chlorine 17 settling notes? 18 A: For which plant, 1 of 2? 19 Q: Plant Number 2. 15? And could you turn 20 to -- well, first of all we'll go to the -- to the bottom of 21 page 1. The -- the note that appears, SCU out of service. 22 Did that -- was that something that you entered into the -- 23 this -- 24 A: Yes, I entered it on here off of the 25 daily sheets.


1 Q: Okay. So that on the daily sheet, that 2 note appeared? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. And the -- at the top of page 5 2, opposite the date, March 29th, 1999, appear the words, SCU 6 out of service. Can we conclude, Judy, that the SCU went 7 back into service on March 29th, '99? 8 A: Why do you conclude when it says SCU is 9 out of service? 10 Q: That's why I was asking you. Whether -- 11 whether your -- whether you have any knowledge about that? 12 A: No, I -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- to me it says SCU is out of service, 15 that means it's out of service. 16 Q: Okay, that's fine, we can get someone 17 else who perhaps has -- 18 A: Wrote it -- 19 Q: -- more first hand knowledge. 20 A: -- yes. 21 Q: Judy, could I take you back to early 22 March of 2000. 23 A: Of, pardon me? 24 Q: Early March of 2001 -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- pardon me. I gather, Judy, that 2 beginning sometime in March of -- of 2000, you and Mr. Allen 3 began seeing one (1) another socially? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And -- 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Are we talking 2000 or 7 2001? 8 MR. TED PRIEL: 2001 -- 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sounds like both. 10 MR. TED PRIEL: 2001. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 13 Q: Now, Judy, I gather that it would be 14 correct to say that at no time during the period March 2001 15 to the end of April 2001, did Mr. Allen say anything to you 16 expressing a concern about contamination in the water system? 17 A: Not that I recall. 18 Q: And I -- you -- you'd probably also agree 19 with me, Judy, that if I were to suggest to you that Mr. 20 Allen, when he believes -- when he believes strongly in 21 something, isn't afraid to voice his opinion? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Thank you, Judy. 24 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, Mr. Mitchell. 4 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 8 Q: Judy, I want to just talk about the 9 sample that you take to test for the turbidity and you told 10 us that you take it down to Water Treatment Plant Number 2 -- 11 A: Right. 12 Q: -- in order to conduct the test. That 13 test is done on a -- a -- a small testing unit isn't it? 14 A: Yes, a portable turbidimeter. 15 Q: Yes, a portable turbidimeter. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: And it's intended for field use? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And I just want to make it clear that 20 that is not the -- that's not the technology that's used for 21 measuring turbidity either in the pie chart or on the meter 22 that -- that is used in order to measure turbidity at -- 23 at -- at the water treatment level? 24 A: Right, yes. 25 Q: Okay, is it -- is it fair to say that --


1 that the -- the turbidimeter that you use -- that you use, 2 the one (1) that's intended for field use is -- is not as 3 accurate as the online turbidimeters that are present in the 4 water treatment plant? 5 A: No, it's -- well it's influenced so much 6 by even if a -- the sample cell is dirty or scratched or -- 7 so, yes, it can be influenced by outside or other things, 8 yes. 9 Q: Yeah. And I'm also advised that -- that 10 the water distribution system itself will contribute some 11 turbidity to the water -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- so that it ought not to surprise 14 anyone if the turbidity level taken in the distribution 15 system were higher than when it started out either at Water 16 Treatment Plant 1 or 2? 17 A: Right, yes. 18 Q: Yeah. Thanks, Judy. 19 A: Okay. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Any other questions, Mr. 21 Russell, or -- 22 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: No, Mr. Commissioner. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, well thank you, 24 Ms. Szuch, and you're free to step down. 25


1 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I suppose that will 4 do it for today, there are no other witnesses and I guess 5 we'll resume then at 10:00 o'clock on Monday morning the 6 12th -- and the 19th I guess of -- 19th? No, 5th and 12th? 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18th. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: 18th. 9 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 15th. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: What day is it? 15th, 11 yes, at 10:00 a.m. as opposed to 9:30, in any event. 12 13 --- Upon adjourning at 3:55 p.m. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25