HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/08/22 - Board of Health (2)Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 1 of 56
ATTENDANCE:
MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
APPEAL HEARING
August 22, 1996
Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer
Brad Banner, Director of Health Services
Mark Tompkins, Water Quality Program Manager
Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Specialist
Brent Long, Clerk
Janice Cooperstein, Appellant
V. E. Cokelet, Appellant
Robert Slee, R A S Commercial Services
Al Everson, Al's Perc & Design
Don Woolliscroft, Installer
APPEAL HEARING - JANICE COOPERSTEIN/VIVENE COKELET
MICHAEL DICK PROPERTY - LOT A SHORT PLAT 178, PART OF BELFAIR
CENTER.
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
We call the heating to order. I am Dr. Trucksess. I am the hearing
officer. When you make testimony, remember to state your name
so that our typist will know who you are and who is talking. And
a...please address your comments to me. A...is the defendants here
today or....
Unknown lady: A um...well, Mr. Slee is the property manager.
Dr. Mark Trucksess: But...address your comments to me and I wouldn't want to have
any arguments going back and forth.
Unknown man: Not only is there a (garbled).
" Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Kim Lincoln:
0...OK! Ah, we'll start with the chronology of the events and we'll
let Kim Lincoln start that and then when she gets done (background
noise of pounding and garbled)
Would like to read a brief chronology. I want to start by saying
that when a letter is in a chronology I try to give a brief description
of the contents of the letter. It is only a brief description - it is not
meant to substitute the contents of the letter itself.
Chronology for Michael Dick, parcel number 12329-32-90050.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 2 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Unknown man:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
6-19-1995 A complaint was received by Mason County Department
of Health Services regarding the Dick property.
6-22-1995 Complaint was investigated by John Dennison. Dry well
found to be in failure.
6-23-1995 Water sample taken by Mark Tompkins. Effluent
surfacing at the dry well, with a fecal count of 2400 fecal
chloroform per 100 millimeter.
7-17-1995 The failure was turned over to Kim Lincoln for repair.
7-24-1995 The initial letter was mailed out to the property owner.
8-9-1995 An onsite meeting with the property manager, designer
and Kim Lincoln.
10-6-1995 The repair permit was received.
10-11-1995 Site evaluation by Kim Lincoln.
12-11-1995 Designer fees.
12-12-1995 Appeal to the issuents of the permit were received by
both Janice Cooperstein and Ms. Cokelet.
12-12-1995 A design stake out inspection was conducted by Kim
Lincoln and Mark Tompkins.
12-14-1995 The design was approved by Mason Health .
Department.
12-21-1995 We had an appeal hearing.
12-27-1995 A letter was received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Janice Cooperstein. The letter stated
additional concerns.
1-4-1996 The health officer...
A...um...excuse me please, but.... It looks like this is four pages of
the status of...I'm not sure if that is pertinent to what were here
today... since we all have it in writing, can we just get to the matter
of the issue and have the Health Department...possibly, you
know....
(garbled interruption)Janet....
The last time the meeting was cut very short and we did not....
We have until noon...and I ah...this is going pretty quickly and it
brings me up-to-date. I know your all current with this but I am
not.
Janice Cooperstein: I'm just not sure this Willis is done....
Mason County Board of Health
Coopeastein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 3 of 56
Kim Lincoln:
Again, we will start off with 12-27-1995 when a letter was received
by Janice Cooperstein. The letter basically stated additional
concerns she had.
1-4-1996 The health officer termination was sent out to all parties
concerned.
1-5-1996 A letter, dated 1-2-96, was received by Mason County
Department of Health Services from Steve Wecker who was a
witness for Janice Cooperstein. His letter detailed his concerns
regarding the design. The two major concerns were designs flows
and waste strengths.
1-22-1996 A letter received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Janice Cooperstein. The letter detailed her
concerns regarding design flow.
1-23-1996 A letter received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Janice Cooperstein. Letter details more
concerns regarding the design. Her concerns included: design
flows, safety margins, and operation and maintenance.
1-30-1996 A letter sent to Michael Dick from Mason County
Department of Health Services. The letter states that the new
water readings indicate flows were under estimated and the design
must be resubmitted. At that point we voided the design that had
been approved back in December of 1995 and it had to be
reworked.
2-10-1996 A letter received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Bob Slee, property manager for Michael
Dick. The letter and follow-up phone conversation confirmed
water feeding devices were implemented through out the building.
In the phone call it was agreed that after the devices are in place the
monitoring of water use will be done by the designer.
3-28-1996 A letter received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Janice Cooperstein. Again the letter detailed
more concerns regarding the design. Major concern of hers was,
that there repair was in expansion.
4-11-1996 A new design was submitted.
4-19-1996 The design was reviewed and failed.
4-29-1996 A letter received by Dr. Trucksess, Mason Department
of Health, Health Officer, from Janice Cooperstein. This letter was
immediately forwarded to Mason County Health Department, due
to a conflict of interest. Letter, again, detailed more concerns
regarding design.
05-2-1996 Letter sent to Janice Cooperstein from Brad Banner.
The letter stated, Dr. Trucksess .forwarded her letter of 4-29-1996
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 4 of 56
to him due to a conflict of interest.
05-10-1996 Design submitted and was reviewed and placed on
hold for additional information.
06-26-1996 Design conditionally approved.
06-30-1996 Appeal submitted by Janice Cooperstein.
07-01-1996 Letter sent to property manager, designer/installer,
stating conditions of approval.
07-02-1996 Phone call from Bob Slee, property manager. Mr.
Slee was inquiring about what regulation we had prohibiting the
installation of an approved design, even if it was under appeal.
07-02-1996 Memo faxed to Mr. Slee regarding phone call inquiry.
Memo states that: Mason County Department of Health Services
has no regulation regarding this, but any installation should be done
at the owners full risk.
07-07-1996 An appeal submitted by Vivene Cokelet.
07-08-1996 Final inspection. Failed. Approved for cover, only.
Still need inspection of pump tank and alarm panel.
07-11-1996 Requested information sent to both appellants.
07-16-1996 Final inspection passed.
07-25-1996 Letter by Mason County Department of Health
Services from Janice Cooperstein. Letter states ground for appeal:
(1) Design is insufficient.
(2) Repairs and expansion.
(3) System is too large for site.
(4) Owner does not have an easement from her so the
system can be installed and maintained.
(5) Installation involved risk and harm to and trespassed
over the adjacent property.
07-29-1996 Installer called Mason County Department of Health
Services. A roofing contractor had driven over and damaged
portions of the front disposal area. Maintenance permit applied for
and damaged portions replaced.
08-09-1996 Letter received by Mason County Department of
Health Services from Steve Wecker, Registered Sanitarian, witness
for Janice Cooperstein. Letter details his concerns with the design
and installation. His concerns were with the design flow,
expansion, not repair, operation and maintenance inadequate and
installation problems. He asked that this letter be entered in todays
appeal.
That is the...(garbled) looking....
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 5 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Kim Lincoln:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln: ,
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Vivene Cokelet:
Did you want me to proceed? With the appeal or is there a....
I would rather proceed first if that....
Ok.
Um...the Health Officer actually...um.... Does he have a question
for me or....
Yes, I do have a couple of questions. What modifications were
made between...the a...failed inspection on July 8th and the pass
inspection on July 151?
The terminology failed on 07-08-1996 is...is a little bit misleading.
Technically it was failed because I wasn't able to inspect all
portions. In reality, the inspection was fine. What I was there to
look at passed, but I could not give it final sign off until I inspected
the other two things, which was the...a...control panel and pump
tanks.
So this was just...you couldn't do a full evaluation test at that time.
Exactly! Technically we call that fail, but it wasn't a fail due to any
deficiency or anything.
Question! Aught there have been by 07-16, the alarm fully
installed?
Yes!
And operating?
Yes!
Alright, Mrs. Cokelet, can I ask....
Yes, I am Vivene Cokelet and ah... I have the adjourning property.
My driveway is adjoining the back side of Mr. Dick property. And
I am objecting because the same thing I objected to before - I feel
the flow will come over or under my driveway property and
inundate it and it is also in the way if I wanted to open my driveway
more. And that is the same thing I said in the beginning. However,
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 6 of 56
Vivene Cokelet:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Vivene Cokelet:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
People:
there is a new problem! Now, if I drive into my driveway on very
hot day and the wind is just right, I can smell septic tank odor.
That is all I have to say.
There is one other thing, the ground was mounded higher that the
original land stratus. However, I am assuming, because it is loose
dirt it will finally pack down, but we'll see!
Ok. Any comments?
No, that is it. Thank you!
Ms. Cooperstein?
I have been in conversation with Mrs. Cokelet a number of times
and I...ah...have gotten two septic...one septic engineer and one
sanitarian. You have already.... I did not see it in the package...it
is such a big package. Is it in here? I do not see the letter from
Steve Wecker.
The latest letter. Yes, it is most certainly in here.
Can you point it out to people so they can find it?
Yes! I tried to divide it up in sections. I believe it would be
found...
There is a lot of old documents in here.
That would be found in our Section III, Cooperstein
Correspondence. If you'll flip to that section they are in order. I
believe that was the last letter received by our department in there.
Ok, so dated August 9th and so I would have ...(garbled) people.
Ah, Dr. Trucksess, you may want to take a quick look Ah...I have
additional letters from the professional engineer that I would also
like entered into testimony. It is by Mike Mitchell, which I assume
most of you know. He has been in the septic field awhile.
Never heard of him.
Janice Cooperstein: Well, he has been on all the WACs, he has been on the WACs
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 7 of 56
committees for 6 years. He is a septic engineer for 20 years. He
was referred to me by a number of people from health departments,
other engineers, sanitarian, and other people in the field. He is well
regarded in his field. I would like you to see that I have eight
copies of the letter...so...we'll need more than this. Do you want to
share?
Kim Lincoln: Regarding these letters she's entered in testimony, Dr. Trucksess -
would you like to specially read them aloud or....
Janice Cooperstein:
I think, particularly, the letter from Northwest Septic might be
pertinent and I, think it should be, reviewed. Either read aloud or
read silently, which ever is preferred.
Dr. Mark Trucksess: Take the letter and read the...why don't you go ahead first and read
the letter...ah.... Either right there and then....
Kim Lincoln:
I will be reading the letter submitted by Steve Wecker, registered
Sanitarian. He is a witness for Janice Cooperstein. The letter was
submitted to our department...a.... It looks like it was received on
August 12th but written on August 9th, 1996. •
Dear Brad. (That is Brad Banner, Director of Health Services).
I have again been contacted by my client, and Ms. Cooperstein
regarding the approval installation of Mr. Dick's sewage disposal
system. I have reviewed the application proposal submitted by Mr.
Everson and approved by Kim Lincoln of your staff. It appears that
a number of the comments I made in my correspondence to you of
January 2, 1996, and at the appeal hearing are still pertinent.
The estimated sewage flow, based on water use data, submitted
with the revised proposal is still weak. It relies on a limited figure
reading, when the system is expected to receive, treat, and dispose
of sewage on a 24 hour bases. Calculations based on business
hours is of limited...excuse me...is of very limited value. Many of
the calculations are confusing. Using the data for the entire period
- there are several times when the flow will is exceeded and the
alarm will activate - there are several interpretations which
conclude that the capacity will be exceeded and the alarm will
sound. I would be happy to provide greater detail.
The waste strength issue is still pertinent. The new numbers,
Mason County Board of Health
Coopestein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 8 of 56
leading to questions where the sample is taken, by whom, and at
what time.
Based on the design, it appears, this system is no longer a
substandard table 6 repair, yet the application states that 1005
square feet of drainfield is available though 1020 square feet is
required. This still looks like an expansion of the system.
Particularly since the application states the old approved flow is
significantly less than the new flow of 816 gallons per day. Doesn't
this place the Health Department in the position of granting an
expansion, though the design doesn't meet the state regulations for
expansions? The plan calls for 1/8" orifices with 5 feet of head.
This is not a state approved method until the new guidelines are
issued by the Department of Health. While in use in otherstates,
many professionals in Washington question the wisdom of using
smaller orifices particularly on commercial systems. It the soil is
type one, the, by the sand filter guidelines, the sand should be
brought up along the sides of the "Infiltrator" to a minimum
horizontal thickness of 6 inches. There are other methods to
accomplish the same effect, but I don't see the design reflecting this
requirement. Is this variance from the guidelines?
The Operation and Maintenance attachment interests me. Does
Mason County have an approved program as noted on the design?
The agreement states that, if the alarm activates, the designer,
installer, and/or 0 and M professional must be contacted. It
doesn't say who is responsible to make the call, specifically who
they are to call, and what must be done (silence the alarm, correct
the problem, turn off water service to the building; close the •
offices). It also doesn't say who is responsible to pay for the visit
and repairs, who is responsible to contact the Mason County Health
Department, and finally what will be done if people are not
contacted and the Health Department, and finally what will be done
if people are not contacted and the Health Department isn't
notified. Where are the assurances in this contract that the party
noticing the alarm will not just shut it off? Can we assume that this
will all be corrected in the final document? It seems that a vital
party of any maintenance program is an accurate As -Built of the
system including specifications on the components installed. Will
that be the case here?
The pictures I saw of the actual installation concern me. Much of
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Coketet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 9 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
the cover or fill appears to be up against, or held up by a wire
fence. Is this an acceptable practices in Mason County? I know it
isn't in the other counties I work in.
The system is designed to handle 816 gallons per day, with these
flows being generated in five days and disposed of over seven. I
calculate then that 1,142 gallons will could be generated each of the
five days. Since the septic tank is before the surge tank, it must
accommodate this daily gallonage. Septic tanks are to be sized at
one and one-half times the daily flow rate or, in this case 1,713
gallons. Since the plan shows only a 1,500 gallon septic tank, it
appears to be undersized. The appropriateness of the basis for the
design flow has already been questioned by others. I too have the
salve concerns.
In summary, I think there still are problems with the proposal. The
issue of expansion versus repair has not been resolved, and the
water use justification is very weak. While the modifications of
larger septic and pump tanks are an improvement, in my opinion the
proposal still does not meet the on -site sewage regulations. I
suspect the alarm will activate. Please enter my comments into the
hearing record.
Sincerely, Stephen C. Wecker, Registered Sanitarian
Um...let me make a couple of points on his letter. One when he
talks about the septic sand. I'm sorry! My name is Janice
Cooperstein. Um...with regard to Steve Wecker, a...calculations at
the septic system is undersized, that is not based on what he
believes the real flow is - it is simply taking the plan that 816
gallons per day, translating it to the plans own business days as the
result and translating it to 7 days a week to 5 days a week and
saying, even the plans own design has an undersized septic system,
which is less than 1/2 times ah... the septic tank. Yes. I'm sorry.
I could let you see a couple of pictures. I was at the property again
yesterday. Um...this is the status. This is new fill, that is held up...,
fill that use to be at the foot of that wire fence that is about a 4 foot
high wire fence. You can see that an expansive part of the west
drain field is literally up above the ground, creating flow and/or
height on top of the flow and it....
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 10 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Vivene Cokelet:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Vivene Cokelet:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Vivene Cokelet:
Janice Cooperstein:
VIVENE Cokelet:
Janice Cooperstein:
VIVENE Cokelet:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins?:
Is the fence on the property line?
Yeah,
My property line.
That is the property line?
Yes it is. It is my fence, also.
And that is the substantial part of the back drainfield. Other parts
of the back drainfield are ah...
Did you see it?
I've been there.
and that does not make me different?
Yes it does. That fence has been there more than 10 yrs.
Then I don't think anybody disagrees with the property lines....
No!
What I would like to do is stick to the staf's comments on this
letter and then we will go to the next letter and get their comments
on that. Will that be alright?
Sure!
Lets go to the letter ah...Kim, and ah....
Would you like me to a.... Will actually...it might save time to go
onto the next engineers letter, because some of these comments are
repeated. In the interest of time...which ever. Ha, ha.
Let me do it and then you'll (garbled) concerns.
Dr. Trucksess and another man: garbled.
Janice Cooperstein: The next letter is much more specific and a...um...goes much more
into detail.
Mason County Board of Health
Coop etstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 11 of 56
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
I will certainly do my best. Um...Kim Lincoln again. I will be
reading a letter ah...Northwest Septic, Incorporated seems to be the
company and Michael D. Mitchell ah... PE seems to be the author
of the letter. The letter is dated the 14th of August, 1996 and it is
too Janice Cooperstein.
Ms. Cooperstein. Repair situation are difficult, often in the spirit of
trying to be particular, rules are violated. Excuse me, I misread
that. In trying to be practical, rules are violated. I applaud this
when it is appropriate. I believe, however, if rules ending is to be
appropriate, then the on -site septic system, about which the rules
are bent to clearly protect the public health. Therefore, as I told
you in our phone conversation, my approach was to look at the
design, see if it protects the public health. What I did not tell you,
is that I wrote up the original version of the Washington State Sand
Filter Guidelines and was on the committee that authored WAC
246-272.
My assessment is based on the assumption that you have given me a
complete copy of the design, which is Mason County Permit
Number SWG 95-0715. The copy in my possession is devoid of
page numbers.
Yes, I should often note that I forward to him, everything...the
complete plans and land fill as you had forward them to me.
My first glance seemed to show an impressive design because of the
excellent draftsmanship. As I waded into the design, however, I
began to realize that the designer may not really be up to speed.
Eventually that realization turned to certainty, and my certainty
turned to concern for the Public Health. If the designer were a
professional engineer...(cough) excuse me (cough)....if the designer
were a professional engineer then we could go to the Washington
State Board of Registration for Professional Engineer. Designers
have no accountability. Usually the county that approved the
designer will take no action that would make the county look bad
I have great concerns about this on -site system protecting the
Public Health, if it was installed as designed. Because of the
problems with the design I do not believe Public Health is protected
and I believe that until such time as the glitches are removed or
mitigated, the legal system, and/or Mason County Health
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokele2 Appeal Hearing
August 22,1996
Page 12 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Department, should require adherence to Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 272-246: For example: The
Infiltrators installed were along the west side of the property line
are within 12 to 18 inches of that property line, and will, until
modified as suggested below allow untreated effluent to exit the
Infiltrators and very possibly flow onto the neighbor's property
after each dose. Thus I see no justification whatsoever in this
instance for violating the minimum horizontal separation between
the grainfield and a property line as required by WAC 246-272-
09501.
I have in possession...I have in my possession a copy of soil works
submitted to Mason County. I will quote it below so you will
understand what I am commenting on.
My finished numbers are the top toll.
Right. It is on your page. Why don't we just...
Skip that portion?
Yeah, I think....
Basically noted are the capitol evaluations on the permit reference
above.
Area is limited,...
And this is also on your cap toll sheet that you read...
Can I comment?
Those are your comments on the bottom, so you can read those.
Will skip those...would you like to read that?
Yeah, you might as well.
These are the comments that I personally put on the bottom of the
permit. "Areas limited, would like to discuss other options with
designer possibly using landscaped area in front of building. Will
need holes to be dug in this area. Flow's Waste strength, tank size
Mason County Board of Health
Coops stein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 13 of56
must all be established and justified. Application rate for front area
must be adjusted."
My points are these:
1. I believe the soil work, as quoted above, is inadequate for use in
the design of the system that is the subject of this letter. There is
not enough information to rationally design a system based on the
information given. Let me ask some questions and make some
points.
a. Why are all three holes of different depths? Possibly the
digger ran into a water table, possibly an impervious layer,
possibly a pan. Maybe he or she was just plain tired.
Where are those holes? There are soil logs shown on the
design but they are not labeled, nor are they located with
dimensions.
b. There is no use of color to give the reader a clue about
the oxidation state in the soil. There is no mention of
mottles. There is no mention of mottles. There is no
mention of roots or root penetration. Nothing indicates the
presence or absence of a water table. Sewage is only '
treated in vertical unsaturated flow and vertical unsaturated
flow does not exist in a water table.
c. The cross sections shown on the pages labeled "Eastside
grainfield" and "Westside grainfield" suggest that there is a
restrictive layer at 60 inches. Where is the justification for
this statement? This will become relevant below.
d. There is no information about the ground slope in the
area of the grainfield. If there is a restrictive layer of
uniform depth, then knowledge of the slope on the surface
can be used to calculate the flow of the treated liquid as it
leaves the grainfield area. Without free egress from the
grainfield area, the liquid backs up and eventually impinges
on the treatment process itself. I will comment on this
below also.
2. The detail of the sand lined trenches shown by the designer is
such that when the sand lined trenches are pulsed, liquid will flow
out the edges of the Infiltrators and into the native soil where it will
apparently receive little if any.treatment as it flows toward the
ground water. That is a danger to the Public Health. I believe it
was wrong to propose such a cross section. Such a cross section
should not have been permitted by the mason County Health
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 14 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Brad Banner:
Kim Lincoln:
Brad Banner:
Department and such a cross section should be corrected
immediately.
The reason the designer should have used the sand lined trenches
and beds in the first place was to provide treatment. Sand lined
trenches or beds installed in Type 1A soil are supposed to have a
rim of sand or membrane around the Infiltrator or gravel. This rim
of sand or membrane is to prevent ponded liquid form running off
the edge and entering the ground water without treatment. If the
knowledge of the designer is not sufficient to realize this, then he or
she should, at a minimum, have followed the guidelines for sand
filters published by the Washington State Department of Health.
The designer did not follow these guidelines, I believe if the system
was installed as designed then what has been installed represents a
danger to the Public Health, and should be corrected, immediately.
Question! The design does not show a 6 inch riin around the
Infiltrator. I have seen it with installed as designed, what do you
first hand know that it was not?
It was installed as per design and that would be...affter I am finished
reading we will address that...pertinent questions.
I lost my place....
3. If there really is a restrictive layer at 60 inches, then the six
Infiltrators lined up side by side (the bed on the east side of the
system) will result in a mound of liquid underneath those same six
Infiltrators which will reduce the vertical separation. Vertical
unsaturated flow, which is required for pathogen removal, only
occurs if sufficient vertical separation exists. Thus, reducing the
vertical separation will reduce vertical unsaturated flow which in
turn will reduce treatment of the liquid before it reaches the native
soil. Everyone seems to agree that the native soil provides little if
anytreatment, and thence only partially treated septic tank effluent
will be reaching the ground water.
Dr. Trucksess, can I take over reading to give Kim a break?
Thank you! Suffering from a little cold here.
While the failure of an individual septic system might not represent
a danger to the Public Health, the failure of a public on -site septic
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 15 of 56
system almost guarantees pathogens are present, especially a waste
generated by a dental facility. I believe this represents a danger to
the Public Health. The bed portion of the system should have been
installed higher in the soil profile so that 36" of vertical separation
is present in operation.
4. There are ten valves in this system. The use of elementary
calculation techniques would have eliminated the need for these
valves. The problem with such an array of valves is that the
adjustment of any one valve affects the performance of every other
valve, they are interdependent. They are almost impossible to set,
by the time you have set valve 10, valve 1 is out of whack.
Furthermore, valves once set do not stay set. Uneven distribution
can result in local overloading, and that can cause treatment to be
inadequate, and that can be a danger to the Public Health.
5. Dosing the system:
a. The designer specifies the dose volume and the number
of doses per day, but not the attendant draw down in the
dosing chamber or the timer settings. This requires
considerable calculation, such calculation may be impossible
for the installer. Somebody has to do this figuring, if the
designer doesn't do it then the installer or the owner must.
Rare is the occasionwhen either the installer or the owner
knows what settings to use. If doses are excessive,
treatment suffers. If doses are too small, then the entire
sand filter is not used. I believe without specifying timer
settings and testing to see that the correct dose is generated,
there may be a danger to the Public Health.
b. The dose size specified violates the Pressure Distribution
Guidelines. The dose size specified is 102 gallons, yet the
interior volume of the laterals and the manifold, as taken
from the design, is about 31.03 gallons which implies,
according to the Washington- State On -Site Sewage
Technical Review Committee (TRC), a minimum dose size
of 217 gallons. In fact, medium sand should be dosed with
a dose of .3 gallon per square foot. So the minimum dose
should be approximately 302 gallons. The designer may
have argued that he gets better results with the smaller
doses, but he has no evidence to support that argument.
We have produced mpn of <3 fecal coliform/100 ml
consistently with doses of .3 to .35 gal/square foot. I
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 16 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
believe that without adequate dose sizes there may be a
danger to the Public Health.
c. The building has been around for many years, yet the
flow to the grainfield was not based on its history but rather
was based on a two week period. There has been at least .
one monthly period, since the flow was calculated, when the
daily flow was approximately 1,554 gallons per day. The
dose and timer settings will not handle that.
Can I interject a comment there? Um...that he is referring to this
April,...ah...(garbled) gallons per business day in April and contract
back that is almost twice the size of the maximum capacity of the
system which is. 816 average gallons per day.
The dosing chamber will fill up and there will be a very
unhealthy event. If the timer is reset to come on every 6 .
hours with a 300 gallon dose, then times of such high glow
will be addressed. Treatment will not suffer and the Public
Health will be protected. I believe that Mason County
Health Department should mandate this change in dose size
and dose frequency.
d. ORENCO makes not one timer panel but many timer
panels. These timer panels may be wired in a variety of
ways. Usually following method is used. There are three
floats. The lowest float is the "redundant off", its purpose
is to shut off the pump, should there be a reason the "pump
off' float had not done so. The middle float is the "pump
off" float, its job is to turn the timer on when it is in the up
position. (You automatically turn off the pump if you turn
off the timer.) The final float is the alarm float. The tricky
installer has this float wired into the timer panel so that the
pump comes on when the alarm is activated. This feature
enables the system pump to overload the grainfield in times
of high water usage or leakage, and it enables the manager
to ignore the alarm. It is a tool of poor management, it
circumvents the entire point of having a timer. An alarm
event needs to be treated as a system crying for help.
e. On the other hand, if the pump is not t}lrned on with the
activation of the alarm, then the pump tank may gradually
fill and overflow. The manager may well decide to manually
empty the pump tank, but this can lead to disaster. There is
a simple switch on all Orenco panels with timers which
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 17 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
activates the pump. If the manager elects to empty the tank
all at once, then there will be a `whole lot of polluting going
on". Overloading the grainfield can promote grainfield
failure. The manager should be warned about this. I believe
there is a danger to the Public Health if the manager is not
educated about this.
f. I'm sure that the timer panel has intrinsically safe relays
as required by Labor and Industries, but since the designer
was mum about which panel, how the unspecified panel is
wired, and how the timer is set, I suggest that it be checked
by the Mason Health Department. I believe that if the pump
chamber blows up, that will be a great danger to the Publie
Health.
6. This system uses 1/8" orifices, I believe these orifices will clog.
This is a particular concern because of the inadequate size of the
septic tank.
The design is based on a two week period in February 1996,
although the design was not submitted to the Mason County Health
Department until 10 May 1996. The design flow was apparently
taken immediately after `water saving fixture installed." The
number in a box is 695 gallons per day. Between the 25 of March
1996 and the 24 of April there are 30 day, 8 of which are weekend
days. During those 20-days the site in question used 4571 cubic
feet of water. The amounts to 4571 cu-ft x 7.48 gal/cu/ft divided
by 20 days equals 1554 gallons per day. Mind you that is an
average flow per day, undoubtedly there were days with high flows.
Yet the septic tank is only 1600 gallons. My...
Can I point out in this, that he is basically saying the flow projection
on the plan is 695 gallons per day. We have all. of April, which has
on different days 1554 gallons per day and that you have a septic
tank that is only 1600 gallons in capacity. Major, major problem!
Major under estimation, as well, and I think it is probably based on
a two week period - the 13 days reading. Ok.
My purpose here is not to point out the obvious, i.e. the septic tank
is undersized by all standards, which it is, but rather to point out
this enormous flow, which will only occur during business hours
will undou...
Janice Cooperstein: Yes, that is spread out over...like in a residence. It is lumped even
Mason County Board of Health
Coop erstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 18 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
more.
(Garbled, more than one talking at once)
I can't understand him...with you're interrupting him all the time.
I'm sorry!
...which will only occur during business hours will undoubtedly stir
the solids in the tank so that they will be carried over to the pump
tank where they will be introduced into the piping system with its
1/8 orifices. Let me repeat, I believe those 1/8 " orifices will clog.
Further to this: If this system had been installed during 25 March to
24 April, and if the dose volume and frequency called for by the
design were actually used, then the pump tank would be pumped at
least once a week during the time period specified! Clearly the
manager is not going to pump the tank once a week so that
manager doing one of two things. The manager will adjust the
timer as it suits him/her or the manager will pump the excess liquid
to the grainfield. I fear for the Public Health, in either the case.
Periodic maintenance will be required because of the undersized
septic tank and undersized orifices.
The maintenance manual presented to me does not, but should,
require the installation and reading of water meters for each tenant
and recording same each month. (The comment "Manager is to ask
Each tenant about any water using machines when renting" sounds
good but is not effective.) Monthly water usage by tenants can be
and should be monitored and managed. The addition of water
meters to each tenant should run less than $150.00 each. The
BOD5 and TSS should be monitored quarterly. There is no fall
back for this system, if it fails. A failed septic system is a threat to
the Public Health. Hence, it behooves the mason County Health
Department to require the owner to manage the on -site system for
minimum impact and maximum life. I believe poor management of
this system represents a threat to the Public Health.
7. I will not comment on the area of the grainfield. The numeric
methods used may be best described as amusing. (The designer see
695 gallons per day where the evidence shows an average of 1554
for a month.) It seems to me the designer tried to use every square
foot available, that is normally commendable, but effort like this
Mason County Board of Health
a Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 19 of 56
which threaten the Public Health are not commendable.
Summary:
It is possible to build a system which protects the environment and
Public Health, but violates all the rules. It is also possible to build a
system which conforms to the rules and does not protect the
environment and Public Health. I believe that this system neither
protects the environment and the Public Health, nor conforms to
many of the rules. I see no justifications for allowing its continued
use if it is not modified to adequately address the concerns I have
raised.
Let me summarize my opinion of this system:
Here we have a system based on inadequate soil work.
Here we have a system with an undersized septic tank.
Here we have a system with a cross section which shows that
untreated sewage to flow into the environment within 12 inches of a
property line.
Here we have a system which depends on a pressure distribution
system, who's Pressure Distribution system raises more questions
that satisfies concerns.
Here we have a system which depends on timing, but which does
not specify a timer or settings for the timer.
Here we have a system which depends on dose size and frequency
for function, yet which violates what I have learned by experience
and testing and which violates the TRC guidelines.
Here we have a system which could only work with effective and
educated management, yet which has inadequate instructions for
the manager.
Here we have a -system which is a threat to Public Health, if
installed as designed.
Here we have a system which if installed as designed, is a threat to
the health of the neighbors and the neighborhood.
I believe the owner should be required to modify the system so that
it protects the Public Health, the environment and the neighbors. I
believe that legal system should require the Mason County Health
to force the owner to manage the subject on -site system for
minimum environmental impact and maximum protection of the
Public Health and for grainfield life. I believe that the title should
carry a notice that all available land has been used for the on -site
septic system, so that a future owner is not left holding the bag.
Mason County Board of Health
Coopeistein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 20 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Even if the Public Health issues are addressed; the life of the system
without good management, regular monitoring and maintenance
will certainly be short.
Best Regard, Michael Mitchell, PE.
Do you have any further comments?
Um...well, maybe its...ah...appropriate at this certain time to get
some input from the Health Department with...
So that was my plan and has been...discussed these letters and....
Maybe easier... and little bit one of the (garbled).... I also have
another major presentation piece that um...and...which...some of
this is repeated, but we skip through...ah...a couple of parts that
maybe redundant but there are many other additional problems. So
maybe the thing to do is to address some of these. Each of these
Public Health Issues that Mr. Mitchell has pointed out. And lets
hold off on the flow projection which he points out as being so
critical, because I have a little bit more information on it and a
couple of questions.
But we'll take the letter step-by-step and let the staff make their
presentation and if you have other comments, we'll allow for that.
Will, I would like to give the...the things on the flow because the
first thing Mr. Wecker talks about in his letter ah... so if you have
something more on the flow please....
Ah...yes. I had called him the day after I receive the plan in the
mail, back in July or June. So I called her around July 1st and let
her know what the water readings were. Um...I find it interesting
that although she told me the plan had been submitted...I believe it
was May 20'. By that date it was two full water district months
that were in...full months, which should have been, normally
included in a flow projection. At that point in time, there was two
months for March, which was very low at only 345 and then there
was April, that at that time was 1140 a day on average. Which, if
you translate that to a business day, is about 1554 gallons per day,
on business days. The 1695 gallons that were used for the
projections in the plan, were based on 13 days of readings. In a
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22,1996
Page 21 of 56
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Tompkins:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
time period, the based on subsequent history , was not typical. Is
no where near the subsequent (garbled). In addition to March and
April, we now have an additional month. On average looking at the
five month average that is 668 per day on average. Remember flow
projections are not subsequently based on average reading, they are
suppose to be based on fluctuations, flows, variations and peaks.
And so you have a flow projection in the plan that is obviously
flawed. Ah...based on, basically 10 days readings after a water
fixture was changed and saying lets throw out all the old numbers
ah...we have new numbers and then using 10 days to base this plan
on with no variations plans, no safety factors that...no following
ETA design manuals...ah...plus...how can you have an average, you
know, assume the 695 plus the average 30 day flow: How can you
have an average 30 day flow used as your flow projection. Is there
an answer?
Is that all you have...I guess...you have those readings that you can
give to us?
Ah...well I have given them already! Ah...to Kim, but...I have them
here if you want to copy them down. I also refer to them on the
top line in my other announcement.
Well, it is my understandingthat a...the system was designed off of
816 gallons a day. Is that correct Al?
That is maximum....
This is adequate design off of 815 gallons per day. It was based on
the readings that were provided by Al and the Moore system, that
you're fully aware of and by your own regard your down to 668
gallons per day on your average...how you figured it out. So they
are well below the design flow of 816 gallons per day. Ah...
Is that the standard EPA design manual...
We use...we use patical flows to design the system as with all
repairs. We use the same thing for restaurants, other commercial
places through out the county. This is how we use it, because we
have found the EPA manual does not adequately address water
usage...ah...this has been used through out the State this way. The
EPA manual is used as a guide ah...if you have no water meter
Mason County Board of Health
Coops stein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 22 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Unknown Male voice:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Mark Tompkins:
reading which we do in this case. We have used those readings. It
is designed well above the average 695, which calculated to begin
with and your readings of 668 gallons per day. You'd have 816
gallons per day.
Can I...
In regard to that...I am addressing the issue, Jan...first let me get
that done. In regard to that, this system has been in operation since
July to date. To my knowledge the alarm is not founded and...
Is that correct?
Not once!
Not once! And therefore if you read the letter from both Mr.
Wecker and Mike Mitchell, their figures would have said this more
(garbled) than the first days of operation, did not happen.
Well...maybe we should get into a very critical issue of when does
the alarm sound?
What...is the next question you have there Dr. Trucksess? Want to
go over the soil or ?
Yeah, I guess so.
The soil .lots, however, were done by Kim Lincoln. Were done by
Mason County standard procedure. They are done like that
throughout Mason County. The issue of color is raised. The color
your talking about are the mottling colors. Mottling is noted on all
design...all committed mottling is present. When there is no
mention of mottling, then mottling was not seen in the test hole.
The designer indicated there were 6 layers...60 inches based on the
depth of the test hole. That belief that the test holes were, we can
only assume that below that we are not sure what is there, so we do
not use that as our...in our design figures. In this case there
is...and...what would be called the westside is where the medium
sand and gravel was found. On the eastside it was actually loamy
sand...I do believe? Was provided adequate treatment without a
sand augmentation next to the bed. There is no problem with the
effluent going outside of that because it will receive treatment in the
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 23 of 56
loamy sand. Loamy sand will provide excellent treatment and
should for a long time.
In regards to the mounting of the effluents in this case: Here we
have over 3 feet of vertical separation, which will be achieved in
each grainfield. Here we have 2 feet of sand, plus we know an
additional foot of soil. For fresh distribution you only need 2 feet
of vertical separation. In this case we have 3 feet of vertical
separation, which will supply more that efficient amount of
treatment for this effluent.
Brad Banner: Different soil depths - are they said different test holes or are they
over slightly different depths and that which...
Janice Cooperstein: Lets...
l3rad Banner: ...likes suppose to be about...
Dr. Mark Trucksess: Wait for the next letter.
Mark Tompkins: Basically on the soil depth the test...where ever these test holes
stage them to reasonable or not, I believe these holes, some think
they are their sluffed in, at which time...we...it certainly is a long
time until we got out there. So if the holes were dug deeper...ah...I
don't know of anybody on the back can get them exactly the same
inches deep without having sluffing in. So, ah...you know, it is no
fault of somebody saying the test holes are being lazy. I don't...
Jean Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Jean Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Well, part of the problem is it takes you to plan, is that the slope
over the Cokelet's road is a lot...over her...5 feet is still way over a
big part of her driveway. So that does not tell her, whether or not,
the restrictive layers and whether or not she shall have leakage.
We looked over the bank...both Kim and I did and...
I know...
...there was not an apparent...any apparent seeps coming out of the
bank or recessive layer or there was nothing there that ever
suggested that water ever came out of that bank. In regards to
that, the system...the dry wells were up on that bank...ah...both dry
wells were right there and there was no effluent coming out of that
Mason County Board of Health
Coope[stein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 24 of 56
bank.
Jean Cooperstein: Do you know...
Mark Tompkins: Now the system is feed over more area. There's a...lot more area
being utilized and the chances of the effluent breaking out of that
bank is reduced by this new system.
Jean Cooperstein: Do you know how much rainfall...during...was during that period?
Or how much rainfall we get...
Mark Tompkins: I know that last year we had an above normal year of rainfall...
Brad Banner: Right up through May!
Jean Cooperstein: Yes, but your talking about it on a week of a couple of inches or
few inches. Do you know how much a grainfield at 816 gallons per
day puts out? 484, if I remember right, inches of rain, on top of the
rainfall. It is not...you can't look at...
Mark Tompkins: Not all of it...not all of it goes on the westside.
Jean Cooperstein: No, that is the equivalent of this....
Brad Banner: Lets focus on the issue here, Mark. lets quit right here and dilly
daily of the system. It has been heard that we bent the rules and
repairs, and the State regulations explicitly tell you how repairs,
what rules apply and address the applicability of the....
Mark Tompkins:
Yes, there is a section in the State regulations that is called "Table 6
Repairs". "Table 6 Repairs" are done when a conforming system
cannot be installed or where ever ti* system cannot be connected
to a sewage treatment plant. This case, neither one of the above
could be done. The perfoaniing system could not be installed and
there was not a public sewer Available just for connection.
Therefore you follow what is called "Table 6 Repairs": You install
the system, maximizing distance to surface water and drinking
water, which neithex px werp *sent in this situation, then you go
from there and you aet lilFp f arbled), including setbacks, property
lines, foundations and all those type of things. Which was (garbled)
separations were maximized to the extent possible on the site.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page25 of56
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:.
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Do you know the definition of a conforming system?
Do I know the definition of a conforming system? A system that...
M...uh. What does it mean...what is the definition?
You can give the definition if you'd like.
Yeah, I receive one in soil confined. The other definition is:
systems or repairs turned in as truths. Departmental concurrence
by the waiver process, which assures Public Health protection by
higher treatment performance or other methods.
By designing this plan as a Table 6 Repair and not...you have totally
decided you can wave any justification or any waiver process on
this plan is basically what has happened. Am...therefore, everything
you approve, you simply say, "well we're doing the best we can."
. Is that correct?
This design maximizes, not only the horizontal and separations, it
also maximizes treatment capabilities. Ah...this is an enhancement
treatment system, it is a fan filtered system that will provide
enhanced treatment on top of that. Ah...this is what is done
throughout Mason County on repair situations and a...it has been
done for years in Mason County.
At the last hearing Mrs. Cokelet was reassured, repeatedly, that
there should be no problem because effluent filling to the west
grainfield was going to be pretreated. Now there is no
pretreatment. The effluent goes direct to the grainfield and without
any sand side wall to keep it from going over to sand, which is why
the guidelines require that. Ah...there is a high risk, as the engineer
pointed out, of the effluent going over the side and down...you
know...down the side and it is about a foot to foot and a half to
Mrs. Cokelet's property line at the top of the slope.
There is enhanced treatment, Ms. Cooperstein, a sand hill should
provide the enhanced treatment to effluence.
Its slipped.
It is going to get into the sand, into the sand filter. Ah...the
guidelines specif... the guidelines actually removed that requirement
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 26 of 56
for a period in 1995, when the grainfield was originally designed.
The redesign did not address changing the grainfield size, nor
location or anything about the grainfield. It was changing the
gallons per day, which were adjusted. Ah...in regard to the
guidelines that were in place in 1995...ah...they do not require that
the sand be about 6 inches on either side of the infiltrators.
Janice Cooperstein: So...wait a second...
Brad Banner:
Mark, Mark! Dr. Trucksess asked specifically that you go over the
high points in these letters and also ask, specifically, that we not
get into these confrontations...
Mark Tompkins: Right!
Brad Banner: ...this way.
Mark Tompkins: The orifice size...ah...The orifice size of 1/8th orifices is something
that is done in Mason County. Orifices were allowed...have been
used in Mason County since Fall of 1995. We have had extensive
communication with the State Department of Health personnel.
One of the requirements we use for that orifice is you increase the
residual head, which was done in this case. You increase up to a 5
foot head which will prevent the clogging of the orifices. The
clogging of the orifices is a big concern when your talking about
commercial operations that have a lot of high BODs and increases
oil. In this situation we did not have that. We do not have places
which are producing or manufacturing food or selling food. We
have a smaller waste strength and a...there should be no problem
with finding the orifices, provided the original head is at least 5 feet,
which it currently is. In addition to that, these requirements...these
requirements 8 essential orifices with a five head has been added to
the DOH guidelines for pressure distribution and is currently being
used throughout the state.
O & M is the next item. There is an Operation and Maintenance
Program in Mason County. It has been officially approved and has
been implemented. The implementation of the 0 & M plan is
currently being developed with citizens, designers, and installers
throughout the community and everybody is being utilized. In this
situation, the owner, Mr. Dick has agreed to comply with the
Operation and Maintenance program that is in place in Mason
Mason County Board of Health
Coopecstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 27 of 56
Kim Lincoln:
Mark Tompkins:
Kim Lincoln:
Mark Tompkins:
Brad Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
County. He has also indicated that he is responsible for contacting
the.... Where is the agreement at, Kim?
The agreement is located in Section 4, um...you go to that Section
called Permits Design and Final Inspection Information.
Oh, 1 got it right here.
Yeah?
Yeah. It basically says that ah...it says "I also understand the
following conditions must be maintained: (1) If the alarm is active
the designer, installer, and/or the Operation Maintenance
professional must be contacted within 24 hours. (2) A report of
findings must be submitted to Mason County Department of Health
Services within 72 hours of the alarms activation." So...this has
been recorded on the property deed and ah...is there. So...as far as
that goes, the 0 & M is going to be...his responsibility. He knows
that. He knows who has to contact and he also agreed that he is
going to comply with the program and better prove to Mason
County and the implementation part of that is being worked out
now. So...the owner and manager will be well informed, well
trained on this. They will be in contact with...they have to contact
the designer, the installer, and/or maintenance person within 24
hours of alarm activation.
Can I talk about the orifice log? For...about a year now we have
allowed 8 inch orifices with a 5 foot head, even though in the
regula...in the guidelines it says, ...I think, the smallest is 3/16th.
The reason we did that is because we knew the current thinking and
the current state of the knowledge is that those are very accessible
with the 5 foot head and we done this with the full knowledge and
concurrence of the Department of Health. In July of 1996 we have
the fully adopted guidelines using the Pressure Distribution System.
These are now adopted by the Technical Review Committee,
indorsed by the Department of Health, and now they formally do
allow that 1/8 inch orifice.
When was that passed?,
July of 1996. So we were using...because of the staff, as current as
they are, the state of the art of this thing, that we were using that
Mason County Board of Health
Coopastein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 28 of 56
with the State approval and now it is a part of that...
Garbled short question from a gentleman and Brad Banner answers. (Can't understand it)
Pam Denton:
Sure, my name is Pam Denton, Mason County On -Site Sewage
Lead. Along that same line of thought...ah...In Mr. Mitchell's
letter, point 5, he criticizes the dose volume. He says that he needs
to increase the dose volume, that a larger quality is needed in order
to protect Public Health. Again, in the new Pressure Distribution
Guidelines, on page 7, regarding dosage frequency - it says, "the
minimum doses in Type I and II soils, the minimum doses are...in
Type I A soil the minimum doses are greater than 4 times per day.
More frequent dosing..."and I am reading this verbatim, "more
frequent doses than those recommended above, maybe desirable in
some designs. Dosing of drainfields provides intermittent aeration
to the infiltrated surface. With this method, periods of loading are
followed by periods of resting with cycle intervals ranging from
hours, to a day, or more. The resting phase should be sufficiently
long to allow the system to drain and expose the infiltrative surface
to air, which encourages degradation of the clogging materials by
aerobic bacteria. In sands, however, the rapid infiltration rate can
lead to bacterial and viral contamination of shallow ground water,
especially when first put into use. Therefore, systems constructed
in these soils, sandy soils, should be dosed with small volumes of
wastewater four or more times a day to prevent saturated
conditions from occurring, and hence inadequate treatment. This
system is designed with very frequent doses in accordance with the
new technology and guidelines."
All talking and asking questions at once - garbled.
Janice Cooperstein: Can I get back the Health Department a couple of minutes?
Brad Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
The designer...(garbled) he said the engineers are accountable to
the Engineering Board, the designers aren't accountable. I think
that should be addressed. How they are certified and about our
Board.
Well I don't....
The...the designers are accountable here in Mason County. There
is a certification process, a testing program that is here. You have
to have a years experience to even apply to take the test. It is a
Mason County Board of Health
Coopetstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 29 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
very extensive test - it has been developed by our department. The
designers...there is a review panel that is made upiof designers,
installers, a County staff person, a member of the Board of Health,
and Dr. Trucksess. They will review...they will actually review the
designers and ah... address any inconsistency they find occurring
with those designers, so there is an internal quality control that is
done on local designers, which insures that the designers are very
knowledgeable, keep up on continuing education. We have a
continuing education requirement that the designers maintain their
education. We have periodically, workshops for the designers and
installers - where they come and leam about these new things. All
of our designers have been willing to learn and ah...practice new
techniques. Many of them go to outside training sources and ah...it
is done all the time. All these things are there, so basically the
designer is accountable and are done on a frequent basis in Mason
County.
Excuse me! This is Janice Cooperstein and I'd like to make
us...kind of with regard to one of the Health Departments
comments a little while ago, saying that yes, certain kinds of
guidelines; there are sidewalls required around the infiltrators and
sand filter, but they did not mean to follow them because there was
an interval in 1995 where they were not law, and so since they are
law or a guidelines in 1996, we will ignore this. Will first of all, this
is a brand new design. It was designed in 1996, it is not the same
as the one Mr. Post in 12/95. There was no sand filter then, so this
new design that was just approved, ah...it should be accessible. The
reason it should be accessible is because this is a Public Health risk
and particularly since your proposing to put this grainfield some 12
to 18 inches from some property line, you would think there would
be some higher standards required instead of lower standards.
Dr. Mark Trucksess: I already got that, Janice. That is one of the concerns about the...
Mark Tompkins: They are talking about the 6 inch sidewall on the sand like freshest.
Dr. Mark Trucksess: Which are within 12 inches of the property line.
Mark Tompkins: I understand that we ignore the law - at that point the...that
requirement was not in place in Mason County.
Kim Lincoln: It's a guideline.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 30 of 56
Mark Tompkins:
Kim Lincoln:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark. Tompkins:
Pam Denton:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Brad Banner:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Mark Tompkins:
Yeah! It was...
It is a guideline not a law.
Right! It's a guideline that ah...
That normally is followed. Back there....
We...we would not use...as a requirement. The designers were not
even aware of that until 1996...
April 1996, when we made it aware to our contractors.
Right! And ah....
And if I noticed right the contractors or the designers put in the
extra 6 inches below but forgot to put it up above. Is that correct?
There it is below. So he did widen the sand on the floor,
underneath the Infiltrators and you commented on that when I
asked and I did not...
Bear in mind again, the eastside grainfield, there is not an issue
here. We do not have Type 1 A soil up next to the Infiltrators on
the eastside,grainfield. We have Type 3 soil, which is not required
that you have, the 6 inches extended up there or a barrier. On the
other side where it is medium sand and gravel, there is not 6 inches
extended up on the sidewalls on that - it was not requirement of the
design in 1995 and was not put in the permit. Do you have any
thing to add to that Brad?
No, I was just thinking, ah...as far as the setting float for...
Before you move on Brad. We still haven't addressed the
Infiltrators being within 12 inches of the property line.
It is a nonconforming repair, in the fact, that it does not need to set
back to the property line or to the foundation. They put the
grainfield in the area available for installation. They (garbled) like
this for the property line and the foundation and ah...and again this
is in a situation when we know we have at least 5 feet of slope
down below for treatment and disposal of the effluent.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 31 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Don Woolliscroft:
VIVENE Cokelet:
Don Woolliscroft
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft
VIVENE Cokelet:
Ok. At the same time I guess I would like to have the... somebody
comment on about the soil packed up against the fence.
I would be more than happy to! My name is Don Woolliscroft and
my company installed the system.
If you look at these photographs - a lot of that material that is
stacked up against this fence were called repair. Ah...those areas, it
looks to me, that years and years ago, it was excavated. It is really
hard to see exactly what was going on unless you go on site, but
the difference between...gosh, I forgot your name!
Mrs. Cokelet!
Mrs. Cokelet's property, the elevation between that property and
the existing buildings, if you stand down there, is about a 6 foot
difference. Well, there was no excavation taking place at that
grade. A lot of this material, if you went out, and stood and looked
at it, a lot of this material was existing. I would say that probably
the grade on this grainfield was increased, maybe, a foot.
I (hammering going on in the background - can't hear) got on
chanal 15, what doing with a disk, it was there, it was piled 2 feet
high against the fence?
Will look down here, see the grade down here? If that was the
same grade as up here, then the building...
They'd build a fence up against material building pushing out on it?
I don't want to argue with you, but the difference between
elevations - between this grade and this grade - is probably about 6
or 7 feet. We did not excavate, we didn't go down 6 or 7 feet
here...you'd have to go and look at the site and ah.... You know,
we ran that system...I ran 500 gallons through that system all in one
shot. There is absolutely no evidence of anything coming out on
these sidewalls. This effluent is going straight down, it is not going
horizontally, it is going vertically.
I am Mrs. Cokelet and I beg to differ that! The bottom of that
fence was level with the dirt that was on Mr. Dick's side. It was
because...I went out there when they were digging. And I asked
Mason County Board of Health
Coope<stein/Cokelei Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 32 of 56
you to please stop throwing the dirt over on my side of the fence.
And they were surly about it and said, 'Don't worry about it!" or
something like that, so I walked off and left them alone. And I will
say that in most cases, everyone working there was very defensive
and I objected to it. I will say again, the bottom of the fence was
level with the soil on Mr. Dick's side.
Janice Cooperstein: It is not logical that one would build a fence with loose material...
above the foot of it.
Al Everson:
Al Everson, the designer. The fence in some areas,...because I did
most of the work in back, there was one low spot and it is probably
where they took that picture - where the contour did a little bit of a
sweep on the bottom there. And that is a little bit higher than the
rest of it. But, when we started in there, I tried to pick up the fence
to see how tight or loose it was incase I hit it with my excavator,
and I couldn't move it. There was no way, because it was down in
the ground. Through the years...how many years did you say it had
been there?
VIVENE Cokelet: Ten to twelve!
Al Everson: Ten to twelve years so there it probably is no growth around that
fence...
VIVENE Cokelet: Well, there was growth but it had been cleaned out.
Al Everson: Oh, on both sides?
VIVENE Cokelet: No -on your side...on Dick's side, the growth had been cleaned out,
completely.
Al Everson: No! I have to differ with you.
VIVENE Cokelet: The trees were cut...
Al Everson: Oh, yeah we cut trees, but....
VIVENE Cokelet: ...the foliage was taken out...
Al Everson: Oh, yeah, but we didn't touch anything on the ground. When I
think about it....
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 33 of 56
VIVENE Cokelet ...and the fence was...
Al Everson: I supervised all of that...
VIVENE Cokelet: ...when I walked...
Al Everson: I supervised all of that mam'm.
VIVENE Cokelet: When I walked by there, the fence was bent over at the end nearest
the highway.
Al Everson: We are not talking about the fence - we're talking about the bottom
of the fence
VIVENE Cokelet: Absolutely! The whole fence was down.
Al Everson: I wanted to make sure I didn't ruin the fence.
VIVENE Cokelet: No, you didn't ruin it.
Al Everson: So I went along there to see how easy it was to move and I could
see that it was down in the ground and I could not pull out on it.
The only area that I can see right now, that had a little bit of slope
or has to have some fill in it and that is over there next to the large
trees, there was a little bitty swell in there, and what we did is we
leveled the grainfield. So everything else is basically the same,
other than one little spot, probably about...
Janice Cooperstein: How about...
Al Everson:. ...6 feet long.
VIVENE Cokelet: Still your word against my word, so...there it stands.
Al Everson: Well, I am the one that did the work, so....
Janice Cooperstein: ...how wide this little area is?
Mark Tompkins: He said 6 feet long, he said. He said...
Al Everson: 6 or 7 feet long.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 34 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Al Everson:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
6 or 7 feet.... Well I measured it yesterday and the little area that is
about 2 feet deep to, possibly, 2 1/2 feet deep is the neighborhood of
more like...I'd say 25 to 30 feet. Why, it is real bad!
Will that is as long as the trench is.
There is an additional.... Really!
Yeah!
Ah...not to question your measurements. Ah...there is an additional
area on either side, that is built up like to 6 inches or to 8 inches, in
addition to this which...and expanses another 35 to 40 feet.
Mam'm, I think what I am going to have to do is go out and look at
it...so...I guess, I will just leave that until I have an opportunity to
look at it.
Mam'm may I speak again? Why does this little bit of rock on the
fence bother you...why are we arguing about this point?
What is the concern?
First of all Mrs. Cokelet may have some trespassing signs, but the
Health Department concern is that the Infiltrators are, supposedly,
2 feet below the top of the soil...2 feet below the top of the soil
puts them in this 2 feet loose thing that's being supported, so the
Infiltrator is installed as designed. The Infiltrators are actually in
this top 2 feet that is being held up by a fence.
If that was the case, then when I dosed 500 gallons through that
system it would have come spewing out that fence, just like you
can't believe!.
Actually the Infiltrators are from original grade down 2 feet, this is
final grade. There is a big difference between original grade and
final grade.
So then you put more fills, two additional extra feet of fill on top of
this?
Yes! See we're allowed 30 inches of soil, so we can put more soil
on top of it. And if that is what they are concerned about....
Mason County Board of Health
Coopeastein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 35 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Brad Banner:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
So, you wouldn't mind going back in and going back to the original
ground level so that your off of Mrs. Cokelet's fence?
I thought we were concerned about Public Health? Now we're
getting into a little match about a fence. What is your...where are
you going with this? I mean you just...Public Health...all your
people sent these letters...Public Health...Public Health...Public
Health! Now were on....
I think that we should move on. "think it is obvious why were
concerned.
Let's not talk about what she's concerned unless Public
Health...and that is Public Health...please! Ok?
Moving right along! (Laughter) The float switch in the (can't
understand) whether the installers know how to do that. Can we let
the two contractors that built this is address that issue.
Don Woolliscroft addressing issue, Mr. Mitchell. I have no. idea
where he came up with his calculations on how this thing is setup,
but it is not setup in anyway like he assumes it is. Ah...it is ashame
that one of your fellows could have come here and talked with us
so we could have straighten him out. Yeah, has Mr. Wecker ever
been to the site?
Yes!
Since the installation?
No! No, I haven't asked him...
Ok, so he refers to pictures tho. So he is looking at pictures that
we supplied to him, is that correct?
Yes!
Do you know what pictures he's looking at?
Ah...pictures I proved him, some of the pictures you proved.
Because if he is looking at is a photocopy, it is not that good, but
Mason County Board of Health
Coopetstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 36 of 56
this is the worst picture of the bunch. This is the photograph of the
backside, well the sun...so we didn't get a good photo. Ah...we
really can't see much...but, it really would have been nice if he
could have come out on site so he would have it clear what he was
talking about.
Well, anyway, as far as the float thing, the way the distance is set
up, we got it set up so there is 1,000 gallons of reserve. In the
actual flow in this system right now it is running about 560 gallons
a day. So if the alarm should go off, ah...there is a high water over-
ride, so if the alarm goes off the high water will come on and the
system will pump. If the system can't pump when the alarm goes
off, we have approximately two days to get on the site. So...I don't
think anything that he is talking about here, really relates to this
system. I don't know where he got these numbers or where he
came up with it, butit is wrong.
Al Everson: Mr. Mitchell on site?
Janice Cooperstein: Ah...no, he hasn't been yet.
Don Woolliscroft: Do you know where he came up with this?
Janice Cooperstein: With what?
Don Woolliscroft: What he is saying here...about float settings and wiring...
Janice Cooperstein: Well, basically, there is nothing in the plan saying what you did do.
Don Woolliscroft: That is not. standard...
Janice Cooperstein: We don't know what you did do.
Don Woolliscroft: That is not a standard. practice to have a design that is called out for
float settings and so that.
Janice Cooperstein: But it might be in a plan that is stretching beyond the boundaries of
float projection and is dependent...
Don Woolliscroft: It is not...the actual float is 560 gallons a day. That is what it is
doing.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 37 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Al Everson:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Mark Tompkins:
Don Woolliscroft:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Really!
We don't tell what comes out the hose dip.
What are you using out of the hose dip?
We can ignore that comment!
Yeah!
Janice, even by your own calculations, they are down to 668
gallons a day. If he is looking at...if he sits and looking at the
system, 560 gallons a day. If they were watering any plants or
anything like that...there is your...
Can I ask what the 560 gallons a day is based on?
What it is based on?
Yeah, what is that...
The reading of the panel. They actually use the scultured system.
They have a counter in it.
With a counter and a lap time meter. The system now dosing out
115 gallons every two hours.
Therefore,...Kim Lincoln...every time it comes on a click goes onto
the counter and they can calculate by how many times the counter
indicates. By multiplying out they can figure out the gallons per
day, an average.
Then how are you getting wat...since there is no landscaping,
everything is dug up, how do you get to 5...down as low as 560
gallons...
Count it!
One day we found ah....
I don't believe it!
Mason County Board of Health
Coops stein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 38 of 56
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
Kim Lincoln:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice. Cooperstein:
One day a hose was hooked up and we found...we discovered it
was over a bay and turned on. Am I right?
When was...exactly what date was this?
Oh, I don't know, but it...
Well, I think that is important!
I don't remember the date.
My...Kim Lincoln...my feeling is...those kinds/sorts of things don't
need to be addressed here today. The fact is, the system itself, has
a way of telling us how many gallons per day have been used since
it's installation. It is telling us that 500...and roughly, 560 gallons
of waste water is being sent to that system - not water used per
day, according to Belfair Water District, waste water sent to it.
What other water is used per day?
That is inconsequential to this design or the installation of the on -
site system. We are concerned only with what is going to that
system. That is system is telling us what is going to it.
Give me an idea of what water isn't going to the system.
Knock, knock.
I'm sorry.
What water...wouldn't...isn't being going to the waste water
system....
Ah...I think that it would be best addressed by the property
manager. My guess is that you must do some cleaning...the other
day when I came by you were spraying off the porch and the
driveway...
Wait a second, they just did remodeling...that is not...you know.
Don Woolliscroft: These numbers may fluctuate...
Mason County Board of Health
Coopeastein/Cokeld Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 39 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Don Woolliscroft:
Mark Tompkins:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
They ain't used by the garden hose or the outlet on the building.
There is no landscaping, is there?
Unt.. ah! (No)
She was 660 and we're 560, so we're hundred gallons difference
per clay, but that could fluctuate...
Over time.
...over time. You can't....
How do you handle an April... an April flow of 1140 gallons per day
on average and 1554 gallons per day on a business day? All
squeezed into an 8 hour or 8...whatever, business day?
Based on your...well you have six months of readings there and you
have one average like that, I would da...you know you have your
other five months, it shows that it is all down in the normal ranges -
I would look at that to see if there was a normally that occurred....
This has happened in the past years on this property, this is
something that is not odd this year. This has happened every year
for years. We have had enormous fluctuation.. and flow.
Al Everson, designer. I think the fluctuation, the commercial
criteria, is something like gas prices. There is nothing that is
exactly the same all the time because people are doing different
things all the time and they are going to fluctuate. And that is why
we have time...
That is why you plan for fluctuations and normally....
Mark Tompkins and Al Everson: We have.
Al Everson:
We have done it. We do in every design and that is why we have
our Operation/Maintenance now, is to learn more about these
systems as were going. We're upgrading ourselves on these new
modern systems and were learning something every single day. We
will learn today, from what your telling us also. So, you know,
we're all trying to get there.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 40 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Brad Banner:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
VIVENE Cokelet:
Can I make a request? I know the water system readings are due
out today.- possibly today. Could we call the water district today
and see if it is done. They may have an available...I know that there
due within... date. Do you have a problem with doing that to find
out what the latest month is?
Kim Lincoln. Unless, Brad, you would like to do that, I just do not
feel...
Dr. Trucksess is in charge of the meeting.
Dr. Trucksess!
Well, I think it would be helpful. Can say (garbled) use the gift of
water readings. If...
If you would reply to them at a later date, I would take them into
consideration.
Ok.
Kim Lincoln. I would also like to address that by saying, again,
what I said before. What Belfair Water District says, only if all the
water is going to that building. The true reflection of that waste
water is calculated by that counter. That tells us what is truly going
out there. Belfair Water District readings do not reflect anything to
do with this design.
Al Ever...
Has everything been directed?
Also, the water meter is not always a 100%. Belfair Water has had
problems with their meters, quite abit in the past and I have talked
to a gentleman that does all the water meter reading and he said
their meters are not a 100%. They changed a lot of them and
they're not completely accurate.
Mrs. Cokelet, here. In Bremerton, they based their septic tank use
on what ever kind of water went into the system, whether you
watered your lawn or whatever it is. Whatever water goes into the
system is what goes out of the system. And that is what they are
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 41 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Unknown Gentleman:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
based on.
And it provides a safety factor and you, also, did not know before
approving this plan what they are now claiming is their actual waste
flow. You did not have that information amongst whatever.
Also, I still don't understand the 560 gallons a day, is it...is it the
maximum? An average of a month? Is it...where did you get the
560?
Al Everson. This is why you have to come out of the pump tank
since we installed the system....
Wait! This is what comes out the pump tank?
Pump tank, which is a pressurized to the system.
The pump tank...
...it has a timer on it.
...for the first month is suppose to be able to hold an extra, what is
it, is it called size called 3200 gallon pump tank.
Um...huh.
So that means, the pump tank would have filled up and had an extra
3200 gallons in it.
You got me!
You don't know....
The flow as a building, goes into septic tank, goes into the septic
tank,' goes into the pump tank. The pump tank doesn't fill and you
dump that because 816 gallons gets dumped out.
No, 560.
Janice Cooperstein: Ok, your saying what is going out is 560 not 816. How do you
know that?
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 42 of 56
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Don Woolliscroft:
Mark Tompkins:
Al Everson:
Don Woolliscroft:
We have a counter on there and every time it comes on, it pumps
only 8 gallons, each time it comes on. That is how we calculate...
Ok, then how did you get the 560, is this an average?
No, that is exactly how many times the counter...every click is so
many gallons that have gone through it, so we multiply the clicks
time the gallons and that is how many gallons we come up with.
We have say five clicks...
Are you reading...counting the clicks every day? I am still trying to
get....
We have a counter on it and we do it over a 24-hour period.
So it's a one 24-hour period reading? Have you been there every
day reading? I am still trying to find out.
It has gone over 16-days.
So...in 16-days...so were looking at 16 days again...ah...readings.
We first have a projection date on...ah...13 days and now we have
proof based on 15 days.
16 days.
16 days. Ok.
Yeah, we can't be there every day.
...month...another month reading and see how it balances out, you
know?
Has there been any evidence that the system is failing at this time?
Yes.
There was hardly any...(garbled)...it was just a hole in the ground.
It was taking everything they dished out and it was a hole no bigger
than that table grab on it and there was never any thing at the
surface.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 43 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
Janice Cooperstein:
All answered in unison:
Don Woolliscroft:
Pam Denton:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Don Woolliscroft:
VIVENE Cokelet:
Brad -Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
So the fact that the pathogens are going into the ground water and
down below is not a Public Health issue?
There is no ground water down there.
Water disappear?
You have no ground water.
There is no ground water there.
Pam Denton with Mason County...ah.... There was a Public Health
concern or threat when you have a hole in the ground and sewage
dumping into the hole in the ground that is no bigger than the table.
Yes, you are...in that case,the sewage is being inadequately treated
and there was, most likely, pathogens entering the ground water
table. The current system design is an (interent example enger), it
is maximized, it's as big as it can be, it incorporates smaller doses
to increase treatment to that saturated soil and protect Public
Health.
Can one .quick to the 16 days? Excuse me... after the reading is
done?
What does that have to do with the fresh rate? What difference
does it make?
Because I would like to know, for instance, during water district
reading month it was taken...to see how...you know, your going to
have changes from month to month. Is it a low month a high
month? (Pause) You have the dates?
It was a...this month.
From when to when?
This is from Steve Wecker. Is it an expansion or not? Expansion's
are defined in the State reg...
Can we hold that off until night, because Steve Wecker didn't go
into it, really. He may have said that, but he didn't raise the
argument.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 44 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Mark Tompkins:
Brad Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
Well...we were going to go and the staff was going to respond to
the letter. So hear the response in regard to the expansion.
The repair we have here was designed to handle the waste quantity
or the waste flow from that building ah...existing building...as
it...was from my understanding it was the existing building, the
existing flows. This -is a standard practice in Mason County, we do
it for all repairs. As you know, for Shoreline Lodge or other
commercial places we look at the flow that is currently being
generated by that building and then we ah...have a design
completed that would address those flows. Ah...an example would
be up on the Shoreline Lodge where we've had, say a vacation
cabin over the years and they've turned it into a full-time place,
either with permission of Mason County or ah...there a lot of
regulatory control on that. Now it is a full-time place and they've
expanded the use of the thing and it has failed. We don't make
them go back to that summertime use or limited use; we have the
system designed for that current use of that system according to
that structure, which is exactly what we did in this case. We look
at the existing flows and they ah...work on the flows actually
coming out of that structure and we design... ah the system was
designed to correlate to that. Ah...so that...it is not an expansion of
the system. Ah...expansion of the system is talking about
alterations to, like a residential place would be adding another
bedroom onto a system or in the case of a commercial site, taking it
from an office complex like _this and then bring in a
restaurant...moving a restaurant in there which would be increasing
your waste strength. Neither that happened in this case, they have
still an office complex ah...and the flows were designed for the
existing building has.
Continuing on in this vein, ah...the particular WAC is WAC
246.272.01.001 and under the definition of expansion, it means
they've changed in a residence, facility, site, or use that...and it
causes the system to exceed it's capacity, or what ever....
The existing capacity...
in other words...Ma'am... Ah...as Mark said that the change of a
facility would be like a...or a use would be like a...a... realtor office
that was turning into a restaurant or a residence that was adding or
expanding its building. Expanding refers to the use. Repair refers
Mason County Board of Health
Coopetstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 45 of 56
Janice Cooperstein:
to the system. So we have an existing use and ah...we have a
system. Let me read the definitionof repair and see if that doesn't
hit the spot a little bit better. "Repair means restoration by
reconstruction or relocation or replacement of a failed on -site
sewage system." So this is very clearly a repair and not an
expansion. It would be an expansion, if they said, "Hey we want to
put a restaurant in there instead of a dental cleaning office. Then it
is an expansion, then this would apply. Clearly doesn't apply as a
repair.
I believe in the last year, Mr. Banner, according to the EPA all 6
gallons per day equals 15 gallons per day which is exactly the
formula that is included on the original permit issued to the existing
building. A standard office is not a hair salon, a standard office
involves toilet facilities only. A standard office does not involve
dental irrigators, x-ray machines, x-ray developers, etc. The EPA
gives a long list of commercial authority. Why don't I hand out...it
might help to look at them.
Expansion means change in use. It causes and on -site sewage
system to exceed its existing - what it is permitted for, its existing
capacity. This system is not permitted for a system its size. It was
specifically was permitted for...actually it was a real estate office
back when it was first ah...cut its building permit. The septic permit
has the formula referring to 15 gallons per in place. Its
ah...plumbing permit has no unusual water fixtures on it, it is just
basically calling it toilet facilities. It does not have multiple sinks, it
doesn't not have ah...which is one of the x-ray developers, it does
not have dental irrigators on it. It does not have washing machines
that are used in some of the offices. It exceeds...literally it is the
Counties...the Health Departments responsibility to run...adhere to
the regulations. And I know you already content, but when you
have intent, they can not be contrary. You can not argue in a court
that intent is intent when it is literally contrary to the language. Can
you find language in expansion or repair that justifies, based on the
advice I have. There is none. Expansion is a change in use on -site
to receive existing capacity. This site...this new septic system is for
twice its capacity...interesting. Specifically talk about changing it
from an office to a restuarant, at the bottom of that page is a page
from the EPA design manual. And all it gives is a few examples of
commercial sources - they do not give studies on all of them. And
in the manual itself it talks about ah...flows. It talks here about the
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 46 of 56
flows, the difference between an office and a restaurant. And the
difference is enormous. The goal of the Health code and this
specific WAC, also, that says an OSS owner...it is down right
before the EPA design manual...is responsible for keeping the flow
of the system, at or below the approved design. At or below is the
permanent installed system.
Just like this owner violated this permit and he also violated his
Operation and Management agreement, which he signed years ago,
because he was beyond the normal minutes at the side of that site.
He has a very small site for building that size. He already violates
that. It requires that if he...oh, there is another reason. Change in
site that reduces the treatment or photo capability of the existing
on -site sewage system. Or even at the reserved area - for example,
when a building is placed over a reserve. This owner sold off his
septic site and denies for the people he sold it too that he was
giving . He, in subsequent years sold another site adjacent to
his property that he also could have used to installea septic system.
But he chose to sell it offto...you know...make his profit in real
estate, rather than protect the building. He fits the definition of
expansion in both ways. I do not think that the EPA meant to say,
"Oh well, lets look at the design...the commercial sources." Your
not...well...you want to switch to a motel? That is a commercial
use - go right ahead? You want to be a laundry? That is a
commercial use according to the EPA. EPA does not agree...get
out blanket warm commercial use. They said, you figure out what
your going to use the building for; you apply for the type of septic
system you need, and then you stay within those guidelines. If he
chooses to build a larger, safer septic system back then or if he had
the room to do so now - he could do so. But to allow this person
to over -develop this property, again and some more, in violations of
many, many health regulations and we haven't gotten into them yet.
And at the risk of two other property owners ah... at the risk of
Public Health, I don't think you can argue that this health plan...that
this plan has protects the Public Health at all or that it protects it as
well as it should, with all the leeways given it: in terms of flow
projections, in terms of design, in terms of using other peoples
property, terms of trespass in order to install.
Repair also...Dr. Trucksess, gives the definition of repair. The
second paragraph says Table 4 Repair, which we're having to
define this, means a repair or replacement of an existing septic
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokeld Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 47 of 56
system - replace what you got, it doesn't say make it bigger. That
is expansion. Also gives another definition...a sub -definition of
repair means restoration, put back what was there to restore it. By
restoration, by reconstruction or relocation, or replacement of a
failed...what failed is the old system which is half the size of this
new system.
You have also skirted any waiver process, any requirement that the
designer justified what's been done, or that if you...or that other
property owners near by. The next thing has to do with The local
health officer shall permit a Table 6 repair only when installation of
a conforming system is not possible. A conforming system appears
to be possible in the front link of the east grainfield area, it is not
possible in the west grainfield area. You can also define a
conforming system if you just waiver the process issue. You have
not gone to the waiver process, you have not asked the designers to
justify Public Health or the effect on property owners ECT...you've
skirted this to get room is what it appears.
This property owner is not owed a system that is twice the size of
its existing system and twice the use. You ah...in the public
hearing, Mr. Banner, specifically stated that...well this type of
system is protected because it will allow 50 employees in this
building. Well, based on the current existing office building
guidelines...the way the existing system is only built to handle about
29 projections. Your doubling the number of employees,
doubling the use of the building. This owner can use...can switch
uses, exceed employees, and use twice as much at our expense and
in violation of the regulations to help regulations.
I would like to know, that are you arguing that because of
commercial use, that you can do any kind of commercial use you
want? I mean...that is the only interpretation that I can get to, as
how you do not define this as an expansion. It's better if you all
agree that is in an enormous increase in the septic capacity, it is
about double of the existing system. Does anyone have any
information to say it is not double?
Ok, so it is definitely exceeds its existing use...existing capacity - it
definitely exceeds that?
Dr. Mark Trucksess: Anyone want to respond?
Mason County Board of Health . .
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 48 of 56
Brad Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
Brad Banner:
Janice Cooperstein:
Al Everson:
Janice Cooperstein:
Everyone laughed
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:.
Janice Cooperstein:
Sure, I can respond to a couple of these things.
You call the EPA manual, property EPA. The EPA is a guidance
document, it is not a regulation. The flow chart you have given us,
you have taken out of context. My statement about the 50 people
in offices was taken out of context. We all know, we were all at
the last meeting. You could tell that to the neighbor, maybe, that
didn't know. Ah.,.this is truly not an expansion because they are
not doing anything different to the facility. What they are doing is
repairing a failing septic system and it failed. It is hard to go
beyond that. If they were saying, well gee lets Health Department,
we want to put in our restaurant we want...they haven't gotten the
full change in use - all they are doing is we want to fix the septic
system...
They have made a change in use.
In the (garbled) time.
With out the appropriate septic system approval.
So has your building at one time, excuse me.
What? First lets not get...expect...I
...we...as far as I know this is everything.
Janice do you have any other comments?
Well, I still haven't...I still do not understand how this is not fit the
definition of expansion and I do not see how this does not fit the
definition of repair. And I am not relying this time...
Wait a minute, if we haven't answered that question, then we
haven't answered it to your satisfaction. Do you have any other
comments?
Well, I have an anal...a further analysis to present and it is now 10
minutes to twelve. There are many...
Mason County Board of Health
Coopesstein/Cokeld Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 49 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Do you have it in writing? Do you want to just pass it out to... I
can read that and consider it and ah...
Can I go over some of the...
...make a decision.
...highlights.
In 10 minutes, you can...
Yes!
One hand out today, Dr. Trucksess, also needs to go to Brent.
Your EPA deal. Yes!
All of you...would you put this in the second...
This proposed system, the other guide of Public Health is suppose...
(Garbled). stated by... set by the engineer. And the engineer and
sanitarian involved violated numerous health activities...Anyone of
these four was precluded approval. The design WAC, as well as
the EPA manual, ECT.. Seriously, the decision violated the EPA
Guidelines, the section sizes, the safe guidelines for the sand filter,
up to size ,ECT.. Ah...it's a serious the decision. Recent actual
flows are higher that the maximum capacity..how can you argue
when you have a whole month... of 1140 versus a maximum
capacity of 816? EPA Guidelines, whetheror not...whether or not
you want to go along with the details, EPA chose, whatever. EPA
Guidelines as in the packets that I handed to Dr. Trucksess and
some of you others, talks about projecting specifically.
Fluctuations and peaks in flows, daily, weekly and monthly. It talks
about safety factors in projecting flows, that it is pretty difficult in
project for a commercial building and so that you better tie -on
some hourly.
Last year, we repaired out septic system and.I would like to make it
known that our septic system, our grainfield, is about 21/ times are
average monthly flow. Last year, when we went through the
approval process, I understand that (1.) We were...it was required
to up the size of the grainfield, if I got the information correctly.
And also, in addition to treatment for the newer system, we were
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 50 of 56 •
also required to have a sand filter. So we had to double the
treatment. It's here, to my understanding. And our grainfield is 2
t/2 times, not about 1.2 times the size of our average flow. To have
a grainfield that is barely larger than your average and lower than
some actual months is a health hazard.
Expansion WAC. As an expansion the design may not be exempted
from health regulations. This proposal's change in use has twice
the capacity and it is a change from permanent use to office use,
which per EPA commercial standards has a low water use. It is
basically meant for toilet facilities. Containing to a type of business
that cares a high septic use as shown: washing machines, dental
irrigated, hair.
WAC minimum land area and this area we haven't covered
at all. When this building was first built, the owner had to sign a
covenant on his property. And the reason for that covenant...there
is a copy in here of the actually of the 1974 ah...guideline...WAC,
sorry, WAC. It shows why he is required to sign this: it states
here...well...to summarize it...when...copy...property has waste
flows in excess of 1200 gallons per acre per day, then he needs to
have a full-time perpetual maintenance agreement. The WAC that
year, basically said, hey your system is too big at about 4.2 gallons
per day, it is too big for this property. We'll let you have it if it
exceeds the sand we're trying to hit. Basically the minimum lot
sizes back then were 12500 sq feet. This lot size is only 11300
something, square feet. It says since your system is too big for this
lot, we'll let you get it in, but you've already exceed our guidelines,
so therefore you need to stop leaking . Back then they said
the site was too small for anything bigger or even for the size that
got in: Now he is asking for more septic! Well the current WAC
also say that the septic system is much too big for a site that size.
And it is a basic WAC underlying the goal of the Health
Regulations? At about a quarter of an acre, remember this is a
quarter of an acre. What does an average home have in Mason
County, that asks for 816 gallons per day?- I imagine not too many
are just a quarter of an acre. Ah...a quarter of an acre is asking for
high septic uses and the WAC, specifically, excluding the section
zip. Turn to the WAC page with the chart on it - the bottom of the
page ah...the local health officer, may commit the installation of a no
WAC act with a minimum land area requirements or lot sizes
cannot be met, only, when the following criteria are met. And the
Mason County Board of Health
Coopeastein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 51 of 56
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Everybody talking at once.
Janice Cooperstein:
Someone said:
Janice Cooperstein:
Mark Tompkins:
Janice Cooperstein:
last one is: the proposed system meets all requirements of these
regulations other than minimum land area. This site is too small for
the old septic system, but it was half; but it is much too small for a
septic system that is twice as big and lacks specifically excludes the
ability to put it in.
Ok!
Does the Health Department have a response to that?
I think the WAC refers to new construction.
...or expansion.
...or expansion.
Or the fact that this...
Wait a second. No, no, they....
subdivision.
Development is defined as the creation of any residence, you
know...that's subdivision? Structure, facility, mobile homes are
accepted as a sign of development, site area or any activity
developing in the production of the earth. It is not subdivision!
But there was already production of sewage on this lot, therefore,
that regulation does not apply. It has been an existing structure.
Wait a second! The same regulation basically existed in...before
this building was developed and if next, the regulation stands - it's
got exclusion because the site existed and he was somehow allowed
to, but he already was stretching that regulation back then and now
you want to say, waive the pac...waive the pac regulations,
basically. You do realize that this site had regulations put on in
1978, including the covenants, your saying...we don't even...in
most cases the property was built before the WAC were passed.
You say, wait a second, I am not going to...you know...if the
house...if it is in existence...you don't, you know, you don't...you
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 52 of 56
say you give it leeway because the WAC running this. This site
existed and was built before the WAC was passed, it had minimum
land area required to it. The problem is two fold; but basically it is
the fact that this guy sold off his land and now he...he sold off his
land, he over developed, even then. He violates all kinds of County
developments ah...problems. He has no land.
Al Everson: We are getting away from our health issue.
Janice Cooperstein:
It is a health issue because it is a minimum land area requirement.
It is a health issue also because the Health Department is using the
same land that, can or should, be used for parking. Ah...and saying,
no, we did it for this reason and shoves the other developments on
our back.
Also, Permanent WAC's. I find this difficult to believe that the
County can approve, in violation of it's WAC's, construction on a
property - a septic system design that requires, as proving in real
life, unfortunately, requires trespass on our property to install it.
There are no construction easements on our property. We were
dug on, driven over, ah...and the only area we have for our reserve,
because our property is stretching the limit, how about it, It got
tons of more land, but it doesn't have a lot of vacant empty land for
our septic. The land they drove on is basically the only available
land for us. There is a WAC, the last page of the package. Under
permits for OSS, it requires that prior beginning the construction
process, to get a permit ah...the owner, who ever that is installing
the sign. The health officer must approve such material...he has to
give the location of the existing and proposed encumbrances
affecting system placement, including legal access documents.
I would suggest, that since this septic system was impossible to put
in without an easement, going right up to the property line, that it is
negligence and violates the WAC's for the County to say...to give it
septic approval. There are other WAC's...the next WAC is not
exactly applicable because they did not assume that most properties
would be built almost to their property lines, but it says before the
local health officer issues the permit for the installation of an OSS,
in this case it was started with one development, the applicant shall
show a legal easement allowing access for construction, operation
. and maintenance, and repair of the OSS.
Mason County Board of Health
Cooperstein/Cokelet Appeal Hearing
August 22, 1996
Page 53 of 56
Robert Slee:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Kim Lincoln:
Janice Cooperstein:
Dr. Mark Trucksess:
Janice Cooperstein:
Can I say something? Robert Slee. We do have an easement. We
showed it to the sheriff when he came out there. He agreed with us
that we had one and...
No, he agreed that he...didn't have...a judge telling him otherwise.
It says ingress and egress. And it does not...I would argue, we'll be
in court arguing it.... It has nothing to do with sep...you had other
access to septic systems ah...back then before you sold off other
land. So it is arguable whether or not it is accepted. You have to
give in a clause having to do with part and primarily. And
secondly, if you do have ingress and egress, which is the knowledge
that the easement stands. That does not give you the right to dig,
construct, use, or stand on our property.
I don't think it has to do with my...
No!
It's a WAC.
...consideration. But, it may be WAC involves other areas. So...
Ah...the Cumulative Health Risks. The design problem, the set
back problem, and the land area problem, the fact that it's
expansion problems, the facts that it is running over our septic
systems and/or reserved area's of our property, the fact that it is
hanging on Mrs. Cokelet's fence. The...individually, many of you
are important public health issues. Humorously, I find it battering.
Basically, it is the Health Departments role to protect Public Health
and that is...you know...you should read the purpose etc. and the
purpose regarding non-residential. It is not just to do minimal or
the best you can, it is to protect Public Health and I believe this is a
risky plan. Ok! I believe you've exceeded your authority! I
believe, basically, you've taken the word of the WAC stand on your
own and if you interperate them differently, you better have a
strong case to show when it is contrary to the expressed wording of
the WAC. The department say a general intent. A general intent
when the word say otherwise and they do. You had judged the
relative merit of each property owner's rights, which the Health
Department does not have the right to do. We are going to court
on the encroachments of parking and septic issues on November 6th
and I would have suggested that the Health Department allows it to
be settled in court and not over -ride the health WAC to put this in.
Dr. Mark Trucksess: We're adjourned.
Adjourned at 12:05 p.m. according to notes
I have transcribed this tape to the best of my ability.
Sincerely submitted by: