Agenda - 03-09-1999 - III-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

58 ADVERSE PUBLIC HEALTH CONDITION REV~w colvnrrErrrs (Staff response) Milton Heath, L~stitute of Governmem • "Measurable+damage to the environment" phrase should be removed because it is not explicitly providing protection of the public health. (Can be deleted) • Not sure that stringency is being met in all situations. (Thu is a legal question) • "Could hog industry attack it?" (This ruk was not envisioned for application to any agricultural operations, but this theoretical questiae is still valid and is a legal questions also) • Asked whether the wastewater and well water supply sections could be addressed in the existing local rules for those programs. (This u possible) • Otherwise OK with the rule if Geof can be persuaded. Rick Marinshaw, Board of Health • Noted several grammatical and syntax errors. (These will be corrected) • Expressed confusion about why the general condition defined in (A) is unrelated to on-site wastewater systems and well water supplies. (This phrase u worded rhu way to allow the language relating to wastewater systems and well water supplies to be congruous with the language in the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force document Therefore; there could not be a situation where the general provision (A) would apply to a wastewater system or weU water supply and be in conflict with the sperifu provisions of (B) and !C).) • Questioned why an engineered system designed to overcome all soil or site limitations would not be classified as "approvable". (Thu question is a matter of semantics within this proposed rule The design and workmanship the engineered system would be revicwe~, inspected and approved by stag; but the soil site condition might still be classified as unsuitable by staff according to the rules) • Asked whether the cturent rules applicable to well water supplies address the last two bullets of part (C) of the definition. (Only in non-owner occupied situations such as rental houses and mobile hone parks) • Stated that the creation of an "Adverse Public Health Condition" is not always foreseeable as stated in the part (1) of Section .0102. (This wording can be removed, but the ranedies jor the creation or existence of the APHC would not change) Chris Hoke, Assistant State Health Director • Questioned whether the existing "Abatement of Public Health Nuisance" statute would serve the same purpose. (In the sta~"s opinion, any condition which can cause personal injrtry, adverse health effects or communicable disease exposure goes bryond the canmon definition of a nuisance. It may be that the statute would be comparable from a legal standpoint though, and Geoju the one to ask for legal advice) 6