Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/08/24 - Board of Health MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING August 24, 1995 ATTENDANCE: Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer William and Kim Olsen, Appellants Brad Banner, Kim Lincoln, Pam Denton, Wayne.Clifford, Carol Spaulding, and Grant Holdcroft - Health Department Staff APPEAL HEARING - WILLIAM AND KIMMERLEE OLSEN Health Officer Mark E. Trucksess called the appeal hearing to order at 10:00 a.m. He explained that the Health Department staff would present a history of the matter and then the appellants would present their appeal. Kim Lincoln, Environmental Health Specialist, stated that William E. and Kimmerlee Olsen have appealed the Health Department's Notice and Order which was mailed to them requesting that they stop the discharge from their septic system, get a plan of action, permit application, and make repairs to their system. The Olsen's appeal was based on the fact that they felt their system was not failing. Ms. Lincoln reported on the chronology of this case (Exhibit A). On March 29, 1995, permission to inspect was granted pursuant to the on-site sewage system survey form signed by Kimmerlee Olsen. On April 13, 1995, the Level I Inspection was completed. On the same day, background packets were placed for the upcoming dye test. Ten packets were placed along the bulkhead located on Hood Canal. On April 19, 1995, the Water Quality Technician Team, consisting of Grant Holdcroft and Demetria Shew, went back out to the site and picked up the packets and placed the Series I packets. After these were placed, fluorescine dye was introduced into the on- site system. On the same date, actions were taken by parties other than Mason County. These actions were water samples taken by the Washington State Department of Health - Shellfish Division. The samples were from 2 sites on the bulkhead. These samples were received by the DOH lab on April 20, 1995 and reported on April 24, 1995. The testing method used was unknown. Dr. Trucksess asked why the State Department of Health was completing dye samples at the same time the Mason County Health Department was doing dye samples. Mr. Lincoln answered that the State was on site taking water samples. It was her understanding that the reason they were taking these samples was because the Olsens were attempting to become commercial shellfish growers. Ms. Olsen responded that this was incorrect, the State was there because the Olsens wanted the oysters thinned from their beach. The action was initiated by Tom Farmer who was going to thin the oysters. On April 26, 1995, the Series I packets were retrieved and Series 2 packets were placed. The Series 1 packet results were as follows: Site 1 - negative for dye; Site 2 - moderately positive for dye; Site 3 - negative for dye; Site 4 - negative for dye; Site 5 - moderately positive for dye; Site 6 - strongly positive for dye; Site 7 - strongly positive for dye; Site 8 - strongly positive for dye, Site 9 - moderately positive for dye and Site 10 - negative for dye. Ms. Lincoln showed the eluded F-Is produced by the lab: MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 2 of 12 On May 2, 1995, Mason County Water Quality went to the site to collect water samples. Sites 6 and 7 were found positive for dye. Those samples were recorded by the lab on May 4, 1995, with the following results: Sample 922 from Site 6 showed greater than or equal to 2,400 fecal coliform per 100 milliliter of water. Sample 423 from Site 7 showed 33 fecal coliform per 100 milliliter of water. The surface water limit used by the Department was 200 fecal coliform. Anything found above 200 fecal coliform from a site positive for dye would be termed as failing by the Department's criteria. On May 5, 1995, Series 2 packets were retrieved with the same results as found in the Series 1 packets except for the fact that Site 5 was missing and Site 3 was positive. On May 17, 1995, the initial letter was sent out to William E. and Kimmerlee Olsen from Ms. Lincoln notifying them of the testing results. On May 19, 1995, Ms. Olsen telephoned Ms. Lincoln and notified her that she had made a clerical error in the letter. Ms. Olsen was told that a new letter would be issued with an apology and would include a list of contractors for Ms. Olsen to choose from, and let the Department know which one was selected. On July 25, 1995, a water sample was taken by Kimmerlee Olsen and her husband from what was named weep hole #6 in the bulkhead. The next day, that water sample was taken by the Olsens to Sound Analytical Services Lab and the results showed 182 total coliform per 100 milliliter of water and 0 fecal coliform. Ms. Lincon had talked with employees of Sound Analytical Services regarding the testing and was informed that the type of testing did not specifically test for fecal coliform. On August 7, 1995, a Notice and Order was sent to William E. and Kimmerlee Olsen due to no action or contact made to rectify problems with the on-site system since May 19, 1995. On August 10, 1995, a telephone call to Ms. Lincoln by Ms. Olsen expressed concerns as well as notified that Ms. Olsen and the Department of Health had taken samples that were all different. Ms. Olsen's concerns had been the clerical errors, the DOH shellfish sample from the same site showed low fecal counts and the amount of dye used by the Water Quality staff. Ms. Olsen was then mailed, pursuant to her request, an appeal/variance form with a corrected Notice and Order. On August 12, 1995, the Health Department received a letter dated August 11, 1995 from William E. and Kimmerlee Olsen to Kim Lincoln and Mark Tompkins. In this letter, Ms. Olsen notified of the testing done and noted that she had concerns and would be going ahead with the appeal. After talking with Mr. Tompkins about the concerns Ms. Olsen had, Ms. Lincoln placed a telephone call to Ms. Olsen on August 14, 1995, stating the Health Department would be willing to do water sampling in conjunction with DOH Shellfish Division and the Olsens. Ms. Olsen replied that she would talk with her husband and call back. No phone call was received from Ms. Olsen regarding this matter and the appeal form was received. Another letter was received from the Olsens on August 16, 1995, to Mark Tompkins which stated they were not interested in their offer for further testing, that they would be going ahead with the appeal, and included a listing of their concerns. The Olsen's concerns were: 1) improper dye testing; 2) adopted fecal counts (additional testing would confirm this with a low count); 3) lack of action taken when tester knew on 4/26/95 about the tests being done by the Shellfish Division; 4) lack of action taken when this passing fecal coliform test had been verified on the phone by someone from Mason County; 5) Kim Lincoln blaming Ms. Olsen on a taped conversation 8/10/95 for not taking responsibility for passing this data to her; 6) losing a sale of home because disclosure had MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 3 of 12 to include the Health Department's septic analysis; 7) negligence; and 8) scare tactics. Ms. Olsen then stated in her letter that she wanted to continue with the appeal and if the appeal was denied she would be contacting her attorney, someone from the newspaper and anyone else concerned with the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District. Ms. Lincoln listed the parties involved in this matter, noting that Carol Spaulding's name had been unintentionally omitted on her written documentation, and the WAC Codes the Department follows regarding surfacing sewage. Grant Holdcroft, Environmental Health Specialist, reviewed his education and experience to demonstrate his qualifications for performing the dye tests. His degree was from The Evergreen State College, with focus in Environmental Chemistry in which three-quarters of his time was spent in the lab. His experience included the Marine Corp where he was very familiar with policies and procedures and being used to following them. He was honorably discharged. He has worked with Mason County for two and one-half years. He, personally, has conducted over 300 dye tests of which 44 were found failing. As lead worker, he has overseen approximately 700 dye tests, with 110 being failures. He remembered this site, and he did not recall any deviations from normal procedure or outstanding situations. In regards to the amount of dye that was placed in the system by Demetria Shew, there was no indication that anything other than the normal amount, which was 4 ounces, was used. He noted that these procedures were being used throughout the State of Washington by other Health Departments, including Thurston, Kitsap and King Counties. Their dye tracing procedures have been used for quite a while and were used throughout the country. They were state-of-the-art and top-of-the-line. Dr. Trucksess asked if the amount of dye varies with the size of the septic tank. Mr. Holdcroft replied that for residences they normally use 4 ounces, no matter the size of the tank, unless it was something extraordinary. The Department was concerned about not coming up with false-positive results and routinely put background packets out prior to the test to ensure that there would be no cross contamination from other tests. As shown by the field forms, there was a section intended for results of the background packets. They were in place for a week and those samples which came up positive in the first set were pulled by Carol Spaulding, eluded, and read. They all came out negative. That was 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Number 2 would have been read, but it was missing. The back-grounding was done to make sure there was no dye from anyone else's home, which would be unacceptable. The dye goes into the septic system and it establishes a route from the septic system to the bulkhead or to surface water. There may be a suspicion that there may be a problem, but the non-point source pollution has been changed to a point source. They then take samples at those points to see if there was actual pollution. In this case, two locations were chosen by happen chance and if no bacteria had been found, he would have returned. It was normal procedure to run 3 sets of water samples at a spot to ensure there was no problem. If any one of them would have come up 200, it would have been deemed a failure. It was almost a monitoring thing. More than once was not acceptable. If 5 or 6 samples were done and every one of them came up low with one peak, then it would be a concern that this was an intermittent failing system and there was something causing slugs of dye and slugs of bacteria to run through it. For instance, if the home was occupied intermittently or if there was a pump involved some where or if there was a reservoir, a rain event, or a surface water flow problem. There were multitudes of ways to get a low count and then a high count. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 4 of 12 Carol Spaulding, Lab Manager, stated she received two Bachelor's Degrees from The Evergreen State College, a BS and a BA. She spent three years as an undergraduate at University of Puget Sound. The lab has been certified for drinking water from the Department of Health and accredited for surface water from the Department of Ecology. For a lab to be accredited, it was required that the lab apply and pay the fee and submit an acceptable quality insurance manual that outlines quality control and quality insurance for the entire lab. It also required analyzing performance evaluation samples. They do not have these for micro-biology but they have lots of them for chemical, because the Department of Ecology accredits labs that do a lot of chemical analysis on surface waters besides bacteria. This lab was accredited for total suspended solids. Twice a year, blind samples are run and an audit completed. The lab was opened in 1992, and has been accredited every year. The new accreditation has been received for the 1995-1996 year. Ms. Spaulding reported that when charcoal packets were received, they were labeled. The labels are transferred to a jar and the charcoal is washed in the packet, put in the jar, and eluded with a potassium hydroxide alcohol solution and read within 24 hours. Two employees read the samples and record the results: Mark Tompkins and herself. For surface water samples, the field team starts their numbering system at 20, so their bottles are numbered from 20 to how ever many they have. In this instance, they had numbers 22 and 23. The numbers correspond to the bacteriological sheet that they turn in. Another set of work sheets are issued with a lab number. A multiple tube dilution for determining bacteria count was used. It was a series of 15 tubes. The first five tubes receive 10 mill samples, the next five receive 1 mill samples and then the last set of 5 receive one-tenth of a mill of the sample. In order to determine whether fecal coliforms were present or not, the lactose ferments. The tubes contain gas which rises, which constitutes a positive sample. When all 15 tubes are positive you have a MPN Code of 5-5-5. That code represents a greater than or equal to 2,400 fecal coliform for 100 mills. When the bottles come in, they are analyzed and the results are found. Dr. Trucksess asked for confirmation that from all of the dye samples, six were positive, three negative and of those, two were taken for bacterial analysis and only one of those was positive. Staff concurred. Dr. Trucksess asked if Site 6 was positive and 7 was negative and tests for fecal coliform were not taken from any other sites. Staff concurred. Dr. Trucksess asked where the State took their water samples. Staff replied that it was Sites 5 and 6. Kim Lincoln commented that the samples were taken nearly 3 weeks apart. Carol Spaulding stated that there has been a question how there can be one site with differing bacteriological counts. Every sample was an entity of its own. You can have a body of water and you can have bacteria in it and you can have gold fish in it and you can have a number of receptacles out in front of you and dip out a sample from this huge container and you may pick up one gold fish in one container or two at a time and some would be completely empty and they all came from the same source. The same problem happens in surface water sampling as it does in drinking water. You can have a body of water and have bacteria in it but they won't all show up in every single sample, some may be positive and some may be negative. Especially when there was a time element involved. If the samples were weeks apart, days apart or even minutes apart, they can be different. Grant Holdcroft summed up that bacteria were not equally distributed throughout a water body. Ms. Spaulding stated the sample was shaken up to get as random a sample as possible, but bacteria can clump. So, you could have a sample with a lot of bacteria, a sample with a low count, or one sample with none in it. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 5 of 12 Brad Banner commented that the point staff was trying to make was that there was a distinction between a marginally failing system where you would see low fecal counts consistently and confusing results versus an intermittent failure. It was a clear failure but it was intermittent. Their position has been that because of the amount and strength of the dye and the amount of fecal coliform itself, it was a definite failure but it has been demonstrated that it was intermittent. Kim Lincoln remarked that a system which was found to be intermittently failing or found failing only one week out of the entire year was a system in need of repair. The presence of a satisfactory result did not invalidate unsatisfactory samples. There were several reasons why intermittent failure can occur and one big example was the usage of a system. Others were outside examples of rain water and elevation of the water table. But if a system was deemed failing at any point, the reason needed to be investigated and corrected. Dr. Trucksess asked about local contamination such as a dog pooping near the site and some of the fecal material being washed into the site. Grant Holdcroft replied that they do investigate such things. He stated he and Mrs. Olsen had discussed, on site, possible contamination from dogs. The water sample was taken from water coming out of a hole at the bottom of the bulkhead. The .bulkhead was 8 feet tall. Unless there was a rain or storm event, or unless the tide had deposited feces in that hole and it was being washed out, it was a remote possibility. Kim Olsen, appellant, commented that they were not present to blame anyone for what they think may be a wrong test. But, they do believe the testing system has failed them. As taxpayers, they were concerned about paying for these tests. She noted she was in error about the size of the dye bottles. She could see that the bottle shown by the Health Department staff was not 32 ounces. However, there was a disproportionate amount left when the dye was put into the toilets and shower. There was only a quarter of a bottle left. Mr. Holdcroft stated the bottles were carried to 4 different places, with one quarter being used at each location. Ms. Olsen replied that three-quarters of a bottle went into one location. She had been watching the amount because a friend of theirs had already told them that they believed excess dye was being used. If that much dye was being put into their septic system, how reliable, then, were the dye test numbers? Dr. Trucksess asked if the staff had a comment about the amount of dye and whether it could have altered the findings. Mr. Holdcroft replied that the amount of dye would not change the findings. It would increase the amount of dye which came out at the bulkhead, and the strength of the dye, but if dye showed up, it established a route for bacteria to flow. He noted that Demetria Shew was not there to defend herself about the amount of dye she had used, but she had told him that it was done according to normal procedure. Kim Olsen commented that their neighbor,Mary Lund, had just put in a new septic system across the street and she did not know how much dye was used for his test, and he did not recall, but he had dye show up on his beach and his system was only a year and one-half old, and it was 500 feet back from the water. Mr. Holdcroft stated he hated to refer to a different situation because they did not know if there was a gray water discharge there that may not have tied into the septic. When the Health Department inspects a system they do not go into the house to ensure that all pipes and drains were tied into the main septic line. That was the Building Department's concern. However, they do assume that it has been taken care of properly. They do not know what happened at Mr. Lund's site, but they do know that dye showed up in the water samples but there was not the bacteria, so it could have been a plumbing failure rather than MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 6 of 12 a septic failure. Ms. Olsen wondered if they could have had a plumbing failure also. Ms. Lincoln stated that was something that could have been looked into and that was part of getting together a plan and eliminating possible problems one by one. That was a process they go through for every failure. Dr. Trucksess asked if there has been any checking into the plumbing. Ms. Lincoln replied that there has been nothing done at all. Ms. Olsen reported that the water sample information which the State took was information provided by the Olsens and inserted in the Health Department's chronology report. She stated that 4 or 5 dye packets had been moved from their original location because of a storm. One or two of them was approximately 10 feet away from their property onto their neighbor's property. She had replaced them, but she was not sure which one went where. Dr. Trucksess asked if this was something the staff had asked Ms. Olsen to do. Mr. Holdcroft replied that he had not and he was totally unaware that this had happened. Ms. Olsen stated she had watched the packets every day and the next day if they had moved because of the storm, she replaced them right away. Mr. Holdcroft replied that he wished he had known this earlier because it greatly affected the results. Ms. Olsen commented that some of the packets moved, but some of them did not. It had happened again the next week, resulting in the missing packet which she just couldn't find. Mr. Holdcroft stated he was surprised. At this point, the results still stand, but he wished he had known this sooner. They would have stretched the testing. Ms. Olsen noted that one site was positive one time and negative the next time. It may be because two of them got turned around. She did not believe it would change the dye results. Mr. Holdcroft remarked that overall, the test was still good in terms of the dye. Ms. Olsen commented that storms did move the packets even though there were rocks put on top of them. Bill Olsen commented that they had looked all over the beach for the missing packet. Mr. Holdcroft noted that happens all the time, and they were just noted as being missing. Ms. Olsen commented that when the staff came to place the dye packets that second time, she did mention that they had favorable results from the shellfish people and she was confident they would have a good test. That was why they were so surprised when they had the 2,400 count. That was the time when they passed on the information to the Health Department that they had communication with the shellfish people. The second time was when Tom Gibbs told them they had a passing test, it was under 100. Dr. Trucksess asked if that was the state result and she replied yes. She commented that Mr. Gibbs had told her there was some contact between the two agencies, even at that point. Later she had found out that the county was unaware of any other testing while talking with Kim Lincoln. She did not know why this was ignored, and why it now showed up on the Health Department's chronology. That really concerned her. She also had questions about the testing. She thought they only tested drinking water and she would have to talk with the Lower Hood Canal people about other testing. Carol Spaulding replied that she tests for surface and drinking water but she was not at liberty to give out their information. That was why she refers everyone to the field team. Ms. Olsen stated she had felt like she.was brushed off because she wanted the report to compare the two. Ms. Spaulding stated there was no way she could verify who was who on the telephone, so she refers to the field team because they have had contact with the people out in the field. She commented that the Olsens would just be a name and a number on a lab sheet to her, and that was the way it was in the test-tube world. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 7 of 12 Ms. Olsen stated that the bacteria count was the main item being discussed, but their drain field has no odor, no growth, no soft or wet areas, and there was no apparent sewage. The home does not have any odor or backups and there were no other apparent problems. The 2,400 count was the only evidence that there was any problem. Dr. Trucksess asked about the dye test. Ms. Olsen stated the dye test was valid. Kim Lincoln commented that many systems fail the dye and fecal count tests with no backup into the home or other indications. They generally do not occur when they are weeping out of weep holes. There would be no reason for those indications mentioned by Ms. Olsen. Grant Holdcroft stated that the drain field located right behind the bulkhead with an 8 foot high bulkhead and fecal coliform coming out of the bottom of the bulkhead was the main purpose of what they do. It was the focus of what they do. The overt ones, the ones when you walk on site and it was coming out of the ground, anybody can do that. Their purpose was to find failing septic systems which were discharging into the Canal. They see ones with no apparent problems on the surface all the time, but when the dye tests are completed, the bacteria comes up and all kinds of problems are found. Ms. Olsen asked if the staff had received any other complaints about excess dye. Dr. Trucksess replied no. Ms. Olsen stated she had talked with Ernie Aires and he confirmed that other people had expressed concerns about excess dye. She thought this involved quite a few people and she was surprised that no one had spoken up except her. Dr. Trucksess replied he would have heard complaints only from people who have requested an appeal hearing. Ms. Olsen wished during the appeal process there was a more formal process available before getting a notice of eviction. Dr. Trucksess asked if she was referring to being told to repair her system. Ms. Olsen stated that Kim Lincoln had wondered why the Department would go out and make an assessment and give her the opportunity to appeal it. She had wondered what would be wrong with that because it was done with property taxes all the time. She wished, in these situations, that the property owners would be given a chance to bring information forward, because she was afraid that people were getting notices as scare tactics, so they just decide to go ahead and repair because they don't want to be evicted. She was afraid that doing things correctly and properly were being overlooked because within three months they were getting notices that they would be evicted if they did not start work in 7 days or 30 days. Dr. Trucksess asked if she was given an eviction notice. Kim Lincoln replied that a Notice and Order was sent out according to Mason County's policies and procedures if nothing was done. An initial letter was mailed out in May and no correction, no anything, was done at all except for a telephone call to her once the Notice and Order was mailed out. The Notice and Order directed them to stop the discharge, get together a plan of action, get a repair permit, and make the needed repairs. Dr. Trucksess asked if they had a copy of the Notice and Order, which was presented (Exhibit B). Ms. Lincoln noted that the Notice and Order was mailed out only when no action was being taken. From May until August no action, whatsoever, had been taken by the property owner. Dr. Trucksess asked about the first date. Ms. Lincoln replied that there were two template letters. One mailed out on May 17th (Exhibit C) and the other on May 19th (Exhibit D). They were standardized letters. Dr. Trucksess asked Ms. Olsen if she believed it would have been helpful if with the first letter it would have said she had the ability to appeal this action. Ms. Olsen agreed it would have been helpful. Dr. Trucksess agreed that perhaps something should be written at the bottom of the letter that the recipient could appeal this decision. Ms. Olsen stated that another neighbor had received a similar notice while she was in the hospital. When she came home and read the notice she had panicked and wanted to immediately contact a contractor to come out and dig a perk hole. She was a widow on a fixed income and had been frightened. She believed she had MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 8 of 12 been railroaded into taking action. She did have a contractor come out and look and he had told her he could not find anything wrong with her drain field. She noted she was not familiar with the neighbor's test results. Dr. Trucksess stated that a contractor could not determine if a drain field was failing without completing tests. Ms. Olsen commented that Ms. Lincoln had told her that if they wanted to do another test it would be perfectly fine for another designer to come out and do water testing. Ms. Lincoln replied that this has been allowed in other situations where.the homeowner has expressed concerns after the first notice. They were always willing to work with people. In this case, it was not something she was aware of in the beginning. There have been instances where a homeowner felt that something went wrong with the technique, and they used a certified level II designer to come out and perform their own sampling, the results of which were taken into consideration. She believed this had only occurred twice. Ms. Olsen replied that it may have only occurred twice because people did not know they had that option. Dr. Trucksess commented that was a good point, and perhaps the form letters should be looked at to see if there was any way to soften the tone a little bit to make people understand there was a way to work with the Health Department in correcting these problems. The avenues were available, but they were not readily done. Dr. Trucksess wondered what Ms. Olsen wanted the Health Department to do at this point. She answered that Kim Lincoln had told her Sound Analytical Services did not test for fecal coliform but on their test it showed zero for fecal coliform, and there was also a space on their form for E-coli, and they did not test for that, so the space was left blank. She did not know why they would fill in zero if it was not tested. Carol Spaulding responded that the test they ran was for drinking water. The plate had 182 colonies on it. The lab tech got the sample before the paper work, so he did not know he was required to run a specific fecal coliform test. He ran a total coliform test. He founded the colonies, took a smear, set up a brilliant green bio-broth which was a positive test for total coliforms, and an EC broth which was a positive test for fecal coliforms. The brilliant green came out positive. Therefore, he assumed that all 182 colonies were total coliforms, so he wrote those were total coliforms. The EC tube came up negative, so he wrote zero for fecal coliform. Ms. Olsen commented that the total coliform was 182, so wouldn't the fecal definitely be under 200? Ms. Spaulding replied that was not necessarily true. When there are two kinds of bacteria growing together, even in the same family, you could have inhibitory factors. One can grow more than the other one. That was why they always did those fail-safes and set up two separate types of tube media. Even if there was total coliforms in that sample and no fecals and you have another sample which has 33 and another which has 2,400, they were all taken at different times from the same place, you would still have this intermittent problem. They can show up, then they cannot show up, and they can show up in different degrees of density. Ms. Olsen commented that the drinking water form was the only form they have for her to submit for this test. It was standard. They called when they got the sample and asked if she wanted drinking water, and she said no, she had checked fecal, but the drinking water form had been mailed. Ms. Spaulding noted it was true that the lab slip showed that she wanted a fecal coliform count but the lab technician did not get that slip when he got the sample bottle. This test showed no fecal coliform and it showed totals. Ms. Olsen asked if the test was worthless. Ms. Spaulding replied that it was not worthless. Ms. Olsen wondered what it showed. Ms. Spaulding stated it told exactly what he had written down there. There were 182 total coliforms and zero fecal. His test showed no fecal coliform. Ms. Olsen asked if Ms. Spaulding MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 9 of 12 was saying he did not test for fecal. Ms. Spaulding replied he had not tested specifically for fecal. If you were to test a surface water sample for fecal coliform you would use MFC broth and the colonies would show up blue. You always have to test that twice. That sample did not have any fecal coliform. Pam Denton commented that an interesting point in reviewing the on-site sewage survey application sent to the Olsens, at the bottom where they gave permission to access, under the comment sheet it said Mondays and Wednesdays were good; frequently out-of-town. A frequently out-of-town use on a drain field would be one example which would cause an intermittent failure on the drain field. Ms. Olsen replied that out of town would only be one or two days. She just wanted to be sure she was there. It did not indicate that they were part-time or seasonal. Bill Olsen commented that they were not part-timers. Ms. Olsen had wrote that because he has his own business and he works basically 7 days a week and she works 6 days a week, so there was only one or two days a week they would be around and Kim wanted to be there. Dr. Trucksess asked if he meant during the day and Mr. Olsen replied yes. Mr. Olsen noted that his wife has been taking care of this matter, but his question was how a weep hole located in one area and a weep hole in another close area could have such differing results. One was 2,400 and the other 33. Technically, he did not understand this. Grant Holdcroft answered that it could be explained by various routes that the effluent may take through the soil or maybe it got treated a little more on one side than the other. The other part was what Carol Spaulding was referring to about the viability between the samples. Bacteria was not distributed equally throughout the whole water body, bacteria has a tendency to clump. Even if some samples were low, you still would not want to swim in it or drink it. Dr. Trucksess commented that there has been different testing and questions about how the testing was done, and if the testing was to be repeated it should be done at a time when the testing could be observed and followed by all the parties. Perhaps the State should be involved at the same time. He wondered if this would be satisfactory to the Olsens and the Health Department. Kim Lincoln suggested that only water sampling be done because of the dye being present in the system and the fact that it could take months before they could retest. She noted there was fecal count coming out of that bulkhead, and they did not want to permit a health risk in the mean time by waiting for the dye to clear. Dr. Trucksess asked if the dye may not have cleared by now. Mr. Holdcroft responded it was hard to tell if it has all cleared. They could put background packets out to check. Dr. Trucksess asked if the dye test could be repeated if the background packets were negative. Mr. Holdcroft replied that was correct. Brad Banner wondered if the focus could be narrowed down. If the dye was not proving the failure but indicating the pathway, perhaps everyone would agree to do just the bacterial test. If not, background could be done. Dr. Trucksess stated that he believed the Olsens questioned whether the dye test was done properly, that was why he had focused on it. Kim Olsen replied she was not interested in any more dye testing. The information indicates that the septic cannot be proven failing until there was a water sampling. She would agree to the water testing. Mr. Holdcroft stated they would set up an appointment with the Olsens to do a new water sample. Dr. Trucksess advised the testing would be for fecal coliforms,possibly in conjunction with DOH and the Olsens being present. Ms. Olsen wondered what the allowed margin would be, if the testing came up with a low count. She noted they have gone through a lot of time and effort. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 10 of 12 Mr. Holdcroft replied that it would depend on whether the first set would be invalidated or.not. If the first testing was set aside, and they started again from scratch, the staff would want to take three sets of water samples from the positive sites. Then, if any came up positive, they would have to agree on a method. Ms. Lincoln replied that they should stick to Mason County policies. If positive for dye, the system was termed as suspect. If higher than 200 fecal coliforms on any of the positive sites, then it would be termed failing. Dr. Trucksess asked if Mason County policy was consistent with the State's regulation. Ms. Lincoln responded the state did not perform dye tests, but the 200 fecal coliform count would be the same. Ms. Olsen commented that Ms. Lincoln had said a septic designer could come out and complete a water test. At this point, they were concerned about the 2,400 count and wanted it retested. Dr. Trucksess stated it should be retested and if there was an error involved, it needed to be identified. Wayne Clifford wondered whether the DOH, during their testing, sampled marine water or weep holes out of the bulkhead. Kim Olsen answered that she witnessed the sampling from the two weep holes. The sample taker had commented that it was taking a lot of time because there was not much water coming out of the weep holes. He had stood there for 2 to 5 minutes while the vial was filling. Ms. Olsen commented they were concerned that if it was retested and there was a low count, they feel they have been damaged by the time and effort. She stated they do not really want to talk about legal issues but they do want the questions cleared up. Dr. Trucksess stated that he didn't believe the Olsens wanted coliforms contaminating their shellfish either. The Olsens replied that was true. They wanted clean water too, they just wanted to make sure that this 2,400 count wasn't some how transposed and this was, indeed, a correct fecal count. Mr. Holdcroft stated he took the water sample., it was in his custody, he had chain of custody records, he handed it to Demetria Shew, she transported it to Carol Spaulding, it was put in the refrigerator and Carol Spaulding ran it. Bill Olsen stated their concern came from the fact that the count was so different. When they looked at the count, they had wondered what happened. Ms. Olsen noted that the great discrepancy concerned them. What scared her was the fact that if this 2,400 count was wrong, they could have already gone ahead and replaced their septic and it may not be needed. Mr. Holdcroft responded that the 2,400 count was not wrong. It was entirely possible for the 18 and the 2,400 to have come from the exact same spot, because of the nature of the test and how bacteria react and live in the environment. However, they would set it aside and in conjunction with DOH and the Olsens they would start over. If there was another 2,400 and the State DOH comes up with another 18, he would still deem it a failure. Bill Olsen questioned the varying results. He wondered if the Department was "throwing darts" to decide who had to replace their septic and who did not. Dr. Trucksess informed that the dye showed there was a pathway from the Olsen septic system to their bulkhead, but they would like to give a benefit of a doubt by doing the testing for bacteria. If the test comes up positive for bacteria, then they require that the septic system be repaired. Basically, dye tests prove whether or not there was a pathway. Whether that pathway was being treated adequately was the question, and that was why the testing for the fecal coliform was done. There may be times MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 11 of 12 when you get a lot more effluent which needs to be treated and it may not be treated adequately and you can get a 2,400 count. There may be times you are not using your septic very much and your counts may be lower. Mr. Olsen stated that ideally, if you knew you were going to be tested, you should leave home for awhile. Dr. Trucksess noted it should be tested under normal conditions. Mr. Olsen stated they reacted when they saw an 18 count and then a 2,400 count. Someone needs to be wrong, and what the Department was saying was that nobody was probably wrong. Dr. Trucksess replied that was correct, and the probability was that the Olsens had a failing system, but in order to satisfy their concerns about the testing, it should be redone. Bill Olsen wondered if some systems may not be failing even though they have a high count. Staff replied no, that some systems may be failing but they are not caught. Ms. Olsen stated that in talking with different agencies, no one had told her there was that much variance. Mr. Holdcroft stated they liked it to be consistent, but sometimes it was not. He had run into this situation before. Kim Lincoln commented that the field team gives field inspection reports listing their observations on site, and when she visits a site to meet with the homeowners, it would not be the exact conditions they saw. There was a term intermittently failing. Mr. Holdcroft agreed. Sometimes failing systems are unintentionally missed because they are not on site viewing something at the proper moment. He noted they would never want to give a false-positive. Ms. Olsen agreed, they did not want to see septics replaced that did not need to be replaced. Pam Denton stated that it did not always result in the entire replacement of a drain field. A lot of times it may involve rerouting curtain drain, tying plumbing into the septic system, putting on flow water meters, etc. That was why.the first letter states they need to get together and find a workable solution. They try to explore the cheapest alternatives first and then go from there. Mr. Olsen stated that was another concern, going across the road would cost between $20,000 to $25,000, and they were not certain the test results were correct, and that was why they were here. Dr. Trucksess stated that if more information had been received earlier it might have diffused some of the uncertainty the Olsens had about the testing. He would like to see the Health Department prepare an informational brochure to be given to homeowners when they come to their door to advise them they would be testing, so the homeowners could better understand the testing. Ms. Olsen noted it was a situation where it was being forced down their throats, and a lot of other homeowners felt the same way. They did have an uneasiness about the situation. They all wanted clean water, but it needed to be handled appropriately and not just be sent eviction notices. Some people just roll over. Dr. Trucksess asked if it should be retested. Ms. Olsen replied that it probably should be retested. Dr. Trucksess asked that the testing be done in conjunction with the State DOH. Kim Lincoln wondered if Sound Analytical Services should be involved also. Ms. Olsen noted she had just picked them out of the telephone book, and it would not be necessary. Dr. Trucksess asked that a date be set for the bacteriological test to be done only because of the time restraints of the dye tests. The Olsens agreed. Mr. Holdcroft informed that a listing of the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 24, 1995 - Page 12 of 12 different labs could be given to the Olsens to chose from. Ms. Olsen replied they wanted Mr. Gibbs back because he has been very helpful and he was very interested in what happens. Ms. Spaulding suggested that if this was done in conjunction with the State, they should' use composite samples. This was when'one large sample was taken, shaken up, and split between two bottles. The State and Mr. Gibbs would get one, and the Mason County Lab would get the other. If two separate samples were taken, you would get two separate results. Ms. Lincoln noted two separate samples could be received even if it was done from one bottle. Ms. Spaulding stated there would be a better probability of getting more reasonable counts than if two separate samples were taken. Mr. Olsen agreed with Dr. Trucksess about preparing an informational brochure in an effort to make it more user-friendly. This meeting was top-notch and the staff was not malicious but the procedures make them conceived that way. Perhaps a little change in procedure could improve that. Ms. Olsen stated everyone wanted clean water, but it needed to be handled with care because it was a big expense for a lot of people, a lot of retired people in the community. Mr. Olsen agreed. Ms. Lincoln commented, in the defense of the people who work on these things, that they realize the animosity exists and they work very hard to be cooperative with the people. She noted that a Notice and Order was sent only when no action was taken whatsoever. It may only mean one telephone call. Ms. Olsen responded that she gave the Health Department three opportunities for the information regarding the low fecal count from the State, and she wished the staff would have taken action. Mr. Holdcroft replied that, at that point, someone should have called the Olsens to see that they understood the 2,400 count was the significant count, not the 18. He would have been concerned that they did not believe they had a problem. In the future, that was how he would approach it. Ms. Lincoln stated that when they found out about the State testing, they immediately offered to do composite testing but it was denied. Ms. Olsen stated it was denied, but she had wanted to talk with her husband first before they decided on anything and she had already filled out the application for the appeal. Dr. Trucksess advised the testing would be redone. He noted that he appreciated the comments made by the Olsens, and he would direct the Health Department to make their letters more user- friendly and to, perhaps, come up with an informational brochure. Hearing adjourned. MASON COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER Mark E. Trucksess Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Coots