I object to the Regulations as drafted, and advocate WWWOOSSP reconvene to establish a regulated professional seal conforming to the requirements in code and historical practice, and as advocated through VAPSS comments entered into the NOIRA.

An OSE works under exemption through PE board (54.1-402); one of the requirements of licensure requires sealing documents under control of professional. To wit:

18 VAC 10-20-760.B.4 The seal of each regulant responsible for each profession shall be used and shall be on the originals, including the document cover sheet, for which that professional is responsible, including exempted work, for which licensure or certification is not required, prepared under the regulant's direction.

The OSE is the only design professional in the Commonwealth unable to provide substantive assurances through sealing. The seal provides the public visible reliability for purposes of commerce and trade.  Among the substantial reasons to require sealing of professional design documents we recognize confirmation of: authenticity, responsibility & attestation.

I agree with Mr. Walker a professional seal endorsing the AOSE is required and long overdue. I have been asked and "required" to provide stamping and sealing of AOSE work in various counties in Virginia and to date no approved seal has been approved. 

I believe the current regulations regarding the AOSE license are more than acceptable and a masters or journeymans license is unnecessary.  The education and experiene requirements are satisfactory in their current form and need no change.  Pathway to licensure should require a BS or extensive hands on experience and I believe the last time I checked it was 10 years.  I believe an advanced education requiring a BS in a closely related field in addition to hands on experience is warrented for our work and again that exception of 10years of experience is also acceptable.  I see the journeymans license as a path for VDH or other private firms to push inexperienced fresh employees into a regulatory/design position who do not have the educational background or experience required to maintain a high level of safegards for our environment, groundwater and improvements to real property. 

I must agree that a master and journeymans license with regards to wastewater operators and installers is an excellent idea, it will help with employee retention in the construction field and encourage individuals who want licensure to work under a master for a longer period of time thus gaining more experience and knowledge hands on and also in the classroom.  I wouldn't have issue with the journeymans license having a period equal to or greater than that of the plumbing trade.

I object to the Regulations as drafted as well as existing.  The onsite soil evaluator's work is part of the practice of Soil Science.  This practice is a profession not a trade.  A single Board cannot succesfully meet the needs of both tradesmen and professionals.  This is obvious from the proposed "journeyman and master" portion of the drafted regulations.  This structure typically applies only to those practicing a trade.  All onsite soil evaluators are, in effect,  already "journeymen" with the "master's" being the professional Soil Scientist.

The seal is not a major concern for me since the bulk of my work is in Fairfax County where the OSE is forbidden to practice.

Creation of an unrestricted "journeyman" class of licensure open to any applicant does not have established benefit for the public. This new class expands upon the statutory construct which implied two classes of licensed Onsite Soil Evaluators “one of which shall be restricted to design of conventional" systems.

In Virginia  journeyman and apprentice are defined under the Contractor’s Board, and the Department of Labor and Industry Generally considered an individual who has completed an apprenticeship and is fully educated in a trade or craft, but not yet a master. To become a master, a journeyman has to submit a master work piece to a guild for evaluation and be admitted to the guild as a master. A "journeyman class" may be applicable to trades guilds with an established training program but not to the onsite soil evaluator’s duties, Indeed this seems poorly considered as applied to licensed operators or installers. Waterworks have Operators in Training, professional engineering established Engineer in Training, neither were created in such a haphazard fashion as this proposal.

This does not apply to professional licensure based upon the practice of principals of both environmental science and engineering. This new class further confuses the requirements for direct supervision and responsibility. OMB's Small Business Impact Statement is inadequate to the task of reporting judgments about the impact of the regulation on the behavior of individuals and firms in the economy and about the value that people place on those changes. There are over 350 licensed OSE distributed across Virginia, the majority are employed by small businesses (<$5M in gross revenue/yr) or sole proprietorships, surely the economic impact of amendments affecting delivery of services to over 6,000 new homes per year deserves greater consideration.

We read in the supporting documentation that complaints were delivered to this board showing examples of unlicensed or non-compliant design provided by individuals lacking direct supervision. Rather than acting on violations of existing regulations DPOR seems to advocate licensure for everyone holding a shovel, this is a barrier to employment, and raises the cost of labor without apparent benefit to the public. This action does not address potential damage to the valuation of property which may be caused by unsupervised or incompetent employees.

Sealing a document completes the professional design, and restricts future changes; while providing assurance to the landowner and contractor. An incomplete design seems contrary to some interests. This is a deceptive practice since the cost of construction & operation services cannot be predicted w/out a complete set of construction documents.

This board has subjugated our license and plats have been recorded statewide without appropriate seal.

Example of Code references regarding seal:
http://www.fauquiercounty.gov/Government/Departments/CommDev/index.cfm?action=zoningordinance
c) Subdivision.

(1) Plans and specifications of the sewer system or sewage disposal system to be used, together with plans for the anticipated water system to be used in the structure or structures, shall be provided prior to the start of any new subdivision for which individual sewage disposal systems are required. These plans and specifications shall be submitted with the first submission of the preliminary plan. The licensed conventional on-site evaluator (LCOSE) or licensed alternative on-site evaluator (LAOSE), providing the plans and specifications for the sewage disposal systems shall sign the following certification statement and seal, with LCOSE or LAOSE seal, the preliminary plan sheet showing the location of the individual sewage disposal system(s). The plans and specifications for the sewage disposal system and anticipated water system must be approved by the health department and the Fauquier County Soil Scientist's Office before the preliminary plan is approved.

Would like to suggest to the Board to include mapping/cartography to the list of subject matter for OSE's

In my 45 years of practice as a professional I have never seen such a mountian of useless bureacreatic  retoritic.  Again the government is trying to dictate personal responsibility in the guise of protection of the public.

I personally know septic installers that do excellent work and really and truly know what they are doing but, for lack of education (not experence) and book sense they are being penalized and put  out of business.  For the love of god go back and see if you can simplify this. The standard of practice is good if one adheres to it they will stay in business.

We have "Master" bureacratic writers with no concept of what the real world is all about.  The "board" has no clue as well as the public. Who in the public sector has read this??

It appears that a "great cause" was to bring soil and health professionals to think alike it now has been promoted by the government and special interest groups as a "business" and is now a full fledged "racket". 

Your freedom to do your job as professional job has been usurped. 

Only Licensed Professional Soil Scientists should be conducting soil morphologic/cartographic, soil genesis interpretaions, classification and etcetera  for submittal of professional reports and recommendations.  When the Health Department came out with the AOSE program many years ago, it messed everything up from a professional standpoint.  DPOR should scrap the OSE program and make it simple by only allowing LPSS's to conduct the work as specified within the DPOR LPSS regulations.  DPOR should allow any existing licensed OSE to qualify to site for the LPSS exam only.  LPSS's are scientists with proven knowledge of the dicipline of soil science and anyone with the title of LPSS should have to pass the exam.   

During the last eight years I have had the pleasure of serving as a Gubernatorial Appointee to the DPOR (Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation) Board for Waterworks, and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals.  My term of office expired on June 30, 2015, and Governor McAuliffe finally appointed my replacement to the Board in October. 

There were several areas of concern that the Board heard from onsite licensees over and over again.  In several cases, there was absolutely nothing that the Board could do to address those comments.  Some of the issues could not be written into regulation as there are "other" regulations or Boards that conflicted with what our licensees wanted the Board to do or thought that the Board could do.

Practitioner Comment:   Contracts should be required and minimum contractual requirements should be included in the regulation.

The Board licenses individuals, not business entities.  The Board for Contractors already governs contract requirements and it lists minimum contractual requirements in its regulations.

Practitioner Comment:  There should be a stronger “Ethics” portion in the regulation as well as “Conflict of Interest" provision .

Some practitioners may not understand that when the Board writes Ethic and Conflict of Interest requirements into the regulation, it does not solely apply to Onsite Sewage System Professionals, but also applies to Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators. The Ethics portion was "tightened" as was "conflict of interest".

Practitioner Comment:   Require and specify a “Seal” for all AOSE submissions. 

Many practitioners may not understand the background of this issue.  For instance, the licensing Board for Notary Publics are changing their regulationsELIMINATE  the mandate or requirement for a SEAL and to allow  electronic signatures.  In addition, VDH and DEQ both trying to move toward electronic submission of permit applications and permit packages, which will most likely require electronic signatures.  Requiring an original SEAL on OSE submissions at a time when VDH and DEQ are trying to figure out how to accept electronic submissions would likely have a negative impact on those initiatives. 

Practitioner Comment:   Need to enforce or regulate or make VDH Environmental Health Specialists permit submissions conform to what VDH requires of Private Sector permit submissions.

The Board DOES NOT regulate VDH or DEQ.  The Board regulates individual licensees, who need to comply with VDH and DEQ regulations.  There is no mechanism for the Board to make VDH EHS staff conform unless they are licensed under the Board.  In the current regulations, at least one person in the practitioner’s office or company MUST have the appropriate license and act as the “Supervisor” or “Responsible Individual in Charge” of all non-licensed staff.  For instance, in my company, I am the license holder and I accept responsibility for my non-licensed staff to perform maintenance activities.  If they screw up, I am the one that goes in front of the Board to answer for their mistakes. 

In an effort to address this situation, the Board has proposed in the regulations to created a “Journeyman” license” category that would require ALL individuals working in the Onsite Industry to be in possession of some type of  license.  For instance, if you are a Licensed Installer, even the person working for you that operates the backhoe would have to have, at a minimum,  the Journeyman Installer license.  As a Licensed Operator, the person running your pump truck would have to have the Journeyman Operator license.  As a licensed OSE, the person you may have in your office turning the auger for you would have to have the Journeyman OSE license.  This should have the effective of bringing all VDH EHS staff under the purview of the Board.  There is a minimum amount of continuing education required, but no test is required to obtain a Journeyman license.

Practitioner Comment:   We need to codify “Standards of Practice”

The Board had intentions of incorporating the “Standards of Practice” from the VDH Regulation 12VAC5-615 (GMP 126.B) (the old Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluator regulation) into the proposed regulations.   The Board’s plan was to wait until those regulationswere repealed, and then incorporate the “Standards of Practice” from them into the Board’s proposed licensing regulations.  Unfortunately, a small number of individuals managed to  stop the fast track process of repealing 12VAC5-615 through the public comment process.  The net effect of this was that 12VAC5-615 remains an active Regulation, managed by VDH.

In short, this regulation update reflects a year of work.  The Board did listen to the constituents / licensees at public comment sessions and the Board did develop a set of regulations that took those comments into consideration.  The regulations incorporate those concerns and I and my staff fully support them.

K.R. "Trapper" Davis,

Dear Board,

  Oppose these regulations as written.  Add consumer protections for unscrupulous people that you regulate.

Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage

System Professionals Interpretations and Policies

18VAC160-20-74. License required.

June 24, 2009 Onsite Sewage System Installers

The requirement to possess the onsite sewage system installer license shall be limited to one

individual who is employed full-time by the company which signed the installation contract and who

shall be responsible for all activities of that contract’s onsite sewage system installation.

The WWWOOSP Board has language that is contingent upon a "CONTRACT" for services; only IF BOARD members would have cared to read OUR policies.  Taking policy into regulation/code is a natural progression.

In failing to address these matters, did they intentionally attempt to harm the public or feather their nest??

Bring policy into the proposed regs and require a contract.

Not to overstate the case, but these regulations have been influenced. 

Former BOARD member and now VICE PRESIDENT OF VOWRA, Mr. Kornell Davis appears to have lost any real value to the proposed regulations.  He only represents VOWRA and DID NOT consider other groups concerns for interests.

h ttp://gdurl.com/CPfX (cut and paste into your browser;remove space after h)

Go to ttp://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\GuidanceDocs\222\GDoc_DPOR_4920_v1.pdf.   (cut and paste into your browser; add the "h" prior to ttp

-current Board guidance document discusses direct supervision and WHO is accountable for an unlicensed person's actions.  Under the current program, licensed professional is responsible for everyone that he/she is employing-training.

The new licensing scheme is going to create a special buffer for "management" or those responsible for training/supervising unsupervised persons and place blame on untrained persons?  

Did the Board consider what this will do to accountability?

   ttp://gdurl.com/P2aZ    (copy and paste to browser and add h prior to ttp:)

You are being requested to withdraw the proposed regulations due to less burdensome methods of regulation

Practitioner Comment:   Contracts should be required and minimum contractual requirements should be included in the regulation.

The Board licenses individuals, not business entities.  The Board for Contractors already governs contract requirements and it lists minimum contractual requirements in its regulations.--K.R. Davis

THE WWWOOSP BOARD HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES  IN THE INDUSTRY WHILE ADDRESSING THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. 

Onsite professionals are routinely failing to disclose limits of service in both the operation and maintenance services and onsite design services.  Failure of the board to recognize and respond to the complaints has left the injured citizen with limited options for recovery. Virginia currently has a statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is five years, and for the breach of a non-written contract it is three years. Va. Code Ann. §8.01-246.

Is it the intention of the WWWOOSP board to deny  2 years of benefit during a professional breach to the consumer? 

SUGGESTION:  Create language for contractual agreements.  If the "entity" must be regulated, then incorporate that requirement into the proposed regulations.

PROPOSED CHANGE

18VAC160-40-10. Definitions.

"Direct supervision"  means the responsibility for the direct control and conduct of a subordinate being immediately available and fully responsible for the provision of onsite sewage system services regulated pursuant to Chapter 23 (§ 54.1-2300 et seq.) of Title 54.1 and this chapter .

Reasoning:  SOIL EVALUATION requires DIrect control by a licensed professional.  The act of describing morphological characterization of soils requires more than a 4 day "soils camp" to be proficient.  You have modified this definition to benefit VDH and their hiring of untrained, unlicensed persons.   

Such information can be retreived from WWWOOSP minutes during the September 27, 2011.  Wherein Mr. Knapp, VDH explains that the Board's interpretation is a FINANCIAL HARDSHIP to the AGENCY.

http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File= C:\TownHall\docroot\Meeting\17\15657\Minutes_DPOR_15657_v2.pdf

PRPOSED DEFINITION TO BE INCLUDED

Delegation

The directing of non-licensed individual who does not have sufficient knowledge and experience to work independently while working under the direct supervision of a licensed onsite soil evaluator.

Organization

Any firm, corporation, partnership, government agency, sole proprietor or other type of legal entity that employs licensed onsite soil evaluators and provides products and/or services regulated pursuant to Chapter 23 (§ 54.1-2300 et seq.) of Title 54.1 and this chapter.

Subordinate

Any person, directly supervised by a licensed onsite soil evaluator who assists in the practice of onsite soil evaluation and designs for conventional or alternative onsite sewage disposal systems.

Seal

Any physical or electronic seal applied by a licensed onsite soil evaluator to a document to indicate that he or she is professionally responsible for the work so sealed.

Matters of Public Concern:

OSE had a sealing requirement while under the VDH "authorized" program.  It appears as if this board is intentionally trying to transfer liability from VDH licensed professionals by removing the requirements for sealing.  Sealing allows the owner to convey a COMPLETED work product to contractors for a UNIFORM bid. 

In removing the sealing requirement, the portion of regulants providing design services for VDH are not providing a document that is considered "FINAL".  Owners do not have any guarantee that the plans are final and free of deffect.  In turn, this places the owner with reduced opportunity to recover damages from flawed or incomplete plans.

Standard of Care

The care and skill ordinarily used by members of the onsite soil evaluation profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and locality.

Has the board failed to consider the gap between Class IV wastewater works operators and the onsite operator?

The public and the professional are unable to determine the classification of operator who is qualified to maintain and support systems falling within the 30,000 gallon/day gap. A malfunction stands to discharge a significant volume of water resulting in significant contamination of the waters of the Commonwealth.

Reference:

18VAC160-20-74. License Required.

Part II. License Requirements

D. No individual shall act as an alternative onsite sewage system operator of an alternative onsite sewage system that exceeds 10,000 gallons per day design flow without possessing the appropriate class of wastewater works operator license in addition to an alternative onsite sewage system operator license.

18VAC160-20-130. Wastewater Works.

A. A Class 4 wastewater works licensee may operate any wastewater works as follows:

1. A wastewater works employing natural treatment methods (i.e., those not utilizing aerated or mixed flows and not using electrical or outside energy sources to accomplish treatment) with a design hydraulic capacity greater than 0.04 MGD but equal to or less than 1.0 MGD; or

2. A wastewater works classified by the Virginia Department of Health or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as a Class 4 wastewater works.

Water & Wastewater works operators are licensed to understand and manage the public systems. In an era wherein political expediency rather than likely consequences drive decisions with catastrophic results, Virginia's Waterworks Board proposes to dilute the standards for licensure and supervision at water and wastewater works.

Disaster capitalism feeds on regulatory capture; vast public resources are at stake, and failure to adhere to known scientific principals of responsible operation and maintenance result in public funds being released; while maintenance and development of decentralized systems are boring and cheap... diluting qualifications, standards and responsibility bring higher risk of events such as Flint, Danville or Charleston.

While dilution of standards is intended to reduce costs, and we understand PSA operators claim qualified employees are scarce. The use of prison labor (paid pennies on the dollar) with promise of granting license after release is cause for concern, as it is very hard for a captive employee to provide oversight or resist political will. These policies inevitably result in the depression of wages for qualified operators in competition with persons trained at public expense.

There are abundant examples within the proposed regulation resulting in reduced protection of public resources, entrance of unqualified personell under "journeyman" or provisional license, and dilution of the expectations of supervision by licensed professionals.

I urge the Board to reconsider the proposal to reduce expectations. For example the following language permitting absentee management by licensed operators:

"Direct supervision" means being immediately available and fully responsible for the provision of waterworks and wastewater works operation regulated pursuant to Chapter 23 (§ 54.1-2300 et seq.) of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter.

"Direct supervisor" means a licensed waterworks or wastewater works operator who assumes the responsibility of direct supervision.

Which does not carry the same weight as existing regulation:

"Direct supervision" means being responsible for the compliance with this chapter by any unlicensed individual who is engaged in activities requiring an operator, installer, or evaluator license.

"Direct supervisor" means a licensed operator, installer, or evaluator who undertakes the supervision of an unlicensed individual engaged in activities requiring a license. The direct supervisor shall be responsible for the unlicensed individual's full compliance with this chapter.

The journeyman is just another BURDENSOME regulation to installation firms.  This will create additional losses in productivity of man hour allocation units needed to comply with CEU requirements.  In the end, costs will be transfered the consumer. 

How do the proposed changes improve the current board policy of working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional?   

Conflict of Interest statements by Mr. John Aulbach and Mr. Barry Dunkley failed to disclose that both parties are licensed Professional Engineers while voting on board motions to refuse onsite soil evaluators from obtaining a seal.

Can Mr. John. J Aulbach II, PE advise to the Board and public interest if he continues to serve as an adjunct faculty for any university or college? 

Has Mr. Aulbach received compensation from other sources of revenue besides Virginia Department of Health? If so, how much?

I object to the Regulations as drafted concerning sealing documents. I feel that any document that stands as a professional design document that is to be followed like a blueprint or plat sheet should be sealed by the author as a testament that the work is theirs and that they stand behind the work with their professional credentials. This protects the general public, the consumer/homeowner, enhances the professionality of designers and evaluators, and completes the documentation of accountability should failure occur due to poor design or improper soil/site evaluation. Sealing also protects the designer should failure occur due to installation failure to follow a well-documented design.

I ask WWWOOSSP to consider requiring sealing of all wastewater system design documents. 

I object to the Regulations as drafted concerning adding a journeyman class. I feel that the system in place is meeting the needs of the public in a timely and efficient manner. Adding a journeyman class may allow more practitioners to the field but will not ensure better protection for water quality or more rapid design of high-quality onsite wastewater systems. At the risk of requiring forethought and patience on the part of developers and potential homeowners, the work that would fall to journeymen may result in the failure to the public to receive fully professional design and/or site evaluation. The current structure better protects those concerns. 

I urge WWWOOSSP to reconsider creating an unrestricted journeyman class.

The public and their natural resources must be protected by requirements of rigorous qualification and accountability of the professionals that work to protect the public and provide them services. Any action or exemption that lessens the training or experience requirements for practice should be removed from proposed changes to existing regulations. In fact, requirements should be maintained and strengthened to protect the professions involved and the public in the long-term scope. We have licensed professional soil scientists and certified professional soil scientists in Virginia. They can do the jobs required by the public and have invested in creating a profession that requires training and experience at acceptable levels to serve and protect the public and the natural resources of the Commonwealth.

I urge WWWOOSSP to reconsider lowering the qualifications or training requirements for practice of design or site evaluation of conventional onsite wastewater systems.

The OSE soil evaluation and design license already has a benefit of not being required to possess a full PE license. § 54.1-406. License required. 

A. Unless exempted by § 54.1-401, 54.1-402, or 54.1-402.1, a person shall hold a valid license prior to engaging in the practice of architecture or engineering which includes design, consultation, evaluation or analysis and involves proposed or existing improvements to real property.

Further REDUCING standards from the existing OSE requirement does not serve any interest to protect public health, safety, and welfare. 

I hope this Board soon wakes up and returns to it's purpose: promulgating regulations that protect the PUBLIC interest.  

As a matter of public concern, I find it discerning that the Director of Office of Drinking Water for the VIrginia Department of Health sat as WWWOOSP Board  Chairman and influenced the proposed regulations.  Will the fielding of journeyman benefit consumers or Virginia Department of Health?

These proposed revisions will not improve clarity of the regulations, will not ensure consistency with current board practices and legal requirements, and blatantly disregarded standards of practice in the industry. 

Just exactly what are the Real Estate Board Regulations found at 18 VAC 160-20?  The recent Small Business Impact Review was obligatory at best.  This Board has removed due process.

What should be even more insulting to the public is where the Assistant Attorney General appears to certify,

"The regulations do not appear, on their face, to conflict with
the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor do they appear to conflict with federal or state law currently in effect." 

Will the Attorney General ever review this proposed text to ensure it's written in a comprehensible manner, was authorized by statute, and can be certified consistent with other law?  If not, then why not? Who else will be consulted to determine there's no conflict with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia?  Will the Federal Trade Commission be contacted for an opinion? 

This Board is serving two masters as evidenced by the necessity and creation of two new chapters, while failing to eliminate the statutory and regulatory inconsistencies with § 54.1-2301 of the Code of Virginia.

Start over and stop aiding and abetting a regulation that no longer protects public health, safety, and welfare.

How does the Board effectively promulgate regulations which such obvious conflicting interests?  

It appears as if the unintended consequences of placing all three professions under the WWWOOSP Board is now obvious.  Onsite Designers have a higher threshhold of training and bodies of knowledge required to perform the duties of a licensed professional than operators and installers.  Keeping soil evaluators under this board only further mandates the "indentured servitude" we endure. 

Soil evaluators serve the same function as Professonal Engineers do in providing designs to the public.  Responsibilities extend well beyond soil evaluation phase of the projects.  Design requires skills that include work as being incidental to include the areas of professional practice. 

Utilizing actual documents from other licensed professionals blurs the line between "relying on information" and violating copyright laws.  This are of expertise must be addressed to comply with existing statutory law. 

EXHIBIT A

"VOWRA backs what we are doing, and VOWRA represents manufactures, Engineers, AOSE's, installers, operators, etc...VAPSS I don't care about.." [Emphasis added] -K.R Davis (Internal email obtained via FOIA) March 13, 2015

EXHIBIT B

"Brooke and I are really tired of "THEM"! [Emphasis added] -K.R Davis (Internal email obtained via FOIA) March 13, 2015

EXHIBIT C

"Is there anyway that I can "Temporarily" resign, so I can literally slap the crap out of some people...and...say I was a not Board member when it happened?" [Emphasis added]-K.R Davis (Internal email obtained via FOIA) March 13, 2015

Matters of Public Concern:

It appears your board failed to consider motions and actions other than  proposed by VOWRA [Exhibit A].  Do you have any other undisclosed interests you would care to share with the public body prior to approving or withdrawing the proposed regulations??

When did it become a matter of state public policy to threaten and intimidate public commenters with bodily harm? [Exhibit C]

Can the WWWOOSP Board please explain when they were captured by VOWRA?  What interest does the WWWOOSP Board have in not treating all associations on equal footing? 

EXHIBIT D

..."the current system allows most people to work without a license and without a licensee even on premises, and therefor not under the Board's authority." -Trisha Henshaw, March 13 Correspondence to K.R. Davis (via FOIA)

EXHIBIT E

"Right now if we get a complaint about an unlicensed person, all that unlicensed person has to say is that he is working under a licensee, and we can't go any further" -Trisha Henshaw, March 13 Correspondence to K.R. Davis (via FOIA)

 The current policy requires that the licensed professional is responsible for the actions of any UNLICENSED persons.  See policy here. http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\Meeting\17\15657\Minutes_DPOR_15657_v2.pdf

As to the specifics for onsite soil evaluators, the previous policy as voted on without dissent by the Board and adopted on June 21, 2011 stated, "a licensed conventional or alternative onsite soil evaluator, as appropriate, shall be present and shall provide direct supervision to unlicensed individuals engaged in activities requiring an evaluator license." [emphasis added]  http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\Meeting\17\15656\Minutes_DPOR_15656_v3.pdf

Only after Mr. Allen Knapp, Virginia Department of Health lobbied the Board concerning the adverse impact of VDH of the June 21, 2011 interpretation did the Board alter it's prior position.

"Mr. K. Davis moved that if a licensed onsite soil evaluator has a direct employer-employee relationship or a written contract with an unlicensed individual, the unlicensed individual may perform soil evaluation tasks without the licensed onsite soil evaluator being present.  The licensed onsite soil evaluator will be responsible for the unlicensed individual's compliance with all applicable laws and regulations...."[emphasis added] see board minutes http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\Meeting\17\15657\Minutes_DPOR_15657_v2.pdf

With what appears this board to be trading favors to the sister executive branch agency, how does this board ever expect to adjudicate any OSE matter without predjudice?  The public record is very clear and on it's face, appears to be ripe with conflict.

18VAC160-40-480. Conflicts of interest.

2. Not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on or pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed to and agreed to by all interested parties in writing. [emphasis added]

Comment:  When and how does the Board expect "fully disclosed....in writing" to occur if no contract is required?

This concern is germain to our profession.  There are many onsite soil evaluators who accept design fees from the owner and then charge the installation contractor fees for inspection(s).  How does the Board expect to regulate this apparently deceptive practice?

Suggestion:  Require disclosure through the written form of a contractual agreement. 

18VAC160-40-470. Prohibited acts.

15. Failing to act in providing professional services in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public.

Suggestion:  Strike item 15

This language will prevent VDH from designing voluntary upgrades, which often involves dispersing raw septic tank effluent into unconfined aquifers.  The VDH has a "mandate" to offer these services. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia must protect the health of public.  By doing so they shall utilize their Licensed Professionals, Licensed Professional Soil Scientists, who are individuals held to rigorous qualificiations and testing standards through our national organization, the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and our state organization, the Virginia Department of Occupational and Professional Regulations (DPOR).  Allow these licensed, educated, trained, professionals to do the work required in the field of soil science, in order to protect human health.  Their years of education, training and expertise can only aid in the advacement and protection of our Commonwealth.

Any action or exemption that lessens the training or experience requirements for practice should be removed from proposed changes to existing regulations. In fact, requirements should be maintained and strengthened to protect the professions involved and the public in the long-term scope. Our licensed professional soil scientists can do this job, protecting our citizens and their health; and aiding other design professionals in heightening acceptable standards. 

I, also, urge WWWOOSSP to reconsider lowering the qualifications or training requirements for practice of design or site evaluation of conventional onsite wastewater systems.

The human health and the environment of the Commonwealth must be protected by requirements of rigorous qualification and accountability of the professionals that work to protect the public and provide them services. Any action or exemption that lessens the training or experience requirements for practice should be removed from proposed changes to existing regulations. In fact, requirements should be maintained and strengthened to protect the professions involved and the public in the long-term scope. We have licensed professional soil scientists and certified professional soil scientists in Virginia. They can do the jobs required by the public and have invested in creating a profession that requires training and experience at acceptable levels to serve and protect the public and the natural resources of the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the role of the VA DOH-EHS should be strictly regulatory, and not engaged in any form of design services. The proposed change in the regulations not only makes it easier for the DOH-EHS to engage in design services, but facilitates the DOH's role in what should be a practice of the private sector, exclusively.

6. Not demonstrating reasonable care, judgment, or application of the required knowledge, skill, and ability in the performance of the licensee's duties.

Consider the following:

Strike "reasonable" and insert "standard of"

This better aligns the regulations with statutory and common law use

Suggest adding language

16.  No regulant of this Board shall provide evaluation and design services to the public for which that same person while serving as a code official and approves their own work. 

Purpose:

This will remove the conflicts of interest where as many VDH staff evaluate, design and render Regulatory approvals on their own work with no oversight by an independent party

EXHIBIT F

"Practitioner Comment:   Need to enforce or regulate or make VDH Environmental Health Specialists permit submissions conform to what VDH requires of Private Sector permit submissions." --K.R. DAVIS

..."The Board regulates individual licensees, who need to comply with VDH and DEQ regulations...In the current regulations, at least one person in the practitioner’s office or company MUST have the appropriate license and act as the “Supervisor” or “Responsible Individual in Charge” of all non-licensed staff..." [emphasis added] --K.R DAVIS

"In an effort to address this situation, the Board has proposed in the regulations to created a “Journeyman” license” category that would require ALL individuals working in the Onsite Industry to be in possession of some type of  license... This should have the effective of bringing all VDH EHS staff under the purview of the Board.  There is a minimum amount of continuing education required, but no test is required to obtain a Journeyman license." [emphasis added] --K.R. DAVIS

On September 27, 2011  a motion was made as stated,
"Mr. K. Davis moved that if a licensed onsite soil evaluator has a direct employer-employee relationship or a written contract with an unlicensed individual, the unlicensed individual may perform soil evaluation tasks without the licensed onsite soil evaluator being present.  The licensed onsite soil evaluator will be responsible for the unlicensed individual's compliance with all applicable laws and regulations...."[emphasis added] see board minutes      http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\Meeting\17\15657\Minutes_DPOR_15657_v2.pdf

Comment:  Does the WWWOOSP Board concede that the existing policy and regulations failed to provide adequate regulatory oversight? 

18VAC160-40-230. License required.

D. A journeyman onsite soil evaluator must work under the direct supervision of a master onsite soil evaluator. A master onsite soil evaluator of an equal or greater class is responsible for supervising the provision of onsite soil evaluations and designs by any journeyman onsite soil evaluator under his responsibility.

Who will accept legal responsibility for the completed final work product; Journeyman or Master?

Based on the plain english reading, it appears as if the Board is trying to place all legal responsibility on the Journeyman.

SUGGESTION:  add language to indicate that the MASTER shall sign all legal documents and proposed onsite soil evaluations and designs. 

"Journeyman" means an individual who possesses the minimum skills and competency to assist with the installation or maintenance of onsite sewage systems or assist in the evaluation of soil sites as suitable for conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems and to design conventional onsite sewage systems under the direct supervision of a master licensee.

Suggestion:  Strike "and competency"

"DPOR and its regulatory boards establish entry requirements based upon a combination of education, examination, and/or experience." [emphasis added]--http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/applicants/

Entry to the profession is lacking examination?

I believe there is an overwhelming flow of concern here for the safety and preservation of public health by the creation of a journeymans license for the OSE license.  What I don't see is any commentary from the installer community and little from the operators; have they not been informed of such an important change to their license?  This lack of response by contractors concerns me greatly and I feel as though stake holders have not been included in this process that should be transparent and inclusive.

The program for private OSE licensure works well as is and is successful.  The output of work in the State would not be possible without the private sector licensed PE & OSE community.  VDH has historically been incapable of handling the workload without the private sector, hence the 2009 creation of the OSE license.  The controversy of private and public subsidized permitting and the struggle between the private and public sector for the market share is well known need not be addressed here however, I don't believe the creation of a license holder with a lesser standard of knowledge and or experience is of any benefit to public heatlh. 

An OSE individuals ability to access, evaluate and determine soil suitability as well as to practice engineering for systems under 1000 gallons has been provided by the Engineering Board via an exemption to the state code; so I don't believe this change in the license can be legal without consulting the entity who has granted the exemption to practice engineering.

The majority of private and public OSE's have extensive education and experience in the wastewater, geological, engineering and soils science fields; this knowledge continues to grow with recent graduates looking for opportunities within the state and private sector.  While the pool of knowledge is great, the experience is critical in a multi-disiplinary field such as this.  As a license holder I take full responsibility for the entire body of my work, I don't see a journeymans license providing me with any benefit.  If a PE has an EIT provide poor or false information for a project that PE will be held accountable.  So once again there is little to no benefit here to the public or the OSE. 

I see no reason to encourage the unwanted growth of government, please strike OSE langauge from these changes and consult all stakeholders specifically installers, wastewater operators and PE's before consideration of any other changes to the regulations that concern current license holders.

How does the Board propose to handle day laborers?  Will I have to license the people I get at 7 eleven?

The draft language creates a requirement of licensure for full time employees of installation contractors, which exempts firms that hire day labor. Employees working less than 1760/yr are exempt from the expense of licensing, continuing education and renewal. Under this proposal firms are liable for acts of malfeasance or negligence by "journeymen" with no requirements for education training or supervision except the minimal guidance of these revised regulations.

Will the journeyman be entitled to sign a completion statement? If so does he bind his company, or his person?

How will amending definitions of direct supervision affect contractors? The only viable business model is a responsible supervisor onsite at all times, with unquestioned excercise of his professional judgement under contract to his client.

Small business deserve greater consideration, who is the AG fooling in his regulatory review?
These regulations are not in the best interest of the public, who's interest are they in?

I recommend DPOR's Contractors Board be brought into the discussion of requirement for written contract, including definition of minimum standard of service & warranty.

This board deserves investigation for undisclosed confict of interest and collusion by the Attorney General's Office. Perhaps the self dealing board should be under greater scrutiny for Waste, Fraud and Abuse by the Inspector General. This board seems to be under influence by VOWRA (selling training and manufacturer's lobbying) and VDH (providing design, training & oversight), and water authorities under oversight of VDH.

Please withdrawl your "incomplete" regulations and finish your duty owed to the public.  It seems these regulations were bought by the Virginia Department of Health and will pay to VOWRA.

FORMER VDH AOSE PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS TO BECOME "CERTIFIED"

A person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the division that he has at least eight years of experience evaluating site and soil conditions for onsite sewage systems in Virginia in accordance with the Board of Health's Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12VAC5-610) shall be eligible to receive a certificate as.

WWWOOSP PROPOSE QUALIFICATION (MASTER  "JOURNEYMAN" ALTERNATIVE OSE)- NO PREREQUISITE, NO EXAM, NO EXPERIENCE

What matter of science or FACTS did this board consider in reducing the educational  and experience requirements?   Does reducing the  training requirement of six years benefit the public health, safety, and welfare?

And competence has left the building (literally)!!

EXHIBIT G

"If you recall,  when the VDH representatives spoke at our very first work group meeting they then vaguely spoke of the plan for the SHIFT.   VDH basically said that they would be unwilling to provide much input to our WWWOOSOP Work Group meeting until after the SHIFT meeting started and some progress was made.     If you recall, I actually point blank asked Allan Knapp, “So you are telling DPOR that they should just wait until VDH gets back to them?”   In fact that is exactly what they were saying.  The DPOR Administrative staff said we could not do much more at that point.   I was shocked and quite honestly embarrassed how the whole thing was handled.  So please don’t tell me that I am “acting in a manner that leaves you without representation” or that “I should begin to speak for my peers”.   My friend, I have spoken many times and it appears that my voice has fallen on deaf ears sometimes.    I have more than once conveyed my frustration to the DPOR Administrative staff.  [emphasis added] -Brook Philpy March 1, 2014 correspondence

"I just recently asked the DPOR Admin Staff if there is any way possible to proceed with developing standards of practice without VDH.  I have not received an answer yet.  My guess is they will respond by saying that DPOR cannot regulate another agency out of business.    In case you have not figured it out yet, this has become a very complicated process with no clear resolution in sight.  But, I have not given up.   -Brook Philpy March 1, 2014 Correspondence" [emphasis added]  -Brook Philpy March 1, 2014 correspondence

Does this board regulate individuals or agencies? 

The largest design firm in the state will not allow DPOR to maintain oversight over licensed professionals?  This is why you can not have an executive branch agency being an active market participant while regulating the work of it's competitors.  In essence, the VDH influenced the Board under Commerce and Trade to not have consistant standards of practice.  This is classic behavior of Bainian Market power exhibited by a monopolist.

I applaud the board for incorporating 18VAC160-40-470. Prohibited acts into the proposed regualtions.

EXHIBIT H

KR Trapper Davis <krdavis@cpegllc.com> wrote:

Jim, my problem with this bill isn’t about an Installer getting his license … my problem is with an “Operator” being granted a license to manage, operate and maintain an AOSS up to 10,000 gpd without demonstrating they have the “knowledge” to do so … these guys run pump trucks and have the attitude (as demonstrated in their letter) that maintenance is nothing but “pumping and Dumping” … Managing the higher flow systems requires higher math skills, a working knowledge of some chemistry and microbiology, as well as intimately knowing HOW the systems work and WHY they work …[emphasis added] --KR TRAPPER DAVIS (email March 1, 2014)

Objection to the restructuring of "direct supervision" and no examination process for journeymen who will not be DIRECTLY SUPERVISED.  In essence, you are going to leave an untrained, untested individual ALONE to operate a system.  Seems like this undermines the necessity of protecting public health, safety, and welfare.

 Proposal: Provide a mechanism that operators provide DIRECT SUPERVISION until the trainee is fully examined.  How are you going to stop operators from utilizing a "manpower" job sourcing entinty to hire persons that will not be employed for the full 1760 minimum hour requirement for licensure?  This circumvention must be corrected, please address at your convenience.

As a professional one always trys to keep abrest in their field.  CPE's in this industry are sorta been there done that and bought the t shirt.  Like cold is on the right hot on the left and s___t runs down hill.   The only way the waste water orginazations and supply stores can expect to draw a crown is to offer CPE's  and if you have to sit through these boring presentations to recieve a contact hour it is a waste of time.  Consider the expense of a "convention" you just comnpound the waste.   If you want infromation on a process or product hope you can use the internet and derive all the information you need.  I would strongly suggest that we drop this requirement.  It just irritates me rather than providing the desired education. 

1. An executive order issued by the Governor pursuant to § 2.2-4017 of the Administrative Process Act to receive comment on all existing regulations as to their effectiveness, efficiency, necessity, clarity, and cost of compliance;

According to Gov. directive the Board over cooked it. 

According to comments made thus far.

Assuming that the Gov. has a clue.