DPOR already has a certification for soil evaluation (the CPSS), they only lack a mechanism for licensing onsite design. Clearly an important step has already been accomplished as we do not have to distinguish those capable of evaluating the soil, only those practitioners that are qualified to design in compliance with the regulations concerning the siting of onsite wastewater treatment systems.
It is apparent that the task of fitting AOSE's into a framework intended for Waterworks Operators (WWWO) was challenging. The WWWO work in the realm of concrete and steel, mixed industrial and domestic waste streams, in contact with hazardous substances, with PE's oversight, the capital structure for long term projects, teams of operators all cooperating to be certain that the water's discharging into a public receiving environment is safe for downstream users. WWWO are not known for making independent decisions, nor are they similar to us in any apparent way except that they are trained in sewage handling and processing, though most AOSE's are not.
What do the numbers of advanced designs have to do with one's ability to evaluate and describe soil morphology? This is the missing link in the proposed regulations, it may be difficult for the layperson to understand that the capacity of the soil to accept the introduction of water at unnatural rates is based on a number of factors that would be impossible to codify into any practical regulation, and is best determined by those professionals with the experience and training to make these determinations. These professionals are currently regulated as Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS), as with any body of individuals our experiences and qualifications vary, however we are recognized as having the professional ability to distinguish those realms in which we are qualified to consult.
Breaking the existing field of current AOSE into 2 ranks seems as absurd as creating one class of designer for systems installed below 24" and another for those installed above. If you can't do both you shouldn't do either. The depth to restriction is not the issue dividing our ranks, I can delineate critical features, and am equally adapt at measuring small offsets as large. This is not a question for a test, this is the basis of our experience and I doubt that a vendor will be able to create an exam to differentiate between those that understand the delineation and interpretation of a fragipan and those that do not.
Better to create a class for systems greater than 1,000 gpd and another less than, or some method of defining risk such as parcels less than 1 acre/500 gallons vs. all others. I can only observe, and call out this clear deficiency in the current proposal, for surely there is no more risk in placing secondary effluent in the soil than there is in the placement of septic tank effluent (STE).
Many AOSE'S, as well as most EHS's have little formal training in designing dispersal systems for secondary effluent. However we can make a strong case that practicing AOSE's have both experience and training, and for their physiographic regions a working knowledge of the use of advanced onsite treatment. We have become accustomed to accepting black box systems that take STE and yield secondary effluent, and the prescriptive regulations have enabled us to place these waters in the soil matrix. Why would these conditions change after July 09? It would seem that there should be a provision that practicing AOSE's be permitted to sit for the "advanced" exam with minimal vetting. I oppose the undercurrent in the regulation that seems to prevent my colleagues working as EHS from satisfying the requirements for licensure. The issue of working in the private versus the public sector should not be the subject of this legislation. VDH may have difficulty retaining EHS in some regions, that issue should be dealt with contractually through employment criteria, not by legislation that seeks to avoid "flight" of trained personnel. The exam and vetting criteria should be able to differentiate between those that recognize the limitations of the soil and site; and those that shall require further training or experience.
DPOR certainly has experience in regulating standards of practice among it's regulants, many are already familiar with this as CPSS, or Contractors. DPOR has relevant guidelines in the code of ethics, education and training and complaint review procedure investigation and enforcement for trades people as well as professionals.
I have served as a soil consultant in rural Virginia (across the Blue Ridge, Piedmont and Ridge & Valley) for over 20 years, as an employee of an industrial facility, a private consultant, as a CPSS under DPOR, later as an AOSE authorized by VDH and now within the limits of an LLC. My typical client is a property owner intending to build a home for a family, and my goal is to interpret the environmental limitations and ensure that the residents do not degrade the environment for themselves or their neighbors. I have also practiced the trade and profession of a Soil Scientist consulting for governmental bodies, industrial or commercial establishments, real estate developers, Professional Engineers and nongovernmental organizations. Our experience in assessing a site's limitations do not suddenly fail this year, nor do our abilities to continue siting onsite systems whether conventional or advanced, unless the Committee decides that is in the best interests of the public. To replace our current authority with an interim provisional license without recognizing the validity of the systems that have been permitted by our efforts and talents will be a tough sell to the stakeholders: current VDH AOSE's and EHS staff, PE's, realtors, builders, developers & homeowners, and ultimately the Legislature.
For an AOSE's working history (under VDH) to become moot following enrollment in the provisional interim licensure strikes me as poorly considered. But this is what has been proposed. My professional standing vanishes after July, and I become an "interim" licensee. Then after a period of time depending on my education I am eligible to take an exam to be a "conventional" licensee; and then after 2-3 years (under "supervision" of a currently licensed advanced evaluator) I will be eligible to take another exam in order to be licensed to continue to do the work that I have been doing for over 10 years!
A fly in this ointment is that many AOSE are self employed stand alone entities, thus we have no "supervisor"; how shall we earn the standing to satisfy the requirement to sit for the exam proposed under 18VAC160-20-96. Qualifications for licensure - onsite soil evaluators. B. 2 a. & b.
Effective July of this year as the VDH AOSE program expires, we still have no other person to serve as "supervision" except the EHS's or PE's that review, record, and permit our work; unless the intent is "authorization" (as VDH AOSE) rather than "licensed". That is I am AOSE, and I work under this authority as granted by VDH. This is unlikely to be the intent of the proposal.
The Board for Waterworks specifically states the goal of the regulation:
"To protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by regulating the waterworks and wastewater works operators profession in the least burdensome, costly and intrusive manner to the citizens and businesses of the Commonwealth."
There should be a seamless transition for those authorized under VDH to licensing by DPOR. This transition would ideally occur prior to the former program's expiration. The mandate by the General Assembly was to exercise control, not to hinder the practice of Onsite Evaluators.
The idea of requiring 36 designs seems an arbitrary and unduly restrictive threshold which does little to further the public interest, nor does the 12 "advanced" design threshold. Under this mandate only AOSE's serving urban populations with complex soil restrictions will qualify for "advanced" licensure. And future designers will find it very difficult to establish an independent consultancy. Instead require the filing of a recent conventional design, and an engineered design which have been approved, and preferably constructed and operating to everyone's satisfaction. Though I submit it would be far more interesting to require the presentation of a design that did not perform as intended and report the basis for a solution to this predicament, as this truly separates the experienced from the novices.
Similarly, the requirement for advanced install contractors to meet a 12 count standard and 6 count of engineered designs ensures that there will be a shortage of licensed advanced contractors in many area's of the Commonwealth. Many experienced contractors in the Blue Ridge Province won't meet this standard.This shortage can be predicted to seriously affect the scheduling, price competitiveness, quality and completion of isolated rural residential onsite systems.
A numerical threshold is a serious error, the results of an installation can only be evaluated based on a comparison with the designer's intent, the site's restrictions, and the success of the contractor in accommodating the clients requirements. Based on this criteria we should be satisfied with a professional recommendation from the designers and inspectors -whether public or private, that are familiar with the work, and will vouch for the applicant. The quantity of installs does not qualify a contractor. The quality of the contractor, as measured by the satisfaction of the inspector and the client will yield a reliable measure.
The licensure should be granted by performance as expressed through vouching by experienced peers: contractors, EHS, PE or AOSE. And a review of client/public complaints filed under DPOR. In my opinion some of the provisions written into the proposal have been applied at the suggestion of organizations or firms that wish to promote the training of regulants under proprietary programs, or to limit the entry of interested people into the onsite fields.
I support licensure of the onsite wastewater field. The Board should create a simple means for licensure of the private businesses we have established without requiring burdensome expenditures of time or money. And without unduly restricting the future entry of qualified individuals. I hope that we are able to make a concerted effort to comment on the proposed licensure and effect sufficient modifications to the regulations that the public will continue to be effectively and economically served by our industry.
Reading the comments of others upon this forum leads me to believe that we have the potential to amend this document and create a document integrating the onsite professions of soil science, design, installation and maintenance into the Code of Virginia. Along with the ongoing revisions to the VDH's onsite regulations we have the potential of easing the environmental burden of development on the watershed and other resources, while creating opportunities for the public to utilize and make improvements on their property.
