It is my humble opinion that everyone who is applying for and has an installer license should have to take an EXAM to receive the License once the interem time has been completed.  An EXAM should be required after so many years to keep it.  There are so many of the current installers in the State of Virginia that cry and complain about the testing requirement and complain that they have been doing this profession for x amount of years.  They still need to be held accountable for their knowledge and proffession and should be glad to take a test to prove they are smart enough to do this job.  As State design requirements and Local Ordinances become more and more complicated these individuals and companies should have to take tests to verify they are qualified.  Experience stated is not as good as experience proven.  I would preffer all be required to test into the Installer License regardless of time on the job.  Just because a guy has been doing this for twenty years (or says he has) does not mean he may know what he is doing very well.  That is all.  Thank You.

I totally agree with the previous comments pertaining to experience.  Why on earth would the local department of health not file a complaint about someone who was doing bad work for twenty years.  I just don't get it.

It was certainly no secret these proposed amendments began as a fast-track process, and were first promulgated in 2012. What's not as well known was the Board's language for this "proposed text" was adopted over 4 years and 2 months ago on December 2, 2009. These proposed regulation changes apparently weren't all that urgent or significant given the amendments weren't submitted to the Virginia Registrar until September 13, 2012.

As submitted, this rule-making was expected to be noncontroversial. By the close of the public comment period these changes were objected to, with 10 or more objections:

Overall, there were 22 comments received from the public, many of which objected to using the fast track process for making changes to the Board's regulations.  Because of the number of objections, the fast-track process was converted to the standard rule-making process.

Pursuant to the Virginia Administrative Process Act (APA), Executive Orders 14 (2010) and 58 (1999), and the Virginia Register Form, Style, and Procedure Manual, an agency typically responds to comments received during the public comment period. Executive Order No. 14 (2010) specifically states,

"Agencies shall establish procedures that provide for a timely written response to all comments and the inclusion of suggested changes that would improve the quality of the regulation."

Therefore, after the fast-track process, when was the public provided with a proper summary of the comments received, along with the agency's response?

In addition, how necessary or accurate is the proposed language now, given the Agency/Board made little effort to address the comments received during the original fast-track process? Is it possible that the Board's current effort to seek less restrictive license definitions and requirements is being pursued to a fault?

As proposed, 18VAC 160-20-97C-3a inserts the term “authorized VDH employee”.  The proposed inclusion of the phrase "an authorized VDH employee" appears to be in conflict with the Code of Virginia, the Virginia Administrative Code and the AOSE regulations.

Since when was an "authorized VDH employee" anyone else other than a DPOR license holder?

The proposed text change in this section appears to be unnecessary and incorrect.  The random use of "an authorized VDH employee" becomes little more than another undefined term.  It is particularly misleading to assert that a VDH employee certifies any of these documents without a license. VDH inspection reports and completion statements must be signed by an appropriately licensed OSE or a licensed supervisory OSE overseeing the work of a non-licensed OSE or by a P.E. 

Recommend the Board delete the phrase "an authorized VDH employee" from this section.

Licensed contractors offer the consumer guarantees, we are qualified to perform an installation according to a certified design, the regulation and the site conditions, this service is backed by a the minimum of a 1 year warranty.
Our fees support the board, and staff, we also fund protection for the consumer who may have a claim against a fellow contractor who was unable to fulfill the expectations of their contract.

The Fast track Regulatory changes recieved many comments, which to my knowledge have not addressed.
.As a license holder I expect the Board to take these concerns seriously.

There is no basis for a unlicensed individual to certify an installation or vouch for the performance of a contractor seeking licensure, unless their ministerial duty as a code official allows them to act on behalf of the Commissioner of Health. The language "authorized VDH employee" should be struck from the regulation.
Furthermore the DPOR and VDH must arrive at a solution allowing VDH staff to approve the work of unlicensed contractors. No building inspector would knowingly approve work completed by an unlicensed contractor.
We are appealing for relief, when can we expect our boards to resolve these issue?

Jeff Walker, owner
BRS&S, LLC

Class B contractor,SDS, ENV, H/H, LSC, FIC & WWWOOSSOP Alternative Onsite Sewage System Installer
 

SB 657 (2014) appears to seek further changes to licensure requirements for conventional onsite sewage system installers, as well as alternative onsite sewage system installers and conventional and alternative onsite sewage system operators.  This bill has crossed over from the Senate to the House by a vote of 36-Y 4-N.  If SB 657 becomes law,  18VAC160 may need additional changes not addressed in this Proposed Text in order to be consistent with the Code.  I recommend putting any changes on-hold until the outcome of SB 657 is clear.  If it becomes law, then I recommend new Proposed Text with an additional public comment period prior to the Final stage. Thank you for your consideration.

As proposed, 18VAC160-20-10 changes the definition of  “direct supervision”:

"Direct supervision" means being responsible for the compliance with this chapter by any unlicensed individual who, for the purpose of obtaining the necessary competence to qualify for licensure, is engaged in activities requiring an operator, installer, or evaluator license.

The proposed language of the new definition deletes “for the purpose of obtaining the necessary competence to qualify for licensure”. This proposed change conflicts and potentially alters the meaning and intent of “direct supervision” as defined by the Code of Virginia § 54.1-2300. Definitions.

“Please note that the Virginia General Assembly is responsible for creating and amending the Code, not the Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals.”

The existing phrase, “for the purpose of obtaining the necessary competence to qualify for licensure”, was already nonrestrictive by definition and simply offered additional information about the nature and purpose of “direct supervision”. Obtaining competence ensured that aspiring professionals met the minimum required standards of practice in a profession. The Board's existing definition has more to do with exercising the proper degree of supervision and control during a period of internship or training, then a “mandate to an employee to apply for licensure should they choose not to”.

One could argue there appear to be three common requirements for DPOR applicants seeking a license: education, experience, and examination. If education, experience, and examination were analogous to three “regulatory” legs of a wooden stool, then the proposed deletion of this phrase would be like removing the “experience” leg of that wooden stool.

This section appears to conflict with 18VAC160-20-10, 18VAC160-20-84, 18VAC160-20-96, 18VAC160-20-97, and 18VAC160-20-98.  Without further review of this proposed change, the Board may impact the quality of training and level of experience obtained for several categories and classifications of licenses held by system operators, installers, and soil evaluators.

Recommend retaining or keeping the existing phrase, “for the purpose of obtaining the necessary competence to qualify for licensure”, as written, in the definition of “direct supervision”.

I would like to question the motivations by our WWWOOSP Board in seeking modification to 18VAC 160-20-10 "Direct Supervision".  The idea of a professional seeking career advancement is one critical to the safety, health, and welfare of the Commonwealth.

Watering down the definition has many unintended consequences that will not be realized for some time.  It seems irresponsible to the public trust and should be given additional consideration.  

Given the recent events at the Dan River Coal Ash spill, I would hope that this Board consider how,  1) Competence             2) Personal Judgement and 3) Accountability plays in "direct supervision" while protecting public health and public resources of the Commonwealth.