Lenowisco Health District (2007-2011)

Lenowisco Health District OSE/PE Application data for the Onsite Sewage and Water Supply Program (2007-2011). {To View Full Screen, Click Here}

Economic Indicator

Don't pretend to be an economist, but the simple reality is...every day licensed OSE's are losing jobs and yet nowadays food stamps can be deposited.

Drip Dispersal Technical Advisory Committee - April 16, 2013

Link to Meeting Minutes - April 16, 2013, Drip Dispersal Technical Advisory Committee

DD TAC Minutes_VDH_19781_v1

[Facebook Photo Album]

Compliments of Virginia Association of Onsite Soil Evaluators (VAAOSE)

Protecting Public Health and Safety in the Commonwealth is Paramount

The importance and benefit of protecting the Commonwealth’s health and safety is paramount.  The following quote was taken from Report Document 32 (RD32) which provided stakeholder feedback and opinions on the potential impact of HB 2185 (2011) to the General Assembly in 2012:

"Direct services protect public health by making sure pollution, contaminants, and infectious agents are effectively addressed and prevented from negatively impacting health, safety, and groundwater." 

The document title for RD32 was Private Sector Service Delivery for the Onsite Sewage and Water Supply Program (December 2011).  This report was prepared by the Virginia Department of Health's (VDH) Office of Environmental Health Services and related divisions of the agency.  It was published as RD32 on Virginia's Legislative Information System (LIS) in 2012.

Additionally, RD32 was initiated through a "Chairman's letter" from Honorable Delegates Robert D. Orrock, Sr., Chairman, House, Welfare and Institutions Committee and Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr., House District 100.  The stakeholder study was to examine the best means forward for VDH to transition direct service delivery to the private sector.

According to the Document Summary on LIS, survey respondents reached substantial agreement on several key topics (excerpted below):

• VDH was an essential participant in making sure public health and groundwater supplies were protected. 
• VDH has a critical role in assuring adequate regulations and policies were in place to protect public health. 
• VDH should enforce requirements that protect public health. 
• Quality services must be provided in the private sector. 
• A “checks and balances” system was necessary to identify bad actors and subpar performance. 
• VDH should be the non-partisan reviewer of private sector work. 
• Sewage systems and water supplies must be properly designed, installed, inspected, operated, and maintained to protect the Commonwealth’s environment and health.

A previous study in 2006 expressed similar expectations, advocating that VDH reshape its 50 year old business model.  The VDH Re-engineering Initiative:  Prepared by E. L. Hamm and Associates, Inc. (May 2006), recommended that VDH transition its business model for onsite sewage services to the private sector.  The report concluded that VDH staff should discontinue offering direct services to the greatest extent possible.  Toward that end, the Hamm report afforded VDH some latitude on how to move their business model of direct services away from design and soil evaluation for onsite sewage systems.

Historically, design and soil evaluation for onsite sewage systems comprise the basic duties of an onsite soil evaluator.  VDH certification of onsite soil evaluators commenced in 2002 under the Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluator Regulations (12 VAC 5-615).  In order to effectively protect the public, transition of direct services to the private sector would eventually require licensure of onsite sewage system professionals.

Accordingly, the General Assembly (2007) determined the duties of an onsite soil evaluator required a valid license.  Under HB 3134, Virginia's Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations (DPOR) began licensing onsite soil evaluators (OSEs).  The effective date of licensure was July 1, 2009.

By 2011, however, evidence was mounting that transition of VDH's direct services to the private sector was taking longer than expected.  Private sector participation in design and soil evaluation was declining, particularly in certain Health Districts across the State.  By 2011, the statewide average of private sector participation was at one of its lowest points.

On January 21, 2011 Delegate Lynwood Lewis introduced the following legislation (excerpted below):

HB 2185 Sewage systems; submission of onsite soil evaluations for permits or letters.
Introduced by:  Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:

Submission of onsite soil evaluations for permits or letters for sewage systems.  Provides that the Department of Health shall require submission of onsite soil evaluations with every application for a permit or letter for any onsite sewage or alternative discharging sewage system, but authorizes the Department to waive such requirement for applicants whose incomes are below the federal poverty guidelines.

On February 8, 2011 HB 2185 was left in the House committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions. RD32 stated the following:

"The patron of HB 2185 agreed to table the bill until VDH could study the best course forward."

Subsequently, a stakeholder group was proposed to consider improvements to HB 2185 as offered and to address a number of stakeholder concerns about the transition of design and soil evaluation services. RD32 reported the expectations for the study (excerpted below):

On May 16, 2011, Delegate Lynwood Lewis wrote to Delegate Robert D. Orrock,
Sr., Chairman of the Health, Welfare, and Institutions Committee expressing the
following expectations for the study:

• Have the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) assemble a group of stakeholders to determine the best course for the Commonwealth’s health and safety and also for the marketplace; and ...

• Have VDH and a group of stakeholders examine the best means of accomplishing the transition of onsite sewage services to the private sector.

From RD32, Letter from Delegate Lynwood Lewis outlining parameters of study
(May 16, 2011 letter - Appendix 2)

Apart from RD32 discussing several key areas of stakeholder agreement, VDH took no further action to accomplish the transition of onsite sewage services to the private sector.  An acknowledged deficiency of RD32 was that the stakeholder study merely documented anecdotal information about "stakeholder perceptions, concerns, and ideas."

The Document Summary on LIS noted the following observations or opinions about RD32 (excerpted below):

• One observation and option discusses how greater flexibility in health department fees and services would counter a “one-size fits all” approach currently being used across the Commonwealth.
• Increased policy flexibility with respect to fees and services would allow VDH to better address localized conditions.
• Another observation discusses how more private sector service providers appear to be needed in certain areas of the Commonwealth and ...
• ... how incentives could be considered to increase private sector participation in those areas.
• Another observation and option discusses how funding could be used to provide more community and decentralized sewage systems, which would likely produce savings through economies of scale while increasing private sector participation in the program.

Where amongst competing stakeholder opinions and observations did RD32 fulfill its requested purpose? Stakeholder agreement and understanding was absent. Ultimately, VDH was unable to identify the best means forward to transition direct service delivery of designs and soil evaluations to the private sector. Whatever the perceived stakeholder advantages or disadvantages of HB 2185, RD32 failed to "evaluate ways to improve HB 2185" and failed to "offer recommendations for changes to the bill as offered."

While VDH represented RD32 to the General Assembly as an extensive study, at least some aspects of the data collected had some significant limitations.

"Because of these limitations, the data cannot be interpreted as representative of any group of stakeholders. Statistical analysis of the results would be misleading."

How did VDH ensure their study was a representative sample of the stakeholder population?  Were there any leading questions in the interviews and on-line surveys?  Were respondents selected randomly or clustered by convenience?  Did anyone determine if the population samples were homogeneous, or consistent within each group?  If the overall design of the study was poor, then at what stage do the results become naturally suspect?   

RD32 included a series of important disclaimers,"the data collected through the interviews and on-line survey has significant limitations":

• First, the online survey and interviews were not beta tested to screen out leading questions.
• Next, respondents were not randomly selected.
• Those who responded to the online survey or attended one of the regional meetings were made aware of these options through a non-uniform process.
• Respondents were likely those who were keenly interested in the subject and who had a high amount of motivation regarding the subject being discussed and its outcome.
• Despite the agency’s best effort to let all stakeholders know of the meetings and online survey, some stakeholders may not have known.

As anticipated by these disclaimers, it was eventually discovered that some vital stakeholder groups and associations happened to be overlooked during the course of the study.  For instance, the Virginia Association of Onsite Soil Evaluators (VAAOSE) was not contacted. This association and others were absent from the body of discussion to determine the best course for the Commonwealth.

In addition, it appeared that VDH experienced some difficulty representing itself objectively in this task.  As a significant stakeholder of licensed employees, how could RD32 offer an impartial response without properly addressing the systemic and individual conflict of interest inherent with administering this process?

Furthermore, there should have been a much closer examination of a few key points, given that VDH is still without equal the largest single employer of licensed onsite sewage system professionals in the State.

After publication of RD32 in 2012, VDH continued to receive feedback regarding private sector service delivery for the onsite sewage and water supply program.  As recently as last week, VDH announced these inputs were being taken seriously.  Consequently, VDH will begin exploring the overall extent to which direct services in the program can transition to the private sector.  If increasing private sector participation enables VDH to scale back its current emphasis on the direct delivery of these services, then better protection of public health and the environment will likely follow.

Looking toward the future, VDH will need to identify core functions essential to protecting public health and the environment.  Here's a few additional questions for further consideration:

• Does the current VDH business model adequately identify and manage the extent of potential conflicts of interest surrounding the direct delivery of services? 
• What on-going or potential risks, if any, might be associated with continuing to follow the current VDH business model? 
• How will VDH provide and document an independent assessment of their business model's compliance with the current statutory and regulatory framework?