Requirements of HB 2671 (Chapter 103 of the 2025 Acts of Assembly).   
Reenactment of statute  (Va. Code 59.1-310.7 et seq) creates new requirements for all real estate septic system inspections. 

§ 59.1-310.9. Requirements for authorized septic system inspectors and minimum requirements for performance of septic system inspections.

Statute seems at odds with current regulations of Onsite Sewage System Professionals Licensing. 

Statute provides for the definition of an Authorized Septic System Inspector along with requirements for those who CHOOSE to use that title.

If the public, or licensed realtor's solicit services of "Authorized Septic System Inspector," or other professionals licensed under this board certain requirements are applicable pursuant to General Assembly Acts. Stipulating requirements: written contract, ethical and technical ability to meet certain inspection requirements. Inspections are also defined by scope of work, reporting and final opinion.

DPOR Board has refused to meaningfully incorporate these standards while adjudicating complaints against license holders under 18VAC160-40-490.  Response to complaints has decried responsibility for oversight, and directed citizens to consider action through local Commonwealth's Attorney; an absurd result for a state licensing board. 

Did General Assembly give authority to any Regulatory Board to develop regulations or create licensing of an Authorized Septic System Inspector?    

DPOR licenses certain individuals that qualify to use certain legal titles; it seems the Regulatory Review underway ought to incorporate the standards of practice as defined by statute. At minimum the Board should address requirements of contract which are already addressed through Contractors Board.

Contracts are the basis of all work conducted by professionals having duties to disclose, manage or render services to the public.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to share my professional opinion regarding the licensure process for individuals applying for a Master Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Operator license in the Commonwealth of Virginia under universal license recognition.

While I support making licensing more accessible and acknowledging equivalent experience from other states, I firmly believe that any applicant seeking a Master AOSS license in Virginia should be required to take and pass the Virginia-specific licensing exam. This requirement is critical because Virginia’s AOSS regulations, standards of practice, and system management requirements differ significantly from those of other states.

As you know, Virginia has established detailed and specific protocols for AOSS system design, monitoring, operation, and maintenance. These are outlined in the Virginia AOSS Regulations (12VAC5-613) and enforced through the Virginia Department of Health. A Master AOSS Operator in Virginia holds a position of great responsibility, often supervising other operators, managing compliance, and serving as the primary point of accountability for system performance. This role requires in-depth familiarity with Virginia’s unique regulatory framework, including local permitting requirements, reporting procedures, and ongoing public health protections.

The universal license recognition framework may be appropriate for issuing Journeyman or entry-level licenses, as those roles are typically performed under supervision. However, allowing out-of-state professionals to obtain a Master-level AOSS license without verifying their knowledge of Virginia’s rules poses risks to public health, environmental protection, and regulatory compliance.

For this reason, I respectfully urge the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) and other relevant regulatory bodies to require all Master-level AOSS license applicants to pass the Virginia state exam, regardless of their licensure status in other jurisdictions. This step would protect the integrity of the profession, ensure regulatory consistency, and reinforce the public’s trust in the systems we design and operate.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

These regulations do not seem to take into account the changes passed in HB 2671. Specifically, in the new section 7.d of 18 VAC 160-40-470 it states that it is a prohibited act for a licensee to not obtain a VDH operation permit. It doesn't specify whether that is for install or inspection. Licensees will have to attempt to obtain a copy of the operation permit before performing a septic inspection. However, in many cases they will not be able to obtain that permit within the required time period. This appears to be an issue with VDH and I'm not sure why the inspector should be penalized for this. 

Also, there needs to be regulatory clarity on the term "readily accessible" that was used in the new statute. The term is defined in the statute to mean" approachable or enterable for inspection without the risk of damage to any property or alteration of the accessible space, equipment, or opening." This would appear to indicate the space cannot be altered at all, including moving or digging soil. The REALTORS have been made aware that inspectors believe, as informed by VDH, that this still allows an inspector to dig or alter soil up to 30 inches deep. This will be very confusing for the consumer and could lead to liability for inspectors and real estate licensees. There needs to be more clarity here for the protection of all parties.

Recently having encountered a NC licensed installer who acquired Virginia license by comity.
This individual approached my firm seeking experience in Virginia, but had no field experience neither having handling shovel or excavation equipment, materials such as PVC or other components used for installations in onsite industry.

Being curious I learned the standards of NC do not seem applicable to Virginia. Indeed the industry posted requirements for licensure don't seem to include practical experience, much less awareness of VDH regulations. There are NC contractors doing business in Virginia, notably in the manufactured housing trades. Complaints to DPOR seem not to confer any liability on tradesmen which are unlicensed, yet neither Secretaries of Health, nor Commerce seems to recognize the risk to improvements of real property.

Please consider the link: https://www.owpnc.com/industry-updates/how-to-get-a-septic-installer-license-in-north-carolina 

If DPOR offers implied protections for landowners, public, realtors or lenders perhaps these standards should be reviewed prior to completing the draft of future regulatory measures.

I am writing to express my professional opinion and recommendation that individuals seeking to obtain a Master Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) license in the Commonwealth of Virginia be required to pass the Virginia-specific licensing exam, regardless of licensure status in other states.

As someone actively involved in the onsite sewage industry, I understand the importance of maintaining high standards for public health, environmental protection, and system performance. Virginia has developed its own regulations, technical standards, and design requirements that are often significantly different from those in neighboring or other states. Allowing individuals to bypass the Virginia exam by obtaining licensure in another state and transferring it back into Virginia undermines the integrity of our regulatory system and puts both the environment and public welfare at risk.

While universal license recognition may be appropriate for entry-level positions such as journeyman licensing, the specialized nature and complexity of AOSS systems in Virginia demand that Master license holders be well-versed in Virginia-specific codes, laws, and system design criteria. Master licensees often take the lead on projects, interface directly with local health departments, and bear significant responsibility for compliance and performance. Without proper evaluation through the Virginia exam process, there’s no assurance that these individuals have the knowledge and competency required to meet the state’s unique requirements.

Requiring passage of the Virginia Master AOSS exam ensures that all professionals operating at this level are equally qualified and prepared to uphold the standards expected by the Department, the citizens of Virginia, and the broader industry. I respectfully urge DPOR to consider implementing or maintaining this requirement as a safeguard for the integrity of our profession.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing efforts to protect the health and safety of all Virginians.

By Reed Johnson

Virginia’s decentralized wastewater infrastructure is facing a quiet but growing crisis: we lack enough skilled, licensed operators to manage the advanced systems needed in rural communities and developing areas. At the center of this problem lies a bureaucratic choke point—one that artificially caps the authority of Master Alternative Onsite Operators at 10,000 gallons per day (GPD), while also placing Class IV licensure out of reach for most small business operators.

Worse still, this regulatory structure blocks practical solutions for systems that are already being deployed successfully across the state—systems that work identically whether they discharge to surface or subsurface environments. We need to fix this, and the fix isn’t complicated.

The 10,000 GPD Cap Is Arbitrary and Counterproductive

The current limit on Master Alternative Onsite Operators—restricting them to systems under 10,000 GPD—isn’t based on any scientific treatment threshold. Rather, it’s a bureaucratic relic. Advanced treatment systems (such as MBBRs, recirculating media filters, and ATUs with UV disinfection) perform the same core functions at 7,500 GPD as they do at 15,000 or 25,000 GPD. The physics of flow, nutrient reduction, disinfection, and dispersal don’t magically change at five digits.

This outdated cap isn’t protecting public health. Instead, it’s creating bottlenecks in system operation, project approvals, and sustainable growth, especially in areas not served by central sewer. In many cases, the cap prevents the very operators trained to manage these technologies from doing so legally.

The Class IV Barrier: A Logjam for Rural Projects

To make matters worse, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires Class IV Wastewater Works Operators for systems discharging directly to surface waters—even for flows as low as 1,000 GPD, and all the way up to 40,000 GPD. The problem? In many parts of Virginia, Class IV operators are scarce or nonexistent, especially in rural localities where alternative systems are most needed.

Let’s be honest: the same exact process—settling, aeration, clarification, disinfection—is used in a 1,000 GPD plant and in a 40,000 GPD plant. What changes is not the treatment method, but the footprint. Yet our licensing structure imposes the same Class IV requirement on both, despite the fact that many Master Alternative Onsite Operators are more than qualified to manage these systems in the 10,000–40,000 GPD range, especially those serving clustered developments, schools, or private communities.

These operators already manage advanced treatment systems for subsurface dispersal, some with real-time telemetry, time-dosing, and nutrient removal technology. They just aren’t allowed to manage the same system if it has a direct discharge, because of the rigid license boundary.

A Reasonable Path Forward: Bridging the Licensing Gap

If Virginia is serious about solving this growing rural wastewater problem, then we must create a clear, achievable path from Master Alternative Operator to Class IV licensure—without compromising public safety or treatment standards.

Here’s a practical solution:

1. 1. Create a “Bridging Test” for Class IV Eligibility

Develop an open-book, treatment-focused exam specifically tailored for Master Alternative Operators seeking to operate small-scale direct discharge or large-flow decentralized systems. This bridging test would focus on:
- Surface water discharge monitoring
- Permitting knowledge
- Sludge management basics
- Reporting and sampling protocols

2. 2. Mandate Training Access via VDH and Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) should jointly offer a bridging course with built-in test preparation, including digital and in-person formats. Successful completion of the course and test would qualify the operator for a provisional or full Class IV license based on system type and experience.

3. 3. System-Specific Training from Manufacturers

Just as electricians are trained on specific products and brands, wastewater operators should receive manufacturer-supported training for any advanced system they maintain. Whether it’s Orenco, BioMicrobics, Norweco, or Advantex, a minimum manufacturer-endorsed class should be required to operate systems beyond 10,000 GPD or those with direct discharge.

The Root of the Problem: A Regulation Out of Step with Reality

Many Master Operators in Virginia are skilled business owners who balance installations, service contracts, permitting, and design support. They are not full-time students or lab techs. The current path to Class IV licensure was designed for large municipal plant workers—not small business professionals supporting rural infrastructure.

This mismatch explains why so few onsite professionals make the jump to Class IV, despite the need. The system we’ve built unintentionally punishes the very people most capable of solving our wastewater challenges.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

Without reform, we can expect:
- Continued project cancellations due to lack of eligible operators
- Increased environmental risk from mismanaged or orphaned systems
- Higher costs for small communities due to third-party oversight requirements
- Overreliance on centralized sewer in places where decentralized alternatives make more sense

This isn’t just bad planning—it’s an equity issue. Rural and underserved communities are being denied the wastewater infrastructure they need because our licensing system hasn’t caught up to modern technology or workforce realities.

A Win-Win Opportunity

Creating a bridging path doesn’t weaken the system. It strengthens it—by increasing the operator pool, improving system oversight, and encouraging professional development. At the same time, we empower small businesses and remove a major obstacle to infrastructure progress in areas that need it most.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to make it turn for more people.

Conclusion: From Cap to Catalyst

The 10,000 GPD cap and the Class IV barrier are symptoms of a broader regulatory problem—one where innovation, practicality, and environmental stewardship are being stifled by well-meaning but outdated rules.

Virginia has the chance to lead here. By introducing a practical, test-based path from Master Alternative Operator to Class IV, and by requiring system-specific training, we can solve our operator shortage and unlock new potential for sustainable development across the state.

Let’s stop treating decentralized wastewater as a fringe solution and start recognizing it as the future. The operators are ready. Now the system needs to catch up.

DPOR does not seem to recognize errors or omissions in qualifications for operator license eligibility.

Much of the Commonwealth is under-served by competitive firms, making inspection and reporting on status of "alternative" (more properly referenced advanced treatment) onsite systems. While VDH regulations under review seem focused on incorporating additional layers of oversight, the Agency has not provided examples of real world threats to public health or safety. For example, malfunctions in design, installation and operation of advanced treatment works attributable to lack of regulation. FOIA of Indemnification fund hearings, or enforcement actions would seem to show there is little threat within the existing regulatory environment to justify additional expense to the landowner. Similarly DPOR has not compiled a record of violations related to non-compliance. Hence the public may infer the industry is over-regulated, and justified in speculating that barriers to entry are unfounded, or even anti-competitive.

As others have noted, there is little difference between operation of small, vs. large treatment works. Also noted that onsite (e.g. soil) receiving areas have redundant safety and far reduced risk of environmental impact as compared to discharging systems.

Incorporating additional prerequisite paths to licensure seems to be in the public's interest.

Specifically, consider eligibility for examination professionals who have earned experience in design, or installation and commissioning of advanced treatment works are deemed qualified to operate that equipment. The Board may choose to standardize the field; incorporating a short course and exam would seem sufficient to assure consistent assessment and reporting.  

Since theory and practice of wastewater works operation includes education components, it is peculiar that provisions have not been made for academic paths to license. Upon founding of these license classes the industry recognized a STEM path bachelors or masters degree could provide mechanism for abbreviated term of experience. This is also the case for professional engineers, who are capable of self selecting qualifications to assess, design, install or operate onsite systems.

It seems warranted to incorporate additional pathways to licensing into future regulations; unless it is the Board's intent to restrict availability of service technicians, and sustain barriers to entry. 

Working across the state as a representative on the Sewage Handling Advisory Committee and as a Board member for VOWRA, I hear a consistent theme related to a lack of licensing enforcement by VDH and lack of understanding the supervision requirements of journeyman and unlicensed workers by Master or journeyman licensed individuals.  Why does VDH accept and approve the construction work of unlicensed or improperly licensed individuals and contractors? Some with no contractor's license at all.  Why does VDH accept pump out reports into their electronic database for conventional or alternative systems from unlicensed or improperly licensed operators?   Will DPOR please more specifically define in regulation or guidance if an unlicensed worker performing regulated soil evaluation, operation, maintenance or installation must have a journeyman or master licensed individual onsite at all times work is ongoing.  I can see a difference in longer term projects where a master or journeyman might be able to supervise several jobs with laborers working by checking on them frequently during the project and especially before covering up completed work.  Compared to a pump out, Routine O&M inspection or minor maintenance such as a float or plump replacement that may take a total time on the job of 1 to 2 hours.  Many septic and alternative tanks are being pumped by unlicensed workers where one master licensed individual in the entire company is supervising 3 - 6 trucks on the road.  If this is what DPOR intended then say so, if not we have a lot of training and licensing to do that wont begin until there is clear definition.  Also, lots of work on alternative systems with conventional licensed companies.