HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health June 5 20011
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
June 5, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:30 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Marlene Dawson
Dan McShane
Connie Hoag
1. INTRODUCTION
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Robert Imhof
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Interim Director, thanked
everyone for attending and introduced several staff members who would be
available for questions.
2. PUBLIC SESSION
No one spoke.
3. APPEALS PROCESS REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.07
Dawson questioned whether this change allows the County to appeal state
decisions. Delahunt stated it does not. Currently, the appeals process is very
specific to things such as enforcement action, notices of violation, civil penalties,
and permit suspension and revocation. The one thing not included in the appeals
process is appeals of the decisions made by the director of the department. The
department staff often makes decisions in food service establishment plans. That
establishment owner's method of appeal is to the department director, and then to
court from there. Staff would like to add appeals of the department director's
decisions to the appeals ordinance. Appeal would be made to the Hearing
Examiner, and then the County Council.
Dawson questioned whether there is a way to appeal the directives of the
state Department of Ecology.
Nelson stated that would be done through the courts. The County cannot
change state law or decisions without going through the courts or a state process.
Delahunt stated this is the main revision to the ordinance. Staff decided to
make this change because of the water regulations they are proposing, which
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 1
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
doesn't have an appeal process. There are other technical changes, including the
need to have the term "Health Officer" changed to "Director." That is prescribed by
state law. Also, there is also a section in the ordinance regarding civil penalties for
sludge spreading. However, that is now regulated by the state, and needs to be
removed from County regulations.
Dawson moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the full Council.
She questioned whether appeals to the Hearing Examiner are based on staff
directions instead of department head directions. Delahunt stated the Planning
Department already has a process defined. The Health Department didn't have the
appeal process specified in the health code. It was just the health code that was
lacking.
Motion carried unanimously.
Delahunt stated that the department would bring this forward to the full
Council as an ordinance.
4. DRAFT DRINKING WATER ORDINANCE
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated staff received
additional comments on the information in the Council's packet. The community
commented on this ordinance. The staff tried to include many of the comments
gathered in December into this draft. The staff did make some changes to the
draft, which are outlined in the packet.
One of the significant changes is use of rainwater or seawater as a source for
a private home. That is now included. It was included before, but was considered
surface water. Now, the wording included makes it clearer.
Dawson questioned whether they should clarify that sea water is considered
surface water. Delahunt stated they could specify that. It is not their intent to
exclude seawater.
Hoag suggested adding language in all areas, "...surface water (including
seawater)...." Chudek stated they could also include the term in the definition of
surface water. Also, there is a mistake in the draft. He tried to fix the definition for
springs, but ended up putting Councilmember McShane's comment under surface
water. He would fix it. Staff also added clarification on consolidated formations.
At the encouragement of a citizen, they eliminated the four -hour yield test for wells
that produce at least four gallons per minute. The regulation would remain for
wells producing less than four gallons per minute. At this point, staff is interested
in gathering additional comments from the Board of Health, preparing a final draft
for legal review, filing the appropriate paperwork for the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) process, and trying to move forward to a public hearing.
Hopefully, more comments will be received at the public hearing. No one came to
the open house. He solicited comments from people on the draft, but hasn't heard
anything. His greatest concern is if something has been missed.
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 2
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Nelson stated the requirement is that one must hook up to a public water
system if such a system exists. Chudek stated that is the requirement only if the
public water system will hook the resident up. The County does not have the
authority to require the public water system to hook residents up to the system.
Nelson questioned whether it is a public water system if a person has only
one or two hookups to a water system. Chudek stated that by definition, if the
water system serves more than one single - family residence, it is a public water
system. For instance, a two -party well is a public water system. Counties can
option to require however much of the public water supply rules to local public
water supplies as it wants.
Nelson questioned whether the owner of a residence would be able to drill his
or her own well if the house is on five acres, and the person doesn't want to be
hooked up to a two -party well. Chudek stated the answer would have to do with
whatever was approved for the plat to begin with.
Nelson questioned what a person would do if he or she wanted to put in a
well. Chudek stated that County Health Department staff would refer the person to
the state Department of Ecology (DOE) for a start card. The County staff wouldn't
know anything about it unless a neighbor complained. The County is not in that
loop. The well would only show up at the time that the homeowner sold the
property. One doesn't have to get a permit from the Health Department to drill a
well.
The ordinance mainly deals with approval of water availability to get a
building permit. There is no ongoing inspection or enforcement.
Nelson asked if a person could resell the house if he or she drilled a well.
Chudek stated the issue would come up at that time. Health Department approval
is based on not having that extra hole in the ground.
Nelson stated nothing prevents someone from getting a DOE application and
putting in his or her own well. Chudek stated at that point, the County can catch
up with that process only if the owner applies for water availability later on. It is a
good question.
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Hoag asked for a summary of the ordinance. She questioned where in the
ordinance the provisions address a water supply disclosure requirement for the sale
of developed property. Chudek stated it is on council packet page 40. The seller of
an existing home must deliver to the buyer a completed water system disclosure
form.
Hoag questioned whether they are adding additional requirements for the
physical features of the well. Chudek stated the intent is disclosure for a potential
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 3
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
buyer of the property. It does not add requirements of building permits to an
existing home. They are hoping to have enough disclosure so the buyer knows to
contact the Health Department regarding getting approval of water for a building
permit.
Hoag questioned whether the person buying the home is going to have to do
a new water availability test. Chudek stated no. The buyer may make the seller do
a new water availability test.
Nelson stated they were going to have this disclosure form attached to each
deed of sale. Delahunt stated this is an educational tool for the buyer. Many
times, a buyer thinks that he or she is hooked up to a water district, when in reality
he or she has an old well.
Hoag stated this is a good thing they are doing.
Dawson stated new deeds spell out how much money each owner must
contribute to an account to maintain the public system.
Hoag stated she didn't see anything in the ordinance that specifically called
out enforcement for Group B systems. Chudek stated it is on Council packet page
40. Purveyors of public water supplies shall comply with all the provisions listed in
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The County is adopting the WAC by
reference. The County staff has no intention of rewriting Group B rules. They are
not changing the rules. The County has a joint plan of operation with the state of
Washington. It gives the County certain authority.
Delahunt stated the state Group B rules are changing, and this says that the
County is adopting the state Group B rules.
Hoag asked if anything changed on enforcement for Group B systems.
Chudek stated no. They would use the normal enforcement procedures according
to whatever is outlined in the WAC. If a purveyor doesn't agree with the Health
Department Director's decision, then the decision can be appealed. The County has
a joint plan of operation with the state Department of Health to enforce Group B
systems, but there is no enforcement provision for Group B systems that are out of
compliance.
Hoag asked what they would use as enforcement of Group B systems.
Delahunt stated WCC 24.07, which deals with civil penalty and abatement
measures, is the enforcement section for all of the health code.
Hoag stated a citizen testified that it is expensive for her to meet well testing
requirements. The citizen rents out her home for weddings. Under the code she is
considered a business. However, there are not employees there day after day.
She questioned whether the Board of Health can do anything to relieve the
excessive regulation in this instance. Chudek stated the Coordinated Water System
Plan defines this instance as a new Group B water system, which is required to be
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 4
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
managed by a satellite management agency. All new systems are required to do
that.
Hoag questioned why the County would require systems that serve as few as
two families to have regular testing by outside agencies. Chudek stated there are
fewer opportunities with Group B systems to find someone who is willing to do all
the work that he or she is supposed to do. The intent of the Coordinated Water
System Plan was to make certain that the monitoring actually occurred, and that
the system is maintained.
Nelson stated the requirement forces people into larger coordinated water
systems.
Hoag stated it also forces people to drill more holes in the aquifer because
those people would rather just have their own well. Chudek stated the subdivision
rules try to move people toward public water supplies as much as possible.
Hoag stated contracting for the testing service is very expensive. Chudek
stated there is only one agency that wants the work in this area at this time. The
marketplace is not at work right now. There will be other satellite management
groups in the area soon.
Hoag questioned whose jurisdiction requires that all Group B systems have to
do this. Chudek stated it is a state requirement.
Hoag asked to include a caveat that such testing only be required where
there is a history or pattern of contamination. Chudek stated this would only apply
to someone who is a new public water supply. A current public water supply
doesn't have that requirement. They would have to change state law to include
that caveat.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked that the additional public comment received be forwarded to the
councilmembers.
5. BIOSAFETY LEVEL THREE STOCKS AND CULTURES LABORATORY
TREATMENT COMPLIANCE
Delahunt stated the solid waste rules prohibit biomedical waste treatment
facilities from accepting untreated level three stocks and cultures. They are, for
example, cultures of tuberculosis. Enforcement and assurance that the facility is
not taking these cultures is problematic. Even if those cultures are looked at, one
cannot tell treated from untreated material.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the Health
Department pursued assurances that included Recomp changing its plan of
operation so it specifically stated it will not accept any untreated level three stocks
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 5
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
and cultures; requiring the transporters, Stericycle and Medtech, to revise their
acceptance protocols to include only the acceptance of pretreated level three stocks
and cultures, and; obtaining a list of 23 labs in Washington and British Columbia
that are certified to handle level three stocks and cultures. Staff has contacted all
but one of those labs. Staff notified those labs of the local requirements and
discussed treatment at those facilities. Eighteen of the labs do pre -treat stocks and
cultures prior to transport off site. Two labs are capable of handling level three
waste, but are not doing so at this time. Two labs are not pre- treating prior to
transportation. These labs are Stericycle customers, but there is another facility in
Washington State that handles biomedical waste. That waste may or may not be
coming to Recomp. The County requested from Stericycle their customer list to
identify other possible sources of level three waste. The County also asked
Stericycle to detail how they ensure that the labs that don't pre -treat waste don't
transport to Stericycle. He has not heard back from Stericycle. He questioned
whether these measures are adequate for the provisions, and if there are other
things that the department can do.
One question to be answered is whether or not to pursue obtaining the
customer list. The department is already aware of all of the labs. Obtaining the
customer list will not assure them that level three waste is being treated prior to
transfer off -site. Right now, they are corresponding with Stericycle attorneys. That
type of dialogue will have to continue, and it might be costly for the County.
Delahunt stated the department is trying to find out what Stericycle will do
with two facilities whose materials aren't treated. She expected that the County
would get that information. The County may not get information on the customer
list. The Stericycle attorneys say it is proprietary information.
Nelson stated the Public Health Advisory Board (PHAB) did not feel that it
was appropriate for the County to inspect out -of- county sites, but it is appropriate
to have a requirement from those sites before coming into Whatcom County, and to
make sure the County has some degree of assurance. Chesson stated the
acceptance protocol is a signed document.
Hoag questioned the difference between a lab and a customer. Chesson
stated customer includes all generators of biomedical waste that Stericycle has a
contract with, and customers include more than labs.
Hoag questioned whether level three stocks and cultures are generally
generated by anyone other than a lab. Delahunt stated no. The department could
ask just for a lab list, but that information is not forthcoming.
Hoag asked why they would get the customer list. Delahunt stated the
County needs to see what the generators locally are doing with their waste. If the
County had the customer list, it could see who had a contract with Stericycle, and
the County would know who is putting their waste in the garbage.
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 6
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Dawson questioned whether labs have to be inspected. Delahunt stated they
do, by Health Canada.
Dawson stated the only concern is for the two labs that don't pre -treat their
waste.
Hoag stated the Health Department has taken a good first step. However,
they require honesty and forthrightness to accomplish what the County is after.
That sometimes exists, and sometimes does not exist. She questioned whether it
would be prudent to add a penalty and an unannounced inspection to the
regulation. If there is a very stiff penalty for violation, and if the Health
Department can do an unannounced inspection, and if the Health Department finds
untreated stocks and cultures, then it removes the incentive to cheat the system.
The inspection would be done at Recomp.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Delahunt stated the Health Department already has those provisions. The
Health Department can inspect anytime, unannounced. There are not any specific
penalties in the solid waste rules.
Chesson stated they can't visually verify a level three culture. The Health
Department staff would have to test it, which would expose the health inspectors
and Recomp workers to risk.
Nelson stated they are better off leaving the material there and getting the
material autoclaved for safety and health reasons.
Hoag stated they would have no way to know whether this waste is being
transported untreated, which is the entire purpose of the ordinance. If they know
they are looking for untreated level three stocks and cultures, and they know that
they can't individually identify those items, then they should be prepared to deal
with live cultures and do testing.
Delahunt stated she would not recommend opening the packages at the site.
Chesson stated there are no labs that treat level three stocks and cultures
locally. They are all outside of Whatcom County.
Delahunt stated the County has no jurisdiction at the facilities where they are
being generated. The only hammer the County has is locally.
Dr. Greg Stern, Health Officer, stated that any violation of the health code or
a facility's plan of operation can result in the facility being shut down.
Crawford suggested having a form that accompanies the trucker's manifest,
which is signed off by the generator. The local handler can keep those forms on file
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 7
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
of every shipment. It would be simple to have a disclaimer that the generator signs
off on that there is no untreated level three stocks and cultures being transported.
Chesson stated they are already doing that.
Crawford asked if the County is suspicious that the generators are lying, or if
the department just doesn't know one way or another. Chesson stated they just
want the additional assurance.
Crawford stated this is as extensive as the County can do. If those two labs
pop up as a generator and that their waste coming here, the County would have
the manifests saying that the generator is not shipping untreated level three waste
to Whatcom County. In addition, Recomp doesn't have any interest in seeing their
workers exposed.
As a separate issue of finding local customers who would be brought to light
by looking at the customer list, the County should not assume that local generators
are guilty until proven innocent. He questioned whether the County goes to the
local medical people to see if they are generating medical waste and what they are
doing with it. There was a letter in the Bellingham Herald a few weeks ago from a
local surgeon who said they can put a lot of the waste into the regular garbage. He
questioned whether that surgeon was correct. Delahunt stated the surgeon
probably meant that not everything generated in clinical offices is considered
medical waste. There is a limited, specific definition for medical waste.
Crawford questioned whether the medical waste is allowed to go into the
solid waste stream. Delahunt stated it is not.
Crawford questioned whether the Health Department is going to the
generators to see what the generators are doing with their medical waste, and if
the department is satisfied with what the generators are doing. Chesson stated the
department is doing that now. There are about 550 generators in the county. The
department sent the generators information on the recent changes, and a survey of
what the generators are doing with their medical waste. The department has
received 50 percent of the surveys back. The department staff will contact those
who don't respond to get more information and possibly request a site visit.
Delahunt stated that about 40 percent of the 50 percent who responded were
not in compliance.
Nelson stated there is an entire population that does not abide by these
requirements, including diabetics and others who use materials in their homes.
Delahunt stated that home generators are exempt under these rules. Sharps
still have to be packaged properly. That might have been what the surgeon
referred to.
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford stated he did not support pursuing the Stericycle customer list.
Keep doing what they are doing. When time and opportunity allow, look at the
shipping documents to do a brief review of whom the generators are, and keep the
radar on those two labs of concern.
Hoag stated the reason the Council adopted these provisions was to protect
public health. There is an agreement about what the regulations should be, but
whether or not there is compliance is in question. She recommended adding a big
hammer and making sure the facility is aware of the rules and consequences to
violations.
Delahunt suggested writing a letter to the facility outlining the seriousness of
this issue and the potential penalties to any violations.
Hoag suggested that the Health Department evaluate under what
circumstances the department would do tests to see if violations are occurring.
Even if the department sends a letter to the treatment facility, if the facility knows
that there is not any testing done, it doesn't matter. Stern stated his concern
about assuring compliance through testing is that, given the likelihood of finding
the untreated culture without a specific target, testing wouldn't provide that much
more incentive to comply. There is a one in 1,000 or more chance of getting a
positive culture. Inspectors would have to go into the facility in space suits to
maintain the health and safety of staff to look for cultures. It would be expensive
and put the staff at risk to reduce a theoretical risk to Recomp workers. He
questioned the positive of doing that, whether the County would pay for the
increased cost of doing that inspection, or if the County would increase the permit
fees from Recomp to do this inspection. There are many impacts to the decision of
opening packages and looking at random cultures. The department can do that
currently if it has a specific target. He was concerned about testing routine,
random cultures as a policy.
Hoag stated there has to be something to make the facility understand that
there could be problems. She questioned whether the department's ability to test
was limited to having a specific target. Stern stated the department has the ability
now if there is a target. The question is the practicality of doing that. Threatening
random culturing would not offer that much more disincentive. The department
could take all those actions if there is a reason. Also, rewriting the regulations
would be redundant if the solid waste regulations have the enforcement provisions
in them already. The staff could provide a digest that enforces the regulations
without rewriting them. That would take care of the need of pointing out that the
County is serious about it.
Hoag stated she is not concerned about redundancy. However, it sounds
more efficient to send a letter than to rewrite the code.
Nelson moved to recommend to the full Council to accept the PHAB
recommendation, which is what the staff is currently doing, with the additional
approach of spot- checking and tracking the transporter documents, notifying the
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 9
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
labs of the local requirements via a letter, and notifying the treatment facility of the
local requirements and the potential enforcement.
Hoag questioned what to suggest about the two labs. Delahunt stated the
department is already pursing that problem.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned whether they should pursue obtaining the customer list.
Nelson stated they should not.
ADDOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 12 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Board of Health, 6/5/2001, Page 10