Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/03/07 - Board of HealthMASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH March 7, 1996 The Board of Health was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chairperson William O. Hunter with Board Members Faughender and Cady in attendance. ATTENDANCE: William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary L. Faughender, Board Member Mary Jo Cady, Board Member Brad Banner, Health Services Director Steve Lutz, Director of Personal Health Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Mark Tompkins, Program Manager Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Spec. Kim Lincoln, Environmental Health Specialist Grant Holdcroft, Environmental Health Specialist Carol Spaulding, Water Quality Lab Manager Wayne Clifford, Technical Administrator Mike Clift, Prosecuting Attorney Brent Long, BOH Clerk William Key, Shelton Al Adams Bob Hager Harry Martin, N. Mason Clean Water Dist. Bob Woolrich, Olympia Mark Soltman, State Dept. of Health Charles Bennett, Belfair Tom Smayda, Vasey Engineering Mr. & Mrs. Moen, Belfair William & Kimmerlee Olsen, Belfair Marilou Pivirotto, State Dept. of Ecology Kathy Giest, City of Shelton MINUTES ADOPTED Board Members Faughender/Cady . moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting minutes dated February 1, 1996 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. HEALTH OFFICER'S REPORT Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer, announced there has been an epidemic of Hepatitis cases in Mason County. There have been 10 cases of Hepatitis A, four cases of Hepatitis B and four cases of Hepatitis C reported in our community since January, 1996. Seven of the Hepatitis A cases occurred within the city limits, one was in the north end of the county, and all but two of the cases were admitted to be IV drug users. Many of those diagnosed with Hepatitis A also tested positive with Hepatitis B and/or C antibodies. They were potentially contagious for all three types. All cases were counseled in how to prevent transmission, and how contacts could be protected. The State Department of Health has received a report on each case. Not one case was a food handler, or attended day care. Thurston County has reported a case of Hepatitis A in an individual who had lived in Mason County up until February 14th, 1996, and was an IV drug user. Two contacts of that case did come into the Mason County Health Department for immune globulin administration. In cases of infectious disease, contact investigations were completed. In these instances, investigations were done on all but one of the cases. One of the IV drug users refused to give names of contacts. Most of the contacts were within the city limits. However, some were from the Skokomish Valley and a few from other counties. Those counties were notified in order to perform follow-up. In all, 77 people were exposed in these cases. Fifty-two received immune globulin for prevention of Hepatitis A. Those who did not, were MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 2 OF 17 either too later after their exposure to be given the globulin, resided in another county, or did not come into the Health Department although they were advised to receive it. The immune globulin needs to be given within 14 days of exposure to be useful in preventing the clinical Hepatitis A from developing. If it is administered quickly after exposure, it is more effective. People who have received the immune globulin may still come down with Hepatitis A, although it reduces their risk. All those exposed who received immune globulin were also counseled. In the process, the Department ran short of the immune globulin and had to order additional from the Michigan Department of Health. There was a national shortage of the globulin. The staffs communicable disease specialist has documented the time spent dealing with this epidemic. Seven hours and 45 minutes were spent getting immune globulin, 31 hours investigating information and administering education, and 4 hours writing and sending reports. A time -line of the epidemic was given. On February 22, 1996, a health alert was issued and sent to all medical providers in the county, including the hospital and adjoining county health departments. Adjacent counties have also been reporting many, many cases in the past year, in the IV drug using community. Many individuals have been unwilling to give names of contacts. He noted it has not been a problem with food handlers. Dr. Trucksess reported that articles pertaining to Hepatitis in two recent Mason County Journals have contained inaccurate information. He informed that all cases of Hepatitis C were not transmitted by IV drug use. Although most recent cases have been from this community, many cases have been acquired, in the past, through blood transfusion. The number of cases from transfusions has dropped since blood was now tested for this disease before it was administered. Also, they do not know that Hepatitis A was being transmitted by IV drug use. The major way Hepatitis A was transmitted was by fecal/oral contamination. The transmission of Hepatitis A in IV drug users was probably related to close personal contact in unsanitary conditions or unsanitary practices. Sexual transmission may play a role in all three types of Hepatitis. Dr. Trucksess addressed Board Member Cady's question posed at an earlier meeting regarding how long a recipient of the polio live virus may have potential to transmit the live virus to household contacts, and in particular, those with altered immune status. He informed that it was probably 6 to 8 weeks. A measles alert has been issued from the Tacoma -Pierce County Health Department. A confirmed case was found in a 32 year old male who worked at the Sea-Tac Airport. A person born after 1957 should be considered susceptible if they have not been revaccinated. On February 27, 1996, five cases of meningocal infection were reported in Eastern Washington. Two were residents of the area and three resided in Idaho. One patient died, four were hospitalized, and two of those hospitalized were currently in critical condition. This was a very serious condition in which symptoms progress rapidly from a flu -like illness to life -threatening in less than 24 hours. Board Member Faughender. requested an update on the Hanta Virus. Dr. Trucksess responded he has not heard of any clinical cases being reported recently. However, they have found some MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 3 OF 17 rodents in Western Washington which have tested positive with the virus. He did not believe any rodents tested from Mason County had tested positive. Board Member Cady asked if information regarding the potential hazards of live -virus vaccinations were given to those receiving them. Mr. Kutz replied that information was included in the consent form. He suspected that recommendations for additional non -live virus vaccinations would be forthcoming. ON -SITE SEWAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr. Banner recommended that David Waite and Henry Minch be reappointed to the On -Site Sewage Advisory Committee for a three year term. Board Members Cady/Faughender moved/seconded that David Waite and Henry Minch be reappointed to the On -site Sewage Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. TOTTEN/LITTLE SKOOKUM CLEAN WATER DISTRICT FEES William R. Key stated he was present at the invitation of Board Member Cady regarding his decision to discontinue paying the Totten/Little Skookum Clean Water District Assessment. He noted he has commented on his position three or four times and his reasons have not changed. He apologized publicly to Kathy Schluter, a Water Quality employee, who he had made a personal attack upon in a letter he had submitted. He noted his action was uncalled for and Ms. Schluter had just been doing her job. It had been directed toward her because her name had been on the letter and it had been written in the heat of the moment. Mr. Key commented that he had paid the 1993 Clean Water District Assessment under protest. He knew of people who have refused the Health Department access to their property and have not received a bill for 1993 or 1994. Therefore, he believed he was being discriminated against. His neighbors were reaping the benefits from the ones who cooperated with the Clean Water District, and they were laughing at him because he paid his 1993 bill, and they had refused to do so. As long as everyone was willing to pay their share, he would also, but not until everyone did so. Approximately six months ago he had attended a Commissioners' meeting, at which time Harold Fitzwater, a member of the advisory board, said the work had been completed and there was a surplus between $8,000 and $10,000. He wondered if the citizens would be getting a rebate. He had not heard anything regarding a rebate, and he was still receiving letters from the District. He believed it could now be described as a vendetta. He realized it was a harsh description, but he preferred to call the letters "extortion notes." The notes state a lien would be placed against his property if he did not pay the assessment. He has responded that he would take them to court for discrimination purposes. Other people at Fawn Lake were laughing at him regarding this. Board Member Faughender asked if anyone else was present who could substantiate Mr. Key's concerns. Mr. Key replied they were not, the statement relating to this in his letter had been referring to testifying in court. Board Member Faughender stated he would like to know if someone in the area had been missed in the assessment process. Mr. Key replied there were several people who have not received bills, not only at Fawn Lake, but in other locations. He did not want to disclose the names in fear of loosing friends over $35. Board Member MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 4 OF 17 Faughender understood this, but noted they cannot follow-up if they do not know who they were. It was their intent that everyone pay their fair share and get the service of having their septic tank tested. Mr. Key stated his main concern, now, was that the work was completed and there was a surplus of money. He asked what would be done with the money. Board Member Faughender believed the testing was completed but the repairs have not all been completed. Mr. Key responded he had received different information. He took exception to the procedure followed. In the first contact, there was no mention of any fee. While attending a meeting, someone had asked for their cooperation, but there was still no mention of a fee. As soon as they got on his property, then the fee was mentioned. He believed they should have been notified from the start that there would be a $35 fee the first year and $45 the second year. This was not done. Chairperson Hunter believed the assessments came before the inspections. Mr. Key responded that did not happen in his case. Chairperson Hunter stated the Board would appreciate information if there had been errors made. It was not their intent to bypass any homes. Mr. Key commented that the person did the testing, and he did not receive a bill for 4 or 5 months thereafter. Board Member Cady stated she had wanted Mr. Key to testify so it would be a part of the public record, and she appreciated him doing so. APPEAL HEARING - OLSEN At 10:30 a.m., Chairperson Hunter announced the continuation of the appeal hearing requested by William and Kimmerlee Olsen pertaining to the Health Officer's determination that their on - site sewage system was failing. Those wishing to testify were sworn in by Chairperson Hunter. Board Member Cady informed that she had received several items of correspondence which were sent to her from Ms. Olsen and others regarding this case. This information had been placed in a packet and was not reviewed. The Board had also been invited to a public meeting which they did not attend because of the appeal process. Therefore, she did not feel she was prejudiced by any information which had been submitted. Chairperson Hunter concurred, noting they stay away from the issue in order to remain neutral. Board Member Faughender agreed that this matter was a quasi-judicial hearing which was treated seriously by the Board. They do not tolerate applause or things of that type. All testimony should be directed to the Board. Kimmerlee Olsen reported that the appeal process had been started by their attorney who filed the appropriate documents with the Board of Health. The appeal was based on bacteriological testing procedures performed at their property on September 11, 1995. She hoped that this matter could be completed so it was not brought before a jury. She answered Board Member Cady's question that the testing actually started in March or April. Ms. Olsen submitted documentation outlining the sites tested, the dates of testing, and the results (Exhibit 1). It was a combination ,of testing done by the Shellfish Division and Mason County. The tests they had mailed in themselves were qualified and witnessed by a neighbor, but since there was no governmental participation, she was not including them. She did, however, have the test results of these if the Board wanted to review them. A letter written by Michael Clark, Biologist for Thurston County MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 5 OF 17 Environmental Health was attached to Exhibit 1. This letter addressed her concerns about the samples not being shaken. At the appeal on March 25th before the Health Officer, the appeal notes state that the samples were to be collected, shaken and then split. She was concerned that did not happen. They, and a neighbor, had watched closely. At that point, she started calling around, and the letter from Mr. Clark had been received. She believed those tests should be thrown out. There was no basic procedure in the Standard Methods on how to split a sample, but Mr. Clark had told her that common sense should be used in the field. She stated this was not mentioned in Mr. Clark's letter, but that was also the opinion of Tom Gibbs in Shellfish and Dale Vandonsel of the Department of Ecology. Chairperson Hunter asked who had taken the samples she was addressing. Ms. Olsen replied they were taken by Grant Holdcroft. The original test taken by Mason County was a 2,400 count. In the August 24th appeal notes, it .was stated that this test was set aside and in conjunction with Department of Health -Shellfish and Mason County retesting would be done. When they came to retest, this problem with the sampling occurred. She referred to Line 26 of her spread sheet which she felt were the remaining valid samples that have no controversy to them. She had put this listing together with the advice of John Ellison of the State Department of Health, Waste Water Division. She had a long conversation with him, and he told her that her concerns were legitimate. Although some of the split samples which were not shaken had passing results, he had suggested they be removed also. Board Member Cady asked if there was a location map identifying where the samples were taken at the property. Ms. Olsen replied that Mason County may have that information in their records. The sites were numbered 1 through 10. A stairwell going down to the beach was between sites 5 and 6. They were all weep holes. Weep hole 9 was the only one which had not been tested. Site 1 had been retested with a 33 count. Site 3 had a 5 count and site 4 was negative for dye. There was a 1.8 test result on site 5. There were only two remaining valid tests on site 6, which was the controversial site. During the August 24th hearing, the 2,400 count was removed. The 49 and the 240 was a split sample which John Ellison suggested be removed. That would leave the two 1.8 counts. Site 7, which was believed to be a valid sample, was 33. The other two samples taken on September llth, were a composite sample which Mr. Ellison had said to remove. On site 8, the sample was less than 2. There was a total of 7 remaining tests, and they were all under 200. Board Member Cady asked if there was another set of tests after she challenged the process. Ms. Olsen responded that they had tried. Two letters were received with conditions for re -testing, but they felt the restrictions were too strict. They were to come unannounced to do the sampling,_ and the Olsens wanted to be present. According to the original form, they believe they have the right for an appointment for them to come out. She believed bacteriological testing was very controversial. She did not believe that one single test could prove a failing system because of the variabilities and because there were no safe -guards built into this program. Chairperson Hunter asked if the retesting was done after the hearing before the Health Officer. Ms. Olsen replied that their attorney spoke with Brad Banner and it was agreed they would come back out but they would not agree to the Department's terms. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 6 OF 17 Board Member Faughender asked if the Health Department was planning to conduct the tests. Ms. Olsen responded that they wanted a third party to perform the testing. The Department gave them a list of three names to select from. However, they believed that these firms had been consultants of the Health Department at some point in time. They had wanted someone not affiliated with either of them in any way. She had called Cascade Analytical even though they were from the list, and they were selected. They agreed that Mark Tompkins could come out to the site during the sampling procedure. However, they did not agree to the term that the sampling was to be taken unannounced because they wanted to be present. Ms. Olsen remarked that another problem was that results of the tests had to be considered conclusive by both parties. They did not believe one single test would be adequate. Standard Methods states that a single test was not adequate to determine anything. Chairperson Hunter asked if the Olsens responded to the letter stating the department's terms. Ms. Olsen replied they did respond, at which time a second set of conditions was mailed from the department. Really, there was no change except that they wanted them to pay for one-half of the costs. Since they believed the testing was voluntary, they could not agree to that. Board Member Cady wondered if the Olsens would like to see notification of the testing so they could be present. Ms. Olsen stated the department would not want that to occur because they had accused them of withholding water usage. Board Member Cady asked if what they wanted was notification and two tests. Ms. Olsen replied that since she has learned more about bacteriological testing, she has found out that usually there was a series of tests and averages were taken. Chairperson Hunter asked if the residence was their primary residence or for recreational use. Ms. Olsen answered they live there full-time. Chairperson Hunter asked how much notice they would need if it was their primary residence. Ms. Olsen stated it would just have to be adequate to allow her to arrange her schedule at work. She would probably need one week's notice to make a change in her work schedule. Even though, they did not really agree with how they were testing, so they have a hard time agreeing with any further testing. Chairperson Hunter asked that the letters mailed by the department to the Olsens which outlined the conditions be made available to the Board. Ms. Olsen stated that the last line on her spread sheet listed the valid tests. This was not just her opinion. She had talked to many people who were concerned about the testing that was going on. Mr. Banner introduced Kim Lincoln who would provide an overview of the site and chronology of the department's involvement with the Olsens. Mark Tompkins would then present information which would answer some of the questions raised by the Olsens.. Ms. Lincoln informed that she was the Repair Specialist and the EH Loan Coordinator for Mason County. She informed that the Olsens were appealing a Mason County Health Department's determination that their on -site septic system was failing. The chronology document was marked MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 7 OF 17 Exhibit 2. Photographs of the property were marked Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. Ms. Lincoln reported that the Olsen site was located at 10811 North Shore Road which was approximately 10.8 miles down the North Shore Road toward Tahuya. They have a shoreline lot. The grassy area shown in the photographs was the only possible location for the drain field which has been confirmed by the Olsens themselves. A cross-section diagram of the Olsen property was marked Exhibit 6. A small parking area and a steep slope behind the house were located on the diagram, as well as the Olsen home, the grassy area, and the bulkhead where the weep holes were located. A plot plan was marked as Exhibit 7, and a drawing showing the weep holes was marked Exhibit 8. Ms. Lincoln presented a short video (Exhibit 9) of the Olsen site, including the upland property. Board Member Cady asked when the video had been taken. Ms. Lincoln replied it was taken on February 23rd, 1996. The chronology was presented by Ms. Lincoln. On March 29, 1995, permission was granted to inspect the Olsen property via the On -Site Sewage System Survey Form signed by Ms. Olsen. On April 13, 1995, the Water Quality staff went out and did a Level 1 inspection and placed the background packets along the bulkhead. Board Member Cady asked her to explain a Level I inspection. Ms. Lincoln replied on a shoreline site it would entail walking around noting physical characteristics of the property and looking for obvious signs of failure. It also included placing packets for the upcoming dye test. On April 19, 1995, staff returned to the site to pick up the background packets, and placed new packets called Series 1 packets along the bulkhead and the fluorescein dye was introduced into the system through the toilets and sinks in the home. On April 26, 1995, the Series 1 packets were retrieved and the Series 2 packets were placed. On April 27, 1995, the Series 1 packets were eluted by the laboratory. On May 2, 1995, the water samples were taken from Sites 6 and 7 on the bulkhead and the sample results were reported on May 4, 1995. One sample showed greater than 2,400 from site 6. On May 5, 1995, the Series 2 packets were retrieved. On May 9, 1995, the Series 2 packets were eluted by the laboratory. Board Member Cady asked the definition of eluted. Mr. Tompkins replied that the charcoal was taken out of the screen and put in vials. A solution of potassium hydroxide was then added to the charcoal which lifts the dye from the charcoal so the dye can be seen visually in the vials. Ms. Lincoln referred to the diagram showing test sites 1 through 10. She explained that background packets were placed before dye was ever introduced into the system, which was one of many quality control steps in the process. Their main purpose was to check for outside sources of dye. The only ones eluted in the lab were ones which correspond with positive dye sites. All the backgrounds which were tested came back negative. The Series 1 packets were eluted and at site 10 there was a negative, 9 a positive, 8 a double positive, 7 a double positive, 6 double positive, 5 single positive, 4 negative, 3 negative, 2 positive, and 1 negative. A single positive means that a person would need a flashlight to see the dye fluorescing in the sample. Two positives mean that a person would be able to see the dye fluorescing with the naked eye. The Series 2 packets were as follows: Site 10 negative, 9 single positive, 8 double positive, 7 double positive, 6 double positive, 5 was missing, 4 was negative, 3 was positive, 2 was positive, and 1 was .negative. Positive dye sites were found at 7 sites of the 10 tested. That tells that MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 8 OF 17 there was a pathway between the septic system and the testing area. On May 17, 1995, an initial letter was sent to the Olsens by Ms. Lincoln notifying of the survey results and requirements for them to contact the department within 7 days. There was a phone call placed on May 19, 1995, to her by Ms. Olsen. In that phone call, Ms. Olsen stated her concerns over a clerical error in the addressing of the letter. That letter was fixed and remailed along with a list of certified septic contractors in Mason County who could work with the Olsens and staff to determine what was wrong with the system and how it could be repaired. On August 7, 1995, a Notice and Order was mailed to the Olsens because of the complete lack of activity due to. non-compliance. The letter ordered that the discharge be stopped within 2 days, and that a plan of action and repair permit application be submitted within 7 days. A plan of action was the homeowner writing down when they expected certain things to be completed. On August 10, 1995, Ms. Olsen called Ms. Lincoln stating concerns and notified of water samples which were taken by the Washington State Department of Health -Shellfish Division and samples taken by the Olsens. An appeal form was also requested at that time, which was mailed to the Olsens the same day. On August 12, 1995, a letter was received from the Olsens which listed the concerns they had mentioned during their earlier telephone conversation. On August 14, 1995, after speaking with Mark Tompkins and Brad Banner, Ms. Lincoln called Ms. Olsen, and told her Mason County Health Department would be willing to do additional testing in conjunction with the State Department of Health -Shellfish Division and the Olsens. Ms. Olsen had said she would talk with her husband and get back in touch with the Health Department. On the same day, the Olsen appeal form was received. On August 16, 1995, a letter dated August 15, 1995, to Mark Tompkins from the Olsens was received which stated concerns they had. On August 24, 1995, the appeal hearing was heard before the Health Officer. The results of this meeting were that all parties agreed to do additional water sampling to be done using split samples, gathered and analyzed by the Mason County Health Department and State Department of Health -Shellfish Division, and that the results were to be abided by all parties. On September 8, 1995, a letter from the Olsens stating additional concerns which they felt were not fully addressed in the hearing was received. On September 11, 1995, water samples were taken at all positive dye locations. Samples 6 and 7 were taken by split samples shared by the Department of Health -Shellfish Division and analyzed by their lab. The parties present at that time were Ms. Olsen, Grant Holdcroft and Kim Lincoln of the Health Department, and Helen Seyferlich an Environmentalist for the State Department of Health -Shellfish Division. On September 13, 1995, the water sample results were reported by the lab. The Mason County • Health Department samples came out below the 200 limit which would be required along with positive dye to call it a failure. However, the DOH Shellfish sample came out at 240 fecal coliform per 100 milliliter. That was above the 200, and with the positive dye link established previously, the system was listed as a failure. On the same date, a letter was received by Dr. Trucksess from the Olsens notifying that all correspondence regarding the failure of their on -site MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 9 OF 17 system should be directed to their attorney Carrene Wood. On September 21, 1995, a letter to Dr. Trucksess from the Olsens was received which stated concerns pertaining to the water sampling done on September 11, 1995. On September 22, 1995, a response letter was sent to Carrene Wood from Mark Tompkins addressing the concerns related in the Olsen's letter of September 21, 1995. On October 3, 1995, a letter to Dr. Trucksess from the Olsens stating additional concerns with the water sampling done on September 11, 1995, was received. On October 5, 1995, a letter to the Olsens from Dr. Trucksess was sent which stated, " ... the sample from the State (State Dept. of Health, Shellfish Division) was in excess of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters. My appeal determination specifically states 'if the test comes up positive for bacteria, then we require that the septic system be repaired.' Therefore you are required to repair your system in compliance with Notice & Order dated August 7, 1995 ..." On October 11, 1995, Water Quality received a survey form from Robert Tessier, whose Parcel Number was #32224-50-00026. This parcel was located directly next to the Olsens on the Tahuya side. The survey form stated that the Tessiers shared a septic system with the Olsens. A phone call was made to Mr. Tessier from the Water Quality staff to confirm these comments. Mr. Tessier had confirmed that the septic system on the Olsen property was serving both his residence and theirs. The Tessier residence was a recreational residence only. On October 25, 1995, a letter dated October 20, 1995, from Carrene Wood to the Health Department was received. This letter requested an appeal to the Board of Health. On October 26, 1995, a notice of hearing was sent to the Olsens and Ms. Wood. The hearing was scheduled for December 6, 1995. On November 20, 1995, a letter to the Health Department from Gregg Grunenfelder, Director of Thurston County Environmental Health Division was received which stated their department fully supported the methods used by Mason County in its dye tracing and confirmation of bacteriological water testing methods used to determine on -site system failures. Ms. Lincoln noted that Thurston County uses the same methods used in Mason County. On December 5, 1995, a letter dated December 4, 1995, to the department from Carrene Wood was received which requested a continuance of the hearing as well as additional information. On December 11, 1995, Ms. Lincoln sent a response to Ms. Wood in which the information requested was included. On the same date, a letter to Ms. Wood was sent by Mark Tompkins and Brad Banner relating the department's proposal for re -testing of the Olsen's system. They hoped this could be done so another hearing would not be necessary. Some time between January 2 and January 11, 1996, there was a phone call to Mr. Tompkins from Ms. Wood relating that she would no longer be representing the Olsens. On January 16, 1996, a letter from Ms. Wood was received which stated she was again representing the Olsens and stated the Olsen's conditions for re -testing. A response letter was issued immediately to Ms. Wood from Brad Banner. It noted the hearing was to be set for February 1, 1996. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 10 OF 17 On January 22, 1996, a letter dated January 19, 1996, was submitted to the Health Department by Ms. Wood which informed she was no longer representing the Olsens and that all correspondence should be directed to the Olsens. On February 5, 1996, a letter was received dated January 31, 1996, from Ms. Olsen stating concerns and requesting additional information. A phone call was placed immediately to Ms. Olsen from Mr. Tompkins. He had indicated during that phone call what was required of Ms. Olsen to request a tape reproduction of the hearing. On February 9, 1996, a letter was sent to the Olsens from Mr. Banner informing of this hearing and reiterated the tape reproduction costs. Ms. Lincoln reviewed the parties involved in this matter (Page 7 of Exhibit 2). Board Member Cady asked if the documentation referred to in the chronology was included in the staff report. Ms. Lincoln answered it was. Board Member Cady asked if the tape had been sent to the Olsens. Brent Long responded that since the funds had not been received, the tape had not been reproduced. Board Member Cady asked if correspondence had been received from any other attorney representing the Olsens. Ms. Lincoln replied there had not. Mr. Tompkins stated he would like to address some of the concerns raised by Ms. Olsen. Fact Sheet/Survey Process and Methodology was marked Exhibit 10. Letter from the US Environmental Protection Agency marked Exhibit 11. Fact Sheet/Staff Performance and Quality Assurance was marked Exhibit 12. Letter from Ozark Underground Laboratory marked Exhibit 13, and Final Technical Report - Standard Methods for On -site Sewage System Evaluation Using Dye Tracers in Thurston County marked Exhibit 14. Mr. Tompkins referred to information relating to stressed organisms which fecal coliform would be in nature in salt water and ground water. Fecal coliform were indicator bacteria and become stressed or injured in waste waters and natural waters. These injured bacteria were incapable of growth and colony formation under standard conditions because of structural or metabolic damage which they receive in the environment. As a result, a substantial portion of indicator bacteria may not be detected by the tests. Stressed organisms were present under ordinary circumstances in chlorinated drinking water and waste water effluents, salt waters, polluted natural waters, and relatively clean surface waters. Collection, storage and transport of water samples can stress coliform bacteria. Studies have shown that stressed enteropathogenic bacteria can still cause disease in humans. Mr. Tompkins stated there were two components to test for a failing system. First, there had to be dye present and then a confirming water sample. The dye used was a fluorescein dye. The dye was received in 16 ounce bottles which were marked off in quarters and four ounces of liquid dye was used per residence. He showed a sample of the dye bottle size and a bag of dried dye. He noted that the dye equivalency was 0.2 ounces, which was approximately the weight of one sheet of typing paper. The dye has adsorption qualities. It would adsorb onto soil particles. Adsorption was a key component in treating effluent. It removes phosphorus, viruses and other organizms from septic systems. A properly functioning septic system should not let dye out of the system. They should not be able to find dye on the bulkhead. If they would have MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 11 OF 17 known the Tessier property was also connected to the system, they would have placed 4 ounces in each system. A letter written by Thomas Aley, PHG & PG, President of Ozark Underground Laboratory in Missouri, was distributed. Mr. Aley has written a book titled Water Tracers Cookbook relating procedures for dye tests. Mr. Tompkins asked the Board to review the last paragraph of the first page of Mr. Aley's letter which stated that fluorescein dye selectively removed from water by adsorption has been shown in numerous studies. Mr. Aley had introduced as much as 5 pounds of fluorescein dye into properly functioning septic systems and had been unable to detect it discharging from such systems. Mr. Tompkins noted that 4 ounces were used and found in 7 locations on the Olsen bulkhead. In regards to shaking the sample, which was one of Ms. Olsen's concerns, there was no specific requirement for shaking split samples in the field. The purpose of shaking samples was to achieve an homogeneous mixture in a bottle. Shaking was desirable after samples have been transported or sat in a laboratory prior to analysis after a period of holding time. There were no standards for shaking samples in the field. Ms. Olsen had quoted Standard Methods which related shaking a sample 25 times within 7 seconds, but it was referring to a lab setting. That section has been removed from Standard Methods. The current, 19th edition, changed that specific requirement to a more general term of vigorously. The idea was to break up any clumping of bacteria. Grant Holdcroft shook each sample about 10 times on the beach. According to DOE and EPA experts that would be more than adequate to provide an homogenous solution. The letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the issue of sample shaking prior to splitting was read aloud by Mr. Tompkins. Mr. Tompkins addressed quality assurance and control. He stated the staff and supervisors were well educated, trained, and experienced in what they do. The five individuals involved in this process all had four-year degrees in Environmental Health or related sciences, or were Registered Sanitarians and/or have specialized training. He listed the five individuals and their qualifications (last page of Exhibit 12). The quality of the sampling, transport, and analysis procedure was assured through careful attention to scientifically valid analytical protocol. Mr. Tompkins read aloud 3 (a-g) from the last page of Exhibit 12. The quality of the analysis procedure was assured through laboratory quality control. He read aloud 4 (a-b) from the last page of Exhibit 12. Board Member Cady asked what a field blank was. Mr. Tompkins replied it would be samples from the field. A sterile sample bottle would be in hand and deionized water would be poured into the bottle. It would be capped off, put in the cooler, and sent back to the lab. The lab would run the sample to ensure there was no contamination in the handling in the field or in the cooler. The definition of a failing system was the presence of dye and fecal coliform counts in excess of 200 per 100 milliliters. This was the same definition used in Thurston and Skagit Counties who were performing similar sanitary surveys. The reason they use both components was because the dye establishes the pathway traveled from the system to the point on the beach and because it also tells them about the adsorption qualities of the drain field which he addressed earlier. The 200 fecal coliform count was established back in 1990. Mason and Thurston Counties worked together on this determination. They have been using these standards since MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 12 OF 17 1990. It was chosen because there were similar standards used by the State. WAC 246-272, Treatment Standard 1 from DOH is used for systems located within 25 feet of a shoreline that have less than 2 feet of vertical separation. Prior to discharging to the soil, the coliform count has to be below 200 fecal coliform/100m1. Hood Canal is rated AA which requires less than 50 fecal coliform/100m1. in fresh water entering Hood Canal and less than 14 fecal coliform/100 ml. in the marine water. Vasey Engineering conducted a study evaluating the on -site systems using dye tracers in Thurston County. They concluded that with dye and a 200 fecal coliform level, there was a 98% confidence level that the system was failing. Mr. Tompkins stated a concern was raised in the past regarding animal versus human fecal coliform. He noted that fecal coliform was found exclusively in the gut of warm blooded animals, and there was not an economically feasible test to distinguish between animal and human origin. There was some DNA analysis that could be done but they were costly. They need to remember that fecal coliform was used to confirm a failing system. First there has to be dye. The samples taken were from bulkhead drains which were constantly flowing. It was not reasonable to argue that there was an alternative source which injected feces into that drain. Based on the evidence shown, there was a clear preponderance of evidence that the fecal coliform that was taken in those samples originated from the Olsen septic system. Mr. Tompkins described a geometric mean which was the antilog of the sum of the logs, divided by the number of samples. It was used to determine water quality parameters. They were looking at a point source that has been shown via the dye. There was a pathway established. The systems, themselves, do not get constant loading of effluents. They get increases of loading in the morning when residents may be taking showers and also in the evening when washing dishes and doing laundry takes place. It was a pulsating system, rather than a constant level. It was important to remember the two components: the dye and the coliform. The Thurston County studydone by Vasey Engineering statistically verified a 95% confidence level for identifying failing septic systems when there was presence of dye and fecal coliform level greater than 132 in one sample. It was up to a 98% confidence level when there was dye and the coliform level was increased to 200 on one grab sample. He submitted copies of the Vasey Engineering Report. The decision tree was listed on page 44 of the report. Mr. Tompkins reviewed the comparison of survey techniques used by King, Kitsap, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom Counties (last page of Exhibit 10). Board Member Faughender asked how many total septic inspections have been done in -Mason County within the last 5 years, and how many were dye tested. Mr. Tompkins responded that out of the 4,000 to 5,000 inspections done, approximately 2,000 were dye tested using this same procedure. There was a less than 15% failure rate using this procedure. In over 75%, they did not recover dye which indicated the adsorption qualities of the soil were doing their process and removing the dye. Chairperson Hunter asked if the Tessier property had been tested. Mr. Tompkins responded that Mr. Tessier would like to wait for the Olsen outcome prior to allowing the Health Department to inspect. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 13 OF 17 Chairperson Hunter asked the age of the Olsen system. Mr. Tompkins replied they did not know the age because there were no county records. Board Member Cady asked Mr. Tompkins to elaborate on the concern of an unannounced inspection. Mr. Tompkins replied that the Olsens indicated they were frequently out of town and not there. The concern would be the lack of flow and the results being thrown. Board Member Cady asked how they could place dye in the system without notifying the parties. Mr. Tompkins stated it would not be another dye test. The proposal was strictly for a bacteriological sampling from the bulkhead. The proposal was for a third party to perform the test. The Health Department staff were not going to touch the samples. Board Member Cady asked if there was any concern over the dye test. Mr. Tompkins replied there was a concern, at one point, that too much dye had been used. This concern had not been raised today. Mr. Banner introduced Mark Soltman, Washington State Department of Health On -Site Division; Bob Woolrich, Department of Health -Shellfish Division; Tom Smayda, author of the report done by Vasey Engineering; and Marilou Pivirotto, Department of Ecology. Ms. Olsen commented that she has been talking with a lot of people during the last 6 - 8 months and was familiar with the information presented by the staff. She stated there were experts on both sides. People were telling her that bacteriological testing was a main concern. Dye testing was showing a pathway only. She has documentation that the bacteriological testing was controversial. There could be feces on the beach which could be picked up in a sample. It was not real common, but it could happen. Someone may not wash their hands properly before handling a sample. It was improbable, but it may happen. A lab may make an error. It was improbable, but it could happen. There were safeguards at the labs to prevent these situations, but there was always the element of human error and the chance that a sample could be contaminated on the way to the lab or at the lab. Board Member Cady asked if Ms. Olsen had any written documentation to submit to substantiate the information she has received. Ms. Olsen did not, but read aloud from the Puget Sound Water Quality lab protocols, which stated standardized procedures were not always followed. She stated that information was out there regarding the controversy of this testing. Regarding the 200 count, Dale Vandonsel from Ecology had told her that they were applying one single test to one limit. The problem she sees with that was if that was used as their basis when they first started, there was a 1.8 count. She could have said they were done. Now they have these other tests, and instead of taking an average or a mean which would normalize the results, the Health Department was unwilling to do that. Board Member Cady stated that the Olsen appeal had addressed how the split was done. She wondered if Ms. Olsen had seen the letter from the EPA regarding procedure for splitting samples. Ms. Olsen replied she had not seen that letter before. Ms. Olsen commented that she had transcribed her conversation with Mike Clark of Thurston County, and he said he would do another sample and basically throw out the results of the split samples based on what she had told him about the way they were collected. He believed the results were too different; there was too much of a disparity between the two results. One reason MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 14 OF 17 the samples were shaken, even though it was not in the Standard Methods, was to normalize the results. She did not believe that the sample had been shaken 10 times when he was on site, although someone present today stated he had said he did. She described how he shook the bottle like a baby bottle, 1, 2, 3. She was told that was not sufficient and those test results should not be allowed. Chairperson Hunter asked who else was on site at that time. Ms. Olsen replied that Helen Seyferlich and Kim Lincoln were there. Ms. Seyferlich had stated she did not recall any vigorous shaking, and believed it was tipped rather than shaken. Board Member Faughender asked about Mr. Ellison's basis for throwing out sample results. Ms. Olsen stated she had told Mr. Ellison what procedure had been followed and he concurred that it probably was not tested properly. He had suggested that the 240 and 49 tests be taken out as well as the other split test, which had passing results in both. He noted that if the results were thrown out on that basis, even the passing results would need to be taken out. He said that was based on the fact it was not shaken properly. Board Member Faughender asked if Ms. Olsen believed her septic system was functioning properly. Ms. Olsen replied she had no proof to show otherwise. She stated she had no valid tests to indicate it was not. Board Member Faughender asked if her answer was she did not know. Ms. Olsen replied she would have to say she did not know. Chairperson Hunter asked if Ms. Olsen believed her drain field was working. Ms. Olsen noted her drain field was old. They do not know when it was first put in. They tried to find the records when they first bought the house, but they were never located. She stated she did not have any knowledge that Mr. Tessier's property was hooked up to their system. Mr. Tessier had not contacted them in regards to this. Confirmation of this fact was news to her today. Board Member Hunter wondered if both properties were under the same ownership at one time. Ms. Olsen replied they may have been. It was a small cabin next to them, and there were similarities in the building styles. She would not be surprised if they had been owned by the same person in the past. Chairperson Hunter asked about the State Dept of Health -Shellfish Division testing procedures. Ms. Olsen stated she had watched them fill the two bottles, and place them in the ice chest. She found out later more about the testing procedures than she knew at that time. Board Member Cady stated it sounded like Ms. Olsen was not only challenging how the split was done but also the abilities of the labs to actually test the samples. Ms. Olsen stated the lab's abilities could be questioned. At one time during the August 24th appeal, they were told the test was not wrong. She wondered how they could say there was no margin for error. When people were putting in from $17,000 to $30,000 systems, she believed they have a right to more than one test to fail their system, and that was what was occurring. She wondered if something was wrong, if perhaps a sample got switched. She realized there were precautions and chain of custody records, but she would refer back to human error. She believed they have the right of more than one sample on a geometric mean. She realized it would be more expensive, but as a homeowner they should have the right to that process. People who have put in new systems based on only one test were upset that a second test was not done. Mr. Gibbs had told her that a person should always use common sense even if there was not a standard. Common sense MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 15 OF 17 would be to shake that sample to specifications. Board Member Faughender commented that this matter has been delayed a number of times on the initiative of both sides, he believed. He noted this was the second appeal. There has been written effort on both sides to find some common ground to a solution. He did not want Ms. Olsen to go to court. Certainly, she has that option, but he did not believe this particular issue was of significance enough to go to court. Ms. Olsen answered they sure believed it was. Board Member Faughender stated there has seemingly been no common ground reached to resolve the matter. In reading the county's letters, it appeared they have changed positions in an attempt to settle this thing. Today, Ms. Olsen had remarked she wanted to be present and have notification. He wondered if that was done, would that concern be removed from her mind. Ms. Olsen replied yes. Mr. Faughender noted the other contention was that one sample was not enough. He wondered if Cascade Analytical would be acceptable to perform the testing. Ms. Olsen stated she could not find any affiliation between Cascade Analytical and the county. Ms. Olsen remarked that the county wanted them to pay for one-half of the testing. Board Member Faughender noted that was another contention. He wondered if the staff found Cascade Analytical to be an acceptable company to perform the testing. Mr. Banner replied they would like a lab accredited by the Department of Ecology for doing surface water sampling, and they found that this laboratory was not. Their only stipulation would be that it be an accredited laboratory. There were quite a few which would qualify. Board Member Faughender asked if a new list would be acceptable to Ms. Olsen to choose from. Ms. Olsen answered they were not doing any additional testing. They feel that they should go on what they already have. Board Member Faughender asked if she did not want to try to resolve this matter, other than in court. He noted the Board's decision could resolve it also. Ms. Olsen replied it was always a possibility for them to come out again. She did not want to stalemate anything, but she believed they were on her property enough and have had enough chances to come out. Board Member Faughender hoped she would reconsider that because he believed the solution was relatively close. Ms. Olsen stated that if they were let back on the property, she believed there should be three tests, and the geometric mean should be taken on all three. That she would agree to. Board Member Faughender commented that the solution was there somewhere by meeting half way. Some one would be making a decision, and it may not be the decision Ms. Olsen wanted or it may be. It was getting away from her control and the county's control, and a judge would rule either for or against her. This would not be done without a lot of cost. The other thing to look at would be whether it was worth that or not. He wondered when common sense comes in. Ms. Olsen remarked that was just not the Olsens. She was not there to represent all water front owners, but they were all watching and calling to find out what was going on and what the end result would be. There were a lot of people watching. 'People call her night after night. Board Member Faughender noted he was not trying to impose a decision. He would just like her to look at whether or not there was a solution. Ms. Olsen stated she had read the Water Shed Plan and it sounds wonderful. She wanted clean water. There were many factors involved in keeping the water clean. But she believed there should be more checks and measures to ensure these tests were accurate. That was her main gripe. She would keep on going as long as she had to in order to make her point. Board Member Faughender stated that no one in this room wanted to pollute the Canal. Ms. Olsen agreed they do not want to do anything to pollute the water. They MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 16 OF 17 do not use pesticides for that reason. When there was controversy, she wanted to make sure it was being considered. When she wrote to Peggy Johnson she had mentioned the home owners should not be punished with unqualified procedures. She did not want anyone to fear that some changes needed to be made. She would like to see some changes. She wanted more bacteriological tests done, and she wanted them to be done right. She would follow whatever was told to her if that testing could be done that way. Mr. Banner commented that the definition of failure used by the department should not be looked upon as a platform held up by two columns -- the dye test and the grab sample. so that if you knock out the validity of the grab sample that the definition falls. After exhaustively looking at this, the two together were highly reliable. Greater than 2,400 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters was not something that could come about as a fluke. That level, with the testing methods used, was something that would not just accidently randomly happen. He presented a plot plan (Exhibit 15) which showed the Olsen's property and neighboring properties. He also presented a picture of the Olsen's property and the neighboring yard (Exhibit 16) which showed some . recent activity in the ground. The Board commented that the ground activity could mean other things besides septic/drain field activity. Ms. Olsen stated the ground activity was where the neighbor's boat had been stored. Ms. Pivirotto, Department of Ecology, remarked that she currently manages a grant with Mason County regarding shellfish protection. She has managed a number of these grants with Mason County, and many similar grants throughout the Puget Sound with different counties. She was very demanding in managing these grants and requires a high standard of compliance and performance. She takes very seriously her job to manage these state monies that were going out to the locals. She was committed to shellfish protection. The procedure used by Mason County was similar to that used in other grants managed by Ecology. These were the same procedures managed under Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. Mason County was doing exactly similar if not exceeding the standards of some of the other counties. She attested that Mason County was exceedingly high in their standards and were meeting the requirements of the Ecology grant. As a citizen of Washington State, she was concerned about the number of people attending this two hour hearing who were being paid by tax dollars. One thing she needed to clarify that these tests were equitable and that they were not making people spend money to fix septic systems based on inaccurate tests. The bacteria testing done was in conjunction with the dye tracing. This effort has been a direct effort to stream line the process to prevent people from spending money where it was not needed. The whole object of this whole process has been to prevent tax payers from spending money they did not need to. This was the most exact science -- they have it right here. She was also a registered Sanitarian and has worked with the Washington State Environmental Health Association. In 1991, a conference was held with the person who developed this procedure. She had attended this along with Mason County staff who also took the training. They have received very good training and she would like to commend them for that. Thomas Smayda, Vasey Engineering in Seattle, stated he was an Aquatic Scientist/Civil Engineer with Water Quality Specialty. He noted there was a concept of episodic failure. Failing systems do not necessarily fail continuously. They fail occasionally in response to heavy use periods or intense rain fall. Taking split samples on one day was not always a fair measure of an episodic MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MARCH 7, 1996 - PAGE 17 OF 17 failure. It would be better to collect one sample one week a part for three weeks than to collect three samples on one day if you were trying to determine if the site was failing occasionally rather than continuously. Chairperson Hunter asked if there was any further testimony. None heard. Board Members Faughender/Cady moved/seconded that the hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hunter thanked everyone for participating in the hearing. The Board would be reviewing the material and would present a written decision within three weeks. ADJOURNMENT Board Members Cady/Faughender moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be adjourned at 12:21 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary JCad Board Miber M. L. Faughender, Board Member Respectfully Submitted, cuAu_ CA,-o$o Lorraine Coots