HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health December 5 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
December 5, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
1. INTRODUCTIONS
Regina Delahunt, Interim Director of Health and Human Services
Department, stated Terry Hinz is now the Health and Human Services Department
Assistant Director. He would do much of the financial and contract management.
2. PUBLIC SESSION
No one spoke.
3. 2001 HEALTH BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE
Dawson stated four dates were scheduled for Board of Health meetings for
2001. The department requested a time change to meet from 10:30 a.m. to noon.
Nelson questioned whether that would conflict with the Water Resources
work sessions.
Dawson stated they would check with Council staff to see if any of the dates
conflict.
Delahunt stated it is important that Dr. Stern attend the Board of Health
meetings to provide input.
Brenner asked to lengthen the Board of Health meetings. Many times, there
are important items on the agenda and they tend to go over the allotted time. If
they are going to have back -to -back meetings with another meeting, they should
schedule more time for Board of Health.
Dawson stated they would leave it up to staff.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
Delahunt stated that, to allow Dr. Stern to attend, he needs to know a firm
time because he has his clinical practice. If there was a longer agenda, they could
address the items involving Dr. Stern first.
Brenner stated the need to make sure they are done at noon, so they have a
break between meetings, but she didn't want to leave work undone.
Nelson moved that the Council staff work with the Health Department and
Water Resources Division in looking at the schedule for the 2001 Board of Health
meetings so there are no conflicts.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 with Imhof, Crawford, and Hoag absent.
4. WHATCOM COUNTY NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM UPDATE
Rebecca Johnson, HIV Prevention Outreach Program Coordinator, stated the
needle exchange program has been operating for the last 17 months. It started in
August 1999 as part of the bloodborne infection prevention plan. The idea was to
update the Board on the program. She provided a brief summary in the packet.
Dawson asked if there was a desire expressed by the users to have the
evening exchange. That would make sense. Johnson stated they had an ad hoc
committee that had representation from the Health Advisory Board and that had
looked at locations for a second needle exchange site. She thought it may go to
another county location because she has people who do come in to town, although
the majority are from Bellingham addresses. The law enforcement input was that
the highest traffic area was at Railroad Avenue. If they could have a downtown
Bellingham location, which is close to where they are operating now at the State
Street office, they would be located in the best place to be. The issue of access
was regarding the hours. They are doing a morning exchange now, but many don't
get up in the morning. The idea is not to add additional hours or staff, but to shift
to a more accessible time. That begins this Thursday.
Brenner stated she would like to see the demographics more clearly defined,
not by zip code. They could gather that information without infringing on people's
privacy. She was curious about where some of the other areas are. Johnson stated
there is a group of folks who come from Blaine, and people in Lynden. She would
provide a breakdown of the demographics.
Brenner stated she sent a copy of an article to the former Health Department
director, Chuck Benjamin. It was supposed to be brought up as part of the
discussion. The article wasn't by someone who was against the needle- exchange
program. The article was about what is happening in Vancouver and that it is not
really working well there. Johnson stated there has been extensive public health
research on the failures relative to HIV outbreak numbers in Montreal and
Vancouver. There was a real increase in the numbers in 1996. There is a report
that looked into the needle exchange practices. The report is often cited by those
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
opposed to the program. However, public health officials indicate that needle
exchange is still an important piece of prevention.
Brenner stated the article said there wasn't enough referral to programs.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford arrived at 12:40 p.m.)
Johnson continued to state that the Whatcom County program addressed
referral issues. The needle- exchange program is part of a comprehensive plan for
bloodborne prevention. In Vancouver, when they began their program, they limited
the exchanges to either 10 or 20 syringes per incident. They found that many of
these people were cocaine injectors with an average number of injections at 40 per
day. Therefore, 20 needles per day was not adequate. Those that do the needle
exchange also have higher rates of HIV infection. It's an area that already has a
higher rate of HIV, plus the individuals engage in behaviors that increase their risk
factors.
Brenner stated they could also have had HIV before they started the needle
exchange. Johnson stated that was correct.
Brenner stated the referral rates didn't look very high. Johnson stated the
raw data sheet is what she provided to the Board. They don't look like huge
numbers in terms of referral. When she counts a referral to drug treatment, it's
when she's really engaged an individual in an actual conversation about referral.
Everyone who tells her they are thinking of treatment is not counted as a referral.
When she has a total of 39 drug treatment referrals, those are people with whom
she's engaged in serious conversations, and she is marking them more than one
time. They are not unduplicated numbers in that raw data sheet. She has 12 of 82
individuals in the program who she knows have stopped using. That is 16 percent.
Those include people who've handed in syringes and not asked for any back. She's
been engaged in conversations with many of them regarding treatment. Their
policy is for people to know that the exchange program is still available if they need
it, even after treatment.
Brenner stated that, unless there are referrals, no one is asked about
Hepatitis A or B. Johnson stated that as part of the registration process, they don't
ask people to disclose their HIV or Hepatitis status. It is only recorded if it comes
up in conversation. Most people don't talk about Hepatitis B. The State Street
clinic is now taking walk -in vaccinations for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and tetanus
vaccines to individuals who, because of their high -risk behaviors, are more at risk.
They can be on a sliding fee scale and it is a walk -in clinic. They are talking to
them about a vaccine. There is a high concern about Hepatitis C. They make
referrals for people to get in and get tested. In terms of tracking numbers on the
daily tally sheet, she only logs in the first visit so as not to duplicate numbers.
Nelson congratulated Johnson on the twelve people that have stopped using.
They are people who would still be using. It is a wonderful step. He was positively
surprised at the rate. It is a start. Vancouver had problems because the program
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
wasn't geared toward treatment. In Vancouver, they made a political decision to
not deal with the drug problem, and instead centralize the drug problem in one
location in the city. The drug culture has their own standards of their operation.
The center became the social gathering point. By intent, Whatcom County won't
develop the same type of program. Make the area accessible and don't draw
attention to one specific area as the drug area. Johnson stated her understanding
from law enforcement was that is where the drugs and dealers are, at that specific
location between Holly and Chestnut. People are coming into Bellingham and
purchasing drugs.
Nelson stated they need to keep in mind that they don't centralize the drug
culture downtown. They should look at the people demographically and by
economic strata, to determine where they are. Johnson stated there has been a
cross - section of people from many backgrounds.
Nelson suggested keeping some data if they can. It is important to know if
the program reaches the entire community. Johnson stated there are some
homeless people, mothers, and college students. There is a broad base of people.
Dawson stated she would be concerned if the needle exchange is located
where the social activity is. In some regards, it might discourage people from use.
Nelson stated they want to keep what is happening in Vancouver in the back
of their minds. He asked about treatment centers in the rural areas that are
already contracted for substance abuse services. Johnson stated she contacted
them to see if any of them had any interest in participating in the needle- exchange
programs out there. All they give out are cards. She also gives out information
about which pharmacies in town are easier to get needles from.
Nelson stated pharmacies don't have information for people purchasing
needles. The pharmacies should have generic information on needles, such as how
to dispose of them and resources on transmittable diseases.
Johnson stated their role is to make sure that people who already are using
have access to clean syringes. The studies indicate that, by providing those clean
syringes, it doesn't entice one into using drugs. They don't see an increase in
increase in needle use by non - needle users.
Brenner stated she wanted, as they expand the program, to offer it
periodically at other locations in the county.
Dawson questioned what a "cooker request" is. Johnson stated a cooker is
what the drug users use to cook the drug in, such as spoon. Other programs offer
clean cookers. It was determined not to offer cooker exchanges at the needle
exchange, but she would like to include those materials. HIV prevention doesn't
always prevent Hepatitis C, but Hepatitis C prevention would prevent HIV. There
are lots of issues in terms of behaviors while injecting. Drug users use the same
cooker or cotton filter and it is an opportunity to transmit a disease.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
S. DRAFT DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Delahunt introduced Paul Chudeck. Currently they don't have a local
drinking water ordinance. Approvals for new water supplies are based on an
interim policy that has been in place since 1993. They took a look at policy and
decided to make the interim policy official by making it an ordinance. With the
Public Health Advisory Board (PHAB), they came up with additional items proposed
for the drinking water ordinance.
Paul Chudeck, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the PHAB formed a
drinking water subcommittee in October 1999. That subcommittee met and
decided it should be expanded. They attempted to draw in community members,
including representatives from the Board of Realtors, the Building Industry
Association (BIA), Conservation District, and the private well caucus, folks from
public drinking water supplies, the Planning Department, and others. The
subcommittee ended up being the PHAB, the Planning staff, and one well driller
who also was a member of the BIA. They were not successful in getting folks from
the real estate community to attend the meetings. They truly did try. The
subcommittee worked and decided to ask the PHAB to give them the authority to
prepare an ordinance, which they did with staff. It was presented to the PHAB a
month ago, who recommended it to the Board of Health.
As an agency, they have worked without a drinking water ordinance.
Sometimes, that was not the best way to do business. They don't always have
clear guidelines and rules for the community and staff to follow. It is difficult for
staff when there is not clear statutory authority for some of the issues they actually
work on.
This particular draft, from the subcommittee's recommendation, focuses on
three different areas; water supply disclosure requirements when property is sold;
group B public water supply rules, including enforcement; and codifying the water
availability guidelines.
The water supply disclosure requirements when property is sold is an
outgrowth of some of the concerns that were voiced when the issues north and
west of Lynden, when ethylene dibromide and 1,2, dichloropropane (DCP) first
surfaced. Those impact primarily private water supplies. There were several
different occasions when people flat out declared that they had no idea they had
actually purchased property in an area where the water was actually contaminated.
It was never disclosed to them. They were clearly upset, and may not have chosen
to purchase a home in an area where water was actually contaminated. This is an
outgrowth of that. They realized there are a number of different areas in the
community where there are contaminants in groundwater.
Currently, they have a joint plan of operation with the state Department of
Health (DOH) for the group B public water supply rules, including the enforcement.
It grants the County the authority to regulate and enforce the smaller public group
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
48
B water supplies. The problem is that there is not a very clean enforcement tool,
unless the County adopts something locally.
Regarding the 1993 Water Availability Guidelines, the staff has done a
remarkable job for the last six or seven years running on an interim guideline.
Most of the bugs have been worked out of the interim guideline. It may be time to
move forward.
They are talking about water availability for building on vested lots. There is
another section that deals with determining adequacy of water for subdivisions.
They've split the two out. They are very similar in some instances, but there are
some special cases they do want to make. There is an entire section that is about
building on vested lots, which are primarily the 1993 guidelines put into code.
Determining adequacy of water for subdivisions is a compilation of many local
policies and procedures that they've used for years. They tried to take into account
what was going on with the Coordinated Water System Plan and Title 21. The item
of public water supplies is a section by itself. There is a section on disclosure when
property is sold. There is also another section on inspection. Those are things that
are different than what they might expect to see in any ordinary ordinance.
For vested lots, they prefer first that the lot hook to public water if it's there,
available, and the purveyor can provide it in a reasonable and timely fashion. The
second choice is shared wells, which are public by definition. The third choice is a
private well, using groundwater. If groundwater is not available, then a spring
source would be the next option. The last option is surface water. There are sets
of circumstances that surround each option, but their interest is in trying to
encourage people to at least use public water when it's available.
Brenner questioned what other types of approved drinking water sources for
private systems there are. Chudek stated there is rainwater catchment and
desalination. People are fairly creative at times. They don't have the local
infrastructure to approve that at this time.
Dawson stated other counties are using desalination. Just because there
isn't the infrastructure here in the county, they shouldn't discourage others from
using it. She wanted to see desalination included. She questioned why they would
discourage someone with storage tank.
Brenner suggested allowing other technologies in the ordinance for the
future.
Dawson questioned why they would want to keep someone from using a
storage tank if they have contaminated groundwater. Chudeck stated that if
someone has contaminated water on a vested lot, they have in the past helped with
treatment. They are trying to sort out the long -term protection of public health.
They are being asked to assure that the water system or source would work for a
long time, and the more complex it gets, the more difficult it becomes to track.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
48
Delahunt stated this ordinance is for new construction and private water
resources, not existing residences. The County doesn't have the authority over
private supplies once they are in place.
Dawson stated they should include a maintenance program with the inclusion
of the desalination, but not exclude desalination.
Crawford asked from what desalination is excluded.
Dawson stated it is not included in the ordinance as a source. It is clearly a
source in Whatcom County. They've never had an ordinance in place.
Crawford stated all of Eliza Island has a containment system.
Delahunt stated they are talking about a private supply. They were not so
sure if there was any desalination private supply.
Chudeck continued to discuss subdivisions. They may need to change some
things to coordinate with the new Title 21. They tried to coordinate with Title 21
and the existing Coordinated Water System Plan that was passed earlier in the year
for the requirements for subdivisions. The first choice is to have a public water
supply if available. The second choice is to have a new public water system, which
would follow the process outlined in the existing Coordinated Water System Plan.
The third choice is to allow private allows, if allowed in Title 21. The ordinance does
not allow water availability or withdrawals in areas where the state Department of
Ecology (DOE) determined that water is not available.
Dawson questioned whether DOE has made that determination in any
location in the county. Chudek stated they have, by rule. When DOE determines
by rule that there is no water, they have to go through a rule- making process,
which then declares the aquifer area closed. The staff would like to be consistent
with Title 21 and not have a different interpretation of when water is available.
There are some major changes for subdivisions. If private wells are used
now for a subdivision, they do not do well site inspections. If someone does a short
plat with four wells, one on each lot, they do not go out and verify location of the
wells. In this proposed draft, it says that they will begin doing that. It is new work
and new regulation.
Protective zone covenants for each well would include even when the
proposed well location is sitting in the middle of the parcel. They are asking that
the owner define the protective zone around the well and place a covenant on that
so it goes with the property in the future, and everyone realizes that is the
protective zone for the well. Many times when a person buys a piece of property,
there isn't information on where the well is.
If Title 21 requires public water, and the applicant uses two -party wells, each
two -party well must meet all group B standards. Right now, two -part wells in
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
Whatcom County are exempt from most requirements and are treated more as a
single - family residential well than as a two -party well. However, they are public by
definition. The joint plan of operation with the state DOH grants the County the
authority to virtually waive all of the requirements for two -party wells if they
choose to locally. Or, they can require two -party wells to comply with all of the
group B standards. Their proposal is to treat the supplies that are developed as
true public water supplies where monitoring would be required. If treatment is
required, then public water is also required.
Nelson questioned how they would treat two -party wells from now on.
Chudek stated that if a determination has been made that public water is required
for plat approval, and the developer chooses to create a two -party well, then each
two -party well would be considered a public water supply, classified as a group B
supply, and would require monitoring.
Nelson questioned what that does to existing two -party wells. Chudek stated
nothing.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Chudek stated they are not trying to apply the regulations retroactively.
Dawson questioned whether the developer has to have state approval for a
class B system. Chudek stated he or she does if it is contaminated water requiring
treatment. The County gives approval locally.
Nelson stated it would eliminate the creation of multiple wells. If they are
going to have a group B system, the owner may as well have one well with four
hookups. Chudek stated that is a choice of the developer.
Nelson questioned how many hookups are allowed on one well. Chudek
stated 15 residential service connections are allowed. They would not have to have
a water right if they draw less than 5,000 gallons per day.
Brenner questioned whether the opposite could happen, and this could cause
an increase in subdivisions punching in wells on every lot to avoid group B wells.
Chudek stated Title 21 restricts when private wells can be put in.
Delahunt stated there are circumstances in Title 21 where there must be a
public water supply. They are saying that, in those instances, a two -party well will
be a full - fledged public water supply.
Dawson questioned whether two -party well owners would have to do more
testing. Chudek stated they would have to check for nitrates once every three
years and do bacteriological monitoring once every year. That is for new
subdivisions, not for existing vested lots.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
Chudek discussed the changes for private water. More legal covenants are
required. They want to make sure they define the area of protection around the
well, and it is actually filed, so it goes with the property. Many times, that
protection area has been encroached upon considerably, and the owner comes back
to get water availability for another purpose.
Quantity verification is an interesting area for staff. It is quite timely. They
actually had a member of the community in their office at the end of last week who
currently has no water. Currently, all a person has to do to show quantity is to do
a yield or pump test. They propose now to require some time of a pump test
during the dry system if the system only produces one gallon per minute or less.
To begin discussion, they propose that the dry season be the first of August to the
end of September. This is only for wells that produce one gallon of water per
minute or less. The problem is that the gallon of water in April may not be there in
August or September. It is interesting where development has encroached onto
areas where it hasn't occurred before. They run the risk of this occurring more
often.
Dawson questioned whether an owner could use holding tanks. Chudek
stated he or she could. It is usually required when the yield is very low. The
problem is determining the size of a holding tank that is required. He is saying that
one gallon of water per minute is probably the least that one would be able to get
by with.
Chudek continued to state that similar language is included for areas of
known groundwater contamination. They've seen that in Title 21. Their first choice
for private wells is, again, if groundwater is available use it first, and only use
springs or surface water if groundwater is not available. They want to do some site
inspections for springs, prior to spring development.
Regarding public water, they simply adopted group B rules by reference.
They will take on only those responsibilities that are defined in the existing joint
plan of operation, which is a contractual agreement with the state of Washington.
Their proposal is to use the enforcement options that the County already has in
RCW 24.07 for enforcement.
For disclosure, a supplemental disclosure form would have to be presented to
the buyer by the seller. They realize already that there is a real estate form that is
used. It is minimal. The subcommittee proposes a form that is more substantial.
It provides information for both public and private supplies. For private supplies, it
talks about quality and quantity issues that the seller actually knows about. The
way that it is set up is that the seller simply presents the information to the buyer.
This disclosure must occur prior to the real estate transaction.
Regarding inspections, they are only asking for the right to inspect in a
couple of situations. For public water supplies, the rule allows them to inspect to
determine compliance. For private supplies, they are only interested to gain
information to be able to prove a water availability or for a plat application. They
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, 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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
feel that they need to have access, if someone is asking them to approve
something and they need to verify it. They wrote into the draft a provision to allow
them to look at it to verify it. For staff, it is important to have that right.
Regarding costs, existing staff can perform all of the new tasks that are
contained in the draft. There is an inspection fee for private well site inspections.
They propose to use that fee. For vested lots, they would simply use the existing
water availability fee, which is collected at the time of application for the building
permit. They are not currently suggesting new fees. They are comfortable that
staff can go out and do the needed site inspections.
There have been a number of good suggestions already that have come from
the board. They are interested in including the board's recommendations. If the
Board of Health thinks that this is a worthwhile endeavor and they should go
forward with an ordinance, they would like to get more information from the
community, including the BIA and private well owners caucus.
Brenner suggested printing an advertisement or public notice. Ask the media
to print the notice so people with private wells know about it. She didn't want to
depend on the caucus.
Crawford asked if Mr. Chudek was asking for approval of the draft to present
to the community. Chudek stated he was. He would also like to coordinate with the
real estate associations, Planning and Development Services and the Water
Resources Division, Conservation District, and large and small water systems.
Crawford asked if the disclosure is for every real estate transaction in the
county and the cities. Chudek stated it is if there is a building involved. The
ordinance disclosure would also be required in the cities.
Crawford asked if there is any current reporting method. Chudeck stated
there is. It is extremely minimal.
Delahunt stated it is state law. This new disclosure gets more specific.
Brenner asked to add the people who do drain fields, the on -site septic
installers. They should also comment. People who do septic fields have to deal
with wells. Chudek agreed.
Nelson stated that many times realtors and groups are not interested. It
would be nice to have comments, but not require them. Chudek agreed. They
were held hostage in the process because people didn't provide input.
Brenner referenced the definitions. The definition of the word "adequate" is
that it is acceptable to the director. She didn't like that definition. There should be
a standard of what "adequate" is. It is too nebulous and subjective. They should
give an idea of what "adequate" means. She suggested also adding wording in the
definition of "authorized agent" because there are many people in the department
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 10
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
who are recognized as an authorized agent. The wording should say that the
authorized agent also "has the authority to make a specific decision regarding
drinking water" rather than allow someone who is not working specific to this issue
to make a decision. She was uncomfortable with the phrases "contaminant" and
"contaminated groundwater." When they get further on, the language talks about
contaminants. If a "contaminant" doesn't affect the consumer's health, they
shouldn't stick the County's nose into it. Only address any health hazard, not
aesthetics.
McShane stated there are aesthetic water quality standards of the DOH.
There are substantial costs to those aesthetic issues. One would want to know if
there are those types of aesthetics problems because the water runs through home
appliances. It is costly to maintain a household with that type of water in the
house.
Brenner stated her biggest concern is that they are not supposed to wipe
everyone's noses. Their job is as the Health Board. It is not the Health Board's job
to force that kind of thing. Delahunt stated the staff would go through the
document to see how the word 'contaminant" was used.
Chudek stated the State of Washington has some requirements for group B
water systems regarding aesthetic qualities as well as those that impact human
health. They will go back and look through what it was.
Nelson stated it refers to state requirements.
Brenner referenced packet page 11 the last sentence in definition 19.
Remove that sentence. If one is using a group home or barracks -type of
accommodations, it suggests that it could be more than a single - family residence.
The same rules should apply to anything. Chudek stated that language was out of
state law. When they deal with group B rules, they would be required to use state
definitions.
Brenner referenced definition 22 regarding "Spring." When she first read it,
it didn't make sense. The definition should say, "...in contact with the above ground
surface." It wasn't clean the way it was written.
McShane stated he had wording for that definition he would provide.
Brenner referenced definition 28 regarding "water system." She didn't like
interchanging "water system" with "water supply." A system includes the
maintenance and everything in the system, whereas "water supply" sounds like the
amount of water. She would rather they not be interchangeable. Chudek stated it
was taken out of state law.
McShane stated he had specific recommendations he would give to Ms.
Delahunt. He wanted more discussion on arsenic. He was concerned that the EPA
will change the drinking water standards. They'd already set a proposed number in
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 11
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
June that is supposed to go into effect in January. That number they are kicking
around is a level of .005 milligrams per liter for arsenic. Delahunt stated it would
cause many of the water systems and private wells to exceed the standards for
arsenic.
McShane stated the current standard is .05 milligrams per liter for arsenic.
This would be ten times more protective.
Sarah Cierebiej, Environmental Health Specialist, stated the level is going to
5 parts per million (ppm).
McShane stated he came across this while doing some work for the County a
number of years ago. The drinking water standard for arsenic was .05 milligrams
per liter, and the Washington State groundwater standard for arsenic is .00005
milligrams per liter. He questioned why it is a thousand times different. The reason
is that the groundwater arsenic standard for the State of Washington is based on
cancer risk to humans. It is definitely a cause of cancer, even at low levels. The
reason that the drinking water standard could be 1,000 times above that rate is
because arsenic is naturally occurring and shows up in places like Lummi Island. It
is also difficult to treat for arsenic at that level, and also difficult to test for below
that level. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussed that much of it
has to do the fact that they don't believe it is treatable and because laboratories
around the country are not set up for it. Regardless of all that, the studies are
disturbing. Many carcinogens are known, but the results are questionable at low
numbers. They know that low numbers of arsenic causes cancer. In this
ordinance, he questioned whether they want to simply adopt the minimum
contamination level (MCL), even though they know there are places in Whatcom
County that have arsenic levels above the rate they know people will get cancer.
Nelson stated he hadn't seen the studies. He wanted to see other types of
metals or chemicals that were in the water and associated with arsenic. He
questioned whether the study was strictly associated with arsenic levels or whether
it was also associated with the amounts of other chemicals, heavy metals, or
metals that were in the water at the same time. He questioned whether there was
an association between arsenic and other chemicals. Arsenic binds with other
chemicals.
McShane stated the toxicity levels are nowhere near the numbers he quoted.
Nelson stated he couldn't answer any of his questions. Before they raise fear
in Whatcom County about cancer levels associated with arsenic, they need to
address what specifically the numbers mean regarding arsenic and also other
elements that may be in the water at the same time. They also need to address
the conditions regarding quantity. This is a tremendous cost.
McShane stated that if the Council is interested in going there, besides
looking at just the MCL, they need to have a lengthy discussion on why the EPA
would settle on a standard above the known rate in which cancer has been
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 12
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
discovered. There are large areas of the country where one doesn't have a choice
but to drink water with arsenic in it. The question is whether they should allow
people to put in new wells in new developments where they are going to be
drinking water with arsenic in it and potentially, over a long- enough period of time,
would get cancer.
Chudek questioned whether the studies looked at the effective treatment
technology.
McShane stated that is part of what they have to look at.
Chudek stated that is part of how they set the MCL's.
McShane stated the existing arsenic standard was set in 1942. One reason it
was set at that level was because it is difficult to treat. They are talking about
whether they want to require a higher local level of treatment. One of the issues is
a simple matter of dissolved versus total arsenic in water. He's seen wells in
Whatcom County where the total arsenic is above the standard, but the dissolved
amounts are low. If the solids were removed, the arsenic level would be reduced to
that .003 milligrams per liter, which is what the labs usually give.
Dawson stated she would be interested to look at the levels of cancer on
Lummi Island.
McShane stated Councilmember Nelson would need to see the studies in
Finland and India showing the results. He was not a cancer proponent. He worked
with many chemicals that are known carcinogens in environmental cleanups, and
many times find them very irritating. He was convinced it does cause cancer at
very low levels.
Nelson stated many things cause cancer. Sunlight causes cancer.
McShane stated that Councilmember Nelson should take the opportunity to
read the information, and asked him not to make such comparisons.
Nelson stated that sunlight has caused more cancer than arsenic.
McShane stated this is a cancer they can avoid.
Nelson stated he wasn't sure about that. That is why he wanted to see the
information.
Chudek stated arsenic doesn't occur just on Lummi Island. It is sprinkled
throughout the county. The work they would do would be work that could apply to
a number of different areas in the county.
Delahunt stated she could talk to the state Department of Health in relation
to the new arsenic standard.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 13
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
Chudek stated they would map all the contaminants that they know of, and
arsenic is one they could map.
Nelson stated one of his concerns was that there was an appeal process.
Delahunt stated it is in Whatcom County Code 24.07, the enforcement code.
Nelson asked what would happen if a person disagrees with the decision of
the director in any of these issues. Delahunt stated the Health and Human Services
Department determines water availability as part of the building permit process. If
they found that water was not available, they would supply that information to the
Planning and Development Department, which would deny the building permit,
based on the Health Department's findings. The applicant would go through that
process.
Dawson stated that the applicant would appeal a determination by the Health
Director through the Planning Department, which is unrelated to the Health
Department. He questioned how that worked. Chudek stated the applicant would
appeal not getting his or her building permit.
Nelson stated the Planning Department could reject the building permit
based upon information from the Health Department. He questioned how that is
handled.
Brenner stated they need an appeal process.
Delahunt stated an appeal process could be specified, even if it is through
the Planning Department.
Chudek stated there are other things that would not go through the Planning
Department.
Nelson stated they would need that specified also.
Brenner referenced packet page 13 under the section General Requirements.
The director would and would not approve certain kinds of systems. She would like
to see language that acknowledges those hummocky aquifers. There should be
more requirements put on people when they are drilling these wells in hummocky
areas to ensure that a neighbor's existing well is not impacted. Someone may
punch in subdivision wells, and an existing neighbor may immediately lose water,
but it is too expensive for the neighbor to prove. Chudek stated there is an
example of such language on packet page 31, section (j)(ii), "The vulnerability of
sources is "
Brenner referenced packet page 15, section (2)(c). It is confusing. It should
say that water is not available. She didn't want people to think that water does not
exist. The people should be aware that the state Department of Ecology (DOE) has
determined that the water is not allowed to be used, which is more accurate.
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 14
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
Delahunt stated they would clarify that language. They needed to change that
paragraph anyway.
Brenner referenced packet page 16. She didn't understand about
consolidated and unconsolidated formations. She was nervous about changing
standards (f)(i)(1) and (f)(i)(2). She didn't want to allow too much discretion in
lowering the sanitary control area.
McShane stated they were good ideas to put those in. He was concerned
that a well should be within a certain depth for the consolidated formation. There is
not much surface grain to water surface interaction in bedrock when water is
moving through fractures. Bedrock doesn't do a good job of removing
contaminants.
Crawford stated he had no argument with any of the comments made. If the
action is to incorporate Brenner's and McShane's suggestions, that was fine with
him. They are not anywhere near close to the end of the process.
Nelson stated any changes need to have the fiscal impact.
Nelson moved to continue forward with comments by Council and through
the public process. All comments would be incorporated.
Motion to move forward carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmembers Crawford and Nelson left at 2:00 p.m. The
quorum was lost. Discussion continued for information purposes.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 6 , 2001.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Board of Health, 12/5/2000, Page 15