Ruling No. 08-05-1179 Application No. B-2007-48 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 6.2.1.4. of the Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Krista Wells, Homeowner for a resolution of a dispute with Philip Gerrard, Chief Building Official, Municipality of North Grenville, to determine whether the as-installed ground source heat pump/geothermal system provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 6.2.1.4. of the Building Code at 14 Kimberley Road, Township of North Grenville, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Krista Wells Homeowner Kemptville, ON Philip Gerrard Chief Building Official Municipality of North Grenville Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Prabhakar Mahant Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING February 7, 2008 DATE OF RULING February 7, 2008 APPEARANCES Krista Wells Homeowner Kemptville, ON The Applicant Philip Gerrard Chief Building Official Municipality of North Grenville The Respondent Randy Wilkinson Building Inspector Municipality of North Grenville Designate for the Respondent
- 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, which required the Applicant to submit a permit fee, a hygrogeological report from an engineer, and further requested that a building permit be obtained at 14 Kimberley Road, Township of North Grenville, Ontario. The subject building is a Group C major occupancy, single detached home that is approximately 232 m² in size. The construction in dispute relates to whether the installation of a horizontal, closed-loop, ground source heat pump/hydro geothermal system, used to replace an existing oil furnace, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 6.2.1.5.(3) of the 1997 Building Code at 14 Kimberley Road, Township of North Grenville, Ontario. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 6.2.1.5. Installation Standards (3) The design and installation of ground and water source heat pumps shall conform to CAN/CSA-C445-M, "Design and Installation of Earth Energy Heat Pump Systems for Residential and Other Small Buildings" where (a) (b) the maximum standard rated output is 35 kw (119,000 Btu/h) per dwelling unit for residential applications, or small building applications serve a heated floor space area not greater than 1 400 m² (15,100 ft 2 ). 3. Applicant s Position The Applicant stated that in June of 2006, the TSSA conducted an inspection of the oil furnace at her home. As a result of this inspection, the existing oil furnace was deemed an Immediate Hazard. She subsequently decided not to replace the oil furnace and instead opted to install a new horizontal, closed-loop, ground source heat pump. The Applicant claimed that upon inquiring on how to apply for the permit, she was advised by the Designate for the Respondent that an application form along with the installer s information, the type of heating unit, heating fluid type, sketch of pipe layout, pipe specifications from the manufacturer, the Material Safety Data Sheet regarding the heating fluid, and information on the lot and septic system would be required. The Applicant maintained that in fact all of the above required information was submitted to the municipality on July 20, 2006 when the application for a permit was made but admitted that the permit fee had not been submitted with the application. According to the Applicant, on July 26, 2006, during a visit to the municipal office, she was verbally informed that the permit was denied because the heating fluid proposed, known as Ancool 100 was toxic based on the Material Safety Data Sheet she had submitted. The Applicant argued that according to the Ministry of Environment, Ancool 100, also known as denatured alcohol, was a standard industry fluid currently used for ground source heat pumps. Further, in response to questioning, the Applicant maintained that the installed heating system was not only running very well and efficiently but also advised the Commission that her system was equipped with a pressurized closed loop system that would automatically shut down, should the system encounter a leak or break in the line.
- 3 - The Applicant explained that during a subsequent discussion with the installer of the heating system, she was advised that water could be used as an alternative heat transfer fluid in the heating system. Further, she was told that the Designate for the Respondent had agreed to this solution. However, upon visiting the municipal office on July 31, 2006, assuming that her proposal had been accepted, the Applicant was advised that the proposal did not meet the Ontario Building Code. The Applicant claimed that after various attempts to contact the Respondent, in order to receive a more detailed explanation as to why the permit had been denied, the Respondent informed the Applicant that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the CAN/CSA C448.2-02 Standard. The Applicant argued that the contractor had met the requirements for installation under the CAN/CSA C448.2-02 Standard and further, since the closed-loop ground source heating system did not involve ground water, well extraction and had no contamination issues, the requirement for a hydrogeological report was not necessary. The Applicant explained that after various conversations with different professionals, reaching no resolution with the municipality, and with winter approaching, she consented to the installation of the closed-loop ground source heat pump. As a result, on November 16, 2006, the Applicant received an Order to Comply for installing the ground source heat pump without a permit. The Order required the Applicant to provide a hydrogeological engineer report, to remit permit fees, and to obtain a building permit. The Applicant informed the Commission that in an effort to comply with the Order she solicited the assistance of W.B. Beatty and Associates Ltd. to obtain a hydrogeological report, which outlined the geology and groundwater resources in the Kemptville area, and then submitted the report to the municipality on December 19, 2006. The Applicant claimed that without being informed, the municipality had contracted Gorrell Resource Investigations to conduct a peer review of the hydrogeological report and then later invoiced her for the cost of having the peer review completed. The Applicant further submitted that on January 15, 2007, she received a letter from the Designate to the Respondent stating that a construction permit could not be issued for the following reasons: non payment of fees, the hydrogeology report was found to be unsatisfactory and not in accordance with the CAN/CSA C448.2-02 Standard, a performance deposit agreement needed to be completed, and a site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of all proposed piping and equipment relative to the lot lines, the septic system and the utilities was required. The Applicant submitted that in a further attempt to acquire a satisfactory hydrogeology report, she contacted the Ministry of Environment but was later informed that no record of a hydrogeology report could be found for her subdivision. The Applicant also informed the Commission that on March 15, 2007 she received a copy of a hydrogeological report of North Grenville Township, which was provided to her legal representative by the Designate of the Respondent. The applicant questioned the need for her to obtain this report if the municipality already had a copy. However, being advised that the required hydrogeological report should contain specific information outlined in the CAN/CSA Standard, the Applicant explained that in a continued effort to obtain a hydrogeological report that would satisfy the municipality, she contacted an environmental engineer in the Kemptville area. The engineer informed the Applicant that he was not aware of what relevant information would be needed in such a report that had not already been provided in the original report. In summary the Applicant explained that she was seeking a resolution to obtain a building permit for the as-installed ground source heat pump and maintained that despite her many attempts to satisfy the municipality that the installed ground source heat pump complies with the Code, her permit has been denied.
- 4-4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the Applicant applied for a building permit to install a ground source heat pump system, in accordance with Article 6.2.1.4. of the 2006 Ontario Building Code on July 20, 2006. Therefore, the design and installation of the system would need to comply with the CAN/CSA C448.2-02 Standard. As a result, the Applicant was later advised that a hydrogeological report was required in support of the permit application. Further, the proposed heating fluid, Ancool 100, for the ground source heat pump contained hazardous ingredients and the proposal of the use of water as a heat transfer fluid would be insufficient as water would freeze. The Respondent confirmed that a hydrogeological report was submitted by the Applicant and peer reviewed by the municipality s consultant, who indicated that the report did not satisfy the requirements of the CAN/CSA C448.2-02 Standard and further that the report contained errors. It was on this basis that the permit was not issued. The Respondent also explained that the municipality had the authority to apply costs for the peer review of the hydrogeologcal report under Municipal Bylaw 14-98., Section 3.11, which states, The Chief Building Official may require and Engineer s report or soils investigation be conducted at the applicant s expense for any stage of construction, renovation or demolition. Further, the Commission heard that the Applicant was advised by letter on Feb 5, 2007 that the engineer s hydrogeological report should address specific sections of the CAN/CSA Standard and these specific requirements were outlined in the municipality s letter. The Respondent also informed the Commission that the rough sketch submitted with the permit application on July 20, 2006 was not considered to be a required site plan due to its lack of detailed information such as; being drawn to scale, location of all piping and equipment relative to lot lines, septic system, neighbouring wells and utilities. Further, the Respondent argued that contrary to the Applicant s submission, the installer had failed to provide a site plan to the municipality. The Respondent contended that the Applicant s application for a permit was still considered incomplete as the Applicant had also failed to pay a $500.00 Performance Deposit, as originally communicated to the Applicant in the letter of January 15, 2007. The Respondent stated that as the Applicant s contractor proceeded to install the ground source heat pump without a permit or inspections, the municipality then laid charges against both the Applicant and the contractor. The Commission heard that the contractor plead guilty to the charges and stipulated to a fine and that charges against the Applicant were still pending. In response to questions, the Respondent conceded to have the Commission review the dispute under the 1997 Building Code. Therefore, by virtue of Sentence 6.2.1.5.(3), CAN/CSA-C445-M would be the applicable Standard. However, the Respondent maintained that the safety of the system was the major concern, in particular the heat transfer fluid known as Ancool 100, contained hazardous ingredients and if there were to be a break in the heating system s line, it could potentially contaminate the ground water and the Applicant s well. In summary, the Respondent stated that under the Building Code Act, he could not issue a permit after an installation has taken place, as he would need to verify that the installation complied with the Code. Further the Respondent stated that to inspect the system to determine if it was in compliance with the Code, the system would need to be partially uncovered at the Applicant s expense.
- 5-5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-installed ground source heat pump/geothermal system provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 6.2.1.5.(3) of the 1997 Ontario Building Code at 14 Kimberley Road, Township of North Grenville, Ontario, on condition that: a) A suitably qualified person shall inspect and verify that the as-installed components of the closed-loop ground source heat pump/hydro geothermal system conform to the National Standard of Canada, CAN/SCA-C445-M standard. The Chief Building Official shall be notified and may be present to witness this inspection. b) A suitably qualified person shall verify that the closed-loop ground source heat pump/hydro geothermal has been designed and installed in accordance with Article 6.2.1.1, Good Engineering Practice, of the 1997 Ontario Building Code. The Chief Building Official shall be notified and may be present to witness this inspection. 6. Reasons i) It is the opinion of the Commission that since the application for the permit was made on July 20, 2006, the 1997 Ontario Building Code is applicable to the installation of the subject system. As a result, the 1997 Building Code references CAN/SCA-C445-M Standard, Design and Installation of Earth Energy Heat Pump Systems for Residential and Other Small Buildings as the applicable standard for the design and installation of the ground source heat pump. ii) In the opinion of the Commission, neither the Building Code nor the CAN/CSA C445-M Standard specifically requires that a hydrogeological report be provided. However, the Commission was advised that the Applicant did provide a hydrogeological report as requested by the municipality.
- 6 - Dated at Toronto this 7 th day in the month of February in the year 2008 for application number 2007-48. Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Prabhakar Mahant