Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/06/27 - Board of HealthATTENDANCE: MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING June 27, 1996 Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Brad Banner, Director of Health Services Dan Watts, Solid Waste Specialist Herman Drake, Appellant Caroline Lajoie, Geologist APPEAL HEARING - HERMAN DRAKE 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 appellant would be heard. Brad Banner, Health Services Director, was asked to present the history of events. Mr. Banner presented a copy of Mr. Drake's appeal application (Exhibit 1). He informed that Mr. Drake was appealing the requirement to implement the new monitoring program at his woodwaste site. Mr. Drake was requesting a 3 to 5 year extension to allow removal of most of the woodwaste. The remaining woodwaste would be used for leveling and landscaping. Mr. Drake was also requesting permission to monitor the site once using existing wells at the completion of the project. The concern of the Board of Health regarding the numerous solid waste facilities was that each site had a different consultant on staff and a different type of monitoring. The staff reviewed these monitoring reports to ensure that the environment and public health was protected. The monitoring was not consistent between the sites and different labs were used. The results also lacked pertinent information the Health Department was interested in. In October, a Request for Proposal for a Solid Waste Monitoring Plan was instituted by the authority of the Board of Health/County Commissioners. Proposals were received and rated, and the consultants interviewed. On October 17, the solid waste contractors were advised the department was in the process of changing the monitoring method to assure that the solid waste facilities permitted for handling and disposing solid waste did not adversely affect public health or the environment. The county would select a consultant, and the consultant along with the Department of Ecology would develop a county -wide monitoring program. The consultant would oversee the collection and analysis of samples taken, and the Health Department staff would assist the consultant with sample collection in an effort to keep the monitoring costs as low as possible. Annual permit fees would be charged to the facilities in order to recoup the cost of the program. The Board of Health adopted Resolution 95-04 on December 7th, 1995, which outlined, in detail, the intent of the program. Solid Waste fees were also adopted on December 7th, and the monitoring fee was listed as "at cost." Extensive work was done to keep the cost down. The Agreement (Exhibit 2) was signed on April 22, 1996 with Pacific Groundwater Group. After which, appointments were made with each facility to discuss the terms of the program. The department had met with Mr. Drake, after which the appeal application was made. Mr. Banner presented a document entitled Herman Drake Woodwaste Landfill Issues (Exhibit 3). He stated there was never a Health Department permit or approval when the woodwastes were MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 2 of 10 first brought onto the drake property in the 1980's. The Health Department files have been thoroughly reviewed and he talked with the staff present at that time to ensure there was not a permit or permission. Mr. Drake did receive a permit from the Department of Natural Resources (Exhibit 4). However, this does not exempt the site from county permits. Both the Health Department's 1992 Notice and Order and all subsequent correspondence, including an agreement written by an attorney for Mr. Drake and signed by Mr. Drake himself in 1993, identified the site as a "non -government approved woodwaste landfill." Around 1993, Mr. Drake asked for permission to bring in more woodwaste and to use the money to finance purchase of equipment to process the woodwaste. The Health Department considered this and denied the request because the department did not want another 5 acres covered with woodwaste in that manner. Mr. Drake, since that time, has talked about recycling the woodwaste. The minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal went into effect in 1985. These standards require annual operating permits for solid waste facilities and groundwater monitoring for woodwaste landfills with volumes at closure exceeding 2,000 cubic yards The volume of Mr. Drake's site is estimated at 164,560 cubic yards. It exceeds the size required for permits and monitoring by approximately 8 times. Mr. Drake's area is 17 acres in size and 6 feet high. Minimum groundwater monitoring for woodwaste landfills consists of 3 downgradient wells and 1 upgradient well. Staff has not required Mr. Drake to comply with this in the past because his claim to recycle the waste was accepted. However, that has never happened, and staff does not see any assurance that it will happen. The state law requires that the site be monitored , and the Mason County Board of Health has laid out a county -wide monitoring program to assure that the monitoring is appropriate, accurate, consistent, and meaningful. Chapter 173-304 WAC, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, was submitted as Exhibit 5. Dan Watts, Solid Waste Specialist, stated that the applicable state law pertains to waste recycling facility standards. Mr. Drake does not comply with this regulation because he has not recycled at least 50% of the material in the past 3 years or more than 50% during the past 5 years. The regulation pertaining to woodwaste landfill permits, WAC 173-304-462, states all landfills with a capacity of greater than 10,000 cubic yards at closure shall either have a ground water monitoring system that complies with WAC 173-304-490 or have a leachate collection and treatment system. WAC 173-304-490 outlines the parameters for testing. Section 2 (a) states that the ground water monitoring system must consist of at least 1 background or upgradient well and three downgradient wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield ground water samples from the upper most aquifer and all hydraulically -connected aquifers below that portion of the facility. Dr. Trucksess asked Mr. Drake if the woodwaste accumulation started in the 1980's. Mr. Drake replied that was correct. Dr. Trucksess asked if Mr. Drake received a DNR permit but not a county permit. Mr. Drake responded he was unsure because Simpson Timber Company was the permittee. Simpson's board of directors drew up the permit with the assistance of 22 attorneys. It states on the DNR permit that the permittee, Simpson Timber Company, was required to comply with the terms of the permit. Dr. Trucksess asked if the Department of Natural Resources provides legal authority to dump this woodwaste. Mr. Banner replied that it did not, without addressing local permits. Dr. Trucksess asked if Simpson Timber Company should be MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 3 of 10 addressing this. Mr. Banner replied the local permit should come from the land owner, or the dumper. Neither of which have obtained permits. Dr. Trucksess asked if it was clear, at that time, that these permits would be required. Mr. Banner replied he did not know and was not employed by Mason County at that time. Dr. Trucksess stated that this 164,000 cubic yards of woodwaste has accumulated during that period of time, and now, the Health Department was requiring that the monitoring be put into place. Mr. Banner replied that was correct, the staff was requiring that the site be included in the county -wide monitoring program that was established by the Board of Health. Some technical issues have come to light, and the county's consultant would be happy to work with the appellant. There were questions regarding the surface water pond in lieu of a well, and the leachability of the woodwaste. The nature of Mr. Drake's appeal was not to go into the technical issues as much as to request that the site be exempt from the monitoring program in order to have time to get the woodwaste removed. Dr. Trucksess asked if Mr. Drake intended to remove all of the woodwaste. Mr. Drake responded that there was a contractor who was interested in grinding the woodwaste, and he was pursuing this. In the past, when the paper work to have monitoring wells was completed, the hydro - geologist stated the best monitoring would be by pond because if there was any leachating, it would show up in the pond. He wanted to classify the pond as a downgradient well so he would not have to drill another well. The county had accepted this, and the wells were put in and testing was done for 2 years. Mr. Banner stated the wells were not put in as part of a permit for recycling. The wells were put in because Mr. Drake and Mr. Fuller did a large -lot subdivision north of the site. Each of the 5 acre parcels in the subdivision could be broken into four, so there were 64 potential lots. The Health Department had been concerned about the well serving these lots. The Health Department had considered requiring community wells located as far away from the site as possible. There have been 3 geologists hired by Mr. Drake on the site, and basically the outcome was that the large lot subdivision was allowed with the condition that the wells be built to verify that leachate was not leaving the site. Strictly speaking, monitoring was not required on a recycling site. Dr. Trucksess asked what the difference was in the county's new monitoring system in comparison to what was being done previously. Mr. Banner responded that each facility had its own consultants and specialists who submitted data to the Health Department in different formats. It was collected differently and analyzed differently. It was very clear that interpretations could be different. It was decided that the Health Department should have a consultant who was not working directly for the facilities who would be responsible to the Health Department to ensure protection of the environment and public health. Dr. Trucksess asked what Mr. Drake was objecting to in the new monitoring program. Mr. Drake replied that Caroline Lajoie, a hydro -geologist, had drawn the samples, and did the reporting. The difference in cost in a 3 year period would be about $36,000, and the tests would be no better. Mr. Banner stated the difference in cost has to do with additional groundwater monitoring. The requirements call for 3 downgradient wells and 1 upgradient well. He has talked with the county's consultant about this, and evidence indicates that ponding would be fine if Mr. Drake MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 4 of 10 wanted to do that. Those details could be worked out. Unfortunately, that level of discussion did not take place. The construction of an additional well was one of the pieces of the cost. Another piece of the cost was that the consultant was providing a data base for staff to continue to track and analyze all the different parameters from all the different facilities. Another thing was the statistical analysis. Each quarterly and annual report has a statistical analysis which involves a cost. Another cost was the lab. They intended to use a lab which was one of the best in the region. The lab costs more but there was less time in tracking, quality control, and less time in re -sampling and re -analyzing. Dr. Trucksess asked Mr. Drake how quickly the woodwaste would be removed from the site. Mr. Drake answered that there were only about 3 or 4 companies who do grinding of woodwaste, and haul it off the site. Pacific Soils was contacted and were interested. This company believed that the site could be done in 8 months. He had been negotiating with Pacific Soils when a public notice was placed near the site which stated that a 30 day waiting period was required before he could continue. Mr. Drake stated that nothing was signed with Pacific Soils at that time, and the company starting grinding for Simpson Timber Company. Since that time, he has talked with other companies. After 7 months the heat goes out of the hog fuel. For 18 months, hog fuel will pull the nitrogen out of the ground. That pile was prime for removal because it was over 18 months old. Since that time, it has decreased to 4 feet from 6 feet in height. The average pile was now 4 feet high, instead of 6, which would decrease one-third of the yardage that was there. South Shore Construction was now interested in grinding the material this winter for $450 per hour instead of their regular price of $550 per hour per grinder. Another possibility was to run the material through a screen which reduces the amount needed to be ground. An appointment has been made to talk to a business who has the screens, and with another large grinding company. Dr. Trucksess stated it did not appear that there was a firm commitment at this time. Mr. Drake replied he has a firm commitment with South Shore Construction. They have talked about putting something together, whether or not the company has the "muscle" to remove the pile within the one year time limit, he was unsure. He noted he was requesting an additional 3 to 5 years. If he had the extension, he believed the company could remove the pile without a problem. Dr. Trucksess asked if there was any indication of contamination from the woodwaste pile to the groundwater. Mr. Banner replied there was not a lot, but there has only been 2 monitoring events. Mr. Drake commented that he had talked with a representative of Simpson Timber Company about their woodwaste site which was 50 times larger, and he was told the water results were available for public review. He was told there was no detriment to the well water. Mr. Banner commented that three issues needed to be addressed. The viability of a recycling plant, the 30-day delay and Simpson Timber Company. Mr. Drake, since April, 1992, has talked about recycling. Documentation from the Health Department, since 1992, to Mr. Drake addressed recycling and the required permits. Almost from the beginning of the county's involvement, Mr. Drake's intention has been to recycle the material. It has not happened. The 30-day public notice was required because solid waste permits typically require an environmental checklist and a determination of non -significance. The state law requires this 30 day notice. Mr. Drake had been given the requirements for recycling back in 1992. On November 4, 1992, a letter was sent MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 5 of 10 to Mr. Drake informing him that his permit application had been delayed due to a back -log of permitting and other solid waste activities. In December 1992, an inspection report was made of the site. In February 1993, an environmental checklist was received from Mr. Drake. On February 11, 1993, a letter was sent to Mr. Drake informing him of insufficient information on the SEPA checklist due to a strong potential for groundwater contamination. That issue was not adequately addressed on the checklist. He believed these issues were addressed. This period was the 30 day delay referred to by Mr. Drake. When staff met with Jerry Soehnlein of Simpson Timber Company they found that Simpson would be spending more for their sampling as well. Dr. Trucksess asked if all the facilities would be complying with the new monitoring program. Mr. Banner replied that was true. None of the facilities were happy about the monitoring because it would cost more. Dr. Trucksess asked where Simpson's woodwaste facilities were located. Mr. Watts replied one site was in Dayton and one was located in Matlock. Dr. Trucksess asked if these sites were also in sensitive areas. Dr. Banner replied the monitoring program was required whether the site was sensitive or not. Mr. Watts noted it was required because of the size of the woodwaste site. Dr. Trucksess noted that it would take some time to get the material recycled. However, it sounded reasonable, in the interval, to perform the monitoring. Dr. Trucksess wondered if the cost was able to be reduced. Mr. Banner stated they would look into the possibility. Mr. Drake submitted a letter (exhibit 6) which was read silently by Dr. Trucksess. Mr. Drake commented he was the property owner of the land where the landfill was located. Simpson Timber Company had been given permission to dump woodwaste on his property for free because he wanted to generate top soil. The site is located approximately 50 - 100 feet off the Brockdale Road. He was not trying to hide the site. DNR had talked with Simpson and Simpson was told the woodwaste would have to be removed because there was no permit. At that time, he talked with Mr. Soehnlein and it was decided he would talk with the company attorneys about this issue. He was told that Simpson would do all the permit work so it would be up to code. There would be certain requirements of him, such as the fire trail, water pumper, and one watch person and bulldozer. Simpson took out the DNR permit, and added that the permittee, Simpson Timber Company, had to have legal authority to dump. He assumed that it was legal. The DNR permit was for 50,000 yards. When over 50,000 yards was reached, he had contacted DNR, and asked if another permit would be required. DNR had told him they were not as concerned about the size of the pile as long as he maintained a 10 foot road around each pile because each pile would not consist of more than 50,000 yards. From 10,000 yards to 200,000 yards, it would fall under the same rules and regulations. So, at that time, he made piles of 50,000 yards with roads dividing them into 4 sections. In the evenings, he would level the woodwaste. Not only Simpson was dumping. The Port of Olympia and a local mill were also dumping. He was then notified by the county that he had an illegal landfill. When he met with the county, he had been very confident and apologized for being cocky. He was confident that Simpson's attorneys would not draw up a document that was not up to the rules and regulations because Simpson has a liability. Simpson has a file pertaining to the rules and regulations. He was unsure what other permits they may have. He only knew of the permit he received. The Health Department staff stated they wanted to review this permit, and he was not contacted again and was allowed to MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 6 of 10 dump for 2 more years. In April, 1992, the county's letters started. He had questioned the legality of the county's actions to allow him to dump for 2 years. When development occurred near the site, it was a condition that he place $25,0.00 in an account to put in a monitoring well and bring things up to code. It was quite inconvenient for him to raise the $25,000. The monitoring well was put in. Officials from the state and the county met on site. The state official told the county it was an illegal landfill, and should be brought up to the rules and regulations in order to be legal, but they were not going to require this because the county allowed this to happen and because it had been done right in the open. They said it would be up to his discretion on how he would like to deal with it. Dr. Trucksess asked who told Mr. Drake this statement. Mr. Drake answered it was the head person from an agency. Mr. Banner replied that Mike Tokos, a former county employee, had probably been on site during this on -site visit and he would be willing to come and testify to what was said. Mr. Drake stated that in Mr. Tokos' letters, he was told that the county would work with him and would not make him do this and not make him do that, but they did want to know if the water was being polluted and if it was a public health risk with a danger of someone becoming hurt by it. He was told he would have to monitor but not put in the downgradient monitoring wells. He had been told that Mr. Tokos would help him fill out the SEPA checklist. He had worked with Mr. Tokos and he believed it was finished and he could do the woodwaste. He understood that Mr. Tokos had leeway in what would be done, and that was what was said during the on -site visit. He had been told he would not be required to bring it up to code. At that time, he believed everything was done, and the pile could be removed, and the subdivision could take place. Then, the property was placed in a critical recharge aquifer area. At that time, he spoke with Gary Yando, Community Development Director. He had told Mr. Yando that it was not a critical recharge aquifer area. He had told him there was hard pan all through the property. Mr. Yando had told him there was no hard pan based on Gordan Adams' evaluation. Mr. Drake met with Mr. Yando and Mr. Adams to discuss this issue. Mr. Adams had said there was no evidence of hard pan. Mr. Drake disagreed, stating he had worked the property for 8 years. There was hard pan there, as evidenced when he made a road. Mr. Adams had disagreed. Mr. Drake stated he would dig a hole down to the hard pan if Mr. Adams would look at it. After he dug the hole, it was planned to meet Mr. Adams and Randy Neth on site. Mr. Adams stated the hole did not have hard pan based on what came out of the hole. Mr. Adams stated that it was compressed gravel and poured water in. The water did not go into the ground. Mr. Adams then admitted it was hard pan. He told Mr. Yando about the hard pan, and asked what was going to be done about it. Mr. Yando had replied he was doing nothing about it. He stated that was just a small spot. He then went to the Port of Shelton and talked to their geologist about who he might get to inspect the site. He was given the name of Caroline Lajoie as a respected geologist. He contacted Ms. Lajoie about doing a study on that area. A 66 hour study was completed by Ms. Lajoie. A well was dug 156 feet deep and samples were taken all the way up the well in case he goes to court to show there were levels of hard pan there. Dr. Trucksess asked if the county addressed these findings. Mr. Drake answered that after spending around $10,000, he took the report to Gary Yando and Mr. Yando had said the report meant nothing. It was frustrating to spend all this money and it did not make any difference. He had hired the most knowledgeable person he could possibly find. She has a degree as a senior hydro -geologist and an environmental engineer, and has worked for Burlington Northern for 15 years. In order to MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 7 of 10 have the areas mapped out, it would cost a million dollars to drill wells and do studies and figure out where in Mason County the critical recharge aquifer areas were. Gordan Adams has worked hours and hours for free. He did his very best, with no holes drilled, looking at the ground surface and the banks. This may save the county millions of dollars, but it costs people like him lots of money and other people cannot fertilize their lawn and other things because they are in a critical recharge aquifer area. Simpson's results, over the years, have shown no detriment to the groundwater. Their site is much larger than his. The tests he has done on his site have not even come close to contaminated drinking standards. The county's only concern was whether contaminates were coloring the water. Only one well, the farthest away, showed one -billionth, and he was very concerned about it, and called Ms. Lajoie and the lab and was told it could have been human error because it was so minute and the test could be done again and .it might not show up. The argument he has is that it is in a critical aquifer, but is it a critical aquifer? It is an illegal landfill, but is it his fault that it is an illegal landfill? In good intention and faith, he thought the site was legal, and it might still be legal if it was pursued with Simpson. In good faith he did all this, and then he got hit with the $25,000 bill and was shut down. When Mr. Watts called he told him that the staff was trying to set up a program where it would not cost as much, and if everybody pays, it could be done for less. It costs him between $1,200 and $1,400 to run the tests a year. All of a sudden, the county calls and tells him that his site is included in this monitoring. He had asked, at that time, why the Port of Shelton was not included which has the same type of site and within 800 feet of a public water system, in an old gravel pit, and tests were being run on it with results not as good as his site. He had called Mr. Banner about this. All of a sudden it was going to cost him $36,000, which he does not have. He does not have any money. He has a lot of assets, but his money has gone into the monitoring wells, in testing, and developing the subdivision. They will test to see if there was any contamination. If a trained person goes out there, and garbage was thrown there, it could show up as contaminated. He was faced now with having lost control of what he does. The county has complete control to do testings, and whatever they want to do. Instead of a bill of $1,200 - $1,400 per year, it went up to $12,000 a year. At that time, he decided the thing to do was to talk to someone who was knowledgeable who knows the area. He went to Ms. Lajoie who lives in Kent and asked her to represent him. She has a degree and was well qualified. She has worked as a hydro -geologist for 15 years for Burlington Northern. Ms. Lajoie asked if the cost included any new wells. Mr. Banner answered that the start up costs were $5,600 and the first year costs were $10,000 and $11,000. That includes the wells, getting things set up, and their staff accompanying the consultant on the first round of samples. In the second and third years, the cost comes down to $3,000 per year. At that time, the Health Department staff would do the sampling. The extra cost would include the data base, the analysis and trends and the reporting format. This would include an annual report which costs $2,700 and the mid -year report was $1,534. This would also include one additional well. He has talked with the consulting firm about Mr. Drake's site, and they would be open to talking with another professional about this. The lab name is Analytical Resources, Inc. Ms. Lajoie asked if the site would be classified as a landfill or a recycling pile. If it was a recycling pile, no monitoring would be required. Mr. Banner replied that, at the minimum, no monitoring would be required, although it could be imposed. Ms. Lajoie asked if it was considered a landfill, which would require monitoring at closure. Mr. Banner replied it would require ongoing monitoring if it was MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 8 of 10 a landfill. It was based on size. Mr. Watts commented that at 10,000 cubic yards, the monitoring was required. Dr. Trucksess noted that in order to be considered a recycling site, 50% of the material would need to be recycled within 5 years. Ms. Lajoie asked if that would be 5 years within the time it was put on or 5 years from the time the permit was obtained. Dr. Trucksess corrected his statement, noting it was 3 years, and stated that it appeared that none of the woodwaste had been recycled yet. Dr. Trucksess commented that his decision was based on whether state law was being complied with and whether or not there was a threat to public health. He wondered if they really knew what was going on with the ground water. The issue of whether it was located in a sensitive aquifer recharge area cannot be solved here. That would be a bigger issue, solved by other experts. However, in regard to Mr. Drake's appeal, if there was some assurance that the material would be started to be recycled within a reasonably short period of time he would be willing to wait and see. His feeling was if he did not see any activity occurring within 6 months, then the monitoring would need to be pursued. The county's direction needs to be followed. The County Commissioners have directed that this monitoring go into effect. They could offer a delay, perhaps. Mr. Drake requested that he be given 5 years to remove the material. He believed the material was now 2 feet less than when it was measured. If it was spread over the entire 17 acres, it would probably be 4 feet high instead of 6 feet high. That would be around 25,000 yards a year, and it could be removed in 5 years. Another concern was that big rocks and dirt were also dumped with the woodwaste. Some areas were dirtier than others. Most of the material came directly from hoppers, but in some areas the woodwaste was picked up from the dirt. It was much easier to grind the material into top soil and use some of the top soil to cover the area. Some of the rocks and debris would be pushed into the leveling. This could enable it to be leveled into some ball diamonds or something, rather than back to gravel. Dr. Trucksess asked if Mr. Drake wanted to grind the material with some of the native soil. Mr. Drake answered no, the material was already decomposed enough so that when it was ground up, it would be soil. Then it could be watered and fertilized to grow grass. He would like to grind 6 inches on the top to put in a ball field or grass. Dr. Trucksess asked how many cubic yards would be needed for this purpose. Mr. Drake stated it would be 17 acres, 6 inches deep. Three feet, 6 inches, would be removed. Mr. Banner stated that in comments that Mr. Drake has made in the past, the material was 10 feet deep. He would not agree that it was 4 feet now. Mr. Drake stated he would measure it with Mr. Banner. Mr. Banner commented that his concern with this proposal was that the history of the site indicates that the recycling events would not happen. His experience with other sites indicate that the best of intentions do not always work out. There have been recycling permits for 2 - 3 years, but Mr. Drake has not gotten the equipment to do it because the equipment was too expensive to purchase and maintain. The concept was great to get the material off the site. However, he was concerned whether Mr. Drake had the financial ability to even do it. This fact needs more verification. Mr. Drake stated that $12,000 would get it started. Mr. Banner stated MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 9 of 10 Mr. Drake had indicated he did not have $12,000. Mr. Drake agreed he did not, and wondered how he could pay the county $12,000. Ms. Lajoie stated the two sample rounds at the Drake site have not indicated any impact to groundwater as far as she could see. She had talked with Mr. Tokos back in March of 1994, and had asked him about woodwaste landfills. He talked about what they had seen from the Simpson woodwaste piles and the monitoring done there. He had stated that nothing was really showing up, and he would be working with Mr. Soehnlein on what to monitor for. The monitoring there had been going on for 10 - 15 years. She wondered what concerns staff had with woodwaste landfills and what had been found. She wondered what kind of threat they were looking at. Mr. Watts stated that the state was in the process of revising woodwaste requirements. The biggest concerns were lignins and tannins, and PH levels. Ms. Lajoie asked if the tannins and lignins, themselves, posed a hazard. Mr. Watts stated they were mostly a nuisance. They would cause coloring, and large amounts would cause stomach aches and vomiting. Mr. Banner stated that the interaction with chlorinated water could cause a reaction with these leachates. As Ms. Lajoie was pointing out, the tannins and lignins were not themselves a great problem. However, PH levels were also a problem. Ms. Lajoie wondered if elevated PH had been seen at the Simpson sites. Mr. Watts stated that Simpson has had some high spikes in a:few of their monitoring wells and exceeded groundwater levels. This has been watched for the past couple of years. Mr. Banner stated that they have worked with the state on this. Mr. Watts noted that one or two wells at the Simpson sites did have groundwater impacts showing tannins, lignins, and elevated PH. Mr. Drake stated the person he talked to yesterday stated he had $22,000 to invest and was willing to put that money up. This person was ready to talk to people about starting the grinding. If this did not work out, he had the muscle to borrow the money. He could get the money to grind the product. Each year he could grind enough to have the pile removed in 5 years. He believed that 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards could be moved each year. It would be completed within the 5 years. If that much was not ground each year, it could be checked. He stated that if that much was not removed, it could be put on some of the other 160 acres he has. He could landscape some of these areas. If this was not done, he would then go on the monitoring program. Dr. Trucksess asked Mr. Drake if he would be willing to sign a written contract between himself and the Health Department stating exactly how much woodwaste would be removed each year, and if at any point he fell below the contract requirements, the monitoring program would be instituted. Mr. Drake answered he could do that. Dr. Trucksess stated that, in addition, he would like to see that some monitoring continue. The established monitoring should continue. Mr. Drake asked if Ms. Lajoie could continue the monitoring. Dr. Trucksess asked if that would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Banner stated it would be up to Dr. Trucksess if they were not going to require the county's monitoring program. Dr. Trucksess stated that back in the 1980's the county did not monitor and was apprised of the necessity of certain permits and so forth. He believed the county had some obligation to work with Mr. Drake, and he would like to see a written contract that 25,000 cubic yards would be removed every year and that, if at the end of the first year 25,000 cubic yards have not been removed, then Mr. Drake would be under the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH HERMAN DRAKE APPEAL June 27, 1996 - Page 10 of 10 guidelines of the county monitoring program. Mr. Drake stated he would agree to that. Dr. Trucksess stated that at the end of the second year, it would be 50,000 removed; third year 75,000 and so forth. Mr. Drake stated he would agree to that, or remove more. Dr. Trucksess noted that more than the required amount would be better. Mr. Drake asked if he would be given the opportunity to put 6 inches on the property. Dr. Trucksess stated that would be allowed as long as the amount of woodwaste remaining fell under the state regulation for a woodwaste facility. Mr. Drake stated that most of it would be ground, but it would be greater than 2,000 cubic yards. They believed if it was under 10,000 cubic yards it would not require the monitoring. Mr. Banner noted they should remain consistent with what has been required in other places. Dr. Trucksess stated he wanted to see the contract once it was written. He would not put out a written report, unless necessary. Mr. Banner stated he would like it written on the appeal form. (exhibit 7.) Hearing adjourned at 11:30 a.m. MASON COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER Mark E. Trucksess Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Coots