Okay, welcome to the Garden Board of Health meeting. The date is Monday, June 16, 2025 in the Huffet conference room. The time is 4:30 and any person may make a video or audio
recording of an open session of a meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number placement and operation of equipment used so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. Any
person intended to make such a recording shall notify the chair for all documents referenced or used during the meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the clerk of the border committee. All documents shall become part of the
official record of the meeting. Okay. Meeting is called to order. Um I'm going to try a little different um uh setup here. We're going to have the public comment on agenda items uh now because I think most of the a lot of the
committees are doing have public comment in the beginning and um trying to like keep our format a little similar. So if there's anyone from the public who wishes to comment on any of the agenda items, please state your name, your
residence, city of residence, and limit the time to two minutes, please. Alan Russo. Welcome. Uh Alan Russo from May Spring Road. I'm also in a butter to the
landfill property off West Street. Um couple of things from my two minutes here. Uh just somewhat of a followup on the LEA pumps which was a it's a question. What is the environmental impact of the LEA pumps not functioning?
Impact of them not functioning. I know they haven't been functioning for a few years. Uh I know that we're working on repairs. Second thing is what is the status of the resampling of the monitoring locations of show exceeded
in the April 2025 sampling? So what is the status of retesting or resampling those locations? The third question is, do you know the cause source of the 14
dioxane exceeded found at landfill monitoring in 2024 and 2025? And my last item, I think I'm still under two minutes, is from an email that I I obtained through a public records request from Tori Murphy, who is an
individual with CDC Incorporated, the monitoring company, and in the um it's an it's an email string, but in her response to Mary Kushner, who is from D,
and Mike is al also copied on this thing. Uh the middle paragraph says uh the site is not is not located within the boundaries of a current or potential drinking water
source area. However, GW-2 and GW-3 categories do apply to the site. Downgradient receptors have been researched and no private drinking water wells are located within 1,000 ft of the monitoring locations.
We will provide a revised EMR EMR to include further discussion of 14 dioxide on site including a risk assessment. That was the key thing I picked out including a risk assessment.
So this is a response from it was about the exceedence reporting. It's an email string. Micah could or I could give you a copy of this but I just noticed that sentence tonight. So, it appears that Tori Murphy from CDC was going to be
doing something uh to provide a revised EMR, which I'm not sure what that that initialization is uh for a risk assessment. So, kind of interested in what where that trail leads. So, thank you. Those are my comments. Thank you, Alan.
Okay. Next item on the agenda is review of minutes for May 19th, 2025. Make a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting from 59 2025. Second that motion. Any discussion?
I have two um there's just grammatical errors on the um last page under the top second paragraph prevention updates um the AED dance fundraiser was called um daisies and daffodils
and in the third sentence of that paragraph the purple it purple paws it would be purple paws. So, um, so make a motion to accept them with those two correct second and all in
favor. And I So, do you um want us to sign these or Yeah, you can sign a copy and we will or yeah, sign that copy on there. We'll make sure we change those.
[Applause] Next item on the agenda is a variance request. And I believe we're going to be doing this remotely with um is that correct? Yeah. So I can just uh go over real quick and then I will put get the engineer on speaker phone here so we can
kind of explain what he's looking for and see if the board has any questions. So um there's there are some bigger plans there if anybody wants to take a look or some fulls size plans. But I can just it's it's for zero minet street.
I'm not sure what the W747 since it doesn't have an address yet. I just put the parcel number in there. So that's the parcel number and it's called zero myster address hasn't been assigned. Okay. It's a vacant property
that this engineer is trying to put together plans for a house on um and due to some of the of the lots. He is looking to move the well within 5 ft of the abing property
line and he is also um looking to have the tanks situated so that they're only um the inlets to the tank are only going to be one inch above the high groundwater
level. Um which is allowed for in title five. Um is that the CMR 1527.5? So according to that the approving authority may reduce the 12 in required separation. Uh but in no cases shall it
be reduced to less than one one inch. So he's looking to reduce that to 1 in. So okay I can get him on the phone now. Okay. We can go through that. And that's Al Chongress. Yes. From Is that correct? Chongress. Chongress engineering. Okay.
Hey Alec, this is Micah with the Gardener Board of Health. Um, we are in the board of health meeting and you are on speaker phone. Um, so if you just wanted to kind of go over the the variances there where you're looking for and um
kind of explain why and then we'll see if the board has any questions for you. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks everybody for letting me phone in. I don't get too close to you guys. I'm over so helps me out a lot here. Um so the main variance we're requesting in order to be
compliant with the new construction regulations is uh to allow very verbatim the variance requested from 310 CMR 15227 to allow a minimum of 1 in separation from estimated seasonal high groundwater when 12 in cannot be met. Um so that
that's referring to where the septic tank itself is located. You're required to have at least 1 in separ 12 in separation estimated seal by groundwater. And if you can't make that work, uh, you got to request a variance from the board, but at least you need to have one in separation. We are able to
get that and we're just request everything else on the plan is compliant with title 5 regulations and your local regulations and that would be the only variance that we requesting. Um, and I'll start with that one in case you guys have any questions and I'll I'll move on to my other variances that are a
second question. But if you have any questions regarding that one, I'm happy to take uh take some time. I'll just do one one note on that is that um the high groundwater was determined by a soil evaluation which is part of the requirement for
that. So I'm just confirming that we did meet the requirements for that. So do you see any issues with allowing for the variance? I do not. Um mention like what is the justification?
It says in the note it allows for a much easier construction of the septic tanks and push us farther away from the resource area. Is that the justification or like why this has to be done this way? Yeah, I can I can talk about on that one. So like uh so like the plan that we have in front of you is just
meeting Title 5 requirements, local requirements. The other variance that's not shown on the plan that I would request from you guys ahead of time is if we can get a if we can get some relief on your local setback regulations regarding a well from the property line. If we get relief to push the well within
say 10 ft of the property line from the right way that will allow us to push the tanks closer and keep us away from the resource areas and it would have greater separation from we wouldn't need that variance from the from the estimated signal high ground water. It's going to
push everything closer. Um, but I just I'm not sure if you guys will what happens don't work it too often. So, I just wanted to prepare a plan that shows that it's compliant without requesting that variance ahead of time. But if we can get that variance, I think it would be an overall better design and a better
uh fit for this for this property. And the uh the resource areas that we refer to are the wetlands. There's some wetlands kind of nearby. So, we're just trying to get as far away from those. Yeah. There's another alternative, but that alternative has
the downside of being closer to the wetlands. You're saying like that, if I'm understanding this right, why is this plan the best plan and another plan is not the best plan. Okay.
Yeah, you broke up a little bit. Yeah. Uh, could you repeat that? I'm just trying to understand, you know, if this is the best plan of several alternatives and if so, what what was the alternative plan? So, the alternative of being closer to that wetlands was offset by
doing this plan, which we just have to do the variance on the U. Correct. The So, there's two different variants. Let me start that confusing me. So the first variant that I'm requesting on the plane that you physically see, that's just one variant that we're requesting from title 5. It's
up to state regulations because we can't meet that 12in separation from the elities. So that's that's just regardless of uh just trying to make that the system as compliant with state regulations in terms of you know looking at the regular laws. This is compliant except for that variance which is what
we're requesting from you. An alternative is if we can request a variance which is it's not shown on this plan. It's more I just want to talk to you guys before I design plans so we avoiding doing multiple renditions of plans. If we are able to get a variance
from your local well setback regulations because these are more stringent than the state regulations that you guys require your well to be 25 ft away from the property line from the right of ways edge. If we're able to reduce that to say 10 feet, that will allow us to push the septic tank closer towards the
house, which we will no longer need the bearings that I'm requesting from the state regulations. And we'll be compliant with 100% of the state regulations. The only thing we wouldn't be compliant with is your 25 ft setback from the well, would be roughly around 10 foot setback is what is what we would
need to request. Isn't that our current? So our our current setback for a well to a property line is actually at 10 ft. Um y and so were you looking to go within that 10
ft? It's from the right of way. So the well from I believe it's 25 ft off the top. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. So we're able to reduce that to 10 ft which is so for far enough distance away from the right way or a decent amount from the
edge of pavement. Um that compliant with state rights that will allow us to have a fully approvable plan without any variances in terms of the state regulations with our only variance being the relief from the well set and our wells won't be within any our
wells are beyond any abuing septic systems and are um and I don't see any negative effects the well by granting a variance from the right of so if you got the the variance on the well, you wouldn't need the title five
variance. Correct. So, okay. So, we've actually been in the process the last few meetings of trying to look at the state well regulations. So, I'm just going to try to find
determine what I mean, we don't have them passed yet or any changes, so that doesn't apply, but what our current regs are. They say in that it's 10 feet or 25 ft from the right away. Um it's 25 ft.
It is 25 ft. So and that's from the right away from the the street. So the So yeah, the right of way the right way is technically the front lot line. Uh so that the right of way is the intersection between the town's public road and our front property line. So
it's from the front property line. Uh, I guess if you're looking at my plane, you can like right where you see like that black old line right in the front. That that is a property line that need to be 25 ft away from. It's hard to see on this.
That is closed. Well, right. Okay. And is there room within that 10 ft to be able to do that adequately? Yeah, there's plenty of room from there. Yeah, you have um you know there's only one driveway proposed and that's not a
problem. There's plenty of room there for well to be situated and would be um still further away from all the resource area and it means just you requesting a variance in the right that one right away variance is what we'd be requesting it from.
Do you see any issues with that or um I don't I think that actually kind of sounds like better of the two rather than doing the variance with the septic. And if the board were to approve, I would would like or would be helpful if
we can if you'd be willing to kind of approve both just in case something goes down down the road if you the board is willing to approve the first variance with the groundwater separation. Um just in case when it comes time because we're still just kind of an iterative it iterative processes. We're still going through conservation. We still have to
go through engineering. So they may have some other things that may change things around where we can't put the well there just cuz we need to put a storm water structure there. So if we would be able to get both of those approvals that be very beneficial and I'd be willing to uphold the permit for the septic until
we go through all the board of health before we I'd be willing to have us not get the permit issued until we get approval from conservation and engineering so you guys can physically see where the well is going to be before it actually gets installed.
if that makes sense. Yeah, I'm not sure about approving both variances, but we can vote on that. I I don't really see a problem. Like the um the variance for the septic tank is something that they've already kind of accounted for
you to be able to change. As long as they request variance, it's actually we're able to change that. So, it's either or. You wouldn't be using both variances. You would either be putting the well 10 ft back with a variance or
you would take the um septic system and go with the variance for the um that would allow for the at least one in separation from the tank inlets. Is that correct? Correct. So that's the approach we would try to play and it's kind of an
iterative process. It depends on white well arcs go up and the storm water arcs but we would we would like to only apply for one variant is correct. We wouldn't want we would try to avoid having to apply for both but we could just do the well and if if
he needs to come back and do the tank instead we could do that like we're only do one thing at a time. Yeah. Yeah. both the situation.
Any other questions or Okay. Does additional conservation, right? Yes. So, this has not been this has not gone through conservation commission yet. So, we will hold off on any kind of approval still that goes
through. Okay. So, when are you meeting with conservation? So, we're going we're going through all the change. We're waiting for uh the opinion from the board of health on engineering before we start to apply for conservation. So that's in the works. It's just we're going to you guys first and we're going to engineering next and
then then we'll be going for conservation. They're going to be the u the hardest one for approval. So should we make a motion and and give a whether we give or not approval
depending on conservation and approval? Yeah, you can do that. Otherwise, he's got to come back for that, right? I mean, either way, that sounds like a
motion just to accept the variance on the well at this point that one and it will be also pending the outcome of their meeting with conservation. Just do that much. Yeah, that that be a motion.
Second. Okay. All in favor? I I there there were no other questions, right? Or discussion. Okay. So, we will um grant the variance to have the well with the 10 ft um within the 10 ft from the uh
right away right away um pending the approval of conservation. And if that doesn't happen, then I guess you come back to us and look for the variance on the subject. Yeah, that sounds like a plan. And like
we'll be hopefully have some answers for you guys in the next month or so or a few months, but um we're just tired. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. Have a good one. Thank you. Byebye. Okay.
Um, next on the agenda is well regul well regulations review and discussion on the draft for health regulations for private wells. And I know we've been going over them.
So I I think I had it down to just three sections really that needed to be looked at. Um, so I'll be starting on page seven, section number seven, water quantity requirements.
Yes. Um, so everything I I think we still had questions on I left in red. Um, so at the last meeting, I think Jeff had brought up the question as far as how do you figure out the required water
volume if it's more than four bedrooms or if it's a bigger house. Um, so I went in and the model regulations actually have kind of a whole instructional section on how to figure out the
required flow for any size structure, any size proposed house. Um, so I went in and just added all that back in as far as how the flow should be
determined for based on number of That sounds reasonable. It's just kind of a stepbystep instructions on how to figure out the required flow. So, we would just take a look at their pump test and make sure they follow these steps to make sure that they have the
appropriate flow for the well. That sounds pretty simple. Does that include this other table or is that a There are two tables in there. Now, this table I'm a little confused about. I'm not
sure I really understand what that t the second table does. What's the bore hole water storage? What um You want to be around the first table or the second table? The second table. This all has to do with calculating the
for the formula calculation for how much. This is just kind of part of the instructions is that you're going to be using this table, which kind of goes for like how big your well diameter is or
what the depth is to kind of figure out um how deep the well needs to go. Okay. Okay. I I I it kind of wraps it all up on how determining with the size of the bedroom and all that on how much
um water and depth. Yeah. The examples kind of go one whole storage. It's not something I really understand. It's a lot of information for sure. Yes.
And then they have the examples. Okay. So, you would have to just calculate this with each well if it was over the standard is the standard two bedrooms. Um, we would just kind of look at this for for each well. Definitely. Okay. And
make sure that we're getting required flows. And if it doesn't meet the standard, it says that a storage tank will be required, right? So, this wouldn't necessarily rule it out, but it just have to be adding additional capacity to
be able to store water. Is that capacity determined by by something in the table or no? [Music] Is there a particular surplus we're supposed to have on hand or we just um I kind of took this straight from the
model regulations. So, okay. I believe there is, but I'm not quite sure. I would assume that they would base it on whatever the deficit was that you have to detain to make up that deficit, right? Yeah. Yeah. Say it, but that's what I would assume. Okay.
Okay. Um, anything on that section? So, the next section I I did update was the next section, section eight. Um, starting on page 10, which would be the water quality requirements.
So, I went for for each chemical and I listed if it was a a primary or a secondary contaminants and then I put in the currents Massachusetts maximum contaminant levels
for each item. Do those um contaminate levels change often? That is a good question. They don't change too often, but it could change. Um, so I was kind of debating whether to keep the levels in here or
just keep a blank. We have a statement further down. Um, so in part seven of that section says, "This regulation requires that private drinking water wells meet all current Massachusetts primary and secondary
drinking water standards and guidelines." Mhm. So, I was considering just weaving out the numbers and just keeping in that we're going to be meeting whatever the state says. So, if the state changes it Yeah. Cuz that I mean we'll have to change the
regulation. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So, that's um when that happens, you know. Yeah, it will. I'm sure they're going to be looking at especially things like PAS looking at much more in detail. They
probably will have different levels eventually. And then you also mentioned the gross alpha screen and radon test and what the cut off is for that. Um
and then you have to analyze that's if it's in bedrock. Oh yeah. Only if it's drilled into bedrock then we have to do the radon test. but doesn't I'm just trying to see if this adequately covers what we do after that.
Like the um 15 and the water must be tested for uranium that's about five or more. What happens then? Yeah. What happens next?
We are we are still missing that. So we can I can look into that more. I think I was spent a lot of time on making sure I had all the secondary primary all the work you've done. I really I really do.
I this is a lot but I I look at that like well then what you know that yeah that is that is understandable. Is there a special permit that would have to be obtained to drill into bedrock or no?
they can just do that and then just happens to be if you're on bedrock or not. So, right. Okay. So, then if they do um the radon radium and the the radon and the uranium is um is there does that
go through DP then or if it's elevated in higher concentrations? I guess that is where I need to do some more research. And so I also um I took out all of those
testing requirements for like property transfers or sales and just left in at number eight which was kind of a blank blanket recommendation of testing every two years.
Um I also left in a part that just says if a owner rental property has wellwater results they are required to share that with any tenants. And if they don't have that accessible
this is another thing we should be adding. I I would say maybe like the the tenant is then allowed to request for testing or to identify most recent report. I I don't know how easily identifiable that
would be, but I can I can definitely work on that. Any thoughts from either of you about that? Well, if they the way it's written is the rental property owner has to make results available to all tenants.
So, yeah, if they don't and the board of health, I mean, then that comes into yeah, what are we going to do if they don't? Be like only if a tenant requests that be available, then maybe we just enforce fines. if they fail to do that after a
certain period of time. May I may I ask a question? Um, how frequently would we want rental property owners to have the water tested to consider the most recent test if it's 20 years old? That's not very recent test. I feel like we have to define what
recent. Yeah, we any active private well we recommend every say must So that was just a question from the um enforcement standpoint. If a tenant is saying I the well testing
report that the owner gave me is 20 years old. Can I get something more recent? Um something to enforce. Yeah. I mean if we're going to if we're going to create enforcement orders for it then we have to be clear
with defining it. Do we want to write it as enforcement and fines if they don't produce it or about that? The board requested that language be included that would allow the board with
fire water quality testing should there be any reason to suspect contamination of the something requirement to the owners of property certified private well but not all well owners. So we recommend keeping the recommendation
yearly testing for all wells and not adopt the requirements of the state model regulations for the transfer new sales. Yeah. So there is um there is a section of for
penalties that just it basically section 14 and page 20. I guess so if anyone doesn't we have to still determine like how often we would want a recent well
result to be from um if we wanted to keep that provision in there but if someone doesn't have that I would go to the penalties section and we would go with enforcement from 94.
So I can I can keep reworking this section until we get some more kind of details on like time period for that and enforcement actions for that should it should it not be met. And do we want the
one year for the property owners to test or two years? It got mentioned both ways in the last meeting. So we can decide that now or we keep that at
I I quoted at two years. Um just based on what I was hearing from the from the meeting. Yeah. Because it's it's pretty ownorous to do every single year. Is it really going to change that much or you know would it likely it's going to change um
you don't want to make it too maybe every two years for rental properties but everyone who owns a well at their discretion you know like if they want to make sure their water they're responsible for it they can test it themselves and but when you're renting
that is doing it so I think when the well is created we have new parameters for testing and then after that um maybe every two years for rental and and at discretion for private wells that
are noted. That sounds reasonable. How do we feel about the penalties for the enforcement? So if a tenant goes and requests the results and they don't receive them, um they can make a complaint to the board
of health and then we can fall back onto the penalties the way it's written. That's on page 25. Page 20. Yeah. Okay. Does that sound reasonable? Fine. Not less than 10,500. And I think it makes sense to keep the
range and not a set amount depending on how many individuals are impacted. Yeah. Typically, we start at a lower number for enforcement and then if they fail to comply within a certain period of time, we start bumping it up. Yeah.
Okay. And the last section that we will hold off on is going to be the effective date. So, we can just kind of wait till we have a really good final grasp decide on that. Okay. And I think we do have to have a public
hearing officially to we do not only only title five regulations if we want to make some more extra title five regulations. We need to have a hearing. Okay. But otherwise actually I printed out. Uh yeah because that's what I
printed this out if you want to take a look kind of where it goes into whether we hearing or not. Well, that's that's good. So, all regulations except for title
five can be okay put into place without hearing even tobacco. Good question. I know that was a question. Yeah, we we're lucky we have the Central
Tobacco Alliance for us. Okay. Well, that's that's good. Any other questions on the weld regulations? Okay, next agenda update from the NPHN.
So, MPHN um meeting was held a couple weeks ago, I believe. Um yeah, week and a half ago. One of the things that we wanted to share was, you know, just to make sure, especially um pediatricians or that the pediatric
vaccine clinic for ages 18 and under for routine pediatric vaccines required for school attendance, they are having clinics for that. They have been supplying, you know, purchasing the vaccines and they're having clients for
um pediatric vaccines providing vaccine probably. Yes. Yes. The state provided vaccine. Yeah. They're buying the flu co vaccines if there are any available. basically I don't think actually it was it was more
focused on instead of flu and co it was more school to six kind of like because there really isn't I mean other than in the pediatric offices you know you probably
get vaccines yes but there's no no one really having clinics so they've been trying to establish some clinics yeah that always helps improve compliance you know have any roadblocks and barriers to getting into the pediatrician and getting it done. It's nice to have like
a a big resource clinic with that to get so people can go and bring their children if they're not even even if they have a primary care and sometimes they miss the appointments and um so when we get dates we can put them
on the Florida health site. So that'll be starts this fall. Yes. the epidemiologist, uh, Victoria Selzer. She is going to be reaching out to the schools to make sure they're aware and help them along if they have anybody
that needs help getting up to speed on that. Okay. Next item on the agenda is health department updates. Um, let Mic go ahead and start with that. Sure.
Um, my first update is on the um projects to replace the leech pumps in the landfill. Um the first company that I reached out to to get an estimate um haven't really seen a lot of activity on
that or any kind of progress on that. So I reached out to a second company and I actually had them out this morning to they came right out this morning. I took a look at all the components and I'll be giving them a little bit more
information based on questions they had today. Uh but we should be getting a a new estimate from them. So I will let you know as soon as that comes in is I guess I'm going to just echo one of
the questions that Mr. we also have is I mean do we know we know that they're not working so the impact that they not work and this they've not worked for a few years I don't really know the answer to what
the impact would be but I will we'll dig deeper if I can get some answers on that um next up I have the landfill monitoring so we did do resampling of The groundwater
um wells that were in existence got resampled on May 28th. I do not have the results yet, but I'm expecting those any day now. So, I will forward those along on.
Um we also were able to successfully repair the two damaged groundwater monitoring wells. Um, so those were repaired on May 21st and those will get put back into the
sampling cycle for for next year. Those are the ones that when we were torn with like so many back. So we were fortunate that they were able to
repair that without having to drill a hole in the walls. saving us a lot of money there. Okay, let's see. I am not quite sure what's um I'll have to get with Tory Murphy and kind of ask
far as revised EMR. I'll get some more information on that for for next meeting and see what that entails. What? Sorry, but what is the EMR? Actually don't know.
Kind of just leave that up to them that I can I can find out more from them. [Music] All right. So, my last updates would be numbers of inspections. Since the last meeting, there's been uh 29 routine food
inspections uh and 40 housing and public nuisance inspections. Um for prevention, Veronica is working on planning for National Night Outs.
She's working on a documentary for the AED Foundation and she's also um the city has established a new cultural commission that she's a part of. So, she is working on that as well.
And that is all I have for health department updates unless anybody has any questions. Um, with the food establishments, are those mainly um the inspections, just routine inspections, so there's been no
complaints filed for anybody? We do do inspections based on complaints, too. So, I I wasn't able to break that down further for this month. I can break it down more as far as what kind of inspections they were exactly for for the next meeting. Um, but we didn't have
any food board complaints. That's good. I'm aware of Okay. Any new business? For new business, um, we do have one food establishment that has had a lot of
repeat violations. Um, so I was going to let Angela kind of go into some more details on that and we'll kind of have a discussion about that. Yeah. So, in the last 2 and a half years. Um this particular food establishment has had expired foods in
their cooler six times and it's a significant amount of um time temperature controlled foods. Um and they've had dirty coolers with um you know debris and um residue building up in the coolers 10 times in the last two
and a half years. They've been written tickets um in September 23 $50 ticket. I think May of 24 they were in a $100 ticket and on June 10th of this year they were in $200 tickets and each of those tickets was
twice so one for each violation. Um they don't seem to be taking the violations very seriously. The store manager does not seem to be engaged in correcting these issues. I did reach out to their corporate headquarters and they did send
it over to their compliance division. I have not heard back. This came down on June 10th, so it's not a significant um window of time yet. Um but I did say that I would um consider calling them to
go to the board, which would require my, you know, I want to bring that in front of your attention to see if that's something you want to hear. And um the options would be to continue finding them or a potential um suspension of their food permit.
So, how many times have they been non-compliant and they're not correcting it? So, expired foods were found six times in the last 2 and 1/2 years. And the coolers were dirty 10 times in the past 2 and 1/2 years. And the last um my
last inspection was on June 10th, so last week. So, what's their time frame of when you go back? So, I had gone on May 27th, 25, did a complete inspection, and I was just stopping by to check the coolers for expired foods and see if they were clean because those to me are
very um serious potentially food born illness causing problems. And uh they had not they had more expired foods and I had pulled more than a grocery cart full of food out of their coolers that were expired on the 27th of May. And I went back and pulled a half a cart of
food again on June 10th. So, I don't know if they when I pulled foods, I don't know if they restocked from the pulled foods or if they did not dispose of them. I don't know if their corporate supplier their their truck was bringing in things that already expired or if
they had expired prints somewhere in the back that I was not um aware of during my inspection. But those are some of my concerns related to this establishment. And what what was in our regulations like what in your reports, what would be the next step? So, that's the second
time you went and they've been fined. And so, what's they've been fined? So, the the two items I put in front of you is the fine between um $10 and $500 into the state sanitary code for each violation. Um and also um possible revocation of their establishment
permit. That would be called suspension of permit with notice. So that is where if you decide that it's gone far enough, we would send them a notice that they need to come before the board and
explain themsel as far as because I know in the past we suspend their permit. In the past, if people have, you know, you've gone through your inspections and come back and they're still violating and, you know, you can find them, but
you give them a a plan and if they didn't comply within so many days that they came before us because you were going to suspend the license. Right. So, in the past one year, which is um four
inspections, they had expired food three times and dirty coolers four times. We inspect them four times a year because they're non-compliant and because they have repeat citations. So I this is my opinion I would throw out there is that you do one more
inspection before the next board meeting and if they're still in violation they need to come before the board for the next meeting. That is I had that for two weeks and give them you know written notice that oh they've been giving written notice twice. Yeah. It seems
like they're just not they're just not they're just not receptive to the message and they're not taking proper precautions and not rotating food correctly. And with every fine, it does say in there that they can request a hearing
for the board on the fine, but they have yet. They've got one more day to request a hearing to have you remove the violation. Right. If they have some reason why they weren't able to be compliant, but I'm not hearing that. And I'm thinking if we do meet with them and
they have no remediation then we might need to do a suspension because they're just not taking us seriously. Yeah. So that's what um are we at a point where we could suspend them? We've given with
hearing. Okay. Yeah. There there's not an eminent reason why I would want to close them down immediately. So I would give you the opportunity to make that decision. Have them have the right to defend themselves. Okay. and failure to comply with any requirement under the food code is transfer or suspension, but
it's kind of maybe with the board as far as what other guidelines for how many days? Um I I don't know. I didn't get that far. Okay. They don't show up for the hearing. That's grounds for suspension.
They have to have the hearing to do this. They not show it. So typically for um a violation related to food contact services, it's a 10day correction and they were given two full weeks, right? And they have they weren't and that's I
mean multiple times both um Eddie and I and both prior when I was the inspector for food and then Eddie and then me again have the same violations documented with pictures. the dirty coolers. When you're saying they're dirty, like I mean like there's a black residue at the bottom of the coolers and
in the vents of the coolers. They're not sanitizing the coolers correctly. When things get spilled, they're not wiping them up. They're not cleaning. They're doing stocking. Expired foods is one of Yeah, expired proteins too. Yeah. Meats and cheese. Meats and cheese. And some other like um
time control for safety. Sorry. Temperature control for safety improvements. That made me very concerned. Yeah. Um Yeah. No problem. Right. I'll follow up with you. Need to make a motion for that. No, I
just wanted to bring it to your attention before we make any um additional enforcement steps. Yeah. Next meeting if that happens. So, thank you. All right. Um, we just set a meeting for the next
date for the next meeting. Can I just address one concern that Mr. Brussel had about the cause of the 14 diox I wish we knew. You know, I I tried to do some research outside of our local, you know, issues, you know, nationally.
How do people track this down? How, you know, I don't know of any any way to do that. I wish we did. We had the engineers come. I don't think they any suggestions about that either? We know that it comes from things like um fire extinguisher, you know, solution. So, we
thought, you know, is was there a major fire somewhere nearby and then local water can be contaminated and then, you know, other products, household products that people use, shampoos and things like that. But when we have an exceedence, um I don't know how we
actually backtrack either through the landfill or through, you know, to really find out where that's coming from. Um I think I searched it once. Thank you for asking the question. I did a search on that once I get an AI answer,
which Google is doing that a lot now. Great. And they they generically about a page of bullet points talked about what you do in terms of set up a test pattern you know look for the extent and then try to then try to isolate in terms of
where the source could be located based on doing testing around the site. It was it was generic but it was around I asked what would be the process for determining the course of groundwater contamination from a given source. So
you know I think those methodologies are probably out there in the licensed site professional world. Um, and that's that's why I think wherever we get LSP advice, whether it's CDC or we hire a separate outfit to do
it, we should get something on that. That's been my issue for a year. And and I think when I looked at that report that I mentioned in the meeting about risk and that sort of thing, I think D was kind of poking on that, but it wasn't it
wasn't that clear that they were requiring action. Yeah, I I tried to find that out too, but let me I'll look at that again. Well, most of the the ones you found and the ones we found too were um where there were issues were
really related to like a a manufacturing spill like the one in the one. Yeah. They they've been very specific to um the source um from the one of the one
for dioxane. So this it's I think it's one of those upcoming forever chemicals that there'll be more and more information comes out in the future like the PAS you know we've learned more about that
I think it's so new there's going to be a lot of guidance on what to do with it. It's just like detecting it as the first step and then how do we remediate it? How do we find out where it's coming from? I think it's just real highly likely that it is just the landfill itself and this this is a chemical and
it's um just kind of naturally comes from everything that's been put in there. It's not a fully lined landfill. Yeah, it's only half matter of just making sure the landfill is properly managed and all the systems
working. So that's where that's where I'm focused right now. Yeah. I mean, I think if we saw the levels continuing to go up, I might be more concerned. You know, you figured how much old stuff is in there and is one of these chemicals that just doesn't break down. And so
it's, you know, going to be there a long time. But if we see more and more happening, are we still getting some contamination from somewhere that we need to isolate? But, um, yeah, we'll continue to get that background on what the
means um but I did want to address your concern. It's not like we haven't thought about it and tried to look at and have a look again. So Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um what does July 21st look like?
July is pretty flexible. I know I can't do July. I can do the 21st. Does that look okay? Okay. Okay. Okay. So, the next meeting is July 21st at 4:30 p.m.
And I have a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I [Music]