BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Article of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Tim Sullivan, Everyday Septic Solutions, for the resolution of a dispute with Terry Davidson, Director of Regulations, Ottawa Septic Systems Office, to determine whether the installation of a septic field remediation technology known as the White Knight TM into an existing septic tank provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code when considering Part 11 and the definition of septic tank as outlined in Article at 1358 Potter Drive, Manotick, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Tim Sullivan Everyday Septic Solutions Nepean, ON Terry Davidson Director of Regulations Ottawa Septic Systems Office Len King, Vice-Chair Judy Beauchamp Jim Wilkinson Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING April 21, 2005 DATE OF RULING April 21, 2005 APPEARANCES Tim Sullivan Everyday Septic Solutions Nepean, ON The Applicant Terry Davidson Director of Regulations Ottawa Septic Systems Office The Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies at 1358 Potter Drive, Manotick, Ontario. The Applicant has applied for a permit and is proposing to install a septic field remediation technology known as the White Knight TM into an existing septic tank located at 1358 Potter Drive, Manotick, Ontario. The building on the subject property is a Group C, residential dwelling having a building area of approximately 260 m 2. The dwelling contains four bedrooms with a total of 28.5 fixture units and has a total daily design flow rate of 2,600 L/day. The subject dwelling is served by an existing drilled well. The White Knight TM is a technology combining patented, non-pathogenic, aerobic bacteria and an aeration system that claims to remediate septic beds that are failing due to biological clogging or the excessive build up of biomat. The aeration unit is placed in the second chamber of an existing septic tank. An external, forty-watt, linear air pump will provide air to the aeration unit. Bacteria grow in the effluent, on a fixed film media in the aeration unit as well as on the effluent filter provided with the unit. The bacteria are then carried out into the leaching field by the oxygenated effluent. In the field, the bacteria consume the biomat and restore the percolation capacity of the soil. Part 11 of the Code allows for material alteration and/or repair of an existing sewage system, however, the Code does not specifically dictate how such an alteration or repair be conducted. Sentence (1) of the Code states that where an existing building system is materially altered or repaired, the performance level of the building after the material alteration or repair shall be at least equal to the performance level of the building prior to the material alteration or repair. The Building Code defines a septic tank, in Article , as a watertight vault in which sanitary sewage is collected for the purpose of removing scum, grease and solids from the liquid without the addition of air and where solids settling and anaerobic digestion of sanitary sewage takes place. The issue in dispute involves the proposed installation of a septic field remediation technology known as the White Knight TM into the existing septic tank and whether the installation of the White Knight TM provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code when considering Part 11 and the definition of septic tank as outlined in Article of the Code. Specifically, the dispute pertains to whether air can be supplied to the White Knight TM when installed in the septic tank while still maintaining sufficiency of compliance with the definition of a septic tank as outlined in the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Defined Terms (1) The words and terms in italics in this Code have the following meaning for the purposes of this Code, and where indicated, the following meaning for the purposes of the Act as well.

3 - 3 - Septic tank means a watertight vault in which sanitary sewage is collected for the purpose of removing scum, grease and solids from the liquid without the addition of air and where solids settling and anaerobic digestion of the sanitary sewage takes place. Proposed Construction Section New and Existing Building Systems Material Alteration or Repair of a Building System General (1) Where an existing building system is materially altered or repaired, the performance level of the building after the material alteration or repair shall be at least equal to the performance level of the building prior to the material alteration or repair Performance Level (1) The performance level of a building after construction shall not be less than the performance level of the building prior to construction. (2) For the purposes of Sentence (1), reduction of performance level shall be determined in accordance with Subsection (3) Where the proposed construction would reduce the performance level of an existing building, compensating construction shall be required in conformance with Subsection Sewage Systems (1) The performance level of an existing building is reduced where the existing building is extended or subject to material alteration or repair and a sewage system serving the existing building is adversely affected by the extension, alteration or repair of the existing building. 3. Applicant s Position The Applicant submitted that the White Knight TM unit has been tested over a period of five years and has been installed with successful results in more than five hundred cases. He further submitted that, while the White Knight TM is an addition to an existing septic system, it does not materially change or alter any part of the existing septic system into which it is installed. The addition of the White Knight TM does not change the size of the load, septic tank or leach field and the volume of effluent displaced in the tank is minimal at approximately 9 L. The Applicant described the White Knight TM system as being a leaching field recovery technology. The device is installed into the septic tank and the tank is then inoculated with task specific bacteria to consume the biomat. He indicated that air is supplied to the device to support the growth of the bacteria as bacteria growth is based on nutrients in the tank and oxygen. He stated that the phrase without the addition of air contained in the definition of septic tank, in his opinion, is meant to differentiate between a septic tank and a treatment unit. He asserted that this product is not a treatment unit and advised that this product does not change the flow, the volume of the tank or the size of the drainage field.

4 - 4 - When questioned as to the length of time that the White Knight TM unit would remain in the tank, the Applicant replied that it would become a permanent fixture. In response to being questioned as to whether the permanency of the White Knight TM unit in the tank makes the system a tertiary treatment unit, the Applicant reiterated that White Knight TM is not, and does not, claim to be a treatment unit. In summation, the Applicant stated that the White Knight TM is installed in systems that are already in failure mode, where an effluent breakout has already occurred. He further advised that, in his opinion, the performance level of the sewage system will not be reduced. He added that if the White Knight TM, once installed correctly, does not remediate the situation, then the sewage system must still be repaired. He offered that the use of this product provides a lower cost option for recovery of a leaching field. He maintained that if the breakout is eliminated as a result of the addition of the White Knight TM to the septic tank then the sewage system is performing better than it was prior to the installation of the White Knight TM and, therefore, sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the Building Code has been achieved. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that, in his opinion, the installation of the White Knight TM unit into a septic tank violates the definition of septic tank because air is added to the tank and also because the unit agitates the contents of the septic tank thereby adversely affecting the settling of solids. The Respondent noted that the existing Class 4 sewage system was approved by the Ministry of the Environment in He further noted that a use permit was issued in December 1989 which clearly states that the sewage system consists of a 4,500 L tank with a filter media bed. The Respondent maintained that the site is accessible with ample room for replacement of the leaching field. The Respondent asserted that the Building Code is clear in its definition of septic tank and stressed the inclusion of the words without the addition of air contained within the definition. He maintained that, in his opinion, the installation of the White Knight TM contravenes the definition of septic tank not only with respect to the addition of air but also with respect to the agitation of the contents of the septic tank. The Respondent related the dictionary definition for anaerobic digestion as being growing without air or requiring oxygen free conditions to live ; in addition he stated that if air is added then digestion is no longer anaerobic but rather aerobic. He added that, in his opinion, this further demonstrates that a septic tank cannot have air injected into it. Furthermore, he noted that agitating the tank goes against the principle of tank design in terms of solids settling. He also expressed a concern as to whether the task specific bacteria inoculation described by the Applicant is safe for groundwater and indicated that evidence had not been presented to attest to the safety of this practice. The Respondent stated that he believes he has demonstrated that, in accordance with the Building Code definition, a septic tank performs anaerobic digestion without the addition of air. The addition of the White Knight TM unit introduces air into the septic tank and creates turbulence, in his opinion, the performance of the septic tank is reduced. Furthermore, in his view, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the performance of the tank is increased, in fact, he argued that the performance is decreased with the addition of air and therefore does not sufficiently comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

5 Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the installation of a septic field remediation technology known as the White Knight TM into an existing septic tank does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code when considering Part 11 and the definition of septic tank as outlined in Article at 1358 Potter Drive, Manotick, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) Article of the Building Code allows for the alteration or repair of an existing building system where the performance level of the system remains at least equal to the performance level of the system prior to the alteration or repair. The Commission, however, is not satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the introduction of this remediation technology into the septic tank will not adversely affect the intended operation and function of the system. ii) iii) iv) The introduction of air into the septic tank may adversely impact this component of the system where the settling of solids and anaerobic digestion of sanitary sewage are to take place. Further, increased turbidity as a result of the agitation of effluent in the second chamber of the septic tank will impact settling and may have the effect of increasing the total suspended solids leaving the tank. Based on the performance data submitted as evidence, the Commission is not satisfied that this remediation measure will consistently function as intended to recover the leaching field. The proposal to install this remediation technology in an existing septic tank may be more appropriately considered and thoroughly evaluated by a body, such as the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) or the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC).

6 - 6 - Dated at Toronto this 21 st day in the month of April in the year 2005 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair Judy Beauchamp Jim Wilkinson