5/2/1988 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes

Home Browse Search

-2- He would have a man at the gate checking that everything was properly ba ed and at the end of the day would k have everything properly covered over as required by the State.EV stated t he has rental equipment ready be del i vered to the DPW n 6/30188. Th i •i s a 5-12 month s r nta l arrangernent.Furter d i scu ss i on fo 1 l awed DEE's review of the transfer station plans. S. Copy, letter BEQE to Highwood Water re: non-compliance at Treatment Plant. Noted. dr # . Letter, Barnstable County Health,re: availability of" lead and VOC testing. These tuts are now available to the general public. Price will b $75. Sanpling will be performed by the County. 4 . (Will be discussed later-when,Tom-Fudal arrives). I A 5.Mo,' Elias re: .sale of dump stickers. RLW was infomed of meeting w1 se1ectren where it was suggested that a $15 fee be imposed w no senior citizen discount. These stickers would be good for one year frcm 611 - 1808. Vbtion by R- 'to start selling the stickers: • 15. RLW doesn't see how wee have any choice, seconds. New stickers will b requ i red as of 7/1/88. All, i n favor. Chair .i nfor ed Board t hat•once the se l e trnen took over they would definitely not be affixing the stickers to the vehicles. Chair suggested that the BOH go the sauce route and hand the stickers to the people and tell them when to affix them. An article will be on the warrant imposing a fine if anyone is caught t ansfering stickers fream one carr to another. ($200). Although submitted by Pans&Rec, this is nut l im i ted to Beach Stickers.. RGC ra i sed concern over not affixing the stickers ourselves. He would rather wait and•see if the Article passes before mak i rig a decision. Tours f sale and whether to transfer sale of stickers to DPW after duly 1, will be discussed later . a new BCH. . Article by Town Planner re: Vbnitoring Wells., (Tom Fuda l a present). TF: Article was.supposed to reviewed by Water Quality Review Corrrn.; that article is gore, this article calls for monitoring wells as part of the currently required water quality reports which -are supposed to be sub- mitted ub- mrlitted to the Planning Board for-arty -subdivision over 5 lots, I just changed the reviewing c m i ttee JWOHbe the BOH instead of the Water Quality Review Ccrrm.. The question is does the BOH have the capabi.l-ity review these reports and whether or not they would be using hese reports in the long run. Also does the have the authority to go on peop'le's property to use these monitoring wells 1a permission of the owners. CFB: I don't think you would have difficulty obtaining peau i ss i n. You would need perm i s s i ori. We cannot eater onto private property w/o permission unless we have evidence or strong suspicion that the public health is at danger. Conservation has more authority in that area than we do. We made a similar rec mmndation to the Planning Board same time ago, that they require monitoring wells for developments. I agree /what's submitted*1 here, but it would be more proper to be submitted by the P.B. than by the BOH. TF: This is going to the P.B# but a copy is here for; ,you for review, and this requires the BCH to review the location of the wells. CFB: One of the other a inns of the test wells should be to- determine the water slope. TF: That's why we spelled out the surveying info- elevation of land surface and USCS groundwater elevation. CRC:. Is this going to require any morays to be spent by the BOH? TF: No, the expense will be the devl upper's as a part of the definitive plan review process. CFB: We'd be able to review alright and get ire info from the County if there are any questions that cam up on the 524 results. Also CCPEDC would be willing to help. TF.: They've a l ready offered to review the results. Gabriel Bel four has a- good understanding of these reports. The P.B questioned whether the one per ten acre requir nent was excessive and CCPEDC didn'e think so. The modifications I've made work in sare flexibility. We're leaving it es sent l l ly in the hands of the BCH as to the number of monitoring wells that will be required. Does the BOH want this responsibility and can it deal Wit. '1: Whose responsibility will it be to see that these wells will be monitored TF: There is no requirement that'they be monitored. Just the initial test well prior to the develop mit approval. They will be left in the ground so that at a later time they can be-rawitored. CFB: The County Water Advisory Board would be able to use the wells and 1n fact- would like to see a county- wide network of monitoring wells. Each town is being urged to come up with something like this. The Planning Board has held up any vote on this ur~rtll Wed. nice, can I say thet you are in favor of is article' I'd apprec i ate a memo to that effect. 7. ono, Elias re: Laburte/Di aggio incident. Chair advised Baan that he talked to Labute the day this incident happened. Labute omitted that he had dumped non-.acceptable material at thins in the past, such as derrrolition and building debris* This time, however, DiMaggio had barred him completely; which I thought was a bit much since LaBue also picks up residential trash. The agrenerrt reached between D1kagio, Labute