HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 January
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
MINUTES
Thursday, January 18, 2001
Board Members:
Dan Titterness, Member - County Commissioner District # 1
Glen Huntingford, Member - CounfY CommÙsioner DÙtritt #2
Richard Wq¡i', Member - County CommÙÚoner District #3
Geoffrey Masct~ Member - Port Townsend City Council
Jill Buhler, Vice-Chairman - Hosptia! Commissioner District #2
Sheila W'esterman, Citizen at LalJte (City)
Roberta Prisse!1, Chairman, Citizen at LalJte (County)
Staff Members:
Jean Baldwin, Nursing SenJices Director
Larry FÐ" Environmental Heal1h Diredor
Thomas Locke, MD, Health qlficer
Chairman Frissell called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. All Board and Staff members were present
with the exception of Vice Chairman Buhler and Commissioner Wojt.
ELECTION OF 2001 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Member Westerman moved to elect Member Buhler as Chairman. Member Masci seconded the motion,
which carried by a unanimous vote. Member Masci moved to elect Member Westerman as Vice
Chairman. Member Frissell seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Frissell noted that at the top of page two, second sentence, "increasing income tax" should be
changed to "establishing an income tax." Member Masci moved to approve the minutes as corrected.
Member Westerman seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS
Internal Assessment Report: Dr. Tom Locke distributed copies of the Health and Human
Services Internal Assessment Report, which the County Commissioners received yesterday. He
commented that useful information was generated from the assessment and the raw data can be used as a
baseline for future assessments. He thanked Chairman Frissell for her assistance with the survey.
NEW BUSINESS
2000-2001 Influenza Season Update: Jean Baldwin introduced Public Health Nurse Jane Kurata,
who is in charge of immunizations. Ms. Kurata reported that due to production problems the target age for
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18,2001
Page: 2
the vaccine was increased to 55. Although there were delays in receiving the vaccination and clinics were
rescheduled, the Health Department eventually received 1,300 doses, of which about 40 remain.
Member Masci asked what number of the population was being targeted as "at-risk?"
Jean Baldwin said she would try to provide these figures by the January 25 Workshop.
Child Health Profile Implementation in Jefferson County: Communicable Disease and
Immunization Program Coordinator Lisa McKenzie explained that the two main components of Child
Health Profile are the health promotion materials and the immunization registry. This information is
derived from the database of birth certificate information. She reported that King, Pierce and Snohomish
Counties have been using the registry for five years, but the Peninsula has yet to participate. The
expense of this service is often a deterrent for rural health departments and local physicians. A two-year
trial period is being offered in which subscribing providers get access to a statewide immunization
registry at no cost. State and local jurisdictions are interested in the registry to ensure children are not
over-immunized due to lost records, to quickly identify those not immunized during a disease outbreak,
to target under-immunized areas, and measure immunization rates.
Jean Baldwin said the Health Department has signed up for the free two-year trial period. Information
taken from Medicaid records show that, 31.5% of children under age six are already in Jefferson
County's database. The Health Department has budgeted for a clerical support person to assist local
physicians by entering four or five years of data into the system. The governor's budget includes an
additional $2 million for Child Health Profile. Staff will continue to move forward with this project as a
priority.
Substance Abuse Treatment in Jails - Public Health Issues: Dr. Locke said this item was
suggested by Commissioner Titterness to better understand the long-range public health implications of
incarcerating people without intervention or treatment. Dr. Locke said this has been a big public health
issue for some time. He pointed to the two drugs that have the most widespread adverse effect - tobacco
and alcohol. The combination of those two account for 500,000 preventable deaths per year compared
with 20,000 for all illegal drugs combined. The issue of treatment for drug addiction in County jails is
one that overlaps jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., Sheriff's Department, County Commissioners, and
Health Departments). The report from the Department of Justice provided in the agenda packet is
reflective of the situation in Washington State, where 70% of inmates are either addicted to one or more
substances or are incarcerated because of a drug-related offense, or both. Drug addiction is not their only
health problem, but is a contributing factor in their incarceration. Despite this fact, very few get treated
for their addiction while incarcerated (roughly 10%) and a very high percentage of addicts will return to
their primary addiction once released. The report also indicates that drug use while incarcerated is not a
rare phenomenon.
Member Masci pointed out that the report did not mention the number of staff arrested for providing drugs
to inmates.
Vice Chairman Westerman mentioned California's recent initiative guaranteeing treatment for first and,
in some cases, second-time offenders. With law and justice using an increasing amount of the state and
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18, 2001
Page: 3
local budgets, she asked if it is time for Health Boards to take action toward treatment? One of the
reasons she supported expanding the Board of Health was to provide a forum to address issues that may
be too controversial for elected officials to take on alone.
Jean Baldwin said the Health Department does not want to compete with Mental Health for funding in
finding a solution to these problems. She suggested the Health Board assist the Substance Abuse Board
by setting a vision and standards. That Board, by statute, is required to be configured with a high
percentage of people in recovery and is also charged with helping the Commissioners layout a vision for
disbursing funds.
Member Masci asked if it would be helpful to appoint a Substance Abuse Board liaison with the Board
of Health?
County Administrator Charles Saddler talked about the County's development of a Health and Human
Services Advisory Committee to look at the human condition and perhaps create subcommittees to take
on certain tasks or responsibilities such as Substance Abuse. A task force comprised of the Health and
Human Services Committee and the Law and Justice Council could address methamphetamine, a
problem which is consuming more and more resources outside of health, law and justice.
Member Masci suggested that this committee include a representative from the City.
Vice Chairman Westerman said she supports the objective of broadening people's vision. She is
concerned that current Boards would be disbanded. As a long-time Developmental Disabilities Board
Member, she hopes Board members continue to have a place to provide their input and expertise.
When asked if the Board of Health has a recommendation to begin addressing the issues in the jails, Dr.
Locke responded that the role of Public Health is in keeping track of the statistics and pointing out that
addiction is a disease for which there are effective treatments if they are, in fact, utilized. He added that,
under state law, the human service component is the responsibility of the Board of County
Commissioners, not the Board of Health.
Member Masci asked whether there could be mandatory drug testing of inmates entering the jail system,
so that there could be a focused effort on drug addiction?
Charles Saddler suggested that the Board of Health, as a neutral party, could be the arbitrator of effective
treatment methods. While the Sheriff would like to see an in-jail drug treatment program, there is a great
deal of resistance from others in law enforcement.
Jean Baldwin agreed to ask Dick Gunderson, Substance Abuse Coordinator of DASA whether anybody
is doing treatment in jails.
Charles Saddler said the County has a stable jail population with recurring offenders. Opportunities for
intervention, even late in the game, may prevent re-entering or the next generation from entering the
criminal justice system at all. While it may not be prevention in the truest sense of the word, it has the
potential to have a significant preventive element.
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18,2001
Page: 4
While the Board did not regard this topic as an action item, there was interest in further discussion about
possible additional requirements or mandatory testing.
Dr. Locke said that a fairly complex body of law already exists that specifies what testing is permissible
(such as for TB) and what is sometimes permissible (such as HIV).
Lee:islative Update - Meetine With 24th Le~islative District Representatives: As requested
by the Board at the last meeting, Dr. Locke said he and Member Buhler inquired about the possibility of
a meeting with legislators in February. Jefferson General, the Clallam Board of Health, and several other
agencies also expressed interest. However, the legislators are each offering different alternatives to a
meeting. Representatives Buck and Hargrove are going to be attending a State Hospital Association
meeting. Representative Buck offered to do a telelink with the Olympic Medical Center. Representative
Lynn Kessler has agreed to come to Port Angeles and participate in a town hall meeting, Saturday,
February 10 or 17, part of which could be devoted to health issues. It is hoped that if a town hall meeting
is scheduled that Senators Buck and Hargrove will also attend.
Dr. Locke asked that the Commissioners provide encouragement for these meetings. He sees a benefit to
having a health-related meeting where not only Boards of Health and Hospital Commissioners, but
medical providers and healthcare workers can tell their stories. He is convinced that the healthcare crisis
has finally hit Jefferson and Clallam Counties.
Member Masci said he believes that a clearly-articulated position needs to first be outlined. Legislators
know that each group is going to ask for more money.
The Board agreed that a letter be written to legislators listing Jefferson County's priority issues and
presenting ideas for what legislators can do to maintain or improve access.
Jean Baldwin mentioned that her priorities for the Rural Health Summit would be MVET replacement
and additional child health tracking. She will let the Board know whether Representative Kagi was going
to ask for the Olds project to be replicated in more Counties or at least continue the funding for the four
Counties that are currently participating.
Dr. Locke suggested focusing on three key areas: (1) no additional cuts to Medicaid funding, (2)
alternatives for health care, and (3) public health funding, which he believes includes the areas Jean
Baldwin mentioned. He agreed to work on drafting a letter with assistance from Member Buhler and will
circulate an initial draft to the Board.
Commissioner Huntingford said he received an email about further cuts in mental health, which will be
discussed at the Steering Committee meeting tomorrow. He will try to find out more information and
provide an update to Jean Baldwin.
Policy on Design Standards For Site-constructed Elevated Fixed Media Filter Vessels:
Larry Fay pointed out that the draft policy statement included in the agenda packet has not been
modified since the last meeting. Although no written material is available for today's discussion,
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18,2001
Page; 5
industry representatives for pressure treated lumber have confirmed there are specifications for different
kinds of exposures. The engineer would be able to specify what kind of materials they are using to
construct the vessels. The draft policy was reviewed by an engineering firm, designers, and a statewide
committee and indicated that the language is clear. It appears that as a result of the case in Jefferson
County, Glendon Technology is working to change their business practices, moving to a modular kit
with standardized materials, with which their distributors are required to work.
Member Masci moved to approve the Fixed Media Filter Vessel Policy as submitted. Commissioner
Huntingford seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
Policy on Review of Buildine Permit Applications - Second Draft: Larry Fay noted that the
policy statement provided in the agenda packet incorporated changes resulting from the last meeting. He
then distributed another version of the policy, which is basically the same, however it reflects staff's
recommended changes. The new ordinance has two provisions in different sections that deal with
inspections of on-site systems for when a building permit application is submitted.
Under Applicability, if the system is currently in the inspection program and up-to-date with inspections,
a building permit application inspection would not be needed. A second tier of inspection applies to
building permit applications that are either for new construction that involve plumbing or an expansion
of use. This policy is written so that it applies to any new construction, remodel or addition. What he is
proposing is that this policy apply to any site that has an on-site sewage system in the ground, whether it
be a new construction or additions/remodels that are expansions.
In an expansion that significantly changes the house so that it affects sewage flows and the potential
performance and reliability of that system, it is proposed that the permit be tied to the building code.
When the work of remodeling the house is equivalent to some percentage of the assessed value of the
property, the whole building will need to be brought up to code. In other words, when the building
official requires a complete upgrade of a house the septic system would be included.
Member Masci invited Larry Fay to the next City's Smart Code committee meeting January. The City
has received a state grant to explore Smart Coding and he believes the County may be able to use the
method by showing on a matrix the combination of things that trigger septic compliance.
Commissioner Huntingford would like to know more about the threshold in the building code. He asked
at what point does that building permit trigger new compliance standards? He is concerned that property
owners with septic systems approved by the County under the code of that period, will now be required
to upgrade their systems. Some lots may no longer be buildable under the current code.
Vice Chairman Westerman said when you buy property, there is a risk that you may be able to build on
the property and you may not. You cannot always allow citizens to operate their systems under 20 and
3D-year old regulations.
Member Frissell said the Board has to be concerned about the health issues associated with these systems.
Commissioner Huntingford said he questions the prosecutor's interpretation of what the state law
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18,2001
Page: 6
requires. While he does not want to see property owners having problems with their well, for instance,
there may be other options available to them such as moving their well. He is not aware of health issues
with systems approved in the early 1980s.
Larry Fay provided a recent example of a property owner that installed two septic systems and had two
mobile homes on the property. At some point, they removed one home and then recently applied to add
another mobile home using the old system. Because of the density on that particular site, there may not
have been an immediate environmental or health problem, but the system is not functioning up to current
code since it is discharging septic effluent into that shallow water table. There will be situations where
currently unused fields would not perform in accordance with modern standards.
The policy stipulates that when the County determines there is the adequate 3 feet of vertical separation,
etc., the owner is required to establish a reserve area to proceed with a building permit application. If
there is between three feet and one foot of vertical separation, the system can still be used, but instead of
being on a 3- or 6-year monitoring schedule, the system is placed on a I-year monitoring schedule. The
concern being that with the reduced vertical separation, failure is of a higher consequence. An upgrade
would be requested when a system is 12 inches or less from a water table. Even then, the owner can still
use the drain field, but a treatment standard will be added in front of the drain field so effluent is treated
before leaving the system.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about elimination of wording on pg. 3, item 4, "owner may install
curtain drain or make other site improvement and keep monitoring. "
Larry Fay agreed to follow up on this item. If there is a site that is logical for a curtain drain and there is
a place to discharge that does not interfere with anything, it ought to be an option to improve the
system's performance. He said it is allowed in the on-site sewage code.
Larry Fay said if a septic system was installed sometime after 1987 and the owner submitted the
building permit applications consistent with the terms and conditions of that permit, enough information
is available and the standards have not changed, that it is likely the permit would be approved. However,
between 1983 and 1987, the Board of Health indicated to the public that if a septic system was in the
ground you would be able to build. While a reserve area will need to be designated, it will not be a big
problem until the lot in question is small enough where there cannot be both a reserve area and a place to
build a house.
Commissioner Tittemess said in that situation, there has to be a contingency for them to agree to an
alternative system of some kind, should their system fail.
Larry Fay said situations where there is no reserve area would be candidates for pretreatment to provide
high-quality effluent in the drain field and make such failure improbable. In the case of a sand filter or a
package treatment plan, it would provide a repairable component if failure did occur.
Vice Chairman Westerman commented that this seems to be a reasonable response.
Member Masci said because there are always going to be gray areas he would like to see a regulatory
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18, 2001
Page: 7
structure that included a customer service component. He suggested that a grid of priority mitigation
responses be developed.
Larry Fay said the biggest challenge is preserving water quality and balancing real and perceived
expectations. Differentiating between a real health problem and a problem with design standards is often
a judgment call. Applications submitted before this policy is in place will be dealt with on a case-by~case
basis. If someone had a septic permit and the system was installed and permitted for a 3-bedroom
sometime between 1983 forward, it is fairly predictable that they are going to use that system and build a
house. However, if there is no reserve area, an alternative system needs to be considered.
Commissioner Huntingford suggested the O&M program offers safeguards.
Larry Fay said while the O&M program will pick up the kind of failures where there is effluent running
across the surface of the ground, it will not uncover the treatment failures in the soil. The concern is
where there is not vertical separation and untreated effluent is moving through the shallow water table
and showing up 100 or 200 feet away from the drain field in an untested area and feeding into some of
the other tributaries. A system may drain for 10 years, but what is happening in the soil is also a concern.
Member Masci asked if it is possible to create the policy and then educate the real estate community that
septic tank inspection is a contingency of the sale.
Charles Saddler said this is occurring, but the County needs to come up with a more comprehensive,
more formalized process because of the entire Unified Development Code (UDC).
Larry Fay summarized that while he believes the Department can deal with the 1983 permits and small
lots and vertical separation, he does not yet have clear direction on a 3-bedroom septic system
irrespective of when those applications are made.
Commissioner Huntingford asked staff to find out how many old permits are still on the books.
Larry Fay responded that is difficult unless someone reviewed the files to see if there was a building
permit issued or go through the Assessor's records and see if there is a building on the property.
Commissioner Titterness said while he guesses there are not many systems from that period, there needs
to be consistency. At the time the owner requests a permit, it is our responsibility to let them know of
potential problems for which they will be responsible. He asked if something that accomplishes a
perimeter check on those few systems could be added to the annual inspection?
Larry Fay said site-specific ground water sampling is challenging at best and would not provide water
quality information that could be counted on to determine a failure. The question is what do we do if
there is 12 inches or less of vertical separation?
Commissioner Titterness said he believes a permit would still be issued. In the annual inspection, if
there are signs of failing, you make it clear to the owners that an advanced system was recommended.
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 18,2001
Page; 8
AGENDA CALENDAR/ADJOURN
FUTURE PLANNING TOPICS: Update on Building Permit Applications and the Internal Assessment
Report and Recommendations.
1. CONTINUED STABLE FUNDING TO REPLACE MVET
2. ACCESS HEALTH CARE
3. PROGRAM MEASURES (Genetic Research and Public Health Implications)
4. METHAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT
5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
6. TOBACCO PREVENTION AND COALITION
7. FLUORIDE
8. TRANSIT AND PUBLIC HOUSING
9. BIOTERRORISM READINESS & PLAN
10. AGING POPULATION
11. WATER
12. MATERNAL CHILD PREVENTION GOALS (0-3)
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Due to a lack of a quorum the next meeting will be held on MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 12, 2001 AT 2:00-4:00 P.M.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
(Excused Absence)
Jill Buhler, Chairman
Sw lÆv ~ ~~ VVfr-~~ d
Sheila Wester içe~
d&ntingford e:her
~ -i1J1~
Dan Titte~er
(Excused Absence)
Richard Wojt, Memb~r
~~.J:~
Roberta Frissell, Member
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
Thursday, January 18, 2001
2:30 - 4:30 PM
Main Conference Room
Jefferson Health and Human Service Dept.
AGENDA
I. Election of Board of Health Chair and Vice Chair for 2001
II. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of December 21, 2000
III. Public Comments
IV. Old Business
V. New Business
1. 2000-2001 Influenza Season Update
2. CHILD Health Profile Implementation in Jefferson
County
3. Substance Abuse Treatment in Jails - Public Health
Issues
4. Legislative Update - Meeting with 24th Legislative
District Representatives
5. Policy on Design Standards for Site Constructed
Elevated Fixed Media Filter Vessels
Action Item
6. Policy on Review of Building Permit Applications
Second Draft, Possible Action Item
VI. Agenda Planning
1. Future Agenda Topics
VII. Adjourn
Next Meetine: February 15,2001
Jeanffom(10 min)
Jean (15 min)
Tom (20 min)
Tom (15 min)
Larry (10 min)
Larry
(20 min)
:~-
-'
',"" I
'"I
I
i
I
I ~-
, ~
~
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
·MINUTES
Thursday, December 21, 2000 DRAFT
, I
Board Members:
Dan Harpole, Member - Coun!y Commissioner District #1
Glen Huntingford, Member - Coun!y Commissioner District #2
Richard W 0/1, Member - Coun!y Commissioner District #3
Geoffrry Masci, Member - Port Townsend City Counó71
Jill Buhier, Vice-Chairman - Hospitai Commissioner District #2
S heiia Westerman, Citizen at Large (Ci!YJ
Roberta Primil, Chairman, Citizen at Large (Coun!YJ
StatfMembers:
Jean Baldwin, Nursing Services Director
L117Y Fqy, Environmental Health Director
Thoma.; LJJcke, MD, Health Officer
Chainnan Frissell called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. All Board and Staff members were present
with the exception of Commissioner Harpole. She welcomed Dan Tittemess to the meeting and
announced that, as our new County Commissioner, he will be a member of the Board beginning in
January.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of the November 22,2000 meeting. Member Masci
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
WASHINGTON'S HEALTH CARE BUDGET CRUNCH: UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON HEALTH POLICY ANALYSIS PROGRAM REPORT: Dr. Tom Locke said the
report from the annual Washington State Legislative Policy Conference provides concise des~riptions of
the complex budgetary situation the state legislature will face this year, 'The unfavorable budget sifuå.tion
jeopardizes public. health issues such as tobacco control efforts, restoration and maintenance of public
health funding, and preservation of the universal immunization distribution system. He mentioned that
the section titled Trimming State Health Programs is pertinent to future discussions of health care acCess
between the Board and the Hospital Commission.
There was some discussion about the proposed budget cuts in Health Programs, Chairman Frissell has
read that Olympic Memorial Hospital requested a February meeting with legislators. Consistent with the
Board's previous discussions about its desire to meet with legislators, she proposed the Board
investigate a joint meeting with Olympic Memorial.
There was Board support for trying to schedule a meeting. Dr. Tom Locke agreed to follow up.
\
\ ., '(
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
Page: 2
Concern was expressed about lobbying to take funding from other service areas. There were discussions
.. about Initiative 601 spending limits and about increasing income tax or seeking alternative funding for
l public health.
..
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH IN WASHINGTON STATE:
EVALUATION REPORT: Dr. Locke reviewed the development of the perfonnance-based, minimum
standards for critical health services. The process was meant to not only develop standards, but achieve a
baseline study on state and local health programs. In addition to the report provided in the agenda packet~
he distributed a copy of charts plotting Jefferson County's assessment. He said the full report will be
included in the Public Health Improvement Plan 2000 (PIDP). The Board will continue to hear more
about this report over the next year.
Jean Baldwin said one of the benefits of the assessment is that counties will have access to the
evaluation data via the Internet. Local health jurisdictions are being asked to continue looking at areas
for improvement. She noted that many of the listed reconunendations are already on the Board ~ s agenda.
County Administrator Charles Saddler asked whether the state will be eligible for funds through the
Kennedy Bill?
Dr. Locke responded that while many are hopeful Washington will be in line for federal funding~
funding will be focused in areas such as emergency response~ bio-terrorism preparedness, and public
health infrastructure.
Member Masci asked what measures are necessary to get the County into compliance on tracking
environmental health illnesses and what types of illnesses are tracked?
Larry Fay responded that the County does not currently do a lot of environmental monitoring. An area
that might need to be addressed is passive and active surveillance.
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SITE-CONSTRUCTED ELEVATED FIXED MEDIA
FILTER VESSELS: Larry Fay reviewed the policy developed as a result of problems with Glendon
Biolfiltors. He provided examples of problems that occur because there are no standards for constTuction
of the sand filter vessel. State guidelines only stipulate that the construction framework of the site-built
vessels be made of pressure-treated lumber. The intent of the policy is to require on-site system ,
designers or engineers doing the work, to come up with a material that not only meets the perfonnance
standard, but has a reasonable life expectancy. After first speaking with design engineers about the
policy statement~ Staffwill draft a policy for the Board to review. There was some discussion about the
20-year life expectancy in the policy statement. Also discussed was septic systems vulnerability to power
outages.
METHAMPHETAMINE WORKSHOP: Linda Atkins reported that the workshop was a big
success and registration had to be stopped at 80 individuals. Attendees commented that the workshop
was appreciated and informative.
\
\ ' \~
HEAL TH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
Page: 2
Concern was expressed about lobbying to take funding from other service areas. There were discussions
.. about Initiative 601 spending limits and about increasing income tax or seeking alternative funding for
l public health.
.þ
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH IN WASHINGTON ST ATE:
EVALUATION REPORT: Dr. Locke reviewed the development of the perfonnance-based, minimum
standards for critical health services. The process was meant to not only develop standards, but aclúeve a
baseline study on state and local health programs. In addition to the report provided in the agenda packet,
he distributed a copy of charts plotting Jefferson County's assessment. He said the full report will be
included in the Public Health Improvement Plan 2000 (PHlP). The Board will continue to hear more
about this report over the next year.
Jean Baldwin said one of the benefits of the assessment is that counties will have access to the
evaluation data via the Internet. Local health jurisdictions are being asked to continue looking at areas
for improvement. She noted that many of the listed recommendations are already on the Board's agenda.
County Administrator Charles Saddler asked whether the state will be eligible for funds through the
KeIU1edy Bill?
Dr. Locke responded that wlúle many are hopeful Waslúngton will be in line for federal funding,
funding will be focused in areas such as emergency response, bio-terrorism preparedness, and public
health infrastructure.
Member Masci asked what measures are necessary to get the County into compliance on tracking
envirorunental health illnesses and what types of illnesses are tracked?
Larry Fay responded that the County does not currently do a lot of environmental monitoring. An area
that might need to be addressed is passive and active surveillance.
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SITE-CONSTRUCTED ELEVATED FIXED MEDIA
FILTER VESSELS: Larry Fay reviewed the policy developed as a result of problems with Glendon
Biolfiltors. He provided examples of problems that occur because there are no standards for construction
of the sand filter vessel. State guidelines only stipulate that the construction framework of the site-built
vessels be made of pressure-treated lumber. The intent of the policy is to require on-site system
designers or engineers doing the work, to come up with a material that not only meets the performance
standard, but has a reasonable life expectancy. After first speaking with design engineers about the
policy statement, Staffwill draft a policy for the Board to review. There was some discussion about the
20-year life expectancy in the policy statement. Also discussed was septic systems vulnerability to power
outages.
METHAMPHET AMINE WORKSHOP: Linda Atkins reported that the workshop was a big
success and registration had to be stopped at 80 individuals. Attendees commented that the workshop
was appreciated and infonnative.
~. .~'.J
i " ':'1," 6'
" ,
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
·MINUTES
Thursday, December 21,2000 DRAFT
. I
i
I~
I ~
~
Board Members:
Dan Hatpole, Member - County Commissioner District #1
Glen Huntingford, Member - County Commissioner District #2
Richard Wo/I, Member - County Commissioner District #3
Geoffrry Masci, Member - Port Townsend Ci!Y Council
Jill Buhler, Vice·Chairman - Hospital Commissioner District #2
Sheila Westerman, Citizen at Ll1;ge (City)
Roberta Primll, Chairman, Citizen at Lar;ge (County)
StaffMembm:
Jean Baldwin, Nursing Services Dimtor
Larry Fqy, Environmental Health Director
Thomas Locke, MD, Health Officer
Chairman Frissell called the meeting to order at 2:30 p,m. All Board and Staff members were present
with the exception of Commissioner Harpole. She welcomed Dan Tittemess to the meeting and
announced that, as our new County Commissioner, he will be a member of the Board beginning in
January.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of the November 22,2000 meeting, Member Masci
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
WASHINGTON'S HEALTH CARE BUDGET CRUNCH: UNIVERSITY OF'
WASHINGTON HEALTH POLICY ANALYSIS PROGRAM REPORT: Dr. Tom Locke said the
report from the annual Washington State Legislative Policy Conferencè provides concise deS~riptioô.s of
the complex budgetary situation the state legislature will face this year, 'The unfavorable budget sitúà:tion
jeopardizes publkhealth issues such as tobacco control efforts, restoration and maintenance of public
health funding, and preservation of the universal immunization distribution system. He mentione~ that
the section titled Trimming State Health Programs is pertinent to future discussions ofhealthcaréaccess
between the Board and the Hospital Commission. ".'
There was some discussion about the proposed budget cuts in Health Programs. Chairman Frissell has
read that Olympic Memorial Hospital requested a February meeting with legislators. Consistent with the
Board's previous discussions about its desire to meet with legislators, she proposed the Board'
investigate a joint meeting with Olympic Memorial.
There was Board support for trying to schedule a meeting. Dr. Tom Locke agreed to follow up.
l'
,~'.
.~, ~
f
)
!
I
/
,
,
HEAL TH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
Page: 3
HEALTH ASSESSMENT INDICATOR WORKSHOP: Jean Baldwin reminded the Board
that the workshop is Thursday, January 25 from 1 :00 unti15:00 p.m. at WSU Cooperative Extension
Office.
~
.~
f·
¡
!
i
The Board went into Executive Session at 3:35 p.m. to discuss legal issues and reconvened at 4:00 p.m.
REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Linda Atkins distributed flow charts
of pennit application scenarios.
Larry Fay reviewed the charts and discussed the conditions for permit approval depending on the year of
installation. There was then a discussion of the Draft On-Site Sewage Disposal Policy Statement. It was
noted that on page 3, paragraph IV, the word "unpermitted" needs to be inserted before systems. In
response to a question about who does the drawings refen-ed to in Item I under Applicability, Lany Fay
said that the universal plot plan of the County provides site drawing and property dimensions, etc. For
older systems, applicants are responsible to provide system information to be incorporated into the
drawing. There were also suggestions to make Item III (A) more readable and to list the requirements in
the first paragraph ofItem (B) as bullet points.
Member Masci asked whether the applicability could be softened?
Larry Fay responded that problems occur when there are building modifications that impact the septic
system and the real question is establishing a threshold for that impact. These are the principles with
which the department struggles. He agreed to investigate whether the percentage of assessed value is
being used in the Building Code. Staff agreed to explore other options and try to produce some
recommendations. An additional suggestion was to reword the first paragraph under Applicability to
remove the words "remodels, additions" after plwnbing.
INFORMATION ITEMS: VINES VS. JEFFERSON COUNTY. LUPA LAWSUIT: Larry
Fay reported that the County has paid Mr. Vines attorney's fees in the amount of $660. With the
adoption of the Unifonn Development Code, septic systems will be allowed to cross zoning boundaries
and will become a policy.
INFORMATION ITEMS: OUILCENE BOAT BASIN: Larry Fay reported that the State
Department of Health, based on a request from an adjacent property owner to certifY his growing area for
harvesting shellfish, has imposed a shellfish closure zone near the Quilcene marina. The Department
established an appropriate closure zone based on usage and the possibility of a spill occurring, rather
than water quality violations. The Port of Port Townsend has expressed concern about the closure and
felt they had taken measures to minimize the risk of contaminants in this area.
TOBACCO PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM: Jean Baldwin distributed
con-espondence regarding news reports on the I 5-year study that tobacco prevention programs do not
prevent tobacco use. She stressed that the new tobacco money was not a part of this project.
HEAL TH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
"""--~"- ~\
"
I' ...... ."'-11I
\" '
\ ,
,"'j
Page:" 4
\
""'-
~'
AGENDA CALENDAR/ADJOURN
JI
FUTURE PLANNING TOPICS: For the next meeting, Chairman Frissell noted the folloWing
agenda items: Solid Waste Enforcement Policies, Report on the Internal Assessment, Review Policy on
Design Standards for Media Filter Vessels, and Minimum Land Area policy recommendations. There
was also support for addressing "Continued Stable Funding to Replace MVET' if a meeting with the
legislators can be arranged.
Dr. Locke said he believes the Public Health Improvement Program 2000 report will also be available by
the next meeting. Related to the Bio-terrorism topic, he indicated that the readiness assessment data is
complete and is organized under the ten essential functions of public health.
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CONTINUED STABLE FUNDING TO REPLACE MVET
ACCESS HEALTH CARE
PROGRAM MEASURES (Genetic Research and Public Health Implications)
METHAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
TOBACCO PREVENTION AND COALITION
FLUORIDE
TRANSIT AND PUBLIC HOUSING
BIOTERRORlSM READINESS & PLAN
AGING POPULATION
WATER
MATERNAL CHILD PREVENTION GOALS (0-3)
¡·';,t
, '
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18,2001 at 2:30
p.m.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
" T'
Roberta Frissell, Chairman
Geoffrey Masci, Member
; ~ J
Jill Buhler, Vice-Chairman
Richard W ojt, Member
Glen Huntingford, Member
, ,
Sheila Westerman, Member
(Excused Absence)
Dan Harpole, Member
..'.'-'-'.". >-\. - .
- .
\. .
\ \ .
HEAL TH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
Page:'· '4
...
l
JI
AGENDA CALENDAR I ADJOURN
FUTURE PLANNING TOPICS: For the next meeting, Chairman Frissell noted the following
agenda items: Solid Waste Enforcement Policies, Report on the Internal Assessment, Review Policy on
Design Standards for Media Filter Vessels, and Minimum Land Area policy recommendations. There
was also support for addressing "Continued Stable Funding to Replace MVET" if a meeting with the
legislators can be arranged.
Dr. Locke said he believes the Public Health Improvement Program 2000 report will also be available by
the next meeting. Related to the Bio~terrorism topic, he indicated that the readiness assessment data is
complete and is organized under the ten essential functions of public health.
I. CONTINUED STABLE FUNDING TO REPLACE MVET
2. ACCESS HEALTH CARE
3. PROGRAM MEASURES (Genetic Research and Public Health Implications)
4. METHAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT
5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
6. TOBACCO PREVENTION AND COALITION
7. FLUORIDE
8. TRANSIT AND PUBLIC HOUSING
9. BIOTERRORlSM READINESS & PLAN
10. AGING POPULATION
11. WATER
12. MATERNAL CHILD PREVENTION GOALS (0-3)
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18,2001 at 2:30
p.m.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
:¡:\.
.-.
Roberta Frissell, Chairman
Geoffrey Masci, Member
Jill Buhler, Vice-Chairman
Richard Wojt, Member
Glen Huntingford, Member
Sheila Westerman, Member
(Excused Absence)
Dan Harpole, Member
,,-- ::-'
:1':'< .; I
J
.
í
¡
I
!
HEAL TH BOARD MINUTES - December 21, 2000
Page: 3
ì
J
. .~
I~
J
HEALTH ASSESSMENT INDICATOR WORKSHOP: Jean Baldwin reminded the Board
that the workshop is Thursday, January 25 from I :00 until 5:00 p.m. at WSU Cooperative Extension
Office.
The Board went into Executive Session at 3:35 p.m. to discuss legal issues and reconvened at 4:00 p.m.
REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Linda Atkins distributed flow charts
of permit application scenarios.
Larry Fay reviewed the charts and discussed the conditions for permit approval depending on the year of
installation. There was then a discussion of the Draft On-Site Sewage Disposal Policy Statement. It was
noted that on page 3, paragraph IV, the word "unpermitted" needs to be inserted before systems. In
response to a question about who does the drawings referred to in Item I under Applicability, Larry Fay
said that the universal plot plan of the County provides site drawing and property dimensions, etc. For
older systems, applicants are responsible to provide system information to be incorporated into the
drawing. There were also suggestions to make Item III (A) more readable and to list the requirements in
the first paragraph of Item (B) as bullet points.
Member Masci asked whether the applicability could be softened?
Larry Fay responded that problems occur when there are building modifications that impact the septic
system and the real question is establishing a threshold for that impact. These are the principles with
which the department struggles. He agreed to investigate whether the percentage of assessed value is
being used in the Building Code. Staff agreed to explore other options and try to produce some
recommendations. An additional suggestion was to reword the first paragraph under Applicability to
remove the words "remodels, additions" after plumbing.
INFORMA TION ITEMS: VINES VS. JEFFERSON COUNTY. LUP ALA WSUIT: Larry
Fay reported that the County has paid Mr. Vines attorney's fees in the amount of$660. With the
adoption of the Uniform Development Code, septic systems will be allowed to cross zoning boundaries
and will become a policy.
INFORMATION ITEMS: OUILCENE BOAT BASIN: Larry Fay reported that the State
Department of Health, based on a request from an adjacent property owner to certify his growing area for
harvesting shellfish, has imposed a shellfish closure zone near the Quilcene marina. The Department
established an appropriate closure zone based on usage and the possibility of a spill occuning, rather
than water quality violations. The Port of Port Townsend has expressed concern about the closure and
felt they had taken measures to minimize the risk of contaminants in this area.
TOBACCO PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM: Jean Baldwin distributed
correspondence regarding news reports on the 15-year study that tobacco prevention programs do not
prevent tobacco use. She stressed that the new tobacco money was not a part of this project.
it,
Deus
w
N T E R
2 () 0 0
~~~~(þJJaI
Protecting OUf Children Through Immunization Registries
c)n Immunization Registries
.. .................... .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................--.........
-r mmunization registries provide benefits for providers,
1 health plans, parents, k, ids, communities and schools. This
issue of Focus includes stories from around the country
about how these confidential, computerized information sys-
tems increase immunization rates; save providers, health plans
and schools both time and money; and improve vaccine safety.
All Kids Count believes that this is just the beginning of the
benefits that registries can provide. As more health care
providers participate and more kids are included in registries,
benefits multiply. We encourage all children's health
care providers to find out how they can participate in
a state, regional, county or city registry.
Low immunization rates are common
among low-income children who may
not see a health care provider regular-
ly. However, these children often do
attend child care and school regularly.
In Phoenix, Ariz., the immunization
rate for 700 low-income children at
five related child care centers and two
charter schools hovered around 45%.
But in early 1999, when Margaret
McChesney, RN, the organizations'
nurse, acquired a laptop computer
and connected to the Arizona State-
wide Immunization Information
System (ASIIS) database, that rate
quickly doubled to 90%.
By identifying the under-immunized
children and administering the miss-
ing shots, cases of measles, pertussis
and varicella at those institutions
were reduced to zero, despite county-
wide outbreaks of those diseases dur-
ing the same timeframe. In addition,
says McChesney, children's school
attendance increased and parents' lost
time èlt work decreased.
Similar data showing increases in
immunization rates have emerged
from Minnesota, where the immu-
nization registry of Health Partners,
an HMO with ovcr 800,000 patients
and 17 staff and affiliate clinics locat-
ed throughout Minnesota, reduced by
two-thirds the number of children
whose immunizations were not up
to date by age 2.
James Nordin, medical director of
Health Partners Department of
Pediatrics, says that the registry not
only has improved patient care, "but
it also has improved our efficiency,
resulting in long-term cost savings for
the company."
The biggest savings of the registry
resulted for its adult population,
which is also included in the registry
to provide information about influen-
za and pneumoccocal immunizations.
Influenza coverage rates for adults
aged 65+ increased from 64% to
82%, and pneumococcal coverage
rates increased from 65% to 85%.
Nordin estimates that the health plan
saved $4 in direct medical COStS for
every $1 spent on increasing influenza
coverage rates. A similar savings is
expected for pneumococcal disease.
All Kids Count is a national network of ~!:'
demonstration projects working to deve/~~,~":';'
-'
· Registries Bring Disease Rates
....,
Down, Coverage Rates Up
k~
~
~
~
~.
~
~
· Registries Save Timc and Money
. Registries Increase Vaccine Safety,
Reduce Immunization Costs
· Parent Survey
· Health Organizations Support
Registries
· Who Will Pay for Registries?
.1,- ~",'II."/..>::"",~ ,...I.!',......:..1t.;.~.Ji/.'J,·¡,..l:·Ã.~·~·hiL4~-......I~~....:...'a.··~:,·_,., .:. .~. :~·~.ìt~_·~::.·_~ ":<)::"' Y"t.~.... . .
Registries Save Timè
and Money
In recent years. both providers and
medical office staff have seen the old
adage "Time is money" demonstrated
daily. Registries can save a health care
provider money by drastically reducing
the rime it takes to pull a child's medical
record, review his immunizations enter
,
the new shots, and re-file the record.
Studies show that it costs from $6 to
almost $19 to manually pull a patient
chart for review, Pulling up an electronic
record, in contrast, costs very little
because it takes only seconds. An in-
depth study of COStS and benefits associ-
ated with three· California registries .-
showed a 30% to 50% increase in staff
productivity when an immunization
registry was instituted in a health care
provider's practice. The study by John
FOßtanesi, PhD, School of Medicine
,
University of California," San Diego,
_ showed a return on investment as high
as 8 to 1 for registries that are managed
correctly and streamlined for work flow
efficiency.
Darcy Hall, RN, of MEDSchool
Associates-North in Reno, Nev. can't
imagine working in an environment that
does.n't have an immunization registry.
!"Iavmg w.0rked in a clinic with a reg-
IStry prevlOusly, she helped convince
MEDSchool's physicians to implement
a registry linked to Washoe County's
Department of Health to provide com-
plete up-to-date information on records
for 320 children. Hall says the registry
"saves money because nurses have more
time to provide patient care. It also
increases patient satisfaction."
The immunization registry of the
Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wis.,
a large multi-site network of providers,
has eliminated the paperwork associared
with· administering immunizations. Staff
found that during mass flu clinics, 20
minutes were previously required for a
multi-step manual process, from manual
-registration and chart pull to administer-
ing the shot, re-filing the record and
entering the data into the financial sys-
tem. Now, with the registry available in
providers' offices, the same processes
done electronically take just One minute.
Health plans, too, are realizing the time
savings that a registry can provide. In
Arizona, the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System (AHCCCS), the
state Medicaid provider, last year
reached an agreement with the state
immunization registry to allow batch
inquiries of the registry's central data-
base. AHCCCS has spent over $100,000
per year on pulling charts in providers'
offices in order to audit the immuniza-
tion rares of Medicaid-entolled children.
A test of the system showed that immu-
nization records for one-third of the
children could be accessed by connecting
to the registry - a $33,000 annual sav-
ings. Savings wiIl grow as more children
are added to the state registry database.
Providers in Arizona are mandated to
report immunizations to the registry.
More Providers, More Data,
More Value
As the number of health care providers
who participate in a registry increases,
the number of children with shot
records in the registry also increases,
making the registry more valuable to
its users. This chart shows a relative
increase of 42% in the number of pub-
lic and private health care providers
who participate in the 16 All Kids
Count registry projects from July
1998 to July 1999.
Private Provider Enrollment in
All Kids Count II Immunization Registries
July 1998 to July 1999
50% .
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
'5% .
'0%:
5%
0%
\< ('~l~ [j~~,-~~) 1 i1(;-e~lS~ \¡:¡~C(i]le
>: ref'". ¡C:r-ÌU(l'
;1 ));L I] ìZ~H ()11 ~.()'ir:)
[mmuniz;.uion registries provide accurate
int.rmation on each vaccine a child
re<ièives, including the vaccine manufac-
turef', date of manufacture, and lot num-
ber, as well as up-tn-date demographic
information about the child. When a lot
of Tripedia" vaccine was recalled by its
manufacturer because of the vaccine's
low potency, the Southern California
Kaiser Permanente immunization registry
was able tn determine that only four
children among its thousands of
enrollees had received an immunization
from the recalled vaccine lot. By identi-
fying those children who had received
the vaccine, the registry saved the bal-
ance of the children and their parents
time and pain by preventing unnecessary
immunization. In addition, the health
plan realized substantial savings by not
having to re-immunize the children.
By providing up-to-date information on
past immunizations, no matter where
they Were delivered, registries can reduce
the number of duplicate immunizations a
child receives. In San Bernardino Co.,
Calif., a 1997 study of the immunization
histories of more than 75,000 children in
the registry database showed that almost
2,000 (2.5%) of the children had
received at least one unneeded dose of
vaccine. At the time the immunizations
were given, the children's providers did
not have access to accurate information
about the children's past immunizations.
Registry staff estimated that $15,000-
$36,000 in vaccine costs could have
been saved if accurate information about
the children's immunizations had been
available to their providers. More than
half of San Bernardino COUnty's
providers now participate in the county
registry, with access to immunization
records of over 116,000 children.
Survev: Parents Would
Pa rtic'i p~1 re in Registries [f
Doctor Recommends It
A new survey of 432 parents with
children under age 6 has confirmed
what earlier focus groups indicated:
When parents understand the benefits
of a registry, they are likely to enter
their child into a registry, if their doctor
recommends it.
The random telephone survey was
conducted by a national research firm on
behalf of All Kids Count. Seventy-nine
percent of parents said "yes" they would
enroll their child in a registry, while
15 % said they would not and 5 % were
undecided. Those that said they would
not want their child enrolled in a registry
expressed concerns about the security or
privacy of the registry (37%), felt they
did not need it (33%), or felt that they
could keep their own records (33%).
Older and more educated parents tended
to be more skeptical of the benefits of
registries. Women were more likely than
men to believe that registries are benefi-
cial for their children. African-Americans
were more likely than Caucasian respon-
dents to enroll their child in a registry if
their doctor recommended it.
For a complete summary of the survey,
e-mail info@allkidscount.org. The
survey is available on the All Kids Count
web site, www.allkidscount.org.
'-.
...
Walter Orenstein, MO '"
Nationallmmunization Program . ,:;;:.~.
Centers for Disease ContTol & Preventio¡':;,:.~;.:_
AUanta, SA, Jiif;1~\~;;::
Michael T. Osterholm, PhO, MPH
ICAN
Minneapolis, MN
r ~ ~.~',. 'i..
"..-! '~, ' ·0
Robert K. Ross. MO
San Diego Dept of Health SefYices
San Diego, CA
Thomas Tonniges, MO
American Academy of Pediatrics
Elkgrove Village, IL
Deborah Klein Walker, PhD
Massachusetts Bureau of Family
& Community Health
Boston, MA
, ¡.,. ',. -, ~ ...;.,. ,'.. .. i. _ . ,~.
,. .',"-._ .... '..... .".. ' ." : .. J .,
". ,. \ ~. :'- ". '~.
'\,- ~ . ): .. --..
..' .
,ß~ ISJ.æ.GJllJf
Protecting Our Ch~dran Through InvnunlzaUon Registries
Non-Profit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 4170
Atlanta, Ga.
.,
:i
~'
The Task Force
For Child Survival And Development
750 Commerce Drive, Suite 400
Decatur, Georgia 30030-9919
Address Service Requested
RêCê/fI
Af4R' ED
, 81 Z
,J~¡:~ ' . '000
#ilJ. . Co·' .
~ANŠ~AI..11t
, . ~/C£~4
, v
Annual Immunization
Registry Conference
March 27-29, 2000
Newport, Rhode Island
For information: Visit
www. cdc.gov/ni pi registry
A*····*AUTO**3-0IGIT 983
THOMAS LOCKE
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS
615 SHERIDAN ST
PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-2439
". r ..1..' ..." .."..,.., ...,., ,'"1 I'" .,., ..1/.".'.' ..., I"
,.~''',-'T::'--·"·
~ -.'" .-
~,~ ...... _. _, ~ _ ....:.__~..r'.._ ',. ..' .
Who Will Pay for Registries?
An informative policy brief from All Kids Count urges policymakers to take
action to find a stable source of funding for immunization registries if children,
parents, providers and communities are to realize the full complement of health
and safety benefits and the time and cost savings that registries can generate.
Sustaining Financial Support far Immunization Registries reviews the role that
registries play in maintaining high immunization rates in this country. It traces
the development of registries, reports their current status, and lists the benefits
to parents, providers, plans and purchasers, communities, and public health
officials. It also explains how immunization registries can enhance vaccine
safety and how they address issues of privacy, confidentiality, and security.
Significantly, it notes that a nationwide system of fully operational registries
would save almost $30 million a year.
A patchwork of unpredictable funding sources, including federal and state
agencies, private foundations and managed care, now pays for registries, leaving
them vulnerable to changes in the economy, politics and the health care business
environment. Registries are one of the best tools available to sustain high
immunization rates, decrease disease among all children, and ensure vaccine
safety. Financial support of registries is a.:timely issue that demands attention.
. Copies of the 16·page Policy Brief or a four-page Executive Summary are avail-
able by emailing info@allkidscount.org. Please include your name and mailing
address. A PDF version is available on the All Kids Count web site at
www.aIlkidscount.arg. You may also call 404-687·5615.
'"
,,-
CHILD PROFILE FACT SHEET
What is CHILD Profile?
CHILD Profile is a computerized population-based system that includes an immunization tracking
system and a universal health promotion program
CHILD Profile's overall goal is to improve the health of children by maximizing immunization rates
CHILD Profile was initiated January 1, 1993 in King and Snohomish counties and is managed by a
Joint Executive Management Team from the department I district of the two counties
CHILD Profile was initially developed with major funding from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
CHILD Profile's tracking system is marketed by Health Information Institute to accomplish statewide
implementation. CHILD Web, connected to the database via the Internet, is available from
HII
What is statewide immunization on-line re!listrv?
It is a population based electronic system that:
· Stores demographics and immunization activity for children when providers enter it via
computers
· Increases the probability that all children will receive their recommended immunizations on
schedule
· Decreases the probability that immunizations will be unnecessarily duplicated due to lack of a
current immunization history
· Reduces both provider's staff time and health care costs, as well as improve the quality of health
care
· Provides parents with a complete record of their children's immunization status
· Generates reports for health plans, providers, and others needing immunization data
How does universal health promotion work?
Health promotion mailings are sent to parents of all children born in Washington State as of July 1,
1998. Materials have been sent to families of newborns residing in King and Snohomish counties
since 1993. Age appropriate material regarding immunizations, well child check-ups, nonnal growth
& development and safety information is mailed 30 days prior to recommended check-ups. There are
eight mailings in the first two years and two each year up through age five. Materials have been
developed with broad community input by both parents and health professionals.
Uodate on Strategic Planninf
In late 1999, CHILD Profile initiated a strategic planning process that brought together 27 individuals
from 12 organizations, including WSALPHO, American Academy of Pediatrics, DSHS Medical
Assistance Administration, Department of Health and others. The impetus for this effort was the need
to address the slow progress in recruiting private provider participation, the resulting low number of
immunization histories in the system, and issues in long-term funding of the registry. The planning
process was completed on May 31, 2000, and resulted in a 24-month action plan. One of the major
changes includes discontinuation of the subscription fees for providers (public and private) who
participate in the registry, retroactive to April 1, 2000.
,
Data in Child Profile
by local Health Jurisdiction and County
10/1/00
lHJ/County
#of
children
In county
<6 yrs 1'1
(A)
Demographic
records (under age
6)
In CHILD Profile
# (B) % (BIA)
Records
wllmmunlzatlon
Data (under age 6) In
CHilD Profile
# (C) % (CIA)
Children Who Ever
Received Health
Promotion Mailings 141
#
·Proportlon exceeds 100% because: denominator may undercount migrant families; numerator may Include families who have moved
out of county but whose address has not been updated In registry.
¡
I
i
¡
t
~
~
~
.
.'
...
j.
d)
-
.D
m
.-
-=
d)
>
~
Q.c
~
o
rn
d)
rn
='
m
U
.
CI)
.
~
-5
~
11)
Q
e
.a
cd..
e
11)
a....
tJ..
-
m
::s
.-
C,)
..(
'Q>' ,
....Ioot. '" '
.~ ".C.
~.,~
5 ~_.
,In (,J~
:¡:...=.
,~.·:.aJ.
'ò"'=:·
.... 'CO:'
......···c.r,
~,.WN '._.
.: =. ',' ....:
...-, '~:
-;::'5;'
...... ~
~.: -....
=:":=.'
ui -..
....' -=;
=.,....."
,....,. .=
'~',~
.r...., ~.
..~
,-=':=:=';=~Q Q =
. = Q;'O·~,=:=;c::r.:·=
. ,:= Q-C-'Q.·= Q 'Q c,..=
~ -'H ".,'_ ... ~. ....: ... ..~
. ~ =~=»:=;:Q~= 11) =».11) Q
". Q. = =:0\' ,\O'~ ~~f":1.
, _~,.~.;~ ",": ':,'m ,',-
.. ;" .:." ,', :-...:.:' i:': .;_.~. ..:,- .,' .~..;:~~. ::.
·-<.j;Y',}:~:.~ß:/:i7f:~~·~·" ,:', ""',::::'::
':..:":.;"'" ...: --. :::. ::.:.;..;~,;:>..: !
. ::.,; " . = ..... riIi1 ' . 'ëi ...;::;>
::,.' 'c ëi .m·· '~ : , - '0', .
.: .,·W 'U-.-- 'G = ';, , -,-
:l~l~:j'~,~:~ª:
,-' CIS ':;:1','.0 __~, _ ..aI . aI· ..aI.·
. . þ" Q,J' U IV M",IV rn' "rn
': =._;';;.....-:'~.o .!:::.=="~:
.. ' ,e-- Q <.,þ;¡ ,f-4 ~.QJ:;)....
:;:en.
';=
·:-c:r
-=e'.
~:;
~.
-/0'
;0"
, .~,
.: éi· 'ò)-
::::=
,I»' N¡.
=,;
·IV ,
C"
en
:a.....
..s'~
";¡r.: :~
; - s,' ~,
..¡;,C' an,
.:.~"'I:t..
~.'
f...,.· ~
""
en
......
..d.
.....-
......
cd
CU
:c
(J -=
.-
- 0
..c ......
~ d
d)
~ >
0 æ
d)
(,)
=
d)
CI:)
rn
~
d)
..c:
E-
.
...
U
=
CIS
.. .........c 0 fft
=~-_..
~ ~ .. .....2
o ~ II == ~
"'!::I=::ë-=
= .¡:S .! :: J
--=~u
= .. U - =
= 0 e ~'.
~ fft = ii =6ÍI
c: ... :J 0
o Þ.U-=~~
=SE;'üU
Ii as:a....=S
t~U~1::a
.. ~æ._..=
Q.. .... Q,I N .. CD
=-äëZlrn
o _ CIS rn
S~CIS=""
§ U'-ël:-=
. < 0 .. - ::
~ I
- d)
- ~
ctS
~ .;
0
.. N d) B tI)
~(1,) (1,)
--- tI)
--' ..s= ::s :::3
, ..... ~"'O ~
::s (,)
0 (1,)"'0
.D . = (1,)
U') cd -
« . d) ~
. . ::> a... .....
d) 4.) ~ =
-= .£3 Q)
...... e :>
~ = (1)
~ a....
e .-. 0..
.9 en 0..
5
~
0 ~
t::Q 0)
"'0
/'....
,
r
!
....
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Revir-erl 9/29/00
.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
May 2000, NCJ 179999
Drug Use, Testing,
and Treatment in Jails
By Doris James Wilson
BJS Statistician
In 1998 an estimated 417,000 jail
inmates (70% of all inmates in local
facilities) had committed a drug offense
or used drugs regularly, compared to
261,000 (67%) in 1989. About 138,000
convicted jail inmates were under the
influence of drugs at the time of the
offense. About 72,000 convicted jail
inmates had used marijuana or
hashish and 59,000 had used cocaine
or crack cocaine.
Offenders in local jails reported a
history of prior drug use similar to that
of State prison inmates. Over half of
jail (55%) and State inmates (57%)
said they had used drugs in the month
before the offense. About a fifth of
these jail inmates and a third of State
inmates had participated in substance
abuse programs or treatment since
admission. Compared to offenders on
probation (32%), jail inmates were
more likely to report using drugs in the
month before the offense. A higher
percentage of probationers than jail
inmates had participated in treatment
since beginning their sentence (42%).
This report, the third in the series on
prior drug use and treatment of offend-
ers, focuses on local jail inmates and
jail jurisdictions. Past BJS reports
include Substance Abuse and Treat-
ment, State and Federal Prisoners,
1997, and Substance Abuse and Treat·
ment of Adults on Probation, 1995.
Highlights
In 1998 an estimated 7 in 10 local jail inmates had used drugs regularly
or had committed a drug offense
Percent of
Inmates'
All inmates
Drug offense/regular use 70.3%
Any drug offense 25.6
Convicted Inmates
Under the influence
at time of offense 35.6%
Use in month before 55.0
Drugs used at time of offense
Marijuana or hashish 18.5%
Cocaine/crack 15.2
Heroin 5.6
Active drug involvementb 65.5%
"Based on personal interviews, 1996.
bSee page 3 for definition.
Estimated
1998
417,000
152,000
138,000
213,000
72,000
59,000
22,000
253,000
· An estimated 61,000 (16%)
convicted jail inmates committed their
offense to get money for drugs.
· Two-thirds of convicted jail inmates
were actively involved with drugs prior
to their admission to jail.
· Overall, 71 % of local jail jurisdictions
reported that they had a policy to test
inmates or staff for drug use in 1998.
In June, a fourth of the jails tested
samples from inmates.
About 10% of drug tests conducted on jail inmates in June 1998
showed drug use
Samples for drug tests
collected from inmates
during June 1998*
Percent
~
10.5%
7.6
13.6
12.7
9.6
Total
Random only
Indication of use only
Random/indicatlon of use
Combined methods
.!'!u.rr1.be!:
36,215
3,776
2,904
9,190
20,344
*Multiple samples may have been collected
from one Inmate.
· Local jail jurisdictions with 1,000 or
more inmates collected 48% of the
samples for drug testing in June 1998.
Seven percent of the samples from
these larger jurisdictions were
positìve.
· Among jurisdictions that tested for
drugs, 70% reported loss of privileges
as the usual response to a positive
test. Over half said that they take
away good time.
· Nearly 5 in 10 jurisdictions that test
staff reported dismissal from employ-
ment as the only action taken when
staff test positive for drug use.
· On June 30, 1998, about 92,600 jail
inmates had participated in drug and
alcohol programs or substance abuse
treatment, including inmates who may
have been enrolled in more than one
program.
Jails are correctional facilities operated
by cities, counties, or other local
authorities. Jail inmates are persons
u¡.ually sentenced to a short term
(QEmerally under a year) but may
inQlude any detention status, such as
sentenced to more than a year to be
served in jail, held for State prisons
due to overcrowding, awaiting trial or
sentencing, or not yet arraigned.
Data on drug testing and treatment in
local jail jurisdictions are from the 1998
Annual Survey of Jails. A special
addendum on drug testing, sanctions,
and interventions was included with the
standard survey questions on super-
vised population and inmate counts
and movements. A representative
sample of 820 jail jurisdictions out of
2,890 provided information on policies
for conducting drug tests on inmates
and staff, criteria for selection for
testing, number of positive tests for
inmates, sanctions for positive test
results, and substance abuse
programs or treatment. (See Methodol-
ogyfor sample description.)
Other findings in this report are based
on data from the Survey of Inmates in
Local Jails, 1996. Over 6,100 inmates
from 431 jails in personal interviews
answered a series of questions on their
current and past offense history, drug
and alcohol use and treatment, family
background, and conditions of confine-
ment. (Data on these topics with
comparison to surveys conducted in
1989 and 1983 are available in Profile
of Jail Inmates, 1996, NCJ 164620).
BJS surveys and special collections
provide a national perspective on the
prevalence of drug use and drug
crimes among local jail inmates. (See
adjacent box.) In 1996,82% of all jail
inmates said they had used drugs at
least once in their life. Among
convicted jail inmates, 55% said they
had used illegal drugs in the month
before the offense. A quarter of jail
inmates had a current drug offense,
and over a quarter had a prior convic-
tion for drug law violations.
2 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
55% of convicted jail inmates were using drugs In the month
before the offense; 36% at the time of the offense
· A quarter of jail inmates had a current charge or conviction
for drug law violations. About 15% had a charge or conviction for drug
possession and 9% for trafficking.
· 30% of convicted jail inmates had been previously sentenced or
incarcerated for drug possession, trafficking, or other drug offenses,
compared to 21 % of unconvicted jail inmates.
· About 82% of all inmates said they had ever used drugs at least once
and 64% said they had used drugs regularly (that is, at least once a week
for at least a month).
· 18% of convicted jail inmates said they had used intravenous drugs
in the past, compared to 15% of unconvicted inmates.
· Nearly 1 in 6 of convicted jail inmates committed their offense
to get money for drugs.
Drug involvement of jail Inmates, 1996
Current drug offenses'
Possession
Trafficking
Prior sentence for drug offensesb
Percent of lail inmates
All Convicted Unconvicted
25.6% 28.4% 22.1%
14.6 16.6 11.9
9.3 9.7 9.0
26.6%
29.6% 21.4%
Prior drug use
Ever used drugs 82.4% 84.5% 79.0%
Ever used regularly" 64.2 67.2 59.8
Intravenous drug use 17.0 18.3 14.5
Used in the month before the offense '55.0'
Used at time of the offense I 35.6 ,
Committed offense to get money for drugs 15.8% ,
Note: Based on the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996. Of the estimated
507,026 jail inmates in 1996,62.7% were convicted on their current offense
or serving a sentence for a prior offense; 33.4% were unconvicted, awaiting trial,
on trial, or not yet arraigned; and 3.9% had an unknown conviction status.
'Not reported.
'Excludes inmates for whom the offense was unknown.
bExcludes inmates for whom the offense of a prior probation
or incarceration was unknown.
<Used drugs at least once a week for at least a month.
In recent years drug testing and treat-
ment have increasingly become the
focus of efforts to detect and control
w-ug use in jails. In assessing who
¡Should be tested and treated for drug
uce, jurisdictions may consider past
drug involvement or active drug
involvement prior to the current
admission.
Jail inmates reported high levels of
drug involvement
On specific measures of reported past
drug involvement, 64% of jail inmates
had used drugs regularly, 42% had
received treatment, 17% had used
intravenous drugs, and 27% had a
prior sentence for drug law violations.
In combination, 74% of all jail inmates
reported some past involvement with
drugs.
In the 1996 inmate survey only con-
victed jail inmates were asked about
the level of drug use immediately prior
to the current offense. An estimated
66% of convicted jail inmates reported
active involvement with drugs. For this
report, active drug involvement is
defined as those who had used drugs
in the month before the offense (55%)
or at the time of the offense (36%),
committed the offense for money for
drugs (16%), had received treatment
since admission (13%), or had a
current drug charge (26%).
Nearly a third of convicted jail inmates
who had been involved with drugs in
the past were not using drugs in the
month before the offense. Among
convicted inmates about 37% said they
were using marijuana or hashish a
month before their offense, and 24%
said they were using cocaine or crack
cocaine.
Actively drug-involved jail inmates
younger and more likely to be black
than other inmates
The proportions of actively drug-
involved jail inmates varied across
gender, racial or ethnic groups, and
age categories. Males made up the
Assessing the need for testing and treatment in jails
Drug use of jail Inmates, 1996
Percent of
inmates
73.7%
Past drug Involvement of all Inmates
Includes persons who -
~ regularly used drugs in the past
- received drug treatment in the past
~ may not currently use drugs regularly
~ used intravenous drugs
- were sentenced for past drug offenses
Active drug Involvement prior to current
admission of convicted inmates
Includes persons who -
~ used drugs in month before the offense
~ used drugs at the time of the offense
- committed the offense for money for drugs
- were sentenced for a current drug offense
- had received treatment since admission
65.5%
Type of drugs used by convicted jail inmates, 1996
Any
Used drugs -
In month At time of
before offense the offense
55.0% 35.6%
Marijuana or hashish 36.8% 18.5%
Cocaine or crack 24.1 15.2
Heroin or opiates 8.8 5.6
Depressants" 5.9 2.4
Stimulantsb 10.4 6.1
Hallucinogens" 4.6 1.6
Inhalants 1.0 0.3
Note: Details may add to more than total because Inmates
may have used more than one drug.
"Depressants include barbiturates, tranquilizers, and Quaalude.
·Stimulants include amphetamine and methamphetamine.
"Hallucinogens Include LSD and PCP.
Selected characteristics of convicted jail inmates, 1996
Percent of convicted
jail inmates
Active drug
involvement Other
Gender
Male 89.0% 91.3%
Female 11.0 8.7
Race/Hispanic origin
White non-Hispanic 38.2% 42.3%
Black non-Hispanic 41.2 34.5
Hispanic 17.9 19.2
Other* 2.7 4.0
Age
17 or younger 1.3% 1.4%
18-24 29.0 25.9
25-29 20.3 18.2
30-34 20.2 17.4
35-44 24.6 24.4
45-54 4.2 9.2
55 or older 0.4 3.4
*Other includes Asians, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islanders. American Indians, and Alaska Natives.
Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 3
majority of both actively drugMinvolved
and other inmates. However, women
were a larger percentage of actively
"'rug-involved inmates (11 %) than of
~ther inmates (9%).
,þ
Black or African American inmates
were 41 % of actively drug-involved
inmates, compared to 35% of other
inmates. Nearly equal percentages of
actively drug-involved (18%) and other
inmates (19%) were Hispanic.
About 65% of actively drug-involved
inmates were between ages 25 and 44,
compared to 60% of other inmates.
Inmates between 18 and 24 were 29%
of actively drug-involved inmates and
26% of other inmates.
Jails emphasized testing to control
drug use
In response to the inmates' high levels
of drug involvement, many jail jurisdic~
tions have established drug testing
policies to help control drug use in their
facilities. In 1998 about 7 in 10 jail juris-
dictions reported that they had a policy
to conduct urinalysis or other tests,
such as blood, hair, and saliva
analysis, to determine drug use by
inmates or staff (table 1). (For details
on drug testing methods and proce-
dures, see Integrating Drug Testing
into a Pretrial Service System: 1999
Update, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
NCJ 176340.)
Small jurisdictions (with fewer than 50
inmates) were less likely than jurisdic-
tions with 1,000 inmates or more to
have a policy to conduct tests for
drugs. Six in ten small jurisdictions
said they tested inmates or staff for
drugs, compared to 8 in 10 large juris-
dictions. The size of jail jurisdiction is
based on the average daily population
for the 12 months ending June 30,
1998, and reported in the Annual
Survey of Jails.
Over a fifth of the jurisdictions said they
tested inmates only, while nearly a
quarter tested staff only. A quarter
said they tested both inmates and staff.
4 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
Table 1. Jail jurisdictions reporting drug testing policies,
by size of ju!isdiction, 1998
Size of jurisdiction"
Total
Number of
jurisdictions
2,890
Percent of jurisdictions
with testinq policies
Inmates
or staff Inmates
71.1% 46.9%
Staff
49.2%
Fewer than 50 inmates 1,462 61.1% 37.5% 38.3%
50-99 519 80,4 57.7 51,4
100-249 473 79.0 50.3 61.0
250-499 188 86.1 65.9 67.5
500-999 125 87.0 62.6 73.2
1,000 or more 123 82.0 56.6 70.5
"Based on the average daily population between July 1,1997, and June 30,1998.
See Methodology for definition of average daily population.
Table 2. Criteria for selecting jail inmates for drug tests,
by size of jurisdiction, 1998
Size of jurisdiction"
Total
Percent of iurisdictions with testinQ policies
Indication All at
Random of use admissions Other
48.9% 68.8% 4.7% 30.1 %
Fewer than 50 inmates 40.0% 74.0% 1.8%
50-99 43.3 57.3 6.0
100-249 59.7 66.4 4.6
250-499 66.1 69,4 8.1
500-999 62.3 81.8 11.7
1,000 or more 59,4 71.0 10.1
Note: Jurisdictions may use multiple methods to test for drugs.
"Based on the average daily population between July 1,1997, and June 30,1998.
19.0%
39.7
35.7
33.9
37.7
42.0
Half of all inmates were in jails that
tested for drug use
Relative to the average daily
population, nearly 54% of all inmates
(an estimated 318,100 jail inmates)
were in jails that tested for illegal drug
use. Four percent of the inmates
subject to drug testing policies were in
small jurisdictions, although these juris-
dictions represented 40% of those with
a policy to test inmates for drugs.
All jail
inmates
593,808
Jail inmates in
jurisdictions that
test for druas
Number Percent
318,110 53.6%
Size of
iurisdiction"
Total
Fewer than 50
inmates 31,088 12,907 41.5%
50-99 35,289 19,862 56.3
100-249 73,421 37,419 50.1
250-499 64,063 42,511 66.4
500-999 87,731 55,208 62.9
1,000 or more 302,216 150,204 49.7
"Based on the average daily population
between July 1,1997, and June 30,1998.
In contrast, the largest jurisdictions
(with 1,000 inmates or more) repre-
sented 5% of jurisdictions that tested
inmates and held 47% of inmates
subject to drug testing.
69% of jurisdictions test inmates
mainly on indication of use
Jurisdictions use a variety of methods
to select inmates for drug testing. All
inmates in some facilities may be
tested upon entry for the first time;
inmates in other facilities may be
selected at random after a set length
of stay or at unpredictable times or
may be tested upon indication of use
of an illegal drug. Some jurisdictions
also test all inmates upon reentry into a
facility after an absence for activities
such as a work release, furlough, or
court visit.
Table 3. Number of samples collected in jails from June 1 to June 30, 1998,
and the percent positive for one or more drugs
" Jail jurisdictions testinç¡ for druç¡s Samples collected
~' Percent with at least Percent
Size of jurisdiction' Number one positive test Number positive
Total 712 68.8% 36,215 10.5%
Fewer than 50 inmates 229 62.5% 1,328 28.1%
50-99 141 65.3 2,149 20.9
100-249 146 65.5 4,855 12.3
250-499 85 77.7 4,680 8.8
500-999 59 84.8 5,983 11.4
1,000 or more 53 81.1 17,218 7.4
Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not collect samples during June 1998.
Multiple samples may have been collected from one inmate.
'Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 3D, 1998.
In 1998 over two-thirds of the jurisdic-
tions selected inmates for testing on
indication of use; about half selected
inmates at random; and 5% had a
policy to test all inmates at admission
(table 2).
Jurisdictions that specified other crite-
ria for selecting inmates for testing
(30%) generally reported that they
systematically tested all offenders who
returned to the facility from a temporary
absence from custody. They also
tested inmates when requested or
required by another agency, such as
the courts, probation or parole depart-
ments, or medical services.
Nearly 60% of jurisdictions with 100 or
more inmates said they tested inmates
randomly, compared to 40% of jurisdic-
tions with fewer than 100 inmates.
Seven in ten of both small jurisdictions
and those with 1,000 or more inmates
reported that they tested on indication
of use. About 2% of the jurisdictions
with fewer than 50 inmates, compared
to 10% of those with 1,000 or more
inmates, reported testing all inmates at
admission.
Over two-thirds of the jails that
tested inmates had at least one
positive test
Of the jail jurisdictions that had a policy
to conduct urinalysis or other tests on
inmates for drug use, 712 jurisdictions
collected over 36,200 samples from
inmates between June 1 and June 30,
1998 (table 3). Multiple samples may
have been taken from one inmate.
Jurisdictions with fewer than 50
inmates collected 4% of the samples;
however, they comprised about a third
of the jurisdictions that tested samples
for drugs. About half of the samples
were collected in jurisdictions with
1,000 inmates or more.
10% oftests conducted in June 1998
were positive for one or more drugs
Ten percent of the samples overall
(3,800) were positive for one or more
drugs. Over two-thirds of jurisdictions
that tested inmates had at least one
positive test, while the rate of positive
tests in jurisdictions with 1,000 inmates
or more (7%) was lower than that for
jurisdictions with fewer than 50 inmates
(28%).
The percentage of tests found positive
for drug use varied by testing policy.
Samples that were selected on indica-
tion of use only had the highest rate of
positive results (14%), followed by both
random or indication of use (13%).
Within jurisdictions that tested only
randomly, 8% of samples were positive
for drugs.
Criteria for testing
Random only
Indication of use only
Random/indication of use
Other combined methods
Samples collected
Percent
Number positive
3,776 7.6%
2,904 13.6
9,190 12.7
20,344 9.6
Most jurisdictions take away inmate
privileges for a positive test result
Among the legal and administrative
sanctions that may be imposed when
inmates test positive for drugs, 70% of
the jurisdictions reported that they
usually take away inmates privileges,
while about half said they take away
good time or reclassify the offender to
a higher security level (table 4).
Twenty percent of the jurisdictions
reported that they add time to the
inmate sentence for a positive test
result, compared to 39% that charge
the offender with a new offense.
Around a quarter of all jurisdictions
said they increase drug testing after a
positive test.
Table 4. Sanctions imposed by
jurIsdictions after Inmates test
positive for drugs, 1998
Percent of
jurisdictions
Type of sanctions
Legal sanctions
Charge with offense
Add time to sentence
39.3%
20.3
Administrative sanctions
Loss of good time 52.2%
Loss of privileges 69.9
Reclassify security level 48.9
Separation 30.0
Increased testing 25.4
Mandatory treatment 8.0
Other sanctions
19.9%
Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 5
Jail inmates were more likely to be
reclassified to a higher security level
in large jail jurisdictions after a positive
tEiet for drugs. About 7 in 1 0 jurisdic~
tjpns with 1,000 or more inmates
reclassified offenders, compared to
almost 2 in 6 jurisdictions with fewer
than 50 inmates.
Tvpe of sanctions
Reclassify
Size of security
jurisdiction' level
Fewer than 50
inmates 34.9% 18.5% 6.9%
50-99 45.7 25.3 6.3
100-249 67.6 42.9 10.1
250-499 59.7 43.5 4.0
500-999 66.7 48.1 9.1
1,000 or more 71.0 52.2 21.7
'Based on the average daily population between
July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998.
Mandatory
Separation treatment
with 500 to 999 inmates. Seven
percent of jurisdictions with fewer than
50 inmates mãndated treatment. About
19% of small jurisdictions reported that
they separate inmates from the general
population after a positive test,
compared to 52% of large jurisdictions.
70% of jail jurisdictions tested all
staff; 20%, new employees only
Drug testing policies to detect and
control drug use in jails also include jail
employees. About 49% of jurisdictions
said they tested staff, and 47% test
inmates. Among the 1,418 jail jurisdic-
tions that had a policy to test staff, 70%
said that all staff were subject to testing
Percent of jurisdictions
with testin¡¡ policies
Across all jurisdictions, only a small Size of
jurisdiction inmates Staff
percentage said that they imposed Total 46.9% 49.2%
mandatory treatment for a positive test.
About 22% of larger jurisdictions Fewer than
imposed mandatory treatment for 50 inmates 37.5% 38.3%
50-99 57.7 51.4
inmates who tested positive for drugs, 100-249 50.3 61.0
followed by 10% of jurisdictions with 250-499 65.9 67.5
100 to 249 inmates, and 9% of those 500-999 62.6 73.2
1 ,000 or more 56.6 70.5
Table 5. Criteria for testing jail staff for drugs, by size of jurisdiction, 1998
Percent of jurisdictions that test staff
Indication All at least
Siz9.of iurisdiction' Random of use once a year Other
Total 63.1% 39.9% 9.0% 24.0%
Fewer than 50 inmates 72.5% 36.6% 9.5% 16.3%
50-99 50.4 31.8 12.7 31.1
100-249 64.2 40.6 9.4 24.0
250-499 59.8 48.0 7.9 25.8
500-999 50.0 51.1 1.1 34.4
1,000 or more 55.8 60.5 3.5 39.5
Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not test staff. Jurisdictions may use one or more criteria.
'Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998.
for illegal drug use, including supervi-
sors, administrative staff, corrections
officers, and program or treatment
personnel. A fifth of the jurisdictions
tested only prospective employees as a
condition of employment, and 1 %
tested corrections officers only. Around
7 in 10 large jurisdictions had a policy
to test staff, compared to 4 in 10 small
jurisdictions.
Jail jurisdictions were similar to other
employers with regard to testing staff
for iJlegaJ drug use. In general, employ-
ers nationwide have implemented
workplace drug testing programs to
comply with Federal regulations or
insurance requirements, to protect the
organization from safety problems and
costs associated with illegal drug use
on the jab, or for a variety of other
reasons.
In the 1997 National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse, 49% of employees
who were working 35 hours or more a
week at the time of the interview said
their workplace had a drug testing
program.* The survey also included
prevalence estimates of drug testing in
the workplace by the number of
employees at an establishment. About
74% of employees at large establish-
ments (500 or more employees) said
their workplace had at least one type of
workplace drug testing program,
compared to slightly more than 28% for
small establishments (24 or fewer
employees).
'See, SAMHSA, The National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse, Workplace Drug Testing
Programs, 1997, http://www.samhsalgov/oas/
NHSDAlA-11IWrkplcPlcy2-06.htm
Table 6. Sanctions Imposed on Jail staff after a positive test for drug use, by size of Jurisdiction, 1998
Percent of jurisdictions that test staff, by size of jurisdiction'
Fewer than 1,000
Sanctions Totai 50 inmates 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 or more
Dismissal 70.7% 72.2% 65.2% 72.2% 66.9% 71.1% 77.9%
Temporary suspension 19.9 22.3 6.7 21.5 23.4 27.8 26.7
Continued employment with -
Referral to intemal affairs or police 28.8% 19.6% 24.3% 35.8% 37.5% 37.8% 57.0%
Referral to treatment 29.1 28.4 18.7 30.9 34.6 38.9 40.7
Increased urinalysis surveillance 10.9 11.8 0.4 11.1 15.0 16.9 24.4
Restrictions on Inmate contact 3.8 3.4 2.6 3.5 5.5 6.7 5.8
Other actions 8.4 5.2 11.2 7.3 17.2 7.8 11.6
Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not test staff. Jurisdictions may im pose multiple sanctions on staff.
'Based on average dally population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998.
6 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
Most jail employees are tested at
random
~out 63% of jail jurisdictions reported
tlat they tested staff at random,
fotlowed by 40% that tested on indica-
tion of use (table 5). Nearly three-
quarters of jurisdictions holding fewer
than 50 inmates said that staff were
selected at random for drug testing,
compared to over half of jurisdictions
with 1,000 or more inmates. Small
jurisdictions were less likely to select
staff on indication of use (37%) than
large jurisdictions (61 %).
Around 45% of jurisdictions said that
they used a combination of criteria to
select staff for testing. About 41 %
selected staff at random only, and 15%
selected on indication of use only.
In 7 in 10 jail jurisdictions a positive
test was grounds for dismissal
Jurisdictions usually fired staff or did
not hire prospective employees after a
positive result on a test for drugs.
About 71 % percent overall reported
that dismissal was the usual action
taken after a positive test result.
Nearly half (49%) of the jurisdictions
used dismissàl as the only disciplinary
action for an employee who tested
positive for drugs.
In establishing policies to test staff or
inmates for drugs, jurisdictions have
adopted rules and procedures to
ensure that disciplinary actions are not
imposed for false positive test results
or for legitimate reasons such as over-
the-counter or prescription medica-
tions that can cause a positive test.
Drug testing procedures generally
include chain of custody documenta-
tion, a confirmation test after the initial
positive test, drug cut-off levels for
positive or negative results, and a
medical review to certify that testing
procedures were followed. During the
review and confirmation process,
sanctions may be imposed while an
employee continues working.
Among the sanctions that permitted jail
staff to continue working after a
positive test for drugs, about 4% of
jurisdictions said they allowed staff to
continue to work with restrictions on
contact with inmates. An equal
percentage (29%) said they referred
staff either to internal affairs or the
police or to substance abuse treatment
(table 6). About 11 % increased drug
testing of staff after a positive test.
Over half of the jurisdictions with 1,000
or more inmates said they referred
employees to internal affairs or police
after a positive test for drugs, com-
pared to nearly a fifth of small jurisdic-
tions. About 3 in 8 jurisdictions in each
category between 100 and 999 inmates
said they referred staff for legal actions
after a positive drug test.
Across all jurisdictions, a larger
percentage said they referred staff to
treatment after a positive test than
required mandatory treatment for
inmates. About 41 % of large jurisdic-
tions and 28% of small jurisdictions
referred staff to treatment. Except juris-
dictions with 1,000 inmates or more,
around 10% or less in each size
category mandated treatment for
inmates.
Table 7. Substance abuse treatment or programs in local jails, by size of jurisdiction, 1998
Percent of jurisdictions with treatment or programs by size of jurisdiction *
Fewer than 1,000 or
Type of treatment Total 50 inmates 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 more
Any treatment or program 72.8% 63.2% 75.0% 83.9% 91.0% 91.9% 90.2%
Substance abuse treatment" 42.8% 33.5% 38.7% 53.3% 62.2% 70.2% 73.8%
Detoxification 32.1 26.0 26.2 39.7 48.1 51.2 56.6
Other programs· 67.5% 57.3% 70.1% 77.0% 87.8% 88.0% 89.4%
Education or awareness 29.6 20.2 30.0 32.0 46.8 61.8 72.1
Self-help programs 63.7 52.1 67.8 73.5 86.2 87.8 88.5
Note: Jurisdictions may have more than one program.
*Based on the average daily population between July 1,1997, and June 30,1998.
'Includes residential facilities, detoxification units, professional group or Individual
counseling, rehabilitation, and maintenance drug programs.
"Includes drug or alcohol education or awareness programs, self-help groups, such
as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and other peer counseling groups.
Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 7
Self-help programs like Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics
Anonymous common in jails
..
Although jurisdictions were unlikely to
mëWIdate treatment for inmates after a
positive drug test, almost three-
quarters provided substance abuse
treatment or other programs for their
inmates (table 7). Substance abuse
treatment includes detoxification,
professional counseling, a residential
stay, or maintenance drug programs.
Other programs include Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anony-
mous (NA), and other self-help groups,
and drug or alcohol education or
awareness.
About 43% of jurisdictions provided
substance abuse treatment, while 68%
provided other programs. Within the
specific types of substance abuse
programs provided in jails, self~help
groups (such as AA, NA, and other
peer group counseling) were the most
common (64%). About 30% had
education or awareness programs.
Overall, 12% of jail jurisdictions
provided all types of programs and
treatment, and about 22% had only AA,
NA, or other self-help programs.
Smaller jurisdictions were less likely to
have substance abuse treatment or
programs than larger jurisdictions.
About 63% of jurisdictions with fewer
than 50 inmates had some type of
treatment or program. About 26% of
jurisdictions with fewer than 50 inmates
and of those with 50 to 99 inmates had
a detoxification unit. These jurisdic-
tions primarily had self~help groups,
52% and 68%, respectively.
About 90% of jurisdictions that held
250 or more inmates provided some
type of treatment or program. Over
half of large jurisdictions had a detoxifi-
cation unit. Seven in ten jurisdictions
with 1,000 or more inmates provided
education or awareness, and 8 in 10
provided self-help groups.
8 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
Table 8. Substance abuse treatment history of jail inmates,
by reported ptior drug use, 1996
All jail inmates Convicted iail inmates used-
In month At time
Ever used before of
Type of treatment Ever used r~ularly" offense offense
Any treatment or program" 51.4% 55.7% 58.3% 61.4%
Participated while under 43.7% 46.6%
correctional supervision 35.1% 38.7%
In prison/jail 25.2 28.4 31.7 34.3
On probation/parole 23.4 26.2 30.3 32.8
Participated since admission 12.5% 14.0% 16.9% 19.0%
Any treatment" 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.9
Detoxification 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4
Special facility 1.9 2.3 3.0 3.9
Counseling 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.5
Other programs· 10.8% 12.0% 14.6% 16.0%
Self-help 9.3 10.4 12.5 13.7
Education or awareness 3.8 4.5 5.5 6.5
Note: Details add to more than total because inmates may have
participated in more than one type of program.
"Regularly is defined as once a week for at least a month.
"Includes alcohol or drug treatment or programs.
<Includes detoxification units, professional group or Individual
counseling, rehabilitation, and maintenance drug programs.
·Includes drug or alcohol education or awareness programs,
self-help programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous. and other peer counseling groups.
Large jails had three-quarters of the
total capacity for substance abuse
treatment
In the Annual Survey of Jails, jurisdic-
tions were asked to report the capacity
for substance abuse treatment, includ-
ing detoxification, professional counsel-
ing, rehabilitation, and maintenance
drug programs. About 10% or 282
jurisdictions reported that they had the
capacity to provide substance abuse
treatment. Nearly three-quarters of the
reported capacity was in jurisdictions
with 500 or more inmates.
92,600 inmates participated in dr ug
or alcohol programs or treatment
As of June 30, 1998, an estimated
92,600 inmates had participated in
substance abuse treatment or
programs. This included 42,100 in AA,
NA. or other self-help groups, 27,000
in drug or alcohol education or
awareness, 2,100 in detoxification, and
21,400 in other substance abuse treat-
ment. Inmates may have been in more
than one program.
61 % of inmates who had used drugs
at the time of the offense had
received treatment in the past
Based on self-reported information in
the jail inmates survey, over half of jail
inmates who said they had ever used
drugs and those who used regularly
had participated in substance abuse
treatment or programs in the past
(table 8). Among convicted inmates
58% of those who had used drugs in
the month before the offense and 61 %
of those who had used drugs at the
time of the offense had participated in
substance abuse treatment or
programs.
Overall, an estimated 10% of jail
inmates said they had participated in
substance abuse treatment or
wograms since their admission to jail.
úf jail inmates who had ever used
df( gs or had ever used them regularly,
13% and 14%, respectively, had
participated in substance abuse treat-
ment or programs since admission.
About 17% of inmates who had used in
the month before the offense had
participated since admission. Around
19% of jail inmates who had used
drugs at the time of the offense had
participated in substance abuse treat-
ment or programs.
Self-help programs were the most
common activity since admission
(around 13%) for each category of
convicted jail inmates. Among all jail
inmates who had ever used drugs or
used regularly, 10% or fewer had
participated in self-help programs.
A small percentage of jail inmates who
had ever used drugs or used regularly
(4%) had received substance abuse
treatment since admission. Around 7%
of convicted jail inmates who were
using drugs at the time of the offense
and 6% who had used drugs in the
month before the offense had partici-
pated in substance abuse treatment.
Among convicted jail inmates who
were actively involved with drugs prior
to their admission to jail, 20% had
participated in substance abuse treat-
ment or programs since admission,
Criminal history profile of actively drug-involved jail inmates
72% of co';victed jail inmates who had an active involvement
in drugs were on criminal justice status at arrest
Percent of convicted
iail inmates
Active drug
involvement" Other
Status at arrest
None
Status
On parole"
On probation
Pretrial
Bail/bond
Escape
27.8% 41.2%
71.8 58.1
19.3 10.9
44.1 39.6
4.7 5.1
15.1 11.6
1.4 0.6
-About 20% of actively drug.
involved offenders were on parole;
44% were on probation prior to
their current admission to jail.
- 8 in 10 actively drug-involved
offenders had a prior offense
or sentence to incarceration,
compared to 7 in 10 other
offenders.
- Over a third of actively drug-
involved jail inmates had been
convicted of a violent crime in the
past, while about 13% had only
prior drug sentences.
· Over half of drug-involved jail
inmates had served three or
more sentences to probation
or incarceration.
- 21 % of actively drug-involved
offenders were sentenced to
served time in prison, compared
to 15% of other offenders.
· Actively drug-involved offenders
who were sentenced to jail had a
median sentence of 11 months,
compared to 6 months for other
offenders.
Criminal history
None 19.5%
Priors 80.5
iolent recidivists 35.2
Drug recidivists only 12.7
27.9%
72.1
35.5
0.0
Number of prior sentences
to probation or Incarceration
o 13.3%
1 19.9
2 12.4
3-5 23.1
6-10 18.9
11 or more 12.4
18.3%
23.9
14.7
20.9
16.0
6.2
Location to serve
current sentence
Prison
Jail
20.9%
57.6
15.1%
69.1
Median maximum
sentence
Prison
Jail
60mos.
11
60mos.
6
Note: Based on self-reported data in the Survey
of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996. Data on
convicted jail inmates only.
"Includes Jail inmates who used drugs in the
month before the offense, had a current drug
offense, committed the offense for money for
drugs, or had received treatment since
admission to jail.
"Includes mandatory supervised release.
Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 9
Methodology
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
.
The 1996 Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails was conducted from October
1995 through March 1996 in personal
interviews with 6,133 inmates. Similar
surveys of jail inmates were conducted
in 1972, 1978, 1983, and 1989.
The sample for the 1996 survey design
was a stratified two-stage selection
from a universe of 3,328 jails. In the
first stage, six separate strata were
formed based on the size of the male
and female populations. In two strata
all jails were selected - those jails
housing only females and those with
more than 1,000 males or more than
50 females or both.
In the remaining four strata, each jail
within a stratum had an equal probabil-
ity of selection in the sample. Overall,
462 jails were selected. Interviews
were conducted in 431 jails; 19
refused, 8 were closed, and 4 were on
the universe list in error.
In the second sampling stage, inter-
viewers visited each selected facility
and systematièally selected a sample
of male and female inmates using
predetermined procedures. Approxi-
mately 1 in every 100 males were
selected in 4 strata, and 1 in 83
in the male stratum. Depending
on the stratum, 1 in 50, 25, 24, or 21
females were selected.
Estimates from the 1996 Survey of
Inmates in Local Jails are affected by
sampling and measurement errors.
Sampling error may occur by chance
because a sample rather than a
complete enumeration of the popula-
tion was conducted. Measurement
error can be attributed to nonresponse,
differences in the interpretation of
questions among inmates, recall diffi-
culties, and processing errors. In any
survey the full extent of the measure-
ment error is never known.
Estimates of the standard errors for
jail inmates identified as drug-involved
have been calculated for the 1996
survey of jail inmates (see appendix
Appendix table 1. Standard error estimation for measures of
drug involvement of Jail inmates, 1996
Standard errors for estimated percentaQes
All jail
inmates Convicted Unconvicted
Current drug offense
Possession 0.54% 0.72% 0.86%
Trafficking 0.45 0.55 0.81
Prior drug offense 0.71% 0.89% 1.13%
Prior drug use
Ever used drugs 0.59% 0.71% 1.06%
Ever used regularly 0.74 0.90 1.32
Intravenous drug use 0.60 0.77 0.95
Used in the month before 0.95
Used at the time of the offense 0.89
Committed offense to get
money for drugs 0.70%
...Not applicable.
10 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
tables 1 and 2). These standard errors
may be used to construct confidence
intervals around percentages. For
example. the 95% confidence interval
around the percentage of convicted jail
inmates who had active involvement
with drugs is approximately 65.5%
plus or minus 1.96 times 0.90% (or
63.7% to 67.3%).
Percent
of jail
inmates
Drug-involved in past 73.7
Actively drug-involved· 65.5
·Convicted inmates only.
Standard
error
0.68%
0.90
Appendix table 2. Standard errors
for selected characteristics of drug-
involved Jail inmates, 1996
Standard errors for
estimated percentages
Selected Active drug
characteristics involvement Other
Male/female 0.47% 0.50%
Race/Hispanic origin
White non-Hispanic 1.56% 2.02%
Black non-Hispanic 1.52 1.96
Hispanic 1.01 1.39
Other 0.42 0.79
Age
17 or younger 0.30% 0.41%
18-24 1.05 1.43
25-29 0.88 1.21
30·34 0.93 1.17
35-44 1.00 1.36
45-54 0.45 0.94
55 or older 0.13 0.58
Status at arrest
None 1.07% 1.57%
On parole 0.96 0.99
On probation 1.23 1.60
Pretrial 0.47 0.74
Baillbond 0.84 0.99
Escape 0.26 0.24
Criminal history
None 0.94% 1.41%
Priors 1.16 1.55
lolent recidivists 1.19 1.69
Drug recidivists only 0.45
Number of prIor
sentences to probation
or Incarceration
0 0.79% 1.21%
1 0.94 1.38
2 0.73 1.18
3-5 1.00 1.21
6-10 0.94 1.21
11 or more 0.74 0.77
...Not applicable.
These standard errors may also be
used to test the statistical significance
of the difference between two sample
-i.tatistics by pooling the standard
.errors of the two sample estimates.
Ftlr example, the standard error of the
difference between actively drug-
involved inmates on criminal justice
status and other inmates would be
1.90% (or the square root of the sum
of the squared standard errors for
each group). The difference would
be 1.96 times 1.90 (or 3.72%). Since
the observed difference of 13.7% (71.8
minus 58.1%) isgreater than 3.72%,
the difference would be considered
statistically significant.
Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ)
Since 1982 the Annual Survey of Jails
has provided baseline data to estimate
characteristics of the Nation's jails and
jail inmates. The reference date for the
1998 survey was June 30. A represen-
tative sample of jails was based on
information from the 1993 Census of
jails. The sample included jails in 795
jail jurisdictioñs and 25 multi-
jurisdiction jails.
Ajurisdiction is a county (parish in
Louisiana) or municipal government
that administers one or more local jails.
A multi-jurisdiction jail is one in which
two or more jurisdictions have a formal
agreement to operate the facility.
All of the multi-jurisdiction jails were
included in the survey. The remaining
jurisdictions were stratified into two
groups: jurisdictions with jails author-
ized to hold juveniles and jurisdictions
with jails holding adults only. All jails in
204 jurisdictions were included in the
survey if in 1993 the jurisdiction held
juveniles and had an average daily
population of 250 or more inmates, or if
it held only adults and had an average
daily population of 500 or more. The
other jurisdictions (591) were selected
based on stratified probability
sampling. The average daily popula-
tion is the sum of the number of
inmates in jail each day for a year,
divided by the number of days in the
year.
Data were obtained by mailed
questionnaires. After followup
telephone calls to non respondents, the
response rate for the survey was
100%.
Estimates based on data from the
Annual Survey of Jails have associated
sampling errors. The estimated
relative sampling error for the number
of jurisdictions that had a policy to test
inmates on June 30,1998. was 2.23%
and for staff 2.22% (see appendix
table 3).
Appendix table 3. Standard error estimation for measures of drug testing and
treatment in jail jurisdictions, 1998
Standard errors for estimated percenta!1es
Percent of
jurisdictions testin!1 Method of testin!1 inmates Method of testin!1 staff
On indication All at On indication All at least
Size of iurisdictlon Inmates Staff Random of use admission Random of use once a year
Total 2.23% 2.22% 1.73% 2.07% 0.44% 2.85% 2.88% 1.90%
Fewer than 50 Inmates 3.69% 3.70% 2.73% 3.41% 0.61% 5.44% 5.86% 3.52%
50-99 5.46 5.45 4.64 5.28 1.67 7.80 7.24 5.62
100-249 3.83 3.68 3.48 3.51 0.51 4.60 4.79 3.33
250499 2.33 2.63 2.66 2.53 0.53 2.79 2.82 1.35
500-999 1.19 1.56 1.41 1.36 0.45 1.23 1.20 0.03
1,000 or more 4.20 5.23 2.49 2.99 0.43 0.20 0.18 0.02
Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 11
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
is the statistical agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
JSn M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.
¡
B13 Special Reports address a
specific topic in depth from one or
more datasets that cover many topics.
This Special Report presents the
findings from 1998 Annual Survey of
Jails with a special addendum on
drug testing and treatment.
Doris James Wilson wrote this report
under the supervision of Allen J. Beck.
Paula M. Ditton provided statistical
review. Tom Hester edited the report.
Jayne Robinsop administered final
production.
Data collection and processing for the
Annual Survey of Jails were carried
out by Lisa McNelis, with assistance
from Henrietta Herrin, Martha Greene,
and Duane Cavenaugh, under the
supervision of Stephanie Brown,
Governments Division, U.S. Census
Bureau.
May 2000. NCJ 179999
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
12 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails
The primary sources of data for
tables presented in this report are
the Annual Survey of Jails, 1998,
and the Survey of Inmates in Local
Jails, 1996.
Data can be obtained from the
archive through 1-800-999-0960 or
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
NACJD/home.html
The archive may also be accessed
through the BJS website, where the
report, data, and supporting docu-
mentation are available:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
PRESORTED STANDARD MAIL
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
POLICY STATEMENT NUMBER 01~01
PROGRAM:
Wastewater
SUBJECT:
Design Standards for Site Constructed Elevated Fixed Media Filter
Vessels
PURPOSE:
Elevated containment vessels are subject to significant internal loads and stresses.
Internal loading must be considered in the system design in order to assure the structural
integrity of the vessel and to minimize the risk of vessel failure with consequent
treatment system malfunction.
APPLICABILITY:
This policy applies to any fixed media filter containment vessel intended to be installed
above natural grade that is site designed and constructed, including but not limited to
elevated sand filters and Glendon Biolfiltors.
POLICY STATEMENT:
Site designed and onsite constructed containment vessels for elevated fixed media filters
shall be designed and constructed so that the vessel will remain within original design
tolerances and vessel failure will not be a limiting factor in the useful life of the onsite
sewage system. Designs for elevated containment vessels shall be prepared by a
professional engineer licensed to practice in Washington State and shall bear the stamp of
the design engineer. In the absence of any other longer standard, the useful life of the
system shall mean a minimum of twenty (20) years in use.
This policy shall become effective on the date of adoption by the Jefferson County Board
of Health and shall remain in effect unless modified or repealed by the Board.
~ -ß-Q -~
Health Officer
~t'$J (el
Date
~ti::;~
Chairperson, Board 0 Health
,/ - It'.. ò /
Date
\\Healthserver\home\env _health\larry\My Documents\BOH Agenda\ Wastewater - Design standards for Site Construction.doc
12/13/00
I
I
.... '- ~
"
l
..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jefferson County Board of Health
FROM:
Larry Fay
Environmental Health Director
DATE:
January 11,2001
RE:
Draft Policy Statement - Fixed Media Filter Vessels
The enclosed draft has been submitted with no changes fìom the first draft. The essential
question raised by the Board in December had to do with the use of pressure treated
lumber to fìame a vessel and whether 20 years is a reasonable life expectancy for treated
wood in the soil environment.
Staffhas had an opportunity to discuss this issue with representatives of the wood
products industry. In short, the representative was able to confirm that the industry has a
rating system for treated wood products and that there are products rated for soil contact
that will perform for more than 20 years.
· """"" ...
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION.
"
l
,.
POLICY STATEMENT NUMBER
PROGRAM:
Wastewater
SUBJECT:
Design Standards for Site Constructed Elevated Fixed Media Filter
Vessels
PURPOSE:
Elevated containment vessels are subject to significant internal loads and stresses.
Internal loading must be considered in the system design in order to assure the structural
integrity of the vessel and to minimize the risk of vessel failure with consequent
treatment system malfunction.
APPLICABILITY:
This policy applies to any fixed media filter containment vessel intended to be installed
above natural grade that is site designed and constructed, including but not limited to
elevated sand filters and Glendon Biolfiltors.
POLICY STATEMENT:
Site designed and onsite constructed containment vessels for elevated fixed media filters
shall be designed and constructed so that the vessel will remain within original design
tolerances and vessel failure will not be a limiting factor in the useful life ofthe onsite
sewage system. Designs for elevated containment vessels shall be prepared by a
professional engineer licensed to practice in Washington State and shall bear the stamp of
the design engineer. In the absence of any other longer standard, the useful life of the
system shall mean a minimum of twenty (20) years in use.
This policy shall become effective on the date of adoption by the Jefferson County Board
of Health and shall remain in effect unless modified or repealed by the Board.
Health Officer
Date
Chairperson, Board of Health
Date
\\Healthserver\home\env _health\larry\My Documents\sewage\Wastewater - Design standards for Site Construction.doc 12/13/00
· .~,,". ,~_:_,.,..:...~ ~,~
Larry Fay
From:
Sent:
To:
.. Subject:
l
J
John Scott Fleming. P.E. Usfeng@olypen.com]
Wednesday, January 10,.. 2001 6:38 PM
Larry Fay
Re: Draft Vessel Standards policy
~
J$F Revisions to
Wastewater - ...
This is very simpler easy to understand, concise, easy to follow and
design
to, for all cases that I can think of. The engineer determines the
loads,
then designs a structure to resist them and retain shape for 20 years
under
normal operating conditions.
I suggested changing a Will to a Shall in the attachment.
You do not hold the engineer to conform to any rigid standards or codes,
allowing flexibility.
Some relevant design elements: Static dead loads, dry and wet. Live
loads.
Dynamic loads, earthquake analysis, liquefaction. Specify material type.
Specify compaction of earth fill. Set sampling spacing for compaction
testing. If concrete, specify site preparation, reinforcement, concrete
mixture, compressive strength, whether test cylinders will be used.
Good job.
JSF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Fay" <lfay@co.jefferson.wa.us>
To: <jsfeng@olypen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:39 AM
Subject: Draft Vessel Standards policy
>
> Hello John,
>
> Attached is a copy of the draft vessel construction standards policy
that
I
> have in front of the BOH next week. If you have a minute, can you take
a
> look at it? I would like to know if it is clear enough for you as an
> engineer to know what we want. I am trying to set a performance
standard
> rather than a proscriptive approach. Under this policy you could
construct
> an bottomless sand filter with a tqmped earth berm provided you as the
> designer will certify that at will stand up.
>
> Larry
>
> «Wastewater - Design standards for Site Construction. doc»
>
1
"
¡
..
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
POLICY STATEMENT
PROGRAM - On~site Sewage Disposal
SUBJECT - Review of Building Permit Applications
Effective this date the following procedure shall be adopted concerning review of
building permit applications on properties where there is an existing onsite
sewage system.
PURPOSE
Applications for building permits for properties selVed by on-site sewage systems
shall be approved only when the on-site sewage system has adequate hydraulic
and treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed construction and an
adequate repair area is available.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to building permit applications for new structures that contain
plumbing; ramadal£: :ldditians, alterations or remodels to existing structures that
contain plumbing; and structures not containing plumbing when the placement of
that structure may interfere with the performance of an existing onsite system or
the ability to replace the existing system.
I. Building permit applications shall include an accurate, to scale, record of the
site. The record shall show locations of existing and proposed buildings,
driveways, wells, water lines, surface water, significant land features (steep
slopes, drainage swales, rock outcrops) as well as the location of septic system
components and reserve/repair area. When the onsite sewage system has not
been installed, the locations of components shall be shown as portrayed on the
approved design.
II. Where there is sufficient information contained within the onsite sewage
system permit file to verify all of the fallawinq:
A. Tthat the system has adequate hydraulic capacity, and
B. The site has a designated reselVe, and
C. Aadequate vertical separation, then
the building permit may be issued. Generally, this means any system that was
permitted after July 1, 1983, and received approval from Environmental Health to
cover or received a final inspection, will be considered to be valid, except, that
Draft Policy
Review of Building Pennit Applications
page 1 of ¥
...
¡
..
those sites that do not have a dedicated reserve area established will be required
to identify a reserve area that complies with the onsite code in effect at the time
of the building permit application before a building permit will be issued.
III. Where there is a record of a permit having been issued and the system
received final approval or was given approval to cover by Environmental Health,
but there is insufficient information in the file to verify vertical separation or
horizontal setbacks, an assessment of the onsite sewage system shall be
required. System assessment may be performed by the Environmental Health
Division, a licensed Designer or Professional Engineer licensed in Washington.
A. All system assessments shall be submitted by the proponent to
Environmental Health, shall include the following information on a plot plan to
scale, be submitted on forms approved by Environmental Health and submit
fees for review.
1. Location of the septic tank and pump chamber (if present).
2. Location of the distribution box or beginning of the drainfield/distribution
system.
3. Length, width and depth of drainfield/distribution system.
4. Depth of usable soil to restrictive horizon (compaction or water table).
5. Soils information to assess a reserve/repair area. A minimum of two (2)
soil logs shall be provided in the designated area.
6. Location and source of drinking water supply.
7. Location of structures, driveways, surface waters and drainage ditches.
The plot plan shall include at least two (2) property lines as reference for the
onsite sewaqe system.
B. Where the site inspection verifies the followinçr
1. Tthat there is adequate hydraulic capacity, and
2. Horizontal setbacks conform to those established in Table I, WAC 246~
272 and
_3. There is sufficient area and soil for a conforming reserve area and
4. A minimum of three feet of vertical separation then aR4
vortic:) Cop3r3tion is less th3n throG feet, but gre3ter th3n one foot,
-the building permit may be issued.
C. Where the site inspection verifies 81, 2, and 3. And vertical separation is
less than three feet but qreater than one foot the buildinq permit may be
issued conditioned upon an annual monitoring inspection schedule. The
applicant/owner shall be required to enter into a monitorinq contract and
acknowledqement of the conditions of buildinq permit approval which may
include upqradinq the onsite sewaqe system as noted in # 4 below. The
annual monitoring inspection shall include a winter water table determination
Draft Policy
Review of Building Permit Applications
page 2 of 44
(during J::JnU3I)' or February) in addition to the standard monitoring schedule.
Winter water table monitoring sñall be conducted in the following manner:
~
;
..
1. Install two (2) monitoring ports on the contour and in the vicinity of the
drainfield system to a depth of three (3) feet below the bottom of the
drainfield.
2. The owner shall enter into a monitoring contract with an approved
monitoring entity to monitor the vertical separation of ground water to the
bottom of the system.
3. The system shall be monitored annually during the month of January or
February (the wet season)
4. A minimum of 12" of vertical separation shall be required. If a system
does not have 12" of vertical separation repair /upgrade to the system
shall be required within 2 years unless surfacing sewage is present in
which case repair is required within 90 days. (owner m3}' instaf.! curtaIn
dmjn or mako othor sito improvemonts ::md koop monitoring)
D. Where the site inspection verifies that B. 1. 2 or 3 are inadequate and/or
vertical separation is less than 12" then... a permit to repair/upqrade the system
shall be required prior to issuance of the buildinq permit.
IV. Non-residential structures that contain no plumbing shall be reviewed as
follows:
A. Lots of five acres or less -An accurate record shall be established of the
site and the existing onsite sewage system components, and a
reserve/repair area that complies with the code in effect at the time of the
building permit application will be evaluated. Record of the site and existing
system shall meet the standards of III.A. 1 - 7.
B. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is a permit on record and no
critical areas or surface waters exist within 200' of the onsite sewage
system area shall receive an administrative/office review of the plot plan
submitted. If the plan indicates no interference with the system and a
reserve area can be designated on the plot plan the building permit may be
approved. A field inspection may be required if it is determined to be
necessary, based on best professional judgement, to protect public health.
C. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is no permit record on file, or there
is a permit record on file, and critical areas or surface waters exist within
200' of the onsite sewage system area, shall provide an accurate record of
the following:
1. Location of the septic tank
2. Location and source of drinking water
3. Identify a reserve/repair area as described in III.A. 5.
Draft Policy
Review of Building Permit Applications
page 3 of ~
~
I
,.
IV. These procedures shall not be"used to assess unpermitted systems that were
installed since 1970 when an onsite sewage permit was required. These
systems were installed in violation of state and local codes and shall meet all
onsite sewage code requirements at the time of building permit application.
V. Approval will not be granted for a building permit where a failure of the onsite
sewage system is identified until an appropriate repair is permitted for the site.
V. This policy shall become effective on the date of adoption and remain in effect
until amended or repealed by action of the Jefferson County Board of Health.
Health Officer
Date
Chairman of the Board of Health
Date
H:\env_health\linda\gd\onsiteord\building permit application review3
Draft Policy
Review of Building Permit Applications
page 4 of ~4
"'.
,
.
..
Jefferson County Health and Human Services
DECEMBER 2000
NEWS ARTICLES
These issues and more are brought to you every month as a collection of news stories regarding
Jefferson County Health and Human Services and its program for the public:
1. "The domestic Peace Corps" - P.T. LEADER, December 20,2000
2. "Plenty of vaccine as flu season arrives here" ~ Peninsula Daily News, December 29,2000
3. "Flu vaccine still available" - P.T. LEADER, January 3,2001
"
;L..\'.'., '
r¡f'.:"·~
:·:rff~<q::, ..,'.
....\.\,,~ \\d,,,II\·: I' J I.l·,llJt'l.l\/I
,""
~
. - ----,----- - - .,.._,---,-
Alt:o. C¡¡ cnO.u' H h" Obl(U.ilfll':o. H ~,y 'II: ,'"'I.HH'L.. H lu·11
.-,----.,-.-.-....---..- -
\ 1:-'llur \'~b~1h.': ~)ì)' I'pl~·,I\-nlli:O'U'iI.\.'Um
The domestic Peace Corps
Two local graduates join Americorps in Jefferson County
Am<:ri( 'orps. hy ils very lilk. suggests thaI Iho$<;' who serve in Ihe k(kral wurk program travel f~r
from home. And although AmenCorps is Pn,'sldem Bill Chnton's domeslK version of the intenwlional
Peace Corps. thai assessment doe. nOI hold Irue in Jefferson Coullly. The IWO members currently
serving here are duing so in their own communities.
ROlh KalrinJ Eggen and Megan Tilus grew up in this counly and decided to stay after their recent
gradual ions from high school. They are twO of the 40,000 Americans who volunteer each year in
intenslvt', results-dnven service through AmeriCorps. Nationwide proJecls Include teaching children
tu read, building affordable homes, and responding to natural disasters. In Jefferson County, Ihese Iwo
AmeriCorps membt'rs join in communily health and conservalion efforts, and twu mort' are recruited each spring by the
Port Tu\.\nsend MJnne Science Center.
Both Eggen Jnd Titus receive living stipends and medical benefits and are expected 10 work 40 hours per week. One
year of AmeriCorps service qualifies each for an education award of $4,725, to help tinance college or to pay back
student loans.
Through tl'M!! Arn~¡CQrp\ program, Katrln.a Eggert. 19, brings he.h"h education ~es to students in NIt' nattve Pan Town..n<t_
Here $he Oln!j f3e,h Q;jIubnèr (Ien). on!!! Ollhe Mar Vista !iiUJðents in i!II weekly "c:ornmunity buHding" clilU, In a dil~cl,J$$IOn 01
~uÞ$t.< nçe ijbt,.Jse with.lil Jetlerson County Heal~h ;¡Ina Hum.an Service!. health èdl)Ç,IUor, PhQrO$ /;Iy Shelly Te$tet"miln
Eggert: Community health mentorship
8y S.ht=lIy Testerman
Lt~dt'f ~t.att Writ@1"
--
Kalnna. Eggen IS, a 1999 graduate of Port Townsend
HIgh Sçhool ood plo" 10 oppty 10 Ih< Emity Corr 011 ,çhool
In Vancouver, B,C.. for (he fall quane-I" of 2001. She say!.
(he timing of her II-month AmeriCorp$ commi1menl
work~d oul pertee-Ily, and ¡he schol:HShip provided will
assist hc;r fu!urt: s.rtJdi~s.
"( JUSI applied and crossed my fingers," said Eggcn.
··It \Alas spur of (h<: momenl, but II was really whu I was
lookIng for,"
Th~ I~.y~ar.old ¡5 ¡he
scçond .~mc=riCorps volun-
(~cr hlr~d by Jeffcrson
Counly Hcailh .1nd Human
Se-rvlc~s to serve as a h~allh
t:ducallon program assls-
lant. Lh[ year's volunltl:r
""'as N;Hhan Hamm, a POri
TOI,I,'n..t:nJ High S¡:;hQo!
.:t!umnus \!Io'ho :-ie-tlicd afl("r
gradu;\(IJlI!. (tom Whitman Collcg~.
Eg~~¡1 repone=d to work al the- h¡:¡¡.ilh depanml!;nl Oct.
and \L'lOn rt..iliz(;d sh~ l,I,'ol.dd b¡: (.:ormJeted one of Ih~ slaff
H~r rI\~nIOf, h~Jllh CdU!';illor K~III~ Ka.gan, Ins sl~ Egg~rI
rl;;ï~r 10 Ih:r .t:-i UJ çoJlI!:\g.Ut" rather Ih;¡n "[he b05>s .
Th!;': ¡WI) hild ~t 11:111 ~.o I(lllng local bUSln.:=~~t":o. on
Hi.I\(o....."~-n In ~()..(um.:=, uf lOUr"!'" - I\~( t!(lniitI\Hl.... ¡i [he
S H A K E p(\I~r'lf1\ Thl... 1'-, on!,: of b.~¡;;cr!·~ prllT';!ry µto t=l'I:o.
.Iod \.rnbi>dl~:-' ]lI~( (lfl!." of [lit: ""loll... ill ,H:t~lnym:"o" ~11\' ha.,;
¡JL"'(,.\J~.:r..:d wtHk ...or ,,:lll~ 111 !!.iIVl.:flll1ll·!\!
SH -\/J: t-: (S,.lrl Hf.'lrln~ ,\dl)k"l'l'nt ~ ¡{(',Il h .-..11. h nlhn,
is a (~en pf1::gnancy prevention p..ogram aC Blue ti~ro 'l Middle
School (or which Eggcn is ~c:ruÎung 6th-gradcn. She plan5
the fun activities -like completing a ro~s course or learn·
ing African drum"ung - ¡hat hdp you'hs d".lop h..hhy
deci!ion~makin8 and social skilll_ Eggen is thrill~d to ~
panicipating in ~hi$ risk. manage-ment research program
funded by thl; Univer5ily of Washinglon.
Her sccond projecl involve!. tobacco awareness, edu-
cating aboul the dangers of secondhand s.mok.e,
'ï'm working very hard," $ays Eggen. "H¡t.rdt:t Ihan I
ever have before." She considet"s her AmcriCorps experi-
ence to b~ an inlcnsc
mentorshíp - one for
which she IS paid, "so it's
o «oily good d.ol."
'ït's very new for me
becau:!:\! I·....e ncver had Ihe'
9-10-5 Job:' "y' Egg<rI.
·'It's. a lot of preparing
mc=:nlall~. too:' More: oflc:=n
Ihan not. s.he fm<.J:s ht:r~t:H
thinking abolll her social
wOtk t:'Y'~n afler the work day has ended,
For a young person wi¡h a background In se.r....lce work
and u:ambuilding bUI nol muçh in Iht: way of ~tH:¡¡¡1
senl'\ces, Iht job ha~ bet:n t:nlighlening In more W¡¡y:li
Ihan one.
A(te( years of puhl1¡; s¡;hooliog. Eggt:rI hi.l~ dlsco,,(:r('d
Ihal ~he- I~ J~flnlldy II h~nd.'i·on I~arnc=:(. '·Rouk. :';ludYII1~,
I rt:a.lly Juo·t gC-i mu¡;h \H. I or II h JU:->I gO(;~ 10 one: CM ;\l1t!
OUI Ih(' olh~r." ~h~ ""I y:'i , Am~rlC()rp~ hils pruvlJeJ her wlih
¡J'~ ~IVenll(' fur ~u,:llon, ·'11\ "It.:~ \t) b~ ;:¡ble: Hlloo '¡' ,II !I Id.¡.\.·
II \¡ .L Ic:lfnll\~ oppOI'lUlllly ItJ I1llllJ \111." Eg.~ctl '.~y..;
"I'm working very hard. Harder
than I ever have before:'
Katrina Eg9ert
AmeriCorps volunte-el'
eH~r'Son County Health and Human Set-v1(e1
~64 D e:lZ-
1"2--' 20 - C()
Mlt"Qan T1tu$, '8, wades Into Chlmac:um Ct~k In her wQf"k wllh th@' ~ff~rson County
Con$l!!r'Vatlon District ~ AmeriCOl"p$ vOlynleer says growing up on a Qullceoe
liinn eft4lble5 her to CQnnect with rile fanners tsrge1i11'O for im~l¡ng local wale'
quality.
Titus: Conservation field
By Shelly T~nerman
l~d~ Stan wri(ø
Megan lilus grew up On a. farm I.n Quilccme and ~membcrs wh/=I\ ~M- finc came
into contact with the Jeffe.rson County Conservation Disa-tC;I, '!hey Cil.m~ oul and
fenced off our !ìrream so the canle couldn'l gel in," sh~ r~calls. y¡:;u-::¡ h:'I.IC=(.
, Aside from [híU. the 18.ycar-old had no prC:VIOus e.(,~nc:ncc In ¡he field of
conservalion before açc~pl ng an AmeriCorps pO~llIon wllh the (.:1Jf1:'ie-rvarion
dislricl OCI. 16,
Titus saw the posilion advertised In ¡he newspaper and dC'l.ïdt:'d II fll Yo'uh hcr
long. term goals. 'Î1IIS was pan of my plan to d~cldt:' wh~lhcr I w3.ot 10 go mto
i"t'Sloratlon."" s.ays (h~ recenl Ch¡macllm High Scnt,)Ol ~r;)dual(; "This gave' me' iJ.
yeal' Q figure il oul "
Like: E.ggen, Tirus I:" ooly Ih~ sl:Cl)nd Ame:nCorps voluol~("r 10 wOl'k 1oI,'I(h (~
I.:Onservallon dl$(nl.:1 The first was Bnan raylor. a POr1. T01A<n:\-l:nú High $chool
g.raduatc who :\U'Ved ~dlcr recei.....lng his cnvlronnl~nljl sC",cnç(' ¡Je~rc:'e r'rom
Willamcuc UniliC"r:wy..Blll unlik.e Eggen, Titus bc:long:o. (IJ J :-UbSc:'1 uf ,-\m~flCot'p1o
called the: Was.hlnglol~ Cons~rvi'\lion Corps, wh¡t.:h LS ,b:-(M':IOIIt:tt Io\Ollh Ih~ .'\I.u~
Oepa.rtm~nI of El.:ol )~y
Her lÍlr'ecl C-IIlpli.lY":r'. [nC" l..:ulIsc-rvil l¡) } dl~lrll·l. provhlt:" It·\"hrIlL'.¡1 .I:O'''I:-.I;II1L.... III
L'lHlrlly !;¡nl!uwlIcl:o., ['IIII~ l:,,,p';lln~ Ih;¡1 11'-, IlXI..... lHl ~.IIL·f ~ILlall \ IIIL·~III... ¡hi..' :-1,llt
l)flçlll."()nlçS Inln conl;¡<.:I ......tlh ;1~1'Ii..'\IU\lrid ll(XTiI!lIH\!<.
KI\\'WII\¡.!. 111;¡(l~ \.1 tht: luc.d lilflll{ï~ h;l~ hl.· p{'¡ rlhl'" ,,'lUuhIIlIL';¡I[.' Iht:
~t~'I!:" nTUS f'dQt! e :)
~ - ,
"
,
f
..
r./)
z
~, t' . ~"":~':dt
. '. ,:,;.~!;/(
~"":X.,......-."..t~~
. ,'::." ~:;~ " :~;((:¡.:,"~,:,
~'
~ ~
G)
I.
G)
.c:
en
G.)
>
.-
I.
I.
C\1
C
o
f/
C\1
G.)
en
::I
-
"-
en
ca
G.)
c
.-
u
u
ca
>
II-
o
~
....
I:
CÞ
-
A.
...c: B
>,.!!fJ '"0 g -:5 <û O
g...c::<::9..::>§g ~ 13r:::-:5
N13<û8d 13¡:: ~§~i¡i
.....N 6'. <: ¡¡¡ ¡¡ 0 >, " c.....::>
., ¡:;''':: 6 " 0 ¡¡ ., :r. õI
Et~¡¡~~S :S:¡s,.-ê."
., O '" 0'- ; 8 oj....: > .... " ~
~ ~] C.) =s (0 ~ ~.5 ~.Ë f;J" _ .
Z " ¡;j ~ ...c:. ¡¡:S ~:S ~ "..£ ~ :-a
., .~ ., t>I>... B .... '" ":S c.:.: '" ijj
-:5 O 1i':: ~ c...;:: g¡";5. ." 1:>.,
B N ;¡ i1~ ~ $ ~ 0 $ -5 ¡¡¡ .,...c:
5 " " .. '" 0..c:: 3..-<: O ., > '"
!!f>,,"O.,....-<:,,'-~E:a~..
I-ICufu~Q)~~o 0 .. t-i
~ .5 ~ "g .a ~ ~ E b ~ ~ :¡ ~ ~
8~" u ~ ~ 0 ..o..~ - § a § 05 ~
< is ~ ~.~:s! -5 :::: ;t ¿ :9 ¿ " i1
c.~ > <:.~ 0'- <: 0 <: I::.~
~ -<: ~ 1.9 E...c: ~ ,_"._ O -<:
! f",.... ""1:::1 (l)
0:; O........::J '"3 I ...r::
E...¡ '" "¡c";:¡ 0" .: å; ,,'"
E .:!3 $ Õ " æ "5J 'õ 8 -5 11 t!
§~~~55~~E ~:~~
O t>I>"...c: ~ _ c.." ~ 0 > ....
:.2s~~e:r.~ o,,2~
~:-' ~ ~...c: ~ ": ~ .:!J ö c. ~
;@~¥~$13-5 ~~~1!
:a - ~ -<: ., ... .: o~· -e
.~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .!i s ~ ~ 6 gj ¡¡¡
ª...c: E ~.~ g'2 ~ C § g¡ -ë
" ~ @ 1í ~ '2 ...c: .::"., 0
t>I>~".,~.,"!i :s!.,:§g.
.5 c.·æ ~ r.f.¡ ~ 1J o...¡ 12 -:5 .- 1:1::
§ 8. "'...c: .; 8 g¡oiJ g¡ !! -5 1:>.. .;
g, ., ~ 13 ã § '$ .= ¡; ,,¡ ~ ìJ §
;:::I ~ .., ¡:: '8 ,J:::¡ ~ Q.\ ~.r.... .... ~ ~
., ....::< ~ 'iiJ .... .... -5 g ª ã! '0. :;¡ c.
-<:s~C>,o<l/....." "'!Roa
f'~ .5-E.'fii'iä ~c ¿ ¡::;ü ~
. ....
......0 -<:g.',o .,.,;
5 <0 ill! ~ '" ¡::., ";5. .;;
>, E ill t>I> '" iII.S ... ¡¡¡
~~ - ¡:: r::...,a «J .
...c:"~~·õJ...c:. Ë"sg",~~~
"'~c,¡s,""-:"., ~:;¡.;¡~!::
~ ¡¡¡ ~ <II ê ~ ~:Ö.5·~ 'E ....f: þ:
.<:>., ".....1::<:0 2::;oill...
i ;; -5 -ä 0 ~:3 5. ~ :r: ~ ~ ~ 'g-
...c:...c:~~!i_ ...c:...c:>, >"'0
"'13òJ-6I::;a.........~...c:Eillo"
" iII...c:·s:' ~ " ~ gj '" .s::; E '"
<;:: -:5 ~ :~ïij "2 .:...c: <: l !:; E j¡ "
'" ..... ¡.... .:: ... ",.a.!:: @ ill '" ill .... ..
..... 0 .'~ . I:: ....:.: .,..c ....c:
::!'......!i..-: !õf!i -e]"iII '" <::..~ >,
- f!J 0 '" ~ - õ3 .....,::> t>I>-"
3! c"<::'¡:: ~ 'ª ill " oi ~ E ¡:: i g¡
",,<II.c..."'...c:...Sill8°c,...
°gj1!.~o .."iII-<::a.~80¡¡¡
"5J»-<:"'gj2.g....<!j...¡¡¡:r:iII
.2J .S! .~ !i 1;j E ~ ° :a I:: ~ @ = ~
~] ~ 1! ~] -5 ::; g¡ .s èj õI ...c:
(JJ £r~ ~ ,.j
= ~ ~ ~. ~ - .... '>
$ .~ ~ ~ -= "2 '" ~ § ~ ] '6
~ ~ ~ ".5. ~.s ~ ~ 'ijj u ~
Z iII¡.... .:: <: ~..... ..... '" c '"
-<: ~ !i ~ ~ ~ 6 ."J':; ~ æ '¡::
~;30b.C·t:.we .!a~~~~ ~
gj C."5J.5..â ......,. 1:> '" ª 1; ~
:r: ~ " ~ r.f.¡ & ~ ~ ~ . .2;0. ]¡
~~';~~5o g¡..::>~!; ~~
...c:...." >,<0.... ill ~_ iîS",
" "';;' '" ",. s .J:) ., 1.9 E.-: .,-5
:I., ¡;¡ 0 ¡¡¡ " <::;::: . <:: '-...c:...c::>'<"
~ '" 5. ~ ~ ð '!i ð"g ß;&:.-::: ~.~
.,210-<: -"'''.."......:Z
iII"'.....¡.....c::::,,-<:>c::0O 21
~ ~ ill -<: .=: :r:'2 " ill '" r ~] '"
"æ::':: g t>I> g¡ ill '5 g¡ -<: -<: OJ .... '" 3
~ ill''':: 5-<:-= ill Êf':: ê g¡~:.::
> .: I:: ... ill :a -<: '"' "......¡"
~~ 86-5uE-t..... ..o'"":t~ ¡;;o
Q) Q)
;: u
.Ss
~ °
0...c:
u +-->
-
,-., C\S
~ Q)
V)...c:
.~~
CP-.
.-
- .-J
U~
.s ê
~ ~ -8 ~ ~ 1;5
.-....... .....-..
<::...> ."J<:Q.
.;::.j¡;:¡ "':':: ill
<W . <;:: :ê ~.g
1; 2 ~ s.-....
tj§.c -g~~
·g8 :::: gj ~ ß
E:¡:::1ij .J:o~
:~~ c96
.... v ~ "1.. tJ
]¡2 EO 6......,
a ~ ~ 1: ~-5
~~~ [~~
~;;.8 ~~ .§]
¿~:S~~~~
.: "(¡j:::: ¡.... a. 0
- 0 !1) ~ 0.1:
ii:r: '" ".....
'"
'"
~ "'
~ f:;
;z
>;
.~
""¡o
ø. ..
::¡ -
- ;:¡
:!: "'
~~
>- ~
a< 0...
)
'""-
,
.
4
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader
/--3 -2ðol
Flu vaccine still available
No special clinics, simply visit health department
, Those people who waited to get a flu shot
tJ:ùs flu season so that high-risk patients could
obtain the vaccine need wait no longer.
Jefferson County Health and Human Ser-
vices still has flu vaccine available.
, "We wish to thank those who were at
lo,w risk for complications of influenza for
..v,aiting to get their flu vaccines this year,"
said public health nurse Jane KUrata. "This
allowed us to try to protect people in
higher risk groups with the first supplies
of the vaccine."
. No more specified flu clinics are sched-
uled, but members of the general public who
wish to reduce their chance of catching in-
fllJenza may come to the health department's
régular walk-in immunization clinics from
I to 3 p.m. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thurs-
days through January.
The immunization is $8. No insurance
other than Medicare will be billed. Those on
Medicare should bring their cards with them.
Influenza vaccine is indicated for:
. persons age 65 and older.
· residents of nursing homes.
. adults and children, including preg-
nant women, who have chronic heart, lung
or kidney disease, diabetes or other seri-
ous chronic health problems, including
asthma.
· persons who are less able to fight infec-
tion because of HIV infection, other immune
system disorders, long-term treatment with
steroids or cancer treatment.
. children and teenagers on long-term
treatment with aspirin, who if they catch in-
fluenza, could develop Reye's syndrome.
. women who will be in the second or
third trimester of pregnancy during the flu
season (beyond three and one-half months
pregnant).
· health care providers and close friends
and family of persons at high-risk for flu, to
reduce the possibility of spreading the flu to
these persons. '
· anyone wanting to decrease his or her
chance of catching influenza.
The Jefferson County Health and Hu-
man Services Department is located in the
Castle Hill Center, 615 Sheridan St., Port
Townsend.
2 49 5 ~o~Jf~wn~~d?WRø3/jjj d .
(206)385-7155
Good Man Sanitation
Portable Toilet Rentals
To: Larry Fay, Director of Environmental
From: Good Man Sanitation
Subj: New Septic System Rules
Health
J4~,1 } i~'
.'j;
~ ,'. I
On September 16, 2000 the Jefferson County Board of Health
Made revisions to the local onsite sewage code. Included in the
revisions are new requirements for inspection at the time of sale
as well as other provisions including on-going 0 & M requirements,
something which is long overdue.
Inspections can be done only by licensed d~signers, licensed
engineers, or the Environmental Health Divisinn. We take
exception to this for the following reasons:
1. There is not enough staff in these disciplines who want
t 0 dot h e \'10 r k .
2. It is an added cost to the ho~eowner.
3. Hampers timely real estate transactions.
4. Potential conflicts of interest. Designers inspecting
other designers, themselves, etc.
5. We have trained personnel who were already performing
similar inspections for real estate and lending institutions.
Enclosed is a copy of the form Good Man uses for the
inspection. Over the years we have performed this service for
countless customers. We have more contact with the homeowners
once the system is up and running. Our enployees are experienced
with the inspection process and we carry liabil ity insurance.
We have found no jurisdiction which has a test for the
inspector. According to Dave Snyder of the Kitsap Co. Health Dept.,
their county has developed an 0 & M test which he feels would be
overkill for an inspector. There, any 0 & r1 certified person can
perform inspections. Enclosed is an overview of the Kitsap Co.
o & M program. We· feel there should be criteria developed soon for
a test which, when passed, would allow anyone demonstrating the
desire and ability to perform these inspections to do so.
This would:
1. Speed up the processes.
2. Facilitate real estate transactions.
3. Lower costs to Jefferson Co. homeowners.
Respectfully,
&j)i)~
cc: Linda Atkins, Jefferson Co. Health Dept.
Jefferson Co. Commissioners
Jefferson Co. Board of Health
Jefferson Co. Board of Realtors
2
'{
..
J<
..
."
GCX)D MAN SANITATlOO
2495 Cape GeOrge Road
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
( 360) 385-7155
Name of Evaluator:
Property Address:
Date:
Property Age:
System Age:
Occupied :
Yes
No
N\lI1'\bE!r of Bedrocms:
Last Pump Da.te:
Length of Time vacant:
Access Provided to House:
Yes
No
Recent weather conditions:
NC1l'ICE: 00 NOT PUMP THE SYsrEM IF THE WASTE LEVEL IN THE TANK IS AOOVE æ BELa\' THE NORMAL
LEVEL, OR IF THERE IS SATURATION IN THE ABSORPTlOO ARElI..
.
Standing water in the drainfield indicates poor soil porosity or a possible failed line. A
high waste level indicates a problem that nay be difficult to determine once the system has
been~. A low waste level suggests recent tank pumping or jX>ssible tank leakage. Pump-
ing the tank at this ti1æ may mask a problem.
PROCEDURES (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES)
LoCated, uncovered, and accessed tank.
Determined sludge depth and llquid level (If liquid level above or below normal, 00 NO!' PUMP!)
Probed and checked absorption area to determine location and checked for excessive m:>isture, effluent,
and/or odor.
Introduced water into system (100 - 200 gallons) Source of water:
ccnnode
faucet
tub
other
Checked liquid level reaction (If it remained above the normal level, 00 NC1l' PUMP!)
Pumped out tank. CAUrrOO: OOLY PUMP our THE TANK IF THE LIQUID LEVEL IS OORMAL AND THERE IS 00 FIELD
SA'IURATICN .
Checked condition of tank and baffles/tees for cracks, deterioration or danage. If applicable, checked
cesspool walls for settlement and/or partial cave in.
PrOferly closed tank cover.
Returned the rem:>ved sod or re-seeded (returned earth to as close to it's original condition as p:>ssible
Liquid level in tank is:
Maintenance appears:
above normal
goad
normal
fair
below normal Sludge depth
poor Depth of lid
TYPE OF SYSTEM
septic tank (# of tanks~)
TYPE OF TANK
steel
TYPE OF ABSORPTICN AREA
leaching field
cesspool
concrete
raised IIDuod
aeration system
fiberglass
seepage pit # of pits
other
Tank size:
gals
other
SYSTEM ~ CŒDITIOO <.X.MIDfi'S
Tank or Cesspool _Acceptable ~ Unacceptable
Holding tank (if present) _Acceptable ~Unacceptable
N/A
Pump _Acceptable ~ Unacceptable
_N/A
Absorption System _Acceptable _Unacceptable
,
:.
1
.,
..
o:MPlINY DISClAIMER
Based on what we were able to observe and our experience with OI1-site wastewater technology, we sutndt this
Sewage Treabnent Inspection Report based on the present condition of the on-site sewage treabnent system.
Good Man Sanitation has not been retained to warrant, guarantee, or certify the proper functioning of the
system for any period of tiræ in the future. Because of the nl.1!ærous factors (usage, soil characteristics,
previous failures, etc.) which nay affect the proper operation of a septic system, as well as the inability
of our ccrnpany to supervise or 100m tor the use or naintenance of the system, this repJrt shall not be
construed as a warranty by our canpany that the system will function properly for any particular buyer.
Good M:In sanitation discla:i1æ any warranty, eitherexpœssed or iDplied, arising fran the inspection of the
septic system or this report. We are also not ascertaining the impact the system is having on the
groundwater.
INSt'Ð:::',l'J:r«; cx:K>ANY
GCXJD MAN SANITATION
2495 CAPE GEDRGE RD.
PORI' 'la'1NSEND, WA. 98368
PHONE AND FAX (360) 385-7155
I acknowledge that I have studied. the information contained herein and that my assessment is honest, thorough,
and, to the best of my ability, correct.
NAME
TITLE
BE:[Øf, EXPLAIN NæESSARY REPAIRS wrm ær:IMA'l'ID CU3T 'ID a:ERI'CI', AUH; wrm SKE'lUI œ SYS'J.'Ð( LCCATICN.
K I +s-ap Co.
fEE ~
:-'!E:Vl0#
DA TE
o & 1\1 ANNUAL REPORT FORi\t1
EDIT
Nam<: ofOwn<:r
Assessors ACCOWH ::-
Nam<: of Business UIApplicablej
"
Describe Typ<: '( ex. Resr:mranl Hair Salon, etc.)
"
Site Address
City
PRE-TREA TvIENT DEVICEi :V!A~UFACTl"RER (<:.g. Sandtilter. Aerobic ere.):
CHECK :\LL THAT APPLY:
Residential (R-1J: ,= High Risk CJ Low Risk
Disinfection: C T.S.l
r'"1 T.S.2
Commercial (C): :::::; High (C~/)
::::2 Medium (C-l)
,:::3 Low (C-3)
SA.tvIPLING SCHEDULE
pH
DISSOLVED
OXY:~~~.
e".. (D~O~5:,:~::. ..
RESULT "DATE " RESULT,
...
, ., ,.. CHLORINE ....
... )~.EsII>.UAL' OTHER~: ,'/t';;
.(IfrequÍred) ..' _>,.,. ".;-'
DATE RESULT .TYPE·DATE~. RESULT
". ". ~_. __-' ;:"''''T .,,!' I '~~.' ~.... .. ~':. ~~~." _ .~, ..~,,~~-
.:' ,- t-~: ." ... ' , ." . ",:; :";",,
........:
~,.,....:..
:"··'I:~ERÄ·TURË
~ ...:. ,''': '
'.._ ,_, or
DATE
'DATE""_ RESULT
",
. .!.~ 'J
--
, , , " ...~ 'c
¡-~.;=-i'''::''.
.- "
-' '1'-
--
-.
.. .;:..: "',.
'.
..
"".-~.: .. .~
..._:_.;~:~-¿~,:~~~~ ..
--.
",
RECORD OF MEASUREl\1ENTS
, ..
HOTJRc:::;--c,
ÑttTEIt::
,
."
'. ":¡. .
.. ". ;
..
D~;;,~.::;~:> .c.. . "i~9,~~I~~~:~La:;.;~~~~~·V~l~é~.~.¿.
,,:~~~~;:~~~~.~,:_;:::,::-=- " " . ,"--~IN FEE,1:};:':,...·, ._... ._··U5'4ßE;.;·.'~·'
,,",." ". ,': '--~.~ ···~~·':""-···"~·';~'::',:""·~··<'2~,; :;&¡(Ã;~:~Gi,~G~~;;
..D1\,'EE-:;'... "",:'.: :~CO:tJllf11BJl_ .
-': '~;:, .SErtIN:G::\·
I.. M .
'. '
, .
,-
"
"j .. p" . ;:i~~ I.·.·.
--
..
.. u.p.. .-.
INSPECTION ACTIVITY: Check all applicable boxes located on the back of this page.
Note: All activities listed which are applicable to the on-site sewage disposal (OSS) system serving this site, must be
inspected and checked off. incomplete reports will be returned to the Maintenance Specialist with a resubmittal fee.
COlVIl\1ENTS: Briefly descri~e any of the following activities that have occurred during the contract period: Additional
inspections not listed above; Clarifications from the Inspection Activity checklist on the_ back of this page. and/or; Indications of high
waste strength, toxic discharges. repairs or malfunctions. List daters) when they occurr,Ç!d or were observed
...
ass SYSTEM STATUS:
WORKIN'G SATISFACTORILY _WORKING/CORRECTIONS NEEDED*
(* Explain under "COMMENTS" section above.)
_FAILURE *
Compâny Näi-ne
L~~. ."1" ,n '~"'." '.
- Contract' date; from .
-....-"..\
._".. .
.. .. -; ,~.
'.",''';:,
SIGN~TlJ1tE:OFMAlrm:NANCESPEclÁLIS'rX ..".' ..' Dat~':':_ .!!.
,This n'pOrt indic,.œs tbe ~ondirionorrhe above on·.ile sewage symn .t ¡he rime ofinspecti<>n' d.!/ÙL' If 00'" nO! patin'" thai il will con/;nuo 10 function oaIirf&e:lotily.
I I. :~. _.,1",... I;,.".... ............., { .1.....,0(, I {/flt!
SEPTIC
TANK nspection: (. ate (dale)
Depth or Boating mat in 1st companment ~ inches ~ inches
Depth of sludge in I st compartment ~ inches - inches
Depth of floating mat in 2nd compartment ~ inches - inches
Depth of sludge in 2nd compartment ~ inches - inches
Emuent baffle screen accessible, in place rJ YES :NO. [YES ~NO. -
Emuent baffle screen cleaned: eYES :NO. : YES DNO.
Watertight (no visual leaks), including risers: eYES :nw. :. YES [j NO.
Risers & lids in good condition, lids securely fastened: CYES DNO. JYES UNO.
Settling, erosion or ponding problems: :; YES. DNO ~YES. eND
Septic Tank Pumping Recommended: ;: YES. .. 0 NO :J YES. eNO
TANK
Vault screen, cleaned: I] YES ,--NO. eYES eND.
Floats functioning properly: eYES eNO. o YES o NO.
Pump Draw Down: - Inches/min. - Inches/min.
Risers and lids good condition, lids securely fastened: CYES eNO. :::YES eNO.
Watertigþt (no visual leaks), including risers: JYES CNO. eYES oNO.
Settling, erosion and/or ponding problems: DYES. ::;NO : YES. :JNO
Pump Tank Pumping Recommended: DYES. CNO :J YES. ONO
Unusual amount of sludge, scum: CYES. DNO :¡ YES. =' NO
BUTION (D) BOX - if accessible
Equal distribution of effluent to each lateral: DYES eNO. :J YES eNO.
SIONVALVE
Wastewater being diverted to COITect drain field: DYES DNO. CYES DNO.
OLPANEL
Timer settings ~ ON _OFF - ON - OFF
Alarm working satisfactorily: DYES ONO o YES DNO
FIELD (dt) PROTECTION
Graded properly for surface water run off: DYES DNO. DYES ONO.
Downspou,ts diverted away from drainfield: DYES DNO. DYES DNO.
Evidence of vehicular or livestock traffic over df: DYES. DNO DYES. DNO
Encroachment on df, i.e. buildings, driveways, etc.: DYES. DNO SYES. DNO
Y DRAINFIELD
Settling, erosion or ponding problems in dfarea: DYES. ONO· DYES. DNO
RE DRAINFIELD
Settling, erosion or ponding present in df area: DYES. DNO [1 YES. DNO
Laterals flushed: DYES DNO. DYES DNO.
All laterals have equal flow and residua! pressure
(measured at the distal end of each lateral): DYES DNO. eYES DNO.
S (including Glendon BioFilters)
Seepage around toe of mounds observed: OYES. \JNO Lj YES. :JNO
Structural integrity and ground cover ok: DYES ONO. DYES DNO.
Equal dosing to multiple modular units·GJendo:¡ only: eYES IJNO. :J YES DNO.
IL TER
An laterals have equal flow and residual pressure DYES DNO. DYES DNa.
(measured at the distal end of each lateral):
Laterals flushed (individuany): DYES eNO. DYES oNO.
,
Grade and cover meets requirements: DYES C MO. DYES ONO.
Pump basin installed in sandfilter (see "PUMP TANK" section above).
IC TREA TMENT UNIT
Air supply working satisfactory: o YES o NO. DYES DNO.
Alann working satisfactory: DYES DNO. DYES ONO.
Settleble Solids, Sludge level measured: DYES DNO. DYES DNO.
Unit needs to be pumped: DYES. :JNO o YES. eNO
ECTION UNIT
Unit working as expected: DYES GNO. o YES DNO.
Chlorine tablets in place: DYES DNO. DYES DNO.
UV Bulb replaced: (date) (date)
ECTION UNIT
Unit working as expected: DYES DNO. DYES DNO.
Chlorine tablets in place: DYES o NO. o YES o NO.
UV Bulb replaced: (date) (date)
L'lSPECTION ACTMTY (check boxes as applicable)
I d )
PUMP
DlSTRI
DIVER
CONTR
DRAIN
GRA VIT
PRESSU
MOUND
SAND F
AEROB
DlSINF
DlSINF
MINIlVIUM CONSTRUCTION & COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPERA TION & MAINTENANCE ACCESSIBILITY
1.. Control panê1 with programmable timer and counter, and alarm.
2. Riser on pump tank (sealed and watertight) with finnly secured lid, Le., hex bolts or
locking devise (a 1000gal.liquid capacity pump tank is required for surges of use).
3. Screw caps at ends of laterals. ~
4. Clean outs brought up to finished grade or enclosed within riser. Maximum
angle permitted is 90 degrees (should be 2-45degree fittings).
5. Orifice holes must be faced at 12 o'clock position (may have t¡J1d hole facing down for
drainage).
6. Orifice shields required or cover with length oflarger diameter pipe cut lengthwise.
7. Ball or gate valves on laterals near manifold if instaJled On a slope.
8. When a pressure drainfield is installed on a slope downslope from the septic tank:
A. Install dosing tank (pump tank) below drainfield and have the pump line enter the
manifold from the bottom. If this pump location would not allow for inspection and/or service of
the tank, the pump tank will be placed upslope of the drain field next to the septic tank.
B. Construct! install anti-siphon devise in pump tank to avoid siphoning downslope to
drainfield area, and install ;
C. Pressure/valved manifold (located at top of draìnfield) used with a separate line to each lateral or;
D. Hydroteck valve (mechanical ratchet) or;
E. Some other device that assures equal distribution of all laterals and keeps the bottom
latera[ from being overloaded.
9. Check valves on manifold between laterals if installed on a slope, to prevent effluent
from running to bottom lateral and overloading the bottom lateral.
[0. Valves must be Schedule 40 or greater..
II. Valves acccessible within riser.
12. All piping must be a minimum of Class 200 ( laterals, manifold and transport
pipe).
13. Septic tank filter required, unless followed by a dosing (pump) tank where a screened vault filtet
surrounding the pump will be required (note: maximum pump capacity when using a sceened vault is
30 gal.!min.). It will be recommended to have both filters.
14. Minimum number of doses/day will be set for six (set on control panel).
IS. Riser on septic tank (sealed and water tight) with firmly secured lid, Le. hex bolts or locking devise
and a riser above septic tank filter (if used) will be required.
16. Observation ports installed
Pressure Svstems (wl1en /JIlmn tank is installed below draintield):
1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, SA, 9,10,11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Pre-utlre Systems (when Dtlmn tank is installed above drain/ie/d):
1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, SA, 8(8, C, D, or E), 9, 10, I\, 12, 13, 14, 15,16.
Sand Filter:
1,2,3,4,5,6,10, II, 12, 13,15, 16
IS. Minimum number of doses/day wiII be set for twelve (12).
16. Observation ports:
a) Installed in sand filter at gravel and sand interface.
b) Installed in drainfield within ten (10) ft of beginning of eacn line and one
within ten (10) feet of the end of each line.
Pressure /vIOlmdr (when DtlmD Mnk is installed below mound):
1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8A, 10, I 1,12, 13, 14, IS,
16. Observation ports: Installed in middle of mound at a.) the depth of the mound and original ground
interface and, b) at gravel and sand interface.
Pre.utlre /vlollnds- on a .rlnDe ( when pumn tank is installed above mound on slone):
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,88, 8(C,D, or E), 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS. 16. Observation ports: Installed in middle of
mound at a.) the depth of the mound and the original ground interface and, b) at gravel and sand interface.
"access. doc" 7/97
Page A-2
en
:E
t=:¡
.....
èr1
;;.-:.
rJ;,c:::
~B
~ff
<0
;¡::;::
~:....:
cn~
~=
....-:, ~
::..=
en¡.....
2:;;;
o~
~
....'"
..... -
05
r-g
I:I;;~
E-<. ~
z:c::
þ;;¡'"
~~
Ç;;:"Jo
C::;~
_...J
;:J~
0:<
r;:;;:cr.
c::;::::
z
~<
u~
Z~
«
Z~
~,...
.....2;
2::::
-"'"
<:v¡
:E§
·MOI~q Sfn~m..qnb..1 )' :>_q.)
- :m;::¡:;sÁs .In0Á
NOIl.:J'MNlSla
¥¥·4 ·S·.1
..
I·S·.1
.iUlA V1l~ OJ. dJl-,I.fld
a'I~a mrv(J}.¿v~.1S
3J:I.flSS31Id
::<
¥¥¥¥ a'l3lÆ.NJV1:Ia
SS:IT1Uv"11D
.
SCINi10W ::<
NOCIN:n~ ::<
H,JIH01:IID'
::<
1:IaI. '1IÆ CIl\.rvs ::<
S3RJNIDl.1 ŒaNI'1 CL\.TYS X
'1 '"
- õ
-<
:J ,
<
z: z
Z 0
-< ¡::
- :5
2:; ...... *
;:¡ < ~
¿ U
- Z
z:
- or <
¿ Z
~
- ~
Z
J-ooo(
-<
¿
1
~ ,š ~
" :;.g~
g ~ t
:;:æ ~ :;
::g~~
< É'":$!
;:< :: ;¡
I I I
I I I ! ;:<
-;;
:;:; .
" "
" .-
<-
xt
~ ~ g,·1 X 1;:< II
.oCr.f,J""'"
I I I I
I I I I
Ix Ix I
;:<
x
x
>:::
>:::
x
;:<
x
I
/ ;:< ;:< 1;:< 1;:< >::: I >::: I >::: I õ
;:< I>::: ;:< I x' I>::: x I;:<j N
I 1>< I I I ><H
I >< ¡ x I x I ~ I x 1>< I ><~ !
X x Ix I Ix Ix Ix I
~ ~
= ~. ~
tr... <
-< ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ ~
¡-.-~ ~ < ~
.. ¡:., <rJ §-_
Z ".., v; ~
-<~ ~ ~ ~
rñ=~ >-g v:: ...A-;;;
::::: t ~ ~:;:; 0 ~ I:::: 1:: ~
zb~ ~ri ¡-.:: =~....
<"'OJ 1::-5 z:"....~
~~t: u- z.._ z ~uc
;. ¡; I:: ¡:;.~ ¡:: ~I ' ¡:. z _.... ~ ~
~== ~v¡ w~3~o :::: ~~[
~~- -, =~-"'- z ~_~
::;'-;:; r;~ ~u""u. ...... r:-
"'~..!:!~.J U')tj...tjD ~Z; ¡:;¿ri"
rñ~~ ~S ...~ž~~ ~~= 3=~
.... "':: ::: ::è ¡:; _ ......_ -, __ _ ;~] ... ..... "? _
... - '" Z c:. - ~ ~ _ r_ ..,.. ~ __. ....... _ ~
z~_ -""~~go~-J ~ ~~~..",
-<~~~~2~-"'~~"!:!~ ¡-.~~z,~~=
- - - . .... ~ U' U "', ¡;;¡ _ ~_
:-~C:ci:..;..>;;:o(:; 1< -=tdt;~"';::J~=8
:JCf} tC~.tfJ "<.. _-~ "c.. r::. CJ
,......~~~=ü~ë~e~~-~~~¿:~
¡:'" -< ~ tr. Š ¿ !:! 0<::; <::..0 ¡:;: :;. v: ::>15 !:! II: ~I-< ~ 9-
2 = ~ ~ ~ :; ~ ? ;:I¡:;: ;:1::::: ... II: :¡I~ ¡;;¡ tr. ¡: =
en:'- ::::: - =- ..:: _ _I CJ:. - ,...... I
~
~
OJ
....
èj
...
~
<:
'"
]
...
<,;
;::
c:
- .1;;
....
<,; <,;
- ...
~ ~
:5
~ ~
- ~..:: =
. . (",; e:
~ ~ ~ t:
:: ..:: ~
......:;.&..=
o~=~
~~~5
"':: ¡; =- ::
&,\ = - :::
.: ~ ~ =
¡;-=ë~
~ ~~ =
-- -
>, "= "2 =
:¡ëËC;
- ...... - 11:
ë ~ ;: ;
¡~f:~
=:4~~
;:.~ ~ ~
~ b ~ c
-::=.;~
- 0 - _
æ ~ b !::
- ¡;.j ~ ~
~=~J..
,.., = :: ~
-¿;E~:;
¡;'.,_ c:
= ::;:= f::
¡¡.. - Co.I ~
:: - v.: :=
== ~~ =
2 !: '": ~
tC~E~
... .:... N G.i
= I::..~ =-
.E E :: ~
'E ~ -; .~
=-;,J~-
~ - -
.~~;;, §
-= ;:: ~ =
c.; ~ _ .-
'" t,J CJ.;:;:;
:-§~;~
i 5.=~
--r:_~,
.~ 2 E ~
~~ 2. ===
~ ~ E ~
~ "'¡J ~ ~
E .~ E -~
~=-:;.::
ir.: QJ >-._
...:~v:.
<;'::
. .. .. .
Paoe A-3
e
"
l\iIEMO#
DA TE:
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SPECIJ\LIST rERTIFICA TION SETUP
BKCHD CERTIFIED CaMP A.NY":
SITE ADDRESS:
T ~x ID NUMBER:
SYSTEM TYPE:
PHONE:
..
OWNER NAlv1E:
( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
Hardwired ......................... 0 YES 0 NO
Squirt height oflaterals: Feet:
Control panel type:
Redundant off working. .. 0 YES 0 NO
Timer cycling correctly. ..0 YES 0 NO
Inches
High water alann working ............0 YES 0 NO
On/Off float working ................. 0 YES 0 NO
Counter reading:
Hour meter reading:
On time:
Off time:
Doses/day:
hrs. mm.
hrs. min.
Gallons/day:
sec.
sec.
Tank:
Drawdown:
gal/inch
inchlmin
Drawdown:
Drawdown:
gal/min
gal/dose
All components accessible ..0 YES 0 NO
Override link removed 0 YES 0 NO 0 N/A
PU~1P TO GRAVITY
AEROBIC SYSTEM
Hardwired ...................... ..0 YES 0 NO
High water alaffi1 working .. 0 YES 0 NO
On/Otfworlång ............. ..0 YES 0 NO
Redundant Off working ...0 YES 0 NO
Aerobic device type and model:
Disinfection unit type:
Alarm functioning .......:...............0 YES 0 NO
Hardwired...:............................... 0 YES 0 NO
Sample port ................................ 0 YES 0 NO
GLENDON M-31 UNITS
All units have been field checked for equal flow/distribution.................................................. 0 YES 0 NO
COMMENTS:
-
PRINT NAME
-
DA TE OF SETUP
SIGNA TURE
NDH 2-17-99.setup.doc
·
Return Address:
lS<o \\D
\~ f\l \~\f\\JK.
1-,0 VVì7\êl\"1\! \ 1'A.cK~1¿
'I
,.
"NOTICE TO TITLE"
fiLED FOR THE RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF BREMERTON-KITSAP COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
NOTICE FOR MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING REQUIREMENT
BKCHD ORDINANCE 1995-14 AND WAC 246-272-15501 (2)
DATE
TAX ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT #
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Additional Legal Description Can Be Found On Page _Of Document
ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM: OPERATION, MAINTENANCE & MONITORING REQUIREMENT OF
THE BREMERTON-KlTSAP COUNTY HEALmDISTRICT.
The reside.nce or facility on this property utilizes an alternative method of sewage disposal which requires
regularly scheduled maintenance and monitoring. Maintenance and monitoring is required to be performed
by a penon certified by the Health District as specified in Bremerton-Kitsap County Board of Health
Ordinance 199s..14 and WAC 246-272-15501 (2).
Signature of property owner/grantor
Print name
Signature of property owner/grantor
Print name
Signature of penon recording notice to title/grantor
Print Dame or company name
Additional Signatures Can Be Found On Page_Of This Document
offstght4. wtnwordform.noØce..doc REV. 12112/96
<-.
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
POLICY STATEMENT
PROGRAM - On-site Sewage Disposal
SUBJECT - Review of Building Permit Applications
Effective this date the following procedure shall be adopted concerning review of
building permit applications on properties where there is an existing onsite
sewage system.
PURPOSE
Applications for building permits for properties served by on-site sewage systems
shall be approved only when the on-site sewage system has adequate hydraulic
and treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed construction and an
adequate repair area is available.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to building permit applications for new structures that contain
plumbîng; romodels additions, alterations or remodels to existing structures that
contain plumbing; and structures not containing plumbing when the placement of
that structure may interfere with the performance of an existing onsite system or
the ability to replace the existing system.
....
I. Building permit applications shall include an accurate, to scale, record of the
site. The record shall show locations of existing and proposed buildings,
driveways, wells, water lines, surface water, significant land features (steep
slopes, drainage swales, rock outcrops) as well as the location of septic system
components and reserve/repair area. When the onsite sewage system has not
been installed, the locations of components shall be shown as portrayed on the
approved design.
11.,....-. The buildinq permit application may receive Environmental Health approval
when 'Nhoro there is sufficient information contained within the onsite sewage
system permit file to verify all of the following:
A. Tthat the system has adequate hydraulic capacity; and
B. The site has a designated reserve area, and
C. Aadequate vertical separation:., thÐn
tho building permit may ÐO issued.
nrllft Pnlir:v
RP.VÎp.w nfRlliltfim' PP.m1it Annlir:lltinno¡
nl'll7p. 1 nf 4
....
Generally, this means any system that was permitted after July 1, 1983,
and received approval from Environmental Health to cover or received a
final inspection, will be considered to be valid, except, that those sites that
do not have a dedicated reserve area established will be required to
identify a reserve area that complies with the onsite code in effect at the
time of the building permit application before a building permit will be
issued.
III. An assessment of the onsite sewaQe svstem shall be required when Where
there is a record of a permit having been issued and the system received final
approvat-ef was given approval to cover by En'/ironmcntal Hcalth or there was
no call for final inspection, but there is insufficient information in the file to verify
vertical separation or horizontal setbacks~, ~n assessment of tho oncito cowage
eyctorn ch~1I be required. The purpose of the assessment will be to establish that
there IS adequate hvdraulic capacity, that basic horizontal setbacks are beina
met and to identify vertical separation between the bottom of the dramfield trench
and the shallowest restrictive ¡aver. System assessment may be performed by
the Environmental Health Division, a licensed Designer or Professional Engineer
licensed in Washington.
A All system assessments shall be submitted by the proponent to
Environmental Health, shall include the following information on a Dlot plan to
~cale If The plot plan shall include at least two (2) propertv lines as reference
for the onsite sewaqe system) be submitted on forms approved by
Environmental Health and submit fees for review.
1. Location of the septic tank and pump chamber (if present).
2. Location of the distribution box or beginning of the drainfield/distribution
system.
.....
3. Length, width and depth of drainfield/distribution system.
4. Depth of usable soil to restrictive horizon (compaction or water table).
5. Soils information to assess a reserve/repair area. A minimum of two (2)
soil logs shall be provided in the designated area.
6. Location and source of drinking water supply.
7. Location of structures, drivewavs. surface waters and drainage ditches.
Tbe slot plan shall include tit least two (2) proportv linoG as r~foFence for tho
Qnsito ~owaQC Gvctom.
B. The buildinQ permit application mav receive Environmental Health
approvel when Whom the site inspection verifies the followina:
1. Tthat there is adequate hydraulic capacity, and
2. Horizontal setbacks conform to those established in Table I, WAC 246-
272 and
_3. There is sufficient area and soil for a conforming reserve area and
nr$lft Pnlicw
RfMp.w nfR1Iiltfin17 P~nnit Annlir.atinno¡,
n$lOp. 1. nf 4
Generally, this means any system that was permitted after July 1, 1983,
and received approval from Environmental Health to cover or received a
final inspection, will be considered to be valid, except, that those sites that
do not have a dedicated reserve area established will be required to
identify a reserve area that complies with the onsite code in effect at the
time of the building permit application before a building permit will be
issued.
III. i~n assessment of the ensite sewaqe system shall be required when Where
there is a record of a permit having been issued and the system received final
approvalc--eF was given approval to cover by Environment:!1 Health er there was
no call for final inspection, but there is insufficient information in the file to verify
vertical separation or horizontal setbacksc, :m assossment of the onsite G0W3g0
systom shall bo requirod. The purpose of the assessment will be to establish that
there IS adequate hydraulic capacity, that basic hOrizontal setbacks are beinq
met and to identify vertical seoaration between the bottom of the dramfield trencn
and the shallowest restrictive ¡ayer. System assessment may be performed by
the Environmental Health Division, a licensed Designer or Professional Engineer
licensed in Washington.
A. All system assessments shall be submitted bv the proponent to
Environmental Health, shall include the following information on a plot plan to
scale ,i The plot plan shall include at least two (2) property lines as reference
for the onsite sewaqe system) be submitted on forms approved by
Environmental Health and submit fees for review.
1. Location of the septic tank and pump chamber (if present).
2. Location of the distribution box or beginning of the drainfield/distribution
system.
3. Length, width and depth of drainfieldìdistribution system.
4. Depth of usable soil to restrictive horizon (compaction or water table).
5. Soils information to assess a reserve/repair area. A minimum of two (2)
soil logs shall be provided in the designated area.
6. Location and source of drinking water supply.
7. Location of structures, driveways. surface waters and drainage ditches.
The plet plan shall include at Icast M'a (2) oroperty linos ac reforence far the
encito sewaao Gvstom.
B. Tile buildinq permit application may receive Environmental Health
approve! when V\-.there the site inspection verifies the following:
1. Tthat there is adequate hydraulic capacity. and
2. Horizontal setbacks conform to those established in Table I, WAC 246-
272 and
_3. There is sufficient area and soil for a conforming reserve area and
Orllft Pnlirv
RP.Vi,.,w nfRl1i1tiino P,.,rmit Annlirlltinno¡
nllo,.,?' nf 4
,.
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
POLICY STATEMENT
PROGRAM - On-site Sewage Disposal
SUBJECT - Review of Building Permit Applications
Effective this date the following procedure shall be adopted concerning review of
building permit applications on properties where there is an existing onsite
sewage system.
PURPOSE
Applications for building permits for properties served by on-site sewage systems
shall be approved only when the on-site sewage system has adequate hydraulic
and treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed construction and an
adequate repair area is available.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to building permit applications for new structures that contain
plumbing; remodols additionB, alterations or remodels to existing structures that
contain plumbing; and structures not containing plumbing when the placement of
that structure may interfere with the performance of an existing onsite system or
the ability to replace the existing system.
....
I. Building permit applications shall include an accurate, to scale, record of the
site. The record shall show locations of existing and proposed buildings,
driveways, wells, water lines, surface water, significant land features (steep
slopes, drainage swales, rock outcrops) as well as the location of septic system
components and reservelrepair area. When the onsite sewage system has not
been installed, the locations of components shall be shown as portrayed on the
approved design.
11-;-.. The buildinq permit application may receive Environmental Health approval
when Whoro there is sufficient information contained within the onsite sewage
system permit file to verify all of the following:
A. Tthat the system has adequate hydraulic capacity; and
B. The site has a designated reserve area, and
~adequate vertical separation,-, ~
tAe building pOFmit may be iBsuoå.
Or:dt Pnlir.v
RI'IVip.w nfßnilñinp PP.n'I'Iit Annlir.Atinn
nAP" 1 nf 4
.,,-
4. A minimum of three feet of vertical separation._ !llim..::md
vertical sopar::1tion is lOGS than threo foot, but groater th::m ono foot,
the building permit may be issued.
C. -The building permit application may receive Environmental Health
approval when VVhore tho site in~Dection vorifies 81. 2. :md ~. And the
vertical separation is less than three feet but areater than one foot the
buildina permit may be issued provided that all other site conditions are met.
oonditioned upon an When there is less than 3 feet but more than 1 foot of
vertical separation the onsite sewaqe system shall be monitored
annually. annual monitoring inspeotion schodule. The applicanVowner shall
be required to enter into a monitoring contract and acknowledgement of the
conditions of building permit approval which may include upgrading the onsite
sewage system as noted in # 4 below. The annual monitoring inspection shall
include a winter water table determination (during January or February) in
addition to the standard monitoring schedule. Winter water table monitoring
shall be conducted in the following manner:
1. Install two (2) monitoring ports on the contour and in the vicinity of the
drainfield system to a depth of three (3) feet below the bottom of the
drainfield.
2. The owner shall enter into a monitoring contract with an approved
monitoring entity to monitor the vertical separation of ground water to the
bottom of the system.
3. The system shall be monitored annually during the month of January or
February (the wet season)
LA minimum of 12" of vertical separation shall be required. If a system
does not have 12" of vertical separation repair lupgrade to the system
shall be required within 2 years unless surfacing sewage is present in
which case repair is required within 90 days. (ownor fRay install ourtain
d.~¡n Ðr mak-e othor silo improvements and keop monitoring)
0, The building permit application may not be approved by Environmental
Health when there is inadequate hydraulic capacity. horizontal setbacks are not
beínq met. a conforminq reserve area cannot be established. or there is less than
1 foot of vertical separation unless \\'here tho site insDoction voFifies th~t 8. 1. 2
or 3 are inadequate and/or vertical secoration is løcu¡; th:m 12" thon... a permit to
repair/uparade the svstem has been issued. shall be reauired ~rior to issuance of
the buildina Dormit.
IV. Non·residential structures that contain no plumbing shall be reviewed as
follows:
A. Lots of five acres or less -An accurate record shall be established of the
site and the existing onsite sewage system components, and a
reserve/repair area that complies with the code in effect at the time of the
nr ft Pnlir.v
Rmr1p'w nfRlliltlinp" Pp.nnit Annlir. tinn'l.
nRP"p. 1 nf 4
..
',"_-.1.
building permit application will be evaluated. Record of the site and existing
system shall meet the standards of "I.A. 1 - 7.
B. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is a permit on record and no
critical areas or surface waters exist within 200' of the on site sewage
system area shall receive an administrative/office review of the plot plan
submitted. If the plan indicates no interference with the system and a
reserve area can be designated on the plot plan the building permit may be
approved. A field inspection may be required if it is detennined to be
necessary, based on best professional judgement, to protect public health.
C. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is no permit record on file, or there
is a permit record on file, and critical areas or surface waters exist within
200' of the onsite sewage system area, shall provide an accurate record of
the following:
1. Location of the septic tank
2. Location and source of drinking water
3. Identify a reserve/repair area as described in \l1.A. 5.
IV. These procedures shall not be used to assess unpermitted systems that were
installed since 1970 when an onsite sewage permit was required. These
systems shall be considered wera installed in violation of state and local codes
and shall meet all onsite sewage code requirements at the time of building permit
application.
V. Approval will not be granted for a building permit where a failure of the onsite
sewage system is identified until an appropriate repair is permitted for the site.
'-
V. This policy shall become effective on the date of adoption and remain in effect
until amended or repealed by action of the Jefferson County Board of Health.
Health Officer
Date
Chairman of the Board of Health
Date
H:\env_health\Jinda\gd\onsiteord\building permit application review3
Or,d1- Pnlir.v
RP.Vif'!W nfRlliltfina pf'!rmit AnnlirJttinn"l
nRap. 4 nf.4
\\ '.~",,"
building permit application will be evaluated. Record of the site and existing
system shall meet the standards of IIJ.A. 1 - 7.
B. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is a permit on record and no
critical areas or surface waters exist within 200' of the onsite sewage
system area shall receive an administrative/office review of the plot plan
submitted. If the plan indicates no interference with the system and a
reserve area can be designated on the plot plan the building permit may be
approved. A field inspection may be required if it is determined to be
necessary, based on best professional judgement, to protect public health.
C. Lots greater than 5 acres where there is no permit record on file, or there
is a permit record on file, and critical areas or surface waters exist within
200' of the onsite sewage system area, shall provide an accurate record of
the following:
1. Location of the septic tank
2. Location and source of drinking water
3. Identify a reservelrepair area as described in IIJ.A. 5.
IV. These procedures shall not be used to assess unpermitted systems that were
installed since 1970 when an onsite sewage permit was required. These
systems shall be considered wore inGtallod in violation of state and local codes
and shall meet all on site sewage code requirements at the time of building permit
application.
V. Approval will not be granted for a building permit where a failure of the onsite
sewage system is identified until an appropriate repair is permitted for the site.
....
V. This policy shall become effective on the date of adoption and remain in effect
until amended or repealed by action of the Jefferson County Board of Health.
Health Officer
Date
Chairman of the Board of Health
Date
H:\env_health\Jinda\gd\onsiteord\building permit application review3
OrJlft Pnlir.v
RPVil'!w nfRllilriinu Pl'!nnit Annlit"Jltinn!1¡
nJluP 4 nf 4
\.
\ I" ....' .10"
4. A minimum of three feet of vertical separation,- !/:J.Q.[Land
vortical separation is lOGS than three foot, b~t groator than one foot,
the building permit may be issued.
C. -The buildinq permit application may receive Environmental Health
approval when Where tho site inspoction verifios B 1. 2. ~:md 3. ^.na the
vertical separation is less than three feet but Qreater than one foot the
buildina permit may be issued provided that all other site conditions are met.
conditioROS upon un When there is less than 3 feet but more than 1 foot of
vertical separation the onsite sewaqe system shall be monitored
annually. annual monitoring inspection Gohoåulo. The applicanUowner shall
be required to enter into a monitorina contract and acknowledaement of the
conditions of buildina permit approval which may include uporadina the onsite
sewaae system as noted in # 4 below. The annual monitoring inspection shall
include a winter water table determination (during January or February) in
addition to the standard monitoring schedule. Winter water table monitoring
shall be conducted in the following manner:
1. Install two (2) monitoring ports on the contour and in the vicinity of the
drainfield system to a depth of three (3) feet below the bottom of the
drainfield.
2. The owner shall enter into a monitoring contract with an approved
monitoring entity to monitor the vertical separation of ground water to the
bottom of the system.
3. The system shall be monitored annually during the month of January or
February (the wet season)
LA minimum of 12" of vertical separation shall be required. If a system
does not have 12" of vertical separation repair /upgrade to the system
shall be required within 2 years unless surfacing sewage is present in
"
which case repair is required within 90 days. (ownor may install ourkJiR
dFDin Sf make othor site improvomonts and keep monirorínfJ}
D, The buildina permit application may not be approved by Environmental
Health when there is inadequate hydraulic capacity. horizontal setbacks are not
beinq met. a conforminq reserve area cannot be established. or there is less than
1 foot of vertical separation unless Where tho site inse90tion verifios that 8. 1. 2
or 3 are inadeaumo DRd/or vertical &ODÐfation it ¡øee th:m 12" then... a permit to
reoair/uccrade the system has been issued. shall ÐB reauiros erior to iS8w:moo of
tho buildiAeI permit.
IV. Non-residential structures that contain no plumbing shall be reviewed as
follows:
A Lots of five acres or less -An accurate record shall be established of the
site and the existing onsite sewage system components, and a
reserve/repair area that complies with the code in effect at the time of the
O""A- Pnlir.v
RP.VÏf'!W nfRlliltiinl7 Pp,"nit Aonlir.1ttinnQ
""I7P, ~ nf 4