HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health October 2 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
October 2, 2007
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
1. PUBLIC SESSION
No one spoke.
2. ONSITE SEPTIC (OSS) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O &M) LOCAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated the draft includes a section on sensitive
areas. The draft local management plan includes six parts. It is arranged according to the
plan guidance from the State Department of Health, which the County is required to follow.
Brenner asked Mr. Wolpers to explain to people that the self- inspection classes are
not a part of this draft plan, because this draft just fleshes out the existing stuff. Wolpers
stated the local management plan is required by the State Department of Health. He
explained the requirements of the State regulations on local health departments and read
the six parts of the plan. This plan is draft, and does not yet talk about education for
homeowners. The Council must first make a determination on sensitive areas. Then the
regulation would need to be changed. The staff is looking for suggestions from the Board
on what may or may not need to be changed as they move forward.
Fleetwood asked if the impetus for this has to do with the Governor's initiative to
clean up Puget Sound. Wolpers stated it does. That initiative and legislative bill 1458 were
the motivation for this. They are to write a detailed .plan for operations and maintenance of
onsite septic (OSS) systems so they function properly.
Brenner stated she received an email from Bob Bingham that she would like the staff
to review. Wolpers stated he just received that information from Mr. Bingham.
Weimer asked about the first bullet item in part one, section 4. In choosing options
a, b, or c, people are supposed to choose one. However, it seems someone can choose
more than one. If someone has sewer, he or she wouldn't have an OSS either.
Brenner stated it would be better to say "no OSS or sewer on property" or something
that defines it as being different. Change the language to, "no form of getting rid of human
waste." Wolpers stated he will work on the language in that section.
Board of Health, 10/2/2007, Page 1
Nelson asked if the postcards have a stamp for return. Wolpers stated it would be
prepaid postage. They did a Lake Whatcom pilot project to see if they would get good
response. They received about 60 percent response.
Brenner asked the number of staff positions the Council funded, and how many are
filled. Wolpers stated the Council funded four positions. They are an OSS coordinator, two
environmental health specialists, and a clerical position. All but one health specialist
position has been filled. That position doesn't go into effect until 2008. There is potential
for database enhancement with one additional half -time position. The Public Works
Department has dollars they've talked about with the shellfish districts. They are writing an
agreement to offer another position to assist with the O &M program. That individual would
be used to begin implementation and to concentrate on any high fecal content results
found.
Weimer stated shorelines are called sensitive areas when within 200 feet of the
mean high water. The way the language is written, any parcel that touches the shoreline is
included as a sensitive area, even if the OSS system is many acres away. He asked if they
will change that to consider where the septic system is actually located on the parcel.
Wolpers stated they will look at those systems within 200 feet.
Weimer asked if the inspectors would note the location of the system during the first
check. Wolpers stated they would.
Weimer stated the language doesn't reflect that task. Clarify whether it is the OSS
system or the parcel.
Brenner stated page 16 defines the shoreline management area. It says the
program has jurisdiction over all surface water and extends landward for 200 feet from the
ordinary high water mark.
Weimer stated he wants to make sure they clarify the definition to mean the location
of the OSS system, not the entire parcel. Wolpers stated they talked about it being
contiguous with the entire parcel at one time, but that didn't make much sense.
Brenner stated that at this point, the identified sensitive areas won't be treated
differently from other areas, in terms of operation and maintenance of the septic system.
Wolpers stated that is correct. When first proposed, they talked originally about following
the Shoreline Management Program and the group A wellhead protection areas. After
researching that option, he realized it didn't make sense to include the group A wellhead
protection areas. The regulations that encompass group A areas provide sufficient
protection. They aren't as concerned as they thought they would be.
Therefore, staff went through the maps to explain why they chose the areas they
chose. Now, it is the Shoreline Management Program.
Brenner stated the last map the Council was shown had group A systems. Wolpers
stated it did. It also had group B systems.
The State makes them look at and consider ten different things. As they went
through those items, they determined that the Shoreline Management Program was a way
to administer operations and maintenance in determining what sensitive areas would be
included.
Board of Health, 1012/2007, Page 2
1
2 Part 4 is the marine recovery area strategy. That designation alone makes it a
3 sensitive area. They are talking about the same thing, but it is broken out into two different
4 ways in this plan. That's how the State wanted it.
5
6 Crawford. stated write the plan to better - incorporate Mr. Wolpers explanations here.
7 The draft doesn't explain why they've chosen those two things over the other eight items.
8
9 He asked about page 15, item seven. A cranberry operation isn't really a wetland.
10 Also, there is a third cranberry operation near Birch Bay. Wolpers stated they are talking
11 about wetland areas under production of crops for human consumption. It is a State
12 portion they have to look at. Staff from the Farm Service Industry talked about what would
13 be considered wetland operations.
14
15 Crawford asked if they are saying there are two natural wetland areas, previous to
16 the cranberry production. He asked what difference it makes from the point of view of OSS.
17 Someone with an OSS nearby, whether or not there is a wetland, would be concerned about
18 connectivity. He strongly suggests that this chapter be reorganized so someone reading it
19 can say that they looked at ten different factors, prioritized two of those factors, and
20 explained why they prioritized those two factors.
21
22 The Board concurred.
23
24 Brenner stated it would be better to summarize what they mean in each chapter at
25 the beginning of the chapter.
26
27 Weimer referenced page 16, section 10. It sounds like there is jurisdiction over
28 smaller streams. The bottom sentence may not be accurate, because It says it has
29 jurisdiction over all waters.
30
31 Brenner stated the bottom sentence should also say that the program has
32 jurisdiction over land areas that are 200 feet from ordinary high water mark. Wolpers
33 stated staff copied the language verbatim from the Planning Department. If it isn't correct,
34 they can change it.
35
36 Brenner stated it regulates all the streams with a certain flow, but it has jurisdiction
37 over everything. That's different. The map shows the areas that are regulated, not the
38 areas in the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means they are in charge of it. The County has
39 jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, but does not have the same regulations over all
40 those areas.
41
42 Weimer stated they need to ask the County's shoreline staff person in the Planning
43 Department. Wolpers stated he will ask.
44
45 Nelson stated the law requires maintenance on gravity feed systems every three
46 years. He asked if that is flexible. Wolpers stated State law requires maintenance every
47 three years.
48
49 Nelson stated that some systems may not need that maintenance every three years.
50 For example, summer -only residents will not fill a tank every three years, but will still be
51 required to do maintenance.
52
Board of Health, 10/2/2007, Page 3
Brenner stated that is one reason for allowing residents to take classes and do their
own inspections. She asked if the prosecutor's Office reviewed the enforcement section.
Wolpers stated it did. It follows Whatcom County Code (WCC) 24.07.
Nelson asked how staff will monitor maintenance if people are doing their own.
Wolpers stated it will be very difficult.
Brenner stated it won't be difficult if the owners have to fill out a form and hand it in.
Set up the whole thing as a database. Wolpers stated that if homeowners are allowed to do
their own maintenance, quite a few other things have to be accomplished to allow that. It's
not insurmountable, but it's a matter of what it will take in terms of additional resources.
Crawford asked what happens to the 40 percent of people who don't respond with
inspections. Wolpers stated it would fall under enforcement activities, in part C. They will
define an area to start implementation. Through the database, they will determine how
many homes to send it to. They will send out those postcards, which ask specific questions.
Also included is a list of operations and maintenance (O &M) specialists homeowners can get
to perform that service. The people would either notify the department that the service was
performed or that they are on sewer. If the County doesn't get a response either way, the
staff can follow up.
Crawford stated that if one has a septic, the only option is to get an inspection. He
asked if there is a timeframe from when someone gets a postcard to when the inspection is
done. Wolpers stated there is. House Bill 2012 is specifically for marine recovery areas.
The County will attempt to implement it countywide.
Crawford asked what happens next. Wolpers stated that if the department doesn't
get a card from a homeowner, it would send out a second notification with a deadline.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated after that there will be a notice
of violation and civil penalties.
Wolpers stated the current violation is $125 per day. In the new OSS regulations
being developed by the State Department of Health, the penalty goes up to $1,000 per day.
Crawford asked if the penalty is for not reporting to the county. Delahunt stated the
penalty is for not getting the system inspected. If the person has had the system
inspected, the department would have received a report of system status from the licensed
O &M specialist. Civil penalties is the only hammer the County has to get to do this.
Crawford stated that in this system, a person is guilty until proven innocent.
Weimer stated it seems that a hold on a person's permit happens before there is a
notice of violation and fines. It's not clear in this section.
Crawford stated there has been a big leap from an argument about whether or not
this should be triggered at the time of sale to a person being in violation for not returning
the County's postcard. That's a big leap.
Brenner stated there is a notice of violation first, without civil penalty. She asked
what happens if the person refuses to pay the penalty. Delahunt stated the County can
continue to pursue action against the person. They can put a lien on property. There are
all kinds of things they can do.
Board of Health, 14/2/2007, Page 4
Brenner stated they can't put a lien on someone's property for a class II civil
infraction, according to the Prosecuting Attorney. She has a problem with holding up
permits. If there is a hold on future permits, the language should say that, but not on
current permits. Wolpers stated staff will wordsmith that language.
Delahunt stated they've said all along that enforcement will be difficult. They are
potentially talking about 20,000 systems. If 40 percent of the people decide they're not
going to do it on the first try, there will be a lot of paperwork and staff time to follow up.
Without enforcement, they are stymied and must go back to education. Education was
effective for only 7 percent per year. In general, when they do enter into an enforcement
process, 90 percent of the people will comply by the time they get to the third notice and
the more serious letters. When people realize they are serious, most people will comply.
Education will be a big part of this program. They must change the social contract. People
will have to understand that they really need to maintain their systems. In many other
parts of the nation, this is a part of life. It is something that people just do. It takes awhile
to change a social norm.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she agrees that the County must be serious. The County
has never been heavy- handed with enforcement. Develop some kind of appeal process for
extenuating circumstances. Have an appeal process to create higher rates of compliance
and mitigate the fines. However, if there isn't some kind of enforcement, the County won't
get compliance and will get in trouble with the State. Delahunt stated the letters of
enforcement also encourage people to contact the department staff if there are extenuating
circumstances. In most cases, they don't get to the civil penalty section.
Brenner stated they must give people options for paying for this, or else it won't
work. This isn't about changing a social contract. It's about working with the community
on options to get them where they want to be. A minority of people will want to take
classes and inspect their own systems, but the County must respect those people. There
must be compromise on all sides. Delahunt stated the staff based this plan on the existing
regulations, which don't have those provisions. If they change the existing regulations,
they can add those provisions. Staff isn't opposed to allowing homeowners to do their own
inspections. That was included in the first version in some form. The issue is about how
that's done.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford stated that it creates more incentives to returning the card if people can be
more honest. Ask people what they are willing to do. Now, they are threatening people
with fines and a guilty - until- proven- innocent philosophy. First find out if the septic owners
are there, and then ask them how best to work with them to ensure compliance. Ask the
property owners what will work for them. Now, people will throw away the cards with the
three options. Begin with respect and integrity.
Nelson asked the cost of an inspection. Wolpers stated he guesses the cost is about
$300.
Nelson asked if there would have to be re- inspections if problems were found.
Delahunt stated the Health Department has to make sure the deficiencies are corrected. If
there are deficiencies, the Health Department must follow -up to make sure they are
corrected.
Board of Health, 10/2/2007, Page 5
1 Nelson asked if there will be penalties on O &M specialists if they miss something.
2 Delahunt stated the County will do quality assurance on the O &M specialists and their work.
3 The Health Department will randomly inspect their work and will certify the specialists.
4
5 Nelson asked if the owner has to pay the County for the department to follow up.
6 Delahunt stated the owner does not. An owner may have to submit receipts or report that
7 the problem has been fixed.
8
9 Wolpers stated that 0 &M specialists will currently make necessary repairs, and note
10 on the report that there was a problem that was fixed before sending in the form.
11
12 Delahunt stated there should be more detail on enforcement, which should include
13 some sensitivity.
14
15 Wolpers stated it will also include a potential appeal process.
16
17 Weimer stated staff should also look into whether the department can legally put
18 holds on permits.
19
20 Brenner stated it's important that the next draft have language that allows
21 homeowners to do self- inspection.
22
23 Nelson moved to have staff incorporate the sensitive area direction in part one and
24 include homeowner self - inspection in the final draft.
25
26 Weimer stated an ordinance would come forward along with the plan.
27
28 Crawford asked about the Lake Whatcom watershed and the sensitive area
29 designation. He asked why the entire Lake Whatcom watershed isn't included. Delahunt
30 stated the entire Lake Whatcom watershed is not the sensitive area. The sensitive area is
31 the 200 feet from the water line. In the State law, there is a special requirement for looking
32 at marine recovery areas. That's why Drayton Harbor is included as a special area. It is
33 connected to Puget Sound.
34
35 Crawford stated there is no direct evidence that the fecal coliform levels in Drayton
36 Harbor are from residential septic systems. It is only a suspicion. Delahunt stated they can
37 say that many things contribute to issues in Drayton Harbor, some of which are septic
38 systems. She doesn't believe it is the major contributor, but it does contribute in some
39 way. There are only 3,000 systems in Drayton Harbor. Put the priority on Drayton Harbor
40 up front to go through those system once and for all, make sure the O &M is done on all
41 those systems, and then put to rest all the debate about its contribution. There is good
42 consensus about looking hard at Drayton Harbor to upgrade the area. That's the rationale
43 for Drayton Harbor being the one marine recovery area to look at.
44
45 Crawford stated the homeowner aspect is good to add. He's really struggling with
46 the County's priority here and saying that the entire Drayton Harbor watershed is a
47 sensitive area for septic systems.
48
49 Weimer stated that in reality, calling it a sensitive area doesn't make it any
50 difference because they are treating all the areas the same. There is no requirement to
51 treat those systems any different from any other system in the county. Delahunt stated it
52 really just means that the County is going to start in Drayton Harbor,
53
Board of Health, 14/2/2007, Page 6
1 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the motion allows home inspection in sensitive areas.
2 Delahunt stated that has been the debate at the Public Health Advisory Board.
3
4 Nelson stated the advisory board doesn't want homeowner inspection in the sensitive
5 areas. Delahunt stated the advisory board thinks homeowner inspection is fine in areas that
6 aren't sensitive areas.
7
8 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports homeowner inspections, but not in sensitive
9 areas.
10
11 Crawford stated almost all of Whatcom County is in a sensitive area.
12
13 Nelson stated they need to have that debate. They must deal with it one way or
14 another. They keep going back and forth on it. Six years is as long as he prefers to go
15 without inspection by a licensed 0 &M specialist in any area. There is not enough evidence
16 to show that septic systems are a big problem on county water resource areas. Delahunt
17 stated the sensitive areas are just 200 feet from the shoreline, and Drayton Harbor.
18 Nothing else is a sensitive area.
19
20 Brenner stated Drayton Harbor is a huge area.
21
22 Crawford stated the language says that the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District
23 is considered a sensitive area. That includes most of the rest of the county, besides
24 Drayton Harbor. Delahunt stated those ten things listed were the things the County had to
25 consider to determine its sensitive areas.
26
27 Nelson restated his motion to include homeowner self- inspection except in
28 sensitive areas as defined in the draft, including all of Drayton Harbor and land within 200
29 feet of other waterways In the county.
30
31 Brenner stated the initial inspection will be done in all areas by a licensed O &M
32 specialist. Self- inspections should be allowed in all areas. Most people won't take the class
33 anyway. It will be for the people who care enough to do it. See if this will work before
34 hitting it harder.
35
36 Weimer asked about the more complex systems. Councilmember Brenner proposed
37 treating them all the same.
38
39 Caskey- Schreiber stated that is not in the motion.
40
41 Delahunt stated the staff will propose a frequency when it brings forward a new
42 draft.
43
44 Nelson asked if there are permit requirements on complicated systems so a company
45 must come back and check the system. Delahunt stated that is only for the most
46 complicated of the systems.
47
48 Nelson stated the next draft must clearly say that so they all understand what
49 they're voting on. Delahunt stated that everything except a standard gravity system has to
50 be inspected annually. There is a disconnect because the most complex systems would be
51 inspected by homeowners for five inspection cycles, but homeowners would inspect the less
52 complicated systems for one inspection cycle. Staff will bring forward a recommendation.
53
Board of Health, 10/212007, Page 7
1 Brenner stated most of the more complicated systems are newer systems. A pump
2 system is not so complex that people can't learn to inspect it.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 George Iddon, 2170 Wicklow Place, Point Roberts, stated the Council should ask the
7 septic system owners and allow them to speak before passing motions. Almost all of Point
8 Roberts is 200 feet from shoreline. Point Roberts isn't even on the map. The Council
9 doesn't go to Point Roberts. Neither do inspectors. It will cost Point Roberts owners more
10 for inspectors because they have to go through the border. Inspecting systems isn't
11 complicated. These rules and regulations will kill him as a homeowner. Someone from
12 Point Roberts who only uses the system for a couple of months out of the year won't cause
13 a problem.
14
15 Dale Peterson, 4052 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, stated his 16 -year old septic tank
16 has been pumped twice. The last time, the pumper said that it wasn't needed. There is no
17 indication of pollution from septic systems. Septic pumpers ought to be certified inspectors.
18 Also, the frequency, based on data they accumulate, should determine the frequency. He
19 can probably go 12 years without another pumping.
20
21 Carl King, 4283 Bay Road, Birch Bay, stated this is a perfect example of the State
22 putting the cart before the horse. Ninety percent of the people are being impacted by an
23 onerous legislation that should only apply to offenders. All systems should be inspected at
24 least once per year by a professional. After that, there is no need for an annual professional
25 inspection, especially for the high -tech systems. The State thinks the more technical
26 systems fail quicker and should be inspected more often. He asked the State's evidence.
27 Those systems work perfectly. First, do a full range survey of every septic system in the
28 county and statewide to see what the failure rate is. There are other sources of pollution.
29 It's not the septic systems that are polluting Puget Sound. The danger is the government
30 that is trying to punish everyone for a smaller problem.
31
32 Bob VanWeerdhuizen, Noon Road, stated he agrees with the previous speaker. The
33 septic tanks aren't the polluters. They have cleaned up the water due to the Clean Water
34 Act. The Portage Bay shellfish beds used to be closed, but are now open. He doesn't like
35 being made to inspect his system when it isn't necessary. He is not next to a waterway or
36 shoreline.
37
38 Earl Quinn, Everson, stated he thanks Councilmember Brenner for notifying people of
39 what's going on. They need more councilmembers like Councilmember Brenner.
40
41 Bob Bingham, Kendall Road, stated he provided the Council with a handout earlier
42 (on file). They need scientific data to back up what they do. The data does not exist to
43 show that septic systems pollute the waters. The State says the County is supposed to
44 collect that data. Improve the data system. He's glad to hear that is number one in the
45 proposal. How they define failure and repair is important. The County and State
46 regulations mean that a failure is a total failure, and a' repair means total replacement.
47 They need good data before concluding that OSS systems are polluting the water. There is
48 data about where the pollution in the water comes from. The source of the pollution is due
49 to large public systems and farms due to runoff. OSS private systems are not the cause.
50 Personal inspection is not rocket science.
51
52 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
53
Board of Health, 10/212007, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Bingham continued to state that there isn't anything to fear. They are drinking the
wastewater after it's recycled. That's okay. That's the way it works. The EPA says that all
fecal matter is removed from the wastewater within two to four feet of soil. That's why
State, federal, and County regulations allow the water table to get so close to the bottom of
a septic field. Most viruses are removed in a limited amount of soil. People are whipping
this up into a frenzy unnecessarily, but it's basic, well - established science. He is in favor of
people inspecting their own systems.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs Director, stated
she is pleased that the Health Department will come back with new language on the
enforcement section. The Health Department can't take away permits that have already
been granted without due process. There should be some sort of appeal process in place,
also. Run the proposed regulations by legal counsel.
Weimer stated the Health Department will bring this forward again. The Council will
hold a formal public hearing before it's adopted. The public is welcome to send comments
to the Council.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
� I Z LJ � �
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on November 7 , 2007.
A T 111111►r11t��!lr +,����
O�V� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
'��� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
la•Brow l ounfill Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
•, WA SHE O ,�
•••....• : fit. �� iLl
Board of Health, 10/2/2007, Page 9