Do you have any recollection of the subject?.

Dr. STANDARD. I think both letters clearly state "overall drainage of the market." It was my understanding that it was a slope from the front to the back or from one side to the other side of the building. There was drainage into a trench through which there were pipes piped in to take off the excess water. We discussed the expense of completely redoing the floor.

It was recommended that an engineer be employed to look at the floor to come up with what he felt might be acceptable solutions to the department.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Mr. Hope has been shaking his head in accord with what you are saying, Dr. Standard, that both of you gentlemen, as far as you were concerned, took what Mr. Meisel had written and what you had written as relating to overall drainage of the entire market and not just the drainage in connection with the meat counters. Dr. STANDARD. That's correct, sir.

Mr. HOPE. Including, Mr. Wasserman, the drainage from the coolers that they have within the establishment.

Mr. WASSERMAN. I think that was a separate item in the letter. Mr. HOPE. All right, very good.

Mr. WASSERMAN. That was a separate item, but there was a tie-in there.

Let me ask one other question on this particular incident. Mr. Hope, you said that you verbally communicated to someone representing the owners of the market the need for repairing the leak in the roof. To whom did you communicate that requirement?

Mr. HOPE. I had discussions with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Meisel on several different occasions. I would assume that it was during the course of one of those discussions that we mentioned the problem of the leaky roof.

Mr. WASSERMAN. And that was before the March 9 letter came out or afterward?

Mr. HOPE. I do not recall.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Were there any other conferences with Mr. Cohen or Mr. Meisel, Dr. Standard, in which you were involved in connection with this matter?

Dr. STANDARD. The only conference-the initial conference, as I remember, was in January. Subsequent conferences relating to this particular matter were conducted through Mr. Hope's office. Mr. WASSERMAN. Mr. Hope, were these conferences with Messrs. Cohen and Meisel in person or just over the telephone?

Mr. HOPE. I recall no conferences. It, then, was confirmed in the communications about which we have been having some discussions. It was my understanding and assumption that the matter was being followed up by our field staff as it relates to this particular establish

ment.

Mr. WASSERMAN. How much of the letters of January 29 and March 9 have actually been carried out at this time?

Mr. HOPE. I don't have a copy of the latest inspection report. It is a little difficult for me to refer specifically to that question. Maybe Mr. Clark can. We have talked about item 1 on the refuse problem

and the compactor is in the process of being installed or has been installed. The repitching of the trench drain between the sidewalk and the

Mr. CLARK. That is alleged to have been corrected by Mr. Meisel. Mr. HOPE. Do you want the copy of the letter?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Item 1 has been in part corrected.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Item 1 was not carried out as expressed in the letter and was only carried out by the installation of a compactor sometime after the morning of July 13, 1971?

Mr. CLARK. That's correct, sir.

Item 2, I have no personal knowledge that item 2 has been corrected, either by having seen it or by having it reported to me by one of our staff members.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Wouldn't that item require some permit from some city agency?

Mr. CLARK. It was my understanding, Mr. Wasserman, that the trench drain had been improperly plumbed, that the drain had actually been put at the higher elevation of the trench.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Which is the standard procedure most of the time.

Mr. CLARK. It would, therefore, be necessary, I would think, to dig into the concrete, the sidewalk, in order to repitch the drain and reconnect it properly.

Mr. WASSERMAN. In the District of Columbia, when you are making an alteration to a building or its appurtenances, don't you have to get a permit to do that?

Mr. CLARK. I don't believe that would be considered a building since it is out in the driveway.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Isn't it part of the premises?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. I am not qualified to answer that question, Mr. Wasserman.

Mr. WASSERMAN. When you were going along on this, didn't you explore what things would have to be done and how it would have to be done and how it would come out?

Mr. CLARK. Not in depth, not to that point. We would leave that to the Plumbing or Building Department.

Mr. WASSERMAN. So it might have been done and nobody in the city would know it had been done?

Mr. CLARK. That is quite possible. However, our report that the drain was clogged-I have a recent verbal report from the area supervisor that the trench drain is clogged.

Mr. WASSERMAN. The question is not whether it is clogged. That is a problem of maintenance.

Mr. CLARK. That's right.

Mr. WASSERMAN. No matter what the pitch is, it could be clogged. My question is, Did they repitch the drain?

Mr. CLARK. I would question whether or not it had been corrected. Mr. WASSERMAN. In other words, you don't know?

Mr. CLARK. I do not know.

Mr. WASSERMAN. I am going down the line on the rest of this and then I am going to suggest that since we will have a lot of "don't know" answers, perhaps we ought to have a report submitted for the record on what kind of followup there was on this agreement. It seems to me

that if there was an agreement that ought to have been carried out, it was part of the responsibility of the Environmental Health Director to have followed up on this thing and see that the job was done within a reasonable period of time, considering the various items that had to be done.

I guess we can ignore the next one because I think we have enough information on that particular thing, which is the bathroom locks. Mr. CLARK. Item 4 has not been accomplished. In our letter of

response

Mr. WASSERMAN. Item 4 has not been accomplished, is that right? Mr. CLARK. Has not.

Mr. WASSERMAN. I notice it is something that had apparently been under consideration since a year before that.

Mr. CLARK. I do not know whether or not they sent also to all of the merchants advising them that it would be their responsibility to supply the racks.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Do the inspections show that there are racks in the coolers now?

Mr. CLARK. There are no acceptable racks in the coolers.

Mr. WASSERMAN. There are no racks in the coolers?

Mr. CLARK. There are racks, but they are not acceptable. They are a makeshift, concrete block, brick-type of installation which are totally unsatisfactory that have been in there for some months.

I might add they were put in without authorization. (Material relative to the hearings follows:)

COMPLIANCE STATUS OF THE D.C. FARMERS MARKET LOCATED AT 1309 FIFTH STREET NE.

The statements made by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Meisel in their letter of January 29, 1971, are reproduced and followed with our findings.

1. "We propose to remove the existing incinerator and enlarge the existing incinerator room out of masonry for trash storage. This room will be sealed, rat proofed, and scrubbed down on a regular basis."

The above proposed work was not accomplished, however during the middle of July of 1971 a 40 cubic yard compactor was installed to handle the solid waste generated by tenants of the building. Subsequently in August a metal fence was erected around the perimeter of the compactor.

2. "We propose to repitch the trench drain leading from the service drive to 6th Street."

The drain traversing the sidewalk near the trash compactor at the rear of the premises has been built up in the lower end to force liquid to the center of the trench where the plumbing outlet is located. The trench drain was inspected on August 19 during rainfall and was found to be functioning properly.

3. "We have already ordered bathroom locks for the market with bypass keys which will be given to all merchants."

Stand operators contacted by our Sanitarians have been found to possess a key to the locked toilet doors.

4. "We propose to send to all our merchants a letter which will state that it will be their responsibility to provide the necessary storage racks in the cooler box. We will need written District of Columbia Health Department specifications so we can formulate this letter and also bid these racks in bulk."

Storage racks have not been provided in the cooler although specifications have been provided as requested on two different occasions.

5. "We are in the process of reworking the drip pans and condensate drains in the cooler box area in order to prevent any water dripping onto food products." On August 18 an inspection of the cooler space revealed impounded water on the floor throughout the entire cooler. Mr. Murray Raffeld, a meat stand operator stated that the water on the floor was there because the cooler had been defrosted. 6. "We propose to install clean out traps in the drains located within the cooler box to prevent clogging."

There is no evidence of any alteration of the plumbing inside the cooler, however the drain at one of the entrances to the cooler appears to be funcitoning. There are other drains within the cooler that are still found to be at various times, obstructed.

7. "We have engaged a mechanical engineer on a consultant basis to make a feasibility study in reference to redesign of the drainage system throughout the market. The conclusions reached by this study will be forthcoming and we will notify you immediately with our exact proposal on this problem."

A mechanical plan has not been submitted for redesign of the drainage system throughout the market as of this date.

8. "The individual meat merchants in the market are prepared to install quarry tile or something similar on the floor behind their cases so as to eliminate the bare spots created by the loose and missing vinyl."

There has been no improvement in the floor condition anywhere in the market as of this date.

During the past 12 months the Bureau of Food and Drugs has provided almost daily surveillance excluding Sundays at the District of Columbia Farmers Market. Our Sanitarians assigned to the market have been requested to be praticularly alert to any alterations or improvements in the facilities regardless of whether the changes were included in a planned program of improvement or of sporadic

nature.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Can the merchants in the market continue to store their products in an unacceptable cooler and continue to operate as a properly licensed installation?

Mr. CLARK. I believe I stated on Tuesday, sir, that we have commenced to send recommendations to the Department of Economic Development for disapproval of all of the food operations in the District of Columbia Farmers Market. I believe we have about six that have gone forward, or perhaps five.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Did you say all?

Mr. CLARK. We expect to send all of those over that prepare potentially hazardous food.

Mr. WASSERMAN. If in order to have a proper cooler, they need racks and they don't have them, shouldn't the merchants who use that cooler be shut down? Isn't that an imminent danger to health? Mr. CLARK. Do you mean under the imminent danger clause of the regulations?

Mr. WASSERMAN. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. My answer, of course, would be an opinion. You would have to

Mr. WASSERMAN. I will take your opinion and the opinion of all the other gentlemen at the table.

Mr. CLARK. All right, sir. Looking at the storage locker as an integral part of the food establishment

Mr. WASSERMAN. Excuse me. Since we have come back to the question of imminent danger, Dr. Standard, when you or Mr. Hopereceived a communication from Mr. Dugas about imminent dangerbesides the fact that Mr. Dugas is a very good lawyer-did you in any way get a legal opinion on this from your legal adviser or the Corporation Counsel? Do you have a legal adviser or is the Corporation Counsel your legal adviser?

Dr. STANDARD. There is a legal adviser in the department.
Mr. STEWART. Is he present today?

Dr. STANDARD. Yes, sir; Mr. Harrigan is here.

Mr. RANDALL. Would the gentleman identify himself?

Mr. HARRIGAN. I am Edward D. Harrigan.

Mr. WASSERMAN. And your title?

Mr. HARRIGAN. Legal Assistant to the Director of Public Health. Mr. WASSERMAN. When you got that opinion from Mr. Dugas did you ask your legal assistant whether he agreed or disagreed on the subject?

Dr. STANDARD. As you have said earlier, sir, Mr. Dugas is a very competent lawyer and I accepted his opinion. I would have no reason to question it.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Sir, there are lots of competent lawyers, but I would hate to think

Dr. STANDARD. Incompetent ones, too, I realize.

Mr. WASSERMAN. If you have your own legal assistant, I would think you would want to consult him because of the fact that it relates to the operations of your department. As Mr. Dugas has pointed out, his activities are purely ministerial.

Dr. STANDARD. But I think in his function, even though his role may be purely ministerial, that I respect his legal opinion. I have respected it throughout the years and I would have no reason to question it. It would be a duplication of effort to ask my legal adviser to check what a very competent lawyer said is valid.

Mr. WASSERMAN. How about the question of the Wholesome Meat Act? Have you asked your legal adviser what the situation is, what the score is?

Dr. STANDARD. Regardless of what my opinion might be, there is a legal authority higher than mine and my legal adviser that will answer that question for us.

Mr. WASSERMAN. I must congratulate Mr. Harrigan. He has a very easy job if he doesn't have to give you any legal opinions. Dr. STANDARD. I don't remember saying that, sir.

Mr. WASSERMAN. It seems to me on an important issue of whether or not the District of Columbia could issue its own regulations with respect to meat fat content when the meat sampling program over a period of several years shows that there has been, shall we say, a substantial number of samples showing excessive meat fat content, that instead of letting the thing lie for a couple of years, that it should have been independently explored by the District of Columbia.

This is with all due regard to the fact that undoubtedly the Department of Agriculture does have competent lawyers working for it. I assume the Government also hires competent lawyers.

Dr. STANDARD. I would like to assume that, too, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. I see that the hour is growing late. The staff director has a question and I have a question or two. The minority staff has to leave and I don't want to proceed further. We do have his consent to ask these two additional questions and it will appear in the record. Proceed, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Hope, I was wondering about one point. I am not clear in my own mind what your position is on the scale of 100 downward in connection with the various sanitary scores that are arrived at after deducting the demerits. I specifically refer to the Occidental case.

Mr. HOPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEWART. We had sanitation reports on that restaurant ranging down as low as 28 and yet no recommendation was made, including the concept of imminent danger to health.