The campus’ new health inspector has scrapped UCSD’s old campus eateries inspection process in favor of a new system that will assign letter grades to vendors. However, several restaurants have expressed concerns over the way the method is being implemented.

The criticism has targeted eatery inspections conducted by Darryl Yorkey, a registered environmental health inspector previously employed by San Diego County, whom the university’s Department of Environment, Health and Safety hired in September.

“We’ve been able to make quite a few changes at lightning speed,” Yorkey said, referring to a new inspection form and a letter-grading system.

The old inspection format used by the university did not incorporate provisions of a new law passed in 2000, according to a Guardian analysis published last February.

For some campus food facilities, however, the updated inspection and grading system has resulted in lower scores on quarterly health inspections.

The department will post letter grades for public viewing after the winter quarter inspections take place.

“Knowing that this is a pilot program, we’re going to hold off posting these grades until they’re high,” said Bruce Bowers, environmental health and safety specialist, who has conducted the food facility inspections.

Employees at some campus food vendors said they had reservations about the new system.

The Food Co-op received a letter grade of “C” and a total of 67 out of 100 points in a Nov. 16 inspection under the new criteria, according to documents maintained at the facilities. Violations included a lack of hot water and health violations concerning the sanitation of consumer utensils.

“The Food Co-op is getting deducted for a lot of little, strange things that don’t seem to make sense,” said Dana Dahlstrom, the Graduate Student Association representative on the co-op oversight committee.

Inspectors assign grades on a 100-point scale, with the lowest grade of “C” assigned to totals of 79 points and under.

Yorkey said he had little concern about the grades on fall health inspections.

“There aren’t any major issues here,” Yorkey said. “Just as long as they are correcting their mistakes and not repeating them, then there’s really nothing to worry about.”

Steve Benedict, director of environment, health and safety, said that the new grading system is more comprehensive than the department’s old methods.

“What food vendors are witnessing are small changes in state law that we are taking care to implement,” Benedict said. “We aren’t doing anything in excess. There are differences, but the primary measures of food safety haven’t really changed.”

The department enforces state regulations in the California Uniform Retail Food Facility Laws, according to Benedict.

“We tried to create a more thorough, comprehensive system,” Bowers said. “But also, we’re just trying to get in line with the changes that have been made to CURFFL.”

New inspection forms include five major sections, classifying violations by gradations of severity. The first section, a list of “major violations,” includes offenses like the failure of employees to wash hands and the presence of vermin.

The new guidelines classify bare hands in food preparation and empty soap devices as “minor violations,” and list them in two subsequent sections. The remaining two portions, which are not calculated into the 100-point total, are labeled as “administrative violations” and “administrative procedures and operator education,” respectively.

The forms present a list of 96 separate items to examine, in contrast to the 33 items on the previous inspection form. The previous form consisted of two sections, labeled “equipment” and “methods,” with no delineation of major and minor violations, as required by state law.

Eateries have also voiced concerns over the timing of the evaluations, which may occur at any time. Inspectors evaluated OceanView Terrace, which received a letter grade of “C” and a point total of 77 on Dec. 14, when it was closed for winter break, according to senior manager Ralph Dauphin.

“We were shut down and in cleaning mode at that point,” he said. “We should have been graded while we were open. Wouldn’t that be a better indication of how we operate?”

Bowers said the department understands the concerns, and is willing to work with vendors to allay them.

“We have such a good working relationship with our food facilities, and we understand that a lot of it is out of their hands,” he said. “We’re aware of that fact and we can work with them on that.”

In addition, the department is concentrating more on the educational aspect of the inspections, working together with food vendors to help them better understand how to meet current health standards, Yorkey said.

Despite vendor grumbling, Benedict said he is confident that scores will improve.

“Some of the things that lead to those grades can be changed very easily,” he said. “With the upcoming inspections, I’ll be very surprised if they are not all ‘A’s.”

The department declined to disclose scores of campus food facilities during the fall inspections, despite state statutes identifying the reports as public record. Instead, Yorkey suggested asking for copies maintained by individual food vendors, which the law requires them to present immediately upon request under state law.

Requests for inspection reports at several randomly selected eateries, including Sierra Summit and Shogun, were turned down. Employees at the locations said either that the reports had been misplaced or that disclosure required the presence of a manager.

The Guardian sent a formal request for the reports to UCSD’s Department of Environment, Health and Safety pursuant to the California Public Records Act on Jan. 31. Under the law, the department has 10 days to respond.