Good evening, Littleton. This is the Littleton June 10th board of health meeting. This evening I have myself as the chair, Matt Wson, Libby Donigan, Dan Kaine, Francis Tangle, and Kevin Baker coming to you
live into your living rooms. Okay. Uh the agenda has been posted. Uh let's start that again. Hi. Uh welcome to the 7 o'clock meeting of the Littleton Board of Health. This is Kevin Davis, your chair, bringing you the June
10th meeting. Uh in the meeting we have Kevin Davis, Matt Wson, Libby Donigan, Dan Kaine, Francis Dangle, and Kevin Baker. in case you already saw us on the live. Uh they just started the recording. So we needed to make sure that that was included in that. So all
right, our first agenda item this evening is a discussion on the private will well regulations. Uh that was sent out in an email. So if everybody wants to pull up that document and somebody want to share that on the screen, that would be very helpful.
Francis, if you wouldn't mind bringing us up to speed on where we left off, that would be wonderful. Since the last time we tackled this was a lot. >> Thank you, Dan, for bringing it up. Much appreciated. Okay,
Francis, if you wouldn't mind. All right. Um, so for this conversation, we're going to be looking at page 12 and on for water quality. Um, I don't know if it' be a full discussion. It just seems it would be a good idea to at
least somewhat discuss um what we want to do for water quality, whether testing should be annually, whether it should be a certain number of years, also what we want the testing increments to require in terms of what it tests for um
including PAS. >> Okie dokie. So we got here um construction of well has been completed disinfected prior to using it. Uh these look like no changes have been made to the uh from the okay where we
got this from to bring people up to speed if I remember correctly Francis was these were a set of model requirements that we got from the D site and so now we're reviewing those and making sure that they apply to Littleton appropriately and making enhancements as
we went along. Uh so scrolling down right so we've gone through we've specified out the specific PAS does anybody have any comments on the first three there first four
>> yes Libby >> um not necessarily on those but I was wondering why VOCC's wasn't included volatile organic chemicals. Which specific volatile organic chemical would you like to have in the list? >> Just like the chemicals that are in like
gasoline and things like that. >> Okay. So, these are the specific tests that you're going to have. So, you want people to test for those VOCC's in the drinking water. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think if we're testing for PAS, I don't know why we wouldn't
necessarily test for that. >> Okay, >> Francis, do we have any language where we can draw that from? >> Um, yes. So, I I guess that's part of the larger conversation is how indepth do you want
to get for these testings? And as we add tests, the expense of the test goes up. >> Correct. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. >> Yeah. I did a little bit of poking and I saw that some of the tests you can sort of bundle the PAS and VOCC's. >> Mhm.
>> Um >> but the cost, >> but yeah, it is an added cost if you were to do it as a separate item. According to one of my sources, it could be like 2001$100 to $250 every 3 to five years. What the PS? It goes up to over a
thousand though, I think. >> Yeah, that was VOCC's alone. >> Yes, Dan. >> Um, per the CDC website on their drinking water guides for testing wellwater, they do include VOCC's as one of their recommendations.
Perfect. >> So, as far as a citation of a rationale, that is probably at least a reasonable starting point. >> Sounds like an amazing starting point. Uh, does and I would assume the D also
has language for that, Francis. >> Um, they probably have a guideline somewhere online I can pull language from. >> Okay. Uh, it sounds very reasonable to have that there. Matt, comments? Kevin comments. >> Uh, no. Yeah, just um as long as it's
easily obtainable through testing of all the other items, which I assume it is. Obviously, yes, it's a cost, but um I assume anywhere you're going to go for all the other ones, it's going to be capable of testing for that as well. >> Okay, Dan is being brave and editing live as
we go. >> Everybody can see how badly I spell. >> I mean, exactly. That is awesome. >> As in compounds. >> I have another question. >> Yeah, go ahead, Libby. >> Um, do we know how many people in
Littleton have private wells? >> Uh, we do not. >> And would we out of that number, how many of those people would be on fixed incomes? >> That's not a to find. Um, so we would
have to work with the water department in order to try to get somewhat of a list going. >> Um, that could take a while, but it's definitely possible. It doesn't mean we're going to catch all of them. And there's people who have secondary wells as well, but um, the number is not
really large, but it's not just a handful, obviously. So, one of the things we had talked about earlier was going to the water department and saying, uh, who are we, uh, we obviously can get a list of every address in town. And then we can say, okay, water
department, what are the addresses that you have that have, um, uh, what is that called? Um, water service to. And then we can say, oh, look, okay, we can do a quick exclusion and say, look, here's all the people that should have wells because you don't have water service in our town. So, that
should be an easy way to do that as well. I don't know if the water department has everybody in a well, but what the water department does have also is a list of people who water their lawn from a well so they don't get a ticket during um non-watering times. And so, they also have that because those are
the people that have the secondary wells. So, I think um if somebody wants to volunteer to go do that, that would be a wonderful task to go off and do. Um uh but we could um I would say work
through Francis if possible to do that to correlate that stuff. Uh let Francis make the request to get because that's the better route to kind of go off. >> Sounds like an intern project. >> Yeah. And that's the other thing and that would be an amazing intern project
because I know we have an intern. Um the other thing that has also come up is uh previous time is that we also wanted to do an intern project to uh create a geodetic layer for all of the wells and the well
locations. And um I have confirmed that some of my contacts at uh Firmingham State University are willing to work with our interns uh to go off and do that. Um, so, uh, if we ever decide to go down that path, they are more than willing to help out with the interns to
walk through the franchises. Um, okay. So, what was there anything else we wanted to add to that list before we moved on? So for the VOCC testing, do we want to make it regular as part of regular
testing maybe annually or should it be under certain circumstances like sale of a home or >> um the recommendations that I saw were like 3 to 5 years or if you're within 10 miles of something like an industrial facility.
>> Okay. >> Or like a gas station if you live near a gas station or something and you have a wall. So, so my question, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. This is just going to test. These are just the water quality requirements. We haven't gotten to how
often they should be tested, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. And the bottles drove into bedrock. The board of health requires an additional Gross radon. Yep. Got it. Yep. Yep. Yep.
Perfect. Okay. All right. Are we good up to B? Everybody good? Going once, going twice. Okay. All right. So then let's go to B.
This is the maintenance and the monitoring of existing wells. Uh this is where we had a discussion. Um, last times recommended that every owner in the drinking well have the water tested annually. Um, at least uh blah blah blah blah blah.
And then we get into the at least every 10 years homeowner should test for all the parameters listed in three um we should probably yeah three these results should be compared previous blah blah blah yada yada yada. Okay. Um,
so before we go any further to subsection one there, um, how do people feel about that? I'll just start talking. Uh, I, um, appreciate the fact that we're not making it a requirement, but it is a recommendation. Um I think perhaps what
we should do is in le of what we were just talking about when to test things. Um because every 10 years doesn't feel right for some things and annually doesn't feel right for some things. So I think perhaps a table of recommended cycle for for testing. But since it's a
recommendation, this isn't a requirement. I think that would just be most helpful if um and the language there says kind of if if you don't have problems year to year then you can probably stretch out your testing cycle on some compounds. Um so I I think that's the only thing that would help is
just kind of a a table there for recommended time of testing of these items. >> Okay, that sounds like a great idea. Does someone want to draft something like that in the document and put that there for our next meeting?
That is definitely a board member thing. Come on. Oh, good job, Libby. All right, Libbyy's volunteered. Awesome. Thank you. Much appreciated. And then my only my only other thing is that that very last
sentence does say the board of health may require >> more frequent testing. So that's the I think that's the first time the require word showed up and that that's I was like well wait a minute all of it's a recommendation for
homeowners to test. So is the board of health stepping in to require if there is something else going on and if if that's what we mean then I understand. So I think what we need to do is uh Dan get ready for some suggestions on formatting. Um the at least every 10
years merge with the previous paragraph and separate the board of health may require more frequent testing into a new paragraph. So that's like calling it out so you see it more. Does that make sense? How does that feel? I like having that there by the way
because um I want to be able to basically what that's saying this is the escape clause that even though we're only recommending it the board of health because of other issues that we may find coming from other things may require you to test your well because like say if there's
upstream PAS happening and we know that PAS is most likely there we would want you to get PAS tested blah blah blah blah blah. So, so that's what I'm asking what this sentence is about because what it says is it may require more frequent testing, not may require testing. What
you just described is you want an out to be able to say the board of health may require testing in areas where it deems that is that is appropriate. >> And I would say I appreciate as the well owner in this group, um, I appreciate that you want an out, but you're giving yourself a blanket out with no
definition. >> So, how do we want to bound that then? I'm asking. >> Libby has an idea. >> Go for it, Libby. >> I don't know have if I have an answer to that, but if somebody has like a leaking septic, then I feel like we would want
to test the water sooner or, you know, if somebody's selling their home, we'd want to test the water. So, we may require >> selling of that selling of the homes down farther. So, that's real property transfer. That's a different thing. So, good idea. Hold that. >> That doesn't This doesn't relate to that section then.
>> Nope. Okay. Right. This is just calling out that yes, like where other quality problems are known or suspected to exist. I I'm just coming from I was just coming from the side be like protective to say like, well, what is suspected to exist
and what are you going to require of a homeowner out of that? I I hear what you're saying. I would like to leave it broad so that way if there is an issue we can ask people to
go do this testing. >> Okay. >> Require and I need to change that requiring >> it's requiring. I need it. I caught myself and >> uh but I believe we need that in there. Kevin Baker Dan Kaine opinion.
>> Um two things. one, the recommendations are great. I have, I'll be honest, I have a little bit of a procedural challenge with recommendations in a regulation. Regulations are thou shalt or thou shalt
not. This is a you should, which really in practice don't really have a place in regulation. Saying you should do something is not a regulation. It's advice, it's guidelines, it's lots of things. It is not a regulation. Um, so I have a little bit of a concern with
recommendations at least structured as this um, in a regulation. That being said, I agree that I think we'll get there with rentals leases, non non owner occupied places as well as on transfer
just like we do title 5. We'll get there. Um, I I I agree we need some kind of language that we can require, but we need to I rather than broad, I think we need to be pretty specific. If we're going to issue an order to a homeowner
to we are ordering you to conduct $1,000 of water testing, we better have a pretty darn good rationale or we better be supplying the testing. Um, one, there are certainly plenty of folks here in town who it's, you know,
bothersome but not a problem. But for many people, $1,000 or $1,500 worth of water testing because we have a feeling is not an adequate response. And I think anybody pushing back on that would have a right to a reasonable argument to push
back on that. I'm not sure. That being said, I'm not sure the best way of making it more specific what that trigger is that we say it needs to be tested. Again, you had an a 18-wheeler full of gasoline dump in your front yard. That's easy. It's well, there was
a P a pas bloom at Russell Street School and you're down river. Well, okay, how far down river will we go? like there's so many like where does that line and the regulations that are just kind of eh are hard to support.
>> Okay. So if I so if we bounded uh Kevin I see your hand. Do you want to go now or can I make a quick thing? >> Okay. Uh so if there's like if we bounded it by saying there's an actual emergency or something like that we could say you know additional testing may be required blah blah blah. All
right. I hear what you're saying. Yes, Kevin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's public knowledge that there are levels of PAS in our groundwater exceeding uh federal levels and that we
should require people with private wells to be testing. >> Yep, understood. >> We had uh Go ahead, Dan. I was just say that I just concerned about is the whole unfunded mandate kind of thing is that we're requiring it. I agree. I agree how
important it is and I'm not trying to minim I think you guys all know I'm all for safety and all for making sure it's right. I'm just concerned about a blanket requirement for either sections of town or like without it's just the cost. I'm concerned about
making that happen and tracking it and all those other pieces. I'm just I'm worried for push back, rightfully so, but I'm also just, you know, kind of costbenefit analysis that we could very easily have half a million dollars worth
of testing done here in town. And if we catch three wells that have a problem, that's important, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily worth that investment across our residents. Again, I'm not sure how to balance it, but
>> Okay, Libby, >> do we have another way to measure this in the ground? If people aren't testing their wells, is there another way to measure this so that we know for the future for baseline stuff? >> I think there is another way. And it
might be one of these things where we have to actually ask for a budget to go randomly sample a certain number of wells or like PAS VOCC's, whatever it is that we want to go off and do. I mean, the town just put in a water treatment facility that not only removes the
manganesees and the iron, but also takes out the PAS. So, that that was that and I think else it takes out nitrogens and nitrates. Nitrogens, I think. So, anyway, um yeah, it does. Um there's a list of things it takes up. Um,
squirrel moment. Um, but I I think I think we have to kind of figure out like so basically in these three paragraphs before we get to the next one, uh, Dan made a point about uh, recommendations should be shells in those kinds of things. Get it, got it. We have to
figure out a way of of doing that. Kevin, you had your hand raised. And then also the testing may require we need to be a little more specific is what I'm hearing. And yes ma'am >> on the easy one to Dan's point should the recommendations be pulled out and effectively be like a cover letter to
this regulation to say this is the regulation that say some requirements single family or private homeowners who have a well there are some recommendation here are some recommendations should we separate it out so it's actually not in the rig
>> that's actually an interesting idea Dan >> because I would love if it was still attached to the rig Right. >> Yeah. I just don't from a like cuz our regulations become town bylaw. So again, it's it's the level of bylaw and I'm just it's I'm just not quite sure. I'd
have to go back and look and see if we have anything other town bylaws that have suggestions >> should versus the shoulds. Um I just don't I don't know what our town format is with all of our bylaws. Um, I'm just kind of thinking, you know, in big
picture kind of stuff. I definitely agree. We need to put we need to communicate the importance, the significance, you know, the dangers of not all those things out there. I'm just not sure. >> Well, maybe what we maybe do is uh Dan, could you scroll up a little bit
>> to the previous section? >> Here's the list. Yeah. Yeah. Right here. Here's the list. Maybe what we do as a footnote or a parenthetical or something, we say, "Oh, and this is the recommended list that you should do
every like following the chart included and you know, whatever the table that has the recommends, how often you should do it." Something like that. I hear what you're saying, but it's it's kind of like the footnote to stuff. Does that make more sense? It's included, but not part of the
requirement. I don't know. I'm I'm vamping. >> Well, no matter what, I think it needs to be a one pager that we can have separate from this document that it's people at the well should be doing this. And pretty please, if you do get testing, would you submit your test results to town for recordkeeping so
that we can help identify potential issues? And I think uh is there a way that we can say if you get that testing done that it would be a zerocost item for you to um have that in entered into the town's database. Is that a cool
thing to say? Is that something we can say? >> I think if somebody voluntarily supplies their well results, I don't think we should make them pay for >> the right to submit the results. That's so
>> yeah agreed. So I'm not sure if that necessarily needs to be there is that because that's I think simply you know we can make the request okay >> we can I think we can make the requirement for the or if if we choose to make requirements for example
property transfer then we can make that as a requirement as well that needs to be submitted >> as demonstrating meeting that requirement but for voluntary again I think it's back to out of the regulation and in the kind of
the information outreach, whatever tool we're using. If you do, please, if you would be willing to, please, you know, share it with the department so that we can monitor water quality across our town outside of our, you know, Littleton
electric light and water department testing. >> I like that. Okay, we'll put that in there somewhere. All right, let's go back down to where we were. I will take it on myself to try to wordsmith some of that. If Libby, you
want to put a table together, that would be awesome. I'll see if I can wordsmith something there >> for our next meeting. >> Then the rent throw that you want to try to figure out how you can phrase in here is like I've brought up previously is if if a house has treatment,
what do you care about testing? So, I have multiple things of treatment in my house and depending on where you're looking at the water, it's going to look different. And so, if you want to test what's coming out of the ground, it's got all sorts of bad things in it.
That's why I have remediation. So, if something like even if it's in an area where there's a known problem or suspected to exist, are you going to say, "Well, we would want to test what's consumed. We want to test what's what's used." You know, you you know what I mean? So you
>> so in other words you phrase it but you've got to be careful to say well what am I going to require testing because if somebody has remediation it's working >> so testing >> so I I hear what you're saying um
water samples usually are collected um from a faucet usually the kitchen faucet since that's where most of the water is obtained from um I would say that it would The requirement would be po if you
have remediation in on your property it would be post remediation would be where the water is collected so that would be a requirement right that makes sense to me and that's an easy and that's an easy sentence to include >> so I have an RO unit
>> I drink water out of the RO unit I cook out of the RO unit but I don't shower out of an RO unit >> I hear you >> so do you start to consider like well what's is it all about just ingestion this like I I just want to make sure you like think about like okay then What is the right thing? So if you just want to say it's at you're testing at post
remediation, then it's you're testing it post maximal remediation. And just so people understand that there will be other sources of water in the house that won't be meeting that remediation. And you can't solve everything with like I get it, right? Nothing could stop somebody from going down to the well
pump and drinking right off of that faucet ahead of the remediation rate. But we ideally are not going to have that happen. But when you talk about testing and what the board of health would test, I think that's what you want to make sure you understand to say we would typically be testing for
postmaximal remediation or do you figure out like we have to evaluate what the safety hazard is and where it might be a problem. I don't know if there's a problem if you have some compound in the water. Is it bad to shower for half an hour? uh or or take a bath in it, you
know, like those those kinds of consider it could get it gets messy really fast. >> VOCC VOCC's would be interesting to have in your water and you're taking a bath in them. That would be bad. So I Okay, so maybe that's part of the table >> or you or you have a toddler and you
take baths and they are slurping up the bath water a little, right? Like I mean it's like there's so many there's so many different ways to do it and you don't want to try to define every single possible scenario in the rag. you'll you'll go crazy. But I was saying like what do you kind of >> and maybe you don't have to say anything
at all, >> but it's that's the thing that you're going to run into is that when there is a a when you find yourself faced with okay, we need to require testing, what exactly and where exactly do we want that test to occur? Hey Francis, do we want to leave this up to the
professional and say that it um as determined by the board of health for locations or as generally practiced or >> general practice sounds good. Um we'll look at what other towns are doing and give an option.
>> Okay. Okay, cool. All right, let's move on. Are we done with that section? I feel good about the comments we received. Now we just need to turn that into action. Okay. Uh section one, the owner of property is
required to drink uh to test drinking water wells annually and shall make the results of all water quality tests available to all tenants of the property and the board of health. Period. Occupants upon lease have the right to request water quality results which are less than 24 months which are less than
24 months old. That doesn't seem right. Owners occupants upon lease have the right to request water quality results which are what are we trying to get out there? It sounds like we're trying to make it
available on not testing on demand but results on demand. So, if I'm testing annually, if I test every January 1st and I have a new resident come in June 1st, those new residents can request basically the most recent water quality
results. I'm not going to make the property owner retest the water at 6 months because I have a new rental coming in. I I would say that is the intent is that new new renters, new occupants can request the most recent. Although if we're requiring it annually,
it should never be more than 12 or perhaps 13 or 14 months depending on turnaround times >> old. So >> request all water quality results. So there should be two. You would get two tests. >> The two most recent
>> I would say yeah have the right to request the two most recent water quality results which are less than 14 months old. If you just say request water quality results which are less than 24 months old, you'll get the entire history of water >> over for that two-year period. So, I would I would leave it exactly as it
was. >> Okay. >> Why why not? It was in there. That language came from somewhere. I don't disagree with it. So, that allows somebody to say like, "Show me all the testing you've done for the past few years." And and they would provide it to you. Period. >> Okay.
So, this this is where I go back to the same thing I was talking about. Is is the owner testing the drinking water that they're providing such as a drinking water spout or are they testing the wellwater? Uh this is specific to drinking water
wells, >> but is it that whole pre or post mediation uh remediation question? >> So So this one, so I I get what Matt's saying. Um I'm just saying what it said in the board.
Um yeah, we're going to need that language here as well. And that's wrong. We like we didn't make this language. The DP doesn't have better language about this cuz I don't they just they avoid it the same way. They just say test. It's like well but
so I I mean in my opinion if I was the owner like every time you want to test a new source you're doubling my costs and so that's that get that gets out of hand. So I would say that because as you pointed out because this says drinking water wells then I would say the testing
should be post remediation and if it's good you're fine. And if a tenant says well why do you have remediation to begin with? It doesn't really matter until we go back to those other sources because not a lot of houses have full RO units for
example. And so if you're a tenant, you're going to say, you're going to be told, "Okay, drink out of this special drinking water tap next to the sink and don't drink the tap water." How do you feel as a tenant?
>> Yes, Libby. I mean, if I were renting and I had kids and I was renting from a landlord that owned a big unit, didn't maintain their septic system, and there was, you know, septic sludge leaking into the water, I
wouldn't want to bathe my kids in that. So, I'm not sure. Okay, let's let's uh let's put a comment in there and pin that one as well because that seems like a we're going to have to have a a general conversation
about that. Prior to selling, conveying or transferring. Are we good with that? Is there any other comments on that section before I say next section? I don't want to end discussion unless there's valid discussion hearing none.
Oh, Dan's still changing. >> No, you're fine. The board of health may require the property to treat the water or reme treat the water. What does that mean? >> Yeah, remediate to remediate
or provide an alternative approved source of drinking water for the tenants. Yeah. Are we worried about drinking water or just water? Okay. prior to selling, conveying or train. Are we good with that? Are we good to
move on? Sorry, keep losing my train of thought. I'm also trying to get through this section. So, at least we have one more thing through and I know we're running long. So, do we want to keep going for a little bit? I also recognize we're kind of vamping on this. We don't have any attendees. So, are you guys good with
continuing on for a little bit or everybody's nodding? Dan, >> we we don't have our 705. >> No, >> no, no one showed up. No one showed up. >> Okay. Just making sure that we have >> agenda was up,
>> was it? Okay. >> Yeah, the agenda was updated. We're not The 705 has been removed. Okay. Um, let's go. How many more we got here? Just scroll down real quick. Oh boy. Okay. Let's try to make it through these 10 and then let's let's
call it a pause. How's that? Are we good with that everybody? Yeah. Okay. Prior to selling, conveying or transferring title of real property uh to real property, the owner shall have tested the water of every private drinking while servicing that property. A water sample from each well submitted
a master certified testing funding this document. The water testing shall be performed not more than one year prior to transferring the property also 30 days prior to the property transfer. That seems pretty straightforward.
It's not apostrophe s. It's just s. You don't it's that we don't own the day. Any comments on that? All right. So earlier there was a uh Libby you had talked about um property transfer treating all that kind of good stuff doing required tests. Are you good
with what was there? Does that capture what you were going after? Okay. All right. Uh item three in addition the owner. Uh any other comments on that? It's assumed that whenever we're saying
testing or water quality, it's assumed it's referring back to the start of those things, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Three. In addition, the owner shall give copies of all available water quality test results of which he or she, can we just say the owner
has knowledge regardless of age results for private well in question to any buyer and or broker involved in the transfer. In the event that there are no that there is no buyer at the time the water is tested a copy must be given by the owner to the buyer before the
property is put under agreement. Okay. Uh Mr. Baker, you are a real estate a licensed real estate agent. Does this make sense? putting you on the spot, bud. Sorry. >> Uh, you know, if they have to provide
the test results by the closing, I don't know why uh this would be mandated for the purchase and sale agreement. >> This is saying all copies, not just the most recent one copy, one year copy. This is saying all copies.
>> I mean, I think that's like overstepping a little bit. Um you know the buyer can do their due diligence and their broker can request the documents and the buyer the seller can be required to provide them uh
because they have to by a certain date or but uh that's up to the board. >> Okay. So >> Matt, I I agree with Kevin. This seems this seems extreme. Um the scenario that
you can run into is that uh like if you have E.coli, you can go ahead and try to shock it and you might be able to get a clean result uh and a clean test, but that doesn't really mean it's taken care of. So I don't mind a thing saying you have to give some like but maybe it's 12
months or 24 months like reflected in the rental unit. I to say like all that you have knowledge of seems a bit a bit extreme, but it's also I like something that's not just the most recent one you just did. So I I think finding something
between those two ends would be nice. Okay. We can get rid of uh get rid of all sh in addition the owner shall provide copies of hold on one sec. Uh, we can just say of the available water
quality test results which the owner has knowledge or the private well in question to any buyer or broker involved in the transfer. >> That still could be 40 years worth. >> Yeah. Okay, let's uh put that as a thing to
talk about. I need I need I'm not I don't I know we need to make a decision. That's our job to make decisions to get it. Got it. But we need to put something there. And I'm just don't know if everybody's kind of thought on that one unless we're just ready to say get rid of it or something like that.
Get it. Got it. last 10 years. What was the recommendation? Wasn't there a recommendation of doing it at least every 10 years? Wasn't that what we said above? Okay, we'll just keep going. Um,
uh, >> sure. >> Yes. >> Better about that that point if the last sentence was struck. Okay. Straight through. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. Any other comments before we move to number four? No. No. No. Okay. Number four. For irrigation wells, the board requires annual E.coli E coli bacteria and nitrate nitrate as exonal consumption could result in
acute exposure. Okay, I have no problem with that. >> We're not requiring drinking water wells to be tested annually, but we're going to require irrigation wells to be tested annually. This gets to crops. Like if we have a
So if this is an agricultural well, which is I guess an irrigation well. Yes. No. We did just split out the two, didn't we? Didn't we split out air agricultural from irrigation wells? >> I could my second could my secondary well on my yard to do my to do my lawn
be considered an irrigation well? And now >> I think we have a test. I think we have a definition at the top. Can we >> Can I read it for you? >> Yes. >> Irrigation well. A well used for the sole purpose of watering. The well shall not be connected at any time to a
dwelling or a building unless it meets private drinking above. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Let me >> um but that could be like you said that could be used on crops like food that people are eating or that could be used
to feed animals, right? It can be. It's a very valid point. I'm I'm I'm not upset. What's the cost of the two tests? Do we know? And is this the language that came from
the D, Francis? It is. Okay. All right. So, let's put that in there as a pin. I'm not against it. They seem to be pretty easy tests to do. But if I'm watering my lawn, don't eat my grass. >> Yeah, I hear you. I understand.
>> Yeah, but I water my lawn with the same hoses that I use to water my gardens and play with my dog. Yeah. >> And I use rain water to wash my car. So, >> okay. So, >> point. We're not requiring the drinking
water. So, how do you require the irrigation water? >> So, I'm going to play devil's advocate then. So, if I have two wells, I have a drinking well and I have an irrigation well. We're not testing my drinking well, but we're testing my irrigation because my dog could get in it or my plants or my, you know, my zucchini or whatever. If I only have a single
drinking water well and that supplies my outdoor hose, I'm not testing that for E.coli and yet I have the same dogs, vegetables, everything else. So I I'm just trying to there's an internal face validity challenge there. If I'm I'm
testing the non-potable water well as if it was portable and I am not testing or mandating testing for the water that's supposed to be portable. I I just I that internal face validity there is a little bit challenging for that that would be a hard one to argue.
I would I'm just not sure how we could really justify that one. If someone says why you making me test my I I water my lawn. Why do I have to test? That doesn't make any sense. >> If I may, I think this should turn into a homeowner recommendation unless it's
for commercial purposes and that it's required. I think that difference is is perfectly reasonable because a commercial product is a lot different than my hose in my backyard for my dog. Not that I want my dog getting >> but does but does but then Yes. Yes. But
then does the Department of Agriculture already require irrigation or agricultural wells to be tested annually? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes. Francis, do we remember? I think so. because I asked a couple of farmers in town and they said they had
to do those testing for that. >> I do not know. I can add it to the list. I would ask. >> Sure. Okay. Sorry I keep adding to your list of stuff. I mean that may that may be a disclaimer that nothing in this regulation
you know precludes residents businesses any any agency any any person or organization from following >> any other state state or federal regulation kind just they all know that
yes because little said you don't have to oh now we don't have to no you still have to because the state says you do Yeah, we could we could put that in. Nothing to nothing here gets you out of other requirements at state or federal level, but
>> yeah, I actually think that should be part of that. Okay. Um, all right. H you went too far. >> Sorry. It's okay. Uh, unless we're good. Everybody good on that one? Cuz it's actually Thank you for playing devil's advocate. That is actually makes sense.
The alternative qu uh response to that is well maybe we should require yearly ecoli and nitrate nitrate testing to personal wells. So okay um the board reserves the right to required retesting of the above parameters or testing for
additional when that the option of the board is necessary to local condition. Gee this is our get out of jail free claw. This is our escape clause that already we talked about above. So do we need to have it in two places? Okay. >> Who Who's
>> I'm saying leave >> I'm saying leave this one. Remove the one up top. >> What was that? I'm sorry. >> I said who's applying. >> It says at the end responsibility of the applicant. of the owner. >> Is this referring to something
different? >> I don't know. Where did it come from? >> Like like a new well application? >> I don't know. I'm asking the question where did it come from? This isn't in a new well application. This isn't a general This isn't a
general testing application. So, >> I'll have to go back and look. >> Okay. Seems a little out of place, but maybe we can. Yeah. Of the well owner. Y that's fine. Okay. Nice catch. Thank you. W Matt.
Anybody else? Still have no attendees. All right. Following the receipt of water quality test, the well owner shall submit a water quality report to the board which includes um those are uh actually those 789
should be A, B and C, not cross but yeah, you get it. Um a copy of the certified list results, the name and contact information who performed the sampling. You just need to indent them. That's it. It'll take it'll automatically do it. Yeah. So close.
How many people does it take to work on the name and contacting information and where the system order was obsessing? Do we have this is this is an interesting thought and maybe this is something we can carry on once we get all the wells
into a GIS database is where the system water was sample was obtained and um the representative well because I think we need to say yeah we obtained this water here but this is from the well that's over here. Does that make sense? We're assuming
that the well that we're testing is on the same property, whereas we could have a generic well that's being tested that serves five households or something like that. >> Jared well language. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
This regulation requires >> Oh, hold on there, please. >> I'm sorry. >> Point number six. Following a receipt of the water quality test results, the well owner shall that says that any well owner that gets a water quality test is
required to submit it to the board. >> That is what that says. >> Since we are >> That is what that says. >> Could we could we change the language to say when testing is required it should be submitted to the board? I don't know.
>> Or am I required to give you my report that I have done every year at my house? >> Yes, Libby. >> I like what you're saying like when it's requested and then could we also say it's recommended that you share it with the board of health?
but maybe not require it if you're just >> again we're getting back to the shall language that Dan brought up earlier about that but following a following the receipt of a required
water quality test. So get rid of results. Water quality test. The well owner shall submit the water a water quality report to the to the board of health which
Yeah, there you go. Well, yeah, that's Does that make more sense, Matt? So, in other words, these are the we've required you to do a test, therefore you shall give us the results. Not a Matt felt bad that he's subjecting his family to only brushing their teeth with.
I'm not saying you do that. Okay. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. Dan uh Matt likes that. Thank you, Dan, for that. Are we good? Yes. Nod, nod, nod. Good. Um, number
seven. This regulation requires that a private drinking well meets all current Massachusetts primary and secondary drinking water standards and guidelines adopted by uh in any case where a private drinking well does not meet such standards or guidelines as deemed necessary for protection of public health, safety or welfare, the board may
take action but not limit to grant proper treat or provide. >> Okay. Yeah, I think you swapped out treat with remediation earlier, so I just Yeah, there you go. Strong work. >> Yeah, better word.
>> Did you just say remedi? Are you going to say just remediate? I actually like remediate. I don't think we should have an ore. I think it's just remediate >> and get rid of alternative source of water. >> Uh no, I actually that's fine too.
I mean if you want to provide 10 gallons of water a day to a person that's I think we need to get is remediate and treat the same thing. >> I don't think it is legally.
I'd have to look at, you know, my funkin wagnals, but if treat always to me suggests adding something to or doing something rather than potentially removing something, >> remediate kind of covers I'm fixing the problem, whether that is adding, subtracting, or something else.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So >> that that's just me, not not necessarily my dictionary answer, but >> treat to me always implies doing something to it rather than I don't know >> it. Treat to me is mitigation. Remediation is removing.
>> Okay. >> They're two different things. >> Perfect. Thank you. The Googles. >> Sure. We should run this through Claude to see. >> So, so Libby then, which one is it? Do we want treat? Do we want remediate or do we want some third option that we
haven't considered yet? Um it says water treatment is the routine process of making water safe for a specific use like drinking while water remediation is the reactive cleanup of polluted water or contaminated water to restore its baseline quality.
>> Okay. Do we want to go back to treat then? >> Ooh, that means we should go handle the one that was above. >> We can fix that. But okay. Yeah, we'll leave it as treat. >> Yep. >> Nice job. Watch your Watch your eyes.
I'm going to scroll. >> I go too far. Too far. >> I don't remember. You go search for it. >> It's right there. Number one. >> Right there. Thank you. >> Yep. You're welcome.
>> Okay. I uh we've run over our time on that. So, let's put a pin in it and say we had our discussion and we'll continue our discussion. Everybody good? Hearing no objections? Thank you, Dan,
for sharing your screens and diligently editing as everyone looked over your shoulder. >> That's all right. I will save a copy and I will share it with Francis to disseminate to the group. Oh, I think.
Alrighty. Um, our seven that concludes our 7 o'clock hearing. Unless Francis, you had something else you wanted to add to the discussion. I think you were all good. Hearing nothing. Nothing. Okay. Uh, our
next agenda item is the 705 continued public hearing for Zero Elm Street. Francis, I think that was withdrawn. Is that correct? Uh that was removed from the agenda for now. >> Okay. It was removed from the agenda. Do we want to continue it to the next meeting?
>> It was already continued so we don't need to. There's an updated agenda that was posted so we can skip the >> perfect. Thank you. Uh 710 ID ID decision support toll.
So before we get to that, the posted agenda has a 705 item on discussion and vote of reorganization of the board >> before it gets the ID decision support tool. >> Oh, then I'm reading the wrong one. So >> that's the posted agenda to the website
is different than our email one. So it just that's the only difference that banished. So we don't do anything. So now it's actually time to vote and reorg the board. real the board as the uh as the it is uh after we have our election and when we have all board members which
we do here have tonight it is and welcoming Libby again. I'm sorry I wasn't there last meeting to welcome you. Uh let's go ahead and do the reorg of the board. So, do we have any motions
uh to change the chair? >> I would like to make a motion to name Kevin Baker the chair for the next year. >> I need a second. Dan Kane seconds. We
have a motion. Any discussion? Does he accept the nomination? >> I just I was just getting to that next. >> I accept the nomination. >> Oh, his microphone working. >> Hey, I heard it. He said it. >> Okay. I have a first. I have a second.
And I have an acceptance of the nomination. Let's take a roll call vote. Matt Wson. Matt Wson. Yes. Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan. Yes. >> Dan Kaine. >> Dan Kane votes yes.
Kevin Baker. >> Kevin Baker votes yes. >> And Kevin Davis votes yes. Yay. Woohoo. Okay. >> Uh you've done a great job, Kevin. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Anytime. I'll
do it anytime. >> Okay. Um, >> so now do I uh ask for a motion for a vote on the vice chair? >> Uh, since I'm no longer the chair, I think that would be the appropriate
>> Is there nominate Matt Wson as the vice chair? >> Kevin Davis wants to be vice chair. Oh, Kevin Davis wants to be the vice chair. Oh, we're hearing this. >> So, um >> I second I second a motion for Matt Wson.
>> Does Does Dan Kaine want to be vice chair? >> I serve at the pleasure of the board. >> Okay. Which way do we want to go? Well, we have motion in a second, but uh I I'm happy to do it, folks. Uh I like
the continuity, but Kevin Davis said that he would also be happy to do it. So, I I've done it a few times, so I'm also happy to defer to him. So, I will let Kevin Davis uh make the choice. If he liked it, great. Take it. If he really doesn't, then I will I will pick it up.
>> Dan, would you like to do it? Um I I am happy to surf. >> Well then in that case we uh withdraw the mo I would I withdraw my motion and I will mo make a motion that Dan Kane serve as vice chair.
>> I'll second that. Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, well, do I have to withdraw my second? >> Yes. >> For wait for Matt Wson. Okay, I withdraw my second for Matt Wson. We'll have a roll call vote
uh on uh Dan Kaine as the vice chair. Uh Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Libby Donigan. Libby Donigan votes yes. >> Matt Wson. >> Matt Wson yes. >> And Dan Kane. >> Dan Kane votes yes.
>> And Kevin Baker votes yes. Congratulations. >> Thank you. Uh next we will need a motion for secretary. I I uh I motion to um have Libby Donigan become secretary.
Second. >> I'll second. >> Motion to second. Roll call vote. Dan Kane. >> Dan Kane votes yes. >> Matt Wson. >> Matt Wson. Yes. >> Evan Davis. >> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Liby Donigan.
>> Liby Donigan votes yes. >> And Kevin Baker votes yes. Congratulations. Uh next we have the ID decision support tool. Uh Dr. Wson uh do you mind presenting? >> Here it is right here. Okay, nothing's
going on. They're just starting to test for mosquitoes. Uh we have a low risk, so nothing's popped up for arbo viruses. So that's it. It's the lull in the season. And we will reiterate that none of the scary international diseases you've seen popping up are uh any threat
to our community this time. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Dan. Um, I did see that actually the state DPH is actually now starting to track um, Alpha Gal that there's actually a pretty big
cluster Cape and Islands because that's where all such tickboard things start either on the islands or the Cape. Um, but the DP DPH is now starting to actually track so they can coordinate with other state a external to Massachusetts state agencies and and the feds. So while we are a
distance away certainly is something that is in the state and it's moving fast >> as data gets more robust and the DPA kind of builds out their reporting model. We may just want to keep an eye on that as well.
>> And I was going to suggest that uh there was just a report uh to follow up with that for tickborne illnesses are going to be the highest in the New England area. that we should probably start to report. Thank you.
Um, so moving on for our 7:15 administrative matters. Uh, Francis, do you do you have an update for us? >> Dates. Uh, so the administrative assistant position is posted. We have received a good amount of resumes so
far. Um it has closed so we just have to start going through them. We are waiting obviously until a new person is in position to assist with that process though. Makes sense. >> Uh does anyone have any other
administrative matters? Was there any other department information that we may want to share in an open meeting? >> I'll go ahead and do it. Uh, our health director position has been posted as of Friday. Um, it's a planned uh expected
twoe window for applicants. I think there are five applicants at this time. Um, so u myself and Mr. Baker have started interviews and I assume we'll continue doing that next week and keep you posted. Um and then the other piece
is we met with town administration, some other folks just to talk about coverage for when Francis has departed, how we're going to cover. So that's um I don't have a ton of details, work in progress, people are identified, multiple layers of solutions and we're just kind of saying this is what's going to happen.
So, um I think the coverage plan is going to be okay and we'll hope the recruitment process does not um take too long. I think that would be the the kind of the worst case scenario is if for some reason we can't get a new director in, then we would probably just have to start looking at more and more expensive
options to consider providing for the public health needs of the town. So, um crossing our fingers there looks like there's some good applicants. So, we'll hopefully get a new director on board sooner rather than later. Uh, go ahead, Libby. >> Is this where I can bring up a public
concern? Is that okay? >> Uh, that would be, I think, uh, at the end. Comments, unless, uh, and correspondence. Comments and correspondence at the end. >> Okay. Thanks. I just want to make sure I'm doing it right. >> You got it.
Okay. So, next we will have our 7:25 meeting minute approval. All the stars are aligned. Everyone's here. Very exciting. >> Did not have a packet, so I don't know
if everybody >> uh they were in the May 27th packet. Does everybody still have that? >> Uh that was a that was a big packet. Yeah. >> Let's see. It looks like um does everyone have a chance to go over
them? Uh, do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 527 2026? >> Are they some I haven't I haven't seen them. Were they posted somewhere? >> I say I don't think
>> they the most the most recent one for the May 27th packet was April 22. It looks like that was the most recent. And we're looking at meeting minutes for May 27. >> That was on the agenda, but it doesn't look like they were in the packet last week. And we didn't have
>> wasn't in the last packet >> this week. >> So it gets us to 48, which is in the P in the previous packet from May 27th. >> Right. So did everyone have a chance to review the April 8th meeting minutes? It
looks like myself, Dan. >> There's just a there's a typo in the first paragraph. Health department needs a T. I'm going to abstain from these meetings because I wasn't part of them. >> Yep. Otherwise, I would make a motion to approve April 8th.
>> Second that. Uh, roll call vote. Um, Matt Davis. Sorry, Matt Wson. >> Matt Wson. Yes. >> Kevin Davis. Uh point of order, Mr.
Chairman, Matt Wson was absent on uh the April 8th. So >> Oh, sorry. >> I abstain. >> I will make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 8th. >> Second. >> We'll call vote. Kevin Davis.
>> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan abstains. >> Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes with as amended. >> Matt Whson that we obs >> and Kevin Baker votes yes as amended.
Uh moving on we have uh the meeting minutes for April 22nd. Board of Health members present Matt Wson Kevin Baker and Daniel Kaine. >> Those already been approved. >> Okay. We approve those last meeting.
Okay. March 2nd meeting minutes from March 2nd. Members Rosen, Kevin Davis, Matt We, and Kevin Baker. >> Um, there's a um modification. Uh, we called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.,
not 6 p.m. First sentence. Okay. >> It's on my calendar at 6. >> Oh, I'm sorry. This was the This was the joint meeting. You're right. It was at six. This I'm sorry.
>> Remove the remove said comment. I remember that. Okay. I make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> Matt Wisen. >> Matt Wisen. Yes. >> Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis. Yes.
>> Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan abstains. >> Kane. >> Dan Kane abstains. >> Kevin Baker votes. Yes. We have March 25th. Meeting minutes on March 25th. Board of Health Members, President Kevin Davis,
Matt Wson, and Daniel Kaine. >> I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes of March 25, 2026. >> Second. >> Have a motion in a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Libby Donigan.
>> Libby Donigan abstains. >> Dan Kaine. >> Dan Kane votes yes. >> Matt Wson. No, yes. >> Kevin Baker abstains. And that looks like that'll do it. Uh, so next we have 7:45
correspondence, board member updates, comments for discussion, and public input. Uh, Libby Donigan, why don't you start us off? >> Mike, >> you're muted. You're muted. >> Sorry. I think we should talk as a board about the proposed liquid natural gas
facility for Kimbell's that was um brought up during a planning board meeting um on May 14th. Um it's supposed to be a temporary facility used for peak demands um and it
would only be in use between November and April. Um they were looking for a 27 to 28 start on this facility. Um the other months of the year natural gas gas wouldn't be stored there. But the
purpose is that this is pushed when it's really cold. Um and would be pushed to 19 different communities around us. Um, and the facility is where the liquid natural gas is vaporized,
which would make noise. Um, but the um, representatives weren't able to for National Grid weren't able to say what the decibb would be on this for the noise. And there's already a location at 550 King Street that was
used for at least 2 or 3 years, which was a little concerning to me that our health department wasn't aware of that. Um, so I I just wanted to sort of see if we could get that on the agenda.
>> Great idea. Yeah, we'll add it to the agenda for the next meeting. >> Uh, Mr. Okay. >> Um, so, uh, we were in a meeting, uh, this week and I actually, uh, I asked, um, to this to be to Francis to be brought forward and we got some
information. Um, the I wanted to let everybody know that to the I asked the our select board representative um, Mr. Racher and to his knowledge, the select board also did not have any prior knowledge of this coming into town as
well. So there's going to there's some interesting issues uh with that surrounding that. Uh the other thing um town council said that um the board of health uh didn't have any responsibility
when it comes to the LNG specifics and I pushed back and said actually the noise is something we do have to worry about. Um so that that from that perspective uh and it looks like I just froze so I okay I'm still talking. Okay. And okay, and
um uh there was one other thing that I brought up that we still have oversight over um on that. And um but that's I pushed back on that one because they initially said you had nothing. I was like, "No, I disagree with that. We have things to do with that." So Francis,
looks like your hand is up and ready to do something. Yeah. Do >> you have a comment? Um, it's a larger discussion with D and legal. This this does ring to something I brought up a couple months ago about,
you know, there are a couple things that we get involved in only when they become complaints and because the other one is odor and I was trying to figure out if as a board is there some way that we help ourselves out in the future and we try to figure out something that we can put together that says that we need to
have a little more early oversight over both I guess auditory and olfactory potential nuisances. so that we can have promises up front because I think I mean if that resolves it and that is our sphere of influence um then then I I don't think it would be
that hard but we don't have that framework like a noise and regulation might be the solution to that. >> Okay. Yeah. Let's please add this as a discussion uh to our next meeting.
I should add that there's a public hearing with the planning board scheduled for July 9th. >> Okay. And our next meeting is on June 24th. How's the agenda for that one, Francis? Do you have anything lined up yet?
>> We have no public hearings yet. So, um, they're probably due in 14 days, so it's unlikely if it hasn't come through the pipeline in some way yet. >> Uh, does anyone else have any uh questions, comments, concerns, board
member updates? Uh, Dan Kane. Um, I think this is going to be our last meeting before Francis departs. I just want to take a moment on behalf of all of us to thank him for being the inaugural health director for the town of Littleton, at least in anybody's
memory. Um, and really starting to build the department out and being really effective with, you know, grants and getting our interns in and doing a lot of great work getting it off the ground despite obviously challenges and growing pains with any new department in a tight
fiscal environment in a small community. We appreciate the work that's been done and you'll be missed and we we appreciate it. >> Um, no problem. >> Uh, all the other things I have is certainly is sounds like there's been
some discussion already about just making sure that we work on a transition plan. Um, I'm I'm hoping that you'll be willing to be available after the end to answer questions and provide perhaps a little bit of our short institutional
memory, but the institutional memory that we have um to whoever our our next director is. Um, again, you've done some great work. We just want to make sure that things don't don't fall out. And again, you're kind of a department of one so that we there's no one else in
the department who kind of knows what's going on or has had exposure. go. I just don't want to lose the great the steps we move forward. We're certainly going to lose a couple steps, but I just don't want to lose any more than we have to. So, um, yeah, I'm I'm hoping we can ask you to to as you can to to be proactive
and make lots of notes in the next week or two of what statuses of things and contacts and all that goodness. Um >> so just to comment on that um once the person's within the transition period I'll still they still be around kind of helping guide them as a road map and
they'll learn the institutional knowledge that's already there. >> Okay. No, that's really appreciated. No, I think that's all I have for the big bad stuff and I have to have something. So it is uh National Men's Health Week. Now, we certainly all know and as a
healthcare provider that all of health care is really built around men and then women and kids are the secondary thought. But this is in fact National Men's Health Week. And I I bring it up only cuz u for those folks who might be movie fans, um Tyler Mine, who is
playing Saber-Tooth in X-Men, not a particularly big actor, but came out this week actually with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast cancer happens in men. It's about 1% of the diagnosed population and how unfortunately the mortality rate for male breast cancer is
enormous because it's usually not identified until it's stage 4 and it's really past treatment. So for all of us, it's men's health week, but for all of us, be aware. Early signs of everything, preventative care, see your PCPs, get your screenings. For
those of us who are a little bit older, get all the other screenings, vaccinations are a good thing. Be aware, take good care of yourself, practice all the good habits that you can, and yeah, identify issues and and have them assessed early. Don't wait
till it's too late. >> Thank you. Uh if no one has anything else, uh we'll take a motion to adjurnn. Yes, Francis. Um as this is our last meeting, I just want to thank the board for all their support over the past couple years um and help with everything along the way.
It's been a great team effort and um I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. You've been great to work with and we really appreciate all your help and good luck and I'm sure we won't this isn't the last we'll see of you. So >> yeah, I'll be kicking around for a while. >> I think that's it. If anyone has a
motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Call vote. Matt Wson. >> Matt Wson. Yes. >> Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis. Yes. >> Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan. Yes. >> And Dan Kane.
>> Dan Kane votes yes. and Kevin Baker vote yes. Thank you very much.