Non-gravel effluent drain systems for onsite sewage systems; regulations. (HB1726)

Introduced By

Del. Ed Scott (R-Culpeper) with support from co-patrons Del. Riley Ingram (R-Hopewell), Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond), Del. Chris Peace (R-Mechanicsville), and Del. Mark Sickles (D-Alexandria)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Non-gravel effluent drain systems for onsite sewage systems; regulations. Directs the Board of Health to promulgate regulations for chamber and bundled expanded polystyrene effluent distribution systems for onsite sewage systems. The bill contains an emergency clause. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/08/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13102106D
01/08/2013Prefiled and ordered printed with emergency clause; offered 01/09/13
01/08/2013Prefiled and ordered printed with emergency clause; offered 01/09/13 13102106D
01/08/2013Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
01/14/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1726)
01/17/2013Reported from Health, Welfare and Institutions with amendments (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/18/2013Read first time
01/21/2013Read second time
01/21/2013Committee amendments agreed to
01/21/2013Engrossed by House as amended HB1726E
01/21/2013Printed as engrossed 13102106D-E
01/22/2013Read third time and passed House (97-Y 0-N 1-A)
01/22/2013VOTE: PASSAGE EMERGENCY (97-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/23/2013Constitutional reading dispensed
01/23/2013Referred to Committee on Education and Health
01/29/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1726E)
02/04/2013Assigned Education sub: Health Care
02/07/2013Reported from Education and Health (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2013Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2013Read third time
02/11/2013Passed by for the day
02/12/2013Read third time
02/12/2013Passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2013Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1726ER)
02/18/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1726ER)
02/18/2013Signed by Speaker
02/19/2013Signed by President
03/12/2013G Approved by Governor-Chapter 202 (effective 3/12/13)
03/12/2013G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0202)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 2 minutes.


Editor’s Pick
Tony Bible writes:

I am opposed to this legislation for the following reasons:
- chamber systems already have approval for use within the commonwealth and need no further approvals
- this measure reduces the regulatory and consumer protections for the citizens of the commonwealth and instead grants greater protections to manufacturers

I can illustrate the dangers of this type of legislation by relaying a real life story that happened in Tennessee. Tennessee already has this type of legislation in effect in their regulations. This story actually happened to my first cousin and is the result of incorporating a manufacturers product into the regulations. The end result is that the product becomes a generic material. It becomes equivalent to stone or gravel. When this happens the consumer has no protection.

So what happened to my cousin was that his septic system was designed by the local office of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. It was installed according to the permit and the contractor substituted gravel with a substituted system just like the systems that are described in HB 1726. Unfortunately the system failed within 6 months. So then who is responsible? Well when I called Nashville I was informed that the system was installed in accordance with the permit so the contractor wasn't responsible; since it had been inspected and approved by the department. The state claimed sovereign immunity so they weren't responsible. Finally the manufacturer of the materials was not held responsible in any way since, "they're approved in our regs now". Meaning they were specified the same as gravel drain field ditches, with the exception that they had a size reduction. This size reduction allows substituted systems to be more competitive than gravel systems. The final punch was that ultimately the home owner was responsible for fixing his own failing system even though it had been installed in good faith in accordance with all applicable state codes. This is not a made up story and I can verify its veracity for members of the General Assembly.

Virginia has a similar system for issuing septic permits as Tennessee does with a few marked differences. The General Assembly has put safeguards into our system which give consumers added protection. With the current approval status for substituted systems homeowners get a manufacturers warranty to give them protection if the system fails. This way of operating is working and has been working for many years. Why should we change this aspect of the program now? There is no emergency to warrant this action!

As you can see from the story above there are many consumer dangers associated with allowing a state agency to design septic systems and also issue the permits. This is a conflict of interest that ends up hurting the citizens of the Commonwealth. It would be much better to get the Virginia Department of Health out of designing septic systems and allow the private sector AOSE's and PE's to handle this work. That way our citizens would be be afforded due process of law and recourse through the civil courts to remedy any wrongdoings or perceived hurts acquired through improvements to their real property.

Please note that I have no issue with substituted systems as a valid technology. I have designed and specified many, many substituted systems both with and without the additional size reduction allowed through the applicable approval documents. I am simply interested in the protection of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Robert Charnley writes:

I oppose this bill as proposed. I would like to see a convincing statement of the nature of the emergency and of the necessity for such action. Otherwise, these proposed changes appear to be better suited for the standard regulatory review process. Have any of these proposed changes to the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations been vetted through the State's Sewage Handling and Disposal Advisory Committee?

Kenneth Carbaugh writes:

I emphatically oppose granting the installers total control of the substition of a chambered or gravel-less trench system. The current regulations are specific enough to cover the approval of these products. As a private consultant and a previous regulator I have been privy to see failures of gravel-less systems first hand. I am not a proponent of reducing footprints to begin with in most soils. Many soils with high silt content may not be good candidates for chamber systems.

The health departments already have their hands tied and cannot legally specify what product can and cannot be used; if this control is taken away from the private consultants our authority and licensure is undermined and watered down.

I reject the idea this bill is doing anything more than helping line someone's pockets and is not favorable for the engineering/AOSE community and especially bad for the public who understands virtually nothing about the science or track record.

I want to see hard data and facts proving these products, especially chambers have a proven track record in Virginia in various soil types. The variation in soils texture is critical in my opinion, I have no doubt these products will work in coarse and sandy textured soils but have little comfort with their use in heavier clay and silty soils. I want and apples and oranges data set shown, not all soils are equal.

I think requesting that this bill be tabled to permit further investigation of local and state HD data is wise and not unreasonable. The data of failures should be available through the state and local Heath Districts.
Ken Carbaugh
Carbaugh Environmental Consulting

James B Slusser, AOSE writes:

The Honorable Ed Scott
Member, House of Delegates
P.O. Box 406
Richmond, VA 23218

Dear Delegate Scott,
I am writing to illustrate my concerns with HB 1726 and respectfully request your assistance. As written, I oppose this bill for the following reasons:
1. Lack of supporting documentation
2. Lack of clarity for design authority
3. Weakens consumer protection

1. At this time, neither the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) nor the manufacturer supporting this bill has little if any data to support or refute the necessity of an “emergency”. The lack of data obtained by the VDH from local Health Districts is concerning. Such data collection has been authorized in the Statutory authority of §31.1-2, which “states that State Board of Health and the State Health Commissioner, assisted by the State Department of Health, shall administer and provide a comprehensive program of preventive, curative, restorative and environmental health services, educate the citizenry in health and environmental matters, develop and implement health resource plans, collect and preserve vital records and health statistics, assist in research, and abate hazards and nuisances to the health and to the environment, both emergency and otherwise, thereby improving the quality of life in the Commonwealth.” Proceeding without the proper data collection and analysis would hinge on being feckless and not in the Commonwealth’s best interest.
2. Altering or modifying a professional work product without the licensed professional’s consent is unethical. The design authority for all onsite wastewater services clearly rests within the purview of Professional Engineers and Onsite Soil Evaluators. All designs prepared by a licensed professional are “site specific” and have recommendations predicated upon those unique features. Undermining the knowledge, skills, and abilities by usurping authority from any licensed professional by an unlicensed person/entity is not in the Commonwealth’s best interest.
3. Removing manufacturer warranty and assurances are not in the users’ (home owner) best interest. Existing mechanisms to protect the consumer should be expanded, not removed.

It should be considered by the Health, Welfare, and Institutions Committed in the House of Delegates to strike this bill as proposed and make a recommendation to form a subcommittee to collect, analyze, and prepare appropriate recommendations with the VDH after all data has been evaluated. This path forward can provide the greatest level of assurance for the Commonwealth and its’ citizens without compromising the protection of Public Health.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns,

With Respect to the Commonwealth,

James B. Slusser, AOSE

Morgan A Kash writes:

I have considerable experience with the chamber system but do not feel qualified to comment on the bundled expanded polystyrene systems. Perhaps in a controlled environment or sandy soils the chamber system is equivalent to or exceeds the functionality of gravel trenches. I work primarily in silty soils and have seen first hand some of the issues with chamber systems. I do not allow a footprint reduction nor do I support their installation even without a footprint reduction in my designs. I would like to see some data as to the percent of failures in silty and clayey soils in Virginia as compared to the gravel trench system. I have seen a number of chamber systems left open during a heavy rain that had considerable amounts of silt in the trenches.I also have evaluated a larger percentage of failures with the chamber system as compared to gravel trenches.

I have yet to see any good supporting evidence of how the chamber system is better than or even equivalent to a gravel system. I wish I could support chamber systems. They are probably cheaper than gravel, easier to install and require less fossil fuel to produce and deliver.

The only reason I would think this is an emergency bill is that the VDH is about to release data concerning their high failure rate.

Bob Marshall writes:

Dear Members of the House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions,

Having worked in Virginia's onsite industry as a small business owner for nearly twenty years, I am writing you to express some reservations about HB 1726 as currently proposed.

HB 1726 requires the Board of Health to promulgate regulations, effective within 280 days of its enactment. Will this requirement call for a separate regulation on "chamber and bundled expanded polystyrene effluent distribution systems" or will the proposed change require modification of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (SH&DR) that pertain to locating, designing, constructing and operating onsite sewage systems? Although the SH&DR is potentially overdue for a more comprehensive review, is an emergency clause necessary to reclassify a specific manufactured product?

As proposed, the nature of this emergency and the necessity for such action was not readily apparent unless one considers the proliferation of GMPs (Policy) & Product Approvals under the Division of Onsite Sewage. They also contain requirements for system design, operation, and maintenance not contained in the SH&DR or the Alternative Onsite Sewage System regulations.

Unfortunately, several of these GMPS have conflicted with more recent technological advancements or have become so far out of synch with the Code of VA as to be almost impractical for the the Division of Onsite Sewage to maintain as policy and procedure. Many manufacturers have lingered for years with uncertainty about the Agency's product requirements surrounding their approval or applicable standards for proper installation and use. Other GMPs have become so common in practice that the GMP should have been updated in the SH&DR long ago.

In addition, chamber and bundled expanded polystyrene effluent distribution systems in my immediate vicinity are rather uncommon because certain local county ordinances have either prevented or restricted their use. Fauquier County Chapter 17, for example, requires gravel trenches.

In order to protect public health and groundwater quality, the Onsite Sewage and Water Services develops and approves statewide standards for the proper use of various manufactured products and equipment. On the other hand, the Health Department routinely approves drainfield permits of their own design for the public as a taxpayer subsidized service. Unless an applicant is determined to be of low income or repairing a malfunctioning drainfield, there is still a minimum application fee for these services which may include some additional local fees.

In my opinion, the necessity of HB 1726 may have exposed some inherent conflicts and inconsistencies within the Agency's current business model. Even the recognized need for a statewide Operation and Maintenance program has become little more than an annual inspection with poor data gathering hindered by a poorly developed reporting model.

Consequently, all manufacturerers deserve their product approvals based on sound scientific, engineering, and public health principles in order for Virginia to prosper. This Committee might serve the health and welfare of the Commonwealth by taking the opportunity of this "emergency" to reexamine the administration of the Agency's priorities and current business model.

Thank you for your faithful service to the Commonwealth and consideration of my comments in your deliberation.

Respectfully, Bob Marshall, AOSE, iAOSSO

Waldo Jaquith writes:

This is a topic that I have no interest in, but I've read every comment in great detail. This is fascinating, incredibly useful information, delivered in a polite and engaging fashion. Well done, folks.

Ken Carbaugh writes:

I would like to add that I have permitted contractors to install the polystyrene "Ez-flo" product and see little mechanical difference between this system and gravel. I will allow a contractor to substitute the use of the Ez-flo product (with the full footprint) if gravel cannot be easily transported to the drain field site.

The chambered systems and polystyrene are quite different and frankly are like apples and oranges in how they work.

The Ez-flo may have more air space but I have not tried to quantify this nor do I feel the need to. I feel this product as the chambered system has been approved under an existing GMP and needs no further approval or additional legislation. It should be up to the regulator or AOSE to determine if the product is applicable for the site and whether or not a reduction in footprint is warranted.

I have not and will never design a system permitting the reduction in footprint unless an approved pretreatment system has been prescribed and the area available is limited. I as many other competent consultants and engineers will not limit a drain field in square footage unless there is no other option for the project or client.

Kenneth Carbaugh, AOSE

Editor’s Pick
David Lentz, P.E. writes:

Dear Concerned Members of the Onsite Industry,

After reading the comments pertaining to HB 1726, I am concerned that misunderstandings exist within the onsite community on the purpose, scope, and effects this legislation would have on gravelless system regulation. I represent Infiltrator Systems, which manufactures both chamber and bundled expanded polystyrene (EPS) products. Infiltrator initiated efforts to propose HB 1726, and we are fully available to answer questions individuals and organizations within the Virginia onsite industry may have.

The HB 1726 language is admittedly not clear on what it will do, the reason being that language in a law cannot make reference to policy. The bill language had to adhere to certain standards, and this resulted in the bill being difficult to understand.

Briefly, HB 1726 seeks to codify VDH GMP #135. Upon promulgation of amended rules, GMP #135 and GMP #116 would be rescinded by VDH. Because a bill cannot reference policy, the bill language could not state that this bill brings current, long-standing policy into regulation.

Section 12 VAC 5-610-448 of the Regulations authorizes VDH to establish criteria for generally approved systems in the Regulations, which is what HB 1726 is intended to accomplish. With GMP #135 established in 2006 following a detailed study of the chamber and EPS technologies by VDH, incorporation of these septic system technologies into the Regulations represents a natural evolution of the regulatory framework defining their use (note that chambers were first approved by VDH for use in the Commonwealth in 1987, so they have 25 years of history in this market). This initiative simply moves drainfield sizing currently being used in a VDH policy to the Regulations. Twenty two states have codified chamber and/or EPS use. Codification improves designer liability protectiveness by placing technology specifications in state regulation, rather than in policy.

Below, I have provided clarifying information that addresses a number of issues raised in the comments. I extend an open invitation to anyone with questions or concerns to contact me directly at 860-575-8099 or [email protected] so that we can discuss whatever is on your mind.

To keep the length down, I will post two emails addressing concerns – this is the first of the two.

Dave Lentz, P.E.
Regulatory Director at Infiltrator Systems

1. What HB 1726 does:
VDH maintains two policies defining the sizing of chamber and EPS trench systems, GMP #135 and GMP #116. GMP #135 allows up to a 25% trench length reduction for chamber and EPS systems. GMP #116 allows up to a 50% trench length reduction. HB 1726 is intended to codify key elements of the more conservative GMP #135. GMP #135 and GMP #116 would be rescinded after promulgation of amended rules, establishing a single source of specifications for these products. Regarding some commenters’ criticism of trench length reductions, taking a reduction is a designer preference, and is not a requirement. Some designers currently use 1:1 sizing, and this would continue to be allowed under amended Regulations.

2. What HB 1726 does not do:
The 50% trench length reduction under GMP #116 would be phased out, so HB 1726 would not allow for 50% sizing reductions following promulgation of amended regulations. The more conservative sizing in GMP #135 would become the standard. Also, HB 1726 does not address whether VDH or a private practitioner prepares an onsite system design. I know from speaking with AOSEs that this is a controversial topic, and there is zero overlap between the issues of public/private design and HB 1726.

3. What HB 1726 CANNOT do:
HB 1726 does not and CANNOT define which DPOR-licensed professional designs a chamber or EPS system or decides if a substitution is allowable. DPOR has regulations and policy in place defining this process, and HB 1726 has no effect on DPOR-regulated issues. Any restrictions or requirements in place today on substitution of gravelless systems for gravel would remain the same under HB 1726.

David Lentz, P.E. writes:

Dear Concerned Members of the Onsite Industry,

This is the second of two responses to HB 1726 comments by Infiltrator Systems. I extend an open invitation to anyone with questions or concerns to contact me at 860-575-8099 or [email protected] so that we can discuss whatever is on your mind.

Dave Lentz, P.E.
Regulatory Director at Infiltrator Systems

Technology Performance

A number of commenters expressed concern with ending the 5-year warranty requirement. Under GMP #135 and GMP #116, all manufacturers are required to report malfunctioning and problem systems to VDH annually. Infiltrator has reported the following to VDH, with files open to review by the public:

• The rate of problem systems reported to Infiltrator is 0.27% between 2002 and 2012 for chambers (76 problem systems for 28,080 installed drainfields).
• The rate of problem systems reported to Infiltrator is 0.33% between 2009 and 2012 for EZflow (represents a 2009 acquisition) (7 problem systems for 2,097 drainfields).

There are over 2.5 million chamber drainfield systems and 500,000 EPS drainfield systems installed in North America over the past 25 years. The sizing of the Virginia drainfields is amongst the largest of any state on a square footage basis, representing added factor of safety in design. While functional problems have the potential occur for any drainfield media for a variety of reasons, on the whole, chamber and EPS technology have been and are being used successfully across the US and Canada.

Warranties in the Onsite Regulations and Onsite Industry in General

Regarding the 5-year warranty, all drainfield systems, including stone and pipe, may encounter functional issues depending upon many factors. Considering that Infiltrator has over 28,000 chamber drainfields installed with a 0.27% rate of problem systems, which is an excellent record of performance. When a proprietary system malfunctions, it usually receives more attention than when a stone and pipe system malfunctions, as there is no manufacturer to call for the stone system. The advantage with a proprietary system malfunction is that there is a manufacturer to contact to help diagnose and solve the problem.

Reviewing VDH’s GMP web page (see, the only septic system technologies I could find that are subject to warranty requirements are those approved under GMP #116 and #135. Drip dispersal, septic tanks, and even wastewater treatment units have no warranty requirements under the GMPs. Stone and pipe systems defined in the Regulations have no warranty requirements – in fact the word “warranty” does not appear in the Regulations.

Infiltrator voluntarily offers a 7- and 10-year warranty program for products used in combination (e.g., ISI tank + Quick4 chambers or EZflow is 7 years, and ISI tank + Quick4 chambers or EZflow + ISI control panel is 10 years). Other manufacturers may have warranty programs as well.

At this time, chambers and EPS are held to a higher standard than any other onsite product allowed in Virginia. Infiltrator is in favor of an industry-wide requirement to require a 5-year warranty on all onsite products. However, an unlevel playing field currently exists for one class of products vs. all others. While Infiltrator voluntarily offers 7- and 10-year warranties, we feel that all industry manufacturers should be held to a uniform set of standards.

Future Approval of Products by VDH

There were comments made about a lack of administrative control that may arise from codifying chamber and EPS technologies. Infiltrator’s understanding of future product regulation under amended regulations is that VDH would continue to review and approve such products. In discussions with VDH, when asked if they will continue to review chamber and EPS products before the products enter the market, VDH said yes. This is similar to how other states operate that have codified chambers and EPS technologies.

Other concerns

Kenneth Carbaugh wrote: “I emphatically oppose granting the installers total control of the substitution of a chambered or gravel-less trench system. The current regulations are specific enough to cover the approval of these products.” Also, James B Slusser wrote: “Lack of clarity for design authority”. Also, James B Slusser wrote: “Altering or modifying a professional work product without the licensed professional’s consent is unethical.” Infiltrator response: DPOR will continue to regulate this aspect of professional design. HB 1726 cannot define any such requirements and installers will have no more or less control in the future than they have today. HB 1726 does not empower an installer to substitute a gravelless product for a gravel system without AOSE/PE prior approval.

Kenneth Carbaugh wrote: “The current regulations are specific enough to cover the approval of these products.” Infiltrator response: Under the current regulations, the only dispersal products that can be specified are those that are named, and this does not included chambers or EPS. Adding these technologies adds more tools to the designer’s tool box.

Morgan A Kash wrote: “I have seen a number of chamber systems left open during a heavy rain that had considerable amounts of silt in the trenches.” Infiltrator response: Siltation would occur for any drainfield media left open during a heavy rain. Infiltrator’s installation instructions recommend covering trenches to prevent damage from inclement weather.

James B Slusser, AOSE writes:

To the people of the Commonwealth,

The current Virginia Department of Health (VDH) paradigm and gravel-less system approvals conflict with the existing statutory framework in the Code of Virginia. For instance, these issues extend well beyond application of VDH GMP's (116, 127, and 135), which may provoke altering or modifying a licensed professionals' work product. VDH appears to allow contractors to alter and or modify work products in the absence of Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) expectations. The following agenda item was raised by VDH, at its' May 2012 Sewage Handling and Disposal Advisory Committee meeting.

3. GMP 116, GMP 127, and GMP 135- Should these policies be revised? In light of licensing requirements of DPOR , should VDH continue its policy to allow contractors to substitute designs from licensed OSEs that work for VDH?

While the minutes have yet to be approved, there appeared to be consensus among the committee, that no work product should be altered without designer consent, including those persons who are employed by VDH and licensed by DPOR. The committee affirmed in stating the following:

"In general the Committee was supportive of not allowing footprint reductions for VDH designed systems but was not opposed to the substitution of gravel-less technologies on a 1:1 basis. The general thought was that as licensed AOSEs they should have the same right to be consulted as a private sector AOSE about changes to their designs. However, there may be conflicts with the VDH policy of not specifying proprietary products so the safest answer is to allow the 1:1 substitution." May, 2012 SHADAC Meeting Minutes.

Therefore, I stand firm to my previous comment as to the unethical modification or altering of ANY professionals' work product.

To further identify how these matters may affect the public, I would like to reference GMP #116, Background, page 1 which states,

"Sizing a drainfield smaller than specified in the Regulations may not result in adverse effects to public health or groundwater because this does not change the fundamental processes by which septic effluent trenches function. Such sizing may, however, reduce the operational life of the soil absorption system (i.e. shorten the time to failure)". When designed by a licensed AOSE or PE, all sites are certified as to complying with the Board's Regulations. No such certification appears to exist for contractors or other unlicensed persons modifying a septic permit, despite consent of the owner. In addition, GMP #116-4D states,

"In accordance with the Regulations and current VDH policies, VDH will perform final construction inspections on Substituted Systems. However, VDH will not be responsible for verifying that the installer, PE, AOSE, or other qualified designer has complied with the manufacturer's specifications for the Substituted System. Such responsibility shall lie with the person who designed the Substituted System or with the contractor who installed the system (in cases where a VDH permit is modified)." The language in GMP 116-4.D appears to be allowing contractors to modify VDH permits without any statutory or regulatory authority. Under the current agreement via GMP #116 in cases where a VDH permit is modified; the contractor who installed the system, appears to take responsibility for the modification without any clear authorization of doing so, by both the VDH and DPOR.

The consequence to the Commonwealth is a potential installation that may or may not conform with the Board of Health's standards and criteria, with little or no recourse by the soon to be purchaser of this system installation.

With Respect,
James B. Slusser, AOSE

Tony Bible writes:

As I've stated above my primary concern with this proposed legislation is the issue of the manufacturers warranty. Mr. Lentz very kindly contacted me this morning and explained that his company offers up to a 10 year manufacturers warranty on their products if using their tank and control panel on the installation. I appreciate Mr. Lentz efforts to address my concerns. He is very kind and intelligent.

I've kicked these issues around in my mind all day and have come to the following conclusions based on my conversations and from reading the posts of the other AOSE's above:
1) Although the manufacturer offers a warranty on their materials they do not warranty the reduction in lifespan resulting from the reduction in the size of the system. Gravel systems in Virginia are designed to last between 20 and 25 years.
2) The reduction in lifespan resulting from the reduction in sizing is determined by contractors who are modifying designs created by PE's and AOSE's. Only PE's and AOSE's are authorized under the Code of Virginia to conduct design work.
3) It would therefore appear that contractors modifying a design would be practicing engineering without a license.
1) Furthermore it would appear that VDH by issuing a blanket statement (the current situation) allowing contractors to modify designs by VDH employees; would be in violation of DPOR regulations and the Code of Virginia.
2) Furthermore it would appear to be proper for VDH to immediately revoke GMP 116, GMP 127 and GMP 135 to come into compliance with DPOR regulations and the Code of Virginia.
3) Furthermore it would appear that the proposed HB 1726 would in fact task VDH with something that is beyond the purview of their authority, namely allow contractors to practice engineering without a license by reducing VDH employee designs without an engineering or AOSE license. Remember only PE's or AOSE's may do this.
4. I wonder if this issue is in fact the emergency? VDH currently appears to be overstepping its boundaries and allowing contractors to practice engineering without a license. This appears to be compromising the authority of the APELSCIDLA Board and the WWWOOSSP Board.
4) This proposed legislation should be presented to both the APELSCIDLA Board and the WWWOOSSP to determine its compliance with existing laws before passing.
5) Concerning the purported and actual failure rates of these technologies in Virginia I will not comment as I am functionally ignorant. I would however like to hear more about this issue on this website by persons who are more informed than I.

Peter K. Kesecker writes:

Based on all of the above comments and recommendations along with my knowledge and experience as a Licensed OSE, this in conjunction with my expertise in Soil/Site Evaluation and design of onsite waste water treatment systems throughout the Shenandoah Valley and Central Virginia having gained VDH approval or having been involved in the approval of thousands of sites and system permits over the last 25 years, it is with great consideration that I am in complete opposition of HB1726.


Peter K. Kesecker
AOSE #1940001065
CPSS #1934000012