The pressure for a Bill that passes the common sense test has been demonstrated by this forum.
While there have been many relevant and informed comments posted few endorse the current proposal.
The proposal does not appear to conform to the enabling Code, which reads as follows:
§ 54.1-2301. Board for WWWOOSSP:
D. The Board, in consultation with the Board of Health, shall adopt regulations for the licensure of (i) onsite soil evaluators;(ii) installers of alternative onsite sewage systems, as defined in § 32.1-163; and (iii) operators of alternative onsite sewage systems, as defined in § 32.1-163. Such regulations shall include requirements for (a) minimum education and training, including approved training courses; (b) relevant work experience; (c) demonstrated knowledge and skill; (d) application fees to cover the costs of the program, renewal fees, and schedules;(e) the division of onsite soil evaluators into classes, one of which shall be restricted to the design of conventional onsite sewage systems;and (f) other criteria the Board deems necessary.
This language clearly establishes licensure for soil evaluators, and it breaks designers into 2 classes, conventional and alternative.
The most practical correction is by a change in definition, and a reference to the existing CPSS Board. Preferably the CPSS/LPSS will be the entry route to licensure following the expiration of the interim OSE route. If necessary enact legislation moving the Certification to Licensure and create an avenue so existing CPSS and AOSE may transition seamlessly.
1. Licensed Soil Scientists will continue to evaluate soils, regardless of depth to restriction etc.
There is a shed at DPOR regulating PSS, that Board should be integrated into this proposal.
2. There shall be two classes of Designer:
a. Conventional Designers, as defined gravity, or pumped with gravity distribution of STE through trenches or with a PE's seal by pressure distribution- drip, LPD etc.
b. Advanced Designers working with other than STE and gravity distribution, within the specific language of "exempt from the practices of engineering" or the next iteration of that policy.
From Code the definition proposed is:
"Conventional onsite sewage system" means a treatment works consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drain field.
Though this leaves out the GMP restrictions relating to pumping head, distance and conditions...
The issue of dispersing secondary effluent is not addressed in code, though described by VDH's GMP. To be brief, advanced in the proposal indicates dispersal by other than the conventional means, it does not refer to other treatment processes (e.g. black boxes of pre-engineered secondary tertiary etc.) this would be LPD, drip etc. There has been comment on filtration, in vessel aeration and other devices which are not conventional nor advanced (i.e. engineered), we all agree that this field is no longer tied in neat bundles. The Regulation should not prevent professionals from specifying site specific solutions to design problems.
At a minimum the Regulations should recognize that any Licensed or Certified soil evaluator may consult with a PE (or an "advanced designer") to create a design for a client on their site. In the real world a "conventional" evaluator is irrelevant, if a site doesn't meet prescriptive "conventional" regulations an alternative installation must be proposed, the public will find no purpose for an evaluation that does not address all eventualities for a site.
3. Practicing AOSE's of record/interim licensee's should be qualified to sit for "advanced" OSE exam with minimal vetting. (conventional design is irrelevant). Preferable would be submit a design; approved, built and inspected and certified by any authority to be functioning correctly. I'm advocating that once an OSE has proven they understand the criteria and have complied they should be able to take the exam, if they pass that - license them. The professionals, the industry and the public are not served by an extended examination period. We don't have time for the absurdity that is proposed (interim, conventional, advanced, we all have business to conduct with clients that expect a product). Preferable is the transition that the Professional Geologists and other fields followed, existing professionals should expeditiously qualify and assume the new endorsement. Examination and standards should be developed to address the qualifications of future licensees. Simplify the entry and regulate the entrants subsequently, this is the approach proven via the other Boards: Contractors, APELSCIDLA and others.
4. Standards of conduct are in every other shed under DPOR, and need to be addressed here too.
It is simply best practices, use NRCS taxonomy and nomenclature, a contract with your client, measure in standard units, be responsible for your and your employees actions.... if we are to be governed then we need to have a standard of practice by which to evaluate complaints. Furthermore we need to be governed by our peers.
Standards of conduct shall be defined (though perhaps not in this document) allowing the Board to fairly evaluate, license, and govern the actions of licensees. This Board shall promote good practices among it's members and shall advocate protection of both the public and the licensees as all other DPOR Boards are mandated.
5. Typos- save us from the lawyers. Clean up the definitions, circular and open references of the document, i.e. resolve the apparent administrative overlap in the expiration and enactment dates so one program doesn't end before the other begins; correct erroneous or missing definitions, etc... Clarify the intention where applicable, there is clearly a market for integrated site evaluation, system design, system construction and operating for onsite sewage works; this institutional solution by responsible companies deserves recognition and legislative support. The industry's regulants also deserve professional recognition by VDH, DEQ and other regulatory and record keeping agencies to provide information required to evaluate system siting and performance.
This Regulation needs to walk (not stagger) out of committee, pass legislative review and be signed by the Governor. It is far better to get this corrected and out the door so we can go back to work. It is in no parties interest to correct this Regulation via future HB & SB. There is a real fear that entanglement of the enaction of legislation will cause a train wreck on July 1 this year.
I have already had conversations with Legislators that understand our frustration with proposals to regulate by committee's that did not understand the requirements of the industry nor the licensees and other stakeholders. For one person of the eleven members on the WWWO&OSSP to be a working CPSS or AOSE, and no official record of contact with the CPSS Board is it any surprise that we are castigating this proposal?
The AOSE undertaking by VDH has been a successful program in development, with a healthy record of administrative/field review and efficient permiting with few problems. Why stifle it with red tape? The indemnification fund established by the VDH serves errors made by EHS or deficiencies in the Regulations, not private sector professionals, yet the consulting industry survives.
In our Commonwealth, there are ~140 CPSS, ~260 AOSE currently listed, by comparison there are over 25,000 registered PE's. The population that expects to be served by Onsite Sewage Systems grows, even during economic recession, there continues to be market for qualified service professionals.
A cost effective solution serving existing as well as proposed housing development will require careful consideration, acknowledgement and incorporation of many experienced people's comments.
We have sought to address the real effects of this proposal on our industry.
Thank you for your consideration;
Jeff T. Walker; CPSS/AOSE
President, Blue Ridge Site & Soil; LLC
