DoH Prefers Industry Jobs Over OSS Owners

The following was provided by State Dept. of Health staff for consideration by the OSS Revision Policy Subcommittee.   All topics are presented as “Issue Papers”, outlining the problem,  source of concern,  options, pro’s/con’s,  recommendation,  support information,  etc.    Of particular concern to COOMWA are the “Pro” arguments, expressing how this recommended change would create new work and business opportunities for the OSS industry.   I had no idea that was the role of the DoH … to create jobs for the industry.   And the DoH staff had no idea such a concept would be a “Con” to owners who would have to pay for additional servicing.

 I requested that those “Pro” statements were inappropriate, had no relationship to Public Health and should be removed.   That suggestion was not accepted.   Cindy Alia, lobbyist for CAPR, suggested a “Con” statement should be added to state the recommendation would be an additional cost to OSS owners.   That was accepted.

 We continue to fight for OSS owners through this Revision process…..

 The official Issue Paper from the State Department of Health reads as follows:

On-Site Rule Revision Issue:
Property Transfer Inspections
(Time of sale inspections)


Problem Statement

The rule does not mandate property transfer inspections (PTIs), but does authorize LHJs to require them as part of their OSS management plans. Eleven of the twelve Puget Sound counties require PTIs while only four counties outside the Puget Sound area require these inspections, resulting in 15 out of 35 local health jurisdictions requiring time of property transfer inspections. Without uniform time of sale inspection requirements in place, some lending institutions will set their own requirements that do not necessarily let buyers know exactly what they are purchasing. Property transfer/OSS inspection requirements established in rule would help identify and resolve issues before title transfer, better protecting buyers from inheriting serious and expensive OSS problems.


  • Rule requiring the owner of the OSS to have an inspection of the OSS at the time of property transfer.


Pros Cons
·         Public health and environmental protection by identifying and eliminating failing septic systems.

·         Protects the buyer’s investment by ensuring that the system can safely accommodate their wastewater.

·         Provides an educational opportunity for prospective buyers to know more about the on-site sewage system and to understand their role in the operation and upkeep of a properly functioning system.

·         Help ensure consistent procedures for inspections are used throughout Washington State (a buyer’s inspector always finds the same results as a seller’s inspector), whereby the buyer is protected from inheriting an expensive problem.

·         Provide an opportunity for LHJs to build their inventory database inspection systems, and verify systems are functioning as intended.

·         Helps identify and resolve on-site sewage system issues before title transfer so that the occurrence of unplanned expenses resulting from the need to replace on-site sewage systems after loans have closed are reduced.

·         Additional work for local septic system related businesses.

·         Creation of new business opportunities for registered evaluators from the private sector.

·        Improved confidence of lending institutions based upon direct knowledge of status of on-site sewage systems.

·         Need for collaboration between LHJs, realtors, register of deeds, and third party evaluators and a system for entering, tracking, and transferring information.

·         Requirement of additional LHJ staff time to administer program (and possibly information technology expenses).

·         Increase length and complication of real estate transactions.

·         Requirement for certification protocols for third-party evaluators.

*Adapted with permission from the Marquette County Health Department

Recommendations & Optional Rule Language to Consider

We recommend that there is a state mandatory time of property inspection.


From -0015, (7)(d)

(7) the local health officer shall require the owner of the OSS to:

(d) Have an inspection of the OSS at the time of property transfer by a certified third party property transfer inspector.

(e) Have an inspection of all proprietary products by an inspector certified by the product manufacturer.




Supporting information

Mohamed, R. 2009. Why Households in the United States do not Maintain Their Septic Systems and Why State-Led Regulations are Necessary: Explanations from Public Goods Theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 4(2):41-55. (available at

This paper investigates why routine OSS maintenance is not being done by property owners.  Despite educational programs some local and state jurisdictions offer, a majority of OSS are not receiving routine inspections. A time of sale inspection would reveal whether a system is functioning correctly.

National Environmental Services Center. 2011.  Pipeline: Buying or Selling a Home with an Onsite Wastewater System. Summer, 22(1):1-7.  (available at

Farrell-Poe, K., J. Garrett, and D. Long. 2012. What you should know when you’re having your septic system inspected for the Transfer of Ownership Program. UA Extension publication, AZ1554. Tucson, AZ: UA. (available at

EPA Webcasts about Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Property Transfer Inspections of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: Lessons Learned From Around the Nation (4/23/14)

National Association of Wastewater Technicians Inspector Certification Program (

  • Qualification requirements prior to receiving certification include:
    • Completing a comprehensive 2-day (12-hour) onsite wastewater treatment systems course covering terminology, treatment, tanks, construction methods, applications, and inspection training
    • Or, demonstrating competence in the field
    • An exam score of 70 or above is required to receive a national inspector certification
    • The national certification is good for two (2) years from the date of the completed certification training session
  • Registration procedures and fees will be managed by the association sponsoring the training or by the NAWT office per their mutual agreement.  If NAWT does not collect the registration fees, the sponsoring Association will be invoiced by NAWT for Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per individual taking the course.
  • This fee will cover the cost of the training manual, handouts, exam, exam grading, certificate, and two years of listing on the NAWT website registry.
  • Exams will be prepared by the NAWT Education Program Coordinator or delegate.  Exams will be updated annually or as the NAWT Education Program Coordinator deems appropriate.
  • Training instructors must remit exams to the Education Program Coordinator within 7 days of the exam date for grading and/or review.
    • The sponsoring Association may grade the exams before remitting them to the Education Program Coordinator for review.
  • The Education Program Coordinator should mail the graded exams to the Executive Director for entry into the NAWT database within thirty (30) days of the exam date.
  • The Executive Director will enter the participant’s exam score, the session training ID, certification expiration date, and their website registry preference into the NAWT database (FileMaker Pro 10).
    • Each training session will be given a different ID number, which will include the training session date and location (city and state).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.