12VAC5-613-30. H places additional burdens on professional engineer (PE) designs that were not part of Va. Code § 32.1-163.6. This appears to be an unlawful regulation by VDH to place PE’s back within Regulations for the greatest extent of their work, which violates the intent of HB1166.
Standard engineering practice is not defined in 12VAC5-613-10. Definitions. Further use of the term in this document is meaningless and only serves to appear to address this term. Actual standard engineering practice could not be contained in a document such as this that is more of a cookbook for non-engineers such as Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluators (AOSE). Standard engineering practice doesn’t change on the date of publication of a document by VDH. Onsite wastewater system design as engineers practice may include regulations of other states that may be applicable to a certain site. Standard engineering practice is based on sound science. Virginia regulations haven’t always been consistent with current science, or when questioned, they fail to provide the science behind the Regulation. VDH personnel have been questioned in public meetings concerning this and their answers have been more political and marketing than scientific at times.
PE’s are still judged by a moving target that is now stricter than that faced by AOSE’s because we have to meet the new RegulationsPLUS standard engineering practice.
This Emergency Regulation seems to make it even difficult for AOSE’s to perform their work without violating the limitations of them being less than engineers. AOSE’s seem to be pushed into “designing” systems which they are not authorized to do.
How can an AOSE meet 12VAC5-613-70.A.7.b without engaging in engineering design?
What is the scientific basis of the numbers in Part II, A.7.Table 1?
How can a PE be held to a “cookbook” without showing the science behind the numbers?
What would be the resolution if the engineer proposed loading rates by “standard engineering practice” that exceeded Table 1?
What if the PE had manufacturer’s data (from a manufacturer’s engineering design guide) that showed standard engineering practice for drip dispersal that was higher than Table 1?
North Carolina allows a loading rate prescribed by a table such as the Emergency Regulations, but allows a Ksat of the site with a prescribed safety factor if the engineer chooses to design according to the site specific Ksat.
12VAC5-613-70. Performance requirements-general. § A.9 mentions “naturally occurring soil” demand. This is another attempt at supporting a previously varying “interpretation” of VDH.
The text of 12 VAC 5-610-597 does not say naturally occurring (or in situ) in the comparable sections in reference to “elevated mound systems” for instance. The footnote concerning “sand on sand” notes that the standoff for THAT system is measured from “ground surface.” The footnote would not have applied only to “sand on sand” if it was applicable to all systems. It has only been VDH’s arbitrary interpretation on this issue. VDH engineers have stated that they have approved applications in the past that were in violation of their own interpretation. How many instances do I have to find in permits that were approved in last few years to defeat the claim that it has “always” been naturally occurring/in situ soil?
There is no proof provided that there is scientific consensus or that it is standard engineering practice that non-naturally occurring fill material would be incapable of providing treatment. Earthen dams are constructed from fill and that requires the soil to have known permeability and structural properties. The Wisconsin sand mound uses fill sand and is widely recognized as an alternative to conventional septic systems. The EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, shows systems that use fill material similar to some variation of the Wisconsin sand mound using fill material. Caps for landfill systems are another form of soil used as fill that isn’t naturally occurring and in which permeability is an issue. Another way of looking at it, if fill material had been in place for 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100 years would that be suitable?
Several PE’s (to my knowledge) don’t believe in this requirement for naturally occurring soil in all of their designs. How many PE’s would have to disagree before it can’t be considered standard engineering practice?
VDH needs to provide the widely accepted (nationally, not just within VDH) scientific basis of the claim before PE’s are required to abide by it. I would like to see the proof that “stable” soil, characterized appropriately, with its Ksat measured, would not provide sufficient treatment.
12VAC5-613-70. Performance requirements-general § A.11 is the only real new performance requirement that a PE should be subject to in this chapter. The remainder of the chapter is a prescriptive cookbook for AOSE’s who are not allowed to actually engage in engineering design.
This isn’t a performance regulation. It still works as VDH serving as a gatekeeper of market technology. GMP147 is still in effect with the implementation of these “Emergency” regulations. Further, the VDH practice only allows AOSE’s to install the favored systems, thus continuing to enrich those manufacturers, limiting competition and free market processes, and inhibiting technology growth. It is documented that some of those systems don’t meet the standards set for new systems to make the favored list.
Paragraph A.10 is an instruction to PE’s in the performance of their field of work and is inappropriate for VDH. Compare § A.10 to GMP 147, FAQ answer 4 that acknowledges the limits of VDH authority.
i.“No. The method the engineer uses to make this determination is not specified in the policy, thus allowing each engineer to make this determination using their best professional judgment on a case by case basis. All that is required is a written statement from the professional engineer stating: they have evaluated the hydraulic capacity of the site to disperse wastewater and that in their professional opinion; water mounding will not encroach on the separation distance required in the relevant table (the table number varies among the GMPs).”
ii.AOSE’s may not ever provide calculations to support any design that doesn’t have 18” separation. This would be a violation that would be reportable to DPOR. Will VDH be collecting this calculation from AOSE’s ?
1.Therefore it appears AOSE’s will not be able to make applications if there is not 18” of (naturally occurring?) soil to a permeability-limiting feature.
12VAC5-613-70. Performance requirements-general § C. is again an instruction to PE’s in the performance of their field of work and is inappropriate for VDH. Report format is something VDH can require, but which book that is used is an expansion of their authority.
12VAC5-613-80. Performance requirements-laboratory sampling and monitoring.
This reference to 40 CFR Part 136 or alternative methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is too vague to be of any use.
Specify the individual who will do the collection. If it is someone who is related to the equipment provider or is the operator who has a potential conflict of interest in saying the system meets the requirements, then this section is of little value to protecting the public, the environment, or the groundwater.
Paragraph D says “Sample results shall be received by the local health department by the 15th of the month following the month in which the sample was taken” does this meet 40 CFR Part 136? Specify where this is called out. It seems that there could be 15-45 days for this sample to sit in an unspecified location which may likely alter the results.
12VAC5-613-90. Performance requirements-field measurements, sampling, and observations.
Table 4: Why were BOD5, TSS, and Fecal Coliform not included? These were amongst the requirements to be an approved unit? It seems these would be a means of realistically monitoring the true applicability of all units installed, and provide evidence that the favored systems are performing suitably. If these measurements are the real performance measurements of the equipment, why are they not tested? If these aren’t tested, is VDH REALLY protecting the public and the environment?
