Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/02/29 - Board of HealthATTENDANCE: MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING February 29, 1996 Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Mark Tompkins, Water Quality Program Manager Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Specialist Kim Lincoln, Health Specialist Weldon S. Whitmore, Appellant Susan Olsen, Appellant Helen Angove, Applicant Tony DeMiero, Septic Designer/Installer Dwayne & Linda McGraw, Auburn Carl Nadler, Seattle Lyle Little, Maple Valley APPEAL HEARING - SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR SILVER SANDS APARTMENTS Health Officer Mark E. Trucksess called the appeal hearing to order at 10:00 a.m., stating he would be hearing the Health Department's staff report after which the appellants would be heard. Everyone present was asked to introduce themselves, after which Mark Tompkins, Water Quality Program Manager, was asked to present the history of events. Mr. Tompkins reported that the system in question was for the apartments which were closest to the shoreline. So far, it was the only system surveyed. Dye packets had been placed on site and then submitted to the lab and analyzed. The results confirmed that dye was present and indicated an elevated bacteria level. Therefore, the system was classified failing by the Health Department. It was classified as such in June, 1995. Kim Lincoln, staff person who works on repairs, received the case on the 19th of July and sent a letter to Ms. Angove on the same date which explained the problem and what needed to be done. On August 10, 1995, a permit was received. Two test holes had been dug and labeled Numbers 1 and 2. The test hole information was reviewed by Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Tompkins. It was remembered by Mr. Tompkins that an area across the road had been set aside as a reserve area when the plat had been completed in 1994. The designer, Tony DeMiero, was contacted and test holes were dug across the street. These soil log results were listed on the Re -Inspection Form. The test holes were both 58 inches deep, one with all medium sand and the other very gravelly, with coarse medium sand and gravel. It was much better soil than what was -found at the original site, where there was water at 3 - 4 inches. This new site was much more suitable. The designer submitted a design which was reviewed by Ms. Lincoln. It was a system which meets Treatment Standard I which reduces the BOD/TSS to below 5 milligrams per liter and also reduces the fecal coliform count to below 500 per 100 milliliter in two feet of sand. Mr. Tompkins was asked to reiterate Treatment Standard I criteria, which he did. The design had been approved by Kim Lincoln, at which point the appeals were received. The design meets all state and local codes. It was reviewed and approved in the normal procedure for a repair, as well as for a new system. It was fortunate that the reserve area was separate and available. A committee of Health Department staff reviewed the design and it was agreed that MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 2 OF 8 the design, as submitted, should be approved. Since there was an appeal, other items were also reviewed such as the Soil Conservation Service Survey of Mason County. This survey classifies soils of the county, and this area was classified as a gravelly, loamy sand. Mr.Tompkins read aloud the survey classification. The soils seen on site were exactly as listed in the survey. Vertical separation was also reviewed, and documentation explaining the treatment process. Mr. Tompkins stated there was 4 feet of separation on this site. The well log which was done in 1992, indicated there was sand and gravel dug down to 21 feet where water was reached. He believed the water would be following this same general pattern down to the Canal. The plat had been approved 2 or 3 years ago. Ms. Angove commented that perc holes had been dug at each site. This area had been reserved for this purpose. Mr. Tompkins stated he was the Sanitarian who worked on the water system and had also been involved in reviewing the test holes. At that time there had been some public concern that there needed to be future repair areas for the apartments, and this site had been dedicated for a future septic disposal site. Before the design was approved, Ms. Lincoln was on site and measured the distances to all the wells. The wells were all 100 feet away. The Health Department wanted to survey the neighboring wells' static level to verify that the aquifer was following the contour suspected. Permission would be needed by the owners to do this. They would also like to see the test holes dug to 10 feet. This has been discussed with the designer, and it was agreed this could be done. This would allow them to see if any water appeared at 10 feet. They have received new plot plans which also need to be reviewed. Carl Nadler asked if the items the staff would like to complete would be done before final approval was given to the applicant. Mr. Tompkins replied they would like to do these things prior to the installation. He noted it was contingent upon getting permission from the well owners. Mr. Nadler noted that the concerns he and Mr. Whitmore had were in protecting the water sources of the residents across the street from the proposed installation site. He believed the vertical separation numbers were arbitrary numbers. Mr. Nadler asked Mr. Tompkins to describe the filter system, which he did. Mr. Nadler stated that sand filters do fail. He proposed that an impervious barrier be placed around the beds so when failure occurs the failure would come to the surface so it was known. That would keep the pollution from reaching the ground water. He would like to see a concrete barrier with re -bar so it does not crack. He stated this would protect the wells from pollution. Mr. Whitmore commented that his main concern was what his recourse would be if in 10 years this system fails. He wondered if the county would help him if that happened. He was certainly MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 3 OF 8 in accord with the Clean Water Act and absolutely agree with it. He believed a failure would happen. There were 16 bedrooms involved. Based on that, the occupants would produce a lot of effluent. This was a small area. The test hole was precisely 100 feet from his well. He wondered if there was a better location which would allow a greater distance. He believed it would be better if the system was placed up out of the way so it could have greater filtration. Mr. Tompkins responded that one reinspection test hole was actually classified as medium sand, which in itself, would provide adequate treatment. The other test hole had coarse sand and gravel, and had veins of medium sand. Mr. Nadler stated the water would follow the veins of gravel. Mr. Tompkins stated that was why the sand filter was required. This lot had been set aside for this purpose, and had been dedicated for a reserve during the platting process. Mr. Nadler questioned the Operation and Maintenance Agreement for the system. Ms. Lincoln responded that the plan had not been submitted yet. It was a requirement, before the system was approved, that there be a plan. They have been working on a plan which would include monitoring. It would also address their concerns about ponding and leakage. There would be observation ports. The system would be maintained and checked. Mr. Nadler asked if there was a plan for the monitoring.of the sand system at this time. Ms. Lincoln replied there was not. Mr. Tompkins sketched a system describing how an observation port works. Mr. Nadler asked the size of the observation port. Mr. Tompkins replied they usually were a 4 inch diameter pipe: Mr. Nadler stated he did not believe that would be adequate. Mr. Tompkins commented that was the size used throughout the state and seemed to be very effective. Mr. Nadler stated he wanted a barrier around the system. Dr. Trucksess asked if it would be a single observation port. Mr. Tompkins replied there could be just a single, but usually they put one on each end of the bed. Mr. DeMiero informed that he usually put one on each end and one at the bottom of the sand level. Mr. Nadler questioned why one would be placed at the bottom. Mr. DeMiero answered that it would give an access. Mr. Nadler stated that the one at the bottom would be a hit-or-miss situation. He did not see any point in placing one in that location. Ms. Lincoln commented that the port that goes all the way down to the bottom of the interface could be used to see if there was ground water infiltration into the drainfield. It may be a benefit. She noted that Mr. DeMiero was designing a system above .the required standard. Mr. Whitmore asked what would be wrong with having a barrier that would protect the side flow. Ms. Denton responded that she had been part of the quality control review committee. Probably some time in April, the county would be adopting the state guidelines for sand filters in coarse material. These would include either a visqueen barrier between the drain rock and the coarse material on the side wall or added sand on each side. Part of the results of their meeting had been to require implementation of these new guidelines for this particular design. If it was leaking, it would be treated through the additional 6 inches of sand as it moved down. Mr. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 4 OF 8 Nadler agreed that a good quality visqueen which would not disintegrate with time would be very helpful. Dr. Trucksess asked if this proposal was part of the present design. Ms. Lincoln stated it was not, it was the outcome of the quality control meeting. The designer would have a choice to either put in the visqueen or the sand as required by the state guidelines. Mr. Nadler stated he could see no assurance just by adding additional sand. They would just be enlarging the bed. It would prolong the life of the bed, but it would still spell over and go down. Mr. Tompkins illustrated on the board how theactual extension would be located in conjunction with the drain rock. Mr. Nadler and Mr. Whitmore commented they would like to see the additional sand and the visqueen. Dr. Trucksess reiterated that the added sand as well as the visqueen would make the appellants feel more comfortable about the proposed system. Mr. Whitmore replied they would be more comfortable. However, he was still concerned with the amount of gallonage in that small of an area. His basic question was what recourse he would have as a protection for his well. If this system failed, it would be a great expense for him to put in a new well because it would have to go deeper than the shallow well he presently uses. There was no assurance there would be water there, and if there was not, he questioned what value his property would have. Susan Olsen stated they also share the concern about the water systems. It was a great idea that this was being taken care of. However, they wanted assurance that they did not have to worry about their wells going bad. Mr. Nadler commented that the water flow has a tendency to follow the terrain of the surface. He believed it would flow from the field toward the wells. Mr. Tompkins stated he believed the ground water would flow southwesterly towards Mission Creek or Belfair State Park. They identified Mr. Whitmore's site on the map. Mr. Tompkins explained that the discharge would be treated. He addressed vertical and horizontal separation. He noted that extensive studies have been performed to determine the safe distance from wells. to insure public health. Mr. Nadler replied he believed that number was an arbitrary figure. Dr. Trucksess' question regarding the depth of neighboring wells was addressed. Mr. Whitmore commented that the discharge would not remain in a straight line. It would fan out. With all the safety features already addressed, he believed it should not be a problem to provide a protection for the homeowners. Mr. Tompkins wondered what Mr. Whitmore was referring to. Mr. Whitmore responded there should be a guarantee that if something happened to his well, he would receive help immediately. He wondered if the state would give this help. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 5 OF 8 Mr. Tompkins stated that it could always be argued that contamination came from somewhere else. Ms. Olsen remarked that if there was a failure in a well system, it would be caused from the area where the new drainage or sewage system would be because there was never any previously. Mr. Tompkins replied it would depend upon the contamination. Dr. Trucksess noted that dye testing could be performed. Mr. Tompkins verified that sources could be eliminated by dye testing. Ms. Angove asked if the Whitmores had a toilet in their pumphouse. Mr. Whitmore stated there was one and it went right into the septic system. He stated it had been checked and grandfathered in. Ms. Angove stated there was a drainfield located in a driveway, and the Olsen's had placed a drainfield very near their well. Ms. Olsen stated it was 100 feet away. Ms. Angove stated she did not believe it was more than 50 feet away. Ms. Angove commented her system had been dye tested 3 times, and she believed there were other systems which should be tested in a similar manner. She stated she has put in two new drainfields and she had shown her receipts for pumping. Other residents should have to do the same. Mr. Tompkins stated they have been performing dye tests. Ms. Angove remarked there were no washing machines or dish washers in the units and they were limited to two adults per unit. Several units have only one person residing in them. The systems were pumped once a year. Her beach had been found negative for fecal. She had called the Health Department to ask that the other properties be tested. She wanted the testing to be done fairly. Everyone should be tested three times with the same dye as her property had been. Everything bad should be repaired. Mr. Whitmore commented that Mr. DeMiero's installations had a reputation of being done properly. However, this instance concerned him. He wanted his water to be clean. Mr. Lyle Little stated that they want to see the problems fixed and they were going the extra mile to do that. The property was designed particularly for a contingency like this in the event it was needed. It has been planned for this use. There was never any contesting of this. He cannot speak to the other development in the area. However, the other systems were much closer to the wells than this one, and this was an approved system by the same people who have put in other systems in the area. It was stated there were systems within 50 feet to wells in the area. Mr. Little stated that these systems were not required to meet the stringent codes which they were presently meeting in this system. If there was any contamination of any well, he would think they would look at what was considered substandard installations of septic systems prior to looking at this one which has gone through the current requirements. He agreed that no one wanted this area contaminated. He has an interest in the property, just like the others present. That was the reason they were looking at the options and this was the one which would be the most permanent. There was no reason to believe this would not be a permanent solution. These MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 6 OF 8 systems being designed now were to be permanent solutions because some areas would never get sewer systems. Mr. Tompkins agreed that, theoretically, systems designed today were supposed to last for the life of the property if properly operated and maintained. Twenty-five years ago it was sewage disposal not treatment. Treatment was now required prior to disposal, which this system does. Mr. Nadler questioned how many wells in the area could be static tested. Mr. Tompkins replied one had been tested uphill. If they received permission, it could be done on the systems to the right and down, as well as the State Park. Dr. Trucksess noted that the concern was a dug well which was only 20 feet deep and obviously was not protected like wells being drilled presently. He understood Mr. Whitmore's concern because the 100 foot setback would relate to a deeper well that has been properly installed. He believed they probably also had a concern about the run-off from the road. Mr. Whitmore stated he was not concerned about the run-off. He had checked for metals a few years back and the tests were satisfactory. The bacteria checks by the county have come out good and the water was very pure. It was good water which has been there for many, many years. Ms. Olsen stated they all have had testing done periodically. She was questioned about the well located on her site, but she did not have the information. Mr. Tompkins noted they could look at the records to find out information about the well. Ms. Olsen stated they have never had any problems. Dr. Trucksess commented that it was impossible for anyone to guarantee that something was not going to fail. Ms. Angove asked which well Ms. Olsen was using. Ms. Olsen said it was up the hill. Ms. Angove noted it was a hand dug well. Dr. Trucksess asked if it would be possible to install a curtain drain. Mr. Tompkins replied there was no impervious layer to get the curtain drain into. Dr. Trucksess asked if they knew where the impervious layer was located. Mr. Tompkins responded no, that was why they wanted the test holes down 10 feet to see if they ran into surface water. Mr. DeMiero commented they would hit water before an impervious layer. Dr. Trucksess asked if there were any other possible locations. Mr. Tompkins stated the only alternative would be placing it back on the existing property in an area they know the water was at 34 inches in a much poorer soil for sewage treatment and disposal. Ms. Angove wondered if it could be moved farther back on the lot. Mr. DeMiero stated it could be moved back another 15 feet. Ms. Angove commented it could be 115 feet rather than 100 feet. Mr. Tompkins stated room for two beds had been established so that if the other units ever failed, there would be another place for its location. However, only one bed would be installed at this time. Ms. Angove stated both would be done. Mr. DeMiero stated he believed the system was for units 1-4 right now. Ms. Angove believed all of them were going to be done. Mr. DeMiero replied MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 7 OF 8 that 5-8 had a system which was put in about five years ago. Ms. Lincoln stated it was the department's understanding that since only one section was failing, they would design for that system. However, it was requested that they include an area which would be used in case the other was found to be failing at some point. They wanted to show there was enough room for another system. Ms. Angove stated since she was using the whole lot, she might as well have an installation for all the units. Then, the other property could be used for something else. Mr. DeMiero stated it could be hooked up later, but he could run the pipe now to the other units. Mr. Tompkins clarified it would be one system, but two lines would be run so if the other system for the other units ever failed, the line would already be there. A new bed could be done and hooked to the existing tanks. It would be easier than ripping up the transport lines again. Ms. Angove stated she was concerned about the water front and since she had been tested with the better dye, she would like the lots from her property to the park tested in the same manner. Mr. Tompkins noted it was not a better dye, just a different color so it could be separated analytically. Ms. Angove remarked that she has never received an answer why her place was tested so thoroughly and it was negative, but when she asked the Health Department to test her neighbors, it was not done. Mr. Tompkins stated that he had not been involved in this, and did not know the reason. Ms. Angove stated she had written and phoned the Health Department requesting the testing. She would like an answer. Mr. Tompkins explained the testing done recently by the Health Department. Ms. Denton informed that she had been involved with the dye testing of Ms. Angove's property in 1992. It had been done due to a neighbor's complaint. Ms. Angove stated she believed it had been the neighbor's system which was failing. When her system tested negative, she had requested that additional testing on neighboring properties be done. Mr. Tompkins responded that this matter could be followed up on at this time. Normally, they do not inform others of failing systems. The Department works with the home owners in repairing the system. Mr. Dwayne McGraw commented that when Ms. Angove had asked for other properties to be tested, the matter had been dropped. Mr. Tompkins stated he would look into this issue. Ms. Denton noted that policies had been changed in the Health Department since the Clean Water District was formed. The Health Department stepped back for the Clean Water District to do their job. Ms. Lincoln commented that all the houses in that area would be tested by the Clean Water District. Mr. Little stated this was not the main issue to discuss today. It was to get the other matters resolved. Mr. Tompkins summarized that the Health Department would like to check the static levels of the neighbors' wells to get an idea of the ground water. They would meet with Mr. DeMiero on site at which time 10 feet deep test holes would be dug and covered back up. The new plot plans would be reviewed as well as the request for the addition of more sand. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING BEFORE HEALTH OFFICER FEBRUARY 29, 1996 - PAGE 8 OF 8 Dr. Trucksess wondered if additional sand and visqueen could be included in the review. He wanted the Health Department to have the opportunity to do the additional testing and look at making some modifications to the septic design which would be presented back to the parties. If that was not acceptable, another hearing could be held if necessary. He would make a determination in writing after the minutes were received in a week or two. Mr. Whitmore asked if that would be done before final approval of the system was given. Dr. Trucksess answered that was correct. He noted that the parties may reach a compromise before he gives his written determination of this hearing. In that case, a determination would not be given. Mr. Tompkins noted the department would like to see it be moved ahead so the repair could be finished in order to start looking at reopening the shellfish beaches. That was their goal. He noted their cooperation in surveying the wells would be appreciated. Mr. Whitmore wondered if, before final approval, the parties would get all the information to review. He wanted to protect himself in every way he could. Mr. Little asked if the plan had not been approved. Mr. Tompkins replied that the original design had been approved but it was under formal appeal. Ms. Lincoln commented that since it was on appeal, it was on hold, it could not be installed. The plot plan was reviewed. Mr. Nadler asked if they could receive a copy of the new design when it was submitted. He stated his other concern was maintenance of the sand filter. Mr. Tompkins explained how a sand filter system could be maintained. Mr. Nadler noted they would like to receive all the information regarding this proposal. Hearing adjourned at 11:20 a.m. MASON COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER Ma Yk E. Trucksess Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Coots